The emergence of modern biotechnology has invoked a major global controversy over the future of world agriculture. The debates surrounding this controversy have often reflected the interests of developed countries and paid little attention to the needs of developing countries, especially those needs related to food requirements of low-income populations. This brief argues that biotechnology—especially genetic modification—represents an important technology option for meeting the long-term food needs of developing countries. However, this technology must be used within a policy framework that recognizes the importance of managing the health, environmental, and socioeconomic risks associated with it.
Developed-country consumers continue to express skepticism toward transgenic foods. This is partly because they have a wide range of affordable foods from which to choose. They therefore question the need to use new technologies to make incremental changes in their foods without offering tangible benefits. In response, industry in the developed countries is looking into ways of producing foods that are relevant to the consumers. The success of such investments is still in doubt, but the concerns in developed countries evidently stem from the view that meeting food-security needs is no longer the concern of consumers. Much of the consumer interest is shifting to the quality of the food they consume and its contributions to improved health.
The situation in many developing countries—especially in Africa—is different. Low-income families in these countries are faced with a wide range of challenges, including malnutrition, hunger, and related illnesses. Addressing these challenges requires the deployment of available technological options. The poor often rely on a limited range of food sources, and as ecological degradation continues, their capacity to meet their needs diminishes. Raising agricultural productivity while promoting sustainable land use is key. Indeed, in many poor regions of the world agricultural production is done by women who also have other critical household responsibilities.
Responding to these challenges requires investing in technologies that are appropriate to the needs of low-income communities, which lie in diverse ecological zones often far from major markets. Agricultural production in these areas will need to be equally diverse and to reflect local needs and preferences. Genetic modification and the emerging techniques of genomics offer the possibility of designing farming systems that are responsive to local needs and reflect sustainability requirements. In other words, genetic modification and genomics make it possible to design farming systems that are decentralized and more productive than existing methods.
CURRENT TECHNOLOGICAL TRENDS In 2000, transgenic crops covered an estimated 44.2 million hectares, a 25-fold increase over the 1996 figure. This rapid expansion occurred mainly in the United States, Canada, Argentina, and China, which account for 99 percent of the coverage of transgenic crops. The bulk of this coverage was in the United States (68 percent), with Argentina accounting for 23 percent; Canada, 7 percent; and China, 1 percent. Most of this coverage is in large farms where genetic modification has been used to introduce incremental changes in existing crops. These incremental changes explain why the distribution of transgenic crops is limited to geographical areas with similar ecological conditions.
Transgenic applications are currently limited to soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton. Transgenic soybeans covered 25.8 million hectares in 2000; corn, 10.3 million hectares; cotton, 5.3 million hectares; and canola, 2.8 million hectares. The bulk of the crops express herbicide tolerance and disease resistance.
These trends show that the early diffusion of transgenic crops has been largely in the temperate regions and has been limited to a few major commercial crops. The promise of biotechnology in meeting the needs of low-income families in the developing world still remains a distant dream.
The promise of transgenic applications has not been realized for two main reasons. First, crop development for low-income families, such as the Green Revolution, has traditionally been carried out by the public sector. However, the biotechnology has emerged from the private sector, which lacks the incentives to invest in crops for low-income families. Second, agricultural research in the public sector has been declining, and therefore little investment has gone into developing crops for low-income families. The situation is not likely to change without a redirection of existing research priorities in private enterprises, stemming from appropriate incentives as well as significantly increased public sector funding for agricultural research. In addition, institutional arrangements will have to be created to facilitate closer cooperation between private and public sector institutions.
Efforts to redirect biotechnology to address the needs of low-income families in developing countries should be placed in a large policy framework that addresses other social issues. More important, such strategies should be part of policies designed to use science and technology to achieve sustainable development goals that embody ecological, social, and economic requirements. In addition, biotechnology should be considered one tool in a larger portfolio of technological options, to be applied where it is needed and where it offers the best available option for solving specific problems.
The choice of technology should be driven by the determination of local needs. Many developing countries have already indicated priorities that could be addressed using genetic modification in their agricultural development strategies. Many African countries, for example, lie in regions where drought tolerance, disease resistance, and crop-yield increases are priorities. Crops such as cassava, millet, yams, millet, and sorghum are prime candidates for genetic modification. Modification that seeks to prolong the shelf life of foods could help reduce postharvest losses significantly. The use of herbicide tolerance in low-till agriculture is another high priority, especially in helping to lessen farm labor and providing farm workers—most of whom are women—with opportunities to engage in other activities.
Another potential area for biotechnology application is the development of livestock that is tolerant to many tropical diseases. Modern methods, such as genomics, could be applied in this area without requiring transgenesis. Also related to agricultural production is the significance of revegetation in marginal areas. Investment in fast-growing plants could help facilitate ecological restoration in many denuded regions of the world. Such research could also add to the fodder available in these countries.
Redirecting global research and development efforts to focus on these challenges will entail considerable international cooperation, increases in public sector funding, and incentives for private enterprises. It will also require tolerance for using science and technology for sustainable development in the developed and developing countries.
Three categories of risk need to be addressed in considering the role of biotechnology for low-income families: health, environment, and socioeconomic considerations. The advent of biotechnology demands that all countries put in place measures that ensure safety to human health and the environment. Such measures involve the judicious use of strategies for assessing, managing, and communicating risk. In addition, equity considerations also call for social policies that address the impact of new technologies on rural populations. Such policies should include ways of creating alternative livelihoods for farm workers displaced by new technological practices.
Many developing countries are currently reluctant to engage in biotechnology development because they fear some developed countries would erect barriers against their products. These concerns are real and have created an atmosphere of distrust that is likely to undermine not only the global trading system, but also the ability of developing countries to meet their basic needs.
A final area of concern is the impact of intellectual property protection on the ability of the developing countries to use biotechnology. This point has two dimensions. First, international agricultural research institutions are increasingly dealing with intellectual property issues. Ways must be found to enable these institutions to have access to technologies needed to meet the needs of low-income families. Second, national research institutes in developing countries face similar challenges. Some biotechnology firms, including Monsanto, have made public pledges to share technologies with developing countries. Realizing such pledges will require considerable institutional innovation to provide the required comfort among the providers and users of technology.
Promoting the responsible use of biotechnology to meet the needs of low-income countries will require fundamental policy adjustments in the developing and developed countries. Developing countries need to formulate policies that recognize the importance of science and technology in overall economic development and in agricultural production in particular. They must reexamine existing agricultural policies to accommodate the imperatives of emerging technologies, changing markets, shifting public perceptions about safety, and rising environmental concerns.
Developed countries could play a key role by exhibiting greater sensitivity to the needs of developing countries. In addition, they need to play a leading role in exploring how scientific and technological advances in general, and biotechnology in particular, could help solve the problems of low-income families. This role will entail increased public sector funding, greater scientific and technical cooperation, and creation of incentives that allow private enterprises to work on developing-country challenges. Holders of intellectual property rights will need to demonstrate greater creativity in ensuring that those who work on meeting the needs of low-income families have the freedom to operate.
For further information, see C. James, Global Trends in the Commercialization of Transgenic Crops, (Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.: International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications, 2001); C. Juma, “The New Genetic Divide: Biotechnology in a Globalizing World,” International Journal of Biotechnology 4 (forthcoming); and M. Qaim, A. F. Krattiger, and J. von Braun, Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: Towards Optimizing the Benefits for the Poor (Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000).
Calestous Juma (calestous_juma@harvard.edu) is director of the Science, Technology and Innovation Progam at the Center for International Development at Harvard University and Senior Research Associate at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.