|
||
|
BIOTECH,
HELP OR HARM TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES? Washington, 22 Oct 99(IPS) - International scientists, policy makers, industry and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) met at the World Bank headquarters this week to ponder the costs and benefits of growing genetically modified crops in developing countries. The two-day conference, convened by the Bank's Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the US National Academy of Science, discussed whether biotechnology will help or harm efforts to reduce poverty, protect the environment and ensure food security. With the world's population now at six billion, the biotech industry proclaimed that the new technology offered important new tools in boosting food output and feeding the burgeoning population. The application of biotechnology held great potential for creating plants that were more drought resistant, more tolerant to poor soil, and more resistant to pests without pesticides, according to company officials. But, opponents of the technology said hunger was not due to overpopulation but rather the unequal distribution of economic resources. They said more tests were needed to ensure that biologically-engineered crops harmed neither health nor the environment. Concern over adverse impacts of the crop has run so deep in developing countries that in 1998, farmers in India burned hectares of test areas of biologically engineered seeds, fearing the development of "superweeds" through the cross-breeding of biotech seeds resistant to pesticides. The debate has been so contentious that, the last time the issue was discussed during international talks in February, negotiations broke down when the United States and five other large agricultural exporters rejected a proposal that had the support of 130 other nations. European and developing countries maintained not enough was known about the new technology, so trade should be restricted. But the United States, Canada, Australia, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay argued that regulations would entangle global food trade in red tape. At the end of November, trade in biologically engineered products again is expected to be one of the main agenda items at the World Trade Organisation talks in Seattle at the end of November. To find out if the new technology will truly benefit or harm farmers in developing countries, many panellists at this week's conference stressed the need to make all information available to the farmers and then have them decide for themselves. "The potential contributions of biotechnology to poverty alleviation and enhanced food security and nutrition in developing countries has received little attention beyond blanket statement of support or opposition," said Per Pinstrup- Andersen, director general of the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute. While biotechnology is not a silver bullet for achieving food security, he said it could be a powerful tool in the fight against poverty that should be made available to poor farmer and consumers. "A debate based on the best available empirical evidence relevant for poor people in developing countries is urgently needed, in order to identify the most appropriate ways that molecular biology-based research might contribute to the solution of poor people's problems," said Pinstrup-Andersen. Some farmers and rural communities in developing countries already had greatly benefitted from biotechnology, said Bongiwe Njobe-Mbuli, director general of the Souther African Department of Agriculture. She described how farmers in the nation's poor southeastern province, Kwazulu- Natal planted biologically engineered pest- resistant cotton that dramatically increased yields. "One woman increased her yields to the point where she was employing 200 people and put up a school and ran a facilitated health programmes in the area," said Njobe-Mbuli. While praising such success stories, Pinstrup-Andersen worried that the bulk of biotechnology research was led by corporations based in industrialised nations whose research focused on agricultural problems and pests in developed countries. Therefore, he said, agricultural problems plaguing developing countries that could be solved by biotechnology, were not researched because the market was not as lucrative. Meanwhile, funding for public agricultural research in developing countries was dwindling. "It's frightening to see the public sector cut back on agricultural research that is so badly needed for small farmers in developing countries," said Pinstrup- Anderson. Reynaldo E. de la Cruz, former director of the National Institutes of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology in Laguna Philippines, suggested that CGIAR work more closely with its associated research centres to coordinate research in biotechnology to ensure the needs of farmers in developing countries are met. "For developing countries, the small farmers and fisherfolks should be the main beneficiaries of biotechnology research and development," he wrote in a paper presented at the conference. Jean Marc von der Weid, director Advice and Services for Alternative Agriculture (Assessoria e Servico a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa), a Brazilian NGO, agreed that farmers in developing countries need to be given all the information to decide for themselves if they want to the high-tech seeds or not. "But, we should not forget that pressure from the North comes in many different forms," he warned. "Monsanto, for example has a huge campaign in Brazil promoting this technology." In order to ensure that biotechnology did not harm the environment, health or the livelihood of poor farmers, international bodies need to develop new programmes or new institutions to respond to these new technological advances, added Alain de Janvry, professor at University of California Berkeley and a member of the CGIAR Technical Advisory Committee. "There needs to be experimentation with institutions for monitoring and enforcement of biosafety and intellectual property rights regulations," he said. The above article by the Inter Press Service appeared in the South- North Development Monitor (SUNS) .
|
||
