Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/ “Biotechnology and Developing Countries” José Falck Zepeda Senior Research Fellow / Leader PBS Policy Team International Food Policy Research Institute - Program for Biosafety Systems (IFPRI - PBS) Presentation made at Department of Politics and International Studies, Cambridge University, UK, December 2014.
51
Embed
Jose Falck Zepeda Presentation Cambridge University December 2014 FINAL on Biotechnology and Developing Counries
This presentation made at the Department of Politics and International Studies, Cambridge University, UK on December 2014 by Jose Falck-Zepeda, highlights the need to continue investing in agricultural R&D in developing countries as a way to respond to existing and upcoming challenges. The presentation describes how biotechnology can be a tool contributing to the goal of food safety, food security, poverty alleviation and creating prosperity. This is followed by a description of the experience with socioeconomic assessments of Genetically Modified crops adoption in developing countries and a set of policy options and procedures for discussion.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
“Biotechnology and Developing Countries”
José Falck ZepedaSenior Research Fellow / Leader PBS Policy Team
International Food Policy Research Institute - Program for Biosafety Systems (IFPRI - PBS)
Presentation made at Department of Politics and International Studies,
Cambridge University, UK, December 2014.
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Content
1. Background and conceptual framework
2. Biotechnology as a tool
3. GM biotechnology as the regulated technology
4. Socioeconomic assessment experiences
5. Policy guidance
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
The challenge ahead
Feed 9 billion people by 2050
Would require increase in production
:
Higher demands on the
biomass production
system due to an
increasingly complex set
of supply and demand
drivers will need to rely on
Increase in productivity
rather than
land expansion
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
The role of agricultural technologies
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/defa
ult/files/publications/oc76.pdf
Key technology options to increase
cereal yields rapidly and sustainably
in the face of growing natural
resource scarcity and climate
change
Selected technologies and practices
have the potential to increase yields
while making better use of resources,
helping farmers adapt to a changing
climate, and reducing environmental
impacts by limiting pollution and
demands on ecosystem services
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Technology Assessment Scope• No-Tillage
• Integrated Soil Fertility
Management
• Organic Agriculture
• Precision Agriculture
• Crop Protection
• Drip Irrigation
• Sprinkler Irrigation
• Water Harvesting
• Drought Tolerance
• Heat Tolerance
• Nitrogen Use Efficiency
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Percent Change in Total Production, Developing
Countries: Maize, Rice, Wheat,
2050 with Technology vs. 2050 Baseline (IMPACT)
CT)
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Food Security Effects of Technology
relative to 2050 Baseline
-40.0
-35.0
-30.0
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
Malnourished Children Pop. at-risk-of-hunger
No till Drought tolerance Heat tolerance
Nitrogen use efficiency Integrated soil fertility mgt Precision agriculture
Water harvesting Sprinkler irrigation Drip irrigation
Crop Protection - insects
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Some conclusions
Rosegrant et al. 2014
• Adoption of this set of technologies significantly reduces projected food prices in 2050 compared to climate change baseline
• Number of people at risk of hunger could be reduced by 36% in 2050 compared to baseline with adoption of combined technologies under feasible adoption pathways
• Organic agriculture is not a preferred strategy for the 3 crops; has a role in niche high-value markets
Regulatory reform: Reduce hurdles to approval and release of new cultivars and technologies
• Remove impediments (e.g. restrictive “notified” crop lists, excessive testing and certification requirements, foreign investment barriers, ad hoc biosafety decision-making)
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
2. Biotechnology as a tool
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
What is biotechnology?
• Manipulation of living organisms for a useful purpose
• Definition that covers a broad range of techniques
– Modern: Marker assisted selection, Genetic Modifications. Genomics and other “Omics” , Gene editing…
• Only GM (transgenic or Living Modified Organisms) products are currently regulated for biosafety
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Implications for developing country agriculture
• Majority expansion is in four crops and two traits (insect protection and herbicide tolerance) produced by industrialized countries for its agriculture
• Diffusion to developing has been a (fortunate) development
• Challenge now is meeting explicit needs of
– Developing countries
– Smallholder / resource poor farmers
– Crop / traits
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
R&D and innovation for and by developing countries
• Crops and traits of interest/value have been produced
• Capacity to develop GM crops and other biotechnologies
– Advanced => China, Brazil, Mexico, India, Argentina
– Medium- Advanced => Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia
• Next Harvest documented 270 technologies in 16 developing countries
Why aren’t these technologies in the hands of famers?
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
3. Biotechnology as a regulated R&D activity
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Biosafety as a process…
Contained Use
Experiments
Confined
Field Trials
Deliberate
ReleasePost
ReleaseDeregulation
Regulatory decision points
Familiarity
Learning
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
R&D and product development life cycle
1 – 3 yrs. 1 – 3 yrs. 1 – 3 yrs.
Product Concept
Discovery Early Product Testing & Development
Integration & Product Selection
Product Ramp Up
Market Introduction
1 2 3 4 5 6
Confined Field Trials
Author: Ramaeker-Zahn
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Regulatory processes, decision making and assessments
Environmental and Food/Feed
Safety Assessment
Socio-Economic
Assessments (plus others?)
Decision Making
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Assessment FrameworksType International protocol / conceptual framework
“Small “Resource-Poor” Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation: The Case of Insect Protected/Herbicide Tolerant Maize in
Honduras.” Jose Falck Zepeda, Arie Sanders, Rogelio Trabanino, Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon. Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference “The Emerging Bio-Economy”, Ravello, Italy June 17-20, 2009.
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Example from seed adoption sector“Farmer preferences for Milpa diversity and genetically modified
maize in Mexico” (Birol, Villalobos and Smale 2007)
• “Milpa” is crop production system in Mexico and C. America– Private economic value: food security, diet quality and livelihoods
– Public economic value: conserving agrobiodiversity, especially that of maize landraces (potential to contribute unique traits for future plant breeding efforts
• Subject to multiple externalities which have a negative impact
• Farmer heterogeneity is an issue identified by the study– (i) Landrace Conservationists
– (ii) Milpa Diversity Managers
– iii) Marginalized Maize Producers
• Contrast results with the 2004 Commission for Environmental Cooperation report
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Policy Guidance
• Biotechnology and GM Crops are only technologies– Similarities and differences with other technologies
– Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoption…important tool to consider. Cannot disregard
• Developments in the public sector in developing countries
• Additional crops/traits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means, will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues.
• Convergence between technology/innovation and institutional /contextual/structural and food security issues
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Institutional Feasibility Studies (IFS) and the Global Value Chain
Level 1:Global Analysis
Level 2:Nation-State Analysis
Level 3:Local Analysis
Geopolitical Relations
Governance
Geography
Global Trade
Institutions
Human Agency
Technological Innovation &
Transfer
Foreign Investment
Foreign Aid
Regulatory Framework
Glo
ba
l V
alu
e C
ha
in
Developed Countries
Developing Countries
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
The value chain and knowledge/information flows
José Benjamin Falck-Zepeda, Ph.D.Senior Research Fellow / Leader Policy Team Program for
• Transformation of agriculture during 1940s-1970s that lead to significant increases in yields
• Firmly based on:– Agricultural production needs to keep
pace with population growth
– Agricultural sciences philosophy of maximizing production per unit of land
– Plant breeding developments of the late 19th early 20th centuries
• Initially focused on a few crops (Wheat, rice, maize) but has been expanded
The Green Revolution: Frame of Mind
• Haiti Can’t- be-saved
• Egypt Can’t-be-saved
• The Gambia Walking Wounded
• Tunisia Should Receive Food
• Libya Walking Wounded
• India Can’t-be-saved
• Pakistan Should Receive Food
- Paul and William Paddock, 1967 book
“Famine 1975!”
Norman Bourlag: Father of the Green Revolution
• Developed the wheat program that later became CIMMYT in 1963
– Shuttle breeding– Incorporate short-stature genes into
wheat– Increased yield and rust resistance in
wheat
• Mexico:– 1948 self sufficient wheat producer– 1965 Net exporter
• Won Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 and World Food Prize
• Genesis of the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research ( CGIAR)
How was the Green Revolution possible? An agronomist perspective on a technological triumph as an engineering feat…
• Incorporation of a dwarfing genes from natural populations into wheat and rice
• In maize: more vertical orientation of leaves, reduces self-shading while allowing planting of narrower rows and thus increases in densities
• Plants bred to dedicate a larger share of photosynthesis efforts to grain rather than to stems and leaves– Harvest index of older varieties was 20% whereas HYV around 50-55%
• Relatively insensitive to day length – can be planted in a wider range of latitudes
• Increased responsiveness to fertilizer and water
Green Revolution: Successes
• Significant increases in yields and production– From 1950 to 1992, the world’s grain output rose from 692 million tons
produced on 1.70 billion acres of cropland to 1.9 billion tons on 1.73 billion acres
– India: food production increased from 50 to 205 million tons during the last 5 decades
– But, barely happened in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Economic output per hectare increases significantly
• 30% increase in cereal and calorie availability per person
• Poverty reductions—some studies show this is attributed to GR raising farmers incomes
Green Revolution: Social and Economic Criticisms
• Does not address underlying social, cultural, ethnical and institutional constraints that create vulnerability and thus affect livelihoods– Is hunger and food insecurity a question of production or unequal
distribution of resources?
• Increased mechanization affected rural labor employment• Debt effects and credit institutions necessary• Technology not scale neutral
– Uneven adoption as larger/wealthier farmers adopted first capturing larger share of benefits
• Landowner/Landholder displacement• Dependence on pesticides and fertilizers
Green Revolution: Environmental/Ecological Criticisms
• Loss of agricultural biodiversity, not so clear effect on wild biodiversity– Focus on few crops => monocultures
• Increased used of pesticides and the pesticide treadmill
• Increased use of fertilizers• Irrigation
– Negative impacts of salinization, damage to soils, and lowering of water tables
– Need to build dams and irrigation systems
Lessons Learned• Increasing agricultural productivity is necessary but not
sufficient to guarantee food security• Scale neutral technologies• Knowledge transfer to/from farmers
• Need to consider agriculture within the social, political, economic, national/international context
• We can’t continue proposing “technology-only solutions” to complex problems....nevertheless technological responses are indeed critical to the “solution”
• Learn from mistakes and inexperience to come up with better alternatives => Policy options, strategies and outcomes
Why GM biotech?• Embodied technologies
• Address specific productivity constraints not easily addressed by conventional means
• Can be deployed in low resource use production systems
• Flexible – fit with other production systems
– GM and Integrated Pest Management
– GM and organic production methods (!!!)
• Impacts can be non-pecuniary, indirect, and scale neutral
• Scalable
Impacts on biodiversity• Which biodiversity?
Agricultural vs. Wild
• Agricultural biodiversity –intraspecific vs interspecific
• Tradeoffs between land use and the maintenance of the agricultural frontier and encroachment in protected and/or “wild” areas
• Biodiversity valuation issues and measuring taxonomic diversity and richness
• Ecosystem services
Environmental biosafety assessments: A Roadmap under review at the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
• Impacts on non-target organisms
• Gene flow• Impacts on
sexually compatible species– Increase in weed
behaviour– Competitive
advantage/fitness
How does a producer benefit? Insect resistance traitsThe case of Bt cotton