[ These 'perspectives' are intended to provoke thought and stimulate debate within UNDP and partner organizations. They do not necessarily represent UNDP's final word on these issues. This website will soon feature a discussion forum in which staff will be able to exchange opinion on these and other biodiversity issues. In the meantime, please send any comments and suggestions to biodiversity@undp.org ]
BIOTECHNOLOGY:
Context:
The term ‘biotechnology’ covers a broad range of different applications, from medicinal gene-therapy to the manufacture of enzymes for industrial purposes. Applications of relevance to biodiversity include the use of molecular markers to identify species and strains of organisms (widely used in biological classification and conservation). Other, more controversial aspects of biotechnology include the direct transfer of genes to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Gene transfer is possible because all genes are composed of the same molecule (DNA), and because all organisms ‘read’ DNA in the same way in order to produce proteins. It is therefore theoretically possible to splice genes from any one organism into another, with the result that the recipient organism produces proteins that are normally only made by the donor. This technique was first successfully employed in 1985. The first commercially available GM product went on sale in 1995. By 2003, around 68 million hectares worldwide were planted with GM crops.
At present, over half the total area planted with GM crops is found in the US. But several developing countries – notably Argentina, Brazil and China – have adopted the technology on a large scale, and many others are following their example. Indeed, it is estimated that farmers in developing countries are switching to GM crops at more than twice the rate of those in the industrialized world. Opinion is sharply divided as to whether this trend is to be welcomed – whether GM technologies are suitable for wider use in the developing world. Some on the one hand argue that GMOs could help to reduce hunger and malnutrition challenges faced in the developing world. They point out that agricultural techniques introduced in the Green Revolution of the 1960s appear to be reaching a productivity plateau: as Pinstrup-Andersen (Director-General of the International Food Policy Research Institute) has shown, annual growth increases in cereal yields in developing countries have dropped to around 1.2 per cent. Meanwhile, population in the same countries is projected to rise from 4.9 billion in 2000 to around 7.7 billion in 2050. Supporters of GM technologies argue that, if this expanding population is to be fed without converting the whole of earth’s land surface into one vast field, a second Green Revolution is required – a revolution based in part upon the widespread use of biotechnology to enhance seed quality. Potential enhancements include pest and disease resistance, salt and drought tolerance, higher yields, and increased nutritional value. According to the pro-GM lobby, these improvements offer a solution to starvation and extreme poverty, while also reducing the imperative to put all of earth’s manageable land under cultivation.
Others warn that a number of risks must be considered alongside these potential benefits. It is feared, for example, that new toxins or allergens could be introduced into crops during the genetic modification process, posing a threat to human health. It is also argued that the uptake of GM technologies by developing countries could increase their dependence on, and debt to, the developed world. Anti-GM campaigners warn that food security arguments are being used by the big biotech companies to bring about a subtle shift in the political climate, with the aim to make their products seem more acceptable.
GM technologies have profound implications for biodiversity and developmentWith regard to biodiversity, it is feared that GMOs could act in the same way as invasive species, causing unexpected harm to ‘non-target’ organisms and disrupting ecosystems by displacing existing species. For example, GM plants containing toxins to resist insect pests cold have an unintended impact upon other organisms. Concerns have also been raised that gene flow among plants could transfer new genes into wild relatives of the GMO, leading, for example, to ‘super weeds’. Assessing these environmental threats becomes more complex and uncertain in proportion to biodiversity wealth. Given that the world’s greatest concentration of biodiversity is found in tropical developing countries, the risk posed to such countries is proportionally greater and more complex to assess. Additionally, many important crops have their centers of origin in these countries, making any mistaken release of genetic material potentially much more devastating than if a similar event were to occur in the less biodiverse developed world.
UNDP Perspectives:
>> Making biotechnology work for development
The polarized nature of the debate between the pro- and anti-GM lobbies has often obscured what is perhaps the most serious of all the risks pertaining to GMOs and the developing world, namely, that GM technologies will be introduced anyway, but for solely commercial reasons, without benefit to those most affected by food insecurity. As noted above, biotechnology has opened up new opportunities to combat hunger, poverty, and biodiversity loss. But too much of what is hailed as its value to the developing world exists only in potential form. This is because most agronomic research to date has focused on crops of commercial importance to developed countries. There are several notable exceptions, including drought-resistant maize, disease-resistant bananas and ‘Golden Rice’ fortified with vitamin A. But the relatively small number of such products (compared with those of purely commercial value) attests to the general rule, that crops and traits of specific importance to small farmers and poor people are underrepresented in research programmes. If biotechnology is to be worth introducing to the least developed countries – if the benefits are to outweigh the risks – this imbalance must be rectified: more emphasis must be placed on developing GMOs of real value to the poorest. Biotech companies have shown some willingness to contribute to such ‘public good’ research, for example by waiving licensing fees for use of their technologies by public research institutions (as AstraZeneca and Monsanto in the case of Golden Rice). But the private sector is unlikely to deliver biotechnology applications for many crops, to overcome all production constraints, or to fully realize markets in developing countries. The public sector – including governments and institutions in the developing world – would do well to fill the gaps, for if developing countries were able to stimulate appropriate and well-regulated GMO research, they should be able to direct it towards activities and applications that are safe, employment-intensive and geared towards enhancing food security for those most in need.>> Biotechnology is not a silver bullet
It must be borne in mind in the course of these considerations that chronic hunger is only rarely the result of a simple lack of food. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has argued, the root cause of famine is more often sociopolitical (conflict, mismanagement, corruption, etc.) Such causes are typically compounded by a variety of ‘everyday’ limiting factors, such as poor soils, expensive fertilizers, poor transport infrastructure delaying the delivery of fresh produce, lack of access to micro-credit and inadequate irrigation systems. Whatever the potential of GM technologies to increase yields and improve the nutritional value of food, their impact on hunger, poverty and malnutrition will be as nothing unless these sociopolitical and economic constraints are removed. With reference to the above recommendation that the public sector should invest more in biotech research, it is important to note that such an investment will only be worthwhile if it takes place after or in conjunction with multi-sectoral, multi-faceted development efforts. GMOs, then, are no ‘silver bullet’ in the fight against hunger and starvation. At best, they are one part of an overall strategy to feed the hungry: a strategy which recognizes the underlying socioeconomic causes of hunger and poverty, and which responds accordingly through capacity building and political engagement.>> A role for UNDP: enabling wise decision-making
The process of deciding whether or not to introduce GMOs is a complex, time-consuming and financially demanding one. UNDP should assist developing countries in this process by facilitating access to information on the risks and benefits of biotechnology, based on rigorous, recent, and impartial science. Gathering the information for such an assessment will involve evaluating not only the probable impact of the GMOs in question, but also the nature of existing agricultural norms (since some conventional farming practices may cause as much if not more harm than the use of GMOs). UNDP should also work to dispel the atmosphere of antagonism and polarization that too frequently surrounds the GM debate by supporting open and constructive dialogue.>> A role for UNDP: maximizing benefits; minimizing risks
Where countries decide against introducing GMOs, UNDP must help ensure their decisions are respected by helping to enforce the Cartagena Protocol and the precautionary principle enshrined therein. (UNDP / GEF is already involved throughout the world in supporting activities related to the Protocol). Conversely, where countries decide to press ahead with GMOs, UNDP must help to maximize the benefits while minimizing the attendant risks to human and environmental health. At local and national levels, this will include building national capacities for the screening, safety testing, release and use of GM crops. At the international level, the global nature of markets for many food and cash crops raises serious concerns for developing countries. For example, if GM crops grown in developed countries were to raise supplies of a given commodity, a considerable price fall would be required to clear the market. This could have a devastating impact on exporters in the developing world. In a similar way, failure to achieve rapid cereal output increases in Africa or Asia could result in large rises in food import needs and in the price of such imports. The risk of such damaging global trade effects is further justification of the need to place more emphasis in terms of commercial GM crop research on the needs of the developing world. UNDP should work at the international level to address these and other concerns (such as the current inequities within intellectual property regimes) with the aim to level the playing field for developing countries and to enhance their ability to negotiate the risks of GMOs for themselves.[ These 'perspectives' are intended to provoke thought and stimulate debate within UNDP and partner organizations. They do not necessarily represent UNDP's final word on these issues. This website will soon feature a discussion forum in which staff will be able to exchange opinion on these and other biodiversity issues. In the meantime, please send any comments and suggestions to biodiversity@undp.org ]
Further information:
Biotechnology R & D: Policy Options to Ensure Access and Benefits for the Poor (PDF) [FAO]
Biosafety and the Environment (PDF) [UNEP]
Online resources:
Biosafety Clearing-House
Intended to facilitate the exchange of information and experiences on GMOs and to assist countries in the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
International Plant Genetics Resource Institute
Plant genetics and agricultural conservation links and information
EntrezWWWServer
Integrates information from databases at the US National Center for Biotechnology Information
>> Back to top
