Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 635
Globalization and agricultural biotechnology research:
Implications for developing countries
PRABHU PINGALI* AND TERRI RANEY
Agricultural and Development Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Abstract
The Green Revolution came about as the result of an internationally-coordinated
programme of public research and development (R&D) and that explicitly promoted the free international transfer of improved germplasm as public goods. Millions of small farmers in developing countries benefited directly from this first wave
of globalization in agricultural R&D. A second wave of globalization is underway
with the Gene Revolution in which multinational agro-chemical companies are
developing and disseminating biotechnology-based agricultural technologies on a
commercial basis. This second wave of globalization differs from the first in several
important respects. Much of the research and product development is being carried
out by the private sector and the resulting technologies – both products and processes – are held under exclusive intellectual property protections. These differences
have implications for the potential of the Gene Revolution to reach small farmers
in the developing world. Recent trends in agricultural biotechnology R&D and
adoption confirm that, while some small farmers are benefiting from the Gene Revolution, so far the needs of the poor have been neglected. The paper concludes with
recommendations to focus the potential of biotechnology on the needs of the poor.
Introduction
The past four decades have seen two waves of globalization affecting agricultural
technology development and diffusion to developing countries. The first wave was
initiated by the Green Revolution in which improved germplasm was made available
to developing countries as a public good. The second wave was generated by the
Gene Revolution in which a globalized and largely privatized agricultural research
Tuberosa R., Phillips R.L., Gale M. (eds.), Proceedings of the International Congress
“In the Wake of the Double Helix: From the Green Revolution to the Gene Revolution”,
27-31 May 2003, Bologna, Italy, 635-654, ©2005 Avenue media, Bologna, Italy.
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 636
PINGALI AND RANEY
system is creating improved agricultural technologies that are flowing to developing countries primarily through market transactions. We argue here and in “The
State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04” (FAO 2004a) that a third wave of globalization – led by the public sector in cooperation with the private sector – is needed to ensure that the benefits of improved agricultural technology flow to poor
farmers in poor countries.
The first wave of globalization was responsible for an extraordinary period of
growth in food crop productivity in the developing world over the last 40 years.
Productivity growth has been significant for rice in Asia, wheat in irrigated and
favorable production environments worldwide and maize in Mesoamerica and
selected parts of Africa and Asia. A combination of high rates of investment in crop
research, infrastructure and market development, and appropriate policy support
fueled this land productivity. These elements of a Green Revolution strategy
improved productivity growth despite increasing land scarcity and high land values
(Pingali and Heisey 2001).
The transformation of global food production systems resulting from the rapid
spread of Green Revolution varieties defied conventional wisdom that agricultural
technology does not adapt well because it is either agroclimatically specific, as in the
case of biological technology, or sensitive to relative factor prices, as with mechanical
technology (Byerlee and Traxler 2001). The Green Revolution strategy for food
crop productivity growth was explicitly based on the premise that, given appropriate institutional mechanisms, technology spillovers across political and agro-climatic boundaries can be captured. Hence the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was established specifically to generate spillovers
particularly for nations that are unable to capture all the benefits of their research
investments. What happens to the spillover benefits from agricultural R&D in an
increasingly global integration of food supply systems?
Over the past decade the locus of agricultural R&D has shifted dramatically
from the public to the private multinational sector. Three interrelated forces in this
latter wave of globalization are transforming the system for supplying improved
agricultural technologies to the world’s farmers. The first is the strengthened and
evolving environment for protecting intellectual property in plant innovations. The
second is the rapid pace of discovery and growth in importance of molecular biology and genetic engineering. Finally, agricultural input and output trade is becoming
more open in nearly all countries. These developments have created a powerful new
set of incentives for private research investment, altering the structure of the
public/private agricultural research endeavor, particularly with respect to crop
improvement (Pingali and Traxler 2002).
As a result of these forces, developing countries are facing increasing transaction
costs in access to and use of technologies generated by the multinational sector.
Existing international networks for sharing technologies across countries and thereby maximizing spillover benefits are becoming increasingly threatened. The urgent
636
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 637
PINGALI AND RANEY
need today is for a system of technology flows that preserves the incentives for private sector innovation while at the same time meeting the needs of poor farmers in
the developing world.
The first part of this paper presents an overview of the organization and impacts
of international research and technology flows in the period from 1960 to 1990,
from the pre-globalization period through the first wave of globalization under the
Green Revolution. The second part discusses the movement towards the increased
privatization of agricultural research and development in the second wave of globalization and its consequences for access to technologies by developing countries. The
third part describes the trends in biotechnology research, development and commercialization in the developing world. Finally, section four provides some concluding observations on the potential impacts of the above trends on poor smallholder producers and argues for a third wave of globalization to ensure that the
public good aspects of agricultural technology R&D are addressed.
Agricultural R&D and the Green Revolution: Access and impact
The major breakthroughs in yield potential that kick-started the Green Revolution
in the late 1960s came from conventional plant breeding approaches carried out by
researchers in the public sector. Conventional approaches can be characterized as
crossing plants with different genetic backgrounds, and selecting from among the
progeny individual plants with desirable characteristics. Repeating the process over
several cycles/generations leads to plants/varieties with improved characteristics such
as higher yields, improved disease resistance, improved nutritional quality, etc. As a
result, the yield potential for the major cereals has continued to rise at a steady rate
after the initial dramatic shifts in the 1960s for rice and wheat. For example, yield
potential in irrigated wheat has been rising at the rate of 1% per year over the past
three decades, an increase of around 100 kg/ha/year (Pingali and Rajaram 1999).
In addition to their work on advancing the yield frontier of cereal crops, plant
breeders continue to have successes in the less glamorous areas of maintenance
research. These include development of plants with durable resistance to a wide
spectrum of insects and diseases, plants that are better able to tolerate a variety of
physical stresses, crops that require significantly lower number of days of cultivation, and cereal grain with enhanced taste and nutritional qualities.
Prior to 1960, there was no formal system in place that provided plant breeders
with access to germplasm available beyond their borders. Since then, the international public sector (i.e. the CGIAR) has been the predominant source of supply of
improved germplasm developed from conventional breeding approaches, especially
for self-pollinating crops such as rice and wheat and for open-pollinated maize.
CGIAR-managed networks of international nurseries for sharing crop improvement results evolved in the 1970s and 1980s, when financial resources were
637
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 638
PINGALI AND RANEY
expanding and plant IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) laws were weak or nonexistent. The exchange of germplasm is based on a system of informal exchange among
plant breeders which was generally open and without charge. Breeders can contribute any of their material to the nursery and take pride in its adoption elsewhere
in the world, while at the same time they are free to choose material from the trials
for their own use.
The international flow of germplasm has had a large impact on the speed and
the cost of NARS (National Agricultural Research System) crop development programs, thereby generating enormous efficiency gains (see Evenson and Gollin 2003
for a global assessment of gains from the international exchange of major food crop
varieties and breeding lines). Traxler and Pingali (1999) have argued that the existence of a free and uninhibited system of germplasm exchange that attracts the best
of international materials allows countries to make strategic decisions on the extent
to which they need to invest in plant breeding capacity. Should a NARS develop its
own pre-breeding capacity or should it rely on the international nurseries for new
breeding materials that it can incorporate into its breeding program? Even NARS
with advanced crop research programs, such as China, India and Brazil rely heavily on cultivars taken from these nurseries for their pre-breeding material and for finished
varieties (Evenson and Gollin 2003). Small countries behaving rationally choose to
free ride on the international system rather than invest in large crop breeding infrastructure of their own (Meredia et al. 1994).
Evenson and Gollin (2003) report that even in the 1990s, the CGIAR content
of modern varieties was high for most food crops; 36% of all varietal releases were
based on CGIAR crosses. In addition, 26% of all modern varieties had a
CGIAR-crossed parent or other ancestor. Evenson and Gollin (2003) suggest that
germplasm contributions from international centers helped national programs to
stave off the “diminishing returns” to breeding that might have been expected to set
in, had the national programs been forced to work only with the pool of genetic
resources that they had available at the beginning of the period.
Impacts of food crop improvement technology
Substantial empirical evidence exists on the production, productivity, income and
human welfare impacts of modern agricultural science and the international flow of
modern varieties of food crops. Evenson and Gollin (2003) provided detailed information for all the major food crops on the extent of adoption and impact of modern
variety use, they also show the crucial role played by the international germplasm
networks in enabling developing countries to capture the spillover benefits of
investments in crop improvement made outside their borders. The adoption of
modern varieties (MVs) during the first 20 years of the Green Revolution (aggregated across all crops) reached 9% in 1970 and rose to 29% in 1980. In the subsequent 20 years, far more adoption has occurred than in the first two decades. By
638
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 639
PINGALI AND RANEY
1990, adoption of MVs had reached 46%, and by 1998, 63%. Moreover, in many
areas and in many crops, first generation MVs have been replaced by second and
third generation MVs (Evenson and Gollin 2003).
Over the past 40 years, much of the increase in agricultural output has come
from an increase in yield per hectare rather than an expansion of area under cultivation. For instance, FAOSTAT data indicate that for all developing countries
wheat yield rose by 208% from 1960 to 2000; rice yield rose 109%; maize yield
rose 157%; potato yield rose 78%; and cassava yield rose 36% (FAO 2004b).
Trends in total factor productivity (TFP) are consistent with partial productivity
measures, such as rate of yield growth. Pingali and Heisey (2001) provide a comprehensive compilation of TFP evidence for several countries and crops.
The returns to investments in high-yielding modern germplasm have been measured in great detail by several economists over the last few decades. These studies
found high returns to the Green Revolution strategy of germplasm improvement.
The very first studies that calculated the returns to research investment were conducted at IRRI for rice research investments in the Philippines (Flores-Moya et al.
1978) and at CIAT in Colombia (Scobie and Posada 1978). More detailed evidence
on the high rates of return to public-sector investments in agricultural research was
provided by the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR)
(Echeverría 1990) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
(Pardey et al. 1992). For detailed synthesis of the numerous studies conducted
across crops and countries, see Alston et al. (2000) and Evenson (2001).
Alston et al. concluded from a review of 289 studies that there was no evidence to
support the view that the rate of return to agricultural research and development
has declined over time. Widespread adoption of modern seed-fertilizer technology
led to a significant shift in the food supply function, contributing to a fall in real
food prices. The primary effect of agricultural research on the non-farm poor, as
well as on the rural poor who are net purchasers of food, is through lower food
prices as indicated in this quote from Alston et al. (1995, page 85):
“The effect of agricultural research on improving the purchasing power of the poor - both
by raising their incomes and by lowering the prices of staple food products - is probably the
major source of nutritional gains associated with agricultural research. Only the poor go hungry. Because a relatively high proportion of any income gains made by the poor is spent on
food, the income effects of research-induced supply shifts can have major nutritional implications, particularly if those shifts result from technologies aimed at the poorest producers”.
Early efforts to document the impact of technological change and the consequent increase in food supplies on food prices and income distribution were made
by Hayami and Herdt (1977), Pinstrup-Andersen et al. (1976), Scobie and Posada
(1978) and Binswanger (1980). Pinstrup-Andersen et al. (1976) argued strongly
that the primary nutritional impact for the poor came through the increased food
supplies generated through technological change.
639
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 640
PINGALI AND RANEY
Studies carried out by economists have provided empirical support to the
proposition that growth in the agricultural sector has economy-wide effects. One
of the earliest studies showing the linkages between the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors was done at the village level by Hayami et al. (1978). Hayami provided an excellent micro-level illustration of the impacts of rapid growth in rice
production on land and labor markets and the non-agricultural sector. More
recent assessments on the impacts of productivity growth on land and labor markets have been done by Pinstrup-Andersen and Hazell (1985) and by David and
Otsuka (1994). Pinstrup-Andersen and Hazell (1985) argued that the landless
labor did not adequately share in the benefits of the Green Revolution because of
depressed wage rates attributable to migrants from other regions. David and Otsuka,
on the other hand, found that migrants shared in the benefits of the Green Revolution through increased employment opportunities and wage income. The latter
study also documented that rising productivity caused land prices to rise in the
high-potential environments where the Green Revolution took off. For sector level
validation of the proposition that agriculture does indeed act as an engine of
overall economic growth see Hazell and Haggblade (1993), Delgado et al.
(1998) and Fan et al. (1998).
The profitability of modern farming systems has been maintained despite falling
food prices (in real terms), owing to a steady decline in the cost per ton of production (Pingali and Traxler, 2002). Savings in production costs have come about from
technical change in crop management and increased input-use efficiencies. Once
MVs have been adopted, the next set of technologies that makes a significant difference in reducing production costs includes machinery, land management practices (often in association with herbicide use), fertilizer use, integrated pest management and most recently, improved water management practices. Although many
Green Revolution technologies were developed and extended in package form (e.g.
new plant varieties plus recommended fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide rates, along
with water control measures), many components of these technologies were taken
up in a piecemeal, often stepwise manner (Byerlee and Hesse de Polanco, 1986).
The sequence of adoption is determined by factor scarcities and the potential cost
savings achieved. Herdt (1987) provided a detailed assessment of the sequential
adoption of crop management technologies for rice in the Philippines. Traxler and
Byerlee (1992) provided similar evidence on the sequential adoption of crop management technologies for wheat in Sonora, northwestern Mexico.
Although the favorable, high-potential environments gained the most in terms
of productivity growth, the less favorable environments benefited as well through
technology spillovers and through labor migration to more productive environments. According to David and Otsuka (1994), wage equalization across favorable
and unfavorable environments was one of the primary means of redistributing the
gains of technological change. Renkow (1993) found similar results for wheat
grown in high-and low-potential environments in Pakistan. Byerlee and Moya
640
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 641
PINGALI AND RANEY
(1993), in their global assessment of the adoption of wheat MVs, found that over
time the adoption of MVs in unfavorable environments caught up to levels of
adoption in more favorable environments, particularly when germplasm developed
for high-potential environments was further adapted to the more marginal environments. In the case of wheat, the rate of growth in yield potential in
drought-prone environments was around 2.5% per year during the 1980s and
1990s (Lantican and Pingali 2003). Initially, the growth in yield potential for the
marginal environments came from technological spillovers as varieties bred for the
high-potential environments were adapted to the marginal environments. During
the 1990s, however, further gains in yield potential came from breeding efforts targeted specifically at the marginal environments.
The changing locus of agricultural R&D: From national public to
international private sector
In the decades of the 1960s through the 1980s, private sector investment in plant
improvement research was limited, particularly in the developing world, due to the
lack of effective mechanisms for proprietary protection on the improved products.
This situation changed in the 1990s with the emergence of hybrids for cross-pollinated crops such as maize. The economic viability of hybrids led to a budding seed
industry in the developing world, but many markets remain underserved.
Despite its rapid growth, the private seed industry continued to rely, through the
1990s, on the public sector gene banks and prebreeding materials for the development of its hybrids (Pray and Echeverría 1991; Morris and Ekasingh 2001). The
break between public and private sector plant improvement efforts came with the
advent of biotechnology, especially genetic engineering. The proprietary protection
provided for artificially constructed genes and for genetically modified plants provided the incentives for private sector entry. The large multi-national agro-chemical companies were early investors in the development of transgenic crops, because,
among other reasons, they foresaw a declining market for pesticides (Conway
2000). The chemical companies got a quick start in the plant improvement business by purchasing existing seed companies, first in industrialized countries and
then in the developing world.
This amalgamation of the national private companies with the multi-national
corporations makes economic sense (Pingali and Traxler 2002). The process of
variety development and delivery is a continuum that starts from generating
knowledge on useful genes (genomics) and engineering transgenic plants and ends
with the backcrossing of the transgenes into commercial lines and delivering the
seed to farmers. The products from upstream activities have worldwide applicability, across several crops and agro-ecological environments. On the other hand,
genetically-modified crops and varieties are applicable to very specific agro-ecologi641
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 642
PINGALI AND RANEY
cal and socioeconomic niches. In other words, spillover benefits and scale
economies decline in the move to the more adaptive end of the continuum. Similarly, research costs and research sophistication decline in the progression towards
downstream activities. Thus, a clear division of responsibilities in the development
and delivery of biotechnology products has emerged, with the multinational providing the upstream biotechnology research and the local firm providing crop
varieties with commercially desirable agronomic backgrounds (see Pingali and
Traxler 2002 for a more detailed discussion on this point).
The options available for national public research systems to capture the
spillover from global corporations or from each other are less clear. Public sector
research programs are generally established to conform to state or national political
boundaries, and direct country-to-country transfer of technologies has been limited
(Traxler and Pingali 1999). Strict adherence to political domains severely curtails
spillover benefits of technological innovations across similar agroclimatic zones.
The operation of the CGIAR germplasm exchange system has mitigated the problem for several important crops but it is not clear whether the system will work for
biotechnology products and transgenic crops, given the proprietary nature of the
technology. Moreover, in the case of biotechnology innovations, national and international public sector institutions typically lack the resources to effectively create an
alternative source of knowledge and technology supply.
Emerging trends in biotechnology research, development and
commercialization in the developing world
To understand the magnitude of private sector investment in agricultural research
today, one need only look at its annual research budget relative to public research
targeted to the developing country agriculture. The world’s top ten multinational
bioscience corporations’ collective annual expenditure on agricultural research and
development is nearly US$ 3 billion. In comparison, the CGIAR, which is the
largest international public sector supplier of agricultural technologies, spends less
than US$ 300 million annually on plant improvement research and development.
The largest public sector agricultural research programs in the developing world,
those of Brazil, China and India, have annual budgets of less than half a billion US
dollars each (Byerlee and Fischer 2001).
Public research expenditures on agricultural biotechnology (Table 1) reveal a sharp
dichotomy between developed and developing countries. Developed countries spend
a higher proportion of their public sector agricultural research expenditures on
biotechnology than developing countries or the CGIAR centers. In absolute terms,
developed countries spend four times as much on public sector biotech research than
developing countries, even when all sources of public funds – national, donor and
CGIAR centers – are counted for developing countries (Byerlee and Fischer 2001).
642
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 643
PINGALI AND RANEY
Table 1. Estimated crop biotechnology research expenditures (million US dollars).
Biotech R&D
(million $/year)
Industrialized countries
Private sector*
Public sector
Developing countries
Public (own resources)
Public (foreign aid)
CGIAR centres
Private sector
1,900-2,500
1,000-1,500
900-1,000
165-250
100-150
40-50
25-50
n.a.
World total
2,065-2,730
Biotech as share
of sector R&D
40
16
5-10
n.a.
8
n.a.
* Includes an unknown amount of R&D for developing countries.
Source: Byerlee and Fischer (2001).
n.a.: not available.
The rapid growth of private sector investment in biotech research in developed
countries means that private research expenditures now exceed public sector expenditures, both in absolute terms and as a share of total agricultural R&D expenditures. This does not appear to be the case in developing countries. Data for seven
Asian countries show that private agricultural research is equivalent to about 10%
of total public sector agricultural research (Pray and Fuglie 2000). Although comprehensive data on private sector research in developing countries are not available,
partial evidence suggests that the private sector is less developed than in industrialized
countries. Furthermore, most private sector biotechnology research in developing
countries consists of field trials conducted by multinational companies, often in
cooperation with a local firm or public research institute.
Biotechnology products in the pipeline: Field trials of potential products
The FAO BioDeC database (FAO 2004c) contains information on biotechnology
research in developing countries collected through a system of national correspondents. Although the data are incomplete1, they provide a general picture of the
nature of biotechnology research underway in developing countries. For genetically modified crops, BioDeC reports that 33 different crops were under field trials in
19 developing countries in 2002, for a total of 189 GM “events” (Figure 1). Crops
under field trial can be considered near the end of the product-development
pipeline and, barring regulatory delays, should be ready for commercialization
1
Data were obtained from published literature, surveys carried out by ISNAR and information collected by
FAO through fact-finding missions and expert consultations. Because these information sources may not identify the full range of research activities in a country, particularly in the private sector, all figures should be considered lower-bound estimates.
643
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 644
PINGALI AND RANEY
within three to five years. Among developing countries, Argentina has the largest
number of events under field trial with 35, followed by Mexico with 33 events. Brazil
and China follow with 28 and 26 events, respectively. South Africa, with 17 events,
completes the list of the top five countries which together account for 74% of all GM
events under field trial in developing countries. India, despite having one of the most
technically-advanced biotechnology programs among the developing countries, has
only four events under field trials according to the BioDeC database. The figure for
India represents research by the public sector only; however, we suspect the private
sector has substantially greater amount of material in trials.
Argentina
Mexico
Brazil
China
South Africa
Egypt
Thailand
Cuba
Indonesia
Korea Rep
India
Others
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Figure 1. GM field trials in developing countries (events). - Source: FAO (2004c).
Cotton, soybean and maize – the three most widely commercialized transgenic
crops – accounted for 31% of all field trials in developing countries (Figure 2). In
most cases, the traits being tested are already commercialized in those crops in
several countries, suggesting that imported varieties are being field tested in many
cases. Potatoes are also being field tested widely, with 16 events in 11 countries.
644
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 645
PINGALI AND RANEY
Cotton
Maize
Potato
Soybean
Tomato
Wheat
Sugarcane
Rice
Tobacco
Sunflower
Papaya
3 crops @ 4
7 crops @ 2 or 3
17 crops @ 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Figure 2. Crops under field trials in developing countries (events). Source: FAO (2004c).
Other crops under field trials included two tree species, eucalyptus and poplar;
industrial crops like flax and tobacco; and food crops ranging from chili peppers
and strawberries, to wheat and rice.
Of the traits under field trial in developing countries, resistance to pests, herbicides
and pathogens account for 66% of the 189 events (Figure 3). Virus resistance is the
most important sub-set of these traits (23% of all events) and is applied to 25 different crops, the widest array for any trait. Herbicide resistance accounted for 17%
of all events under field trial and, although this trait is most often found in soybeans, maize and cotton, a total of 15 crops are being tested. Resistance to insect
pests accounted for 18% of the traits under field trial in 12 different crops. Of all
field trials, 8% involve multiple resistance traits, primarily in cotton, soybean and
maize.
645
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 646
PINGALI AND RANEY
Herbicides
21%
Pathogens
29%
Multiple
8%
Abiotic
2%
Quality
8%
Insects
18%
Other
14%
Figure 3. GM traits under field trials in developing countries. Source: FAO (2004 c).
Field tests for traits conferring resistance to abiotic stresses such as drought, frost
and salt are being conducted in only five instances, about 2% of the total. Thailand
is testing rice varieties that are resistant to salt or drought, and Bolivia is field testing a frost-resistant potato. Egypt is testing salt-resistant wheat and China is testing
frost-resistant tomato. Only six countries are field testing crops with altered quality traits such as oil composition in canola, soybean and maize, protein content and
amino acid composition in soybean, maize and wheat, and altered ripening for several fruits such as tomato, papaya and pineapple. The countries involved in field
testing crops with altered quality traits include Argentina, China, Egypt, Mexico,
South Africa and Thailand.
Comprehensive data are not available on the source of the GM innovations
under field tests. Field trial data collected by Pray et al. (2002) for 1987-2000 indicate that in developing countries, multinational firms were responsible for 61% of
all approved field trials (Figure 4). Local private firms, universities and NARs were
responsible for 28%, with the remainder unidentified (Pray et al. 2002). Only the
most advanced developing countries – Brazil, China and India – are field testing
646
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 647
PINGALI AND RANEY
events that contain locally-developed genetic transformation constructs. They are
also testing crops that have been transformed using imported constructs and locally-adapted varieties of imported GM varieties. Several countries including Argentina, Indonesia, Mexico and others are field testing new crops developed from
imported constructs and local varieties adapted from imported GM varieties. Many
countries appear to be testing imported varieties that have undergone minimal or
no local adaptation. This evidence, although partial, suggests that international
technology transfer is important for GM products at the field testing level. A few
relatively advanced countries are more independent than others, but all developing
countries rely on technological innovations – GM varieties and constructs – developed by large private companies.
Unidentified
11%
NARS
16%
Universities 4%
Multinational
companies
61%
Single country
firms
8%
Figure 4. GM crop field trials in developing countries, by institution (1987-2000). Source: Pray et
al. (2002).
Biotechnology products in the pipeline: Products in the laboratory
Twenty-six developing countries in the FAO BioDeC database have a total of
207 GM events under study at the experimental phase (Figure 5). These products
are nearer the beginning of the development pipeline and may be five to ten
years or more from commercialization. The database does not distinguish
647
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 648
PINGALI AND RANEY
Cuba
Indonesia
Malaysia
Chile
Brazil
Bangladesh
Thailand
China
Philippines
Argentina
Venezuela
South Africa
India
Colombia
Others
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Figure 5. GM events at experimental phase in developing countries (events). Source: FAO (2004c).
between experimental efforts aimed at developing new events versus local adaptation of imported events. Although the number of countries conducting experimental work is smaller than those conducting field trials, the effort is more widely distributed. Cuba and Indonesia are experimenting with the most events, with
20 and 19 different events, respectively, followed by Chile and Malaysia with 18
events each. Again, private sector information on experimentation is not complete and is probably significantly underestimated, particularly for countries
such as India.
Sixty-one different crops are under experimentation (Figure 6). Food staples are
the most studied crops, with potato, rice and maize having 24, 21 and 14 events,
respectively. Thirteen countries are studying four different traits in potato – resistance to virus, fungi and insects, and starch composition. Research on rice is similarly widespread geographically, with 13 countries studying resistance to virus,
fungi, insects, herbicides and salt. In contrast, 31 of the crops under experimentation are being studied in only a single country. These include important food crops
648
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 649
PINGALI AND RANEY
Potato
Rice
Maize
Tomato
Tobacco
Papaya
Sugarcane
Oilpalm
Cotton
Sweetpotato
6 crops @ 4
7 crops @ 3
7 crops @ 2
31 crops @ 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Figure 6. Crops in experimental phase in developing countries (events). Source: FAO (2004c).
like sorghum and lentil as well as specialty crops and industrial and forest crops like
rubber, teak and pine.
Eighteen different traits are under study at the experimental phase (Figure 7).
Resistance to insects, herbicides and pathogens (virus, fungi and bacteria) accounts
for a smaller share of the total events at the experimental stage (43%) than at the
field stage. Within that category, herbicide resistance accounts for only 3% of the
total, a much smaller share than at the field stage. Insect resistance and virus resistance account for 11 and 15%, respectively, of the total. Resistance to fungi and
bacteria make up a much larger share of the experimental work (14% of all events,
20 crops) than the field work (5% of events, 8 crops). Abiotic stresses including aluminum, drought, heat and salt make up 6% of the traits under study, slightly more
than at the field stage. Quality traits such as protein content and composition, fruit
ripening, starch composition and technological attributes account for 7% of the total.
Although a large number of the traits at the experimental stage are not specified
in BioDeC, it appears that the crops and traits under experimentation are considerably more diversified than those at the field trial stage. This probably reflects
649
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 650
PINGALI AND RANEY
Pathogens
29%
Insects
11%
Herbicides
3%
Multiple
1%
Abiotic
6%
Quality
7%
Other
43%
Figure 7. GM traits in experimental phase in developing countries. Source: FAO. (2004c).
the need for laboratory experiments on crop/trait combinations that are not already
widely available commercially. Comprehensive information is not available on the
source of the GM constructs being used at the experimental phase, but our data
indicate that only a few countries are capable of gene cloning and the development
of genetic constructs, often in collaboration with CGIAR centers. This would suggest that the other countries conducting genetic engineering experiments are working with imported constructs.
Commercial cultivation of GM crops in the developing world
Transgenic crops were grown commercially in 18 countries in 2003 on a total of
67.7 million ha, an increase from 2.8 million ha in 1996. Although the overall rate
of diffusion of this technology has been impressive, it has been very uneven. Just six
countries, four crops and two traits account for 99% of global transgenic crop area.
The United States remains the largest producer of transgenic crops, but four of the
top six producers are developing countries (Argentina, China, Brazil and South
Africa). Herbicide tolerance and pest resistance are the main GM traits that are currently under commercial cultivation and the main crops are soybean, maize, canola
and cotton. In addition to these major crops, China also produces small quantities
650
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 651
PINGALI AND RANEY
of virus-resistant tomatoes and peppers, delayed-ripening tomatoes and
flower-color altered petunias (James 2003).
Comprehensive data are not available on the origin of the GM varieties being
planted in developing countries; however, the available evidence suggests that most
of the GM varieties grown in developing countries in 2003 were developed by
multinational companies or adapted locally from imported varieties. The value of
the global transgenic seed market, based on the sale of transgenic seeds plus any
technology fees that apply, was US $3.8 billion in 2001, up from 3.0 billion in
2000. Transgenic seed accounts for about 13% of the global seed market (James
2002). Assuming that developing countries purchase transgenic seeds in proportion
to their share of global transgenic crop area implies an import market of about
970 million for transgenic seeds in developing countries.
China cultivates Bt cotton that was developed by the public sector from a locally developed genetic transformation construct as well as imported or locally adapted
Bt varieties from the private sector. Brazil has developed local varieties of GM
soybeans, but they are not approved for commercial planting (Pray and Naseem
2003). In other countries, commercial GM crops are imported or locally adapted
from imported varieties. This evidence suggests that globalization and the international transfer of technology have been essential factors in promoting the commercial spread of GM crops in developing countries.
Concluding remarks: Accessing biotechnology knowledge and
products for the poor
Although private sector agricultural research expenditures seem overwhelmingly
large, the reality is that they are focused very narrowly on the development of
biotechnology-related plant varieties, and even that for a very small number of
crops. A large part of the private sector investment, as discussed above, is concentrated on just four crops: cotton, corn, canola and soybeans. Private sector investment on the world’s two most important food crops, rice and wheat, is insignificant in comparison. Moreover, all of the private sector investment is targeted
towards the commercial production sector in the developed world, with some
spillover benefits flowing to the commercial sector in the developing world. The
public sector, with its increasingly meager budget, is left to take care of the research
and technology needs of the subsistence farming sector, as well as being the only
source of supply for conventionally bred seed as well as crop and resource management technologies.
Will the poor benefit from any of the technological advances that are taking
place today in the private sector? Private sector investments in genomics and
genetic engineering could be potentially very useful for addressing the problems
faced by poor farmers, particularly those in the marginal environments. Knowledge
651
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 652
PINGALI AND RANEY
generated through genomics, for example, could have enormous potential in
advancing the quest for drought-tolerant crops in the tropics. The question that
needs to be asked is whether incentives exist, or can be created, for public/private
sector partnerships that allow the public sector to use and adapt technologies
developed by the private sector for the problems faced by the poor. Can licensing
agreements be designed that will allow private sector technologies to be licensed to
the public sector for use on problems of the poor? Pingali and Traxler (2002) suggested that the public sector may have to purchase the right to use private sector
technology on behalf of the poor.
Before considering the prospects for partnerships for accessing technologies in
the pipeline it is important to conduct a detailed inventory of all prospective
biotechnology products characterized by crop and by agro-ecological environments,
followed by an ex ante assessment of the impact each of these technologies could
have on the productivity and livelihoods of the subsistence producers. The above
assessment would lead to the identification of a set of products with high pro-poor
potential for which public/private partnerships could be built around.
Even if public-private partnerships could be developed, will the resulting technologies ever get to the poor? Given that technologies that are on the shelf today
(generated by conventional research methods) have not yet reached farmers’ fields,
there is no guarantee that the new biotechnologies will fare any better. Are there any
policy interventions that will make the situation any better? Identifying small
farmer constraints to technology access and use continues to be an issue that the
development community ought to deal with. This suggests a need for a third wave
of globalization to ensure that international spillovers from the Gene Revolution
make their way to the poor. Investments in biotechnology research capacity for the
public sector will only be worthwhile if the current difficulties in delivering conventional technologies to subsistence farmers can be reversed.
References
Alston JM, Norton GW, Pardey PG (1995) Science under scarcity: principles and practice for agricultural research evaluation and priority setting. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Alston JM, Marra MC, Pardey PG, Wyatt TJ (2000) Research returns redux: a meta-analysis of the
returns to agricultural R&D. Aust J Agr Resour Ec 44:185-215
Binswanger HP (1980) Income distribution effects of technical change: some analytical issues.
South East Asian Econ Rev 1:179-218
Byerlee D, Fischer K (2001) Accessing modern science: policy and institutional options for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries. World Dev 30:931-948
Byerlee D, Hesse de Polanco E (1986) Farmers’ stepwise adoption of technological packages:
Evidence from the Mexican Altiplano. Am J Agr Econ 68:519-527
Byerlee D, Moya P (1993) Impacts of international wheat breeding research in the developing
world, 1966-1990. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Mexico, DF
652
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 653
PINGALI AND RANEY
Byerlee D, Traxler G (2002) The role of technology spillovers and economies of size in the efficient
design of agricultural research systems. In: Alston JM, Pardey PG, Taylor MJ (eds) Agricultural
science policy: changing global agendas. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Conway G (2000) Crop biotechnology: benefits, risks and ownership. Foundation News 03062000.
Rockefeller Foundation, New York
David C, Otsuka K (eds) (1994) Modern rice technology and income distribution in Asia. Lynne
Rienner, Boulder
Delgado LC, Hopkins J, Kelly VA (1998) Agricultural growth linkages in sub-Saharan Africa. IFPRI
Research Report No. 107. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington
Echeverría RG (1990) Assessing the impact of agricultural research. In: Echeverría RG (ed) Methods
for diagnosing research system constraints and assessing the impact of agricultural research.
Volume 2. International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), The Hague
Evenson RE (2001) Economic impacts of agricultural research and extension. In: Gardner BL,
Rausser GC (eds) Handbook of agricultural economics, Vol 1. North Holland
Evenson RE, Gollin D (2003) Assessing the impact of the green revolution: 1960-2000. Science
300:758-762
Fan S, Hazell P, Thorat S (1998) Government spending, growth, and poverty: an analysis of interlinkages in rural India. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 33. International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), Washington
FAO (2004a) The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04, Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the
needs of the poor? FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/Y5160E00.htm
FAO (2004b) FAOSTAT. Available at: http://apps.fao.org/default.jsp
FAO (2004c) Biotechnology in Developing Countries (BioDeC) database. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/biotech/inventory_admin/dep/default.asp
Flores-Moya P, Evenson RE, Hayami Y (1978) Social returns to rice research in the Philippines:
domestic benefits and foreign spillovers. Econ Dev and Cultural Change 26:591-607
Hayami Y, Herdt RW (1977) Market price effects of technological change on income distribution
in semi-subsistence agriculture. Am J Agr Econ 59:245-256
Hayami Y, Kikuchi M, Moya PF, Bambo LM, Marciano EB (1978) Anatomy of a peasant economy: a rice village in the Philippines. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Baños
Hazell P, Haggblade S (1993) Farm-nonfarm growth linkages and the welfare of the poor.
In: Lipton M, van de Gaag J (eds) Including the poor. The World Bank, Washington
Herdt RW (1987) A retrospective view of technological and other changes in Philippine rice
farming, 1965–1982. Econ Dev Cultural Change 35:329–349
James C (2002) Global review of commercialized transgenic crops: 2001, Feature Bt cotton. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) Brief No. 26
James C (2003) Global status of GM crops. ISAAA Brief No. 30
Lantican M, Pingali P (2003) Growth in wheat yield potential in marginal environments.
In: Proceedings of the Warren E Kronstad Memorial Symposium, 1-17 March 2001, CIMMYT,
Mexico DF
Meredia MK, Byerlee D, Eicher CK (1994) The efficiency of global wheat research investments:
implications for research evaluation, research managers and donors. Staff Paper No. 94-17.
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan, USA
Morris M, Ekasingh B (2001) Plant breeding research in developing countries: what roles for the
public and private sectors. In: Byerlee D, Echeverria R (eds) Agricultural research policy in an
era of privatization: experiences from the developing world. CABI, Wallingford, UK
Pardey PG, Lindner RK, Abdurachman E, Wood S, Fan S, Eveleens WM, Zhang B, Alston JM
653
Pingali-4
26-10-2005
9:27
Pagina 654
PINGALI AND RANEY
(1992) The economic returns to Indonesian rice and soybean research. Agency for Agricultural
Research and Development (AARD) and International Service for National Agricultural
Research (ISNAR). Unpublished report. Jakarta and The Hague
Pingali P, Heisey PW (2001) Cereal-crop productivity in developing countries: past trends and
future prospects. In: Alston JM, Pardey PG, Taylor M (eds) Agricultural science policy. IFPRI &
Johns Hopkins University Press, Washington, DC, USA
Pingali P, Rajaram SR (1999) World wheat facts and trends, 1998/99. CIMMYT, Mexico, DF
Pingali P, Traxler G (2002) Changing locus of agricultural research: will the poor benefit from
biotechnology and privatization trends. Food Policy 27:223-238
Pinstrup-Andersen P, Hazell P (1985) The impact of the green revolution and prospects for the
future. Food Rev Int 1:1-25
Pinstrup-Andersen P, Ruiz de Londoño N, Hoover E (1976) The impact of increasing food supply
on human nutrition: implications for commodity priorities in agricultural research. Am J Agr
Econ 58:131-142
Pray C, Echeverria R (1991) Private sector agricultural research in less developed countries.
In: Pardey P, Roseboom J, Anderson J (eds) Agricultural Research Policy-International Quantitative Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Pray C, Fuglie K (2000) Policies for private agricultural research in Asian LDCs. Paper presented at
the XXIV International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Berlin, Germany
Pray, C, Naseem A (2003) The economics of agricultural research, ESA Working Paper 03-07, FAO,
Rome. Available at: www.fao.org/es/esa
Pray C, Courtmanche A, Govindasamy R (2002) The importance of intellectual property rights in
the international spread of private sector agricultural biotechnology. Presented at the 6th International Conference convened by ICABR, Ravello (Italy), July 11-14
Renkow M (1993) Differential technology adoption and income distribution in Pakistan: implications for research resource allocation. Am J Agr Econ 75:33-43
Scobie GM, Posada RT (1978) The impact of technical change on income distribution: the case of
rice in Colombia. Am J Agr Econ 60:85-92
Traxler G, Byerlee D (1992) Economic returns to crop management research in post-green revolution setting. Am J Agr Econ 74:573-582
Traxler G, Pingali P (1999) International collaboration in crop improvement research: current status and future prospects. CIMMYT Economics Program Working Paper, 99-11. CIMMYT
Mexico DF
654