Required Report - public distribution

**Date:** 12/9/2005

**GAIN Report Number:** US5001

US5001

**United States**

**Biotechnology**

**FAO AND BIOTECHNOLOGY**

**2005**

**Approved by:**

![](media/image1.wmf)David Hegwood

USUN Rome

**Prepared by:**

David Hegwood

**Report Highlights:**

FAO views biotechnology in the context of its mandate to promote food
security and increase agricultural productivity. It recognizes
biotechnology as a suite of tools that have great potential to improve
the productive capacity of agriculture in the developing world, but also
recognizes there are substantial obstacles to be overcome. FAO\'s
general position on biotechnology can be characterized as cautious. It
plays an important and useful role in the global dialogue on
biotechnology, but lacks a sense of urgency in helping to equip
countries with the tools to use biotechnology.

Includes PSD Changes: No

Includes Trade Matrix: No

Unscheduled Report

Rome FODAG \[IT3\]

\[US\]

FAO AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

# 

### I. Overview

FAO views biotechnology in the context of its mandate to promote food
security and increase agricultural productivity. It recognizes
biotechnology as a suite of tools that have great potential to improve
the productive capacity of agriculture in the developing world. However,
many developing countries are unable to take advantage of the potential
benefits of biotechnology because they lack the necessary infrastructure
for research and development, regulatory decision-making, and
policy-implementation. FAO sees its role as helping to overcome these
obstacles by equipping developing countries with the means to determine
whether, how, and under what conditions to use biotechnology.

FAO strives to be neutral in its role as a disseminator of information
and knowledge. It serves as a forum for dialogue on biotechnology issues
and provides technical assistance and capacity building, especially in
the regulatory area. It is also home to two international
standards-setting bodies with a direct impact on international
regulatory issues concerning biotechnology -- the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, which is responsible for food safety, and the International
Plant Protection Convention, which is responsible for plant pest and
disease prevention.

### II. FAO's Position on Biotechnology

Evaluation of the safety of biotechnology applications in agriculture
has been one of FAO's primary concerns. It has consistently advocated in
favor of science-based safety assessments on a case-by-case basis. In
general, FAO has concluded that, given the current state of
biotechnology applications, potential environmental impacts are a
greater concern than food safety issues.

FAO has also attempted to call attention to a number of other issues in
addition to safety evaluation. The need for greater investments in
public sector research has been a recurring theme. FAO frequently notes
that the investment by the biotechnology industry in research and
development is more than ten times the total crop improvement budget of
the CGIAR system, and the industry research is targeted primarily at
crops that are not the most critical for the developing world. A related
issue of concern to FAO is the use of intellectual property protection
by the biotechnology industry, which is seen as putting up an obstacle
to developing country access to new technologies.

FAO's general position on biotechnology can be characterized as
cautious. The focus is more often on the obstacles than on the
potential. By describing its role as providing a neutral forum for
debate and the dissemination of information and knowledge, FAO is
positioning itself apart from the usual pro-con debate. With this
approach FAO is playing an important and useful role in the global
dialogue on biotechnology. The downside, however, is that FAO brings no
sense of urgency to the task of helping to equip developing countries
with the tools to use biotechnology. In fact, the Director-General on
several occasions has stated that biotechnology is not a priority for
the short-term goal of reducing the number of hungry people in the world
by 2015, though it will be important to providing sustainable global
food supplies by 2050.

##  Early Work

FAO's first efforts to develop a comprehensive approach to developments
in the field of agricultural biotechnology date back to 1999. In January
of that year FAO presented to the Fifteenth Session of the Committee on
Agriculture a [survey
paper](http://www.fao.org/unfao/bodies/COAG/COAG15/X0074E.htm) on
biotechnology applications in agriculture and FAO's work in the area.
This paper places biotechnology squarely within the framework of FAO's
mandate to improve food security in developing countries. Biotechnology
is characterized as "a powerful tool in agricultural development." After
discussing a number of obstacles to the use of biotechnology in
developing countries, the paper declares that FAO's role is to help
members "optimize their capacity to develop, adapt and utilize
biotechnology and its products." FAO's three principal functions are
identified as policy advice, information exchange and capacity building.
Because biotechnology issues cut across FAO's organizational structure,
the paper also recommends establishing an inter-sectoral program for
biotechnology within the organization.

This was the first time biotechnology had been placed before an FAO
governing body as a policy issue. The Committee on Agriculture (COAG)
largely endorsed the paper, recommending that FAO "develop a strategic
approach to biotechnology and give high priority to a coordinated
cross-sectoral program". The COAG also recognized and encouraged FAO's
involvement in all of the major international biotechnology policy
exercises underway at that time -- the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,
the risk assessment harmonization efforts of the Codex Alimentarius and
the International Plant Protection Convention, the negotiation of the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture, and the work on labeling in the Codex Alimentarius
Commission. The FAO Council subsequently endorsed the proposal for an
organization-wide program on biotechnology in June 1999. It also
underscored FAO's role as "an 'honest broker' of quality science-based
information" in relation to biotechnology.

In November 1999, FAO presented its proposed actions to follow-up on the
recommendations of the COAG and Council in an [Information Note on
Biosafety](http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x3387e.htm), which was
submitted to the FAO Conference. In this document FAO puts a high
priority on harmonization of biosafety regulations relating to the
testing and release of GMOs. In addition to the risk assessment
harmonization efforts already underway in Codex and IPPC, FAO recognizes
the need to address issues related to transgenic animals and fish and
the use of GMOs in animal vaccines and diagnostic kits. Other actions
include providing technical advice and capacity building on issues such
as implementation of the Biosafety Protocol, establishment of regulatory
bodies, and risk assessment capacity. The FAO position on biotechnology
has not been revisited by any of the governing bodies since 1999.

Based on the documents presented and the guidance provided over the
course of 1999, FAO could have been expected to focus its efforts on
helping developing countries to realize the potential benefits of
agricultural biotechnology. While substantial efforts have been made
over the last 6 years in that direction, the official FAO Statement on
Biotechnology and the speeches and statements of the Director-General
and other senior executives have emphasized the need for caution.

##  FAO's Statement on Biotechnology

FAO's [Statement on Biotechnology](http://www.fao.org/biotech/stat.asp)
was issued in March 2000 on the occasion of the first meeting of the
Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from
Biotechnology. The press release accompanying the statement was
headlined "FAO Stresses Potential of Biotechnology but Calls for
Caution". The statement acknowledges "biotechnology provides powerful
tools for the sustainable development of agriculture, fisheries and
forestry and can be of significant help in meeting the food needs of a
growing and increasingly urbanized population." However, it also urges a
"cautious case-by-case approach to determining the benefits and risks of
each individual GMO."

Since 1999, the FAO Director-General, Jacques Diouf, has given several
speeches in which he specifically addresses the issue of biotechnology
([2000](http://www.fao.org/dg/2000/IFNC-e.htm),
[2001](http://www.fao.org/dg/2001/GMO-e.htm),
[2005](http://www.fao.org/english/dg/2005/den.htm)). In these speeches
he extols the potential of biotechnology, but at the same time
highlights a list of safety concerns and obstacles to utilization of the
technology in the developing world. The safety concerns are primarily
ecological risks and food safety, both of which FAO is addressing
through its regulatory harmonization efforts. The obstacles cited
include lack of research focused on developing country crops,
restrictive use of intellectual property rights, and ethical concerns,
such as the consumer's right to choose. Speeches by FAO Assistant
Director General Louise Fresco
([2001](http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/GMOs.pdf),
[2003](http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/fao-gr.pdf)) and James Dargie,
former Director, Joint FAO/IAEA Division
([2001](http://www.fao.org/News/2001/stockholm/biotech.pdf)), echo most
of these issues.

##  2002 Food Aid Crisis

The GM food aid crisis in 2002 put FAO in the middle of the public
controversy over biotechnology. With more than 13 million people facing
starvation in southern Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique rejected
U.S. corn supplied as food aid, ostensibly because it was genetically
engineered. FAO representatives in the region were supplying governments
with advice that created further confusion and controversy over the
safety of genetically engineered foods. Citing concerns about
undermining the ongoing CODEX review of genetically engineered foods,
FAO officials at headquarters were reluctant to step in with an
unambiguous statement that the weight of scientific evidence
demonstrates no additional risk to human health. Instead, FAO suggested
mitigating the risks by milling the corn before distributing it as food
aid. Finally, in August 2002, FAO, WFP and WHO released a joint [UN
Statement Regarding the Use of GM Foods as Food Aid in Southern
Africa](http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/8660-en.html),
which said the food aid containing GMOs being distributed in southern
Africa was "not likely to present human health risks."

##  2004 SOFA Report

The publication of the [State of Food and Agriculture
2003-2004](http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/006/Y5160E/Y5160E00.HTM)
(SOFA Report) marks a significant shift in FAO's public posture on
biotechnology. The report openly embraces the potential of biotechnology
to meet the needs of poor farmers in developing countries. It concludes
that biotechnology, while not a panacea, can provide both economic and
environmental benefits for developing countries. The main obstacles to
realizing these benefits are the lack of biotechnology innovations
targeted at developing countries and inadequate scientific, technical
and regulatory capacity in those countries. To overcome these obstacles,
the report recommends greater public and private sector research
directed towards biotechnology innovations specifically for developing
countries and a heightened focus on regulatory capacity building.

Overall the SOFA Report is a positive contribution to the international
debate. Because it recognizes both the scientific consensus about the
safety of biotechnology applications in agriculture and the significant
potential economic and environmental benefits for poor farmers in
developing countries, the report was attacked in a letter signed by over
800 NGOs and members of civil society for being too pro-biotech. (See
[NGO
letter](http://www.grain.org/front_files/fao-open-letter-june-2004-final-en.pdf).)
In response to this letter, the Director-General issued a [press
release](http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/46429/index.html) in
June 2004 that took a much more cautious tone than the report itself.
Rather than reinforcing the report's message about the potential of
biotechnology, he emphasized the need for international rules governing
the use of biotechnology and noted the lack of private sector investment
in products of interest to developing countries.

###  III. Organization of Biotech Activities within FAO

In the [2002-2007 Medium Term Plan](http://www.fao.org/mtp/2002/) FAO
identified a number of Priority Areas for Inter-Disciplinary Action
(PAIA), among which were two directly related to biotechnology. PAIAs
were developed to enhance coordination across FAO departments,
particularly in areas that would benefit from the central budget and
program planning process. Most of FAO's biotechnology related activities
are covered by one of these two PAIAs.

## PAIA on Biotechnology in Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

The Biotechnology PAIA is focused on FAO Corporate Strategy C --
creating sustainable increases in the supply and availability of food
and other products from the crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry
sectors. The decision to create the Biotechnology PAIA was a response to
repeated calls from FAO Governing Bodies for FAO to "engage actively in
current debates on biotechnology and genetically-modified organisms
(GMOs), through science-based contributions."

The 2002-2007 Medium Term Plan identified the scope of work under this
PAIA as assessing the biotechnology needs of developing countries,
assisting developing countries with formulation of biosafety
regulations, providing policy advice, developing a biotechnology section
on the FAO website, and developing a comprehensive database on
biotechnology issues. The indicative budget resources associated with
this PAIA in the [2002-2003 Program of Work and
Budget](http://www.fao.org/pwb/2002/) were \$4.5 million. (The budgets
for the 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 biennia not contain the indicative
budget amounts associated with each PAIA.) In the Medium Term Plans for
[2004-2009](http://www.fao.org/mtp/2004/) and
[2006-2011](http://www.fao.org/mtp/) there has been no significant shift
in the scope of work.

The Biotechnology PAIA is coordinated by the [Inter-Departmental Working
Group](http://www.fao.org/biotech/cont.asp) on Biotechnology (IDWGB),
which includes representatives from each of the departments whose work
contributes to the PAIA. Programs under the Agriculture Department, in
particular the Agricultural Support Systems Division and the Joint
FAO/IAEA Division, are the largest components of the Biotechnology PAIA.

## PAIA on Biosecurity for Agriculture and Food Production

The Biosecurity PAIA contains significant biotechnology elements but is
not focused on biotechnology. It includes the biotechnology related
standards-setting work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the
Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, as well as capacity
building for biotechnology regulations.

### IV. Normative Activities

## IPPC

The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provides the
mechanism for setting global phytosanitary standards. At the second
session (October 1999) of the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary
Measures (ICPM), which is the temporary governing body for the IPPC, a
number of members placed a high priority on developing standards for
pest risk assessments and testing procedures for genetically engineered
plants. An exploratory open-ended working group was formed to develop a
statement on "the role of the IPPC in assessing the plant pest risks of
GMO's" and to "consider the necessity of developing and adopting
international standards under the IPPC." The [report of the exploratory
working
group](https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/31966_ICPM01_7_E.PDF?filename=1078910948615_ICPM01_7.PDF&refID=31966)
was presented to the third session of the ICPM in April 2001. The ICPM
endorsed the working group's statement that plant pest risks of LMOs
fall clearly within the scope of the IPPC and adopted the recommendation
to develop a standard to specifically address those risks as a matter of
urgency. The standard was adopted by the ICPM in 2004 as a supplement to
international standard for phytosanitary measures (ISPM) number 11,
[Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine
Pests](https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/34163_ISPM_11_2004_E.pdf?filename=1107531644613_ISPM_11_2004_A5.pdf&refID=34163).
It provides guidance on the determination of the pest risk potential
presented by living modified organisms and additional consideration for
the pest risk analysis process for LMOs determined to present a
potential pest risk.

IPPC entered into a cooperation agreement with the Convention on
Biological Diversity in 2003. The objective of the cooperation agreement
is to ensure active collaboration on issues of overlapping interest
(e.g., addressing invasive species and establishing international risk
assessment guidance on phytosanitary controls for LMOs) and to avoid
duplication.

## CODEX

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is a joint FAO/WHO body responsible
for developing a code of global food safety standards, guidelines, and
codes of practice. Over 170 countries are members of the Codex
Commission. Biotechnology issues are under discussion in two committees,
the Codex Committee on Food Labeling and the ad hoc Intergovernmental
Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. The safety of foods
derived from biotechnology has also been examined in a number of FAO/WHO
Expert Consultations. In FAO's Medium Term Plan for 2006-2011, strong
emphasis is placed on food safety assessments of foods derived from
biotechnology in support of the Codex work.

The Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from
Biotechnology was established by the 23^rd^ session of Codex Commission
in 1999. The Task Force completed its initial assignment in 2003 with
the finalization of three texts: [Draft Principles for the Risk Analysis
of Foods Derived from Modern
Biotechnology](http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/more_info.jsp?id_sta=10007)
(CAC/GL 44-2003), [Draft Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety
Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA
Plants](http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/more_info.jsp?id_sta=10021)
(CAC/GL 45-2003), and [Draft Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety
Assessment and Recombinant-DNA
Microorganisms](http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/more_info.jsp?id_sta=10025)
(CAC/GL 46-2003). Taken together, these documents represent a remarkable
global consensus on science-based risk assessment principles for foods
derived from biotechnology. The Codex Commission agreed in 2004 to renew
the Task Force until 2009. At the [September 2005
meeting](http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/archives.jsp?lang=en), the
Task Force agreed to undertake two new projects. The first is to develop
a guideline for food safety assessments of recombinant DNA animals. The
second is a project on food safety assessment of foods derived from
recombinant-DNA plants modified for nutritional or health benefits. Some
members of the Task Force expressed a desire to continue discussion of
low-level presence of unauthorized recombinant DNA in plant materials at
a future session.

Codex relies on joint FAO/WHO expert consultations to provide the
scientific foundations for much of its work. Joint expert consultations
have been particularly important to the success of the Ad Hoc
Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. The
first joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on biotechnology and food safety
was held in 1990. This first expert consultation was notable for
developing the concept of substantial equivalence, which was
subsequently elaborated by the OECD. A second expert consultation in
1996, entitled [Biotechnology and Food
Safety](ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/biotechnology.pdf), reaffirmed the
conclusions of the 1990 consultation on the use of substantial
equivalence. It also made specific recommendations concerning
allergenicity. Three further joint FAO/WHO expert consultations have
addressed [Safety Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods of Plant
Origin](ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/nonfao/ae584e/ae584e00.pdf) (2000),
[Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified
Foods](ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y0820e/y0820e00.pdf) (2001), and
[Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Animals
including
Fish](http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/006/Y5316E/Y5316E00.HTM)
(2003).

In 1991 the Codex Committee on Food Labeling was given a mandate "to
provide guidance on how the fact that a food \[is\] derived from 'modern
biotechnologies' could be made known to the consumers." The Codex
Executive Committee approved the elaboration of guidelines in 1995
subject to the recommendation that "the Statements of Principle
Concerning the Role of Science should be closely adhered to and that the
recommendations of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Food Safety
and Biotechnology should be taken into account." The first draft of the
labeling guidelines was circulated to members for comment in 1997. The
Committee has been unable to reach an agreement on labeling guidelines.
The Committee participants are divided over whether mandatory labeling
should apply only in cases where significant changes in the product
composition, characteristic, nutritional value or end use exist, or
whether mandatory labeling should apply to all food products derived
from biotechnology. The United States supports the former position. At
the latest meeting in May 2005, the United States, joined by Mexico and
Argentina, objected to further discussion on the labeling guidelines
because consensus seemed to be hopelessly blocked. Nevertheless, the
Committee agreed to continue its work. More progress has been made on a
set of definitions pertaining to foods derived through biotechnology,
but further discussion has been suspended pending progress on the
guidelines.

## ITPGRFA

The [International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture](http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm) (ITPGRFA), which was
completed in 2001, seeks to promote the conservation and sustainable use
of genetic resources from a designated list of agricultural crops. To
this end it calls for the establishment of a multilateral system for
access and benefit sharing for the genetic resources of the covered
crops. The key component of this system, a multilateral transfer
agreement (MTA), is still under negotiation. The MTA will set conditions
for access to publicly-held genetic resources and establish a formula
for royalty payments on new commercial varieties derived from those
genetic resources. Because the genetic resources covered by the ITPGRFA
are the raw material for genetic engineering of many important
agricultural crops (soybeans being one important exclusion), access to
those materials is important to researchers and plant breeders from both
the public sector and the commercial sector. Successful implementation
of the treaty would help provide protection against overly burdensome
restrictions being imposed by the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD).

## Code of Conduct for Biotechnology

In 1989, the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
requested the FAO Secretariat to prepare a Code of Conduct for
Biotechnology as it affects the conservation and use of plant genetic
resources. A preliminary draft of an [International Code of Conduct on
Biotechnology as it affects the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization
of Plant Genetic
Resources](ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/cgrfa5/R5W9E.pdf) was
presented to the Commission in 1993. The objectives of the Code of
Conduct, as originally agreed, should be to maximize the positive
effects of biotechnology and minimize any potential negative effects,
especially in developing countries. The draft Code of Conduct is
voluntary. It calls on governments to "promote the transfer and
development of appropriate biotechnologies." Governments are also urged
to support research and promote international cooperation. To prevent
and mitigate possible negative effects, governments are called on to
monitor and assess socio-economic impacts, long-term environmental
impacts, and possible negative effects on genetic diversity. The draft
also covers access and benefits sharing and intellectual property
protection. A component of the draft Code on biosafety and other
environmental concerns was forwarded to the CBD in 1993 as a
contribution to the work on the biosafety protocol.

Further work on the Code of Conduct was then suspended in 1995 pending
the completion of the negotiations for the International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Following the completion of
the negotiations on the International Treaty in 2001, the Commission
asked to the FAO Secretariat to prepare a study on the gaps and
duplications in the international policy framework for biotechnologies
for food and agriculture. This study, [Policy Issues, Gaps and
Duplications](ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/cgrfa10/r10w13e.pdf), was
presented to the Commission in 2004. It concluded "there are no
international policy instruments dealing with the issue of how
agricultural biotechnologies might be focused on poverty reduction and
food security." Among the 14 areas identified for possible further
action were conservation of genetic resources, appropriateness of
technologies, access and benefit sharing, centers of diversity/origin,
ethical questions, genetic use restriction technologies, economic
concentration in the agro-food system, and liability for gene flow. The
Commission will consider what, if any, further action to take on these
issues at its next session in 2006. Options include continuing work on
the Code of Conduct or, alternatively, developing guidelines. If further
work is agreed, the Commission will also have to decide whether to
expand the scope to include livestock, fish and microorganisms.

## Fisheries

The FAO [Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries](http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/005/v9878e/v9878e00.htm),
which was adopted in 1995, calls on countries to "minimize the harmful
effects of introducing non-native species or genetically altered stocks
used for aquaculture...into waters, especially where there is a
significant potential for the spread of such non-native species or
genetically altered stocks into waters under the jurisdiction of other
States as well as waters under the jurisdiction of the State of origin."
To date, Codex has not undertaken work on risk assessments for
genetically engineered fish, nor has FAO attempted to develop
environmental risk assessment procedures and criteria.

## Forestry

FAO to date has not attempted to develop risk assessment strategies or
criteria specifically for trees. (The IPPC pest risk assessment
guidelines for LMOs apply to trees the same as to any other genetically
engineered plant.) However, the Forestry Department is planning a
process of expert consultations that could form the basis for a
conclusion about whether such work should be undertaken by FAO

##  Ethics

In 2000, FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf established a Panel of
Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture. The Ethics Panel's
terms of reference included promoting "an overall sense of international
responsibility with regard to the development of necessary policies and
instruments aimed at maximizing global benefits, while minimizing the
risks, arising from the application of modern technologies to food and
agriculture." The Panel of Eminent Experts has issued two reports, one
following its meeting in
[2000](http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/003/X9600E/X9600E00.HTM)
and another following its meeting in
[2003](http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/005/Y8265E/Y8265E00.HTM),
both of which contain substantial sections on biotechnology. In 2001,
FAO published a paper, [Genetically Modified Organisms, Consumers, Food
Safety and the
Environment](http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/003/X9602E/X9602E00.HTM),
as part of the FAO Ethics Series. This paper was considered as
background material by the first meeting of the Panel of Eminent
Experts. A paper prepared by a consultant for the second meeting of the
Panel of Eminent Experts, [Law and Biotechnology: Selected Issues of
Relevance to Food and
Agriculture](http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/006/Y4839E/Y4839E00.HTM),
was published in 2003 as part of the FAO Legislative Studies Series.

The body of FAO work on ethics addresses biotechnology principally from
two perspectives, both based in international human rights law. The
first is public participation in the risk management process. The second
is the right of developing countries to share in the benefits of
biotechnology. Without demonstrating much evidence of thoughtful
deliberation, the Panel of Eminent Experts stakes out a clear position
on one side of the global debate over biotechnology. It embraces the
precautionary principle, traceability, labeling, socio-economic
concerns, and anti-intellectual property rhetoric as "ethical"
approaches to managing the risks of biotechnology and ensuring the
benefits are available to developing countries.

### V. Capacity Building and Technical Assistance

FAO provides capacity building and technical assistance upon request to
developing countries. Activities related to biotechnology have focused
on regulatory capacity building for biosafety and capacity development
in plant breeding and modern biotechnology. In recent years, requests
for assistance have primarily been in the area of biosafety capacity
building. The entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol has undoubtedly
been a strong influence on this trend.

## Biosafety Capacity Building

Assistance programs have been focused on building and enhancing the
institutional and legislative frameworks to enable countries to carry
out biosafety regulatory functions. Projects have been completed in
Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Bangladesh and Malaysia. In the pipeline
are projects for Kenya, Swaziland, Benin, Burkina Faso, Tanzania,
Uganda, and Sri Lanka.

FAO maintains a [biosafety
library](http://www.fao.org/sd/sdrr/biosafety/index_en.asp) on its
website containing guidelines, manuals, reports and toolkits. These
resources are intended as reference materials for capacity-building
efforts.

## Research and Development Capacity Building

The joint FAO/IAEA Agriculture and Biotechnology Laboratory, located in
Vienna, provides research, training, and analytical support to
developing countries. The laboratory uses biotechnology to develop new
plant breeding lines, usually in cooperation with national plant
breeding programs. In recent years it has developed a new
drought-resistant wheat variety for use in China, drought-resistant
chick peas for South Africa, and three new sesame varieties for Egypt.
The laboratory also provides training programs in DNA marker techniques
and marker-assisted selection.

FAO is undertaking a [global
survey](http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/themes/pb-workshop.pdf) of
plant breeding capacity, including the extent of application of
biotechnology, with the aim of developing and maintaining an up-to-date
database on national plant breeding programs. To date, about 27
countries from Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Near East and Europe
have responded to the survey. The results show, *inter alia*, that
biotechnology is not sufficiently integrated into practical plant
breeding activities in developing countries, mostly due to inadequate
resources and a lack of trained staff. To address this problem FAO has
supported training courses in collaboration with the CGIAR centers and
national research institutes.

###  VI. Information Sharing

FAO has been very active in disseminating information and serving as a
forum for international discussion on biotechnology issues. It views its
role as serving members' needs for information on "which biotechnologies
are available, what they can be used for, how and in which wider
strategy they can be applied, and what the cost-benefit implications of
using them are." It sees itself as a broker of objective, unbiased
information. Some of the more important information-sharing activities
are described below.

## Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture

The [Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and
Agriculture](http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp) was launched in 2000.
It is a series of moderated e-mail conferences allowing wide-ranging
participation by governments, NGOs, and private parties. Background and
summary documents are available for each topic. To date there have been
13 conferences covering topics such as IPRs, gene flow, marker assisted
selection, and food processing. The report, [Agricultural Biotechnology
for Developing Countries - Results of an Electronic
Forum](http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2729E/Y2729E00.HTM), summarizes
the first six conferences.

## BioDeC Database

[BioDeC](http://www.fao.org/biotech/inventory_admin/dep/default.asp) is
a searchable database designed to provide an inventory of biotechnology
products in use or in the pipeline in developing countries. The
database, which was launched in April 2004, contains information from 70
countries on the following 11 subjects: biotechnology research policy;
research capacity (key institutions; summary of major research
programs); biotechnology regulatory framework (biosafety; food safety;
patents; plant variety protection; plant genetic resources; animal
genetic resources); biotechnology applications; and publications and
links. Only descriptive information is included in the database; it does
not include quantitative information such as commercial production
levels or spending on research. Individual country information is
divided into two categories: genetically engineered products and other
biotechnologies (e.g., molecular markers, diagnostics). The database
also reports the status of biotechnology applications in three
categories: research phase, field trials, and commercialization. In 2005
FAO published a summary and analysis of the information contained in
BioDeC in the form of a report titled [Status of Research and
Application of Crop Biotechnologies in Developing
Countries](ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/y5800e/y5800e00.pdf).

## International Networks

REDBIO: In 1991 the FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the
Caribbean established the Technical Cooperation Network on Plant
Biotechnology ([REDBIO](http://www.redbio.org/)). The network links over
600 laboratories and institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The objective of REDBIO is "to accelerate the process of adaptation,
generation, transfer and application of plant biotechnology to
contribute to the solution of crop production constraints and genetic
resources conservation for the countries of the Region." Specifically,
REDBIO serves as a forum for policy support, technical assistance,
training, cooperative research activities, and information sharing.
REDBIO is an example of the benefits of human and institutional capacity
building. Not only are scientists in the region developing their own
solutions to the agricultural productivity challenges in the region,
they are becoming more engaged in the public debate on biotechnology. In
two statements ([Declaration of Goiania, REDBIO
2001](http://www.redbio.org/html/declara.htm), and [Declaración de Boca
Chica, REDBIO
2004](http://www.redbio.org/rdominicana/redbio2004rd/Memoria_REDBIO_2004/publicaciones/declaracion.htm))
the members of REDBIO have declared biotechnology indispensable to
meeting the food security needs of the region through sustainable
agriculture.

Asian Bio-Net: The [Asian Bio-Net](http://www.asiabionet.org/index.htm)
was launched in 2002 with funding from the government of Japan. It is
based at the FAO regional office in Bangkok. Participants include
Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the
Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. The project serves as a
means for organizing regional consultations, facilitating technical
cooperation, and building biosafety capacity for genetically engineered
crops. One of the overarching objectives of the project is regional
regulatory harmonization. Focal points from each participating country
meet annually. Activities under the project include training workshops,
the publication of a [risk communication
manual](http://www.asiabionet.org/documents/PublicParticipationandAwarenessTrainor'sManual1.pdf),
and the preparation of a [benchmark
study](http://www.asiabionet.org/documents/benchmark.htm) on the status
of biosafety capacity in each country.

ABNETA: FAO is developing a regional biotechnology network for Africa
based on the Latin American and Asian models. ABNETA will have two
regional hubs, one for Southern and Eastern Africa and one for Western
and Central Africa.

##  

## Publications

In the last ten years FAO has published a substantial number of books
and documents on the subject of biotechnology. Many of these are
available on its website (<http://www.fao.org/biotech/doc.asp>). In
2004, FAO's report on the [State of Food and Agriculture
2003-2004](http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/006/Y5160E/Y5160E00.HTM)
was dedicated to the question of the role of agricultural biotechnology
in meeting the needs of the poor. The report was widely viewed as a
positive contribution to the global debate on biotechnology. Other
noteworthy publications include [Glossary of Biotechnology for Food and
Agriculture](http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2775E/Y2775E00.HTM) and [Law
and modern biotechnology: Selected issues of relevance to food and
agriculture](../%20http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y4839E/Y4839E00.HTM).