Letter to the Chair of the Committee from
the Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Thank you for giving the Nuffield Council on Bioethics
the opportunity to contribute to the International Development
Committee's consultation about the agricultural policy of the
Department for International Development (DfID) . We welcome the
opportunity to submit evidence.
As you may be aware, the Nuffield Council has
recently considered the potential contribution of genetically
modified (GM) crops to agriculture in developing countries. I
have pleasure in enclosing copies of the Council's publications
on the topic: Genetically modified crops: the ethical and
social issues (published in 1999) and a new Discussion
Paper, The use of genetically modified crops in developing
countries, published in January 2004. We highlighted some
of the recommendations in this Paper in a letter sent to your
department on 5 January 2004.
We support the view of DfID that agriculture has
a fundamental role in the reduction of poverty. Many people are
poor, and therefore hungry, because they can neither produce enough
food on their small farms, nor obtain enough employment by working
on those of others. Enhancement of yields on small farms tend
to increase the demand and hence rewards for poor labourers. Improving
the productivity of small farms is by far the best means of achieving
a substantial reduction of food insecurity and poverty (paragraphs
2.4, 2.9-2.11).
We are aware that achieving food security and
reducing poverty in developing countries are highly complex issues.
We do not claim that GM crops will eliminate the need for economic,
political or social change, or that they will feed the world.
However, we do believe that GM technology could make a useful
contribution, in appropriate circumstances, to improving agriculture
and the livelihood of poor farmers in developing countries. We
should like to draw your attention to recommendations in the Discussion
Paper that are specifically relevant to DfID's agricultural policy:
§ In
particular cases, GM crops can contribute to substantial progress
in improving agriculture, in parallel to the (usually slow) changes
at the socio-political level. GM crops have demonstrated the potential
to reduce environmental degradation and to address specific health,
ecological and agricultural problems which have proved less responsive
to the standard tools of plant breeding and organic or conventional
agricultural practices. There is an ethical
obligation to explore these potential benefits responsibly, in
order to contribute to the reduction of poverty, and to improve
food security and profitable agriculture in developing countries
(paragraph 4.48).
§ Much
of the current privately funded research on GM crops serves the
interest of large-scale farmers in developed countries. Consequently
there is a serious risk that the needs of small-scale farmers
in developing countries will be neglected. It appears that research
on these crops will have to be supported primarily by the public
sector. We therefore affirm the recommendation
made in our 1999 Report that genuinely additional resources be
committed by the UK Department for International Development (DFID),
the European Commission, national governments and others, to fund
a major expansion of public GM-related research into tropical
and sub-tropical staple foods, suitable for the needs of small-
scale farmers in developing countries (paragraph 6.16).
§ In
determining which traits and crops should be developed, funding
bodies should be proactive in consulting with national and regional
bodies in developing countries to identify relevant priorities
(paragraph 6.17).
We note that DFID has agreed to an increase of
£30 million over the next three years in support for CGIAR
and we welcome this commitment. The role of the CGIAR in research
on GM crops is strategically important. But funding for the CGIAR
has fallen in real terms since 1990. Although it spends about
US$360 million per year, less than 10% is directed to research
on the genetic modification of crops.
Capacity building:
§ It
is of particular importance that developing countries improve
their capacity to independently review and assess the use of GM
crops in specific situations. Since means
for the development of the required expertise are limited in most
developing countries, we welcome and endorse the United Nations
Environment Programme and the Global Environment Facility (UNEP/GEF)
undertaking of promoting the building of capacity in relevant
expertise (paragraph 5.24 - 5.25). We are aware that DFID currently
supports this initiative and also seeks to devise guidelines for
participation by the public in decision making processes for biosafety
frameworks.
§ Local
communities should be included as far as possible in decision
making processes, for example by means of consultations with stakeholders.
In this context, formal
and non-formal programmes that promote the dissemination of balanced
information, communication, education and training of those involved
are essential. In particular, farmers need to be informed about
the technological potential and management requirements of GM
crops. Expectations are sometimes inappropriately high, and knowledge
about specialised farm management practices may be absent.
We recommend that companies marketing GM crops
in developing countries share, with governments, the costs of:
· locally
appropriate schemes to elicit small-scale farmers' preferences
regarding traits sought by GM-based breeding;
· their
participation, where appropriate, in plant breeding; and
· subsequent
mechanisms to improve dissemination of balanced information, education
and training about the use of GM crops (paragraph 5.33).
Impact of European policy:
§ The
freedom of choice of farmers in developing countries is being
severely challenged by the agricultural policy of the European
Union. Developing countries might well be reluctant to approve
GM crop varieties because of fears of jeopardising their current
and future export markets. They may also not be able to provide
the necessary infrastructure to enable compliance with EU requirements
for traceability and labelling. We recommend
that the European Commission (EC), the UK Department for International
Development (DFID) and appropriate non governmental organisations
which monitor the agricultural policies of developing countries
examine the consequences of EU regulatory policies for the use
of GM crops in developing countries. We recommend that the European
Commission establish a procedure to report on the impact of its
regulations accordingly (paragraph 5.50).
Access to GM technologies:
The challenge for the public sector, especially
where research is directed at agriculture in developing countries,
is how to access GM technologies without infringing intellectual
property rights (IPRs). New initiatives which recognise the potential
of these constraints to inhibit research into crops relevant to
developing countries are crucial.
There are some public/private partnerships which
have been established in the past to make available GM technology
owned by companies such as Monsanto or Syngenta for 'public good
plant breeders'. There is also the recent initiative of the AATF
which aims to promote the sharing of technology and has already
received support from the major companies (paragraph 6.15).
We note that DFID is providing £5 million to the new African
Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF).
§ Access
to plant genetic resources is critically important for the development
of GM crops which are suited to the needs of developing countries.
We welcome the decision by the UK Government
to ratify the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture. Access to resources falling under the
Treaty is of crucial importance in the development of crops suited
to developing countries. We recommend that in the negotiations
regarding the standard Material Transfer Agreement (MTA), the
UK Government aims for provisions that exempt users in developing
countries from payments, where commercial applications arise from
material covered by the MTA. Where exemptions are not appropriate,
differentiation of payments should take into account the level
of development of the country in question (paragraph 5.15).
April 2004
| 
