Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-124)
MR GARETH
THOMAS MP, MR
JIM HARVEY
AND MR
JONATHAN LINGHAM
17 JUNE 2008
Q120 Hugh Bayley: I think there is
going to be a great need for the developed world to develop technologies,
seeds and processes to help farmers in developing countries deal
with the consequences of climate change. Given that there are
very different policies on GM on the two sides of the Atlantic,
where does GM feature within your research? I remember four or
five years ago, at the time of the southern African famine, the
famine before last, there was enormous controversy about food
aid being supplied in the form of South African and American grown
GM maize with some southern African countries refusing to accept
it because of pressures from Europe to avoid the risk of GM contamination.
There seems to be some closer working between the development
and environmental communities now than there was then but is GM
on the agenda when there are possible benefits in terms of developing
new crops for developing countries or is it off?
Mr Thomas: Part of our practice
in terms of the way we use our agricultural research fund is to
try and build up the capacity of African and Asian scientists
to do their own research. When we fund UK institutes, we want
to see them working with African peers on GM. Some of the money
that we have made available to the CGIAR is being used to help
provide research into possible new GM crops. Indeed, we know that
for example in the Philippines 300,000 hectares of GM maize were
planted last year. My sense is that GM crops do have a role to
play. I do not think they are going to be the magic bullet which
solves the issue of rising food prices, but they are going to
have a contribution to make. There was a very politicised debate
about GM crops and we do need to allow developing countries to
make their own judgments about whether or not to allow GM crops
to be planted. As well as funding the initial research into different
types of GM crops, we are also providing support through the UN's
Environment Programme to help developing countries develop their
own ability to manage the decision as to whether or not to allow
their own people to use GM crops.
Q121 Hugh Bayley: When I talk to
bioscientists from York University they stress to me that when
you are developing a new strain or a new seed or a new agricultural
technology you need to test its environmental impact in terms
of the amount of water it will use, whether it degrades the soil,
how much fertilizer will be used, what the yield is? Whether the
new seed is developed with GM technology or conventional cross
breeding technology, the same kind of environmental impact assessment
needs to take place. Would CGIAR adopt a similar approach and
does your department?
Mr Thomas: I would agree with
you but the one other issue you have to look at as well as the
issue of cross contamination, which has been our concern in the
past, is the whole implementation of GM crops.
Mr Lingham: The protocols are
pretty well established now in the development of any new varieties
to make sure that they are fit for purpose before they are released
for commercial use. There is no difference between traditional
development of seed varieties and GM crops.
Q122 Hugh Bayley: You mean there
is a similarly rigorous process of assessment of environmental
impact?
Mr Lingham: Yes.
Mr Thomas: The international process
which has put those protocols into place is the Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety. I think I have said that correctly. If not, I apologise.
I was looking at it after midnight.
Q123 Chairman: Paul Collier has argued
that the whole system of agriculture in Africa needs to change
to be larger scale and more intensive. Does DFID have a view about
that and, in the same context, if poor, smaller farmers are to
be encouraged to increase their productivity, is any thought being
given to some kind of insurance scheme, given that if they succeed
in improving output prices could fall sharply, just as they harvest,
and they simply do not have the resilience to absorb that?
Mr Thomas: On small versus big
farmers, I am not sure we would go all the way down the Paul Collier
line of saying big is always beautiful. We certainly would not
go down the George Monbiot line either of saying small is always
beautiful. We are going to need both. There are certainly significant
improvements in agricultural productivity which you can achieve
in small farms. Given that those small farms will often spend
the money they make in the local area, they will have significant
multiplier benefits in that way. On insurance, this is perhaps
where one comes back to the longer term because ultimately the
key insurance surely to movements up and down in food prices is
to have a system of fair trade rules internationally so that you
do not have all the different distortions in the international
trading system which are then exacerbated by the types of export
bans that we have seen being imposed at short notice. That is
why so much effort is being put in by the government from the
Prime Minister down to try to get a good outcome for developing
countries through agreement in the world trade talks.
Q124 Chairman: Can I thank you and
your colleagues for the time you have given us. It has been an
important exchange for us. I think our report is timely and I
hope that it will be constructive. I think you have probably already
gathered from the exchanges that we are likely to have some recommendations
on policy which I hope the Government will consider seriously.
I know you will respond in the spirit in which they are given.
Thank you very much indeed. We are intending to get this report
published before the summer. We hope it is still very relevant
to the current situation.
Mr Thomas: We will look at what
the select committee recommends and I am conscious that I need
to write to you, Mr Bruce, with a response to your specific questions
about the DRC. I will also include in that a response to Sir Robert's
questions about Sudan.
| 
