Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
04ROME2436
2004-06-23 09:54:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Rome
Cable title:  

FAO SPEAKS OUT ON BIOTECHNOLOGY

Tags:  EAGR ETRD SENV EAID KIPR AORC FAO 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS ROME 002436 

SIPDIS


SENSITIVE

STATE FOR E, EB - CHASE, EB/TPP/BTT - MALAC,
OES/ETC - NEUMANN AND IO/EDA - KOTOK
USDA FOR FAS - BRICHEY, LREICH AND RHUGHES
AND ARS - BRETTING AND BLALOCK
USAID FOR EGAT - SIMMONS, MOORE, BERTRAM AND LEWIS

FROM U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ETRD SENV EAID KIPR AORC FAO
SUBJECT: FAO SPEAKS OUT ON BIOTECHNOLOGY

REF: 03 ROME 4979

UNCLAS ROME 002436

SIPDIS


SENSITIVE

STATE FOR E, EB - CHASE, EB/TPP/BTT - MALAC,
OES/ETC - NEUMANN AND IO/EDA - KOTOK
USDA FOR FAS - BRICHEY, LREICH AND RHUGHES
AND ARS - BRETTING AND BLALOCK
USAID FOR EGAT - SIMMONS, MOORE, BERTRAM AND LEWIS

FROM U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ETRD SENV EAID KIPR AORC FAO
SUBJECT: FAO SPEAKS OUT ON BIOTECHNOLOGY

REF: 03 ROME 4979


1. (U) Summary: FAO's recent report on the State of
Food and Agriculture (SOFA) concludes that agricultural
biotechnology has the potential to benefit small, poor
farmers in developing countries. It cautions, however,
that biotechnology is no panacea, and that socio-economic
impacts, food safety and environmental implications need
to be assessed carefully. The report notes that
biotechnology offers opportunities to increase food
availability and variety, and to enhance overall
agricultural productivity. Yet it also observes that,
unlike the Green Revolution, the Gene Revolution
currently is largely private-sector driven, resulting in
products for large commercial markets, while neglecting
"orphan crops" upon which the world's poorest are most
dependent.


2. (U) Media coverage has tended to characterize the
report as an FAO endorsement of biotechnology. In a
broadside posted on the Internet, a coalition of NGOs
accused FAO of selling out to the biotech industry and of
overlooking many problems with the technology. Director
General Jacques Diouf's published response sought to
reassure these critics, but in so doing he also
reaffirmed that "we will have to use the scientific tools
of molecular biology" to meet the world's food needs in

2050. U.S. Mission Rome's assessment is that FAO has
made a courageous and responsible effort to produce a
balanced scientific assessment. It will help the
international community move beyond polemics, and focus
more on the practical challenges to meet global food
needs in the coming decades. End summary.


3. (U) On May 17, FAO released its annual report on the
State of Food and Agriculture, containing a 106-page
study entitled "Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the
Needs of the Poor?". The full report is available at
www.fao.org. Given the extent of the hyperbole and spin

that the report has generated, we offer below a series of
excerpts that capture its breadth and nuances.

DIRECTOR GENERAL'S FOREWORD
--------------


4. (U) In a two-page Forward, DG Diouf made the
following points, inter alia:

-- "The effective transfer of existing technologies to
poor rural communities and the development of new and
safe biotechnologies can greatly enhance the prospects
for sustainably improving agricultural productivity today
and in the future."

-- "But technology alone cannot solve the problems of the
poor and some aspects of biotechnology, particularly the
socio-economic impacts and the food safety and
environment implications, need to be carefully assessed."

-- "Developing biotechnology in ways that contribute to
the sustainable development of agriculture, fisheries and
forestry can help significantly in meeting the food and
livelihood needs of a growing population."

-- "Biotechnology offers opportunities to increase the
availability and variety of food, increasing overall
agricultural productivity while reducing seasonal
variations in food supplies."

-- "Through the introduction of pest-resistant and stress-
tolerant crops, biotechnology could lower the risk of
crop failure under difficult biological and climatic
conditions."

-- "...biotechnology could help reduce environmental
damage caused by toxic agricultural chemicals."

-- "Following a first generation of genetically
engineered crops, which aimed primarily at reducing
production constraints and costs, a second generation now
targets the bio-availability of nutrients and the
nutritional quality of products."

-- "The Green Revolution, which lifted millions of people

out of poverty, came about through an international
programme of public-sector agricultural research aimed
specifically at creating and transferring technologies to
the developing world as free public goods. The Gene
Revolution, by contrast, is currently being driven
primarily by the private sector, which naturally focuses
on developing products for large commercial markets."

-- "The emerging evidence on the economic impact of
transgenic crops surveyed ... suggests that resource-poor
smallholders can benefit in terms of both enhanced
incomes and reduced exposure to toxic agricultural
chemicals. But so far only a few farmers in a few
developing countries are reaping these benefits."

-- "Neither the private nor the public sector has
invested significantly in new genetic technologies for
the so-called "orphan crops" such as cowpea, millet,
sorghum and tef that are critical for the food supply and
livelihoods of the world's poorest people."

-- "Other barriers that prevent the poor from accessing
and fully benefiting from modern biotechnology include
inadequate regulatory procedures, complex intellectual
property issues, poorly functioning markets and seed
delivery systems, and weak domestic plant breeding
capacity."

-- "FAO is well aware of the potential environmental and
food safety risks posed by certain aspects of
biotechnology, particularly genetically modified
organisms (GMOs)."

-- "The scientific evidence concerning the environmental
and health impacts of genetic engineering is still
emerging."

-- "There is strong consensus among scientists concerning
the need for a case-by-case evaluation that considers the
potential benefits and risks of individual GMOs compared
with alternative technologies."

-- "...FAO will continue to address all issues of concern
to its constituents regarding biotechnology and its
effects on human, plant and animal health."

-- "...FAO will continue ... to strengthen its normative
and advisory work, in coordination and cooperation with
other international organizations."

-- "FAO will continue to provide member countries with
objective, science-based information and analysis
regarding biotechnology and its applications...."

FAO'S CONCLUSIONS
--------------


5. (U) The SOFA report came to five main conclusions:

-- "...biotechnology is capable of benefiting small,
resource-poor farmers. The key question is how this
scientific potential can be brought to bear on
agricultural problems of developing-country producers."

-- "...some transgenic crops ... are yielding significant
economic gains to small farmers as well as important
social and environmental benefits...."

-- "...the changing locus of agricultural research from
the public sector to the private transnational sector has
important implications for the kinds of products that are
being developed, how these products are commercialized
and who receives the benefits."

-- "...biotechnology is not a panacea, but a resource
that can be useful when combined with adaptive research
capacity. Regulatory regimes matter. Biosafety processes
need to be in place."

-- "...the environmental effects in terms of pesticide
reduction can be positive."

LESSONS
--------------


6. (U) The report ends with six "main lessons for
ensuring that the potential benefits of agricultural
biotechnology reach the poor area," excerpted below:

-- "Biotechnology ... can benefit the poor only when
appropriate innovations are developed and when poor
farmers in poor countries have access to them on
profitable terms."

-- "Biotechnology should be part of an integrated and
comprehensive agricultural research and development
programme...."

-- "The public sector in developing and developed
countries, donors and the international research centers
should direct more resources to agricultural research,
including biotechnology. Public-sector research is
necessary to address the public goods that the private
sector would naturally overlook."

-- "Governments should provide incentives and an enabling
environment for private-sector biotechnology research,
development and deployment."

-- "Regulatory procedures should be strengthened and
rationalized to ensure that the environment and public
health are protected and that the process is transparent,
predictable and science-based."

-- "Capacity building for agricultural research and
regulatory issues related to biotechnology should be a
priority for the international community."

FAO OFFICIALS' REACTION
--------------


7. (SBU) U.S. Mission Rome staff have discussed the
report informally with several key FAO officials. Deputy
Director General David Harcharik stressed to us that the
report was drafted by FAO's technical experts through a
bottom-up, collaborative process. There was no official
policy position on biotech handed down from senior FAO
management, according to him, although the Director
General's foreword, while drawn from the experts'
conclusions, was subject to broader review within the
organization.


8. (SBU) The report's editor, Terri Raney, told Mission
officers on June 18 that the SOFA report was delayed six
months beyond the originally envisioned publication date
because of the lengthy and careful process of internal
FAO review. Every FAO department signed off on and
agreed with the final text. While there were some
individuals that disagreed with the SOFA conclusions, the
report represents the views of FAO as an institution.

NGOS' VEHEMENT CRITIQUE...
--------------


9. (U) Certain NGO groups have been vehement in their
criticism of the SOFA report. A coalition of 670
organizations (most of them relatively obscure national
and local groups) and 816 individuals involved in farming
and agricultural issues published an open letter to DG
Diouf on the Internet, under the title, "FAO Declares War
on Farmers, Not on Hunger." In their letter, the
signatories "express [their] outrage and disagreement
with the FAO report." They charged that the report "has
been used in a politically motivated public relations
exercise to support the biotechnology industry. It
promotes the genetic engineering of seeds and the further
skewing of research funding towards this technology and
away from ecologically sound methods developed by
farmers." They take FAO to task for not having consulted
farmers and civil society. "Although the ... document
struggles to appear neutral, it is highly biased and
ignores available evidence of the adverse ecological,
economic and health impacts of genetically engineered
crops." They also raise issues such as one company's
monopolization of the transgenic seed market, the problem
of "genetic contamination," and the report's apparent
endorsement of so-called Terminator technology.

...AND FAO'S REBUTTAL
--------------


10. (U) FAO responded with a letter from DG Diouf,
which it posted on its web site, together with the
incoming missive. In it, Diouf defends the SOFA process
as reflecting the views of "the most known specialists of
Member States on the subject." He explains that FAO's
position on biotechnology is determined by its competent
statutory bodies (specifically Codex Alimentarius and the
International Plant Protection Convention),under the
guidance of the FAO Conference and summits. Regarding
the fight against hunger, Diouf points out that he has
"always maintained that GMOs are not needed to achieve
the World Food Summit objective" [of halving the number
of hungry by 2015]. He goes on to say, however, that to
feed a projected world population of nine billion in 2050
will require a 60% increase in food production. "With
this in mind, we will have to use the scientific tools of
molecular biology, in particular the identification of
molecular markers, genetic mapping and gene transfer for
more effective plant enhancement, going beyond the
phenotype-based methods. Decisions on the rules and
utilization of these techniques must however be taken at
the international level by competent bodies such as the
Codex Alimentarius."

U.S. MISSION COMMENT
--------------


11. (SBU) FAO's SOFA report on agricultural
biotechnology is a welcome development, and a courageous
effort by the organization to address squarely one of the
most important, but controversial, issues facing world
agriculture. Although many of the report's main
conclusions had already been part of prior, lesser-known
FAO papers and analyses, and had been reflected in
statements by Assistant Director General for Agriculture
Louise Fresco and others over the past year or more, the
compilation of these views into a single, high-profile
report under the Director General's imprimatur gives them
new authority, impact and resonance. If it's not an
"endorsement of biotechnology," it certainly represents a
maturing view, and a move beyond some earlier FAO
pronouncements, where every favorable comment regarding
biotech required a balancing caveat.


12. (SBU) The report provides an array of quotable
quotes and citable facts that will be useful in
countering strident anti-biotech voices. In that regard,
the DG's open letter (para 10) is particularly
noteworthy. All this will help shift the terms of the
debate, although (as the NGO reaction demonstrates) there
will continue to be strong disagreement from some
quarters. Reaction of other governments has been muted.


13. (SBU) We'd like to be able to say that we had a
hand in the perceived turnaround in FAO's stance on
biotech. Clearly, USG and Mission logic and persistence
were persuasive and had an impact. That said, FAO was
probably never as anti-biotech as it was perceived to be
by some industry groups (reftel),although Diouf was
unpardonably slow to speak up when certain southern
African countries rejected biotech-derived food aid in

2003. It seems that the organization is reflecting in
part a gradual evolution in thinking among its
membership, including in particular some European and
African governments.


14. (SBU) In our assessment, careful consideration
should be given to how the USG reacts to the SOFA report.
An overly tight U.S. embrace of the report's conclusions
might be counterproductive by feeding NGO conspiracy
theorists and casting doubt on FAO's objectivity and
independence. Efforts to raise the profile of the report
by calling additional attention to it through resolutions
in other UN bodies also need to be evaluated in this
light. On the other hand, if handled deftly, the SOFA
report is an excellent resource and point of departure
for think pieces and op-ed articles, and we plan to use
it in that way.


15. (SBU) Finally, an important aspect of the SOFA
report is the challenge it puts before the USG and other

major donors. If we accept the report's premises and its
conclusion that capacity building of agricultural science
and technology in developing countries is essential, what
are we prepared to do about it? Until now, the USG has
been reluctant to make voluntary contributions to FAO's
biotech programs, partly because we preferred to work
bilaterally and partly because we probably did not fully
trust FAO's objectivity and ability to follow through on
biotech activities. Now, with FAO's position on biotech
coming into clearer focus and seemingly more in line with
ours, we may want to consider options for increased
cooperation with the organization in this area.

Hall


NNNN
2004ROME02436 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED