BANGKOK PROPOSAL: 2009 AG-BIOTECHNOLOGY OUTREACH FUNDS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BANGKOK 000141 SIPDIS SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED DEPARTMENT FOR EEB/TPP/MTAA/ABT - MSZYMANSKI AND JBOBO COMMERCE FOR USPTO USDA/FAS/OSTA/GILBERTA USDA/FAS/OCRA/LUCHOKD HO CHI MIN CITY FOR USDA MICHAEL RIEDEL CHIANG MAI FOR KROSIER DEPARTMENT FOR EB/TPP/ABT/BTT EB/TPP/ABT/BTT/JFINN EB/TPP/ABT/BTT/GCLEMENTS FAS/OSTA/MHENNEY DEPT PASS TO USTR/WEISEL MANILA FOR AG COUNSELOR PURDY CANBERRA FOR AG COUNSELOR WELLINGTON FOR AG COUNSELOR SCANDURRA E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD TBIO KPAO BEXP SENV TH SUBJECT: BANGKOK PROPOSAL: 2009 AG-BIOTECHNOLOGY OUTREACH FUNDS REF: 08 STATE 129940 ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: Embassy Bangkok requests $5439 in funding from the Bureau of Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs' agricultural biotechnology outreach funds for FY2009. EEB's funding would support a speaker for a workshop, to be co-funded by USDA and USPTO, entitled Biotechnology and Risk Assessment for Food Safety. The two-day workshop would be aimed at key policy makers and private sector producers to promote acceptance of biotechnology and U.S. agricultural biotech products. Other topics to be addressed include: state of the art in biotech; intellectual protection of locally-developed crops; aspects of low level presence of GMOs in local crops; and biotechnology and food security. Post would coordinate with other posts in the region to bring speakers to those countries as well. END SUMMARY. BACKGROUND -------------- ¶2. (U) Thailand is a difficult locus for biotech outreach. Although the Royal Thai Government (RTG) Cabinet revoked its ban on biotech field trials in December 2007, government and private sector stakeholders report that the Cabinet's new requirements are too restrictive. Public hearings give anti-biotech NGOs a strong voice on the issues. The requirement that any field trial must receive Cabinet approval gives virtual veto power to any cabinet members opposed to advancing biotechnology. The RTG has had some progress in developing a national biosafety framework, with the Cabinet approving in January 2008 a draft National Biosafety Act (currently under legal review). Thailand does not allow importation or production of any transgenic plants for commercial purposes except for processed food, soybeans and corn. ¶3. (SBU) In recent years, the USG has conducted several capacity building and outreach activities in Thailand in the biotechnology area. Nevertheless, Thai producers, retailers, and consumers remain misinformed about the safety, human health and environmental benefits of transgenic plants or foods. Anti-biotechnology groups, such as Green Peace Thailand and Organization of the Poor, strongly oppose field-testing or introduction of transgenic crops. Thai mass media often deliver unbalanced reporting. A 2005 survey by the Agricultural Economics Office showed more than 90 percent of Thai consumers felt they had no access to information on the costs and benefits of biotech crops, and consequently were skeptical of any health benefits derived from biotech food products. Only 10 percent of journalists surveyed reported that they had researched reference material on biotechnology. Despite the existing public bias, government and private sector scientists agree that biotech outreach activities educating the public should be continued. ¶4. (U) Thailand is fairly technologically advanced and has an active biotech research program run by the RTG's National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC). BIOTEC's extensive program includes research on biosafety but knowledge is limited in the area of risk assessment and management. The Biotechnology Alliance Association (BAA),a Thai biotechnology advocacy group, presented its study of agricultural biotech benefits in 2007. ¶5. (U) The BAA report's Papaya/cotton case study indicated that genetically enhanced cotton and papaya - both important crops in Thailand - were successfully grown in other countries and were available for adoption here after passing through a biosafety regulatory process. Insect pests and viral diseases have devastated much of the country's traditional production of both these crops. Thailand's area planted in cotton went from over 150,000 hectares to recently less than 11,200 hectares. The report also estimated that Thailand loses US $3 - 7 million per year from not allowing genetically modified papaya (based on GM papaya's average yields of 74 tons/hectares against the current 18 tons/hectare derived from non-GM papaya varieties). ¶6. (U) There are also biotech intellectual property (IP) issues (and needs) in Thailand. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has funded patent examiner training in biotech, but producers are still wary. Registration of new plant varieties under the Plant Variety Protection Act began in April 2006, but producers are concerned BANGKOK 00000141 002 OF 003 about enforcement of their patent rights due to the wide availability of counterfeit seeds. The United States has urged Thailand to strengthen the 1999 Act to make it consistent with the 1991 International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and to accede to this convention. Workshop Details -------------- ¶7. (U) The workshop would target key government decision makers in the Ministries of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries; the Ministry of Commerce; the Ministry of Finance; the Cabinet; the Ministry of Public Health; and private industry (especially seed producers) and consumer representatives. Both government and private sector stakeholders have stated that effective risk communication about the risks of biotech is essential for moving biotechnology forward. With the current extent of poor public awareness, post would like to combine USDA, USPTO and DOS resources for an integrated workshop program in the medium term, building on this workshop. With a new government in place, biosafety issues are new to many relevant government officials. USDA/FAS will submit its companion proposal shortly. ¶8. (U) Post would include supplemental topics that all bear on the primary focus: risk assessment/management. A speaker funded by USPTO would communicate that the IP aspects of these issues need not be a losing situation for farmers and local developers, and show how farmers and breeders can protect their own new developments. Given the reputation that Thailand has as an agricultural and industrial innovator, this could pay off. The second IP issue the conference would address would be the strengthening of Thailand's protection for new plant varieties, both under the 1991 International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and under the Thai patent system. As the conference will be aimed at regulators, this subject would be a good complement. ¶9. (U) Other supplementary topics would include a review of the state of the art to alert NGO and producer/exporter attendees of the latest benefits of agricultural biotech. RTG officials are proud that Thailand has been a donor country regionally for food security crises. Updating the state of technology would reinforce for regulators how agricultural biotech can achieve food security and donor objectives. Another speaker would discuss the issue of low level and adventitious presence of GMO's in Thailand. A case study presentation of the papaya virus would put bio tech issues in concrete perspective for Thailand. ¶10. (U) The workshop would likely be entitled "Biotechnology and risk management for food safety." Press would be invited. Post will request the services of the Bureau of International Information Programs' (IIP) Speaker Programs for Biotechnology. The estimated combined cost is $5439 for travel, lodging and per diem. USDA would fund the workshop venue expenses, travel for USDA speaker and travel for Laotian and Cambodian participants. USPTO would cover the costs of its speakers. ¶11. (U) Post will evaluate the success of this event with several criteria: (1) the number and quality of participants; (2) a participant evaluation at conclusion; (3) review of media coverage; and (4) follow-ups with selected participants on how knowledge acquired at the workshop was applied in their policy and businesses decisions. In the longer term, we will look for positive changes in Thailand relevant regulations and increased use of biotech products and innovation. Synergies with other posts -------------- ¶12. (U) Post plans to coordinate with Posts at other priority biotech outreach countries that are submitting proposals, including Chiang Mai, Vietnam, Indonesia and Cambodia. Speakers brought from the U.S. may be programmed at all five locations. Embassies Jakarta and Phnom Penh have reported that risk assessment outreach is needed. USDA proposes funding attendance in the Thailand workshop by participants from Cambodia and Laos. Future Outreach -------------- ¶13. (U) Future outreach targets include public education and BANGKOK 00000141 003 OF 003 biosafety data base training. Post feels a foundation of field trials is needed to show agricultural biotech benefits to the public in the future. The various biotech-related agencies (including Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Department of Agriculture, BIOTEC, and Food and Drug Administration) are developing a biosafety database for Thailand and could benefit from training or capacity building in this task. ¶14. (U) Contact officers at post are ESTH officer Howell Howard for State, howardhh@state.gov; Corey Pickelsimer for USDA, corey.pickelsimer@fas.usda.gov; and Jenny Ness for USPTO, Jennifer.Ness@mail.doc.gov. Post will email EEB the USDA/FAS proposal as soon as it is available. JOHN