Chapter 22 marker-assisted selection: policy ... · Chapter 22 – Marker-assisted selection: policy considerations and options for developing countries 445 areas where people’s

Chapter 22

marker-assisted selection: policy considerations and options

for developing countries

James D. Dargie

Marker-assisted selection – Current status and future perspectives in crops, livestock, forestry and fish442

SummaryPolicy options for research, development and diffusion of the products of marker-assisted selection (MAS) depend on the development objectives and priorities of theagriculturalsector,itsvarioussubsectorsandcross-cuttingactivitiesdealingwithscienceandtechnology(S&T),includingbiotechnologyandthemanagementofgeneticresources.Thepolicyagendaineachoftheseareashasshiftedfromthetraditionalfocusof“raisingproductivity” toabroaderagendaof improvingrural livelihoods inbotheconomicandnon-economictermsinsupportoftheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs).SecuringfinancialcommitmentsfromnationalgovernmentsanddonorstoinvestinMASandrelatedmolecularapproachesrequiresmoreactiveengagementbynationalagriculturalresearchandextensionsystems(NARES) in theprocessesofrevisingpovertyreductionstrategypapers (PRSPs), and in developing policies and strategies for agricultural development,S&Tandgeneticresources.AgricultureandagriculturalS&TareundergoingrapidchangebutfewdevelopingcountrieshaveeitheragriculturalS&Torbiotechnologypolicies.Theyneedtodevelopthesetobuildcoherenceacrosstheagriculturalsectorincludingdelineatingtherolesofpublicandprivatesectorentities,andasameanstostrengthenaccountabilitywithrespecttoprioritysetting,monitoringandevaluatingtheoutcomesandimpactsofboth research and practical applications of MAS. Options are provided for developingand implementing MAS programmes and projects, for setting priorities and evaluatingoutcomesandimpacts.GiventheuncertainnatureoftechnicalchangeandthelongtimeframesthatoftencharacterizetranslationoftheresearchandextensionservicesprovidedbyNARESintosustainableimprovementsinproductivityandlivelihoodsthroughgeneticenhancement, it is concluded that greater emphasis needs to be placed on research toanalyse systematically the critical paths involved in successfully transforming researchoutputsintodevelopmentoutcomesandimpactsandthatthiscanbestbeachievedusinganinnovationsystemsapproach.

Chapter 22 – Marker-assisted selection: policy considerations and options for developing countries 443

introduCtionThis book provides a comprehensivedescription and assessment of MAS forincreasingtherateofgeneticgaininawiderange of agriculturally important speciesusingDNA-basedmarkersforbothsimpleandquantitativetraits.Itsvariouschaptersattest to the remarkable progress that hasbeen made in researching this approach.This progress has only been possiblethrough the determined pursuit of multi-disciplinarity,i.e.bybringingtogetherintoteams the skills and knowledge of indi-viduals who could: innovate around thesuiteoftechniquesprovidedbyadvancesinmolecularbiologytoisolate,multiply,iden-tify and insert DNA sequences; produceinnovations in electronics and engineeringto miniaturize, automate and providehigh sample preparation and analyticalthroughput; use statistical and computerscience to analyse and manage the infor-mation (bioinformatics) obtained; extendknowledge of the mechanisms that regu-late physiological processes in plants andanimals; and use quantitative genetics inassociation with conventional and novelbreeding and selection approaches. Thisresearch has contributed enormously tothe processes of adapting the basic tech-niques and tools of molecular biology tostudythegeneticmake-upofagriculturallyimportant species at the molecular level,andtoaccumulatingknowledgeofthelink-agesbetweenDNAsequencesandinsomecases genes and traits that are importantforthelivelihoodsoffarmers,forestersandfisherfolk.

Yet, while recognizing this admirableprogress, for most species and most traitsthat are important for both large com-mercial enterprises in the industrializedworldandmoreparticularlyforsmall-scaleandresource-poorproductionsystemsthat

constitute the livelihoods of the majorityof the rural poor in developing countries,MAS has still to deliver on its undoubtedpotential, and on the claims in academicand other circles that it would “revolu-tionize” the way advantageous varietiesand breeding stock are developed. As aresult, there is still a substantial mismatchbetween“thefield”andtheexpectationsofpolicy-makers,socialscientists,communitygroupsandnon-governmentorganizations(NGOs), etc. In fact, the reality is that,while the approach has certainly trans-formed laboratory operations, apart fromitsusebytheprivatesectorinbackcrossingof transgenes into elite inbred lines ofmaizeandothercropsandsomecommer-cial applications in livestock, the impactsof MAS on rural livelihoods have to datefallenwellshortofexpectations.

This chapter does not dwell on thescientific and technical issues underpin-ning MAS, nor does it challenge eitherthe need for continued research or theunquestionably greater opportunities forscientific and technical breakthroughs andsocio-economic benefits that will surelyarise from sequencing and post-genomicsresearch–providedlevelsofinvestmentingathering and analysing phenotypic datakeep pace with molecular developments.Itsfocusisontheevolvingpolitical,policyand institutional settings (both nationallyand internationally) within which agricul-ture andagricultural S&T institutions andextension services are operating in devel-opingcountries,andonsomeoftheoptionsopen to governments and public sectorinstitutions in these countries to engagemoreforcefully inMAS-relatedR&Dandthediffusionofgeneticallyimprovedprod-ucts generated through this approach toproducers. It argues that the challengesand opportunities for doing so cannot be


divorced from the policies and objectivesunderpinning country-based and donor-assisted strategies forachieving the targetssetbytheWorldFoodSummit(WFS),theMDGs,andasdescribedinnationalPRSPsand in national and regional programmesfor food security. Policies and strategiesfor successful implementationofMASarealso inextricably linked to those for thesector as a whole and its various subsec-tors, and encompass cross-cutting issueslike the management of S&T includingmodern biotechnology, genetic resourcesand other developments in the interna-tional policy and regulatory arenas thatcross lines of national sovereignty. Policyconsiderations and options for MAS aretherefore described within these broaderframeworks.

The chapter begins by outlining thesocialandeconomiccontextswithinwhichthe agricultural sector currently operates,the challenges it faces, the main polit-ical forces driving change, and both theprocesses and considerations involved indeveloping comprehensive agriculturaldevelopment policies. It then goes on todiscuss and provide options available tocountriesforformulatingpoliciesforagri-cultural research, S&T, biotechnology andgenetic resources for food and agriculture(GRFA), arguing that in most countriesthereissubstantialscopeforgreater“joinedup” thinking and coherence of action informulating,implementingandmonitoringthe outcomes and impacts of programmesand projects involving MAS. Based ontheauthor’s interpretationof the informa-tionprovidedbyothercontributorstothisbook, there then follows a section cov-eringsomegeneralpointsthatpolicy-anddecision-makers should consider beforeembarkingonMAS,andthisisfollowedbysections dealing respectively with consid-

erationsforpriority-settingandoptionsforimplementingMAS.ThechapterconcludesbylookingatthefutureofMAS,stressingtheneedforgreatereffortinbuildingpolit-icalsupport,insettingprioritiesandbetterdelineatingtherolesandresponsibilitiesofdifferentstakeholders,infosteringpartner-shipsandincreatingmoreeffectivedeliverymechanisms.

Contexthunger, poverty and agriculture The number of people who go hungryeach day in developing countries standsat around 820million and around 24per-centof thepeople indevelopingcountriesare absolutely poor, living on less thanUS$1aday(FAO,2006).Hungerandpov-erty in the midst of plenty are the centralchallenges in today’s global economy andsociety,butifthetrendsofthepastdecadeareextrapolatedforward,therewillstillbe582millionundernourishedpeopleby2015(FAO,2006).Thisiswellshortofthetargetof412millionthatwassetatthetimeoftheWFSin1996,althoughpossiblyontracktomeet the somewhat less ambitious MDGsthat were set in 2000. More than half ofthe 582million will be in South Asia andEastAsia,with203millionand123millionrespectively,whilesub-SaharanAfricawillbe home to 179million hungry. The chal-lengeisnotonlytoprovidefoodsecurityin2015 for thepresent820millionmalnour-ished, but for the additional 600millionpeoplebornoverthecomingnineyearsandthe nine billion people projected to makeuptheworld’spopulationbythemiddleofthiscentury.

The nature and causes of hunger andpovertyaremany,varyingwidelybetweenandwithincountries;theyarealsoevolvingand often interlinked. Even so, the factthat they are most concentrated in rural


areas where people’s livelihoods dependonagriculture(includingfisheriesandfor-estry)andthenon-farmsmallandmediumagro-industrial processing and servicingindustries that are connected to it, meansthat investing in agriculture and morebroadly in rural development must beat the heart of any strategy for hungerand poverty reduction. While the meas-ures needed certainly go well beyond theissueofproducingmorefoodandagricul-turalproducts,achievinggreateryieldsandhigher value products from the same plotof landorenterprisemustbeakey ingre-dient for the great majority of developingcountries.

How to do this at a lower cost toimprove household access to food andthe competitiveness of small-scale farmerswhile maintaining or improving producerincentives, the sustainability of farmingsystems, and the many services providedto societies by both managed and naturalland and aquatic ecosystems, poses hugechallenges.Particularlychallengingistack-lingsituationswhereagriculturalpotentialis low, resources poor and markets dis-tant.Any investment inMASneeds tobejustifiedonthebasisofitspotentialtocon-tributeinaneffectiveandefficientmannertothesechallenges.

the evolving context of agricultural growth and policyThe situation facing rural producers,households and public institutions now isquite different from that of 20 years ago.Political support and consequently publicsector investments inagricultureandruraldevelopment have fallen both nationallyand from international donors and finan-cialinstitutions.Privatizationhasbeentheoverarchingpolicyresponse,butoftentheprivate sector has failed to fill the gaps,

leaving many producers with no or sig-nificantly reduced flowsof the inputs andservices critical for both production andaccess to markets such as technologies,extension and credit. Additionally, marketaccessforpoorproducershasdeteriorateddue to greater integration of the globaleconomy and other market distortions,and the need to conform to internationalsanitary, phytosanitary and food safetystandards as well as to product accredita-tion schemes established by supermarketchainsandothers.Complicatingthesitua-tion furtherarepestsanddiseases,naturalresourcedegradationandclimatechange.

On the positive side, there is irref-utable evidence of a deepening politicalcommitment within governments and theinternationalcommunitytotacklepoverty,hunger and environmental degradationurgently and in a concerted manner. Atthe global level, this includes the Plan ofAction that emerged from the WFS in1996,thesetofeightMDGsthatfollowedthe United Nations Millennium Summitin 2000, and the Plan of Implementationfrom the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment in 2002. Regionally, itincludes the vision and strategic frame-work document for the New Partnershipfor Africa’s Development (NEPAD) andits underpinning Comprehensive AfricaAgriculture Development Programme(CAADP)(NEPAD,2002).

Nationally, the most notable examplesare: the development of revised country-driven PRSPs, which aim to link nationalpublic actions, donor support and theresults needed to support the MDGs, andwhichprovidethebasisforWorldBankandInternationalMonetaryFund’sconcessionallendingandfordebtreliefundertheheavilyindebted poor countries (HIPC) initia-tive;nationaldevelopmentstrategies,plans


and programmes; sector-wide approaches(SWaps) that are aligned with the MDGs;andnationalandregionalprogrammes forfood security that are supported by FAOand its donors. In one form or another,these documents describe national macr-oeconomic, structural and social policiesand programmes to promote growth andreducepoverty,andmapoutplansfortheirattainmentandprioritiesforbothdomesticand external assistance. With respect tothe latter, the 2005 Paris Declaration onAid Effectiveness provides a multidonorcommitment to improve aid effectivenessthrough harmonization, alignment andmanaging for results (see, for example,www.oecd.org/document/18/0,2340,en_2649_3236398_35401554_1_1_1_1,00.html).

Significantwithinessentiallyalloftheseprocesses is the shift from the traditionalagenda of “raising productivity” for agri-culturetothebroaderagendaofimprovingrural livelihoods in both economic andnon-economicterms.Alsosignificantisthefactthatdespitetheirpositivetrackrecords,agricultureand,evenmoreso,agriculturalresearcharenothighonthelistofprioritiesincountryPRSPs.ThispointsclearlytotheneedforagriculturalministriesandNARESto engage more actively in the process ofrevising future PRSPs. However, successin elevating the priority given to agricul-ture within PRSPs will only be achievedby formulating and delivering agriculturalR&D policies, programmes and activitiesthat are coherent within the agriculturalsector, with national PRSPs and with theMDGs. Noteworthy here is that in 20041the Economic and Social Council of theUnited Nations (ECOSOC) underscored

1 UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)Resolution 2004/68 “Science and Technology forDevelopment”(E/2004/INF/2/Add.3).

thatmostdevelopingcountriesareunlikelytomeettheMDGswithoutaclearpoliticalcommitmenttomakingS&Tamongthetopprioritiesintheirdevelopmentagendas,andrecommended that governments increaseR&Dexpendituretoatleastonepercentofgrossdomesticproduct(GDP).

ComprehenSive agriCultural development poliCieS Defining these policies basically entailsdetermining the broad-based objectivesof the sector,2 which, in the new con-textofdevelopment,alsoneeds to includegoals for enhancing social equity and nat-ural resource sustainability. Essential totheprocess is “mapping the terrain”.Thisrequiresevidence-basedstocktakingofpasttrends within each subsector (e.g. withrespecttoproduction,marketingandlegis-lation),andidentifyingbarrierstorealizingopportunitiesforexpansion,strategicalter-natives for moving forward based on anassessment of what the future is likely tohold, and the instruments and means fortheir implementation (e.g. through newlegislation, administrative decrees, publicand/ordonorinvestment,andparticipationbytheprivatesectorandcivilsociety).

Preparation then moves on to developan integrated sector-widepackageofpoli-ciestoguideimplementation,includinganinvestment programme. Policies directedtowards rural poverty reduction throughagriculture must be based on (a) deter-mining where poor people intersect mostprominentlywithagricultureandthemajorrisks they face (e.g.drought, salinity, dis-easeoutbreaks);(b)thetypesofproductionsystems and commodities they produce;

2 In many countries, forestry and fisheries areseparate sectors with ministries responsible fordeveloping National Forestry or Fisheries ActionorDevelopmentPlans


and (c) the linkages theyhave tomarkets,research and extension systems, etc. Someapproaches for obtaining this informationaredescribedlater.

Fromthestandpointofplanninginvest-mentsandstrategies,itshouldsetthesceneforhowthegovernmentintendstopursuereductions in poverty and food insecuritythrough agriculture, answering questionssuch as: will greater emphasis be placedon self-sufficiency and, if so, for whatcommodities;towhatextentdoesthegov-ernmentintendtopromoteproductionbysourcingseedsandplantingmaterials,ferti-lizers,breedingandbroodstock,andfeedsforlivestock,fishandshellfishfromabroadorrelyingonitsowngeneticresourcesandresearchanddisseminationsystems;doesitforesee greater private sector involvementand, ifso, inwhatareasandhowwill thisbe achieved; what is its attitude towardsmodern biotechnology – does it intend topursue this and, if so for what purposesand how? For example, for internal polit-ical,external trade,costandtechnicalskillconsiderations, do investments in MASappear more attractive than pursuing thedevelopmentand/orimportationofgeneti-cally modified organisms (GMOs),3 andshouldinvestmentsinMASand/orGMOsbegivenpriorityoverconventionalgeneticselectionapproaches?

The value of having an agriculturaldevelopment policy in place lies not onlyin the end result, i.e. a description of thecourse of action that a country intends totaketomovethesectoranditsvarioussub-sectorsforwardoveragiventimeframe.Italsocomesfromtheprocessitself,whichifdonewithcommitmenttodetailandrigourinanalysingbothpasttrendsandfuturesce-

3 ReferredtoasLMOs(livingmodifiedorganisms)intheCartagenaProtocolonBiosafety (2000) to theUNConventiononBiologicalDiversity(1992).

nariosforthesector,andinclusivenessandtransparencytoensurethebroadestpossiblestakeholderparticipationandbuy-in,leadsto policies and strategies that are coherentwithinandbetweensubsectorsandbetweenagriculture and rural development. It alsohasbetterprospectsof securing consensuswithin the sector and endorsement for itsimplementationfromotherministrieswithastakeinruraldevelopment.

There is clearly no ready-made modelforconductingthisprocessorforhowthepolicy itself is implemented, monitoredand the lessons learned are fed back forupdating, but sound leadership and com-mitment are critical forpreparing relevantand objective inputs through analysis andsynthesis of information available withinthe ministry itself and from other rele-vantministries.Ideally,informationisalsoprovided by research, extension, highereducation and other service institutionsand bodies in the public and private sec-tors including from civil society throughdocumentation and/or organizing meet-ings at central, local and even communitylevels, and by outside advisers. In otherwords,both“top-down”and“bottom-up”approachesareessentialtoachievebalanceand consensus with respect to goals andobjectives.

Agreeing and implementing policiesandstrategiesthataremutuallysupportiveand where the “sum” is greater than the“parts”, to meet the needs of the hugediversity of farming systems that exist indeveloping countries while targeting poorproducersandconsumersisclearlyahugechallenge requiring negotiation, compro-miseandrealism.It isalsosomethingthatcan neither be rushed nor “set in stone”,andafullyintegrated“rolling”policythatis updated at regular intervals representstheideal.Developinganagriculturalpolicy


reformpackageinHonduras,forexample,involved around 80meetings over a yearin which both Campesino and large-scaleproducerorganizationsparticipated,whileinGuyanamorethan100meetingsofcivilsociety task forces were held over severalyears(www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol//354/agrc_pl_str_cnpt_prct_031EN.pdf).

poliCieS for agriCultural reSearCh and extenSionThe absence of systematic and compara-tive data on the benefits arising from theuse of different technologies in agricul-ture precludes attaching priority to anyone approach. However, the high rates ofreturnandthereductionsinbotheconomic(Pardey and Beintema, 2001; Evansonand Gollin, 2003; Raizer, 2003) and non-economic poverty (Meinzen-Dick et al.,2004) are impressive by any standards,and justify many of the past investmentsmade in research and technology transfer.Consequently, it is hardly surprising thatmobilizing and directing national institu-tions and skills towards capitalizing moreforcefully on the opportunities availablethroughS&TtomeettheMDGsandotherglobal, regional and national targets areconsistently stated commitments withindifferent sectors and themes. Most note-worthyinthisregardaretheplantoachievetheMDGspreparedbytheUNMillenniumProject and the underlying report of itsTask Forces on Science, Technology andInnovation (UN Millennium Project,2005a and 2005b), Africa’s S&T consoli-dated plan of action (NEPAD, 2005), andthe CAADP and InterAcademy Councilreportsonrealizingthepromiseandpoten-tialofagricultureinAfrica(NEPAD,2002;IAC,2004).

Yet,hereagain,judgedbythecontentofcurrentPRSPsandagriculturaldevelopment

plans,thevisionofhowS&TcancontributetoenhancingthevalueofGRFAandtherebyto achieving national economic and socialobjectives is invariably either missing, orthe belief is projected that “on the shelf”technologies and existing knowledge onlyhavetobeadaptedtolocalcircumstancestomeetthechallengesahead.

Unquestionably, policies and strat-egies promoting adaptive research anddisseminationofexistingtechnologieswithasuccessfultrackrecordmusthavehighestpriority in the short term. However, pri-orities that will respond to the needs ofsmall producers and rural households fornew technologies in 10 or 20 years time(andrequiringmoreupstreamstrategicandapplied research) also need to be identi-fied now because (and despite the claimsof some scientists), even with the availa-bilityofmoreadvancedR&Dmethodsandtools,thereisnoreasontobelievethattheuptakeofnewagriculturaltechnologieswillcontinue tobeother than slowand incre-mental(describedbyPardeyandBeintema,2001,as“slowmagic”).Inthisregard, theimportanceofcountrieshavingpluralistic,participatory, client-focused, decentralizedand gender-sensitive advice on the proc-essesoftechnologydiffusionandadoptionshouldbeemphasized.

Maximizing the relevance and futurecontributions of new technologies tooverall agricultural development alsorequires greater attention to planning anddecision-making about the direction andmanagement of the scientific techniquesandtoolsaswellasthegeneticresourcestowhichtheywillbeappliedinfoodandagri-cultureagainstthebackdropofcurrentandlikelyfuturedrivingforcesofchange.

Theseforcesinclude:• political policies, where, as outlined

previously, the new framework for


agriculturalpolicyfocusesonalleviationof rural poverty. By shifting futureinvestments in research towards anemerging paradigm of “research fordevelopment”, the research agenda isbroadened to ensure functional linkagesto national development policies and toincludethewiderdimensionsoflivelihoodstrategiesinbothplanningandassessingthe impact of projects and programmes.It also shifts past emphasis on input-based technology supply by scientiststo demand and need-driven innovationsystems involving many other actors.Political commitment is also crucial toensuresustainabilityoffunding;

• advances in science, and most notably in the computing and biological sciences,as these have provided new techniquesandtoolsforresearcherstolocatebetterand therefore target production systemsand communities most associated withpoverty and food insecurity, and newtechnologiesintheformofseeds,breed-ingstock,vaccines,etc.withthepotentialto increase productivity within agricul-turalsystemsandwiderfoodchainsandimproveeconomicandsocialwell-being.They are also helping to overcome bar-rierstowidersocialengagementindeci-sion-making;

• growing acceptance of the importance of optimizing system productivitybybetter-managing the interactions among diver-sified farm enterprises and sustainableresourcemanagementandensuringaccesstomarkets,ratherthanmaximizingindi-vidualcroporanimalperformance;

• expanded intellectual property rights (IPRs) for biological innovations (seeChapter 20) and changed norms foraccessing and sharing the benefits ofgenetic resources in general and plantgeneticresourcesinparticular,supported

byinternationalagreements,conventionsandtreaties(seelater);

• increased private investment in S&T in general, and within agriculture, throughboth R&D directed primarily towardscrop,livestockandfishgeneticimprove-ment, and the delivery of productsthrough multinational and national seedand breeding companies and their fran-chises;

• expanded public–private sector collabora-tioninresearch,developmentandexten-sion, in some countries supported bylegislation;

• increased public awareness of the rel-evanceoftheuptakeofnewtechnologiesand their significance for improving thelivelihoodsofruralpeople.These changes have already been felt

most forcefully in industrialized and largedevelopingcountriessuchasBrazil,China,IndiaandSouthAfrica,wherethedemand-pull created for products of R&D isgreatest.However, their impact is increas-ingly spilling over into others, includingthe low-income food-deficit countrieswith much less capacity to benefit fromorotherwise adjust to thenewrealitiesofconductingS&Tinaglobalizedworld.Animportant issue for all countries is there-forehowtoadapttheirNAREStorespondbettertoboththecurrentandlikelyfutureneedsoftheiragriculturalsectors,andinsodoingtoconsidertheirS&T“futures”,oneofwhich isclearlymodernbiotechnology.Nonetheless,judgingbythecontentofbothPRSPs and national agricultural develop-mentpoliciesandstrategies,fewdevelopingcountriesappeartohavestartedalongthisroad by producing an integrated agricul-tural research and extension policy. Thissituation is hardly conducive to obtainingpolitical and financial support for R&Don approaches such as MAS, which, as


is clear from other chapters in this book,still remains largely in the laboratoriesandexperimentalstationsofresearchinsti-tutesinbothindustrializedanddevelopingcountries.

national S&t and BioteChnology poliCieSLike the comprehensive agriculture devel-opment policy, the rationale for having anational policy on S&T and, within thator separately,onbiotechnology, is topro-vide a framework for government andkey stakeholders to work together in acoherent and mutually supportive way toensure thatdevelopmentsarecaptured fornational benefit. The principles involvedand mechanics of how it can be devel-opedandmanagedareessentiallythesameas those described earlier for agriculturaldevelopmentpolicyplanning,themaindif-ferencebeinginthebreadthofgovernmentinvolvement – being cross-cutting issues,developing and implementing nationalS&T and modern biotechnology policiesare clearly cross-sectoral responsibilitieswithcoordinationnormallyassignedtotheMinistry of Science and Technology. Theexamples given in Box1 illustrate optionsfor pursuing the development of a bio-technology policy. More information onnational biotechnology policies in indi-vidual countries is available at www.fao.org/biotech/country.asp.

While many countries have an overallS&T policy in place, and these and someother developing countries now havebiotechnology policies (the most recentexamples being Bangladesh, Kenya,Malaysia and Nigeria), the vast majoritydo not. Most national agricultural R&Dinstitutions therefore lack the compassprovided by the process of developingan overall national policy to guide the

development and management of anagricultural biotechnology policy andfrom there, to formulate programmesand projects specific to the agriculturalsector. This paralysis in policy-makingonly serves to promote supply-driven, atthe expense of demand-driven, priority-setting andhence targetingof investmentstowards questionable needs. It also leadstofragmentedanduncoordinatedactivities,andinsomecasestodelaysintheadoptionof technologies that could help improvethe efficiency of agricultural research andprovideproductsandservicesthatdirectlyorindirectlyimprovelivelihoods.Indeed,thesurveyconductedbyFAOonapplicationsofMASin thecropsubsector (Chapter2)illustrateswellboth thedearthof skills inpriority-setting and coordination withinmany countries that adopt this approachand thecomplete lackof suchactivities inmany others. While this can be explainedto some extent by the relative novelty ofbiotechnologyapplications, as far asMASis concerned, the paucity of informationon the actual or potential economic andsocialbenefitsoftheproductsarisingfromits application in the different agriculturalsubsectors is surely a major stumblingblocktopriority-settingandinvestment.

national agricultural research and bio-technology policies Even in the absenceof anoverallnationalbiotechnology policy, countries have anumberofoptionsforimprovingthestra-tegic planning, monitoring and evaluationof modern biotechnology applications,including MAS, within their agriculturalandwiderruraldevelopmentsectors.

The preferred approach is for theMinistry of Agriculture in associationwithotherrelevantministries(particularlyHigherEducation)tochampiontheprocess


ofestablishinganopenlearningprocessforanationalagriculturalS&Tpolicydialogueincluding biotechnology, leading eventu-allytoaplanningdocumentandaprocessofmonitoringandevaluatingoutcomesandimpacts. This could be achieved by estab-lishing a national committee that wouldthen define terms of reference and setup various task forces/working groups ina participatory and pluralistic manner toreport on specific subsector and thematicissues.

In common with other planning pro-cedures, the first step should involve adiagnostic study and analysis of existingS&T policies as well as of the national,regional and international S&T landscape.Bijker(2007)providesanexcellentdescrip-tion of the criteria for building an S&Tpolicyviaapolicydialogueandamethod-ology for carrying out a diagnostic study.Essential for promoting a well thought-out policy and its effective managementis the closest possible involvement of all

boX 1

national biotechnology policies: thailand and South africa

InThailand,theNationalBiotechnologyPolicyFramework(2004-2009)waspreparedbyaNationalBiotechnologyPolicyCommitteechairedby thePrimeMinister.This then led tothesettingupofanationalcentrespecificallydevotedtobiotechnology(theNationalCentrefor Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology) under the National Science and TechnologyDevelopment Agency. It is both a granting and research agency with its own researchlaboratoriesandisfundedfromacombinationofgovernmentfinances,revenuefromservicesandcommercialprojects andcompetitivegrants fromnational and international sources. Ithasmajoractivitiesinagriculturalbiotechnologyincluding:ongenomemappingandmarker-assisted breeding of rice; on cassava improvement where a database of cassava expressedsequenced tags (ESTs) is currently being developed and employed in the study of starchbiosynthesis; and shrimp, with major projects on ESTs and genome studies for applicationinbreeding,diseasediagnosticsandshrimpdomestication.Noteworthyalsoisthatthroughjointgovernment-privatesectorfunding,Thailandwillhost“BiotechnologyAsia007”withthefocusfirmlyonagriculture.

In the case of South Africa, the National Biotechnology Strategy (2001) arose from agovernmentrequestandtheworkofaninterdepartmentalcommitteeledbytheDepartmentofArts,Culture,ScienceandTechnologywithparticipationoftheDepartmentsofAgriculture,Health,TradeandIndustry,andEnvironmentalAffairsandTourism.ThiscommitteesetupanExpertPaneltoprovidespecificinputsbasedagainon“mappingtheterrain”intermsofcurrentapplications,legislationandfinance,andparticipationbyallkeystakeholdergroups,etc.Arisingfromthepoliciesproposedwithinthestrategydocument,aNationalBiotechnologyAdvisoryCommitteewasestablishedin2006andtheDepartmentofScienceandTechnologycreated a Biotechnology Unit. Since then, three Biotechnology Research and InnovationCentres and a National Bio-informatics Network have been established, interdepartmentalcooperationhasbeenpromoted,andbilateralagreementshavebeensigned.Again,agriculturalapplicationsofbiotechnologyreceivehighpriorityinthisnationalstrategy.


players with a stake in research, devel-opment and diffusion of genetic material(ministry personnel, representatives ofNARES,privatecompanies,NGOs,farm-er’sgroups, etc.).However, its focusmustbeondevelopingnewnationalagriculturalS&T (including biotechnology) policiesand strategies to: (a) support institutionalreforms, including intensifying coopera-tionatnational, regionaland internationallevels; (b) strengthen national capacities;and(c)identifynewfundingmechanisms.

Within this process, countries need toidentify priorities and appropriate levelsof resources toassign tobiotechnology inlight of their socio-economic conditionsand cultural contexts and, in situations ofno-growthbudgets,theyneedtodecideonwhatistobedivertedfromotherimportantproblems. A critical issue is also reachingagreement on the roles and responsibili-ties of public and private sector entities.Suggestionsaregiven later forconsideringMASwithinthisoverallcontext.

Analternative–orpreferablyaspartoftheprocessofpreparinganationalagricul-tural S&T policy – is to draw up specificsubsectorstrategies.Thishastheadvantageof focusing minds and resources withinthat subsector in a holistic manner, forexample, inthecaseofthecropsubsector,by bringing together stakeholders dealingwithbreeding,conservationandseedpro-duction/dissemination.Anotherpossibility,veryattractivefromboththeS&Tangleandforavoidingthecreationofnewstructures,is to cover modern biotechnology policydevelopment and programming throughexisting structures for managing geneticresources (see below for more details onrationale). Least attractive and cost-effec-tive, but unfortunately all too often thecase, is for individual research institutionsanduniversitiestodrawupandimplement

policiesandprogrammesthat lackcoordi-nationwithothersdealingwiththesameorcloselyrelatedsubjectmatter, inparticulargeneticresourcesmanagement.

Whatever the path chosen and not-withstanding the need to ensure nationalownershipoftheprocess,advice(ifneededand requested) on the actual or poten-tial role of MAS within the agriculturalS&T landscape should be sought fromindependent sources. These include theConsultative Group on InternationalAgriculturalResearch(CGIAR),FAO,theWorldBank,theInternationalCouncilforScience(ICSU),theInterAcademyCouncil(IAC), the InterAcademy Panel (IAP),regional academies such as the FederationofAsianScientificAcademiesandSocieties,andnationalacademies.

national policies on genetic resources in food and agricultureMAS needs access to DNA-based tech-niques, constructs, tools, databases,statistical packages, etc., and Chapter 20describestheIPRssurroundingthesewhichinclude patents, copyrights, trademarksetc., as well as providing suggestions toNARESaboutacquiringthesetechnologicalresources.However,successfulapplicationof MAS also depends on accessing newbreedingtechniquesand,asmanynationalcollections may lack sufficient diversity(e.g. to reduce vulnerability to pests anddiseases),theymayneedtoacquiregeneticresources that are available inothercoun-tries within landraces, wild ancestors andrelatives,parental andbreeding lines,pro-tected varieties, breeds and broodstock.Additionally, as knowledge grows of thelinkages between phenotype and geno-type, awareness increases of the potentialvalueofgeneticresourcesand,asparticipa-toryprocessesinvolvinglocalcommunities


become more prevalent, so the demandsfor both germplasm exchange and sharingthe benefits of the final products that aregeneratedfromR&Dwillincrease.Infact,over the last 30 years, and due to a com-bination of the new possibilities openedup by molecular biology and some wellpublicized cases of “biopiracy”, govern-mentshaveincreasinglycometoappreciatethe actual and potential value of geneticresources. This has resulted in an expan-sionoflegally-bindingglobalandregionalinstruments,andnationallaws,regulationsand policy concerning issues of access,ownershipandcontrolofgeneticresourcesand the sharing of benefits arising fromtheiruseorenhancement.

ForthefurtherpursuitandfuturesuccessofMAS,policy-anddecision-makersaswellas individualscientistsneedtobeawareoftherequirementsforinternationalexchangesofgeneticresourcessuchasthosedescribedintheCBD(1992),theInternationalTreatyon Plant Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture(ITPGRFA)(seeStannardet al.,2004 and Bragdon, 2004) and its standardMaterial Transfer Agreement (MTA), andthe World Trade Organization (WTO)Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), par-ticularly Article 27.3 (b), which states thatwhile members may exclude plants andanimals from patentability, if they chooseto do so in the case of plants, they mustprovide an effective “sui generis” systemofprotectionsuchasthe1978and1991ver-sions of the International Convention forthe Protection of New Varieties of Plantsadministered by the International Unionfor Protection of Plant Varieties (UPOV),oracombinationofthetwo(IPGRI,1999;LeBuanec,2004;Donnenworth,Grace,andSmith,2004;FAO,2005a;Tripp,EatonandLouwaars,2006).

They should also be aware that inter-national exchange of germplasm carrieswith it the risk of introducing diseasesand pathogens through plants and ani-mals and their parts such as seeds andpropagules, semen and embryos, andthat sanitary and phytosanitary certifi-cates are required to facilitate the safeexchangeofgeneticresourcesbetween,andunder some circumstances, within coun-tries. Familiarity is therefore needed withthe WTO Agreement on the Applicationof Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures(SPS), the WTO Agreement on TechnicalBarriers to Trade (TBT) and the instru-ments relevant to standard setting withinthese, including: the International PlantProtection Convention with its objectiveof preventing the introduction and spreadof plant and plant product pests, and theAnimal Health Code implemented by theWorld Organisation for Animal Health(OIE)thatcoversbothlivestockandfish.

This international policy and regu-latory framework is both complex andcontinuously evolving. Hence, apart fromthe scientific and technical challengesinvolved in MAS, developing countriesface formidable difficulties in crafting andimplementing legal and regulatory frame-works that facilitate exchange of GRFAaswell as the rangeof toolsused inMASfor both research and commercial uses. Italso challenges national policy-makers tokeep abreast of the international policy-making processes and all that these implyin terms of both coordination betweenministries of agriculture, trade, environ-ment,andS&T,andinhumanandfinancialresources. However, the consequences ofnotbeingknowledgeableaboutthesemat-ters,andinparticularabouttheappropriatenational laws of countries from whichgenetic resources and scientific techniques


and tools are sought, could be serious forindividual researchers and their institu-tions. All of these aspects must thereforebe managed in a well coordinated, effi-cient and fair manner if countries are torealize fully thepotentialofferedbyMAStocontributetonationalfoodsecurityandagriculturaldevelopment.

Most developing countries have activi-ties dealing with specific aspects of plantgenetic resources for food and agriculture(PGRFA) and substantial numbers haveestablishedcross-institutionalprogrammesand coordination mechanisms includingcrop-specific bodies and networks to setpriorities,evaluateprogressand ingeneraltopromotethemoreeffectiveuseofgeneticresources. In the case of livestock, and asnotedinthedraftreportontheStateoftheWorld’sAnimalGeneticResourcesforFoodand Agriculture, presented at the FourthSessionoftheIntergovernmentalTechnicalWorking Group on Animal GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture, heldat FAO headquarters in December 2006(www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/genetics/documents/AH473e00.pdf), apartfrom a few (mainly northern hemisphere)countrieswithwell-developedcommerciallivestock enterprises, interest in the topicis often limited to isolated departmentswithin institutes that are rarely involvedin animal genetic resources-related activ-ities. In the case of forestry, nationalprogrammes have been established withconsultativeforaandleadinstitutionsoftenoutside the Ministry of Agriculture, andessentially similar arrangements operatewith fisheries. India, for example, has aNationalBureauwithintheIndianCouncilforAgriculturalResearch(ICAR)devotedtofishgeneticresources,whichundertakesworkwithmicrosatellitemarkersforpop-ulation genetic analysis and determining

geneticvariationamongandwithin inlandspecies.

With respect to national biodiversityprogrammes,bybeingPartiestotheCBD,countries have committed themselves toestablishing policies, legal and regulatoryframeworks and programmes for con-servingandusingbothwildandnon-wildbiodiversityinasustainablemannerand,indoingso,toestablishnationalBiodiversityStrategies and Action Plans (BSAPs)throughfocalpointsinvariablycoordinatedbyMinistriesofEnvironment.

At present, however, few countriesemphasizetheconservationandsustainableuse of GRFA in their PRSPs and agricul-tural development plans, or have strategicand holistic roadmaps as to how theseresourcesshouldbemanagedwithinapar-ticular subsector, let alone how this willbe accomplished across subsectors. Suchdeficiencies are not conducive to prioritysettingandreachingagreementonspecificprogrammes and projects, and thereforejeopardize funding of the most criticalneedsandtheattainmentofnationalobjec-tives. Since genetic resources are the rawmaterialstowhichmolecularmethodsandapproachessuchasMASareapplied,thesedeficiencies inevitablyalso lead to ineffec-tive and inefficient integration of modernbiotechnologyintonationalprogrammes.

To put management of GRFA on abetter footing, including through theappropriateintegrationofMASandrelatedapproaches, countries need to establish orstrengthen existing organizational struc-tures and programmes that respond tonational development objectives. Thismeansensuringthat:theyarewelllinkedtothe wider policies and programmes drawnup for agriculture, biodiversity and bio-technology; that they take into accounttheperspectivesbothofpublicinstitutions


dealingwithresearch,genebankoperationsandthesupplyofseedsorbreedingstock,andthoseofwiderstakeholdergroupssuchas farmer and community groups, privatesectorentities,breedsocieties,etc.;andtheyrecognize the interdependencies betweennational, regional and global policies andlaws concerning access to these resourcesandsharingthebenefitsfromtheiruse.

It is beyond the scope of this chapterto deal with the setting up and coor-dination of systems or programmes forthe management of genetic resources atthe species, subsector, sector and widerlevels. These aspects are covered compre-hensively for PGRFA by Spillane et al.(1999), and the principles involved areequally relevant to the livestock, forestryand fisheries subsectors. However, whilerecognizing the essentiality of having anationalbiodiversitysystemorprogrammethat is overseen, for example, by a high-levelinterministerialcoordinatingbodyforpursuing national development objectivesand reporting through the CBD process,there is simply no substitute for special-ized genetic resources knowledge withineachof theagricultural subsectors topro-mote effective and efficient planning andimplementationofMAS,includingthroughawareness building and advocacy withinnational and international policy forumsandinteractionswithdonors.

maS: general ConSiderationS for poliCy- and deCiSion-makerSOneofthemaintake-homemessagesfromtheexpertscontributingtothisbookisthatMAScanbedemandinginitsrequirementsfor specialized equipment, consumables,electricity supplies, laboratory design andmanagement, data handling and statistics,and Internet connectivity. Another is thatMAS is a complement to and not a sub-

stitute for skills in conventional breedingand selection. Embarking on MAS shouldthereforeneverbeconsideredasaparadigmreplacing classical crossbreeding and phe-notypic screening programmes, which inmanydevelopingcountriesareinanycaselimitedintermsofspeciescoverageandtheavailability of, for example, temperatureand humidity-controlled greenhouses andgrowthchambersandfieldsites,andfragileintermsofstaffingandfundinglevels(see,forexample,Chapter8).

Yet another message is that efficientand effective application of MAS requireswell-qualified staff. First and foremost, itneedsstaffwhohavetheknowledgetoleaddecision-making on when and when notto embark on MAS. This has to be donestrictly on a case-by-case basis, bearingin mind that MAS may accelerate geneticprogress in some traits better than others,and that the costs and benefits of usingMAS in a production system need to beweighed up in the same way as any otherinput. It also needs leaders who give the“endproduct”ratherthanthe“laboratory/research process” the main consideration,andstaffwithsubstantialdesign,technical,analytical and problem-solving skills andwho are up to date with developments inthe field. Furthermore, it demands a sus-tainable funding base. What should neverbe forgotten is the bottom line – namely,the investment made will ultimately bejudgedonthenumberofpeoplebenefitingfrom planting improved plant germplasmorkeepingimprovedfarmanimalsorfish.

Another key message is the absolutenecessityofensuringeffectivecoordinationbetween breeders and the people workingin molecular biology laboratories. Whileit is not essential for all of these to belocatedphysicallywithinthesameinstitu-tion, policy- and decision-makers need to


know that investments in staff and infra-structure for the “molecular component”ofMASarewastediftheyarenotlinkedtothe“breedingandselection”components.

Apart from countries with technologi-cally advanced NARES (Type 1 and Type2describedbyByerleeandFischer,2001),gettingalloftheaboveelementstogetherisabigtaskforthevastmajorityofdevelopingcountries, particularly against the back-ground of current and often deterioratinglevels of public funding for agriculturalR&D (Pardey et al., 2006). So big indeedthat, while recognizing the need/oppor-tunities for molecular MAS, they mayconsider, in the first instance, other veryvaluable applications of molecular-basedtechniques such as the polymerase chainreaction(PCR)forplant,livestockandfishdiseasediagnosis(see,forexample,Viljoen,NelandCrowther,2005),estimatinggeneticdistances between varieties, strains, linesand breeds, conducting variety and par-entagetesting(DeVicente,2004;Chapters14and17) and forGMOcharacterizationand detection. These applications are notconsideredfurtherheresincetheyfallout-side the core subject matter of this book.Also,whilerecognizingtheincreasingroleoftheprivatesector,theoptionsdescribedbelowforpursuingMASarebasedontheassumptionthatthepublicsectorwillcon-tinue to be the major investor in R&Dfor small-scale producers and increasingthe accessofpoorer sectionsof society toaffordable food and agricultural products.Additional options are available throughpublic–private partnerships and these arediscussedlater.

Afinalconsideration is that,unlikethedevelopment and release of GMOs, MASdoes not require the establishment andthe enforcement of a specific legislativeframework.Apart fromavoiding theneed

for specific capacities in public admin-istration, this certainly reduces the finalcosts of adopting MAS-derived varietiesandbreeds.

priority Setting for maStargeting the farming systems, species and traits linked most to poverty and hunger InvestinginMAShastobebasedonstrikinganappropriatebalancebetweenneedsandopportunities for combating hunger andpoverty through genetic enhancement.Essential to that process is determiningwherethegreatestconcentrationofpovertyand hunger exists and the causal factors.There are essentially four approaches forpursuingthis.

•Poverty and hunger mappingAlthoughstillrelativelynew,thisapproachisgainingincreasingacceptanceinnationalandinternationaldevelopmentcircles.Oneof themajorchallenges facedbyall coun-tries in targeting their development, andhence research efforts, towards the foodinsecure and poor lies in the diversity oftheir farming systemsand socio-economicconditions. However, using a combina-tion of survey and census information(e.g. household surveys), administrativedata (e.g. markets, roads), geographicalinformation systems (GIS) and small areaestimation maps, it is becoming increas-ingly possible to develop correlations andmapsthatlinkpopulationdensities,welfaredataandcropandlivestockproductionandlivelihood systems; in effect, to pinpointwherepoorpeopleliveandtheproductionandlivelihoodsystemsassociatedwithhighlevelsofpoverty.

Increasingly, through programmes suchas the Inter-Agency Programme on FoodInsecurity and Vulnerability Information


and Mapping Systems (FIVIMS) whichworks both locally and internationally,Ministries of Planning are developingdisaggregated poverty maps to help targettheir interventions for greatest benefitsto the poor. Recent examples include thehigh resolution Kenyan poverty mapsdeveloped by the Bureau of Statisticswithin the Ministry of Planning with theassistance of the International LivestockResearch Institute (ILRI), the RockefellerFoundation,theWorldBankandtheWorldResources Institute (WRI) (Ndeng’eet al.,2003), and the InternationalRiceResearchInstitute’s work linking poverty and ricesystems in Bangladesh (www.irri.org/science/progsum/pdfs/DGReport2000/FP1.pdf).

•Rapid rural appraisalsThese are systematic but semi-structuredactivities conducted by teams with bothtechnical and social science backgrounds,usuallyaspartoffarmingsystemsresearch(see below and Crawford, 1997). Theirchiefcharacteristicsarethattheytakeonlya short time to complete, tend to be rela-tivelycheap tocarryoutandmakeuseofmore “informal” data collection proce-dures. The techniques rely primarily onexpert observation coupled with semi-structured interviewing of farmers, localleadersandofficials.Insubstance,thetech-niquesof rapidruralappraisals (RRA)areexecutedoveraperiodofweeks,oratmostmonths,ratherthanextendingoverseveralyears.Todate,RRAhasmainlybeenusedinthefieldofruraldevelopmentasashortcut method to be employed at the feasi-bilitystageofprojectplanning.

•The farming systems approachThis groups farm households with sim-ilar characteristics and constraints and

thereforefromaR&Dperspectivehasthepotential of promoting technology andknowledge spillovers. Unquestionably,the most authoritative study of the linkbetween farming systems and poverty isprovided by Dixon, Gulliver and Gibbon(2001). These authors describe 72 majorfarmingsystemsthroughoutthedevelopingworldbasedonavailablenaturalresources,patterns of farm activities and householdlivelihoods, intensity of production andtheir relationship to markets. They alsodescribe the needs of those living withinthem(withanaverageagriculturalpopula-tion of about 40 million inhabitants), thelikely challenges they face andopportuni-tiesopentotheminthenext30years,andthe relative importance of different strate-giesforescapingfrompovertyandhunger.In sub-Saharan Africa for example, of the15 major farming systems identified, boththey and the IAC (2004) gave priorityto four systems based on the economicvalueofproductionandtheextentofmal-nutrition, namely: the maize-mixed; thetree-cropbased;thecereal/rootcropbased;and irrigated systems. However, NARESneed to undertake similar priority assess-mentstocomplementsuchanalyses.

•The “rural worlds” conceptThis categorizes rural people as capitalintensive farmers, mixed commercial/sub-sistencefarmers,thenearortotallylandlessand those without any economic activity(OECD,2006).

While each of these approaches hasmeritsandlimitationsfortargetinginterven-tionsbasedongeographyandpopulation,theyall embrace theprincipleof engagingfarmersandruralconsumers/householdsindiagnosing problems and identifying pos-sible solutions adapted to their particularcircumstances.


analysis of the needs and opportunities for maSAs noted earlier and in an ideal world,theneedsandopportunitiesforembarkingon MAS should emerge first and fore-mostthroughthepolicydialogueprocessesthat lead to country priorities and objec-tives for agriculture and for agriculturalS&T.Inanycase,carefulanalysisisneededto determine whether, given the currentS&T, socio-economic and cultural land-scape and government/community plansfor the foreseeable future, theuseofMASwill realistically contribute to hunger andpoverty reduction.This requiresa teamofcompetent analysts to conduct an ex anteimpactassessmentthatmakesthebestuseofexistingknowledgetodeterminewhether:• theprincipalbarriertosustainableinten-

sification or diversification of the pro-duction system(s) as a whole could beovercome by introducing a new plantor animal genotype or by changing theenvironment,e.g.introducingbettersoil,water and nutrient management prac-tices, draught power, vaccination, tsetseflyorotherdisease/integratedpestman-agementpractices.Alsotobeconsideredare themanagementchanges thatwouldinevitablybeneededfollowingtheintro-ductionofsuchgenotypes.Forexample,increasing the prolificacy of local sheeporgoatsthroughMASbringswithittherequirement, inter alia, for an improvedfeedresourcebase.Doesthesystemhavethepotentialtoprovidethis,andistherea market demand for the animals andtheir products? Foresight and total sys-temsthinkingareclearlyrequiredhere;

• the species x trait(s) combination(s)required isnotavailable in locallyavail-able germplasm (or breeds/broodstock)or in varieties/pre-breeding materialsdeveloped by and available from the

InternationalAgriculturalResearchCen-tres(IARCs),orothercountriesgrowingthesamecropswithinsimilarproductionsystemsandlocated insimilaragro-eco-logicalzones;

• thespeciesxtraitcombinationcannotbedevelopedmoreeasily,and/oratlesscost,throughphenotypicselection.Anumberofchaptersinthisbookprovideexcellentguidance on the factors that are impor-tant here, which include, inter alia: thespecies involved; the genetic complexityand heritability of the trait(s) required(the current focus for most crop andmanyanimalspeciesisheavilyondiseaseand pest resistance); the availability ofmarkers for the trait(s) in question andability to scale up their usage, whetherthetraitissex-limited(livestock);andtheavailability of reliable phenotypic data,etc.;

• there is already an existing nationalbreedingprogramme(s)forthespeciesinquestion;

• the national breeding programme(s) forthespeciesinquestionhastheinfrastruc-ture and levels of human and financialresourcesneededtosustainselectionandbreedingactivities;

• national infrastructuresandcapacities inmolecular biology match the scientific,technical and information requirementsforeffectivelysupportingMAS;

• professionallegaladviceisavailablecon-cerning laws, agreements, licences, etc.fortheacquisitionanddiffusionofboththe tools or enabling techniques, andthe starting- and end-products of MAS(see Chapter 20 and earlier in relationto access and benefit sharing of geneticresources);

• efficient mass propagation systems (e.g.seedmultiplicationorsemenproductionprogrammes)areinplace;


• adequate technical advisory services areable to support technically the dissemi-nationoftheimprovedvarietyorbreed;and

• effectivedelivery,monitoringandevalu-ation strategies are in place to bring theproducts of MAS-related R&D to usersandbeneficiaries.

Country optionS for implementing maSCountries with high-quality personnel and facilities for phenotypic evaluation and selection and in molecular biologyIndividually or collectively and for anumberofcropspecies,publicinstitutionsin these countries have the skills both tochoosetheappropriateparentalandsegre-gatingmaterialsandtoapplyroutinelyandwithhighthroughputthefullrangeoftech-niquesavailable (includingthoserequiringsequence information) to develop molec-ular markers. Through the establishmentof centralized centres of excellence and

sectoral/subsectoral institutions (Box2),they have the potential to validate puta-tive markers by combining their use withthedetailedandcomprehensivephenotypicinformation availableon largenumbersoflinesformultiple traits toproducegeneticlinkage maps for identifying genomicregionscontrollingvariationsinsimpleandquantitative traits (QTL), and to use theright combination of trait-linked markerstoimprovetheefficiencyofparentalselec-tionandbreedingprogrammes.

These countries tend to have con-centrated their MAS activities on theintrogression of a few traits (for instancethose encoded by transgenes) and in afew crops, although markers themselvesare being used for many of the non-MASapplications mentioned earlier. However,they also contribute effectively to globalandregionalcropgenomicprojectsdirectedtowards developing and validating geneticand linked markers and testing their use-fulness forMAS inbreedingprogrammes.Theymayalsohavesomeskillsinapplying

boX 2

Centralized national centres of excellence and sectoral/subsectoral institutions

MoretechnologicallyadvanceddevelopingcountriessuchasBrazil,China,IndiaandSouthAfricaandothershaveestablishedoneoranumberofcutting-edgecentresforbiotechnologyworkingonbothbasicandstrategictechniquesandtools,andprovidinganalyticalandothersupporttonationalsectoralorsubsectoralcentresworkingonmoreappliedandadaptiveresearchprojects.Forexample, theAfricanCentre forGeneTechnologies (ACGT) isan initiativeby theSouthAfrican Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the University of Pretoriatocreateanationalcentreofexpertiseandaworld-classplatformingeneandgenomeanalysis.Its focus is on using genetic markers to understand disease resistance in plants and nitrogenmetabolism in cattle under harsh and arid environmental conditions. It supports the moredownstreamworkoftheForestryandAgricultureBiotechnologyInstituteaswellasvariouscropcentres.ACGTisamemberoftheSouthernAfricanNetworkonBiosciences(SANBIO)andpartoftheNEPAD-sponsoredAfricanBiosciencesinitiative.


(someof)thesemethodsandapproachestolivestock, fishandespecially forest speciesresearch. Generally, however, these effortsareofasmall-scaleexperimentalnatureand,particularly in the case of livestock wheremosttraits,evenfordiseaseresistance,arecomplex,theyareunlikelytomovebeyondtheresearchstageintheneartermbecauseof the large numbers of animals required,the limited amount of structured pheno-typicdataavailableandthelonggenerationintervalsofmanyanimalspecies.

These countries have both consider-able potential and many options to focusresourcesforMASonpovertyandhungeralleviation,including:•mobilizingthe techniques, tools,genetic

resources and phenotypic data alreadyavailable nationally and internationally(e.g. parental lines and segregating pop-ulations from international and othernational programmes), tapping the vastand rapidly increasing molecular andgeneticknowledgeavailable internation-ally through collaboration with interna-tionalandadvancedagriculturalresearchcentres, and contributing to genomicsconsortia (e.g. the International RiceGenomics Consortium). Applicationsinclude extending non-transgenic andtransgenicapproachesbydevelopingandvalidatingmarkersbasedonfinegenomicmappingofQTL(i.e.byidentifyingsin-gle nucleotide polymorphisms, [SNPs])for more complex traits like drought,salinityandheattoleranceandnutritionalqualityinmajorfoodcrops;

• pursuingMASforbothsimpleandcom-plex traits in crops that although rela-tively minor and scientifically neglectedare of tremendous importance to manypoorhouseholds;

• recognizingtheincreasingimportanceoftrees, livestock and aquaculture to their

rural economies, strengthening effortstocharacterizegeneticdiversitythroughboth classical phenotypic and molecularmarkerapproachesandthendeveloping,validating and eventually using markersfor improving economically importanttraitssuchashostresistancetodiseases.

Countries with reasonable capacities for phenotype evaluation and selection and some capacities to apply molecular marker methodsThese countries have less comprehensivebreeding programmes and therefore cancover fewer species. They will likely havebeen relatively “late starters” in MAS andmay not have the latest high-throughputequipment, which is invariably located inone or a number of institutes supportinga particular subsector. Neither of thesefeatures is a major limitation providedthe country prioritizes its work appropri-ately. This means pursuing justifiable anddoablegeneticenhancementstothelimitednumberofspeciesforwhichithasaneffec-tiveselectionandbreedingprogrammeto:(a) provide the foundation for developingsegregating populations from parentallines and for characterizing and validatingmarkers for the trait(s) in question; and(b)evaluate populations in the environ-mentsforthetraitsthatareprioritized.

Also, while recognizing the need toadapt specific molecular techniques tolocal circumstances, and markers for par-ticulartraitstotheirowngenotypes,thesecountries should take full advantage of“lessons learned”withrespect toboth themolecular methods themselves and howbest to integrate these into selection andbreedingprogrammes.Withthecaveatthatthese conditions are satisfied, countries inthis general category have the followingoptions:


Strengthening existing national scientific and technical capacities and infrastructures in molecular laboratory(ies) and coordination with selection and breeding programmesThiscanbeachievedby:• relying on their own germplasm and

segregating populations and/or partner-ing with IARCs and advanced researchinstitutes to obtain these. Using lesssophisticatedandlargely“manual”sam-plepreparationandanalyticalequipmenteventhroughtothepointofsequencingsince large-scale and high-throughputgenetic analysers, accessories and otherequipment are necessary only after theinitial development and implementationofmarkers;

• taking advantage of the many kits,biological and other materials andthe “how to do” and “what to avoid”protocols and manuals, statisticalpackages, bioinformatics freeware,software and analysis programmes.These,aswellasspecificmarkersthatareavailableintheformofDNAclonesforuseasprobesinrestrictionandamplifiedfragment length polymorphism (RFLPand AFLP) analysis, PCR primers foruse as SSR (microsatellite) markers, andsequence informationavailable inpublicdatabases thatcanbeused tosynthesizeand clone specific markers are availablecommercially or for free from severaloftheIARCsbelongingtotheCGIAR,and from advanced research institutionsand universities in developed anddeveloping countries (e.g. Brazil, Chinaand India). All of these resources helptoavoid“reinventing thewheel”and to“short-cut” the process by assisting ingetting round bottlenecks, e.g. the needto establish facilities and expertise incloning;and

• takingadvantageofthemanyopportuni-ties available to upgrade scientific andtechnical expertise in molecular biologyitself and in linking molecular and phe-notypic approaches through species andtheme-specific networks, workshops,trainingcourses,scientificvisits,etc.(seeBox3).

Using regional centres of excellenceWhilethereisnorealsubstituteforbuildingnational institutions and capabilities inMAS research, product development andtransfer, countrieswithvery limited infra-structuresandskilledhumanresourcescanstillengageinmeaningfulresearchbyusingthe state-of-the-art analytical, bioinfor-matics and computing facilities located inregional centres of excellence (Box 4) andinadvancednationalinstitutes.

Countries with limited capacities in phenotypic evaluation and selection and no capacities to apply molecular techniquesThese countries fall into the category ofType 3 NARES described by Byerlee andFischer (2001). Unless the governmentcommitsitselftoincreasingsubstantiallyitslevelofinvestmentinessentiallyallaspectsofgeneticresourcesmanagementinoneoranumberofthedifferentagriculturalsubsec-torsoratleastonespecies,butparticularlyinselectionandbreedingprogrammesandincapacity-buildingforemployingmolec-ulartechniques,theiroptionsare:• topartnerwithinstitutesoftheCGIAR

system and other advanced institutionsin developed and developing countriesandimportvarietiesandadvancedbreed-ing lines developed by these institutesthrough MAS that contain the neededtrait(s).Aftertestingtheseortheircross-es with local varieties or landraces for


boX 3

regional networks

TheEastAfricanRegionalProgrammeandResearchNetworkforBiotechnology,BiosafetyandBiotechnologyPolicyDevelopment(BIO-EARN)issupportedbytheSwedishInternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency and involves Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and the UnitedRepublicofTanzania.IthasaGoverningBoardandaProgrammeAdvisoryCommitteethatprovidestechnicaladvicetotheBoardonprojectproposals,progressandcontinuingfunding.MASisaprioritythemewithinBIO-EARN,beingusedtolookforresistancemarkersforplantvirusesandfungi(includingsweetpotato,maize,bananaandsorghum)andgenotypevariationin coffee and banana. The programme has contributed substantially to the improvementof scientific and technical capacities, research infrastructure, equipment and stocking ofconsumables. Connectivity at all BIO-EARN Network institutions has been achieved andthishasnotonlygreatlyimprovedcommunicationamongnetworkmembers,butalsoaccessto information from the Internet to keep abreast with new biotechnology developments inthe world. BIO-EARN Ph.D. students have developed close links with each other throughcommonworkshopsandannualBIO-EARNstudentmeetingsandcreatedastrongbasisforfutureregionalcollaboration.

boX 4

Biosciences eastern and central africa hub and network

LocatedonthecampusofILRIinNairobi,Kenya,theBioscienceseasternandcentralAfrica(BecA) hub is the first of four regional networks of centres of excellence in biosciencessponsoredbytheNewPartnershipforAfrica’sDevelopment(NEPAD).TheestablishmentofBecAisfundedmainlybytheCanadaFundforAfrica(CFA)oftheCanadianInternationalDevelopment Agency (CIDA). It consists of a hub that provides a common biosciencesresearchplatform,research-relatedservicesandcapacitybuildingandtrainingopportunities,andanetworkofregionalnodesandotherparticipatinglaboratoriesdistributedthroughouteastern and central Africa for conducting research on priority problems affecting Africa’sdevelopment.IthasaSteeringCommitteeandaScientificAdvisoryCommitteeresponsibleforthequalityandrelevanceoftheprogramme.Thegenomicsplatformincludesstate-of-theartequipmentforgenotyping,DNAsequencing,transcriptomicsandbioinformatics,andcurrentactivitiesincludemicrosatelliteandESTmarkerdevelopment,geneticlinkagemapping,MAS,and fingerprinting fordistinctness,uniformity and stability andplant varietyprotection. Itcurrently supports work being conducted on MAS by the International Maize and WheatImprovementCenter (CIMMYT), the InternationalCropsResearch Institute for theSemi-AridTropics(ICRISAT),theInternationalInstituteofTropicalAgriculture(IITA),andILRIandtheirnationalpartners.Furtherinformationisavailableatwww.biosciencesafrica.org.


their suitability for local environments,theycanbereleasedtoproducers;

• toincreaseawarenessamongpolicy-anddecision-makers of the importance ofimproving GRFA through a multidis-ciplinary approach including molecularmethodstotheirnationaleconomiesandpoverty reduction strategies. Oppor-tunities for doing so include throughadvocacywithinnationalpolicydialogueprocessesandwithinFAO’sCommissiononGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgri-culture, and by its country representa-tivesandstaffinregionalandsubregionaloffices during the processes of revis-ingPRSPsandagriculturaldevelopmentpolicies;and

• subject to increased investment forhighpriorityactivities, trainingandcapacity-building in selection and breeding pro-ceduresshouldprecedethe introductionofmolecularapproaches.Bothshouldbeinitiatedthroughclosecollaborationwithinternational, regional and/or nationalcentres.

maS: other poliCy ConSiderationS and optionSFewpeoplewouldquestionthestarkreali-tiesofdoinganykindofR&Dinthevastmajority of developing countries and ofgetting the products generated from it tothe rural poor and hungry. ConductingR&DdirectedtowardsMASraisesthebarconsiderably in terms of its requirementsfororganizational, scientific, technicalandlegal skills, as well as for physical infra-structure and financial resources. Funds,however, for public sector agriculturalR&D in all but a handful of developingcountriesarebecomingevermorescarce.

While data on spending and humanresources for modern biotechnologyapplicationsinagriculturearenotavailable,

inflation-adjusted spending on agriculturalR&D as a whole is now growing at muchlowerratesthaninthe1970sandcurrentlyrunsataroundUScents53foreveryUS$100ofagriculturaloutput(Pardeyet al.,2006).In developed countries, public researchfunding actually fell by 6percent per yearduring the 1990s, but is still running atthe rate of US$2.36 per US$100 worth ofagricultural output. This reflects a strongshiftinfundingprioritiesawayfrompublicR&Dbybothgovernmentsanddonors.

However, the big differences betweenthesegroupsofcountries lie in twobroadand interconnected areas. First, in theirlevelsofprivate investment.Indevelopingcountries,thisrunsatbetween8percent(inAsiaandPacific,butinonlyafewcountries)and2percent(insub-SaharanAfrica,with66percent of that being in South Africa),andbyandlargeisdevotedtoexportcropsandconductedbylocally-ownedcompaniesoraffiliatesofmultinationals. Incountriesof the Organisation for Economic Co-operationandDevelopment(OECD),suchinvestments now form around 55percentof their total agricultural R&D spending(Pardeyet al.,2006),with93percentofthatR&Dbeingperformedinthesecountries.

The second difference lies in theorganization/orientation of their research.In developed countries, there is a muchclearer division of labour between thepublic and private sectors. This generallyconformstothenotionsof“publicgoods”andprofit/market-orientedR&D,althoughfor MAS this demarcation differs acrosscommoditiesandisoftencharacterizedbypublic–privatesectorresearchcollaboration.For example, MAS-related R&D activitiesconducted by public sector institutionsare very much oriented towards basic orstrategic research to develop and validatenew knowledge, methods and procedures


for variety, strain or breed selectionthroughmarkersandquantitativegenetics,attending to minor species and removingbottlenecks.However,forsomecropssuchas maize (see, for example, Chapter 8),wheat,soybeansandcotton,andforsomelivestock (Narrod and Fuglie, 2000) andaquaculture species, the private sector is asignificantplayerinboththeupstreamandappliedmolecularbiologyandquantitativegeneticscomponents.

Thissituationreflectsthevaryingincen-tives provided for private agriculturalresearch by a combination of income-driven demand-led market growth for thecommodity(ies)orvaluechainsinquestion,newtechnologies,changesinIPRregimes,market structure and the globalization ofagricultural input markets, and public sci-enceandinvestmentpoliciesthathavebothsupported private and undercut publicly-funded research. However, the impulsesprovided by effective demand-led marketgrowthofcommoditychainsandbypoli-cies to promote private sector investmentinR&Daremuchweakerinlowerincomecountries, and governments that simplylackthecasharelefttopickupthetotalbill.This, in turn,blurs the focusof theR&Dconducted by their NARES which, ratherthandirectingresourcesmoretowardssci-ence-oriented pre-product research (suchasmolecularmarkerdevelopmentandvali-dationforselection),attempt,oftenwithinone or two institutes, to cover the wholespectrumfromstrategic,appliedandadap-tiveresearch,throughtodevelopmentandontodiffusionofproductsandservices.

At the same time, the wider andinterlinkedcontextswithinwhichtheagri-culturalsectornowoperatesareincreasinglyrequiringministries,andtheresearchinsti-tutes responsible for agriculture that areunderthem,toforwardproposalsforpoli-

cies, legislation, programmes and projectsthat are not only sound, convincing andprioritizedwithinandbetweensubsectors,but also aligned with the needs perceivedby other ministries, e.g.health, education,trade and the environment. Critically, inpreparing plans for both domestic anddonor finance, they must provide con-vincingevidenceofengagementwiththoserepresenting the interests of agriculturalproducersandothersectorsofruralsocietyincluding women’s groups and the poor,private commercial and non-governmentorganizations(inadditiontoinvolvingtheirownofficialsandtechnicalexperts).

Inotherwords,thepressureisrealandgrowing both nationally and internation-ally for more “joined up” governance andgreater participatory diagnostic and deci-sion-makinginhelpingtodefine,implementand assess the outcomes and impacts ofpublicsectorinterventions,theexpectationbeing that this will focus both minds andfundsontacklingtheproblemsofgreatestrelevance to the largest number of poorpeople in rural areas. This raises the issueofhowNAREScanbetterensurethattheiragendas, includingplans forusingmodernbiotechnologicalapproacheslikeMAS(thatclearly requires long-term budgetary sup-port),bettermeettheneedsofthepoor.

Besides macro and sectoral policiesthatprovide appropriateprice andmarketincentives to agricultural producers andservice providers, developing countrieshave anumberofoptions for creating themoreconduciveandenablingenvironmentnecessaryforMASresearchandthedevel-opmentandadoptionoftheproductsthatemanatefromit.

Building political supportThebiggestpolicygapinmanydevelopingcountries is perhaps the lack of official


appreciationoftheimportanceofS&Tformeeting their socio-economic objectivesthrough agriculture. Hence, the necessityforagriculturalresearchandextensioninsti-tutions to engage in dialogue during theprocesses of revising PRSPs, comprehen-sive agricultural development and relatedpoliciesandstrategiescannotbeunderesti-mated.Thispromoteslearningandcapacitydevelopment among and between policy-andlaw-makers,technicalexpertsandcivilsociety, as well as greater appreciation ofpoverty and its different dimensions andthetrade-offsbetweendifferentapproachesto its amelioration. It results in strongerlinkages between S&T, national povertyreduction and agricultural developmentobjectives, and greater awareness amonghigh-level policy-makers of the contribu-tions that S&T can make to achieve theseobjectives.Themeritsofsuchengagementalso include greater need-driven priority-setting, elimination of duplication, moreinformed decision-making both on therolesofthepublicandprivatesectors,andpartnershipidentification.Allofthishelpsto create more efficient and coordinatedactivitieswithinandbetween thedifferentagricultural subsectors and their sup-porting NARES. Well-conceived studieson the socio-economic impacts of cropsandbreedsdevelopedthroughMASwouldalsoassistdecision-makingonS&Tinvest-mentallocationasthisishardlyavailableintheliterature(FAO,2005b).

Creating S&t policies for driving stronger priority-setting and better delineating roles and responsibilities Many developing countries continue towork with outdated, isolated and highlyfragmented NARES, each with their ownset of rules, fiscal arrangements and gov-ernment oversight, and they have weak

or non-existent linkages between publicinstitutions, the IARCs and private firms.Some possess many of the essential com-ponentsincludingcutting-edgeequipment,buttheyarenotmaximizingtheirpotentialto develop MAS capacity. While substan-tialprogresshasbeenmadebyanumberofcountries to establish a single frameworkfor managing agricultural R&D, includingmechanismsforsettingandevaluatingprior-ities,inmostdevelopingcountriesthesearerare.MakingacaseforMAS,unsupportedby a well thought out (evidence/diag-nostic-based) S&T policy framework thatpromotes mutually supportive actions bythe different actors, is a recipe for con-tinuing with a science and supply-drivenresearchagenda,minimalinteractionamongthe different institutions involved, under-fundingandtinkeringaroundtheedgesbysomededicatedindividuals.

Thereare,however,anumberofoptionsopen to governments to reinvigorate theiragriculturalS&Tsystemsandmakewayfornewtechnologies:• usewideroragriculture-specificS&Tleg-

islation to promote enhanced collabora-tionamongpublicsectorinstitutionsandbetweenpublicandprivatesectorentities,andtoestablishanationalfundingagencyand/or agricultural research council thatis independent from any specific minis-try and provides competitive grants forresearch and fellowship training withinthe public sector. Thailand, through itsNationalScienceandTechnologyDevel-opmentAgencyestablishedunderaS&TDevelopment Act, and Brazil with itsNationalCouncilandNationalFundforS&TDevelopmentanditsSectoralFunds(Box5),aretwogoodexamplesforothercountriestoconsiderfollowing,e.g.someAfrican countries that under NEPADhavecommittedthemselvestoincreasing


theirS&Tspendingfrom0.5to1percentofGDP.

• use wider or specific agriculture legisla-tion, tax breaks, public S&T funds andfundsfromdonorstoprovideincentivesforpublicandprivatesectorinvolvementinMASandpublic–private,civil societycollaboration.Governments and development agen-

cies have shown increasing interest inpartnerships as a mechanism to promotemarket-driven development. Byerlee andFischer (2001)provideanexcellent reviewonthesubjectofenhancingpublic–privatepartnerships for transfer of genes andconstructsforGMcrops,andsomeoftheprinciples and mechanisms described arealsorelevanttoMAS.However,outsideoftheLatinAmericanregionwhereHartwich,Gonzalez and Veira (2005) conducted astudyof124casesof suchpartnerships inagriculturalinnovation,includinganumberdealing with basic and applied researchon plant breeding, the evidence that these

make research more efficient or “deliver”more or better products to small-scaleproducers is not strong. Indeed, ensuringthatthesepartnershipscomplywithpublicneeds was found to be one of the majorchallengesinthesepartnerships.

Nevertheless, there are clear signs ofsuchpartnershipsflourishingforbothbasicand applied MAS-related R&D activitiesin industrialized countries. With strongand enlightened leadership on both sidescoupledwithmatching interests,opportu-nitiesshouldalsobeavailableforNARESto benefit both from the molecular tech-nology platforms and from the selectionand breeding experiences of industrial-ized country-based private sector entities(Chapter 8), as well as from cooperationwith their developing country affiliates,local private companies, NGOs and pro-ducerorganizationsintakingtheproductsfromthelaboratorytothefield.

Atthesametime, thenatureandscopeofIPRsforgeneticresources, theresearch

boX 5

Brazil’s sectoral funds

Topromotehigh-qualityresearchanddevelopmentinBrazil’sindustrialsector,thenationalgovernmentestablishedaprogrammeof“sectoralfunds”inwhichapercentageofcorporatetaxesaretargetedtofundingspecificresearchanddevelopmentobjectives.Thesectoralfundsprogrammeservesfourmajornationalobjectives:

• stabilityoffinancialresourcesformedium-andlong-termresearchanddevelopment;• transparencyinfundingdecisions,meritreviewandevaluation;• reductionofregionalinequalities;and• interactionbetweenuniversities,researchinstitutesandcompanies.Theselectionofstrategicsectors,theirrespectivesharesofthefunds’resources,theblend

of basic and applied research, the required overall budget, and sources of support are alljointlydecideduponbytheindigenousacademiccommunity,privatesector,andgovernment.Nonewtaxesare involved, just theredirectionofalready-establishedgovernment levies.Acomprehensive set of 14 funds has been established. It includes agriculture, biotechnology,informaticsanduniversity-industryresearch.


tools used in MAS and the breeding linesand varieties that are developed from itmay be significant barriers to its further-ancebyNARES,privatesectorentitiesandpublic–private partnerships. An excellenttreatise of the influence of IPRs for plantbreedingandtheseedsectorindevelopingcountries, including the possible implica-tionsforMAS,isgivenbyTripp,EatonandLouwaars (2006). By providing an empir-icalanalysisofIPRdevelopmentsinChina,Colombia, India, Kenya and Uganda, thisreport provides government and institu-tional policy- and decision-makers withdetailsof thedifferentchallenges facedbythese countries in developing their IPRregimes, the options they have chosenthroughpoliciesandlegislationtodevelopthese, and the lessons learned in imple-mentingthem.ItconcludesthatwhileIPRregimes in developing countries requireurgentattention,thesupportinglegislationand regulations should be the product ofopendebateamongdifferentstakeholders,and that, even if legislation is already inplace, many countries will find that theyhave sufficient options for interpretationand application to warrant a thoroughreview of procedures and priorities. Interms of hunger and poverty reduction,theimportanceofsegmentingmarketsintoexport and non-export crops, and intomajor and orphan crops, should not beoverlooked for gaining preferential accesstomoleculartools,breedinglinesandvari-eties(Spillane,2000).•makegreateruseofregionalandbilateral

agreements and organizations to fosterinternational collaboration and obtaincomplementaryassetsforthefurtheranceofMAS.Diplomatic level S&T agreements,

knowledge exchange networks andresearch consortia (including those of a

national and regional nature) can all buildknowledge within and between molecularlaboratories,geneticresourcesmanagementprogrammes and organizations involvedinproductdelivery.Thebenefits todevel-oping countries of both the formal andinformal networked world of collabora-tive research in molecular biology, geneticimprovementandagriculturalS&Tingen-eral are potentially enormous, providingsourcesoffundingandmakingknowledgeeasiertoaccessandresearchersandpolicy-makers more interconnected (safeguardsare needed, however, to minimize disad-vantages/risks). Developing countries arenot sufficiently linked to these resources,the CGIAR’s Generation Challenge andtheEUResearchFrameworkProgrammesand competitive grants with partnersfrom individual or groups of developedand developing country research institu-tions funded by bilateral donors beingjust some examples. Their governmentsneed to help them do so by providingfundsforbuildingbroadbandconnections,establishing databases and informationsystems, and attending conferences. Also,some functions of a R&D system such asaccessing IP-encumbered technology maybe accessed virtually or even shared withneighbouringcountries(Box6).

Creating effective delivery strategies to bring the products of maS-related r&d to users and beneficiaries The channels through which the productsof agricultural research reach producershave undergone major structural changesworldwide,andthereisnowawiderangeofpublic,privateandnon-governmentorgan-izations involved in providing extensionservices. At the same time, those respon-sibleforfundingandsupportingR&Dhavecometorealizethatgettingtechnologyand


knowledge to the field does not followa linear and top-down transfer path thatbegins with research, moves on to devel-opmentandproduction,andendswiththesuccessfulintroductionofnewproductsorprocesses. Instead, it involves continuousfeedbackloopsbetweenresearchers,exten-sion agents and farmers within which thedevelopment, fine-tuning and adoption oftheproductsof research takeplacewithinaspecificcontext.Alltoooften,technolo-gieslie“ontheshelf”,lostbetweenresearchanditstransformationintousefulproducts,becauseofthelackofunderstandingofthefunctional linkagesbetweenresearchinsti-tutions,extensionservicesandfarmers.

Policy- and decision-making aboutsupporting agricultural research and tech-nologydevelopmentthereforeneedtoshift

awayfromtraditionalandoftenlaboratory-basedresearchandthesupplyoftechnologyper se,towardsfosteringaninnovationsys-tems approach to understand better theways inwhich theproducers andusersoftechnology interact, and thereby identifyandgetroundtheobstaclesfacedintrans-formingresearchoutputsintodevelopmentoutcomes and impacts. For example, whyhas artificial insemination, a technologycentral for driving improved genetics intomany species of farm animals, been suc-cessfulinsomecountriesandlocalitiesandnotinothersandwhataretheimplicationsofthisforapplyingMAS?

Unrealistic expectations of whatagricultural research and agricultural bio-technologyinparticularcandotoalleviatehunger and poverty have had a negative

boX 6

partnerships for technology transfer: the african agricultural technology foundation

ThemissionoftheAfricanAgriculturalTechnologyFoundation(AATF)istopromotefoodsecurityandreducepoverty.Itisanot-for-profitfoundationsetupin2002withthehelpoftheRockefellerFoundation,theUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment(USAID)and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) to identifyopportunities for royalty-free transfersof technologiesuseful to resource-poor smallholderfarmers in Africa. In pursuing its mission, it negotiates access to technologies, enters intocontractualarrangements tofacilitate theirdeploymentandprovidesstewardshipover theirdeployment.Itistheresponsiblepartyforaddressingtheconcernsabouttechnologyownerswhile protecting the interests of smallholders, handling intellectual property management,regulatory compliance, liability, licensing and freedom-to-operate assessments. In effect itisa“one-stop-shop”forstructuringandaccessingagriculturaltechnologiesandknow-how.Among its priorities is genetic improvement of cowpea. This is being tackled through aNetworkfortheGeneticImprovementofCowpeaforAfrica,involvingAfricanandUnitedStates’ universities, IITA, the Kirkhouse Trust, which is a United Kingdom charity, andMonsanto. Part of the project involves developing ready-to-use molecular marker kits forcowpea breeding teams in Africa. The markers are being selected from the cowpea SNPprogramme in IITA and the cowpea genome-sequencing programme, with polymorphismsdetectedusingagarosegelsystems.


impact on the fiscal policies of nationalgovernments, financial institutions anddonors for more than 20 years. It will beimportant, therefore, forpolicy-makers toprovideincentivesforgettingthefactsrightbefore deciding on priorities and invest-ments.Theycando sobymandating thatgreater emphasis is placed on research tounderstand better the critical pathwaysinvolvedintechnicalchange,includingthereasons for the long time frames betweenthe research and extension efforts oftheir NARES and sustainable improve-

mentsinfarmproductivitythroughgeneticenhancement. This can be achieved inter alia by requiring greater accountability,for example, through up-front specifica-tion of the R&D delivery strategy, andthe introductionofmonitoringandevalu-ation processes for research outputs andoutcomes that use an innovation systemsapproachtopromoteinformationflow,andthrough this, to understand and improvecurrentneedsandpriorityassessmentsandlevelsofcustomersatisfaction.

referenCeSBijker, W.E. 2007. Science and technology policies through policy dialogue. In L. Box & R.

Engelhard,eds. Science and technology policy for development: dialogues at the interface.London,AnthemPress(inpress).

Bragdon, S. 2004. International law of relevance to plant genetic resources: a practical reviewfor scientists and other professionals working with plant genetic resources. Issues in Genetic Resources 10. Rome, IPGRI (available at www.bioversityinternational.org/Publications/pubfile.asp?ID_PUB=937)

Byerlee, D. & Fischer, K.2001.Assessingmodernscience:policyandinstitutionaloptionsforagri-cultural biotechnology in developing countries. IP Strategy Today 1: 1–27 (available at www.biodevelopments.org/ip/ipst1n.pdf).

Crawford, I.M.1997.Rapidruralappraisals,Chapter8.InMarketing research and information sys-tems.Rome,FAO(availableatwww.fao.org/docrep/W3241E/w3241e09.htm)

De Vicente, M.C. 2004. The evolving role of genebanks in the fast-developing field of moleculargenetics. Issues in Genetic Resources 11. Rome,IPGRI(availableatwww.bioversityinternational.org/Publications/pubfile.asp?ID_PUB=986).

Dixon, J., Gulliver, A. & Gibbon, D. 2001.Farming systems and poverty: improving farmers’ liveli-hoods in a changing world.Rome,FAOandWashington,DC,WorldBank.

Donnenworth, J.M., Grace, J. & Smith, S.2004.Intellectualpropertyrights,patents,protectionandcontracts. IP Strategy Today9:19–33(availableatwww.biodevelopments.org/ip/ipst9.pdf).

Evanson, R.E. & Gollin, D. 2003.Assessingtheimpactofthegreenrevolution. Science 300:758–762.FAO. 2005a.The legal framework for the management of animal genetic resources,byA.Ingrassia,

D.ManzellaandE.Martyniuk.FAOLegislativeStudy89.Rome(alsoavailableatwww.fao.org/docrep/009/a0276e/a0276e00.htm).

FAO.2005b.Annotated bibliography on the economic and socio-economic impact of agricultural bio-technology in developing countries (available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/sd/SDR/SDRR/bibliography1.pdf).

FAO.2006. Thestateoffoodinsecurityintheworld2006:eradicatingworldhunger-takingstock10yearsafter theWorldFoodSummit (availableatwww.fao.org/docrep/009/a0750e/a0750e00.htm).


Hartwich, F., Gonzalez, C. & Viera, L-F. 2005. Public-private partnerships for innovation-ledgrowthinagrichains:ausefultoolfordevelopmentinLatinAmerica?ISNAR Discussion Paper1.WashingtonDC,IFPRI(availableatwww.ifpri.org/divs/isnar/dp/papers/isnardp01.pdf).

IAC. 2004. Realizing the promise and potential of African agriculture. Amsterdam, InterAcademyCouncil(availableatwww.interacademycouncil.net/CMS/Reports/AfricanAgriculture.aspx).

IPGRI. 1999. Key questions for decision-makers: protection of plant varieties under the WTOAgreementonTradeRelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights. Decision tools. Rome(avail-ableatwww.bioversityinternational.org/publications/pubfile.asp?ID_PUB=41).

Le Buanec, B. 2004. Protection of plant-related innovations: evolution and current discussion. IP Strategy Today 9:1–17(availableatwww.biodevelopments.org/ip/ipst9.pdf).

Meinzen-Dick, R., Adato, M., Haddad, L. & Hazell, P. 2004.Scienceandpoverty:aninterdiscipli-naryassessmentoftheimpactofagriculturalresearch.Washington,DC,IFPRI(availableatwww.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/pr16.pdf).

Narrod, C.A. & Fuglie, K.O. 2000. Private investmentin livestockbreedingwithimplicationsforpublicresearchpolicy. Agribusiness: an International Journal, 16: 457–470.

Ndeng’e, G., Opiyo, C., Mistiaen, J. & Kristjanson, P.2003.Geographic dimensions of well-being in Kenya,Volume1.Nairobi,TheRegalPressKenyaLtd.

NEPAD.2002.ComprehensiveAfricaAgricultureDevelopmentProgramme(CAADP)(availableatwww.nepad.org/2005/files/progressrepport.php).

NEPAD. 2005. Africa’s science and technology consolidated plan of action(availableatwww.nepadst.org/doclibrary/pdfs/ast_plan_of_action.pdf).

OECD. 2006.Promoting pro-poor growth: agriculture.Paris,OECDPublishing(availableatwww.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/60/37922155.pdf).

Pardey, P.G. & Beintema, N.M. 2001. Slow magic: agricultural R&D a century after Mendel. Washington,DC,IFPRI(availableatwww.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/fpr31.pdf).

Pardey, P.G., Beintema, N., Dehmer, S. & Wood, S. 2006.Agricultural research: A growing global divide?Washington,DC,IFPRI(availableatwww.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/pr17.pdf).

Raitzer, D.A.2003.Benefit-cost meta-analysis of investment in the international agricultural research centres of the CGIAR. FAO, Rome, CGIAR Science Council Secretariat (available at http://impact.cgiar.org).

Spillane, C.2000.Couldagriculturalbiotechnologycontributetopovertyalleviation?AgBiotechNet2:1–72.

Spillane, C., Engels, J., Fassil, H., Withers, L. & Cooper, D. 1999. Strengthening national pro-grammes forplantgenetic resources for foodandagriculture:planningandcoordination. Issues in Genetic Resources 8.Rome,IPGRI(availableatwww.bioversityinternational.org/Publications/pubfile.asp?ID_PUB=29).

Stannard, C., van der Graaff, N., Randell, A., Lallas, P. & Kenmore, P. 2004. Agriculturalbiologicaldiversity for food security: shaping international initiatives tohelp agriculture and the environ-ment. Howard Law J., 48:397–430.

Tripp, R., Eaton, D. & Louwaars, N. 2006.Intellectual property rights; designing regimes to support plant breeding in developing countries.WashingtonDC,TheWorldBank(availableathttp://siter-esources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/IPR_ESW.pdf).


UN Millennium Project. 2005a.Investing in development: a practical plan to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. London and Sterling, VA, USA, Earthscan (available at www.unmillenni-umproject.org/reports/fullreport.htm).

UN Millennium Project. 2005b. Report of the task force on science, technology and innovation.LondonandSterling,VA,USA,Earthscan(availableatwww.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/Science-complete.pdf).

Viljoen, G.J., Nel, L.H. & Crowther, J.R. 2005.Molecular diagnostic PCR handbook. Dordrecht,Netherlands,Springer.

This book provides a comprehensive description and

assessment of the use of marker-assisted selection for

increasing the rate of genetic gain in crops, livestock,

forestry and farmed fish, including the related policy,

organizational and resource considerations. It continues

FAO's tradition of dealing with issues of importance to

agricultural and economic development in a

multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral manner. As such it is

hoped that the information and options presented and

the suggestions made will provide valuable guidance to

scientists and breeders in both the public and private

sectors, as well as to government and institutional policy-

and decision-makers.

TC/M/A1120E/2/01.09/1500

ISBN 978-92-5-105717-9

Marker-assisted selection —

Current status and future perspectives in crops, livestock, forestry and fish FA

O

Current status and future perspectivesin crops, livestock, forestry and fish

MARKER-ASSISTED SELECTION

9 7 8 9 2 5 1 0 5 7 1 7 9

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

Cover new.pdf 15/5/07 12:38:33

Documents

Chapter 22 marker-assisted selection: policy ... · Chapter 22 – Marker-assisted selection: policy considerations and options for developing countries 445 areas where people’s