Maintaining the status quo—nonadoption—is not a cheap, risk-free option.

BACKGROUND PAPER

FOR THE WORLD DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2008
Agricultural Biotechnology

Transgenics in Agriculture and their Implications for Developing Countries

(pdf file)

Eija Pehu and Catherine Ragasa
September 19 2007

For developing countries, the fact remains that the political controversies surrounding transgenics and dividing regulatory approaches in the EU and USA have created much uncertainty and have adversely affected investment, R&D, and adoption related to transgenics. This global divide locks in and increases the fragmentation of international agricultural markets. It discourages further private investment in a new sector with the potential of significant welfare gains for rural people. In this context, countries fear the loss of export markets and have to consider separating storage facilities and shipments of transgenic and conventional varieties, obtaining clearance for transgenics in the importing country, and building a GMO-free brand. Public sector support for agricultural biotechnology has also diminished.

The consequences of this global divide compel urgent action. The development community can lead stronger advocacy and policy dialogues, particularly on the impacts on international trade, private sector investment, and opportunities for developing countries. A critical long-term priority is to create a more active and credible forum for discussing and presenting scientific evidence, both at the global and national level, which would eventually influence thinking among donors, policy makers, and the general public. A better understanding of the political, economic, and societal determinants of the future of agricultural biotechnology in general and transgenics in particular can help stakeholders make well-informed predictions. Often, the crucial first step is finding a credible forum to communicate the findings substantiated by scientific evidence rather than unsubstantiated claims. Some authors have emphasized that academia, at the national level, could stand above all interest groups as a strong political resource and repository of public trust, curbing other countries’ interference and creating a domestic consensus to pursue a more pragmatic approach with respect to transgenics..

...Maintaining the status quo—nonadoption—is not a cheap, risk-free option. Countries and farmers that are slow to adopt transgenics may lose their competitiveness as global commodity prices fall with broader adoption in large exporting countries. Further delays in developing and adopting transgenics means further delays in the substantial economic gains that could accrue to poor producers. In the case of Bt cotton, these economic gains have been estimated to be even larger for the farmers in West Africa than a successful campaign to reduce cotton subsidies under the WTO’s Doha Development Agenda. Moreover, transgenics are a powerful tool to help farmers adapt to climate change through the more rapid addition of genes for drought and flood tolerance. Continued and unnecessary delays and skepticism are creating serious opportunity costs for society by preventing Golden Rice and other promising transgenic food crops from reducing malnutrition and saving millions of lives in many poor countries sooner rather than later.

What more can the Pundit say?



Just read the whole thing, please.

Links for various relevant World Bank files and the summary here