Annual Report
Managing biotechnology in developing-country agricultural research
Copyright © 1999 by the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).
ISNAR encourages the fair use of this material. Proper citation is requested.
Produced by ISNAR Publication Services
Annual report writers: A. Michelle Luijben and Robin Winckel-Mellish
Contributing editors: Jan van Dongen, Rivka Peyra, and Kathleen Sheridan
Translators: Viviana Galleno, Omar Gzour, Ed Osadchiy, Rivka Peyra, and Bing Zhang
Artist/designer: Richard Claase
Production and distribution: Elly Perreijn
Printer: Oldemarkt Turnkey Services, Oldemarkt, the Netherlands
Citation
ISNAR. 1999. Annual Report 1998. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.
AGROVOC descriptors
biotechnology, agriculture, research policies
CABI descriptors
biotechnology, agricultural research, research policy
ISBN 92-9118-044-0
Annual Report
Managing biotechnology in developing-country agricultural research
Contents
Message from the Board Chair and the Director General 3
Theme Essay
Managing Biotechnology in Developing-Country Agricultural Research 7
ISNAR Activities in 1998 22
ISNAR Publications and Training Materials 28
Board of Trustees and Staff Members 33
Financial Report for 1998 35
Donors Supporting ISNAR’s Program in 1998 37
Acronyms 39
Résumé 40
Resumen 44
48
52
60
Highlights
Here are just a few highlights of ISNAR’s biotechnology-related work in 1998:
Initial results of a study of public and private organizations involved in agricultural biotechnology in
five developing countries revealed steady growth in the number of biotechnology researchers. But that
growth is rarely accompanied by comparable increases in operating funds. Resources available for
day-to-day operations are limited, emphasizing the importance of sharply focused priorities for biotech-
nology research, along with integration and consolidation of biotechnology work with the broader na-
tional agricultural research effort.
An Internet-based electronic discussion forum is proving an efficient vehicle for facilitating contacts,
partnerships, and collaboration among biotechnology research managers in developing countries. Inter-
ested readers can access the forum via ISNAR’s Internet site at http://www.cgiar.org/isnar.
Much of the international debate on biotechnology focuses on the formulation of national and interna-
tional legal frameworks and guidelines. At the same time, ISNAR’s research continues to show human
resources as one major constraint facing developing countries in biotechnology-related issues. Building
practitioners’ skills via seminars and workshops was therefore a main ISNAR activity in 1998.
With the number of products of agricultural biotechnology research increasing, concerns about biosafety
are becoming high-priority global issues. ISNAR’s research on biosafety includes a two-year collabora-
tive project to assess the impact of genetically engineered crops that have been commercially released in
developing countries. At the same time, ISNAR is reviewing the biosafety policies and procedures that
accompanied the introductions.
By providing advice and assistance to stakeholders of agricultural research in developing and devel-
oped countries, ISNAR is reaping a sustained harvest from its past research efforts. In 1998, such advisory
work included a study done for the Rockefeller Foundation to determine which of five important African
crops presented the best opportunities for improvement using biotechnology. Among its conclusions, the
report emphasizes that any donor initiative in biotechnology should include aspects of research policy
and management, as well as biosafety.
Message from the Board Chair and Director General
It is hard to imagine that we can achieve food security without agricul-
tural research to support better farming. Yet effective agricultural re-
search requires strong research institutions. Awareness is growing in
developing countries—and in the richer nations that offer development
assistance—that the operational qualities of agricultural research institu-
tions really do matter. The result is a major effort now underway to
“retool” national agricultural research systems to increase their effective-
ness. ISNAR is playing a vital role in this effort.
The current climate of globalization and trade liberalization is sending
conflicting signals to developing countries on how they can best organize
their agricultural sectors and their national programs for agricultural re-
search. What’s more, every country is unique. Each must find its own, in-
dividual solutions. Blueprints simply do not work.
Retooling agricultural research
Nineteen-ninety-eight was ISNAR’s first full year pursuing its new strategy “When NARS Retool.” Re-
sponding to the reality of over 800 million food-insecure people, ISNAR sharpened its own tools and is
now positioned to better support agricultural research institutions. Also in 1998, ISNAR reorganized. In
this period of major economic constraints within the CGIAR system, ISNAR’s aim is to become more fo-
cused and effective. Staff reviewed their own capabilities and joined one of three new programs that are
designed to address the challenges of globalization, governance, new technologies, and environmental
issues related to agriculture.
ISNAR is arguably the only institution in the world with a knowledge base directly relevant to agricul-
tural research institutions in the developing countries in their efforts to meet these new challenges.
ISNAR’s continuing work will ensure our ability to continue delivering support to national agricultural
research systems (NARS), with their public and private components. Our aim is to help them respond to
these emerging challenges, many of which were hardly discussed five years ago.
Diversity and participation
Diversity in staff and management and participatory decision making are two cornerstones of ISNAR’s
new organization. Developing-country staff members in senior positions in the institution and signifi-
cantly more female professional staff add to and exemplify ISNAR’s diversity. ISNAR’s new staff associ-
ation also plays an increasingly important role in the everyday running of affairs through its elected
council.
ISNAR took four other noteworthy steps in 1998:
n It created a new unit, the “ISNAR Global Associates,” to capture and expand the pool of highly
skilled experts in developing countries and to supplement ISNAR’s own permanent staff. Read
more about the Associates in the box on page 5. ISNAR thanks the Inter-American Institute for
Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) for generously hosting the Associates program. We believe
this innovative mechanism has the potential to strengthen the South-South links in ISNAR’s
work.
3
n ISNAR seconded a senior officer to support the NARS Global Secretariat, hosted by the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Rome. ISNAR wants to see the
NARS Secretariat succeed and to act in increasing synergy with existing organizations to maxi-
mize the influence of developing countries in setting international agricultural research agendas
in the 21st century.
n The institute redoubled its outreach, strengthening ties with two large and powerful agricul-
tural research systems, that of India and Brazil, and taking the first steps to increase collabora-
tion with China. Efforts to strengthen ISNAR’s presence in Africa continue into 1999.
n Together with other CGIAR institutes, ISNAR began its full engagement in activities in Central
Asia and the Caucasus, in many cases by supporting major development initiatives of the World
Bank and bilateral donors. As old institutions in Central Asia are dismantled, ISNAR is assisting
in the creation of new, modern institutions that can support agriculture, which will for some
time remain central to the emerging economies of these new nations.
Stakeholder support
Continued strong support from unrestricted core donors enabled us to realign our program in the face of
new realities. This support has allowed us to strengthen the profile of our research-based services while
developing new tools for the future. Core donor support is essential for ISNAR; its import cannot be
overstated. Still, the downturn in economic fortunes for some key Asian countries has nonetheless led to
indefinite postponement of a series of large ISNAR projects there. Economic weakness in many African
countries has also meant that we were not able to initiate several special projects there as planned. In-
creased demands for ISNAR’s services in Latin America have compensated to some extent; we are de-
lighted to assist a number of Latin-American countries in developing new institutional models. But that
does mean there was a temporary distortion in the regional distribution of ISNAR’s work in 1998. ISNAR
has been able to minimize its deficit in 1998 to US $555,000, without reducing staff, by drawing on re-
serves. Our funding prospects for 1999 are significantly better and should also enable us to do more
work in Africa, redressing the regional balance of ISNAR’s program.
The year 1998 has been a year of transition for ISNAR’s Board of Trustees. Three long-standing Trustees
left: Charley Hess (USA), El Habib Ly (Senegal), and Henk Breman (Netherlands), and three new mem-
bers joined the Board: Douglas Headley (Canada), Moise Mensah (Benin), and Niels Röling (Nether-
lands). Following Gora Beye, the new FAO constitutional observer is Jaques Eckebil.
Our work to lay the foundation for a major ISNAR contribution to retooling the NARS will continue as
we approach the new century and millennium. We, the Chairperson of the ISNAR Board of Trustees and
Director General, invite readers of this annual report to share with the institute’s staff and collaborators
ISNAR’s achievements in 1998. ISNAR knows that in the world of agricultural research, institutions do
matter.
Amir Muhammed Stein W. Bie
Chairperson, Board of Trustees Director General
4
NISNeARwGloIbnaliAtsisoacitatievs perogram builds on “brain gain”
n 1998 ISNAR launched an exciting new program to expand its assistance to
I developing countries. The initiative will also increase the role of developing-country
nationals in ISNAR’s research and training, as well as fostering South-South
collaboration in institution building. The program is called “ISNAR Global
Associates” and is based in Costa Rica.
The Global Associates is a network of outstanding experienced professionals,
mostly from developing regions, who work for ISNAR on a part-time, as-needed
basis. These staff members, whom ISNAR calls “Associates,” strengthen ISNAR’s
presence in developing countries. They apply ISNAR-developed tools and research findings in work
in the field, that is, in developing-country agricultural research institutions and organizations to
strengthen their institutional capacity. According to Hunt Hobbs, director of the Associates program,
“The cadre of Associates is a cost-effective way for ISNAR to reach out to more developing countries
and organizations." Through Associates, ISNAR can help more research managers and policymakers
answer the questions they face on a daily basis. "It’s building a ‘brain gain’ rather than a ‘brain drain’
in developing countries," says Hobbs. "While contributing to capacity-building in numerous NARS,
ISNAR Associates gain greater expertise and experience, which they can then use to strengthen their
own organizations.”
ISNAR Board of Trustees, 1998
Seated from left to right: Janice Reid, Charles E. Hess, Amir Muhammed, Maria Nieves Roldan-Confesor, Sami Sunna
Standing from left to right: Geoffrey C. Mrema, Martín Piñeiro, El Habib Ly, Ken-Ichi Hayashi, Stein W. Bie, Alessandro Bozzini,
Henk Breman, Just Faaland, Helen Hambly Odame (Secretary to the Board)
5

Managing Biotechnology in Developing-
Country Agricultural Research
Unfolding Issues
In March 1998, the United States issued a patent for an innovation titled
“Control of Plant Gene Expression.” The technology, acclaimed as bril-
liant science by many biologists and genetic engineers, involves the addi-
tion to the plant of a gene that blocks the production of fertile seed. The
plant is thus sterilized; the seed it produces is unable to germinate. Use of
the gene, now widely referred to as the “terminator,” provides seed pro-
ducers security against unauthorized use of new plant varieties and helps
create incentives for their continued investment in research. It could po-
tentially be used in a broad range of commercial seed, from rice to wheat
and vegetables.
To its critics, however, the terminator is an ominous symbol of a high-tech
world that excludes the poorest segments of society. Its detractors say it
could eventually end the ten-thousand-year-old practice in which farmers
harvest their crops and save a small portion of seed for replanting. The ter-
minator gene, they say, would compel farmers to purchase seed from pat-
ent holders who own the rights to new crop varieties.
Because the practice of saving seeds is widely used in developing coun-
tries, the terminator gene could have disproportionately large effects on
the world’s poorest farmers. Patents for the gene are now being sought in
40 less-developed countries. These patents, and the scientific and ethical
issues surrounding them, have brought issues of biotechnology to the
forefront of agricultural research policy and management.
In Uganda, patent applications for the terminator Uganda should outlaw use of the terminator gene
gene were filed in 1998 by the Delta Pine and within its borders or award its inventors a patent.
Land Company, part of the seed and chemical
multinational Monsanto. Senior government offi- The 22-page report that the committee produced
cials in the East African country were concerned. reflects the broad range of issues involved in cur-
The government felt it needed to respond quickly, rent debates on biotechnology research and its
so it turned to its agricultural research experts for legal, scientific, and ethical aspects. It also under-
advice. lines the valuable role that national agricultural
research leaders can play in informing national
In late August, Prof. Joseph Mukiibi, director gen- science and development policy.
eral of the country’s National Agricultural Re-
search Organization, was responding to the The first of the six recommendations was that the
request from the country’s highest offices. He es- government should not act hastily but, rather,
tablished a four-member committee to study the approach the issue slowly and carefully “allow-
new technology and asked them to identify risks ing sufficient time to study the full implications of
and opportunities associated with it. Ultimately, the new technology.” Other recommendations
the team was to recommend whether or not echoed this care and consideration. They in-
7
cluded, for example, a statement that the ministry up to advise Uganda’s attorney general on bio-
should seek a common regional stand with its technology patent applications, and that provi-
neighbors regarding plant patent awards. It also sion be made for local professionals to stay
recommended that a technical committee be set apprised of new developments in the field.
Food, Environment, and Biotechnology
Biotechnology is a powerful set of tools used by a biotechnology research and advisory program
scientists to alter the genetic makeup of plants and in 1992. Over the past seven years, the “Interme-
animals. By moving genes between species, scien- diary Biotechnology Service” (IBS) has built part-
tists can improve a crop’s pest resistance, its abil- nerships with advanced research programs in
ity to grow in poor soils, or as in the case of the more than 25 developing countries.
terminator, change its reproductive capacity. Al-
though few biotechnology applications are wholly Lately, even countries that have not considered
uncontested, use of the techniques is nonetheless direct involvement in biotechnology are having
often hailed as one key to future breakthroughs in to confront the complex issues posed by the new
agricultural research, particularly for the develop- technology. Genetically modified crops arrive
ing world. daily in ports and markets around the world. Yet
only a handful of countries have rules or regula-
One of its proponents, Dr. M. S. Swaminathan, a tory agencies that can cope with the new prod-
respected agronomist and co-author of a World ucts. As in Uganda, international concern has
Bank study on transgenic crops, believes the chal- heightened awareness among policymakers. In-
lenge of increasing farm productivity in develop- deed, agricultural leaders are increasingly being
ing countries can be met only by mobilizing called on to offer advice—often on short notice.
frontier science. This, he says, will require blend-
ing traditional technologies and ecological pru- This article examines biotechnology from the per-
dence with biotechnology, modern information spective of the practitioner, the research man-
science, and renewable forms of energy produc- ager, as well as developing-country farmers and
tion. consumers. It addresses three principal issues:
priority setting, biosafety, and intellectual prop-
Deciding how best to use biotechnology requires erty rights. It concludes by restating a major les-
careful judgment and experience. Research man- son that ISNAR has learned in partnership with
agers must weigh productivity increases along- its developing-country collaborators: Given the
side environmental risks, research priorities, and pace of global developments in biotechnology, it
potential returns on investment. Recognizing the is essential that developing countries maintain a
importance of these decisions, ISNAR established degree of self-reliance in analyzing the issues that
this new technology raises.
8
STrakiniinlglsbuilds people power for biotechnology management
hile much of the international debate on biotechnology focuses on the formulation of
W national and international legal frameworks and guidelines, ISNAR’s research
continues to show human resources as the number one constraint facing most
developing countries today in biotechnologies, as well as in new technologies in
general. Building skills and experience among the people in charge of the daily
management of biotechnology research was therefore a main ISNAR activity in 1998.
With support from the Government of Japan, ISNAR developed and conducted a
management training course to help practitioners on the front line of biotechnology management
develop their skills. The course took place in China, November 2–13. Twenty participants from the
public and private sectors followed the sessions, which led them through a hands-on approach to
solving problems. Defining priorities, managing biosafety, and intellectual property rights were
among the topics covered. One participant commented, “Learning from others’ experience and
sharing knowledge was most beneficial and is already paying off in terms of more effective priority
setting and time saving.” About half the course was devoted to biotechnology management, with the
remaining time spent on management of another new technology: information technology.
Typical questions, many of which stemmed from real-life situations, on the management of
agricultural biotechnology research were raised. Managers were presented with tools to help them
think strategically about their research programs. Special emphasis was placed on individual
effectiveness and building leadership qualities.
“The ISNAR management course has helped us to strengthen the link between industry,
universities, and research institutions by means of the information we shared during the course,” was
the enthusiastic response of one participant. Attendees not only improved their knowledge and
managerial and leadership skills, but by the end of the workshop, they had also made professional
contacts and new friends. Such networks empower them to continue building their skills and
exchanging experiences.
The management course is now being offered annually to participants from Indonesia, India,
Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Vietnam. There biotechnology is growing rapidly
for many agricultural research systems, and managers urgently need expertise to help them carry out
their new responsibilities.
Extending the information affluence The revolution in management
The rapid changes taking place in biotechnology The revolutionary qualities ascribed to modern
represent a major technological and policy chal- biotechnology pose managerial as well as techni-
lenge to the developing world’s scientists and re- cal challenges. To cope with the demands posed
search managers. Even simple hurdles, like by new technology, research managers are
accessing news and information, are considerable increasingly emphasizing teamwork, multi-
obstacles in many countries. The task is made disciplinary research, and cross-institutional alli-
even more difficult, says M. S. Swaminathan, by ances. They are also frequently asked to play a
exaggerated claims and high expectations. “One more direct role in informing national policy.
thing is clear,” he says. “In the recent debate [on
transgenic crops] there’s a lack of information
and a lot of confusion.”
Combating confusion and promoting informed
decision making is one of ISNAR’s priorities.
Printed publications, information on the World-
wide Web, networking, and the organization of there’s a lack of
workshops and seminars are some of the ways
that IBS routinely extends information to biotech- information and
nology researchers and policy advisors around
the globe. Details of some of these ISNAR initia- a lot of confusion
tives are in the boxes accompanying this article.
9
IStnatfisoticrs msuppaorttipoolnicymaking on biotechnology
nformation on the resources available to build capacity for agricultural biotechnology
I in developing countries is lacking. For this reason ISNAR began an in-depth survey of
public and private organizations involved in agricultural biotechnology in five
developing countries: Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, and Zimbabwe. “We’ve
already completed the work in Kenya, Mexico, and Indonesia,” says Cesar Falconi,
economist in ISNAR’s biotechnology program. “We went into issues like the growth
of public- and private-sector investment and the level of expenditure per researcher
and then compared these to the situations in other countries. Our research will
examine how institutions mobilize resources and how they make decisions on how much to invest in
agricultural biotechnology.” Surveys in Zimbabwe and Colombia are to be completed in 1999.
The wealth of new information gained will provide policymakers and research leaders with new
insight to improve their decision making. Facts and figures related to human, physical, financial, and
managerial aspects already show that in Kenya and Indonesia, some advanced biotechnology
research is being conducted. Nonetheless, these countries are still in the early stages of
biotechnology development. Mexico, on the other hand, has one of the most developed
biotechnology industries of Latin America.
Findings also revealed that the number of researchers in the three countries has grown far more
quickly than research expenditures. This shows a definite need for more national and institutional
commitment to raise funding for agricultural biotechnology. At the same time, there is an average of
one manager for every 2.5 researchers in the organizations surveyed. Survey results also confirmed
that most agricultural biotechnology research in developing countries focuses on crops, with less
attention being given to livestock.
The survey indicated that a biotechnology policy is urgently needed in Kenya, Indonesia, and
Mexico to integrate and consolidate research efforts. It also shows that given the limited resources
available, biotechnology research priorities in these countries could be more clearly defined and
supported by a sound incentive scheme, one that is integrated and consolidated with the broader
agricultural research effort.
Qinfang Wang, head of science management at bility for initiating and managing cooperation,
China’s Biotechnology Research Center (BRC) she says, has smoothed the way for better collab-
underlines the importance of teamwork. “At oration at the institute.
BRC/CAAS [the Chinese Academy of Agricul-
tural Sciences] we have close cooperation be- The need for task sharing has also helped expand
tween biotechnologists and conventional cooperation. Biotechnology equipment is expen-
breeders.” Wang notes that teamwork is impor- sive, and the number of scientific disciplines
tant at each stage of a project, from basic research involved is often beyond the budget capacity of
and development, all the way to the release of fin- any one institute. The development and commer-
ished products. The clear delegation of responsi- cialization of a virus-resistant potato in Mexico
provides an example. In this case, the basic tech-
nology was acquired gratis from Monsanto. It
was then refined in one of Mexico’s advanced
research laboratories and applied to local culti-
vars. Staff from a public-sector agricultural re-
search organization, the local extension service,
and a private-sector seed producer then collabo-
rated to commercialize the product and deliver it
revolutionary qualities to farmers.
pose managerial as well As the 21st century approaches, decision-makers
will increasingly need to consider global trends
as technical challenges such as market liberalization, the demand for
better public administration, and advances in
10
technology in making policy decisions. Better when combined with traditional farmer knowl-
management, greater cost-effectiveness, and judi- edge. ISNAR’s biotechnology program has em-
cious use of technology are now priorities in phasized these issues in recent years, giving
many countries, rich and poor. Cellular and mo- special emphasis to priority setting, biosafety,
lecular biology are among the areas most likely to and intellectual property rights.
raise a nation’s agricultural potential, especially
Assigning Priorities to Projects
Carlos Muñoz, general manager of INIA, the or AHP. Their hope was that AHP would take the
Chilean national agricultural research institute, is guesswork out of priority setting.
the leader of Chile’s newly proposed biotechnol-
ogy program. The origins of the program go back Priority setting in research is basically a process of
to a former government minister who saw bio- choosing between alternative lines of scientific in-
technology as important for maintaining the quiry. It can be done using complex statistical
country’s competitiveness in international trade. methods or by simpler, more qualitative means
In the past, Chile obtained new varieties and such as group discussion and consensus building
technology from abroad at little cost. But foreign or by checklist-based scoring. Either way, the pro-
technology has become more expensive, with cess usually entails defining criteria on which
royalties and licensing payments adding to pro- projects will be judged. The cost of each project is
duction costs. also estimated and compared with potential ben-
efits. The benefits can be economic, such as in-
To reduce Chile’s dependence on foreign technol- creased yields or profits. They may also involve
ogy, the government agreed to spend US $44 social or institutional factors. An example of a so-
million over 10 years to establish a modest bio- cial benefit is improvements to a food commodity
technology program. But before making that that is eaten by the poor. Institutional benefits
large an investment, the agriculture ministry might include strengthening a country’s scientific
wanted to put in place a priority-setting process capacity. In Chile’s case, institutional benefits
to help them choose the biotechnology research proved to be one of the most important criteria.
projects with the most potential. Muñoz, the coor-
dinator of the national biotechnology program, Unique aspects of biotechnology
was designated to lead the effort. In collaboration
with ISNAR and the Swiss Federal Institute of But as researchers tend to agree, some character-
Technology, his team used a decision-support istics of biotechnology greatly complicate priority
tool known as the “analytical hierarchy process” setting. For example, few biotechnology products
11
are now actually being used by farmers in their Setting priorities despite the
fields. That means information on the perfor- difficulties
mance of such technologies is hard to come by. A
USDA researcher recently quoted in Science mag- The AHP decision-support system that was
azine believes that some of the current claims tested in Chile was an attempt to account for
about biotechnology may be analogous to the many of these complications and avoid unneces-
dreams of perpetual-motion machines in the 19th sary—and expensive—complexity. AHP helps to
century. “No matter how finely tuned the ma- disaggregate complex problems into simpler
chine, reality does not allow outputs to exceed in- units that can be discussed among mixed groups
puts,” he says. Added to this, large yield increases of people with varying degrees of expertise.
can often be achieved more readily by taking ex- Using AHP, such groups can compare research
isting technology off the shelf. alternatives and rank them according to their
ability to satisfy the agreed-upon criteria. For ex-
The novelty of the new techniques—and some of ample, Chile used four criteria: economic, social,
the unknowns involved in setting up biotechnol- environmental, and institutional. These were fur-
ogy programs—make it difficult to estimate costs, ther broken down into subcriteria, with the idea
let alone benefits. Yet these calculations are at the that the subcriteria would be specific enough to
heart of formal priority setting. Unless research yield firm judgments. The criterion “social,” for
managers can quantify variables, they are usually example, included two subcriteria: “distribution
compelled to base their decisions on little more of research benefits” and “health risks.”
than educated guesswork.
According to ISNAR scientist Thomas Braun-
Other factors complicate the issue as well. For ex- schweig, who was posted at INIA during the test-
ample, biotechnology programs often generate ing program, “The AHP exercise produced
intermediate products and processes that are reasonable and defensible priorities that are intu-
used for further research. This contrasts with end itively appealing and have since been generally
products such as seed that can be sold to farmers. accepted. Project rankings gave a clear indication
Biosafety and intellectual property rights also of how resources could be allocated.” The AHP
entail new and untried issues. Both introduce un- method, he says, helped the Chilean team incor-
certainty about whether or not the products of porate some of biotechnology’s unique character-
biotechnology will ever reach farmers, be adopt- istics into priority setting. For example, the team
ed by producers, or be accepted by consumers. adapted AHP to tackle questions about potential
impact by adding a more detailed analysis of the
probability of success. AHP also helped them
cope with the lack of hard data by tapping the
12
IIBnStineforrmnateiotn supports biotechnology in developing countries
SNAR responds in a number of ways to prevent a growing information gap between
I industrialized and developing countries in biotechnology-related areas. When
ISNAR established its Intermediary Biotechnology Service (IBS) in 1992, one of its
main tasks was to provide ready access to biotechnology information because
countries setting their agendas for biotechnology need information on what
technologies and expertise are available.
Today this is being done in many ways. The number of requests from developing
countries for information services is growing as researchers gain easier access to the
Internet. IBS now has an Internet-based information and discussion forum. This not only provides an
interactive interface for answering questions about agricultural biotechnology, it also publicizes new
initiatives and presents proposals for new collaborations.
The electronic forum is proving to be an efficient vehicle for facilitating contracts, partnerships,
and collaboration. John Komen, IBS information specialist, says, “The discussion forum had a long
gestation period, but now we are hosting a lively exchange of opinions, ideas, and questions about
the issues that developing countries face when planning or implementing research programs in
agricultural biotechnology.” ISNAR’s Web site links a number of public and private advanced
research institutes worldwide and provides summaries and full-text versions of selected publications.
IBS also set up a database on international agricultural biotechnology, which currently contains
information on 44 organizations supporting capacity building in agricultural biotechnology for
developing countries.
Interested readers can access the biotechnology Web site via ISNAR’s home page or at
http://www.cgiar.org/isnar/fora/biotech/index.htm.
knowledge, intuition, and experience of different Jaafar, research manager at the Malaysian Rubber
experts. Comparisons of research options based Board, hopes to try AHP in her own setting. “I
on explicit and descriptive criteria simplified the have gained tremendously from ISNAR’s advi-
judgments that had to be made. Finally, group sory help. . . . I think AHP can be applied in
sessions helped eliminate individual biases, pro- Malaysia to set priorities for our national commit-
moted ownership, and provided feedback and tee,” she says.
new insights on the potential impact of new proj-
ects. ISNAR is currently refining the AHP method, for
example, to resolve problems posed by communi-
After attending an ISNAR training course in cation barriers between stakeholder groups and
China in which AHP was introduced, Hafsah making sure that farmers and consumers are
more directly involved.
Safe Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture
Emerenciana Duran, a member of the Philippine
National Committee on Biosafety, has worked
with ISNAR since 1997 when she attended an
ISNAR course called “Managing Biotechnology
in a Time of Transition.” She exemplifies a new
generation of developing-country researchers
who must formulate and implement guidelines
and regulations to ensure that biotechnology is novelty makes it
applied safely. Duran agrees that training pro- difficult to estimate costs,
grams like ISNAR’s are helping research manag-
ers gain confidence. She points out that such skills let alone benefits
are often applied all around the negotiating table
13
PBouokbbulnidcleas ftivieoyenars’ expertise in biotechnology management
iotechnology is regarded as a growth point for many agricultural research systems.
B But many questions, such as the time horizons needed for research programs,
regulatory needs for human and environmental safety, potential benefits, and
required investments are difficult to estimate for research managers and
policymakers. To help them in this task, ISNAR has compiled a new book, “Managing
Agricultural Biotechnology—Addressing Research Program and Policy Implications
for Developing Countries,” to be published in 1999 by CAB International (CABI) in
their Biotechnology in Agriculture Series.
With contributions from international experts, the book is written by and for research managers in
developing countries, addressing the problems they face in organizing and managing biotechnology
research. Its information is derived from case studies and the experiences of biotechnology research
leaders worldwide. According to Gabrielle Persley, general editor of the series, the 21 books on
agricultural biotechnology that CABI has published over the past decade continue to be in high
demand. The ISNAR volume is the first to look at management issues specifically. “This easy-to-read
volume summarizes and synthesizes the main ideas derived from workshops and from information
collected by ISNAR over the past five years,” says Persley. “The book will be most helpful to
agricultural research managers, regulators, directors, and all those involved in the challenges of
biotechnology.”
during the public debate that often accompanies nonindigenous species into natural or managed
decision making. ecosystems.
Duran regularly experiences these debates first- The “guidelines” that Duran refers to are formal
hand. Filipino NGOs (nongovernmental organi- regulations that are now in place in a number of
zations), she says, are deeply concerned about countries. These help scientists and regulators as-
biosafety guidelines. “At first we thought that sess and manage risks to human health and the
greater public consultation would delay final ac- environment, evaluate the consequences of re-
tion,” she says. “But we eventually decided to leasing genetically modified organisms into an
hold even more public consultations as the pro- area, and then weigh these considerations against
cess accelerated.” the potential benefits of proposed trials. The
guidelines are usually formalized in government
Safety issues are often the focus of fierce public legislation or in a presidential or ministerial de-
debate. The term “biosafety” describes policies cree. The Philippines established its national com-
and procedures that are adopted to ensure that mittee on biosafety in 1990 by executive order.
biotechnology does not harm public health, the
environment, or biodiversity. In agriculture, Effectiveness of biosafety programs
biosafety is usually associated with the use of ge-
netically modified organisms such as transgenic By definition, an effective biosafety system fosters
crops or, more generally, with the introduction of the rational use of biotechnology to improve agri-
cultural productivity or food quality, secure eco-
nomic benefits for producers, and protect health
and the environment. ISNAR’s reviews of biosafe-
ty systems suggest four characteristics that are
shared by all effective biosafety programs.
First, they are based on written guidelines that
clearly define the structure of the system, the roles
NGOs are deeply and responsibilities of those involved, and how
the review process will operate. Second, they are
concerned about run by people who are well trained and confident
in their decision-making ability and who have the
biosafety guidelines support of their institutions. Third, the process
must be based on up-to-date and relevant scien-
14
tific information. Fourth, feedback mechanisms cally altered organisms developed elsewhere.
are used to incorporate new information and re- “By providing information and building their
vise the system as needed. skills in biotechnology management, ISNAR’s
partnerships with developing countries help
Biosafety first emerged as a global issue at the them judge how far the protocol will be effective
1992 UN Earth Summit, which led to the Agenda in bridging gaps in their own national biosafety
21 environmental action plan and the Convention policy,” says John Komen, associate research offi-
on Biological Diversity. The Convention, which cer in ISNAR’s biotechnology program.
came into force a year later, provides the basis for
current international agreements on the preserva- Issues in implementation
tion of genetic diversity. More than 100 countries
are now involved in the tough process of drafting While the public debate has focused on formulat-
the Convention’s “biosafety protocol,” which, if ing biosafety guidelines and a legal framework
successful, will be internationally binding. from which to operate, implementation is less
widely discussed. Most governments have dele-
One of the difficulties in the negotiations is that gated the responsibility to what is called a “com-
the industrialized countries’ expectations regard- petent authority.” This most often means a
ing the international biosafety rules are different ministry or government agency. As in the Philip-
from those of developing countries. The group of pines, the competent authority may be assisted
advanced countries, such as Canada, Japan, the by biosafety committees convened at the national
UK, and the USA, favor a protocol with few re- level or within organizations involved in biotech-
strictions. “They’ve already gone a long way in nology research.
biotechnology research,” says Howard Elliott,
ISNAR’s deputy director general. “Their govern- The people most closely involved in biosafety are
ments want to be able to build on their lead in the scientists seeking approval to test genetically
what they see as the next scientific revolution.” modified organisms or, like Duran, individuals
Private companies, too, want a protocol with few whose committees must approve the release of a
limitations on trade in products and techniques, genetically modified organism. While interests
one that enables them to gain returns on their past may diverge, ISNAR’s experience suggests that
investments in biotechnology research and that researchers—and those charged with oversight
creates conditions favorable to investments in for biosafety—can work together towards a com-
high-tech industries. mon goal. For that to happen, however, each par-
ticipant must be familiar with the relevant health
But many developing countries have little experi- and environmental issues and have a working
ence in biotechnology and biosafety. They are knowledge of biosafety review processes. They
counting on the protocol to protect them against must also be able to recognize what constitutes
the potentially adverse effects of biotechnologi- risk and to suggest which risk-management strat-
15
egies are most applicable. Finally, as in Uganda, neering research and development.” According
they must be able to communicate their findings to Uthaiwan, there is no question that the pub-
to a range of stakeholders, including policymak- lic-education issues are the responsibility of all,
ers and the general public. including the private sector, particularly the large
multinational companies.
In Thailand, where the biotechnology industry is
developing steadily, the public perception of By now, the biosafety debate has alerted many
biosafety also presents a major challenge. “We developing countries to the need to prepare posi-
have just started to do public education,” says tions on the issue and to be proactive in defending
Uthaiwan Grudloyma, policy analyst at the Na- their interests. But only knowledgeable, confident
tional Center for Genetic Engineering and Bio- negotiators can advocate national viewpoints.
technology. “There is much confusion concerning Building these skills in people and their agricul-
GMOs [genetically modified organisms], which, tural research institutions is a major part of
in turn, influences attitudes towards genetic engi- ISNAR’s work.
Ownership of Rights to the Technologies
A researcher spent his sabbatical at an Asian agri- But this only holds true if the intellectual property
cultural university where he worked as part of a was created in the course of employment and if
group studying how to eliminate the toxins found the research institute has contributed resources
in palm kernel cake fed to sheep. When the sab- and services. In this case, the issue was not as
batical was over, the visitor returned home where clear-cut. Because similar situations were bound
he continued the work. Asian colleagues periodi- to occur, the university solved the problem by en-
cally sent him the palm kernel cakes he needed to acting an intellectual property statute that would
continue the experiments. The scientist eventu- apply to students, staff, and visitors.
ally solved the problem during his home-based
research, but a dispute then arose over patent The fast pace of increase in the number of patents
rights to the innovation. The university was faced awarded for innovations involving biotechnol-
with a dilemma: “Who owns intellectual property ogy has encouraged many agricultural research
that was developed by a visitor using university institutes to follow this Asian university’s exam-
resources and facilities?” ple. According to a study published in Research
Policy, the number of biotechnology-related pat-
In general, a research institute owns the intellec- ents awarded annually has increased 250 percent
tual property generated by its staff and students. since 1989. Other factors are also prompting
16
PSafoe alnidcsyound, research informs biosafety
oncern about biosafety, including the potential for genetically modified organisms
C (GMOs) to have a negative effect on the environment and human health, is now a
high-priority global issue. That’s because products of biotechnology research are
now steadily emerging from many advanced research laboratories, especially those
in industrialized countries. A number of developing countries, too, particularly in
Asia and Latin America, are in the process of moving biotechnology out of the lab and
into their agricultural production systems. “Building national competence in
biosafety is thus of strategic importance to the successful integration of biotechnology
into agricultural research,” says Patricia Traynor of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
(USA).
“Biosafety has become an integral part of technology transfer, as well as a major component of
trade agreements pertaining to GMOs,” Traynor says. “Having a means for exercising oversight in the
use of agricultural biotechnology fosters a deliberate and informed approach to the use of this new
and powerful technology.”
ISNAR is expanding its biosafety activities. Its aim is not only to support developing countries in
using biotechnology to enhance their agricultural productivity, but also to help them ensure
environmentally responsible use of their biotechnology products. Indeed, development of national
biosafety guidelines was one of the most commonly cited needs of country delegations attending
IBS-sponsored regional policy seminars between 1994 and 1996. This includes establishing a
responsive biosafety system and increasing staff capacity to perform risk analysis on genetically
modified organisms.
ISNAR is responding to this acutely perceived need on several fronts. Its training course on
managing new technologies, “Managing Biotechnology in a Time of Transition,” has a session
covering the management of biosafety systems, balancing research and biosafety considerations, and
building public acceptance. IBS is now preparing to assist a Southeast Asian country in preparing a
technical training course for biosafety regulators.
ISNAR has also initiated a two-year collaborative research project with Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University to assess the impact of genetically engineered crops that were
commercially released in developing countries. At the same time, ISNAR is reviewing the biosafety
policies and procedures associated with the introductions. In addition to valuable information on the
efficacy of the biosafety system, the project will produce recommendations on how developing
countries can address gaps in their human, technical, and information resources.
changes in the climate surrounding intellectual
property rights (IPR). First, agreement to protect a
patent holder’s ownership rights to a technology
is now a likely precondition for a research insti-
tute’s participation in a collaborative project. Sec-
ond, changes resulting from international treaties
such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) and the Convention on Biodiver-
sity have had an impact on some developing
countries’ positions on granting patents. Finally,
in some technologically advanced countries, re-
searchers have developed plants or technological
innovations that may warrant their seeking pro-
prietary rights themselves.
public education
“IPR is often used to control access to an agricul-
tural invention,” says Joel Cohen, leader of issues are the
ISNAR’s Intermediary Biotechnology Service.
“Following development in the laboratory and responsibility of all
the field, protected innovations enter the world of
17
OAdvuistorryesearvcicehs reap harvest of past research
s part of its 1998 advisory services, ISNAR collaborated with the Rockefeller
A Foundation to study needs and opportunities for increased investments in
biotechnology for improving African crops. The study concluded that there are good
opportunities for increased donor support for advanced biotechnology research and
training in the region. Such support will certainly enhance ongoing biotechnology
research efforts in Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria,
South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
John Lynam, program officer for agricultural sciences in Kenya, commented on
the work, “Rockefeller requested assistance from ISNAR because they had completed a previous
biotechnology study and this gave us confidence. ISNAR had a better entry point into Africa and had
‘on the ground’ understanding of biotechnology possibilities.” As to the report’s conclusions, Lynam
says, “ISNAR’s report recommended that research policy and management aspects of biotechnology,
such as biosafety, should be an integral component of a new donor initiative, while the actual
funding mechanism should be carefully determined in order to make new initiatives sustainable. It
also provided us with invaluable information regarding the biotechnology tools available for each of
the five crops being investigated and assessments of relevant capacity.”
ISNAR has made it its business over the years to deliver knowledge and tools developed through
research in the form of advisory services to client organizations. The Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation (SDC) was another such organization in 1998. SDC mandated a task force to
prepare a new phase of the Indo-Swiss Collaboration in Biotechnology (ISCB) Project in India. A
detailed cooperation program between Swiss and Indian institutions will be set up for the promotion
of biotechnology research and development capacity in India. The new program will start in April
1999. As part of its advisory assistance, ISNAR is helping with issues like priority setting, managing
intellectual property rights and technology transfer, biosafety regulations, and the components
needed for building and implementing a strategy for biotechnology.
production and development, subject to the condi- Patents and plant variety rights
tions established by the holders of the intellectual
property.” Products derived from these innova- Patents and plant variety rights are the two
tions may take their place beside other inputs that most common ways that researchers can protect
help address farmers’ and consumers’ needs. their rights to a technology. In 1993, ISNAR ex-
“Clarity regarding IPR and the rightful ownership plained how IPR might affect agricultural re-
of innovations can build a foundation for equitable search in its Research Report No. 3, “Intellectual
relationships between partners who have collabo- Property Rights for Agricultural Biotechnology:
rated to bring a technology to fruition, as well as Options and Impacts for Developing Coun-
with those wishing to use the innovation to ad- tries.” A patent grants the inventor exclusive
vance future research developments,” Cohen says. rights to manufacture or sell an invention over a
period of roughly 20 years. Issuance of a patent,
in turn, requires the developers to make public
the details of their innovation. The idea is that
disclosure stimulates national economic devel-
opment by encouraging additional research
while ensuring that inventors are sufficiently
rewarded to spur future work.
Plant variety rights are similar to patents but
pertain specifically to new plant varieties. They
stronger IPR standards grant the breeder exclusive rights to produce
and commercialize a variety for at least 15 years.
may increase access to Both patents and plant variety rights apply only
in the countries that have granted them. More-
protected technologies over, both contain provisions for limited unau-
thorized use of protected materials. For patents
18
this includes a “research exemption” that allows the “CINVESTAV” network of public-sector re-
scientists to study the material as long as they do search institutes a nonexclusive, royalty-free li-
not reproduce it for commercial purposes. Plant cense to a company-owned technology. The
variety rights are more lenient, allowing both a agreement included not only transfer of the tech-
“breeders’ exemption” and “farmers’ privilege.” nology, but also collaboration on genetic engi-
Using the breeders’ exemption, scientists can use neering techniques and training for staff.
protected material to create new varieties. The CINVESTAV was subsequently authorized to de-
farmers’ exemption, in turn, allows producers to velop and sell future generations of virus-resis-
use harvested crops for the next planting. ISNAR tant potatoes in Latin America and Africa, but
Research Report No. 3 fully examines the compli- was prohibited from exporting them to the United
cations and repercussions of these exceptions. States. In addition, use of the Monsanto technol-
ogy was limited to just 10 varieties. Nonetheless,
Developing countries’ standpoint the program provided a boost to Mexico’s bio-
technology program, enabling it to produce a vi-
Developing countries have traditionally been re- rus-resistant potato that has been disseminated to
luctant to recognize or enforce any form of IPR, Mexican farmers.
particularly patent rights. Instead, they have
taken the stand that patents have kept their indus- Material transfer agreements
tries from catching up with the industrialized and licenses
world and have deprived them of the benefits of
technological innovation. But the shift to liberal- Rights to a patented technology can be trans-
ized global markets is now raising doubts as to ferred in a number of ways. But for purposes of
whether such permissive IPR policies are condu- research, one of the most common methods is
cive to social and economic development. It is fre- through a material-transfer agreement (MTA).
quently argued that stronger IPR standards may Formal licenses are a second option, followed by
increase developing countries’ access to protected royalty arrangements or rights payments. A 1998
technologies, help them reduce technology gaps, ISNAR survey showed that MTAs were involved
increase the opportunities available to build na- in about 70 percent of cases in which international
tional scientific know-how, and attract foreign in- research centers obtained permission to use pri-
vestment. vately owned technology; about 30 percent of the
cases involved licenses. Even so, the permission
Mexico’s development of a virus-resistant potato was usually granted for “research only.” Thus,
illustrates the point. In 1991, Monsanto granted questions of who will hold the rights to subse-
quently developed technologies remain.
19
Indeed, use and dissemination of technologies ties that could arise from the use of research prod-
developed using patented research inputs pres- ucts generated from proprietary technologies.
ents legal and ethical questions, especially to Problems are especially likely to occur when ex-
public-sector organizations. First, agricultural re- ports are involved. For example, ISNAR Briefing
search that is financed with public funds usually Paper No. 39, “Proprietary Biotechnology Inputs
aims at producing “public goods.” That means and International Agricultural Research,” de-
the products of research should be available to all scribed a contractual agreement between an in-
at negligible cost. But this view is difficult to rec- ternational center and a private multinational
oncile with the current climate of patent awards. who, as owner of a proprietary input technology,
A 1997 report of the Consultative Group on Inter- stipulated that research outputs could be distrib-
national Agricultural Research (CGIAR) ex- uted only in selected countries. Such agreements
pressed the position of the international research could limit the dissemination of technologies and
centers: The CGIAR stands for free flows of germplasm that have traditionally been seen as
germplasm without regard to profit. However, public goods.
centers may establish defensive patents to stake
out a claim and ensure access to germplasm and Within the CGIAR, there is growing recognition
technologies for the benefit of developing coun- that legal expertise is urgently needed to help re-
tries. solve these types of problems. ISNAR is currently
following up its 1998 IPR survey with a study of
Another question involves the cost of legal exper- 20 research groups involved in public-sector agri-
tise. Few agricultural research institutes can af- cultural research in five Latin American coun-
ford to maintain on staff experts on international tries. Results, due in mid-1999, should provide a
patent law. Even the relatively well-off CGIAR good indication of whether developing countries
centers feel that they do not have the information do indeed face issues similar to those confronting
they need to anticipate, for example, the difficul- the international centers.
20
RStuedysduoclutmsents in the IPR situation in CGIAR research
echnologies and genetic materials owned by private-sector research organizations
T are playing an increasing role in research done in the CGIAR, according to an ISNAR
study done on behalf of the CGIAR Expert Panel on Proprietary Science and
Technology. “Much new biotechnology is proprietary [privately owned, managed, or
protected through some sort of intellectual property rights],” says the panel’s
chairperson, Tim Roberts. “Commercial companies are big players and they must
have IPRs [intellectual property rights] to recover their research investments.”
According to Roberts, the CGIAR needs IPR expertise and, in some cases, IPRs of their
own. “The CGIAR must act quickly,” he says.
While the range of proprietary technologies used in CGIAR research is extremely broad, very little
patent protection is being sought by centers for their own innovations, according to the ISNAR
findings. The reason is the “public good” tradition of CGIAR products, the lack of familiarity among
CGIAR scientists and managers with issues related to intellectual property rights, and the unsuitability
of most current IPR options.
In its report, which was submitted in April, ISNAR specifically highlighted the procedures that
currently govern research inputs protected by IPR. “MTAs” or material-transfer agreements are the
most common way for centers to obtain permission to use materials, although they, too, have
limitations. Confidentiality obligations, for instance, may be imposed on visitors and research
partners when the owner of a technology regards it as a trade secret.
Findings also show that the international research centers are now moving into a new phase in
which biotechnology is being used to create a new generation of inputs for use in the laboratory and
on farmers’ fields. Unlike the situation in the 1980s, many CGIAR research centers are now using
modern biotechnology techniques. Figures show that as a whole, the CGIAR spends about US $24
million each year on biotechnology. This amount is still very small compared with the biotechnology
investments of the commercial sector. Still, it is a clear signal that public-sector national and
international agricultural research organizations are deepening their involvement in proprietary
technologies. These expenditures may reinforce the need to rethink IPR policies to ensure that the
fruits of the centers’ research remain freely available for developing countries.
Among the study’s seven recommendations was that the CGIAR develop its expertise on and
encourage awareness of IPR issues. A central “expert facility,” perhaps, could be established that
would help keep centers abreast of changes occurring in national IPR positions. The findings also
emphasized the urgent need for consistent, systemwide legal advice. The legal complexity of
proprietary technologies gives rise to many issues that the CGIAR must be fully prepared to deal with.
Back to Uganda
ISNAR’s work in biotechnology policy, organiza- repercussions for future agricultural develop-
tion, and management repeatedly shows the im- ment. In a few years, seed incorporating the gene
portance of establishing a national capacity in may well be available in Africa. But this seed will
developing countries to understand and analyze not reach farmers in countries that have not im-
the issues that this emerging technology presents. plemented a means to protect and enforce the
“Given the pace of world developments, a degree rights of patent holders.
of self-reliance is essential,” says Cohen. In ques-
tions like the patent issues facing Uganda, the This puts decision makers in the position of
programing decisions that Chile is poised to weighing technology’s new options for their
make, and the biosafety organizational issues in farmers against the value of current farming prac-
the Philippines, there is a sense of urgency as tices, perhaps including reliance on saved seed.
well. In such assessments, a strong analytical capacity
within the national agricultural research organi-
Whether or not Uganda does, in the end, award zation is essential.
patent protection to the terminator gene will have
21
ISNAR Activities in 1998
ASdevrivsiocrey ResTerairncihn gand TArdavin. iSnegr vaincde aAndv R. Seseervaircceh
Research Training
Country Activity Donors/
collaborators
Asia and South Pacific
China, New technologies: conducted two-week training course on managing DGIS/NEDA,
India, biotechnology for participants from the region (see also box, page 9) Government of
Malaysia, Japan (ODA),
Sri Lanka, SDC, 
CAAS, IRRI
Iran
Indonesia, New technologies: conducted regional workshop on information DGIS/NEDA,
Philippines, management for agricultural research, second in series under the ISNAR Government of
Thailand, project, New Technologies for Agricultural Research; workshop focused on Japan (ODA),
Vietnam, practical issues in IM/IT, such as major options for NARS in next 5 to 10 SDC, 
AIT
India years and organizational and resource implications of different choices 
Kenya, Participatory research: continued building ISNAR’s knowledge base on CGIAR
Indonesia participatory approaches to agricultural research through evaluation of two System-wide
types of participatory research: farmer field schools in Kenya and action Program on
research facilities in Indonesia; framework presented at international Participatory
Research and
symposium of Association for Farming Systems Research and Gender Analysis
Extension—South Africa and published as a discussion paper
China Information strategy for China: undertook planning mission to Chinese CAAS,
NARS; produced plan and budget for development exercise on information CABI
management/information technology
Indonesia IBS: surveyed resources available to build national capacity for agricultural DGIS/NEDA,
biotechnology (see also box, page 10) SDC
Eastern Europe/Former Soviet Union
Central Strengthening NARS in transitional economies: continued working in World Bank,
Asia and CGIAR Collaborative Research Program for Central Asia and the Caucasus: UAAS, IFAD
Caucasus • organized and conducted expert consultation on agricultural research
policy, organization, and management in Central Asia and the Caucasus
• with support from IFAD, began developing profiles of research in several
countries in the region
• made progress in analyzing the process and options for organizational
change in emerging market economies, assisting selected countries in
developing detailed responses to implementing reforms in policy,
organization, and management
Croatia Training: conducted skill-building workshop on research program
formulation and priority setting; assisted in planning a regional pilot
program for 1999
Georgia Strengthening NARS: assisted Georgia’s Ministry of Agriculture and World Bank,
Academy of Agrarian Sciences in preparing for reorganization IFAD
ISNAR’s ability to respond to requests with targeted funding
depends on the base created by the generous support of its unrestricted core donors
22
Ukraine Strengthening NARS: continued collaboration with Ukraine following World Bank,
December 1997 review of the Ukrainian Academy of Agricultural Sciences IFAD, UAAS
(UAAS); developed workplan for restructuring UAAS with support of a
World Bank IDF grant
Latin America/Caribbean
Agricultural science and technology indicators: began survey of CARDI, CEDAF
investments in Caribbean with CARDI and CEDAF
Benchmarking studies: completed study of four cases of “best management
practices” with publication of two briefing papers: one based on case study
in Costa Rica and one based on Uruguay
Capacity building: organized workshop at CGIAR Secretariat on assessing IDB, IDRC,
the impact of capacity building, representatives of NAROs in region, TAC, CGIAR, TAC
the CGIAR Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group, IDB, IDRC, and
ISNAR’s PM&E project team 
Institutional assessment: organized two special sessions on organizational EES
and institutional assessment at European Evaluation Society
ISNAR/IICA strategic alliance: formal agreement to collaborate and carry IICA, PROCIs,
out complementary activities in the region was advanced in a meeting on CATIE
technical cooperation for the management of technological innovation and
institutional issues in R&D in agriculture
Supporting regional collaboration: helped create regional focal point at CARDI,
CARDI for PROCICARIBE to (1) link Caribbean NARS with IARCs and (2) PROCICARIBE,
strengthen CARDI and UWI as essential linkages for partnerships among UWI
individual NARS
Argentina, Agroindustry and natural resource management: conceptual framework for DGIS/NEDA,
Brazil, NARS/IDB/ISNAR project on new technological demands published in CTA,
Chile, Spanish and English; conducted two training workshops; completed six ANPEI,
Columbia, country reports and two training modules on analytical approach to Colciencias,
CORPOICA,
Mexico, diagnosing and improving the responsiveness of research to new DANE, DNP,
Venezuela technological demands EMBRAPA,
FINEP, IBGE,
IICA, MC&T
Brazil, IBS: surveyed use of proprietary inputs in biotechnology research in DGIS/NEDA,
Chile, selected Latin American NARS SDC
Colombia,
Costa Rica,
Mexico
Cuba, PM&E: pilot cases on planning, monitoring, and evaluation carried out in IDB, IDRC, SDC, 
Panama, three missions to each country; the first missions involved technical support MINAG,
Venezuela for final steps of institutionalizing integrated PM&E systems in each FONAIAP, IDIAP
country; the second involved support for internal self-assessments to
document lessons and experiences associated with collaboration in the
project; the third documented experiences and compiled lessons learned
Panama, Supporting regional collaboration: provided comprehensive support to DGIS/NEDA,
Nicaragua, establishing and managing SICTA; supported 5th meeting of SICTA’s board CENTA, IDIAP,
El Salvador, in Nicaragua; conducted workshop on assessing training needs for SICTA MAG, INTA
Costa Rica members
Chile Priority setting in biotechnology: in collaboration with INIA (Chile) and ZIL, 
ZIL (Switzerland), continued development of an analytic hierarchy INIA, ETH
approach to priority setting that takes account of the special characteristics
of biotechnology
Mexico Strengthening capacity for biotechnology: surveyed resources available to DGIS/NEDA,
build national capacity for agricultural biotechnology (see also box, page 10) SDC
Unrestricted Core Donors
Australia Canada European Union India Japan Norway Spain United Kingdom
Belgium China France Iran Mexico Philippines Sweden United States
Brazil Denmark Germany Italy Netherlands South Africa Switzerland World Bank
23
ASdevrivsiocrey ResTerairncihn gand TArdavin. iSnegr vaincde aAndv R. Seseervaircceh
Research Training
Sub-Saharan Africa
Africa overview study: analyzed long-term trends in investments in SPAAR, 
agricultural research and development; documented findings in three DANIDA, USAID
discussion papers
IARC-NARS training group: fulfilled ISNAR’s commitment to developing CIAT, CIP,
competitive and self-supporting training programs in the region; national CMRT-Egerton
trainers from Swaziland, Nigeria, and Kenya trained 22 research program University,
leaders in INTG’s annual agricultural research management training ICRISAT, IITA,
WARDA, DART,
program for sub-Saharan Africa; direct costs were financed by participants’ ECABREN, KARI, 
fees NARO-Uganda,
PRAPACE
Biotechnology for African crops: Conducted study in 10 countries on DGIS/NEDA,
biotechnology for African crops for Rockefeller Foundation: Cameroon, Côte Rockefeller
d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda Foundation, SDC
(see also box, page 18)
Livestock development policies: in collaboration with CTA, completed and CTA
published results of 1997 seminar held in Swaziland on livestock
development policies in Eastern and Southern Africa; prepared summary
report of two CTA/OAU-IBAR regional seminars on livestock development
policies in sub-Saharan Africa
Role of universities in sub-Saharan African NARS: published proceedings CTA, DSE
of the synthesis workshop held in late 1997 in French and English; began
synthesis of lessons learned and a how-to manual for research managers to
help enhance the contribution of universities in their NARS
Strengthening regional organizations: provided technical support to CORAF
CORAF consultant in charge of developing CORAF’s strategic plan
Kenya, Participatory research: continued building ISNAR’s knowledge base on CGIAR
Indonesia participatory approaches to agricultural research through evaluation of two System-wide
types of participatory research: farmer field schools in Kenya and action Program on
research facilities in Indonesia; framework presented at international Participatory
Research and
symposium of Association for Farming Systems Research and Gender Analysis
Extension—South Africa and published as a discussion paper
Cameroon Biotechnology: assisted in developing a program for a workshop organized USAID,
by Cameroon’s Ministry of Forests, National Biosafety Focal point; managed DGIS/NEDA,
USAID funds for the workshop on behalf of the Government of Cameroon Government of
Japan (ODA), ZIL
Guinea Medium-term plan: assisted IRAG in sharpening the focus of their IRAG
agricultural research by introducing an integrated planning, budgeting,
monitoring, and evaluation system based on methodology jointly developed 
by IRAG, INRA-Morocco, and ISNAR 
Kenya Building capacity for agricultural biotechnology: surveyed resources DGIS/NEDA,
available to build national capacity for agricultural biotechnology (see also Government of
box, page 10) Japan (ODA), ZIL
Kenya Planning and priority setting: in collaboration with KARI, copublished KARI
Research Priority Setting: Information Investments for the Improved Use of
Research Resources; written by KARI and ISNAR staff based at KARI,
documenting advances in processes and tools for priority setting that took
place over several years of KARI-ISNAR collaboration (see also box, page 31)
Many of ISNAR’s core donors also provide targeted contributions
24
Kenya Priority setting for livestock research: continued development of Humboldt
priority-setting model for livestock research in association with Humboldt University, Berlin
University, Berlin
Kenya Training master plan: developed five-year plan for strengthening EU,
coordination and financing of training at KARI based on the 1996–97 KARI
assessment of training needs and organizational constraints
Kenya Transforming agricultural research systems: report on past and present Rockefeller
work done in Kenya, including evaluation of the Kenyan NARS and other Foundation
PM&E activities, to be published in forthcoming book, Transforming the
Agricultural Research System in Kenya: Lessons for Africa
Nigeria Research policy: completed and published study on instability of NARS in
sub-Saharan Africa, based on the experience of Nigeria; provides basis for
methodological development and input to future policy dialogues
Uganda Strengthening research management: continued institutional development NARO, Uganda,
with (1) evaluating organizational performance, (2) assessing staff World Bank
performance, (3) assessing performance of the DG and DDG, and (4)
preparing a phase II research and training project
West Asia/North Africa
Assessment of management needs and performance: supported and AOAD, ICARDA
participated in a workshop with AOAD and ICARDA on needs assessment
and capacity building for NARS leaders from 13 countries in the region
Cyprus Institutional development: assisted ARI in assessment of the institute’s ARI, Cyprus
performance; ARI staff identified strengths and weaknesses in terms of
output, productivity, and performance in key areas of management
Iran Strengthening research management: provided technical support in Iran, 
activities including development of an information strategy, training in AREEO
rapid rural appraisal, and research program planning
Palestine National review and planning: assisted in a review and planning exercise UNDP, Palestine
for the Palestinian NARS in collaboration with local teams; approach to be National
institutionalized by strengthening the capacity of the local team Authority
Global
Agricultural science and technology indicators: contributed two articles on
agricultural research policy to a special issue of World Development;
published discussion paper on public and private-sector investment
Assistance to NARS Secretariat: seconded a senior adviser to assist in FAO, IFAD
establishing and managing the steering committee for the NARS Secretariat
of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research in Rome, aimed to achieve a
stronger voice at regional levels for NARS and a stronger focus for their
collective voice in the CGIAR and the Global Forum
CSI and poverty mapping: participated in start-up workshop of CGIAR UNEP/GRID
Consortium for Spatial Information for Agricultural Research (CSI) and the
CGIAR initiative on poverty mapping
Distance training: held preliminary workshop to review objectives of the DFID, 
distance training project and to identify potential contributions of partners; COL, NAARM,
project will evaluate the effectiveness of distance education in training Wye College
front-line researchers to more effectively address the problems of
resource-poor farmers in agricultural research programs
Ecoregional fund workshop: hosted review workshop under the Fund for Fund for
Support to Ecoregional Research to synthesize methodological Methodological
developments to date and to help researchers develop new proposals for Support to
submission to the fund Ecoregional
programs
Unrestricted Core Donors
Australia Canada European Union India Japan Norway Spain United Kingdom
Belgium China France Iran Mexico Philippines Sweden United States
Brazil Denmark Germany Italy Netherlands South Africa Switzerland World Bank
25
ASdevrivsiocrey ResTerairncihn gand TArdavin. iSnegr vaincde aAndv R. Seseervaircceh
Research Training
Finance sourcebook: Published Financing Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook, 
a 360-page collection of commissioned papers offering both conceptual and
practical guidance on policy, fiscal, structural, and management issues in
financing and managing research (see also box, page 29)
Gender: Hosted intercenter consultation for the CGIAR Gender Staffing CGIAR
Program
Globalization: recruited a senior research officer to lead in this area, starting 
January 1999; added an associate expert to concentrate in this area;
developed conceptual framework for research in globalization; began work
on a comprehensive literature review; designed survey of selected NARS;
began preparations for expert consultation to be held in 1999
Governance: highlighted issues in governance in literature review and
published comparison of different schools of thought in discussion paper 
IBS: DGIS/NEDA,
• synthesized and published findings of four regional policy seminars on SDC
biotechnology held between September 1994 and October 1996; published
as ISNAR Briefing Paper No. 38
• surveyed the use of proprietary materials and inputs in work of IARCs;
published results as ISNAR Briefing Paper No. 39 (see also box, page 21)
• continued work on a sourcebook for managers responsible for agricultural 
biotechnology programs in developing countries, to be published by CAB
International as part of its biotechnology series (see also box, page 14)
Impact assessment: contributed to CGIAR Impact Assessment and DANIDA,
Evaluation Group study on methods of evaluating collaborative projects ACIAR, SDC,
between IARCs and NARS in region IDRC,
DGIS/NEDA,
IFAD, CGIAR
Information management: continued work on a handbook on managing
information for NARS information specialists and research managers
Institutional performance assessment and governance: senior officer ICAR, NAARM
outposted to India
• to assist NAARM in strengthening its research and training programs to
enhance its capacity to serve the Indian NARS and those of the region
• to provide overall coordination to ISNAR-ICAR activities in India
Internet development:
• AROW: refined the directory of agricultural research organizations on the
Web; with hyperlinks to over 1,000 agricultural research organizations
and institutes with Internet sites, it is now the most comprehensive listing
of agricultural research-related homepages in the world
• Discussion fora: completed and assessed the first phase in developing
electronic information and discussion fora on priority setting and
management of biotechnology research in agriculture; to be expanded
with more topics in 1999 (see also box, page 13)
Unrestricted core support enables ISNAR
to deploy resources to meet CGIAR goals, priorities, and strategies
26
ISNAR Global Associates: laid groundwork for a decentralized IICA
unit—headquarters to be hosted at IICA in Costa Rica—to coordinate a
network of resource persons located throughout the world and able to
respond to requests for assistance from developing countries rapidly using
ISNAR-supported approaches and tools (see also box, page 5)
Library development: moved ISNAR’s library database from CDS/ISIS to IDRC
MINISIS for Windows; began development of an interface for the World
Wide Web so that partners and collaborators can access ISNAR’s library
resources 
New partnerships: prepared, participated in, and documented joint GTZ
workshop with GTZ and NARS representatives on new partnerships for
agricultural innovations
Planning agricultural research: continued work on Planning Agricultural
Research: A Sourcebook, to be published by CAB International in 1999
Policy and natural-resource management: published report of a workshop ECDPM
and commissioned papers analyzing cases where results of technical
research have been convincing enough to change national policies
Special journal issue on evaluation: prepared special issue of Knowledge,
Technology and Policy on evaluation in developing countries
Training modules on research management: continued developing new
training modules; converted 10 more modules to electronic format for
posting on ISNAR’s Internet site
Unrestricted Core Donors
Australia Canada European Union India Japan Norway Spain United Kingdom
Belgium China France Iran Mexico Philippines Sweden United States
Brazil Denmark Germany Italy Netherlands South Africa Switzerland World Bank
27
ISNAR Publications and Other Documents
Most ISNAR publications are published No. 38. Strategic decisions for agricul- search: International investment pat-
both on paper and in electronic format. The tural biotechnology: Synthesis of four terns and policy perspectives. World De-
electronic versions are accessible via policy seminars. By J.I. Cohen, velopment 26 (6): 1057–1071
ISNAR’s Web site at www.cgiar.org/isnar C. Falconi, and J. Komen
and can be downloaded at no charge. Batz, F.J., K.J. Peters, and W. Janssen.
No. 39. Proprietary biotechnology in- Adoptionsstudien als Orientierungs-
Corporate and General Publications puts and international agricultural re- hilfe für die landwirtschaftliche
search. By J.I. Cohen, C. Falconi, Beratung. Ein Fallbeispiel aus dem
Annual report 1997 J. Komen, and M. Blakeney Bereich des Technologietransfers in der
kenianischen Milcherzeugung. In
Medium-term plan 1999–2001 No. 40. Benchmark study. The agricul- Technischer Fortschritt im Spannungsfeld
tural technology development fund for von Ernährungssicherung und
ISNAR’s achievements, impacts, and contract research: An INIA (Uruguay) Ressourcenschutz. Tagungsband zum
constraints: An assessment of organiza- initiative. By S.H. Hobbs, C. Valverde, Tropentag 1997, edited by T. Loop,
tional performance and institutional E. Indarte, and B. Lanfranco M. van de Sand, and J.Greiling.
impact, by R. Mackay, S. Debela, Stuttgart: University of Hohenheim
T. Smutylo, J. Borges-Andrade, and No. 40S. Estudio de caso gerencial
C. Lusthaus exitoso. El Fondo para contratar Bie, S.W. China and ISNAR. In China
investigación para la promoción de and CGIAR: Proceedings of the
New technological demands: The meth- tecnología agropecuaria: Una iniciativa China-CGIAR forum, edited by Y. Yan
odological framework for an del INIA (Uruguay). By S.H. Hobbs, and W. Wightman. Beijing: China Agri-
INIAs/BID/ISNAR project C. Valverde, E. Indarte, and cultural Scientech Press
B. Lanfranco
Books Bie, S.W. Food supplies for the global
Research Reports poor by the global rich—Is this a solu-
Financing agricultural research: A tion? In The role of free market or market
sourcebook, edited by S.R. Tabor, No. 13. Instability of national agricul- interventions in the agricultural policy.
W. Janssen, and H. Bruneau tural research systems in sub-Saharan Lectures held at the seminar of the 50th
Contributors: G. Alex, H.M. Baur, Africa: Lessons from Nigeria. By anniversary of NILF and BFJ, January
H. Bruneau, E.G. Brush, D. Byerlee, F.S. Idachaba 21, 1998. Edited by H. Romarheim and
J.I. Cohen, S. Crespi, B. Dhar, A. Haglerød. Oslo: Norsk institutt for
R.G. Echeverría, H. Elliott, T. Eponou, Research Management Guidelines landbruksøkonomisk forskning
S. Fan, M. Fuchs-Carsch, W. Janssen,
J. McIntire, H.M. Mule, P.G. Pardey, No. 5. Ten tools for managing change in Bie, S.W. Rettigheter til land og sikring
C.E. Pray, J. Roseboom, S.R. Tabor, national agricultural research organiza- av disse rettighetene—en utfordring for
H. Tollini, E.J. Trigo tions. By S.H. Hobbs utviklingslandene? Kart og Plan Vol. 57:
135–139
Agricultural research priority setting: In- Reports of Meetings
formation investments for improved use of Bie, S.W. The missing scientific links to
research resources, edited by B. Mills Highlights of a workshop. plan sustainable land management at
Contributors: P. Audi, B. Mills, Strengthening the role of universities in farm level—past and future. Address to
M. Kamau, D. Kilanbya, J. Lynam, the national agricultural research sys- the Congress on Geo-Information for
A. Mbabu, V. Munyi, P. Mwangi, tems in sub-Saharan Africa. Cotonou, Sustainable Land Management. Special
S. Nandwa, S.W. Omamo, Benin, 17–21 November 1997. Edited by congress issue of the International Jour-
L.M’Ragwa, S. Wood H. Michelsen and D. Shapiro nal of Aerospace Survey and Earth Sci-
ences. ITC Journal 1997-3/4: 284–286
Science under scarcity: Principles and prac- Points forts d’un atelier de travail.
tice for agricultural research evaluation and Renforcement du rôle des universités Bie, S.W. Keynote address to the inau-
priority setting,  by J.M. Alston, au sein des systèmes nationaux de re- gural technical session. In Agriculture in
G.W. Norton, and P.G. Pardey. cherche agricole d’Afrique the Caribbean: Issues and challenges (UWI
Wallingford, UK: CAB Internationa l subsaharienne. Cotonou, Bénin, 17–21 Ag. 50). Proceedings of UWI Ag 50, Au-
(originally published in hardback by novembre 1997. Edited by H. Michelsen gust 19–21 1998. Vol. 1: 28–32. St. Au-
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, in and D. Shapiro gustine, Trinidad and Tobago:
1995 University of West Indies, Faculty of
External Publications by ISNAR Staff Agriculture and Natural Sciences,
Briefing Papers Members CEPAT
No. 35S. Estudio de caso gerencial These titles do not include papers presented Braunschweig, T. and N. Gotsch. Co-
exitoso. Una asociación con los at meetings unless they are part of pub- coa biotechnology research and issues
productores para una investigación lished proceedings. in competitiveness: Guidelines for as-
participativa: El caso del CENTA en El sessing potential economic impact. A
Salvador. By S.H. Hobbs, J.F. Larios, Allmand, M. Networking civil society study prepared for ISNAR. Schriften
F.R. Arias Milla, and J.E. Vides in Latin America. In Civil society and in- des Zentrums für regionale
ternational development, by A. Bernard, Entwicklungsforschung der
No. 37. Benchmark study. The creation H. Helmich, and P.B. Lehning. Paris: Or- Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen. Ham-
of a coordinated national agricultural ganisation for Economic Co-operation and burg: LIT Verlag
research system: The case of Costa Rica. Development
By S.H. Hobbs, F. Mojica Bentancour, Cohen, J. Making a difference: Consid-
O. Bonilla Bolaños, and E. Solís Alston, J.M., P.G. Pardey, and J. ering beneficiaries and sustainability
Roseboom. Financing agricultural re- while undertaking research in biotech-
28
New Book
Policy, planning, and management are keys to increasing research funding
ational agricultural research systems may be able to increase or stabilize their funding
N base by implementing a mixture of better research polices, entrepreneurial planning
and resource mobilization, and improvements in financial management, according to
ISNAR’s “sourcebook” on financing agricultural research published in 1998. The
sourcebook is the result of a year-long project to bring into focus the funding
problems currently facing developing-country agricultural research systems.
Particularly worrying is the fact that financial shortfalls in agricultural research are
emerging at a time when food security, poverty, and concerns about the environment pose greater
challenges than ever before. The finance sourcebook helps research leaders address the problems of
research funding. It brings together an assessment of the current financing situation with a review of
available policy options. It also presents strategies for improving resource mobilization and ways to
enhance financial management. Interested readers can access and download the electronic edition
of the book via ISNAR’s Internet site at www.cgiar.org/isnar.
Contents: Part 1. Finance Policy for Agricultural Research. Towards an appropriate level of
agricultural research finance (S.R. Tabor). Capital investment policies and agricultural research (H.
Tollini). Recurrent-operating cost policies and agricultural research (S.R. Tabor). Remuneration
policy (E.G. Brush). Coping with fiscal stress in developing-country agricultural research (J. McIntire).
Towards more effective use of external assistance in building agricultural research systems (D.
Byerlee and G. Alex). Financing agricultural research: Do organization and structure make a
difference? (H. Elliott). Part 2. Resource Mobilization and Accountability. Alternative funding
mechanisms: How changes in the public sector affect agricultural research (W. Janssen). Four
strategies for protecting public research funding (H.M. Baur and H.M. Mule). How to mobilize donor
funds (M. Fuchs-Carsch). Private funding for public research (C.E. Pray). Should I seek legal
protection for my research results? (J.I. Cohen, S. Crespi, and B. Dhar). Financing research through
regional cooperation (T. Eponou). Part 3. Financial Management. Principles and practices of good
financial management (H. Bruneau). Part 4. Trends in Agricultural Research Funding. Trends in
financing African agricultural research (P.G. Pardey and J. Roseboom). Financing agricultural
research in Latin America (R.G. Echeverría, E.J. Trigo, and D. Byerlee). Trends in financing Asian and
Australian agricultural research (P.G. Pardey, J. Roseboom, and S. Fan).
nology. In Agricultural biotechnology in Elliott. H. Strengthening agricultural Falconi, C. Financiamiento de la
international development, edited by policy analysis. In Report of the Eastern biotecnología agrícola en el Perú: Una
C.L. Ives and B.M. Bedford. and Central Africa Programme for Agricul- inversión rentable. In Transformación de
Wallingford, UK: CAB International tural Policy Analysis (ECAPAPA) stake- las prioridades en programas viables. Actas
holders’ meeting. Entebbe: ECAPAPA del seminario de política biotecnológica
Cohen, J. Agroecosystem quality: Pol- agrícola para America Latina, Perú,
icy and management challenges for Elliott. H. Information for agricultural 6–10 October 1996, edited by J. Komen,
new technologies and diversity. In policy in sub-Saharan Africa: A role for C. Falconi, and H. Hernandez. The
Biodiversity in agroecosystems, edited by ISNAR and the NARS. In National agri- Hague/Mexico, DF: Intermediary Bio-
W.W. Collins and C.O. Qualset. Boca cultural research in development coopera- technology Service/CamBioTec
Raton: CRC Press tion. Proceedings of the expert
consultation/workshop “The role of re- Falconi, C., J. Cohen, and J. Komen.
Craig, B.J., P.G. Pardey, and search in agricultural policy-making in ISNAR’s experiences regarding intellec-
J. Roseboom. International productiv- sub-Saharan Africa,” Feldafing, Ger- tual property rights and agricultural
ity patterns: Accounting for input qual- many, April 7–11, 1997. biotechnology research. In Proceedings
ity, infrastructure, and research. Bundesministerium für Wirtschafliche of the international seminar on biotech-
American Journal of Agricultural Econom- Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, GTZ, nologies for dryland agriculture: prospects
ics 79(4): 1064–1076 ATSAF, and CTA and constraints. Held in Hyderabad, In-
dia, July 16–18, 1998. Hyderabad: Insti-
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Falconi, C. Análisis socioeconómico en tute for Public Enterprise
Zusammenarbeit. New partnerships for el IBS. In Transformación de las priori-
agricultural innovations: ISNAR/GTZ dades en programas viables. Actas del Horton, D. Disciplinary roots and
workshop held at ISNAR, The Hague, seminario de política biotecnológica branches of evaluation: Some lessons
The Netherlands, January 27–30, 1998. agrícola para America Latina, Perú, from agricultural research. Knowledge
ISNAR contributors: H. Baur, 6–10 October 1996, edited by J. Komen, and Policy 10 (4): 31–66
A. Wuyts-Fivawo, H. Bruneau, C. C. Falconi, and H. Hernandez. The
Falconi, D. Horton, W. Janssen Hague/Mexico, DF: Intermediary Bio- Horton, D. and R. Mackay. Assessing
technology Service/CamBioTec the organizational impact of develop-
29
ment cooperation: A case from agricul- going beyond the farm boundary. ECDPM Policy Management Report
tural R&D. The Canadian Journal of Proceedings of the 15th International No. 8. Maastricht: European Centre for
Program Evaluation 13(2): 1–28 Symposium of the Association for Development Policy Management
Farming Systems Research-Extension, Other ISNAR contributors:
Horton, D., L. Dupleich, and A. Ander- November 29–December 4, 1998, Preto- M. Loevinsohn, G. Meijerink,
son (Eds.). Assessing organizational im- ria, South Africa. Pretoria: Association S.W. Omamo, H. Tollini
pact. Report of a review and synthesis for Farming Systems Re-
workshop held at the CGIAR Secretar- search-Extension Waithaka, M. Integration of a user per-
iat, Washington, DC, August 4–6. 1998. spective in research priority setting: The
Washington, DC: CGIAR Mackay, R., D. Horton, and S.Debela. case of dairy technology adoption in
Accounting for organizational results: Meru, Kenya. Kommunikation und
Hoste, C. Current livestock policies in An evaluation of the International Ser- Beratung No. 22. Weikersheim, Ger-
Eastern and Southern Africa. In Live- vice for National Agricultural Research. many: Margraf Verlag [Part of ISNAR/
stock development policies in Eastern and Canadian Journal of Development Studies HUB/KARI collaborative project]
Southern Africa, Proceedings of a semi- Special Issue XVIII: 711–734
nar held in Mbabane, Swaziland, 28 Wood, S. and P.G. Pardey. Agroeco-
July–1 August 1997. Wageningen, The Mills, B., R.M. Hassan, and P. Mwangi. logical dimensions of evaluating and
Netherlands: CTA Estimating potential benefits from re- prioritizing research from a regional
search and setting research priorities perspective. In Priorities for agricultural
Idachaba, F.S. Policy research in agri- for maize in Kenya. In Maize technology research in Latin America and the Carib-
culture: The view of a policy analyst. In development and transfer: A GIS applica- bean, edited by E. Lindarte. San Jose,
National agricultural research in develop- tion for research planning in Kenya, edited Costa Rica: Inter-American Institute for
ment cooperation. Proceedings of the ex- by R.M. Hassan. Wallingford, UK: CAB Cooperation on Agriculture [Part of
pert consultation/workshop “The role International ISNAR’s collaboration in the project “Pri-
of research in agricultural policy-mak- orities for Agricultural Research in Latin
ing in sub-Saharan Africa,” Feldafing, Omamo, S.W. Farm-to-market transac- America and the Caribbean”]
Germany, April 7–11, 1997. tion costs and specialization in
Bundesministerium für Wirtschafliche small-scale agriculture: Explorations Discussion Papers
Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, with a nonseparable household model.
GTZ, ATSAF, and CTA Journal of Development Studies 35(2): Discussion papers are preliminary reports
152–163 of work in progress at ISNAR. They are nei-
Janssen, W. Bean production in fragile, ther edited nor formally reviewed, and their
unfavorable or marginal environments: Omamo, S.W. Transport costs and circulation is limited.
Overview and issues. In An ecoregional smallholder cropping choices: An appli-
framework for bean germplasm development cation to Siaya District, Kenya. American DP 98–1. A cumulative indicator for
and natural resources research. Docu- Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(2): measuring agricultural research perfor-
mento de trabajo–Anexo del taller de 116–123 mance: Accumulating performance
mejoramiento de frijol, Octubre 1991, measures of agricultural R&D opera-
edited by O. Voysest. Cali, Colombia: Perry, M.C. and P. O’Nolan. Building a tions in a developing country. By
CIAT global information network for agricul- F. Hartwich
tural and rural research: The SINGER
Komen, J. International collaboration system. Agriculture & Rural Development DP 98–2. Assessing the institutional im-
for African agricultural research: Objec- 5(1): 40–44 pact of development cooperation: A
tives and needs for biotechnology and case from agricultural R&D. By D. Hor-
biosafety. In Proceedings of the Southern Perry, M.C. and P. O’Nolan. Bâtir un ton and R. Mackay
and East African biosafety workshop, réseau d’information mondial pour la
edited by J.L. Chigogora and I. Virgin. recherche agricole et rurale : le système DP 98–3. ISNAR’s achievements, im-
Harare, Zimbabwe: Regional Biosafety SINGER. Agriculture & Rural Develop- pacts and constraints 1991–1996. By
Focal Point ment 5(1): 40–44 R. Mackay, S. Debela, T. Smutylo, and
J. Borges
Komen, J. Servicios de informacion y Roseboom, J. and H. Rutten. The trans-
colaboracion internacional: Actividades formation of the Dutch agricultural re- DP 98–4. Accounting for organizational
iniciadas por el IBS. In Transformación de search system: An unfinished agenda. results: An evaluation of the Interna-
las prioridades en programas viables. Actas World Development 26(6): 1113–1126 tional Service for National Agricultural
del seminarion de política biotecnoló- Research. By R. Mackay, D. Horton, and
gica agrícola para America Latina, Perú, Stichele, P. van der, and S.W. Bie. How S. Debela
6–10 October 1996, edited by J. Komen, can farmers take advantage of new me-
C. Falconi, and H. Hernandez. The dia: The last mile? Agriculture & Rural DP 98–5. Evaluation of agricultural re-
Hague/Mexico, DF: Intermediary Bio- Development 5(1): 29–31. search in Latin America and the Carib-
technology Service/CamBioTec bean. By J. Borges-Andrade and
Stichele, P. van der, and S.W. Bie. How D. Horton
Komen, J., C. Falconi, and can farmers take advantage of new me-
H. Hernandez (Eds.). Transformación dia: The last mile? Entwicklung & DP 98–6. Educating agricultural re-
de las prioridades en programas Ländlicher Raum 31-2-97:7–9 searchers: A review of the role of Afri-
viables. Actas del seminario de política can universities. By N.M. Beintema,
biotecnológica agrícola para America Stichele, P. van der, and S.W. Bie. Com- P.G. Pardey, and J. Roseboom
Latina, Perú, 6–10 October 1996. The ment les agriculteurs peuvent-ils tirer
Hague/Mexico, DF: Intermediary Bio- parti des nouveaux médias : la « DP 98–7. Assessing the organizational
technology Service/CamBioTec dernière étape ». Agriculture & impact of development cooperation: A
développement rural 5(1): 31–34 case from agricultural R&D. By D. Hor-
Loevinsohn, M.E. and B.M. Simpson. ton and R. Mackay
Practicing evolution: A framework for Tabor, S.R. and D.C. Faber (Eds.).
participatory FSR&E. In Rural liveli- Closing the loop: From research on nat- DP 98–8. Instituciones sostenibles para
hoods, empowerment and the environment: ural resources to policy change. el desarrollo sostenible: El caso del
30
PBoaokrsthonwecarsess phriioprity-setting in Kenyan agricultural research
SNAR concluded an important strand of its priority-setting work in 1998 by
I publishing, in collaboration with the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), a
book with both practical and theoretical information on how to set program-level
priorities in agricultural research institutes. The book is called Agricultural research
priority setting: Information investments for the improved use of research resources. It
is unique in a number of respects. First, each chapter concludes with a set of practical
exercises that lead readers through specific steps in organizing priority setting or
collecting and analyzing data. Some of the exercises use the example spreadsheets included on a
computer diskette accompanying the book. The exercises and spreadsheets give readers hands-on
experience in doing some of the calculations, letting them put their analytical skills to the test.
Second, it has a strong focus on issues of information collection and analysis, including how to
extract useful information from geographical information systems (GIS) and how to estimate the
accuracy of available data.
The book is based on experience gained by editor Bradford Mills and 12 contributing authors at
KARI in the context of a Rockefeller-supported project. The authors address the practical issues that
they saw managers facing in the design of procedures for agricultural research priority setting.
Similarly, they provide concrete advice for socioeconomists and others who implement or facilitate
priority-setting processes. This includes the role and placement of socioeconomists in organizations
conducting program-level priority setting. Examples from KARI illustrate every step of the methods
and issues discussed.
Contents: The role of and levels for agricultural research priority setting (B. Mills and A. Mbabu).
Research objectives and priority-setting criteria (B. Mills and S.W. Omamo). Spatial targeting of
program research (B. Mills, D. Kilanbya, and S. Wood). Translating farmer constraints into research
themes (P. Audi and B. Mills). Methods for prioritizing research options (B. Mills and M. Kamau).
Data requirements for agricultural research priority setting (B. Mills, V. Munyi, and P. Mwangi).
Information and human resource investments for research priority setting (A. Mbabu, B. Mills, and J.
Lynam). Technology, location, and trade: Kenyan vegetables (M. Kamau and B. Mills). Beyond
economic benefits: Sorghum in Kenya (B. Mills and L. M’Ragwa). Priority setting in a production-
factor research program (D. Kilambya, S. Nandwa, and S.W. Omamo).
SINCITA de Cuba. By M.A.M Bode, DP 98–15. Expert consultation on agri- Other Unofficial Publications
A.M. Boza, and J. de Souza Silva cultural research systems in Central
Asia and the Caucasus, June3–5, 1998, This section lists publications produced for
DP 98–9. Agricultural biotechnology re- The Hague, The Netherlands. By H. specific ISNAR projects or activities. Like
search indicators: Kenya. By J. Wafula Elliott Discussion Papers, they have not been for-
and C. Falconi mally peer reviewed and their circulation is
DP 98–16. Will competitive funding im- limited.
DP 98–10. Experiences with research prove the performance of agricultural
planning, monitoring and evaluation in research? By R.G. Echeverría KARI training master plan 1997/98–
Kenya. By N. Mbabu and D. Horton 2001/02. Kenya Agricultural Research
DP 98–17. The changing organizational Institute and ISNAR
DP 98–11. Agricultural research policy basis of African agricultural research.
in a changing context: Institutional By J. Roseboom, P.G. Pardey, and Nuevas demandas tecnológicas: Marco
change at the Panamanian Agricultural N.M. Beintema metodológico de un proyecto INIAs/
Research Institute. By G. Middendorf BID/ISNAR
and L. Busch DP 98–18. Country profile: Agricultural
research in the Republic of Georgia. By Proceedings of the methodological re-
DP 98–13. Developing integrated pest M. Boyd search at the ecoregional level review
management with Kenyan farmers: workshop held at ISNAR, The Hague,
Evaluation of a pilot project. By DP 98–19. Building capacity in plan- April 20–22 1998
M.E. Loevinsohn, G. Meijerink, and ning, monitoring and evaluation: Les-
B. Salasya sons from the field. By D. Horton Assessing methods for ecologically-ori-
ented research. By M. Loevinsohn
DP 98–14. Practicing evolution: Theory DP 98–20. Agricultural biotechnology
for understanding and evaluating par- research indicators: Mexico. By Renforcement du rôle des universités et
ticipatory research. By M.E. Loevinsohn M. Qaim and C. Falconi grandes écoles au sein du système na-
tional de recherche agricole de la
31
Burkina Faso: Rapport analytique. By
Z.I. Kaboré and J.D. Zongo, in collabo-
ration with ISNAR
Renforcement du rôle des universités et
grandes écoles au sein du système na-
tional de recherche agricole de la Côte
d’Ivoire: Recommandations et plans
d’action. Le Ministère de l’enseigne-
ment supérieur, de la recherche et de
l’innovation technologique; rapport
réalisé en collaboration avec l’ISNAR
Strengthening the role of Makerere Uni-
versity in the national agricultural re-
search system of Uganda. By G.
Kiwuwa and M. Nabasirye, in collabo-
ration with ISNAR
32
ISNAR Board of Trustees (1998)
Amir Muhammed Mohammadou El Habib Ly*
Board Chairperson, Asianics Agro-Development Ministry of Agriculture, Senegal
International, Pakistan
Geoffrey Mrema
Stein W. Bie ASARECA-Uganda, Tanzania
Director General
Martín Piñeiro
Alessandro Bozzini Grupo Consultor sobre Economía y Organizaciones,
Ente per le Nuove Tecnologie, l’Energia e l’Ambiente, Argentina
Italy
Janice Reid
Henk Breman* CARDI, Jamaica
International Fertilizer Development Center-Africa,
The Netherlands Maria Nieves Roldan-Confesor**
Office of the President, the Philippines
Just Faaland
Chr. Michelsen Institute, Norway Sami Sunna
Middle East for Management of Agricultural Resources
Ken-ichi Hayashi and Environment, Jordan
Japan International Research Center for Agricultural
Sciences, Japan
Charles Hess*
University of California, Davis, USA * Completed service in 1998.
** Joined the Board in 1998.
ISNAR Staff in 1998
Herma Adema-Labille Dympna Byrne Jörg Edsen Pauline van Gulik**
Senior Secretary Program Planning Associate Research Secretary
Coordinator Officer
Mónica Allmand Helen Hambly Odame
Librarian Juan Cheaz Howard Elliott Associate Research
Associate Research Deputy Director General Officer
Anders Andersen Fellow (based in
Associate Research Ecuador) César Falconi Frank Hartwich**
Fellow (based in Research Officer Research Analyst
Ecuador) Richard Claase
Artist/Designer Isabel Flores Fionnuala Hawes
Anne Barkworth*** Central Files Assistant DTP Specialist
Research Analyst Joel Cohen
Director, Information Claudia Forero Susannah Hayward**
Henning Baur and New Technologies Secretary Project Accountant
Senior Research Officer Program
Zenete Peixoto França Carmel van der Heijden
Stein W. Bie Maureen Coleman Head of Training Secretary
Director General Secretary
James Ferguson*** Margaret Hennessy-Doyle**
N’Guetta Bosso** Rudolf Contant Senior Research Fellow Library/Central Files
Senior Research Officer Senior Research Officer Assistant
Bruce Fraser
Michael Boyd* Marleen Cremers Financial Manager S. Huntington Hobbs IV
Senior Research Officer Research Analyst Director, ISNAR Global
Viviana Galleno Associates Program
Mirela Breedveld-Zoita Ruud Diks* Research Analyst (based in Costa Rica)
Secretary Office Services Assistant
Mary Gavin Johann Hoddinot
Hilarion Bruneau** Jan van Dongen Central Files Specialist Senior Secretary
Research Officer Editor/Writer
Pamela Gené Arlene Holden
Nicole Brunet* Pat Duffy Secretary Personnel Assistant
Research Officer Senior Secretary
(based in India) Govert Gijsbers Douglas Horton
Luis Dupleich* Research Officer Senior Research Officer
Edwin Brush** Associate Research
Senior Research Officer Fellow
33
Christian Hoste Gerdien Meijerink Patricia Ross Coronado* Hélio Tollini
Senior Research Officer Research Analyst Office Assistant (based Senior Research Officer
(based in Italy) in Costa Rica) (based in Brazil)
Marjolijn Mellor
Bianca Huurman Travel Coordinator Mina Senior-Faress* Carlos Valverde
Senior Accounting Senior Secretary Senior Research Officer
Assistant Heike Michelsen
Director, Policy and Kathleen Sheridan Miguel Vatter
Albertine Huybrechts Management Head of Publications Associate Officer
Secretary Development and
Environment Program Hilly Smeenge Maaike Vergeer
Francis Idachaba Legal Assistant Secretary
Deputy Director General Bradford Mills**
Research Officer Andrzej Sokolowski Jacobine Verhage
Willem Janssen Distribution Senior Training
Senior Research Officer Byron Mook Coordinator Materials Production
Senior Research Officer Specialist
Anita Kahlé** Bob Solinger
Senior Accounting Peter Nolet Network Manager Richard Vernon
Assistant Office Services Specialist Research Officer
Emilia Solis Quiros
John Komen Paul O’Nolan Program Assistant Martha Vonk**
Research Analyst Head of Computer (based in Costa Rica) Library Assistant
Services
Coen A. Kramer José de Souza Silva Joyce Voorn*
Director, Administration S. Were Omamo Senior Research Officer Secretary
& Finance Research Officer (based in Ecuador)
Colin Webster
Cockie Kuyvenhoven Paul T. Perrault Marie-Rose Stanek-de Boom Systems Manager
Personnel Assistant Senior Research Officer Secretary
(based in India) Susan van der Wee
Marian Lageman Kathy Sutherland Accounting Assistant
Personnel Officer Elly Perreijn PC Applications
Production Coordinator Specialist Michèle Wilks
Yan Liang* Research Analyst
Associate Research Warren Peterson Steven Tabor**
Fellow Research Officer Research Fellow Anna Wuyts
Research Analyst
Michael Loevinsohn Rivka Peyra Melina Tensen
Senior Research Officer Editor/Translato Senior Secretary Larry Zuidema**
Senior Research Fellow
A. Michelle Luijben Guido Ponsioen Dolinde Tetteroo
Editor/Writer Library Assistant Telecommunications
Assistant
Brigitta de Man Lapidoth** Motlubor M. Rahman
Secretary Director, Institutional Steve The**
Development and Central Files Assistant
Marijke Mayer** Governance Program
Senior Secretary Jaime Tola Cevallos * Joined ISNAR in 1998.
Han Roseboom Senior Research Officer ** Left ISNAR in 1998.
Research Officer (based in Brazil) *** Joined and left ISNAR in 1998.
34
Financial Report for 1998
ISNAR closed its 1998 accounts with a deficit of US $550,000. Unrestricted grants, which amounted to al-
most 70 percent of ISNAR’s total revenue in 1998, continue to be the mainstay of ISNAR’s funding. Their
importance cannot be overstated. Continuing solid support from these donors, who are listed in the bar
graph on page 37, is essential for ISNAR. They allow us to fulfill our mandate and ensure some continu-
ity in our work in the developing world. In 1998, ISNAR was encouraged by increases in unrestricted
support from Belgium, Norway, and South Africa. It also welcomed one new donor, Mexico. Unre-
stricted grant revenue, nonetheless, decreased from $6.9 million in 1997 to $6.5 million in 1998.
Targeted support, in the form of restricted grants and complementary projects, also made a significant
contribution to ISNAR resources during the year. In 1998, these totaled $2.6 million. Thanks are due to
many supporters here, and they are listed on the following pages.
The financial statements that follow were prepared in association with the independent accounting firm,
Deloitte and Touche. A complete financial report is available from ISNAR upon request.
35
Statement of Activity
US $000's
Core Core Comple- Total Prior
Revenue Unrestricted Restricted mentary 1998 Year
Grants 6,495 568 1,958 9,021 9,882
Other Revenues 337 337 281
Total Revenue 6,832 568 1,958 9,358 10,163
Operating Expenses
Policy and System Development Program 1,564 250 1,056 2,870 2,934
Management Program 1,922 318 464 2,704 2,598
Collaborative Services and Training 294 56 350 253
Information Services 1,060 60 1,120 1,155
Management and Administration 2,543 322 2,865 3,447
Total Operating Expenses 7,383 568 1,958 9,909 10,387
Shortfall over Expenditure (551) - - (551) (224)
Allocated as follows:
Capital Fund
Operating fund (551) (551) (224)
Total Allocation (551) - - (551) (224)
Operating Expenses by Cost Category
Personnel Costs 5,217 176 711 6,104 5,926
Supplies and Services 1,731 292 877 2,900 3,426
Operational Travel 297 100 370 767 890
Depreciation of Fixed Assets 138 138 145
Total Operating Costs 7,383 568 1,958 9,909 10,387
1. Until July 31, ISNAR’s work was organized into two client-oriented programs supported by four specialized service units. A reorganization that
took effect in August replaced these programs and units with three new programs and the ISNAR Global Associates. These financial statements are
based on the pre-reorganization structure, which was in place at the start of 1998.
36
Donors Supporting ISNAR’s Program in 1998
Contributors of Unrestricted Grants (US $100,000’s)
Australia
Belgium
Canada
China
Denmark
European Union
France
Germany
India
Iran
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Philippines
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
USA
World Bank (IBRD)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Contributors of Restricted and Complementary Grants
Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)
Benin: Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Bénin (INRAB)
Canada: Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
Canada-Egypt McGill Agricultural Response Program (CEMARP)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
Croatia: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Cyprus: Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment
Denmark: Danish International Development Agency (Danida)
European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM)
European Union (EU)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Germany: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit (BMZ)
Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
Germany: Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale Entwicklung (DSE)
Guinea: Institut de Recherche Agronomique de Guinée (IRAG)
Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA)
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
37
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
Iran: Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension Organization (AREEO)
Japan: Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS)
Kenya: Kenya Agriculture Research Institute (KARI)
Natural Resources Institute—UK (NRI)
Netherlands Development Assistance (NEDA)
Palestine: Ministry of Agriculture
Raad van Advies van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek/Ontwikkelingssamenwerking (RAWOO)
Rockefeller Foundation
Spain: Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA)
Switzerland: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation—ACP-EEC Lomé Convention (CTA)
Uganda: National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO)
United Kingdom: Department for International Development (DFID)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
University of Arkansas
USA: United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
World Bank/International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
World Health Organization (WHO)
38
Abbreviations
ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
Research Zusammenarbeit, Germany
AFSRE Association for Farming Systems Research and IARC international agricultural research center
Extension, South Africa IBGE (Fundação) Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e
AHP analytical hierarchy process Estatística (Brazilian census bureau)
AIT Asian Institute of Technology IBS Intermediary Biotechnology Service
ANPEI Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research
das Empresas Industriais, Brazil ICT information and communications technology
AOAD Arab Organization for Agricultural Development, IDB Inter-American Development Bank
Sudan IDF Institutional Development Fund (World Bank Fund)
AREEO Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension IDIAP Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias de
Organization, Iran Panamá
ARI Agricultural Research Institute, Cyprus IDRC International Development Research Centre, Canada
AROW Agricultural Research Organizations on the Web IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research IGA ISNAR Global Associates Program
in Eastern and Central Africa IICA Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la
BRC/CAAS Biotechnology Research Institute of CAAS Agricultura, Costa Rica
CAAS Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences IM/IT information management/information technology
CABI CAB International—International Centre for INIA-Chile Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias
Agriculture and Biosciences, UK INRAB Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Bénin
CARDI Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development INRA-Morocco Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
Institute INTA Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria,
CATIE Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Nicaragua
Enseñanza, Costa Rica INTG IARC/NARS Training Group
CDS/ISIS Computerized Documentation System—Integrated IPR intellectual property rights
Set for Information System IRAG Institut de Recherche Agronomique de Guinée
CEDAF Centro para el Desarrollo Agropecuario y Forestal, ISCB Indo-Swiss Collaboration in Biotechnology Project
Dominican Republic JIRCAS Japan International Research Center for Agricultural
CENTA Centra Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria y Sciences
Forestal, El Salvador KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural MAG Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, Costa Rica
Research MC&T Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia, Brazil
MINAG Ministerio de Agricultura, Cuba
CINVESTAV Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados MTA material transfer agreement
del IPN, Mexico NAARM National Academy of Agricultural Research
CMRT-Egerton U Crop Management Research Training Project, Project Management, India
of the University of Egerton NARO national agricultural research organization
COL Commonwealth of Learning NARO National Agricultural Research Organization,
COLCIENCIAS El Instituto Francisco José de Caldas para el Uganda
Desarrollo de la Ciencia y la Tecnología NARS national agricultural research system(s)
CORAF Conférence des Responsables de la Recherche NEDA Netherlands Development Assistance (formerly
Agronomique Africains DGIS: Directorate-General for International
CORPOICA Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Cooperation)
Agropecuaria NGO nongovernmental organization
CSI Consortium for Spatial Information for Agricultural OAU-IBAR Organisation for African Unity/Interafrican Bureau
Research for Animal Resources
CTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural ODA Official Development Assistance, Ministry of
Cooperation (ACP-EEC Lomé Convention) Foreign Affairs, Japan
DANE Departamento Administrativo Nacional de PM&E planning, monitoring, and evaluation
Estadística, Colombia PRAPACE Programme Régional d’Amélioration de la Pomme
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency de Terre et de la Patate Douce en Afrique Centrale et
DART Department of Agricultural Research and Training, de l’Est/Regional Potato and Sweetpotato
Namibia Improvement Program in Eastern and Central Africa
DFID Department for International Development, UK
DGIS/NEDA see NEDA PROCICARIBE Program for Cooperation in Agricultural Science
DNP Departamento Nacional de Planificación, Colombia and Technology in the Caribbean
DSE Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale Entwicklung PROCIs programas cooperativos de investigación y
(German Foundation for International Development) transferencia de tecnología agropecuaria
ECABREN Eastern and Central African Bean Research Network R&D research and development
ECDPM European Centre for Development Policy RAWOO Raad van Advies van het Wetenschappelijk
Management Onderzoek/Ontwikkelingssamenwerking, the
EES European Evaluation Situation Netherlands
EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
(Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation) SICTA Sistema de Integración Centroamericano de
ETH Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Tecnología Agrícola
Federal Institute of Technology) SPAAR Special Program for African Agricultural Research
EU European Union (World Bank)
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United TAC Technical Advisory Committee (CGIAR)
Nations UAAS Ukrainian Academy of Agricultural Sciences
FINEP Financiadora de Estudos e Projectos, Brazil UNDP United Nations Development Programme
FONAIAP Fondo Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, UNEP/GRID United Nations Environment Programme/Global
Venezuela Resource Information Database
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade USAID United States Agency for International Development
GFAR Global Forum on Agricultural Research (CGIAR USDA United States Department of Agriculture
initiative) UWI University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago
WANA West Asia and North Africa
GMO genetically modified organism ZIL Schweizerisches Zentrum für Internationale
Landwirtschaft (Swiss Centre for International
Agriculture)
39
Pour une gestion raisonnée des biotechnologies
dans le monde en développement
Quelques faits récents
En mars 1998, le gouvernement des États-Unis a délivré un brevet pour une innovation qui consiste à
introduire dans le patrimoine génétique d’une plante, un gène qui l’empêchera de produire des graines
fécondes. Les graines de la plante ainsi stérilisée ne pourront pas germer. L’ajout du gène en question,
aujourd’hui communément appelé « gène terminateur », constitue une technique que l’on pourrait
appliquer à une gamme de semences commerciales allant du riz au blé, et aux légumes. Or il se peut que
les entreprises semencières commerciales soient les seules à pouvoir tirer profit de cette innovation.
L’introduction du gène terminateur risque de mettre fin à la pratique agricole traditionnelle consistant à
préserver une portion des graines récoltées pour les replanter à la saison suivante. En effet, les paysans se
verront peut-être contraints de racheter chaque année de nouvelles semences. Et comme l’usage de
garder des graines de semence est le plus répandu parmi les agriculteurs à faible revenu des pays en
développement, la technique du gène stérilisant peut entraîner des conséquences démesurées pour cette
partie du monde.
Les inventeurs du gène cherchent actuellement à faire valider le brevet dans environ 80 autres pays, dont
plus de 40 sont parmi les moins développés du monde. Ces demandes de brevet, et les problématiques
scientifiques et morales qu’elles suscitent, placent une fois de plus les biotechnologies au centre des
débats sur les politiques et la gestion de la recherche agricole.
L’alimentation, l’environnement et les biotechnologies
Les « biotechnologies » constituent un ensemble puissant de techniques moléculaires dont se servent les
scientifiques pour améliorer la constitution génétique de plantes et d’animaux — par exemple, pour
rendre une culture plus robuste ou plus résistante à la sécheresse. Les faits présentés en introduction
illustrent quelques aspects extrêmes du débat moral et scientifique que suscitent l’avènement des
biotechnologies modernes et certaines de leurs utilisations en agriculture. Peu d’applications
biotechnologiques sont exemptes de controverse. Néanmoins, la mise en pratique de ces techniques est
souvent considérée comme étant l’amorce d’innovations agronomiques futures qui bénéficieront en
particulier aux pays en développement. Même si les innovations scientifiques ne pourront pas, à elles
seules, éliminer la faim et la pauvreté en ce monde, les biotechnologies fournissent des outils pour
atténuer la pénurie alimentaire qui menace aujourd’hui des millions de personnes.
C’est pour cette raison que, depuis 1992, l’ISNAR dirige un programme de recherche et de service en
matière de politiques, d’organisation et de gestion de la recherche biotechnologique. Au cours des six
premières années de son existence, le Service de liaison en biotechnologie (SLB) a établi non seulement
des partenariats bilatéraux avec des scientifiques et des responsables de la recherche biotechnologique
dans plus de 25 pays en développement, mais aussi des associations multilatérales avec des
groupements internationaux. L’équipe du SLB adopte une approche globale et centrée sur les personnes
impliquées, dans ses analyses et dans les conseils qu’elle propose pour aider à relever les défis associés
aux recherches en biotechnologie. Travaillant en étroite collaboration avec des partenaires en Afrique, en
Asie, en Amérique latine et au Moyen-Orient, le SLB explore l’éventail complet des besoins des pays qui
envisagent d’établir des programmes de recherche en biotechnologie.
Le point de mire de ce rapport annuel est le travail du SLB. La mise en valeur de certaines
caractéristiques particulières des biotechnologies montre quelles influences peuvent agir sur l’aptitude
des directeurs de recherche à prendre des décisions politiques et de programmation.
Une révolution scientifique
Les progrès scientifiques se succédant à un rythme accéléré, il incombe aux chercheurs et aux
responsables de la recherche de se tenir au courant des derniers développements dans le domaine des
biotechnologies. Or, plusieurs pays du monde en développement souffrent d’un manque chronique
40
PQuoeliqnuets asctisvitaésidlella’ISnNAtRsrelatives aux biotechnologies
Les résultats d’un sondage mené dans cinq pays en développement auprès des
1. organisations de recherche publiques et privées s’intéressant aux questions de
biotechnologie agricole ont révélé que l’effectif des chercheurs en biotechnologie n’a
cessé d’augmenter. Mais cette croissance ne s’accompagne que rarement d’une
augmentation parallèle et comparable des fonds opérationnels. Les ressources
disponibles étant limitées, il serait bon de mieux définir les priorités de recherche
relatives aux biotechnologies et de les intégrer fermement dans le programme global
de la recherche agricole.
2. Le forum de discussion électronique lancé sur Internet s’avère un moyen efficace pour faciliter
les échanges entre les responsables de la recherche biotechnologique des pays en développement et
promouvoir l’établissement de partenariats et de collaborations. Les lecteurs intéressés peuvent
accéder au forum en passant par le site Internet de l’ISNAR ou bien en se rendant directement à
http://www.cgiar.org/isnar/fora/biotech/index.htm
3. Tandis qu’une grande partie du débat international sur les questions de biotechnologie se
concentre sur la formulation de cadres juridiques et de principes directeurs nationaux et
internationaux, les recherches de l’ISNAR continuent à montrer que, dans les pays en
développement, l’entrave au développement des biotechnologies la plus pressante se situe au niveau
des ressources humaines. Une des tâches prioritaires de l’ISNAR en 1998 a donc été d’organiser des
séminaires et des stages de formation pour permettre aux praticiens de développer leurs
compétences.
4. À l’heure où les premiers produits d’interventions biotechnologiques commencent à émerger
des laboratoires de recherche des pays industrialisés, la nécessité de veiller à la sécurité biologique
devient une préoccupation mondiale de première importance. Le programme de recherche de
l’ISNAR sur les questions de biosécurité comprend entre autres un projet de collaboration de deux
ans pour évaluer les effets connus de plantes génétiquement modifiées qui ont été mises sur le
marché dans les pays en développement. En même temps, l’ISNAR procède à l’évaluation des
politiques et des procédures touchant à la biosécurité qui ont accompagné cette mise en circulation.
5. Les conseils et l’assistance que l’ISNAR fournit aux parties prenantes de la recherche agricole
dans les pays développés et en développement lui permettent régulièrement de récolter les fruits de
recherches entreprises dans le passé. Une des activités de service-conseil réalisées en 1998 pour le
compte de la Fondation Rockefeller fut l’étude de cinq cultures africaines. L’objectif du projet était de
déterminer quelles cultures présentaient les meilleures chances d’être améliorées suite à des
interventions biotechnologiques. Le rapport de l’ISNAR a souligné que les propositions de projets
soumises par des bailleurs de fonds doivent prévoir des composantes relatives aux politiques et à la
gestion de la recherche, y compris des composantes se rapportant à la sécurité biologique.
d’information. Souvent, les chercheurs accèdent avec difficulté aux nouvelles données et aux documents
qui assureront l’actualité et la qualité scientifique de leurs applications biotechniques. Leur travail est
souvent rendu plus difficile encore par la diffusion fréquente d’informations qui exagèrent les avantages
et les risques potentiels liés aux biotechnologies.
En outre, il s’avère que les qualités révolutionnaires attribuées aux biotechnologies modernes relèvent
autant de la gestion que de la technique. Par exemple, pour effectuer des recherches en biotechnologie, il
faut de plus en plus faire appel au travail en équipe et à des alliances pluri-institutionnelles. En raison de
la complexité et des coûts élevés de ces recherches, aucune personne ou institution ne peut espérer avoir
à sa disposition toutes les connaissances, qualifications professionnelles et ressources requises pour
mener à bon terme un projet de recherche en biotechnologie.
Par ailleurs, la capacité potentielle des biotechnologies de résoudre des problèmes de production
agricole et de contribuer à la protection de l’environnement dans les pays en développement fait encore
l’objet de discussion. Les produits de la biotechnologie sont encore trop peu nombreux et trop peu
41
développés pour donner lieu à des données concrètes sur les résultats réels obtenus en exploitation
agricole. En outre, il est probable que dans les régions les moins développées du monde, les
accroissements de rendements peuvent être réalisés plus facilement et plus rapidement en appliquant
des techniques existantes relativement simples, telle la lutte intégrée contre les ravageurs.
Il peut être extrêmement difficile d’estimer les coûts ou les avantages potentiels des recherches en
biotechnologie, en raison de la nouveauté même de certaines des techniques. Les programmes de
recherche biotechnologique aboutissent généralement à des résultats intermédiaires destinés à être
utilisés dans des recherches ultérieures. Il est rare qu’ils donnent un produit final, une semence par
exemple, qui sera directement vendable aux paysans. Par ailleurs, l’adoption des produits finaux par les
paysans, et leur acceptation par les consommateurs, sont encore très incertaines.
Définir des priorités en dépit des difficultés…
Pour tenir compte de la complexité des biotechnologies, l’ISNAR et l’INIA, l’institut national chilien de
recherche agricole, ont adapté une méthode existante pour définir les priorités d’un programme de
recherche biotechnologique. La méthode de base utilisée fut le « procédé d’analyse hiérarchique », soit
AHP (de l’anglais « Analytical hierarchy process »). Cette méthode peut servir de guide à une équipe
chargée d’établir des priorités : elle consiste à décomposer un problème complexe en des éléments plus
simples qui se prêtent mieux à une discussion entre spécialistes venant d’horizons différents.
L’adaptation de la méthode n’est certes pas encore achevée, mais les premiers résultats obtenus au Chili
sont encourageants. Grâce à l’AHP, l’équipe chilienne a pu s’attaquer au problème de l’incertitude
relative au potentiel des biotechnologies, en effectuant une analyse détaillée de la variable « probabilité
de réussite de la recherche ». Les chercheurs ont pallié le manque de données concrètes sur les bénéfices
potentiels en appliquant une approche de prise de décision en groupe qui mettait à profit les
connaissances spécialisées et les intuitions éclairées de tous les participants. Le recours à des critères
explicites et descriptifs a simplifié la formulation des jugements. Enfin, les séances en groupe ont éliminé
les partis pris et promu l’adhésion des membres du groupe aux jugements prononcés collectivement ; les
chercheurs ont pu bénéficier d’un feedback concret et de l’échange d’idées éclairées concernant l’impact
potentiel de leurs projets. L’ISNAR est actuellement en train de tester et d’enseigner la méthode AHP
dans d’autres pays.
La biosécurité
La « biosécurité » suscite un des débats les plus vifs menés en rapport avec les biotechnologies. Le terme
décrit l’ensemble des politiques et procédures que les pays adoptent pour préserver la santé publique,
l’environnement et la diversité biologique des risques liés aux biotechnologies. S’agissant d’agriculture,
le terme se rapporte généralement à la dissémination d’organismes génétiquement modifiés — de plants
transgéniques, par exemple.
L’expérience de l’ISNAR laisse présumer que tous les programmes de biosécurité efficaces ont quatre
caractéristiques communes. D’abord, ils sont basés sur des directives écrites qui définissent clairement la
structure du système, les rôles et les responsabilités des personnes impliquées, et la procédure
d’évaluation à suivre. En second lieu, ces programmes sont mis en œuvre par des personnes dotées
d’une bonne formation en la matière et qui jouissent de l’appui de leur institution. Troisièmement, la
procédure d’évaluation a pour base une information scientifique de date récente. En quatrième lieu, le
recours à des mécanismes de feedback assure l’intégration des informations nouvelles et l’actualisation
du système en fonction des besoins.
Les personnes les plus directement impliquées dans les procédures d’évaluation des risques sont les
scientifiques, du secteur public comme du secteur privé, chargés de contrôler les organismes
génétiquement modifiés, et les membres des comités de décision chargés d’autoriser ou d’interdire la
dissémination, en laboratoire ou en champ, d’un organisme génétiquement modifié. Les personnes
auxquelles sont confiées ces tâches doivent connaître les aspects environnementaux associés à certains
produits biotechnologiques. Elles doivent de plus être capables de déceler les risques potentiels et de
déterminer quelles stratégies permettront de maîtriser ces risques. L’ISNAR s’efforce de munir ces
personnes des compétences nécessaires à l’exécution de leurs responsabilités.
42
Les droits de propriété intellectuelle
La plupart des instituts de recherche agricole vont bientôt (si ce n’est déjà le cas) ressentir les effets de
l’accroissement du nombre d’attributions de droits de propriété pour des innovations
biotechnologiques en agriculture. Une analyse publiée en 1996 montre qu’à lui seul, le nombre de
brevets a, depuis 1989, augmenté au rythme d’environ 250 brevets par an. D’autres facteurs encore
signalent aux organisations de recherche que le climat international relatif aux droits de propriété
intellectuelle (DPI) est en pleine évolution.
Par exemple, un institut de recherche d’un pays en développement désireux de participer à un projet de
collaboration international peut devoir s’engager à protéger une technologie ou un matériel génétique
donnés. Ou encore, les politiques nationales relatives aux DPI risquent de changer sous l’effet de
négociations internationales, telles celles menées dans le cadre du GATT (Accord général sur les tarifs
douaniers et le commerce) ou bien de la Convention sur la diversité biologique. Dans les pays avancés au
plan scientifique, il est enfin possible que des groupes de recherche produisent déjà des matériaux ou
des technologies justifiant leurs efforts en vue d’obtenir des droits de propriété pour protéger l’accès à
leurs innovations ou bien les revenus potentiels qu’ils peuvent en tirer.
Par le passé, les pays en développement étaient peu disposés à reconnaître ou à faire respecter des droits
de propriété intellectuelle quels qu’ils soient, en particulier les royautés sur les brevets. Ils ont
fréquemment maintenu que les brevets les privent des bénéfices offerts par de nouvelles technologies.
Mais la libéralisation accrue des marchés mondiaux soulève à présent des doutes de savoir si le
relâchement des politiques relatives aux DPI est vraiment propice au développement économique et
social du tiers monde. Pour ce qui est des biotechnologies agricoles en particulier, la position actuelle
consiste à maintenir que l’application plus stricte des DPI fournira aux pays en développement un
meilleur accès aux technologies protégées. Elles peuvent en effet conduire à des collaborations
nationales et internationales plus nombreuses et promouvoir le flux d’investissements étrangers vers les
industries agricoles.
En 1998, l’ISNAR a fait un sondage auprès des centres internationaux de recherche agricole pour
prendre connaissance de leurs expériences dans l’utilisation de matériaux génétiques ou d’autres
intrants de recherche protégés par des DPI, dans la conduite de leurs propres recherches. Les résultats de
l’enquête ont révélé que, dans environ 70 pour cent des cas, l’autorisation d’utiliser une technique
spécifique avait été obtenue sur la base d’un contrat privé appelé « accord de transfert de matériel » (ou
« MTA », sigle du terme anglais). Des permis ont été utilisés dans presque 30 pour cent des cas. Ce vaste
recours aux MTAs soulève un grand nombre de questions morales et éthiques au sein des instituts à
financement sur fonds publics. Un des problèmes consiste à trouver le moyen de réconcilier le caractère
exclusif du brevet avec la notion « de bien public » qui est habituellement associée aux résultats de la
recherche agricole publique. Une autre question est de savoir comment payer les conseillers auxquels il
faut faire appel pour résoudre les problèmes juridiques.
L’ISNAR étend actuellement le champ de l’enquête en y incluant 20 groupes de recherche travaillant
dans des institutions de recherche agricole du secteur public dans cinq pays d’Amérique latine. Les
résultats du sondage, qui seront connus vers le milieu de l’année 1999, montreront dans quelle mesure
les pays en développement sont confrontés à des problèmes semblables lorsqu’ils veulent utiliser des
technologies protégées par des droits de propriété.
Pour finir…
Ce rapport annuel présente quelques uns des problèmes et des défis principaux relatifs aux
biotechnologies, auxquels doivent faire face les scientifiques, gestionnaires et décideurs politiques des
pays en développement. L’expérience de l’ISNAR montre que, dans ces pays, il y a urgence à développer
les ressources humaines dans le domaine des biotechnologies. C’est pourquoi l’ISNAR concentre ses
efforts sur le développement et la consolidation des connaissances et des capacités des personnes
impliquées. En fin de compte, c’est le niveau d’expertise et de compétence des personnes chargées de
formuler et d’exécuter les programmes de recherche en biotechnologie qui déterminera la qualité de ces
programmes, à savoir leur productivité, leur pertinence par rapport aux besoins des populations les plus
démunies, et leur contribution à une utilisation prudente du patrimoine naturel.
43
La Gestión de la Biotecnología en el Mundo
en Desarrollo
Asuntos emergentes
En marzo de 1998 los Estados Unidos emitió una patente para cubrir una innovación mediante la cual
científicos agregan un gen a una planta para bloquear su producción de semilla fértil. De esta manera la
planta es esterilizada y la semilla que produce es incapaz de germinar. El gen, en la actualidad
ampliamente conocido como el “gen exterminador”, podría ser usado potencialmente en una gama de
semillas comerciales, que comprende desde arroz hasta trigo y hortalizas. Pero los beneficios de la
innovación pueden ser obtenidos solamente por productores de semillas comerciales. El uso del gen
exterminador puede poner fin a una práctica tradicional de los agricultores mediante la cual guardan las
semillas de una cosecha para resembrarla durante la próxima temporada. En vez, si la práctica
tradicional se perdiese, estarían forzados a comprar nueva semilla cada año. Debido a que la práctica de
guardar semillas para resembrarlas es más común entre los agricultores pobres en países en desarrollo,
la tecnología de la semilla exterminadora podría tener considerables efectos en el mundo en desarrollo,
en una manera desproporcionada.
Actualmente, los “inventores” del gen están buscando extender a cerca de 80 países la protección que le
otorga la patente sobre su innovación; incluyendo a más de 40 países considerados entre los más pobres.
Esas aplicaciones de patente y los aspectos científicos y éticos que los rodean han traído nuevamente
asuntos relacionados a la biotecnología a primer plano, en lo que se refiere a la gestión y las políticas de la
investigación agrícola.
Los alimentos, el medioambiente y la biotecnología
La “biotecnología” es un conjunto de técnicas moleculares poderosas usadas por los científicos para
mejorar la composición genética de plantas y animales, por ejemplo, para hacer un cultivo más fuerte o
resistente a la sequía. La historia anterior ilustra algunas de las controversias más extremas en cuanto a
los aspectos éticos y científicos que rodean algunas de las aplicaciones emergentes de biotecnología en
agricultura. Muy pocas aplicaciones de la biotecnología están libres de controversia. Sin embargo, el uso
de las técnicas es con frecuencia aclamado como clave para futuros descubrimientos en la investigación
agrícola, particularmente para el mundo en desarrollo. A pesar que sabemos que las innovaciones
científicas de por sí no van a erradicar ni el hambre ni la pobreza en el mundo, las técnicas
biotecnológicas podrían proporcionar herramientas que alivien la falta de alimentos que enfrentan
millones de personas en la actualidad.
Por esta razón, desde 1992 el ISNAR ha conducido un programa de investigación y asesoría sobre
políticas, organización y gestión de la biotecnología. Durante sus primeros seis años este “Servicio
Intermediario de Biotecnología” (IBS) ha formado asociaciones con científicos y gerentes de
investigación en biotecnología en más de 25 países en desarrollo, así como internacionalmente. El IBS
toma una perspectiva integral, con un enfoque centrado en la gente, y analiza y ofrece asesoría sobre los
retos asociados con la investigación en biotecnología. Trabajando hombro a hombro con colaboradores
en Africa, Asia, América Latina y el Medio Oriente, el IBS explora todo el espectro de los requerimientos
de los países que están considerando establecer programas de investigación biotecnológica.
Este informe anual se enfoca en el trabajo del IBS. Esto hace resaltar algunas de las características únicas
de la biotecnología y como éstas afectan las habilidades de los líderes de investigación de emitir políticas
y tomar decisiones programáticas.
La revolución en la ciencia
La rapidez de los avances científicos ha impuesto sobre los investigadores y gerentes la responsabilidad
de mantenerse a la vanguardia de los desarrollos relacionados con la biotecnología. Pero en muchas
partes del mundo en desarrollo padecen de falta de información. En dichos países los investigadores
tienen dificultad en acceder a noticias y documentos científicos que podrían informales sobre
44
EAcvtiveidandetsodesl ISiNmARpreoferretntae anbtioetescnología
Una encuesta profunda de las organizaciones públicas y privadas involucradas en la
1. biotecnología, realizada en cinco países en desarrollo, reveló un constante
crecimiento del número de investigadores dedicados a la biotecnología. Pero el
crecimiento es rara vez comparable con incrementos similares en los montos de los
fondos operacionales disponibles. Dado los limitados recursos a disposición, las
prioridades de la investigación biotecnológica en dichos países pudieron ser
definidos con mayor claridad y ser integrados y consolidados con un esfuerzo de
investigación agropecuario más amplio.
2. Un foro electrónico apoyado en la “Internet” está probando ser un medio eficiente para facilitar
contactos, asociaciones y colaboraciones entre los gerentes de la investigación biotecnológica en
países en desarrollo. Los lectores que estén interesados pueden acceder el foro a través de la sede del
ISNAR en la “Internet” o en http://www.cgiar.org/isnar/fora/biotech/index.htm.
3. A pesar que el debate internacional sobre la biotecnología se enfoca en la formulación de
marcos y guías legales nacionales e internacionales, la investigación del ISNAR continua
demostrando que los recursos humanos constituyen la restricción más importante que los países en
desarrollo enfrentan en la actualidad, en cuanto a asuntos referentes a biotecnología. Por tanto,
desarrollar las habilidades de los practicionistas mediante seminarios y talleres de trabajo fue una de
las prioridades del ISNAR en 1998.
4. Ahora que los productos de la investigación biotecnológica están empezando a emerger de los
laboratorios de investigación avanzada de los países industrializados, existe la preocupación que la
bioseguridad se haya convertido en un problema universal de alta prioridad. La investigación del
ISNAR sobre bioseguridad incluye un proyecto colaborativo de dos años, que tiene como objetivo
evaluar el impacto de los cultivos genéticamente modificados que han sido lanzados en países en
desarrollo con fines comerciales. Simultáneamente, el ISNAR está revisando las políticas y los
procedimientos sobre bioseguridad que acompañaron la introducción.
5. Al proporcionar asesoría y asistencia a los interesados en la investigación agropecuaria en los
países en desarrollo y desarrollados, el ISNAR obtiene frutos duraderos de sus anteriores esfuerzos en
investigación. En 1998, dicho trabajo de asesoría incluyó un estudio realizado por la Fundación
Rockefeller, sobre cinco cultivos africanos. El objetivo era determinar cuáles de los cultivos
presentaban las mejores oportunidades para mejoramientos mediante el uso de la biotecnología.
Entre sus recomendaciones, el informe enfatiza que toda iniciativa de un donante interesado en
biotecnología debe incluir una investigación sobre los aspectos relacionados a las políticas y a la
gestión, así como a la bioseguridad.
aplicaciones de investigación de biotecnología. Su tarea se hace aun más difícil debido a las declaraciones
exageradas hechas frecuentemente acerca de los potenciales riesgos y beneficios de la biotecnología.
Mas aún, las cualidades revolucionarias atribuidas a la biotecnología moderna han demostrado ser tanto
gerenciales como técnicas. Por ejemplo, en biotecnología hay una necesidad creciente de trabajar en
equipo y de hacer alianzas inter-institucionales. Debido a la complejidad y a los gastos involucrados, no
hay un solo individuo ni institución que tenga el acervo de conocimiento, las habilidades ni los recursos
necesarios para implementar exitosamente un proyecto de biotecnología.
El potencial de la biotecnología de resolver problemas de producción agrícola y de proteger el
medioambiente en los países en desarrollo es también materia de discusión. Debido a que los productos
biotecnológicos son pocos y están emergiendo recientemente, especialmente en las partes del mundo
menos desarrolladas, se podría argumentar que los aumentos en el rendimiento podrían ser logrados
más fácilmente mediante el uso de tecnologías relativamente simples ya existentes, como es el manejo
integrado de plagas.
45
La novedad de algunas de las técnicas también dificultan en extremo estimar los costos o los beneficios
potenciales de dicha investigación. Los programas de investigación biotecnológica generalmente
generan productos intermedios que luego son usados para generar más investigación. Raramente están
incorporados en productos finales, como en semillas, que podrían ser vendidos directamente a los
agricultores. Finalmente, existe la incertidumbre si los productos finales de la biotecnología algún día
serán adoptados por los agricultores o aceptados por los consumidores.
Determinando las prioridades a pesar de las dificultades
Para dar cuenta de la complejidad de la biotecnología, el ISNAR y el instituto nacional de investigación
agrícola de Chile, INIA, adaptaron un método para determinar prioridades para el programa de
investigación biotecnológica y pusieron a prueba la nueva aplicación. El método usado fue el Proceso
Jerárquico Analítico (AHP). El AHP guía al equipo que está priorizando, en la desagregación de un
problema complejo o una pregunta en partes más simples que son más apropiadas para ser discutidas
entre personas con diferentes antecedentes y experiencias.
A pesar de que el método aún requiere mayor adaptación, los resultados logrados en Chile fueron muy
alentadores. El AHP habilitó al equipo chileno a enfrentar la incertidumbre alrededor del potencial de la
biotecnología mediante un análisis detallado de la variable “oportunidades de éxito”. El equipo
consideró la falta de datos evidentes sobre beneficios potenciales a través de un enfoque de toma de
decisiones, que hace uso eficaz de la experiencia e intuición de una amplia gama de individuos
conocedores. El uso de criterios explícitos y descriptivos simplificó el juicio a ser emitido. Finalmente, las
sesiones en grupo ayudó a las personas a liberarse de prejuicios, promovió entre los miembros del grupo
el sentimiento que los juicios emitidos les pertenecían y proporcionó retroalimentación a los
investigadores y discernimiento sobre el impacto potencial de sus proyectos. Actualmente el ISNAR está
comprobando el AHP y dando capacitación sobre su uso en varios países fuera de Chile.
Bioseguridad
La bioseguridad es uno de los asuntos relacionados a la biotecnología que genera los debates más
ardientes. El término describe las políticas y los procedimientos que los países adoptan para asegurar
que las aplicaciones de la biotecnología son seguras para la salud pública, el medioambiente, y la
biodiversidad. En la agricultura, generalmente está asociada con el lanzamiento de organismos
genéticamente modificados tales como cultivos transgénicos.
La experiencia del ISNAR sugiere que todos los programa de bioseguridad efectivos comparten cuatro
características: Primero, los programas están basados en guías escritas que definen claramente la
estructura del sistema, los roles y las responsabilidades de los involucrados y cómo opera el proceso de
revisión. Segundo, son dirigidos por personas que están bien capacitadas y que cuentan con el apoyo de
sus instituciones. Tercero, el proceso de revisión está basado en información científica actualizada.
Cuarto, se usa mecanismos de retroalimentación para incorporar nueva información y revisar el sistema
a medida que sea necesario.
La gente involucrada de manera más cercana en revisiones de bioseguridad son científicos de los
sectores público y privado quienes buscan probar organismos genéticamente modificados, y miembros
de comités que deciden aprobar o no una proposición sobre el lanzamiento en el laboratorio o en el
campo de un organismo genéticamente modificado. Las personas involucradas en estas tareas deben
estar familiarizadas con asuntos referentes al medio ambiente asociados con productos biotecnológicos.
Los mismos deben ser capaces de reconocer qué constituye un riesgo potencial y que estrategias para
manejar el riesgo podrían ser aplicable. Por tanto el desarrollar estas destrezas en los practicantes es uno
de los focos más importantes del trabajo del ISNAR relacionado a la biotecnología.
Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual
La mayoría de los institutos de investigación agrícola pronto sentirán los efectos del incremento en las
emisiones de derechos de propiedad por innovaciones en biotecnología agrícola, si no los han sentido ya.
Tomando en consideración sólo el número de patentes, éste ha incrementado a cerca de 250 por año
desde 1989, de acuerdo a un análisis publicado en 1996. Así mismo, otros factores dan señales a las
46
organizaciones de investigación sobre los cambios en el ambiente internacional tendiente hacia los
derechos de propiedad intelectual (DPI).
Por ejemplo, la protección de una tecnología o de un material genético podría ser una condición para que
un instituto de un país en desarrollo participe en un proyecto colaborativo internacional. O las políticas
nacionales sobre DPI podrían cambiar como resultado de negociaciones internacionales, tales como el
Acuerdo General sobre Tarifas y Mercado (GATT) o la Convención sobre la Biodiversidad. Finalmente,
en países científicamente avanzados, algunos grupos de investigación podrían estar ya desarrollando
materiales o tecnologías que garantizan sus búsquedas de derechos de propiedad para proteger su
acceso o ingresos potenciales como por ejemplo regalías.
Tradicionalmente los países en desarrollo han mostrado rechazo a reconocer o apoyar cualquier tipo de
DPI, especialmente derechos de patentes. Con frecuencia han tomado la posición que el mundo de las
patentes los ha privado de los beneficios de nuevas tecnologías. Pero el cambio hacia mercados globales
más liberales está causando dudas sobre si políticas liberales de DPI serían conducentes a desarrollo
social y económico en el Tercer Mundo.
Particularmente en biotecnología agrícola, actualmente se argumenta que los estándares de DPI en
realidad van a proporcionar mayor acceso a los países en desarrollo a tecnologías protegidas. Los
mismos podrían incrementar las oportunidad de participar en iniciativas de colaboración nacionales e
internacionales y ayudar a atraer inversión extranjera a industrias agrícolas.
En 1998, el ISNAR llevó a cabo una encuesta entre centros internacionales de investigación agrícola para
descubrir cuáles eran los problemas que ellos enfrentan en cuanto al uso en sus trabajos científicos de
materiales genético, u otros insumos de investigación, protegidos con DPI. La encuesta reveló que un
contrato privado llamado acuerdo de transferencia de material, o “ATM”, era usado cerca del 75 por
ciento de los casos para obtener permiso para usar una tecnología específica. Las licencias eran usadas
casi el 30 por ciento del tiempo. El uso extensivo de ATM presenta a los institutos financiados con fondos
públicos con una serie de cuestiones legales y éticas. Una de ellas es cómo reconciliar la exclusividad de
las patentes con la naturaleza tradicional del “bien público” de los productos de la investigación agrícola
financiada con fondos públicos. Otra es cómo pagar por la asesoría requerida para resolver las
cuestiones legales involucradas.
Actualmente el ISNAR ha extendido la encuesta a 20 grupos de investigación en organizaciones de
investigación agrícola del sector público en cinco países latinoamericanos. Los resultados, que estarán
disponibles a mediados de 1999, demostrarán si los países en desarrollo enfrentan asuntos similares con
el uso de tecnologías apropiadas.
Finalmente
Este informe anual ha tocado algunos de los asuntos más importantes de la biotecnología y los retos que
los científicos, gerentes y formuladores de políticas de los países en desarrollo tienen que enfrentar. De
acuerdo a la experiencia del ISNAR, el desarrollo de los recursos humanos es el único reto más
inmediato que enfrentan los países en desarrollo en la actualidad en los asuntos referentes a la
biotecnología. Es por esta razón que el continuo trabajo del ISNAR en esta área se enfoca principalmente
en desarrollar el conocimiento y las capacidades de las personas. Al final, la formulación y ejecución de
programas de investigación biotecnológica que son productivos, relevantes a las necesidades de los más
pobres y que aseguran prudencia ecológica, dependen de las destrezas y experiencia que la gente
contribuye a sus tareas.
47
48
1.
49
50
51
Óïðàâëåíèå áèîòåõíîëîãèåé â ðàçâèâàþùåìñÿ ìèðå
Âîçíèêàþùèå ïðîáëåìû
 ìàðòå 1998 ãîäà â ÑØÀ áûë âûäàí ïàòåíò íà èçîáðåòåíèå, êîòîðîå ïîçâîëÿåò ó÷åíûì äîáàâëÿòü ê
ðàñòåíèþ ãåí, áëîêèðóþùèé âûðàáîòêó ýòèì ðàñòåíèåì ïëîäîíîñíîãî ñåìåíè. Òàêèì îáðàçîì
ïðîèñõîäèò ñòåðèëèçàöèÿ ðàñòåíèÿ, à âûðàáàòûâàåìîå èì ñåìÿ òåðÿåò ñïîñîáíîñòü ïðîðàñòàòü. Äàííûé
ãåí, êîòîðûé ñåãîäíÿ øèðîêî èçâåñòåí êàê “ãåí-òåðìèíàòîð”, ïîòåíöèàëüíî ìîæåò èñïîëüçîâàòüñÿ âî
ìíîãèõ òîâàðíûõ ñåìåíàõ, íà÷èíàÿ îò ðèñà è êîí÷àÿ ïøåíèöåé è îâîùíûìè êóëüòóðàìè. Îäíàêî âûãîäû
èç ýòîãî èçîáðåòåíèÿ ìîãóò áûòü ïîëó÷åíû èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ïðîèçâîäèòåëÿìè òîâàðíûõ ñåìÿí.
Èñïîëüçîâàíèå ãåíà-òåðìèíàòîðà ìîæåò ïîëîæèòü êîíåö òðàäèöèîííîé ïðàêòèêå, ñâÿçàííîé ñ
ñîõðàíåíèåì ôåðìåðàìè ñåìÿí, îñòàâøèõñÿ ïîñëå óðîæàÿ, äëÿ èõ ïîâòîðíîãî ïîñåâà â ñëåäóþùèé ñåçîí.
Âìåñòî ýòîãî îíè áóäóò âûíóæäåíû åæåãîäíî çàêóïàòü íîâûå ñåìåíà. Ïîñêîëüêó ïðàêòèêà ñîõðàíåíèÿ
ñåìÿí äëÿ ïåðåñåâà îñîáåííî ðàñïðîñòðàíåíà ñðåäè áåäíûõ ôåðìåðîâ â ðàçâèâàþùèõñÿ ñòðàíàõ,
òåõíîëîãèÿ ñòåðèëèçàöèè ñåìÿí ìîæåò èìåòü ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ñåðüåçíûå ïîñëåäñòâèÿ â ðàçâèâàþùåìñÿ ìèðå.
"Èçîáðåòàòåëè" ãåíà ñåãîäíÿ äîáèâàþòñÿ óâåëè÷åíèÿ ÷èñëà ñòðàí, ãäå îáåñïå÷èâàåòñÿ çàùèòà ïàòåíòà íà
èõ èçîáðåòåíèå, äî ïðèìåðíî 80 ñòðàí, áîëåå 40 èç êîòîðûõ âõîäÿò â ÷èñëî íàèìåíåå ðàçâèòûõ â ìèðå. Ýòè
çàÿâêè íà âûäà÷ó ïàòåíòîâ è ñâÿçàííûå ñ íèìè íàó÷íûå è ýòè÷åñêèå ïðîáëåìû âíîâü âûâåëè âîïðîñû
áèîòåõíîëîãèè íà ïåðåäíèé êðàé ïîëèòèêè è óïðàâëåíèÿ â îáëàñòè ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííûõ èññëåäîâàíèé.
Ïðîäîâîëüñòâèå, îêðóæàþùàÿ ñðåäà è áèîòåõíîëîãèÿ
“Áèîòåõíîëîãèÿ” ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ýôôåêòèâíûé íàáîð ìîëåêóëÿðíûõ ìåòîäîâ, èñïîëüçóåìûõ
ó÷åíûìè äëÿ ñîâåðøåíñòâîâàíèÿ ãåíåòè÷åñêîãî ñòðîåíèÿ ðàñòåíèé è æèâîòíûõ, íàïðèìåð, íà îñíîâå
ïîâûøåíèÿ ìîðîçîóñòîé÷èâîñòè ðàñòåíèé èëè èõ ñîïðîòèâëåíèÿ çàñóõå. Âûøåïðèâåäåííûé ïðèìåð
óêàçûâàåò íà íåêîòîðûå èç íàèáîëåå îæåñòî÷åííûõ ýòè÷åñêèõ è íàó÷íûõ ñïîðîâ, êîòîðûå âåäóòñÿ ïî
ïîâîäó íåêîòîðûõ íîâûõ íàïðàâëåíèé ïðàêòè÷åñêîãî ïðèìåíåíèÿ áèîòåõíîëîãèè â ñåëüñêîì õîçÿéñòâå.
Âîîáùå ãîâîðÿ, íå ìíîãèå ïðèìåíåíèÿ áèîòåõíîëîãèè íå ñîïðîâîæäàþòñÿ ñïîðàìè. Âìåñòå ñ òåì
èñïîëüçîâàíèå òàêèõ ìåòîäîâ çà÷àñòóþ ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ ïîëîæèòåëüíî êàê êëþ÷ ê áóäóùèì ïðîðûâàì â
îáëàñòè ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííûõ èññëåäîâàíèé, îñîáåííî â ðàçâèâàþùåìñÿ ìèðå. Êîíå÷íî, íàì èçâåñòíî,
÷òî íàó÷íûå èçîáðåòåíèÿ ñàìè ïî ñåáå íå ïðèâåäóò ê èñêîðåíåíèþ ãîëîäà è íèùåòû âî âñåì ìèðå, îäíàêî
áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèå ìåòîäû ìîãóò îáåñïå÷èòü ñðåäñòâà ñìÿã÷åíèÿ ïðîáëåì íåõâàòêè ïðîäîâîëüñòâèÿ, ñ
êîòîðûìè ñåãîäíÿ ñòàëêèâàþòñÿ ìèëëèîíû ëþäåé.
Ïî ýòîé ïðè÷èíå ÈÑÍÀÐ ñ 1992 ãîäà îñóùåñòâëÿåò íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêóþ è êîíñóëüòàòèâíóþ
ïðîãðàììó â îáëàñòè áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêîé ïîëèòèêè, îðãàíèçàöèè è óïðàâëåíèÿ. Çà ïåðâûå øåñòü ëåò
ñâîåãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ ýòà “Ïîñðåäíè÷åñêàÿ áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêàÿ ñëóæáà” (ÏÁÑ) óñòàíîâèëà ïàðòíåðñêèå
âçàèìîîòíîøåíèÿ ñ ó÷åíûìè è ðóêîâîäèòåëÿìè áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé áîëåå ÷åì â
25 ðàçâèâàþùèõñÿ ñòðàíàõ, à òàêæå íà ìåæäóíàðîäíîì óðîâíå. Ïðè àíàëèçå è ðàçðàáîòêå ðåêîìåíäàöèé
îòíîñèòåëüíî çàäà÷ áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé ÏÁÑ ïðèäåðæèâàåòñÿ êîìïëåêñíîãî ïîäõîäà,
ñòàâÿùåãî âî ãëàâó óãëà ÷åëîâåêà. Ñîòðóäíè÷àÿ ñ êîëëåãàìè â Àôðèêå, Àçèè, Ëàòèíñêîé Àìåðèêå è íà
Áëèæíåì Âîñòîêå, ÏÁÑ èçó÷àåò øèðîêèé äèàïàçîí ïîòðåáíîñòåé ñòðàí, ðàññìàòðèâàþùèõ âîçìîæíîñòü
âíåäðåíèÿ ïðîãðàìì áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé.
 ýòîì åæåãîäíîì äîêëàäå îñíîâíîå âíèìàíèå óäåëÿåòñÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòè ÏÁÑ.  íåì îñâåùåíû íåêîòîðûå
óíèêàëüíûå îñîáåííîñòè áèîòåõíîëîãèè è èõ âëèÿíèå íà ñïîñîáíîñòü ðóêîâîäèòåëåé íàó÷íûõ
èññëåäîâàíèé ïðèíèìàòü ïîëèòè÷åñêèå è ïðîãðàììíûå ðåøåíèÿ.
Ðåâîëþöèÿ â íàóêå
Áûñòðûå òåìïû ðàçâèòèÿ íàóêè òðåáóþò îò èññëåäîâàòåëåé è ðóêîâîäèòåëåé áûòü â êóðñå ñàìûõ
ïîñëåäíèõ äîñòèæåíèé â îáëàñòè áèîòåõíîëîãèè. Âìåñòå ñ òåì âî ìíîãèõ ñòðàíàõ ðàçâèâàþùåãîñÿ ìèðà
èíôîðìàöèè íåäîñòàòî÷íî. Èññëåäîâàòåëÿì-ïðàêòèêàì òðóäíî ïîëó÷èòü äîñòóï ê íîâûì ñâåäåíèÿì è
íàó÷íûì äîêóìåíòàì è ðóêîâîäñòâîâàòüñÿ èìè â ñâîèõ áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèÿõ. Èõ çàäà÷à
åùå áîëåå îñëîæíÿåòñÿ ïðåóâåëè÷åííûìè òîëêàìè â îòíîøåíèè îïàñíîñòåé è ïðåèìóùåñòâ
áèîòåõíîëîãèè.
52
Êðàòêèå ñâåäåíèÿ
Äåÿòåëüíîñòü ÈÑÍÀÐ, ñâÿçàííàÿ ñ áèîòåõíîëîãèåé
Óãëóáëåííîå îáñëåäîâàíèå ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ è ÷àñòíûõ îðãàíèçàöèé, ðàáîòàþùèõ ñ
1. ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííîé áèîòåõíîëîãèåé â ïÿòè ðàçâèâàþùèõñÿ ñòðàíàõ,
îáíàðóæèëî íàëè÷èå óñòîé÷èâîãî ðîñòà ÷èñëåííîñòè èññëåäîâàòåëåé
áèîòåõíîëîãèè. Ýòîò ðîñò, îäíàêî, ðåäêî ñîïðîâîæäàåòñÿ ïðîïîðöèîíàëüíûì
óâåëè÷åíèåì ñóììû èìåþùèõñÿ íà ýòî ñðåäñòâ. Ñ ó÷åòîì îãðàíè÷åííîñòè ðåñóðñîâ
ïðèîðèòåòíûå çàäà÷è â îáëàñòè áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé â ýòèõ ñòðàíàõ
ìîãëè áû áûòü îïðåäåëåíû áîëåå ÷åòêî è èíòåãðèðîâàíû è îáúåäèíåíû ñ áîëåå
øèðîêîé äåÿòåëüíîñòüþ â îáëàñòè ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííûõ èññëåäîâàíèé.
2. Ýëåêòðîííûé äèñêóññèîííûé ôîðóì â ñåòè “Èíòåðíåò” äîêàçûâàåò ñâîþ ýôôåêòèâíîñòü â
êà÷åñòâå ñðåäñòâà ñîäåéñòâèÿ êîíòàêòàì, ïàðòíåðñêèì âçàèìîîòíîøåíèÿì è ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâó
ìåæäó ðóêîâîäèòåëÿìè áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé â ðàçâèâàþùèõñÿ ñòðàíàõ.
Çàèíòåðåñîâàâøèåñÿ ÷èòàòåëè ìîãóò ïîëó÷èòü äîñòóï ê ôîðóìó ÷åðåç ñòðàíèöó ÈÑÍÀÐ â ñåòè
“Èíòåðíåò” ëèáî ïî àäðåñó: http://www.cgiar.org/isnar/fora/biotech.index.htm.
3. Â öåíòðå ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ äåáàòîâ ïî áèîòåõíîëîãèè â îñíîâíîì ñòîÿò âîïðîñû ðàçðàáîòêè
íàöèîíàëüíîé è ìåæäóíàðîäíîé ïðàâîâîé áàçû è ðóêîâîäÿùèõ ïðèíöèïîâ, îäíàêî, èññëåäîâàíèÿ
ÈÑÍÀÐ ïî-ïðåæíåìó ïîêàçûâàþò, ÷òî ãëàâíûå òðóäíîñòè, ñ êîòîðûìè ñåãîäíÿ ñòàëêèâàþòñÿ
ðàçâèâàþùèåñÿ ñòðàíû â âîïðîñàõ, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ áèîòåõíîëîãèåé, êàñàþòñÿ ëþäñêèõ ðåñóðñîâ.
Ðàçâèòèå íàâûêîâ ïðàêòè÷åñêîé ðàáîòû ïðè ïîìîùè ñåìèíàðîâ è ïðàêòèêóìîâ áûëî ïîýòîìó
îäíèì èç îñíîâíûõ íàïðàâëåíèé ðàáîòû ÈÑÍÀÐ â 1998 ãîäó.
4. Ñåãîäíÿ, êîãäà íà÷èíàåò ïîÿâëÿòüñÿ áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêàÿ ïðîäóêöèÿ, ñîçäàííàÿ â
èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ ëàáîðàòîðèÿõ ðàçâèòûõ ñòðàí, ïðîáëåìû áèîáåçîïàñíîñòè ñòàëè
âûñîêîïðèîðèòåòíûì ìèðîâûì âîïðîñîì. Èññëåäîâàíèÿ ÈÑÍÀÐ â îáëàñòè áèîáåçîïàñíîñòè
âêëþ÷àþò äâóõëåòíèé ïðîåêò ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâà â îáëàñòè îöåíêè âëèÿíèÿ ãåíåòè÷åñêè ñîçäàííûõ
êóëüòóð, êîòîðûå ïîñòóïèëè â ïðîäàæó â ðàçâèâàþùèõñÿ ñòðàíàõ. Îäíîâðåìåííî ÈÑÍÀÐ
àíàëèçèðóåò ïîëèòèêó è ïðîöåäóðû â îáëàñòè áèîáåçîïàñíîñòè, ñîïðîâîæäàâøèå ýòîò ïðîöåññ.
5. Ïðåäîñòàâëÿÿ êîíñóëüòàòèâíîå ñîäåéñòâèå è ïîìîùü ëèöàì, çàèíòåðåñîâàííûì â
ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííûõ èññëåäîâàíèÿõ â ðàçâèâàþùèõñÿ è ðàçâèòûõ ñòðàíàõ, ÈÑÍÀÐ èñïîëüçóåò
ïëîäû ñâîåé ïðîøëîé èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Â 1998 ãîäó êîíñóëüòàòèâíàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü
âêëþ÷èëà èññëåäîâàíèå ïÿòè àôðèêàíñêèõ êóëüòóð, ïîäãîòîâëåííîå äëÿ Ôîíäà Ðîêôåëëåðà. Áûëà
ïîñòàâëåíà çàäà÷à îïðåäåëèòü, êàêèå êóëüòóðû îòêðûâàþò íàèëó÷øèå âîçìîæíîñòè äëÿ èõ
ñîâåðøåíñòâîâàíèÿ ñ èñïîëüçîâàíèåì áèîòåõíîëîãèè.  ðåêîìåíäàöèÿõ äîêëàäà ïîä÷åðêèâàëîñü,
÷òî ëþáàÿ èíèöèàòèâà äîíîðîâ â îáëàñòè áèîòåõíîëîãèè äîëæíà âêëþ÷àòü àñïåêòû ïîëèòèêè è
ðóêîâîäñòâà èññëåäîâàíèÿìè, à òàêæå âîïðîñû áèîáåçîïàñíîñòè.
Êðîìå òîãî, êàê ïîêàçûâàåò æèçíü, ïðèïèñûâàåìûå ñîâðåìåííîé áèîòåõíîëîãèè ðåâîëþöèîííûå
êà÷åñòâà íîñÿò êàê óïðàâëåí÷åñêèé, òàê è òåõíè÷åñêèé õàðàêòåð. Íàïðèìåð, â îáëàñòè áèîòåõíîëîãèè
âîçðàñòàåò ïîòðåáíîñòü â êîëëåêòèâíîé ðàáîòå è ìåæâåäîìñòâåííîì ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâå. Ââèäó ñëîæíîñòè è
äîðîãîâèçíû áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïðîåêòîâ îäèí ÷åëîâåê èëè îðãàíèçàöèÿ íèêîãäà íå ñìîãóò îáëàäàòü
íåîáõîäèìûì êðóãîì çíàíèé, íàâûêîâ è ðåñóðñîâ äëÿ èõ óñïåøíîãî çàâåðøåíèÿ.
Îòêðûâàåìûå áèîòåõíîëîãèåé âîçìîæíîñòè äëÿ ðåøåíèÿ ïðîáëåì ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííîãî ïðîèçâîäñòâà è
îõðàíû îêðóæàþùåé ñðåäû â ðàçâèâàþùèõñÿ ñòðàíàõ òàêæå ïî-ïðåæíåìó ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïðåäìåòîì
îáñóæäåíèÿ. Ïîñêîëüêó áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèå ïðîäóêòû õàðàêòåðèçóþòñÿ ñâîåé íåìíîãî÷èñëåííîñòüþ è
íîâèçíîé, ñóùåñòâóåò íåõâàòêà ïîäòâåðæäåííûõ äàííûõ î ðåçóëüòàòàõ èõ ôàêòè÷åñêîãî èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ
íà ïîëÿõ ôåðìåðîâ. Êðîìå òîãî, óòâåðæäåíèÿ î òîì, ÷òî ïîâûøåíèÿ óðîæàéíîñòè ëåã÷å äîáèòüñÿ íà
îñíîâå èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî ïðîñòûõ ñóùåñòâóþùèõ òåõíîëîãèé, òàêèõ êàê êîìïëåêñíîå
èñïîëüçîâàíèå ñðåäñòâ çàùèòû ðàñòåíèé, îñîáåííî â íàèìåíåå ðàçâèòûõ ñòðàíàõ ìèðà, òàêæå èìåþò ïîä
ñîáîé íåêîòîðîå îñíîâàíèå.
53
Íîâèçíà íåêîòîðûõ ìåòîäîâ êðàéíå îñëîæíÿåò òàêæå îöåíêó èçäåðæåê èëè ïîòåíöèàëüíûõ âûãîä òàêèõ
èññëåäîâàíèé. Ïðîãðàììû áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé, êàê ïðàâèëî, ñîçäàþò ïðîìåæóòî÷íûå
ïðîäóêòû, êîòîðûå çàòåì èñïîëüçóþòñÿ â ïîñëåäóþùèõ èññëåäîâàíèÿõ. Îíè ðåäêî âîïëîùàþòñÿ â
êîíå÷íûõ ïðîäóêòàõ, òàêèõ êàê ñåìåíà, êîòîðûå ìîãóò íàïðÿìóþ ïðîäàâàòüñÿ ôåðìåðàì. Íàêîíåö,
ñóùåñòâóåò íåîïðåäåëåííîñòü îòíîñèòåëüíî òîãî, áóäóò ëè êîíå÷íûå ïðîäóêòû áèîòåõíîëîãèè êîãäà-ëèáî
âçÿòû íà âîîðóæåíèå ôåðìåðàìè èëè ïðèíÿòû ïîòðåáèòåëÿìè.
Îïðåäåëåíèå ïðèîðèòåòîâ, íåñìîòðÿ íà òðóäíîñòè
Ñ ó÷åòîì ñëîæíîñòè áèîòåõíîëîãèè ÈÑÍÀÐ è ×èëèéñêèé íàöèîíàëüíûé èíñòèòóò
ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííûõ èññëåäîâàíèé, INIA, ïðîâåëè àäàïòàöèþ è àïðîáàöèþ íîâîãî ìåòîäà îïðåäåëåíèÿ
ïðèîðèòåòíûõ íàïðàâëåíèé ïðîãðàììû áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé. Ïðè ýòîì èñïîëüçîâàëñÿ
ìåòîä “àíàëèòè÷åñêîãî èåðàðõè÷åñêîãî ïðîöåññà” (AHP). Ìåòîä ÀÍÐ ïîìîãàåò ãðóïïå, îïðåäåëÿþùåé
ïðèîðèòåòû, ðàñ÷ëåíèòü ñëîæíóþ ïðîáëåìó èëè âîïðîñ íà áîëåå ïðîñòûå, êîòîðûå ìîãóò áûòü îáñóæäåíû
ëþäüìè, îáëàäàþùèìè ðàçíûì îïûòîì è ñïåöèàëüíûìè çíàíèÿìè.
Ýòîò ìåòîä ïî-ïðåæíåìó íóæäàåòñÿ â äàëüíåéøåé àäàïòàöèè, îäíàêî, ðåçóëüòàòû, ïîëó÷åííûå â ×èëè,
áûëè îáíàäåæèâàþùèìè. ÀÍÐ ïîçâîëèë ÷èëèéñêèì êîëëåãàì ðàññìîòðåòü âîïðîñ î íåîïðåäåëåííîñòè â
ñâÿçè ñ îòêðûâàåìûìè áèîòåõíîëîãèåé âîçìîæíîñòÿìè íà îñíîâå ïîäðîáíîãî àíàëèçà òàêîãî ôàêòîðà,
êàê “âåðîÿòíîñòü óñïåøíûõ ðåçóëüòàòîâ èññëåäîâàíèé”. Îíè ïîñòàðàëèñü ïðåîäîëåòü ïðîáëåìó íåõâàòêè
ïðîâåðåííûõ äàííûõ îòíîñèòåëüíî ïîòåíöèàëüíûõ ïðåèìóùåñòâ áèîòåõíîëîãèè ïðè ïîìîùè
êîëëåêòèâíîãî ïðèíÿòèÿ ðåøåíèé ñ ïðèâëå÷åíèåì ñïåöèàëüíûõ çíàíèé è èíòóèöèè øèðîêîãî êðóãà
ñïåöèàëèñòîâ. Ïîèñêó ðåøåíèé ñïîñîáñòâîâàëî èñïîëüçîâàíèå ÷åòêèõ è îïèñàòåëüíûõ êðèòåðèåâ.
Íàêîíåö, ïðîâåäåíèå ñîâåùàíèé ãðóïïû ïîìîãëî ïðåîäîëåòü ëè÷íûå ïðèñòðàñòèÿ, ñòèìóëèðîâàëî
÷óâñòâî îòâåòñòâåííîñòè ÷ëåíîâ ãðóïïû çà äîñòèãíóòûå âûâîäû, à òàêæå ïîçâîëèëî èññëåäîâàòåëÿì
ïîëó÷èòü îòêëèê ïîëüçîâàòåëåé è óëó÷øèòü ïîíèìàíèå ïîòåíöèàëüíûõ ïîñëåäñòâèé èõ ïðîåêòîâ. Â
íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ÈÑÍÀÐ ïðîâîäèò àïðîáàöèþ ìåòîäà ÀÍÐ è îáó÷åíèå åãî ïðèìåíåíèþ â ðÿäå ñòðàí çà
ïðåäåëàìè ×èëè.
Áèîáåçîïàñíîñòü
Îäíèì èç íàèáîëåå ãîðÿ÷î äåáàòèðóåìûõ âîïðîñîâ áèîòåõíîëîãèè ÿâëÿåòñÿ áèîáåçîïàñíîñòü. Ýòîò òåðìèí
èñïîëüçóåòñÿ äëÿ îïèñàíèÿ ïîëèòèêè è ïðîöåäóð, ïðèìåíÿåìûõ ñòðàíàìè, ñòðåìÿùèìèñÿ îáåñïå÷èòü
áåçîïàñíîñòü ïðèìåíåíèÿ áèîòåõíîëîãèè ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ çäîðîâüÿ íàñåëåíèÿ, ýêîëîãèè è
áèîðàçíîîáðàçèÿ.  ñåëüñêîì õîçÿéñòâå îí îáû÷íî ñâÿçûâàåòñÿ ñ ïîÿâëåíèåì ãåíåòè÷åñêè èçìåíåííûõ
îðãàíèçìîâ, òàêèõ êàê òðàíñãåííûå êóëüòóðû.
Îïûò ÈÑÍÀÐ ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î òîì, ÷òî âñå ýôôåêòèâíûå ïðîãðàììû áèîáåçîïàñíîñòè õàðàêòåðèçóþòñÿ
÷åòûðüìÿ îñîáåííîñòÿìè. Âî-ïåðâûõ, ýòè ïðîãðàììû îñíîâûâàþòñÿ íà ïèñüìåííûõ èíñòðóêöèÿõ,
êîòîðûå ÷åòêî îïðåäåëÿþò ñòðóêòóðó ñèñòåìû, ôóíêöèè è îáÿçàííîñòè ó÷àñòíèêîâ è ïîðÿäîê ïðîâåäåíèÿ
ýêñïåðòèçû. Âî-âòîðûõ, èìè ðóêîâîäÿò õîðîøî ïîäãîòîâëåííûå ëþäè, èìåþùèå ïîääåðæêó ñòîÿùèõ çà
íèìè îðãàíèçàöèé. Â-òðåòüèõ, ýêñïåðòèçà îñíîâûâàåòñÿ íà ñîâðåìåííîé íàó÷íîé èíôîðìàöèè.
Â-÷åòâåðòûõ, èñïîëüçóþòñÿ ìåõàíèçìû îáðàòíîé ñâÿçè â öåëÿõ âêëþ÷åíèÿ íîâîé èíôîðìàöèè è
ïåðåñìîòðà ñèñòåìû ïî ìåðå íåîáõîäèìîñòè.
 ýêñïåðòèçàõ íà ïðåäìåò áèîáåçîïàñíîñòè íàèáîëåå àêòèâíîå ó÷àñòèå ïðèíèìàþò ó÷åíûå
ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ è ÷àñòíûõ îðãàíèçàöèé, ñòðåìÿùèõñÿ ïðîâåñòè èñïûòàíèÿ ãåíåòè÷åñêè èçìåíåííûõ
îðãàíèçìîâ, à òàêæå ÷ëåíû êîìèòåòîâ, ïðèíèìàþùèõ ðåøåíèå îá óòâåðæäåíèè èëè íåóòâåðæäåíèè
ïðåäëîæåíèÿ î âûïóñêå ãåíåòè÷åñêè èçìåíåííîãî îðãàíèçìà â îêðóæàþùóþ ñðåäó â ëàáîðàòîðíûõ èëè
ïîëåâûõ óñëîâèÿõ. Ëèöà, ïðèíèìàþùèå ó÷àñòèå â ðåøåíèè ýòèõ çàäà÷, äîëæíû áûòü çíàêîìû ñ
âîïðîñàìè îõðàíû îêðóæàþùåé ñðåäû, ñâÿçàííûìè ñ ïðîäóêòàìè áèîòåõíîëîãèè. Îíè òàêæå äîëæíû
óìåòü ðàñïîçíàòü ïîòåíöèàëüíóþ îïàñíîñòü è îïðåäåëèòü ïðèìåíèìûå ñòðàòåãèè óïðàâëåíèÿ ðèñêàìè.
Ðàçâèòèå ýòèõ íàâûêîâ ó ñïåöèàëèñòîâ-ïðàêòèêîâ ïîýòîìó ÿâëÿåòñÿ îñíîâíûì íàïðàâëåíèåì
äåÿòåëüíîñòè ÈÑÍÀÐ, ñâÿçàííûì ñ áèîòåõíîëîãèåé.
54
Ïðàâà èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé ñîáñòâåííîñòè
Áîëüøèíñòâî ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííûõ èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ èíñòèòóòîâ âñêîðå îùóòÿò ïîñëåäñòâèÿ
óâåëè÷åíèÿ ÷èñëà àâòîðñêèõ ïðàâ, âûäàííûõ íà èçîáðåòåíèÿ â îáëàñòè ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííîé
áèîòåõíîëîãèè, åñëè îíè óæå íå ïî÷óâñòâîâàëè èõ. ×èñëî îäíèõ òîëüêî ïàòåíòîâ ðîñëî ïðèìåðíî íà 250 â
ãîä ñ 1989 ãîäà, ñîãëàñíî àíàëèçó, îïóáëèêîâàííîìó â 1996 ãîäó. Èìåþòñÿ è äðóãèå ôàêòîðû,
óêàçûâàþùèå èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèì îðãàíèçàöèÿì íà èçìåíåíèå ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ óñëîâèé â îáëàñòè ïðàâ
èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé ñîáñòâåííîñòè (ÏÈÑ).
Íàïðèìåð, çàùèòà òåõíîëîãèè èëè ãåíåòè÷åñêîãî ìàòåðèàëà ìîæåò áûòü óñëîâèåì äëÿ ó÷àñòèÿ èíñòèòóòà
ðàçâèâàþùåéñÿ ñòðàíû â ìåæäóíàðîäíîì ïðîåêòå íà îñíîâå ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâà. Êðîìå òîãî, íàöèîíàëüíàÿ
ïîëèòèêà â îòíîøåíèè ÏÈÑ ìîæåò èçìåíèòüñÿ â ðåçóëüòàòå ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ ïåðåãîâîðîâ, ïðèìåðàìè
êîòîðûõ ñëóæàò Ãåíåðàëüíîå ñîãëàøåíèå ïî òàðèôàì è òîðãîâëå (ÃÀÒÒ) èëè Êîíâåíöèÿ î áèîëîãè÷åñêîì
ðàçíîîáðàçèè. Íàêîíåö, â ðàçâèòûõ â íàó÷íîì îòíîøåíèè ñòðàíàõ èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèå ãðóïïû, âîçìîæíî,
óæå ðàçðàáàòûâàþò ìàòåðèàëû èëè òåõíîëîãèè, â îòíîøåíèè êîòîðûõ èìåþòñÿ îñíîâàíèÿ äëÿ ïîäà÷è
çàÿâîê íà àâòîðñêèå ïðàâà â öåëÿõ çàùèòû äîñòóïà èëè ïîòåíöèàëüíîãî äîõîäà îò ãîíîðàðîâ.
Ðàçâèâàþùèåñÿ ñòðàíû òðàäèöèîííî ñ íåîõîòîé ïðèçíàâàëè èëè ââîäèëè â äåéñòâèå ÏÈÑ êàêîãî-ëèáî
òèïà, îñîáåííî ïàòåíòíûå ïðàâà. Îíè çà÷àñòóþ ïðèäåðæèâàëèñü òîé ïîçèöèè, ÷òî ïàòåíòíàÿ ñèñòåìà
ëèøàåò èõ âûãîä, ïîëó÷àåìûõ îò íîâûõ òåõíîëîãèé. Îäíàêî ñäâèã â ñòîðîíó áîëüøåé ëèáåðàëèçàöèè
ãëîáàëüíûõ ðûíêîâ ñåãîäíÿ âûçûâàåò ñîìíåíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî òîãî, ñïîñîáñòâóåò ëè ðàçðåøèòåëüíàÿ
ïîëèòèêà â îòíîøåíèè ÏÈÑ ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíîìè÷åñêîìó ðàçâèòèþ â òðåòüåì ìèðå.
 ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü â îáëàñòè ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííîé áèîòåõíîëîãèè ñåãîäíÿ óòâåðæäàåòñÿ, ÷òî áîëåå
æåñòêèå ñòàíäàðòû â îáëàñòè ÏÈÑ íà ïðàêòèêå ïîìîãóò ðàñøèðèòü äîñòóï ðàçâèâàþùèõñÿ ñòðàí ê
çàùèùåííûì òåõíîëîãèÿì. Îíè ìîãóò ðàñøèðèòü âîçìîæíîñòè äëÿ ó÷àñòèÿ â íàöèîíàëüíûõ è
ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ èíèöèàòèâàõ íà îñíîâå ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâà è ïîìî÷ü ïðèâëå÷ü èíîñòðàííûå èíâåñòèöèè â
ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííûå îòðàñëè.
 1998 ãîäó ÈÑÍÀÐ ïðîâåë îáñëåäîâàíèå ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ öåíòðîâ ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííûõ èññëåäîâàíèé
íà ïðåäìåò òåõ ïðîáëåì, ñ êîòîðûìè îíè ñòàëêèâàþòñÿ ïðè èñïîëüçîâàíèè ãåíåòè÷åñêèõ ìàòåðèàëîâ èëè
èíûõ ðåçóëüòàòîâ èññëåäîâàíèé, çàùèùåííûõ ÏÈÑ, â ñâîåé íàó÷íîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Îáñëåäîâàíèå
ïîêàçàëî, ÷òî ÷àñòíûé êîíòðàêò, èìåíóåìûé ñîãëàøåíèåì î ïåðåäà÷å ìàòåðèàëîâ, èëè “ÑÏÌ”, ïðèìåðíî
â 75 ïðîöåíòàõ ñëó÷àåâ èñïîëüçîâàëñÿ äëÿ ïîëó÷åíèÿ ðàçðåøåíèÿ íà èñïîëüçîâàíèå êîíêðåòíîé
òåõíîëîãèè. Ëèöåíçèè èñïîëüçîâàëèñü â òå÷åíèå ïî÷òè 30 ïðîöåíòîâ âðåìåíè. Øèðîêîå èñïîëüçîâàíèå
ÑÏÌ ñòàâèò ïåðåä ãîñóäàðñòâåííûìè èíñòèòóòàìè ìíîæåñòâî þðèäè÷åñêèõ è ýòè÷åñêèõ âîïðîñîâ. Îäèí
èç íèõ ñâÿçàí ñ òåì, êàê ñîãëàñîâàòü èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîñòü ïàòåíòîâ ñ ðåçóëüòàòàìè ôèíàíñèðóåìûõ
îáùåñòâîì ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííûõ èññëåäîâàíèé, êîòîðûå ïî òðàäèöèè ÿâëÿþòñÿ “îáùåñòâåííûì
áëàãîì”. Äðóãîé âîïðîñ ñâÿçàí ñ òåì, êàê îïëàòèòü êîíñóëüòàòèâíûå óñëóãè, íåîáõîäèìûå äëÿ ðåøåíèÿ
âîçíèêàþùèõ þðèäè÷åñêèõ âîïðîñîâ.
Ñåãîäíÿ ÈÑÍÀÐ ðàñïðîñòðàíÿåò ýòî îáñëåäîâàíèå íà 20 èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ ãðóïï â ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ
îðãàíèçàöèÿõ ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííûõ èññëåäîâàíèé â ïÿòè ñòðàíàõ Ëàòèíñêîé Àìåðèêè. Ðåçóëüòàòû,
êîòîðûå äîëæíû áûòü ïîëó÷åíû â ñåðåäèíå 1999 ãîäà, ïîêàæóò, âñòàþò ëè ïåðåä ðàçâèâàþùèìèñÿ
ñòðàíàìè àíàëîãè÷íûå ïðîáëåìû, ñâÿçàííûå ñ èõ èñïîëüçîâàíèåì òåõíîëîãèé, çàùèùåííûõ àâòîðñêèì
ïðàâîì.
Çàêëþ÷åíèå
 ýòîì åæåãîäíîì äîêëàäå çàòðîíóò ðÿä îñíîâíûõ áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèõ âîïðîñîâ è çàäà÷, âñòàþùèõ ïåðåä
ó÷åíûìè, ðóêîâîäèòåëÿìè è äèðåêòèâíûìè îðãàíàìè â ðàçâèâàþùèõñÿ ñòðàíàõ. Îïûò ÈÑÍÀÐ
ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî íàèáîëåå íåîòëîæíîé çàäà÷åé, êîòîðóþ äîëæíû ðåøàòü ñåãîäíÿ ðàçâèâàþùèåñÿ ñòðàíû â
âîïðîñàõ, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ áèîòåõíîëîãèåé, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ðàçâèòèå ëþäñêèõ ðåñóðñîâ. Âîò ïî÷åìó, ïðîäîëæàÿ
ñâîþ ðàáîòó â ýòîé îáëàñòè, ÈÑÍÀÐ óäåëÿåò ìíîãî âíèìàíèÿ ðàçâèòèþ çíàíèé è âîçìîæíîñòåé ëþäåé. Â
êîíå÷íîì èòîãå, ðàçðàáîòêà è îñóùåñòâëåíèå ïðîãðàìì áèîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé, êîòîðûå áûëè
áû ïðîäóêòèâíûìè è àêòóàëüíûìè ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ïîòðåáíîñòåé áåäíåéøèõ ñëîåâ íàñåëåíèÿ è
îáåñïå÷èâàëè áû ðàçóìíîå îáðàùåíèå ñ îêðóæàþùåé ñðåäîé, çàâèñÿò îò íàâûêîâ è ñïåöèàëüíûõ çíàíèé
ëþäåé, ðåøàþùèõ ýòè çàäà÷è.
55
56
57
58
59
60
CGIAR-Supported International Centers
14
12
9
5
3
8 6 13
1 16 10 11
15
7 11
2
4
1. CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia
2. CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia
3. CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo, El Batan, Mexico
4. CIP Centro Internacional de la Papa, Lima, Peru
5. ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Aleppo, Syria
6. ICLARM International Center for Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines
7. ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairoby, Kenya
8. ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Hyderabad, India
9. IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA
10. IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
11. ILRI International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia/Nairobi, Kenya
12. IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy
13. IRRI International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines
14. ISNAR International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, The Netherlands
15. IWMI International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka
16. WARDA West Africa Rice Development Association, Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire