This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS  ROME 002436 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR E, EB - CHASE, EB/TPP/BTT - MALAC, 
OES/ETC - NEUMANN AND IO/EDA - KOTOK 
USDA FOR FAS - BRICHEY, LREICH AND RHUGHES 
AND ARS - BRETTING AND BLALOCK 
USAID FOR EGAT - SIMMONS, MOORE, BERTRAM AND LEWIS 
 
FROM U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD SENV EAID KIPR AORC FAO
SUBJECT:  FAO SPEAKS OUT ON BIOTECHNOLOGY 
 
REF:  03 ROME 4979 
 
¶1.  (U)  Summary:  FAO's recent report on the State of 
Food and Agriculture (SOFA) concludes that agricultural 
biotechnology has the potential to benefit small, poor 
farmers in developing countries.  It cautions, however, 
that biotechnology is no panacea, and that socio-economic 
impacts, food safety and environmental implications need 
to be assessed carefully.  The report notes that 
biotechnology offers opportunities to increase food 
availability and variety, and to enhance overall 
agricultural productivity.  Yet it also observes that, 
unlike the Green Revolution, the Gene Revolution 
currently is largely private-sector driven, resulting in 
products for large commercial markets, while neglecting 
"orphan crops" upon which the world's poorest are most 
dependent. 
 
¶2.  (U)  Media coverage has tended to characterize the 
report as an FAO endorsement of biotechnology.  In a 
broadside posted on the Internet, a coalition of NGOs 
accused FAO of selling out to the biotech industry and of 
overlooking many problems with the technology.  Director 
General Jacques Diouf's published response sought to 
reassure these critics, but in so doing he also 
reaffirmed that "we will have to use the scientific tools 
of molecular biology" to meet the world's food needs in 
¶2050.  U.S. Mission Rome's assessment is that FAO has 
made a courageous and responsible effort to produce a 
balanced scientific assessment.  It will help the 
international community move beyond polemics, and focus 
more on the practical challenges to meet global food 
needs in the coming decades.  End summary. 
 
¶3.  (U)  On May 17, FAO released its annual report on the 
State of Food and Agriculture, containing a 106-page 
study entitled "Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the 
Needs of the Poor?".  The full report is available at 
www.fao.org.  Given the extent of the hyperbole and spin 
that the report has generated, we offer below a series of 
excerpts that capture its breadth and nuances. 
 
DIRECTOR GENERAL'S FOREWORD 
--------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (U)  In a two-page Forward, DG Diouf made the 
following points, inter alia: 
 
-- "The effective transfer of existing technologies to 
poor rural communities and the development of new and 
safe biotechnologies can greatly enhance the prospects 
for sustainably improving agricultural productivity today 
and in the future." 
 
-- "But technology alone cannot solve the problems of the 
poor and some aspects of biotechnology, particularly the 
socio-economic impacts and the food safety and 
environment implications, need to be carefully assessed." 
 
-- "Developing biotechnology in ways that contribute to 
the sustainable development of agriculture, fisheries and 
forestry can help significantly in meeting the food and 
livelihood needs of a growing population." 
 
--  "Biotechnology offers opportunities to increase the 
availability and variety of food, increasing overall 
agricultural productivity while reducing seasonal 
variations in food supplies." 
 
-- "Through the introduction of pest-resistant and stress- 
tolerant crops, biotechnology could lower the risk of 
crop failure under difficult biological and climatic 
conditions." 
 
-- "...biotechnology could help reduce environmental 
damage caused by toxic agricultural chemicals." 
 
-- "Following a first generation of genetically 
engineered crops, which aimed primarily at reducing 
production constraints and costs, a second generation now 
targets the bio-availability of nutrients and the 
nutritional quality of products." 
 
-- "The Green Revolution, which lifted millions of people 
 
out of poverty, came about through an international 
programme of public-sector agricultural research aimed 
specifically at creating and transferring technologies to 
the developing world as free public goods.  The Gene 
Revolution, by contrast, is currently being driven 
primarily by the private sector, which naturally focuses 
on developing products for large commercial markets." 
 
-- "The emerging evidence on the economic impact of 
transgenic crops surveyed ... suggests that resource-poor 
smallholders can benefit in terms of both enhanced 
incomes and reduced exposure to toxic agricultural 
chemicals.  But so far only a few farmers in a few 
developing countries are reaping these benefits." 
 
-- "Neither the private nor the public sector has 
invested significantly in new genetic technologies for 
the so-called "orphan crops" such as cowpea, millet, 
sorghum and tef that are critical for the food supply and 
livelihoods of the world's poorest people." 
 
-- "Other barriers that prevent the poor from accessing 
and fully benefiting from modern biotechnology include 
inadequate regulatory procedures, complex intellectual 
property issues, poorly functioning markets and seed 
delivery systems, and weak domestic plant breeding 
capacity." 
 
-- "FAO is well aware of the potential environmental and 
food safety risks posed by certain aspects of 
biotechnology, particularly genetically modified 
organisms (GMOs)." 
 
-- "The scientific evidence concerning the environmental 
and health impacts of genetic engineering is still 
emerging." 
 
-- "There is strong consensus among scientists concerning 
the need for a case-by-case evaluation that considers the 
potential benefits and risks of individual GMOs compared 
with alternative technologies." 
 
-- "...FAO will continue to address all issues of concern 
to its constituents regarding biotechnology and its 
effects on human, plant and animal health." 
 
-- "...FAO will continue ... to strengthen its normative 
and advisory work, in coordination and cooperation with 
other international organizations." 
 
-- "FAO will continue to provide member countries with 
objective, science-based information and analysis 
regarding biotechnology and its applications...." 
 
FAO'S CONCLUSIONS 
----------------- 
 
¶5.  (U)  The SOFA report came to five main conclusions: 
 
-- "...biotechnology is capable of benefiting small, 
resource-poor farmers.  The key question is how this 
scientific potential can be brought to bear on 
agricultural problems of developing-country producers." 
 
-- "...some transgenic crops ... are yielding significant 
economic gains to small farmers as well as important 
social and environmental benefits...." 
 
-- "...the changing locus of agricultural research from 
the public sector to the private transnational sector has 
important implications for the kinds of products that are 
being developed, how these products are commercialized 
and who receives the benefits." 
 
-- "...biotechnology is not a panacea, but a resource 
that can be useful when combined with adaptive research 
capacity. Regulatory regimes matter.  Biosafety processes 
need to be in place." 
 
-- "...the environmental effects in terms of pesticide 
reduction can be positive." 
 
LESSONS 
------- 
 
¶6.  (U)  The report ends with six "main lessons for 
ensuring that the potential benefits of agricultural 
biotechnology reach the poor area," excerpted below: 
 
-- "Biotechnology ... can benefit the poor only when 
appropriate innovations are developed and when poor 
farmers in poor countries have access to them on 
profitable terms." 
 
-- "Biotechnology should be part of an integrated and 
comprehensive agricultural research and development 
programme...." 
 
-- "The public sector in developing and developed 
countries, donors and the international research centers 
should direct more resources to agricultural research, 
including biotechnology.  Public-sector research is 
necessary to address the public goods that the private 
sector would naturally overlook." 
 
-- "Governments should provide incentives and an enabling 
environment for private-sector biotechnology research, 
development and deployment." 
 
-- "Regulatory procedures should be strengthened and 
rationalized to ensure that the environment and public 
health are protected and that the process is transparent, 
predictable and science-based." 
 
-- "Capacity building for agricultural research and 
regulatory issues related to biotechnology should be a 
priority for the international community." 
 
FAO OFFICIALS' REACTION 
----------------------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  U.S. Mission Rome staff have discussed the 
report informally with several key FAO officials.  Deputy 
Director General David Harcharik stressed to us that the 
report was drafted by FAO's technical experts through a 
bottom-up, collaborative process.  There was no official 
policy position on biotech handed down from senior FAO 
management, according to him, although the Director 
General's foreword, while drawn from the experts' 
conclusions, was subject to broader review within the 
organization. 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  The report's editor, Terri Raney, told Mission 
officers on June 18 that the SOFA report was delayed six 
months beyond the originally envisioned publication date 
because of the lengthy and careful process of internal 
FAO review.  Every FAO department signed off on and 
agreed with the final text.  While there were some 
individuals that disagreed with the SOFA conclusions, the 
report represents the views of FAO as an institution. 
 
NGOS' VEHEMENT CRITIQUE... 
-------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (U)  Certain NGO groups have been vehement in their 
criticism of the SOFA report.  A coalition of 670 
organizations (most of them relatively obscure national 
and local groups) and 816 individuals involved in farming 
and agricultural issues published an open letter to DG 
Diouf on the Internet, under the title, "FAO Declares War 
on Farmers, Not on Hunger."  In their letter, the 
signatories "express [their] outrage and disagreement 
with the FAO report."  They charged that the report "has 
been used in a politically motivated public relations 
exercise to support the biotechnology industry.  It 
promotes the genetic engineering of seeds and the further 
skewing of research funding towards this technology and 
away from ecologically sound methods developed by 
farmers."  They take FAO to task for not having consulted 
farmers and civil society.  "Although the ... document 
struggles to appear neutral, it is highly biased and 
ignores available evidence of the adverse ecological, 
economic and health impacts of genetically engineered 
crops."  They also raise issues such as one company's 
monopolization of the transgenic seed market, the problem 
of "genetic contamination," and the report's apparent 
endorsement of so-called Terminator technology. 
 
...AND FAO'S REBUTTAL 
--------------------- 
 
¶10.  (U)  FAO responded with a letter from DG Diouf, 
which it posted on its web site, together with the 
incoming missive.  In it, Diouf defends the SOFA process 
as reflecting the views of "the most known specialists of 
Member States on the subject."  He explains that FAO's 
position on biotechnology is determined by its competent 
statutory bodies (specifically Codex Alimentarius and the 
International Plant Protection Convention), under the 
guidance of the FAO Conference and summits.  Regarding 
the fight against hunger, Diouf points out that he has 
"always maintained that GMOs are not needed to achieve 
the World Food Summit objective" [of halving the number 
of hungry by 2015].  He goes on to say, however, that to 
feed a projected world population of nine billion in 2050 
will require a 60% increase in food production.  "With 
this in mind, we will have to use the scientific tools of 
molecular biology, in particular the identification of 
molecular markers, genetic mapping and gene transfer for 
more effective plant enhancement, going beyond the 
phenotype-based methods.  Decisions on the rules and 
utilization of these techniques must however be taken at 
the international level by competent bodies such as the 
Codex Alimentarius." 
 
U.S. MISSION COMMENT 
-------------------- 
 
¶11.  (SBU)  FAO's SOFA report on agricultural 
biotechnology is a welcome development, and a courageous 
effort by the organization to address squarely one of the 
most important, but controversial, issues facing world 
agriculture.  Although many of the report's main 
conclusions had already been part of prior, lesser-known 
FAO papers and analyses, and had been reflected in 
statements by Assistant Director General for Agriculture 
Louise Fresco and others over the past year or more, the 
compilation of these views into a single, high-profile 
report under the Director General's imprimatur gives them 
new authority, impact and resonance.  If it's not an 
"endorsement of biotechnology," it certainly represents a 
maturing view, and a move beyond some earlier FAO 
pronouncements, where every favorable comment regarding 
biotech required a balancing caveat. 
 
¶12. (SBU)  The report provides an array of quotable 
quotes and citable facts that will be useful in 
countering strident anti-biotech voices.  In that regard, 
the DG's open letter (para 10) is particularly 
noteworthy.  All this will help shift the terms of the 
debate, although (as the NGO reaction demonstrates) there 
will continue to be strong disagreement from some 
quarters.  Reaction of other governments has been muted. 
 
¶13.  (SBU)  We'd like to be able to say that we had a 
hand in the perceived turnaround in FAO's stance on 
biotech.  Clearly, USG and Mission logic and persistence 
were persuasive and had an impact.  That said, FAO was 
probably never as anti-biotech as it was perceived to be 
by some industry groups (reftel), although Diouf was 
unpardonably slow to speak up when certain southern 
African countries rejected biotech-derived food aid in 
¶2003.  It seems that the organization is reflecting in 
part a gradual evolution in thinking among its 
membership, including in particular some European and 
African governments. 
 
¶14.  (SBU)  In our assessment, careful consideration 
should be given to how the USG reacts to the SOFA report. 
An overly tight U.S. embrace of the report's conclusions 
might be counterproductive by feeding NGO conspiracy 
theorists and casting doubt on FAO's objectivity and 
independence.  Efforts to raise the profile of the report 
by calling additional attention to it through resolutions 
in other UN bodies also need to be evaluated in this 
light.  On the other hand, if handled deftly, the SOFA 
report is an excellent resource and point of departure 
for think pieces and op-ed articles, and we plan to use 
it in that way. 
 
¶15.  (SBU)  Finally, an important aspect of the SOFA 
report is the challenge it puts before the USG and other 
 
major donors.  If we accept the report's premises and its 
conclusion that capacity building of agricultural science 
and technology in developing countries is essential, what 
are we prepared to do about it?  Until now, the USG has 
been reluctant to make voluntary contributions to FAO's 
biotech programs, partly because we preferred to work 
bilaterally and partly because we probably did not fully 
trust FAO's objectivity and ability to follow through on 
biotech activities.  Now, with FAO's position on biotech 
coming into clearer focus and seemingly more in line with 
ours, we may want to consider options for increased 
cooperation with the organization in this area. 
 
Hall 
 
 
NNNN 
	2004ROME02436 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED