Plant genetic resources

By Klaus M. Leisinger

The political, economic, and social world has changed significantly over the last 25 years. While the key indicators of human development have improved more in the past four decades than any time before in human history (UNDP, 1997), food security remains an unfulfilled dream today for more than 800 million people in developing countries. (See Table 1.)

Table 1: Estimates and Projections of the Incidence of Chronic Undernutrition in Developing Countries
Region	Year	Total Population	Undernourished
		(millions)	% of Population	Millions
Sub-Saharan Africa	1969-71 1990-92 2010	268 500 874	36 43 30	103 215 264
Near East / North Africa	1969-71 1990-92 2010	178 317 513	27 12 10	48 37 53
East Asia	1969-71 1990-92 2010	1,147 1,665 2,070	41 16 6	475 268 123
South Asia	1969-71 1990-92 2010	711 1,138 1,617	33 22 12	238 255 200
Latin America	1969-71 1990-92 2010	279 443 593	19 15 7	53 64 40
Total	1969-71 1990-92 2010	2,583 4,064 5,668	35 21 12	917 839 680
Source: FAO (1996) Food, Agriculture and Food Security: World Food Summit Technical Background Documents, Vol.1, p.9.

The improvements between 1969-71 and today may be small in numbers, but it is important to remember that about 1.5 billion people were added to the population of developing countries since then.

Experts at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Bank (at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR]) expect further progress in the coming years (FAO, 1996a; IFPRI, 1995). Others, such as Lester Brown at Worldwatch Institute, see an era of food scarcity ahead. There is almost general agreement, however, that future food security will be difficult to achieve: during the next 30 years, as many people will be added to world population as were alive in 1950-about 2.4 billion. During this same period, the globe's ecological carrying capacity is expected to be further strained. The combination of these two trends will keep the hunger issue high on the agenda of human development 200 years after publication of the "Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society", by Thomas Robert Malthus.

It is with these trends in mind that new technologies such as genetic engineering have to be judged.

I. The Political Economy of Hunger

To make a fair assessment of the contribution that genetic engineering can make towards fighting hunger in developing countries, it is necessary to consider the political economy of hunger-or, in the more appropriate concept that was used by the World Food Summit in 1996, the lack of food security.

1. Food Security

FAO defines "food security" as a state of affairs in which all people at all times have access to safe and nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life. To achieve this, two conditions must be met: safe, nutritious, and quantitatively and qualitatively adequate food must be provided, and rich and poor, male and female, old and young must all have access to it.

Food security thus has three dimensions:

• availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality, supplied through domestic production or imports;
• access by households and individuals to appropriate foods for a nutritious diet; and
• optimal uptake of nourishment thanks to a sustaining diet, clean water, and adequate sanitation, together with health care.

On a global level, food security for all requires that the supply of food be adequate to meet the total demand for food. While this is a necessary condition for the achievement of food security, it is by no means sufficient. Currently, enough food is produced globally, yet some 800 million people in developing countries have inadequate access to food, fundamentally because they lack the ability to purchase it (U.S. Government 1996).

Within countries, the food-insecure poor are found in different subgroups, differentiated by location, occupational patterns, asset ownership, race, ethnicity, age, and gender. Most of the poor and food-insecure live in rural areas. They tend to be landless or unable to create a food-secure livelihood on the land available to them. In urban areas, household food security is primarily a problem of low real wage rates (that is, the wage rate relative to food prices) and low levels of employment. Food deficiency and malnutrition tend to be less prevalent in urban areas. But they could become increasingly important problems there in the future as rates of urbanization increase.

Having adequate household access to food is necessary but not sufficient to ensure that all household members consume an adequate diet; by the same token, consuming an adequate diet is necessary but not sufficient for maintaining a healthy nutritional status. At the household level, access to food can depend on factors such as the age and sex of family members, and the state of their health. In many countries, female-headed households with no adult males are especially likely to have insufficient food. Within households, pregnant and lactating women, whose need for calories is especially high, may consume less than they require to bear and sustain healthy, normal-weight babies. Infants and children (especially girls and children born lower in the birth order) are also less likely than other family members to receive sufficient food.

Because shortfalls in food security can and do result from various interlinked adverse conditions in a country's socio-economic system, the only pathway to eventual food security is sustainable human development-in other words, breaking the vicious circle of continuing poverty, environmental deterioration, and acute institutional deficiencies. The production of enough food in an environmentally sustainable manner must be part of such a development strategy.

That said, it is obvious that there is no such thing as a magic "silver bullet" for achieving food security. The fact is, there are never simple solutions to complex problems, and anyone who says otherwise should be met with skepticism.

2. Threats to Future Food Security

The World Food Summit in Rome in 1996 projected that even under the best conditions, food insecurity will remain a nightmare for nearly 700 million people over the next 15 years. For many experts, things look structurally different today than they did in the past. CGIAR sees the world at a turning point:

Until now, the global natural resource base and agricultural production systems have had the potential to meet the food needs of a growing population. Food security largely has been a question of access to food rather than food availability. This is no longer necessarily the case, however. As the population in developing regions doubles by the middle of the 21st Century, the gap between global production potential and demand for food will close. For the first time, the world's capability to sustainably produce enough food for its inhabitants will require serious attention and careful planning. And issues of access will persist. Food security has emerged as one of the central challenges of the 21st Century (CGIAR, 1997).

There is wide consensus today that in order to provide increased nutrition to a growing world population, it will be necessary to expand food production faster than the rate of population growth. This is no easy task.

2.1. Population Growth

Despite substantial progress in endeavors for a sustained decline in fertility, world population is still growing at about 1.5 per cent a year, with the developing world's 4.7 billion growing at 1.8 per cent a year. The least developed countries are growing at 2.8 per cent a year. Today it is not known when family size everywhere will decline to replacement level. Nevertheless, due to the young age composition of most populations in developing countries, the absolute number of human beings will continue to increase significantly. (See Table 2.)

Table 2: World Population 1997, 2010, and 2025 (in millions)
Region	1997	2010	2025
World	5,840	6,894	8,036
More developed	1,175	1,212	1,226
Less developed	4,666	5,682	6,810
- Africa	743	990	1,313
- Latin America	490	589	691
- Asia	3,426	4,092	4,793
Source: Population Reference Bureau (1997) World Population Data Sheet 1997 Washington, DC

The present international consensus is that in the next 25 years world population will increase at least by 2 billion, and then by another billion before it reaches stabilization. For a small number of countries the challenges of population growth will be particularly daunting, and food security will be especially difficult to achieve. (See Table 3.)

Table 3: Selected Countries Ranked by Population Size: 1997, 2010, and 2025 (in millions)
Country	1997	2010	2025
China	1,237	1,402	1,570
India	970	1,183	1,385
Indonesia	204	240	276
Nigeria	107	157	232
Pakistan	138	176	233
Bangladesh	122	152	180
Ethiopia	59	81	112
Egypt	65	81	98
Source: Population Reference Bureau (1997) World Population Data Sheet 1997 Washington, DC

Already the fact that a significantly higher number of human beings will have to be provided with food in adequate quantity and quality poses a number of political, economic, social, ecological, and technological problems. Two salient features of population growth will make it particularly difficult to achieve future successes on the food security front:

• the world is becoming more urbanized, and
• the world is becoming more polarized-while the number of people in low-income groups is growing faster than world population in general, the share of income of the rich has been rising significantly.

Both these trends have a negative impact on future food security. Urban populations are not able to feed themselves by subsistence food production, and their eating patterns differ from those of rural folk. The amount of high-value, transportable, and storable grain (such as rice and wheat), animal protein, and vegetables in their diets is higher, with a corresponding decrease in the proportion of traditional foodstuffs. As incomes rise for some professional groups, people move up the food chain-they consume more livestock products, in other words, and the production of these goods either requires more grain or absorbs arable land.

Today's 400 million or so subsistence farmers already cannot feed the urban population of 1.5 billion; the 800 million subsistence farmers of the year 2025 will certainly not be able to feed 4 billion city-dwellers. This means that future food production will have to come from a dualistic agriculture. The subsistence sector will continue to support those living in rural areas, while modern agriculture and intensified production will have to supply urban dwellers with food.

Despite substantial increases in the income of the upper and, in part, the middle classes in nearly every developing country, the number of people living in poverty is expected to rise; in particular, the number of urban poor will overtake the number in rural areas by early next century. This makes urban food prices one of the most important factors for poverty alleviation. While absolute poverty has direct negative implications for human development, increasing economic disparities against a background of widespread poverty put the social fabric at risk. As Robert Kaplan demonstrated convincingly in his article "The Coming Anarchy", a disintegrating social fabric will have grave consequences not only for the environment, political stability, and the safeguarding of regional and national tranquility but also for food security (Kaplan RD, 1994)

2.2 The World's Agricultural Environment

While the number of people who need food is increasing, the resources to produce food are dwindling. In 1961 the amount of cultivated land supporting food production stood at 0.44 hectares per capita. Today it is about 0.26 hectares per person, and it is expected to fall to some 0.15 hectares by 2050 (Gardner G 1997). The bulk of land best suited to rain-fed agriculture is already under cultivation. Land newly brought into cultivation tends to have lower productivity.

In many regions, industrialization is claiming some of the best cropland. In addition, soil erosion by water and wind due to inappropriate agricultural techniques as well as overuse of scarce resources (International Soil Conservation Organization, 1996. Gardner, 1996) particularly water (Engelmann R, Leroy P, 1993; Postel S, 1992) make efforts to produce sufficient quantities of food even more difficult. The scale of land degradation is estimated to be very high: The Global Land Assessment of Degradation estimates that of 3.2 billion hectares under pasture, 21 per cent is degraded, while 38 per cent of the nearly 1.5 billion hectares in cropland is degraded to various degrees (Scherr SJ, Yadav S, 1996).

The degradation of cropland appears to be most extensive in Africa, affecting 65 per cent of the cropland area, compared with 51 per cent in Latin America and 38 per cent in Asia. Declining yields or increasing input requirements will be the consequence. The environment In the Sahelian Zone in sub-Saharan Africa continues to be among the most endangered in the world (Leisinger KM, Schmitt KM, 1995), with dire consequences for food self-reliance. China, the most populous country, remains under heavy land pressure, with at least uncertain consequences for national food self-sufficiency. Projections by FAO, the World Bank, and the International Food Policy Research Institute show that the demand for food in Asia will exceed supply by 2010 (IFPRI, 1995). Sub-Saharan Africa causes even greater concern: already it produces only 80 per cent of the food it consumes; with a population growth of 2.7 per cent a year, it will be difficult to close the food production gap there.

On the global level, major key indicators show that the physical condition of the earth is deteriorating. The earth is getting warmer (Brown et alia, 1996). And deforestation continues unabated, reducing the capacity of soils and vegetation to absorb and store water (World Resources Institute et alia, 1996).

Against the background of continuing population growth, accelerated urbanization, and increased pressure on the social fabric and the environment, the struggle for food security will have to be fought on many fronts. The technological front is only one, and genetic engineering is but one of several technical options. Yet it is a very important one. Most experts agree today, that "the task of meeting world food needs to 2010 by the use of existing technology may prove difficult, not only because of the historically unprecedented increments to world population that seem inevitable during this period but also because problems of resource degradation and mismanagement are emerging. Such problems call into question the sustainability of the key technological paradigms on which much of the expansion of food production since 1960 has depended."(Kendall et alia, 1997).

In order to judge whether genetic engineering promises to be the new technological paradigm in the fight for food security, the next two sections look at the perceived risks and benefits of this technology.

II. The Risks of Genetic Engineering in the Fight Against Hunger

There is a wealth of scientific and popular discussion concerning the risks of genetic engineering (Walgate R, 1990; Fowler C, Mooney P, 1990; Hobbelink H, 1991). To a great extent, today's criticism of the technology can be compared to the discussion about the Green Revolution in the 1970s (Brown LR, 1970). The improved seeds of the 1950s and 1960s were developed through systematic selection and crossing (hybridization) with the objective of increasing the production volume and averting famines, particularly in Asia (Sen A, 1975). Despite undisputed success in achieving a significantly higher volume of food production and an overall positive effect on employment (Barker et alia, 1985; Hazell PBR, Ramasamy, 1991), there was (and sometimes still is) vociferous criticism of the Green Revolution as responsible for growing disparities in poor societies and for the loss of biological diversity (Wolf EC, 1986).

The current public debate on the "Gene Revolution" often suffers-as did that on the Green Revolution-from a failure to differentiate between the risks inherent in a technology and those that transcend it. This differentiation is of utmost importance in any attempt to assess risks.

1. Technology-Inherent Risks

Since the early 1970s recombinant DNA technology-the ability to transfer genetic material through biochemical means-has enabled scientists to genetically modify plants, animals, and micro-organisms rapidly. Modern genetic engineering can also introduce a greater diversity of genes into organisms-including those from unrelated species-than traditional methods of breeding and selection can. Organisms genetically modified in this way are referred to as "living modified organisms" derived from modern biotechnology.

Although modern biotechnology has demonstrated its usefulness, there are concerns about the potential risks posed by living modified organisms. Today, most countries with biotechnological industries have sophisticated legislation in place intended to ensure the safe transfer, handling, use, and disposal of these organisms and their products. The World Bank and other institutions recommend methods of proper risk assessment as well as risk management in order to assure a maximum of biosafety (Doyle JJ, Persley GJ, 1996).

The intended use of living modified organisms falls into two categories: contained use and field release. Organisms intended for contained use are usually research material and are subject to well-defined risk management techniques involving laboratory containment. Those developed for agricultural biotechnology are intended for field release. Field testing of living modified organisms is a new undertaking, and the interaction of such organisms with various ecosystems continues to generate questions about safety. Some of the concerns about field release include unintended changes in the competitiveness, virulence, or other characteristics of the target species; the possibility of adverse impacts on non-target species and ecosystems; the potential for weediness in genetically modified crops; and the stability of inserted genes.

There is a wealth of scientific literature on the deliberate release of living modified organisms either into new environments or into areas where they could prove particularly harmful. So far, not one severe biosafety risk has materialized. There is a consensus among scientists that serious concerns about the release of living modified organisms are unwarranted (Gendal et alia, 1990). This judgment supports the early conclusion of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences that the safety assessment of a recombinant DNA-modified organism should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment into which it will be introduced, not on the method by which it was modified (Persley GJ, 1990).

As a social scientist, I am not competent to pass more than a layperson's judgment on matters of biosafety. Readers are referred to the specialized literature on this subject (Doyle, JJ, Persley GJ, 1996) There is, however, one demand to be made: risks that cannot be taken in industrial countries, with their stringent regulatory frameworks, should not be exported to developing countries. If genetically engineered organisms and biotechnological procedures are used in developing countries, state-of-the-art quality management must be applied, taking into consideration the specific conditions of the countries concerned. But even then other risks will remain. Risks-calculable risks-must be taken, otherwise technological progress becomes impossible. Such risks should not be accepted lightly, but the worst possible problem?solver in this case would be technophobia.

2. Technology-Transcending Risks

Technology-transcending risks are altogether different. They emanate from the application of a technology in certain political and social circumstances. In developing countries, these risks spring both from the course that the global economy is taking and from country-specific political and social configurations. The most critical fears in this connection have to do with three socio-political and ecological concerns. Aggravation of the prosperity gap between North and South, possibly through substitution of tropical agricultural exports with genetically engineered products, as well as the exploitation of indigenous genetic resources of the South without appropriate compensation by the North. Growing disparities in the distribution of income and wealth within poor societies because the privileged classes (by dint of better education or stronger financial position) profit earlier and more from the introduction of powerful technologies than do the socially disadvantaged. This problem accompanies every innovation, of course, but the high potency of genetic engineering stirs fears that the negative effects on development may prove especially severe. Reduced use of biodiversity as farmers increasingly rely on the small number of more productive genetically engineered varieties instead of the many thousands of traditional local varieties they have previously used.

In light of the growing disparities within specific poor societies and between industrial and developing countries (UNDP, 1997), the dwindling competitiveness of a great many poor countries, and the ongoing loss of biological diversity (Wilson EO, 1988; Ambio, 1992) these three concerns deserve serious consideration.

2.1 Aggravation of the Prosperity Gap Between North and South

What is usually discussed under this heading is an international trade issue of a very general nature-that is, economic risks for some (not all) developing countries due to a loss of export opportunities. With genetic engineering, it will become possible to produce in the laboratory or in temperate zones agricultural goods that have until now been grown exclusively in the tropics. This prospect gives rise to concerns that the resultant competitive edge could drive a number of tropical products off the market. The example of this that is commonly used is the production of vanilla aroma in the laboratory using biotechnology, which could threaten the existence of several tens of thousands of vanilla-producing small farmers in poor African countries.

Similar but even more far-reaching consequences could materialize in connection with cocoa. Genetically improved cocoa varieties could not only result in higher yields and a concomitant drop in prices. They could also replace smallholder production in poor West African countries with plantation-scale farming in the newly industrialized economies of Asia. A comparable situation could develop with vegetable oils.

Furthermore, countries like Cuba or Mauritius, which depend on sugar-cane for a decisive share of their export earnings, could find themselves extremely hard-pressed should industrial manufacture of the low-calorie protein sweetener thaumatin or similar substances broadly supplant sugar-cane (Sasson A, 1988) The story of thaumatin is one that fits very much into the context discussed here. Some 10 years ago, Nigerian researchers at the University of Ife identified the sweetener thaumatin in the berries of Thaumatococcus danielli, which is common in the forests of that part of Nigeria. At that time, no industry was interested in using the fruit as a sweetener. With the advent of biotechnological possibilities, the gene for thaumatin, which is a protein that gram-for-gram is some 1,600 times sweeter than sugar, has been cloned and is now being used for the industrial production of sweetener in the confectionery industry. Patents on the process have been registered, but the people from whose lands the gene was obtained never received any compensation.

Where food crops are concerned, this category of risks is not important, as the farmers who grow these are not threatened by genetically engineered substitutes for their crops - rather by another technology-transcending risk coming from the North, i.e. inappropriate food aid and subsidized export of surplus grain having both a deflating effect on food prices and creating a taste for foreign foods. Nevertheless, the risk of aggravation of the prosperity gap between North and South must be addressed because of its tremendous importance: From a holistic political perspective it cannot make sense to uncouple the North from the agricultural raw materials of the South, for this would plunge a large part of humanity into dire misery. It is incompatible with sustainable development and hence a peaceful future for all the inhabitants of our planet if life goes on getting better for a relatively small segment of the world's already affluent population, while for billions of others their already skimpy living standard stagnates or even shrivels.

From the perspective of economic rationality, however, it has to be expected that superior goods will conquer the market. Copper can serve as an example. Its price is determined by the metal's electrical conductivity. Once electric current can be conducted cheaper and better by glass or carbon fiber, for instance, copper will in due course no longer be used for this purpose-with corresponding consequences for demand and thus price. The substitution will take place even though crumbling prices may lead in countries like Zambia or Chile to mass unemployment, with all the human distress that brings.

The same market "logic" tells us to expect that if "lab vanilla" or "lab sugar" should prove cheaper or exhibit some other edge-healthier than the real thing, for example-over products previously imported from the South, then substitution will follow. Ultimately this process cannot be avoided, not even by sizable government intervention, which is not desirable in any case.

The solution to the product substitution problem must therefore lie in a concerted international endeavor to diversify the production structure in vulnerable countries rather than in market intervention to counter the trend. Here, better governance (World Bank, 1992) and more appropriate long-term structural planning by the governments of the countries in danger as well as a bigger allocation of funds from the international development establishment to support diversification efforts are urgently required. A comprehensive risk/benefit analysis of the substitution of agricultural export commodities from the tropics would also have to examine the potential of the land left fallow by substitution to increase local food production, and perhaps ecologically opportune changes in how it is used as well-in reforestation, for instance, in the framework of joint implementation of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

In considering the aggravation of the prosperity gap between North and South, one further important issue has to be examined: Who will compensate whom for the use of genetic material from developing countries, and how much shall the compensation amount to?

There is widespread fear that private enterprises and research institutes could gain control of the genes of plants native to the developing world free of charge, as it were, and use them to develop and produce superior varieties that would then be sold back to developing countries at high prices. Suppose a private seed company discovered a property in an Ethiopian barley strain that made barley resistant to certain plant diseases and they genetically transferred this property to a wheat variety that would afterwards be commercialized in Ethiopia. Obviously, the farmers of Ethiopia have contributed something by selecting and preserving this variety over a long period of time. It is also obvious that without the research and development work of the seed company the "something" would not have been turned to use outside Ethiopia or in food grains other than the native barley. So both parties-the farmers of Ethiopia and the seed company-have contributed to the new wheat variety, and therefore both have some kind of an intellectual property right and thus a right to compensation.

The basic question of whether remuneration is due has been clearly and positively answered by Article 19 of the Convention on Biological Diversity signed in Rio in 1992 and by the consensus of the agencies engaged in development. While the general political decision in favor of compensation has been taken, the technical details of how it should be handled in specific nations are still unclear. What especially needs unequivocal regulation is who should compensate whom for what, and how much this compensation should be.

As a rough first approach, I would recommend that the issue be dealt with in terms of a licence agreement and the price left to the mechanism of supply and demand. Those who benefit should pay the licence fee to those who over centuries, through their hard agricultural work, helped preserve the varieties in question. The unimproved genetic wealth of the world's Vavilov centers should be considered as the common heritage of humankind.

It should not be difficult to find a simple and effective way to establish fair compensation. The contract between the National Biodiversity Institute in Costa Rica and Merck provides one model. Other mechanisms could deal with the matter by looking at the issue in the way of a licensing agreement, whereby those who use the genetic material from a traditional agricultural society pay a licence fee into a fund for the support of the national agricultural research of the gene-exporting country. As CGIAR already exists and does excellent work for the poor farmers of the world, no new institution need be created. Instead, CGIAR or its subsidiary, the International Service for National Agricultural Research, could be asked to draft a proposal outlining how to deal with such compensation fees in a fair and constructive way.

2.2 Growing Disparities in the Distribution of Income and Wealth in Poor Societies

The use of genetically modified seeds adapted to the specific conditions of difficult biotopes can no doubt provide a much needed push to national agricultural development as well as tremendous benefits to all farmers who use them. But in settings with weak social and political systems, it can hardly bring about improvements in the condition of those who are not able to use the new varieties. Where landownership, tenancy systems, and the access to extension services, credit, marketing channels, and new technologies are governed by a socio-political power structure that favors only a small minority, technological progress cannot possibly be neutral in impact.

The answer to the question of who benefits and how much from the advent of new technologies and to what extent economic and social progress can be achieved thus depends on the social and political configuration in place. Disease-resistant cassava, millet richer in protein, or vitamin A-enriched rice tolerant to stress can contribute to prosperity and thus enhanced food security on a broad scale only if the new varieties and other social advances come within the reach of the broad mass of the population, women as well as men. Whether this is possible and its time frame depends on the political will to create the necessary national development framework. As poor farmers tend to be risk-minimizing and not output-maximizing, even under the best social circumstances, early adopters stand to gain earlier.

Today's review on the effects of the Green Revolution shows that in countries where small farmers were supported by agricultural extension services and where they had access to land, inputs, and credit-in other words, where the agricultural development framework assisted small farmers-they were able to benefit much more and earlier. Even where the Green Revolution made the "rich" richer, because they could use the new technologies earlier, on better land, with better inputs and less expensive credits, the poor also benefited over time-becoming less poor as agricultural modernization proceeded. This may not be the best of all social results imaginable, but in a world where more than 1.3 billion people live in absolute poverty, such achievements should not go unappreciated.

Like the Green Revolution, genetically engineered crop varieties are a land-saving technology and, as such, can be of particular importance to those who have little or only marginal land. Whether the potential benefits become economic and social reality for small farmers is not a question of the technology as such but of the social quality of the development policy. The respective criticism should therefore address the deficient social setting and the lack of good governance and not be leveled against a technology that can be of use to all farmers.

If land and tenure reforms are implemented, if there is support for small farmers and other elements of a development-friendly environment, the benefits of a new technology-and of genetic engineering-are scale-neutral. Where 90 per cent of the land belongs to 3 per cent of the population and where the agricultural extension and credit services are only available to large landholders, the introduction of a new technology will deepen the gap between incomes. The economic and social impact of genetic engineering can only be as good as the socio-political soil in which any resulting new varieties are planted. Solutions therefore have to be looked for in the realm of good governance.

2.3 Reduced Use of Biodiversity

The extent of biological impoverishment all over the globe has been a source of great concern for many years. More recently, in the context of genetic engineering and biotechnology, the term "biodiversity" has gained an even wider currency and has tended to become increasingly confusing. A little more precision is required. "Biodiversity" is commonly used to describe the number, variety, and variability of living organisms. It has become a widespread practice to define this in terms of genes, species, and ecosystems, corresponding to three fundamental and hierarchically related levels of biological organization: genetic diversity, species diversity, and ecosystem diversity.

Losses in species diversity are caused by two broad types of human activity: directly by hunting and collection, and indirectly by habitat destruction and modification. The genetic diversity represented by genetic differences between discrete populations within wild species is liable to be reduced as a result of the same factors. The genetic diversity represented by populations of crop plants or livestock is vulnerable to reduction as a result of mass production; the desired economies of scale demand high levels of uniformity.

Virtually any form of sustained human activity results in some modification of the natural environment. This modification will affect the relative abundance of species and in extreme cases may lead to extinction. This may result from the habitat being made unsuitable for the species (through the clearing of forests, for example) or through the habitat becoming fragmented. A major though at present largely unpredictable change in natural environments is likely to occur within the next century as a result of large-scale changes in global climate and weather patterns. There is a high probability that these will cause increased extinction rates, although the exact effects are at present unknown.

Evidently a certain level of biological diversity is necessary to provide the material basis of human life: at one level, to maintain the biosphere as a functioning system; at another level, to provide the basic materials for agriculture and other utilitarian needs (Srivastava et alia, 1996). The most important direct use of other species is food. Although a relatively large number of plant species, perhaps a few thousand, have been used as food, and a greater number are believed to be edible, only a small percentage of these are nutritionally significant on a global level. It is clear that successful cultivation of agricultural crops on a large scale requires a number of other organisms (chiefly soil micro-organisms and, in a few cases, pollinators), but these probably amount to a statistically insignificant percentage of global biological diversity. At the same time, highly productive agricultural systems require the virtual absence of some elements of biological diversity (pest species) from given sites.

The loss of biodiversity due to the use of modern crop varieties is less significant in global terms that the loss due to the destruction of tropical forests, the conversion of native land to agriculture, the replacement of wildlands with monocultures, and overfishing and various other activities to feed a growing world population. The genetic erosion in the crop varieties used is of concern insofar as it has implications for food supply and the sustainability of locally adapted agricultural practices. Genetic resources may not only influence the productivity of local agricultural systems; they may also, when incorporated in breeding programs, provide the Foundationof traits (disease resistance, nutritional value, hardiness, etc.) of global importance in intensive systems, which will assume an even greater role in the context of future climate change.

Erosion of diversity in crop gene pools is difficult to demonstrate quantitatively, but tends to be indirectly assessed in terms of the increasing proportion of world cropland planted to high-yielding but genetically uniform varieties. The availability of improved varieties in the field has direct consequences for the diversity of varieties used for food production: farmers with access to varieties that produce higher yields because they are resistant to or tolerant of plant diseases and animal pests as well as to stress factors such as poor soil quality will not continue to cultivate inferior varieties. If traditional varieties are not preferable in taste or attractive for cultural reasons, it will simply not be in the farmer's interest to continue to use them. Precisely because farmers find new varieties advantageous, the number of food crop varieties has diminished throughout the world over the last 100 years; farmers discontinue cultivating traditional varieties because modern varieties are more remunerative (Smala M, 1997).

To fight against genetic engineering because it makes superior varieties available to the small farmer in developing countries would be the wrong way to join battle against the continuing loss of biodiversity. The availability of high-yielding resistant and tolerant varieties allowed for a substantial increase in hectare productivity: in 1991-93, India produced on average 196 million tons of grain a year, with an average yield of 1.98 tons per hectare. In 1961-63, by comparison, the yield figure stood at 0.95 tons per hectare. If India were still using the varieties of the 1960s, 208 million hectares of arable land would be needed-116 million more than were available in 1961-63. If the yield per hectare had not doubled, achieving the results recorded in 1991-93 would have required doubling the land under cultivation-a sheer impossibility without causing an ecological disaster by destroying the last remaining forests and converting them to cropland.

To slow down the continuing loss of biodiversity, the main battlefield must be the preservation of tropical forests, mangroves and other wetlands, rivers, lakes, and coral reefs. The fact that inferior varieties (from a farmer's economic production point of view) are replaced by superior ones does not at all have to result in an actual loss of biodiversity. Varieties that are under substitution pressure can be preserved through in vivo and in vitro strategies and hence be saved from extinction (Ashmore SE, 1997). If this is not done, a highly regrettable loss of biodiversity will likely occur. As this would be the result of a lack of political will for appropriate conservation strategies, the loss of biodiversity associated with the introduction of improved varieties must be considered to be a technology-transcending risk. Improved governance and international support are necessary to limit this risk. Currently or potentially useful resources should not be lost simply because we do not know or appreciate them at present.

III. The Benefits of Genetic Engineering in the Fight Against Hunger

1. Expectations

The spectrum of potential benefits from the application of genetic engineering and biotechnology to food crops in developing countries ranges from diagnostic aids, for example in plant diseases, to gene mapping, which allows speedier identification of interesting genetic material for every kind of plant usable in agriculture (OECD, 1992). The main objective of research and development for food security is to find improved seed varieties that enable reliable high yields at the same or lower tillage costs through qualities such as resistance to or tolerance of plant diseases (fungi, bacteria, viruses) and animal pests (insects, mites, nematodes) as well as to stress factors such as climatic variation or aridity, poor soil quality, crop rotation practices, and others. Equally important objectives are the transfer of genes with nitrogen-fixing capacity onto grains, and the improvement of food quality by overcoming vitamin or mineral deficiencies (in rice, for example).

The realization of these objectives will bring tremendous benefits-benefits that can be easily demonstrated using rice (the staple food for 2.4 billion people) and cassava (the staple food for 500 million people) as examples (Potrykus I, 1997).

Rice Fungal diseases destroy 50 million tons of rice per year; varieties resistant to fungi could be developed through the genetic transfer of proteins with antifungal properties. Insects cause a loss of 26 million tons of rice per year; the genetic transfer of proteins with insecticidal properties would mean environmentally friendly insect control. Viral diseases devastate 10 million tons of rice per year; transgenes derived from the Tungro virus genome allow the plant to develop defense systems. Bacterial diseases cause comparable losses-transgenes with antibacterial properties are the basis for inbuilt resistance. Vitamin A deficiency is the cause of health problems for more than 100 million children-transgenes will provide provitamin A with the rice diet. Iron deficiency in the diet is a health problem for more than 1 billion women and children-transgenes will supply sufficient iron in the diet.

Cassava The African Mosaic Virus causes immense damages in cassava; transgenes interfering with the life cycle of the virus could lead to virus-resistant varieties. Cassava contains toxic cyanogenic glycosides; the integration of transgenes could inhibit their synthesis. Cassava roots efficiently store starch but do not contain protein; the transfer of genes for storage proteins would substantially improve their nutritional quality. Cassava roots have a basic capacity for provitamin A synthesis; transfer of appropriate genes could lead to regulated accumulation.

Ideally, seed varieties that result from such research endeavors should lead to the cultivation of plants that fit into the concept of "sustainable" agriculture-that is, they should not abet erosion or leaching of the soil. To complete the packet of desired characteristics, a variety should afford dependable or even high yields at low production costs.

The big edge that recombinant genetics has over conventional breeding is that the desired properties can be systematically sought, identified, extracted ("snipped") from a plant or almost any other organism, and within a relatively short time transferred ("spliced") to another plant. The result is the same as that achieved with conventional methods, but without costly and time?consuming cross?breeding.

In addition, gene technology has the capability to provide growers with a greater diversity of hardy plant varieties by transposing properties from one species to another-a further advantage it has over conventional methods. The prospects are good: the World Bank expects that efforts to improve rice yields in Asia through biotechnology will result in a production increase of 10-20 per cent over the next 10 years (Kendall et alia, 1997).The progress will come from improved hybrid rice systems in China and in other Asian countries, from rice varieties transformed with genes for resistance to pests and diseases. These transformed rice varieties will raise average yields by preventing crop damage. Further contributions for better food security through biotechnology are expected in maize, cassava, and smallholder banana production.

2. Achievements

Over the past four decades, yield increases in the major foodgrains throughout the world have been substantial. Yield levels of maize, rice, and wheat nearly doubled from 1960 to 1994. These increases can be attributed largely to improved varieties, irrigation, fertilizers, and a range of improved crop- and resource-management technologies. Much of this has been part of the Green Revolution. In addition to producing more food, the Green Revolution has expanded farm and nonfarm output, employment, and wages, thus contributing to food security by reducing poverty (Barker et alia, 1985; Hazell PBR, Ramasamy, 1991). Higher productivity has also reduced the conversion of forests, grasslands, and swamplands for cultivation of food crops, thus contributing to the preservation of biodiversity.

Development of short-duration varieties has contributed to higher food production and improved the returns to costly resources used by poor farmers, while crop- and resource-management technologies have improved environmental and resource sustainability. Cultivation of less-favorable lands made possible by new plant varieties (for example, drought-tolerant crop varieties) has also raised food output.

Rapid productivity gains have in general decreased food costs and improved food security, particularly for vulnerable sections of society. The urban poor have been important beneficiaries of this downward trend. While landowning households often benefit most from the direct income effects of agricultural growth, landless and small food-deficit farmers often benefit most from the indirect effects, such as the generation of off-farm employment. Indirect employment effects that help the poorest households are further facilitated by infrastructural development.

Conventional seed-breeding programs will remain important in the future. But they have a competitive disadvantage in that they have to proceed in small steps towards single targets and are thus time-consuming. If, in contrast, selection systems are developed for the test tube-through characterization of genetic markers for certain properties, for example-then research can be carried out with a notably greater efficiency. Case studies show that over the past years biotechnology and-so far only to a lesser extent-genetic engineering have made possible marked concrete advances in the direction of higher food security, be it through resistance to fungal and viral diseases in major food crops or through improved plant properties. The development of new plant protection techniques with the aid of genetic engineering and biotechnology (primarily transposing selected traits of Bacillus thuringiensis into crops) has already led to noteworthy progress in terms of the environment and lessened dependence on chemical weapons (Commandeur P, Komen J, 1993).

Especially where arable land is becoming scarce and the use of fertilizers and plant protection agents is nearing the ecologically tolerable limit, biotechnology, by providing novel products and mechanisms of action, can indeed bring farmers closer to solving some current agricultural problems (Bunders JFG, 1990)-problems either not solvable with traditional technologies or else only with a far greater expenditure of time. Many of the results expected for rice and cassava are within reach.

No one can add to the area of arable land available on earth. But with the aid of new plants "made to measure" through gene technology and with biotechnological methods, it is possible to wrest more food from the land with less energy input (fertilizers) and less problematic plant protection. For farmers both large and small, this is of sizable importance. Based on the empirical evidence of the effects of biotechnological and gene-engineering interventions in Third World agriculture, the International Labor Organization concluded that the positive impact could prove more far?reaching than that resulting from the application of present?day mechanical and chemical technologies (Bifani P, 1989; Komen J, Persley GJ, 1993; IRRI, 1993).

IV. Building Blocks for Food Security

1. Value Judgments Determine the Weight of Arguments

Few technological issues have caused as much debate as genetic engineering and biotechnology. Assessing the contribution that genetic engineering can make towards fighting hunger in developing countries is not simply an academic task, where facts and figures are collected and rationally evaluated. The evaluation of the results is subject to a great variety of interests and value judgments of a multitude of stockholders. On the basis of identical information, some authors consider agricultural biotechnologies to be amongst the most powerful and economically promising means to development in poor countries, while others perceive them as a threat. Once again it is necessary to live with the theory of constructivism, which postulates that there is no such thing as the reality but instead, as the result of differing value judgments, world views, and personal experiences, different subjectively perceived realities: individuals regard what they are able to see or would like to see from their viewpoints as uniquely real, and they assess their perceptions according to preconceived ideas and basic assumptions Watzlawick P, 1989; Maturana HR, 1985).

Differing realities and hence pluralism of opinion are by no means unique to genetic engineering and biotechnology; they can be observed in the context of all major social events. Things are more complicated in this case, however, as most people confronted with the issue are not specialists in molecular biology or gene technology and hence have to believe what others say or the media discuss. Wild stories about the creation of monsters, about scientists who lack morals and professional responsibility in order to "play god", are more likely to be taken up by media than stories about slow but steady progress with regard to the pest tolerance of rice.

As we live in a world with very heterogeneous social systems, with a multitude of value judgments and interests, we must live with deviating evaluations. On the one hand, there are obvious agricultural benefits from the use of genetic engineering and biotechnology in the development of new varieties. They have a significant potential to increase production and productivity, preserve the environment, and improve food safety and quality.

On the other hand, there are a number of economic, social, and ecological risks. These risks, however, are not a consequence of the technology per se but of its use in a particular social setting. They are predominantly of a technology-transcending nature. Risks of such a nature are not caused nor can they be prevented by the technology as such. In this respect, progress with genetic engineering is no different from any other form of technological and societal progress, which, as the German theologian Helmut Gollwitzer once said, is "nothing other than the unremitting struggle to secure its positive aspects, learning to live with the dangers that come with it and surmounting the impairments it causes." (Gollwitzer H, 1985)

Exactly what constitute the "positive aspects", "dangers", and "impairments" in a given case is the stuff of dispute. The weight of a certain effect of technological progress is very much a function of individual value judgments. A person's judgment of the worth of a good gained or lost through the march of technology determines the impact of that gain or loss. The result of this can be utterly irrational: While most people in industrial countries are willing to accept a technology-the automobile-that is contributing to global warming, kills about 50,000 persons a year, maims another half a million in the United States alone, and adds nothing vital to our lifestyles except the added convenience of personalized fast travel, the release of genetically modified organisms into nature is often perceived as too risky to be acceptable (Serageldin I, 1997).

In most countries where gene technology is debated, most people tend to accept the medical uses of biotechnology much more than the agricultural uses. That position is taken because people everywhere place high value on the reduction of human suffering and the prolongation of human life. So far, the proponents of agricultural gene technology have failed to demonstrate that human suffering is reduced and life is prolonged by seed varieties that enable reliable high yields at the same or lower tillage costs.

2. Quality of Governance Determines the Degree of Food Security

One thing is sure: where there is war, civil strife, and irresponsible, despotic political regimes, there will be hunger. Food insecurity is one of the most terrible manifestations of human deprivation and is inextricably linked to every other facet of the development predicament (Drze J, Sen A, 1990). Poverty is one of the major causes of food insecurity, and sustainable progress in poverty alleviation is critical to improved access to food. Poverty is linked not only to poor national economic performance but also to a political structure that renders poor people powerless. So policy matters of a general nature, and in particular good governance (Commission on Global Governance, 1995) are of overriding importance for food security.

The main precondition for food security is a constructive political leadership that is responsive and responsible to people and that uses peaceful means of dealing with both internal conflicts and other governments. Second, progress towards food security requires a proper macro-economic framework. The following elements have been most important for successes on the poverty front (Birdsall N, 1993): Economic growth with a tendency to rely heavily on Labor as the most plentiful factor of production as well as active distributional policies-that is, economic development that lifts all boats in a society and not only those of the elite; successes have been greatest where endeavors to close the gap between the rich and the poor were effective without unduly reducing the incentives to the rich to be productive. ? Sound socio-economic policy-that is, avoiding high inflation and overvalued currencies, and allocating limited resources to managing those affairs that markets cannot handle well but that are essential for the efficient functioning of the economy and society. Strong support for basic needs strategies-that is, a development approach that puts priority on meeting the needs for education, health services, and other essentials for all people in a country (Streeten P, 1981; Stewart F, 1985); the lessons of East Asia show that government interventions in the interest of equity are not only compatible with economic growth, they make it more sustainable World Bank, 1993). Massive investment in rural infrastructure-roads, markets, electricity, irrigation, agricultural extension services, and so on. Low taxation of agriculture.

Furthermore, it is obvious that any and all efforts to reduce population growth in an ethically acceptable way constitute a critical pillar of future food security (Leisinger KM, Schmitt KM, 1994).

Given that most poor people are still to be found in rural areas, labor-intensive rural and agricultural development strategies that increase the productivity and effectiveness of the rural population and hence the agricultural sector while being sustainable in the social and environmental sense would be ideal. As landlessness and near-landlessness together with unemployment and underemployment are the prime determinants of food insecurity in rural areas, land and tenancy reforms as well as Grameen Bank-type credit schemes and institutional support for diversification are of additional importance. Also crucial is the prevention of the still considerable pre- and postharvest losses caused by weeds, plant diseases, animal pests, and inadequate storage (Oerke EC, 1994).

Technological innovation is no panacea to all problems of sustainable development. It is just one stone in a large and complex socio-economic mosaic. Whether the economic blessing becomes a social curse depends on the political and the broad social ramifications. A technology can only be as good as the warp and woof of society permit. Social and ecological risks materialize because a gap opens between human scientific technical prowess and human willingness to shoulder moral and political responsibility. The risks lie in the political, economic, and social milieu in which technology is applied. If and when poor small farmers have access to land, to agricultural extension services, to marketing opportunities, to working equipment, and to fair terms of credit, then higher?yielding seeds adapted to the biotope and resistant to pests can be developed with the use of genetic engineering and biotechnology and bring noteworthy advantages and more food to the mass of small farmers.

3. Technological progress can help in the fight for food security

If the political setting is development-friendly and if small farmers have access to land, extension services, and agricultural inputs and credit, technological improvements such as new varieties-whether they are the result of conventional breeding or genetic engineering-can contribute substantially towards food production, rural employment, and hence income development. If more can be grown on the available land, if less water and fertilizer are needed for higher yields, if there is tolerance against major pests and adverse cropping conditions, and if nutritional quality can be increased through modified plants, small and large farmers alike will benefit. The greater amount of pre- and postharvest work to be done will stimulate rural development.

The objective of genetic engineering in the context of food security is not to invent freakish hybrids but rather to sustain or increase yields of important cultivated plants through imparting to them resistance to insect pests or disease agents or through increasing their ability to withstand competitive pressures (or to eliminate such pressures), such as from weeds. Obviously, the realization of these possibilities is expected to be of substantial advantage to farmers and hence to rural communities as a whole. If genetic engineering and biotechnology were oriented to a greater extent to the needs of poor people in developing countries, particularly smallholders, they could become indispensable to the whole development effort.

An enabling environment for genetic engineering and biotechnology in developing countries and more publicly financed research both North and South are both required in order to find expedient solutions. The emphasis is on public research because the fruits of this can be passed on to small farmers at cost or, through government channels, even free of charge. This cannot be done with the results of research sponsored by private enterprise. When the research priorities are determined by the financial return on investment, the needs of those who have the purchasing power are likely to have high priority, whereas the needs of the poor small farmers (if and where they are different) are likely to receive a low priority. Thus public research must be strengthened. CGIAR, with its focus on the needs of the developing countries, could play a conspicuous role in such an effort. In a number of countries, agricultural biotechnology seminars are already under way to assess research priorities and turn them into feasible programs (Komen J et alia., 1996; Brenner C, 1996)).

More ought to be done in this respect. And there must be more intensive cooperation between the private and the public sector-and more of it. Were the private sector to become more receptive to the needs of the international development effort and the international research community, funds already in short supply and valuable time could be saved. The special knowledge and know-how and the different experience-and patented intellectual property as well-that are at the disposal of the private sector but are used only selectively for lucrative markets in industrial countries could be passed on through donated transfers or very favorable licensing terms to public research institutes in developing countries. Novartis (now Syngenta), for example, has made a gene of B. thuringiensis available to the International Rice Research Institute. Cooperation with the private sector and other "coalitions against famine" could be an important unconventional way to make progress faster and less expensive.

V. Conclusions

Developing countries are faced with the formidable task of doubling their food output over the next 25 years. And they must do this-in contrast to how it has so often been done in industrial countries-in ways sparing of the environment and resources. Population pressure has already begun to affect the environment in large parts of the developing world. Because of intensive land use and widespread biomass shortage, cultivated soils are being depleted of essential nutrients and organic matter. Fisheries, livestock, and forestry resources are also under increasing strain. Unless countries with high population growth achieve a sustained social transformation that results in a substantially lower birth rate and unless they start regenerating their resource base, they will continue to move towards a major social and ecological disaster. In order to secure positive economic and social development possibilities in the South and the North, what is needed first and foremost are social and political reforms (Serageldin I, 1994).

Because deficits in food security stem from the combined effects of factors such as poverty, low levels of food production, and diminishing environmental quality, the best way to deal with the challenge lies in strategies that tackle all problems comprehensively- that transforms local agriculture into a sector that generates employment and income for rural people, stimulates the nonfarm sector and the overall economy, and increases food supply. As there are no technical solutions to social and political problems, new agricultural technologies can only contribute one stone to a complex mosaic. But without yield-increasing innovations, world food security will not be attainable.

The next 25 years will be decisive in many respects-environmentally, demographically, and with regard to economic development. There is still time-and there is the knowledge as well as the financial resources-to reverse the social and ecological trends that threaten food security. Sustainable development and food security cannot be achieved without better governance and a new dimension of solidarity between the "rich" and the "poor" of this world-but also not without new technologies such as genetic engineering.

Literature:

Ambio (1992) Special Edition "Economics of Biodiversity Loss" Vol. 21, No. 3;

Ashmore SE (1997) Status Report on the Development and Application of In Vitro Techniques for the Conservation and Use of Plant genetic resources International Plant Genetic Resource Institute Rome;

Barker R et alia (1985) The Rice Economy of Asia, Resources for the Future, Washington DC;

Bifani P New Biotechnologies for Rural Development International Labor Organization, Technology and Employment Program Geneva;

Birdsall N (1993) Macroeconomic Reforms: Its Impact on Poverty and Hunger in Serageldin I, Landell-Mills P eds.(1993) Overcoming Global Hunger World Bank Washington, DC pp. 21-27;

Brenner C (1996) Integrating Biotechnology in Agriculture. Incentives, Constraints and Country Experiences OECD Development Center Paris;

Brown LR (1970) Seeds of Change. The Green Revolution and Development in the 1970s. Praeger New York;

Brown LR et alia (1996) Vital Signs 1996 W.W. Norton & Company New York;

Brown LR (1997) Facing the Prospect of Food Scarcity in Brown LR et al. State of the World 1997 W.W. Norton & Company New York pp. 23-41;

Bunders JFG (1990) Biotechnology for Small-Scale Farmers in Developing Countries: Analysis and Assessment Procedures VU University Press Amsterdam;

CGIAR (1997) Minutes of the first meeting of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research review panel Washington DC 1997;

Commandeur P, Komen J Biopesticides: Options for Biological Pest Control Increase in Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 14, p. 3ff.

Commission on Global Governance (1995) Our Global Neighborhood Oxford University Press Oxford;

Doyle, JJ, Persley GJ (1996), Enabling the Safe Use of Biotechnology: Principles and Practice, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Studies and Monograph Series No. 10 World Bank Washington, DC;

Drze J, Sen A The Political Economy of Hunger- Vol.1: Entitlement and Well-Being, Vol.2: Famine Prevention, and Vol.3.: Endemic Hunger Clarendon Press Oxford;

Engelman R, LeRoy P (1995) Conserving Land: Population and Sustainable Food Production Population Action International Washington, DC;

Engelmann R, Leroy P (1993) Sustaining Water-Population and the Future of Renewable Water Supplies Population Action International Washington, DC;

FAO (1996a) World Food Summit Technical Background Papers. (3 volumes) Rome;

FAO (1996b), Food Security Assessment (Document WFS 96 / Tech/7) Rome p. 5.

Fowler HC, Mooney P Shattering: Food, Politics, and the Loss of Genetic Diversity The University of Arizona Press Tucson;

Gardner G (1996) Shrinking Fields: Cropland Loss in a World of Eight Billion Worldwatch Paper 131 Worldwatch Institute Washington DC;

Gardner G (1997) Preserving Global Cropland in Brown LR et al.(1997) State of the World 1997 W.W. Norton & Company New York pp. 42-59.

Gendel et al. (eds) (1990) Agricultural Bioethics. Implications of i Iowa State University Press Ames p. 341.

Gollwitzer H Krummes Holz-Aufrechter Gang: Zur Frage nach dem Sinn des Lebens. 10. Auflage Christian Kaier Verlag Munich p. 142.

Hazell PBR, Ramasamy C (1991) The Green Revolution Reconsidered Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore;

Hobbelink H (1990) Biotechnology and the Future of World Agriculture Zed Books London;

IFPRI (1995) Population and Food in the Early Twenty-First Century: Meeting the Future Food Demand of an Increasing Population. Washington, DC;

International Soil Conservation Organization (1996) Precious Earth Center for Development and Environment, Institute of Geography Berne;

IRRI (1993) Rice Research in a Time of Change Los Ba os;

Kaplan RD (1994) The Coming Anarchy, Atlantic Monthly (February) pp. 44-77;

Kendall HW et al. (1997) Bioengineering of Crops. Report of the World Bank Panel on Transgenic Crops, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Studies and Monographs Series 23 World Bank Washington, DC p. 7-8;

Komen J, Persley GJ (1993) Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries, ISNAR Research Report 2 The Hague;

Komen, J. et alia (1996) Turning Priorities into Feasible Programs ISNAR, The Hague;

Leisinger KM, Schmitt KM (1994) All Our People (with a Foreword by Robert S. McNamara) Island Press Washington, DC;

Leisinger KM, Schmitt KM eds. (1995), Survival In the Sahel: An Ecological and Developmental Challenge ISNAR The Hague;

Maturana HR (1985) Erkennen: Die Organization und Verkrperung von Wirklichkeit Vieweg Braunschweig;

OECD (1992) Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food Paris;

Oerke EC et al.(1994) Crop Production and Crop Protection. Estimated Losses in Major Food and Cash Crops Elsevier Amsterdam/New York;

Persley GJ (1990) Beyond Mendels Garden: Biotechnology in the Service of World Agriculture World Bank Washington, DC p. 67ff.

Postel S (1992) Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity, Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series W.W. Norton & Company New York;

Potrykus I (1997) work currently done at the Institute of Plant Sciences of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich;

Sasson A (1988) Biotechnologies and Development UNESCO Paris;

Scherr SJ, Yadav S (1996) Land Degradation in the Developing World: Implications for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment to 2020, IFPRI Discussion Paper No.14 Washington, DC p. 5;

Sen S (1975) Reaping the Green Revolution New Delhi;

Serageldin I, Landell-Mills P eds.(1993) Overcoming Global Hunger World Bank Washington, DC;

Serageldin I (1994) Nurturing Development. Aid and Cooperation in Today's Changing World. World Bank Washington, DC;

Serageldin I (1997) personal conversation;

Smale M (1997) The Green Revolution and Wheat Genetic Diversity: Some Unfounded Assumptions in World Development, Vol.25, No. 8, pp. 1257-1269.

Srivastava JP et alia Biodiversity and Agricultural Intensification, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Studies and Monograph Series No. 11 World Bank, Washington, DC;

Stewart F (1985) Basic Needs in Developing Countries Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore;

Streeten P et al. (1981) First Things First. Meeting Basic Human Needs in Developing Countries World Bank, Washington, DC;

UNDP (1997) Human Development Report 1997 Oxford University Press New York;

U.S. Government (1996) The U.S. Contribution to World Food Security," discussion draft for the 3 June Forum on the World Food Summit Washington DC p.1f;

Walgate R (1990) Miracle or Menace-Biotechnology and the Third World Panos London;

Watzlawick P (1989) Wie wirklich ist die Wirklichkeit? Piper Munich p. 17;

Wilson EO ed.(1988) Biodiversity National Academy Press Washington, DC;

Wolf EC Beyond the Green Revolution. New Approaches for Third World Agriculture, Worldwatch Paper 73 Worldwatch Institute Washington, DC;

World Bank (1992) Governance and Development Washington, DC;

World Bank (1993) The East Asian Economic Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy Oxford University Press New York;

World Resources Institute et alia (1996) World Resources 1996-97 Oxford University Press New York;