ISAAA Annual Report

It was probably symbolic, and certainly appropriate, that the ISAAA Board held its annual meeting in Africa last year. The meeting included a field day that gave Board members the opportunity to study at first hand the problems that faced small-scale farmers. The first visit that day was to a one hectare farm to see the devastation caused by maize streak virus (MSV). Board members, accompanied by the Permanent Secretary for Science and Technology in Kenya, by the Director and scientists of the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), by colleagues from the Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) and by other friends and associates, were bussed to an area of the Kenyan highlands known to be a hotspot for MSV. There we were introduced to a woman farmer, Mrs. Priscilla Ndungu, who showed how the disease had ravaged her crop.

I will argue that biotechnology is appropriate for Africa ... and that millions of small-scale farmers in Africa can seize the promise of better lives through the altruistic dissemination of biotechnology.

Ndungu told us that the problem had been getting worse in recent years. She added with some exasperation that the disease struck despite the fact that she had done all that she had been advised to do by local extension officers— sowing hybrids, applying fertilizer, and so on. The unpredictable nature of the disease frustrated and confused her. Sometimes it was there, sometimes not, leaving her baffled as to how to control it. Ndungu ended her explanation by appealing directly to the assembled group for help, "I know that you are experts in this subject," she said. "So can you please tell me what I should do?"

One by one we spoke. We summarized what was known about the variability of the pathogen, about available sources of genetic resistance, about the possibility that different mechanisms of resistance existed, about how the disease is transmitted, and about the possible role played by factors such as rainfall, sowing date, and plant density in determining infestation levels. Then everybody joined in the discussion, which became a lively exchange of opinions between professionals. Ndungu listened closely. Eventually, the discussion tailed off and silence fell. She broke the silence: "Yes, I see", she said firmly "But, could you me please, what should I do?"

Mrs. Prisrilla Ndungu

The encounter with Ndungu was a poignant reminder of how great a gulf separates the world of the trained scientist, whose pursuit of knowledge, however altruistic, is supported by a relatively comfortable lifestyle from that of the resource-poor farmer, whose very survival is threatened when diseases like MSV strike. In such circumstances, farmers need practical advice on how to protect their crop, not a parade of high scientific learning.

In view of this urgent need of the farmer, strategic research on the topics discussed by the scientists is necessary. For there is always the possibility—although not, alas, the certainty—that such research will reveal chinks in the armor of the disease, points of attack in the struggle to develop solutions through applied and adaptive research. Critics of advanced research often fail to appreciate this possibility They do not grasp the links between the different parts of the research spectrum— between the complicated web of cause and effect with which the scientists must wrestle—and the simple, practical advice sought by the farmer. Research on integrated pest or disease management could almost be defined as the art of moving from the one to the other.

John Walula of KLRI (center), addressing the ISAAA board in December 1995 on Mrs. Priscilla Ndugus farm, with Bob Havener (left, ISAAA Board) and Johno Beakbane (right, Brooke Bond).

In identifying projects for Africa, ISAAA gave priority to near term technologies requiring minimal applied and adaptive research before they can be widely disseminated. At the same time, it sometimes takes strategic research to transfer biotechnology applications into the hands of established research groups that will address the problems facing small-scale farmers. In such a context, the emphasis is on enhancing the absorptive capacity of biotechnology within national programs. The three biotechnology applications (tissue culture, diagnostics, and transgenics) that we are transferring in our projects are all vital for strengthening national programs, integrating and disseminating new and essential traits, and creating the potential for progress in agricultural and rural development in the near term.

Biotechnology consists of a range of applications, from, the simple to the very sophisticated. Both are appropriate for Africa.

Our priority and principal effort focuses on product delivery at the farm level, maintaining a balance between the transfer of biotechnology to Africa and its transfer from the national institutes to the subsistence farmer's field. In summary, the objectives of ISAAA's projects are defined in terms of product delivery, not research or the generation of knowledge. This model, borrowed from private-sector R&D, ensures a tight focus throughout project planning on end-users' requirements and on the mechanisms for disseminating new technology This is one of the principles underpinning ISAAA's operations in Africa. What are the others?

Despite the significant increases in per capita agricultural production achieved worldwide over the past quarter century, the challenge of producing sufficient food for the world's rapidly rising human population remains daunting. The limited opportunities for expanding the area cultivated mean that future increases in production must come mainly from gains in yields. The need for increased productivity is nowhere greater than in Africa, which is currently experiencing the highest population growth rate and the highest levels of malnutrition of any region in the world. Provided they are properly integrated into production systems, biotechnology applications offer new opportunities to increase productivity. Often, too, they allow users to switch to more sustainable and ecologically friendly production systems, for example by reducing dependence on chemicals to control pests and diseases. Yet outsiders introduced to ISAAA's operations in Africa are sometimes skeptical, questioning whether biotech can be "made to work in Africa."

In identifying projects for Africa, ISAAA gave priority to near-term, technologies ... enhancing the absorptive capacity of biotechnology within national programs and on product delivery at the farm level. This model, borrowed from private sector R&D, ensures a tight focus throughout project planning on end-users' requirements.

There are two answers to such skepticism. The first is that ISAAA seeks to transfer biotechnology only when this offers a comparative advantage in responding to a specific need, or in other words when conventional research approaches have failed to deliver. The maize streak virus project is a case in point. Conventional selection and breeding have made some progress towards controlling this difficult disease, but have still fallen well short of providing farmers with resistant varieties that they are keen to adopt. There is a strong case for believing that biotechnology can do better.

The second is that biotechnology in fact consists of a range of applications from the simple to the sophisticated. Both are appropriate for Africa.

Among the simpler applications is tissue culture. If well implemented this offers considerable cost savings over conventional technology Another myth that needs dispelling at this point is the idea that, because biotechnology is practiced in the laboratory, it must be remote from the world of farmers and their needs. In fact, applications such as tissue culture can accelerate the transfer of technology to farmers' fields, as ISAAA's two projects on the propagation of banana plantlets and multipurpose trees demonstrate. (Both these projects are presented in detail in this report). Thus another important principle guiding ISAAA's work in Africa is to apply biotechnology wherever it offers a means of increasing the flow of usable technologies to farmers at prices they can afford.

Some of the more sophisticated applications, such as transgenic crops, are the only hope millions of farmers have of overcoming problems that have proved intractable. A project to develop potato varieties resistant to sweet potato feathery mottle virus provides a good example (see box). This project will demonstrate that biotechnologies requiring advanced skills and equipment need not be difficult to apply. It will deliver the most sophisticated biotechnology application in the simplest possible form: the seed. Every farmer knows what to do with seed, how to handle, sow, grow, and care for it. Every farmer, no matter how poor in resources, can multiply transgenic sweet potatoes—and can do so in his/her own field—exactly as before. Although ISAAA has concentrated its resources in its core area of biotechnology transfer, we recognize that biotechnology can succeed in Africa only if it is strongly integrated with conventional technology and with traditional systems of farming.

Most ISAAA projects initially involve the transfer of technology from North to South, to a specific country. Subsequently, however, every attempt is made to capitalize on the potential for spillover to other countries by strengthening South-South collaboration. For instance, under a project in which Monsanto donated genes for the development of transgenic sweet potato in Mexico, Kenya will eventually receive transgenic sweet potato germplasm from Mexico. In the banana project, designed to benefit Kenya initially, the benefits will be extended to neighboring Uganda, where banana is an even more important crop. In order to provide an up-front ownership of the project, germplasm from that country is currently being tested in Kenya.

Sweet Potatoes A More Promising Harvest for Small-Scale Farmers in Africa

Developing countries produce virtually all (98%) of the global sweet potato crop. A good source of calories and essential vitamins and minerals in Africa, sweet potatoes are a particularly important staple for women and children. The crop is viewed as a promising means of combating malnutrition. But yields in Africa remain low—about 6 t/ha compared to the global average yield of 14 t/ha and a yield potential of over 18 t/ha.

Low yields result partly from diseases, especially the sweet potato feathery mottle virus (SPFMV). This virus, in the presence of several others, reduces yields by 20-80%. Effective control of SPFMV alone could lead to very significant yield increases.

In a joint initiative between KARI, USAID, ABSP, and Monsanto, Kenyan national scientists went to Monsanto to develop transgenic sweet potatoes resistant to SPFMU It is noteworthy that this work did not focus on exotic materials but on eight varieties already widely grown by Kenyan farmers. KARI has formally requested ISAAA's support in transferring this technology to Kenya, applying it there and sharing it with other neighboring countries. In response, ISAAA has formulated a pre-proposal for the project, awarded two ISAAA biotechnology fellowships to pursue it objectives, and is working with several partners in the development of a full project proposal.

Women farmers, who grow most of the sweet potatoes produced in Africa, stand to gain the most from varieties resistant to SPFMV.

Florence Wambugu (right), Director of ISAAA’s AfriCenter and Ted Carey, sweet potato breeder of CIP in Nairobi, on a varietal trial near the ILRI campus.

ISAAA came to Africa with considerable expertise in project preparation. The care put into this activity, which we consider to be a crucial part of the project itself, is typically reflected in relatively long gestation periods. It has always been our fundamental principle that the quality of our projects is more important than their quantity. In preparing its projects, ISAAA applies the stringent criteria of today's donors. As Florence Wambugu, our Director at the ISAAA AfriCenter, once put it, "Donors aren't tired, but they're looking for good project proposals with a high probability of success, projects that will lead to benefits in farmers' fields. Like us, they're in search of projects they really believe will work."

Much development in Africa has failed because of 'quick-fix' projects driven by the fact that donor funding is available. ISAAA's AfriCenter has taken a different approach, developing with its partners projects that are well thought through and based on real needs This approach has worked—our projects may have taken longer to develop, but they have all been funded by the donors we approached.

The project development process is part of the project itself. "An idea alone is not enough; it needs to be thought through, beginning with the end-user up to the laboratory." (Florence Wambugu)

The novelty of our type of project is another reason why gestation periods are long: ISAAA projects involve collaboration between the private and public sectors, and it takes time to establish the necessary degree of trust and confidence on all sides—including that of the donors.

Paradoxically (but by design), one of ISAAA's advantages in defining biotechnology projects is that it has neither the money to fund its own projects nor the biotechnology to implement them. This means that its projects can be neither donor- nor technology-driven.

Discussions with potential donors nevertheless start at an early stage of project definition. This ensures that, while the idea for the project emanates from the country concerned, the donor can begin to influence the project in accordance with his or her own experience of what is likely to work. One of our comparative advantages in assisting developing countries in obtaining funding is that we maintain permanent contacts with donors, which enables us to match projects with their specific interests and concerns.

When partners and donors sign on to a project, ISAAA doesn't pull out. Our role as a broker and facilitator continues during the entire implementation phase. We fulfill that role through a variety of mechanisms (see box).

What does a private-sector integrated pulp and paper mill in South Africa have in common with a para-statal forestry research center in Kenya? Not much, you might think. But look a little closer, and you will find areas of common interest in which, surprisingly, the two can collaborate to mutual advantage.

Mutuality is the guiding principle my colleagues and I apply as we travel to assess the strengths and needs of different potential partners across the world.

One obvious source of strength for the African continent is South Africa. The new South Africa defies classification—she belongs wholly to neither the "North" nor the "South". Her achievements in science and technology, including the sophisticated use by the private sector of a wide range of biotechnologies, resemble those of the North, while the social and economic challenges she faces place her firmly in the South.

South Africa is the home of Mondi Forests, the private-sector company that has agreed to participate in the multipurpose tree project (see p. 25). Mondi Forests is a division of Mondi Ltd., to which it supplies trees for pulp manufacture. The company has perfected the techniques of tissue culture to ensure the rapid replacement of trees in its 320,000-hectare eucalyptus and pine forest. It has agreed to share this expertise with Kenya's Forestry Health and Management Center (FHMC), to which it will also donate valuable tree germplasm.

For collaboration to continue, it must be a two-way process from which both gain. So how does Mondi Forests benefit from its relationship with FHMC?

In the new political climate of South Africa, the company sought to provide more income-earning opportunities to local people by involving them in tree growing. To improve on its existing initiatives, it needed exposure to programs with more experience in this area. Kenya, the home of agroforestry, seemed the natural starting point.

Mondi also realized that there might be possible business opportunities in other African countries, which more experience in small-scale rural forestry management might open up for it.

Once the decision to invest resources in biotechnology has been made, special precautions must be taken to ensure that the value of the investment is not lost but fully capitalized on. The special conditions obtaining in Africa require action in three major areas.

ISAAA's Strategy and Role During the Project Implementation Phase

Work-plans: We ask each partner to provide regularly updated work-plans, responsibilities, milestones, and deadlines. This enables partners to see clearly what is expected of them, when it is expected, and how they contribute to the overall project objectives.

Project Oversight Board: Each of our projects in Africa has or will have a Project Oversight Board, responsible for providing guidance and quality control during implementation. The Boards include local entrepreneurs and end users, who contribute their insights to the building of institutional sustainability and private-sector confidence. They provide a cost-effective device for project monitoring and evaluation. This approach has been developed together with the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, originally within the multipurpose tree project, and is based on the Foundation's wide experience and success with similar mechanisms.

Overall Project Oversight: This is provided by ISAAA's Executive and Finance Committee, which is composed of individuals drawn from different backgrounds, including development, biotechnology research, the private sector, plant breeding, and farming.

External Project Reviews: People with relevant experience but who are not directly connected with the projects carry out external reviews at irregular intervals to evaluate the progress of the project and the milestones it has passed. These reviews are useful to assess progress, but serve mainly to refine future activities.

Joe Mwangi (center) showing the site of the first project nursery to Ambassador Glen Lindholm (Ambassador of Finland to Kenya (left), and Joe Kibe (right), Chairman of the Project Oversight Board.

First, the capacity of the national research system to absorb biotechnology must be assessed and, where necessary, strengthened. Training and institution building are the central means to this end. A core component of our strategy is that training should not be carried out in a vacuum. The returning trainee must find an institutional framework supportive of his or her initiatives to apply new knowledge and skills. As in the ease of the multipurpose tree project, new equipment and facilities may be needed to support an expanded biotechnology program and the deployment of its products. And, most importantly, the overall research objectives and program of the institute may need redefining in order to capitalize on the contribution of biotechnology. To propel the biotechnology program forward, strong leadership and a supportive attitude on the part of senior management are essential.

Secondly, the task of technology dissemination needs to be thought through during the planning stage. Here the experience of the Gatsby Charitable Foundation is particularly relevant (see also the invited contribution by Laurence Cockcroft). Impact can be achieved by cooperating with a limited segment of the national extension service specializing in a highly relevant technology for which there is a known demand. This approach can be complemented by working with non-traditional partners such as women's groups or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). New, partly or wholly private channels can be created. In the multipurpose tree project, for example, a network of regional nurseries will serve as an intermediate distribution mechanism by relaying technology to local dissemination points, such as roadside nurseries and schools.

Thirdly, action is needed to ensure that project activities are sustained once the project ends and the donor withdraws. That may imply partial or full-scale privatization, as envisaged for the multipurpose tree project in Kenya. But the private sector is still weak in most African countries, as also echoed in the invited paper by Cyrus Ndiritu. A more likely outcome, at least in some cases, will be the formation of a self-standing trust with public- and/or private-sector trustees. In either case, ISAAA seeks to enable national public-sector institutions to create and sustain private-sector interest. The public sector has a threefold role. It must first develop technology to the point at which the private sector can take it over without excessively high risks or investment costs. Next, through on-farm research and extension, it can play a critical part in stimulating demand for the technology among resource-poor farmers. Lastly, through regulatory or advisory support services it can ensure that technology can be exchanged and applied safely (e.g., through biosafety, diagnostics or seed certification). ISAAA's banana tissue culture project provides a good example of all three roles (see p. 33).

We define impact broadly, at several different levels. The most important level is that of the farm, where resource-poor farmers seek to earn a living, raise a family, enhance their life

Up front action is needed to ensure that project activities are sustained once the project ends and the donor withdraws.

styles, and sustain a healthy environment. Other levels are intermediate, in the sense of indirectly contributing to impact at the farm level. These include the impact made by opening biotechnology transfer channels, through which the private sector can benefit resource-poor farmers, and the impact achieved on the policy environment in collaborating countries, which condition all aspects of agricultural technology development and transfer. Such changes are essential, and Bob Herdt discusses the importance of progress in these areas in more detail (see p. 13).

Over 80% of Kenya's energy needs in rural areas are supplied by firewood.

The impact of ISAAA-brokered projects will have to be analyzed and interpreted broadly in socio-economic terms. ISAAA itself does not conduct impact studies, but it facilitates the preparation of such studies and works with other institutions with a comparative advantage in this area. For example, the African Technology Policy Studies (ATPS) group in Kenya will assess the impact of the tissue culture project in bananas in a study sponsored by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada. This study will provide essential feedback to the project as it progresses. Assessments on other projects will be made by the Universidad Autonoma Metripolitana of Mexico

We define impact at several different levels. The most important level is that of the farm, where resource-poor farmers seek to earn a living, raise a family, enhance their life-styles, and sustain a healthy environment.

and the University of Kiel, Germany. The introduction of higher yielding banana trees should benefit both producers and consumers, but constraints to adoption, or even negative economic effects, are also possible. For instance, attempts may be made to introduce the tissue-cultured plantlets to areas not suitable for bananas, or farmers who produce substitute commodities such as mangoes might experience reduced incomes. Socio-economic studies will generate the necessary information and understanding of local market forces to enable such undesirable side effects to be avoided.

Cyrus Ndiritu (left, ISAAA Board member and Director, KARI) with John Robinson (ITSC, South Africa) visiting small-scale banana growers.

As part of our service to developing countries, we provide advice in two areas central to both the acquisition and the responsible use of biotechnology applications: biosafety and intellectual property rights.

The successes must be attributed to the persistence and ingenuity of our partners: KARI has already distributed and planted thousands of tissue cultured bananas to a considerable number of small-scale farmers in strategic locations in Kenya—ahead of schedule.

Progress on biosafety in Africa has been limited. On the entire continent only South Africa and Egypt have effective biosafety regulatory procedures in place. Important steps have been taken in Kenya and Zimbabwe, with the support and encouragement of ISAAA and other institutions, but there is still some way to go. We have organized two regional workshops on biosafety, in which some eight countries participated. These drew attention to the issue, and provided a forum for the exchange of information and experiences, thereby helping to build institutional capacity. An important principle in formulating biosafety regulatory procedures is to build them around a specific case. It is unrealistic to expect countries with so many other urgent priorities to devote resources to formulating regulatory mechanisms when there is as yet nothing to regulate.

Problems associated with intellectual property rights continue to constrain the transfer of technology from North to South, in Africa as elsewhere. We provide advice on this issue on request and on a case by case basis. We also play a crucial role as an advocate, representing the interests of partners to each other.

Founded only in 1994 and occupying a small office hosted by the Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP) on the campus of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) in Nairobi, our AfriCenter has, for the time being, very few staff: just a Director and a secretary. Dr. Florence Wambugu, who returned to Kenya from the USA to take up the post of Director in late 1994, strongly believes that personal commitment, rather than the number of hands on deck, is what delivers results.

Subsequent events have proved her right. Since we established the regional center, three exciting new projects have been identified, developed, funded, and launched. All three focus on commodities important to poor people and will especially benefit women. In each case, we believe we have successfully developed the partnerships and linkages required for the transfer of biotechnologies, initially from North to South and subsequently on a South-South axis.

That said, we like to remain modest about our achievements in Africa. Our projects in the region are still at the early stages of implementation, and much remains to be done before resource-poor farming families, like that of Priscilla Ndungu, experience the tangible benefits of biotechnology. The success achieved so far must be attributed to the persistence and ingenuity of our partners: at the time of writing, in May 1997, KARI has already distributed thousands of tissue cultured banana plantlets to small-scale farmers at strategic locations across Kenya—ahead of schedule.

The jury is still out on whether or not biotechnology can help answer Ndungu's most pressing question. But thanks to the efforts of our partners, at least there is fresh hope. Given the commitment and idealism that motivate all participants in our projects, success seems certain.