Nội dung

CHAPTER 16 Agroecosystem Quality: Policy and Management Challenges for New Technologies and Diversity Joel I. Cohen CONTENTS Introduction Confronting the Diagnostic Challenge: Technical vs. Adaptive Problems Introducing Agroecosystems and Indicators of Quality Defining Agroecosystems Factors Affecting Quality Indicators Quality Indicators — Linking Biodiversity with New Technologies Conserving, Maintaining, and Using Biodiversity Minimizing Chemical Inputs International Collaboration in Biotechnology Research Findings Anticipating Adaptive Challenges for Developing Countries Seminar Findings Examples from IBS Seminars: The Technical and Adaptive Challenges The Case of Durable Resistance to Rice Blast Fungus The Case of Bacillus thuringiensis and Transgenic Crops Quality Indicators and New Technologies — Synthesis of Above Discussion Agroecosystem Quality and Challenges Ahead — Adaptive Problems Revisited References © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. INTRODUCTION Providing a meaningful contribution to the topic of agroecosystems, new technology, and diversity poses many challenges. First, it is difficult to obtain agreedon definitions or standards for “agroecosystem quality.” The second difficulty occurs when considering how new technologies affect agroecosystem quality, including issues related to biodiversity. These difficulties, and the management and policy issues which they raise, are illustrated by examples of technical and adaptive challenges facing agricultural policy makers, managers, and end users concerned with maintaining levels of biodiversity or enhancing agroecosystem quality. The objectives of this chapter are to first consider the differences between these technical and adaptive problems, the nature of the situations they each address, and the learning required when facing an adaptive challenge. Second, agroecosystem complexities and the difficulties in determining quality indicators are presented. Applications of biotechnology are presented as derived from international collaborative research using examples compiled by the Intermediary Biotechnology Service (IBS), executed by the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). Some of these examples, as used in IBS policy seminars, highlight emerging policy and management needs which were identified and discussed. It is hoped that this chapter clarifies adaptive challenges regarding agroecosystem diversity and quality, and prepares stakeholders for the challenges and opportunities of new technologies. CONFRONTING THE DIAGNOSTIC CHALLENGE: TECHNICAL VS. ADAPTIVE PROBLEMS When confronting “technical problems,” difficulties are faced which can be clearly defined and understood, and for which solutions are readily available. They have become problems of a technical nature by virtue of lessons learned through experiences confronted over time. The benefits derived from these accumulated experiences let us know both what to do, through the use of knowledge (organizational procedures for guiding our actions), and who should do it, by identifying whoever is authorized to perform such work (Heifetz, 1996). When facing an “adaptive problem,” however, ready organizational responses are absent, the problem is difficult to define, and expertise and/or established procedures are lacking. Technical responses to the problem are at best only part of the solution. When facing such difficulties, time is required for learning, as this is a central task of the adaptive process. Learning occurs before solutions and implementation modalities become apparent. Those holding competing values with regard to the problem are identified, questions are posed to define the issues, and stakeholders are given time to adjust values to accommodate the nature of the problem. The learning phase of adaptive work diminishes the gap between the original stakeholder values, the realities they now face, and the adjustments that may be necessary to adapt their values to the new realities (Heifetz, 1996). © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. Differences between technical and adaptive problems are used to diagnose issues presented in this chapter as related to agricultural productivity (see Table 1). Agricultural problems of a technical nature are often remedied by choosing among appropriate technologies, whether they are from conventional or nonconventional sources. One chooses between or combines various cultural, crop, or livestock options to address problems, needs, or deficiencies in productivity of agricultural ecosystems. However, when technologies are considered beyond their technical dimensions, in the broader sense of affecting agroecosystem quality, then adaptive problems may be encountered for the following reasons. First, no universal definition of quality exists, especially for the variable nature of agricultural ecosystems in the tropical climates of developing countries. Second, stakeholder opinions may vary as to utility vs. risk of new inputs or technologies. Third, values (whether cultural, economic, or health) create perceptions which must be addressed in relation to the realities of the proposed inputs and the changes they may cause. It is in this context that new technologies can raise adaptive challenges to farmers, system managers, and policy makers. Consequently, questions regarding agroecosystem quality are “adaptive challenges.” In this paper, two indicators of agroecosystem quality are proposed, one based on biodiversity and the second on the use of chemical inputs. These indicators can be affected by the introduction of new technologies, using biotechnology products as examples. Biological differences among agroecosystems and stakeholder values and perceptions will be critical to defining specific quality indicators. Policy and management challenges posed by new technologies and considerations of biodiversity and use of chemical inputs are then analyzed in relation to agroecosystem quality. INTRODUCING AGROECOSYSTEMS AND INDICATORS OF QUALITY Defining Agroecosystems Agroecosystems include highly managed, productivity-oriented systems which vary widely in their dependence on chemical, energy, and management inputs, and are one conservation tactic identified to protect extant diversity (Soule, 1993). Defining “quality indicators” associated with agroecosystems relies on concepts not inherent in the system itself, just as do efforts to define sustainability. Rather, concepts such as sustainability or “quality” imply values derived from a human or cultural perspective for a particular management system (J. Tait, personal communication). These perspectives help determine whether a particular agricultural input enhances agroecosystem quality or not. Four major components of agricultural systems have been proposed by Antle (1994) in studies on pollution and agriculture. His work highlighted relations among (1) agricultural production, (2) the broader agroecosystem, (3) human health considerations, and (4) valuation and social welfare, with each possessing characteristics © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. Table 1 Summarizing the Technical and Adaptive Problems, Solutions, and Questions Related to Agroecosystem Quality, Biodiversity, and New Technologies I.A Technical problems characterized by: I.B Technical problems and solutions posed: II.A Adaptive problems characterized by: II.B Adaptive problem posed in this paper: III Answers depend on ability to address questions, such as: © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. • Clear problem definition • Clear problem solution • Able to identify relevant authority/developer for solution Problem 1: Is durable resistance available for rice blast in farmer’s fields? Technical Solution: Improved varieties, with new sources of genetic resistance Problem 2: Is insect resistance using B.t. available in tropical maize? Technical Solution: Improved varieties, with new sources of genetic resistance • Organizational responses are absent, • The problem is difficult to define, • Expertise and/or established procedures are lacking • Technical responses are at best only part of the solution • Time required for learning Does the introduction and use of described products Two indicators of quality selected in this paper: require changes in stakeholder values, perceptions, • Biodiversity, conservation and use or attitudes with regard to agroecosystem quality? • Minimize use of chemical inputs In the view of the stakeholders: • Have new sources of resistance affected the composition of extant biodiversity, including possibility for horizontal gene transfer? • Have the new varieties diminished the need for chemical insecticides or fungicides? • Have new varieties included management packages for gene deployment, and extending or guarding the length of time available for resistance? • Are clear understandings available for current chemical input levels? • Are measures of productivity or other economic gains available? • Was the technical problem solved? valued by society. By using the divisions presented by Antle, the introduction of novel sources of genetic diversity would occur in the agricultural production. Coupling the introduction of biotechnology with the management of biodiversity and agroecosystem quality would influence a range of perspectives regarding overall quality of the agroecosystem component (2) and, often, values of human health and welfare (3 and 4). Factors Affecting Quality Indicators Determining practices to enhance the sustainability of a given agricultural system, as presented by Tait (personal communication), and the components used by Antle (1994) in his pollution study are also useful for this discussion. Here, these two concepts (dependence on human values and four components depicting introductions to agricultural systems) are used in the context of managing agroecosystems in developing countries. They provide a foundation for understanding the interrelations between quality indicators, inputs derived from biotechnology, and agroecosystem biodiversity. Examples of inputs are given, using cultivars as technical solutions to specific environmental and productivity problems, but which can also be valued in the context of the ecosystem. QUALITY INDICATORS — LINKING BIODIVERSITY WITH NEW TECHNOLOGIES Relevant agroecosystem quality indicators, which could be applied to products derived from new technologies, now need to be selected. Examples of products, like virus resistance and applications of B.t. (see section on Examples from IBS Seminars, later), illustrate both technical and adaptive challenges when considered in relation to agroecosystem quality. With such examples in mind, two indicators were selected which would relate them to agroecosystems: (1) biodiversity and (2) diminishing use of chemical inputs. Conserving, Maintaining, and Using Biodiversity Many traditional agroecosystems are undergoing some process of modernization (Altieri and Merrick, 1988). This process of modernization and its relation to the use of high-yielding varieties can threaten indigenous diversity or other repositories of crop germplasm. Pressures to modernize can have a drastic effect on the conservation of diversity, and indicators of quality will depend on our knowledge of natural populations in each ecosystem. In many agroecosystems, premiums are placed on maintaining and conserving sources of biodiversity. Different and often competing values exist for what constitutes an ecologically correct mix or use of diversity within a given agroecosystem. Whether this diversity can be increased or decreased reflects values attributed to ecosystem quality. Placing premiums on maintaining diversity recognizes the importance of multiple-crop agroecosystems which make use of indigenous as well as introduced sources of diversity (Gliessman, 1993). Complex © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. crop mixtures, rotations, and practices developed by local farmers can protect the environment under tropical conditions and provide an array of products for harvest. Several case study examples illustrate the importance of using and conserving extant biodiversity within managed agricultural and forest ecosystems (Potter et al., 1993). An important, if not essential, element of these systems is the involvement of native peoples in these managed areas, and their application of the knowledge gained over time for the care and management of such areas (Padoch and Peters, 1993). In addition, it has been argued that maintaining traditional agroecosystems is an important strategy for preserving in situ repositories of crop germplasm (Altieri and Merrick, 1988). For example, Latin American farming systems studied demonstrate a high degree of plant diversity (Altieri and Montecinos, 1993). The authors also recognize the importance of small farmer holdings in these ecologically diverse systems. Minimizing Chemical Inputs Biotechnology and sustainable agricultural systems are often portrayed as antagonistic ends of a continuum. However, this portrayal lacks evidence, especially given that the use of biotechnology-derived agricultural products within either production systems or agroecosystems is still largely an unknown factor. In fact, there are many applications of biotechnology which seek to minimize the use of chemical inputs as pest, weed, or disease control strategies in developing country agriculture. The relation between these applications and broader concerns of sustainability have been recognized (Hauptli et al., 1990). In this regard, technical solutions to pressing pest or weed management problems are becoming available from biotechnology. For this reason, minimizing chemical inputs to agroecosystems was selected as the second potential quality factor to be presented. Both of these indicators will rely on mobilizing, understanding, and taking into account stakeholder values and perceptions. Management of agricultural systems will be complicated by the fact that indicators of quality are difficult to measure, highly location specific, and reflect “value judgments.” Such indicators will by necessity incorporate values held or determined by the stakeholders of each system, and will reflect values that are not part of the biological system being considered (J. Tait, personal communication). Solutions to stakeholder problems, such as the need to combat pests or minimize chemical applications, can take the form of technical solutions by using new inputs. However, adaptive problems may also occur after interventions are identified and new technical solutions are employed. Here, stakeholder opinions may differ with the claims made by or for technical solutions, such as can occur with new products from agricultural biotechnology, or when levels of extant diversity are threatened. It is necessary to identify the real stakeholders, to learn their expectations regarding the issue, and to gain an understanding of their opinions regarding these options to the problem at hand. Mobilizing stakeholder response is a key facet of adaptive problems, and a major task for those managing such situations (Heifetz, 1996). Constituents of specific agroecosystems will help determine quality indicators and work with those advocating new inputs, or cultural options which may affect © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. levels of diversity. Introducing new sources of diversity raises further complications in agreeing whether such additions reflect an improvement in overall quality. These complications are expected, based on the increases in stakeholder involvement regarding the question of genetically engineered crops and introductions to areas rich in extant or indigenous biodiversity. INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION IN BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH With the two indicators of agroecosystem quality determined, attention is now placed on examples of new technologies. Examples have been selected that take into account the emerging needs of developing countries regarding biotechnology and their ability to collaborate with international research programs. These examples are taken from information collected from IBS policy seminars and its Registry of Expertise. IBS began to collect, analyze, and discuss with client countries its information on international collaboration in biotechnology by organizing a meeting held at ISNAR in 1993 (Cohen and Komen, 1994). Information was collected through survey forms from some 40 international biotechnology programs. Taken together, this material clearly demonstrated that international collaboration in agricultural biotechnology offers developing countries access to a range of specific technologies, and unique opportunities for developing improved crop plants, livestock, vaccines, and diagnostic probes. An aggregate analysis of this information was made, as described below, for which specific conclusions are most relevant for a discussion on new technologies and agroecosystem quality. Findings Among the international programs studied by IBS, most research is undertaken on essential commodities, or foods on which significant numbers of people depend, often with regional significance (Brenner and Komen, 1994; Cohen and Komen, 1994; IBS, 1994). Analysis of the 22 international crop biotechnology research programs indicates that they address five broad research objectives, containing 126 separate activities. These primary objectives, crops, and research activities are shown in Table 2. As such, they represent solutions to many technical situations facing farmers and growers in developing countries. With regard to crop transformation, research supported by the international programs concentrates primarily on resistance to viruses and insects, and improving quality factors (IBS, 1994). In Table 3, general categories and specific examples of transformation are shown for agriculture in industrialized countries, using examples from Day (1993). The third column summarizes research being conducted specifically for developing country agriculture with illustrations of specific applications. These data indicate a strong commitment to improving crop plants through biotechnology by addressing agricultural needs and objectives for developing countries. Approximately 50% of the expenditures in these international biotechnology programs are devoted to research needed to develop these modified crops (Cohen, © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. Table 2 Number of Research Activities Undertaken by International Biotechnology Projects as Shown for Five General Research Objectives and for Crops of Major Importance to Developing Countries Crops Cereals Rice Maize Sorghum Other Root Crops Potato Cassava Yam Sweet potato Legumes Bean Groundnut Chickpea Other Horticulture Perennial Banana/plantain Industrial crops Coffee Sugarcane Cocoa Forestry Species Miscellaneous All Objectives Virus Quality Resistance Traits Disease Resistance Insect Resistance 9 5 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 13 4 6 3 8 6 2 5 3 7 2 3 1 1 4 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 6 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 28 1 2 1 6 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 24 Micropropagation 12 6 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 24 2 2 26 1 15 5 4 4 1 1 5 2 24 All 42 21 12 6 3 19 6 6 4 3 20 6 6 4 4 6 22 8 5 5 3 1 7 10 126 Note: Figures are based on information gathered from 22 international research programs that include activities in crop research. For this table, we used those research activities with a specific applied objective, excluding research activities aimed toward general technology development. From IBS BioServe Database, 1997. 1994). This percentage of available resources increases their ability to solve technical problems, as defined in this chapter, and as shown in the examples below. However, this also means that a much smaller amount of resources is available to address questions of a more adaptive nature arising as their products move from research into agricultural production, and then enter the broader agroecosystem, confronting human health or valuation considerations (Antle, 1994). Anticipating Adaptive Challenges for Developing Countries Over the past 4 years, IBS has organized a series of Agricultural Biotechnology Policy Seminars, held regionally for collaborating countries. In these seminars, attention is given to examples of biotechnology providing solutions to technical problems faced by farmers in developing countries. These same examples are © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. Table 3 Cloned Genes of Interest for Crop Plant Improvement and Related Applications of the International Biotechnology Programs General Categorya Specific Examplesa Disease resistance: viruses Virus coat protein subunits (TMV, cucumber mosaic, potato virus X) Potato leaf roll virus Potato virus S Soilborne wheat mosaic virus Plum pox virus Tomato spotted wilt virus Viral replicase gene (PVX) Fungal diseases Chitinase gene, H1 gene for resistance to H. carbonum from maize, systemin gene — a peptide signal molecule which controls wound response in plants, infectious viral CDNA B.t. genes, cowpea trypsin inhibitor, wheat agglutinin gene for resistance to European corn borer Insect resistance Storage protein genes Carbohydrate products Ripening Breeding systems Flower color Herbicide resistance a b Wheat low-molecular-weight glutenin gene, maize storage protein Polyhydroxybutyrate as an alternative to starch for the production of biodegradable plastics Antisense polygalaturonase in tomato, regulation of ACC synthase gene Self-incompatibility genes from Brassica, anther specific genes used for male sterility with a ribonuclease gene Petunia, Antirrhinum Glyphosate, bialaphos, and imidazolinone resistance International Biotechnology Program Applicationsb African cassava mosaic virus, common cassava mosaic virus Bean gemini viruses Rice stripe virus, yellow mottle virus, tungo virus, ragged stunt Potato virus X and Y Tomato yellow leaf curl virus Sweet potato feathery mottle virus Groundnut stripe virus, Rosette virus, and clump virus Potato late blight Rice blast B.t. toxin genes applied to borers in maize, rice, sugarcane, potato, coffee Potato glandular trichomes Sweet potato weevil Pigonpea: Helicoverpa and podfly No applications reported No applications reported No applications reported Male sterility in rice No applications reported No applications reported General categories and specific examples from Day, 1993. Examples from IBS (1994) BioServe database of international agricultural biotechnology programs. © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. explored with regard to the adaptive challenges posed when new technologies enter agricultural systems. As in many complex social situations, agricultural managers and policy makers can face substantially more complex adaptive challenges from situations originally perceived as technical in nature. Often, the problem itself is unclear because of divergent opinions regarding the nature of the problem and its possible solutions (Heifetz, 1996). One stakeholder’s technical solution is another stakeholder’s adaptive challenge. In these cases, there is also often disagreement among scientific experts, particularly at early stages of problem definition, hence the time needed for learning. In the seminars, technical examples are explored from the perspective of multidisciplinary and diverse national delegations. In facilitating these delegations, IBS ensures involvement of individuals with responsibility for, or vested interest in, the design, implementation, and use of agricultural biotechnology. This range of stakeholder interests enriches the debates which occur within each delegation as the delegates identify needs for services to help with the learning phase of adaptive work, often taking the form of policy dialogues, management recommendations, or responses needed for various international agreements. As such, IBS builds on scientific data and available understanding to expand discussions to address the broader needs of stakeholders, including policy makers, managers, and researchers, and farmers, end users or non-governmental organizations (Komen et al., 1996). Seminar Findings Participant action planning methodology, carried out by the 17 attending countries, identified needs and/or constraints. In total, 227 needs were identified from the delegations. These needs were systematically analyzed, identifying nine general policy issues, their relative degree of emphasis, and whether or not there was a convergence of these needs (Table 4). In addition, seven implementation issues and three issues related to priority setting have been summarized. Most relevant to a discussion on new technologies and agroecosystem diversity are the needs identified for biosafety, socioeconomics, and priority setting. Here, the specific needs related very clearly to the adaptive policy challenges facing developing countries, particularly those located in centers of diversity. These issues will be presented later, in the section on Quality Indicators and New Technologies. EXAMPLES FROM IBS SEMINARS: THE TECHNICAL AND ADAPTIVE CHALLENGES In the most recent policy seminar for selected countries of Latin America, three case studies were presented on issues related to biotechnology, productivity, and the environment. These case examples are most relevant to the discussion above. They illustrate solutions to agricultural problems having, to a greater or lesser extent, an adaptive and technical component (Roca et al., 1998; Serratos, 1998; Whalon and Norris, 1998). © 1999 by CRC Press LLC.