Managing agricultural biotechnology in Colombia

Electronic Journal of Biotechnology ISSN: 0717-3458 © 2007 by Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso -- Chile DOI: 10.2225/vol10-issue3-fulltext-15 Vol.10 No.3, Issue of July 15, 2007 Received July 13, 2006 / Accepted March 29, 2007 BIOTECHNOLOGY ISSUES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Managing agricultural biotechnology in Colombia Ingrid Schuler* Departmento de Biología Facultad de Ciencias Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Bogotá, Colombia Tel: 57 1 3208320. Ext. 4056-4091 E-mail: Luis Antonio Orozco Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones y Doctorados PhD Student - School of Management Universidad de los Andes Bogota, Colombia Tel: 057 1 3394949 Fax: 057 1 3324052 E-mail: Financial support: REDBIO/FAO. Keywords: agricultural biotechnology, indicators, legislation, policies, public perception. Abbreviations: ADPIC: Legal Aspects of Intellectual Property Relating to Trade CAF: Andean Development Corporation CAN: Andean Community of Nations GEF-WB: Global Environmental Facility and World Bank GMOs: genetically modified organisms ICA: Colombian Institute for Agriculture INVIMA: National Institute for the Surveillance of Drugs and Food IPRs: Intellectual Property Rights LAC: Latin America and the Caribbean MADR: Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development MAVDT: Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development MCIT: Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism MPS: Ministry for Social Protection NBP: National Biotechnology Program NBP: National Biotechnology Program OAS: Organization of American States OCyT: Colombian Observatory of Science and Technology OECD: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development REDBIO/FAO: Network for Technical Cooperation in Agricultural Biotechnology in Latin America and the Caribbean SIC: Surveillance of Industry and Commerce UPOV: International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants The international scenario for biotechnology shows a rapid tendency at industrialized countries in the increase of publications, patents, enterprises and novel solutions for the industry, the environment, health and agriculture. Nevertheless, Colombia has an important delay in relation to the international scientific development and the capacity to generate wealth and services for its productive systems. This delay has been one of the concerns of the country's policy during the last years, and more precisely since 2002, when for the first time biotechnology was included in a National Development Plan as one of the mechanisms for competitiveness and the use of biodiversity and genetic resources. This paper is the result of a survey conducted in 2005 aimed to provide an overview of agrobiotechnology in Colombia to be included in the compendium of case studies organized by the FAO's Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and the Network for Technical Cooperation in Agricultural Biotechnology in Latin America and the Caribbean (REDBIO/FAO). The command of skills on classic biotechnologies in Colombia has allowed the strengthening of capacities, especially with micropropagation and cell and tissue culture. Nevertheless, the transition towards modern biotechnologies has been difficult, especially due to the *Corresponding author This paper is available on line at http://www.ejbiotechnology.info/content/vol10/issue3/full/15/ Schuler, I. and Orozco, L.A. scarcity of financial resources and the access to new technologies and specialized knowledge. Neither has the country a critical mass of economists, managers and lawyers to integrally support the processes of technological supervision, competitive intelligence, market access, national regulations and international treaties on intellectual property rights and biosafety. The attention that necessities of small producers deserve, together with the improvement of the intellectual property rights, public perception and biosafety framework on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for human and animal consumption, are some of the fields on which we should be working in the country through international networks, with an aim to reach the benefits that use of modern biotechnology brings along, as some researchers in this field have highlighted (Watal, 2000; Spielman et al. 2006). In this way, the current technological gap existing between countries of the South and the North could be bridged (Huete-Pérez et al. 2001; Byerlee and Fischer, 2002; Tollens et al. 2004). GENERAL BIOTECHNOLOGY INDICATORS Since 1999, organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Organization of American States (OAS) began to compile statistics to describe the situation of the countries that are developing biotechnologies. A general view shows that countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have significant gaps with countries of the North, especially in patterns of patenting and licensing technologies, and that the transferal of biotechnologies is of vital importance, especially those biotechnologies developed for the agricultural sector (Testa, 2002; Heisey et al. 2005; Thumm, 2005; Chan, 2006). In LAC countries, measurements mainly include the analysis of the capacity of groups and research centers, their working fields, the number of enterprises and the market perspectives, whereas the statistics of OECD measure mainly the private investment, the generation of investor's capital in terms of new companies, money and employment, and the obtainment of patents among other indicators, which are not so representative for us due to the differences in economies and development systems. An indicator to analyze the state of biotechnology in the countries is a function of the investment made for its developments and products. The United States of America has a much higher investment tendency in relation to other countries. In 1997, the industry invested around US$ 7.300 millions, being 3.7% of the total investment for research and development (NSF, 2004), and as for 2001 it reported that investment of industry in research and development of biotechnology reached US$ 16.400 millions, representing 10% of the total investments in science and technology (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2003). European countries such as Germany, with more than US$ 1.000 millions (6.7% of total), United Kingdom with US$ 705 millions (7.8% of total) and France with US$ 560 millions having a 4.4% of the total of governmental investment in R&D, follow the list with the largest assigned budget for biotechnology according to statistics of OECD (Van Beuzekom, 2001). The situation in countries members of the OECD reveals a striking difference between USA and EU. According to data provided in 2001 by the consultant company Ernst and Young, USA investment in R&D was € 11.400 million (2.7% of DGP) whilst EU investment was € 4.977 million (1,8% of DGP). There are 1,262 companies in USA totalling 162,000 employees and 6.7% of them are involved in research, in contrast to 1,570 co (...truncated)