Can agricultural biotechnology be pro-poor?

Can new technologies in agricultural biotechnology really solve the problems of famine and hunger in the developing world? This briefing paper provides an overview of the debate between advocates and critics of pro-poor biotechnology.Main issues in this debate include:biotechnology can deliver elusive solutions to key agricultural constraints, including resistance to pests and diseases, salt and drought tolerance and yield improvements in crops. Products will provide improved returns, both reducing costs and providing tangible benefitsmajor increases in international public research funds will be available for both basic and applied research in high-end biotechnologyintellectual property issues will be dealt with through public-private partnershipsthe private sector will deliver solutions to developing countries suited to local needs in areas where there are high returns: high value or cash crops, or well established hybrids such as maizecritics sceptical about the future of agricultural biotechnologies regard meeting all, or even some, of these assumptions as highly unlikely. Even if the science were up to it, a variety of other factors make a pro-poor biotech unlikely, including:the limited availability of public fundsthe complications of intellectual property arrangements, and insistence of private sector majors on holding on to their proprietary rightsconstraints associated with the way the agrifood industry is increasingly organised around a limited number of multinational companiesThe paper concludes that:a major redefinition of the parameters of, and participants in, the debate is essentialthe future is about the political economy of agriculture and food in the developing worldwith the policy debate cast in these wider terms, there may be more chance of seeing under what conditions biotechnology can benefit the poor[Adapted from author]