Auto-evaluation of the Biotechnology PAIANovember 2005 - January 2006

Table of Contents

Item PageList of acronymsExecutive summaryA. Introduction and backgroundB. MethodologyC. Findings1. PerformanceEffectivenessEfficiencyRelevance2. Governance3. Role4. Impact5. Planning, prioritising, implementing and delivery6. Quality, quantity and objectivity7. Output dissemination8. Partnerships9. Scope of the PAIAD. ConclusionsE. ObservationsF. Recommendations

2

List of acronyms

CAC - Codex Alimentarius CommissionCBD – Convention on Biological DiversityCGIAR – Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchCGRFA – Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and AgricultureCOAG – FAO’s Committee on AgricultureCSO – Civil Society OrganizationFAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGEF - Global Environment Facility GM – genetically modifiedGMO – genetically modified organismIDWG – Inter-departmental Working Group on BiotechnologyIPPC – International Plant Protection ConventionIPR – intellectual property rightsMTP – Medium Term PlanNGO – non-governmental organizationPAIA – Priority Area for Inter-disciplinary ActionUN – United Nations UNEP – United Nations Environment ProgrammeWFP – World Food ProgrammeWHO – World Health Organization

3

Executive SummaryAn auto-evaluation - a systematic process of evaluation by managers of all operations focused on the achievement of their programme entities - of the Biotechnology PAIA (Priority Area for Inter-disciplinary Action) was conducted between November 2005 and January 2006. The purpose of the auto-evaluation was to make recommendations for future approaches to FAO’s inter-disciplinary, cross-sectoral work in biotechnology based on progress made by the Biotechnology PAIA since its initiation in 1999.

Methods used in the auto-evaluation included (1) a desk survey of relevant documentation, including an analysis of web traffic, (2) a Stakeholder Survey using e-mail and web-based questionnaires sent to the e-mail forum mailing list members and advertised in FAO-BiotechNews, (3) a series of semi-structured interviews with key staff, including current and past members of the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Biotechnology (IDWG), and (4) a SWOT workshop.

The results of the investigations indicated that considerable progress has been made by the Biotechnology PAIA in establishing a broad client base, providing up-to-date, high quality, useful information on cross-sectoral issues. The achievements of the Biotechnology PAIA have been made despite sub-optimal resource allocation and despite the PAIA not having been adequately embedded in the work programmes of the Organization. The well maintained Biotechnology PAIA website is popular and the numbers of visitors to it is steadily increasing. Thought should be given, however, to potential beneficiaries of Biotechnology PAIA information who do not have access to e-mail and the web, and who are not comfortable with information supplied in the official languages of the Organization.

The Biotechnology PAIA, through the IDWG, worked successfully to enhance FAO’s position as a provider of unbiased information on a frequently controversial subject and has met the need for presenting a consistent corporate policy. There were problems relating to lack of sustainability and inadequate participation and communication. It was considered that more attention could be paid to establishing and maintaining partnerships, especially at the regional level, to facilitate the work of the PAIA. Consultation with donors, among other partners, could help in planning and prioritising a future work programme and could provide much needed extra funding. However, the PAIA has been effective and efficient to date and remained largely relevant to the needs of FAO Members. Emphasis in the future might be directed more towards issues of policy and regulation, including intellectual property rights and biosafety, than towards strictly technical issues. Arguments were made nonetheless for the need for simplified presentation of complex technical information. It was recognised that some issues in biotechnology will not necessarily benefit from inter-disciplinary action and should continue to be addressed at the Service and Division level.

It is not possible to draw strong inferences from sparse data on the impact of the Biotechnology PAIA, but considering the web trends and the feedback from stakeholders, it can be assumed that there has been an impact of the work of this PAIA among the Members, although its magnitude cannot be gauged accurately. The impact of the Biotechnology PAIA at regional and country level might usefully be investigated further.

The general recommendation is that the work of the Biotechnology PAIA and the IDWG should continue, but a more conducive environment for increased participation among all partners should be developed. Greater cooperation and cohesion among Divisions through provision of incentives and improved recognition for inputs would enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the PAIA. Only if the Biotechnology PAIA is provided with adequate resources and ceases to be regarded as a supplementary activity, will the full needs of the Members be met regarding biotechnology and its applications in food and agriculture.

4

A. Introduction and background

In “The Strategic Framework for FAO: 2005-2015”, discussed in November 1999, the FAO Conference stressed the need for inter-disciplinarity and partnership in addressing multi-sectoral issues. This concept was introduced into the Medium Term Plans (MTPs) for which key interdisciplinary activities were identified and documented. Subsequently 16 PAIAs (Priority Areas for Inter-disciplinary Action) were agreed on, one of which was “Biotechnology Applications in Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry”, the Biotechnology PAIA. The importance of this subject was recognised as societies in all countries were facing new challenges as a result of the rapid advances being made in molecular genetics. The challenges included not only technical ones, but also those concerning policy, regulation, economics and ethics, among others. FAO was, moreover, becoming increasingly involved in issues of biotechnology through its Commissions, Technical Committees and Governing Bodies. In 1999, following its 15th Session, the Committee on Agriculture (COAG) recommended to the Organization that regarding biotechnology it should:

1. Develop a strategic approach and give high priority to a coordinated cross-sectoral programme;

2. undertake activities in various areas of its mandate including information exchange, capacity building and policy advice to Members;

3. develop partnerships with the international agricultural research centres, the national agricultural research systems and other international organizations;

4. help countries to draft biosafety legislation and set up regulatory bodies in collaboration with partner institutions, and

5. harmonize biosafety regulations at the regional and sub-regional levels, building on existing programmes in CAC, the IPPC and within recognized frameworks and in cooperation with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

The FAO Council and the 30th Session of the Conference endorsed the recommendations and inclusion of the Biotechnology PAIA in the MTPs of 2002-2007, 2004-2009 and 2006-2011.

The Declaration of the World Food Summit: five years later includes the following point:25. We call on the FAO, in conjunction with the CGIAR and other international research institutes, to advance agricultural research and research into new technologies, including biotechnology. The introduction of tried and tested new technologies including biotechnology should be accomplished in a safe manner and adapted to local conditions to help improve agricultural productivity in developing countries. We are committed to study, share and facilitate the responsible use of biotechnology in addressing development needs.

Finally, the COAG (17th Session in 2003) made, among others, the following points regarding biotechnology:• Members emphasized the need for capacity building … in cross-cutting areas such as

biotechnology … (para. 13);• "Some Members indicated the importance of work on biotechnology and FAO’s role to be in the

forefront of the international public debate on the benefits and risks of modern biotechnology. The Committee requested that FAO give science-based advice and guidance" (para. 19).

It is important to note that activities of the Biotechnology PAIA represent just a subset, albeit important, of FAO's activities in biotechnology. The objective of the PAIA is to coordinate the planning and delivery of an inter-disciplinary cross-sectoral programme on biotechnology. In addition,

5

Technical Departments, at Headquarters or at Regional and sub-regional Offices as well as the Legal Office and the Information Division, are engaged in the subject of biotechnology, committing their own resources to the attainment of outputs specific to particular disciplines, sub-sectors and sectors of agriculture. But running parallel with the planning, implementation and dissemination of these outputs is planning and delivery of cross-cutting “PAIA specific” outputs on the subject.

Specifically, the main outputs planned for the PAIA (e.g. in the MTPs 2004-09 and 2006-11) are:

1. Decision support tools and training materials on the sound management of biotechnology and related issues in food and agriculture, to be coupled with national and regional workshops;

2. Support to inter-disciplinary projects on biotechnology;3. Analytical reports and information documents for inter-governmental and technical meetings,

which cover trends and developments in biotechnology research and products e.g. commodity markets and trade in genetically modified (GM) crops, agricultural impacts of GM crops, effects of intellectual property rights on agricultural research;

4. Support to the development of a Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it relates to genetic resources for food and agriculture, in line with the guidance of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA);

5. A website on Biotechnology, with links to other relevant sites within and outside FAO, and heightened participation of national institutions; it will cover biotechnology techniques and products and policy and regulatory issues surrounding research on, and deployment of agricultural biotechnology; it will also include a multilingual glossary, a database of biotechnologies in use or in the pipeline in developing countries and an e-mail discussion forum on cross-interdisciplinary technical and policy issues.

An auto-evaluation - a systematic process of evaluation by managers of all operations focused on the achievement of their programme entities - of the Biotechnology PAIA was begun in November 2005 with the intention of providing recommendations for future inter-departmental work in FAO on biotechnology.

Information on the achievements of the Biotechnology PAIA was collected and analysed using several methods. The opinions of FAO staff, including past and current members of the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Biotechnology (IDWG), senior managers in FAO, and users of the information provided by the PAIA, were canvassed. The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the evaluation are given in Annex 1.

This report represents a synthesis of the results of the auto-evaluation and could be used in planning future inter-departmental activities in biotechnology. It is the first auto-evaluation of a PAIA and could serve as a template for evaluation of other PAIAs.

B. Methodology

The methods used in the auto-evaluation comprised:

1. A desk study of reports concerning Biotechnology PAIA activities since initiation of the PAIA in 1999. These reports included minutes of IDWG meetings in addition to various internal reports.

2. A series of semi-structured interviews based on the themes included in the TOR with more than 20 selected past and present IDWG members and senior management staff in FAO. The interviewees represented most of the major disciplines in FAO and

6

included one Assistant Director General, two Division Directors and five Service Chiefs. The interviews lasted between 30 minutes and one hour.

3. E-mail correspondence with several FAO staff in addition to those interviewed and questioned in the Stakeholder Survey.

4. An e-mail based questionnaire in English sent to all 2941 members of the FAO Biotechnology Forum (an e-mail based forum established in March 2000) (Annex 2). A total of 136 completed questionnaires were received in this way.

5. A web-based questionnaire (the same as that above) posted on the Biotechnology PAIA website (in Arabic, Chinese, English, French and Spanish) and advertised to the 3945 subscribers to FAO-BiotechNews bulletin (in English, French, Spanish and Russian). A total of 38 questionnaires were received in this way.

6. Items 4. and 5. constituted the Stakeholder Survey (Annex 2).7. An analysis of Biotechnology PAIA web traffic statistics.8. A SWOT workshop.

There was no project document for the Biotechnology PAIA, which made it difficult to determine the extent of progress measured against the initial objectives. This also made impact assessment difficult in the absence of indicators specifically developed at the beginning of the project. Qualitative proxy indicators were therefore substituted for quantitative indicators.

The auto-evaluation was conducted by a team drawn from the IDWG by the current IDWG Chairman, Shivaji Pandey, including himself, assisted by Andrea Sonnino (Secretary to the IDWG), Arturo Martinez and Ramesh Sharma. Jonathan Robinson was recruited as a consultant to assist with the evaluation by interviewing staff, conducting a desk study, reviewing web traffic and designing the questionnaire and analysing the results. The initial draft report was also prepared by Jonathan Robinson. John Ruane, the Biotechnology PAIA consultant, provided substantial input into the process.

This auto-evaluation was based on feedback from producers of information for the Biotechnology PAIA and users of the information. The producers were mainly, but not exclusively, members and former members of the IDWG . The users were a subset of members of the FAO Biotechnology Forum and subscribers to the FAO-BiotechNews bulletin. Such a sample of stakeholders excluded all those without access to e-mail and the internet. It was not possible therefore to canvass the opinions of stakeholders who rely exclusively on hardcopy materials produced by the PAIA or potential stakeholders who have yet to be reached through the Biotechnology PAIA.

The electronic questionnaire was designed in SurveyMonkey1 and results from the e-mail based questionnaire (nr. 4 above) were entered into the electronic questionnaire when the survey was completed. This allowed automatic analysis using SurveyMonkey.

The auto-evaluation took place at a difficult time, covering the 2005/2006 Christmas and New Year holidays. Moreover, FAO was going through an organizational reform process that occupied the attention of many staff members.

It was determined from the outset that if quotations were to be used that they would not be attributed to specific individuals. This was done knowing that many contentious issues would be touched on, especially regarding commitment and participation, and that attributed

1 A web-based electronic survey design and analysis service (www.surveymonkey.com).

7

comments could initiate misunderstandings. This also avoided the problem of whether people responded to the Stakeholder Survey in a personal capacity or whether their views reflected those of the organization for which they were working. The quotations (italicised) that are included in this report are genuine and every effort has been made to ensure that they are included in context. Unless otherwise stated, quotations derive from the semi-structured interviews.

This report aims to provide an accurate synthesis of the views of the Biotechnology PAIA stakeholders, recognizing that there is a great diversity in thoughts and opinions among them.

C. Findings

1. PerformanceIt was generally acknowledged that biotechnology is an important issue in all fields of food and agriculture. There was division however over the way FAO should address issues in biotechnology, and more importantly, how FAO might effectively and efficiently meet the needs of its Members in this regard. The quotations used in this section derive from the semi-structured interviews. The Biotechnology PAIA has functioned well in many respects, but “it might not be fully appreciated how much it has achieved in terms of facilitating inter-disciplinary discussion” and “breaking through the compartmentalised thinking and activity that sometimes occurs in the Organization”.

EffectivenessThe principal objective of the Biotechnology PAIA is to coordinate the planning and delivery of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sectoral programme on biotechnology to improve the effectiveness of FAO’s support to Members, particularly developing countries, in formulating and implementing policies and practices that promote safe and responsible applications of biotechnology for enhancing food production, quality and security.

The Biotechnology PAIA (and possibly other PAIAs) “has suffered from not having been structurally embedded in the work programmes of the Organization”. This has meant that Biotechnology PAIA activities have been carried out using limited and irregular funding. The approach has been unsustainable and “Too much has been expected from an under-supported activity”, especially considering that “the PAIA activities have been additional to regular programme activities, which has not fully encouraged optimal inter-disciplinary action”.

The Biotechnology PAIA has been involved in cross-cutting issues, including GMOs and IPRs, but probably not to as great an extent as possible. IPRs were mentioned several times as being an area that merited more attention by FAO, but which, up until now “has been a failure”. However, it has to be considered that the needs of the Members differ greatly. There is both a need for technical information and guidance as well as for policy advice and help in developing regulatory legislation and guidelines. “Provision of sound policy advice in biotechnology requires a solid expert technical base, which is often absent”. The production of the 2003-2004 SOFA publication, ‘Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor?’, was largely seen as having been a useful document. IDWG members, among others, were acknowledged to have made a substantial contribution to it. The document was also viewed as representing “a good start to biotechnology policy development that benefited from an inter-disciplinary approach”.

8

Comparing the planned outputs of the Biotechnology PAIA (from MTPs for the period 2004-2011) and the main outputs it delivered, as outlined below in Table 1, it is evident that the PAIA has generally achieved more than expected despite periods of uncertain funding. Note, although each realised output is coupled with a single planned output in the Table, in many cases it responded to more than one planned output.

Table 1. Comparison of planned and realised outputs from the Biotechnology PAIA from inception to date.

Planned outputs Realised outputsDecision support tools and training materials on biotechnology management and related issues in food and agriculture, coupled with national and regional workshops.

As part of the build-up to two e-mail conferences of the FAO Biotechnology Forum, two international workshops on selected biotechnology themes were held in Turin in 2003 and 2005 entitled "Marker assisted selection: A fast track to increase genetic gain in plant and animal breeding?" and "The role of biotechnology for the characterisation and conservation of crop, forestry, animal and fishery genetic resources" respectively.

Preparation of "Agricultural biotechnology: will it help?” (http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo1.htm). Released in 2003 in Arabic, English, French and Spanish as part of FAO's on-line "Focus on the Issues" series; nine articles provided background information for the non-specialist on current and potential applications of agricultural biotechnology (focusing on genetic modification) for animals, crops, fish and trees. It also presented the main arguments put forward for, and against, the use of GMOs in agriculture and provided links to other information sources.

Publication of “Status of research and application of crop biotechnology in developing countries – Preliminary assessment”. (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/y5800e/y5800e00.pdf)

Support to inter-disciplinary projects on biotechnology.

Regular meetings of the IDWG. Responding at great frequency to unofficial requests from a great variety of stakeholders, both internal and external (e.g. WHO, UNEP, GEF, CBD, WFP, journalists, international organizations, scientific institutions, CSOs), for information on all aspects of biotechnology. For example, co-ordinating FAO’s response to the World Food Programme’s request for guidance on its "Draft Operational Guidelines on the Donation of Foods Derived from Biotechnology" (2003 - http://www.wfp.org/eb/docs/2003/wfp016888~3.pdf) and providing details on the PAIA’s work for the 5th meeting of the Codex Ad Hoc Working Group on Biotechnology (Japan, 2005 - ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ccfbt5/bt05_03e.pdf);

Provision of background material, technical support, reviews and financial support to the State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA 2003-04): "Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?" (http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/41714/index.html).

9

FAO Research and Technology Paper 8, a 2001 report of the first six moderated e-mail conferences of the FAO Biotechnology Forum, dealing with biotechnology in the crop, livestock, forestry and fishery sectors. Preparation of a report on the next six conferences (2006, in preparation). http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp.

Many unplanned outputs, including a Legal Paper on Intellectual Property Rights in Plant Varieties; an Expert Workshop and CD-ROM on Policy Planning and Decision Support for Biosafety; a review of genetically modified organisms in aquaculture.

Information paper on the IDWG activities for the 16th (2001) and 17th (2003) biennial Session of FAO's Committee on Agriculture (COAG) (http://www.fao.org/unfao/govbodies/Agrifinal_en.asp).

Support for an Expert Consultation entitled “Genetically Modified Organisms in Crop Production and their Effects on the Environment: Methodologies for Monitoring and the Way Ahead’’, held on 18-20 January 2005 in Rome;

Contribution in 2004 to the round table discussion on Socio-economic Research for Agricultural Biotechnology.

Preparing a publication entitled: “Marker-Assisted Selection (MAS) in Crops, Livestock, Forestry and Fish: Current Status and the Way Forward”, expected to be available in 2006.

"Preliminary review of biotechnology in forestry, including genetic modification" (2005, FAO Forest Genetic Resources Working Paper 59). Produced with financial support from the Biotechnology PAIA.

Preparation of the publication “Role of biotechnology in exploring and protecting agricultural genetic resources”, currently being printed.

Analytical reports and information for inter-governmental and technical meetings covering trends and developments in biotechnology research and products e.g. commodity markets and trade in genetically modified (GM) crops, agricultural impacts of GM crops, effects of intellectual property rights on agricultural research.

The "FAO Statement on Biotechnology” (http://www.fao.org/biotech/stat.asp): produced by the IDWG in response to the many requests to know "where FAO stands on the GMO issue" and published in March 2000.

Organization, in collaboration with Tor Vergata University, of an Expert Workshop on “Public agricultural research: the impact of IPRs on biotechnology in developing countries” held in Rome, 24-27 June 2002

Support to the development of a Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it relates to genetic resources for food and agriculture, in line with the guidance of the Commission on

Working document for the 9th (2002) and 10th (2004) Regular Sessions of the CGRFA on activities undertaken by the six PAIAs most relevant to the Commisions's work, including the Biotechnology PAIA (http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/meetings.htm).

10

Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA).

Provision of Summary Document of conference 7 of the FAO Biotechnology Forum (on GMOs and gene flow) as an information document for the 9th Regular Session of the CGRFA in 2002 (an e-mail conference prepared in collaboration with the CGRFA secretariat).

Preparation of the paper "Potential impacts of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) on agricultural biodiversity and agricultural production systems: Technical study" (document 9/02/17/Annex - in English, French, Spanish, Chinese and Arabic http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/docs9.htm) for the 9th Regular Session of the CGRFA .

A website on Biotechnology, with links to other relevant sites within and outside FAO, and heightened participation of national institutions covering biotechnology techniques and products and policy and regulatory issues surrounding research on, and deployment of agricultural biotechnology; it will also include a multilingual glossary, a database of biotechnologies in use or in the pipeline in developing countries and an e-mail discussion forum on cross-sectoral technical and policy issues.

The FAO Biotechnology website (http://www.fao.org/biotech/index.asp), available in 5 languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French and Spanish) since August 2001, providing information on FAO’s work and international developments in biotechnology techniques and products.

The FAO Glossary of Biotechnology for Food and Agriculture, first published in 1999 and revised in 2001 to update the definitions and to enrich the number of terms defined. It now contains 3,200 terms and related definitions and is provided as a searchable multi-lingual database, available in English, French and Spanish (http://www.fao.org/biotech/index_glossary.asp). It has also been translated into Vietnamese and Arabic. A CD-ROM with the multi-lingual glossary is being finalised.

FAO-BioDeC, a searchable database launched in 2003, providing up-to-date baseline information on biotechnology products and techniques in use, or in the pipeline, in developing countries (http://www.fao.org/biotech/inventoryadmin/dep/default.asp). It currently contains over 2,000 entries from crops, 700 from forestry and 100 from the animal sector. It was recently expanded to include information regarding biotechnology-related policies, regulations and activities of 128 individual developing countries.

FAO-BiotechNews, an e-mail newsletter launched in January 2002 – available in English, French, Spanish and Russian. The first 50 updates carried almost 500 news and event items relevant to applications of biotechnology in the crop, forestry, animal, fishery and agro-industrial sectors of developing countries, focusing mainly on the activities of FAO, other UN agencies/bodies and the 15 CGIAR research centres.

The FAO Biotechnology Forum (http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp), providing quality balanced information on agricultural biotechnology in developing countries representing a neutral platform for exchange of views and experiences. There are currently over 2,900 Forum Members worldwide, 13 moderated e-mail conferences have been hosted to date and 350-650 people have subscribed to each one.

11

The Biotechnology PAIA’s work has fostered inter-UN agency cooperation and promoted the work of other UN agencies in biotechnology through, inter alia, the biotechnology website, FAO-BiotechNews, preparation of documents for the ‘UN-Biotech’ initiative and collaboration with WFP for the preparation of guidelines for provision of food aid containing GMOs. .

Other future expected outputs from the PAIA include:

1. Preparation of a trust fund project proposal “Building Capacity for Biotechnology and Food Security” for consideration by potential donors to address the needs of developing countries and countries with economies in transition for assistance in biotechnology;

2. Undertaking compilation of an "FAO Agriculture Biotechnology Policy Compendium: Options and Impacts". Intended to assist decision makers, in particular those in the food and agriculture sector, in developing their domestic policies with a clear perspective that will allow them to pursue their national interests, and respond to the opportunities and challenges offered by biotechnology in a rational and consistent manner. It will cover all policy options and related aspects that are relevant to biotechnology in food and agriculture, including inter alia options for developing regulatory frameworks and legal instruments, for fostering research and technology transfer, for assessing safety, and promoting capacity-building and societal dialogue. Subject to availability of resources, the Compendium will be available in all official languages and used as a basis for capacity-building through workshops, distance learning courses and other outreach activities;

EfficiencyFunds available to the Biotechnology PAIA derived from three sources; entity 210S5, US Arrears and Divisional Regular Budgetary Allotments. The funding has been neither reliable nor substantial, which has had a negative effect on efficiency. The Biotechnology PAIA has not, unlike some other PAIAs, attracted external funds. However, using the funds available, the PAIA has, over five years, employed a full-time consultant (John Ruane), who has had considerable responsibility for managing PAIA activities, particularly regarding website management; organization and reporting of e-mail conferences and production and circulation of the FAO-BiotechNews bulletin. His presence has ensured the smooth-running and productivity of the PAIA and his absence could affect the PAIA negatively.

Some concerns were expressed during the semi-structured interviews over the cost-effectiveness of the e-mail conferences of the FAO Biotechnology Forum, which are among the major vehicles for encouraging public participation and disseminating information. While recognising their important role in establishing a solid client base for Biotechnology PAIA information, they were very demanding of time and effort. This was especially the case for writing the comprehensive background documents and the final syntheses of the discussions, so this activity might not represent the most efficient use of scarce resources. A suggestion has been to focus on the background document and moderation of the conference and to discontinue preparation of the summary documents. A more substantial economics input into the Biotechnology PAIA could not only allow issues of cost-effectiveness of biotechnologies to be addressed but might also allow some of the Biotechnology PAIA activities to be monitored better and assist in priority setting.

12

Human resources, in terms of intellectual input, available to the Biotechnology PAIA have theoretically included all FAO staff and a range of stakeholders from outside the Organization. It has been reported that participation in the IDWG has been less than satisfactory, indicating that human resource use, and therefore inter-disciplinarity, have been sub-optimal. For example, there has been “insufficient cohesion and cooperation between Divisions in the field of biosafety, leading to a weak Organizational profile”2.

Attendance at IDWG meetings has always been recorded in the minutes and serves as a record of attendance and participation. The Chairman expressed his concern about attendance at IDWG meetings on two occasions3, leading him to comment that “... some people on the IDWG had never attended a meeting, some were present for a part of a meeting and then left and some others that did not participate complained about not being consulted about the IDWG’s activities”. Representation from various units in FAO has not always been adequate because of staff time constraints and a view that Biotechnology PAIA activities take second place to priority programme activities. Furthermore, there has been a feeling that “inputs have not always been recognised and rewarded”. “There has not been sufficient buy-in by all those who might usefully contribute to an inter-disciplinary, inter-sectoral approach to biotechnology” and “incentives to contribute have not necessarily been there”. “Unless added-value associated with participation can be recognised participation will remain poor”. There have, moreover, been examples of “forced participation”, when it was not necessary and for issues where “there was no advantage attached to group action”.

These findings largely reflect problems in information sharing4 and communication, both in-house and between PAIA and its actual and potential partners. In order for the Biotechnology PAIA to become more efficient in its resource use there has to be more genuine and constructive involvement of all partners.

RelevanceThere was a considerable range of opinion about the relevance of the Biotechnology PAIA activities among the staff interviewed. The range of opinion extended from “not relevant” because Members requirements were not being met and the more important issues in biotechnology were being addressed by other PAIAs (Biosecurity and Biodiversity PAIA, for example) to “completely relevant”. The interviews revealed that there was a feeling that when the Biotechnology PAIA was begun in 1999, biotechnology was more controversial than it is now and that with changes in opinion about the usefulness and safety of biotechnology applications there is a need to move away from supplying and discussing largely technical information to developing more policy guidance and addressing issues of the regulatory environment of biotechnology. This was already highlighted in the Biotechnology PAIA Progress Report of 2002-2003, where it was stated that “On the policy front, the PAIA has assisted the Organization in responding effectively at UN, inter-governmental and national levels, but the need to strengthen the policy and institutional dimensions of its work and cohesion of its work within and between Departments and with the decentralised offices ... must be addressed”. Notwithstanding this, there were suggestions made that complex technical information could be suitably simplified and packaged to meet the needs of those for whom the subject was often inaccessible because of its technical nature. Journalists would be

2 Biotechnology PAIA Progress Report, 2004.3 Minutes of IDWGB meetings of 30th June 2005 and 19th July 2005.4 “Information sharing ... there is certainly scope for improvement, especially with out-posted officers”, Biotechnology PAIA Progress Report, 2004.

13

one such group, but many others were suggested, including administrators and decision-makers. One stakeholder suggested in the questionnaire that:

“Relatively brief and not too technical (but properly referenced) mini reviews on topical issues might be useful – possibly up to 1500 words or less. These might encourage people to visit your website and then browse on it in other areas – this strategy works very well in helping to attract readers to scientific journals that I have been involved in editing. We also do this to assist politicians, e.g. I am writing similar mini reviews for the European Parliament. 1. For example, a short account of the rapidly expanding uptake of agbiotech in developing countries like China India and Malaysia. 2. Also, why not survey new and emerging areas that may have potential global applications – a good one would be TILLING – a non-GM but high tech extension of mutagenesis that has massive potential for crops like rice. 3. A third topic might be to examine the cost effectiveness of MAS technology for different crops – there are some good technical studies out there but they need distilling for the general reader”.

An additional issue that was raised was what “biotechnology” comprised. While some felt that it was not possible to address important issues without a comprehensive definition of the subject, others considered that too much attention, at least during the initial stages of the PAIA, was devoted to “modern biotechnology”, particularly aspects of transgenesis, while traditional biotechnologies, practised in and important to many developing countries, were neglected.

2. GovernanceDiscussions with IDWG members and former members indicated general satisfaction with governance of the working group and the decision-making processes, bearing in mind that some respondents felt that the focus of the group was not necessarily the best. Chairmanship was viewed as being strong and effective, particularly after the IDWG became well established. The previous incumbent was the Director of the AGE Division, based in Austria, and was therefore not present at FAO HQ on a continuous basis. While this did not necessarily detract from the work of the IDWG and the Biotechnology PAIA, greater inter-personal contact among the IDWG members might have been encouraged if the Chairman had been able to communicate more in person with the team.

“The work of the IDWG can certainly be characterised as having been conducted in an open, transparent and collegial manner, and even if at times there were disagreements, these were resolved in a satisfactory manner”5. Agendas were set, important issues were openly discussed and minutes were taken and circulated. Some criticisms were voiced about the length of meetings, which accounted for some members having to leave before they were concluded. This is a reflection of the general constraints on time in the Organization. Poor attendance at some meetings was an issue of concern, as referred to earlier, and in the Progress Report of 20046. This partly explains why some of the decision-making was taken by a few individuals. Inevitably those members of the IDWG who were most active had the greatest influence on the agenda and on decision-making. There was some criticism made of lack of feedback following decision-making that appeared to highlight the sub-optimal communication among Divisions and Services in the Organization.

5 Biotechnology PAIA Progress Report 2004.6 “Although some members failed to participate actively in the meetings and e-mail exchanges, the IDWG was able to ‘pull the stops out’ on many occasions to ensure the achievement of shared goals, often at very short notice and in a highly professional manner”.

14

The Biotechnology PAIA has been dominated by relatively few highly motivated individuals, and there has been “inter-disciplinarity without joint ownership”. Moreover, crop biotechnology was seen to dominate and consequently the food, forestry and fisheries contributions are sometimes not fully appreciated – although respondents from all three areas indicated that biotechnology was a lesser priority for them and relatively little time was being devoted to issues of biotechnology in their Divisions.

Cross-cutting disciplines, such as economics, have not played a large enough role in decision-making in the PAIA while other important issues have been handled in, for example, the Biosecurity and Biodiversity PAIAs. Differences in objectives have translated into some criticism of leadership, difficulties in communication and gaps in the activities of the PAIA. The Biotechnology PAIA was seen to “react to” rather than “shape” issues, and could be “more visionary, more analytical and more predictive”.

3. RoleIt can be argued that biotechnology currently generates reduced controversy in comparison with the past, but there is as yet no unanimity in-house as to what constitutes biotechnology, and thus the subject areas to be addressed by the Biotechnology PAIA. There are considerable differences among FAO staff as to what biotechnology includes and what it might contribute to in supporting the work of the Organization. This has resulted in the Biotechnology PAIA having spent time and resources “defining its position and role”. Moreover, the various units in FAO have continued to address many biotechnological issues at Service and Division levels because some important subjects are not necessarily managed best at an inter-disciplinary level. This has probably contributed to confusion both inside and outside of FAO as to the role of the Biotechnology PAIA vis a vis FAO biotechnology: “Biotechnology PAIA activities have not been part of an umbrella programme”, and thus the role of the Biotechnology PAIA has been unclear. There are many cases where the Biotechnology PAIA has prepared the groundwork on some policy related aspects related to biotechnology in food and agriculture and as addressed by the FAO governing bodies and secretariats. However, it seems that, in some other instances, contributions from Divisions and Services have been made directly, without any recourse to the IDWG and the Biotechnology PAIA. Several relevant contributions of the IDWG were outlined in Table 1.

The role of the Biotechnology PAIA on the international stage is less easy to define. There exists a large amount of information on biotechnology in the public domain. Although much of this information is not without bias, many initiatives do claim to be neutral forums and cover much of the same ground as the information on the Biotechnology PAIA website. The future role of the Biotechnology PAIA has to be defined taking into account other sources of information.

4. ImpactParticipants in the Stakeholder Survey (i.e. the e-mail or web-based questionnaire) indicated that the Biotechnology PAIA information had created better awareness of issues of biotechnology within their respective organizations. Full results from the 171 respondents are contained in Table 2. While the majority of respondents (49%) had passed on Biotechnology PAIA information to others, most (41%) did not know whether awareness had been enhanced at the country level as a result. The information had encouraged new partnerships within organizations according to 39% of the respondents and had not according to the views of 42%. In response to the question concerning whether the Biotechnology PAIA information

15

had affected national policy-making, 39% of respondents had no opinion, but 34% felt it had, at least sometimes.

Regarding impact through and on other activities within the Organization, there are few obvious indicators. It was suggested that, for example, contact with REDBIO in Latin America was not strong and the extent of collaboration could be greatly improved. However, a workshop on selection using molecular marker techniques, organised in collaboration with some IDWG members, was held in the Dominican Republic within the REDBIO 2004 Meeting and REDBIO items have been regularly included in FAO-BiotechNews.

While the information gathered during the Stakeholder Survey is possibly indicative, it would be unwise to draw strong inferences from such sparse data. Unfortunately, when the PAIA was designed there was not sufficient thought given to how its impact might be monitored and reported. Were some indicators to have been suggested, it would be easier to comment on impact to date. A more thorough Stakeholder Survey carried out through FAO’s decentralised offices might shed more light on impact of Biotechnology PAIA information at national and regional levels.

Table 2. Impact of Biotechnology PAIA information.

11. Impacts of the PAIA information on biotechnology.

No Sometimes Yes No opinion Response Total

a. Has the information created better awareness of issues of biotechnology in your organization?

9% (15) 37% (63) 38% (65) 16% (27) 170

b. Has the information created better awareness of issues of biotechnology in your country?

16% (27) 24% (41) 19% (33) 41% (69) 170

c. Have you passed on the information to others who lack direct access to it? 17% (29) 27% (46) 49% (83) 7% (12) 170

d. Has the information encouraged new partnerships among colleagues in your organization?

42% (72) 19% (33) 20% (34) 18% (31) 170

e. Has the information encouraged new partnerships among colleagues in your country?

28% (48) 16% (27) 18% (30) 38% (65) 170

f. Has the information encouraged new partnerships with colleagues in other countries?

27% (46) 21% (36) 15% (25) 37% (63) 170

g. Do you think the information has affected policy-making in your country?

27% (46) 25% (43) 9% (16) 39% (66) 171

Total Respondents   171

(skipped this question)   3

Several issues were mentioned in the Stakeholder Survey by 33 respondents replying to an open-ended question on practical impacts not covered by the specific questions on impacts of the Biotechnology PAIA. Awareness had been created of biotechnology issues in the international context and of developments in biotechnology. University students, among others, were able to use the information. The PAIA activities, particularly the e-mail conferences of the FAO Biotechnology Forum, had “opened international discussion from a credible organization that is both independent and authoritative”. The work was seen to support FAO’s role as an independent honest broker of information that is frequently

16

controversial. One respondent noted that the Brazilian press frequently cited information produced by the Biotechnology PAIA, while others noted its importance to journalists. Impact might be assessed through citations of information provided by the Biotechnology PAIA. While there are examples of the e-mail conference reports having been cited7, there is no comprehensive record of citations and no easy way to monitor this. Thus impact cannot be easily gauged, although it is known that in at least a couple of occasions the reports have been used as background information for development of national biotechnology policy in specific developing countries.

5. Planning, prioritising, implementing and deliveryPlanning is difficult in the absence of a reliable budget, but it was reported on several occasions that more had been achieved by the Biotechnology PAIA than had been planned.

One major issue that was raised concerned the diverse needs of FAO’s clients. There was a suggestion that there might be reduced focus on general information products and more on “impact-oriented needs”. There remained a need to establish what was actually required by people, taking into account national and regional differences in priorities. Once identified, needs could be prioritized and addressed by, if necessary, harnessing expertise from outside the Organization through establishing partnerships and contributing to networks. One specific suggestion was to encourage more interaction with donors to tailor Biotechnology PAIA products to user needs, especially those of the public and policy makers. Others took a different track and considered that brief reviews of topical technical issues would be useful to attract more readers and assist politicians. Other respondents suggested that background documents might be prepared for similar reasons. However, there was a criticism levelled during the Stakeholder Survey that current products were “only directed to meeting the needs of the elite and educated groups”. Priorities have been set by the IDWG, but there is no consensus on whether they have been the correct ones.

6. Quality, quantity and objectivityThe results of the Stakeholder Survey revealed a high degree of satisfaction with the Biotechnology PAIA activities and products and the overall assessment of the PAIA, in terms of the information supplied by it, was very positive, as indicated below in Table 3. Very few of the respondents found fault with the PAIA products in terms of usefulness, credibility, scientific basis, relevance to developing country needs, availability, comprehensibility or up-to-datedness. It has to be remembered, however, that the respondents did not represent a random sample with respect to their assessment of the material provided by FAO: they were members of the FAO Biotechnology Forum (most of the 174 respondents) and recipients of the FAO-BiotechNews bulletin or visitors to the FAO Biotechnology website and might therefore be biased towards products of the Organization (although some respondents were critical). If they did not find the FAO information useful, they would unlikely be a subscriber to these mailing lists or visit the website.

Table 3. Stakeholder assessment of quality of Biotechnology PAIA products.

10. What is your overall assessment of the information supplied by the Biotechnology PAIA?

No Mostly Yes No opinion Response Total

7 A Google search using the URLs of the background documents of the electronic conferences no. 10, 11, 12, and 13 gives 66, 85, 60 and 52 results, respectively.

17

Useful 1% (2) 31% (51) 61% (102) 7% (12) 167

Credible 1% (2) 21% (35) 67% (110) 10% (17) 164

Science-based 1% (1) 33% (55) 55% (92) 11% (19) 167

Relevant to developing country needs 2% (3) 31% (52) 48% (80) 19% (31) 166

Easily available 8% (14) 30% (50) 47% (78) 14% (23) 165

Easily understood 2% (4) 32% (52) 53% (87) 13% (21) 164

Up-to-date 2% (4) 34% (56) 46% (77) 18% (30) 167

Total Respondents   167

(skipped this question)   7

The Stakeholder Survey was completed by 174 respondents in total: 136 returned the e-mail questionnaire and 38 completed the questionnaire on-line. The 169 respondents who indicated their country of residence, came from 60 countries covering the world’s major regions: 38 from Latin America and the Caribbean, 48 from Europe, 29 from Africa, 24 from Asia, 20 from North America and 10 from Oceania. There were 12 responses from the USA and 10 from Italy. There were 77 responses from developed countries and 92 from developing countries.

76% of respondents worked in research, 49% in education and 29% in administration (people were able to tick more than one work area). Ten percent worked for NGOs and under 5% were producers. Of the other areas of work, there were several consultants, some journalists and a few lawyers. Regarding the use of web-based materials produced by the Biotechnology PAIA, the results are given below in Table 4.

Table 4. Stakeholder use of selected materials from the Biotechnology PAIA website.

4. How often do you consult the following materials on the web?

NeverOne to several times a

yearMonthly Weekly Daily Response

Total

a. FAO Biotechnology website View 6% (11) 54% (92) 25% (42) 15% (25) 1% (1) 171

b. FAO Biotechnology Glossary View 33% (55) 47% (79) 13% (22) 8% (13) 0% (0) 169

c. FAO-BioDeC database on biotechnology products/techniques View

41% (69) 39% (66) 15% (25) 5% (9) 1% (1) 170

d. FAO-BiotechNews webpages View 21% (35) 43% (72) 24% (41) 11% (19) 1% (1) 168

e. FAO Biotechnology Forum View 8% (14) 60% (102) 19% (33) 8% (14) 4% (7) 170

f. FAO Statement on Biotechnology View 31% (53) 47% (80) 15% (25) 7% (12) 0% (0) 170

Total Respondents   171

(skipped this question)   3

18

The vast majority of respondents consulted the materials one or several times a year, or even more often. The FAO-BioDeC database was consulted by fewer people than the other web-based materials, although 60% of respondents consulted it at least once or several times a year.Most problems encountered in accessing Biotechnology PAIA information on the web concerned slow internet connections (19%) - or no internet connections, although the majority of respondents (47%) experienced no problems. Limited time was another major constraint reported by the respondents (35%). Very few respondents commented on difficulties of language (2%) although this was mentioned relatively frequently in the open ended questions. 21% of respondents found the relevant material difficult to locate. This is important considering the general time constraints experienced by the respondents.

E-mail materials were mostly consulted one to several times a year, as indicated in Table 5.

Table 5. Use of Biotechnology PAIA e-mail materials.

6. How often do you consult the following e-mail materials?

NeverOne to several times a

yearMonthly Weekly Daily Response

Total

a. FAO-BiotechNews newsletter (in any of its languages) 14% (24) 45% (75) 28% (47) 11% (19) 1% (2) 167

b. FAO Biotechnology Forum (e-mail messages, background or summary documents)

11% (18) 51% (85) 22% (37) 11% (19) 5% (9) 168

Total Respondents   168

(skipped this question)   6

The overwhelming majority of respondents did not consider the Biotechnology PAIA information to be their primary source of information on biotechnology, although nearly 10% did and approximately 19% regarded it as being mostly their primary source of information on biotechnology. Those respondents were from developing countries, highlighting the differences between the needs of developing country and developed country clients.

With reference to the use of non-PAIA publications, for which there was PAIA input (in the case of the SOFA report, considerable input), the results indicate that the SOFA report was most consulted and that over 40% of people had consulted the other publications (Table 6).

Table 6. Use of non-PAIA publications.

9. How often do you consult the following non-PAIA publications?

NeverOne to several times a

yearMonthly Weekly Daily Response

Total

a. "Agricultural Biotechnology: will it 56% (94) 38% (64) 5% (9) 1% (2) 0% (0) 169

19

help?" (2003, part of FAO's on-line "Focus on the Issues" series) View

b. The 2003/4 edition of the FAO publication "The State of Food and Agriculture: Agricultural Biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?" View

31% (53) 58% (98) 9% (16) 2% (3) 0% (0) 170

c. "Preliminary review of biotechnology in forestry, including genetic modification" (2005, FAO Forest Genetic Resources Working Paper 59) View

58% (98) 34% (57) 6% (10) 2% (3) 0% (0) 168

Total Respondents   170

(skipped this question)   4

Regarding web traffic statistics, the Biotechnology PAIA website accounts for 9% of the page requests from the 33 websites maintained by the SD Department (Figure 1). It is the second most popular website, following the Departmental one, SD-Dimensions. “Biotechnology” was among the four most used search keywords in Arabic, English, French and Spanish. Within the FAO Document Repository, the FAO Biotechnology Glossary has normally been among the top 5 most popular documents.

Figure 1. Relative shares of page requests from the 33 SD-related websites for Oct-Dec 2005.

From inspection of the monthly data in Figure 2, it is apparent that since the launch of the Biotechnology PAIA website in 2001 there has been a steady increase in interest in the site as evidenced by the increasing total numbers of visits to the site, the number of unique visitors and the number of webpages viewed on the site.

20

Figure 2. Web traffic for the Biotechnology PAIA since launch to date – monthly data are plotted along the x-axis.

Web Traffic for Biotechnology PAIA

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000S

ep-0

1

Mar

-02

Sep

-02

Mar

-03

Sep

-03

Mar

-04

Sep

-04

Mar

-05

Sep

-05

Date

Visi

ts

Number of visits to theBiotech website

Number of webpagesviewed on the BiotechwebsiteNumber of uniquevisitors to the Biotechwebsite

A comparison of the Biotechnology PAIA website and those of the SD-Dimensions (the Departmental website) as a whole and of the Biodiversity and Organic Agriculture PAIA websites (Table 7) indicates that absolute popularity of the site and relative popularity have steadily increased over time. The inference is that the site is supplying high quality, useful information to a growing clientele. Its high ranking among the major search engines confirms this, as it is the top site on Google for searches on ' biotechnology agriculture', 'biotechnology developing countries' or 'biotechnology food agriculture'.

Table 7. Total numbers of webpages visited in the Biotechnology, Biodiversity and Organic Agriculture websites over three month periods since 2002, indicating also the number of webpages visited on the SD-Dimensions website.

3-month interval

Biotechnology Biodiversity Organic Agriculture

SD-Dimensions

Oct-Dec 2002 185,800 51,100 124,700 1,026,900

Apr-June 03 222,400 50,800 140,700 995,000

Oct-Dec 03 239,200 46,600 150,900 1,213,100

Apr-June 04 266,100 53,700 159,600 1,282,500

Oct-Dec 04 302,000 59,500 178,300 1,568,200

Apr-June 05 390,900 54,600 175,100 1,932,200

21

Oct-Dec 05 412,500 54,700 236,100 1,763,300

A summary of data from the 13 e-mail conferences hosted by the FAO Biotechnology Forum is given in Table 8. Participation has increased over time, with 150-350 participants in the conferences held in 2000-2001 and 350-650 in those held thereafter. The early conferences lasted longer and now run for just four weeks. There has been substantial participation from people living in developing countries - posting roughly half of all messages in the 13 conferences. Messages have come from people living in about 80 different countries. As the themes for each conference have differed considerably, the people posting messages have also tended to be different. Typically, the proportion of participants posting messages has ranged from 8 to 19% per conference. In the conferences (see Table 9), the stakeholders that have been most active are those in universities (34% of messages on average in a conference), research institutes [governmental and non-governmental] (27%), NGOs (11%) and those working as independent consultants (9%), in CGIAR centres (5%), government (4%) and private companies (4%). Success of the different conferences can be evaluated, inter alia, by the number of subscribers and high quality messages posted, in particular from developing countries (as the conference themes focus on biotechnology in these countries), and involvement of a good mix of relevant stakeholders. In this context, conferences 8 (on the role of biotechnology in the agriculture research agenda) and 12 (on public participation in decision-making about GMOs) can be singled out in the positive sense while conferences 2 to 4 (on biotechnology in the forestry, livestock and fishery sectors respectively) were the least successful.

22

Table 8. Number of people registered for each conference (A), number of messages posted (B), number of countries (C) and people (D) providing the messages, percent (E) of people registered for each conference that posted messages, number (%) of messages from developing countries (F),number (%) of messages from developed countries (G) and duration of the conference (H, in weeks).

Conference theme

A B C D E F G H

2000Crops 306 138 29 51 17 64 (46) 74 (54) 10Forestry 167 32 10 15 9 4 (12) 28 (88) 9.5Livestock 235 42 14 26 11 22 (52) 20 (48) 11Fishery 149 26 12 16 11 11 (42) 15 (58) 10Hunger/Food 258 118 22 46 18 51 (43) 67 (57) 82001IPR1 265 50 18 30 11 17(34) 33 (66) 6.52002Gene Flow 382 118 25 61 16 38 (32) 80 (68) 5Research 347 128 29 67 19 74 (58) 54 (42) 52003Regulation 401 93 19 44 11 46 (49) 47 (51) 5MAS1 627 85 26 52 8 50 (59) 35 (41) 42004Food Processing

411 68 19 37 9 48 (71) 20 (29) 4.5

2005Public participation

508 116 35 70 14 58 (50) 58 (50) 4

Genetic Resources

645 127 38 64 10 78 (61) 49 (39) 4

Total 4701 1141 561 (49)

580 (51)

1 IPR = Intellectual property rights; MAS = Marker assisted selection.

Table 9. Proportion of messages coming from participants in different occupations, for each of the conferences of the FAO Biotechnology Forum: University (A), research organization or institute1 (B), international agricultural research centre2 (C), independent consultant (D), non-governmental organization (E), government1 (F), farmers organization (G), private company (H), UN organization (I) and others (J).

Conference theme

A B C D E F G H I J

2000Crops 26 26 7 3 22 7 5 1 3Forestry 34 34 6 - 6 - 16 3 -Livestock 38 29 5 7 2 7 5 5 2Fishery 54 15 - - 8 8 8 - 8Hunger/Food 22 35 5 3 28 - 1 2 52001IPR 22 24 8 20 16 2 2 4 22002Gene Flow 32 20 3 5 17 7 - 12 3 -Research 25 33 5 10 10 5 7 - 4 -2003

23

Regulation 26 26 1 16 15 8 4 - 4 -MAS 37 45 7 5 1 1 4 - 1 -2004Food Processing

46 18 3 16 4 4 3 4 1 -

2005Public participation

37 18 2 22 11 3 6 - 1 -

Genetic Resources

43 29 16 5 2 1 - 1 1 4

Average per conference

34 27 5 9 11 4 2 4 2 2

1 “Research organization or institute” includes governmental research institutes2 Mainly individuals from the 15 CGIAR research centres (and its Science Council)

7. Output disseminationBiotechnology PAIA activities and products relied heavily on the web and e-mail. A large number of potential beneficiaries of the information in developing countries cannot be reached through such communication channels. There is thus a need to engage people at all levels, possibly through increased participation of out-posted staff. Hardcopy information was also considered important by participants in the Stakeholder Survey, although they did not often consult hardcopy information themselves (Table 10).

The e-mail conferences of the FAO Biotechnology Forum were both praised and criticised. The criticism was registered during the semi-structured interviews. Some described them as “useful and helpful”, suggesting that they become a permanent feature of the Biotechnology PAIA website, possibly becoming multi-lingual. They were useful “particularly in building up a client base”, but it was generally felt that they did not represent the best investment of resources. Others, however, found them to be “useless” and not authoritative on account of the participants not being necessarily well versed in the issues and not being representative of anyone but themselves. It was suggested that “only people with time on their hands” could realistically follow the discussions and that those people were not necessarily providing accurate and useful commentary. There was often “little evidence of expertise” demonstrated in the responses of forum members. As a means of disseminating information they have many shortcomings although some participants in the Stakeholder Survey appreciated them.

The FAO-BiotechNews bulletin is the other major means for disseminating information. In 2004 it provided over 140 news event items in five languages, concentrating on activities of FAO and the other UN agencies and the CGIAR centres. It was appreciated according to the results of the Stakeholder Survey (Tables 4 and 5).

Increased and improved information dissemination was suggested to be possible through increasing emphasis on capacity building, coordinated through the Biotechnology PAIA. There were suggestions to hold workshops and organize training courses with a view to encouraging regional and inter-regional networking. An additional related issue was one raised by many respondents concerning the need for hardcopy material in developing countries with limited or no access to modern communication channels – e-mail and the web. Account might also be taken, it was suggested, of language requirements. A sizeable potential clientele was unable to communicate easily in the five languages of FAO. Translation of some

24

information products into Russian and Vietnamese was appreciated and information provided in other widely spoken languages might be similarly appreciated.

Table 10. Use of hardcopy materials by respondents to the e-mail and web-based stakeholder questionnaire.

NeverOne to several times a

yearMonthly Weekly Daily Respons

e Totala. FAO Biotechnology Glossary (in any of its languages) View 73%

(124) 19% (32) 5% (9) 2% (3) 1% (1) 169

b. FAO-BioDeC publication (Dhlamini et al., 2005) View 82%

(139) 14% (24) 3% (5) 1% (1) 0% (0) 169

c. FAO Biotechnology Forum publication (Ruane & Zimmermann, 2001) View 74%

(124) 21% (35) 4% (7) 1% (2) 0% (0) 168

Total Respondents   170

(skipped this question)   4

Several people noted that the Biotechnology PAIA had not done enough to promote awareness of the website and its products.

8. PartnershipsPartnerships were enhanced at least ‘sometimes’ at the national level as a result of the Biotechnology PAIA information according to 34% of the respondents whereas 28% considered this had not occurred (Table 2). The figures in the same table for among-country partnership enhancement were similar.

There has probably been insufficient effort made by the Biotechnology PAIA to form partnerships to enhance generation of useful technical and policy information. This includes internal partnerships with, for example, Codex, nutrition, food processing and the CGRFA. “In-house communication must be improved for an inter-disciplinary approach to biotechnology to succeed”: “Better communication is the key issue”. Other partnerships that might be formed, without sacrificing FAO’s neutral stance, include those with members of the CGIAR and other UN bodies. There was a call for a greater role to be played by FAO representatives in the regions, to facilitate communication in issues of biotechnology between HQ and country officials and beyond to national decision-makers and regulators. This would require that FAO inform its own staff about biotechnological issues, especially those in regional offices and the field. A good starting point to establish partnerships would be in-house. Surprisingly few staff of the Organization contributed directly to the FAO Biotechnology Forum for instance. Moreover, through conducting semi-structured interviews in-house it was clear that there was minimal sense of partnership in the Biotechnology PAIA.

25

It has been difficult to link Biotechnology PAIA efforts with on-the-ground activities that might better meet the needs of developing countries. However, the European Regional Office does liaise with the Biotechnology PAIA and translates some of the documentation into Russian to cater for the needs of the transition countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia.

One detailed and useful suggestion was received from a contributor to the Stakeholder Survey from the donor community who said,

“My particular interest with respect to information is with developing international collaborations between scientists in East, Central, and Southern Africa. Donors have started funding for agricultural sciences including biotechnology with regional organizations like ASARECA and CORAF but little has been done to build up functioning systems to help scientists to work together across institutions and borders. The only way I myself have been able to get regional grants started has been to pay to bring grantees together to write grants and do work plans. Otherwise, it won’t happen, even with decent email systems. There is a strong need to improve the ability of scientists to network. At one level, they don’t know where their colleagues are located nor what their research interests are. At another level, the spirit and experience of collaborating on research is not there yet. I’ve been interested in building donor support for regional activities on research networking, but I‘ve found some donors think they are already contributing to solving this problem by funding FAO information activities on biotechnology. I don’t believe this is the case, however, as FAO efforts don’t seem to be addressing this. I would like to encourage FAO to focus less on general information provision and more on specific, impact-oriented needs, like information for research networking. There is a need to focus on the end-users in specific disciplines and what value they will get out of information. There is value in interdisciplinarity of course but not if one loses the ability to target key groups capable of utilizing the information. Much of the information seems to be collected with no real purpose in mind, such as biotechnology applications. There often appears to be a glut of information but I don’t know who is actually using it. More interaction with donors or other organizations working in biotechnology could help in this respect. I would love to see African policymakers citing FAO information in order to inspire confidence to forge ahead with biotechnology research and policy development. It’s not happening at the moment”.

9. Scope of the PAIAIt was suggested that if additional resources were not forthcoming the scope of the Biotechnology PAIA programme would have to be narrowed. Activities that might receive more attention include assisting in integrating biotechnology into national plant breeding programmes, providing decision-support tools, enhancing awareness and capacity building and proving policy options for technology-uptake. However, additional funds might be sought through liaison with donors, recognising that FAO’s principal donors “have very different views on biotechnology”. “A better appreciation of the needs of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders would help in identifying priority areas for inter-disciplinary action in biotechnology”.

Some of the major issues relating to the scope of the Biotechnology PAIA are highlighted in the results of the SWOT analysis summarised in Table 10.

Table 11. A summary of the principal strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the Biotechnology PAIA identified during its auto-evaluation that bear on the scope of its past and future activities.

26

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsMaintenance of FAO’s honest broker image

Support to presenting a consistent corporate policy through circulation and revision of all FAO biotechnology-related documents

The PAIA is not structurally embedded in the work programmes of the Organization and limited financial resources base

Build on successes and identify weaknesses, canvass donor views and seek external funding

Sustainable funding will not be secured and the PAIA will not become structurally embedded

It is assumed that progress can continue with minimum allocation of resources

The IDWG provided a unique entry point for collaboration with other UN agencies and international organizations

There is not always full participation in the IDWG, which detracts from an interdisciplinary approach

Strengthen the capacity and work of the IDWG

Participation in the IDWG remains sub-optimal and the unique entry point is lost

Inter-disciplinarity in biotechnology established and compartmentalised thinking been broken down

Too few incentives to participate; extra work for little recognition; sub-optimal communication

Increase efforts to network and form useful partnerships within and outside of the Organization

Unfavourable controversy will be created by not handling issues in a neutral and expert way, inter-disciplinarity will be eroded and fragmented approaches to biotechnology will predominate

Crop biotechnology will dominate and act against true inter-disciplinarity

A website of increasing popularity has been designed and maintained

Some subjects not handled expertly by an inter-disciplinary group and others already handled by other PAIAs

Review the need of FAO’s principal clients and ensure the information provided is of high quality and relevant to their needs

Differences of opinion re direction and management in-house will detract from useful work being done

Lack of sustainable funding will impact negatively on maintaining an up-to-date, useful website

A large clientele has been created through the FAO Biotechnology Forum and distribution of the FAO-BiotechNews bulletin

Large numbers of potential beneficiaries not reached through e-mail and web-based information

Establish which potential beneficiaries are not being reached the PAIA activities

Consider requirements for hardcopy information and additional language requirements

The PAIA will lose committed clients if the FAO Biotechnology Forum and/or FAO-BiotechNews bulletin cease

D. Conclusions

Since its inception in 1999, the Biotechnology PAIA has made considerable progress and possibly even exceeded its mandate. This is impressive given that it has worked from a narrow and unreliable resource base. Despite some intrinsic opposition to biotechnology and

27

some misunderstandings as to what it represents, both within and outside the Organization, the Biotechnology PAIA has addressed complex issues without generating controversy. Through the IDWG, the Biotechnology PAIA has bolstered FAO’s role as an impartial and reliable provider of information. Such shortcomings as exist mainly relate to lack of resources and sub-optimal participation in the IDWG and hence in the PAIA activities. Both factors result from the PAIA not being part of the regular work programmes and both have had a negative impact on inter-disciplinarity and commitment to FAO’s cross-sectoral approach to biotechnology.

The work of the Biotechnology PAIA to date can be regarded as constituting a first phase. For it to provide a useful service to Members in the future, it will have to become fully embedded in the work programmes of the Organization. The IDWG will have to evolve beyond being a loosely linked group of departmental delegates into a committed body of individuals, representing all the component disciplines, which will promote the work of the PAIA and ensure that it plays a relevant role in assisting Members in priority issues in biotechnology. This will inevitably require that partnerships are extended and consolidated and that communication and information exchange are greatly improved. The Biotechnology PAIA can only hope to make a significant impact in the future if it has the full backing of the various Divisions and Services in FAO.

E. Observations

Following the investigations reported here it is suggested that:

1. The PAIA is fully embedded in the regular work programmes of the Organization so that it no longer represents an additional activity and a drain on scarce resources and that biotechnology becomes a priority (if it is acknowledged to be one).

2. The PAIA be placed on a firm financial footing and that the website be maintained up-to-date by someone employed on a long-term basis.

3. Efforts are made to ensure that, through the Biotechnology PAIA, FAO’s honest broker image is maintained and reinforced and that FAO is able to continue presenting a consistent corporate policy on biotechnology in all fields relevant to the Organization.

4. Communication and information exchange are improved in-house to ensure that FAO staff are made fully aware of developments and applications of biotechnology. Thought be given to increasing awareness of the Biotechnology PAIA activities and products in-house and outside of the Organization.

5. Incentives are provided to ensure maximum participation, cooperation and interdisciplinarity in the IDWG and between it and FAO’s Divisions, and this is reflected in PAIA activities and products.

6. Out-posted staff and regional programmes are linked better with Biotechnology PAIA activities.

7. Greater emphasis is placed on providing Members with policy advice and support to development and harmonization of legislation and regulations relating to biotechnology.

8. Partnerships are extended and strengthened to ensure comprehensive coverage of important issues and minimal overlap of activities.

9. There is more investment of resources into products that can be used by those without easy or reliable access to e-mail and the internet and for those for whom English and other official languages of the Organization are not familiar.

28

10. Consideration is given to linking Biotechnology PAIA activities with other programmes at national and regional levels that support, for instance, plant breeding or local biotechnology industry development, possibly through the CGIAR.

11. A greater economics input is encouraged that will allow aspects of cost-efficiency to be applied to particular biotechnologies under a variety of circumstances.

F. Recommendations

1. Make all possible efforts to encourage and enhance interdisciplinarity and promote partnerships in the approach to biotechnology through the IDWG on Biotechnology, ensuring that even though representatives of some disciplines regard biotechnology as a lesser priority that their voice is heard.

2. Reassess client needs with a view to providing the required information and services, realising that many clients and potential clients do not have easy access to internet services.

3. Attempt to secure extra funds that will allow the work of the Biotechnology PAIA to be carried out in a cost-effective and efficient manner.

29

Annex 1

BACKGROUND TO AND TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR

AN AUTO-EVALUATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS IN

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY

A PRIORITY AREA FOR INTER-DISCIPLINARY ACTION (PAIA)

Introduction

1. In November 1999, the FAO Conference approved "The Strategic Framework for FAO: 2000-2015". Within this Framework 5 major Corporate Strategies and 12 related objectives are described for addressing Members’ medium to long-term needs as well as 6 strategies for addressing cross-organizational issues.

2. Each is underpinned by two fundamental and inter-related principles:

inter-disciplinarity for addressing multi sectoral issues by mobilizing “joined-up” thinking and action from all relevant disciplines within the Organization; and

partnership both among FAO units and with other stakeholders for formulating and carrying out both strategic and specific plans or programmes to address sartorial or cross-cutting issues.

3. Following approval of the Strategic Framework the Organization began the process of putting it into operation, developing a series of 6-year rolling Medium Term Plans (MTPs) that describe in more detail how the substantive work of FAO would be shaped to respond to the Corporate Strategies in the Framework. Each serves also to provide a bridge between the Framework and successive FAO biennial Programmers of Work and Budget.

4. To date, three MTPs have been produced, covering respectively the periods 2002-2007, 2004-2009 and 2006-2011.

5. In developing the MTP 2002-2007 consideration had to be given to those aspects of FAO’s work where several technical disciplines within the food and agriculture sector needed to be involved through both normative work and field projects in providing Members with the most authoritative and effective guidance and solutions for addressing substantive problems or issues. Identifying and prioritising these problems and issues involved all Technical Departments and the Legal Office.

6. The process began by reconvening the Inter-Departmental Corporate Strategy Working Groups (chaired by the Assistant Directors-General of the technical departments) that had been established to assist in developing the Strategic Framework. They were asked to identify the key inter-disciplinary activities to be addressed in the period 2002-2007 by applying the FAO criteria for priority setting.

7. The output of these Groups was a "Guidance Note" for each priority area.

30

These contained a brief description of the problem to be addressed including: the Strategic Objective and Strategy Components which reflected the problem; the objective to be achieved by 2007; the suggested approach, the contribution expected of each division or office involved; the key external partners; and the suggested modality for managing implementation as approved within the Strategic Framework8 with the addition of one further criterion namely: "the importance and likely benefits of taking an inter-disciplinary approach versus a mono-disciplinary approach".

8. This exercise led to agreement on 16 Priority Areas for Inter-disciplinary Action (PAIAs) included among which was “Biotechnology Applications in Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry”.

Rationale for Biotechnology as a PAIA

In recommending the subject of Biotechnology as a PAIA, the Inter-Departmental Corporate Strategy Working Groups were guided by the following considerations:

1. The fact that one of FAO’s key roles is to monitor advances in science and technology and the major trends and factors likely to influence the uptake of new technologies within the food and agriculture sector, including fisheries and forestry:

All Working Groups recognised the rapid advances that were being made in genomics, genetic engineering and in other areas like cell and tissue culture through the introduction of new techniques emerging from “modern biotechnology” and that these were driving a revolution in knowledge about how agriculturally important organisms grow, reproduce and yield valuable products;

They recognised also the potential offered by modern biotechnology, including Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), for providing countries with products that could improve the quantity, quality and safety of their food and non-food supplies while at the same time protecting their natural resources- in effect the potential for increasing the productivity, competitiveness and sustainability of their agricultural and food sectors and contributing to increased food supplies and better levels of nutrition and standards of living of their people; and

At the same time, they recognized that to realise the potential offered by these advances, individual countries and the international community would need to rise to the challenge of dealing amongst others with concerns and uncertainties about long-term impacts and possible risks to human health and the environment.

In a nutshell, the subject of biotechnology – and within it particularly the issue of GMOs- was presenting societies in all countries not only with new technical challenges, but also with related policy, regulatory, institutional, economic and ethical dilemmas. These were creating social and political tensions at national and international levels and increasingly requiring FAO to serve as a scientific, balanced manner and honest broker at all levels to help countries and the international community make better decisions about its development and deployment.

2. The second consideration was that beginning around the mid 1980’s, the subject of biotechnology had increasingly become a subject for consideration by FAO Commissions, Technical Committees and Governing Bodies:

The Secretariat had first brought the subject of Biotechnology and GMOs to the attention of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) in 1988. The Executive Committee discussed a document from the United States and agreed that the issue should be brought to the attention of the CAC and that expert advice would be needed;

In 1989, the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources1 considered a report on the “Implications of new biotechnologies for the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic

8 Strategic Framework 2000-15, paragraph 1541 Since 1995, the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA)

31

Resources” and following endorsement by the 1991 Council began work on a draft Code of Conduct for Biotechnology as it relates to Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. And as new technologies and issues have developed, both Commissions have maintained an intense interest in the topic;

In 1999, the subject of biotechnology was first brought to the attention of the Committee on Agriculture, (COAG). At its 15th Session, it considered a paper produced by the Secretariat that outlined inter alias the main biotechnology applications, previous major work in FAO, issues and concerns of developing countries (including priority setting, infrastructure and capacity, intellectual property rights, biosafety, food safety and the environment, biodiversity, export substitution, ethics and marketing), and that suggested areas for FAO future action;.

COAG made five main recommendations to the Organization in regard to Biotechnology namely:

(a) It should develop a strategic approach and give high priority to a coordinated cross-sectoral programme;

(b) It should undertake activities in the various areas of its mandate including information exchange, capacity building and policy advice to Members;

(c) It should develop partnerships with the international agricultural research centres, the national agricultural research systems and other international organizations;

(d) It should help countries to draft biosafety legislation and set up regulatory bodies in collaboration with partner institutions; and

(e) It should help harmonize biosafety regulations at the regional and sub-regional levels, building on existing programmes in CAC, the IPPC and within recognized frameworks and in cooperation with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

3. Council and the 30th Session of the Conference subsequently endorsed these recommendations and the inclusion of a PAIA on Biotechnology in the MTP 2002-2007 and later, its continuation in the MTPs of 2004-2007 and 2006-2011.

Coordination of the PAIA

1. The mechanism chosen for coordinating the PAIA on Biotechnology was through an Interdepartmental Working Group (IDWG).

2. Members of the IDWG include a Chairperson and two Secretaries agreed by all ADGs and approved by the DDG and a variable number of Members from Divisions within each Technical Department, the Legal Office and WAICENT. They are nominated and approved respectively by the relevant Division Director and Department Head. It should be noted that while the Chair and Secretary are respectively members of the AG and SD Departments, their role in the IDWG is in their personal capacity.

3. The IDWG on Biotechnology works through meetings (convened at intervals of approximately 2 months), the Agendas for which are circulated around 1 week beforehand. Minutes are written, circulated for comment, approved by the Chair and distributed to all Members. The Minutes of these meetings are available for reference.

4. Additionally, there is constant networking through e-mail and telephone between the Chair, Secretary and individuals or groups of individuals within and outside the IDWG, with guidance frequently being sought from one or a number of ADGs, particularly those of the AG and ES

32

Departments. This has proven essential for promoting smooth, transparent and effective running of the PAIA, particularly since ad hoc issues and requests for guidance and written inputs are the norm rather than the exception.

5. A Progress Report is prepared annually, provided to the Deputy Director General and PBE and copied to all ADGs. This covers inter alias an overview of achievements, performance of the co-ordination mechanism, financial resources provided and purpose of use, issues and recommendations for corrective action and strategic orientations for the future. These Reports are available as resource material for the auto-evaluation.

FAO’s Work on Biotechnology

1. Towards the end of 2003, the IDWG compiled a detailed report for the Director General on FAO actions on GMOs (1997-2003). This paper and its Annexes are provided as background reference materials for the auto-evaluation.

2. It will be noted that the Secretariat’s contributions have taken many forms including:

Overseeing the processes of international standard setting relating to food products derived from biotechnology, through the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the International Plant Protection Convention and the Commission on Genetic Resources in Food and Agriculture;

Contributing to the work of FAO’s Technical Committees on Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry and Commodity Problems and to work conducted within other UN and inter-governmental Organizations dealing with GMOs and related matters. Particularly important was its cooperation with: the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on access and benefit sharing with respect to biotechnology in general and genetic resources in particular, and to the development of international biosafety standards; with the World Intellectual Property Organization on intellectual property rights, traditional knowledge and plant breeders rights, and with OCHA, WHO and WFP on a UN statement on GM food aid donations;

Monitoring, assessing and interpreting trends and developments with respect to GMOs in all sectors at national, regional and global levels including the R&D, field application, legal, regulatory, trade and socio-economic dimensions;

Sharing results with its Governing Bodies, Commissions and the global community for discussion and decision-making on FAOs own work and on the development of what has been a rapidly evolving and complex international policy and regulatory framework;

Disseminating these and the standards, guidelines and recommendations emanating from decisions within and outside FAO to national policy, regulatory and scientific decision-makers, organising expert consultations and contributing to national and international meetings, and engaging the general public through the media; and

Assisting countries in capacity building, strengthening national policies, laws, regulations, strengthening scientific and technical competencies, including that with respect to GMO deployment. These activities are conducted through national and regional, sub-regional workshops and training courses conducted under the Regular Programme, Technical Cooperation and Trust Fund projects and through the auspices of other partners.

Objective and Scope of the PAIA on Biotechnology

1. The objective of the Biotechnology PAIA is to coordinate the planning and delivery of an inter-disciplinary cross-sectoral programme on biotechnology, thereby, improving the effectiveness of FAO’s support to Members, particularly developing countries, in developing and implementing policies and practices that promote safe and responsible applications for enhancing food production, quality and security.

33

2. In keeping with the guidance of COAG, the scope of the PAIA covers all relevant intervention tools including policy options for co-operation between public and private sector entities, establishment of national R&D priorities, economic and fiscal interventions, and supporting legislation and regulations. It also covers the needs of Members and their institutions for factual, comprehensive and current information on international developments relating to biotechnology applications and provides them with opportunities to share their experiences and perspectives on technical and policy issues.

3. As noted earlier, every Technical Department at Headquarters or at Regional and sub-regional Offices as well as the Legal Office and the Information Division have and continue to be engaged in the subject of Biotechnology, committing their own resources to the attainment of outputs specific to particular disciplines, sub-sector and sectors. But running parallel with the planning, implementation and dissemination of these outputs is planning and delivery of cross-cutting “PAIA specific” outputs on the subject.

4. There are, therefore, in effect two broad foci to the work of the PAIA, both important and intended to be mutually reinforcing. One focus - the “Distributed Technical Focus”- relies on the Technical Divisions working alone or in combination to implement activities and produce outputs that cover virtually all disciplines, sub-sectors and sectors of agriculture and target almost the entire range of end-user/beneficiary groups. The second focus of the PAIA is to provide the institutional capacity for identifying and filling knowledge gaps of a cross interdisciplinary nature by encouraging appropriate contributions from individual Divisions to bring the necessary mix of technical and legal expertise to bear in addressing holistically the complex range of issues involved for planning and implementing synergistic value-added activities with a “Higher Level Policy Focus”.

5. The PAIA therefore, benefits from, and contributes to, both the many interdisciplinary and disciplinary outputs provided under different technical programmes, and by the Legal office and WAICENT, and from the outputs produced through the work of the IDWG, these often being planned and delivered in close coordination with those undertaken within the PAIAs on Biosecurity, Biodiversity, Trade and Ethics in Food and Agriculture.

6. In this way, and through the outputs generated and disseminated through the FAO Biotechnology Website, e-mail newsletters and conferences, publications, press releases, meetings and the like, the PAIA was envisaged as providing both “value-added” to Members and their constituencies and a higher profile for inter-disciplinarity per se within the Organization.

7. Duplication of effort was avoided at the planning stage of successive PWBs by reviewing and obtaining more detail from concerned Divisions on proposed outputs considered relevant to the PAIA, removing those of questionable relevance and recommending an inter-disciplinary and cross- interdisciplinary orientation –and hence inter-Divisional collaboration- for the attainment of others.

8. This was particularly important in relation to the subject of biosafety. While initially achieved through informal interactions between the Chairs and Secretaries of the Biotechnology and Biosecurity PAIA’s, it was decided to put the topic on a more formal footing by establishing in 2005 a Working Group on Biosafety as a joint sub-group of the Biotechnology and Biosecurity WGs and that would report to both of the PAIAs. .

9. The Terms of Reference of the Working Group on Biosafety are in Annex 2

Planned Outputs of the PAIA

The main planned outputs for the PAIA since its establishment are as follows:

1. Decision support tools and training materials on the sound management of biotechnology and related issues in food and agriculture, to be coupled with national and regional workshops;

34

2. Support to inter-disciplinary projects on biotechnology;3. Analytical reports and information documents for inter-governmental and technical meetings,

which cover trends and developments in biotechnology research and products e.g. commodity markets and trade in genetically modified (GM) crops, agricultural impacts of GM crops, effects of intellectual property rights on agricultural research;

4. Support to the development of a Code of Conduct on Biotechnology as it relates to genetic resources for food and agriculture, in line with the guidance of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA);

5. A website on Biotechnology, with links to other relevant sites within and outside FAO, and heightened participation of national institutions; it will cover biotechnology techniques and products and policy and regulatory issues surrounding research on, and deployment of agricultural biotechnology; it will also include a multilingual glossary, a database of biotechnologies in use or in the pipeline in developing countries and an e-mail discussion forum on cross-interdisciplinary technical and policy issues.

Main Outputs Delivered by the PAIA-

1. A major role of the PAIA is to provide Members, their institutions and the public at large with updated, factual and comprehensive information on international developments relating to agricultural biotechnology applications. Among the most tangible outputs in this respect are:

The "FAO Statement on Biotechnology” (http://www.fao.org/biotech/stat.asp): Produced by the IDWGB in response to the many requests to know "where FAO stands on the GMO issue" and published in March 2000;

The FAO Glossary of Biotechnology for Food and Agriculture, first published in 1999 and revised in 2001 to update the definitions of this rapidly evolving field and to enrich the number of terms defined. It now contains 3,200 terms and related definitions and is provided as a searchable multi-lingual database (http://www.fao.org/biotech/index_glossary.asp).

The FAO Biotechnology website (http://www.fao.org/biotech/index.asp), available in 5 languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French and Spanish) since August 2001, providing information on FAO’s work and international developments regarding biotechnology techniques and products. Since its launch, the website has proven to be very popular, e.g. an estimated 1.1 million webpages viewed in the year 2004.

FAO-BiotechNews, an e-mail newsletter, with over 3500 subscribers, first launched in English in January 2002 and later expanded to French, Spanish and Russian. The first 50 Updates have carried almost 500 news and event items relevant to applications of biotechnology in the crop, forestry, animal, fishery and agro-industrial sectors of developing countries, focusing mainly on the activities of FAO, other UN agencies/bodies and the 15 CGIAR research centres. They are also provided on the FAO Biotechnology website in 6 languages.

The FAO Biotechnology Forum (http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp), providing quality balanced information on agricultural biotechnology in developing countries and making a neutral platform available for people to exchange views and experiences on this subject. There are currently over 2,900 Forum Members worldwide and 13 moderated e-mail conferences have been hosted by the Forum so far. Conferences held from 2002 onwards have been shorter, lasting 4-5 weeks, than previous ones and 350-650 people have subscribed to each one. As part of the build up to two of the conferences, two international workshops on the same themes were held in Turin in 2003 and 2005.

FAO-BioDeC, a searchable database launched in 2003, aiming to provide updated baseline information on the state-of-the-art of biotechnology products and techniques in use, or in the

35

pipeline, in developing countries (http://www.fao.org/biotech/inventoryadmin/dep/default.asp). It currently contains over 2,000 entries from crops, 700 from forestry and 100 from the animal sector. It was recently expanded to include information regarding biotechnology-related policies, regulations and activities of 128 individual developing countries.

Preparation of "Agricultural biotechnology: will it help?” (http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo1.htm). Released in 2003 in Arabic, English, French and Spanish, this series of nine articles provided background information for the non-specialist on current and potential applications of agricultural biotechnology (focusing on genetic modification) for animals, crops, fish and trees. It also presented the main arguments put forward for, and against, the use of GMOs in agriculture and provided links to other information sources;

Providing background material, technical support, reviews and financial support to the latest edition of the State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA 2003-04), which considered the theme "Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?" (http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/41714/index.html). The subject was examined comprehensively in 9 chapters grouped under three main headings: framing the debate; the evidence so far; and making biotechnology work for the poor.

2. Other outputs delivered or in the pipeline include:

Co-ordination of FAO’s response to the World Food Programme’s request for guidance on its "Draft Operational Guidelines on the Donation of Foods Derived from Biotechnology";

Preparation of a trust fund project proposal “Building Capacity for Biotechnology and Food Security” for consideration by potential donors to address the needs of developing countries and countries with economies in transition for assistance in biotechnology, including GMOs;

Support for an Expert Consultation entitled “Genetically Modified Organisms in Crop Production and Their Effects on the Environment: Methodologies for Monitoring and the Way Ahead’’, held on 18-20 January 2005 in Rome.

Undertaking compilation of an "FAO Agriculture Biotechnology Policy Compendium: Options and Impacts". Intended to assist decision makers, in particular those in food and agriculture sector, in developing their domestic policies with a clear perspective that will allow them to pursue their national interests, and respond to the opportunities and challenges offered by biotechnology in a rational and consistent manner. It will cover all policy options and related aspects that are relevant to biotechnology in food and agriculture, including inter alia options for developing regulatory frameworks and legal instruments, for fostering research and technology transfer, for assessing safety, and promoting capacity-building and societal dialogue. Subject to availability of resources, the Compendium will be available in all official languages and used as a basis for capacity-building through workshops, distance learning courses and other outreach activities.

Preparing a publication entitled: “Marker-Assisted Selection (MAS) in Crops, Livestock, Forestry and Fish: Current Status and the Way Forward”, expected to be available in 2006.

Responding at great frequency to unofficial requests from a great variety of stakeholders- both internal and external (e.g. journalists, international organizations, scientific institutions, CSOs) for information on all aspects of Biotechnology.

Funding of the PAIA

36

Since its inception, funding for the PAIA has come from a combination of 3 sources: From Entity 210S5 (since 2002) From US Arrears (2003-2005) From Divisional Regular Budgetary Allotments (primarily AGD, AGS, AGE, ESC and

SDRR)

Purpose of the Auto-evaluation

1. This auto-evaluation is part of the broader auto-evaluation process PAIA’s currently being implemented by FAO, which will progressively include all PAIAs, and intends to identify both the strengths and weaknesses in the Organization’s efforts to foster interdisciplinary thinking and action on its work in priority areas. It will draw specific conclusions and provide recommendations on further action by FAO to promote achievement of the PAIA objectives, including opportunities that should be grasped and issues and constraints that should be resolved.

Scope of the Auto-evaluation (2000-2005) 1. The following issues will be addressed during the evaluation (although others may emerge in

its course) and will guide information collection and analysis: The Auto-evaluation will assess:

The relevance of the PAIA to address the priorities and needs of member countries as well as other stakeholders e.g. bilateral and multilateral agencies, research organizations, the private sector, NGOs and civil society in general;

Governance of the PAIA e.g. are IDWG members and managers satisfied with the IDWG meetings and how decisions are made in the PAIA?

The role of the PAIA in preparing the groundwork on various policy related aspects related to biotechnology in food and agriculture and as addressed by the FAO governing bodies and secretariats ( Codex, IPPC, CGRFA, COFO, COFI etc..);

The impact of the work of the PAIA both in FAO Headquarters in dealing with issues on biotechnology as well as in the regional offices (for example PAIA impact on REDBIO),

The performance of the PAIA in addressing multi sectoral issues related to all aspects of biotechnology, by mobilizing resources and action from all relevant disciplines with all relevant partners;

Factors that affect the planning, prioritising, implementing and delivering PAIA outputs. Individual units within the Organization are responsible for the planning and delivery of disciplinary, sub-sector and sector outputs. In addition they are expected to contribute expertise and financial resources towards the implementation of PAIA specific outputs. How was commitment of the various partners secured for the PAIA outputs and to what extent was this effective in providing a broad-based approach to securing the outputs envisaged? Are there viable alternatives to fostering more effective institutional approaches, staff commitment and accountability for obtaining the inter-disciplinary outputs on Biotechnology envisaged?

The quality, quantity, relevance and objectivity of the PAIA outputs to date. How do internal and external users view these? What were the comparative advantages and why?

37

Adequacy of the efforts made to disseminate the outputs of the PAIA. How were the products disseminated, was the breadth, depth and language coverage of dissemination adequate, was the information appropriately packaged and made widely accessible?

Influence of PAIA outputs on decision-making on Biotechnology at national, regional and global levels;

Use made of partnerships with national, regional and international data/information providers;

Needs, if any, for altering the scope of the PAIA: This could be an output of the autoevaluation and way forward for using the PAIA time in a cost-effective manner.

Management of the Auto-evaluation

1. The evaluation will be carried out by a team comprising the Chair, the Secretaries and 2 members of the IDWG, assisted by an external consultant. The PAIA budget holder (Chair, IDWG) will oversee and coordinate the evaluation while the external consultant will provide methodological guidance, ensure a high degree of objectivity and liaise with internal and external providers of inputs and users of PAIA outputs.

2. The external consultant will be knowledgeable on biotechnology, including technical, policy and regulatory matters and have proven ability to prepare concise and accurate analytical documents.

Methodology

1. The evaluation methodology will be developed and agreed by the evaluation team to cater for the variable nature of the outputs, but in any case will make use of a database of registered users (approximately 1,500) to collect their perceptions, interview partners (including CSOs), FAO staff in relevant Divisions, ADG’s and the DDG through both a structured electronic questionnaire and semi-structured interviews conducted in person, electronically or by telephone.

2. A review and analysis of web statistics will focus on the most downloaded items, most frequent queries, web site usage trends and how they were affected by recent enhancements of the site.

3. A SWOT analysis should be conducted so as to fully involve PAIA’s members in the auto-evaluation of their own PAIA.

4. The evaluation team will prepare the draft evaluation report following the outline contained in the Evaluation Guidelines. The IDWG and relevant Division Directors and ADGs will review the draft report before it is finalized and transmitted to PBE.

Evaluation Outputs

Agreement on the Evaluation Team: end June 2005Detailed Work Plan: end September 2005Draft Report for Circulation: end February 2006Final Report: June 2006

Evaluation Budget

Consultant: Fees 47 days at $315 = $14,800 Operating Expenses = $3,000 Total = $17,800

38

Staff time: 20 PAIA members for half a day (SWOT) at $675/day = $6,750One AE coordinator (P5) for 20 days at $906/day = $18,120

Total staff time: = $24,870

Grand Total = $42,670

Duty Station: Rome (FAO Headquarters and Home)

Consultant FeesNumber of days: 47 days x US 315/dayHonorarium Total : US$ 14 800Budget Code: GF SDRRD 12220190423

39

Annex 2

Biotechnology PAIA Stakeholder SurveyAs part of an overall strategy of enhancing interdisciplinarity within FAO, a number of Priority Areas for Interdisciplinary Action (PAIAs) were identified. Biotechnology is one of these PAIAs and your views on the Biotechnology PAIA activities would be greatly appreciated.

1. What is your full name and title? (optional)

2. What is your country of residence?

3. In what area of activity are you working? (more than one box can be X’d)AdministrationResearchEducationNGOProducerOther

4. How often do you consult the following materials on the web (www.fao.org/biotech/index.asp)?

Never One to several times a

year

Monthly Weekly Daily

a. FAO Biotechnology websiteb. FAO Biotechnology Glossaryc. FAO-BioDeC database on biotechnology products/techniquesd. FAO-BiotechNews webpagese. FAO Biotechnology Forumf. FAO Statement on Biotechnology

5. What are the major problems encountered in consulting the material in www.fao.org/biotech/index.asp ?No problemsSlow internet connectionsRelevant material is difficult to locateLanguage problemsToo little timeOther problems (specify)

6. How often do you consult the following e-mail materials?Never One to

several times a

year

Monthly Weekly Daily

40

a. FAO-BiotechNews newsletter (in any of its languages)b. FAO Biotechnology Forum (e-mail messages, background or summary documents)

7. How often do you consult the following books in hardcopy?Never One to

several times a

year

Monthly Weekly Daily

a. FAO Biotechnology Glossary (in any of its languages)b. FAO-BioDeC publication (Dhlamini et al, 2005)c. FAO Biotechnology Forum publication (Ruane & Zimmermann, 2001)

8. Is the information included in questions 4, 6, and 7 your primary source of information on biotechnology?

No Mostly Yes No opinion

9. How often do you consult the following non-PAIA publications?Never One to

several times a

year

Monthly Weekly Daily

a. "Agricultural Biotechnology: will it help?" (2003, part of FAO's on-line "Focus on the Issues" series)b. The 2003/2004 edition of the FAO publication The State of Food and Agriculture: Agricultural Biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?c. "Preliminary review of biotechnology in forestry, including genetic modification" (2005, FAO Forest Genetic Resources Working Paper 59)

10. What is your overall assessment of the information supplied by the biotechnology PAIA?

No Mostly Yes No opinion

UsefulCredibleScience-basedRelevant to developing country needsEasily availableEasily understoodUp-to-date

11. Impacts of the PAIA information on biotechnologyNo Sometimes Yes No

opinion

41

a. Has the information created better awareness of issues of biotechnology in your organization?b. Has the information created better awareness of issues of biotechnology in your country?c. Have you passed on the information to others who lack direct access to it?d. Has the information encouraged new partnerships among colleagues in your organization?e. Has the information encouraged new partnerships among colleagues in your country?f. Has the information encouraged new partnerships with colleagues in other countries?g. Do you think the information has affected policy-making in your country?h. If the information had any other practical impacts, let us know in your response to us

12. Please suggest some improvements that could be made by FAO to provide better information on agricultural biotechnology.

THANK YOU!

Preamble for Biotechnology PAIA Stakeholder Survey – conducted via an e-mail attachment

Dear Forum Members,As part of an overall strategy of enhancing interdisciplinarity within FAO, a number of Priority Areas for Interdisciplinary Action (PAIAs) were identified. Biotechnology is one of these PAIAs, and the FAO Working Group on Biotechnology was established a few years ago to oversee its planning and implementation.

A major role of the Biotechnology PAIA is to provide FAO Members and their institutions with factual, comprehensive and current information on international developments relating to biotechnology applications. This is done through, for example, the FAO Biotechnology website (www.fao.org/biotech/index.asp), an e-mail newsletter FAO-BiotechNews, and a series of e-mail conferences hosted by the FAO Biotechnology Forum, of which you are a member.

To ensure that the Biotechnology PAIA continues to address important issues in biotechnology and its application, and meet the needs of FAO’s stakeholders, an evaluation of the Biotechnology PAIA is currently taking place. As a member of the Forum, your views on the Biotechnology PAIA activities would be greatly appreciated. If it is possible for you to complete the attached questionnaire, the information that you provide will help us plan future activities. It contains 12 short questions and it should not take more than 10 minutes of your time.

Please open the e-mail attachment, which contains a Word table of about two pages. Please answer all questions. Enter an X in the box where appropriate, or text if needed (questions 1, 2 and 12). Responses will be kept confidential.

42

Please try to respond by 15 January 2006. We apologize that the questionnaire is only available in English. If you have any problems in responding, please contact Jonathan Robinson at Biotech-

website@fao.org. Complete and return the questionnaire to Jonathan Robinson at Biotech-

website@fao.org.

Preamble for Biotechnology PAIA Stakeholder Survey - conducted via the web

As part of an overall strategy of enhancing interdisciplinarity within FAO, a number of Priority Areas for Interdisciplinary Action (PAIAs) were identified. Biotechnology is one of these PAIAs, and the FAO Working Group on Biotechnology was established a few years ago to oversee its planning and implementation.

A major role of the Biotechnology PAIA is to provide FAO Members and their institutions with factual, comprehensive and current information on international developments relating to biotechnology applications. This is done through, for example, the FAO Biotechnology website (View), an e-mail newsletter FAO-BiotechNews, and a series of e-mail conferences hosted by the FAO Biotechnology Forum.

To ensure that the Biotechnology PAIA continues to address important issues in biotechnology and its application, and meet the needs of FAO’s stakeholders, an evaluation of the Biotechnology PAIA is currently taking place. If it is possible for you to complete the attached questionnaire, the information that you provide will be much appreciated and will help us plan future activities. It contains 13 short questions and it should not take more than 10 minutes of your time.

• Responses will be kept confidential.

• Please answer all questions.

• Please try to respond by 15 January 2006.

• We apologize that the questionnaire is only available in English.

• Please do not complete this questionnaire if you have already done so by e-mail.

• If there are any problems, contact Jonathan Robinson at Biotech PAIA Stakeholder Survey.

• Please click on the Next >> button to fill out the questionnaire.

43