The Chinese biotechnology experience

China's experience with biotechnology differs from that of many developing countries. The state has determined the terms and process of engagement with this new technology. Does the Chinese model suggest that alternative pro-poor biotechnology scenarios are possible?

China spends US $500m each year on biotechnology research and has over 100 research institutes. Field trials have been carried out for all key crops and for traits from pest resistance to drought tolerance. However, while China is at the forefront of international research, policy makers are cautious about commercialising GM crops. No major GM food crop has yet been approved for large scale cultivation. Consumer reactions, trade restrictions and environmental impacts are all key concerns. Biotechnology scientists are pushing for commercialisation of GM rice, but policy makers have so far resisted.

The only GM crop widely grown by Chinese farmers is Bt cotton (cotton genetically modified to contain the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis). This has spread quickly, and in some provinces all the cotton is GM. Alongside developing its own technologies and companies, China has also set careful conditions for big biotechnology corporations. China has achieved this by:

• l forcing them to operate through joint ventures with Chinese seed companies
• l restricting their access to genetic material derived from local plants
• l demanding comprehensive biosafety assessments
• l limiting expansion, using province-by-province approvals.

Under some circumstances, a state-led research and development model can challenge the major biotechnology multinationals, as experienced in China. This could develop technology that is more relevant to a greater range of farmers. It may also mean less emphasis on expensive products where profits are primarily captured by corporations, and regimes where farmers' rights to save seeds are restricted.

Questions still need to be asked, however. A rapidly developing technological capacity may not always allow sufficient opportunities for consideration of risks, or of what forms of development are most appropriate for poor farmers. Consumers, farmers and civil society remain poorly represented in decision-making processes. Furthermore, China is different to many other states in terms of size, political culture, and the scale of resources it can put behind its biotechnology programme. Not all developing countries can guide the path of technology development in this way.

James Keeley
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton, BN1 9RE
UK
JamesK@ids.ac.uk

See also

Huang, J and Wang, Q (2003) Biotechnology policy and regulation in China. IDS Working Paper 195

Keeley, J. (2003) Regulating biotechnology in China: the politics of biosafety. IDS Working Paper 208

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.