|
 Introduction - Alliances & Investments - Expanding frontiers - Free market -
Telecom and transport - Banking - Energy sector - Tourism - States of Opportunities -
Agro Industry - Multinationals - Industrial States 
|
 INIFAP
Interview with
Eng. Jorge Kondo López,
Chief Director of National Institute for Forest Agriculture & Fishing Investigations
December 14th, 1999
|
Could you give us a brief historical background of INIFAP?
INIFAP started in 1985 when the former Research Institutes for Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry were merged. INIFAP has 87 Experimental Stations distributed across the country. Every agroecological region has at least one ES. We have 1250 researchers, more than half with postgraduate studies carrying on over 1400 research projects. We study near 100 crops, 20 animal species and 80 disciplines. Out total staff is 5500 and our annual budget is 60 million US$. We also finance our projects through competitive funds provided by CONACYT, the Produce Foundations, the Fundación Mexicana and other sponsors of the private sector.
In which what does your partnership with CIMMYT regarding QPM, consist?
CIMMYT and INIFAP have worked together in this project for 25 years. This project is based on the discovery of the opaco2 gene, that is present in some native maize strains. These maizes have the character of more triptophane and lysine (nearly double) than the common maize. Triptophane and lysine are essential aminoacids for the human being. But these maizes, the ones carrying the opaco2 character, were prone to pests and diseases and of very low industrial quality. They had a very bad shelf life and the grain was easily damaged. After crossing these maizes with other maize materials for 25 years a maize with good industrial quality. Finally, with tolerance to pests and diseases was obtained. We have nowadays QPM materials that yield as much as commercial varieties and hybrids, with the same industrial quality.
The Mexican Government has the possibility to release varieties with this character. The Secretariat for Agriculture, Livestock and Rural Development under Secretary Romárico Arroyo has taken the initiative to convert this project into a governmental program. This is very important.
What are we trying to do in INIFAP? INIFAP is part of the Agriculture, Livestock and Rural Development Secretariat, to lead research into concrete actions for the benefit of producers and campesino farmers.
For this project we signed an agreement with CIMMYT, with whom we work closely in this and other projects. CIMMYT is part of the CGIAR, which is an international ag research system under the aegis of FAO, and is dedicated to research on maize and wheat. We are lucky to have CIMMYT headquartered in Mexico.
INIFAP is introducing this gene through crosses to its own materials, traditional varieties and hybrids that our producers are accustomed to use.
Maize is very sensitive to the area where it is grown, so there must be maizes for the central highlands, for the humid tropics and for other agroecological areas. We have selected 36 materials which are being reproduced for a 500,000 ha program in 2000 and to be able to sow millions of hectares of this wonderful corn in 2001 and 2002 so as to be able to feed our whole population with QPM maize, which is our main goal.
Do you have as a goal to distribute this material to the rest of the world?
It is a good question. CIMMYT has a global mandate and is working on this project due to the Chinese government’s interest. China has a 100,000 ha program for this year. Both El Salvador and Guatemala each have a 50,000 ha program. Mexico wants to have several million hectares sown to QPM because maize is the population’s (rich and poor) staple food. Tortilla is Mexico’s most popular food and if maize’s protein quality can be reinforced, the whole population’s diet, especially that of the poorer echelons will be improved. As a consequence, the QPM program is not only an agricultural program but a social program as well. The Chinese are not interested in this maize because of their population, but because of their livestock.
And regarding INIFAP?
We don’t have a global mandate. We practically exchange germplasm with practically every country. There are no written specific agreements. But, as I was saying, CIMMYT has offices in China and in other countries, and it is through CIMMYT that this material will be distributed. This maize can become a second green revolution. The first one was promoted by Dr. Norman Borlaug and was more oriented towards wheat in Asia and for which he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Dr. Borlaug also plays an important part in QPM maize, and although the wheat that was used in India to increase its production from 16 m to 60 m tons was developed by him in northern Mexico, it had little impact here. QPM maize will impact strongly in Mexico. Of 32 m tons of grains produced in this country yearly, 18 m is maize. This cereal is planted in the 32 States of the Federation and as I said before is eaten by all the population in every corner of the country.
Moreover, Mexico’s PROCAMPO program, that is an area payment for planting, is paid to producers for the sowing of nearly 14 million hectares of which 8m are maize. The poorest peasants, which are Mexico´s poorest, because the poorest part of the population live in rural areas, plant corn for their own use and that of their animals in some 4 million ha. These peasants will see their health improved, and especially that of their children when they start eating QPM corn’s.
We have seen some photos, but we have been told that the QPM corn can be sown in a smaller area than traditional maize, is that true?
No. It all depends in what kind of plant you’ve got. Smaller maizes can be sown more seeds to the hectare than bigger maizes. In Mexico we have more than 40,000 different corns. The truth of the matter is that in Mexico we have increased yields through higher seeding. It’s a change in production systems and not because of QPM maize. Our goal is to introduce the QPM gene to all our materials so the producers can choose the ones they like most. We believe all Mexican corns will carry the opaco2 gene in 3 or 4 years.
Do you have a program to achieve this?
The Mexican Government has a program called "Kilo por Kilo that exchanges commercial grain produced by the farmers for improved seed, on a weight basis. For example it will hand to the producer one kilo of improved seed for every kilo of commercial grain handed in by the farmer. This program is designed to improve yields, because only in 20% of the area sown to maize improved seed is used.
Improved seed is one of the items needed to improve yields. Mexico’s yield of 2.5 tons per hectare is well below the theoretic ceiling of 30 tons per hectare. In INIFAP we have obtained yields of 18 tons. The US corn belt produces an average of 8 tons per hectare under rainfall. The Kilo por Kilo program is designed to increase productivity, and it is through this program that improved QPM corn can be distributed. The "Kilo por Kilo" program covers one million hectares. Of these 500,000 will be of QPM. The first QPM material to be distributed will be of varieties, because the smaller producers aren’t accustomed to sow hybrids because they can’t afford them. Hybrid seed must be bought every season and seed from varieties can be kept from one year to the next.
Can you comment on the impact of the commercial treaty between the EU and Mexico?
Mexico has an advantage in producing vegetables and tropical fruits. It has a disadvantage in producing grains. France alone produces nearly 60 m tons of grains. Mexico produces only 32 million tons of grains. Mexico will sell more vegetables and tropical fruits to Europe owing to this treaty. We will send more pineapples, melons, grapefruits, avocados and table grapes. We can produce during Europe’s winter months. I don’t believe we will import more grains from Europe because we import grains from the US and Canada and sorghum and oilseeds from Brazil and Argentina. I also think that this treaty will open the market for pitahaya, that is produced from a cactus in the semiarid tropics and other specialties like rambután and litchi and roots that are used by the Chinese.
In cocoa for example, I perceive a growth in its use. Brazil’s production has dramatically fallen due to illnesses and Mexico has the possibility of producing cocoa in Tabasco and Chiapas. There is a program to increase production and we at INIFAP have been working to improve this crop. Switzerland controls the cocoa market through some Swiss companies, have shown a strong interest in Mexico’s potential.
750,000 hectares are planted to coffee in Mexico, mainly in the states of Veracruz, Puebla and Chiapas. Most of the producers are small and the average yield is 5 quintals. Colombia produces between 30 and 40 quintals per hectare. But Mexico’s production is of very high quality and its exports total some 500 million US$. We produce a high proportion of organic coffee, because small producers can’t afford to fertilize or spray and that helps in the production of organic coffee, but yields are low.
Some other products that can be exported to Europe are distilled beverages like tequila. Tequila is already sold in Europe, but mescal from Oaxaca, bacanora from Sonora and sotol from Coahuila are not. Next in the list of public acceptance is mescal because the younger generation likes this kind of alcoholic beverage. I believe that having all these magueys and cactuses in Mexico is an advantage that can be profited.
We believe it is important to insist in this matter. You know that a lot has been said and written about GMO’s (transgenics). Would you like to give me your opinion, on this matter?
First I want to make it clear that QPM isn’t transgenic.
I believe that GMO’s are a good opportunity for agriculture, especially for that of non developed countries. Why? Because if we go back, let’s say 150 years, the producer from the US, Canada or Europe felt that the brunt of economic production fell on agriculture. The truth is that advantages belong to those countries that have adequate natural conditions of soil and climate. For example, Vietnam produces nearly 30 million tons of rice, because it has adequate soil and climate, while Mexico that is much bigger produces only 32 million tons of all grains. The climate of Europe and North America is adequate to produce temperate grains. Those of us that don’t have those advantages, can’t change the climate but we can look for plants that can adapt themselves to our conditions. Nearly two thirds of our country is arid or semiarid, so if we can breed into plants tolerance to drought, acid soils, diseases, pests or whatever to overcome limitations it will be all to the better. Transgenics can be programmed to achieve this. GMO’s can let us breed plants that have better industrial quality, or more oil or to have plants that can be bred according to the needs of the market.
As I previously explained to you, due to ignorance, arguments can arise very often. People don’t know very well why some GMO’s are advantageous and not monstrosities. |
If a dog and a rabbit breed is a monstrosity, as well as a horse and a cow. But genetic intercourse can be practiced between different species and even between different kingdoms. The fact is that DNA and RNA are similar in molecular structure in every species from viruses to the most complex mammal, and genes can be interchanged between them. The thing is we didn’t know it. It is all very new, DNA’s structure was discovered in 1955.
Theoretically, we can take a gene from a cactus (or a camel), that produces resistance to drought (or thirst) and introduce it to a plant or an animal. What will happen if we can introduce the drought resistance gene from the cactus to maize? What will happen in the next 20 or 30 years? The Bill Gates of the future most probably will be biologists or doctors, because the possibility of living 120 years or more is right behind the corner, and we can’t deny ourselves that progress. These prejudices against GMO’s are the same that Galileo Galilei had to face in his time. You must remember that they wanted to burn him at the stake, and all the facts and technological changes that have occurred have nearly always been satanized and scientific knowledge put into doubt. That is what is happening now.
I will tell you something. Artificial insuline that is used to save many lives is transgenic. It is produced by a bacteria tailored for that. Perhaps that insuline has a secondary effect in some people, like a rash. Penicillin definitely has secondary effects and many people are allergic to it. For example, I can’t drink milk because it produces some reactions in my stomach. But because of that we won’t ban artificial insuline, penicillin or milk. Secondary reactions exist, and we must weigh the pros and cons of GMO’s before attacking them due to secondary reactions.
But GMO’s provide us with a unique opportunity to increase production and productivity in non developed countries. Because of that, we must preoccupy ourselves not in their effect on persons but on who will own this technology. It is very expensive and not every country has the capacity to develop it. Many countries are making an effort in studying genomes. In the human being it is expected to have complete information in three years. We will be able to see nearly one hundred thousand genes in a screen where we will be able to identify our weaknesses, like those that let me suffer from a heart attack, or to identify a gene that will let me eat without fattening. I believe that when we have that information we will not manipulate it in a monstrous manner but according to norms and ethics. Why can’t we take advantage, for example, of a gene present in an arctic fish that can live in subzero conditions and introduce it to a strawberry plant giving it tolerance to low temperatures. Those berries won’t taste like fish nor look like one but most probably, will be able to grow in latitudes unheard of at present.
When I went to school I was taught that crosses were done at the chromosome level. The cell has its nucleus and inside this nucleus are the chromosomes. Now we know that inside the chromosomes are the genes, that are constituted by DNA.
We are in the midst of technological change. In DNA our genetic information is codified and man is trying to decode that information. When this is achieved, if ever, man will be able to use a good gene and eliminate a bad gene. This is where bioethics is necessary, when responsible attitudes and conducts from scientists is needed, and this must be legislated.
The argument on GMO’s is the controversy if they affect the habitat. I believe that the products that are already in the market have been tested regarding that aspect. I am sure they have passed all the tests asked for them to be innocuous. Nobody has died because of eating transgenic grains or other parts of a transgenic plant. For example the gene Bt, that is toxic for certain insects expresses itself in the leaves but not in the seed. It is not toxic for warm blooded animals. This gene produces a toxin that paralyses the digestion of certain insects and is present in a bacteria that is used as a spray in certain crops to control specific pests.
Regarding genetic erosion. For example any hybrid, any improved variety affects native germplasm the same as any GMO. All the maize sown by Mexicans during thousands of years must have affected native germplasm and biodiversity. As a consequence, it is very important to have well designed genetic resources conservation programs with appropriate germplasm banks and to manage them with efficiency and responsibility. Breeding programs must be conducted with responsibility and intelligence to be able to take advantage of all the possibilities provided by GMO’s. The problem is that if we don’t act soon, the advantage that the countries with natural advantages have will widen the gap in productivity.
INIFAP is trying to advance the most it can, because investments in this field are big. That is why private enterprise has the bigger capacity in biotechnology. This year 10 billion dollars will be invested worldwide. A small lab costs between 20 and 30 million US$. This problem is related to funds. Take into account that the whole international ag research system (CGIAR) has a 300 million dollar budget. CGIAR is funded by contributions, mainly from Europe, the US, Canada and Japan. The biggest contributor is the World Bank and this system is constituted by 16 centers of which CIMMYT is one. Others are CIP (Potato) in Peru, CIAT (Tropical agriculture) in Colombia, ICRAF (Agroforestry) in Kenya, IRRI (Rice) in the Philippines, ISNAR (that gives support to the National Research Systems) in Holland.
Private enterprise is becoming very important in biotechnology. As I said before some 10 billion US$ are invested yearly. Actually, a strong discussion has arisen regarding property rights. For many years agriculture processes belonged to the public domain and information was exchanged freely. This has changed and everybody is taking hold of this knowledge and patenting it. This will somehow affect the flow of knowledge because in the future it will have a cost, whilst in the past it was free.
For example, now that Mexico has QPM maize, does it own it?
No. The gene is public property.
But as a country, because it has been discovered here, you have the export license for it?
We have the licenses on the varieties and hybrids developed by us that carry the gene. We register them. But the gene itself is not patented. Somebody may be able to patent it, but there are certain rules that must be followed.
CIMMYT has a global mandate, and can’t charge royalties or anything else. Everybody donates genetic material. So if a country asks for this particular material, germplasm will be given to it and they can send people to be trained in CIMMYT’s headquarters near Mexico City as the Chinese have done.
CIMMYT doesn’t charge royalties for that service, but in our case we charge royalties for the use of our registered varieties and hybrids. Thank you.
Just a very short last question. For how long have you been working with INIFAP, and what did you do before that?
I’ve been in INIFAP for 4 years, and I am the Director that has lasted longer. The average was 2 years.
It is possible that my effort in INIFAP represents a change in the approach and management of ag research in Mexico due to the fact I was a producer. Before coming to INIFAP I was a farm leader in my State - Sinaloa – and a federal deputy.
When Lic. Francisco Labastida Ochoa was Governor of Sinaloa a model for technological change in agriculture was designed. This model took into account the need of producers had of taking conscience of the agrotechnological new wave and was based in what is known as conservation tillage. Its final goal was sustainable agriculture. The first step was to stop stubble burning. Stubble is organic matter and contains nutrients. When incorporated into the soil it can help to stabilize it and let it retain more moisture. When burned it contributes to make soil more sterile.
To put into practice this new technique we took many producers to other parts of the world for them to see and appreciate and learn new techniques, through the efforts of a Foundation of producers interested in promoting technology.
I was invited to come to INIFAP when Lic. Labastida was Secretary of Agriculture because of a prejudice that much knowledge existed but that it was buried in researcher’s desks. There was a need to link farmer’s needs and demands to research.
It was an opportunity to strengthen this link in Mexican agriculture. I believe it is my mission.
To put into practice this idea of the then Secretary of Agriculture the Produce Foundations were created. Nowadays there is a Produce Foundation in each one of the States of the Federation. These Foundations are managed by producers and finance the projects, which they believe answer to their needs. With this we can remain assured that projects are in accordance to producer’s criteria in every region.
Nowadays INIFAP is carrying on as I said before some 1,400 research projects of which nearly 70% are funded by the Foundations. INIFAP presents and defend the projects to the Foundations and the Foundations can accept them or not. This mechanism assures that local needs are taken care of, that both researchers and producers are linked by a common goal, and that local needs and demands are taken care of.
Then you are an intermediary?
No. We are the link that is needed by scientists and producers to make science practical. It is not our mission but many researchers have over 20 years experience and this knowledge must be made use of. This is the model that Mexico is going through, where society is taking care of things that in the past were taken care of by the State. For the last 10 years the Government has been taking care of less and less activities, not linked directly to government. For example, the government owned many enterprises, including hotels and airways. Many of these enterprises were sold to the public and are now managed by private companies. The government is trying to keep itself away from business and to concentrate its energy in governing.
This idea is also valid for agricultural research. The foundations are in their way of doing this. The same is applied to plant health and in irrigation districts. Nowadays these districts are managed by the producers themselves, instead of by the government as in the past. This is unique.
|
© World INvestment NEws, 2000.
This is the electronic edition of the special country report on Mexico published in Forbes Global.
July 3rd 2000 Issue.
Developed by AgenciaE.Tv |
|
|
|
| |
| | | |
|
MEXICO
