INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. These are also available as one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
UMI University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Nu m b e r 8907215
Biotechnology research in Nigeria: A socioeconomic analysis of the organization of agricultural research system’s response to biotechnology
Duru, Godwin Chukwunenye, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1988
Copyright ©1988 by Duru, Godwin Chukwunenye. All rights reserved.
UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH IN NIGERIA:
A SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEM'S RESPONSE TO BIOTECHNOLOGY
DISSERTATION
Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of the Ohio State University
By
Godwin Chukwunenye Duru, B.A., M.A.
*****
The Ohio State University
1988
Dissertation Committee: Approved By
Dr, Martin Kenney
Dr. William Flinn I /
Godwin Chukwunenye Duru
1988 To My Mother, The Only One Who Sincerely Loves Me, In Whom I Have Absolute Trust
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My very sincere gratitude goes to the members of my dissertation
committee: Dr. Martin Kenney who was my source of interest in bio
technology's impact on the Third World and whose advice prevented me
from falling by the road side; Dr. William Flinn whose advice kept me
determined and hopeful; Dr. Donald Thomas and Dr. Joseph Donnermeyer who, in various ways, encouraged me, keeping my spirits high to the very end. These men have been very friendly and their understanding were the most important factors in my success.
Very special thanks go to Mr. and Mrs. Hilary Obi who contributed
in a major way to make it possible for me to come back to the United
States to finish my program. In the same manner, I thank Mr. and Mrs.
Theophilus Eze who made large contribution to my research funds. The moral encouragement I received from Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Duru and Dr. and Mrs. Maurice Iwunze were enough to move a mountain; and I am very appreciative. I am also grateful to Reverend Father Bernard
Chukwunenye Nwodu who always prayed to God for my well-being. My gratitude to Karlene Robison is boundless for her kindness in under taking the production of this manuscript without economic motive.
Karlene gave greater attention to this work than others whom I had paid substantially for previous drafts; I will always remember.
And may God bless my mother who gave up what most mothers enjoy so that I could go to school.
Above all, I am thankful to Our Lord, Jesus Christ in Heaven, who blessed me with good health and patience in my determination to succeed vis-a-vis extreme financial difficulties.
iii VITA
December 26, 1950 Born, Alike-Umunumo, Mbano Imo State, Nigeria
1969 - 1970 Laboratory Assistant, Crops Research, Ministry of Agriculture, Enugu, Nigeria
1970 - 1975 Clerk: Wages, Compensations, Labor Disputes and Arbitration, Federal Ministry of Labour, Lagos, Nigeria
1978 B.A. - Economics University of Dallas, Irving, Texas
1982 M.A. - Economics Morgan State University, Baltimore Maryland
Specializations: Budget Management, International Trade, and Economic Development
FIELDS OF STUDY: Economics Agricultural Economics/Rural Sociology International Development TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION...... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii
VITA ...... iv
LIST OF T A B L E S ...... xi
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
RESEARCH PROCEDURE ...... 5
Introduction ...... 5 Objective ...... 8 Hypothesis...... 11 Significance...... 12 Research Method ...... 12 Respondents...... 13 Secondary D a t a ...... 14 Measuring Dependence ...... 14
II. THE THEORY OF DEPENDENCY...... 16
IMPERIALISM...... 16
The Causes of Imperialism...... 16 The Effects of Imperialism...... 18
THE EMERGENCE OF THE THEORY OF DEPENDENCY...... 20
Dependency, Dependence and Underdevelopment ...... 20 Underdevelopment ...... 24 The Historical Development of Dependency ...... 27 Situations of Dependency ...... 33 International Economic Inequality ...... 35 Financial Dependence ...... 36 Technological Dependence ...... 38 Factors Promoting Technological Dependence ...... 40 Reducing Technological Dependence ...... 43 Conditions for Local Technical Capacity ...... 45 Other Thoughts About Dependency ...... 51
v THE SOCIAL ELEMENT OF DEPENDENCY ...... 54
The Nature of C l a s s ...... 55 Neo-Colonial Class Formation ...... 57 External-Internal Social Structures as a Means of Control...... 57 Colonial Class Formation in Nigeria ...... 59
THE TRIANGULAR RELATIONSHIP ...... 61
The Foreign Bourgeoisie ...... 61 The Development of a Comprador State...... 62 Technocrats...... 64 The Comprador Function of the S t a t e ...... 66 Importance of Dependency to the Research Problem ...... 66
III. OVERVIEW OF NIGERIA'S AGRO-ECONOMIC STATUS ...... 68
Introduction ...... 68 Socioeconomic Indicators and International Trade . . . 68
PROFILE ...... 71
The Government...... 71 The People...... 71 Climate and Vegetation ...... 72 Education...... 73 Policy for Science and Technology Development .... 74 Economic Resources ...... 76
THE NIGERIAN AGRO-ECONOMIC POLICY ...... 77
Pre-Independence Policy ...... 77 Post-Independence Policy ...... 79 Underdevelopment of Nigerian Agriculture ...... 83
NIGERIAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEM AND ITS PROBLEMS...... 84
The System...... 84
THE STAGNATION OF NIGERIAN AGRICULTURE ...... 87
Basic Factors of the Stagnation...... 87 Consequences ...... 90 Attempts to Reverse the Situation ...... 93
IV. SELF-RELIANCE AND THE NEED FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY IN A DEPENDENT STATE...... 96
Introduction ...... 96
vi SELF-RELIANT STRATEGY ...... 97
Implications of Self-Reliance ...... 98 National Calls for Self-Reliance ...... 102
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ...... 104
Importance of Modern Technology ...... 104 The Problem of Technology Transfer ...... 104
THE GREEN REVOLUTION ...... 108
H i s t o r y ...... 108 What is the Green Revolution...... 109 Objective...... 110 Genetic Attributes of the H Y V s ...... Ill Diffusion and Impacts ...... 112 International Results of the Green Revolution .... 113
BIOTECHNOLOGY: A POSSIBLE MEANS OF NATIONAL SELF-RELIANCE ...... 118
Definition of Biotechnology ...... 119 Agro-Economic Potentials of Biotechnology ...... 120 Expert Statements ...... 125 Social, Political and Economic Considerations .... 128 Past Lessons and Future Expectations ...... 129
V. NEW SOCIAL RELATIONS IN THE ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ITS LIKELY IMPACTS ON NIGERIA...... 132
« Introduction ...... 132
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATIZATION IN BIOTECHNOLOGY . . 133
Privatization ...... 133 Basic Reasons for Privatization...... 135 Conditions Leading to University-Industry Relationship ...... 136 Consequences of U-I Relationship in the Third W o r l d ...... 140 Impacts on the Developing Countries ...... 141
BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD CAPITALIST SYSTEM ...... 143
Introduction ...... 143 Industry Research Objectives ...... 145 Research and Development Strategies and the Need to Control Seed Companies...... 146
vii Venture Capital Financed Biotechnology Companies...... 148 Regional Structural Differences in Bio-Industry . . . 156 Dependence: The Likely Impact of Privatization .... 159
VI. THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS...... 162
Introduction ...... 162 Planned Strategies for Alleviating the Problem .... 164 International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology...... 165 Constraints to ICGEB Plans of Action in Africa .... 168 Microbiological Resource Centers ...... 171 Food and Agricultural Organization/ International Atomic Energy Agency ...... 172 The CGIAR System ...... 174 International Istitute for Tropical Agriculture . . . 176 IITA Contributions to Nigerian Agriculture ...... 178 International Board for Plant Genetic Resources . . . 185 International Agricultural Development Service .... 190 The International Service for National Agricultural Research ...... 191 The West African Rice Research Association ...... 191 Implication for Nigeria ...... 193
VII. EVOLUTION AND THE ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN NIGERIA ...... 196
Introduction ...... 196 Historical Overview ...... 197 Expanding Food Production ...... 199 Importance of Agricultural Research ...... 200 Institutionalization of Agricultural Research .... 202 The United States Initiative ...... 205
THE NIGERIAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEM: ITS DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH POLICY ...... 206
Institutional Development ...... 206 The National Agricultural Research Insitutes ...... 208 The Nigerian Universities ...... 208 The Native Crops of N i g e r i a ...... 210 National Production Policy ...... 214 Agricultural Research Policy ...... 215
VIII. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS...... 217
Introduction and Procedure ...... 227
AWARENESS ...... 219
International Linkages ...... 222
viii The Satellite Centers ...... 225 Criteria for the Selection of the Universities .... 227
RESEARCH RESOURCE CAPACITY ...... 229
Manpower...... 229
INTERNAL IMPEDIMENTS ...... 237
Infrastructural/Insitutional Impediments ...... 237 Economic and Funding Problems ...... 241 Foreign Exchange Problems ...... 244 Socio-Political Obstacles ...... 246 What is Nigeria's National Biotechnology Policy? . . . 248 Structural Problems ...... 251
POTENTIAL EXTERNAL IMPEDIMENTS ...... 257
The Problem of Scientific Information ...... 257 Synthetic Agricultural Products ...... 258
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ...... 260
Affiliation with ICGEB ...... 260 The IITA-NARS Relationship ...... 261
POSSIBILITIES WITHIN PLANT TISSUE CULTURE TECHNOLOGIES ...... 265
Some Practical Results ...... 269
IX. CONCLUSION...... 278
APPENDICES
A. THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ...... 280
The Technologies...... 282 Recombinant DNA Technology ...... 282 Monoclonal Antibody Technology ...... 284 Bioprocess Technology ...... 286 Plant Cell and Tissue C u l t u r e ...... 287 Nitrogen Fixation ...... 291 Photosynthesis ...... 293 Stress Tolerance ...... 293 Resistance to Pests and Pathogen ...... 294
B. DEFINITIONS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ...... 295
C. PLACES VISITED BY THE RESEARCHER...... 298
ix D. POPULAR SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS FOUND IN NIGERIAN LIBRARIES...... 300
E. QUESTIONNAIRE...... 301
SOME SELECTED INTERVIEWEES ...... 303
F. OBSTACLES TO RESEARCH IN THE NIGERIAN ENVIRONMENT . . 306
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 308
X LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 External Reliances and Internal Consequences .... 26
2 Perspectives of Private Direct Foreign Investment and Transnational Corporations ...... 34
3 Basic Social and Economic Indicators ...... 69
4 Nigerian International Trade Status ...... 70
5 World Market Share in Export Crops ...... 77
6 Palm Oil E x p o r t s ...... 91
7 Rice Production in Nigeria and I m p o r t s ...... 91
8 Wheat Imports ...... 92
9 Maize Imports ...... 92
10 High-Yielding Varieties Compared with Traditional Varieties ...... 114
11 Regional Annual Losses in Crop Production ...... 127
12 A Comparison of the Institutional Structures of the Green Revolution and Biorevolution ...... 131
13 Potential Markets of Biotechnology in the World . . . 144
14 Agri-Biotechnology Venture Firms: Affiliated University-Based Research Programs ...... 150
15 Examples of University-Industry Agriculture- Related Research Contract Since 1974 151
16 Some Venture Capital R&D Biotechnology Companies and Their Operations ...... 153
17 Regional Differences in the Character and Structure of World Commercial Biotechnology ...... 157
18 MIRCEN C e n t e r s ...... 173
xi 19 Nigeria's Participation in IITA Training P r o g r a m s ...... 184
20 The Real Donors to World Gene B a n k ...... 187
21 The Real Beneficiaries of World Gene Bank Resources...... 187
22 The International Agricultural Research Centers 194
23 National Crop-Related Research Institutes and University Linkages ...... 209
24 Categories of Food C r o p s ...... 210
25 Cocoa Production in Nigeria in Relation to World Production ...... 213
26 Biotechnology Satellite Centers in Nigeria ...... 226
27 Manpower Strength at the PTC Center...... 232
28 Active Manpower Resource at I A R ...... 233
29 Research Staff at NRCRI...... 233
30 Research Staff at IAR&T...... 234
31 Research Staff at NC R I ...... 235
32 Research Staff at CR I N ...... 236
33 Foreign Exchange Rate: Naira as Equivalent to US $1.00 ...... 245
34 IITA-NARIs Compared ...... 262
35 Some Tissue Culture Work in Nigeria...... 268
36 Reduced Time for New Variety Development...... 291
xii CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This study is organized into nine chapters including this intro ductory chapter, and six appendices. The chapters, their respective sections and sub-sections are arranged according to the stage-by-stage development of the study. Chapter one includes two major sections.
The first section, which follows immediately, is a general but brief introduction to the text. The second section is the plan of the study, the research procedure. It contains the problem statement, hypothesis, the objective of the study, its significance, and methodology.
The theory of dependency which is a study of the problems of underdevelopment, their historical roots and social structures is examined in chapter two. This provides the theoretical framework for the study of a dependent development in Nigeria, an underdeveloped economy. The chapter begins with a brief review of the theory of imperialism which traces*the origin of Third World economic backwardness and provides a benchmark for the study and analysis of dependency. The review of imperialism is followed by the definitions of the three most important concepts in the theory, namely, dependence, dependency and underdevelopment, which are used extensively in the text; it is important to clarify the conceptual vagueness that exists between dependence and dependency. The historical development of dependency as a theory is then undertaken. Three basic types of economic dependence, namely, colonial or classic dependence, financial-industrial dependence,
and technological-industrial dependence are described. Technological
dependence is given more extended discussion because it is the center
piece of the general condition of economic dependence. Finally, class,
the social element of dependency, is discussed in the context of the
Nigerian situation. Class analysis in the chapter investigates the
origin of social and economic classes in Nigeria and their roles in the
adaptation of neo-colonialism and in the maintenance of underdevelop
ment. Overall, dependency helps us to conceptualize the root causes of
underdevelopment and national poverty, identifies the structural factors
that sustain them, clarifies the processes of integration of the
traditional societies, now modern dependent economies, into the world
capitalist system, and the consequent developmental implications of this
integration.
Chapter three is a socio-political profile, and an overview of the agro-economic conditions in Nigeria. It is divided into four main sections. The first section is the country profile. It includes the basic social and economic indicators in the country, the type of government, population and its rate of growth, climate and vegetation, education and education policy, and the country's economic resources.
The second section reviews the country's pre- and post-independence agro-economic policies. These policies, especially the former, were found to be the causes of the underdevelopment of the Nigerian agriculture. In the third section, we look at the Nigerian traditional system of agricultural production and its early contributions to self- sufficiency, during a period when population growth rate was very low and when land was surplus to allow extended fallow system. And the
fourth section is a presentation of the factors that led to the
stagnation of the Nigerian agriculture, their consequences and attempts,
including the green revolution, made by the Federal Government to
reverse the situation. In introducing new technologies to an
, economically undeveloped social system, it is useful to have some
knowledge of the social, economic and political environment in which the
new technologies will be deployed, since no technology is socially
neutral. The chapter depicts the crisis of the Nigerian agriculture
which calls for an appropriate technology to deal with the problem.
This call raises the question of self-reliance which, therefore, is
taken up and examined in the next chapter.
Chapter four is divided into four sections. The first section
defines and discusses technological self-reliance as a strategy for
attaining sustainable agricultural productivity and self-sufficiency.
The structural implications for the quest for a self-reliant economy are
also discussed. The second section examines the importance of modern
technology in agriculture, the problem of appropriate technology and
technology transfer. Biotechnology is discussed in light of self-
reliance - a potential technological key to increased and sustainable
agricultural productivity and national self-sufficiency. Biotechnology
is defined and its theoretical potentials outlined. In order to
appreciate these potentials - what biotechnology is capable of, and
expected to do for plant agriculture in the Third World, a review of the
green revolution innovation, its impacts and why it became stagnant were
discussed. The socioeconomic implications of the green revolution and biorevolution (as new agricultural biotechnology is now referred to) are then briefly compared.
In chapter five, the commercial nature of biotechnology and the emergent new social relations in agricultural research are discussed.
There are two sections. The first discusses the development of privatization in biotechnology: the university-industry relationships, the relative laws and the impacts of the relationship on the dissemination of scientific information within the advanced countries, for example the United States, and on the Third World. The second section examines biotechnology industry in the world economic system.
The roles of venture capital financed biotechnology companies, and the interests and the strategies used to pursue these interests by the multinational corporations are reviewed. This section also embodies an analysis of the international competitiveness in biotechnology research in the world capitalist economies, involving North America, Japan and
Western Europe. This chapter provides an overview of the revolutionary character of biotechnology: the involvement of huge companies, the heavy investments they make, and the university-industry relationships. The subject of chapter six is the role the international, non-commercial research organizations will play in helping the less developed countries to reduce the potential impacts of the university-industry relationships in the United States. The United States had been the major developer and transferer of new agricultural technologies to the Third World since the 1960s, but it is argued that the new university-industry collaborations will bring about a major change in the international dissemination of scientific knowledge and technology transfer. The roles of inter- national organizations in assisting Nigeria in
biotechnology research and development are reviewed.
In chapter seven, the evolution, organization and development of
agricultural research in Nigeria is reviewed. It begins with a brief
overview of the beginning of organized agricultural research in Europe
and the United States as the historical roots of their development in
Nigeria. In this chapter we look back to review the United States
quasi-government efforts to revolutionize agricultural research in the
Third World and how these efforts have influenced research progress and
productivity there (the Third World). The structure of the Nigerian
national agricultural research system and their specific crop research
mandates are reviewed. The major economically important crops of
Nigeria which will be affected by biotechnology are also discussed.
In chapter eight, the findings and their related discussions are
presented. These are written in an integrated form, and supporting data where necessary were provided. Chapter nine embodies the general
conclusions drawn from the findings and recommendations.
RESEARCH PROCEDURE
Introduction
Many agricultural development experts and social scientists argue that a lack of appropriate technology was a major limiting factor in the efforts by developing countries to expand their agricultural produc tivity (Sardar 1978; Ernst 1980). The Green Revolution (GR) technology is an example cited as a tested technology that have proven deficient in advancing agricultural productivity in many developing countries because it was incompatible to various local socioeconomic circumstances (Pearse
1980; Wade 1974; Cleaver 1972; Griffin 1979; Perelman 1977). Viewed from the world system perspective, it exacerbated Third World technological and economic dependence. This means that a transferred technology such as this has to be compatible with a country's social, economic and ecological conditions to be effective in its use to exploit the agricultural potentials of that country.
Nigeria is one of the Third World nations requiring appropriate technologies adaptable to their social, economic and ecological factors to enable them to pursue their proclaimed objective of self-reliance as a key to self-sufficiency in agricultural production and food security.
Biotechnology has been advanced as a potential appropriate technology that could meet these needs. In view of its potentials, it is apparently a technology that Nigeria can possibly and effectively adopt to pursue the stated objectives in agriculture. Agricultural and social scientists maintain that the new biotechnology, if realistically applied, that is, within local socioeconomic, cultural, environmental and political limitations, could assist a developing nation such as
Nigeria to increase its agricultural productivity and therefore solve its nutrition problems.
But one concern among many social scientists is the increasingly private character of biotechnology; its movement from the public domain to private control. This complicates its transferability to the less developed countries (LDCs) such as Nigeria. This rests in the fact that, by becoming patented and proprietary, relatively free access to scientific information and breeding materials formerly enjoyed by the LDCs through the United States Land Grant System will be limited and distorted. This situation may impose unusual constraints on national agricultural development programs as in Nigeria, and increase technological dependence.
The responsibility of using biotechnology to improve Nigeria's agriculture clearly rests with the country's research institutions and the universities, with, perhaps, some knowledge inputs from external non-profit international organizations such as the CGIAR system and the
United Nations’ International Center for Genetic Engineering and
Biotechnology (ICGEB). Biotechnology is knowledge-intensive and requires "top-notch" scientists who must be provided with a good, up-to date, well-maintained infrastructural base and strong financial support to be able to do effective, fruitful research using any of its various techniques such as plant tissue culture (PTC), recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA), and genetic engineering.
Thus, the problem of doing biotechnology research in a developing country such as Nigeria is one involving three essential elements, namely, the strength of indigenous manpower, infrastructural quality, and the degree of financial support (Baltimore 1982:34-36, Asenjo
1984:63-64, Mog et. al. 1984:65). The problem of this research, therefore, is one of national or institutional capability assessment based on these essential elements. It asks whether or not the country1 research institutions are capable of doing effective biotechnology research to improve the country's agriculture for the benefit of the people. The problem is whether or not Nigeria can avail itself of the potentials of biotechnology and adapt them to its own socioeconomic conditions, or will it implement biotechnology in such a manner as to
reinforce conditions of dependency. The degree of dependence will
depend upon the strengths or weaknesses of these capability elements.
Basic to this question is the identification of potential internal and
external barriers to effective deployment of biotechnology in Nigeria;
the researcher will identify the limitations or constraints that Nigeria will encounter and the strategies it can adopt to meet the challenges and opportunities offered by biotechnology.
Objective
The objective of this study is to investigate Nigeria's research strengths and its plans for promoting agricultural (plant) biotechnology in the country. It will investigate whether or not the country has the capabilities essential for effective biotechnology research useful to its agriculture.
This investigation will also identify possible external and internal factors that might hinder the prospects of this new technical opportunity. The study aims at establishing the feasibility and prospects of success of plant biotechnology in Nigeria given the constraints placed upon researchers by the country's social, economic and political environment, and identifying institutional factors that may likely impede the transfer of the new technology already developed elsewhere. It will also examine the on-going plans for biotechnology.
The motivation of this study derives from the foreseen potentials and promises of biotechnology and the current stagnant nature of Nigerian agriculture. It is important here to put the term 'capability' in its proper context by defining it. Briefly defined, research capability is "the ability to use ones mental power to identify a problem accurately, to design experiments that will solve it in the quickest, most effective way, and then to execute those experiments" (NRC 1974:177), other things
(infrastructure and support) being equal. Further, capability means not only being able to perform research but also possessing the ability to achieve mastery over biotechnology' - "having knowledge of the scientific basis and the dynamics of the bioscience, being able to manipulate results from research to reach practical goals; and being able to adapt and improve already developed technologies" (UNIDO
1985:25).
There are three basic elements which must be evaluated to measure the strength or weakness of a national research system that will do agricultural biotechnology research. They include indigenous scientific manpower, infrastructure, and investment or financial support. The strength of manpower is evaluated by looking at the educational qualifications of the researchers at the National Research Institutes and the universities. Researchers are expected to have had good education and training, up to doctoral level (Ph. D. or equivalents) in the biological sciences including microbiology, molecular or cellular biology, biochemistry, biochemical engineering, plant physiology, virology and agronomy. Supporting the educational qualification is the length of practical experience in related fields.
The second element is infrastructure which includes a well-equiped, modernized laboratory with established dependable sources of supplies, namely, chemicals, enzymes and biological materials. Another aspect of the infrastructural element is electrical power which must be dependable to keep experiments alive, to maintain continuing research efforts without disruptions, and to keep laboratory temperatures at desired degrees. Further, enzymes (reagents) must be kept frozen until they are used or they will perish. In addition to dependable electrical power and modernized laboratory, there must be a national genebank for the conservation of local germplasm acquisitions. This would alleviate concerns about international cartel on germplasm supplies. Plant genetic resources are the very building blocks of biotechnology research and development (Hobbelink 1987:52). Infrastructural capacity also includes an up-to-date reference science library that maintains steady supplies of important international journals. These are good sources of information regarding biotechnology research and developments around the world, especially in the advanced countries.
The third element is financial support. Adequate, continual and timely funding is of vital importance for the effective operations of national research systems. Funding includes attractive salaries and other incentives to ensure the retention of the best local scientists, money to keep the entire research facility in constant repair, and other recurrent expenses. The national research management must have access to foreign exchange to purchase from abroad equipments and materials which are not available locally, and for scientists to attend international seminars, conferences and workshops. 11
Hypothesis
Unlike the Green Revolution technologies, the application of agricultural biotechnology is relatively cheap (Baltimore 1982:35); it is inexpensive to master plant tissue culture (PTC) (Kenney et. al.
1984:51), and it is thus accessible to most developing countries (Buttel et. al. 1985:15). Not all aspects of biotechnology, however, are cheap or easily accessible to the developing countries. But its multifaceted nature is one which offers the LDCs the opportunity of selecting the areas that fall within their means. And since, theoretically, it is adaptable to local environmental conditions, it would not therefore be out of place to conclude that the emerging technologies are transferable to a less developed country such as Nigeria. But the failure of a nation to institutionalize or update domestic research capacity may stand as a barrier in attempts to receive a transferable technology
(Ruttan et. al. 1973).
Thus, we propose that Nigeria will be able to improve its agriculture and eliminate its current and future food and nutrition deficiencies if it establishes or updates its agricultural research capabilities required to bring the potentials of biotechnology to practical fruition. The establishment of competent and well-maintained agricultural research centers will create conditions conducive to technology transfer or the application of scientific knowledge essential to adaptive research which has a high pay-off objective in the longterm.
In order to achieve this goal of increased food and agricultural productivity and better nutrition through biotechnology, a sound national policy compatible with the commercial reality of biotechnology 12
must be formulated in order to deal with the problem of privatization
and also to enhance the application of the technologies. This is of
vital importance because it will direct the course of action by national
scientists, and ensuring a good working environment for them.
Significance
This study is expected to be useful to the Nigerian government in
planning its investments in biotechnology. Further, it will assist
institutions or organizations in the developed countries in recognizing
the needs of the Nigerian research system and direct their assistance to
these needs. Also, since certain international agencies such as ICGEB
may want to help the country to plan its national biotechnology
projects, the result of this research will enable them to see the
strengths and weaknesses of the country to be able to effectively extend
their out-reach programs to it, and also for possible joint or
collaborative research projects where necessary.
Research Method
To determine the feasibility of implementing biotechnology in
Nigeria, it was necessary to do field work in the country to collect
data which were evaluated. The method used for collecting the needed
information was a survey of Nigerian scientists who were not only knowledgeable about the new technology but also were experts in agricultural or plant science. The specific method of this survey was the Expert-opinion technique.
Expert-opinion technique is a systematic means of eliciting the opinion of specialists or experts in the subject matter under investigation (Dalkey et. al. 1963, Linstone et. al. 1975, Leistritz et. 13
al. 1981, Hill et. al. 1975, Pill 1971, Judd 1972). The sole objective
of expert-opinion "is to obtain the most reliable consensus of opinion
of a group of experts [in the subject matter]" (Dalkey et. al.
1963:458). Experts are those who have relevant input in the problem
(Pill 1971:60). They are highly knowledgeable about the problem and may
contribute greatly in its solution.
The researcher's approach involved a direct solicitation of
important information from the respondents who were selected for their
expertise through administered questionaires accompanied by in-person,
face-to-face interviews, and whose views were most likely to be
representative of the total range of views in the field of study,
Nigeria. The responses in this approach are usually and generally
anonymous (Judd 1972:35, Pill 1971:57). Anonymity in this research means that the identities of the respondents are not to be disclosed to others by the interviewer.
Respondents
The focus was primarily Nigerian scientists. They included those actively engaged in the national agricultural research centers and the universities that were strong in biotechnology-related sciences. The second group of people who were interviewed included public policy makers and national biotechnology planners in the Federal Ministry of
Science and Technology (FMST). The opinions of foreign experts or scientists who worked in Nigeria particularly at the International
Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) were also sought to see the degree of validity of Nigerian opinion. It was expected that the scientists would express views that had real practical relevance to 14 national plans, policies and institutional problems. Further, Nigerian scientists were technocrats who had deep aspiration for national self- reliance and were therefore unaffected by 'psychology of dependence'.
This statement is clarified in the next chapter where we defined and discussed the Nigerian class structure.
Secondary Data
Secondary data were also used where necessary. Sources of secondary data included:
1. Institutional Annual Reports including:
(a) National Agricultural Research Institutes' Annual
Reports; and
(b) International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
Annual Reports
2. African Regional Tissue Culture Association Abstracts
3. The Nigerian Journal of Biotechnology.
4. The Federal Government of Nigeria, Ministry of Agriculture
Publications
Measuring Dependence
The Nigerian national agricultural biotechnology research capability was assessed by the three elements mentioned earlier, that is, manpower, infrastructure and funding. This, in turn, measured the nation's degree of technological dependence with respect to the national applications of biotechnology. All the three elements must be appro priately present for effective biotechnology research and applications to take place and in order for the country to eliminate or reduce dependence or to be technologically self-reliant in agriculture. The weakness of one element would, without doubt, affect what the nation could do with the others. Thus, Nigeria may have the money to support research to any level, but lack of well-qualified manpower might lead to an alternative policy by the government to hire experts from outside the country. On the other hand, a pool of highly qualified and competent scientists might exist in the country, but lack of adequate support and incentives would leave it (pool) untapped or under-used. Moreover, the rate and direction of agricultural research in the developing countries depends upon the economic circumstances prevailing in that country
(Kislev 1977, Hayami et. al. 1971). Finally, manpower and financial support might be strongly available, but if the supplies of research materials or the building of infrastructure depended upon external sources, national capability would be seen as weak. The implication of these various situations is dependence.
Given that all the resources, human and material, were in place, what might block their full effective utilization could be the political economic environment under which they operated. This is central to the problem of technical change in a dependent state and was therefore an important issue also considered in this study. CHAPTER II
THE THEORY OF DEPENDENCY
IMPERIALISM
This chapter is a review of the theory of dependency. It begins with a brief look at the theory of imperialism as an introduction.
Imperialism is important here because its study is appropriately the
"starting point for the analysis of dependency" (Amin 1977:25; Evans
1979:16).
The development of capitalism in Europe and North America and its expansion to the rest of the world gave rise to the theory of imperialism. The earliest studies in the emergence of imperialism were based on one primary issue: that of the causes of imperialism.
The Causes of Imperialism
What Marxist writers have in common as the factors that led to the outside expansion of capitalism are several: local underconsumption of consumer goods and the declining rate of profit, the existence of surplus capital requiring outlets, foreign investment opportunities based on the expectation of higher rates of profit than at home, monopolistic nature of capital investment, external sources of industrial raw materials and food, the already existing foreign market for manufactured goods, and the existence of plentiful cheap labor
(Lenin 1917; Dobb 1947; Alavi 1964; Magdoff 1969; O'Connor 1970; Wolf
1970; Bukharin 1972; Mandel 1975; Sweezy 1978).
16 These causes are embodied in its various definitions. It is a
"stage - the highest stage" in the development of capitalism; and it is
capitalism in that phase of its development in which the domination of monopolies and finance capital has established itself; in which the export of capital has acquired very great importance; in which the division of the world among the big international trusts has begun; in which the partition of all the territories of the earth amongst the great capitalist powers has been completed (Lenin 1917:72).
Imperialism is "the endeavour of the great controllers of industry
to broaden the channel for the flow of their surplus wealth by seeking
foreign markets and foreign investments to take off the goods and
capital they cannot sell or use at home" (Hobson 1938:85). Further, it
is "the process by which the corporations and the state team up to
expand their activities, their interests and their power beyond their
borders" (Sweezy 1978:2). To O'Connor (1970:118) it is the "economic
domination by one region or country over another - specifically the
formal and informal control over local economic resources in a manner
advantageous to the metropolitan power, at the expense of the local
economy."
Later writers in imperialism include Peter Evans who decribes it as:
a system of capital accumulation based on the export of capital from advanced countries to less developed regions... accompanied by the utilization of political and military resources to protect and maintain the means of production over which control has been acquired (Evans 1979:16).
Roxborough (1979:56) takes a structural view of imperialism and states that it is not a "relationship between two economies," but a relationship characterized by the "monopolization (of capital) plus colonies." 18
From these statements, the roots of imperialism were to be found in push factors internal to the imperialists themselves, and also in pull factors external to them. Primarily, imperialism is driven by acute desires to accumulate wealth which is the essential character of capitalism that begot it.
The Effects of Imperialism
One major effect of imperialism in the colonies was the extraction and appropriation of surplus product for the enrichment of the metropoles. Baran and Frank maintain that this was not only the major cause of economic backwardness of the periphery but also contributed to
Europe's well-being. Baran (1968:143) stressed that "... whatever may have been the fractional increase of Western Europe's national income derived from its overseas operations, they multiplied the economic surplus at its disposal ...," and that the extraction of surplus boosted
Europe's capital accumulation. Frank (1969:9) adds that:
[the center] expropriates economic surplus from the satellites and appropriates it for its own development. The satellites remain underdeveloped for the lack of access to their own surplus and as a consequence of the same polarization and exploitation contradictions which the metropolis introduces and maintains in the satellite's domestic economic structure.... One and the same historical process of the expansion and development of capitalism throughout the world has simultaneously generated - and continues to generate - both the economic development and underdevelopment.
The "main task" of imperialism was to "slow down and control the economic development" of the periphery (Baran cited in Evans 1979:19).
In so doing it has produced stagnation in these areas, and created international division of labor such that the peripheries continue to remain the producers of primary products only and not industrialize. 19
This deliberate creation of international division of labor, and the
lack of indigenous industrialization in the colonies are a factor basic
to economic, specifically technological, dependence. Imperialism
theorists generally agree that there is a "net effect of capital out
flow from the peripheries to the metropolis," and that for every dollar
invested in the former, an amount much greater than that is repatriated
to the latter.
The discovery of natural resources in Africa led to the so-called
"Scramble for Africa" and the continent's eventual partition, "The
Partition of Africa," between 1880 and 1900 (Mackenzie 1983) in which
Nigeria became a British colony. This action was a political measure taken by the Western powers to secure and monopolize the natural resources and to protect their investments in the African territories.
The annexation and the partition meant a loss of political and economic autonomy by the colonies.
Colonization allowed the imperialists to control the economies of the LDCs. After their (LOCs) formal independence, the new colonialist policies, in collaboration with the multinational corporations (MNCs), were so designed to prevent the newly independent countries from consolidating their political independence and thus keep them economically dependent and securely enmeshed in the world capitalist system (O'Connor 1970:117-118). Economic control assumes a number of forms: real resources control - agricultural and mineral resources and their relative infrastructure; and liquid resources control - foreign exchange controlled by enmeshing the LDCs into the international system, by bringing them to mortgage their revenues and savings as a means of 20
loan guarantees through the World Bank, and by establishing their home
bank branches in the ex-colonies to mobilize local savings for their
(MNCs) own use (O'Connor (1970:117-120).
Having thus become a part of the Western capitalist system,
Nigeria, like other peripheries, lost control of its own traditional
economic system and resources including raw materials, agricultural
products, accumulated financial resources and labor power. This meant
loss of autonomy, political and non-political; it became dependent.
THE EMERGENCE OF THE THEORY OF DEPENDENCY
Dependency, Dependence and Underdevelopment
Dependency denotes external reliance of an underdeveloped nation
for its economic welfare. Dos Santos defines dependence thus:
Dependence is a situation in which a certain group of countries have their economy conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy to which the former is subject. The relation of interdependence between two or more economies, and between these and world trade, assumes the form of dependence when some countries (the dominant) can expand and give impulse to their own development, while other countries (the dependent) can only develop as a reflection of this expansion. This can have positive and/or negative effects on their immediate development. In all cases, the basic situation of dependence leads to a global situation in dependent countries that situates them in backwardness and under the exploitation of the dominant countries. The dominant countries have a technological, commercial, capital resource, and social and political predominance over the dependent countries... This permits them to impose conditions of exploitation and to extract part of the domestically produced surplus (Dos Santos 1970:231).
By 'conditioning situation1, Dos Santos means the externally generated
situation which "determines the limits and possibilities of action and behavior of men" (Dos Santos 1970:231); that is, the economic potentials of the LDCs are regulated by external forces. He points out that the problem with capitalism is that it constitutes a combination of parts
which develop unequally. They develop unequally because one grows at
the expense of the other; the latter stagnates because its resources or
surplus capital are taken away from it. The conditioning situation of
dependence is as a result of the incorporation of the low-income countries into the world capitalist system, achieved by establishing such systems as international investment, development assistance, and international trade. The dependency school was first pioneered by Andre
Gunder Frank who is associated with the metropolis-satellite concept, followed by Amin credited with the 'unequal development' theory, and
Arghiri Emmanuel with whom the theory of 'unequal exchange' originated.
Finally, Immanuel Wallerstein whio extended the 'center-periphery' concept and sees these international links as a continuation of primitive accumulation of capital. Through these links, the center dominates the periphery with its economic power and technological superiority.
Apart from external means of integration, there are internal means of promoting it involving both social forces and those who control investment decisions within the dependent countries. These work in their own private interests to preserve the present structural relationship at the expense of national interest. Those peripheries which remain highly underdeveloped are those which have very close ties with the center; but in cases where the ties are weaker, they experience greater economic development (Frank 1972:13). To Frank (1972:20)
"dependence is not simply an external relation... but also an internal" 22 one. Central to this internal relation is the new "class structure" or
"class interests" that grew out of imperialism or neo-colonialism.
Distinction Between Dependency and Dependence
Caporaso has clearly distinguished the concepts of dependency and dependence in the following lines:
Dependence is the pattern of external reliance of well integrated nation states on one another while dependency, which is closer to dependencia tradition, involves a more complex set of relations centering on the incorporation of less developed, less homogenous societies into the global division of labour. The conceptual components of dependence are the size of one's reliance on another, the importance attached to the goods involved, and the availability of these goods (or substitutes) from different sources. The components of dependency are the magnitude of foreign supply of Important factors of production (technology, capital), limited developmental choice, and domestic "distortion" measures. Finally, the concept of dependence Is most easily integrated into bargaining analyses while dependency is more fruitfully applied to analyses of the structure of relations among societies (Caporaso 1978(b):13).
According to Caporaso, dependency is a generic term from which we can abstract two forms of usages. On one hand, it denotes dependency as
"absence of actor autonomy;" on the other hand, it connotes a condition of a "highly assymetric form of interdependence."
Dependency, as an absence of economic autonomy or the inability of indigenes to direct the course of their own economy without foreign influences, explains how the local economy is structured to meet external interests at the expense of local well-being (Caporaso 1978;
Brewster 1973; Girvan 1973). It is a situation in which programs of economic development in the periphery are determined by the advanced nation states, and organizations (the MNCs) and in which the periphery exerts only minimal or no countervailing influence on the indigenous economic development (Evans 1979; David 1986:173). 23
Dependence, on tha. other hand, means reliance on others in the
sense that any country, developed or underdeveloped, may depend on
another country for meeting certain economic needs. In this case, we
speak of interdependence which is often promoted through, for example,
trade, technology transfer or cultural exchanges. A developed country
may be economically dependent on other countries but its economic
development plans and implementation are, for the most part, autonomous:
external influences are not prevalent.
While recognizing dependency as a "conditioning situation,"
Caporaso sees it as a "causal relationship, a functional relationship
among economies resulting in unequal autonomous development
possibilities" (Caporaso 1978:22). To this conceptualization, he
relates Brewster's definition of economic dependence:
Economic dependence we may define as a lack of capacity to manipulate the operative elements of an economic system. Such a situation characterized by an absence of interdependence between the economic functions of a system. This lack of interdependence implies that the system has no internal dynamic which would enable it to function as independent, autonomous entity (Brewster 1973:91).
Girvan (1973) reads this definition in light of the internal disarticulation of the important elements or sectors of the economy.
This disarticulation is an important factor that strengthens dependency.
Thus, we may see disarticulation between the agricultural and industrial sectors. Agriculture needs the industry for machines and modern equipment as much as the industry needs agriculture for raw materials.
This is less likely to happen in the LDCs. Rather, agricultural production is directed to external markets or industries; and production and development technologies are imported. In Girvan's words, the 24
"corollary of such external dependence is a lack of internal structural
interdependence between many of the most important elements of economic
system" (Girvan 1973:11).
That agriculture-industry articulation is a necessary condition for
national economic development and growth has also been stressed by many other development theorists. For example. Lewis states that:
If agriculture is to give a higher standard of living, then industry must be developed. But equally, if industry is to be developed, then agriculture must give a higher standard of living, in order to provide a demand for manufacture. The agricultural and the industrial revolutions thus, reinforce each other, and neither can go very far unless the other is ocurring at the same time (W. A. Lewis, cited in Blomstrom 1984:100).
And, on the other hand, what is economic independence? In structural context, economic independence has been defined as a:
situation in which national institutions (including private business and interst groups) have the right, capacity and power to take and implement decisions affecting the national economy and its component units without a de jure or de facto veto power being held by foreign individuals, enterprises, interest groups or governments (Green 1973:46).
Of course, there is no total economic independence in any economy, modern or primitive. It is not attainable. But what is crucial is the degree to which national economic development plans are inward-oriented or controlled by external desires.
Underdeve1opment
Synonymous to dependency situations is underdevelopment, defined as
"a state of factor imbalance reflecting a lack of adjustment between the availability of factors and the technology of their use, so that it is impossible to achieve full utilization of both capital and labour simultaneously" (Furtado 1964:142). Andre Gunder Frank (1972(a)) sees underdevelopment as resulting from colonial exploitation of the 25 periphery. It is "a consequence of the internal contradictions of capitalism... which result from the expropriation of the economic surpluses produced by the many and appropriated by the few" (Dos Santos, cited in Frank 1972:5(a)). An underdeveloped economy is characterized by lack of indigenous technological and industrial development, and therefore cannot use their internal resources optimally; and as a result of its integration into the international economic system, and the influences of external economic forces (such as the operations of the
MNCs), the economies remain stagnant, and due to these two conditions there is no autonomous economic development (David 1986:173).
Exploitation aside, a prevailing aspect of underdevelopment is lack of indigenous technological development which is a hindrance to progressive economic development plans. As Cooper has stated, underdevelopment of science and technology in the LDCs is an aspect of the general condition of underdevelopment (Cooper 1972:1). An underdeveloped country almost totally rely on the DCs for their major technological requirements. The cost of this reliance is extremely high which has devastating effects on the balance of payments of the LDCs, loss of autonomous economic development, "inappropriate factor mixes, and lack of market incentive to indigenous technological development
(R&D)" (Stewart 1977). The extent of the consequences of external reliances has been depicted in Table 1.
i Table 1 External Reliances and Internal Consequences
External Reliances Characteristics
Trade High proportion of trade in GNP.
Commodity trade High percentage share in total exports and GNP concentration of two to three most important commodity exports
Trade Partner Relatively high proportion of trade with one concentration country or region.
Vertical trade High proportion of unprocessed to processed disposition exports, with high ratio of processed goods in total imports.
Export earnings Wide year-to-year fluctuations in export instability prices and earnings.
Technological All technologically sophisticated products and processes have to be imported.
Food imports Historically changes in net food and grain trade, with increasing proportion of basic food items imported.
Financial High proportion of capital imports in domestic capital formation, and high external public debt.
Internal Consequences Characteristics
External control High percentage of external control of production.
Sectoral disarticulation Uneven development across sectors and regions.
Monocultural attachment High proportion of labor force in traditional sectors.
Export crop concentration Neglect of food subsector and rural production.
Low income Low and stagnating GNP per capita.
Source: David 1985:99. 27
The Historical Development of Dependency
The theory of imperialism focuses on the causes of imperialism and
the gains it produced for the advanced capitalist nations. It also
showed how the economies of certain countries became underdeveloped as a
result. The stagnant economic conditions in Africa, Asia and Latin
America, vis-a-vis, the advancement in Western Europe and North America,
led to the emergence of modernization or developmental theories. Within
this developmental tradition which dichotomized the world into two
societies, the traditional and the modern, the theories that became
prominent were the diffusionist, and the non-Marxist economic theories
such as 'the stages of economic growth.1 The assumption that prevailed
then was that all societies of the world, at one point in time, were
traditional but later some would become modern after passing through
certain socioeconomic stages or changes. The implication here is that
those parts of the world now referred to as traditional societies such
as those in Africa must also pass through the same socioeconomic
metamorphosis as Western societies have to become modern. An example of
this 'traditional-modern' idea of development is Walt Rostow's 'Stages
of Economic Growth' (1952) which assumes that transition from
traditional to modern society occurs through five stages. This theory
has been strongly criticized because it is not based on empirical facts
or the real life situations that prevail in the LDCs, as in Africa.
Earlier theories presented two major explanations as being
responsible for the economic backwardness of the LDCs. One, based on philosophical and psychological grounds, argues that people have certain
character traits (for example laziness), or philosophies of life (for example, anti-materialist or certain spiritual qualities) which prevent or hinder the pursuit of economic advancement; the other places the blame on imperialist exploitation (O'Brien 1975:8). The contention that the peoples of the underdeveloped economies such as those of Africa exhibit irrational economic behavior, inefficient, tradition-bound, leisure-ridden and so on has been severely criticized and disproved by
Barber (1961:95) who, after an empirical study of Africa, insists that
"when appropriate allowance for his special circumstances has been made,
[the African] acts as a rational economic man." Modernization theorists maintain that modernization will eventually take place in the
Third World countries (TWCs) if they are integrated into the international economic system, and that they will progressively develop economically, socially, politically and culturally into mature and democratic nations having autonomy to determine their own well-being; but the dependency school counter that integration such as this will rather inhibit such transformation (Bauzon and Abel 1986:43).
But the benefits of global processes of economic development or economic integration has never been to the advantage of the periphery.
David states that:
the cumulative benefits of economic growth [in the world capitalist system] have not 'trickled down', or have not otherwise been sufficiently 'diffused' to the masses of the population in the developing world. This reflects a general lack of socioeconomic progress. The general absence of socioeconomic transformation has been associated with various forms of dualism, a neglect of the agricultural and rural sectors, a failure of industrialization process, and increasing external dependence by the developing countries (David 1986:137).
Other theoretical prescriptions advanced for the cure of the Third World economic ills included the "balanced versus unbalanced economic 29 development" thesis (Nurkse 1953), the "export-led development" doctrine
(Myint 1958), and the "labor surplus" models (Lewis 1955).
Dependency theory, which emerged in the 1950s, was a response to the failure of the earlier development theories or neoclassical economics to adequately explain the true foundations or causes of economic underdevelopment (Buttel et. al. 1985:3; O'Brien 1975). Its focus is on the poor economic conditions created in the peripheries as a result of their exploitation by the metropoles. In other words, it grew out of the concern of many scholars from the underdeveloped countries about the stagnant nature of their economies vis-a-vis the developed countries. According to Clark and others, these scholars received their inspiration from the "long-standing analyses of imperialism that viewed the problems of Third World development as the result of economic shortcomings or contradictions in the economies of industrialized capitalist states that forced them to extract resources from, and to find markets in, the underdeveloped parts of the world" (Clark et. al.
1983:ix-x). Dependency theorists saw that the problems of socioeconomic development in the so-called Third World countries was not endemic to them, but were generated from outside; they were exploited by other nations through the use of their economic and political power. These theorists, like Marx, wanted to see progressive economic development in the LDCs "and want it desperately" (Apter 1987:26). But with the establishment of the international division of labor, the LDCs became mere producers of agricultural and raw materials desperately needed in the metropoles. The prevention of indigenous industrialization added to exploitation to create the conditions of underdevelopment. The continuity of underdevelopment and dependence grows out of the intentions of the Western powers. "What is decisive is that the economic development in underdeveloped countries is profoundly inimical to the dominant interests in the advanced capitalist countries (Baran cited in Palma 1978:899). In order to promote their interests, it is important to keep the economies of the peripheries to remain underdeveloped and dependent and this is achieved by forming alliances with local elites (Palma 1978:899). Thus,
... the advanced nations would have easy access to domestic resources and thus be able to maintain traditional modes of surplus extraction. Within this context the possibilities of economic growth [and technical change] in dependent countries would be extremely limited; the surplus they generated would be expropriated in large part by foreign capital, and otherwise squandered on luxury consumption by traditional elites (Palma 1978:899).
Dependency theorists as represented by structuralism (an approach that analyzes dependency by analyzing international relationships between developed and underdeveloped capitalist nations as structures) was based on empirical observation and explanation of the failure of such economic development strategy as the outward-oriented path involving increased export of raw materials, a case of classic dependence. Structuralists such as Raul Prebisch insisted that imperfect conditions of competition and unequal social and economic structures were to blame for under-development, and so advocated the elimination of these inequalities through state intervention, and its assumption of ownership and economic planning (Galli 1981:216).
Structuralists espoused inward-oriented path, an import-substitution industrialization (ISI) which would satisfy needs being fulfilled by imports, and opposed outward-oriented development path. They believed 31
that primary export dependence could lead to a socioeconomic disaster in
the dependent country when export earnings drastically decrease, as was experienced in Latin America during the 'Great Depression1 (O'Brien
1975).
Conscious ISI policies were adopted and implemented by some of the newly independent LDCs in the 1950s and 1960s as a step towards economic development and change. It was an attempt by them, as mentioned above, to domestically produce goods imported from the industrial nations as a means of maintaining favourable balance of payments (BOP), and to curb unemployment problems. But by the late 1960s, the ISI failed to achieve these objectives or eliminate dependency; inequality of income distribu tion continued to grow, unemployment subsisted and many people remained economically marginal (O'Brien 1975). According to Nixon (1982:49):
ISI has not, in practice, significantly alleviated the balance- of-payments constraints; it has led to a growing dependence on a largely imported, capital-intensive technology and has thus not created extensive employment opportunities or indigenous technological development; the process has been heavily dependent on foreign capital and has emphasized the establishment of consumer goods industries at the expense of investment and capital goods industries; it has led to what many would regard as an undesirable redistribution of income and in general it has failed to generate a sustained process of economic growth.
The failure of these inward-looking strategies (BOP maintenance, indigenous technological development, reduction of unemployment, and equitable distribution of income) led neoclassical, and structuralist/dependency schools to criticize it. To the former, government intervention, manifested in its policy of protective tariff barriers, "violate the principle of comparative advantage, and create new or aggravate existing distortions in domestic factor and product markets. Labor is relatively over-priced, the domestic currency over valued in terras of foreign currencies, and capital relatively over priced" (Nixon 1982:44). Because ISI involved capital-intensive production method, the unemployment which it meant to alleviate became worse. It created income inequality between agriculture and industry; income from agriculture was diverted to industrial development as a priority at the expense of agricultural development, and this was the major cause of the underdevelopment of agriculture in the developing countries, as well as uneven structural development (Little et. al.
1970; Nixon 1982). Another impact was that agricultural labor received less income than industrial labor, leading to social and economic inequality.
The concerns of the structuralist/dependency school, on the other hand, were directed to the ownership and control of the means of production and the relative social relations of production, the domination of the peripheral economies by the MNCs and the technological dependence arising from this domination, inequitable distribution of income and the growing social inequality (Nixon 1982:44-45).
Structuralists, who viewed the peripheral problems from the social and economic positions advocated for development policies that could reverse these conditions; and the others in the same school, who took a political position, advocated political changes conducive to the restructuring of the economies (Nixon 1982:45).
.The structuralists, on the other hand, criticized the ISI as strengthening dependency since the needed capital and development technologies have to be imported. They contended that the economic problems of the LDCs were a consequence of the relationship between them 33
and the advanced capitalist nations. This relationship has created
conditions by which the former cannot effectively carry out meaningful
economic development programs without reliance on the latter for
resources. Lack of autonomy emanating from formal colonization and
strengthened by this structural relationship is seen as basic to the
conditions of dependency. According to David, the integration of the
periphery into the world capitalist system (through the ISI, imperialism
and neo-colonialism) "has resulted in dependent relations in trade,
division of labour, investment and related economic arrangements" (David
1986:173). Table 2 summarizes the various theoretical assumptions put
forward by various schools of thought with regard to this integration or
the center-periphery relationship.
Situations of Dependency
Two basic situations of dependency exist (Cardoso et. al. 1979).
They include 'enclave economy' (classic dependence) in which local
modern productive processes have strong links with, and totally
controlled by foreign capitalist system. The relationship between the
government of this economy and the capitalist operators is based on the
tax the former receives from the latter, and also the local unemployment
it may help to reduce. The second, a 'dependent development economy'
(Evans 1979), is one controlled mainly by local bourgeoisie but receives
its stimulus exogenously. These economies "lack the capacity for autonomous growth and they lack this because their structures are dependent ones" (O'Brien 1975:24). The economy of an enclave, dominated by one or two primary commodities (agricultural or minerals) is totally tied to foreign industries which makes it highly sensitive and 34
Table 2 Perspectives of Private Direct Foreign Investment and Transnational Corporations
Schools Assumptions
Business School Based on free enterprise ethic. Concerned with increasing private profitability of foreign invest ment through minimizing tax burdens and providing incentives.
Neoclassical Shares the above assumptions. Emphasizes the need for free international resource flows as a means of maximizing world welfare and that of individual countries.
Post-Keynesian Stresses divergence of interests of foreign investors and host countries due to imperfect competition, and other behavioral and environmental constrainsts in the world economy.
Structuralist- Questions the validity of assumptions underlying institutional ist free market system. Like post-Keynesianism, emphasizes the unequal exchange relations underlying international resource flows. Advocates national and international reforms.
Dependency Like structuralist perspective, views foreign investment as perpetuating economic and other forms of dependency. Foreign investment cannot lead to authentic development.
Marxian Based on a total rejection of foreign investment. Analysis in terms of imperialism and capitalist expansion on a world scale. Advocates nationalization and other revolutionary changes.
Source: David 1986:161. vulnerable to world market trends and political conflicts expressed in
sanctions which may result in economic catastrophe especially for the
fact that it is not diversified. Best examples of African enclaves
include pre-independence Rhodesia now Zimbabwe, Liberia, Zambia and
Congo. In a dependent economy, more diversified than an enclave, the
"accumulation of capital is the result of the appropriation of natural
resources by local entrepreneurs and the exploitation of the labour force by this same local group" (Cardoso et. al. 1979:xix). "When accumulation and expansion of capital cannot find its essential dynamic component inside the system", the economy is a dependent one (Cardoso et. al. 1979:xx). The performance of the economy depends upon the adoption of modern technologies developed outside it. Although export of industrial raw materials may be reduced (because some of them are now consumed locally) it is still dependent because its "capital goods production cannot ensure their reproduction and expansion." Brazil is a typical case of a dependent development economy; Nigeria has such resemblance (Evans 1979). But Nigeria's large oil resource makes it look like an enclave or classic dependent economy.
International Economic Inequality
The analysis of the implications of the metropolis-satellite relationship assumes various conceptual approaches: the "unequalness" in the relationship in terms of trade, industrial capital and technology
(Dos Santos 1970), the "world system" view (Frank 1969, Wallerstein
1974), "unequal exchange" (Emmanuel 1972), and "unequal development/specialization" (Amin 1974, 1976). The relationship is unequal because: 36
...development of parts of the system occurs at the expense of the other parts. Trade relations are based on monopolistic control of the market which leads to the transfer of surplus generated in the dependent countries to the dominant countries; financial relations are, from the viewpoint of the dominant powers, based on loans and the export of capital, which permit them to receive interest and profits; thus increasing their domestic surplus and strengthening their control over the economies of the other countries. For the dependent countries these relations represent an export of profits and interest which carries off part of the surplus generated domestically and leads to a loss of control over their productive resources. We call this combined development because it is the combination of these inequalities and the transfer of resources from the most backward and dependent sectors to the most advanced and dominant ones which explains the inequality, deepens it, and transforms it into a necessary and structural element of the world economy (Dos Santos 1970:231).
Central to Dos Santos' explanation are three dimensions of dependency. First, the colonial dependence which was characterized by trade made possible by the alliance between the colonialist state and financial capital and strengthened by monopoly over human and natural resources; this is the classic dependence we discussed earlier. Two, financial-industrial dependence resulting from the export of investment capital accumulated in the developed centers for the production of raw materials and agricultural commodities exported back to the centers.
Three, the end of the World War II saw the emergence of a new type of dependence, technological-industrial dependence, involving the ISI. In this period, the MNCs began to invest in industries that were meant to produce consumer goods for internal markets in the dependent countries.
ISI marked the beginning of dependent development in the LDCs.
Financial Dependence
Financial dependence is the most prevalent aspect of dependence, on both the private and official lending institutions of the center (David
1985, 1986). The most prominent of these institutions are the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Financial
dependence grows as a result of an inefficient system of financial
intermediation characterizing underdeveloped or dependent countries and
leads to "sustained outflows of domestic capital to metropolitan centers" (David 1986:176). As David explains, this is one of the means by which externally controlled commercial and industrial investments are tied to the international movements of financial capital. It is a major force in various programs of dependent development in the LDCs. Many development projects in these countries depend on international capital for their implementation. Borrowing without stint has been devastating to the economies of the major Third World borrowers. In the words of
David, "the deepening of external financial reliances has been accompanied by sky-rocketting balance-of-payments deficits and external debt, with increasing accomodation sought from the International
Monetary Fund and private multinational banks" (David 1986:176).
Financial dependence or the flow of financial capital from the world system is promoted by such factors as (a) the existence of an
'army' of cheap labor in the periphery and the creation of international division of labor, and (b) the existence of financial and business incentives there and the participation of local financial institutions and agencies in providing funds for major business ventures (David
1986:176). It is maintained, as in the case with other types of dependency, by the structural relationships among local institutions, agencies, interest groups and individuals who have vested interest in the linkage between international capital and national business ventures. In addition, the dependent state provide the investment 38
climate (for example, through open-door economic policies, as in Nigeria
where such policy guarantees the outflow or repatriation of profits),
and a political system conducive to inflow of capital. Another factor
that encourages foreign investment but which adds to the maintenance of
financial dependence is the non-expropriation guarantees of foreign investments.
Technological Dependence
The term, technological dependence, refers to "the technical capacity [of a nation] to produce the capital goods required for modern technology" (Merhav 1969:16). In contrast, indigenous technological capability refers to the "local capacity to create new technology, local development of technology already known elsewhere and the local modification of imported technologies [for local purposes]" (Stewart
1984:81).
Technological dependence is considered by many development and dependency theorists as the most critical aspect of the general condition of economic dependence, and that there is technological and general dependence because indigenous science and technological base is either weak or inexistent (Merhav 1969; Stewart 1977, 1984; UNIDO 1981;
Fransman 1984; Blomstrom et. al. 1984; David 1986). It is the cause and effect of general dependence; it leads to economic control of the peripheral economies, creates enclaves, and dependence on the technology-producing nations for all aspects of economic activities
(markets, inputs, management, finance, and technology for production)
(UNIDO 1981:11; Stewart 1977). This type of dependence, as implied above, was made manifest in the ISI programs in the LDCs. ISI totally 39 depended on the productive technologies imported from the DCs., without which the programs would not take place since the LDCs themselves did not have capital-goods sector for developing and producing their own technologies. As stated by Amin, "the luxury-goods sector, in fact, calls for capital intensive investments which only the big transnational oligopoly firms are in a position to embark upon and which constitute the material base for technological dependence" (Amin 1977:10).
Lack of internal technological capacity frustrates any attempts to self-reliance, and causes a nation to lose its socioeconomic autonomy and control of its economy. Referring to the Nigerian ISI or indigenization program, Claude Ake states:
It is difficult to see how Nigeria can try to control its economy without controlling the technological base of production, reducing its technological dependence. The reality is that the technological base for the production of much of what Nigeria consumes is located outside Nigeria in the factories of the center. This is why Nigeria's balance of payments problems are structural and chronic and will not disappear even with prosperity (Ake 1985:194).
Baumgartner points out that the DCs have successfully maintained Third
World dependence through their ability to continually develop and generate new technologies and their massive importation by the LDCs, and that the technological gap created is maintained and even widened through the concentration of R&D resources (human and material or infrastructure) in the DCs (Baumgartner 1980:575-578).
Countries aspiring to build indigenous technical capacity do so for a number of purposes. One is to use imported technologies more efficiently; the other is to be able to create independently appropriate technologies since foreign-developed ones have proved to be incompatible to local circumstances; thirdly, it is basic to, and facilitates the process of 1learning-by-doing' which, in the end, results in remunerative productive activities; and finally and above all, to minimize technological dependence, to achieve economic self-reliance
(Stewart 1984:81). UNIDO experts state that "the strengthening of domestic technological capabilities in developing countries is essential not only to the rapid acceleration of their social and economic development but also to overcome their excessive technological dependence on the industrialized countries" (UNIDO 1981:1).
Factors Promoting Technological Dependence
There are a number of factors that operate to strengthen and perpetuate technological dependence and monopoly. The most important ones often cited are patents, social structures, the concentration of world R&D, and technological knowledge (Stewart 1977; David 1986;
Biersteker 1982).
Patents are a major force in technological dependence because they create technological monopoly, restricting international technology transfer and dissemination of scientific information. They are used by transnationals "as a vehicle for achieving [economic] monopoly privileges," and they "hinder the flow of technology to developing countries as well as to restrict local technological advance through imitation and adaptation" (Vaitsos 1972:71, 90). David points out that the concentration of technological knowledge among the firms of the center explains, in a major way, the monopoly power of these firms. He explains that they have monopoly rights embodied in patent laws (David
1986:158). The monopoly power is furthered by the firms' ability to use the same technology to create new products and processes. Monopoly and 41
control of producer goods, products and process innovations provide the
transnationals the effective tools for maximizing their profit objectives in their host countries (T. G. Parry, cited in David
1986:158). The general economic impacts of patents on the LDCs have been summarized in this way:
A large part of the international market for technology has been commercialized, with proprietary rights acquired for the requisite technology. This process has involved both legal and non-legal restrictions that protect the owners [or producers] of technology and limit the free international flow of know-how. ...the international market for technology has become highly imperfect, with the monopoly power of technology suppliers entrenched in patents and trademark protections associated with different products and industrial processes and related oligopolistic pricing arrangements. This has placed developing countries in a situation of more or less permanent technological dependency. It has also deprived them of the multiplier effects that typically result from the pursuit of domestic research and development (R&D) programs (David 1986:174).
Technological monopoly and related dependence are maintained by
MNCs by the concentration of their R&D in their home countries. They do not have commercial interest in investing in R&D in the host countries or in transferring their technologies to them or even adapting them to local socioeconomic conditions (Biersteker 1982:11). Transferring their technologies to the LDCs would of course be inimical to their commercial interests there. The fact is that transnationals do not transfer technology.
The coincidence of foreign corporate and local comprador interests with those of the national development decision makers is an important contributor to the maintenance of technological dependence. Stewart states that it is the personal interests of the decision makers that lead them to prefer imported technologies rather than encouraging the development of indigenous alternatives (Stewart 1984:88). He adds that 42
lack of reward to economic or technological dynamism in the LDCs is also
an impediment to technological capacity development by certain classes
or groups who are highly technically skilled. "Hence a major element in
any work on indigenous technical change should be to trace how the
interests and rewards of the major decision-makers relate to a static or
dynamic environment and to local or foreign sources of technology"
(Stewart 1984:88). The interest of social groups is the primary source of threats to autonomous strategies and nationalistic policies for
technological self-reliance. Referring to delinkage, Bienefeld points out that "it is not only foreign interests that pose a threat to such policies, there are always groups and interests within an economy that will be more than happy to espouse a premature liberalism in trade"
(Bienefeld 1984:172). Apart from personal interests of state officials or decision-makers in the importation of ready-made technologies, the illusion of technology transfer is another implicit factor that keeps technological dependence alive. Rather than taking the initiatives in creating their own technologies, many LDCs continue to hope for the implantation of foreign technologies in their systems. Bagchi emphasizes this point by stating that:
In the current situation, most third world countries find that the more they try to industrialize through import substitution [in the absence of indigenous technological capacity], the more they become dependent on advanced countries for technology, product development and managerial expertise. Had these countries been able, from the beginning of the import substitution process, to adopt a policy akin to that of Japan, which rigidly excluded the entry of foreign firms and foreign private capital while permitting the purchase and imitation of foreign techniques in every field, they might conceivably have avoided their present fate. But they were unable for political reasons to introduce such a proviso, or to adopt the other policies which led to a fast development of the technological and educational base in Japan (Bagchi 1982:128). 43
In addition, Cardoso thinks that besides political and financial means of control, dependency is maintained because "the industrial sector develops in an incomplete form. The production goods sector [if there is one] ... which is the centre-pin of accumulation in a central economy, does not develop fully" (Cardoso cited in Fransman 1984:4).
Another factor that adds to the strength of technological dependence is the fact that, apart from the over-the-counter imports, "the elements of technical knowledge themselves have to be transferred [as well as] the capacity to use this knowledge in investment and production" (Cooper and
Sercovich, cited in Stewart 1977:119).
Reducing Technological Dependence
In view of the structural conditions of underdevelopment and technological dependence, it has become imperative for the LDCs to formulate policies and design strategies for achieving economic self- reliance through 'self-made' technologies. There is a wide consensus among social and economic scientists, development experts and world organizations of the importance for autonomous technological capability development in the LDCs. Indigenous technological capability is important for the facilitation of indigenous technical change (Ranis
1984), the rapid acceleration of their (LDCs) social and economic development, and the reduction of their technological dependence (UNIDO
1981; Stewart 1984), the full utilization of local capital and labor, and exploitation of local natural resources (Furtado 1964; Merhav 1969).
These theorists not only agree that the LDCs must build up their technological capacity to minimize dependence and improve their economy but also offer various suggestions about the appropriate means for 44
effectively pursuing the objectives. Important suggestions include
selective technology transfer and adaptation, learning-by-doing,
delinking or autarky as opposed to international trade liberalization,
and through the international dissemination of scientific information
(Cooper 1972; Fransman 1984; Dore 1984; Leys 1984; Ranis 1984: UNIDO
1981; Langdon 1984).
It is maintained that learning-by-doing is directly relevant to
scientific and technical activities in the underdeveloped countries
(Cooper 1972:6). Dore (1984:65) suggests that technology can be
transferred through learning process, and that this can be achieved by
importing a technology or a capital equipment and studying it to gain
the knowledge it embodies. According to Dore, this strategy would
Involve two aspects of capability: one, independent technology-creating
capacity which involves assimilation, modification and adaptation; and
the other, independent technology-learning capacity which also involves
learning, copying or imitating. He points out that various countries have successfully adopted one or the other to build-up their technological capacity. Dore stresses that a vigorous national policy of "independent technology learning capacity" accompanied by a policy of international trade minimization would be an ideal strategy for economic development and decreased technological dependence. But this depends on the existence and availability of adequate resources within the country seeking technological self-reliance. On the other hand, indigenous creation of new technology "is more exciting than scouting it, copying it, learning it from elsewhere" (Dore 1984:73). But Dore appeared to favour the latter than the former. He emphasized the importance of education as an effective means of achieving it. But, again, he argued that "it is not just schools that make the difference. The socioeconomic attitude towards learning and the philosophy of learning which prevails in the home is also enormously important" (Dore 1984:79).
In the same school of thought is Langdon (1984) who also stressed that learning-by-doing method is an important mechanism for augmenting technological capability in the LDCs, and that it is a necessity in many phases of technology development. Further, innovative skills "can only be acquired through learning-by-doing" (Stewart 1977:132).
Conditions for Local Technical Capacity
There is technological dependence when a country imports most or all of its technologies, and the greater the continued external technological reliance, the greater the dependence (UNIDO 1981; Stewart
1977). There is technological dependence because the LDCs do not have the capability to produce the technologies they need. This incapability lies in the fact that certain conditions for technological development are lacking. For example, "they have not developed technological base of skills, knowledge, facilities and organization upon which further technical progress so largely depends" (Rosenberg cited in Fransman
1984:5). Secondly, in the LDCs, it is the public sector that makes all decisions regarding technological development/transfer and technical change. Thus it becomes important that an appropriate political system that truly works for the economic welfare of all the people exists.
Makange stresses that the reasons for ineffective international technology transfer are the "lack of an appropriate political system to select priority areas for development, and lack of technological 46
autonomy to effect autonomous development" (Makange 1980:557-559).
According to him, an appropriate political system would give foremost
considerations to the prevailing needs of the overwhelming majority of
the people in choosing a technology, otherwise the self-interest of the
minority, the priveleged groups, would take precedence over the basic
needs. Fransman (1984:11) adds that such forceful factors as the
interests, motivations and ideologies of those involved (for example the
policy-makers) in the process of technological change are very
important.
Thirdly, a political system pursuing the policy of technological
autonomy would be expected to consider delinkage from the international
system that subjects it to dependence. This is important because
continued "foreign technology imports have an inhibiting effects on
local technological development. ...technology cut-off can have ...
stimulating effect on local capacity (Stewart 1977:119). The opposing view is the contention that "free trade," rather than delinkage, would be preferred because it facilitates optimal technical change (Fransman
1984:15). To this point, Fransman cites such closed economies as China and Russia which have benefitted extensively from technological imports, enabling them to build their internal technological capabilities. In contrast, a recent and closer example often cited in Africa as a good case for delinkage was the Biafran situation during the Nigerian civil war (1967-70) when the seccessionist Biafra was blockaded from foreign imports. The technical performance of Biafran scientists and engineers showed that an "isolation can have positive effects on the development of technology, and notably on a society's ability to rely on its inventive forces" (Nicholas Jequier, cited in Biersteker 1982:98).
Biersteker describes what took place in Biafra as follows:
...many industrial establishments were kept in operation after the departure of their expatriate managers. Spare and replacement parts were machine-tooled locally. ...many enterprises were kept running until crucial raw materials ran out.
. .. new technologies were developed and employed in newly established firms even as the war progressed. Alchoholic drinks such as Biafra Gin and Biafra Brandy were distilled to replace [imported] whiskey, gin, schnapps and liquers. Soap, toilet articles, special Biafra-made shirts, and antimalarial drugs and pharmaceuticals such as chloroquine were also produced.
... weapons manufacturing industry was developed on a broad scale, also utilizing intermediate technologies based on local innovative capabilities. Locally made amored vehicles were constructed along with a variety of guns, araunition, land mines, rockets, grenades, stand cannon, and even aerial bombs. The burgeoning armaments industry also repaired damaged [enemy] weapons... and made copies of ... captured equipments.
... and most significant, the capability to refine petroleum and fuel oil was demonstrated by Biafran scientists and engineers (Biersteker 1982:98-99).
But today, with the defeat of Biafra and the reappearance of dependent social structures, technological dependence has once again become reinstituted throughout Nigeria; indigenous scientific and technological manpower capacity has also become paralyzed and the promise of national technological development stunted or even obliterated. This has caused many people who have both scientific and technical bent, as well as innovative capabilities, to migrate to the developed countries.
Other reasons justifying delinkage is that it is necessary not only to protect the learning process, but also to promote and protect the new industrial and capital goods sector from foreign competition (Katz 1984;
Stewart 1984). Protection prevents the undermining effects of superior foreign technology. 48
Delinkage is also important because
...the more externally oriented an economy is, the more open it becomes to various forms of vulnerability and the more restricted are its economic choice possibilities. The pattern and concentration of external reliances reflect a situation of 'external dependency' in the areas of trade, finance, technology, and even in terms of political and social ideology. These, in turn, are considered to have certain internal developmental consequences. The latter can be thought of as 'internal dependency' and is generally reflected by internal fragmentation, a lack of integration among economic and social sectors, and underdevelopment (David 1986:174).
The reliance on internal institutions and resources, and the establishment of a viable national industrial base protected from competitive foreign enterprise are considered by theorists as being crucial to a well-meaning indigenous efforts to create, develop and produce new technologies designed for internal use.
Delinkage or nationalist approach, as a necessary condition for the development of indigenous technological capability, has been criticized as unviable for achieving such objective. Opponents maintain that it is neither conducive to domestic scientific and technological progress nor economic well-being; there must be international connections with regard to dissemination of scientific information and technology transfer because most aspects of scientific and technological development involve global processes (J. E. Roemer, cited in Annerstedt 1980:84). But the point is that international dissemination of scientific information has become increasingly controlled and restricted through patent laws, as we have pointed out earlier and will discuss further in chapter four.
Another key factor in building indigenous technological capacity is the existence of indigenes who have high skills and have great technical bent. Technological progress in a developing country is a function of indigenous capacity to select cost-effective (appropriate) technologies to "tinker and adjust," and the capacity to diffuse them locally (Ranis
1984:97). There are no stages of technological development; "the causal direction does not ... run from science to basic and then to applied technology" (Ranis 1984:100). Stage-by-stage technological development does not have a place in national capacity-building; what is essentially required is capable men and women who are highly proficient and talented, possessing high entrepreneurial spirits and working under appropriate social, economic and political conditions. This point is also stressed by Singh by saying also that what is most important in local technological and industrial development is not just the existence of natural or material resources, but the availability of high quality indigenous skills and capabilities (Singh 1984:32). David adds that
"the quality of the labor force is an important factor in technological diffusion," emphasizing that investment in human capital (through education and training) is as important as investment in "reproducible capital," that "human beings are both a means and end of authentic development," and that the human resources issue is more important than the issue of appropriate technology (David 1986:96).
For local progress in technological development, absorption and promotion, there must be indigenous 'social carriers' which have objective interests in selecting and applying specific technologies
(UNIDO 1981:17). The social carriers "objective interest must coincide with a subjective interest, that is, the objective interest must be consciously felt or perceived as an adequate goal by the carrier" (UNIDO
1981:17). But the ability of the social carrier to achieve his 50 objective and subjective interests rests with the question whether or not he possesses economic and political power. Economic resources, and political authority and environment are essential forces that could impede or promote national plans for industrial and technological development.
All countries, DCs and LDCs, import new technologies. But the difference between them is that the former have well-established infrastructures that enable them to modify or adapt foreign-made technologies as desired, while the latter have none, or weak wherever it exists (UNIDO 1981:16). This implies that infrastructural capacity must be strong enough for the optimal performance or use of other factors, human and material respectively, as a pre-condition for local technological capacity development.
Another important determinant of technological capacity and change in a dependent state reside in the social relations of production including ownership of the means of production and class relations in the industrial sector and the corresponding form and character (Fransman
1984:12). The importance of social relations of production which is
"implicit in the technology" (Leys 1984:179) is that the prevailing social relations determines the effective use of a technology developed in, and imported from a society whose social relations of production are fundamentally different from those of the importer. According to
Fransman, the difference may cause the imported technology to be less effective in accomplishing the objective for which it is imported, reducing it to the status of inappropriate technology. The development of a new technology is never done in isolation; that is, it is developed to be exclusively compatible to local socioeconomic factors - cost, ownership and the operations. "Technology is never neutral but is intimately related to the social relations of production; indeed it is an aspect of those relations" (Leys 1984:175). Leys further states that the concept of social relations "becomes politically important when it is a question of transferring technology ... between countries [or diverse social systems], ...it will only be practicable if the relations of production appropriate to it exist or are established in the importing country" (Leys 1984:175). Theorists insist that social relations of production is important because the new imported technology must be comprehensible and assimilative to those who import and use it.
Indigenous technology capacity can also be promoted by supporting small scale domestic firms to learn by doing by giving them the priveleges of national industrial contract undertakings now enjoyed by foreign firms (Langdon 1984:373). Influenced by psychology of dependence, as well as personal interests, public decision-makers in the
LDCs have the tendency to engage foreign firms to execute national industrial projects simply because they are "perfect;" but the point is that indigenes will never be "perfect” without practice.
Each of the foregoing conditions is only an aspect of a total effort to establish, build-up and sustain local technological capacity.
All must be concurrently present in any national capacity efforts.
Other Thoughts About Dependency
The effect of these forms of dependence was that they, not only condition the relationships the LDCs have with the advanced capitalist countries, but also their internal structures: "the orientation of 52
production, the forms of capital accumulation, the reproduction of the
economy, and ... their social and political structures" (Dos Santos
1970:232).
Johnson (1972:72) also locates the current underdevelopment in the
"historical situations of dependence," pointing out that "under development is not an original state," and that "dependence relations also shape the social structure of underdevelopment. A principal factor in the development and perpetuation of underdevelopment was (and is) the coincidence of interests between national oligarchies and the economic structure of underdevelopment."
In his 'world system' view, shared by. Baran and Wallerstein, Frank
(1969:xi) contends that "it is capitalism...which produced underdevelopment in the past and which still generates underdevelopment in the present." Frank and Wallerstein see capitalism as a "system of monopolistic exchange," a system which functions to transfer surplus from the underdeveloped areas to the developed capitalist centers and regarded as an exploitation.
Frank opposes dualism theories which divides an underdeveloped economy into two sectors: one, capitalist, modern and progressive; and the other, traditional, feudal and archaic, and self-sufficient. He rather calls these the metropolis and the satellite respectively. The penetration of capitalism in all the sectors of the economy caused the incorporation of these economies into the world system in a metropolis- satellite relationship in which the former exploits the latter. The conditions of dependence are promoted by a ruling class that benefits personally from it. 53
Wallerstein (1974) describes the 'world system1 as a single entity
"with a single division of labor and multiple cultural systems." He divides the system into three geographical entities: the core, the semiperiphery and the periphery in which one, the core, develops and grows at the expense of the others through surplus extraction and transfer, as Frank has discussed. The core-state, collaborating with the ruling class of the periphery, adopts political and economic means to control the economy of the periphery and to keep the state weak and block its attempts for industrialization projects that may conflict with its interests.
In his disagreement with the theory of 'comparative advantage' associated with David Ricardo (1951), Arrighi Emmanuel (1972) developed the theory of "unequal exchange." First of all, Ricardo's assumption is that if nations specialize more in what they produce relatively more efficiently than other nations can, all nations will be better-off; it would be to the economic advantage of a nation and other nations with which it trades. A nation gains more by specializing in the production of those goods and services in which it has the greatest comparative advantage because allocating resources to the production of the goods and services for which it has less comparative advantage will reduce national output and national income. Emmanuel's basic counter argument is that international trade does not benefit the LDCs as much as it benefits the advanced nations; it simply drains surplus out of the LDCs.
Emmanuel argues that labor in the countries participating in the trades are not rewarded evenly. This is widened by international division of labor, the "non-mobility of the workers between countries" 54
(Bettelheira 1972:293). The problem of international division of labor
converts one part of the world into an agricultural region that produces
primary supplies to the other part which remains industrially dominant
(Marx 1967:425). Emmanuel's assumption is that the amount of labor time
embodied in a commodity of a peripheral country exchanges for less than
the same labor time embodied in a commodity of the metropolitan country.
There is higher wage per. say, one hour of work in the latter than it is
in the former. Hence the products of a high-wage country are dearer,
while those of the low-wage country are cheaper. Differences in wages
create conditions of inequality. Because the low-wage country pays more
than it receives, high rate of value is transferred away from its
reserves to the high-wage countries.
THE SOCIAL ELEMENT OF DEPENDENCY
The purpose of this section is to investigate the social means by
which dependency is maintained. The central element in this investiga
tion is class. It is central because its existence, with respect to dependency, raises the question of internal interests that promote external interests at the expense of the interest of the society as a whole for their own individual benefits. The concept of dependence is better understood when we refer to "the articulation of dominant
interests in the hegemonic centres and in the dependent societies.
External domination ... is in principle impracticable. Domination is practicable only when it finds support among those local groups which profit by it" (Dos Santos 1976:78). 55
The Nature of Class
In Marxist terms, the existence of contradictions in the social
relations of production is the underlying dynamic force that creates
situations of class. Basic to class analysis or class definition is the
social relations of production which refers to a productive system
involving the control of labor and also the control over the means of
production and the product of labor. As Roxborough has stated, this is
the "starting point for a definition [or the analysis] of class"
(Roxborough 1979:70).
Class is a relational concept (Anikpo 1975) and has its historical
foundation in the relations of production that existed between the direct producers of material goods and the appropriators of these products. It is the process of production and appropriation that forms the basis of class relations, with the direct producers as one class and the appropriators as the other. Class relation itself is the manner in which these two groups perceive each other in this production- appropriation relationship. The monopoly of the means of production and the control of the process of production by one class presupposes the domination and exploitation of another class. It is the socioeconomic inequality arising from this relationship that differentiates a social formation into two major classes (Brewer 1980, Amin 1974), each conscious of itself. It is this consciousness that is the factor of antagonism between them.
Class relations are as old as man and existed in all social formations at one point in time or another. In every organized society, there was class relation; each pre-capitalist mode of production, 5 6
according to Marx (1967), consisted of a pair of classes that were
opposed to each other, as mentioned above. This contradicts Brewer's
notion that the lineage society in Africa was classless (Brewer
1980:200). In the capitalist mode of production, Marx identified three main classes: "the owners of merely labor power, owners of capital, and
land-owners, whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground rent, in other words, wage laborers, capitalists and land-owners constitute the three big classes of modern society based upon the capitalist mode of production" (Marx 1967, 111:885).
It is because one class lives in opulence (through exploitation) while the other class remains indigent (not because of its own innate inability to be wealthy also but because of the artificial conditions created in the society by the former through its political power) that antagonism erupts between them. This eruption crystallizes into class struggles: the wealthy struggles to maintain the status quo - that of maintaining the social relations of production which is favourable to them; that is, the appropriation of social economic resources for themselves through their monopolistic ownership of the means of production; the impoverished (the exploited) struggles to break the bonds of poverty - the surplus they produce are denied them, allowing them only the minimum that could sustain them for continuous production and reproduction. It is this class struggle that is central to the definition of class. Lenin has highlighted the meaning of class in the following lines:
Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation... to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, 57
and consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people, one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy (cited in Glazerman and Kursanov 1967:84- 85).
Neo-Colonial Class Formation
Kwame Nkrumah has stated that "the essence of colonialism is that
the state which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all
the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its
economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside"
(Nkrumah 1968:ix). James O'Connor (1970), as we noted earlier, has also
stated that neo-colonial policy is to prevent the newly independent
countries from consolidating their political independence as a means of
keeping them economically dependent within the world capitalist system.
Dependency theorists have generally held that the economic activities in
the underdeveloped countries are externally determined and dominated by
foreign capitalists as a result of being fully integrated into the world
capitalist economy, initially through mercantilism, then through
colonialism, and later through neo-colonialism. Sklar notes that in
these countries, "major aspects of economic organisations are subject to
foreign control," and that "foreign governments and businessmen often determine the rate and scope of local capital investment, the development and use of economic resources, the composition and direction of external trade" (Sklar 1979:531). Under these conditions new classes have emerged.
External-Internal Social Structures as a Means of Control
Despite the social and political changes that have taken place in the ex-colonies, the advanced countries are still able to adapt and maintain their control of these economies. The major question is, which
"class and groups which, in the struggle for control or for the reformation of the existing orders, ... are making a given structure of domination historically viable (Cardoso 1977:16). The explanation for this continuity is found in the internal social structures allied with external structures to reproduce and maintain the relations of dependence. Within the external structures are the MNCs and the international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) which have the monopoly of vital technologies and international capital respectively for economic development: both receive political support from the capitalist state.
The forces in the internal social structures are constituted by indigenous dominant economic classes whose interests coincide with those of their superior foreign counterparts. Internal elements include the elites (Evans 1979), the aristocrats (Amin 1973(a):141), and the syndical groups (Wallerstein 1979:224-226). The structural positions and interests these groups have in the international system is crucial to the problem of dependency and underdevelopment. The interests are a force behind the adaptation and survival of the MNCs whose activities manifest neo-colonialism. Cardoso and others (1979:xvi)
conceive the relationship between external and internal forces as forming a complex whole whose structural links are not based on mere external forms of exploitation and coercion, but are rooted in coincidences of interests between local dominant classes and international ones... External domination in situations of national dependency ... implies the possibility of the 'internalization of external interests'.
'internal' force through the social practices of local groups and classes which try to enforce foreign interests, not 59
precisely because they are foreign, but because they may coincide with values and interests that these groups pretend are their own.
In this regard, Lenin (1917) reminds us of the "solid bonds"
between the foreign bourgeoisie and local interest groups; Baran (1968)
spoke of comprador bourgeoisie and comprador governments; Magdoff (1969)
points to the "corrupt ruling class" that maintains underdevelopment and
dependency; Sklar (1979) noted the "privileged groups and those who
conduct the business of government" who have become agents of foreign
domination; Evans (1979) discussed the "Triple Alliance" in Brazil; and
Turner (1976, 1980) saw a "Triangular Relationship" in Nigeria.
Colonial Class Formation In Nigeria
Before formal independence, the dominant ruling class in Nigeria
was the British who had the monopoly of political power as a means of
controlling the economic resources of the country. The ruling class was
totally an organ of capitalist expropriation of economic surplus
produced in the country. Onimode (1982) refers to this class as
"imperialist-bourgeoisie." Subordinate to it was the indigenous petty- bourgeoisie constituted by the colonial administrative agents such as
the chiefs who collected taxes, confiscated the best agricultural lands on behalf of the foreign plantation owners, and secured migrant workers to cultivate the plantations. By these services, the petty-bourgeoisie were the staff that turned the wheels of imperialist machinery of exploitation and made a living from it. A segment of this class was the
'coastal aristocrats' consisting of business intermediaries, for example, money lenders who borrowed from imperialist banks and relent them to small agricultural product buyers and producers, transporters who hauled the agricultural products and other forms of raw materials 6 0
from the hinterland to the coasts, and to the merchants of these raw
materials and imported goods (Onimode 1982). According to Onimode,they
also lent to plantation workers which consequently became a means of
proletarianization: financial indebtedness compelled small individual
producers to abandon their traditional economy to become wage-workers.
Another group of petty-bourgeoisie are the highly educated who, through European form of education, were deeply accultured: acquiring new values, life-styles and skills. By exhibiting these attributes, they became the elites. Their social, economic, and political behavior, as a result, were compatible with the business of neocolonialism. Their colonial education had its objective:
The purpose was to train up a Western-oriented political elite committed to the attitudes and ideologies of capitalism and bourgeois society. The colonialists' aim in fostering the growth of an African intelligentia [was] to form local cadres called upon to become our assistants in all fields, and to ensure the development of a carefully selected elite... We pick out pupils primarily from among the children of chiefs and aristocrats... The prestige due to origin should be backed up by respect which possession of knowledge evokes (Nicholson 1969:20).
After independence, the petty-bourgeoisie became split into two groups: the new ruling class or bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the business bourgeoisie (Onimode 1982). In the Triangular Relationship both are described as compradors because they derive personal benefits from organizing the access of foreign capital to local economic resources: essential raw materials and market for finished goods. Since the 1960s after independence, the armed forces, through military coups, have become politicized and assume a forceful segment of the ruling class. 61
The objective of class struggles and conflicts in Nigeria is to
control the state apparatus: the instrument of domination of the
populace (Onimode 1982). Each new government that emerged have in one way or another performed the same neocolonial functions; none have genuinely represented the people of Nigeira. Anikpo (1985:38) observes
that "the colonial class structure was built on the convenient
foundations provided by the precolonial society. Similarly, the post colonial structure is a carryover from the colonial state."
The Nigerian situation validates Baran's (1968) statement that the governments of the newly independent countries which he describes as
'comprador governments' have basically the same characteristics and perform the same functions as the colonial administrators which they now replace. Nigeria is an independent nation where colonialism operates in absentia, an absentee colonialism. The former masters may have gone, but their old economic policies remain operative.
"THE TRIANGULAR RELATIONSHIP"
The Foreign Bourgeoisie
In Nigeria, as Turner (1980) has described, the triangular relationship begins when a foreign businessman or a representative of the MNC who has adequate capital, employs the services of an indigenous businessman who is deficient of capital to be able to compete with his new boss, but who is well abreast of the business environment in the country. Since competition among the MNCs for local businesses is high, their representatives or functionaries need middlemen who know the 62
'people-who-matter' in the state and who can pave the way for them for
easier access to these people, the decision- or policy-makers.
Nigeria's attainment of formal independence in 1960 introduced the
so-called 'open-door policy' which made it possible for some developed
nations to break the British monopoly and control of the Nigerian
economy. By this policy, the government created social, economic and
political environment conducive to the entry of new monopoly capital and
the exit of surplus profits. The policy thus found an expression in the
activities of the MNCs, the new foreign bourgeoisie whose success rests
not only on their monopoly of investment capital and vital technologies
but also in the fact that they receive the protection of the state, and
in the inability of the indigenous bourgeoisie to compete with them.
"The Development of a Comprador State"
Before West Africa was colonized, peaceful commercial activities at
the West African coasts existed between the region and Western Europe.
There were exchanges of local primary goods and foreign manufactured
goods. At first, selling and buying were almost a direct, person-to-
person affair. As the trade became more lucrative for the Europeans,
they established trading outposts at the coasts and engaged the services of middlemen who supplied and distributed local and imported goods
respectively. The intensity of demand for local commodities was a
crucial factor in the geo-political 'Scramble for Africa'. At this point the business environment shifted from one of mutual cooperation to that of cooptation and conflict in the sense that the African economy became fully integrated into the expanding world capitalist system and also in the sense that the process of this integration involved extra- economic coercion of the African. The need to secure strategic sources
of vital raw materials and ensure its continuity made the geopolitical
damarcations or partition and annexations necessary for the industrial
powers. Colonial rule was a "means of enforcing contracts, and
providing for credit, for protection of title to property and for the
exclusion of non-British interests which threatened to encroach on the
area" (Turner 1980:202).
In Nigeria, the British system of administration was the 'indirect
rule' initiated by Lord Lugard. Lugard ruled through the traditional
rulers or chiefs appointed by him. The social status of the traditional
rulers shifted downwards from one of the highest authority in the
precolonial society to one of a mere agent of imperialism whose role was
thus reduced to simply maintaining social environment conducive to
colonial success: they maintained law and order, and saw to the exaction of taxes and of raw materials: they were agents through whom Lugard exerted his authority. But when independence was attained, it was the highly educated and commercial magnates that took the reign of the government. Turner (1980:204) refers to the new government as a
"neocolonial comprador state" because "in the transition from colonialism to independence, political power was transferred to a regime based on the support of social classes linked very closely to the foreign interests which were formerly represented by the colonial state." She describes compradors as "those professional intermediaries who organize the access of foreign traders to the local market" (Turner
1980:204). Because of their similar commercial activities they constitute a comprador class with members also drawn from the state 64
administration. State officials who form a segment of this class are
referred to as "bureaucratic compradors," to distinguish them from their
commercial counterparts, the "business compradors," but both perform the
same comprador function.
The involvement of a great number of state officials who use their
decision-making positions to promote foreign interests for an income but
demote indigenous entrepreneurship gave rise to the state being seen as
a comprador state. "The Nigerian state derives from its overall
orientation towards facilitating commerce, from its domination by
representatives of the local middlemanship class, and from the
intermediary role its officers play between foreign salesmen and the
local... market" (Turner 1980:205). Private middlemen use their
economic power exercised in bribery and corruption to block all foreign
transactions that excluded their personal interests. Corruption has thus become a way of life in the state, permeating all levels of local and foreign business transactions especially when private agents aspire to win big public contracts for their foreign clients. Political instability which is endemic in the foreign links is often the end- results of these struggles:
Local Intermediaries and foreign businessmen who are unable to gain access to the decision-makers of the moment look forward to their replacement. State officials who cannot obtain positions which allow them to influence decision making similarly seek to unseat those in power. In this conflict-ridden context the power of the gun and money plays everyday role (Turner 1976:68).
Technocrats
While the state administration is highly involved in corrupt practices, there are, however, nationalist public officials found 65
especially in the state corporations and who endeavored to execute
genuine Federal government's "new policy of economic nationalism" such
as the ISI programmes. These are called technocrats described as "those
state officials whose ability to influence decisions derives from their
technical [and scientific] knowledge and specialized experience and
whose jobs involved reducing national reliance on foreign goods and
services" (Turner 1980:205). Local university scientists and engineers
are also regarded as technocrats.
Nigerian technocrats have less Western cultural orientation and are
less affected by what Tanzer (1974:63) calls the "psychology of dependence" than the compradors who feel that the country does not have the manpower capability needed for indigenous technological development and modernization without external help. Bven if such progressive development occurs through native efforts, many compradors feel it will be detrimental to their selfish interests and therefore will work to destroy it. Turner (1980:206,207) has drawn an adequate distinction between Nigerian technocrats and compradors:
Technocrats are relatively uncorrupt, not because they possess special moral qualities, but because their function is to replace national dependence on foreign firms with local capabilities. In contrast, comprador officials, who control the new parastatals from their senior positions in the ministries are reinforcing dependence on foreign capital through organizing the access of foreign firms to the local market and to local resources. This difference in relationship with foreign capital is the source of tension between technocrats and compradors within the state. The jobs which technocrats fill were created in response to a set of ideas about 'development', not in response to demands by an incipient class of productive entrepreneurs not even on the crest of wave of economic nationalism. 66
The Comprador Function of the State
The Nigerian government has been described as a "nation of commision agents" (Osoba 1978:70); a "comprador state" because certain elements within it "profit from organizing the access of foreign firms to local markets and raw materials" (Turner 1976:63); and an organ of international capital because "the state officials operate as agents of imperialism" (Beckman 1982:39). Some of the state's powerful officials and national leaders use their positions to manipulate the state's economic policies to enhance their own selfish ends at the expense of the well-being of the majority of the people and to the detriment of autonomous, self-reliant development. Their personal well-being dictate their compradoral behavior.
Importance of Dependency to the Research Problem
The relevance of dependency theory to this research problem is that it enables the researcher to gain some insight and understanding regarding the types of social and political problems that Nigeria will face in its attempts to integrate biotechnology into its current and future development plans to achieve its objective of self-reliance in agriculture. The identification of possible problems prior to actual implementation of the new technology will enable the policy makers in the country to take adequate measures that will reduce or eliminate these problems. In these contexts "it is most useful to grapple first with the world [and Nigerian national] political-economic context within which biotechnology will be deployed (Kenney et. al. 1985:62). The importance of this becomes clearer and meaningful when we remember the events of the green revolution. The green revolution innovation, as discussed in chapter four, brought far-reaching and unforeseen social and economic consequences on the countries that adopted it. Some of the negative impacts could have been avoided or at least minimized had an ex ante impact analysis, which had dependency theory as its framework, been undertaken. Thus, dependency theory becomes important in enabling us to assess the possibilities and limitations of a Third World country, such as Nigeria, considering a biogenetic innovation in its agro-economic system. The effective introduction and actual development of biotechnology in Nigeria would hinge on this a priori socioeconomic impact and technical capacity assessment. CHAPTER III
OVERVIEW OF NIGERIA'S AGRO-ECONOMIC STATUS
Introduction
This chapter is a brief profile of Nigeria and an overview of its
agro-economic conditions. It embodies three principal parts. The first
part is a short profile of the country: the government, the people and
population, education, its climate and vegetation which have great
influence on the country's resource-based agriculture, and its economy
and economic resources. The second part presents the pre- and post
independence agro-economic policies of the country. And the third
section is the presentation of the system of agricultural production,
and its problems and stagnation which have persuaded a national policy of self-reliance that may consider the implementation of biotechnology.
The focus is specifically plant agriculture.
Socioeconomic Indicators and International Trade
Tables 3 and 4 show the social and economic indicators, and
international trade status of Nigeria.
68 6 9
Table 3 Basic Social & Economic Indicators
GDP (billions US $) - 1984 = 61.4; 1985 = 65.2
Sectoral GDP: 1963 1980 1985
Agriculture - 49.5% 23% 29%
Industry - 9.9% 36% 39%
Manufacturing - 3.9% 6% 6%
Services - 40.3% 40% 41%
GDP per capita - 1983 = $670; 1985 = $800
Annual growth rate - 1960-70 = 4.4%; 1975 = 7.4% 0 CO X 11 - 1983 = 6.6%; 1985 1
Inflation - 1960-70 = 4.0%; 1980 = 14.0%
- 1985 = 35%
Population (estimated) - 1986 = 95 million
Growth rate - 1970 = 2.7%; 1985 = 2.5%
Death rate - 20 per thousand
Life expectancy - 59
Labor force - 1985 = 34 million
Literacy — 1986 = 35-40% (concentrati the South)
Sources: Adapted by the author from: UNIDO/IS.557, 1985; World Resources, 1986; Central Bank of Nigeria, 1986. TABLE 4 Nigerian International Trade Status
Exports - $11,654 million (1983/84)
Products: Petroleum (92%), cocoa, palm produce, rubber
Imports - $16,753 million (1982/83)
Goods - Capital, and manufactured goods, chemicals, and food (8%).
Balance of Payments $10.2 billion (1979-83 cummulative); 1985 = $2.6 billion
Currency exchange rate:
Naira (N) equivalent to $1. 1980 1983 1984 1986
0.55 0.67 0.79 3.50
1987 1988
4.25 4.75
Sources: UNID0/IS.557, 1985; Central Bank of Nigeria, 1986: 1988. 71
PROFILE
The Government
Nigeria, a former British colony beginning in 1868, attained formal
independence on October 1, 1960. It moved from a British-patterned
parliamentary system of government to a presidential system modelled to
that of the United States. The country is a federation of 19 states
with a federal capital, Lagos; plans are underway to move the
administrative capital territory to Abuja in the North. The Nigerian government has been relatively unstable since independence and has, for
this reason, undergone a major civil war that has inflicted many deep political wounds on the unity of the country. This has been manifested
in the several military coups and counter-coups, often bloody, that have taken place since 1966, just six years after independence. The Nigerian political system was fundamentally based on the system of democracy, but has become military.
The People
Nigeria is a multi-racial nation consisting of 250 tribal groups each having its own culture and language. The common medium of communication among these groups is English which is also the official, administrative language as well as the medium of instruction in most schools. Three out of this number are dominant both numerically, politically and economically, but not culturally. Each group maintains its own culture and tradition distinctively from the others. Any cultural change that exists is as a result of contacts with Western
Europe - Western acculturation - but not as a result of local influences. The three dominant groups are the Hausa/Fulani which 72 dominate the North, the Ibo dominating the East, and the Yoruba in the
West,
The population of Nigeria is 95 million, by 1986 estimates, and increasing at an annual average rate of 2.5 percent; one out of every four Africans is a Nigerian (Dinham 1983:151; UNESCO 1986:76; World
Resources 1986:10, 13). Approximately 70 percent of the population live in the rural areas and derive their livelihood from agriculture.
However, since the late 1970s, oil-induced industrialization and commercial activities have been a pull factor in a massive rural-urban migration among young farmers for industrial jobs. Because of the politico-tribal antagonisms existing in the Nigerian social system which has marred several attempts for accurate national census, the country does not have reliable population data. Nigeria, by estimate, is the
10th of the 12 most populous countries in the world. World Resources projection has it that by the year 2100, Nigeria will be the world's 3rd most populous nation if the present growth rate continues.
Climate And Vegetation
Climatically, Nigeria is tropical, with high temperatures and humidity during certain periods of the year. The climate is marked by two main seasons, the dry and wet (rainy) seasons. The temperature, which ranges from about 24 to 35 centigrade, is generally conducive to traditional agriculture and to the growth of the various tropical crops found in the country. The level of rainfall which particularly has much influence on the country's agriculture ranges from 60 to 150 inches in the South (East, West and the Midwest) to about 26 inches in the North
(Kirk-Greene 1981:61). 73
There are regional variations in vegetation because of the variations in the amount of rainful during the year, apart from the
influences of rivers, streams and swamps. These variations, as well as soil types, have much bearing on the ecological specializations in agriculture among the four regions of the country, the East, West, Mid-
West, and the North.
Nigeria is bounded on the East by the Cameroon, on the West by the
Republic of Benin, and on the North by Chad and Niger. The Atlantic ocean bounds the southern part of the country. Nigeria has a land area of 925,000 sq. km. (357,000 sq. miles). Over 90 percent of the land area is suitable for agriculture.
Education
Since independence, it has been the policy of both the Federal and
State governments of Nigeria to give every school-age children the opportunity to have an education up to college (university) level. In pursuance of this policy, free primary education for all has been offered, and scholarships and other forms of financial assistance have been awarded and granted respectively to deserving students in various institutes of higher learning. More students in the sciences receive scholarships than students of liberal arts; this is a strategy adopted by the government to encourage science education aimed at national manpower-building for scientific and technological development. More recently, agricultural science has become a top priority for the governments. Thus, by the middle of the 1970s "the capacity of the
Nigerian universities' agricultural faculties [were] almost sufficient 74 to meet long-term demands for agricultural graduates" (World Bank
1975:186).
Government investment in higher education is tremendous. At independence, only one college, the University College of Ibadan which functioned under the University of London, existed. Today there are over twenty universities in the country, most of which emphasize the sciences. The largest of these are:
The University of Nigeria, Nsukka
The University of Ibadan, Ibadan
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria
The University of Benin, Benin
The University of Lagos. Lagos
The University of Ife, Ile-Ife
The University of Jos, Vom
The University of Port Harcourt
Policy for Science and Technology Development
Realizing the economic potentials of the nation's vast natural resources, the federal government attempted to formulate national science and technology (S&T) policy that would guide their (S&T) development to exploit these resources for the welfare of the country.
In this respect the Nigerian Council for Science and Technology (NCST) was created in 1970 to formulate and develop national S&T policies, identify the research and development (R&D) needs of the country and direct research (basic and applied) activities to these needs, and to coordinate all R&D activities in agricultural science, industrial sciences, engineering and technology, medical sciences, and other areas. 75
It is also charged with the promotion of education in S&T and the
awarding of scholarships for post-graduate studies in various areas of
science as well as research training.
In pursuance of the nation's R&D objective, the NCST created specialized sectoral research councils under its umbrella:
Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN)
Industrial Research Council of Nigeria (IRCN)
Medical Research Council of Nigeria (MRCN) and
i:atural Sciences Research Council of Nigeria (NSRCN).
Because the NCST proved ineffective, it was scraped along with these councils. In its place, the National Science and Technology
Development Agency (NSTDA) was established in 1977. The functions of
NSTDA were not different from those of its predecessor. What was different, however, was its organization and management styles.
Management was now composed of more professional, less politically oriented administrators. But in 1979, it was transformed into the present Federal Ministry of Science and Technology (FMST) which is responsible for formulating biotechnology policy and its promotion in
Nigeria. Its important functions, according to a UNESCO (1986:80) study are several. First, it formulates national policy on science and technology and ensures its implementation. Second, it promotes and co ordinates scientific and technological research, and technology transfer. The third function is that it liaises with local universities and polytechnics on scientific and technological activities in relation to manpower capability development. Fourth, the ministry supervises and co-ordinates research programs of the national research institutes, 76
providing them and the universities with financial support for research
and development. Fifth, it encourages the dissemination of scientific
information and research results and their applications in relation to
innovation. Finally, it promotes local science and technological
development through local participation in international and regional
conferences, seminars and workshops.
Economic Resources
Nigeria is endowed with a variety of natural economic resources in
which lies, in part, its potential for rapid economic development and
growth. These include such minerals as petroleum, natural gas, coal,
tin ore, gold, columbite, iron ore, uranium, limestone, clay, marble,
and lignite. Presently, only two of these, coal and petroleum, exist in
huge commercial quantities and are intensively exploited. Coal is
totally domestically consumed. Petroleum production in the country
ranks the sixth in the world, and second in Africa after Libya (Ubogu
1979). Leading buyers of Nigerian petroleum are the United States,
Brazil, and Britain. Nigeria supplies up to 40 percent of the United
States oil imports (Sandbrook et. al. 1985:24). The Federal Government
of Nigeria derives 80 percent of its revenue, and 90 percent of its
foreign exchange from oil (Cacia 1983:79). Since the 1970s, petroleum has replaced agriculture as a prime source of foreign exchange.
Major agricultural resources of industrial and world importance
include palm produce (oil and kernel), cocoa, groundnut, cotton and rubber. By 1970, Nigeria's world market share in these products was very high as shown in Table 5. Table 5 Nigeria's Agricultural Exports Market Share - 1970
groundnuts - 36 percent
cocoa - 20,,53
cotton - 18
vegetable oil - 11 it
Sources: Ekundare 1973:16; J. A. Williams, "Cocoa genetic resources in Nigeria", in Crop Genetic Resources in Africa, IITA 1980:80.
The importance of agriculture in the Nigerian economy has
repeatedly been emphasized by the federal government. Despite
petroleum, it is the mainstay of the country's economy. Its importance
lies in the fact that, at independence, its contribution to Gross
National Product (GDP) was 70 percent, although it declined to 55 percent in 1966, 53 percent in 1970/71, 49 percent in 1973/74, and plunged to 27 percent in 1976/77 accounting periods (Kirk-Greene
1981:64). Before the end of the 1970s, it was the primary source of employment in the country, employing up to 70 percent of the nation's labour force. Between 1940 and 1960, virtually all the nation's foreign exchange earnings came from agricultural exports.
THE NIGERIAN AGRO-ECONOMIC POLICY
Pre-Independence Policy
The basic British economic policy in Nigeria is contained in the so-called "Dual Mandate" doctrine (McPhee 1926, Hancock 1940). The principle of this doctrine was the idea of developing the local economy or resources in the interest of international trade for the benefit of
all participants. International trade provided an outlet for Nigerian
surplus agricultural products. The policy of developing local agro-
economy was three-pronged. One was the effective organization of
production maintained by a land policy known as the 'Land and Native
Rights' ordinances promulgated in 1910 and in 1917 (Oluwasanmi 1966).
This land law restricted foreign investors from engaging in enclave
system of production both in agriculture and mineral resources. Rather
foreign firms directed their investment resources to trading concerns.
Production activities were dominated by the natives but it was foreign- directed.
With law and order maintained, laissez-faire system of economic practice put in place, and with foreign-determined primary production established between the 1900s and 1940, the colonial administration began to build agricultural development institutions that, for the most part, represented its interests. One such institution was the Marketing
Board established in 1940 which had the responsibility of buying export products from local producers and selling them in the international markets. Marketing Boards played major roles in the early economic development of Nigeria before independence and until mining (petroleum) replaced agriculture as a prime source of foreign exchange. They stabilized product prices in the domestic market in order to encourage small producers to increase their production efforts. Because they had a good storage system, they were able to buy all that were available in the local markets and export them later when there is a rise in world market prices. In this way the burden and risk of storage are taken 79
away from the farmers who, therefore, concentrated their efforts in
production only.
Periodic economic development planning was another pre-independence
institution which was devised to gear the course of the nation's economy
into definite courses of policy action: in agriculture, industry,
education, public health and social services. In 1945, the colonial
development and welfare act which authorized this development planning
was enacted and the first plan was formulated the following year (Eicher
et. al. 1970).
The next institution was agricultural research. Biological
research insitutes were established to deal with plant and crop
diseases. Originally, they were national in scope; later they expanded
to assume regional dimension, that is, British West Africa. It was
hoped that the solution of plant and crop diseases would lead to
increased and sustained productivity. The colonial objective was to
maintain steady supplies of agricultural raw materials for the British
agro-allied industries at home.
Post-Independence Policy
The Nigerian economy is an open economy. It is a laissez-faire economy but one in which the indigenous bourgeoisie lack autonomy in its development. Free enterprise in Nigeria is more meaningful to the
international bourgeoisie who have the capital and technology to exploit the economic resources of the country; it is less so to nationalist,
local bourgeoisie who are entrepreneurially subdued by the comprador state in the interest of foreign capitalist. Because of the ease with which the latter enter the economy and dominate it as a result of the 80
country's open-door policy, it has become "uncommonly open" (Browne et.
al. 1985).
The government of Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the nation's first
prime minister, maintained a liberal stance towards foreign investments.
This stance was made clear when he stated that:
It must be obvious that no Nigerian can be content so long as any major sector of the economy is controlled by foreigners. But we are realists and we say that so long as there is a dearth of Nigerian capital, so long must there be an opportunity for foreign capital in Nigeria. We do not seek the withdrawal of foreign capital from any area of the economy before Nigerian enterprise is able to replace it (Proehl 1965:159).
The 'open-door policy' was made more concrete by the enactment of
legislations which guaranteed the security of foreign investments or gave assurances of adequate compensation in the event of nationalization of these investments. Other measures taken to attract foreign investments included tax exemptions such as the income tax exemption granted for a period of two to five years for companies operating within industries defined by the government as pioneer or infant industries.
There were also the depreciation allowances and guarantees of repatria tion of profits that enabled the government to create the business environment attractive to foreign investors, all in the name of economic development and industrialization. The implication of these policies was that Nigeria became strongly incorporated in the world system.
Major benefactors in these policies and agents in the incorporation were
UniLever with its trading subsidiary - the United Africa Company (UAC),
John Holt, and the French trading company, SCOA (Bangura 1986:47).
The government agricultural policy after independence was not very much different from pre-independence policy. Cash crop production was still a high priority. The only major change was the reorganization of
agricultural research institutions. The places which the various
Nigerian governments have accorded cash crops in the national
agricultural/research policies have been determined by the contributions
each makes towards the social and economic development of the country with respect to foreign exchange earnings and the fulfillment of the
nutritional needs of the people. Before oil, Nigeria depended entirely on its agricultural exports for its foreign exchange earnings. For this reason, emphasis on cash crop research and production has, as in the colonial era, continued to take precedence over food crops. The strategic importance of cash crops changed when oil emerged as a major and the only source of foreign exchange in the 1970s. Secondly and equally important, when the programs of ISI began to take place after independence, domestic supplies of raw materials for the agro-allied industries became extremely necessary. Domestic supplies would not only save the country's foreign exchange reserves but would also reduce the depth of agro-economic dependence; for massive imports of raw materials for local agro-allied industries would open up a new type of dependence.
Food crop research and production has not, until recently been accorded a prominent place as an important element in the national economic development plans. Production was almost totally left in the hands of the peasants. As population and food scarcity increased in the
1970s, government began to invest in research and production of staple food crops most nutritionally popular among the peoples of Nigeria. The national agricultural research system underwent reorganization and 82
certain research institutes became specialized and mandated to do
research on the popular food crops.
Because of the agro-economic woes of the 1970s, the presence of an
international research center, IITA, in the country began to make more
sense in the minds of the policy makers than before. There was a
greater realization of the fact that continued shortages of the essen
tial food items in the markets could not only cause socio-political
turmoils (overthrow of government, riots, labor unrest and the like) but also would wipe out the nation's foreign exchange reserves. Food import-substitution could be an answer. A more recent example of food/raw material import-substitution program in Nigeria was wheat production (Andrae et. al. 1985).
Wheat is directly consumed by many people in some parts of Nigeria.
It is also a very important raw material which has gradually replaced maize for breadmaking. Bread itself is the most popular food item in the country because it is cheap, handy and palatable. As it became firmly established as one of the most important diets of the people, related industries began to emerge and grow throughout the country. The growth of bread industry and the acute shortage of maize led to massive wheat imports from the United States. When foreign exchange reserves could not be supported because of oil export receipts declining, further imports were drastically curtailed or even cut-off completely. The impact was a devastating socioeconomic crisis: bread industries were shut down, unemployment abounded, bread virtually disappeared from the
Nigerian markets, there was a nutritional crisis, even political stability was threatened. 83
Under these compelling circumstances, the government embarked on
import substitution program for wheat, investing extensively in
research, development and production. It also intensified the production of maize. The economic justifications for this program were
that it was profitable, it reduced food dependence, saved foreign exchange, and that it would generate income for the rural population and induce rural economic development (Andrae et. al. 1985:117).
Underdevelopment of Nigerian Agriculture
Throughout the Nigerian history until the civil war, it was agriculture that primarily linked the country to the rest of the world; today it is oil that tightens that linkage. Agriculture-industry linkage which is necessary for the development of the two sectors for the benefit of the local economy was nonexistent in Nigeria before independence, but at the international level between British industries and Nigerian agriculture in which the former grew at the expense of the latter. This contradicted the essence of agro-industry relationship supposed to be a symbiotic one in which both would benefit from each other: industry grows with the steady supplies of raw materials from agriculture, while agriculture develops and becomes modernized by adopting modern technology from industry. This did not happen between
English industries and Nigerian agriculture; the latter continued to feed the former unreciprocated.. Thus the Nigerian peasant alone bore the burden of his own system's development and production - producing both cash crops for the survival of English bourgeoisie and food crops for his own subsistence. Colonial research efforts were only directed to crops vital to that linkage. As noted by Akeredolu-Ale 1976:108), 84
Much of the proceeds from farm exports were kept away from the Nigerian farmer by the Marketing Boards and retained in Britain in the form of British securities. These retained surpluses amounted to 120 million pounds [sterling] by 1954 and stood at 238 million by 1961.
Agriculture was thus denied the investment capital accumulated from it and which, otherwise, could have been directed to its own development.
The implication is that it remained underdeveloped.
NIGERIAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEM AND ITS PROBLEMS
The Systea
The Nigerian economy is largely one of agrarian production based on small scale farming systems and dependent on local resource endownments.
Such traditional agronomic practices as shifting cultivation or land fallowing still persist and remains dominant. This system of periodic farmland rotation or crop rotation is a technique by which the farmer allows his lands to refertilize themselves by means of vegetation wastes and animal droppings which turn into manure during the fallow periods.
Maintaining soil fertility in this way has been a useful traditional strategy which enables crops to obtain adequate nutrients from the soil, flourish and yield greater than otherwise would be the case. Crop performances during each planting season enable the cultivator to recognize the need for longer or shorter fallow. Between fallow periods, new lands are acquired and put into productive use. In the
1900s and up to the 1940s (Eicher 1970:10), land expansion accompanied by labour increases was mainly responsible for increases in export crops. This rain-fed, seasonal production system utilizing simple technologies was productive enough to meet domestic food ' lands in the 85
past up to the 1960s (Abdullahi 1984:1) despite the fact that export
crop production dominated the agriculture of the country at the time.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) studies,
food imports for the sub-Saharan Africa were only about 9 percent of the
value of total food consumption before 1970 (cited in Johnson 1980:69).
As for Nigeria in particular, it was relatively self-sufficient in domestic agricultural and food production before the civil war {1967—
1970), and was a net exporter of agricultural products by the same period. It was one of the world's top producers of groundnuts, cocoa, palm produce, rubber and cotton: the world's third highest producer of groundnuts after India and China, and the second, after Ghana, in cocoa production (Abalu 1984:77).
As John Wilde (1967:19) has stated, African resource-based agriculture has thoughtlessly been condemned in the past, but it is now recognized by many people that (citing Philips 1964), "under relatively mild population pressure, the local socioeconomic organization and the availability of land, shifting cultivation has been and still is widely unsuited ecologically and socioeconomically to the simple needs of man and potentialities of the environment." Through his knowledge of the ecology, acquired from many years of experience, trial and error, and from 'what the elders say,' the Nigerian husbandman has been able to evaluate the potentialities of the soil and vegetation and tried to make the best out of them in terms of crop yields. Soil and vegetative conditions are pertinent to the types of crops that can be grown in them. Thus, in Nigeria, we see regional and ecological differences or
specializations in crop production: groundnuts; cotton, millet or
sorghum produced in the North, palm products and tubers in the East,
cocoa in the West, and rubber in the Mid-West; that is, production is
ecologically-specific. Regional specialization of production was also
as a result of historical differences in consumption pattern by which
people grow what they prefer or are accustomed to eat.
There is no doubt that Nigeria was nutritionally self-sufficient before the mid-1960s but that was possible because population growth rate in the country at the time, by 1940, was only 0.6 percent but which escalated to 2.3 percent in 1960 (Eicher 1970:12). This means that population growth in the country was probably lower than or equal to the rate of food production which was basically an indication that enough food was available to the entire population. And more over, almost every family unit was a producer of food up to the first half of this century. This also means that most families produced much of the food they consumed. But with the ISI in the 1960s many family members abandoned agriculture for industrial jobs as mentioned earlier. And as population increased without equal or greater increase in domestic food production, it became necessary to import to meet demand. Further, agricultural exports was the most important contributor to Nigeria's foreign exchange up to the late 1960s. But this sector's contribution in the early 1980s was only 1 percent while 99 percent of the total value of exports came from petroleum (Nwosu 1987:51). Annual oil revenue trends for the country were 95 percent, 86 percent, and 181 percent in 1970, 1971 and 1974, respectively (Nwosu 1987:52). 87
THE STAGNATION OF NIGERIAN AGRICULTURE
Basic Factors of the Stagnation
With the increasing pressure on land as a result of the escalating population growth and urbanization, fallow periods are now being drastically reduced and farmlands are intensively cultivated to the point of exhaustion. As population increases, demand for land increases for such development projects as housing, schools, community and health centers, highways and airports. Increases in rural family size lead to further division of family farmlands among family members, a tenure system that decreases farm size, reducing the chances of large scale agriculture and production to take place. These trends have reduced the amount of land at the disposal of the farmer to allow extended fallow.
Fallow reductions and deforestation, as well as over-grazing have all combined to pave the way for extensive soil erosion in which farmlands have lost their nutrient qualities. One notable existing problem in this regard is the desertification taking place in some parts of the sub-Saharan region of Africa including Nigeria. All these factors plus drought conditions combine to reduce natural fertilization and hence eliminating the ability of resource-based agriculture to produce enough food for the teeming population in Nigeria, as well as export crops which would earn for the country the needed foreign exchange for economic development.
Another major force which frustrates the efforts of Nigerian farmers to increase their agricultural productivity are the adverse effects of an ecological environment in which large quantities of economically important crops are often lost to plant diseases, pest, 88 soil salinity and toxicity (Okigbo 1982; Abdullahi 1984; Idachaba et. al. 1976). Crop losses due to pests and diseases appear to have taken the greatest toll on agriculture in Nigeria. Idachaba and Olayide
(1976:183) estimated annual crop losses in the country at over 35 percent; and over 25 percent of cereal crops are lost due to insect pests, fungi and viruses. They also found that the amount of losses was about four times the amount of imports in 1977.
An example of biological agent of crop losses in Nigeria is the cassava mealybug. This insect pest has caused an annual yield losses in the country estimated at 60 percent for the roots and 100 percent for the leaves (IITA 1980:41). These losses, according to IITA and Nigerian scientists result from the effect of saliva toxin which the insect injects into the plant during its feeding processes. The saliva toxin impedes the growth of the plants. Another example of biological agents that depress yield potentials of Nigerian crops is the Cassava Green
Spider Mite which reduce yields up to 40 percent, and the legume pod- borer whose field damage could range from 20 to 70 percent (IITA
1981:44, 46).
Another production problem in Nigerian agriculture is technological constraint, the persistent use of subsistence technologies that have in essence outlived their efficacy in dealing with the per capita food requirement in the country. As indicated in the Nigerian Fourth
National Development Plans 1980-1985, domestic demand for food increased at 3.5 percent per annum, while production grew only at 1.00 percent per annum (FGN 1981, 1980:56). 89
Government policies have often been cited as also being responsible
for the poor agro-economic conditions in Nigeria (Nzimiro 1985:29).
There is undue dependence on traditional production system, and a failure by the policy makers to recognize the power of a well established and maintained national research and development (R&D) system which have been hampered in the country by inadequate and untimely funding of the agricultural research institutes and the universities. Rather than utilizing surplus capital accumulated from oil to modernize the country's agriculture, the military government has opted for a gigantic, peace-time military build-up (Nzimiro 1985).
Another problem is that oil-induced government commercial projects caused a massive rural-urban migration in which young farmers abandoned the natural economy to seek industrial jobs at the urban centers. As a result food demand by urban workers and their families increased extensively. Thus a formerly self-sufficient country became a net importer of food and agricultural products. For the first time in history, Nigeria began to also import industrial agricultural products such as palm oil of which it had been a major world producer. When the international price for petroleum slumped, the entire economy stagnated and malnutrition became a national crisis.
The crisis of the entire Nigerian economy was associated with the mismanagement of the national financial capital accumulated from the oil-boom. There were "bogus and over-ambitious development plans, and the grandiose life-styles" (Nwosu 1987:51) characteristic of the
Nigerian upper and middle classes and which were strongly promoted by the oil euphoria and high optimism for the future. The o boom induced 90 increased consumption of imported luxury goods which was not matched with increased sustained domestic economic productivity, and grandiose development projects which also did not make any real contribution to the economic progress in the country (Nwosu 1987).
Consequences
The cumulative consequences of all these problems were that the share of agriculture in the gross domestic product declined from about
61 percent in 1964 to 18 percent in 1980, export earning from botanical exports declined form 71 percent in 1964 to less than five percent in
1979, domestic food prices increased significantly and the value of food imports increased twenty-fold between 1964 and 1980, escalating from 1.6 percent to 20.6 percent (FGN 1984:5, 15).
Before 1970, Nigeria was a net exporter of palm oil but from 1973 to
1977, production was so low that there were no exports, not even enough to meet domestic demands. There was also no export of groundnuts in
1975 and the export of rubber declined from 61,000 tons in 1974 to
30,000 tons in 1977 (Ekekwe 1985:62). According to Ekekwe, world market prices for these products were rising during these periods when the
Nigerian exports were dwindling.
In palm oil exports, what Nigeria lost in the world market was a gain for its other palm-oil producing counterparts around the world as shown in Table 6.
Other statistical evidences of the Nigerian problem are presented in the next pages. Table 6 Palm Oil Exports (in tons)
Country 1960 1976
Nigeria 186,000 0
Indonesia 109,000 406,000
Malaysia 92.000 1,335,000
Ivory Coast 0 91,000
Source: Tom Forest 1981:251
Table 7 Rice Production in Nigeria & Imports (1,000 metric tons)
Year Domestic Imports Total Imports production supplies as % of supplies
1975 1260 2211 3471 63.7
1976 1295 9861 11156 88.4
1980 1550 168000 169550 99.1
1982 1650 345000 346650 99.5
1983 1600 499 2099 23.8
1984 1600 404 2004 20.2
1985 3000 970 3970 24.4
1986 5104 622 5726 10.9
Sources: Compiled by the author from (i) FAO Production Year Book, vol. 39. 1985; (ii) FAO Trade Year Book, vol. •>■>, 1985; Central Bank of Nigeria, 1987. Table 8 Wheat Imports (in thousands)
Year Metric Tonnes
1934 3.6
1955 40.8
1959 71.0
1960 85.6
1966 181.9
1970 267.1
1975 407.6
1980 1,176.4
1982 1,375.0
1983 1,316.4
1984 1,617.1
1985 1,472.3
1986 1,113.7
Sources: FAO Trade Year Book, 1985: Andrae et. al., 1985:17; Central Bank of Nigeria, 1987.
Table 9 Maize Imports (in millions of Naira)
Year Value
1976 1.4
1986 3.5
Source: Central Bank of Nigeria 93
Attempts To Reverse The Situation
The growing scarcity of food and the continuing ; tion of the nation's foreign exchange reserves for food imports fo. ' the various
Nigerian governments into concerted efforts to increase t mestic food production. Various strategies were designed and implemented; they included integrated development schemes, large-scale irrigation projects and the establishment of large state food production farms. To promote these strategies large-scale farmers were granted large subsidies. The so-called Integrated Rural Development Projects (IRDP) was crucial to the emergent new capitalist agriculture that involved modern strategies aimed at raising productivity and facilitated by the adoption of modern technologies, improved extension services and infrastructure, and encouraged through credit and market (price) incentives.
Food production campaigns such as the so-called National
Accelerated Food Production Program (NAFPP) of 1973, the Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) of 1976, and finally the Nigerian Green Revolution
(NGR) of 1980 were undertaken. Involved in the NGR were the World Bank,
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, and the comprador state. Planned expenditure was $8.24 billion between 1981 and 1985, and marked new land areas to be brought under cultivation totalled 72 million hectares (Dinham et. al■ 1983:15). Politicians regarded these as strategies for self-sufficiency but local agricultural experts and critics saw them as a politically appealing responses to deep-seated problems, and that they were only short-term means which only served to obstruct the evolution of a self-reliant means of meeting the local aggregate demand for food. 94
These programs may have increased production but e socioeconomic
cost was overwhelming. The state has intervened and o rupted the
normal traditional production systems, not by any applied scientific,
technological, sustainable self-reliant revolution, but by bringing the
traditional economy of the peasants to be fully integrated into the world capitalist market relations through the MNCs that supplied the materials and inputs and the World Bank that participated in the
funding. The activities of multinational agri-businesses became more dominant and visible in the remotest parts of the country. There was a growth in agriculture but it lacked conscious, autonomous development strategies. The NGR was totally a wholesale import of a packaged technology. Machines, seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides were all imported which, of course, expanded comprador roles in the economy as many parastatals were established throughout the country.
Production actually increased tremendously as compared with traditional production levels (FGN 1980) but that did not subsist because the inputs that must go with the high-yielding varieties (HYVs) were very expensive for the majority of the small farmers and were often not available. Thus the NGR resources complicated the non sustainability of higher levels of production in the Nigerian agriculture.
One of the recent government intentions for agriculture was revealed in the 1981/85 National Development Plan which gave a high priority to agriculture and agro-based industries followed by the building of infrastructure and heavy industries. The plan was percieved as underscoring self-reliance. But what remains unclear is the place accorded agricultural R&D specifically. Further, in pursuance of its proclaimed self-sufficiency objective through an import-substitution strategy, the government has allocated a lion's share of the total of recurrent and capital expenditure of the 1986 budget in the sum of
N896.62 millions, more than double the 1985 allocation of N408.2 milli
(Central Bank of Nigeria 1986:3). This allocation has generated seme hopes of recovery among the Nigerian public. But, again, how much of this will be directed to national R&D remains a mute question. CHAPTER IV
SELF-RELIANCE AND THE NEED FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY IN A DEPENDENT STATE
Introduction
The crisis of the Nigerian agriculture has led to continued calls
both from the federal and state governments and from concerned citizens
for a self-reliant agricultural development strategy that could reverse
the current situation from one of chronic food dependency to a
sustainable self-sufficiency. The calls are based on the ground that
such a strategy would return the country to its pre-independence
position, not as a tradition-bound society, but as a self-sufficient
nation in food and agricultural production. With population growth rate
at 2.5 percent per annum, it has become imperative to pursue such a
strategy. The nation's foreign exchange reserves have to be preserved
from food imports or strengthened through increased production of cash
crops for exports and for domestic use.
These objectives can only be achieved through a system that is
capable of enhancing and sustaining production at low cost. Such a
system or strategy must rely, for the most part, on internal resources and technological capacity in order to remain operative. Agriculture is an area where Nigeria, at its present level of economic development, can exercise some degree of self-reliance (S-R) and technological autonomy.
96 97
The reason for this assumption is to be found in the potentials and promises of agricultural (plant) biotechnology.
This chapter discusses S-R as a strategy for sustainable agricultural productivity and its implication for self-sufficiency. It also discusses biotechnology as a likely means of achieving the objective of S-R or reaching the goal of self-sufficiency. The scientific and technological context of the potentials of the new biotechnology will be discussed in Appendix 'A'.
SELF-RELIANT STRATEGY
A meaningful national self-reliant strategy of economic development has been endorsed as a means of breaking the bonds of economic dependency (UNIDO 1981; Biersteker 1980, 1982; Luke et. al. 1984; Amin
1977; Singh 1978).
Economic self-reliance or simply self-reliance is a term used to describe the ability of a nation to depend, for the most part, on its internal resources (manpower and materials) for its economic development and growth. Self-reliant strategy "builds development [in agriculture or industry] around individuals and groups through the mobilization and deployment of local resources, material and non-material, and indigenous efforts" (UNIDO 1981:21). In agriculture, it involves an optimal use of land, local capital and other resources for greater agricultural productivity (Anazodo et. al. 1983). A self-reliant economy is one whose economic prospects are not determined by external factors but by internal conditions; it is autonomous. This would imply economic independence - "a national capability for economic relations with others on equal terms and from a position of economic strength [as is the case 98 among the developed nations], instead of the present recipient-donor relations with the industrially developed countries" (Singh 1978:112).
Central to economic self-reliance is technological self-reliance which is defined as:
...the autonomous capacity to make and to implement decisions and thus to exercise choice and control over areas of partial technological dependence or over a nation's relations with other nations. It follows that technological self-reliance can be effectively pursued only when a nation understands the nature and extent of its technological dependence and possesses the will and self-confidence to seek to overcome it and to maintain its cultural identity. Technological self- reliance must thus be conceived in terms of the capacity to identify national technological needs and to select and apply both foreign and domestic technology under conditions that enhance the growth of national technological capacity. Enhanced technological capacity appears to be an essential precondition for developing countries to deal with their economic and social problems (UNIDO 1981:11).
In defining self-reliance, it is also useful to define self- sufficiency because it is the goal of the strategy of self-reliance espoused by African nations in the 'Lagos Plan of Action' (Lagos Plan), and by Nigeria in its Fourth National Development Plans. UNIDO experts describe self-sufficiency as:
a concept which means more than just being able to perform research and to establish industry. It means taking steps to achieve mastery over biotechnology, i.e., having knowledge of the scientific basis of and the dynamics of the bioscience; being able to manipulate results from research to reach practical goals (the developing of a technology); and being able to adapt and improve already developed technologies (UNIDO/IS.513, 1985:25).
Implications of Self-Reliance
For Maoists or followers of Kim Ti-Sung, a self-reliant strategy would involve total disengagement or autarky. But this, would be difficult for a technologically deficient nation such as Nigeria. The achievement of the goals of self-reliance in Nigerian agriculture would require, at least initially, the already developed modern Western technologies which indigenous or native scientists can absorb and adopt
(through fundamental or basic research) and also adapt (through adaptive or applied research) to local conditions. Basic research is an important part of S-R. Many writers regard disengagement as only a partial reduction in the magnitude of involvement of an underdeveloped country such as Nigeria in the international economic system (Biersteker
1980:231), or a restructuring of a country's links with the capitalist world system (Luke et. al. 1984:14-15). Thus limited disengagement or selective delinking (Morehouse 1980:531) will constrict Nigeria's 'open- door policy1 and permit it to develop with reduced external dependence.
Central to the notion of (agricultural) S-R strategy of development is technological autonomy which allows a country, on its own initiative, to develop most of its technologies and borrow other adaptable ones from external sources. The importance of a locally developed technology cannot be over-emphasized. The essence is to match local socioeconomic and environmental conditions with the new technology to minimize likely negative outcomes. Secondly, and as has been pointed out in chapter two, technological autonomy would decrease economic dependence on the technologically advanced countries.
Technological self-reliance does not necessarily mean total abstinence, as we have mentioned above, from borrowing foreign- developed technologies. It means native independent determination of technological development and also independent selection of useful technologies developed in other countries but which can be modified to suit local purposes. As Morehouse (1980:531) has explained, it does not 100
mean autarky or technological isolation, but carefully targetted
technology acquisitions on the initiative of a developing country. All
societies of the world borrow and learn from each other but the problem
is the ability of a borrower to master what it borrows (Magdoff 1976:9).
Failure to master or adapt an imported technology, develop or create one
will lead to total technological dependence. In agricultural research,
it has been stressed that no country, even the ones
... with advanced agricultural research systens - the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, India, and Brazil, for example, are ... able to be entirely self-sufficient in agricultural science and technology. An effective national agricultural research system must have the capacity to borrow both knowledge and materials from the entire world (Ruttan 1982:174).
Ruttan points out that the,problem for a national system remains "how to
link effectively with an increasingly integrated, and interdependent,
global agricultural research..." (Ruttan 1982:174).
As stated in chapter two, there is technological dependence when a
country imports most or even all of its technological requirements.
Economic dependence of this nature is strengthened when the importing
country lacks the human capacity to utilize the imported technology or
technical knowledge in productive activities to provide the basic needs of the people. Technological dependence discourages indigenous R&D; "it
inhibits processes of 'learning-by-doing' [which is] essential for the development of scientific capacities and it tends to devalue the activities of local scientific and technology institutions making them irrelevant or poor copies of those in the industrialized countries"
(UNIDO 1981:4).
The possibilities of technological self-reliance depend upon the degree of [Nigeria's] "structural disengagement" (UNIDO 1981) - a 101
condition which will provide the right environment under which local
scientists can effectively work without distortions from the world system and the national comprador bourgeoisie. The possibility of S-R
(and the call for it in Nigeria) has been questioned by many critics who
think it is unrealizable while a country is still entrenched in the world system (Ojo 1985; Magdoff 1978; Amin 1977). With regard to
Nigeria, Ojo (1985:141) thinks that "it is an illusion, given the nature of Nigeria's integration into the international capitalist system and the weakness of that class which at this historical juncture is the only one capable technically and culturally of gaining and exercising political power - namely, the national bourgeoisie."
What Ojo seems to imply here is that the structural relationship existing between Nigeria and the advanced countries or the MNCs will be a factor that could hinder any attempts of disengagement. The national bourgeoisie whose personal economic interests are consonant with the corporate interests of the MNCs will challenge and block any strategy that leans towards a national self-reliance because it may conflict with those interests. The MNCs, regarded as the major agents of technology transfer, also distort indigenous technological development (Biersteker
1980, 1982).
It has thus been stated by development experts at UNIDO that
"self-reliance will only have real meaning for the developing countries when they have freed themselves from the system that maintains their underdevelopment" (UNIDO 1981:21). Also, Amin (1977:2) questions how the LDCs could "become self-reliant without withdrawing from the world system of exchange of commodities, technologies and capital." And 102
Magdoff (1978:4) states that "the removal of some of the external
obstacles to growth will... open the door to the development of self-
reliant independent capitalist economies resembling those of the advanced capitalist nations."
National Calls for Self-Reliance
The call for national and regional self-reliance in Africa as expressed in the Lagos Plan arose from the realization by Nigeria and other African leaders that the existing economic development strategies formulated externally were not feasible as the on-going economic conditions throughout the continent have demonstrated. For example, agricultural productivity has significantly declined since the 1970s, and as a consequence the quality of life of most of the people has deteriorated. For this reason, food dependency has deepened. Under this urgent socioeconomic condition, African leaders in 1980 urged for new development strategies or a new plan of action, the Lagos Plan, which deviates from alternative development strategies undertaken in the past and the ones currently proposed by world system dependency- enforcing institutions such as the World Bank as represented in its program of Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa (Jamieson
1984:13-14). The Lagos Plan emphasized self-reliant and self-sustaining development strategy especially in agriculture which is the mainstay of the economies of the continent. It urged the cultivation of the "virtue of self-reliance" in the continent, and insisted that external contributions should only serve as a supplement to Internal efforts
(Jamieson 1984). 103
Self-reliance and self-sustaining development strategy has also been reemphasized in the Nigerian Fourth National Development Plan 1981-
85. In this Plan, it is stated that:
The element of self-reliance has been very much talked about; it is time we made it a fundamental guiding principle in our development. Of all the new values to be created among developing countries in their bid to develop, self-reliance is the single most important. We have depended too long on external resources, and there is no doubt that Africa, or Third World in general, cannot develop until we are absolutely resolved to be self- reliant. In practical terms, this means developing in the individual as well as in the society as a whole such attitudes as the will to succeed in life through productive labour, to experiment, to be resourceful and 'conquer new frontiers' (Fourth Plan 1985:10) .
Within this strategy the Nigerian government objectives in agriculture are stated as follows:
(a) increased production of food and other raw materials to meet the needs of a growing population and rising industrial production; a basic objective in this respeect is the attainment of self-sufficiency in food in about five years;
(b) increased production of livestock and fish to meet domestic needs and create a surplus for export;
(c) increased production and processing of export crops with a view to expanding and diversifying the country's foreign exchange earnings; in this respect a target of seven years is being set for the revival of our cash crops;
(d) the expansion of employment opportunities to absorb the increasing labour force of the nation; and
(e) the evolution of appropriate institutional and administrative apparatus to facilitate the rapid development of the country's agricultural potential (Fourth Plan 1985). 104
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Importance of Modern Technology
There is no denial that scientific and technological knowledge is
the crucial driving force in agricultural development and advancement
around the world. This has clearly been demonstrated in the developed
countries such as the United States. In the first place, "technology
consists of a system of knowledge, skills, experience and organization
that is required to produce, utilize and control goods and services;" it
is "critical to development because it is a resource and the creator of
resources, is a powerful instrument of social control and affects
decision-making to achieve social change" (Denis Goulet, cited in UNIDO
1981:3). Technology is the central element in the differences between
the LDCs and the developed nations; while the latter advances and
modernizes, the former remains stagnant and primitive and depends on the
latter for modernization; it marks two basic stages of economic
development, from primitive stage to modern stage. Certain countries
are regarded primitive because they are technologically inferior or
because their production systems are still primitive.
The need for modern science and technology in Nigeria is basically
to achieve economic independence or self-reliance in providing the people their major basic needs: adequate nutrition and health. Because
the application of modern science and technologies in agriculture at one point in time or another has resulted in "burgeoning productivity and
relative prosperity on the farm" (Kloppenburg et. al. 1984), it has been strongly stressed that one way for solving the agricultural productivity 105 problems in the LDCs such as Nigeria is the development and transfer of modern and appropriate technology to these countries. Also important is the strengthening of the national research capacity through manpower development, infrastructural modernization and secured adequate funding.
The Problem of Technology Transfer
One primary attribute of appropriate technology is its adaptability to local socioeconomic conditions. It is one that local scientists can borrow and adapt it to local circumstances through adaptive research; that is bringing the new technology to be compatible to local resource capacity. The scientists also will undertake fundamental or basic research to gain new and wider knowledge about the technology in order to make it more effective in production activities.
Any proclaimed national strategy of Self-reliance becomes only a political slogan if it is not accompanied by national efforts to promote local adaptive and basic research because these are themselves basic to self-reliance itself. Basic research is extremely important for a sustainable agricultural progress and for effective adoption of a foreign-developed technology (Hayami et. al. 1971; Evenson et. al.
1975). Effective acquisition of a foreign technology would thus require the development of indigenous research capability (Molnar et. al. 1983).
An indigenous capacity for basic research gives a developing country more autonomy and flexibility in pursuing its self-sufficiency objective
(Luke et. al. 1984). National basic research capacity must be accompanied by a strong industrial base that will translate research results to tangible goods. Lack of an industrial capacity implies non utilization of research results. Without indigenous adaptive and basic 106 research and development capacity, Nigeria will have no choice but to remain entrenched in technological dependence and mass poverty.
The problem of technology transfer often cited is that most of the transferred technologies have proved to be practically inappropriate, not suitable to the needs of the LDCs (Sardar 1978:176; Ernst 1980).
According to Sardar "less than 1 percent of the total research effort
[with regard to technological development] of the developed countries has any significance for the developing countries" (Sardar 1978:176).
There lies the importance of investment in technological development in
Nigeria. A country which has a viable industrial capacity will be able to modify imported technologies to suit local purposes and to be usable by the indigenes of the importing country.
Another problem is that modern technologies, according to Amin
(1977), have become a commodity, "an object of buying and selling" controlled by the monopolies. The transfer of modern technology is always accompanied by capitalist relations of production which strengthens the integration of the peripheral countries to the world capitalist system. "Its transfer ... implies the transfer of structures" (Denis Goulet, cited in UNIDO 1981:3). The problems of technology transfer and the importance of S-R have been restated by
UNIDO experts:
The international economic system is characterized by unequal specialization and exchange reflected in an inequitable international division of labour. The system, with its tendencies towards the internationalization of capital and the transnationalization of production, has inherent forces that tend towards the marginalization and fragmentation of the developing countries. Within this system modern science and technology are becoming even more hierarchial, centralized and specialization oriented. Science innovation, and technology development are dominated by transnational 107
structures... a near global network of agribusiness, and a network of universities and research institutions, all of which are highly interpenetrated and mutually reinforcing.
Against this background, strategies designed to enhance national self-reliance are imperative (UNIDO 1981:21).
The importance of modernization in agriculture has been demonstrated by the GR technologies. The development and transfer of the GR (as a technology) was an important factor in rapidly increasing agricultural productivity and in generating increased food supplies in the developing countries (Plucknett et. al. 1982; Bell 1972; Swaminathan
1982). But more recently biotechnology, which has been referred to as the second bio-revolution, has been cited as a new technology that will possibly lead to higher productivity and self-sufficiency than the GR.
UNIDO experts state that:
The use of science and technology to produce improved crop varieties has proven to be an effective means of increasing food production and stimulating economic growth in the developing world. Now recent advances in cellular and molecular biology offer the possibility of dramatically increasing the efficiency, precision, and productivity of classical plant breeding. The combining of conventional breeding and new genetic engineering techniques open the way not only to significant improvements in crop yields, but also to the development of varieties that allow for broader and more equitable distribution of benefits (Rockfeller Annual Reports cited with emphasis in Morehouse 1985:1) .
We will discuss the new biotechnology and its potentials and promises next. But first, a review of the diffusion of the GR technology and its impacts (implied in the above quote) is important.
It will help us to appreciate what biotechnology has to offer to the
Third World agriculture, as it is expected it (biotechnology) will succeed where the GR failed, in terms of self-reliance and self- sufficiency. 108
THE GREEN REVOLUTION
History
The history of the GR began in the early 1940s when the Rockefeller
Foundation, in agreement with the Mexican government, established the
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Maxico. It was at this center that Norman Borlaug and other plant breeders developed the high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of wheat which yielded tremendous results in, particularly, Asian agricultural systems in the late 1960s. With the encouraging results at CIMMYT, another center, the
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was set up in Los Banos,
Philippines, in 1962 where the HYVs of rice were also bred and developed.
The GR was the second of the two major technological innovations that have had highly significant socioeconomic impacts on world agriculture. The first was mechanical in nature, namely, the mechanization of agriculture in North America and Europe after the
Second World War. It introduced large-scale agriculture, raised farm productivity, displaced family farms, concentrated agriculture in a few hands and caused massive rural-urban migration in these areas. The importance of mechanization today lies in the fact that it facilitates the technical aspects of biological innovation, as in the modern methods of irrigation which was an important element in the GR technological package.
The second, the GR was a biological innovation developed in the
United States but was deployed in the Third World. An earlier important 109 biological innovation that made significant impact in American agriculture was the development and adoption of the hybrid corn. Hybrid corn was first introduced to American farmers in the 1940s. By the middle of the 1940s, over 88 percentt of the Corn Belt was planted to hybrid corn (Doyle 1985:42). Hybrid corn was highly productive, and this, according to Doyle, led to the emergence of the American seed industry that has now assumed major roles in the world commercial biorevolution.
The Green Revolution was a technical strategy and campaign aimed at increasing food production in the developing countries where population was increasing at a greater pace than the rate of traditional food production with a consequence of hunger and malnutrition. It was a revolutionary innovation because it had the potential not only of modernizing traditional agriculture but also of enabling food deficit nations to achieve self-sufficiency. It was "the most significant technical change in agriculture in the LDCs in this century;" it was not only "adopted over a wider area than any agricultural innovation in history" (Dalrymple 1979:704, 707), but also "to a sufficient scale to give it great socio-economic significance" (Pearse 1980:1). According to Cleaver (1972:81), the GR "encompasses not only the increased output associated with a new technology but also the political, economic and social changes which have produced and accompanied it."
What is the Green Revolution?
The GR does not mean just the breeding and development of the HYVs of wheat, rice and maize and their spread to various parts of the Third
World. GR involved the spread of the new seeds and the transfer of a whole new production technology that enabled them to attain their high yield potential (Borlaug 1971:8). Although some aspects of the technology, such as the seeds and input management, were directly transferred, adaptive research had to be undertaken to modify the technologies to suit conditions in many countries such as India,
Pakistan and Bangladesh. In addition to these was a crop production strategy which "harnessed the high grain-yield potential of the new seed and new technology to sound governmental economic policy which would assure the farmer a fair price for his grain, the availability of the necessary inputs - seed, fertilizers, insecticides, weed killers and machinery - and the credit with which to buy them" (Borlaug 1971:8).
According to Borlaug, these inputs and strategy collectively were "the base from which the green revolution evolved." The GR does not mean the movement of Third World societies toward increased and sustainable agricultural productivity and overall agro-economic development
(Humphrey and Buttel 1982:210-11), because only a few crops were affected: highly valuable, popular protein-rich pulses were not affected, and because not all farmers participated or benefitted from it
(Borlaug 1971:7).
Objective
The commonly known objective behind the breeding, development and spread of the HYVs was to assist the Third World countries to solve their food production problems, at a time when 50 percent of the world's population was stricken with poverty and were in danger of famine
(Borlaug 1971:7, Plucknett 1982:215). For Borlaug, the objective went far beyond just feeding the hungry: the GR was "for bread and peace." Ill
From moral stance, he thought that the 'priveleged,' the developed
nations, had a duty (in terms of their technical capacity or
superiority) to help the 'deprived,' the underdeveloped ones, to feed
themselves. According to him, this was an extremely important way all
other acts of social justice could be meaningful. To this principle he
states that "if you desire peace, cultivate justice, but at the same
time cultivate the fields to produce more bread; otherwise there will be
no peace" (Borlaug 1971:7). Food must not only be produced in greater
quantities but must also be distributed equitably to the needy.
Borlaug's principles of food production for peace is in direct
contradiction to biotechnology food production for profit. Moral
obligation apparently may have been the countervailing force behind the
GR., but the driving force behind biorevolution is commerce. It has
been predicted that food production under biorevolution will increase by
leaps and bounds, but the important question is not necessarily how much
will be produced but its availability to the needy. Another question
is, who will control the biorevolution technologies; who controls them
will also control production and distribution.
Genetic Attributes of the HYVs
The genetic attributes of the HYVs included early maturity and
higher yields - capable of producing far greater than traditional
varieties. For example, the HYVs of rice matured in about 130 days and
could yield 5 tons/ha., while the traditional varieties matured in 170
days and produced about 3 ton/ha. (Harris 1972:30, Jennings 1974).
These were the principal reasons for commercial interest in the
revolution; farmers who could afford the production resources - 112 fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation and credit - could plant the new varieties more than once a year.
There are other important ways by which the HYVs were distinct from the traditional varieties. Induced growth through artificial inputs caused the weak, tail-stalked traditional varieties to lodge under heavy grain loads before they (grains) ripened, while the HYVs were stalky and dwarfish and did not lodge as a result of high fertilizer intake (Brown
1970). The significance of these genetic tendencies is that the lodging caused yield to drop, while the short, upright and stiff stalks of the
HYVs led to higher yields as they were able to carry the heavy loads of grains until they matured and are harvested (Dalrymple 1979:706). Thus the traditional varieties were less efficient in fertilizer use, but were more efficient, under normal environmental growing conditions, in nitrogen fixation made possible by the plants' (for example legumes) symbiotic relationship with rhizobia or micro-organisms. The HYVs, on the other hand, were more efficient in chemical fertilizer use.
The HYVs were genetically uniform which made them more vulnerable to crop diseases and pests. On the other hand, the genetic diversity of the traditional cultivars made them less susceptible, and reduced the degree of pathogenic epidemics. Table 10 summarizes the differences between the HYVs and the traditional varieties.
Diffusion and Impacts
The principal nations that adopted the GR technology included
Mexico, the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka,
Tunisia, Morocco, Kenya, Indonesia, Burma, Algeria and several others. 113
Nigeria did not adopt the GR technology until 1980, even with the
lessons from Asia and other areas; that is, the socioeconomic impacts as
discussed below. It did so out of extenuating circumstances: the
destruction of the country's agricultural self-sufficiency by the mismanagement of its oil resources and the resultant massive food
imports, as discussed in chapter three. One important reason why
Nigeria did not adopt the new technology initially was because it was
self-sufficient in domestic food supplies during the first decade of the
innovation. The agro-economic conditions - domestic food shortages and food imports - that induced other countries to adopt it earlier were virtually absent in Nigeria at the beginning; they emerged only in the late 1970s. Another factor that blocked a possible diffusion of the GR innovation in Nigeria was the socio-political turmoil that engulfed the country in 1965 which led to a three-year civil war, 1967-70. It consumed the nation's attention and resources. The GR in Nigeria was simply an improvised strategy aimed at solving immediate food production problems while searching for a better innovative strategy for a sustainable, high productive agriculture. The opportunity has now emerged with the new biotechnologies.
International Results of the Green Revolution
The GR produced mixed socioeconomic and environmental results in the participating Third World countries. The one primary result was that it led to increased food production in these countries and, therefore, alleviated their hunger and malnutrition during the period between the late 1960s and the late 1970s. The overall food production in these countries rose by more than 14 percent (Paddock 1970:897); it Table 10 High-Yielding Varieties Compared with Traditional Varieties
Traditional Varieties High-Yielding Varieties
More efficient in Inefficient in nitrogen nitrogen fixation f ixation
Soil infertility is a major Requires not only the best limiting factor in growth lands but also adequate and yield supplies of artificial fertilizer and water
Adaptation to local ecological Local adaptation requires conditions is evolutionary, genetic intervention: must not induced be bred with disease resistance, and stress tolerance capabilities
Develop and grow vigourously Grow luxuriantly but less and competes against weeds for vigorously to be able to soil nutrients, and sunlight withstand the choking essential for photosynthesis effects of weeds
Have greater genetic As pure-breds, involve variability which reduces mono-cultural system of mass biological epidemics cultivation which is vulnerable to mass plant diseases and pests
Higher nutritional content Nutritionally inferior; and more palatable have to be heavily spiced for taste
Compatible with peasant HYVs are seeds of economy and socio-cultural dependence: their conditions: native seeds can genetic characteristics be preserved for the next do not permit planting season, and can preservation for future survive generations of cultivation; the farmer cultivation, thus offering must buy new seeds each the farmer agro-economic growing season, thus security and stability. linking the traditional economy to the market economy and to the world system.
Source: Compiled and synthesized by the author from various GR literature. 115 brought about a phenomenal "increases in yield and production," and increased the farmers' net income (Borlaug 1971:9); it enabled some countries such as the Philippines, India and Bangladesh to become self- sufficient in food grains (Plucknett and Smith 1982:217); and in some countries, production increased up to four-fold (Lewis 1982:147). It temporarily bailed Nigeria from food dependency in the early 1980s.
These favorable results in the early period of the revolution gave rise to agro-economic euphoria among the early nation-state adopters and induced late adopters to participate in the campaign. Thus, the rapid spread of the revolution, particularly in Asia, and North Africa, was not as a result of the awareness of the existence of a new technology; it was facilitated by its proven potentials in providing a temporary solution to a problem affecting these nations and their peoples. The same reason also induced many individual farmers within a social system to adopt the technology. As Brown (1970:36) has stated, the "yield take-off," an abrupt change from a stagnant condition to a progressive and rapid growth, which was highly profitable to the early adopters provided the incentive that led many others to adopt the innovation.
Demonstrated positive results can lead to the increase in the rate of adoption of new technologies.
Critics of the GR maintain that it generated more negative, than positive impacts in the participating nations. Its problems were several: the distortion of the rural traditional economy and social relations, the widening of the existing inequitable distribution of income and class inequality, farm labour displacement that led to rural- urban migration, differential factor and product prices, foreign exchange problems, regional differentiation and uneven development, crop
genetic erosion, environmental degradation, and technological dependence
and reduced self-reliance (Pearse 1980; Cleaver 1972; Perelman 1977;
Griffin 1979; Haven and Flinn 1975; Freebairn 1973; Pimental et. al.
1973; Jennings 1974; Wade 1974; Nzimiro 1985). Central to these
problems was the cost of adoption which involved the complementary
inputs which farmers must have as a part of the adoption package. Cost
of adoption made it impossible for the majority of the farmers to adopt
the new technologies because they could not afford it. This problem was
more pronounced in some countries during the world energy crisis in the
early 1970s. According to Griffin (1974), and Freebairn (1973),
government innovation policies and the credit systems in the Third World
were ones that were more favourable to larger farmers, thus
discriminating against smaller ones. The impacts of this discriminatory
system were that it forced many poor farmers out of farming and their
lands, accelerated capitalist agriculture, and displaced farm labor
causing rural-urban migration in societies that did not have industrial
base that could absorb the farm migrants. High urban unemployment was created which, in turn, was a major source of social conflicts in many
Third World cities.
Another problem of the GR was that the HYVs were genetically uniform and were therefore highly susceptible to pathogens and diseases
(Miller 1973; Walsh 1981; Wade 1974 (b)). Genetic uniformity increased
the chances of a widespread, mass attacks of a whole field of a single crop. According to Miller, and Wade, mass planting or transplanting of a single, identical strains (whose levels of resistance were the same) 117 reinforced biological epidemics. Walsh (1981:161) states that "the advent of the Green Revolution and its reliance on hybrid lines has made the problem of genetic vulnerability a global one."
The GR emphasized quantity more than it did for quality with the result that the HYVs were very low in protein content (Perelman 1977).
This nutritional deficiency in the HYVs, in addition to their displacement of iron- and protein-rich leguminous crops or pulses
(beans, peas, lentils and others) had the consequence of causing malnutrition in the poor countries to become worse.
The GR contributed, in a major way, to the problem of germplasm or genetic erosion in the countries where the HYVs were extensively adopted
(Berg 1973; Havens and Flinn 1974; Dahlberg 1979; Wade 1974(b)).
Because of the high-yielding potentials and the expected greater economic returns, farmers shifted cultivation away from the traditional varieties, leading to their (traditional varieties) extinction.
The yield potentials of the technology originally offered promises to all levels of farmers, large and small. The technology was thus theoretically neutral to scale since it was capable of being adopted by all farmers (Griffin 1974). But the full involvement of the
Transnational Corporations (TNCs) as the monopolistic suppliers of the inputs distorted that technological quality of social neutrality. The
TNCs sold their products - fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation equipment and other things - only to those who had the money or who were credit worthy. Secondly, the technological services provided by government agencies were biased against the small poor farmers. In the end, it was 118
the bigger farmers who monopolized the innovation and therefore reaped
its benefits at the virtual exclusion of the peasants.
That no new technology is socially neutral (Buttel et. al. 1983:5) was demonstrated by the GR. This non-neutrality "necessarily imply
changes in traditional agricultural practices" (Dahlberg 1979:68) or a
"transformation of agrarian social economic relations" (Cleaver
1972:88). The complementary inputs and the irrigation equipment which the farmers must have as a part of the adoption package, further integrated the rural economy into the capitalist market economy leading to the emergence of strange new forms of capitalist-oriented social relations which disrupted traditional rural economy.
BIOTECHNOLOGY:; A POSSIBLE MEANS OF NATIONAL SELF-RELIANCE
Biotechnology has been touted as an appropriate technology that can be expected to lead to agricultural improvement in the developing countries for the following reasons: firstly, it will increase productivity at least cost (at much less cost than previous technologies); secondly, it has the potential to sustain crop yields; and, thirdly, by so doing, it will reduce food dependency and raise the standard of living in the poor countries (Swaminathan 1982; Baltimore
1982; Kenney 1983; UNIDO 1981, 1985; McPherson 1982; Jain 1985; Buttel et. al. 1985, 1985, 1982; Plucknett 1985; Day 1984; Sasson 1984).
However, some experts caution that the realization of these hopes will depend on its realistic applications by the citizens of the developing country involving biotechnology in its agricultural innovation and development programs. The implication is that the socio-political 119
(structural) environment under which biotechnology will be deployed, and
the local level of investment will be important determinants of the
success of its applications.
This section will define biotechnology and will briefly discuss its
potentials and promises in plant agriculture. The scientific and
technological context of its application are discussed in appendix A.
Definition of Biotechnology
Biotechnology has many definitions. It may be defined as "any
techniques that uses living organisms (or parts of organisms) to make or modify products, to improve plants and animals, or to develop micro organisms for specific uses" (NRC 1984:3). A simpler definition is that biotechnology is the "manipulation of living organisms in order to alter their characteristics in some fashion, to encourage them to produce some desired products, or to use them as a component of a broader production process" (Buttel et. al. 1983:2). The new biotechnology is a multi technique, multi-purpose technology that can provide many strategies to attack agricultural problems in the developing countries. Its scientific and interdisciplinary nature and applicability have been described as follows:
Biotechnology is a new science that has developed from the interaction of fundamental disciplines like genetics, biochemistry, chemical engineering, microbiology, physiology, and all aspects of process technology. It provides a basis for the development of new industries out of the existing traditional ones. Biotechnology indeed, is a synthetic discipline which relies on inputs from a wide range of scientific and technological fields.
The basic mechanism of biotechnology derives from the activities of organisms such as bacteria, fungi and yeasts. These organisms have contributed a lot to biomass and ecological energetics as well as to alternations of eukaryote systems through such processes as disease and biological degradation. 120
Vast opportunities in the application of biotechnology exists in waste treatment and waste disposal processes; plant tissue culture; food production; single cell protein research; the derivation of animal feedstuffs from lignocellulose; fermentation technology; technology of renewable raw materials; researches on environmental pollution; photobiological researches; short and long term effects of ionizing radiation on biological systems. Biotechnological approaches find valuable application also in researches in immunology and parasitology, the aging process, plant and animal pathology and pest technology. It could be of immense use in resource recovery by fermentation, the production of gaseous fuels, chemical and solvents; the production of pharmaceuticals, biological pesticides and agrochemicals (Ejike 1983:i-ii).
Agro-Economic Potentials of Biotechnology
Biotechnology offers new tools for the development and production
of new crop varieties that can yield more in conditions that otherwise would be adverse to traditional varieties or the so-called high-yielding
varieties of the green revolution; it will thus lessen the constraints associated with the yield-sustaining inputs that must accompany the
HYVs. With the development of new varieties that will require less
inputs (resource-neutral), biotechnology will be of greater applicability to traditional agriculture than the GR was. Its greater applicability to traditional agriculture lies in the fact that, as stated by Baltimore (1982:35), it is adaptable to local environmental conditions and can be used to overcome natural breeding barriers, thus making it a technology that may likely provide solutions for the agricultural problems in Nigeria. In view of these possibilities, the new technology could lead to self-reliance in Nigerian agriculture.
This may be over-stated, but if essential resources and an appropriate political environment are in place, the country may be close to realizing this objective. 121
Doyle (1985:376-377) has succinctly summarized what biotechnology will do for the world agricultural systems:
Biotechnology and genetic engineering hold enormous beneficial possibilities for agriculture, the environment, and food production worldwide. With speed and accuracy, these technologies promise to remedy all manner of agricultural problems confronting every society attempting to feed itself. In raw food crops, nutritional qualities can be maintained or carefully improved, a wider variety of nutritionally sound fruits and vegetables might be possible, and the threat of "nutritional erosion" through breeding can be overcome or eliminated. New crops may be genetically designed that won't require pesticides, or which will use less water and make their own fertilizer. Livestock can be engineered to produce more and better quality meat, milk, and eggs on less feed. Farm animals can also be helped to genetically fight off disease and assisted in other way so they won't need antibiotics, hormones, or vaccines. A new and better use of ecological pest controls in agriculture may reign because of better biological understanding made possible through biotechnology. Nations that have had difficulty feeding themselves in the past, may find it easier to do so in the future because of the economic savings and "good-trait" replications promised by biotechnology. Food prices, too, may be held down by the economics of these technologies. Genetic diversity may improve throughout agriculture as older, "commercially extinct" varieties and breeds are made viable again, and gene mapping and conservation are improved by the ability of biotechnology to screen and store genetic material. Farmers may benefit economically as costs are reduced and choices expand...
Because biotechnology is multi-faceted, it offers developing nations the opportunity to select any of its techniques they deem a high priority to national socioeconomic well-being. In Nigeria, the immediate need is the improvement of per capita food and agricultural production to combat hunger and malnutrition, and to boost its foreign exchange earnings from cash crops. To this end, Nigeria might be expected to accord research priority in those activities where biotechnology holds great promises for agriculture.
Areas of biotechnology research techniques include tissue culture technology, recombinant DNA cloning, monoclonal antibody, bioprocess 122
technologies (OTA 1984). Plant tissue culture will enhance conventional
breeding methods in the short-term; recombinant DNA technology is
expected to contribute to increased agricultural productivity in the
long-run. In animal agriculture, biotechnology is expected to
contribute significantly in the:
diagnosis, prevention, and control of animal diseases with the use of monoclonal antibody (MAb) technology to diagnose, monitor, and better understand disease and the use of recombinant DNA (rDNA) to expand the pharmacopoeia of vaccines and other animal health products;
animal nutrition and growth promotion through the use of growth hormones and feed additives to improve animal feed usage and animal health; and
genetic improvement of animal breeds by using MAb and rDNA technology to better understand the bases of animal productivity and disease resistance and by the direct transfer of 'beneficial' genes from one animal breed to another (OTA 1984:161).
In plant agriculture, it is also expected that the power of bio
technology will lead to the:
improvement of specific plant characteristics, for example, through the introduction or manipulation of genes that confer resistance to disease and environmental factors, that increase the amount and quality of primary and secondary products from plants that enhance plant growth rate, or that increase photosynthetic efficiency; and
genetic manipulation of micro-organisms, for example, to enhance the process of nitrogen fixation, to produce insecticides, or to suppress disease or promote growth in plants (OTA 1984:161).
The techniques of plant tissue culture (PTC), an innovation in plant breeding, has been advanced as an area of biotechnology that will make significant short-term (about 5 years) contributions to the improvement of agricultural productivity in the developing countries
(NRC 1982; Khush and Virmani 1985; Lewis 1982). The plant scientist will need biotechnology where conventional plant breeding techniques 123 have proven ineffective or difficult in his attempt to develop and breed new seed varieties possessing certain characteristics that could be of
immense value to man's bid for sustainable agriculture. Within biotechnology, certain research methods or breeding tools primarily recombinant DNA technology and _in vitro techniques involving cell and tissue culture, and protoplast fusion are available to the plant breeder to achieve his objective of creating hybrid varieties of crops having such genetic qualities as (a) resistance to biological stresses caused by pests, plant diseases, nematodes or virus; and (b) tolerance to physical stresses exerted by abnormal temperatures such as drought, soil salinity and toxicity which are the inhibiting factors in the ability of the plant to draw its food nutrients from the soil.
The Sahelian areas of Sub-Saharan Africa are a typical example where drought and other adverse conditions mentioned above make farming extremely difficult and have defied past technologies. Conquering the effects of these environmental conditions will no doubt lead to increased geographical area where food and non-food agriculture can be undertaken. Seeds resistant and tolerant to these stresses will probably require less of the costly yield-enhancing inputs associated with the HYVs of the GR.
There are other breeding objectives of the scientist as summarized below (Khush and Virmani 1985; NRC 1982; Lewis 1982).
The first objective of the scientists is to breed for higher yields.
Crop yield is the primary reason for plant breeding and research. The achievement of the above objectives will offer the farmer the necessary key to cropping intensities - farming all the year round without regard 124
to rain or water management and employing more labor than otherwise
would be the case. Seasonal farming is a major cause of low annual per
capita food crop production in traditional agriculture. The revision of
this practice will likely reduce extensively seasonal unemployment for
the rural population of which the majority are farmers and farm
laborers. This will result in increased productivity and more food
supplies. According to Khush and Virmani (1985:53), improved genotype and improved environments are responsible for improved yields.
Another objective is quality improvement. While scientists are working to achieve the quantity objective, they do not overlook the
importance of the content value of the crops. Achieving per capita yield objective without equivalent level of quality will negate the goal of the non-commercial breeder of raising the standard of human nutrition in the poor areas of the world. In this regard, scientists will use biotechnology to enhance the use of conventional breeding techniques to produce crops with high protein content which is an essential trait food crops must possess to provide humans the minimum nutritional standard of
2,000 calories each day which is badly needed in many parts of the world.
The third objective of the scientist is the multiplication of important economic plants. Biotechnology will complement traditional plant breeding techniques: it will enable the plant breeder to rapidly multiply very important economic plants many times within a short period of time. It is thus possible for many farmers to gain access to these important plants previously rarely available to them because of cost. 125
Expert Statements
But these contributions will only be realized if resources are
directed to appropriate goals and if effective transfer of the
technology takes place in the Third World [including Nigeria] (Goodman
1985:703). With genetic engineering of plants, scientists can create new species of crops with improved genetic characteristics. It is thus expected to produce new
plants that are harder, higher yielding, more nutritious or less expensive to produce - such as plants that require fewer pesticides, fungicides or fertilizers. Other possibilities include plants that can thrive in marginal conditions, on soils that are too salty, too acidic, too wet, or too dry (NRC 1984:3) .
As mentioned above, there seem to be a general agreement among natural scientists and development experts that biotechnology has the potential to assist in the alleviation of the socioeconomic, biological and environmental problems of the developing countries, particularly in agriculture and health. Swaminathan (1982:61) states that biotechnology will "facilitate quan-tum jumps in production" in agriculture. Such prediction is based on the foundations that the new technology is appropriate and adaptable to local conditions (Baltimore 1982, Lewis
1982); it is resource-neutral (Swaminathan 1985), or resource-conserving
(Buttel et. al. 1982); it is a means of self-reliance (McPherson 1982), and a means of resolving many health and nutritional problems throughout the world (Kenney 1983).
Further, it is believed biotechnology will disolve conventional plant breeding barriers and enhance rapid multiplication of genetic materials or important economic plants within shorter breeding period
(Meredith 1982 cited in Kenney 1983:11; Khush and Virmani 1985:51-59); 126
it will lead to greater production efficiency (Jain 1985). It has often
been held that lack of capital is a major problem which imposes a barrier to technological development in the LDCs. But with bio technology, investment capital will not be a barrier because it is relatively inexpensive which makes it potentially accessible to most of the LDCs (Buttel et. al. 1985:15). Plucknett (1985:2) states that:
... biotechnology brings new tools, new ideas, and new approaches to agricultural research. In most cases, biotechnology will not supplant ... 'conventional' agricultural research. Rather biotechnology will be used in conjuction with traditional plant breeding and other agricultural research to help provide new information and new tools to solve problems.
And finally, Sasson (1984:301) states with caution that:
... biotechnologies can help to solve the problems of food shortage and energy supply in less priveleged countries, provided attention is given to the conditions of their selection, their transfer and their adaptation to the actual economic, social, and cultural contexts of such countries.
But what is more important in a new agricultural technology is not only the high per capita productivity that may be achieved, but also the sustainability of that achievement. Biotechnology is expected to fill this technological gap - production sustainability: this is basic to Self-reliance. Sustainability is:
... the ability of agroecosystems to support stable and relatively high productivity over long periods of time with low vulnerability to problems such as pest infestations, dependence on uncertain supplies of nonrenewable inputs, or ecological degradation (Buttel et. al. 1982:10).
Pest suppression and disease elimination are a top priority in plant biotechnology because these are central to the overwhelming crop losses around the world especially in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
They were also a major factor in the stagnation of the GR. As Table 11 Table 11 Regional Annual Losses in Crop Production
Crop Value Losses {%) due to: (million US$)
Actual Potential Insects Diseases Weeds Total
North & Central 24 392 34 229 9.4 11.3 8.0 28.7 America
South 9 276 13 837 10.0 15.2 7.8 33.0 America
Europe 35 842 47 769 5.1 13.1 6.8 25.0
Africa 10 843 18 578 13.0 12.9 15.7 41.6
Asia 35 715 63 005 20.7 11.3 11.3 43.3
Oceania 1 231 1 707 7.0 12.6 8.3 27.9
USSR & 20 140 28 661 10.5 9.1 10.1 29.7 China
World 137 439 207 786 12.3 11.8 9.7 33.8
Source: Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee: Research to meet US and world food needs, cited in Wortman and Cummings, 1978:79. 128 shows, crop losses through insects, diseases and weeds in various parts of the world range from one-fourth in Europe to nearly one-half in Asia of total potential yield or value.
Social, Political and Economic Considerations
Nigeria is one of the developing countries where the application of biotechnology may be important in view of the above potentials and promises attributed to it. A country experiencing hard economic times and whose population demands more food than it produces would be expected to avail itself of the new opportunities. What biotechnology has to offer, as above, is therefore very important in its decision to mobilize and direct appropriate available local resources towards its utilization to pursue and achieve the objective of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. But the realistic application of biotechnology (in
Nigeria) to derive its potential benefits may be tempered by the existing socioeconomic, cultural, and political limitations (Lewis
1982).
Further, biotechnology is "so close," because of the above attributes; but it is "so far," because of structural problems. Buttel and Kenney (1985:2) have explained this structural problem thus:
... despite the possibilities and ... availability of biotechnology to LDCs, many LDCs will likely be unable to reap biotechnology's benefits. In all likelihood, the political, social, and economic arrangements of many dependent countries will effectively block access to the benefits of biotechnology. ...biotechnology is 'so close, but so far'; biotechnology is within the reach of many Third World countries, yet biotechnology’s benefits will likely elude the countries needing it the most because of political- economic constraints. The consequence of the failure [of the LDCs] to embrace and use biotechnology - that is, as producers rather than as consumers of the products of the technology - will likely be a deepening and reinforcing 129
scientific and technological dependence (see also Kenney et. al. 1985).
The agro-economic 'potentials and promises' of biotechnology are a result of basic research in the developed countries. That result has caused a new social relations in agricultural organization, research and production to emerge in the United States and other developed countries.
This is referred to as privatization. It will have a major impact on technology transfer and world agricultural conditions.
Past Lessons and Future Expectations
The importance of S&T in agriculture which is promoted by R&D is never disputed by the critics of new technologies, as in the GR. The primary concern of the critics are the possible undesirable socioeconomic and environmental consequences that they may generate in the society as the deployment of the GR has shown. The impacts which were unforseen but which were realized after the fact provide clues for the evaluation of future externally developed technologies transferred to the LDCs. Lessons learned have enabled us to understand more about the real problems or obstacles to innovation or diffusion of a transferred technology. We have also learned that the so-called cultural barriers to diffusion of innovation in traditional societies - lack of knowledge or communication, illiteracy, fatalism, cultural values and the like (Rogers 1962; Rogers and Shoemaker 1971) - for long emphasized by diffusionist tradition are no longer empirically true; the results of the GR innovation have changed the focus to a new orientation involving such factors as institutional arrangement or structures, social organization, appropriate technology, and economic viability 130
(Dahlrymple 1979:700; Saint and Coward 1977). These factors have
important implications for biotechnology in the LDCs.
If the GR introduced new socioeconomic relations, biotechnology
will bring about more impressive institutional, social and economic
changes that will affect peasant agro-economy to a greater degree. We
may see this point clearer by comparing what have taken place in the GR
and its characteristics and what are about to take place in
biorevolution as shown in Table 12. This comparison enables Nigeria and
other developing countries to appreciate the potentials and promises of
biotechnology in their determination whether to invest in domestic R&D
and build-up their agro-industrial bases or once again do nothing and
remain dependent.
There is no doubt that Table 12 provides a clear distinction
between the two biological revolutions. However, the green revolution
has taken place, biorevolution is yet to do so. It took several years before the social, economic, political, environmental and biological problems of the green revolution were realized. Biorevolution is still within the orbit of scientific and socioeconomic speculations; it has not been deployed in the real world situation as did the former. Thus, it will be far into the future that the actual results of the biorevolution will be concretely known. Table 12 A Comparison of the Institutional Structures of the Green Revolution and Biorevolution
Characteristics Green Revolution Biorevolution
Crops affected Wheat, rice, maize Potentially all crops, including vegetables, fruits, agroexport crops (e.g., oil palms, cacao) and speciality crops (e.g., spices, scents)
Other products None Animal products, affected pharmaceuticals, processed foods, energy
Areas affected Some locations in All areas including some LDCs (i.e., marginal lands if accompanied by (characterized by irrigation, high drought, salinity, quality lands, toxicity etc.) transport availability, etc)
Technology Largely public or Largely private sector development quasi-public sector (multinational and and start-up firms, with dissemination the former predominating commercializing)
Proprietary Patent and plant Processes and products considerations variety protection patentable and generally not and protectable relevant
Capital costs Low High of research
Research skills Conventional plant Molecular and cell required breeding and par biology expertise allel agricultural plus conventional plant sciences breeding skills
Crops displaced None (except the Potentially any germplasm resources represented in traditional varieties and landraces).
Source: Kenney and Buttel 1985:70). CHAPTER V
NEW SOCIAL RELATIONS IN THE ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ITS LIKELY IMPACTS ON NIGERIA
Introduction
The recent advances in biotechnology research and commercialization have caused the formation of new social relations in agricultural research between the university and industry in the United States. The university tradition of openness and free dissemination of scientific information or ideas and the disclosure of the results of scientific inquiries appear to have been distorted by the growth of collaborative relationships (NRC 1984:64; Kenney 1986:122-23; Kenney et. al. 1985:68;
OTA 1984:412; Yoxen 1983:121; Sasson 1984; Kloppenburg et. al. 1984).
Central to this university-industry (U-I) relationship is the redirection of genetic engineering of economically important crops into entrepreneurial hands or private control. According to some authors, the implication of this privatization is that university-based research techniques and their results, such as the improved varieties of crops, will become patented and proprietary or enshrouded in trade secrecy.
This will therefore erode the traditional free flow of scientific information among local research scientists and between the United
States and other countries in the world, particularly the LDCs.
132 133
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATIZATION IN BIOTECHNOLOGY
What gives the impending biotechnology in agriculture its
revolutionary character is not just the major scientific breakthroughs
in molecular biology but its private character as well. We have briefly
looked at the scientific potentials and promises that engender from the
advances in molecular biology in the last chapter. The private element, on the other hand, tells us about the socioeconomic implications of
these potentials and promises. These implications are to be found in what has been termed privatization. A look at the terms of this privatization will help us to understand the new relations in research organizations and the likely impacts it will have on the developing countries such as Nigeria.
Privatization
Privatization, in relation to biotechnology, has been defined as:
a variety of processes which result in a resource, a product or a technology being moved from out of the public domain ... and into the control ... of private hands, be they individual or corporate. ... What was freely accessible earlier becomes, as a result of privatization, either totally inaccessible or accessible under restricted conditions which are often onerous and usually more costly (Dembo et. al. 1984:52).
One point to be made clear in the definition is that the movement of the new technology from the public domain into private hands does not mean that the former is now excluded from the privatization system or in the basic research that gave rise to it, or in biotechnology's further development. Privatization simply means that scientific information including research techniques and the research results are no more freely disseminated to people who may need them for some purposes. They 134
have become commercial property, contrary to the past R&D tradition.
Privatization is not a situation separating the public sector and the
private sector. Both are involved in privatization, as manifested in
the U-I relationship, and the promulgation of patent laws by the public
sector.
Privatization in the new plant biotechnology (including the
techniques, and the new plant varieties created out of these techniques) has become law by the enactment of the plant breeders' rights statute, the patent law, and trade secrecy laws. Plant Breeders' Rights statute grants ownership rights to plant breeders in new plant varieties'. Of particular importance to commercial biotechnology is the PVPA which:
provides for patent-like protection to new, distinct, uniform, and stable varieties of plants that are reproduced sexually, excluding fungi, bacteria, and first-generation hybrids. The breeder may exclude others from selling, offering for sale, reproducing (sexually or assexually), importing or exporting the protected variety. In addition, others cannot use it to produce a hybrid or a different variety for sale (OTA 1984:392).
Plant Breeders' Rights law protects the originator of new plant varieties from others who may have commercial interests in the new plant products.
The patent law, with regard to plant biotechnology, created property rights in the techniques of plant breeding. This means that the tools of genetic engineering as well as the genes have become patented (Kloppenburg et. al. 1984). The law of trade secrecy blocks the free-flow of valuable scientific information among scientists in the developed countries, and between them and their counterparts in the developed countries (Kenney and Buttel 1985:68). Thus, the processes (scientific and technoiogical) which lead to
the development of new plant varieties and production of new products,
and research materials (genetic or germplasm resources) have become privatized. Privatization in the developed countries has its rationale
in the fact that it creates the right conditions for full participation of private organizations in developing and advancing the new
technologies and bringing their results to market or to the farmers (OTA
1984). But from the point of view of the technologically underdeveloped countries, it will tend to strengthen technological and economic dependence. However, the extent of this dependence will depend on the strength of a country's self-reliant, biotechnology policies and its capacity to pursue these policies.
Basic Reasons for Privatization
There are three basic reason for privatization (Dembo et. al.
1984:52-53). The first rests in the characteristics of the products of the new technology. For example, the new plant varieties may possess such characteristics that will make their "next generation either be sterile or ... fail to breed true." The new crop varieties or hybrids may be "reproductively unstable so that the farmer cannot save his seed[s] and plant [them] the next growing season:" if this happens he will be forced to the seed market each planting season (Kenney et. al.
1985:68). In addition to this problem, biotechnology companies may produce varieties that go with proprietary chemical inputs. An example is Ciba-Geigy's sorghum which cannot be sowed without first being treated with the same company's complementary input to counteract farm herbicides (Kenney et. al. 1985:68). These problems imply a furthering 136 of dependency and raises the question of biotechnology's appro priateness; that is, whether or not biotechnology will actually be an appropriate technology for Nigeria and other Third World countries.
Second, secrecy is an inherent character of the MNCs: they are attempting to develop a monopoly of technological expertise. This is necessary if they are to maintain their competitive, technological and market positions. Unrestricted access to their scientific and technological resources would not be in their best interests.
Thirdly, privatization is encouraged by the creation of the law of property rights discussed above. "Rights of ownership and control are vital both in establishing market monopolies and in preserving existing market monopolies," as may be seen in the fact that companies often try to preempt the entry of rivals into the market of a particular rival product by obtaining a patent on the product in question (Dembo et. al.
1984:55).
Conditions Leading To University-Industry Relationship
Economic motives and reduced funding for basic research are the two prime factors that led to privatization and the creation of the new U-I relationship in the United States (Kenney 1986, Yoxen 1983, Dembo et. al. 1979, Giamatti 1982:1278). It is under this new development that the role of the land-grant system of the United States in agricultural research is undergoing a transformation: "agricultural research is
[becoming] fully integrated into basic science community" which will eventually lead to the industrialization of agriculture (Hansen et. al.
1986:29). 137
The U-I relationship, described as basic research-innovation
linkage and which is based on mutual interests and benefits (Praeger et.
al. 1980), was engendered by the realization (by the scientists) of the
economic potentials and promises of biotechnology in all areas of its
application: in agriculture and food processing, health and energy. Of
course, it was profit-motive, but above all "the lack of corporate expertise [in basic research]" (Kenney 1986:29) that drew many venture companies and MNCs into this relationship. For the universities, it was not profit expectation that originally led to the basic research that gave rise to the new biotechnology. "Biotechnology came into being as an outgrowth of ordinary research" (Baltimore 1982:33). Economic consciousness of the economic potentials was only an ex post facto.
This means that when the university scientists realized the economic worth of their products, they became motivated by it and sought to be compensated. Nobody wants the fruits of his labor reaped by another person, or to be exploited* With the expectation of high pecuniary rewards, some scientists resigned their university jobs to become founders or employees of new biotechnology firms where they expected to translate their ideas into tangible products or commodities for profit
(NRC 1984:60).
The new U-I relationship is a symbiotic association. There are attractive benefits to be gained by each party and by the society as well (NRC 1984:60; Kenney 1986:28-34, 57; Praeger et. al. 1980:380; OTA
1984:413; Yoxen 1983:186; Giamatti 1982:1279-1280). According to these authors, the partnership provides the university with long-term funding support from the industry for strengthening basic research which has, until this partnership began, suffered as a result of reduced government
funding. The industry, on the other hand, is an innovator that can
translate new knowledge or research results into commercial utility,
offers opportunities for industrial educational experience, exposure and
employment for students and faculty. The reward to the industry for its
capital investment is its guaranteed first-hand access to the scientific
expertise possessed by the university, training opportunities for its
own scientists, and rights to any research results which possibly have great commercial value. The university expertise and attractive knowledge can be explained by the fact that "at the time when the [new] biotechnology industry began, nearly all molecular biologists were
located in the universities" (Kenney 1986:94). The ability of the
industry to make tangible new products depends on tested new knowledge, ideas and technologies which could only be provided by the university.
Although many corporations have contracts with the universities, they also build their own in-house research capabilities.
But there are objections to the U-I relationship in terms of the societal benefits. One objection involves the cost of the relationship to the public or the tax payer "whose taxes have financed the constitution of research expertise, now being directed to the advantage of the corporate patrons" (Yoxen 1983:186). Another objection is that it is the corporate bodies that actually reap the fruits of public and private investment in university research. Yoxen points out that corporations monopolize research results for their own benefits. In his words "when researchers come up with something new, industrial concerns may step in and buy the right to develop their idea and accept thereby 139
the commercial risk involved" (Yoxen 1983:186). Kenney also points out
that:
There are reasons to wonder whether it is proper for the university to, in effect, lease laboratories and departments to industry. In none of the arrangements is a public interest in the evolution of this powerful new technology addressed. Both administrators and corporation executives assume that the traditional prerogatives and customs of the university, ...can be sold to the highest bidder. Whether these long-term contracts will benefit the university and ultimately society cannot be answered (Kenney 1986:72).
Kenney went on to stress that "the professors with marketable skills are
increasingly devoting more time and effort to profit-making activities
[than to activities more beneficial to society]," and that "it is not
certain that the university can continue to satisfy its functions of
training and doing general research for society with such restricted
information flow" (Kenney 1986:89, 130). Although the federal
government is the principal source of funding for university basic
research, research results may be inaccessible to the public.
The compelling circustances that created the new U-I socioeconomic
relations have been summarized by David (1979:837) as follows:
... industry is being increasingly pressed by competition from abroad as well as at home. New science-based technology is required by industry in increasing amounts, not only to meet this competition, but also to satisfy environmental, safety, and efficacy demands economically. The university and colleges find themselves in an uncomfortable squeeze by their major research sponsor, the federal government. There is less effective funding on one hand and increasingly onerous regulation on the other. Academia's greatest need is for long-term support from outside government that will pay the true cost of research.
The United States public encouragement of this collaboration is founded on the fact that it will propel technological innovation and advancement which is important for the solution of certain socioeconomic 140
problems of the society, and because it will place the country in a
stronger competitive position with the rest of the developed world.
Giamatti (1982:1279-80) has also stated that "the opportunity for
private profit provides the encouragement for the socially beneficial
application of new technology," and that "cooperative research between
university and industries ... can rebound to the benefit of society."
In morally supporting the association, for the sake of R&D, the
government extended the laws of property rights to agriculture by the
enactment of the PVPA. The rational behind this extension is stated as
follows:
The ability to secure a property interest in an invention and to protect related know-how generally is perceived as providing an extremely important incentive for a private company to spend time and money to carry out research, development, and scale-up for the commercialization of new processes and products. Without the ability to prevent other companies from taking the results of this effort, many new and risky projects that could lead to important new products would not be undertaken... the ability to secure property interests in or otherwise protect technological processes, products, and know-how will encourage development of technology (OTA (2) 1984:383).
Consequences of U-I Relationship In The World Science Community
One major problem that has grown out of the social relationship within the university in the United States is the question of conflict of interest in which scientists hold faculty jobs and at the same time hold strong personal economic interests in biotechnology firms. The conflict that emerges from this dual interests is manifested in the use of college facilities and labour (students and employees) as well as the use of faculty time to meet vested corporate interests. In the process, students in particular can be exploited because the results of their labor power can be expropriated by the companies that are connected with 141
their professors. The exploitation of university facilities and people
can become more pronounced when a scientist has equity interest in a
biotechnology firm (Kenney 1986).
The negative impact of privatization of agricultural research on
the local scientific community has been succinctly described by Kenney
(1986:121, 131) thus:
The flow of information has been crucial to the progress of biology and ... this has been undergirded by the pervasiveness of government support. Because the bulk of biological research had no commercial utility, there was little reason for researchers not to share information or materials or both after receiving recognition through publication. ... Obstruction of information flow strikes at the essence of the university - both the ideal of collegiality and the goal of providing well-trained students. The obstruction of material flow will disrupt research and the ability to reproduce results...
... Secrecy, evasiveness and invidious competition based on pecuniary motive [which are normally characteristic of profit-oriented organizations but not the university] threatens to disrupt the [normal university] social relationship based on non-commercial motives.
Impacts on the Developing Countries
The potential impacts of the U-I relationship on the LDCs would be to slow down or even completely block technology transfer. Advances in agricultural science and technology in the United States have led to significant agricultural progress in many LDCs including Nigeria since the 1960s. The basic research that led to the GR and the consequent establishment of the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) in many parts of the Third World were major efforts on the part of the international donor community that cannot be over emphasized. The emergence of the GR and the creation of the research institutes were the outcome of openness in scientific inquiries (techniques and results) 142
that have traditionally existed in the country's land-grant university
system (LGU). This openness, involving free-flow of scientific
information, has also made it possible for students from different parts
of the Third World to train and acquire knowledge in the U. S.
Universities. Thus the LGUs and other research systems in the country
in these ways have been pivotal to the transfer of new agricultural
technologies to the LDCs, such as Nigeria.
But the problem for the LDCs now is that basic research in
agriculture has become privatized. The commercial character of biotechnology or the U-I relationship could pose a hindrance to
international dissemination of scientific information or technology transfer. It will be difficult for Nigeria to gain access to new scientific and technological information in the future.
Another deadlock for Nigeria is the patenting of plant breeding techniques and the tools of genetic engineering which are expected to complement and enhance conventional plant breeding methods. The patenting of these techniques add to the problem of trade secrecy that enshroud scientific information or proprietary production information among local (American) scientists and entrepreneurs and between them and their international counterparts especially those in the developing countries. Trade secrets enable the holder to "maintain competitive edge over other competitors who do not know or use it" (OTA 1984:596).
According to Kenney and Buttel (1985:68):
"as both germplasm andscientific information become increasingly valuable, their flow will be interrupted. Increasingly, these items, may be accessible only through purchase by payment of royalties." :43
Thus, the problem facing Nigeria and other developing countries is the blockage of the free flow of scientific information they had enjoyed in the past.
BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD CAPITALIST SYSTEM
Introduction
While agricultural biotechnology in the developed countries emerged from commercial interests, Nigeria's interest is growing out of the fundamental socioeconomic and agronomic needs of the people. In
Nigeria, there is the desire to overcome many of the environmental, biological, and physical problems (as discussed in chapter three) which hamper agricultural productivity in the country. Central to the realization of this desire is the possibility of creating crop varieties bred with such characteristics as would allow plants to flourish and yield to their full potential even under adverse growing conditions that otherwise would be unsuitable to traditional crops or the HYVs. The development of such crop varieties would enable small farmers to continue to participate in food production in the country. We have mentioned earlier in this chapter that it was high economic expectations that drew many new companies into agricultural biotechhnology or agri business industry. These economic expectations stem from the recognition, gained from demonstrated research results, that the applicattion of recombinant DNA and cell tissue culture technologies will significantly enhance crop yields with little resource inputs and also as a result of the development of plants that could be resistant to biological and environmental stresses. That biotechnology will boost production and profits in agriculture, as the world market size in Table
13 indicates, has therefore induced huge in-house and outside invest
ments in basic research by many large companies that were originally
operating in the area of chemical, food-processing, pharmaceutical and
oil production businesses.
Table 13 Potential Markets of Biotechnology in the World
Biotechnology Areas Market Size
Billion $ US
Agriculture 30.0
Chemicals 10.0
Human Medicine 5.0
Food Ingredients 2.0
Animal Husbandry 1.0
Aquaculture 0.5
Total Conservative Figure 50.0
Total Optimistic Market 100.0
Source: "Biotechnology in the Americas: prospects for developing countries," Interscience, 1983, cited in Sondahl et. al. 1984:14.
According to Kenney (1986:132), the growth of biotechnology industry
(bio-industry) is "due to the recognition by investors that bio technology could well disrupt old markets, create new products and cheapen current manufacturing [or agricultural production] processes.”
These companies "want to benefit from potential bio-industrial markets 145
that have an estimated value of billions of dollars," and "this explains
the stiff competition between research laboratories, the race for
patents, and the secrecy surrounding some investigations" (Sasson
1984:6). The same view has been expressed by Yoxen (1983:53) by saying
that bio-industry "draws its appeal from the myths of the frontier, the
genius-inventor and getting rich quick." Thus, each company selects
specific areas, as shown in Tables 14, 15, and 16. where it sees itself as having the capacity and competitiveness to be successful.
Industry Research Objectives
In plant agriculture, bio-industry involves companies which take business risks to invest in R&D activities to improve the yield potentials of important economic plants. As discussed in the foregoing chapter, the improvement of the yield potentials of plants rests in the ability of the researcher to modify certain characteristics of the plants. Researchers in the industry aim at altering the traits of micro-organisms which are known to be important to plant growth, for example, pest and disease immunity and nitrogen fixation. Companies pursuing plant-related biotechnology applications also aim at improving certain qualitative characteristics of crops such as their nutritional contents. Another research objective is to reduce the cost of crop production by developing varieties that could be less dependent on chemical inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides (Day
1984:139).
In sum, greater crop yields and lower cost of production are the crucial elements in industry's interest in trying to apply genetic engineering to plant agriculture. "Their major plant breeding goals are 146
to increase yields, improve quality and reduce production costs" (Day
1984:139).
Research and Development Strategies and the Need to Control Seed Companies
As discussed in chapter six, the world R&D has traditionally been
concentrated in the developed countries. This status quo has remained
unchallenged by the LDCs and is being maintained in the development of
the new biotechnology. Thus commercial biotechnology activities are
concentrated in North America especially in the United States, in
Western Europe particularly France, Western Germany, Switzerland, Sweden
and Britain, and in Japan. There are about 200 U. S., and 180 European
companies investing in commercial biotechnology (OTA 1984).
In pursuit of their various interests in biotechnology, these
companies, the MNCs, especially those of the U. S., build in-house
research capabilities - recruiting highly qualified research staff and
establishing good research facilities. They also secure external
specialized expertise through long-term contracts with competent
universities, and venture firms which have fine scientists. Thirdly,
they purchase equities in the venture firms.
Apart from these R&D strategies, the MNCs equally have interest in
the marketing of their biotechnology products. Those investing in plant biotechnology have great needs for seed companies (Doyle 1985:99). The reasons for these needs vary with corporate objectives. Doyle points out that agribusiness corporations have a desire to have a strong control of world seed market; energy corporations, not only wanted to diversify with their surplus capital, but also saw it as a means of future energy security through investment in energy crops; food 147 processing companies desire to secure and maintain future supplies of the crop materials they needed; chemical and pharmaceutical companies found it as an outlet for their agricultural products such as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and their other agriculture-related products. An example here is Sandoz which has six seed companies in the
U.S., two in Canada, and one in Netherland, United Kingdom, Austria,
Germany, and in Italy (Doyle 1985:100). Monsanto has also several seed companies including Dekalb (wheat), Jacob Hartz (soybean), Monsanto
Seed, Hybritech Seed, and Farmers Hybrid. Ciba-Geigy's seed subsidiaries include Funk Seeds, and Louisiana Seeds in U. S., and
Carters Seed, Dobies Seed, and Cuthberts Seed in United Kingdom.
It was the emergence of plant biotechnology that stoked corporate interest in the world seed industry. Corporations which invest in R&D saw that "even if they have a breakthrough [in biotechnology research] they are not going to be able to do much with it - if they don't have a good hold on the seed industry" (A.G. Laos, cited in Doyle 1985:99).
These are the basic reasons for mergers and acquisitions of seed companies by the MNCs throughout the world.
Biorevolution is occurring under the initiatives of three organizations in the developed countries where over 97 percent of global
R&D expenditures and activities take place (Morehouse 1986:4-5). These organizations include local universities and the public sector R&D institutions which do the major basic research, venture capital R&D biotechnology companies which specialize mainly in R&D consultancy and services, and the MNCs whose major strategies have been discussed above.
These three organizations or institutions form the structure of 148 biotechnology industry. Their activities provide the context within which the social, economic, and political implications of biotechnology in the developing countries, where only about 3 percent of global R&D is undertaken (Morehouse 1986:4) may be examined.
There are two distinct groups of companies that are participating in plant biotechnology as well as other areas of applications (Kenney
1986; Buttel et. al. 1985: Kloppenburg et. al. 1984; OTA 1984). The first group includes the multinational pharmaceutical, chemical, food- processing, and the oil companies. The second includes the venture capital startup companies (startups or VCs).
Venture Capital Financed Biotechnology Companies
As has been described by Kenney (1986:132-175), biotechnology startup companies are knowledge-intensive organizations that provide a research environment congenial for scientists. The good research facilities and the attractive economic compensations existing in these companies have lured many professors away from the universities. Kenney states that "biotechnology has emerged as an industry because of one economic institution: venture capital [companies]" (Kenney 1986:132).
This is as a result of the companies' willingness to take business risks and invest in new ventures that have great potentials for profits. They wish to exploit the opportunities offered by genetic engineering technology.
Startups, also referred to as New Biotechnology Firms (NBFs), originated in the United States where investment resources are much more available than anywhere else in the world. They are expected to make significant contributions to the progress of commercial biotechnology 'n 149
the country and towards the country's competitiveness vis-a-vis the rest
of the developed world. They are established solely to commercialize
innovations in biotechnology. They are leaders in bio-industry and
conduct research, development and production using various techniques in biotechnology (OTA 1984).
Examples of New Biotechnology Firms in the United States are
Agrigenetics, Advanced Genetics which recently merged with DNA Plant
Technology to form DNAP-AGS, Amgen, Biochem, Bioresponse, Biotechnica
International, Biotechnology General Corporation, Calgene, Cetus,
Collaborative Research, Enzo, Ecogene, Genentech, Genex, International
Genetic Engineering, Molecular Genetics, Native Plants Inc., and
Sungene. Examples of European Startups are Biogen (Switzerland),
Transgene (France), Cell Tech, and Agricultural Genetics (England).
Table 14 shows some examples of venture firm-university affiliated research programs. Table 15 is illustrative of specific areas of biotechnology applications by some venture firms. These are also illustrative of the deep involvement of these firms in the development of commercial biotechnology. Table 14 AGRI-BIOTECHNOLOGY VENTURE FIRMS: Affiliated University-Based Research Programs
Venture Firms Affiliate University Research Interests
Calgene Univ. of California Plant genetics Davis
DNAP-AGS: Texas A&M Tomatoes, DNA Plant Columbia Univ. tobacco, Technology Univ. of California forestry products merged with Berkeley Advanced Genetic Sciences Harvard University Cloning of disease-resistant potatoes
Molecular Univ.of Minnesota Corn, scours Genetics NIH prevention and non-agricultural applications
Sungene Washington Univ Sunflowers, corn hybrids
Sources: (i) Buttel et. al. 1985:23; (ii) Kenney 1986; (iii) Ag Biotechnology, January/February 1988:3, 5. Table 15 Examples of University-Industry Agriculture-Related Research Contract Since 1974
University Company Research Contract Duration Area Worth (Years) [Smillion)
Harvard Univ. Monsanto Molecular biology 23 10
Harvard Univ. DuPont Molecular genetics
Harvard Univ. FMC Corp. Nitrogen $190,000 fixation (thousands)
Washington Univ. Monsanto Hybridoma Tech. -microbiology 23.5
Rockefeller Monsanto Plant cell University biology (photosynthesis]
Cornell Univ. -Corning Glass All aspects 2.5 -Union of each Carbide biotechnology (=7) -Eastman Kodak
MIT W.R.Grace Techniques for production and separation of Amino acids etc. 8.5 through fermentation
Yale Celanese Enzyme 1.1
Univ. of California Nitrogen- at Davis fixation 2.5
Johns Hopkins Johnson & Johnson Biology 1
Cold Spring Exxon Molecular 7.5 Harbour genetics Table 15 (Continued)
University Company Research Contract Duration Area Worth (Years) (Smillion)
Rochester Kodak DNA 0.45 _
Univ. of Sohio Plant Illinois molecular 2 5 genetics
Columbia Bristol- Gene Myers structure 2.3 6
Source: Adapted by the author from: U.S. Dept, of Commerce 1984:147- 149: Kenney 1986:56; Buttel et. al. 1985:25. Table 16 Some Venture Capital R&D Biotechnology Companies & Their Operations
Company & Research Activities Corporate Location and Products Partners
Asgrow Seed Uses cell fusion, cell Kalamazoo, culture & genetic California manipulation to improve Upjohn plant breeding; works on tomato, carrot, cabbage, and herbicide resistance
BioTechnica Rhizobacteria improvement International Silage innoculants' Cambridge, Nitrogen fixation, EniChem Massachussetts Improved distillery yeast - Seagram Crop herbicide resistance - Monsanto/Upjohn Bacterial production
Bio-Technology Development of biofertilizer New York Control of soil-borne fungi harmful to plants
Calgene Crop herbicide resistance Rhone-Poulenc Davis, Glyphosate tolerance DeKalb-Pfizer California Phytogen/ Coker's Seeds
Speciality plant oils Procter & Gamble Plant stress tolerance Roussel Udaf Tomato improvement Campbell Soup Tobacco improvement Philip Morris Crop improvement for nutrient content, flavor color and shelf life
Crop Genetics Building genetic resistance International to pests directly into plants Hanover, - "incide" Maryland 154
Table 16 (Continued)
Company & Research Activities Corporate Location and Products Partners
Cetus Madison Development of soybean & corn Madison hybrids to increase vigour; Wisconsin Development of microbial innoculant for corn, soybean, cotton, wheat & rice to protect them against fungal and insect diseases; to increase plant growth through nitrogen fixation; Insertion of foreign genes into host plants to make them unpalatable to insect pests; plant resistance to diseases.
DNA Plant Plant breeding, genetics and Technology diagnostics; improvement of crops Cinnaminson for taste, nutrition, color and New Jersey shelf life. Vegi-Snax vegetables Kraft Tomatoes Campbell Soup Popcorn American Home Products Coffee General Foods Tobacco Brown & Williams Chocolota Hershey Foods Fragrances Firmenich Diagnostics Koppers/0.B.Scott Sweetners Monsanto Other DuPont/CPC
Ecogen Genetic modification of microbes; Development of microbial and viral pesticides
Escagen Improved food products San Carlos Improved planting materials California such as true potato seeds to replace seed potato
Genetics Plant breeding Cambridge Development of biological - United AgriSeeds Massachussetts pesticides 155
Table 16 (Continued)
Company & Research Activities Corporate Location and Products Partners
International Development & production Genetic of bacteria lethal to Engineering weeds & insects; Production (Ingene) in microorganism of plant growth regulators - hormones that affect such biological functions as flowering, fruit ripening & water loss; Modification of organisms responsible for ice nucleation to interfere with the organisms' ability to adhere to plants
Interferon Plant genetics Sciences, New Brunswick,NJ
Molecular Plant genetics & breeding; Genetics, Development of nutrionally Minnetonka high-lysine & herbicide- Minnessota resistant corn American Cyanamid Disease-resistant corn Rhone Poulenc
Plant Genetics Plant breeding & Tissue Davis, Culture; California Improved potato seed tubers - Monsanto Development of hybrid tomato seeds; Gel-coat encapsulation for use on cotton, rice, lettuce and celery.
Source; Adapted by the author from: Agricultural Biotechnology News, November/December, 1986:13; OTA 1984:82; The Packer, February 13, 1988:6A; Jack Doyle, Altered Harvest, 1985. 156
Regional Structural Differences in Bio-Industry
Among the three advanced regions, North America, Europe, and Japan,
that are commercializing biotechnology, there are differences in the character and structure of their biotechnology industry: funding or
investment, and the patterns of research (Gurnsey 1983:561; OTA 1984).
Highly competent and internationally reputable startups exist in
Western Europe as in the U.S., but they are fewer in the former than in the latter. An exception is Western Germany where they do not exist but the country has "an excellent basic research system" (Gurnsey 1983:563).
In the U. S., these research-oriented, innovation-directed companies depend on contract research and equity investments for their financial resources; their European counterparts obtain their funding from the government agencies and from corporate investments.
European biotechnology companies pursue their R&D interests through contract research, and joint venture. United States companies adopt both strategies in addition to in-house research. Japan's primary biotechnology organizations are the country's large corporations and they are largely supported by the government. In Europe, such as in
Britain and France, the government is the principal supporter of biotechnology activities undertaken by venture capitals. "Britain's commercial biotechnology is conducted by a 44 percent government-owned company" (Gurnsey 1983:563). There are only very few VCs in Britain and
France as compared with the United States. Table 17 is a regional comparison of the structure of commercial biotechnology in these regions. Table 17 Regional Differences in the Character and Structure of World Commercial Biotechnology
United States Japan Europe (West)
World leader in A leading Moving less rapidly commercial competitor and towards the biotechnology World leader in commercialization plant tissue of biotechnology culture and bioprocessing
3 primary actors: Dominated by the Major developers of universities and largest local biotech, are large publicly-funded Corps.; Does not pharmaceutical and research institutes, have VCs chemical companies; VCs & the MNCs No VCs in W.Germany
Sources of funds: VCs receive government: equity and support and corporate contract research investments
VCs are top VCs & Universities contributors to U.S. play major roles competitiveness in commerical through the expansion biotechnology of U.S. research base, technology diffusion, and encouragement of technical advances
Biotech, education is Basic biology Biotech, not taught as well developed and research is a single discipline; taught as a weak & isolated interdisciplinary discipline from the stronger training exists; applied sciences Switzerland has a well developed molecular biology discipline
Greater intellectual Maintains steady Suffers brain drain; density: over 57% of supply of Europe has only 1000 world biotechnologists manpower; or 14.3%; 800 or 80% work in U.S.(4000 of Bio-processing of this 1000 are in the estimated total engineers and France, Switzerland, 7000 post-Ph.Ds (1983) microbiologists W.Germany & U.K. highest in the world 158
Table 17 (Continued)
United States Japan Europe (West)
Higher scientific Scientific and For the same reason, climate plus govt. legal environment European Corps, invest encouragement of in U.S. attract in U.S. universities, genetic engineering Japanese Corps. e.g. Hoechst at and high to establish Harvard - $50 million, corporate investments there to avoid 10-year contract home political (1981) and legal impediments; e.g. Olsuka Corp. in Maryland
Biotech. Industrial Biotech, industry structure is well is based on integrated established and individual companies integrated only
University-Industry Relationships University-Industry relationships exist exist at contacts improving; both at institutional institutional well-established in and individual level only: Switzerland (personal) levels why professors leave to join companies
Biotech industry more Better organized Less dynamic, dynamic but a less and highly but more stable stable structure; structured, there is extreme dynamic and competition. stable
Sources: Compiled by the author from: (1) Stephen Budiansky, "Bio-Japan in Bethseda," Nature vol. 302, March 1981:100; (2) John Gurnsey, "Biotechnology in Europe: the structure of an industry," Bio/Technology, September 1983:561-565; (3) Com mercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis, New York: Pergamon Press, 1984. 159
The United States leadership in biotechnology derives from a combination of several factors, namely, the existence of a high scientific climate in the country, a conducive legal environment, large government expenditure on basic and applied research, strong U-I relationships, industrial integration and high internal competition, and the highly attractive compensations for scientists.
Dependence: The Likely Impact of Privatization
As has been discussed in chapter five, the GR technologies which were developed in the LGU system and propagated in the Third World by non-profit organizations, the IARCs, had mixed socioeconomic effects on the participating LDCs such as Nigeria. It enabled some capable LDCs to momentarily (not sustained) solve their yield problems in food crop production. But that positive result did not go without a major cost.
The one ultimate cost, from the world system view, was dependence.
Corporate involvement in the propagation of the GR technology as monopolistic producers and suppliers of the materials fostered this dependence.
Drawing from the past and judging from the current trends with respect to the private character of biotechnology, development experts have warned that biotechnology might be used to deepen Third World dependence (Kenney et. al. 19885; Kenney 1983:10, 1986; Kloppenburg et. al. 1984; Goldstein 1984; Goodman 1985; Dembo et. al. 1984; Buttel et. al. 1983, 1985; Yoxen 1983).
According to Dembo and others (1984:53), the full involvement of capital, the MNCs, in agricultural biotechnology will perpetuate the dependence of the LDCs on HYVs and hybrids that will be developed and 160
produced in the developed countries and will create problems of
inappropriate technology. Buttel and others state that the:
ramification of biotechnology for Third World agriculture will reinforce trends associated with the green revolution: the accentuation of international trade linkages, the exacerbation of international scientific disparities and the furtherance of national market penetration (Buttel et. al. 1983:2) and that
...the development of biotechnology [in the advanced capital ist countries] will represent a vehicle for deepening depend ence and distorted development (Buttel et. al. 1985:1920).
If the GR induced dependence, the second revolution
(biorevolution) will drive "the Third World even further down the road
of dependence," because the transnational corporations "are claiming the
new plants as their property" through patents (Yoxen 1983:121). However
these statements are only assumptions that do not have concrete
foundations yet because biotechnology products have not begun to reach
the market or the farmers in the Third World.
With regard to those countries which depend solely on agricultural
products for their foreign exchange, Goldstein (1984) maintains that biotechnology will make them more dependent on the countries which control global market for, and regulate the international trade in export crops. In addition, PTC technology will offer the developed countries the opportunity to displace botanical imports from especially the developing countries (Kenney et. al. 1984:49). If PTC affects all crops and plants as it portends (Kenney et. al. 1985:70), the socioeconomic consequences for the agricultural countries will be devastating. The only solution open to these countries therefore will be to establish local agro-allied industries that will consume the industrial crops formerly exported to the developed countries. Kenney (1983) maintains that "despite the tremendous liberating potential of biotechnology," the LDCs will but "receive biotechnology's benefits only as consumers of developed country imports." The extent to which this will happen in Nigeria will depend not only on what the country does but also on its socio-political factors: its internal political economy, the country's scientific capacity, and its awareness of the possible consequences of inaction. Above all, "the answer [will also] come from developments within the international research community" (Goodman 1985:703) to which Nigeria is affiliated. In this respect, it will be necessary here to examine the planned roles of certain international non-profit research organizations. This is discussed in the next chapter. CHAPTER VI
THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Introduction
Biotechnology, as has been discussed here, is highly revolutionary
and will, therefore, have a tremendous impact on all agricultural
systems throughout the world. Agriculture, especially plant agri
culture, is the mainstay of the economies of many developing countries; and despite its petroleum resources, Nigeria is also basically an agricultural economy. From the political economy context as pointed out in the last chapter, commercial biotechnology will be to the dis advantage of Nigeria's agro-economy unless appropriate, dependence- countervailing measures are taken such as adequate R&D investment and the strengthening of local agro-industrial base. On the other hand, from the scientific and technological stand point, the revolutionary character of biotechnology will be in the best economic interest of
Nigeria, because it will lead to increased food production and supplies to enable the starving majority of the people to achieve the minimum daily nutritional level of 2,000 calories per person. The achievement of this objective will depend on the accessibility by Nigeria of the new technologies which, in turn, depends on the level of investment Nigeria is willing to make.
Privatization portends dependency. It will strengthen the control and monopoly of agricultural technologies by the countries of the
162 163
center. The new social relations o iuction that will grow out of
commercial biotechnology will determine how, and who will produce most
of the world's future food and fibre, in the next ten to twenty years.
It has thus been emphasized that "whoever controls biotechnology will
exercise fundamental control over [agro-economic] development" (Oembo
et. al. 1984:52).
In order to grapple with biorevolution and minimize the
socioeconomic impacts, Nigeria must be fully involved in biotechnology research. A note of warning has been sounded by many experts about the
impending revolution. Garrison Wilkes (1984:61) warns that for the developing countries "not to anticipate change is to be ill-prepared for the future [and for the worst]." In these respects, it is important to note that the "future [of food and and agricultural production] belongs to biology (Revelle 1980:727).
Another important point is that the developing countries must have the essential capacities to perform advanced R&D, or at least the capacities to effectively deploy technologies already developed in the advanced countries in order to exploit biotechnology to solve their agro-economic problems. But much of the essential indigenous capacities are lacking. It Is also important that there exist in the LDCs entrepreneurs who are willing to invest adequately in the translation of basic research results of their scientists into value or commodities.
National basic research and entrepreneurial capabilities are crucial to progressive economic development; no country can hope to industrialize without internal interaction between basic research and entrepreneur ship. This is very important in any national policy for self-reliance. 164
Planned Strategies For Alleviating roblen
The concern expressed by many dt- oping countries about the
developments in the developed countries especially in the United States
and the probable monopoly of food and agricultural production have led
to the formation of biotechnology-related international organizations
and the involvement of existing ones which will work to fill the
information gap created by patents with regard to technology transfer.
This role is extremely important for the propagation of biotechnology in
Nigeria and other developing countries; it is important because "the transfer of technology is largely an information and communication process" (Hawthorne 1970:93).
Among the world bodies that engage in non-commercial biotechnology for the benefit of the LDCs are: the Food and Agricultural Organization
(FAO), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) which has created the International Center for Genetic Engineering and
Biotechnology (ICGEB), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) which has established the
Microbiological Research Centers (MIRCEN) in the developing countries.
In the CGIAR system, immediate plans for biotechnology are quite limited. In this regard, Donald Plucknett states that
the centers are using biotechnology at a number of levels, but because of limited facilities and staff they will probably limit themselves to the role of users rather than originators. What we are likely to see is the centers entering into collaborative agreements with organizations that specialize in biotechnology. In this way, the centers can make use of the new technology without committing their funds to basic and very specialized research (CGIAR 1985:3). 165
IITA is using biotechnology a., it tissue culture level with the
objective of propagating improved planting materials, the culturing of
anthers and for jji vitro germplasm storage and conservation.
International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
The roles ICGEB will play in biotechnology activities in member- countries reflect the expected benefits for these countries. With the movement of agricultural research from the public domain to private enclave, Nigeria and other developing countries will benefit from biotechnology by establishing and maintaining strong links with ICGEB and other biotechnology-related organizations. The major roles ICGEB will play are:
1. The advancement of world-wide frontiers in biotechnology;
2. The accumulation and continuity of scientific knowledge and making it accessible to member-countries;
3. Through its transdisciplinary, it hopes to help participating countries to achieve scientific and technological capabilities critical to successful biotechnology programs;
4. Prevention of the adverse consequences of privatization - "secrecy and monopoly of scientific and technological knowledge" - and facilitate international flow of scientific information from the developed nations to the developing ones (UNIDO 1985, IS.521:1).
One problem is that while UNIDO is strongly committed to these roles, certain developed nations' governments, such as the United States (which had in the past developed and transferred new agricultural technologies to the LDCs), France, West Germany and Britain, "have been hesitant to
[also] commit themselves whole-heartedly to such a broad transfer of technology" (Stein 1981:600; Doyle 1985:271). This means that if these 166 countries support ICGEB programs, a Id run in direct contradiction to the objectives of privatization am their world competitiveness.
Referred to as a "center of excellence", ICGEB will assist affiliate national biotechnology centers in their respective goal- oriented research, provide advisory services and scientific and technological training, and promote information and exchange both North-
South and South-South (ATAS Bulletin 1984:59). It is envisioned that
ICGEB will counterbalance the privatization of biotechnology research
(Kenney et. al■ 1985:86).
Planned agricultural projects include nitrogen fixation in plants, and development of plants that can withstand biological constraints such as pests and herbicides, plants that are resistant to harsh weather conditions such as drought and other environmental factors that impede plant growth and yields; crop improvement for better nutritional content will also be undertaken. Interested LDCs will establish their own national affiliated centers which could actively participate in the programs of training and R&D organized by the international center.
What prompted UNIDO into the establishment of ICGEB was to build up the low research capabilities existing in the developing countries, such as Nigeria.
Accordingly, within UNIDO the idea developed that a useful mechanism for building up the capability of developing countries would be to set up an international centre, where researchers from these countries would be trained and, concomitantly, where high quality research of direct pertinence to the developing countries would be performed (UNIDO/IS.513, 1985:5-6; UNIDO/IS.521, 1985:1).
ICGEB is headquartered in Vienna, Austria. It is managed by a panel of fourteen scientific advisers (PSA) comprising eminent scientists from different parts of the world. They are responsible for operations, and for ensuring the ct s scientific and technological
excellence. With the agreement of me r countries who signed its
statutes in 1983, two components of the center were set up in New Delhi,
India, and Trieste, Italy. Each has "a broad capacity for basic
research" in biotechnology (UNIDO/IS.521, 1985:3). Operations in both centers began in 1985. The New Delhi center will undertake research in all areas of agriculture, animal and human health, while the Trieste center will work on industrial microbiology processes - biomass conversion, and hydrocarbon microbiology. These activities are delineated as follows:
New Delhi:
A. Agribiology (a) control of expression of transferred genes;
(b) cytoplasmic male sterility;
(c) plant proteins;
(d) herbicide resistance; and
(e) nitrogen fixation.
B. Human Parasitology (a) malaria; and
(b) hepatitis.
Trieste:
A. Viral Diseases
(a) human papiloma viruses; and
(b) rotaviruses.
B. Molecular aspects of DNA replication in human cells.
C. Microbiological degradation of lignocellulose.
Source: ICGEB/Prep. Comm./10/6. 1987:2. 168
The decision to focus on the earch areas was based on a
number of general criteria including lequacy of requirements in terms
of equipment and other facilities for research; high scientific content of the problem involved, which is an important point for attracting the most talented and motivated scientists; and the possibilities of obtaining in a reasonable time useful and significant results, considered in context with research in other established laboratories"
(ICGEB 1987:2).
ICGEB joint research programs are designed to "serve as a mechanism for promoting international co-operation in biotechnology by binding closer to one another the scientific workers of the ICGEB and its network of affiliates and, thus, the various facilities" (ICGEB
1984:2). Joint R&D within the centre will share all resources such as expertise and know-how, and equipment. The idea of affiliated centres is based on the fact that it will facilitate the centre's work and lead to the achievement of its objectives as made clear in the following statement:
The objective of the ICGEB to assist the developing countries in the field of genetic engineering and biotechnology in order to meet their specific needs will not be fully achieved unless the centre can promote, and interact with, national centres and affiliated centres. Within the framework of the International Centre, the affiliated centres, each specializing in a specific subject area, will be located in different regions (ICGEB/Prep. Comm./4/4/Rev. 1, 1984:2).
Constraints to ICGEB Plans of Action in Africa
One obstacle mentioned by UNIDO experts that would frustrate the efforts of ICGEB was the Third World educational systems which "may not be geared for the education and training of the high quality, multidisciplinary researchers required in biotechnology" (UNIDO/IS.513, 169
1985:22). But it should be noted ;ost of the scientists and
researchers in the Third World received their higher education and
research training in the developed countries, (see appendix c). Another
potential constraint to ICGEB is the lack of "technological resources or
scientific competence to individually take up biosclence R&D or develop scale-up and down-stream industrial processes", and investment capital which discourages R&D" (UNIDO/IS.513, 1985:22).
UNIDO experts expect to overcome these problems through
international co-operative strategies. In the short term, UNIDO will help, if requested, in designing and establishing national biotechnology programs and centres respectively, formulate appropriate agro industrial policies and negotiate contracts for international biotechnology transfer. In the medium-term, through in-house research and training, ICGEB expects to positively affect the human capabilities
(researchers and technologists) in R&D to "scale-up laboratory procedures and to undertake down-stream processing" (UNIDO/IS.513,
1985:23) .
With respect to Africa, and within the limits of its resources, the organization has designed (yet to be implemented) two primary strategies to enable it build-up its capabilities in biotechnology R&D. The first is the creation of regional network for biotechnology in the continent
(UNIDO/IS.513, 1985:24). The new system will form a linkage among the existing international R&D centers which will perform in-house research pertinent to the needs of the participating countries in the region, train researchers in the various techniques of biotechnology, and disseminate scientific information to collaborating national centers. 170
This proposal is subject to the agreement of the co-operating
governments, national R&D institutions, and regional organizations such
as the Economic Community of Africa (ECA), and the Organization of
African Unity (OAU). The second plan of action involves the
establishment of a regional co-operative research and training programs
in the continent also in collaboration with ECA and OAU (UNIDO/IS. 513,
1985:25). In this plan, interested countries would be required to pool
their resources in order to establish a strong center which, not only
will be capable of performing effective research beneficial to all
national participants but also help in strengthening their manpower.
UNIDO plans to begin by using two appropriate international centers
in the region whose capabilities it will augment so that they can
undertake advanced research. The operations of these centers will be
integrated with those of the regional network system. UNIDO states
that:
the overall purpose of capability-building is to allow African countries to achieve self-sufficiency: a concept which means more than just being able to perform research and establish industry. It means taking steps to achieve mastery over biotechnology, i.e. having knowledge of the scientific basis and the dynamics of the bioscience; being able to manipulate results from research to reach practical goals (the developing of a technology): and being able to adapt and improve already developed technologies. Only after mastery has been realized can a country establish a bioscience-based industry capable of significantly stimulating and propelling ... the process of development (UNIDO/IS.513:25).
Whether or not ICGEB will live up to expectations as a center of excellence, and whether the LDCs will be effectively receptive to the scientific information that would flow from it are questions that will not be answered until the next five to ten years when, perhaps, we will begin to see practical results from such receptivity. The credibility 171 of the center will obviously depend on the attainment of its objectives and goals in the Third World agriculture. It is expected that the center will make an impressive technological debut in the LDCs, disseminating scientific information equitably among the regions without creating conditions of regional differentiation and unequal development
(should some regions receive more technological and scientific information than others). One political problem that already implicitly exists in ICGEB is the fact that Africa is the only region not represented in the PSA. In this regard, the credibility of the center becomes questionable from the African perspective.
Microbiological Resource Centers
Co-operating with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP),
UNESCO has established several regional MIRCEN centers which undertakes the "most advanced international program for biotechnology assessment and capacity building in developing countries" (ATAS 1984:59-60).
UNESCO's primary mission is to promote the free-flow of scientific and technological knowledge, reinforce research and training especially in applied microbiology and cellular biology, and encourage cooperation among nations in the solution of their common and unique problems.
Specific functions which MIRCEN plans to undertake are to:
provide the infrastructure for a world network which would incorporate regional and interregional co-operating laboratories geared to the management, distribution and utilization of the microbial gene pool;
reinforce efforts relating to the conservation of microorganisms, with emphasis on Rhizobium gene pool, in developing countries, with an agrarian base;
foster the development of new inexpensive technologies native to the region; 172
promote the applications of microbiology in order to strengthen rural economies; and
serve as focal centres for the training of manpower and the diffusion of microbiological knowledge (UNESCO 1987:1).
MIRCEN's work in Africa on nitrogen fixation is expected to alleviate the economic and biological problems in food production in the continent. The Kenyan center produces and distributes Rhizobium inocula which reduces the farmers' chemical (fertilizer) dependence (Bialy
1987:1257) in their efforts to increase the production of leguminous crops which are highly consumed throughout the continent.
MIRCEN formulates policies and designs programs for training, research, and application for the benefit of participating nations. It also attempts to create awareness in these nations of the socio-cultural implications of their involvement in biotechnology. Table 18 shows some established MIRCEN centers devoted to regional application of microbiology/biotechnology. Their research emphasis are based on the possibilities and priority needs of each region.
These centers receive support from UNESCO, UNEP (United Nations
Environmental Program), and ICRO (International Cell Research
Organization) specialized in research and training in applied microbiology. The government of Japan makes contributions to the South-
East Asian center (Bull et. al. 1982).
Food and Agricultural Organization/International Atomic Energy Agency
There are joint biotechnology activities between FAO and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in food and agricultural research and development. These research activities involve the application of nuclear techniques and other advanced but related methods Table 18 MIRCEN CENTERS
Region Location Research
Africa University of Nairobi, Nitrogen fixation Nairobi, Kenya
Centre Nationale de Rhizobium innoculants Recherches Agronomiques Bambey, Senegal
Arab States Ain Shams University, Biotechnology Cairo, Egypt
South-East Thailand Institute of Fermentation, Asia Scientific and Food and waste Technological Research, recycling Bangkok, Thailand
Life Science Research World Data Centre Information Section, Riken, Saitama, Japan
University of Osaka, Fermentation Osaka, Japan Technology
Central Central American America Research Institute for Industry Biotechnology
South Instituto de Pesquisas America Agronomicas Porto Alegre, Brazil Rhizobium
Planta Piloto de Procesos Industriales Microbiologicos (PROIMI) Tucuman, Argentina Biotechnology
North University of Hawai, America Hawai, U. S. A. Rhizobium
University of Maryland, Marine Biotechnology Maryland, U. S. A. MIRCEN
Cell Culture and Nitrogen-Fixation Laboratory Rhizobium Maryland, U. S. A. 174
Table 18 (Continued)
Region Location Research
University of Waterloo/ Biotechnology and University of Guelph Agriculture Waterloo/Guelph, Canada
Europe Karolinska Institute Biotechnology Stockholm, Sweden
University of Kent and Canterbury Biotechnology
Sources: Adapted by the author from: Bull et. al. 1982; ATAS Bulletin 1984; Sasson 1984; UNESCO, MIRCEN News No. 9, 1987.
such as ui vitro techniques in plant breeding and propagation, biological control, nitrogen fixation, animal vaccine production, food preservation and other problem-oriented research for the benefit of participating countries. The joint organization organizes practical training programs in its laboratories for scientists from the LDCs. The objective is to improve the technical skills of these scientists.
FAO/IAEA's agricultural biotechnology laboratory is located in Vienna,
Austria, and its food preservation training laboratory is in the
Netherlands.
The CGIAR System
Another international organization which is making meaningful efforts to promote biotechnology research in the Third World is the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) which was established in 1971. CGIAR is a consortium of 13 centers - the international agricultural research centers (IARCs) which were 175
originally created for the promotion of the green revolution. The CGIAR
"is an informal association of countries, international and regional
organizations, and private Foundations dedicated to supporting a system of agricultural research centers and programs around the world. The purpose of the research effort is to improve the quantity and quality of food production in the developing countries" (CGIAR 1985:3). CGIAR co ordinates the activities of the IARCs and it is a body through which donor agencies and nations direct funds to the centers.
CGIAR membership, as of November 1971, includes its principal sponsors, namely, the FAO, UNDP, the World Bank (IBRD), Rockefeller
Foundation, Ford Foundation, the Canadian International Development
Research Centre (IDRC), the African, Asian, and Inter-American
Development Banks, and certain national governments. Nigeria and
Morocco are the African continental representatives.
There are several original reasons for the creation of the CGIAR system. They include, firstly, promoting international cooperation in agricultural sciences, and Rockefeller Foundation's visualization that the developing world agricultural problems could be addressed by the centers. Secondly, there was the need to eliminate any duplication of efforts, and build centers of excellence by concentrating superior research equipment, providing central training facilities, and bringing people from all over the world and training them at the centers.
Thirdly, it was useful to co-ordinate the language of scientific research (CGIAR 1985).
IARCs have specific research mandates, but generally with regard to biotechnology, they plan to enter into some collaborative research agreements with organizations that specialize in biotechnology.
According to Plucknett (1985), this is a strategy designed to enable the
centers to gain access to and use the new technology without committing
funds to basic and specialized research. He points out that because of
resource constraints, the centers will not undertake more advanced areas
of biotechnology requiring sophisticated laboratories, except the
International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases (ILRAD) in
Kenya, which will undertake in-depth DNA research (Plucknett 1985:4).
He emphasized that the centers will rather seek to collaborate with
"advanced laboratories and institutions that are specializing in biotechnology and thus concentrate the strengths of these collaborators on the IARC's specific needs dictated by their mandate" (Plucknett
1985:4). Some centers within the CGIAR system have formed partnerships among themselves, and there is general co-operation in the entire system. The various efforts of the centers are marked by openness and unrestricted dissemination of techniques and results.
The CGIAR does not have biotechnology policy. The reason for this is because the IARCs are permitted to:
operate as nearly autonomous institutions and it is at the center level that decisions about research programs and approaches are made... individual centers plan and carry out research programs according to a 'mandate' agreed upon with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the CGIAR. In this framework, biotechnology is considered as an approach to research that yields new information or techniques to help solve difficult problems (Plucknett 1985:1).
International Institute for Tropical Agriculture
Among the IARCs is the International Institute for Tropical
Agriculture (IITA) located in Nigeria. IITA undertakes various agricultural research programs focussing on problems of interest to 177
Africa and beyond. The geographic mandate of the institute includes the humid and sub-humid tropical zones; its research and training mandate
focuses on farming systems and genetic improvement of important local food crops. It has begun work on plant cell and tissue culture technology which it has used to develop virus-free germplasm which it exchanges around the world (ATAS 1984:59). That biotechnology will not displace traditional plant breeding methods or conventional agricultural research will be more apparent in tissue culture work at IITA and other
IARCs where the "new" will be adopted in conjunction with the
"conventional" to solve research and breeding problems. IITA's stated objective in Africa and elsewhere is simply the improvement of the quantity along with the quality of the primary food crops consumed by the peoples of the continent. Target crops affected include protein- rich legumes such as cowpeas, high-carbohydrate energy-source cassava, yam and sweet potato, lysine-rich maize and high-protein rice. The institute works to develop low-input technologies that will help to curtail soil erosion, nutrient leaching and weed growth and maximum nutrient recycling (CGIAR 1984).
It is expected that IITA will play visible roles in tissue culture work in Nigeria now being undertaken by indigenous scientists at the
National Research Centers and the universities. Specific projects or programs include research on legumes, and the farming systems research mentioned above. It also embarks on germplasm collection of high protein varieties such as legumes with the purpose of assembling genetic diversity of native species. Its training programs offer right 178
opportunities for higher degree students undertaking research topics
relevant to tropical agriculture.
IITA Contributions to Nigerian Agriculture
The poor agricultural conditions in many parts of Africa including
Nigeria since the late 1970s and which became more pronounced in the
early 1980s were a great challenge to IITA. In the future, these
conditions will provide a true test for biotechnology. Because of its
high population growth rate estimated at 3.1 percent, lack of suitable
farm lands as 80 percent of its lands is infertile for traditional
agriculture, extensive drought as 47 percent of its climate is too dry
for its rain-fed agriculture, and bad policies of its various governments which have failed to invest adequately in agriculture (FAO
1984:5-7); World Resources 1986:55), food supplies in Africa has deteriorated extensively. The year 1984 was the year famine and starvation in some parts of Africa reached a climax and it was the same year IITA took stock of its achievements in the continent (IITA 1985), after about 17 years (1967-1984) of its presence there. These achievements were evaluated against its mandate in the region which included "farming systems and crop improvement of certain designated cereals (rice and maize), grain legumes (cowpeas and soybeans), and roots and tubers (yams, sweet potatoes, and cassava) (IITA 1981:1), as has already been mentioned.
Rice improvement program is one of IITA's important successes in
Africa. The institute has succeeded in developing new rice varieties resistant to blast disease and rice yellow mottle virus, tolerant to soil acidity and abnormal temperatures which were the major constraints to production throughout Africa (IITA 1984:74-80). It has developed, screened and multiplied varieties that are high-yielding and early maturing. Apart from environmental and biological stress characteristics, quality improvement was not ignored. IITA's rice improvement program has developed into the creation of the International
Rice Testing Program for Africa. Other international institutes participating in this program are the International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines, and the West African Rice
Development Agency (WARDA). The objective is the "testing [of] genetically diverse material in several rice growing areas" (IITA
1984:1). In a breeding collaboration with the National Cereals Research
Institute at Badegi, IITA's new superior rice lines have been screened, multiplied and adopted in three planting areas in Nigeria, namely,
Ibadan, Onne, and Ikenne. They have proved to be strongly resistant to blasts and production has increased significantly.
IITA has developed hybrid maize varieties which have been found to be resistant to blight diseases and low land rust. These are increasingly being adopted in many parts of West Africa. The achievement in this area of crop improvement is measured by the fact that on-farm yields in Nigeria were higher than traditional yields: 3 to
5 tons/ha. as compared with 1.5 tons (IITA 1984:1). Maize improvement in Africa is jointly undertaken by IITA and CIMMYT in Mexico. The objective was to develop maize varieties that are resistant to associated diseases such as streak virus and pests, for example, the stem borers, which are the main constraints to sustained maize production in Africa including Nigeria. 180
Cowpea is another important crop that is receiving genetic
improvement in IITA's programs. Varieties that are not only early
maturing but are also resistant to associated diseases such as pod
borers and weevil have been developed and adopted in Nigeria and in many
other parts of the developing world. Research success in this area is
evidenced by the fact that IITA's improved varieties yielded from 600 to
1500 kg/ha. during the dry seasons in the Sahelian area of Niger as
compared with the yield of only 185 kg/ha. by traditional and improved
national varieties (IITA 1984:20). The success is seen from the fact
that the Sahel areas of Africa are the high drought zones of the
continent.
Cassava is one of the most important food crops in Nigeria and many other parts of Africa. The major constraints of cassava production
in the continent include such plant diseases as cassava mosaic, nematodes, and insect pests such as cassava mealybug, bacterial blights, and the green spider mite. Added to these biological problems is the
traditional methods of production.
IITA has developed improved varieties resistant to these diseases and pests and has distributed them in many African countries (Hahn
1984:6; IITA 1985:119). According to Hahn new varieties have gained tremendous popularity among Nigerian farmers who, by 1983, have cultivated them to over 200,000, and by 1984, 31 centers in the continent have acquired the improved varieties in tissue culture form.
Farm results have shown that the new varieties yielded more than traditional varieties by about 2 to 18 times (IITA 1985:1). 181
With regard to yam improvement, there is a strong collaboration
between IITA and the National Root Crop Research Institute with regard
to the elimination of major biological and environmental constraints of
yam production in Nigeria. Improvement has not been directed to yield
and quality alone but also to storage. Research is being undertaken to
improve the preservation and storage of seedlings between harvest and
the planting seasons. Yams are native to West Africa and are consumed by all families in the region. Ninety-six percent of the world's yams are grown in Africa (IITA 1985, Hahn 1984). The major constraints in production are not only biological, involving nematodes and weeds, but also socioeconomic involving high labor inputs, expensive seeds, and special lands.
Nematodes, potato virus complex and weevil are the factors that limit the production of sweet potato in Africa. Another problem was storability between harvests and planting seasons, as in the case of yams; it is difficult to preserve seedlings or planting materials between the seasons. Major work on this crop is the development of varieties that are also resistant to the diseases and pests (Hahn
1984:22-23). Many species of the crop have been genetically improved and distributed to 52 countries around the world, as some of them were found to be adaptable to various environmental conditions (IITA
1985:145). On-farm results have shown that the improved varieties yielded 2-5 times more than the traditional varieties in Cameroon (IITA
1985:145) .
Another economically important crop requiring improvement is soybeans. Traditional varieties of soybeans lacked vigour and viability 182 which deterred its longevity - a characteristic that impedes its production. IITA has developed new varieties that are superior and can be stored between harvests and planting seasons. There has been strong research collaborations between IITA and Institute of Agricultural
Research and Training, and the National Cereals Research Institute for this crop including on-farm trials in many areas in the country.
Although IITA has made tremendous advances in genetic improvement of various crops of Africa including Nigeria, one major problem remains.
And that is, bringing local farmers in Nigeria and other areas in the region to adopt these high-yielding quality varieties as expected (IITA
1985). In order to translate the achievements made so far in the genetic improvements of Nigerian crops into socioeconomic benefits for the peoples of Nigeria, IITA, the National Agricultural Research
Institutes, and the universities have developed a local farming systems research program (FSR). The objective was to facilitate effective adoption of the new crop varieties. The program aims at improving agricultural and cropping practices of Nigerian farmers, "with a view to increasing production efficiencies in different ecological zones and also monitoring the socioeconomic implications of newly developed systems for both large and small-scale farming" (IITA 1986:2). "When research innovations are relevant to the needs and practices of [small scale] farmers, adoption of technologies will receive a boost and impacts will be greater" (Okoro et. al. 1985:82). The combination of local farming practices, and improved crop varieties could result in increased crop production (Hawkes 1980:1). 183
One important aspect of IITA's FSR is the on-farm adaptive research
(O-FAR) or on-farm research (OFR). O-FAR involves "identifying
constraints and opportunities for improvement; choice of improved
technologies that fit the local systems; their testing and evaluation
under farmers' conditions and dissemination of suitable technologies to
farmers. O-FAR also provides feedback to research stations for further
research. At every phase of the process, biological and social
scientists co-operate closely" (Juo 1985:1). In the application of the
system to the Bida Agricultural Development Project (BADP) in Niger,
Nigeria, it was found that unless they "stand to gain something, farmers
are reluctant to offer their fields for trials [or adopt new techniques]
that require significant changes in crop management" (Ashraf et. al.
1985:27).
The international institute's training programs have been
impressive. Practical training at home rather than overseas enables
Nigerian students to be familiar with problems unique to the country's agriculture, and learn how to solve them effectively. The training is organized into non-degree and degree-related programs. Non-degree
trainees include employees from agricultural organizations - ministries,
international organizations and universities. Training is designed according to the needs of the sponsoring organizations, or individuals.
Degree-related participants are those pursuing Masters or Doctoral degrees or equivalents in various universities around the world, and who hope to work in the humid and sub-humid environments in the future (IITA
1984). Degree programs thus offer them the opportunity to do their research in such environments in order to become acquainted with them. 184
Table 19 shows the extent of Nigeria's participation in the training
programs. IITA has thus brought research training home to Nigerians.
In the past, students were sent overseas by the government to receive
the same type of training in environments not familiar to them. The
cost of foreign training, both in monetary terms and time, have now been eliminated.
IITA has established a germplasm unit, the genetic resources unit
(GRU) which evaluates, characterizes, documents and conserves genetic resources of economically important crops it acquires from many parts of
Africa and beyond (IITA 1985:221-223). The unit's plant explorations receive support from the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources based in Italy. It has distributed large volumes of free, improved crop genotypes to over fifty countries in the world. This is one of the most important contributions IITA makes not only to national research centers in Africa but also to other developing areas of the world, as well as to international science communities.
Table 19 Nigeria's Participation in IITA Training Programs 1970-84
M. Sc. Ph. D. Non-Degree Totals
World 186 103 2,905 3,196
Africa 115 78 2,668 2,861
Nigeria 19 34 1,106 1,159
Nigeria as a percentage of African 16.5 43.6 41.5 40.5 totals
Source: By the author: Adapted from IITA Annual Report 1984. IITA activities in Nigeria and the rest of Africa demonstrate the
CGIAR emphasis that "the international centers must continue to carry out strategic scientific research and to interface with national research and development by making available appropriate technology components, that can be adapted to existing rural situations" (CGIAR
1982:8). Nigeria provides IITA the socio-cultural, ecological and climatic conditions that match its mandate of increasing food production in the humid and sub-humid tropics. Hartman, IITA Director, states that
"Nigeria is the most populous of the countries with which we work in
Africa, and within it we find most of the range of environments, except the mid and higher altitudes, needed for our research" (Hartman 1984:7).
He emphasized that if IITA failed to make any impact in Nigeria, it was unlikely it would do so anywhere else in the continent, considering these socio-cultural and environmental conditions.
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources
Another international scientific organization under the aegis of the CGIAR is the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources
(IBPGR). IBPGR is an autonomous organization which promotes and co ordinates world net-work of genetic resources centers with the basic function of furthering the "collection, conservation, documentation, evaluation and use of plant germplasm and thereby contribute to raising the standard of living and welfare of peoples throughout the world"
(IBPGR 1978:iiI; Bunsting 1978:16). It also offers training programs for scientists and technicians from genetic resources centers, and organizes workshops for the benefit of participating nations and institutions. 186
IBPGR belongs to the consortium of the international agricultural
research institutes but it is not involved in actual research
activities, that is, plant breeding. Its function is to assist plant
breeders by providing them with essential breeding services - making the
conserved genetic pools accessible to plant scientists and breaders even
outside the consortium (IBPGR 1978; Bunsting 1978:16).
IBPGR has established regional centers in the developing countries.
It works with over 100 countries and 580 key agricultural research
organizations and has established 38 germplasm storage facilities around
the world (NRC 1983:4). In Africa, it has two main offices which are
located at Ouagadougou, Burkana Faso, for West African operations and
ILRAD in Kenya for East Africa. In Nigeria, it supports IITA's GRU.
IBPGR and GRU jointly organize training at IITA for genebank management
and seed technology for African students. Since its African operations
began in 1976, it has collected more than 34,000 samples of indigenous
crop species (IBPGR 1984, 1985:41). The Nigerian National Institute of
Horticultural Research (NIH0RT), a center for vegetable germplasm, is also involved in the IBPGR work. The latter supports the former in its national activities and has provided it with such equipments as deep freeze cabinets, drying facilities and other materials.
The work of IBPGR has aroused many questions especially from the developing countries. These questions have led to a debate at an FAO conference in Geneva in 1985. The central issue of the debate was the question of who were the real donors of the genetic resources, and who were the real beneficiaries (Mooney 1985). Third World countries at the conference claimed that they were the real donors and that the developed 187
countries were the real beneficiaries. Tables 20 and 21 are an evidence
of these claims.
Table 20 The Real Donors to World Gene Bank
Region Percentile Germplasm Donations
Asia 34.2
Africa 34.00
Latin America 22.9
Western Europe 8.6
Others 0.3
Source: Compiled by the author from: Pat Mooney, "The law of the se revisited", Development Dialogue, No. 1, 1985:141.
Table 21 The Real Beneficiaries of World Gene Bank Resources
Region Degree of Benefits (in percentage)
North America 23.8
Western Europe 15.9
Latin America 6.3
Africa 4.6
Asia 4.2
Eastern Europe 1.9
Others 1.9
Source: Compiled by the author from: Pat Mooney, "The law of the seed revisited", Development Dialogue, No. 1, 1985:141-142. 188
Reading from the Tables, more than 90 percent of all world
germplasm collected by the IBPGR originate In the Third World. But
about 40 percent of the total collection is in the hands of the
developed countries, while the LDCs have a total of only 15 percent in
their genebanks. The United States alone has gained 28 percent or
23,000 seed accessions of economically important crops of the world
(RAFI 1987:3). The genetic resources units of the IARCs have approximately 41.3 percent.
Another aspect of the issue was that the developed countries such as France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States have also received more IBPGR grants than they had actually contributed to its operations (Mooney 1985:142). By 1987, the United States alone has received more than US $2.8 million (about 22 percent) of all IBPGR grants (RAFI 1987:3). For these reasons, Pat Mooney called for governmental and inter-governmental control of free germplasm exchanges.
This means the enforcement of patent-like protection, by the LDCs, of their plant genetic resources against foreign commercial appropriation.
Donald Plucknett defended the program by saying that the work of
CGIAR and the IARCs was directed "toward helping national agricultural research programs ... in Third World countries to deal more effectively with the problems faced by their farmers," and that these farmers "will not sacrifice the welfare of their families to grow less productive varieties than otherwise available, unless there is something wrong with the available improved varieties [created from germplasm resources]"
(Plucknett 1985:101). He also stressed that the CGIAR was determined to 189
"prevent the work of the IARCs from being appropriated unfairly for
private gain" (Plucknett 1985:101).
The central reason for gene pool establishments lies in the
problems of crop genetic erosion in many parts of the world. Successes
in plant breeding or crop improvement have resulted in the losses of
traditional varieties and even wild species that are related to them
(Bunsting 1978:15; Hawkes 1980:2-3; Wilkes 1984:62). As farmers
continue to adopt new improved varieties, as examplified by the HYVs of
the Green Revolution, traditional varieties are displaced and lost. The
losses of traditional varieties and their wild relatives are reinforced
by climatic conditions such as drought and floods (Bunsting 1978) as well as deforestations. In this regard Wilkes states that "if a nation
cannot maintain a gene bank, then it should not be considering the establishment of a tissue culture laboratory" (Wilkes 1984:62).
Thus, in order for scientists and plant breeders to breed special or desired characteristics such as resistance to pests and diseases, higher yield, adaptation and nutritive qualities into crops, they must have a large genetic pool from which they can draw genetic characteristics which can be incorporated into new varieties (Hawkes
1980:2). A large reservior of genetic variability enables scientists to identify and select varieties that possess desirable characteristics.
They use genetic resources to produce improved varieties. Genetic resources "comprise the genetic diversity of plants or animals useful to man" especially "the major crop species and the wild species genetically related to them" (Hawkes 1985:1). 190
International Agricultural Development Service
The CGIAR centers recognize (a) the important role of technology development and transfer in resolving food and nutrition problems in certain parts of the world; (b) that the national agricultural research system in the developing countries are of poor quality and need to be strengthened so that they can effectively apply or use research results of the centers; and (c) the importance of the interactions of research with social and economic factors in development but a major gap existing in their mandate is their lack of direct involvement in assisting national research systems and their inability to work in non-research areas of development (IADS 1985:2-3). The International Agricultural
Development Service (IADS) operates to fill these gaps.
The original reason for the founding of IADS was "the worsening outlook for world food supplies relative to population, the struggle of developing countries to produce better technology and transfer it to farmers, and the complexity of the agricultural development process and the concomittant need for attention to many factors other than research in order to raise food production and standards of living" (IADS
1985:2). IADS provides contract agricultural research management and development services to national research institutes and has operated in this category in 45 countries around the world.
In late 1985, IADS merged with two other research agencies, the
Agricultural Development Council (ADC) and the Winrock International
Livestock Research and Training Center. The new body is now called
Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development. 191
The International Service for National Agricultural Research
The International Service for National Agricultural Research
(ISNAR) has also been established and operates under the CGIAR for the
primary purpose of improving national agricultural research. Both the
ISNAR and IADS grew out of the need to strengthen the capacity of
national research systems. The creation of these agencies became
necessary because:
the IARCs were not intended primarily to support the development of national research institutions or even normally to work directly with national institutions in the conduct of research programs. Rather they were expected to produce new technology which could be adapted to specific country conditions through national research (UNDP/FAO 1984:16).
The West African Rice Research Association
The West African Rice Research Association (WARDA) which was
established in 1968 and located in Monrovia, Liberia, with the
support of UNDP and FAO and other donor agencies engages in rice
research and development on behalf of 11 West African nations. West
Africa is rich in rice germplasm and has good farming systems for rice
production. Examples of such systems are upland rice, irrigated rice, mangrove swamp rice, and deep flooded and floating rice (Ruttan
1982:128). These systems are major factors put into consideration in
transferring new technologies to the farmers. They are the essence of farming systems research.
WARDA undertakes (a) cooperative rice research and development program; (b) training of scientists and breeders; since 1977 more than
900 specialists have been trained in rice production; (c) enables sub stations or out-stations to gain access to world scientific information relating to rice research and development, especially world collection 192
of germplasm; (d) conducts scientific conferences and seminars; and (e)
shares scientific knowledge. WARDA assists the countries of the region
collectively with the understanding that "each can function more
effectively in conjunction with WARDA than it would by operating alone"
(NRC 1974:171; CGIAR 1983:4).
This basically is the rationale behind the suggestion by some
experts that regional research systems could bring nations to co
operate with each other by concentrating their scarce resources to
cheaply solve their common production problems, rather than working
alone ineffectively under extreme resource constraints. This is one
major strengths of WARDA which, in essence, is a cooperative research
association. Another source of WARDA's strength is its specialized
research and development that concentrates in one crop that is consumed
throughout the region by all classes of people. Thirdly, it is not
inhibited by any national socio-political problems that affect national
systems.
WARDA, however, has some weaknesses as well. It "has limited
professional capacity in its own staff, and it works in a region where
national capacity is even weaker" (Ruttan 1982:128). The potential
impacts of this weakness are overcome through its co-operative programs
with IITA, the IRRI, and IRAT (Institute pour la Recherche dans
Agronomie Tropicale), and through its strategy of decentralization in which its available professional staff, and facilities are located at
national centers (Ruttan 1982:128). Thirdly, its linkage to inter
national centers and communication networks enables its researchers, not
only to gain access to world germplasm sources, but also to get 193
important information about new research techniques and useful results.
Ruttan describes WARDA as a "model ... among the more promising of the
several regional systems" (Ruttan 1982:175).
International linkage and communication networks are an essential element in the total requirement for the success of modern research. It enhances technology transfer and dissemination of scientific informa tion. It is a weapon that could weaken privatization.
Implication for Nigeria
What is the importance of these activities to Nigeria?
Privatization portends the furthering of dependency for the LDCs. In view of this potential problem, the importance of these international centers to Nigeria and other LDCs is obvious - that of assisting them in solving their existing and future problems, and in building up their agro-industrial base. Despite privatization, enormous scientific and technological opportunities still exist within these scientific communities which the country can take advantage of to break the vicious circle of famine, food dependency, and rural poverty. These various programs will cummulatively provide a buffer against the potential impacts of the new university-industry relationships in the high R&D centers of the world. It is hoped that the international systems will exert upward, progressive influence on the Nigerian national systems.
But for this to happen, the host government must be fully committed to national R&D, to take advantage of these opportunities.
Table 22 shows the IARCs under the CGIAR system, their locations and their research and geographical mandates. 194
Table 22 The International Agricultural Research Centers
Center/Location/ Initiation date Research Mandate Geographical Mandate
International Rice Research Rice: genetic Asia and Collabora Institute (IRRI), Los Banos, improvement and tive work worldwide Philippines - 1959 production systems
International Center for the Wheat, maize, Worldwide Improvement of Maize and barley Wheat (CIMMYYT), El Batan, Mexico - 1964
International Center for Maize, rice, Latin America. Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) Cassava, beans, Collaborates with Palmira, Colombia - 1968 beef; farming IRRI and CIMMYT. systems
International Institute of Maize, rice, grain Africa. Tropical Agriculture (IITA). legumes (peas, Collaborates with Ibadan, Nigeria - 1965 soybeans, cowpeas, IRRI, CIMMYT beans); roots and and WARDA. tubers (cassava, yams, sweet pota toes); Farming Systems
International Potato Center Potatoes Worldwide: LDCs (CIP), Lima, Peru - 1972. and DCs.
International Crops Research Groundnuts, Asia and Africa, and Institute for the Semi-Arid sorghum, peas, beyond Tropics (ICRISAT)/ millet; and Hyderabad, India Farming Systems
International Laboratory for Animal diseases: Africa Research on Animal Diseases trypanosomiasis, (ILRAD)/Nairobi, Kenya, 1974 theileriasis (eastcoast fever)
International Livestock Livestock pro Africa Center for Africa (ILCA)/ duction Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1974
International Board for Plant Plant genetic Worldwide Genetic Resources (IBPGR)/FAO resources; collec Rome, Italy - 1973 tion and conserva tion 195
Table 22 (Continued)
Center/Location/ Initiation date Research Mandate Geographical Mandate
West African Rice Develop Rice: genetic West Africa ment Association (WARDA)/ improvement and Cooperates with Monrovia, Liberia - 1971 Farming Systems IITA and IRRI.
International Center for Wheat, lentils, Semi-Arid regions Agricultural Research in barley, sheep; of the world. Dry Areas (ICARDA)/Syria Mixed Farming 1976 Systems
Source: Adapted by the author from (i) CGIAR Literature; (ii) Crawford 1977:282-283. CHAPTER VII
EVOLUTION AND THE ORGANIZATTION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN NIGERIA
Introduction
This chapter is a review of the agricultural research in Nigeria.
It begins with a brief discussion of the historical patterns of the
development of world agriculture: from simple but systematic selections
and domestication of crops to purposeful scientific applications, and
the evolution of research and its institutionalization. History is
important in this study because "our knowledge of the past is
fundamental to our knowledge of the present" (Lappe et. al. 1977:88).
References to the institutionalization of agricultural research in
Europe and in the United States are made because "technological and
scientific development [in agriculture] are, in many of their aspects, global processes" (Annerstedt 1980:84): it is therefore important to
touch on their roots. Moreover, scientific and technological developments in the developed parts of the world have, and will continue to influence developments in the LDCs such as Nigeria. The central focus in this chapter is the Nigerian national agricultural research system (NARS) - the development of the national institutes, their structure and research objectives. Their strengths and weaknesses are a part of the subject matter of this study and will be dealt with in the next chapter. The definitions of agricultural research and its forms are presented in appendix B.
196 197
Historical Overview
The history of agriculture and its development can be traced to
over 10,000 years ago beginning with the Mesolithic man who simply
hunted animals and gathered fruits for food, to the Neolithic man who
purposely domesticated them (Borlaug 1983; Okigbo 1981; Bunsting 1978;
Vavilov 1951; Bell 1972; Heiser 1973). Probably it was environmental
conditions such as weather variations, seasonal and ecological changes which affected the reliability of supplies that led the early man to move from the practice of animal hunting and fruit gathering to, as Bell
(1972:121) has stated, a fairly systematic selection and domestication, and eventually to 'settled patterns of cultivation'. As man began to modify his food-procuring habits from hunter-gatherer to cultivator in order to establish dependable sources of future supplies (Heiser
1973:3), his nomadic way of life gave way to settled habitation. Thus, organized and traditional farming systems began, as well as the develop ment of primitive instruments of production and product storage systems.
Ancient African farmers were no least in the domestication of wild plants not only in their own region but also crops brought from other parts of the earth. As Bunsting (1978) has found, in addition to its native crops such as yams, sorghum, millet, African rice, oil palm, teff, castor, coffee, cowpea, niger seed, sesame and others, African native farmers at a later period, have adopted crops from different parts of the world over time. New additions to Africa's plant genetic resources include such crops as sugar cane, bananas and plantain, pepper, cocoyams, wheat, barley and chickpea. Much later still, further adoptions came from the Americas and they included cassava, sweet 198
potato, cotton, cocoa, rubber, groundnuts and other types of cocoyams.
Thus, we see that "Africa contains a vast conglomeration of crops and
crop varieties which have been brought from the ends of the earth. Many of them have generated new patterns of diversity in our continent"
(Bunsting 1978:14). Thus, it is maintained that Africa is rich in germplasm resources which is important in biotechnology research; it contributes more than 34 percent of the total world germplasm donation to the world gene banks.
The selection of plant species for domestication and cultivation may have been carried out by trial and error or by chance, Neolothic man eventually succeded in making wise choices which have subsisted for centuries, all of which, according to Borlaug (1983:689), we have inherited today as our primary sources of food; world-wide botanical investigations have not, up till this date discovered any new crops
(Vavilov 1951:52). Thus, the primitive man having completed the work of selection and domestication of crops, the scientific or modern man has undertaken the responsibility for their genetic improvement begining with Darwin who worked on the variation of life species, and Mendel who was associated with the laws of inheritance in the middle of the eighteenth century (Borlaug 1983:689).
According to Borlaug, it was Mendel's discovery, that, forty years later, aroused further scientific inquiries into applied plant genetics,
Now "it is possible to create new species by crossing" or even to
"create new plants out of old forms" (Vavilov 1951:52). Before the twentieth century, much of the knowledge on which the advances in agricultural technology and agricultural practices were based occured as 199
a by-product of scientific curiosity or the accumulation of practical
experience (Ruttan 1982:4). Darwin's and Mendel's respective works
paved the way for future advances in purposeful plant breeding or
genetic improvement of economic plants as man's botanical knowledge
improved. Borlaug (1983:689) states that "as the knowledge of genetics, plant pathology and entomology have grown during the 20th century, plant breeders have made enormous contributions to increased food production
throughout the world."
One example of the parts of the world where this has been very visible is in the United States where, according to Borlaug, research needed for high productivity agriculture began to be applied in the
1940s. Since this date, the country's R&D has waxed so strong to the extent of influencing world agriculture.
Expanding Food Production
As stated above, man has endeavored to improve his food crop yields by selecting varieties that had better biological characteristics and by cross-breeding and also by expanding the area of land cultivated as population increased. Advances in plant science and plant breeding have led to the development and production of improved HYVs which farmers around the world have adopted. Many of the new varieties have been developed from traditional varieties made possible by man's advances in the biological sciences such as plant genetics and physiology, microbiology, bio-chemistry and applied agronomy and plant breeding.
For example, the hybrid corn which was produced in 1933, and the HYVs of wheat, rice and maize of the green revolution in the 1960s, were dramatically illustrative of high returns that could emerge from 2 0 0
scientific procedures and biological research and development (Mellor
1966:268, 277; Pearse 1980:9). Ecological limitations and high rate of
population growth have now made modernization through R&D extremely
important. As a result of systematic research aimed at genetic
improvement of plants, high productivity agriculture has become a
reality in the developed countries since the early 1900s especially in
the United States where, from the 1940s (Borlaug 1983:691), yield began
to increase rapidly and has continued to rise.
Importance of Agricultural Research
As an organized scientific inquiry for discovering new knowledge
and solving problems, systematic basic biological research has been
advanced as the base upon which modern agriculture is built and as the
only solution open to developing countries for solving their
agricultural problems (Mellor 1966; Evenson et. al. 1975; Okigbo 1981;
1984; Ruttan 1982; World Bank 1981; Harrar et. al. 1969).
There are two 'functional components' of research, namely, science and technology (S&T). Science is the "systematized knowledge of things around us," and technology is the "application of scientific knowledge to practical purposes or to the solution of our everyday problems;" it is "the where-withal for doing things" (Okigbo 1984:8, 1981:2). Research and development are the germ of economic growth and advancement. But this depends on its (R&D) degree of intensity and continuity which in turn depend on the level and consistency of funding. With respect to agriculture, technological development "is the research activity based on scientific knowledge, that results in a mechanical, biological or institutional innovation" (World Bank 1981:14). Innovation enables a 201 nation or a society to use its scarce economic resources in a more rational and efficient manner: it enhances productivity efficiency.
Because resource-based traditional agriculture has become obsolete as it is now unable to keep pace with the rapidly increasing population growth coupled with the fact that there are no more new arable frontiers to be conquered, agricultural research must be intensified to generate new science-based technologies that will enhance farm production with little or no concern for acreage or land size. Nobody has expressed any doubts about the importance of research which has produced the biochemical and mechanical innovations responsible for the increased crop production around the world since the turn of the century especially in the developed countries. According to Flinn and others
(1983:136), agricultural R&D fosters increased productivity which leads to marketable surpluses and increased rural incomes and capital accumulation.
The difference between the developed, and the developing countries' agriculture is well known. Central to that difference is R&D. While the former is modernized and therefore highly productive, the latter is more traditional and hence less productive. This difference basically stems from the degree of attention and commitment given to R&D in the two systems. The developed countries do most of the basic research that has influenced world agriculture (Okigbo 1981; Todaro 1977; Mellor
1966:283; Annerstedt 1980:85; Moravcsik 1977). While they invest about
2.5 percent of their GDP to research, the developing countries allocate only 1.0 percent to research. As Todaro (1977:86) states, 98 percent of all expenditures for R&D comes from the developed countries. 2 0 2
Through continuous research, the developed countries have been able
to produce new technologies that solve their production problems, and by
doing so have helped their economies to grow. "Carefully implemented
agricultural research can be an efficient source of economic growth and
is a contributor to the achievement of key development objectives"
(World Bank 1981:5). The World Bank has depicted the importance of
research and the difference, arising therefrom, between the LDCs and
DCs:
In the mid-1930s, average grain yields in the industrialized countries were approximately equal to those in developing countries (1.1 tons per hectare). By the mid-1970s, yields in the developing countries had increased to 1.5 tons, while production per hectare in industrialized countries had more than doubled - to 3 tons. While growth in yields reflects many social, economic, and ecological factors, the differences between the productivity of developed and developing countries can be attributed, at least in part, to the size and effectiveness of national agricultural research efforts (World Bank 1981:14).
The concentration of R&D in one part of the world and less of it in
another part is a feature of the economic inequality that exists between
the two (Annerstedt 1980:5); and that is the reason for technological
dependence.
Institutionalization of Agricultural Research
England was the forerunner in the purposeful application of science
to agriculture in the early nineteenth century; but it was in Germany
that the development of agricultural science was more comprehensive
towards the middle of that century and where, with strong public commitment, institutional building and innovation aimed at taking
"advantage of advances in science, technology and education" to solve problems in agriculture were strongly undertaken (Ruttan 1982:71-73). 203
The initiatives taken by England and Germany, were then overtaken and
'perfected' by the United States which quickly developed into organized
agricultural research and the establishment of specialized research
laboratories and experiment stations. Ruttan (1982) and Okigbo (1981)
have listed the foremost experiment stations in the world. These were
located in Rothamsted, England in 1843; in Saxony, Germany in 1852; and
in Alsace, France in 1834. Public institutionalization of agricultural
research in the United States began in 1860s but it was not until 1877
that the first experiment station, the Connecticut State Experiment
Station, was established.
In West Africa, scientific agriculture evolved out of the British
and French colonial interests. The British establishment of experiment and research stations in its colonial territories in this region before
the 1920s grew out of the desire to improve the production of food and
cash crops for export (Jefferies 1964:52). Cash crops received more commitment than food crops because they were badly needed in British
industries; these included, cotton, rubber, coffee, tea, oil seeds,
timber, citrus fruits and others. The intensification and organization of research on these crops and others of significant economic importance were carried out on regional basis. In the late nineteenth century, a network of research institutes, substations, and experiment stations were set up in the former British West Africa (Anglophone). Ecological suitability or where each crop was naturally grown determined where each institute and its out-stations were located.
Under the defunct West African Research Organization, the West
African Cocoa Research Institute (WACRI) was set up in Tafo, Ghana in 204
1944 with a substation, the Moor Plantation, in Nigeria. Ghana was
ecologically more suitable than any other territory in Anglophone West
Africa for cocoa production. In like manner, the West African Institute
for Oil Palm Research (WAIFOR) was established in 1951 in Benin,
Nigeria. The West African Institute for Rice Research (WAIFRR) began in
1954 at Rokupr in Sierra Leone. And in 1952, the West African Maize
Research Unit (WAMRU) was set up at Moor Plantation in Nigeria. Each of these institutes had substations located in other countries in the region. Scientists at the institutes maintained close contacts with the
British advisory committee in England for scientific information especially from the Royal Botanical Gardens.
Agricultural research actually began in Nigeria in 1893 when a botanical research station was established in Lagos (Idachaba 1980:15;
Okigbo 1981:4; Olayide 1981:79). Six years later, the British Cotton
Growing Association began experimental work on cotton at the Moor
Plantation. Initially the Moor plantation was simply a model farm designed by the colonial government for the propagation of cash crops
(Okigbo 1981). In 1912, the Faulkner Layout (named after 0. T.
Faulkner, the then British director of agriculture in the country) was established with the purpose of carrying out experimental trials, applying various systems of crop-growth enhancement strategies: manuring, fertilizer application and crop rotation (Okigbo 1981).
Faulkner's objective at the Layout was to maintain soil fertility for increased plant growth and crop productivity. This was simply an attempt to redirect Nigerian agricultural production system from traditional to a more science-based system. Researchers, during this 205
period, were trained in Britain, in Trinidad at the Imperial College of
Tropical Agriculture and in Nigeria at the Yaba Higher College.
The original purpose for establishing these research stations was
mainly to combat ecological problems that impeded the high-yield
potentials of West African crops and the adaptation of exotic crops such
as a cocoa variety called 'upper amazon' brought from Trinidad in 1944
(Olayide 1981). The successful adaptation of this variety was regarded
as one of the outstanding achievements of the stations because it was
found to possess such desirable characteristics as vigour, precocity,
high-yielding, early maturing and possessed favourable flavour (Abidogun
1978:22).
The United States Initiative
Although Western Europe started agricultural research activities in
West Africa between the late nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries,
it was not until the first half of the twentieth century (about the
1960s) that, through the initiatives of the United States, improved agricultural technologies actually began to be transferred to the region and to the rest of the developing world. There was a major difference between the European, and American actions: the former was cash-crop directed and self-centered; the latter was food-crop oriented and for the benefit of the poor countries. The activities of the IARCs are self evident. Their creation was "a major factor in stimulating agricultural research on the major food crops and farming systems in the developing world" (Borlaug 1983:692). The CGIAR system spearheaded the major agricultural technological changes the Third World has seen since this century (Flinn et. al. 1983:138). It has successfully created awareness 2 0 6
in the LDCs of the importance of agricultural science and research,
although that knowledge or awareness has not been impressively
demonstrated in many of these countries, in terms of farm productivity.
By conducting food-crop oriented research for the benefit of their
hosts, Nigeria being one, the CGIAR system and other research
organizations are correcting the earlier research imbalance that had
emphasized cash crops (World Bank 1981:18). The CGIAR as well as IADS
and ISNAR have not only given impetus to agricultural research in the
developing countries but also have influenced the rapid development of national research systems. Nigeria is no exception in the outreach programs of the CGIAR as evidenced by the activities of IITA in the country.
THE NIGERIAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEM: ITS DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH POLICY
Institutional Development
Since the 1960s, "the institutionalization of agricultural research has been evolving in response to a growing complexity of problems, parallel trends have emerged, a national one looking inward toward the need of the individual countries and an international one extending outward into the region beyond each nation" (NRC 1974:166). While international research systems have been useful in dealing with problems common to a particular region, it has also become important to establish national systems purposely for problems unique to a particular country.
Thus, from 1957, when West African countries began to attain formal independence, the region's interterritorial research organizations began to disintegrate. This break-up led to the evolution of national 207
autonomous research systems in the region. For example, in 1964, the
West African Cocoa Research substation in Nigeria became the Cocoa
Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN). Each nation developed its own
agricultural policies directed to national priorities. However, cash
crop orientation generally continued to dominate each country's
policies, because it was the prime source of foreign exchange needed by
the newly independent countries for their economic development. For the
propagation of research results to various suitable ecological zones in
the country, the institutes have field, out-station establishments.
The Nigerian Civil War, 1966-1970, disrupted the progress of the
development of agricultural research in the country. But by the middle
of the 1970s, the country had established a net-work of 22 national
research institutes; 16 of these are agriculture-related out of which, 9
are specifically crop-related. The management of the National
Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) has undergone many changes, as
discussed in chapter three, from the Agricultural Research Council of
Nigeria to National Council for Science and Technology Development
Agency, and finally to date, the Ministry of Science and Technology.
These changes, although often an outcome of unstable political system of
government, were apparently an effort by the various governments to
create an appropriate agency capable of designing right policies for the promotion of agricultural research in the country. The Federal and
State governments are the sole funding sources for the institutes.
After independence and the evolution of the national research systems, foreign private research organizations ceased to operate in
Nigeria. But, presently, the only private foreign organization doing a 208
small scale local in-house research activity is the Nigerian Tobacco
Company (NTC). It works to produce locally its own raw materials mainly
tobacco leaves for its local factories.
The National Agricultural Research Institutes
Nigeria has nine crop-related research institutes located in
different and appropriate ecological zones in the country. As shown on
Table 23, each institute has specific research emphasis on crops
normally and suitably grown or consumed in the area it (the institute)
is located. Currently, intensive agricultural research programs are
going on at these institutes and at the universities. Virtually all
crops of the country (list follows) are receiving some degree of
attention. Their characteristics are being altered to improve their
genetic potentials, and to adapt them to local ecological stresses, to
tolerate abnormal physical conditions, and to resist pests and diseases.
Despite these actions, research has not made any visible impact on the
Nigerian agriculture. The reasons for this are explained in chapter eight of this paper.
The Nigerian Universities
Like other universities around the world, the Nigerian universities have the highest proportion of biological and agricultural scientists in the country. Thus, the greatest proportion of basic research in agriculture and other areas are undertaken by the universities (Okigbo
1981:10). The universities also provide post-graduate training for prospective students in agricultural science and research. The four major universities that have strong Departments of Agriculture are the Table 23 National Crop-Related Research Institutes And University Linkages
Institute Location University Research Linkage Emphasis
National Cereals Badeggi, ABU Rice, maize Research Institute Niger grain legume (NCRI)
National Root Crops Umuahia, Nsukka Yams, Cassava Research Institute Imo potatoes (NRCRI) coco-yams
Institute of Agric. Samaru-Zaria ABU Sorghum, barley Research (IAR) millet, wheat groundnuts
Institute of Agric. Ibadan, Oyo Ife Cereals, Research & Training legumes (IAR&T)
National Institute Idi-Ishin, — Fruits and of Horticultural Ibadan, Oyo vegetables Research (NIHORT)
Cocoa Research Gambari-Ibadan Ibadan Cocoa, Institute of Oyo coffee Nigeria (CRIN) cashew
National Institute Benin, Bendel Benin Oil-palm, for Oil-Palm coconut Research (NIFOR) raphia
Rubber Research Iyanomo, Benin Rubber Institute of Nigeria (RRIN)
Forestry Research Ibadan, Oyo Forests, Institute of wild flora, Nigeria (FRIN) ' fauna.
Source: Author's compilation.
Note: The university linkages shown here are not exclusive. Interactions are very much open. 2 1 0
University of Nigeria, Nsukka, the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Ahmadu
Bello University, Zaria, and the University of Ife, Ile-Ife.
The Native Crops of Nigeria
Nigeria, as a tropical country, grows a large variety of food and cash crops. Some of these crops are purposely cultivated or domesticated while others grow naturally, wildly in the forests that have been left to lie fallow over extended periods of time. The wild crops are harvested either for domestic use or for export. Food Crops include six categories, as in Table 24.
Cash Crops grown in Nigeria especially for export include cocoa, cotton, oil-palm, rubber, coffee, tea, sugar cane, cashew and coconut.
Part of some of these are consumed by domestic industries or for
Table 24 Categories of Food Crops
Roots and tubers: yams, cocoyams, cassava, sweet potatoes:
Grain legumes: groundnuts, lima beans, soya beans, cowpeas, peas;
Vegetables: carrots, onions, tomatoes, okra, spinach, bitter-leaves
Fruits: plantain, banana, pineapple, citrus, mango, avocado, pawpaw, oranges:
Oil seeds and nuts: melon seeds, sesame seeds, coconuts:
Cereals: rice, sorghum, maize, millet, wheat.
Source: Compiled by the author. 211 household use. Cocoa, cotton, oil-palm and kernels, rubber and groundnuts were a major source of foreign exchange earnings for the country before the so-called 'oil-boom' in the 1970s. Major producers are family farms.
Oil Palm is a Nigerian native plant. Among the country's cash crops, it is the most important because its products are domestically consumed as much as it is exported; the oil is used for food and for making soap. Another economic importance of oil-palm is that the tree is tapped to produce wine which contains substantial amount of yeast
(Oluwasanmi 1966:119), and the wood provides fuel and building materials. Without oil palm as a cash crop, many parents in the Eastern and Mid-Western parts of the country would find it hard to support their children in school. This means that oil palm is the major source of cash for the majority of people in these areas. This is the same with cocoa for the people of the Western part of the country, as well as groundnuts and cotton for the Northerners.
Sustained production and exports of palm produce were retarded by the Nigerian civil war which disrupted farming for more than three years, 1967-70, especially in the Southern parts of the country. Also the volume of exports declined for two other major reasons, namely, rising population growth and industrialization which has led to increased domestic consumption, and the low producer prices which the
Nigerian Marketing Board paid to the farmers; these prices were much lower than the world market prices (Hartley 1977:23). There is also little replantation effort to replace ageing and less productive trees.
And above all, agricultural research has failed to make any major impact 212
in palm tree rehabilitation and improvement in the country.
Cocoa is the most important export crop of Nigeria accounting for
about 40 percent of non-petroleum exports (USDA 1981:15). Production
depends on traditional systems and varieties, but many farmers have also
adopted new technologies (techniques and improved crop varieties) from
the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria. After Ivory Coast, Brazil and
Ghana, Nigeria is the largest world producer of cocoa, as shown in Table
25. The success of cocoa production in Nigeria has been determined by
world demand, and ecological compatibility. World market share of
agricultural commodities for any country depends on the economic
situations in the importing countries, and the level of production and
exports of similar commodities by other competing countries. Nigeria's
world market share in cocoa exports rose from 10 percent to 20.53
percent in the 1930s and 1970s respectively (Williams 1980:80); it
dropped to about 4 percent in 1986 (FA0 1986) .
Groundnut is one of the most important cash crops of Nigeria.
Exports has recently declined because of a decline in production
resulting from drought. Another problem that hinders production for
export is also the low market prices the farmers receive from the
Nigerian Marketing Board. But the government has recently attempted to
reverse the situation by encouraging the Board to pay incentive prices
to the growers. Growth in domestic consumption (household, industry and
feed for livestock) is another cause for reduced exports. For example,
total domestic feed consumption grew from 30,000 metric tons to 250,000 metric tons in 1980, over 2 percent to more than 13 percent (Oluwasanmi
1966:132). 213
Cotton exports have also declined for the same reasons as oil-palm and cocoa, namely, low market prices the farmers receive, domestic consumption and lack of replantation programs. Poor prices have led many farmers in Nigeria to convert their cotton farms to the cultivation of other more economically rewarding crops. An offer of incentive prices of up to 20 percent has recently been made to farmers by the
Table 25 Cocoa Production in Nigeria in Relation to World Production
Country Production
1981-83 1984 1985 1986 (average)
Ivory Coast 411 571 580 515
Brazil 316 410 380 440
Ghana 187 175 215 215
Nigeria 153 150 100 80
Cameroon 112 120 120 125
Others 412 538 531 545
World 1,592 1,964 1,926 1,920
Nigeria as percentage of world production 9.61 9.64 5.19 4.16
Source: Compiled by the author from: FAO, Commodity Review and Outlook 1985-86. 214 government (USDA 1981:14). This has induced many farmers to renew their commitment to production. Cotton, as well as groundnuts, (as mentioned above) are to the Northern peoples what oil palm and cocoa are to the
Easterners and Westerners, respectively.
Nigeria is not an important world producer of rubber; its world market share since the 1960s has been around 1.5 percent (UNDP/FAO
1981:15). Production has been stagnant because ageing trees are not intensively replaced. Low export volume is as a result of increased domestic consumption by ISI factories.
Foreign exchange earnings from agricultural exports, mainly cash crops, for the periods 1900 - 1910, 1915-1925, and 1930-1940 were
99.22%, 87.73% and 83.6% respectively (Idachaba 1980:38).
National Production Policy
The listed crops are the Nigerian crops that will possibly be affected by biotechnology. The self-sufficiency objectives of the government are based on the adequate domestic production of these crops.
Food crops must also be produced in increasing sustainable quantity to meet the nutritional requirements of the rapidly growing population.
Cash crops must also be produced in large quantities to continue its major role in maintaining a healthy Balance-of-Payments for the country, through adequate supplies for domestic agro-allied industries and more exports of surpluses. Industrialization cannot progress without adequate production of agricultural raw materials for the industries and enough food for the industrial labour. The entire population and industries must be able to rely on stable and adequate domestic supplies in order to survive. This is basic to the national policy for self- 215
reliance and self-sufficiency. It is evident that traditional systems
cannot meet these objectives.
Thus, any agricultural "research policy based on the objective of
self-sufficiency would aim at accelerating domestic production of
products that are now being imported" (Idachaba 1980:46). Agricultural
research would therefore be expected to develop seed varieties that are
immune to environmental and biological constraints, to the ability of
these crops to achieve maximum yield potential. This requires
considerable public commitment.
Agricultural Research Policy
The policy makers in the current Nigerian government are well aware
of the importance of the modernization of agriculture. They are aware
that R&D constitutes a primary instrument of modernization with an
ultimate goal of self-sufficiency. The NARIs, the universities and
polytechnics and the international center, in many respects, act
collectively or collaboratively to achieve certain objectives. Primary
objectives of the national research institutes include the longterm
solution of production constraints, the development of innovative
technologies which are within the economic means and skills of small-
scale farmers, and the transference of research results or the new technologies to the farmers (FGN:10, Undated). Generally, research activities within the national agricultural research systems involve the exploitation of the genetic potentials of traditional crops to produce
improved varieties which are high-yielding, socially acceptable, disease- and pest-resistant, stress tolerant, and ecologically adaptable. Secondly, researchers work to develop agronomic and 216
pest/disease control measures for achieving optimum yield and quality of
economically important crops consumed in the country. They also aim at
developing and producing crop varieties that can mature in a short
period of time in order to take advantage of multiple-cropping systems
and irrigated agriculture to increase national yearly productivity
(FGN:10-11, Undated). The successful achievement of these objectives would depend on investment and infrastructural modernization. At this point in time the national systems have not made any felt impact on national production to maintain national self-sufficiency.
Nigeria has a well established and organized network of agricultural research systems, and the country is also rich in crop genetic resources. But one major question remains; which is whether or not the research systems have the capability in exploiting the rich local genetic resources to improve the agro-economic conditions of the country. National research capability has very important implications for international agricultural research programs in the country. The effectiveness of IITA, ICGEB, MIRCEN, WARDA and others in advancing their planned biotechnology activities in the country will depend on the competence of the national systems with regard to technology transfer.
Technology transfer, with regard to biotechnology, will be illusive if national systems are weak. CHAPTER VIII
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
Introduction and Procedure
We have reviewed and discussed: (a) the theory of dependency as a framework for the study of Nigeria's response to a new technical opportunity, (b) Nigeria's socioeconomic environment within which this new technical opportunity will be exploited, (c) biotechnology as a possible means to agro-economic self-reliance in an underdeveloped economy such as Nigeria, (d) the new social relations in agricultural research created by commercial biotechnology which complicates the problem of technology transfer, (e) the international non-commercial programs expected to countervail the potential impacts of the new social relations, and (f) a profile of the Nigerian agricultural research system which is expected to exploit the potentials of biotechnology to improve the country's crop agriculture. In this chapter, we will present, along with their analysis, all available information regarding the Nigerian system's capability in effectively responding to the technical opportunities offered by biotechnology to improve the agro- economic condition of the country.
The chapter begins with the primary question of awareness as demonstrated by the immediate developments in the Nigerian science
217 218
community, and the initiatives already taken by the government. But
first, a brief discussion of the procedure is important.
Based on the capability assessment categories - manpower (educa tion), infrastructure, and support (funding) - a questionaire was de signed which was orally and personally administered to the working scientists at the National Agricultural Research Institutes which work on crops and the four most important (in terms of agriculture) univer sities in Nigeria. Seven scientists at the International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture who were foreign nationals were also interviewed to see how certain views expressed by native scientists differ from theirs.
This is important because these foreign nationals, presumably, were not influenced by the socio-political conditions in the country. Thus, their views were assumed to be less biased than those of Nigerians who probably owe allegiance to various socio-political groups in the country who influence, directly or indirectly, national economic development policies. This allegiance may, assumably, bias a respondent's views regarding the questions asked. Information regarding national bio technology policy and statistical data were obtained from government agencies. The institutions and agencies visited by the researcher are included in appendix C.
It is also important, at this point, to know the characteristics of our respondents. They had Ph. Ds. in various areas of plant or crop sciences, and they were active researchers with a minimum of eight years practical experience in their respective fields. 219
AWARENESS
The first question asked was that of awareness: what and to what extent did the Nigerian scientists and policy makers know about the new biotechnology?
There was an overwhelming demonstrated awareness within the
Nigerian natural science community and in the Federal Ministry of
Science and Technology (FMST) about the emerging biotechnology and what it could mean for the country's agriculture. This awareness has led to certain significant developments in the country.
First, functional scientists in the Federal Ministry of Science amd
Technology, having learned about the new commercial biotechnology, its theoretical significance to world agriculture, health and industry, have successfully impressed on the federal government the idea of establish ing international linkages between the country's research systems and the major international research organizations such as the ICGEB and
UNESCO's agencies whose biotechnology research involvements are directed to the benefit of the developing countries. The significance of this success lies in the fact that the Nigerian federal government is the sole agricultural development planner and executor in the country. It is also the sole negotiator of technology transfer on behalf of the country's farmers. The reason for these roles of the government is that agriculture in Nigeria (like other LDCs) does not attract commercial interests except colonial plantations.
The second immediate development was the formation of the
Biotechnology Society of Nigeria (BSN) whose members hold faculty appointments in the Nigerian universities, polytechnics and research institutes. BSN has had its Fourth Annual Conference on Biotechnology.
It was founded in 1982 and headquartered at the University of Jos, Vom,
specialized in animal vaccine research, development and production, and
fermentation. It is funded by membership contributions and donations
from various Nigerian universities. There is also the revitalization of
the Genetic Society of Nigeria (GSN) whose members also come from the universities, and certain national research institutes. GSN was founded
in the 1970s by a group of indigenous and foreign geneticists at the
University of Ibadan, It is now headquartered at the University of Ife,
Ile-Ife. Its financial resources come from the universities and contributions from its members. Equally important was the formation of the Nigerian Chapter of the International Tissue Culture Association, and the beginning of plant tissue culture research at the University of
Nigeria's Department of Botany. This association has held three local symposia. It is also funded from university and membership resources, but in the future its resources will also come from the federal government. It participates in the African regional, and world tissue culture symposia. The beginning of plant tissue culture at Nsukka was the idea of the University, not the Federal Government. The center receives financial support from the African BioScience Network, headquartered in Senegal.
These associations have common objectives. One is to conserve the genetic resources of the country for continual research. Secondly, they aim at genetically developing and improving local food and export crop varieties that can flourish without the aid of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation, and which are resistant to diseases and 221
tolerant to adverse conditions. The members of the GSN work to improve
the country's breed of livestock for increased production of meat, diary
and other livestock products. The formation of the Tissue Culture
Association was followed by the beginning of small scale tissue culture
research programs at Nsukka. FMST is taking advantage of the initiative
of the university by selecting its Botany Department as a satellite
center for ICGEB plant tissue culture programs in the country.
The formation of these associations has one important significance
for international development of non-commercial biotechnology. This
relates to the question of the availability of scientific manpower which
neoclassical economists mention as an impediment to economic development
in the LDCs. The Nigerian scientists may not be practically as capable
as their counterparts in the advanced countries (not a fault of theirs
but of national policies), but one can be assured that there are local
people who know basic science and technology at advanced levels and who
can quickly be trained to deploy the technologies already developed
elsewhere. Such assurance is important to the various international
research organizations because they need indigenes whom they can train
to exploit local resources to promote biotechnology. The availability of local manpower has been repeatedly stressed in various international biotechnology literatures such as the PRIORITIES IN BIOTECHNOLOGY
RESEARCH FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: PROCEEDINGS OF A WORKSHOP published by the National Research Council of the United States. The concern is that the LDCs do not have people adequately educated and trained in biological sciences to be able to do biotechnology research. 222
The third very important local biotechnology development was the
establishment of the National Center for Genetic Resources and
Biotechnology (NACGRAB), and the national germplasm unit and facilities.
NACGRAB is central to the promotion of biotechnology research in
Nigeria. It was formally established in 1986. Before this date, the
Federal Ministry of Science and Technology had identified and engaged
appropriate local universities as ICGEB satellite centers or labora
tories for specialized research in various areas of biotechnology.
International Linkages
International linkages are extremely important for the developing
countries planning for local biotechnology research. The importance of
this may better be seen in the stated objectives of the various
international organizations which do not have commercial interest in
biotechnology. It is one way of reducing or eliminating the scientific
impediments that may be posed by U-I relationships or privatization such
as the international blockage of scientific information which is crucial
to technology transfer; "the transfer of technology is largely an
information and communication process" (Hawthorne 1970:93).
Nigeria is strongly affiliated to ICGEB with active participation
in the organization's conferences, workshops and other activities. As a matter of fact, Nigeria, along with several other developing countries, was much in the decision that led to the formation of ICGEB. What it hoped to gain from its membership in the organization are extremely important for a successful deployment of biotechnology in the country.
As indicated above, the roles (discussed in chapter six) ICGEB will play
in biotechnology activities in member-countries reflect the expected 223 benefits. With the movement of agricultural research from the public domain to private enclave, it will be in the best interest of Nigeria in actively maintaining its membership with ICGEB.
Nigeria was one of the five countries in the Third World selected in 1985 by ICGEB as one of its affiliate centers in the world. The other countries selected were Egypt, Cuba, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, as I found at FMST. According to an official (in an interview) at FMST, these countries were selected in accordance with the guidelines or criteria set by ICGEB's Panel of Scientific Advisers (PSA). The most important elements in the selection criteria were manpower availability in each country (those who can quickly be trained), and how much money each was willing to invest; that is, in support of its own national biotechnology efforts. Manpower and adequate investment must be in place if ICGEB programs in each country or region were to be carried out to their fruition.
Secondly, Nigeria participates in the problem-oriented research activities of the Joint Division of the FAO and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) of which its food and agricultural R&D activities involve the application of nuclear techniques and other advanced but related methods such as in vitro techniques in plant breeding and propagation, biological control and others. Plant breeding and genetics are an area in the organization's co-ordinated research programs in which Nigeria has shown particular interest, focussing on the improvement of root and tuber crops, such as yams, potatoes, and cassava which are some of the major food crops grown and consumed in the country. 224
Thirdly, the Nigerian Institute of Horticulture (NIHORT), with a help from the Food and Agricultural Organization, has established a germplasm center on its campus. NIHORT and FAO have collaboratively collected, characterized and preserved the germplasm of various fruits and vegetables. IBPGR provides equipment and advisory services to the institute in its plans to strengthen its storage facilities. National germplasm or genetic resources units and facilities are a crucial element in building a national capacity for biotechnology research.
This is a necessary measure for collecting and conserving the country's economically important crops to eliminate the effects of genetic erosion in the country, as has been discussed in chapter six.
A genebank is a storage facility where potentially valuable traditional genetic diversity can be preserved (keeping it from diseases or any other condition that could cause genetic change or mutation) for future research purposes; they will be used as raw breeding materials. It ensures that original natural varieties, as opposed to exotic ones, of economic importance are always available in sufficient quantities. It is also a measure against the likely impacts of international cartel of genetic diversity and privatization which could create monopoly conditions for raw breeding materials.
NACGRAB, working under the auspices of FMST, has also begun work on the establishment of a larger genetic resources unit, and it has embarked on systematic collection of traditional cultivars of industrial and food crops grown in Nigeria. In addition to the collection of domesticated genetic diversity, there are also plans to collect desirable wild and semi-domesticated traits. The breeding purpose for 225
the collection of the wild and semi-wild traits is to transfer desirable traits into the domesticated ones in order to improve their characteristics as desired by the scientist. This aspect of capacity- building receives its funding from the FAO, and the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP). The Federal Government of Nigeria also bears a major part of the financial responsibility. It should be noted that the germplasm center at NIHORT is for fruits and vegetables only.
NACGRAB's germplasm unit embraces all crops.
International linkages (other than with IITA) at this planning stage are very much at the governmental level - between the Nigerian government and the international organizations, and less so at the institutional level. However, individual scientists particularly at the universities maintain personal, professional ties with their oversea counterparts with whom they exchange scientific information and ideas.
Using the results of these interpersonal and professional ties to pursue national objectives rather than academic excellence alone depends on what the government will do with regard to its biotechnology policies.
The Satellite Centers
The FMST, an organ of the Federal Government for planning and promoting scientific and technological development in the country, has identified and engaged eight local university centers referred to, for the purpose of national biotechnology research, as satellite centers;
'satellite' because of their connection with ICGEB, an international center. Table 26 shows the centers and their respective research emphasis. None of the NARIs was selected as a satellite center. The only exception was the IAR but it is an arm of the Department of 2 2 6
Table 26 Biotechnology Satellite Centers in Nigeria
Satellite Center Technology/Research Emphasis
The University of Nigeria, Plant Tissue Culture and Plant Nsukka breeding
Ahmadu Bello University/ Plant breeding and Animal Institute of Agricultural breeding Research, Zaria
University of Jos, Vom Animal vaccine research, development and production
University of Ibadan, Genetic diseases Ibadan
University of Benin, Genetics; in-born metabolism and Benin drug-resistance studies.
University of Lagos, Fermentation technology; Lagos biochemistry of parasite and host/parasite relationships
University of Science and Anti-biotic research, Technology, Port Harcourt development and production
University of Ife, Ile-Ife Enzyme research, development and production; Fermentation technology.
Source: Compiled by the author from The Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, Lagos, 1986. 227
Agriculture of the Ahmadu Bello University. Out of these eight centers,
two are for plant biotechnology; they are the Department of Botany in
the Faculty of Biological Sciences of the University of Nigeria, and the
Institute of Agricultural Research of the Ahmadu Bello University.
Criteria for the Selection of the Universities
There were certain criteria for selecting the satellite centers.
Each center was selected on the basis of its supposed ability to attack
specific problems as designated in Table 26. The rational behind the
decisions made to choose the universities were based on the fact that
they provide suitable environment - academic climate and manpower - for
biotechnology research. Within this rationality, there are several
factors considered.
One was that since biotechnology was of an interdisciplinary
nature, the university would provide a better environment for it because
interdisciplinary research groups would more easily emerge, drawing
scientists from different but related disciplines. The groups can
effectively attack specific problems when members share their ideas and
knowledge. For example, the PTC laboratory at Nsukka is located in the
Department of Botany: but research problems will not be restricted to
that Department alone. Rather, scientists from the Departments of Crop
Science, Biochemistry, and other areas will be expected to co-operate in
tackling such problems. Interdisciplinary interaction is one of the
advantages of basing biotechnology research laboratories at the
universities, especially in such a developing country as Nigeria where
it would not be easy to create new nuclei of scientists if the centers were located elsewhere. It is important to note in this regard that at 228
Nsukka, there are at least seven scientists who have already been
trained in PTC techniques and have done some work in this area; but at
the Cocoa Research Institute, for example, there was only one scientist
in that capacity.
The second consideration was that in Nigeria, a significant
proportion of indigenous top scientists in the agricultural and
biological sciences and other disciplines are found in the universities.
The reason for this is because the universities possess better working
conditions (salaries, facilities, funding and other things) than the
NARIs. They are more autonomous and freer (but not totally) from
bureaucratic handicaps. Many researchers often resign their positions
in the NARIs to accept jobs at the universities for these same reasons.
The NARIs are considered as an arm of the government and therefore enjoy
very little independence in their operations.
In the past, local basic research were mainly done at the
universities and it was expected they would continue with that tradition
in biotechnology while the NARIs continue with applied and adaptive
research. The universities have more international expositions than the
national institutes through their periodic organization of international
conferences, workshops and seminars at home and their participation in
similar foreign events.
Biotechnology research at the universities would provide education
and training for local students. This would enable them to be familiar with local problems and learn how to deal with them. The universities
of Nigeria, and Ibadan have begun to teach introductory courses in
biotechnology on their campuses. 229
Plant tissue culture work was already in progress at Nsukka before
the Federal government became involved in it. Scientists here were
members of the African Regional Tissue Culture Association which is
associated with International Tissue Culture Association. In the same
manner, the IAR of the Ahmadu Bello University is associated with UNDP's
collaborative research activities especially in the latter's West
African Sorghum and Millet Improvement Programs. Sorghum and Millet are
some of the major crop research emphasis of the institute, and they are
the primary food crops of the peoples of Northern Nigeria, where IAR is
located.
The selection of the universities should not be taken to mean that
the NARIs will not be involved in the national bid for biorevolution.
They will; but that will be on the collaborative level with the
universities. The successful deployment of biotechnology in Nigeria
will depend on the degree of collaboration between the two systems;
because while one is basic research-oriented, the other has more
practical exposure to the country's agronomic problems. These
considerations, in essence, represent the structural differences and
responsibilities in the national research system.
i
RESEARCH RESOURCE CAPACITY
Manpower
The foregoing sections have shown that Nigerian scientists and certain public officials are quite aware of the emerging biorevolution.
But to be aware of the existence of a new technology is one thing, it is another thing for a nation to be able to adopt it effectively for its 230
was asked was whether or not Nigeria has the qualified manpower that
could effectively deploy the new technologies in order to achieve its
declared self-reliance objective in agriculture.
Out of the 50 scientists who responded to this question, 45 agreed
that Nigeria had adequate manpower both in quantity and quality to do
local biotechnology research. The 5 respondents who also agreed but
with reservations were Nigerians. They agreed that Nigeria had a large
army of researchers who have attained high academic qualifications but
doubted their potentials to do quality work in biotechnology research
that would have revolutionary impact on Nigerian agriculture. What were
those reservations? They were based on psychological and sociological
grounds. They emphasized that Nigerians lacked high degree of
devotedness to duty and innate drive to achieve. On further
investigation, it was found that the factor responsible for this problem was the poor incentive system that exist in Nigerian institutions
including poor salaries, work environment and other job enrichment
factors as compared to the conditions existing at IITA. At IITA, all the six foreign scientists who were interviewed agreed that Nigeria has sufficient manpower both in quantity (number available) and quality
(academic background, experience and quality of work). They mentioned several individuals at the universities and the national research institutes with whom they had worked in some of their collaborative programs and whom they held in high professional regard of their performances. One respondent stated that the country has a lot of trained personnel who have good knowledge, and quite good professors who can do biotechnology research and who can also train others. Another can do biotechnology research and who can also train others. Another
also stated that the manpower question did not rest in quantity or
quality but in "utilization". He emphatically pointed out that Nigeria
was one of the few Third World countries which has a high grade manpower
pool capable of leading its country to technological independence or
self-reliance; but that the available human resources are never fully
'exploited' or utilized. Another respondent supported these claims by
citing the Nigerian Root Crop Association (NRCA) which he said had more
than 20 members who had doctoral degrees (Ph. Ds), and 50 members who
had masters degrees (M. Sc). According to him there was little use of
these people. One other view was that Nigerian scientists were getting
worse and worse because they were not fully employed in appropriate
activities; that prolonged inactivity could lead to intellectual
decadence; and that there was little motivation for research. Some of
the respondents agreed that the difference between scientists in the
developed countries and those of the LDCs lies in activity and
inactivity: while the former were highly active and therefore
productive, the latter remained almost dormant and so achieve very
little in R&D, because research results were never commercially exploited or translated into value for the benefit of the society.
The numbers presented in Table 27 do not include students in
Masters, or in Doctoral programs. The Department of Crop Science was
found to be also well staffed with at least 14 Ph.D.s in various areas such as virology/nematology, agronomy, plant pathology, plant breeding, entomology, physiology, microbiology, biochemistry and so on. This 232
department, of course, will not be isolated from PTC work at the
university.
Focusing at the national plant tissue culture center at Nsukka, the
following strength of manpower was found:
Table 27 Manpower Strength at the PTC Center
Discipline No. of Highest Average Years Researchers Degree of Research Experience
Biochemistry 11 Ph. D. 10.5 3 M. Sc. 3
Microbiology 10 Ph. D. 8
Molecular/ Cellular Biology 3 Ph. D. 5
Plant Physiology/ 14 Ph. D. 12 Botany 1 M. Sc. 2
Source: Compiled by the author.
Table 28 is the manpower strength at the Institute of Agricultural
Research. The institute is regarded as one of the best national
research institutes in Nigeria, because its research activities have had
significant impact on the Northern Nigerian agriculture.
The table does not include out-stations1 staff, soil science, water management, and those on doctoral or masters study leave overseas and who are expected to return to the institute at the completion of their
studies. Tables 29, 30, 31, and 32 are also the strengths of research
staffs at NRCRI, IAR&T, NCRI, and CRIN respectively. 233
Table 28 Active Manpower Resource At.IAR
Discipline Researchers Highest Average ’ Degree of Pract Experiem
Agronomy 7 Ph. D. 11 1 M. Sc. 5
Entomology 7 Ph. D. 10 3 M. Sc. 4
Horticulture 1 Ph. D. 15
Plant Pathology 6 Ph. D. 12 4 M. Sc. 4
Plant Breeding 7 Ph. D. 13
Weed Science 2 Ph. D. 10 3 M. Sc. 5
Source: Compiled by the author
Table 29 Research Staff at NRCRI
Discipline Researchers Highest Average Degree
Agronomy 8 Ph. D. 12 4 M. Sc. 5
Biochemical 2 Ph. D. 8 Engineering 2 M. Sc. 6
Microbiology 2 Ph. D. 9 2 M. Sc. 5
Plant Physiology/ 2 Ph. D. 10 Pathology/Botany 3 M. Sc. 6
Virology/Nematology 2 Ph. D. 11 1 M. Sc. 6
Source: Compiled by the author. 234
Table 30 Research Staff at IAR&T
Discipline Researchers Highest Average Years Degree of Practical Experience
Agronomy 5 Ph. D. 13 2 M. Sc. 5
Biochemistry 2 Ph. D. 9
Entomology 1 Ph. D. 9 2 M. Sc. 5
Nematology/Virology 2 Ph. D. 8
Plant Breeding 2 Ph. D. 14
Plant Pathology 2 Ph. D. 11
Plant Science 2 Ph. D. 7
Source: Compiled by the author. 235
Table 31 Research Staff at NCRI
Discipline Researchers Highest Average Years Degree Years of Practical Experience
Agronomy 2 Ph. D. 13 4 M. Sc. 6
Biochemistry 1 M. Sc. 7
Entomology 2 Ph. D. 9 4 M. Sc. 5
Microbiology 1 M. Sc. 7
Nematology/ 2 Ph. D. 12 Virology 3 M. Sc. 6
Plant Breeding 3 Ph. D. 14 6 M. Sc. 8
Plant Pathology 5 Ph. D. 11 5 M. Sc. 6
Plant Physiology 2 Ph. D. 10
Weed Science 1 Ph. D. 8 1 M. Sc. 5
Source: Compiled by the author. 236
Table 32 Research Staff at Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria
Discipline Researchers Highest Average Years of Degree Practical Experience
Biochemistry 4 Ph. D. 10
Entomology 3 Ph. D. 11 3 M. Sc. 6
Plant Breeding 5 Ph. D. 15 3 M. Sc. 7
Plant Physiology 2 Ph. D. 14
Plant Pathology 3 Ph. D. 13 2 M. Sc. 6
Source: Compiled by the author.
The problem with manpower at the research institutes is that
researchers are concentrated in the disciplines of plant physiology and
pathology, virology and nematology, plant breeding, agronomy and
entomology, but only very few scientists in biochemistry and microbiology and none in molecular biology. It is a problem because it would restrict the institutes to only certain areas of biotechnology research. But scientists at IITA stated that these had great relevance
to plant tissue culture, and that the researchers could quickly be
trained to adopt the technology.
The fields of biochemistry, microbiology and molecular biology are core areas in genetic engineering. They, respectively, study chemical changes or processes and compounds which occur in living organisms, the nature of microscopic organisms (microorganisms), and the molecular or 237
genetic basis of inheritance in plants and animals. They are also
important for the study and research in the biochemistry and genetics of
nitrogen-fixing microbes or organisms. Lack of scientists in these
areas amounts to a major weakness in a system planning to do advanced
research in biotechnology. The alternative therefore would be to import
manpower from outside the country which would also lead to professional
dependence. But the Nigerian universities are not lacking in these
disciplinary areas. So some of their professors could be sent on
secondments to the institutes to fill the gaps.
INTERNAL IMPEDIMENTS
Granting that Nigeria has the sufficient and qualified manpower
for effective biotechnology research, as most of our respondents have
claimed, the next question which was asked was: what could be the potential internal impediments to the realistic application of bio
technology to Nigeria's agriculture, or the full utilization and performance of the scientists? Several factors were mentioned including
infrastructure/institutional, economic, political, public policy and structural factors.
Infrastructural/Institutional Impediments
Lack of modernized infrastructure including research facilities and equipment or instrumentation, unreliable sources of supplies of research materials such as chemicals which are often imported, frequent power interruptions and shut-offs, and unreliable local scientific information media were factors mentioned as being the major contributors to the institutional weakness of the Nigerian agricultural research systems. 238
As mentioned in the responses to the manpower question, there was a general agreement that infrastructural deficiencies were a factor that will likely impede effective biotechnology research in Nigeria. The entire Nigerian research system, the NARIs and the universities, is i11— equiped: instruments and machines are too old and unmaintained, and sources of research materials such as chemicals are not dependable. The problem primarily rests in the fact that Nigeria does not make or produce these things - an element in its technological dependence; they are all imported - a problem complicated by the government's unwillingness to make foreign exchange available to the institutes for purchasing modern equipment or spare parts to maintain the old ones as well as the purchase of high grade chemicals.
Another factor which respondents repeatedly mentioned along with equipment and chemicals was electrical power. All fifty respondents in this question agreed that, in Nigeria, there were frequent power disruptions, often without notice and unwarranted. According to scientists in the various universities and institutes, frequent power disruptions in the country was a major source of frustrations for
Nigerian research scientists, and have contributed to the destruction and abandonment of important research projects. They maintained that power disruptions produced economic losses that were never recovered: labour time, and the destruction of cultures set up with highly expensive and imported chemicals. Equipment, chemicals, and power were the most important aspects of infrastructure stressed by all the fifty respondents as problems which the planners of national biotechnology in 239
Nigeria must effectively deal with in order to realize its investment in
manpower and to retain the services of the best native scientists.
Other aspects of infrastructural capability were not seen as
immediate major problems to indigenous research. One was natural
breeding materials; they are for now locally available; scarcity was not
within a foreseable future and international cartel of exotic biological
materials did not appear to be a concern in the Nigerian science
community. According to seventy percent of the fifty respondents, what
was going on in Europe, North America and other parts of the world would
not be felt in Nigeria now because it was still rich in genetic
diversity for such crops as cereals (for example, sorghum, millet, maize
and rice), and legumes or pulses (for example cowpea, soybeans, groundnuts, lima or pigeon peas). However, a respondent at FMST emphasized that "we must guard against the future; so we are establishing a national genebank in the country."
With regard to the quality of Nigerian libraries, a close examination by the researcher revealed that while some institutes maintained current supplies of certain important international scientific journals or publications, others were devoid of some of them.
International scientific journals are an outlet for research activities by top-notch scientists around the world. They are therefore a major source of important scientific information and research results providing scientific enrichment to scientists in the developing countries. The non-current libraries cited foreign exchange problem as a factor in their inability to purchase these journals from overseas.
The institutes that were closer to maintaining up-to-date libraries 240
included NRCRI, IAR, and CRIN. All the universities also kept current
with several well known biotechnology journals and general biological
sciences publications. The National Library in Lagos which has a
gigantic plan to expand to all the nineteen states in the country was
also found to be up-to-date with books and journals in biological
sciences. The quality of IITA library which I visited and examined was
quite up-to-date. This is important because it is the most reliable
local library used by many Nigerian scientists. Both Nigerian and IITA
scientists thought that the IITA library was as good as any
biological/agricultural sciences library in the developed countries in
terms of volumes - books and journals - in biology and plant sciences,
chemistry, biotechnology and many others. Familiar journals in several
libraries in Nigeria are listed in appendix D.
Another problem generally mentioned was the unreliability of local
sources of scientific information. Nigerian scientists interact
extensively both on individual and institutional levels in problems
affecting their research interests. Seminars, workshops and conferences
are held quite often and, of course, important topics of great potential value to the local development of biotechnology are discussed. But much of the scientific ideas and research results are not well disseminated or published locally to make them accessible to all local scientists.
The BSN, in collaboration with the Faculty of Natural Sciences of the
University of Jos has created a local information system by establishing two biotechnology publications in the country, namely:
1. Bulletin of the Biotechnology Society of Nigeria, and
2. The Nigerian Journal of Biotechnology. 241
The objective, as stated by Professor Ejike of the University of
Jos, was to fill the "gap in the current availability of information;"
and as biotechnology is multi-disciplinary:
... there is a clear need for cross-fertilization of ideas between microbiology, genetics, biochemistry, and other aspects of applied biology and chemistry, industrial chemistry and chemical engineering. The NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY will provide a platform for this much needed synthesis of the efforts of the nation's researchers in the disciplines under reference. The journal is intended for biologists, chemists, chemical engineers, agriculturists, national policy makers as well as those in other disciplines from the worlds of industry and academics who need to know about the latest advances in this increasingly important field of applied science (Ejike 1988:ii).
These publications would make important contributions to the promotion of local biotechnology R&D, and diffuse the effects of U-I relationships
in the advanced countries. But they have not been published in three years. The reason given by the publishers for this was that they lacked the financial resources required to make them current. A problem such as this has led many local scientists to opt for foreign journals for publishing their fine papers, thus compounding the problem of inaccessibility of scientific information and research results.
Economic and Funding Problems
The second impediment to effective agricultural research in Nigeria is inadequate funding. The unhealthy Nigerian economy, unguaranteed financial resources for agricultural research, and the national research system's lack of access to foreign exchange were cited as a very import ant problem that could thwart biotechnology research efforts in Nigeria.
Despite its oil, Nigeria slumped into an economic recession in 1978 and has been experiencing very harsh monetary difficulties ever since.
Since the 1980s, inflation has been running at the rate of over 33 242 percent per annum and balance-of-payments have deteriorated. All these have culminated into very serious foreign exchange problems and led the government to take austerity measures to rectify the situations by curbing foreign expenditures. This poor economic situation and the bureaucratic red tape inherrent in the government allocation of financial resources are the primary factors that will affect public funding of biotechnology R&D in Nigeria.
Thus, funding, often unsecured or unguaranteed, was a factor most emphatically stressed by all fifty-four respondents interviewed as the one single crucial element in the success or failure of biotechnology in
Nigeria. There was a general concensus that the poor status of agricultural research in Nigeria was as a result of inadequate and unguaranteed funding of the institutes and the universities, and that, unless there was a change in government policy in funding local R&D, that situation will remain unchanged. Guaranteed or stable funding is absolutely necessary for enhancing research intensity. This means that funding has to be sustained from the initiation of a new research project until useful results, for example, new and improved crop varieties or technology, reach the farmers' fields, and must continue for follow-up research or developmental research. In Nigeria, funding may be available for initiating a research project and it increases annually but it is hardly enough for research continuity or intensity.
In 1970, allocation to research (US$) was approximately $32 million, andd rose to $90, $122, and $145 millions for 1975, 1980, and 1984 respectively. This (lack of research intensity) is the primary reason 243
why national agricultural research has never made any major impact on
national productivity.
In a previous study (Idachaba 1980), inadequate funding of research
was found to be responsible for such institutional problems as low
quality, high staff instability and turnover, lack of suitable modern
equipment and materials. Scientists must not only be well paid but they
must also be provided with sound work environment in order to be
retained and be effective, and for the country to realize the advantage
or benefits of R&D as in the developed countries.
The problem of funding for research is that, as stated by a
respondent, "policy making at the highest level has not quite
appreciated the importance of research to overall national economic
development. A lot of funding consequently goes to providing inputs for
capitalist agriculture but the research aspect gets low priority
rating." Further, the problem of funding exists not because the country
is poor or lacks capital as some people may think; it exists, according to another respondent, "because policy formulators do not understand the
importance of research and development in the total growth of the nation." Still another scientist exlaimed during an interview, "here, we work with bare hands!"
There are no private organizations doing or supporting national agricultural research efforts in Nigeria. Private foreign involvement terminated with the country's attainment of political independence. The sole source of funding is the Nigerian government. In its effort to modernize its plant tissue culture laboratory, the University of Nigeria 244 has requested the European Economic Community (EEC) for funds, but no final response had been received at the time of this study.
Foreign Exchange Problem
What will complicate the problem of funding for biotechnology research in Nigeria will be, as already stated, the inaccessibility of the research institutions to the country's foreign exchange reserves.
Another will be the instability of foreign exchange rate. Since the research institutions must import the major research materials they will need, that is, chemicals and equipment, the restrictions imposed on foreign exchange will be bound to affect not only research programs but also the modernization of the laboratories.
Frequent fluctuation of foreign exchange rates will make it difficult for the institutions to draw up reliable budgets for imports.
Unrealiable predictions of exchange trends in the international markets may cause a planned foreign expenditure to become too low and therefore insufficient to pay for the purchases. In this type of situation, it will be hard to convince the government to make up for the differences.
Table 33 shows the unstable nature, and growing weakness of the Nigerian
Naira in the international markets as measured against the dollar.
One respondent stated that the weaknesses of the institutes and the universities were due to a lack of foreign exchange for the purchase of up-to-date equipment and materials from overseas. Another also stated that the weakness of the country's agricultural research system was not manpower per se but that it was not effectively utilized through investments, and that adequate funding was absolutely necessary for the scientists to implement their ideas. 245
Table 33 Foreign Exchange Rate: Naira as Equivalent to US $1.00
Year Naira Equivalent US $1.00
1980 .55
1981 .61
1982 .67
1883 .67
1984 .79
1986 3.50
1987 4.25
1988 4.25
Source: Compiled by the author from the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Meanwhile the Federal Government has made N134.4 million available to the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology for R&D in agri culture, industry and health. As explained by J. A. Effionayi of the
Ministry (in a personal correspondence), the various research institutes and the satellite centers will receive allocations from this sum for current and capital expenditure. What amount each will get has yet to be worked out. The National Center for Genetic Resources and
Biotechnology has received N112.000 and N400.000 in 1987 and 1988 respectively. As the project manager of NACGRAB said (in a personal correspondence), this budget allocation was expected to continue to increase every year as progress was made. 246
Socio-Political Obstacles
The government of Nigeria is characterized by instability, having
passed through several military coups and counter coups since its
independence. Each change has brought with it a change in economic
development policies; changes which have, more often than not, run in
consonance with the desires of both public and private interest groups.
The various civilian regimes had served the comprador interests, while
the military has served its own interests through tremendous budget
allocation to itself, all at the expense of agriculture and industry.
Abrupt policy changes have often led to the abandonment of on-going
development programs, and political uncertainties have damped the peoples' zeal to work productively. Thus, the Nigerian science
community is not immune to the vagaries of the country's socio political environment, which means that it is very much affected by it.
Thus, instability of government was mentioned by 95 percent of my respondents as an important factor that posed a potential impediment to biotechnology's triumph in Nigeria.
We have found that the one single most important impediment to the deployment of biotechnology in Nigeria is financial support. The reason for inadequate funding for R&D in Nigeria does not rest with lack of capital often mentioned in the past by many development theorists or researchers as the most important cause of underdevelopment; it rests with the top government officials who are the final arbiter of public budgets and expenditures, and who are unwilling to make some of the accumulated capital available for R&D. The reasons for this refusal, as mentioned by respondents are outlined below. 247
Firstly, within the top official circles of the government, there is unfounded lack of confidence in the Nigerian scientists with regard to their ability to develop new useful technologies for the country without assistance from the advanced countries. This lack of confidence is not as a result of demonstrated professional incapability, but emanates from sheer ignorance - ignorance of the true meaning of basic research and what it takes (primarily investment and time) to produce tangible results.
Secondly, because of what many people in Nigeria refer to as
"psychology of dependence," these officials have always preferred to hire foreign expert ideas with absolute confidence even when the hired expertise have proved incompatible to local development circumstances.
A most recent example cited by several respondents was the planning of the Nigerian Green Revolution program which was contracted out to IITA and the World Bank at the exclusion of Nigerians. This has aroused in many Nigerian technocrats the aversive feelings that the presence of
IITA in the country has at last 'relegated them to a second place' or to a subordinate capacity, a contradiction of the mandate of the CGIAR system. One scientist stated that the staffs of the national system has become subservient to the international staffs, "people who are supposed to be our colleagues."
Thirdly, some top government officials, because of their low level of education and understanding, cannot comprehend the true nature of R&D or the meaning of S&T, or even the conception of self-reliant economic development which they often proclaimed. The result of this limited knowledge is the inability of these officials to develop and support 248 appropriate R&D policies directed towards national economic self- reliance and self-sufficiency.
These problems are some of the factors that frustrate local scientists and render them ineffective and may likely continue in the future. More importantly, they affect research budget decisions, always negatively.
What is Nigeria's National Biotechnology Policy?
The functional scientists at the Federal Ministry of Science and
Technology who were interviewed pointed out that Nigeria was determined, just as emphasized in the 'Lagos Plan of Action' (for African economic development), to use the tools of modern science and technology to pursue the objective of sustained national economic development and progress. As has been categorically stated by knowledgable scientists and development experts, biotechnology, being multi-faceted, offers developing nations the opportunity to select research areas they deem a high priority to national economic development. In Nigeria, the immediate and urgent need was stated as the improvement of per capita food and agricultural production to combat the problem of hunger and malnutrition among the majority of the people, and to raise the country's foreign exchange position which has deeply deteriorated in recent years as a result of increasing food imports without equivalent exports of agricultural products.
The achievement of self-sufficiency assumes the foremost position on the Nigerian list of priorities in its current economic development plans. Behind this is the building up of the industrial sector. To this end, Nigeria might be expected to accord research priorities to 249
those activities not only where biotechnology holds the greater promise
for agriculture, but which are also within its research capabilities and
investment limitations.
There was the determination to make agricultural research more problem-oriented, and highly effective through biotechnology. In order to secure major benefits from agricultural research, the government has enumerated several strategies which are planned to be implemented during the Fourth National Development Plan (The Plan) period, as mentioned by a government official at the Ministry of Agriculture and as also outlined in The Plan. These strategies include an efficient allocation of resources to the national agricultural research establishments for modernization and expansion, and to direct research activities to the socioeconomic needs and problems of the country. Another strategy is to optimally integrate research and extension of research results. And thirdly, to update human resource capacity and to develop a stable core of agricultural research staff.
But at the time of this study, no defined national policy for biotechnology or formulated guidelines for implementing biotechnology
R&D have been put in place, although a national biotechnology center, the National Center for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology, has been established (in July 1986) and satellite centers chosen. According to the NACGRAB project manager, "what exists as of now is a national policy on science and technology in which some statements have been made about biotechnology..." (in a personal correpondence). An example of the statements made about biotechnology was as follows: 250
The technology policies and strategies shall be applied to all areas of industry. Special attention shall, however, be paid to the development of hard and softwares in... bio-engineering including genetic engineering and microbial fermentation" (cited in a personal correspondence).
Thus, the absence of a clearly stated state plan for action or policy for the implementation of biotechnology was mentioned as one of the problems that could delay or distort biotechnology programs in
Nigeria. For Nigeria's pursuance of self-reliance objective to be meaningful, a defined national policy should be in place. It is obviously the centerpiece of all national development plans and the determinant of national capacity factors. A clearly defined biotechnology policy would include, for example, objectives and goals, plans for the provision of financial resources, modernization of infrastructure and the strengthening of local manpower, delineation of specific priorities and techniques, and strategies for implementation.
One respondent exclaimed: how would the satellite centers, or the international organizations to which the country was affiliated respond effectively to its needs without a defined policy: they must have a policy with which to work. Another respondent maintained that it would be hard for the FMST or the NACGRAB to monitor or evaluate the research activities and results at the centers without a policy and guidelines within which they operated.
The importance of a defined national policy is that it would guide biotechnology R&D activities towards a definite course of action and also facilitate international technology transfer, all aimed at achieving the stated national objectives, for example, increased food and agricultural production; and goals, for example, eradication of 251
malnutrition and the achievement and maintenance of a moderate standard
of living in the society. It would enable national programs to have
foci and operate within local resource limits. Lack of indigenous
policy will obviously create a situation in which biotechnology R&D will
be determined from outside.
Structural Problem
Lack of entrepreneurial interest in local university research was
another problem also mentioned by 90 percent of the interviewees as a
factor which could delay or impede the progress of biotechnology R&D in
Nigeria. In Nigeria, there is no university-industry relationship, a relationship so crucial to technological and agro-industrial development. The implication is that the Nigerian universities, unlike their counterparts in the advanced Western world, do not have the advantage of private (indigenous or alien) support for basic research.
This condition is reflected in the static nature of the Nigerian universities; there is lack of growth or innovation and near total absence of dynamism in research. The little research undertaken are rarely commerce-directed or social inspired; they are only conventional, that is, they are only the normal academic activities which faculty members undertake primarily to retain their appointments and earn their tenure.
Local private interest in the universities would help to halt brain-drain or the migration of some of the country's best scientists to other parts of the world where better opportunities and conditions exist. By investing in the universities, indigenous entrepreneurs would have the first choice to tap the intellectual resources of the universities and translate the scientific and technological ideas of the scientists into tangible goods for the overall welfare of the society.
Corporate investment in Nigerian university research, however, poses certain dilemmas. The consequence of the privatization of agricultural research in a developing country would be problematic if food production came to be dominated by those who had proprietary rights to the research. However, patent law in Nigeria is virtually nonexistent and likely would be unenforceable. Nigeria has no plant variety laws and it is highly unlikely to promulgate such laws in the foreseable future. In
Nigeria, industrial patent laws exist but are rarely enforced.
Entrepreneurial interest in the Nigerian university research can be encouraged without concern for patents; however, without intellectual property law, investment in research is unlikely. Thus, the basic conundrum in capitalist LDC technology development: there is little reason to invest in technology because it cannot be protected. Then, on the other hand, strong protection would provide potentially dangerous monopolies.
But with government support so fragile and private interest unavailable, indigenous R&D is seriously hampered and the academia paralyzed. According to one respondent, "one of the most serious obstacles to development of indigenous technology in Nigeria is the near total lack of commitment by local industries to research and development. Hardly does any industry in Nigeria exploit local university research findings to produce tangible goods. More unfortunate is the total dependence of multinationals operating in
Nigeria on research and development of their parent companies in the 253
West even when the raw materials are Nigerian." A principal example of
such MNCs would be Unilever which is based in the United Kingdom and the
Netherlands. Unilever, has in-house conventional plant breeding
facilities at home in the United Kingdom. And with the emerging new
biotechnology, it has also established in-house research in plant
biotechnology for crop improvement also in the United Kingdom. Some of
its West African crops include oil palm, cocoa, coconut palm, tea, and
rubber. Its products are mainly tea, margarine, cocoa drinks, soaps and
many other household products marketed around the world. And as a
result of its intensive investment in research, it controls a major part
of West Africa's agricultural exports. Another example of agro-MNCs
operating in Nigeria which do not invest in local research is Nestle of
Switzerland whose in-house research includes crop genetics, crop
resistance tolerance and improvement, and the regeneration of whole
plants with the application of cell culture techniques. Nestle's target
crop in biotechnology is soybeans, as well as various other crop varieties found in West Africa. Other companies include Beecham (United
Kingdom), which researches on, and produces fruits and vegetables;
Lonrho, which produces oil and fats; and Bayer AG (West Germany), which is also interested in plant biotechnology.
A Nigerian social scientist, a critic of the Nigerian Green
Revolution, who knew about commercial biotechnology, was also interviewed. Asked what socioeconomic factors he thought could be the potential impediments to indigenous application of biotechnology in
Nigeria. He stated that the primary and most important factor that could hamper indigenous attempts to harness the techniques of biotechnology to improve the economic well-being of all Nigerian peoples was the neo-colonial character of the Nigerian economy. He said that the country's economic development plans were manipulated by the global corporations operating in Nigeria. They are now known to have invested heavily in various aspects of agricultural biotechnology in their home countries. He cited such TNCs as Unilever, Shell, Ciba-Geigy, Nestle,
Pfizer and Bayer. He emphasized that foreign agribusiness corporations such as Unilever originally (in the colonial era) dominated and controlled African agricultural economy through their ownership of plantations and now will perpetuate this control through biotechnology, especially for the fact that it (biotechnology) will affect all major
African crops. He also stated that agricultural parastatals in the country which could relate to the universities in promoting basic research are over-run by the social element or class interest in foreign investments in the country. Parastatals are state-owned enterprises operated by local technocrats who truly aspire for self-reliance; but their aspirations are smothered by their lack of political power to influence national development policies. He pointed out that the real difficulty of technological capacity development in Nigeria did not rest totally on any lack of financial investment, manpower or other forms of development resources, but rested with what he described as "interest clique" whose activities influence negatively national inward-oriented development policies and their implementation. Its members, acting in concert, distort the promotion of policies that do not represent clique or class interests, or help to implement them but in a way more beneficial to them, not in the best longterm interest of the nation as a 255
whole. According to him, the Nigerian Green Revolution was a
challenging program which the national research institutes had the
capacity to implement and which could have provided them with a learning
experience in the process of national capacity development. But the
opportunity was sold to the World Bank and expatriates at IITA.
He dismissed the notion of a "psychology of dependence" stating
that the real reason there was interest clique was because its members
recognized the scientific, technical and entrepreneurial potentials
among many Nigerians whom they feared posed a treat to their interests
if they were given the opportunity to develop. They therefore formed
cliques which has both political and economic powers to override any
attempts among these common people to engage in any alternative path of
development that would not include them. He insisted that dependence
was not an option or a choice that would result from demonstrated
incapacity as neoclassical theorists would assume, but an imposed
condition.
Another important point he raised was that Nigeria has a "great manpower capacity," but it is monopolized by the MNCs operating in the country. A substantial number of highly scientifically and technically talented Nigerians work for the MNCs which offer more attractive conditions of service than the government. This 'internal brain-drain1 makes it difficult for the public corporations or parastatals to find manpower capacity to implement genuine development programs.
Another social scientist pointed out that the oil-boom was an opportunity missed; an opportunity for the Nigerian government to
invest, lay the foundation and build up the country's technological- industrial base and modernize the national research institutions. The
oil era was a period when Nigeria became independent of foreign
financial investment capital. But that aspect of economic independence
was crossed out by increased dependence on foreign producer, and
consumer goods and food imports which consumed a greater part of the
accumulated capital. In addition, there was massive flights of capital
from the country to Western banks. The repatriation of surplus by the
MNCs, and the export of local savings by indigenous bourgeoisie alike helped to wipe out the oil revenues. The balance of payments deficit so
created and the depletion of internal savings brought about the current national economic predicament that has necessitated the on-going stringent measures of having to devalue the naira against the dollar, and the imposition of high import tariffs to discourage further imports of non-essential goods.
He criticized the activities of the international scientific organizations and financial institutions, maintaining that their respective development strategies were unrealistic to the problems of the LDCs. According to him, they were building fragile development capacities in Nigeria and other African countries. He stressed that true technical and institutional capacities must be internal to a social system; that is, they must sprout from the cultural roots of a society, not implanted or grafted. According to him, international development agencies have consistently ignored indigenous social relations of production in their various attempts to induce development from outside; social relations of production is extremely important in national technical capacity building and maintenance. 257
These internal problems are the push factors that lead some of the best indigenous scientists to migrate to the developed countries.
POTENTIAL EXTERNAL IMPEDIMENTS
The Problem of Scientific Information
In response to the question of the privatization of biotechnology, that is, how Nigeria and its scientists plan to counter the threats of privatization that has emerged in the developed countries. Eighty percent of the respondents maintained that the similar impacts of what was going on in the United States, in particular, whose agricultural research and development has in the past influenced agricultural development in the Third World, was unforseable in Nigeria and many other LDCs in the nearest future. The general reason given for this view was that in Nigeria, agriculture does not attract large commercial commitments as in the developed countries; and that with the international conferences, seminars, workshops and various training and other forms of research enrichment programs organized by the ICGEB, the
CGIAR system and others, privatization would not have significant effects on the international free-flow of scientific information and research results. The respondents thought that the only factor that will enhance the threats of privatization was inadequate financial support for internal research. One Nigerian respondent stated that
"there is great hopes if we get great sponsorship." They also maintained that as far as crop improvement was concerned, and as long as the country has a well established and maintained genebank, privatization would not be of any major worry in the country. It is 258 only when the country's genetic diversity is badly eroded that the new seed varieties created in the advanced countries will find their ways into the country with a devastating socioeconomic impacts on the country's agricultural economy. But other respondents thought that no matter what Nigeria does, the TNCs will always find their way with the open-door policy still intact.
Synthetic Agricultural Products
The question of the production of agro-synthetic products in the developed countries which might displace Nigeria's botanical products from the industrial world was discussed. This would mean the loss of more than 70 percent of the country's annual non-oil foreign exchange earnings which come from agricultural exports. For example, the overproduction of cocoa in the DCs through biotechnology, and also using biotechnology to convert certain cheap oils into cocoa butter substitutes could destroy Nigeria,s cocoa economy, eliminating it from the markets of the DCs. The economic cost to Nigeria will be overwhelming: the average annual foreign exchange earnings (during good seasons) is nearly US $200 million. The over-all view of the 80 percent of my respondents was that these products will make devastating socioeconomic impacts in Nigeria if it failed to build-up its agro industries which would rather consume all of its products formerly exported to the industrial world. A solidly diversified agro-industry in Nigeria will not only reduce or even eliminate the importation of processed food products but will also establish self-reliance in domestic food supplies in the country. Further, it will counteract the balance-of-payments effects, and the socioeconomic problems, such as the distortion of rural economy, the displacement of farm labor and reduced farm income, which the displacement of botanical exports would create.
The most important crops which could be affected include oil-palm, cocoa, rubber and groundnuts.
The displacement of Nigeria's botanical products from the markets of the advanced countries now producing substitutes to them could lead the country into a unilateral retaliatory action. The government could expropriate foreign agro-industries owned by the countries in question.
An alternative to this action could be a bilateral approach by which the
Nigerian government and the concerned TNCs negotiate for the transfer of the affected companies to domestic ownership. This would involve a compensation to the original investors. Either of these approaches could become a starting point for domestic industrial capacity-building.
The benefit to the industries, now under local ownership and inward- oriented, is that raw materials from agriculture (the botanical products) would now be cheaper as the competition between them and the world market (in terms of prices and supplies) is now reduced or even totally eliminated. The socioeconomic benefit to the society is that the industrial savings from cheaper raw materials could trickle down to the masses through product prices that are now cheaper. Another socioeconomic benefit is that the resultant domestic industrial expansion would absorb the umemployment caused by the displacement of cash crops in the markets of the advanced countries. The whole process could lead to agro-economic self-reliance. But, for these to be realistic, there must be domestic or indigenous capital goods production for the repair and replacement of the original machineries and 260
equipment. It will also depend on the structural leaning of the
politicians, whether they look outward or inward; that is, whether they
maintain an open-door policy of economic development or pursue a
delinkage approach.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Affiliation with ICGEB
Respondents were asked what they thought about Nigeria's
affiliation with ICGEB and other international research agencies, given
the fact that Nigeria has competent scientists in the areas of bio
technology applications relevant to the country's basic needs. Nigeria's
involvement with ICGEB was an unwelcome idea to over eighty percent of my Nigerian respondents. Criticizing it, they maintained it was not in
the long-term best interest of Nigeria and many other affiliated LDCs.
The contention was that such affiliation would not only make the country more knowledge-dependent but it would also supplant indigenous capacities and efforts which needed to be developed through the process of "do-it-yourself;" or learning-by-doing, and that it contradicted the country's policy of self-reliance. They stated that such affiliation would defer indefinitely the internal development of indigenous innate abilities in science and technology. They maintained that the contributions Nigeria makes to the international agencies such as ICGEB and the CGIAR were enough to "build-up our capacities to a competent level." One scientist emphasized that "there is no substitute to what a nation can do for itself if it realy desires to be self-reliant." 261
But all six IITA scientists interviewed thought that ICGEB should be embraced by Nigeria as a starting point in the process of indigenous
R&D capacity building, and that the country should take full advantage of the center's (theoretical) excellence. They maintained that ICGEB has easier access to superior equipment and high grade research materials such as chemicals; and by concentrating these crucial elements in one place, in the hands of scientists who were, not only some of the worlds best, but were also not affected by certain socio-political factors existing within the LDCs. It was thought that the country would have more to lose than to gain if it failed to relate strongly to the center.
The IITA-NARS Relationship
The relationship between IITA and the National Agricultural
Research System (NARS) is very important with respect to technology transfer and agricultural development in Nigeria. Central to this relationship are their differences, their level of collaboration and
(political) conflicts. Table 34 depicts the differences between the two systems, and shows why the presence of the international center in
Nigeria is important to the country's agricultural progress.
But one Nigerian respondent pointed out that, apart from the fact that the international center has relegated the national system to a subordinate status, it was also the route through which Nigeria's germplasm reserves secretly leave the country to the developed countries. Ninety percent of my respondents agreed but some of them thought it would not dislodge the country's genetic resources at this time. At IITA, my respondents denied any knowledge of this situation. 262
Table 34 IITA-NARIs Compared
Character IITA NARIs
1. Scope of Regional and Beyond National only activity
2. Staff Highly experienced, Less experienced due fully active to meet to less activity; often certain goals; have no set goals; high quite stable; degree of turnover as a result of #3,#4 and #7 below.
3. Funding Fully funded; not Underfunded: impeded impeded by money or by foreign exchange; foreign exchange; funded by national enjoys world-wide govt., rarely attract support even from external support Nigeria
4. Infrastruc Highly modernized: Archaic; surplies and ture adequate for pursuing materials scanty; its mandate; well less current libraries refurbished with unreliable power, all supplies and materials; as a result of #3 regular power supplies above
5. Exposure Boundless; world-wide Parochial
6. Research All African food Each institute has emphasis crops specific mandate
7. Scientific Greater access to Access is highly information sources of scientific limited information world-wide
8. GeneBank Already established Plans for one are underway
9. Incentives Salaries and Poorly paid which is compensation are the reason for staff "adequate" instability, and high turnover
10.Political Unaffected by Very much environment national affected by local socio-political socio-political conditions vagaries.
Source: By the Author. 263
Two scientists at IITA, and five Nigerian scientists examined this
evaluation (Table 34) and thought it was a fair assessment.
Scientifically, there has been a high degree of reciprocal
collaboration between IITA and NARS. This collaboration has brought
about major tangible impacts on Nigeria's agriculture. Specific areas
of collaboration are several. First, there is exchange of biological
breeding materials such as the germplasm of important crop varieties.
This is made possible by IITA's genetic resources unit. The sources of
the germplasm are, for the most part, Nigerian, but IITA has the
resources to collect and conserve them. Secondly, the international
center provides technical support to the national centers which are
comparably weaker. Thirdly, there is free-flow and exchange of
scientific information and research results. This is extremely
important to the promotion of plant tissue culture in the country. The
implication is that it will reduce the effects of privatization generated from the developed countries. In the fourth place, the NARS has free access to IITA's library where many up-to-date scientific journals and books are consistently available. And finally, there is strong co-operative work in farming systems research. In this case, while IITA has the technology, NARS has more exposure to the Nigerian sociology of agriculture; it is easier for the farmers to communicate or relate to NARS researchers than their IITA colleagues. This aspect of the collaboration is very important to effective technology transfer, from the researchers to the farmers. It also enhances the local mandate of the international center. But there is also a political problem between the two systems.
Ninety-five percent of Nigerian scientists interviewed agreed that the
NARS has benefited much from its relationship with the international
center. But five percent of the respondents expressed mixed feelings.
They expressed a feeling of humiliation when the Federal Government of
Nigeria hired IITA and the World Bank to plan the Nigerian Green
Revolution at the exclusion of the NARS. They also expressed a
suppressed resentment of this action which, according to them, denied
them the opportunity of putting their scientific and management
abilities to test in a challenging situation such as the one that called
for the Green Revolution. The scientists felt that, by the Federal
Government doing this, they were regarded as "nonentities." This was an
enactment of the "psychology of dependence" which we discussed in
chapter two. It was also in direct contradiction of the policy of the
CGIAR which stated that the actions of the IARCs should not "relegate
national systems to second place" (Pearse 1980:232, 233). We may thus
see that the presence of IITA in Nigeria while, scientifically and
technologically, generally beneficial to the national system, has caused
the government to become blind to indigenous manpower capacities.
Other than this political conflict which was only whispered among
Nigerian scientists, IITA-NARS relationship has been generally con genial. It is expected that the collaborative relationship between them will be a factor that will lead to the success of agricultural bio technology in Nigeria. 265
POSSIBILITIES WITHIN PLANT TISSUE CULTURE TECHNOLOGIES
Some institutions in Nigeria, particularly Nsukka, Ibadan, and CRIN,
have begun to practise tissue culture as Table 8.10 shows. The question
asked was why the scientists opted for this technology but not con
sidering the more advanced techniques, recombinant DNA, or genetic
engineering. The reasons given were several. One was that it was
simpler, more direct in application, and easily practiced, and that it
facilitated conventional techniques of plant breeding. Secondly, it was
affordable to them, in terms of facilities, equipment and materials; other techniques would require more sophisticated equipment and higher grade chemicals which were above 'our' funding and budgets. Thirdly, it was easier to obtain the needed laboratory materials and instrumentation
from overseas. Fourthly, 'we' can use meristem cultures to produce and move or transport disease-free plants, and that tissue culture was the
fastest method of multiplying improved and agronomically good crop varieties.
Fifthly, haploids, as produced through anther/pollen culture, were the fastest method of achieving homozygosity in many plants. Scientists at the universities claimed that they could also work on recombinant DNA too, but they would not because they did not have what it would take to do so; that is, huge investment.
Some Practical Results
Another question sought to know some practical results of work already done in tissue culture. There are a few of such results at
Nsukka and other places which could be useful to the Nigerian agri culture. One was that growth conditions of striga or certain plants 266
have been worked out and results obtained were easily applicable in
field conditons. Second, calli have been produced from anthers of many
economically important crop plants, for example, yam, bean, cowpea,
cretolawa, bamara groundnut, solanum macrocarpon (local egg plant).
Planting levels of these calli were being worked out. It was believed that soon haploids of these materials will be produced and selection for
improvement carried out. Third, results obtained from yam culture were successful. Yams are normally grown from tubers. Using seed culture,
it was possible to improve the crops using flowers.
At the University of Ibadan, wild crosses have been performed using tissue culture technique. This involved the transference of some genes from wild varieties to cultivated varieties to eliminate insect diseases. Scientists at the university found that (since) insects attacked cultivated varieties, they therefore transferred genes from wild varieties to the cultivated varieties to immunize the plant (the latter) from pests. The specific technique within tissue culture which was adopted was embryo culture.
And at Badeggi, tissue culture enabled scientists to increase available germplasm. It was found to be an easier way of moving large quantities of disease-free plantlets and research materials over long distances.
At the present time, in vitro techniques to improve economically important plants of Nigeria are being practised at some of the NARIs and the universities. At Nsukka, for example, research results have shown that .in vitro embryo culture was a very fast method of producing yam seedlings which raised new hopes for yam production in Nigeria. Also, in the same laboratory, haploid plants have been produced from the anthers and pollens of economically important crops. At the NRCRI, it was found that somatic hybridization, within protoplast technology, had great potential for the production of hybrid plant in root and tuber crops such as the production of seed yams. This technique could lead to the improvement of crops which had been difficult to hybridize by traditional breeding techniques. According to 0. A. Fatoken of the
University of Ibadan (in an interview), interspecific crossing method was being adopted in the improvement of agronomically important traits such as drought tolerance, disease and insect resistance in cowpeas and other crops. Table 35 Some Tissue Culture Work in Nigeria
Head Researcher Research Technique and Location
B. A. Nwankwo Morphogenic potential of NIFOR embryo-derived callus of Hybridization pisifera form of elacis guinensis
C. E. A. Okezie In vitro embryo culture Dept.of Botany of dioscorea rotundata Embryo culture Univ. of Nigeria poir
R .Satchuthanan- Tissue culture of edible Protoplast thavale yam fusion, (somatic Dept.of Biological hybridization) Sciences, Univ. of Sokoto
V. C. 0. Njar Light-dependent monoter- Dept, of Chemistry pene synthesis in Pinus Callus culture Univ. of Ibadan cultures
A. K. Sogeke Effects of Auxin and light NIFOR on the total free sterol PTC content of tobacco callus
Ene-Obong Haploid plants from Dept, of Botany anthers and pollen - Anther culture Univ. of Nigeria potentials and implications in crop improvement in the tropics
E. N. A. Mbanaso Potentials of protoplast & 0. 0. Okoli culture in the improvement Somatic NRCRI of economic crops in hybridization Nigeria 269
Table 35 (Continued)
Head Researcher Research Technique and Location
T. A. Ladiende Potentials of tissue and Dept, of Agric. organ culture in the Tissue and organ Biology, Univ. improvement of cowpea culture of Ibadan
S. N. C. Okonkwo Morphogenesis in root Dept, of Botany parasites through PTC Univ. of Nigeria tissue culture
B. A. Adelaja Regeneration of plantain PTC NIHORT
Source: Compiled by the author from The Book of Abstracts of the Africa Regional Symposium on Tissue Culture of Economically Important Plants, 1983. (Referred to by respondents) CHAPTER IX
CONCLUSION
Nigeria is an underdeveloped country. The underdevelopment of the country's economy grew out of imperialism which is maintained by neo colonialism, and, as well, been perpetuated by the structural relation ship between it and the developed capitalist world. Neo-colonialism derives its power primarily from its technological capability and is enhanced by the endogenous social factors that provide the socio political environment conducive to its adaptation and survival in
Nigeria.
The integration of the LDCs, such as Nigeria, into the world system has not benefitted it as much as it has to the metropolis.
Rather it has led to its economic decadence, and has also placed it in a subordinate or dependent status, externally controlled in all of its spheres - social, economic and even political. External control means a loss of economic autonomy and the dependent state cannot develop without external reliances for most of its development resources, particularly technology.
Such conditions as lack of development autonomy, export-oriented agriculture, sectoral disarticulation, lack of inward-oriented industrial base and technical capacity, and external reliances for capital and technology characterize the Nigerian economy and form the fabrics of economic dependence which, similar to the conditions in other
270 271
underdeveloped countries, gave rise to the theory of dependency which,
in turn, provides the analytical framework for explaining the problems of economic development in these parts of the world.
Nigeria is a dependent state whose population is approaching 100 million vis-a-vis stagnant agriculture and lack of an industrial sector.
Low agricultural productivity has so deepened that a new type of dependency, food dependency, has emerged. Petroleum has also re established classic dependence in the country, replacing botanical products as the only source of foreign exchange for the country. Food imports, grandiose development projects that contribute little or nothing to the long-term well-being of the common people, neglect of technological/industrial capacity development, wasteful elite life styles exacerbated by oil euphoria have cummulatively expounged the country of its foreign exchange reserves and placed it in a poor balance-of-payment position in the international system. Capital flight has, as well, extensively drained the country of its domestic savings, wiping out the independence from foreign investment capital achieved through the oil revenues. The mismanagement of scarce resources or their irrational utilization now makes it difficult for new investments to take place without external assistance. The alternative, once again, is to resort to the international lending institutions. The obvious implication is the mortgaging of the country's future financial resources, clearly from oil. This will result in the reproduction of the vicious circle of economic dependence and mass poverty. Under these conditions, we may forsee the continuation of agricultural under development, starved of capital investment. 272
Historically, agriculture was the primary means by which Nigeria
and other developing countries were drawn into the international system
of supplies and demand for economic resources. Firstly, through peasant
production for export which resulted in the emergence of export-oriented
economies; peasants produced only for external sale rather than for
internal use. Classic dependence was thus established. Secondly, the
integration took place through the green revolution which was intended
for the promotion of internal production and for internal consumption
but which was totally dependent on foreign technologies. The commercial
interest in the promotion of the technologies caused the revolution to
become another stage for the development of dependency.
Whether or not biorevolution will mark the third stage in the
historical development of agro-economic/technological dependence in
Nigeria is yet uncertain. It is uncertain because, in spite of expert
opinion about the likely impact of privatization, and "despite its
promise, biotechnology is yet embroyonic and faces many scientific
obstacles which must be overcome if extensive commercialization of bio
engineered products is to be achieved" (Kloppenburg 1984:311). What
experts say commercial biotechnology will do with regard to the
exacerbation of dependence in the developing countries are only
conjectures and predictions which could be nullified if ICGEB lives up
to its expectations as a center of excellence. But the performance of
this international center and other centers will, of course, depend on
the capacity of local research systems. If the national systems are weak, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for these centers, and hence biotechnology, to make real positive impact on the national 273
agricultural production systems as desired. Technology transfer will
only be possible if national systems have great capacity to assimilate
scientific information generated from the international centers. This
would require a strong agro-industrial base to propel it.
Nigeria was a late adopter of the international green revolution
innovation, but it has now shown an early interest (not yet in practice)
in the emerging biorevolution. In each case, the pre-economic condi
tions prevailent in the country determined the behavior of the
government; that is, the decision to adopt or not to adopt, or the early
interest respectively. In the former case, the pre-green revolution
condition was that the country was virtually self-sufficient in food and
agricultural production, and so did not adopt the innovation until much
later when a food crisis devastated the economy of the country. But in
the latter case, the situation was one of food dependency. The devastating social and economic impacts of having to import virtually
all of its food requirements during the late 1970s and up to the first half of the 1980s, led the country's leaders to begin to look for a
self-reliant technological answer to their desire for a modernized and sustainable agriculture.
Thus, the new functional scientists in the government who under stood the true definitions and the economic implications of science and technology or research and development, and were well aware of the emerging commercial biotechnology, took the initiative to bring the top echelon of the government to buy the idea of an affiliation with the
ICGEB, and the consequent establishment of NACGRAB and its satellite research centers. 274
The agro-economic situation in Nigeria today provides an appro
priate condition for a realistic test for biotechnology's theoretical
potentials and promises. This test would be carried out through the
manipulation of the various techniques of biotechnology to produce
desired results, and this poses a challenge to Nigerian scientists. It
is a challenge because the solution of the Nigerian problems in
agriculture depends on the effective manipulation of these techniques,
which, in turn, depends on manpower capability, as well as the quality
of infrastructure and the degree of investment.
The views expressed by Nigerian scientists are generally similar to
those expressed by their foreign colleagues at IITA. From these, we may
draw conclusions and make some observations. Nigeria has many
scientists who are adequately educated in various fields of biological
sciences in good universities in the developed countries, and who have
had many years of practical experience in conventional plant breeding
and crop science. These people have the capacity to direct the course
of agricultural research and development in the country. But adequate
manpower, in quantity and quality, by itself is not enough to
successfully pursue the national self-reliance and self-sufficiency
objectives through biotechnology. It absolutely requires an appropriate
mobilization of other relevant internal resources, funds and materials,
in order for any biotechnology programs to be operative and effective,
or to realize the full benefits of its potentials.
Further, there is no doubt that Nigeria has a well-established
agricultural research system; nevertheless, the system is not well- maintained or modernized. Obsolete equipment, scanty supplies of 275 chemicals and other research inputs, libraries that are not up-to-date, frequent power shut-offs, and dry laboratory water pipes, all generally characterize Nigeria's research institutes' and university laboratories.
Lack of indigenous entrepreneurship in the country is another important factor in the development of biotechnology. Much of the results of research in the universities are left in the books and are never translated into tangible products for the benefit of the society.
Agricultural research in Nigeria has never had any revolutionary impact on the production system because of the lack of agressive national policy that could involve, among other things, local industries that would play the role of bringing the results of research and development to the farmers or to the markets.
Based on what scientists in Nigeria have said, underfunding was found to be the principal contributor to the weakness of the country's national agricultural research system. It was the sole cause of non modernization of research facilities and laboratories. It was the primary cause of manpower instability, turnover and inactivity.
The primary problem facing Nigeria today is not so much the inexistence of appropriate technologies nor the inavailability of scientific information and research results, not even the lack of scientific manpower or investment capital, but the lack of genuine, agressive public policy and the existence of social structural forces that operate against the society by hampering its capabilities and possibilities. A genuine national development policy must be inward- oriented, self-reliant and socioeconomically pragmatic; that is, within the social, economic and cultural limitations of the country. Behind 276 this is a strong political will capable of dislodging the class alliance that oppose it.
Under the present institutional and economic conditions in Nigeria, we may conclude that the country cannot effectively utilize the technological opportunities offered by biotechnology to effect a revolutionary change in its agriculture. Unless appropriate coherent agricultural or biotechnology policy, along with guidelines for action, is formulated, the result will be that Nigeria will be relegated to be only consumers of biotechnology products from other countries of the world. It will remain entrenched in agro-economic and technological dependence and the concomitant mass poverty.
In view of the weaknesses of the Nigerian agricultural research system, the following suggestions are made. In order for a biorevolution to take place in Nigeria and for the majority of the people to benefit from it, the country must adopt certain basic strategies. Firstly, the government must invest adequately in internal research and development. Progress in agricultural biotechnology will depend not only on the magnitude of investment made, but also on its continuity and timeliness because R&D is a continuous process.
Appropriate investment must be made not only on facilities and laboratories but also in the development and enrichment of research staffs, providing them with funds for attending international, and holding national conferences, workshops and seminars, staff retraining, up-dating local libraries and supporting local scientific publications.
Secondly, the Nigerian research scientists must be well paid and given other attractive incentives. This is important not only to 277 attract and retain the best brains in the country and in the institutions, but also to bring the best out of them.
Thirdly, research facilities and laboratories must be modernized with established and guaranteed sources of research materials - high grade chemicals and biological materials; public operators of electricity and water supplies must be brought to be more sensitive to the needs of the scientists. All the foregoing requirements are important sources of motivation for the scientists, motivation to aspire for professional excellence and to devote time and energy in pursuing national objectives in biotechnology.
Fourthly, with the growing interest in biotechnology in Nigeria, there must be collective actions among the universities, local research institutes, indigenous industries and government agencies to promote R&D in biotechnology in the country. They must cooperate to develop self- reliant policies that are consistent with the basic needs of the people, and ones that are capable of harnessing the potentials of biotechnology to break the vicious circle of underdevelopment and poverty. Public and quasi-public-industry collaboration must exist for national economic and technological development to occur. Each sector can make important contributions.
Nigeria must embrace its affiliation with ICGEB and other non commercial world research organizations much closer to minimize the effects of privatization. But it should not allow these affiliations to supplant internal establishments and efforts. Rather they should only supplement what the nation can do by itself, for itself. The strategy of international linkages will be meaningful only if domestic 278
capabilities are strengthened so that the national systems will be more
effective receptors of scientific ideas and technologies already
developed elsewhere.
Possibilities Within Nigeria's Capabilities
All agricultural research scientists in Nigeria (foreign and
citizens) agree that plant tissue culture technologies have the best
chances of effective utilization in the country, at least in the short
term. Within the present national research capability level, other
aspects of biotechnology, such as recombinant DNA, and genetic
engineering are not possible now. Considering the current pressing need
for increased per capita food production as well as industrial crop production, it is plant tissue culture that can yield quicker results within the next five years to solve these problems. However, that depends on the improvement of funding policies.
Moreover, Nigeria and other African countries are rich in plant genetic diversity that can significantly enhance tissue culture work in this tropical region of the world. If I may cite in this regard,
UNIDO's statement which follows has a great deal of relevance:
It is vital that African researchers become thoroughly familiar with tissue culture. This technology affords researchers the ability to subject plant cells to manipulate techniques such as mutation, strain selection and process development and to be able to review results rather quickly. When a successful strain is recognized the whole plant can be grown and, in turn, its tissue used to seed other tissue culture. One authority estimates that this cloning method is one million times faster than the traditional method it replaced (UNIDO 1985:17-18).
Thus, within its resource and infrastructural limitations, Nigeria should endeavor to invest in tissue culture in which local scientists have begun to show some degree of capability. According to a scientist 279 at IITA, other more advanced technologies, such as recombinant DNA, would require ten times the conditions for superior tissue culture work anywhere. These conditions include viable facilities, highly exper ienced scientific and technical manpower, greater industrial base and large investment which Nigeria does not have. The investments (in- house and external) the various U. S. and European companies make in biotechnology are an evidence that underlines the above fact. There is no indication so far that a whole nation such as Nigeria can match just one U. S. company in investment in any of the areas of biotechnology research. Appendix A
THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS
We have defined biotechnology in chapter four. There are other definitions. One is that it is "the application of scientific and engineering principles to the processing of materials by biological agents to provide goods and services" (Bull et. al.1982:21). As defined by the European Federation of Biotechnology, it is "the integrated use of biochemistry, microbiology and chemical engineering in order to achieve the technological application of the capacities of microbes and culture cells" (cited in Swaminathan 1984:5). This definition depicts the multi-technique and the interdisciplinary nature of new biotechnology. These definitions and others show that biotechnology does not have one universally accepted definition. Various organizations and nations define it in a way most compatible to their respective purposes and objectives or in consonance with their views about it. The fact that biotechnology is multifaceted (technologically and in purpose) is also a ground for its many definitions.
Biotechnology is a technological revolution involving genetic engineering which is expected to have major impacts in three major areas of development, namely, agriculture, health and industry. The immediate objectives of genetic engineering in Africa and other underdeveloped parts of the world are to increase domestic food production for internal consumption, to prevent or control diseases both in humans and in
280 animals, and to stabilize energy surplies. In the developing countries. priorities in biotechnology research may differ, but the objective are probably the same. The following excerpts by UNIDO experts briefly states what potential implications genetic engineering has for the developing countries:
Pharmaceutical Industry: At present biological methods are responsible for the production of about 20 percent of all prescription drugs. The new genetic techniques will enable biological production to replace chemical synthesis, or extraction from animal and plant tissues, for many products. Already human insulin, growth hormone and interferons are produced by genetically engineered micro-organisms. Soon the new technologies will open up possibilities for developing vaccines against such intractable diseases as hepatitis, malaria and schistosomiasis. In the next 10 to 20 years unique pharmaceuticals will be designed and produced, including new antibiotics, enzymes and hormones;
Chemical Industry: 90 percent of the substrates used to synthesize chemicals are petroleum-based. Biotechnology can be profitably adopted to replace chemical synthesis because it will use renewable resources such as biomass instead of petroleum; the reactions occur at lower temperatures and pressures, thus saving energy; and there is less toxic pollution generated. Genetically engineered organisms are already producing valuable amino acids for use as feed additives in animal husbandry. Other micro organisms are used to enhance oil recovery from exhausted wells, to destroy man-made pollutants such as DDT and to produce primary energy substances, including methane and alcohols from agri cultural and industrial wastes;
Food Industry: Genetically engineered organisms will soon be mass producing flavour enhancers and sweetening agents which are safe and nutritious. Others will turn inedible biomass into valuable food for man and feed stuff for animals. Large quantities of protein will become available cheaply through the production of single cell protein;
Agriculture: Since plants are extremely complex organisms (genetically speaking), advances will come more slowly. In 10 to 20 years plants will be genetically engineered to be resistant to disease, be able to survive stress brought about by drought or high saline soils and be made to tolerate high concentrations of herbicides and pesticides. In the longer term, agriculturally important plants may need less fertilizer as they are imbued with the ability to fix their own nitrogen from the air (UNID0/IS.513, 1985:4-5). 282
The Technologies
Central to biotechnology's multi-technique nature is genetic engineering which involves the insertion of "new genetic information into an organism, usually a bacterium, to endow it with novel capabilities" (Prentis 1984:37). The basic principle of genetic engineering is the ability of the scientist to accurately identify a gene possessing a desired trait, isolate it, study and understand its function and regulation, modify it and reintroduce it into its natural host or another organism (NRC 1987:18). Biotechnology has many applications in agriculture, health, and energy and the key to this is the manipulation of living organisms or gene manipulation. Gene manipulation assumes various techniques including recombinant DNA, monoclonal antibody and cell fusion, tissue culture, and bioprocess technolgies.
Recombinant DNA Technology: Recombinant DNA is the hybrid DNA produced by joining together, .in vitro, pieces of DNA taken from different organisms for a specific purpose (OTA 1984:33). As a technology, recombinant DNA is the use of the resulting hybrid DNA to achieve a desired objective such as the creation of a new product or the study of the genetic make-up or heredity of an organism. The study and development of recombinant DNA technology has widened the scientist's understanding of the genetic basis of life both in plants, animals and micro-organisms. It is this increased understanding that has made possible the scientist's ability to manipulate genes to produce desired products. The revolutionary character of recombinant DNA technology lies in
the fact that it can be used to develop and produce new products or
facilitate the production of existing products more efficiently. For
example, the application of this technology in plant agriculture could
eliminate the natural barriers that "prevent different species from mating, offer the possibility of increasing genetic diversity which has
been considerably curtailed following the destruction of the habitats of wild species, a situation that causes the few cultivated species and
varieties to be extremely vulnerable to pathogenic agents and parasites"
(Sasson 1984:110). As stated by Olson (1986:6), biotechnology or recombinant DNA technology can be used to change the genetic constitution of micro-organisms, plants, and animals; by transferring functional genes (the basic unit of heredity) from one plant into the cells of another plant, by regenerating a whole new plant that express the gene which also has to be passed to the offspring of the new plant, scientists hope to transfer certain desired traits, such as resistance to pests, tolerance to abnormal environmental conditions such as toxicity and salinity or the ability of certain plants to fix their own nitrogen. The insertion of a foreign gene into the host must be done under conditions such that the foreign gene will be expressed more abundantly than the host gene (Abelson 1983:611). This is important in order for the scientist to obtain the desired product.
Scientists at UNIDO describe recombinant DNA research as follows:
Recombinant DNA research involves the transfer of genetic material, usually one or more genes, from one organism (the donor) to a second (the host) where they are incorporated, or recombined, into the host's genetic structure. The host is usually a bacterium or a yeast. If all goes well, the recombined genes will perform the same function in the new host as they did in the donor 284
organism. For example, the production in man of the protein human growth hormone (HGH) is coded for by specific genes. In 1978 scientists were able to insert these genes into the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli, thereby enabling it to produce HGH. This process is so successful that sufficiently large quantities of HGH is being made available to treat all persons suffering from dwarfism. Similarly, the new technique has enabled biological production to augment or replace the traditional means of chemical synthesis or extraction for several important substances used in medicine including human insulin and the anti-viral substance interferon (UNIDO/IS.513, 1985:2).
Monoclonal Antibody Technology: Monoclonal antibody technology is the use of hybridomas that produce monoclonal antibodies for a variety of purposes (OTA 1984:393). Basic to monoclonal antibody is cell fusion which "combines the entire genetic contents of cells producing hybrid cells that often express certain traits from both parents. The parent cells can be from different species or from different types of the same species" (NRC 1987:161). The cells which result from this fusion is called hybrid cells or hybridoma which later divide and multiply in culture to give rise to clones - identical daughter cells (UNIDO/IS.513.
1985:3). The clone produces the final product, the needed specific monoclonal antibody known as protein molecules. As described by Sawyer
(1984:21), antibodies:
are a basic constituent of animal and human disease-fighting immune system. When the immune system detects a foreign substance or antigen in the body, it stimulates cells that make a diverse number of antibodies against the antigen. The antibody-producing cells recognize the physiochemical characteristics (electric charge, pattern, or shape) of the particular antigens and produce an antibody that binds specifically to the antigen, thus effectively neutralizing and destroying it.
Antibodies have great potential for solving many animal and human health problems more effectively than was possible. They enable scientists to understand more about animal and human diseases, as well as plant diseases. In plants, protoplast fusion is undertaken to 285 transfer genetic materials from both the nucleus and the cytoplasm in order to produce a hybrid plant (Cocking 1983:257).
Monoclonal antibody will also enhance the physician's ability to diagnose and treat diseases, and to develop appropriate vaccines for immunization. UNIDO scientists state that monoclonal antibody will help scientists "to detect water and air pollutants, to transport anti-cancer medication to specific cancer sites and, in industry, to separate out valuable substances from large quantities of reaction mixture and to purify them" (UNIDO/IS.513, 1985:3).
The successful development of monoclonal antibody technology will be greatly, beneficially felt in many parts of the world when it begins to be fulli applied in animal agriculture. Annual world losses as a result of livestock and poultry diseases is estimated at $14 billion
(NRC 1987:3). In Africa, the problems of trypanosomaisis and swine fever are extremely devastating to the continent's animal agriculture.
Contagious diseases and parasites are the primary constraints to animal agriculture in Africa and many other parts of the world. It is estmated that over 50 million cattle and buffalo, and 100 million sheep and goats are lost annually worldwide through trypanosomaisis, theirleriosis (East coast fever), tick-borne, foot and mouth (FMD), African swine fever and horse sickness, and blue tongue diseases (NRC 1982:148-149).
Vaccines have proved to be the best means currently available for the prevention and control of animal diseases such as those mentioned above. They are a means of immunization by inducing the immune system of the body to produce antibodies. Vaccines currently in use have been found to be inappropriate with regard to efficacy, safety or 286
reactogenicity (adverse side effects), stability, and the cost of
production (NRC 1982:68). These short-comings are associated with the
conventional techniques of producing vaccines. Scientists at the
National Research Council maintain that monoclonal antibody and
recombinant DNA technology will help in the production of vaccines that
will be more effective and stable, safer, and cheaper to produce than
the static conventional techniques (NRC 1982; Sawyer 1984). Monoclonal
antibodies are also very important because they will help scientists to
study and identify animal diseases more accurately. With the use of
monoclonal antibodies to produce more effective vaccines, farmers will
be able to produce food animals more efficiently than they did
previously. As stated by William Davis:
Monoclonal antibody technology will have immediate and long-term effects on the methods used to produce food animals and manage disease problems... The control of disease through selective breeding, better nutrition and the use of more effective vaccines will increase the efficiency of food animal production and permit farmers to reduce their cost of production (Davis, cited in Sawyer 1984:22).
Bioprocess Technology
Bioprocess technology (bioprocess) is the system of using complete
living cells or their components, (for example, enzymes and
chloroplasts) to effect a desired physical and chemical changes (OTA
1984:44). The terms, bioprocess and fermentation, mean the same thing;
the difference is that while the former involves a broader range of
techniques, the later simply refers only to an aspect of bioprocess, namely, anaerobic bioprocess. Further, when fully developed the new bioprocess technique will be expected to cause less environmental degradation than the conventional methods. The new technology will be 287
highly innovative in the sense that it will help scientists to create
new products and foods, treat and use renewable resources such as
biomass for fuel (NRC 1987:41). Bioprocess has undergone some
transformations in history: from domestic (in the home) production of
alcoholic beverages, fermented food, and yeast to industrial production
of high-value added products such as vitamins, enzymes and pharma
ceuticals (OTA 1984:44).
Plant Cell and Tissue Culture
Plant cell and tissue culture (PTC) or simply tissue culture is
defined as "a technique that uses single plant cells, unorganized groups of cells (callus), or organized cell masses (tissue)" (NRC 1982:131).
The process involves:
the initiation of a culture by placing a surface sterilized plant organ or tissue, referred to as an explant or a plant cell or protoplast, into culture on a defined, usually semi-solid medium. From this organ, tissue, cell or protoplast, a rapidly proliferating, disorganized tissue referred to as a callus can be obtained. The continued proliferation of this callus tissue in culture is in the truest sense, tissue culture (ATAS 1984:8).
Plant cell culture not only has great potential for the improvement of economically important plants but also can be used to produce identical plants or used to induce genetic variability (Evans 1985).
Plant cell culture embodies many techniques which can be used in various ways for various purposes. These techniques include:
meristem culture, which allows scientists to produce plants and planting materials that are genetically identical and free from diseases respectively. This techniques has particular relevance to asexually or vegetatively propagated plants such as tubers, for example potato and cassava;
somatic cell culture, which, theoretically, also help in the production of uniform plants. Its particular importance is in its use as a means of screening for genotypes resistant to adverse soil factors, for example, salinity and alkalinity; 288
embryo culture, which is a tool for transferring genes or valuable traits from wild species into the genome of the cells of cultivated species. Embryo culture enables breeders to bring about early germination of seeds that normally would take up to two years to germinate, as in oil palm;
anther culture increases the scientists' selection efficiency, accelerate breeding cycle and facilitates the rate of production of useful mutants;
protoplast culture and fusion is a powerful tool for hybridization in higher plants, and especially where sexual crosses are extremely difficult or impossible for conventional techniques. Two techniques are involved: somatic hybridization which is a combination of the cytoplasm of two plant parents, and sexual crosses in which only the female parent contributes the cytoplasm (Swaminathan 1984:5-7).
There are four areas of short-term research and applications of tissue culture possible in the developing countries (NRC 1982:132; IRRI
1985; ATAS 1984; Collins 1982). The first is in vitro clonal propagation which is basic to the application of biotechnology to agriculture. This technique is applicable to a wide variety of plants that are traditionally propagated asexually or vegetatively (rooting cuttings, budding, grafting, and layering). It makes it easier than conventional techniques to vegetatively propagate plant species that are normally difficult to propagate vegetatively. With i_n vitro clonal propagation, there will be all-season supplies of plantlets which will in turn eliminate seasonal farming. This will, therefore, lead to the solution of agro-economic problems of many developing countries, in creasing the production of export crops and decreasing food dependence.
Two, according to scientists at NRC, tissue culture will enable scientists to produce pest-resistant, pathogen-free crop plants. Pest suppression and disease elimination are a top priority in the solution of biological and environmental agricultural problems of developing 289
countries. Pest- and disease-related crop losses in these countries
such as Nigeria have been tramendous and devastating. Table 5.2 depicts
this fact. Bacteria, fungus and viruses affect crop yields and quality.
Their elimination are important to plant propagation and crop yields, as
well as international exchange of germplasm.
Three, the maintenance of crop germplasm resources and their conservation are extremely important to successful biotechnology application. This is especially critical to asexually propagated plants because of their exposure to climatic instabilities, pests and identification errors (Collins 1982:238). In vitro conservation technique allows plant species to be protected from diseases and pests, and delays mutation or time-related genetic changes in plant species.
Thus protected, disease-free plant materials can be internationally distributed for crop improvement in different parts of the world.
Germplasm exchange is important to, particularly, regional programs of plant biotechnology.
Fourthly, desirable new exotic plant species have been produced by scientists through gene transfer or crosses between certain closely related species. But this has often been very difficult or even impossible to accomplish among widely divergent species. Gene transfer by wide cross hybridization or somatic hybridization can overcome crossing barriers imposed on plant breeding by genetic incompatibilities existing between distantly related species or germplasm. If this is successful, it could bring about dramatic crop improvement in the developing countries. The techniques involved are protoplast fusion
(Cocking 1985:181-185), and embryo culture (Raghavan 1985:185-195). 290
These techniques help to obtain hybrids between sexually incompatible species for wider genetic diversity (Khush & Virmini 1985:54). The need to transfer genes from wild, to cultivated species rests in the fact that the former possesses desirable characteristics which could improve the qualities of the latter. For example, wild species possess genes that are more resistant to pests and diseases than traditional cultivars
(Moss 1985:199).
Advanced methods in this area of biotechnology application involve recombinant DNA technique which eliminate genetic barriers that make it difficult or impossible for diverse species from mating and offer the chances of expanding genetic diversity which has been extensively eroded by the destruction of the habitat of wild species - a destruction that has in turn exposed cultivated species and varieties to pathogens and pests (Sasson 1984:110). This advanced form of biotechnology have long term, over ten years, possibilities; will require many years of research and substantial investment to create complete stable plants that have inherited the genes of allien species introduced into its cells (Sasson
1984).
Plant Tissue Culture enables plant breeders to manipulate plant cells in physical and chemical environments which induce them (plant cells) to multiply (cloning) and then regenerate into full-fledged plants. With tissue culture techniques, breeders can propagate an important plant specie, producing many genetically identical copies of it more efficiently and rapidly than in conventional breeding techniques. It is the fastest method of cloning, up to a million times faster than traditional methods and the new plants are of uniformly high 291 quality, stress- and disease-resistsnt, more vigorous, high-yielding
(Lewis 1982:152-153; Locy 1984:8). Table 36 shows estimated reduced time for the development of certain crop varieties through PTC as compared with conventional techniques.
Table 36 Reduced Time for New Variety Development
Crop Conventional Somaclonal Breeding Variation
Tomato 7-8 years 3-4 years
Sugarbeet 12-14 years 6-7 years
Coffee 25 years 12 years
Sugarcane 10-14 years 5-6 years
Source: Evans 1985:64.
Nitrogen Fixation
Nitrogen fixation is the most important of all factors that are essential to the improvement of plant growth and crop yields (Hardy and
Havelka 1975:633). Nitrogen is an essential source of plant growth, development and propagation. In order for these to happen, nitrogen must be made available in a usable form. Lack of it in sufficient supply limits crop productivity.
Important plant species which naturally co-exist with micro organisms completely depend on the latter for their survival
(UNIDO/IS.513, 1985:14-15). Plants normally obtain their nitrogen from the soil through the action of the microbes which break down nitrogen of the air into a usable form. A few plants have the ability to efficiently change nitrogen of the air into amonia for their own use in
a process called nitrogen fixation (Barton et. al. 1983:673). Examples
of these plants are the legumes which "form a symbiotic relationship
with the soil bacteria, rhizobium, escapsulating them into root nodules.
These bacteria manufacture the nitrogen-fixing enzyme, nitrogenase,
which provides two-thirds of all the nitrogen fixed on the plant - about
200 million tons annually" (Lewis 1982:154). By living in the root
nodules of the legumes, the rhizobium or micro-organism is protected by
the plant while the rhizobium manufactures food for the plant.
Alternatively plants can be artificially supplied with nitrogen in the
form of amonia, urea or nitrate fertilizers. But the cost of doing so
is highly exorbitant for many small farms in the developing countries.
This cost constraint brought the green revolution to become stagnant.
Scientists at the IARCs work to improve nitrogen fixation among
important crops. The International Crop Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) has done outstanding work in developing methods of improving nitrogen fixation in tropical farms; results show
300 - 500 percent increase in nitrogen fixation (Lewis 1982:154). IITA
(1985) has also increased the rate of nitrogen fixation among plants through such methods as inter-cropping between, for example, maize and cowpea. BioTechnica International is a major firm in U. S. doing extensive research on rhizobacteria improvement and nitrogen fixation.
Eli Lilly and Elanco Products also do rhizobium research. Using the tools of genetic engineering, researchers at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison have developed new strains of dry beans which can fix approximately 60 percent of their nitrogen requirement (ABN 1987:21). 293
It is expected that farmers who adopt the new varieties will reduce their fertilizer consumption by about 50 percent.
Photosynthesis
Photosynthesis is the conversion of atmospheric carbon dioxide
(C02) into carbohydrates and releasing oxygen (02) into the atmosphere by higher plants (Barton et. al. 1983:674). Barton and others explain that photosynthesis takes place within the chloroplasts or in the enzymatic path-ways of the plants and involves a complex mechanism such as the regulation of chloroplast gene expression, not easily compre hended by plant scientists. But as these mechanisms or the natural processes become better understood, it will be possible to transfer the enzymes responsible for carbon dioxide fixation between plant varieties to create enzymes that can be more efficient in carbon dioxide fixation.
In other words, photosynthesis increases the efficiency of carbon dioxide assimilation by plants (Zelitch 1975:626).
DuPont scientists work to increase photosynthesis capability in plants. Attempts are made to direct more carbohydrate manufacture to the edible part of the plant (ABN 1987:3). Eli Lilly, in joint effort with International Plant Research Institute (IPRI), is also working to increase photosynthesis capability in certain plants.
Stress Tolerance
Economically important crops are highly susceptible to abnormal environmental conditions such as high temperatures and drought, as has been mentioned earlier. Scientists are discovering that certain weeds possess stress resistance powers. This discovery leads to attempts to transfer resistance traits from the weeds to the cultivated species 294 through genetic engineering (Barton et. al. 1983:675). In the past, previous technologies such as the green revolution have attempted to eradicate these weeds because they were seen to be incompatible with cultivated species. In Nigeria, and other developing countries, traditional farmers do weeding simply because weeds generally have choking effects on the crops. The herbicides introduced by the green revolution was a hazard to weeds; it did not discriminate between beneficial weeds (those now found by scientists to possess desirable traits which can be introduced to important crops to improve their characteristics) and non-beneficial ones (Barton et. al. 1983).
Resistance to Pests and Pathogen
Much of the impediments to higher and sustained crop productivity is as a result of the action of insects, viruses, nematodes, weeds, fungi and other things. The cost to farmers for controlling these through the use of insecticides, pesticides and herbicides has been enormous and unaffordable to farmers in the LDCs. The research and development of plants with induced-resistance similar to immunization of animals with vaccines, have proved to be the means of counteracting these biological effects (Barton et. al. 1983:674). According to Barton and others, genetic engineering will play a major role in crop protection from pests and pathogens by innoculating the crops with pathogens or treat them with certain chemicals. Appendix B
DEFINITIONS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
In chapter seven, the two functional components of research,
science and technology, as an important part of the chapter, were defined. In this appendix, we define agricultural research and Its forms for reference.
Agricultural research is defined as:
a systematic effort to develop new methods (technology) to increase agricultural productivity or technical efficiency. These methods can include socioeconomic research, as well as conventional field and laboratory work by agricultural scientists (World Bank 1981:14).
There are three forms of research activity, namely, basic or pure or fundamental research, applied or developmental research, and adaptive research.
Basic research is carried out for the purpose of gaining new knowledge about something. This type of research:
provides the background knowledge which allows innovation to be created in a steady stream and makes agricultural development a dynamic process of continuous change rather than a basically static process of shifting from one plateau to another (Mellor 1966:283).
Applied research is done for obtaining new knowledge or for generating new technology and is directed to the solution of specific problems already identified by the researcher: it is problem-oriented.
Applied research "by which new materials, new processes, new techniques, new instruments and equipment are developed is developmental" (Okigbo
1984:9).
295 Adaptive research has the objective of modifying a technology
(equipment or techniques) or the characteristics of a crop which has been developed in a particular socioeconomic and environmental background for effective adoption or use in a different environment: for example, the transferring of a technology from an advanced, temperate region to a primitive, tropical areas. Adaptive research in agriculture may involve the development of economically important crop varieties which have desirable characteristics such as high-yielding capacity under local environment and have the ability to resist growth impediments exerted by biological diseases and pests (Harrar et. al.
1969:95). According to Harrar and others, through adaptive research, scientists can take full advantage of plant materials now available in germplasm banks around the world. In the same manner, the developing countries can take advantage of their rich genetic diversity to solve their production problems.
When increased productivity is achieved, follow-up research is undertaken to maintain its sustainability and yield stability. This type of research is called maintenance research or productivity- sustaining research (Plucknett et. al. 1986:40-41). The principle of agricultural productivity-sustaining research is, according to Plucknett and others, that "as yield rise, so must the effort to sustain the gains" be made. This strategy also deals with yield inhibitors such as pests and pathogens which reproduce during the planting seasons. In biotechnology, efforts are being made to create seeds capable of resisting the effects of these pests and pathogens. Finally, what is international research? International research means "research which, although based in one country, is of wider concern, regionally or globally; is independent of national interest and government control; and retains appropriate links with national and other regional or international research systems to ensure the necessary testing of results and feedback of both results and needs" (TAC., cited in Crawford 1977:285). The idea of international agricultural research originated with the green revolution. Appendix C
PLACES VISITED BV THE RESEARCHER
Appendix C simply lists important places the researcher visited
to do the research. It also includes further information about the
characteristics of the respondents, as well as the number of them who
were interviewed.
The Universities:
1. The University of Nigeria, Nsukka
- Department of Crop Science
- Plant Tissue Culture Satellite Center
(Department of Botany)
2. Ahmadu Bello University, Samaru, Zaria
- Plant Breeding Satellite Center
(Institute of Agricultural Research)
3. The University of Ibadan, Ibadan
- Department of Agricultural Biology
4. The University of Ife, Ile-Ife
- Department of Plant Science
National Agricultural Research Institutes:
1. National Root Crops Research Institute, Umuahia
2. National Cereals Research Institute, Badeggi
3. Institute of Agricultural Research, Samaru
4. Institute of Agricultural Research and Training, Ibadan
298 5. Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria, Ibadan
6. National Institute for Oil-Palm Research, Benin
7. National Institute of Horticultural Research, Ibadan
Government Agencies:
1. Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, Lagos
2. Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Lagos
3. Central Bank of Nigeria, Lagos
4. Federal Office of Statistics, Lagos
International Center:
1. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan
Number of Respondents Interviewed:
The Universities and NARIs - 38
FMST/FMA - - - 6
IITA - - - 6
Others - 4
Total - - 54
Characteristics of Respondents:
Highest Degree - Ph. D. (Crop/Biological Sciences)
Places of Education:
(a) United States and Canada - 60% of
all respondents.
(b) Europe (West) - 30% of all respondents
(c) Others (including Nigeria) - 10% of
all respondents. Appendix 0
POPULAR SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS FOUND IN NIGERIAN LIBRARIES
Biological sciences journals are good sources of scientific information. Biotechnology researchers in the advanced countries published in various important journals found in many libraries in
Nigeria. They include:
Annals of Applied Biology
Annual Review of Plant Physiology
Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology
Archives of Microbiology
Australian Journal of Botany
Biochemistry
BioScience
Bio/Technology
Genetics Abstracts
Journal of Basic Microbiology
Journal of Plant Growth Regulation
Journal of Plant Physiology
Nature
New Scientist
Plant Breeding Reviews
Plant Cell Reports
Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture
Science. Appendix E
QUESTIONNAIRE
Kindly.answer the following questions as objectively as you can:
1. Are you aware of the new Biotechnology?
2. If yes, and if your institute or university currently does bio technology research, what aspects of it are you engaged in (for example, plant tissue culture, recombinant DNA, and genetic engineering)?
3. If you are engaged in one technique and not in the others, what factors led you to opt for the one you adopt?
4(a). Have you had any practical results useful to the Nigerian agriculture? Please give some details.
4(b). If you do biotechnology research, from where do you obtain your research materials, locally or do you depend on foreign sources?
5. What breeding or research advantages do you find in using the techniques of biotechnology? Please give some details.
6. What factors, if any, could impede agricultural biotechnology research in Nigeria?
7. Biotechnology research in the United States and Europe is increasingly acquiring a private and proprietary character (privatization), do you expect the same trend to take place in Nigeria?
8. It is expected that privatization in the developed countries will affect biotechnology research in the developing countries such as Nigeria in terms of research support and exchange of scientific information, for example, how do you (Nigeria) plan to deal with the potential problems?
9. What are your major sources of funding; how much (in N or US$)?
10. If you receive private funding or any type of support from foreign organizations, please state the conditions underlining it.
11. Please name agricultural research organization(s) outside Africa to which your institute or university is directly affiliated with (for example, Tissue Culture Centers in the United States or Europe, International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, and the Microbiological Resource Centers)?
12. What benefits do you expect to derive from the affiliations?
301 302
13. What, if any, are the basis of the National Institute-University relationship?
------exchange of scientific information
------collaborative research
------other.
14. If you do, to what extent has your interaction with the Inter national Institute of Tropical Agricultural Research influenced your research activities (for example, in learning more of advanced agricultural technologies)?
15. Do you think that Nigeria has the needed manpower to do advanced agricultural research such as in biotechnology?
16. How do you rate the Nigerian agricultural research system (the Research Institutes and the Universities)?
17. How do you view IITA in terms of its role in Nigerian agriculture? SOME SELECTED INTERVIEWEES
C. 0. Onuorah Director, NACGRAB Ibadan
J. A. B. Effionayi Cief Scientific Officer Federal Ministry of Science and Technology Lagos
0. Ogunye Director, Medical and Natural Sciences Federal Ministry of Science and Technology Lagos
0. Barrow Assistant Director, Medical and Natural Sciences Federal Ministry of Science and Technology Lagos
Titilola A. Farri Assistant Chief Scientific Officer Federal Ministry of Science and Technology Laggos
0. Adetunji Federal Ministry of Science and Technology Lagos
C. C. Anojulu Crop Science Federal Ministry of Agriculture Lagos
J. 0. Uzo (Crop Science) Department of Crop Science University of Nigeria, Nsukka
E. E. Ene-Obong (Genetics/Plant Breeding) Department of Botany/Plant Tissue Culture Center University of Nigeria, Nsukka
R. 0. Ogbuji (Nematology) University of Nigeria, Nsukka
M. 0. Ijere (Agricultural Economics) University of Nigeria, Nsukka 0. 0. Okoli (Plant Breeding) Assistant Director National Root Crop Research Institute Umuahia John Davis Director, Institute of Agricultural Research Zaria
C. C. Nwasike (Millet Breeding) IAR/Ahmadu Bello University Zaria
A. Leleji Chairman, Plant Science IAR/Ahmadu Bello University Zaria
A. E. Akingbohungbe Chairman, Department of Plant Science University of Ife, Ile-Ife
M. C. E. Ago Maize Research National Cereals Research Institute Badeggi
M. I. Ezuah (Entomology) National Cereals Research Institute Badeggi
T. A. 0. Ladiende (Genetics) Chairman, Department of Agricultural Biology University of Ibadan, Ibadan
0. A. Fatokun (Agronomy/Plant Tissue Culture) Department of Agronomy University of Ibadan, Ibadan
B. 0. Ugwu (Agricultural Economics) National Root Crops Research Institute Umuahia
Chief Offor Community Development . Shell BP., Port Harcourt 0. Tafarin (Crop Science) Institute of Agricultural Research and Training Ibadan
E. B. Essan (Tissue Culture) Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria Ibadan
M. 0. K. Adebola Director, Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria Ibadan
M. 0. Omidiji (Genetics) Senior Research Fellow Institute of Agricultural Research and Training Ibadan
B. N. Okigbo Deputy Director International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Ibadan
Akron E. Goli Genetic Resources Unit, IITA
J. H. M, Henderson (Tuskegee University, USA) Visiting Senior Scientist, IITA
S. Y. Ng Plant Nutrition, IITA
S. K. Hahn Program Director, Root and Tuber Improvement, IITA
L. Bello Plant Breeder, IITA.
B. A. Nwankwo Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research Benin, Bendel Appendix F
OBSTACLES TO RESEARCH IN THE NIGERIAN ENVIRONMENT
Research in the Nigerian socio-political context is far more difficult than in a developed country. Vital information on government policy or research topic is often considered confidential. This editorial in a major Nigerian newspaper indicates the types of difficulties a researcher can encounter:
Seeking information in Nigeria, even from official sources is an arduous task, sometimes an ordeal in itself... Information seekers do not just walk into an office and walk out in a matter of minutes, satisfied with the knowledge they have obtained. This is because the processes are tedious and time- wasting. Besides, those who are in the position to give information even on public issues, generally behave as if it is a favour telling you what you need to know. You must wait to be booked for formal appointments in three to four days, at the earliest, if you have reliable contacts, but it generally takes a week or more. It does not matter whether you are asking for routine information or the purpose for which you request it. Those who are not aware of this situation hastily fly into the Federal Capital early in the day from different parts of the country to obtain some official information in the hope of returning home same day... Alas, their dreams usually get shattered. They, therefore, end up taking hotel accomodation to go through the normal grill and frustrations of waiting for some days or weeks to get attended to, If they are finally lucky (Sunday Times, March 23, 1986).
Access to all types of data, primary or secondary, is almost impossible. Bureaucratic red tape, insensitivity of some public officials to the researcher's needs, and lack of facilities such as copying machines raise a seemingly unending series of obstacles.
One particular difficulty that could introduce bias into this study was that 25 of the interviewees were chosen and delegated to participate in the interviews by their superiors at the Research Institutes, the
Universities and the Ministries. Thus, the researcher did not have
306 307
absolute freedom of choice and was unable to interview more than one
person at some sites. Many potential respondents were unwilling to
participate because they were not authorized to do so. This, therefore,
reduced the number of people who could be interviewed, narrowing the
range of data that could be obtained. However, there is reason to
believe that the respondents did provide responses to more general
questions that adequately represented the general reality within the
Nigerian science community. Moreover, those who were chosen were
considered by their superiors as being more knowledgable about the
problem than others which provides some assurance that the opinions they
expressed were reliable.
These problems, in addition to resources and time constraints, made
it difficult to achieve conclusive results regarding the hypotheses
being tested. Within these constraints, the most important issues
received the most attention. Thus, in the end the Nigerian political
economic environment hampers the conduct of any social scientific
research. There can be no doubt that bias could have entered the data collection process at many stages. However, this is largely unavoidable
in an uncontrolled field research study. However, there remains reason to believe that the results presented have some useful content. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abalu. George 0. "The green revolution strategy in Nigeria: major economic problems and issues", in Abalu, George 0., Yahaya Abdullahi and Ayesha M. Imam, The Green Revolution in Nigeria? Zaria, Nigeria: IAR. 1984, pp. 77-106.
Abdullahi. A. "The problems and prospects of the green revolution for agricultural and rural development of Nigeria: technical and environmental perspectives", in Abalu, George 0.. Yahaya Abdullahi and Ayesha M. Imam, The Green Revolution in Nigeria, Zaria, Nigeria: IAR. 1984, pp. 1-21.
Abelson, Philip H. "Biotechnology: an overview", Science, vol. 219, (11 February):611-613, 1983.
Abidogun, Ayo. "Cocoa research in Nigeria: an ex post investment analysis", The Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, (March):21-35, 1978.
Acogny, Togoun Servais. Proposed UNIDO Programme of Action Based on the Lagos Plan of Action, UNIDO/IO.412, 1981.
Afigbo, A. The Warrant Chiefs. London: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Agricultural Biotechnology News, November/December, 1986.
Agricultural Biotechnology News, January/February, 1987.
Agricultural Biotechnology News, July/August, 1987.
Ake, Claude. "Indigenization: problems of transformation in a neo colonial economy", in Ake, C., Political Economy of Nigeria. Lagos: Longman, 1985, pp. 173-200.
Akeredolu-Ale, E. 0. "Private foreign investment and the underdevelopment of indigenous entrepreneurship in Nigeria", in Williams, Girvan, Nigeria: Economy and Society. London: Rex Collins, 1976, pp. 25-40.
Alavi, Hamza. "Imperialism old and new", in Miliband, Ralph and John Saville (ed.), The Socialist Register. New York: Monthly Review Press. 1964, pp. 104-126.
308 309
Amin. Samir. "Underdeveiopment and dependence in Black Africa - their historical origins and contemporary forms”. Social and Economic Studies, vol. 22. no. 1. (March): 177-196. 1973.
______. Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment. New York: Monthly Review Press. 1974.
______. Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formation of Peripheral Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press. 1976.
______. "Self-reliance and the new international economic order", Monthly Review, vol. 29. (July - August):1-21. 1977.
Anazodo, U. G. N. Achieving Self-reliance in Agricultural Development in Nigeria Through Engineering. Paper presented in the 2nd Annual Conference of the Biotechnology Society of Nigeria, May 1986, 1986.
Andrae, Gunla, and Bjorn Beckman. The Wheat Trap. London: Zed Books Limited, 1985.
Anikpo, Mark. "Nigeria's evolving class structure", in Ake, Claude, Political Economy of Nigeria. Lagos: Longman Inc. 1985, pp. 33-52.
Annerstedt, Jan. "Technological dependence: a permanent phenomenon of world inequality? Some implications of the present distribution of global R&D resources", in Ernst Dieter (ed.), The New International Division of Labour, Technology and Underdevelopment: Consequences for the Third World. New York: Campus Verlag, 1980, pp. 84-109.
Apter, David E. Rethinking Development: Modernization, Dependency, and Postmodern Politics. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1987.
Arrighi, Giovanni. "International corporations, labor aristocracies, and economic development in Tropical Africa", in Arrighi, G., and John S. Saul, Essays on the Political Economy of Africa. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1987, pp. 105-151.
______. "Social and economic development in Tropical Africa", in Arrighi, G., and John S. Saul, Essays on the Political Economy of Africa. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973, pp. 11-43.
Ashraf, M., P. Balogun and A. Jabrin. On-Farm Research Bulletin, no. 1. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA. 1985.
Assenjo, Juan A. "View from developing countries", ATAS Bulletin, vol. 1. (November):63-64, 1984.
ATAS Bulletin, vol. 1, (November), 1984, p. 59. 310
Baltimore. David. "Priorities in biotechnology”, in Priorities in Biotechnology Research for International Development: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington D. C: National Academy Press. 1982. pp. 30-37.
Bangura. Yusuf. "The Nigerian economic crisis", in Lawrence. Peter (ed.). World Recession and The Food Crisis in Africa. London: James Currey, 1986, pp. 40-58.
Baran. Paul. The Political Economy of Growth. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1968.
Barber, William J. The Economy of British Central Africa. London: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Barton, Kenneth A., and Winston J. Brill. Prospects in plant genetic engineering", Science, vol. 219 (11 February): 671-676, 1983.
Baumgartner, Thomas. "Transfer of technology: production of development or reproduction of dependency?", in Ernst, Dieter (ed.), The New International Division of Labour, Technology and Underdevelopment: Consequences for the Third World. New York: Campus Verlag, 1980, pp. 575-591.
Bauzon, Kenneth E., and Charles F. Abel. "Dependency: history, theory, and a reappraisal", in Tetreault, Mary Ann. and Charles F. Abel (eds.). Dependency Theory and the Return of High Politics. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986, pp. 43-69.
Beckman, Bjorn. "Imperialism and the national bourgeoisie", Review of African Political Economy. No. 22, (October - December): 1-11. 1981.
______. "Whose state? state and capitalist development in Nigeria", Review of African Political Economy, No. 23, (January- April): 37-51, 1982.
______. "Neo-colonialism, capitalism and the state of Nigeria", in Bernstein, Henry and Bonnie K. Campbell (eds.), Contradictions of Accumulation in Africa. London: Sage Publications, 1985, pp. 71-113.
Bell, Clive. "The acquisition of agricultural technology, its developments and effects", Journal of Development Studies, (9 October): 99-121, 1972.
Bell. R. M. "Learning and the accumulation of industrial technology capacity in developing countries", in Fransman, Martin and Kenneth King, Technological Capability in the Third World, 1984, pp. 187- 209. 311
Berg, Alan. The Nutrition Factor. Washington D. C: The Brookings Institution, 1973.
Betteheim. Charles. "Theoretical Comments", in Emmanuel, Arrighi, Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972, pp. 271-431.
Bialy, Harvey. "Spotlight shines on international biotechnology". Bio/Technology, 5{December): 1257, 1987.
Bienefeld, Manfred. "International constraints and opportunities", in Fransman, Martin and Kenneth King, Technological Capability in the Third World. London: The Macmillan Press, 1984, pp. 161-173.
Biersteker, Thomas J. "Self-reliance in theory and practice in Tanzanian trade relations", International Organization, vol. 34, no. 4. (Autumn): 229-264, 1980.
Blomstrom, Magnus and Bjorn Hettne. Development Theory in Transition. London: Zed Books, 1984.
Borlaug, Norman E. "The green revolution for food and peace", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. xxvii, no. 6, (June): 6-9, 42-48, 1971.
Borlaug, Norman E. "Contributions of conventional plant breeding to food production", Science, vol. 219, (11 February): 689-693, 1983.
Brewer, Anthony. Marxist Theories of Imperialism. New York: Routeledge and Kegan, 1980.
Brewster, Havelock. "Economic dependence: a quantitative interpretation". Social and Economic Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, (March): 90-95, 1973.
Brown, Lester. Seeds of Change: The Green Revolution in the 1970s. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970.
Browne, Roberts, and Robert J. Cummings. The Lagos Plan of Action Versus The Berg Report. Washington D. C: Howard University Press, 1985.
Bruce. Johnson. "Agricultural production potentials and small farmer strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa", in Bales, Robert H., and Michael F. Lofchie (eds.), Agricultural Development in Africa. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1980.
Brunt, Jennifer Van. "New life for UNIDO center", Bio/Technology, 3(April): 289, 1985.
Bukharin, N. I. Imperialism and World Economy. London: Merlin Press, 1972 312
Bull, Allan T., Geoffrey Holt, and Malcolm D. Lilly. Biotechnology: International Trends and Perspectives. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1982.
Bunsting, A. H. "The International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR)", Crop Genetic Resources in Africa, 1980, pp. 14-22.
Buttel, Frederick and I. Garth Youngberg. Implications of Biotechnology for the Development of Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Paper Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Resource Conserving, Environmentally Sound Agricultural Alternatives, Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachussetts (August), 1982.
Buttel, Frederick, and Martin Kenney. From Green Revolution to Biorevolution: Some Observations on the Changing Technological Bases of Economic Transformation in the Third World. New York: Cornell Rural Sociology Bulletin, no. 132, (August), 1983.
Buttel, Frederick, and Martin Kenney. Biotechnology and International Development: Prospects for Overcoming Dependence in the Information Age. New York: Cornell University Rural Sociology Bulletin, no. 142 (March), 1985.
Cacia, Geoffredo. "Nigeria: oil plot or oil glut?" Journal of African Marxists, no. 3, (January): 78-92, 1983.
Cain, P. J. Economic Foundations of British Overseas Expansion. London: Macmillan Publishers, 1983.
Caporaso, James A. "Introduction to the special issue of international organisation on dependence and dependency in the global system", International Organisation, vol. 32, no. 1, (Winter): 13-42, 1978.
______. "Dependence and dependency and power in the global system: structural and behavioural analysis", International Organisation, vol. 32, no. 1, (Winter): 13-43, 1978.
Cardoso, Fernando H., and Enzo Faletto. Dependency and Development. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.
Chilcote, Donald H. Theories of Development and Underdevelopment. Boulder: Westview Press, 1984.
Clark, Cal, Charles Doran and George Modelski. "Introduction", in Doran, C.., G. Modelski, and C. Clark, North/South Relations. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1983, pp. ix-xx.
Cleaver, Harry M. "The contradictions of the green revolution", Monthly Review, vol. 24, no. 2, (June): 80-111, 1972. 313
Cocking, E. C, "Protoplast fusion and its application in agriculture", Biotechnology in International Agricultural Research: Proceedings of the International Agricultural Research Centers. 23-27 April, 1984, pp. 189-197. Philippines: IRRI. 1985.
Cocking, Harry M. "Hybrid and cybrid production via protoplast fusion", in Owens, Lowell D. (ed.), Genetic Engineering: Applications to Agriculture. London: Rowmen and Allanheld Publishers, 1983, pp. 257-266.
Collins. G. B. "Plant cell and tissue culture: an overview", Priorities in Biotechnology Research for International Development: Proceedings of a Workshop, July 26-30, pp. 230-249. Washington D. C: National Academy Press, 1982.
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. News from CGIAR, vol. 2, no. 1, (March). Washington D. C: CGIAR, 1982.
______. News from CGIAR, vol. 3, no. 4, (December). Washington D.C: CGIAR, 1983.
______. News from CGIAR, vol. 3, no. 4, (September): 3. Washington D. C: CGIAR, 1985.
Cooper, Charles. "Science, technology and production in the underdeveloped countries: an introduction", Journal of Development Studies, 9(0ctober): 1-17, 1984
Crawford, J. G. "Development of the International Research System", in Arndt, T. M., D. G. Dalrymple, and V. W. Ruttan (eds.), Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977, pp. 281-294
Dahlberg, Kenneth A. Beyond the Green Revolution. New York: Plenum Press, 1979.
Dalkey, Norman and Olef Helmer. "An experimental application of the delphi method to the use of experts", Management Science, vol. 9, no. 3, (April): 458-467, 1963.
Dalrymple, Dana G. "The adoption of high-yielding grain varieties in developing nations", Agricultural History, vol. 53, no. 4, (October): 704-726, 1979.
Daly, J. "Biotechnology: accelerating development", Horizon, vol. 2, (November): 18-21, 1983.
David, Edward E. "Science futures: the industrial connections", Science, vol. 203, (2 March): 834-840, 1979. 314
David, Wilfred L. The IMF Policy Paradigm: The Macroeconomics of Stabilization. Structural Adjustment, and Economic Development. New York: Praeger Publishers. 1985.
David, Wilfred L. Conflicting Paradigms in the Economics of Developing Nations. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1986.
Day, P. R. "Long-term goals in agricultural plant improvement", in Arber, Warner, Karl Illmenensee, W. J. Peacock, and Peter Starlinger, Genetic Manipulation: Impacts on Man and Society. London: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Dembo. David, Clarence Dias, and Ward Morehouse. "Impact on social relationship: the risk of privatization of technology", ATAS Bulletin, vol. 1, (November): 52-56. New York: United Nations, 1984.
Dinham, Barbara, and Colin Hines. Agribusiness in Africa. London: Earth Resources Research Limited, 1983.
Dobb, Maurice. Studies in Development of Capitalism. New York: International Publishers, 1947.
Dore, Ronald. "Technological self-reliance: sturdy idea or self- serving rhetoric", in Fransman, Martin and Kenneth King, Technological Capability in the Third World. London: The Macmillan Press, 1984, pp. 65-80.
Dos Santos, T. "The structure of dependence", American Economic Review, vol. LX. no. 2. (May): 231-236, 1970.
Dos Santos, T. "The crisis of development theory and the problem of dependence in Latin America", in Bernstein, Henry (ed.), Underdevelopment and Development. New York: Penguin Books, 1976, pp. 57-80.
Doyle, Jack. Altered Harvest. New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1985
Eicher, Carl K., and Carl Liedholm (eds.). Growth and Development of the Nigerian Economy. Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1970.
Ejike, Chiweyite. "News and comments: biotechnology in Nigeria", Nigerian Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 1, 1983, pp. i-ii.
Ekekwe, Eme N. "State and economic development in Nigeria", in Ake, Claude (ed.), Political Economy of Nigeria. Lagos: Longman Inc., 1985, pp. 53-70.
Ekundare, R. O. The Economic History of Nigeria, 1860-1960. London: Methuen, 1973. 315
Emmanuel, A. Unequal Exchange, A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972.
Ene-Obong, E. E. "Haploid plants from anthers and pollen - potentials and implications in crop plant improvement in the tropics". Africa Regional Symposium on Tissue Culture of Economically Important Plants. Nsukka: University of Nigeria. 1983.
Ernst, Dieter. "International transfer of technology, technological dependence and underdevelopment: key issues", Ernst, Dieter (ed.), The New International Division of Labour, Technology and Underdevelopment. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1980, pp. 15-70.
Evans, David. "Crop improvement using tissue culture", Biotechnology 85: The World Biotech Report 1985, vol. 2. USA. New York: Online International Inc., 1985.
Evans, Peter. Dependent Development. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1979.
Evenson, Robert E. Benefits and obstacles to appropriate agricultural technology", The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 458, pp. 54-67, 1981.
Evenson, Robert E., and Yoav Kislev. Agricultural Research andd Productivity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975.
Famoriyo, Segun. Land Tenure and Agricultural Development in Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: The Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, 1979.
Federal Government of Nigeria. Federal Republic of Nigeria: Third National Development Plan. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Economic Development, 1975.
______. The Green Revolution: A Food Production Plan for Nigeria. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Agriculture, 1980.
______. Federal Republic of Nigeria: Fourth National Development Plan 1981-85, vol. 1. Lagos: Federal Ministry of National Planning, 1981.
______. Information Bulletin on Nigerian Agriculture, (January). Lagos: Federal Ministry of Agriculture, 1984.
______. (Undated) An Outline of Nigerian Agricultural Policy. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Agriculture. 316
Flinn, William L., and Frederick H. Buttel. "Sociocultural constraints on the transfer and adoption of agricultural technologies in low income countries", in Molnar, Joseph, and Howard Clontis, Trans ferring Food Production Technology to Developing Nations: Economic and Social Dimensions. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1983, pp. 125-145.
Food and Agricultural Organization. Agriculture Toward 2000. Rome: FAO, 1981.
_ . FAO Agricultural Commodity Projections to 1990. Rome: FAO, 1986.
_ . Production Year Book, vol. 39, 1985, 1985.
Trade Year Book, vol. 39, 1985
Forest, Tom. "Agricultural policies in Nigeria 1900-78", in Hayer, Judith; Pepe Roberts and Gavin Williams, Rural Development in Tropical Africa. London: The Macmillan Press, 1981, pp. 222-25.
Frank, Andre Gunder. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969.
______. "Economic dependence, class structure and under development policy", in Cockcroft, James D., and Andre Gunder Frank, and D.L. Johnson. Dependence and Underdevelopment. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1972, pp. 19-45.
______. Lumpenbourgeoisie: Lumpendevelopment. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972.
Fransman, Martin. "Technological capability in the Third World: an overview", in Fransman, Martin and Kenneth King (eds.), Technological Capability in the Third World. London: The Macmillan Press, 1984, pp. 3-30.
Freebairn, Donald K. "Income disparities in the agricultural sector: regional and institutional stresses", in Poleman, Thomas T., and Donald K. Freebairn, Food, Population and Employment: The Impact of the Green Revolution, 1973.
Furtado, Celso. Development and Underdevelopment. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1964.
Galli, Rosemary E. The Political Economy of Rural Development: Peasants, International Capital, and the State. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981.
Galtung, John. Development, Environment and Technology: Toward a Technology for Self-reliance. New York: United Nations, 1979. 317
Giaraatti, Bartletti A. "The university, industry, and cooperative research". Science, vol. 218 (24 December): 1278-1280, 1982.
Girvan, N. "The development of dependency economics in the Latin America", Social and Economic Studies, vol. 22. no. 1, pp. 1-20, 1973.
Glazerman and G. Kursanov (ed.). Historical Materialism: Basic Problems. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1967.
Goldstein, David J. "Latin America: three case studies", ATAS Bulletin, vol. 1, (November): 36-47, 1984.
Goodman, Robert M. "Bringing new technology to old world agriculture", Bio/Technology, 3(August): 708, 1985.
Green, R. H. "Economic Independence and economic co-operation", in Ghai, Dharam (ed.), Economic Independence in Africa. Dar Es Salam: East African Literature Bureau, 1973, pp. 45-87.
Griffin, Keith. The Political Economy of Agrarian Change. Oxford: The Macmillan Press, 1974.
Gurnsey, John. "Biotechnology in Europe: the structure of an industry", Bio/Technology, September, 1983, pp. 561-565.
Hahn, S. K. Tropical Root Crops: Their Improvement and Utilization. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA, 1984.
Hancock, W. K. Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs, vol. 2. London: Oxford University Press, 1940.
Hansen, Michael; L. Busch, J. Burkhardt, W. Lacy, and L. R. Lacy. "Plant breeding and biotechnology: new technologies raise important social questions", BioScience, vol. 36, no. 1, (January):29-39, 1986.
Hardy, R. W. F., and V. D, Havelka. "Nitrogen fixation research: a key to world food?" Science, vol. 188 (9 May): 633-643, 1975.
Harrar, J. G., and Sterling Wortman. "Expanding food production in hungry nations: the promise, the problems", The American Assembly, Overcoming World Hunger. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1969, pp. 89-135.
Harris, Marvin, "How green the revolution", Natural History, vol. LXXXI, no. 6, (June-July): 28-30, 1972.
Hartley, C. W. S. The Oil Palm. New York: Longman Group Limited, 1977.
Hartman, E. H. Evolution and Change at IITA: The Way Ahead. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA, 1984. Havens, Eugene, and William Flinn. "Green revolution technology, and community development: the limits of action programs", Economic Development and Change, vol. 23, no, 3, (April): 469-481, 1975,
Hawkes, J. G. "Genetic resources in Africa", Crop Genetic Resources in Africa, Proceeding of a Workshop jointly organized by the Association for the Advancement of Agricultural Sciences in Africa and the IITA, 4-6 January, 1978. Nigeria: IITA, 1980, pp. 1-13, 14-22.
Hawthorne, Edward P. The Transfer of Technology, Instanbul: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1970.
Hilferding, R. "Finance Capital" (cited in Brewer, Anthony. Marxist Theories of Imperialism. New York: Routeledge and Kegan, 1980, pp 81-86.
Hill, Kim Q. and Jib Fowles. "The methodological worth of the delphi forecasting technique", Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 179-192, 1975.
Hobson, J. A. Imperialism: A Study. London: George Allen and Unwin Limited, 1938.
Hogben, S. J. The Muhammadan Emirates of Nigeria. London: Oxford University Press, 1930.
Humphrey, Craig R., and Frederick R. Buttel. Environment, Energy and Society. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1982.
Hutton, Richard. Biorevolution: DNA and the Ethics of Man-made Life. New York: New American Library, 1978.
Idachaba, Francis S. Agricultural Research Policy in Nigeria. Washington D. C: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1980.
International Agricultural Development Service, Report/1984. Virginia:IADS, 1985.
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. Annual Report 1978, 1979
_ . Annual Report 1983, 1984.
_ . Annual Report 1984. Rome: IBPGR, 1985.
International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. A Note on Affiliated Centers and the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. ICGEB/Prep. Comm./4/4/Rev. 1. Vienna, Austria. 319
International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Work Plan of Research and Other Activities Under the Interim Programme of the ICGEB. ICGEB/Prep. Comm./10/6. Vienna Austria.
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Annual Report for 1984. 1985.
_ . Research Highlights for 1984, 1985.
_ . Research Highlights for 1980, 1981,
International Rice Research Institute. Biotechnology in International Agricultural Research: Proceedings of the Inter-Center Seminar on IARCs and Biotechnology, 23-27 April, 1984. Philippines: IRRI, 1985.
Jain, H. K. "Agriculture of tomorrow: greater productivity, efficiency and diversity", Biotechnology in International Agricultural Research: Proceedings of the IARCs, 23-27 April, 1984. Philippines: IRRI, 1985.
Jameison, Barbra. "Agricultural development and self-reliance", in Luke, David F., and Timothy Shaw (eds.), Continental Crisis: The Lagos Plan of Action and Africa's Future. New York: University Press of America, pp. 13-31, 1984.
Jefferies, Charles. A Review of Colonial Research 1940-1960. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 1964.
Jennings, Peter R. "Rice breeding and world food production", Science, vol. 186, (20 December): 1085-1088, 1974.
Johnson, Bruce. "Agricultural production potentials and small farmer strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa", in Betes, Robert H., and M. F. Lofochie (eds.), Agricultural Development in Africa. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1980.
Johnson. Dale L. "Dependence and the international system”, in Cockcroft, James, A. G. Frank, and Dale L. Johnson, Dependence and Underdevelopment. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1972, pp. 71- 111.
Judd, Robert C. "Forecasting to concensus gathering, delphi grows up to college needs", College and University Business, vol. 53, (July):35-38, 1972.
Juo, A. S. R. On-Farm Research Bulletin, no. 1. Ibadan: IITA, 1985. 320
Katz, Jorge. "Technological innovation, industrial organisation and comparative advantages of Latin American metalworking industries", in Fransman, Martin and Kenneth King (eds.), Technological Capability in the Third World. London: The Macmillan Press, 1984, pp. 113-136.
Kenney, Martin. "Is biotechnology a blessing for the less developed nations?" Monthly Review, vol. 34, no. 11, (April): 10-19, 1983.
______. Biotechnology: The University-Industry Complex. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
Kenney, Martin, Frederick Buttel H., and Jack Kloppenburg. "Impact of industrial applications", ATAS Bulletin, vol. 1, pp. 48-51, 1984.
Kenney, Martin, and Buttel Frederick H. "Biotechnology: prospects and dilemmas for Third World development", Development and Change, vol. 16, pp. 61-91, 1985.
Khush, G. S., and S. S. Virmini. "Some plant breeding problems needing biotechnology", Biotechnology in International Agricultural Research: Proceedings of the Inter-Center Seminar on IARCs and Biotechnology, and Biotechnology, 23-27 April, 1984. Philippines: IRRI, 1985.
Kilby, Peter. Industrialization in an Open Economy: Nigeria 1945-1966. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Kirk-Greene, Anthony. Nigeria Since 1970: A Political and Economic Outline. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1981.
Kirk-Greene, Peter. The Principles of Native Administration in Nigeria. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Kloppenburg, Jack and Martin Kenney. "Biotechnology, seeds and the restructuring of agriculture", The Insurgent Sociologist, 12(Summer): 3-17, 1984.
Langdon, Steven. "Indigenous technological capability in Africa: the case of textiles and wood products in Kenya", in Fransman, Martin and Kenneth King. Technological Capability in the Third World. London: The Macmillan Press, 1984, pp. 31-63.
Lappe, Frances M., and Joseph Collins. Food First. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977.
Leistritz, F. Larry and Stephen H. Murdock. The Socioeconomic Impact of Resource Development: Methods for Assessment. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1981.
Lenin, Nikolai. Imperialism: The State and Revolution. New York: Vanguard Press, 1917. 321
______. Historical Materialism: Basic Problems. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1966.
Levins, Richard. "Genetics and Hunger", Genetics, 78(September): 67- 76, 1974.
Lewis, Arthur. The Theory of Economic Growth. London: Allen and Unwin Limited, 1955.
Lewis, Lowel. "Agriculture overview", in NRC, Priorities in Biotechnology Research for International Development: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington D. C: National Academy Press, 1982, pp. 147-158.
Leys, Collin. "Relations of productions and technology", in Fransman, Martin and Kenneth King, Technological Capability in the Third World. London: The Macmillan Press, 1984, pp. 113-136.
Linstone, Herold and Murray Turof (eds.). The delphi method: techniques and applications. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1975.
Little, Ian, Tibor Scitovsky, and Michael Scott. Industry and Trade in Some Developing Countries. New York: Basic Books, 1970.
Locy, Robert D. "State of the art", ATAS Bulletin, vol. 1, (November): 8-13, 1984.
Long, Norman. "Structural dependence, modes of production and economic brokerage in rural Peru", in Oxaal, Ivar, Tony Barnett, and David Booth (eds.), Beyond the Sociology of Development: Economy and Society in Latin America. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975, pp. 253-282.
Luke, David F., and Timothy M. Shaw. Continental Crisis: The Lagos Plan of Action and Africas Future. New York: University Press of America, 1984.
Lynn, Martin. "The 'Imperialism of trade’ and the case of West Africa", The Journal of Imperial Commonwealth History, vol. XV., (October): 22-40, 1986.
Mackenzie, John M. The Partition of Africa 1880-1900. London: Methuen and Company, 1983.
Magdoff, Harry. The Age of Imperialism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969.
_ . Economic myths and imperialism", Monthly Review, vol. 23: 1-17, 1971.
_ . "Capital, technology and development", Monthly Review, vol. 29, (January): 1-11, 1976. 322
______. "The limits of international reform", Monthly Review, vol. 30. (May): 1-11, 1978.
Makange. A. A. "Strategies to overcome technological dependence", in Ernst, Dieter (ed.), The New International Division of Labour, Technology and Underdevelopment: Consequences for the Third World. New York: Campus Verlag, 1980, pp. 557-574.
Mandel, Ernest. Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1972.
Marange, A. A. "Strategies to overcome technological dependence", in Ernst, Dieter (ed.), Labour, Technology and Underdevelopment. New York: Campus Verlag, 1980, pp. 556.
Markle, Gerald E., and Stanley Robin. "Biotechnology and the social reconstruction of molecular biology", Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 10, (winter): 70-79, 1985.
Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1. New York: International Publishers, 1967.
______. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. III. New York: International Publisheers, 1967.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The German Ideology, Part One, ed. C. J. Arthur. New York: International Publishers, 1978.
Mbanaso, E. N. A., and 0. 0. Okoli. "The potential of protoplast culture in the improvement of economic crops of Nigeria", African Regional Symposium on Tissue Culture of Economically Important Plants. Nsukka, Nigeria: 1983.
McElroy, Robert, and Kenneth R. Krause. New Technology to Raise Agricultural Efficiencies. Agricultural Information Bulletin, no. 453. Washington D. C. : USDA, (August), 1982.
McPhee, Allan. The Economic Revolution in British West Africa. Aberdeen: Routledge and Sons, 1926.
McPherson, Peter. "Opening remarks", in National Research Council Priorities in Biotechnology Research for International Development: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington D. C. : National Academy Press, 1982, pp. 25-26.
Meek, C. K. Land Law and Custom in the Colonies. London: Oxford University Press, 1946.
Meir, Gerald M. Leading Issues in Economic Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Mellor, John W. The Economics of Agricultural Development. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1966. 323
______. "Foreword", in Francis Idachaba, Agricultural Research Policy in Nigeria. Washington D. C. : International Food Policy Research Institute. 1980.
Merhav, Meir. Technological Dependence, Monopoly and Growth. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1969.
Miller, Judith. "Genetic erosion: crop plants threatened by government neglect", Science, vol. 182, (21 December): 1231-1233, 1973.
Mog, David, and G. C. Michael, and M. C. Donald Dow. "Opportunities for cooperation", ATAS Bulletin, vol. 1, (November): 65-67, 1984.
Molnar, Joseph J., and Howard A. Clontis. "Technology as a source of economic and social advancement in developing countries", in Molnar, Joseph J., and Howard A. Clontis (eds.), Transfering Food Production Technology to Developing Nations. Colorado: Westview Press, 1983.
Mooney, Roy Pat. "Impact on the farm", ATAS Bulletin, vol. 1, (November): 43-47, 1984.
______. "The law of the seed: the common bowl", Development Dialogue, nos. 1-2, 1983.
Moran, Theodore H. "Multinational corporation and dependency: a dialogue for dependentistas and non-dependentistas", International Organization, vol. 32, (Winter): 80-100, 1978.
Moravasik, Michael J. "Will the voice of science of the Third World be heard", Science, vol. 270, (24 November): 288, 1977
Morehouse, Ward. "Technological autonomy and delinking in the Third World: confronting the unholy alliance of power, privelege and technology", in Ernst, Dieter (ed.), The New International Division of Labour, Technology and Underdevelopment. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1980, pp. 529-555.
______. Biotechnology and The Third World: Panacea or Recipe for Social Disaster? New York: Accademy of Educational Development, 1986.
Moss, J. P. "Wild species in crop improvement", Biotechnology in International Agriculture Research: Proceedings of the Inter-Center Seminar on IARCs and Biotechnology, 23-27 April, 1984. Philippines: IRRI., 1985, pp. 199-208.
Myint, Hla. "The classical theory of international trade and the underdeveloped countries", Economic Journal, (June): 317-337, 1958.
National Research Council. African Agricultural Research Capabilities. Washington D. C. : National Academy of Sciences, 1974. ______. Agricultural Biotechnology. Washington D. C: National Academy Press, 1987.
______. Genetic Engineering of Plants. Washington D. C: National Academy Press, 1984.
Nicolson, I. F. The Administration of Nigeria, 1900 - 1960. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.
Nixson Fred. "Import-substitution industrialization", in Fransman, Martin (ed.), Industry and Accumulation in Africa. London: Heineman 1972, pp. 39-57.
Nkrumah, Kwame. Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. London: Heineman, 1968.
Nurkse, Ragnar. Problems of Capital Formation in Underdeveloped Countries. Oxford: Blackwell and Mott Limited, 1953.
Nwosu, A. C. "World economic recession and the ascendency of protectionism: the case of the Nigerian agricultural sector", in Bellamy, Margot and Bruce Greenshields (eds.), Agriculture and Economic Instability. Vermont: Gower Publishing Company, 1987, pp 51-54.
Nzimiro, Ikenna. The Green Revolution in Nigeria or Modernization of Hunger. Oguta, Nigeria: Zim Pan African Publishers, 1985.
Obilana, A. T., and V. L. Asnani. "Genetic resources of maize", Crop Genetic Resources in Africa: Proceedings of a Workshop. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA, 1980.
O'Brien, Philip J. "A critique of Latin American theories of dependence", in Oxaal, Ivar, Tony Barnett and David Booth, Beyond the Sociology of Development. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1975, pp. 7-27.
O'Connor, James. "The meaning of economic imperialism", in Rhodes, Robert I., (ed.), Imperialism and Underdevelopment. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970, pp. 101-150.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Impacts of Applied Genetics: Micro-Organisms, Plants, and Animals. Washington D. C.: Congress of the United States, 1971.
______. Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis. Nei York: Pergamon Press, 1984.
Ojo, Olatunde. "Self-reliance as a development strategy", in Ake, Claude, Political Economy of Nigeria. Lagos: Longman, 1985, pp. 141-172. 325
Okezie, C. E. A. "In vitro embryo culture of dioscerea rotundata poir I, establishment of culture", Africa Regional Symposium on Tissue Culture of Economically Important Plants. Nsukka. Nigeria: The University of Nigeria, 1983.
Okigbo, Bede N. Managing Agricultural Research in Nigeria: The Research Support System, Paper presented at the Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute, Inaugural Seminar, Nigeria, 22-24 July, 1981.
. "Technical and environmental problems of irrigation and mechanization with some possible solutions in Nigeria's Green Revolution program", in Abalu, George 0., Yahaya Abdullahi, and Ayesha M. Imam, Green Revolution in Nigeria? Zaria, Nigeria: IAR. 1981, pp. 30-69.
______. "African Food Systems and Situations: Impact of New Technologies on Evolution of Societies, Paper prepared for the UNESCO on Science and Technology as Factors of Change, UNESCO, Paris, December 4-7, 1984.
Okoro, D. E., and J. N. Onuoha. The Impact of the Collaboration Between the IAR System and the NAR System in Nigeria. Enugu, Nigeria: Skoup and Company, 1985.
Olayide, S. 0. Scientific Research and the Nigerian Economy. Ibadan: University Press, 1981.
Olson, Steve. Biotechnology: An Industry Comes of Age. Washington D. C: National Academy Press, 1986.
Oluwasanmi, H. A. Agriculture and Nigerian Economic Development. Ibadan, Nigeria: Oxford University Press, 1966.
Onimode, Bade. Imperialism and Underdevelopment in Nigeria. London: Zed Press. 1982.
Organization of African Unity (OAU). Lagos Plan of Action for the Economic Development of Africa 1980-2000. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies for OAU, 1982.
Osoba, Segun. "The deepening crisis of the Nigerian national bourgeoisie", Review of African Political Economy, no. 13 (May- August): 63-77, 1978.
Paddock, William C. "How green is the green revolution?" BioScience, vol. 20, (15 August): 897-902, 1970.
Palma, Gabriel. "Dependency: a formal theory of underdevelopment or a methodology for the analysis of concrete situations of Underdevelopment?", World Development, vol. 6, pp. 881-924, 1978. 326
Pearse, Andrew. Seeds of Plenty. Seeds of Want: Social and Economic Implications of the Green Revolution. New York: Clarendon Press, 1980.
Perelman, Michael. Farming for Profit in a Hungry World: Capital and Crisis in Agriculture. New York: Universe Books. 1977.
Pill, Juri. "The delphi method: substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography", Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, vol. 5, (February): 57-71, 1971.
Pimentel, David, L. E. Hurd, A. C. Belloti, M. J. Forster, I. N. Oka, 0. D. Sholes, R. J. Whitman. "Food production and the energy crisis", Science, vol. 182, (2 November): 443-449), 1973.
Plucknett, Donald L. An Overview of Biotechnology Research in the CGIAR. Paper presented at a Joint CGIAR/Japanese Forum and Biotechnology in Tokyo, Japan, June 10, 1985.
______. "The law of the seed and the CGIAR: a critique of Pat Mooney", Development Dialogue, No. 1, pp. 97-102, 1985.
______. "Agricultural research and the Third World", Science, vol. 217, (10 July): 215-220, 1982.
Plucknett, Donald L., and Nigel Smith. "Sustaining agricultural yields", BioScience, vol. 36, (January): 40-45, 1986.
______. "Agricultural research and Third World food production", Science, vol. 217, (16 July), 1982, pp. 215-220.
Praeger, Denis J., and Gilbert S. Ommen. Research, innovation and university-industry linkages", Science, 207(25 January), 1980.
Prentis, Steve. Biotechnology: A New Industrial Revolution. New York: George Braziller Inc., 1984
Proehl, P. 0. Foreign Enterprise in Nigeria: Laws and Policies. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965.
RAFI Communique (Rural Advancement Fund International), July 1987
Raghavan, V. "The applications of embryo rescue in agriculture", Biotechnology in International Agriculture Research: Proceedings of the Inter-Center Seminar on IARCs and Biotechnology, April, 1984. Manila, Philippines: IRRI, 1985.
Ranis, Gustav. "Determinants and consequences of indigenous technological activity", in Fransman, Martin and Kenneth King (eds.), Technological Capability in the Third World. LondomThe Macmillan Press, pp. 95-112, 1984. 327
Revelle, Roger. "Biological Research and Third World Countries". BioScience, vol. 30, (November): 727. 1980.
Ricardo, David. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: Oxford University Press, 1951.
Richards. John (ed.). Recombinant DNA: Science. Ethics and Politics. New York: Academy Press, 1978.
Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Washington D. C: Howard University Press, 1972.
Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1962.
Rogers, E. M., and F. E. Shoemaker. Communication of Innovation. New York: The Free Press, 1971.
Rosenberg, Nathan. "Karl Marx on the economic role of science", Journal of Political economy, vol. 4, (July - August): 713-728, 1982.
Rostow, Walt W. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.
Roxborough, Ian. Theories of Underdevelopment. London: The Macmillan Press, 1979.
Ruttan, Vernon W. Agricultural Research Policy. Minneapolis: Univer sity of Minnesotta Press, 1982.
Saint, William S., and Walter Coward. "Agriculture and behavioral science: emerging orientations", Science, vol. 197, (19 August): 733-737, 1977.
Sandbrook, Richard, with Judith Barker. The Politics of Africas Economic Stagnation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Sardar, Ziauddin. "Separate development for science", Nature, vol. 273, (18 May):176, 1978.
Sasson, Albert. Biotechnologies: Challenges and Promises. Paris: UNESCO, 1984.
Sawyer, William D. " The potentials for bulk chemicals and for livestock improvement", ATAS Bulletin, vol. 1, (November): 21-23, 1984.
Singh, Ajit. "Industrialization in Africa: a structural view", in Fransman, Martin (ed.), Industry and Accumulation in Africa. Ibadan: Heineman. pp. 24-37. 328
Singh, Narendra. "Science and technology for development: no escaping the politico-economic context", Nature, vol. 272, (9 March): 112, 1978.
Sondahl. Maro R., W. R. Sharp and David A. Evans. "Application for agriculture: the potential for the Third World", ATAS Bulletin, vol. 1, (November), 1984, pp. 14-23.
Stein. Michael D. "Biotechnology: UN plans centre", Nature, vol. 293, (22 October): 600, 1981.
Stewart, Francis. Technology and Underdevelopment. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1977.
Stewart, Francis. "Facilitating indigenous technical change in Third World countries", in Fransman, Martin and Kenneth King, Technological Capability in the Third World. London: The Macmillan Press, pp. 81-94, 1984.
Swaminathan, M. S. Perspectives in biotechnology research from the point of view of Third World agriculture", in NRC, Priorities in Biotechnology Research for International Development. Washington D. C.: National Academy Press, pp. 38-63, 1982.
______. "Tissue culture and agriculture", ATAS Bulletin, vol. 1, (November): 5-7, 1984.
______. "Foreword", Biotechnology in International Agricultural Research: Proceedings of the Inter-Center Seminar on IARCs and Biotechnology, 23-27 April, 1984. pp. vii-viii, 1985.
Sweezy, Paul. "Corporations, the state, and imperialism", Monthly Review, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1-10, 1978.
Tanzer, Michael. The Energy Crisis: World Struggle for Power and Wealth. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974.
Todaro, Michael. Economic Development in the Third World. New York: Longman, 1985.
Turner, Terisa. "Multinational corporations and the instability of the Nigerian state", Review of the African Political Economy, no. 5, (January - April): 63-79, 1976.
______. "Nigeria: imperialism, oil technology and the comprador state", in Nore, Peter, and Terisa Turner (eds.), Oil and Class Struggle. London: Zed, 1980.
Ubogu, Ronald E. "Mining and quarying", in Olaloku, F. A., Structure of Nigerian Economy. New York: St. Martins Press, 1979. 329
UNESCO. Survey on the Scientific and Technical Potential of the Countries of Africa. Paris: UNESCO, 1970.
UNESCO. MIRCEN News No. 9. Paris: UNESCO, 1987.
UNESCO. Comparative Study on the National Science and Technology Policy-making Bodies in the Countries of West Africa. Document No. 58. Rome: UNESCO, 1986.
United Nations, Food and Agricultural Organisation. Land, Food, and People. Rome: FAO, 1984.
United Nations Industrial Development Organisation. Technological Self- Reliance of the Developing Countries: Towards Operational Strategies, Development and Transfer of Technology Series, no. 15. Austria: UNIDO, 1981.
United Nations Industrial Development Organisation. Selective Application of Advanced Biotechnology for Developing Countries. ID/WG. 382/2/Add. 7. (20 September), 1982.
United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Report of the Preparatory Committee to the Plenipotentiary Meeting. ID/WG.421/2. (27 March), 1984.
______. Industrial Development Review Services: Nigeria. UNIDO/IS.557, (9 September), 1985.
______. The Role of the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in Fostering Development Through Applied Microbiology. UNIDO/IS.521, (28 February), 1985.
______. The Promise of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering for Africa. UNIDO/IS.527, 1985.
Vaitsos, Constantine. "Patents revisited: their function in the developing countries", The Journal of Development Studies, 9(0ctober): 71-97, 1972.
Vavilov, N. I. "The origin of variation immunity and breeding", Chronica Botanica, vol. 13, pp. 52-131, 1951.
Wade, Nicholas. "Green revolution I: a just technology, often unjust in use", Science, vol. 186, (20 December): 1093-1096, 1954.
______. "Green Revolution II: problems of adapting a Western technology", Science, vol. 186, (27 December): 1186-1188, 1974.
Walker, Keith A. "Commercialization of agricultural biotechnology", Biotech 85: The World Biotech Report 1985, vol. 2, USA. New York: Online International Inc., 1985. 330
Wallerstein, I. The Modern World System. New York: Academic Press. 1974.
Walsh. John. "Genetic vulnerability down on the farm". Science, vol. 214, (9 October): 161-164. 1981.
Wilde. John C. de. Experiences with Agricultural Development in Tropical Africa, vol. 1. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Fress, 1967.
Wilkes, Garrison. "Overview from an economic botanist", ATAS Bulletin, vol. 1. (November): 61-62, 1984.
William. Gavin. "Nigeria: a political economy", in Williams, Gavin (ed.), Nigeria: Economy and Society. London: Rex, 1976.
William, J. A. "Cocoa genetic resources in Nigeria", Crop Genetic Resources in Africa. Proceedings of a Workshop. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA. 1980, pp. 80-89.
Wolf, Richard. "Modern imperialism: the view from the metropolis", The American Economic Review, vol. LX, (May): 225-230, 1970.
World Bank. Nigeria: Options for Long-term Development. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1975.
______. Agricultural Research. Washington D. C: World Bank, 1981.
World Resources Institute. World Resources. New York: Basic Books, 1986.
Wortman, S., and R. W. Cummings. To Feed This World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.
Yoxen, Edward. The Gene Business: Who Should Control Biotechnology? New York: Harper and Row, 1983.
Zelitch, Israel. "Improving the efficiency of photosynthesis", Science, vol. 188, (9 May): 626-633, 1975.
Zimmerman, Burke K. "The International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology", Bio/Technology 2(January): 55-59, 1984.
Zimmerman, Burke K. "The United Nations' ICGEB", Bio/Technology, 3(August): 710, 1985.