_ The Zero Emissions Strategy Conference

The Conference Podium, 17 September 1997

by Horst W. Doelle, Director, MIRCEN-Biotechnology Brisbane and Pacific Regional Network

In the following presentation Dr. Doelle has undertaken to share with the meeting his extensive hands-on experience in a number of developing countries. Comments are invited both directly to the author (doelle@ozemail.com.au), and of course via our Cyber-Forum.

Biotechnologies unquestionably generate benefits or gains, but they are also bringers of certain dangers or potential threats. Their impact on societies will be considerable and there will be winners and losers. This will depend on which strategies are adopted by the community, country or group of countries.

For developing countries, technological independence is highly likely to increase. But it is in their power to design appropriate strategies in order to take advantage of biotechnologies according to their needs, specific situation and constraints. Whilst avoiding imitating the strategies of industrialised countries, the search for appropriate solutions will then lead these countries to participate to the general advancement of scientific knowledge needed for progress in biotechnology (DaSilva & Sasson 1989). Processes which are economical for one nation may well be uneconomical for another irrespective whether these countries are developed or less developed (Doelle 1982).

Since all technological developments are aimed at improving the quality of life of a community of people (DaSilva et al. 1992), developing countries are looking for programmes reducing the risk to health and achieving sustainable, economical growth conducive to a higher per capita income of the community (Doelle 1996a,b). It should therefore be the aim of the new 'third technological revolution or biotechnological revolution' not only to detoxify the results of the industrial and green revolutions, but also to reverse the trend of urbanisation in making farming more attractive, and at the same time maintain the positive achievements of both previous technological revolutions in regard to life expectancy and life quality (Doelle 1989).

In realising that the all powerful microorganism virtually determines life and death on this planet, Unesco in its aim to foster the development of microbial processes for the benefit of mankind, founded the global network of Microbiological Resources Centres (MIRCENs], realising that the powerful microbe in technological progress and in the development and management of resources is unique (DaSilva $ Sasson 1989).

As Director of one of these MIRCENs, namely the MIRCEN-Biotechnology Brisbane and Pacific Regional Network, I devoted - and still devote -a significant part of my life to the MIRCEN cause as outlined by DaSilva and Sasson in 1989. I feel it my duty as an expert in microbial technology [biotechnology] to help developing countries to handle their biomass and renewable resources appropriately to achieve sustainability, that is developing clean technologies for their food, feed, fuel, fertiliser, energy etc in order to sustain population growth, eradicating as far as possible the sources for occurring infectious diseases and increasing the living standard of both the rural and urban communities.

In studying and familiarising myself with the nature of tropical and sub-tropical biomass, society and culture of the developing countries in Africa [Egypt, Nigeria, Malawi, Zimbabwe and South Africa], Latin-America [Mexico, Brasil], Asia [Sri Lanka, India], SEAsia [Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, China, Philippines] and the South Pacific [Fiji, Tonga, Western Samoa] (Doelle et al. 1987), it became very soon very clear that a transfer of the developed countries industrial economic system strategy will and has to fail as it would lead to a further aggravation of the existing problems. Furthermore, an appropriate biotechnology (Doelle 1982) transfer, which would be similar or identical to the presently advocated 'zero-emission' strategy, could be useful for waste management with social benefits (Chan 1993, 1997), but would still not be able to handle the sustainability of the communities.

I therefore adopted in my teaching and advising the idea of Lewis (1987), that we have to develop a socio-economical system strategy (DaSilva et al. 1992; Doelle 1989, 1993, 1994; Doelle et al. 1993), whereby waste management [= appropriate technology = zero emission] must become an integrated part of our new clean technology system. Although heavily criticised at the time from many parts of the developed countries, it is very gratifying to realise that this concept for sustainable development has gathered momentum in the developing countries [see Maya Farm outside of Manila, Philippines] and also in the developed countries such as the Netherlands and Scandinavia. I was also pleased to read references made to these systems in one or the other Podium presentations and Internet eco-conference discussions.

In line with this socio-economical concept I interpret sustainability as a future mean of a society to be able not only to feed themselves but also to be independent from imports for their basic requirements, which means utilising their own natural renewable resources to furnish them with food, feed, fuel, fertiliser and energy. There is no doubt that clean technologies such as advocated by the zero-emission strategy converting human and animal waste together with certain other wastes into biogas via anaerobic digestion plus additional fish and aquaculture systems (Chan 1997) will raise the living standards through the elimination of potential health hazards and beneficial economics. However, I believe that these systems are too restrictive and form only the centre core for a socio-economical system as outlined in an example in Figure 1. These systems produce the all important bioenergy and some proteinaceous food, but lack in the production of fuel, feed and other requirements for the daily life of a community.

The system advocated in our socio-economical system considers also the significant availability of arable land for agricultural production, but nevertheless the still increasing protein deficiencies of many of the world's people urges the need for agricultural biotechnology development. Such a development faces, however, two significant cost factors: feedstock and transportation. In order to avoid an escalation of these costs, feedstock and product must be made available in the producer and consumer region, which requires a microbial or biotechnological process industry flexible in both, scale and product formation (Doelle 1996). In order to achieve a higher agricultural output, the farmer has to get more incentives on the farm and produce, while our biotechnological systems have to make certain that we restore the cycles of matter to maintain and increase soil fertility as well as avoid soil erosion through an over-mechanisation.

Any suggestion of farmers income to be made equal to a factory worker has received strong opposition on the Internet for reasons hard to understand. Such an income security is the only way to keep the farmer on the land and secure maximal renewable resource production. The involvement of the farmer in the further utilisation of the renewable resource would be one way of not only raising his/her income, but also invite joint ventures with the local business community (Doelle 1996).

In my training and advising programmes over the past decades (> 15 Unesco training courses), my emphasis clearly underlined above concept considerations. They included:

1. Curriculum development at various universities to lift the standards of the universities in the developing countries to produce their own infrastructure, in particular in the areas of agro-industry and microbial biotechnology [fermentation technology], required to the task. It is understandable but unfortunate that universities in developed countries very often train people from developed countries in areas not relevant to the local requirement, causing significant brain drains in the developing countries;

2. Restoration, preservation and improving nature's cycles of matter, e.g. Replace all man-made chemicals added to our ecological environment with nature's own biodiversity. This necessitates a familiarisation and study of our microbial biodiversity and their interactions with the plant kingdom and soils. Only when we regenerate and improve soil fertility through a better soil microflora, e.g. Nitrogen fixation, nitrification, denitrification etc., Can we avoid excessive leaching of nitrogen, phosphorus and other minerals into our water reservoirs and thus eutrophication or pollution of our marine environment

3. Study the natural antagonistic plants saps and microorganisms for biopesticide development.

4. Realisation that every carbon in nature is a potential renewable resource (olguin et al. 1995). This means we have to change from a one- to a multi-product manufacturing system until the so-called 'waste' or 'residues' are essentially free of carbon, nitrogen, phosphate;

5. Realisation that the farmer is one of the most valuable worker in our society, as without him we will soon run out of renewable resources and thus food very quickly;

6. Realisation that transportation of raw materials must be minimised, resulting in small to medium regional manufacturing systems involving farmers, cooperatives, business and other community organisations (in particular in the small pacific island nations with the thousands of small islands);

7. Demonstration that a flexible microbial process system is able to cross-subsidise various different product costs. Furthermore, that such systems can easily change utilising different raw materials and producing different products depending on market demand.

8. The fact that microbial process systems do not require high quality raw materials, but can easily make use of low quality materials, which is very important after adverse climatic conditions;

9. The fact that biogas can provide most if not all of the energy required for such industries and ethanol could help significantly in the local fuel economy.

10. The fact that water is becoming a valuable resource and must be recycled or its use should be minimised.

In these teaching activities I was able to coordinate with experts from other MIRCENs (Hong Kong, Beijing, Bangkok, Toulouse), National Commissions for Unesco, ICRO, ASM (American Society for Microbiology), IOBB (International Organisation for Biotechnology and Bioengineering), local organisations and governments.

The biggest disappointment, however, has always been the lack of support and cooperation from foreign aid agencies and other international agencies such as UNEP, UNDP, UNIDO, UNU. It means that we were never able to teach using pilot plant systems to actively demonstrate to the people the usefulness of our microbial technologies. This is even more surprising owing to the realisation that many technology transfers have failed (Doelle 1996) owing to lack of trained people to maintain and improve the introduced technologies. We all have the same aim, but somehow continue to work separate, thereby diluting the expertise available instead of pulling our resources. These failures, on the other hand, make it very difficult to convince local communities that these technologies actually do work if properly introduced.

This demonstrates, in my opinion, that the described strategy for sustainable development can only be achieved through education and training. It can only be obtained through community efforts forcing the appropriate governments to act. I am very pleased to realise that some countries such as Thailand, Vietnam etc. are starting to include at least part of the concepts into their sustainable development strategies and a large number of projects in these countries are orientated increasingly into this direction. In using the clean technology concept, the conversion of human and animal wastes into biogas removes the ever increasing health hazards, whereas the total exploitation of the renewable resources will regenerate our natural cycles of matter, giving us high agricultural and multi-products (=value-added products) for social benefits and greater sustainability.

---

References

• Chan,G. 1993 Aquaculture. Ecological Engineering: Lessons from China.
• 
  
• AMBIO 22,491-494
• 
  
• Chan,G. 1997 Integrated Biomass System for Sustainability. UNDP/UNU ZERI Indo- Pacific Workshop, Fiji
• 
  
• Chan,G. 1997 Benefits of Integrated Development. UNDP/UNU ZERI Indo-Pacific Workshop, Fiji
• 
  
• DaSilva,E.J. & A.Sasson 1989 Promises of biotechnologies and the developing countries. MIRCEN J.Appl.Microbiol. Biotechnol. 5,115-118
• 
  
• DaSilva,E.J., Ratledge,C. & A.Sasson 1992 Biotechnology: Economic and social aspects. Cambridge University Press
• 
  
• Doelle,H.W. 1982 Appropriate biotechnology in less developed countries. Conservation & Recycling 5,75-77
• 
  
• Doelle,H.W. 1989 Socio-ecological biotechnology concepts for developing countries. MIRCEN J.Appl.Microbiol. Biotechnol. 5,391-410
• 
  
• Doelle,H.W. 1993 Use of socio-economical principles for the advancement of fermentation technologies. In 'International Cooperation and Education in Applied Microbiology', pp 69-75, Osaka University Press
• 
  
• Doelle,H.W. 1994 Microbial Process Development. World Scientific Publ., Singapore
• 
  
• Doelle,H.W. 1996 The role of MIRCENs in Technology Transfer. ASM News 62,334-335
• 
  
• Doelle,H.W. Joint venture capital investment for clean technologies and their problems in developing countries. World J.Microbiol. Biotechnol. 12,445-450
• 
  
• Doelle,H.W., Olguin,E.J. & P.Prasertsan 1987 Fermentation technology and its impact on culture and society. In 'Microbial Technology in the Developing World'(E.J.DaSilva, Y.R.Dommergues, E.J.Nyns, C.Ratledge, eds.), pp 209-225. Oxford University Press
• 
  
• Doelle,H.W., Gumbira-Said,E., Sukara,E. & M.B.Doelle 1993 A socio-ecological concept of microbial conversion for sustainable development and conservation of the environment. Tropical Biodiversity 1,195-200
• 
  
• Lewis,C.W. 1987 Biotechnological practices in integrated rural development. In 'Microbial Technology in the Developing World' (E.J.DaSilva, Y.R.Dommergues, E.J.Nyns, C.Ratledge, eds.), pp 51-86. Oxford University Press
• 
  
• Olguin,E.J., Doelle,H.W. & G.Mercado 1995 Resource recovery through recycling of sugar-processing by-products and residuals. Resources, conservation and recycling 15,85-94

__ Commentary & Discussion of This Paper (Once you have registered)

__ Go to Other Podium Presentations

Back to top