socio-economic considerations in biosafety …...socio-economic considerations in biosafety decision...
TRANSCRIPT
socio-economic considerations in Biosafety
decision making
Faith Nguthi (Ph.D)
Senior Programme Officer,
ISAAA, AfriCenter
www.africenter.isaaa.org
www.isaaa.org
Introduction
• GM crops first commercialized in 1996 when
about 1.7 million ha were planted in four
countries.
• By 2015 180M hectares had been planted in 28
countries by 18 million farmers 90% -small
resource-poor farmers
• Making GM crops one of the fastest adopted
crop technology
Principal Biotech/GM Crops
Cotton:
68%
Maize: 30% Soybeans:
82%
Canola: 25%
Addressing:
Specific insects: bollworms, stalk
borers Weeds: Herbicide tolerance
Stacks: Combined for insect resistance
and herbicide
tolerance
Global Impact
• Global food security and reduced pressure
on scarce land resources
– GM crops are allowing farmers grow more without
using additional land
– They have increased additional production of
soybeans by 158.4M tons, corn by 321.8M tons,
cotton lint by 24.7 tons and canola by 8M tons.
Global Impact
• Higher yielding crops
– 11.7% for insect resistant corn and 17% for insect
resistant cotton for the last 18 years.
• Better returns for farmers – especially in
developing countries
– net economic benefit at the farm level in 2013
was $20.5 billion
– Between 1996-2013,global farm income gain was
$133.5 billion
Global Impact
• Environmental improvements
– Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from
better agricultural practices.
– equivalent to removing 28 billion kg of carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing
10 million cars from the road in 2014
Regulation of GM crops
• in late 1970s and early 1980s, biosafety
regulatory was based on existing systems in
agriculture and other sectors.
• In 2000 these experiences were incorporated
into the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety
The Cartagena Protocol is
an international
agreement under the
Convention on Biological
Diversity formalizing
biosafety assessments as
a pre-condition for GM
crop approvals for
transboundary
movements due to trade.
Objective of CPB
“to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of
protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling
and use of living modified organisms resulting from
modern biotechnology that may have adverse
effects on the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity, taking also into account risks to
human health, and specifically focusing on
transboundary movements.” (CPB, 2000)
It became operational in 2003
Socio economic considerations
in biosafety decision making
Article 26 of the Protocol
• While negotiating CPB, dealing with SECs was a contentious issue.
• Developing countries wanted SECs include in biosafety decisions while developed countries did not
• The compromise that resulted is Article 26
Article 26.1 of the CPB states:
• “The Parties, in reaching a decision on import
under this Protocol or under its domestic
measures implementing the Protocol, MAY take
into account, consistent with their
international obligations, socio-economic
considerations arising from the impact of living
modified organisms on the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity,
especially with regard to the value of biological
diversity to indigenous and local
communities.”
Article 26.2
“The Parties are encouraged to cooperate on
research and information exchange on any socio-
economic impacts of LMOs, especially on
indigenous and local communities”. (CPB,2000)
Interpretation of Article 26.1
• CPB provides no guidance on how Article 26.1
should be practically implemented
• Parties have taken a wide range of
interpretations
• Strict interpretation - SECs are only allowed if
they impact value of biological diversity to
indigenous and local communities.
• But many developing countries, have expanded
this narrow scope to include broader SECs
Developing conceptual clarity on
SECs
• Resulting in no clarity as to:
• Definition of SECs,
• When and how to be done and by who,
• Who makes final decisions about results of the
assessment,
• Thus the need to develop conceptual clarity on
SECs
What has happened so far….
• At COP/MOP 6 in 2012 an ad hoc technical
expert group (AHTEG) was formed to develop
conceptual clarity on SECs.
• AHTEG convened online discussion groups and
conferences to exchange views, information and
experiences on socio-economic considerations.
Recommendations of the AHTEG • During COP/MOP 7 AHTEG reported:
• No single definition of what is meant by SECs
• Adopted a descriptive approach to reach
conceptual clarity in terms of:
– General principles
– Methodological approaches
– Points to consider
General principles
Taking SECs into account in biosafety decision
making should:
• Be consistence with international obligations –trade
agreements, environmental assessment agreements
& human rights agreements
• Be consistency with national regulatory frameworks
• Consider local national and regional circumstances
cultural issues etc
• Be clear, transparent and not discriminatory
• Include human-health related considerations if not
addressed in risk assessment
General principles contd.
• Risk assessments and taking SECs into account
may be done together in the decision-making
process.
• Public participation and consultation should be
part of the process of taking SECs into account
Methodological approaches
• Scope & dimension
– Economic modeling-impact on income
– Social-impact on food security
– Ecological-impact on ecosystem functions
– Cultural/traditional/religious/ethical-impact on
seed saving and exchange
– Human-health related- impact on nutritional
status
Methodological approaches
• Methodology selection will depend on
information needs of the decision makers
• Situational and baseline studies
• Ex ante and ex post studies
• Quantitative and qualitative analysis (livelihood
approach)
• Public consultation and participation modalities
• Multi-criteria analysis
• Social economic impact assessments
• Valuation of biological diversity
Way forward
• The AHTEG on SECs was extended:
• Further develop conceptual clarity on SECs by
building on the framework already developed.
• Submit its report for consideration in the forth
coming COP/MOP 8
• Govts, relevant organizations, indigenous and
local communities submit views and comments
on the framework developed.
Country Scope of SECs
Norway
Social acceptability, social utility, ethical justification, impact on human health and environment
Malaysia Impact of LMOs on existing social and economic patterns and means of livelihood of
communities, impact on the religion, impact on social, cultural and ethical values of communities
Sudan Risks (short, medium and long term) to human health, environment, and biodiversity, Impact on
social and economic conditions, impact on ethical values
Honduras* Impact of substitution of traditional crops and indigenous technologies, on labour conditions,
market opportunities and community livelihood potentials and adverse effects to social, cultural,
religious, ethical values of communities
Liberia Risks to human health, environment and biodiversity
Contribution to sustainable development, impact on ethical values and concerns of communities,
impact on community knowledge and technologies
India Economic impact
Bolivia Impact on human health and environment
Impact on food security, impact on sovereignty of people, impact on centres of origin, impact on
genetic diversity
Argentina Impact on exports
South Africa Impact on trade and labour
Indonesia religious- ethical, social-cultural and aesthetic aspects
New
Zealand
Impact on socio-economic, ethical and cultural benefits and risks, in particular on small farmers,
indigenous peoples, women, small and medium enterprises the domestic scientific community
Countries that are taking SECs
Source: Chaturvedi et al (2011); Heide (2011); Rosendal (2009); Zepeda (2009)
Kenya
• According to the biosafety Act Article 29 (1) e
• Kenya shall entrench SECs into decision-making
related to environmental release of LMOs
• SE is defined as:
• Socio- cultural, ethics, gender
• Economics- trade, IPR, consumer choice,
agricultural systems,
Conclusion
• A clear definition of ‘socio-economic
considerations’ and explicit criteria to determine
when SEC are required;
• Identification of the stages at which SEC should
take place;
• Efficient and cost-effective regulatory processes;
• Policies that mandate integration of SEC into
decision-making processes;
Conclusion
• Public participation mechanisms to ensure
credible assessments and decisions that are
more widely accepted.
• Socioeconomic consideration in biosafety
decision making: Methods and
implementation/edited by Horna et. al. 2013
• At [email protected]
• Using the case of GM cotton in Uganda.
Thank you