Book contents
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing Countries
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- 8 Regulation of GMOs in Developing Countries: Why Socio-Economic Considerations Matter for Decision-Making
- 9 Food Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries: The Experience in Africa
- 10 Being Scientific about Socio-Economics in GMO Decision-Making in Developing Countries
- 11 The Sharing of Information in Risk Assessment: How National Authorities Cooperate
- 12 Should GM Rice with Nutrition Benefits Be Deployed? Findings from Biotech and Socio-Economic Research
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
10 - Being Scientific about Socio-Economics in GMO Decision-Making in Developing Countries
from Part II - Diversification of Expertise
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2017
Book contents
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing Countries
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- 8 Regulation of GMOs in Developing Countries: Why Socio-Economic Considerations Matter for Decision-Making
- 9 Food Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries: The Experience in Africa
- 10 Being Scientific about Socio-Economics in GMO Decision-Making in Developing Countries
- 11 The Sharing of Information in Risk Assessment: How National Authorities Cooperate
- 12 Should GM Rice with Nutrition Benefits Be Deployed? Findings from Biotech and Socio-Economic Research
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
Summary
Developing countries have manifested interest in socio-economic considerations (SEC) for GMOs from the beginning of the negotiations for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Yet to include SEC in GMO decision-making is no easy decision. It needs to balance arguments for and against, such as the presence of many crop and livestock centres of origin or diversity, the cultivation of non-GM plants as an important source of revenue, and a majority of the population depending upon agriculture for their wellbeing, versus further complicating regulatory processes, increases in costs, lack of institutional support or expertise. However, if a country would decide to include SEC in GMO decision-making, the ensuing regulatory framework would greatly benefit from the use of the scientific method while ensuring that values are not excluded. Such a framework would need to be flexible and inclusive, and allow the identification of and focus on key issues as well as using information available elsewhere. This chapter proposes a logical framework with these characteristics based on the concepts of evidence based policy and problem formulation.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance, pp. 115 - 127Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
AHTEGSEC (2014). Report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Socioeconomic Considerations. UNEP/CBD/BS/AHTEG-SEC/1/3, Seoul Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar
Binimelis, R. and Myhr, A. I. (2016). Inclusion and implementation of socio-economic considerations in GMO regulations: needs and recommendations. Sustainability 8(1), 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blankesteijn, M. et al. (2014). Contested science – public controversies about science and policy. The Hague, Rathenau Instituut. [Online]. Available from https://www.rathenau.nl/en/file/173/download?token=wsT8MmBWGoogle Scholar
CEE (2013). Guidelines for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence. [Online]. Available from www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Guidelines/Guidelines4.2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Chaturvedi, S. et al. (2007). Environmental risk assessment, socio-economic considerations and decision-making support for LMOs in India. Technical report. New Delhi: ICGEB and RIS.Google Scholar
Chaturvedi, S. et al. (2012). Approval of GM crops: socio-economic considerations in developing countries. Economic & Political Weekly 47(23), 53–61.Google Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and Annexes. [Online]. Available from https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf.Google Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity (2003). The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: a record of the negotiations. [Online]. Available from https://bch.cbd.int/database/attachment/?id=10886Google Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity (2015). Portal on socioeconomic considerations: online discussion 2015 – Discussion Groups. [Online]. Available from http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/portal_art26/discussion_groups/?threadid=6621Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2011). Complementary considerations on legal issues on GMO cultivation raised in the opinions of the legal service of the Council of the European Union of 5 November 2010 and of the legal service of the European Parliament of 17 November 2010 – WTO Compatibility. Commission staff working paper. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Dano, E. (2007). Potential Socio-economic, Cultural and Ethical Impacts of GMOs: Prospects for Socio-economic Impact Assessment. TWN Biotechnology & Biosafety Series 8. Penang: Third World Network.Google Scholar
Eckersley, R. (2004). The Big Chill: the WTO and multilateral environmental agreements. Global Environmental Politics 4(2), 24–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EPA (1992). Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-92/001.Google Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J. (2009). Socio-economic considerations, article 26.1 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: what are the issues and what is at stake? AgBioForum 12(1), 90–107.Google Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J. B. and Zambrano, P. (2011). Socio-economic considerations in biosafety and biotechnology decision making: the Cartagena Protocol and National Biosafety Frameworks. Review of Policy Research 28(2), 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J. et al. (2013). The current status of the debate on socio-economic regulatory assessments: positions and policies in Canada, the USA, the EU and developing countries. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 10(4), 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathage, J. et al. (2015). Framework for the Socio-Economic Analysis of the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Crops. JRC Science and Policy Reports. Luxembourg: European Union.Google Scholar
Kelly, C. R. (2006). Power, linkage and accommodation: The WTO as an international actor and its influence on other actors and regimes. Berkeley Journal of International Law 24(79), 79–50.Google Scholar
Kimera, H. R. and Mboyah, D. (2007). Stakeholder awareness and participation in biotechnology policy-making in Eastern African countries. In Biotechnology: Eastern African Perspectives on Sustainable Development and Trade Policy, ed. Baumüller, H. and Bolo., M. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development; and Nairobi: African Technology Policy Studies Network, pp. 44–57.Google Scholar
Komen, J. (2012). The emerging international regulatory framework for biotechnology. GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain 3(1), 78–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, E. J. (2011). A semi-quantitative approach to GMO risk-benefit analysis. Transgenic Research 20(5), 1055–1071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perron-Welch, F. (2012). Socioeconomics, biosafety, and sustainable development. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review 14(3), 49–69.Google Scholar
Pew-MacArthur (2014). Evidence-based policymaking. A guide for effective government. Pew- MacArthur Results First Initiative. [Online]. Available from www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2014/11/evidencebasedpolicymakingaguideforeffectivegovernment.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pinski, F. (2012). New regulatory framework for agricultural biotechnology in Argentina. Buenos Aires: Biotechnology Directorate, Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Argentina.Google Scholar
Racovita, M. et al. (2013). Can problem formulation help address socioeconomic considerations in GMO decision-making? Poster. 6th International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and Non-GM Based Agricultural Supply Chains, Lisbon.Google Scholar
Remondet, M. (2011). The French «High Council for Biotechnologies»: an innovative institution for GMOs assessment. Workshop on Capacity-Building for Research and Information Exchange on Socio-economic Impacts of Living Modified Organisms under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. New Delhi, India. [Online]. Available from https://bch.cbd.int/protocol/socioeconomics/presentations/france.pdfGoogle Scholar
Smale, M. et al. (2008). Economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries: a note on the methods. International Journal of Biotechnology 10(6), 519–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spök, A. (2010). Assessing socio-economic impacts of GMOs. Issues to consider for policy development. Vienna: Lebensministerium/Bundensministerium für Gesundheit.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, S. and Court, J. (2005). Evidence-Based Policymaking: What Is It? How Does It Work? What Relevance for Developing Countries? London: ODI.Google Scholar
Tung, O. J. (2014). Transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms and the Cartagena Protocol: key issues and concerns. PER: Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad 17(5), 1740–1787.Google Scholar
UNEP (2010). Summary Report on the Survey on the Application of and Experience in the Use of Socio-economic Considerations in Decision-Making on Living Modified Organisms. UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/10. Nagoya: UNEP.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by