socio-economic considerations in Biosafety

decision making

Faith Nguthi (Ph.D)

Senior Programme Officer,

ISAAA, AfriCenter

fnguthi@isaaa.org

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 ifpri-copyright@cgiar.org

• Using the case of GM cotton in Uganda.

Thank you