AbstractArticle 26.1 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety left open the possibility for member countries to include in their biosafety regulatory processes the assessment of socio‐economic considerations. Countries may also decide to include such assessments as part of their national legislation or regulations for the approval and deliberate release into the environment of genetically engineered technologies. Countries are debating if and how to implement assessment of socio‐economic considerations. This paper contributes to the ongoing policy dialogue by discussing issues related to socio‐economic assessment including scope, timing, inclusion modalities, methods, decision‐making rules and standards, and the integration of socio‐economic assessments in biosafety and/or biotechnology approval processes. This paper also discusses the implications of such inclusion for technology flows and public and private sector R&D. If inclusion is not done properly, it may negatively impact technology flows especially from the public sector and render an unworkable biosafety system.
Meeting the food needs of the world's growing population while reducing poverty and protecting the environment is a major global challenge. Genetically modified crops appear to provide a promising option to deal with this challenge. However there is a need to make strategic decisions on how to spend limited agricultural research funds in order to achieve a maximum impact with regard to finding sustainable solutions to end hunger and poverty. In international development institutions, there is growing interest in the potential use of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as part of a research based Environmental Management System (EMS) to promote mainstreaming of environmental considerations in policy development. SEA was developed as an approach to integrate environmental considerations at a policy level, where alternatives environmental policies can be evaluated. In this paper, we propose using SEA in a policy research and priority setting process regarding new technologies, taking the development of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as an example. We propose that this method would be a useful tool for the international agricultural research centers of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), streamlining business processes, strengthening accountability, sharpening the research agenda it supports, fostering broader partnerships, and increasing the relevance and impact of CGIAR research in achieving international development goals. Currently international law requires only Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of specific biotechnology projects. The incorporation of environmental considerations only at the level of specific projects precludes the adoption of alternative environmental policies. In this review, we outline an SEA approach currently being considered at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) for use in evaluating biotechnology policies. SEA may be a useful tool to inform the evaluation of biotechnology policies and priorities by taking account of information on the economic, social, and environmental benefits, cost and risks of adopting those policies.-- Authors' Abstract ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; PBS; Theme 10; GRP34; Subtheme 10.3; Pro-poor science and technology policies ; EPTD
"Local farming communities throughout the world face productivity constraints, environmental concerns, and diverse nutritional needs. Developing countries address these challenges in a number of ways. One way is public research that produces genetically modified (GM) crops and recognize biotechnology as a part of the solution. To reach these communities, GM crops, after receiving biosafety agreement, must be approved for evaluation under local conditions. However, gaps between approvals in the developed and developing world grow larger, as the process of advancing GM crops in developing countries becomes increasingly difficult. In several countries, only insect resistant cotton has successfully moved from small, confined experimental trials to larger, open trials and to farms. By far, most GM crop approvals have been for commercial products that perform well under tropical conditions. However, complete information on public GM crop research in developing countries has not been assessed. "Will policies and research institutions in the developing world stimulate the safe use of publicly funded GM food crops?" The relatively few GM crops approved from public research, coupled with growing regulatory, biosafety capacity, trade, and political concerns, argue to the contrary. To tackle this issue, we identified and analyzed public research pipelines for GM crops among 16 developing countries and transition economies. Respondents reported 209 genetic transformation events for 46 different crops at the time when the survey was conducted. The pipelines demonstrate scientific progress among publicly funded crop research institutes in participating countries. Information and findings are presented for GM crops nearing final stages of selection. Additional details are provided for the types of genes and traits used, the breadth of genetic resources documented, implications for regulation, and the type of research partnerships employed. Regulations, GM crop approvals, choice of transgene, and policy implications are discussed as they affect this research. Based on these findings, recommendations are presented that would help sustain and increase efficiency of publicly supported research while meeting biosafety requirements. To do so, the study examines results concerning investments and choices made in research, capacity, and policy development for biotechnology. These indicate the risk and potential for GM technologies in developing countries. Policy makers, those funding biotechnology, and other stakeholders can use this information to prioritize investments, consider product advancement, and assess relative magnitude of potential risks, and benefits." -- Authors' Abstract ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; Theme 10; Subtheme 10.1; GRP1; PBS; Pro-poor science and technology policies ; EPTD; ISNAR
