1 Institutions for sustainable GM-crops Valborg Kvakkestad Department of economics and resource...
-
Upload
avice-boyd -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Institutions for sustainable GM-crops Valborg Kvakkestad Department of economics and resource...
1
Institutions for sustainable GM-crops
Valborg Kvakkestad Department of economics and
resource management, University of Life Sciences, Norway
2
Background/motivation
• Some scientists: potential irreversible impacts, lack of predictability, possibilities for surprise. Long time lags between cause and effect.
• Other scientists emphasise: potential benefits (agricultural output, food quality, potential environmental benefits) and the environmental issues raised by growing GM-crops do not differ qualitatively from conventional crops
3
Background/motivation cont.
The public has been quite concerned about several aspects related to GM-crops:
• The dominance of Multinational Corporations
• The ownership of the technology• How the use of GM-crops might affect
agriculture practice• Many do not see any real social benefits
from this technology
4
Background
Decisions made by one could directly influence the opportunities left for others regulations
• Reject GM-crops if: 1. The technology is not an adequate mean to
develope the society we want to become2. Harm > Benefits3. Harm
• What if we are uncertiain/ignorant about 1, 2 and 3?
5
Problem statement
• How to develop institutions that enable us to reduce the potential for harm from GM-crops?
• Or
• How to develop institutions that enable us to deal with uncertainty, ignorance and ambiguity in a reasonable way in the decision-making on GM-crops?
• Or
• How to build institutions for sustainable GM-crops?
6
Institutions are:
• “the conventions, norms and formally sanctioned rules of a society. They provide expectations, stability and meaning essential to human existence and coordination. Institutions regularize life, support values and produce and protect interests.” (Vatn 2005)
7
Outline of the presentation
• Challenges related to reducing potentials for harm
• How do current institutions deal with these challenges?
• Suggestions for new institutions
8
Challenges related to reducing potentials for harm:
Characteristics of knowledge
Knowledge about outcomes
Not problematic
Problematic
Knowledge about likelihoods
Not problematic
Risk
Problematic
Uncertainty
(reducible and
irreducible)
Ignorance(reducible
and irreducible)
9
Challenges related to reducing potentials for harm:
Uncertainty and ignorance:
• Situations where you imagine that x might have an adverse effect on z, but ignorant of all the ways x migth affect z.
• Situations where we are ignorant of the fact that x might have adverse effects on z
10
Challenges related to reducing potentials for harm: Lack of scientific coherence
• Complexity incapacity of science to develop a coherent, unified picture of ‘the environment’ that all can agree on there are no way to ‘add up’ all the facts relevant to a complex problem to yield a ‘complete’ picture of the ‘problem’ (Sarewitz 2004).
• Divergent interpretation (ambiguity) about the magnitude and relative importance of outcomes
11
Challenges related to reducing potentials for harm
GM-crops will be introduced into complex natural and social systems (without clear boundaries) and might introduce matter that is unfamiliar to the system
(irreducible and reducible) uncertainty and ignorance
potentials for irreversible outcomes time lags lack of scientific coherence (degree predictability,
outcomes, interpretation of outcomes) the decisions made by one directly influences the
opportunities left for others (even future generations)
12
Challenges related to reducing potentials for harm:
Could be addressed at different levels
1. Given that a GM-crop is marketed, and harm is documented, how to develop institutions that can control and mitigate harm?
2. Given that a GM-crop is intended for marketing, how to develop institutions that can hinder the marketing of GM-crops that could cause harm?
• Assessment prior to marketing• Institutions for the R&D phase, e.g. funding
3. Could these products potentially be marketed (in general)?
13
Challenges related to reducing potentials for harm:
Assessment prior to marketing
• What are the harms that should be prevented? • Who should decide/participate?• The role of science• Decision making rules for how to deal with
uncertainty/ignorance– Burden of proof – Responsibility– Reducible uncertainty/ignorance: more research or
marketing? – Irreducible uncertainty/ignorance: marketing or not?
14
Challenges related to reducing potentials for harm:
Institutions for the R&D phase
• How to prevent the R&D of potentially harmful GM-crops under uncertainty ignorance?
• How to reduce the uncertainty and ignorance related to GM-crops?
• Who should participate/ what kind of knowledge/values is relevant in the R&D decisions?
• Responsibility• What are the harms we should prevent and
the benefits we should encourage?
15
Current institutions
• intellectual property rights to facilitate commercialisation of GM-crop research
• prevent unwanted effects by regulating on which GM-crops that could be sold in markets
• securing the development of socially desirable GM-crops has only to a minor extent been an issue.
16
Current institutions
Biosafety assessment prior to marketing
• USA and EU have defined the general framework for a regulatory system (Nap et al 2003).
• EU: Process based, precautionary principle
• USA: Product based, familarity. • Many countries are in the process of
establishing regulation based on either systems or a mixture.
17
Current institutions
Biosafety assessment prior to marketing cont.
• Case-by-case. • Require the documentation of similar information
from the notifier (Nap et al 2003): – Detailed description of the GM plant– Detailed environmental risk assessment on certain issues
(e.g. weediness, gene transfer, effects on wildlife) – Depth and extent of required information varies– Lack of clear standards in generating biosafety data
• A panel of experts usually reviews the full proposals, with the regulatory body making the final decision.
18
Current institutions
Biosafety assessment prior to marketing cont.
• Varying response to reducible uncertainty. Hardly any response to irreducible uncertainty/ignorance.
• Unclear BoP• The biosafety data is collected by the same
companies that introduce the commercial product conflicts of interests (environmental and economic). No systematic or explicit approach to minimize such conflicts are embedded in the regulatory framework.
• Responsibility??• Accept if no harm to the environment and health
19
Current institutions
R&D phase• A major focus by politicians have been to
develop intellectual property rights to facilitate a commercialisation of GM-crop research
• Since the 1980s: – The state has been replaced by the private industry
as the major actor in R&D of crops– University crop-research has become more market
oriented
20
Suggestions for new institutions
Outline of this section
• Assessment prior to marketing•Decision making rules for how to
deal with uncertainty/ignorance• What should be defined as relevant
harm?• The role of science• Who should decide/participate?
• Institutions for the R&D phase
21
Suggestions for new institutions
Decision making rules for how to deal with uncertainty/ignorance
• Needs institutions that respond to uncertainty/ignorance
• Burden of proof• Responsibility• Reducible uncertainty/ignorance: more
research or marketing? • Irreducible uncertainty/ignorance:
marketing or not?
22
Suggestions for new institutions
Burden of proof• Prove harm or no harm?
– (no) adverse effects (on x, y, z)– (no) uncertainty and ignorance
(related to effects on x, y, z)– Should also investigate possibilities
for (no) effects on other aspects than on x, y, z
• Who should provide evidences?• Acceptable evidence
23
Suggestions for new institutions
Precautionary principle
• “Where there are threats of serous or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”
• Requires that potentials for harm is acknowledged and documented in some way less suited for handling ignorance
• Alternative: “Where unambiguous scientific proof of cause and effect is not available, it is necessary to act with a duty of care” (O’Riordan 1999).
24
Suggestions for new institutions
Responsibility• ”In earlier times, property arrangements were
integrative in nature, with the primary purpose being to weave individuals together in a network of mutual expectations and obligations. Since the industrial revolution a constellation of property arrangements supportive of atomistic choices has evolved, largely because such arrangements seem essential to democracy and ubiquitous markets.” (Bromley 1989 p 207).
25
Suggestions for new institutions
Responsibility• If a GM-crop is approved for marketing
the notifier could be made responsible for possible harm. The exact magnitude of the compensation should be determined by a third party
learning processes on how to organise ‘the whole’
incentives to avoid harm
26
Suggestions for new institutions
Challenges related to responsibility
• Who should be made responsible?– Researchers– R&D firms/universities– multipliers – Farmers
• What if the firm is made responsible and the farmer do not fulfil required procedures?
27
Suggestions for new institutions
Challenges related to responsibility cont.
• Time lags• Risk lovers• Insurance markets• Firms could go bankrupt or close down (replace
limited responsibility with full responsibility)• Identifying/documenting harm and causes of harm
(BoP)• How to agree on what should be considered harm
ex post?• How to compensate? • Too little innovations, too little use of innovations.
28
Suggestions for new institutions
Combining BoP and responsibility
1. Should GM-crops be marketed in general?
• BoP: harm/no harm
2. Prior to marketing• BoP : harm/no harm
3. After marketing• Responsible: yes/no• BoP: harm/no harm
29
Suggestions for new institutions Responsibility and BoP (ESRC
1999)
Must prove: • An adverse impact occurred• The GM-crop was releasedCausation is proven unless it can be shown
that• The environment was not exposed to the
GM-crops• The GM-crop could not cause the injury• There was another wholly responsible cause
30
Suggestions for new institutions
Institutions for the R&D phase
• Reduce possibilities for IPR more public R&D and less industry R&D
• Extended peer review • Dialog between stakeholders: can contribute to
develop a stronger sense of environmental responsibility in individuals, in science, and in policy-making.
• What are the human and social and environmental problems that need to be solved? What are the best means to solve these problems?