Forum discussions

The first guiding question for theme 4 is "What are the main capacity-building needs of countries regarding the assessment of socio-economic considerations?"

General Comments
- Capacity building/strengthening has to be a response to a careful evaluation/inventory of human, financial and technical capacities in country. See McLean et al for a conceptual framework for biosafety capacity building which is quite useful for this type of evaluation in a biosafety regulatory setting.

- Developing capacity building/strengthening activities that will develop functional capacity have to be carefully based on the current status and level of experience that the country has at that particular stage.

For example, there is very little sense in developing capacity for conducting socio-economic studies in a specific country, when the country is only able to implement confined field trials, a regulatory step which is not likely to require socio-economic assessments.  Once the country is ready to move on to the next stage of commercialization then it obviously makes sense to develop/strengthen such capacity as it may be required by the competent authority.

Same issue if country has already decided not to allow regulated products such as LMOs into its jurisdiction. What would be the purpose of developing capacity to assess socio-economic considerations when the regulatory outcome is by definition a “no” in any case.

- The necessary capacity for implementation of socio-economic assessments has to respond to the policy and political decision of what will be required for the assessment. Different capacities will be required in a country that only requires a relatively narrow economic assessment such as impacts on trade or financial impact incurred by farmers, when compared to another country that will require broader social and economic assessments.

- Our experience at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS) as a capacity building/strengthening program is that introducing regulatory issues prematurely before countries have been exposed to all the potential issues and consequences from a proposed regulatory structure introduces a lot of confusion. The later is usually connected to a pending application in country.

If country is ready to deal with an issue (e.g. socio-economics) then it should handle the issue in a systematic manner once it becomes a need, usually when there is an application pending at the competent authority. Creating capacity prematurely, may lead to resources’ waste when there is no demand for such services.

- Providing an integrated and systematic approach to capacity building/strengthening usually works best. This implies a sustained and medium to long term effort to build assessment capacity if required.

- Finally, socio-economic assessments when required for decision making in a regulatory setting, will likely follow the path observed for most regulatory systems in human history, that is, there will a learning curve involved which will have its own set of implications in terms of cost and resources.

Here I propose a set of potential approaches for two distinct sets of development stages where one may be able to map countries based on assessment capacity and policy/regulatory  development.

Stage 1. Supporting and contributing to countries discussions on the potential inclusion and implementation of socio-economic consideration and its assessment in biosafety and/or technology decision making processes

Target countries
The target audience for these activities are those  countries which have not expressed publicly their intention of including socio-economic considerations, who are in preliminary internal talks about doing so, or who have included such requirement in draft National Biosafety Frameworks documents and/or policy but not on law.

We may want to differentiate those countries who have already incorporated or who are likely to incorporate socio-economic assessments in their national policies, laws and/or regulations.

The target objective recognizes that inclusion in formal legislation is a formal step in the process of considering socio-economic considerations into decision making. 

Target groups
• Policy and decision makers
• Regulators
• Practitioners
• Developers/operators especially those in the public sector
• General public

Some key messages/issues
- Under the Protocol Article 26.1 is not mandatory
- Article 26.1 has a  very specific scope, target and objectives focused on biodiversity
- Emphasize that Article 26.1 recognizes that national regulations may incorporate approaches beyond Protocol, but suggest the need of thinking carefully about implementation and consequences from such actions

For those countries who may be more advanced in their inclusion decisions
- Focus on alternative policy options and in the development of a feasible/functional system
- Focus on implementation issues especially on what will be covered in such assessment
- Analyze tradeoffs between knowledge gains, cost of compliance and technology deployment

Approach 2. Developing functional capacity to conduct socio-economic assessments
Target countries
- Countries who have already incorporated socio-economic assessments in their national policies and/or laws
- Need to be careful about state in which the country is in terms of inclusion and how firm the decision is at the particular intervention time (In a Law vs. NBF document)

Specific target groups
• Policy and decision makers
• Regulators
• Practitioners
• Developers/operators especially those in the public sector
• General public

Key messages
- Focus on implementing regulations
- Address transparency, feasibility, decision making standards
- Ensure capacity to conduct feasible socio-economic studies in a cost efficient and timely manner

The main objective of capacity building/strengthening activities for those countries who have decided to implement socio-economic considerations in any of the modalities described in Falck Zepeda and Zambrano (2011), should be to develop FUNCTIONAL capacity for the assessment, analysis and evaluation of LMOs based on requirements set forward by policies/laws/regulations and national capacities.

The need will arise for different actors developing different levels of competency and understanding about the process, methods, decision making standards and the decision documents themselves.

Some critical examples include:

1) Assessors/evaluators:
If a country requires a (narrow) economic approach to assessments the need of course will be on economists and maybe sociologists who will need to be competent on state-of-the-art methods and issues related to the economic assessments of LMOs. These professionals will likely need to understand some of the particularities of LMOs, especially the institutional context and issues related to adoption/diffusion/impact, while getting a working understanding of the issues and limitations encountered in the literature as reviewed by Smale et al. 2009.

If the country requires the assessment of broader social and economic issues, then a multi-disciplinary team will need to be assembled that includes potentially sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists,biophysical scientists, and yes economists. Obviously the experience with such multi-disciplinary teams is quite spotty and will introduce issues of its own. For an example of an assessment using the sustainable livelihoods framework using DFIDs approach see Adato and Meinzen-Dick (2002). The need for method triangulation and for a robust capacity to do such research are noteworthy.

2) Regulators/decision makers
Although in some cases the biosafety regulators may be the decision makers, these are usually two distinct sets of actors. Regardless both groups will need to undergo capacity building activities that will build their understanding on how to judge the quality of submissions by the assessors, to get a general understanding on the issues and limitations with regard to methods and with results presented in the assessments.

This capacity obviously does not have to have the depth that an assessor will need, this is more of a general overview to enable a decision making process. This group is not really interested in the nuts and bolts of a specific methods, only needs to know what the results and conclusions mean in a specific  study and what are the issues and limitations of such results...which are directly connected to the methods used in the assessment.

3) General public and other stakeholders:
The general public will likely need gaining an understanding of the assessment and scientific peer review process, the decision making approach, and the overall regulatory process including the risk assessment and the socio-economic assessment if required. This group is even less likely compared to regulators/decision makers in their need for understanding specifics about the methods and issues related to the assessments itself. Therefore, capacity strengthening and/or communication/education efforts should be tailored to such needs.

Efforts targeting this group raises important issues such as transparency and quality standards for conducting research. It is important that all the materials (research protocol, data, literature review, methods, computer routines/programs) used in the assessments be accessible to anybody who may want to replicated and/or examine more in depth what was done in such assessment.

Here the need will arise of course for striking a balance between protecting confidentiality, confidential business information and the right to know by all parties. Having some limitations in terms of protecting individual information (such as that collected in farmer survey) or having a time window for the researcher or assessor to allow formal peer review  and eventual publication before making all information available can be considered.

In the end, what one should strive is indeed scientific and research excellence and quality in order to guarantee as much as possible that the evaluation is as good as it gets, while ensuring the public's confidence in the process,which in turn has to protective,transparent, scientifically robust while ensuring democratic engagement in a cost efficient manner.

Consulting the experience of those countries who have a functional and demonstrated capacity for the regulation of LMOs will be critical. I am thinking of those countries who have reviewed multiple application and who have approved, rejected and who have requested more information from the applicants. Although there may be some gains by learning from countries who have mostly academic or theoretical capacity (i.e. "experience of inclusion in our laws") , I believe these are limited and thus we need to have exchanges with countries with a track record of such experiences.

With regard to the inclusion of socio-economics into biosafety decision making, literature reviews and articles presented in previous threads (Falck Zepeda 2009, Falck Zepeda, Wesseler and Smyth 2010) and in those contributions posted on other threads of this online discussion, actual experience with the inclusion of socio-economics into biosafety decision making is quite limited. There are certainly many countries who have included socio-economic in their policies, laws and regulations, but very few have actually considered socio-economics. As the old saying goes "the proof is in the pudding".


Citations

Adato, M. and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2002. Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty using the sustainable livelihoods framework. Discussion Paper 128, Food Consumption and Nutrition Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/fcnbr128.pdf

Smale, Melinda; Zambrano, Patricia; Gruère, Guillaume; Falck-Zepeda, José; Matuschke, Ira; Horna, Daniela; Nagarajan, Latha; Yerramareddy, Indira; Jones, Hannah. 2009. Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first decade: Approaches, findings, and future directions. (Food policy review 10) Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 107 pages.

Falck Zepeda, J. B. Socio-Economic Considerations, Article 26.1 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: What are the Issues and What is at Stake?” 2009. AgBioForum. 12(1):90-107.

Falck Zepeda, J., J. Wesseler, S. Smyth. “The Current Status of the Debate on Socio-Economic Assessments and Biosafety Highlighting Different Positions and Policies in Canada and the US, the EU and Developing Countries”. Paper presented at the World Environmental and Resource Economics Congress in Montreal, Canada, July 2, 2010. Paper can be downloaded from http://www.webmeets.com/WCERE/2010/Prog/ (look under second day Parallel session 1).

I have read very keenly the earlier postings in this round and found the perspective on the need of having a comprehensive view on the capacity building very appealing. Agriculture has been viewed differently in parts of the globe. In most of the developing countries, agriculture has very strong connotation on the culture of the society, whereas in developed countries it is treated more of an industry. The socio-economic analysis is quite complex in developing country contexts because of the difference in the perception on agriculture and of the fact that agriculture is characterized by diverse and wide agro-ecosystems.  Hence, the parameters used for the socio-economic analysis have to be broadly tailored to the situations of countries. The capacity building needs of the countries would in turn depend on the parameters used for the analysis of socio-economic considerations. 

‘Sustainability’ is one such parameter for the analysis. Are the benefits arising out of the use of LMOs sustainable? It has been the experience in India that the benefits of Bt cotton lasted only for two-three years. The secondary pests became primary pests and the farmers had no other option but to resort to the increased application of pesticides (Lalitha N and Viswanathan P K, “Pesticide Applications in Bt Cotton Farms: Issues Relating to Environment and Non-Tariff Barriers”, Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, Vol 12 No 2, July 2010). Similar are the perceptions on Bt Cotton in China (Jennifer H. Zhao, Peter Ho and Hossein Azadi, “Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological change in China”, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol 173 No 1-4, 2011). What would explain the short duration of the benefits of GMOs in these countries? Is there anything inherently unique to the soil structure of these countries that makes the crops more vulnerable? Or is it because of the wrong cultivation practices followed by the farmers?  The study by Glenn Davis Stone (“Field Vs Farm in Warrangal: Bt Cotton, Higher Yields and Larger Questions”, World Development, 39.3, 2011) finds that wrong cultivation practices by farmers is a major factor. Farmers are not to be blamed for this because the new technology was brought on to them without providing for complementary extension services. As a result the input dealers also became the extension service providers resulting in indiscriminate and injudicious use pesticides and other inputs. This practice in fact fastened the resistance building of secondary pests. The study found that “agricultural deskilling” began with the introduction of hybrids reached abysmal levels with the introduction of Bt cotton. Hence, decisions on LMOs/technology has to be based on proper assessment of the problems and given situations. Sustainability of the benefits of the LMOs is only one aspect of the ‘sustainability parameter’ and the impact of LMOs on natural resources, quality of soil, agro-ecosystems, etc. should also be brought under its purview.  In this context, the capacity building needs of the countries can be
(a) Capacity to undertake systematic examination of problems and solutions
(b) Capacity to undertake systematic cost benefit analysis of the adoption of LMOs/new technology
(c) Capacity to device appropriate administrative and regulatory mechanisms taking into account all relevant factors. Learning from the experiences of countries with similar socio, economic and ecological backgrounds would really be helpful in devising proper mechanisms.

Dear all
In most of the developing countries, agriculture has various aspects .For many countries food security is a big challenge.In this context capacity building needs must include the support and assistance to elaborate strategies for socio-economic analysis and assessment with regulation framework,the organisation of workshops and online conference for sharing experience on specific topics like cost/benefit analysis of the use LMOs in agricultural practice.

There is a great need for building up expertise of governmental personnel regarding methodological frameworks for socio-economic considerations.

This should target methodological pluralism that takes into account both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Such methodological approaches need to be developed in a manner that allows for the consideration of contextual factors (e.g. environmental, agricultural, social and ethical). On the other hand, these research methodologies need to be affordable and feasible for implementation in countries with limited financial and human resources.

There is a need to develop (or adapt), test and validate approaches that can provide comprehensive information on impacts of LMOs, such as life-cycle assessments and value-chain assessments. This implies including the knowledge and experiences from different relevant fields, and particularly lessons learned. Furthermore, frameworks need to be developed based on sustainable livelihood. Such a framework can be useful for assessing impact of LMOs on small-scale agriculture. As mentioned in other previous posts, the IAASTD can provide very useful information on setting these comprehensive frameworks for assessing impacts of LM crops.

Another important capacity building need related to SE impact assessment is public participation.  This requires building capacities to: 1) carry out transparent and inclusive public participation processes, 2) development of differentiated methodologies adapted to different groups of the public (this is particularly important for an effective inclusion of local and indigenous communities). Public participation in socio-economic impacts assessment will increase transparency and legitimacy of the decision-making process. Public participation will also enhance learning about the social benefits and harms that the public would like to pursue or avoid, respectively.

In terms of capacity building needed, I would like to refer to one of my earlier posting. One element in capacity building activities and also in specific initiatives should be an evaluation of the experience with strategic environmental assessments (SEA) in the context of biofuels. SEA are recognised instruments in environmental decision making procedures and are increasingly applied in the field of biofuels. In the biofuel discussion similar elements as in the biosafety discussion are debates as sustainability criteria, environmental, biodiversity effects, land use alternatives, import decisions, trade effects ... I attach one short paper that gives an example of applying SEA to biofuels.

While the general format of SEA rather deals with decision making processes beyond approving a specific plant variety for bioful purposes an analysis would be useful in helping to find approaches to LMO decision making.

José Falck Zepeda launched the question whether we deal with such specific or more general decisions in our LMO discussion. I think that this - as with many other issues - finally depends on the national circumstances. Certainly, many biosafety frameworks and laws call for socioeconomic considerations in the context of a specific LMO approval. For this we need to apply scientific methodologies which are already available and used as pointed out by several contributions. And we can certainly benefit from SEA methodologies also on the level of specific LMO approvals.

But in many countries socioeconomic considerations will be or actually are used to formulate LMO/biosafety policies and research support programmes. Also in this context, experiences from applying SEA in decision mkaing processes will be very useful. And it might increase the capacity of countries to base such decisions on more systematic and elaborated approaches that aim at taking national circumstances into consideration.

Finally it would be very useful for further capacity building efforts to compile an overview about existing NBFs and laws with provisions on SEC and on decisions that took into account SEC (including the reactions and consequences of those deciusions, if available).

Just a contribution to Harmut Meyer's suggestion of using an SEA approach. These are two papers we have published in the past on SEA for biotechnology use, although our suggestion in the papers was focused more on priority setting, especially for the CGIAR.

Analysis for biotechnology innovations using Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
2005. Nicholas A. Linacre; Gaskell, Joanne; Rosegrant, Mark W.; Falck-Zepeda, Jose´ Benjamin; Quemada, Hector; Halsey, Mark; Birner, Regina. EPTD Discussion Paper 140. Washington, D. C. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/eptdp140.pdf


Strategic environmental assessments for genetically modified organisms
2006. Linacre, Nicholas A.; Gaskell, Joanne; Rosegrant, Mark W.; Falck-Zepeda, Jose´ Benjamin; Quemada, Hector; Halsey, Mark; Birner, Regina. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24(1): 35-43.

There have been several suggestions capacity building on methodologies for the assessment, e.g. cost/benefit analysis or strategic environment assessment (SEA).
I agree that they are all worth thinking about and that they might be useful or even essential when we talk about the SOC in the context of LMOs. It has been pointed out in previous contributions that the issue of SOC is a very complex one and that experience is limited in most countries. Therefore I think that the first step would be to identify the main assessment endpoints/parameters which should be taken into account. We have discussed this issue in several Coordination Meetings for capacity building, and we had to realize, that there was first not enough experience and second that the approaches vary enormously from region to region or even between countries. Maybe it would be wise to install an expert group like the AHTEG on RA to develop something similar to a roadmap. Based on that roadmap regulators and decision makers can elaborate their national assessment framework and enable Parties to identify their capacity building needs, which can and should form the basis for capacity building activities.

The absence of extension services for a long time as result from a deliberated policy, in particular for Latin America (IAASTD) leave a space for sellers of chemicals that do not always give good advice, as Mr. Reji Joseph mentioned, the input dealers became the extension service. Now with emerging of new technology the main capacity-building needs to enforce those services, in order to reduce the gap of information and skills. These activities must include broad approaches, not only the agronomic one, as Ann Myhr emphasized, we need methodological pluralism and participatory methods, like some mentioned by she, Dr. Harmut Meyer and Jose Falck-Zepeda like SEA, between others.

The technical services should incorporate traditional knowledge from local communities, so the new technology becomes technology for social inclusion and contribute to a sustainable development.

Reference
IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at a Crossroads: Latin America and the Caribbean. Ed. Island Press, Washington, D.C. USA.

Dear all,



Based on Bolivian´s view of socioeconomic (SE) considerations in light of
the CPB, the first and foremost capacity building that countries need for
assessing SE impacts is related to the identification of main SE assessment
endpoints and parameters (as indicated by Dr. Andreas Heissenberger).



Countries need to recognize first what they want to protect at SE level
based on their own protection goals and context (SE needs, biological and
cultural characteristics, local livelihood strategies and alternatives,
etc.). This is by itself an initiative for knowledge generation within
countries.



At this stage where the information is still reduced and most of it comes
from a limited number of researchers / institutions and is strongly focused
on economic evaluations, it is very important to work on “setting the scene”
of SEC. This means “what are the relevant issues that need to be assessed in
terms of SE impacts of LMOs”. We also agree with Dr. Heissenberger that and
AHTEG will help to identify key points to re: develop a roadmap on
integration of SEC in LMO-related decision making, on which regulators and
decision makers can elaborate their national assessment framework. Just
after this we will be able to appropriately identify and adapt the specific
assessment methodologies needed.



This exercise of identification of SEC endpoints and parameters will be also
very useful to later on build capacities on; i) inclusion of SEC in
ecological risk assessment and ii) SEC in relation to liability and redress
arising from damage or likelihood of damage related to LMOs, particularly in
the context of the Nagoya-KL Supplementary Protocol on L&R (specifically
Art. 12.2).



It is important to mention that there are also other crosscutting issues in
biosafety (not only applicable to SEC) that need to receive attention when
building capacities. They will improve the process of identification of SEC
/ ecological assessment endpoints and parameters and, consequently, the
biosafety decision-making process. These crosscutting issues on which
countries also require capacity building are:



-       Inter / multidisciplinary dialogue, that will help to have a
comprehensive identification of assessment endpoints and parameters, and
later on to: i) define the suitable methodologies / methods (e.g.
qualitative, quantitative and methodological pluralism, as mentioned by
previous posts); and ii) assess the quality of the assessment findings.



-       Consideration of relevant knowledge and information from different
sources. This does not restrict to academic or scientific knowledge only (as
also mentioned by Ms. Lucette Flandroy on another thread). For instance,
customs records, official assessment reports, records of health centers,
local people testimonies and perceptions, experiences from neighboring
countries, etc. are also important. In some cases they may be science based;
however not exclusively scientific or academic. This was widely discussed in
other biosafety fora and recognize in other legal instruments. For instance,
the Nagoya-KL Supplementary Protocol in L&R mentions that decisions and
response measures shall be taken when there is damage or likelihood of
damage based on relevant information, including – but not restricted
to –  scientific
information.



-       Following the previous, public participation is another important
topic for capacity building. It is important to improve countries capacities
on how to include the public in order to make the identification of
assessment endpoints and parameters socially relevant, and the SE assessment
itself more comprehensive and transparent.



Finally, in LMO-biosafety capacity building and impact assessment processes
is important to remember that ecological and SE adverse effects may occur
from:



o   LMOs for deliberate introduction into the environment with different
purposes (e.g. agricultural, industrial applications) and also introduced as
LMO-FFP. Here is it important to emphasize that SEC, LMOs and the CPB do not
restrict to agricultural or LM crops. We need also to consider other LMOs
(such as LM trees, LM fish, LM mosquitoes, LM vaccines, etc.) in the SE
debate / capacity building as well.



o   The LMO itself (characteristics and expression of the genetic
modification), and the different stages of its life cycle or value chain (as
mentioned by. Anne Myhr), including its production package.



o   Legal and illegal introductions.



Kind regards,



Georgina C.V.



…