4th Global Conference
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Tuesday 5th July - Thursday 7th
July 2005
Mansfield College, Oxford
Session 5B: Sow and Ye Shall Reap
Chair: Don Perry
Comparative Analysis of Approaches to Public Participation
Sarah
Lieberman and Ken Taylor
University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Newcastle, United Kingdom
Article 9
of directive 2001/18 EC on the deliberate release of GMOs is entitled “consultation
of and information to the public” and
states that “Member States shall, without prejudice to the provisions
of Articles
7 and 25,
consult the public and, where appropriate, groups, on the proposed
deliberate release. In doing so, Member States shall lay down arrangements
for this consultation, including a reasonable time-period, in order
to give the public or groups the opportunity to express an opinion.”
To
carry out these objectives, public consultations were organised in
both Britain and France. In Britain, this was called GM nation and
formed part of a three strand GM Dialogue organised by the government
in 2003. The national debate in the UK was conducted in meetings organised
and held by local authorities and interest groups. It revealed a general
uneasiness about GM issues; a lack of support for commercialisation;
and a distrust of government and multinationals, but an enthusiasm for
further research and better public information. A member of the AEBC
secretariat told me “they were pleased how it went but not so pleased
at the spin the media put on some of it. It was never supposed to be
an opinion poll, it was supposed be an exploration of the issues and
public concerns” (AEBC 2004).
In France, public consultation was
more strictly organised; a series of public hearings and debates were
launched in May 1998 and a citizens-conference was held in June 1998.
Based on the Danish consultation style, fourteen French citizens underwent
instruction on the topic and posed a series of unanswered questions to
a panel of experts. A report was then presented to the government, outlining
the need for labelling, traceability and liability, the phasing out of
anti-biotic use in GMOs and further research.
In both France and the
UK running of the public debate fell to an independent body; the OPECST
and the AEBC respectively. However, both systems were criticised. While
the UK GM nation debate was open to all, only class A/B attended and
the meetings were dominated by interested bodies with strong views; both
environmentalist and industrialist. The French ‘conference
de citoyens’ was criticised for lack of population representation,
as in the UK, but also for its instruction sessions which could point
to government control. The British government from the outset seemed
more open than was the French to integrating debate outcomes into decision
making procedures, which seems to indicate that it carried out the more
successful public consultation programme.
This paper will comparatively
analyse the two different approaches to public participation in decision
making, and will estimate their respective levels of success in implementing
this aspect of EU directive 2001/18.
Sowing the Seeds of New Revolution: China’s
Development of Agricultural Biotechnology and the Global Politics
Elisabeth
Abergel
Études Pluridisciplinaires/Multidisciplinary Studies,
Programme d'Études Internationales/ International Studies Programme,
Collège Glendon, Université York, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada
While it appears that the future of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is being decided between GM exporters and the EU, developing countries like China are currently in a position to force the outcome of transatlantic disputes. This paper deals with China’s efforts to develop a strong agricultural biotechnology sector in the context of domestic technological development and global GM food fights. Uncertainty about GM foods, expressed through the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) trade dispute between GM exporting countries (USA, Canada and Argentina) and the EU have placed China in a difficult position regarding the future of its agricultural biotechnology program. Since the 1980s, China has devoted large research budgets for the development of transgenic crops; public agricultural research efforts have yielded several hundred transgenic crops currently awaiting deliberate release and commercial approvals. China ’s aggressive pursuit of GM technology combined with strong techno-nationalist science policies have contributed to the rapid adoption of crops like Bt cotton. However, while the country is poised to become a world leader in biotechnology, it has enacted strict biosafety regulations modeled after EU procedures. These have been criticised for serving as a trade barrier because requirements for field testing and labelling essentially blocked the entry of US soybeans (81% transgenic) into China . US importers forced China to adopt interim regulations, temporarily allowing GMO imports without the necessary safety certificates. Nevertheless, strict biosafety rules have granted China a strategic vantage point. Barring entry of foreign crop developers and GMOs has allowed the consolidation of China ’s domestic biotechnology sector. At the same time, it has exploited ambiguities over international biosafety rules to claim the legitimacy of its GM regulations. This dual strategy, facilitated by international tensions and contentious rule-making, illustrates an important aspect of the global politics of GMOs, namely China ’s potential to decide the future of biotechnology.
The Role of Environmental Protest: Forms of
Resistance to GM, their Significance and Impact: the Videsh in India
Sneha Sunder & Clifford
Machoka
NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, India
The cultivation of transgenic crops has become the innovation
of the 21 st century to take the agricultural landscape into new dimensions
in the hope of creating food security for all by increasing the pest
resistance and herbicide tolerance of crops. Its innovation has been
seen as a blessing, especially for the developing countries which seem
to always have a problem of food security. These genetically modified
crops include soya beans, cotton, tomatoes, cereals etc. The world has
seen a tremendous increase in the rate of growth of these crops. This
can be shown by the fact that worldwide, the areas planted to transgenic
crops has jumped more than twenty-fold in the past six years, from 3
million hectares in 1996 to nearly 44.2 million hectares in 2000.
Our
paper seeks to examine the various forms of resistance to GMs in India
and the efforts taken up by the parties involved in the resistance.
The paper will also look at the significance and the impact these resistances
have had on the Indian society and the Indian agricultural scenario.
This
paper will be divided into four chapters. The first chapter seeks to give
an introduction to GM crops and the environmental concerns worldwide like
the horizontal gene flow, new forms of resistance and pest problems, direct
and indirect effects of novel toxins, loss of biodiversity from changes
to farm practices, among other major concerns.
The second chapter will
seek to elucidate the different forms of resistance that have been put
up, with specific reference to India . These different forms which will
be elaborated in the paper include mainly protests, mass rallies to spread
awareness, Public Interest Litigations filed in the High Courts of various
states and the Supreme Court of India, regular reports by some NGOs to
the Government and other forms. We will also be looking at the role played
by the NGOs like Sarvodaya Youth Organization, Greenpeace, Deccan Development
Society (DDS), Research and Action in Natural Wealth Administration (RANWA)
among others; the Judiciary like in the case filed in a Consumer Court
by a farmer against Monsanto, the company which supplies Bt Cotton in India
in August 2004 in order to gain compensation for Rs. 25,000 which he had
lost because of sowing 2.5 acres of Bt Cotton
the Government with the help of Genetic Engineering Approval Committee
(GEAC) in the Ministry of Environment, the citizens like the local farmers
in Medak, part of Telengana in Andhra Pradesh and
others in organizing these protests.
The third chapter will look at the
importance of these resistances and the impact they have had in the fight
against GM crops in India . Finally, the fourth chapter will focus on the
legal perspectives surrounding GM crops. This chapter will analyze the
legislations that are in effect in India to deal with GM crops, like the
Environmental Protection Act, 1984 which prohibits the production, sale,
import and use of GM food and crops in India without the approval of GEAC
and the various precedents set by the Courts regarding this matter. This
Chapter will also deal with various suggestions to regulate the use of
GM crops in India , the major suggestion being the need for a legislation
to regulate the use, research and production and other aspects of GMs.
This paper will briefly examine the contents of such legislation.
GM crops
have become a major issue in India especially because it is basically an
agrarian society and any adverse impacts on its agricultural sector will
affect the entire country economically and socially. Development in all
fields, including agriculture is essential for the progress of the country
as a whole. But ensuring environmental justice and recognition of the role
of a citizen should be given primary importance especially in the wake
of increasing technological advances and the phenomena of globalization.