1. 1 Institutions for sustainable GM-crops Valborg Kvakkestad Department of economics and resource management, University of Life Sciences, Norway

2. 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. 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. 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 become 2.Harm > Benefits 3.Harm What if we are uncertiain/ignorant about 1, 2 and 3?

5. 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. 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. 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. 8 Challenges related to reducing potentials for harm: Characteristics of knowledge Knowledge about outcomes Not problematic Problematic Knowledge about likelihoods Not problematic Risk ProblematicUncertainty (reducible and irreducible) Ignorance (reducible and irreducible)

9. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 29 Suggestions for new institutions Responsibility and BoP (ESRC 1999) Must prove: An adverse impact occurred The GM-crop was released Causation 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. 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?