Socio-economic Considerations for Genetically Modified Organisms

1. Socio-economic Considerations for Genetically Modified Organisms XUE Dayuan Nanjing Institute of Envir. Sci., SEPA & Central University for Nationalities, Beijing Xishuanbenna, Dec 3, 2007

2. Topics • Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety • Socio-economic problems for GURTs • Consumers’ attitudes to GMOs: a survey in Beijing • Farmers’ responses to Bt cotton: a field survey in 5 provinces in China

3. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 26: Socio-economic considerations • Article 26 establishes the right of Parties to take into account socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of living modified organisms in reaching a decision on whether to import these organisms, especially with regard to the value of biological diversity to indigenous and local communities. However, when Parties are taking into account such considerations, they are at the same time required to ensure that the decision is consistent with their other international obligations.

4. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 26: Socio-economic considerations • Article 26 Paragraph 2 of Article 26 calls upon Parties to cooperate on research and information exchange on socio-economic impacts of LMOs, especially on indigenous and local communities. In accordance with the medium term programme of work adopted by the first meeting of the COP-MOP (decision BS-I/12). COP-MOP 2 requested Parties and other Governments to provide their views and case studies concerning socio-economic impacts of LMOs. It also invited Parties and other Governments to share information and experiences on socio-economic impacts of LMOs through the BCH.

5. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 26: Socio-economic considerations • Decision BS-II/12 • 1. Invites Parties and other Governments to continue to cooperate within relevant processes under other organizations and arrangements on socio-economic considerations: cooperation on research and information exchange (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/12), which deal with socio-economic impacts of living modified organisms; • 2. Urges Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to provide more emphasis to research on socio-economic impacts of living modified organisms (LMOs) and to allocate resources for that purpose; • 3. Invites Parties, other Governments and organizations with research activities related to socio-economic impacts of LMOs arising from the impacts of these organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, to share information with other on their research methods and results, both positive and negative;

6. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 26: Socio-economic considerations • Decision BS-II/12 • 4. Furtherinvites Parties and other Governments to share, through the Biosafety Clearing-House, their information and experiences in taking into account socio-economic impacts including experiences in implementing the Akwé:Kon Voluntary Guidelines; • 5. Requests Parties, other Governments and relevant international organizations to provide to the Executive Secretary their views and case-studies, where available, concerning socio-economic impacts of living modified organisms;

7. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 23: Public awareness and participation • Article 23 requires to promote and facilitate public awareness and education, including access to information, regarding the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs). It also requires Parties to consult the public in the decision-making process, to make public the final decision taken and to inform public about the means of access to the Biosafety Clearing-House. • Public awareness, education and participation are fundamental elements for the effective implementation of the Protocol. It is important for the public to know and understand the issues and processes related to LMOs and to have access to relevant information in order to make informed choices and actions, and to be able to participate effectively in the decision-making processes.

8. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 23: Public awareness and participation • COP-MOP in its decision BS-I/12 agreed to consider, at its second meeting, “options for cooperation between Parties, other States and relevant international bodies on the promotion and facilitation of public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms”. • In its decision BS-II/13, COP-MOP encouraged countries to develop and implement national programmes, to make effective use of the media and to leverage opportunities for cooperation in the promotion of public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs.

9. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 23: Public awareness and participation • Decision BS-II/13 • Emphasizing the importance of public awareness, education and participation in promoting transparency, public confidence and broad-based support for the effective implementation of the Protocol, • Underlining the importance of making the information concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms available to different stakeholders

10. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 23: Public awareness and participation • Decision BS-II/13 • 9. Encourages Parties, other States and relevant international bodies to make effective use of the tools and mechanisms established under the Global Initiative on Communication, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA) under the CBD • 11. Invites Parties, other States and concerned relevant international bodies to explore and maximize opportunities for cooperation in the promotion of public awareness, education and participation through the frameworks provided by related national and international instruments, in particular the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

11. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 18: Handling, Transport, Packaging and Identification • Paragraph 2 sets out obligations on each Party to take measures that require the identification of LMOs in accompanying documentation. These identification measures vary depending on the intended use of the LMOs. Accordingly there are different requirements for LMOs intended for - LMO-FFPs, direct use as food or feed or for processing (subparagraph (a), - LMOs destined for contained use (subparagraph (b), - LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment (subparagraph (c).

12. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 18: Handling, Transport, Packaging and Identification • The COP-MOP 1 decided to establish an open-ended technical expert group that would develop proposals on the details of the identification requirements for LMO-FFPs under paragraph 2(a) of Article 18, called for the use of a commercial invoice or other existing document for incorporating the information provided for by the Protocol to accompany transboundary LMO shipments; invited Parties to use Unique Identifiers for Transgenic Plants adopted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); and requested the Secretariat to maintain a register of unique identification codes in the BCH.

15. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 18: Handling, Transport, Packaging and Identification • At its third meeting, COP-MOP made an important breakthrough regarding the contentious issue of detailed requirements for documentation accompanying shipments of living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing, which had eluded Governments during the last segment of the negotiations of the Protocol and since its adoption.

19. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 27: Liability and Redress • The issue of liability and redress for damage resulting from the transboundary movements of LMOs was one of the themes on the agenda during the negotiation of the Biosafety Protocol. The negotiators were, however, unable to reach any consensus regarding the details of a liability regime under the Protocol. • Accordingly, COP-MOP-1 established an Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Liability and Redress to fulfil the mandate under Article 27.

20. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 27: Liability and Redress • The first meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on Liability and Redress took place from 25 to 27 May 2005 in Montreal, Canada • The second meeting of the Working Group on Liability and Redress was held from 20-24 February 2006 in Montreal, Canada. At this meeting, the Working Group developed an indicative list of criteria for the assessment of the effectiveness of any rules and procedures referred to in Article 27 • The Working Group developed different options for operational text on scope, damage and causation. The outcome of these deliberations is contained in annex to document UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/3/10

21. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 27: Liability and Redress • The third meeting considered a blueprint for a COP-MOP decision on international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for damage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified organisms. • The Working Group discussed a synthesis of proposed operational texts on approaches, options and issues identified pertaining to liability and redress in the context of Art. 27 of the Biosafety Protocol.

22. 1. Socio-economic issues in Cartagena Protocol • Article 27: Liability and Redress At the fourth meeting the Working Group streamlined the operational texts on approaches and options identified pertaining to liability and redress in the context of Article 27 of the Biosafety Protocol. The blueprint was also revised to reflect the changes agreed by the Working Group to the form and contents • The Working Group has requested the Co-Chairs to do further streamlining on certain sections of the working document, and to produce a revised working draft for consideration by the Working Group at its fifth meeting, which will be held in March 2007 in Columbia, before COP9-MOP4 in Bonn, May, 2007.

23. 2. Socio-economic issues in the Convention on Biological Diversity • CBD Article 8(j): Gurts to traditional knowledge ( GURTs - Genetic use restrict technologies ) • Most developing countries and NGOs oppose GURTs, because it is not in accordance to CBD/ITPGRFA and it is harmful to small farmers for their rights to retain seeds. As it is not helpful to food security, they call for prohibiting the technologies by country’s legislation. • But, Australia, New Zealand, USA and Argentina support to further research for developing and using GURTs • GURTs may produce socio-economic problems for traditional knowledge of indigenous and local communities.

24. 2. Socio-economic issues in the Convention on Biological Diversity • Article 8(j): Gurts to traditional knowledge • 8(j)-5 Ad Hoc Expert Group proposed to COP-8 • To request Parties, other countries and stakeholders to respect the farmers’ rights to use, retain and exchange seeds, as well as the rights to use the breeding materials. • To enhance researches on impacts of GURTs on socio-economy, including risk assessment case by case. • To request international institutions and organizations to study potential patent policies and patent applications for GURTs in future, as well as the impacts of GURTs on ethic and inspirit.

25. 3. Consumers’ attitudes to GMOs: An interview survey in Beijing • We did a questionnaire surveys to 1000 consumers from 12 supermarkets in Beijing, China, late 2004, in order to reveal consumers’ attitudes on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and GM foods. • Some results are as below:

26. 3. Consumers’ attitudes to GMOs: An interview survey in Beijing 1. Consumers’ GMOs acquaintance • In general, most respondents have little knowledge for GMOs and GM products in the markets. The investigated results show that 49.4% respondents know little and 15.5% know nothing about GMOs and GM products, indicating totally 64.9% respondents have no acquaintance to GMOs. While the other 32.8% respondents have generally acquaintance and just 2.3% are well-known.

27. 3. Consumers’ attitudes to GMOs: An interview survey in Beijing 2. Consumers’ acquaintance to GMOs labeling. • During the questionnaire interviewing, 45.3% of the respondents didn’t know that the GMOs labeling system though it had been implemented in China and other 42.6% respondents couldn’t identify the GMOs labels through they knew that the labeling system had been existed. Furthermore, data indicates that higher educated respondents have higher acquaintance and identification ability.

28. 3. Consumers’ attitudes to GMOs: An interview survey in Beijing 3. Consumers’ attitudes to GMOs labeling. • Totally 96.9% of the respondents had demands of GMOs labeling, of which 48.1% had demands for a highlighted labeling, 25.9% requested to use a double labeling system for both GMOs and non-GMOs in order to give consumers’ sufficient option rights, only 3.1% expressed that they didn’t care for GMOs or non-GMOs. • Further analysis on the categorized information, we can find that higher educated people usually have more demands for highlighted or double labeling, while lower educated people have less labeling demands.

29. 3. Consumers’ attitudes to GMOs: An interview survey in Beijing 4. Attitude and propensity to consume GMO products • 69% consumers trust traditional food, only 5.2% trust GMO food and the rest accepts both. Furthermore, 55.7% respondents tends to consume traditional foods in their daily life, on the contrary, only 8.3% respondents choice GMOs food, the rest 36% have no ideas. • The data shows that the lower educated respondents are more trustworthy to traditional food than higher educated people; Younger people express more careless than old people. It indicates that young people and higher educated people are easy to accept new events while old people and lower educated people are relatively conservative

30. 3. Consumers’ attitudes to GMOs: An interview survey in Beijing 5. Attitudes to GM technology development • Consumers’ attitudes are mild for the issue. Respondents who chose ‘actively develop’ and ‘don’t actively develop’ were both less, around 10% respectively, while totally more than 80% of respondents chose ‘appropriately develop’ (38.8%) or ‘develop the technology with caution in commercialization’(41.7%).

31. Consumers’ attitudes to GMOs: An interview survey in Beijing 6. Attitude to foodstuff safety in the market of future • Almost half (51.3%) said ‘have no idea’ for GMOs risks in foodstuff, 20.4% thought that the foodstuff ‘will be a risk’ and another 28.3% responded ‘will not be a risk’. This implies that GM food has an uncertainty for its risks on human health, biodiversity and environment, and actually most people are at a loss on how to deal with the GMO issue. Through some people worry about the risks, the majority believe government could regulate the foodstuff safety suitably.

32. 4. Farmers’ responses to Bt cotton : A field survey in 5 provinces • In 2005, we did a field survey to interview 1000 farmers for plantation of Bt cotton. The respondents were distributed in three representative regions for cotton plantation, i.e. Jiangsu and Anhui provinces for Yangtze River valley; Shandong and Hebei Provinces for Yellow river valley and Xinjiang Autonomous Region. 200 farmers each.

33. 4. Farmers’ responses to Bt cotton : A field survey in 5 provinces • Main findings We found that farmers continue to use higher levels of pesticide use than reported in previous studies, most likely to bring secondary pests under control. • Another problem associated with the introduction of Bt cotton in China is the low awareness and knowledge of genetic modification by farmers. • The liberalization of the Chinese seed market had profound negative effects on farmers, as many of them were confronted with counterfeit seed resulting in yield losses.

34. Farmers’ responses to Bt cotton: : A survey in 5 provinces

35. 4. Farmers’ responses to Bt cotton: : A survey in 5 provinces • Why the farmers choice to plant Bt cotton

36. 4. Farmers’ responses to Bt cotton: : A survey in 5 provinces • Only 15% know transgenic cotton, 5.5% know Bt. Their information sources are as below:

37. 4. Farmers’ responses to Bt cotton: : A survey in 5 provinces • 96% know Bt cotton oil is edible, 79% eat the oil. Reasons for not eating are as below:

38. 4. Farmers’ responses to Bt cotton: : A survey in 5 provinces • What organization should be responsible for seed management, as seed market fraud problem

39. Farmers’ responses to Bt cotton: : A survey in 5 provinces

40. 5. Conclusion • Socio-economic impact is a key issue in Protocol forum • More data for positive impacts, but less data for negative impacts • Greater attention should be paid to researches on socio-economic impacts • The researches can not be limited to GM crops, should extend to GM animals, trees, fishes and pharmaceuticals

41. 谢谢！ Thanks !