The Use of GM Crops in Developing Countries
Local autonomy and choice
5.30 We now consider who, within a complex system of governance, should have the responsibility for deciding whether or not to use GM crops. In particular, the question arises whether it would be right to prevent farming communities in developing countries from adopting GM crops if they thought it was to their advantage. In this context, some might see an argument for the application of the principle of subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity says that, within a system of governance, decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level, provided that goals such as safety and environmental protection are secured. Why might this principle be thought to apply?
5.31 First, in many cases the beneficiaries of GM crops may be poor communities in developing countries for whom improved agriculture is crucial. If members of such communities believe that a particular technology can be an important means of improving their livelihoods, then it may be argued that it would be wrong to prevent them from pursuing that option. Secondly, there is evidence of illegal plantings of GM crops in some developing countries, most notably of soybean in Brazil and cotton in India. This indicates that irrespective of decisions made at the national level, promising technologies will be taken up regardless. It might therefore be better to allow communities to adopt the technology within a framework of regulation, despite its inevitable inadequacies, than to have them try it outside such a framework. Thirdly, there is evidence that it is institutions at the level of the local community, rather than the state, in which members of poor farming communities have most confidence.25 Small-scale farmers are some of the most vulnerable people in the world. If they are enabled to make their own decisions within their own communities, then they can exercise some influence over their own future.
.32 In principle, we sympathise with this approach, but we also anticipate problems. First, would local communities be given real or merely nominal control, if the decision to grow GM crops were left to them? In view of the increasing concentration of biotechnology, seed and agrochemical companies, many decisions are taken by powerful corporations. It seems unlikely that local communities would be given an equal role in negotiations. We therefore see a real risk of exploitation if the principle of subsidiarity were rigidly applied. Secondly, important issues are raised in the context of international trade. It could be the case that a particular community decides to grow GM crops, but in doing so affects the ability of others in the country to export crops of the same kind to external markets that have a restrictive policy towards GM crops. Thirdly, we have noted that the administrative and technical capacity of developing countries to monitor and regulate health and environmental effects, even at the national level, is often very limited. It seems unlikely that local communities would be able to undertake individual environmental and health risk assessments.
5.33 Nevertheless, local communities should be included as far as possible in decision making processes, for example by means of consultations with stakeholders. In this context, formal and non-formal programmes that promote the dissemination of balanced information, communication, education and training of those involved are essential. In particular, farmers need to be informed about the technological potential and management requirements of GM crops. Expectations are sometimes inappropriately high, and knowledge about specialised farm management practices may be absent. We recommend that companies marketing GM crops in developing countries share, with governments, the costs of:
locally appropriate schemes to elicit small-scale farmers’ preferences regarding traits sought by GM-based breeding;
their participation, where appropriate, in plant breeding; and
subsequent mechanisms to improve dissemination of balanced information, education and training about the use of GM crops.
5.34 Such measures can help to ensure that the views of farmers and other stakeholders are considered in the decision making processes about the possible use of GM crops. We conclude that the most appropriate approach would normally be a centralised and evidence-based safety assessment at the national or regional level. Environmental and health risks should be assessed on a case by case basis. Wherever possible, such assessments should consider information which is available from international sources, particularly with respect to data about food safety assessments, which are more transferable than environmental risk assessments.
5.35 While such arrangements could enable an appropriate means of balancing benefits and risks of GM crops, we need to consider one additional element that is crucial for an efficient and effective regulatory framework. This is the provision of a system of remediation in the case of crop failures. As one respondent to our Consultation observed:
‘Regulations must include provisions for correcting mistakes. Multinational companies cannot be allowed to use small-scale farmers as guinea-pigs to try out whether new crop varieties are really successful. When the cotton balls fell off prematurely in the US,26 farmers were able to get compensation. Would the same be true of crop failures in developing countries?’ Tracey McCowen, MBE, Canada
5.36 We agree that the same standards of liability need to apply in both developing countries and developed countries. Where there is clear evidence of damage attributable to the seed producer, compensation will need to be provided, regardless of whether the seed is GM or non-GM. We note that in previous instances of crop failures in developed countries compensation has been negotiated successfully. We recommend that possible scenarios, which include the principle of compensation, be considered by policymakers and the seed industry. Agreed standards should be published widely, taking into account in particular the situation of small-scale farmers in developing countries. Illiteracy and lack of adequate infrastructure for effective communication can present additional obstacles that need to be considered. Wherever possible, agreements should be established, to facilitate compensation of small-scale farmers who, in the event of loss or damage, are unlikely to be able to afford appropriate legal action.
Footnotes25 Pimbert M and Wakeford T (2002) Prajateerpu: Food and Farming Futures for Andhra Pradesh: A Citizens’ Jury / Scenario Workshop, Economic and Political Weekly [India] 37: 2778–87 (Review of Science Studies), 6-12 July 2002.
26 This refers to problems encountered by some cotton farmers in a specific area of the Missisippi Delta in the US, see Memphis Commercial Appeal (1997) Mississippi Investigates Monsanto’s Cotton, 18 Aug 1997. Available at: http//newgomemphis.com/newgo/core/archives.htm. Accessed on: 10 Nov 2003.