You are viewing our old site. See the new one here
|
|
|
|
|
Wrapping up, Dr. Calestous Juma, Science, Technology and Innovation Program, CID, email, said the discussions at the conference far exceeded his expectations. He said he was interested in finding a way that research activities could help further discussions in a constructive manner. In his closing remarks, Dr. Juma, provided some closing remarks and reflections on the meeting and its outcomes. He suggested that there needs to be a co-evolution between technological and institutional change, in order to resolve safety questions. He noted that all are interested in precaution as a guiding principle, but that there are differences in defining it. He stated that if this was solely a domestic discussion it would be easy to resolve, but that domestic actions taken in one country are bound to have implications for others. He anticipated that the Cartagena Protocol's entry into force would generate guidelines on how to apply the precautionary principle. He said that if we do not have common and normative standards, it will be difficult to make sense of the principle and its operationalization. He suggested that such standards will most likely be initially developed at the national level. He noted that despite numerous ecological and human health studies, the international community is still not able to agree on establishing and carrying out domestic assessments of biotechnology. He stressed the need to generate interest in evolutionary biology, noting that ignorance of ecosystem functions increases uncertainty. He emphasized the important role of the public sector. Juma stated that he would produce a summary reflecting his views of the conference, and invited all participants to contribute papers for inclusion in a special journal issue. He anticipated organizing further conferences on IPR, ethics and institutional innovations associated with molecular biology. (calestous_juma@harvard.edu) |
Summaries of the parallel sessions |
William Leiss (right) chaired the parallel session on Regulatory Implications. He noted his session's difficulties in addressing the regulatory implications of the precautionary principle, and called for further work in the area. He noted Andrew Apel's presentation on unifying the precautionary principle with substantial equivalence, highlighting Apel's final conclusion that substantial equivalence could generally serve as a replacement for the precautionary principle in dealing with situations of uncertainty. He noted that Mario Rodriguez generally disapproved of the precautionary principle, instead preferring that the current debate shift to the use of biotechnology as an economic development tool for developing countries. Leiss suggested that future efforts address the issue in greater detail, perhaps through a comparative analysis of actual cases or a discussion of the implications of a few formulations of the precautionary principle. He concluded by highlighting a question raised by Rodriguez as to whether the precautionary principle's application would result in unfair advantages, particularly between developing and developed countries. Photo: Calestous Juma and William Leiss |
Jayashree Watal, Center for International Development, summarized the session on International Experiences. She noted that Piet Van der Meer's presentation provided experiences from his work in the CEE and his emphasis on developing a common understanding of the precautionary principle. She highlighted Diego Malpede's review of Argentina's national biosafety experiences and perspective on the implications of the Cartagena Protocol and the WTO's SPS Agreement. She noted progress in moving from generalities to a greater level of specificity, while stressing the need for further work in this direction. |
Amir Attaran (left) summarized the session on National Experiences, observing that the talks overlapped constructively to demonstrate that developing countries do have the institutional capacity to regulate biotechnology, which belies rhetoric that they must be protected from it. He highlighted: Luiz Antonio Barreto de Castro's illustration that Brazil's regulatory system has developed enough to have hit a roadblock with non-commercialization; Aarti Gupta's point that India recognizes tropical biotechnology as different from non-tropical biotechnology; and John Mugabe's outline of the hierarchy of biotechnology development in Africa. Attaran noted that all three speakers expressed the desire to embrace and not retreat from biotechnology. |
Amanda Galvez (above right) summarized the panel discussion on Policy and Institutional Implications, summarized the session policy and institutional implications, noting Ed Soule's discussion of strong and weak formulations of the precautionary principle and their implications for assessing the risks of GM and non-GM agricultural practices. She noted that Philip Bereano traced the US history of preventive measures taken from the 1970s to date, and stressed the public's role in asking questions about new technologies. Regarding Gary Comstock's presentation, she highlighted his call for scientists to convey their views to the public and to focus on biotechnology's benefits as well as the problems of traditional agriculture. |
During the ensuing discussion, a number of issues were raised. One participant called for comparative assessments of why some developing countries, like Kenya, Brazil and India, do not allow commercialziation of GM crops, whereas others like China do. He suggested that democratic structures could be a factor. Another said that globalization is the true context for this debate, as people interact on a profit basis. One participant found that failure to criticize existing regulatory processes leaves an unbalanced conclusion and that recommendations should ensure data gaps are filled. Another participant concluded that the precautionary approach may condemn the comparative advantages of some developing countries using biotechnology. Another said that whether or not the precautionary principle is used, a comparison of advantages and disadvantages requires working across scientific disciplines and in different field settings, rather than in a laboratory. |
Klaus
Ammann (right) suggested, inter alia, the creation of a "toolbox"
to come to better terms with the precautionary principle, deal with
data and prepare a database containing relevant information on crops
and biotechnology.
|
One representative of Monsanto proposed that determining what is "insufficient" knowledge" would greatly facilitate future discussions.
|
Calestous
Juma, Chikako Takase, UN Division for Sustainable Development, and Thomas
Yongo, Earth Negotiations Bulletin (all formerly with the Secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity)
|
Delegates
mingle after the close of the conference
|
|
CID homepage | Conference Program |
CID events | Abstracts and Viewpoints |
International Conference on Biotechnology in the Global Economy homepage |
|
ENB coverage of CBD COP-5, Nairobi, May 2000 |
|
ENB coverage of resumed Ex-COP, Montreal, January 2000 |
|
SD coverage of 1999 conference on Biotechnology in the Global Economy |
©2000, IISD. All rights reserved.