How to include socio-economic considerations in decision-making on agricultural biotechnology? Two models from Kenya and South Africa

Abstract

This article contributes to the debate about how regulatory science for agricultural technologies can be 'opened up' for a more diverse set of concerns and knowledges. The article focuses on the regulation of 'socio-economic considerations' for genetically modified organisms. While numerous countries have declared their intent to include these considerations in biotechnology decision-making, it is currently unclear both what counts as a socioeconomic consideration and how such considerations should be assessed. This article provides greater clarity about how socioeconomic considerations can be included in regulations by drawing upon the experience of two countries whose efforts in this field are particularly advanced: Kenya and South Africa. Based on extensive fieldwork, this article identifies the contours of an emerging regulatory regime by presenting two practice-based models for including socioeconomic considerations in biotechnology decision-making. Whereas Kenya has taken a bottom-up process prior to assessing the first technologies and strongly emphasises scientific expertise, South Africa has instead established regulatory standards in an ad hoc fashion on a case-to-case basis, with a less prominent role for scientific evidence. The discussion of the distinct characteristics and tensions of both models provides insight into two potential pathways for including socioeconomic considerations in the regulation of agricultural technologies.

Governing Agricultural Biotechnologies in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany: A Trans-decadal Study of Regulatory Cultures

“…Such an approach could be applied to trace the evolution of regulatory policies in other liberal democracies in which risk regulation plays an important role. It could also be applied to build upon analyses that have described how countries such as Norway (Binimelis and Myhr 2016), South Africa, and Kenya (Beumer 2019) have brought socio-economic considerations into policy decisions in a more explicit way than either the United States, the United Kingdom, or Germany. What role opportunity structures have played in the emergence of these and other national frameworks needs to be considered in the context of different historical and political backgrounds.…”

Ugandan stakeholder hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control: new directions for gene drive risk governance

“…Previous research demonstrates that stakeholders see the risks of biotechnologies more broadly than do science-based regulatory agencies, which focus almost exclusively on environmental and human health risks [ 32 , 33 ]. This study shows that in addition to situating risk in the local context, stakeholders raised a broader set of concerns about gene drive mosquitoes than those considered in traditional regulatory frameworks.…”

“…In particular, they are concerned about the socio-economic impacts and governance frameworks for gene drive mosquitoes. The incorporation of socio-economic considerations in regulatory frameworks is contentious and there are few examples of frameworks that have specified what counts as a socio-economic consideration or successfully integrated them into risk decision-making [ 32 ]. However, attentiveness to these considerations will be important for the ethical justifiability and social acceptability of risk decisions concerning the testing and deployment of gene drive mosquitoes [ 34 ].…”

“…A decision-making pathway is needed that draws on local knowledge and values, garnered through engagement with stakeholders, publics and communities and it should not rely on arm’s length public consultations on highly technical risk guideline documents produced solely through expert-centered processes. International support is available through the Cartagena Protocol on Biodiversity which allows States to consider societal concerns such as the ethical, social, and economic impacts of gene drive mosquitoes in regulatory decisions [ 32 ].…”

Who is the African Farmer? The Importance of Actor Representations in the Debate About Biotechnology Crops in Africa

“…Wynne 2001;Levidow and Carr 1996;Levidow et al 2005;Jasanoff 2005) and on conflicting values and interests that are at stake, revolving around issues such as trade, public trust, and democracy (e.g. Zerbe 2004; Kearnes et al 2006;Levidow and Carr 2009;Ayele 2007;Beumer 2019). The representation of the farmer, so we argue, is a somewhat ignored but crucial aspect for understanding and moving forward the debate about the impact of GM crops on African smallholder farmers.…”