RSB Criteria on Technologies

From BioenergyWiki

This page is specially dedicated to the discussion on the draft criteria on Biotechnologies for the members of the Working Group on Environment (Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels). To comment the new draft Criteria and see Questions/Answers from the WG members, please visit the Discussion Page. Please also visit the Discussion page on principle on Biotechnologies

New proposal from the Secretariat (February 2008)

Following the recent discussions on biotechnologies and the 1st Virtual Meeting of the Expert Panel on Biotechnologies, the secretariat has drafted the following table, as a synthesis. In this scenario, an overarching principle on the sustainable use of all technologies is proposed, with specific criteria on GMOs among others.

Please note that this version has not been validated by the Expert Panel on Biotechnologies.

Comments from the Expert Panel

• I just read through the synthesis. Looks good! I would keep it overarching. It would be possible to split it and put these criteria into other principles, but I think this way is clearer.
  I have one small issue with criterion d. Rather than talk about higher yields or a greater income per hectare, I think from a farmer's perspective the most desirable attribute a crop can have is to minimise his risk. Certainly the work that DFID plant sciences programme was doing on GM crops was aimed at reducing risk. A practical example of that could be that a high yielding (conventional) variety may yield very well in a high rainfall year and fail if the rains are poor. In that case, a farmer in a semi arid rainfed system may well prefer a crop that might give an intermediate yield in a good year, but will at least give him something in a dry year. Naturally that does not have to be a GM variety, but it may be.
  Since on the whole farmers are risk averse, I think that this is a more appropriate measure of value than yield or gross margin per ha, which are after all dependant upon a wider range of factors for a given location than crop variety alone. With increasing variability in rainfall patterns (I'm saying this from a very wet Botswana), people will be looking for crops which can tolerate a wide range of conditions. Ruaraidh Petre (8th February 2008).
  • I support your point on introducing the notion of risk rather than short-term yield. Now, it is hard for me to forecast what type of indicators will be associated to such a criterion; if you have any ideas on that or perhaps, some existing criteria, which include that, it would be great.Sebastien Haye (13th February)
    • I think a "reporting" type indicator should be sufficient. I don't have an example for reducing risk, maybe it could look something like this: Description of crop and agro economic zone demonstrating that the selected technology reduces risk of crop failure or economic losses to farmers relative to available conventional technologies in their situation. (this would basically require a report on properly conducted crop trials in that agro economic zone).Ruaraidh Petre (14th February 2008)

Freedom of Choice and ownership: I understand that some of the members of the expert panel are having trouble with the relevance of this criterion. It boils down to transparency. Elsewhere in the discussion on the principle for Biotechnology Kirk gave the example of farmers in South Africa who were getting out of Bt cotton as their debts mounted steadily as they were producing it. Without absolute transparency on what it will mean to a farmer who adopts a new crop, the seed company can always make a new variety look good. The argument that a farmer can make a business plan and make his decision rationally only holds true when he has perfect information, which is less likely the smaller the scale of the farming operation. There are more examples of farmers being trapped into buying seed every year, at prices over which they naturally have no control, or getting into a cycle of dependence upon certain chemicals due to the crop variety they are growing. These are all things which could have been avoided with transparency, and that is why it is important to have a criterion which covers it, even if the wording so far is not perfect.