STOA workshop Ethical and social challenges of agricultural technologies - Issues for decision-makers Participants’ booklet EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) PE 598.618 STOA workshop Ethical and social challenges of agricultural technologies Issues for decision-makers Participants’ Booklet 25 January 2017, 14:30-17:00 Paul-Henri Spaak Building, Room 7C050 European Parliament, Brussels Prepared by Nera Kuljanic and Mihalis Kritikos, Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) Available at: www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/cms/home/workshops/ethical © European Union, 2017 © Cover image: Sergey Nivens / Fotolia PE 598.618 2 Contents 1. Programme .......................................................................................................................................4 2. Introduction .....................................................................................................................................5 Marijana Petir, MEP, STOA Panel member .................................................................................8 Julian Kinderlerer, University of Cape Town, South Africa, former President (2010-2016) of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies...........................................9 Helge Torgersen, Institute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences ....10 Anne Ingeborg Myhr, GenØk-Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway .................................11 Amir Muzur, School of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Croatia............................................12 4. About STOA ..................................................................................................................................13 5. STOA Panel members..................................................................................................................14 STOA Bureau..................................................................................................................................14 STOA Panel.....................................................................................................................................15 6. STOA administration...................................................................................................................17 3 1. Programme Chair: Marijana Petir, STOA Panel Moderator: Julian Kinderlerer, University of Cape Town, South Africa, former President (2010-2016) of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) 14.30-14.40 Opening Marijana Petir, MEP, STOA Panel 14.40-15.00 Setting the scene: Innovation and (bio)ethics Julian Kinderlerer 15.00-15.20 Synthetic biology in agriculture and challenges for risk governance Helge Torgersen, Institute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences 15.20-15.40 Genetic modification in agriculture and challenges for risk governance Anne Ingeborg Myhr, GenØk-Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway 15.40-16.00 The precautionary principle – between European bioethical tradition and American pragmatism Amir Muzur, School of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Croatia 16.00-16.30 Debate 16.30-16.40 Conclusions Julian Kinderlerer 16.40-16.45 Closing Marijana Petir, MEP, STOA Panel 4 2. Introduction Agriculture is not only technical, economic or political in nature but also inherently ethical - to feed the world’s population while respecting future generations’ needs and expectations in terms of food security, safety and sustainability. New agricultural technologies, whether they modify the genes of plants or not, can increase yields, improve the way we use natural resources such as land and water, enhance nutritional value of food and help to feed the world in a more sustainable and efficient way. The need to broaden the scope of authorisation and regulatory frameworks for agricultural biotechnologies so as to take into account the relevant socio-economic and ethical impacts has been a long-standing query of societal actors and of a wide range of stakeholders. The inclusion of socio-economic and ethical considerations in biosafety decision-making is a widely debated issue at international, regional and national levels considering that these could define the way technologies are introduced and disseminated in society. The arguments both in favour and against the inclusion socio-economic considerations in biosafety decision-making are varied. On the one hand, there are those that argue in favour of recognising the relevance of socio-economic considerations in risk assessment and management of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) due to their potential impacts on biological diversity that may in turn jeopardize rural livelihoods, indigenous knowledge and local farming practices. Opinions against the acknowledgment of socio-economic considerations mostly focus on the potential increase of the cost of compliance. There is a substantial body of literature on anticipated and documented impacts of genetically modified crops beyond the health and environmental dimension. These impacts are referred to as ethical, economic, agronomic, agro-environmental, societal, social, socio-economic etc. At international level, in the context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety1 and the Aarhus Convention2, as well as the level of the European Union (EU), socio-economic aspects of genetically modified organisms are being elaborated to a greater extent. During the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (COP-MOP) to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the Parties recognised the need for further guidance when choosing to take into account socio-economic considerations3 and made reference to the operational objective 1.7 of the Strategic Plan of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the period 2011–2020. The objective 1.7 aims: “To, on the basis of research and information exchange, provide relevant guidance on socio-economic considerations that may be taken into account in reaching decisions on the import of living modified organisms.” Finally, in March 1 The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity is an international agreement which aims to ensure the safe handling, transport and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health. It was adopted on 29 January 2000 and entered into force on 11 September 2003. 2 The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters was adopted on 25 June 1998 in the Danish city of Aarhus (Århus) at the Fourth Ministerial Conference as part of the ‘Environment for Europe’ process. It entered into force on 30 October 2001. 3 Decision BS-VI/13 (http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/decisions/?decisionID=13246) 5 2015 a new directive on GMOs was approved (Directive (EU) 2015/4124), allowing a Member State (or region) to adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation in all or part of its territory of a GMO, or of a group of GMOs defined by crop or trait, based on compelling grounds such as those related to socio-economic impacts, avoidance of GMOs presence in other products, agricultural policy objectives or public policy (article 1.3). Although the consideration of these aspects is possible according to European legislation and socio-economic aspects can be taken into account, a clear definition of socio-economic aspects is not available, nor is there any guidance on respective criteria for their identification and assessment. The AdHoc Technical Group on Socio-Economic Considerations (AHTEG-Sec) of the Convention of Biological Diversity, recognised that there is no single agreed definition but considered that the scope of the term includes five dimensions: (a) economic; (b) social; (c) ecological; (d) cultural/traditional/religious/ethical; and (e) human-health related5. As a result, assessing the socio-economic sustainability, societal benefits and ethical acceptability of agricultural biotechnologies in the frame of the established risk assessment procedures have, for a long time, been debated but hardly exert a major role in shaping the respective authorisation procedures. Rapid developments in the field of genetic engineering and synthetic biology trigger the need to re-examine the traditional risk assessment model and employ methodologies that will strengthen the responsiveness and inclusiveness of the current framework. New challenges may come from emergent properties of synthetic biology products and systems and the increased speed of modifications; with gene drive, genetic elements distribute themselves among the population, which means no traditional containment. While socio-economic issues have played a major role in the long standing EU debate on GMOs, there is, however, very little experience in explicitly and systematically assessing their socio-economic impacts. What to expect from the workshop Against this backdrop, this workshop aims to identify and explore the issues relevant to the topic and provide options for policy development and further research with a particular focus on the socio-economic effects of agricultural technologies, the relevant issues and controversies, on whether and how socio-economic effects can be differentiated, clustered and assessed in the course of the established authorisation framework. The workshop will provide the space for a debate on this