Book contents
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing Countries
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
- 2 Recent Scientific Developments in Genetic Technologies: Implications for Future Regulation of GMOs in Developing Countries
- 3 A Strategy for Integrating Science into Regulatory Decision-Making for GMOs
- 4 Governance of Benefits and Risks of GMOs in Developing Countries
- 5 The Canadian Experience with the Creation and Implementation of Regulatory Frameworks for the Environmental Release of GM Crops as a Model for Developing Countries
- 6 Labelling of Food from GMOs: Options to Consider by Developing Countries
- 7 Building Human Capacity and Skills in Biosafety: Lessons Learned and Emerging Best Practices
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
7 - Building Human Capacity and Skills in Biosafety: Lessons Learned and Emerging Best Practices
from Part I - Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2017
Book contents
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing Countries
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
- 2 Recent Scientific Developments in Genetic Technologies: Implications for Future Regulation of GMOs in Developing Countries
- 3 A Strategy for Integrating Science into Regulatory Decision-Making for GMOs
- 4 Governance of Benefits and Risks of GMOs in Developing Countries
- 5 The Canadian Experience with the Creation and Implementation of Regulatory Frameworks for the Environmental Release of GM Crops as a Model for Developing Countries
- 6 Labelling of Food from GMOs: Options to Consider by Developing Countries
- 7 Building Human Capacity and Skills in Biosafety: Lessons Learned and Emerging Best Practices
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
Summary
The principles for safety assessment of GM crops are reflected in the internationally binding Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. However, only in countries with a functional biosafety regulatory system will people be able to take full advantage of the bioeconomy. Based on experience and reviews of biosafety capacity building and training initiatives, some best practices are identified. Generally, countries with existing capacity for biotechnology R&D, and that have political support, have functioning regulatory systems and have benefited most from technical assistance programmes. The majority of developing countries are not yet able to implement their biosafety frameworks. Agencies implementing training initiatives need to balance them with commitment from governments. National frameworks can be tailored effectively for large, agricultural producing countries on one hand, and countries that primarily import agricultural commodities on the other. Regional collaboration would enable countries to share expertise and safety assessments. This chapter proposes that biosafety training should be linked to hands-on decision making to improve regulatory implementation in developing countries.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance, pp. 75 - 88Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P. (2014). Economic impact of GM crops: The global income and production effects 1996–2012. GM Crops & Food 5(1), 65–75.Google Scholar
CBD (2010). Assessment and Review under Article 35 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Discussion Paper on a Proposed Framework for the Second Assessment and Review. Report UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/15, 22 January 2010.Google Scholar
CBD (2013). Framework and Action Plan for Capacity-Building for the Effective Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2012–2020).Google Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J. et al., eds. (2013). Genetically Modified Crops in Africa: Economic and Policy Lessons from Countries South of the Sahara. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Johnston, S. et al. (2008). Internationally Funded Training in Biotechnology and Biosafety: Is It Bridging the Biotech Divide? Yokohama: UNU Institute of Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Kitabu, G. (2014). Here comes drought-tolerant hybrid maize varieties. The Guardian, 17 January 2014. [Online]. Available from http://wema.aatf-africa.org/files/guardian-oikeh-interview.pdfGoogle Scholar
Klümper, W. and Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE 9(11), e111629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maredia, K. et al. (2011). Capacity building in biosafety. In Environmental Safety of Genetically Engineered Crops, ed. Grumet, R. et al. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
McLean, M. A. et al. (2002). A Conceptual Framework for Implementing Biosafety: Linking Policy, Capacity, and Regulation. Briefing Paper No. 47. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
Pertry, I. et al. (2014). Biosafety capacity building: experiences and challenges from a distance learning approach. New Biotechnology 31(1), 64–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UNEP (2006). A Comparative Analysis of Experiences and Lessons from the UNEP-GEF Biosafety Projects. Geneva: UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit.Google Scholar
UNEP (2008). Guidance towards Implementation of National Biosafety Frameworks: Lessons Learned from the UNEP Demonstration Projects. Geneva: UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by