Negotiations under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity have recently concluded on a protocol governing the safe handling, transport, and use of living modified organisms (LMOs)—the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. One of the most contentious issues in these negotiations was the inclusion of socioeconomic considerations in the evaluation for import of an LMO. Many countries wanted the protocol to include provisions that enable an import ban or other trade-related measure to be taken if negative socioeconomic impacts are predicted that would have downstream consequences for the conservation and/or sustainable use of biological diversity. Other countries, principally the United States, believed such measures would run counter to national obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. The author considers the rationale for inclusion of socioeconomic considerations in evaluation of LMOs for import and evaluates the arguments that such provisions would not be WTO legal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barrow, C. J. (1997). Environmental and social impact assessment: An introduction. London: Arnold.
2.
Bhatiasevi, A. (1997, November 17). Cotton used in medicine poses threat: Genetically-altered cotton may not be safe. Bangkok Post.
3.
Bowonder, B. (1979). Impact analysis of the green revolution in India. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 15, 297-313.
4.
Bray, F. (1994, July). Agriculture for developing nations. Scientific American, pp. 30-37.
5.
Burdge, R. J., & Vanclay, F. (1995). Social impact assessment. In F. Vanclay & D. A. Bronstein (Eds.), Environmental and social impact assessment (pp. 31-65). New York: John Wiley.
6.
Cleaver, H. M., Jr. (1972, June). Contradictions of the Green Revolution. Monthly Review, pp. 80-111.
7.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Environmental Protection Authority. (1996). Draft protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity concerning safety in biotechnology. Addis Ababa: Author.
8.
Griffin, K. (1974). The political economy of agrarian change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
Finsterbusch, K., Ingersoll, J., & Llewellyn, L. (Eds.). (1990). Methods for social analysis in developing countries. Boulder, CO: Westview.
10.
Finsterbusch, K., Llewellyn, L. G., & Wolf, C. P. (Eds.). (1983). Social impact assessment methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
Freudenburg, W. R. (1986). Social impact assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 451-478.
12.
Hewitt de Alcántara, C. (1976). Modernizing Mexican agriculture: Socio-economic implications of technological change, 1940-1970. Geneva: United Nations Research in Social Development.
13.
Impact Assessment, Inc. (1990). Social and psychological impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Interim Report #3 of the Economic, Social, and Psychological Impact Assessment of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, prepared for Oiled Mayors Subcommittee, Alaska Conference of Mayors). La Jolla, CA: Author.
14.
Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere. (1995). Declaration of indigenous peoples of the western hemisphere regarding the Human Genome Diversity Project. Reproduced in Cultural Survival Quarterly, 20(2), 63-63.
15.
Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. (1995). Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15(1), 11-43.
16.
Lee, A. M., & Bereano, P. L. (1981). Developing technology assessment methodology: Some insights and experiences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 19(1), 15-31.
17.
New Zealand Environmental Risk Management Authority. (1997). Considering applications: Proposed procedures and information requirements for the consideration of applications for the introduction of hazardous substances and new organisms under the HSNO Act 1996 (Consultation Doc. No. 2). Wellington: New Zealand Environmental Risk Management Agency.
18.
Nissen, J. L. (1997). Achieving a balance between trade and the environment: The need to amend the WTO/GATT to include multilateral environmental agreements. Law & Policy in International Business, 28(3), 901-928.
19.
Norway Ministry of Environment. (1993). The Act relating to the production and use of genetically modified organisms. Oslo: Author.
20.
Pham-Delègue, M. (1997). Risk assessment of transgenic oilseed rape on the honeybee. Safety of Our Foods and Life, 104, 7-9.
21.
Rickson, R. E., Hundloe, T., McDonald, G. T., & Burdge, R. J. (Eds.). (1990). Social impact of development: Putting theory and methods into practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 10(1/2).
22.
Rickson, R. E., & Rickson, S. T. (1990). Assessing rural development: The role of the social scientist. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 10(1-2), 103-112.
23.
Rural Advancement Foundation International. (1987, May). Cacao & biotechnology: A report on work in progress. RAFI Communique, pp. 1-9.
24.
Rural Advancement Foundation International. (1989, July). Coffee and biotechnology. RAFI Communique, pp. 1-13.
25.
Rural Advancement Foundation International. (1992, June). Genetic engineering of pyrethrins: Early warning for East African pyrethrum farmers. RAFI Communique, pp. 1-3.
26.
Shiva, V. (1991). The violence of the Green Revolution: Third world agriculture, ecology and politics. London: Zed Books Ltd. and Third World Network.
27.
Stoffle, R. W. (1990). Calculating the cultural significance of American Indian plants: Paiute and Shoshone ethnobotany at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. American Anthropologist, 92(2), 416-432.
28.
Taylor, C. N., Bryan, C. H., & Goodrich, C.C. (1990). Social assessment: Theory, process and techniques (Studies in Resource Management No. 7). Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln University, Center for Resource Management.
29.
UN Environment Programme. (1994). Convention on Biological Diversity: Text and annexes (UNEP/CBD/94/1). Montréal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
30.
UN Environment Programme. (1997a). Compilation of government submissions of draft text on selected items (UNEP/CBD/BSWG/3/3). Montréal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
31.
UN Environment Programme. (1997b). Submissions on socio-economic considerations and liability & compensation (UNEP/CBD/BSWG/3/3/Add.2). Montréal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
32.
UN Environment Programme. (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety [Online]. Available: http://www.biodiv.org/biosafe/Biosafe-Prot.html [retrieved 2000, March 26].
33.
World Bank Environment Department. (1995, September). Social assessment (World Bank Environmental Department Dissemination Notes No. 36) [Brochure]. Washington, DC: World Bank.
34.
World Trade Organization. (1994). Uruguay round final act [Online]. Available PDF: http//www.wto.org/wto.legal/finalact.htm [retrieved 2000, April 22].
35.
World Trade Organization. (1996). Report of the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment [Online]. Available: http//iisd1.iisd.ca/trade/wto/ctereport.htm [retrieved 2000, April 22].
36.
World Trade Organization. (1997). WTO environment [Online]. Available: http://www.wto.org [retrieved 2000, April 22].
37.
Wright, A. (1990). The death of Ramón González: The modern agricultural dilemma. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
