INTER-RELATION BETWEEN SOCIOECONOMIC AND

BIOTECHNOLOGY

Agus Pakpahan

August 27, 2014

Delivered at PERHEPI Pre-Conference WorkshopBogor, August 27, 2014

I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE...

1. OVERVIEW OF INDONESIAN AGRICULTURE

2. ANALYSIS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS IN RELATION WITH BIOSAFETY

3. APPLICATION OF THE ABOVE ANALYSIS

4. CLOSING REMARKS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ag

ric. S

ha

re o

f G

DP

an

d

em

plo

ym

en

t (%

)

% Agric GDP

% Agric. Employment

ECONOMIC STRUCTURE

TRANSFORMATION 1990-2012

Source: WDI, WB, 2013

INDONESIAN

POPULATION, LARGE AND

GROWING FAST

RICE PRODUCTION: MAIN FOOD STAPLE: “NO

RICE NO PEACE”

INDONESIA REACH

RICE SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN

1983

INDONESIA’S RICE SELF SUFFICIENCY IN

1984, AFTER ABOUT 15 YEARS OF

DEVELOPMENT

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Cocoa

Palm oil (private

companies)

Coconut

LAND USE CHANGE:

The development of major plantation commodities

(1000 ha)

Rubber

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Indonesia’s GDP value/ha, 2005 $ constant price

Malaysia’s GDP Value/ha, 2005 $ constant price

Thailand’s GDP value/ha, 2005 US$ constant price

0.0

500.0

1,000.0

1,500.0

2,000.0

2,500.0

3,000.0

3,500.0

4,000.0

4,500.0

5,000.0

1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Malaysia

Thailand

Indonesia

Philipines

Agricultural Export Value (US$/ha)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Ek

sp

or

Pe

rta

nia

n (

US

$ J

uta

)Total Agric Export Revenue (million US$)

Malaysia

Thailand

Philippines

Indonesia

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000Land Resources Distribution According to Uses and Potential Uses (1000ha)

Arable land

Permanent Crops Land

Food Crops Arable Land Irigated Land

Dryland Food Crops

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Malaysia agric. labor (%)

Indonesia Agric. Labor (%)

% OF AGRIC. LABOR

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Labor Dynamic in Indonesia: 1991-2010

Agric. Labor

Total Rural Labor

Non-Agricultural Labor

Industrial Labor

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

NUMBER OF FARMERS

INDONESIA

Java

SUMATERA

CELEBESKALIMANTAN

GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX(GHI), 10 LOWEST GHI

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES INDEX

Rank Country 1990 1995 2000 2005 2013

1 Albania 9.2 6.0 7.8 6.1 5.2

1 Mauritius 8.5 7.6 6.5 5.9 5.2

3 Uzbekistan – 8.3 9.3 6.6 5.3

4 Panama 11.6 10.8 11.4 9.0 5.4

4 South Africa 7.2 6.5 7.4 7.7 5.4

6 China 13.0 10.4 8.4 6.7 5.5

6 Malaysia 9.5 7.1 6.9 5.8 5.5

6 Peru 16.3 12.3 10.5 9.9 5.5

9 Thailand 21.3 17.1 10.2 6.6 5.8

10 Colombia 10.4 8.0 6.8 6.9 5.9

Source: International Food Policy

Research Institute (IFPRI, 2013)

Position of Indonesia’s GHI

1990 1996 2000 2005 2013

20 Moldova – 7.7 8.8 7.3 9.2

21 Georgia – 16.6 9.2 11.3 9.3

22 Nicaragua 24.1 19.9 15.4 11.5 9.5

23 Indonesia 19.7 16.9 15.5 14.6 10.1

23 Paraguay 9.3 7.5 6.5 6.3 10.1

25 Mongolia 19.7 23.6 18.5 14.1 10.8

26 Bolivia 18.8 16.9 14.2 13.8 11.2

27 Lesotho 13.2 14.6 14.6 14.9 12.9

28 Mauritania 22.7 16.2 17.2 14.6 13.2

28 Philippines 19.9 17.4 17.7 14.0 13.2

30 Benin 22.5 20.5 17.3 15.2 13.3

Source: International Food Policy

Research Institute (IFPRI, 2013)

Food security

CORE LESSONS FROM OUR

PAST• GREEN REVOLUTION TECHNOLOGY AND ITS COMPLEMENTARY

INPUTS HAD BEEN ADOPTED VERY FAST

• 15 YEARS OF ITS APPLICATION GAVE INDONESIA RICE SELF

SUFFICIENCY STATUS

• BUT THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURN FROM OLD AGRIC.

TECHNOLOGY ARRIVED VERY SOON

• WIDENING GAP BETWEEN DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING

COUNTRIES IN FOOD SECURITY

• ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS AND INCREASING NATURAL RESOURCES

SCARCITIES ESPECIALLY WATER

• BIOTECHNOLOGY IN ONE OF HUMAN INGENUITY

• SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS CONSIDERATION IS STATED IN

CARTAGENA PROTOCOL

Mankind is passing from the primacy of the past to the

primacy of expectations of vast future changes.

Harold D. Lasswell

SUSTAINABILITY?

ENTERING A NEW WORLD

FROM GREEN REVOLUTION TO

GREENER GENE REVOLUTION

SUSTAINABILITY IS: HOW CAN WE SUCCESSFULLY

ORGANIZE ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION?

AGRICULTURAL INVOLUTION

AGRICULTURAL SIZE EXPANSION

INDONESIA USA, JAPAN, KOREA & ALL

DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

THE ORIGIN OF CARTAGENA

PROTOCOL

AND

THE EMERGENCE OF SOCIO-

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION IN IT:

THE WAY TO UNDERSTAND AND HOW

WE COPE WITH IT

UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

(AGENDA 21): THE SOURCE OF ORIGIN OF CARTAGENA

PROTOCOL FOR BIOSAFETY OF GMO

• UN Conference on Environment and Development –

• 20 years after the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm)

• Rio de Janeiro, 1992, after several years of preparatory meetings.

• Resulting in Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration

Agenda 21 (1992)

• Ch.1: Preamble:

• Humanity is confronted with a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems.

• Causes:• Population growth• Changing consumption patterns • Global warming and sea level rise• Etc.

Agenda 21 (1992)

Section I. Social and economic dimensions

Ch. 2. Sustainable development in developing countries Ch. 3. Combating poverty Ch. 4. Changing consumption patterns Ch. 5. Demographic dynamics and sustainability Ch. 6. Human health conditions Ch. 7. Sustainable human settlement development Ch. 8. Integrating environment and development

Agenda 21 (1992)

Section II. Conservation and management of resources.

Ch. 9. Protection of the atmosphere Ch. 10. Management of land resources Ch. 11. Combating deforestation Ch. 12. Combating desertification and drought Ch. 13. Sustainable mountain development Ch. 14. Sustainable agriculture and rural development Ch. 15. Conservation of biological diversityCh. 16. Environmentally sound management of biotechnology

Ch. 16: Env. Sound Management of Biotechnology

Preamble: Modern biotechnology is a set of techniques for bringing about specific changes in DNA in organisms.

By itself, biotechnology cannot resolve all the fundamental problems of environment and development, but it promises to make a significant contribution in enabling the development of, for example, better health care, enhanced food security through sustainable agricultural practices, improved supplies of potable water, more efficient industrial development processes for transforming raw materials, support for sustainable methods of afforestation and reforestation, and detoxification of hazardous wastes.

Ch. 16: Env. sound management of biotechnology

Objective: Promote the development of sustainable applications of biotechnology and to establish appropriate enabling mechanisms, especially within developing countries, through three program areas:

a. Increasing the availability of food, feed and renewableb. Improving human health;c. Enhancing protection of the environmentd. Developing international mechanisms for cooperation

Estimated total annual cost (1993-2000): 5 billion USD.

CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ADOPTED IN

MONTREAL 2000: How Agriculture Worlwide

Changing Explained?

COMMERCIALIZATION OF GMOs: The Impacts

of Legal, Political and Policy Changes Globally

•Commercialization of GMOs started in

1996

•The world planted GMOs in by only

1.7 million ha

• Now is about 175 million hectares

Explaining What Lesson from 1992 to 2014 w/ Regard to

Biotech Utilization

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION WITHIN

THE CONTECT OF CARTAGENA PROTOCOL

Agenda 21: Section I. Social and economic dimensions

Article 26 Socio-economic Consideration

In Cartagena Protocol Social and Economic

Dimension in Agenda 21 Section I has been

reduced to BIOSAFETY ISSUE:

I. ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY

II. FOOD SAFETY

III. FEED SAFETY

Ch. 2. Sustainable development in

developing countries

Ch. 3. Combating poverty

Ch. 4. Changing consumption

patterns

Ch. 5. Demographic dynamics and

sustainability

Ch. 6. Human health conditions

Ch. 7. Sustainable human

settlement development

Ch. 8. Integrating environment and

development

Article

26

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

1. The Parties, in reaching a decision on import under this Protocol or under

its domestic measures implementing the Protocol, may take into account,

consistent with their international obligations, socio-economic considerations

arising from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and

sustainable use of biological diversity, especially with regard to the value of

biological diversity to indigenous and local communities.

2. The Parties are encouraged to cooperate on research and information

exchange on any socio-economic impacts of living modified organisms,

especially on indigenous and local communities.

TEST OF CLARITY OR LACK OF AMBIGUITY OF

MEANINGS OF CERTAIN TERMS OR THEIR RELATIONS

Agenda 21 (1992)

SOCIAL and ECONOMIC

ASPECTS WITHIN THE

CONTEXT OF

SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT (VERY

BROAD)

Cartagena Protocol adopted in Montreal on 29 January 2000

• Biosafety Context:

A concept refers to the need to protect human health and the environment from the possible adverse effects of the products of modern biotechnology

Socio-economic aspects as a part of consideration in biosafety approval

CARTAGENA PROTOCOL: THE CLARITY OF

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION

UNDERSTANDING

Article

3

USE OF TERMS

For the purposes of this Protocol:

(a) “Conference of the Parties” means the Conference of the Parties to the

Convention;

(b) “Contained use” means any operation, undertaken within a facility, installation

or other physical structure, which involves living modified organisms that are

controlled by specific measures that effectively limit their contact with, and their

impact on, the external environment;

(c) “Export” means intentional transboundary movement from one Party to

another Party;

(e) “Import” means intentional transboundary movement into one Party from

another Party;

(f) “Importer” means any legal or natural person, under the jurisdiction of the

Party of import, who arranges for a living modified organism to be imported;

(g) “Living modified organism” means any living organism that possesses

a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern

biotechnology;

(h) “Living organism” means any biological entity capable of transferring

or replicating genetic material, including sterile organisms, viruses

and viroids;

(i) “Modern biotechnology” means the application of:

a. In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic

acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or

b. Fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural

physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not

techniques used in traditional breeding and selection;

(j) “Regional economic integration organization” means an organization

constituted by sovereign States of a given region, to which its member

States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this

Protocol and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its

internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to it;

(k) “Transboundary movement” means the movement of a living modified

organism from one Party to another Party, save that for the purposes of

Articles

17 and 24 transboundary movement extends to movement between Parties

and non-Parties.

We may conclude:

•There is no defined socio-economic

term provided by Cartagena

Protocol

•So, it does not clear by its given

regulation.

•It will depend on whose interest counts

in making interpretation and

decision

Then: What do we mean by Socio-

economic Consideration?

• Meaning of socio-economic depends on

ones philosophical methodological

orientation regarding values

(Johnson, 1986):

– Positivism and its variation such as

conditional normativism

– Normatism

– Pragmatism

Output of Research According to Its

Phillosopical Foundation

• Positivism

– value free positivistic knowledge.

– It rejects values as characteristic of real world. It is only exist in the head of knowing mind.

– At most it just assuming about values such as found in the case of maximizing utility (the more the better)

• Normativism: Knowledge of values

• Pragmatism: Prescriptive Knowledge

Knowledge Generation: Types of Research, Kinds of

Knowledge, dan Main Philosophical Underpinning

Normative Knowledge: Information of values for

making decisionsCharacteristics of a thing, a

situation or a condition in social

context

Norms, laws, rules, and other

things similar

Rightness Wrongness

Goodness Monetary Value The area of decision

making that should be

avoided. It is because

wrong by according to

norms, laws, etc.

Non-Monetary

Values

Badness Monetary Value

Non-Monetary

Value

Net Value X? The cost of avoiding

wrong desicion/the cost

of adopting wrong

decisions.

Decision Making In Biosafety of

GMOs

Rationality Bounded Rationality

(Herbert Simon)

Theoretical Perfect Information,

Optimization

Satisfying Criteria,

Heuristic, Non-

optimization

Practical Constrained by perfect

information/knowledge

assumtion

Having perfect

knoweldge infinitely

costly

REAL WORLD?

Human Mind and Skill

Philosophyies

Sciences

Religions

Culture

Beliefs

Knowledge

Ideas, Opi

nions.

etc

Arts

ENGINEERING

Knowledge

What? Descriptive Knowledge of Values or Value Free Positivistic Knwledge

What ought to be done: Prescriptive Knowledge= Recommendation

• Value Free Positivistic Knowledge:– Species of plant or animals

– Types of soil

– Height of trees, etc

• Knowledge about Values:– Monetary value:

• Cost of production

• Profit, rent, etc.

– Non-monetary values:• Goodness :

safe, secure, etc

• Rightness: according to certain rules or norms

• PRESCRIPTIVE

KNOWLEDGE:

– WHAT IS RIGHT THING

TO DO TO ACHIEVE

CERTAIN POLICY

OBJECTIVES OR GOALS

• TEST OF OBJECTIVITY:

– WORKABILITY

HARMONIZING SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE

AND PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Substantial Equivalence Precautionary Principles

• Right according to the

Results

• Right according to

regulatory procedures

BOTH ARE IMPORTANT:

NEED HARMONIZATION

NEED:

TRANSDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE BASED POLICY

RECOMMENDATION

APPLICATION: Trying to use the

above frame of thinking

Biotechnology as Endogenous Variable Socio-

economic as one of Exogenous Variables

Activities In Biotechnology

Explanatory/Exogenous Variables:

• Investment in R&D

• R&D policies

• HRD in R&D and Education

• National Research Systems

• Politico, Legal and Socio-cultural variables

Outputs/IMPACTS

DEVELOPMENT OR

UNDER-DEVELOPMENT

OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

EITHER IN

LABORATORY OR IN

THE FIELDS OF

APLICATIONS

Cause

GREEN REVOLUTION

• Global & national convergence on

decision of what must be excercised

to boost food and agric production

• National government had played as

an engine of growth and Green

Revolution Tech as its gasoline

• Significant change in almost all

aspects of agriculture and its

associated variables: industry,

consumption, trades, laws, land use,

infrastructure

• Critics on negative impacts on

environments such as water pollution

• Socio-economic impact: farmers

getting poorer and inequality issue.

GREENER GENE REVOLUTION

• Private companies innitiatives supported by government policies

• Adoption rate has been very fast. Increase from 1.7 M ha to 175M ha in 18 years increase by 1375 %/year or 25000% increase in 18 years

• Understanding of Socio-economic consideration in the context of Precautionary Principle

Biotechnology as One of Exogenous Variable, what are

the impacts?

Here We See Biotech As Major Changing Variable

Special Case of GMOs Impacts

Conservation and

sustainable use of biological diversity

• What socio-economic consideration?

– Initial socio-economic condition of rural and agric societies and their interests

– Knowledge, concern and adaptability of communities to GMOs technology

– Expected positive impact and prohibited/avoidance of negative impacts

Value of biological diversity to

indigenous and local

communities.

• Lesson learned through co-evolutionary process

• Protection of indigenous and local communities

• Because spatial distribution of biological diversities do not follow administrative boundary then the benefits of R&D for same species can be shared

INDONESIA LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN

TRANSGENIC PRODUCTS

• Ministry of Agriculture Desicion No. 856/Kpts/HK.330/9/1997: Biosafety for Genetically Modified Products of Agricultural Products

• Joint Decree of Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Forestry and Plantation and State Ministry of Food and Horticulture Nomor 998.1/Kpts/OT.210/9/99: Biosafety and Food Safety of Genetically Modofied Organism.

• Law No. 21, 2004: Ratification of Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity

• Government Regulation No. 21, 2005: Biosafety of Genetically Mofied Organism

• President Regulation No. 39, 2010: Biosafety Commission for GMOs

• President Regulation 2014

R&D Capacity of Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (AARD)

• Human Resource Capacity:

1994 -2002: • Mollecular Biologists: 11 persons • Reproduction and growth researchers: 9 persons• Graduate Program in The Netherland, Australia, USA and Japan: 11 persons

2003 – present – Mollecular bilogy research group: 34 persons – Cells and organ reserach group: 13 persons(Source: AARD, 2013)

Year Output

2001 Minister of Agriculture Decision Nomor 107/Kpts/KB.430/2/2001: Limited release of Bt-cotton in South Sulawesi

2002 Ministry of Agriculture Decision Nomor 03/Kpts/KB.430/1/2002: Limited release of Bt-cotton to be planted in 7 regencies in South Sulawesi

2003 Ministry of Agriculture Decision Nomor 102/Kpts/KB.430/2/2003: Limited release of Bt-cotton in 9 regencies in South Sulawesi

2011 Decision of Head of Food and Drugs Agency No. HK.04.1.52.02.11.01383: Permit for distribution of Corn event MON 89034Decision of Head of Food and Drugs Agency No. HK.04.1.52.02.11.01384: Permit for distribution of Corn event NK 603Decision of Head of Food and Drugs Agency No. HK.04.1.52.04.11.03588: Permit for ditribution of Soybean event GTS 40-3-2 and Soybean MON 8978d

Minister of Agriculture Decision Nomor 2464/Kpts/PD.620/5/2011: Feed Safety of Ronozyme AX (CT)

Output of current policies on Biotech

Closing Remarks

• Socio-economic consideration should be understood within the broader context of undertanding of inter-relationships between biotechnology and its environments (one is socio-economic).

• Revolution in Agriculture:– from hunting and gathering to slash and burning (shifting)

agriculture

– from shifting agriculture to agriculture

– from traditional agriculture to industrialized agriculture

– from industrialized agriculture to scientific based agriculture• Biotechnology revolution

• Revolutionary agriculture

• Need new Norms, Laws, Policy and Regulatory for better future for all people in this one only PLANET for all of us