Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cartagena Protocol, Socio-Economic Assessment, and Literature Review of Socio-Economic Assessment (SEA) Studies in India

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops

  • 278 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the origins of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) , the relevant provisions on Socio-Economic Assessment of LMOs and literature review of socio-economic assessment studies in India . It describes how Article 26.1 has been interpreted and implemented. It analyses the developments in CBD and CPB on interpreting Article 26.1 and the work of Ad hoc Technical Experts Working Group (AHTEG) . The linkage between CPB and other international treaties and conventions is also examined and it is pointed out that Article 26.1 has been interpreted and implemented in a manner that is consistent with obligations under other treaties/conventions. The literature review on assessing the socio-economic impacts of GMOs in India shows that most of the studies focussed on economic aspects but this was not unique to India . On the other hand the diversity in methodologies used in them and the findings show that there is scope for future work on socio-economic impacts in India and elsewhere. Thus in future more action in terms of theory and practice are required in understanding socio-economic impacts by undertaking studies and by interpreting and implementing Article 26.1 . Both exercises can create a synergy that can be helpful in realizing the objectives of Article 26.1 of CPB .

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Greenpeace (2015).

  2. 2.

    See http://www.biosafetyprotocol.be/history.html for an overview.

  3. 3.

    For an overview of public participation and CPB see Skarlatakis and Kinderlerer (2013), see also Quinlan et al. (2016).

  4. 4.

    Segger et al. (2013).

  5. 5.

    COGEM (2014).

  6. 6.

    E.g. https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf_files/Socio-economic-Considerations-in-Decision-making-on-LMOs-MOP-6.pdf.

  7. 7.

    See p. 125 of Ludlow (2015) for details.

  8. 8.

    http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/portal_art26/se_main.shtml.

  9. 9.

    https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/bs/bs-ahteg-sec-01/official/bs-ahteg-sec-01-03-en.pdf.

  10. 10.

    https://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_art26_info.shtml1/2.

  11. 11.

    https://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_art26_info.shtml1/2.

References

  • Andow, D. A. (2010). Bt Brinjal: The scope and adequacy of the GEAC environment al risk assessment. Prepared for The Generic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Areal, F. J., Riesgo, L., & Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. (2013). Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: A meta-analysis. Journal of Agricultural Science, 151, 7–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., & Bansal, S. (2011, July 24–26). Diffusion of Bt cotton in India: Impact of seed prices and technological development. Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association and Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association (NARCA) Joint Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashok, K. R., Uma, K., Prahadeeswaran, M., & Jeyanthi, H. (2012). Economic and environmental impact of Bt cotton in India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bail, C., Falkner, R., & Marquard, H. (2002). The Cartagena protocol on biosafety: Reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment and development?. London: RIIA/Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwale, R. B., Gadwal, V. R., Zehr, U., & Zehr, B. (2004). Prospects for Bt cotton technology in India. AgBioForum, 7(1&2), 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R., Kambhampati, U., Morse, S., & Ismael, Y. (2006). Farm-level economic performance of genetically modified cotton in Maharashtra, India. Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(1), 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catacora-Vargas, G., Binimelis, R., Myhr, A. I., & Wynne, B. (2018). Socio-economic research on genetically modified crops: A study of the literature. Agriculture and Human Values, 35(2), 489–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaturvedi, S., et al. (2011). Towards a Framework for Socio-economic Aspects in Biosafety Protocol. RIS Policy Brief No. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhary, B., & Gaur, K. (2015). Biotech cotton in India-2002 to 2014. ISAAA Series of Biotech Crop Profiles. ISAAA: NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhary, B., & Gaur, K. (2010). Socio-economic and farm level impact of Bt cotton in India, 2002 to 2010. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri–Biotech Applications. ISAAA: NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • COGEM. (2014). Building Blocks for Assessment Framework for the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Crops, COGEM, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottier, T. (2002). Implications for trade law and policy: Towards convergence and integration. In: C. Bail, R. Falkner, & H. Marquard (Eds.), The cartagena protocol on biosafety: Reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment and development? (pp. 467–481). London: RIIA/Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deodhar, S. Y., Sankar, G., & Chern, W. S. (2007). Emerging markets for GM foods: An Indian perspective on consumer understanding and willingness to pay. Working Papers. No WP2007-06-08, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dev, M., & Rao, N. C. (2007). Socioeconomic impact of Bt cotton. CESS Monographs. Centre for Economic and Social Studies. Hyderabad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, B., & Mackenzie, R. (2000). The cartagena protocol on biosafety. Journal of International Economic Law, 3(3), 525–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely, A., Van Zwanenberg, P., & Stirling, A. (2014). Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches to enhance international development, coordination and democratisation. Research Policy, 43(3), 505–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervin, D. E., Glenna, L. L., & Jussaume, R. A., Jr. (2011). The theory and practice of genetically engineered crops and agricultural sustainability. Sustainability, 3(6), 847–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finger, R., El Benni, N., Kaphengst, T., Evans, C., Herbert, S., Lehmann, B., et al. (2011). A meta analysis on farm-level costs and benefits of GM crops. Sustainability, 3, 743–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, K., Ekener-Petersen, E., Rydhmer, L., & Björnberg, K. E. (2015). Social impacts of GM crops in agriculture: a systematic literature review. Sustainability, 7, 8598–8620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandhi, V. P., & Jain, D. (2016). Introduction of biotechnology in India’s agriculture: Impact, performance and economics. CMA Publication No. 247. Springer, IIM-A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gandhi, V. P., & Namboodiri, N. V. (2009). Returns and economics of Bt cotton vis-à-vis traditional cotton varieties in the state of Maharashtra in India. Ahmedabad: Centre for Management in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gandhi, V. P., & Namboodari, N. V. (2006). The adoption and economics of Bt cotton in India: Preliminary results from a study. Working Paper. No. 2006-09-04. Indian Institute of Management. Ahmedabad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenpeace. (2015). Application of the EU and Cartagena definitions of a GMO to the classification of plants developed by cisgenesis and gene-editing techniques. Greenpeace, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. (2001). Advance informed agreement: A shared basis for governing trade in genetically modified organisms? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 9(1), 265–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. (2008). Global biosafety governance: Emergence and evolution. In R. Young, W. Bradnee Chambers, J. A. Kim, & C. ten Have (Eds.), Institutional interplay: Biosafety and trade (pp. 19–46). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haque, T., Bhattacharya, M., & Goyal, A. (2015). Socio-economic Impact Assessment of Bt Cotton in India. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company Pvt. Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, R. J., & Rao, N. C. (2013, May 5). On the failure of Bt cotton: Analyzing a decade of experience. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(18).

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrero, A., Wickson, F., & Binimelis, R. (2015). Seeing GMOs from a systems perspective: The need for comparative cartographies of agri/cultures for sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 7(8), 11321–11344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howse, R., & Meltzer, J. (2002). The significance of the protocol for WTO dispute settlement. In C. Bail, R. Falkner, & H. Marquard, (Eds.), The cartagena protocol on bosafety: Reconciling trade in biotech institutional interaction in global environmental governance with environment and development? (pp. 482–496). London: RIIA/Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kathage, J., & Qaim, M. (2012). Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(29), 11652–11656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klumper, W., & Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE, 9, e111629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, V. V., & Qaim, M. (2007). Potential socioeconomic impacts of Bt Eggplant in India. In C. Ramasamy, K. N. Selvaraj, & G. W. Norton (Eds.), Economic and environmental benefits and costs of transgenic crops: Ex-ante assessment. Coimbatore: Tamil Nadu Agricultural University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, V., Zilberman, D., & Qaim, M. (2009). GM technology adoption, production risk and on-farm varietal diversity. Paper presented at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association’s AAEA & ACCI Joint Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, WI, July 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolady, D., & Lesser, W. H. (2005). Adoption of Genetically Modified Eggplant in India: An Ex Ante Analysis. Paper Prepared for Presentation at the American Agricultural Economic Association Annual Meeting. July 24–27. Rhode Island.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolady, D., & Lesser, W. (2008). Public-private partnership in agbiotech: The case of genetically engineered eggplant in India. Farm Foundation. Research supported by USAID/ABSP II Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S., Lakshmi Prasanna, P. A., & Wankhade, S. (2011). Potential benefits of Bt brinjal in India—An economic assessment. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24, 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuruganti, K. (2009). Bt cotton and the myth of enhanced yields. Economic and Political Weekly, XLIV(22).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalitha, N., & Viswanathan, P. K. (2015). Technology diffusion and adoption in cotton cultivation: Emerging scenario in Gujarat. AgBioForum, 18(2), 209–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2010). Dynamic sustainabilities: Technology, environment, social justice. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludlow, K. (2015). Changing the recipe: Food security and other SE considerations in agricultural biotechnology regulation. In C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The intellectual property and food project: From rewarding innovation and creation to feeding the world (pp. 123–141). Houndmills: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludlow, K., Smyth, S. J., & Falck-Zepeda, J. (2015). Consistency of SEC assessment under CPB with other international obligations. Presentation made at GMCC 15 held in Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludlow, K., Smyth, S. J., & Falck-Zepeda, J. (2016). Consistency of assessment of socio-economic considerations under the Cartagena protocol on biosafety with other international obligations. The Estey Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 17(2), 137–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, R., Burhenne-Guilmin, F., La Viña, Antonio, G. M., & Werksman, J. D. (2003). An explanatory guide to the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mal, P., Manjunatha, A. V., Bauer, S., & Ahmed, N. M. (2011). Technical efficiency and environmental impact of Bt Cotton and Non-Bt Cotton in North India. Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics, 14, 164–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S., Bennett, R. M., & Ismael, Y. (2005). Genetically modified insect resistance in cotton: Some economic impacts in India. Crop Protection, 24(5), 433–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naik, G., Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., & Zilberman, D. (2005, April 9). Bt cotton controversy. Economic and Political Weekly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naik, G. (2001). An analysis of socio-economic impact of Bt technology on Indian cotton farmers. Indian Institute of Management, Centre for Management in Agriculture. Ahmedabad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayanamoorthy, A., & Kalamkar, S. S. (2006, June 30). Is Bt cotton cultivation economically viable for indian farmers? An empirical Analysis. Economic and Political Weekly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2008). In O. R. Young, W. Bradnee Chambers, J. A. Kim, & C. ten Have (Eds.), Disentangling the interaction between the Cartagena protocol and the World Trade Organization in institutional interplay: Biosafety and trade (pp. 94–127). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orphal, J. (2005). Comparative analyses of the economics of Bt and non-Bt cotton production. A publication of the pesticide policy project Special issue publication series No-8. Institute of Economics in Horticulture. Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pushpavalli, A. (2004). Returns to Bt cotton vis-à-vis traditional cotton in Tamil Nadu, Agro-Economic Research Centre. Chennai: University of Madras.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavone, V., Goven, J., & Guarino, R. (2011). From risk assessment to in-context trajectory evaluation: GMOs and their social implications. Environmental Sciences Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peshin, R., Dhawan, A. K., Vatta, K., & Singh, K. (2007). Attributes and socio-economic dynamics of adopting Bt Cotton. Economic and Political Weekly, 42, 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M. (2003). Bt cotton in India: Field trial results and economic projections. World Development, 31(12), 2115–2127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M. (2009). The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1, 665–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M., & Zilberman, D. (2003). Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science, 299(5608), 900–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., Naik, G., & Zilberman, D. (2006). Adoption of Bt cotton and impact variability: Insights from India. Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(1), 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qayyum, A., & Sakkhari, K. (2005). Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh: A Three Year Assessment: The First Sustained Independent Scientific Study of Bt Cotton in India. AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity, DDS and Permaculture Association of India, Hyderabad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, M. M., et al. (2016, February 2). Experiences in engaging the public on biotechnology advances and regulation. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2016.00003.

  • Racovita, M., Obonyo, D. N., Craig, W., & Ripandelli, D. (2014). What are the non-food impacts of GM crop cultivation on farmers’ health? Environmental Evidence, 3, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranganathan, T., & Gaurav, S. (2013). An inquari into the composition of farm revenue risk. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVIII, 26–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramasamy, C., Selvaraj, K. N., & Norton, G. W. (2007). Drought and salinity tolerant rice in India. In C. Ramasamy, K. N. Selvaraj, & G. W. Norton (Eds.), Economic and environmental benefits and costs of transgenic crops: Ex-ante assessment. Coimbatore: Tamil Nadu Agricultural University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramgopal, N. (2006). Economics of Bt cotton vis-à-vis traditional cotton varieties: Study in Andhra Pradesh. Visakhapatnam: Agro-Economic Research Centre, Andhra University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raney, T. (2006). Economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 17, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, C. H., & Dev, M. (2009). Biotechnology and pro-poor agricultural development. Economic and Political Weekly, 44, 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivera-Torres, O. (2003). The biosafety protocol and the WTO. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 26(2), 263–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, N. C. (2013, August 17). Bt cotton yields and performance data and methodological issues. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVIII(33).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadashivappa, P. (2015). Socio-economic impacts of Bt cotton adoption in India: Evidence from panel data. AgBioForum, 18(2), 193–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadashivappa, P., & Qaim, M. (2009, August 16–22). Effects of Bt cotton in India during the first five years of adoption. Paper prepared for presentation at the International Association of Agricultural Economist Conference, Beijing, China.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safrin, S. (2002). Treaties in collision? The biosafety protocol and the world trade organization agreements. American Journal of International Law, 96(3), 606–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahai, S., & Rahman, S. (2003). Performance of BT cotton in India: Data from the First Commercial crop. Gene Campaign.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saravanan, S., & Mohanasundaram, V. (2016). Development and adoption of Bt cotton in India: Economic, environmental and health issues. MPRA Paper No. 72993. Munich Personal RePEc Archive.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segger, M. C., Perron-Welch, F., & Frison, C. (Eds.). (2013). Legal aspects of implementing the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvaraj, K. N., Ramasamy, C., & Norton, G. W. (2007). Tobacco steak virus resistant in groundnut and sunflower in India. In C. Ramasamy, K. N. Selvaraj, & G. W. Norton (Eds.), Economic and environmental benefits and costs of transgenic crops: Ex-ante assessment. Coimbatore: Tamil Nadu Agricultural University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, V. D. (2007). Returns to Bt cotton vis-à-vis traditional cotton varieties in Gujarat State. Gujarat: Agro-Economic Research Centre, Sardar Patel University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V., & Jafri, A. H. (2004). Failure of GMOs in India. Synthesis/Regeneration 33 (winter). New Delhi, India: Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skarlatakis, C. T., & Kinderlerer, J. (2013). The importance of public participation. In M. C. Segger, F. Perron-Welch, & C. Frison (Eds.), Legal aspects of implementing the Cartagena protocol on biosafety (pp. 111–130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smale, M., Zambrano, P., Gruere, G., et al. (2009). Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first decade. Food Policy Review. 10. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stabinsky, D. (2000). Bringing social analysis into a multilateral environmental agreement: Social impact assessment and the biosafety protocol. The Journal of Environment & Development, 9(3), 260–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, P.-T. (2000). Controlling the risks of genetically modified organisms: The cartagena protocol on biosafety and the SPS agreement. Yearbook of International Environmental Law 1999, 10, 82–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, G. D. (2012, September 22). Constructing facts Bt cotton narratives in India. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(38).

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, A., & Qaim, M. (2010). Village-wide effects of agricultural biotechnology: The case of Bt cotton in India. World Development, 37(1), 256–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, R. (2009). Transgenic cotton: Assessing economic performance in the field. In R. Tripp (Ed.), Biotechnology and agricultural development: Transgenic cotton, rural institutions and resource-poor farmers (pp. 72–87). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RIS, New Delhi, India

    Sachin Chaturvedi, Krishna Ravi Srinivas & Amit Kumar

Authors
  1. Sachin Chaturvedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Krishna Ravi Srinivas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amit Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krishna Ravi Srinivas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), New Delhi, India

    Sachin Chaturvedi

  2. Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), New Delhi, India

    Krishna Ravi Srinivas

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 1.2 and 1.3.

Table 1.2 Ex-post studies on Bt Cotton in India
Full size table
Table 1.3 Ex-ante studies on GM crops in India
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chaturvedi, S., Srinivas, K.R., Kumar, A. (2019). Cartagena Protocol, Socio-Economic Assessment, and Literature Review of Socio-Economic Assessment (SEA) Studies in India. In: Chaturvedi, S., Srinivas, K. (eds) Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9511-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9511-7_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-32-9510-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-32-9511-7

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation