Precautionary Expertise for GM Crops (PEG): National Workshop Report UK

Although the precautionary principle has been widely accepted in Europe as a basis for decision making about Genetically Modified (GM) crops, there are many perspectives on its interpretation and how it should be implemented. The PEG project is analysing how current European practices compare with different accounts of the precautionary principle. It has been examining different people’s accounts of precaution and their views on the procedures for regulating and managing GM crops, in seven EU member states. Workshops with the potential end-users of our research findings are an integral part of the PEG project. Workshops have been carried out in each of the partner’s countries. These scenario workshops offer a policy analysis tool that enables a more action orientated approach to policy research. They help bridge the gap between research and the policy process by involving people at an early stage of the project, and ensure that our research questions and findings are embedded in the policy process. This report discusses the outcomes of the UK workshop, ‘GM Futures? Scenarios for GM Crops’, held on 5th February 2003 at the Royal Horticultural Halls, London. The workshop used three policy scenarios as a tool for considering the causes and consequences of commercialisation of GM crops. Rather than attempting to predict the future, by mapping different scenarios the workshop attempted to draw out dynamics and interactions which may not otherwise be obvious. Workshop participants came from a range of backgrounds and were all involved in the policy process either directly as a member of a Government department or advisory committee, or through their position within their organisation. A key policy-relevant outcome was the way that the three policy scenarios - to go ahead with commercialisation, to postpone it further or to commercialise GM crops in a limited way - might all present the Government with equally complex and difficult consequences. Further, while limited commercialisation may appear to be an attractive policy option, the scenario map drawn by the participants indicated difficulties that would need to be handled in order for limited commercialisation to be regarded as a potential option

Understanding influences on farmers' practices

Farming is a complex human activity system with many actors and many components. Farming is also an activity that has, in recent decades, been ascribed two major, but potentially conflicting, objectives: the short to medium term production of sufficient food to support socio-economic driven needs of security and stability and the medium to long term philosophical and aesthetic desire to manage and conserve the ‘natural world’ . While there have been attempts to reconcile these different objectives both theoretically, as with the concept of Ecosystem Services , and practically through Agri-environment schemes , all too often these innovations have been provided for farmers by others without sufficient regard to the farmers’ own practices and contexts. This is in contrast to being developed with farmers, using their experiential knowledge to shape those innovations both before and after adoption and implementation. Indeed our main thesis is that the differing perspectives of the many actors, and in particular the perspectives of farmers versus other actors, leads farmers to use knowledge management practices that mix and match information from a variety of trusted sources to suit the needs of their farming business. If external knowledge and innovations are to support sustainable intensification then they must also be matched with an understanding of the practices and contexts in which they are to be deployed. In this paper we set out some key considerations that researchers have raised about innovations, practices and knowledge exchanges around farming that can influence both productivity and environmental performance

A systems approach to the research of people's relationships with English hedgerows

Although complexity is often recognised as a feature of landscapes, any assessment of their value and prescriptions for management are usually based on a narrow, reductionist framework, involving either just wildlife or people but rarely both. This paper demonstrates how systems ideas have been applied to provide a broader approach to researching hedgerows in the UK, drawing on the idea that holistic thinking brings together multiple views of stakeholders so as to identify future options. Hedgerows in the UK are valued for ecological, functional, historical, visual and personal reasons and they are perceived very differently by those with direct or indirect relationships with them. The cultural dimensions of hedgerows and their implications for future hedged landscapes were investigated through the collection and exploration of different stakeholder perspectives. Based on the findings of this research, it is argued that considering both the objective and the subjective hedgerow values of stakeholders offers opportunities to examine the different boundaries to their systems of interest and so help to include and accommodate complex human factors

Precautionary Expertise for GM Crops: National Report – United Kingdom: Precaution as Process

This report considers the recent ‘precautionary approach’ to commercialisation of GM crops adopted by the UK. Accounts of precaution and precautionary practices for GM crops in the UK are set against the backdrop of current debate concerning potential commercialisation of GM herbicide-tolerant crops. In October 1998 the Government announced its intention for a ‘managed development’ of GM crops. A major obstacle to commercialisation was the controversy over the possibility that broad-spectrum herbicides may be harmful to wildlife habitats. In response to these concerns Government funded a farm-scale research programme to consider the possible impacts on biodiversity of growing the GM herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops maize, sugar beet, and spring and autumn sown oilseed rape. These became known as the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs). At this time the Government also sought to widen its risk assessment procedures to include agro-ecological expertise. Industry agreed to postpone commercialisation until the FSEs provided the evidence required for a final decision on the commercialisation of the GM crops. However, as a precautionary measure, the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs) have been controversial. Rather than settling these environmental matters, as originally intended, they intensified debate by providing a focus for people’s concerns. Different interpretations of precaution are evident in the accounts UK policy actors give of the issues surrounding GM crops and commercialisation. Some policy actors are concerned that the precautionary principle could be used for ulterior motives; for example, industry groups are concerned about the potential for precaution to stifle innovation or to be used as a tactic for delaying commercialisation. Others view it as an opportunity for greater fairness, openness and inclusiveness. Precaution and the precautionary principle appear to be considered by people in the UK in at least two different ways: as a precise ‘toolkit’ i.e. a set of steps to follow, and as a mindset, i.e. as an underlying or implicit aspect of a person’s perspective – that is, as something which is triggered in particular circumstances, and as something which is a more general way of acting. Taking a precautionary approach has involved a general process of broadening expertise and inclusion of a wide range of views. A diversity of views is providing a valuable input into a negotiation over the path that society should take. The views are also highlighting uncertainties other than those dealt with by the scientific risk assessment process, such as uncertainties concerning biodiversity, co-existence of different types of agriculture, and the future of agriculture more generally. The Government has been concerned over the lack of public confidence in decisionmaking processes. The establishment of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) in 2000 aimed to build greater public confidence in the way Government dealt with issues other than the science. The AEBC’s membership represents the broad spectrum of views on GM crops. Its members have sought ways for concerns to be more formally elicited, analysed and documented. The AEBC has been influential on Government thinking and action, particularly through its publications, which have raised the profile of criticisms of current risk regulation structures and have been a catalyst for deeper consideration of GM issues by all stakeholders. The AEBC has applied pressure on the Government for public policies and regulatory frameworks to expose and embrace the different views that exist on GM crops and to develop shared understandings. This pressure led Government to agree to hold a more formal, open, process of public debate alongside a review of the scientific issues of GM crops and a study of the costs and benefits of GM crops. The formal public debate, called ‘GM Nation?’, represents an intentionally more formal approach to broadening expertise. ‘GM Nation?’ was an attempt to link expert judgements with broader public concerns for GM crops, and provided an opportunity for developing mutual learning. It was also an attempt to create an arena in which lay people could participate and therefore represented a step forward in the conduct of public consultation for policy decision-making processes in the UK. However, ‘GM 3 Nation?’ has done little to bring views closer together. It has also been criticised for the way that it was organised and financed. Throughout ‘GM Nation?’ it remained unclear how the ‘public’ views were to be fed into the overall decision. Further, there has been little advice provided to government as to how to deal with the wealth of perspectives, demands and expectations such processes generate. Following the results of the formal public debate, and taking into consideration the results of the FSEs, the science review and the costs and benefits study, in January 2004 the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, publicly stated the Government’s intention to adopt a ‘precautionary approach’ to GM crops. Government announced that it would allow the commercial production of one GM crop, GMHT maize, until October 2006, subject to certain conditions. However, Bayer CropScience has since decided to discontinue its efforts to commercialise this GM forage maize in the UK. The increasing likelihood of the commercialisation of GM crops in the UK has resulted in co-existence and liability becoming central to discussions. The issue of coexistence of GM and non-GM crops has highlighted not only the conflicting views of the organisations representing diverse farming communities within the UK, but also the tension between the national and local positions on GM crops. Thus new approaches to the policy process are providing new opportunities for learning. There is greater communication between government advisory committees, and between those committees, NGOs and the wider public. Government structures are increasingly opening up, both intentionally and unintentionally, to wider expertise. As a result, Government has broadened its view of uncertainty as it has gradually accepted that decisions on commercialisation are more complex than it originally thought. Research agendas have broadened in response to queries from ACRE and the AEBC. Research is not simply providing ‘evidence’ for making policy decisions, but is contributing to a broader process of learning as policy actors rethink the policy problems. As research is used to endorse different opinions and further fuel debates it is contributing to a broader view of GM crops. Further, in highlighting the potential problems with GM crops, policy actors have raised the profile of wider issues, such as those associated with conventional agriculture or with the introduction of new technologies more generally. However, the opening up of government processes has yet to result in a calming of objections to the commercialisation of GM crops or criticisms surrounding scientific expertise. Yet events in the UK suggest that the period of the voluntary agreement with industry over commercialisation has been used constructively by the UK to further develop a ‘precautionary approach’, whose components and outcomes are being closely observed by other member states

Critical systems heuristics: a tool for the inclusion of ethics and values in complex policy decisions

From the introduction Drawing on a study of members of the UK’s Agriculture and Biotechnology Commission, this paper explores the use of Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) as a structured approach to the inclusion of ethics and values in complex policy decisions. CSH was devised by Ulrich in a planning context, as a way of making explicit the value assumptions underlying practical judgements by means of critical reflection. It is rooted in Critical Systems Thinking, which challenged earlier notions of systems thinking by introducing a more socially aware and critical form of systems practice. Ulrich used the concept of system boundaries to provide a conceptual framework for dealing with the facts and values that underlie a decision. The CSH framework encourages people to consider critically such matters as what counts as an ethically-defendable 'improvement', who should benefit, and what should count as relevant knowledge and sources of expertise. This paper highlights some of the advantages and disadvantages of CSH as a tool for achieving a more inclusive, critical and self-reflective approach to decision making about genetically modified crops

The role of contexts in knowledge brokering systems

This short report provides an account of a workshop held as part of a one day conference - Bridging the Gap between Research, Policy and Practice: the importance of intermediaries (knowledge brokers) in producing research impact. This event was hosted by the ESRC Genomics network and focused on knowledge brokering in the social sciences. It was designed to encourage dialogue between practitioners, organisations and researchers with an interest in knowledge exchang

Agri-environmental knowledge management and networks of practice: a workshop background paper

This workshop session has been designed to capture and map the thinking of participants on the key components of a knowledge management system for hedgerows. It seeks to identify which people and what types of knowledge are involved in the various knowledge exchanges and the nature of the exchanges between those involved. The session draws on our experiences of knowledge exchange processes in environmental settings when working with policymakers, researchers, business and NGOs across a number of participatory research projects

Farmers' understandings of genetically modified crops within local communities

Background Much of the debate around the science and technology of genetically modified (GM) crops has focussed on the policies and practices of national governments and international organisations or on the acceptability of GM products with consumers. Little work had been done with the primary users of such technologies – farmers. Further, the management of knowledge has become a significant issue for all sectors of the economy and yet little attention had again been given to farmers as a particular societal group of small to medium sized enterprises subject to ‘knowledge-based’ influences from many other societal groups. Aims and objectives This project investigated the attitudes, intentions and practices of farmers regarding the new technology of GM crops (both those with experience of them and those without) in relation to their social setting. The relationship building research approach we developed had three phases that used three different, and progressively more interactive, discussion and mapping techniques to engage with (often the same) participants. Telephone and face-to-face interviews with farmers, and a workshop with farmers and others involved in agriculture, helped: 1. Explore how farmers construct their understandings of GM crops through their interactions with others, in particular family members, neighbouring farmers, seed companies, farming advisors and the local community. 2. Ascertain the acceptability to farmers of recommended management practices for GM crops used in the Government sponsored Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs). 3. Develop models of social learning systems appropriate to support individual farmers within informal social settings who decide to adopt contentious new technologies such as GM crops. Key findings Farmers’ understandings of GM crops as a new technology: Farmers view GM crops as a technology derived from new practices in plant breeding that build upon previous technologies and contribute to the running of the whole farm business. They are responding to them much as they would to any new technology, as a technology that provides improvements that are assessed for their value in practice by experimentation in the individual farm context. Farmers who had been involved in the FSEs, and those who had not, believed that GM crops offer clear economic and environmental benefits to themselves and the wider public. New technologies, such as GM crops are attractive to farmers as a way of reconciling conflicting demands to deliver high quality products at low cost and also to farm in an environmentally responsible way. Farmers’ acceptance of recommended management practices: The farmers involved in the FSEs had no problems following the recommended management practices and several could see ways in which to modify them to create benefits to themselves and to others if GM crops were licensed in the UK, in particular by using lower rates of herbicide. Farmers’ social learning systems and links to their communities: Farmers’ learning is dominated by informal learning, beyond any initial formal training, and this occurs through experimenting and the use of tacit knowledge arising from using new technologies in practice on their own farm. They also actively engage with other farmers (their network of practice) and many organisations that impact on their work (their community of influencers). That is, they draw on and exchange knowledge and experience from the range of people in their social environment. Farmers’ network of practice is widely distributed rather than being local while their community of influencers is complex, but relatively stable and consistent over time, and largely not local, although the degree of influence of individual members of the community may change. Some influence over practice is one-way (e.g. regulations that impose restrictions on what can be done) while some influences result from two-way negotiation (e.g. with agricultural advisers on agronomic matters). Key individuals within organisations in their community of influencers are often important, rather than simply the organisations themselves. Most farmers have to act individually at the boundary between their network of practice and community of influencers in order to find and exchange information and knowledge. For example, with the decline in public funding for the former Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) there is a lack of official people working at the boundary between farmers’ network of practice and other key communities of practice within a farmer’s community of influencers. Similarly, there is a less effective connection between both the scientific research occurring in the agricultural science community of practice and agricultural policy development occurring in government departments and agencies, with the day-to-day agricultural practices and long term plans of farmers. The value of our research approach: Farmers appreciated the use of a more participatory approach that sought the inclusion of their views, as users, into the broader conversations about new technologies. They also valued the interactive, relationship-building nature of the research approach. Dissemination of findings An integral part of the project has been the sharing of the outcomes of each phase of the study with the participants and with key stakeholders in the agricultural sector. A project website, project reports, conference papers, journal articles and an executive summary document are being used to disseminate the findings to different audiences. Implications for policy and practice Based on our findings there is a need for: • An enabling environment that is responsive to farmers’ needs, with clear, consistent and long-term policy signals about the future of agriculture, to allow them time to adapt to changing demands. • Improved connections between farmers and consumers. • Greater awareness amongst policy makers, regulators, scientists and the supermarkets, of what farmers can and cannot do. • Independent, trustworthy, sources of research and advice for farmers. • The valuing of farmers’ informal learning from experience, for example in the shaping of agricultural research. The following features are among those that would most improve the systems of support available to farmers in their decisions about new technologies: • horizon-scanning on behalf of farmers, to synthesise information, look at the potential of new technologies, and develop clear long-term directions for agriculture • government-sponsored intermediaries qualified in and knowledgeable about agriculture, to improve the links between government policies, scientific research and the grassroot