Governing the GM crop revolution: policy choices for developing countries

Will developing countries adopt policies that promote the planting of genetically modified (GM) crops, or will they select policies that slow the spread of the GM crop revolution? The evidence so far is mixed. In some prominent countries such as China, policies are in place that encourage the independent development and planting of GM crops. Yet in a number of other equally prominent countries the planting of GM crops is not yet officially approved. The inclination of developing countries to promote or block the spread of GM crops can be judged by the policy choices they make in five separate areas: intellectual property rights (IPR) policy, biosafety policy, trade policy, food safety policy, and public research investments. Paarlberg discusses various policy options related to GM crops: (1) Intellectual Property Rights; (2) Biosafety; (3) Trade; (4) Food Safety and Consumer Choice; and (5) Public Research Investments. The appropriate policies for each of these must be adopted by developing countries.

The politics of precaution

In this original study Robert Paarlberg examines local policy responses to GM crop technologies in four important developing countries: Brazil, India, Kenya, and China.Genetic engineering. ,Crops. ,Government. ,Brazil. ,India. ,Kenya. ,China. ,

Governance and food security in an age of globalization

Whose responsibility is it to assure food security in an age of globalization? Is improved governance at the international level our greatest need, or are governance deficits most severe at the national level? When national governments lag in assuring food security for their own citizens, can outsiders help make up the resulting governance deficit? What role can bilateral donors and international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, play? Is it possible for NGOs to step in to do the job? These and related pressing questions are addressed in this discussion paper by Robert Paarlberg. He argues that the problems of hunger and food insecurity urgently require a national, not global focus. Many national governments in developing countries still do not provide essential public goods, such as civil peace, rule of law, transport infrastructure, clean water, electrical power, and public research to generate new agricultural productivity essential ingredients in the effort to boost incomes. For tackling hunger, the weak performance of nation-states remains most critical—and in most critical need of improvement. According to Paarlberg, the governance challenge as far as food security is concerned is to persuade sovereign governments to provide the necessary public goods that would ensure access to adequate food. This paper was commissioned for IFPRI's 2020 Vision Initiative conference, "Sustainable Food Security for All by 2020," held on September 4–6, 2001, in Bonn, Germany. A summary version was presented at the session on "Whose Responsibility Is It To End Hunger?" The presentation sparked a long overdue discussion on who are the key actors in the effort to eliminate hunger, how their role has changed over time, and what their responsibilities are likely to be in the future. (from Foreward by Per Pinstrup-Andersen Director General, IFPRI)Hunger Prevention. ,Food security Developing countries. ,International Food Policy Research Institute. ,Government. ,

SHRINKING INTERNATIONAL MARKETS FOR GM CROPS?

Crop Production/Industries, International Relations/Trade, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

Governance and food security in an age of globalization

The author asks if the reduction of hunger in the age of globalization depends upon improving governance at the global level or at the national level. he concludes that hunger, poor rural infrastructure, corruption, discrimination, lack of access to health services, etc. are local problems, most of which must be remedied by national governmental improvement, "one state at a time." "Think locally, then act nationally" is Paarlberg's governance motto.Hunger Prevention. ,Food security Developing countries. ,International Food Policy Research Institute. ,Government. ,

External impact assessment of IFPRI's 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture and the Environment Initiative:

The 2020 Vision initiative of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) was launched late in 1993, at a time of growing global complacency regarding international food security questions. The first phase of the 2020 Vision initiative (1993–96) featured the development of an innovative forward-looking partial equilibrium model of the international food and agriculture sector; the hosting of an extensive series of high profile conferences, workshops, and regional meetings; the publication and distribution of numerous substantive discussion papers, policy briefs, and regional synthesis papers; and the regular publication of a topical newsletter. The goal was to refocus attention on current and future challenges in areas such as food security, agricultural development, rural poverty, and environmental protection; to catalyze a new consensus on these issues within the international policy community; and to encourage policy leaders—both in the donor community and in the developing world—to commit more energy and resources to resolve food security concerns. The present report is an independent effort, commissioned by IFPRI, to measure the actual impact, to date, of this ongoing 2020 Vision initiative. The impacts examined include impacts on three different audiences: researchers and educators, international policy leaders, and developing-country policy leaders. For each of these audiences, an assessment is given as to whether the 2020 Vision initiative significantly “reached” the audience in question with its materials and messages; whether 2020 had an impact on the policy thinking of this audience; and whether 2020 actually catalyzed any new policy actions by this audience. 2020 activities, from materials published by other organizations working in the food security and agricultural development area, and from materials gathered from donors, international organizations, and the nongovernmental organization (NGO) community.Food security., Environmental protection., agricultural development, poverty, Developing countries., Impact assessment,

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO U.S. FARM POLICY: A CHRONOLOGY AND ANALYSIS OF THE 1995-96 FARM BILL DEBATE

This paper presents a chronology of the 1995-96 farm bill debate, which was historic in several dimensions. Victories in the 1994 mid-term elections gave Republican majorities control of Congress for the first time in forty years. An omnibus budget reconciliation bill became the principal vehicle around which the Republicans organized their political agenda. In the highly-partisan atmosphere that followed, the debate on farm policy centered on the level of spending, the structure of the main commodity programs, and the programs for dairy, sugar and peanuts. The initial challenge faced by the new agriculture chairman in the House of Representatives was to find policies consistent with the election-year Republican rhetoric, while simultaneously putting together the committee votes to pass a farm bill. A "Freedom to Farm" plan to eliminate annual acreage set asides and provide fixed income transfers decoupled from production. Decisions and market prices became the centerpiece of his proposals. Proponents of the traditional commodity programs seemed to hold a strategic advantage against the proposed decoupled payments through September 1995. The Clinton administration had endorsed the traditional programs, and the Senate agriculture committee approved a bill that extended existing support mechanisms (with larger budget cuts than sought by the Democrats) after a reform initiative to lower target prices lacked Republican support. Meanwhile, opposition to Freedom to Farm from cotton and rice interests created an historic deadlock. The House agriculture committee did not pass any bill for inclusion in the budget legislation. The strategic balance in the farm bill debate shifted when market prices increased sharply in late 1995. The existing policy equilibrium continued to lose adherents and Congress passed the Freedom to Farm legislation in November. When the Republican budget initiative (including the new farm policies) subsequently collapsed (in January 1996), a bipartisan coalition emerged to enact the Federal Agriculture Reform and Improvement (FAIR) Act, again including Freedom to Farm. Notwithstanding the intervening steps, this may be the first time ever that legislation included in a budget reconciliation bill without approval from an authorizing committee has become law. The budget reconciliation bill passed by Congress in November 1995 but vetoed by the president was credited rhetorically with reducing farm program expenditures by $12 billion over seven years. But rising market prices by the time the bill passed implied that income transfers to farmers would be at least$3-5 billion more over the first two years under the new legislation than they would have been with the 1990 law. The strong bipartisan coalition in favor of the FAIR Act emerged only when it was clear that a net short-term windfall for farmers was involved, and with continuation of other farm policy interventions and reauthorization of environmental programs with new funding. When the president signed the FAIR Act in April 1996, the short-term benefits of decoupled payments for farmers were larger than estimated the previous November. Permanent legislation for support programs based on supply controls is maintained in the F AIR Act, and there is no guarantee that a transition to lower support costs has been initiated. The dairy, sugar and peanut programs escaped significant deregulation. Thus, regardless of claims that the F AIR Act brings an end to farm programs that have existed since the Great Depression, the amount of reform may well prove less than historic.Agricultural and Food Policy,

Policy recommendations from the 13th ICABR conference on the emerging bioeconomy

The International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research held its 13th annual conference in Ravello, Italy in June 2009. The theme of the conference was the bioeconomy,and this topic was addressed through research presentations from academia, government, and industry. Numerous presentations from developing countries highlighted the benefits of agricultural biotechnology in these nations. The broad range of presentations provided a wealth of insights, resulting in three policy recommendations regarding future funding, international regulation, and technology transfer.global food crisis, biofuels, food safety, innovation

Policy recommendations from the 13th ICABR conference on the emerging bioeconomy

The International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research held its 13th annual conference in Ravello, Italy in June 2009. The theme of the conference was the bioeconomy,and this topic was addressed through research presentations from academia, government, and industry. Numerous presentations from developing countries highlighted the benefits of agricultural biotechnology in these nations. The broad range of presentations provided a wealth of insights, resulting in three policy recommendations regarding future funding, international regulation, and technology transfer

The impact of non-equilibrium flow on the structure of turbulence over river dunes

This piece of research expands our description of how rivers flow over dunes on a river bed. Most of the scientific communities' research to date has used unnaturally steady conditions to measure how water moves over dunes. Yet these flow conditions are not strictly true to the variety of conditions nature produces, most importantly during floods. This research is the first detailed description of a wide range of flow states over dunes, and changes our present understanding of the structure of flow over dunes in rivers. Consequently, the scientific community will be able to use this new information to better model and simulate how rivers work, how they flood, and how they transport sediment towards the worlds deltas