1. Introduction

In many countries population pressure, natural disasters, and changing climate conditions demand an urgent solution to the problem of food security. Genetic engineering claims to offer promising solutions, but is this a technology that can be applied with trust – and if so, under what conditions? Within the framework of the Dutch government debate on the subject, and under the auspices of the Terlouw Commission, we set up an international debate in which we invited an international audience to share their ideas and insights with us around the issue of biotechnology. We were especially interested to listen to “Southern Voices”. For that reason, the readership of the “Biotechnology and Development Monitor” was approached to participate. The reader ship consists primarily of policy makers in the public sector; scientists; industrial, farmers’ and consumers’ organizations; environmental and other non-governmental organizations; and university students in developing and industrialized countries. Other possible participants were approached through a variety of networks.

The aim of the first round of this online debate was to let the participants identify the issues they wished to discuss and form the agenda for the second round in which the in-depth discussion would take place. In the first round, in order to kick off the discussion a framework of four contentious issues was decided upon. These were: Food safety vs. food security, GMOs vs. organic, Private vs. public and Local vs. Global. The moderators put together a (so called) topic map from this first round. The methodology chosen and the results of this round were worked into a report documented in Appendix 2. Some 421 participants registered for this first round that took place over a period of two days (31 October to 2 November 2001).

A number of topics re-occurred across the different discussion rooms. Four of them formed the basis for the in-depth discussion aimed at in round two. They were chosen for

· their relevance to a worldwide debate on biotechnology and food,

· different opinions on the topic between participants from the North and the South,

· possible implications for Dutch policies.

Under the titles Poor patents, Options in food production, Rights and choices and Capacity building

, the second round took place between 6 and 14 November 2001. To stimulate the debate daily contributions were summarized and every day a new question was posted to all participants as a basis for that day’s discussion. The number of participants rose constantly through-out the second round and reached a total of 529. The biggest groups of participants came from Europe (208) and from Asia (91), with participants from Africa (69), North and South America (77 and 55) on similar levels. The most active groups of participants came from India and the Netherlands. Interestingly enough, participants from Africa, North and South America contributed a similar number of contributions.

Participants intensively discussed biotechnology and especially genetic engineering in the context of international relations and regulations. They looked at the socioeconomic impact, and took past experience with agricultural research and development into account. A recurring theme in the discussion was that participants expressed that their ability to make their own choices is being limited in the following ways:

· access to technology (be it through lack of capacity or through IPR issues);

· farming practises that cannot coexist;

· decreasing access to seed and other agricultural resources;

· lack of financial and political power.

In various contexts throughout the discussion, participants articulated that genetic engineering in relation to food production has to be looked at from both the perspective from the natural sciences (for example environmental impact, food safety, risk assessment) as well as the social sciences (it is also deeply interwoven with the political issues of accountability, democracy, choice and empowerment).

The participants came forward with interesting proposals for moving he debate forward. The most intriguing and also most promising ideas probably emerged in the discussion about patents. Proposals were made of how to ensure both access to genetic resources and technologies, while still rewarding knowledge and research. The key proposals are outlined in Chapter 3. The four discussion rooms are summarized in Chapter 4.

It was interesting to note in the discussion that the opinions of the participants are not based on any clear-cut divide between “northern and southern perspectives”. Opinions were invariably determined both by the participant’s institutional setting and occupation as well as by their regional background. In most cases overlaps in argumentation are higher for example between members of different non-governmental organizations than between participants from the same country. Nevertheless, on issues like capacity building the specific experiences in developing countries led to specific input in the debate. The different groups of participants are described in Chapter 2.

The full text of the debate, as well as the reports on the first and second discussion round is available online at www.southernvoices.nl.

The Southern Voices Team

Antje Lorch, Lara van Druten, Mona Hansen, Rod Harbinson, Marilyn Minderhoud-Jones & Gerd Junne

Amsterdam, 10 December 2001

2. Who participated? Different stakeholder groups in the debate

Nearly half of the participants in the online debate registered from developing countries (see Appendix 1). From the information given it is also obvious that a relevant number of participants have experiences both in developing and industrialized countries. This was especially noticeable in the discussions around “Options in food production” and “Rights and choices” where a wide spectrum of opinions across both regional and institutional backgrounds was reflected. Based on their experiences (and individual backgrounds) participants from the North and South gave different examples to support their arguments. Noteworthy was that the key differences in opinions depended not so much on a North and South divide, but on the various organizations people represent or work for. In general, the opinions between members of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in North and South tend to overlap quite strongly, and the same goes for scientists who work in similar research worldwide. Clearly the South is not a homogenous block with homogenous interests and needs.

Members of NGOs

In general, local and regional NGOs prioritise rural livelihood, bottom-up approaches and the rights and choices of small-scale farmers. Their perspective towards genetically modified (GM) crops and the form of agriculture that goes with them is highly critical. GM crops are often seen as either unsustainable or unacceptable. This critique is supported by the lessons they have drawn from the Green Revolution (where a key impact was the loss of plant varieties), or the introduction of agricultural practices that do not take the needs of small-scale farmers into account. An example given was high-yielding varieties (HYVs) that give higher yields of grain, but less straw and hence a smaller overall production including a reduction in available animal feed. Members of these NGOs opt for agricultural research and development that is participatory. They are concerned about access to seed, Farmers’ Rights to reuse harvested seed for sowing, and about the contamination that will result from the introduction of GM crops.

Academics

A substantial part of contributions to the debate came from scientists working in research institutes but also in NGOs and as consultants. Especially with scientists in research centres and universities, the dividing lines between North and South are hard to distinguish. It was also clear that a number of them have working experiences both in industrialized and developing countries. The mobility of this group is relatively high, as a result of structures of the scientific community, of capacity building programmes and of the location of International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs). In general, social and natural scientists argued both for and against the use of GM crops. Against this general backdrop it should however be added that scientists from the South were very clear in highlighting that their practical experiences in research differ from the typical situation in research institutes in the North. This point is highly relevant to the success of capacity building programmes.

The discussion about patents in biotechnology left the moral question of patenting organisms aside and rather focused on practical questions. It shed light on the current situation that scientists are facing. Most of them agreed that the focus in the scientific community has shifted from “Publish or perish” to “Patent or perish”. This shift in focus comes with its own paradox. On the one hand it was recognized that patenting can create obstacles to further research and development, yet on the other hand research has to be refinanced through patents. Here scientist in North and South found themselves in a similar situation.

Farmers

Relatively few farmers participated directly in the debate. Of those that did (primarily from the US, Canada and Australia) their concerns focussed on the great dangers of contamination from GM crops (especially through open pollinating crops like maize and rapeseed). These farmers were concerned about their own lack of choice. Specifically on the their ability to farm “true” organic food if GM contamination were to be legally allowed. In their perspective, organic farming is not only to be seen as a “safer” food, but also should be seen as a viable economic option. In regard to seed there is an obvious difference between the North and South. While farmers in industrialized countries are used to buying seed on a regular basis, small-scale farmers in developing countries often grow more crop varieties. These farmers are often in areas of high biodiversity and agro-biodiversity. They themselves as well as members of organizations like MASIPAG (see box on page 16) can collect native varieties and develop new ones to a much higher degree than farmers in the North could. Therefore the issue of access to seed has much greater practical impact for those in the South.

Southern participants on capacity building

The discussion on capacity building was one that shows the clearest distinction between participants from the North and the South. Contributors indicated that the donor agencies responsible for capacity building at both national and international level should be more critical of the impact of their efforts. Questions were raised about how these agencies identify capacity building objectives, the content and methodology of their programmes and whether their capacity building initiatives are integrated in the wider objectives articulated by the recipient countries in the areas of public awareness and empowerment.

3. Some conclusions:
Implications for Dutch policy making “Facilitating options"

Patents

The mainstream patenting system (certainly in agriculture) is presently under attack from various stakeholders in the agricultural chain. In the debate it was argued that it does not achieve what it has been created for. It is argued that the current system impedes access by poor countries to their own conventional plant varieties and genetic resources. In many regards, the time is ripe for change. Broader developments in the "networked economy", have meant that intellectual property in general has to be redefined in a way that better takes into account the many international contributions from across the network to any single invention.

What form could Dutch support towards creating options in the patent system take?

Double or triple the support for current initiatives to create an IP clearinghouse system (an agency that collects and distributes information on patents). An IP clearinghouse mechanism could help to efficiently move the privately claimed knowledge of genetic resources into the hands of those specific users who are able to add value by their applications of that knowledge. The main functions of such a clearinghouse would be to:

· connect technology holders in industrialized countries with universities, companies and national and international research centres as well as various donors,

· develop and provide a patent database,

· assist in the negotiation of license agreement,

· distribute/disseminate research material,

· provide training services to developing countries including the drafting of technology transfer protocols.

Support initiatives to create the biotechnology equivalent to the ‘Open Source’ movement in the software industry. This would entail:

· providing public access to ‘open source’ research results, under the condition that those who use the freely accessible material, in return make their research results accessible to others,

· a great deal of research has been made into the business case underlying the open source movement. Further research should be done into the potential business case for maintaining an open source “Bionux” system (The name Bionux was suggested as the biotech equivalent to Linux.)

Risk assessment

To what degree are the risks of new biotechnologies comprehensively assessed before being released on the market? Who has ultimate responsibility for risk assessment and thus should also foot the bill?

Government provides an obvious body to co-ordinate the tasks around risk assessment. This would entail:

· Establishing a clear policy framework with coherent guidelines outlining where responsibility for the introduction of new biotechnologies begins and ends. For example, should responsibility lie with the companies and/or research institutes that developed the technology or with the producer?

· Take responsibility for developing policy that guarantees the systematic and comprehensive testing of all new technology with input not just from the natural sciences that assess the health risks but also from all over the other research and regulatory bodies able to map out the potential socioeconomic risks. This is necessary to ensure that the ludicrous and heartbreaking situation does not arise that whilst more food is being produced, more people are dying from hunger, as they are unable to afford the food.

· Ensure that risk assessment has an inherent system of checks and balances built into it focussed on creating a large degree of independence for the test results (i.e. that the potential risk of new products are not being assessed by those same people who are wanting to release the product on the market).

Capacity building

The Netherlands has initiated a number of different capacity building programmes over the years. Debate participants raised some critical issues pertaining to capacity building with far reaching implications on current capacity building practice. When the specific complexity of biotechnology is added to it, clear suggestions emerged.

· Any capacity building programme has to be based on a realistic assessment of existing capacity and an equally clear assessment of the type of capacity needed. The introduction and implementation of biosafety regulations provided an example of how complex systems can overstretch local capabilities and therefore slow down or inhibit technology transfer.

· When capacity building is focussed on assisting knowledge transfer to the South it should also be recognized that social, cultural and ethical aspects are important aspects of biotechnology.

· The limits of capacity building also need to be recognized. This is demonstrated by the issue of traceability as highlighted in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Serious question marks were placed around the ability of capacity building programmes to adequately create the kind of institutional framework and networks that would be needed to ensure that traces are maintained on living modified organisms (LMOs). Policy makers need to realistically assess what capacity building can and cannot achieve.

· Focus on supporting existing structures and on forging new creative public private partnerships (PPPs) to expand the role of the public sector in agricultural research with the specific goal of alleviating the situation of the poor and towards creating policies that are community enhancing. This research should allow individual countries to take their own informed decisions around biotechnology.

· Provide support to local interest groups that are working towards informing the general public as to the options around biotechnology. Support should also be given to these groups to allow them to learn from the experiences of others within the framework of international knowledge exchange programmes (ICT can provide an effective tool in assisting in international knowledge exchange).

Promote further research into trading in alternative ‘currencies’

There are other currencies besides the usual ‘hard currencies’ and the right to use these alternative currencies for trading purposes should be further explored within the framework of biotechnology. For example in a similar way to how the Kyoto Protocol allows countries to trade their emission rights, a system could be elaborated that allowed for alternative forms of trading between the North and the South. The South could provide access to genetic material and in return receive access to technology. During the debate, a number of successful examples were mentioned of trading biodiversity access for capacity building. The Netherlands could claim the position as a front runner in this area by promoting such an alternative on the international stage.

4. An overview of the discussions in round 2

4.1 Poor Patents

The impact of patents on society depends not only on the patent regime, but also on other factors that determine in how far monopoly situations can be exploited by patent holders: competition law, national seeds legislation, the strength of national agricultural research systems.

The recent patenting of plants can be regarded as an aberration of the original patent definition (as a shift from invention to discovery). If it is shown that the present system really impedes access by poor countries to their own conventional varieties, this would lead to a public outcry that may possibly undermine the whole patent system. This system should be changed to provide stronger custodians rights that better protect plant varieties and genetic resources attributed to the Appellation of Origin (Art. 22-24 of TRIPS).

Patenting living organisms and life processes has a number of negative consequences for developing countries. Therefore, alternatives are looked for:

Open systems (like Linux software or Napster.com for technology exchange) may speed up technological development and keep the results accessible to anybody.
The United Nations (UN) could buy crucial patents for a reasonable price covering expenses and profits margin to make them, available to everybody.
Public research undertaken by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), international and national agricultural research centres (IARCs and NARs), universities and other institutions could be funded more vigorously under the condition that they make their research results publicly accessible.
Sui generis systems of intellectual property protection in agriculture can be developed further.
Codes for ethical behaviour may have to guide research and patent strategies of private companies. This could include generous licensing of technologies to those who would not be able to pay for it anyhow, as for example Golden Rice technology will be available cost-free to farmers and traders whose income is less than US$ 10,000 per year.
Agricultural production could be redirected to the domestic market. If food is produced for the local market only, chances are much lower that patent infringements would be noticed and reacted upon.

One idea that was explored was the possibility of using the current patent system as a powerful instrument against itself. A number of process patents could help to stimulate a Linux equivalent. Free licences could be given to use the processes with only one restriction: the resulting innovations should be open to everybody. In this way, licences could be used to spread the concept of open source software for biotechnology. The same idea could be used by gene banks by giving everybody access to the material collected under the condition that they guarantee Farmers’ and Plant Breeders’ Rights on their new varieties.

An agency that collects and distributes information on patents, a so-called IP clearinghouse mechanism, could help to efficiently move the privately-claimed knowledge of genetic resources into the hands of those specific users who are able to add value by their applications of that knowledge. Open questions are still who will run such a clearinghouse and who will cover the costs. One possible solution would be to share the revenues from patents equally among the members of the organization. If the patent systems is considered a solution to overcome the tension between the private granting of intellectual property rights over otherwise intrinsically public-nature goods, such a clearinghouse could serve as an important mechanism to make patents effective.

Clearinghouse activities to facilitate access of poor farmers to patented research results are already undertaken by CAMBIA IP Resource (Australia), funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Its key objective is to enhance the ability of public sector and small-to-medium enterprises to develop biotechnology for crop improvement worldwide (see www.cambiaip.org). Another relevant initiative in this respect is the Global Knowledge Center on Crop Biotechnology. As part of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) family, it is committed to share crop biotechnology information with as many people as possible (see www.isaaa.org/kc). The CGIAR system itself could become the virtual host for an internet based exchange system. To some extent it could be argued that the nucleus of a Linux-type system does already exist.

A two-tier system of property rights in international agriculture currently exists. The CGIAR and CAMBIA are two institutions that support and strengthen ’public’ research to develop their ’own’ IP (which can be traded or exchanged) and a facilitating process as partly supported by ISAAA to deal with IP already protected. A good example of an alternative system of exchange is the International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP) in the CGIAR.

It has introduced a system of exchange based on Material Transfer Agreements (MATs). Under these agreements, INIBAP acquires improved varieties from breeding programmes with an agreement that these can be freely distributed for use in developing countries, but commercial use in developed countries requires a bilateral agreement between breeding programme and user. This type of arrangement also illustrates the role that the CGIAR can play as an ’honest broker’ in the area of movement of genetic resources.

Would it make a difference if one small biotechnology company would start to put all its available information on the net? Could a university (or any other resource centre) make a start with offering free access to research papers from all over the world and foster strong online communities to develop the research further? The issue of how the efforts of researchers and the investment of their employers can be rewarded, if the research results become available for free, is one that needs further exploration. Deeper insight also has to be gained into the real potential of such a system to considerably slow down research expenditures.

4.2 Options in food production

For most participants the most promising ideas generated in Options in future food production lay not in specific plants or ‘super-seed’ but in the agricultural systems in which they are used. Three issues were discussed:

the question whether genetic engineering is just another tool in the tool box of agricultural research and development (R&D) or whether it has the potential (at least in the current R&D and market situation) to supersede other approaches, technologies and seeds. (This issue was also dealt in the discussion room “Rights and Choices”);
the impact of market mechanisms on the choice of agricultural products and technologies.
There was a push to gain focus into the real lessons (to be) learnt from the current agricultural system, from the Green Revolution and from a variety of projects on agricultural and rural development.

Most participants stressed lessons learnt from the Green Revolution, but no common understanding exists on what theses lessons are, or even whether the Green Revolution was a success or a failure. For example, arguments were given for the increased production of high yielding varieties (HYVs) as well as a reduction in overall production through these HYVs because their straw cannot be used as animal feed anymore. Contradicting opinions were not so much divided between developing and industrialized countries, but between the institutional setting or occupation of the participants. In general, members of civil society organisations that focus on rural livelihood etc. focused on other issues than scientists situated in agricultural research institutes.

A similar situation arises in assessing the current agricultural system and its shortcomings, as well as when examples (see page 16) from projects in developing countries are given, like those of the Southeast Asia Regional Institute for Community Education (SEARICE), the Scientist-Farmers Partnership (MASIPAG, both in the Philippines) or the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE, Kenya). The need to extract some clear learning experiences from the past (even though expressed in often contradicting arguments), showed that a thorough assessment of past and current agricultural problems could provide policy makers with a tool for assessing future developments.

Whilst we can learn from the past, this should be seen in conjunction with present and future trends (such as the massive movement of rural populations to urban areas creating mega-cities and changed consumption patterns towards more meat and more processed products). On these issues opinions differ widely, not only between North and South but also between different stakeholder groups in the region.

Market mechanisms are closely linked with agriculture, as agricultural products are not only daily food but also commodities in international trade. As commodities, food faces the same competition as other products do: a push towards low production costs, a trend to use the resource ‘land’ for monetary profitable products, competition of other farmers who produce under more favourable conditions. Changes of the agricultural systems to ensure food security will have to take trade issues into account, for example by strengthening local production through lower interest rates on loans for food production, or even by taking basic food out of the scope of the WTO.

On these issues, opinions between North and South vary to a large degree. Specifically, subsidies given to European farmers came under strong criticism because they can give exported European food such a price advantage on local markets that farmers from developing countries find it very difficult to compete with. It was further noted how unfair the situation is as structural adjustment programmes enforced by international bodies, have withdrawn all subsidies for farmers in developing countries. A discussion on these issues can put policy makers in an uncomfortable position of weighing the needs of rural areas in Europe against those in developing countries.

The lessons learnt from the Green Revolution, from the current situation of agricultural systems in Europe and worldwide, from scientific and from rural projects are diverse and contradicting. Policy makers have to assess their pros and cons thoroughly. A list of questions derived from such an assessment, that can be used to decide upon technology developments, should encompass the following issues:

· Is the technology developed and/or transferred in a top-down or bottom-up approach? Is it participatory? Who is engaged?

· Does the introduction of a new technology not only respect Farmers’ rights but is it also aware of the different levels of formal and informal education within rural communities?

· Does a new technology prioritise large sections of a society? Are not only farmers and their families taken into account, but also farm workers and/or extension workers?

· Can the use of the technology stabilize rural populations and thereby prevent migration to cities and its consequences of a growing number of unemployed urban poor and other poverty related issues?

· If it focuses on staple crops, does it ignore other nutritionally important crops? Does it contribute to food security?

· How does the technology alter the production process on a farm as a whole (including wild plants and animals that can contribute to food)?

· Is the technology beneficial under special conditions of soil and climate? Can it be used for food production on land that is not considered to be agricultural land?

· How does the technology affect environmental issues like soil deprivation and biodiversity?

· Is access to seed and germ plasma guaranteed? Does the technology protect agro-biodiversity?

Changes in the agricultural systems are necessary, because no matter whether one considers agricultural land and the total food production sufficient, people in all continents go hungry on different scales and for different reasons, and farmers face a multitude of problems. Some suggestion were made:

· ensure Farmers’ and Plant Breeders’ Rights;

· recognise locally adopted technologies and their impacts on the production, political, financial, legal and social levels;

· strengthen the position of small-scale farmers, for example through land reforms and a better distribution of rural wealth;

· strengthen production for local and regional food security, in preference to the growing of cash crops for international markets;

· provide financial resources to participatory initiatives;

· set long-term goals that can be based on sound policy instruments and create a stable situation in which to implement them.

It is also necessary to recognise the paradox between local food security efforts and production of commodities for international markets of food and non-food products. Some recommendations were made to deal with this dilemma:

· take (basic) food production out of the scope of the World Trade Organization (WTO);

· revise WTO rules that allow subsidies for farmers in the North but not in the South;

· use instruments like subsidies wisely to encourage sustainable forms of agriculture;

· strengthen local markets.

4.3 Capacity building

The need to build capacity in developing countries clearly constituted one of the most important aspects of the biotechnology issue. There appears to be a lack of knowledge and skills in Southern countries to make informed decisions and to effectively create and deal with the potential advantages of biotechnology. This technology, and especially genetic engineering requires extensive monitoring and implementation of complex protocols such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Efforts to create sufficient scientific capacity in the South have been going on for years, but a lot of this capacity has not been used. The question whether this lies in the circumstances under which knowledge is applied, whether there is something lacking in the capacity building programmes, or whether problems even lie somewhere else was discussed. The conclusion was that further assessment is still necessary.

Capacity building should be directed towards enabling individuals and groups to make choices that are both realistic in terms of local resources and responsible within a larger social context. As one participant, George Owusu Essegbey, pointed it out “capacity should be seen as a whole rather than the sum of its parts. For example, training a few university graduate in specialized techniques facilities does not mean that ‘considerable capacity’ has been built in all sectors of developing countries”.

In general, participants indicated that the agencies responsible for capacity building should be more critical of the impact of their programmes. There seems to be a lack of evaluation that inhibits the effectiveness of capacity building efforts. Moreover, capacity building programmes should consider specific local conditions such as ethics, religion and culture. It was also recognized that incorrectly targeted capacity building and market forces could attract trained people away from sectors (or rural areas) where they are needed in development terms.

The introduction and implementation of biosafety regulations provided an example of how complex systems can overstretch local capabilities and therefore slowdown or inhibit technology transfer. The importance of optimising all available resources in capacity building was stressed with examples of making more use of public-private partnerships in scientific research and building on local capacity emerging in the form of local companies and small and medium enterprises. There is an important relationship between the political economies of developing countries and the social and cultural context in which capacity building efforts take place. As several examples show, an entrepreneurial culture can be necessary for the realization of the full potential of scientific and technical capacity.

4.4 Rights and choices

How can the different interests of stakeholders be reconciled or at least balanced? What rights and choices does a small-scale farmer have compared to the power of a rich transnational company? How can the rights of minorities be ensured within the biotechnology debate?

One of the nodal points of these questions appeared to be the issue of risk assessment. Almost all participants agreed this to be of great importance. What they did not agree on was under whose responsibility risk assessment should fall. Some argued that governments should take care of this. Others questioned whether governments are they really equipped for this task as they may have too much self-interest? Independent scientific institutions should provide back up. This in turn would of course have to be accompanied by the necessary additional funding. Although transnational companies have ideally to bear the responsibility for the risk their genetically modified products imply, in the discussion it became clear that not everyone finds profit-oriented research trustworthy. Companies could be made to pay for independent research. A multi-sectoral system may be the best approach and should include checks and balances to ensure an even-handed outcome.

Another important notion in the area of rights and choices proved to be farmers saving their seed. This traditional right is jeopardized by ownership of seed by companies and restrictive intergovernmental regulations. Emily Bell (Australian farmer) wondered whether the loss of farmers rights over seed was compensated by the supposed benefits of GE seed: “It seems to me that farmers assume all the burdens of all the associated risks of GE, and must pay dearly for the (as yet unclear) benefits.” Others, such as Stuart Smyth (Canadian scientist), said companies are right to ask for money if their proprietary seed is (re-)used: “Nobody has the right to save and re-plant seed if it is the lawful property of somebody else.” Sometimes GM crops appear where they are not supposed to be, because of cross-pollination or just spreading of seed. In cases, like that outlined by the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, the farmer has had to pay for using protected seed. So, one farmer choosing to grow GM crops may constrain the choice of another farmer to grow whatever he or she wishes. This question of maintaining the integrity of sustainable farming systems is particularly acute with organic agriculture. Many contributions critically questioned the feasibility of maintaining this growing agriculture sector amidst widespread GE contamination. The implementation of GE-free zones could circumvent this problem to some extent. However some participants argued that at least for open pollinating crops these zones would need such wide buffer zones that they would become unfeasible, and could never exclude accidents.

All of the above discussions have to realise that the effects of choice are not equal. The effects of a decision vary in scale in ratio to the power base that underlies the body making the decision. In the context of the GE debate the relative power of different players is as polarised as the arguments. Under these circumstances the rights of a local farmer are easily crushed by the decision of a transnational corporation. Democratic and legal mechanisms are required to safeguard the rights and choices of the individual players and collective organising may help to structure common interests in society.

Despite the various governance mechanisms that may be employed to ensure rights and choices it was argued that it is still necessary to protect the rights of the individual (for example from majority decision). Here it was suggested that the length of time the individual has been engaged in a certain practice should be an important benchmark by which to judge their rights.
Discussion of the merits and problems of different agricultural technologies needs to consider the experience and knowledge of the farmer. Technology and practices when misapplied are harmful to the environment and may affect health. For example, in the case of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, its use in the organic or GMO setting leads to widely differing and disputed effects. Dispute over insect resistance to this important insecticide also exists, with some arguing that making use of short-term benefits to boost production was legitimate, even if it accelerated insect resistance caused Bt to be ineffective in future.

Appendix 1: Participants

A total of 527 participants from 69 countries registered for the online debate. The biggest single country was the Netherlands, followed by India and the USA. Overall there were more participants from Asia than from North America, and about as many from the USA as from Africa.

In the second round 68 participants actively participated and contributed a total number of 408 reactions. The discussion was mainly between participants from Europe and Asia, esp. the Netherlands and India. A technological gap due to different access to the internet did not unbalance the discussion. On the contrary, throughout the debate there were similar numbers of contributions from Africa, North and South America.