Presentation by Ian Scoones, STEPS Centre co-director, at a conference on the challenges of risk management for India, Bangalore, 15-16 February 2011. The conference was organised by the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore's Centre for Public Policy in association with the STEPS Centre. http://www.risk-management-india.com/

1. Regulating technological risk:
the case of genetically-modified
crops in India
Ian Scoones
STEPS Centre, Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex, UK

2. From Bt cotton to Bt brinjal
Three phases
1. Regulatory approval: science and protest
(1995-2002)
2. Regulatory impasse (2002-2009): informal,
then formal release
3. Regulatory precaution (2009- ):
public consultations, political
intervention and a moratorium

3. Technical risk: experts rule?
• A regulatory framework - RCGM and GEAC
• Imports, and technical discussions
• Protest and direct action
• 2002 decision: release
• Attempts by the centre to
regulate, but resistance
from states and farmers

4. A regulatory impasse
• Experts, inquiries, new regulatory structures
proposed
• Business pressure to reduce regulatory ‘red
tape’ – pharma vs agriculture
• Disputes within scientific establishment and
regulatory body (GEAC) Increase in registered
• Concerns about Bt resistance (CICR, Nagpur
report)
• Bt cotton varieties and massive expansion of
cropped area.

6. The Bt brinjal episode
• Significant public mobilisation: a symbolic
food crop
• Technical vs political response
• A recognition of uncertainty/ignorance and
the need for dialogue about contrasting
framings to build broader public trust as part
of regulation
• Towards a co-evolutionary approach to the
regulation of risk (and uncertainty)

8. Key developments….
• A recognition of uncertainty/
ignorance and the need for a
precautionary approach
• The importance of dialogue about contrasting
framings to build broader public trust as part
of regulation
• Towards a co-evolutionary approach to the
regulation of technological risk – in the
context of scientific uncertainty and public
contention

9. Risk and regulation: a simple framework
knowledge about outcomes
unproblematic problematic
unproblematic
knowledge
about
likelihoods
problematic

10. ‘Closing down’ around a narrow
risk framing
knowledge about outcomes
unproblematic problematic
unproblematic RISK
Biosafety – environmental &
health risks are predictable
knowledge
about
likelihoods
problematic

11. ‘Closing down’
knowledge about outcomes
unproblematic problematic
unproblematic RISK
Biosafety – environmental &
health risks are predictable
knowledge
about
likelihoods
Unfamiliar toxic effects,
complex synergies, unknown
pest emergence/resistance
ecology
problematic UNCERTAINTY

12. ‘Closing down’
knowledge about outcomes
unproblematic problematic
unproblematic RISK AMBIGUITY
Biosafety – environmental Different interests and priorities
&health risks divergent notions of harm
are predictable trust, fairness, ethics
knowledge
about
likelihoods
Unfamiliar toxic effects,
complex synergies, unknown
pest emergence/resistance
ecology
problematic UNCERTAINTY

13. ‘Closing down’
knowledge about outcomes
unproblematic problematic
unproblematic RISK AMBIGUITY
Biosafety – environmental different interests / priorities
&health risks divergent notions of harm
are predictable trust, fairness, ethics
knowledge
about
likelihoods
Unfamiliar toxic effects, Unknowns, surprise, novelty
complex synergies, unknown
of envtal and health impacts
pest emergence/resistance
ecology
problematic UNCERTAINTY IGNORANCE

14. Three phases
knowledge about outcomes
unproblematic problematic
unproblematic
Technical
approval
1995-
2002
knowledge Dialogue,
about debate,
likelihoods and
precaution
2009 -
Regulatory
impasse
2002-09
problematic

15. ‘Closing down’
powerful pressures to justify a narrow risk framing
knowledge about outcomes
unproblematic problematic
unproblematic RISK expert decisions AMBIGUITY
aggregative analysis
political closure
knowledge public deliberation
about risk based regulation `
political debate
likelihoods reductive modeling
agenda-setting
legal frameworks
horizon scanning
insurance
multiple expertises
harm definitions
indicators / metrics
regulatory remits
Liability law
problematic UNCERTAINTY IGNORANCE

16. ‘Opening up’ regulation
knowledge about outcomes
unproblematic problematic
unproblematic RISK AMBIGUITY
Narrow , expert-led participatory deliberation
biosafety-focused, scenario workshops
technical risk stakeholder dialogues
regulation interactive options modelling
knowledge
social, political and technical
about dimensions
likelihoods
precaution
uncertainty heuristics continuous monitoring
sensitivity testing adaptive management
tracking institutional learning
high reliability management
problematic UNCERTAINTY IGNORANCE

17. Reimagining regulation
• Accept uncertainty and ignorance, avoid closing
down towards narrow versions of risk regulation
• Debating ambiguities – different perspectives,
opinions and evidence – should be encouraged
• Multiple expertises are important. Science on
tap, not on top.
• Regulation is both technical and political –
requires a mature, transparent co-evolutionary
approach. Not the dominance of one or the
other.