Transparency as contested political terrain: Who knows what about the global GMO trade and why does it matter?

Global Environmental Politics

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 32-52

  Gupta, Aarti ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL TRADE; BIOSAFETY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS; GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM; GLOBAL TRADE; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; TRADE POLICY;

EID: 77049091475     PISSN: 15263800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00013     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Bail, Christoph, Robert Falkner, and Helen Marquard, eds. 2002. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Reconciling Trade in Biotechnology with Environment and Development? Royal Institute of International Affairs, UK: Chatham House.
2. Bled, Amandine. 2009. Privatizing Anticipatory Governance? The Biotechnology Industry Global Compact Initiative for Liability and Redress under the Cartagena Protocol. Paper presented at International Studies Association, New York.
3. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2006. Handling, Transport, Packaging and Identification of Living Modified Organisms: paragraph 2 (a) of Article 18. Decision of the Third Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol. MOP BS-III/10.
4. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2008. Handling, Transport, Packaging and Identification of Living Modified Organisms. Synthesis of information on experience gained with the use of sampling of living modified organisms and detection techniques and on the need for and modalities of developing criteria for acceptability of, and harmonizing, sampling and detection techniques (Paragraph 2(a) of Article 18). UNEP/CBD/BS/COP- MOP/4/9, 7 April.
5. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2009. Report of the Group of the Friends of the Co-Chairs on Liability and Re- dress in the Context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on the Work of its First Meeting. UNEP/CBD/BS/GF-L&R/1/4.
6. Ceres. Undated. Detecting Genetically Modiied Organisms: Confronting the Limits of Testing to Resolve a Biotech Food Fight. Summary of Ceres Roundtable, sponsored by Virginia Tech's Center for Food and Nutrition Policy/Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Available at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Summaries_-_reports_and_pubs/proceedings2.pdf, accessed 28 March 2010.
7. CFO. 2007. Drowning in Data. CFO Magazine July 1. Available at: http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/9390637, accessed 28 March 2010.
8. Clapp, Jennifer. 2008. Illegal GMO Releases and Corporate Responsibility: Questioning the Effectiveness of Voluntary Measures. Ecological Economics 66 (2-3): 348-358.
9. Cartagena Protocol. 2000, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Adopted 2000 under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf, accessed 28 March 2010.
10. Dingwerth, Klaus and Margot Eichinger. 2010. Tamed Transparency: How Information Disclosure Under the Global Reporting Initiative Fails to Empower. Global Environmental Politics 10 (3): 74-97.
11. Elbehri, Aziz. 2007. The Changing Face of the U.S. Grain System: Differentiation and Identity Preservation Trends. ERR-35, US Department of Agricultural Economic Research Service, (February).
12. Earth Negotiation Bulletin (ENB). 2008. Summary of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (12-16 May 2008). Available at: http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb09441e.pdf, accessed 28 March 2010.
13. Falkner, Robert, and Gupta, Aarti. 2009. Limits of Regulatory Convergence: Globalization and GMO Politics in the South. International Environmental Agreements 9 (2): 113-133.
14. Florini, Ann. 2008. Making Transparency Work. Global Environmental Politics 8 (2): 14-16.
15. Fung, Archon, Mary Graham, and David Weil. 2007. Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Graham, Mary. 2002. Democracy by Disclosure? The Rise of Technopopulism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
17. Gruere, Guillaume P. 2006. An Analysis of Trade Related International Regulations of Genetically Modiied Food and their Effects on Developing Countries. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Discussion Paper 147. IFPRI: Washington DC.
18. Gruere, Guillaume P., and Mark W. Rosegrant. 2008. Assessing the Implementation Effects of the Biosafety Protocol's Proposed Stringent Information Requirements for Genetically Modifed Commodities in Countries of the Asia Pacifc Economic Cooperation. Review of Agricultural Economics 30 (2): 214-232.
19. Gupta, Aarti. 2000. Governing Trade in Genetically Modifed Organisms: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Environment 42 (4): 23-33.
20. Gupta, Aarti. 2004. When Global is Local: Negotiating Safe Use of Biotechnology. In Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance, edited by Sheila Jasanoff and Marybeth Long-Martello, 127-148. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Gupta, Aarti. 2008. Transparency Under Scrutiny: Information Disclosure in Global Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics 8 (2): 1-7.
22. Gupta, Aarti. 2010a. Transparency to what End? Governing by Disclosure through the Biosafety Clearing House. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 28 (2): 128-144.
23. Gupta, Aarti. 2010b. Introduction: Transparency in Global Environmental Governance: A Coming of Age? Global Environmental Politics 10 (3): 1-9.
24. Haufler, Virginia. 2010. Disclosure and Governance: The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and Resource Management in the Developing World. Global Environmental Politics 10 (3): 53-73.
25. Holst-Jensen, Arne. Undated. What is the Future of GMO Detection? A Freely Speaking Scientist's Opinion. Available at: http://www.coextra.eu/researchlive/reportage765.html, accessed 28 March 2010.
26. James, Clive. 2008. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2008. Brief 39, Executive Summary, ISAAA.
27. Jansen, Kees, and Aarti Gupta. 2009. Anticipating the Future: 'Biotechnology for the Poor' as Unrealized Promise? Futures 41 (7): 436-445.
28. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1987. Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science. Social Studies of Science 17 (2): 195-230.
29. Jasanoff, Sheila, ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: the Co-Production of Science and Social Order. Lon- don: Routledge.
30. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas. 2004. The Potential Impacts of the Biosafety Protocol on Agricultural Commodity Trade. IPC Technology Issue Brief, (December).
31. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas. 2006. Cartagena Protocol: A New Trade Barrier? Regulation 29 (2): 18-25.
32. Keohane Robert. 2006. Accountability in World Politics. Scandinavian Political Studies 29 (2): 75-87.
33. Langley, Paul. 2001. Transparency in the Making of Global Environmental Governance. Global Society 15 (1): 73-92.
34. Mason, Michael. 2008. Transparency for Whom? Information Disclosure and Power in Global Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics 8 (2): 8-13.
35. Mason, Michael. 2010. Information Disclosure and Environmental Rights: The Aarhus Conven- tion. Global Environmental Politics 10 (3): 10-31.
36. Mayet, Mariam. Undated. South Africa's Segregation and Traceability System. African Center for Biosafety, South Africa.
37. Mehri, Cyrus. 1988. Prior Informed Consent: An Emerging Compromise for Hazardous Exports. Cornell International Law Journal 21: 365-389.
38. Mitchell, Ronald B. 1998. Sources of Transparency: Information Systems in International Regimes. International Studies Quarterly 42 (1): 109-130.
39. Mol, Arthur. 2006. Environmental Governance in the Information Age: The Emergence of Informational Governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24 (4): 497-514.
40. Mol, Arthur. 2008. Environmental Reform in the Information Age: The Contours of Informational Governance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
41. Mol, Arthur. 2010. The Future of Transparency: Power, Pitfalls and Promises. Global Environmental Politics 10 (3): 132-143.
42. Power, Michael. 1997a. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford University Press.
43. Power, Michael. 1997b. Expertise and the Construction of Relevance: Accountants and Environ- mental Audit. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (2): 123-146.
44. Peters, Winston. 2006. Outcome of Cartagena Biosafety Protocol Meeting Exceeds New Zealand's Expectations. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, New Zealand. Press Release. Monday, 20 March. Available at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0603/S00337htm, accessed 28 March 2010.
45. Sahai, Suman. Undated. Can GM and Non-GM Crops be Segregated in India: Is Coexistence Possible? Gene Campaign, India. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/external/cop-09/gc-coexist-en.pdf, accessed 28 March 2010.
46. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008. Global Traceability and Labeling Requirements for Agricultural Biotechnology-Derived Products: Impacts and Implications for the United States. Biotechnology Law Report 27 (5): 496-498.
47. Wolf, Amanda. 2000. Informed Consent: A Negotiated Formula for Trade in Risky Organisms and Chemicals. International Negotiation 5 (3): 485-52.
48. Zepeda, Jose Falck. 2006. Co-existence, Genetically Modifed Biotechnologies and Bio-safety: Implications for Developing Countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (5): 1200-1208.