IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/eptddp/149.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A gap analysis of confined field trial application forms for genetically modified crops in East Africa: evaluating the potential for harmonization

Author

Listed:
  • Linacre, Nicholas A.
  • Cohen, Joel I.

Abstract

"The regulatory approval of genetically modified crops in the field initially requires small, restricted experimental trials known as confined field trials. These small scale experiments provide researchers with important information on environmental interactions and agronomic performance of the crop in a safe and contained manner. To authorize confined field trials regulatory review is required, with formats for obtaining relevant information differing from country to country. In this paper, a Gap Analysis is used to identify informational gaps and potential for harmonization of confined field trial application processes in three East African countries - Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda. The basic principle behind gap analysis is a comparison of the status quo to an ideal with the identification of the differences or gaps and the difficulty involved in removing the gaps. The resulting similarity of the application forms provides a potential basis for harmonization of confined field trial application processes between countries leading to potential efficiency gains." Authors' abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Linacre, Nicholas A. & Cohen, Joel I., 2006. "A gap analysis of confined field trial application forms for genetically modified crops in East Africa: evaluating the potential for harmonization," EPTD discussion papers 149, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:fpr:eptddp:149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/eptdp149.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McLean, Morven A. & Frederick, Robert J. & Traynor, Patricia L. & Cohen, Joel I. & Komen, John, 2002. "A Conceptual Framework for Implementing Biosafety: Linking Policy, Capacity, and Regulation," ISNAR Archive 310649, CGIAR > International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Zambrano, Patricia, 2013. "Estimates and implications of the costs of compliance with biosafety regulations for African agriculture," IFPRI book chapters, in: Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Gruère, Guillaume P. & Sithole-Niang, Idah (ed.), Genetically modified crops in Africa: Economic and policy lessons from countries south of the Sahara, chapter 6, pages 159-182, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Cohen, Joel I. & Paarlberg, Robert, 2004. "Unlocking Crop Biotechnology in Developing Countries--A Report from the Field," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1563-1577, September.
    3. Leila Maria Kehl, 2018. "Participatory Ethics in Biotech Research Decisions," Working Papers 39, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Feb 2021.
    4. Falck-Zepeda, Jose & Mnyulwa, Shumba & Mulenga, Dorothy & Gouse, Marnus & Masanganise, Patricia, 2010. "The Status of the Inclusion of Socio-Economic Considerations in Biosafety Regulations and Biotechnology Decision Making Processes in Southern and East Africa: Practical Implications and Consequences f," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188422, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    5. Jaffe, Gregory, 2006. "Comparative analysis of the national biosafety regulatory systems in East Africa:," EPTD discussion papers 146, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Falck-Zepeda, Jose & Mnyulwa, Doreen & Mulenga, Dorothy & Gouse, Marnus & Masanganise, Patricia, 2010. "The Status of the Inclusion of Socio-Economic Considerations in Biosafety Regulations and Biotechnology Decision Making Processes in Southern and East Africa: Practical Implications and Consequences f," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188118, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Genetically modified crops; Gap analysis; Confined field trials; biotechnology;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:eptddp:149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.