GMO Biosafety Research 2014, Vol.6, No.1, 1-9
9
these elements have a big enough driver power, so that
the success of the implementation will provide the
success too in the using of GEPs, and in the contrary,
if these elements are ignored, they will lead us to the
failure in the using of GEPs in Indonesia. It had ever
happened in Indonesia on the trial of Bt cotton
planting in South Sulawesi, which failed because of
Indonesia government did not do a whole study before
this GEPs being released and used on the communities.
By the existence of the assessment system before GEP
using policy, it can reduce the failure as before
(Buchori et al. 2005).
Conclusions
The new technology has risks, which can be positive
or negative for human health and the environment.
Related to those facts, some nations of the world have
made an agreement to implement prudential and
conduct risk assessment with raw scientific method
before the GEP being used. The agreement of these
states is listed on the Cartagena Protocol, which was
signed by Indonesian representative too. Releasing
and utilization of GEPs policy in each country have
each different procedures and circumstance based on
the country need and conditionThere are seven
regulations that closed related with the biosafety in
Indonesia i.e. Decision Letter of four Ministry,
Governmental Regulation (GR) No. 21 of 2005 about
GEP Biosafety and Presidential Regulation (PR) No.
39 of 2010 about Commission of Biosafety of GEP.
1.
The regulatory and laws related with the
management policy of GEPs consist of law No
12/1992 about plant genetic resources that are cover
the GEPs plant, law 18/2012 about food especially
GEPs food safety and law no 32/2009 about
protection and management of environment that are
cover the GEPs biosafety.
2.
GEPs management policy analysis based on
making decision method of AHP has resulted four
hierarchies level; focus, factors, criteria, and
alternatives. For each hierarchy have resulted the
important factors in GEPs management for focus are
environment, economic, social and technology.
Environment factor is the gene flow from GEP crops
to non-GEP crops, economic factor is escalating the
farmer’s income, for social factor is safety of GEPs
for health, for technology factor is resource capability
in doing biosafety testing. First priority for alternative
level is law enforcement to law regulatory.
Sub element of law
enforcement
to the regulations
(A12), an increase of TTKH quality in doing
assessment of biological safety (A5) and human
resource capacity building in doing biological safety
testing (A4) are located at sector IV (independent
sector) as the most important alternatives to be noticed
that will deliver a high effects to other sub- other
element in the using of sustainable GEP in Indonesia.
References
Buchori D., Adiwibowo S., Santosa D.A., Kartodiharjo H., and Triwidodo H.,
2005, Public participation and development of biotechnology policy in
Indonesia: Challenges, obstacles, and opportunities, Departement of
Plant Protection. Faculty of Agriculture. Bogor Agricultural University
Brookes G., and Barfoot P., 2003, GM Crops: Global socio–economic and
environmental impact 1996-2009. P.G Economics Ltd. Dorcester, UK
Ceccarelli S., Grando S., Maatougui M., Michael M., and Slash M., 2010,
Plant breeding and climate changes, Journal of Agricultural Science,
Cambridge ,148: 627-637
Cogoy K.W., and Steininger M., 2007, The economics of global
environmental change. International cooperation for sustainability,
Edward Elgar Pub. Limited. USA
Cunningham W.P., and Saigo B.W., 2001, Environmental Science: A global
concern, Sixth edition, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 249-260
Eriyatno.,1998, System knowledge; Meningkatkan Mutu dan Efektivitas
Manajemen. Bogor: IPB Press
Herman M., 2008, Tanaman produk rekayasa genetik dan kebijakan
pengembangannya. Vol 1. Teknologi rekayasa genetik dan status
penelitiannya di Indonesia, Balai Besar Penelitian dan Pengembangan
Bioteknologi dan Sumber Daya Genetik Pertanian. Badan Penelitian dan
Pengembangan Pertanian. Departemen Pertanian
James C., 2012, Global Review of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2012.
ISAAA Brief No 43 ISAAA, Ithaca, New York
Josine T.L., Ji J., Wang G., Guan C.F., 2011, Advances in genetic engineering
for plants abiotic stress control, African Journal of Biotechnology, 10
(28): 5402-5413
Marimin., 2005, Pengambilan Keputusan Kriteria Majemuk. Grasindo. Jakarta
Manshardt R., 2004, Crop improvement by conventional breeding or genetic
engineering: How different are they?, Biotechnology, 5:1-3
Mitchell B., Setiawan B., Rahmi D.H., 2007, Pengelolaan Sumberdaya dan
Lingkungan. Gadjah Mada University Press. IKAPI. Yogyakarta
Rissler J., Mellon M., 1996, The ecological risks of engineered crops,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. London. England
Qaim M., 2009, The economics of genetically modified crops, The annual
review of resource economics,1: 665-693.
Saaty R.W., Saaty T..,2003,Decision making in complex environments: The
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Decision Making and The
Analytical Network Process (ANP) for Decision Making with
Dependence and Feedback, Creative Decisions Foundation, Pittsburgh,
PA
Saxena J.J.P., Sushil., V.P.,1992, Hierarchy and classification of program plan
elements using interpretative structural modeling, System Practice, 6:
651-670, Shah F., Huang J., Cui K., Nie L., Shah T., et al
.,
2011, Impact
of high temperature stress on rice plant and its traits related to
tolerance,Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge ,10:1-1Sharma
K.K., Sharma H.C., Seetharama N., andOrtiz
R., 2002, Development
and Deployment of transgenic plants: biosafety considerations, In vitro
cell Dev. Biol. Plant ,58:106-115
