Natural Resource

perspectives
Number 60, September 2000

GMOs AND NGOs: BIOTECHNOLOGY, THE POLICY PROCESS, AND

THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
Robert Tripp
Policy conclusions
• A pragmatic examination of the prospects and performance of specific agricultural technologies in specific economic and biological
environments is to be preferred to the current label-laden debate over biotechnology and its alternatives. Decisions about any technology,
including biotechnology, must come from democratic debate and markets and be located within adequate regulatory environments.
• NGO projects that support low-input and traditional agriculture require careful evaluation in order to test widely-made claims about
their potential for replacing conventional agricultural technology.
• Any programme for delivering biotechnology to low-resource farmers must include attention to the adequacy of agricultural markets
and information provision.
• Support for ‘marginalised farmers’, utilising whatever type of technology, needs to include a realistic assessment of production potential
and consideration of alternatives for livelihood diversification.

Introduction
It is difficult to pick up a newspaper or listen to a news diet. Supporters of biotechnology argue that the testing and
broadcast that does not include some mention of genetically regulatory processes applied to transgenic crops are capable
modified organisms (GMOs). The application of genetic of addressing these concerns. The battle over regulation is
engineering to agriculture has raised considerable hopes for understandable, not only because regulatory failure has been
increased production and efficiency, but more notably it also at the heart of several recent food scares (e.g. BSE), but also
has raised wide opposition. The controversy involves the because regulation is valuable political territory. The two sides
future of biotechnology in both the North and the South. The line up behind what sound like comprehensive codes –
lines of the controversy regarding the potential for the South ‘science-based regulation’ and ‘the precautionary principle’ –
are quite clearly drawn. Those who are optimistic about but it can be argued that these are simply formal expressions
biotechnology argue for the need to increase food production of subjective attitudes towards the regulatory process.
and point to the possibility of addressing the problems of Despite the prominence of regulation in the debate, it is
marginalised farmers. Opponents question the safety, difficult to see contrasting perceptions of regulatory protocol
relevance and equity of the new technology. This paper as the primary force behind the controversy over
examines the arguments on both sides, but pays particular biotechnology. For example, biotechnology’s critics are
attention to the case made by a number of NGOs who have selective in their regulatory concerns. In the past several
been effective in bringing the issues to public attention. decades, mutation breeding – exposing seeds to radiation or
Biotechnology is a product of globalisation, and its critics mutagenic chemicals – has produced many commercial crop
also utilise global links in promoting a synergy between NGOs varieties – including several popular malting barleys grown
interested in development with those whose focus is in the UK – but no alarm about food safety has been raised.
environmental issues in the North. Similarly, many of the properties of transgenic crops – such
The purpose of this paper is not to arrive at conclusions as disease resistance or even herbicide tolerance – have also
about biotechnology’s relevance for agricultural development, been achieved by conventional plant breeding, but little
(see Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999 and Altieri and Rosset, attention is given to their possible environmental
1999 for contrasting views), but rather to point out certain consequences. Such selectivity is typical of most risk
implications and weaknesses in the arguments on both sides. perception: any society or group chooses what it wishes to
Although the presentation attempts to be even-handed, it identify as risks (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1983). The
must be acknowledged that the paper is motivated by unease subjectivity is conditioned by various cultural, political and
over the nature of the NGO case. The paper begins by looking economic factors. Part may be explained by direct self-interest
at some of the major arguments that motivate the debate on (e.g. a company denying that its products are potentially
biotechnology. It then turns to examine how the debate is harmful), but risk perceptions are also related to broader
conducted in the North and the South. The paper concludes world-views. This is certainly the case with agricultural
by drawing implications for NGOs engaged in agricultural technology and it is thus worthwhile turning to some of the
development in the South. other arguments surrounding biotechnology, particularly for
the South.
The arguments
Food supply and population
Environmental and food safety Perhaps the most common defence of transgenic crops is the
The major opposition to biotechnology in the North centres argument that population will soon outstrip world food supply
on environmental and food safety. The critics are concerned and that new technology is required to meet the challenge.
by the potential environmental damage that might be caused The trends are indeed worrying, but biotechnology’s defenders
by transgenic crops crossing with related species or by their tend to use them as a threat, implying that no other strategies
effects on other parts of the ecosystem. Some also argue that can possibly avert a crisis. The argument about food supply
transgenic crops have not been sufficiently screened for and population has been a familiar one since the advent of
possible toxins or allergens that could be introduced to the the Green Revolution. The counter-argument is that there is

DFID
Department for This series is published by ODI, an independent non-profit policy research institute, with financial
International support from the Department for International Development (formerly the Overseas Development
Development
Administration). Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of either ODI or DFID.
more than enough food in the world and that the challenge particularly if it demands increased labour. For instance, many
is distribution. This response draws attention to the role of labour-intensive soil conservation technologies are rejected
inequality, rather than absolute production deficiencies, as a because their returns are below what rural people can earn
primary cause of hunger. from other components of their livelihood strategies.
Despite the undeniable substance of this counter-argument, Another constraint to technology uptake in marginal
it embodies several inconsistencies that significantly weaken environments is access to markets and information. Areas
its force. In the first place, even if the agricultural production that benefited from the Green Revolution not only have good
of some of the poorest countries were perfectly distributed, agronomic resources but they also have relatively good
it would not provide adequate nutrition. In addition, the markets, roads and services. Extending this infrastructure to
argument implies either massive population movements – more remote areas could help marginalised farmers take
far beyond what could be envisioned by any realistic advantage of whatever agricultural technology is on offer.
opportunities for land reform; or expanding purchasing power Indeed, it may be argued that until adequate markets and
for the poor, a more reasonable option, but one that includes better information provision are in place there is little
the global food trade to which many NGOs object. Another likelihood that transgenic varieties will reach farmers in remote
problem with denying the need for production increases is or marginal areas.
that many of the NGOs making this case against biotechnology Both sides of the controversy need to make some difficult
turn, often in the next breath, to promote their own agricultural choices about agricultural development resources. The high
production programmes, usually featuring low-input or prevalence of poverty in marginal rural areas demands
traditional technology. Clarification requires attention to the attention from governments, donors and NGOs. But the degree
types of farmers and the types of technology that appear in to which this kind of poverty is most effectively and realistically
the debate. addressed by agricultural technology – of any kind – must be
decided on a case-by-case basis. Investment in appropriate
Low-resource farmers agricultural technology can make a difference to farmers in
Some of biotechnology’s strongest defenders claim that it offers difficult environments, but promotion of unrealistic strategies
the opportunity for public agricultural research to bring – either high- or low-tech – simply wastes people’s time and
productive technology to the farmers in marginal environments diverts attention from strengthening skills and resources for
that were excluded from the Green Revolution. Opponents non-agricultural opportunities.
say that the uneven distribution of benefits of the Green
Revolution simply indicates what can be expected from External inputs
biotechnology, and that emphasis should be given instead to There is considerable concern about the marriage between
other strategies that are more appropriate for marginalised the chemical and biotechnology industries. Many of
farmers. Both sides tend to overlook some of the realities of biotechnology’s critics urge the reduction or elimination of
the environments in which these farmers live. Differences in agricultural chemicals. On the other hand, biotechnology
biological resources account for much of the differential impact proponents emphasise the potential for pest or disease
of agricultural technology. Not surprisingly, good soils and resistant varieties to lower dependence on chemical inputs.
adequate rainfall or irrigation are related to higher yields, The relation between agricultural chemicals and biotechnology
and to the greater potential impact of agricultural technology deserves a brief review.
of any kind. Part of the mandate of agricultural development Insecticides have attracted particular attention in critiques
programmes is to help level the playing field for marginalised of modern agriculture. Until recently insecticide use was
farmers by overcoming these constraints, but there are limits. expanding rapidly, and dangerous, broad-spectrum
Whether transgenic varieties addressed at factors such as soil insecticides have been responsible for many cases of illness
acidity or drought tolerance can address the inequality of or death. In addition, their indiscriminate application often
agricultural assets remains to be seen – and many farmers in has altered ecologies and made pest control more difficult.
better environments could take advantage of such In some cases – such as in Green Revolution rice areas – the
improvements as well. Alternative ‘low-input’ technology to growth in pesticide use was caused at least as much by policies
overcome these constraints faces its own challenges, that subsidised these products as by biological need. The
imperative to reduce and rationalise insecticide use has led
Box 1 The NGO case against biotechnology to various types of integrated pest management (IPM) that
NGO concerns about biotechnology cover a wide range of issues.
include biological control methods and farmer training.
Although there are differences between the stances of various Conventional plant breeding invests significant resources in
NGOs, the following points represent some of the most widely- pest and disease resistance; one of the reasons for the recent
held views that are discussed in this paper. decline in pesticide use on rice is the improved resistance of
• Biotechnology holds little promise for improving poor people’s many of the new varieties. Discussions of biotechnology’s
access to food; the major constraint is not food production but possible contributions to insect control centre on the
rather distribution of resources. somewhat controversial use of genes from the soil bacterium
• Transgenic crops present significant environmental dangers and
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), but there is a wide range of other
may also impose unacceptable health risks on consumers.
• The spread of transgenic crops will further increase the use of
genes controlling the production of toxins, enzymes and
external chemical inputs, which are environmentally dangerous enzyme inhibitors that are also the subject of research. The
and inappropriate for resource-poor farmers. challenge is to understand the degree to which such
• Transgenic crops will lead to dependence on seed companies, innovations can contribute to sustainable pest control
who will take advantage of farmers; emerging intellectual strategies.
property regimes will limit farmers’ ability to save their own Approximately 80% of the transgenic crops currently grown
seed. incorporate herbicide tolerance, reflecting the importance of
• Transgenic crops represent a further step away from the
chemical weed control in the North’s commercial agriculture.
traditional agricultural techniques and biodiversity that have
served farmers well in the past.
Few people foresee a prominent role for this trait in the
Sources: Christian Aid (1999), ActionAid (1999), ActionAid (2000), South in the near future, although it must be acknowledged
Corner House (1998). that herbicide use plays a larger role in small-farm agriculture
than is often imagined. Discussion of potential herbicide use
2
should consider several factors. First, herbicide is a labour- farming in the South will depend on the use of a wide range
saving technology; in certain areas its adoption could have of biological and chemical inputs – combined with an
adverse equity effects by reducing demand for rural labour, increasing capacity in farm management. Labelling such
while in labour-scarce areas it can make significant – and inputs as ‘natural’ (e.g. a virus introduced as part of an
equitable – improvements in productivity. Second, in some IPM programme) or ‘external’ (e.g. synthetic nitrogen to
hillside areas – particularly in Latin America – herbicide use supplement that available in the soil) does little to help
is an integral part of soil conservation strategies for many make the pragmatic choices necessary for increasing
smallholders. Finally, herbicides present many of the problems production, lowering costs, and safeguarding health and
of other pesticides; some of them are quite toxic, and over- the environment.
dependence on herbicides can lead to the emergence of
resistant weeds. The degree to which herbicides are an Markets
appropriate choice for smallholders in the South – and whether An important element in the opposition to external input use
relevant transgenic varieties might be useful – is a question in small-farm agriculture is a concern about farmers’
for location-specific research. dependence on input markets. These fears are compounded
The most important external input is chemical fertiliser. by the advent of transgenic varieties; even when they embody
The essence of the Green Revolution was the development public technology, private seed companies will most likely
of short-statured crop varieties that could respond to higher deliver them. In the North, the commercial seed industry is
levels of fertiliser. The expanded utilisation of chemical well established, and although there are legitimate concerns
fertiliser has been one of the major factors in the growth of about its recent concentration – spurred by investments in
world food production. This has not been achieved without biotechnology – there is little discussion of the alternatives to
a cost; inappropriate fertiliser use can cause groundwater commercial seed supply – even, for instance, in the conduct
pollution and deterioration in soil quality. Critics of modern of organic agriculture.
technology are uncomfortable with farmers’ growing reliance For the South, however, a predominant assumption is that
on purchased fertiliser and strive to develop low-input the commercial seed industry will take advantage of farmers.
alternatives. Unfortunately, the realities of nitrogen metabolism This assumption has complex origins. One element is quite
bring sobering news for both sides in the biotechnology reasonably rooted in the weakness of markets in remote areas.
debate. Although it is possible to imagine productive Another element is the image of peasants’ seed saving and
agriculture without the use of chemical pesticides, synthetic the fear that commercial seed will erode their self-sufficiency.
nitrogen is an absolute necessity for maintaining world food Farmers the world over – including the North – save seed if
supply. By the 1980s China’s national annual per hectare they are able to do so. Commercial seed has become
protein output was more than double that achieved in areas predominant where it offers advantages in quality and
of traditional intensive organic farming in the 1950s; this is convenience. Is it reasonable to deny this option to farmers
due to a use of synthetic nitrogen almost four times that of in the South?
the US (Smil, 1991). On the other side, any hopes that A further part of the argument concerns intellectual
biotechnology will find an efficient shortcut to biological property rights (IPRs), particularly related to the establishment
nitrogen fixation remain a distant dream. No matter what of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Although systems
type of technology is developed for resource-poor farmers of plant variety protection have been available for many
in the foreseeable future, most of them will need access to years, the advent of biotechnology certainly provides added
chemical fertiliser. incentives for companies to push for stronger IPRs. There is
This examination of external input use concludes that considerable controversy over the breadth and types of IPRs
that should be allowed. The notion that IPR regimes will
Box 2 Biotechnology and genetic engineering deny farmers the right to save seed of even their local varieties
Agricultural biotechnology encompasses three areas: diagnostic is alarmist. It is important that a balance be established so
techniques that use an understanding of molecular biology to that IPRs provide sufficient incentives for research but that
make conventional plant breeding more efficient; multiplication mechanisms are in place to allow small farmers to save seed
techniques such as tissue culture that can rapidly reproduce of protected varieties. The situation is further complicated
planting material or help eliminate viruses and other disease- by instances of exceptionally broad patenting – particularly
causing organisms; and genetic engineering, which involves the for some biotechnology – private annexation of public
transfer of genes from a wide range of sources. Most of the germplasm, and biopiracy. The challenge is to identify and
controversy about biotechnology centres on genetic engineering
control the excesses while at the same time supporting the
and its products, transgenic varieties.
Gene sources. The genes may come from any source. The more emergence of a commercial seed industry that can serve
spectacular – and controversial – cases involve wide transfers, smallholders.
such as the introduction of a gene from a flounder to a potato – A final element in the argument is the assumption that
for cold tolerance. Many other examples involve less distance although commercial seed companies in the North are
(e.g. a nematode resistance gene from rice transferred to potatoes), acceptable, those in the South will behave irresponsibly. The
and a significant number of cases involve movement of genes history of the seed industry in the North has been characterised
within the same species (but with more precision than by many small firms and considerable competition. Despite
conventional plant breeding allows).
the concentration of ownership of biotechnology in a few large
The ownership of the technology. The majority of the techniques
for gene transfer, and many of the most widely used genes in firms in the US, for instance, hundreds of different transgenic
current transgenic varieties, are owned by private firms, mostly varieties are available, offered by dozens of seed companies,
the few large multinationals that dominate the field. All of the many of them serving only a local market. The licensing of the
transgenic varieties currently grown on a commercial scale – with technology allows it to be delivered by seed companies that
the exception of some in China – are privately owned. have developed locally preferred varieties and have loyal
Nevertheless, there is also significant investment in public customer bases. It will admittedly be a long time before
biotechnology research. Public research organisations in the North biotechnology can be delivered to farmers in many developing
and South are developing transgenic varieties, using techniques
countries in this fashion, but efforts towards diverse and
and genes licensed or donated by the private sector as well as
sources and methods in the public domain. responsive national commercial seed sectors certainly deserve
support.
3
Traditional agriculture employment for a tiny fraction of the population, but the
Past opposition to the Green Revolution and current concerns choices are no less complex. For instance, concerns about
about biotechnology are partly related to the external input preserving family farms and ‘traditional ways of life’ are
and commercialisation issues discussed above, but they also important determinants of agricultural policy. We now turn
draw on sentiments about the value of traditional agriculture. to examine how policies related to agricultural technology
A Christian Aid document portrays the tragic suicides of are formed. We look first at the example of the biotechnology
indebted cotton farmers in India as a harbinger of debate in the North and then draw implications for the South.
biotechnology’s potential impact and laments that these
farmers had abandoned their traditional crops for cotton. The How the debate is managed
image is a powerful one, but is quite misleading.
The recourse to traditional agriculture may be an expression The North
of vague romanticism or it may be part of a carefully crafted In a country like the UK, the debate over biotechnology has
presentation. An outstanding example of the latter is Vandana achieved a very high profile. The opposition focuses on
Shiva (e.g. 1993), who has developed a considerable following environmental and food safety issues and pushes for strict
through cleverly designed contrasts between an idealised regulation or moratoria. Its principal emphasis is the changes
traditional agriculture – diverse, feminine, self-sufficient – to the countryside that could be caused by the introduction
and the deficiencies of new technology. A comparison of of exotic genes. Biotechnology’s defence tends to be more
this ideal with India’s pre-Independence history, in which vague; it can only express faith in the potential of new
the majority of the peasantry was subject to a succession of technology and confidence in the regulatory system. Economic
empires, landlords and colonial rule, raises grave doubts about arguments are difficult to establish. Farmers may be curious
the supposition of an ecologically balanced, egalitarian rural about transgenic varieties, but without the opportunity to test
society rent asunder by the imposition of foreign agricultural them they can hardly be expected to lobby forcefully in their
technology. support. Even the most optimistic scenario for the utilisation
Supporters of traditional agriculture are concerned about of cost-saving biotechnology would be unlikely to lower food
the loss of biodiversity. The issue is of undeniable importance, prices enough in the short-run to attract the attention of
but it is too often used to cover a vague defence of ‘traditional’ consumers.
varieties rather than an examination of the dynamics and the The debate takes place in the media and in local political
trade-offs in diversity’s contribution to agricultural production forums. The democratic process is necessarily imperfect, and
(Wood and Lenné, 1999). In addition, the emphasis on decision-makers are subjected to pressures from corporate
traditional agriculture promotes a paternalistic view of lobbyists and ecowarriors, but there is a good chance that a
unchanging local customs and overlooks the dynamic and majority viewpoint will be heard. Because of a lack of
adaptive qualities of virtually all agricultural systems. The immediate economic impact, popular opinion is largely
origins of Green Revolution technology – fertiliser-responsive influenced by competing images of the countryside and
varieties – are to be found in 19th century Japan – where they technology. If the opponents’ case continues to have appeal
were a response to land shortage – and not in the 20th century it will result in strict labelling and segregation of transgenic
US – which is still behind countries like India or Nepal in its produce, or even its outright prohibition. To illustrate how
adoption of semi-dwarf wheat varieties). economic factors might come into play in the future, it is
The opposite tendency, of course, is to paint an overly possible to imagine a scenario in which other countries benefit
optimistic picture of technological change in agriculture. The from the efficiency advantages of biotechnology – and
Green Revolution was responsible for a remarkable increase evidence of environmental dangers fails to materialise – and
in food production that significantly lowered food prices. the UK begins to find that its own agriculture is less
But its poverty impact is less straightforward. A comprehensive competitive. These market effects could lead to pressure from
review of the literature concludes that the technology was UK farmers – as well as consumers – to rescind many of the
responsible for ‘massive rises in the yields of staple food restrictions that had been imposed on transgenic crops.
crops eaten, grown, and worked mainly by poor people. Another possible scenario – related more to the image of
There have been positive effects on employment and on the the countryside than to economics – involves the current
availability, cheapness, and security of food. Yet there have tendency to see the debate as one between biotechnology
been only delayed, scanty, and sometimes faltering and and organic farming. The demand for organic produce is
imperceptible improvements in the lot of the poor’ (Lipton growing sharply, despite its higher cost. In the UK this demand
et al., 1989). The new technology helped stem the growth of is currently met in large part by imports; it receives increasing
poverty, but it was not sufficient to reverse the trend. Instances attention from large supermarket chains and is becoming part
of Green Revolution technology improving the production of the marketing strategy of industrialised agriculture – organic
and incomes of the poorest farmers tend to be found where farming is not necessarily small-scale; the rotation legume
there is greater equity of access to resources. The results for organic rice production in California is sown by aeroplane.
confirm propositions held by both sides in the biotechnology Future concerns about the fate of the countryside could turn
debate: new technology can help alleviate poverty, but it is towards the small family farm that wants to preserve its
not a sufficient response. independence from the large marketing chains. Consumer
The nature of agriculture makes it difficult to take decisions support could develop for purchasing the – not necessarily
about technology that are based solely on efficiency criteria. organic, and perhaps even transgenic – produce of the small
More than almost any other enterprise, agriculture is both a independent farm rather than the commercial products whose
productive activity and a way of life. Policies that affect organic label is decreasingly redolent of traditional farming.
agriculture in the South have an impact on the livelihoods of The point of these hypothetical scenarios is not to
the majority of the rural population. Agricultural technology predict the fate of transgenic crops in the UK but to show
must be able to increase food production, but it must also how public opinion, open political debate and responsive
provide employment opportunities and food security until markets will determine policies on biotechnology in the
economies grow and diversify. The equity considerations are North. We now turn to ask how these decisions are
less starkly drawn in the North, where agriculture provides managed in the South.

4
The South to move in that direction, by allowing small groups of farmers
How adequate are markets and political systems in the South to participate in a debate about biotechnology with leading
for making democratic decisions about the future of transgenic proponents and critics. But this is a long way from developing
crops? In the first place, attention must be given to regulatory farmers’ independent capacities to interact with public
mechanisms, in particular biosafety procedures. Even if the agricultural services and to have more control over markets.
vast majority of transgenic varieties turn out to be Many NGO strategies are distinguished by their antipathy
environmentally benign, countries need access to adequate to markets. Several NGOs use the example of the cotton farmer
and impartial regulatory protocols to screen the range of suicides in India. The tenor of the argument is that it would
biotechnology products that may be on offer. These mechanisms be preferable for farmers to return to their traditional crops
are in place in only a few countries in the South and their and practices so that they could be protected from the capitalist
establishment is a priority. But there are several other elements system that lured them into cotton farming. There is little
that affect the biotechnology debate in the South. attempt to examine the complex conditions that led to the
Various sectors have an interest in biotechnology. A number tragedy: the power of local moneylenders, the lack of adequate
of countries in the South, especially those with well developed extension, the actions of unscrupulous merchants, and the
public research systems, are investing in biotechnology failings of regulatory agencies. And there is little evidence in
research. There is considerable sentiment among national this case of any interest in helping make local markets work
agricultural researchers that transgenic varieties offer prospects in favour of marginalised farmers: establishing credit facilities,
for improving local agricultural production. In addition, local strengthening farmers’ technical capacities, or providing
and multinational seed companies are eager to introduce consumer education and organisation.
transgenic varieties because they can see opportunities for It is easier for NGOs to make an example of such tragedies
increased sales. On the other side, a small but growing number and then wrap themselves in a cloak of innocence, ‘promoting
of middle-class consumers in the South have begun to hear mixed, low chemical-use farming which favours naturally
about the food safety debate, and some of them have adopted improved and locally adapted plants’ (Christian Aid, 1999). It
the scepticism of their Northern counterparts. is difficult to object to such attractive proposals, as long as
Although farmers constitute a significant proportion of the they provide an acceptable living for farmers. The problem
population, their political voice is often not heard. Only a comes when we begin to search for evidence regarding the
relatively few farmers who have good connections to public outcomes of these alternatives.
research may have an idea of the potential of biotechnology. This is not the place to examine the low-input agriculture
Biotechnology may also become a highly visible rallying call movement, but many of its basic premises are correct.
for farmer organisations. In recent years, a number of farmer Excessive input use is responsible for environmental damage
movements in India have been successful in calling attention and inefficient farming; there is a wide range of possibilities
to the declining profitability of agriculture and the political for improving the productivity and safety of farming and these
domination of the urban middle class. Some of these deserve careful testing and evaluation. There is a growing
movements have found it effective to link their protests to literature on alternative farming methods, and the
the debate over India’s liberalised trade policy. Most – but management-intensive, small-scale nature of the technology
not all – of these groups are opposed to liberalisation; one makes it appropriate for NGO participation and support. But
well-known incident involved the occupation of a anyone looking for data on the impact of this type of NGO
multinational seed company facility. More recently, several activity will be disappointed. NGOs are particularly derelict
farmers’ groups have protested against trials of transgenic in following up and evaluating the results of their agricultural
cotton; one of the justifications was the – erroneous – rumour projects. The deficiency is easy to understand. The vast
that the varieties incorporated the ‘terminator gene’. Most of majority of the public that contributes funds to these efforts
the Indian farmers involved in these movements regularly is satisfied with an occasional brochure with pictures of smiling
buy inputs (including seed). One can only speculate how farmers, and the donors who provide funding are irresponsibly
these farmers might respond if a productive transgenic variety lax in organising assessments that go beyond their own
became available, offered by a local private or public seed bureaucratic reporting requirements.
company. Many of low-input agriculture’s most articulate supporters
In some cases local NGOs are also active in the debate, admit that there is relatively little solid evidence on the
most often in opposition to biotechnology. Their concerns adoption and impact of the alternative production strategies
and alliances are similar to those of international NGOs, that attract NGOs. This does not imply that the alternatives
emphasising environmental protection, self-sufficiency, and are inadequate but rather that much more effort is required
traditional agriculture. In cases such as The Philippines, NGOs’ for evaluation and adjustment. In the cases where follow-up
scepticism about transgenic varieties is consistent with their is done on NGO activities, visiting communities several years
long-standing opposition to Green Revolution technology, after project investment has been completed, the results may
which was promoted by the Marcos regime without be disappointing (Cramb et al., 2000). This is to be expected,
concomitant political or land reform. as surely the majority of all agricultural projects fail to achieve
Our main interest, however, is the role of international their objectives. But it is ironic that the ability of NGOs and
NGOs. We have seen that many of them have launched a others to discuss and dissect the impact of the Green
highly visible campaign against the possible use of Revolution is due to the immense amount of data that is
biotechnology in the South. We need to examine the available about the adoption and effects of those technologies.
contribution of NGOs to ensuring that the circle of the debate Similar follow-ups of NGO work are in order.
is closed, so that interests and consequences are apparent A related issue is NGOs’ role in agricultural technology
in political forums and market performance, as they are in generation. Despite the frequent tirades against the Green
the North. To what extent do the arguments they present Revolution in NGO literature, it is not uncommon to find that
allow the concerns of citizens in the South – which may their work in the South includes the introduction of ‘new
differ from those of the Northern debate – to be the ones varieties’ that are the products of the same public agricultural
that matter? Do the activities of NGOs in the South strengthen research system responsible for the Green Revolution. One
people’s capacities to make their voices heard? A recent may ask if NGOs see themselves as ‘reluctant partners’
initiative in ‘citizens’ juries’ in India (ActionAid, 2000) attempts (Farrington and Bebbington, 1993) of public research, or rather
5
as competitors for a decreasing volume of donor funding References
dedicated to agriculture. Do NGOs propose to contribute to ActionAid (1999) AstraZeneca and its genetic research. Feeding
building public research and extension systems that are more the world or fuelling hunger? London: ActionAid.
responsive to farmers’ needs? The image of agricultural ActionAid (2000) ActionAid citizens’ jury initiative. London:
technology presented by NGOs has a significant influence ActionAid.
on the nature and direction of donor support to agricultural Altieri, M. and Rosset, P. (1999) ‘Ten reasons why
development. In addition, if NGO positions are perceived as biotechnology will not help the developing world’.
extreme or unrealistic they thwart potential alliances with AgBioForum 2 (3&4). www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/.
supporters of public agricultural research who are also alarmed Christian Aid (1999) Selling Suicide. Farming, false promises
by the growing power of the ‘Life Science’ industry. and genetic engineering in developing countries. London:
Christian Aid.
Conclusions Corner House (1998) Food? Health? Hope? Genetic Engineering
There is little reason for most NGOs to become directly and World Hunger. Sturminster Newton: The Corner
involved with biotechnology. The technology itself is not House.
within most NGOs’ purview; their comparative advantage Cramb, R., Garcia, J., Gerrits, R. and Saguiguit, G. (2000)
lies more with building local organisations and capacities. So ‘Conservation farming projects in the Philippine uplands:
there is no reason to expect any significant NGO commitment Rhetoric and reality’ World Development 28, pp 911-27.
to biotechnology, even if transgenic varieties were shown to Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1983) Risk and Culture.
be safe and beneficial for small-scale farmers. In present Berkeley, CA: U. California Press.
circumstances, of course, the incentives are strongly in the Edwards, M., Hulme, D. and Wallace, T. (1999) ‘NGOs in a
opposite direction. By demonstrating opposition to a global future: marrying local delivery to worldwide
technology that makes many Northern consumers uneasy, leverage’, Public Administration and Development 19: pp
NGOs can garner additional support for their own agricultural 117-36.
programmes. Farrington, J. and Bebbington, A. (1993) Reluctant Partners?
Regardless of the strengths of various arguments or the Non-Governmental Or ganizations, the State and
ultimate fate of biotechnology, the current campaign raises a Sustainable Agricultural Development. London: Routledge.
question about NGO strategy, which is related to larger Lipton, M. and Longhurst, R. (1989) New Seeds and Poor People.
concerns about globalisation. It is perfectly appropriate for London: Unwin Hyman.
NGOs to take advantage of their wide links to stimulate debate Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1999) Genetically Modified
about a technology which is global in character. But we need Crops: The Ethical and Social Issues. London: Nuffield
to know where NGOs stand in response to globalisation, and Council on Bioethics.
in particular whether they choose to ‘engage or de-link’ Shiva, V. (1993) Monocultures of the Mind. London: Zed Books.
(Edwards et al., 1999). Smil, V. (1991) ‘Population growth and nitrogen: An
In the case of agriculture, de-linking involves concentration exploration of a critical existential link’, Population and
on self-sufficient communities relying on ‘traditional’ Development Review 17: pp 569-601.
production methods, isolated from larger markets or political Wood, D. and Lenné, J. (eds.) (1999) Agrobiodiversity:
processes that are judged to be inimical to the interests of Characterization, Utilization, Management. Wallingford:
marginalised farmers. This would not appear to be a realistic CABI Publishing.
alternative, but if it is the path that is chosen, the Northern
public and donors that support this action deserve detailed
reports on progress achieved. The opposite course,
engagement, would seem to offer many more opportunities.
It makes no assumptions about the type of technology that is
utilised. It may involve ‘traditional’ or ‘modern’ technology.
It may develop methods that outperform anything that
biotechnology has to offer, or it may complement or accelerate
the use of biotechnology. The quality that distinguishes
engagement is a clear commitment to ensuring that
marginalised farmers have a voice in agricultural markets and
that they are better represented in public activities such as
agricultural research, extension and regulation.
This type of engagement sees civil society not as a
‘countervailing force’ to expanding markets and disintegrating
states (Edwards et.al., 1999) but rather as the vital element
that makes markets and governments perform for their citizens.
NGOs need to contribute to strengthening states and markets
Robert Tripp is a Research Fellow at ODI, 111 Westminster Bridge
in the South so that people can debate and come to decisions
Road, London SE1 7JD, UK. Email: r.tripp@odi.org.uk
about biotechnology as they do in the North. Tel: +44 (0) 20 7922 0336 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7922 0399

ISSN: 1356–9228
© Overseas Development Institute 2000
See www.odi.org.uk/nrp/ for papers in this series.
Natural Resource Perspectives present accessible information on current
development issues. Readers are encouraged to quote from them or duplicate
them, but as copyright holder, ODI requests due acknowledgement. The
Editor welcomes manuscripts for this series.

Series Editor: John Farrington Administrative Editor: Alex Wyles

The Overseas Development Institute, 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7JD, UK
Telephone +44 (0)20 7922 0300 Fax +44 (0)20 7922 0399 Email nrp@odi.org.uk