By: Yassine Dguidegue

1. Farmers’ Welfare Depiction in the pro-GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) Literature on African Farmers’ Experiences with GMOs Presented at : the 30th annual CRRF/FCRR conference - Health & Shared Prosperity By: Yassine Dguidegue

2. Introduction • Constructs definition: Genetic modification technology, Africa, and Food security, Welfare (sustainability and social benefits). • Controversies surrounding Genetically Modified(GM) Crops in Africa • Motives expressed for and against the adoption/rejection of GM technology in Africa General background information on the adoption of GM crops:

3. Statement of the Problem • General context of the study: GM technology and African farmers’ welfare+ African Countries growing GM crops (Burkina Faso, Egypt, South Africa, and Sudan) • Focus of the paper: studies which argue for socio-economic and environmental benefits of GM technology e.g. saving on weeding, less labor for input, and more labor for harvesting. • Research Questions: • What are the major arguments on GM benefits to African farmers’ benefits ? What are the sources of evidence and Research networks perpetuating pro-GM arguments ?

4. Depiction of Farmers’ Welfare: labor, health, and social Benefits of GM crops

5. Methodological Approach • Analytical Approach: The first stage: Selection of Studies which focus on socio-economic (labor, health, and environmental) benefits of GM crops; this involves providing contextual background of the studies as well as their major findings The second stage: the conclusions drawn from the analysis of studies in the first stage shall be critiqued from three perspectives: critical development studies, ethnographic and anthropological accounts of labor dynamics, and studies which directly critique how socio-economic benefits are conceived of by pro-biotechnology proponents.

6. Theoretical Frameworks: • Critical Development Studies: critiques of international development projects • Anthropological and Ethnographic Studies examining representations of Labor benefits, welfare, and health in certain African contexts The above theoretical frameworks are methodologically informed by discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis(CDA) ala (Fairclough, 2013; Gee,2014).

7. Data Analysis Procedures • Background information of the analyzed texts( attached as a separate file): data location and date, Data sources: farmers/others (ex-ante analysis, review), the studied genetically modified crop trait (BT, round-up ready), socio-economic benefits arguments, and types of Barriers (institutional, political) to attain labor benefits. • Connections and interdiscursivity: How is situated meaning/meanings of socio-economic benefits being used to connect with other issues, social conditions, and challenges faced by African farmers? (Gee,2014) • Significance: How are situated meaning/meanings of labor,health and welfare being used to build relevance or significance for GM crops in the context of African farming? • Conversationalization: means the “colonization of public domain by practices of private domain by appropriation e.g promotion”. • Style: how “participant relations are constructed”

8. Impact of examined data in Academia and policy analysis/making arena • This is meant to show the impact of examined studies on different academic and policy analysis arenas relying on those studies to define their agenda to address food security issues in Africa. • This serves the purpose to examine the “Social practice” exercised by the examined studies.

9. Preliminary Findings: Instances of discursive practices

10. Connections(Gee,2014) and interdiscursivity(Fairclough,2010): GM labor benefits connected to other discourses, namely discourses on HIV and emigration of able-bodied people Gouse (2013) concludes that thanks to the adoption of HT(herbicide tolerant) maize “farmers are able to save quite considerably on family labor person-days” in the face of the scarcity of labor due to emigration of able-bodied people to urban areas and HIV/AIDS epidemic : If emigration of able-bodied people to urban areas is prevalent ,then only those who are not able-bodied would stay to farm which means that they would be unable to bear farming tasks. Under such structural problems-emigration of able-bodied and HIV-no technology would compensate for the need for able-bodied farmers. N.B The instance above can also be analyzed from “conversationalization”(Fairclough,2010) perspective: “how colonization of public domain by practices of private domain by appropriation e.g promotion” ; GM technology as a “private domain” is presented as beneficial by using public problems of emigration and HIV to demonstrate its role in bringing labor benefits to South African farmers.

11. Significance Building • “The concern about Bt technology threatening the livelihoods of the poorest section of rural society, i.e. hired labourers, appears to be unfounded, since the expansion of harvest labour compensates for the reduction in spraying labour”: This statement erroneously assumes that those farmers calculate in a futurological manner that the lost labor today is going to be compensated tomorrow, as if labor value is the same throughout the year. The validity of the aforementioned claim requires socio-cultural information on farmers’ livelihood as well as insights into their perceptions of their farming practices how they vary temporally and spatially. Significance of GM labor benefits is built by addressing “unfounded” concerns by unfounded assumptions on farmers 'perceptions of their farming labor.

12. Style: how “participant relations are constructed” • (Gouse, Piesse, Thirtle, & Poulton, 2009) “Labor saving for males results in more time for off-farm jobs, for women it results in more time for child-rearing and household work, and for children it results in more time for schooling”: the statement assumes that off-farming labor is of secondary importance for men, it also assumes that women need more time for child-rearing and household work, and it assumes that farming labor is the main obstacle for children to attend school. None of the assumptions above would be validated unless socio-cultural and demographic as well as ecological information on the surveyed farmers is provided, which the authors did not do. Thus, "participant relations are constructed” through ill-founded assumptions.

13. Instance of Conversationalization and connection • “Farmers seem to be willing to pay for the weed-control convenience; it appears as if farmers value the yield increase and (especially) the labor-sav- ing benefit of HT maize more than the borer-control insurance of Bt maize. This inclination should be seen in the context of the relatively low borer pressure over the research period and the limited able-bodied labor force in rural KZN, caused by out-migration in search of employment, a high HIV/AIDS infection level, and elderly farmers. Future analyses and publications will focus on the labor-saving benefit of HT maize, potential expansion of production due to the decreased need for weeding labor, and gender implications of GM maize adoption and use.” (MarnusGouse, 2012)

14. Significance building • “Similarly, herbicide resistant cotton would allow smallholders dependent upon manual labour to reduce time, energy or even cash spent on weeding.” (Morse, Bennett, & Ismael, 2005)

15. Pro-GM Arguments on the Sustainability Benefits of GMOs

16. Methods • Sample choice • Literature Search Protocol:“biotechnology and sustainability in Africa” • Final sample: After the examination of more than 70 studies which argue for the benefits of biotechnology, 23 studies were chosen to be coded according to the adopted typology from Davidson,2014 (Davidson, 2014).

17. Themes Identification: • The capacity of biotechnology to address environmental stresses caused by the use of pesticides and insecticides through the development of insect and pest resistant crops. • The capacity of biotechnology to sustainably contribute to food security in Africa • The capacity of biotechnology to save labor (weeding): • Biotechnology and sustainable food systems(organic farming)

18. Analytical methods • Data search and synthesis followed a systematic review strategy as proposed by Galvan (2006).

19. Conceptual Framework A)Past research on pro-biotechnology camp in Africa: • International politics hindering the expansion of biotechnology • Production benefits of biotechnology • Biotechnology contribution to environmental protection • Critique of institutional arrangements as obstacles to fully gain the benefits of biotechnology B) Sustainable Development Typologies: The formulation of conceptual framework for this paper has also been influenced by typologies suggested to organize information on sustainable development debates (Connelly, 2007; Davidson, 2014; Hopwood, Mellor, & O’Brien, 2005)

21. Results: Summary graphs • A) Emphasis on Sustainable Development:

22. B) Approach to Sustainability

23. C) Recognition of Limits to Growth:

24. D) Role of Technology:

25. E) Capitals substitutability:

26. F) Considering Power Relationships:

27. G) Emphasize Environmental Protection:

28. Citation Network Analysis : who are the influencers ?

29. Network Overview

42. Discussion • Sustainability as the zeitgeist of pro-biotechnology proponents:“This project involved collaboration between KARI, a project called Agricultural Biotechnology for Sustainable Productivity, funded by the US Agency for International Development, and Monsanto” • The malleability of the concept of “sustainability” calls for a more dialogic interaction among stakeholders in the arena of African agriculture

43. Sustainability and Sources of Evidence • Sustainability and social Justice • The Purveyors of Sustainability and African Poverty

44. Thank You !!

45. References: • Anderson, K., & Jackson, L. A. (2005). Some implications of GM food technology policies for Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of African Economies, 14(3), 385–410. http://doi.org/10.1093/jae/eji013 • Borlaug, N. E. (2000). Ending world hunger. The promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology, 124(2), 487–490. http://doi.org/10.1104/pp.124.2.487 • Bou??t, A., & Gru??re, G. P. (2011). Refining opportunity cost estimates of not adopting GM cotton: An application in seven Sub-Saharan African countries. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 33(2), 260–279. http://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppr010 • Carney, J., & Watts, M. (1991). Disciplining Women? Rice, Mechanization, and the Evolution of Mandinka Gender Relations in Senegambia. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(4), 651. http://doi.org/10.1086/494698 • Clarke, J. L., & Zhang, P. (2013). Plant biotechnology for food security and bioeconomy. Plant Molecular Biology, 83(1–2), 1–3. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-013-0097-1 • Claudel, P. (1984). Distinction : A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard Univ Pr. http://doi.org/10.1080/10286630902952413 • Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. Language in social life series. London: Longman. • Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge. • Finger, R., Benni, N. El, Kaphengst, T., Evans, C., Herbert, S., Lehmann, B., … Stupak, N. (2011). A meta analysis on farm-level costs and benefits of GM crops. Sustainability, 3(5), 743–762. http://doi.org/10.3390/su3050743 • Fok, M., Gouse, M., Hofs, J.-L., & Kirsten, J. (2007). Contextual appraisal of GM cotton diffusion in South Africa. Life Sciences International Journal, 1(4), 468–482. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00176546_v1.html%5Cnhttp://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/17/65/46/PDF/GMC_Sudaf_Indus_1007_preprint.pdf

46. Freidberg, S., & Horowitz, L. (2014). Converging Networks And Clashing Stories: South Africa’s Agricultural Biotechnology Debate. Africa Today, 51(1), 3–25. http://doi.org/10.1353/at.2004.0063 • Gouse, M., Kirsten, J., Shankar, B., & Thirtle, C. (2005). Bt cotton in KwaZulu Natal: Technological triumph but institutional failure. AgBiotechNet, 7(134), 1–7. Retrieved from http://www.grain.org/btcotton/?id=321 • Gouse, M., Piesse, J., Thirtle, C., & Poulton, C. (2009). Assessing the performance of GM maize amongst smallholders in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. AgBioForum, 12(1). • Groote, H. De, & Mugo, S. (2004). Debunking the myths of GM crops for Africa: The case of Bt maize in Kenya. … Meeting, Denver CO. Retrieved from http://apps.cimmyt.org/english/wps/transg/DebunkingMyths_GM.pdf • Jacobson, K., & Myhr, A. I. (2013). GM crops and smallholders: biosafety and local practice. Journal of Environment & Development, 22(1), 104–124. http://doi.org/10.1177/1070496512466856 • Juma, C. (2011). Preventing hunger: Biotechnology is key. Nature, 479(7374), 471–472. http://doi.org/10.1038/479471a • Leisinger, K. M. (1999). Biotechnology and food security. Current Science, 76(4), 488–500. http://doi.org/10.1016/0306-9192(80)90063-9 • Okeno, J. A., Wolt, J. D., Misra, M. K., & Rodriguez, L. (2013). Africa’s inevitable walk to genetically modified (GM) crops: Opportunities and challenges for commercialization. New Biotechnology, 30(2), 124–130. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2012.09.001 • Paarlberg, R. (2010). GMO foods and crops: Africa’s choice. New Biotechnology, 27(5), 609–613. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2010.07.005 • Sasson, A. (2012). Food security for Africa: an urgent global challenge. Agriculture & Food Security, 1(1), 2. http://doi.org/10.1186/2048-7010-1-2

47. Schnurr, M. a. (2013). Biotechnology and bio-hegemony in Uganda: unraveling the social relations underpinning the promotion of genetically modified crops into new African markets. Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(4), 639–658. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.814106 • Shankar, B., & Thirtle, C. (2005). Pesticide productivity and transgenic cotton technology: The South African smallholder case. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(1), 97–116. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2005.tb00124.x • Siegal, B. (2016). Bernard Siegal Studies in Peasant Life : Community and Society Author ( s ): Clifford Geertz Source : Biennial Review of Anthropology , Vol . 2 ( 1961 ), pp . 1-41 Published by : Bernard Siegal Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/2949217 Accessed : 1. Biennial Review of Anthropology, 2(May), 1–41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2949217 • Stone, G. D. (2010). The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39(1), 381–400. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105058 • Thirtle, C., Beyers, L., Ismael, Y., & Piesse, J. (2003). Can GM-Technologies help the poor? The impact of Bt cotton in Makhathini Flats, KwaZulu-Natal. World Development, 31(4), 717–732. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00004-4 • Usher, A. P., & Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation. Political Science Quarterly, 59(4), 630. http://doi.org/10.2307/2144137 • Van de Walle, N. (2008). Review: Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out of Africa. Foreign Affairs (Vol. 87). http://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adp053 • Vitale, J., Boyer, T., Uaiene, R., & Sanders, J. H. (2007). The economic impacts of introducing Bt technology in smallholder cotton production systems of West Africa: A case study from Mali. AgBioForum, 10(2), 71–84. Retrieved from http://missouri.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1LS8NAEB60F_UgWhWfMH-gmkeTTbzFYLEHQVDwGJJ9iNAkkDaHHv3nzmQTK73pLXvIws7A983OznwD4Hu3zmQLEwK6FcRGBHGohHaEyV0_iGUsVSCVEd3siV_KSjBM-NtSG3AdYsc7RtzdIOL6Le_9B3Y9LvDoxFHpdhX7IWswkqU4Bd63R3dAODuCwz • Vitale, J., Ouattarra, M., & Vognan, G. (2011). Enhancing sustainability of cotton production systems in west Africa: A summary of empirical evidence from Burkina Faso. Sustainability, 3(8), 1136–1169. http://doi.org/10.3390/su3081136 • Weber, M. (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. International Library of Sociology and Social Reconstruction, First pape(5), 490. http://doi.org/10.2307/793261