Just agricultural science: The green revolution, biotechnologies, and marginalized farmers in Africa

Abstract

Contemporary agricultural development has changed in significant ways since the green revolution (GR). Its goals have expanded beyond national development to the achievement of environmental and social goals, and, notably, targeted gains for marginalized farmers. Moreover, advances in molecular breeding have expanded the tools used to achieve such goals. This research examines a prominent agricultural biotechnology program, pest resistant (Bt) cowpea in Burkina Faso, and asks whether and how this program can best achieve its goal of delivering benefits for marginalized farmers. I argue that 2 substantially criticized assumptions of GR-era agricultural development—the scale-neutrality of seeds and the sufficiency of expert technical knowledge—continue to guide the Bt cowpea project and limit its ability to deliver benefits for marginalized farmers. The presence of these guiding assumptions can be located in key programmatic decisions that work at a cross purpose to the project’s social goals, notably (a) the choice of parent variety favoring commercial producers, (b) an absence of institutions to extend adoption and benefits, and (c) a lack of meaningful farmer inclusion. This case adds to a body of research that shows that biological innovations alone—what I call “just agricultural science”—are not sufficient to drive socially just outcomes for marginalized farmers without accompanying social innovations.

Bridging the gap? Public–private partnerships and genetically modified crop development for smallholder farmers in Africa

“…Seed acquisition and choice is highly heterogeneous for smallholder farmers, and related to a diversity of socio‐cultural and economic considerations (Shilomboleni et al, 2023). The best available evidence suggests that at least a majority of PPP non‐tech fee crops currently under development will rely on private seed companies to multiply and distribute seeds, including, but not limited to, PBR cowpea, WEMA maize, and disease resistant cassava (Dowd‐Uribe, 2023; Schnurr & Dowd‐Uribe, 2021). This singular strategy runs counter to the findings of seed systems experts, which suggest that multiple seed delivery strategies and a diversity of improved varieties are needed to meet the existing and future demands of African smallholder farmers (Almekinders et al, 2021).…”

“…These varieties are not, however, appropriate for the dominant form of cowpea growing in Burkina Faso—and the one practiced by the smallest and most marginalized farmers—in association with other crops, since it does not creep and cover the ground. These creeping parent varieties have not been part of the GM transformation process (Dowd‐Uribe, 2023). Similar parental variety issues exist with other prominent PPP non‐tech fee crops—including WEMA maize, which has been placed onto a hybrid as opposed to open pollinated maize parent varieties, and disease resistant matooke banana, which has been placed onto a parent variety ill‐suited for many smallholder farmers (Schnurr & Dowd‐Uribe, 2021).…”

“…Other research on biofortified and disease resistant banana programs in Uganda show that donors prioritized biofortification over the farmer‐preferred trait of disease resistance, indicating the power of donors to drive decision‐making (Schnurr et al, 2020). As mentioned above, research on the PBR cowpea shows that varieties chosen for modification are varieties preferred by medium‐to‐large‐scale commercial farmers in Burkina Faso, raising questions around whether the crop will be grown by smallholder farmers (Dowd‐Uribe, 2023).…”

“…As expectations around the technology's promise expanded, so have empirical studies assessing their design, outcomes, and interactions among project partners (Luna & Dowd‐Uribe, 2020; Schnurr, 2019). For example, Dowd‐Uribe's (2023) study on the pod borer resistant (PBR) cowpea in Burkina Faso, which contains a Bt ( bacillus thuringiensis ) gene to ward off one of its most pernicious pests—the leaf pod borer. This research highlights how GM crop varieties can be implicitly designed to target larger and more commercially‐oriented farmers rather than the project's stated beneficiaries of women and poor smallholder farmers.…”