![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper aims to uncover the social relations used to promote genetically modified (GM) crops into new African markets. It unravels the network of corporate actors, development agencies, policy officials, and research scientists that support the unquestioned dominance of GM in Uganda, which houses one of the largest experimental program dedicated to agricultural biotechnology on the continent. Gramscian insights reveal how these constellations of power align to support biotechnology at the expense of other technological possibilities, and how this consensus maintains its position of dominance while remaining largely unquestioned and unchallenged.
Notes
1Funding for this research came from two Dalhousie University Research Development Funds. Previous versions of this paper were presented at the Annual Meetings of the International Studies Association (2011) and the Association of American Geographers (2012). I'd also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.
2Ref: 07PARIS4723, created 2007-12-14 16:04.
3Ref: 05VATICAN514, created 2005-08-26 07:07.
4Ref: 10TUNIS18, created 2010-01-13 14:51; Ref: 10PRETORIA75, created 2010-01-13 13:26; Ref: 10MAPUTO51, created 2010-01-14 16:30.
5The term ‘historic bloc’ is a difficult one to define because Gramsci uses it in two distinct and somewhat contradictory ways. In addition to the above definition that focuses on the alignment of interests needed to move a particular agenda forward, Gramsi also refers to historic bloc as the outcome of this process; that is, the complete alignment of formations that ‘stabilize and reproduce relations of production and meaning’ around a dominant set of ideas (Andrée Citation2007, 22). I choose to emphasize the first definition over the second and understand historic bloc more as a fluid process with hegemonic ambitions rather than the product of these ambitions.
6Due to the highly politicized nature of GM, codes are used to guarantee the anonymity of all interviewees. Information on the interviewee's role within the broader debate over GM crops is provided (e.g. policy official, biotechnology outreach organizer, research scientist), along with the date that the interview was conducted.
7The first planting in 2009 consisted of Monsanto's Bt cotton (Bollguard II) and Roundup Ready Flex, which is resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. The second planting in 2010 consisted of these two alongside a new ‘stacked’ variety that contains both Bt and Roundup resistance. The third planting was scheduled to be completed in 2011 but compliance issues delayed planting, postponing the third CFT until 2012. Interview with Biotechnology Outreach Organizer #1, 15 May 2012.
8Interview with Policy Official #1, 22 June 2010.
9Interview with Policy Official #2, 15 June 2010.
10Interview with Policy Official #3, 4 May 2011.
11Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #1,15 May 2012.
12Interview with Research Scientist #1, 7 May 2012.
13Interview with Research Scientist #2, 10 June 2012.
14Interview with Research Scientist #3, 5 May 2011.
15The UNEP-GEF process focused on five pillars of effective governance of agricultural biotechnology as articulated in the Cartagena Protocol: national policy on biosafety, regulatory regime, risk assessment, personnel and capacity, systems for public awareness and participation. For more see UNEP (2006).
16Interview with Policy Official #4, 6 May 2011 and interview with Policy Official #5, 7 May 2011.
17Interview with Policy Official #4, 6 May 2011.
18Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #2, 5 May 2012. Current experiments with GM technology – both in the laboratory and in CFT – are regulated by the Act of the National Council of Science and Technology (1991), allowing these to move forward in spite the slow progress of the biosafety bill.
19Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #3, 7 May 2011.
20Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #2, 7 May 2011.
21Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #4, 8 May 2012, and Biotech Outreach Organizer #5, 13 May 2011.
22Interview with Policy Official #5, 7 May 2011.
23The biosafety roadmap is currently being reviewed by COMESA Ministers. It would then require final approval at both domestic and regional levels before coming into being.
24Interview with Policy Official #5, 7 May 2011.
25The first phase of ABSP was initiated by USAID in 1991 with a core budget of $6 million and an additional $8.6 million of support from country offices. The major institutional partner was Michigan State University. Most of the funds were used to support the development of genetically modified potatoes and tomatoes, both of which performed below expectations. The advent of CABIO in 2002 restructured ABSP into two separate organizations: a research arm (ABSP II) and a policy arm (PBS). ABSP II, now based out of Cornell University, shifted its focus away from long-term research and development projects, focusing instead on ‘product commercialization packages’ that were likely to see field-ready products in a short time-span. For more see Kent (Citation2004).
26ABSP funding helped pay for the renovation of the Kawanda laboratory buildings and the construction of the biosafety greenhouse, as well as expenses associated with running CFT.
27Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #6, 9 May 2011.
28Since 2009, other ‘seeing is believing’ tours have been coordinated, mostly by ISAAA. Visits have been undertaken to Burkina Faso and India to view their respective successes with Bt cotton.
29Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #7, 15 June 2010.
30AATF was established in 2003 (with funds from the Rockefeller Foundation) to increase access to proprietary biotechnologies that could address constraints facing small-scale farmers across Africa. Current AATF funding comes from a consortium of USAID, DFID, and some special project funding from the Gates Foundation.
31Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #2, 6 June 2009.
32SCIFODE is still searching for program funding. Current funding is a hodgepodge of various small projects: helping NARO publicize results of CFTs, supporting UNCST in its coordination of OFAB meetings and some small contracts with PBS, as well as recently-signed memoranda of understanding with both the Water Efficient Maize for Africa program and the Africa Biofortified Sorghum project to coordinate their communications and marketing in Uganda. Source: Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #5,13 May 2011.
33Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #7, 4 May 2011.
34Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #2, 14 June 2010.
35Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #8, 9 June 2010.
36Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #2, 6 May 2011.
37Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #5, 13 May 2011.
38Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #2, 6 May 2011.
39Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #2, 6 May 2011.
40Interview with Research Scientist #3, 5 May 2011.
41It remains to be seen whether the Obama Administration's new Feed the Future campaign, announced with much fanfare in 2009, will represent a dramatic shift in USAID's approach to agricultural biotechnology in Africa. To inaugurate this program, US$ 3.5 billion was allocated to combat hunger and improve food security in 20 target nations, including Uganda. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech during a 2009 visit to east Africa – in which she lamented the lack of private investment in African agriculture and promised a continuing commitment to using technology to improve agricultural yields – suggests that USAID's focus on expanding biotechnology's reach in Africa will continue within this new program (see Crossfield Citation2009). Program leaders with ABSP II and PBS have also expressed confidence that Feed the Future does not represent a radical shift away from USAID's emphasis on using agricultural biotechnology to help improve African agriculture.
42Interview with Biotech Outreach Organizer #6, 9 May 2011.
Additional information
Matthew A. Schnurr is an Associate Professor in the department of International Development Studies at Dalhousie University. He is an environmental geographer with research interests in environment and development, political ecology, agricultural biotechnology and environmental justice. His current research focuses on farmer attitudes and intentions to adopt genetically modified crops in east Africa.