Public participation and the politics of policy

Governing technologies in favour of pro-poor outcomes is a major challenge. Research in this area shows that, while there is much rhetoric about pro-poor biotechnology, the evidence on the ground is questionable. Getting the public – farmers, consumers, traders and others – involved in debates about biotechnology, its design, use and regulation, is vital.

While debate and dispute should be expected, and inclusive deliberation – such as citizens’ juries - can be useful in convening discussions about alternative options, and providing a space for alternative views – beyond those of technocrats, industry lobbyists, and government personnel – to be heard. However much of the international capacity-building support for developing countries has given the appearance of taking citizens’ views into account while allowing scientists to lay down the rules may merely provoke mistrust of official policy processes.

Governance arrangements for overseeing innovation processes, and particularly the testing and introduction of new, potentially risky, technologies, are poorly developed, particularly in the global south. Recourse to standardised, technical approaches, based on risk management, have been found wanting. Open, democratic and deliberative approaches must be central to governing technologies, especially if poverty reduction and environmental sustainability are key aims.

Citizen action and mobilisation around GM crops has been an important route to recasting the debate in new ways. While much of the discussion has got stuck in a narrow pro or anti-GM frame, wider concerns about the role of agribusiness, the corporate control of agriculture and the future of food and farming have been raised.