Biotechnology and governance
The GM debate – who decides?: an analysis of decision-making about genetically modified crops in developing countries
Analysing the policy process in the adoption of GM crops in developing countries
Authors:
E. Masood
Publisher:
Panos Institute, London, 2005
GM (genetically modified) crops are rapidly gaining ground in developing countries, even though their adoption is highly controversial. This report explores how decisions are made about GM food crops in five developing countries - Brazil, India, Kenya, Thailand and Zambia - by drawing on current research and personal interviews. The framework for decision-making on GM crops varies considerably between countries, according to specific political, economic, agricultural and environmental contexts. Opinions, even among common interest groups, are not homogeneous across the developing world. Despite these differences, the report finds it possible to draw some broad conclusions about how governments in developing countries make decisions, and who has access to decision-makers.
The report concludes that:
- GM technology is regulated by agencies within ministries of agriculture, commerce, science and environment. Parliaments mostly - though not always - have a large role in deciding the content of new laws
- different groups of citizens vary in their access to different parts of the policy-making process. Scientists, international donors, the biotechnology industry and groups representing commercial farmers tend to have good access to ministries of agriculture, commerce and science
- scientists are involved in most stages of the decision-making process and tend to have good access to decision-makers across all policy areas
- consumer groups and other NGOs are more successful at accessing ministries of environment and public health, and sympathetic MPs, than the often more powerful ministries of agriculture, commerce and science.
The authors of the report are also concerned with the role of media coverage in the GM debate. In this context, the report finds:
- the quality of media coverage and debate was higher in countries with a longer tradition of multiparty systems of government, an active civil society and a tradition of independent media
- there is a lack of analytical (or investigative) reporting; most of the news articles, for example, were based on announcements from government sources
- external groups clearly influence media coverage in many countries. Biotechnology companies carry out public relations work, and anti-GM NGOs also make themselves heard in the media
- the views of farmers, particularly small-scale, are rarely reflected in the media.
[adapted from author]
