GM crops ten years on; Hope, hype and reality

Ian Scoones, from the STEPS Centre, at the Institute of Development Studies, asks: What have we learnt over the last 10 years? How do we get beyond the stalemate of the pro versus the anti fundamentalisms of the GM debate? What are the realistic prospects of a pro-poor gene revolution?
Download a PDF version of this id21 viewpoints

A decade ago there was much hope and hype about the potentials of genetically-modified (GM) crops. GM crops were going to feed the world, reduce poverty and solve development issues. Poor farmers in developing countries would benefit from a 'gene revolution' succeeding the 'green revolution' of previous decades.

Some claimed pest-resistant technologies could reduce pesticide use and improve farmers' incomes, whilst technologies for dealing with drought or nutrient deficits were still being developed. Others predicted disaster: GM crops would result in environmental and health catastrophes and global domination of agriculture by large corporations. Just as the pro-GM lobby could be accused of excessive, unfounded hype, anti-GM campaigners often generated doomsday scenarios based on limited evidence.

The reality is more complex. Under certain circumstances, some farmers have benefited from GM crop technologies; while others have had bad experiences or were bypassed altogether. Nevertheless, despite the accumulated experience and evidence, wild claims are still made and false expectations generated.

GM crops have expanded rapidly in some locations. The annual assessments from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, show GM crops' spread across the globe. Although GM crops were planted in 25 countries in 2008, only eight countries planted more than a million hectares. About 98 million hectares (out of a global GM crop area of 125 million hectares) was grown in just three countries, by large-scale farmers: the United States, Argentina and Brazil.

A recent book by Robert Paarlberg, makes the case for GM crops as a solution to agricultural development. Paarlberg argues Africa's poor have been denied the vital, life-saving technology of GM crops because of European anti-GM campaigns. He claims inappropriate, precautionary bio-safety regulation is a major hurdle to the widespread adoption of poverty-reducing technologies.

These arguments have been picked up by policymakers and lobby groups, the latter arguing the 'tide is turning' in favour of GM crops as a result of the political recognition of the global food crisis. New efforts are making the case for a GM solution, especially in the vast potential developing world market, through, for example, the industry-based Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy.

But are these arguments based on sound science? Have GM crops helped small-scale and subsistence farmers to climb out of poverty?

A new paper from the STEPS Centre, at the Institute of Development Studies, in the UK, reveals a complex story with mixed impacts. It shows economic returns are highly variable, dependent on a range of factors:

• GM crops only perform well in good varieties
• GM seed start-up costs and technology fees are sometimes too expensive for poorer farmers
• major adopters are usually richer with more land
• the institutional and policy environment is vital: without support, credit and sustained backing, new technologies often fail.

These conclusions were predicted by many a decade ago, including the 1999 Nuffield report. Technologies are always linked to social, economic and political contexts, and the assumption that nothing else matters beyond the technical fix is deeply flawed. And contrary to Paarlberg's claims, a precautionary approach makes sense in the face of deep uncertainties, public concerns and contested politics. Robust, transparent and accountable institutions, emerging from policy deliberations involving diverse stakeholders, are critical features of any new socio-technical landscape. Such institutions take time to develop and cannot be transplanted from one continent to another.

The 'pro-' versus 'anti-' fundamentalisms of the GM debate have become entrenched, with discussions stuck in an unhelpful impasse. How do we get beyond this stalemate? What are the real lessons to be learned from the past decade? What are the realistic prospects of a pro-poor gene revolution? Five interlinked points are important:

GM is not the only biotech solution
Marker-assisted selection and other genomic techniques offer important opportunities for enhancing conventional breeding through biotechnology. Investment in long-term, local, context-specific breeding and crop development programmes is needed.

Abandon technology fundamentalisms
Technologies are never isolated from social, economic and political contexts. 'Agri-cultures' -the many different ways farmers manage plants, their soils and the wider environment, really matter.

Be realistic about the corporate sector
Major biotechnology companies are accountable to their shareholders and not to poor people in developing countries. Their business models are focused on widespread adoption of standardised technologies on large farms, with high unit profits based on highly capitalised operations. Most GM crop technologies are for large-scale, rich commercial farmers.

Put farmers first
The ownership of technologies and control of their development, matters. Involving farmers in priority-setting and upstream technology design is vital. Potential users of technology understand their own problems best.

Regulatory frameworks and wider policy issues are critical
In the face of deep uncertainty a precautionary stance makes sound policy. Appropriate regulatory infrastructure is a challenge - each context requires particular regulatory and policy responses based on local evidence. Making technologies work for the poor inevitably takes time but results in more robust and effective governance.

What do you think?
Comment on this viewpoint by emailing id21viewpoints@ids.ac.uk

Further Information
Ian Scoones
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RE, UK
i.scoones@ids.ac.uk

See also

GM crops - A quick Fix for Hunger, Poverty and Underdevelopment? by Dominic Glover, 2009

STEPS Centre Biotechnology Archive

Eldis Key Issues Page on Biotechnology

Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, by Robert Paarlberg, 2008

The Slow Race. Making Technology Work for the Poor, Demos: London, by Melissa Leach and Ian Scoones, 2006

Agri-Culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature, Earthscan: London, by Jules N Pretty, 2002

Genetically Modified Crops: the Social and Ethical Issues, Report From the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, May 1999

June 2009

What's your viewpoint?
id21 is inviting academics, practitioners, activists, decision-makers, policy-shapers from NGOs, research institutes, governments, donor organisations - indeed anyone involved in international development – to contribute a short article to id21 expressing their point of view on policy issues relating to their work. Click here for more information.

Click here to go back to previous id21 viewpoints

---

Submit your research to id21

Send us your feedback on the latest editions of 'insights'