IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v38y2021i4d10.1007_s10460-021-10221-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Let the people decide: citizen deliberation on the role of GMOs in Mali’s agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Michel P. Pimbert

    (Coventry University)

  • Boukary Barry

    (Kene Conseils)

Abstract

This paper describes and critically reflects on a participatory policy process which resulted in a government decision not to introduce genetically modified (GM) cotton in farmers’ fields in Mali (West Africa). In January 2006, 45 Malian farmers gathered in Sikasso to deliberate on GM cotton and the future of farming in Mali. As an invited policy space convened by the government of Sikasso region, this first-time farmers' jury was unique in West Africa. It was known as l’ECID—Espace Citoyen d’Interpellation Démocratique (Citizen’s Space for Democratic Deliberation)—and it had an unprecedented impact on the region. In this Deliberative and Inclusive Process (DIP), the ECID combined the citizens’ jury method with indigenous methods for debate and dialogue, including the traditional African palaver. The ECID brought together male and female producers representing every district in the Sikasso region of southern Mali, specialist witnesses from various continents and a panel of independent observers, as well as resource persons and members of the national and international press and media. As an experiment in deliberative democracy, the ECID of Sikasso aimed to give men and women farmers the opportunity to share knowledge on the benefits and risks of GM cotton, and make policy recommendations on the future of GM technology in Malian agriculture. Designed as a bottom-up and participatory process, the ECID’s outcomes significantly changed national policy on the release of GM technology and have had an enduring influence in Mali. In this paper, we describe our positionality as action researchers and co-organisers of the ECID. We explain the methodology used for the ECID of Sikasso and critically reflect on the safeguards that were put in place to ensure a balanced and trustworthy deliberative process. The ECID and its key outcomes are discussed in the context of the political economy of GM cotton in West Africa. Last, we briefly highlight the relevance of the ECID for current international debates on racism in the theory and practice deliberative democracy; the production of post-normal transdisciplinary knowledge for technology risk-assessments; and the politics of knowledge in participatory policy-making for food and agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Michel P. Pimbert & Boukary Barry, 2021. "Let the people decide: citizen deliberation on the role of GMOs in Mali’s agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 1097-1122, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:38:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-021-10221-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-021-10221-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-021-10221-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-021-10221-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luna, Jessie K. & Dowd-Uribe, Brian, 2020. "Knowledge politics and the Bt cotton success narrative in Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    2. Dan Graur, 2007. "Public control could be a nightmare for researchers," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7173), pages 1156-1156, December.
    3. Jessie K. Luna, 2020. "‘Pesticides are our children now’: cultural change and the technological treadmill in the Burkina Faso cotton sector," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(2), pages 449-462, June.
    4. Robert C. Luskin & Ian O'Flynn & James S. Fishkin & David Russell, 2014. "Deliberating across Deep Divides," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62(1), pages 116-135, March.
    5. Tefft, James, 2004. "Mali's white revolution: smallholder cotton from 1960 to 2003," 2020 vision briefs 12 No. 5, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Lowder, Sarah K. & Skoet, Jakob & Raney, Terri, 2016. "The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 16-29.
    7. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Arie Rip, 2007. "A timely harvest," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7167), pages 174-174, November.
    8. Carolyn M. Hendriks, 2006. "Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society's Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(3), pages 486-508, October.
    9. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Carolyn M. Hendriks, 2006. "Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society's Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54, pages 486-508, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maywa Montenegro de Wit, 2022. "Can agroecology and CRISPR mix? The politics of complementarity and moving toward technology sovereignty," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 733-755, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    2. John Dryzek, 2015. "Deliberative engagement: the forum in the system," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 750-754, December.
    3. Lehtonen, Markku, 2019. "Ecological Economics and Opening up of Megaproject Appraisal: Lessons From Megaproject Scholarship and Topics for a Research Programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 148-156.
    4. Jennifer Dodge, 2014. "Civil society organizations and deliberative policy making: interpreting environmental controversies in the deliberative system," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(2), pages 161-185, June.
    5. M. Jae Moon & Seulgi Lee & Seunggyu Park, 2023. "Citizensourcing policy advisory systems in a turbulent era," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 303-318.
    6. Harri Raisio & Pirkko Vartiainen, 2015. "Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 339-361, September.
    7. Ya Li, 2015. "Think tank 2.0 for deliberative policy analysis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(1), pages 25-50, March.
    8. Carey Doberstein, 2016. "Designing Collaborative Governance Decision-Making in Search of a ‘Collaborative Advantage’," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 819-841, July.
    9. Helen Pallett & Jason Chilvers, 2013. "A Decade of Learning about Publics, Participation, and Climate Change: Institutionalising Reflexivity?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(5), pages 1162-1183, May.
    10. Corus, Canan & Ozanne, Julie L., 2012. "Stakeholder engagement: Building participatory and deliberative spaces in subsistence markets," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1728-1735.
    11. Alfred Moore, 2010. "Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 715-730, October.
    12. Rebecca Sandover & Alice Moseley & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2021. "Contrasting Views of Citizens’ Assemblies: Stakeholder Perceptions of Public Deliberation on Climate Change," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 76-86.
    13. Buizer, Marleen & Van Herzele, Ann, 2012. "Combining deliberative governance theory and discourse analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 93-101.
    14. Luis Bauluz & Yajna Govind & Filip Novokmet, 2020. "Global Land Inequality," PSE Working Papers halshs-03022318, HAL.
    15. Luna, Jessie K. & Dowd-Uribe, Brian, 2020. "Knowledge politics and the Bt cotton success narrative in Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    16. Livia Marchetti & Valentina Cattivelli & Claudia Cocozza & Fabio Salbitano & Marco Marchetti, 2020. "Beyond Sustainability in Food Systems: Perspectives from Agroecology and Social Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    17. Hurley, Mason, 2016. "Re-examining Changes in Farm Size Distributions Worldwide Using a Modified Generalized Method of Moments Approach," Master's Theses and Plan B Papers 249287, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    18. Yuewen Huo & Songlin Ye & Zhou Wu & Fusuo Zhang & Guohua Mi, 2022. "Barriers to the Development of Agricultural Mechanization in the North and Northeast China Plains: A Farmer Survey," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, February.
    19. Dang, Hai-Anh H & Carletto, Calogero, 2022. "Recall Bias Revisited: Measure Farm Labor Using Mixed-Mode Surveys and Multiple Imputation," IZA Discussion Papers 14997, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Sangbum Shin & Taedong Lee, 2021. "Credible Empowerment and Deliberative Participation: A Comparative Study of Two Nuclear Energy Policy Deliberation Cases in Korea," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 97-112, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:38:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-021-10221-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.