Critique and alternative framework The debate between the proponents and

opponents of agricultural biotechnology has been sometimes acrimonious and unfruitful.

Proponents of agricultural biotechnology are correct in asserting the technical efficiencies of the technology with respect to drought resistant varieties of crops and less labor intensity in agricultural production. However, there is an unstated assumption that the technology is both a means and an end, and there is no attention to context. The significance of context was laid bare by the Green Revolution several years ago.

It is therefore unfortunate, if not disingenuous, of the proponents to present agricultural biotechnology as a disembodied entity that will yield predictable outcomes in all and any social system. The opponents of agricultural biotechnology argue that Africa's resource-poor farmers cannot afford the cost of the technol-ogy, even though donor assistance might make that a little more manageable. What is not clear is how the cost of any change and development can be avoided. Another argument by the o p p o n e n t s i s t h a t t h e t e c h n o l o g y i s inappropriate. If the technology is inappropriate, what kind of technology would be considered a p p r o p r i a t e f o r A f r i c a n f a r m e r s ? T h e ethnocentric tone of this argument is naïve and troubling. While the opponents are right to point out the health and uncertain outcomes of biotechnology, the call to shun the technology outright does not seem to be in the interest of the African farmers they purport to protect in the

first place. For example, Gockowski et al. (2011) have shown that fine flavor cocoa, the product of clonal planting material, is more profitable to cocoa farmers in Ghana than conventional production systems. Biotechnology, like any form of technology, will involve some benefits and risks.

What is not addressed by both perspectives and germane here is to find out the barriers that farmers are confronted with in their interaction with agricultural biotechnology. That line of inquiry has to focus on the policy and institutional framework since that would determine how agricultural biotechnology is harnessed and utilized, the choices that have to be made with respect to the regulation, risks, governance, the private sector, biosafety, technology transfer, the patent regime and issues of biodiversity (Thomson et al., 2010;

Mugwagwa, Wamae, and Outram, 2010; Njoki, 2010; Makinde, Mumba and Ambali, 2009; Ayele, 2008; Munro, 2008; Essegbey, 2008; Eicher et al., 2006; Thomson, 2007; Kelemu et al., 2003;

Alhassan, 2001, 1999). A more comprehensive effort is required to address the question of why several Africans have experienced significant time lags as they attempt to enact relevant policies or establish institutions that can incorporate biotechnology into the national agricultural development agenda (Puplampu, 2010; Kameri-Mbote, 2007; Eicher et al., 2006, Harsh, 2005; Cohen and Paarlberg, 2004; Morse, 2004; Thomson, 2004). This is because the policy vacuum has affected the choices that have to be made with respect to biosafety, the private sector, technology transfer, the patent regime, the risk, resistance and governance aspects of the technology. The emerging literature on agricultural biotechnology in Africa therefore makes a compelling case to transcend the current debate and focus on policy and

institutional issues.

The focus also has to be on broader questions of how citizens and society at large relate to scientific knowledge claims, derive meanings from, attach values and learn about the practices associated with science, particularly the risk and uncertainty of agricultural technology (Scoones, 2006; Entine, 2006; Leach, Scoones and Wynne, 2005). There are two specific models at play in the science-society literature: the deficit and contextual models. The deficit model proceeds on the assumed rationality and objectivity of scientific knowledge and expect farmers to trust biotechnology researchers or scientists and utilize research findings to their agricultural activities (Njoki, 2010; Rampton and Stanber, 2000). Scientists are thus above reproach, disinterested, blameless and infallible (Wynne, 1995). In light of such assumptions, the refusal of farmers to engage with the technology, for instance, is explained in terms of lack of know-ledge.

The attitudes of farmers to biotechnology are perceived to flow from an ignorant and passive group who dwell on myths to shape their attitudes and worldview. These 'defects' farmers have about science can be 'cured' by deepening their knowledge and understanding of the technology (Collins and Evans, 2002). The deficit model privileges scientists or researchers;

specifically, those in the national agricultural research system (NARS) (Jansen and Roquas, 2005). Furthermore, the “cure” of knowledge will come about through increased levels of participation by relevant social groups in agriculture, particularly farmers, in initiating biotechnology policy and establishing relevant institutions. What these assumptions fail to acknowledge is that science is not infallible, and

the knowledge of researchers is not the only source for farmers. Farmers have their own knowledge base and there is also the problem of institutional trust.

To move beyond the above assumptions, requires a framework that takes into consider-ation the basis of the relconsider-ationship between knowledge producing sites (for example, national agricultural research systems) and farmers as end-users of research outcomes – hence the contextual model. This model places the individual in the social and cultural milieu, and takes into consideration prevailing knowledge forms in the society and knowledge about institutional processes (Wynne, 1995, 1991). For instance, it is critical to address whether or not farmers have any role in setting the research agenda, and that requires rethinking their participation in the NARS. In the contextual model, attention is paid to the complex relationship between power and knowledge, how that influences the research agenda, priorities or options of the research establishment, and how research findings are disseminated to farmers. The model implies an understanding of the nuances of knowledge creation and utilization. An understanding of what constitutes knowledge, and what does not, ultimately involves questions of power.

Foucault's (1983, 1980) sophisticated analysis of the relationship between power and knowledge provides an appropriate theoretical framework in the context model. Foucault submits that power designates a set of relationships between social actors, and “what defines a relationship of power is that it is a mode or action which does not act directly and immediately on others.

Instead, it acts upon their actions” (Foucault, 1983: 220). Foucault demonstrations how the

subject is drawn into the power nexus through techniques like surveillance, which aim at creating a disciplined individual.

Another integral part of Foucault's work on power and knowledge is the issue of resistance.

Resistance connotes the refusal to accept a

“truth” that is constructed based on a specific body of knowledge. Any total or partial refusal to conform to the “truth” constructed by knowledge producing sites is an act of resistance (Wang, 1999). For instance, when farmers refuse to behave according to the “truth” constructed by and imposed on them by researchers that constitute resistance. Resistance by farmers can be visible or organized as well as invisible and subtle, hence the idea of “a plurality of resistances” (Foucault, 1990:26). Foucault's analysis of power and knowledge is significant in u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n knowledge producing institutions and farmers as end-users of research findings or policy pronouncements.

Implicit in the power-knowledge nexus and how farmers relate to agricultural biotechnology is the notion of perception or subjectivity with respect to risk and governance of biotechnology (Wafula and Clark, 2005; Aerni, 2005; Aerni and Bernauer, 2005; Bauer, Petkova and Boyadjieva, 2000). Subjectivity has several components. One component is how individuals and groups, and in this case farmers, derive meanings from social processes related to agricultural biotechnology.

Another aspect of subjectivity is the extent to which individuals, and subsequently group behavior can be understood with respect to their sense of self. Self is an active entity and capable of deriving meanings from a given social situation. These meanings will be drawn from statements made by state and non-state

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

Effective Information

Systems

Strong Private Sector

Access to Training and

Innovation

A Good Agricultural

Strategy

Contributon to Increasing Value Added

Contribution to Increasing Productivity

knowledge producing institutions. However, the meanings are interpreted according to the position (ascribed or achieved) of the individual or group and constitute the social construction of reality. The agency of farmers when it comes to interpretation and deriving meanings from agricultural biotechnology, the trustworthiness of institutional knowledge cannot be ignored.

Farmers' agency is also related to risk and governance.

African farmers, often the most vulnerable group in the agriculture value chain, have to factor risk into their decision making process.

The impact of technology is not neutral; hence a better understanding of risk is a rational human behavior. A governance structure with a verifiable and enforceable regulatory regime, genuine participation by relevant stakeholders, including farmers, would help provide a context

in which farmers would be more willing and better able to engage with biotechnology. What flows from the above review is not a question of whether or not biotechnology is good or bad for African agricultural development. Rather, it is whether or not there are effective policies and capable institutions that can initiate, monitor and engage agricultural biotechnology for national development. This line of questioning requires an analysis critically interrogating the nexus of science and society in terms of the initiation and consequences of science policy.

Before addressing the empirical context of the above assertions, the next section presents an overview of agricultural biotechnology policy and institutions in Africa. It is therefore important to note that analysis of the ACI data shows that information systems had the highest contribution to increasing both agricultural

5.2.2 Agricultural Biotechnology Policy and