22 February 2012 | EN | FR
Biotech researchers should explain that developing insect-resistant crops can take years
Farmers are more likely to use GM crops if they are involved in crop development in the right way, say Obidimma Ezezika and Justin Mabeya.
The rapid uptake of genetically modified (GM) crops in developing countries poses a dilemma for agri-biotech programmes: when and how should researchers engage farmers in the process of developing crops?
If farmers are engaged too early, they are likely to develop high expectations that the projects may not be able to meet. Engaging them too late may lead to low adoption of the technology.
To better understand when and how to involve farmers, we interviewed agricultural experts from five countries in Sub-Saharan Africa — from individual farmers to farmers' associations, seed companies, scientists and non-governmental organisations.
Reaching out to farmers early in the process of developing GM crops is crucial, and can help avoid the perception of the technology being 'dumped on them'. But this should be done gradually. Ideally, engagement should peak about a year before the technology is available, when farmers are selecting planting materials for the following season.
This helps to ensure that farmers' expectations can be met. For example, the enthusiasm of farmers and seed companies involved in the Insect Resistant Maize for Africa project in Kenya was dampened by the delayed delivery of maize products.
Managers of agri-biotech programmes should be clear about a project's limitations, such as the technical and regulatory hurdles that can lead to delays or failure to deliver a product.
And they should explain the difference between research and the end product, and that developing biotech crops could take ten years or more — as was the case for the Insect Resistant Maize for Africa project.
Communication is important. Messages about new GM crops should be optimistic but realistic about their potential to address a problem, such as insect resistance, herbicide tolerance or drought tolerance.
Seeing is believing
Campaigns informing farmers about crop development projects can encourage them to participate, giving them an opportunity to assess the potential benefits. If farmers are part of the decision-making, it is easier to keep them involved and manage their expectations.
Using improved conventionally bred crops that have already been accepted by the farmers makes engagement easier, and can be a stepping stone to introducing GM crops.
Trials on farms, rather than in restricted environments, can help farmers appreciate the time it takes to develop technologies and so temper their expectations. When used alongside confined field trials, farm trials are also likely to give farmers confidence in the biotech crops — after all, 'seeing is believing'.
Adoption rates tend to be higher when farmers actively participate in technology development. In South Africa, for example, the Ministry of Agriculture established the Farmer Support Program in 1995  to help farmers access and adopt technologies developed by the Agricultural Research Council. As part of the programme, farmers were invited to participate through training and on-farm demonstration trials.
The development of quncho,  a new variety of tef (Ethiopia's main cereal), by the Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Centre in Ethiopia, shows the benefits of this approach. By involving farmers through participatory variety selection, breeding and on-farm trials, the area planted rose from 150 hectares in 2006 to 2,938 hectares in 2009, and yields doubled to 2.2 tonnes per hectare.
Religious and cultural concerns, over how new technologies might affect traditional seed systems, for example, can make it difficult for farmers to adopt GM crops. Understanding these concerns and addressing them through continuous dialogue can help farmers accept the technology.
One way to encourage adoption is to engage with a few progressive farmers (rather than many small-scale farmers), who will then liaise with the rest of the farming community. Progressive farmers are those who have good crop yields, for example, are consulted for advice by other farmers, or are leaders of farmers' associations.
This strategy of targeting farmers to act as liaisons has been used successfully in several programmes in Africa. [1,3,4] To be effective, it requires clear communication about the project.
Collaborating with other local organisations — such as seed companies or cooperative societies — to leverage their connections and experience can also help with creating awareness and sharing information.
Working with seed companies at an early stage in breeding and developing crop varieties can help to ensure that farmers benefit. And collaborating with the government is essential.
Farmers are integral to the development of biotech crops. It is important to engage with them from the beginning of the process, and to recognise the value of their knowledge and advice. But researchers should be careful to avoid making promises and raising expectations that may not be met.
Obidimma C. Ezezika is a program leader at the Sandra Rotman Center, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Justin Mabeya is a research consultant at the Sandra Rotman Center, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
 Kimaro, W. H., Mukandiwa, L. and Mario, E. Z. J. (eds) Towards improving agricultural extension service delivery in the SADC region [2.44MB]. Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Sharing among Extension Players in the SADC Region, 26–28 July 2010, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (2010).
 Assefa, K. et al. Quncho: The first popular tef variety in Ethiopia. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9, 25–34 (2011).
 Amudavi, D. M. et al. Assessment of technical efficiency of farmer teachers in the uptake and dissemination of push-pull technologies in western Kenya. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education (AIAEE), 24– 27 May 2009, International San Juan Resort, Puerto Rico (2009).
 Glendenning, C. J., Babu, S. and Asenso-Okyere, K. Review of agricultural extension in India: Are farmers' information needs being met? [1.72MB] International Food Policy Research Institute (2010).
Claudio Cordovil ( Fiocruz | Brazil )
27 February 2012
So, the only problem with GM crops is the scientific illiteracy of farmers? Hum? Or maybe the scientific illiteracy of European Citizens, who massively reject GMOs and GM crops. What stupid people are Europeans. (Laughs) Maybe Europeans are very dumb and illiterate. It is very sad to see African people to disseminate this kind of thinking that contributes for the misery of that very poor and spoiled continent. As a Science Journalist I disapprove this kind of approach that reinforce the exploitation of that spoiled continent. Maybe the writers should read something about Science and Technology Studies. Monsanto thanks you. Good job!
Eduardo ( Puerto Rico )
27 February 2012
Farmers should never use GM crops, nor the agrotoxic chemicals Monsanto and "Biotechnology industry is promoting. Seeds are more expensive, yields are lower or similar, GM food caues diseases and extensive use of pesticides produces resistant weeds and insects.
John ( United States of America )
27 February 2012
In what way is this specific to *GM* crops vs. just any kind of new variety?! Especially as most of the examples given in the text refer to "conventional" crops. Conclusion: Just one more case of (ab-)using GM for greater publicity...
MH ( Switzerland )
26 June 2012
This post is overt propaganda for GM crops. Why would African farmers destroy their own culture, food crops and enter into this industry? There is no lack of food in Africa, only unjust distribution and access.
All SciDev.Net material is free to reproduce providing that the source and author are appropriately credited. For further details see Creative Commons.