Agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) has intersected with a wider debate about 'sustainable agr... more Agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) has intersected with a wider debate about 'sustainable agriculture', especially in Europe. Agbiotech was initially promoted as an alternative which would avoid or remedy past problems of intensive agriculture, but such claims were soon challenged. Agbiotech has extended the dominant agri-industrial paradigm, while critics have counterposed alternatives corresponding to an agrarian-based rural development paradigm. Amid controversy over environmental and health risks in the late 1990s, an extra issue emerged − the prospect that genetically modified (GM) material would become inadvertently mixed with non-GM crops. In response the European Commission developed a policy framework for 'coexistence' between GM, conventional and organic crops. This policy has aimed to ensure that farmers can freely choose among different production systems, which would develop side by side, yet specific proposals for coexistence rules favour some choices over others. Such rules have been contested according to different policy agendas, each promoting their model of future agriculture. Moreover, a Europe-wide network of regional authorities has promoted 'GM-free zones' as a territorial brand for green, localised, high-quality agri-food production, whose diverse qualities depend upon symbolic, immaterial characteristics. This alternative has been counterposed to the agri-industrial production of global commodities-symbolised by the European Union, especially its product authorisation procedure for the internal market. 'Coexistence' policy was intended to mediate policy conflicts over GM crops, yet it has become another arena for contending agricultural systems, which may not so readily co-exist in practice. Wherever an agrarian-based rural development paradigm gains local support, its alternative agricultures are in contradiction rather than coexistence with GM crops.
East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, Dec 1, 2007
European decision-making on techno-scientific issues has encountered public suspicion and legitim... more European decision-making on techno-scientific issues has encountered public suspicion and legitimacy problems. These have resulted from government policies promoting specific technologies as if they were objective imperatives. The consequent difficulties have been diagnosed according to various 'deficit' models, which in turn inform efforts at governing the societal conflict. Anticipating or responding to European public concerns over agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) in particular, state bodies have sponsored participatory exercises. Some participants sought to open up technological decisions vis à vis alternative futures and normative choices, but such efforts were marginalised. Questions about agbiotech as control were displaced and channelled into regulatory issues and control measures. Despite aspirations to democratise technological choices, the exercises tended to biotechnologise democracy. To some extent, participatory technology assessment (TA) exercises anticipated, stimulated or reinforced policy changes which enhance the state's accountability for regulatory frameworks-but not for its commitment to a specific innovation trajectory. Pervasive tensions have arisen between discussing a 'common' problem (e.g. how to make agbiotech safe or acceptable) versus containing conflicts around how to define the problem. These tensions have taken the form of contested boundaries-between policy versus scientific issues, between social versus technical ones, as well as between lay versus expert roles-thus performing different models of the public. These dynamics can be analysed by linking critical theories of technology, deliberative democracy, performative interactions and neoliberal governance.
In the European conflicts over agbiotech, 'risk governance' can be analysed as a strategic respon... more In the European conflicts over agbiotech, 'risk governance' can be analysed as a strategic response to legitimacy problems. When Europe-wide protest arose against agbiotech in the late 1990s, this sector became a focus of several contentious issues. 'Sustainable agriculture' was invoked in divergent ways by proponents and critics of agbiotech. Risks were linked with 'globalisation', which symbolised a neoliberal policy framework threatening democratic accountability. Official expert claims were readily challenged as policy-laden, contrary to claims for 'science-based regulation'. To address the legitimacy problems, some policy analysts diagnosed democratic deficits in regulatory procedures and stakeholder relations. Eventually policymakers defined a new problem: how to restore public and market confidence. Regulatory changes began to accommodate criticisms from mainstream consumer groups and environmental conservation agencies. By contrast, anti-agbiotech groups still sought to undermine public confidence in safety claims, while counterposing alternative futures for European agriculture. Here governance can be understood as process management, which involves a tension between resolving a problem, on the one hand, and containing conflicts around the problemdefinition, on the other. More participatory procedures and regulatory reforms have provided a basis for incorporating some broader problem-definitions, while marginalising others. Any governance remedy becomes an arena for further tension, given the inherent limits of risk regulation.
About the book: Agri-food bio-technology policy and regulation is transitioning from an early per... more About the book: Agri-food bio-technology policy and regulation is transitioning from an early period focused on genetic engineering technologies to ‘next-generation’ rules and regulatory processes linked to challenges originating in a wide variety of new technological processes and applications. Can lessons learned from past and current regulatory oversights of agricultural biotechnology – and other high-technology sectors – help us address new and emerging regulatory challenges in the agri-food genetics sector? The expert contributors in this volume discuss the experiences of a wide range of North American, European and Asian countries with high technology regulation to address four key questions related to the past and future development of agri-food genomics regulation across the globe. ● how unique is agri-food biotechology regulation, and how can it be evaluated using the existing tools of regulatory analysis developed in examinations of other sectors? ● is a ‘government to gov...
The Open University's repository of research publications and other research outputs Agroecologic... more The Open University's repository of research publications and other research outputs Agroecological practices as territorial development: an analytical schema from Brazilian case studies
An agroecological transition can enhance resilience by several means, e.g., managing ecological r... more An agroecological transition can enhance resilience by several means, e.g., managing ecological relationships through agroecosystems, enhancing farmers’ knowledge of natural resources, recycling those resources, maintaining biodiversity, and thus, flexibly adapting to environmental stresses. However, the hegemonic agri-food system has been continuing its capitalist transition, thereby undermining agroecological methods and deterritorialising social bonds. Facing this pervasive threat, an agroecological transition needs a greater convergence between agroecological production and a solidarity economy (economia solidaria or EcoSol in Latin America). Their convergence can be called EcoSol-agroecology, based on short food supply chains (called circuitos cortos there). These efforts develop territorial markets, generate more stable livelihoods, and thus keep producers on the land. In our study, each research team collaborated with an EcoSol-agroecology network to develop Participatory Act...
Agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) has intersected with a wider debate about 'sustainable agr... more Agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) has intersected with a wider debate about 'sustainable agriculture', especially in Europe. Agbiotech was initially promoted as an alternative which would avoid or remedy past problems of intensive agriculture, but such claims were soon challenged. Agbiotech has extended the dominant agri-industrial paradigm, while critics have counterposed alternatives corresponding to an agrarian-based rural development paradigm. Amid controversy over environmental and health risks in the late 1990s, an extra issue emerged − the prospect that genetically modified (GM) material would become inadvertently mixed with non-GM crops. In response the European Commission developed a policy framework for 'coexistence' between GM, conventional and organic crops. This policy has aimed to ensure that farmers can freely choose among different production systems, which would develop side by side, yet specific proposals for coexistence rules favour some choices over others. Such rules have been contested according to different policy agendas, each promoting their model of future agriculture. Moreover, a Europe-wide network of regional authorities has promoted 'GM-free zones' as a territorial brand for green, localised, high-quality agri-food production, whose diverse qualities depend upon symbolic, immaterial characteristics. This alternative has been counterposed to the agri-industrial production of global commodities-symbolised by the European Union, especially its product authorisation procedure for the internal market. 'Coexistence' policy was intended to mediate policy conflicts over GM crops, yet it has become another arena for contending agricultural systems, which may not so readily co-exist in practice. Wherever an agrarian-based rural development paradigm gains local support, its alternative agricultures are in contradiction rather than coexistence with GM crops.
East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, Dec 1, 2007
European decision-making on techno-scientific issues has encountered public suspicion and legitim... more European decision-making on techno-scientific issues has encountered public suspicion and legitimacy problems. These have resulted from government policies promoting specific technologies as if they were objective imperatives. The consequent difficulties have been diagnosed according to various 'deficit' models, which in turn inform efforts at governing the societal conflict. Anticipating or responding to European public concerns over agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) in particular, state bodies have sponsored participatory exercises. Some participants sought to open up technological decisions vis à vis alternative futures and normative choices, but such efforts were marginalised. Questions about agbiotech as control were displaced and channelled into regulatory issues and control measures. Despite aspirations to democratise technological choices, the exercises tended to biotechnologise democracy. To some extent, participatory technology assessment (TA) exercises anticipated, stimulated or reinforced policy changes which enhance the state's accountability for regulatory frameworks-but not for its commitment to a specific innovation trajectory. Pervasive tensions have arisen between discussing a 'common' problem (e.g. how to make agbiotech safe or acceptable) versus containing conflicts around how to define the problem. These tensions have taken the form of contested boundaries-between policy versus scientific issues, between social versus technical ones, as well as between lay versus expert roles-thus performing different models of the public. These dynamics can be analysed by linking critical theories of technology, deliberative democracy, performative interactions and neoliberal governance.
In the European conflicts over agbiotech, 'risk governance' can be analysed as a strategic respon... more In the European conflicts over agbiotech, 'risk governance' can be analysed as a strategic response to legitimacy problems. When Europe-wide protest arose against agbiotech in the late 1990s, this sector became a focus of several contentious issues. 'Sustainable agriculture' was invoked in divergent ways by proponents and critics of agbiotech. Risks were linked with 'globalisation', which symbolised a neoliberal policy framework threatening democratic accountability. Official expert claims were readily challenged as policy-laden, contrary to claims for 'science-based regulation'. To address the legitimacy problems, some policy analysts diagnosed democratic deficits in regulatory procedures and stakeholder relations. Eventually policymakers defined a new problem: how to restore public and market confidence. Regulatory changes began to accommodate criticisms from mainstream consumer groups and environmental conservation agencies. By contrast, anti-agbiotech groups still sought to undermine public confidence in safety claims, while counterposing alternative futures for European agriculture. Here governance can be understood as process management, which involves a tension between resolving a problem, on the one hand, and containing conflicts around the problemdefinition, on the other. More participatory procedures and regulatory reforms have provided a basis for incorporating some broader problem-definitions, while marginalising others. Any governance remedy becomes an arena for further tension, given the inherent limits of risk regulation.
About the book: Agri-food bio-technology policy and regulation is transitioning from an early per... more About the book: Agri-food bio-technology policy and regulation is transitioning from an early period focused on genetic engineering technologies to ‘next-generation’ rules and regulatory processes linked to challenges originating in a wide variety of new technological processes and applications. Can lessons learned from past and current regulatory oversights of agricultural biotechnology – and other high-technology sectors – help us address new and emerging regulatory challenges in the agri-food genetics sector? The expert contributors in this volume discuss the experiences of a wide range of North American, European and Asian countries with high technology regulation to address four key questions related to the past and future development of agri-food genomics regulation across the globe. ● how unique is agri-food biotechology regulation, and how can it be evaluated using the existing tools of regulatory analysis developed in examinations of other sectors? ● is a ‘government to gov...
The Open University's repository of research publications and other research outputs Agroecologic... more The Open University's repository of research publications and other research outputs Agroecological practices as territorial development: an analytical schema from Brazilian case studies
An agroecological transition can enhance resilience by several means, e.g., managing ecological r... more An agroecological transition can enhance resilience by several means, e.g., managing ecological relationships through agroecosystems, enhancing farmers’ knowledge of natural resources, recycling those resources, maintaining biodiversity, and thus, flexibly adapting to environmental stresses. However, the hegemonic agri-food system has been continuing its capitalist transition, thereby undermining agroecological methods and deterritorialising social bonds. Facing this pervasive threat, an agroecological transition needs a greater convergence between agroecological production and a solidarity economy (economia solidaria or EcoSol in Latin America). Their convergence can be called EcoSol-agroecology, based on short food supply chains (called circuitos cortos there). These efforts develop territorial markets, generate more stable livelihoods, and thus keep producers on the land. In our study, each research team collaborated with an EcoSol-agroecology network to develop Participatory Act...
Uploads
Papers by Les Levidow