Stakeholder perceptions towards agricultural biotechnology in Mexico

Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Vol. 3, Nos. 1/2, 2004

95

Stakeholder perceptions towards agricultural biotechnology in Mexico Philipp Aerni Center for Comparative and International Studies, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), SEI, F6, ETH-Zentrum, CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland Fax: +41 1 632 19 46 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: National debates on the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology are strongly framed by a country’s particular cultural, historical and environmental circumstances, as well as political and economic interests. The following study uses the case of Mexico to investigate stakeholder attitudes in the public debate on agricultural biotechnology in developing countries. For this purpose, a perception survey with 52 stakeholder representatives was conducted in July 2000 in Mexico. The results indicate that the stakeholders in Mexico generally expect agriculture to benefit from agricultural biotechnology and do not believe that the consumption of genetically modified foods will have a serious impact on human health. In turn, they are very concerned about the potential impact of transgenic crops on Mexico’s rich biodiversity and are afraid that biosafety guidelines will not be implemented properly. Within the public debate on agricultural biotechnology, academia is regarded as the most important and most trustworthy domestic stakeholder. Its intellectual leadership may be of crucial importance to bring supporters and opponents closer together and elaborate a joint public consensus. Keywords: Mexico; public trust.

agricultural

biotechnology;

stakeholder

attitudes;

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Aerni, P. (2004) ‘Stakeholder perceptions towards agricultural biotechnology in Mexico’, Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Vol. 3, Nos. 1/2, pp.95–115. Biographical notes: Philipp Aerni is a Senior Researcher at the Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS) and at the Institute of Agricultural Economics (IAW) at ETH in Zurich, Switzerland. Prior to his positions at ETH, he did his post-doctoral research at the Center for International Development (CID) at Harvard University. He conducted field research on stakeholder attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology in the Philippines, Mexico and South Africa.

1

Introduction

The investigation of public perception towards agricultural biotechnology has been thoroughly investigated in industrialised countries [1,2]. Yet, hardly any perception surveys were conducted in developing countries. The lack of knowledge about perceptions in developing countries makes it a ground for speculative debates that often Copyright © 2004 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

96

P. Aerni

lead to serious distortions in the perception of Westerners of how people in developing countries perceive the risks and benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture. More information about public perceptions in developing countries may therefore help to improve understanding regarding the people’s interests and concerns related to the use of genetically modified organisms in these countries. The investigation of public perceptions in a developing country may, however, face serious constraints. A representative countrywide survey on public perception of agricultural biotechnology, as it is annually conducted in many industrialised countries [2], would be costly and the results would probably only show how unfamiliar most people are as regards the advent of this new technology. It is therefore more useful to focus attention on the attitudes of political stakeholders who participate in the public debate on agricultural biotechnology [3,4]. These political stakeholders are assumed to be more or less informed about the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology and have a significant influence on the formation of public opinion. A stakeholder perception analysis explains how perceptions, interests and scientific knowledge shape political decisions in these countries and, as a consequence, give some insights into the potential long-term impact of the national public debate on political strategies and legislation. Perceptions, interests and scientific knowledge contribute to the construction of a commonly shared truth about the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology in a certain society. Because of the complexity of the matter, trust often compensates on a social level for communication deficiencies on a cognitive level [5]. In this context, the public tends to believe in the information given by those stakeholders who are perceived to be trustworthy [6]. A survey conducted in 1980s in the USA by Lipset and Schneider [7] revealed that the public tends to trust those political stakeholders that are not considered to be driven by exclusive self-interest. Since not only the members of the business community, but also government officials and politicians in developing countries are suspected of being merely driven by immediate self-interest, the public tends to trust the institutions that are not directly affiliated with business or government such as the church, public interest groups and academia. The question then is, why are there public interest groups and intellectuals in developing countries who oppose the introduction of modern agricultural biotechnology? After all, these countries should have a strong desire to get access to this technology, which might eventually help increase productivity in agriculture, relieve pressure on natural resources and stimulate economic growth. One reason for these sceptical attitudes is that the past experience with the use of Western technology in agriculture may be perceived ambiguous in many developing countries. This is to some extent understandable, considering the often incoherent policies of Western countries in their efforts to promote agricultural modernisation in developing countries for the past five decades [8]. While international development assistance initially promoted technology transfer and provided financial resources for international agricultural research, it may not have done enough to encourage the sustainable and equitable use of technology in developing countries. Moreover, foreign trade policy in industrialised countries often worked against their overseas development assistance policy: on the one hand, technology was promoted to increase agricultural productivity in developing countries, and on the other hand the resulting growing agricultural exports of these countries were not welcome and curbed by trade barriers. In the 1990s, the situation became even more deplorable for developing countries since

Stakeholder perceptions towards agricultural biotechnology in Mexico

97

many Western countries also cut financial support for public technology transfer and international agricultural research significantly and believed this task can be better performed by the private sector [9]. The increasing frustration with the shrinking Western development assistance and the association of technology with corporate interests fuelled a defensive form of nationalism in many developing countries that reject Western technology and advocates the exclusive use of home-grown technology as the only solution for agricultural problems and rural development [10]. However, Western technology and home-grown technology cannot and should not be separated from each other but an optimal combination must be found that serves the local circumstances most. The separation of the two, therefore, may serve the consistency of ideological constructs but not necessarily the users in developing countries. A clear indication that agricultural biotechnology is opposed for ideological reasons rather than its potential long-term effects on health and the environment can be seen in the case of Cuba. Agricultural biotechnology research is promoted by the Cuban government to ensure the country’s self-sufficiency and independence. This puzzles many Cuba-inspired ‘left-wing’ activists who believe anti-globalisation and anti-biotechnology attitudes to be part of the same package. As a consequence, Cuba does not face any significant international opposition in spite of being one of the leaders in agricultural biotechnology research in the developing world [11]. The absence of domestic opposition may not just be related to the rather undemocratic regime but shows that people in developing countries may accept a technology more when it is perceived to be home-grown rather than imported; as it is the case in Cuba. Therefore, public perception in developing countries is not just about being properly informed concerning the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology but has a lot to do with nationalist feelings and the perception of the intentions of the West and transnational corporations. It shows that risk is a social and cultural construction [12] and its meaning may differ significantly among developing societies with different political and economic circumstances and past experiences with the West. In this context, the following section will explain the situation in Mexico. The detailed explanation of the socioeconomic and ecological circumstances will be used later on to interpret the survey results.

2

The situation in Mexico

Mexico was chosen for this case study because of its closeness and strong ties with the USA and its political and economic importance in Latin America. The country also represents an interesting case considering its rich biodiversity, its cultural and historical background, its civil society movement and its ongoing public debate on agricultural biotechnology.

2.1 Historical and cultural context Mexico started to define its cultural and national identity in the 19th century after an independence war against the Spaniards and subsequent wars against the USA and France. The country was then mostly absorbed with itself facing authoritarian regimes and revolutions alternately until the end of the 1920s when the predecessor Party of the Partido Revolucionario Institutional (PRI) emerged and managed to create institutions

98

P. Aerni

that would endure for more than 70 years. Initially, the PRI was characterised by a strong secular nationalism. It undertook radical efforts to curb the political influence of the Catholic Church from within and of the USA from without the country. The Party also created an enormous social network that reached the most remote parts of the country. Gifts were often directly distributed to local communities in return for votes [13]. The PRI even organised the largest public interest groups such as unions, farmer organisations and consumer organisations and, thus, contributed to the formation of a strong corporativist state. However, over time, the PRI government gradually changed the system towards a more open and less dogmatic culture. It now remains to be seen to what extent the new party in power, the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) will or can further change this deeply entrenched political culture.

2.2 Economic and political context Mexico has a surface area of almost 2 million sq. km, a population of 100 million and a GDP of US$ 600 billion [14]. This makes it a giant in terms of political and economic weight in Latin America. Since the debt crisis in 1982, Mexico decided to follow the path of economic reforms and its accession to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 signalled the seal of a continuous commitment to market liberalisation. Under NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the USA and Mexico are eliminated. In 2001, overall trade between Mexico and the USA rose from US$85 billion in 1993 to US$215 billion in 1999 [15]. This makes Mexico America’s second largest trading partner after Canada. To avert a total dependence on the US economy, Mexico also started to sign other free trade agreements with several other countries and the European Union. Mexico’s accession to NAFTA made it also a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This gives the country de facto the status of an industrialised country. Nevertheless, it still shows all the typical socio-economic characteristics of a developing country. The socio-economic inequality in the country, particularly between the poor south and the rich north, was one of the major reasons for the upheaval of the Zapatista movement in 1994 and continues to be a matter of political tension [13].

2.3 Agriculture and biodiversity For the past two decades, Mexico’s agricultural policy shifted gradually from a centralised system of price and input subsidies to a decentralised system of direct payments focused on resource-poor farmers. The reduction of state support for commercial farmers and the opening of the agricultural sector to international competition caused a significant structural change in Mexican agriculture [15]. While the country managed to increase its exports of non-traditional agricultural crops such as vegetables and fruits to the USA, its share of US maize imports is constantly increasing (even though the domestic maize production is growing too) [16].


99

2.4 Biosafety Maize is Mexico’s basic food crop and of great importance to the country’s cultural heritage and biological diversity considering that Mexico is the centre of origin and domestication of maize. Maize is an open-pollinated crop that has the potential to outcross with wild varieties. Biosafety concerns led therefore to the stop of field trials with transgenic pest-resistant Bt maize in Mexico already in 1999 [17]. Apart from maize, Mexico also has a high genetic variation of other food crops domesticated and improved by Mexican peasants for centuries and it holds the fourth place worldwide in diversity of plant species (with 25,000 species registered out of the 250,000 worldwide) [17]. The Mexican government has a strong interest in the conservation and sustainable use of these valuable natural assets. For this purpose, Mexico has designed a biosafety regulatory framework for transgenic plants that is based on different norms, provisions and laws related to agriculture, health and the environment [18]. However, due the growing environmental concerns regarding the illegal growing of transgenic corn, the Mexican government (on the request of the ministry of environment) took the bold step to modify the federal penal code in order to make it a crime to import unapproved GMOs. The intersecretarial commission on biosafety and genetically modified organisms (CIBIOGEM), which exists since November 1999, is in charge of coordinating the regulatory procedures regarding genetically modified products with the different government departments. A scientific consultative council on biosafety is supporting the commission in its evaluation of transgenic products submitted for the approval of laboratory tests, field tests, pilot projects and commercial cultivation in Mexico [16]. Transgenic ‘Flavr Savr’ tomato with delayed ripening is hitherto the only crop approved for commercial production. Bt cotton and herbicide resistant soybean are allowed for restricted commercial use [16].

2.5 Agricultural biotechnology research in Mexico Agricultural biotechnology research in Mexico is conducted at national research institutes such as CINVESTAV in Irapuato (Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional), INIFAP (Institutos Nacionales de Investigaciones Forestales, Agricolas y Pecuarias) and national universities. Most of these research centres are also collaborating with the Mexico-based International Center for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT). However, Mexico’s share of public R&D expenditure to the Gross Domestic Product is one of the lowest in OECD countries [19] and university–industry interactions are hardly developed, which is a reason why Mexico ranks at the bottom of the OECD country list on the number of biotechnology patents granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office throughout the nineties [20]. Even though Mexico is home of the agro-industrial giant Savia, which is a world leader in the development, production and marketing of seeds for fruits and vegetables, there is no significant research partnership between this Mexican multinational corporation and national universities [21].

100

P. Aerni

2.6 Opposition to agricultural biotechnology The anti-biotechnology movement, led by Greenpeace and its local affiliates, is mainly concerned about liberalised agricultural trade within NAFTA, which renders the importation of transgenic food from the USA unavoidable [16]. Their protest activities focus on the discovery of genetically modified maize in Mexican food stores and the ecological threat of transgenic maize to its wild relatives in Mexico. Anti-biotechnology movements are often a part of the larger anti-globalisation movement and are therefore able to mobilise large parts of a country’s civil society movement. However, in Mexico, the critics of agricultural biotechnology did not really manage to hook up with the larger civil society movement of the country.

3

The survey

The survey on stakeholder perceptions to agricultural biotechnology in Mexico was conducted in July 2000 in cooperation with the local partners at the Metropolitan Autonomous University (UAM) and the financial support of the Swiss National Science Foundation. The first step in the survey was to select the political actors who represent the different stakeholders that were considered to be relevant in the public debate. These stakeholder representatives were selected with the help of key informants familiar with the debate and the stakeholders involved. The selected stakeholder representatives who accepted to participate were asked to complete a questionnaire, which was semi-standardised for the survey. The first part of this questionnaire was about their perception of the problems in agriculture and the potential of genetic engineering for solving these problems. The second part contained positively and negatively worded statements regarding the potential risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology. The third part was about trust in institutions. Finally, the fourth part consisted of a policy network table of the 72 organisations considered to be relevant in the public biotechnology debate. These organisations had to be rated by the respondents regarding their influence on political decision making, public opinion and the public debate. Altogether, 52 respondents filled in the questionnaire representing 41 different organisations. The response rate was 73%. Respondents were assured that their views would be kept strictly confidential and would not have to represent the view or the interests of their respective institution. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the respondents according to their institutional affiliation. Figure 1

Participants in the survey and their institutional affiliation


101

The group ‘government’ consisted of government officials from departments and agencies that were concerned with agriculture, environment, health and trade. The group ‘NGOs’ covered representatives from national and international environmental NGOs, rural development foundations, farmer organisations, consumer organisations and the Catholic Church. The group ‘Academia’ comprised professors from the fields of sociology, ecology, agriculture and biotechnology; and the ‘Business’ group respondents represented the seed, agrochemical, biotechnology and food industry as well as restaurant chains. Apart from these major institutional groups, smaller respondent groups represented the different political parties in the legislative bodies (Legislature), the big dailies of the national Press, scientists from CIMMYT and two managers from international donor agencies (Int’l. Org.). The invited representatives who refused to participate in the surveys were evenly distributed over the different institutional groups and did not produce any significant bias towards business, academia, government or NGOs.

4

Results of the survey

4.1 Descriptive analysis The descriptive analysis portrays the overall views of the respondents. Mean value, standard deviation and number of response rates are used as the main tools in this analysis. In the first part of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to assess the importance of 20 problems in domestic agriculture and the potential of genetic engineering for solving them in a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 meant the problem is ‘not important at all’, therefore, genetic engineering has ‘no potential at all’ to solve the problem, whereas 5 meant ‘very important problem’, respectively ‘very high potential’ of genetic engineering for solving the problem. Figure 2 portrays the average values given by the Mexican respondents to the importance of the problems and the potential of genetic engineering for solving them. Figure 2

The importance of the problems in Mexican agriculture and the potential of genetic engineering for solving them

102

P. Aerni

The Y axis represents the rating scale from 1 to 5, while the X axis lists the problems beginning with the one that is on average perceived to be most important and ending with the one that is considered to be least important. In general, the problems related to policy, infrastructure and marketing (Market, Agricultural Policy [A-Policy], Extension, Macroeconomic policy [M-Policy], Irrigation) are perceived to be very important and the potential of genetic engineering to address these problems is considered to be low. Yet, drought is seen as the most important problem and genetic engineering is considered to have a considerable potential for solving it. Genetic engineering is also believed to make a significant contribution to the solution of other important problems such as post-harvest losses (Postharv), pest infestation (Pests), plant disease (Disease), high use of pesticides (Pesticides) and fluctuating yield (Yield). Moreover, it is expected to make a contribution to improve poor eating Quality, though this problem is not considered to be important. In turn, high input costs (Input costs) are considered to be a serious problem and genetically modified crops are not perceived to be helpful to reduce these costs. This indicates that the respondents expect the potential decrease in the costs for pesticides (in the case of pest-resistant crops) to be offset by more expensive seeds, which would include royalty fees for the patented product. The importance that is attributed to the lack of R&D as a problem in agriculture indicates the strong interest to increase investment in agricultural research and development, which comprises methods of integrated pest management, tissue culture and genetic engineering. The last section in part 1 of the questionnaire was about the potential economic impact of several different transgenic products on resource-poor farmers in Mexico. The respondents had to evaluate the impact of these crops in the scale from 1 (very negative), to 3 (neutral), to 5 (very positive). Figure 3 shows how the respondents evaluated the different crops, which are either quite known in Mexico or already used to a limited extent. The Y-axis on the left shows the rating scale, while the Y-axis on the right shows the number of respondent that evaluated each of these products. Figure 3

The assessed impact of different transgenic products for resource-poor farmers in developing countries


103

The figure indicates that, on average, the respondents do not believe that any of these products would be economically harmful to resource-poor farmers, since no product was rated on average below three. Vitamin A rice (higher vitamin A content), developed at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines and virus resistant potato developed at the public research institute CINVESTAV-Irapuato in Mexico (with technology donated by Monsanto) are expected to have the most positive impact on resource-poor farmers. Though the impact of transgenic vaccines for cattle to prevent disease is generally seen as very positive, fewer respondents seem to be familiar with the development of this product (46 out of 52 respondents assessed this product). Bt cotton gets overall a very positive assessment. Its cultivation in the North of Mexico helped the farmers to use less pesticide and to make more profits [22]. The impact of the Flavr Savr tomato with delayed maturity is seen as moderately positive because of the expected decrease in post-harvest losses due to the lack of storage facilities. Pest-resistant Bt maize, however, is mainly associated with agricultural imports from the USA and therefore its impact for resource-poor farmers is regarded as more controversial. The same applies even more to herbicide resistant soybean and rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin), the growth hormone that increases milk production, which has been in use in Mexico for more than a decade [23]. Both are Monsanto products. Mexico adopted rBST early due to its high dependence on milk powder imports. Yet, many participants in the survey do not seem to be very familiar with this product and generally do not think it has a very positive impact on resource-poor farmers. The second part of the questionnaire consisted of 7 positively worded (+) and 7 negatively worded (–) statements regarding the risks and benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture (the exact statements are found in Appendix 1). The purpose of listing statements with alternating attitudes was to avoid a perceived framing bias that may induce some respondents to refuse to participate in the survey. The respondents had to indicate to what extent they agree or disagree with each of these statements again in a scale from 1 to 5. Figure 4 shows how the different statements were on average evaluated by the respondents of the survey. The statements are in ranking order starting with the one that was most approved (on the left) and ending with the one that was most disapproved (on the right). Figure 4

Evaluation of the statements regarding agricultural biotechnology

104

P. Aerni

The statement with the highest approval rate was that stress-tolerant varieties (stress-tolerance +) might benefit farmers in marginal regions in particular. This assessment is consistent with the importance respondents attributed to the problem of drought in Mexican agriculture in part 1 and the significant potential they saw in genetic engineering for solving this problem. In turn, most respondents agree to the critical statements that the implementation of the existing biosafety guidelines is not ensured (implementation –), that the risk of Bt maize to outcross with indigenous varietes poses a threat to biodiversity (environmental risk –), that domestic market problems will prevent marginal farmers from benefiting from transgenic crops (market problems –) and that genetic engineering raises serious ethical concerns (ethical problems –). At the same time, they were supportive of the positive statements that genetic engineering is just a new tool that helps to solve problems that cannot be solved with conventional plant breeding (just a new tool +), that transgenic food will eventually be accepted because it promises benefits for consumers (food acceptance +), that transgenic maize will contribute to future food security in Latin America (food security +) and that the new approach to insert the gene into the chloroplast instead of the cell (cholorplast +) will reduce the risk of gene transfer. However, the low response rate of the latter indicated that only very few respondents are familiar with this new approach in technical risk reduction (that has yet to prove its effectiveness). An interesting observation is that respondents seem to be undecided regarding the statements that organic farming is a better strategy for resource-poor farmers (organic farming –) and that the potential of pests to overcome the built-in resistance of Bt crops would question the sustainability of genetic engineering in agriculture (sustainability –). This stands in strong contrast to other stakeholder perception surveys conducted in the Philippines and South Africa [9,24]. Finally, they clearly doubt that the risks of transgenic crops are comparable to the ones of conventional agriculture (not higher risks +) and they are not happy with the existing regulation on biosafety (regulation +), yet, they strongly disagree with the statement that transgenic virus resistant potato poses a serious health risk for consumers (health risks –). Part 3 of the questionnaire was about public trust in institutions. Respondents had to rate the different institutional groups with regard to the question ‘To what extent do the following stakeholders have the confidence of the public?’ The listed stakeholders had to be rated once again in a scale from 1 to 5. Figure 5 shows how the respondents evaluated these stakeholders regarding their perceived trustworthiness in public. Surprisingly CIMMYT, as a foreign stakeholder, is perceived to be the most trustworthy among the participants of the survey. Yet, the number of respondents who actually rated CIMMYT (see Y-axis on the right side) is comparatively low, namely 44 out of 52. This somehow indicates that CIMMYT is not regarded as a very important political stakeholder in Mexico. Academia turns out to be the most trusted domestic stakeholder followed by public interest groups such as consumer, non-governmental and producer organisations and the church. The high public confidence respondents attribute to academia may find an explanation in the fact that it is still seen as largely independent from industry interests.

Stakeholder perceptions towards agricultural biotechnology in Mexico Figure 5

105

Assessment of public trust in different institutions

Those who seem to have lowest confidence are the government, Congress and the unions. This is not surprising if we consider that the survey was conducted in July 2000 when the powerful PRI lost the elections for the first time but was still in power. There was a general fatigue with the old Party and its powerful grip on the government and the Congress and its perceived pandering to the unions. Distrust against the government may have benefited the favourable perception towards CIMMYT as a trustworthy foreign institution, since the relationship between CIMMYT and the Mexican government has never been harmonious. It also shows that Mexico is not dominated by the previously mentioned defensive nationalism that often induces the public to generally distrust foreign stakeholders.

4.2 Perception patterns This part of the analysis aims at the identification of perception patterns among the various political actors involved in the debates on agricultural biotechnology in Mexico. For this purpose, a cluster analysis was conducted with the data from parts 1 and 2 of the questionnaire. The pre-structured answers and statements in these parts were grouped into variables based on the criteria of problem or statement similarity. Briefly, the following seven new variables were created: 1

POTENA: the assessed potential of genetic engineering for solving agronomic problems (pest infestation, plant disease, high use of pesticides)

2

POTENM: the assessed potential of genetic engineering for solving marketing and infrastructure problems (bad market conditions, lack of irrigation/transport/extension services, post-harvest losses)

3

POTENN: the assessed potential of genetic engineering for solving problems related to natural stress exposure (drought, flood)

106

P. Aerni

4

POTENR: the assessed potential of genetic engineering for solving the residual long-term problems (high input costs, low soil fertility fluctuating yield, soil erosion, land distribution, agricultural policy)

5

POTECON: the assessed economic impact of six different genetically engineered food products for resource-poor farmers

6

POSITIVE: assessment of the positively worded statements regarding the risks and benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture

7

NEGATIVE: assessment of the negatively worded statements regarding the risks and benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture.

These variables were then used to perform three different cluster algorithms (WARD, TWOSTAGE and FASTCLUS). The respondents were allocated according to their institutional membership. Thus, the following seven institutional groups were formed: A: Academia

G: Government (Departments and Agencies)

B: Business

L: Legislature

M: Press

N: Environmental NGOs, farmer and

I: International organisations consumer groups, churches. Table 1 shows the three perception groups obtained by the WARD clustering procedure, which yielded the most useful results. Table 1

Perception patterns represented in form of clusters (two values missing)

Mexico

A

B

M

I

G

L

N

Total

Cluster 1

3

0

1

0

3

1

7

15

Cluster 2

4

5

0

3

8

2

2

24

Cluster 3

1

2

2

2

2

0

2

11

Total

8

7

3

5

13

3

11

50

In order to interpret the perception of the respondents in each cluster and to identify the perception of each participant of the survey (in addition to the aggregated results in the descriptive analysis), a statistical tool called Biplot was applied. The Biplot is a visualisation technique of the principal component analysis and provides a two-dimensional, unclustered picture of the variables (as vectors) and the observations/respondents (as letters) [25]. In this context, the length of a vector represents the ‘Eigenvalue’ of the variable, while the angle between the vectors represents the correlation between them. The perception of each single participant can be identified by its location and distance to the different vector variables. Figure 6 portrays the Biplot of the individual and cluster perception toward agricultural biotechnology in Mexico. The grouping of the participants obtained by the cluster analysis is marked off by the circles added.

Stakeholder perceptions towards agricultural biotechnology in Mexico Figure 6

107

Biplot of the perceptions of agricultural biotechnology

At first sight, the Biplot shows a rather diffuse picture. Clusters 2 and 3 seem to be particularly interwoven. Yet, according to the Mahalanobis Distance Test, there is still a significant statistical difference between these two clusters. The probability greater than the Mahalanobis Distance gives a significant difference of squared distances between two clusters. The pairwise comparison (Cluster 1 vs. 2, Cluster 1 vs. 3, Cluster 2 vs. 3) shows significant probabilities (< 0.0001), which indicates that the squared distances between clusters are different from each other (which makes a good separation of the groups). Cluster 1 represents the perception group in Mexico, which can most clearly be separated from the remaining respondents. The 15 respondents in this group represent many different NGOs and farmer organisations (N), consumer organisations (CO) and international NGOs (IN), but also some academic (A) and government institutions (G). The three government respondents in this group represent agencies concerned with biosafety and the environment. The respondent from the Legislature (L) represents the green party of Mexico (Partido Verde Ecologista) while the international NGO (IN) is a Greenpeace representative. The group tends to agree with most of the negative statements and disagree with most of the positive statements and it does not see any significant potential for genetic engineering to solve the various problems in Mexican agriculture. In general, environmental NGOs in this group seem to have a very negative attitude, whereas the remaining representatives seem to have a moderately critical attitude. Cluster 2, with 24 respondents the largest of the three perception groups, appears to have a more balanced view that tends toward a more positive attitude on agricultural biotechnology. This group consists mainly of policy decision-makers (G, L), scientists from academia (A) and CIMMYT, representatives of international donor agencies (I) and business (B) and one representative from the Catholic Church (CH). Their perception

108

P. Aerni

ranges from a very favourable to a slightly sceptical attitude. The group generally perceives biotechnology to have a certain potential to solve a wide range of problems in agriculture (POTEN-M, -R, -N, -A) and as having a relatively positive economic impact on resource-poor farmers (POTECON). Cluster 3 consists of only 11 respondents representing almost all the different stakeholder categories. These respondents have in common that they perceive biotechnology to have a very high potential for solving all the different problem categories in Mexican agriculture. The representatives from the Mass Media (M), which mainly represent national dailies, are found in the critical cluster 1 as well as in the enthusiastic cluster 3, but not in the moderate cluster 2. Yet, they have in common a scepticism towards the economic impact of the different transgenic crops on resource-poor farmers (POTECON). Representatives from academia and government are found in all three clusters. This indicates that, depending on the academic discipline, respectively, the assignment of the government agency, opinions and interests can diverge significantly within these institutions. Nevertheless, they all tend to be concentrated in the centre of the perception spectrum. This observation applies not just to government and academic representatives but most participants in the Mexican survey. Extreme opinions in the periphery of the perception spectrum are more scattered.

4.3 Stakeholder influence and cooperation A stakeholder-based approach to analyse public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology also involves an evaluation of the stakeholders’ political influence. The data necessary for this evaluation was obtained through part 4 of the questionnaire, which contained a table with a list of 72 organisations perceived to be involved in the public debate on agricultural biotechnology. The organisations were selected in cooperation with the local partners. Most of these organisations were represented by at least one respondent in the survey. Respondents were asked to answer questions with respect to each of the organisations listed. The possible pre-structured answers were labelled as numbers, which then had to be inserted into the respective cell in the table. The first question was: Do you know this stakeholder? The respondent had to answer the question by inserting a 0 (No) or a 1 (Yes) into the respective cell of the column, which was designed for the answer of the question and the row of the respective organisation in the table. The answer to this question was combined with the answer given to a subsequent question of whether the respondent associates any personality with the respective stakeholder. This question reveals more about the institutional affiliation of the personalities who are best known in the public debate. Figure 7 shows the average frequency with which the various organisations and personalities within their respective institutional groups were mentioned in the table of the questionnaire. The calculation of the average number of references was performed by adding the number of references for each organisation and personality within an institutional group and dividing it subsequently by the number of organisations, respectively the number of mentioned personalities, within the institutional group. Following these generalisations, respondents seem to be very familiar with the names of organisations representing government, the legislature, international organisations and academia; whereas the names of organisations that represent the public interest groups such as non-governmental organisations, unions, artists and consumer organisations seem


109

to be less known. As regards the frequency of personalities mentioned, academia seems to have the highest density of known personalities in the debate followed by government (Gov. Dep., Gov. Agency) and the Legislature. It is particularly surprising that the names of international non-governmental organisations and its personalities appear to be better known than the national ones. This shows the important influence of Greenpeace activists in the Mexican debate on agricultural biotechnology. Figure 7

Best known organisations and personalities

The second question for the respondents was: How do you perceive the influence of each organisation on political decision making processes, public opinion, the debate on genetic engineering in agriculture and the debate on genetic engineering in general? Figure 8 shows how the respondents evaluated each other with respect to influence on political decisions and the formation of public opinion. Figure 8

Assessed influence on public opinion and political decision making processes

110

P. Aerni

Results show that the Catholic Church is considered to be the most influential actor as regards influence on public opinion, followed by the mass media and unions. As for the influence on political decision making processes, the picture looks reversed: The unions are considered to be politically more important while the mass media and in particular the Church have a lower position (the political influence of the unions is perceived to be great mainly for their historical role as an affiliate of the PRI). While international NGOs (e.g. Greenpeace) appear to have a significant influence on public opinion, national NGOs and farmer organisations seem to be influential with regard to public opinion and policy decision making. The influence of academia does not seem to be relevant for public opinion, nor political decision making processes. In contrast, academia seems to play a crucial role in the public debates on genetic engineering in agriculture and the debate on genetic engineering in general (see Figure 9). This indicates that its influence on public opinion and political decision making processes appears to be less than it actually is, considering the priorities respondents had to set in the evaluation of stakeholder influence. Figure 9

Assessed influence on the public debates

Other important stakeholders in these two public debates are public interest groups such as NGOs, farmer organisations and consumer organisations, as well as business and international organisations. The mass media, government and the legislature, which are considered to be influential regarding public opinion and political decision making, are not considered to be very much involved in the biotech debates. This may be explained again by the priorities respondents had to set in evaluating the stakeholders, but it also reflects a certain domination of the public debate by academia, public interest and business groups. The position of the Church indicates that though it does not seem to play a role in the debate on agricultural biotechnology, it is considered to be a very important stakeholder in the general debate which includes biotechnology in medicine.


5

111

Discussion

The survey sheds some light on the prevailing perceptions of the stakeholder representatives involved in the public debate on agricultural biotechnology in Mexico in July 2000 and also points out the differing perceptions, interests and the political influence of the various stakeholders. In general, the participants in the survey believe biotechnology has the potential to solve agricultural, environmental and nutritional problems in Mexico. Drought, for example, is considered to be the most important problem in Mexican agriculture and biotechnology is considered to have the potential for solving it. Other problems where biotechnology is considered to have a potential to contribute to a solution are post-harvest losses, pest infestation, plant diseases, low soil fertility, fluctuating yields and poor eating quality. Most respondents however do not think that agricultural biotechnology will help reduce input costs for farmers. An eventual decrease in input costs due to a lower use of pesticides (in the case of pest-resistant crops) is probably expected to be offset by more expensive seed due to the payment of royalty fees. There are also problems related to marketing, infrastructure and policy that are considered to be very important and biotechnology is not expected to be able to address these problems. The potential impact of different transgenic products such as vitamin A rice, virus-resistant potato and pest-resistant Bt cotton on resource-poor farmers is seen by almost all respondents as quite positive. The impact of pest-resistant Bt maize, herbicide-resistant soybean and rBST milk is discussed more controversially for its perceived link to big business and, in the case of Bt maize, also for its potential impact on Mexican biological diversity. The concern about biological diversity is confirmed in the respondents’ strong agreement with the statement that biological diversity will be negatively affected by spontaneous crosses of Bt maize and its wild relatives. This may be an important reason why most respondents have also expressed their dissatisfaction with the current regulatory system of genetically modified organisms in Mexico and doubt its proper implementation. Maize has its centre of origin and domestication in Mexico and is an open-pollinated plant that makes gene transfer to wild relatives more likely. This indicates the cultural, historical and environmental importance of this crop in Mexico and explains the sceptical attitudes towards the potential environmental impact of transgenic maize. The opposition to agricultural biotechnology takes advantage of the Mexicans’ emotional attachment to maize and their subliminal resentment towards the USA. It concentrates its action in the mass media almost entirely on the protest against the increasing imports of transgenic maize from the USA as food and feed and the risk that illegally cultivated transgenic maize would outcross with wild relatives. In turn, respondents generally consider genetic engineering to have the potential to eventually reduce the high use of pesticides and thus have a positive impact on the environment. Moreover, they do not consider the potential health risks of transgenic food to be serious and expect transgenic maize to make a contribution to future food security in Latin America. Respondents remain undecided of whether organic farming would be a better solution for resource-poor farmers to ensure their own food security. This may be an indication that organic farming in Mexico is probably not as much attached to the opposition

112

P. Aerni

movement against agricultural biotechnology as is the case in developed and other developing countries (Aerni a&b) [9,24]. In fact, though organic farming is practiced in many areas throughout Mexico, it has not turned into an organised political movement. Instead, Greenpeace, as the leader of the opposition movement to agricultural biotechnology in Mexico, gets its local allies mostly from traditional anti-globalisation groups. The anti-globalisation arguments and the anti-biotechnology arguments find their common denominator in NAFTA with Canada and USA. There is a concern that US corporations see Mexico just as a market and a production site for their own commercial products, which are out of reach for resource-poor farmers and do not contribute to Mexico’s know-how in agricultural biotechnology research. However, unlike the big Mexican multinational agribusiness company Savia, Monsanto seems to be more willing to donate technology and engage in public–private research partnerships in Mexico. The cooperation of Monsanto with CINVESTAV in Irapuato to develop virus resistant sweet potato is expected to have a positive impact on resource-poor farmers in Mexico according to the participants of the survey. The cluster analysis of the survey data revealed three different perception groups. The first group consists of representatives from NGOs, other public interest groups as well as a few academics and government officials. They have in common a critical attitude towards agricultural biotechnology. The second group is the largest and contains, above all, respondents from academia, government, business and international organisations. Their perception ranges from very favourable to slightly critical. The third group is strongly in favour of genetic engineering and expects it to have a great potential for solving a wide range of problems in agriculture. This group is rather small and is represented by respondents from almost all the different institutions. The diversity of institutions represented in each group means that particular perceptions cannot simply be attributed to the institutional affiliation. It also makes it difficult to give each group a certain political weight. The majority of the respondents tend to be concentrated in the centre of the scale of perceptions, while those who have an extreme view are more scattered at the fringes. This indicates that the polarisation in the public debate on agricultural biotechnology does not seem to be extremely strong yet. This may be related to the political culture of Mexico’s corporativist system which tends to include all the different stakeholders in one way or another into the political decision-making process. The analysis of stakeholder influences showed that government, the legislature and unions are seen as the most influential actors in political decision making processes and the Church, the mass media and public interest groups seem to be most influential in terms of public opinion. Interestingly, international NGOs and their activists appear to be better known and more influential on public opinion than their national counterparts. This somehow underscores the importance of Greenpeace in the public debate. Mexican stakeholders seem to have no qualms about the presence of foreign stakeholders in the national debate. The fact that the CIMMYT, the international centre for the improvement of maize and wheat, is perceived to be the most trustworthy stakeholder in spite of being a foreign institution shows that the defensive nationalism, often found in other developing countries, is not present in Mexico to the same extent. Though the direct influence of academia on public opinion and political decision making processes is perceived to be rather low, it is considered to be central in the debate on agricultural biotechnology. Its representatives are seen as the best known personalities


113

in the debate and academia is considered to be most trustworthy among the domestic stakeholders. The perceived high esteem for scientists in academia and international organisations is a sign that researchers in public research institutions are still seen as being detached from immediate short-term interests. If Mexico wants to prevent an unproductive polarisation in the public debate, it needs to take care of this positive image of academia. Though the role of academia as an economic innovator is still minor in Mexico [26] and more cooperation with industry should be encouraged, academia also needs to take care of its perception as an autonomous stakeholder in order to remain a trustworthy mediator in the public debate on agricultural biotechnology.

Acknowledgements This work was made possible by the funding of the Swiss National Science Foundation and the academic support of Calestous Juma from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. The author also would like to thank Michelle Chauvet, Hilda Hernandez and Julia Vergara at the Departmento de Sociología, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana en Azcapotzalco (UAM-A) in Mexico for their very valuable local support and Florabelle Gagalac for her great support during the statistical data analysis.

References 1

2

3

4 5 6 7 8

9

Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D. and Lee, E. (2001) ‘Trends: attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms’, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp.267–281. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., Boy, D., de Cheveigne, S., Fjaestad, B., Gutteling, J.M., Hampel, J., Jelsoe, E., Jesuino, J.C., Kohring, M., Kronberger, N., Midden, C., Nielsen, T.H., Przestalski, A., Rusanen, T., Sakellaris, G., Torgersen, H., Twardowski, T. and Wagner, W. (2000) ‘Biotechnology and the European public’, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 18, No. 9, pp.935–938. Aerni, P., Anwander Phan-huy, S. and Rieder, P. (2000) ‘Public acceptance of transgenic rice in the Philippines’, Journal for Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.99–118. Laumann, E.O. and Knoke, D. (1987) The Organizational State Social Choice in National Policy Domains, Madison, The University of Wisconsin Press. Luhmann, N. (1979) Trust and Power, John Wiley & Sons, New York: Renn, O. and Rohrmann, B. (2000) Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies, Dodrecht, Kluwer. Lipset, S.M. and Schneider, W. (1983) The Confidence Gap: Business, Labor and Government in the Public Mind, The Free Press, New York. Anderson, R.S., Levy, E. and Morisson, B.M. (1991) Rice Science and Development Politics. Research Strategies and IRRI’s Technologies Confront Asian Diversity (1950–1980), Clarendon Press, Oxford. Aerni, P. (2002) ‘Stakeholder attitudes towards the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: a comparison between Mexico and the Philippines’, Risk Analysis, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.1123–1137.

114 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21

22

23 24

25 26

P. Aerni Aerni, P. (1999) Public Acceptance of Transgenic Rice and its Potential Impact on Rice Markets in Southeast Asian Countries, PhD Dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich. Lehmann, V. (2000) ‘Cuban agrobiotechnology: diverse agenda in times of limited food production’, Biotechnology and Development Monitor, Vol. 42, pp.18–21. Johnson, B.B. and Covello, V.T. (1987) The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk, Dodrecht, Reidel. Krauze, E. (1997) Mexico. A Biography of Power, Harper Perennial, New York. INEGI, Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informatica (2000) About Mexico, Available from: http://www.inegi.gob.mx/difusion/ingles/acercamexico/fiacermex.html Diaz, M. (2001) Mexico: Free Trade Agreements Anyone? Washington D.C., United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, Available from: http://www.usmcoc.org/n1.html Fritscher Mundt, M. (1999) ‘El maíz en México. Auge y crisis en los noventa’, Cuadernos Agrarios, nueva época, Vol. 17–19, pp.142–163. SAGAR, Secretaria de Agricultura y Ganadería (2000) México, Producción Agrícola, Principales Cultivos (1993–1999), SAGAR, México. Chauvet, M., Massieu, Y. and Gonzalez, R.L. (2001) ‘Transgenic crops in Mexico’, Conference Paper at the International Consortium for Agricultural Biotechnology Research (ICBAR), Ravello (Italy). INEGI, Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informatica (2000) Main Types of Vegetation, Available from: http://www.inegi.gob.mx/territorio/ingles/fiterritorio.html Hernandez, H. (1999) Marco Legislativo de Bioseguridad en Mexico, Mexico, Universidad Nacional Autonóma de México (UNAM), Instituto de Ingeniería. Chauvet, M. (1999) ‘Perspectives for biotechnological applications in Mexican agriculture’, Review Article, AgBiotechNet, April, Vol. 1, ABN 013, Available from: http:// www.agbiotechnet.com/reviews/April99/Html/Chauvet.htm OECD, Organization for Co-operation and Economic Development (2000) Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, OECD, Paris, Available from: http://www1.oecd.org/ dsti/sti/s_t/index.htm Chauvet, M. and Ochoa, R.F. (1996) ‘An appraisal of the use of rBST in Mexico’, Biotechnology and Development Monitor, Vol. 27, pp.6, 7. Aerni, P. (2002) ‘Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology in South Africa’, Final Report, Cambridge, MA, Center for International Development, Harvard University, http://www.iaw.agrl.ethz.ch/~aernip/ Gabriel, K.R. (1981) ‘Biplot display of multivariate matrices for inspection of data and diagnosis’, in Barnett, V. (Ed.): Interpreting Multivariate Data, John Wiley & Sons, London. Viniegra, G. (2001) ‘Biotecnología agrícola en México’, Paper Presented at the Workshop on Public Attitudes Towards Agricultural Biotechnology in Mexico, 16 July, Mexico, Rectoría, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM) – Iztapalapa.


115

Appendix statements in part 2 Label

Statement

Not higher risk for farmers

Genetically engineered varieties do not present higher risks for farmers than conventionally bred varieties

Health risk is serious

Transgenic Potato poses a health risk for consumers

Food supply in Asia

Transgenic maize could help to ensure future food security in Latin America

Sustainability

The potential of stem borers to overcome the built-in resistance of Bt maize questions the sustainability of genetic engineering

Stress tolerance

Varieties with tolerance towards natural stresses such as drought will offer benefits particularly to farmers in marginal regions

Organic farming

Organic Agriculture is a better strategy for enabling resource-poor farmers to ensure their own food supply

Just a new tool

Genetic engineering in agriculture is a new tool that enables breeders to solve problems that currently cannot be solved by traditional breeding methods

Market inefficiencies

Because of an inefficient marketing system, farmers in marginal areas won't benefit from transgenic crops

Ethical problem

Genetic engineering represents a serious ethical problem

Chloroplast

Spontaneous outcrossing of transgenic varieties could be eliminated if the genetic information would be expressed in the chloroplast instead of the cell

Environmental risk

Spontaneous crossing between transgenic and local varieties will affect biodiversity

Regulation

The National Biosafety Guidelines are strict and consider all risks related to genetic engineering in Mexico

Implementation

The implementation of the Biosafety Guidelines is not well ensured