Negative perceptions of Monsanto and GM crops

It is reported that Monsanto first approached Burkina Faso with GM crop information in 2000 to address the burden of pesticide resistance on the nation’s cotton industry [7]. Field trials began in 2003 with a research agreement signed by Monsanto, Syngenta, and INERA. By 2007, Syngenta discontinued their involvement in the project, leaving Monsanto’s Bollgard GM cotton crop to dominate field trials [8].

Skepticism grew over the potential consequences of such extensive private sector influence on Burkina Faso’s cotton industry. One interviewee noted that negative perceptions of Monsanto arrived in Burkina Faso long before the introduction of Bt cotton. This negative perception permeated not only anti-GM communities but also the core partners themselves, who became highly suspicious of the motives and rationale for Monsanto’s involvement in an agricultural project in Burkina Faso.

Recognizing motives, abilities and risks

Clear articulation of motives and risks was mentioned as an important trust-building practice to alleviate concerns pertaining to the development of PPPs. One researcher noted that a make-or-break factor in the success of the partnership was the candid disclosure of institutional motives early on in the project’s development. In order for these national researchers to engage with new GM crops, any potential for risk had to be admitted in order for the partnership to proceed. It took various meetings for partners to feel comfortable with disclosing their institutional motivations, including the admission of profit-making motives. This practice improved transparency by opening channels of communication among partners, which helped alleviate suspicions and elevate levels of trust.

Collaboration is key

The interviews revealed that research in Burkina Faso is primarily funded not through grants from international organizations but through the sale of cotton on the international market. One interviewee reported that for every kilogram of cotton sold by cotton companies on the international market, one Franc is given to national research institutes. Through this exchange a vital connection is made among the farmers, research institutes and the commercial cotton companies. Interviewees associated the strong connection between the cotton research agenda and cotton farmers’ needs to the funding relationship between cotton companies and national research institutes. Interviewees noted that the Burkina government had played a role in developing this funding relationship.

Our interviews also revealed that the farmers union, the Union Nationale des Producteurs du Coton de Burkina (UNPCB), held large stakes in the three major cotton companies: Société des Fibres Textiles du Burkina Faso (SOFITEX), Société Cotonnière du Gourma (SOCOMA), and FASO Cotton. One private sector interviewee noted that this arrangement gave the farmers a high degree of power in the cotton companies’ affairs.

The case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso demonstrates that the presence of a strong, inter-connected and collaborative partnership between industry, research and farmers has been invaluable in the development, implementation, and completion of the project. Levels of trust can be enhanced when there is a clear understanding of each partner’s respective role, motivations, and contributions to the project. Furthermore, it is important to capitalize and build on pre-existing relationships and institutional structures as a means to establish and maintain trust in agbiotech PPPs.

Researcher disconnect

Researchers, sensitive to the volatile nature of public opinion toward agricultural biotechnology, were hesitant to speak to journalists about their scientific research and often directed journalists up the bureaucratic ladder. This not only weakened the informational content of communication strategies but also created unnecessary tension between researchers and journalists. Such a dynamic between the research community and the media works to limit civil society’s access to appropriate and reliable sources of information on Bt cotton. Access to such information enhances transparency within the project and is imperative to the building of trust among all partners.

An issue that emerged as a challenge to trust building pertained not to the critical discourse over GM products but to the information that was used to substantiate these positions. A cotton company representative observed that much of the public discourse surrounding GM products was based on incorrect information. This incorrect information included beliefs that GM products will cause allergies, cause sterility and kill animals, to name a few.

Additionally, interviewees identified “activists” and “intellectuals” as groups strongly opposed to the project mainly due to a lack of reliable, scientifically-backed information on Bt cotton. The explanation offered for this highlights the intellectuals’ disconnect from the farmers’ fields. A belief pervaded that these groups had not visited the farms to see the Bt cotton in context and, consequently, had limited understanding of the process. In this case, a lack of transparency and correct information reaching civil society groups and the general public resulted in reduced levels of trust.

Further limiting the progress of the project was a noted lack of public confidence in Burkinabè researchers at project inception. One journalist interviewed made a comment reflecting the prominent view in Burkina Faso that a poor country like Burkina cannot produce high technology. This perception exacerbated public doubts about the future success of the project. The widespread view of Burkinabè researchers as “incapable” also pervaded Burkinabè researchers’ interactions with their international research peers. One Burkinabè researcher noted from his experience that trust was often limited when scientists from developed countries behaved as if their African counterparts were incompetent. When the project initially began, a Burkinabè government researcher noted that this dismissive view of Burkinabè scientists had to be addressed before the project could continue.

An additional challenge to trust building in this project was posed by external forces. In the case of Burkina Faso, external influences are comprised of both France and the United States providing direction on GM crops. Not only do France and the United States have differing views on the introduction of GM crops in Burkina Faso—the former being opposed and the latter being in favor—but the Burkinabè government is caught in the middle having to deal with the views of its own research institutes. The contradicting direction provided by such external influences not only left the Burkinabè government ambivalent about what course of action to take on GM crops in its country but also made it more reluctant to trust the scientists at its own research institutes. A researcher from INERA commented: this [disagreement characterizing the external influences] created some confusion within the government and the research institutes, which were caught in the middle of these conflicting opinions.

Each of these factors—the lack of collaboration between researchers and media, negative public perceptions, limited confidence in researcher capabilities, and external country influences—presented significant challenges to project implementation and highlight the many public roles researchers must play to successfully navigate PPPs.

“Seeing-is-Believing” seminars

In an attempt to disseminate research information and dispel popular myths and misconceptions about biotechnology, the Bt cotton in Burkina Faso project launched a communications campaign, of which the “Seeing-is-Believing” seminars were a component. In these workshops, members from civil society were invited to the test fields. Attendees heard lectures on different topics related to biotechnology and were subsequently invited to visit the testing sites [9]. The “Seeing-is-Believing” seminars allowed all members of the general public to visit the Bt cotton trial sites and witness the growth of the cotton as well as engage directly with individuals in discussions about the cotton. According to farmers interviewed, it was an effective trust-building practice.

The importance of effective communication

One interviewee expressed a strong opinion that communications is the first step in building trust. A strong effort was consistently made to develop an effective communication strategy in Burkina Faso. This statement rings true in countries like Burkina Faso where diverse ethnic, linguistic, and educational backgrounds exist. Three different national languages in addition to French are spoken in Burkina Faso. However, Burkina Faso has an adult literacy rate of about 29% [10], rendering written information useless to a large segment of the population. This limits the various media outlets that can be employed and thus presents tremendous barriers to the effective communication of information on biotechnology to Burkina Faso’s diverse population. It is therefore unsurprising that print media is viewed as having limited effectiveness. Likewise, interviewees also highlighted the often limited access most people have to a media outlet such as the newspaper and the difficulties of translating new and complicated concepts, such as Bt, into local language.

“Seeing-is-Believing”: media, language and literacy

While French is the primary language of communication in Burkina Faso, many individuals speak ethnic languages such as Mooré, Jula, and Gulmacema. Despite these language barriers, members of the Bt cotton project were able to inform the majority of farmers about their project through the use of an innovative multi-lingual, multi-media approach. Interviewees noted that, for those who are literate in languages other than French, the government translated the GM law into native languages as well. Similarly, information about biotechnology was made available in different media forms including newspaper, radio advertisements, television promotions and films.

Maintaining cotton seed quality

A significant challenge to the project’s success was posed by a problem regarding the seeds’ physical quality. A technical issue of smaller seed and poor germination emerged and affected trust between the partners and the farmers. Some farmers rejected the Bt cotton seed solely because of this issue. The farmer stressed that this lack of trust did not come from a lack of trust in the GM crop but rather in the seeds themselves. This demonstrates a need for ongoing communication between farmers and other partners, particularly researchers and seed providers, as well as a need for enhanced customer-service provision. Farmers’ concerns must be identified and addressed to ensure the maintenance of trust and the success of the project. Other farmers called for more follow-up from researchers and the seed providers at the field level in order to clarify questions they had. This practice, according to the farmers, was critical in building or undermining trust between them and the seed providers.

Potential for greater seed quality-assurance practices

A government researcher echoed the need for greater seed quality assurance practices. He stressed the importance of improving seed quality assurance processes to ensure farmers receive the best ones available. One farmer suggested importing the Indian approach to addressing issues pertaining to Bt cotton. He reported that India, faced with similar issues, had introduced an annual international conference convening Bt cotton researchers. Through this effort, they were able to create an appropriate venue in which the problems pertaining to their national Bt cotton production could be addressed and solved. The ability for national, commercial and research actors to recognize and remedy this issue will play a significant role in the continued adoption of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso.