She Came, She Saw, She Sowed: Re-negotiating Gender-Responsive Priorities for Effective Development of Agricultural Biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa [Book Review]

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (2):461-471 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, we argue for the importance of incorporating a gendered perspective for the effective development of sustainable agricultural biotechnology systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Priority setting for agricultural policy and project development requires attention to gender issues specific to the demands of agricultural biotechnology. This is essential for successfully addressing food security and poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). There has been a great deal of debate and literature on the implications of gender in agricultural development and policy. However, the implications of gender in agricultural biotechnology and have received relatively less attention, especially in SSA. Based on interviews with key stakeholders in agricultural biotechnology across SSA, review of pertinent literature and field observations, we have found that incorporating a gendered perspective is critical for the sustainable development of agricultural biotechnology and requires attention in five areas: the inclusion of women, particularly women farmers, in decision-making around biotech/genetically modified (GM) crop and trait selection; equal representation of women as men in education for agricultural science and in agricultural biotechnology research and development professions; greater involvement of women in extension services and farmers’ associations for successful delivery of information about biotech crops equality between men and women in access to resources for biotech/GM crop cultivation; and increased control for women farmers over biotech/GM crop management and income generation. We explain the consequences of failing to include such gender-responsive considerations into priority setting for agricultural biotechnology development and policy in SSA and provide recommendations for how policy makers and project partners of development initiatives can avoid such oversights

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Agricultural biotechnology and the future benefits argument.Jeffrey Burkhardt - 2001 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):135-145.
The magic bullet criticism of agricultural biotechnology.Dane Scott - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3):189-197.
Biotechnology is compatible with sustainable agriculture.Donald Duvick - 1995 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 8 (2):112-125.
The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate.Dane Scott - 2011 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (3):207-226.
An aretaic objection to agricultural biotechnology.Ronald Sandler - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (3):301-317.
Biotechnology is not compatible with sustainable agriculture.Martha L. Crouch - 1995 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 8 (2):98-111.
Biotechnology and global justice.Tony Smith - 1999 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 11 (3):219-242.
Agricultural Biotechnology and Environmental Justice.Kristen Hessler - 2011 - Environmental Ethics 33 (3):267-282.
How japanese students reason about agricultural biotechnology.Fumi Maekawa & Darryl Macer - 2004 - Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (4):705-716.
The transatlantic rift in genetically modified food policy.Celina Ramjoué - 2007 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (5):419-436.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-04-27

Downloads
81 (#202,650)

6 months
9 (#290,637)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?