Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 637–641 | Cite as

Case studies on smallholder farmer voice: an introduction to a special symposium

Article

Abstract

In the spring of 2013, project leaders who received funding from the John Templeton Foundation’s program “Can GM Crops Help to Feed the World?” met in England to discuss progress on funded projects and to identify common objectives and research interests. The collection of essays in this special symposium is one outcome of that meeting. This introduction provides background on the symposium’s theme of understanding the challenges to smallholder farmers having a voice. Farmer voice is important not only in debates about genetically modified crops but also for policies, technologies and other efforts designed by interests seeking ostensibly to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers.

Keywords

Farmer voice Smallholder farmer livelihood New technology Genetically modified organisms 

References

  1. Aldaba, F.T. 2002. Philippine NGOs and multistakeholder partnerships: Three case studies. Voluntas 13(2): 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashby, J.A., and L. Sperling. 1995. Institutionalizing participatory, client-driven research and technology development in agriculture. Development and Change 26(4): 753–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Béné, C. 2003. When fishery rhymes with poverty: A first step beyond the old paradigm on poverty in small-scale fisheries. World Development 31(6): 949–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentley, J.W. 1994. Facts, fantasies, and failures of farmer participatory research. Agriculture and Human Values 11(2–3): 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruges, M., and W. Smith. 2008. Participatory approaches for sustainable agriculture: A contradiction in terms? Agriculture and Human Values 25(1): 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheyns, E. 2014. Making “minority voices” heard in transnational roundtables: The role of local NGOs in reintroducing justice and attachments. Agriculture and Human Values 31(3): 439–453.Google Scholar
  7. Cheyns, E., and L. Riisgaard. 2014. The exercise of power through multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable agriculture and its inclusion and exclusion outcomes. Agriculture and Human Values 31(3): 409–423.Google Scholar
  8. Cornwall, A., and R. Jewkes. 1995. What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine 41(12): 1667–1676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolan, C., and M. Opondo. 2005. Seeking common ground: Multi-stakeholder processes in Kenya’s cut flower industry. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 8: 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fransen, L.W., and A. Kolk. 2007. Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards. Organization 14(5): 667–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedmann, J. 1992. Empowerment: The politics of alternative development. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, D.C., S. Ehui, and C. Delgado. 2004. The livestock revolution, food safety, and small-scale farmers: Why they matter to us all. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17(4–5): 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. James, H., C. Valdivia, and W. Folk. 2014. Assessing and communicating the risks and benefits of GM cassava in Kenya. http://b4fa.org/dr-harvey-james/. Accessed 6 Aug 2014.
  14. Macnaughton, P., and S. Carro-Ripalda. 2014. Understanding the social, cultural and religious factors that shape the acceptance, use and resistance to GM crops: A comparative approach. http://b4fa.org/prof-phil-macnaghten-dr-susana-carro-ripalda/. Accessed 6 Aug 2014.
  15. Meyers, W., J. Gillis, M. Hendrickson, K. Schneeberger, and W. Folk. 2014. Creating a community of practice in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. http://b4fa.org/prof-willi-meyers/. Accessed 6 Aug 2014.
  16. Nelson, V., and A. Tallontire. 2014. Battlefields of ideas: Changing narratives and power dynamics in private standards in global agricultural value chains. Agriculture and Human Values 31(3): 481–497.Google Scholar
  17. Pimbert, M. 2010. Making agricultural research work for small farmers and agroecological approaches in West Africa. Paper presented at the International Seminar, “The Contribution of Agroecological Approaches to Meet 2050 Global Food Needs.” Brussels, June 21–22.Google Scholar
  18. Silva-Castañeda, L. 2012. A forest of evidence: Third-party certification and multiple forms of proof—A case study of oil palm plantations in Indonesia. Agriculture and Human Values 29(3): 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schnurr, M. 2014. Can Genetically Modified crops help African farmers? Investigating attitudes and intentions to adopt GM matooke banana in Uganda. http://b4fa.org/dr-matthew-schnurr/. Accessed 6 Aug 2014.
  20. Stringer, L.C., C. Twyman, and L.M. Gibbs. 2008. Learning from the South: Common challenges and solutions for small-scale farming. The Geographical Journal 174(3): 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stone, G.D. 2014. GM crops and indigenous management. http://b4fa.org/glenn-davis-stone/. Accessed 6 Aug 2014.
  22. Valdivia, C., A. Seth, J.L. Gilles, M. García, E. Jiménez, J. Cusicanqui, F. Navia, and E. Yucra. 2010. Adapting to climate change in Andean ecosystems: Landscapes, Capitals, and perceptions shaping rural livelihood strategies and linking knowledge systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100(4): 818–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations