Food, Technology, Power: Governing GMOs in Argentina

1. Food, Technology, Power:Governing GMOs in Argentina Peter Newell P.Newell@uea.ac.uk

2. Global Politics of Biotech • Contested risks and benefits: Environmental, social, developmental • Biosafety • Health • Pro-boor biotech? • Issues of control and power over the technology • IPRs • Social control over the technology • Who participates and on what/whose terms?

3. Aims • Develop a political economy of biotech governance in Argentina by focussing on government-business relations in particular • To look at the organisation and mobilisation of corporate actors in this debate • Identify and explain the dimensions and expressions of their power in (i) material (ii) organisational and (iii) discursive terms • Through 30 key informant interviews • Account for hegemony around acceptance and promotion of the technology

4. Contribution to debates • Role of business in environmental governance: State-business relations in key global player • Relationship between biotech and development: Who benefits and how? • Contributes to theories of the firm: • Linking corporate strategy with political roles • Exploring material, organisational and discursive forms of power

5. Why Argentina? • Leading player in biotech globally and within Latin America • Strategic role as gateway to Latin America and has much admired regulatory system • Embraced the technology as export strategy rather than for food security potential • Redistribution of wealth through taxation to finance national welfare plan: Different take on pro-poor biotech

6. Overview of Biotechnology in Argentina • Argentina is world’s 2nd largest producer and exporter of GM crops • Accounts for 23% of global production • Third largest exporter of soy in the world • GM soya makes up nearly 90% of the 12 million hectares of all soya planted • 98% is exported as beans, animal feed and oil making up 20% of the country’s total exports

7. Key Debates • Fact majority of production is for export, principally as animal feed, means Argentina has avoided much of the controversy that has erupted elsewhere • Little focus on environmental impacts: economic merits of the technology attracted greater focus • Some debate about the risks associated with an intensive mono-crop strategy (vulnerability to pests, impact on soil quality, lack of diversity if market resistance develops) • Effectiveness of regulation: seed smuggling (soja maradona), IPR battles (Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, UK)

8. Enabling conditions for biotech take-off • Strong state support for soy since the early 1970s: Educational programmes on health benefits of soy (INTA) • Neo-liberal agenda of Menem: re-organisation of seed sector, opening of the market, removal of taxes on agricultural exports. • Concentration on crops of interest to major global players • National firms and their commercial lines bought by MNCs, licensing agreements signed. • By late 1990s, Argentina had 2nd largest seed market in Latin America. • ‘Siembra directa’ (no-till harvesting techniques), combined well with biotechnology with herbicide resistant soybeans. • Grew from 4 to 15 million hectares between 1997 and 2002 (AAPRESID).

9. Crisis as turning point • December 2001, Argentina defaulted on its US$ 140 billion national debt devaluation • Trader at time: ‘The IMF should be very happy with us. Without agribusiness and oil, Argentina would never meet the surplus they are demanding’ • Taxes on exports of GM soy used to subsidise internal markets for food (6% of all government revenue)

10. Key Regulatory Steps • CONABIA: Evaluates agricultural and environmental impacts through trials • SENASA: Food safety evaluation • DNMA: Evaluates potential commercial impact focussing on export markets • CONABIA makes final report

11. GM Evaluations

12. GM Traits

13. Commercially Authorized GM Crops

14. Key features of regulatory system • Power heavily concentrated in Secretary of Agriculture • Minor role for Environment Secretary • Product-based + substantial equivalence • Weakly embedded legal nature: Resolutions based on administrative regulation, non-enforceable. Can avoid resort to Congress and Executive • Mirror policy with EU: Only approving those events already approved in key export markets

15. The Organisation and Mobilisation of Industry • ACA (Asociación de Cooperativas Argentinas) • ArgenBIO • ASA (Asociación de Semilleros Argentinos)CAS (Cámara Argentina de Semilleros) • FAB (Foro Argentino de Biotecnología) • ArPOV (Asociación Argentina de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales)

16. Intra and Inter-capital conflicts • MNCs v Local firms: IPRs • Place in supply chain: Commodity traders (Cargill etc) v Technology developers: Segregation, labelling, mirror policy • Differences in political strategies and lobbying styles • Differences in access and resources • Divergent degrees of ‘globality’ • Associations and coalitions reflect these diverse interests in their policy positions • Able to achieve common ground on broader objectives

17. Corporate Power in the Politics of Biotechnology in Argentina Material Power: • Property Rights • Conflicts between breeders’ rights and patent laws • Lack of enforcement of property rights’ claims; black market in seeds (now 80%-90% of market): State strategy? • Objections of US soybean growers associations • Legal conflicts, strategic litigation: blockades of cargo ships • Control of product and process • Trade • WTO case with Miami group against EU • Soja Maradona: Illegal seed trade to Brazil and Paraguay • Mercosur and biosafety: Argentina veto • Monsanto push to challenge China on dumping of glysophate

18. Corporate Power in the Politics of Biotechnology in Argentina Institutional Power • Formal access to key committees through umbrella groups (ASA, FAB): CONABIA (6 govt, 6 private sector, 1 civil soc) • Formal and informal consultations around regulations and policy controversies • Industry-led dialogues: Biotech breakfasts • Revolving door and lucrative job offers for bureaucrats • Different coalitions have different degrees of access and influence with each Ministry • Distinct bureaucratic cultures of engagement with business

19. Corporate Power in the Politics of Biotechnology in Argentina Discursive Power • Government: Speeches, policy documents, publicity, seminars • Media: Rural and Campo sections of two leading national dailies: Enormous advertising revenue • Media sponsorship of agribusiness expos • Extensive coverage given to policy demands • Virtual absence of critical reporting (Pagina 12)

20. Resistance? • Pockets of resistance around: Deforestation, violent land dispossession, health and bio-safety concerns • Centrality of GM as an accumulation strategy means it continues to be marginal • Global market access likely to continue to be a stronger shaper • Producing new coalitions: Opponents in trade case now allies in legal challenge

21. Conclusions • Unconventional story of biotech and development • Demands nuanced understanding of firms as market, political and social actors • Links within, between and across firms • Connecting micro-politics of private agency with broader structures of power • Interesting case study of business power and its limitations from global trade conflicts to use of seeds in farmers’ fields