Debate Session: Smallholder Farmers Be Involved in Genomics-Driven Agricultural Policies?-G12-Neg

Hello everyone, my name is Lukaya Zoroboraki from Benin. I will give my point of view on the topic should smallholder farmers be involved in genomics-driven agricultural policy decision. I'm in the group 12 negative team. In introduction, I will say that genomics-driven agricultural policy encompassing techniques like genetics engineering and genome editing is a highly technical field that relies on scientific experts. Smallholder farmers do manage much of the world's farmlands but debates over genomics policy have typically been expert-led. Indeed, analysis note that in bioeconomic planning, smallholders are often neglected in technology-oriented programs. We, the negative team's position is that involving smallholder farmers in formulating genomic-driven policies is neither practical nor beneficial. Instead, policy should be guided by using existing agricultural institutions and extension services to address farmers' needs rather than by broad mass participation of lay stakeholders. We recognize that smallholders are vital food producers but we argue that genomic-driven policy decisions require expert judgment that farmers alone cannot supply. Genomics involves complex science from DNA sequencing to biotechnology so policy must be based on evidence and technical understanding. Requiring direct input from large numbers of farmers would complicate and slow down the policy process. In this speech, we will present three main arguments. First one concerning the technical complexity and expertise. We noticed that genomics policy is inherently specialized and non-experts lack the training to contribute meaningfully. Broad public participation tends to produce shallow outcomes when participants lack necessary knowledge, according to Lemke and Harris, 2015. The second one, the practical constraints of smallholders. Many smallholder farmers lack the resources, access, and education to engage with high-tech policy debates. Some cannot even adopt basic improved seeds due to the cost and infrastructure gaps. The third one is efficiency and policy focus. Involving millions of stakeholders will make decision-making inefficient. Studies show that adding more participants increases the complexity of policy process and slows down decision-making, according to Rolf and collaboration in 2025. In practice, regulatory bodies typically consult industry and producer groups, not individual farmers. Our constructive arguments concerning these three arguments. First of all, genomic research and policy involve advanced genetics and bioinformatics that far exceed typical farming experience. Policy decisions on gene editing or biotechnology require an understanding of molecular biology, risk assessment, and regulatory science. Smallholder farmers generally do not have this specialized training. A review from Lemke and Harris, 2015, notes that stakeholders' engagement in such policy is still nascent, with no clear method for integrating the input. Research on participatory policymaking warns that when participants lack necessary factual knowledge, the results tend to be unrealistic, trivial, and ultimately often ignored by politicians. In other words, involving non-specs in genomics policy would likely produce superficial input that cannot shape rigorous regulation. Many smallholder farmers in developing regions face severe resource and infrastructure limitations that make policy engagement unrealistic. A recent study of Pakistani smallholders found that while they value improved seed, the poorest farmers are often indirect from adopting such technology due to lack of capital credit and established practices. Similarly, many smallholders lack consistent access to electricity, internet, or smartphone, and often have limited formal education. For example, many digital farming tools are not even usable by illiterate farmers. If farmers struggle to afford and apply genetic improvement, it is even less feasible for them to contribute to drafting genomics law or regulation. Inclusivity must be balanced against the need for timeline and effective policy action. In practice, involving a vast and diverse group of farmers would greatly slow decision-making. Studies of participatory policy process found that adding stakeholders increased the complexity of political processes, potentially slowing down decision-making and creating inefficiencies. Moreover, organizing meaningful consultation with millions of smallholders is logically impossible and costly and requires endless meetings, translation, and facilitation. The affirmative teams say that without direct farmer input, policy will fail. I want to tell them that the high-tech genomic policy requires expert knowledge that no single group possesses. In fact, a review cautioned that no single actor has all the needed expertise to shape regulation, and including parties with limited knowledge can severely restrict outcomes. Real-world evidence supports this. A large participatory policy experiment in a vulnerable rural area of Tunisia found that involving thousands of people often funded to produce innovation. In other words, opening complex biotechnology planning to broad participation can stall action rather than improve it. Secondly, they say the claim that farmers' local knowledge is indispensable. I'm saying that it also missed the marks. Modern genomics relies on systematic scientific methods, not just folk wisdom. Moreover, studies show that farmers generally trust each other more than outside experts. One survey found that farmers placed trust in other farmers and were less trusting of traditional experts. This suggests that simply adding scientists to farmers' discussions will not automatically increase trust or incite the new technologies in practice, breeders and agronomists can gather necessary salt and crops information through trials and extensions without needing every farmer in the policy-making room. They also say that the affirmative argued that involving farmers builds trust and causes resistance to new biotechnology. Yet, the opposite can also happen. For example, one analysis of biotechnology governments found that using public consultation to try to pre-empt opposition can also backfire, creating new tension between farmers. In other words, well-intentioned outreach may surface previously and no fears and deepening suspicion in complex fields like genome editing. Indiscriminate public involvement may therefore generate fresh controversy instead of aligning it. The point about equity is similarly fueled. In theory, farmers' involvement should prevent benefits from going only to large agribusiness. In reality, participatory programs are often prone to elite capture. Local power structures are usually stratified and influential individuals can dominate decision processes. Lastly, on policy decision and data quality, involving every farmer can bog down decision-making and dilute technical rigors. In the closing statement, we are saying that the negative team maintains that direct farmers' participation in agricultural genomics policy is neither the most practical nor the most effective approach. Our position is that African countries should focus on strong scientific adversary, system, and transparent science-based rules to ensure that genomics tools serve all farmers. Thank you.