Glob I S Mm Ry For, Ecision Makers / a a Cytt-)

Agncluture Cibssroadsat a 41 r International Assessment of A9ricultural Knowledge.

Sren"e nnd TEhflnInnV rr De,einnrnent 4

1 • L -

Glob I S Mm ry for, ecision Makers / A A cYTT-)

International Asse.sment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology lo: Development

Summary for Decision Makers DI the Global Repod

elk •_ •4' s-

IAASTD Interu.IIon1Asses,ment of AgrlcfflWrol KnowIode. Sciono, and Tochnotogy for Daeoloprnero

a GLOBAL UNESCO

I!' 1J INEP WHO I blu International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development

Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report

This summary was approved in detail by Governments attending the IAASTD Intergovernmental Plenary in Johannesburg, South Africa (7-11 April 2008). Copyright 0 2009 IAASTD MI rights rtserved. Permission to reproduce and disseminate portions of the work for no cost will be granted free of charge by I5Iand Press upon requesr Island Press, 1718 Connecocut Avenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20009.

Island Press is a trademark of The Center for Resource Economics.

Printed on recycled, acid-free paper

Interior and cover designs by Linda McKnighr, MKnighc 1)csLgn, 1.1,(

Manufactured in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Contents

vii Foreword

1 Summary for Decision Makers 2 Statement by Governments 3 Background

28 Annex A. Reservations by Governments 29 Annex B. Authors and Review Editors 33 Annex C. Secretariat and Cosponsor Foca' Points 34 Annex C. Steering Committee for Consu]tatve Process and Advsory Bureau for Assessment Foreword

The objective of the International Assessment of Agricul- retariat. We would specifically like to thank the cosponsor- tural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development ing organiarions of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) (IAASTD) was to assess the impacts of past, present and and the World Bank for their financial contributions as well future agricultural knowledge, science and technology on as the FAO, UNEP, and the United Nations Educational, the: Scientific nd Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for their reduction of hunger and poverty, continued ;upport of this process through allocation of staff improvement of rural livelihoods and human health, resources. and We acknowledge with gratitude the governments and equitable, socially, environmentally and economically organizations that contributed to the Multidonor Trust sustainable development. Fund (Australia, Canada, the European Commission, France, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United King- The IAASTD was initiated in 2002 by the World Bank and dom) and the United States Trust Fund. We also thank the the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na- governmeiirs who provided support to Bureau members, tions (FAQ) as a global consultative process to determine authors ard reviewers in other ways. in addition, Finland whether an international assessment of agricultural knowl- provided direct support to the Secretariat. The IAASTD was edge, science and technology was needed. Mr. Klaus Toepfer, especially successful in engaging a large number of experts Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Pro- from developing countries and countries with economies in gramme (tJNEP) opened the first Intergovernmental Plenary transition n its work; the Trust Funds enabled financial as- (30 August-3 September 2004) in Nairobi, Kenya, during sistance for their travel to the IAASTD meetings. which participants initiated a detailed scoping, preparation, We would also like to make special mention of the Re- drafting and peer review process. gional Organizations who hosted the regional coordinators The outputs from this assessment are a Global and five and staff and provided assistance in management and time Sub-Global reports; a Global and five Sub-Global Sum- to ensure mccess of this enterprise: the African Center for maries for Decision Makers; and a cross-cutting Synthesis Technology Studies (ACTS) in Kenya, the Inter-American Report with an Executive Summary. The Summaries for De- institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (UCA) in Costa cision Makers and the Synthesis Report specifically provide Rica, the International Center for Agricultural Research in options for action to governments, international agencies, the Dry Areas (ICARDA) in Syria, and the WorldFish Center academia, research organizations and other decision makers in Malays. around the world. The ifial intergovernmental Plenary in Johannesburg, The reports draw on the work of hundreds of experts South Afri:a was opened on 7 April 2008 by Achim Steiner, from all regions of the world who have participated in the Executive I)irector of UNEP. This Plenary saw the accep- preparation and peer review process. As has been customary tance of the Reports and the approval of the Summaries for in many such global assessments, success depended first and Decision Makers and the Executive Summary of the Synthe- foremost on the dedication, enthusiasm and cooperation of sis Report by an overwhelming majority of governments. these experts in many different but related disciplines. It is the synergy of these interrelated disciplines that permitted L&ASTD to create a unique, interdisciplinary regional and Signed: global process. We take this opportunity to express our deep gratitude Co-chairs to the authors and reviewers of all of the reports—their Hans H. Herren Judi Wakhungu dedication and tireless efforts made the process a success. We thank the Steering Committee for distilling the outputs of the consultative process into recommendations to the Director Plenary, the IAASTD Bureau for their advisory role during Robert T. Watson the assessment and the work of those in the extended 5cc-

vu International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)

Global Summary for Decision Makers

V/rituig It.cm: Nienke Benrerna (thc Nehcr1ands, Deborah Bossio lJSA, Fabrice Dreyfus IFrancel, Maria Fernandez (Peru). Ameenah Gurib-Fakim (Mauritus), Hans HUrru (Switzerland), Anne-Mane izac (France), Janice Jiggins (UK), Gordaria Kranjac- Berisavevic (Ghana), Roger Leakey (UK), Washngton Ochola (Kenya), Balgis Otman-Elasha (Sudan), Cristina Plencovich (Ar- gentina), Niels Roling (the Ncrherlands), Mark Roscgrant (USA), Erika Rosenthal (USA), Linda Smith (UK) Statement by Governments

All countries present at the final intergovernmental plenary In accordance with the above statement, the following session held in Johannesburg, South Africa in April 2008 governments approve the Global Summary for Decision welcome the work of the IAASTD and the uniqueness of Makers. this independent multisrakeholder and multidisciplinary process, and the scale of the challenge of covering a broad Armenia, AzerhaiJan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, range of complex issues. The Governments present recog- Beam, Bhutaa, Botswana, Brazd, cameroon, China nize that the Global and Sub-Global Reports are the conclu- 'Peo pie's Republic of). Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic sions of studies by a wide range of scientific authors, experts Republic of Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and development specialists and while presenting an overall Ethiopia, Fin and, France, Gambia, Ghana, Honduras, consensus on the importance of agricultural knowledge, sci- India, Iran, Ireland, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's ence and technology for development they also provide a Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jainahiriya, diversity of views on some issues. Maldives, Republic of Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, All countries see these reports as a valuable and im- Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, portant contnbution to our understanding on agricultural Republic of Palau, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, knowledge, science and technology for development recog- Solomon Isiaads, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, United firing the need to further deepen our understanding of the Republic of Tanr,ania, Tünor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, challenges ahead. This Assessment is a constructive initia- Uganda, Uniied Kingdom of Great Britain, Urugua)., Vwt tive and important contribution that all governments need Nam, Zamhiii (58 countries). to take forward to ensure that agricultural knowledge, science and technology fulfills its potential to meet the develop- While approving the above statement the following government and sustainahiliry goals of the reduction of hunger and ments did no: fully approve the Global Summary for Deci- poverty, the improvement of rural livelihoods and human sion Makers and their reservations are entered in Annex A. health, and facilitating equitable, socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development. Australia, Canada, and United States of America (3 countries). Background

In August 2002, the World Bank and the Food and Agri- sistent with a subset of the UN Millennium Development cukure Organization (FAO) of the United Nations initiated Goals (MDGs): the reduction of hunger and poverty, the a global consultative process to determme whether an in- improvement of rural livelihoods and human health, and ternational assessment of agricultural knowledge, science facilitating equitable, socially, environmentally and ceo- and technology (AKST) was needed. This was stimulated nomicall sustainable development. Realizing these goals by discussions at the World Bank with the private sector requires acknowledging the muitifuncrionaliry of agriculture: and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on the state of the cha1lege is to simultaneously meet development and sus- scientific understanding of biotechnology and more specifi- tainability goals while increasing agricultural production. cally transgenics. During 2003, eleven consultations were Meetng these goals has to he placed in the context of a held, overseen by an international multistakeholder steer- rapidly changing world of urbanization, growing inequities, ing committee and involving over 800 participants from all human migration, globalization, changing dietary prefer- relevant stakeholder groups, e.g., governments, the private ences, climate change, environmental degradation, a trend sector and civil society. Based on these consultations the toward biofuels and an increasing population. These condi- steering committee recommended to an Intergovernmental tions are affecting local and global food security and put- Plenary meeting in Nairobi in September 2004 that an inter - ting pressure on productive capacity and ecosystems. Hence national assessment of the role of AKST in reducing hunger there are unprecedented challenges ahead in providing food and poverty; improving rural livelihoods and facilitating within a global trading system where there are other com- environmentally, socially and economically sustainable peting uses for agricultural and other natural resources. development was needed. The concept of an International AKST alcne cannot solve these problems, which are caused Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Tech- by compltx political and social dynamics, but it can make nology for Development (IAASTD) was endorsed as a multi- a major contribution to meeting development and sustain- thematic, multi-spatial, multi-temporal intergovernmental ability goals. Never before has it been more important for process with a mukistakeholder Bureau cosponsored by the the world to generate and use AKST. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Given the focus on hunger, poverty and livelihoods, (FAO), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), United Na- the IAASfD pays special attention to the current situation, tions Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations issues and potential opportunities to redirect the current Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Educa- AKST system to improve the situation for poor rural peo- tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the ple, especially small-scale farmers, rural laborers and others World Bank and World Health Organization (WHO). with limited resources. It addresses issues critical to formu- The AASTD's governance structure is a unique hybrid lating policy and provides information for decision makers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confront[.lg conflicting views on contentious issues such as and the nongovernmental Millennium Ecosystem Assess- the environmental consequences of productivity increases, ment (MA). The srakeholder composition of the Bureau was environmental and human health impacts of transgenic agreed at the Intergovernmental Plenary meeting in Nairobi; crops, the consequences of hioenergy development on the it is geographically balanced and multistakeholder with 30 environment and on the long-term availability and price of government and 30 civil society representatives (NGOs, food, and the implications of climate change on agricultural producer and consumer groups, private sector entities and producticn. The Bureau agreed that the scope of the assess- international organizations) in order to ensure ownership of ment needed to go beyond the narrow confines of science the process and findings by a range of stakeholders. and technology (S&T) and should encompass other types About 400 of the world's experts were selected by the of relevant knowledge (e.g., knowledge held by agricultural Bureau, following nominations by stakeholder groups, to ptoducert, consumers and end users) and that it should also prepare the !AASTD Report (comprised of a Global and assess tht role of institutions, organizations, governance, five Sub-Global assessments). These experts worked in their markets and trade. own capacity and did not represent any particular stake- The LASTD is a multidisciplinary and multistakeholder holder group. Additional individuals, organizations and enterprise requiring the use and integration of information, governments were involved in the peer review process. tools and models from different knowledge paradigms in- The IAASTD development and sustainahiliry goals were cluding Iccal and traditional knowledge. The IAASTD does endorsed at the first Intergovernmental Plenary and are con- not advocate specific policies or practices; it assesses the ma- 4 L IAASTD Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report jor issues facing AKST and points towards a range of AKST The IAASTD draft report was subjected to two rounds options for action that meet development and sustainabitity of peer review by governments, organizations and individu- goals. It is policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive. It als. These drafts were placed on an open access Web site integrates scientific information on a range of topics that and open to comments by anyone. The authors revised the are critically interlinked, but often addressed independently, drafts based on numerous peer review comments, with the i.e., agriculture, poverty, hungei human health, natural re- assistance of ieview editors who were responsible for ensur- sources, environment, development and innovation. It will ing the comments were appropriately taken into account. enable decision makers to bring a richer base of knowledge One of the mast difficult issues authors had to address was to hear on policy and management decisions on issues previ- criticisms that the report was too negative. In a scientific ously viewed in isolation. Knowledge gained from histori- review based an empirical evidence, this is always a difficult cal analysis (typically the past 50 years) and an analysis comment to handle, as criteria are needed in order to say of some future development alternatives to 2050 form the whether something is negative or positive. Another difficulty basis for assessing options for action on science and tech- was responding to the conflicting views expressed by review- nology, capacity development, institutions and policies, and ers. The difference in views was not surprising given the investments. range of stakeholder interests and perspectives. Thus one of The IAASTD is conducted according to an open, trans- the key findings of the IAASTD is that there are diverse and parent, representative and legitimate process; is evidence- conflicting interpretations of past and current events, which based; presents options rather than recommendations; need to be acknowledged and respected. assesses different local, regional and global perspectives; The Global and Sub-Global Summaries for Decision presents different views, acknowledging that there can be Makers and tie Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report more than one interpretation of the same evidence based were approved at an Intergovernmental Plenary in April on different worldviews; and identifies the key scientific un- 2008. The Synthesis Report integrates the key findings from certainties and areas on which research could be focused to the Global and Sub-Global assessments, and focuses on eight advance development and sustainability goals. Bureau-apprcved topics: bioenergy; biotechnology; climate The IAASTD is composed of a Global assessment and change; human health; natural resource management; tradi- five Sub-Global assessments: Central and West Asia and tional knowledge and community based innovation; trade North Africa - CWANA; East and South Asia and the and markets; and women in agriculture. Pacific - ESAP; Latin America and the Caribbean - LAC; The IAASTD builds on and adds value to a number of North America and Europe - NAE; Sub-Saharan Africa - recent assessrients and reports that have provided valuable SSA. It (1) assesses the generation, access, dissemination information relevant to the agricultural sector, but have not and use of public and private sector AKST in relation to specifically focused on the future role of AKST, the institu- the goals, using local, traditional and formal knowledge; tional dimensions and the rnultifuncionality of agriculture. (2) analyzes e>cisting and emerging technologies, practices, These include: FAO State of Food Insecurity in the World policies and institutions and their impact on the goals; (3) (yearly); IrirerAcademy Council Report: Realizing the Prom- provides information for decision makers in different civil ise and Potential of African Agriculture (2004); UN Mil- socery, private and public organizations on options for im- lennium Project Task Force on Hunger (2005); Millennium proving policies, practices, institutional and organizational Ecosystem Assessment (2005); CGIAR Science Council arrangements to enabJe AKST to meet the goals; (4) brings Strategy and Priority Setting Exercise (2006); Comprehen- together a range of stakeholders (consumers, governments, sive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture: Guid- international agencies and research organizations, NGOs, ing Policy Investments in Water, Food, Livelihoods and private sector, producers, the scientific community) involved Environment (2007); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate in the agricultural sector and rural development to share Change Reports (2001 and 2007); UNEP Fourth Global their experiences, views, understanding and vision for the Environmental Outlook (2007); World Bank World Devel- future; and (5) identifies options for future public and pri- opment Report: Agriculture for Development (2008); IFPRJ vate investments in AKST. In addition, the IAASTD will en- Global Hunger Indices (yearly); and World Bank Internal hance local and regional capacity to design, implement and Report of Investments in SSA (2007). utilize similar assessments. Financial support was provided to the JAASTD by In this assessment agriculture is used to include produc- the cosponsoring agencies, the governments of Australia, tion of food, feed, fuel, fiber and other products and to in- Canada, Finland, France, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, US clude all sectors from production of inputs (e.g., seeds and and UK, and the European Commission. In addition, many fertilizer) to consumption of products. However, as in all organizations have provided in-kind support. The authors assessments, some topics were covered less extensively than and review editors have given freely of their time, largely others (e.g., livestock, forestry, fisheries and the agricultural without compensation. sector of small island countries, and agricultural engineer - The Global and Sub-Global Summaries for Decision in8), largely due to the expertise of the selected authors. Makers and the Synthesis Report are written for a range of OriginaUy the Bureau approved a chapter on plausible fu- .srakeholders, i.e., government policy makers, private sector, tures (a visioning exercise), but later there was agreement NGOs, producer and consumer groups, international orga- to delete this chapter in favor of a more simple set of model nizations and the scientific community. There are no recom- pro;ections. Similarly the Bureau approved a chapter on ca- mendations, only options for action. The options for action pacity development, but this chapter was dropped and key are not prioritized because different options are actionable messages integrated into other chapters. by different itakeholders, each of whom have a different AAT[) Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report I 5 set of priorities and responsibilities and operate in different socioeconomic and political circumstances. Multifunctionality The tern muitifunctionallty has sometimes been interpreted Key Findings as havisg implications for trade and protectionism. This is not the defhition used here. In LAASTD, multifunctionatty is used Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology solely to express the inescapable intercorinectedness of ag- (AKST) has contributed to substantial increases in agriculture's different roles and functions. The concept of multi- ricultural production over time, contributing to food tunctiorality recognizes agriculture as a multi-output activity security. This has been achieved primarily through a strong focus on increasing yields with improved germp(asm, and producing not only commodities (food, feed, fibers agrofuels, increased inputs (water, agrochernicals) and mechanization. rnedicir.al products and ornamentals), but also non-commod- These increases in productivity have contributed to a net in- ity outpits such as environmental services, landscape ameni- crease in global food availability per person: from 2360 kcal ties anc cultural heritages. in the 1960s to 2803 kcal per person per day in the 1990s, The working definition proposed by OECD, which is used at a time when world population significantly increased. by the IAASTD, associates multifunctionality with the particular characteristics of the agricultural production process People have benefited unevenly from these yield in- and its outputs (1) multiple commodity and non-commodity creases across regions, in part because of different outputs are }ointly produced by agriculture; and (2) some of organizational capacities, sociocultural factors, and the nor-commodity outputs may exhibit the characteristics institutional and policy environments. WhiLe in South Asia the percentage of people living in poverty (

an equitable, environmentally, socially and economically pest and nuuienr management and information and com- sustainable manner. munication technologies (ICTs) will create opportunities

for more reuurce-cfflcient and site-specific agriculture. 2

An increase and strengthening of AKST towards1 agroecological sciences will contnbute to addressing Some challenges will be resolved primarily by de- environmental issues while maintaining and increas- velopment and appropriate application of new and ing productivity. Formal, traditional and community-based emerging AKST. Such AIKST can contribute to solutions AKST need to respond to increasing pressures on natural re- provided appropriate inStitutions and capacities are in sources, such as reduced availability and worsening quality place. Examples include combating livestock diseases, e.g., of watet degraded soils and landscapes, loss of biodiversity vaccine devebpment; mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and agroecosystem function, degradation and loss of forest from agriculture; reducing the vulnerability of agriculture to cover and degraded marine and inshore fisheries. Agricul- a changing climate; reducing the heavy reliance of agricultural strategies will also need to include limiting emission of ture and commodity chains on fossil fuels; and addressing greenhouse gases and adapting to human-induced climate complex socioeconomic issues regarding local, national and change and increased variability. international public goods)

Strengthening and redirecting the generation and Targeting small-scale agricultural systems by forg- delivery of AKST will contribute to addressing a range ing public and private partnerships, increased public of persistent socioeconomic inequities. They include research and extension investment helps realize ex- reducing the risk of conflicts resulting from competing isting opportunities. Strengthening participatory research claims on land and water resources; assisting individuals and extension partnerships, development-oriented Local and communities in coping with endemic and epidemic hu- governance and institutions such as cooperatives, farmer man and animal diseases and their consequences; address- organizations and business associations, scientific institu- ing problems and opportunities associated with local and tions and unicns support small-scale producers and entre- international flows of migrant laborers; and increasing ac- preneurs to crpture and add value to existing opportunities cess to information, education and technology to poorer on-farm, post-harvest and in non-farm rural enterprises. In areas and peoples, especially to women. Such redirection some instancts, opportunities lie in those small-scale farm- and strengthening requires thorough, open and transparent ing systems that have high water, nutrient and energy use engagement of all stakeholders. efficiencies and conserve natural resources and biodiversity without sacriking yield, but high marketing costs do not S. Greater and more effective involvement of women allow them to harness these opportunities. The underlying and use of their knowledge, skills and experience will principles, processes and knowledge may be relevant and advance progress towards sustainability and devel- capable of eNtrapolation to larger scalc farming systems, opment goals and a strengthening and redirection of particularly ir. the face of climate change effects, AKST to address gender issues will help achieve this. Women farmers, processors and farm workers have ben- Significant pro-poor progress requires creating efited less from AKST than men overall and poor women opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship, least of all. Efforts to redress persistent biases in their access which explicitly target resource poor farmers and ru- to production resources and assets, occupational education ral laborers. This will require simultaneous investments in and training, information and extension services have met infrastructure and facilitating access to markets and trade with limited success. Many of the societal, policy-related opportunities, occupational education and extension servic- and operational impediments to more equitable progress, es, capital, credit, insurance and in natural resources such as well as the private and public costs of such an uneven as land and vater. The increasing market influence of large pattern of development, are well understood as are the fac- scale buyers znd market standards are especially challeng- tors that discourage more determined action to empower ing for small producers necessitating further innovation in worn en. public and private training, education and extension services and suitable legal, regulatory and policy frameworks. 10. Many of the challenges facing agriculture currently and in the future will require more innovative and in- Decisiors around small-scale farm sustainabil- tegrated applications of existing knowledge, science ity pose difllcult policy choices. Special and differen- and technology (formal, traditional and community- tial treatment for developing countries is an acknowledged based), as well as new approaches for agricultural and principle in Doha agricultural negotiations and it is accept- natural resource management. Agricultural soil and hio- ed that developing countries can have this special treatment diversity, nutrient, pest and water management, and the ca- especially on the grounds of food security, farmer's liveli- pacity to respond to environmental stresses such as climate hoods and rural development. Suitable action is considered change can be enhanced by traditional and local knowledge necessary at the international and national level to enable systems and current technologies. Technological options- small farmers to benefit from these provisions. New pay- such as new genotypes of crops, livestock, fish and trees and ment mechanms for environmental services by public and advances in plant, livestock and fish breeding, biotechnol- USA. ogy, remote sensing, agroecology, agroforestry, integrated Benin, Botswana, DRC, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya, Tanzania, 1 USA and Botswana. logo, Uganda. AASTD Summary for Decison Makers of the Global Report L 7

place. Some developing countries with large export sec- Biotechnology tors have achieved aggregate gains in GDP, although their The IAASTD definition of biotechnology is based on that in The small-scale (arm sectors have not necessarily benefited and Out. The small-scale farm sector in Convention on Biological Diversity and the Gartagena Proto- in many cases have lost the poort developing countries is a net loser under most col on Biosafety. It is a broad term embracing the manipula- trade liberalization scenarios that address this question. tion of living organisms and spans the large range of activities These distributional impacts call for differentiation in poli- from conventional techniques for fermentation and plant and cy frameworks as embraced by the Doha work plan (special animal breeding to recent innovations in tissue culture, irradia- and differential treatment and non-reciprocal access). De- tion, genomics and marker-assisted breeding (MAB) or marker veloping countries could benefit from reduced barriers and assisted setecion (MAS) to augment natural breeding. Some elimination of escalating tariffs for processed commodities of the latest biotechnologies, called 'modern biotechnology', in developed and developing countrres; and they could also include the use of in vitro modified DNA or RNA and the fu- benefit from redrced barriers among themselves; deeper sion of cells from different taxonomic families, techniques that generalized preferential access to developed country mar- overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination kets for commodities important for rural livelihoods; increased public investment in local value addition; improved barriers. access for small-scale farmers to credit; and strengthened regional r:iarkets.

Intensive export-oriented agriculture has increased private utilities such as catchnient protection and mingatlon under open market operations but has been accom- of climate change effects are of increasing importance and panied by both benefits and adverse consequences open new opportunities for the small-scale farm sector. depending on circumstances such as exportation of soil nutrents and water, unsustainable soil or water Public policy, regulatory frameworks and interna- management or exploitative labor conditions in some tlonal agreements are critical to implementing more cases. AKST innovations that address sustainability and sustainable agricultural practices. Urgent cha]lcnges re- development goals would be more effective with fundamen- main that call for additional effective agreements and bio- tal changes in price signals, for example, internalization of security measures involving rransboundary water, emerg- environmental externalities and payment or reward for ening human and animal diseases, agricultural pests, climate vironrnental services. change, environmental pollution and the growing concerns The choice of relevant approaches to adoption and about food safety and occupational health. Achieving devel- implementation of agricultural innovation is crucial for opment and sustainability goals calls for national and inter- achieving development and sustainability goals. There national regulations to address the multiple economic, en- is a wide rargc of such approaches in current use. In the vironmental and social dimensions of these rransboundary past, most AKST policy and practice in many countries were issues. These policies need to be informed by broad-based undertaken using the "transfer of technology" approach. A evidence from natural and social sciences with multistake- critical decision for AKST stakeholders is the selection of holder participation. Improved governance and strength- approaches suited to the advancement of sustainahiliry and ening engagement of stakeholders can redress some of the development goals in different circumstances. inadequacies where identified in AKST arrangements that often privilege short-term over long-term considerations More and better targeted AKST investments, ex- and productivity over environmental and social sustainabil- plicitly taking into account the multifunctionality of iry and the multiple needs of the small-scale farm sector. agricultire, by both public and private sectors can help advance development and sustainability goals. I nrtovative institutional arrangements are essential Increased investments in AKST, particularly if complement- to the successful design and adoption of ecologically ed by suçporting investments in rural development (for ex- and socially sustainable agricultural systems. Sus- ample, irfrastructure, telecommunications and processing tainable agricultural production is more likely when legal facilities) can have high economic rates of return and reduce frameworks and forms of association provide secure access poverty. AKST in vestments also generate environmental, so- to ct-edit, markets, land and water for individuals and com- cial, healih, and cultural impacts. More evidence is needed munities with modest resources. Creating market-based op- on the actual levels and distributional effects of the econom- portunities for processing and commercializing agricultural ic and non-economic benefits and costs of these investments products that ensure a fair share of value addition for small- for better targeting of future AKST investments, scale producers and rural laborers is critical to meeting development and sustainahiliry goals. While public private partnerships are to be encour- aged the e5tablishment and enforcement of codes of Opening national agricultural markets to interna- conduct by universities and research institutes can tional competition can offer economic benefits, but help avoid conflicts of interest and maintain focus on can lead to long term negative effects on poverty al- sustainility and development in AKST when private leviation, food security and the environment without funding complements public sector funds. Govern- basic national institutions and infrastructure being in ment capacity to understand, and where necessary mediate S I IAASTD Summary for Decision Makers of the (3obaI Report public–private partnerships, can he asststed for instance by By focusing on development and sustainabiliry goals at means of monitoring systems. the global scale, this assessment naturally emphasizes the challenges facing developing countries and poor rural com- 22. Achieving sustainability and development goals will munities where the greatest numbers of people depend on involve creating space for diverse voices and perspec- agriculture for their livelihoods and where poverty and envi- tives and a multiplicity of scientifically well-founded ronmental degradation exist. However, challenges to meet- options, through, for example, the inclusion of social ing these goals exist in all countries and local and national scientists in policy and practice of AKST helps direct solutions need to appreciate their interrelationships and the and focus public and private research, extension and global context. education on such goals. Diverse and conflicting inter- In order ta realize development and sustainabiliry goals, pretations of past and current events, coupled with the un- we must distinguish two areas for action. One area is tech- der-valuation of different types of AKST limit progress in nology development: continued crop, tree, fish and livestock the field. Understanding the underlying sources of compet- improvement, and sustainable practices for using water and ing interpretations of AKST is crucial to addressing goals. other natural resources and energy. Howevea goals can only Some interpretations have been privileged over others and be reached if we pay attention to a second area of action: have helped push formal AKST along certain pathways, to organizational capacity and policy and institutional devel- the neglect of other scientifically sound options. Some of opment. For rxample, the use of new technologies usually is the by-passed options originate in traditional knowledge or predicated upon the existence of markets with remunerative civil society experience and may be better able to contribute prices, access to credit, inputs and a host of other services to poverty reduction, social inclusion, equity and generate and supports that are often neglected. multifunctional outcomes. Trends in investment in agricultural research and development are a critically important contextual component Context relevant to achieving development and susrainability goals Agricultural knowledge, science and technology can play a key because in geaeral, public funding is more able to incorpo- role in addressing development and sustainability goals—re- rate the interests of the underprivileged and the environment ducing hunger and poverty, improving rural livelihoods and than private sources of funding. Investments in agricultural facilitating equitable, environmentally, socially and econom- research and development (R&D) are still growing, but the ically sustainable development. This task requires that AKST growth rare declined during the 1990s. In addition, invest- address the multifunctionaliry of agriculture, not just as a site ment trends among countries have increasingly diverged. for food production, but also as a foundation for communi- Investment in publicly funded agricultural R&D in many ties, economies and a host of ecological relationships. Hence industrialized countries has stalled or declined and has be- effective management of physical and natural resources, the come a small proportion of total spending on science and internalization of externalized costs and the continuing avail- technology (5&T). Many developing countries have also ability of, and access to, public goods, such as biodiversity, stagnated or slipped in terms of publicly funded agricultural including germplasm, and ecosystem services are critical to R&D investnients, except for a few, often more industri- meeting development and sustainability goals (Chapter 31. alized, countries. Investments by the private sector have Agriculture, for the purposes of the IAASTD, is a range increased in industrialized countries, but have remained of production systems, and is considered to be a linked, dy- small in developing countries. Comprehensive data need to namic social-ecological system based on the maintenance, be compiled for a fuller assessment of the state of agricul- utilization and regeneration of ecosystem services managed tural R&D including areas such as extension, traditional by people. It includes cropping, animal husbandry, fishing, and local AI(ST, farming systems evolutions, social sciences, forestry, biofuel and bioproducts industries, and the produc- certain health sector research, mitigation and adaptation of tion of pharmaceuticals or tissue for transplant in crops and climate change [Chapter 81. livestock through genetic engineering. IAASTD looks at the Public irnestmerits in AKST can have economic rates entire system of goods and services from agriculture. of return in the order of 40-50% under favorable market Agriculture provides a livelihood for 40% of the global conditions and contribute to meeting development and sus- population; 70% of the poor in developing countries live tainahility goals. But AKST investments also generate social, in rural areas and are directly or indirectly dependent on environmental, health and cultural costs and benefits, some agriculture for their livelihood. Agriculture also has a major of which are considered as externalities (positive and nega- influence on essential ecosystem services such as water sup- tive) and spillovers [Chapter 21. These non-economic effects ply and purification, pollination, pest and disease control, are also important to society, but are often not included in and the uptake and release of carbon [Chapter 31. conventional rate of return (ROR) analyses because they Globally, AKST can contribute in important ways to ad- present problems of attribution, quantification and valua- dressing poverty alleviation for the 3 billion people who live tion, Furthermore, ROR analysis fails to account for the on less than US S2 per day and must provide adequate and distribution cf costs and benefits among economic classes nutritious food for everyone, particularly for 854 million and stakeholder groups [Chapter 81. undernourished people. Other global development challenges include clean water for the 13 billion people who live without it and environmentally sustainable energy sources for 2 billion people; AKST can also play a role in addressing these challenges IChapters 1, 31.

MTD Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report I 9

Africa P,4oUriu1Iv1fYtClo1dr.n By Subnat(onal Admirnstrative Level AV 0.5 Lldrweiglt (per ierf iYnafer)

Measures of Poverty 0.5 Hunger Density 0.5- 1.0 Popuiati Dau of ChJdren Age 1.0- 5.0 kflorncer) CluLekeii are defined as undeeweiBbt if their 5.0- 10.0 • veu-fogei.ocoresie more Oma two sZiiithrd cvia1ions (2 10.0 - 25.0 SD) belowthiiiedi an of the NCHSICDC1WHO trdernibonal Rtferce (!opij[noIi 25.0 • no data

o,et1eoaI hogdi.1e ve bri erie cnq.mijiri fee cWrily. I-*IR

Figure GSDM- f. Global Hunger !conthmed next page).

Global challenges

Challenge: Decrease hunger and improve health and human nutrition curity, human health and nuririon [Chapter 21. Substan- tial gains in agricultural productivity over the past 50 years Food security. Formal, traditional and local AKST have have reduced rates of hunger and malnutrition, improved made positive contribudons to addressing hungei food Se- the health and livelihoods of many millions of people and 0 I 1AASTO Summary for Decision Makers of The Global Repc,rt

;s N-4 r7~ P row

a L I —1km Lbe1Azflath Equal Area Pojc*icn

Asfa By SubnationaL Administrative Level

100

10_ i - 20.0 Measures of Poverty I Child Malnutrition

CIdren are defined as undereit iItheir weight.for.agez-scor cs are moce 401- 50.0 thm two tdard deviaton2 SD) beiow the median of the NCHS/CDCWHO more tiw 500 intremtional Refmm Populalioft No Data

Non*bourKry - -

- Suthe ,on b rdarte t ....:...... - ... ren)wed from cotritrws for ciJicy. 1I. ••••

Fiqure CSDM-1. Global Hunger. AASD Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report j 11

Latin America By Subnational tiJmrnistrative leve!. PWCqWofCNldrev Ae O5 Lh,deiwIt

kda ar 10.0 Measures of Poverty lot - 20.0 Child Malnutrition 20.1- WO 30.1-40,0 Chihken are defined as uriderwaghi ifiFirweight-for-ae z-soxes aie mcwe than two standaid deviations (2 SD) below the median of the NC1-ISCDClWHO 40.1-50.0 Internatia1 Refemnoe Popilation. rrcmtP50U No Oats National b0undr -

S. ijijori.tt bo4Aidar 1lve 1n3VC1 T1i i!Jlt t( .1srt1V 12 I 1AASTD Summary for DecisQn Makers of the Global Report

The inescapable interconnectedness of agricultur&s different roles and functions

Health cocial

Gendei Tradition Social

Culture -I - m_tx economic d/ jj; Income Soils

Water Valuation of envionmental services Ciimae :nvironnental Trade iodiverslty -

Pathway to the current conception of modem agriculture

Agrcuitura$

NaIuraIrsource management

food Cy

Oryareas

/ Iry

Mal

rIILre GSDM -2.A Atu/t t ia! Ier

Public and private agricultural R&D spending, selected regions, 2000 billion Inter atriai dOilar year 2000)

Glo&I totil H1h.Ir4ome Dvoloç4ng countrlee counhIe ClstlbttIon of 9i3bl tout

J10 0 M"A7:; WvO DnO - pu GeyeIopeg, prrYaIe•

Htddo East and Aili and North AMo, - - 12 I12

Latin Aneilci and 10 Sub-Sahv.n Cwibbain

Is S

_ 4 n 2 1, ¼. J

• Prwate sector Ile - • Publc sector

AMiPc.idrçfrUs J8W, U14 NeZui. 'ASM I &I3 1

Fguro GSDM-3. Public And Private Agricultural R&D Spending by Region. 2000.

stimulated economic growth in numerous Countries. World dia, Brazil and Indonesia were primarily responsible for this cereal production has more than doubled since 1961 with marked improvement in average nutrition [Chapter 3]. average yields per hectare increasing around 150% in many Despite much progress in agricultural rechno[ogies, high and low income countries, with the exception of most persistent challenges remain that call for action in other nations in sub-Saharan Africa. Production gains are attrib- domains such as governance. Substantial increases in agri- uted to improved crop varieties and livestock, soil manage- cultural production over time have had an uneven effect on ment, improved access to resources (nutrients and water), food secu:ity. Hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity re- infrastructure developments, policy initiatives, microfinance, main high, affecting millions of people, particularly in South education, better communication and advances in market Asia and sub-Saharan Africa [Chapters 1, 3, 4). Further - and trade systems. Globally, until recently, food has become more, exçected increases in global population and incomes cheaper and average caloric availability has increased. In over the next 50 years will lead to an increased demand for the mid-1960s, 57% of the world's population lived in food. Demographic changes, including aging populations, countries where the average caloric availability was below urbanizaton, changing food consumption patterns and the 2200 kca!; now the proportion is 10%. Gains in China, In- distribution of income, are driving changes in dietary par- 14 I lAASTD Summaiy for Deciscon Makers of the GobaI Fepor1

Total agricultural output 1970-2004 1970 = 100

Cis*4 indwsmA.0 u4 WcwtfrAMc.

Ailla arid the Fcrnc

ice

30 too

L*tnA -----: --- - - vid b

Sub-S,h.r.c, AIflc - Nfl M INS NV IYS C

,13 ------Oav so ;00 J"V.1 pr-- . 111111115 ii -

IJIJ1DFNV W5 to NV NV 20 1111i1I1 I Q 10* FVt PON PNt 10 C C C

L&4Tb ____

Figuro GSDM -4a lbtu/ Auuicultural Output.

GobnI Irenea in cereal and meat production obai total use of niWo9en and p15phOrui ¶erthL

360 NItro7.J '

320 28 co :1 Ptmphorum 200 Tea t7O iea Im 500 im IM TQ

IflCIaa32d use at frr1aUon Totol global pestcldee prodwtlon

022 36 watef

2.0 020

012L l00 $970 IM 1000 1*00 I0 Im wo W 1001 ODW

SOUflC5 TRmw a I.. 2002 Corn Q.W uspk00e

Figure GSDM-4b. Global Trends In Output; N, P. Irrigation and Pesticide Use. IMSTD Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report I 15 terns with positive and negative effects on health [Chapters benefit from this new market. Equally critical, some crops 5, 61. Business-as-usual projections (i.e., broadly a continu- used for iquid biofuel production will require large quanti- ation of current policies and p[actices) indicate a probable ties of water, already a major constraint to agriculture in tightening of world food markets with increasing resource many parts of the world (Chapter 31. scarcity adversely affecting poor consumers and poor pro- The globalized Food system affects local food systems ducers [Chapter 5]. that support the livelihoods of the poor [Chapter 21. Low Rapid growth in demand for meat and milk is projected prices for commodity imports—in contrast to prices for to increase competition for land with crop production and processed food—can be favorable for poor consumers in to put pressure on the price for maize and other grains and net food-importing developing countries (given appropri- meals. This is because it takes 4.5 plant-derived calories ate institutional arrangements), but imports at prices below to produce one calorie of egg or milk and 9 plant-derived the cost of local production undercut national farmers and calories to produce one calorie of beef or iamb meat. Thus rural development. Investment in AKST that builds resil- growing demand usually associated with growing income ience of local food systems to environmental and economic may trigger structural changes in the livestock sector that shocks can stabilize production and increase food security, could have significant environmental implications but will provided that appropriate policy measures give temporary not necessarily result in improved human nutrition for poor protection to local markets. people or better opportunities for all small-scale producers. Increases in livestock numbers projected to 2050 vary by improve health and human nutrition. Food safety hazards, region and species, but substantial growth in livestock pro- which are biological, chemical or physical contaminants or duction is projected under a business-as-usual approach to agents that affect human health or nutrient bioavailability, occur in nearly all the developing world. This projection may occur anywhere along the food chain. Pathogen calls for an increase in resources allocated to livestock re- producec toxins, such as mycotoxins, heavy metals and lated research; taking an integrated approach to grassland other contaminants, veterinary drug and pesticide residues and crop-livestock systems to solve the multiple problems that can cause short- and longer-term adverse, even lethal, human beset intensive livestock production; and offering better pros- health consequences when present in food systems. These pects for achieving sustainable solutions [Chapters 3, 51. hazards iacrease with the length of the food chain. Outbreaks Marine, coastal and freshwater ecosystems have been of diseases transferred from food, such as Salmonella and drastically altered over the past 50 years, reducing their Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (mad cow disease), have productivity, resilience to stress, and potential to contribute heightened the demand for food safety standards [Chapter to future food security. The total world production from 2]. Concerns about CMOs in food and feed as well as capture fisheries has declined in recent years due to overfish- consumer choice, have heightened demand for food safety ing because of ineffective management, inappropriate fish- standardi and prompted countries to develop and implement ing practices and poor understanding of ecosystem-based regulations to address this issue [Chapter 2V management approaches. Future projections indicate that Demand for products with high quality and safety stan- capture fisheries will continue to decline and aquatic eco- dards is expected to continue to grow, creating a market systems will continue to degrade, seriously threatening food that will be accessible only to producers and processors with security. Fishing technology has ourpaced the development sufficient AKST capacity and knowledge (e.g., postharvest and application of sound science and management. The handlingi. In developing countries, better national quality development and unregulated use of fishing gears such as standardi are likely to be a function of increased knowledge large-scale trawling, gill nets, long-lining and use of other and public awareness about the health effects of nutritional destructive fishing practices, such as dynamite and cyanide, choices and safer production practices and the expansion has damaged the productivity of ecosystems and habitats of public health regulations, liability laws and laboratory upon which fishing depends JChapter 61. infrastructure [Chapters 5, S]. Food production and the price of food may be affected Diet is one of the leading risk factors for chronic ill- by increased biofuel production due to competition for land ness. Malnutrition remains a major cause of death, espe- and natural resources. The limited access to land by small- cially among children, but other illnesses, often correlated, scale farmers is likely to limit their ability to supply and such as obesity, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, HW Aids and cancer have emerged. Cardiovascular disease is a leading caust of death in both industrialized and developing countries [Chapters 1, 3. Changes in food availability and Food security (is] a situation that exists when all people, at all prices together with environmental, social and demographic times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, factors (e.g., urbanization) have resulted in a worldwide di- safe and nutritious food that meets their dietaiy needs and food etary transition. This transition has affected social groups differently. Indeed, undernutrition and overconsumption preferences for an active and healthy life (FAG, The State of Food coexist in a wide range of countries. Unbalanced diets are lnsecurity, 2001). often related to low intake of fruits and vegetables and high intake of fats, meat, sugar and salt. Many traditional foods, Food sovereignty is defined as the right of peoples and sov- however, are rich in micronutrients and expanding their role ereign states to democratically determine their own agricultural in production systems and diet could have health benefits. and food policies, Australic and EiSA. 16 I lAASTD Summary for Deason Makers of the Global Report

infectious diseases, includtng pandemic HIV/A1DS and The health and environmental risks and effects of agro- malaria, are among the leading causes of morbidity and chemicals have been extensively documented in the scientific mortality worldwide and are severely affecting food secu- and medical liwrarure. On the other hand, the impacts of rity in some developing countries. In addition to the ma;or transgenic plants, animals and microorganisms are currently challenges that are raised by these illnesses, other diseases Less understood. This situation cafls for broad stakeholder related to agricultural activity are expected to emerge or participation in decision making as well as more public do- expand. The incidence and geographic range of many of main research on potential risks [Chapters 2, 31. these diseases are influenced by production systems (e.g., intensive crop and livestock), and economic (e.g., expan- Challenge: Decrease poverty and improve rural sion of international trade), social (e.g., changing diets and livelihoods living patterns)1 demographic (e.g., population growth and AKST has the capacity to improve livelihoods, although ef- migration), environmental (e.g., land use and global climate fects have vared by region and social group. The ability to change), and biological factors (e.g., microbial mutations). access and benefit from AKST is uneven, with industrialized Most of these factors will continue to be relevant and may countries gaining more than developing countries (especially intensify during this century. those in Africa). The value added per agricultural worker in Serious socioeconomic consequences occur when dis- OECD countries in 2003 was US$23,081 with a growth be- eases spread widely within human or animal populations tween 1992 and 2003 of 4.4% per annum. For Africa, the (e.g., bluetoi-igue disease), or when they spill over from ani- figures were Ls$327 and 1.4%, respectively. These dispari- mal reservoirs to human hosts (e.g., avian influenza); patho- ties are partly the result of historical, social, economic politi- gens that infect more than one host species are of particular cal trajectories and current policy. Developing countries are concern. In large part due to a globalized food system, the projected to increasingly rely on imported food [Chapter increase in disease emergence will affect both high- and low- S, often because local production is not remunerative or income countries [Chapter 31. Toxic agrochemicals applied competitive because of lack of investment. The increase in in a wide range of agricultural systems result in exposure off-farm empinyment will not necessarily keep pace with the adversely affecting the health of producers, laborers and loss of on-farm livelihoods, and although the proportion of communittes. Enforcement of rigorous regulations and im- people working in agriculture will decline with urbaniza- plementation of effective risk management strategies can tion, the rural population is not expected to decline. help reduce exposure but do not eliminate risk. Many reasons exist for the expansion of agricultural trade: increasing interregiona I relationships, increasing demand for food, and commodity specialization facilitated by trade liberaliaation. Globalization and liberalization will affect countries and groups within countries in different Research Budgets of the CGIAR ways. It is prnjected that agricultural trade among devel- Monsanto Corporation and Syngenta oping countries is likely to increase and their agricultural trade deficits with industrialized countrws are likely to increase while industrialized countries will continue to run ag- 1000 ricultural trade surpluses [Chapter 41. In developing country urban markets with poor rural connectivity there could be increasing relince on imports, which provide cheaper food but undermint rural employment and livelihoods and deter investment in mitigating land degradation. These trade im- balances also favor high-input, energy-intensive agriculture, which currenty does not internalize environmental or social costs of produ:rion, an increasingly unsustainable approach.

Challenge: Increase environmental sustainability Over the last century, the agricultural sector has typically simplified production systems to maximize the harvest of a single component, generally ignoring other supporting, pro- visioning, and regulating ecological functions and services. When these practices have been associated with policies that provide resource price-distorting incentives, this has often led to degradation of environmental and natural resources (e.g., deforestation, introduction of invasive species, increased pollution and greenhouse gas emissions). Agriculture currently contributes 60 and 50% of global anthropogenic emissions of CH4 and N20, respectively. During the last 50 years, the natural resource base on which agriculture depends has declined faster than at any other RgureGSDM-5. Research Budgefs ofCCIAR, Monsantu and Syn time in history due to increased global demand and degra- genta dation; 75% of the crop genetic base of agricultural crops IAASTD Summarj for Decision Makers of the GFobaI Report 1 17

has been lost. Degradation of ecosystem functions c.g., nu- use pracr.ces, increases in population and changes in diet trient and water cycling), constrains production and may are projected to increase water consumption in food and limit the ability of agricultural systems to adapt to climatic fiber production by 70-90%. If demands for biomass energy and other global changes in many regions. Sustainable ag- increase, this may aggravate the problem. In addition, see- ricultural practices are part of the solution to current en- total competition for water resources will intensify, further vronmental change. Examples include improved carbon exacerbating the stress on developing country producers. storage in soil and biomass, reduced emissions of CH 4 and Reliability of water supply for agriculture is projected to N 2 0 from rice paddies and livestock systems, and decreased decline in many regions due to climate change and increas- use of inorganic fertilizers. Appropriate policies can pro- ing clima:e variability although the potential for AKST to mote rnidgation of GHG emissions and increased carbon improve water management is substantial in both rainfed sequestration. and irrigated agriculture. Accord ing to The Comprehensive Assessment of Water Projected changes in the frequency and severity of ex- Management in Agriculture by 2050, agriculture in most treme weather events in addition to increases in fire hazards, regions will still be the largest user of freshwater resources, pests and diseases will have significant implications for agri- although its share is expected to decline relative to indus- cultural production and food security. The effect of climate trial and domestic uses [Chapter 3J. Under current water change oi crop yields, fisheries, forestry and livestock is

0 Llttleor no water scardty [3 Approaching phIcaiwatescarcIty Not esflmated

U Phlwaters*afdty • Economic water scarcity

51 Oefnflon and 1ndhcatn • LA1Ue or no water suFdty. Abtndatn water rours FeLdiveto use, with la than 25% of wdterfmm rlverswfthdrawiftw human pwpos. • Physical water vcarclty(wate s sdeekçmentlsaathing or has exceeded surbie n4u). Moethan 75%oft*erfloat wlthdranforagdctftwe, InduM and dameslcpurpose5 (acourg For recydlr availabilityto water d nd—imiAles that thy aae are not necessanlywatef scarce. • Approaching pFy*iI water sards Moie than 60% of rti'er Pkim are wthdmwn. These basim vAll exp1ce physical w*terscany V theneat f*w • Economic wtar 3cirdty hum Inst1wtal, andinwclal capital limit arceu to wat'an though water In nature is avalrabie oc.Ilyto meet human de thLWatei resoscesate abundant relathetowateruse,1th ls than l%of waferhom r1ewlthdvawnkw human puq, but rnalnutfltion e1ML

Source: ImmaWnW Y&W Management Iitdlita enelysitdcinm for the Com'ahlve AnmffwftcfVftW hUrogomant in Agkultiie usIN the Watersim modet chapter 2.

Figure GSDM-6. Areas of Pkysical and Lconornic Xater Scardily. Source: IWMI, 200 18 I lAASTD Summaty for Decision Makers of the Global Report

Projected Impact of climate change

Gbba$ lemperatur, charge (reteilve to nt1utiiat) 0°C 1°C 2C 3'C 4°C 5C Food Faihlig crap yiekSe M many arser. pxUxtiary developft 1fl5

Possible rising yields In sorne No halluilla ragens FaSIng yJelds In r1w'y devakiped rnIona

Water Snail mountain glanters dw— -, SignhlJcant decreases In water 5VUU1l In AMW Sea level nsa threatens dOm water Supp9a€ threatened in including MeCliterMeW aed SenPJ$c ri*x

Ecosystems

Extensive darne to olTh rests Rlng mimbst at a1edss lace ei1nd.

Extreme weather evemils

Rismq ffflemity 01 slorms, forist fVøs, drots, floorllr*g and hss waves

Risk of abrupt and ma}or In'everslble changes

na-easing risk ci dangerous leedt,e and abrupt. Ie-eettths in Ow dmesys1m

acMJPG€- Slam Fig

Jiguru GSDM r ( - UUfL ft1ii RJ .'., iJU.

expected to vary from region to region; in general, the trop- value vegetable, fruit and flower production for export and ics and subtropics will experience negative effects, such as a range of agroindusrries has required innovative institu- atypical floods and droughts, while temperate regions will tional arrangements and support to women's organizations, have a longer growing season and hence more agricultural associations of women entrepreneurs and service providers' production under modest climate change (about 2-3°C rise networks. in temperature) IChapters 1, 51. Some dry temperate areas Gender equity is an important part of social equity. may become drier, resulting in reduced agricultural produc- Women and men, who often have different roles and re- tion potential. sponsibilities in households and food production, often have thfferen: relationships to the various benefits derived Challenge: lmprovc social sustainabiity, increase from AKST and innovations. Gender-based patterns are equity context specilic, but apersistent feature is that women have Progress toward sustainability and development goals is not a key role in agricultural activities and yet, especially in de- achievable without more determined involvement of wom- veloping countries, have limited access to and control over en's knowledge, skills and experience and a redirection of productive resources such as land, labor, technology, credit AKST in order to provide opportunities for women. Women and capital including gender equitable land reform. Despite farmers, processors and farm workers have benefited less advances in gender awareness, access to AKST products and from AKST than men overall and poor women least of all. participation in AKST processes remarn limited for women Efforts to redress persistent biases in their access to produc- and for other marginalized groups. Limited attention has tion resources, occupational education and training, infor- been paid to ssues of vulnerability and social exclusion, or marion and extension services have met with limited success. to the interaction of AKST-related opportunities with social The societal, policy-related and operational impediments to protection policies fChaprer 3]. more equitable progress, as well as the private and public AKST alone cannot overcome gender and ethnic bi- costs of such an uneven pattern of development, are well ases and inequities in agriculture, but insufficient attention understood as are the factors that discourage more forceful to these issurs by AKST actors can lead to unintentional action. Targeted support for women's participation in their increases in inequity. Significant investment in staffing and management roles, for instance, in dairying, poultry, small training for vwomen and ethnic minorities within science and stock breeding, as well as in new enterprises such as high technology centers increases the probability of more equi- MSTD Summary for Dedson Makers of the Global Report I 19

Percentage of women In labor force (total and agrIcuItura)

- LrlOe. fensWe E.iteri Europe f% of uisi labor orce & CentaI Asia

Agrktftra omni WdIe East -. - .do & Noith AfriCi (%ot IOtU r rca in eC10c) • EM AsIa J SouthAsia &thePicfll - LjtMAI5dc* Sub-Saharan and Cafibbein

ID I - - - '' padlic

2004. rO Eftlikei ka aWW EffOOMM TmA 51w. Jy 27

'ASU) c, )PA.M

Figaro GSDM-8. Percentage of Wmeu in Labor force (Total and AgnculturaO.

table outcomes for poor women. Unequal gender relations actors, such as srnalJ-cale farmers, with preference being may be exacerbated by projected environmental and eco- given to ;hort-term over longer term considerations. Some nomic shocks. Investment in the resilience of local innova- judgmenis have been privileged over others in AKST deci- tion systems should increase the equity of AKST outcomes Sian maliing. They have helped push formal AKST along Chaprer 21. certain pathways to the neglect of other well-evidenced op- In general, regions with severe trade disadvantages, bio- tions, some originating in traditional knowledge or civil so- physical constraints and marginalized social groups have ciety experience, that are more focused on the multiple roles benefited least from innovations in AKST. Furthermore, the of agriculture. Strengthening public support for empower- distribution of AKST bene&s has accrued unequally to those ing the organizations of farmers and other community-based who already hold agricultural assets—land, water, energy groups cn increase poor people's influence in collaborative resources, markets, inputs and finance, training, informa- AKST arrangements and decision making. Community- tion and communications. Policies and institutional arrange- based approaches to natural resource management, such as ments that enable the less powerful to participate in AKST watershd management, community forestry management, problem formulation and decision making can increase the integrated pest and crop management and the strengthening equity of AKST outcomes, e.g., farmer and scientist research of local seed systems, are helping support and integrate so- circles, farmer field schools. Regimes of intellectual property cial and environmental sustainability although they are not rights (IPR) that protect farmers and expand participatory a panacea IChapters 2, 3; SR-NRMI. plant breeding and local control over genetic resources and Man' of the technologies potentially of use in sustain- their related traditional knowledge can increase equity. Fi- able farifing are not adopted because small-scale producers nancial support to farmers' organizations can enable them lack access to the means and supporting services necessary to approach a range of knowledge and information provid- to employ the technologies profitably. Those able to access ers for context-specific solutions. information, credit, inputs, services and markets are better placed to take advantage of what formal AK5T has to offer, Challenge: Governance mechanisms for improved thereby widening disparities within farming communities. institutional and organizational arrangements Over time, a technology may diffuse to others, but since AKST arrangements involve ethical choices and value judg- the same farmers tend to benefit from each technology re- ments. In some cases they have excluded or marginalized key lease, the ensuing pressure on farm gate prices eventually 20 I fASTD Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report leads to marginalization of those unable to keep up and The question of which strategies will be best suited to to scale enlargement for those who remain. Comparative advance development and sustainahility goals )is controver - advantage demonstrates the theoretical efficiency of such a sial and reflects different social and political assumptions, movement of labor to other sectors where it can be produc- interests and values. In many areas of science and technology tively employed. Yet rural conditions may drive increasing discourse, the tendency is for a single interpretation, which numbers into civil disorder or insurrection and others into attributes cause and effect to some events or situations and unregulated internal or trans-boundary migration, imposing not to others. This selectivity has important implications costs that prove unmanageable in the short term. Stagnant for projecting science in specific directions. Acknowledging national economies and urban areas may not offer a better competing wdl-supported narratives of science and tech- livelihood or a pathway out of poverty. nology approaches is crucial for designing effective policies. These dilemmas pose difficult choices. The challenge of In many cases, A1

Decrease hunger and improve health and human and social cost.s that modern practices have externalized. Such nutrition approacks can become effective if alliarces exist among pro- Decrease hunger and increase food sCcurity. Many of the ducers ard consumers. One technique for land rehabilitation challenges facing agrrculture over the next 50 years will he is agroforestry, which has developed commun ity -based tech- able to be resolved by more targeted application of existing niques inland rehabilitation that offer opportunities to (1) in- AKST, institutional reform, approaches for modern and crease yitlds of staple food crops; and (2) create productive traditional agricultural and natural resource management, mixed cr:pping systems for small-scale producers in which and breakthroughs in science and technology. Examples perennial cash crops and indigenous food species replace the involving better resource management include improved need for improducrive forest fallows in shifting cultivation and soil and water management to increase water retention and support food sovereignty [Chapters 2, 3, 71. decrease erosion; strengthened organizational capacities Interact access and the spread of mobile phones al- to address emerging water scarcity by increasing water ready faólitate the exchange of scientific, technological and productivity and providing increased value per unit of water market information among farmers, scientists, commer- used; wider deployment of soil conservation measures; use cial enterprises, advisory and extension workers and other of microbiological techniques to suppress diseases in soils; stakeholders. However, private and public organizations and the use of phosphorus-soluhilizing bacteria. Other will need to provide more access to information, such as examples of using existing AKST include integrated pest climate farecasts, market prices and pest dynamics, for a management (1PM) supported by farmer experimentation diversity af user groups. The ready availability of affordable and learning; molecular techniques; and modeling of pest ICT will provide new opportunities for improving natural and alien species dynamics to reduce reliance on chemicals resource management, food security and livelihood strate- to maintain human and ecosystem health while addressing gies of rural communities [Chapters 3, 5, 61. emerging pest threats posed by climate change. Integrated The otential for precision agriculture, ICTs, ecologi- crop, tree, livestock and fish systems can be intensified and cal prod action, nanotechnology and other emerging tech- managed as multifunctional agricultural systems with less nologies to help advance development requires institutional negative consequences to ecosystems [Chapter 61. developnenr to create the conditions in which such tech- Future options include new cultivation techniques and nologies can generate opportunities for resource-poor pro- improved varieties of crops, livestock, fish and trees de- ducers in diverse local conditions. Technological, policy and veloped through accelerated processes, such as traditional institunoaal development go hand in hand and reinforce and participatory breeding combned with marker assisted each other. Global food security and national food sover - selection, genomics and transgenic approaches. These op- eignty cail for ending the marginalization of producers in tions could facilitate adaptation to a wider range of habitats developing countries [Chapter 31. and biotic and abiotic conditions, increase yields, enhance nutritional quality of food, produce nontraditional prod- Improve burnan health and nutrition. Promotion of health ucts and complement new production systems, provided and good nutrition levels cannot be divorced from political environmental and social risks are properly addressed. In- and social conditions that are grounded in environmentally tegrated advances in nanotcchnology, remote sensing, geo- sustainable approaches, and that include an educated graphic information systems, global positioning systems and infomed public, a regulatory and implementation and information communication technology could provide framework, and government accountability that ensures opportunities for more resource-efficient and site-specific food stock management, control over food production, agriculture. 5 (Chapter 61. marketing, pricing and distribution, disaster preparedness AKST can be harnessed to mitigate greenhouse gas and other aspects embedded in food sovereignty. (GHG) emissions from agriculture and to increase carbon Deve:oping and implementing good agricultural prac- sinks and cnhance adaptation of agricultural systems to cli- tices (GAPs), including integration of ecological processes mate change impacts. New technologies could reduce the across production systems, will help ensure animal and reliance of agriculture and the food chain on fossil fuels for plant health as well as promote food safety. In countries agrochemicals, machinery, transport and distribution. Ex- with limited facilities for implementation and monitoring isting AKST could also help reduce fossil fuel dependency of occupational health and food safety standards, the best given changes in institutional arrangements and incentives. option to limit risks from exposure to agrochemicals is to Emerging research on energy efficiency and alternative en- eliminarethe use of category la/lb chemicals (WHO Highly ergy sources for agriculture will have multiple benefits for Hazardous Chemicals) and promote alternative pest man- susrainabiliry. There is considerable potential for expanding agement including 1PM, agroeco logical approaches, biocon- the use of digesters (e.g., from livestock manure), gasifiers trols, organic farming, and farmer field schools. and direct combustion devices to generate electricity. More Where they can be effectively monitored and enforced, research and development is needed to reduce costs and im- GAPs can help manage risks associated with pathogen con- prove operational reliability [Chapter 6]. tamination of such foods as fruits and vegetables. Imple- Some existing approaches to food production have the menting GAPs may help developing countries cope with potential to address inequities created by industrial agricul- globalization without compromising sustainable develop- tural practices and to internalize many of the environmental ment objectives. Ana'ysis of hazards can target issues of biosecurity, disease monitoring and reporting, input safety Kyrgyzstan. (including agricultural and veterinary chemicals), control 22 I 14ASTD Summary for Decision Makers of The Global Report

of potennal foodborne pathogens and traceability. Public economic shocks. Policy options to enable these countries to education on improved food h;mdling and nutrition and respond to crises and achieve food security and sovereignty improved sanitation systems throughout the food produc- include greater democratic control (local, national, regional) tion chain are integral to managing the risks associated with and public sector involvement in agricultural policy, specifi- pathogens. With new research on the effects of agricultural cally through empowering farmer organizations, national practices on environmental and human health, and the governments and regional trading blocs. Other policy op- development of environmentally safe alternative practices, tions include improving (1) security of tenure and access safety standards will need to evolve that are capable of re- to land, germlasm and other resources; (2) diversification sponding to the effects of climate change, new technologies with locally important crop species; (3) access to resources and human mobility {Chapters 3, 61. One of the problems (e.g., credit, rutrients); (4) supporting rural livelihoods by with GAPs, standards, sanitation systems, hazard analysis, transparent p7ice formation and functioning markers with etc., (particularly in the poorest countries) is that they re- the objectives of improving small farm profitability and quire often unaffordable resources, and assume standards helping ensure that farm-gate prices are above marginal of implementation that are as yet beyond teach. costs of local production; and (5) strengthen social safety Integrating policies and programs across the food chain nets. These options imply a fundamental transformation of can help reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Focusing AKST and economy wide approach to agricultural policy on interventions at a single point along the food chain may [Chapters 3, 7].5 not provide the most efficient and effective control. Control Increased agricultural trade can offer opportunities for of zoonotic diseases requires rapid identification and com- the poor. At the same time, growing evidence indicates ag- munication of disease outbreaks; financial compensation; ricultural trade liberalization to date has not significantly and training and strengthening of coordination between vet- benefited small scale farmers or rural communities in many erinary and public health infrastructure, identifying emerg- countries. Approaches to give small-scale farmers greater ing infectious diseases and responding effectively to them opportunity to invest, innovate and to make AKST effective requires enhancing epidemiologic and laboratory capacity as a tool for improving rural livelihoods include a suite of and providing training opportunities. Grounding agricul- policy options to stabilize and increase farm-gate pr1ces. 7 tural systems and advances in AKST in ecological and epde- These options include developing rational subsidy strate- miological principles would help avoid emerging outbreaks gies wherever possible and renewed efforts to reduce trade of pests and diseases. distorting sulsidies in developed countries to establish fair Strategies for improving nutritional health include nu- competition iii the global market; streamline and improve trition education at all levels, regulation of product formula- provision of legitimate anti-dumping measures and provide tion through legislation (e.g., banning the use of transfats in temporary protection; and improve international market ac- processed foods in Sweden, reducing quantities of salt in the cess for developing countries, and establish new contractual UK); increasing the marketing incentives for fresh produce arrangements-9 Chaprers 3, 71. such as fruits and vegetables; and adopting fiscal policies (taxation, trade regimes) that take into account population Increase equity health effects. New efforts to use indigenous species and Opening national agricultural markets to international produce locally important foods may help to improve mi- competition can offer economic benefits, but can lead to cronutrient intake [Chapters 3, 6, 71. long-term negative effects on poverty alleviation, food se- Many constraints (e.g., political, market, trade, eco- curity and the environment without basic national institu- nomic, institutional) prevent the full deployment of current tions and infrastructure being in place. Some developing technologies to improve food safety and public health. Ef- countries with large export sectors have achieved aggregate fective national regulatory standards and liability laws that gains in GDP, although their small-scale farm sectors have are consistent with international best practice and the in- not necessarily benefited and in many cases have lost out. frastructure to ensure compliance will be necessary to meet The small scale farm sector in the poorest developing coun- development and sustainability goals. Infrastructure needs tries is a net loser under most trade liberalization scenarios include sanitary and phytosanitary surveillance programs that address this question. These distributional impacts call for animal and human health, laboratory analysis and re- for differentiation in policy frameworks as embraced by search capabilities (e.g., skilled staff for research) and train- the Doha work plan (special and differential treatment and ing and auditing programs [Chapter 21. However, given non-reciprocal access). Developing countries could benefit the limited resources and lack of effective control of public from reduced barriers and elimination of escalating tariffs agencies in many countries, the most effective options are to for processec commodities in developed and developing remove hazards to the extent possible, and promote coher- countries; and they could also benefit from reduced barriers ent policies that support safer pest and disease management. among themselves; deeper generalized preferential access to National and regional trust funds and expanding current aid developed coJnrry markets for commodities important for for trade commitments are innovative ways to finance this rural livelihoods; increased public investment in local value capacity development (Chapter 7]. Australia anc USA. Decrease poverty and improve rural livelihoods - Cameroon. Developing countries are vulnerahic to rapid fluctuations in Australia. world food prices and their agricultural and food systems Australia, Brtzil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Hon- are unlikely to be resilient to environmental, political and duras, Panama, Paraguay, USA and Uruguay. AASID Summary for Decsiori Makers of the Globar Report I 23

addition; improved access for small-scale farmers to credit; rations, rather than the most vulnerable ones. To ensure that and strengthened regional markets.' technology supports development and susrainahility goals, Intensive export-oriented agriculture has increased un- strong po!icy and institutional arrangements are needed to der open market operations that has been accompanied by balance private, communal and national rights systems re- both benefits and adverse consequences depending on cir- garding knowledge and resources. Policy options to redress cumstances such as exportation of soi1 nutrients and water, the weaknesses and inequities' 2 in the current rights systems unsustainable soil or water management, or exploitative on intellectual property and genetic resources may include labor conditions in some cases. AKST innovations that ad- (1) a closer connection between protection levels and devel- dress susrainability and development goals would be more opment g.aals; (2) explicit policies regarding the manage- effective with fundamental changes in price signals, for ex- ment of intellectual property in public organizations; (3) the ample, internalization of environmental externalities and preservation, maintenance, promotion and legal protection payment or reward for environmental services. F in addi- of traditional knowledge and community-based innovation; tion, the quality and transparency of governance, including and (4) options for benefit-sharing of genetic resources and increased participation of stakeholders in AKST decision derived ptoducts. 3 Natural resource management policies making is fundamental to improved sustainability and de- are needed to explicitly address how access and ownership is velopment outcomes [Chapter 7). shared among the communities from which these resources Brokered long-term contractual arrangements (market originate lChapters 3, 7 1. alliances, commodity chains, public and private outgrower Society benefits when women are engaged in decision schemes, etc.) have proved effective in improving the liveli- making, and when they have access to AKST and resources hoods of small-scale farmers. These approaches can promote such as land, water and agricultural inputs and seeds. Health value-chain activities and generate employment, provided services, childcare and education support women's partici- there is transparency and equitable power relations among pation in agriculture. Preferential targeting of AKST and ad- actors. They can allow small-scale producers to respond to ditional public support are needed to prepare resource poor opportunities through institutional arrangements that pro- women to become effective market participants IChapter 5). vide market access and credit for inputs and planting ma- terial. In a number of cases these schemes have fostered Environmental Sustainability and Natural Resource misuse and corruption, compromising their effectiveness. Management The contribution of these arrangements needs further test- Advances in AKST can help create synergy among agricul- ing to determine if they generate sufficient opportunity in re- tural grovth, social equity and environmental sustairiability source-poor agricultural systems [Chapter 7]. Other proven [Chapters 3, 51. Integrated approaches to AKST can help policy approaches include expanding access to microfinance, agriculture adapt to water scarcity, provide global food se- financing value chains and local markers, streamlining food curity, maintain ecosystems and provide sustainable liveli- chains, supporting fair trade and organic agriculture as di- hoods for the rural poor. Integration of food production versification and value addition strategies, and encourag- with other ecosystem services in multifunctional systems can ing large-scale sustainable trading initiatives by the private advance multiple goals (e.g., integrated rice and aquacul- sector. The trade policy environment, including reducing ture systems, integrated crop and livestock systems). AKST or eliminating escalating tariffs on agricultural products in can help increase water productivity by reducing field losses developed and developing importing countries, along with of water (e.g., precision and micro-irrigation) and through the strengthened national institutions and infrastructure, breeding and soil and crop management. The greatest po- including improved local and regional market linkages, are tential increases in water productivity are in rain fed areas key determinants of whether these policy approaches will in developing countries; contour farming, ridging, no-till, produce pro-poor results on the ground [Chapter 71. increased soil organic matter and water harvesting can in- in the absence of strong local and national institutions crease soi. water retention and reduce runoff in these ar- that are supportive of development and sustainahiliry goals, eas [Chap:er 31. Improved design and management of large the transfer of product]vity-enhancing technologies does nor dams and irrigation systems can maintain aquatic and ripar- significantly benefit resource-poor, risk-exposed producers. ian ecosystems, avoid siltation and salinization, and create The global linear transfer of research and technology results greater equity between upstream and downstream users. in imbalanced competition between farming 5ystems that Improvements in water quality can be achieved through have been supported by public economic investments for policies which combine enforceable regulations to reduce decades and systems that have never received comparable and prevent contamination of ground and surface water by public investments. Policy options to promote innovation agricultural inputs with investment in AKST [Chapter 6]. systems for pro-poor development (as opposed to technol- The ecological footprint of industrial agriculture is ogy transfer per se) and to strengthen poor people's partici- already too large to be ignored and projected increases in pation in AKST governance are essential if development and future gloanl environniental changes could make the foot- sustainability goals are to he reached fChapter 71. print even larger. Policies that promote more rapid uptake Technologies such as high-yielding crop varieties, agro- of proven AKST-based mitigation and adaptation solu- cheniical.s and mechanization have primarily benefited the tions can contribute to checking or reversing this trend better resourced groups in society and transnational corpo- while maintaining sufficient food production. Policies that

Australia. Canada and Uganda. Brazil, Cuba, Ethiopia and Uganda. Canada. 24 I IAASTD Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report promote sustainable agricultural practices (e.g., using mar- bilization levds (450 ppmv CO2-equivalents) indicate a need ket and other types of incentives to reward environmental for measures such as carbon sequestration and bioenergy services) stimulate more technology innovation, such as plantations, that would compete with land for food. Ad- agroecological approaches and organic farming to aUevi- vances in AKST and a focus on local knowledge could re- ate poverty and improve food security. Growing pressure duce the reliance of agriculture and the food chain on fossil on natural resources requires new investment policies for fuels for agrcchemicals, machinery, transport and distribu- AKST. innovative and better targeted AKST investment pol- tn. Emerging research on energy efficiency and alternative ides are essential to build natural, human, financial, social energy sources for agriculture will have multiple benefits for and physical capital for social and environmental sustain- sustainability [Chapters 3, 5, 6]. ability [Chapter 81. A negotiated global long-term (30-50 years), compre- Sustainable fisheries requite practical and efficient applica- hensive and equitable regulatory framework with differ- tion of an ecosystem approach, which might include improved entiated responsibilities and intermediate targets to reduce monitoring, control and enforcement, and be underpinned by GHG emission could limit the magnitude of human-induced a certification system. Marine protected areas could be ex- climate change, which is projected to undermine agricultural panded and prices of fishing concessions increased. A range productivity throughout the tropics and sub-tropics. An of P1KST policy responses is needed to ensure appropriate expanded Clean Development Mechanism could be used, choices on how best to utilize and share resources, and re- with a comprehensive set of eligible agricultural mitigation duce negative environmental and social effects of aquacul- activities and within a national sectoral approach, including lure. Appropriate policies would include ending subsidies a wide range of practices (e.g., tree planting, no-till, live- for unsustainable technologies [Chapter 31. stock and rice paddy management). The advantage of these Payment or reward for performance-based ecological approaches is that they are applicable to the conditions of services (PES) recognizes the importance of the multiple small scale agriculture in developing countries, but require functions of agriculture and creates mechanisms to value transparent and accountable processes and frameworks to and pay for the benefits of resource-conserving ecosystem function effectively. Other approaches could include re- services provided by sustainable agricultural practices, such duced agricultural subsidies to cropping systems that pro- as low-input and low-emission production, conservation mote GHG e.nissions [Chapter 71. tillage, watershed management, agroforestry practices, car- To address expected climate change challenges and im- bon sequestration, biological control and pollination, and pacts, a major role for AKST is needed to increase adap- conservation of agricultural biodiversiry. Other policy ap- tive capacity and enhance resilience through purposeful proaches that are already in use in various countries, which biodiversity management. Options include irrigation man- would reduce the negative footprint of agriculture include agement, water harvesting and conservation technologies, taxes on carbon, agrochemical use and water pollution. diversificatioi of agriculture systems, the protection of Such taxes provide incentives to reach internationally or na- agrobiodiver;ity and screening germplasm for tolerance to tionally agreed use-reduction targets and support resource- climate change. These measures would need to be supported conserving and low-emission technologies. They provide by appropriate policy options, integrated spatial planning, incentives for mulsifunctionaliry in using agricultural land, and early warning and communication infrastructure that broadening revenue options for land managers and allowing support the generation and dissemination of adaptation carbon-impact food labeling. Another option includes pro- knowledge, technologies and practices. hibiting particularly damaging practices in highly vulnerable Research is needed to better understand the poten- areas (e.g., deforestation in tropical forest margins, use of tial benefits and harms of producing bioenergy, which are toxic chemicals in watershed headways and near streams). strongly dependent on local circumstances. Some countries To meet development goals, incentive and regulatory systems are currentl' promoting or developing domestic biofuel can be designed to ensure stable revenues for small-scale farm- policies with the aim of furthering rural job creation and ers and local communities, such as product certification for economic deielopment as well as mitigating climate change. geographical origin and organic agriculture. The long-term But negative effects on poverty (eg, rising food prices, mar- sustainabiliry and equity of the benefits generated by these ginalization of small-scale farmers) and the environment systems is an area for further research [Chapters 3, 71. (e.g., water depletion, deforestation) may outweigh these AKST can play a proactive role in responding to the benefits and need to be carefully assessed. challenge of climate change and in mitigating and adapting Given that first-generation biofuels are often not eco- to climate-related production risks. Climate change both in- nomically cc:'mpetirive with petroleum fuels, most biofuel fluences and is influenced by agricultural systems. The direct policies rely on a complex set of subsidies and regulations to negative effects of climate variability and projected climate promote production. Small-scale biofuels could offer liveli- change will predominately be felt in the tropics and sub- hood opportunities, especially in remote regions and coun- tropics. AKST can be harnessed to mitigate greenhouse gas tries where high transport costs impede agricultural trade (GHG) emissions from agriculture, to increase carbon sinks and energy imports. The next generation of liquid biofu- and biodiversity (e.g., tree planting and conservation till- els (cellulosic ethanol and biomass-to-liquids technologies) age), and to enhance adaptation of agricultural systems to could possihly mitigate some of the concerns about first- hiotic and ahiotic results of climate change. However, some generation hiofuels. It is not clear when these technologies of these policies could increase competition for resources, might become commercially available. Considerable capital e.g., agriculture for food vs. bioenergy and forestry for car- costs, large economies of scale, a high degree of techno- bon sequestration. Some models that simulate very low sta- logical sophistication and intellectual property rights issues IAASID Summary for Dedsion Makers of the Global Report I 25

Table GS1DM Fxie of ps/icr apProache.c es ad:ince dcrc/rpmcnt md aIi/rtv oa/s

EW Social equity Economically Policy Poverty and Hunger and Human health austakiabUlty and inclusIon sustainable appi-oaches livelhtlood3 nutrftlon (Including development gender

Payment for • Security of tenure • Carbon sinks • Rcccc,rmtion of & Long-term ecosystem • Fair local justice • Sustainable discrimination markets for eco- services systems nianagement and exclusion nomic viability • Administrative of wetlands and enforce- • National eco- capacity for lair ad ground- able means to nomic policy distribution ater redress these to maintain • National frame- • Food control commitment to works to protect goals of ecosys- poor peoples ferns services rights effectively payment mechanism

Germplasm • Farmers' seec • Effective • Capacity for s National policy • Policy for • Sufficient in- management rights recognized complemen- effective regu- oi biodiversity identifying and volvement of and protected tarity between lation, testing • Efective na- working with technology • Sul generis poll- advanced • Effect ye tional policy women and ex- users in sd- des recognized techniques for government pactice for chided groups ence policy and in IPR patents & germplasm capacity to n- aintaining • Effective local practice legally protected management negotiate aciequ ate bio- mechanisms • Sufficient capi- & participatory international d.versity (infor rnplemen- tal and technical plant breeding agreements chiding capac- tation infrastructure • Recognition (with private hf to monitor to sustain a of consumer sector and and act) relevant national preferences international • Esure no gerniplasm with respect to agencies) cross-contam- research policy GM products irtion

Water • Legally recog- • Access rights • National and • Transitions • Legally recog- • National plans management nized rights for to water for international from manage- nized entitle- for water poor people to agricultural regulations to ment of water i ments for all management access water purposes reduce the use use functions residents which (including flood resources of toxics tc manage- are technically management, • Investment in nunt of hydro- & legally en- ground water reliable do- logical cycles forced extraction, eco- meslic water • Capital in- logical status of & sanitation vestments in surface water, facilities laidscape & irrigation sys- • Scientific engineering tems, etc.) capacity to WDrks e Fair trans- assess current • Payment boundary water & potential rrechanisms management water-induced for ecosystem agreements health prob- services • National & ems • lnentives for international sustainable mechanisms management for adjudicat- of grounding competing water water claims

us;, 26 I IAASTD Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report make it unlikely that these technologies will be adopted evant to small scale producers' and laborers' needs. In some widely in small developing countries in the next decades. circumstances public actors particularly at local government Research and investments are needed to explore risks and levels can play an enabling role to facilitate the participation potentials of these techno]ogies [Chapter 61. of. for instance, NGOs, farmers' organizations, professional There is also considerable potential for expanding the associations, private sector and scientific organizations and use of digesters (e.g., livestock manure), gasifiers and direct unions in providing infrastructure and services; in others combustion devices to generate electricity, especally in off- public actors necessarily will remain the main provider. grid areas and in cogeneration mode on the sites of biomass Publicly funded research and education institutes in waste-generating industries (e.g., rice, sugar, paper mills). some countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, have Research and investments are needed to explore their costs and weakened considerably. Innovative forms of collaboration benefits, particularly in developing countries [Chapter 61. are emerging such as regional networks, public-private consortia, more effective division of labor and capacity between Improved Governance: Institutional and research institutes and universities, and recognition of the Organizational Arrangements research roles that NGOs and farmers themselves play. Most participants in intergovernmental processes recogmze Persistent problems include competence in some scientific the importance of political commitment and ensuring full fields, movement of capacity to industrialized countries and and meaningful participation of stakeholders across scales the private sector, and weak incentives for science in both in forming and implementing policy regarding agriculture. public and private sectors to address pro-poor issues. Global In some countries diverse groups including civil society and and transhoundary issues call for new arrangements for co- the private sector collaborate in the development of policy; operation and capacity development that will need adequate they are informed by scientific and empirical evidence and resOurcing. represent public interests. In these cases policies have focused on the multifunctionality of agriculture and have aimed to Investments meet a broad range of goals, which include crop productiv- More and he:ter targeted public and private investments in ity, sustainable economic development, environmental sus- AKST can make major contributions to meeting develop- tainability, health and social well.being (Chapters 2, 31. ment and suitainability goals. Included are investments in The wider application of AKST institutional models ca- developing twhnology and management systems that more pable of addressing the combined development and sustain- efficiently use scarce resources such as land, forests, water, ability goals requires resources to support the transaction and, in the future, fossil fuels; in helping protect ecosystem costs of interaction among the partners as an integral part services by reducing GHG emissions, reducing water pollu- of the innovation process. In some cases, as in multi-organi- tion, and slowing or reversing the loss of biodiversity; and in zational arrangements involving supermarkets or commer- controlling plant and animal pests and diseases. Additional cial actors in market-oriented value chains, these costs can investments are also needed in areas for which evidence sug- he recovered from the commercial returns. In other cases, gests that knowledge gaps exist (Chapter 81. public subsidies (e.g., arrangements between farmers' or- Governments will continue to play an important role in ganizations, advisory service providers, and global science providing public goods, assuring equitable access to AKST networks), or private funding (e.g., arrangements between and creating an enabling policy and institutional environ- farmers' organizations, technology providers and interme- ment. The political economy and good governance are im- diary organizations such as development foundations or portant determinants in mobilizing resortrces for AKST; NGOs) may be required, drawing on the lessons of past they also play a major role in allocating resources between successes and failures. different AKST components. Increased demand for respon- Institutional arrangements with proven potential for siveness to ne needs of the vulnerable, coupled with ac- advancing sustainahility and development goals include countability and transparency are needed to drive changes farmers' participation in plant breeding as well as adaptive in AKST investment decisions [Chapter 71. research; the provision of R&D funds to research users for More government funding and better targeted gov- contracting services from AKST suppliers; and staffing catch- ernment investments in AKST in developing countries can ment management agencies to facilitate multi-organizational contribute in a major way to meeting development and sus- collaboration in the AKST needed to support agroecosys- rainability goals. This increase would involve more invest- tern management. Other modalities with proven potential ment by the public sector in order to deliver a wide range of to progress toward sustainahility and development goals global publicgoods. This increased funding is justified given include multi-organizational arrangements to support the (1) the potential for high economic ROR in technologies AKST needed by Farmer Field Schools and farmer-scientist that are applied by farmers in the field; and (2) evidence that research circles; AKST networks between NGOs, farmers' AKST investments can help reduce poverty. Public invest- organizations and research institutes; collaboration among ments must be targeted using evidence other than simply public sector AKST providers, within and between develop- overall ROR to include social, environmental, health and ing countries; and various farmer-to-farmer arrangements cultural -aspects, positive and negative, and the distribution [Chapters 2, 31. of costs and benefits among different groups. Higher invest- A growing number of actors is participating in creating ment in hun-ian resource development would facilitate ac- and improving the conditions in which AKST can have a high quiring knowledge and skills in frontier sciences. Funding payoff for small-scale producers. These conditions include is also needed for processes that ensure that resource-poor roads, market facilities, irrigation schemes and services rel- farmers, natural resource managers and other intended ben-

AAS1D Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report I 27

Table GSM2 Exam fiLs f i /inr iuiiairs fr .cOT f ad lnri JP s'l ifr7(! hi/S.

Aiol*vlty area I AppiDaches institutional arrangements, laws, regulations

- I,•.l • Public-prtvate R&D partnerships in e.g., water appropriate farmer fieLd schools) management • Research networks & multi-organizational consortia • Competitive grant funding to cover costs of field (national, regional, international) study in tertiary & post-doctoral training e Decentralized R&D facilities in collaboration with village development centers, NGOS, farmer organizations

Generation of • Farmer participation in adaptive research • Evolution of varietal release procedures & criteria to knowledge & • Farmer participation in plant breeding, combining accept & certify farmer-generated seed technology advanced and local knowledge, techniques & skills • Multi-organizational collaboration with local • Participation of actors along entire value chains in communities in the commercial development of wild market research and semi-domestic forest species

Access to, use • Support to farmer-to-farmer networking and • Community and rural school-based service centers & exchange of extension with internet access information & • Research, extension, farmer collaboration in technology development & spread of short videos )CDs, etc) and radio programs • Mobile Plant Health Clinics, linked to service laboratories • Trade & market information services based on mobile telephony

Science & technology • Inclusion of research & technology users in - Further development of regional and international planning problem identification and planning decisions forums to drive S&T planning addressing global • Application of processes and methods for public issues deliberation concerning new or contentious S&T

Science & technology • Participation of civil society, private sector and • Evolution of seed law to accept sale of certified policy governments in policy processes and the evolution farmer-produced seed and recognize local seed of framework legislation Systems • Strong government regulation of private sector where necessary to prevent conflicts of interest • Implementation of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (CEDAW) in signatory countries

elioaries of the research participate in research decision- The ability to allocate human and financial resources making (Chapter 81. effectively will depend on a significant improvement in the Private firms both large and small have been and will capacity of those in both public and private sectors to fore- in the future continue to be major suppliers of inputs and cast and respond to environmental, social and economic innovations to commercial and subsistence farmers and can changes, locally and globally. This will include the capac- therefore make major contributions toward meeting devel- ity to make strategic technological choices, create effective opment and sustainahility goals. They will rarely provide public policy and regulatory frameworks, and pursue edu- public goods or supply goods and services for which there cational and research initiatives and extension. The involve- is no market but evidence shows that there are considerable ment of farmers, the lay public, school children and others spillovers from private suppliers of technology to farmers in monitoring and risk assessment, improving GIS capability and consumers. To make the best use of private investments and creating database5 and other management information in AKST, government regulations are needed to address neg- systems can upgrade AKST forecasting capacities, allocate ative externalities and monopolistic behavior and to sup- resources appropriately, and provide the data required for port good environmental practices, while at the same time making strategic technological choices. providing firms with incentives to invest in pro-poor AKST (Chapter 81. Annex A Reservations by Governments

Reservations on SDM reflecong the use/range of new technologies, including Australia: Australia recognizes the IAASTD initiative and modern biotechnology in Key Findings 10 and ii. reports as a timely and important multistakeholder and rnul- Benin, Botswana, DRC, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya, Tan- tidisciplinary exercise designed to assess and enhance the zania, Togo, Uganda: the paragraph does not adequately role of AKST in meeting the global development challenges. address the need to invest in financial, human, political The wide range of observations and views presented how- and physical capital and time in the development and ever, are such that Australia cannot agree with all assertions applicatian of new and emerging AKST in developing and options in the report. The report is therefore noted as countries in order to develop capacity to cope with ex- a useful contribution which will be used for considering the isting and emerging challenges. future priorities and scope of AKST in securing economic Australia and USA noted that they would have included growth and the alleviation of hunger and poverty. the words "the safety in" before the word "GMOs". Kyrgystan objects to the mention of transgenics in this Canada: The Canadian Government recognizes the sign ifi- paragraph. cant work undertaken by IAASTD authors, Secretariat and Australia and USA reserve on this sentence. stakeholders and notes the Global Summary for Decision Cameroon does not support strategies leading to in- Makers as a valuable and important contribution to policy creased farm gate prices because these will be reflected debate which needs to continue in national and international in local markets and then weaken the purchasing power processes. While acknowledging considerable improvement of the population. Rather, AKST policy options should has been achieved through a process of compromtse, there act to reduce the costs of production at the farm level in remain a number of assertions and observations that require order to lower farm gate prices, while ensuring profit- more substantial, balanced and objective analysis. However, able returns to the farmers. the Canadian Government advocates the Global 5DM be Australia suggests that a number of trade and domestic drawn to the attention of governments for consideration in policy assertions and observations require more sub- addressing the importance of AKST and its large potential stantial, balanced and objective analysis to be meaning- to contribute to economic growth and the reduction of hun- ful for decision makers. ger and poverty. Australia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, United States of America: The United States joins con- USA and Uruguay state that the above paragraphs must sensus with other governments in the critical importance of be without implication for any governments' position in AKST to meet the goals of the IAASTD. We commend the relevant international negotiating fora. tireless efforts of the authors, editors, Co-Chairs and the Australia suggests that a number of trade and domestic Secretariat. We welcome the JAASTD for bringing together policy assertions and observations require more sub- the widest array of stakeholders for the first time in an ini- stantial, balanced and objective analysis to be meaning- tiative of this magnitude. We respect the wide diversity of ful for decision makers. views and healthy debate that took place. 1. Brazil, Casta Rica, Cuba, Ethiopia and Uganda requested As we have specific and substantive concerns in each of that Figure 7.2: Projected gains losses) for developed and the reports, the United States is unable to provide unquali- developing countries under Doha scenarios for agricul- fied endorsement of the reports, and we have noted them. ture; and Figure 7.3: Poorest countries lose income under The United States believes the Assessment has potential all Doha scenarios, from Chapter 7 of the Global Report for stimulating further deliberation and research. Further, we should have been included in this document. acknowledge the reports are a useful contribution for consid- Canada and Uganda prefer the following language "to eration by governments of the role of AKST in raising sustain- better take into account national policy priorities and able economic growth and alleviating hunger and poverty. characteristics" instead of "to redress the weaknesses and inequities". Reservations on Individual Passages Canada does not agree with the last three words " USA and Botswana prefer to use the word "iiicorpo- and derived products." on point 4. rate" rather than "towards". USA suggests deletion of this table since it does not add USA does not believe that there is sufficient balance in additional clarity for policy makers.

28 Annex B Authors and Review Editors

Argentina Costa Rica Waiter Ismaci Abedini • Universidad Nacional de La Plata Marian Perez Guncrrcz • National Centre of Competence Hector D. Giozo • Mini5terio de Relaciones Exteriorcs, Comercio in Research North-South Centre Suisse de Recherche Internacional y Culto Scienrilique Maria Crisrina Plencovich • Universidad de Buenos Aires Sandra Elizabeth Sharry • Universidad Nacional de La Plans Câte d'lvoire Miguel Taboada • Univcrsidad de Buenos Aires Gufladio CssC a National Centre of Competence in Research E.rnesto Viglizzo s INTA Ccntro Regional La Pampa Notth-outh

Australia Denmark 1-Ida) Ahammad • Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Henrik Egertg • Danish Institute for International Studies (11)115) Forestry Thomas Heririchs • University of Aarhus Tony Jansen • TerraCircle Inc. Roger R.B. Leakey • James Cook University Egypt

Andrew Lowe • Adelaide State Herbarium and Biosurve• Musrafa A. Bedier 0 Agricultural Economic Research Institure Andrew Mears • Majority \r)d Technology Salwa Mohsmed ALli Dogheirn • Agriculture Research Center

Bolivia Ethiopia Ntanuel de Ia Fuerite • National Centre of Competence in R Ananda1ayasekeram • International Livesrock Research Reearch North-South Institute Berhanu Dee]c • National Centre of Competence in Research Botswana North-South Baurte Cynthia Kwerepr • Borewana College of Agriculture Workneh Negacu Senrayehu . Addis Ababa University Gete Zelekc• Global Mountain Program Brazil Andre Goncalves • Ceritro Ecologico Finland Odo Primavesi s Embrapa Pecuana Sudeste Southeast Enibrapa Rtikka Rajatahri • Ministry of Foreign Affairs Cattle) France Canada Martine Aniona • CIRAD Jacqueline Alder • University of Britisl-i Columbia L)idier Bazi]c • (IIRAD Harriet Friedman • University of Toronto Patrick Caron • C1RAD Thora Martina Herrmann • UniversirC de Montréal Pierre-Marie Boc • C1RAD Sophia Huyer • UN Commission on Science and Technology for Nicolas Bricas U CIRAD Development. Jacques Brossier • Institur National de Ia Recherche. joAnn Jaffe • University of Regina Agroriomique )[NRA) Shawn McGuire ' Independent Perrine Burod 'CIRAD Morven A. McLean Agriculture and Biotechnology Strategies Emilie Coudel • C1RAD Inc. )AGB1OS) Fabrice Dreyfus • University Institute for Tropical Agrofood M. Monirul Qader Mirza • University of Toronto, Scarborough md usrries and R oral Development Ricardo Ramirez • University of Gue]ph Michel Dukire • CIRAD Patrick Dugué • ORAl) China Nicolas Fayssc CIRAD Jikun Huangs Chinese Academy of Sciences Stefano Farelli • CIRAD Guy Faure • CIRAD Colombia Thierry Goli • CIRAD Maria Veronica Gottret • CIAT Henri Hocde • CIRAD

29 30 I Annex B

Bernard Hubert • Institut National de Ia Recherche Agronomiquc Jordan INRA) Mahotud Duwayri • University of Jordan Jacques Irubernon • C1RAD Jean-Pierre Muller • CIRAD Kenya Sylvain Perret • CIRAI) Tsedeke Abatt • International Crops Research Institute for the Michel Petit • Instirut Agronomique Mediterraneen Montpellier Semi-Arid Tropics Anne-Lucie Raoult-Wack ' Agropolis Fondation Boniface Kireme • Centre for Training and Integrated Research in Nicole Sibelet • CIRAD Arid and Semi-arid Lands Development Ludovic Temple ' CIRAD Washington Cchola • Egerton University Jean-Philippe Tonncau • CIRAD Frank M. Place • World Agroforestry Centre Guy Trebuil • CIRAD Tancrede Voituriez u CIRAD Kyrgyz Republic Ulan Ka.symo s Central Asian Mountain Partnership Programme The Gambia Ndey Sireng Bakurin • National Environment Agency Malaysia Khno Gtik Hong • International Tropical Fruits Network Germany Anita Jdel • Mediator (MAB) Mauritius Herrnann Waibel • Leibniz University of Hannover Ainecnah Gurih-lakim • Universir) of Mauritius

Ghana Mexico Elizabeth Achearnpong • University of Ghana Jesus Moncada • Independent Edwin A. Gyasi • University of Ghana Scott S. Rohirson • Universidad Metropolirana - lztapalapa Gordana Ktanjac-Berisavljcvic • University for Development Studies Morocco Carol Markwei • University Of Ghana Saadia I .halori • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique

India Netherlands Sachin Chaturvedi • Rcsearc]i and Information System for Nicnke Beintsma • International Food Policy Research Institute Developing Countries RJS) Bas Eickhour • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Purvi Mehta-Bhart • Science Ashram (MNP) Poonam Man jal • CR1511. 1rd Judith Franci • Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural K.P. Palanisami • Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Cooperation (TA) C.R. Ranganathan • Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Janice Jiggins • Wageningen University Sunil Ray • Institute of Development Studies Toby Kiers • Vrije Universiteit Anushree Sinha • National Council for Applied Economic Kaspar Kok • Wageni.ngen University Research (NCAER) Niek Koning • Wageningen University V. Santhakumar • Centre for Development Studies Niels Louwazrs • Wageningen University Niels Röling • Wageningen University Indonesia Mark van Ocrschor • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Suraya Afiff • KARSA ICircie for Agrarian and Village Reform) Agency (M.NP) Derlef P. van Vuuren • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Italy Agency (MNP) Gustavo Best • Independent Henk Westhoek • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Michael Ha!ewood • Bioversity International MNP Anne-Marie Izac & Alliance of the CGLAR Centres Prabhu Pingali . FAQ New Zealard Sergio Ulgiati • Parthenope University of Naples Jack A. Heinemann • University of Canterbury Keith Wiehe S FAQ Monika Zurek • FAQ Nigeria Stella B. Williams • Obafemi Awolowo University Jamaica Audia Barnert • Scicntic Research Council Oman Ahdallah Niohartied ()mezzine • University of Nirwa Japan Osamu Ito • Japan International Research Center for Agriculrutal Pakistan Sciences WRCAS Svcd Saidin Hus.sain • Ministry of Environment Osamu Koyama s Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS) Peru Maria E. Fernandez • National Agrarian University Carla Tamago • Universidad San Martin de Porres

30 Authors and Review Editors I 31

Philippines Uganda Mahluz Ahmed • Asian Development bank Theresa cngooba & International Food Policy Research institute Dely Pascual Gapasin • institute for International Development Partnership Foundation United Kingdom Agnes Rola • University of the Philippines Los Baños Steve Bass • international Institute for Environment and Leo Sebastian • Philippine Rice Research Institute Devekpmen t Stephen Riggs u University of East Anglia South Africa Norman Clark • The Open University Moraka Makhura a Dvelopmenr Bank of Southern Africa Peter Craulurd • University of Reading Urmilla Bob • University of KwaZulu-Natal Cathy Rozrl Farnworth • Independent Chris Garforrh • University of Reading Spain David Grzwacz • University of Greenwich Mario Giampietro • Univcrsitar Autônoma de Barcelona Andy Hall • United Nations Universiry - Maastricht Marta Rivera-Ferte • Autonomous University of Ba rcclon:i Frances Kimmins • NR International Ltd Chris D.B. Leakey • University of Plymouth Sri Lanka Karen Loch • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Deborah Bossia • International Water Management Institute Aria Marr' University of Greenwich Charlotte de Fraiture • International Water Management institute Adrienne Martin • University of Greenwich David Molden • Iiirernational Water Management Institute Ian Maudhii • Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine Nigel Maxted • University of Birmingham Sudan J ohanna Perinarz • ITAD Balgis M.E. Osman-Elasha • Higher Council for Environment & Charlie Riches • University of Greenwich Natural Resources (HCENR) Peter Rohbns • lndepcndent Geoff Simn • Scottish Agricultural College Sweden Linda Smith • Department for Environment, Food and Rural Martin Wierup • Swedish Univertity of Agricultural Sciences Affairs lend Mar 2006) Philip Thorn ton • International Livestock Research Institute Switzerland eff Waage & London International Develripmcnr (.cntrc Felix Bachmann • Swiss College of Agriculture David Duthie • United Nations Environment Programme United States Markus Giger • University of Bern Eniiiy Adams • independent Ann D. Herbert ' International Labour Organization Elizabeth A. Ainsworth • U.S. Department of Agriculture Angelika Hilbeck • Swiss Federal Institute of Technology jock Ander.on • The World Bank Udo Hoeggel • University of Bern Patrick Avao • The World Bank Hans Hurni • University of Bern Debbie BarLer • International Forum on Globalization Andreas Klaey • University of Bern Barbara Best • US Agency for international Development Cordula Ott • University of Bern Regina Birrr International Food Policy Research Policy Brigitte Portncr • University of Bern Institute Stephan Rist • University of Bern David Booldin • Cornell University Urs Scheidegger. Swiss College of Agriculture Sandra Brosvn • Winrock International juerg Schneider • State Secretariat for Economic Affairs Lorna M. Butler • Iowa State University Christine Zundel • Research Institute of Organic Agriculture Kenneth Cassman • University of Nehraska Lincoln iFIBL I Gina Casrillo • Oxfarn America \Iedha Chandra • Pesticide Action Network North America Taiwan Joe! I. Cohen . Independent Mubarik Mi • \Vorld Vegetable (enter Daniel de la Torre Ugarte • University of Tennessee Steven Dehiner • University of Minnesota Tanzania William F. Easterhitig • Pennsylvania State University Aida Cuthbert Isinika • Sokoine University of Agriculture Kristie L. Ebh • ESS, LLC Rose Rita Kingamkono • Tanzania Commission for Science & Shaun Ferris • Catholic Relief Services Techno logy Jorge M. Fensecs • University of Arizona Constance Gewa • George Mason University Thailand James C. Hanson • University of Maryland

Thanimarat Koottatp • Asian Institute of Technology Paul Heisey a U.S. Department of Agriculture Omololu Jo'in Idowu • Cornell University Turkey Marcia ishii-Eiteman • Pesticide Action Network North America Naz.imi Acikgoz a Ege University R. Cesar Izaurralde • Joint Global Change Research institute Hasan Akca • Gaziosmanpasa University Moses T,K. Kairo • Florida A&M University Abmet Ali Koc • Akdeniz University Russ Krusk • International Livestock Research Institute Suat ()ksuz • Ege University Andrew D.F. Leakey . University of Illinois A.). McDonald • Cornell University

31 32 1 Annex B

Parnck Meier • Tufts University Sara Scherr • Ecoagriculture Partners Douglas L. Murray • Colorado State University Jeremy Schwa itzbord • Independent Clare Narrod • [nternational Food Pohcy Research Institute Matthew Spudock • University of Massachusetts James K. Newman • Iowa State University Timothy Sulse: • international Food Policy Research institute Diane Osgood • Business for Social Responsibility Steve Suppan • Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Jonathan Padgham' World Bank Stan Wood • liternational Food Policy Research institute Philip Pardey • University of Minnesota Angus Wright' California State University; Sacramento Ivetre Perfecro • University of Michigan Howard Yana Shapiro • MARS Inc. Cameron Pitrelkow ' Independent Tingju Zhu • International Food Policy Research institute Carl E. Pray • Rutgers University Laura T Raynolds • Colorado State University Uruguay Robin Reid • Colorado State University (iLlsravo Ferre ra ' Insriruto Nacional de Investigación Susan Riha • Cornell University Agropecuaria ([NIA), Tacuarembó Claudia Ringler' International Food Policy Research institute Steven Rose • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Zimbabwe Mark Rosegrant • International Food Policy Research Institute Stephen Twonilow' international Crops Research Institute for Erika Rosenthal • Center for International Environmental Law the Semi-Arid Tropics Annex C Secretariat and Cosponsor Foca' Points

Secretariat Ctntral an-i West A51a and North Africa - !nternatinal Center for Agrrcutural Re5earch in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) World Bane MLlstapha Guellouz, Lamis Makhoul, Caroline Msrieh-Seropian, Marianne Cabraal, Leonila Casllo, Jodi L-Iorton Betsi hay, Ahmei Sidahmed, Cathy Farnworth Pekka Jamsen, Pedro Marques, Beverly McIntyre, Wuhi Mekonnen, June Remy Latin America and the Carthhean - Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (11CA) UNEP Enrique Abrcon, Jorge Ardila Vásquez, Viviana Chacon, Johana Marcus Lee, Nalini Sharma, Anna Scabrawa Rodriguez, Gustavo Sam UNESCO East and South Asia and the Pacific - World.Fish Center Guillen Calvo Karen Khoo, Slew Hua Koh, Li Ping Ng, Jamie Oliver, Prem Chaniran Venugopalan

Cosponsor Focal Points With special thanks to the Publications ream: Audrey Ringlet CH Mark Zmsky (logo designl, Pedro Marques (proofing and graphics), Ke.rfl] UNDP Philip Dobic Bcrger and Eric Fuller (graphic design) UNEP Ivar Baste UNESCO Saivarore Arico, Walter Erdelen Regional Institutes WHO jorgen Schiundt Sub-Saharan Africa African Centre for Technology Studiea World Bank Mark Cackler, Kevin Cleaver, Eija Pehu, (ACTS) Juergen Voegele Ronald Ajengo, Elvin Nyukuri, Judi Wakhungu

33 Annex D Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment

Steering Committee Sam Dryden, Managing Director, Emergent Generics The Steering Committee was csrablishcd to oversee the David Evans, 1-ormer Head of Research and Technology, Syngenta consultative process and recommend whether an international International assessment was needed, and if so, what was the goal, the scope, Steve Parry, Su;tainable Agriculture Research and Development the expected outputs and outcomes, governance and management Program Leader, Unilever structure, location of the Secretariat and funding srrareg. Mumeka M. Wright, Director, Bimzi Ltd., Zambia

Co-chairs Consumer G.'oups Louise Fresco, Assistant Dire tor Genera] for AgricuLture. FA() Michael Hansen, Consumers International Scyfu Ketema, Executive Secretary, Association for Strengthening Greg Jaffe, Director, Biotechnology Project, Center for Science in Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa IASARECAL the Public Interest Claudia Martinez Zuleta, Former Deputy Minister of the Samuel Ochiei, Chief Executive, Consumer Information Environment, Colombia Network Rita Sharma, Principal Secretary and Rural Infrastructure Commissioner. Government of Uttar Pradesh, India Producer Groups Robert T. Watson, Chief Scientist, The World Bank Mercy Karanja, Chief Executive Officer, Kenya National Farmers' Union Nongovernmental Organizations Prabha Mahale, World Board, International Federation Organic Benny Haer]in, Advisor. Greenpeace Tnternational Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network Tsakani Ngomsne, Director Agricultural Extension Services, North America Regional Center (PANNA) Departmeat of Agriculture, Limpopo Province, Republic of Monica Kapiriri, Regional Program Officer for NGO South Africa Enhancement and Rural Development, Aga Khan Armando Parecles, Presidente, Consejo Nacional Agropecuaria Raymond C. Offenheiser, President. Oxfam America CNAI Daniel Rodriguez, lnternational Technology Development Group UTDG), Latin America Regional Office, Peru Scientific Organizations Jorge Ardila V.isquer, Director Area of Technology and UN Bodies Ijinovatios, inter-American Institute for Cooperation on ivar Baste, Chief, Environment Assessment Branch, UN Agriculture (HCA) Environment Programme Samuel Bruce-Oliver, NARS Senior Fellow, Global Forum for Wirn van Eck, Senior Advisor; Sustainable Development and Agricultural Research Secretariat Healthy Environments, World Health Organization Add El-Beltag', Chair, Center Directors Committee, Consultative joke WaIler-Hunter, Executive Secretary, UN Framework Group on International Agricultural Research (CCIAR) Convention on Climate Change Carl Greenidge, Director, Center for Rural and Technical Hamdallah Zedan, Executive Secretary, UN Convention on Cooperation, Netherlands Biological Diversity Mohamed Hassan, Executive Director, Third World Academy of Sciences (IWAS) At-large Scientists Mark Holderriess, Head Crop and Pest Management. CAB Adrienne Clarke, Laureate Professor, School of Botany, University lnternatioaal of Melbourne, Australia Charlotte Johnson-Welch, Public Health and Gender Den is Lucey, Professor of Food Economics, Dept. of Food Specialist ind Nata Duvvury, Director Social Conflict and Business & Development, University College Cork, Ireland, Transforrration Team, International Center for Research on and Vice-President NATURA Women (ICDW) Vo-tong Xuari, Rector; Angiang University, Vietnam Thomas Rosswall, Executive Director, International Council for Science (ICSU) Private Sector J udi Wakhunga, Executive Director, African Center for Momraz Faruki Chowdhury, Director, Agribusiness Center for Technology Studies Competitiveness and Enterprise Development, Bangladesh

34 Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment I 35

Governments Russia: Eigenia Serova, Head, Agrarian Policy Division, institute Autra1ia: Peter Core, Director, Australian Centre for for Economy in Transition International Agricultural Research Uganda: Grace Akello, Minister of State for Northern Uganda China: Kemirig Qian, Director General Inst. Agocultural Rehabilitation Economics, Dept. of International Cooperation, Chinese United Kiagdovn Paul Spray, Head of Research, DEID Academy of Agricultural Science United States: Rodney Browii, Deputy Under Secretary of Fin'and: Tuna Huvio, Senior Advisor. Agriculture and Rural Agriculture and Hans Klemm, Director of the Ofike of Development. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Agriculture, Biotechnology and Textile Trade Affairs, France: Alain Derevier, Senior Advisor, Research for Sustainable [)epatmcnt of State Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Germany: Hans-Jochen de Haas, Head, Agricultural and Rural Foundations and Unions Development, Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation Susan Sechler, Senior Advisor on Biotechnology Policy, and Development BMZ) Rocl

Advisory Bureau Prabha Mahale • International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements Non-government Representatives Anita Morales • Apit Tako Nizam Scum • ioneer Hatchery Consumer Groups J aime Delgado' AsociaciOn Peruana de Consumidores y Usuarios Government Representatives Greg Jaffe • Center for Science in the Public Interest Catherine Rutivi • Consumers International Central and West Asia and North Africa Indrani Thuraisingham • Southeast Asia Council for Food Egypt • Ahtam Al Naggar Security and Trade Iran • Hossein .'iskari Jose Vargas Niello • Consumers International Chile Kyrgyz Republic • Ojatrun Akirnaliev Saudi Arabia s Abdu Al Assiri, Taqi Elldeen Adai Khalid Al international organizations Ghamedi Nata Duvvury • International Center for Retcarch on Women Turkey • Yalcin Kaya, Mesut Keser Emilc Frisori • CGIAR Mohamed Hassan • Third World Academy of Sciences East and SouLh Asia and the Pacific Mark Holderness • GFAR Australia • Simn Hearn Jeffrey McNeely s World Conservation Union (IUCN) China • Puyun Yang Dennis Rangi • CAB International India • PK Joshi John Stewart • International Council of Science (ICSIJ) Japan • Ryuko [noue Philippines • ''il1iam Medrano NGOs Kevin Akoyi • Vredcseilanden Latin America and Caribbean Hedia Baccar • Association pour Ia Protection de IEnvironmerit Brazil ' Sebatiao Barbosa, Alexandre Cardoso, Paulo Roberto de Kairouan Galerani, Eubens Nadari Benedikt Haerlin • Greenpeace International Dominican Republic • Rafael Perez Duvergé Juan Lopez • Friends of the Earth International Honduras u Armro Gab, Roberto Villeda Toledo Khadouja Mellouli • Women for Sustainable Development Uruguay • Maro Allcgri Patrick Mulvaney • Practical Action Romeo Quihano • Pesticide Action Network North America and Europe Maryarn Rahmaniam • CENESTA Austria u Hed•ig Woegerbaucr Daniel Rodriguez. International Technology Development Group Canada • lain MacGiltivray Finland • Marja-Liisa Taplo-Bistrom Private Sector France • Mich& Dodet Momtaz Chowdhury • Agrobased Technology and Industry Ireland • Aidan O'Driscoll, Tony Smith Development Russia • Eugenia Serova, Sergey Ajexanian Giselle L. D'Almeida • Interface United Kingdom 'Jim Harvey, David Howlert, John Barret Eva Maria Erisgen • BASF United States • Christian Foster Armando Paredes • Consejo Nacional Agropecuario Steve Parry • Unilever Sub-Saharan Africa Harry Swaine • Syngenta resigned) Benin • Jean Claude Codjia Gambia • Sulayman Trawally Producer Groups Kenya • Evans NAwangj Shoaib Aziz • Sustainable Agriculture Action Group of Pakistan Mozambique . Alsâcia Atanásio, Jilio Mchola Philip Kiriro • East African Farmers Federation Namibia • Gillian Maggs-KöIlii-tg Kristie Knoll • Knoll Farms Senegal ' Ibrah:m Diouck About Island Press

Since 1984, the nonprofit Island Press has been stinulating, shap' Ing, and communicating the ideas that are essential for soMng environmental problems worldwide. With more than 800 titles in print and some 40 new releases each year, we are the nation's leading publisher on environmental issues. We identify innovative thinkers and emerging trends in the environmental field. We ork with world- renowned experts and author5 to develop cross-disciplinary solutions to environmental challenges. Island Press designs and implements coordinated book publication campaigns in order to communicale our critical messages in print, in person, and online using the latest technologies, programs, and the media. Our goal: to reach targeted audiences—scientists, policymakers, environmemal advocates, the media, and concerned citizens—who can and will take action to protect the plants and animals that enrich cur world, the ecosystems we need to survive, the water we drirk, and the air we breathe, Island Press gratefully acknowledges the support of its work by the Agua Fund, Inc., Annenberg Foundation, The Christensen Fund, The Nathan Cummings Foundation, The Geradine R. Dodge Foundation, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, The Educational Foundation of America, Betsy and Jesse Fink Foindation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Kendeda Fund, The Forrest and Frances Lattner Foundation, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, The Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation, Oak Foundation, The Overbrook Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Summit Fund of Washington, Trust for Architectural Easements, Wallace Global Fund, The Winslow Foundation, and other generous donors. The opinions expressed in this book are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of our donors.

"Although considered by many to be a success story, the benefits of productivity increases in world agriculture are unevenly spread. Often the poorest of the poor have gained little or noth- ing; and 850 million people are stIl] hungry or malnourished with an additional 4 mithon more joining their ranks annual'y. We are putting food that appear; cheap on our tables; but it is food that is not always healthy and that costs us dearly in terrris of water, soil and the biological diversity on which all our futures depend."

- PROFESSOR Bo. WATSON, DIRECTOR, IAASTD

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Devei- opment (IAASTD), on which Agriculture at the Crossroads is based, was a three-year collaborative effort begun in 2005 that assessed our capacity to meet development and sustainabiliry goals of:

• Reducing hunger and poverty • Improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods • Facilitating social and environmental sustairiability

Governed by a multi-stakeholder bureau comprised of 30 representatives from government and 30 from civil society, the process brought together 110 overnments and 400 experts, rep- resenting non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, producers, consumers, the scientific community, multilateral environment agreements (MEAs), and multiple international agencies involved in the agricultural and rural development sectors.

In addition to assessing existing conditions and knowledge, the IAASTD uses a simple set of model projections to look at the future, based on knowledge from past events and existing trends such as population growth, rural/urban food and poverty dynamics, loss of agricultural land, water availability, and climate change effects.

This set of volumes comprises the findings of the IAASTD. It consists of a Global Report, a brief Synthesis Report, and 5 subg]obal reports. Taken as a whole, the IAASTD reports are an indispensable reference for anyone working in the field of agriculture and rural development, whether at the !evel of basic research, policy, or practice.

IAASTD InA .rr,.1In.I A....m..1 of A nII.r.J 5n4 and Twl,"y ron o.n.non."

- --. GLOIAL ENVIRONMtT JJJ FAuLITY

UN - tHE'9OOLDIANI W H () C ISLANDPRESS

Washington. Coveto • London Com design by LfIda McKcghr. WKW4 Desrgr LW wislandpressorg Gcver phoros ptl to right) gene Dear Corrg. afro Wlyiscrr Abw A5Wrf of Natronal Gaographic Stock, Mark All stand Press books are pnnted on recycled, acid-free paper. 5Owa(Ja Wth 55ges) of Prirer Arno4. inc.