SCIENCE | AGRICULTURE | CURRENT AFFAIRS
“Although considered by many to be a success story, the benefi ts 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 still hungry or malnourished with an additional 4 million more Agriculture joining their ranks annually. We are putting food that appears cheap on our tables; but it is Agriculture food that is not always healthy and that costs us dearly in terms of water, soil and the biological at a diversity on which all our futures depend.” —Professor Bob Watson, director, IAASTD CrossroadsCrossroads The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Devel- International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, opment (IAASTD) , on which Agriculture at the Crossroads is based, was a three-year collab- orative effort begun in 2005 that assessed our capacity to meet development and sustainabil- Science and Technology for Development ity goals of:
• Reducing hunger and poverty • Improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods • Facilitating social and environmental sustainability
Governed by a multi-stakeholder bureau comprised of 30 representatives from government and 30 from civil society, the process brought together 110 governments and 400 experts, rep- resenting non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, producers, consumers, the scientifi c community, multilateral environment agreements (MEAs), and multiple interna- tional 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 fi ndings of the IAASTD. It consists of a Global Report, a brief Synthesis Report, and 5 subglobal reports. Taken as a whole, the IAASTD reports are an indispensable reference for anyone working in the fi eld of agriculture and rural development, whether at the level of basic research, policy, or practice. Executive Summary
Cover design by Linda McKnight, McKnight Design, LLC Cover photos (left to right): Steve Raymer, Dean Conger, and William Albert Allard of National Geographic Stock, Mark Edwards (both images) of Peter Arnold, Inc. of the Synthesis Report
Washington • Covelo • London www.islandpress.org All Island Press books are printed on recycled, acid-free paper. IAASTD International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report
00-fm EXEC.indd 1 11/3/08 12:04:17 PM 00-fm EXEC.indd 2 11/3/08 12:04:31 PM IAASTD International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report
This summary was approved in detail by the Governments attending the IAASTD Intergovernmental Plenary in Johannesburg, South Africa (7-11 April 2008).
00-fm EXEC.indd 3 11/3/08 12:04:31 PM Copyright © 2009 IAASTD. All rights reserved. Permission to reproduce and disseminate portions of the work for no cost will be granted free of charge by Island Press upon request: Island Press, 1718 Connecticut 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 McKnight, McKnight Design, LLC.
Manufactured in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
00-fm EXEC.indd 4 12/2/08 5:15:37 PM Contents
vii Foreword viii Preface x Statement by Governments
1 Executive Summary
12 Annex A Reservations on Executive Summary 13 Annex B Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports 20 Annex C Secretariat and Cosponsor Focal Points 21 Annex D Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment
00-fm EXEC.indd 5 11/10/08 1:50:53 PM 00-fm EXEC.indd 6 11/3/08 12:04:31 PM 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 organizations 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 and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for their • reduction of hunger and poverty, continued support 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- governments who provided support to Bureau members, tions (FAO) as a global consultative process to determine authors and 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 Töepfer, 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 (UNEP) opened the first Intergovernmental Plenary transition in 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 success 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 (IICA) 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 Malaysia. around the world. The final Intergovernmental Plenary in Johannesburg, The reports draw on the work of hundreds of experts South Africa was opened on 7 April 2008 by Achim Steiner, from all regions of the world who have participated in the Executive Director 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 IAASTD 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 dedication and tireless efforts made the process a success. Judi Wakhungu 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 Sec-
vii
00-fm EXEC.indd 7 11/3/08 12:04:32 PM Preface
In August 2002, the World Bank and the Food and Agri- Goals (MDGs): the reduction of hunger and poverty; the culture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations initiated improvement of rural livelihoods and human health; and fa- a global consultative process to determine whether an in- cilitating equitable, socially, environmentally and economi- ternational assessment of agricultural knowledge, science cally sustainable development. Realizing these goals requires and technology (AKST) was needed. This was stimulated acknowledging the multifunctionality of agriculture: the chal- by discussions at the World Bank with the private sector lenge is to simultaneously meet development and sustainabil- and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on the state of ity goals while increasing agricultural production. scientific understanding of biotechnology and more specifi- Meeting these goals has to be placed in the context of a cally transgenics. During 2003, eleven consultations were rapidly changing world of urbanization, growing inequities, held, overseen by an international multistakeholder steer- human migration, globalization, changing dietary prefer- ing committee and involving over 800 participants from all ences, climate change, environmental degradation, a trend relevant stakeholder groups, e.g., governments, the private toward biofuels and an increasing population. These condi- sector and civil society. Based on these consultations the tions are affecting local and global food security and put- steering committee recommended to an Intergovernmental ting pressure on productive capacity and ecosystems. Hence Plenary meeting in Nairobi in September 2004 that an in- there are unprecedented challenges ahead in providing food ternational assessment of the role of AKST in reducing hun- within a global trading system where there are other com- ger and poverty, improving rural livelihoods and facilitating peting uses for agricultural and other natural resources. environmentally, socially and economically sustainable AKST alone cannot solve these problems, which are caused development was needed. The concept of an International by complex political and social dynamics, but it can make Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Tech- a major contribution to meeting development and sustain- nology for Development (IAASTD) was endorsed as a multi- ability goals. Never before has it been more important for thematic, multi-spatial, multi-temporal intergovernmental the world to generate and use AKST. process with a multistakeholder Bureau cosponsored by the Given the focus on hunger, poverty and livelihoods, FAO, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), United Na- the IAASTD 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 IAASTD’s governance structure is a unique hybrid lating policy and provides information for decision makers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confronting conflicting views on contentious issues such as and the nongovernmental Millennium Ecosystem Assess- the environmental consequences of productivity increases, ment (MA). The stakeholder composition of the Bureau was environmental and human health impacts of transgenic agreed at the Intergovernmental Plenary meeting in Nairobi; crops, the consequences of bioenergy 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 production. 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 producers, consumers and end users) and that it should also prepare the IAASTD Report (comprised of a Global and assess the 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 IAASTD 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 sustainability goals were cluding local 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- sistent with a subset of the UN Millennium Development jor issues facing AKST and points towards a range of AKST
viii
00-fm EXEC.indd 8 11/3/08 12:04:32 PM IAASTD Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | ix
options for action that meet development and sustainability and open to comments by anyone. The authors revised the goals. It is policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive. It drafts based on numerous peer review comments, with the integrates scientific information on a range of topics that assistance of review editors who were responsible for ensur- are critically interlinked, but often addressed independently, ing the comments were appropriately taken into account. i.e., agriculture, poverty, hunger, human health, natural re- One of the most difficult issues authors had to address was sources, environment, development and innovation. It will criticisms that the report was too negative. In a scientific enable decision makers to bring a richer base of knowledge review based on empirical evidence, this is always a difficult to bear on policy and management decisions on issues previ- comment to handle, as criteria are needed in order to say ously viewed in isolation. Knowledge gained from historical whether something is negative or positive. Another difficulty analysis (typically the past 50 years) and an analysis of some was responding to the conflicting views expressed by review- future development alternatives to 2050 form the basis for as- ers. The difference in views was not surprising given the sessing options for action on science and technology, capacity range of stakeholder interests and perspectives. Thus one of development, institutions and policies, and investments. the key findings of the IAASTD is that there are diverse and The IAASTD is conducted according to an open, trans- conflicting interpretations of past and current events, which parent, representative and legitimate process; is evidence need to be acknowledged and respected. based; presents options rather than recommendations; as- The Global and Sub-Global Summaries for Decision sesses different local, regional and global perspectives; pres- Makers and the Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report ents different views, acknowledging that there can be more were approved at an Intergovernmental Plenary in April than one interpretation of the same evidence based on differ- 2008. The Synthesis Report integrates the key findings from ent worldviews; and identifies the key scientific uncertainties the Global and Sub-Global assessments, and focuses on eight and areas on which research could be focused to advance Bureau-approved topics: bioenergy; biotechnology; climate development and sustainability goals. change; human health; natural resource management; tradi- The IAASTD is composed of a Global assessment and five tional knowledge and community based innovation; trade Sub-Global assessments: Central and West Asia and North and markets; and women in agriculture. Africa – CWANA; East and South Asia and the Pacific – ESAP; The IAASTD builds on and adds value to a number of Latin America and the Caribbean – LAC; North America and recent assessments and reports that have provided valuable Europe – NAE; Sub-Saharan Africa – SSA. It (1) assesses the information relevant to the agricultural sector, but have not generation, access, dissemination and use of public and private specifically focused on the future role of AKST, the institu- sector AKST in relation to the goals, using local, traditional tional dimensions and the multifunctionality of agriculture. and formal knowledge; (2) analyzes existing and emerging These include: FAO State of Food Insecurity in the World technologies, practices, policies and institutions and their (yearly); InterAcademy Council Report: Realizing the Prom- impact on the goals; (3) provides information for decision ise and Potential of African Agriculture (2004); UN Mil- makers in different civil society, private and public organi- lennium Project Task Force on Hunger (2005); Millennium zations on options for improving policies, practices, institu- Ecosystem Assessment (2005); CGIAR Science Council tional and organizational arrangements to enable AKST to Strategy and Priority Setting Exercise (2006); Comprehen- meet the goals; (4) brings together a range of stakeholders sive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture: Guid- (consumers, governments, international agencies and re- ing Policy Investments in Water, Food, Livelihoods and search organizations, NGOs, private sector, producers, the Environment (2007); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate scientific community) involved in the agricultural sector and Change Reports (2001 and 2007); UNEP Fourth Global rural development to share their experiences, views, under- Environmental Outlook (2007); World Bank World Devel- standing and vision for the future; and (5) identifies options opment Report: Agriculture for Development (2008); IFPRI for future public and private investments in AKST. In addi- Global Hunger Indices (yearly); and World Bank Internal tion, the IAASTD will enhance local and regional capacity Report of Investments in SSA (2007). to design, implement and utilize similar assessments. Financial support was provided to the IAASTD 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 ing), largely due to the expertise of the selected authors. Makers and the Synthesis Report are written for a range of Originally the Bureau approved a chapter on plausible fu- stakeholders, 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- projections. 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 stakeholders, each of whom have a different The IAASTD draft Report was subjected to two rounds set of priorities and responsibilities and operate in different of peer review by governments, organizations and individu- socioeconomic and political circumstances. als. These drafts were placed on an open access Web site
ix
00-fm EXEC.indd 9 11/3/08 12:04:33 PM Statement by Governments
All countries present at the final intergovernmental plenary Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, session held in Johannesburg, South Africa in April 2008 Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, People’s Republic of welcome the work of the IAASTD and the uniqueness of China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, this independent multistakeholder and multidisciplinary Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, process, and the scale of the challenge of covering a broad France, Gambia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Iran, Ireland, range of complex issues. The Governments present recog- Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, nize that the Global and Sub-Global Reports are the conclu- Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Republic sions of studies by a wide range of scientific authors, experts of Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and development specialists and while presenting an overall Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Palau, consensus on the importance of agricultural knowledge, sci- Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Swazi- ence and technology for development they also provide a land, Sweden, Switzerland, United Republic of Tanzania, diversity of views on some issues. Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United King- All countries see these Reports as a valuable and im- dom of Great Britain, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia (58 portant contribution to our understanding on agricultural countries). knowledge, science and technology for development recog- nizing the need to further deepen our understanding of the challenges ahead. This Assessment is a constructive initia- While approving the above statement the following govern- tive and important contribution that all governments need ments did not fully approve the Executive Summary of the to take forward to ensure that agricultural knowledge, sci- Synthesis Report and their reservations are entered in An- ence and technology fulfils its potential to meet the develop- nex A. ment and sustainability goals of the reduction of hunger and poverty, the improvement of rural livelihoods and human Australia, Canada, United States of America (3 countries). health, and facilitating equitable, socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development. In accordance with the above statement, the following governments approve the Executive Summary of the Syn- thesis Report.
x
00-fm EXEC.indd 10 11/3/08 12:04:33 PM International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)
Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report
Writing team: Tsedeke Abate (Ethiopia), Jean Albergel (France), Inge Armbrecht (Colombia), Patrick Avato (Germany/Italy), Satinder Bajaj (India), Nienke Beintema (the Netherlands), Rym Ben Zid (Tunisia), Rodney Brown (USA), Lorna M. Butler (Canada), Fabrice Dreyfus (France), Kristie L. Ebi (USA), Shelley Feldman (USA), Alia Gana (Tunisia), Tirso Gonzales (Peru), Ameenah Gurib-Fakim (Mauritius), Jack Heinemann (New Zealand), Thora Herrmann (Germany), Angelika Hilbeck (Switzerland), Hans Hurni (Switzerland), Sophia Huyer (Canada), Janice Jiggins (UK), Joan Kagwanja (Kenya), Moses Kairo (Kenya), Rose R. Kingamkono (Tanzania), Gordana Kranjac- Berisavljevic (Ghana), Kawther Latiri (Tunisia), Roger Leakey (Australia), Marianne Lefort (France), Karen Lock (UK), Thora Herrmann (Germany), Yalem Mekonnen (Ethiopia), Douglas Murray (USA), Dev Nathan (India), Lindela Ndlovu (Zimbabwe), Balgis Osman-Elasha (Sudan), Ivette Perfecto (Puerto Rico), Cristina Plencovich (Argentina), Rajeswari Raina (India), Elizabeth Robinson (UK), Niels Roling (Netherlands), Mark Rosegrant (USA), Erika Rosenthal (USA), Wahida Patwa Shah (Kenya), John M.R. Stone (Canada), Abid Suleri (Pakistan), Hong Yang (Australia)
1
01-EXEC.indd 1 11/3/08 12:04:58 PM 01-EXEC.indd 2 11/3/08 12:04:58 PM Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)
This Synthesis Report captures the complexity and diver- place by the state were the primary drivers of the adoption sity of agriculture and agricultural knowledge, science and of new technologies. The general model has been to con- technology (AKST) across world regions. It is built upon the tinuously innovate, reduce farm gate prices and externalize Global and five Sub-Global reports that provide evidence costs. This model drove the phenomenal achievements of for the integrated analysis of the main concerns necessary to AKST in industrial countries after World War II and the achieve development and sustainability goals. It is organized spread of the Green Revolution beginning in the 1960s. But, in two parts that address the primary animating question: given the new challenges we confront today, there is increas- how can AKST be used to reduce hunger and poverty, im- ing recognition within formal S&T organizations that the prove rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable environmen- current AKST model requires revision. Business as usual is tally, socially, and economically sustainable development? In no longer an option. This leads to rethinking the role of the first part we identify the current conditions, challenges AKST in achieving development and sustainability goals; and options for action that shape AKST, while in the second one that seeks more intensive engagement across diverse part we focus on eight cross-cutting themes. The eight cross- worldviews and possibly contradictory approaches in ways cutting themes include: bioenergy, biotechnology, climate that can inform and suggest strategies for actions enabling change, human health, natural resource management, trade the multiple functions of agriculture. and markets, traditional and local knowledge and commu- In order to address the diverse needs and interests that nity-based innovation, and women in agriculture. shape human life, we need a shared approach to sustain- The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowl- ability with local and cross-national collaboration. We can- edge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) not escape our predicament by simply continuing to rely on responds to the widespread realization that despite signifi- the aggregation of individual choices to achieve sustainable cant scientific and technological achievements in our ability and equitable collective outcomes. Incentives are needed to to increase agricultural productivity, we have been less at- influence the choices individuals make. Issues such as pov- tentive to some of the unintended social and environmental erty and climate change also require collective agreements consequences of our achievements. We are now in a good on concerted action and governance across scales that go be- position to reflect on these consequences and to outline vari- yond an appeal to individual benefit. At the global, regional, ous policy options to meet the challenges ahead, perhaps national and local levels, decision makers must be acutely best characterized as the need for food and livelihood se- conscious of the fact that there are diverse challenges, mul- curity under increasingly constrained environmental condi- tiple theoretical frameworks and development models and a tions from within and outside the realm of agriculture and wide range of options to meet development and sustainabil- globalized economic systems. ity goals. Our perception of the challenges and the choices This widespread realization is linked directly to the we make at this juncture in history will determine how we goals of the IAASTD: how AKST can be used to reduce protect our planet and secure our future. hunger and poverty, to improve rural livelihoods and to fa- Development and sustainability goals should be placed cilitate equitable environmentally, socially and economically in the context of (1) current social and economic inequities sustainable development. Under the rubric of IAASTD, we and political uncertainties about war and conflicts; (2) uncer- recognize the importance of AKST to the multifunctionality tainties about the ability to sustainably produce and access of agriculture and the intersection with other local to global sufficient food; (3) uncertainties about the future of world concerns, including loss of biodiversity and ecosystem ser- food prices; (4) changes in the economics of fossil-based en- vices, climate change and water availability. ergy use; (5) the emergence of new competitors for natural The IAASTD is unique in the history of agricultural resources; (6) increasing chronic diseases that are partially a science assessments in that it assesses both formal science consequence of poor nutrition and poor food quality as well and technology (S&T) and local and traditional knowledge, as food safety; and (7) changing environmental conditions addresses not only production and productivity, but also and the growing awareness of human responsibility for the the multifunctionality of agriculture and recognizes that maintenance of global ecosystem services (provisioning, multiple perspectives exist on the role and nature of AKST. regulating, cultural and supporting). For many years, agricultural science focused on delivering Today there is a world of asymmetric development, un- component technologies to increase farm-level productivity sustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and where the market and institutional arrangements put in urban poverty. Generally the adverse consequences of global
3
01-EXEC.indd 3 11/3/08 12:04:59 PM 4 | Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report
changes have the most significant effects on the poorest and most vulnerable, who historically have had limited entitle- Multifunctionality ments and opportunities for growth. The term multifunctionality has sometimes been interpreted The pace of formal technology generation and adoption as having implications for trade and protectionism. This is not has been highly uneven. Actors within North America and the definition used here. In IAASTD, multifunctionality is used Europe (NAE) and emerging economies who have captured solely to express the inescapable interconnectedness of ag- significant economies of scale through formal AKST will con- tinue to dominate agricultural exports and extended value riculture’s different roles and functions. The concept of multi- chains. There is an urgent need to diversify and strengthen functionality recognizes agriculture as a multi-output activity AKST, recognizing differences in agroecologies and social producing not only commodities (food, feed, fibers, agrofuels, and cultural conditions. The need to retool AKST, to reduce medicinal products and ornamentals), but also non-commod- poverty and provide improved livelihoods options for the ity outputs such as environmental services, landscape ameni- rural poor, especially landless and peasant communities, ur- ties and cultural heritages. ban, informal and migrant workers, is a major challenge. The working definition proposed by OECD, which is used There is an overarching concern in all regions regarding by the IAASTD, associates multifunctionality with the particu- poverty alleviation and the livelihoods options available to lar characteristics of the agricultural production process and poor people who are faced with intra- and inter-regional its outputs; (1) multiple commodity and non-commodity out- inequalities. There is recognition that the mounting crisis puts are jointly produced by agriculture; and (2) some of the in food security is of a different complexity and potentially different magnitude than the one of the 1960s. The ability non-commodity outputs may exhibit the characteristics of ex- and willingness of different actors, including those in the ternalities or public goods, such that markets for these goods state, civil society and private secter, to address fundamen- function poorly or are nonexistent. tal questions of relationships among production, social and The use of the term has been controversial and contested environmental systems is affected by contentious political in global trade negotiations, and it has centered on whether and economic stances. “trade-distorting” agricultural subsidies are needed for agri- The acknowledgment of current challenges and the ac- culture to perform its many functions. Proponents argue that ceptance of options available for action require a long-term current patterns of agricultural subsidies, international trade commitment from decision makers that is responsive to the and related policy frameworks do not stimulate transitions specific needs of a wide range of stakeholders. A recogni- toward equitable agricultural and food trade relation or sus- tion that knowledge systems and human ingenuity in sci- tainable food and farming systems and have given rise to per- ence, technology, practice and policy is needed to meet the challenges, opportunities and uncertainties ahead. This rec- verse impacts on natural resources and agroecologies as well ognition will require a shift to nonhierarchical development as on human health and nutrition. Opponents argue that at- models. tempts to remedy these outcomes by means of trade-related The main challenge of AKST is to increase the produc- instruments will weaken the efficiency of agricultural trade and tivity of agriculture in a sustainable manner. AKST must lead to further undesirable market distortion; their preferred address the needs of small-scale farms in diverse ecosystems approach is to address the externalized costs and negative and create realistic opportunities for their development impacts on poverty, the environment, human health and nutri- where the potential for improved area productivity is low tion by other means. and where climate change may have its most adverse conse- quences. The main challenges for AKST posed by multifunc- tional agricultural systems include: • How to improve social welfare and personal livelihoods in the rural sector and enhance multiplier effects of ag- Options for Action riculture? Successfully meeting development and sustainability goals • How to empower marginalized stakeholders to sustain and responding to new priorities and changing circumstances the diversity of agriculture and food systems, including would require a fundamental shift in AKST, including sci- their cultural dimensions? ence, technology, policies, institutions, capacity development • How to provide safe water, maintain biodiversity, sus- and investment. Such a shift would recognize and give in- tain the natural resource base and minimize the adverse creased importance to the multifunctionality of agriculture, impacts of agricultural activities on people and the en- accounting for the complexity of agricultural systems within vironment? diverse social and ecological contexts. It would require new • How to maintain and enhance environmental and cul- institutional and organizational arrangements to promote tural services while increasing sustainable productivity an integrated approach to the development and deployment and diversity of food, fiber and biofuel production? of AKST. It would also recognize farming communities, • How to manage effectively the collaborative generation farm households, and farmers as producers and managers of knowledge among increasingly heterogeneous con- of ecosystems. This shift may call for changing the incentive tributors and the flow of information among diverse systems for all actors along the value chain to internalize as public and private AKST organizational arrangements? many externalities as possible. In terms of development and • How to link the outputs from marginalized, rain fed sustainability goals, these policies and institutional changes lands into local, national and global markets? should be directed primarily at those who have been served
01-EXEC.indd 4 11/3/08 12:04:59 PM Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | 5
least by previous AKST approaches, i.e., resource-poor farm- ers, women and ethnic minorities.1 Such development would Food security [is] a situation that exists when all people, at depend also on the extent to which small-scale farmers can all times, have physical, social and economic access to suf- find gainful off-farm employment and help fuel general eco- ficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs nomic growth. Large and middle-size farmers continue to and food preferences for an active and healthy life. (FAO, The be important and high pay-off targets of AKST, especially in State of Food Insecurity, 2001) the area of sustainable land use and food systems. It will be important to assess the potential environmen- tal, health and social impacts of any technology, and to Food sovereignty is defined as the right of peoples and sover- implement the appropriate regulatory frameworks. AKST eign states to democratically determine their own agricultural can contribute to radically improving food security and en- and food policies.3 hancing the social and economic performance of agricul- tural systems as a basis for sustainable rural and community livelihoods and wider economic development. It can help to 3 UK. rehabilitate degraded land, reduce environmental and health risks associated with food production and consumption and sustainably increase production. Success would require increased public and private investment in AKST, the development of supporting poli- Food security cies and institutions, revalorization of traditional and local Food security strategies require a combination of AKST knowledge, and an interdisciplinary, holistic and systems- approaches, including the development of food stock man- based approach to knowledge production and sharing. agement, effective market intelligence and early warning, Success also depends on the extent to which international monitoring, and distribution systems. Production measures developments and events drive the priority given to develop- create the conditions for food security, but they need to ment and sustainability goals and the extent to which requi- be looked at in conjunction with people’s access to food site funding and qualified staff are available. (through own production, exchange and public entitlements) and their ability to absorb nutrients consumed (through ad- Poverty and livelihoods equate access to water and sanitation, adequate nutrition Important options for enhancing rural livelihoods include and nutritional information) in order to fully achieve food increasing access by small-scale farmers to land and eco- security. nomic resources and to remunerative local urban and export AKST can increase sustainable agricultural production markets; and increasing local value added and value cap- by expanding use of local and formal AKST to develop and tured by small-scale farmers and rural laborers. A power- deploy suitable cultivars adaptable to site-specific condi- ful tool for meeting development and sustainability goals tions; improving access to resources; improving soil, water resides in empowering farmers to innovatively manage soils, and nutrient management and conservation; pre- and post- water, biological resources, pests, disease vectors, genetic di- harvest pest management; and increasing small-scale farm versity, and conserve natural resources in a culturally appro- diversification. Policy options for addressing food security priate manner. Combining farmers’ and external knowledge include developing high-value and underutilized crops in would require new partnerships among farmers, scientists rain fed areas; increasing the full range of agricultural ex- and other stakeholders. ports and imports, including organic and fair trade prod- Policy options for improving livelihoods include access ucts; reducing transaction costs for small-scale producers; to microcredit and other financial services; legal frameworks strengthening local markets; food safety nets; promoting that ensure access and tenure to resources and land; re- agro-insurance; and improving food safety and quality. Price course to fair conflict resolution; and progressive evolution shocks and extreme weather events call for a global system and proactive engagement in intellectual property rights of monitoring and intervention for the timely prediction of (IPR) regimes and related instruments.2 Developments are major food shortages and price-induced hunger. needed that build trust and that value farmer knowledge, AKST investments can increase the sustainable produc- agricultural and natural biodiversity; farmer-managed me- tivity of major subsistence foods including orphan and un- dicinal plants, local seed systems and common pool resource derutilized crops, which are often grown or consumed by management regimes. Each of these options, when imple- poor people. Investments could also be targeted for institu- mented locally, depends on regional and nationally based- tional change and policies that can improve access of poor mechanisms to ensure accountability. The suite of options people to food, land, water, seeds, germplasm and improved to increase domestic farm gate prices for small-scale farmers technologies. includes fiscal and competition policies; improved access to AKST; novel business approaches; and enhanced political Environmental sustainability power. AKST systems are needed that enhance sustainability while maintaining productivity in ways that protect the natural resource base and ecological provisioning of agricultural systems. Options include improving nutrient, energy, wa- 1 Botswana. ter and land use efficiency; improving the understanding of 2 USA. soil-plant-water dynamics; increasing farm diversification;
01-EXEC.indd 5 11/3/08 12:04:59 PM 6 | Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report
supporting agroecological systems, and enhancing biodiver- • Increasing food safety can be facilitated by effective, sity conservation and use at both field and landscape scales; coordinated, and proactive national and international promoting the sustainable management of livestock, forest food safety systems to ensure animal, plant, and human and fisheries; improving understanding of the agroecologi- health, such as investments in adequate infrastructure, cal functioning of mosaics of crop production areas and public health and veterinary capacity, legislative frame- natural habitats; countering the effects of agriculture on cli- works for identification and control of biological and mate change and mitigating the negative impacts of climate chemical hazards, and farmer-scientist partnerships for change on agriculture. the identification, monitoring and evaluation of risks. Policy options include ending subsidies that encourage • The burden of infectious disease can be decreased by unsustainable practices and using market and other mecha- strengthening coordination between and the capacity of nisms to regulate and generate rewards for agro/environ- agricultural, veterinary, and public health systems; inte- mental services, for better natural resource management grating multi-sectoral policies and programs across the and enhanced environmental quality. Examples include food chain to reduce the spread of infectious diseases; incentives to promote integrated pest management (IPM) and developing and deploying new AKST to identify, and environmentally resilient germplasm management, monitor, control, and treat diseases. payments to farmers and local communities for ecosystem • The burden of chronic disease can be decreased by poli- services, facilitating and providing incentives for alternative cies that explicitly recognize the importance of improv- markets such as green products, certification for sustainable ing human health and nutrition, including regulation of forest and fisheries practices and organic agriculture and the food product formulation through legislation, interna- strengthening of local markets. Long-term land and water tional agreements and regulations for food labeling and use rights/tenure, risk reduction measures (safety nets, credit, health claims, and creation of incentives for the produc- insurance, etc.) and profitability of recommended technolo- tion and consumption of health-promoting foods. gies are prerequisites for adoption of sustainable practices. • Occupational and public health can be improved by de- Common pool resource regimes and modes of governance velopment and enforcement of health and safety regula- that emphasize participatory and democratic approaches tions (including child labor laws and pesticide regula- are needed. tions), enforcement of cross-border issues such as illegal Investment opportunities in AKST that could improve use of toxic agrochemicals, and conducting health risk sustainability and reduce negative environmental effects assessments that make explicit the tradeoffs between include resource conservation technologies, improved tech- maximizing livelihood benefits, the environment, and niques for organic and low-input systems; a wide range of improving health. breeding techniques for temperature and pest tolerance; re- search on the relationship of agricultural ecosystem services and human well-being; economic and non-economic valua- Equity tions of ecosystem services; increasing water use efficiency For AKST to contribute to greater equity, investments are re- and reducing water pollution; biocontrols of current and quired for the development of context-specific technologies, emerging pests and pathogens; biological substitutes for and expanded access of farmers and other rural people to oc- agrochemicals; and reducing the dependency of the agricul- cupational, non-formal and formal education. An environ- tural sector on fossil fuels. ment in which formal science and technology and local and traditional knowledge are seen as part of an integral AKST Human health and nutrition system can increase equitable access to technologies for a Inter-linkages between health, nutrition, agriculture, and broad range of producers and natural resource managers. AKST affect the ability of individuals, communities, and na- Incentives in science, universities and research organizations tions to reach sustainability goals. These inter-linkages exist are needed to foster different kinds of AKST partnerships. within the context of multiple stressors that affect popula- Key options include equitable access to and use of natural tion health. A broad and integrated approach is needed to resources (particularly land and water), systems of incen- identify appropriate use of AKST to increase food security tives and rewards for multifunctionality, including ecosys- and safety, decrease the incidence and prevalence of a range tem services, and responding to the vulnerability of farming of infectious (including emerging and reemerging diseases and farm worker communities. Reform of the governance such as malaria, avian influenza, HIV/AIDS and others) and of AKST and related organizations is also important for chronic diseases, and decrease occupational exposures, in- the crucial role they can play in improving community-level juries and deaths. Robust agricultural, public health, and scientific literacy, decentralization of technological -oppor veterinary detection, surveillance, monitoring, and response tunities, and the integration of farmer concerns in research systems can help identify the true burden of ill health and priority setting and the design of farmer services. Improving cost-effective, health-promoting strategies and measures. equity requires synergy among various development actors, Additional investments are needed to maintain and improve including farmers, rural laborers, banks, civil society organi- current systems and regulations. zations, commercial companies, and public agencies. Stake- • Increasing food security can be facilitated by promot- holder involvement is also crucial in decisions about IPR, ing policies and programs to diversify diets and improve infrastructure, tariffs, and the internalization of social and micronutrient intake; and developing and deploying ex- environmental costs. New modes of governance to develop isting and new technologies for the production, process- innovative local networks and decentralized government, ing, preservation, and distribution of food. focusing on small-scale producers and the urban poor (ur-
01-EXEC.indd 6 11/3/08 12:04:59 PM Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | 7
ban agriculture; direct links between urban consumers and health, natural resource management, trade and markets, rural producers) will help create and strengthen synergistic traditional and local knowledge and community-based in- and complementary capacities. novation and women in agriculture. Preferential investments in equitable development (e.g., literacy, education and training) that contribute to reduc- Bioenergy ing ethnic, gender, and other inequities would advance de- Rising costs of fossil fuels, energy security concerns, in- velopment goals. Measurements of returns to investments creased awareness of climate change and potentially positive require indices that give more information than GDP, and effects for economic development have led to considerable that are sensitive to environmental and equity gains. The use public attention to bioenergy. Bioenergy includes traditional of inequality indices for screening AKST investments and bioenergy, biomass to produce electricity, light and heat and monitoring outcomes strengthens accountability. The Gini- first and next generation liquid biofuels. The economics and coefficient could, for example, become a public criterion the positive and negative social and environmental exter- for policy assessment, in addition to the more conventional nalities differ widely, depending on source of biomass, type measures of growth, inflation and environment. of conversion technology and local circumstances. Primarily due to a lack of affordable alternatives, mil- Investments lions of people in developing countries depend on traditional Achieving development and sustainability goals would en- bioenergy (e.g., wood fuels) for their cooking and heating tail increased funds and more diverse funding mechanisms needs, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. for agricultural research and development and associated This reliance on traditional bioenergy can pose consider- knowledge systems, such as: able environmental, health, economic and social challenges. • Public investments in global, regional, national and New efforts are needed to improve traditional bioenergy local public goods; food security and safety, climate and accelerate the transition to more sustainable forms of change and sustainability. More efficient use of increas- energy. ingly scarce land, water and biological resources re- First generation biofuels consist predominantly of bio- quires investment in research and development of legal ethanol and biodiesel produced from agricultural crops and management capabilities. (e.g., maize, sugar cane). Production has been growing fast • Public investments in agricultural knowledge systems to in recent years, primarily due to biofuel support policies promote interactive knowledge networks (farmers, sci- since they are cost competitive only under particularly fa- entists, industry and actors in other knowledge areas); vorable circumstances. The diversion of agricultural crops improved access to information and communication to fuel can raise food prices and reduce our ability to allevi- technologies (ICT); ecological, evolutionary, food, nu- ate hunger throughout the world. The negative social effects trition, social and complex systems’ sciences; effective risk being exacerbated in cases where small-scale farmers interdisciplinarity; capacity in core agricultural scienc- are marginalized or displaced from their land. From an en- es; and improving life-long learning opportunities along vironmental perspective, there is considerable variation, un- “greenhouse gas the food system. certainty and debate over the net energy balance and level of (GHG)” in other • Public-private partnerships for improved commerciali- GHG emissions. In the long term, effects on food prices may file zation of applied knowledge and technologies and joint be reduced, but environmental effects caused by land and funding of AKST, where market risks are high and water requirements of large-scale increases of first genera- where options for widespread utilization of knowledge tion biofuels production are likely to persist and will need exist. to be addressed. • Adequate incentives and rewards to encourage private Next generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol and and civil society investments in AKST contributing to biomass-to-liquids technologies allow conversion into bio- development and sustainability goals. fuels of more abundant and cheaper feedstocks than first • In many developing countries, it may be necessary to generation. This could potentially reduce agricultural land complement these investments with increased and more requirements per unit of energy produced and improve life- targeted investments in rural infrastructure, education cycle GHG emissions, potentially mitigating the environ- and health. mental pressures from first generation biofuels. However, next generation biofuels technologies are not yet commer- In the face of new global challenges, there is an urgent need cially proven and environmental and social effects are still to strengthen, restructure and possibly establish new in- uncertain. For example, the use of feedstock and farm resi- tergovernmental, independent science and evidence-based dues can compete with the need to maintain organic matter networks to address such issues as climate forecasting for in sustainable agroecosystems. agricultural production; human health risks from emerg- Bioelectricity and bioheat are important forms of renew- ing diseases; reorganization of livelihoods in response to able energy that are usually more efficient and produce less changes in agricultural systems (population movements); GHG emissions than liquid biofuels and fossil fuels. Digest- food security; and global forestry resources. ers, gasifiers and direct combustion devices can be success- fully employed in certain settings, e.g., off-grid areas. There Themes is potential for expanding these applications but AKST is The Synthesis Report looked at eight AKST-related themes needed to reduce costs and improve operational reliability. of critical interest to meeting development and sustainabil- For all forms of bioenergy, decision makers should carefully ity goals: bioenergy, biotechnology, climate change, human weigh full social, environmental and economic costs against
01-EXEC.indd 7 11/3/08 12:05:00 PM 8 | Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report
realistically achievable benefits and other sustainable energy potentially undermining local practices that enhance food options. security and economic sustainability. In this regard, there is particular concern about present IPR instruments eventually Biotechnology34 inhibiting seed-saving, exchange, sale and access to propri- The IAASTD definition of biotechnology is based on that etary materials necessary for the independent research com- in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Carta- munity to conduct analyses and long term experimentation gena Protocol on Biosafety. It is a broad term embracing the on impacts. Farmers face new liabilities: GM farmers may manipulation of living organisms and spans the large range become liable for adventitious presence if it causes loss of of activities from conventional techniques for fermentation market certification and income to neighboring organic and plant and animal breeding to recent innovations in tissue farmers, and conventional farmers may become liable to GM culture, irradiation, genomics and marker-assisted breeding seed producers if transgenes are detected in their crops. (MAB) or marker assisted selection (MAS) to augment natu- A problem-oriented approach to biotechnology research ral breeding. Some of the latest biotechnologies (“modern and development (R&D) would focus investment on local biotechnology”) include the use of in vitro modified DNA priorities identified through participatory and transparent or RNA and the fusion of cells from different taxonomic processes, and favor multifunctional solutions to local families, techniques that overcome natural physiological re- problems. These processes require new kinds of support for productive or recombination barriers. Currently the most the public to critically engage in assessments of the techni- contentious issue is the use of recombinant DNA techniques cal, social, political, cultural, gender, legal, environmental to produce transgenes that are inserted into genomes. Even and economic impacts of modern biotechnology. Biotech- newer techniques of modern biotechnology manipulate her- nologies should be used to maintain local expertise and itable material without changing DNA. germplasm so that the capacity for further research resides Biotechnology has always been on the cutting edge within the local community. Such R&D would put much of change. Change is rapid, the domains involved are nu- needed emphasis onto participatory breeding projects and merous, and there is a significant lack of transparent com- agroecology. munication among actors. Hence assessment of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development; information Climate change can be anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty on ben- Climate change, which is taking place at a time of increasing efits and harms is unavoidable. There is a wide range of per- demand for food, feed, fiber and fuel, has the potential to spectives on the environmental, human health and economic irreversibly damage the natural resource base on which ag- risks and benefits of modern biotechnology; many of these riculture depends. The relationship between climate change risks are as yet unknown. and agriculture is a two-way street; agriculture contributes Conventional biotechnologies, such as breeding tech- to climate change in several major ways and climate change niques, tissue culture, cultivation practices and fermenta- in general adversely affects agriculture. tion are readily accepted and used. Between 1950 and 1980, In mid- to high-latitude regions moderate local increases prior to the development of genetically modified organisms in temperature can have small beneficial impacts on crop (GMOs), modern varieties of wheat increased yields up to yields; in low-latitude regions, such moderate temperature 33% even in the absence of fertilizer. Modern biotechnolo- increases are likely to have negative yield effects. Some nega- gies used in containment have been widely adopted; e.g., the tive impacts are already visible in many parts of the world; industrial enzyme market reached US$1.5 billion in 2000. additional warming will have increasingly negative im- The application of modern biotechnology outside contain- pacts in all regions. Water scarcity and the timing of water ment, such as the use of genetically modified (GM) crops is availability will increasingly constrain production. Climate much more contentious. For example, data based on some change will require a new look at water storage to cope with years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% the impacts of more and extreme precipitation, higher intra- yield gains in some places and yield declines in others. and inter-seasonal variations, and increased rates of evapo- Higher level drivers of biotechnology R&D, such as transpiration in all types of ecosystems. Extreme climate IPR frameworks, determine what products become avail- events (floods and droughts) are increasing and expected to able. While this attracts investment in agriculture, it can amplify in frequency and severity and there are likely to be also concentrate ownership of agricultural resources. An significant consequences in all regions for food and forestry emphasis on modern biotechnology without ensuring ad- production and food insecurity. There is a serious potential equate support for other agricultural research can alter for future conflicts over habitable land and natural resources education and training programs and reduce the number such as freshwater. Climate change is affecting the distribu- of professionals in other core agricultural sciences. This tion of plants, invasive species, pests and disease vectors and situation can be self-reinforcing since today’s students de- the geographic range and incidence of many human, animal fine tomorrow’s educational and training opportunities. and plant diseases is likely to increase. The use of patents for transgenes introduces additional A comprehensive approach with an equitable regulatory issues. In developing countries especially, instruments such framework, differentiated responsibilities and intermediate as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation targets are required to reduce GHG emissions. The earlier by the individual farmer or public researcher while also and stronger the cuts in emissions, the quicker concentra- tions will approach stabilization. Emission reduction mea- sures clearly are essential because they can have an impact 4 China and USA.
01-EXEC.indd 8 11/3/08 12:05:00 PM Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | 9
due to inertia in the climate system. However, since further and growing consumer awareness increase the need for changes in the climate are inevitable adaptation is also im- effective, coordinated, and proactive national food safety perative. Actions directed at addressing climate change and systems. Health concerns that could be addressed by AKST promoting sustainable development share some important include the presence of pesticide residues, heavy metals, hor- goals such as equitable access to resources and appropriate mones, antibiotics and various additives in the food system technologies. as well as those related to large-scale livestock farming. Some “win-win” mitigation opportunities have already Strengthened food safety measures are important and been identified. These include land use approaches such as necessary in both domestic and export markets and can im- lower rates of agricultural expansion into natural habitats; pose significant costs. Some countries may need help in meet- afforestation, reforestation, increased efforts to avoid defor- ing food control costs such as monitoring and inspection, estation, agroforestry, agroecological systems, and restora- and costs associated with market rejection of contaminated tion of underutilized or degraded lands and rangelands and commodities. Taking a broad and integrated agroecosystem land use options such as carbon sequestration in agricultural and human health approach can facilitate identification of soils, reduction and more efficient use of nitrogenous inputs; animal, plant, and human health risks, and appropriate effective manure management and use of feed that increases AKST responses. livestock digestive efficiency. Policy options related to regu- Worldwide, agriculture accounts for at least 170,000 lations and investment opportunities include financial incen- occupational deaths each year: half of all fatal accidents. tives to maintain and increase forest area through reduced Machinery and equipment, such as tractors and harvesters, deforestation and degradation and improved management account for the highest rates of injury and death, particu- and the development and utilization of renewable energy larly among rural laborers. Other important health hazards sources. The post-2012 regime has to be more inclusive of include agrochemical poisoning, transmissible animal dis- all agricultural activities such as reduced emission from de- eases, toxic or allergenic agents, and noise, vibration and forestation and soil degradation to take full advantage of the ergonomic hazards. Improving occupational health requires opportunities offered by agriculture and forestry sectors. a greater emphasis on health protection through develop- ment and enforcement of health and safety regulations. Poli- Human health cies should explicitly address tradeoffs between livelihood Despite the evident and complex links between health, nu- benefits and environmental, occupational and public health trition, agriculture, and AKST, improving human health is risks. not generally an explicit goal of agricultural policy. Agricul- The incidence and geographic range of many emerging ture and AKST can affect a range of health issues including and reemerging infectious diseases are influenced by the in- undernutrition, chronic diseases, infectious diseases, food tensification of crop and livestock systems. Serious socioeco- safety, and environmental and occupational health. Ill heath nomic impacts can arise when diseases spread widely within in the farming community can in turn reduce agricultural human or animal populations, or when they spill over from productivity and the ability to develop and deploy appropri- animal reservoirs to human hosts. Most of the factors that ate AKST. Ill health can result from undernutrition, as well contribute to disease emergence will continue, if not inten- as over-nutrition. Despite increased global food production sify. Integrating policies and programs across the food chain over recent decades, undernutrition is still a major global can help reduce the spread of infectious diseases; robust public health problem, causing over 15% of the global dis- detection, surveillance, monitoring, and response programs ease burden. Protein energy and micronutrient malnutrition are critical. remain challenges, with high variability between and within countries. Food security can be improved through policies Natural resource management45 and programs to increase dietary diversity and through de- Natural resources, especially those of soil, water, plant and velopment and deployment of existing and new technologies animal diversity, vegetation cover, renewable energy sources, for production, processing, preservation, and distribution climate, and ecosystem services are fundamental for the of food. structure and function of agricultural systems and for social AKST policies and practices have increased production and environmental sustainability, in support of life on earth. and new mechanisms for food processing. Reduced dietary Historically the path of global agricultural development has quality and diversity and inexpensive foods with low nu- been narrowly focused on increased productivity rather than trient density have been associated with increasing rates of on a more holistic integration of natural resource manage- worldwide obesity and chronic disease. Poor diet through- ment (NRM) with food and nutritional security. A holistic, out the life course is a major risk factor for chronic dis- or systems-oriented approach, is preferable because it can eases, which are the leading cause of global deaths. There is address the difficult issues associated with the complexity a need to focus on consumers and the importance of dietary of food and other production systems in different ecologies, quality as main drivers of production, and not merely on locations and cultures. quantity or price. Strategies include fiscal policies (taxation, AKST to resolve NRM exploitation issues, such as trade regimes) for health-promoting foods and regulation the mitigation of soil fertility through synthetic inputs and of food product formulation, labeling and commercial in- natural processes, is often available and well understood. formation. Globalization of the food supply, accompanied by con- 5 Capture fisheries and forestry have not been as well covered as centration of food distribution and processing companies, other aspects of NRM.
01-EXEC.indd 9 11/3/08 12:05:00 PM 10 | Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report
Nevertheless, the resolution of natural resource challenges among, and within, countries that in many cases have not will demand new and creative approaches by stakeholders been favorable for small-scale farmers and rural livelihoods. with diverse backgrounds, skills and priorities. Capabilities These distributional impacts call for differentiation in policy for working together at multiple scales and across different frameworks and institutional arrangements if these coun- social and physical environments are not well developed. tries are to benefit from agricultural trade. There is growing For example, there have been few opportunities for two-way concern that opening national agricultural markets to in- learning between farmers and researchers or policy makers. ternational competition before basic institutions and infra- Consequently farmers and civil society members have sel- structure are in place can undermine the agricultural sector, dom been involved in shaping NRM policy. Community- with long-term negative effects for poverty, food security based partnerships with the private sector, now in their early and the environment.56 stages of development, represent a new and promising way Trade policy reform to provide a fairer global trading forward. system can make a positive contribution to sustainability The following high priority NRM options for action are and development goals. Special and differential treatment proposed: accorded through trade negotiations can enhance the ability • Use existing AKST to identify and address some of the of developing countries to pursue food security and devel- underlying causes of declining productivity embedded opment goals while minimizing trade-related dislocations. in natural resource mismanagement, and develop new Preserving national policy flexibility allows developing AKST based on multidisciplinary approaches for a bet- countries to balance the needs of poor consumers (urban ter understanding of the complexity in NRM. Part of and rural landless) and rural small-scale farmers. Increasing this process will involve the cost-effective monitoring of the value captured by small-scale farmers in global, regional trends in the utilization of natural resource capital. and local markets chains is fundamental to meeting devel- • Strengthen human resources in the support of natural opment and sustainability goals. Supportive trade policies capital through increased investment (research, training can also make new AKST available to the small-scale farm and education, partnerships, policy) in promoting the sector and agroenterprises. awareness of the societal costs of degradation and value Developing countries would benefit from the removal of ecosystems services. of barriers for products in which they have a comparative • Promote research “centers of AKST-NRM excellence” advantage; reduction of escalating tariffs for processed com- to facilitate less exploitative NRM and better strategies modities in industrialized and developing countries; deeper for resource resilience, protection and renewal through preferential access to markets for least developed countries; innovative two-way learning processes in research and increased public investment in rural infrastructure and the development, monitoring and policy formulation. generation of public goods AKST; and improved access to • Create an enabling environment for building NRM ca- credit, AKST resources and markets for poor producers. pacity and increasing understanding of NRM among Compensating revenues lost as a result of tariff reductions stakeholders and their organizations in order to shape is essential to advancing development agendas.67 NRM policy in partnership with public and private sec- Agriculture generates large environmental externalities, tors. many of which derive from failure of markets to value envi- • Develop networks of AKST practitioners (farmer or- ronmental and social harm and provide incentives for sus- ganizations, NGOs, government, private sector) to fa- tainability. AKST has great potential to reverse this trend. cilitate long-term natural resource management to en- Market and trade policies to facilitate the contribution of hance benefits from natural resources for the collective AKST to reducing the environmental footprint of agricul- good. ture include removing resource use–distorting subsidies; • Connect globalization and localization pathways that taxing externalities; better definitions of property rights; link locally generated NRM knowledge and innova- and developing rewards and markets for agroenvironmen- tions to public and private AKST. tal services, including the extension of carbon financing, to provide incentives for sustainable agriculture. When AKST is developed and used creatively with active The quality and transparency of governance in the participation among various stakeholders across multiple agricultural sector, including increased participation of scales, the misuse of natural capital can be reversed and the stakeholders in AKST decision making is fundamental. judicious use and renewal of water bodies, soils, biodiver- Strengthening developing country trade analysis and ne- sity, ecosystems services, fossil fuels and atmospheric quality gotiation capacity, and providing better tools for assessing ensured for future generations. tradeoffs in proposed trade agreements are important to im- proving governance. Trade and markets Targeting market and trade policies to enhance the ability Traditional and local knowledge and community- of agricultural and AKST systems to drive development, based innovation strengthen food security, maximize environmental sustain- Once AKST is directed simultaneously toward production, ability, and help make the small-scale farm sector profitable profitability, ecosystem services and food systems that are to spearhead poverty reduction is an immediate challenge site-specific and evolving, then formal, traditional and lo- around the world. Agricultural trade can offer opportunities for the poor, 6 USA. but current arrangements have major distributional impacts 7 Canada and USA.
01-EXEC.indd 10 11/3/08 12:05:01 PM Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | 11
cal knowledge need to be integrated. Traditional and local ment is increasing in many developing countries, particularly knowledge constitutes an extensive realm of accumulated with the development of export-oriented irrigated farming, practical knowledge and knowledge-generating capacity that which is associated with a growing demand for female labor, is needed if sustainability and development goals are to be including migrant workers. reached. The traditional knowledge, identities and practices Whereas these dynamics have in some ways brought of indigenous and local communities are recognized under benefits, in general, the largest proportion of rural women the UN Convention on Biological Diversity as embodying worldwide continues to face deteriorating health and work ways of life relevant for conservation and sustainable use of conditions, limited access to education and control over nat- biodiversity; and by others as generated by the purposeful ural resources, insecure employment and low income. This interaction of material and non-material worlds embedded situation is due to a variety of factors, including the growing in place-based cultures and identities. Local knowledge re- competition on agricultural markets which increases the de- fers to capacities and activities that exist among rural people mand for flexible and cheap labor, growing pressure on and in all parts of the world. conflicts over natural resources, the diminishing support by Traditional and local knowledge is dynamic; it may governments for small-scale farms and the reallocation of sometimes fail but also has had well-documented, exten- economic resources in favor of large agroenterprises. Other sive, positive impacts. Participatory collaboration in knowl- factors include increasing exposure to risks related to natu- edge generation, technology development and innovation ral disasters and environmental changes, worsening access has been shown to add value to science-based technology to water, increasing occupational and health risks. development, for instance in Farmer-Researcher groups in Despite progress made in national and international the Andes, in Participatory Plant Breeding, the domestica- policies since the first world conference on women in 1975, tion of wild and semi-wild tree species and in soil and water urgent action is still necessary to implement gender and management. social equity in AKST policies and practices if we are to Options for action with proven contribution to achiev- better address gender issues as integral to development pro- ing sustainability and development goals include collabora- cesses. Such action includes strengthening the capacity of tion in the conservation, development and use of local and public institutions and NGOs to improve the knowledge traditional biological materials; incentives for and develop- of women’s changing forms of involvement in farm and ment of capacity among scientists and formal research or- other rural activities in AKST. It also requires giving pri- ganizations to work with local and indigenous people and ority to women’s access to education, information, science their organizations; a higher profile in scientific education and technology, and extension services to enable improving for indigenous and local knowledge as well as for profes- women’s access, ownership and control of economic and sional and community-based archiving and assessment of natural resources. To ensure such access, ownership and such knowledge and practices. The role of modern ICT in control legal measures, appropriate credit schemes, support achieving effective collaboration is critical to evolving cul- for women’s income generating activities and the reinforce- turally appropriate integration and merits larger investments ment of women’s organizations and networks are needed. and support. Effective collaboration and integration would This, in turn, depends on strengthening women’s ability to be supported by international intellectual property and benefit from market-based opportunities by institutions and other regimes that allow more scope for dealing effectively policies giving explicit priority to women farmer groups in with situations involving traditional knowledge, genetic value chains. resources and community-based innovations. Examples of A number of other changes will strengthen women’s misappropriation of indigenous and local people’s knowl- contributions to agricultural production and sustainability. edge and community-based innovations indicate a need for These include support for public services and investment in sharing of information about existing national sui generis rural areas in order to improve women’s living and work- and regulatory frameworks. ing conditions; giving priority to technological development policies targeting rural and farm women’s needs and rec- Women in agriculture ognizing their knowledge, skills and experience in the pro- Gender, that is socially constructed relations between men duction of food and the conservation of biodiversity; and and women, is an organizing element of existing farming assessing the negative effects and risks of farming practices systems worldwide and a determining factor of ongoing ag- and technology, including pesticides on women’s health, ricultural restructuring. Current trends in agricultural mar- and taking measures to reduce use and exposure. Finally, ket liberalization and in the reorganization of farm work, as if we are to better recognize women as integral to sustain- well as the rise of environmental and sustainability concerns able development, it is critical to ensure gender balance in are redefining the links between gender and development. AKST decision-making at all levels and provide mechanisms The proportion of women in agricultural production and to hold AKST organizations accountable for progress in the postharvest activities ranges from 20 to 70%; their involve- above areas.
01-EXEC.indd 11 11/3/08 12:05:01 PM Annex A Reservations on Executive Summary
Australia: Australia recognizes the IAASTD initiative and As we have specific and substantive concerns in each of reports as a timely and important multistakeholder and mul- the reports, the United States is unable to provide unquali- tidisciplinary exercise designed to assess and enhance the fied endorsement of the reports, and we have noted them. role of AKST in meeting the global development challenges. The United States believes the Assessment has potential The wide range of observations and views presented how- for stimulating further deliberation and research. Further, ever, are such that Australia cannot agree with all assertions we acknowledge the reports are a useful contribution for and options in the report. The report is therefore noted as consideration by governments of the role of AKST in rais- a useful contribution which will be used for considering the ing sustainable economic growth and alleviating hunger and future priorities and scope of AKST in securing economic poverty. growth and the alleviation of hunger and poverty. Reservations on Individual Passages Canada: The Canadian Government recognizes the sig- 1. Botswana notes that this is specially a problem in sub- nificant work undertaken by IAASTD authors, Secretariat Saharan Africa. and stakeholders and notes the Executive Summary of the 2. The USA would prefer that this sentence be written as Synthesis Report as a valuable and important contribution follows “progressive evolution of IPR regimes in coun- to policy debate which needs to continue in national and tries where national policies are not fully developed and international processes. While acknowledging considerable progressive engagement in IPR management.” improvement has been achieved through a process of com- 3. The UK notes that there is no international definition of promise, there remain a number of assertions and observa- food sovereignty. tions that require more substantial, balanced and objective 4. China and USA do not believe that this entire section is analysis. However, the Canadian Government advocates it balanced and comprehensive. be drawn to the attention of governments for consideration 5. The USA would prefer that this sentence be reflected in addressing the importance of AKST and its large poten- in this paragraph: “Opening national agricultural mar- tial to contribute to economic growth and the reduction of kets to international competition can offer economic hunger and poverty. benefits, but can lead to long-term negative effects on poverty alleviation, food security and the environment United States of America: The United States joins con- without basic national institutions and infrastructure sensus with other governments in the critical importance of being in place.” AKST to meet the goals of the IAASTD. We commend the 6. Canada and USA would prefer the following sentence: tireless efforts of the authors, editors, Co-Chairs and the “Provision of assistance to help low income countries Secretariat. We welcome the IAASTD for bringing together affected by liberalization to adjust and benefit from the widest array of stakeholders for the first time in an ini- liberalized trade is essential to advancing development tiative of this magnitude. We respect the wide diversity of agendas.” views and healthy debate that took place.
12
01-EXEC.indd 12 11/3/08 12:05:01 PM Annex B Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports
Argentina Manuel de la Fuente • National Centre of Competence in Walter Ismael Abedini • La Plata National University Research North-South Hugo Cetrángolo • Universidad de Buenos Aires Edson Gandarillas • PROINPA Foundation Cecilia Gelabert • Universidad de Buenos Aires Héctor D. Ginzo • Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio Botswana Internacional y Culto Baone Cynthia Kwerepe • Botswana College of Agriculture Maria Cristina Plencovich • Universidad de Buenos Aires Marcelo Regunaga • Universidad de Buenos Aires Brazil Sandra Elizabeth Sharry • Universidad Nacional de La Plata Flavio Dias Ávila • Embrapa Javier Souza Casadinho • CETAAR-RAPAL Antônio Gomes de Castro • Embrapa Miguel Taboada • Universidad de Buenos Aires André Gonçalves • Centro Ecológico Ernesto Viglizzo • INTA Centro Regional La Pampa Dalva María Da Mota • Embrapa Odo Primavesi • Embrapa Pecuaria Sudeste (Southeast Embrapa Armenia Cattle) Ashot Hovhannisian • Ministry of Agriculture Sergio Salles Filho • State University of Campinas (Unicamp) Susana Valle Lima • Embrapa Australia Helal Ahammad • Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Canada Forestry Jacqueline Alder • University of British Columbia David J. Connor • University of Melbourne Guy Debailleul • Laval University Tony Jansen • TerraCircle Inc. Harriet Friedman • University of Toronto Roger R.B. Leakey • James Cook University Tirso Gonzales • University of British Columbia, Okanagan Andrew Lowe • Adelaide State Herbarium and Biosurvey Thora Martina Herrmann • Université de Montréal Anna Matysek • Concept Economics Sophia Huyer • UN Commission on Science and Technology for Andrew Mears • Majority World Technology Development. Girija Shrestha • Monash Asia Institute, Monash University JoAnn Jaffe • University of Regina Shawn McGuire Austria Morven A. McLean • Agriculture and Biotechnology Strategies Maria Wurzinger • University of Natural Resources & Applied Inc. (AGBIOS) Life Sciences M. Monirul Qader Mirza • Environment Canada and University of Toronto, Scarborough Bangladesh Ricardo Ramirez • University of Guelph Wais Kabir • Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC) John M.R. Stone • Carleton University Karim Mahmudul • Bangladesh Shrimp and Fish Foundation Chile Barbados Mario Ahumada • International Committee for Regional Carl B. Greenidge • CFTC and Caribbean Regional Negotiating Planning for Food Security Machinery China Benin Jikun Huang • Chinese Academy of Sciences Peter Neuenschwander • International Institute of Tropical Fu Quin • Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) Agriculture Ma Shiming • Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) Simplice Davo Vodouhe • Pesticide Action Network Li Xiande • Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) Zhu Xiaoman • China National Institute for Educational Bolivia Research Jorge Blajos • PROINPA Foundation Ruth Pamela Cartagena • CIPCA Pando
13
01-EXEC.indd 13 11/3/08 12:05:01 PM 14 | Annex B
Colombia Jyrki Niemi • MTT Agrifood Research Inge Armbrecht • University del Valle Riikka Rajalahti • Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hernando Bernal • University of the Columbian Amazon Reimund Roetter • MTT Agrifood Research Juan Cárdenas • University of the Andes Timo Sipiläinen • MTT Agrifood Research Maria Veronica Gottret • CIAT Markku Yli-Halla • University of Helsinki Elsa Nivia • RAPALMIRA Edelmira Pérez • Pontificia University Javeriana of Bogotá France Jean Albergel • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Costa Rica (INRA) Marian Perez Gutierrez • National Centre of Competence in Loïc Antoine • IFREMER Research North-South Martine Antona • CIRAD Mario Samper • Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Gilles Aumont • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Agriculture (IICA) (INRA) Didier Bazile • CIRAD Côte d’Ivoire Pascal Bergeret • Ministry of Agriculture Guéladio Cissé • National Centre of Competence in Research Yves Birot • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique North-South, Centre Suisse de Recherche Scientifique (INRA) Pierre-Marie Bosc • CIRAD Cyprus Nicolas Bricas • CIRAD Georges Eliades • Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) Jacques Brossier • Institut National de la Recherche. Costas Gregoriou • Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) Agronomique (INRA) Christoph Metochis • Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) Perrine Burnod • CIRAD Gérard Buttoud • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Czech Republic (INRA) Miloslava Navrátilová • State Phytosanitary Administration Patrick Caron • CIRAD Bernard Chevassus • French Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Democratic Republic of Congo Emilie Coudel • CIRAD Dieudonne Athanase Musibono • University of Kinshasa Béatrice Darcy-Vrillon • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Denmark Jean-François Dhôte • Institut National de la Recherche Henrik Egelyng • Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) Agronomique (INRA) Thomas Henrichs • University of Aarhus Celine Dutilly-Diane • CIRAD Fabrice Dreyfus • University Institute for Tropical Agrofood Dominican Republic Industries and Rural Development Rufino Pérez-Brennan • ALIMENTEC S.A. Michel Dulcire • CIRAD Patrick Dugué • CIRAD Egypt Nicolas Faysse • CIRAD Sonia Ali • Zagarid University Stefano Farolfi • CIRAD Mostafa A. Bedier • Agricultural Economic Research Institute Guy Faure • CIRAD Salwa Mohamed Ali Dogheim • Agriculture Research Center Alia Gana • National Center for Scientific Research CNRS/ Azza Emara • Agricultural Research Institute, Agricultural LADYSS Research Center Thierry Goli • CIRAD Ahmed Abd Alwahed Rafea • American University of Cairo Ghislain Gosse • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Mohamed Abo El Wafa Gad • GTZ (INRA) Jean-Marc Guehl • Institut National de la Recherche Ethiopia Agronomique (INRA) Assefa Admassie • Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute Dominique Hervé • Institute for Development Research (IRD) P. Anandajayasekeram • International Livestock Research Henri Hocdé • CIRAD Institute Bernard Hubert • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Gezahegn Ayele • EDRI-IFPRI (INRA) Berhanu Debele • National Centre of Competence in Research Jacques Imbernon • CIRAD North-South Hugues de Jouvenel • Futuribles Joan Kagwanja • Economic Commission for Africa Trish Kammili • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Yalemtsehay Mekonnen • Addis Ababa University Véronique Lamblin • Futuribles Workneh Negatu Sentayehu • Addis Ababa University Marie de Lattre-Gasquet • CIRAD Gete Zeleke • Global Mountain Program Patrick Lavelle • Institute for Development Research (IRD) Marianne Lefort • Institut National de la Recherche Finland Agronomique and AgroParisTech Riina Antikainen • Finnish Environment Institute Jacques Loyat • French Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Henrik Bruun • Helsinki University of Technology Jean-Pierre Müller • CIRAD Helena Kahiluoto • MTT Agrifood Research Sylvain Perret • CIRAD
01-EXEC.indd 14 11/3/08 12:05:02 PM Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports | 15
Michel Petit • Institut Agronomique Mediterraneen Montpellier Indonesia Jean-Luc Peyron • GIP ECOFOR Suraya Afiff • KARSA (Circle for Agrarian and Village Reform) Anne-Lucie Raoult-Wack • Agropolis Fondation Hira Jhamtani • Third World Network Pierre Ricci • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Iran Alain Ruellan • Agrocampus Rennes Hamid Siadat • Independent Yves Savidan • AGROPOLIS Bernard Seguin • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Ireland (INRA) Denis Lucey • University College Cork – National University of Nicole Sibelet • CIRAD Ireland Andrée Sontot • Bureau de Ressources Genetiques Ludovic Temple • CIRAD Italy Jean-Philippe Tonneau • CIRAD Gustavo Best • Independent Selma Tozanli • Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Montpellier Maria Fonte • University of Naples Guy Trebuil • CIRAD Michael Halewood • Bioversity International Tancrede Voituriez • CIRAD Anne-Marie Izac • Alliance of the CGIAR Centres Prabhu Pingali • FAO The Gambia Sergio Ulgiati • Parthenope University of Naples Ndey Sireng Bakurin • National Environment Agency Francesco Vanni • Pisa University Keith Wiebe • FAO Germany Monika Zurek • FAO Anita Idel • Independent Dale Wen Jiajun • International Forum on Globalization Jamaica Tanja H. Schuler • Independent Audia Barnett • Scientific Research Council Hermann Waibel • Leibniz University of Hannover Japan Ghana Osamu Ito • Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Elizabeth Acheampong • University of Ghana Sciences (JIRCAS) John-Eudes Andivi Bakang • Kwame Nkrumah University of Osamu Koyama • Japan International Research Center for Science and Technology (KNUST) Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS) Claudio Bragantini • Embrapa Daniel N. Dalohoun • United Nations University MERIT/INRA Jordan Felix Yao Mensa Fiadjoe • University of Ghana Saad M. Alayyash • Jordan University of Science and Technology Edwin A. Gyasi • University of Ghana Ruba Al-Zubi • Ministry of Environment Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic • University for Development Mahmud Duwayri • University of Jordan Studies Muna Yacoub Hindiyeh • Jordan University of Science and Carol Mercey Markwei • University of Ghana Legon Technology Joseph (Joe) Taabazuing • Ghana Institute of Management and Lubna Qaryouti • Ministry of Agriculture/Rangelands Directorate Public Administration (GIMPA) Rania Suleiman Shatnawi • Ministry of Environment
India Kenya Satinder Bajaj • Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Tsedeke Abate • International Crops Research Institute for the Management University Semi-Arid Tropics Sachin Chaturvedi • Research and Information System for Susan Kaaria • Ford Foundation Developing Countries (RIS) Boniface Kiteme • Centre for Training and Integrated Research in Indu Grover • CCS Haryana Agricultural University Arid and Semi-arid Lands Development Govind Kelkar • UNIFEM Washington O. Ochola • Egerton University Purvi Mehta-Bhatt • Science Ashram Wellington Otieno • Maseno University Poonam Munjal • CRISIL Ltd Frank M. Place • World Agroforestry Centre Dev Nathan • Institute for Human Development Wahida Patwa Shah • ICRAF – World Agroforestry Centre K.P. Palanisami • Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Rajeswari Sarala Raina • Centre for Policy Research Kyrgyz Republic Vanaja Ramprasad • Green Foundation Ulan Kasymov • Central Asian Mountain Partnership Programme C.R. Ranganathan • Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Rafael Litvak • Research Institute of Irrigation Sunil Ray • Institute of Development Studies Sukhpal Singh • Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Latvia Anushree Sinha • National Council for Applied Economic Rashal Isaak • University of Latvia Research (NCAER) V. Santhakumar • Centre for Development Studies Lebanon Rasheed Sulaiman V. • Centre for Research on Innovation and Roy Antoine Abijaoude • Holy Spirit University Science Policy (CRISP)
01-EXEC.indd 15 11/3/08 12:05:02 PM 16 | Annex B
Madascagar Nicaragua R. Xavier Rakotonjanahary • FOFIFA (National Center for Falguni Guharay • Information Service of Mesoamerica on Applied Research for Rural Development) Sustainable Agriculture Carlos J. Pérez • Earth Institute Malaysia Ana Cristina Rostrán • UNAN-León Lim Li Ching • Third World Network Jorge Irán Vásquez • National Union of Farmers and Ranchers Khoo Gaik Hong • International Tropical Fruits Network Nigeria Mauritius Sanni Adunni • Ahmadu Bello University Ameenah Gurib-Fakim • University of Mauritius Michael Chidozie Dike • Ahmadu Bello University V.I.O. Ndirika • Ahmadu Bello University Mexico Stella Williams • Obafemi Awolowo University Rosa Luz González Aguirre • Autonomous Metropolitan University, Azcapotzalco Oman Michelle Chauvet • Autonomous National University of México Younis Al Akhzami • Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (UNAM) Abdallah Mohamed Omezzine • University of Nizwa, Oman Amanda Gálvez • Autonomous National University of México (UNAM) Pakistan Jesús Moncada • Independent Iftikhar Ahmad • National Agricultural Research Centre Celso Garrido Noguera • Autonomous National University of Mukhtar Ahmad Ali • Centre for Peace & Development México (UNAM) Initiatives Scott S. Robinson • Universidad Metropolitana - Iztapalapa Syed Sajidin Hussain • Ministry of Environment Roberto Saldaña • SAGARPA Yameen Memon • Government Employees Cooperative Housing Society Morocco Farzana Panhwar • SINDTH Rural Women’s Uplift Group Saadia Lhaloui • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Syed Wajid Pirzada • Pakistan Agricultural Research Center Mohamed Moussaoui • Independent Abid Suleri • Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) Ahsan Wagha • Damaan Development Organization/GEF/SGP Mozambique Manuel Amane • Instituto de Investigação Agrícola de Palestine Moçambique (IIAM) Jamal Abo Omar • An-Najah National University Patrick Matakala • World Agroforestry Centre Jad E Isaac • Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem Thameen Hijawi • Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees Nepal (PARC) Rajendra Shrestha • AFORDA Numan Mizyed • An-Najah National University Azzam Saleh • Al-Quds University Netherlands Nienke Beintema • International Food Policy Research Institute Panama Bas Eickhout • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Julio Santamaría • INIAP (MNP) Judith Francis • Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Peru Cooperation (CTA) Clara G. Cruzalegui • Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Janice Jiggins • Wageningen University Maria E. Fernandez • National Agrarian University Toby Kiers • Vrije Universiteit Luis A. Gomero • Action Network for Alternatives to Kaspar Kok • Wageningen University Agrochemicals Niek Koning • Wageningen University Carla Tamagno • Universidad San Martin de Porres Niels Louwaars • Wageningen University Willem A. Rienks • Wageningen University Philippines Niels Röling • Wageningen University Mahfuz Ahmed • Asian Development Bank Mark van Oorschot • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Arturo S. Arganosa • Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry Agency (MNP) and Natural Resources Research and Development Detlef P. van Vuuren • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Danilo C. Cardenas • Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry Agency (MNP) and Natural Resources Research and Development Henk Westhoek • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Richard B. Daite • Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry (MNP) and Natural Resources Research and Development Elenita C. Dano • Participatory Enhancement and Development New Zealand of Genetic Resources in Asia (PEDIGREA) Jack A. Heinemann • University of Canterbury Fezoil Luz C. Decena • Philippine Council for Agriculture, Meriel Watts • Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development Dely Pascual Gapasin • Institute for International Development Partnership Foundation
01-EXEC.indd 16 11/3/08 12:05:02 PM Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports | 17
Digna Manzanilla • Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry David Duthie • United Nations Environment Programme and Natural Resources Research and Development Markus Giger • University of Bern Charito P. Medina • MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Ann D. Herbert • International Labour Organization Development, Inc.) Angelika Hilbeck • Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Thelma Paris • International Rice Research Institute Udo Hoeggel • University of Bern Agnes Rola • University of the Philippines Los Baños Hans Hurni • University of Bern Leo Sebastian • Philippine Rice Research Institute Andreas Klaey • University of Bern Cordula Ott • University of Bern Poland Brigitte Portner • University of Bern Dariusz Jacek Szwed • Independent Stephan Rist • University of Bern Dorota Metera • IUCN – Poland Urs Scheidegger • Swiss College of Agriculture Juerg Schneider • State Secretariat for Economic Affairs Russia Christoph Studer • Swiss College of Agriculture Sergey Alexanian • N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry Hong Yang • Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Science and Technology Rwanda Yuan Zhou • Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Science and Agnes Abera Kalibata • Ministry of Agriculture Technology Christine Zundel • Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) Senegal Julienne Kuiseu • CORAF/WECARD Syria Moctar Toure • Independent Nour Chachaty • Independent Alessandra Galie • ICARDA Slovakia Stefania Grando • ICARDA Pavol Bielek • Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute Theib Yousef Oweis • ICARDA Manzoor Qadir • ICARDA South Africa Kamil H. Shideed • ICARDA Urmilla Bob • University of KwaZulu-Natal Marnus Gouse • University of Pretoria Taiwan Moraka Makhura • Development Bank of Southern Africa Mubarik Ali • World Vegetable Center
Spain Tajikistan Maria del Mar Delgado • University of Córdoba Sanginov S. Rajabovich • Soil Science Research Institute of Mario Giampietro • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Agrarian Academy of Sciences Luciano Mateos • Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible, CSIC Marta Rivera-Ferre • Autonomous University of Barcelona Tanzania Roshan Abdallah • Tropical Pesticides Research Institute (TPRI) Sri Lanka Stella N. Bitende • Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Deborah Bossio • International Water Management Institute Development Charlotte de Fraiture • International Water Management Institute Sachin Das • Animal Diseases Research Institute Francis Ndegwa Gichuki • International Water Management Aida Cuthbert Isinika • Sokoine University of Agriculture Institute Rose Rita Kingamkono • Tanzania Commission for Science & David Molden • International Water Management Institute Technology Evelyne Lazaro • Sokoine University of Agriculture Sudan Razack Lokina • University of Dar es Salaam Ali Taha Ayoub • Ahfal University for Women Lutgard Kokulinda Kagaruki • Animal Diseases Research Asha El Karib • ACORD Institute Aggrey Majok • Independent Elizabeth J.Z. Robinson • University of Dar es Salaam Ahmed S.M. El Wakeel • NBSAP Balgis M.E. Osman-Elasha • Higher Council for Environment & Thailand Natural Resources (HCENR) Thammarat Koottatep • Asian Institute of Technology Anna Stabrawa • United Nations Environment Programme Sweden Susanne Johansson • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Trinidad and Tobago Richard Langlais • Nordregio, Nordic Center for Spatial Salisha Bellamy • Ministry of Agriculture, Land & Marine Devleopment Resources Veli-Matti Loiske • Södertörns University College Ericka Prentice-Pierre • Agriculture Sector Reform Program Fred Saunders • Södertörns University College (ASRP), IBD Martin Wierup • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Tunisia Switzerland Mohamed Annabi • Institut National de la Recherche Felix Bachmann • Swiss College of Agriculture Agronomique de Tunisie
01-EXEC.indd 17 11/3/08 12:05:02 PM 18 | Annex B
Rym Ben Zid • Independent John Marsh • Independent Mustapha Guellouz • IAASTD CWANA, DSIPS - Diversification Adrienne Martin • University of Greenwich Program, ICARDA Ian Maudlin • Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine Kawther Latiri • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Nigel Maxted • University of Birmingham de Tunisie Mara Miele • Cardiff University Lokman Zaibet • Ecole Supérieure d’Agriculture de Mograne, Selyf Morgan • Cardiff University Zaghouan Joe Morris • Cranfield University Johanna Pennarz • ITAD Turkey Gerard Porter • University of Edinburgh Nazimi Acikgoz • Ege University Charlie Riches • University of Greenwich Hasan Akca • Gaziosmanpasa University Peter Robbins • Independent Ahmet Ali Koc • Akdeniz University Paresh Shah • London Higher Gulcan Eraktan • University of Ankara Geoff Simm • Scottish Agricultural College Yalcin Kaya • Trakya Agricultural Research Institute Linda Smith • Department for Environment, Food and Rural Suat Oksuz • Ege University Affairs (end Mar 2006) Ayfer Tan • Aegean Agricultural Research Institute Nicola Spence • Central Science Laboratory Ahu UncuogluTubitak • Research Institute for Genetic Joyce Tait • University of Edinburgh Engineering and Biotechnology (RIGEB) K.J. Thomson • University of Aberdeen Fahri Yavuz • Ataturk University Philip Thornton • International Livestock Research Institute Bill Vorley • International Institute for Environment and Uganda Development Apili E.C. Ejupu • Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Jeff Waage • London International Development Centre Fisheries Apophia Atukunda • Environment Consultancy League United States Dan Nkoowa Kisauzi • Nkoola Institutional Development Emily Adams • Independent Associates (NIDA) Elizabeth A. Ainsworth • U.S. Department of Agriculture Imelda Kashaija • National Agriculture Resource Organization Wisdom Akpalu • Environmental Economics Research & (NARO) Consultancy (EERAC) Theresa Sengooba • International Food Policy Research Institute Molly D. Anderson • Food Systems Integrity David Andow • University of Minnesota Ukraine Patrick Avato • The World Bank Yuriy Nesterov • Heifer International Mohamed Bakarr • Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International United Arab Emirates Revathi Balakrishnan • Independent Abdin Zein El-Abdin • Lootah Educational Foundation Debbie Barker • International Forum on Globalization Barbara Best • U.S. Agency for International Development United Kingdom Regina Birner • International Food Policy Research Policy Michael Appleby • World Society for the Protection of Animals, Institute London Dave Bjorneberg • U.S. Department of Agriculture Steve Bass • International Institute for Environment and David Bouldin • Cornell University Development Rodney Brown • Brigham Young University Stephen Biggs • University of East Anglia Sandra Brown • Winrock International Norman Clark • The Open University Rebecca Burt • U.S. Department of Agriculture Joanna Chataway • Open University Lorna M. Butler • Iowa State University Janet Cotter • University of Exeter Kenneth Cassman • University of Nebraska, Lincoln Peter Craufurd • University of Reading Gina Castillo • Oxfam America Barbara Dinham • Pesticide Action Network Medha Chandra • Pesticide Action Network, North America Cathy Rozel Farnworth • Independent Jahi Michael Chappell • University of Michigan Les Firbank • North Wyke Research Luis Fernando Chávez • Emory University Chris Garforth • University of Reading Joel I. Cohen • Independent Anil Graves • Cranfield University Randy L. Davis • U.S. Department of Agriculture Andrea Grundy • National Farmers’ Union Daniel de la Torre Ugarte • University of Tennessee David Grzywacz • University of Greenwich Steven Dehmer • University of Minnesota Andy Hall • United Nations University – Maastricht Medha Devare • Cornell University Brian Johnson • Independent Amadou Makhtar Diop • Rodale Institute Sajid Kazmi • Middlesex University Business School William E. Easterling • Pennsylvania State University Frances Kimmins • NR International Ltd Kristie L. Ebi • ESS, LLC Chris D.B. Leakey • University of Plymouth Denis Ebodaghe • U.S. Department of Agriculture Karen Lock • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Shelley Feldman • Cornell University Peter Lutman • Rothamsted Research Shaun Ferris • Catholic Relief Services Ana Marr • University of Greenwich Jorge M. Fonseca • University of Arizona
01-EXEC.indd 18 11/3/08 12:05:03 PM Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports | 19
J.B. Friday • University of Hawaii Mark Rosegrant • International Food Policy Research Institute Tilly Gaillard • Independent Erika Rosenthal • Center for International Environmental Law Constance Gewa • George Mason University Michael Schechtman • U.S. Department of Agriculture Paul Guillebeau • University of Georgia Sara Scherr • Ecoagriculture Partners James C. Hanson • University of Maryland Jeremy Schwartzbord • Independent Celia Harvey • Conservation International Leonid Sharashkin • Independent Mary Hendrickson • University of Missouri Matthew Spurlock • University of Massachusetts William Heffernan • University of Missouri Timothy Sulser • International Food Policy Research Institute Paul Heisey • U.S. Department of Agriculture Steve Suppan • Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Kenneth Hinga • U.S. Department of Agriculture Douglas L. Vincent • University of Hawaii at Manoa Omololu John Idowu • Cornell University Pai-Yei Whung • U.S. Department of Agriculture Marcia Ishii-Eiteman • Pesticide Action Network, North America David E. Williams • U.S. Department of Agriculture R. Cesar Izaurralde • Joint Global Change Research Institute Stan Wood • International Food Policy Research Institute Eric Holt Jiménez • Food First/Institute for Food and Angus Wright • California State University, Sacramento Development Policy Howard Yana Shapiro • MARS, Inc. Moses T.K. Kairo • Florida A&M University Stacey Young • U.S. Agency for International Development David Knopp • Emerging Markets Group (EMG) Tingju Zhu • International Food Policy Research Institute Russ Kruska • International Livestock Research Institute Andrew D.B. Leakey • University of Illinois Uruguay Karen Luz • World Wildlife Fund Gustavo Ferreira • Instituto Nacional de Investigación Uford Madden • Florida A&M University Agropecuaria (INIA), Tacuarembó Pedro Marques • The World Bank Luis Carlos Paolino • Technological Laboratory of Uruguay Harold J. McArthur • University of Hawaii at Manoa (LATU) A.J. McDonald • Cornell University Lucía Pitalluga • University of the Republic Patrick Meier • Tufts University Douglas L. Murray • Colorado State University Uzbekistan Clare Narrod • International Food Policy Research Institute Sandjar Djalalov • Independent James K. Newman • Iowa State University Alisher A. Tashmatov • Ministry of Finance Diane Osgood • Business for Social Responsibility Jonathan Padgham • The World Bank Viet Nam Harry Palmier • The World Bank Duong Van Chin • The Cuulong Delta Rice Research Institute Philip Pardey • University of Minnesota Ivette Perfecto • University of Michigan Zambia Cameron Pittelkow • Independent Charlotte Wonani • University of Zambia Carl E. Pray • Rutgers University Elizabeth Ransom • University of Richmond Zimbabwe Laura T. Raynolds • Colorado State University Chiedza L. Muchopa • University of Zimbabwe Peter Reich • University of Minnesota Lindela R. Ndlovu • National University of Science and Robin Reid • Colorado State University Technology Susan Riha • Cornell University Idah Sithole-Niang • University of Zimbabwe Claudia Ringler • International Food Policy Research Institute Stephen Twomlow • International Crops Research Institute for Steven Rose • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the Semi-Arid Tropics
01-EXEC.indd 19 11/3/08 12:05:03 PM Annex C Secretariat and Cosponsor Focal Points
Secretariat Central and West Asia and North Africa – International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) World Bank Mustapha Guellouz, Lamis Makhoul, Caroline Msrieh-Seropian, Marianne Cabraal, Leonila Castillo, Jodi Horton, Betsi Isay, Ahmed Sidahmed, Cathy Farnworth Pekka Jamsen, Pedro Marques, Beverly McIntyre, Wubi Mekonnen, June Remy Latin America and the Caribbean – Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) UNEP Enrique Alarcon, Jorge Ardila Vásquez, Viviana Chacon, Johana Marcus Lee, Nalini Sharma, Anna Stabrawa Rodríguez, Gustavo Sain UNESCO East and South Asia and the Pacific – WorldFish Center Guillen Calvo Karen Khoo, Siew Hua Koh, Li Ping Ng, Jamie Oliver, Prem Chandran Venugopalan With special thanks to the Publications team: Audrey Ringler Cosponsor Focal Points (logo design), Pedro Marques (proofing and graphics), Ketill GEF Mark Zimsky Berger and Eric Fuller (graphic design) UNDP Philip Dobie UNEP Ivar Baste Regional Institutes UNESCO Salvatore Arico, Walter Erdelen Sub-Saharan Africa – African Centre for Technology Studies WHO Jorgen Schlundt (ACTS) World Bank Mark Cackler, Kevin Cleaver, Eija Pehu, Ronald Ajengo, Elvin Nyukuri, Judi Wakhungu Juergen Voegele
20
01-EXEC.indd 20 11/3/08 12:05:04 PM Annex D Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment
Steering Committee Sam Dryden, Managing Director, Emergent Genetics The Steering Committee was established to oversee the David Evans, Former 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, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Development the expected outputs and outcomes, governance and management Program Leader, Unilever structure, location of the Secretariat and funding strategy. Mumeka M. Wright, Director, Bimzi Ltd., Zambia
Co-chairs Consumer Groups Louise Fresco, Assistant Director General for Agriculture, FAO Michael Hansen, Consumers International Seyfu Ketema, Executive Secretary, Association for Strengthening Greg Jaffe, Director, Biotechnology Project, Center for Science in Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) the Public Interest Claudia Martinez Zuleta, Former Deputy Minister of the Samuel Ochieng, 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 Haerlin, Advisor, Greenpeace International Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network Tsakani Ngomane, Director Agricultural Extension Services, North America Regional Center (PANNA) Department of Agriculture, Limpopo Province, Republic of Monica Kapiriri, Regional Program Officer for NGO South Africa Enhancement and Rural Development, Aga Khan Armando Paredes, Presidente, Consejo Nacional Agropecuario Raymond C. Offenheiser, President, Oxfam America (CNA) Daniel Rodriguez, International Technology Development Group (ITDG), Latin America Regional Office, Peru Scientific Organizations Jorge Ardila Vásquez, Director Area of Technology and UN Bodies Innovation, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Ivar Baste, Chief, Environment Assessment Branch, UN Agriculture (IICA) Environment Programme Samuel Bruce-Oliver, NARS Senior Fellow, Global Forum for Wim van Eck, Senior Advisor, Sustainable Development and Agricultural Research Secretariat Healthy Environments, World Health Organization Adel El-Beltagy, Chair, Center Directors Committee, Consultative Joke Waller-Hunter, Executive Secretary, UN Framework Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) 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 (TWAS) At-large Scientists Mark Holderness, Head Crop and Pest Management, CAB Adrienne Clarke, Laureate Professor, School of Botany, University International of Melbourne, Australia Charlotte Johnson-Welch, Public Health and Gender Denis Lucey, Professor of Food Economics, Dept. of Food Specialist and Nata Duvvury, Director Social Conflict and Business & Development, University College Cork, Ireland, Transformation Team, International Center for Research on and Vice-President NATURA Women (ICRW) Vo-tong Xuan, Rector, Angiang University, Vietnam Thomas Rosswall, Executive Director, International Council for Science (ICSU) Private Sector Judi Wakhungu, Executive Director, African Center for Momtaz Faruki Chowdhury, Director, Agribusiness Center for Technology Studies Competitiveness and Enterprise Development, Bangladesh
21
01-EXEC.indd 21 11/3/08 12:05:04 PM 22 | Annex D
Governments Russia: Eugenia Serova, Head, Agrarian Policy Division, Institute Australia: Peter Core, Director, Australian Centre for for Economy in Transition International Agricultural Research Uganda: Grace Akello, Minister of State for Northern Uganda China: Keming Qian, Director General Inst. Agricultural Rehabilitation Economics, Dept. of International Cooperation, Chinese United Kingdom Paul Spray, Head of Research, DFID Academy of Agricultural Science United States: Rodney Brown, Deputy Under Secretary of Finland: Tiina Huvio, Senior Advisor, Agriculture and Rural Agriculture and Hans Klemm, Director of the Office of Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Agriculture, Biotechnology and Textile Trade Affairs, France: Alain Derevier, Senior Advisor, Research for Sustainable Department 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) Rockefeller Foundation Hungary: Zoltan Bedo, Director, Agricultural Research Institute, Achim Steiner, Director General, The World Conservation Union Hungarian Academy of Sciences (IUCN) Ireland: Aidan O’Driscoll, Assistant Secretary General, Eugene Terry, Director, African Agricultural Technology Department of Agriculture and Food Foundation Morocco: Hamid Narjisse, Director General, INRA
01-EXEC.indd 22 11/3/08 12:05:04 PM Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment | 23
Advisory Bureau Prabha Mahale • International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements Non-government Representatives Anita Morales • Apit Tako Nizam Selim • Pioneer Hatchery Consumer Groups Jaime Delgado • Asociación 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 • Ahlam Al Naggar Security and Trade Iran • Hossein Askari Jose Vargas Niello • Consumers International Chile Kyrgyz Republic • Djamin Akimaliev Saudi Arabia • Abdu Al Assiri, Taqi Elldeen Adar, Khalid Al International organizations Ghamedi Nata Duvvury • International Center for Research on Women Turkey • Yalcin Kaya, Mesut Keser Emile Frison • CGIAR Mohamed Hassan • Third World Academy of Sciences East and South Asia and the Pacific Mark Holderness • GFAR Australia • Simon Hearn Jeffrey McNeely • World Conservation Union (IUCN) China • Puyun Yang Dennis Rangi • CAB International India • PK Joshi John Stewart • International Council of Science (ICSU) Japan • Ryuko Inoue Philippines • William Medrano NGOs Kevin Akoyi • Vredeseilanden Latin America and Caribbean Hedia Baccar • Association pour la Protection de l’Environment Brazil • Sebastiao Barbosa, Alexandre Cardoso, Paulo Roberto de Kairouan Galerani, Rubens Nodari Benedikt Haerlin • Greenpeace International Dominican Republic • Rafael Perez Duvergé Juan Lopez • Friends of the Earth International Honduras • Arturo Galo, Roberto Villeda Toledo Khadouja Mellouli • Women for Sustainable Development Uruguay • Mario Allegri Patrick Mulvaney • Practical Action Romeo Quihano • Pesticide Action Network North America and Europe Maryam Rahmaniam • CENESTA Austria • Hedwig Woegerbauer Daniel Rodriguez • International Technology Development Group Canada • Iain MacGillivray Finland • Marja-Liisa Tapio-Bistrom Private Sector France • Michel Dodet Momtaz Chowdhury • Agrobased Technology and Industry Ireland • Aidan O’Driscoll, Tony Smith Development Russia • Eugenia Serova, Sergey Alexanian Giselle L. D’Almeida • Interface United Kingdom • Jim Harvey, David Howlett, 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 Mwangi Shoaib Aziz • Sustainable Agriculture Action Group of Pakistan Mozambique • Alsácia Atanásio, Júlio Mchola Philip Kiriro • East African Farmers Federation Namibia • Gillian Maggs-Kölling Kristie Knoll • Knoll Farms Senegal • Ibrahim Diouck
01-EXEC.indd 23 11/3/08 12:05:04 PM 01-EXEC.indd 24 11/3/08 12:05:16 PM SCIENCE | AGRICULTURE | CURRENT AFFAIRS
“Although considered by many to be a success story, the benefi ts 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 still hungry or malnourished with an additional 4 million more Agriculture joining their ranks annually. We are putting food that appears cheap on our tables; but it is Agriculture food that is not always healthy and that costs us dearly in terms of water, soil and the biological at a diversity on which all our futures depend.” —Professor Bob Watson, director, IAASTD CrossroadsCrossroads The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Devel- International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, opment (IAASTD) , on which Agriculture at the Crossroads is based, was a three-year collab- orative effort begun in 2005 that assessed our capacity to meet development and sustainabil- Science and Technology for Development ity goals of:
• Reducing hunger and poverty • Improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods • Facilitating social and environmental sustainability
Governed by a multi-stakeholder bureau comprised of 30 representatives from government and 30 from civil society, the process brought together 110 governments and 400 experts, rep- resenting non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, producers, consumers, the scientifi c community, multilateral environment agreements (MEAs), and multiple interna- tional 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 fi ndings of the IAASTD. It consists of a Global Report, a brief Synthesis Report, and 5 subglobal reports. Taken as a whole, the IAASTD reports are an indispensable reference for anyone working in the fi eld of agriculture and rural development, whether at the level of basic research, policy, or practice. Executive Summary
Cover design by Linda McKnight, McKnight Design, LLC Cover photos (left to right): Steve Raymer, Dean Conger, and William Albert Allard of National Geographic Stock, Mark Edwards (both images) of Peter Arnold, Inc. of the Synthesis Report
Washington • Covelo • London www.islandpress.org All Island Press books are printed on recycled, acid-free paper.