Iaastd Exec Summary Jan 2008

8/3/2019 Iaastd Exec Summary Jan 2008

1/34

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science

and Technology for Development

Executive Summary of

the Synthesis Report

IAASTD


2/34


3/34

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Scienceand Technology for Development

Executive Summary ofthe Synthesis ReportThis summary was approved in detail by the Governments attending the IAASTD

Intergovernmental Plenary in Johannesburg, South Africa (7-11 April 2008).

IAASTD


4/34

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


5/34

Contents

Foreword

Preface

Statement by Governments

Executive Summary

Annex A Reservations on Executive Summary

Annex B Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports

Annex C Secretariat and Cosponsor Focal PointsAnnex D Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment

vii

viii

x

1

12

13

2021


6/34


7/34

vii

retariat. We would specifically like to thank the cosponsor-ing organizations of the Global Environment Facility (GEF)and the World Bank for their financial contributions as wellas the FAO, UNEP, and the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for theircontinued support of this process through allocation of staffresources.

We acknowledge with gratitude the governments and

organizations that contributed to the Multidonor TrustFund (Australia, Canada, the European Commission,France, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United King-dom) and the United States Trust Fund. We also thank thegovernments who provided support to Bureau members,authors and reviewers in other ways. In addition, Finlandprovided direct support to the Secretariat. The IAASTD wasespecially successful in engaging a large number of expertsfrom developing countries and countries with economies intransition in its work; the Trust Funds enabled financial as-sistance for their travel to the IAASTD meetings.

We would also like to make special mention of the Re-gional Organizations who hosted the regional coordinatorsand staff and provided assistance in management and timeto ensure success of this enterprise: the African Center forTechnology Studies (ACTS) in Kenya, the Inter-AmericanInstitute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) in CostaRica, the International Center for Agricultural Research inthe Dry Areas (ICARDA) in Syria and the WorldFish Centerin Malaysia.

The final Intergovernmental Plenary in Johannesburg,South Africa was opened on 7 April 2008 by Achim Steiner,Executive Director of UNEP. This Plenary saw the accep-tance of the Reports and the approval of the Summaries forDecision Makers and the Executive Summary of the Synthe-sis Report by an overwhelming majority of governments.

Signed:

Co-chairsHans H. Herren

Judi Wakhungu

DirectorRobert T. Watson

The objective of the International Assessment of Agricul-tural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development(IAASTD) was to assess the impacts of past, present andfuture agricultural knowledge, science and technology onthe:

and

sustainable development.

The IAASTD was initiated in 2002 by the World Bank andthe Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions (FAO) as a global consultative process to determinewhether an international assessment of agricultural knowl-edge, science and technology was needed. Mr. Klaus Tepfer,Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP) opened the first Intergovernmental Plenary(30 August-3 September 2004) in Nairobi, Kenya, duringwhich participants initiated a detailed scoping, preparation,drafting and peer review process.

The outputs from this assessment are a Global and fiveSub-Global reports; a Global and five Sub-Global Sum-maries for Decision Makers; and a cross-cutting SynthesisReport with an Executive Summary. The Summaries for De-cision Makers and the Synthesis Report specifically provideoptions for action to governments, international agencies,academia, research organizations and other decision makersaround the world.

The reports draw on the work of hundreds of expertsfrom all regions of the world who have participated in thepreparation and peer review process. As has been customaryin many such global assessments, success depended first andforemost on the dedication, enthusiasm and cooperation ofthese experts in many different but related disciplines. It isthe synergy of these interrelated disciplines that permittedIAASTD to create a unique, interdisciplinary regional andglobal process.

We take this opportunity to express our deep gratitudeto the authors and reviewers of all of the reportstheirdedication and tireless efforts made the process a success.We thank the Steering Committee for distilling the outputsof the consultative process into recommendations to thePlenary, the IAASTD Bureau for their advisory role duringthe assessment and the work of those in the extended Sec-

Foreword


8/34

Goals (MDGs): the reduction of hunger and poverty; theimprovement of rural livelihoods and human health; and fa-cilitating equitable, socially, environmentally and economi-cally sustainable development. Realizing these goals requiresacknowledging the multifunctionality of agriculture: the chal-lenge is to simultaneously meet development and sustainabil-ity goals while increasing agricultural production.

Meeting these goals has to be placed in the context of a

rapidly changing world of urbanization, growing inequities,human migration, globalization, changing dietary prefer-ences, climate change, environmental degradation, a trendtoward biofuels and an increasing population. These condi-tions are affecting local and global food security and put-ting pressure on productive capacity and ecosystems. Hencethere are unprecedented challenges ahead in providing foodwithin a global trading system where there are other com-peting uses for agricultural and other natural resources.AKST alone cannot solve these problems, which are causedby complex political and social dynamics, but it can makea major contribution to meeting development and sustain-ability goals. Never before has it been more important forthe world to generate and use AKST.

Given the focus on hunger, poverty and livelihoods,the IAASTD pays special attention to the current situation,issues and potential opportunities to redirect the currentAKST system to improve the situation for poor rural peo-ple, especially small-scale farmers, rural laborers and otherswith limited resources. It addresses issues critical to formu-lating policy and provides information for decision makersconfronting conflicting views on contentious issues such asthe environmental consequences of productivity increases,environmental and human health impacts of transgeniccrops, the consequences of bioenergy development on theenvironment and on the long-term availability and price offood, and the implications of climate change on agriculturalproduction. The Bureau agreed that the scope of the assess-ment needed to go beyond the narrow confines of scienceand technology (S&T) and should encompass other typesof relevant knowledge (e.g., knowledge held by agriculturalproducers, consumers and end users) and that it should alsoassess the role of institutions, organizations, governance,markets and trade.

The IAASTD is a multidisciplinary and multistakeholderenterprise requiring the use and integration of information,tools and models from different knowledge paradigms in-cluding local and traditional knowledge. The IAASTD doesnot advocate specific policies or practices; it assesses the ma-jor issues facing AKST and points towards a range of AKST

In August 2002, the World Bank and the Food and Agri-culture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations initiateda global consultative process to determine whether an in-ternational assessment of agricultural knowledge, scienceand technology (AKST) was needed. This was stimulatedby discussions at the World Bank with the private sectorand nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on the state ofscientific understanding of biotechnology and more specifi-

cally transgenics. During 2003, eleven consultations wereheld, overseen by an international multistakeholder steer-ing committee and involving over 800 participants from allrelevant stakeholder groups, e.g., governments, the privatesector and civil society. Based on these consultations thesteering committee recommended to an IntergovernmentalPlenary meeting in Nairobi in September 2004 that an in-ternational assessment of the role of AKST in reducing hun-ger and poverty, improving rural livelihoods and facilitatingenvironmentally, socially and economically sustainabledevelopment was needed.The concept of an InternationalAssessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Tech-nology for Development (IAASTD) was endorsed as a multi-thematic, multi-spatial, multi-temporal intergovernmentalprocess with a multistakeholder Bureau cosponsored by theFAO, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), United Na-tions Development Programme (UNDP), United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Educa-tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), theWorld Bank and World Health Organization (WHO).

The IAASTDs governance structure is a unique hybridof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)and the nongovernmental Millennium Ecosystem Assess-ment (MA). The stakeholder composition of the Bureau wasagreed at the Intergovernmental Plenary meeting in Nairobi;it is geographically balanced and multistakeholder with 30government and 30 civil society representatives (NGOs,producer and consumer groups, private sector entities andinternational organizations) in order to ensure ownership ofthe process and findings by a range of stakeholders.

About 400 of the worlds experts were selected by theBureau, following nominations by stakeholder groups, toprepare the IAASTD Report (comprised of a Global andfive Sub-Global assessments). These experts worked in theirown capacity and did not represent any particular stake-holder group. Additional individuals, organizations andgovernments were involved in the peer review process.

The IAASTD development and sustainability goals wereendorsed at the first Intergovernmental Plenary and are con-sistent with a subset of the UN Millennium Development

viii

PrefacePreface


9/34

and open to comments by anyone. The authors revised thedrafts based on numerous peer review comments, with theassistance of review editors who were responsible for ensur-ing the comments were appropriately taken into account.One of the most difficult issues authors had to address wascriticisms that the report was too negative. In a scientificreview based on empirical evidence, this is always a difficult

comment to handle, as criteria are needed in order to saywhether something is negative or positive. Another difficultywas responding to the conflicting views expressed by review-ers. The difference in views was not surprising given therange of stakeholder interests and perspectives. Thus one ofthe key findings of the IAASTD is that there are diverse andconflicting interpretations of past and current events, whichneed to be acknowledged and respected.

The Global and Sub-Global Summaries for DecisionMakers and the Executive Summary of the Synthesis Reportwere approved at an Intergovernmental Plenary in April2008. The Synthesis Report integrates the key findings fromthe Global and Sub-Global assessments, and focuses on eightBureau-approved topics: bioenergy; biotechnology; climate

change; human health; natural resource management; tradi-tional knowledge and community based innovation; tradeand markets; and women in agriculture.

The IAASTD builds on and adds value to a number ofrecent assessments and reports that have provided valuableinformation relevant to the agricultural sector, but have notspecifically focused on the future role of AKST, the institu-tional dimensions and the multifunctionality of agriculture.These include: FAO State of Food Insecurity in the World(yearly); InterAcademy Council Report: Realizing the Prom-ise and Potential of African Agriculture (2004); UN Mil-lennium Project Task Force on Hunger (2005); MillenniumEcosystem Assessment (2005); CGIAR Science CouncilStrategy and Priority Setting Exercise (2006); Comprehen-

sive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture: Guid-ing Policy Investments in Water, Food, Livelihoods andEnvironment (2007); Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange Reports (2001 and 2007); UNEP Fourth GlobalEnvironmental Outlook (2007); World Bank World Devel-opment Report: Agriculture for Development (2008); IFPRIGlobal Hunger Indices (yearly); and World Bank InternalReport of Investments in SSA (2007).

Financial support was provided to the IAASTD bythe cosponsoring agencies, the governments of Australia,Canada, Finland, France, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, USand UK, and the European Commission. In addition, manyorganizations have provided in-kind support. The authorsand review editors have given freely of their time, largely

without compensation.The Global and Sub-Global Summaries for Decision

Makers and the Synthesis Report are written for a range ofstakeholders, i.e., government policy makers, private sector,NGOs, producer and consumer groups, international orga-nizations and the scientific community. There are no recom-mendations, only options for action. The options for actionare not prioritized because different options are actionableby different stakeholders, each of whom have a differentset of priorities and responsibilities and operate in differentsocioeconomic and political circumstances.

options for action that meet development and sustainabilitygoals. It is policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive. Itintegrates scientific information on a range of topics thatare critically interlinked, but often addressed independently,i.e., agriculture, poverty, hunger, human health, natural re-sources, environment, development and innovation. It willenable decision makers to bring a richer base of knowledge

to bear on policy and management decisions on issues previ-ously viewed in isolation. Knowledge gained from historicalanalysis (typically the past 50 years) and an analysis of somefuture development alternatives to 2050 form the basis for as-sessing options for action on science and technology, capacitydevelopment, institutions and policies, and investments.

The IAASTD is conducted according to an open, trans-parent, representative and legitimate process; is evidencebased; presents options rather than recommendations; as-sesses different local, regional and global perspectives; pres-ents different views, acknowledging that there can be morethan one interpretation of the same evidence based on differ-ent worldviews; and identifies the key scientific uncertaintiesand areas on which research could be focused to advance

development and sustainability goals.The IAASTD is composed of a Global assessment and five

Sub-Global assessments: Central and West Asia and NorthAfrica CWANA; East and South Asia and the Pacific ESAP;Latin America and the Caribbean LAC; North America andEurope NAE; Sub-Saharan Africa SSA. It (1) assesses thegeneration, access, dissemination and use of public and privatesector AKST in relation to the goals, using local, traditionaland formal knowledge; (2) analyzes existing and emergingtechnologies, practices, policies and institutions and theirimpact on the goals; (3) provides information for decisionmakers in different civil society, private and public organi-zations on options for improving policies, practices, institu-tional and organizational arrangements to enable AKST to

meet the goals; (4) brings together a range of stakeholders(consumers, governments, international agencies and re-search organizations, NGOs, private sector, producers, thescientific community) involved in the agricultural sector andrural development to share their experiences, views, under-standing and vision for the future; and (5) identifies optionsfor future public and private investments in AKST. In addi-tion, the IAASTD will enhance local and regional capacityto design, implement and utilize similar assessments.

In this assessment agriculture is used to include produc-tion of food, feed, fuel, fiber and other products and to in-clude all sectors from production of inputs (e.g., seeds andfertilizer) to consumption of products. However, as in allassessments, some topics were covered less extensively thanothers (e.g., livestock, forestry, fisheries and the agriculturalsector of small island countries, and agricultural engineer-ing), largely due to the expertise of the selected authors.Originally the Bureau approved a chapter on plausible fu-tures (a visioning exercise), but later there was agreementto delete this chapter in favor of a more simple set of modelprojections. Similarly the Bureau approved a chapter on ca-pacity development, but this chapter was dropped and keymessages integrated into other chapters.

The IAASTD draft Report was subjected to two roundsof peer review by governments, organizations and individu-als. These drafts were placed on an open access Web site

ix

IAASTD Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | ix


10/34

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin,Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, Peoples Republic ofChina, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo,Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland,France, Gambia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Iran, Ireland,Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic,Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Republicof Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan,

Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Palau,Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Swazi-land, Sweden, Switzerland, United Republic of Tanzania,Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United King-dom of Great Britain, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia (58countries).

While approving the above statement the following govern-ments did not fully approve the Executive Summary of theSynthesis Report and their reservations are entered in An-nex A.

Australia, Canada, United States of America (3 countries).

All countries present at the final intergovernmental plenarysession held in Johannesburg, South Africa in April 2008welcome the work of the IAASTD and the uniqueness ofthis independent multistakeholder and multidisciplinaryprocess, and the scale of the challenge of covering a broadrange of complex issues. The Governments present recog-nize that the Global and Sub-Global Reports are the conclu-sions of studies by a wide range of scientific authors, experts

and development specialists and while presenting an overallconsensus on the importance of agricultural knowledge, sci-ence and technology for development they also provide adiversity of views on some issues.

All countries see these Reports as a valuable and im-portant contribution to our understanding on agriculturalknowledge, science and technology for development recog-nizing the need to further deepen our understanding of thechallenges ahead. This Assessment is a constructive initia-tive and important contribution that all governments needto take forward to ensure that agricultural knowledge, sci-ence and technology fulfils its potential to meet the develop-ment and sustainability goals of the reduction of hunger andpoverty, the improvement of rural livelihoods and humanhealth, and facilitating equitable, socially, environmentallyand economically sustainable development.

In accordance with the above statement, the followinggovernments approve the Executive Summary of the Syn-thesis Report.

Statement by Governments

x


11/34

1

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)

Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report

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


12/34


13/34

3

Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report of theInternational Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science

and Technology for Development (IAASTD)

place by the state were the primary drivers of the adoptionof new technologies. The general model has been to con-tinuously innovate, reduce farm gate prices and externalizecosts. This model drove the phenomenal achievements ofAKST in industrial countries after World War II and thespread of the Green Revolution beginning in the 1960s. But,given the new challenges we confront today, there is increas-ing recognition within formal S&T organizations that the

current AKST model requires revision. Business as usual isno longer an option. This leads to rethinking the role ofAKST in achieving development and sustainability goals;one that seeks more intensive engagement across diverseworldviews and possibly contradictory approaches in waysthat can inform and suggest strategies for actions enablingthe multiple functions of agriculture.

In order to address the diverse needs and interests thatshape human life, we need a shared approach to sustain-ability with local and cross-national collaboration. We can-not escape our predicament by simply continuing to rely onthe aggregation of individual choices to achieve sustainableand equitable collective outcomes. Incentives are needed toinfluence the choices individuals make. Issues such as pov-erty and climate change also require collective agreementson concerted action and governance across scales that go be-yond an appeal to individual benefit. At the global, regional,national and local levels, decision makers must be acutelyconscious of the fact that there are diverse challenges, mul-tiple theoretical frameworks and development models and awide range of options to meet development and sustainabil-ity goals. Our perception of the challenges and the choiceswe make at this juncture in history will determine how weprotect our planet and secure our future.

Development and sustainability goals should be placedin the context of (1) current social and economic inequitiesand political uncertainties about war and conflicts; (2) uncer-tainties about the ability to sustainably produce and accesssufficient food; (3) uncertainties about the future of worldfood prices; (4) changes in the economics of fossil-based en-ergy use; (5) the emergence of new competitors for naturalresources; (6) increasing chronic diseases that are partially aconsequence of poor nutrition and poor food quality as wellas food safety; and (7) changing environmental conditionsand the growing awareness of human responsibility for themaintenance of global ecosystem services (provisioning,regulating, cultural and supporting).

Today there is a world of asymmetric development, un-sustainable natural resource use, and continued rural andurban poverty. Generally the adverse consequences of global

This Synthesis Report captures the complexity and diver-sity of agriculture and agricultural knowledge, science andtechnology (AKST) across world regions. It is built upon theGlobal and five Sub-Global reports that provide evidencefor the integrated analysis of the main concerns necessary toachieve development and sustainability goals. It is organizedin two parts that address the primary animating question:how can AKST be used to reduce hunger and poverty, im-

prove rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable environmen-tally, socially, and economically sustainable development? Inthe first part we identify the current conditions, challengesand options for action that shape AKST, while in the secondpart we focus on eight cross-cutting themes. The eight cross-cutting themes include: bioenergy, biotechnology, climatechange, human health, natural resource management, tradeand markets, traditional and local knowledge and commu-nity-based innovation, and women in agriculture.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowl-edge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)responds to the widespread realization that despite signifi-cant scientific and technological achievements in our abilityto increase agricultural productivity, we have been less at-tentive to some of the unintended social and environmentalconsequences of our achievements. We are now in a goodposition to reflect on these consequences and to outline vari-ous policy options to meet the challenges ahead, perhapsbest characterized as the need for food and livelihood se-curity under increasingly constrained environmental condi-tions from within and outside the realm of agriculture andglobalized economic systems.

This widespread realization is linked directly to thegoals of the IAASTD: how AKST can be used to reducehunger and poverty, to improve rural livelihoods and to fa-cilitate equitable environmentally, socially and economicallysustainable development. Under the rubric of IAASTD, werecognize the importance of AKST to the multifunctionalityof agriculture and the intersection with other local to globalconcerns, including loss of biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices, climate change and water availability.

The IAASTD is unique in the history of agriculturalscience assessments in that it assesses both formal scienceand technology (S&T) and local and traditional knowledge,addresses not only production and productivity, but alsothe multifunctionality of agriculture and recognizes thatmultiple perspectives exist on the role and nature of AKST.For many years, agricultural science focused on deliveringcomponent technologies to increase farm-level productivitywhere the market and institutional arrangements put in


14/34

4 | Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report

Options for Action

Successfully meeting development and sustainability goalsand responding to new priorities and changing circumstanceswould require a fundamental shift in AKST, including sci-ence, technology, policies, institutions, capacity developmentand investment. Such a shift would recognize and give in-

creased importance to the multifunctionality of agriculture,accounting for the complexity of agricultural systems withindiverse social and ecological contexts. It would require newinstitutional and organizational arrangements to promotean integrated approach to the development and deploymentof AKST. It would also recognize farming communities,farm households, and farmers as producers and managersof ecosystems. This shift may call for changing the incentivesystems for all actors along the value chain to internalize asmany externalities as possible. In terms of development andsustainability goals, these policies and institutional changesshould be directed primarily at those who have been served

changes have the most significant effects on the poorest andmost vulnerable, who historically have had limited entitle-ments and opportunities for growth.

The pace of formal technology generation and adoptionhas been highly uneven. Actors within North America andEurope (NAE) and emerging economies who have capturedsignificant economies of scale through formal AKST will con-

tinue to dominate agricultural exports and extended valuechains. There is an urgent need to diversify and strengthenAKST, recognizing differences in agroecologies and socialand cultural conditions. The need to retool AKST, to reducepoverty and provide improved livelihoods options for therural poor, especially landless and peasant communities, ur-ban, informal and migrant workers, is a major challenge.

There is an overarching concern in all regions regardingpoverty alleviation and the livelihoods options available topoor people who are faced with intra- and inter-regionalinequalities. There is recognition that the mounting crisisin food security is of a different complexity and potentiallydifferent magnitude than the one of the 1960s. The abilityand willingness of different actors, including those in the

state, civil society and private secter, to address fundamen-tal questions of relationships among production, social andenvironmental systems is affected by contentious politicaland economic stances.

The acknowledgment of current challenges and the ac-ceptance of options available for action require a long-termcommitment from decision makers that is responsive to thespecific needs of a wide range of stakeholders. A recogni-tion that knowledge systems and human ingenuity in sci-ence, technology, practice and policy is needed to meet thechallenges, opportunities and uncertainties ahead. This rec-ognition will require a shift to nonhierarchical developmentmodels.

The main challenge of AKST is to increase the produc-

tivity of agriculture in a sustainable manner. AKST mustaddress the needs of small-scale farms in diverse ecosystemsand create realistic opportunities for their developmentwhere the potential for improved area productivity is lowand where climate change may have its most adverse conse-quences. The main challenges for AKST posed by multifunc-tional agricultural systems include:

in the rural sector and enhance multiplier effects of ag-riculture?

the diversity of agriculture and food systems, includingtheir cultural dimensions?

-tain the natural resource base and minimize the adverseimpacts of agricultural activities on people and the en-vironment?

-tural services while increasing sustainable productivityand diversity of food, fiber and biofuel production?

of knowledge among increasingly heterogeneous con-tributors and the flow of information among diversepublic and private AKST organizational arrangements?

lands into local, national and global markets?

Multifunctionality

The term multifunctionalityhas sometimes been interpreted

as having implications for trade and protectionism. This isnot

the definition used here. In IAASTD, multifunctionality is used

solely to express the inescapable interconnectedness of ag-

ricultures different roles and functions. The concept of multi-functionality recognizes agriculture as a multi-output activity

producing not only commodities (food, feed, fibers, agrofuels,

medicinal products and ornamentals), but also non-commod-

ity outputs such as environmental services, landscape ameni-

ties and cultural heritages.

The working definition proposed by OECD, which is used

by the IAASTD, associates multifunctionality with the particu-

lar characteristics of the agricultural production process and

its outputs; (1) multiple commodity and non-commodity out-

puts are jointly produced by agriculture; and (2) some of the

non-commodity outputs may exhibit the characteristics of ex-

ternalities or public goods, such that markets for these goods

function poorly or are nonexistent.The use of the term has been controversial and contested

in global trade negotiations, and it has centered on whether

trade-distorting agricultural subsidies are needed for agri-

culture to perform its many functions. Proponents argue that

current patterns of agricultural subsidies, international trade

and related policy frameworks do not stimulate transitions

toward equitable agricultural and food trade relation or sus-

tainable food and farming systems and have given rise to per-

verse impacts on natural resources and agroecologies as well

as on human health and nutrition. Opponents argue that at-

tempts to remedy these outcomes by means of trade-related

instruments will weaken the efficiency of agricultural trade and

lead to further undesirable market distortion; their preferred

approach is to address the externalized costs and negative

impacts on poverty, the environment, human health and nutri-

tion by other means.


15/34

Food security

Food security strategies require a combination of AKSTapproaches, including the development of food stock man-

agement, effective market intelligence and early warning,monitoring, and distribution systems. Production measurescreate the conditions for food security, but they need tobe looked at in conjunction with peoples access to food(through own production, exchange and public entitlements)and their ability to absorb nutrients consumed (through ad-equate access to water and sanitation, adequate nutritionand nutritional information) in order to fully achieve foodsecurity.

AKST can increase sustainable agricultural productionby expanding use of local and formal AKST to develop anddeploy suitable cultivars adaptable to site-specific condi-tions; improving access to resources; improving soil, waterand nutrient management and conservation; pre- and post-

harvest pest management; and increasing small-scale farmdiversification. Policy options for addressing food securityinclude developing high-value and underutilized crops inrain fed areas; increasing the full range of agricultural ex-ports and imports, including organic and fair trade prod-ucts; reducing transaction costs for small-scale producers;strengthening local markets; food safety nets; promotingagro-insurance; and improving food safety and quality. Priceshocks and extreme weather events call for a global systemof monitoring and intervention for the timely prediction ofmajor food shortages and price-induced hunger.

AKST investments can increase the sustainable produc-tivity of major subsistence foods including orphan and un-derutilized crops, which are often grown or consumed by

poor people. Investments could also be targeted for institu-tional change and policies that can improve access of poorpeople to food, land, water, seeds, germplasm and improvedtechnologies.

Environmental sustainability

AKST systems are needed that enhance sustainability whilemaintaining productivity in ways that protect the naturalresource base and ecological provisioning of agriculturalsystems. Options include improving nutrient, energy, wa-ter and land use efficiency; improving the understanding ofsoil-plant-water dynamics; increasing farm diversification;

least by previous AKST approaches, i.e., resource-poor farm-ers, women and ethnic minorities.1 Such development woulddepend also on the extent to which small-scale farmers canfind gainful off-farm employment and help fuel general eco-nomic growth. Large and middle-size farmers continue tobe important and high pay-off targets of AKST, especially inthe 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 toimplement the appropriate regulatory frameworks. AKSTcan contribute to radically improving food security and en-hancing the social and economic performance of agricul-tural systems as a basis for sustainable rural and communitylivelihoods and wider economic development. It can help torehabilitate degraded land, reduce environmental and healthrisks associated with food production and consumption andsustainably increase production.

Success would require increased public and privateinvestment in AKST, the development of supporting poli-cies and institutions, revalorization of traditional and localknowledge, and an interdisciplinary, holistic and systems-

based approach to knowledge production and sharing.Success also depends on the extent to which internationaldevelopments and events drive the priority given to develop-ment and sustainability goals and the extent to which requi-site funding and qualified staff are available.

Poverty and livelihoodsImportant options for enhancing rural livelihoods includeincreasing access by small-scale farmers to land and eco-nomic resources and to remunerative local urban and exportmarkets; and increasing local value added and value cap-tured by small-scale farmers and rural laborers. A power-ful tool for meeting development and sustainability goalsresides in empowering farmers to innovatively manage soils,

water, biological resources, pests, disease vectors, genetic di-versity, and conserve natural resources in a culturally appro-priate manner. Combining farmers and external knowledgewould require new partnerships among farmers, scientistsand other stakeholders.

Policy options for improving livelihoods include accessto microcredit and other financial services; legal frameworksthat ensure access and tenure to resources and land; re-course to fair conflict resolution; and progressive evolutionand proactive engagement in intellectual property rights(IPR) regimes and related instruments.2 Developments areneeded that build trust and that value farmer knowledge,agricultural and natural biodiversity; farmer-managed me-dicinal plants, local seed systems and common pool resourcemanagement regimes. Each of these options, when imple-mented locally, depends on regional and nationally based-mechanisms to ensure accountability. The suite of optionsto increase domestic farm gate prices for small-scale farmersincludes fiscal and competition policies; improved access toAKST; novel business approaches; and enhanced politicalpower.

1 Botswana.2 USA.

Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | 5

Food security [is] a situation that exists when all people, at

all times, have physical,social and economic access to suf-

ficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs

and food preferences for an active and healthy life. (FAO, The

State of Food Insecurity, 2001)

Food sovereigntyis defined as the right of peoples and sover-

eign states to democratically determine their own agricultural

and food policies.3

3 UK.


16/34


can be facilitated by effective,coordinated, and proactive national and internationalfood safety systems to ensure animal, plant, and humanhealth, such as investments in adequate infrastructure,public health and veterinary capacity, legislative frame-works for identification and control of biological andchemical hazards, and farmer-scientist partnerships for

the identification, monitoring and evaluation of risks. can be decreased by

strengthening coordination between and the capacity ofagricultural, veterinary, and public health systems; inte-grating multi-sectoral policies and programs across thefood chain to reduce the spread of infectious diseases;and developing and deploying new AKST to identify,monitor, control, and treat diseases.

can be decreased by poli-cies that explicitly recognize the importance of improv-ing human health and nutrition, including regulation offood product formulation through legislation, interna-tional agreements and regulations for food labeling andhealth claims, and creation of incentives for the produc-

tion and consumption of health-promoting foods. can be improved by de-

velopment and enforcement of health and safety regula-tions (including child labor laws and pesticide regula-tions), enforcement of cross-border issues such as illegaluse of toxic agrochemicals, and conducting health riskassessments that make explicit the tradeoffs betweenmaximizing livelihood benefits, the environment, andimproving health.

Equity

For AKST to contribute to greater equity, investments are re-quired for the development of context-specific technologies,

and expanded access of farmers and other rural people to oc-cupational, non-formal and formal education. An environ-ment in which formal science and technology and local andtraditional knowledge are seen as part of an integral AKSTsystem can increase equitable access to technologies for abroad range of producers and natural resource managers.Incentives in science, universities and research organizationsare needed to foster different kinds of AKST partnerships.Key options include equitable access to and use of naturalresources (particularly land and water), systems of incen-tives and rewards for multifunctionality, including ecosys-tem services, and responding to the vulnerability of farmingand farm worker communities. Reform of the governanceof AKST and related organizations is also important forthe crucial role they can play in improving community-levelscientific literacy, decentralization of technological oppor-tunities, and the integration of farmer concerns in researchpriority setting and the design of farmer services. Improvingequity requires synergy among various development actors,including farmers, rural laborers, banks, civil society organi-zations, commercial companies, and public agencies. Stake-holder involvement is also crucial in decisions about IPR,infrastructure, tariffs, and the internalization of social andenvironmental costs. New modes of governance to developinnovative local networks and decentralized government,focusing on small-scale producers and the urban poor (ur-

supporting agroecological systems, and enhancing biodiver-sity conservation and use at both field and landscape scales;promoting the sustainable management of livestock, forestand fisheries; improving understanding of the agroecologi-cal functioning of mosaics of crop production areas andnatural habitats; countering the effects of agriculture on cli-mate change and mitigating the negative impacts of climate

change on agriculture.Policy options include ending subsidies that encourage

unsustainable practices and using market and other mecha-nisms to regulate and generate rewards for agro/environ-mental services, for better natural resource managementand enhanced environmental quality. Examples includeincentives to promote integrated pest management (IPM)and environmentally resilient germplasm management,payments to farmers and local communities for ecosystemservices, facilitating and providing incentives for alternativemarkets such as green products, certification for sustainableforest and fisheries practices and organic agriculture and thestrengthening of local markets. Long-term land and wateruse rights/tenure, risk reduction measures (safety nets, credit,

insurance, etc.) and profitability of recommended technolo-gies are prerequisites for adoption of sustainable practices.Common pool resource regimes and modes of governancethat emphasize participatory and democratic approachesare needed.

Investment opportunities in AKST that could improvesustainability and reduce negative environmental effectsinclude resource conservation technologies, improved tech-niques for organic and low-input systems; a wide range ofbreeding techniques for temperature and pest tolerance; re-search on the relationship of agricultural ecosystem servicesand human well-being; economic and non-economic valua-tions of ecosystem services; increasing water use efficiencyand reducing water pollution; biocontrols of current and

emerging pests and pathogens; biological substitutes foragrochemicals; and reducing the dependency of the agricul-tural sector on fossil fuels.

Human health and nutrition

Inter-linkages between health, nutrition, agriculture, andAKST affect the ability of individuals, communities, and na-tions to reach sustainability goals. These inter-linkages existwithin the context of multiple stressors that affect popula-tion health. A broad and integrated approach is needed toidentify appropriate use of AKST to increase food securityand safety, decrease the incidence and prevalence of a rangeof infectious (including emerging and reemerging diseaseschronic diseases, and decrease occupational exposures, in-juries and deaths. Robust agricultural, public health, andveterinary detection, surveillance, monitoring, and responsesystems can help identify the true burden of ill health andcost-effective, health-promoting strategies and measures.Additional investments are needed to maintain and improvecurrent systems and regulations. can be facilitated by promot-

ing policies and programs to diversify diets and improvemicronutrient intake; and developing and deploying ex-isting and new technologies for the production, process-ing, preservation, and distribution of food.


17/34


health, natural resource management, trade and markets,traditional and local knowledge and community-based in-novation and women in agriculture.

Bioenergy

Rising costs of fossil fuels, energy security concerns, in-creased awareness of climate change and potentially positive

effects for economic development have led to considerablepublic attention to bioenergy. Bioenergy includes traditionalbioenergy, biomass to produce electricity, light and heat andfirst and next generation liquid biofuels. The economics andthe positive and negative social and environmental exter-nalities differ widely, depending on source of biomass, typeof conversion technology and local circumstances.

Primarily due to a lack of affordable alternatives, mil-lions of people in developing countries depend on traditionalbioenergy (e.g., wood fuels) for their cooking and heatingneeds, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.This reliance on traditional bioenergy can pose consider-able environmental, health, economic and social challenges.New efforts are needed to improve traditional bioenergy

and accelerate the transition to more sustainable forms ofenergy.

First generation biofuels consist predominantly of bio-ethanol and biodiesel produced from agricultural crops(e.g., maize, sugar cane). Production has been growing fastin recent years, primarily due to biofuel support policiessince they are cost competitive only under particularly fa-vorable circumstances. The diversion of agricultural cropsto fuel can raise food prices and reduce our ability to allevi-ate hunger throughout the world. The negative social effectsrisk being exacerbated in cases where small-scale farmersare marginalized or displaced from their land. From an en-vironmental perspective, there is considerable variation, un-certainty and debate over the net energy balance and level of

be reduced, but environmental effects caused by land andwater requirements of large-scale increases of first genera-tion biofuels production are likely to persist and will needto be addressed.

Next generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol andbiomass-to-liquids technologies allow conversion into bio-fuels of more abundant and cheaper feedstocks than firstgeneration. This could potentially reduce agricultural landrequirements per unit of energy produced and improve life- - next generation biofuels technologies are not yet commer-cially proven and environmental and social effects are stilluncertain. For example, the use of feedstock and farm resi-dues can compete with the need to maintain organic matterin sustainable agroecosystems.

Bioelectricity and bioheat are important forms of renew-able energy that are usually more efficient and produce less-ers, gasifiers and direct combustion devices can be success-fully employed in certain settings, e.g., off-grid areas. Thereis potential for expanding these applications but AKST isneeded to reduce costs and improve operational reliability.For all forms of bioenergy, decision makers should carefullyweigh full social, environmental and economic costs against

ban agriculture; direct links between urban consumers andrural producers) will help create and strengthen synergisticand complementary capacities.

Preferential investments in equitable development (e.g.,literacy, education and training) that contribute to reduc-ing ethnic, gender, and other inequities would advance de-velopment goals. Measurements of returns to investments

require indices that give more information than GDP, andthat are sensitive to environmental and equity gains. The useof inequality indices for screening AKST investments andmonitoring outcomes strengthens accountability. The Gini-coefficient could, for example, become a public criterionfor policy assessment, in addition to the more conventionalmeasures of growth, inflation and environment.

Investments

Achieving development and sustainability goals would en-tail increased funds and more diverse funding mechanismsfor agricultural research and development and associatedknowledge systems, such as: Public investments in global, regional, national and

local public goods; food security and safety, climatechange and sustainability. More efficient use of increas-ingly scarce land, water and biological resources re-quires investment in research and development of legaland management capabilities.

Public investments in agricultural knowledge systems topromote interactive knowledge networks (farmers, sci-entists, industry and actors in other knowledge areas);improved access to information and communicationtechnologies (ICT); ecological, evolutionary, food, nu-trition, social and complex systems sciences; effectiveinterdisciplinarity; capacity in core agricultural scienc-es; and improving life-long learning opportunities alongthe food system.

Public-private partnerships for improved commerciali-zation of applied knowledge and technologies and jointfunding of AKST, where market risks are high andwhere options for widespread utilization of knowledgeexist.

Adequate incentives and rewards to encourage privateand civil society investments in AKST contributing todevelopment and sustainability goals.

In many developing countries, it may be necessary tocomplement these investments with increased and moretargeted investments in rural infrastructure, educationand health.

In the face of new global challenges, there is an urgent needto strengthen, restructure and possibly establish new in-tergovernmental, independent science and evidence-basednetworks to address such issues as climate forecasting foragricultural production; human health risks from emerg-ing diseases; reorganization of livelihoods in response tochanges in agricultural systems (population movements);food security; and global forestry resources.

Themes

The Synthesis Report looked at eight AKST-related themesof critical interest to meeting development and sustainabil-ity goals: bioenergy, biotechnology, climate change, human


18/34


potentially undermining local practices that enhance foodsecurity and economic sustainability. In this regard, there isparticular concern about present IPR instruments eventuallyinhibiting seed-saving, exchange, sale and access to propri-etary materials necessary for the independent research com-munity to conduct analyses and long term experimentationon impacts. Farmers face new liabilities: GM farmers may

become liable for adventitious presence if it causes loss ofmarket certification and income to neighboring organicfarmers, and conventional farmers may become liable to GMseed producers if transgenes are detected in their crops.

A problem-oriented approach to biotechnology researchand development (R&D) would focus investment on localpriorities identified through participatory and transparentprocesses, and favor multifunctional solutions to localproblems. These processes require new kinds of support forthe public to critically engage in assessments of the techni-cal, social, political, cultural, gender, legal, environmentaland economic impacts of modern biotechnology. Biotech-nologies should be used to maintain local expertise andgermplasm so that the capacity for further research resides

within the local community. Such R&D would put muchneeded emphasis onto participatory breeding projects andagroecology.

Climate change

Climate change, which is taking place at a time of increasingdemand for food, feed, fiber and fuel, has the potential toirreversibly damage the natural resource base on which ag-riculture depends. The relationship between climate changeand agriculture is a two-way street; agriculture contributesto climate change in several major ways and climate changein general adversely affects agriculture.

In mid- to high-latitude regions moderate local increasesin temperature can have small beneficial impacts on crop

yields; in low-latitude regions, such moderate temperatureincreases are likely to have negative yield effects. Some nega-tive impacts are already visible in many parts of the world;additional warming will have increasingly negative im-pacts in all regions. Water scarcity and the timing of wateravailability will increasingly constrain production. Climatechange will require a new look at water storage to cope withthe impacts of more and extreme precipitation, higher intra-and inter-seasonal variations, and increased rates of evapo-transpiration in all types of ecosystems. Extreme climateevents (floods and droughts) are increasing and expected toamplify in frequency and severity and there are likely to besignificant consequences in all regions for food and forestryproduction and food insecurity. There is a serious potentialfor future conflicts over habitable land and natural resourcessuch as freshwater. Climate change is affecting the distribu-tion of plants, invasive species, pests and disease vectors andthe geographic range and incidence of many human, animaland plant diseases is likely to increase.

A comprehensive approach with an equitable regulatoryframework, differentiated responsibilities and intermediateand 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

realistically achievable benefits and other sustainable energyoptions.

Biotechnology34

The IAASTD definition of biotechnology is based on thatin the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Carta-gena Protocol on Biosafety. It is a broad term embracing the

manipulation of living organisms and spans the large rangeof activities from conventional techniques for fermentationand plant and animal breeding to recent innovations in tissueculture, irradiation, genomics and marker-assisted breeding(MAB) or marker assisted selection (MAS) to augment natu-ral breeding. Some of the latest biotechnologies (modernbiotechnology) include the use ofin vitro modified DNAor RNA and the fusion of cells from different taxonomicfamilies, techniques that overcome natural physiological re-productive or recombination barriers. Currently the mostcontentious issue is the use of recombinant DNA techniquesto produce transgenes that are inserted into genomes. Evennewer techniques of modern biotechnology manipulate her-itable material without changing DNA.

Biotechnology has always been on the cutting edgeof change. Change is rapid, the domains involved are nu-merous, and there is a significant lack of transparent com- biotechnology is lagging behind development; informationcan be anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty on ben-efits and harms is unavoidable. There is a wide range of per-spectives on the environmental, human health and economicrisks and benefits of modern biotechnology; many of theserisks are as yet unknown.

Conventional biotechnologies, such as breeding tech-niques, tissue culture, cultivation practices and fermenta-tion are readily accepted and used. Between 1950 and 1980,prior to the development of genetically modified organisms

(GMOs), modern varieties of wheat increased yields up to33% even in the absence of fertilizer. Modern biotechnolo-gies used in containment have been widely adopted; e.g., theindustrial enzyme market reached US$1.5 billion in 2000.The application of modern biotechnology outside contain-ment, such as the use of genetically modified (GM) crops ismuch more contentious. For example, data based on someyears and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33%yield gains in some places and yield declines in others.

IPR frameworks, determine what products become avail-able. While this attracts investment in agriculture, it canalso concentrate ownership of agricultural resources. Anemphasis on modern biotechnology without ensuring ad-equate support for other agricultural research can altereducation and training programs and reduce the numberof professionals in other core agricultural sciences. Thissituation can be self-reinforcing since todays students de-fine tomorrows educational and training opportunities.

The use of patents for transgenes introduces additionalissues. In developing countries especially, instruments suchas patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentationby the individual farmer or public researcher while also

4 China and USA.


19/34


and growing consumer awareness increase the need foreffective, coordinated, and proactive national food safetyinclude the presence of pesticide residues, heavy metals, hor-mones, antibiotics and various additives in the food systemas well as those related to large-scale livestock farming.

Strengthened food safety measures are important and

necessary in both domestic and export markets and can im-pose significant costs. Some countries may need help in meet-ing food control costs such as monitoring and inspection,and costs associated with market rejection of contaminatedcommodities. Taking a broad and integrated agroecosystemand human health approach can facilitate identification ofanimal, plant, and human health risks, and appropriateAKST responses.

Worldwide, agriculture accounts for at least 170,000occupational deaths each year: half of all fatal accidents.Machinery and equipment, such as tractors and harvesters,account for the highest rates of injury and death, particu-larly among rural laborers. Other important health hazardsinclude agrochemical poisoning, transmissible animal dis-

eases, toxic or allergenic agents, and noise, vibration andergonomic hazards. Improving occupational health requiresa greater emphasis on health protection through develop-ment and enforcement of health and safety regulations. Poli-cies should explicitly address tradeoffs between livelihoodbenefits and environmental, occupational and public healthrisks.

The incidence and geographic range of many emergingand reemerging infectious diseases are influenced by the in-tensification of crop and livestock systems. Serious socioeco-nomic impacts can arise when diseases spread widely withinhuman or animal populations, or when they spill over fromanimal reservoirs to human hosts. Most of the factors thatcontribute to disease emergence will continue, if not inten-

sify. Integrating policies and programs across the food chaincan help reduce the spread of infectious diseases; robustdetection, surveillance, monitoring, and response programsare critical.

Natural resource management45

Natural resources, especially those of soil, water, plant andanimal diversity, vegetation cover, renewable energy sources,climate, and ecosystem services are fundamental for thestructure and function of agricultural systems and for socialand environmental sustainability, in support of life on earth.been narrowly focused on increased productivity rather thanon a more holistic integration of natural resource manage-ment (NRM) with food and nutritional security. A holistic,or systems-oriented approach, is preferable because it canaddress the difficult issues associated with the complexityof food and other production systems in different ecologies,locations and cultures.

AKST to resolve NRM exploitation issues, such asthe mitigation of soil fertility through synthetic inputs andnatural processes, is often available and well understood.

5 Capture fisheries and forestry have not been as well covered as

other aspects of NRM.

changes in the climate are inevitable adaptation is also im-perative. Actions directed at addressing climate change andpromoting sustainable development share some importantgoals such as equitable access to resources and appropriatetechnologies.

Some win-win mitigation opportunities have already

been identified. These include land use approaches such aslower rates of agricultural expansion into natural habitats;afforestation, reforestation, increased efforts to avoid defor-estation, agroforestry, agroecological systems, and restora-tion of underutilized or degraded lands and rangelands andland use options such as carbon sequestration in agriculturalsoils, reduction and more efficient use of nitrogenous inputs;effective manure management and use of feed that increaseslivestock digestive efficiency. Policy options related to regu-lations and investment opportunities include financial incen-tives to maintain and increase forest area through reduceddeforestation and degradation and improved managementand the development and utilization of renewable energysources. The post-2012 regime has to be more inclusive of

all agricultural activities such as reduced emission from de-forestation and soil degradation to take full advantage of theopportunities offered by agriculture and forestry sectors.

Human health

Despite the evident and complex links between health, nu-trition, agriculture, and AKST, improving human health isnot generally an explicit goal of agricultural policy. Agricul-ture and AKST can affect a range of health issues includingundernutrition, chronic diseases, infectious diseases, foodsafety, and environmental and occupational health. Ill heathin the farming community can in turn reduce agriculturalproductivity and the ability to develop and deploy appropri-ate AKST. Ill health can result from undernutrition, as well

as over-nutrition. Despite increased global food productionover recent decades, undernutrition is still a major globalpublic health problem, causing over 15% of the global dis-ease burden. Protein energy and micronutrient malnutritionremain challenges, with high variability between and withincountries. Food security can be improved through policiesand programs to increase dietary diversity and through de-velopment and deployment of existing and new technologiesfor production, processing, preservation, and distributionof food.

AKST policies and practices have increased productionand new mechanisms for food processing. Reduced dietaryquality and diversity and inexpensive foods with low nu-trient density have been associated with increasing rates ofworldwide obesity and chronic disease. Poor diet through-out the life course is a major risk factor for chronic dis-eases, which are the leading cause of global deaths. There isa need to focus on consumers and the importance of dietaryquality as main drivers of production, and not merely onquantity or price. Strategies include fiscal policies (taxation,trade regimes) for health-promoting foods and regulationof food product formulation, labeling and commercial in-formation.

Globalization of the food supply, accompanied by con-centration of food distribution and processing companies,


20/34


21/34


ment is increasing in many developing countries, particularlywith the development of export-oriented irrigated farming,which is associated with a growing demand for female labor,including migrant workers.

Whereas these dynamics have in some ways broughtbenefits, in general, the largest proportion of rural womenworldwide continues to face deteriorating health and work

conditions, limited access to education and control over nat-ural resources, insecure employment and low income. Thissituation is due to a variety of factors, includingthe growingcompetition on agricultural markets which increases the de-mand for flexible and cheap labor, growing pressure on andconflicts over natural resources, the diminishing support bygovernments for small-scale farms and the reallocation ofeconomic resources in favor of large agroenterprises. Otherfactors include increasing exposure to risks related to natu-ral disasters and environmental changes, worsening accessto water, increasing occupational and health risks.

Despite progress made in national and internationalpolicies since the first world conference on women in 1975,urgent action is still necessary to implement gender and

social equity in AKST policies and practices if we are tobetter address gender issues as integral to development pro-cesses. Such action includes strengthening the capacity ofpublic institutions and NGOs to improve the knowledgeof womens changing forms of involvement in farm andother rural activities in AKST. It also requires giving pri-ority to womens access to education, information, scienceand technology, and extension services to enable improvingwomens access, ownership and control of economic andnatural resources. To ensure such access, ownership andcontrol legal measures, appropriate credit schemes, supportfor womens income generating activities and the reinforce-ment of womens organizations and networks are needed.This, in turn, depends on strengthening womens ability to

benefit from market-based opportunities by institutions andpolicies giving explicit priority to women farmer groups invalue chains.

A number of other changes will strengthen womenscontributions to agricultural production and sustainability.These include support for public services and investment inrural areas in order to improve womens living and work-ing conditions; giving priority to technological developmentpolicies targeting rural and farm womens needs and rec-ognizing their knowledge, skills and experience in the pro-duction of food and the conservation of biodiversity; andassessing the negative effects and risks of farming practicesand technology, including pesticides on womens health,and taking measures to reduce use and exposure. Finally,if we are to better recognize women as integral to sustain-able development, it is critical to ensure gender balance inAKST decision-making at all levels and provide mechanismsto hold AKST organizations accountable for progress in theabove areas.

cal knowledge need to be integrated. Traditional and localknowledge constitutes an extensive realm of accumulatedpractical knowledge and knowledge-generating capacity thatis needed if sustainability and development goals are to bereached. The traditional knowledge, identities and practicesof indigenous and local communities are recognized underthe UN Convention on Biological Diversity as embodying

ways of life relevant for conservation and sustainable use ofbiodiversity; and by others as generated by the purposefulinteraction of material and non-material worlds embeddedin place-based cultures and identities. Local knowledge re-fers to capacities and activities that exist among rural peoplein all parts of the world.

Traditional and local knowledge is dynamic; it maysometimes fail but also has had well-documented, exten-sive, positive impacts. Participatory collaboration in knowl-edge generation, technology development and innovationhas been shown to add value to science-based technologydevelopment, for instance in Farmer-Researcher groups inthe Andes, in Participatory Plant Breeding, the domestica-tion of wild and semi-wild tree species and in soil and water

management.Options for action with proven contribution to achiev-

ing sustainability and development goals include collabora-tion in the conservation, development and use of local andtraditional biological materials; incentives for and develop-ment of capacity among scientists and formal research or-ganizations to work with local and indigenous people andtheir organizations; a higher profile in scientific educationfor indigenous and local knowledge as well as for profes-sional and community-based archiving and assessment ofsuch knowledge and practices. The role of modern ICT inachieving effective collaboration is critical to evolving cul-turally appropriate integration and merits larger investmentsand support. Effective collaboration and integration would

be supported by international intellectual property andother regimes that allow more scope for dealing effectivelywith situations involving traditional knowledge, geneticresources and community-based innovations. Examples ofmisappropriation of indigenous and local peoples knowl-edge and community-based innovations indicate a need forsharing of information about existing national sui generisand regulatory frameworks.

Women in agriculture

Gender, that is socially constructed relations between menand women, is an organizing element of existing farmingsystems worldwide and a determining factor of ongoing ag-ricultural restructuring. Current trends in agricultural mar-ket liberalization and in the reorganization of farm work, aswell as the rise of environmental and sustainability concernsare redefining the links between gender and development.The proportion of women in agricultural production andpostharvest activities ranges from 20 to 70%; their involve-


22/34

12

Annex A

Reservations on Executive Summary

As we have specific and substantive concerns in each ofthe reports, the United States is unable to provide unquali-fied endorsement of the reports, and we have noted them.

The United States believes the Assessment has potentialfor stimulating further deliberation and research. Further,we acknowledge the reports are a useful contribution forconsideration by governments of the role of AKST in rais-ing sustainable economic growth and alleviating hunger and

poverty.

Reservations on Individual Passages1. Botswana notes that this is specially a problem in sub-

Saharan Africa.2. The USA would prefer that this sentence be written as

follows progressive evolution of IPR regimes in coun-tries where national policies are not fully developed andprogressive engagement in IPR management.

3. The UK notes that there is no international definition offood sovereignty.

4. China and USA do not believe that this entire section isbalanced and comprehensive.

5. The USA would prefer that this sentence be reflectedin this paragraph: Opening national agricultural mar-kets to international competition can offer economicbenefits, but can lead to long-term negative effects onpoverty alleviation, food security and the environmentwithout basic national institutions and infrastructurebeing in place.

6. Canada and USA would prefer the following sentence:Provision of assistance to help low income countriesaffected by liberalization to adjust and benefit fromliberalized trade is essential to advancing developmentagendas.

Australia: Australia recognizes the IAASTD initiative andreports as a timely and important multistakeholder and mul-tidisciplinary exercise designed to assess and enhance therole of AKST in meeting the global development challenges.The wide range of observations and views presented how-ever, are such that Australia cannot agree with all assertionsand options in the report. The report is therefore noted asa useful contribution which will be used for considering the

future priorities and scope of AKST in securing economicgrowth and the alleviation of hunger and poverty.

Canada: The Canadian Government recognizes the sig-nificant work undertaken by IAASTD authors, Secretariatand stakeholders and notes the Executive Summary of theSynthesis Report as a valuable and important contributionto policy debate which needs to continue in national andinternational processes. While acknowledging considerableimprovement has been achieved through a process of com-promise, there remain a number of assertions and observa-tions that require more substantial, balanced and objectivebe drawn to the attention of governments for considerationin addressing the importance of AKST and its large poten-tial to contribute to economic growth and the reduction ofhunger and poverty.

United States of America: The United States joins con-sensus with other governments in the critical importance ofAKST to meet the goals of the IAASTD. We commend thetireless efforts of the authors, editors, Co-Chairs and theSecretariat. We welcome the IAASTD for bringing togetherthe widest array of stakeholders for the first time in an ini-tiative of this magnitude. We respect the wide diversity ofviews and healthy debate that took place.


23/34

13

Annex B

Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports

Research North-South

Botswana

Brazil

Cattle)

Canada

Development.

Shawn McGuire

Inc. (AGBIOS)

of Toronto, Scarborough

Chile

Planning for Food Security

China

Research

Argentina

Internacional y Culto

Armenia

Australia

Forestry

Austria

Life Sciences

Bangladesh

Barbados

Machinery

Benin

Agriculture

Bolivia


24/34

14 | Annex B

France

(INRA)

(INRA)

(INRA)

Agronomique (INRA)

(INRA)

Institut National de la Recherche

Agronomique (INRA)

Agronomique (INRA)

Industries and Rural Development

LADYSS

(INRA)

Agronomique (INRA)

(INRA)

Agronomique and AgroParisTech

Colombia

Costa Rica

Research North-South

Agriculture (IICA)

Cte dIvoire

North-South, Centre Suisse de Recherche Scientifique

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Democratic Republic of Congo

Denmark

Dominican Republic

Egypt

Research Center

Ethiopia

Assefa AdmassieEthiopian Economic Policy Research Institute

Institute

North-South

Finland


25/34

(INRA)

(INRA)

The Gambia

Germany

Ghana

Science and Technology (KNUST)

Studies

Public Administration (GIMPA)

India

Management University

Developing Countries (RIS)

Sukhpal SinghIndian Institute of Management (IIM)

Research (NCAER)

Science Policy (CRISP)

Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports | 15

Indonesia

Iran

Ireland

Ireland

Italy

Jamaica

Japan

Sciences (JIRCAS)

Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS)

Jordan

Technology

Kenya

Semi-Arid Tropics

Arid and Semi-arid Lands Development

Kyrgyz Republic

Latvia

Lebanon


26/34

16 | Annex B

Nicaragua

Sustainable Agriculture

Nigeria

Oman

Pakistan

Initiatives

Society

Palestine

(PARC)

Panama

Peru

Agrochemicals

Philippines

and Natural Resources Research and Development



of Genetic Resources in Asia (PEDIGREA)

Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development

Partnership Foundation

Madascagar

Applied Research for Rural Development)

Malaysia

Mauritius

Mexico

University, Azcapotzalco

(UNAM)

(UNAM)

Mxico (UNAM)

Morocco

Mozambique

Moambique (IIAM)

Nepal

Netherlands

(MNP)

Cooperation (CTA)

Agency (MNP)

Agency (MNP)

(MNP)

New Zealand


27/34


Technology

Technology

Syria

Taiwan

Tajikistan

Agrarian Academy of Sciences

Tanzania

Development

Technology

Institute

Thailand

Trinidad and Tobago

Resources

(ASRP), IBD

Tunisia

Agronomique de Tunisie


Development, Inc.)

Poland

Russia

Rwanda

Senegal

Slovakia

South Africa

Spain

Sri Lanka

Institute

Sudan

Sweden

Devleopment

Switzerland


28/34

18 | Annex B

Affairs (end Mar 2006)

Nicola SpenceCentral Science Laboratory

Development

United States

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Consultancy (EERAC)

Conservation International

Institute

Program, ICARDA

de Tunisie

Zaghouan

Turkey

Ahmet Ali KocAkdeniz University

Engineering and Biotechnology (RIGEB)

Uganda

Fisheries

Associates (NIDA)

(NARO)

Ukraine

United Arab Emirates

United Kingdom

London

Development


29/34


Uruguay

(LATU)

Uzbekistan

Viet Nam

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Technology

the Semi-Arid Tropics

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Development Policy

University of Illinois


30/34

Central and West Asia and North Africa International Center

for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)

Mustapha Guellouz, Lamis Makhoul, Caroline Msrieh-Seropian,

Ahmed Sidahmed, Cathy Farnworth

Latin America and the Caribbean Inter-American Institute for

Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)

Rodrguez, Gustavo SainEast and South Asia and the Pacific WorldFish Center

Cosponsor Focal Points

GEF Mark Zimsky

UNDP Philip Dobie

UNEP Ivar Baste

UNESCO Salvatore Arico, Walter Erdelen

WHO Jorgen Schlundt

World Bank Mark Cackler, Kevin Cleaver, Eija Pehu,

Secretariat

World Bank

Pekka Jamsen, Pedro Marques, Beverly McIntyre, Wubi

Mekonnen, June Remy

UNEP

Marcus Lee, Nalini Sharma, Anna Stabrawa

UNESCO

Guillen Calvo

With special thanks to the Publications team: Audrey Ringler

(logo design), Pedro Marques (proofing and graphics), Ketill

Berger and Eric Fuller (graphic design)

Regional Institutes

Sub-Saharan Africa African Centre for Technology Studies

(ACTS)

Ronald Ajengo, Elvin Nyukuri, Judi Wakhungu

20

Annex C

Secretariat and Cosponsor Focal Points


31/34

Sam Dryden, Managing Director, Emergent Genetics

International

Steve Parry, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Development

Program Leader, Unilever

Mumeka M. Wright, Director, Bimzi Ltd., Zambia

Consumer Groups

Greg Jaffe, Director, Biotechnology Project, Center for Science in

the Public Interest

Samuel Ochieng, Chief Executive, Consumer Information

Network

Producer Groups

Mercy Karanja, Chief Executive Officer, Kenya National Farmers

Union

Prabha Mahale, World Board, International Federation Organic

Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)

Tsakani Ngomane, Director Agricultural Extension Services,

Department of Agriculture, Limpopo Province, Republic of

South Africa

Armando Paredes, Presidente, Consejo Nacional Agropecuario(CNA)

Scientific Organizations

Innovation, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on

Agriculture (IICA)

Samuel Bruce-Oliver, NARS Senior Fellow, Global Forum for

Agricultural Research Secretariat

Adel El-Beltagy, Chair, Center Directors Committee, Consultative

Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)

Carl Greenidge, Director, Center for Rural and Technical

Cooperation, Netherlands

Sciences (TWAS)

International

Specialist and Nata Duvvury, Director Social Conflict and

Transformation Team, International Center for Research on

Women (ICRW)

Thomas Rosswall, Executive Director, International Council for

Science (ICSU)

Judi Wakhungu, Executive Director, African Center for

Technology Studies

Steering CommitteeThe Steering Committee was established to oversee the

consultative process and recommend whether an international

assessment was needed, and if so, what was the goal, the scope,

the expected outputs and outcomes, governance and management

structure, location of the Secretariat and funding strategy.

Co-chairs

Louise Fresco, Assistant Director General for Agriculture, FAO

Seyfu Ketema, Executive Secretary, Association for Strengthening

Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA)

Claudia Martinez Zuleta, Former Deputy Minister of the

Environment, Colombia

Rita Sharma, Principal Secretary and Rural Infrastructure

Commissioner, Government of Uttar Pradesh, India

Robert T. Watson, Chief Scientist, The World Bank

Nongovernmental Organizations

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network

North America Regional Center (PANNA)

Monica Kapiriri, Regional Program Officer for NGO

Enhancement and Rural Development, Aga Khan

Raymond C. Offenheiser, President, Oxfam America

Daniel Rodriguez, International Technology Development Group

(ITDG), Latin America Regional Office, Peru

UN Bodies

Ivar Baste, Chief, Environment Assessment Branch, UN

Environment Programme

Wim van Eck, Senior Advisor, Sustainable Development and

Convention on Climate Change

Biological Diversity

At-large Scientists

Adrienne Clarke, Laureate Professor, School of Botany, University

of Melbourne, Australia

Denis Lucey, Professor of Food Economics, Dept. of Food

Business & Development, University College Cork, Ireland,

Private Sector

Momtaz Faruki Chowdhury, Director, Agribusiness Center for

Competitiveness and Enterprise Development, Bangladesh

21

Annex D

Steering Committee for Consultative Process andAdvisory Bureau for Assessment


32/34

22 | Annex D

Russiafor Economy in Transition

Uganda: Grace Akello, Minister of State for Northern Uganda

Rehabilitation

United KingdomUnited States: Rodney Brown, Deputy Under Secretary of

Agriculture, Biotechnology and Textile Trade Affairs,Department of State

Foundations and Unions

Susan Sechler, Senior Advisor on Biotechnology Policy,

Rockefeller Foundation

Achim Steiner, Director General, The World Conservation Union

(IUCN)

Eugene Terry, Director, African Agricultural Technology

Foundation

Governments

Australia: Peter Core, Director, Australian Centre for

International Agricultural Research

China: Keming Qian, Director General Inst. Agricultural

Economics, Dept. of International Cooperation, Chinese

Academy of Agricultural Science

Finland

Development, Ministry of Foreign AffairsFrance: Alain Derevier, Senior Advisor, Research for Sustainable

Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

GermanyDevelopment, Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation

and Development (BMZ)

Hungary: Zoltan Bedo, Director, Agricultural Research Institute,

Ireland: Aidan ODriscoll, Assistant Secretary General,

Department of Agriculture and Food

Morocco


33/34

Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment | 23

Movements

Government Representatives

Central and West Asia and North Africa

Ghamedi

East and South Asia and the Pacific

Latin America and Caribbean

Galerani, Rubens Nodari

North America and Europe

Sub-Saharan Africa

Advisory Bureau

Non-government Representatives

Consumer Groups

Security and Trade

International organizations

NGOs

de Kairouan

Private Sector

Development

Producer Groups


34/34

Documents

Iaastd Exec Summary Jan 2008