International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for
Development (IAASTD)
Latin America and the
Summary for Decision Makers
Authors: Inge Armbrecht (Colombia),
Hugo Cetrángolo (Argentina), Tirso Gonzales (Peru), Ivette Perfecto (Puerto
Rico)
Declaration of Governments
In the view of all the countries, the Reports make a valuable and
important contribution to our understanding of knowledge, science, and
technology for development, based on recognition of the need to deepen our
understanding of the challenges that lie ahead.
This assessment is a constructive exercise and makes an important
contribution that all countries need to develop further in order to ensure that
agricultural knowledge, science, and technology achieve their potential, with a
view to attaining the goals of development and sustainable poverty and hunger
reduction, thereby improving the quality of rural life and human health and
facilitating equitable development in a way that is socially, economically, and
environmentally sustainable.
Based on this declaration, the following governments approve the Summary
for Decision Makers in Latin America and the Caribbean:
Belize, Brazil, Costa Rica,
Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Uruguay
Background
In August 2002, the World Bank and
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations initiated a
global consultative process to determine whether an international assessment of
agricultural knowledge, science, and technology (AKST) was needed. This initiative
was prompted by discussions at the World Bank with the private sector and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on the level of scientific understanding
of biotechnology and more specifically transgenics. During 2003, eleven
consultations were held, overseen by an international multistakeholder steering
committee, involving over 800 participants from all relevant stakeholder groups
such as governments, the private sector, and civil society. Based on those
consultations, the steering committee recommended to an Intergovernmental
Plenary meeting in Nairobi (September 2004) that an international assessment of
the role of agricultural knowledge, science, and technology (AKST) in reducing
hunger and poverty, improving rural livelihoods and facilitating
environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development was needed.
The concept of an International Assessment of Agricultural Science and
Technology for Development (IAASTD) was endorsed as a multi-thematic, multi-spatial,
multi-temporal intergovernmental process with a multistakeholder Bureau
cosponsored by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United
Nations, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Bank, and
World Health Organization (WHO).
The IAASTD’s governance structure is a unique hybrid
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the nongovernmental
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. The stakeholder composition of the Bureau was
agreed at the Intergovernmental Plenary meeting in Nairobi; it is
geographically balanced and multistakeholder with 30 government and 30 civil
society representatives (NGOs, producer and consumer groups, private sector
entities and international organizations) in order to ensure ownership of the
process and findings by a range of stakeholders.
About 400 of the world’s experts were selected by the
Bureau, following nominations by stakeholder groups, to prepare the IAASTD
Report (composed of a global and five sub-global assessments). These experts
worked in their own capacity and did not represent any particular stakeholder
group. Additional individuals, organizations, and governments were involved in
the peer review process.
The IAASTD development and sustainability goals were
endorsed at the first Intergovernmental Plenary and are consistent with a
subset of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): the reduction of hunger
and poverty, the improvement of rural livelihoods and human health, and
facilitating equitable socially, environmentally and economically sustainable
development. Realizing these goals requires acknowledging the multifunctionality
of agriculture: the challenge is to simultaneously meet development and
sustainability 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 preferences, climate change, environmental
degradation, a trend toward biofuels, and an increasing population. These
conditions are affecting local and global food security and putting pressure on
productive capacity and ecosystems. Hence there are unprecedented challenges
ahead in providing food within a global trading system where there are other
competing uses of agricultural and other natural resources. AKST alone cannot
solve these problems, which are caused by complex political and social
dynamics; but it can make a major contribution to meeting development and
sustainability goals. Never before has it been more important for the 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 current AKST system to improve the
situation for the rural poor, especially small-scale farmers, rural workers,
and others with limited resources. It addresses issues critical to formulating
policy and provides information for decision makers confronting conflicting
views on contentious issues such as the environmental consequences of
productivity increases, environmental and human health impacts of transgenic
crops, the consequences of bioenergy development on the environment and on the
long-term availability and price of food, and the implications of climate
change on agricultural production. The Bureau agreed that the scope of the
assessment needed to go beyond the narrow confines of S&T and should
encompass other types of relevant knowledge (e.g., knowledge held by
agricultural producers, consumers, and end users) and that it should also
assess the role of institutions, organizations, governance, markets, and trade.
The IAASTD is a multidisciplinary and multistakeholder
enterprise requiring the use and integration of information, tools, and models
from different knowledge paradigms including local and traditional knowledge.
The IAASTD does not advocate specific policies or practices; it assesses the
major issues facing AKST and suggests a range of AKST options for action that
meet development and sustainability goals. It is policy relevant, but not
policy prescriptive. It integrates scientific information on a range of topics
that are critically interlinked, but often addressed independently, i.e.,
agriculture, poverty, hunger, human health, natural resources, environment,
development, and innovation. It will enable decision makers to bring a richer
base of knowledge to bear on policy and management decisions on issues
previously viewed in isolation. Knowledge gained from historical analysis
(typically the past 50 years) and an analysis of some future development
alternatives to 2050 form the basis for assessing options for action on science
and technology, capacity development, institutions and policies, and
investments.
The IAASTD is conducted according to an open,
transparent, representative, and legitimate process; is evidence-based;
presents options rather than recommendations; includes risk assessment,
management, and communication; assesses different local, regional, and global
perspectives; presents different views, acknowledging that there can be more
than one interpretation of the same evidence based on different world views
(along with an indication, when possible, of doubts harbored); and identifies
the key scientific uncertainties and 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 North Africa - CWANA; East and South Asia and the Pacific - ESAP;
Latin America and the Caribbean - LAC; North America and Europe - NAE; and Sub-Saharan
Africa – SSA. The IAASTD (i) assesses
the generation, access, dissemination, and use of public and private sector
AKST in relation to the goals, using local, traditional, and formal knowledge;
(ii) analyzes existing and emerging technologies, practices, policies and
institutions and their impact on the goals; (iii) provides information for
decision makers in different civil society, private, and public organizations
on options for improving policies, practices, institutional and organizational arrangements
to enable AKST to meet the goals; (iv) brings together a range of stakeholders (consumers,
governments, international IAASTD agencies and
research organizations, NGOs, the private sector, producers, the scientific
community) involved in the agricultural sector and rural development to share
their experiences, views, understanding, and vision for the future; and (v)
identifies options for future public and private investments in AKST. In
addition, the IAASTD will enhance local and regional capacity to design,
implement, and utilize similar assessments.
In this assessment, “agriculture” is used and
understood in the widest sense of the term.
However, as in all assessments, some topics were covered less
extensively than others (e.g., livestock, forestry, fisheries, and agricultural
engineering), largely due to the expertise of the selected authors. Originally
the Bureau approved a chapter on plausible futures (a visioning exercise), but
later there was agreement to delete this chapter in favor of a more simple set
of model projections. Similarly, the Bureau approved a chapter on capacity
development, but this chapter was dropped and key messages integrated into
other chapters.
The IAASTD draft Report was subjected to two rounds of
peer review by governments, organizations, and individuals. These drafts were
placed on an open access web site and open to comments by anyone. The authors
revised the drafts based on numerous peer review comments, with the assistance
of review editors who were responsible for ensuring the comments were
appropriately taken into account. One of the most difficult issues authors had
to address was criticisms that the report was too negative. In a scientific
review based on empirical evidence, this is always a difficult comment to
handle, as criteria are needed in order to say whether something is negative or
positive. Another difficulty was responding to the conflicting views expressed
by reviewers. The difference in views was not surprising given the range of
stakeholder interests and perspectives. Thus, one of the key findings of the
IAASTD is that there are diverse and conflicting interpretations of past and
current events, which need to be acknowledged and respected.
The global and sub-global Summaries for Decision Makers
and the Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report were approved at an
Intergovernmental Plenary in January 2008. The Synthesis Report integrates the
key findings from the global and sub-global assessments, and focuses on eight
Bureau-approved topics: bioenergy; biotechnology; climate change; human health;
natural resource management; traditional knowledge and community-based
innovation; trade and markets; and women in agriculture.
The IAASTD builds on a number of recent assessments and reports that have
provided valuable information relevant to the agricultural sector, but have not
specifically focused on the future role of AKST, the institutional dimensions,
and the multifunctionality of agriculture.
These include FAO State of Food Insecurity in the World (2004);
InterAcademy Council Report: Realizing the Promise and Potential of African
Agriculture (2004); UN Millennium Project Task Force on Hunger (2005);
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005); CGIAR Science Council Strategy and
Priority Setting Exercise (2006); Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management
in Agriculture: Guiding Policy Investments in Water, Food, Livelihoods and
Environment (2007); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports (2001 and
2007); UNEP Fourth Global Environmental Outlook (2007); World Development
Report 2008: Agriculture for Development (World Bank 2007); IFPRI Global Hunger
Indices (yearly); and World Bank Internal Report of Investments in SSA (2007).
Financial support was provided to the IAASTD by the
cosponsoring agencies, the governments of Australia, Canada, Finland, France,
Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, US and UK, the European Commission, and CropLife
International. In addition, many organizations have provided in-kind support.
The authors and 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 of stakeholders, i.e., government
policy makers, private sector, NGOs, producer and consumer groups,
international organizations, and the scientific community. There are no
recommendations, only options for action. The options for action are not
prioritized because different options are actionable by different stakeholders,
each of whom have a different set of priorities and responsibilities and
operate in different socioeconomic circumstances.
The assessment for Latin
America and the Caribbean (LAC) involved 43 authors from 15 countries who, in a
collaborative effort, met over a two-year period and prepared the Report.
SUMMARY
A critical but balanced assessment indicates that over the past 60
years, the [agricultural] knowledge, science, and technology (AKST) system successfully
generated knowledge and produced technological innovations that were adopted
and used by some producers and helped boost productivity and agricultural
production and enhance the competitiveness of the conventional/productivist market-
and export-oriented system. However, the
AKST system did not prioritize or allocate adequate resources to issues related
to the environment, social inclusion, reducing hunger and poverty, equity,
diversity, and cultural affirmation. Indigenous/traditional systems have not
been included on the AKST agenda, while agroecology has existed and remained peripheral
to AKST. This assessment provides
options aimed at managing and strengthening the AKST system and reorienting its
agenda with a view to furthering development and sustainability goals.
Societies and governments are facing the challenge of attributing
greater importance to agriculture not only as an engine of economic development
that generates employment and income, but also as a multidimensional
asset. The rural sector is making an
actual and potential contribution in the form of environmental and recreational
products and services, which are being sought by society to provide well-being
and quality of life. AKST alone is not a panacea for the host of political and
economic constraints that stymie sustainable and equitable economic development
or poverty and hunger reduction in the region.
However, investment in AKST can contribute to and facilitate improvement
of the living conditions of the people of Latin America, particularly in rural
areas, where poverty is more abject. Findings
suggest that public investment in and institutional reforms of AKST can help
countries meet their development and sustainability goals.
To achieve positive
results, AKST will have to undergo sweeping change in order to move toward a
system of innovation and inclusive development that incorporates, in
particular, small producers, agroecological producers, and indigenous
producers. The current environmental situation calls for urgent action oriented
toward transition to sustainable models that draw on the strengths of the
knowledge of the three productive systems: the traditional/indigenous, the
agroecological, and the conventional/productivist systems. At the same time, in order to meet the urgent
needs associated with rural poverty in a way that allows this population segment
and marginalized areas to benefit from development, it is essential to devise a
territorial rural development strategy that enhances the value of this social
environment from the standpoint of both production and its lifestyle.
In order to be able to respond to
these multifaceted challenges, AKST will have to adopt a holistic,
multidisciplinary, and multisectoral agenda.
The problems in the agricultural sector should be of interest not only
to producers but to society as a whole.
The rural sector plays a critical role in the context of a comprehensive
poverty reduction strategy. However, the
unstructured and inequitable interaction between rural and urban areas warrants
consideration based on comprehensive visioning given its impact on sustainable
development, and in an equitable manner, in the interest of present and future
generations.
CONTEXT, TRENDS, AND CURRENT SITUATION
What are the main production systems in Latin
America and the Caribbean and how have they performed?
In the agricultural sphere in Latin America, the means of production are
heterogeneous and cultural approaches and actors, diverse. This diversity leads to differences in
production systems, which entail not only different approaches to cultivating
the land and managing productive resources, but also to complex and
heterogeneous ways of interacting with the land, the environment, and the
social, economic, and cultural milieu and, in some instances, to starkly
different world views. [Chap. 1]
For purposes of this assessment, three major categories of agricultural
systems are reviewed: the traditional/indigenous
system, which includes the indigenous, rural, and Afro-American system and
is based on local/ancestral knowledge and is rooted in the land. The conventional/productivist
system includes intensive production practices and is oriented toward
monoculture, the use of external inputs, and production geared toward a broad
market. In the agroecological system, productive systems are viewed as ecosystems where
mineral cycles, energy processing, biological processes, and socioeconomic
relations are studied and analyzed not only to maximize production, but also to
make optimal use of the agroecosystem as a whole. It is based on agroecological science and
productive diversification, enhancing the value of traditional knowledge, and knowledge
sharing. These systems interact and some
reveal a blend of characteristics, as well as varying levels of market
integration. [Chap. 1] Historically, the
development of these three systems in the region has been heterogeneous.
The traditional/indigenous system is based on the management and use of
biodiversity and discovery-oriented and lifestyle systems, and has generated
varying levels of production (ranging from high to very low). Its world view
links nature and culture (Figure LAC-SDM-1). External conditions demonstrate
that sustainability is not always possible. [Chap. 1]
Insert Figure LAC-SDM-1. Andean World View
The conventional system is based on high levels of production and
competition for external and domestic markets (Figure LAC-SDM-2). However, in
general terms, the system has not been sustainable from an environmental
standpoint, efficient from an energy standpoint, or equitable from a social
standpoint. [Chap.1]
Insert Figure LAC-SDM-2. Production
Trends and Agricultural Yield of the Conventional/productivist System - the Case
of Argentina
The agroecological system is environmentally and socially sustainable,
energy efficient, and capable of achieving high levels of productivity when
properly managed. This system has been stymied by a dearth of
government/institutional support programs and by the greatly unmet need for the
knowledge and expertise that are required for its implementation. [Chap. 1]
What has been
the relationship between the agricultural models of development and the sustainable
development goals in the region?
The
development models of the last 60 years accorded priority to the
conventional/productivist system, resulting in a sharp increase in productivity
and agricultural production, without a significant reduction in poverty and
undernutrition. In the LAC region,
approximately 209 million persons are poor and 54 million, undernourished. These figures represent 37 percent and 10
percent of the total population, respectively, despite the fact that three
times more food is produced than is consumed. [Chap. 1] In addition, the region
has the highest rates of inequality in the world. (Figure LAC-SDM-3)
Insert Figure LAC-SDM-3. Unequal
Land Distribution
Some of the factors that have
prevented production levels from reducing hunger levels and a proportional
reduction in poverty include a lack of access to and poor distribution of food,
weak purchasing power of a significant sector of the population and, until
recently, low prices paid to producers as a result of a policy to keep food
prices low in urban areas. [Chap. 1]
Despite the fact that the LAC
region does not face a chronic shortage of such available natural resources as
arable land, water, and biological and crop diversity, these resources have
been underutilized or poorly utilized, as demonstrated by the large estates [latifundios] or poorly utilized
land. More and more, this situation has
led to a loss of soil and biodiversity, owing to problems of erosion,
urbanization, contamination, and the intensification and expansion of
agriculture toward land that is less productive. [Chap. 1]
Cultural modernization and the
emphasis placed on the conventional/productivist system have undermined
sociocultural diversity, local/traditional know-how, and agro-biodiversity, all
of which are essential for the development of intensive knowledge-based
agroecological systems. The dominant
conventional technologies have supplanted local/traditional knowledge and
expertise. This process of cultural,
genetic, and technological erosion has led to the rejection of the rural and
ancestral cultural heritage that is in harmony with the surrounding environment
and the adoption of external knowledge and cultures that are relatively
homogenous. [Chap. 1]
Agricultural policies and
commercial processes that promote the exploitation, privatization, and
patenting of natural resources have curbed access to and control over these
resources (land, water, and seeds) by small producers and the rural poor. As a result, wealth and land concentration,
marginalization, exclusion, and poverty have increased. While trade liberalization policies have
created market opportunities for the region and, in a number of cases, have produced
significant upward trends in GDP, they have also heightened the vulnerability
of small and medium-sized producers, and have favored, with a few exceptions,
big producers, thereby increasing economic inequality in the region. [Chap. 1]
In general terms, the
importation of subsidized food has led to the disruption of local production
systems, creating a high level of dependence on food produced in other
countries. This situation is exacerbated
when the food-related purchasing power of the rural population declines,
whether this food is local or imported.
This situation has led to a loss of food sovereignty, and of access to and
social control over communal public goods, particularly in the most vulnerable
sectors. [Chap. 1]
The problem has grown worse in
recent years owing to unequal trade relations which, in most cases, have led to
unfair competition and situations where local producers had to compete with
producers of other countries where production is either subsidized or takes
place with more sophisticated technology.
“Dumping” has played a role in the displacement of many small producers
and has prompted a rural exodus. In some
cases, these producers reacted by forming cooperatives and associations and by
developing market alternatives such as fair trade markets and organic products,
despite the difficulties encountered with gaining access to credit, markets,
and transportation. However, many big producers
and some countries in the region managed to become active players in the international
market, achieving high levels of competitiveness. In most cases, however, the wealth generated
by these opportunities has not trickled down to the poorest population sectors,
a factor that has served to heighten economic inequalities. [Chap. 1]
How has the AKST agenda responded to the
development model and production policies implemented over the last sixty
years?
In response to the development model and production policies
implemented, the priority of the AKST agenda was to increase production in
order to meet the demands of the domestic and export markets. While the results were satisfactory from a
productivity standpoint, they failed to address the problems faced by small
producers, and traditional and indigenous communities, or those pertaining to
poverty reduction, hunger, or environmental degradation. Until the 1990s, the development
model primarily sought to increase production and productivity in the
agricultural sector and facilitate entry into national and international
markets. In many countries, this strategy had negative social and environmental
effects, which were ignored by the system until the last decade, when AKST
began to gain a better understanding of these effects, influenced in part by
demands from civil society organizations and social movements. At the same time, the phenomenon of
globalized communication resulted in the coalescence of preferences of a
growing number of consumers in developed countries, who were willing to pay
more for products generated using alternative technologies that are
environmentally friendly and socially just. This phenomenon prompted changes in
the research agenda and paved the way for a number of small producers to enter
the market using agroecological technologies and developing a heritage-based
value for their products. [Chap. 2]
Does the AKST system currently meet the demands
of society?
The current AKST system does not fully meet the new demands of society,
which require a more diverse, complex, and holistic agenda that reconciles
seemingly conflicting objectives such as competitiveness, sustainability, and
social and cultural inclusion. The AKST agenda allowed
for limited participation by users and civil society, and failed to attach
sufficient importance to small producers or the issue of poverty. High priority was accorded to lines of
research that sought to promote increased productivity, neglecting social,
cultural, and environmental aspects. [Chap. 2]
Is the AKST structure suitable for the development of
technologies to promote the common good?
The reduction
of the public component of the AKST system has limited its contribution, which
is necessary for the development of technologies that cannot be acquired and
seek to promote the common good. The LAC
region has made limited investments in research and development (Figure LAC-SDM-4), and in most
countries, with the exception of Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay, and
Argentina, among others, the public component of the AKST system was reduced to
a minimum. Innovative alternatives that
promote comanagement between public and private organizations, along with civil
society participation [Chap. 2], were recently developed, but must not replace
significant public sector participation in research and development.
Insert Figure LAC-SDM4. Investments in Research and Development
Insert Box LAC-SDM-1 Scenarios
CONDITIONS AND OPTIONS FOR MEETING THE DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
GOALS
What modifications need to be made to the AKST agenda and its execution
in order to meet the development and sustainability goals?
The general objective of the
proposed reforms is to reorder research priorities and provide information on the
public component of the AKST agenda in order to make it more inclusive and
sustainable from a social, economic, cultural, and environmental standpoint. A number of options are outlined below:
·
Promote greater participation and democratization in the definition and
execution of the AKST agenda with a view to integrating sectors that have been
excluded. Actions should therefore seek to expand access to information, build or
strengthen their capacities to participate in decision making, and provide
institutional forums for discussion and decision making. [Chap. 4]
·
Promote interaction between traditional, agroecological, and conventional
knowledge and expertise. To
this end, it would be appropriate to develop an
intercultural participatory agenda that preserves and enhances the value of local
knowledge, supplements it with scientific knowledge where relevant, and
contributes to greater sustainability of productive systems, more efficient use
of natural resources, and higher land yields, while maintaining, promoting, and
enhancing the cultural and biological heritage of local communities. The
current AKST system must be bolstered in order to make its agenda more
holistic, complex, and diverse, which will address the problems faced by
traditional and conventional systems, so that they will both evolve toward a
more agroecological model. [Chap. 4] (Figure LAC-SDM-5)
Insert Figure LAC-SDM-5. Transition to Sustainable Systems
·
Redirect priorities toward
strengthening research for greater environmental and social sustainability
without compromising productivity. AKST must scale up investment in the development of
knowledge-based systems in order to support agroecological systems. This would
facilitate greater development of all systems (agroecological, indigenous, and
conventional), and would, in particular, reduce and mitigate the environmental
and social impact caused by more intensive agricultural and aquatic systems,
thereby reducing the adverse effects of agriculture on climate change. [Chap.
4]
·
Redirect research in new fields of knowledge in order to meet the
sustainability and development goals, without neglecting productivity (e.g. the
complexity of biological systems, biotechnology, information technologies,
precision agriculture, biomedicine, and alternative medicines). Tap into
the potential of new fields of knowledge in order to find solutions to poverty
and its effects. This would allow the proposed options to achieve the goals of
poverty reduction, hunger, undernutrition, human health, and environmental
conservation, provided they adhere to the precautionary principle and select
technologies that facilitate simultaneous achievement of the greatest number of
sustainability and development goals.
The foregoing would entail the creation of funds to finance the
production of regional and global public goods. [Chap. 4]
· &nb