International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)
Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report
This summary was approved in
detail by the Governments attending the
IAASTD Intergovernmental Plenary
in
Drafting
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)
Statement by Governments
All countries present at the final intergovernmental
plenary session held in
All countries see these Reports as a valuable and
important contribution to our understanding on agricultural knowledge, science
and technology for development recognizing the need to further deepen our
understanding of the challenges ahead. This Assessment is a constructive
initiative and important contribution that all governments need to take forward
to ensure that agricultural knowledge, science and technology fulfils its
potential to meet the development and sustainability goals of the reduction of
hunger and poverty, the improvement of rural livelihoods and human health, and
facilitating equitable, socially, environmentally and economically sustainable
development.
In accordance with the above statement, the following
governments approve the Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report.
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, People’s Republic of China,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominican Republic, El
Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Iran,
Ireland, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Republic of Moldova, Mozambique,
Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Republic of
Palau, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Republic of Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey,
Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia (58 countries)
While approving the above statement the following
governments did not fully approve the Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report
and their reservations are entered in Annex A.
Australia , Canada ,
United States of America
Executive Summary of the Synthesis
Report of the
International Assessment of
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)
This Synthesis Report
captures the complexity and diversity of agriculture and AKST across world
regions. It is built upon the global and five sub-global reports that provide
evidence for the integrated analysis of the main concerns necessary to achieve
development and sustainability goals. It is organized in two parts that address
the primary animating question: how can AKST be used to reduce hunger and
poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable environmentally,
socially, and economically sustainable development? The eight cross-cutting
themes include: bioenergy, biotechnology, climate change, human health, natural
resource management, trade and markets, traditional and local knowledge and
community-based innovation, and women in agriculture and is organized in two
substantive parts. In the first part we identify the current conditions,
challenges and options for action that shape AKST, while in the second part we
focus on the eight cross-cutting themes.
The International
Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) responds
to the widespread realization that despite significant scientific and
technological achievements in our ability to increase agricultural
productivity, we have been less attentive to some of the unintended social and environmental
consequences of our achievements. We are now in a good position to reflect on
these consequences and to outline various policy options to meet the challenges
ahead, perhaps best characterized as the need for food and livelihood security
under increasingly constrained environmental conditions from within and outside
the realm of agriculture and globalized economic systems.
This widespread realization
is linked directly to the goals of the IAASTD: how Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology (AKST) can be used to reduce hunger and poverty, to
improve rural livelihoods and to facilitate equitable environmentally, socially
and economically sustainable development. Under the rubric of IAASTD, we recognize
the importance of AKST to the multifunctionality of agriculture and the
intersection with other local to global concerns, including loss of
biodiversity and ecosystem services, climate change and water availability.
The IAASTD is unique in the history of
agricultural science assessments, in that it assesses both formal science and
technology (S&T) and local and traditional knowledge, addresses not only
production and productivity but the multifunctionality of agriculture, and
recognizes that multiple perspectives exist on the role and nature of AKST. For
many years, agricultural science focused on delivering component technologies
to increase farm-level productivity where the market and institutional
arrangements put in place by the state were the primary drivers of the adoption
of new technologies. The general model has been to continuously innovate,
reduce farm gate prices and externalize costs. This model drove the phenomenal
achievements of AKST in industrial countries after World War II and the spread
of the Green Revolution beginning in the 1960s. But, given the new challenges
we confront today, there is increasing recognition within formal S&T
organizations that the current AKST model requires revision. Business as usual
is no longer an option. This leads to rethinking the role of AKST in achieving
development and sustainability goals; one that seeks more intensive engagement
across diverse worldviews and possibly contradictory approaches in ways that
can inform and suggest strategies for actions enabling to the multiple
functions of agriculture.
In order to address the
diverse needs and interests that shape human life, we need a shared approach to
sustainability with local and cross-national collaboration. We cannot escape
our predicament by simply continuing to rely on the aggregation of individual
choices, to achieve sustainable and equitable collective outcomes. Incentives
are needed to influence the choices individuals make. Issues such as poverty
and climate change also require collective agreements on concerted action and
governance across scales that go beyond an appeal to individual benefit. At the global, regional, national and local levels,
decision makers must be acutely conscious of the fact that there are diverse
challenges, multiple theoretical frameworks and development models and a wide
range of options to meet development and sustainability goals. Our perception of the challenges and the
choices we make at this juncture in history will determine how we protect our
planet and secure our future.
Development
and sustainability goals should be placed in the context of (i) current social
and economic inequities and political uncertainties about war and conflicts;
(ii) uncertainties about the ability to sustainably
produce and access sufficient food; (iii) uncertainties about the future of
world food prices; (iv) changes in the economics of fossil based energy use;
(v) the emergence of new competitors for natural resources; (vi) increasing
chronic diseases that are partially a consequence of poor nutrition and poor
food quality as well as food safety; and (vii) changing environmental
conditions and the growing awareness of human responsibility for the
maintenance of global ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating, cultural
and supporting).
Today
there is a world of asymmetric development, unsustainable natural resource use,
and continued rural and urban poverty. Generally the adverse consequences of
global changes have the most significant effects on the poorest and most
vulnerable, who historically have had limited entitlements and opportunities
for growth.
The pace of formal technology generation and
adoption has been highly uneven. Actors within
There is an
overarching concern in all regions regarding poverty alleviation and the
livelihoods options available to poor people who are faced with intra- and
inter-regional inequalities. There is recognition that the mounting crisis in
food security is of a different complexity and potentially different magnitude
than the one of the 1960s. The ability and willingness of different actors,
including those in the state, civil society and private sector, to address
fundamental questions of relationships among production, social and
environmental systems is affected by contentious political and economic
stances.
The acknowledgement
of current challenges and the acceptance of options available for action
require a long-term commitment from decision makers that is responsive to the
specific needs of a wide range of stakeholders. A recognition that knowledge
systems and human ingenuity in science, technology, practice and policy is
needed to meet the challenges, opportunities and uncertainties ahead. This
recognition will require a shift to nonhierarchical development models.
The main challenge of AKST is to increase the productivity of agriculture
in a sustainable manner. AKST must address the needs of small-scale farms in
diverse ecosystems and to create realistic opportunities for their development
where the potential for improved
area productivity is low and where climate change may have its most adverse
consequences. The main challenges for AKST posed by multifunctional
agricultural systems include:
·
How to improve social welfare and
personal livelihoods in the rural sector and enhance multiplier effects of
agriculture?
·
How to empower marginalized
stakeholders to sustain the diversity of agriculture and food systems,
including their cultural dimensions?
·
How to provide safe water,
maintain biodiversity, sustain the natural resource base and minimize the
adverse impacts of agricultural activities on people and the environment?
·
How to maintain and enhance
environmental and cultural services while increasing sustainable productivity
and diversity of food, fiber and biofuel production?
·
How to manage effectively the
collaborative generation of knowledge among increasingly heterogeneous
contributors and the flow of information among diverse public and private AKST
organizational arrangements?
·
How to link the outputs from
marginalized, rain fed lands into local, national and global markets?
Options for Action
Successfully meeting
development and sustainability goals and responding to new priorities and
changing circumstances would require a fundamental shift in AKST, including
science, technology, policies, institutions, capacity development and
investment. Such a shift would recognize and give increased importance to the
multifunctionality of agriculture, accounting for the complexity of
agricultural systems within diverse social and ecological contexts. It would
require new institutional and organizational arrangements to promote an
integrated approach to the development and deployment of AKST. It would also
recognize farming communities, farm households, and farmers as producers and
managers of ecosystems. This shift may call for changing the incentive systems
for all actors along the value chain to internalize as many externalities as
possible. In terms of development and sustainability goals, these policies and
institutional changes should be directed primarily at those who have been
served least by previous AKST approaches, i.e., resource-poor farmers, women
and ethnic minorities.[1]
Such development would depend also on the extent to which small-scale farmers
can find gainful off-farm employment and help fuel general economic growth.
Large and middle-size farmers continue to be important and high pay-off targets
of AKST, especially in the area of sustainable land use and food systems.
It will be important to
assess the potential environmental, health and social impacts of any
technology, and to implement the appropriate regulatory frameworks. AKST can
contribute to radically improving food security and enhancing the social and
economic performance of agricultural systems as a basis for sustainable rural
and community livelihoods and wider economic development. It can help to
rehabilitate degraded land, reduce environmental and health risks associated
with food production and consumption and sustainably increase production.
Success would require
increased public and private investment in AKST, the development of supporting
policies and institutions, revalorization of traditional and local knowledge,
and an interdisciplinary, holistic and systems-based approach to knowledge
production and sharing. Success also depends on the extent to which
international developments and events drive the priority given to development
and sustainability goals and the extent to which requisite funding and
qualified staff are available.
Poverty and livelihoods
Important options for
enhancing rural livelihoods include increasing access by small-scale farmers to
land and economic resources and to remunerative local urban and export markets;
and increasing local value added and value captured by small-scale farmers and
rural laborers. A powerful tool for meeting development and sustainability
goals resides in empowering farmers to innovatively manage soils, water,
biological resources, pests, disease vectors, genetic diversity, and conserve natural
resources in a culturally appropriate manner. Combining farmers’ and external
knowledge would require new partnerships among farmers, scientists and other
stakeholders.
Policy options for
improving livelihoods include access to microcredit and other financial
services; legal frameworks that ensure access and tenure to resources and land;
recourse to fair conflict resolution; and progressive evolution and proactive
engagement in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regimes and related
instruments.[2] Developments
are needed that build trust and that value farmer knowledge, agricultural and
natural biodiversity; farmer-managed medicinal plants, local seed systems and
common pool resource management regimes. Each of these options, when
implemented locally, depends on regional and nationally based mechanisms to
ensure accountability. The suite of options to increase domestic farm gate
prices for small-scale farmers includes fiscal and competition policies;
improved access to AKST; novel business approaches; and enhanced political
power.
Food security
Food
security strategies require a combination of AKST approaches, including the
development of food stock management, effective market intelligence and early
warning, monitoring, and distribution systems. Production measures create the
conditions for food security, but they need to be looked at in conjunction with
people’s access to food (through own production, exchange and public
entitlements) and their ability to absorb nutrients consumed (through adequate access
to water and sanitation, adequate nutrition and nutritional information) in
order to fully achieve food security.
Food security [is] a situation that exists when all people,
at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient,
safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences
for an active and healthy life. (FAO, The State of
Food sovereignty is defined
as the right of peoples and sovereign states to democratically determine their
own agricultural and food policies.[3]
AKST can increase
sustainable agricultural production by expanding use of local and formal AKST
to develop and deploy suitable cultivars adaptable to site-specific conditions;
improving access to resources; improving soil, water and nutrient management
and conservation; pre- and postharvest pest management; and increasing
small-scale farm diversification. Policy options for addressing food security
include developing high-value and under-utilized crops in rain fed areas;
increasing the full range of agricultural exports and imports, including
organic and fair trade products; reducing transaction costs for small-scale
producers; strengthening local markets; food safety nets; promoting
agro-insurance; and improving food safety and quality. Price shocks and extreme
weather events call for a global system of monitoring and intervention for the
timely prediction of major food shortages and price-induced hunger.
AKST investments can
increase the sustainable productivity of major subsistence foods including
orphan and underutilized crops, which are often grown or consumed by poor
people. Investments could also be targeted for institutional change and
policies that can improve access of poor people to food, land, water, seeds, germplasm
and improved technologies.
Environmental
sustainability
AKST systems
are needed that enhance sustainability while maintaining productivity in ways
that protect the natural resource base and ecological provisioning of
agricultural systems. Options include improving nutrient, energy, water and
land use efficiency; improving the understanding of soil-plant-water dynamics;
increasing farm diversification; supporting agroecological systems, and
enhancing biodiversity conservation and use at both field and landscape scales;
promoting the sustainable management of livestock, forest and fisheries;
improving understanding of the agroecological functioning of mosaics of crop
production areas and natural habitats; countering the effects of agriculture on
climate 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 mechanisms to regulate and generate rewards for agro/environmental
services, for better natural resource management and enhanced environmental
quality. Examples include incentives to promote IPM and environmentally
resilient germplasm management, payments to farmers and local communities for
ecosystem services, facilitating and providing incentives for alternative
markets such as green products, certification for sustainable forest and
fisheries practices and organic agriculture and the
strengthening of local markets. Long-term land and water use rights/tenure,
risk reduction measures (safety nets, credit, insurance, etc.) and
profitability of recommended technologies are prerequisites for adoption of
sustainable practices. Common pool resource regimes and modes of governance
that emphasize participatory and democratic approaches are needed.
Investment
opportunities in AKST that could improve sustainability and reduce
negative environmental effects include resource conservation technologies, improved techniques for organic and low-input
systems; a wide range of breeding
techniques for temperature and pest tolerance; research on relationship of
agricultural ecosystem services and human well-being; economic and non-economic
valuations of ecosystem services; increasing water use efficiency and reducing
water pollution; biocontrols of current and emerging pests and pathogens;
biological substitutes for agrochemicals; and reducing the dependency of the
agricultural sector on fossil fuels.
Human health
and nutrition
Inter-linkages
between health, nutrition, agriculture, and AKST affect the ability of
individuals, communities, and nations to reach sustainability goals. These
inter-linkages exist within the context of multiple stressors that affect
population health. A broad and integrated approach is needed to identify
appropriate use of AKST to increase food security and safety, decrease the
incidence and prevalence of a range of infectious (including emerging and
re-emerging diseases such as malaria, avian influenza, HIV/AIDS and others) and
chronic diseases, and decrease occupational exposures, injuries and deaths.
Robust agricultural, public health, and veterinary detection, surveillance,
monitoring, and response systems can help identify the true burden of ill
health and cost-effective, health-promoting strategies and measures. Addition
investments are needed to maintain and improve current systems and regulations.
·
Increasing food security can be facilitated by promoting policies
and programs to diversify diets and improve micronutrient intake; and
developing and deploying existing and new technologies for the production,
processing, preservation, and distribution of food.
·
Increasing food safety can be facilitated by effective,
coordinated, and proactive national and international food safety systems to
ensure animal, plant, and human health, such as investments in adequate
infrastructure, public health and veterinary capacity, legislative frameworks
for identification and control of biological and chemical hazards; and
farmer-scientist partnerships for the identification, monitoring and evaluation
of risks.
·
The burden of infectious disease can be decreased by strengthening
coordination between and the capacity of agricultural, veterinary, and public
health systems, integrating multi-sectoral policies and programs across the food
chain to reduce the spread of infectious diseases, and developing and deploying
new AKST to identify, monitor, control, and treat diseases.
·
The burden of chronic disease can be decreased by policies that
explicitly recognize the importance of improving human health and nutrition,
including regulation of food product formulation through legislation,
international agreements and regulations for food labeling and health claims,
and creation of incentives for the production and consumption of health-promoting
foods.
·
Occupational and public health can be improved by development and
enforcement of health and safety regulations (including child labor laws and
pesticide regulations), enforcement of cross-border issues such as illegal use
of toxic agrochemicals, and conducting health risk assessments that make
explicit the tradeoffs between maximizing livelihood benefits, the environment,
and improving health.
Equity
For AKST to
contribute to greater equity, investments are required for the development of
context-specific technologies, and expanded access of farmers and other rural
people to occupational, non-formal and formal education. An environment in which
formal science and technology and local and traditional knowledge are seen as
part of an integral AKST system can increase equitable access to technologies
to a broad range of producers and natural resource managers. Incentives in
science, universities and research organizations are needed to foster different
kinds of AKST partnerships. Key options include equitable access to and use of
natural resources (particularly land and water),
systems of incentives and rewards for multifunctionality, including ecosystem
services, and responding to the vulnerability of farming and farm worker
communities. Reform of the governance of AKST and related organizations is also
important for the crucial role they can play in improving community-level
scientific literacy, decentralization of technological opportunities, and the
integration of farmer concerns in research priority setting and the design of
farmer services. Improving equity requires synergy among various development
actors, including farmers, rural laborers,
banks, civil society organizations, commercial companies, and public agencies.
Stakeholder involvement is also crucial in decisions about IPR, infrastructure,
tariffs, and the internalization of social and environmental costs. New modes
of governance to develop innovative local networks and decentralized
government, focusing on small-scale producers and the urban poor (urban
agriculture; direct links between urban consumers and rural producers) will
help create and strengthen synergistic and complementary capacities.
Preferential
investments in equitable development (e.g., literacy, education and training)
that contribute to reducing ethnic, gender, and other inequities would advance
development goals. Measurements of returns to investments require indices that
give more information than GDP, and that are sensitive to environmental and
equity gains. The use of inequality indices for screening AKST investments and
monitoring outcomes strengthens accountability. The Gini-coefficient could, for
example, become a public criterion for policy assessment, in addition to the
more conventional measures of growth, inflation and environment.
Investments
Achieving development and
sustainability goals would entail increased funds and more diverse funding
mechanisms for agricultural research and development and associated knowledge
systems, such as:
·
Public investments in global,
regional, national and local public goods; food security and safety, climate
change and sustainability. More efficient use of increasingly scarce land,
water and biological resources requires investment in research and development
of legal and management capabilities.
·
Public investments in agricultural
knowledge systems to promote interactive knowledge networks (farmers,
scientists, industry and actors in other knowledge areas); improved access to
ICT; ecological, evolutionary, food, nutrition, social and complex systems’
sciences; effective interdisciplinarity; capacity in core agricultural
sciences; and improving life-long learning opportunities along the food system.
·
Public-private partnerships for
improved commercialization of applied knowledge and technologies and joint
funding of AKST, where market risks are high and where options for widespread
utilization of knowledge exist.
·
Adequate incentives and rewards to
encourage private and civil society investments in AKST contributing to
development and sustainability goals.
In many developing
countries, it may be necessary to complement these investments with increased
and more targeted investments in rural infrastructure, education and health.
In the face of new global
challenges, there is an urgent need to strengthen, restructure and possibly
establish new intergovernmental, independent science and evidence-based
networks to address such issues as climate forecasting for agricultural
production; human health risks from emerging diseases; reorganization of
livelihoods in response to changes in agricultural systems (population
movements); food security; and global forestry resources.
Themes
The Synthesis Report looked
at eight AKST-related themes of critical interest to meeting IAASTD goals:
bioenergy, biotechnology, climate change, human health; natural resource
management; trade and markets; traditional and local knowledge and
community-based innovation; and women in agriculture.
Bioenergy
Rising costs of fossil
fuels, energy security concerns, increased awareness of climate change and
potentially positive effects for economic development have led to considerable
public attention to bioenergy. Bioenergy includes traditional bioenergy,
biomass to produce electricity, light and heat and first and next generation
liquid biofuels. The economics and the positive and negative social and
environmental externalities differ widely, depending on source of biomass, type
of conversion technology and local circumstances.
Primarily due to a lack of
affordable alternatives, millions of people in developing countries depend on
traditional bioenergy (e.g. wood fuels) for their cooking and heating needs,
especially in sub-Saharan Africa and
First generation biofuels
consist predominantly of bioethanol and biodiesel produced from agricultural
crops (e.g. maize, sugar cane). Production has been growing fast in recent
years, primarily due to biofuel support policies since they are cost
competitive only under particularly favorable circumstances. The
diversion of agricultural crops to fuel can raise food prices and reduce our
ability to alleviate hunger throughout the world. The negative social effects
risk being exacerbated in cases where small-scale farmers are marginalized or
displaced from their land. From an environmental perspective, there is
considerable variation, uncertainty and debate over the net energy balance and
level of GHG emissions. In the long term, effects on food
prices may be reduced, but environmental effects caused by land and water
requirements of large-scale increases of first generation biofuels production
are likely to persist and will need to be addressed.
Next generation
biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol and biomass-to-liquids technologies allow
conversion into biofuels of more abundant and cheaper feedstocks than first
generation. This could potentially reduce agricultural land requirements per
unit of energy produced and improve lifecycle GHG emissions, potentially
mitigating the environmental pressures from first generation biofuels. However,
next generation biofuels technologies are not yet commercially proven and
environmental and social effects are still uncertain. For example, the use of
feedstock and farm residues can compete with the need to maintain organic
matter in sustainable agroecosystems.
Bioelectricity and bioheat
are important forms of renewable energy that are usually more efficient and
produce less GHG emissions than liquid biofuels and fossil fuels. Digesters,
gasifiers and direct combustion devices can be successfully employed in certain
settings, e.g., off-grid areas. There is potential for expanding these
applications but AKST is needed to reduce costs and improve operational
reliability. For all forms of bioenergy, decision makers should carefully weigh
full social, environmental and economic costs against realistically achievable
benefits and other sustainable energy options.
Biotechnology [4]
The IAASTD definition of
biotechnology is based on that in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. It is a broad term embracing the manipulation
of living organisms and spans the large range of activities from conventional
techniques for fermentation and plant and animal breeding to recent innovations
in tissue culture, irradiation, genomics and marker-assisted breeding (MAB) or
marker assisted selection (MAS) to augment natural breeding. Some of the latest
biotechnologies (‘modern biotechnology’) include the use of in vitro
modified DNA or RNA and the fusion of cells from different taxonomic families,
techniques that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination
barriers. Currently the most contentious issue is the use of recombinant DNA
techniques to produce transgenes that are inserted into genomes. Even newer
techniques of modern biotechnology manipulate heritable material without
changing DNA.
Biotechnology has always
been on the cutting edge of change. Change is rapid, the domains involved are
numerous, and there is a significant lack of transparent communication among
actors. Hence assessment of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development;
information can be anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty on benefits and
harms is unavoidable. There is a wide range of perspectives on the
environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern
biotechnology; many of these risks are as yet unknown.
Conventional
biotechnologies, such as breeding techniques, tissue culture, cultivation
practices and fermentation are readily accepted and used. Between 1950 and
1980, prior to the development of GMOs, modern varieties of wheat increased
yields up to 33% even in the absence of fertilizer. Modern biotechnologies used
in containment have been widely adopted; e.g., the industrial enzyme market
reached US$1.5 billion in 2000. The application of modern biotechnology outside
containment, such as the use of GM crops is much more contentious. For example,
data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33%
yield gains in some places and yield declines in others.
Higher level drivers of
biotechnology R&D, such as IPR frameworks, determine what products become
available. While this attracts investment in agriculture, it can also
concentrate ownership of agricultural resources. An emphasis on modern
biotechnology without ensuring adequate support for other agricultural research
can alter education and training programs and reduce the number of
professionals in other core agricultural sciences. This situation can be
self-reinforcing since today’s students define tomorrow’s educational and
training opportunities.
The use of patents for
transgenes introduces additional issues. In developing countries especially,
instruments such as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the
individual farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining local
practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability. In this
regard, there is particular concern about present IPR instruments eventually
inhibiting seed-saving, exchange, sale and access to proprietary materials
necessary for the independent research community to conduct analyses and long
term experimentation on impacts. Farmers face new liabilities: GM farmers may
become liable for adventitious presence if it causes loss of market certification
and income to neighboring organic farmers, and conventional farmers may become
liable to GM seed producers if transgenes are detected in their crops.
A problem-oriented approach
to biotechnology R&D would focus investment on local priorities identified
through participatory and transparent processes, and favor multifunctional
solutions to local problems. These processes require new kinds of support for
the public to critically engage in assessments of the technical, social,
political, cultural, gender, legal, environmental and economic impacts of
modern biotechnology. Biotechnologies should be used to maintain local
expertise and germplasm so that the capacity for further research resides
within the local community. Such R&D would put much needed emphasis onto
participatory breeding projects and agroecology.
Climate change
Climate change, which is taking place at a time of
increasing demand for food, feed, fiber and fuel, has the potential to
irreversibly damage the natural resource base on which agriculture depends. The
relationship between climate change and agriculture is a two-way street;
agriculture contributes to climate change in several major ways and climate
change in general adversely affects agriculture.
In mid- to high latitude regions moderate local
increases in temperature can have small beneficial impacts on crop yields; in
low-latitude regions, such moderate temperature increases are likely to have
negative yield effects. Some negative impacts are already visible in many parts
of the world; additional warming will have increasingly negative impacts in all
regions. Water scarcity and the timing of water availability will increasingly
constrain production. Climate change will require a new look at water storage
to cope with the impacts of more and extreme precipitation, higher intra- and
inter-seasonal variations, and increased rates of evapotranspiration in all
types of ecosystems. Extreme climate
events (floods and droughts) are
increasing and expected to amplify in frequency and severity and there are
likely to be significant consequences in all regions for food and forestry
production and food insecurity. There is a serious potential for future
conflicts over habitable land and natural resources such as freshwater. Climate
change is affecting the distribution of plants, invasive species, pests and
disease vectors and the geographic range and incidence of many human, animal
and plant diseases is likely to increase.
A comprehensive approach with an equitable
regulatory framework, differentiated responsibilities and intermediate targets
are required to reduce GHG emissions. The earlier and stronger the cuts in
emissions, the quicker concentrations will approach stabilization. Emission
reduction measures clearly are essential because they can have an impact due to
inertia in the climate system. However, since further changes in the climate
are inevitable adaptation is also imperative. Actions directed at addressing
climate change and promoting sustainable development share some important goals
such as equitable access to resources and appropriate technologies.
Some “win-win” mitigation opportunities have
already been identified. These include land use approaches such as lower rates
of agricultural expansion into natural habitats; afforestation, reforestation, increased
efforts to avoid deforestation, agroforestry, agroecological systems, and
restoration of underutilized or degraded lands and rangelands and land use
options such as carbon sequestration in agricultural soils, reduction and more
efficient use of nitrogenous inputs; effective manure management and use of
feed that increases livestock digestive efficiency. Policy options related to
regulations and investment opportunities include financial incentives to
maintain and increase forest area through reduced deforestation and degradation
and improved management and the development and utilization of renewable energy
sources. The post-2012 regime has to be more inclusive of all agricultural
activities such as reduced emission from deforestation and soil degradation to
take full advantage of the opportunities offered by agriculture and forestry
sectors.
Human health
Despite the evident and
complex links between health, nutrition, agriculture, and AKST, improving human
health is not generally an explicit goal of agricultural policy. Agriculture
and AKST can affect a range of health issues including undernutrition, chronic
diseases, infectious diseases, food safety, and environmental and occupational
health. Ill heath in the farming community can in turn reduce agricultural
productivity and the ability to develop and deploy appropriate AKST. Ill health
can result from undernutrition, as well as over-nutrition. Despite increased
global food production over recent decades, undernutrition is still a major
global public health problem, causing over 15% of the global disease burden.
Protein energy and micronutrient malnutrition remain challenges, with high
variability between and within countries. Food
security can be improved through policies and programs to increase dietary
diversity and through development and deployment of existing and new
technologies for production, processing, preservation, and distribution of
food.
AKST policies and practices
have increased production and new mechanisms for food processing. Reduced
dietary quality and diversity and inexpensive foods with low nutrient density
have been associated with increasing rates of worldwide obesity and chronic
disease. Poor diet throughout the life course is a major risk factor for chronic
diseases, which are the leading cause of global deaths. There is a need to
focus on consumers and the importance of dietary quality as main drivers of
production, and not merely on quantity or price. Strategies include fiscal
policies (taxation, trade regimes) for health-promoting foods and regulation of
food product formulation, labeling and commercial information.
Globalization
of the food supply, accompanied by concentration of food distribution and
processing companies, and growing consumer awareness increase the need for
effective, coordinated, and proactive national food safety systems. Health
concerns that could be addressed by AKST include the presence of pesticide
residues, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotics and various additives in the food
system as 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 impose significant costs. Some
countries may need help in meeting food control costs such as monitoring and
inspection, and costs associated with market rejection of contaminated
commodities. Taking a broad and integrated agroecosystem and
human health approach can facilitate identification of animal, plant, and human
health risks, and appropriate AKST
responses.
Worldwide, agriculture
accounts for at least 170,000 occupational 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, particularly among rural laborers.
Other important health hazards include agrochemical poisoning, transmissible
animal diseases, toxic or allergenic agents, and noise, vibration and ergonomic
hazards. Improving occupational health requires a greater emphasis on health
protection through development and enforcement of health and safety
regulations. Policies should explicitly address tradeoffs between livelihood
benefits, and environmental, occupational and public health risks.
The incidence and
geographic range of many emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases are
influenced by the intensification of crop and livestock systems. Serious
socioeconomic impacts can arise when diseases spread widely within human or
animal populations, or when they spill over from animal reservoirs to human
hosts. Most of the factors that contribute to disease emergence will continue,
if not intensify. Integrating policies and programs across the food chain can
help reduce the spread of infectious diseases; robust detection, surveillance,
monitoring, and response programs are critical.
Natural resource management
[5]
Natural resources,
especially those of soil, water, plant and animal diversity, vegetation cover,
renewable energy sources, climate, and ecosystem services are fundamental for
the structure and function of agricultural systems and for social and
environmental sustainability, in support of life on earth. Historically the
path of global agricultural development has been narrowly focused on increased
productivity rather than on a more holistic integration of NRM with food and
nutritional security. A holistic, or systems-oriented approach, is preferable
because it can address the difficult issues associated with the complexity of
food and other production systems in different ecologies, locations and
cultures.
AKST to resolve NRM
exploitation issues, such as the mitigation of soil fertility through synthetic
inputs and natural processes, is often available and well understood.
Nevertheless, the resolution of natural resource challenges will demand new and
creative approaches by stakeholders with diverse backgrounds, skills and
priorities. Capabilities for working together at multiple scales and across
different social and physical environments are not well developed. For example,
there have been few opportunities for two-way learning between farmers and
researchers or policy makers. Consequently farmers and civil society members
have seldom been involved in shaping natural resource management policy.
Community-based partnerships with the private sector, now in their early stages
of development, represent a new and promising way forward.
The following high priority
NRM options for action are proposed:
Ø
Use existing AKST to identify and
address some of the underlying causes of declining productivity embedded in
natural resource mismanagement, and develop new AKST based on multidisciplinary
approaches for a better understanding of the complexity in NRM. Part of this
process will involve the cost-effective monitoring of trends in the utilization
of natural resource capital.
Ø
Strengthen human resources in the
support of natural capital through increased investment (research, training and
education, partnerships, policy) in promoting the awareness of the societal
costs of degradation and value of ecosystems services.
Ø
Promote research “centers of
AKST-NRM excellence” to facilitate less exploitative NRM and better strategies
for resource resilience, protection and renewal through innovative two-way
learning processes in research and development, monitoring and policy
formulation.
Ø
Create an enabling environment for
building NRM capacity and increasing understanding of NRM among stakeholders
and their organizations in order to shape NRM policy in partnership with public
and private sectors.
Ø
Develop networks of AKST
practitioners (farmer organizations, NGOs, government, private sector) to
facilitate long-term natural resource management to enhance benefits from
natural resources for the collective good.
Ø
Connect globalization
and localization pathways that link locally generated NRM knowledge and
innovations to public and private AKST.
When AKST is developed and
used creatively with active participation among various stakeholders across
multiple scales, the misuse of natural capital can be reversed and the
judicious use and renewal of water bodies, soils, biodiversity, ecosystems
services, fossil fuels and atmospheric quality ensured for future generations.
Trade and markets
Targeting market and trade policies to enhance the ability of
agricultural and AKST systems to drive development, strengthen food security,
maximize environmental sustainability, and help make the small-scale farm
sector profitable to spearhead poverty reduction is an immediate challenge
around the world.
Agricultural trade can
offer opportunities for the poor, but current arrangements have major
distributional impacts among, and within, countries that in many cases have not
been favorable for small-scale farmers and rural livelihoods. These
distributional impacts call for differentiation in policy frameworks and
institutional arrangements if these countries are to benefit from agricultural
trade. There is growing concern that opening national agricultural markets to
international competition before basic institutions and infrastructure are in
place can undermine the agricultural sector, with long term negative effects
for poverty, food security and the environment.[6]
Trade policy reform to provide a fairer global trading system can make a positive contribution to sustainability and development goals. Special and differential treatment accorded through trade negotiations can enhance the ability of developing countries to pursue food security and development goals while minimizing trade related dislocations. Preserving national policy flexibility allows developing countries to balance the needs of poor consumers (urban and rural landless) and rural small-scale farmers. Increasing the value captured by small