Synthesis Report

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development
Agriculture
Crossroads
Agriculture
Crossroads
at a at a
Crossroads Crossroads Crossroads
S
y
n
t
h
e
s
i
s

R
e
p
o
r
t
I
A
A
S
T
D
SCIENCE | AGRICULTURE | CURRENT AFFAIRS
“Although considered by many to be a success story, the benefits of productivity increases in
world agriculture are unevenly spread. Often the poorest of the poor have gained little or noth-
ing; and 850 million people are still hungry or malnourished with an additional 4 million more
joining their ranks annually. We are putting food that appears cheap on our tables; but it is
food that is not always healthy and that costs us dearly in terms of water, soil and the biological
diversity on which all our futures depend.”
—Professor Bob Watson, director, IAASTD
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Devel-
opment (IAASTD) , on which Agriculture at the Crossroads is based, was a three-year collab-
orative effort begun in 2005 that assessed our capacity to meet development and sustainabil-
ity goals of:
º Reuucing lungei anu µoveiry
º Imµioving nuriirion. lealrl anu iuial liveliloous
º Iaciliraring social anu enviionmenral susrainaLiliry
Governed by a multi-stakeholder bureau comprised of 30 representatives from government
and 30 from civil society, the process brought together 110 governments and 400 experts, rep-
resenting non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, producers, consumers,
the scientific community, multilateral environment agreements (MEAs), and multiple interna-
tional agencies involved in the agricultural and rural development sectors.
In addition to assessing existing conditions and knowledge, the IAASTD uses a simple set of
model projections to look at the future, based on knowledge from past events and existing
trends such as population growth, rural/urban food and poverty dynamics, loss of agricultural
land, water availability, and climate change effects.
This set of volumes comprises the findings of the IAASTD. It consists of a Global Report, a
brief Synthesis Report, and 5 subglobal reports. Taken as a whole, the IAASTD reports are an
indispensable reference for anyone working in the field of agriculture and rural development,
whether at the level of basic research, policy, or practice.
Washington ‹ Covelo ‹ London
www.islandpress.org
All Island Press books are printed on recycled, acid-free paper.
Cover design by Linda McKnight, McKnight Design, LLC
Cover photos (left to right): Steve Raymer, Dean Conger, and
William Albert Allard of National Geographic Stock, Mark Ed-
wards (both images) of Peter Arnold, Inc.
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science
and Technology for Development

Synthesis Report
IAASTD
00-fm SR.indd 1 11/3/08 12:05:37 PM
00-fm SR.indd 2 11/3/08 12:05:49 PM
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science
and Technology for Development

Synthesis Report
A Synthesis of the Global and Sub-Global IAASTD Reports
Beverly D. McIntyre Hans R. Herren Judi Wakhungu Robert T. Watson
IAASTD Secretariat Millennium Institute African Centre for University of East Anglia
Technology Studies
Edited by
IAASTD
00-fm SR.indd 3 11/3/08 12:05:49 PM
Copyright © 2009 IAASTD. All rights reserved. Permission to
reproduce and disseminate portions of the work for no cost will be
granted free of charge by Island Press upon request: Island Press, 1718
Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20009.
Island Press is a trademark of The Center for Resource Economics.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data.
International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and
technology for development (IAASTD) : synthesis report with executive
summary : a synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports /
edited by Beverly D. McIntyre . . . [et al.].
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-1-59726-550-8 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Agriculture—International cooperation. 2. Sustainable
development. I. McIntyre, Beverly D. II. Title: Synthesis report with
executive summary : a synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD
reports.
HD1428.I547 2008
338.9´27—dc22 2008046049
British Cataloguing-in-Publication data available.
Printed on recycled, acid-free paper
Interior and cover designs by Linda McKnight, McKnight Design, LLC.
Manufactured in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
00-fm SR.indd 4 12/2/08 5:15:21 PM
Contents
Foreword
Preface
Executive Summary of Synthesis Report
Statement by Governments
Executive Summary
Annex. Reservations on Executive Summary
Synthesis Report
Statement by Governments on Synthesis Report
Part I: Current Conditions, Challenges and Options for Action
Part II: Themes
Bioenergy
Biotechnology
Climate Change
Human Health
Natural Resources Management
Trade and Markets
Traditional and Local Knowledge and Community-based Innovations
Women in Agriculture
Annex A Reservations on Synthesis Report
Annex B Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports
Annex C Peer Reviewers
Annex D Secretariat and Cosponsor Focal Points
Annex E Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment
vi
vii
1
2
3
12
13
15
17
35
35
40
46
53
59
65
71
75
81
82
89
92
93
00-fm SR.indd 5 11/10/08 1:52:28 PM
vi
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 well
as the FAO, UNEP, and the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for their
continued support of this process through allocation of staff
resources.
We acknowledge with gratitude the governments and
organizations that contributed to the Multidonor Trust
Fund (Australia, Canada, the European Commission,
France, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United King-
dom) and the United States Trust Fund. We also thank the
governments who provided support to Bureau members,
authors and reviewers in other ways. In addition, Finland
provided direct support to the Secretariat. The IAASTD was
especially successful in engaging a large number of experts
from developing countries and countries with economies in
transition 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 coordinators
and staff and provided assistance in management and time
to ensure success of this enterprise: the African Center for
Technology Studies (ACTS) in Kenya, the Inter-American
Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) in Costa
Rica, the International Center for Agricultural Research in
the Dry Areas (ICARDA) in Syria, and the WorldFish Center
in 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 for
Decision Makers and the Executive Summary of the Synthe-
sis Report by an overwhelming majority of governments.
Signed:
Co-chairs
Hans H. Herren
Judi Wakhungu
Director
Robert 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 and
future agricultural knowledge, science and technology on
the:
º ieuucrion oí lungei anu µoveiry.
º imµiovemenr oí iuial liveliloous anu luman lealrl.
and
º equiraLle. socially. enviionmenrally anu economically
sustainable development.
The IAASTD was initiated in 2002 by the World Bank and
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-
tions (FAO) as a global consultative process to determine
whether an international assessment of agricultural knowl-
edge, science and technology was needed. Mr. Klaus Töepfer,
Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme (UNEP) opened the first Intergovernmental Plenary
(30 August-3 September 2004) in Nairobi, Kenya, during
which participants initiated a detailed scoping, preparation,
drafting and peer review process.
The outputs from this assessment are a Global and five
Sub-Global reports; a Global and five Sub-Global Sum-
maries for Decision Makers; and a cross-cutting Synthesis
Report with an Executive Summary. The Summaries for De-
cision Makers and the Synthesis Report specifically provide
options for action to governments, international agencies,
academia, research organizations and other decision makers
around the world.
The reports draw on the work of hundreds of experts
from all regions of the world who have participated in the
preparation and peer review process. As has been customary
in many such global assessments, success depended first and
foremost on the dedication, enthusiasm and cooperation of
these experts in many different but related disciplines. It is
the synergy of these interrelated disciplines that permitted
IAAS1D ro cieare a unique. inreiuisciµlinaiy iegional anu
global process.
We take this opportunity to express our deep gratitude
to the authors and reviewers of all of the reports—their
dedication and tireless efforts made the process a success.
We thank the Steering Committee for distilling the outputs
of the consultative process into recommendations to the
Plenary, the IAASTD Bureau for their advisory role during
the assessment and the work of those in the extended Sec-
Foreword
00-fm SR.indd 6 11/3/08 12:05:50 PM
ment Goals (MDGs): the reduction of hunger and poverty,
the improvement of rural livelihoods and human health, and
íaciliraring equiraLle. socially. enviionmenrally anu economi-
cally susrainaLle ueveloµmenr. Realizing rlese goals iequiies
acknowledging the multifunctionality of agriculture: the
challenge is to simultaneously meet development and sus-
tainability goals while increasing agricultural production.
Meeting these goals has to be placed in the context of a
iaµiuly clanging voilu oí uiLanizarion. gioving inequiries.
human migration, globalization, changing dietary prefer-
ences, climate change, environmental degradation, a trend
toward biofuels and an increasing population. These condi-
tions are affecting local and global food security and put-
ting pressure on productive capacity and ecosystems. Hence
there are unprecedented challenges ahead in providing food
within 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 caused
by complex political and social dynamics, but it can make
a major contribution to meeting development and sustain-
ability 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 poor rural peo-
ple, especially small-scale farmers, rural laborers and others
with limited resources. It addresses issues critical to formu-
lating policy and provides information for decision makers
confronting conflicting views on contentious issues such as
rle enviionmenral consequences oí µiouucriviry incieases.
environmental and human health impacts of transgenic
cioµs. rle consequences oí Lioeneigy ueveloµmenr on rle
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 assess-
ment needed to go beyond the narrow confines of science
and technology (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
enreiµiise iequiiing rle use anu inregiarion oí iníoimarion.
tools and models from different knowledge paradigms in-
cluding local and traditional knowledge. The IAASTD does
not 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 initiated
a global consultative process to determine whether an in-
ternational assessment of agricultural knowledge, science
and technology (AKST) was needed. This was stimulated
by discussions at the World Bank with the private sector
and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on the state of
scientific understanding of biotechnology and more specifi-
cally transgenics. During 2003, eleven consultations were
held, overseen by an international multistakeholder steer-
ing committee and involving over 800 participants from all
relevant stakeholder groups, e.g., governments, the private
sector and civil society. Based on these consultations the
steering committee recommended to an Intergovernmental
Plenary 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 facilitating
environmentally, socially and economically sustainable
development was needed. The concept of an International
Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Tech-
nology for Development (IAASTD) was endorsed as a multi-
thematic, multi-spatial, multi-temporal intergovernmental
process with a multistakeholder Bureau cosponsored by the
FAO, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), United Na-
tions Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Educa-
tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the
World Bank and World Health Organization (WHO).
1le IAAS1D`s goveinance sriucruie is a unique lyLiiu
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
and the nongovernmental Millennium Ecosystem Assess-
ment (MA). 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 (comprised of a Global and
five Sub-Global assessments). These experts worked in their
own capacity and did not represent any particular stake-
holder 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 Develop-
vii
Preface
00-fm SR.indd 7 11/3/08 12:05:50 PM
als. 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 ensur-
ing 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 review-
ers. 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 April
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; tradi-
tional knowledge and community based innovation; trade
and markets; and women in agriculture.
The IAASTD builds on and adds value to 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 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); Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (2005); CGIAR Science Council
Strategy and Priority Setting Exercise (2006); Comprehen-
sive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture: Guid-
ing 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 Bank World Devel-
opment Report: Agriculture for Development (2008); 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, and the European Commission. 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 orga-
nizations and the scientific community. There are no recom-
mendations, 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 and political circumstances.
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 re-
sources, 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 previ-
ously 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 as-
sessing options for action on science and technology, capacity
development, institutions and policies, and investments.
The IAASTD is conducted according to an open, trans-
parent, representative and legitimate process; is evidence-
based; presents options rather than recommendations;
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 worldviews; and identifies the key scientific un-
certainties 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 Pa-
cific (ESAP); Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC);
North America and Europe (NAE); Sub-Saharan Africa
(SSA). It (1) assesses the generation, access, dissemination
and use of public and private sector AKST in relation to
the goals, using local, traditional and formal knowledge;
(2) analyzes existing and emerging technologies, practices,
policies and institutions and their impact on the goals; (3)
provides information for decision makers in different civil
society, private and public organizations on options for im-
proving policies, practices, institutional and organizational
arrangements to enable AKST to meet the goals; (4) brings
together a range of stakeholders (consumers, governments,
international agencies and research organizations, NGOs,
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 (5) identifies options for future public and pri-
vate investments in AKST. In addition, the IAASTD will en-
hance local and regional capacity to 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 and
fertilizer) to consumption of products. However, as in all
assessments, some topics were covered less extensively than
others (e.g., livestock, forestry, fisheries and the agricultural
sector 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 agreement
to delete this chapter in favor of a more simple set of model
projections. Similarly the Bureau approved a chapter on ca-
pacity 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 individu-
viii
00-fm SR.indd 8 11/3/08 12:05:50 PM
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
01-SR.indd 1 11/3/08 12:07:26 PM
2
Statement by Governments on Executive Summary
governments approve the Executive Summary of the Syn-
thesis Report.
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize,
Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, People’s
Republic of China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Repub-
lic 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, Repub-
lic 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
the Annex to the Executive Summary.
Australia, Canada, United States of America (3
countries).
All countries present at the final intergovernmental plenary
session held in Johannesburg, South Africa in April 2008
welcome the work of the IAASTD and the uniqueness of
this independent multistakeholder and multidisciplinary
process, and the scale of the challenge of covering a broad
range 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 overall
consensus on the importance of agricultural knowledge, sci-
ence and technology for development they also provide a
diversity of views on some issues.
All countries see these Reports as a valuable and im-
portant contribution to our understanding on agricultural
knowledge, science and technology for development recog-
nizing the need to further deepen our understanding of the
challenges ahead. This Assessment is a constructive initia-
tive and important contribution that all governments need
to 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 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
01-SR.indd 2 11/3/08 12:07:27 PM
3
Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report of the
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development (IAASTD)
state were the primary drivers of the adoption of new tech-
nologies. The general model has been to continuously in-
novate, 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 cur-
rent 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 in-
form and suggest strategies for actions enabling the multiple
functions of agriculture.
In order to address the diverse needs and interests that
shape 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 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 pov-
erty and climate change also require collective agreements
on 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 acutely
conscious of the fact that there are diverse challenges, mul-
tiple theoretical frameworks and development models and a
wide range of options to meet development and sustainabil-
ity 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 (1) current social and economic inequities
and political uncertainties about war and conflicts; (2) uncer-
tainties about the ability to sustainably produce and access
sufficient food; (3) uncertainties about the future of world
food prices; (4) changes in the economics of fossil-based en-
ergy use; (5) the emergence of new competitors for natural
resources; (6) increasing chronic diseases that are partially a
consequence of poor nutrition and poor food quality as well
as food safety; and (7) 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, un-
sustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and
urban poverty. Generally the adverse consequences of global
This Synthesis Report captures the complexity and diversity of
agriculture and agricultural knowledge, science and technol-
ogy (AKST) across world regions. It is built upon the Global
and five Sub-Global reports that provide evidence for the in-
tegrated 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? 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 eight cross-cutting themes. 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.
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 ability
to increase agricultural productivity, we have been less at-
tentive 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 vari-
ous policy options to meet the challenges ahead, perhaps
best characterized as the need for food and livelihood se-
curity under increasingly constrained environmental condi-
tions 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 AKST can be used to reduce
hunger and poverty, to improve rural livelihoods and to fa-
cilitate 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 ser-
vices, climate change and water availability.
The IAASTD is unique in the history of agricultural sci-
ence assessments in that it assesses both formal science and
technology (S&T) and local and traditional knowledge, ad-
dresses not only production and productivity but the mul-
tifunctionality 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
01-SR.indd 3 11/3/08 12:07:27 PM
4 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
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 sci-
ence, technology, policies, institutions, capacity development
and investment. Such a shift would recognize and give in-
creased 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
changes have the most significant effects on the poorest and
most vulnerable, who historically have had limited entitle-
ments and opportunities for growth.
The pace of formal technology generation and adoption
has been highly uneven. Actors within North America and
Europe (NAE) and emerging economies who have captured
significant economies of scale through formal AKST will con-
tinue to dominate agricultural exports and extended value
chains. There is an urgent need to diversify and strengthen
AKST, recognizing differences in agroecologies and social
and cultural conditions. The need to retool AKST, to reduce
poverty and provide improved livelihoods options for the
rural poor, especially landless and peasant communities, ur-
ban, informal and migrant workers, is a major challenge.
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 fundamen-
tal questions of relationships among production, social and
environmental systems is affected by contentious political
and economic stances.
The acknowledgment of current challenges and the ac-
ceptance 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 recogni-
tion that knowledge systems and human ingenuity in sci-
ence, technology, practice and policy is needed to meet the
challenges, opportunities and uncertainties ahead. This rec-
ognition will require a shift to nonhierarchical development
models.
The main challenge of AKST is to increase the produc-
tivity of agriculture in a sustainable manner. AKST must
address the needs of small-scale farms in diverse ecosystems
and create realistic opportunities for their development
where the potential for improved area productivity is low
and where climate change may have its most adverse conse-
quences. The main challenges for AKST posed by multifunc-
tional agricultural systems include:
º Hov ro imµiove social velíaie anu µeisonal liveliloous
in the rural sector and enhance multiplier effects of
agriculture?
º Hov ro emµovei maiginalizeu srakelolueis ro susrain
the diversity of agriculture and food systems, including
their cultural dimensions?
º Hov ro µioviue saíe varei. mainrain Liouiveisiry. sus-
tain the natural resource base and minimize the adverse
impacts of agricultural activities on people and the
environment?
º Hov ro mainrain anu enlance enviionmenral anu cul-
tural services while increasing sustainable productivity
and diversity of food, fiber and biofuel production?
º Hov ro manage eííecrively rle collaLoiarive geneiarion
of knowledge among increasingly heterogeneous con-
tributors and the flow of information among diverse
public and private AKST organizational arrangements?
º Hov ro link rle ourµurs íiom maiginalizeu. iain íeu
lands into local, national and global markets?
Multifunctionality
The term multifunctionality has sometimes been interpreted
as having implications for trade and protectionism. This is
not the definition used here. In IAASTD, multifunctionality is
used solely to express the inescapable interconnectedness
of agriculture’s different roles and functions. The concept of
multifunctionality recognizes agriculture as a multi-output
activity producing not only commodities (food, feed, fibers,
agrofuels, medicinal products and ornamentals), but also non-
commodity outputs such as environmental services, land-
scape amenities 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.
01-SR.indd 4 11/3/08 12:07:27 PM
Food security
Food security strategies require a combination of AKST
approaches, including the development of food stock man-
agement, 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 ad-
equate access to water and sanitation, adequate nutrition
and nutritional information) in order to fully achieve food
security.
AKST can increase sustainable agricultural production
by expanding use of local and formal AKST to develop and
deploy suitable cultivars adaptable to site-specific condi-
tions; improving access to resources; improving soil, water
and nutrient management and conservation; pre- and post-
harvest pest management; and increasing small-scale farm
diversification. Policy options for addressing food security
include developing high-value and underutilized crops in
rain 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; 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 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 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, wa-
ter and land use efficiency; improving the understanding of
soil-plant-water dynamics; increasing farm diversification;
least by previous AKST approaches, i.e., resource-poor farm-
ers, 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 eco-
nomic 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 environmen-
tal, health and social impacts of any technology, and to
implement the appropriate regulatory frameworks. AKST
can 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 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 poli-
cies 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 develop-
ment and sustainability goals and the extent to which requi-
site 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 eco-
nomic resources and to remunerative local urban and export
markets; 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 goals
resides 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 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; re-
course 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 me-
dicinal plants, local seed systems and common pool resource
management regimes. Each of these options, when imple-
mented 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.
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 sovereignty is defined as the right of peoples and sover-
eign states to democratically determine their own agricultural
and food policies.
3
3
UK.
01-SR.indd 5 11/3/08 12:07:28 PM
6 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
º Increasing fccJ safetx 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 frame-
works for identification and control of biological and
chemical hazards, and farmer-scientist partnerships for
the identification, monitoring and evaluation of risks.
º Tle burJen cf infecticus Jisease can be decreased by
strengthening coordination between and the capacity of
agricultural, veterinary, and public health systems; inte-
grating 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.
º Tle burJen cf clrcnic Jisease can be decreased by poli-
cies that explicitly recognize the importance of improv-
ing human health and nutrition, including regulation of
food product formulation through legislation, interna-
tional agreements and regulations for food labeling and
health claims, and creation of incentives for the produc-
tion and consumption of health-promoting foods.
º Occupaticnal anJ public lealtl 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 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 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 and
traditional knowledge are seen as part of an integral AKST
system can increase equitable access to technologies for 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 incen-
tives and rewards for multifunctionality, including ecosys-
tem 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 oppor-
tunities, 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 organi-
zations, commercial companies, and public agencies. Stake-
holder 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 (ur-
supporting agroecological systems, and enhancing biodiver-
sity conservation and use at both field and landscape scales;
promoting the sustainable management of livestock, forest
and fisheries; improving understanding of the agroecologi-
cal functioning of mosaics of crop production areas and
natural 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 management
and enhanced environmental quality. Examples include
incentives to promote integrated pest management (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 technolo-
gies 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 tech-
niques for organic and low-input systems; a wide range of
breeding techniques for temperature and pest tolerance; re-
search on the relationship of agricultural ecosystem services
and human well-being; economic and non-economic valua-
tions 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 agricul-
tural sector on fossil fuels.
Human health and nutrition
Inter-linkages between health, nutrition, agriculture, and
AKST affect the ability of individuals, communities, and na-
tions to reach sustainability goals. These inter-linkages exist
within the context of multiple stressors that affect popula-
tion 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 reemerging diseases
sucl as malaiia. avian inluenza. HIV/AIDS anu orleis) anu
chronic diseases, and decrease occupational exposures, in-
juries 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.
Additional investments are needed to maintain and improve
current systems and regulations.
º Increasing fccJ securitx can be facilitated by promot-
ing policies and programs to diversify diets and improve
micronutrient intake; and developing and deploying ex-
isting and new technologies for the production, process-
ing, preservation, and distribution of food.
01-SR.indd 6 11/3/08 12:07:28 PM
Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | 7
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 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 exter-
nalities differ widely, depending on source of biomass, type
of conversion technology and local circumstances.
Primarily due to a lack of affordable alternatives, mil-
lions 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 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 of
energy.
First generation biofuels consist predominantly of bio-
ethanol 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 fa-
vorable circumstances. The diversion of agricultural crops
to fuel can raise food prices and reduce our ability to allevi-
ate 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 en-
vironmental perspective, there is considerable variation, un-
certainty and debate over the net energy balance and level
oí gieenlouse gas (GHG) emissions. In rle long reim. eííecrs
on food prices may be reduced, but environmental effects
caused by land and water requirements of large-scale in-
creases 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 bio-
fuels of more abundant and cheaper feedstocks than first
generation. This could potentially reduce agricultural land
requirements per unit of energy produced and improve life-
cycle GHG emissions. µorenrially mirigaring rle enviion-
menral µiessuies íiom nisr geneiarion Lioíuels. Hovevei.
next generation biofuels technologies are not yet commer-
cially proven and environmental and social effects are still
uncertain. For example, the use of feedstock and farm resi-
dues can compete with the need to maintain organic matter
in sustainable agroecosystems.
Bioelectricity and bioheat are important forms of renew-
able energy that are usually more efficient and produce less
GHG emissions rlan liquiu Lioíuels anu íossil íuels. Digesr-
ers, gasifiers and direct combustion devices can be success-
fully 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
ban 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 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, 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 en-
tail increased funds and more diverse funding mechanisms
for agricultural research and development and associated
knowledge systems, such as:
º Public investments in global, regional, national and
local public goods; food security and safety, climate
change and sustainability. More efficient use of increas-
ingly scarce land, water and biological resources re-
quires investment in research and development of legal
and management capabilities.
º Public investments in agricultural knowledge systems to
promote interactive knowledge networks (farmers, sci-
entists, industry and actors in other knowledge areas);
improved access to information and communication
technologies (ICT); ecological, evolutionary, food, nu-
trition, social and complex systems’ sciences; effective
interdisciplinarity; capacity in core agricultural scienc-
es; and improving life-long learning opportunities along
the food system.
º Public-private partnerships for improved commerciali-
zation of applied knowledge and technologies and joint
funding of AKST, where market risks are high and
where options for widespread utilization of knowledge
exist.
º Adequate incentives and rewards to encourage private
and civil society investments in AKST contributing to
development and sustainability goals.
º 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 in-
tergovernmental, independent science and evidence-based
networks to address such issues as climate forecasting for
agricultural production; human health risks from emerg-
ing 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 development and sustainabil-
ity goals: bioenergy, biotechnology, climate change, human
01-SR.indd 7 11/3/08 12:07:28 PM
8 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
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 propri-
etary materials necessary for the independent research com-
munity 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 research
and development (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 techni-
cal, social, political, cultural, gender, legal, environmental
and economic impacts of modern biotechnology. Biotech-
nologies 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 ag-
riculture 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 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 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 evapo-
transpiration 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 distribu-
tion 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
raigers aie iequiieu ro ieuuce GHG emissions. 1le eailiei
and stronger the cuts in emissions, the quicker concentra-
tions will approach stabilization. Emission reduction mea-
sures clearly are essential because they can have an impact
realistically achievable benefits and other sustainable energy
options.
Biotechnology
34
The IAASTD definition of biotechnology is based on that
in 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 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 natu-
ral 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 re-
productive 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 her-
itable material without changing DNA.
Biotechnology has always been on the cutting edge
of change. Change is rapid, the domains involved are nu-
merous, and there is a significant lack of transparent com-
municarion among acrois. Hence assessmenr oí mouein
biotechnology is lagging behind development; information
can 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 economic
risks and benefits of modern biotechnology; many of these
risks 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 to
33% even in the absence of fertilizer. Modern biotechnolo-
gies 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 contain-
ment, such as the use of genetically modified (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.
Higlei level uiiveis oí Lioreclnology R&D. sucl as IPR
frameworks, determine what products become available.
While this attracts investment in agriculture, it can also con-
centrate ownership of agricultural resources. An emphasis
on modern biotechnology without ensuring adequate sup-
port 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 educa-
tional 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

4
China and USA.
01-SR.indd 8 11/3/08 12:07:29 PM
Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | 9
and growing consumer awareness increase the need for
effective, coordinated, and proactive national food safety
sysrems. Healrl conceins rlar coulu Le auuiesseu Ly AKS1
include the presence of pesticide residues, heavy metals, hor-
mones, 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 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 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, particu-
larly among rural laborers. Other important health hazards
include agrochemical poisoning, transmissible animal dis-
eases, toxic or allergenic agents, and noise, vibration and
ergonomic hazards. Improving occupational health requires
a greater emphasis on health protection through develop-
ment and enforcement of health and safety regulations. Poli-
cies should explicitly address tradeoffs between livelihood
benefits and environmental, occupational and public health
risks.
The incidence and geographic range of many emerging
and reemerging infectious diseases are influenced by the in-
tensification of crop and livestock systems. Serious socioeco-
nomic 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 inten-
sify. 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
4 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.
Hisroiically rle µarl oí gloLal agiiculruial ueveloµmenr las
been narrowly focused on increased productivity rather than
on a more holistic integration of natural resources manage-
ment (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.

5
Capture fisheries and forestry have not been as well covered as
other aspects of NRM.
uue ro ineiria in rle climare sysrem. Hovevei. since íuirlei
changes in the climate are inevitable adaptation is also im-
perative. 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 defor-
estation, agroforestry, agroecological systems, and restora-
tion 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 regu-
lations and investment opportunities include financial incen-
tives 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 de-
forestation 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, nu-
trition, agriculture, and AKST, improving human health is
not generally an explicit goal of agricultural policy. Agricul-
ture 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 appropri-
ate 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 dis-
ease 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 de-
velopment 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 nu-
trient density have been associated with increasing rates of
worldwide 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 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 in-
formation.
Globalization of the food supply, accompanied by con-
centration of food distribution and processing companies,
01-SR.indd 9 11/3/08 12:07:29 PM
10 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
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 coun-
tries are to benefit from agricultural trade. There is growing
concern that opening national agricultural markets to in-
ternational competition before basic institutions and infra-
structure are in place can undermine the agricultural sector,
with long-term negative effects for poverty, food security
and the environment.
56
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 devel-
opment 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-scale farmers in global, regional
and local markets chains is fundamental to meeting devel-
opment and sustainability goals. Supportive trade policies
can also make new AKST available to the small-scale farm
sector and agroenterprises.
Developing countries would benefit from the removal
of barriers for products in which they have a comparative
advantage; reduction of escalating tariffs for processed com-
modities in industrialized and developing countries; deeper
preferential access to markets for least developed countries;
increased public investment in rural infrastructure and the
generation of public goods AKST; and improved access to
credit, AKST resources and markets for poor producers.
Compensating revenues lost as a result of tariff reductions
is essential to advancing development agendas.
6 7
Agriculture generates large environmental externalities,
many of which derive from failure of markets to value envi-
ronmental and social harm and provide incentives for sus-
tainability. AKST has great potential to reverse this trend.
Market and trade policies to facilitate the contribution of
AKST to reducing the environmental footprint of agricul-
ture include removing resource use–distorting subsidies;
taxing externalities; better definitions of property rights;
and developing rewards and markets for agroenvironmen-
tal services, including the extension of carbon financing, to
provide incentives for sustainable agriculture.
The quality and transparency of governance in the
agricultural sector, including increased participation of
stakeholders in AKST decision making is fundamental.
Strengthening developing country trade analysis and ne-
gotiation capacity, and providing better tools for assessing
tradeoffs in proposed trade agreements are important to im-
proving governance.
Traditional and local knowledge and community-
based innovation
Once AKST is directed simultaneously toward production,
profitability, ecosystem services and food systems that are
site-specific and evolving, then formal, traditional and lo-
6
USA.
7
Canada and USA.
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 sel-
dom been involved in shaping NRM 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:
º 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 bet-
ter 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.
º 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.
º 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.
º Create an enabling environment for building NRM ca-
pacity and increasing understanding of NRM among
stakeholders and their organizations in order to shape
NRM policy in partnership with public and private sec-
tors.
º Develop networks of AKST practitioners (farmer or-
ganizations, NGOs, government, private sector) to fa-
cilitate long-term natural resource management to en-
hance benefits from natural resources for the collective
good.
º Connect globalization and localization pathways that
link locally generated NRM knowledge and innova-
tions 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, biodiver-
sity, 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 sustain-
ability, 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
01-SR.indd 10 11/3/08 12:07:30 PM
Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | 11
ment is increasing in many developing countries, particularly
with 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 brought
benefits, in general, the largest proportion of rural women
worldwide continues to face deteriorating health and work
conditions, limited access to education and control over nat-
ural resources, insecure employment and low income. This
situation is due to a variety of factors, including the growing
competition on agricultural markets which increases the de-
mand for flexible and cheap labor, growing pressure on and
conflicts over natural resources, the diminishing support by
governments for small-scale farms and the reallocation of
economic resources in favor of large agroenterprises. Other
factors include increasing exposure to risks related to natu-
ral disasters and environmental changes, worsening access
to water, increasing occupational and health risks.
Despite progress made in national and international
policies 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 to
better address gender issues as integral to development pro-
cesses. Such action includes strengthening the capacity of
public institutions and NGOs to improve the knowledge
of women’s changing forms of involvement in farm and
other rural activities in AKST. It also requires giving pri-
ority to women’s access to education, information, science
and technology, and extension services to enable improving
women’s access, ownership and control of economic and
natural resources. To ensure such access, ownership and
control legal measures, appropriate credit schemes, support
for women’s income generating activities and the reinforce-
ment of women’s organizations and networks are needed.
This, in turn, depends on strengthening women’s ability to
benefit from market-based opportunities by institutions and
policies giving explicit priority to women farmer groups in
value chains.
A number of other changes will strengthen women’s
contributions to agricultural production and sustainability.
These include support for public services and investment in
rural areas in order to improve women’s living and work-
ing conditions; giving priority to technological development
policies targeting rural and farm women’s needs and rec-
ognizing their knowledge, skills and experience in the pro-
duction of food and the conservation of biodiversity; and
assessing the negative effects and risks of farming practices
and technology, including pesticides on women’s 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 in
AKST decision-making at all levels and provide mechanisms
to hold AKST organizations accountable for progress in the
above areas.
cal knowledge need to be integrated. Traditional and local
knowledge constitutes an extensive realm of accumulated
practical knowledge and knowledge-generating capacity that
is needed if sustainability and development goals are to be
reached. The traditional knowledge, identities and practices
of indigenous and local communities are recognized under
the UN Convention on Biological Diversity as embodying
ways of life relevant for conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity; and by others as generated by the purposeful
interaction of material and non-material worlds embedded
in place-based cultures and identities. Local knowledge re-
fers to capacities and activities that exist among rural people
in all parts of the world.
Traditional and local knowledge is dynamic; it may
sometimes fail but also has had well-documented, exten-
sive, positive impacts. Participatory collaboration in knowl-
edge generation, technology development and innovation
has been shown to add value to science-based technology
development, for instance in Farmer-Researcher groups in
the Andes, in Participatory Plant Breeding, the domestica-
tion of wild and semiwild 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 and
traditional biological materials; incentives for and develop-
ment of capacity among scientists and formal research or-
ganizations to work with local and indigenous people and
their organizations; a higher profile in scientific education
for indigenous and local knowledge as well as for profes-
sional and community-based archiving and assessment of
such knowledge and practices. The role of modern ICT in
achieving effective collaboration is critical to evolving cul-
turally appropriate integration and merits larger investments
and support. Effective collaboration and integration would
be supported by international intellectual property and
other regimes that allow more scope for dealing effectively
with situations involving traditional knowledge, genetic
resources and community-based innovations. Examples of
misappropriation of indigenous and local people’s knowl-
edge and community-based innovations indicate a need for
sharing of information about existing national sui generis
and regulatory frameworks.
Women in agriculture
Gender, that is socially constructed relations between men
and women, is an organizing element of existing farming
systems worldwide and a determining factor of ongoing ag-
ricultural restructuring. Current trends in agricultural mar-
ket liberalization and in the reorganization of farm work, as
well as the rise of environmental and sustainability concerns
are redefining the links between gender and development.
The proportion of women in agricultural production and
postharvest activities ranges from 20 to 70%; their involve-
01-SR.indd 11 11/3/08 12:07:30 PM
12
Annex
Reservations on Executive Summary
As we have specific and substantive concerns in each of
the 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 potential
for stimulating further deliberation and research. Further,
we acknowledge the reports are a useful contribution for
consideration by governments of the role of AKST in rais-
ing sustainable economic growth and alleviating hunger and
poverty.
Reservations on individual passages
1. 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 and
progressive engagement in IPR management.”
3. The UK notes that there is no international definition of
food sovereignty.
4. China and USA do not believe that this entire section is
balanced and comprehensive.
6. The USA would prefer that this sentence be reflected
in this paragraph: “Opening national agricultural mar-
kets to international competition can offer economic
benefits, but can lead to long-term negative effects on
poverty alleviation, food security and the environment
without basic national institutions and infrastructure
being in place.”
7. Canada and USA would prefer the following sentence:
“Provision of assistance to help low income countries
affected by liberalization to adjust and benefit from
liberalized trade is essential to advancing development
agendas.”
Reservations on full Executive Summary
Australia: Australia recognizes the IAASTD initiative and
reports as a timely and important multistakeholder and mul-
tidisciplinary exercise designed to assess and enhance the
role 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 assertions
and options in the report. The report is therefore noted as
a useful contribution which will be used for considering the
future priorities and scope of AKST in securing economic
growth and the alleviation of hunger and poverty.
Canada: The Canadian Government recognizes the sig-
nificant work undertaken by IAASTD authors, Secretariat
and stakeholders and notes the Executive Summary of the
Synthesis Report as a valuable and important contribution
to policy debate which needs to continue in national and
international processes. While acknowledging considerable
improvement has been achieved through a process of com-
promise, there remain a number of assertions and observa-
tions that require more substantial, balanced and objective
analysis. Hovevei. rle Canauian Goveinmenr auvocares ir
be drawn to the attention of governments for consideration
in addressing the importance of AKST and its large poten-
tial to contribute to economic growth and the reduction of
hunger and poverty.
United States of America: The United States joins con-
sensus with other governments in the critical importance of
AKST to meet the goals of the IAASTD. We commend the
tireless efforts of the authors, editors, Co-Chairs and the
Secretariat. We welcome the IAASTD for bringing together
the widest array of stakeholders for the first time in an ini-
tiative of this magnitude. We respect the wide diversity of
views and healthy debate that took place.
01-SR.indd 12 11/3/08 12:07:30 PM
13
Synthesis Report
A Synthesis of the Global and Sub-Global IAASTD Reports
01-SR.indd 13 11/3/08 12:07:30 PM
01-SR.indd 14 11/3/08 12:07:31 PM
15
All countries present at the final intergovernmental plenary
session held in Johannesburg, South Africa in April 2008
welcome the work of the IAASTD and the uniqueness of
this independent multistakeholder and multidisciplinary
process, and the scale of the challenge of covering a broad
range 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 overall
consensus on the importance of agricultural knowledge, sci-
ence and technology for development they also provide a
diversity of views on some issues.
All countries see these Reports as a valuable and im-
portant contribution to our understanding on agricultural
knowledge, science and technology for development recog-
nizing the need to further deepen our understanding of the
challenges ahead. This Assessment is a constructive initia-
tive and important contribution that all governments need
to 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 and
poverty, the improvement of rural livelihoods and human
health, and facilitating equitable, socially, environmentally
and economically sustainable development.
Statement by Governments on Synthesis Report
In accordance with the above statement, the following
governments accept the Synthesis Report.
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize,
Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, People’s Re-
public 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, Repub-
lic 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 accept the Synthesis Report and
their reservations are entered in Annex A.
Australia, Canada, United States of America (3
countries).
01-SR.indd 15 11/3/08 12:07:31 PM
01-SR.indd 16 11/3/08 12:07:31 PM
17
Part II: Current Conditions, Challenges and Options for Action
changing dietary patterns and the increased interest in
biofuels.
º The end of cheap oil and the need to factor energy ef-
ficiency and dependence on tractors, fertilizer, pumped
water and transport into food security strategies.
º The emergence of fast-growing economies as additional
competitors for resources in the wake of their phenom-
enal economic growth.
º The increase in chronic ailments, including obesity in
poor and rich countries, that increase rates of morbidity
and mortality and are partially a consequence of poor
nutrition and poor food quality.
º Projected changes in the frequency and severity of ex-
treme weather events in addition to increases in fire haz-
ards, pests and diseases will have significant implica-
tions for agricultural production and food security, e.g.,
for the location of food production, concentrations of
human settlements, and water availability.
º The growing awareness of human responsibility for the
maintenance of global ecosystem services, and of the
changes in global, national and local governance mech-
anisms required to meet the responsibilities associated
with sustainable growth.
We cannot escape our predicament by simply continuing to
apply methodological individualism, i.e., by relying on the
outcome of individual choices to achieve sustainable and
equitable collective outcomes. The IAASTD takes a unique
integrated approach to these urgent global problems: the de-
velopment and deployment of human ingenuity to enhance
agriculture, which is defined most broadly to include man-
aging ecological processes in ways that capture and sustain
human opportunity. We refer to this as agricultural knowl-
edge, science and technology (AKST). AKST explicitly refers
not only to technology but also to the economic and social
science knowledge that informs decisions about policies and
institutional change required for reaching IAASTD goals.
Further, AKST not only refers to “formal” science processes,
but also very much to the local and traditional knowledges
that still inform most farming today.
IAASTD recognizes that multiple perspectives exist on
the nature and role of AKST. For many years, agricultural
science focused on delivering component technologies to
increase farm-level productivity where the market and insti-
tutional arrangements put in place by the state were the pri-
mary drivers of the adoption of new technologies. In order
to benefit from productivity gains farmers had to continu-
ally innovate, reduce farm gate prices and externalize costs.
Writing team: Inge Armbrecht (Colombia), Nienke Beintema
(Netherlands), Rym Ben Zid (Tunisia), Fabrice Dreyfus (France),
Slelley Ieluman (USA). Ameenal GuiiL-Iakim (Nauiirius). Hans
Huini (Svirzeilanu). |anice |iggins (UK). Kavrlei Lariii (1unisia).
Marianne Lefort (France), Lindela Ndlovu (Zimbabwe), Ivette
Perfecto (Puerto Rico), Cristina Plencovich (Argentina), Rajeswari
Raina (India), Niels Roling (Netherlands), Elizabeth Robinson
(UK). Þeils Roling (Þerleilanus). Hong Yang (Ausrialia)
This assessment of the ways in which knowledge, science and
technology contribute to development goals offers a chance
to reflect on how people engage their environment to secure
healthy lives and livelihoods. Growing concerns with the
effects of long-term climatic and ecological changes, which
require global as well as national and local responses, make
the IAASTD especially opportune. We are, in short, in need
of a shared approach to sustainability. This realization is
at the heart of the objectives of the IAASTD: how can we
reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods and
facilitate equitable environmentally, socially and economi-
cally sustainable development.
This opportunity for stocktaking coincides with the
widespread realization that despite significant achievements
in our ability to increase agricultural productive capacity to
meet growing demand, we have been less attentive to some
of the unintended social and ecological consequences of our
technological and economic achievements. We are now in a
better position to reflect on these costs and to outline policy
options to meet the challenges ahead of us, perhaps best
characterized as the need for food security under increas-
ingly constrained environmental conditions and globalized
economic systems. The IAASTD recognizes the importance
of the multiple functions of agriculture and their intersection
with other global concerns, including loss of biodiversity
and ecosystem services, climate change and water scarcity.
Some of the findings from recent assessments conducted by
the international community that coincide with those of the
IAASTD include:
º Recognition that current social and economic inequi-
ties, across and within regions and states, are a signifi-
cant barrier to achieving development goals.
º Uncertainty about the ability to sustainably produce
sufficient food for a continually expanding and demo-
graphically changing population where new demands
for food and ecosystem services challenge current pro-
duction systems.
º Uncertainty about the future of world food prices under
the impact of climate change, emerging trade regimes,
01-SR.indd 17 11/3/08 12:07:31 PM
18 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
A conception of AKST that includes regulatory frame-
works, institutional arrangements, market relations and
knowledge in a global economy is reflected in this report.
This approach appreciates diverse interests and concerns
across a range of agricultural production systems and ag-
ricultural producers, including conventional or productiv-
ist strategies, agroecological approaches, and indigenous or
traditional peasant practices. The IAASTD thus uses the lens
of multifunctionality to assess the contribution of AKST to
development and sustainability.
In this Report we highlight options drawn from a com-
parative analysis of the Global and Sub-Global reports
(CWANA, ESAP, LAC, NAE and SSA) into two thematic
areas: (1) current conditions and major challenges, and (2)
options for action.
1. Current Conditions and Challenges
Agriculture and the knowledge systems that are relevant
to the sector now face an impasse. There are tremendous
achievements in science and production, yet some of the un-
intended consequences of these very achievements have not
been sufficiently addressed. To address these consequences
it is important to account for the prevalent inequalities that
characterize relations between regions and countries as well
as within them. We, as global citizens have little time to lose.
Today we find a world of asymmetric development, un-
sustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and
urban poverty. There is general agreement about the cur-
rent global environmental and development crisis. It is also
known that the consequences of these global changes have
the most devastating impacts on the poorest, who histori-
cally have had limited entitlements and opportunities for
growth.
AKST and agricultural change. Agricultural productivity
and production have increased steadily in response to sev-
eral drivers of change, including the generation and applica-
tion of AKST. While in North America and Europe (NAE)
this phenomenon has been ongoing since the 1940s, in other
regions of the world such growth only began in the 1960s,
70s or 80s. In some parts of developing countries formal
AKST is yet to make its presence felt as a major driver of
agrarian change. The pace of technology generation and
adoption has been highly uneven. One region, the NAE,
continues to dominate in the volume and variety of agricul-
tural exports, extended value chains and the generation of
agricultural technologies (high-yielding varieties, synthetic
fertilizers, pesticides and mechanization technologies) as
well as recent advances in organic and sustainable produc-
tion which have helped shape the policies and organizations
of AKST in the other regions. While globally, there is an
urgent need to revitalize and strengthen AKST, the critical
regional differences in agroecosystems, access to formal
S&T and diverse impacts on people and ecosystems, pose
a challenge to the continuing dominance of a uniform type
of formal AKST. The current global system pits small-scale,
largely subsistence farmers in rainfed agricultures against
farmers who during the past century have been assisted to
increasingly capture economies of scale by specialization
and externalizing social and environmental costs.
This model drove the phenomenal achievements of AKST in
industrial countries after World War II and the extension of
the Green Revolution beginning in the 1960s. But, given the
new challenges we confront today, there is increasing rec-
ognition within formal S&T organizations that the current
AKST model, too, requires adaptation and revision. Busi-
ness as usual is not an option.
One area of potential adaptation is to move from an
exclusive focus on public and private research as the site for
R&D toward the democratization of knowledge production.
Such an approach requires multiagent involvement to make
accessible and available for exchange the skills of local pro-
ducers. Another area of AKST innovation must lie with more
explicit attention to issues that attend to the use of AKST,
namely addressing the complex role of institutions, gover-
nance practices and social justice concerns that enable or
constrain the realization of development and sustainability.
Multifunctionality
The term multifunctionality has sometimes been interpreted
as having implications for trade and protectionism. This is not
the definition used here. In IAASTD, multifunctionality is used
solely to express the inescapable interconnectedness of ag-
riculture’s 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.
01-SR.indd 18 11/3/08 12:07:31 PM
Current Conditions, Challenges and Options for Action | 19
Figure SR-P1. A multifunctional perspective of agriculture.
01-SR.indd 19 11/3/08 12:07:32 PM
F
i
g
u
r
e

S
R
-
P
2
.

5
0

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

c
l
i
m
a
t
e

r
e
f
u
g
e
e
s

b
y

2
0
1
0
01-SR.indd 20 11/3/08 12:08:04 PM
Current Conditions, Challenges and Options for Action | 21
Even in the well-off countries of NAE where significant
knowledge exists about appropriate responses to emerging
challenges, actions to address mitigation and adaptation to
global climate change have thus far been minimal.
Regional Differences and Achievement of
Development and Sustainability Goals
Just as current conditions of agricultural production, en-
vironmental degradation, inequality, and availability and
access to advanced technologies vary from one region to
another, so do the challenges and perception of relative im-
portance of development and sustainability goals. At the
global, regional and national levels, decision makers must
be acutely conscious of the fact that there are diverse chal-
lenges, multiple theoretical frameworks and development
models and a wide range of options. Our perception of the
challenges and the choices we make at this juncture in his-
tory will determine the future of human beings and their
environment.
The commitment to address poverty and livelihoods re-
flects the critical role of agriculture and rural employment
opportunities in developing countries where 30-60% of all
livelihoods arise from agricultural and allied activities. In
NAE, where food insecurity and hunger are no longer major
problems, attention has shifted to the question of relative
poverty and rapidly declining and changing livelihoods.
Reducing hunger is an important goal in all developing
regions: CWANA, ESAP, LAC and SSA. Of the 854 million
malnourished people in 2001 to 2003, only 9 million were
in the developed world; ESAP accounted for 61% of the
total. In ESAP, however, this represents only 15% of the to-
tal regional population while the 206 million malnourished
SSA inhabitants represent 32% of the region’s population.
The substantial number of hungry and malnourished people
in NAE indicates that more production does not necessarily
equate with hunger reduction.
Improving human health and nutrition is critical for all
regions. AKST can affect health via food safety and security,
chronic and infectious diseases, and occupational health. Mal-
nutrition is a major cause of ill health and reduced productivity,
particularly in SSA and CWANA. Food safety is an impor-
tant health issue in all regions. Inappropriate application of
AKST contributes to the increase in overweight, obesity, and
chronic diseases that is being experienced in all countries.
The burden of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases
remains high in SSA, CWANA, and ESAP. The relative bur-
den of occupational health burdens is lowest in NAE.
Environmental goals are important globally despite pres-
sure on the environment due to relatively high industrializa-
tion, urbanization and productivity enhancing agricultural
practices in NAE, and pressures to enhance productivity
even at the cost of environmental goods and services in
SSA. This is consistent with the relative contribution of ag-
riculture to natural resource degradation, as well as to the
relative importance of agriculture in the overall economy in
each region, as is evident in their respective IAASTD Sum-
maries for Decision Makers.
Equity is important across all regions. This goal draws
attention to the current conditions of iniquitous distribution
and access to resources and to overall income inequality,
which is most extreme in LAC. Regional analyses (ESAP,
Economic importance, poverty and livelihood expectations.
Despite steady growth over the past few decades, the contri-
bution of agriculture to national GDP has been steadily de-
clining in all the regions. The proportion of the population
dependent on the sector ranges from 3% in NAE to over
60% in ESAP and SSA. Across diverse geopolitical contexts
and ecosystems, agriculture continues to play important
economic and social roles and currently engages 2.6 billion
people. The majority of the world’s poor and hungry live
in rural settings and are directly or indirectly dependent on
agriculture for their livelihoods.
While the transition from predominantly agrarian econ-
omies to industrial or service sector led economies has oc-
curred the world over, the character and rate of industrial
growth has been highly differentiated with rural populations
surviving on a steadily dwindling share of the economic pie.
In addition, agriculture has been subject to worsening terms
of trade, globally as well as nationally. The burden of pov-
erty in the sector is incommensurate with the magnitude and
range of expectations from agriculture.
AKST and the agricultural and food systems can make
a significant contribution to alleviating poverty for the over
1.2 billion people who live on less than $1 per day and pro-
vide adequate and nutritious food for the over 800 million
undernourished people. Despite a global reduction in abso-
lute poverty, the proportion of the population that is still
poor (below poverty line) continues to grow. The need to
retool AKST to reduce poverty and provide improved live-
lihood options for the rural poor—especially landless and
peasant communities, urban informal and migrant workers,
is a major challenge today. The macro-level challenge is to
equip agriculture with the capacity to address the burden of
poverty through intra- and inter-sectoral development poli-
cies.
Development models and the environment. The drivers
of ecological change can best be understood as the con-
sequences of development models pursued over the 20
th

century. Broadly conceived, the regional imbalance of eco-
nomic growth, its contribution to the ecological crisis and
its effects are differentially experienced in countries of the
North and the South. There are multiple causal interlinkag-
es between environmental degradation and poverty, which
are exacerbated by the uneven distribution of and access
to resources (natural resources, capital, information, etc.)
between regions and within countries. For instance, small
island nations and the coastal populations of developing
countries, which contribute the least to global warming,
will be among the first to disappear, yet have very limited if
any capacity or resources to respond to such crises.
Across the regions, the poorest, including a dispropor-
tionate number of women and children are among the most
vulnerable to emerging natural and human-induced envi-
ronmental disasters. Thus the empowerment of women as
repositories of knowledge about local ecosystems, and as
significant constituents of the agricultural labor force (62,
66 and 69% in East Asia, SSA and South Asia, respectively)
is fundamental to development and to adapting to a chang-
ing environment. Parts of CWANA and SSA (e.g., Lesotho,
Yemen) srill lave legislarion rlar uenies vomen lanu iiglrs
and market citizenship.
01-SR.indd 21 11/3/08 12:08:04 PM
22 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
the non-farm labor market is constrained by high unem-
ployment, especially for the relatively large unskilled young
population in search of work. While organic and ecological
agriculture as practiced in parts of ESAP and LAC can pro-
vide more employment, the absolute unemployment figures,
especially in ESAP, are massive. In SSA and ESAP as well
as labor surplus countries in other regions, it is crucial to
explore how agricultural and rural production processes can
be better linked with industrial and service sector growth.
AKST in its current form, whether as formal S&T organiza-
tions or local and traditional knowledge specific to agro-
ecosystems, is limited in its capacity to inform change in
the institutions that frame human interaction, equitable and
just governance and vibrant links with other sectors of the
economy.
Market conditions, trends and challenges
Agricultural commodities the world over are currently fac-
ing a secular decline in prices accompanied by wide fluctua-
tions. IAASTD projections of the global food system indicate
a tightening of world food markets, with increasing market
concentration in a few hands and rapid growth of global re-
tail chains in all developing countries, natural and physical
resource scarcity, and adverse implications for food security.
Real world prices of most cereals and meats are projected
to increase in the coming decades, dramatically reversing
past trends. Millions of small-scale producers and landless
labor in developing countries and underdeveloped markets,
already weakened by changes in global and regional trade,
with poor market infrastructure, inadequate bargaining ca-
pacity and lack of skills to comply with new market de-
mands, will face reduced access to food and livelihoods.
The food security challenge is likely to worsen if markets
and market-driven agricultural production systems continue
to grow in a “business as usual” mode. By 2050, the world
will have 80 million severely malnourished children, con-
centrated mainly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. In-
dustrialized country agricultural subsidies and advantages in
agricultural added value per worker close off options for the
export of agricultural commodities from sub-Saharan Af-
rica and distort their domestic markets, thereby suppressing
producer incentives to adopt new technologies and enhance
crop productivity. In CWANA and ESAP, trade barriers (in-
cluding IPR, quality standards), market distorting domestic
policies and international protocols or restrictions add to
the complexity of future food security. The food security
challenge is likely to worsen current conflicts, cross border
tensions, and environmental security concerns.
In CWANA, ESAP, LAC, and SSA, a number of mecha-
nisms to protect producers from price fluctuations and en-
able access to and compliance with new market practices or
trade requirements (like sanitary and phytosanitary [SPS]
measures), include market-based instruments such as futures
trading, which small-scale producers find difficult to access.
Market based instruments also include commodity boards
and price regulation which large buyers find too limiting
to meet their needs [See Part II: Trade and Markets]. The
emergence of regional and preferential trade agreements
and trading blocks among developing countries reveals an
increasing mistrust of, and untenable nature of global trade
regimes, given the perception of an unequal playing field.
LAC and SSA) indicate that the unequal distribution of
resources is a major constraint that shapes development
needs and impedes the achievement of all other development
and sustainability goals.
Farming systems
Agriculture is currently constrained in its capacity to re-
spond to poverty and generate a range of livelihood options
in rural areas. Farming systems are very diverse and range
between large scale capital intensive farming systems to
small-scale labor intensive farming systems. Over the 20
th

century there was increasing farming system specialization
in NAE, largely due to the implementation of policies and
measures aimed at expanding agricultural production (land
reclamation, subsidies, price systems, border tariffs). A high
proportion of farmers in CWANA, ESAP, LAC and SSA are
small-scale producers whose livelihood strategies include
poly-cropping, tree products and livestock as well as off-
farm activities. In developing countries generally, limited ru-
ral and urban employment opportunities and the continuing
dependence of cultivators on economically unviable small-
scale holdings (increasing input prices; relatively stagnant
agricultural output prices; cheap, subsidized imports; and
limited surplus) have diminished the viability of subsistence
production alone.
In addition, modern biological, chemical and mechani-
cal technologies, in particular, are designed for farms and
farming systems which have attendant entitlements and con-
ditions that enable the production of tradable and vertically
integrated commodities in value chains. Where the govern-
ment and some private and civil society organizations have
enabled appropriate scale effects as well as technical and
financial support, small-scale farmers also have intensified
their production systems and benefited from increasing mar-
ket integration. Though the productivity per unit of land
and per unit of energy use is much higher in these small and
diversified farms than the large intensive farming systems
in irrigated areas, they continue to be neglected by formal
AKST. [See Part II: Bioenergy and Climate Change]
In the semiarid CWANA where water scarcity is preva-
lent, current conditions favor large-scale monocropping sys-
tems that rely on high investment (in water supply, machinery
and agrochemicals) and cause environmental degradation,
although positive solutions can emerge through AKST and
incentives for enhancing incomes in the small-scale farm sec-
tor. The challenge for AKST is to address these small-scale
farms in diverse ecosystems and to create realistic opportu-
nities for their development; the potential for improved area
productivity is decreasing, except for low-input and labor-
oriented agriculture in a few regions of the world.
There is a significant correlation between capital stock
in agriculture and value added per worker—for example
in CWANA, countries with capital intensive agriculture
are associated with high value added per worker. In many
developing countries, especially in SSA and the least devel-
oped countries in ESAP, the low capitalization of agriculture
translates into low value added per worker, thus worsen-
ing the vicious cycle of agrarian and rural poverty. These
conditions are often coupled with declining employment
opportunities in agriculture that require rural laborers to
secure alternative non-farm employment. Unfortunately,
01-SR.indd 22 11/3/08 12:08:05 PM
Current Conditions, Challenges and Options for Action | 23
commodity production and not on optimizing the outcomes
from dynamically evolving multifunctional systems involv-
ing biophysical and socioeconomic components. A chal-
lenge that AKST needs to overcome is the lack of research in
geographical, social, ecological, anthropological and other
evolutionary sciences as applied to diverse agricultural eco-
systems. These are necessary to devise, improve and create
management options and contribute to multifunctionality
and may help in improving the sustainability of these re-
sources and their effective use in production systems.
The social and cultural implications of livelihood op-
tions and of poverty, nutrition, and ecosystem conservation,
whether of highly productive mixed crop-livestock systems
in the wetlands or of low productivity crop-fodder-fiber
and small ruminants systems in the arid areas in SSA, dif-
fer from the sociocultural implications of livelihoods and
incomes from commercial production in France and Cali-
fornia. Similarly, current subsidies, tariffs and investments
to agriculture in countries like India, China and Japan in
ESAP, and Tunisia and Syria in CWANA, imply different
conditions, interests and capacities to address the tradeoff
between the production and environmental functions of ag-
riculture. As learned from the much contested sugar and
cotton production and trade disputes, relative economic
and environmental vulnerability, differential state support,
agribusiness systems and market regulations determine the
interconnectedness of the economic, social and environmen-
tal functions of agriculture. There is increasing recognition
of the multiple roles and functions of agriculture, which can
address environmental sustainability, poverty reduction and
help achieve the elimination of hunger and malnutrition.
The main challenges posed by multifunctional agricultural
systems for AKST are:
º Hov uo ve suµµoir rle necessaiy riaueoíís among in-
creasing the productivity of food and animal feed to
meet changing food habits, and enabling fiber and fuel
Hovevei. oveiall. given rle comµlex socioeconomic con-
texts, geopolitical and ecological processes in the agricul-
tural and allied sectors, markets tempered with appropriate
state support and regulation can be effective instruments to
address poverty, livelihood needs and income, as well as en-
vironmental services and responsibilities of agriculture.
Multifunctional agricultural systems
By definition, the principle of multifunctionality in agricul-
ture refers to agriculture that provides food products for
consumers, livelihoods and incomes for producers and a
range of public and private goods and services for citizens
and the environment, including ecosystem functions. Exist-
ing specialization in the global agrifood system, coupled
with government investments and policies in production
and trade has led to a view of agriculture as an exclusively
economic activity, measured in commodity-based, monetary
terms. In the specialized production systems of NAE and
parts of ESAP, CWANA and LAC, the focus on the multiple
roles and functions of agriculture is drawing policy atten-
tion largely in response to the scope of possible investments
in indirect support mechanisms, production and trade. In
the relatively less endowed and more diverse farming sys-
tems of the world, especially in SSA and large parts of LAC,
ESAP, and CWANA, the multiple functions of agriculture
are being addressed as an important way to reduce the loss
of biodiversity, encourage ecofriendly production systems
and local and traditional knowledge, improve nutrition and
gender relationships in agriculture through diverse produc-
tion and processing systems and maintain a suite of liveli-
hood options in rural areas.
These region-specific agricultural systems have the po-
tential to be either highly vulnerable or sustainable, due to
the inescapable interconnectedness and tradeoffs between
the different roles and functions of agriculture. Formal
AKST has typically focused on increased specialization of
Figuie SPP*. Toµ +o GloLal food ielaileis.
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Ito-Yokado (Japan)
Safeway (USA)
Albertson’s (USA)
Costco (USA)
Tesco (UK)
Metro AG (Germany)
Kroger (USA)
Royal Ahold (Netherlands)
Carrefour (France)
Wal-Mart (USA)
Top 10 global food retailers
Source: ETC group – Communiqué, September/October 2005; Issue #90 IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
2002 sales (millions US$)
Figure SR-P3. Top 10 Global food retailers.
01-SR.indd 23 11/3/08 12:08:05 PM
24 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
made to address the causal factors (such as lack of assured
property rights and tenure laws, absence of incentives for
conservation, and subsidies to address resource constraints)
that support resource exploitative production. Environmen-
tal technologies such as integrated pest management, agro-
forestry, low-input agriculture, conservation tillage, pest
resistant GM crops, and climate change adaptations, have
often faced a policy gridlock with formal AKST, civil society,
the state, private industry and media taking highly polarized
positions. Now as biofuels and plantation agriculture add to
the competition for limited natural resources, the tradeoffs
between production and environmental benefits must be
increasingly scrutinized. The challenge is to maintain and
enhance environmental quality for increased agricultural
production and other goods and services.
Social equity
Worsening income inequality is a serious concern and poses
a significant challenge for agricultural and food systems and
AKST in all the five regions. The uneven distribution of pro-
ductive natural resources coupled with the lack of access
to resources and fair markets for small-scale producers and
women in agriculture, results in extreme inequality and in-
creasing poverty. While peasants and women cultivators are
uncommon in NAE, millions of poor people and women
in much of CWANA, ESAP, LAC, and SSA contend with
unequal production and market relationships on a daily ba-
sis. Current inequality is exacerbated by the fact that NAE
dominates agricultural and rural development resources as
well as formal knowledge generation in AKST. For example,
businesses within NAE have a powerful impact on global
consumer demand; they obtain and profit, directly or indi-
rectly, from commodities, landraces and other valuable ge-
netic resources (stored ex situ in other countries), beneficial
organisms for biocontrol programs, immigrant labor and
have legal and institutional capacities such as intellectual
property rights, standards and market regulations, which
many countries in the developing regions lack.
Landless agricultural labor is at the receiving end of
inequitable distribution of productive resources, produc-
tion practices and technologies. There is increasing rural to
urban male migration in search of employment in all de-
veloping countries. Social security nets and the provision
of non-farm rural or urban employment opportunities are
being attempted by countries along with proactive local em-
ployment and income generation programs spearheaded by
rle CSOs. Hovevei. rlese µiogiams iemain limireu in Lorl
scale and scope.
All five regions are acutely conscious of increasing indi-
gence and social exclusion of several indigenous and tribal
peoples. Many of these communities are repositories of
traditional knowledge and fast depleting, but highly valu-
able knowledge about local ecosystems and processes of
change and management. Much of this knowledge is out-
side the purview of modern AKST and is increasingly sub-
ject to pressure from commercial crop, livestock, fisheries or
forest-based production [See Part II: Traditional and Local
Knowledge]. Within formal AKST systems, little has been
done to acknowledge or address the livelihoods concerns,
technological and development needs of women, labor and
indigenous peoples. Instead, over the past several decades,
wood production, while satisfying increasing current
and emerging energy demands, as well as environmen-
tal and cultural services by agroecosystems?
º Hov uo ve µiacrically µioviue clean varei. mainrain
biodiversity, sustain the natural resource base and de-
crease the adverse impacts of agricultural activities on
people and the environment?
º Hov uo ve imµiove social velíaie anu µeisonal liveli-
hoods in the agricultural sector, and enhance these eco-
nomic benefits for the other sectors?
º Hov uo ve emµovei maiginalizeu srakelolueis ro sus-
tain the diversity of agriculture and food systems, in-
cluding their cultural dimensions?
º Anu lov uo ve inciease µiouucriviry unuei maiginal-
ized, rainfed lands and incorporate them into local, na-
tional and global markets?
Resource use and degradation
Changes in land use have been without exception significant
in all the regions. While more land has been brought under
the plough in SSA over the past two decades than during any
period of human history on the sub-continent, the intensi-
fication of production without the expansion of land under
cultivation has been significant in NAE, ESAP and LAC. In
much of CWANA, such expansion is constrained by access
to water. Agriculture has contributed to land degradation
in all the regions; in some regions with input intensive pro-
duction systems (ESAP, LAC and NAE) the relative share
of agriculture-induced degradation is higher than in other
regions. On average 35% of severely degraded land world-
wide is due to agricultural activities.
Poorly defined and enforced property rights over com-
mon pool resources (SSA), lack of property rights for women
(CWANA, ESAP, LAC, SSA), and caste and other social hier-
archies that limit access to resources (ESAP, LAC, SSA) have
contributed natural resource degradation. Overall popula-
tion growth, increasing pressure to generate income from
natural resources (using increasingly expensive inputs), and
technological solutions that are blanket recommendations
irrespective of regional variations in resource quality, have
intensified production and extraction processes of crop/com-
modity production, livestock, fisheries and forestry. As a re-
sult, pockets of high-input agriculture in CWANA, ESAP and
LAC as well as the NAE region contribute to the degradation
of soil and water systems and pollution that add to global
warming. These conditions confront limited state capacities
to cope with the effects of climate change in the developing
countries [See Part 2: NRM and Climate Change].
The complex nexus between degradation of natural re-
sources and rural poverty is acknowledged in the drylands of
SSA, South Asia and CWANA, mountain ecosystems of LAC
and coastal ecosystems in all the regions. Despite evidence of
several resource conserving technologies and resource shar-
ing and improving social contracts or institutional arrange-
ments, little effort has been made within mainstream formal
AKST to learn from and apply these lessons to other agro-
ecological systems and societies. Moreover, while declining
water availability and quality, the loss of biodiversity, farmer
access to seeds and local plant and animal genetic resources,
and local capacities to mitigate and adapt to climate change
are discussed in the regions, little effort has thus far been
01-SR.indd 24 11/3/08 12:08:06 PM
Current Conditions, Challenges and Options for Action | 25
regions on the high rates of return per unit of investment in
agricultural R&D, especially in crops and in farming sys-
tems that have been the focus of the AKST apparatus. Some
of the conditioning factors for high rates of return lie out-
side agriculture and AKST in complementary investments
such as rural infrastructure or microcredit units that reduce
market transaction costs or provide appropriate institutions
or norms. A rate of return analysis is insufficient for captur-
ing returns to investment that meet development and sus-
tainability goals; other economic and social science methods
are needed for this task.
Declining investments in formal AKST by international
donors and a number of national governments is causing
concern among the developed and developing countries.
Public investments in agricultural R&D continue to grow
although rates have declined during the 1990s. In many
industrialized countries investment has stalled or declined,
while in ESAP countries investments have grown relative to
other regions (annual growth rate of 3.9% in the 1990s).
As a result, ESAP accounts for an increasing share of global
public R&D investment, from 20% in 1981 to 33% in
2000. In contrast to the 1980s, the annual growth rate of
total spending in SSA decreased in the 1990s from 1.3 to
0.8%. A disturbing trend in 26 SSA countries for which time
series data are available is that the public sector spent less
on agricultural R&D in 2000 than a decade earlier. Globally
public sector R&D is becoming increasingly concentrated in
a handful of countries. Among the rich countries, just two,
the USA and Japan, accounted for 54% of public spending
in 2000, and three developing countries, China, India and
Brazil, accounted for 47% of the developing world’s public
agricultural research expenditures. Meanwhile, only 6% of
the agricultural R&D investments worldwide were spent in
80 mostly low-income countries whose combined popula-
tion in 2000 was more than 600 million people.
In the industrialized countries investment by the private
sector has increased and is now higher than total public
sector investments. In contrast, private sector investment
in developing countries is small and will likely remain so
given weak funding incentives for private research. In 2000,
private firms invested only 6% of total spending in the de-
veloping world, of which more than half was invested in
ESAP. Private investment in AKST is, and is likely to re-
main, largely confined to appropriable technologies, with
intellectual property protection, which can earn significant
revenues in the market.
Currently AKST actors and organizations are not suf-
ficiently able to deal with the challenges ahead because of
the focus on too narrow a set of output goals. The current
knowledge infrastructure, which is oriented toward these
goals, historically has largely excluded ecological, environ-
mental, local and traditional knowledges and the social
sciences. AKST infrastructure will need to encompass and
work with this much broader set of understanding and data
if AKST challenges are to be met. The knowledge infrastruc-
ture of AKST is closely allied with particular branches of
economics appropriate for meeting production goals, but to
the relative neglect of other capacities in the economic sci-
ences that are needed to meet AKST challenges.
Meeting the challenges will require a different organi-
zational framework than currently exists in fundamental
AKST and current agricultural development models have
contributed to increasing inequality and the exclusion of
indigenous and tribal peoples.
In LAC and parts of ESAP the selective perception of
production requirements and exclusion of or limited atten-
tion given to certain agroecosystems, such as dryland agri-
culture, coastal fisheries, mountain ecosystems, and pastoral
systems, worsens the inequality already compounded by
local exploitation, rent seeking and corruption, appropria-
tion of resources of the poor—especially common pool re-
sources—and social prejudices like caste and gender biases.
The challenge for development policy and AKST is to de-
velop agricultural and food systems that can reduce income
inequalities and ensure fair access to production inputs and
knowledge to all. Governments and international donors
are now beginning to invest in long-term commitments to
AKST integrated into pro-poor development policies.
AKST—Current constraints, challenges and
opportunities
More than five decades after formal AKST made its entry
into almost all countries, the explicit economic and political
legitimization of investments in AKST remains food security,
livelihoods and poverty reduction in developing countries,
and trade and environmental sustainability in industrialized
countries. While the development models-poverty-environ-
mental degradation nexus is evident in different forms in
different countries, the formal AKST apparatus available to
address these variations is the same in structure, content and
the conduct of science in almost all countries. The AKST
apparatus tends to focus on mainstream, input-intensive,
irrigated monocropping systems—mainly cereals, livestock
and other trade-oriented commodities, to the relative ne-
glect of arid/dryland agriculture, mountain ecosystems, and
other non-mainstream production systems that have been
discussed above. It is important to recognize that this con-
straint, more or less universal in formal AKST is not inci-
dental, but part of an overall development model in which
scientific knowledge is institutionalized in its utilitarian
role. Resources are allocated to production systems that can
show the highest economic returns to crop/commodity pro-
ductivity. The capacity of AKST to address the challenges of
poverty, livelihoods, health and nutrition, and environmen-
tal quality is conditioned by its capacity to address its own
internal constraints and challenges.
Organized AKST in the form of public sector R&D,
extension and agricultural education across world regions,
are based upon a linear top-down flow of technologies and
information from scientific research to adopters. Despite
increasing polarization of the debate on new technologies,
especially biotechnology and transgenics, and years of well-
published knowledge on differential access to technologies
and appropriate institutional arrangements, formal AKST
has yet to address the question of democratic technology
choice. AKST as currently organized in public and private
sector does little to interact with academic initiatives in ba-
sic biological, ecological and social sciences to design rules,
norms and legal systems for market-oriented innovation and
demand-led technology generation, access and use appro-
priate for meeting development and sustainability goals.
There is a significant volume of literature from all the
01-SR.indd 25 11/3/08 12:08:06 PM
26 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
be coordinated across variable spatial, temporal and hier-
archical scales. AKST specialists will need a more profound
understanding of the legal and policy frameworks that in-
creasingly will steer agricultural and food system develop-
ment.
Emerging challenges. In all the regions, there is an overarch-
ing concern with poverty and livelihoods among the rela-
tively poor, which are faced with intra- and inter-regional
inequalities. The willingness of different actors, including
and applied scientific capability. Breakthroughs in advance
science will not lead to relevant effective and efficient appli-
cations that address development and sustainability unless
investments in public, commercial and civil society at local
levels are sustained or increased. The challenges ahead de-
mand a greater focus on management systems—from crop
to whole farm to natural resource area, landscape, river sys-
tem and catchment scales. Management systems require so-
phisticated understanding of the institutional dimensions of
management practices and of decision processes that must
Figure SR-P4. Public and Private Agricultural R&D Spending by Region, 2000.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Middle East and
North Africa
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Asia and
Pacific*
Latin America and
Caribbean
Public and private agricultural R&D spending, selected regions, 2000
billion international dollars (year 2000)
Private sector
Public sector
developed, private
developed, public
developing, private
developing, public
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Higher-income
countries
Global total
Distribution of global total
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Developing
countries
Developed, private
Developed, public
Developing, private
Developing, public
Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
* Asia-Pacific excluding Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.
Source: Pardey et al., 2006b based on Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) data at www.asti.cgiar.org and various other data sources.
01-SR.indd 26 11/3/08 12:08:10 PM
Current Conditions, Challenges and Options for Action | 27
lution, e.g., farmers, technical specialists, local govern-
ment agents, and private input traders.
Though these interactions take place at the decentralized
level, they usually require enabling conditions at higher
levels that include legal frameworks that ensure access and
secure tenure to resources and land, recourse to fair conflict
resolution and other mechanisms for accountability and na-
tional policies that support remunerative farm prices.
Policy options to increase domestic farm gate prices for
small-scale producers include:
º Iiscal µolicy (e.g.. maiker íeeuei ioaus. µosrlaivesr sroi-
age facilities and rural value-added agrifood produc-
tion) to develop infrastructural capacity, and increasing
the percentage of that small-scale farmers receive for
export crops;
º Acknovleugmenr oí access ro (maiker anu µolicy) in-
formation, farmer-to-farmer exchange, farmer educa-
tion, and extension as public service and public goods
that provide access to AKST both formal and local. In
LAC, for example, farmer-to-farmer approaches have
proven successful in the adoption of agroecological
practices;
º PuLlic/µiivare aiiangemenrs rlar allov µiouuceis ro sell
through urban supermarkets;
º Sriengrlening µiouucei oiganizarions rliougl invesr-
ment in travel and meetings, and capacity building and
through creating space for farmer participation in local,
regional and national decision making; and
º Caµruiing µieíeienrial riauing aiiangemenrs.
Farmer Field Schools, Participatory Plant Breeding/Do-
mestication, Farmer Research Groups and similar forms of
interaction in support of farmer-driven agendas have been
shown to have multiple pro-poor benefits, such as enduring
farmer education, empowerment and organizational skills
[see Part II: NRM].
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. The success
of options implemented locally rests on regional and nation-
ally based mechanisms to ensure accountability.
Food security
Food security is a situation that exists when all people, at
all times, have physical, social and economic access to suffi-
cient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs
and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Food
sovereignty is defined as the right of peoples and sovereign
states to democratically determine their own agricultural
and food policies.
Using appropriate AKST can contribute to radically
improved food security. It can support efforts to increase
production, enhance the social and economic performance
of agricultural systems as a basis for sustainable rural and
community livelihoods, rehabilitate degraded land, and re-
duce environmental and health risks associated with food
production and consumption. The following options can
aid in capturing these opportunities to increase sustainable
agricultural production:
those in the state, civil society and private sector, to ad-
dress the fundamental question of the relationships among
production, social and environmental systems is marred by
contentious political and economic stances adopted by the
different actors. The acknowledgment of current challenges
and the acceptance of options available for action require
a long-term commitment from decision makers that is re-
sponsive to specific needs and a wide range of stakeholders.
It calls for a continuing recognition that science, technol-
ogy, knowledge systems and human ingenuity are needed to
meet future challenges, opportunities and uncertainties.
2. Options for Action
Successfully meeting development and sustainability goals
and responding to new priorities and changing circumstances
will require a fundamental shift in science and technologies,
policies and institutions, as well as capacity development and
investments. Such a shift will recognize and give increased
importance to the multifunctionality of agriculture and
account for the complexity of agricultural systems within
diverse social and ecological contexts. Successfully making
this shift will depend on adapting and reforming existing in-
stitutional and organizational arrangements and on further
institutional and organizational development to promote an
integrated approach to AKST development and deployment.
It will further require increased public investment in AKST
and development of supporting policy regimes.
Poverty and livelihoods
Ensuring the development, adaptation and utilization of for-
mal AKST by small-scale farmers requires acknowledging the
inherently diverse conditions in which they live and work.
Hence. íoimal AKS1 neeus ro Le iníoimeu Ly knovleuge
about farmers’ conditions, opportunities and needs, and by
participatory methodologies that can empower small-scale
producers. The development of more sustainable low-input
practices to improve soil, nutrient and water management
will be particularly critical for communities with limited
access to markets. Enabling resource-poor farmers to link
their own local knowledge to external expert and scientific
knowledge for innovative management of soil fertility, crop
genetic diversity, and natural resources is a powerful tool for
enabling them to capture market opportunities
Technological innovation at the farm level is predicated
upon enabling institutional and legal frameworks and sup-
port structures, such as:
º Giving µiouuceis a voice in rle µioceuuies íoi íunuing.
designing and executing formal AKST;
º Lnlancing µiouucei liveliloous rlougl Liokeieu long-
term contractual arrangements, through commercial
out-grower schemes or farmer cooperatives. They in-
volve commodity chains that integrate microcredit,
farmer organization, input provision, quality control,
storage, bulking, packaging, transport, etc.;
º Invesrmenrs ro geneiare susrainaLle emµloymenr oµµoi-
tunities for the rural poor, both landless labor and cul-
tivator households, e.g., through enhanced value-added
activity and off-farm employment;
º Piomoring innovarion giounueu in inreiacrion among
stakeholders who hold complementary parts of the so-
01-SR.indd 27 11/3/08 12:08:11 PM
28 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
populations to ensure access to affordable and safe
food;
º Sriengrlening local maikers Ly imµioving rle connec-
tion between rural areas and cities; food producers and
urban food consumers; and urban and peri-urban agri-
culture producers and consumers [LAC]; and
º Imµioving íoou saíery anu qualiry rliougl rle eníoice-
ment of enhanced regulatory and monitoring regimes.
Public sector research has yet to offer a range of viable ru-
ral management and agronomic practices for crop and live-
stock systems that are appropriate for water-restrained dry
lands and poor farmers [CWANA; ESAP; SSA]. Private sec-
tor research, concentrated on internationally traded crops,
is less likely to find such projects profitable, at least in the
immeuiare íuruie. Yer. µuLlic íunuing íoi sucl ieseaicl in
these crops and regions will be necessary if we are to address
the needed changes in organizational and institutional ar-
rangements to respond to the constraints imposed by poor
management systems. Such investments will likely assist in
limiting natural resource degradation and environmental
deterioration, and contribute to decreasing the poverty and
pockets of hunger that currently persist in the midst of pros-
perity [ESAP].
Environment
s Knowledge, science and technology (local and for-
mal). “Business as usual” is not an option if we want
to achieve environmental sustainability. To help realize
this goal, AKST systems must enhance sustainability
while maintaining productivity in ways that protect
the natural resource base and ecological provisioning
of agricultural systems. Options include: Improving en-
ergy, water and land use efficiency through the use of
local and formal knowledge to develop and adapt site-
specific technologies that can help maintain, create or
restore soils, increase water use efficiency and reduce
º Lxµanuing use oí local anu íoimal AKS1 (e.g.. con-
ventional breeding, participatory decentralized breed-
ing and biotechnology) to develop and deploy suitable
cultivars (millets, pulses, oilseeds, etc.) and better ag-
ronomic practices that can be adapted to site-specific
conditions [CWANA; ESAP; SSA].
º Bieeuing anu imµiovemenr voik on some minoi cioµs
in different subregions.
º Imµioving soil. varei anu nuriienr managemenr anu
conservation of biodiversity [CWANA; ESAP; LAC;
SSA; SR Part II: NRM] and improving access to re-
sources (e.g., nutrients and water) [SSA].
º Incieasing small-scale uiveisincarion Ly enlancing rle
role of animal production systems, aquaculture, agro-
forestry with indigenous fruits and nuts, and insects
[CWANA; ESAP; SSA; Part II: NRM].
º LnaLling an evaluarion culruie virlin AKS1 virl aµ-
propriate incentives to assess the past and potential
impacts of technological and institutional changes de-
ployed in the field.
Important to consider when shifting from food crops to
biofuels on the basis of economic feasibility is attention to
the impact of large areas devoted to such crops on food
security and the environment [ESAP, LAC, SSA; SR Part II:
Bioenergy].
Some of the AKST policy options for addressing food
security include:
º NoLilizing rle µiouucrive caµaciry anu susrainaLiliry oí
rain fed areas;
º Auuiessing µiice lucruarions anu ieuucrions rliougl
market instruments that enable shifting risk away from
vulnerable small-scale producers;
º Reuucing riansacrion cosrs anu ciearing sµecial ac-
cess rights in regional and global trade for millions
of small-scale producers; social security nets for
women and highly vulnerable indigenous and tribal
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
DLF-Trifolium (Denmark)
Takii (Japan)
Bayer Crop Science (Germany)
Sakata (Japan)
Land O’ Lakes (USA)
KWS AG (Germany)
Groupe Limagrain (France)
Syngenta (Switzerland)
Dupont/Pioneer (USA)
Monsanto (USA) + Seminis
(acquired by Monsanto 3/05)
World’s top 10 seed companies
Source: ETC group – Communiqué, September/October 2005; Issue #90
IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
2004 Seed sales (U.S. millions)
Figure SR-P5. Global vegetable seed market shares.
01-SR.indd 28 11/3/08 12:08:11 PM
Current Conditions, Challenges and Options for Action | 29
ture on climate change and strategies to mitigate the
negative impacts of climate change on agriculture [Glo-
bal Chapter 3; SR Part II: NRM].
Reducing agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases will
require changes to farming and livestock systems and
practices throughout the food system [NAE; LAC] as well
as land use changes to achieve net carbon sequestration.
Better agronomic practices, especially in livestock and rice
production, such as conservation agriculture, less water
consuming cultivation methods, and improved rangeland
management, feeding of ruminants and manure manage-
menr. can suLsranrially ieuuce GHG emissions anu µossiLly
increase C sequestration [CWANA; ESAP]. Agroecological
methods, agroforestry, and the breeding of salt-tolerant va-
rieties can help mitigate the impacts of climate change on
agriculture [ESAP; LAC; SSA; SR Part II: Climate change].
Although knowledge in these areas already exists, it is im-
portant to analyze why this knowledge is not applied more
often.
Policies and institutional frameworks. Options need to re-
flect the goals of sustainable development and the multiple
functions of agriculture, being particularly attentive to the
interface between institutions and the adoption of AKST
and its impacts. To be effective in terms of development and
sustainability, 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.
Policies that promote sustainable agricultural practices,
e.g., using market and other mechanisms to regulate and
generate rewards for agro/environmental services, stimulate
more rapid adoption of AKST for better natural resource
management and enhanced environmental quality should
be considered to promote more sustainable development
[Global]. Some examples of sustainable initiatives are poli-
cies designed to:
º Reuuce agioclemical inµurs (µairiculaily µesriciues anu
synthetic fertilizers);
º Use eneigy. varei anu lanu moie eíncienrly (nor only as
in precision agriculture, but also as in agroecology);
º Diveisiíy agiiculruial sysrems:
º Use agioecological managemenr aµµioacles: anu
º Cooiuinare Liouiveisiry anu ecosysrem seivice man-
agement policies with agricultural policies [CWANA;
ESAP; Global Chapter 3; LAC].
º Inreinalize rle enviionmenral cosr oí unsusrainaLle
practices [ESAP; Global Chapter 3; LAC; NAE] and
avoid those that promote the wasteful use of inputs
(pesticides and fertilizers);
º Lnsuie rle íaii comµensarion oí ecosysrem seivices
[CWANA; ESAP; Global; LAC; NAE; SSA];
º Regulare enviionmenrally uamaging µiacrices anu ue-
velop capacities for institutional changes that ensure
monitoring and evaluation of compliance mechanisms
[ESAP; Global].
º Iacilirare anu µioviue incenrives íoi alreinarive mai-
kets such as green products, certification for sustain-
able forest and fisheries practices and organic agricul-
ture [CWANA; ESAP; Global; LAC; NAE; SSA] and
the strengthening of local markets including enhancing
contamination from agrochemicals [CWANA; ESAP;
Global Chapter 3; LAC; SSA; SR Part II: NRM].
º Imµioving rle understanding of soil-plant-water dy-
namics, that is, ecological processes in soil and bodies
of water and ecological interactions that affect agri-
cultural and other natural resources systems [Global
Chapter 3; LAC; NAE].
º Ciearing anu imµioving managemenr oµrions ro suµ-
port agroecological systems (including landscape mosa-
ics) and the multiple roles and functions of agriculture
with input from ecological and evolutionary science
practitioners, plant geneticists, botanists, molecular bi-
ologists, etc. [Global Chapter 3; SR Part II: NRM].
º Incieasing oui knovleuge oí local anu riauirional
knowledge to support learning more about options for
sustainable land management and rehabilitation [Glo-
bal Chapter 3; Part II: NRM].
º Lnlancing in situ and ex situ conservation of agrobiodi-
versity through broad participatory efforts to conserve
germplasm and recapture the diversity of plant and ani-
mal species traditionally used by local and indigenous
people [Global Chapter 3; LAC; NAE; SSA; SR Part II:
NRM]. Strengthening plant and livestock breeding pro-
grams to adapt to emerging demands, local conditions,
and climate change [SSA]. Increasing knowledge and
providing guidelines for the sustainable management of
forest and fisheries and integrating them within farming
systems in such a way to maximize the income and em-
ployment generation in rural areas [Global Chapter 3;
SR Part II: NRM]. Democratically evaluating existing
and emerging technologies, such as transgenic crops,
first and second generation biofuels, and nanotechnolo-
gies to ascertain their environmental, health and social
impacts [Global Chapter 3; LAC; NAE]. Long-term as-
sessments are needed for technologies that require con-
siderable financial investment and risk to adopters, such
as biotechnology and Green Revolution-type technolo-
gies (high external inputs). It is important that impacts
and applications of alternative technologies are also ex-
amined and that independent comparative assessments
(i.e., comparing transgenic with currently available
agroecological approaches such as biological control)
are conducted. Improving the understanding of the
agroecological functioning of mosaics of crop produc-
tion areas and natural habitats, to determine how these
can be co-managed to reduce conflicts and enhance pos-
itive synergies. Promoting more diverse systems of local
crop production at farm and landscape scale, to create
more diverse habitats for wild species/ecological com-
munities and for the provision of ecosystem services.
This will require institutional innovations to enable ef-
ficient marketing systems to handle diversified produc-
tion. Establishing decentralized, locally based, highly
efficient energy systems and energy efficient agriculture
to improve livelihoods and reduce carbon emissions
[ESAP; LAC]. AKST can contribute to the develop-
ment of economically feasible biofuels and biomaterials
that have a positive energy and environmental balance
and that will not compromise the world food supply
[Global Chapter 3; NAE; SR Part II: Bioenergy, NRM].
Developing strategies to counter the effects of agricul-
01-SR.indd 29 11/3/08 12:08:12 PM
30 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
importance of assessing both the potential environmental,
health and social impacts of any new technology, and the
appropriate implementation of regulatory frameworks as a
principled matter of precaution. Particular concerns exist re-
garding potential genetic contamination in centers of origin
[See SR Part II: Biotechnology].
The formal AKST system is not well equipped to pro-
mote the transition toward sustainability. Current ways of
organizing technology generation and diffusion will be in-
creasingly inadequate to address emerging environmental
challenges, the multifunctionality of agriculture, the loss of
biodiversity, and climate change. Focusing AKST systems
and actors on sustainability requires a new approach and
worldview to guide the development of knowledge, sci-
ence and technology as well as the policies and institutional
changes to enable their sustainability. It also requires a new
approach in the knowledge base; the following are impor-
tant options:
º 1le ievaloiizarion oí riauirional anu local knovleuge
[CWANA; ESAP; Global; LAC; NAE; SSA] and their
interaction with formal science;
º An inreiuisciµlinaiy (social. Lioµlysical. µolirical anu
legal), holistic and system-based approaches to knowl-
edge production and sharing [CWANA; ESAP; Global;
LAC; NAE; SSA].
Health and nutrition
The inter-linkages between health, nutrition, agriculture and
AKST can constrain or facilitate reaching development and
sustainability goals. Because multiple stressors affect these
inter-linkages, a broad agroecosystem health approach is
needed to identify appropriate AKST to increase food se-
curity and safety, decrease the incidence and prevalence of
a range of infectious and chronic diseases, and decrease oc-
cupational exposures, injuries, and deaths.
Food security strategies require a combination of AKST
approaches, including:
º Incieasing rle uiveisincarion oí small-scale µiouucrion
and improve micronutrient intake;
º Incieasing rle eínciency anu uiveisiry oí uiLan agiicul-
ture;
º Develoµing anu ueµloying exisring anu nev reclnolo-
gies for the production, processing, preservation, and
distribution of food.
Food safety can be facilitated by effective, coordinated, and
proactive national and international food safety systems,
including:
º Lnlancing µuLlic lealrl anu vereiinaiy caµaciry. anu
legislative frameworks, for identification and control of
biological and non-biological hazards;
º Veirical inregiarion oí rle íoou clain ro ieuuce rle iisks
of contamination and alteration;
º Suµµoiring rle caµaciry oí ueveloµing counriy govein-
ments, municipalities, and civil society organizations to
develop systems for monitoring and controlling health
risks along the entire food chain. One example is a
battery of tests that municipalities could use to moni-
tor pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables that are
brought to market.
intra-region links between rural producers and urban
consumers [LAC];
º LnaLle iesouice iesouice-µooi íaimeis ro use rleii ria-
ditional and local technical knowledge to manage soil
fertility, crop and livestock genetic diversity and con-
serve natural resource (e.g., microcredit for transition-
ing toward agroecological practices, processing, and
production) to make them sustainable and economi-
cally viable;
º Auiusr inrellecrual µioµeiry iiglrs (IPR) anu ielareu
framework to allow farmers to managed their seeds and
germplasm resources as they wish.
To achieve more sustainable management, institutional and
socioeconomic measures are required for the widespread
adoption of sustainable practices. Long-term land and water
use rights (e.g., land and tree tenure), risk reduction mea-
sures (safety nets, credit, insurance, etc.) and establishing
profitability of recommended technologies are prerequisites
for adoption. For resources with common pool characteris-
tics, common property regimes are needed that most likely
will be developed by rural communities and supported
by appropriate state institutions. Farmers need guaranteed
long-term access to the resources necessary for the implemen-
tation of culturally and technically appropriate sustainable
practices [Global Chapter 3]. Also needed are new modes
of governance that emphasize participatory and democratic
approaches and require the development of innovative local
networks. Institutional reforms, too, are needed to enable
formal AKST to partner effectively with small-scale produc-
ers, women, pastoralists, and indigenous and tribal peoples
who are sources of environmental knowledge. Stakeholder
monitoring of environmental quality can help develop pro-
duction technologies and environmental services [ESAP;
Global Chapter 3].
Given existing and increasing conflicts over natural re-
sources and environmental insecurity (e.g., disputes over
fishing rights, water sharing, climate change mitigation),
policies, agreements and treaties that promote regional and
international cooperation can assist in realizing the develop-
ment and sustainability goals. Conflict resolution systems
for managing conservation programs, monitoring pest and
disease incidence, and monitoring development and compli-
ance mechanisms would also help in realizing these goals
[ESAP; Global Chapter 3].
There is significant scope for AKST and supporting poli-
cies to contribute to more sustainable fisheries and aquacul-
ture that can contribute to reducing overfishing. Yer many
governments still struggle to translate guidelines and poli-
cies into effective interventions able to provide an ecosys-
tem approach to fisheries management. At the least policies
are needed to end subsidies that encourage unsustainable
practices (e.g., bottom trawling). Small-scale fisheries need
explicit support and the promotion of increased awareness
of sustainable fishing practices and postharvest technolo-
gies, as well as policies that reduce industrial scale fishing.
Implications of increased aquaculture production (e.g., loss
of coastal habitats, increased antibiotic use, etc.), and catch
fisheries should also be considered.
Regardless of the differing opinions about transgen-
ics in the regions, all Sub-Global reports recognized the
01-SR.indd 30 11/3/08 12:08:12 PM
Current Conditions, Challenges and Options for Action | 31
but that they can make a significant contribution to long-
term poverty reduction.
For AKST to contribute to greater equity, investments
are required for the development of appropriate technolo-
gies; access to education and research participation; new
partnerships with a wider network of stakeholders; and
models of learning, technology extension and facilitation
for the poor and marginalized. Such investments are likely
to improve access to sustainable technologies, credit and in-
stitutions (including property rights and tenure security) as
well as to local, national, and regional markets for agricul-
tural outputs [SR Part II: NRM].
Both formal and local AKST can add value to the full
range of agricultural goods and services and help create
economic instruments that promote an appropriate balance
between private and public goods. At the farm, watershed,
district and national scales, new methods may be needed to
assess and improve the performance of farming systems in
relation to the multiple functions of agriculture. Such ef-
forts need to include a special emphasis on integrated water
resource management for CWANA countries and other arid
regions, and integrated soil management for SSA and other
regions with highly degraded soils.
An environment in which formal science and technol-
ogy and local and traditional knowledge are seen as part of
an integral AKST system is most likely to increase equitable
access to technologies to a broad range of producers [Global
3; SR Part II: NRM]. Options to improve this integration
include moving away from a linear technology transfer ap-
proach that benefited relatively well-off producers of major
cash crops but had little success for small-scale diversified
farms and poor and marginalized groups and paid little at-
tention to the multifunctionality of agriculture. Improve-
ments are needed in engaging farmers in priority setting
and funding decisions, and both in increasing collaboration
with social scientists, and increasing participatory work in
the core research institutions. Networks among small-scale
producers contribute to the exchange of experience and
AKST, as do inter- and multidisciplinary programs, cross-
disciplinary learning and scientific validation, involving
both research and non-research actors, and recognizing the
cultural identity of indigenous communities.
Alternatives to traditional extension models include
farmer field schools [SSA] and the Campesino a Campesino
(Iaimei ro Iaimei) Novemenr in LAC. Hovevei. sucl an
integrated approach is unlikely to be embraced without
complementary activities including developing in-country
professional capacity for undertaking integrated approaches,
methods for monitoring and evaluating these approaches,
and ensuring a professional system that rewards participa-
tory research in the top academic journals. A complemen-
tary option is to facilitate internal institutional learning and
evaluation in AKST organizations, particularly as regards
their impact on equity.
Policies and institutional frameworks. Key issues for improved
performance include equitable access to and use of natural
resources, systems of incentives and rewards for multifunc-
tionality, including ecosystem services, and responding to
the vulnerability of farming communities. Governance in
AKST and related organizations are also important for the
º Develoµing a sysrem oí gloLal. narional. anu local
AKST that can monitor developments and inform ad-
equate and timely responses to the rapid evolution of
pathogens.
The burden of emerging and reemerging diseases can be de-
creased by:
º Sriengrlening cooiuinarion Lerveen anu rle caµaciry oí
agricultural, veterinary, and public health systems;
º Inregiaring mulri-secroial µolicies anu µiogiams acioss
the food chain to reduce the spread of infectious dis-
eases;
º Develoµing anu ueµloying nev AKS1 ro iuenriíy. moni-
tor, control, and treat diseases; and
º Develoµing a sysrem oí gloLal. narional. anu local
AKST that can monitor developments and inform ad-
equate and timely responses to the rapid evolution of
pathogens and zoonotic outbreaks.
The burden of chronic diseases can be decreased by:
º Regularing íoou µiouucr íoimularion rliougl legisla-
tion, international agreements and/or regulations for
food labeling and health claims; and
º Ciearing incenrives íoi rle µiouucrion anu consumµ-
tion of health-promoting foods.
Occupational health can be improved by:
º Develoµing anu eníoicing agiiculruie lealrl anu saíery
regulations;
º Lníoicing cioss-Loiuei issues sucl as illegal use oí roxic
agrichemicals; and
º Conuucring lealrl iisk assessmenrs rlar make exµlicir
the trade-offs between maximizing benefits to liveli-
hoods, the environment, and improving health.
Policies and institutional frameworks. Trends in the current
burdens of the health risks associated with agriculture and
AKST call for robust detection, surveillance, monitoring,
and response systems to facilitate identification of the true
burden of ill health and implementation of cost-effective,
health-promoting strategies and measures. Persistent and
substantial investment in capacity building are required to
provide safe food of sufficient quantity, quality, and variety;
reduce the burdens of obesity, other chronic diseases, and
infectious diseases; and reduce agriculture-related environ-
mental and occupational risks.
Equity
Science and technology (local and formal). Hisroiically. íoi-
mal AKST has privileged farmers with access to resources,
services, capital and markets (e.g., men and non-indigenous
groups), often creating greater inequalities in the rural sec-
tor. Additionally poor and marginalized groups have suf-
fered disproportionately from environmental degradation
[CWANA; LAC; SSA]. To acknowledge the distributional
impact of AKST investments calls for conscious public pol-
icy choices to invest in AKST that addresses the needs of
small-scale producers and improves equity [Global Chap-
ters 3, 7]. This strategy recognizes that the short-term dollar
rates of return may not as high as those of other investments
01-SR.indd 31 11/3/08 12:08:13 PM
32 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
the national and international level, governance mecha-
nisms to respond to unfair competition and agribusi-
ness accountability need to be implemented through,
for example, anti-trust laws applied to financial institu-
tions and the agrifood sector. One option might include
creating or strengthening conditions that can guarantee
farmers’ rights to choose, select, and exchange seeds
that are culturally and locally appropriate as well as
to remove the monopoly from the privileges granted to
breeders through Plant Breeders Rights through, for ex-
ample, a compensatory liability regime.
º GloLal equiry can Le enlanceu Ly imµioving small-
scale farmers’ access to international markets. The cur-
rent trade environment in which agricultural subsidies
and a history of public support to farming distort inter-
national prices for many key commodities can benefit
from initiatives such as fair trade, organic certification,
anu susrainaLle rimLei ceirincarion. Hovevei. many
schemes require additional skills that poorer farmers
may have yet to access. In such circumstances, AKST
can provide the training and support necessary to assist
small-scale farmers in entering such markets.
º A uiiecr connecrion Lerveen íaimeis anu uiLan con-
sumers (e.g., direct marketing and community-sup-
ported agriculture initiatives) can decrease the gap be-
tween the rural and urban sector and be of benefit to
poor urban consumers. This can be accomplished by
strengthening services, access to urban markets, central-
ized quality control, packaging and marketing to supply
urban markets in the rural sector and particularly for
small-scale producers. This approach is more likely to
succeed if national farmers associations and their fed-
erations increase their role in national politics. AKST
may also contribute to the development of urban and
peri-urban agriculture focusing on the poorest urban
sectors [LAC] as a means to enhance equity strengthen
community organizations, support improved health,
and promote food security as well as food sovereignty.
º Wlen auuiessing issues oí equiry virl iesµecr ro access
to food, nutrition, health and a healthy environment,
stakeholders can make use of established international
treaties, agreements and covenants. For example the is-
sue of hunger eradication can be supported by engaging
the right to food as enshrined in Article 11 of the Inter-
national Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights of the United Nations. This legal instrument,
together with the International Covenants of Civil and
Political Rights, is essential for putting into practice the
µiinciµles ser our in rle Univeisal Declaiarion oí Hu-
man Rights. In a culture of rights, states are obligated to
take deliberate, concrete and non-discriminatory meas-
ures to eradicate hunger. To date, 146 countries are cur-
rently party to this covenant and 187 have signed the
FAO Council’s “voluntary guidelines for the progres-
sive realization of the right to adequate food” [LAC].
º Desµire rleii maioi anu incieasing conriiLurion ro ag-
ricultural production in several regions, particularly
CWANA, LAC and SSA, women are marginalized with
respect to access to education, extension services, and
property rights, and are under-represented in agricultur-
crucial role they play in democratization, decentralization and
the integration of farmer concerns in the design of farmer
services and agricultural industries. For example,
º AKS1 can assess IPR in reims oí mulriíuncrionaliry. con-
sider issues of collective IPR and other non-IPR mecha-
nisms such as prizes, cross-licensing and other means
able to facilitate research and improve equity among
regions. Legal frameworks can promote recognition of
traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources
and the equitable distribution of benefits derived there
from among the custodians of these resources [Global
Chapter 3]. Policies, including legal frameworks that
regulate access to genetic resources and the equitable
distribution of benefits generated by their use, can be
implemented in ways that guarantee local communities
access and the right to regulate the access of others. To
date it is recognized that many poor regions bear the
costs of protecting biodiversity and agricultural genetic
diversity yet it is the global community who benefits
from these practices. Thus, new national and interna-
tional legal frameworks, in tandem with the develop-
ment of institutions for benefit sharing, can ensure that
local communities and individual countries control ac-
cess to and benefit from local genetic resources as pro-
moted in the Convention on Biological Diversity and
as agreed in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture through its multi-
lateral system of Access and Benefit Sharing.
º Laige inequiries in rle renuie anu access ro lanu anu
water have exacerbated economic inequalities that still
characterized many world regions in the world (e.g.,
LAC, SSA). Land reform, including improved tenure
systems and equitable access to water are suggestive
means to support sustainable management and simul-
taneously respond to social inequalities that inhibit eco-
nomic development. Such initiatives are likely to reduce
the displacement of small-scale farmers, campesinos
and indigenous people to urban centers or to marginal
lands in the agricultural frontier. Better understanding
of the communal ownership, communal exchange and
innovation mechanisms is needed. Overlapping formal
and informal land rights that characterize some agri-
cultural systems are central to strategies to reform land
holdings and relations.
º In oiuei ro enlance a µioµei enviionmenr in vlicl
AKST contribute positively to development and sustain-
ability goals, global equity can be enhanced by protect-
ing small-scale farmers from unfair competition includ-
ing from often subsidized commodities produced under
conditions of economies of scale. Reasonable farm gate
prices through equitable and fair access to markets
and trade also are crucial for ensuring rural employ-
ment as well as improving livelihoods and food security.
Such prices for small-scale holders can be achieved by
eliminating commodity OECD agricultural subsidies to
large industrialized farmers and dumping, and by not
overexposing small-scale farmers to competition from
industrial farmers before appropriate institutional
frameworks and infrastructure are in place. They are
also a condition for effective utilization of AKST. At
01-SR.indd 32 11/3/08 12:08:13 PM
Current Conditions, Challenges and Options for Action | 33
º PuLlic invesrmenrs ro seive gloLal. iegional anu local
public goods, addressing strategic issues such as food
security and safety, climate change and sustainability
that do not attract private funding. More efficient use of
increasingly scarce land, water and biological resources
would need public investment in legal and management
capabilities.
º PuLlic invesrmenr ro suµµoir eííecrive clange in agiicul-
tural knowledge systems directed to:
– promote interactive knowledge networks (associ-
ating farmers, farmers communities, scientists, in-
dustrial and actors in other knowledge areas) and
improve access for all actors to information and
communication technologies;
– support ecological, evolutionary, food, nutrition,
social and complex systems’ sciences and the pro-
motion of effective interdisciplinarity;
– establish capacities and facilities to offer life-long
learning opportunities to those involved in the agri-
food arena.
º PuLlic-µiivare µairneisliµs íoi imµioveu commeiciali-
zation of applied knowledge and technologies and joint
funding of AKST, where market risks are high and where
options for widespread utilization of knowledge exists;
º Auequare incenrives anu ievaius ro encouiage µiivare
and civil society investments in AKST contributing to
development and sustainability goals.
There are many options to target investments to contrib-
ute to the development and sustainability goals. Options
have to be examined with high consideration of local and
regional, social, political and environmental contexts, ad-
dressing goals such as:
º Poverty, livelihoods and food security. AKST invest-
ments can increase the sustainable productivity of ma-
jor subsistence foods including orphan crops that are
grown and/or consumed by the poor. 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,
particularly in value chain addition technologies such
as quality processing of agricultural products
º Environmental sustainability. Increased investments are
needed in AKST that can improve the sustainability of
agricultural systems and reduce their negative environ-
mental effects with particular attention to alternative
production systems, e.g., organic and low-input systems;
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural prac-
tices; reduce the vulnerability of agroecological systems
to the projected changes in climate and climate variabil-
ity (e.g., breeding for temperature and pest tolerance);
understanding the relationship between ecosystem serv-
ices provided by agricultural systems and their relation-
ships to human well-being; economic and non-economic
valuation of ecosystem services; improving water use
efficiency and reducing water pollution; developing
biocontrols of current and emerging pests and patho-
gens, and biological substitutes for agrochemicals; and
reducing the dependency of the agricultural sector on
fossil fuels.
al science and technology teaching and development and
extension services [Global Chapter 3]. Some women-
oriented strategies, particularly increasing the functional
literacy and general education levels of women, have al-
ready been proven to increase the likelihood of reach-
ing development and sustainability goals [SSA and other
regions]. Other actions, though not yet proven, include
the reorientation of policies and programs to increase the
participation and physical presence of women in lead-
ership, decision-making, and implementation positions.
Specific actions to mainstream women’s involvement in-
clude encouraging women by generating stimuli and op-
portunities to study agricultural sciences and econom-
ics, and also to ensure that activities such as extension,
data collection, and enumeration involve women as
providers as well as recipients. Farmer research groups,
too, have proven more successful in reaching women
farmers than traditional extension activities [SSA] sug-
gesting that similar approaches may be needed to incor-
porate marginalized groups—the landless, pastoralists,
and seasonal and longer-term migrants—into education
and policy making institutions.
º Pairiciµarion in anu uemociarizarion oí AKS1 µiocess-
es helps to integrate sectors (i.e., developing networks),
which have been excluded [Global Chapter 3]. These
processes include improved access to information and
institutional support to and the development of edu-
cation and training in ways that incorporate the par-
ticipation of civil society as ones means to guarantee
transparency and accountability. A key point is helping
youth to become involved in agriculture and of making
it an attractive work activity compared with urban pos-
sibilities. Long-term investment in farmer education,
especially for women and youth, the empowerment of
farmers as vocal partners in business and IPR develop-
ment and other legal framework, and strengthening
civil society organizations.
º Imµioving equiry iequiies syneigy among vaiious ue-
velopment actors, including farmers, agricultural work-
ers, banks, civil society organizations, commercial com-
panies, and public agencies [Global Chapter 3]. Stake-
holder involvement is also crucial in decisions about
infrastructure, tariffs, and the internalization of social
and environmental costs. Women and other historically
marginalized actors (local/indigenous community mem-
bers, farm workers, etc.) need to have an active role in
problem identification (determining research questions,
extension objectives, etc.) and policy and project de-
sign. New modes of governance to develop innovative
local networks and decentralized government, focusing
on small-scale producers and the urban poor (urban ag-
riculture) will help to create and strengthen synergetic
and complementary capacities [LAC].
Investments
The contribution of AKST to the achievement of develop-
ment and sustainability goals would entail increased funds
and more diverse funding mechanisms for agricultural re-
search and development and associated knowledge systems.
These could include:
01-SR.indd 33 11/3/08 12:08:13 PM
34 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
of inequality indices for screening AKST investments
and monitoring outcomes strengthens accountability.
The Gini-coefficient could, for example, become a pub-
lic criterion for policy assessment, in addition to the
more conventional measures of growth, inflation and
environment.
In many developing countries, it may be necessary to com-
plement these investments with increased and more targeted
investments in rural infrastructure, education and health
and to strengthen capacity in core agricultural and related
sciences.
In the face of new global challenges, there is a urgent
need to strengthen, restructure and possibly establish new
intergovernmental, independent science-based networks to
address such issues as climate forecasting for agricultural
production; human health risks from emerging diseases
such as avian flu; reorganization of livelihoods in response
to changes in agricultural systems (population movements);
food security; and global forestry resources.
º Human health and nutrition. Major public and private
AKST investments will be needed to contribute to: the
reduction of chronic diseases through scientific pro-
grams and legislation related to healthy diets and food
product formulations; the improvement of food safety
regulations in an increasingly commercialized and glo-
balized food industry; the control and management of
infectious diseases, through the development of new
vaccines, global surveillance, monitoring and response
systems and effective legal frameworks. In addition, in-
vestments are needed in science and legislation cover-
ing occupational health issues such as pesticide use and
safety regulations (including child labor laws).
º Equity. Preferential investments in equitable develop-
ment, as in literacy, education and training, that con-
tribute to reducing ethnic, gender, and other inequities
would advance the development and sustainability
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
01-SR.indd 34 11/3/08 12:08:14 PM
35
Part II: Themes
Bioenergy
section. Aspects that are crosscutting are discussed in a sepa-
rate section.
Traditional Bioenergy
Millions of people in developing countries depend on tra-
ditional biofuels for their most basic cooking and heating
needs (e.g., wood fuels in traditional cook stoves or char-
coal). Dependence on traditional bioenergy is highly cor-
related with low income levels and is most prevalent in
sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia due to a lack of afford-
able alternatives. In some countries, the share of biomass in
energy consumption can reach up to 90%. Within countries,
the use of biomass is heavily skewed toward the lowest in-
come groups and rural areas [CWANA Chapter 2; Global
Chapter 3; SSA Chapter 2].
Reliance on traditional bioenergy can stifle development
by posing considerable environmental, health, economic
and social challenges. Traditional biomass is usually asso-
ciated with time consuming and unsustainable harvesting,
hazardous pollution and low end-use efficiency, and in the
case of manure and agricultural residues depletion of soil by
removal of organic matter and nutrients. Collecting fuel is
time-consuming, reducing the time that can be devoted to
productive uses including farming and education. Air pol-
lution from biomass combustion leads to asthma and other
respiratory problems which lead to 1.5 million premature
deaths per year
7
[Global Chapter 3; SSA Chapter 2]. Efforts
in the past at making available improved and more efficient
traditional bioenergy technologies (e.g., improved cook
stoves) have led to mixed results. New and improved ef-
forts and approaches are therefore needed that build on and
expand these efforts. Moreover, other options must be ex-
plored to expand the availability and use of modern energy
solutions. Such technologies differ widely from each other
in terms of economic, social and environmental implications
and may include fossil fuels, extensions of electricity grids,
and forms of distributed energy including modern forms of
bioenergy (see section on bioelectricity and bioheat).
First Generation Biofuels
First generation biofuels consist today predominantly of
bioethanol and biodiesel, even though other fuels such as
methanol, propanol and butanol may play a larger role in
the future. Produced from agricultural crops such as maize
8
This number includes deaths caused by the combustion of coal
in the homestead.
Writing team: Patrick Avato (Germany/Italy), Rodney J. Brown
(USA), Moses Kairo (Kenya)
Bioenergy has recently received considerable public atten-
tion. Rising costs of fossil fuels, concerns about energy
security, increased awareness of climate change, domestic
agricultural interests and potentially positive effects for eco-
nomic development all contribute to its appeal for policy
makers and private investors. Bioenergy as defined in the
IAASTD covers all forms of energy derived from biomass,
e.g., plants and plant-derived materials. Bioenergy is cat-
egorized as traditional or modern, depending on the history
of use and technological complexity. Traditional bioenergy
includes low technology uses including direct combustion of
firewood, charcoal or animal manure for heat generation.
Modern bioenergy is comprised of electricity, light and heat
produced from solid, liquid or gasified biomass and liquid
biofuels for transport. Liquid biofuels for transport can be
categorized as first generation, produced from starch, sugar
or oil containing agricultural crops, or next generation.
Next generation (also referred to as second, third or fourth
generation) biofuels are produced from a variety of biomass
materials, e.g., specially grown energy crops, agricultural
and forestry residues and other cellulosic material [CWANA
Chapter 2; Global Chapters 3, 6; NAE Chapter 4].
As biomass feedstocks are widely available, bioenergy
offers an attractive complement to fossil fuels and thus has
potential to alleviate concerns of a geopolitical and en-
eigy secuiiry naruie. Hovevei. only a small µair oí gloL-
ally available biomass can be exploited in an economically,
environmentally and socially sustainable way. Currently,
about 2.3% of global primary energy is supplied by modern
sources of bioenergy such as ethanol, biodiesel, or electricity
and industrial process heat [Global Chapter 3].
The economics of bioenergy, and particularly the posi-
tive or negative social and environmental externalities, vary
strongly, depending on the source of biomass, type of con-
version technology and on local circumstances and insti-
tutions. Many questions in development of bioenergy will
require further research. Agricultural knowledge, science,
and technology (AKST) can play a critical role in improving
benefits and reducing potential risks and costs but comple-
mentary efforts are needed in the areas of policies, capacity
building, and investment to facilitate a socially, economi-
cally, and environmentally sustainable food, feed, fiber, and
fuels economy. Specific options and challenges associated
with the different categories are discussed in the following
01-SR.indd 35 11/3/08 12:08:14 PM
36 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
measurement methodologies and the strong effect of spe-
cific local circumstances, such as type of feedstock, original
use of agricultural land, mechanization of production and
fertilizer use. Generally, assuming feedstocks are produced
on agricultural land and do not induce deforestation, crops
produced with few external inputs (fertilizers, pesticides,
etc.), such as rain fed sugarcane in Brazil, perform signifi-
cantly better than high-input crops such as maize in North
America. Consequently, whether biofuels are a viable option
for climate change mitigation depends on the emissions re-
ductions that can realistically be achieved as well as relative
costs compared to other mitigation alternatives. Apart from
GHG consiueiarions. consiueiaLle enviionmenral cosrs may
be associated with large increases in biofuels production.
For example, it is feared that the increased demand for lim-
ited agricultural production factors (e.g., land and water)
will lead to a conversion of pristine biodiverse ecosystems to
agricultural land (e.g., deforestation) and depletion of water
resources—instances of this happening are already apparent
in different regions, e.g., draining of peat land in Indonesia
and clearing of the Cerrado in Brazil [Global Chapters 4, 6;
NAE Chapter 4].
The related social and economic effects are complex.
Increased demand can lead to higher incomes for those en-
gaged in feedstock production and ancillary industries such
as biofuels conversion or processing of biofuel by-products
(e.g., cakes), potentially contributing to economic develop-
ment. Conversely, competition for limited land and water re-
sources inevitably leads to higher food prices hurting buyers
of food, including food processing and livestock industries
and—very importantly with regard to hunger and social
sustainability—poor people. Moreover, small-scale farm-
ers may be marginalized or pushed off their lands if they
are not protected and brought into production schemes.
In the medium to long term the effects on food prices may
decrease as economies react to higher prices (adapting pro-
and other grains, sugar cane, soybeans, cassava, rapeseed,
and oil palm, production of bioethanol and biodiesel has
been growing fast in recent years, albeit from a low base—
together they contributed about 1% of global transport fuels
in 2005. Fast growth rates are mainly due to biofuel support
policies that have been developed in many countries around
the world in the hope of furthering rural job creation and
economic development, mitigating climate change and im-
proving energy security [ESAP Chapter 4; NAE Chapter 2;
SSA Chapter 2].
The most important factors determining economic com-
petitiveness of first generation biofuels are (1) price of feed-
stock, (2) value of byproducts, (3) conversion technology,
and (4) price of competing fuels. Each of these variables
varies over time and place. Currently first generation biofu-
els are economically competitive with fossil fuels only in the
most efficient feedstock producer markets during times of
favorable market conditions, e.g., in Brazil when feedstock
prices are low and fossil fuel prices high. Consistently high
oil prices at levels seen in the recent past would improve eco-
nomic competitiveness also in other regions. The economics
of liquid biofuels may be more favorable in remote regions
where energy access and agricultural exports are compli-
cated by high transport costs. Land-locked developing coun-
tries, islands, and remote regions within countries may fall
into this category if they can make available sufficient and
cheap feedstock without threatening food security [Global
Chapters 3, 6; NAE Chapter 4].
In addition to these economic factors, the value of 1
st

generation biofuels is also affected by energy security con-
cerns and environmental and social benefits and costs. From
an environmental perspective, there is considerable debate
over whether first generation biofuels, especially bioethanol,
yield more energy than is needed for their production and
their level of greenhouse gas emissions. Both issues are related
and the debate is caused by differences in life cycle emissions
IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
Biomass
feedstock
Conversion
technology
Bioenergy
consumption
Biomass waste
and residues
(e.g. biogases,
straw, municipal
solid waste, dung)
Agricultural
crops
(e.g. sugar cane,
maize, palmoil)
Energy crops
(e.g. jatropha,
switchgrass,
poplar, algae)
Natural
vegetation
(e.g. woods,
grasses)
Biofuels
Bioelectricity
Bioheat
Direct
combustion
Anaerobic
digestion
Saccharification
Fermentation
Pyrolysis
Microbial
digestion
Esterification
From biomass to energy consumption
Figuie SPBE(. Fiom Liomass lo eneigy consumµlion
Figure SR-BE1. From biomass to energy consumption.
01-SR.indd 36 11/3/08 12:08:15 PM
Themes: Bioenergy | 37
wastes, weeds and fast growing trees could be converted
into biofuels. Further in the future is the possibility of us-
ing sources, such as algae or cyanobacteria intensively culti-
vated in ponds or bioreactors in saline water using industrial
carbon dioxide. Research is also focusing on integrating the
production of next generation biofuels with the production
of chemicals, materials and electricity. These so-called biore-
nneiies coulu imµiove µiouucrion eínciency. GHG Lalances
and process economics.
On the one hand, the wide variety of potential feed-
stocks and high conversion efficiencies of next generation
biofuels could dramatically reduce land requirements per
unit of energy produced, thus mitigating the food price and
environmental pressures of first generation biofuels. More-
over, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced
relative to first generation biofuels. On the other hand, there
are concerns about unsustainable harvesting of agricultural
and forestry residues and the use of genetically engineered
cioµs anu enzymes. Hovevei. as nexr geneiarion Lioíuels
are still nascent technologies, these economic, social and
environmental costs and benefits are still very uncertain
[Global Chapters 6, 7; NAE Chapter 4].
Several critical steps have to be overcome before next
generation biofuels can become an economically viable
source of transport fuels. It is not yet clear when these break-
throughs will occur and what degree of cost reductions they
will be able to achieve in practice. Moreover, while some
countries like South Africa, Brazil, China and India may
have the capacity to actively engage in advanced domestic
biofuels R&D efforts, high capital costs, large economies of
scale, a high degree of technical sophistication and IPR is-
sues make the production of next generation biofuels prob-
lematic in the majority of developing countries, even if the
technological and economic hurdles can be overcome in in-
dustrialized countries. Arrangements are therefore needed
to address these issues in developing countries and for small
farmers [Global Chapters 6, 8].
Bioelectricity and Bioheat
Bioelectricity and bioheat are produced mostly from biomass
wastes and residues. Use of both small-scale biomass digest-
ers and larger-scale industrial applications has expanded in
recent decades. Generation of electricity (44 GW-24 GW
in developing countries—in 2005 or 1% of total electricity
consumption) and heat (220 GWth in 2004) from biomass
is the largest non-hydro source of renewable energy, mainly
produced from woods, residues and wastes.
The major biomass conversion technologies are ther-
mochemical and biological. The thermo-chemical technolo-
gies include direct combustion of biomass (either alone or
co-fired with fossil fuels) and gasification (to producer gas).
The biological technologies include the anaerobic digestion
of biomass to yield biogas (a mixture primarily of methane
anu caiLon uioxiue). Houselolu-scale Liomass uigesreis
that operate with local organic wastes like animal manure
can generate energy for cooking, heating and lighting in ru-
ral homes and are widespread in China, India and Nepal,
with the organic sludge and effluents returned to the fields.
Hovevei rleii oµeiarion can somerimes µose reclnical.
maintenance and resource challenges (e.g., water require-
ments of digesters). Industrial-scale units are less prone to
duction patterns and inducing investments) and technolo-
gies improve. Consequently, the social and economic effects
have strong distributional impacts within societies, between
different stakeholders and over time. Institutional arrange-
ments strongly influence the distribution of these effects,
e.g., between small and large producers and between men
and women [Global Chapter 6].
In addition to the direct effects of biofuel production,
policies employed to promote them create their own costs
and benefits. As first generation biofuels have rarely been
economically competitive with petroleum fuels, production
in practically all countries is promoted through a complex
set of subsidies and regulations. In addition to the direct
budgetary costs of such subsidies, policies in most coun-
tries contain market distortions such as blending mandates,
trade restrictions and tariffs that create costs through inef-
ficiencies. This undermines an efficient allocation of biofuel
production in the countries with the largest potential and
cheapest costs and creates costs for consumers.
Liberalizing biofuel trade through the reduction of trade
restrictions and changes in the trade classification of etha-
nol and biodiesel would promote a more efficient allocation
of production in those countries that have a comparative
advantage in feedstock production and fuel conversion,
iesµecrively. Hovevei. ir is nor cleai lov iesouice-µooi
small-scale farmers could benefit from this. Moreover, un-
less environmental and social sustainability is somehow en-
sured, negative effects such as deforestation, unsustainable
use of marginal lands and marginalization of small-scale
farmers risk being magnified. Sustainability standards and
voluntary approaches are the most frequently discussed op-
tions for ensuring socially and environmentally sustainable
Lioíuel µiouucrion. Hovevei. rleie is cuiienrly no inrei-
national consensus on what such schemes should encom-
pass, whether they could effectively improve sustainability
or even whether they should be developed at all [Global
Chapter 7].
AKST can play a role in improving the balance of so-
cial, environmental and economic costs and benefits, albeit
within limits. R&D on increasing biofuel yields per hectare
while reducing agricultural input requirements by optimiz-
ing cropping methods, breeding higher yielding crops and
employing local plant varieties offers considerable potential.
Both conventional breeding and genetic engineering are be-
ing employed to further enhance crop characteristics such
as starch, sugar, cellulose or oil content to increase fuel-
producing capacity [Global Chapter 6]. A variety of crops
and cropping methods in different countries are believed to
hold large yield potential, each adapted to specific environ-
ments, but more research is needed to develop this potential.
Next Generation Biofuels
The development of new biofuel conversion technologies,
so-called next generation biofuels, has significant poten-
tial. Cellulosic ethanol and biomass-to-liquids (BTL) tech-
nologies, the two most prominent technologies, allow the
conversion into biofuels not only of the glucose and oils
retrievable today but also of cellulose, hemi-cellulose and
even lignin—the main building blocks of most biomass.
Thereby, more abundant and potentially cheaper feedstocks
such as residues, stems and leaves of crops, straw, urban
01-SR.indd 37 11/3/08 12:08:16 PM
38 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
º Promoting R&D: Improving operational stability and
reducing capital costs promises to improve the attrac-
tiveness of bioenergy, especially of small and medium-
scale biogas digesters, thermo-chemical gasifiers and
stationary uses of unrefined vegetable oils. More re-
search is also needed on assessing the costs and benefits
to society of these options, taking into consideration
also other energy alternatives [Global Chapter 6].
º Development of product standards and dissemination
of knowledge: A long history of policy failures and a
wide variety of locally produced generators with large
differences in performance have led to considerable
skepticism about bioenergy in many countries. The de-
velopment of product standards, as well as demonstra-
tion projects and better knowledge dissemination, can
contribute to increase market transparency and improve
consumer confidence.
º Local capacity building: Experience of various bioen-
ergy promotion programs has shown that proper op-
eration and maintenance are key to success and sustain-
ability of low-cost and small-scale applications. There-
fore, local consumers and producers need to be closely
engaged in the development as well as the monitoring
and maintenance of facilities.
º Access to finance: Compared to other off-grid energy
solutions, bioenergy often exhibits higher initial capi-
tal costs but lower long-term feedstock costs. This cost
structure often forces poor households and communi-
ties to forego investments in modern bioenergy—even
in cases when levelized costs are competitive and pay-
back periods short. Improved access to finance can help
to reduce these problems.
Cross-cutting Issues
Food prices. The diversion of agricultural crops to fuel
can negatively affect hunger alleviation throughout the
world in the short to medium term, even though price
increases may be mitigated in the long term. This risk is
particularly high for first generation biofuels for trans-
port due to their very large demands for agricultural
crops. Price increases can be caused directly, through the
increase in demand for feedstocks, or indirectly, through the
increase in demand for the factors of production (e.g., land,
water), so the use of non-food crops is unlikely to alleviate
these concerns. More research is needed to assess these risks
and their effects but it is evident that poor net buyers of
food and food-importing developing countries are particu-
larly affected.
Environment. The large demands for additional agricultural
and forestry products for bioenergy can also cause impor-
tant environmental effects. Again, because of the large ad-
ditional demands for agricultural feedstocks, first genera-
tion biofuels create the largest potential problems includ-
ing pushing more ecologically fragile and valuable lands
into production and depleting and contaminating water
resources. Moreover, some of the fast growing crops pro-
moted for bioenergy production raise environmental (e.g.,
technical problems and are increasingly widespread in some
developing countries, especially in China. Similar technolo-
gies are also employed in industrialized countries, mostly
to capture environmentally problematic methane emis-
sions (e.g., at landfills and livestock holdings) and produce
energy.
Some forms of bioelectricity and bioheat can be eco-
nomically competitive with other off-grid energy options
such as diesel generators, even without taking into consider-
arion µorenrial non-maiker Lenenrs sucl as GHG emissions
reductions, and therefore are viable options for expanding
energy access in certain settings. The largest potential lies
with the production of bioelectricity and heat when techni-
cally mature and reliable generators have access to secure
supply of cheap feedstocks and capital costs can be spread
out over high average electricity demand. This is sometimes
the case on site or near industries that produce biomass
wastes and residues and have their own steady demand for
electricity, e.g., sugar, rice and paper mills. Environmen-
tally and socially, bioelectricity and heat are most often less
problematic than liquid biofuels for transport because they
are predominantly produced from wastes, residues and sus-
rainaLle íoiesriy. In rlese cases signincanr GHG emission
reductions can be achieved, even when biomass is co-fired
with coal, and food prices are unlikely to be affected. The
economics as well as environmental effects are particularly
favorable when operated in combined heat and electric-
ity mode, which is increasingly being employed in various
countries, e.g., during harvesting season Mauritius meets
70% of electricity needs from sugarcane bagasse cogenera-
rion. Hovevei. µairiculare emissions íiom smoke sracks aie
of considerable concern. Biomass digesters and gasifiers are
more prone to technical failures than direct combustion fa-
cilities, especially when operated in small-scale applications
without proper maintenance and experiences with their ap-
plication vary considerably [ESAP Chapter 4; Global Chap-
ters 3, 5, 6; SSA Chapter 2].
Small-scale applications for local use of first genera-
tion biofuels can sometimes offer interesting alternatives
for electricity generation that do not necessarily produce
the negative effects of large-scale production due to more
contained demands on land, water and other resources.
Biodiesel has special potential in small-scale applications,
as it is less technology and capital intensive to produce than
ethanol, although methanol requirements for its production
can pose a challenge. Unrefined bio-oils for stationary uses
are even less technology intensive to produce and do not
iequiie merlanol. Hovevei. engines íoi µovei geneiarion
and water pumping have to be adapted for their use. Local
stationary biofuel schemes may offer particular potential for
local communities when they are integrated in high intensity
small-scale farming systems that allow an integrated pro-
duction of food and energy crops. These options are being
analyzed in several countries, e.g., focusing on Jatropha and
Pongamia as a feedstock, but evidence on their potential is
not yet conclusive [CWANA Chapter 2; Global Chapter 6;
NAE Chapter 5].
Several actions can be undertaken to promote a better
exploitation of bioelectricity and bioheat potential [Global
Chapter 7].
01-SR.indd 38 11/3/08 12:08:16 PM
Themes: Bioenergy | 39
technology of agriculture as an energy consumer and pro-
ducer will have to be overcome through local, national and
regional frameworks.
Integrated analysis. The economics of bioenergy as well as
positive and negative environmental and social effects are
highly complex, depend considerably on particular circum-
stances and have important distributional implications. Con-
sequently, decision makers need to carefully weigh full social,
environmental and economic costs of the targeted form of
bioenergy and of the envisaged support policy against real-
istically achievable benefits and other energy alternatives.
their resemblance with weeds) and social concerns. On the
other hand, bioenergy can positively contribute to climate
change mitigation, although this potential differs strongly
from case to case and costs have to be compared to other
mitigation options.
Institutional arrangements. Institutional arrangements and
power relationships strongly impact the ability of different
stakeholders to participate in bioenergy production and
consumption and the distribution of costs and benefits. The
current weaknesses in institutional links and responsibili-
ties between the various sectors involved in the policy and
01-SR.indd 39 11/3/08 12:08:16 PM
40
gies continue to be widely practiced by farmers because they
were developed at the local level of understanding and are
supported by local research.
Much more controversial is the application of modern
biotechnology outside containment, such as the use of GM
crops. The controversy over modern biotechnology outside
of containment includes technical, social, legal, cultural and
economic arguments. The three most discussed issues on
biotechnology in the IAASTD conceredt:
º Lingeiing uouLrs aLour rle auequacy oí eíncacy anu
safety testing, or regulatory frameworks for testing
GMOs [e.g., CWANA Chapter 5; ESAP Chapter 5;
Global Chapter 3, 6; SSA 3];
º SuiraLiliry oí GNOs íoi auuiessing rle neeus oí mosr
farmers while not harming others, at least within some
existing IPR and liability frameworks [e.g., Global
Chapter 3, 6];
º ALiliry oí mouein Lioreclnology ro make signincanr
contributions to the resilience of small and subsistence
agricultural systems [e.g., Global Chapter 2, 6].
Some controversy may in part be due to the relatively short
time modern biotechnology, particularly GMOs, has existed
compared to biotechnology in general. While many regions
are actively experimenting with GMOs at a small scale [e.g.,
ESAP Chapter 5; SSA Chapter 3], the highly concentrated
cultivation of GM crops in a few countries (nearly three-
fourths in only the US and Argentina, with 90% in the four
countries including Brazil and Canada) is also interpreted
as an indication of a modest uptake rate [Global Chapter 5,
6]. GM crop cultivation may have increased by double digit
rates for the past 10 years, but over 93% of cultivated land
still supports conventional cropping.
The pool of evidence of the sustainability and produc-
tivity of GMOs in different settings is relatively anecdotal,
and the findings from different contexts are variable [Global
Chapter 3, 6], allowing proponents and critics to hold en-
trenched positions about their present and potential value.
Some regions report increases in some crops [ESAP Chapter
5] and positive financial returns have been reported for GM
cotton in studies including South Africa, Argentina, China,
India and Mexico [Global Chapter 3; SSA Chapter 3]. In
contrast, the US and Argentina may have slight yield de-
clines in soybeans, and also for maize in the US [references
in Global Chapter 3]. Studies on GMOs have also shown
the potential for decreased insecticide use, while others
show increasing herbicide use. It is unclear whether detected
benefits will extend to most agroecosystems or be sustained
Writing Team: Jack Heinemann (Þev Zealanu). 1seueke ALare
(Lrlioµia). Angelika HilLeck (Svirzeilanu). Doug Nuiiay (USA)
Biotechnology
8
is defined as “any technological application
that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives
thereof, to make or modify products or processes for a spe-
cific use.” In this inclusive sense, biotechnology can include
anything from fermentation technologies (e.g., for beer
making) to gene splicing. It includes traditional and local
knowledge (TLK) and the contributions to cropping prac-
tices, selection and breeding of plants and animals made by
individuals and societies for millennia [CWANA Chapter 1;
Global Chapter 6]. It would also include the application of
tissue culture and genomic techniques [Global Chapter 6]
and marker assisted breeding or selection (MAB or MAS)
[Global Chapter 5, 6; NAE Chapter 2] to augment natural
breeding.
9
Modern biotechnology is a term adopted by interna-
tional convention to refer to biotechnological techniques
for the manipulation of genetic material and the fusion of
cells beyond normal breeding barriers
9
[Global Chapter 6].
The most obvious example is genetic engineering to create
genetically modified/engineered organisms (GMOs/GEOs)
through “transgenic technology” involving the insertion or
deletion of genes. The word “modern” does not mean that
these techniques are replacing other, or less sophisticated,
biotechnologies.
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 GMOs, modern varieties of wheat
may have increased yields up to 33% even in the absence
of fertilizer. Even modern biotechnologies used in contain-
ment have been widely adopted. For example, the industrial
enzyme market reached US$1.5 billion in 2000.
Biotechnologies in general have made profound con-
tributions that continue to be relevant to both big and
small farmers and are fundamental to capturing any ad-
vances derived from modern biotechnologies and related
nanotechnologies
10
[Global Chapter 3, 5, 6]. For example,
plant breeding is fundamental to developing locally adapted
plants whether or not they are GMOs. These biotechnolo-
9
See definition in Executive Summary.
10
These are provided as examples and not comprehensive de-
scriptions of all types of modern biotechnology (see Fig. SR-BT1).
11
Specifically those nanotechnologies that involve the use of liv-
ing organisms or parts derived thereof.
Biotechnology
01-SR.indd 40 11/3/08 12:08:17 PM
Themes: Biotechnology | 41
MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY
Cell fusion
Transfection
Transformation
Conjugation/agroinfection
GMOs
in vitro manipulated
DNA and RNA
Natural regeneration
Cultivation methods
Tissue culture
Modern
biotechnology
Natural breeding
Biotechnology
Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
Figuie SPBT). GloLal slalus of GM zoo6.
ARGENTI NA
BRASI L
CANADA
CHI NA
I NDI A
PARAGUAY
SOUTH AFRI CA
URUGUAY
AUSTRALI A
Major GM crop production countries, 2006
PHI LI PPI NES
SOURCE: Earthtrends 2003 and Clive James
200
100
50
25
10
Million hectares
USA
GM crops
Crop land
DESIGN: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
A TINY SLICE:
Crop land in the
Philippines and
Australia enlarged
250% to make GM
crops visible
AUSTRALI A
PHI LI PPI NES
Figure SR-BT1. Biotechnology and modern biotechnology defined.
Figure SR-BT2. Global status of GM 2006.
01-SR.indd 41 11/3/08 12:08:19 PM
42 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
ESAP Chapter 5; Global Chapter 3], depending on how it
is incorporated into societies and ecosystems and whether
there is the will to fairly share benefits as well as costs. For
example, the use of modern plant varieties has raised grain
yields in most parts of the world, but sometimes at the ex-
pense of reducing biodiversity or access to traditional foods
[Global Chapter 3]. Neither costs nor benefits are currently
perceived to be equally shared, with the poor tending to re-
ceive more of the costs than the benefits [Global Chapter 2].
Hunger, nutrition and health
Biotechnologies affect human health in a variety of ways.
The use of DNA-based technologies, such as microchips,
for disease outbreak surveillance and diagnostics can re-
alistically contribute to both predicting and curtailing the
impacts of infectious diseases [NAE Chapter 6]. The ap-
plication of these technologies would serve human health
objectives both directly and indirectly, because they could be
applied to known human diseases and to plant and animal
diseases that might be the source of new human diseases or
which could reduce the quantity or quality of food.
Other products of modern biotechnology, for example
GMOs made from plants that are part of the human food
supply but developed for animal feed or to produce pharma-
ceuticals that would be unsafe as food, might threaten human
health [Global Chapters 3, 6]. Moreover, the larger the scale
of bio/nanotechnology or product distribution, the more chal-
lenging containment of harm can become [Global Chapter 6].
All biotechnologies must be better managed to cope
with a range of ongoing and emerging problems [SSA
Claµrei 3]. Holisric solurions may Le sloveu. lovevei. ií
GMOs are seen as sufficient for achieving development and
sustainability goals and consequently consume a dispropor-
tionate level of funding and attention. To use GMOs or not
in the long term as resistances develop to herbicides and
insecticides [Global Chapter 3].
IPR frameworks need to evolve to increase access to
proprietary biotechnologies, especially modern biotechnol-
ogy, and address new liability issues for different sectors of
producers. The use of IPR to increase investment in agricul-
ture has had an uneven success when measured by type of
technology and country. In developing countries especially,
too often instruments such as patents are creating prohibi-
tive costs, threatening to restrict experimentation by the in-
dividual 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-savings and exchanges.
Modern biotechnology has developed in too narrow a
context to meet its potential to contribute to the small and
subsistence farmer in particular [NAE Chapter 6, SDM]. As
tools, the technologies in and of themselves cannot achieve
sustainability and development goals [CWANA Chapter 1;
Global Chapter 2, 3]. For example, a new breeding technique
or a new cultivar of rice is not sufficient to meet the require-
ments of those most in need; the grain still has to be distri-
buted. Dissemination of the technique or variety alone would
not reduce poverty; it must be adapted to local conditions.
Therefore, it is critical for policy makers to holistically con-
sider biotechnology impacts beyond productivity and yield
goals, and address wider societal issues of capacity building,
social equity and local infrastructure [SSA Chapter 3].
Challenge: Biotechnology for Development and
Sustainability Goals
Biotechnology in general, and modern biotechnology in par-
ticular, creates both costs and benefits [CWANA Chapter 5;
SOURCE: Clive James and Wenzel, G (”2006) Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. volume 70, p. 642–650
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996
Total
USA
Argentina
Others
India
Canada
Global GM plantings by country (‘000 hectares)
0
20
40
60
80
100
2006 2005 2004 2003 2001 2000 1996
Land area: Conventional and GM crops
GM share of total (per cent)
Conventional GM
IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
Growth in GM agriculture
Figure SR-BT3. Agricultural land (1996-2000) by GM and conventional crop plantings: keeping scale
in perspective.
01-SR.indd 42 11/3/08 12:08:21 PM
Themes: Biotechnology | 43
upon which modern biotechnology is built [ESAP Chapter
5; Global Chapters 2, 6, 7]. It is not just the large transna-
tional corporations who are interested in retaining control
of IP. Public institutions, including universities, are becom-
ing significant players and in time, holders of TLK may also
[Global Chapter 7].
IP protected by patents can be licensed for use by oth-
ers. Currently it is contracts and licenses [Global Chapter
2] that dominate the relationship between seed developers
and farmers [Global Chpater 2]. For example, farmers and
CGIARs enter into contracts and material transfer agree-
ments (MTAs) with a seed company, or a community-based
owner of TK. These contracts can help resolve some access
issues, but can simultaneously create other legal and finan-
cial problems that transcend easy fixes of patent frameworks
alone [Global Chapters 2, 5].
Technical and Intensification Issues
Since agriculture (excluding wild fisheries) already uses
nearly 40% of the Earth’s land surface [Global Chapter 7],
biotechnology could contribute to sustainability and devel-
opment goals if it were to help farmers of all kinds produce
more from the land and sea already in use, rather than by
producing more by expanding agricultural land [SSA Chap-
ter 1]. In addition to meeting future food needs, agriculture
is increasingly being considered as an option to meet energy
needs [Global Chapter 6], which exacerbates the pressures
on yield [ESAP Chapter 5]. Food security, however, is a
multi-dimensional challenge, so the demands on biotechnol-
ogy in the long term will extend far beyond just increasing
yield [NAE Chapter 6, SDM].
Agroecosystems
Hov agiiculruie is conuucreu inluences vlar anu lov
much a society can produce. Biotechnology and the produc-
tion system are inseparable, and biotechnology must work
with the best production system for the local community
[ESAP Chapter 5]. For example, agroecosystems of even
the poorest societies have the potential through ecological
agriculture and IPM to meet or significantly exceed yields
produced by conventional methods, reduce the demand for
land conversion for agriculture, restore ecosystem services
(particularly water), reduce the use of and need for synthetic
fertilizers derived from fossil fuels, and the use of harsh in-
secticides and herbicides [Global Chapters 3, 6, 7]. Likewise,
how livestock are farmed must also suit local conditions
[CWANA Chapter 1]. For example, traditional “pastoral
societies are driven by complex interactions and feedbacks
that involve a mix of values that includes biological, social,
cultural, religious, ritual and conflict issues. The notion that
sustainability varies between modern and traditional societ-
ies needs to be” generally recognized [Global Chapter 6].
It may not be enough to use biotechnology to increase the
number or types of cattle, for instance, if this reduces local
genetic diversity or ownership, the ability to secure the best
adapted animals, or they further degrade ecosystem services
[CWANA Chapters 1, 5; Global Chapter 7].
Agroecosystems are also vulnerable to events and
choices made in different systems. Some farming certifica-
tion systems, e.g., organic agriculture, can be put at risk
by GMOs, because a failure to segregate them can under-
is a decision that requires a comprehensive understanding
of the products, the problems to be solved and the societ-
ies in which they may be used [CWANA Chapter 5]. Thus,
whatever choices are made, the integration of biotechnology
must be within an enabling environment supported by local
research [Global Chapter 6] and education that empowers
local communities [CWANA Chapter 1].
Social equity
Two framing perspectives on how best to put modern bio-
technology to work for achieving sustainability and de-
velopment goals are contrasted in the IAASTD. The first
perspective [e.g., see Global Chapter 5] argues that modern
biotechnology is overregulated and this limits the pace and
full extent of its benefits. According to the argument, regu-
lation of biotechnology may slow down the distribution of
products to the poor [Global Chapter 5].
The second perspective says that the largely private con-
trol of modern biotechnology [Global Chapter 5] is creat-
ing both perverse incentive systems, and is also eroding the
public capacity to generate and adopt AKST that serves the
public good [e.g., see Global Chapters 2, 7]. The integra-
tion of biotechnology through the development of incen-
tives for private (or public-private partnership) profit has
not been successfully applied to achieving sustainability and
development goals in developing countries [Global Chapter
7], especially when they include the success of emerging and
small players in the market. Consolidation of larger eco-
nomic units [CWANA Chapter 1; Global Chapter 3; NAE
Chapters 2, 6] can limit agrobiodiversity [Global Chapter
3] and may set too narrow an agenda for research [Global
Chapters 2, 5]. This trend might be slowed through broa-
dening opportunities for research responsive to local needs.
The rise of IPR frameworks since the 1970s, and es-
pecially the use of patents since 1980, has transformed
research in and access to many products of biotechnology
[Global Chapter 2; NAE Chapter 2]. Concerns exist that
IPR instruments, particularly those that decrease farmers’
privilege, may create new hurdles for local research and de-
velopment of products [Global Chapters 2, 6; SSA Chapter
3]. It is unlikely, therefore, that over regulation per se in-
hibits the distribution of products from modern biotechnol-
ogy because even if safety regulations were removed, IPR
would still likely be a significant barrier to access and rapid
adoption of new products. This may also apply to the fu-
ture development of new GM crops among the largest seed
companies, with costs incurred to comply with IP require-
ments already exceeding the costs of research in some cases
[Global Chapters 6, 7].
Products of biotechnology, both modern and conven-
tional, are frequently amenable to being described as IP and
increasingly being sold as such, with the primary holders
of this IP being large corporations that are among those
most capable of globally distributing their products [Global
Chapter 2]. Even under initiatives to develop “open source”
biotechnology or return some IP to the commons, the devel-
opers may have to adequately document the IP to prevent
others from claiming it and restricting its use in the future.
This ability to develop biotechnologies to meet the needs
of IP protection goals may undervalue the past and pres-
ent contribution by farmers and societies to the platform
01-SR.indd 43 11/3/08 12:08:21 PM
44 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
need for local farmers and researchers to develop locally
adapted varieties. It will be important to maintain a situa-
tion where innovation incentives achieved through IPR in-
struments and the need for local farmers and researchers to
develop locally adapted varieties are mutually supportive.
Patent systems, breeders’ exemptions and farmers’ privilege
provisions may need further consideration here [Global
Chapter 2]. An important early step may be to create effec-
tive local support for farmers. Support could come from, for
example, farmer NGOs, where appropriate, to help develop
local capacities, and advisers to farmer NGO’s to guide their
investments in local plant improvement. Participatory plant
breeding, which incorporates TK, is a flexible strategy for
generating new cultivars using different local varieties. It has
the added advantage of empowering the local farmer and
women [Global Chapter 2]. A number of ad hoc private ini-
tiatives for donating or co-developing IP are also appearing
[Global Chapter 2], and more should be encouraged.
The decline in numbers of specialists in plant breeding,
especially from the public sector, is a worrisome trend for
maintaining and increasing global capacity for crop im-
provement [Global Chapter 6]. In addition, breeding supple-
mented with the use of MAS can speed up crop development,
especially for simple traits [Global Chapter 3; NAE Chapter
6]. It may or may not also significantly accelerate the de-
velopment of traits that depend on multiple genes [Global
Chapter 6]. Provided that steps are taken to maintain lo-
cal ownership and control of crop varieties, and to increase
capacity in plant breeding, adaptive selection and breeding
remain viable options for meeting development and sustain-
ability goals [Global Chapter 6; NAE Chapter 6].
Gene flow
Regardless of how new varieties of crop plants are cre-
ated, care needs to be taken when they are released because
through gene flow they can become invasive or problem
weeds, or the genes behind their desired agronomic traits
may introgress into wild plants threatening local biodiver-
sity [Global Chapter 5]. Gene flow may assist wild relatives
and other crops to become more tolerant to a range of en-
vironmental conditions and thus further threaten sustain-
able production [Global Chapters 3, 6]. It is important to
recognize that both biodiversity and crop diversity are im-
portant for sustainable agriculture. Gene flow is particularly
relevant to transgenes both because they have tended thus
far to be single genes or a few tightly linked genes in ge-
nomes, which means that they can be transmitted like any
other simple trait through breeding (unlike some quantita-
tive traits that require combinations of chromosomes to be
inherited simultaneously), and because in the future some
of the traits of most relevance to meeting development and
sustainability goals are based on genes that adapt plants to
new environments (e.g., drought and salt tolerance) [Global
Chapter 5].
Transgene flow also creates potential liabilities [Global
Chapter 6]. The liability is borne when the flow results in
traditional, economic or environmental damage. For exam-
ple, the flow of transgenes from pharmaceutical GM food
crops to other food crops due to segregation failures could
introduce both traditional and environmental damage. An
important type of potential economic damage arises from
mine market certifications and reduce farmer profits [Global
Chapter 6]. Seed supplies and centers of origin may be put at
risk when they become mixed with unapproved or regulated
articles in source countries [Global Chapter 3].
Trees and crops
Plant breeding and other biotechnologies (excluding trans-
genics discussed below) have made substantial historical
contributions to yield [Global Chapter 3]. While yield may
have “topped out” under ideal conditions [Global Chapter
3], in developing countries the limiting factor has been ac-
cess to modern varieties and inputs instead of an exhaus-
tion of crop trait diversity [Global Chapter 3], and therefore
plant breeding remains a fundamental biotechnology for
contributing to sustainability and development goals.
Biotic and abiotic stresses, e.g., plant pathogens, drought
and salinity, pose significant challenges to yield. These chal-
lenges are expected to increase with the effects of urbaniza-
tion, the conversion of more marginal lands to agricultural
use [SSA Chapter 1], and climate change [CWANA Chapter
1; Global Chapter 7; SSA Chapter 1]. Adapting new culti-
vars to these conditions is difficult and slow, but it is again
plant breeding perhaps complemented with MAS, that is
expected to make the most substantial contribution [Global
Chapters 3, 6]. Genetic engineering also could be used to
introduce these traits [Global Chapter 5; NAE Chapter 6].
It may be a way to broaden the nutritional value of some
crops [ESAP Chapter 5]. If GM crops were to increase pro-
ductivity and prevent the conversion of land to agricultural
use, they could have a significant impact on conservation
íGloLal Claµrei 5]. Hovevei. rle use oí some riairs may
threaten biodiversity and agrobiodiversity by limiting farm-
ers’ options to a few select varieties [ESAP Chapter 5; Global
Chapters 3, 5, 6].
Breeding capacity is therefore of great importance to
assessments of biotechnology in relation to sustainability
and development goals [NAE Chapters 4, 6]. In develop-
ing countries, public plant breeding institutions are common
but IP and globalization threaten them [Global Chapters 2,
6]. As privatization fuels a transfer of knowledge away from
the commons, there is a contraction both in crop diversity
and numbers of local breeding specialists. In many parts of
the world women play this role, and thus a risk exists that
privatization may lead to women losing economic resources
and social standing as their plant breeding knowledge is ap-
propriated. At the same time, entire communities run the
risk of losing control of their food security [CWANA Chap-
ter 1; Global Chapter 2].
Plant breeding activities differ between countries,
so public investment in genetic improvement needs to be
augmented by research units composed of local farming
communities [Global Chapters 2, 6]. In addition, conflicts
in priorities, that could endanger in situ conservation as a
resource for breeding, arising from differences in IP protec-
tion philosophies need to be identified and resolved [Global
Chapter 2]. For example, patent protection and forms of
plant variety protection place a greater value on the role of
breeders than that of local communities that maintain gene
pools through in situ conservation [Global Chapter 2]. It
will be important to find a new balance between exclusive
access secured through IPR or other instruments and the
01-SR.indd 44 11/3/08 12:08:22 PM
Themes: Biotechnology | 45
Ways Forward
Biotechnology must be considered in a holistic sense to cap-
ture its true contribution to AKST and achieving develop-
ment and sustainability goals. On the one hand, this may be
resisted because some biotechnologies, e.g., genetic engineer-
ing, are very controversial and the particular controversy
can cause many to prematurely dismiss the value of all bio-
technology in general. On the other hand, those who favor
technologies that are most amenable to prevailing IP protec-
tions may resist broad definitions of biotechnology, because
past contributions made by many individuals, institutions
and societies might undermine the exclusivity of claims.
A problem-oriented approach to biotechnology R&D
would focus investment on local priorities identified through
participatory and transparent processes, and favor multi-
functional solutions to local problems [Global Chapter 2].
This emphasis replaces a view where commercial drivers de-
termine supply. The nature of the commercial organization
is to secure the IP for products and methods development. IP
law is designed to prevent the unauthorized use of IP rather
than as an empowering right to develop products based on IP.
Instead, there needs to be a renewed emphasis on public sec-
tor engagement in biotechnology. It is clearly realized that the
private sector will not replace the public sector for producing
biotechnologies that are used on smaller scales, maintaining
broadly applicable research and development capacities, or
achieving some goals for which there is no market [CWANA
Chapter 5; Global Chapters 5, 8]. In saying this, an IP-mo-
tivated public engagement alone would miss the point, and
the public sector must also have adequate resources and ex-
pertise to produce locally understood and relevant biotech-
nologies and products [CWANA Chapter 1].
A systematic redirection of AKST will include a rig-
orous rethinking of biotechnology, and especially modern
biotechnology, in the decades to come. Effective long-term
environmental and health monitoring and surveillance pro-
grams, and training and education of farmers are essential
to identify emerging and comparative impacts on the en-
vironment and human health, and to take timely counter
measures. No regional long-term environmental and health
monitoring programs exist to date in the countries with the
most concentrated GM crop production [Global Chapter
3]. Hence. long-reim uara on enviionmenral imµlicarions oí
GM crop production are at best deductive or simply missing
and speculative.
While climate change and population growth could col-
lude to overwhelm the Earth’s latent potential to grow food
and bio-materials that sustain human life and well being,
both forces might be offset by smarter agriculture. Present
cultivation methods are energy intensive and environmen-
tally taxing, characteristics that in time both exacerbate
demand for limited resources and damage long term pro-
ductivity. Agroecosystems that both improve productivity
and replenish ecosystem services behind the supply chain are
desperately needed. No particular actor has all the answers
or all the possible tools to achieve a global solution. Geneti-
cally modified plants and GM fish may have a sustainable
contribution to make in some environments just as ecologi-
cal agriculture might be a superior approach to achieving a
higher sustainable level of agricultural productivity.
the type of IPR instrument used to protect GM but not con-
ventional and plants in some jurisdictions. The former are
subject to IP protection that follows the gene rather than the
trait, and is exempt from farmer’s privilege provisions in some
plant variety protection conventions [Global Chapter 6].
GMOs and chemical use
There is an active dispute over the evidence of adverse ef-
fects of GM crops on the environment [Global Chapter 3 vs.
NAE Chapter 3]. That general dispute aside, as GM plants
have been adopted mainly in high chemical input farming
systems thus far [Global Chapter 3], the debate has focused
on whether the concomitant changes in the amounts or
types of some pesticides [Global Chapter 2; NAE Chapter
3] that were used in these systems prior to the development
of commercial GM plants creates a net environmental ben-
efit [Global Chapter 3]. Regardless of how this debate re-
solves, the benefits of current GM plants may not translate
into all agroecosystems. For example, the benefits of reduc-
tions in use of other insecticides through the introduction of
insecticide-producing (Bt) plants [NAE Chapter 3] seems to
be primarily in chemically intensive agroecosystems such as
North and South America and China [Global Chapter 3].
Livestock and aquaculture to increase food
production and improve nutrition
Livestock, poultry and fish breeding have made substantial
historical and current contributions to productivity [Global
Chapters 3, 6, 7]. The key limitation to productivity in-
creases in developing countries appears to be in adapting
modern breeds to the local environment [CWANA Chapter
5; Global Chapter 3]. The same range of genomics and en-
gineering options available to plants, theoretically, apply to
livestock and fish [Global Chapters 3, 6; NAE Chapter 6].
In addition, livestock biotechnologies include artificial in-
semination, sire-testing, synchronization of estrus, embryo
transfer and gamete and embryo cryopreservation, and new
cloning techniques [see CWANA Chapter 5; Global Chapter
6; NAE Chapter 6 for a range of topics].
Biotechnology can contribute to livestock and aquacul-
ture through the development of diagnostics and vaccines
for infectious diseases [Global Chapter 6; NAE Chapter 6],
transgenes for disease resistance [Global Chapter 3] and de-
velopment of feeds that reduce nitrogen and phosphorous
loads in waste [Global Chapter 3]. Breeding with enhanced
growth characteristics or disease resistance is also made pos-
sible with MAS [Global Chapter 3; NAE Chapter 6]. As
with plants, the difficulty with breeding animals is in bring-
ing the different genes necessary for some traits together all
at once in the offspring. Animals with desired traits might be
more efficiently selected by using genomic maps to identify
quantitative traits and gene x environment interactions.
There are currently no transgenic livestock animals in
commercial production and none likely in the short term
[Global Chapter 6]. Gene flow from GM fish also may be of
significant concern and so GM fish would need to be closely
monitored [CWANA Chapter 5; Global Chapter 3]. Assess-
ing environmental impacts of GM fish is even more difficult
than for GM plants, as even less is known about marine
ecosystem than about terrestrial agroecosystems.
01-SR.indd 45 11/3/08 12:08:22 PM
46
Climate Change
natural climate variability and extreme climate events have
caused significant damage to agriculture and livelihoods re-
sulting in food insecurity and poverty among rural commu-
nities [CWANA Chapter 3; ESAP Chapter 4; LAC Chapter
3; NAE Chapters 2,3; SSA Chapter 1]. Throughout human
history people all over the world have learned to adapt to
sucl climare vaiiaLiliry anu exrieme evenrs. Hovevei. ex-
perience with adaptive measures differs widely among re-
gions, countries and continents, as do the risks involved
[NAE Chapter 3]. This Assessment provides many exam-
ple of climate change’s effects on food production, agro-
forestry, animal production systems, fisheries and forestry
[CWANA Chapter 1; ESAP Chapters 2, 4; LAC Chapter
3; NAE Chapters 1, 3; SSA Chapter 4]. Poor, forest depen-
dent people and small-scale fishers who lack mobility and
livelihood alternatives suffer disproportionately from cli-
matic variability. The El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
phenomenon, associated with massive fluctuations in the
marine ecosystems of the western coast of South America,
adversely affects fishing and has led to devastating socioeco-
nomic tolls on the communities that depend on this activity
[LAC Chapter 1] Access to training, education, credit, tech-
nologies and other agricultural resources affects the ability
of women in particular to cope with climate change-induced
stresses.
Dependency of climate on agriculture. The relationship be-
tween climate change and agriculture (crops, livestock and
forestry) is not a one-way street. [Global Chapter 1; NAE
Chapter 2]. Agriculture contributes to climate change in
several major ways including:
º Land conversion and plowing releases large amounts of
stored carbon as CO
2
from vegetation and soils. About
50% of the world’s surface land area has been converted
to land for grazing and crop cultivation resulting in a
loss of more than half of the world’s forests. Deforesta-
tion and forest degradation releases carbon through the
decomposition of aboveground biomass and peat fires
and decay of drained peat soils.
º Carbon dioxide (CO
2
) and particulate matter are emit-
ted from fossil fuels used to power farm machinery, ir-
rigation pumps, and for drying grain, etc., as well as
fertilizer and pesticide production [NAE Chapter 2].
º Nitrogen fertilizer applications and manure applica-
tions as well as decomposition of agricultural wastes
results in emissions of nitrous oxide (N
2
O).
º Nerlane (CH
4
) is released through livestock digestive
processes and rice production.
Writing team: Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic (Ghana), Balgis
Osman-Elasha (Sudan), Wahida Patwa Shah (Kenya), John M.R.
Stone (Canada)
Why is climate change important to achieving development
and sustainability goals? The threat of climate change con-
tains the potential for irreversible damage to the natural re-
source base on which agriculture depends and hence poses
a grave threat to development. In addition, climate changes
are taking place simultaneously with increasing demands
for food, feed, fiber and fuel [ESAP Chapter 4; NAE Chap-
ter 3]. Addressing these issues will require a wide range of
adaptation and emission reduction measures.
The climate change issue presents decision makers with
a set of formidable challenges not the least of these is the in-
herent complexity of the climate system [CWANA Chapter
1; ESAP Chapter 4; LAC Chapter 3; NAE Chapter 3]. These
complexities include the long time lags between greenhouse
gas
11
emissions and effects, the global scope of the problem
but wide regional variations, the need to consider multiple
greenhouse gases and aerosols, and the carbon cycle, which
is important for converting emissions into atmospheric con-
centrations. Another significant challenge is the rapidity of
the changes in the climate that have occurred or will occur
[NAE Chapter 3].
Dependency of agriculture on climate. Agricultural produc-
tion depends on the provision of essential natural ecosys-
tems inputs such as adequate water quantity and quality,
soil nutrients, biodiversity and atmospheric carbon dioxide
to deliver food, fiber, fuel and commodities for human use
and consumption. The ecosystem services that provide these
inputs are affected, both directly and indirectly, by climate
change [CWANA Chapter 1; ESAP Chapters 2, 4; Global
Chapter 1; SSA Chapter 4]. Climate change, for example,
can affect the agrobiodiversity necessary for crop, tree and
livestock improvement, pest control and soil nutrient cy-
cling.
Agricultural production has always been affected by
11
Greenhouse gases and clouds in the atmosphere absorb the
majority of the long-wave radiation emitted by the Earth’s sur-
face, modifying the radiation balance and, hence, the climate of
the Earth. The primary greenhouse gases are of both, natural and
anthropogenic origin, including water vapour, carbon dioxide
[CO
2
]. merlane íCH
4
] nitrous oxide [N
2
O] and ozone [O
3
], while
halocarbons and other chlorine- and bromine-containing sub-
stances are entirely anthropogenic.
01-SR.indd 46 11/3/08 12:08:24 PM
Themes: Climate Change | 47
sphere. For instance, the carbon rich grasslands and forests
in temperate zones have been replaced by crops with much
lower capacity to sequester carbon. Despite a slow increase
in forests in the northern hemisphere, the overall benefits in
terms of carbon sequestration are being lost due to increased
deforestation in the tropics. There are however complex
tradeoffs, for example, when forest is replaced by oil palm
which will capture carbon but reduce biodiversity. Climate
change is also likely to affect the carbon cycle and some vul-
nerable natural pools of carbon could turn into sources, e.g.,
loss of peatlands. [Global Chapter 1; NAE Chapter 3].
Observed climate change and impacts. Overall, longer and
more intense droughts have been observed since the 1970s,
particularly in the tropics and sub-tropics. Extreme events
such as floods, droughts and tropical cyclones are now more
intense than before. Throughout NAE there have been sig-
nificant increases in serious forest fires, in part due to cli-
mate change, dense biomass and more human access into
remote areas. The thermal growing season has lengthened
by about 10 days.
Poor, forest dependent people and small-scale fishers
who lack mobility and livelihood alternatives suffer dispro-
portionately from climatic variability. The El Niño-Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, associated with massive
fluctuations in the marine ecosystems of the western coast
of South America, adversely affects fishing, and has lead to
devastating socioeconomic tolls on the communities that de-
pend on this activity [LAC Chapter 1].
Future climate change and projected impacts. Increased
growth and yield rates due to higher levels of carbon di-
oxide and temperatures could result in longer growing sea-
sons. For example, in mid- to high-latitude regions, accord-
ing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
º Alreieu iauiarive luxes anu evaµoiarion íiom nevly
bare soils [Global Chapter 3].
º Incieaseu geogiaµlical uisrance Lerveen µiouucei anu
consumer, together with regional agricultural speciali-
zation, has resulted in greater energy use for transporta-
tion.
Overall, agriculture (cropping and livestock) contributes
13.5 % of global greenhouse gas emissions mostly through
emissions of methane and nitrous oxide (about 47% and
5S° oí roral anrlioµogenic emissions oí CH
4
and N
2
O,
iesµecrively). Hovevei ieµoirs íiom orlei esrimare rle
emissions from livestock alone to account for 18% of total
emissions. This figure includes the entire commodity chain
for livestock. Land use, land use change and forestry con-
tribute another 17.4% mostly as carbon dioxide. Most of
greenhouse gas emissions are from land use changes and
soil management (40%), enteric fermentation (27%), and
rice cultivation (10%). As diets change and there is more
uemanu íoi mear. rleie is rle µorenrial íoi incieaseu GHG
emissions from agriculture. The relative contribution varies
by region; in NAE it is estimated to be in the range of 7-20%
[Global Chapter 1; NAE Chapter 2]. The highest emissions
of greenhouse gases from agriculture are generally associ-
ated with the most intensive farming systems. Sub-Saharan
Africa, on rainfed agriculture, contributes the least in terms
oí GHG emissions anu yer ir is among rle mosr vulneiaLle
regions to the impacts of climate change [NAE Chapter 3;
SSA Chapter 1] due to multiple stresses, including the heavy
reliance on rain fed agriculture, poverty, weak institutional
structures and low adaptive capacity.
Changes in land use have negatively affected the net
ability of ecosystems to sequester carbon from the atmo-
Figuie SPCC(a. Gieenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, zooa.
Waste
Farming
Land use
Industry Buildings
Transport
Power
Greenhouse gas emissions
in 2004 by source
SOURCE: IPCC, Working group 1, 2007 IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
25.9
13.1
7.9
19.4
17.4
13.5
2.8
Figure SR-CC1a. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 2004. Figuie SPCC(L. GHG emissions fiom agiiculluie and land use.
Other
Deforestation (clearing of
land and burning)
Land use or soil
management
Greenhouse gas emissions from
agriculture and land use
SOURCE: Baumert, 2005 IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
Methane from
livestock (enteric fermentation)
Wetland rice,
manure management
gordanak@gmail.com
Figure SR-CC1b. GHG emissions from agriculture and land use.
01-SR.indd 47 11/3/08 12:08:25 PM
48 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
rates of evapotranspiration, shifts in ratios between snow-
fall and rainfall and the timing of water availability, and
with the reduction of water stored in mountain glaciers.
Many climate impact studies project global water problems
in the near future unless appropriate action is taken to im-
prove water management and increase water use efficiency.
Projections suggest that by 2050 internal renewable water
is estimated to increase in some developed countries, but is
expected to decrease in most developing countries [Global
Chapter 5].
Climate change will increase heat and drought stress in
many of the current breadbaskets in China, India, and the
United States and even more so in the already stressed ar-
eas of sub-Saharan Africa. Rainfed agriculture, especially
of rice and wheat in the ESAP, is likely to be vulnerable.
For example, rainfed rice yield could be reduced by 5-12%
in China for a 2
o
C rise in temperature. [ESAP Chapter 4;
Global Chapter 6; NAE Chapter 3].
Most climate models indicate a strengthening of the
summer monsoon and increased rainfall in Asia, but in
semiarid areas in Africa the absolute amount of rain may
decline, and seasonal and inter-annual variation increase.
Reductions in the duration or changes in timing of the on-
set of seasonal floods will affect the scheduling and extent
of the cropping and growing seasons, which may in turn
have large impacts on livelihoods and production systems.
For example, droughts occurring in the monsoon period se-
SPCC). Pioiecled imµacls of climale change.
Global temperature change (relative to pre-industrial)
0°C 1°C 2°C 3°C 4°C 5°C 6°C
SOURCE: Stern Review IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
Projected impact of climate change
Falling crop yields in many areas, particulary developing regions
Possible rising yields in some high latitude regions
Small mountain glaciers disappear –
water supplies threatened in several areas
Significant decreases in water availability in many
areas, including Mediterranean and Southern Africa
Sea level rise threatens major cities
Extensive damage to coral reefs Rising number of species face extinction
Rising intensity of storms, forest fires, droughts, flooding and heat waves
Increasing risk of dangerous feedbacks and abrupt, large-scale shifts in the climate system
Food
Water
Ecosystems
Extreme weather events
Risk of abrupt and major irreversible changes
Falling yields in many developed regions
Figure SR-CC2. Projected impacts of climate change.
(IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report moderate local increases
in temperature (1-2ºC) can have small beneficial impacts
on cioµ yielus. Hovevei. in lov-lariruue iegions. even sucl
moderate temperature increases are likely to have negative
yield impacts for major cereals. Some negative impacts are
already visible, especially in developing countries. [ESAP
Chapter 2; Global Chapter 5; NAE Chapter 3]. Further
warming will have increasingly negative impacts, particu-
larly affecting production in food insecure regions. Warm-
ing in NAE will lead to a northward expansion of suitable
cropping areas as well as a reduction of the growing period
of crops such as cereals, but results, on the whole, project
the potential for global food production to increase with
increases in local average temperature over a range of 1 to
3ºC, and above this range to decrease.
From an ecosystem perspective, the rate of change can
be more important. By 2030, temperature increases of more
than 0.2 Cº per decade are projected. Rates in excess of
this are considered by some experts to be dangerous, al-
though our current understanding is still uncertain [Global
Chapter 5].
Although the state of knowledge of precipitation
changes is currently insufficient for confidence in the de-
tails, we expect that for many crops water scarcity will
increasingly constrain production. Climate change will re-
quire a new look at water storage to cope with the impacts
of changes in total amounts of precipitation and increased
01-SR.indd 48 11/3/08 12:08:26 PM
Themes: Climate Change | 49
weather patterns and changes in climate. Established pests
may become more prevalent due to favorable conditions
that include higher winter temperatures (thus reduced
winter-kill) and more rainfall. New pest introductions al-
ter pest/predator/parasite population dynamics through
changes in growth and developmental rates, the number of
generations produced per year, the severity and density of
populations, the pest virulence to a host plant, or the sus-
ceptibility of the host to the pest. Changing weather patterns
also increase crop vulnerability to pests, weeds and inva-
sive plants, thus decreasing yields and increasing pesticide
applications [Global Chapter 3]. Increased temperatures
are likely to facilitate range expansion of highly damaging
weeds, which are currently limited by cool temperatures
[Global Chapters 3, 6].
Climate simulation models indicate substantial future
increases in soil erosion. Tropical soils with low organic
matter are expected to experience the greatest impact of
erosion on crop productivity. Desertification will be exacer-
bated by reductions in average annual rainfall and increased
evapotranspiration especially in soils that have low levels of
biological activity, organic matter and aggregate stability.
[CWANA Chapter 1; Global Chapter 6] In addition, con-
tinued migration to urban areas of younger segments of the
population can lead to agricultural land degradation thus
exacerbating the effects of climate change, as those left on
the land are mostly old and the vulnerable.
There is a serious potential for future conflict, and
possible violent clashes over habitable land and natural re-
sources, such as freshwater, as a result of climate change,
which could seriously impede food security and poverty
reduction. An estimated 25 million people per year al-
ready flee from weather-related disasters; global warming
is projected to increase this number to some 200 million
before 2050, with semiarid ecosystems expected to be the
most vulnerable to impacts from climate change refugees
[Global Chapter 6]. In addition, climate change combined
with other socioeconomic stresses could alter the regional
distribution of hunger and malnutrition, with large negative
effects on sub-Saharan Africa.
Options for Action
The IPCC concluded that “warming of the climate system is
now unequivocal” and that “most of the observed increase
in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th cen-
tury is very likely due to the observed increase in anthro-
pogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” With these strong
conclusions the focus should now shift from defining the
threat to seeking solutions.
In considering responses to the threat of climate change
there are important policy considerations. Tackling the root
cause of the problem, which is the emissions of greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere, requires a global approach. The
earlier and stronger the cuts in emissions, the quicker con-
centrations will approach stabilization. While emission re-
duction measures clearly are essential, further changes in
the climate are now inevitable and thus adaptation becomes
imperative. Climate change is not simply an environmental
issue but can also be framed in terms of other issues such
as sustainable development and security. Actions directed
at addressing climate change and efforts to promote sus-
verely affect rice crop production in ESAP [ESAP Chapter
4; Global Chapter 5].
Extreme climate events are expected to increase in fre-
quency and severity and all regions will likely be affected by
the increase in floods, droughts, heat waves, tropical cyclones
and other extreme events with significant consequences for
food and forestry production, and food insecurity. This was
demonstrated during the summer 2003 European heat wave
that was accompanied by drought and reduced maize yields
by 20 percent. There is likely to be an increase in incidence
and severity of forest fires in next decades, partly as a result
of climate change [NAE Chapter 2].
Climate change is expected to threaten livestock holders
in numerous ways: animals are very sensitive to heat stress;
they require a reliable resource of water and pasture is very
sensitive to drought. In addition, infectious and vector-
borne animal diseases will continue to become increasingly
frequent worldwide [Global Chapter 3].
The effects of climate change on crop and tree yields,
fisheries, forestry and livestock vary greatly by region
[Global Chapter 1; SSA Chapter 4] and climate scenarios
project that local biomes and terrestrial ecosystems will
change. Although climate projections cannot tell us exactly
what and where the changes will be and when they will be
experienced, it is known that climate change will affect re-
gional patterns of temperature and precipitation.
Global climate change is expected to alter marine and
freshwater ecosystems and habitats. Rising sea levels will
alter coastal habitats and their future productivity, threaten-
ing some of the most productive fishing areas in the world.
Changes in ocean temperatures will alter ocean currents and
the distribution and ranges of marine animals, including fish
populations. Rising atmospheric CO
2
will lead to acidifi-
cation of ocean waters and disrupt the ability of animals
(such as corals, mollusks, plankton) to secrete calcareous
skeletons, thus reducing their role in critical ecosystems and
food webs [Global Chapter 6; SSA Chapter 4]. Sea level rise
could lead to saltwater intrusion causing a reduction in agri-
cultural productivity in some coastal areas [ESAP Chapters
2, 4; Global Chapter 1; NAE Chapter 3; SSA Chapter 3]. It
is expected that climate change will lead to significant reduc-
tions in the diversity fish species with important changes in
abundance and distribution of fresh water fish stocks such
as in rivers and lakes in SSA.
Climate change is affecting and will affect the geographic
range and incidence of many human, animal, and plant
pests, disease vectors and wide variety of invasive species
that will inhabit new ecological niches, [ESAP Chapter 3;
Global Chapters 1, 5, 6, 7]. These anticipated changes may
have a negative impact on agricultural activities through
their effect on the health of farmers and ecosystems, par-
ticularly in developing countries. For example, an increase
in temperature and precipitation is projected to expand the
range of vector-transmitted diseases making it possible for
these diseases to become established outside limits of their
current range, and at higher elevations [LAC Chapter 1].
In addition, increased irrigation as an adaptive response to
better control water scarcity due to climate change may in-
crease incidences of malaria [Global Chapter 5] and other
water-related diseases.
Pests and diseases are strongly influenced by seasonal
01-SR.indd 49 11/3/08 12:08:27 PM
50 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
to which we are already committed in the near term as well
as for the long term, where the risk of unmitigated climate
change impacts could exceed the adaptive capacity of exist-
ing agricultural systems.
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, agroforestry and restoration of
underutilized or degraded land; land use options such as car-
bon sequestration in agricultural soils, appropriate applica-
tion of nitrogenous inputs; and effective manure management
and use of feed that increases livestock digestive efficiency.
Policy options covering regulations and investment
opportunities include financial incentives to maintain and
increase forest area through reduced deforestation and deg-
radation and improved management. Those policy options
that enhance the production of renewable energy sources
could be particularly effective. Any post-2012 regime has to
be more inclusive of all agricultural such as reduced emis-
sion from reforestation and degradation activities to take
full advantage of the opportunities offered by agriculture
and forestry sectors [Global Chapter 6].
Local, national and regional agricultural develop-
ment regulatory frameworks will have to take into account
tradeoffs between the need for promoting higher yields and
the need for the maintenance and enhancement of environ-
mental services that support agriculture [SSA Chapter 4].
Adaptation options. Two types of adaptation have been
recognized: autonomous and planned adaptation. Autono-
mous adaptation does not constitute a conscious response
to climatic stimuli but is triggered by ecological changes in
tainable development share some important common goals
and determinants such as, for example, equitable access to
resources, appropriate technologies and decision-support
mechanisms to cope with risks. Furthermore, decisions on
climate change are usually made in the context of other en-
vironmental, social and economic stresses.
There is a need to develop agricultural policies that both
reduce emissions and allow adaptation to climate change
that are closer to carbon-neutral, minimize trace gas emis-
sions and reduce natural capital degradation [Global Chap-
ter 4]. Important questions include how emissions from
agriculture and forestry can be effectively reduced, how to
µiouuce íoou virl giearei inµur eínciency anu less GHG
emissions, how agriculture, agroforestry and forestry can
best adapt under given local conditions, and what role bio-
fuels can play—and, finally, what are the implications of
these challenges on requirements for AKST [NAE Chapter
3]. More efforts will be required to develop new knowledge
and technologies, especially for energy-efficient farming sys-
tems, as well as more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis
than these now available [Global Chapter 3]. Interconnected
issues, such as the effects of land use changes on biodiversity
and on land degradation, need to be addressed in order to
exploit synergies between the goals of UN conventions on
biodiversity and desertification and climate change.
Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strate-
gies to reduce impacts. The effects of reduced emissions in
avoiding impacts by slowing the rate of temperature increase
will not emerge for several decades due to the inertia of the
climate system. Adaptation, therefore, will be important in
coping with early impacts. Specifically, adaptation will be
necessary to meet the challenge of impacts on agriculture
SOURCE: IPCC, 2007.
Stressors Source
Population increase driving fragmentation of landholding Various
Grimble et al., 2002
Reardon et al., 2003
Kherallah et al., 2002
Lipton, 2004, Various
Barnet and Whiteside, 2002
Blench, 2001
Various
Environmental degradation stemming variously from population, poverty, ill-defined property rights
Regionalised and globalised markets, and regulatory regimes, increasingly concerned with issues
of food quality and food safety
Market failures interrupt input supply following withdrawal of government intervention
Continued protectionist agricultural policies in developed countries, and continued declines and
unpredictability in the world prices of many major agricultural commodities of developing countries
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and/or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)
pandemic, particularly in Southern Africa, attacking agriculture through the deaths of working age
adults, which diverts labor away from farming, erodes household assets, disrupts knowledge
transfer and reduces the capacity of agricultural service providers
For pastoralists, encroachment on grazing lands and failure to maintain traditional natural
resource management
State fragility and armed conflict in some regions
Multiple stressors in small-scale agriculture
SPCC(. Mulliµle sliessois in smallscale agiiculluie.
Table CC1. Multiple stressors in small-scale agriculture.
01-SR.indd 50 11/3/08 12:08:27 PM
Themes: Climate Change | 51
The effectiveness of AKST’s adaptation efforts is likely
to vary significantly between and within regions, depending
on exposure to climate impacts and adaptive capacity, the
latter depending very much on economic diversification and
wealth and institutional capacity. The viability of traditional
actions taken by people to lessen the impacts of climate
change in arid and semi arid regions depends on the ability
to anticipate hazard patterns, which are getting increasingly
erratic. Early detection and warning using novel GIS-based
methodologies such as those employed by the Conflict Early
Warning and Response Network (CEWARN) and the Global
PuLlic Healrl Iníoimarion Þervoik (G-PHIÞ) coulu µlay a
useful role.
Bringing climate prediction to bear on the needs of ag-
riculture requires increasing observational networks in the
most vulnerable regions, further improvements in forecast
accuracy, integrating seasonal prediction with information
at shorter and longer time scales, embedding crop models
within climate models, enhanced use of remote sensing,
integration into agricultural risk management, enhanced
stakeholder participation, and commodity trade and stor-
age applications [Global Chapter 6].
Mitigation options. A number of options, technologies and
reclniques ro ieuuce oi oíí-ser rle emissions oí GHGs al-
ready exist and could:
º Lovei levels oí merlane oi nirious oxiue rliougl in-
creasing the efficiency of livestock production, improv-
ing animals’ diets and using feed additives to increase
food conversion efficiency, reducing enteric fermenta-
tion and consequent methane emissions, aerating ma-
nure before composting and recycling agricultural and
forestry residues to produce biofuels.
º Lovei nirious oxiues emissions rliougl marcling ma-
nure and fertilizer application to crop needs and op-
timizing nitrogen up-take efficiently by controlling the
application rates, method and timing.
º Reuuce emissions íiom ueíoiesrarion anu íoiesr uegia-
dation, including policy measures to address drivers of
deforestation, improve forest management, forest law
enforcement, forest fire management, improve silvicul-
tural practices and promote afforestation and reforesta-
tion to increase carbon storage in forests [Global Chap-
ters 1, 3, 5, 6; SSA Chapter 3]
º Imµiove rle soil caiLon ierenrion Ly µiomoring Lioui-
versity as a tool for climate mitigation and adaptation
and enhance the management of residues, using zero/re-
duced tillage, including legumes in crop rotation, reduc-
ing the fallow periods and converting marginal lands into
woodlots. [Global Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6; SSA Chapter 3]
º Suµµoir lov-inµur íaiming agiiculruie rlar ielies on ie-
newable sources of energy.
It is important that efforts aimed at addressing emissions
reductions mitigation from agriculture carefully consider all
µorenrial GHG emissions. Ioi examµle. eííoirs ro ieuuce
CH
4
emissions in rice could lead to greater N
2
O emissions
through changes in soil N dynamics. Similarly, conservation
tillage for soil carbon sequestration can result in elevated
N
2
O emissions through increased agrochemicals use and ac-
celerated denitrification in soils [Global Chapter 6].
natural systems and by market or welfare changes in hu-
man systems. Planned adaptation is the result of a deliberate
policy decision, based on an awareness that conditions have
changed or are about to change and that action is required
to return to, maintain, or achieve a desired state. It could
also take place at the community level, triggered by knowl-
edge of the future impacts of climate change and realization
that extreme events experienced in the past are likely to be
repeated in the future. The first means the implementation
of existing knowledge and technology in response to the
changes experienced, while the latter means the increased
adaptive capacity by improving or changing institutions
and policies, and investments in new technologies and in-
frastructure to enable effective adaptation activities.
Many autonomous adaptation options are largely ex-
tensions or intensifications of existing risk-management or
production-enhancement activities. These include:
º Clanging vaiieries/sµecies ro nr moie aµµioµiiarely ro
the changing thermal and/or hydrological conditions;
º Clanging riming oí iiiigarion anu auiusring nuriienr
management;
º Aµµlying varei-conseiving reclnologies anu µiomoring
agrobiodiversity for increased resilience of the agricul-
tural systems; and
º Alreiing riming oi locarion oí cioµµing acriviries anu
the diversification of agriculture [Global Chapter 6].
Planned adaptations include specific policies are aiming at
reducing poverty and increasing livelihood security, provi-
sion of infrastructure that supports/enables integrated spa-
tial planning and the generation and dissemination of new
knowledge and technologies and management practices tai-
lored to anticipated changes [NAE Chapter 3]. It is impor-
tant to note that policy-based adaptations to climate change
will interact with, depend on or perhaps even be just a sub-
set of policies on natural resource management, human and
animal health, governance and political rights, among many
others. These represent examples of the “mainstreaming” of
climate change adaptation into policies intended to enhance
broad resilience.
The extent to which development and sustainability
goals will be affected by climate change depends on how
well communities are able to cope with current climate
change and variability, as well as to other stresses such as
land degradation, poverty, lack of economic diversification,
institutional stability and conflict [Global Chapter 6]. In-
dustrialized world agriculture, generally situated at high
latitudes and possessing economies of scale, good access to
information, technology and insurance programs, as well as
favorable terms of global trade, is positioned relatively well
to adapt to climate change. By contrast small-scale rain-fed
production systems in semiarid and subhumid zones, which
continuously face significant seasonal and inter-annual cli-
mate variability, are characterized by poor adaptive capacity
due to the marginal nature of the production environment
and the constraining effects of poverty and land degrada-
tion [Global Chapter 6]. Sub-Saharan Africa and CWANA
are especially vulnerable regions [CWANA Chapter 1; SSA
Chapter 1]. The resilience of dry-land ecosystems to deficits
in moisture, temperature extremes and salinity is still inad-
equately understood.
01-SR.indd 51 11/3/08 12:08:28 PM
52 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
is needed if we want to take full advantage of the opportuni-
ties offered by agriculture and forestry sectors.
Achieving this could be accomplished through a nego-
tiated global long-term (30-50 years), comprehensive and
equitable regulatory framework with differentiated re-
sµonsiLiliries anu inreimeuiare raigers ro ieuuce rle GHG
emissions. Within such a framework a modified Clean De-
velopment Mechanism (CDM) with a comprehensive set of
eligible agricultural mitigation activities, including affor-
estation and reforestation; avoided deforestation, using a
national sectoral approach rather than a project approach
to minimize issues of leakage, thus allowing for policy inter-
ventions; and a wide range of agricultural practices includ-
ing organic agriculture and conservation tillage could help
meet the development and sustainability goals. Other ap-
proaches could include reduced agricultural subsidies that
µiomore GHG emissions anu meclanisms ro encouiage anu
support adaptation, particularly in vulnerable regions, such
as the tropics and sub-tropics.
In addition, policy options regulations and investment
opportunities that include financial incentives to increase
forest area, reduce deforestation and maintain and manage
forests, enhance the production of renewable energy sources
coulu Le µairiculaily eííecrive. Hovevei. some clallenges
may arise in developing countries which lack sufficient in-
vestment capital and have unresolved land tenure issues
[Global Chapters 1, 3, 5; SSA Chapter 3].
Climate change regimes. The Kyoto Protocol currently rep-
resents the highest level of international consensus around
the need to address climate change. Questions have been
raised regarding its effectiveness in reducing global emis-
sions to avoid dangerous climate change. It is clear that the
Kyoto Protocol is a first step, one that demonstrates po-
litical will and allows for some policy experimentation, and
that deeper cuts and additional de-carbonization strategies
are needed. Mitigation options employing the agricultural
sectors are not well covered under the Protocol. In this re-
gard a much more comprehensive future looking agreement
01-SR.indd 52 11/3/08 12:08:28 PM
53
Current Status and Trends
Interrelationship between poor health and agriculture.
VulneiaLle µoµularions. µairiculaily in iuial communiries.
are typically exposed to multiple and interacting health risks
associated with agriculture, including poor nutrition, food
safety, and occupational and environmental health risks. This
often results in a significant cumulative burden of ill health.
Poor health in turn impacts on multiple agricultural
íuncrions anu ourµurs. Higl µievalence iares oí malnurii-
tion and infectious and chronic diseases decrease produc-
tivity through labor shortages, the need to change the type
of crops grown, and the need to reduce the total area of
land under cultivation. Poor health also impacts on farm-
ers’ ability to innovate and develop new farming systems.
Ill health among families of producers can impact on pro-
duction through absenteeism to provide health and other
care, and the loss of household income or other outputs of
agricultural work [CWANA; ESAP; Global Chapter 3; LAC;
NAE; SSA]. This is particularly important for women who
are often both the primary producers and primary carers
[see Women in Agriculture theme]. Reduced life expectancy
results in loss of local agricultural knowledge and reduced
capacity, especially with respect to uptake of AKST. In de-
veloping countries these issues are clearly illustrated by the
imµacr oí HIV-AIDS. malaiia anu malnuriirion íCWAÞA:
ESAP; Global Chapters 1, 3; LAC; SSA].
Malnutrition. Worldwide, ill health due to poor nutrition
results from under-nutrition over-nutrition, and imbalanced
food intake leading to obesity [CWANA; ESAP; Global
Chapters 1, 2, 3; LAC; NAE Chapter 2; SSA Chapter 2].
Individual risk factors for under-nutrition include insuffi-
cient macro- or micronutrient dietary intake; depletion of
body nutrients due to infections; and increased nutrient re-
quirements during childhood, adolescence, pregnancy, and
high physical activity such as manual labor. Malnutrition in
many countries and regions continues to result from food
insecurity due to multiple causes including loss of land,
economic and political instability, war, and extreme climate
events [Global Chapters 1, 3; SSA Chapter 2].
Over the past 40 years, there have been significant
increases in global food production and supply that has
surpassed population growth in many countries [Global
Chapters 1, 2, 3]. During this period, global under-nutrition
declined but still remains a major public health problem,
estimated to contribute to over 15% of the total global bur-
den of disease in 2000, with high variability in the extent of
Human Health
Writing Team: Kristie L. Ebi (USA), Rose R. Kingamkono (Tanza-
nia). Kaien Lock (UK). Yalem Nekonnen (Lrlioµia)
Inter-linkages between health, nutrition, agriculture, and
AKST affect the ability of individuals, communities, and na-
tions to reach sustainability goals. These interlinkages take
place within a context of other, multiple stressors that affect
population health. Intake of food of insufficient quantity,
quality, and variety can result in ill-health. Poor health in
adults and children leads to reduced economic productivity.
Malnutrition and recurrent infections in childhood impair
physical growth and mental development, thus lowering
economic productivity in adulthood [Global Chapters 1, 3,
6; SSA]. Lowered immunity associated with undernutrition
makes individuals more susceptible to a range of diseases,
incluuing HIV/AIDS. anu can make riearmenr anu iecoveiy
more difficult [CWANA; ESAP; Global Chapters 2, 3, 5;
LAC; SSA]. Improving health by controlling a range of in-
fectious and chronic diseases can increase the effectiveness
and productivity of food systems and AKST.
Agriculture has generally not had an explicit goal of
improving human health. Appropriate application of AKST
can improve dietary quantity and quality and overall popu-
lation health; Examples include appropriate crop diversifica-
tion approaches; the use of fertilizers, such as zinc, selenium,
and iodine, on soils low in these essential human nutrients;
and development of agroecosystem farming approaches de-
signed to improve human, animal, and soil health [Global
Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, 8].
Agriculture can inadvertently affect health through the
emergence of infectious diseases (approximately 75% of
emerging diseases are zoonotic—transmitted between ani-
mals and humans) [Global Chapters 3, 5, 6, 9; NAE Chap-
ters 1, 4; SSA Chapter 3]. Furthermore, agriculture is one
of the three most dangerous occupations [with mining and
construction] in terms of deaths, accidents, exposures, and
occupationally related ill-health [Global Chapter 3]. Con-
sumers are increasingly worried about increased risk of
ill-health resulting from exposure to pesticides and other
agrichemicals, antibiotics and growth hormones, additives
introduced during food-processing, and foodborne patho-
gens [CWANA Chapter 5; ESAP Chapters 2, 3, 5; Global
Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; LAC Chapter 1; NAE Chapter 2; SSA
Chapters 2, 3].
01-SR.indd 53 11/3/08 12:08:29 PM
54 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
Chapter 3; NAE Chapter 2]. AKST has focused on adding
financial value to basic foodstuffs (e.g., using potatoes to
produce a wide range of snack foods). This has resulted in
cheap, processed food products with low nutrient density
(high in fat, refined sugars and salt), and that have a long
shelf life. Increased consumption of these food products
that are replacing more varied, traditional diets, is con-
tributing to increased rates of obesity and diet-related
chronic disease worldwide. This has been exacerbated by
the significant role of huge advertising budgets spent on
unhealthy foods. There are a few examples of agricultural
food policies that have been developed due to population
health concerns; e.g., formation of the EU common agri-
cultural policy whose original objectives included food
security. In contrast, recent national and international ag-
ricultural trade policies/ regimes have not addressed the
changing global health challenges and do not have explicit
public heath goals.
Food safety. Although subject to controls and standards,
globalization of the food supply, accompanied by concen-
tration of food distribution and processing companies, and
growing consumer awareness, increase the need for effec-
tive, coordinated, and proactive national food safety sys-
tems [CWANA Chapter 5; ESAP Chapters 2, 3, 5; Global
Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8; LAC Chapter 1; NAE Chapters 1,
2; SSA Chapters 2, 3]. Issues include accountability and lack
of vertical integration between consumers and producers. A
food hazard is a biological, chemical, or physical contami-
nant, or an agent that affects bioavailability of nutrients.
Food safety hazards may be introduced anywhere along the
food chain with many hazards resulting from inputs into
production and handling of commodities [Global Chapter
2]. As food passes through a multitude of food handlers and
middlemen over extended period of time through the food
production, processing, storage, and distribution chain,
control has become difficult, increasing the risks of exposing
food to contamination or adulteration. Concerns that could
be addressed by AKST include heavy metals, pesticides, safe
use of biofertilizers, the use of hormones and antibiotics in
meat production, large-scale livestock farming and the use
of various additives in food-processing industries. In gen-
eral, developed countries, despite long food chains, guar-
antee a high level of consumer protection of imported and
domestic food supplies; the capacity and legislative frame-
works of public health systems quickly identify and control
disease outbreaks. In developing countries, safety concerns
are compounded by poverty; inadequate infrastructure for
enforcement of food control systems; inadequate social ser-
vices and structures (potable water, health, education, trans-
portation); population growth; high incidence and preva-
lence oí communicaLle uiseases incluuing HIV/AIDS: anu
trade pressure [CWANA Chapter 5; ESAP Chapters 2, 3,
5; LAC Chapter 1; NAE Chapters 1, 2; SSA Chapters 2, 3].
AKST control of food contamination creates social and
economic burdens on communities and their health systems
through market rejection costs of contaminated commodi-
ties causing export market losses, the need for sampling and
testing, costs to food processors and consumers, and associ-
ated health costs [Global Chapters 2, 5, 7, 8]. The incidence
of foodborne illnesses caused by pathogenic biological food
the problem between and within countries. Between 1981
and 2003, 97 developing and 27 transitional countries had
a µooi GloLal Hungei Inuex íGHI].
12
[Global Chapter 2] In
Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, chronic food short-
ages meant that trends in malnutrition continued or wors-
ened over the past decades [SSA Chapters 1, 2, 3].
Although the world food system provides an adequate
supply of protein and energy for over 85% of people, only
two-thirds have access to sufficient dietary micronutrients
[Global Chapters 1, 3]. The supply of many nutrients in
the diets of the poor has decreased due to a reduction in
diet diversity resulting from increased monoculture of staple
food crops (rice, wheat, and maize) and the loss of a range of
nutrient dense food crops from local food systems. Micro-
nutrient deficiencies lower productivity, in both developed
and developing countries, due to compromised health and
impaired cognition. [CWANA; ESAP; Global Chapters 1, 2,
3; LAC; SSA].
Dietary-related chronic diseases. The success of AKST
policies and practices in increasing production and in new
mechanisms for processing foods have facilitated increas-
ing rates of worldwide obesity and chronic disease through
negative changes in dietary quality [Global Chapters 1, 2,
3, 6; NAE]. Worldwide changes in food systems have re-
sulted in overall reductions in dietary diversity, with low
population consumption of fruits and vegetables and high
intakes of fats, meat, sugar and salt [Global Chapters 1,
2, 3; NAE]. Poor diet throughout the life course is a ma-
jor risk factor for chronic diseases (including heart disease,
stroke, diabetes and cancer) [Global Chapters 1, 3, 6; NAE
Chapter 2] that comprise the largest proportion of global
deaths. Together with environmental factors such as rapid
urbanization which result in increased sedentary lifestyles
(motorized transport, etc.), dietary changes contribute to
continuing global increases in chronic diseases, overweight,
and obesity affecting both rich and poor in developed and
developing countries. The most dramatic rises in obesity
are now occurring in low- and middle-income countries
[Global Chapters 1, 2, 3; NAE Chapter 2]. These nutrition-
related chronic diseases coexist with under-nutrition in
many countries causing a greater disease burden in lower
income countries [Global Chapters 1, 2, 3]. Unless action
is taken to reduce these trends, all countries will see an in-
crease in the economic burden due to loss of productivity,
increased health care and social welfare costs that are al-
ready seen in developed countries [Global Chapter 3; NAE].
Many national and international actors have been slow to
understand and adapt their policies to address these world-
wide changes occurring in diet, nutrition, and their health
impacts [Global Chapters 1, 2, 3; NAE Chapter 2].
Policies, regimes and consumer demands have tended
to increase production (especially in the US and Europe) of,
and processing incentives for, foodstuffs that are risk fac-
tors for chronic disease (high fat dairy, meat, etc.) [Global
12
GHI caµruies rliee equal veiglreu inuicarois oí lungei: insuín-
cient availability of food [the proportion of people who are food en-
ergy deficient]; short fall in nutritional status of children [prevalence
of underweight for <5 years old children] and child mortality [<5
years old mortality rate] which are attributable to undernutrition.
01-SR.indd 54 11/3/08 12:08:29 PM
Themes: Human Health | 55
Emerging infectious diseases. Emerging and reemerging in-
íecrious uiseases. incluuing µanuemic HIV/AIDS anu malai-
ia, are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortal-
ity worldwide [Global Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, 8; SSA Chapter
3]. The incidence and geographic range of these infectious
diseases are influenced by the intensification of crop and
livestock systems, economic factors (e.g., expansion of in-
ternational trade and lower prices), social factors (changing
diets and lifestyles), demographic factors (e.g., population
growth), environmental factors (e.g., land use change and
global climate change), microbial mutations/evolution, and
the speed with which people can travel around the globe.
Serious socioeconomic impacts can arise when diseases
spread widely within human or animal populations (such as
H5Þ1). oi vlen rley sµill ovei íiom animal ieseivoiis ro
human hosts; farming intensification often increases these
risks. Even small-scale animal disease outbreaks can have
major economic impacts in pastoral communities.
Future Challenges and Options for Improving Human
Health through AKST
Malnutrition. Adequate nutrition requires a range of inter-
related factors to be in place including food security, access
to adequate supplies of safe water, sanitation, and educa-
tion. AKST should be seen as a primary intervention to
improve nutrition and food security, through development
and deployment of existing and new technologies for pro-
duction, processing, preservation, and distribution of food
[CWANA; ESAP; Global Chapters 2, 3, 5, 8; LAC; NAE;
SSA]. For example, evidence is beginning to accumulate that
breeding biofortified crops may help address some human
micronutrient deficiency and improve amino acid composi-
tion in major staples; use of targeted fertilizers, such as zinc,
selenium, and iodine, on soils low in these essential human
nutrients to correct deficiencies. Developing environmen-
tally sustainable, food-based solutions to under-nutrition
should be a priority. In both local and national food sys-
tems, policies and programs to increase crop diversification
and dietary diversity will help achieve food security.
Dietary-related chronic diseases. There are well established
mechanisms and tools for monitoring community nutrition
status. These need to be used systematically to improve sur-
veillance systems for both under- and over-nutrition, and
of chronic disease rates, to ensure that governments appro-
priately address the rapidly changing nature of nutrition-
related diseases in each country. Strategies for tackling the
rises in overweight, obesity, and non-communicable diseases
are needed in all world regions. Policies that simply rely on
public health education and changing individual behaviors
have been ineffective. Tackling nutrition-related chronic
disease requires coordinated, intersectoral policy responses
that include public health, agriculture, and finance minis-
tries, as well as food industry, consumer organizations, and
other civil society participation [Global Chapter 3; NAE].
There are often tensions between agricultural food
policy and population health improvement goals. Despite
claims that consumers determine the market, the actual
health needs of consumers are seldom the driving factors
in production decisions and agricultural policies [Global
contaminants, including bacteria, fungi, viruses, or para-
sites, has increased significantly over the past few decades
[Global Chapters 1, 3, 5]. In developing countries, food-
borne diseases can cause and/or exacerbate malnutrition.
Together, these cause an estimated 12 to 13 million child
deaths; survivors are often left with impaired physical and/
or mental development that limits their ability to reach their
full potential [Global Chapter 1].
There is increasing public concern over new AKST
technologies, including GMOs and food irradiation. There
is no clear scientific consensus whether these technologies
affect population health. Significant knowledge gaps limit
the assessment of the human health risks of GMOs. Food
irradiation although useful in reducing the risk of microbial
foodborne illness, could pose dangers to consumers, work-
ers, and the environment [Global Chapters 1, 2, 5].
Occupational impacts on health. Worldwide, agriculture
accounts for at least 170,000 occupational deaths each
year. This number accounts for half of all fatal accidents
worldwide and is likely an underestimate as most injuries
are underreported in developing countries [Global Chapter
3]. Machinery and equipment, such as tractors and harvest-
ers, account for the highest rates of injury and death [Global
Chapters 1, 3]. Other health hazards include agrichemicals;
transmissible animal diseases; toxic or allergenic agents;
and noise, vibration, and ergonomic hazards (related to
heavy loads, repetitive work, and inadequate equipment).
Exposure to pesticides and other agrichemicals constitutes a
major hazard to occupational health (and also wider com-
munity environmental health), with poisoning leading to
acute, sub-acute, and chronic adverse health impacts (e.g.,
neurotoxicity, respiratory, and reproductive impacts), par-
ticularly among vulnerable populations, and to death in-
cluuing suiciue íGloLal Claµreis 2. 3: SSA]. 1le WHO las
estimated that between 2 to 5 million cases of pesticide poi-
soning occur each year, resulting in approximately 220,000
deaths. This figure is widely recognized to be an underesti-
mate based on empirical research [Global Chapters 2, 3, 7].
Even when used according to manufacturers specifications,
following best practice and all protective measures, pesticide
exposure cannot be avoided entirely and therefore some ele-
ment of risk will remain particularly with highly toxic prod-
ucts. This is particularly relevant for developing countries,
where conditions of poverty and lack of effective controls
on hazardous compounds are the norm [Global Chapters
1, 2, 3]. In less developed countries, the risks of serious ac-
cidents and injury from a range of sources are increased, for
example, by the use of toxic chemicals banned or restricted
in other countries, unsafe techniques for chemical applica-
tion or equipment use, the absence or poor maintenance of
equipment, and lack of information available to the worker
on the precautions necessary for minimizing risks during
handling of agrichemicals, livestock, and machinery.
It is estimated that 70% of all child laborers (150 mil-
lion) work in agriculture, which affects education, devel-
opment, and long-term health. In addition to improving
occupational health and safety, intersectoral action is needed
to reduce and protect child labor through mechanisms such
as access to education and health, poverty alleviation, and
enforcement of child labor laws.
01-SR.indd 55 11/3/08 12:08:30 PM
56 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
a broad agroecosystem health approach. Examples include
good agricultural practices (GAPs) and good manufactur-
ing practices, integrated pest management, biological con-
trol of pests, and organic farming. These approaches, along
with regulatory frameworks, can inform effective and safe
pest and crop management strategies to manage the risks
associated with pathogen contamination of foods. Imple-
menting GAPs may help developing countries cope with
globalization without compromising sustainable develop-
menr oLiecrives. Hazaiu analysis íiisk assessmenr anu íoou
chain traceability] can enhance biosecurity and biosafety,
disease monitoring and reporting, input safety [including
agricultural and veterinary chemicals], control of potential
foodborne pathogens, and traceability. Sanitation systems
throughout the food production chain are integral to man-
aging the risks associated with pathogens. Also needed is
effective education of consumers in proper food handling
and preparation.
Hovevei. AKS1 can inciease rle iisks oí íoou saíery
when technologies are applied without effective manage-
ment of possible health risks. An example is the increasing
use of treated wastewater in water-stressed agricultural sys-
tems in developing countries, where local communities have
experienced increased rates of diarrheal diseases when either
technologies or pathogen-contaminated wastewater outputs
were used without effective controls.
Constraints to fuller deployment of current technolo-
gies and policies to improve food safety and public health
include a wide and complex variety of factors (including
market, trade, economic, institutional, and technical). There
is a need to establish effective national regulatory standards
and liability laws that are consistent with international best
Chapter 3; NAE]. Future AKST needs to refocus on con-
sumer needs and well-being, for example the importance of
diet quality and diversity should be main drivers of produc-
tion and not merely quantity or price. Fiscal policies should
take into account impacts on public health. Agricultural
subsidies, sales taxes and food marketing incentives or regu-
lations could be refocused to improve nutrition and public
health as a primary aim, for example by promoting produc-
tion and consumption of more healthy foods such as fruits
and vegetables. AKST could improve dietary quality by reg-
ulating healthy product formulation through legislation or
taxation (e.g., higher sales tax for food/foodstuffs known to
cause adverse health effects, or limiting quantities of specific
foods). Regulation may be necessary if voluntary industry
codes are unsuccessful as has been the case in Sweden (ban-
ning of the use of transfats in processed foods) and the UK
(reducing quantities of salt in processed foods). Other op-
tions for tackling nutrition-related chronic diseases include
international agreements on and/or regulation of food label-
ing and health claims of products to ensure the marketing
and labels are scientifically accurate and understandable for
all consumers [Global Chapters 1, 3; NAE Chapter 2]. Such
intersectoral polices should be designed and implemented
alongside local and national public health action to maxi-
mize impact.
Food safety. AKST, along with strengthening and improv-
ing public health and environmental systems, can help en-
sure animal health, plant health, and food safety [CWANA
Chapter 5; ESAP Chapter 3; Global Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 8;
LAC Chapters 2, 3; NAE Chapters 2, 4; SSA Chapter 2].
This requires concerted efforts along the food chain, taking
Figuie SPHH(. GloLal legislalion conceining, and gloLal Luiden of infeclious animal diseases.
OIE
Major
epizootic
diseases
OIE Major
zoonotic diseases
No global legislation
for remaining diseases
Endemic diseases
Other major
zoonotic diseases
Major
epizootic
diseases
Global legislation for control
of infectious animal diseases *
Global burden
of infectious animal diseases
* In addition to national legislation and international legislation related to food safety (CODEX)
SOURCE: Martin Wierup and Kris Ebi
Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
Figure SR-HH1. Global legislation concerning, and global burden of, infectious animal diseases.
01-SR.indd 56 11/3/08 12:08:31 PM
Themes: Human Health | 57
3, 6, 7, 8; NAE Chapter 2]. AKST is essential to develop
and deploy safer machinery and equipment, and improved
knowledge transfer is required to improve use of existing
and new technologies and techniques, including safe use of
machinery, and livestock handling.
Occupational health will only be prioritized when the full
extent of the problem becomes clear. This requires improved
surveillance and notification systems on occupational acci-
dents, injuries and diseases especially in LDCs. Agricultural
and rural development policies should address the need for
conducting occupational health risk assessments in the short
term which make explicit the trade-offs between benefits to
production, livelihoods, environmental and human health.
These should include an assessment of all the external costs,
including those on human health, as part of sustainable live-
lihood and poverty reduction programmes. Implementation
of more agroecological approaches may result in synergies
where reduction of input costs can also lead to improved
livelihoods and harm minimization [Global Chapters 2, 3].
Emerging infectious diseases. Most of the factors that con-
tribute to disease emergence will continue, if not intensify,
in the 21
st
century, with pathogens that infect more than one
host species more likely to emerge than single-host species
[Global Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8]. The increase in disease emer-
gence will affect both developed and developing countries.
Integrating policies and programs across the food chain can
help reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Examples in-
clude crop rotation, increasing crop diversity, and reduc-
ing the density, transport, and exchange of farm animals
across large geographic distances. Focusing on interventions
at one point along the food chain may not provide the most
efficient and effective control of infectious diseases. For
zoonotic diseases, this requires strengthening coordination
between veterinary and public health infrastructure and
training. Identification of and effective response to emerg-
ing infectious diseases requires enhancing epidemiologic
and laboratory capacity, and providing training opportuni-
ties [CWANA Chapter 5; Global Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8; NAE
Chapter 4; SSA Chapter 3]. Additional funding is needed
to improve current activities and to build capacity in many
regions of the world.
Detection, surveillance, and response programs are the
primary methods for identifying and controlling emerging
infectious diseases. Early detection, through surveillance
at local, national, regional, and international levels, and
rapid [and appropriate] intervention are needed [CWANA
Chapter 5; Global Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8; NAE Chapter 4; SSA
Chapter 3]. Effective public health systems and regulatory
frameworks are needed to support these activities, as well
as diagnostic tools, disease investigation laboratories and
research centers, and safe and effective treatments and/or
vaccines. Although AKST under development will advance
control methods, there is limited capacity for implementa-
tion in many low income countries. For animal diseases,
traceability, animal identification, and labeling (with associ-
ate educational initiatives) are needed. Recent advances in
collection and availability of climate and ecosystems infor-
mation can be used to develop forecasts of epidemics across
spatial and temporal scales [Global Chapter 6]. Increasing
understanding of the ecology of emerging infectious dis-
practices, along with the necessary infrastructure to ensure
compliance, including sanitary and phytosanitary surveil-
lance programs for animal and human health, laboratory
analysis and research capabilities (such as skilled manpower
and staff for research), and need-based and on-going train-
ing and auditing programs [CWANA Chapter 5; ESAP
Chapter 3; Global Chapters 6, 7, 8; LAC Chapters 2, 3;
NAE Chapters 2, 4; SSA Chapter 2].
Agrochemical exposure is of increasing concern
[CWANA Chapter 5; ESAP Chapters 2, 3; 5; Global Chap-
ters 3, 5, 6, 7, 8; LAC Chapters 1, 2, 3; NAE Chapters 2, 4;
SSA Chapters 2, 3]. Use of agrochemicals is growing faster
in developing than developed countries. Environmental and
food safety impacts from agrochemicals, both positive and
negative are determined by the conditions of use. Although
there is no global mechanism to track pesticide-related ill-
nesses, estimates of the number of possible cases and health
costs are high, particularly in many developing countries
without health insurance and universal health care.
Appropriate use of AKST can help prevent adverse
health impacts along the food chain [CWANA Chapter 5;
ESAP Chapter 3; Global Chapters 6, 7, 8; LAC Chapter
1; NAE Chapter 2; SSA Chapters 2, 3]. Place-based and
participatory deployment of current (such as precision
agriculture and bioremediation) and development of new
technologies (such as biosensors) can reduce the risks asso-
ciated with agrochemicals. Supply chain management pres-
ents a particular challenge in many less developed countries
(LDCs), where the supply chain is characterized by limited
coordination between farmers, traders, and consumers,
poor infrastructure, and insufficient cold storage systems.
Other challenges include harmonization of national and in-
ternational regulations establishing upper levels of intake of
nutrients and other substances, implementation of interna-
tional treaties and recommendations, and improvement of
food safety without creating barriers for poor producers and
consumers. Implementation of these options requires major
public and private research and development investments.
Occupational health. Agriculture is traditionally an under-
regulated sector in many countries and enforcement of any
safety regulations is often difficult due to the dispersed na-
ture of agricultural activity and lack of awareness of the ex-
tent of the hazards by those concerned. Few countries have
any mechanism for compensation of occupational ill health.
Current treaties and legislative frameworks, for example
for agrichemicals, are not working. Improving occupational
health in agriculture requires a greater emphasis on pre-
vention and health protection, tackled through integrated
multi-sectoral policies which must include effective national
health and safety legislation (including child labor laws), and
AKST which explicitly minimises health risks of agricultural
workers. For example, health risks associated with pesticide
use could be reduced through investment in pesticide reduc-
tion programs which could include incentives for alternative
production methods (such as organic), investment in viable
alternatives such as integrated pest management, and harm
minimisation including withdrawal of generic compounds
of high toxicity, and effective implementation of national
and international regulations to stop cross-border dumping
of hazardous and banned products [Global Chapters 1, 2,
01-SR.indd 57 11/3/08 12:08:31 PM
58 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
environmental manipulation, such as alternative wetting
and drying of rice fields, and reducing contacts between
vectors and humans, such as using cattle in some regions
to divert malaria mosquitoes from people [Global Chapters
6, 7, 8; NAE Chapter 4]. Because the relationships between
agriculture and infectious disease are not always straight-
forward, greater understanding is needed of the ecosystem
and socioeconomic consequences of changes in agricultural
systems and practices, and how these factors interact to alter
the risk of emerging diseases.
Ways forward require human health to be seen by all ac-
tors as an explicit goal to be tackled by AKST. This requires
integration and mainstreaming of public health throughout
agricultural policies and systems.
eases can be integrated with environmental data to forecast
where and when epidemics are likely to arise. Combined
with effective response, these early warning systems can re-
duce morbidity and mortality in animals and humans. Ad-
ditional research, improved coordination across actors at
all scales, and better understanding of effective implementa-
tion processes are needed [CWANA Chapter 5; Global 5,
6, 7, 8; LAC Chapters 2, 3; NAE Chapter 4; SSA Chapter
3]. Information and communication technologies are creat-
ing opportunities for faster and more effective communica-
tion of disease threats and responses [Global Chapter 6].
Integrated vector and pest management are effective in con-
trolling many infectious diseases, including environmental
modification, such as filling and draining small water bodies,
01-SR.indd 58 11/3/08 12:08:31 PM
59
Natural Resources Management
Writing Team: Lorna Michael Butler (USA), Roger Leakey
(Australia), Jean Albergel (France), Elizabeth Robinson (UK)
Soil, water, plant and animal diversity, vegetation cover,
renewable energy sources, climate, and ecosystem services
are fundamental capital in support of life on earth [Global
Chapter 1]. Natural resource systems, especially those of
soil, water and biodiversity, are fundamental to the structure
and function of agricultural systems and to social and envi-
ronmental sustainability [Global Chapter 3]. The IAASTD
report focuses primarily on the agronomic use of natural
resources. Extractive processes such as logging, wild har-
vesting of non-timber forest products, captive fisheries [SSA
SDM], while recognized as being important, are only ad-
dressed minimally here as they have been the focus of other
global assessments.
In many parts of the world natural resources have been
treated as though unlimited, and totally resilient to human
exploitation. This perception has exacerbated the conflict-
ing agricultural demands on natural capital, as have other
exploitative commercial enterprises [ESAP Chapters 2, 4;
Global Chapter 1]. Both have affected local cultures and
had undesirable long-term impacts on the sustainability of
resources [NAE Chapter 4]. The consequences include: land
degradation (about 2,000 million ha of land worldwide)
affecting 38% of the world’s cropland; reduced water and
nutrient availability (quality and access) [Global Chapter 1].
Agriculture already consumes 70% of all global freshwater
withdrawn worldwide and has depleted soil nutrients, result-
ing in N, P and K deficiencies covering 59%, 85%, and 90%
of harvested area respectively in the year 2000 coupled with
a 1,136 million tonnes yr
−1
loss of total global production
[Global Chapter 3]. Additionally, salinization affects about
10% of the world’s irrigated land, while the loss of biodiver-
sity and its associated agroecological functions [estimated
to provide economic benefits of US$1,542 billion per year
(Global Chapter 9)] adversely affect productivity especially
in environmentally sensitive lands in sub-Saharan Africa
and Latin America [CWANA Chapter 2; Global Chapter
1, 6; LAC Chapter 1; SSA Chapter 5]. Increasing pollution
also contributes to water quality problems affecting riv-
ers and streams: about 70% in the USA [Global Chapter
8]. There have also been negative impacts of pesticide and
fertilizer use on soil, air and water resources throughout
the world. For example the amount of nitrogen used per
unit of crop output increased greatly between 1961 and
1996.
The severity of these consequences varies with geo-
graphic location and access to the various capitals. This
complex of interacting factors often leads to reduced liveli-
hoods and diminishing crop yields, and the further refueling
of natural resource degradation, especially in marginal areas
[CWANA Chapter 1; ESAP Chapter 4; Global Chapters 3,
6; SSA Chapter 5]. The degradation of natural resources is
both biophysically and socially complex. Interrelated fac-
tors drive degradation, for example: commerce, population
growth, land fragmentation, inappropriate policy, custom-
ary practices and beliefs, poverty and weak institutions (cus-
tomary and property rights, credit for the poor, crop and
livestock insurance), can all be drivers of degradation [SSA
Chapter 5]. On the other hand, there are examples where
agricultural practices have been developed to protect agro-
ecosystems [LAC Chapter 1; SSA Chapter 5], while produc-
ing marketable commodities [Global Chapter 3]. Examples
include terracing, watershed and habitat management,
protection of vulnerable landscapes, pastoral systems [SSA
Chapter 5], and micro-irrigation technologies [Global Chap-
ter 3], and, more recently, policies promoting biocontrol,
organic food production, and fair trade [CWANA Chapter
2; LAC Chapter 1]. Additionally, loss of genetic resources
has been partially addressed by establishment of gene banks
anu geimµlasm collecrions íGloLal Claµrei 3]. Hovevei.
the overexploitation paradigm still dominates.
Challenges
To improve the productivity of agriculture and enhance sus-
tainable rural development there is the need to:
1. Assess the trends in the loss of natural capital (soil, wa-
ter, plant and animal diversity, vegetation cover, energy,
climate, ecosystem services) due to over-exploitation.
2. Understand the factors resulting in lower environmental
resilience and the failure to achieve optimum agricul-
tural output by the rural poor.
3. Mitigate and reverse the severe impacts on the environ-
ment and the livelihoods of poor people, for example
resolving loss of soil fertility, erosion, soil salinization,
decreased water quality and availability, decreased bio-
diversity and ecosystem services.
4. Resolve the biophysically and socially complex issues of
NRM using formal, local and traditional knowledge, and
collective, participatory and anticipatory decision mak-
ing with diverse stakeholders across multiple scales.
5. Adopt a holistic or systems-oriented approach, to cap-
ture the needs for sustainable production and to address
01-SR.indd 59 11/3/08 12:08:32 PM
60 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
rarely been involved in agricultural research, in shaping
natural resource management policy, or in working partner-
ships with the private sector to achieve integrated natural
resource management.
Causes of natural resource degradation and of declining
productivity are multiple and complex. New AKST based
on multidisciplinary approaches (biophysical, behavioral
and social) is necessary for a better understanding of this
complexity in NRM [NAE SDM Key Message 5; SSA Chap-
ter 5].
Identify and resolve underlying causes of declining
productivity embedded in natural resource misman-
agement through the adaptation of existing technolo-
gies and the creation of innovative solutions.
º Land degradation and nutrient depletion: The degrada-
tion of land is most often attributed to factors such as
the loss of vegetation due to deforestation, overgraz-
ing, land clearance, land abandonment, and inappro-
priate agricultural practices. It arises from population
pressure, lack of appropriate technical support and
knowledge, unavailability of inputs (fertilizers, water),
conflicting social pressures, commercial incentives, sub-
the complexity of food and other production systems in
different ecologies, locations and cultures so integrat-
ing food and nutritional security with natural resource
management.
6. Determine who pays for the remediation of overexploi-
tation and/or pollution of the natural resource system
on which everyone depends.
Options for action relative to development and
sustainability goals
The AKST available to resolve NRM exploitation issues like
the mitigation of soil fertility depletion through synthetic
inputs and natural processes, and the impacts of tillage on
compaction and organic matter decomposition are often
availaLle anu vell unueisroou. Hovevei. rleie is a neeu íoi
greater knowledge and understanding of interactions be-
tween the agricultural system and the natural environment.
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, farmer groups and civil society members have
Figuie SPNPM). Ag. walei wilhdiawals as µioµoilion of lolal.
Proportion of water withdrawal for agriculture, 2001
Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger SOURCE: FAO, Aquastat, 2007
No data < 25% 25–50% 50–75% 75–90% 75–90%
Figure SR-NRM1. Agricultural water withdrawals as proportion of total water withdrawals.
01-SR.indd 60 11/3/08 12:08:33 PM
Themes: Natural Resources Management | 61
lizer applications. The salinity problem can be reduced
by minimizing irrigation application, and lowering wa-
ter tables by appropriate tree planting, drainage sys-
tems; while acidification can be reduced by liming and
addition of organic residues [Global Chapter 3; LAC
Chapter 4].
º Loss of biodiversity (above and below ground) and asso-
ciated agroecological functions: Loss of biological diver-
sity results from repeated use of monoculture practices;
excessive use of agrichemicals; agricultural expansion
in to fragile environments; excessive land clearance that
eliminates patches of natural vegetation; and neglect
of indigenous knowledge and local priorities. This may
be resolved by diversified farming systems; land-use
mosaics; mixed cropping systems that integrate peren-
sidies and tariffs promoting non-sustainable practices,
etc. Some proven technologies for mitigating land deg-
radation include improved land husbandry, use of arti-
ficial and natural fertilizers, diversification and rotation
of cropping systems, minimum or no-tillage, contour
hedges, plowing, terracing and agroforestry practices,
organic and conservation farming [CWANA Chapter 2;
ESAP Chapter 5; Global Chapter 3; LAC Chapter 1;
SSA Chapter 5].
º Salinity and acidification: Causes of salinity usually re-
sult from excessive irrigation and evaporation of soil
moisture that draws up certain soil minerals, especially
salt [CWANA Chapter 2]. Causes of acidification are
related to overextraction of basic nutrient elements
through continuous harvesting and inappropriate ferti-
Figuie SPNPM*. Changes in availaLle walei in Afiica.
Changes in available water
SOURCE: Maarten de Wit and Jacek Stankiewicz, Science 31 March 2006,
END OF 20TH CENTURY PREDICTED CHANGE – END OF 21ST CENTURY
Less than 400 mm
400–1000 mm
More than 1000 mm
Drop by 10–20%
Drop by up to 10%
Increase by up to 10%
Increase by 10–20%
Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
Figure SR-NRM2. Changes in available water in Africa: end of 20
th
and 21
st
centuries.
SPNPM+% GloLal ceieal µioduclion/gloLal aµµlicalion of N
380
360
340
320
300
280
0.28
0.24
0.20
0.16
0.12
38
34
30
26
22
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
P
e
r

c
a
p
i
t
a

c
e
r
e
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
k
g
)
G
l
o
b
a
l

i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

(
b
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

[
1
0
9
]

h
a
)
P
e
r

c
a
p
i
t
a

m
e
a
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
k
g
)
Cereals
Meat
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Pesticides
80
60
40
20
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

t
o
n
n
e
s
.

W
o
r
l
d
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

f
o
r
m
e
r

U
S
S
R

Water
SOURCE: Tilman et al., 2002
IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
1940 1960 1950 1970 1980 1990 2000
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

t
o
n
n
e
s
Increased use of irrigation
Global total use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers.
Total global pesticides production
Global trends in cereal and meat production
380
360
340
320
300
280
0.28
0.24
0.20
0.16
0.12
38
34
30
26
22
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
P
e
r

c
a
p
i
t
a

c
e
r
e
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
k
g
)
G
l
o
b
a
l

i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

(
b
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

[
1
0
9
]

h
a
)
P
e
r

c
a
p
i
t
a

m
e
a
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
k
g
)
Cereals
Meat
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Pesticides
80
60
40
20
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

t
o
n
n
e
s
.

W
o
r
l
d
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

f
o
r
m
e
r

U
S
S
R

Water
SOURCE: Tilman et al., 2002
IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
1940 1960 1950 1970 1980 1990 2000
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

t
o
n
n
e
s
Increased use of irrigation
Global total use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers.
Total global pesticides production
Global trends in cereal and meat production
Figure SR-NRM3. Annual global cereal production/annual global application of N (Source: Tilman et al., 2002).
01-SR.indd 61 11/3/08 12:08:36 PM
62 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
habitats, waterways, and forests; and use and protec-
tion of traditional knowledge and farmers’ rights for
better access to traditional foods, which can also en-
hance community empowerment [LAC Chapter 1].
º Investment in research targeting natural resource resil-
ience and renewal and, simultaneously, strengthening lo-
cal capabilities and ownership for wide scale adoption.
Examples include rebuilding natural capital (replant-
ing watersheds, soil fertility replenishment, replanting
trees in the landscape); protection of water ways with
riparian buffer strips; domestication of new tree crops
through community action; wetland and swamp con-
servation; restoration of hydrological processes; and
documenting and using traditional knowledge of natu-
ral resource conservation [ESAP Chapters 3, 4; Global
Chapters 3, 6; LAC Chapters 1, 4; NAE Chapter 6].
º Investment in research targeting mitigation of climate
change and loss of biodiversity [NAE Chapter 6]. Ex-
amples include developing better understandings of
the role of biodiversity in agroecosystem functions and
wildlife conservation through diversified farming sys-
tems that support local livelihoods [Global Chapter 3;
SR Part II: Climate Change].
º Investment in national, regional and global structures
and partnerships to protect natural resource data col-
lections. Examples of secure data banks and collections
include GEMS, IPGRI, and indigenous knowledge col-
lections [see section on traditional knowledge and in-
novation; CWANA SDM; NAE Chapter 6].
º Investment to promote improved models of extension
and outreach by engaging local people with scientists
in participatory learning processes for NRM, and in
adapting improved NRM technologies to local circum-
stances for a better informed public with the capabili-
ties to diagnose, manage, and monitor natural resource
issues and changes [LAC Chapter 5; NAE SDM; SSA
Chapter 5].
º Investment in cost-effective monitoring of the state
of natural resources to generate long-term trends and
knowledge about the state of natural capital.
Promote agricultural production based on less ex-
ploitative NRM and strategies for resource resilience,
protection and renewal through innovative processes,
programs, policies and institutions.
º Promote research “centers of AKST-NRM excellence”.
These would facilitate less exploitative NRM and strat-
egies for resource resilience, protection and renewal
through innovative two-way learning processes in re-
search and development, monitoring and policy formu-
lation [CWANA Chapter 2; NAE Chapter 6].
º Develop a more multifunctional approach to agricul-
ture [NAE Chapter 6]. This can be achieved through
integrating production of food crops within integrated
farming systems that maintain environmental services
such as carbon sequestration, soil organic management,
water and nutrient cycling [NAE SDM]. This would
benefit from the integration of local insights on land
tenure and management regimes, gender-related pat-
terns of resource access and control and participatory
decision-making and implementation [ESAP Chapter 4;
nials (cash crops or domestically important indigenous
species); conservation farming and organic agriculture;
integrated pest management; conserving or introducing
biological corridors; controlling stocking densities; and
ensuring pollination, seed dispersal, life cycles and food
chains [Global Chapter 3; SSA Chapter 5].
º Reduced water availability, quality and access: Diffuse
pollution from agriculture is a major factor in damaging
water quality. Reduced water availability arises from
river capture, exploitation of aquifers and ground wa-
ter, drainage of wetlands, and deforestation. This can be
countered by using appropriately constructed holding
ponds, use of water-saving irrigation techniques, rain-
water capture, riparian strips and erosion control, mini-
mized use of agrichemicals, and improved efficiency in
the use of manures and fertilizers [CWANA Chapter 2;
Global Chapter 3; NAE Chapter 6].
º Increasing pollution (air, water, land): This may be
brought about by waste dumping, chemical accidents,
unsuitable cultivation and land use practices that emit
greenhouse gases, emissions from unregulated indus-
try, etc. Pollution may be reduced by regulation (local,
national, global); promotion of best practices for land/
water use, e.g., carbon sequestration [CWANA Chap-
ter 2; SR Part II: Climate Change]; reducing pesticide
use; biological control; use of clean energy alternatives
(biofuels, solar/wind power); etc. [Global Chapter 3; SR
Part II: Bioenergy]
Strengthen human resources in the support of natural
capital through increased investment (research, train-
ing and education, partnerships, policy) in promoting
the awareness of the societal costs of degradation
and value of ecosystem services.
º Investment to promote awareness of resource resilience,
protection and renewal: This begins with creating un-
derstanding and awareness about sustainability issues
and their impacts on various populations, environ-
ments and economies among national and international
policy makers, donors, corporate business leaders and
development agencies. This also requires public under-
standing of the issues. There are some good examples
of two types of organizations that have brought part
of the message to public attention. One is small orga-
nizations like Fair Trade and WWF; the other is global
level policy, as exemplified by the Millennium Develop-
ment Goals and the Kyoto Protocol to mitigate climate
change. The latter have benefited from wide media at-
tention. Agricultural sustainability would benefit simi-
larly from media coverage conferring increased public
understanding and support.
º Investment in dissemination and implementation of
promising multi-scale and commercially viable “pack-
ages” involving partnerships, technologies, appropriate
practices, research and training programs. Examples
include Daimler-Chrysler’s (Brazil) production of raw
materials such as gums, oils, resins, and fibers for car
manufacture by rural communities [Global Chapter 3];
ecoagriculture and ecotourism in which local commu-
nities, often with private sector partners, benefit from
external interest in for example, local wildlife, unique
01-SR.indd 62 11/3/08 12:08:37 PM
Themes: Natural Resources Management | 63
management, crop and animal domestication tools and
strategies, low-input integrated approaches to farming
(INRM, IPM), postharvest value-addition and marketing
for business development, financial management, entre-
preneurship and employment generation [ESAP Chapter
3; Global Chapters 3, 5; LAC Chapter 5; NAE SDM].
º For community leaders and local government officials:
Develop capabilities that build capacity for multi-stake-
holder partnerships [NAE Chapter 6], NRM leader-
ship skills [Global Chapter 3] including IT capabilities.
Important topics include land tenure policy; conflict
resolution, feasibility planning, impact assessment, par-
ticipatory group processes for natural resource manage-
ment, restoration and recycling; financial management,
entrepreneurship and employment generation; NRM
strategies and technologies [Global Chapters 3, 5; LAC
Chapter 5; NAE SDM].
º For national and international policy makers: Initiate
learning opportunities to better understand the impor-
tance of IT connectivity and skill development, local and
traditional knowledge in all aspects of NRM for agri-
cultural research and development [Global Chapters
3, 5; SR Part II: TKI]. Additionally, promote models of
extension and outreach that engage local people in par-
ticipatory learning processes for NRM, and in adapting
improved NRM technologies to local circumstances and
needs, e.g., farmer organizations, farmer-to-farmer exten-
sion, participatory plant breeding [Global Chapter 3].
Facilitate natural resource management partnerships
for different purposes to enhance benefits from natu-
ral resource assets for the collective good and to miti-
gate against natural hazards.
NRM partnerships are beneficial for landscape manage-
ment and planning, technology and market development,
policy development, research and rural development. AKST
can support innovative partnerships across institutions for
multi-stakeholder NR management.
º At local, national, regional and international levels, cre-
ate local-global collaborative research and development
partnerships, based on mutual understanding, trust and
goals. Appropriate partners may include public and
private sector representatives. In commercially oriented
partnerships, there should be recognition of the devel-
opment of IP and other mechanisms that benefit local
partners and communities [ESAP Chapters 3, 4; Global
Chapter 3; LAC Chapter 4].
º Create partnerships and networks involving NGOs,
CSOs, farmer field schools, government, private sec-
tor to build on shared knowledge and decision-making.
This may include training and mentorship to optimize
implementation and outcomes. Long-term partnerships
are essential for ensuring enduring capacity to benefit
the collective good [Global Chapter 3; LAC Chapter 4;
NAE SDM].
º Ensure that each partner’s contributions, together, rep-
resent the total needs of the partnership. Trained facili-
tators can help strengthen the capacity of multi-stake-
holder partnerships.
º Examine and implement policies that encourage con-
structive NRM partnerships. This would include limit-
Global Chapters 3, 5]. An example from West Africa
demonstrates the possibility of improving the liveli-
hoods of smallholder farmers by integrating trees into
farming systems [Global Chapter 3], and the participa-
tory domestication of traditionally important species
[Global Chapter 3]. This example includes rural em-
ployment diversification (e.g., value adding) through
postharvest activities [SSA Chapter 5].
º Promote policy reform to instigate long-term improve-
ments on existing agricultural land. This will strengthen
ecosystem services, prevent migration to forest and/or
marginal lands, and agricultural land abandonment
[Global Chapter 3; LAC Chapter 5].
º Improve or establish land tenure institutions and poli-
cies. This would include the promotion of common pool
resource management and use (water, land, fisheries,
forests); prevention of loss (or lack of clarity) of land
rights and security, tenure inequity and lack of rights,
particularly on the part of women and landless people
[Global Chapter 3, 7; LAC Chapter 5; NAE SDM; SSA
Chapter 5]; and appropriate natural resource allocation
mechanisms, for example pricing, regulation, negotia-
tion, enforcement, etc. Long-term improvements on ex-
isting agricultural land in order to prevent migration
to forest and/or marginal lands, and agricultural land
abandonment [Global Chapter 3].
º The issue of who pays for environmental degradation
is increasingly resolved by the principle “the polluter
pays.” This is becoming an increasingly contentious
issue as the population of the world grows more reli-
ant on natural resources that are global public goods.
Market mechanisms that address this challenge include
Payment for Environmental Services (PES) that direct-
ly rewards improved management practices through
transfers to those who protect ecosystem services from
those who benefit. The Clean Development Mechanism
links poor and rich countries through carbon trading.
Hovevei. rle cosrs oí engaging in rlese meclanisms. anu
other market-based opportunities such as certification,
are often beyond the reach of the poorest farmers [CWA-
NA Chapter 2; Global Chapter 3; SSA Chapter 5].
Create an enabling environment that builds NRM ca-
pacity for concerted action among stakeholders and
their organizations.
NRM stakeholders are likely to be more effective in shap-
ing NRM policy when they have improved understanding
of NRM issues, know the policy formulation process and
have experience of working in partnership with public and
private sectors [NAE SDM]. Multi-disciplinary teams have
proven effective [CWANA Chapter 2; ESAP Chapter 4; LAC
Chapter 4].
º For marginalized groups (e.g., women, youth, refugees,
lanuless µeoµles. HIV-AIDS aííecreu communiries): De-
velop experiential learning, extension programs and
primary and secondary education targeting improved
NRM [Global Chapter 3; NAE SDM]. Important
topics include use of information technology (IT) for
NRM knowledge access, resource restoration, water-
harvesting practices, land conservation and environ-
mentally friendly farming technologies, collaborative
01-SR.indd 63 11/3/08 12:08:37 PM
64 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Montreal, Can-
ada) in 2001, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Re-
sources for Food and Agriculture (Rome, Italy) in 2001, the
World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg,
South Africa) in 2002, and the World Food Summit (Rome,
Italy) in 2002. Similarly, several international and regional
assessments of relevance to NRM have promoted sustain-
able practices and people-oriented policies for addressing
these issues. Some of these include: Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2005); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (1990, 1992, 1994, 2001, 2006); Comprehensive
Assessment of Water in Agriculture (2007); Global Envi-
ronmental Outlook; European Union Water Initiative; and
European Union Soil Initiative.
Ways forward
Natural resource management is central to agricultural pro-
duction and productivity, maintenance of critical ecosystem
services and sustainable rural livelihoods. Agriculture repre-
sents one important management option, which when car-
ried out in harmony with the landscape, can be beneficial
to a wide range of stakeholders at all levels of community
development [NAE-SDM]. It is evident that the severity of
uncontrolled exploitation of natural capital is having major
negative impacts on the livelihoods of both rural and urban
people. By drawing down so severely on natural capital,
rather than living on the interest, we are jeopardizing future
generations. The challenges can be resolved if AKST is used
and developed creatively with active participation among
various stakeholders across multiple scales. This must be
done in order to reverse the misuse of natural capital and
ensure the judicious use and renewal of water bodies, soils,
biodiversity, ecosystems services, fossil fuels and atmo-
spheric quality for future generations.
ing or removing policies that constraint these partner-
ships [LAC Chapter 4; NAE Chapter 6].
Connect globalization and localization pathways that
link locally generated NRM knowledge and innova-
tions to public and private AKST to achieve more eq-
uitable and sustainable rural development.
Since the mid-20th century, globalization has been a domi-
nant force in formal AKST. Public sector agriculture re-
search, international trade and marketing, and international
policy have been influential forces shaping globalization.
Localization initiatives (Global Chapter 3; NAE Chapter 6)
have come from the grassroots of civil society and involve
locally based innovations that meet local needs of people
and communities. Some current initiatives are drawing the
two pathways together in ways that promote local-global
partnerships for expanded economic opportunities. This is
particularly true in the developing world in relation to the
sustainable use of natural resources in agriculture [Global
Chapter 3; NAE Chapter 6]. Natural resource management
initiatives that illustrate how to bring localization and glo-
balization together include:
º Piomorion oí cusromaiy íoous ro meer rle neeus anu
priorities of local people for self sufficiency, nutritional
and food security, income generation and employment
[Global Chapter 3].
º Domesricarion anu commeicializarion oí inuigenous íoou-
related plants and animal species [Global Chapter 3].
Global initiatives for sustainable development have brought
attention to NRM issues at local and global levels, and have
been effective in triggering the formation of civil society or-
ganizations, thereby stimulating new linkages with regional
and/or global partners. Since the onset of the millennium
some of these include: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Globalization Localization
Tropical plantations for export markets Traditional subsistence agriculture
International commodity research by CGIAR National research by NARS
National extension services
Green Revolution NGOs and CBOs
Agribusiness for fertilizers/pesticides and seeds Farmer training schools
Participatory Rural Appraisal
Multinational companies for commodity trade Participatory domestication and breeding
WTO trade agreements Fair trade
Biopiracy Water-user associations
Biotechnology Promotion of indigenous species/germplasm
Equity and gender initiatives
Recognition of farmer/community
IPR
Agroforestry for soil fertility management
TaLle SPNPM(. GloLalizalion and Localizalion aclivilies
Table SR-NRM1. Globalization and Localization Activities.
01-SR.indd 64 11/3/08 12:08:38 PM
65
Trade and Markets
Trade policy reform aimed at providing a fairer global
trading system can make a positive contribution to the alle-
viation of poverty and hunger. Approaches that are tailored
to distinct national circumstances and different stages of
development and target increasing the profitability of small-
scale farmers are effective for reducing poverty in develop-
ing countries [CWANA; ESAP; Global; LAC; SSA].
Flexibility and differentiation in trade policy frameworks
(i.e., “special and differential treatment”) will enhance de-
veloping countries’ ability to benefit from agricultural trade;
pursue food security, poverty reduction and development
goals; and minimize potential dislocations associated with
trade liberalization. The principle of non-reciprocal access,
i.e., that the developed countries and wealthier developing
countries should grant non-reciprocal access to countries
less developed than themselves, has a significant history
and role to play in trade relations to foster development.
Preferential market access for poorer developing countries,
least developed countries and small island economies will
be important.
Global Challenges
For many developing countries sustainable food security
depends on local food production, while for some arid and
semiarid countries with limited natural resources bases in-
creased food security will require increased trade. Ensuring
policy space for all these countries to maintain prices for
crops that are important to food security and rural liveli-
hoods is essential. Agricultural policies in industrialized
countries, including export subsidies, have reduced com-
modity prices and thus food import costs; however this
has undermined the development of the agricultural sector
in developing countries, and thus agriculture’s significant
potential growth multiplier for the whole economy. Re-
ducing industrialized countries’ agricultural subsidies and
other trade distorting policies is a priority, particularly for
commodities such as sugar, groundnuts and cotton where
developing countries compete. Commitments to reducing
dumping, or the sale of commodities at below the cost of
production thus undermining national food production and
marketing channels are equally important.
Agricultural trade is increasingly organized in global
chains, dominated by a few large transnational buyers
(trading companies, agrifood processors and companies in-
volved in production of commodities). In these globalized
chains primary producers often capture only a fraction of
the international price of a trade commodity, so the poverty
reduction and rural development effects of integration in
Writing Team: Dev Nathan (India), Erika Rosenthal (USA), Joan
Kagwanja (Kenya)
The challenge of targeting market and trade policy to en-
hance the ability of agricultural and AKST systems to
strengthen food security, maximize environmental sustain-
ability, and support small-scale farmers to spur poverty re-
duction and drive development is immediate. Agriculture
is a fundamental instrument for sustainable development;
about 70% of the world’s poor are rural and most are in-
volved in farming. National policy needs to arrive at a bal-
ance between a higher prices which can benefit producers
and lead to a more vibrant rural economy, and lower prices,
which, although volatile on the international market, can
improve food access for poor consumers. The steep secular
decline in commodity prices and terms of trade for agricul-
ture-based economies has had significant negative effects on
the millions of small-scale resource-poor producers [ESAP
Chapter 3; Global Chapter 7]. Structural overproduction
in NAE countries has contributed to these depressed world
commodity prices. This is also a challenge in many devel-
oping country markets where overproduction of tropical
commodities, particularly through the emergence of new
producers who are willing to accept lower returns than es-
tablished producers, has led to price collapse.
Under these conditions, a “business as usual” trade and
market policy approach will not advance IAASTD objectives.
There is growing concern that developing countries have
opened their agricultural sectors to international competi-
tion too extensively and too quickly, before basic institutions
and infrastructure are in place, thus weakening agricultural
sectors with long-term negative effects for poverty, food se-
curity and the environment. Reciprocity of access to mar-
kets (sometimes referred to as a “level playing field”) between
countries at vastly different stages of agricultural development
does not translate into equal opportunity [ESAP Chapter 3].
Agricultural trade offers opportunities for developing
countries to benefit from larger scale production for global
markets, acquire some commodities cheaper than would be
possible through domestic production, and gain access to
new forms of AKST and equipment (e.g., fertilizers, high-
yield seed varieties, pump sets, etc.) not produced domesti-
cally. Agricultural trade, thus, can offer opportunities for
the poor, but there are major distributional impacts among
countries and within countries that in many cases have not
been favorable for small-scale farmers and rural livelihoods.
The poorest developing countries are net losers under most
trade liberalization scenarios.
01-SR.indd 65 11/3/08 12:08:38 PM
66 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
global supply chains have been far less than optimal [ESAP;
NAE; Global]. Building countervailing negotiating power,
such as farmer cooperatives and networks, will be impor-
tant to help resource poor farmers increase their share of
value captured.
Agriculture generates large environmental externali-
ties including accelerated loss of biodiversity and ecosystem
services such as water cycling and quality, increased energy
costs and greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental
health impacts of synthetic pesticides [ESAP Chapter 3;
Global; NAE]. Many of these impacts derive from the fail-
ure of markets to value and internalize environmental and
social harms in the price of traded agricultural and other
products, or to provide incentives for sustainability. AKST
has great potential to reverse this trend, aiding in the im-
provement of natural resource management and the provi-
sioning of agroenvironmental services.
Figuie SPTM(. Tiends in ieal commodily µiices.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2005 2004 2003 Average
2000–05
1990s 1980s 1970s
Sisal
Bananas
Jute
Rice
Wheat
Coffe
Maize
Sorghum
Cocoa
Cotton
Butter
Hides
Rubber
Beef
Sugar
Tea
Trends in real commodity prices
Base year is 2000.
Basis for prices for individual commodities:
banana, Ecuador (US$/tonne);beef, Argentina (US cents/lb); butter,
New Zealand (US cents/lb); cocoa, ICCO indicator price (US cents/lb); coffee,
ICO indicator price (US cents/lb); cotton and hides, United States of America (US cents/lb);
jute, Bangladesh (US$/tonne); maize, United States of America (US$/tonne);
rice, Thailand (US$/tonne); rubber, Malaysia (US cents/lb); sisal, East Africa (US$/tonne);
sorghum, United States of America (US$/tonne); sugar, ISA indicator price (US cents/lb);
tea, FAO indicator price (US$/kg); wheat, Argentina (US$/tonne).
SOURCE: The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2006, FAO
Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
When
made into
coffee
Supermarket
shelf price
Product
cost after
processing
in factory
Felixstowe
UK
Mombasa
(port,
Uganda)
Trader
price
Farm gate
Cost of coffee from farm gate in Uganda to coffee shop in UK
(price goes from US$0.14 to US$42)
IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger SOURCE: Shaun Ferris and Peter Robbins, 2003
Figure SR-TM3. Cost of coffee from farm gate to coffee shop.
Figure SR-TM2. Level playing field.
Figure SR-TM1. Trends in real commodity prices.
01-SR.indd 66 11/3/08 12:08:40 PM
Themes: Trade and Markets | 67
sanitary and phytosanitary standards will divert resources
form national food and animal safety priorities. Investments
to implement these standards should be approached as part
of improvements needed to protect local populations from
food-borne diseases and not only to comply with trade regu-
lations.
Increased technical and financial assistance, as contem-
plated in the SPS Agreement, will be required to build and
improve developing countries’ own systems of quality con-
trol for meeting health and safety standards. Small produc-
ers, in particular, need technical, financial and management
support to improve their production to meet health and
safety standards.
Improving small scale farmers’ linkages with local, ur-
ban and regional markets, as well as international markets,
is noted across the developing country regions. Enhancing
regional market integration to increase the size of markets
(creating more constant demand and less price volatility),
and negotiate from common platforms is a priority in SSA,
LAC and ESAP. Assisting the small-scale farmer sector to ac-
cess markets on more favorable terms, and capture greater
value in global chains is emphasized [CWANA; ESAP; LAC;
SSA].
Promoting investment for local value addition to in-
crease diversity and competitiveness of agricultural products
and generate off farm rural employment is a priority across
the developing regions. It is widely noted that tariff escala-
tion in industrialized countries has made it more difficult to
stimulate investment in local value addition, exacerbating
terms of trade problems [ESAP; LAC; SSA]. Concerns over
preference erosion are also widespread [CWANA; Global;
LAC; SSA].
The expansion of the agricultural landscape into for-
ested areas and the potential for land planted for biofuels
feedstocks to displace food crops and increase deforesta-
tion is a concern across the regions. Concerns about the
vulnerability of agriculture to climate and water crises, eq-
uitable risk management and adaptation approaches, and
the urgency of focusing AKST to reduce the environmental
footprint of agriculture, emerge as clear global priorities
[CWANA; ESAP; Global; LAC; NAE; SSA].
There is a concern expressed in many regions that intel-
lectual property (IP) regimes have contributed to a shift in
AKST research and development away from public goods
provisioning. IP rights may restrict access to research, tech-
nologies, and genetic materials, with consequences for food
security and development [ESAP; Global; LAC]. Improving
the equitable capture of benefits from AKST systems is a
priority in LAC and other regions. There often is a trade-off
between rewarding the development of AKST through IP
rights and, inhibiting dissemination and utilization. Coun-
tries may consider regional and bilateral cooperation in the
formulation of national IPR systems and removing IPR from
the ambit of WTO trade rules. Allowing greater scope to
more effectively addressing situations involving traditional
knowledge and genetic resources in international IP regimes
would help advance development and sustainability goals.
Finally, the need to significantly improve the domestic
policies for sustainable agricultural development to advance
IAASTD objectives is noted across the developing South
[CWANA; ESAP; Global; LAC; SSA]. This includes increas-
Finally, improved local, national and global governance
will enhance the ability of AKST systems to maximize agri-
culture as a driver for development. Governance is weakest
in many agriculture-based developing countries, and gover-
nance of the agricultural sector is weak compared to other
sectors. Enhanced global governance is also needed to sup-
port national sustainable development agendas.
Synthesis of priority challenges across regions
Many of the urgent challenges reported in the IAASTD are
widely shared across the developing regions, or indeed, as
in the case of climate and water crises, around the world.
Food security is a priority agricultural trade policy chal-
lenge across the developing South. Trade policies designed
to ensure sufficient levels of domestic production of food
(not just sufficient currency reserves to import food) are
an important component of food security and sovereignty
strategies for many countries [CWANA; ESAP; LAC]. Ap-
proaches to balance domestic production with food stocks
and foreign exchange reserves are noted in ESAP. A number
of regions express significant concern over whether smaller
economies would have sufficient foreign exchange reserves
to cover increased food imports in light of declining terms
of trade, and volatile international prices to import food
[ESAP; SSA].
Additionally developing countries face significant new
regulatory costs related to international trade. Tariff revenue
losses have not been made up by other, domestic tax collec-
tions; tariffs used to represent a significant percentage of tax
revenues in many developing countries. There are concerns
that the high costs of regulatory measures to comply with
Market concentration offers fewer
opportunities for small scale farmers
Consumers
Market power and influence
is concentrated in trading,
processing and retail
Retailers
Processors
Domestic traders
Small-scale farmers
Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
Figure SR-TM4. Market concentration offers fewer opportunities
for small-scale farmers.
01-SR.indd 67 11/3/08 12:08:41 PM
68 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
ers). There is need for increased attempts to find alternate
uses for these commodities, e.g., fruit coating with lac, or
bio-fuel from palm oil. International commodity agree-
ments and supply management for tropical commodities,
with improved governance mechanisms to avoid problems
of free-riding and quota abuse are receiving renewed con-
sideration to address price-depressing structural oversupply.
International trade and domestic policies need to manage
orderly shifts in production centers, enabling producers in
high-cost centers to shift, without the destitution that can be
brought about by pure market-induced transitions. Elimina-
tion of escalating tariffs in industrialized countries would
help encourage value-added agroprocessing to help create
off-farm rural jobs and boost rural livelihoods. It would
also assist in diversifying fisheries production and exports
toward value-added processing, reducing fishing pressure
on dwindling stocks.
Increasing support for public sector research to deliver
public goods AKST outputs is important to meet develop-
ment and sustainability goals, along with implementation of
farmers’ rights to seeds to enhance conservation of agricul-
tural biodiversity and associated informal AKST. Adminis-
tering effective mechanisms to protect traditional and local
knowledge remains a challenge [ESAP Chapter 3; Global;
LAC.
Replacing revenues lost as a result of reduced import tar-
iffs is essential to advance development agendas. If countries
are not able to make up the revenue difference with other
taxes (i.e., consumption taxes that are economically more
efficient but can be administratively and politically difficult
to collect) the pace of tariff reduction could be reconsidered.
Increased Aid for Trade and development assistance commit-
ments will also be necessary. Priorities should be determined
on an individual country basis, including AKST targeted to
improve competitiveness; strengthen institutional capacity
for trade policy analysis and negotiation; and cover costs
of adjustment for measures that have already been imple-
mented. (Industrialized countries have a right and an obliga-
tion to compensate their own losers as well.)
National trade and market policy issues
National agricultural trade policy to advance sustainability
and development goals will depend upon the competitive-
ness and composition of the sector. Advice to developing
countries has tended to focus on promoting opportunities
ing the security of access and tenure to land and resources;
targeting AKST research, development and delivery to meet
the needs of small-scale farmers; and increasing investments
in infrastructure such as post-harvest capacity, market feeder
roads, and information services. Collective and individual
legal rights to land and productive resources, especially for
women, indigenous people and minorities, are emphasized
in order for these groups to benefit from opportunities cre-
ated by agricultural trade.
Options for Action to Advance Development and
Sustainability Goals
This section discusses approaches to maximize the ability of
trade and market policy options to facilitate targeted AKST
to increase the agricultural sector’s ability to deliver multiple
public goods functions. There are important synergies and
tradeoffs between policy options that merit special consid-
eration. Potential liberalization of biofuels trade is a clear
example, presenting tradeoffs between food security, green-
louse gas (GHG) emission ieuucrions. anu iuial liveliloous
which need to be carefully assessed for different technolo-
gies and regions, and is addressed at the end of this section
[SR Part II: Bioenergy].
International trade policy options
Trade policy approaches to benefit developing countries in-
clude, among other measures, the removal of barriers for
products in which they have a comparative advantage; re-
duced tariffs for processed commodities; deeper preferential
access to markets for least developed countries, and tar-
geted AKST research, development and dissemination for
the small farm sector to advance development and sustain-
ability goals.
Policy flexibility to allow developing countries to desig-
nate “special products,” crucial for food security, livelihood
and development needs as special products for which agreed
tariff reductions will not be fully applied, are critically im-
portant to advance development and sustainability goals.
This gives developing countries an important tool to protect
these commodities from intensified import competition, un-
til enhanced AKST, infrastructure and institutional capacity
can make the sector internationally competitive. Similarly
the special safeguard mechanism [SSM], designed to counter
depressed prices resulting from import surges, is an impor-
tant trade policy tool to avoid possible damage to domestic
productive capacity. At the household level depressed prices
can mean inability to purchase AKST, the need to sell pro-
ductive assets or missed school fees [ESAP; Global]. World
Trade Organization country categories that better reflect the
heterogeneity of developing countries’ food security situa-
tions could help ensure that no food insecure country is de-
nied use of these mechanisms.
The elimination or the substantial reduction of subsidies
and protectionism in industrialized countries, especially for
commodities in which developing countries compete such
as sugar, groundnuts and cotton is important for small-scale
farm sectors around the world. Similarly, plurilateral com-
mitments from major exporting countries to ensure that
there is no trade at prices below the full cost of production
have been put forward as an option to discipline dumping
(which can cause significant damage to small-scale produc-
Figuie SPTM8a. Piice change of selecled ielail foodsluffs.
Instant coffee Chocolate bar Processed sugar Corn flakes Loaf of bread
Price changes of selected retail
foodstuffs between 1980 and 2000
Price changes for corresponding farm
gate prices for above foodstuffs, 1980–2002
Percentage price changes of key commodities
IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
SOURCE: Mark Lundy, Carlos Felipe Ostertag, María Verónica Gottret, Rupert Best and Shaun Ferris:
“A Territorial based Approach to Agro-Enterprise Development”. CIAT. “The State of Agricultural
Commodity Markets 2006”.FAO.
Coffee Cocoa Sugar Maize* Wheat*
-100%
0%
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
* 1980’s to average 2000–05.
Figure SR-TM5a. Price change of selected retail foodstuffs
01-SR.indd 68 11/3/08 12:08:42 PM
Themes: Trade and Markets | 69
Supporting development of fair trade and certified or-
ganic agriculture offers an alternative set of trading stan-
dards to mainstream commodity markets that can improve
the environmental and social performance of agriculture,
and provide greater equity in international trade by provid-
ing favorable and stable returns to farmers and agricultural
workers. Commitments to source fair trade products, and
support for fair trade networks for basic foodstuffs and
south-south sales, are promising approaches. Certified or-
ganic agriculture is value-added agriculture accessible to
resource poor farmers who have extensive local production
knowledge and capacity for innovation. Options to support
the growth of organics include developing capacity in re-
search institutions, crop insurance and preferential credit,
and tax exemptions on inputs and sales. New business
models and private sector sustainable trading initiatives ap-
ply these standards to mainstream trading operations via
reducing the cost of certification and compliance for groups
of small scale farmers; improving financial sustainability
through buying relationship that better balance risk, respon-
sibilities and benefits among the chain actors; and increasing
information sharing and capacity building to increase busi-
ness skills for producer organizations.
Market mechanisms to internalize negative and
reward positive environmental externalities
Key trade and market policies to facilitate AKST’s contribu-
tion to reducing agriculture’s large environmental footprint
include removing perverse input subsidies, taxing externali-
ties, better definition and enforcement of property rights,
and developing rewards and markets for agroenvironmental
services.
Payments/reward for environmental services (PES) is an
approach that values and rewards the benefits of ecosys-
tem services provided by sustainable agricultural practices
such as low-input/low-emission production, conservation
tillage, watershed management, agroforestry practices and
carbon sequestration. A key objective of PES schemes is to
generate stable revenue flows that can help ensure long-term
sustainability of the ecosystem that provides the service. To
achieve livelihood benefits as well as environmental benefits,
arrangements should be structured so that small-scale farm-
ers and communities, not just large landowners, may benefit
[Global; LAC; NAE].
Other policy approaches to address the environmen-
tal externalities of agriculture include taxes on carbon and
pesticide use to provide incentives to reach internationally
or nationally agreed use-reduction targets, tax exemptions
for biocontrols to promote integrated pest management,
and incentives for “multiple” functions use of agricultural
land to broaden revenue options for land managers. [ESAP;
Global; LAC; NAE] Carbon-footprint labels are an option
to internalize the energy costs of agricultural production via
the application of a market standard. Assistance to small-
scale producers, especially tropical producers, to articulate
their carbon rating will be key; in many cases, an integrated
analysis oí eneigy cosrs anu GHG emissions íiom uisranr
developing country production will be favorable [Global].
Identification and elimination of environmentally
damaging subsidies, including fishery subsidies is a funda-
mental. Fisheries subsidies that fuel overexploitation and
for increased exports to international markets (traditional
and non-traditional crops) rather than enhancing competi-
tiveness of import substitutes or market opportunities in do-
mestic and regional markets; greater balance among these
policy approaches may be indicated.
It is increasingly recognized that developing countries
at an earlier stage of agricultural development may require
some level of import protection for their producers while
investments are made to improve competitiveness. State
trading enterprises in developing countries (with improved
governance mechanisms to reduce rent-seeking) may pro-
vide enhanced market access for marginalized small-scale
farmers in developing countries, creating competition in
concentrated export markets.
Developing countries benefit from improved security
of access and tenure to land and productive resources (in-
cluding regularization and expansion of land ownership by
small-scale producers and landless workers), and increased
research, development and effective delivery of AKST tar-
geted to the needs of resource-poor producers. Strengthen-
ing social capital and political participation for the poor and
vulnerable offer significant opportunities to reduce poverty
and improve livelihoods. Legal rights and access to land and
productive resources such as micro-credit and AKST, is key
to improving equity and the ability of women, indigenous
peoples and other excluded sectors to benefit from trade op-
portunities.
Options for accessing markets on more favorable
terms
Better access to capital, local value addition and vertical
diversification, improved infrastructure, AKST targeted to
resource poor farmers, facilitation of farmer organization
and collective action to take upscale-sensitive functions and
alternative trading channels can help increase the bargain-
ing position of small producers within global chains [ESAP;
Global; LAC; SSA].
Expanding access to microfinance is an option to al-
low small-scale producers to access AKST inputs and tech-
nologies, and improve investment and asset building. This
includes products and services offered by financial institu-
tions as well as credit and other services offered by value
chain actors. Newer financial services and products, such
as crop or rain insurance, can help reduce risks associated
with adopting new technologies, transitioning to agroenvi-
ronmental practices, and innovating production and mar-
keting methods.
Figuie SPTM8L. Peicenlage of ielail value µaid lo µiimaiy
µioducei.
Instant coffee Chocolate bar Processed sugar Corn flakes Loaf of bread
Price changes of selected retail
foodstuffs between 1980 and 2000
Price changes for corresponding farm
gate prices for above foodstuffs, 1980–2002
Percentage price changes of key commodities
IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
SOURCE: Mark Lundy, Carlos Felipe Ostertag, María Verónica Gottret, Rupert Best and Shaun Ferris:
“A Territorial based Approach to Agro-Enterprise Development”. CIAT. “The State of Agricultural
Commodity Markets 2006”.FAO.
Coffee Cocoa Sugar Maize* Wheat*
-100%
0%
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
* 1980’s to average 2000–05.
Figure SR-TM5b. Percentage of retail value paid to primary producer.
01-SR.indd 69 11/3/08 12:08:43 PM
70 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
could generate much needed information and analysis to
support sustainable development agendas.
The quality and transparency of governance of AKST
decision making is fundamental, including increased infor-
mation and analysis for decision makers, and meaningful
participation of all relevant stakeholders. Strengthening de-
veloping country capacity to analyze and identify options
that are in their best interest, and play a full and effective
role in the negotiation process, is a prerequisite for a posi-
tive and equitable outcome of trade negotiations. Increased
Aid-for-Trade and other support will be necessary. Consider-
ation may also be given to establishing national and regional
teams of experts to analyze the interests of their stakeholder
groups and recommend negotiating positions.
There is often limited information on the potential
social, environmental and economic consequences to dif-
ferent sectors of society and regions of the world, of both
proposed trade agreements and emerging technologies. In-
creased access to information requirements may be applied
to the trade process, allowing for greater civil society ac-
cess to information and participation in policy formulation
[Global]. Analysis tailored to countries at different stages
of development, and different characteristics of agriculture
sectors and household economies can better inform policy
choices to address development and sustainability goals.
Developing better tools for assessing tradeoffs in proposed
trade agreements includes increased use of strategic impact
assessments (SIAs). SIAs aim to give negotiators and other
interested stakeholders a fuller understanding of potential
social, economic and environmental risks and benefits be-
fore commitments are made.
An intergovernmental framework for comparative tech-
nology assessments would increase information for decision
makers on emerging technologies for agriculture, including,
for example, nanotechnologies. This may include creation of
independent international, regional or national bodies dedi-
cated to assessing major new technologies and providing
an early listening and warning system, or the establishment
of a multilateral agreement to promote timely comparative
technology assessment with respect to development and sus-
tainability goals.
threaten the viability of many wild stocks and the livelihoods
of fishing communities are an example. Options include in-
vestment in value-added processing, as well as subsidies for
reduced fishing and for mitigating the negative social and
economic consequences of restructuring the fisheries sector
[Global Chapter 7].
Finally, improving interdisciplinary international coop-
eration on a wide range of agriculture and environmental
issues is essential to advance development and sustainability
goals. For example, a more comprehensive climate change
agreement could include a modified Clean Development
Mechanism to take fuller advantage of the opportunities of-
fered by the agriculture and forestry sectors to mitigate cli-
mate change. The framework would include a comprehensive
set of eligible agricultural mitigation activities, including: af-
forestation and reforestation; avoided deforestation using a
national sectoral approach rather than a project approach
to minimize issues of leakage; and a wide range of agricul-
tural practices including zero/reduced-till, livestock and rice
paddy management. Other approaches could include re-
uuceu agiiculruial suLsiuies rlar µiomore GHG emissions.
Mechanisms that also encourage and support adaptation,
particularly in regions that are most vulnerable such as in
the tropics and sub-tropics, and that encourage sustainable
development might also be included in a post-Kyoto climate
regime [Global; NAE]. An efficient mechanism to handle
interactions between multilateral environmental agreements
and trade regimes is needed in order to ensure environmen-
tal and development concerns are not made secondary to
trade rules.
Enhancing governance
Approaches to address the imbalance in trade relationships
between small-scale producers and a limited number of
powerful traders include the establishment of international
competition policy such as multilateral rules on restrictive
business practices, and an international review mechanism
for proposed mergers and acquisitions among agribusiness
companies that operate in multiple countries simultane-
ously. The creation of an independent agency to take up the
mandate of the UN Center for Transnational Corporations
01-SR.indd 70 11/3/08 12:08:43 PM
science can generate AKST of more than local significance
[Global Chapter 3]. Robust evidence indicates that it is the
form of collaboration that determines the effectiveness of
the resulting AKST in terms of development and sustain-
ability goals [Global Chapters 2, 3, 4].
The nature of traditional and local knowledge
Traditional knowledge [Global Chapter 7]. The UN Con-
vention on Biological Diversity refers to traditional knowl-
edge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local
communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for
the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity
[Global Chapter 2]. More broadly, traditional knowledge
is constituted in the interaction of the material and non-
material worlds embedded in place-based cultures and iden-
tities [Figure SR TKI-1] [LAC SDM].
The local Pacha (mother earth) is a micro-cosmos, a
representation of the cosmos at large. It is animated, sacred,
consubstantial, immanent, diverse, variable, and harmoni-
ous. Within the local Pacha there is the Ayllu (Community in
Quechuan and Aymaran languages). The Ayllu is comprised
of three communities: people, nature, spirits. Throughout
the agricultural calendar interaction within the Ayllu takes
place through rituals and ceremonies. The place par excel-
lence for the three communities to interact is the chacra (plot
size: 1 ro 2 la). Haimony is nor given. ir las ro Le iegulaily
procured through dialogue, reciprocity, redistribution and
rejoicing flowing among the three communities. Nurturance
and respect are fundamental principles in these exchanges.
Knowledge created and transferred from another place by
persons from outside the locality has to be instituted in the
chacra through and in harmony with the dialogue among
the members of the Ayllu and in conformity with the rituals
and ceremonies that support such dialogue.
Local knowledge is a functional description of capabili-
ties and activities that exist among rural actors in all parts
of the world, including OECD countries [Global Chapter
2; LAC SDM]. Local stakeholders may engage in AKST
activities typically (1) to compel acknowledgment of their
knowledge and capacity for self-generated development by
organizations and actors located elsewhere or (2) to reap
benefits by fostering relations with non-local organizations
and actors who need contextual, place-based knowledge in
order to perform their own missions efficiently and prof-
itably [Global Chapter 2]. Labels of geographical origin
exemplify the first; the second is instanced by formal breed-
ers and commercial organizations in the Netherlands who
Writing team: Satinder Bajaj (India), Fabrice Dreyfus (France),
Tirso Gonzales (Peru), Janice Jiggins (UK)
Traditional and local knowledge constitutes a vast realm of
accumulated practical knowledge that decision makers cannot
afford to overlook if development and sustainability goals are
to be achieved [ESAP SDM; Global SDM; Global Chapter 3,
7; 8; NAE SDM; LAC Chapter 1]. Effective, sustainable tech-
nologies with wide scale application that have originated in lo-
cal and traditional AKST are numerous and found worldwide.
They include the use of Golden Weaver ants as a biocontrol
in cirius anu mango oiclaius (Bluran. Vier Þam anu iecenrly
with WARDA’s assistance, introduced to West Africa); stone
lines and planting pits for water harvesting and conservation
of soil moisture (West African savannah belt); qanats and
similar underground water storage and irrigation techniques
(Iran, Afghanistan and other arid areas) [CWANA SDM]; tank
irrigation (India, Sri Lanka); many aspects of agroforestry
(3 million ha of rubber, cinnamon, damar agroforests in In-
donesia) and current initiatives to domesticate indigenous tree
species producing fruits, nuts, medicines and other household
products [Global Chapter 3]. Many kinds of traditional and
local AKST support wildlife and biodiversity and contribute
to carbon and methane sequestration [Global Chapters 2, 3].
In numerous cases traditional and local AKST in collab-
oration with formal AKST and support services is empower-
ing communities, maintaining traditional cultures and diets
while improving local food sovereignty, incomes, nutrition
and food security [Global Chapter 3]. Partly because the
innumerable but diverse innovations resulting from local
and traditional AKST are hard to present as statistical data
they typically are overlooked, undervalued and excluded
from the modeling that often guides AKST decision making
[ESAP SDM; Global Chapters 2, 3].
Local and traditional agricultures work with genetic
material that is evolving under random mutation, natural
and farmer selection and community management [Global
Chapter 2]. Even in unpromising soil and topographic condi-
tions, as in the high Andes, local and traditional knowledge
nurtured and managed germplasm that today is recognized
as a center of origin of genetic diversity. Local and tradi-
tional strategies for in situ conservation can be highly effec-
tive in managing the viability and diversity of seed, roots,
tubers and animal species over generations. [Global Chapter
3] The diversity gives local options and capacity for adap-
tive response that are essential for meeting the challenges of
climate change [CWANA SDM; Global Chapters 2, 3].
Mobilizing these capacities in collaboration with formal
Traditional and Local Knowledge and Community-based
Innovations
01-SR.indd 71 11/3/08 12:08:43 PM
72 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
rice cultivation in Guinea Conakry where it is now re-
garded as a traditional knowledge [Global Chapter 2].
Encounters that threaten sustainability and development.
Less favorable encounters have been associated mostly with
AKST that focuses on objectives that are not shared by lo-
cal people. Typically these have arisen in the context of the
following circumstances:
º Colonial disruptions that continue in some parts of the
world with lingering but strong influences. In some cases
they serve to erode common property management re-
gimes, leading to uncontrolled open access to natural re-
sources and resource degradation [Global Chapter 4] or
privatization of local people’s land [Global Chapter 7].
º Profit-seeking forces acting at the expense of multi-
functionality. Mechanisms to increase the accountabil-
ity of powerful commercial actors to development and
sustainability goals have been weak. In recent decades
public information campaigns, shareholder activism
and more effective documentation and communication
of malpractices have begun to exert some pressure for
change. Modern information and communication tech-
nologies have assisted these developments but the al-
ready poor and marginalized have less access to these
means [Global Chapter 2].
cooperate with Dutch potato hobby specialists in
breeding and varietal selection; the farmers negoti-
ate formal contracts which give them recognition
and due reward for their intellectual contribution in
all varieties brought to market [Global Chapter 2].
The dynamics of traditional and local knowledge.
Traditional and local knowledge co-evolve with
changes in their material and non-material environ-
ment. Any internal and external forces and drivers
[including weather-related events] that threaten the
loss of the material basis of traditional and local
cultures and identities necessarily threaten tradi-
tional and local knowledge [CWANA SDM; ESAP
SDM; Global Chapter 3].
Encounters between traditional and local
knowledge actors and others
Encounters that support sustainability and devel-
opment. There is a wealth of evidence of encoun-
ters between knowledge actors that have support-
ed achievement of development and sustainability
goals [ESAP Chapter 2; Global Chapters 2, 3, 4;
LAC SDM; NAE Chapters 1, 4; NAE SDM].
º Pairiciµaroiy. collaLoiarive merlous anu aµ-
proaches have added value to the encounter
between traditional/local knowledge actors
and formal AKST actors. Farmer-researcher
groups in the Andes for instance brought to-
gether members of CIP (an international re-
search institute) for the development and test-
ing of measures and varieties to control late
blight in potatoes, not only increasing produc-
tivity but also addressing issues for instance of
inter-generational equity and the sustainability
of soil management. Collaboration among knowledge
actors in the commercialization and domestication of
tree [and other] wild and semiwild species in participa-
tory plant breeding (PPB) and in value-added process-
ing are creating new value chains selling into both niche
and mass markets [Global Chapters 2, 3, 4]. Other ex-
amples include efforts made in a number of countries
to invite traditional/local knowledge actors into rural
schools (e.g., Thailand) and universities (e.g., Peru,
Costa Rica) as teachers and field trainers; to incorpo-
rate local AKST in the curricula and experiments run
by village-based adult education and vocational train-
ing centers (e.g., India); and to expand opportunities
for experiment-based, farmer-centered learning [Global
Chapter 2]. Modern ICTs show large potential for ex-
tending and augmenting these developments [Global
Chapter 2].
º Lncounreis Lerveen riauirional knovleuge acrois also
can support sustainability and development [Global
Chapter 3]. An example of fruitful encounters is given
by the extension of rice cultivation in brackish water in
coastal Guineas [Conakry and Bissau]. Migrants from
the ethnic sussu met local ethnic balantes in Guinea Bis-
sau around 1920 and, later on, local sussu (and also re-
lated ethnic baga) hired migrant balantes to implement
The Andean Cosmovision
Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger Source: Gonzales 1999, Gonzales, Chambi and Machaca 1999
Figure SR-TK-1. The Andean cosmovision.
01-SR.indd 72 11/3/08 12:08:45 PM
Themes: Traditional and Local Knowledge and Community-based Innovations | 73
al and local people but also brought new risks, especially for
the vulnerable and ill-prepared. Mutual misunderstanding
across languages and other divides can undermine opportu-
nities for collaboration especially when engagement is not
mediated by inter-personal interactions but by impersonal
bureaucracies, companies or commercial operations.
Persistent concerns for which as yet no lasting reme-
dies have been found include the increasing competition for
groundwater and river systems between local and non-local
users [CWANA SDM—Farm structures and production sys-
tems], as well as the alienation of land and restriction of access
to the habitats that have sustained and nurtured traditional
and local communities’ knowledge generation [ESAP SDM;
Global Chapter 3]. While years of protest from indigenous
peoples, community organizations and activist groups by the
1990s helped ensure that the principles of benefit sharing in
the exploitation of local and traditional resources were written
into international conventions such as the UN Convention on
Biological Diversity, these lacked enforcement mechanisms.
There has been a progressive restriction of communities’ and
farmers “rights to produce, exchange and sell seed”. The
freedom of states to recognize these rights is limited under
UPOV 1991 anu íuirlei limirarions aie µioµoseu Ly some
powerful commercial and government actors. The slow pace
of adjustment of national varietal approval mechanisms for
materials generated by farmers’ organizations and through
PPB has raised new challenges [Global Chapters 2, 3, 4].
Challenges
Institutionalization and affirmation of traditional and local
knowledge [Global Chapter 7, 8]. Concerned actors in a
number of countries have developed strategies at local to
national levels to institutionalize and affirm traditional and
local knowledge for the combined goals of sustainable ag-
ricultural modernization, NRM, social justice and the im-
provement of well-being and livelihoods [Global Chapter 3;
LAC SDM, Chapter 5]. Robust examples include the gram
panchayat [village councils] in India [ESAP SDM] and local
water user associations [Global Chapter 3]. Currently some
countries (e.g., Mali, Thailand) also are establishing policy
frameworks that are congruent with the overall objectives of
market-oriented sustainable development yet recognize the
importance of traditional and local AKST capacities. The
wider application or scaling up of such experiences faces
strong and persistent challenges [Global Chapter 2].
Education. The more widespread application of collaborative
approaches in AKST practices would require [a] complemen-
tary investments in the education of AKST technicians and
professionals in order to strengthen their understanding of
and capacity to work with local and indigenous individuals
and communities; [b] support to curriculum developments
that value and provide opportunity for field-based experi-
ence and apprenticeships under communities’ educational
guidance; [c] farmers’ access to formal training to enable
them to connect to innovations in agroecology [CWANA
SDM; ESAP Chapter 4; Global Chapter 2; LAC SDM].
The valuation of traditional and local AKST [Global Chap-
ter 7; NAE SDM, Chapter 1]. Certification and similar
º Technical developments that assume rather than test
the superiority of external knowledge and technologies
in actual conditions of use, conveyed by Transfer of
Technology models of research-extension-farmer link-
ages [ESAP Chapter 2; Global Chapter 3, 7, 8]. Formal
research agencies and universities have lagged behind in
developing criteria and processes for research prioriti-
zation and evaluation that go beyond conventional per-
formance indicators to include a broader range of cri-
teria for equity, environmental and social sustainability
developed by traditional people and local actors [LAC
SDM]. Decision making processes in and the govern-
ance of formal institutes of science and research gener-
ally have excluded representatives or delegates of tradi-
tional peoples, poor local communities or women [LAC
SDM] who only in exceptional circumstances have had
a voice on governing boards, impact assessment panels,
advisory councils and in technology foresight exercises.
Their inclusion has required deliberate and sustained
processes of methodological innovation, institutional
change and capacity development [Global Chapter 2].
º Misappropriation. In some cases external actors have
used without direct compensation the biological mate-
rials developed under local and traditional communi-
ties’ management yet have largely ignored the knowl-
edge and understanding that accompanied the in situ
development of germplasm. The important public role
of gene banks to return to local communities tradition-
al germplasm that may have been lost at local levels
has become more constrained under the evolution of
Intellectual Property Rights regimes. Material transfer
agreements in practice or law also may provide power-
ful public and commercial actors privileged access to
this germplasm [Global Chapter 2].
º Suppression of local knowledge, wisdom and identity. In
worst but far from rare cases educational curricula have
been used deliberately to suppress traditional and local
knowledge and identities. Inappropriate content or facili-
ties in school-based education in some instances has wors-
ened existing bias against attendance by traditional peo-
ples or by girls and women [CWANA SDM; LAC SDM].
Asymmetries of power in institutional arrangements for
AKST. The explanatory value of inequitable power relations
has been demonstrated in the assessment of the positive and
negative outcomes of encounters between knowledge actors
in relation to development and sustainability goals. Formal
AKST centers [CWANA SDM; ESAP SDM; LAC SDM],
have privileged conventional systems of production; agro-
ecological and traditional systems of production have been
marginal in the R&D effort made [CWANA SDM; Global
Chapter 3]. Knowledge actors based in formal research or-
ganizations have neglected development of accountability
for the costs of some technologies—such as highly toxic her-
bicides and pesticides when applied in actual conditions of
use [CWANA SDM; ESAP SDM] that have been borne dis-
proportionately at local levels and often by the most mar-
ginalized peoples [Global Chapter 2; NAE].
A globalizing world. A globalizing world has offered oppor-
tunities that are welcomed and actively sought by tradition-
01-SR.indd 73 11/3/08 12:08:45 PM
74 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
widen development of the role of local and traditional train-
ers in educational curricula and deepen and strengthen the
educational options. Invest in occupational education and
farmer-centered learning opportunities that are accessible
and relevant for traditional and indigenous peoples and ac-
tively extend connectivity and ICTs to traditional and local
knowledge actors [Global Chapter 3, NAE SDM, Chapter
4] and expand the coverage of the above.
(3) Continue institutional innovation in systems such as
Fair Trade, geographic identification and in value chains
that shorten connections between producers and consumers
[ESAP Chapter 3; Global Chapter 3; NAE SDM]. Support
the valuation of local and traditional knowledge. Develop
culturally appropriate modes of assessing traditional and lo-
cal AKST contributions to achievement of development and
sustainability goals [Global Chapter 6]. Widen support of
efforts to create local opportunity for domestication of wild
and semiwild species [Global Chapter 3]. Support to con-
servation and evolution of local and traditional medicinal
plants, knowledge of healing and health care systems [ESAP
Chapter 3] as well as certification, regulation and marketing
schemes that take account of traditional and local people’s
criteria and standards are options that make visible in the
market places, societies and at policy levels the value of lo-
cal and traditional knowledge.
(4) Institutions, laws and regulations offer substantial op-
tions.
º Decenrializarion anu uevolurion oí seivices: local gov-
ernment support to community-driven development
[Global Chapter 7];
º Invesrmenr in ieseaicl ro unueiµin rle uesign oí merl-
ods and processes for integration of AKST decision-
making at different scales [Global Chapter 8; NAE
SDM, Chapters 3, 4];
º Iollov-rliougl on rle |oinr Inuigenous Peoµle`s Srare-
ments, 1999, 2007;
º Regional nervoiking among communiry giouµs anu
traditional peoples’ movements around pesticide and
herbicide management [Global Chapter 2];
º Builuing co-iesµonsiLiliry íoi AKS1 ourcomes anu
stronger, more effective mechanisms for enforcing these;
º Develoµing ¨Lesr µiacrice¨ µioceuuies anu µiocesses
for including traditional and local people in AKST re-
search prioritization, technology assessments and eval-
uation [Global Chapter 3];
º Lvolurion oí Inrellecrual Pioµeiry conceµrs. iules. anu
mechanisms congruent with development objectives
and the rights of local and traditional peoples. [ESAP
SDM; Global Chapter 3, 7; NAE SDM];
º Insrirurional innovarions ar µolicy level in suµµoir oí
implementation of the CBD, UNECCO-Link;
º Access anu Benenr-slaiing Agieemenrs íGloLal Claµ-
ter 3] and other systems for protecting Farmers’ Rights
[Global Chapter 7] and stronger coordination among
such initiatives.
means of linking consumers and producers to traditional
and local identities have been developed to give value in the
marketplace to traditional and local knowledge and foods
[ESAP SDM; Global Chapters 3, 4]. Some of the certified
foods available today also include the “quality of life” val-
ues important to traditional producers or local communi-
ties [Global Chapter 3]. An increasing number of commer-
cial actors in agrifood and agrochemical industries also are
demonstrating their commitment to sustainable production
and retailing through accreditation, auditing and traceabil-
ity [Global Chapter 2, 3; LAC SDM].
Issues of laws, regulations and rights. It is recognized—yet
not accepted at all policy levels—that innovations to secure
rights for farmers, traditional people and citizens over ger-
mplasm, food, natural resources or territories are needed if
combined sustainability and development goals are to be
met [ESAP Chapter 3; Global Chapters 3, 7]. A number of
countries (e.g., Mali), indigenous peoples (e.g., the Awajun,
Peru) and local governments [e.g., various municipalities in
the Philippines] have adopted the principles of food sover-
eignty as well as normative policy frameworks and regula-
tions that differentiate their own needs and circumstances
from the dominant global arrangements [Global Chapter 2;
LAC SDM].
Options for action
Four key areas for action were identified:
(1) Affirm local and traditional knowledge [NAE SDM,
Chapter 4] by investment in the scientific, local and tradi-
tional conservation, developing and using local and tradi-
tional plants, animals and other useful biological materials,
using advanced techniques as well as sophisticated applica-
tion of participatory and collaborative approaches [Global
Chapter 8]. Specific investments include development of
greater professional and organizational capacity at all levels
for research and development with and for local and tra-
ditional people and their organizations [ESAP SDM; LAC
SDM; NAE SDM] and support for multistakeholder AKST
forums at all levels for building a shared understanding and
collective vision among divergent interests [Global Chapter
7; LAC SDM; NAE SDM]. Options for affirmation include
documentation and “archiving” of local and traditional
people’s knowledge products, knowledge generating pro-
cesses and technologies—for instance in formal knowledge
banks as well as in community-held catalogues of practices,
designs and ancestral plant and animal genetic resources;
and targeted support for in situ and ex situ conservation of
crop, fish, forest and animal genetic resources [LAC SDM].
(2) In education, give higher priority for agroecological and
integrated approaches in primary through tertiary educa-
tion and research [Global Chapter 3, NAE SDM, Chapter
4]. Invest in a broader range of social sciences to under-
stand and help design solutions to power asymmetries in
AKST; arrange for effective encounters between knowledge
actors and knowledge organizations [Global Chapter 2];
01-SR.indd 74 11/3/08 12:08:45 PM
75
Women in Agriculture
on a professional status as farm co-managers entitling them
to pensions and other benefits of professional employment.
Farm systems diversification and tertiarization have also fa-
vored the development of new economic activities taken up
by women as autonomous entrepreneurs (direct sale, green
tourism, etc.). In Central and Eastern European countries
socialist policies historically aimed at suppressing gender
differences in farm activities, a process that has been called
into question by economic liberalization. Privatization of
state and cooperatives farms resulted in fact in loss of em-
ployment for a large number of women. With EU integra-
tion however, countries (e.g., Poland) have benefited from
EU support and training programs that also promoted new
activities for rural women, such as on-farm processing, di-
rect sale of farm products and agrotourism.
In certain industrialized countries (e.g., Spain, France)
and in many developing regions, the consolidation of large
export-oriented farm enterprises contributes to an increased
number of female workers, including migrant workers in
farm activities (e.g., horticulture, floriculture). This pro-
cess of feminization of agricultural wage work is associated
in some regions with the consolidation of large scale and
export-oriented farm enterprises and the increasing demand
of cheap labor. In developing countries it indicates the im-
poverishment of small farm households resulting in male
out-migration to urban centers for work, and is also linked
with rural women limited access to education and non-agri-
cultural employment [CWANA Chapters 2; ESAP Chapter
1; Global Chapter 3].
In some countries (e.g., Tunisia, Morocco), progress in
education has allowed more women to obtain university de-
grees or diplomas in agricultural sciences and to become
farm entrepreneurs and managers. Still the proportion of fe-
male farm entrepreneurs remains very low in most develop-
ing countries (6% in Tunisia) and women’s work is carried
out on the basis of their status as family members, with little
separation between domestic and productive activities.
Besides housekeeping and child rearing, women and
girls are usually responsible for fetching water and fuel
wood. Women and girls tend to perform tasks such as plant-
ing, transplanting, hand weeding, harvesting, picking fruit
and vegetables, small livestock rearing, and postharvest op-
erations such as threshing, seed selection, and storage, while
mechanized work (preparing the land, irrigation, mechani-
cal harvesting, and marketing) is generally a male task. This
may increase women’s and girls’ manual and time burden,
tends to keep girls out of school, and holds their productiv-
ity below their potential.
Writing Team: Alia Gana (1unisia). 1loia Nairina Heiimann
(Geimany). Soµlia Huyei (Canaua)
Gender, that is the socially constructed relations between
men and women, is an organizing element of existing farm-
ing systems worldwide and a determining factor of ongoing
processes of agricultural restructuring. Current trends in ag-
ricultural market liberalization and in the reorganization of
farm work, as well as the rise of environmental and sustain-
ability concerns are redefining the links between gender and
development, as women not only continue to play a crucial
role in farm household production systems, but also repre-
sent an increasing share of agricultural wage labor.
Since the first world conference on women (1975), the
attention of decision makers has been attracted to the need
for policies that better address gender issues as an integrative
part of the development process. Although progress has been
made in women’s access to education and employment, we
must recognize that the largest proportion of rural women
worldwide continues to face deteriorating health and work
conditions, limited access to education and control over
natural resources, including formal title to land, technology
and credit, insecure employment and low income. This is
due to a variety of factors, including the growing demand
for flexible and cheap farm labor, the growing pressure on
and conflicts over natural resources and the reallocation of
economic resources in favor of large agroenterprises. Other
factors include increasing exposure to risks related to natu-
ral disasters and environmental changes, worsening access
to water, increasing occupational and health risks. Ongoing
trends call for urgent actions in favor of gender and social
equity in AKST policies and practices.
Women’s Changing Forms of Involvement in
Farm Activities and in the Management of Natural
Resources
Women in agricultural production and postharvest activi-
ties range from 20 to 70%, and their involvement in farm
activities, which is increasing in many developing countries,
take on different and changing forms and statuses. Women’s
roles in agriculture varies in fact considerably according to
farm system, legal systems, cultural norms and off-farm
opportunities and are undergoing major transformations
linked with local and global socioeconomic changes.
During a long period, women in industrialized coun-
tries either engaged in agricultural activities as farmers’
spouses, or took off-farm employment. More recently the
involvement of some women in farm activities has taken
01-SR.indd 75 11/3/08 12:08:46 PM
76 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
tural land and resources [CWANA Chapter 1; SSA Chap-
ter 2]. Agrarian reform programs tend to give title to men,
especially in CWANA and LAC [CWANA Chapter 2; LAC
Chapter 5]. In the majority of patrilineal societies, women’s
right to land expires automatically in the case of divorce
or death of the husband [SSA Chapter 2]. In North Africa,
inheritance law entitles women to half the amount endowed
to men, and very often women forgo their right to land in
favor of their brothers. Lack of control over and impaired
entitlement to land often implies restricted access to loans
and social security, limits autonomy and decision making
power, and eventually curtails ability to achieve food securi-
ty. A few countries have started recognizing the independent
land rights of women (e.g., South Africa, Kenya) [Global
Chapter 5; SSA Chapter 2]. The issue is the more urgent
because market development rewards those who own the
factors of production. Increased “opening toward the mar-
ket” will not benefit men and women equally unless these
institutional, legal and normative issues are appropriately
and effectively addressed.
Poor rural infrastructure such as the lack of clean water
supply, electricity or fuel increases women’s work load and
limits their availability for professional training, childcare
and income generation. The lack of access to storage facili-
ties and roads contributes to high food costs and low selling
prices. The trends towards economic and trade liberaliza-
tion and privatization have led to the dismantling of many
marketing services that were previously available to farm-
ers. Women farmers have been severely hit by this loss. The
decline in investment in rural infrastructure, such as roads
that link rural areas to markets and limited access to ICTs,
affects women’s access to markets. Lack of access to mem-
bership in marketing organizations limits women’s ability to
sell their produce.
Women and girls involved in farm activities mostly in
As a result of male out-migration and the development
of labor intensive farming systems, the gender division in
farm activities has undergone important transformation
and has tended to become more flexible. In some countries
(e.g., in SSA) women are now in charge of tasks formerly
performed only by men such as soil preparation, spraying
and marketing. This requires women’s access to additional
skills and presents new risks (e.g., health risks related to the
unregulated use of chemicals, especially pesticides) to girls
and women.
Rural-to-urban migration and out-migration of men
and young adults (including in some cases young women),
especially in CWANA, ESAP, LAC and SSA regions, has in-
creased the number of female headed households and has
shifted the mean ages of rural populations upwards, result-
ing in considerable shrinkages in the rural labor force. In
some cases, this has negatively affected agricultural produc-
tion, food security, and service provision [Global Chapter 3].
As to decision-making, women in some cases have become
empowered because of male out-migration: they manage
budgets and their mobility is increased as they sometimes
go to the market to sell their products, even if they still rely
on male relatives for major decisions such as the sale of an
animal (cow, veal, etc.) [CWANA Chapter 2; Global Chap-
ter 6]. In Asia, SSA and LAC both internal and international
migration by rural women seeking economic opportunities
to escape poverty is on increase [ESAP Chapter 1].
Constraints, Challenges and Opportunities
The access of women to adequate land and land ownership
continues to be limited due to legislation (e.g., Zimbabwe,
Yemen) anu socioculruial íacrois. e.g.. Buiunui vleie leg-
islation has affirmed women’s right to land but customary
practices restrict women’s ability to buy or inherit agricul-
Figure SR-WA1. Counting women’s labor.
01-SR.indd 76 11/3/08 12:08:50 PM
Themes: Women in Agriculture | 77
project in Malawi uses a computer database system with
web interface and email to help women farmers determine
what they can expect to harvest from their land, which crops
they can grow given the soil type and fertility, and what in-
puts they should use [Global Chapter 6].
Access to information influences the ability of farmers to
have influence in their communities and their ability to par-
ticipate in AKST decision-making. Women’s representation
in AKST decision-making at all levels remains limited (e.g.,
women in Benin held 2.5% of high-level decision making
positions in the government [Global Chapters 1, 2]. Women
farmers’ access to membership and leadership positions in
rural organizations (e.g., cooperatives, agricultural produc-
ers’ organizations, farmers’ associations) is often restricted,
by law or custom, which restricts their access to productive
resources, credit, information and training and their ability
to make their views known to policy makers and planners.
1le iise oí vomen`s Selí-Helµ Giouµs (SHGs) oi vomen`s
microfinance groups (e.g., in India) to some extent has made
women’s income a permanent component of household in-
developing countries usually have less access than men to
education, information and to learn how to use new tech-
nologies. Hence. rlis aííecrs rleii aLiliry ro make iníoimeu
choices around crop selection, food production and mar-
keting. Notwithstanding a rise in the number of women
pursuing careers in biosciences worldwide, female research-
ers still tend to be underrepresented in agricultural sciences
and in senior scientific positions in general. Only 15% of
the world’s agricultural public sector extension agents are
women [Global Chapter 3]. Women’s access to extension
is limited by lack of access to membership in rural orga-
nizations which often channel or provide training oppor-
tunities, and by gender blind agricultural policies that give
inadequate attention to women farmer’s needs in terms of
crops and technology. Lack of opportunity in the curricula
and training of extensionists to analyze gender roles and
differential needs continues to exclude women from training
and the benefits of extension services.
Although in most countries women have lower rates
of access to ICTs, there are increasing examples of the use
of ICTs by women to generate income (e.g., selling phone
time in Bangladesh), obtain information, communicate
with governments, and make their voices heard. In India,
local women use video and radio equipment to record and
produce the messages they want others in their community
to hear (e.g., Deccan Development Society). The Farmwise
Figure SR-WA2. Women quantify lack of control over work re-
sources.
Figure SR-WA3. The percentage of agricultural work carried out
by women compared to the percentage of female extension staff in
selected African countries.
01-SR.indd 77 11/3/08 12:09:02 PM
78 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
ity for growing numbers of AIDS orphans [SSA Chapter 3].
In SSA women make up two-thirds of those infected with
HIV/AIDS. 1lis auus auuirional Luiuens íoi vomen as µio-
ducers of food and as family caretakers. Labor loss due to
illness, need to care for family members and paid employ-
ment required to cover medical costs may cause families to
ueciease rleii íaiming acriviries 1le sriess oí HIV/AIDS on
the social capital within communities also erodes the trans-
mission of knowledge between households and communi-
ties, thereby reducing the range of livelihood options for the
next generation [Global Chapters 6, 7].
Options for Action to Enhance Women’s Involvement
in AKST
In view of the continuing constraints faced by rural women
and the current forms of agricultural restructuring likely to
worsen farm women’s work and health conditions, urgent
action is needed to implement gender and social equity in
AKST policies and practices.
Options for action include:
º Sriengrlening rle caµaciry oí µuLlic insrirurions anu
NGOs to improve the knowledge of women’s involve-
ment in farm activities and their relationship to AKST;
º Giving µiioiiry ro vomen`s access ro euucarion. iníoi-
mation, science and technology and extension services;
º Imµioving vomen`s access. ovneisliµ anu conriol oí
economic and natural resources through legal measures,
appropriate credit schemes, support to the development
of women’s income generating activities and the rein-
forcement of women’s organizations and networks;
come, thus reducing women’s dependency on the male pro-
vider [ESAP Chapter 5].
Although the supply of gender disaggregated data and
studies of women’s roles in agricultural production and food
security is increasing, there is still a lack of sufficient data and
in depth research on women’s practices and specific needs.
Indirect impacts of AKST in relation to ownership of assets,
employment on and off farm, vulnerability, gender roles,
labor requirements, food prices, nutrition and capacity for
collective action have been less thoroughly researched than
the financial and economic impacts, although, recent impact
assessments of participatory methods have more compre-
hensively addressed these issues [Global Chapter 3].
Also agricultural research policies have tended to primar-
ily focus on the intensive farming sector and export-oriented
crops, and have given insufficient attention to food crops for
domestic consumption, which are essential for household
food security and environmental protection [Global Chap-
ter 2]. Small-scale farmers, particularly women, play a key
role in promoting sustainable methods of farming based on
traditional knowledge and practices. Women often possess
knowledge of the value and use of local plant and animal
resources for nutrition, health and income in their roles as
family caretakers, plant gatherers, home gardeners, herbal-
ists, seed custodians and informal plant breeders [Global
Chapter 2]. Moreover, women often experiment with and
adapt indigenous species and thus become experts in plant
genetic resources [SSA Chapter 2].
Climate change. Effects of flooding, drought, variations in
crop seasons and temperature-related yield loss could mean
extra hardship for the farming and food provisioning activi-
ties, which are often carried out by women. Their capacity
to sustain their families’ livelihoods is in fact often reduced
as a result of the loss of seeds, livestock, tools and produc-
tive gardens [ESAP Chapter 4]. The increase of extreme
weather conditions (e.g., floods and cyclones), notably in
ESAP regions, will put an increasing expectation on women
for coping with the effects of disaster and destruction.
Women are underrepresented in decision making about
climate change, green house gas emissions and adaptation/
mitigation in both the public and private sector. Lower levels
of access to training, education and technologies will affect
the ability of women to cope with climate change induced
stresses.
Women of reproductive age as well as children are most
affected by the increase of infectious diseases (e.g., malaria).
The worsening health situation is exacerbated by a high rate
of malnutrition in children especially in regions, like SSA,
with repeated droughts, wars and conflicts. Intra-household
food distribution often favors males, which can give rise to
micronutrient deficiencies in women and children which im-
pair cognitive development of young children, retard physi-
cal growth, increase child mortality and maternal death
during childbirth [Global Chapter 3]. Nutritional deficiency
among women and children in South Asia also has reached
crisis proportions [ESAP Chapter 1]. The impact of HIV/
AIDS in an increasing number of countries has given rise
to rapidly increasing numbers of female-headed households,
child-headed households, and dependence on the elderly
who face increasing workloads as they assume responsibil-
Figuie SPVA+. Counling femaleheaded households.
IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Africa Asia South Total
Pacific America
A sample of national agricultural censuses conducted worldwide
between 1989 and 1999 found that barely half included
information on female-headed households.
Censuses includes
data on female-
headed households
Censuses with no
data on female-
headed households
Counting female-headed households
SOURCE: FAO
Figure SR-WA4. Counting female-headed households.
01-SR.indd 78 11/3/08 12:09:03 PM
Themes: Women in Agriculture | 79
crop, horticultural, medicinal and animal species and vari-
eties available for food provisioning and market sale. They
would take into account all phases of agronomic management
and post-harvest activities. Policy makers and researchers
would need to consider the complex social, health and en-
vironmental implications of adopting engineered crops and
weigh these against lost opportunities to direct institutional
attention towards proven low external input agroecological
approaches and strengthening farmer-centered seed-saving
networks. By integrating local and gender-differentiated un-
derstanding of seeds and the cultural values connected to
food preservation, preparation and storage, AKST can en-
hance the success of technological adoption and eventually
be more effective in enhancing rural livelihoods.
Intellectual Property Rights that recognize women’s
technological knowledge and biological materials are needed
if development and sustainability goals are to be met. Wom-
en’s intellectual property rights relating to the knowledge of
indigenous plant varieties and cultivation are in need of pro-
tection. Support of the documentation and dissemination
of women’s knowledge is an important aspect of a gender-
sensitive approach to IPR [Global Chapter 2] and is required
to retain the knowledge of both women and men.
As disaster-related and complex emergencies will be-
come more frequent and larger in scale, preferential research
aiming at a better understanding of how gender issues af-
fect communities’ vulnerability and their ability to respond
is indispensable. Gender differences in vulnerability and in
adaptive opportunities should be better researched and ac-
knowledged in the technology development to mitigate car-
bon emissions ensuring success of adaptation policies.
Communities and civil society could be further sup-
ported to voice their concern for gender-sensitive agricul-
tural services. They could assist in collecting information
on men and women’s roles, access, needs of AKST in dif-
ferent societies (including nomadic communities) and in
sharing this on broader platforms, in order to have gender
issues taken seriously in the design of development plans
and agricultural services. Agricultural programs designed to
increase women’s income and household nutrition would
need to take much greater account of the cultural context of
women’s work as well as patterns of intra-household food
distribution and natural resource access if development and
sustainability goals are to be met [Global Chapter 3].
Giving preference and support women’s access to educa-
tion and information is critical to meeting development and
sustainability goals. Targeting female students for advanced
education in agriculture and other sciences is a vital part of
this preference as well as curriculum reform that expands
the scope of knowledge relevant to meeting development
and sustainability goals. This priority should be placed in
the larger social, environmental or “life” context: the Earth
University in Costa Rica combines hands-on fieldwork ex-
perience with theoretical work on not only the agricultural
sciences, but also business administration, entrepreneur-
ship, ecology, resource management, forestry, anthropology
and sociology.
Training women farmers as trainers for other women
provides an opportunity to share their experience and
knowledge. Training and micro-credit programs should be
interlinked to effectively transfer agricultural technology to
º Sriengrlening vomen`s aLiliry ro Lenenr íiom maiker-
based opportunities by market institutions and policies
giving explicit priority to women farmers groups in
value chains;
º Suµµoiring µuLlic seivices anu invesrmenr in iuial aieas
in order to improve women’s living and working condi-
tions;
º Piioiirizing reclnological ueveloµmenr µolicies rai-
geting rural and farm women’s needs and recognizing
women’s specific knowledge, skills and experience in
the production of food and the conservation of biodi-
versity;
º Assessing rle eííecrs oí íaiming µiacrices anu reclnol-
ogy, including pesticides on women’s health, and meas-
ures to reduce use and exposure;
º Lnsuiing genuei Lalance in AKS1 uecision-making ar
all levels; and
º Pioviuing meclanisms ro lolu AKS1 oiganizarions ac-
countable for progress in the above areas.
Policies can reinforce the achievement of development
and sustainability goals by recognizing and taking into ac-
count the role played by family farming and rural women in
terms of production, employment and household food suffi-
ciency. Consolidation of the small-scale farming sector, where
women are particularly active, requires AKST oriented to-
wards the improvement of local food crops to better satisfy
domestic markets, the development of drought-resistant
breeds to provide a more reliable harvest to those living on
marginal lands, and greater focus on on-farm enterprises
such as seasonal fish ponds that increase women’s economic
contribution to household survival.
Strengthening women’s control over resources is central
to achievement of development and sustainability goals as
well as changes in discriminatory laws that exclude women
from land ownership, from access to clean water, getting
loans or opening bank accounts. The principle of equal pay
for women working in agriculture, innovative low-cost and
sustainable technological options and services in water sup-
ply are among the measures that can enable more equitable
benefit-sharing from AKST investments and wider access to
services that benefit both women and men. Governments
can facilitate access to grants or credit on concessionary
terms to women and women’s groups.
There is an urgent need for priority setting in research to
ensure that women benefit from modern agricultural tech-
nologies (e.g., labor-saving technologies and reduced health
risk techniques) rather than being overlooked in the imple-
mentation of technologies as has often occurred in the past
[Global Chapter 3]. For social and economic sustainability,
it is important that technologies are appropriate to different
resource levels, including those of women and do not en-
courage others to dispossess women of land or control their
labor and income. Development of techniques that reduce
work load and health risks, and meet the social and physical
requirements of women can contribute to limiting the nega-
tive effects of the gender division of labor in many regions.
Modern agricultural technology should not undermine
women’s autonomy and economic position. Targeted mea-
sures will be needed to ensure this does not happen. AKST
systems that are gender sensitive would expand the range of
01-SR.indd 79 11/3/08 12:09:03 PM
80 | IAASTD Synthesis Report
generate a richer understanding of the costs and benefits in
participating in alternative trade systems for both women
and men. Gender impact analyses in turn can inform pro-
ducer organizations and alternative trade organizations on
how to improve their impact and on whom to focus further
capacity development efforts. Such findings might point for
instance to the need for female extension agents, or gender
specific technology, marketing strategies or knowledge for
male or female farmers.
Strengthening women’s ability to benefit from market-
based opportunities by market institutions and policies
giving explicit priority to women farmers groups in value
chains is essential and would allow women to benefit more
from the added value of agricultural production. The de-
velopment of agricultural enterprises owned and controlled
by women, promoting women’s organizations and coopera-
tives, community-supported agriculture and farmers mar-
kets have proven potential to enhance women’s income
opportunities and business capacities.
Strengthening women’s participation in formal AKST
decision-making at all levels, including international agri-
cultural research centers and national agricultural research
systems, is of crucial importance. Specific mechanisms
should also be developed to hold AKST organizations ac-
countable for progress in the above areas. Adoption of tech-
niques such as gender budgeting by departments/programs
of agriculture would assist in the allocation of public and
private investments needed to implement (and assess) gen-
der and social equity in AKST policies.
women farmers. Marketing, food processing and post-harvest
sciences are well suited as areas of specialization for women
who desire a career in extension work. Strategies can include
making extension work attractive to women and promoting
the education and hiring of women as extension agents. Rel-
evant expertise includes improved postharvest handling prac-
tices in the local marketplaces where women gather to sell
their goods or to shop for food [Global Chapter 6].
Gender-sensitive communication strategies for natural
resource management (e.g., mountain landscapes, trees-
outside-forest, forest management) can ensure that women
and girls can participate effectively and equitably in emerg-
ing knowledge networks. The availability of women-ori-
ented content and selection of appropriate intermediaries
and partnerships can enhance womens’ and girls’ access to
and benefits from modern ICTs [Global Chapter 5]. Other
benefits of ICT include linking up training and micro-credit
programs to transfer agricultural technology between
women farmers. Linking women farmers with markets
and using effective, appropriate and cost-efficient ICTs can
promote skills development among women. The use of the
mobile phone is an example of an information technology
that is increasing exponentially among women in many de-
veloping regions. Mobile phones are also a portable market
research tool, allowing producers to find and compare cur-
rent market prices for their products and ensuring greater
profits for their products [Global Chapters 2, 6].
Furthering gender analysis in the alternative trade sector,
particularly by Fair Trade organizations and NGOs, would
01-SR.indd 80 11/3/08 12:09:03 PM
81
ernment advocates these reports be drawn to the attention
of governments for consideration in addressing the impor-
tance of AKST and its large potential to contribute to eco-
nomic growth and the reduction of hunger and poverty.
United States of America: The United States joins con-
sensus with other governments in the critical importance of
AKST to meet the goals of the IAASTD. We commend the
tireless efforts of the authors, editors, Co-Chairs and the
Secretariat. We welcome the IAASTD for bringing together
the widest array of stakeholders for the first time in an ini-
tiative of this magnitude. We respect the wide diversity of
views and healthy debate that took place.
As we have specific and substantive concerns in each of
the 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 potential
for stimulating further deliberation and research. Further,
we acknowledge the reports are a useful contribution for
consideration by governments of the role of AKST in rais-
ing sustainable economic growth and alleviating hunger and
poverty.
Australia: Australia recognizes the IAASTD initiative and
reports as a timely and important multistakeholder and mul-
tidisciplinary exercise designed to assess and enhance the
role 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 assertions
and options in the report. The report is therefore noted as a
useful contribution, which will be used for considering the
future priorities and scope of AKST in securing economic
growth and the alleviation of hunger and poverty.
Canada: In recognizing the important and significant work
undertaken by IAASTD authors, Secretariat and stakehold-
ers on the background Reports, the Canadian Government
notes these documents as a valuable and important contri-
bution to policy debate which needs to continue in national
and international processes. While acknowledging the valu-
able contribution these Reports provide to our understand-
ing on agricultural knowledge, science and technology for
development, there remain numerous areas of concern in
terms of balanced presentation, policy suggestions and other
assertions and ambiguities. Nonetheless, the Canadian Gov-
Annex A
Reservations on Synthesis Report
01-SR.indd 81 11/3/08 12:09:03 PM
82
Annex B
Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports
Manuel de la Fuente º National Centre of Competence in
Research North-South
Edson Gandarillas º PROINPA Foundation
Botswana
Baone Cynthia Kwerepe º Botswana College of Agriculture
Brazil
Flavio Dias Ávila º Embrapa
Antônio Gomes de Castro º Embrapa
André Gonçalves º Centro Ecológico
Dalva María Da Mota º Embrapa
Odo Primavesi º Embrapa Pecuaria Sudeste (Southeast Embrapa
Cattle)
Sergio Salles Filho º State University of Campinas (Unicamp)
Susana Valle Lima º Embrapa
Canada
Jacqueline Alder º University of British Columbia
Guy Debailleul º Laval University
Haiiier Iiieuman º University of Toronto
Tirso Gonzales º University of British Columbia, Okanagan
1loia Nairina Heiimann º Université de Montréal
Soµlia Huyei º UN Commission on Science and Technology for
Development.
JoAnn Jaffe º University of Regina
Shawn McGuire
Morven A. McLean º Agriculture and Biotechnology Strategies
Inc. (AGBIOS)
M. Monirul Qader Mirza º Environment Canada and University
of Toronto, Scarborough
Ricardo Ramirez º University of Guelph
John M.R. Stone º Carleton University
Chile
Mario Ahumada º International Committee for Regional Planning
for Food Security
China
|ikun Huang º Chinese Academy of Sciences
Fu Quin º Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS)
Ma Shiming º Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS)
Li Xiande º Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS)
Zhu Xiaoman º China National Institute for Educational
Research
Argentina
Walter Ismael Abedini º Universidad Nacional de La Plata
Hugo Ceriángolo º Universidad de Buenos Aires
Cecilia Gelabert º Universidad de Buenos Aires
Hecroi D. Ginzo º Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio
Internacional y Culto
Maria Cristina Plencovich º Universidad de Buenos Aires
Marcelo Regunaga º Universidad de Buenos Aires
Sandra Elizabeth Sharry º Universidad Nacional de La Plata
Javier Souza Casadinho º CETAAR-RAPAL
Miguel Taboada º Universidad de Buenos Aires
Linesro Viglizzo º INTA Centro Regional La Pampa
Armenia
Aslor Hovlannisian º Ministry of Agriculture
Australia
Helal Alammau º Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry
David J. Connor º University of Melbourne
Tony Jansen º TerraCircle Inc.
Roger R.B. Leakey º James Cook University
Andrew Lowe º Auelaiue Srare HeiLaiium anu Biosuivey
Anna Matysek º Concept Economics
Andrew Mears º Majority World Technology
Girija Shrestha º Monash Asia Institute, Monash University
Austria
Maria Wurzinger º University of Natural Resources & Applied
Life Sciences
Bangladesh
Wais Kabir º Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC)
Karim Mahmudul º Bangladesh Shrimp and Fish Foundation
Barbados
Carl B. Greenidge º CFTC and Caribbean Regional Negotiating
Machinery
Benin
Peter Neuenschwander º International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture
Simµlice Davo Vououle º Pesticide Action Network
Bolivia
Jorge Blajos º PROINPA Foundation
Ruth Pamela Cartagena º CIPCA Pando
01-SR.indd 82 11/3/08 12:09:04 PM
Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports | 83
Jyrki Niemi º MTT Agrifood Research
Riikka Rajalahti º Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Reimund Roetter º MTT Agrifood Research
Timo Sipiläinen º MTT Agrifood Research
Naikku Yli-Halla s Univeisiry oí Helsinki
France
Jean Albergel º Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
(INRA)
Loïc Antoine º IFREMER
Martine Antona º CIRAD
Gilles Aumont º Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
(INRA)
Didier Bazile º CIRAD
Pascal Bergeret º Ministry of Agriculture
Yves Biior º Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
(INRA)
Pierre-Marie Bosc º CIRAD
Nicolas Bricas º CIRAD
Jacques Brossier º Institut National de la Recherche.
Agronomique (INRA)
Perrine Burnod º CIRAD
Gérard Buttoud º Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
(INRA)
Patrick Caron º CIRAD
Bernard Chevassus º French Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
Emilie Coudel º CIRAD
Beariice Daicy-Viillon s Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique (INRA)
Jean-François Dhôte º Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique (INRA)
Celine Dutilly-Diane º CIRAD
Fabrice Dreyfus º University Institute for Tropical Agrofood
Industries and Rural Development
Michel Dulcire º CIRAD
Patrick Dugué º CIRAD
Nicolas Faysse º CIRAD
Stefano Farolfi º CIRAD
Guy Faure º CIRAD
Alia Gana º National Center for Scientific Research CNRS/
LADYSS
Thierry Goli º CIRAD
Ghislain Gosse º Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
(INRA)
Jean-Marc Guehl º Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique (INRA)
Dominique Heive º Institute for Development Research (IRD)
Henii Hocue º CIRAD
Beinaiu HuLeir º Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
(INRA)
Jacques Imbernon º CIRAD
Hugues ue |ouvenel º Futuribles
Trish Kammili º Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
Veionique LamLlin º Futuribles
Marie de Lattre-Gasquet º CIRAD
Patrick Lavelle º Institute for Development Research (IRD)
Marianne Lefort º Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
and AgroParisTech
Jacques Loyat º French Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
Jean-Pierre Müller º CIRAD
Sylvain Perret º CIRAD
Colombia
Inge Armbrecht º Univeisiry uel Valle
Heinanuo Beinal º University of the Columbian Amazon
|uan Cáiuenas º University of the Andes
Naiia Veionica Gorrier º CIAT
Elsa Nivia º RAPALMIRA
Edelmira Pérez º Ponrincia Univeisiry |aveiiana oí Bogorá
Costa Rica
Marian Perez Gutierrez º National Centre of Competence in
Research North-South
Mario Samper º Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on
Agriculture (IICA)
Côte d’Ivoire
Guéladio Cissé º National Centre of Competence in Research
North-South Centre Suisse de Recherche Scientifique
Cyprus
Georges Eliades º Agricultural Research Institute (ARI)
Costas Gregoriou º Agricultural Research Institute (ARI)
Christoph Metochis º Agricultural Research Institute (ARI)
Czech Republic
Niloslava Þaviárilová º State Phytosanitary Administration
Democratic Republic of Congo
Dieudonne Athanase Musibono º University of Kinshasa
Denmark
Heniik Lgelyng º Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
1lomas Heniicls º University of Aarhus
Dominican Republic
Rufino Pérez-Brennan º ALIMENTEC S.A.
Egypt
Sonia Ali º Zagarid University
Mostafa A. Bedier º Agricultural Economic Research Institute
Salwa Mohamed Ali Dogheim º Agriculture Research Center
Azza Emara º Agricultural Research Institute, Agricultural
Research Center
Ahmed Abd Alwahed Rafea º American University of Cairo
Mohamed Abo El Wafa Gad º GTZ
Ethiopia
Assefa Admassie s Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute
P. Anandajayasekeram º International Livestock Research
Institute
Gezahegn Ayele º EDRI-IFPRI
Beilanu DeLele º Þarional Cenrie oí Comµerence in Reseaicl
North-South
|oan Kagvania º Lconomic Commission íoi Aíiica
Yalemrselay Nekonnen º Auuis ALaLa Univeisiry
Workneh Negatu Sentayehu º Addis Ababa University
Gete Zeleke º Global Mountain Program
Finland
Riina Antikainen º Finnish Environment Institute
Heniik Biuun º Helsinki Univeisiry oí 1eclnology
Helena Kaliluoro º MTT Agrifood Research
01-SR.indd 83 11/3/08 12:09:04 PM
84 | Annex B
Indonesia
Suiaya Aníí º KARSA (Ciicle íoi Agiaiian anu Village Reíoim)
Hiia |lamrani º 1liiu Woilu Þervoik
Iran
Hamiu Siauar º Inueµenuenr
Ireland
Denis Lucey º Univeisiry College Coik ÷ Þarional Univeisiry oí
Ireland
Italy
Gusravo Besr º Inueµenuenr
Naiia Ionre º Univeisiry oí Þaµles
Niclael Halevoou º Bioveisiry Inreinarional
Anne-Naiie Izac º Alliance oí rle CGIAR Cenries
PiaLlu Pingali º IAO
Seigio Ulgiari º Pairlenoµe Univeisiry oí Þaµles
Iiancesco Vanni º Pisa Univeisiry
Keirl WieLe º IAO
Nonika Zuiek º IAO
Jamaica
Auuia Bainerr º Scienrinc Reseaicl Council
Japan
Osamu Iro º |aµan Inreinarional Reseaicl Cenrei íoi Agiiculruial
Sciences (JIRCAS)
Osamu Koyama º |aµan Inreinarional Reseaicl Cenrei íoi
Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS)
Jordan
Saau N. Alayyasl º |oiuan Univeisiry oí Science anu 1eclnology
RuLa Al-ZuLi º Ninisriy oí Lnviionmenr
Nalmuu Duvayii º Univeisiry oí |oiuan
Nuna YacouL Hinuiyel º |oiuan Univeisiry oí Science anu
Technology
LuLna Qaiyouri º Ninisriy oí Agiiculruie/Rangelanus Diiecroiare
Rania Suleiman Slarnavi º Ninisriy oí Lnviionmenr
Kenya
1seueke ALare º Inreinarional Cioµs Reseaicl Insrirure íoi rle
Semi-Arid Tropics
Susan Kaaiia º Ioiu Iounuarion
Boniíace Kireme º Cenrie íoi 1iaining anu Inregiareu Reseaicl in
Arid and Semi-arid Lands Development
Waslingron O. Oclola º Lgeiron Univeisiry
Wellingron Orieno º Naseno Univeisiry
Iiank N. Place º Woilu Agioíoiesriy Cenrie
Waliua Parva Slal º ICRAI ÷ Woilu Agioíoiesriy Cenrie
Kyrgyz Republic
Ulan Kasymov º Cenrial Asian Nounrain Pairneisliµ Piogiamme
Raíael Lirvak º Reseaicl Insrirure oí Iiiigarion
Latvia
Raslal Isaak º Univeisiry oí Larvia
Lebanon
Roy Anroine ALiiaouue º Holy Sµiiir Univeisiry
Niclel Perir º Insrirur Agionomique Neuireiianeen Nonrµelliei
|ean-Luc Peyion º GIP LCOIOR
Anne-Lucie Raoulr-Wack º Agioµolis Ionuarion
Pieiie Ricci º Insrirur Þarional ue la Recleicle Agionomique
(INRA)
Alain Ruellan º Agiocamµus Rennes
Yves Saviuan º AGROPOLIS
Beinaiu Seguin º Insrirur Þarional ue la Recleicle Agionomique
(INRA)
Þicole SiLeler º CIRAD
Anuiee Sonror º Buieau ue Ressouices Generiques
Luuovic 1emµle º CIRAD
|ean-Pliliµµe 1onneau º CIRAD
Selma 1ozanli º Neuireiianean Agionomic Insrirure oí Nonrµelliei
Guy 1ieLuil º CIRAD
1ancieue Voiruiiez º CIRAD
The Gambia
Þuey Siieng Bakuiin º Þarional Lnviionmenr Agency
Germany
Anira Iuel º Inueµenuenr
Dale Wen |iaiun º Inreinarional Ioium on GloLalizarion
1ania H. Sclulei º Inueµenuenr
Heimann WaiLel º LeiLniz Univeisiry oí Hannovei
Ghana
LlizaLerl Acleamµong º Univeisiry oí Glana
|oln-Luues Anuivi Bakang º Kvame Þkiumal Univeisiry oí
Science and Technology (KNUST)
Clauuio Biaganrini º LmLiaµa
Daniel Þ. Daloloun º Unireu Þarions Univeisiry NLRI1/IÞRA
Ielix Yao Nensa Iiauioe º Univeisiry oí Glana
Luvin A. Gyasi º Univeisiry oí Glana
Goiuana Kianiac-Beiisavlievic º Univeisiry íoi Develoµmenr
Studies
Caiol Neicey Naikvei º Univeisiry oí Glana Legon
|oseµl (|oe) 1aaLazuing º Glana Insrirure oí Nanagemenr anu
Public Administration (GIMPA)
India
Sarinuei Baiai º Lasrein Insrirure íoi Inregiareu Leaining in
Management University
Saclin Claruiveui º Reseaicl anu Iníoimarion Sysrem íoi
Developing Countries (RIS)
Inuu Giovei º CCS Haiyana Agiiculruial Univeisiry
Govinu Kelkai º UÞIILN
Puivi Nelra-Blarr º Science Asliam
Poonam Nunial º CRISIL Lru
Dev Þarlan º Insrirure íoi Human Develoµmenr
K.P. Palanisami º 1amil Þauu Agiiculruial Univeisiry
Raiesvaii Saiala Raina º Cenrie íoi Policy Reseaicl
Vanaia Ramµiasau º Gieen Iounuarion
C.R. Ranganarlan º 1amil Þauu Agiiculruial Univeisiry
Sunil Ray º Insrirure oí Develoµmenr Sruuies
Sukhpal Singh s Indian Institute of Management (IIM)
Anusliee Sinla º Þarional Council íoi Aµµlieu Lconomic
Research (NCAER)
V. Sanrlakumai º Cenrie íoi Develoµmenr Sruuies
Rasleeu Sulaiman V. º Cenrie íoi Reseaicl on Innovarion anu
Science Policy (CRISP)
01-SR.indd 84 11/3/08 12:09:04 PM
Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports | 85
Nicaragua
Ialguni Gulaiay º Iníoimarion Seivice oí Nesoameiica on
Sustainable Agriculture
Cailos |. Peiez º Lairl Insrirure
Ana Ciisrina Rosrián º UÞAÞ-Leon
|oige Iián Vásquez º Þarional Union oí Iaimeis anu Rancleis
Nigeria
Sanni Auunni º Almauu Bello Univeisiry
Niclael Cliuozie Dike º Almauu Bello Univeisiry
V.I.O. Þuiiika º Almauu Bello Univeisiry
Srella Williams º OLaíemi Avolovo Univeisiry
Oman
Younis Al Aklzami º Ninisriy oí Agiiculruie anu Iisleiies
ALuallal Nolameu Omezzine º Univeisiry oí Þizva. Oman
Pakistan
Iíriklai Almau º Þarional Agiiculruial Reseaicl Cenrie
Nuklrai Almau Ali º Cenrie íoi Peace & Develoµmenr
Initiatives
Syeu Saiiuin Hussain º Ninisriy oí Lnviionmenr
Yameen Nemon º Goveinmenr Lmµloyees Cooµeiarive Housing
Society
Iaizana Panlvai º SIÞD1H Ruial Women`s Uµliír Giouµ
Syeu Waiiu Piizaua º Pakisran Agiiculruial Reseaicl Cenrei
ALiu Suleii º SusrainaLle Develoµmenr Policy Insrirure (SDPI)
Alsan Wagla º Damaan Develoµmenr Oiganizarion/GLI/SGP
Palestine
|amal ALo Omai º An-Þaial Þarional Univeisiry
|au L Isaac º Aµµlieu Reseaicl Insrirure ÷ |eiusalem
1lameen Hiiavi º Palesrinian Agiiculruial Relieí Commirrees
(PARC)
Þuman Nizyeu º An-Þaial Þarional Univeisiry
Azzam Salel º Al-Quus Univeisiry
Panama
|ulio Sanramaiia º IÞIAP
Peru
Claia G. Ciuzalegui º Ninisriy oí Agiiculruie anu Livesrock
Naiia L. Ieinanuez º Þarional Agiaiian Univeisiry
Luis A. Gomeio º Acrion Þervoik íoi Alreinarives ro
Agrochemicals
Caila 1amagno º Univeisiuau San Nairin ue Poiies
Philippines
Nalíuz Almeu º Asian Develoµmenr Bank
Airuio S. Aiganosa º Pliliµµine Council íoi Agiiculruie. Ioiesriy
and Natural Resources Research and Development
Danilo C. Caiuenas º Pliliµµine Council íoi Agiiculruie. Ioiesriy
and Natural Resources Research and Development
Riclaiu B. Daire º Pliliµµine Council íoi Agiiculruie. Ioiesriy
and Natural Resources Research and Development
Llenira C. Dano º Pairiciµaroiy Lnlancemenr anu Develoµmenr
of Genetic Resources in Asia (PEDIGREA)
Iezoil Luz C. Decena º Pliliµµine Council íoi Agiiculruie.
Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development
Dely Pascual Gaµasin º Insrirure íoi Inreinarional Develoµmenr
Partnership Foundation
Madascagar
R. Xaviei Rakoronianalaiy º IOIIIA (Þarional Cenrei íoi
Applied Research for Rural Development)
Malaysia
Lim Li Cling º 1liiu Woilu Þervoik
Kloo Gaik Hong º Inreinarional 1ioµical Iiuirs Þervoik
Mauritius
Ameenal GuiiL-Iakim º Univeisiry oí Nauiirius
Mexico
Rosa Luz González Aguiiie º Auronomous Nerioµoliran
University, Azcapotzalco
Niclelle Clauver º Auronomous Þarional Univeisiry oí Nexico
(UNAM)
Amanua Gálvez º Auronomous Þarional Univeisiry oí Nexico
(UNAM)
|esus Noncaua º Inueµenuenr
Celso Gaiiiuo Þogueia º Auronomous Þarional Univeisiry oí
México (UNAM)
Scorr S. RoLinson º Univeisiuau Nerioµolirana - Izraµalaµa
RoLeiro Saluaña º SAGARPA
Morocco
Saauia Llaloui º Insrirur Þarional ue la Recleicle Agionomique
Nolameu Noussaoui º Inueµenuenr
Mozambique
Nanuel Amane º Insriruro ue Invesrigaçâo Agiicola ue
Moçambique (IIAM)
Pariick Narakala º Woilu Agioíoiesriy Cenrie
Nepal
Raienuia Sliesrla º AIORDA
Netherlands
Þienke Beinrema º Inreinarional Ioou Policy Reseaicl Insrirure
Bas Licklour º Þerleilanus Lnviionmenral Assessmenr Agency
(MNP)
|uuirl Iiancis º 1eclnical Cenrie íoi Agiiculruial anu Ruial
Cooperation (CTA)
|anice |iggins º Wageningen Univeisiry
1oLy Kieis º Viiie Univeisireir
Kasµai Kok º Wageningen Univeisiry
Þiek Koning º Wageningen Univeisiry
Þiels Louvaais º Wageningen Univeisiry
Willem A. Rienks º Wageningen Univeisiry
Þiels Roling º Wageningen Univeisiry
Naik van Ooisclor º Þerleilanus Lnviionmenral Assessmenr
Agency (MNP)
Derleí P. van Vuuien º Þerleilanus Lnviionmenral Assessmenr
Agency (MNP)
Henk Wesrloek º Þerleilanus Lnviionmenral Assessmenr Agency
(MNP)
New Zealand
|ack A. Heinemann º Univeisiry oí CanreiLuiy
Neiiel Warrs º Pesriciue Acrion Þervoik Aoreaioa
01-SR.indd 85 11/3/08 12:09:05 PM
86 | Annex B
Daviu Durlie º Unireu Þarions Lnviionmenr Piogiamme
Naikus Gigei º Univeisiry oí Bein
Ann D. HeiLeir º Inreinarional LaLoui Oiganizarion
Angelika HilLeck º Sviss Ieueial Insrirure oí 1eclnology
Uuo Hoeggel º Univeisiry oí Bein
Hans Huini º Univeisiry oí Bein
Anuieas Klaey º Univeisiry oí Bein
Coiuula Orr º Univeisiry oí Bein
Biigirre Poirnei º Univeisiry oí Bein
Sreµlan Risr º Univeisiry oí Bein
Uis Scleiueggei º Sviss College oí Agiiculruie
|ueig Sclneiuei º Srare Secieraiiar íoi Lconomic Aííaiis
Cliisroµl Sruuei º Sviss College oí Agiiculruie
Hong Yang º Sviss Ieueial Insrirure íoi Aquaric Science anu
Technology.
Yuan Zlou º Sviss Ieueial Insrirure íoi Aquaric Science anu
Technology
Cliisrine Zunuel º Reseaicl Insrirure oí Oiganic Agiiculruie (IiBL)
Syria
Þoui Claclary º Inueµenuenr
Alessanuia Galie º ICARDA
Sreíania Gianuo º ICARDA
1leiL Youseí Oveis º ICARDA
Nanzooi Qauii º ICARDA
Kamil H. Sliueeu º ICARDA
Taiwan
NuLaiik Ali º Woilu VegeraLle Cenrei
Tajikistan
Sanginov S. RaiaLovicl º Soil Science Reseaicl Insrirure oí
Agrarian Academy of Sciences
Tanzania
Roslan ALuallal º 1ioµical Pesriciues Reseaicl Insrirure (1PRI)
Srella Þ. Birenue º Ninisriy oí Livesrock anu Iisleiies
Development
Saclin Das º Animal Diseases Reseaicl Insrirure
Aiua CurlLeir Isinika º Sokoine Univeisiry oí Agiiculruie
Rose Rira Kingamkono º 1anzania Commission íoi Science &
Technology
Lvelyne Lazaio º Sokoine Univeisiry oí Agiiculruie
Razack Lokina º Univeisiry oí Dai es Salaam
Lurgaiu Kokulinua Kagaiuki º Animal Diseases Reseaicl
Institute
LlizaLerl |.Z. RoLinson º Univeisiry oí Dai es Salaam
Thailand
1lammaiar Koorrareµ º Asian Insrirure oí 1eclnology
Anna SraLiava º Unireu Þarions Lnviionmenr Piogiamme
Trinidad and Tobago
Salisla Bellamy º Ninisriy oí Agiiculruie. Lanu & Naiine
Resources
Liicka Pienrice-Pieiie º Agiiculruie Secroi Reíoim Piogiam
(ASRP), IBD
Tunisia
Nolameu AnnaLi º Insrirur Þarional ue la Recleicle
Agronomique de Tunisie
Digna Nanzanilla º Pliliµµine Council íoi Agiiculruie. Ioiesriy
and Natural Resources Research and Development
Claiiro P. Neuina º NASIPAG (Iaimei-Scienrisr Pairneisliµ íoi
Development, Inc.)
1lelma Paiis º Inreinarional Rice Reseaicl Insrirure
Agnes Rola º Univeisiry oí rle Pliliµµines Los Baños
Leo SeLasrian º Pliliµµine Rice Reseaicl Insrirure
Poland
Daiiusz |acek Szveu º Inueµenuenr
Doiora Nereia º IUCÞ ÷ Polanu
Russia
Seigey Alexanian º Þ.I. Vavilov Reseaicl Insrirure oí Planr Inuusriy
Rwanda
Agnes ALeia KaliLara º Ninisriy oí Agiiculruie
Senegal
|ulienne Kuiseu º CORAI/WLCARD
Nocrai 1ouie º Inueµenuenr
Slovakia
Pavol Bielek º Soil Science anu Conseivarion Reseaicl Insrirure
South Africa
Uimilla BoL º Univeisiry oí KvaZulu-Þaral
Nainus Gouse º Univeisiry oí Pieroiia
Noiaka Nakluia º Develoµmenr Bank oí Sourlein Aíiica
Spain
Naiia uel Nai Delgauo º Univeisiry oí CoiuoLa
Naiio Giamµierio º Univeisirar Auronoma ue Baicelona
Luciano Nareos º Insriruro ue Agiiculruia SosreniLle. CSIC
Naira Riveia-Ieiie º Auronomous Univeisiry oí Baicelona
Sri Lanka
DeLoial Bossio º Inreinarional Warei Nanagemenr Insrirure
Clailorre ue Iiairuie º Inreinarional Warei Nanagemenr Insrirure
Iiancis Þuegva Gicluki º Inreinarional Warei Nanagemenr
Institute
Daviu Noluen º Inreinarional Warei Nanagemenr Insrirure
Sudan
Ali 1ala AyouL º Alíal Univeisiry íoi Women
Asla Ll KaiiL º ACORD
Aggiey Naiok º Inueµenuenr
Almeu S.N. Ll Wakeel º ÞBSAP
Balgis N.L. Osman-Llasla º Higlei Council íoi Lnviionmenr &
Þaruial Resouices (HCLÞR)
Sweden
Susanne |olansson º Sveuisl Univeisiry oí Agiiculruial Sciences
Riclaiu Langlais º Þoiuiegio. Þoiuic Cenrei íoi Sµarial
Devleopment
Veli-Narri Loiske º Soueiroins Univeisiry College
Iieu Saunueis º Soueiroins Univeisiry College
Nairin Wieiuµ º Sveuisl Univeisiry oí Agiiculruial Sciences
Switzerland
Ielix Baclmann º Sviss College oí Agiiculruie
01-SR.indd 86 11/3/08 12:09:05 PM
Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports | 87
|oln Naisl º Inueµenuenr
Auiienne Nairin º Univeisiry oí Gieenvicl
Ian Nauulin º Cenrie íoi 1ioµical Vereiinaiy Neuicine
Þigel Naxreu º Univeisiry oí Biiminglam
Naia Niele º Caiuiíí Univeisiry
Selyí Noigan º Caiuiíí Univeisiry
|oe Noiiis º Ciannelu Univeisiry
|olanna Pennaiz º I1AD
Geiaiu Poirei º Univeisiry oí LuinLuigl
Clailie Ricles º Univeisiry oí Gieenvicl
Perei RoLLins º Inueµenuenr
Paiesl Slal º Lonuon Higlei
Geoíí Simm º Scorrisl Agiiculruial College
Linua Smirl º Deµairmenr íoi Lnviionmenr. Ioou anu Ruial
Affairs (end Mar 2006)
Nicola Spence s Central Science Laboratory
|oyce 1air º Univeisiry oí LuinLuigl
K.|. 1lomson º Univeisiry oí ALeiueen
Pliliµ 1loinron º Inreinarional Livesrock Reseaicl Insrirure
Bill Voiley º Inreinarional Insrirure íoi Lnviionmenr anu
Development
|eíí Waage º Lonuon Inreinarional Develoµmenr Cenrie
United States
Lmily Auams º Inueµenuenr
LlizaLerl A. Ainsvoirl º U.S. Department of Agriculture
Wisuom Akµalu º Lnviionmenral Lconomics Reseaicl &
Consultancy (EERAC)
Nolly D. Anueison º Ioou Sysrems Inregiiry
Daviu Anuov º Univeisiry oí Ninnesora
Pariick Avaro º 1le Woilu Bank
Nolameu Bakaii º Cenrei íoi Aµµlieu Biouiveisiry Science.
Conservation International
Revarli Balakiislnan º Inueµenuenr
DeLLie Baikei º Inreinarional Ioium on GloLalizarion
BaiLaia Besr º U.S. Agency íoi Inreinarional Develoµmenr
Regina Biinei º Inreinarional Ioou Policy Reseaicl Policy
Institute
Dave BioineLeig º U.S. Deµairmenr oí Agiiculruie
Daviu Bouluin º Coinell Univeisiry
Rouney Biovn º Biiglam Young Univeisiry
Sanuia Biovn º Winiock Inreinarional
ReLecca Buir º U.S. Deµairmenr oí Agiiculruie
Loina N. Burlei º Iova Srare Univeisiry
Kennerl Cassman º Univeisiry oí ÞeLiaska. Lincoln
Gina Casrillo º Oxíam Ameiica
Neula Clanuia º Pesriciue Acrion Þervoik. Þoirl Ameiica
|ali Niclael Claµµell º Univeisiry oí Nicligan
Luis Ieinanuo Clávez º Lmoiy Univeisiry
|oel I. Colen º Inueµenuenr
Ranuy L. Davis º U.S. Deµairmenr oí Agiiculruie
Daniel ue la 1oiie Ugaire º Univeisiry oí 1ennessee
Sreven Delmei º Univeisiry oí Ninnesora
Neula Devaie º Coinell Univeisiry
Amauou Naklrai Dioµ º Rouale Insrirure
William L. Lasreiling º Pennsylvania Srare Univeisiry
Kiisrie L. LLi º LSS. LLC
Denis LLouagle º U.S. Deµairmenr oí Agiiculruie
Slelley Ieluman º Coinell Univeisiry
Slaun Ieiiis º Carlolic Relieí Seivices
|oige N. Ionseca º Univeisiry oí Aiizona
Rym Ben Ziu º Inueµenuenr
Nusraµla Guellouz º IAAS1D CWAÞA. DSIPS - Diveisincarion
Program, ICARDA
Kavrlei Lariii º Insrirur Þarional ue la Recleicle Agionomique
de Tunisie
Lokman ZaiLer º Lcole Suµeiieuie u`Agiiculruie ue Nogiane.
Zaghouan
Turkey
Þazimi Acikgoz º Lge Univeisiry
Hasan Akca º Gaziosmanµasa Univeisiry
Ahmet Ali Koc s Akdeniz University
Gulcan Liakran º Univeisiry oí Ankaia
Yalcin Kaya º 1iakya Agiiculruial Reseaicl Insrirure
Suar Oksuz º Lge Univeisiry
Ayíei 1an º Aegean Agiiculruial Reseaicl Insrirure
Alu Uncuoglu1uLirak º Reseaicl Insrirure íoi Generic
Engineering and Biotechnology (RIGEB)
Ialii Yavuz º Araruik Univeisiry
Uganda
Aµili L.C. Liuµu º Ninisriy oí Agiiculruie. Animal Inuusriies anu
Fisheries
Aµoµlia Arukunua º Lnviionmenr Consulrancy League
Dan Þkoova Kisauzi º Þkoola Insrirurional Develoµmenr
Associates (NIDA)
Imelua Kaslaiia º Þarional Agiiculruie Resouice Oiganizarion
(NARO)
1leiesa SengooLa º Inreinarional Ioou Policy Reseaicl Insrirure
Ukraine
Yuiiy Þesreiov º Heiíei Inreinarional
United Arab Emirates
ALuin Zein Ll-ALuin º Looral Luucarional Iounuarion
United Kingdom
Niclael AµµleLy º Woilu Sociery íoi rle Piorecrion oí Animals.
London
Sreve Bass º Inreinarional Insrirure íoi Lnviionmenr anu
Development
Sreµlen Biggs º Univeisiry oí Lasr Anglia
Þoiman Claik º 1le Oµen Univeisiry
|oanna Claravay º Oµen Univeisiry
|aner Correi º Univeisiry oí Lxerei
Perei Ciauíuiu º Univeisiry oí Reauing
BaiLaia Dinlam º Pesriciue Acrion Þervoik
Carly Rozel Iainvoirl º Inueµenuenr
Les IiiLank º Þoirl Wyke Reseaicl
Cliis Gaiíoirl º Univeisiry oí Reauing
Anil Giaves º Ciannelu Univeisiry
Anuiea Giunuy º Þarional Iaimeis` Union
Daviu Gizyvacz º Univeisiry oí Gieenvicl
Anuy Hall º Unireu Þarions Univeisiry ÷ Naasriiclr
Biian |olnson º Inueµenuenr
Saiiu Kazmi º Niuulesex Univeisiry Business Sclool
Iiances Kimmins º ÞR Inreinarional Lru
Cliis D.B. Leakey º Univeisiry oí Plymourl
Kaien Lock º Lonuon Sclool oí Hygiene anu 1ioµical Neuicine
Perei Lurman º Rorlamsreu Reseaicl
Ana Naii º Univeisiry oí Gieenvicl
01-SR.indd 87 11/3/08 12:09:05 PM
88 | Annex B
Naik Rosegianr º Inreinarional Ioou Policy Reseaicl Insrirure
Liika Rosenrlal º Cenrei íoi Inreinarional Lnviionmenral Lav
Niclael Scleclrman º U.S. Deµairmenr oí Agiiculruie
Saia Scleii º Lcoagiiculruie Pairneis
|eiemy SclvairzLoiu º Inueµenuenr
Leoniu Slaiaslkin º Inueµenuenr
Narrlev Sµuilock º Univeisiry oí Nassacluserrs
1imorly Sulsei º Inreinarional Ioou Policy Reseaicl Insrirure
Sreve Suµµan º Insrirure íoi Agiiculruie anu 1iaue Policy
Douglas L. Vincenr º Univeisiry oí Havaii ar Nanoa
Pai-Yei Wlung º U.S. Deµairmenr oí Agiiculruie
Daviu L. Williams º U.S. Deµairmenr oí Agiiculruie
Sran Woou º Inreinarional Ioou Policy Reseaicl Insrirure
Angus Wiiglr º Caliíoinia Srare Univeisiry. Saciamenro
Hovaiu Yana Slaµiio º NARS. Inc.
Sracey Young º U.S. Agency íoi Inreinarional Develoµmenr
1ingiu Zlu º Inreinarional Ioou Policy Reseaicl Insrirure
Uruguay
Gusravo Ieiieiia º Insriruro Þacional ue Invesrigacion
Agropecuaria (INIA), Tacuarembó
Luis Cailos Paolino º 1eclnological LaLoiaroiy oí Uiuguay
(LATU)
Lucia Piralluga º Univeisiry oí rle ReµuLlic
Uzbekistan
Sanuiai Dialalov º Inueµenuenr
Alislei A. 1aslmarov º Ninisriy oí Iinance
Viet Nam
Duong Van Clin º 1le Cuulong Delra Rice Reseaicl Insrirure
Zambia
Clailorre Wonani º Univeisiry oí ZamLia
Zimbabwe
Clieuza L. Nucloµa º Univeisiry oí ZimLaLve
Linuela R. Þulovu º Þarional Univeisiry oí Science anu
Technology
Iual Sirlole-Þiang º Univeisiry oí ZimLaLve
Sreµlen 1vomlov º Inreinarional Cioµs Reseaicl Insrirure íoi
the Semi-Arid Tropics
|.B. Iiiuay º Univeisiry oí Havaii
1illy Gaillaiu º Inueµenuenr
Consrance Geva º Geoige Nason Univeisiry
Paul GuilleLeau º Univeisiry oí Geoigia
|ames C. Hanson º Univeisiry oí Naiylanu
Celia Haivey º Conseivarion Inreinarional
Naiy Henuiickson º Univeisiry oí Nissouii
William Heííeinan º Univeisiry oí Nissouii
Paul Heisey º U.S. Department of Agriculture
Kennerl Hinga º U.S. Deµairmenr oí Agiiculruie
Omololu |oln Iuovu º Coinell Univeisiry
Naicia Islii-Lireman º Pesriciue Acrion Þervoik. Þoirl Ameiica
R. Cesai Izauiialue º |oinr GloLal Clange Reseaicl Insrirure
Liic Holr |imenez º Ioou Iiisr/Insrirure íoi Ioou anu
Development Policy
Noses 1.K. Kaiio º Iloiiua A&N Univeisiry
Daviu Knoµµ º Lmeiging Naikers Giouµ (LNG)
Russ Kiuska º Inreinarional Livesrock Reseaicl Insrirure
Anuiev D.B. Leakey º University of Illinois
Kaien Luz º Woilu Wiluliíe Iunu
Uíoiu Nauuen º Iloiiua A&N Univeisiry
Peuio Naiques º 1le Woilu Bank
Haiolu |. NcAirlui º Univeisiry oí Havaii ar Nanoa
A.|. NcDonalu º Coinell Univeisiry
Pariick Neiei º 1uírs Univeisiry
Douglas L. Nuiiay º Coloiauo Srare Univeisiry
Claie Þaiiou º Inreinarional Ioou Policy Reseaicl Insrirure
|ames K. Þevman º Iova Srare Univeisiry
Diane Osgoou º Business íoi Social ResµonsiLiliry
|onarlan Pauglam º 1le Woilu Bank
Haiiy Palmiei º 1le Woilu Bank
Pliliµ Paiuey º Univeisiry oí Ninnesora
Iverre Peiíecro º Univeisiry oí Nicligan
Cameion Pirrelkov º Inueµenuenr
Cail L. Piay º Rurgeis Univeisiry
LlizaLerl Ransom º Univeisiry oí Riclmonu
Lauia 1. Raynolus º Coloiauo Srare Univeisiry
Perei Reicl º Univeisiry oí Ninnesora
RoLin Reiu º Coloiauo Srare Univeisiry
Susan Rila º Coinell Univeisiry
Clauuia Ringlei º Inreinarional Ioou Policy Reseaicl Insrirure
Sreven Rose º U.S. Lnviionmenral Piorecrion Agency
01-SR.indd 88 11/3/08 12:09:06 PM
89
Annex C
Peer Reviewers
France
Louis Aumaitre º EAAP
Dominique Heive º Institute for Development Research (IRD)
Jacques Loyat º Ministry of Agriculture
Michèle º Tixier-Boichard º Ninisriy oí Higlei Luucarion anu
Research
Germany
Jan van Aken º Greenpeace International
India
Pradip Dey º Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Ramesh Chand º NCAP
C.P. Chandrasekhar º Jawaharlal Nehru University
Sudhir Kochhar º Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Aditya Misra º Project Directorate on Cattle
Suresh Pal º NCAP
C. Upendranadh º Insrirure íoi Human Develoµmenr
Indonesia
Russell Dilts º Environmental Services Program
Iran
Farhad Saeidi Naeini º Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection
Ireland
Government of Ireland
Sharon Murphy º Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Italy
Agriculture Department º FAO
Susan Braatz º FAO
Jorge Csirke º FAO
Forestry Department º FAO
Gender, Equity and Rural Employment Division of FAO
Yianna LamLiou º FAO
Shivaji Pandey º FAO
Teri Raney º FAO
Jeff Tschirley º FAO
Haiiy van uei Wulµ º FAO
Kenya
Christian Borgemeister º International Center for Insect
Physiology and Ecology
Marcus Lee º United Nations Environment Programme
Evans Mwangi º University of Nairobi
Nalini Sharma º United Nations Environment Programme
Anna Stabrawa º United Nations Environment Programme
Argentina
Sandra Elizabeth Sharry º Universidad Nacional de La Plata
Australia
Government of Australia
Simon Heain º Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research
Sruair Hill º University of Western Sydney
Tony Jansen º TerraCircle Inc.
Sarah Withers º Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Austria
Elfriede Fuhrmann º BMLFUW
Government of Austria
Benin
Shellemiah Keya º WARDA
Peter Neuenschwander º IITA
Brazil
Government of Brazil
Odo Primavesi º Embrapa Pecuaria Sudeste (Southeast Embrapa
Cattle)
Francisco Reifschneider º Embrapa
Canada
David Cooper º Convention on Biological Diversity
Donald C. Cole º University of Toronto
Haiiier º Friedman º University of Toronto
JoAnn Jaffe º University of Regina
Muffy Koch º Agbios
Iain C. MacGillivray º Canadian International Development
Agency
Mary Stockdale º University of British Columbia, Okanagan
Denmark
Frands Dolberg º University of Arhus
Heniik Lgelyng º Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Dominican Republic
Rufino Pérez-Brennan º ALIMENTEC S.A.
Egypt
Ayman ALou-Hauiu º Agricultural Research Center
Finland
Riika Rajalahti º Ministry of Foreign Affairs
01-SR.indd 89 11/3/08 12:09:06 PM
90 | Annex C
Reyes Tirado º Greenpeace International
Stephanie Williamson º Pesticide Action Network, UK
United States
Miguel Altieri º University of California, Berkeley
Jock Anderson º The World Bank
Molly Anderson º Food Systems Integrity
Michael Arbuckle º The World Bank
Philip L. Bereano º University of Washington
David Bouldin º Cornell University
Lynn Brown º The World Bank
Rodney Brown º Biiglam Young Univeisiry
Glenn Carpenter º U.S. Department of Agriculture
Janet Carpenter º U.S. Department of Agriculture
Jean-Christophe Carret º The World Bank
Cheryl Christensen º U.S. Department of Agriculture
Nata Duvvury º International Center for Research on Women
Denis Ebodaghe º U.S. Department of Agriculture
Indira Ekanayake º The World Bank
Erick Fernandes º The World Bank
Steven Finch º U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mary-Ellen Foley º The World Bank
Lucia Fort º The World Bank
Christian Foster º U.S. Department of Agriculture
Bill Freese º Center for Food Safety
Government of the United States
Doug Gurian-Sherman º Union of Concerned Scientists
Niclael Hansen º Consumers Union of US
Kennerl Hinga º U.S. Department of Agriculture
Gregory Jaffe º Center for Science in the Public Interest
Randy Johnson º U.S. Forest Service
Nadim Khouri º The World Bank
Jack Kloppenburg º University of Wisconsin
Masami Kojima º The World Bank
Anne Kuriakose º The World Bank
Saul Landau º California Polytechnic, Pomona
Jennifer Long º University of Illinois, Chicago
Karen Luz º World Wildlife Fund
William Martin º The World Bank
A.J. McDonald º Cornell University
Rekha Mehra º The World Bank
Douglas L. Murray º Colorado State University
Michael Naim º U.S. Department of Agriculture
John Nash º The World Bank
World Nieh º US Forest Service
Jon Padgham º World Bank
Mikko Paunio º The World Bank
Eija Pehu º The World Bank
Carl Pray º Rutgers University
Margaret Reeves º Pesticide Action Network North America
Peter Riggs º Forum on Democracy & Trade
Naomi Roht-Arriaza º Univeisiry oí Caliíoinia Hasrings College
of Law
Phrang Roy º The Christensen Fund
Marc Safley º U.S. Department of Agriculture
Michael Schechtman º U.S. Department of Agriculture
Sara Scherr º Ecoagriculture Partners
Seth Shames º Ecoagriculture Partners
Doreen Stabinsky º College of the Atlantic
Lorann Stallones º Colorado State University
Gvenuolyn H. Uiey º California Polytechnic, Pomona
Madagascar
Xavier Rakotonjanahary º FOFIFA
Malaysia
Li Ching Lim º Third World Network
Nepal
Rajendra Shrestha º AFORDA
Netherlands
Judith Francis º Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural
Cooperation (CTA)
|uan Loµez Villai º Friends of the Earth International
New Zealand
A. Neil Macgregor º Journal of Organic Systems
Philippines
Leo Sebastian º Philippine Rice Research Institute
Poland
Ursula Soltysiak º AgroBio Test
Spain
Mario Giampietro º Univeisirar Auronoma ue Baicelona
Marta Rivera-Ferre º Univeisirar Auronoma ue Baicelona
Sweden
Ulí Heiisriom º Independent
Permilla Malmer º Swedish Biodiversity Center
Switzerland
David Duthie º United Nations Environment Programme
Tanzania
Jamidu Katima º University of Dar es Salaam
Tunisia
Rym Ben Zid º Independent
Uganda
Kevin Akoyi º Vieueseilanuen
Heniy Ssali º Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute
United Kingdom
Stephen Biggs º University of East Anglia
Janet Cotter º Greenpeace International, Exeter University
Stuart Coupe º Practical Action
Peter Craufurd º Reading University
Sue D’Arcy º Masterfoods UK
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department for International Development
Cathy Rozel Farnworth º Independent
Lmma Hennessey º Defra
John Marsh º Independent
Clare Oxborrow º Friends of the Earth England, Wales and
Northern Ireland
Helena Paul º EcoNexus
Pete Riley º GM Freeze
Jo Ripley º Independent
Geoff Tansey º Independent
01-SR.indd 90 11/3/08 12:09:07 PM
Peer Reviewers | 91
Lveir Van uei Sluis º South Dakota State University
David Winickoff º University of California, Berkeley
Angus Wright º California State University, Sacramento
Sracey Young º U.S. Agency International Development
01-SR.indd 91 11/3/08 12:09:07 PM
92
Annex D
Secretariat and Cosponsor Focal Points
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)
Lniique Alaicon. |oige Aiuila Vásquez. Viviana Clacon. |olana
Rodríguez, Gustavo Sain
East and South Asia and the Pacific – WorldFish Center
Kaien Kloo. Siev Hua Kol. Li Ping Þg. |amie Olivei. Piem
Clanuian Venugoµalan
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,
|ueigen Voegele
Secretariat
World Bank
Naiianne CaLiaal. Leonila Casrillo. |oui Hoiron. Bersi Isay.
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
01-SR.indd 92 11/3/08 12:09:07 PM
93
Annex E
Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory
Bureau for Assessment
Sam Dryden, Managing Director, Emergent Genetics
Daviu Lvans. Ioimei Heau oí Reseaicl anu 1eclnology. Syngenra
International
Steve Parry, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Development
Program Leader, Unilever
Mumeka M. Wright, Director, Bimzi Ltd., Zambia
Consumer Groups
Niclael Hansen. Consumeis Inreinarional
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
|oige Aiuila Vásquez. Diiecroi Aiea oí 1eclnology anu
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
Nolameu Hassan. Lxecurive Diiecroi. 1liiu Woilu Acauemy oí
Sciences (TWAS)
Naik Holueiness. Heau Cioµ anu Pesr Nanagemenr. CAB
International
Clailorre |olnson-Welcl. PuLlic Healrl anu Genuei
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 Committee
The 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
Benny Haeilin. Auvisoi. Gieenµeace Inreinarional
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
Healrly Lnviionmenrs. Woilu Healrl Oiganizarion
|oke Wallei-Hunrei. Lxecurive Secieraiy. UÞ Iiamevoik
Convention on Climate Change
Hamuallal Zeuan. Lxecurive Secieraiy. UÞ Convenrion on
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,
anu Vice-Piesiuenr ÞA1URA
Vo-rong Xuan. Recroi. Angiang Univeisiry. Viernam
Private Sector
Momtaz Faruki Chowdhury, Director, Agribusiness Center for
Competitiveness and Enterprise Development, Bangladesh
01-SR.indd 93 11/3/08 12:09:07 PM
94 | Annex E
Russia: Lugenia Seiova. Heau. Agiaiian Policy Division. Insrirure
for Economy in Transition
Uganda: Grace Akello, Minister of State for Northern Uganda
Rehabilitation
United Kingdom Paul Sµiay. Heau oí Reseaicl. DIID
United States: Rodney Brown, Deputy Under Secretary of
Agiiculruie anu Hans Klemm. Diiecroi oí rle Oínce oí
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: 1iina Huvio. Senioi Auvisoi. Agiiculruie anu Ruial
Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
France: Alain Derevier, Senior Advisor, Research for Sustainable
Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Germany: Hans-|oclen ue Haas. Heau. Agiiculruial anu Ruial
Development, Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation
and Development (BMZ)
Hungary: Zoltan Bedo, Director, Agricultural Research Institute,
Hungaiian Acauemy oí Sciences
Ireland: Aidan O’Driscoll, Assistant Secretary General,
Department of Agriculture and Food
Morocco: Hamiu Þaiiisse. Diiecroi Geneial. IÞRA
01-SR.indd 94 11/3/08 12:09:07 PM
Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment | 95
PiaLla Nalale º Inreinarional Ieueiarion oí Oiganic Agiiculruie
Movements
Anira Noiales º Aµir 1ako
Þizam Selim º Pioneei Harcleiy
Government Representatives
Central and West Asia and North Africa
Lgyµr º Allam Al Þaggai
Iian º Hossein Askaii
Kyigyz ReµuLlic º Diamin Akimaliev
Sauui AiaLia º ALuu Al Assiii. 1aqi Lllueen Auai. Klaliu Al
Ghamedi
1uikey º Yalcin Kaya. Nesur Kesei
East/South Asia/Pacific
Ausrialia º Simon Heain
Clina º Puyun Yang
Inuia º PK |osli
|aµan º Ryuko Inoue
Pliliµµines º William Neuiano
Latin America and Caribbean
Biazil º SeLasriao BaiLosa. Alexanuie Caiuoso. Paulo RoLeiro
Galerani, Rubens Nodari
Dominican ReµuLlic º Raíael Peiez Duveige
Honuuias º Airuio Galo. RoLeiro Villeua 1oleuo
Uiuguay º Naiio Allegii
North America and Europe
Ausriia º Heuvig WoegeiLauei
Canaua º Iain NacGilliviay
Iinlanu º Naiia-Liisa 1aµio-Bisriom
Iiance º Niclel Douer
Iielanu º Aiuan O`Diiscoll. 1ony Smirl
Russia º Lugenia Seiova. Seigey Alexanian
Unireu Kinguom º |im Haivey. Daviu Hovlerr. |oln Baiier
Unireu Srares º Cliisrian Iosrei
Sub-Saharan Africa
Benin º |ean Clauue Couiia
GamLia º Sulayman 1iavally
Kenya º Lvans Nvangi
NozamLique º Alsácia Aranásio. |ulio Nclola
ÞamiLia º Gillian Naggs-Kolling
Senegal º ILialim Diouck
Advisory Bureau
Non-government Representatives
Consumer Groups
|aime Delgauo º Asociacion Peiuana ue Consumiuoies y Usuaiios
Gieg |aííe º Cenrei íoi Science in rle PuLlic Inreiesr
Carleiine Rurivi º Consumeis Inreinarional
Inuiani 1luiaisinglam º Sourleasr Asia Council íoi Ioou
Security and Trade
|ose Vaigas Þiello º Consumeis Inreinarional Clile
International organizations
Þara Duvvuiy º Inreinarional Cenrei íoi Reseaicl on Women
Lmile Iiison º CGIAR
Nolameu Hassan º 1liiu Woilu Acauemy oí Sciences
Naik Holueiness º GIAR
|eííiey NcÞeely º Woilu Conseivarion Union (IUCÞ)
Dennis Rangi º CAB Inreinarional
|oln Srevair º Inreinarional Council oí Science (ICSU)
NGOs
Kevin Akoyi º Vieueseilanuen
Heuia Baccai º Associarion µoui la Piorecrion ue l`Lnviionmenr
de Kairouan
Beneuikr Haeilin º Gieenµeace Inreinarional
|uan Loµez º Iiienus oí rle Lairl Inreinarional
Klauouia Nellouli º Women íoi SusrainaLle Develoµmenr
Pariick Nulvaney º Piacrical Acrion
Romeo Quilano º Pesriciue Acrion Þervoik
Naiyam Ralmaniam º CLÞLS1A
Daniel Rouiiguez º Inreinarional 1eclnology Develoµmenr Giouµ
Private Sector
Nomraz Clovuluiy º AgioLaseu 1eclnology anu Inuusriy
Development
Giselle L. D`Almeiua º Inreiíace
Lva Naiia Liisgen º BASI
Aimanuo Paieues º Conseio Þacional Agioµecuaiio
Sreve Paiiy º Unilevei
Haiiy Svaine º Syngenra (iesigneu)
Producer Groups
SloaiL Aziz º SusrainaLle Agiiculruie Acrion Giouµ oí Pakisran
Pliliµ Kiiiio º Lasr Aíiican Iaimeis Ieueiarion
Kiisrie Knoll º Knoll Iaims
01-SR.indd 95 11/3/08 12:09:08 PM
01-SR.indd 96 11/3/08 12:09:19 PM
Synthesis Report
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development
Agriculture
Crossroads
Agriculture
Crossroads
at a at a
Crossroads Crossroads Crossroads
S
y
n
t
h
e
s
i
s

R
e
p
o
r
t
I
A
A
S
T
D
SCIENCE | AGRICULTURE | CURRENT AFFAIRS
“Although considered by many to be a success story, the benefits of productivity increases in
world agriculture are unevenly spread. Often the poorest of the poor have gained little or noth-
ing; and 850 million people are still hungry or malnourished with an additional 4 million more
joining their ranks annually. We are putting food that appears cheap on our tables; but it is
food that is not always healthy and that costs us dearly in terms of water, soil and the biological
diversity on which all our futures depend.”
—Professor Bob Watson, director, IAASTD
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Devel-
opment (IAASTD) , on which Agriculture at the Crossroads is based, was a three-year collab-
orative effort begun in 2005 that assessed our capacity to meet development and sustainabil-
ity goals of:
º Reuucing lungei anu µoveiry
º Imµioving nuriirion. lealrl anu iuial liveliloous
º Iaciliraring social anu enviionmenral susrainaLiliry
Governed by a multi-stakeholder bureau comprised of 30 representatives from government
and 30 from civil society, the process brought together 110 governments and 400 experts, rep-
resenting non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, producers, consumers,
the scientific community, multilateral environment agreements (MEAs), and multiple interna-
tional agencies involved in the agricultural and rural development sectors.
In addition to assessing existing conditions and knowledge, the IAASTD uses a simple set of
model projections to look at the future, based on knowledge from past events and existing
trends such as population growth, rural/urban food and poverty dynamics, loss of agricultural
land, water availability, and climate change effects.
This set of volumes comprises the findings of the IAASTD. It consists of a Global Report, a
brief Synthesis Report, and 5 subglobal reports. Taken as a whole, the IAASTD reports are an
indispensable reference for anyone working in the field of agriculture and rural development,
whether at the level of basic research, policy, or practice.
Washington ‹ Covelo ‹ London
www.islandpress.org
All Island Press books are printed on recycled, acid-free paper.
Cover design by Linda McKnight, McKnight Design, LLC
Cover photos (left to right): Steve Raymer, Dean Conger, and
William Albert Allard of National Geographic Stock, Mark Ed-
wards (both images) of Peter Arnold, Inc.

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

Synthesis Report

Watson University of East Anglia . McIntyre IAASTD Secretariat Hans R.IAASTD International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge. Science and Technology for Development Synthesis Report A Synthesis of the Global and Sub-Global IAASTD Reports Edited by Beverly D. Herren Millennium Institute Judi Wakhungu African Centre for Technology Studies Robert T.

1718 Connecticut Avenue. LLC. Agriculture—International cooperation. . . acid-free paper Interior and cover designs by Linda McKnight. Title: Synthesis report with executive summary : a synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports. p. science and technology for development (IAASTD) : synthesis report with executive summary : a synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports / edited by Beverly D. cm. McIntyre. Beverly D. Manufactured in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 . NW. 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. [et al. Printed on recycled. DC 20009. 2.9´27—dc22 2008046049 British Cataloguing-in-Publication data available. I. Washington. McKnight Design. Suite 300.I547 2008 338. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-59726-550-8 (pbk. paper) 1. HD1428. McIntyre . II. : alk. Island Press is a trademark of The Center for Resource Economics. Sustainable development. International assessment of agricultural knowledge.Copyright © 2009 IAASTD. All rights reserved.]. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data.

Reservations on Executive Summary 13 Synthesis Report 15 Statement by Governments on Synthesis Report 17 Part I: Current Conditions.Contents vi Foreword vii Preface 1 Executive Summary of Synthesis Report 2 Statement by Governments 3 Executive Summary 12 Annex. Challenges and Options for Action 35 Part II: Themes 35 Bioenergy 40 Biotechnology 46 Climate Change 53 Human Health 59 Natural Resources Management 65 Trade and Markets 71 Traditional and Local Knowledge and Community-based Innovations 75 Women in Agriculture 81 Annex A 82 Annex B 89 Annex C 92 Annex D 93 Annex E Reservations on Synthesis Report Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports Peer Reviewers Secretariat and Cosponsor Focal Points Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment .

It is the synergy of these interrelated disciplines that permitted global process. the IAASTD Bureau for their advisory role during the assessment and the work of those in the extended Sec- retariat. Canada. Sweden. international agencies. The Summaries for Decision Makers and the Synthesis Report specifically provide options for action to governments. Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for their continued support of this process through allocation of staff resources. The outputs from this assessment are a Global and five Sub-Global reports. We take this opportunity to express our deep gratitude to the authors and reviewers of all of the reports—their dedication and tireless efforts made the process a success. drafting and peer review process. The reports draw on the work of hundreds of experts from all regions of the world who have participated in the preparation and peer review process. We would specifically like to thank the cosponsoring organizations of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Bank for their financial contributions as well as the FAO.Foreword The objective of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge. the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) in Syria. success depended first and foremost on the dedication. and the United Nations Educational. science and technology was needed. France. Kenya. and a cross-cutting Synthesis Report with an Executive Summary. In addition. authors and reviewers in other ways. As has been customary in many such global assessments. Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was to assess the impacts of past. the Trust Funds enabled financial assistance for their travel to the IAASTD meetings. This Plenary saw the acceptance of the Reports and the approval of the Summaries for Decision Makers and the Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report by an overwhelming majority of governments. the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) in Costa Rica. Finland provided direct support to the Secretariat. We thank the Steering Committee for distilling the outputs of the consultative process into recommendations to the Plenary. Watson vi . South Africa was opened on 7 April 2008 by Achim Steiner. The final Intergovernmental Plenary in Johannesburg. We also thank the governments who provided support to Bureau members. UNEP. present and future agricultural knowledge. and the WorldFish Center in Malaysia. The IAASTD was especially successful in engaging a large number of experts from developing countries and countries with economies in transition in its work. a Global and five Sub-Global Summaries for Decision Makers. Signed: Co-chairs Hans H. We would also like to make special mention of the Regional Organizations who hosted the regional coordinators and staff and provided assistance in management and time to ensure success of this enterprise: the African Center for Technology Studies (ACTS) in Kenya. Switzerland. academia. The IAASTD was initiated in 2002 by the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as a global consultative process to determine whether an international assessment of agricultural knowledge. research organizations and other decision makers around the world. Ireland. Klaus Töepfer. Executive Director of UNEP. and the United Kingdom) and the United States Trust Fund. the European Commission. We acknowledge with gratitude the governments and organizations that contributed to the Multidonor Trust Fund (Australia. during which participants initiated a detailed scoping. Herren Judi Wakhungu Director Robert T. science and technology on the: and sustainable development. Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) opened the first Intergovernmental Plenary (30 August-3 September 2004) in Nairobi. Mr. enthusiasm and cooperation of these experts in many different but related disciplines. preparation.

The stakeholder composition of the Bureau was agreed at the Intergovernmental Plenary meeting in Nairobi. governments. The Bureau agreed that the scope of the assessment needed to go beyond the narrow confines of science and technology (S&T) and should encompass other types of relevant knowledge (e. Additional individuals. The IAASTD is a multidisciplinary and multistakeholder tools and models from different knowledge paradigms including local and traditional knowledge. and acknowledging the multifunctionality of agriculture: the challenge is to simultaneously meet development and sustainability goals while increasing agricultural production. Hence there are unprecedented challenges ahead in providing food within a global trading system where there are other competing uses for agricultural and other natural resources. The concept of an International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge. a trend toward biofuels and an increasing population.g. Never before has it been more important for the world to generate and use AKST. of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the nongovernmental Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). the World Bank and World Health Organization (WHO). The IAASTD does not advocate specific policies or practices. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). but it can make a major contribution to meeting development and sustainability goals. the improvement of rural livelihoods and human health.. science and technology (AKST) was needed. organizations and governments were involved in the peer review process. environmental degradation. and the implications of climate change on agricultural production. 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. consumers and end users) and that it should also assess the role of institutions. changing dietary preferences. to prepare the IAASTD Report (comprised of a Global and five Sub-Global assessments).Preface In August 2002. United Nations Educational. During 2003. rural laborers and others with limited resources. eleven consultations were held. multi-spatial. multi-temporal intergovernmental process with a multistakeholder Bureau cosponsored by the FAO. issues and potential opportunities to redirect the current AKST system to improve the situation for poor rural people. climate change. which are caused by complex political and social dynamics. governance. The IAASTD development and sustainability goals were endorsed at the first Intergovernmental Plenary and are consistent with a subset of the UN Millennium Develop- ment Goals (MDGs): the reduction of hunger and poverty. organizations. Based on these consultations the steering committee recommended to an Intergovernmental Plenary meeting in Nairobi in September 2004 that an international assessment of the role of AKST in reducing hunger and poverty. poverty and livelihoods.g. It addresses issues critical to formulating policy and provides information for decision makers confronting conflicting views on contentious issues such as environmental and human health impacts of transgenic environment and on the long-term availability and price of food. Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). AKST alone cannot solve these problems. the IAASTD pays special attention to the current situation. Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was endorsed as a multithematic. This was stimulated by discussions at the World Bank with the private sector and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on the state of scientific understanding of biotechnology and more specifically transgenics. Given the focus on hunger. producer and consumer groups. overseen by an international multistakeholder steering committee and involving over 800 participants from all relevant stakeholder groups. it is geographically balanced and multistakeholder with 30 government and 30 civil society representatives (NGOs. About 400 of the world’s experts were selected by the Bureau. improving rural livelihoods and facilitating environmentally. private sector entities and international organizations) in order to ensure ownership of the process and findings by a range of stakeholders. especially small-scale farmers.. knowledge held by agricultural producers. it assesses the major issues facing AKST and points towards a range of AKST vii . the Global Environment Facility (GEF). These experts worked in their own capacity and did not represent any particular stakeholder group. socially and economically sustainable development was needed. Meeting these goals has to be placed in the context of a human migration. markets and trade. These conditions are affecting local and global food security and putting pressure on productive capacity and ecosystems. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). the private sector and civil society. globalization. following nominations by stakeholder groups. e.

and World Bank Internal Report of Investments in SSA (2007). . international agencies and research organizations. understanding and vision for the future. i. as criteria are needed in order to say whether something is negative or positive. the IAASTD will enhance local and regional capacity to design. as in all assessments. Another difficulty was responding to the conflicting views expressed by reviewers. 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. policies and institutions and their impact on the goals. but have not specifically focused on the future role of AKST. These include: FAO State of Food Insecurity in the World (yearly). The IAASTD is conducted according to an open. is evidencebased. (4) brings together a range of stakeholders (consumers. World Bank World Development Report: Agriculture for Development (2008). and women in agriculture. Financial support was provided to the IAASTD by the cosponsoring agencies. climate change. presents options rather than recommendations. private sector. using local. but often addressed independently. The IAASTD draft Report was subjected to two rounds of peer review by governments. but this chapter was dropped and key messages integrated into other chapters. practices. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports (2001 and 2007). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). US and UK. In addition. NGOs. and the European Commission. and agricultural engineering). government policy makers. Similarly the Bureau approved a chapter on capacity development. The Global and Sub-Global Summaries for Decision Makers and the Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report were approved at an Intergovernmental Plenary in April 2008. and (5) identifies options for future public and private investments in AKST. which need to be acknowledged and respected. the governments of Australia. Sweden. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture: Guiding Policy Investments in Water. institutional and organizational arrangements to enable AKST to meet the goals. with the assistance of review editors who were responsible for ensuring the comments were appropriately taken into account. trade and markets. Ireland. some topics were covered less extensively than others (e. The authors revised the drafts based on numerous peer review comments. institutions and policies. It is policy relevant. France. and investments. traditional and formal knowledge. 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. East and South Asia and the Pacific (ESAP). Thus one of the key findings of the IAASTD is that there are diverse and conflicting interpretations of past and current events. North America and Europe (NAE). The IAASTD is composed of a Global assessment and five Sub-Global assessments: Central and West Asia and North Africa (CWANA).. The Global and Sub-Global Summaries for Decision Makers and the Synthesis Report are written for a range of stakeholders. Canada. assesses different local. producers. NGOs. this is always a difficult comment to handle. dissemination and use of public and private sector AKST in relation to the goals. CGIAR Science Council Strategy and Priority Setting Exercise (2006). only options for action. transparent. (2) analyzes existing and emerging technologies. It integrates scientific information on a range of topics that are critically interlinked.. There are no recommendations. 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. However. development and innovation. i. feed. natural resource management. Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). the scientific community) involved in the agricultural sector and rural development to share their experiences. Food. hunger. presents different views. (3) provides information for decision makers in different civil society. Livelihoods and Environment (2007).options for action that meet development and sustainability goals. and identifies the key scientific uncertainties and areas on which research could be focused to advance development and sustainability goals. each of whom have a different set of priorities and responsibilities and operate in different socioeconomic and political circumstances. The IAASTD builds on and adds value to a number of recent assessments and reports that have provided valuable information relevant to the agricultural sector. biotechnology. UNEP Fourth Global Environmental Outlook (2007).e. and focuses on eight Bureau-approved topics: bioenergy. fuel. agriculture. largely without compensation. many organizations have provided in-kind support. organizations and individuviii als. environment. IFPRI Global Hunger Indices (yearly).. It (1) assesses the generation.g. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In this assessment agriculture is used to include production of food. producer and consumer groups. capacity development. regional and global perspectives. The difference in views was not surprising given the range of stakeholder interests and perspectives.. These drafts were placed on an open access web site and open to comments by anyone. but not policy prescriptive. poverty. Switzerland. In a scientific review based on empirical evidence. InterAcademy Council Report: Realizing the Promise and Potential of African Agriculture (2004). practices. One of the most difficult issues authors had to address was criticisms that the report was too negative. livestock. governments. international organizations and the scientific community. seeds and fertilizer) to consumption of products. largely due to the expertise of the selected authors. the institutional dimensions and the multifunctionality of agriculture. Finland. views. The options for action are not prioritized because different options are actionable by different stakeholders. natural resources. representative and legitimate process. fiber and other products and to include all sectors from production of inputs (e. In addition. access.g. fisheries and the agricultural sector of small island countries. The authors and review editors have given freely of their time. human health. acknowledging that there can be more than one interpretation of the same evidence based on different worldviews. forestry. traditional knowledge and community based innovation. UN Millennium Project Task Force on Hunger (2005). implement and utilize similar assessments. private sector. private and public organizations on options for improving policies. The Synthesis Report integrates the key findings from the Global and Sub-Global assessments.e. human health.

Dev Nathan (India). Douglas Murray (USA). Joan Kagwanja (Kenya). Rodney Brown (USA). Patrick Avato (Germany/Italy). Niels Roling (Netherlands). Gordana KranjacBerisavljevic (Ghana). Nienke Beintema (the Netherlands). Inge Armbrecht (Colombia).Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report Writing team: Tsedeke Abate (Ethiopia). Kingamkono (Tanzania).R. Hong Yang (Australia) 1 . Tirso Gonzales (Peru). Thora Herrmann (Germany). Rose R. Karen Lock (UK). Alia Gana (Tunisia). Elizabeth Robinson (UK). Wahida Patwa Shah (Kenya). Erika Rosenthal (USA). Jean Albergel (France). Lorna M. Marianne Lefort (France). John M. Thora Herrmann (Germany). Ameenah Gurib-Fakim (Mauritius). Hans Hurni (Switzerland). Ebi (USA). Butler (Canada). Jack Heinemann (New Zealand). Lindela Ndlovu (Zimbabwe). Sophia Huyer (Canada). Roger Leakey (Australia). Stone (Canada). Yalem Mekonnen (Ethiopia). Moses Kairo (Kenya). Shelley Feldman (USA). Fabrice Dreyfus (France). Satinder Bajaj (India). Rajeswari Raina (India). Balgis Osman-Elasha (Sudan). Rym Ben Zid (Tunisia). Janice Jiggins (UK). Abid Suleri (Pakistan). Ivette Perfecto (Puerto Rico). Mark Rosegrant (USA). Kawther Latiri (Tunisia). Cristina Plencovich (Argentina). Angelika Hilbeck (Switzerland). Kristie L.

Cuba. Ghana. Lebanon. Armenia. Finland. environmentally and economically sustainable development. Gambia. Uganda. Sweden. Bangladesh. Viet Nam. Saudi Arabia. Republic of Moldova. France. science and technology for development they also provide a diversity of views on some issues. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. the following governments approve the Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report. science and technology fulfils its potential to meet the development and sustainability goals of the reduction of hunger and poverty. Uruguay. Cameroon. and facilitating equitable. Dominican Republic. People’s Republic of China. Costa Rica. Namibia. Solomon Islands. Bahrain. Botswana. the improvement of rural livelihoods and human health. and the scale of the challenge of covering a broad range of complex issues. Panama. In accordance with the above statement. Honduras. United Republic of Tanzania. Senegal. Kenya. Ireland. Brazil. Benin. Canada. This Assessment is a constructive initiative and important contribution that all governments need to take forward to ensure that agricultural knowledge. Timor-Leste. South Africa in April 2008 welcome the work of the IAASTD and the uniqueness of this independent multistakeholder and multidisciplinary process. United States of America (3 countries). All countries see these Reports as a valuable and important contribution to our understanding on agricultural knowledge. Iran. Republic of Palau. Turkey. 2 . United Kingdom of Great Britain. Azerbaijan.Statement by Governments on Executive Summary All countries present at the final intergovernmental plenary session held in Johannesburg. Nigeria. Romania. Democratic Republic of Congo. Ethiopia. Pakistan. Togo. science and technology for development recognizing the need to further deepen our understanding of the challenges ahead. Mozambique. 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 the Annex to the Executive Summary. Kyrgyzstan. Maldives. Poland. Bhutan. The Governments present recognize that the Global and Sub-Global Reports are the conclusions of studies by a wide range of scientific authors. India. Zambia (58 countries). El Salvador. Belize. experts and development specialists and while presenting an overall consensus on the importance of agricultural knowledge. socially. Swaziland. Philippines. Tunisia. Paraguay. Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Australia. Switzerland.

trade and markets. For many years. regional. decision makers must be acutely conscious of the fact that there are diverse challenges. Under the rubric of IAASTD. and facilitate equitable environmentally. and women in agriculture. to improve rural livelihoods and to facilitate equitable environmentally. climate change. given the new challenges we confront today. Generally the adverse consequences of global 3 . and (7) changing environmental conditions and the growing awareness of human responsibility for the maintenance of global ecosystem services (provisioning. one that seeks more intensive engagement across diverse worldviews and possibly contradictory approaches in ways that can inform and suggest strategies for actions enabling the multiple functions of agriculture. national and local levels. 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. 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. addresses not only production and productivity but the multifunctionality of agriculture. multiple theoretical frameworks and development models and a wide range of options to meet development and sustainability goals. (4) changes in the economics of fossil-based energy use. Development and sustainability goals should be placed in the context of (1) current social and economic inequities and political uncertainties about war and conflicts. In order to address the diverse needs and interests that shape human life. Today there is a world of asymmetric development. biotechnology. Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) This Synthesis Report captures the complexity and diversity of agriculture and agricultural knowledge. 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. 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. 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. (5) the emergence of new competitors for natural resources. We cannot escape our predicament by simply continuing to rely on the aggregation of individual choices to achieve sustainable and equitable collective outcomes. This leads to rethinking the role of AKST in achieving development and sustainability goals. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge. (3) uncertainties about the future of world food prices. there is increasing recognition within formal S&T organizations that the current AKST model requires revision.Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge. 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 recognize the importance of AKST to the multifunctionality of agriculture and the intersection with other local to global concerns. 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. science and technology (AKST) across world regions. (6) increasing chronic diseases that are partially a consequence of poor nutrition and poor food quality as well as food safety. reduce farm gate prices and externalize costs. including loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. regulating. traditional and local knowledge and communitybased innovation. human health. It is organized in two parts that address the primary animating question: how can AKST be used to reduce hunger and poverty. natural resource management. we have been less attentive to some of the unintended social and environmental consequences of our achievements. But. (2) uncertainties about the ability to sustainably produce and access sufficient food. we need a shared approach to sustainability with local and cross-national collaboration. socially and economically sustainable development. The eight cross-cutting themes include: bioenergy. and economically sustainable development? In the first part we identify the current conditions. and recognizes that multiple perspectives exist on the role and nature of AKST. We are now in a good position to reflect on these consequences and to outline various policy options to meet the challenges ahead. The general model has been to continuously innovate. while in the second part we focus on eight cross-cutting themes. unsustainable natural resource use. 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. cultural and supporting). challenges and options for action that shape AKST. This widespread realization is linked directly to the goals of the IAASTD: how AKST can be used to reduce hunger and poverty. climate change and water availability. and continued rural and urban poverty. improve rural livelihoods. At the global. socially. Business as usual is no longer an option. Incentives are needed to influence the choices individuals make.

Opponents argue that attempts to remedy these outcomes by means of trade-related instruments will weaken the efficiency of agricultural trade and lead to further undesirable market distortion. but also noncommodity outputs such as environmental services. recognizing differences in agroecologies and social and cultural conditions. including those in the state. 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. agrofuels. is a major challenge. Actors within North America and Europe (NAE) and emerging economies who have captured significant economies of scale through formal AKST will continue to dominate agricultural exports and extended value chains. It would require new institutional and organizational arrangements to promote an integrated approach to the development and deployment of AKST. multifunctionality is used solely to express the inescapable interconnectedness of agriculture’s different roles and functions. social and environmental systems is affected by contentious political and economic stances. to address fundamental questions of relationships among production. including their cultural dimensions? tain the natural resource base and minimize the adverse impacts of agricultural activities on people and the environment? tural services while increasing sustainable productivity and diversity of food. There is an urgent need to diversify and strengthen AKST. The concept of multifunctionality recognizes agriculture as a multi-output activity producing not only commodities (food. In IAASTD. fibers. to reduce poverty and provide improved livelihoods options for the rural poor. policies. and (2) some of the non-commodity outputs may exhibit the characteristics of externalities or public goods.4 | IAASTD Synthesis Report changes have the most significant effects on the poorest and most vulnerable. In terms of development and sustainability goals. AKST must address the needs of small-scale farms in diverse ecosystems and 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. especially landless and peasant communities. (1) multiple commodity and non-commodity outputs are jointly produced by agriculture. civil society and private sector. It would also recognize farming communities. practice and policy is needed to meet the challenges. landscape amenities and cultural heritages. This recognition will require a shift to nonhierarchical development models. institutions. Options for Action Successfully meeting development and sustainability goals and responding to new priorities and changing circumstances would require a fundamental shift in AKST. capacity development and investment. fiber and biofuel production? of knowledge among increasingly heterogeneous contributors and the flow of information among diverse public and private AKST organizational arrangements? lands into local. human health and nutrition by other means. national and global markets? Multifunctionality The term multifunctionality has sometimes been interpreted as having implications for trade and protectionism. these policies and institutional changes should be directed primarily at those who have been served . which is used by the IAASTD. and farmers as producers and managers of ecosystems. A recognition that knowledge systems and human ingenuity in science. farm households. The need to retool AKST. The main challenges for AKST posed by multifunctional agricultural systems include: in the rural sector and enhance multiplier effects of agriculture? the diversity of agriculture and food systems. and it has centered on whether “trade-distorting” agricultural subsidies are needed for agriculture to perform its many functions. accounting for the complexity of agricultural systems within diverse social and ecological contexts. The pace of formal technology generation and adoption has been highly uneven. their preferred approach is to address the externalized costs and negative impacts on poverty. This shift may call for changing the incentive systems for all actors along the value chain to internalize as many externalities as possible. the environment. This is not the definition used here. feed. technology. Proponents argue that current patterns of agricultural subsidies. including science. urban. There is an overarching concern in all regions regarding poverty alleviation and the livelihoods options available to poor people who are faced with intra. technology. who historically have had limited entitlements and opportunities for growth. associates multifunctionality with the particular characteristics of the agricultural production process and its outputs. The acknowledgment 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. The use of the term has been controversial and contested in global trade negotiations. medicinal products and ornamentals). The main challenge of AKST is to increase the productivity of agriculture in a sustainable manner. international trade and related policy frameworks do not stimulate transitions toward equitable agricultural and food trade relation or sustainable food and farming systems and have given rise to perverse impacts on natural resources and agroecologies as well as on human health and nutrition. informal and migrant workers. such that markets for these goods function poorly or are nonexistent. The working definition proposed by OECD.and inter-regional inequalities. The ability and willingness of different actors. Such a shift would recognize and give increased importance to the multifunctionality of agriculture. opportunities and uncertainties ahead.

. legal frameworks that ensure access and tenure to resources and land. but they need to be looked at in conjunction with people’s access to food (through own production. The suite of options to increase domestic farm gate prices for small-scale farmers includes fiscal and competition policies. especially in the area of sustainable land use and food systems. Success would require increased public and private investment in AKST. farmer-managed medicinal plants. i. seeds. recourse to fair conflict resolution. monitoring. It will be important to assess the potential environmental. water and land use efficiency. 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. pests. It can help to rehabilitate degraded land. which are often grown or consumed by poor people. reduce environmental and health risks associated with food production and consumption and sustainably increase production. pre. 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. Investments could also be targeted for institutional change and policies that can improve access of poor people to food. AKST investments can increase the sustainable productivity of major subsistence foods including orphan and underutilized crops. Production measures create the conditions for food security. exchange and public entitlements) and their ability to absorb nutrients consumed (through adequate access to water and sanitation. 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. improving the understanding of soil-plant-water dynamics. increasing farm diversification. (FAO. water. adequate nutrition and nutritional information) in order to fully achieve food security. depends on regional and nationally based mechanisms to ensure accountability. promoting agro-insurance. 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. including organic and fair trade products. and increasing local value added and value captured by small-scale farmers and rural laborers. 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. A powerful tool for meeting development and sustainability goals resides in empowering farmers to innovatively manage soils. including the development of food stock management. water and nutrient management and conservation.. novel business approaches. 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.3 3 UK. safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.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. USA. Large and middle-size farmers continue to be important and high pay-off targets of AKST. reducing transaction costs for small-scale producers. water. when implemented locally. agricultural and natural biodiversity. resource-poor farmers. local seed systems and common pool resource management regimes. Each of these options. germplasm and improved technologies. Food security [is] a situation that exists when all people. and distribution systems. 2001) Food sovereignty is defined as the right of peoples and sovereign states to democratically determine their own agricultural and food policies. land. and conserve natural resources in a culturally appropriate manner. The State of Food Insecurity. increasing the full range of agricultural exports and imports. and progressive evolution and proactive engagement in intellectual property rights (IPR) regimes and related instruments. Options include improving nutrient. and improving food safety and quality. disease vectors. holistic and systemsbased approach to knowledge production and sharing. genetic diversity. and enhanced political power. food safety nets. Combining farmers’ and external knowledge would require new partnerships among farmers. improved access to AKST.e. at all times. the development of supporting policies and institutions. energy. Policy options for addressing food security include developing high-value and underutilized crops in rain fed areas. and to implement the appropriate regulatory frameworks. have physical.and postharvest pest management. effective market intelligence and early warning. improving soil. 1 2 Botswana. improving access to resources.2 Developments are needed that build trust and that value farmer knowledge. revalorization of traditional and local knowledge. and an interdisciplinary. biological resources. health and social impacts of any technology. scientists and other stakeholders. Policy options for improving livelihoods include access to microcredit and other financial services. Food security Food security strategies require a combination of AKST approaches. strengthening local markets. and increasing small-scale farm diversification.Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | 5 least by previous AKST approaches. social and economic access to sufficient. women and ethnic minorities.

Long-term land and water use rights/tenure. communities. Improving equity requires synergy among various development actors. public health. processing. and expanded access of farmers and other rural people to occupational. health-promoting strategies and measures. rural laborers. including ecosystem services. and creation of incentives for the production and consumption of health-promoting foods. facilitating and providing incentives for alternative markets such as green products. Equity For AKST to contribute to greater equity. Robust agricultural. etc. New modes of governance to develop innovative local networks and decentralized government. biological substitutes for agrochemicals. biocontrols of current and emerging pests and pathogens. non-formal and formal education.6 | IAASTD Synthesis Report supporting agroecological systems. surveillance. can be facilitated by promoting policies and programs to diversify diets and improve micronutrient intake. and conducting health risk assessments that make explicit the tradeoffs between maximizing livelihood benefits. Human health and nutrition Inter-linkages between health. monitoring and evaluation of risks. promoting the sustainable management of livestock. veterinary. monitoring. Stakeholder involvement is also crucial in decisions about IPR. 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 for a broad range of producers and natural resource managers. and developing and deploying existing and new technologies for the production. including regulation of food product formulation through legislation. Additional investments are needed to maintain and improve current systems and regulations. focusing on small-scale producers and the urban poor (ur- . and improving health. systems of incentives and rewards for multifunctionality. decentralization of technological opportunities. public health and veterinary capacity. legislative frameworks for identification and control of biological and chemical hazards. credit. for better natural resource management and enhanced environmental quality. international agreements and regulations for food labeling and health claims. preservation. and developing and deploying new AKST to identify. increasing water use efficiency and reducing water pollution. countering the effects of agriculture on climate change and mitigating the negative impacts of climate change on agriculture. enforcement of cross-border issues such as illegal use of toxic agrochemicals. and proactive national and international food safety systems to ensure animal. and decrease occupational exposures. and responding to the vulnerability of farming and farm worker communities. civil society organizations. risk reduction measures (safety nets. can be facilitated by effective. A broad and integrated approach is needed to identify appropriate use of AKST to increase food security and safety. Investment opportunities in AKST that could improve sustainability and reduce negative environmental effects include resource conservation technologies. and farmer-scientist partnerships for the identification. can be decreased by policies that explicitly recognize the importance of improving human health and nutrition. and the internalization of social and environmental costs. can be improved by development and enforcement of health and safety regulations (including child labor laws and pesticide regulations). and treat diseases. plant. and reducing the dependency of the agricultural sector on fossil fuels. and public health systems. research on the relationship of agricultural ecosystem services and human well-being. agriculture. and veterinary detection. tariffs. and the integration of farmer concerns in research priority setting and the design of farmer services. and enhancing biodiversity conservation and use at both field and landscape scales. integrating multi-sectoral policies and programs across the food chain to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. control. Incentives in science. including farmers. and nations to reach sustainability goals. and human health. improving understanding of the agroecological functioning of mosaics of crop production areas and natural habitats.) 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. economic and non-economic valuations of ecosystem services. the environment. commercial companies. improved techniques for organic and low-input systems. injuries and deaths. a wide range of breeding techniques for temperature and pest tolerance. nutrition. and response systems can help identify the true burden of ill health and cost-effective. banks. and distribution of food. universities and research organizations are needed to foster different kinds of AKST partnerships. and AKST affect the ability of individuals. forest and fisheries. such as investments in adequate infrastructure. infrastructure. decrease the incidence and prevalence of a range of infectious (including emerging and reemerging diseases chronic diseases. coordinated. monitor. investments are required for the development of context-specific technologies. 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. Key options include equitable access to and use of natural resources (particularly land and water). insurance. Examples include incentives to promote integrated pest management (IPM) and environmentally resilient germplasm management. These inter-linkages exist within the context of multiple stressors that affect population health. Policy options include ending subsidies that encourage unsustainable practices and using market and other mechanisms to regulate and generate rewards for agro/environmental services. and public agencies. certification for sustainable forest and fisheries practices and organic agriculture and the strengthening of local markets. payments to farmers and local communities for ecosystem services. can be decreased by strengthening coordination between and the capacity of agricultural.

human health. 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. Public-private partnerships for improved commercialization of applied knowledge and technologies and joint funding of AKST. Adequate incentives and rewards to encourage private and civil society investments in AKST contributing to development and sustainability goals. health.. natural resource management. the use of feedstock and farm residues can compete with the need to maintain organic matter in sustainable agroecosystems. The negative social effects risk being exacerbated in cases where small-scale farmers are marginalized or displaced from their land. light and heat and first and next generation liquid biofuels. regional. off-grid areas. uncertainty and debate over the net energy balance and level on food prices may be reduced. climate change and sustainability. primarily due to biofuel support policies since they are cost competitive only under particularly favorable circumstances. biomass to produce electricity. The Ginicoefficient could. independent science and evidence-based networks to address such issues as climate forecasting for agricultural production. restructure and possibly establish new intergovernmental. millions of people in developing countries depend on traditional bioenergy (e. Bioenergy includes traditional bioenergy. in addition to the more conventional measures of growth. 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. food security and safety. decision makers should carefully weigh full social. For all forms of bioenergy. In many developing countries. it may be necessary to complement these investments with increased and more targeted investments in rural infrastructure. More efficient use of increasingly scarce land. especially in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. become a public criterion for policy assessment.. ecological. The economics and the positive and negative social and environmental externalities differ widely. Production has been growing fast in recent years. environmental and economic costs against . sugar cane).g.. improved access to information and communication technologies (ICT). e. there is considerable variation. climate change. maize.g.. capacity in core agricultural sciences. type of conversion technology and local circumstances. education and health.Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | 7 ban agriculture. gender. From an environmental perspective. depending on source of biomass. such as: Public investments in global. This reliance on traditional bioenergy can pose considerable environmental. gasifiers and direct combustion devices can be successfully employed in certain settings. human health risks from emerging diseases. First generation biofuels consist predominantly of bioethanol and biodiesel produced from agricultural crops (e. and that are sensitive to environmental and equity gains. Investments Achieving development and sustainability goals would entail increased funds and more diverse funding mechanisms for agricultural research and development and associated knowledge systems. social and complex systems’ sciences. economic and social challenges. Preferential investments in equitable development (e. effective interdisciplinarity. New efforts are needed to improve traditional bioenergy and accelerate the transition to more sustainable forms of energy. and improving life-long learning opportunities along the food system. direct links between urban consumers and rural producers) will help create and strengthen synergistic and complementary capacities. scientists. Public investments in agricultural knowledge systems to promote interactive knowledge networks (farmers. Bioelectricity and bioheat are important forms of renewable energy that are usually more efficient and produce less ers. where market risks are high and where options for widespread utilization of knowledge exist. education and training) that contribute to reducing ethnic. Bioenergy Rising costs of fossil fuels. reorganization of livelihoods in response to changes in agricultural systems (population movements). Themes The Synthesis Report looked at eight AKST-related themes of critical interest to meeting development and sustainability goals: bioenergy. inflation and environment. food. The use of inequality indices for screening AKST investments and monitoring outcomes strengthens accountability. literacy. For example. Measurements of returns to investments require indices that give more information than GDP. and global forestry resources. Primarily due to a lack of affordable alternatives. In the face of new global challenges. energy security concerns. nutrition. evolutionary. for example. and other inequities would advance development goals. traditional and local knowledge and community-based innovation and women in agriculture. wood fuels) for their cooking and heating needs. water and biological resources requires investment in research and development of legal and management capabilities. This could potentially reduce agricultural land requirements per unit of energy produced and improve lifenext generation biofuels technologies are not yet commercially proven and environmental and social effects are still uncertain. biotechnology. trade and markets.g. industry and actors in other knowledge areas). there is an urgent need to strengthen. food security. There is potential for expanding these applications but AKST is needed to reduce costs and improve operational reliability.g. increased awareness of climate change and potentially positive effects for economic development have led to considerable public attention to bioenergy. national and local public goods. The diversion of agricultural crops to fuel can raise food prices and reduce our ability to alleviate hunger throughout the world.

and there is a significant lack of transparent com- potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability. . pests and disease vectors and the geographic range and incidence of many human. cultivation practices and fermentation are readily accepted and used. data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% yield gains in some places and yield declines in others. These processes require new kinds of support for the public to critically engage in assessments of the technical. In this regard. modern varieties of wheat increased yields up to 33% even in the absence of fertilizer. Biotechnologies should be used to maintain local expertise and germplasm so that the capacity for further research resides within the local community.5 billion in 2000. frameworks. A comprehensive approach with an equitable regulatory framework. gender. Some negative impacts are already visible in many parts of the world. The application of modern biotechnology outside containment. political. human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology.. and conventional farmers may become liable to GM seed producers if transgenes are detected in their crops. such moderate temperature increases are likely to have negative yield effects. restrict experimentation by the individual farmer or public researcher while also 4 China and USA. determine what products become available. which is taking place at a time of increasing demand for food. Water scarcity and the timing of water availability will increasingly constrain production. such as the use of genetically modified (GM) crops is much more contentious. 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. This situation can be selfreinforcing since today’s students define tomorrow’s educational and training opportunities. A problem-oriented approach to biotechnology research and development (R&D) would focus investment on local priorities identified through participatory and transparent processes. Currently the most contentious issue is the use of recombinant DNA techniques to produce transgenes that are inserted into genomes. exchange. information can be anecdotal and contradictory. There is a wide range of perspectives on the environmental. and increased rates of evapotranspiration in all types of ecosystems. feed. 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. Climate change will require a new look at water storage to cope with the impacts of more and extreme precipitation. additional warming will have increasingly negative impacts in all regions. invasive species. 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. Such R&D would put much needed emphasis onto participatory breeding projects and agroecology. Modern biotechnologies used in containment have been widely adopted. there is particular concern about present IPR instruments eventually inhibiting seed-saving. The relationship between climate change and agriculture is a two-way street. In developing countries especially. e. prior to the development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). such as breeding techniques. higher intraand inter-seasonal variations. Between 1950 and 1980. Conventional biotechnologies.8 | IAASTD Synthesis Report realistically achievable benefits and other sustainable energy options. agriculture contributes to climate change in several major ways and climate change in general adversely affects agriculture. it can also concentrate ownership of agricultural resources. animal and plant diseases is likely to increase. the domains involved are numerous. genomics and marker-assisted breeding (MAB) or marker assisted selection (MAS) to augment natural breeding. environmental and economic impacts of modern biotechnology. Biotechnology has always been on the cutting edge of change. legal. For example. in low-latitude regions. sale and access to proprietary materials necessary for the independent research community to conduct analyses and long term experimentation on impacts. While this attracts investment in agriculture. has the potential to irreversibly damage the natural resource base on which agriculture depends.g.to high-latitude regions moderate local increases in temperature can have small beneficial impacts on crop yields. Emission reduction measures clearly are essential because they can have an impact biotechnology is lagging behind development. 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. differentiated responsibilities and intermediate and stronger the cuts in emissions. and uncertainty on benefits and harms is unavoidable. The use of patents for transgenes introduces additional issues. and favor multifunctional solutions to local problems. social. Climate change Climate change. Change is rapid. 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. techniques that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers. tissue culture. instruments such as patents may drive up costs. Even newer techniques of modern biotechnology manipulate heritable material without changing DNA. There is a serious potential for future conflicts over habitable land and natural resources such as freshwater. cultural. the industrial enzyme market reached US$1. fiber and fuel. many of these risks are as yet unknown. the quicker concentrations will approach stabilization. In mid. 4 Biotechnology 3 The IAASTD definition of biotechnology is based on that in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Climate change is affecting the distribution of plants. irradiation.

increased efforts to avoid deforestation. Human health Despite the evident and complex links between health. such as the mitigation of soil fertility through synthetic inputs and natural processes. Actions directed at addressing climate change and promoting sustainable development share some important goals such as equitable access to resources and appropriate technologies. Some countries may need help in meeting food control costs such as monitoring and inspection. processing. 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. and response programs are critical. is preferable because it can address the difficult issues associated with the complexity of food and other production systems in different ecologies. accompanied by concentration of food distribution and processing companies. Reduced dietary quality and diversity and inexpensive foods with low nutrient density have been associated with increasing rates of worldwide obesity and chronic disease. Strategies include fiscal policies (taxation. reforestation. particularly among rural laborers. labeling and commercial information. or systems-oriented approach. if not intensify. nutrition. There is a need to focus on consumers and the importance of dietary quality as main drivers of production. reduction and more efficient use of nitrogenous inputs. which are the leading cause of global deaths. Natural resource management45 Natural resources. Most of the factors that contribute to disease emergence will continue. The incidence and geographic range of many emerging and reemerging infectious diseases are influenced by the intensification of crop and livestock systems. Taking a broad and integrated agroecosystem and human health approach can facilitate identification of animal. transmissible animal diseases. Agriculture and AKST can affect a range of health issues including undernutrition. 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. hormones. as well as over-nutrition. water. is often available and well understood. Despite increased global food production over recent decades. and noise. agroecological systems. Integrating policies and programs across the food chain can help reduce the spread of infectious diseases. and environmental and occupational health. especially those of soil. antibiotics and various additives in the food system as well as those related to large-scale livestock farming. and proactive national food safety include the presence of pesticide residues. effective manure management and use of feed that increases livestock digestive efficiency. coordinated. and distribution of food. been narrowly focused on increased productivity rather than on a more holistic integration of natural resources management (NRM) with food and nutritional security. preservation. toxic or allergenic agents. in support of life on earth. vegetation cover. renewable energy sources. Policies should explicitly address tradeoffs between livelihood benefits and environmental. surveillance. monitoring. and AKST. Serious socioeconomic impacts can arise when diseases spread widely within human or animal populations.000 occupational deaths each year: half of all fatal accidents. infectious diseases. such as tractors and harvesters. heavy metals. robust detection. with high variability between and within countries. Other important health hazards include agrochemical poisoning. 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. AKST policies and practices have increased production and new mechanisms for food processing. locations and cultures. account for the highest rates of injury and death. Worldwide.Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | 9 changes in the climate are inevitable adaptation is also imperative. afforestation. improving human health is not generally an explicit goal of agricultural policy. undernutrition is still a major global public health problem. causing over 15% of the global disease burden. AKST to resolve NRM exploitation issues. Strengthened food safety measures are important and necessary in both domestic and export markets and can impose significant costs. plant and animal diversity. and growing consumer awareness increase the need for effective. Improving occupational health requires a greater emphasis on health protection through development and enforcement of health and safety regulations. or when they spill over from animal reservoirs to human hosts. and not merely on quantity or price. agriculture. and restoration of underutilized or degraded lands and rangelands and land use options such as carbon sequestration in agricultural soils. Globalization of the food supply. agriculture accounts for at least 170. vibration and ergonomic hazards. and costs associated with market rejection of contaminated commodities. Poor diet throughout the life course is a major risk factor for chronic diseases. chronic diseases. food safety. trade regimes) for health-promoting foods and regulation of food product formulation. Machinery and equipment. agroforestry. Some “win-win” mitigation opportunities have already been identified. Protein energy and micronutrient malnutrition remain challenges. These include land use approaches such as lower rates of agricultural expansion into natural habitats. climate and ecosystem services are fundamental for the structure and function of agricultural systems and for social and environmental sustainability. occupational and public health risks. A holistic. and human health risks. plant. 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. . 5 Capture fisheries and forestry have not been as well covered as other aspects of NRM. and appropriate AKST responses.

profitability. Compensating revenues lost as a result of tariff reductions 7 is essential to advancing development agendas. Canada and USA. ecosystems services. Connect globalization and localization pathways that link locally generated NRM knowledge and innovations to public and private AKST. Consequently farmers and civil society members have seldom been involved in shaping NRM policy. NGOs. private sector) to facilitate long-term natural resource management to enhance benefits from natural resources for the collective good. there have been few opportunities for two-way learning between farmers and researchers or policy makers. partnerships. traditional and lo6 7 USA. many of which derive from failure of markets to value environmental and social harm and provide incentives for sustainability. The following high priority NRM options for action are proposed: Use existing AKST to identify and address some of the underlying causes of declining productivity embedded in natural resource mismanagement. 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. Strengthening developing country trade analysis and negotiation capacity. government. Promote research “centers of AKST-NRM excellence” to facilitate less exploitative NRM and better strategies for resource resilience. fossil fuels and atmospheric quality ensured for future generations. Preserving national policy flexibility allows developing countries to balance the needs of poor consumers (urban and rural landless) and rural small-scale farmers. soils. Developing countries would benefit from the removal of barriers for products in which they have a comparative advantage. represent a new and promising way forward. reduction of escalating tariffs for processed commodities in industrialized and developing countries. training and education. better definitions of property rights. and help make the small-scale farm sector profitable to spearhead poverty reduction is an immediate challenge around the world. skills and priorities. protection and renewal through innovative two-way learning processes in research and development. 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. and providing better tools for assessing tradeoffs in proposed trade agreements are important to improving governance. biodiversity. with long-term negative effects for poverty. These distributional impacts call for differentiation in policy frameworks and institutional arrangements if these countries are to benefit from agricultural trade. to provide incentives for sustainable agriculture. For example. 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.10 | IAASTD Synthesis Report Nevertheless. and within.6 Agriculture generates large environmental externalities. policy) in promoting the awareness of the societal costs of degradation and value of ecosystems services. countries that in many cases have not been favorable for small-scale farmers and rural livelihoods. deeper preferential access to markets for least developed countries. and developing rewards and markets for agroenvironmental services. Capabilities for working together at multiple scales and across different social and physical environments are not well developed.5 Trade policy reform to provide a fairer global trading system can make a positive contribution to sustainability and development goals. ecosystem services and food systems that are site-specific and evolving. Traditional and local knowledge and communitybased innovation Once AKST is directed simultaneously toward production. Supportive trade policies can also make new AKST available to the small-scale farm sector and agroenterprises. but current arrangements have major distributional impacts among. including increased participation of stakeholders in AKST decision making is fundamental. . Communitybased partnerships with the private sector. AKST has great potential to reverse this trend. Develop networks of AKST practitioners (farmer organizations. When AKST is developed and used creatively with active participation among various stakeholders across multiple scales. Increasing the value captured by small-scale farmers in global. regional and local markets chains is fundamental to meeting development and sustainability goals. monitoring and policy formulation. The quality and transparency of governance in the agricultural sector. then formal. 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. now in their early stages of development. food security 6 and the environment. taxing externalities. Trade and markets Targeting market and trade policies to enhance the ability of agricultural and AKST systems to drive development. Market and trade policies to facilitate the contribution of AKST to reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture include removing resource use–distorting subsidies. the resolution of natural resource challenges will demand new and creative approaches by stakeholders with diverse backgrounds. Strengthen human resources in the support of natural capital through increased investment (research. Agricultural trade can offer opportunities for the poor. AKST resources and markets for poor producers. strengthen food security. increased public investment in rural infrastructure and the generation of public goods AKST. maximize environmental sustainability. the misuse of natural capital can be reversed and the judicious use and renewal of water bodies. and improved access to credit. including the extension of carbon financing.

in turn. urgent action is still necessary to implement gender and social equity in AKST policies and practices if we are to better address gender issues as integral to development processes. Examples of misappropriation of indigenous and local people’s knowledge and community-based innovations indicate a need for sharing of information about existing national sui generis and regulatory frameworks. the domestication of wild and semiwild tree species and in soil and water management. including pesticides on women’s health. extensive. and by others as generated by the purposeful interaction of material and non-material worlds embedded in place-based cultures and identities. The role of modern ICT in achieving effective collaboration is critical to evolving culturally appropriate integration and merits larger investments and support. for instance in Farmer-Researcher groups in the Andes. that is socially constructed relations between men and women. Women in agriculture Gender. in general. which is associated with a growing demand for female labor. if we are to better recognize women as integral to sustainable development. the largest proportion of rural women worldwide continues to face deteriorating health and work conditions. ownership and control of economic and natural resources. positive impacts. worsening access to water. Local knowledge refers to capacities and activities that exist among rural people in all parts of the world. their involve- ment is increasing in many developing countries. a higher profile in scientific education for indigenous and local knowledge as well as for professional and community-based archiving and assessment of such knowledge and practices. insecure employment and low income. incentives for and development of capacity among scientists and formal research organizations to work with local and indigenous people and their organizations. in Participatory Plant Breeding. identities and practices of indigenous and local communities are recognized under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity as embodying ways of life relevant for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. This. and extension services to enable improving women’s access. To ensure such access. genetic resources and community-based innovations. development and use of local and traditional biological materials. Traditional and local knowledge constitutes an extensive realm of accumulated practical knowledge and knowledge-generating capacity that is needed if sustainability and development goals are to be reached. The proportion of women in agricultural production and postharvest activities ranges from 20 to 70%. Current trends in agricultural market liberalization and in the reorganization of farm work. limited access to education and control over natural resources. it may sometimes fail but also has had well-documented. Such action includes strengthening the capacity of public institutions and NGOs to improve the knowledge of women’s changing forms of involvement in farm and other rural activities in AKST. It also requires giving priority to women’s access to education. growing pressure on and conflicts over natural resources. including the growing competition on agricultural markets which increases the demand for flexible and cheap labor. skills and experience in the production of food and the conservation of biodiversity. depends on strengthening women’s ability to benefit from market-based opportunities by institutions and policies giving explicit priority to women farmer groups in value chains. Despite progress made in national and international policies since the first world conference on women in 1975. Whereas these dynamics have in some ways brought benefits. Effective collaboration and integration would be supported by international intellectual property and other regimes that allow more scope for dealing effectively with situations involving traditional knowledge. the diminishing support by governments for small-scale farms and the reallocation of economic resources in favor of large agroenterprises. and assessing the negative effects and risks of farming practices and technology. Traditional and local knowledge is dynamic. support for women’s income generating activities and the reinforcement of women’s organizations and networks are needed. Options for action with proven contribution to achieving sustainability and development goals include collaboration in the conservation. including migrant workers. Other factors include increasing exposure to risks related to natural disasters and environmental changes. ownership and control legal measures.Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report | 11 cal knowledge need to be integrated. These include support for public services and investment in rural areas in order to improve women’s living and working conditions. particularly with the development of export-oriented irrigated farming. increasing occupational and health risks. Finally. This situation is due to a variety of factors. science and technology. and taking measures to reduce use and exposure. technology development and innovation has been shown to add value to science-based technology development. The traditional knowledge. it is critical to ensure gender balance in AKST decision-making at all levels and provide mechanisms to hold AKST organizations accountable for progress in the above areas. appropriate credit schemes. information. A number of other changes will strengthen women’s contributions to agricultural production and sustainability. . Participatory collaboration in knowledge generation. giving priority to technological development policies targeting rural and farm women’s needs and recognizing their knowledge. is an organizing element of existing farming systems worldwide and a determining factor of ongoing agricultural restructuring. as well as the rise of environmental and sustainability concerns are redefining the links between gender and development.

While acknowledging considerable improvement has been achieved through a process of compromise. editors.” 7.” 3. The USA would prefer that this sentence be reflected in this paragraph: “Opening national agricultural markets to international competition can offer economic benefits. As we have specific and substantive concerns in each of the reports. Co-Chairs and the Secretariat. United States of America: The United States joins consensus with other governments in the critical importance of AKST to meet the goals of the IAASTD. there remain a number of assertions and observations that require more substantial. Canada: The Canadian Government recognizes the significant work undertaken by IAASTD authors. food security and the environment without basic national institutions and infrastructure being in place. We respect the wide diversity of views and healthy debate that took place. China and USA do not believe that this entire section is balanced and comprehensive. 6. Secretariat and stakeholders and notes the Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report as a valuable and important contribution to policy debate which needs to continue in national and international processes. We commend the tireless efforts of the authors. The USA would prefer that this sentence be written as follows “progressive evolution of IPR regimes in countries where national policies are not fully developed and progressive engagement in IPR management. The wide range of observations and views presented however. the United States is unable to provide unqualified endorsement of the reports. are such that Australia cannot agree with all assertions and options in the report. Further. 2. We welcome the IAASTD for bringing together the widest array of stakeholders for the first time in an initiative of this magnitude. Reservations on individual passages 1. and we have noted them. Botswana notes that this is specially a problem in subSaharan Africa. The United States believes the Assessment has potential for stimulating further deliberation and research. The UK notes that there is no international definition of food sovereignty. but can lead to long-term negative effects on poverty alleviation. balanced and objective be drawn to the attention of governments for consideration in addressing the importance of AKST and its large potential to contribute to economic growth and the reduction of hunger and poverty. we acknowledge the reports are a useful contribution for consideration by governments of the role of AKST in raising sustainable economic growth and alleviating hunger and poverty.” 12 . The report is therefore noted as a useful contribution which will be used for considering the future priorities and scope of AKST in securing economic growth and the alleviation of hunger and poverty.Annex Reservations on Executive Summary Reservations on full Executive Summary Australia: Australia recognizes the IAASTD initiative and reports as a timely and important multistakeholder and multidisciplinary exercise designed to assess and enhance the role of AKST in meeting the global development challenges. 4. Canada and USA would prefer the following sentence: “Provision of assistance to help low income countries affected by liberalization to adjust and benefit from liberalized trade is essential to advancing development agendas.

Synthesis Report A Synthesis of the Global and Sub-Global IAASTD Reports 13 .

.

Statement by Governments on Synthesis Report All countries present at the final intergovernmental plenary session held in Johannesburg. Belize. Ghana. science and technology for development recognizing the need to further deepen our understanding of the challenges ahead. People’s Republic of China. socially. Azerbaijan. Ethiopia. Honduras. Cameroon. experts and development specialists and while presenting an overall consensus on the importance of agricultural knowledge. El Salvador. Finland. environmentally and economically sustainable development. Republic of Moldova. Bhutan. Australia. science and technology fulfils its potential to meet the development and sustainability goals of the reduction of hunger and poverty. Kyrgyzstan. Armenia. Tunisia. Costa Rica. Togo. Republic of Palau. Nigeria. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Benin. Canada. Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Pakistan. United Republic of Tanzania. Romania. Swaziland. Bangladesh. This Assessment is a constructive initiative and important contribution that all governments need to take forward to ensure that agricultural knowledge. science and technology for development they also provide a diversity of views on some issues. Kenya. Zambia (58 countries). the following governments accept the Synthesis Report. Maldives. and the scale of the challenge of covering a broad range of complex issues. The Governments present recognize that the Global and Sub-Global Reports are the conclusions of studies by a wide range of scientific authors. Iran. Gambia. Democratic Republic of Congo. the improvement of rural livelihoods and human health. United States of America (3 countries). Paraguay. Ireland. South Africa in April 2008 welcome the work of the IAASTD and the uniqueness of this independent multistakeholder and multidisciplinary process. Uganda. Botswana. and facilitating equitable. Philippines. Cuba. Senegal. India. Turkey. 15 . Mozambique. Uruguay. Viet Nam. Panama. In accordance with the above statement. Bahrain. Switzerland. Lebanon. Sweden. United Kingdom of Great Britain. While approving the above statement the following governments did not fully accept the Synthesis Report and their reservations are entered in Annex A. Dominican Republic. All countries see these Reports as a valuable and important contribution to our understanding on agricultural knowledge. France. Poland. Solomon Islands. Namibia. Brazil. Saudi Arabia. Timor-Leste.

.

Rym Ben Zid (Tunisia). AKST not only refers to “formal” science processes. across and within regions and states. including obesity in poor and rich countries. Further. Ivette Perfecto (Puerto Rico). We refer to this as agricultural knowledge. changing dietary patterns and the increased interest in biofuels. we have been less attentive to some of the unintended social and ecological consequences of our technological and economic achievements. for the location of food production. Some of the findings from recent assessments conducted by the international community that coincide with those of the IAASTD include: Recognition that current social and economic inequities.. The growing awareness of human responsibility for the maintenance of global ecosystem services. Nienke Beintema (Netherlands). We are. in short. make the IAASTD especially opportune. perhaps best characterized as the need for food security under increasingly constrained environmental conditions and globalized economic systems. which is defined most broadly to include managing ecological processes in ways that capture and sustain human opportunity. science and technology contribute to development goals offers a chance to reflect on how people engage their environment to secure healthy lives and livelihoods. which require global as well as national and local responses. The increase in chronic ailments. by relying on the outcome of individual choices to achieve sustainable and equitable collective outcomes. This opportunity for stocktaking coincides with the widespread realization that despite significant achievements in our ability to increase agricultural productive capacity to meet growing demand. improve rural livelihoods and facilitate equitable environmentally. climate change and water scarcity. Uncertainty about the future of world food prices under the impact of climate change. national and local governance mechanisms required to meet the responsibilities associated with sustainable growth. pumped water and transport into food security strategies. 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. including loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.e. The IAASTD recognizes the importance of the multiple functions of agriculture and their intersection with other global concerns. In order to benefit from productivity gains farmers had to continually innovate. Niels Roling (Netherlands). Growing concerns with the effects of long-term climatic and ecological changes. We cannot escape our predicament by simply continuing to apply methodological individualism. fertilizer. Elizabeth Robinson This assessment of the ways in which knowledge. Uncertainty about the ability to sustainably produce sufficient food for a continually expanding and demographically changing population where new demands for food and ecosystem services challenge current production systems. For many years. The emergence of fast-growing economies as additional competitors for resources in the wake of their phenomenal economic growth. AKST explicitly refers not only to technology but also to the economic and social science knowledge that informs decisions about policies and institutional change required for reaching IAASTD goals. and water availability. The IAASTD takes a unique integrated approach to these urgent global problems: the development and deployment of human ingenuity to enhance agriculture. 17 . Marianne Lefort (France). The end of cheap oil and the need to factor energy efficiency and dependence on tractors. reduce farm gate prices and externalize costs. emerging trade regimes. in need of a shared approach to sustainability. but also very much to the local and traditional knowledges that still inform most farming today.Part II: Current Conditions. IAASTD recognizes that multiple perspectives exist on the nature and role of AKST. e. science and technology (AKST). are a significant barrier to achieving development goals. concentrations of human settlements.g. and of the changes in global. i. Challenges and Options for Action Writing team: Inge Armbrecht (Colombia). Cristina Plencovich (Argentina). socially and economically sustainable development. Fabrice Dreyfus (France). Rajeswari Raina (India). This realization is at the heart of the objectives of the IAASTD: how can we reduce hunger and poverty. We are now in a better position to reflect on these costs and to outline policy options to meet the challenges ahead of us. that increase rates of morbidity and mortality and are partially a consequence of poor nutrition and poor food quality.. Projected changes in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events in addition to increases in fire hazards. Lindela Ndlovu (Zimbabwe). pests and diseases will have significant implications for agricultural production and food security.

as global citizens have little time to lose. . and indigenous or traditional peasant practices. associates multifunctionality with the particular characteristics of the agricultural production process and its outputs. given the new challenges we confront today. and continued rural and urban poverty. and (2) options for action. the NAE. The use of the term has been controversial and contested in global trade negotiations. To address these consequences it is important to account for the prevalent inequalities that characterize relations between regions and countries as well as within them. unsustainable natural resource use. LAC. international trade and related policy frameworks do not stimulate transitions toward equitable agricultural and food trade relation or sustainable food and farming systems and have given rise to perverse impacts on natural resources and agroecologies as well as on human health and nutrition. governance practices and social justice concerns that enable or constrain the realization of development and sustainability. yet some of the unintended consequences of these very achievements have not been sufficiently addressed. continues to dominate in the volume and variety of agricultural exports. but also non-commodity outputs such as environmental services. too. including conventional or productivist strategies. This approach appreciates diverse interests and concerns across a range of agricultural production systems and agricultural producers. This is not the definition used here. who historically have had limited entitlements and opportunities for growth. In some parts of developing countries formal AKST is yet to make its presence felt as a major driver of agrarian change. namely addressing the complex role of institutions. In IAASTD. including the generation and application of AKST. which is used by the IAASTD. AKST and agricultural change. synthetic fertilizers. 1. medicinal products and ornamentals). the critical regional differences in agroecosystems. The working definition proposed by OECD. fibers. Proponents argue that current patterns of agricultural subsidies. There are tremendous achievements in science and production. such that markets for these goods function poorly or are nonexistent. Opponents argue that attempts to remedy these outcomes by means of trade-related instruments will weaken the efficiency of agricultural trade and lead to further undesirable market distortion. The concept of multifunctionality recognizes agriculture as a multi-output activity producing not only commodities (food. extended value chains and the generation of agricultural technologies (high-yielding varieties. institutional arrangements. in other regions of the world such growth only began in the 1960s. (1) multiple commodity and non-commodity outputs are jointly produced by agriculture. multifunctionality is used solely to express the inescapable interconnectedness of agriculture’s different roles and functions.18 | IAASTD Synthesis Report This model drove the phenomenal achievements of AKST in industrial countries after World War II and the extension of the Green Revolution beginning in the 1960s. and it has centered on whether “trade-distorting” agricultural subsidies are needed for agriculture to perform its many functions. Another area of AKST innovation must lie with more explicit attention to issues that attend to the use of AKST. largely subsistence farmers in rainfed agricultures against farmers who during the past century have been assisted to increasingly capture economies of scale by specialization and externalizing social and environmental costs. landscape amenities and cultural heritages. We. While in North America and Europe (NAE) this phenomenon has been ongoing since the 1940s. Today we find a world of asymmetric development. Agricultural productivity and production have increased steadily in response to several drivers of change. market relations and knowledge in a global economy is reflected in this report. pesticides and mechanization technologies) as well as recent advances in organic and sustainable production which have helped shape the policies and organizations of AKST in the other regions. the environment. In this Report we highlight options drawn from a comparative analysis of the Global and Sub-Global reports (CWANA. One area of potential adaptation is to move from an exclusive focus on public and private research as the site for R&D toward the democratization of knowledge production. Current Conditions and Challenges Agriculture and the knowledge systems that are relevant to the sector now face an impasse. It is also known that the consequences of these global changes have the most devastating impacts on the poorest. their preferred approach is to address the externalized costs and negative impacts on poverty. 70s or 80s. requires adaptation and revision. There is general agreement about the current global environmental and development crisis. access to formal S&T and diverse impacts on people and ecosystems. The current global system pits small-scale. Multifunctionality The term multifunctionality has sometimes been interpreted as having implications for trade and protectionism. agroecological approaches. feed. But. there is an urgent need to revitalize and strengthen AKST. pose a challenge to the continuing dominance of a uniform type of formal AKST. Such an approach requires multiagent involvement to make accessible and available for exchange the skills of local producers. and (2) some of the non-commodity outputs may exhibit the characteristics of externalities or public goods. agrofuels. A conception of AKST that includes regulatory frameworks. human health and nutrition by other means. there is increasing recognition within formal S&T organizations that the current AKST model. One region. Business as usual is not an option. While globally. The pace of technology generation and adoption has been highly uneven. ESAP. NAE and SSA) into two thematic areas: (1) current conditions and major challenges. The IAASTD thus uses the lens of multifunctionality to assess the contribution of AKST to development and sustainability.

Current Conditions. Challenges and Options for Action | 19 Figure SR-P1. . A multifunctional perspective of agriculture.

50 million climate refugees by 2010 .Figure SR-P2.

Broadly conceived. Despite steady growth over the past few decades. ESAP accounted for 61% of the total. obesity. where food insecurity and hunger are no longer major problems. Equity is important across all regions. In addition. The need to retool AKST to reduce poverty and provide improved livelihood options for the rural poor—especially landless and peasant communities. environmental degradation.Current Conditions. The substantial number of hungry and malnourished people in NAE indicates that more production does not necessarily equate with hunger reduction. etc. the character and rate of industrial growth has been highly differentiated with rural populations surviving on a steadily dwindling share of the economic pie. The drivers of ecological change can best be understood as the consequences of development models pursued over the 20th century. Challenges and Options for Action | 21 Economic importance. this represents only 15% of the total regional population while the 206 million malnourished SSA inhabitants represent 32% of the region’s population.. In NAE. so do the challenges and perception of relative importance of development and sustainability goals. LAC and SSA. The proportion of the population dependent on the sector ranges from 3% in NAE to over 60% in ESAP and SSA. which contribute the least to global warming. and chronic diseases that is being experienced in all countries. information. the proportion of the population that is still poor (below poverty line) continues to grow. SSA and South Asia. Regional Differences and Achievement of Development and Sustainability Goals Just as current conditions of agricultural production. which are exacerbated by the uneven distribution of and access to resources (natural resources. will be among the first to disappear. Across the regions. inequality. Our perception of the challenges and the choices we make at this juncture in history will determine the future of human beings and their environment. In ESAP. Despite a global reduction in absolute poverty. There are multiple causal interlinkages between environmental degradation and poverty. Reducing hunger is an important goal in all developing regions: CWANA. the contribution of agriculture to national GDP has been steadily declining in all the regions. its contribution to the ecological crisis and its effects are differentially experienced in countries of the North and the South. The macro-level challenge is to equip agriculture with the capacity to address the burden of poverty through intra. Even in the well-off countries of NAE where significant knowledge exists about appropriate responses to emerging challenges. Lesotho. which is most extreme in LAC. multiple theoretical frameworks and development models and a wide range of options. yet have very limited if any capacity or resources to respond to such crises. CWANA.6 billion people.g. Regional analyses (ESAP. as well as to the relative importance of agriculture in the overall economy in each region. The majority of the world’s poor and hungry live in rural settings and are directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods. For instance. Environmental goals are important globally despite pressure on the environment due to relatively high industrialization. Across diverse geopolitical contexts and ecosystems. the poorest. the regional imbalance of economic growth. globally as well as nationally. Of the 854 million malnourished people in 2001 to 2003. The relative burden of occupational health burdens is lowest in NAE. chronic and infectious diseases. Malnutrition is a major cause of ill health and reduced productivity. Inappropriate application of AKST contributes to the increase in overweight.and inter-sectoral development policies. small island nations and the coastal populations of developing countries. Thus the empowerment of women as repositories of knowledge about local ecosystems. This is consistent with the relative contribution of agriculture to natural resource degradation. 66 and 69% in East Asia. only 9 million were in the developed world. is a major challenge today. however. While the transition from predominantly agrarian economies to industrial or service sector led economies has occurred the world over. . agriculture has been subject to worsening terms of trade. urban informal and migrant workers.) between regions and within countries. The burden of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases remains high in SSA. particularly in SSA and CWANA. Food safety is an important health issue in all regions. and ESAP. and occupational health. At the global. agriculture continues to play important economic and social roles and currently engages 2. capital. attention has shifted to the question of relative poverty and rapidly declining and changing livelihoods. as is evident in their respective IAASTD Summaries for Decision Makers. Development models and the environment. Parts of CWANA and SSA (e. and availability and access to advanced technologies vary from one region to another. including a disproportionate number of women and children are among the most vulnerable to emerging natural and human-induced environmental disasters. and market citizenship. respectively) is fundamental to development and to adapting to a changing environment. urbanization and productivity enhancing agricultural practices in NAE. The burden of poverty in the sector is incommensurate with the magnitude and range of expectations from agriculture. poverty and livelihood expectations. and as significant constituents of the agricultural labor force (62. actions to address mitigation and adaptation to global climate change have thus far been minimal. The commitment to address poverty and livelihoods reflects the critical role of agriculture and rural employment opportunities in developing countries where 30-60% of all livelihoods arise from agricultural and allied activities. AKST can affect health via food safety and security. regional and national levels. This goal draws attention to the current conditions of iniquitous distribution and access to resources and to overall income inequality. AKST and the agricultural and food systems can make a significant contribution to alleviating poverty for the over 1. decision makers must be acutely conscious of the fact that there are diverse challenges. and pressures to enhance productivity even at the cost of environmental goods and services in SSA. Improving human health and nutrition is critical for all regions.2 billion people who live on less than $1 per day and provide adequate and nutritious food for the over 800 million undernourished people. ESAP.

are massive. ESAP. price systems. natural and physical resource scarcity. largely due to the implementation of policies and measures aimed at expanding agricultural production (land reclamation. with poor market infrastructure. Though the productivity per unit of land and per unit of energy use is much higher in these small and diversified farms than the large intensive farming systems in irrigated areas. subsidized imports. the world will have 80 million severely malnourished children. the absolute unemployment figures. is limited in its capacity to inform change in the institutions that frame human interaction. Unfortunately. current conditions favor large-scale monocropping systems that rely on high investment (in water supply. include market-based instruments such as futures trading. Millions of small-scale producers and landless labor in developing countries and underdeveloped markets. they continue to be neglected by formal AKST. In many developing countries. While organic and ecological agriculture as practiced in parts of ESAP and LAC can provide more employment. thus worsening the vicious cycle of agrarian and rural poverty. whether as formal S&T organizations or local and traditional knowledge specific to agroecosystems. LAC. especially in ESAP. modern biological. A high proportion of farmers in CWANA. . in particular. with increasing market concentration in a few hands and rapid growth of global retail chains in all developing countries. tree products and livestock as well as offfarm activities. In SSA and ESAP as well as labor surplus countries in other regions. and limited surplus) have diminished the viability of subsistence production alone. [See Part II: Bioenergy and Climate Change] In the semiarid CWANA where water scarcity is prevalent. dramatically reversing past trends. In CWANA. ESAP. and SSA. trade barriers (including IPR. and adverse implications for food security. the potential for improved area productivity is decreasing. Farming systems are very diverse and range between large scale capital intensive farming systems to small-scale labor intensive farming systems. Market conditions. and environmental security concerns. The challenge for AKST is to address these small-scale farms in diverse ecosystems and to create realistic opportunities for their development. countries with capital intensive agriculture are associated with high value added per worker. concentrated mainly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. quality standards). equitable and just governance and vibrant links with other sectors of the economy. Market based instruments also include commodity boards and price regulation which large buyers find too limiting to meet their needs [See Part II: Trade and Markets]. a number of mechanisms to protect producers from price fluctuations and enable access to and compliance with new market practices or trade requirements (like sanitary and phytosanitary [SPS] measures). Real world prices of most cereals and meats are projected to increase in the coming decades. already weakened by changes in global and regional trade. There is a significant correlation between capital stock in agriculture and value added per worker—for example in CWANA. machinery and agrochemicals) and cause environmental degradation. thereby suppressing producer incentives to adopt new technologies and enhance crop productivity. These conditions are often coupled with declining employment opportunities in agriculture that require rural laborers to secure alternative non-farm employment. market distorting domestic policies and international protocols or restrictions add to the complexity of future food security. which small-scale producers find difficult to access. inadequate bargaining capacity and lack of skills to comply with new market demands.22 | IAASTD Synthesis Report LAC and SSA) indicate that the unequal distribution of resources is a major constraint that shapes development needs and impedes the achievement of all other development and sustainability goals. limited rural and urban employment opportunities and the continuing dependence of cultivators on economically unviable smallscale holdings (increasing input prices. especially for the relatively large unskilled young population in search of work. In addition. cheap. the low capitalization of agriculture translates into low value added per worker. are designed for farms and farming systems which have attendant entitlements and conditions that enable the production of tradable and vertically integrated commodities in value chains. The food security challenge is likely to worsen current conflicts. given the perception of an unequal playing field. chemical and mechanical technologies. cross border tensions. the non-farm labor market is constrained by high unemployment. and untenable nature of global trade regimes. subsidies. small-scale farmers also have intensified their production systems and benefited from increasing market integration. LAC and SSA are small-scale producers whose livelihood strategies include poly-cropping. Over the 20th century there was increasing farming system specialization in NAE. especially in SSA and the least developed countries in ESAP. will face reduced access to food and livelihoods. relatively stagnant agricultural output prices. In CWANA and ESAP. The food security challenge is likely to worsen if markets and market-driven agricultural production systems continue to grow in a “business as usual” mode. In developing countries generally. The emergence of regional and preferential trade agreements and trading blocks among developing countries reveals an increasing mistrust of. it is crucial to explore how agricultural and rural production processes can be better linked with industrial and service sector growth. except for low-input and labororiented agriculture in a few regions of the world. although positive solutions can emerge through AKST and incentives for enhancing incomes in the small-scale farm sector. Industrialized country agricultural subsidies and advantages in agricultural added value per worker close off options for the export of agricultural commodities from sub-Saharan Africa and distort their domestic markets. trends and challenges Agricultural commodities the world over are currently facing a secular decline in prices accompanied by wide fluctuations. Farming systems Agriculture is currently constrained in its capacity to respond to poverty and generate a range of livelihood options in rural areas. border tariffs). AKST in its current form. IAASTD projections of the global food system indicate a tightening of world food markets. Where the government and some private and civil society organizations have enabled appropriate scale effects as well as technical and financial support. By 2050.

including ecosystem functions.Current Conditions. social. and enabling fiber and fuel . the multiple functions of agriculture are being addressed as an important way to reduce the loss of biodiversity. Issue #90 IAASTD. encourage ecofriendly production systems and local and traditional knowledge. Top 10 Global food retailers. nutrition. Formal AKST has typically focused on increased specialization of commodity production and not on optimizing the outcomes from dynamically evolving multifunctional systems involving biophysical and socioeconomic components. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. imply different conditions. A challenge that AKST needs to overcome is the lack of research in geographical. coupled with government investments and policies in production and trade has led to a view of agriculture as an exclusively economic activity. interests and capacities to address the tradeoff between the production and environmental functions of agriculture. These are necessary to devise. Multifunctional agricultural systems By definition. social and environmental functions of agriculture. These region-specific agricultural systems have the potential to be either highly vulnerable or sustainable. The social and cultural implications of livelihood options and of poverty. and ecosystem conservation. the focus on the multiple roles and functions of agriculture is drawing policy attention largely in response to the scope of possible investments in indirect support mechanisms. the principle of multifunctionality in agriculture refers to agriculture that provides food products for consumers. agribusiness systems and market regulations determine the interconnectedness of the economic. and Tunisia and Syria in CWANA. livelihoods and incomes for producers and a range of public and private goods and services for citizens and the environment. current subsidies. texts. improve and create management options and contribute to multifunctionality and may help in improving the sustainability of these resources and their effective use in production systems. measured in commodity-based. ESAP. China and Japan in ESAP. poverty reduction and help achieve the elimination of hunger and malnutrition. which can address environmental sustainability. CWANA and LAC. markets tempered with appropriate state support and regulation can be effective instruments to address poverty. As learned from the much contested sugar and cotton production and trade disputes. production and trade. whether of highly productive mixed crop-livestock systems in the wetlands or of low productivity crop-fodder-fiber and small ruminants systems in the arid areas in SSA. ecological. In the relatively less endowed and more diverse farming systems of the world. geopolitical and ecological processes in the agricultural and allied sectors. Challenges and Options for Action | 23 Top 10 global food retailers 2002 sales (millions US$) Wal-Mart (USA) Carrefour (France) Royal Ahold (Netherlands) Kroger (USA) Metro AG (Germany) Tesco (UK) Costco (USA) Albertson’s (USA) Safeway (USA) Ito-Yokado (Japan) 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 Source: ETC group – Communiqué. Existing specialization in the global agrifood system. especially in SSA and large parts of LAC. Similarly. improve nutrition and gender relationships in agriculture through diverse production and processing systems and maintain a suite of livelihood options in rural areas. In the specialized production systems of NAE and parts of ESAP. tariffs and investments to agriculture in countries like India. due to the inescapable interconnectedness and tradeoffs between the different roles and functions of agriculture. differential state support. The main challenges posed by multifunctional agricultural systems for AKST are: creasing the productivity of food and animal feed to meet changing food habits. as well as environmental services and responsibilities of agriculture. monetary terms. Ketill Berger Figure SR-P3. differ from the sociocultural implications of livelihoods and incomes from commercial production in France and California. and CWANA. anthropological and other evolutionary sciences as applied to diverse agricultural ecosystems. September/October 2005. relative economic and environmental vulnerability. There is increasing recognition of the multiple roles and functions of agriculture. livelihood needs and income.

the tradeoffs between production and environmental benefits must be increasingly scrutinized. pest resistant GM crops. and SSA contend with unequal production and market relationships on a daily basis. Despite evidence of several resource conserving technologies and resource sharing and improving social contracts or institutional arrangements. and subsidies to address resource constraints) that support resource exploitative production. fisheries and forestry. production practices and technologies. Overall population growth. There is increasing rural to urban male migration in search of employment in all developing countries. LAC. little effort has thus far been made to address the causal factors (such as lack of assured property rights and tenure laws. have often faced a policy gridlock with formal AKST. immigrant labor and have legal and institutional capacities such as intellectual property rights. Instead. Landless agricultural labor is at the receiving end of inequitable distribution of productive resources. Environmental technologies such as integrated pest management. and technological solutions that are blanket recommendations irrespective of regional variations in resource quality. but highly valuable knowledge about local ecosystems and processes of change and management. South Asia and CWANA. The challenge is to maintain and enhance environmental quality for increased agricultural production and other goods and services. Social security nets and the provision of non-farm rural or urban employment opportunities are being attempted by countries along with proactive local employment and income generation programs spearheaded by scale and scope. agroforestry. little effort has been made within mainstream formal AKST to learn from and apply these lessons to other agroecological systems and societies. pockets of high-input agriculture in CWANA. livestock. including their cultural dimensions? ized. which many countries in the developing regions lack. as well as environmental and cultural services by agroecosystems? biodiversity. livestock. While more land has been brought under the plough in SSA over the past two decades than during any period of human history on the sub-continent. absence of incentives for conservation. The uneven distribution of productive natural resources coupled with the lack of access to resources and fair markets for small-scale producers and women in agriculture. little has been done to acknowledge or address the livelihoods concerns. . and enhance these economic benefits for the other sectors? tain the diversity of agriculture and food systems. On average 35% of severely degraded land worldwide is due to agricultural activities. results in extreme inequality and increasing poverty. Social equity Worsening income inequality is a serious concern and poses a significant challenge for agricultural and food systems and AKST in all the five regions. farmer access to seeds and local plant and animal genetic resources. ESAP. In much of CWANA. the intensification of production without the expansion of land under cultivation has been significant in NAE. beneficial organisms for biocontrol programs. standards and market regulations. such expansion is constrained by access to water. technological and development needs of women. mountain ecosystems of LAC and coastal ecosystems in all the regions. SSA). Within formal AKST systems. Now as biofuels and plantation agriculture add to the competition for limited natural resources. while declining water availability and quality. These conditions confront limited state capacities to cope with the effects of climate change in the developing countries [See Part 2: NRM and Climate Change]. they obtain and profit. the loss of biodiversity. As a result. low-input agriculture. private industry and media taking highly polarized positions. SSA) have contributed natural resource degradation. and local capacities to mitigate and adapt to climate change are discussed in the regions. ESAP. Much of this knowledge is outside the purview of modern AKST and is increasingly subject to pressure from commercial crop. over the past several decades. Many of these communities are repositories of traditional knowledge and fast depleting. The complex nexus between degradation of natural resources and rural poverty is acknowledged in the drylands of SSA. millions of poor people and women in much of CWANA. For example. While peasants and women cultivators are uncommon in NAE. LAC and NAE) the relative share of agriculture-induced degradation is higher than in other regions.24 | IAASTD Synthesis Report wood production. national and global markets? Resource use and degradation Changes in land use have been without exception significant in all the regions. labor and indigenous peoples. All five regions are acutely conscious of increasing indigence and social exclusion of several indigenous and tribal peoples. lack of property rights for women (CWANA. Poorly defined and enforced property rights over common pool resources (SSA). from commodities. Agriculture has contributed to land degradation in all the regions. Moreover. directly or indirectly. increasing pressure to generate income from natural resources (using increasingly expensive inputs). rainfed lands and incorporate them into local. fisheries or forest-based production [See Part II: Traditional and Local Knowledge]. LAC. sustain the natural resource base and decrease the adverse impacts of agricultural activities on people and the environment? hoods in the agricultural sector. have intensified production and extraction processes of crop/commodity production. civil society. landraces and other valuable genetic resources (stored ex situ in other countries). ESAP and LAC as well as the NAE region contribute to the degradation of soil and water systems and pollution that add to global warming. conservation tillage. in some regions with input intensive production systems (ESAP. LAC. Current inequality is exacerbated by the fact that NAE dominates agricultural and rural development resources as well as formal knowledge generation in AKST. ESAP and LAC. while satisfying increasing current and emerging energy demands. businesses within NAE have a powerful impact on global consumer demand. and climate change adaptations. the state. and caste and other social hierarchies that limit access to resources (ESAP.

In contrast to the 1980s. Meanwhile. The challenge for development policy and AKST is to develop agricultural and food systems that can reduce income inequalities and ensure fair access to production inputs and knowledge to all. with intellectual property protection. China. appropriation of resources of the poor—especially common pool resources—and social prejudices like caste and gender biases. accounted for 54% of public spending in 2000. livelihoods and poverty reduction in developing countries. health and nutrition. largely confined to appropriable technologies. In the industrialized countries investment by the private sector has increased and is now higher than total public sector investments.9% in the 1990s). AKST as currently organized in public and private sector does little to interact with academic initiatives in basic biological. access and use appropriate for meeting development and sustainability goals. irrigated monocropping systems—mainly cereals. while in ESAP countries investments have grown relative to other regions (annual growth rate of 3. other economic and social science methods are needed for this task. Declining investments in formal AKST by international donors and a number of national governments is causing concern among the developed and developing countries. more or less universal in formal AKST is not incidental. In contrast. While the development models-poverty-environmental degradation nexus is evident in different forms in different countries. of which more than half was invested in ESAP. just two. input-intensive. Resources are allocated to production systems that can show the highest economic returns to crop/commodity productivity. accounted for 47% of the developing world’s public agricultural research expenditures. Globally public sector R&D is becoming increasingly concentrated in a handful of countries. worsens the inequality already compounded by local exploitation. content and the conduct of science in almost all countries. Meeting the challenges will require a different organizational framework than currently exists in fundamental .8%. historically has largely excluded ecological. mountain ecosystems. but part of an overall development model in which scientific knowledge is institutionalized in its utilitarian role. and environmental quality is conditioned by its capacity to address its own internal constraints and challenges. environmental. Organized AKST in the form of public sector R&D. to the relative neglect of arid/dryland agriculture. private sector investment in developing countries is small and will likely remain so given weak funding incentives for private research. livelihoods. coastal fisheries. rent seeking and corruption.Current Conditions. which can earn significant revenues in the market. are based upon a linear top-down flow of technologies and information from scientific research to adopters. There is a significant volume of literature from all the regions on the high rates of return per unit of investment in agricultural R&D. A disturbing trend in 26 SSA countries for which time series data are available is that the public sector spent less on agricultural R&D in 2000 than a decade earlier. the formal AKST apparatus available to address these variations is the same in structure. the explicit economic and political legitimization of investments in AKST remains food security. India and Brazil. livestock and other trade-oriented commodities. and three developing countries. Among the rich countries. extension and agricultural education across world regions. In LAC and parts of ESAP the selective perception of production requirements and exclusion of or limited attention given to certain agroecosystems. Despite increasing polarization of the debate on new technologies. mountain ecosystems. In many industrialized countries investment has stalled or declined. and other non-mainstream production systems that have been discussed above. local and traditional knowledges and the social sciences. such as dryland agriculture. challenges and opportunities More than five decades after formal AKST made its entry into almost all countries.3 to 0. and pastoral systems. only 6% of the agricultural R&D investments worldwide were spent in 80 mostly low-income countries whose combined population in 2000 was more than 600 million people. As a result. and trade and environmental sustainability in industrialized countries. but to the relative neglect of other capacities in the economic sciences that are needed to meet AKST challenges. the annual growth rate of total spending in SSA decreased in the 1990s from 1. Private investment in AKST is. AKST infrastructure will need to encompass and work with this much broader set of understanding and data if AKST challenges are to be met. especially in crops and in farming systems that have been the focus of the AKST apparatus. It is important to recognize that this constraint. The capacity of AKST to address the challenges of poverty. A rate of return analysis is insufficient for capturing returns to investment that meet development and sustainability goals. In 2000. norms and legal systems for market-oriented innovation and demand-led technology generation. ESAP accounts for an increasing share of global public R&D investment. Governments and international donors are now beginning to invest in long-term commitments to AKST integrated into pro-poor development policies. Currently AKST actors and organizations are not sufficiently able to deal with the challenges ahead because of the focus on too narrow a set of output goals. Public investments in agricultural R&D continue to grow although rates have declined during the 1990s. The AKST apparatus tends to focus on mainstream. formal AKST has yet to address the question of democratic technology choice. Challenges and Options for Action | 25 AKST and current agricultural development models have contributed to increasing inequality and the exclusion of indigenous and tribal peoples. and is likely to remain. and years of wellpublished knowledge on differential access to technologies and appropriate institutional arrangements. The knowledge infrastructure of AKST is closely allied with particular branches of economics appropriate for meeting production goals. from 20% in 1981 to 33% in 2000. the USA and Japan. ecological and social sciences to design rules. especially biotechnology and transgenics. private firms invested only 6% of total spending in the developing world. Some of the conditioning factors for high rates of return lie outside agriculture and AKST in complementary investments such as rural infrastructure or microcredit units that reduce market transaction costs or provide appropriate institutions or norms. AKST—Current constraints. which is oriented toward these goals. The current knowledge infrastructure.

2000 billion international dollars (year 2000) Global total 24 Higher-income countries 12 Developing countries 12 Distribution of global total 10 21 8 10 8 Developed. commercial and civil society at local levels are sustained or increased. Management systems require sophisticated understanding of the institutional dimensions of management practices and of decision processes that must be coordinated across variable spatial. Japan. temporal and hierarchical scales. landscape. The willingness of different actors. there is an overarching concern with poverty and livelihoods among the relatively poor. 2000. The challenges ahead demand a greater focus on management systems—from crop to whole farm to natural resource area. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Source: Pardey et al. Emerging challenges. and New Zealand. Public and Private Agricultural R&D Spending by Region. Breakthroughs in advance science will not lead to relevant effective and efficient applications that address development and sustainability unless investments in public.asti. 2006b based on Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) data at www. which are faced with intra. Ketill Berger Figure SR-P4.cgiar. public 2 Developing. river system and catchment scales. and applied scientific capability.26 | IAASTD Synthesis Report Public and private agricultural R&D spending. In all the regions. public 18 6 6 4 15 2 4 Developed..and inter-regional inequalities.org and various other data sources. private 12 0 0 Middle East and North Africa 9 12 Asia and Pacific* 12 6 Latin America and Caribbean 12 10 10 Sub-Saharan Africa 8 12 8 3 10 6 10 6 8 0 6 4 8 4 2 6 2 4 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 Private sector Public sector * Asia-Pacific excluding Australia. AKST specialists will need a more profound understanding of the legal and policy frameworks that increasingly will steer agricultural and food system development. private Developing. selected regions. including .

2. Challenges and Options for Action | 27 those in the state. Food security Food security is a situation that exists when all people. knowledge systems and human ingenuity are needed to meet future challenges. Using appropriate AKST can contribute to radically improved food security. at all times. social and environmental systems is marred by contentious political and economic stances adopted by the different actors. enhance the social and economic performance of agricultural systems as a basis for sustainable rural and community livelihoods. through urban supermarkets. Farmer Research Groups and similar forms of interaction in support of farmer-driven agendas have been shown to have multiple pro-poor benefits. storage. Options for Action Successfully meeting development and sustainability goals and responding to new priorities and changing circumstances will require a fundamental shift in science and technologies. to address the fundamental question of the relationships among production. and natural resources is a powerful tool for enabling them to capture market opportunities Technological innovation at the farm level is predicated upon enabling institutional and legal frameworks and support structures. stakeholders who hold complementary parts of the so- lution. etc. tunities for the rural poor.g. e. as well as capacity development and investments. It can support efforts to increase production. Successfully making this shift will depend on adapting and reforming existing institutional and organizational arrangements and on further institutional and organizational development to promote an integrated approach to AKST development and deployment. In LAC. rehabilitate degraded land. ment in travel and meetings. input provision. opportunities and uncertainties. term contractual arrangements. The development of more sustainable low-input practices to improve soil. transport. farmers. Policy options to increase domestic farm gate prices for small-scale producers include: age facilities and rural value-added agrifood production) to develop infrastructural capacity. about farmers’ conditions. local government agents. Such a shift will recognize and give increased importance to the multifunctionality of agriculture and account for the complexity of agricultural systems within diverse social and ecological contexts. through commercial out-grower schemes or farmer cooperatives. and increasing the percentage of that small-scale farmers receive for export crops. farmer-to-farmer approaches have proven successful in the adoption of agroecological practices. empowerment and organizational skills [see Part II: NRM]. crop genetic diversity. adaptation and utilization of formal AKST by small-scale farmers requires acknowledging the inherently diverse conditions in which they live and work. and reduce environmental and health risks associated with food production and consumption. safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. They involve commodity chains that integrate microcredit.. recourse to fair conflict resolution and other mechanisms for accountability and national policies that support remunerative farm prices. Enabling resource-poor farmers to link their own local knowledge to external expert and scientific knowledge for innovative management of soil fertility. policies and institutions. such as enduring farmer education. Food sovereignty is defined as the right of peoples and sovereign states to democratically determine their own agricultural and food policies. farmer-to-farmer exchange. technical specialists. and extension as public service and public goods that provide access to AKST both formal and local. have physical. technology.Current Conditions. The acknowledgment of current challenges and the acceptance of options available for action require a long-term commitment from decision makers that is responsive to specific needs and a wide range of stakeholders. farmer-managed medicinal plants. and Farmer Field Schools. bulking. civil society and private sector.. It will further require increased public investment in AKST and development of supporting policy regimes. for example. farmer education. and by participatory methodologies that can empower small-scale producers. quality control. Poverty and livelihoods Ensuring the development. social and economic access to sufficient. formation.. both landless labor and cultivator households. and private input traders. The success of options implemented locally rests on regional and nationally based mechanisms to ensure accountability. they usually require enabling conditions at higher levels that include legal frameworks that ensure access and secure tenure to resources and land.g. opportunities and needs. Participatory Plant Breeding/Domestication. e. local seed systems and common pool resource management regimes. through enhanced value-added activity and off-farm employment. Though these interactions take place at the decentralized level. such as: designing and executing formal AKST. farmer organization. regional and national decision making. It calls for a continuing recognition that science. agricultural and natural biodiversity. packaging. and capacity building and through creating space for farmer participation in local. nutrient and water management will be particularly critical for communities with limited access to markets. The following options can aid in capturing these opportunities to increase sustainable agricultural production: . Developments are needed that build trust and that value farmer knowledge.

cess rights in regional and global trade for millions of small-scale producers. SSA. market instruments that enable shifting risk away from vulnerable small-scale producers. water and land use efficiency through the use of local and formal knowledge to develop and adapt sitespecific technologies that can help maintain. etc. in different subregions. and ment of enhanced regulatory and monitoring regimes. science and technology (local and formal). Issue #90 IAASTD. Environment Knowledge. SSA. participatory decentralized breeding and biotechnology) to develop and deploy suitable cultivars (millets. SSA]. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. concentrated on internationally traded crops. Global vegetable seed market shares.) and better agronomic practices that can be adapted to site-specific conditions [CWANA. Important to consider when shifting from food crops to biofuels on the basis of economic feasibility is attention to the impact of large areas devoted to such crops on food security and the environment [ESAP. increase water use efficiency and reduce . create or restore soils. Public sector research has yet to offer a range of viable rural management and agronomic practices for crop and livestock systems that are appropriate for water-restrained dry lands and poor farmers [CWANA. Such investments will likely assist in limiting natural resource degradation and environmental deterioration. SR Part II: NRM] and improving access to resources (e. role of animal production systems. LAC. agroforestry with indigenous fruits and nuts. and insects [CWANA. AKST systems must enhance sustainability while maintaining productivity in ways that protect the natural resource base and ecological provisioning of agricultural systems. Part II: NRM]. millions) Monsanto (USA) + Seminis (acquired by Monsanto 3/05) Dupont/Pioneer (USA) Syngenta (Switzerland) Groupe Limagrain (France) KWS AG (Germany) Land O’ Lakes (USA) Sakata (Japan) Bayer Crop Science (Germany) Takii (Japan) DLF-Trifolium (Denmark) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Source: ETC group – Communiqué. SSA. tion between rural areas and cities. Private sector research. oilseeds. ventional breeding. Ketill Berger Figure SR-P5. “Business as usual” is not an option if we want to achieve environmental sustainability. ESAP. Options include: Improving energy. SSA]. nutrients and water) [SSA]. and contribute to decreasing the poverty and pockets of hunger that currently persist in the midst of prosperity [ESAP]. food producers and urban food consumers.. ESAP. Some of the AKST policy options for addressing food security include: rain fed areas. September/October 2005. at least in the these crops and regions will be necessary if we are to address the needed changes in organizational and institutional arrangements to respond to the constraints imposed by poor management systems.28 | IAASTD Synthesis Report World’s top 10 seed companies 2004 Seed sales (U. social security nets for women and highly vulnerable indigenous and tribal populations to ensure access to affordable and safe food. pulses. propriate incentives to assess the past and potential impacts of technological and institutional changes deployed in the field. LAC. SR Part II: Bioenergy]. is less likely to find such projects profitable. To help realize this goal. ESAP. ESAP. conservation of biodiversity [CWANA. aquaculture.g.S. and urban and peri-urban agriculture producers and consumers [LAC].

NAE. LAC. plant geneticists. that is. feeding of ruminants and manure manageincrease C sequestration [CWANA. and the breeding of salt-tolerant varieties can help mitigate the impacts of climate change on agriculture [ESAP. LAC]. AKST can contribute to the development of economically feasible biofuels and biomaterials that have a positive energy and environmental balance and that will not compromise the world food supply [Global Chapter 3. using market and other mechanisms to regulate and generate rewards for agro/environmental services. i. Global Chapter 3. Part II: NRM]. NAE. LAC].. LAC. Some examples of sustainable initiatives are policies designed to: synthetic fertilizers). Global]. local conditions. especially in livestock and rice production. Although knowledge in these areas already exists. SR Part II: NRM]. SSA. resource-poor farmers. NAE]. NAE. ESAP. botanists. SR Part II: NRM]. in situ and ex situ conservation of agrobiodiversity through broad participatory efforts to conserve germplasm and recapture the diversity of plant and animal species traditionally used by local and indigenous people [Global Chapter 3. Developing strategies to counter the effects of agricul- ture on climate change and strategies to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change on agriculture [Global Chapter 3. LAC. knowledge to support learning more about options for sustainable land management and rehabilitation [Global Chapter 3. Reducing agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases will require changes to farming and livestock systems and practices throughout the food system [NAE. agement policies with agricultural policies [CWANA. To be effective in terms of development and sustainability. SR Part II: Bioenergy. Policies that promote sustainable agricultural practices. e. these policies and institutional changes should be directed primarily at those who have been served least by previous AKST approaches.. being particularly attentive to the interface between institutions and the adoption of AKST and its impacts. such as transgenic crops. less water consuming cultivation methods. Global Chapter 3. ESAP.e.Current Conditions. molecular biologists. ecological processes in soil and bodies of water and ecological interactions that affect agricultural and other natural resources systems [Global Chapter 3. etc. SSA] and the strengthening of local markets including enhancing . and climate change [SSA]. This will require institutional innovations to enable efficient marketing systems to handle diversified production. SSA. LAC. in precision agriculture. SR Part II: Climate change]. Global Chapter 3.g. and nanotechnologies to ascertain their environmental. SR Part II: NRM]. understanding of soil-plant-water dynamics. [CWANA. Agroecological methods. ESAP. Global. locally based. first and second generation biofuels. LAC. port agroecological systems (including landscape mosaics) and the multiple roles and functions of agriculture with input from ecological and evolutionary science practitioners. but also as in agroecology). LAC. SSA. Challenges and Options for Action | 29 contamination from agrochemicals [CWANA. SR Part II: NRM]. Policies and institutional frameworks. LAC] as well as land use changes to achieve net carbon sequestration. certification for sustainable forest and fisheries practices and organic agriculture [CWANA. Long-term assessments are needed for technologies that require considerable financial investment and risk to adopters. highly efficient energy systems and energy efficient agriculture to improve livelihoods and reduce carbon emissions [ESAP. stimulate more rapid adoption of AKST for better natural resource management and enhanced environmental quality should be considered to promote more sustainable development [Global]. LAC. agroforestry. to create more diverse habitats for wild species/ecological communities and for the provision of ecosystem services. SSA]. Promoting more diverse systems of local crop production at farm and landscape scale. ESAP. Democratically evaluating existing and emerging technologies. ESAP]. and improved rangeland management. Better agronomic practices. velop capacities for institutional changes that ensure monitoring and evaluation of compliance mechanisms [ESAP. It is important that impacts and applications of alternative technologies are also examined and that independent comparative assessments (i. [Global Chapter 3. kets such as green products. it is important to analyze why this knowledge is not applied more often. Global. Options need to reflect the goals of sustainable development and the multiple functions of agriculture. comparing transgenic with currently available agroecological approaches such as biological control) are conducted. NRM]. health and social impacts [Global Chapter 3. Establishing decentralized. SR Part II: NRM]. NAE]. NAE. to determine how these can be co-managed to reduce conflicts and enhance positive synergies. practices [ESAP. Strengthening plant and livestock breeding programs to adapt to emerging demands. LAC. such as biotechnology and Green Revolution-type technologies (high external inputs). Increasing knowledge and providing guidelines for the sustainable management of forest and fisheries and integrating them within farming systems in such a way to maximize the income and employment generation in rural areas [Global Chapter 3.e. Improving the understanding of the agroecological functioning of mosaics of crop production areas and natural habitats. such as conservation agriculture. NAE] and avoid those that promote the wasteful use of inputs (pesticides and fertilizers)..

holistic and system-based approaches to knowledge production and sharing [CWANA. agreements and treaties that promote regional and international cooperation can assist in realizing the development and sustainability goals. including: legislative frameworks. processing. and deaths. Conflict resolution systems for managing conservation programs. nutrition. pastoralists. of contamination and alteration. insurance. science and technology as well as the policies and institutional changes to enable their sustainability. policies.. One example is a battery of tests that municipalities could use to monitor pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables that are brought to market. NAE. crop and livestock genetic diversity and conserve natural resource (e. ture. increased antibiotic use.g. the loss of biodiversity. preservation. and catch fisheries should also be considered. and monitoring development and compliance mechanisms would also help in realizing these goals [ESAP. a broad agroecosystem health approach is needed to identify appropriate AKST to increase food security and safety. etc. legal). Long-term land and water use rights (e..g. SSA] and their interaction with formal science. Regardless of the differing opinions about transgenics in the regions. for identification and control of biological and non-biological hazards. land and tree tenure). Stakeholder monitoring of environmental quality can help develop production technologies and environmental services [ESAP. the multifunctionality of agriculture. ditional and local technical knowledge to manage soil fertility. Global. To achieve more sustainable management. and climate change.). Focusing AKST systems and actors on sustainability requires a new approach and worldview to guide the development of knowledge. institutional and socioeconomic measures are required for the widespread adoption of sustainable practices. Current ways of organizing technology generation and diffusion will be increasingly inadequate to address emerging environmental challenges. as well as policies that reduce industrial scale fishing. municipalities. - gies for the production. risk reduction measures (safety nets.. Also needed are new modes of governance that emphasize participatory and democratic approaches and require the development of innovative local networks. women. Food security strategies require a combination of AKST approaches.. disputes over fishing rights. all Sub-Global reports recognized the importance of assessing both the potential environmental. loss of coastal habitats. water sharing. are needed to enable formal AKST to partner effectively with small-scale producers. and decrease occupational exposures. ments. Small-scale fisheries need explicit support and the promotion of increased awareness of sustainable fishing practices and postharvest technologies.g. NAE. Global Chapter 3]. decrease the incidence and prevalence of a range of infectious and chronic diseases. and proactive national and international food safety systems. ESAP. It also requires a new approach in the knowledge base. health and social impacts of any new technology. Implications of increased aquaculture production (e. Food safety can be facilitated by effective.. The formal AKST system is not well equipped to promote the transition toward sustainability.g. Given existing and increasing conflicts over natural resources and environmental insecurity (e. LAC. common property regimes are needed that most likely will be developed by rural communities and supported by appropriate state institutions. LAC. credit. bottom trawling). and the appropriate implementation of regulatory frameworks as a principled matter of precaution. Farmers need guaranteed long-term access to the resources necessary for the implementation of culturally and technically appropriate sustainable practices [Global Chapter 3].30 | IAASTD Synthesis Report intra-region links between rural producers and urban consumers [LAC]. and production) to make them sustainable and economically viable. Particular concerns exist regarding potential genetic contamination in centers of origin [See SR Part II: Biotechnology]. including: and improve micronutrient intake. processing. At the least policies are needed to end subsidies that encourage unsustainable practices (e. microcredit for transitioning toward agroecological practices. injuries. Health and nutrition The inter-linkages between health. the following are important options: [CWANA. monitoring pest and disease incidence. Global Chapter 3]. and indigenous and tribal peoples who are sources of environmental knowledge. For resources with common pool characteristics. too. There is significant scope for AKST and supporting policies to contribute to more sustainable fisheries and aquaculture that can contribute to reducing overfishing. and distribution of food. Global. framework to allow farmers to managed their seeds and germplasm resources as they wish. climate change mitigation). governments still struggle to translate guidelines and policies into effective interventions able to provide an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. and civil society organizations to develop systems for monitoring and controlling health risks along the entire food chain.) and establishing profitability of recommended technologies are prerequisites for adoption. agriculture and AKST can constrain or facilitate reaching development and sustainability goals. etc. Institutional reforms. coordinated. SSA].g. ESAP. Because multiple stressors affect these inter-linkages. .

g. services. Equity Science and technology (local and formal). new partnerships with a wider network of stakeholders. SSA]. To acknowledge the distributional impact of AKST investments calls for conscious public policy choices to invest in AKST that addresses the needs of small-scale producers and improves equity [Global Chapters 3. Alternatives to traditional extension models include farmer field schools [SSA] and the Campesino a Campesino integrated approach is unlikely to be embraced without complementary activities including developing in-country professional capacity for undertaking integrated approaches. and response systems to facilitate identification of the true burden of ill health and implementation of cost-effective. Networks among small-scale producers contribute to the exchange of experience and AKST. agrichemicals. including ecosystem services. the food chain to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. capital and markets (e. The burden of emerging and reemerging diseases can be decreased by: agricultural. and AKST that can monitor developments and inform adequate and timely responses to the rapid evolution of pathogens and zoonotic outbreaks. and ensuring a professional system that rewards participatory research in the top academic journals. surveillance. This strategy recognizes that the short-term dollar rates of return may not as high as those of other investments but that they can make a significant contribution to longterm poverty reduction. Trends in the current burdens of the health risks associated with agriculture and AKST call for robust detection. particularly as regards their impact on equity. reduce the burdens of obesity. monitoring. men and non-indigenous groups). Challenges and Options for Action | 31 AKST that can monitor developments and inform adequate and timely responses to the rapid evolution of pathogens. and models of learning. and increasing participatory work in the core research institutions. systems of incentives and rewards for multifunctionality. and treat diseases. Governance in AKST and related organizations are also important for the . and both in increasing collaboration with social scientists. methods for monitoring and evaluating these approaches. district and national scales. and variety. Both formal and local AKST can add value to the full range of agricultural goods and services and help create economic instruments that promote an appropriate balance between private and public goods. mal AKST has privileged farmers with access to resources. Such efforts need to include a special emphasis on integrated water resource management for CWANA countries and other arid regions. Additionally poor and marginalized groups have suffered disproportionately from environmental degradation [CWANA. At the farm. the environment. investments are required for the development of appropriate technologies. and reduce agriculture-related environmental and occupational risks. LAC. and responding to the vulnerability of farming communities. 7]. and integrated soil management for SSA and other regions with highly degraded soils. health-promoting strategies and measures. international agreements and/or regulations for food labeling and health claims. Occupational health can be improved by: regulations. involving both research and non-research actors. and infectious diseases. national. Options to improve this integration include moving away from a linear technology transfer approach that benefited relatively well-off producers of major cash crops but had little success for small-scale diversified farms and poor and marginalized groups and paid little attention to the multifunctionality of agriculture. watershed. SR Part II: NRM]. Persistent and substantial investment in capacity building are required to provide safe food of sufficient quantity. A complementary option is to facilitate internal institutional learning and evaluation in AKST organizations. An environment in which formal science and technology and local and traditional knowledge are seen as part of an integral AKST system is most likely to increase equitable access to technologies to a broad range of producers [Global 3. Improvements are needed in engaging farmers in priority setting and funding decisions. new methods may be needed to assess and improve the performance of farming systems in relation to the multiple functions of agriculture. and public health systems. and tion of health-promoting foods. Key issues for improved performance include equitable access to and use of natural resources. other chronic diseases. often creating greater inequalities in the rural sector. technology extension and facilitation for the poor and marginalized. quality.Current Conditions. The burden of chronic diseases can be decreased by: tion. and recognizing the cultural identity of indigenous communities. Policies and institutional frameworks.. credit and institutions (including property rights and tenure security) as well as to local. tor. crossdisciplinary learning and scientific validation. and improving health. Such investments are likely to improve access to sustainable technologies. and the trade-offs between maximizing benefits to livelihoods. control.and multidisciplinary programs. access to education and research participation. and regional markets for agricultural outputs [SR Part II: NRM]. For AKST to contribute to greater equity. veterinary. as do inter. Policies and institutional frameworks.

and exchange seeds that are culturally and locally appropriate as well as to remove the monopoly from the privileges granted to breeders through Plant Breeders Rights through. new national and international legal frameworks. One option might include creating or strengthening conditions that can guarantee farmers’ rights to choose.g.. Thus. This can be accomplished by strengthening services. LAC and SSA. schemes require additional skills that poorer farmers may have yet to access.g. scale farmers’ access to international markets. concrete and non-discriminatory measures to eradicate hunger. states are obligated to take deliberate. for example. organic certification. In a culture of rights.. ricultural production in several regions. This approach is more likely to succeed if national farmers associations and their federations increase their role in national politics. centralized quality control. stakeholders can make use of established international treaties. cross-licensing and other means able to facilitate research and improve equity among regions. They are also a condition for effective utilization of AKST. The current trade environment in which agricultural subsidies and a history of public support to farming distort international prices for many key commodities can benefit from initiatives such as fair trade. Reasonable farm gate prices through equitable and fair access to markets and trade also are crucial for ensuring rural employment as well as improving livelihoods and food security. women are marginalized with respect to access to education. This legal instrument. communal exchange and innovation mechanisms is needed. health and a healthy environment. can be implemented in ways that guarantee local communities access and the right to regulate the access of others. and promote food security as well as food sovereignty. AKST may also contribute to the development of urban and peri-urban agriculture focusing on the poorest urban sectors [LAC] as a means to enhance equity strengthen community organizations. access to urban markets. to food. To date it is recognized that many poor regions bear the costs of protecting biodiversity and agricultural genetic diversity yet it is the global community who benefits from these practices. select. packaging and marketing to supply urban markets in the rural sector and particularly for small-scale producers. At the national and international level. sumers (e. Legal frameworks can promote recognition of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources and the equitable distribution of benefits derived there from among the custodians of these resources [Global Chapter 3]. To date. Better understanding of the communal ownership. water have exacerbated economic inequalities that still characterized many world regions in the world (e. decentralization and the integration of farmer concerns in the design of farmer services and agricultural industries. In such circumstances. SSA). Such prices for small-scale holders can be achieved by eliminating commodity OECD agricultural subsidies to large industrialized farmers and dumping. Overlapping formal and informal land rights that characterize some agricultural systems are central to strategies to reform land holdings and relations. global equity can be enhanced by protecting small-scale farmers from unfair competition including from often subsidized commodities produced under conditions of economies of scale. 146 countries are currently party to this covenant and 187 have signed the FAO Council’s “voluntary guidelines for the progressive realization of the right to adequate food” [LAC]. particularly CWANA. sider issues of collective IPR and other non-IPR mechanisms such as prizes. Such initiatives are likely to reduce the displacement of small-scale farmers. together with the International Covenants of Civil and Political Rights. support improved health. agreements and covenants.32 | IAASTD Synthesis Report crucial role they play in democratization. is essential for putting into practice the man Rights. Policies. extension services. Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations. Land reform. campesinos and indigenous people to urban centers or to marginal lands in the agricultural frontier. For example the issue of hunger eradication can be supported by engaging the right to food as enshrined in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic. LAC. anti-trust laws applied to financial institutions and the agrifood sector. AKST contribute positively to development and sustainability goals. direct marketing and community-supported agriculture initiatives) can decrease the gap between the rural and urban sector and be of benefit to poor urban consumers. For example. can ensure that local communities and individual countries control access to and benefit from local genetic resources as promoted in the Convention on Biological Diversity and as agreed in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture through its multilateral system of Access and Benefit Sharing. including legal frameworks that regulate access to genetic resources and the equitable distribution of benefits generated by their use. nutrition. in tandem with the development of institutions for benefit sharing. and property rights. a compensatory liability regime. for example. governance mechanisms to respond to unfair competition and agribusiness accountability need to be implemented through. including improved tenure systems and equitable access to water are suggestive means to support sustainable management and simultaneously respond to social inequalities that inhibit economic development. and are under-represented in agricultur- . AKST can provide the training and support necessary to assist small-scale farmers in entering such markets. and by not overexposing small-scale farmers to competition from industrial farmers before appropriate institutional frameworks and infrastructure are in place.

– support ecological. evolutionary. velopment actors. and the internalization of social and environmental costs. climate change and sustainability that do not attract private funding. agricultural workers. have already been proven to increase the likelihood of reaching development and sustainability goals [SSA and other regions]. extension objectives. particularly increasing the functional literacy and general education levels of women. land. data collection. etc. nutrition.g. reduce the vulnerability of agroecological systems to the projected changes in climate and climate variability (e. focusing on small-scale producers and the urban poor (urban agriculture) will help to create and strengthen synergetic and complementary capacities [LAC]. e. Stakeholder involvement is also crucial in decisions about infrastructure. though not yet proven. Increased investments are needed in AKST that can improve the sustainability of agricultural systems and reduce their negative environmental effects with particular attention to alternative production systems.. and public agencies [Global Chapter 3]. tural knowledge systems directed to: – promote interactive knowledge networks (associating farmers. Investments could also be targeted for institutional change and policies that can improve access of poor people to food. water and biological resources would need public investment in legal and management capabilities. livelihoods and food security.. economic and non-economic valuation of ecosystem services. Options have to be examined with high consideration of local and regional. seeds. These could include: public goods. banks. especially for women and youth. Farmer research groups. and enumeration involve women as providers as well as recipients. AKST investments can increase the sustainable productivity of major subsistence foods including orphan crops that are grown and/or consumed by the poor. decision-making. breeding for temperature and pest tolerance). and reducing the dependency of the agricultural sector on fossil fuels.) need to have an active role in problem identification (determining research questions. es helps to integrate sectors (i. social. scientists. reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. improving water use efficiency and reducing water pollution. water. – establish capacities and facilities to offer life-long learning opportunities to those involved in the agrifood arena. Women and other historically marginalized actors (local/indigenous community members. etc. Long-term investment in farmer education. and implementation positions. New modes of governance to develop innovative local networks and decentralized government. civil society organizations. particularly in value chain addition technologies such as quality processing of agricultural products Environmental sustainability. which have been excluded [Global Chapter 3]. organic and low-input systems.. pastoralists. farm workers. including farmers. developing biocontrols of current and emerging pests and pathogens. political and environmental contexts. and also to ensure that activities such as extension. too. food.Current Conditions.) and policy and project design. zation of applied knowledge and technologies and joint funding of AKST. . Other actions. Specific actions to mainstream women’s involvement include encouraging women by generating stimuli and opportunities to study agricultural sciences and economics. farmers communities. and civil society investments in AKST contributing to development and sustainability goals. Investments The contribution of AKST to the achievement of development and sustainability goals would entail increased funds and more diverse funding mechanisms for agricultural research and development and associated knowledge systems. A key point is helping youth to become involved in agriculture and of making it an attractive work activity compared with urban possibilities. These processes include improved access to information and institutional support to and the development of education and training in ways that incorporate the participation of civil society as ones means to guarantee transparency and accountability. addressing strategic issues such as food security and safety. have proven more successful in reaching women farmers than traditional extension activities [SSA] suggesting that similar approaches may be needed to incorporate marginalized groups—the landless. germplasm and improved technologies. the empowerment of farmers as vocal partners in business and IPR development and other legal framework. where market risks are high and where options for widespread utilization of knowledge exists.g. and seasonal and longer-term migrants—into education and policy making institutions. and biological substitutes for agrochemicals. developing networks).e. and strengthening civil society organizations. There are many options to target investments to contribute to the development and sustainability goals. tariffs. include the reorientation of policies and programs to increase the participation and physical presence of women in leadership. Challenges and Options for Action | 33 al science and technology teaching and development and extension services [Global Chapter 3]. Some womenoriented strategies. More efficient use of increasingly scarce land. social and complex systems’ sciences and the promotion of effective interdisciplinarity. industrial and actors in other knowledge areas) and improve access for all actors to information and communication technologies. commercial companies. addressing goals such as: Poverty. understanding the relationship between ecosystem services provided by agricultural systems and their relationships to human well-being.

34 | IAASTD Synthesis Report

Human health and nutrition. Major public and private AKST investments will be needed to contribute to: the reduction of chronic diseases through scientific programs and legislation related to healthy diets and food product formulations; the improvement of food safety regulations in an increasingly commercialized and globalized food industry; the control and management of infectious diseases, through the development of new vaccines, global surveillance, monitoring and response systems and effective legal frameworks. In addition, investments are needed in science and legislation covering occupational health issues such as pesticide use and safety regulations (including child labor laws). Equity. Preferential investments in equitable development, as in literacy, education and training, that contribute to reducing ethnic, gender, and other inequities would advance the development and sustainability 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. In many developing countries, it may be necessary to complement these investments with increased and more targeted investments in rural infrastructure, education and health and to strengthen capacity in core agricultural and related sciences. In the face of new global challenges, there is a urgent need to strengthen, restructure and possibly establish new intergovernmental, independent science-based networks to address such issues as climate forecasting for agricultural production; human health risks from emerging diseases such as avian flu; reorganization of livelihoods in response to changes in agricultural systems (population movements); food security; and global forestry resources.

Part II: Themes

Bioenergy

Writing team: Patrick Avato (Germany/Italy), Rodney J. Brown (USA), Moses Kairo (Kenya)

section. Aspects that are crosscutting are discussed in a separate section. Traditional Bioenergy Millions of people in developing countries depend on traditional biofuels for their most basic cooking and heating needs (e.g., wood fuels in traditional cook stoves or charcoal). Dependence on traditional bioenergy is highly correlated with low income levels and is most prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia due to a lack of affordable alternatives. In some countries, the share of biomass in energy consumption can reach up to 90%. Within countries, the use of biomass is heavily skewed toward the lowest income groups and rural areas [CWANA Chapter 2; Global Chapter 3; SSA Chapter 2]. Reliance on traditional bioenergy can stifle development by posing considerable environmental, health, economic and social challenges. Traditional biomass is usually associated with time consuming and unsustainable harvesting, hazardous pollution and low end-use efficiency, and in the case of manure and agricultural residues depletion of soil by removal of organic matter and nutrients. Collecting fuel is time-consuming, reducing the time that can be devoted to productive uses including farming and education. Air pollution from biomass combustion leads to asthma and other respiratory problems which lead to 1.5 million premature deaths per year7 [Global Chapter 3; SSA Chapter 2]. Efforts in the past at making available improved and more efficient traditional bioenergy technologies (e.g., improved cook stoves) have led to mixed results. New and improved efforts and approaches are therefore needed that build on and expand these efforts. Moreover, other options must be explored to expand the availability and use of modern energy solutions. Such technologies differ widely from each other in terms of economic, social and environmental implications and may include fossil fuels, extensions of electricity grids, and forms of distributed energy including modern forms of bioenergy (see section on bioelectricity and bioheat). First Generation Biofuels First generation biofuels consist today predominantly of bioethanol and biodiesel, even though other fuels such as methanol, propanol and butanol may play a larger role in the future. Produced from agricultural crops such as maize
8

Bioenergy has recently received considerable public attention. Rising costs of fossil fuels, concerns about energy security, increased awareness of climate change, domestic agricultural interests and potentially positive effects for economic development all contribute to its appeal for policy makers and private investors. Bioenergy as defined in the IAASTD covers all forms of energy derived from biomass, e.g., plants and plant-derived materials. Bioenergy is categorized as traditional or modern, depending on the history of use and technological complexity. Traditional bioenergy includes low technology uses including direct combustion of firewood, charcoal or animal manure for heat generation. Modern bioenergy is comprised of electricity, light and heat produced from solid, liquid or gasified biomass and liquid biofuels for transport. Liquid biofuels for transport can be categorized as first generation, produced from starch, sugar or oil containing agricultural crops, or next generation. Next generation (also referred to as second, third or fourth generation) biofuels are produced from a variety of biomass materials, e.g., specially grown energy crops, agricultural and forestry residues and other cellulosic material [CWANA Chapter 2; Global Chapters 3, 6; NAE Chapter 4]. As biomass feedstocks are widely available, bioenergy offers an attractive complement to fossil fuels and thus has potential to alleviate concerns of a geopolitical and enally available biomass can be exploited in an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable way. Currently, about 2.3% of global primary energy is supplied by modern sources of bioenergy such as ethanol, biodiesel, or electricity and industrial process heat [Global Chapter 3]. The economics of bioenergy, and particularly the positive or negative social and environmental externalities, vary strongly, depending on the source of biomass, type of conversion technology and on local circumstances and institutions. Many questions in development of bioenergy will require further research. Agricultural knowledge, science, and technology (AKST) can play a critical role in improving benefits and reducing potential risks and costs but complementary efforts are needed in the areas of policies, capacity building, and investment to facilitate a socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable food, feed, fiber, and fuels economy. Specific options and challenges associated with the different categories are discussed in the following

This number includes deaths caused by the combustion of coal in the homestead.

35

36 | IAASTD Synthesis Report

From biomass to energy consumption
Biomass feedstock Conversion technology
Direct combustion Agricultural crops (e.g. sugar cane, maize, palmoil) Anaerobic digestion Biofuels Fermentation Pyrolysis Energy crops (e.g. jatropha, switchgrass, poplar, algae) Natural vegetation (e.g. woods, grasses) Microbial digestion Esterification Bioelectricity

Bioenergy consumption

Biomass waste and residues (e.g. biogases, straw, municipal solid waste, dung)

Bioheat

Saccharification

IAASTD. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Ketill Berger

Figure SR-BE1. From biomass to energy consumption.

and other grains, sugar cane, soybeans, cassava, rapeseed, and oil palm, production of bioethanol and biodiesel has been growing fast in recent years, albeit from a low base— together they contributed about 1% of global transport fuels in 2005. Fast growth rates are mainly due to biofuel support policies that have been developed in many countries around the world in the hope of furthering rural job creation and economic development, mitigating climate change and improving energy security [ESAP Chapter 4; NAE Chapter 2; SSA Chapter 2]. The most important factors determining economic competitiveness of first generation biofuels are (1) price of feedstock, (2) value of byproducts, (3) conversion technology, and (4) price of competing fuels. Each of these variables varies over time and place. Currently first generation biofuels are economically competitive with fossil fuels only in the most efficient feedstock producer markets during times of favorable market conditions, e.g., in Brazil when feedstock prices are low and fossil fuel prices high. Consistently high oil prices at levels seen in the recent past would improve economic competitiveness also in other regions. The economics of liquid biofuels may be more favorable in remote regions where energy access and agricultural exports are complicated by high transport costs. Land-locked developing countries, islands, and remote regions within countries may fall into this category if they can make available sufficient and cheap feedstock without threatening food security [Global Chapters 3, 6; NAE Chapter 4]. In addition to these economic factors, the value of 1st generation biofuels is also affected by energy security concerns and environmental and social benefits and costs. From an environmental perspective, there is considerable debate over whether first generation biofuels, especially bioethanol, yield more energy than is needed for their production and their level of greenhouse gas emissions. Both issues are related and the debate is caused by differences in life cycle emissions

measurement methodologies and the strong effect of specific local circumstances, such as type of feedstock, original use of agricultural land, mechanization of production and fertilizer use. Generally, assuming feedstocks are produced on agricultural land and do not induce deforestation, crops produced with few external inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.), such as rain fed sugarcane in Brazil, perform significantly better than high-input crops such as maize in North America. Consequently, whether biofuels are a viable option for climate change mitigation depends on the emissions reductions that can realistically be achieved as well as relative costs compared to other mitigation alternatives. Apart from be associated with large increases in biofuels production. For example, it is feared that the increased demand for limited agricultural production factors (e.g., land and water) will lead to a conversion of pristine biodiverse ecosystems to agricultural land (e.g., deforestation) and depletion of water resources—instances of this happening are already apparent in different regions, e.g., draining of peat land in Indonesia and clearing of the Cerrado in Brazil [Global Chapters 4, 6; NAE Chapter 4]. The related social and economic effects are complex. Increased demand can lead to higher incomes for those engaged in feedstock production and ancillary industries such as biofuels conversion or processing of biofuel by-products (e.g., cakes), potentially contributing to economic development. Conversely, competition for limited land and water resources inevitably leads to higher food prices hurting buyers of food, including food processing and livestock industries and—very importantly with regard to hunger and social sustainability—poor people. Moreover, small-scale farmers may be marginalized or pushed off their lands if they are not protected and brought into production schemes. In the medium to long term the effects on food prices may decrease as economies react to higher prices (adapting pro-

Thereby. production in practically all countries is promoted through a complex set of subsidies and regulations.g. between different stakeholders and over time. Generation of electricity (44 GW-24 GW in developing countries—in 2005 or 1% of total electricity consumption) and heat (220 GWth in 2004) from biomass is the largest non-hydro source of renewable energy. NAE Chapter 4]. materials and electricity. with the organic sludge and effluents returned to the fields. social and environmental costs and benefits are still very uncertain [Global Chapters 6. On the other hand. The thermo-chemical technologies include direct combustion of biomass (either alone or co-fired with fossil fuels) and gasification (to producer gas). between small and large producers and between men and women [Global Chapter 6]. negative effects such as deforestation. mainly produced from woods. The biological technologies include the anaerobic digestion of biomass to yield biogas (a mixture primarily of methane that operate with local organic wastes like animal manure can generate energy for cooking. more abundant and potentially cheaper feedstocks such as residues. small-scale farmers could benefit from this. The major biomass conversion technologies are thermochemical and biological. but more research is needed to develop this potential. trade restrictions and tariffs that create costs through inefficiencies. lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced relative to first generation biofuels. Several critical steps have to be overcome before next generation biofuels can become an economically viable source of transport fuels. even if the technological and economic hurdles can be overcome in industrialized countries. the social and economic effects have strong distributional impacts within societies.. such as algae or cyanobacteria intensively cultivated in ponds or bioreactors in saline water using industrial carbon dioxide. policies employed to promote them create their own costs and benefits. Moreover.Themes: Bioenergy | 37 duction patterns and inducing investments) and technologies improve. India and Nepal. large economies of scale. e. Use of both small-scale biomass digesters and larger-scale industrial applications has expanded in recent decades. weeds and fast growing trees could be converted into biofuels.g. Further in the future is the possibility of using sources. Arrangements are therefore needed to address these issues in developing countries and for small farmers [Global Chapters 6. water requirements of digesters). environmental and economic costs and benefits. It is not yet clear when these breakthroughs will occur and what degree of cost reductions they will be able to achieve in practice. 8]. high capital costs. urban wastes. Cellulosic ethanol and biomass-to-liquids (BTL) technologies. Next Generation Biofuels The development of new biofuel conversion technologies. Liberalizing biofuel trade through the reduction of trade restrictions and changes in the trade classification of ethanol and biodiesel would promote a more efficient allocation of production in those countries that have a comparative advantage in feedstock production and fuel conversion. A variety of crops and cropping methods in different countries are believed to hold large yield potential. These so-called bioreand process economics. the wide variety of potential feedstocks and high conversion efficiencies of next generation biofuels could dramatically reduce land requirements per unit of energy produced. thus mitigating the food price and environmental pressures of first generation biofuels. cellulose or oil content to increase fuelproducing capacity [Global Chapter 6]. Sustainability standards and voluntary approaches are the most frequently discussed options for ensuring socially and environmentally sustainable national consensus on what such schemes should encompass. This undermines an efficient allocation of biofuel production in the countries with the largest potential and cheapest costs and creates costs for consumers. Moreover. stems and leaves of crops. residues and wastes. R&D on increasing biofuel yields per hectare while reducing agricultural input requirements by optimizing cropping methods. unsustainable use of marginal lands and marginalization of small-scale farmers risk being magnified. 7. Research is also focusing on integrating the production of next generation biofuels with the production of chemicals. hemi-cellulose and even lignin—the main building blocks of most biomass. Moreover. while some countries like South Africa. On the one hand. Both conventional breeding and genetic engineering are being employed to further enhance crop characteristics such as starch. Bioelectricity and Bioheat Bioelectricity and bioheat are produced mostly from biomass wastes and residues. albeit within limits. In addition to the direct budgetary costs of such subsidies. In addition to the direct effects of biofuel production. maintenance and resource challenges (e. heating and lighting in rural homes and are widespread in China. these economic. Industrial-scale units are less prone to .. breeding higher yielding crops and employing local plant varieties offers considerable potential. China and India may have the capacity to actively engage in advanced domestic biofuels R&D efforts. has significant potential. so-called next generation biofuels. a high degree of technical sophistication and IPR issues make the production of next generation biofuels problematic in the majority of developing countries. the two most prominent technologies. sugar. whether they could effectively improve sustainability or even whether they should be developed at all [Global Chapter 7]. As first generation biofuels have rarely been economically competitive with petroleum fuels. straw. policies in most countries contain market distortions such as blending mandates. Institutional arrangements strongly influence the distribution of these effects. AKST can play a role in improving the balance of social. Brazil. Consequently. unless environmental and social sustainability is somehow ensured. allow the conversion into biofuels not only of the glucose and oils retrievable today but also of cellulose. each adapted to specific environments. there are concerns about unsustainable harvesting of agricultural and forestry residues and the use of genetically engineered are still nascent technologies.

at landfills and livestock holdings) and produce energy.g. because of the large additional demands for agricultural feedstocks. e. or indirectly.. Global Chapters 3.. local consumers and producers need to be closely engaged in the development as well as the monitoring and maintenance of facilities. water and other resources. Moreover. Biodiesel has special potential in small-scale applications. The development of product standards. even without taking into considerreductions. as well as demonstration projects and better knowledge dissemination. even though price increases may be mitigated in the long term.. especially when operated in small-scale applications without proper maintenance and experiences with their application vary considerably [ESAP Chapter 4. Access to finance: Compared to other off-grid energy solutions. and therefore are viable options for expanding energy access in certain settings.38 | IAASTD Synthesis Report technical problems and are increasingly widespread in some developing countries. even when biomass is co-fired with coal. e.. Development of product standards and dissemination of knowledge: A long history of policy failures and a wide variety of locally produced generators with large differences in performance have led to considerable skepticism about bioenergy in many countries. but evidence on their potential is not yet conclusive [CWANA Chapter 2. residues and susreductions can be achieved. Again.g. Biomass digesters and gasifiers are more prone to technical failures than direct combustion facilities. bioenergy often exhibits higher initial capital costs but lower long-term feedstock costs. rice and paper mills. mostly to capture environmentally problematic methane emissions (e. can contribute to increase market transparency and improve consumer confidence. through the increase in demand for the factors of production (e.g. as it is less technology and capital intensive to produce than ethanol. 5. SSA Chapter 2]. More research is needed to assess these risks and their effects but it is evident that poor net buyers of food and food-importing developing countries are particularly affected. This is sometimes the case on site or near industries that produce biomass wastes and residues and have their own steady demand for electricity. and food prices are unlikely to be affected. land. This cost structure often forces poor households and communities to forego investments in modern bioenergy—even in cases when levelized costs are competitive and payback periods short.g. Local capacity building: Experience of various bioenergy promotion programs has shown that proper operation and maintenance are key to success and sustainability of low-cost and small-scale applications. Several actions can be undertaken to promote a better exploitation of bioelectricity and bioheat potential [Global Chapter 7]. 6. Improved access to finance can help to reduce these problems. Some forms of bioelectricity and bioheat can be economically competitive with other off-grid energy options such as diesel generators. Small-scale applications for local use of first generation biofuels can sometimes offer interesting alternatives for electricity generation that do not necessarily produce the negative effects of large-scale production due to more contained demands on land. so the use of non-food crops is unlikely to alleviate these concerns. Cross-cutting Issues Food prices. Price increases can be caused directly. Environmentally and socially. through the increase in demand for feedstocks. These options are being analyzed in several countries. e. during harvesting season Mauritius meets 70% of electricity needs from sugarcane bagasse cogeneraof considerable concern. focusing on Jatropha and Pongamia as a feedstock. water). This risk is particularly high for first generation biofuels for transport due to their very large demands for agricultural crops.. NAE Chapter 5]. first generation biofuels create the largest potential problems including pushing more ecologically fragile and valuable lands into production and depleting and contaminating water resources. The economics as well as environmental effects are particularly favorable when operated in combined heat and electricity mode. Therefore. More research is also needed on assessing the costs and benefits to society of these options. Environment. Global Chapter 6. especially in China. thermo-chemical gasifiers and stationary uses of unrefined vegetable oils. The diversion of agricultural crops to fuel can negatively affect hunger alleviation throughout the world in the short to medium term. The largest potential lies with the production of bioelectricity and heat when technically mature and reliable generators have access to secure supply of cheap feedstocks and capital costs can be spread out over high average electricity demand. sugar. Unrefined bio-oils for stationary uses are even less technology intensive to produce and do not and water pumping have to be adapted for their use. although methanol requirements for its production can pose a challenge. which is increasingly being employed in various countries. Similar technologies are also employed in industrialized countries.g. some of the fast growing crops promoted for bioenergy production raise environmental (e. Promoting R&D: Improving operational stability and reducing capital costs promises to improve the attractiveness of bioenergy. especially of small and mediumscale biogas digesters.. . bioelectricity and heat are most often less problematic than liquid biofuels for transport because they are predominantly produced from wastes. The large demands for additional agricultural and forestry products for bioenergy can also cause important environmental effects. taking into consideration also other energy alternatives [Global Chapter 6]. Local stationary biofuel schemes may offer particular potential for local communities when they are integrated in high intensity small-scale farming systems that allow an integrated production of food and energy crops.g.

Institutional arrangements and power relationships strongly impact the ability of different stakeholders to participate in bioenergy production and consumption and the distribution of costs and benefits. .Themes: Bioenergy | 39 their resemblance with weeds) and social concerns. although this potential differs strongly from case to case and costs have to be compared to other mitigation options. Institutional arrangements. Consequently. environmental and economic costs of the targeted form of bioenergy and of the envisaged support policy against realistically achievable benefits and other energy alternatives. On the other hand. Integrated analysis. The current weaknesses in institutional links and responsibilities between the various sectors involved in the policy and technology of agriculture as an energy consumer and producer will have to be overcome through local. decision makers need to carefully weigh full social. national and regional frameworks. bioenergy can positively contribute to climate change mitigation. The economics of bioenergy as well as positive and negative environmental and social effects are highly complex. depend considerably on particular circumstances and have important distributional implications.

Biotechnologies in general have made profound contributions that continue to be relevant to both big and small farmers and are fundamental to capturing any advances derived from modern biotechnologies and related nanotechnologies10 [Global Chapter 3. modern varieties of wheat may have increased yields up to 33% even in the absence of fertilizer.g. NAE Chapter 2] to augment natural breeding. with 90% in the four countries including Brazil and Canada) is also interpreted as an indication of a modest uptake rate [Global Chapter 5.9 Modern biotechnology is a term adopted by international convention to refer to biotechnological techniques for the manipulation of genetic material and the fusion of cells beyond normal breeding barriers9 [Global Chapter 6]. Global Chapter 6]. or derivatives thereof. 6. ESAP Chapter 5. but over 93% of cultivated land still supports conventional cropping. In contrast. selection and breeding of plants and animals made by individuals and societies for millennia [CWANA Chapter 1. the industrial enzyme market reached US$1. 6]. 6]. The three most discussed issues on biotechnology in the IAASTD conceredt: safety testing. 6]..g. allowing proponents and critics to hold entrenched positions about their present and potential value. ESAP Chapter 5. 6]. to make or modify products or processes for a specific use. while others show increasing herbicide use.g. the highly concentrated cultivation of GM crops in a few countries (nearly threefourths in only the US and Argentina. Global Chapter 3.. cultural and economic arguments. It is unclear whether detected benefits will extend to most agroecosystems or be sustained 40 . plant breeding is fundamental to developing locally adapted plants whether or not they are GMOs. SSA 3]. The word “modern” does not mean that these techniques are replacing other. It would also include the application of tissue culture and genomic techniques [Global Chapter 6] and marker assisted breeding or selection (MAB or MAS) [Global Chapter 5.. such as the use of GM crops. These biotechnoloSee definition in Executive Summary. has existed compared to biotechnology in general. The pool of evidence of the sustainability and productivity of GMOs in different settings is relatively anecdotal. and also for maize in the US [references in Global Chapter 3]. SSA Chapter 3]. For example. and the findings from different contexts are variable [Global Chapter 3. Even modern biotechnologies used in containment have been widely adopted. tissue culture. contributions to the resilience of small and subsistence agricultural systems [e. 6. social. particularly GMOs. China. Global Chapter 3. 5. living organisms. Conventional biotechnologies. Global Chapter 2. SSA Chapter 3]. For example. 6]. Much more controversial is the application of modern biotechnology outside containment. It includes traditional and local knowledge (TLK) and the contributions to cropping practices.g. Argentina. Some controversy may in part be due to the relatively short time modern biotechnology. legal. GM crop cultivation may have increased by double digit rates for the past 10 years.5 billion in 2000. or regulatory frameworks for testing GMOs [e. CWANA Chapter 5. India and Mexico [Global Chapter 3. or less sophisticated.. 11 Specifically those nanotechnologies that involve the use of living organisms or parts derived thereof. for beer making) to gene splicing. farmers while not harming others. biotechnologies. Between 1950 and 1980. These are provided as examples and not comprehensive descriptions of all types of modern biotechnology (see Fig. at least within some existing IPR and liability frameworks [e. the US and Argentina may have slight yield declines in soybeans. such as breeding techniques. cultivation practices and fermentation are readily accepted and used. prior to the development GMOs. The most obvious example is genetic engineering to create genetically modified/engineered organisms (GMOs/GEOs) through “transgenic technology” involving the insertion or deletion of genes. The controversy over modern biotechnology outside of containment includes technical..Biotechnology Writing Team: Jack Biotechnology8 is defined as “any technological application that uses biological systems.g. 9 10 gies continue to be widely practiced by farmers because they were developed at the local level of understanding and are supported by local research. Studies on GMOs have also shown the potential for decreased insecticide use. SR-BT1). Some regions report increases in some crops [ESAP Chapter 5] and positive financial returns have been reported for GM cotton in studies including South Africa.” In this inclusive sense. biotechnology can include anything from fermentation technologies (e. While many regions are actively experimenting with GMOs at a small scale [e.

Biotechnology and modern biotechnology defined. 2006 GM crops Crop land A TINY SLICE: Crop land in the Philippines and Australia enlarged 250% to make GM crops visible PHILIPPINES CANADA CHINA USA AUSTRALIA PHILIPPINES INDIA BRASIL Million hectares 200 URUGUAY 100 50 25 10 ARGENTINA SOUTH AFRICA PARAGUAY AUSTRALIA SOURCE: Earthtrends 2003 and Clive James DESIGN: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. . Ketill Berger Figure SR-BT2. Major GM crop production countries.Themes: Biotechnology | 41 Biotechnology MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY Natural regeneration Cell fusion Transfection Cultivation methods Modern biotechnology Tissue culture Transformation Conjugation/agroinfection GMOs in vitro manipulated DNA and RNA Natural breeding Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Global status of GM 2006. Ketill Berger Figure SR-BT1.

Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. For example. As tools. ESAP Chapter 5. depending on how it is incorporated into societies and ecosystems and whether there is the will to fairly share benefits as well as costs. there is particular concern about present IPR instruments eventually inhibiting seed-savings and exchanges. a new breeding technique or a new cultivar of rice is not sufficient to meet the requirements of those most in need. All biotechnologies must be better managed to cope with a range of ongoing and emerging problems [SSA GMOs are seen as sufficient for achieving development and sustainability goals and consequently consume a disproportionate level of funding and attention. social equity and local infrastructure [SSA Chapter 3]. Microbiol. and address new liability issues for different sectors of producers. IPR frameworks need to evolve to increase access to proprietary biotechnologies. 642–650 Figure SR-BT3. the use of modern plant varieties has raised grain yields in most parts of the world. for disease outbreak surveillance and diagnostics can realistically contribute to both predicting and curtailing the impacts of infectious diseases [NAE Chapter 6]. Biotechnol. Dissemination of the technique or variety alone would not reduce poverty. The use of DNA-based technologies. with the poor tending to receive more of the costs than the benefits [Global Chapter 2]. Global Chapter 3]. and address wider societal issues of capacity building. creates both costs and benefits [CWANA Chapter 5. for example GMOs made from plants that are part of the human food supply but developed for animal feed or to produce pharmaceuticals that would be unsafe as food. the larger the scale of bio/nanotechnology or product distribution. Modern biotechnology has developed in too narrow a context to meet its potential to contribute to the small and subsistence farmer in particular [NAE Chapter 6. In developing countries especially. Agricultural land (1996-2000) by GM and conventional crop plantings: keeping scale in perspective. too often instruments such as patents are creating prohibitive costs. SDM]. such as microchips. For example. In this regard. especially modern biotechnology. G (”2006) Appl. The use of IPR to increase investment in agriculture has had an uneven success when measured by type of technology and country. Moreover. the more challenging containment of harm can become [Global Chapter 6]. threatening to restrict experimentation by the individual farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability. p. 3]. To use GMOs or not . Hunger. Therefore.42 | IAASTD Synthesis Report Land area: Conventional and GM crops GM share of total (per cent) Conventional 100 GM Growth in GM agriculture Global GM plantings by country (‘000 hectares) 80 120000 100000 60 Total 80000 60000 USA 40 40000 20000 Argentina Others Canada India 20 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0 1996 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 IAASTD. volume 70. and modern biotechnology in particular. because they could be applied to known human diseases and to plant and animal diseases that might be the source of new human diseases or which could reduce the quantity or quality of food. Ketill Berger SOURCE: Clive James and Wenzel. the grain still has to be distributed. The application of these technologies would serve human health objectives both directly and indirectly. 6]. might threaten human health [Global Chapters 3. Neither costs nor benefits are currently perceived to be equally shared. but sometimes at the expense of reducing biodiversity or access to traditional foods [Global Chapter 3]. nutrition and health Biotechnologies affect human health in a variety of ways. it must be adapted to local conditions. Other products of modern biotechnology. in the long term as resistances develop to herbicides and insecticides [Global Chapter 3]. Challenge: Biotechnology for Development and Sustainability Goals Biotechnology in general. it is critical for policy makers to holistically consider biotechnology impacts beyond productivity and yield goals. the technologies in and of themselves cannot achieve sustainability and development goals [CWANA Chapter 1. Global Chapter 2.

agriculture is increasingly being considered as an option to meet energy needs [Global Chapter 6]. cultural. holders of TLK may also [Global Chapter 7]. because a failure to segregate them can under- . The notion that sustainability varies between modern and traditional societies needs to be” generally recognized [Global Chapter 6]. both modern and conventional.g. however. Global Chapters 2. religious. It may not be enough to use biotechnology to increase the number or types of cattle. rather than by producing more by expanding agricultural land [SSA Chapter 1]. the developers may have to adequately document the IP to prevent others from claiming it and restricting its use in the future. Public institutions. and biotechnology must work with the best production system for the local community [ESAP Chapter 5]. traditional “pastoral societies are driven by complex interactions and feedbacks that involve a mix of values that includes biological. which exacerbates the pressures on yield [ESAP Chapter 5]. Thus. can be put at risk by GMOs. Products of biotechnology. Global Chapter 7]. For example. organic agriculture. ritual and conflict issues. how livestock are farmed must also suit local conditions [CWANA Chapter 1]. 6. The first perspective [e. NAE Chapters 2.g. The rise of IPR frameworks since the 1970s. if this reduces local genetic diversity or ownership. 7].. This trend might be slowed through broadening opportunities for research responsive to local needs. These contracts can help resolve some access issues. with costs incurred to comply with IP requirements already exceeding the costs of research in some cases [Global Chapters 6. restore ecosystem services (particularly water). 5]. social. so the demands on biotechnology in the long term will extend far beyond just increasing yield [NAE Chapter 6. the integration of biotechnology must be within an enabling environment supported by local research [Global Chapter 6] and education that empowers local communities [CWANA Chapter 1]. has transformed research in and access to many products of biotechnology [Global Chapter 2. Concerns exist that IPR instruments. is a multi-dimensional challenge. for instance. the ability to secure the best adapted animals. Biotechnology and the production system are inseparable. NAE Chapter 2]. It is not just the large transnational corporations who are interested in retaining control of IP. This ability to develop biotechnologies to meet the needs of IP protection goals may undervalue the past and present contribution by farmers and societies to the platform upon which modern biotechnology is built [ESAP Chapter 5. Likewise. 6] can limit agrobiodiversity [Global Chapter 3] and may set too narrow an agenda for research [Global Chapters 2. reduce the demand for land conversion for agriculture. 7]. 6. farmers and CGIARs enter into contracts and material transfer agreements (MTAs) with a seed company. reduce the use of and need for synthetic fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. 7]. are frequently amenable to being described as IP and increasingly being sold as such. whatever choices are made. Food security. 5. For example. see Global Chapter 5] argues that modern biotechnology is overregulated and this limits the pace and full extent of its benefits. particularly those that decrease farmers’ privilege. or a community-based owner of TK. that over regulation per se inhibits the distribution of products from modern biotechnology because even if safety regulations were removed. This may also apply to the future development of new GM crops among the largest seed companies. especially when they include the success of emerging and small players in the market.Themes: Biotechnology | 43 is a decision that requires a comprehensive understanding of the products. Global Chapter 3. It is unlikely. e. including universities. The integration of biotechnology through the development of incentives for private (or public-private partnership) profit has not been successfully applied to achieving sustainability and development goals in developing countries [Global Chapter 7]. agroecosystems of even the poorest societies have the potential through ecological agriculture and IPM to meet or significantly exceed yields produced by conventional methods. and especially the use of patents since 1980. The second perspective says that the largely private control of modern biotechnology [Global Chapter 5] is creating both perverse incentive systems.. Currently it is contracts and licenses [Global Chapter 2] that dominate the relationship between seed developers and farmers [Global Chpater 2]. 6. but can simultaneously create other legal and financial problems that transcend easy fixes of patent frameworks alone [Global Chapters 2. or they further degrade ecosystem services [CWANA Chapters 1. IP protected by patents can be licensed for use by others. may create new hurdles for local research and development of products [Global Chapters 2. IPR would still likely be a significant barrier to access and rapid adoption of new products.g. therefore. regulation of biotechnology may slow down the distribution of products to the poor [Global Chapter 5]. with the primary holders of this IP being large corporations that are among those most capable of globally distributing their products [Global Chapter 2]. 5]. and is also eroding the public capacity to generate and adopt AKST that serves the public good [e. SSA Chapter 3]. SDM]. and the use of harsh insecticides and herbicides [Global Chapters 3. the problems to be solved and the societies in which they may be used [CWANA Chapter 5]. are becoming significant players and in time. see Global Chapters 2. Agroecosystems much a society can produce. Social equity Two framing perspectives on how best to put modern biotechnology to work for achieving sustainability and development goals are contrasted in the IAASTD. 7]. According to the argument. Agroecosystems are also vulnerable to events and choices made in different systems. Some farming certification systems. In addition to meeting future food needs. Consolidation of larger economic units [CWANA Chapter 1. Technical and Intensification Issues Since agriculture (excluding wild fisheries) already uses nearly 40% of the Earth’s land surface [Global Chapter 7]. For example. biotechnology could contribute to sustainability and development goals if it were to help farmers of all kinds produce more from the land and sea already in use.. Even under initiatives to develop “open source” biotechnology or return some IP to the commons.

NAE Chapter 6]. It is important to recognize that both biodiversity and crop diversity are important for sustainable agriculture. adaptive selection and breeding remain viable options for meeting development and sustainability goals [Global Chapter 6. 6]. 6]. In developing countries. NAE Chapter 6]. It may or may not also significantly accelerate the development of traits that depend on multiple genes [Global Chapter 6]. breeding supplemented with the use of MAS can speed up crop development. the conversion of more marginal lands to agricultural use [SSA Chapter 1]. In many parts of the world women play this role. These challenges are expected to increase with the effects of urbanization. and to increase capacity in plant breeding. which means that they can be transmitted like any other simple trait through breeding (unlike some quantitative traits that require combinations of chromosomes to be inherited simultaneously). Global Chapters 3. and advisers to farmer NGO’s to guide their investments in local plant improvement. farmer NGOs. is a flexible strategy for generating new cultivars using different local varieties. Provided that steps are taken to maintain local ownership and control of crop varieties. or the genes behind their desired agronomic traits may introgress into wild plants threatening local biodiversity [Global Chapter 5]. Biotic and abiotic stresses. The liability is borne when the flow results in traditional. to help develop local capacities. It will be important to maintain a situation where innovation incentives achieved through IPR instruments and the need for local farmers and researchers to develop locally adapted varieties are mutually supportive. and therefore plant breeding remains a fundamental biotechnology for contributing to sustainability and development goals. Genetic engineering also could be used to introduce these traits [Global Chapter 5. pose significant challenges to yield. that could endanger in situ conservation as a resource for breeding. For example. patent protection and forms of plant variety protection place a greater value on the role of breeders than that of local communities that maintain gene pools through in situ conservation [Global Chapter 2]. An important early step may be to create effective local support for farmers. As privatization fuels a transfer of knowledge away from the commons. Support could come from. NAE Chapter 6]. 6]. and thus a risk exists that privatization may lead to women losing economic resources and social standing as their plant breeding knowledge is appropriated. Seed supplies and centers of origin may be put at risk when they become mixed with unapproved or regulated articles in source countries [Global Chapter 3]. 5. but it is again plant breeding perhaps complemented with MAS. public plant breeding institutions are common but IP and globalization threaten them [Global Chapters 2. A number of ad hoc private initiatives for donating or co-developing IP are also appearing [Global Chapter 2]. 6]. where appropriate. Breeding capacity is therefore of great importance to assessments of biotechnology in relation to sustainability and development goals [NAE Chapters 4. Transgene flow also creates potential liabilities [Global Chapter 6].44 | IAASTD Synthesis Report mine market certifications and reduce farmer profits [Global Chapter 6]. SSA Chapter 1]. Gene flow may assist wild relatives and other crops to become more tolerant to a range of environmental conditions and thus further threaten sustainable production [Global Chapters 3. drought and salt tolerance) [Global Chapter 5]. At the same time. In addition. so public investment in genetic improvement needs to be augmented by research units composed of local farming communities [Global Chapters 2. Global Chapter 7. especially for simple traits [Global Chapter 3. 6]. and because in the future some of the traits of most relevance to meeting development and sustainability goals are based on genes that adapt plants to new environments (e. especially from the public sector. and climate change [CWANA Chapter 1. and more should be encouraged. that is expected to make the most substantial contribution [Global Chapters 3. care needs to be taken when they are released because through gene flow they can become invasive or problem weeds.g.. the flow of transgenes from pharmaceutical GM food crops to other food crops due to segregation failures could introduce both traditional and environmental damage. While yield may have “topped out” under ideal conditions [Global Chapter 3]. It will be important to find a new balance between exclusive access secured through IPR or other instruments and the need for local farmers and researchers to develop locally adapted varieties. In addition. conflicts in priorities. Participatory plant breeding. Trees and crops Plant breeding and other biotechnologies (excluding transgenics discussed below) have made substantial historical contributions to yield [Global Chapter 3]. An important type of potential economic damage arises from . If GM crops were to increase productivity and prevent the conversion of land to agricultural use. arising from differences in IP protection philosophies need to be identified and resolved [Global Chapter 2]. Gene flow Regardless of how new varieties of crop plants are created. For example. breeders’ exemptions and farmers’ privilege provisions may need further consideration here [Global Chapter 2]. 6]. Global Chapter 2]. entire communities run the risk of losing control of their food security [CWANA Chapter 1. in developing countries the limiting factor has been access to modern varieties and inputs instead of an exhaustion of crop trait diversity [Global Chapter 3]. is a worrisome trend for maintaining and increasing global capacity for crop improvement [Global Chapter 6]. Gene flow is particularly relevant to transgenes both because they have tended thus far to be single genes or a few tightly linked genes in genomes. there is a contraction both in crop diversity and numbers of local breeding specialists.. Patent systems. It may be a way to broaden the nutritional value of some crops [ESAP Chapter 5]. It has the added advantage of empowering the local farmer and women [Global Chapter 2]. they could have a significant impact on conservation threaten biodiversity and agrobiodiversity by limiting farmers’ options to a few select varieties [ESAP Chapter 5. which incorporates TK. plant pathogens. economic or environmental damage. for example.g. drought and salinity. Adapting new cultivars to these conditions is difficult and slow. Plant breeding activities differ between countries. e. The decline in numbers of specialists in plant breeding.

Global Chapter 3]. In saying this. Genetically modified plants and GM fish may have a sustainable contribution to make in some environments just as ecological agriculture might be a superior approach to achieving a higher sustainable level of agricultural productivity. Breeding with enhanced growth characteristics or disease resistance is also made possible with MAS [Global Chapter 3. and favor multifunctional solutions to local problems [Global Chapter 2]. There are currently no transgenic livestock animals in commercial production and none likely in the short term [Global Chapter 6]. It is clearly realized that the private sector will not replace the public sector for producing biotechnologies that are used on smaller scales. and especially modern biotechnology. there needs to be a renewed emphasis on public sector engagement in biotechnology. the benefits of reductions in use of other insecticides through the introduction of insecticide-producing (Bt) plants [NAE Chapter 3] seems to be primarily in chemically intensive agroecosystems such as North and South America and China [Global Chapter 3]. livestock biotechnologies include artificial insemination. theoretically. The key limitation to productivity increases in developing countries appears to be in adapting modern breeds to the local environment [CWANA Chapter 5. or achieving some goals for which there is no market [CWANA Chapter 5. Animals with desired traits might be more efficiently selected by using genomic maps to identify quantitative traits and gene x environment interactions.Themes: Biotechnology | 45 the type of IPR instrument used to protect GM but not conventional and plants in some jurisdictions. this may be resisted because some biotechnologies. and new cloning techniques [see CWANA Chapter 5. those who favor technologies that are most amenable to prevailing IP protections may resist broad definitions of biotechnology. Instead. Assessing environmental impacts of GM fish is even more difficult than for GM plants. For example. NAE Chapter 6]. NAE Chapter 6]. synchronization of estrus. and is exempt from farmer’s privilege provisions in some plant variety protection conventions [Global Chapter 6]. Present cultivation methods are energy intensive and environmentally taxing. Effective long-term environmental and health monitoring and surveillance programs. in the decades to come. Gene flow from GM fish also may be of significant concern and so GM fish would need to be closely monitored [CWANA Chapter 5. That general dispute aside. NAE Chapter 3]. the debate has focused on whether the concomitant changes in the amounts or types of some pesticides [Global Chapter 2. an IP-motivated public engagement alone would miss the point. the benefits of current GM plants may not translate into all agroecosystems. A problem-oriented approach to biotechnology R&D would focus investment on local priorities identified through participatory and transparent processes. 6. as GM plants have been adopted mainly in high chemical input farming systems thus far [Global Chapter 3]. No regional long-term environmental and health monitoring programs exist to date in the countries with the most concentrated GM crop production [Global Chapter GM crop production are at best deductive or simply missing and speculative. While climate change and population growth could collude to overwhelm the Earth’s latent potential to grow food and bio-materials that sustain human life and well being. NAE Chapter 3] that were used in these systems prior to the development of commercial GM plants creates a net environmental benefit [Global Chapter 3]. and to take timely counter measures. and the public sector must also have adequate resources and expertise to produce locally understood and relevant biotechnologies and products [CWANA Chapter 1]. and training and education of farmers are essential to identify emerging and comparative impacts on the environment and human health.g. As with plants. sire-testing. NAE Chapter 6 for a range of topics]. Regardless of how this debate resolves. The former are subject to IP protection that follows the gene rather than the trait. IP law is designed to prevent the unauthorized use of IP rather than as an empowering right to develop products based on IP. On the other hand. Global Chapter 3]. as even less is known about marine ecosystem than about terrestrial agroecosystems. genetic engineering. characteristics that in time both exacerbate demand for limited resources and damage long term productivity. A systematic redirection of AKST will include a rigorous rethinking of biotechnology.. In addition. Livestock and aquaculture to increase food production and improve nutrition Livestock. The nature of the commercial organization is to secure the IP for products and methods development. GMOs and chemical use There is an active dispute over the evidence of adverse effects of GM crops on the environment [Global Chapter 3 vs. maintaining broadly applicable research and development capacities. NAE Chapter 6]. This emphasis replaces a view where commercial drivers determine supply. the difficulty with breeding animals is in bringing the different genes necessary for some traits together all at once in the offspring. 6. poultry and fish breeding have made substantial historical and current contributions to productivity [Global Chapters 3. Ways Forward Biotechnology must be considered in a holistic sense to capture its true contribution to AKST and achieving development and sustainability goals. Agroecosystems that both improve productivity and replenish ecosystem services behind the supply chain are desperately needed. Global Chapter 6. transgenes for disease resistance [Global Chapter 3] and development of feeds that reduce nitrogen and phosphorous loads in waste [Global Chapter 3]. The same range of genomics and engineering options available to plants. Global Chapters 5. apply to livestock and fish [Global Chapters 3. On the one hand. 8]. embryo transfer and gamete and embryo cryopreservation. both forces might be offset by smarter agriculture. Biotechnology can contribute to livestock and aquaculture through the development of diagnostics and vaccines for infectious diseases [Global Chapter 6. institutions and societies might undermine the exclusivity of claims. are very controversial and the particular controversy can cause many to prematurely dismiss the value of all biotechnology in general. because past contributions made by many individuals. e. 7]. No particular actor has all the answers or all the possible tools to achieve a global solution. .

animal production systems. John M. and the carbon cycle. Climate change. including water vapour. climate changes are taking place simultaneously with increasing demands for food. associated with massive fluctuations in the marine ecosystems of the western coast of South America. fiber and fuel [ESAP Chapter 4. the global scope of the problem but wide regional variations. the climate of the Earth. which is important for converting emissions into atmospheric concentrations. ESAP Chapters 2. About 50% of the world’s surface land area has been converted to land for grazing and crop cultivation resulting in a loss of more than half of the world’s forests. 46 . fisheries and forestry [CWANA Chapter 1. feed. NAE Chapters 2. and for drying grain. natural and anthropogenic origin. ESAP Chapter 4. These complexities include the long time lags between greenhouse gas11 emissions and effects. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and particulate matter are emitted from fossil fuels used to power farm machinery.. NAE Chapter 3]. 3. Deforestation and forest degradation releases carbon through the decomposition of aboveground biomass and peat fires and decay of drained peat soils. Dependency of climate on agriculture. Greenhouse gases and clouds in the atmosphere absorb the majority of the long-wave radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface. hence. LAC Chapter 3. Nitrogen fertilizer applications and manure applications as well as decomposition of agricultural wastes results in emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O). livestock and forestry) is not a one-way street. soil nutrients. NAE Chapters 1. can affect the agrobiodiversity necessary for crop. In addition.and bromine-containing substances are entirely anthropogenic. Stone (Canada) Why is climate change important to achieving development and sustainability goals? The threat of climate change contains the potential for irreversible damage to the natural resource base on which agriculture depends and hence poses a grave threat to development. The primary greenhouse gases are of both. fiber. Agricultural production depends on the provision of essential natural ecosystems inputs such as adequate water quantity and quality. tree and livestock improvement. agroforestry. carbon dioxide [CO2 ] nitrous oxide [N2O] and ozone [O3]. LAC Chapter 3. The relationship between climate change and agriculture (crops. NAE Chapter 3]. education. Dependency of agriculture on climate. as do the risks involved [NAE Chapter 3]. irrigation pumps. while 4 halocarbons and other chlorine. Balgis Osman-Elasha (Sudan). Another significant challenge is the rapidity of the changes in the climate that have occurred or will occur [NAE Chapter 3]. 4. Poor. The ecosystem services that provide these inputs are affected. as well as fertilizer and pesticide production [NAE Chapter 2]. fuel and commodities for human use and consumption. SSA Chapter 1]. Addressing these issues will require a wide range of adaptation and emission reduction measures. Agricultural production has always been affected by 11 natural climate variability and extreme climate events have caused significant damage to agriculture and livelihoods resulting in food insecurity and poverty among rural communities [CWANA Chapter 3. by climate change [CWANA Chapter 1.Climate Change Writing team: Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic (Ghana). The climate change issue presents decision makers with a set of formidable challenges not the least of these is the inherent complexity of the climate system [CWANA Chapter 1. for example. ) is released through livestock digestive 4 processes and rice production. biodiversity and atmospheric carbon dioxide to deliver food. SSA Chapter 4]. the need to consider multiple greenhouse gases and aerosols. etc. both directly and indirectly. This Assessment provides many example of climate change’s effects on food production. The El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. modifying the radiation balance and. countries and continents. [Global Chapter 1. credit. technologies and other agricultural resources affects the ability of women in particular to cope with climate change-induced stresses.R. adversely affects fishing and has led to devastating socioeconomic tolls on the communities that depend on this activity [LAC Chapter 1] Access to training. forest dependent people and small-scale fishers who lack mobility and livelihood alternatives suffer disproportionately from climatic variability. pest control and soil nutrient cycling. Wahida Patwa Shah (Kenya). LAC Chapter 3. Throughout human history people all over the world have learned to adapt to perience with adaptive measures differs widely among regions. 4. ESAP Chapters 2. Agriculture contributes to climate change in several major ways including: Land conversion and plowing releases large amounts of stored carbon as CO2 from vegetation and soils. ESAP Chapter 4. Global Chapter 1.3. SSA Chapter 4]. NAE Chapter 2].

longer and more intense droughts have been observed since the 1970s. the overall benefits in terms of carbon sequestration are being lost due to increased deforestation in the tropics. Working group 1. Land use. e. the carbon rich grasslands and forests in temperate zones have been replaced by crops with much lower capacity to sequester carbon. droughts and tropical cyclones are now more intense than before. and has lead to devastating socioeconomic tolls on the communities that depend on this activity [LAC Chapter 1].. Extreme events such as floods. poverty. Ketill Berger Figure SR-CC1a. 2004. Increased growth and yield rates due to higher levels of carbon dioxide and temperatures could result in longer growing seasons. 4 emissions from livestock alone to account for 18% of total emissions. Overall. NAE Chapter 2]. As diets change and there is more emissions from agriculture. agriculture (cropping and livestock) contributes 13.9 Land use 17. adversely affects fishing.4 13.4% mostly as carbon dioxide. Ketill Berger SOURCE: Baumert. There are however complex tradeoffs. NAE Chapter 3]. dense biomass and more human access into remote areas. for example. contributes the least in terms regions to the impacts of climate change [NAE Chapter 3. in part due to climate change. For example.Themes: Climate Change | 47 bare soils [Global Chapter 3]. 2007 IAASTD. [Global Chapter 1. associated with massive fluctuations in the marine ecosystems of the western coast of South America. Observed climate change and impacts. together with regional agricultural specialization. land use change and forestry contribute another 17. has resulted in greater energy use for transportation. forest dependent people and small-scale fishers who lack mobility and livelihood alternatives suffer disproportionately from climatic variability. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. on rainfed agriculture. The thermal growing season has lengthened by about 10 days. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal.g. GHG emissions from agriculture and land use. when forest is replaced by oil palm which will capture carbon but reduce biodiversity. This figure includes the entire commodity chain for livestock. gordanak@gmail.9 Transport Power Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and land use Other Deforestation (clearing of land and burning) Land use or soil management Wetland rice. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. consumer.to high-latitude regions. and rice cultivation (10%). SSA Chapter 1] due to multiple stresses.4 7. in mid. in NAE it is estimated to be in the range of 7-20% [Global Chapter 1. loss of peatlands. Climate change is also likely to affect the carbon cycle and some vulnerable natural pools of carbon could turn into sources. Throughout NAE there have been significant increases in serious forest fires. enteric fermentation (27%). For instance. 2005 IAASTD. manure management Industry Buildings Methane from livestock (enteric fermentation) SOURCE: IPCC. The highest emissions of greenhouse gases from agriculture are generally associated with the most intensive farming systems.5 25. according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 by source Waste Farming 2.1 19. particularly in the tropics and sub-tropics. weak institutional structures and low adaptive capacity.com . Most of greenhouse gas emissions are from land use changes and soil management (40%). Sub-Saharan Africa. Poor. Changes in land use have negatively affected the net ability of ecosystems to sequester carbon from the atmo- sphere. Overall.8 13. Figure SR-CC1b. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. including the heavy reliance on rain fed agriculture. The relative contribution varies by region.5 % of global greenhouse gas emissions mostly through emissions of methane and nitrous oxide (about 47% and and N2O. Despite a slow increase in forests in the northern hemisphere. Future climate change and projected impacts.

By 2030. we expect that for many crops water scarcity will increasingly constrain production. India. NAE Chapter 3]. on the whole. although our current understanding is still uncertain [Global Chapter 5]. especially in developing countries. and with the reduction of water stored in mountain glaciers. which may in turn have large impacts on livelihoods and production systems. especially of rice and wheat in the ESAP. and the United States and even more so in the already stressed areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Rates in excess of this are considered by some experts to be dangerous. Some negative impacts are already visible. For example. rainfed rice yield could be reduced by 5-12% in China for a 2oC rise in temperature. particularly affecting production in food insecure regions. Ketill Berger Figure SR-CC2. Climate change will require a new look at water storage to cope with the impacts of changes in total amounts of precipitation and increased rates of evapotranspiration. Projected impacts of climate change. the rate of change can be more important. Warming in NAE will lead to a northward expansion of suitable cropping areas as well as a reduction of the growing period of crops such as cereals. NAE Chapter 3]. is likely to be vulnerable. particulary developing regions Possible rising yields in some high latitude regions Falling yields in many developed regions Water Small mountain glaciers disappear – water supplies threatened in several areas Significant decreases in water availability in many areas. and seasonal and inter-annual variation increase. Although the state of knowledge of precipitation changes is currently insufficient for confidence in the details. Reductions in the duration or changes in timing of the onset of seasonal floods will affect the scheduling and extent of the cropping and growing seasons.2 Cº per decade are projected. Global Chapter 6. including Mediterranean and Southern Africa Sea level rise threatens major cities Ecosystems Extensive damage to coral reefs Rising number of species face extinction Extreme weather events Rising intensity of storms. but is expected to decrease in most developing countries [Global Chapter 5]. [ESAP Chapter 4. droughts occurring in the monsoon period se- Projected impact of climate change Global temperature change (relative to pre-industrial) 0°C Food 1°C 2°C 3°C 4°C 5°C 6°C Falling crop yields in many areas. Projections suggest that by 2050 internal renewable water is estimated to increase in some developed countries. From an ecosystem perspective. Further warming will have increasingly negative impacts. Rainfed agriculture. . droughts. Global Chapter 5. flooding and heat waves Risk of abrupt and major irreversible changes Increasing risk of dangerous feedbacks and abrupt.48 | IAASTD Synthesis Report (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report moderate local increases in temperature (1-2ºC) can have small beneficial impacts moderate temperature increases are likely to have negative yield impacts for major cereals. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. shifts in ratios between snowfall and rainfall and the timing of water availability. temperature increases of more than 0. forest fires. Climate change will increase heat and drought stress in many of the current breadbaskets in China. For example. Most climate models indicate a strengthening of the summer monsoon and increased rainfall in Asia. and above this range to decrease. Many climate impact studies project global water problems in the near future unless appropriate action is taken to improve water management and increase water use efficiency. but results. [ESAP Chapter 2. but in semiarid areas in Africa the absolute amount of rain may decline. project the potential for global food production to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1 to 3ºC. large-scale shifts in the climate system SOURCE: Stern Review IAASTD.

as those left on the land are mostly old and the vulnerable. such as freshwater. 7]. In addition. an increase in temperature and precipitation is projected to expand the range of vector-transmitted diseases making it possible for these diseases to become established outside limits of their current range. SSA Chapter 3]. the severity and density of populations. In addition. threatening some of the most productive fishing areas in the world. droughts. and food insecurity. the number of generations produced per year. thus reducing their role in critical ecosystems and food webs [Global Chapter 6. which are currently limited by cool temperatures [Global Chapters 3. the quicker concentrations will approach stabilization. Global Chapters 1. There is a serious potential for future conflict. fisheries. they require a reliable resource of water and pasture is very sensitive to drought. Sea level rise could lead to saltwater intrusion causing a reduction in agricultural productivity in some coastal areas [ESAP Chapters 2. SSA Chapter 4]. infectious and vectorborne animal diseases will continue to become increasingly frequent worldwide [Global Chapter 3]. further changes in the climate are now inevitable and thus adaptation becomes imperative. continued migration to urban areas of younger segments of the population can lead to agricultural land degradation thus exacerbating the effects of climate change. 4. which is the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. it is known that climate change will affect regional patterns of temperature and precipitation. Actions directed at addressing climate change and efforts to promote sus- . or the susceptibility of the host to the pest. weeds and invasive plants. Global Chapter 5]. While emission reduction measures clearly are essential. The effects of climate change on crop and tree yields. requires a global approach. with large negative effects on sub-Saharan Africa. Rising sea levels will alter coastal habitats and their future productivity. Global Chapter 6] In addition. mollusks. global warming is projected to increase this number to some 200 million before 2050. disease vectors and wide variety of invasive species that will inhabit new ecological niches. and at higher elevations [LAC Chapter 1]. which could seriously impede food security and poverty reduction.Themes: Climate Change | 49 verely affect rice crop production in ESAP [ESAP Chapter 4. 6]. 5. Increased temperatures are likely to facilitate range expansion of highly damaging weeds. tropical cyclones and other extreme events with significant consequences for food and forestry production. Climate change is expected to threaten livestock holders in numerous ways: animals are very sensitive to heat stress. Extreme climate events are expected to increase in frequency and severity and all regions will likely be affected by the increase in floods. It is expected that climate change will lead to significant reductions in the diversity fish species with important changes in abundance and distribution of fresh water fish stocks such as in rivers and lakes in SSA. particularly in developing countries. climate change combined with other socioeconomic stresses could alter the regional distribution of hunger and malnutrition. Rising atmospheric CO2 will lead to acidification of ocean waters and disrupt the ability of animals (such as corals. In addition. Tackling the root cause of the problem. and possible violent clashes over habitable land and natural resources. animal. Pests and diseases are strongly influenced by seasonal weather patterns and changes in climate. Although climate projections cannot tell us exactly what and where the changes will be and when they will be experienced. Desertification will be exacerbated by reductions in average annual rainfall and increased evapotranspiration especially in soils that have low levels of biological activity. Options for Action The IPCC concluded that “warming of the climate system is now unequivocal” and that “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This was demonstrated during the summer 2003 European heat wave that was accompanied by drought and reduced maize yields by 20 percent. An estimated 25 million people per year already flee from weather-related disasters. and plant pests. Tropical soils with low organic matter are expected to experience the greatest impact of erosion on crop productivity. with semiarid ecosystems expected to be the most vulnerable to impacts from climate change refugees [Global Chapter 6]. including fish populations. thus decreasing yields and increasing pesticide applications [Global Chapter 3]. These anticipated changes may have a negative impact on agricultural activities through their effect on the health of farmers and ecosystems. forestry and livestock vary greatly by region [Global Chapter 1. NAE Chapter 3. In considering responses to the threat of climate change there are important policy considerations. New pest introductions alter pest/predator/parasite population dynamics through changes in growth and developmental rates. partly as a result of climate change [NAE Chapter 2]. Global Chapter 1. The earlier and stronger the cuts in emissions. [ESAP Chapter 3. Changes in ocean temperatures will alter ocean currents and the distribution and ranges of marine animals. Climate simulation models indicate substantial future increases in soil erosion. as a result of climate change. Climate change is not simply an environmental issue but can also be framed in terms of other issues such as sustainable development and security. the pest virulence to a host plant.” With these strong conclusions the focus should now shift from defining the threat to seeking solutions. Climate change is affecting and will affect the geographic range and incidence of many human. 6. plankton) to secrete calcareous skeletons. SSA Chapter 4] and climate scenarios project that local biomes and terrestrial ecosystems will change. Global climate change is expected to alter marine and freshwater ecosystems and habitats. Established pests may become more prevalent due to favorable conditions that include higher winter temperatures (thus reduced winter-kill) and more rainfall. heat waves. organic matter and aggregate stability. There is likely to be an increase in incidence and severity of forest fires in next decades. Changing weather patterns also increase crop vulnerability to pests. For example. increased irrigation as an adaptive response to better control water scarcity due to climate change may increase incidences of malaria [Global Chapter 5] and other water-related diseases. [CWANA Chapter 1.

2002 Reardon et al. Furthermore. Policy options covering regulations and investment opportunities include financial incentives to maintain and increase forest area through reduced deforestation and degradation and improved management. attacking agriculture through the deaths of working age adults. There is a need to develop agricultural policies that both reduce emissions and allow adaptation to climate change that are closer to carbon-neutral. Local. Those policy options that enhance the production of renewable energy sources could be particularly effective. Multiple stressors in small-scale agriculture. Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies to reduce impacts. 2004. Autonomous adaptation does not constitute a conscious response to climatic stimuli but is triggered by ecological changes in . Adaptation options. Multiple stressors in small-scale agriculture Stressors Population increase driving fragmentation of landholding Environmental degradation stemming variously from population. how agriculture. Important questions include how emissions from agriculture and forestry can be effectively reduced. encroachment on grazing lands and failure to maintain traditional natural resource management State fragility and armed conflict in some regions SOURCE: IPCC. afforestation. increasingly concerned with issues of food quality and food safety Market failures interrupt input supply following withdrawal of government intervention Continued protectionist agricultural policies in developed countries. Any post-2012 regime has to be more inclusive of all agricultural such as reduced emission from reforestation and degradation activities to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by agriculture and forestry sectors [Global Chapter 6]. reforestation. ill-defined property rights Regionalised and globalised markets. poverty. agroforestry and forestry can best adapt under given local conditions. Various Barnet and Whiteside. adaptation will be necessary to meet the challenge of impacts on agriculture to which we are already committed in the near term as well as for the long term.. 2002 Lipton. 2001 Various tainable development share some important common goals and determinants such as. equitable access to resources. and what role biofuels can play—and. will be important in coping with early impacts. social and economic stresses. These include land use approaches such as lower rates of agricultural expansion into natural habitats. especially for energy-efficient farming systems. therefore.. The effects of reduced emissions in avoiding impacts by slowing the rate of temperature increase will not emerge for several decades due to the inertia of the climate system. finally. 2002 Blench. 2003 Kherallah et al. national and regional agricultural development regulatory frameworks will have to take into account tradeoffs between the need for promoting higher yields and the need for the maintenance and enhancement of environmental services that support agriculture [SSA Chapter 4]. More efforts will be required to develop new knowledge and technologies. as well as more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis than these now available [Global Chapter 3]. where the risk of unmitigated climate change impacts could exceed the adaptive capacity of existing agricultural systems. Source Various Grimble et al. and effective manure management and use of feed that increases livestock digestive efficiency. Specifically. such as the effects of land use changes on biodiversity and on land degradation.. Adaptation. minimize trace gas emissions and reduce natural capital degradation [Global Chapter 4]. erodes household assets. Some “win-win” mitigation opportunities have already been identified. and regulatory regimes. Interconnected issues. what are the implications of these challenges on requirements for AKST [NAE Chapter 3]. how to emissions. for example. disrupts knowledge transfer and reduces the capacity of agricultural service providers For pastoralists. decisions on climate change are usually made in the context of other environmental. Two types of adaptation have been recognized: autonomous and planned adaptation. particularly in Southern Africa. which diverts labor away from farming. 2007. appropriate application of nitrogenous inputs. agroforestry and restoration of underutilized or degraded land. appropriate technologies and decision-support mechanisms to cope with risks. need to be addressed in order to exploit synergies between the goals of UN conventions on biodiversity and desertification and climate change.50 | IAASTD Synthesis Report Table CC1. land use options such as carbon sequestration in agricultural soils. and continued declines and unpredictability in the world prices of many major agricultural commodities of developing countries Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and/or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) pandemic.

integration into agricultural risk management. 3. technology and insurance programs. nure and fertilizer application to crop needs and optimizing nitrogen up-take efficiently by controlling the application rates. SSA Chapter 1]. Early detection and warning using novel GIS-based methodologies such as those employed by the Conflict Early Warning and Response Network (CEWARN) and the Global useful role. institutional stability and conflict [Global Chapter 6]. including legumes in crop rotation. among many others. Planned adaptation is the result of a deliberate policy decision. Planned adaptations include specific policies are aiming at reducing poverty and increasing livelihood security. Bringing climate prediction to bear on the needs of agriculture requires increasing observational networks in the most vulnerable regions. depend on or perhaps even be just a subset of policies on natural resource management. dation. . Many autonomous adaptation options are largely extensions or intensifications of existing risk-management or production-enhancement activities.Themes: Climate Change | 51 natural systems and by market or welfare changes in human systems. It is important to note that policy-based adaptations to climate change will interact with. SSA Chapter 3] newable sources of energy. as well as favorable terms of global trade. The resilience of dry-land ecosystems to deficits in moisture. Mitigation options. depending on exposure to climate impacts and adaptive capacity. temperature extremes and salinity is still inadequately understood. These include: the changing thermal and/or hydrological conditions. agrobiodiversity for increased resilience of the agricultural systems. It is important that efforts aimed at addressing emissions reductions mitigation from agriculture carefully consider all emissions in rice could lead to greater N2O emissions 4 through changes in soil N dynamics. the latter depending very much on economic diversification and wealth and institutional capacity. or achieve a desired state. based on an awareness that conditions have changed or are about to change and that action is required to return to. forest fire management. integrating seasonal prediction with information at shorter and longer time scales. lack of economic diversification. A number of options. and commodity trade and storage applications [Global Chapter 6]. improving animals’ diets and using feed additives to increase food conversion efficiency. reducing enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions. is positioned relatively well to adapt to climate change. which are getting increasingly erratic. are characterized by poor adaptive capacity due to the marginal nature of the production environment and the constraining effects of poverty and land degradation [Global Chapter 6]. method and timing. poverty. and investments in new technologies and infrastructure to enable effective adaptation activities. management. while the latter means the increased adaptive capacity by improving or changing institutions and policies. The effectiveness of AKST’s adaptation efforts is likely to vary significantly between and within regions. embedding crop models within climate models. good access to information. 5. improve forest management. Sub-Saharan Africa and CWANA are especially vulnerable regions [CWANA Chapter 1. The first means the implementation of existing knowledge and technology in response to the changes experienced. Industrialized world agriculture. triggered by knowledge of the future impacts of climate change and realization that extreme events experienced in the past are likely to be repeated in the future. It could also take place at the community level. Similarly. reducing the fallow periods and converting marginal lands into woodlots. enhanced use of remote sensing. The viability of traditional actions taken by people to lessen the impacts of climate change in arid and semi arid regions depends on the ability to anticipate hazard patterns. generally situated at high latitudes and possessing economies of scale. provision of infrastructure that supports/enables integrated spatial planning and the generation and dissemination of new knowledge and technologies and management practices tailored to anticipated changes [NAE Chapter 3]. as well as to other stresses such as land degradation. SSA Chapter 3] versity as a tool for climate mitigation and adaptation and enhance the management of residues. aerating manure before composting and recycling agricultural and forestry residues to produce biofuels. which continuously face significant seasonal and inter-annual climate variability. 6. [Global Chapters 1. governance and political rights. human and animal health. forest law enforcement. maintain. 6. improve silvicultural practices and promote afforestation and reforestation to increase carbon storage in forests [Global Chapters 1. using zero/reduced tillage. including policy measures to address drivers of deforestation. enhanced stakeholder participation. and the diversification of agriculture [Global Chapter 6]. conservation tillage for soil carbon sequestration can result in elevated N2O emissions through increased agrochemicals use and accelerated denitrification in soils [Global Chapter 6]. The extent to which development and sustainability goals will be affected by climate change depends on how well communities are able to cope with current climate change and variability. 5. technologies and ready exist and could: creasing the efficiency of livestock production. By contrast small-scale rain-fed production systems in semiarid and subhumid zones. further improvements in forecast accuracy. 3. These represent examples of the “mainstreaming” of climate change adaptation into policies intended to enhance broad resilience.

particularly in vulnerable regions. Climate change regimes. It is clear that the Kyoto Protocol is a first step. In this regard a much more comprehensive future looking agreement is needed if we want to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by agriculture and forestry sectors. The Kyoto Protocol currently represents the highest level of international consensus around the need to address climate change. one that demonstrates political will and allows for some policy experimentation. 5. including afforestation and reforestation. SSA Chapter 3]. . Achieving this could be accomplished through a negotiated global long-term (30-50 years). Mitigation options employing the agricultural sectors are not well covered under the Protocol. comprehensive and equitable regulatory framework with differentiated reemissions. policy options regulations and investment opportunities that include financial incentives to increase forest area. 3. and that deeper cuts and additional de-carbonization strategies are needed. thus allowing for policy interventions. Other approaches could include reduced agricultural subsidies that support adaptation. Within such a framework a modified Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) with a comprehensive set of eligible agricultural mitigation activities. reduce deforestation and maintain and manage forests. such as the tropics and sub-tropics. avoided deforestation. using a national sectoral approach rather than a project approach to minimize issues of leakage.52 | IAASTD Synthesis Report In addition. enhance the production of renewable energy sources may arise in developing countries which lack sufficient investment capital and have unresolved land tenure issues [Global Chapters 1. Questions have been raised regarding its effectiveness in reducing global emissions to avoid dangerous climate change. and a wide range of agricultural practices including organic agriculture and conservation tillage could help meet the development and sustainability goals.

and development of agroecosystem farming approaches designed to improve human. agriculture. Kingamkono (Tanza- Current Status and Trends Interrelationship between poor health and agriculture. food safety. and soil health [Global Chapters 2. pregnancy. economic and political instability. estimated to contribute to over 15% of the total global burden of disease in 2000. and nations to reach sustainability goals. LAC. ESAP. SSA Chapter 2]. Individual risk factors for under-nutrition include insufficient macro. antibiotics and growth hormones. especially with respect to uptake of AKST. ESAP. Over the past 40 years. Worldwide. 3. and the need to reduce the total area of land under cultivation. Poor health in adults and children leads to reduced economic productivity. Malnutrition in many countries and regions continues to result from food insecurity due to multiple causes including loss of land. LAC. ESAP. 8]. LAC Chapter 1. 4. Global Chapters 1. 2. SSA Chapter 2]. 3. NAE Chapter 2. LAC. 8. exposures. war. 3. SSA Chapter 3]. Examples include appropriate crop diversification approaches. ill health due to poor nutrition results from under-nutrition over-nutrition. such as zinc. SSA]. LAC. quality. with high variability in the extent of 53 Inter-linkages between health. nutrition. communities. 5. and increased nutrient requirements during childhood. SSA]. depletion of body nutrients due to infections. Global Chapter 3. ESAP Chapters 2. and occupational and environmental health risks. 5. more difficult [CWANA. and foodborne pathogens [CWANA Chapter 5. 2. This is particularly important for women who are often both the primary producers and primary carers [see Women in Agriculture theme]. and iodine. 3. and occupationally related ill-health [Global Chapter 3]. Agriculture has generally not had an explicit goal of improving human health. 5. This often results in a significant cumulative burden of ill health. Intake of food of insufficient quantity. and AKST affect the ability of individuals. the use of fertilizers. and high physical activity such as manual labor. the need to change the type of crops grown. Global Chapters 2. including poor nutrition. there have been significant increases in global food production and supply that has surpassed population growth in many countries [Global Chapters 1. Poor health in turn impacts on multiple agricultural tion and infectious and chronic diseases decrease productivity through labor shortages.Human Health Writing Team: Kristie L. SSA]. are typically exposed to multiple and interacting health risks associated with agriculture. 9. multiple stressors that affect population health. and imbalanced food intake leading to obesity [CWANA. animal. 3. 5. Consumers are increasingly worried about increased risk of ill-health resulting from exposure to pesticides and other agrichemicals. 6. and variety can result in ill-health. global under-nutrition declined but still remains a major public health problem. on soils low in these essential human nutrients. 3. adolescence. Agriculture can inadvertently affect health through the emergence of infectious diseases (approximately 75% of emerging diseases are zoonotic—transmitted between animals and humans) [Global Chapters 3.or micronutrient dietary intake. In developing countries these issues are clearly illustrated by the ESAP. Ill health among families of producers can impact on production through absenteeism to provide health and other care. and extreme climate events [Global Chapters 1. Rose R. During this period. Improving health by controlling a range of infectious and chronic diseases can increase the effectiveness and productivity of food systems and AKST. 6. Furthermore. 3. Global Chapters 1. NAE Chapter 2. Lowered immunity associated with undernutrition makes individuals more susceptible to a range of diseases. Global Chapters 2. 3]. These interlinkages take place within a context of other. Malnutrition and recurrent infections in childhood impair physical growth and mental development. NAE. 3]. SSA Chapters 2. Poor health also impacts on farmers’ ability to innovate and develop new farming systems. NAE Chapters 1. accidents. agriculture is one of the three most dangerous occupations [with mining and construction] in terms of deaths. Ebi (USA). Reduced life expectancy results in loss of local agricultural knowledge and reduced capacity. SSA]. . additives introduced during food-processing. Appropriate application of AKST can improve dietary quantity and quality and overall population health. Malnutrition. 5. 6. 3. and the loss of household income or other outputs of agricultural work [CWANA. 6. selenium. thus lowering economic productivity in adulthood [Global Chapters 1.

Dietary-related chronic diseases. sugar and salt [Global Chapters 1. 3. high incidence and prevatrade pressure [CWANA Chapter 5. 3. and obesity affecting both rich and poor in developed and developing countries. Although the world food system provides an adequate supply of protein and energy for over 85% of people.g. 8. safety concerns are compounded by poverty. with low population consumption of fruits and vegetables and high intakes of fats. 3. e. NAE]. diabetes and cancer) [Global Chapters 1. A food hazard is a biological. Increased consumption of these food products that are replacing more varied. costs to food processors and consumers. 3. control has become difficult. 2. foodstuffs that are risk factors for chronic disease (high fat dairy. regimes and consumer demands have tended to increase production (especially in the US and Europe) of. increase the need for effective. LAC Chapter 1. NAE Chapters 1. and processing incentives for.. and their health impacts [Global Chapters 1. etc. despite long food chains. In general. 7. nutrition. stroke. 6. There are a few examples of agricultural food policies that have been developed due to population health concerns. 2. dietary changes contribute to continuing global increases in chronic diseases. developed countries. Chapter 3. SSA Chapters 2. In developing countries. population growth. Global Chapters 2. 5. all countries will see an increase in the economic burden due to loss of productivity. The most dramatic rises in obesity are now occurring in low. or an agent that affects bioavailability of nutrients. 97 developing and 27 transitional countries had 12 [Global Chapter 2] In Africa. 3]. ESAP Chapters 2. and that have a long shelf life. the capacity and legislative frameworks of public health systems quickly identify and control disease outbreaks. the use of hormones and antibiotics in meat production. storage. Food safety hazards may be introduced anywhere along the food chain with many hazards resulting from inputs into production and handling of commodities [Global Chapter 2]. Issues include accountability and lack of vertical integration between consumers and producers. guarantee a high level of consumer protection of imported and domestic food supplies. globalization of the food supply. LAC. 2. and distribution chain.). is contributing to increased rates of obesity and diet-related chronic disease worldwide. Concerns that could be addressed by AKST include heavy metals. In contrast. particularly sub-Saharan Africa. in both developed and developing countries. Unless action is taken to reduce these trends. overweight..) [Global 12 cient availability of food [the proportion of people who are food energy deficient]. pesticides. Between 1981 and 2003. Food safety. coordinated. SSA Chapters 2. Policies. increased health care and social welfare costs that are already seen in developed countries [Global Chapter 3. and maize) and the loss of a range of nutrient dense food crops from local food systems. 3]. health. due to compromised health and impaired cognition. transportation).g.and middle-income countries [Global Chapters 1. the need for sampling and testing. 6. meat. 2. inadequate infrastructure for enforcement of food control systems. 8]. Although subject to controls and standards. [CWANA. AKST control of food contamination creates social and economic burdens on communities and their health systems through market rejection costs of contaminated commodities causing export market losses. NAE]. 2. traditional diets. 3. and growing consumer awareness. Together with environmental factors such as rapid urbanization which result in increased sedentary lifestyles (motorized transport. NAE Chapter 2]. or physical contaminant. AKST has focused on adding financial value to basic foodstuffs (e. increasing the risks of exposing food to contamination or adulteration. inadequate social services and structures (potable water. recent national and international agricultural trade policies/ regimes have not addressed the changing global health challenges and do not have explicit public heath goals. 3. LAC Chapter 1. wheat. SSA]. refined sugars and salt). large-scale livestock farming and the use of various additives in food-processing industries. 3]. The success of AKST policies and practices in increasing production and in new mechanisms for processing foods have facilitated increasing rates of worldwide obesity and chronic disease through negative changes in dietary quality [Global Chapters 1. ESAP. etc. 5. Poor diet throughout the life course is a major risk factor for chronic diseases (including heart disease. These nutritionrelated chronic diseases coexist with under-nutrition in many countries causing a greater disease burden in lower income countries [Global Chapters 1. 3]. 2. short fall in nutritional status of children [prevalence of underweight for <5 years old children] and child mortality [<5 years old mortality rate] which are attributable to undernutrition. 5. and associated health costs [Global Chapters 2. using potatoes to produce a wide range of snack foods). 2. 2. NAE Chapter 2] that comprise the largest proportion of global deaths. education. As food passes through a multitude of food handlers and middlemen over extended period of time through the food production. 7. 2. 6. formation of the EU common agricultural policy whose original objectives included food security. Micronutrient deficiencies lower productivity. ESAP Chapters 2. only two-thirds have access to sufficient dietary micronutrients [Global Chapters 1. NAE Chapter 2]. chronic food shortages meant that trends in malnutrition continued or worsened over the past decades [SSA Chapters 1. processing. meat. This has resulted in cheap. 3. 3. NAE Chapters 1.54 | IAASTD Synthesis Report the problem between and within countries. and proactive national food safety systems [CWANA Chapter 5. processed food products with low nutrient density (high in fat. Worldwide changes in food systems have resulted in overall reductions in dietary diversity. accompanied by concentration of food distribution and processing companies. chemical. 5. Many national and international actors have been slow to understand and adapt their policies to address these worldwide changes occurring in diet. Global Chapters 1. NAE]. 3]. safe use of biofertilizers. The supply of many nutrients in the diets of the poor has decreased due to a reduction in diet diversity resulting from increased monoculture of staple food crops (rice. The incidence of foodborne illnesses caused by pathogenic biological food . This has been exacerbated by the significant role of huge advertising budgets spent on unhealthy foods. 3. NAE Chapter 2].

g. toxic or allergenic agents. Strategies for tackling the rises in overweight. and the environment [Global Chapters 1. and machinery. and to death inestimated that between 2 to 5 million cases of pesticide poisoning occur each year. In developing countries. 5. such as zinc. poverty alleviation. Significant knowledge gaps limit the assessment of the human health risks of GMOs. transmissible animal diseases. This figure is widely recognized to be an underestimate based on empirical research [Global Chapters 2. Future Challenges and Options for Improving Human Health through AKST Malnutrition. 5]. 3]. are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide [Global Chapters 1. through development and deployment of existing and new technologies for production. LAC. unsafe techniques for chemical application or equipment use. 5]. Global Chapters 2. could pose dangers to consumers. economic factors (e... has increased significantly over the past few decades [Global Chapters 1. workers. and education. environmental factors (e. on soils low in these essential human nutrients to correct deficiencies. and ergonomic hazards (related to heavy loads. social factors (changing diets and lifestyles). resulting in approximately 220. and noise. 3. This number accounts for half of all fatal accidents worldwide and is likely an underestimate as most injuries are underreported in developing countries [Global Chapter 3]. neurotoxicity. respiratory. and other civil society participation [Global Chapter 3. In both local and national food systems. foodborne diseases can cause and/or exacerbate malnutrition. agriculture. and inadequate equipment). Together. expansion of international trade and lower prices). Worldwide. particularly among vulnerable populations. Serious socioeconomic impacts can arise when diseases spread widely within human or animal populations (such as human hosts. including GMOs and food irradiation. It is estimated that 70% of all child laborers (150 million) work in agriculture. food-based solutions to under-nutrition should be a priority. Tackling nutrition-related chronic disease requires coordinated. These need to be used systematically to improve surveillance systems for both under. development. 3. the absence or poor maintenance of equipment. vibration. and lack of information available to the worker on the precautions necessary for minimizing risks during handling of agrichemicals. Even small-scale animal disease outbreaks can have major economic impacts in pastoral communities. processing. by the use of toxic chemicals banned or restricted in other countries. account for the highest rates of injury and death [Global Chapters 1. policies and programs to increase crop diversification and dietary diversity will help achieve food security. where conditions of poverty and lack of effective controls on hazardous compounds are the norm [Global Chapters 1. and finance ministries.g. SSA]. There are often tensions between agricultural food policy and population health improvement goals. In addition to improving occupational health and safety. SSA Chapter 3]. consumer organizations. Policies that simply rely on public health education and changing individual behaviors have been ineffective. 5. including bacteria. 8.. viruses.Themes: Human Health | 55 contaminants. and chronic adverse health impacts (e. 7]. 6. and enforcement of child labor laws. This is particularly relevant for developing countries. livestock. microbial mutations/evolution. and long-term health. 2. intersectoral policy responses that include public health. to ensure that governments appropriately address the rapidly changing nature of nutritionrelated diseases in each country. with poisoning leading to acute. Emerging infectious diseases. 2. for example. sanitation. and iodine.000 occupational deaths each year. AKST should be seen as a primary intervention to improve nutrition and food security. and distribution of food [CWANA. Even when used according to manufacturers specifications. NAE]. Emerging and reemerging inia..and over-nutrition. and the speed with which people can travel around the globe. access to adequate supplies of safe water. In less developed countries. population growth). 3]. such as tractors and harvesters. and non-communicable diseases are needed in all world regions. the risks of serious accidents and injury from a range of sources are increased. agriculture accounts for at least 170. farming intensification often increases these risks. Developing environmentally sustainable. and reproductive impacts). which affects education. as well as food industry. use of targeted fertilizers. repetitive work. Machinery and equipment. selenium.000 deaths. Occupational impacts on health. survivors are often left with impaired physical and/ or mental development that limits their ability to reach their full potential [Global Chapter 1].g. Food irradiation although useful in reducing the risk of microbial foodborne illness. 8. Dietary-related chronic diseases. following best practice and all protective measures. Exposure to pesticides and other agrichemicals constitutes a major hazard to occupational health (and also wider community environmental health). and of chronic disease rates. There is increasing public concern over new AKST technologies. demographic factors (e.g. Other health hazards include agrichemicals. For example. preservation. 3. There are well established mechanisms and tools for monitoring community nutrition status. intersectoral action is needed to reduce and protect child labor through mechanisms such as access to education and health. obesity. Despite claims that consumers determine the market. land use change and global climate change). 3. There is no clear scientific consensus whether these technologies affect population health. Adequate nutrition requires a range of interrelated factors to be in place including food security. sub-acute. these cause an estimated 12 to 13 million child deaths. pesticide exposure cannot be avoided entirely and therefore some element of risk will remain particularly with highly toxic products. The incidence and geographic range of these infectious diseases are influenced by the intensification of crop and livestock systems. NAE. the actual health needs of consumers are seldom the driving factors in production decisions and agricultural policies [Global . ESAP. or parasites. fungi. evidence is beginning to accumulate that breeding biofortified crops may help address some human micronutrient deficiency and improve amino acid composition in major staples.

g. economic. along with strengthening and improving public health and environmental systems. Global Chapters 2. input safety [including agricultural and veterinary chemicals]. 8. These approaches. 6. Fiscal policies should take into account impacts on public health. for example by promoting production and consumption of more healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables. Ketill Berger Figure SR-HH1. can inform effective and safe pest and crop management strategies to manage the risks associated with pathogen contamination of foods. NAE Chapter 2]. sales taxes and food marketing incentives or regulations could be refocused to improve nutrition and public health as a primary aim. ESAP Chapter 3. Chapter 3. NAE Chapters 2. taking a broad agroecosystem health approach. Also needed is effective education of consumers in proper food handling and preparation. An example is the increasing use of treated wastewater in water-stressed agricultural systems in developing countries. This requires concerted efforts along the food chain. Future AKST needs to refocus on consumer needs and well-being. Such intersectoral polices should be designed and implemented alongside local and national public health action to maximize impact. where local communities have experienced increased rates of diarrheal diseases when either technologies or pathogen-contaminated wastewater outputs were used without effective controls. LAC Chapters 2. 3. Sanitation systems throughout the food production chain are integral to managing the risks associated with pathogens. trade. or limiting quantities of specific foods). control of potential foodborne pathogens. when technologies are applied without effective management of possible health risks. Examples include good agricultural practices (GAPs) and good manufacturing practices. Global legislation concerning. Food safety. disease monitoring and reporting.56 | IAASTD Synthesis Report Global legislation for control of infectious animal diseases * Global burden of infectious animal diseases OIE Major epizootic diseases OIE Major zoonotic diseases Endemic diseases No global legislation for remaining diseases Other major zoonotic diseases Major epizootic diseases * In addition to national legislation and international legislation related to food safety (CODEX) SOURCE: Martin Wierup and Kris Ebi Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. AKST. AKST could improve dietary quality by regulating healthy product formulation through legislation or taxation (e. 3. infectious animal diseases. Constraints to fuller deployment of current technologies and policies to improve food safety and public health include a wide and complex variety of factors (including market. institutional. 4.. and food safety [CWANA Chapter 5. SSA Chapter 2]. and organic farming. and technical). integrated pest management. Other options for tackling nutrition-related chronic diseases include international agreements on and/or regulation of food labeling and health claims of products to ensure the marketing and labels are scientifically accurate and understandable for all consumers [Global Chapters 1. plant health. NAE]. Implementing GAPs may help developing countries cope with globalization without compromising sustainable developchain traceability] can enhance biosecurity and biosafety. Regulation may be necessary if voluntary industry codes are unsuccessful as has been the case in Sweden (banning of the use of transfats in processed foods) and the UK (reducing quantities of salt in processed foods). and global burden of. There is a need to establish effective national regulatory standards and liability laws that are consistent with international best . can help ensure animal health. higher sales tax for food/foodstuffs known to cause adverse health effects. 7. biological control of pests. Agricultural subsidies. 5. and traceability. for example the importance of diet quality and diversity should be main drivers of production and not merely quantity or price. along with regulatory frameworks.

2. Environmental and food safety impacts from agrochemicals. 7. These should include an assessment of all the external costs. Increasing understanding of the ecology of emerging infectious dis- . SSA Chapter 3]. Agrochemical exposure is of increasing concern [CWANA Chapter 5. 7. SSA Chapters 2.Themes: Human Health | 57 practices. and labeling (with associate educational initiatives) are needed. Occupational health will only be prioritized when the full extent of the problem becomes clear. For zoonotic diseases. Agricultural and rural development policies should address the need for conducting occupational health risk assessments in the short term which make explicit the trade-offs between benefits to production. 2. LAC Chapter 1. 3. Current treaties and legislative frameworks. and international levels. including safe use of machinery. where the supply chain is characterized by limited coordination between farmers. Appropriate use of AKST can help prevent adverse health impacts along the food chain [CWANA Chapter 5. and improved knowledge transfer is required to improve use of existing and new technologies and techniques. Global Chapters 5. 8. NAE Chapter 4. tackled through integrated multi-sectoral policies which must include effective national health and safety legislation (including child labor laws). and livestock handling. 3]. Emerging infectious diseases. 4. implementation of international treaties and recommendations. Additional funding is needed to improve current activities and to build capacity in many regions of the world. Detection. Global Chapters 6. Identification of and effective response to emerging infectious diseases requires enhancing epidemiologic and laboratory capacity. injuries and diseases especially in LDCs. 7. 7. 7. through surveillance at local. traders. as well as diagnostic tools. and consumers. The increase in disease emergence will affect both developed and developing countries. NAE Chapters 2. estimates of the number of possible cases and health costs are high. For animal diseases. NAE Chapter 4. traceability. Agriculture is traditionally an underregulated sector in many countries and enforcement of any safety regulations is often difficult due to the dispersed nature of agricultural activity and lack of awareness of the extent of the hazards by those concerned. this requires strengthening coordination between veterinary and public health infrastructure and training. LAC Chapters 2. Use of agrochemicals is growing faster in developing than developed countries. For example. Supply chain management presents a particular challenge in many less developed countries (LDCs). both positive and negative are determined by the conditions of use. NAE Chapters 2. 3]. Global Chapters 5. This requires improved surveillance and notification systems on occupational accidents. 8]. health risks associated with pesticide use could be reduced through investment in pesticide reduction programs which could include incentives for alternative production methods (such as organic). particularly in many developing countries without health insurance and universal health care. Effective public health systems and regulatory frameworks are needed to support these activities. and effective implementation of national and international regulations to stop cross-border dumping of hazardous and banned products [Global Chapters 1. 6. Other challenges include harmonization of national and international regulations establishing upper levels of intake of nutrients and other substances. surveillance. laboratory analysis and research capabilities (such as skilled manpower and staff for research). ESAP Chapter 3. including sanitary and phytosanitary surveillance programs for animal and human health. 8. increasing crop diversity. LAC Chapters 1. in the 21st century. ESAP Chapter 3. Occupational health. and providing training opportunities [CWANA Chapter 5. 6. and response programs are the primary methods for identifying and controlling emerging infectious diseases. for example for agrichemicals. disease investigation laboratories and research centers. SSA Chapters 2. 8. 6. and harm minimisation including withdrawal of generic compounds of high toxicity. NAE Chapter 2. Most of the factors that contribute to disease emergence will continue. SSA Chapter 3]. including those on human health. 3. Although AKST under development will advance control methods. Integrating policies and programs across the food chain can help reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Place-based and participatory deployment of current (such as precision agriculture and bioremediation) and development of new technologies (such as biosensors) can reduce the risks associated with agrochemicals. 3. Global Chapters 3. and rapid [and appropriate] intervention are needed [CWANA Chapter 5. if not intensify. 4. Although there is no global mechanism to track pesticide-related illnesses. and insufficient cold storage systems. 3]. and exchange of farm animals across large geographic distances. and improvement of food safety without creating barriers for poor producers and consumers. and safe and effective treatments and/or vaccines. Few countries have any mechanism for compensation of occupational ill health. 6. Early detection. 8. Global Chapters 6. 7. livelihoods. environmental and human health. Improving occupational health in agriculture requires a greater emphasis on prevention and health protection. are not working. and reducing the density. transport. Recent advances in collection and availability of climate and ecosystems information can be used to develop forecasts of epidemics across spatial and temporal scales [Global Chapter 6]. 5. investment in viable alternatives such as integrated pest management. with pathogens that infect more than one host species more likely to emerge than single-host species [Global Chapters 5. NAE Chapter 2]. 6. there is limited capacity for implementation in many low income countries. poor infrastructure. ESAP Chapters 2. and need-based and on-going training and auditing programs [CWANA Chapter 5. Examples include crop rotation. Implementation of these options requires major public and private research and development investments. 8. along with the necessary infrastructure to ensure compliance. as part of sustainable livelihood and poverty reduction programmes. 3. animal identification. regional. Implementation of more agroecological approaches may result in synergies where reduction of input costs can also lead to improved livelihoods and harm minimization [Global Chapters 2. and AKST which explicitly minimises health risks of agricultural workers. SSA Chapter 2]. 7. national. AKST is essential to develop and deploy safer machinery and equipment. Focusing on interventions at one point along the food chain may not provide the most efficient and effective control of infectious diseases. 8. 5.

6. 8. Integrated vector and pest management are effective in controlling many infectious diseases. these early warning systems can reduce morbidity and mortality in animals and humans. and reducing contacts between vectors and humans. and how these factors interact to alter the risk of emerging diseases. Ways forward require human health to be seen by all actors as an explicit goal to be tackled by AKST. greater understanding is needed of the ecosystem and socioeconomic consequences of changes in agricultural systems and practices. . SSA Chapter 3]. such as alternative wetting and drying of rice fields. 7. LAC Chapters 2. NAE Chapter 4. This requires integration and mainstreaming of public health throughout agricultural policies and systems. improved coordination across actors at all scales.58 | IAASTD Synthesis Report eases can be integrated with environmental data to forecast where and when epidemics are likely to arise. 8. Because the relationships between agriculture and infectious disease are not always straightforward. Global 5. 7. such as using cattle in some regions to divert malaria mosquitoes from people [Global Chapters 6. and better understanding of effective implementation processes are needed [CWANA Chapter 5. NAE Chapter 4]. Additional research. environmental manipulation. such as filling and draining small water bodies. Combined with effective response. Information and communication technologies are creating opportunities for faster and more effective communication of disease threats and responses [Global Chapter 6]. including environmental modification. 3.

Understand the factors resulting in lower environmental resilience and the failure to achieve optimum agricultural output by the rural poor. ESAP Chapter 4. LAC Chapter 1. erosion. The severity of these consequences varies with geographic location and access to the various capitals. reduced water and nutrient availability (quality and access) [Global Chapter 1]. loss of genetic resources has been partially addressed by establishment of gene banks the overexploitation paradigm still dominates. for example resolving loss of soil fertility. Jean Albergel (France). and ecosystem services are fundamental capital in support of life on earth [Global Chapter 1]. while recognized as being important. 3. For example the amount of nitrogen used per unit of crop output increased greatly between 1961 and 1996. There have also been negative impacts of pesticide and fertilizer use on soil. air and water resources throughout the world. Additionally. and 90% of harvested area respectively in the year 2000 coupled with a 1. vegetation cover. and. watershed and habitat management. pastoral systems [SSA Chapter 5].000 million ha of land worldwide) affecting 38% of the world’s cropland.Natural Resources Management Writing Team: Lorna Michael Butler (USA). SSA Chapter 5]. there are examples where agricultural practices have been developed to protect agroecosystems [LAC Chapter 1. while producing marketable commodities [Global Chapter 3]. protection of vulnerable landscapes. Extractive processes such as logging. Global Chapter 1]. LAC Chapter 1]. water. On the other hand. policies promoting biocontrol. and micro-irrigation technologies [Global Chapter 3]. are only addressed minimally here as they have been the focus of other global assessments. Adopt a holistic or systems-oriented approach. organic food production. energy. renewable energy sources. Mitigate and reverse the severe impacts on the environment and the livelihoods of poor people. climate. The degradation of natural resources is both biophysically and socially complex. and the further refueling of natural resource degradation. salinization affects about 10% of the world’s irrigated land. This perception has exacerbated the conflicting agricultural demands on natural capital. soil salinization. and fair trade [CWANA Chapter 2.542 billion per year (Global Chapter 9)] adversely affect productivity especially in environmentally sensitive lands in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America [CWANA Chapter 2. Global Chapters 3. crop and livestock insurance). This complex of interacting factors often leads to reduced livelihoods and diminishing crop yields. 5. land fragmentation. Elizabeth Robinson (UK) Soil. water and biodiversity. SSA Chapter 5]. Global Chapter 1. poverty and weak institutions (customary and property rights. especially those of soil. as have other exploitative commercial enterprises [ESAP Chapters 2. climate. The IAASTD report focuses primarily on the agronomic use of natural resources. Increasing pollution also contributes to water quality problems affecting rivers and streams: about 70% in the USA [Global Chapter 8]. to capture the needs for sustainable production and to address 59 . Examples include terracing. credit for the poor. decreased biodiversity and ecosystem services. can all be drivers of degradation [SSA Chapter 5]. more recently. local and traditional knowledge. plant and animal diversity. especially in marginal areas [CWANA Chapter 1. decreased water quality and availability.136 million tonnes yr−1 loss of total global production [Global Chapter 3]. 4. participatory and anticipatory decision making with diverse stakeholders across multiple scales. 85%. captive fisheries [SSA SDM]. P and K deficiencies covering 59%. population growth. inappropriate policy. In many parts of the world natural resources have been treated as though unlimited. and totally resilient to human exploitation. Both have affected local cultures and had undesirable long-term impacts on the sustainability of resources [NAE Chapter 4]. Resolve the biophysically and socially complex issues of NRM using formal. Agriculture already consumes 70% of all global freshwater withdrawn worldwide and has depleted soil nutrients. Interrelated factors drive degradation. 4. are fundamental to the structure and function of agricultural systems and to social and environmental sustainability [Global Chapter 3]. SSA Chapter 5]. customary practices and beliefs. vegetation cover. ecosystem services) due to over-exploitation. water. The consequences include: land degradation (about 2. for example: commerce. 6. 6. wild harvesting of non-timber forest products. plant and animal diversity. Roger Leakey (Australia). 2. while the loss of biodiversity and its associated agroecological functions [estimated to provide economic benefits of US$1. Additionally. and collective. Assess the trends in the loss of natural capital (soil. Natural resource systems. resulting in N. Challenges To improve the productivity of agriculture and enhance sustainable rural development there is the need to: 1.

Determine who pays for the remediation of overexploitation and/or pollution of the natural resource system on which everyone depends. locations and cultures so integrating food and nutritional security with natural resource management. Land degradation and nutrient depletion: The degradation of land is most often attributed to factors such as the loss of vegetation due to deforestation. unavailability of inputs (fertilizers. skills and priorities. farmer groups and civil society members have rarely been involved in agricultural research. Identify and resolve underlying causes of declining productivity embedded in natural resource mismanagement through the adaptation of existing technologies and the creation of innovative solutions. Ketill Berger Figure SR-NRM1. Capabilities for working together at multiple scales and across different social and physical environments are not well developed. It arises from population pressure. and inappropriate agricultural practices. 6. 2007 Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. the complexity of food and other production systems in different ecologies. or in working partnerships with the private sector to achieve integrated natural resource management. conflicting social pressures. Aquastat. For example. Causes of natural resource degradation and of declining productivity are multiple and complex.60 | IAASTD Synthesis Report Proportion of water withdrawal for agriculture. Nevertheless. sub- . and the impacts of tillage on compaction and organic matter decomposition are often greater knowledge and understanding of interactions between the agricultural system and the natural environment. behavioral and social) is necessary for a better understanding of this complexity in NRM [NAE SDM Key Message 5. commercial incentives. water). in shaping natural resource management policy. lack of appropriate technical support and knowledge. land clearance. Options for action relative to development and sustainability goals The AKST available to resolve NRM exploitation issues like the mitigation of soil fertility depletion through synthetic inputs and natural processes. the resolution of natural resource challenges will demand new and creative approaches by stakeholders with diverse backgrounds. land abandonment. New AKST based on multidisciplinary approaches (biophysical. Agricultural water withdrawals as proportion of total water withdrawals. overgrazing. SSA Chapter 5]. 2001 No data < 25% 25–50% 50–75% 75–90% 75–90% SOURCE: FAO.

Causes of acidification are related to overextraction of basic nutrient elements through continuous harvesting and inappropriate ferti- lizer applications. contour hedges. land-use mosaics. Salinity and acidification: Causes of salinity usually result from excessive irrigation and evaporation of soil moisture that draws up certain soil minerals. Total pesticides of N (Source: Figure SR-NRM3.0 3.24 illions [109 ] ha) illions [109 ] ha) 3. mixed cropping systems that integrate peren- Global trends in cereal and meat meat production Global trends in cereal and production 380 Per capita cereal production (kg) Per capita cereal production (kg) Global total use ofuse of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers. especially salt [CWANA Chapter 2]. excessive use of agrichemicals. th st sidies and tariffs promoting non-sustainable practices. Millions tonnes.0 onnes 2. ESAP Chapter 5.24 0. World. Ketill Berger Figure SR-NRM2. while acidification can be reduced by liming and addition of organic residues [Global Chapter 3. LAC Chapter 4]. and lowering water tables by appropriate tree planting. etc.0 WaterWater onnes Pesticides Pesticides 2. Science 31 March 2006. plowing. Some proven technologies for mitigating land degradation include improved land husbandry. excluding former USSR 380 80 80 Per capita meat production (kg) Per capita meat production (kg) 60 Nitrogen Nitrogen Cereals Cereals 30 30 40 40 26 26 20 20 Phosphorus Phosphorus 22 22 280 1960 1970 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 0 0 1960 1970 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 1960 1960 Increased use ofuse of irrigation Increased Annual Total globalglobal pesticides production Tilman et al.28 0. excluding former USSR 38 38 360 340 320 300 280 360 340 320 300 Meat Meat 34 34 60 Millions tonnes. diversification and rotation of cropping systems. use of artificial and natural fertilizers. The salinity problem can be reduced by minimizing irrigation application. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. terracing and agroforestry practices. excessive land clearance that eliminates patches of natural vegetation.irrigation global cereal production/annual global application production 0. and neglect of indigenous knowledge and local priorities. Changes in available water in Africa: end of 20 and 21 centuries. agricultural expansion in to fragile environments. SSA Chapter 5]. Global total nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers. Global Chapter 3. minimum or no-tillage. LAC Chapter 1.Themes: Natural Resources Management | 61 Changes in available water END OF 20TH CENTURY PREDICTED CHANGE – END OF 21ST CENTURY Less than 400 mm 400–1000 mm More than 1000 mm Drop by 10–20% Drop by up to 10% Increase by up to 10% Increase by 10–20% SOURCE: Maarten de Wit and Jacek Stankiewicz.. organic and conservation farming [CWANA Chapter 2. Loss of biodiversity (above and below ground) and associated agroecological functions: Loss of biological diversity results from repeated use of monoculture practices. This may be resolved by diversified farming systems. drainage systems. 2002). World.28 0.0 .

controlling stocking densities. and ensuring pollination. technologies. oils. life cycles and food chains [Global Chapter 3. national. and indigenous knowledge collections [see section on traditional knowledge and innovation. unsuitable cultivation and land use practices that emit greenhouse gases. which can also enhance community empowerment [LAC Chapter 1]. SR Part II: Climate Change]. carbon sequestration [CWANA Chapter 2. riparian strips and erosion control. SSA Chapter 5].g. and improved efficiency in the use of manures and fertilizers [CWANA Chapter 2. land): This may be brought about by waste dumping. appropriate practices. manage. etc. Investment in dissemination and implementation of promising multi-scale and commercially viable “packages” involving partnerships. environments and economies among national and international policy makers. programs. policy) in promoting the awareness of the societal costs of degradation and value of ecosystem services. protection and renewal: This begins with creating understanding and awareness about sustainability issues and their impacts on various populations. Investment in research targeting natural resource resilience and renewal and.. Investment in national. Reduced water availability arises from river capture. One is small organizations like Fair Trade and WWF. global). Global Chapters 3. 6. Develop a more multifunctional approach to agriculture [NAE Chapter 6]. biological control. donors. Investment to promote improved models of extension and outreach by engaging local people with scientists in participatory learning processes for NRM. policies and institutions. This can be countered by using appropriately constructed holding ponds. promotion of best practices for land/ water use. These would facilitate less exploitative NRM and strategies for resource resilience. resins. and deforestation. regional and global structures and partnerships to protect natural resource data collections. This can be achieved through integrating production of food crops within integrated farming systems that maintain environmental services such as carbon sequestration. etc. quality and access: Diffuse pollution from agriculture is a major factor in damaging water quality. conserving or introducing biological corridors. [Global Chapter 3. Investment in cost-effective monitoring of the state of natural resources to generate long-term trends and knowledge about the state of natural capital. local wildlife. Examples include developing better understandings of the role of biodiversity in agroecosystem functions and wildlife conservation through diversified farming systems that support local livelihoods [Global Chapter 3. wetland and swamp conservation. Reduced water availability. training and education. LAC Chapters 1. gender-related patterns of resource access and control and participatory decision-making and implementation [ESAP Chapter 4. SSA Chapter 5]. ecoagriculture and ecotourism in which local communities. domestication of new tree crops through community action. 4. NAE Chapter 6]. reducing pesticide use. Promote research “centers of AKST-NRM excellence”. often with private sector partners. unique habitats. Agricultural sustainability would benefit similarly from media coverage conferring increased public understanding and support. There are some good examples of two types of organizations that have brought part of the message to public attention. and documenting and using traditional knowledge of natural resource conservation [ESAP Chapters 3. conservation farming and organic agriculture. research and training programs. soil organic management. and monitor natural resource issues and changes [LAC Chapter 5. seed dispersal. solar/wind power). and use and protection of traditional knowledge and farmers’ rights for better access to traditional foods. water. rainwater capture. e. NAE Chapter 6]. and in adapting improved NRM technologies to local circumstances for a better informed public with the capabilities to diagnose. protection of water ways with riparian buffer strips. water and nutrient cycling [NAE SDM]. NAE Chapter 6]. Investment in research targeting mitigation of climate change and loss of biodiversity [NAE Chapter 6]. corporate business leaders and development agencies. Global Chapter 3. Examples include Daimler-Chrysler’s (Brazil) production of raw materials such as gums. NAE SDM. minimized use of agrichemicals. emissions from unregulated industry. protection and renewal through innovative two-way learning processes in research and development. Examples of secure data banks and collections include GEMS. use of water-saving irrigation techniques. The latter have benefited from wide media attention. and forests. chemical accidents. soil fertility replenishment. Investment to promote awareness of resource resilience. restoration of hydrological processes. protection and renewal through innovative processes. exploitation of aquifers and ground water. replanting trees in the landscape). This would benefit from the integration of local insights on land tenure and management regimes. SR Part II: Climate Change]. drainage of wetlands. CWANA SDM. waterways. as exemplified by the Millennium Development Goals and the Kyoto Protocol to mitigate climate change. Promote agricultural production based on less exploitative NRM and strategies for resource resilience. NAE Chapter 6]. . benefit from external interest in for example. the other is global level policy. and fibers for car manufacture by rural communities [Global Chapter 3]. Examples include rebuilding natural capital (replanting watersheds. 4. SR Part II: Bioenergy] Strengthen human resources in the support of natural capital through increased investment (research. strengthening local capabilities and ownership for wide scale adoption.62 | IAASTD Synthesis Report nials (cash crops or domestically important indigenous species). use of clean energy alternatives (biofuels. monitoring and policy formulation [CWANA Chapter 2. This also requires public understanding of the issues. integrated pest management. partnerships. IPGRI. Pollution may be reduced by regulation (local. simultaneously. Increasing pollution (air.

and in adapting improved NRM technologies to local circumstances and needs. and appropriate natural resource allocation mechanisms. SSA Chapter 5]. LAC Chapter 4. At local. LAC Chapter 5. extension programs and primary and secondary education targeting improved NRM [Global Chapter 3. Important topics include use of information technology (IT) for NRM knowledge access. create local-global collaborative research and development partnerships.. collaborative management. entrepreneurship and employment generation [ESAP Chapter 3. participatory group processes for natural resource management. This would include limit- . conflict resolution. research and rural development. other market-based opportunities such as certification.Themes: Natural Resources Management | 63 Global Chapters 3. Long-term partnerships are essential for ensuring enduring capacity to benefit the collective good [Global Chapter 3. Examine and implement policies that encourage constructive NRM partnerships. LAC Chapter 5]. policy development. NRM partnerships are beneficial for landscape management and planning. 4. etc. and the participatory domestication of traditionally important species [Global Chapter 3]. prevent migration to forest and/or marginal lands. forests). NAE SDM. participatory plant breeding [Global Chapter 3]. 5. government. crop and animal domestication tools and strategies. prevention of loss (or lack of clarity) of land rights and security. In commercially oriented partnerships. youth. NAE SDM]. and agricultural land abandonment [Global Chapter 3. financial management. refugees. An example from West Africa demonstrates the possibility of improving the livelihoods of smallholder farmers by integrating trees into farming systems [Global Chapter 3]. land conservation and environmentally friendly farming technologies. Global Chapter 3. Appropriate partners may include public and private sector representatives. trust and goals. velop experiential learning. farmer-to-farmer extension. Global Chapters 3.g. 7. Important topics include land tenure policy. This example includes rural employment diversification (e. 5. Create partnerships and networks involving NGOs. value adding) through postharvest activities [SSA Chapter 5]. represent the total needs of the partnership. NAE SDM]. together. farmer field schools. entrepreneurship and employment generation. NAE SDM]. NRM leadership skills [Global Chapter 3] including IT capabilities. Additionally. This will strengthen ecosystem services. feasibility planning. SSA Chapter 5]. 5].” This is becoming an increasingly contentious issue as the population of the world grows more reliant on natural resources that are global public goods. 5. fisheries.. impact assessment. This would include the promotion of common pool resource management and use (water. LAC Chapter 4]. local and traditional knowledge in all aspects of NRM for agricultural research and development [Global Chapters 3. restoration and recycling. postharvest value-addition and marketing for business development. The issue of who pays for environmental degradation is increasingly resolved by the principle “the polluter pays. IPM). SR Part II: TKI]. Ensure that each partner’s contributions. Trained facilitators can help strengthen the capacity of multi-stakeholder partnerships. and agricultural land abandonment [Global Chapter 3]. particularly on the part of women and landless people [Global Chapter 3. Long-term improvements on existing agricultural land in order to prevent migration to forest and/or marginal lands.. know the policy formulation process and have experience of working in partnership with public and private sectors [NAE SDM]. land. women. CSOs. there should be recognition of the development of IP and other mechanisms that benefit local partners and communities [ESAP Chapters 3. low-input integrated approaches to farming (INRM. regulation. Market mechanisms that address this challenge include Payment for Environmental Services (PES) that directly rewards improved management practices through transfers to those who protect ecosystem services from those who benefit. AKST can support innovative partnerships across institutions for multi-stakeholder NR management. NAE SDM]. This may include training and mentorship to optimize implementation and outcomes. For national and international policy makers: Initiate learning opportunities to better understand the importance of IT connectivity and skill development. based on mutual understanding. Facilitate natural resource management partnerships for different purposes to enhance benefits from natural resource assets for the collective good and to mitigate against natural hazards. For community leaders and local government officials: Develop capabilities that build capacity for multi-stakeholder partnerships [NAE Chapter 6]. technology and market development.g. promote models of extension and outreach that engage local people in participatory learning processes for NRM. tenure inequity and lack of rights. LAC Chapter 4]. Create an enabling environment that builds NRM capacity for concerted action among stakeholders and their organizations. are often beyond the reach of the poorest farmers [CWANA Chapter 2. for example pricing. regional and international levels. For marginalized groups (e. LAC Chapter 5. ESAP Chapter 4. national. private sector to build on shared knowledge and decision-making. NRM strategies and technologies [Global Chapters 3. resource restoration. financial management.g. LAC Chapter 5. NRM stakeholders are likely to be more effective in shaping NRM policy when they have improved understanding of NRM issues. Improve or establish land tenure institutions and policies. enforcement. farmer organizations. negotiation. Global Chapter 3. e. The Clean Development Mechanism links poor and rich countries through carbon trading. waterharvesting practices. Promote policy reform to instigate long-term improvements on existing agricultural land. Multi-disciplinary teams have proven effective [CWANA Chapter 2.

South Africa) in 2002. This is particularly true in the developing world in relation to the sustainable use of natural resources in agriculture [Global Chapter 3. The challenges can be resolved if AKST is used and developed creatively with active participation among various stakeholders across multiple scales. and the World Food Summit (Rome. Public sector agriculture research. the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg. Globalization Tropical plantations for export markets International commodity research by CGIAR Localization Traditional subsistence agriculture National research by NARS National extension services Green Revolution Agribusiness for fertilizers/pesticides and seeds NGOs and CBOs Farmer training schools Participatory Rural Appraisal Multinational companies for commodity trade WTO trade agreements Biopiracy Biotechnology Participatory domestication and breeding Fair trade Water-user associations Promotion of indigenous species/germplasm Equity and gender initiatives Recognition of farmer/community IPR Agroforestry for soil fertility management ing or removing policies that constraint these partnerships [LAC Chapter 4. nutritional and food security. It is evident that the severity of uncontrolled exploitation of natural capital is having major negative impacts on the livelihoods of both rural and urban people. and have been effective in triggering the formation of civil society organizations. . income generation and employment [Global Chapter 3]. and European Union Soil Initiative. Some current initiatives are drawing the two pathways together in ways that promote local-global partnerships for expanded economic opportunities. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1990. Natural resource management initiatives that illustrate how to bring localization and globalization together include: priorities of local people for self sufficiency. NAE Chapter 6]. NAE Chapter 6) have come from the grassroots of civil society and involve locally based innovations that meet local needs of people and communities. Comprehensive Assessment of Water in Agriculture (2007). and international policy have been influential forces shaping globalization. Italy) in 2001. Italy) in 2002. 2001. This must be done in order to reverse the misuse of natural capital and ensure the judicious use and renewal of water bodies. related plants and animal species [Global Chapter 3]. the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Rome. Since the onset of the millennium some of these include: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Montreal. globalization has been a dominant force in formal AKST. several international and regional assessments of relevance to NRM have promoted sustainable practices and people-oriented policies for addressing these issues. Localization initiatives (Global Chapter 3. 1994. Global initiatives for sustainable development have brought attention to NRM issues at local and global levels.64 | IAASTD Synthesis Report Table SR-NRM1. Similarly. rather than living on the interest. Connect globalization and localization pathways that link locally generated NRM knowledge and innovations to public and private AKST to achieve more equitable and sustainable rural development. Agriculture represents one important management option. maintenance of critical ecosystem services and sustainable rural livelihoods. international trade and marketing. Globalization and Localization Activities. Some of these include: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). can be beneficial to a wide range of stakeholders at all levels of community development [NAE-SDM]. 1992. which when carried out in harmony with the landscape. we are jeopardizing future generations. 2006). Since the mid-20th century. NAE Chapter 6]. fossil fuels and atmospheric quality for future generations. Global Environmental Outlook. By drawing down so severely on natural capital. ecosystems services. soils. thereby stimulating new linkages with regional and/or global partners. Ways forward Natural resource management is central to agricultural production and productivity. Canada) in 2001. biodiversity. European Union Water Initiative.

poverty reduction and development goals. food security and the environment. which. Flexibility and differentiation in trade policy frameworks (i. Erika Rosenthal (USA). can improve food access for poor consumers. Agriculture is a fundamental instrument for sustainable development. Ensuring policy space for all these countries to maintain prices for crops that are important to food security and rural livelihoods is essential. least developed countries and small island economies will be important. The steep secular decline in commodity prices and terms of trade for agriculture-based economies has had significant negative effects on the millions of small-scale resource-poor producers [ESAP Chapter 3. maximize environmental sustainability. and lower prices. while for some arid and semiarid countries with limited natural resources bases increased food security will require increased trade. Agricultural trade. The poorest developing countries are net losers under most trade liberalization scenarios. Trade policy reform aimed at providing a fairer global trading system can make a positive contribution to the alleviation of poverty and hunger. including export subsidies.. thus weakening agricultural sectors with long-term negative effects for poverty. highyield seed varieties. particularly through the emergence of new producers who are willing to accept lower returns than established producers. There is growing concern that developing countries have opened their agricultural sectors to international competition too extensively and too quickly.. particularly for commodities such as sugar. agrifood processors and companies involved in production of commodities). that the developed countries and wealthier developing countries should grant non-reciprocal access to countries less developed than themselves. and support small-scale farmers to spur poverty reduction and drive development is immediate. Commitments to reducing dumping.. acquire some commodities cheaper than would be possible through domestic production.) not produced domestically. can offer opportunities for the poor. ESAP. Global Chapter 7]. Joan Kagwanja (Kenya) The challenge of targeting market and trade policy to enhance the ability of agricultural and AKST systems to strengthen food security.e. SSA]. Global. groundnuts and cotton where developing countries compete. however this has undermined the development of the agricultural sector in developing countries. Under these conditions. Agricultural trade is increasingly organized in global chains. This is also a challenge in many developing country markets where overproduction of tropical commodities. National policy needs to arrive at a balance between a higher prices which can benefit producers and lead to a more vibrant rural economy. Agricultural policies in industrialized countries. pursue food security. Global Challenges For many developing countries sustainable food security depends on local food production.Trade and Markets Writing Team: Dev Nathan (India). Reducing industrialized countries’ agricultural subsidies and other trade distorting policies is a priority. dominated by a few large transnational buyers (trading companies. Preferential market access for poorer developing countries. a “business as usual” trade and market policy approach will not advance IAASTD objectives. thus. etc. Agricultural trade offers opportunities for developing countries to benefit from larger scale production for global markets. LAC. and gain access to new forms of AKST and equipment (e. about 70% of the world’s poor are rural and most are involved in farming. before basic institutions and infrastructure are in place. “special and differential treatment”) will enhance developing countries’ ability to benefit from agricultural trade.e. and minimize potential dislocations associated with trade liberalization.g. so the poverty reduction and rural development effects of integration in 65 . Approaches that are tailored to distinct national circumstances and different stages of development and target increasing the profitability of smallscale farmers are effective for reducing poverty in developing countries [CWANA. has led to price collapse. The principle of non-reciprocal access. although volatile on the international market. has a significant history and role to play in trade relations to foster development. have reduced commodity prices and thus food import costs. Structural overproduction in NAE countries has contributed to these depressed world commodity prices. i. Reciprocity of access to markets (sometimes referred to as a “level playing field”) between countries at vastly different stages of agricultural development does not translate into equal opportunity [ESAP Chapter 3]. fertilizers. but there are major distributional impacts among countries and within countries that in many cases have not been favorable for small-scale farmers and rural livelihoods. or the sale of commodities at below the cost of production thus undermining national food production and marketing channels are equally important. In these globalized chains primary producers often capture only a fraction of the international price of a trade commodity. pump sets. and thus agriculture’s significant potential growth multiplier for the whole economy.

Agriculture generates large environmental externalities including accelerated loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services such as water cycling and quality. AKST has great potential to reverse this trend. United States of America (US$/tonne). Global. Level playing field. East Africa (US$/tonne).14 to US$42) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 200 Wheat Coffe Maize Sorghum Cocoa 100 Cotton Butter Hides Rubber Beef 0 1970s 1980s 1990s Average 2000–05 2003 2004 2005 Sugar Tea Base year is 2000. Building countervailing negotiating power. Argentina (US$/tonne). Cost of coffee from farm gate to coffee shop. 700 600 500 Bananas 400 global supply chains have been far less than optimal [ESAP. FAO indicator price (US$/kg). ICCO indicator price (US cents/lb). will be important to help resource poor farmers increase their share of value captured. Malaysia (US cents/lb). NAE]. United States of America (US$/tonne). SOURCE: The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2006. Trends in real commodity prices.beef. butter. Uganda) Felixstowe UK Product cost after processing in factory Supermarket When shelf price made into coffee Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Bangladesh (US$/tonne). increased energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions. or to provide incentives for sustainability. . sugar. New Zealand (US cents/lb). Argentina (US cents/lb). sorghum. and environmental health impacts of synthetic pesticides [ESAP Chapter 3. 300 Jute Rice Cost of coffee from farm gate in Uganda to coffee shop in UK (price goes from US$0. sisal. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. aiding in the improvement of natural resource management and the provisioning of agroenvironmental services. Ketill Berger Figure SR-TM1. United States of America (US cents/lb). Thailand (US$/tonne). cotton and hides. jute. maize. rubber. NAE. Global]. rice. such as farmer cooperatives and networks. tea. 2003 IAASTD.66 | IAASTD Synthesis Report Trends in real commodity prices 1000 900 800 Sisal Figure SR-TM2. Ketill Berger SOURCE: Shaun Ferris and Peter Robbins. ICO indicator price (US cents/lb). ISA indicator price (US cents/lb). wheat. Basis for prices for individual commodities: banana. cocoa. Ecuador (US$/tonne). FAO Farm gate Trader price Mombasa (port. Figure SR-TM3. Many of these impacts derive from the failure of markets to value and internalize environmental and social harms in the price of traded agricultural and other products. coffee.

ESAP. Governance is weakest in many agriculture-based developing countries. LAC. technologies. Concerns about the vulnerability of agriculture to climate and water crises. This includes increas- . and genetic materials. Assisting the small-scale farmer sector to access markets on more favorable terms. emerge as clear global priorities [CWANA. Approaches to balance domestic production with food stocks and foreign exchange reserves are noted in ESAP. domestic tax collections. need technical. LAC. Investments to implement these standards should be approached as part of improvements needed to protect local populations from food-borne diseases and not only to comply with trade regulations. and the urgency of focusing AKST to reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture. The expansion of the agricultural landscape into forested areas and the potential for land planted for biofuels feedstocks to displace food crops and increase deforestation is a concern across the regions. LAC]. SSA]. IP rights may restrict access to research. Promoting investment for local value addition to increase diversity and competitiveness of agricultural products and generate off farm rural employment is a priority across the developing regions. as contemplated in the SPS Agreement. as well as international markets. ESAP. Ketill Berger Figure SR-TM4. SSA]. Market concentration offers fewer opportunities for small-scale farmers. ESAP. is noted across the developing country regions. Food security is a priority agricultural trade policy challenge across the developing South. LAC and ESAP. Allowing greater scope to more effectively addressing situations involving traditional knowledge and genetic resources in international IP regimes would help advance development and sustainability goals. Increased technical and financial assistance. national and global governance will enhance the ability of AKST systems to maximize agriculture as a driver for development. and volatile international prices to import food [ESAP. as in the case of climate and water crises. improved local. in particular. Improving small scale farmers’ linkages with local. ESAP. and negotiate from common platforms is a priority in SSA. inhibiting dissemination and utilization. with consequences for food security and development [ESAP.Themes: Trade and Markets | 67 Market concentration offers fewer opportunities for small scale farmers Consumers Retailers Processors Market power and influence is concentrated in trading. LAC]. around the world. equitable risk management and adaptation approaches. and capture greater value in global chains is emphasized [CWANA. exacerbating terms of trade problems [ESAP. urban and regional markets. and governance of the agricultural sector is weak compared to other sectors. the need to significantly improve the domestic policies for sustainable agricultural development to advance IAASTD objectives is noted across the developing South [CWANA. Additionally developing countries face significant new regulatory costs related to international trade. Global. It is widely noted that tariff escalation in industrialized countries has made it more difficult to stimulate investment in local value addition. will be required to build and improve developing countries’ own systems of quality control for meeting health and safety standards. SSA]. Enhancing regional market integration to increase the size of markets (creating more constant demand and less price volatility). Concerns over preference erosion are also widespread [CWANA. Small producers. There is a concern expressed in many regions that intellectual property (IP) regimes have contributed to a shift in AKST research and development away from public goods provisioning. LAC. SSA]. Improving the equitable capture of benefits from AKST systems is a priority in LAC and other regions. A number of regions express significant concern over whether smaller economies would have sufficient foreign exchange reserves to cover increased food imports in light of declining terms of trade. SSA]. Tariff revenue losses have not been made up by other. Global. processing and retail Domestic traders Small-scale farmers Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. NAE. There are concerns that the high costs of regulatory measures to comply with sanitary and phytosanitary standards will divert resources form national food and animal safety priorities. Trade policies designed to ensure sufficient levels of domestic production of food (not just sufficient currency reserves to import food) are an important component of food security and sovereignty strategies for many countries [CWANA. Countries may consider regional and bilateral cooperation in the formulation of national IPR systems and removing IPR from the ambit of WTO trade rules. Finally. LAC. LAC. Finally. Enhanced global governance is also needed to support national sustainable development agendas. Global. Global. financial and management support to improve their production to meet health and safety standards. There often is a trade-off between rewarding the development of AKST through IP rights and. or indeed. Synthesis of priority challenges across regions Many of the urgent challenges reported in the IAASTD are widely shared across the developing regions. tariffs used to represent a significant percentage of tax revenues in many developing countries. SSA].

World Trade Organization country categories that better reflect the heterogeneity of developing countries’ food security situations could help ensure that no food insecure country is denied use of these mechanisms. among other measures. is an important trade policy tool to avoid possible damage to domestic productive capacity. plurilateral commitments from major exporting countries to ensure that there is no trade at prices below the full cost of production have been put forward as an option to discipline dumping (which can cause significant damage to small-scale produc- ers). consumption taxes that are economically more efficient but can be administratively and politically difficult to collect) the pace of tariff reduction could be reconsidered. At the household level depressed prices can mean inability to purchase AKST. International trade and domestic policies need to manage orderly shifts in production centers. deeper preferential access to markets for least developed countries. Potential liberalization of biofuels trade is a clear example. Increased Aid for Trade and development assistance commitments will also be necessary. groundnuts and cotton is important for small-scale farm sectors around the world. development and dissemination for the small farm sector to advance development and sustainability goals... Global. reduced tariffs for processed commodities. or bio-fuel from palm oil. and increasing investments in infrastructure such as post-harvest capacity. Priorities should be determined on an individual country basis. and information services. with improved governance mechanisms to avoid problems of free-riding and quota abuse are receiving renewed consideration to address price-depressing structural oversupply. There is need for increased attempts to find alternate uses for these commodities. International trade policy options Trade policy approaches to benefit developing countries include. If countries are not able to make up the revenue difference with other taxes (i. and targeted AKST research. the removal of barriers for products in which they have a comparative advantage. greenwhich need to be carefully assessed for different technologies and regions. market feeder roads. livelihood and development needs as special products for which agreed tariff reductions will not be fully applied. reducing fishing pressure on dwindling stocks. The elimination or the substantial reduction of subsidies and protectionism in industrialized countries. along with implementation of farmers’ rights to seeds to enhance conservation of agricultural biodiversity and associated informal AKST. Advice to developing countries has tended to focus on promoting opportunities Percentage price changes of key commodities Price changes of selected retail foodstuffs between 1980 and 2000 Instant coffee 300% 200% 100% 0% Chocolate bar Processed sugar Corn flakes Loaf of bread 400% Figure SR-TM5a. Collective and individual legal rights to land and productive resources. enabling producers in high-cost centers to shift.) National trade and market policy issues National agricultural trade policy to advance sustainability and development goals will depend upon the competitiveness and composition of the sector. and cover costs of adjustment for measures that have already been implemented. especially for women. presenting tradeoffs between food security.g. until enhanced AKST. and is addressed at the end of this section [SR Part II: Bioenergy]. International commodity agreements and supply management for tropical commodities. designed to counter depressed prices resulting from import surges. Options for Action to Advance Development and Sustainability Goals This section discusses approaches to maximize the ability of trade and market policy options to facilitate targeted AKST to increase the agricultural sector’s ability to deliver multiple public goods functions. Similarly the special safeguard mechanism [SSM]. It would also assist in diversifying fisheries production and exports toward value-added processing. This gives developing countries an important tool to protect these commodities from intensified import competition.e. Price change of selected retail foodstuffs -100% Coffee Cocoa Sugar Maize* Wheat* 0% Price changes for corresponding farm . Administering effective mechanisms to protect traditional and local knowledge remains a challenge [ESAP Chapter 3. without the destitution that can be brought about by pure market-induced transitions. Increasing support for public sector research to deliver public goods AKST outputs is important to meet development and sustainability goals. Similarly. Replacing revenues lost as a result of reduced import tariffs is essential to advance development agendas. There are important synergies and tradeoffs between policy options that merit special consideration. targeting AKST research. infrastructure and institutional capacity can make the sector internationally competitive. are critically important to advance development and sustainability goals. Elimination of escalating tariffs in industrialized countries would help encourage value-added agroprocessing to help create off-farm rural jobs and boost rural livelihoods. strengthen institutional capacity for trade policy analysis and negotiation. especially for commodities in which developing countries compete such as sugar. the need to sell productive assets or missed school fees [ESAP.” crucial for food security. Policy flexibility to allow developing countries to designate “special products. are emphasized in order for these groups to benefit from opportunities created by agricultural trade. development and delivery to meet the needs of small-scale farmers. LAC. including AKST targeted to improve competitiveness. indigenous people and minorities.68 | IAASTD Synthesis Report ing the security of access and tenure to land and resources. e. fruit coating with lac. Global]. (Industrialized countries have a right and an obligation to compensate their own losers as well.

agroforestry practices and carbon sequestration. It is increasingly recognized that developing countries at an earlier stage of agricultural development may require some level of import protection for their producers while investments are made to improve competitiveness. “The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2006”. Supporting development of fair trade and certified organic agriculture offers an alternative set of trading standards to mainstream commodity markets that can improve the environmental and social performance of agriculture. improving financial sustainability through buying relationship that better balance risk. Carlos Felipe Ostertag. crop insurance and preferential credit.FAO. Market mechanisms to internalize negative and reward positive environmental externalities Key trade and market policies to facilitate AKST’s contribution to reducing agriculture’s large environmental footprint include removing perverse input subsidies. Ketill Berger for increased exports to international markets (traditional and non-traditional crops) rather than enhancing competitiveness of import substitutes or market opportunities in domestic and regional markets. tax exemptions for biocontrols to promote integrated pest management. A key objective of PES schemes is to generate stable revenue flows that can help ensure long-term sustainability of the ecosystem that provides the service. Figure SR-TM5b. such as crop or rain insurance. SOURCE: Mark Lundy. Other policy approaches to address the environmental externalities of agriculture include taxes on carbon and pesticide use to provide incentives to reach internationally or nationally agreed use-reduction targets. greater balance among these policy approaches may be indicated. Global. and innovating production and marketing methods. Expanding access to microfinance is an option to allow small-scale producers to access AKST inputs and technologies. New business models and private sector sustainable trading initiatives apply these standards to mainstream trading operations via reducing the cost of certification and compliance for groups of small scale farmers. Strengthening social capital and political participation for the poor and vulnerable offer significant opportunities to reduce poverty and improve livelihoods. and increasing information sharing and capacity building to increase business skills for producer organizations. Options for accessing markets on more favorable terms Better access to capital. not just large landowners. Newer financial services and products. conservation tillage. and increased research. watershed management. arrangements should be structured so that small-scale farmers and communities. an integrated developing country production will be favorable [Global]. AKST targeted to resource poor farmers. Percentage of retail value paid Rupert Best and Shaun Ferris: “A Territorial based Approach to Agro-Enterprise Development”. [ESAP.200% 100% 0% 0% -100% Coffee Cocoa Sugar Maize* Wheat* Themes: Trade and Markets | 69 Price changes for corresponding farm gate prices for above foodstuffs. may benefit [Global. Global. NAE] Carbon-footprint labels are an option to internalize the energy costs of agricultural production via the application of a market standard. and incentives for “multiple” functions use of agricultural land to broaden revenue options for land managers. and developing rewards and markets for agroenvironmental services. Certified organic agriculture is value-added agriculture accessible to resource poor farmers who have extensive local production knowledge and capacity for innovation. Assistance to smallscale producers. in many cases. Commitments to source fair trade products. Identification and elimination of environmentally damaging subsidies. Payments/reward for environmental services (PES) is an approach that values and rewards the benefits of ecosystem services provided by sustainable agricultural practices such as low-input/low-emission production. facilitation of farmer organization and collective action to take upscale-sensitive functions and alternative trading channels can help increase the bargaining position of small producers within global chains [ESAP. Legal rights and access to land and productive resources such as micro-credit and AKST. local value addition and vertical diversification. and tax exemptions on inputs and sales. IAASTD. This includes products and services offered by financial institutions as well as credit and other services offered by value chain actors. Fisheries subsidies that fuel overexploitation and . especially tropical producers. To achieve livelihood benefits as well as environmental benefits. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. are promising approaches. responsibilities and benefits among the chain actors. to primary producer. NAE]. María Verónica Gottret. indigenous peoples and other excluded sectors to benefit from trade opportunities. and support for fair trade networks for basic foodstuffs and south-south sales. 1980–2002 * 1980’s to average 2000–05. can help reduce risks associated with adopting new technologies. to articulate their carbon rating will be key. LAC. taxing externalities. development and effective delivery of AKST targeted to the needs of resource-poor producers. Developing countries benefit from improved security of access and tenure to land and productive resources (including regularization and expansion of land ownership by small-scale producers and landless workers). CIAT. creating competition in concentrated export markets. better definition and enforcement of property rights. Options to support the growth of organics include developing capacity in research institutions. and improve investment and asset building. LAC. and provide greater equity in international trade by providing favorable and stable returns to farmers and agricultural workers. LAC. is key to improving equity and the ability of women. improved infrastructure. SSA]. State trading enterprises in developing countries (with improved governance mechanisms to reduce rent-seeking) may provide enhanced market access for marginalized small-scale farmers in developing countries. including fishery subsidies is a fundamental. transitioning to agroenvironmental practices.

70 | IAASTD Synthesis Report threaten the viability of many wild stocks and the livelihoods of fishing communities are an example. An efficient mechanism to handle interactions between multilateral environmental agreements and trade regimes is needed in order to ensure environmental and development concerns are not made secondary to trade rules. economic and environmental risks and benefits before commitments are made. An intergovernmental framework for comparative technology assessments would increase information for decision makers on emerging technologies for agriculture. a more comprehensive climate change agreement could include a modified Clean Development Mechanism to take fuller advantage of the opportunities offered by the agriculture and forestry sectors to mitigate climate change. The quality and transparency of governance of AKST decision making is fundamental. Strengthening developing country capacity to analyze and identify options that are in their best interest. The creation of an independent agency to take up the mandate of the UN Center for Transnational Corporations could generate much needed information and analysis to support sustainable development agendas. or the establishment of a multilateral agreement to promote timely comparative technology assessment with respect to development and sustainability goals. and an international review mechanism for proposed mergers and acquisitions among agribusiness companies that operate in multiple countries simultaneously. This may include creation of independent international. and a wide range of agricultural practices including zero/reduced-till. including: afforestation and reforestation. allowing for greater civil society access to information and participation in policy formulation [Global]. livestock and rice paddy management. . and meaningful participation of all relevant stakeholders. nanotechnologies. Developing better tools for assessing tradeoffs in proposed trade agreements includes increased use of strategic impact assessments (SIAs). Analysis tailored to countries at different stages of development. regional or national bodies dedicated to assessing major new technologies and providing an early listening and warning system. and that encourage sustainable development might also be included in a post-Kyoto climate regime [Global. is a prerequisite for a positive and equitable outcome of trade negotiations. for example. and play a full and effective role in the negotiation process. Consideration may also be given to establishing national and regional teams of experts to analyze the interests of their stakeholder groups and recommend negotiating positions. as well as subsidies for reduced fishing and for mitigating the negative social and economic consequences of restructuring the fisheries sector [Global Chapter 7]. Increased access to information requirements may be applied to the trade process. SIAs aim to give negotiators and other interested stakeholders a fuller understanding of potential social. and different characteristics of agriculture sectors and household economies can better inform policy choices to address development and sustainability goals. including increased information and analysis for decision makers. There is often limited information on the potential social. including. Increased Aid-for-Trade and other support will be necessary. improving interdisciplinary international cooperation on a wide range of agriculture and environmental issues is essential to advance development and sustainability goals. environmental and economic consequences to different sectors of society and regions of the world. avoided deforestation using a national sectoral approach rather than a project approach to minimize issues of leakage. The framework would include a comprehensive set of eligible agricultural mitigation activities. Other approaches could include reMechanisms that also encourage and support adaptation. Enhancing governance Approaches to address the imbalance in trade relationships between small-scale producers and a limited number of powerful traders include the establishment of international competition policy such as multilateral rules on restrictive business practices. For example. of both proposed trade agreements and emerging technologies. Options include investment in value-added processing. Finally. NAE]. particularly in regions that are most vulnerable such as in the tropics and sub-tropics.

traditional knowledge is constituted in the interaction of the material and nonmaterial worlds embedded in place-based cultures and identities [Figure SR TKI-1] [LAC SDM]. Robust evidence indicates that it is the form of collaboration that determines the effectiveness of the resulting AKST in terms of development and sustainability goals [Global Chapters 2. In numerous cases traditional and local AKST in collaboration with formal AKST and support services is empowering communities. nuts. Nurturance and respect are fundamental principles in these exchanges. Many kinds of traditional and local AKST support wildlife and biodiversity and contribute to carbon and methane sequestration [Global Chapters 2. The place par excellence for the three communities to interact is the chacra (plot procured through dialogue. reciprocity. 3]. Global Chapter 3. cinnamon. The Ayllu is comprised of three communities: people. damar agroforests in Indonesia) and current initiatives to domesticate indigenous tree species producing fruits. nutrition and food security [Global Chapter 3]. 3]. More broadly. qanats and similar underground water storage and irrigation techniques (Iran. as in the high Andes. LAC Chapter 1]. Global Chapters 2. nature. NAE SDM. Global Chapters 2. 7. Local and traditional agricultures work with genetic material that is evolving under random mutation. stone lines and planting pits for water harvesting and conservation of soil moisture (West African savannah belt). introduced to West Africa). local and traditional knowledge nurtured and managed germplasm that today is recognized as a center of origin of genetic diversity. natural and farmer selection and community management [Global Chapter 2]. Knowledge created and transferred from another place by persons from outside the locality has to be instituted in the chacra through and in harmony with the dialogue among the members of the Ayllu and in conformity with the rituals and ceremonies that support such dialogue. [Global Chapter 3] The diversity gives local options and capacity for adaptive response that are essential for meeting the challenges of climate change [CWANA SDM. and harmonious. Even in unpromising soil and topographic conditions. Within the local Pacha there is the Ayllu (Community in Quechuan and Aymaran languages). Fabrice Dreyfus (France). spirits. The nature of traditional and local knowledge Traditional knowledge [Global Chapter 7]. Throughout the agricultural calendar interaction within the Ayllu takes place through rituals and ceremonies. many aspects of agroforestry (3 million ha of rubber. Sri Lanka). They include the use of Golden Weaver ants as a biocontrol with WARDA’s assistance. diverse. 4]. Local stakeholders may engage in AKST activities typically (1) to compel acknowledgment of their knowledge and capacity for self-generated development by organizations and actors located elsewhere or (2) to reap benefits by fostering relations with non-local organizations and actors who need contextual. Global SDM. variable. tubers and animal species over generations. Local knowledge is a functional description of capabilities and activities that exist among rural actors in all parts of the world. Mobilizing these capacities in collaboration with formal science can generate AKST of more than local significance [Global Chapter 3]. Janice Jiggins (UK) Traditional and local knowledge constitutes a vast realm of accumulated practical knowledge that decision makers cannot afford to overlook if development and sustainability goals are to be achieved [ESAP SDM. The local Pacha (mother earth) is a micro-cosmos.Traditional and Local Knowledge and Community-based Innovations Writing team: Satinder Bajaj (India). the second is instanced by formal breeders and commercial organizations in the Netherlands who . sustainable technologies with wide scale application that have originated in local and traditional AKST are numerous and found worldwide. LAC SDM]. redistribution and rejoicing flowing among the three communities. Labels of geographical origin exemplify the first. maintaining traditional cultures and diets while improving local food sovereignty. Local and traditional strategies for in situ conservation can be highly effective in managing the viability and diversity of seed. medicines and other household products [Global Chapter 3]. sacred. immanent. 3. Effective. tank irrigation (India. consubstantial. Tirso Gonzales (Peru). a representation of the cosmos at large. undervalued and excluded from the modeling that often guides AKST decision making [ESAP SDM. innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity [Global Chapter 2]. Partly because the innumerable but diverse innovations resulting from local and traditional AKST are hard to present as statistical data they typically are overlooked. Afghanistan and other arid areas) [CWANA SDM]. 8. roots. It is animated. place-based knowledge in order to perform their own missions efficiently and profitably [Global Chapter 2]. 3]. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity refers to traditional knowledge. incomes. including OECD countries [Global Chapter 2.

proaches have added value to the encounter between traditional/local knowledge actors and formal AKST actors. In some cases Costa Rica) as teachers and field trainers. There is a wealth of evidence of encounters between knowledge actors that have supported achievement of development and sustainability goals [ESAP Chapter 2. An example of fruitful encounters is given of malpractices have begun to exert some pressure for by the extension of rice cultivation in brackish water in change. the farmers negotiate formal contracts which give them recognition and due reward for their intellectual contribution in all varieties brought to market [Global Chapter 2]. The Andean cosmovision. Typically these have arisen in the context of the amples include efforts made in a number of countries following circumstances: to invite traditional/local knowledge actors into rural Colonial disruptions that continue in some parts of the schools (e. leading to uncontrolled open access to natural reby village-based adult education and vocational trainsources and resource degradation [Global Chapter 4] or ing centers (e. 3. actors in the commercialization and domestication of tree [and other] wild and semiwild species in participaEncounters that threaten sustainability and development.g. tivity but also addressing issues for instance of inter-generational equity and the sustainability rice cultivation in Guinea Conakry where it is now reof soil management. for experiment-based. ESAP SDM. later on. India). not only increasing producFigure SR-TK-1.g. tory plant breeding (PPB) and in value-added processLess favorable encounters have been associated mostly with ing are creating new value chains selling into both niche AKST that focuses on objectives that are not shared by loand mass markets [Global Chapters 2.. Any internal and external forces and drivers [including weather-related events] that threaten the loss of the material basis of traditional and local cultures and identities necessarily threaten traditional and local knowledge [CWANA SDM. to incorpothey serve to erode common property management rerate local AKST in the curricula and experiments run gimes. Ketill Berger . Peru. NAE Chapters 1. 4. Farmer-researcher groups in the Andes for instance brought together members of CIP (an international research institute) for the development and testing of measures and varieties to control late blight in potatoes. Global Chapter 3]. LAC SDM. 4]. Encounters between traditional and local knowledge actors and others The Andean Cosmovision Encounters that support sustainability and development. In recent decades public information campaigns. farmer-centered learning [Global Profit-seeking forces acting at the expense of multiChapter 2]. local sussu (and also remeans [Global Chapter 2]. world with lingering but strong influences. Thailand) and universities (e. Gonzales. 3. Migrants from nologies have assisted these developments but the althe ethnic sussu met local ethnic balantes in Guinea Bisready poor and marginalized have less access to these sau around 1920 and. shareholder activism can support sustainability and development [Global and more effective documentation and communication Chapter 3]. Global Chapters 2. Traditional and local knowledge co-evolve with changes in their material and non-material environment. lated ethnic baga) hired migrant balantes to implement Source: Gonzales 1999. 4. sustainability goals have been weak. NAE SDM]. Modern information and communication techcoastal Guineas [Conakry and Bissau]. Modern ICTs show large potential for exfunctionality. Other excal people. Chambi and Machaca 1999 Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. and to expand opportunities privatization of local people’s land [Global Chapter 7].. Mechanisms to increase the accountabiltending and augmenting these developments [Global ity of powerful commercial actors to development and Chapter 2].72 | IAASTD Synthesis Report cooperate with Dutch potato hobby specialists in breeding and varietal selection. The dynamics of traditional and local knowledge.g. Collaboration among knowledge garded as a traditional knowledge [Global Chapter 2]..

Inappropriate content or facilities in school-based education in some instances has worsened existing bias against attendance by traditional peoples or by girls and women [CWANA SDM.g. [b] support to curriculum developments that value and provide opportunity for field-based experience and apprenticeships under communities’ educational guidance. poor local communities or women [LAC SDM] who only in exceptional circumstances have had a voice on governing boards. Knowledge actors based in formal research organizations have neglected development of accountability for the costs of some technologies—such as highly toxic herbicides and pesticides when applied in actual conditions of use [CWANA SDM. LAC SDM]. wisdom and identity. Decision making processes in and the governance of formal institutes of science and research generally have excluded representatives or delegates of traditional peoples. Global Chapter 3]. Their inclusion has required deliberate and sustained processes of methodological innovation. impact assessment panels. Misappropriation. A globalizing world has offered opportunities that are welcomed and actively sought by tradition- al and local people but also brought new risks. community organizations and activist groups by the 1990s helped ensure that the principles of benefit sharing in the exploitation of local and traditional resources were written into international conventions such as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. 7. The wider application or scaling up of such experiences faces strong and persistent challenges [Global Chapter 2]. Formal research agencies and universities have lagged behind in developing criteria and processes for research prioritization and evaluation that go beyond conventional performance indicators to include a broader range of criteria for equity. Certification and similar . Global Chapter 3]. Persistent concerns for which as yet no lasting remedies have been found include the increasing competition for groundwater and river systems between local and non-local users [CWANA SDM—Farm structures and production systems]. as well as the alienation of land and restriction of access to the habitats that have sustained and nurtured traditional and local communities’ knowledge generation [ESAP SDM. ESAP SDM] that have been borne disproportionately at local levels and often by the most marginalized peoples [Global Chapter 2. Chapter 5]. Material transfer agreements in practice or law also may provide powerful public and commercial actors privileged access to this germplasm [Global Chapter 2]. 8]. LAC SDM. Global Chapter 3. Suppression of local knowledge. Chapter 1].Themes: Traditional and Local Knowledge and Community-based Innovations | 73 Technical developments that assume rather than test the superiority of external knowledge and technologies in actual conditions of use. NAE SDM. In some cases external actors have used without direct compensation the biological materials developed under local and traditional communities’ management yet have largely ignored the knowledge and understanding that accompanied the in situ development of germplasm. Education. environmental and social sustainability developed by traditional people and local actors [LAC SDM]. The valuation of traditional and local AKST [Global Chapter 7. NRM. Mutual misunderstanding across languages and other divides can undermine opportunities for collaboration especially when engagement is not mediated by inter-personal interactions but by impersonal bureaucracies. Asymmetries of power in institutional arrangements for AKST. The freedom of states to recognize these rights is limited under powerful commercial and government actors. especially for the vulnerable and ill-prepared. The more widespread application of collaborative approaches in AKST practices would require [a] complementary investments in the education of AKST technicians and professionals in order to strengthen their understanding of and capacity to work with local and indigenous individuals and communities. Thailand) also are establishing policy frameworks that are congruent with the overall objectives of market-oriented sustainable development yet recognize the importance of traditional and local AKST capacities. There has been a progressive restriction of communities’ and farmers “rights to produce. NAE]. The important public role of gene banks to return to local communities traditional germplasm that may have been lost at local levels has become more constrained under the evolution of Intellectual Property Rights regimes. Currently some countries (e. In worst but far from rare cases educational curricula have been used deliberately to suppress traditional and local knowledge and identities. Global Chapter 2. A globalizing world. exchange and sell seed”. While years of protest from indigenous peoples. Challenges Institutionalization and affirmation of traditional and local knowledge [Global Chapter 7. LAC SDM]. conveyed by Transfer of Technology models of research-extension-farmer linkages [ESAP Chapter 2. these lacked enforcement mechanisms. The explanatory value of inequitable power relations has been demonstrated in the assessment of the positive and negative outcomes of encounters between knowledge actors in relation to development and sustainability goals. ESAP Chapter 4.. Mali. social justice and the improvement of well-being and livelihoods [Global Chapter 3. Concerned actors in a number of countries have developed strategies at local to national levels to institutionalize and affirm traditional and local knowledge for the combined goals of sustainable agricultural modernization. agroecological and traditional systems of production have been marginal in the R&D effort made [CWANA SDM. [c] farmers’ access to formal training to enable them to connect to innovations in agroecology [CWANA SDM. have privileged conventional systems of production. ESAP SDM. 8]. companies or commercial operations. Robust examples include the gram panchayat [village councils] in India [ESAP SDM] and local water user associations [Global Chapter 3]. 4]. Formal AKST centers [CWANA SDM. The slow pace of adjustment of national varietal approval mechanisms for materials generated by farmers’ organizations and through PPB has raised new challenges [Global Chapters 2. institutional change and capacity development [Global Chapter 2]. 3. advisory councils and in technology foresight exercises. LAC SDM].

auditing and traceability [Global Chapter 2. 3. technology assessments and evaluation [Global Chapter 3]. more effective mechanisms for enforcing these. Global Chapters 3. societies and at policy levels the value of local and traditional knowledge. geographic identification and in value chains that shorten connections between producers and consumers [ESAP Chapter 3. ods and processes for integration of AKST decisionmaking at different scales [Global Chapter 8. traditional people and citizens over germplasm.. Global Chapter 3. implementation of the CBD. for including traditional and local people in AKST research prioritization. Invest in occupational education and farmer-centered learning opportunities that are accessible and relevant for traditional and indigenous peoples and actively extend connectivity and ICTs to traditional and local knowledge actors [Global Chapter 3. Chapter 4] by investment in the scientific.. animals and other useful biological materials. . Peru) and local governments [e. regulation and marketing schemes that take account of traditional and local people’s criteria and standards are options that make visible in the market places. UNECCO-Link. [ESAP SDM. widen development of the role of local and traditional trainers in educational curricula and deepen and strengthen the educational options. and targeted support for in situ and ex situ conservation of crop. stronger. Support the valuation of local and traditional knowledge. the Awajun. NAE SDM.. Develop culturally appropriate modes of assessing traditional and local AKST contributions to achievement of development and sustainability goals [Global Chapter 6].74 | IAASTD Synthesis Report means of linking consumers and producers to traditional and local identities have been developed to give value in the marketplace to traditional and local knowledge and foods [ESAP SDM. LAC SDM]. fish. NAE SDM]. NAE SDM. 7. arrange for effective encounters between knowledge actors and knowledge organizations [Global Chapter 2]. Specific investments include development of greater professional and organizational capacity at all levels for research and development with and for local and traditional people and their organizations [ESAP SDM. laws and regulations offer substantial options. local and traditional conservation. natural resources or territories are needed if combined sustainability and development goals are to be met [ESAP Chapter 3. knowledge of healing and health care systems [ESAP Chapter 3] as well as certification. 4]. Global Chapter 3. NAE SDM]. Invest in a broader range of social sciences to understand and help design solutions to power asymmetries in AKST.g. Some of the certified foods available today also include the “quality of life” values important to traditional producers or local communities [Global Chapter 3]. 4]. indigenous peoples (e. knowledge generating processes and technologies—for instance in formal knowledge banks as well as in community-held catalogues of practices.g. Mali). (4) Institutions. developing and using local and traditional plants. ernment support to community-driven development [Global Chapter 7]. various municipalities in the Philippines] have adopted the principles of food sovereignty as well as normative policy frameworks and regulations that differentiate their own needs and circumstances from the dominant global arrangements [Global Chapter 2. 2007. using advanced techniques as well as sophisticated application of participatory and collaborative approaches [Global Chapter 8]. It is recognized—yet not accepted at all policy levels—that innovations to secure rights for farmers. Chapter 4] and expand the coverage of the above.g. NAE SDM. 7]. give higher priority for agroecological and integrated approaches in primary through tertiary education and research [Global Chapter 3. LAC SDM. Chapter 4]. NAE SDM]. NAE SDM] and support for multistakeholder AKST forums at all levels for building a shared understanding and collective vision among divergent interests [Global Chapter 7. ments. Global Chapters 3. A number of countries (e. forest and animal genetic resources [LAC SDM]. food. (2) In education. LAC SDM]. ter 3] and other systems for protecting Farmers’ Rights [Global Chapter 7] and stronger coordination among such initiatives. Options for action Four key areas for action were identified: (1) Affirm local and traditional knowledge [NAE SDM. designs and ancestral plant and animal genetic resources. 1999. Issues of laws. Chapters 3. (3) Continue institutional innovation in systems such as Fair Trade. mechanisms congruent with development objectives and the rights of local and traditional peoples. regulations and rights. traditional peoples’ movements around pesticide and herbicide management [Global Chapter 2]. LAC SDM. Widen support of efforts to create local opportunity for domestication of wild and semiwild species [Global Chapter 3]. Options for affirmation include documentation and “archiving” of local and traditional people’s knowledge products. Support to conservation and evolution of local and traditional medicinal plants. An increasing number of commercial actors in agrifood and agrochemical industries also are demonstrating their commitment to sustainable production and retailing through accreditation.

floriculture). In developing countries it indicates the impoverishment of small farm households resulting in male out-migration to urban centers for work.g. and postharvest operations such as threshing.. Still the proportion of female farm entrepreneurs remains very low in most developing countries (6% in Tunisia) and women’s work is carried out on the basis of their status as family members. In certain industrialized countries (e. This may increase women’s and girls’ manual and time burden. legal systems. that is the socially constructed relations between men and women. France) and in many developing regions. increasing occupational and health risks. the consolidation of large export-oriented farm enterprises contributes to an increased number of female workers. Current trends in agricultural market liberalization and in the reorganization of farm work. and holds their productivity below their potential. green tourism. Morocco). hand weeding. Women’s Changing Forms of Involvement in Farm Activities and in the Management of Natural Resources Women in agricultural production and postharvest activities range from 20 to 70%.g. technology and credit. horticulture. etc. mechanical harvesting. Although progress has been made in women’s access to education and employment. worsening access to water. Poland) have benefited from EU support and training programs that also promoted new activities for rural women. countries (e. ESAP Chapter 1. progress in education has allowed more women to obtain university degrees or diplomas in agricultural sciences and to become farm entrepreneurs and managers. including formal title to land. Spain. the attention of decision makers has been attracted to the need for policies that better address gender issues as an integrative part of the development process. Women’s roles in agriculture varies in fact considerably according to farm system. such as on-farm processing. Global Chapter 3]. cultural norms and off-farm opportunities and are undergoing major transformations linked with local and global socioeconomic changes.g. or took off-farm employment. Farm systems diversification and tertiarization have also favored the development of new economic activities taken up by women as autonomous entrepreneurs (direct sale. picking fruit and vegetables. seed selection. as well as the rise of environmental and sustainability concerns are redefining the links between gender and development. This is due to a variety of factors. but also represent an increasing share of agricultural wage labor. This process of feminization of agricultural wage work is associated in some regions with the consolidation of large scale and export-oriented farm enterprises and the increasing demand of cheap labor. harvesting. insecure employment and low income. 75 . irrigation.Women in Agriculture Writing Team Gender. In some countries (e. Since the first world conference on women (1975).. Other factors include increasing exposure to risks related to natural disasters and environmental changes. women and girls are usually responsible for fetching water and fuel wood. Ongoing trends call for urgent actions in favor of gender and social equity in AKST policies and practices. small livestock rearing. With EU integration however.. as women not only continue to play a crucial role in farm household production systems. tends to keep girls out of school. while mechanized work (preparing the land.g. During a long period. Women and girls tend to perform tasks such as planting. and marketing) is generally a male task. More recently the involvement of some women in farm activities has taken on a professional status as farm co-managers entitling them to pensions and other benefits of professional employment.. Privatization of state and cooperatives farms resulted in fact in loss of employment for a large number of women. transplanting. Tunisia. take on different and changing forms and statuses. which is increasing in many developing countries. the growing pressure on and conflicts over natural resources and the reallocation of economic resources in favor of large agroenterprises.). Besides housekeeping and child rearing. direct sale of farm products and agrotourism. limited access to education and control over natural resources. including the growing demand for flexible and cheap farm labor. a process that has been called into question by economic liberalization. including migrant workers in farm activities (e. with little separation between domestic and productive activities. and is also linked with rural women limited access to education and non-agricultural employment [CWANA Chapters 2. In Central and Eastern European countries socialist policies historically aimed at suppressing gender differences in farm activities. women in industrialized countries either engaged in agricultural activities as farmers’ spouses. and storage. we must recognize that the largest proportion of rural women worldwide continues to face deteriorating health and work conditions. and their involvement in farm activities. is an organizing element of existing farming systems worldwide and a determining factor of ongoing processes of agricultural restructuring.

This requires women’s access to additional skills and presents new risks (e. Counting women’s labor. LAC and SSA regions. The issue is the more urgent because market development rewards those who own the factors of production.g. In the majority of patrilineal societies... South Africa. The decline in investment in rural infrastructure.. The trends towards economic and trade liberalization and privatization have led to the dismantling of many marketing services that were previously available to farmers. Global Chapter 6]. legal and normative issues are appropriately and effectively addressed. women in some cases have become empowered because of male out-migration: they manage budgets and their mobility is increased as they sometimes go to the market to sell their products. even if they still rely on male relatives for major decisions such as the sale of an animal (cow. such as roads that link rural areas to markets and limited access to ICTs. and service provision [Global Chapter 3]. As to decision-making. In North Africa. resulting in considerable shrinkages in the rural labor force. SSA Chapter 2].g. this has negatively affected agricultural production. A few countries have started recognizing the independent land rights of women (e. islation has affirmed women’s right to land but customary practices restrict women’s ability to buy or inherit agricul- tural land and resources [CWANA Chapter 1. and eventually curtails ability to achieve food security. women’s right to land expires automatically in the case of divorce or death of the husband [SSA Chapter 2]. Constraints. As a result of male out-migration and the development of labor intensive farming systems. In Asia. In some cases. especially pesticides) to girls and women. inheritance law entitles women to half the amount endowed to men.) [CWANA Chapter 2.76 | IAASTD Synthesis Report Figure SR-WA1. veal. especially in CWANA and LAC [CWANA Chapter 2. SSA and LAC both internal and international migration by rural women seeking economic opportunities to escape poverty is on increase [ESAP Chapter 1]. the gender division in farm activities has undergone important transformation and has tended to become more flexible. The lack of access to storage facilities and roads contributes to high food costs and low selling prices. food security. Zimbabwe. especially in CWANA. has increased the number of female headed households and has shifted the mean ages of rural populations upwards. in SSA) women are now in charge of tasks formerly performed only by men such as soil preparation. SSA Chapter 2]. LAC Chapter 5]. Women farmers have been severely hit by this loss. Rural-to-urban migration and out-migration of men and young adults (including in some cases young women). etc. affects women’s access to markets. Lack of access to membership in marketing organizations limits women’s ability to sell their produce. electricity or fuel increases women’s work load and limits their availability for professional training. limits autonomy and decision making power. ESAP. Increased “opening toward the market” will not benefit men and women equally unless these institutional.g. Kenya) [Global Chapter 5. and very often women forgo their right to land in favor of their brothers. childcare and income generation. Women and girls involved in farm activities mostly in .. Poor rural infrastructure such as the lack of clean water supply. Challenges and Opportunities The access of women to adequate land and land ownership continues to be limited due to legislation (e. spraying and marketing. In some countries (e. Agrarian reform programs tend to give title to men. health risks related to the unregulated use of chemicals. Lack of control over and impaired entitlement to land often implies restricted access to loans and social security.g.

In India.g. information and to learn how to use new techchoices around crop selection. and what inputs they should use [Global Chapter 6]. Women’s representation in AKST decision-making at all levels remains limited (e.g. developing countries usually have less access than men to education.g.. there are increasing examples of the use of ICTs by women to generate income (e. food production and marketing. Women quantify lack of control over work resources. agricultural producers’ organizations. information and training and their ability to make their views known to policy makers and planners. female researchers still tend to be underrepresented in agricultural sciences and in senior scientific positions in general. Notwithstanding a rise in the number of women pursuing careers in biosciences worldwide. Access to information influences the ability of farmers to have influence in their communities and their ability to participate in AKST decision-making. obtain information. Deccan Development Society). in India) to some extent has made women’s income a permanent component of household in- . farmers’ associations) is often restricted.. which restricts their access to productive resources. local women use video and radio equipment to record and produce the messages they want others in their community to hear (e. 2]. The percentage of agricultural work carried out by women compared to the percentage of female extension staff in selected African countries. Only 15% of the world’s agricultural public sector extension agents are women [Global Chapter 3]. The Farmwise Figure SR-WA3.5% of high-level decision making positions in the government [Global Chapters 1.g.. Although in most countries women have lower rates of access to ICTs.Themes: Women in Agriculture | 77 Figure SR-WA2.. Lack of opportunity in the curricula and training of extensionists to analyze gender roles and differential needs continues to exclude women from training and the benefits of extension services. and by gender blind agricultural policies that give inadequate attention to women farmer’s needs in terms of crops and technology. which crops they can grow given the soil type and fertility. credit. by law or custom. Women farmers’ access to membership and leadership positions in rural organizations (e. cooperatives. and make their voices heard. Women’s access to extension is limited by lack of access to membership in rural organizations which often channel or provide training opportunities.. selling phone time in Bangladesh). women in Benin held 2. communicate with governments.g. project in Malawi uses a computer database system with web interface and email to help women farmers determine what they can expect to harvest from their land. microfinance groups (e.

Small-scale farmers. food prices. which can give rise to micronutrient deficiencies in women and children which impair cognitive development of young children. Options for action include: NGOs to improve the knowledge of women’s involvement in farm activities and their relationship to AKST.. labor requirements. vulnerability. nutrition and capacity for collective action have been less thoroughly researched than the financial and economic impacts. herbalists. The increase of extreme weather conditions (e. science and technology and extension services. child-headed households. Indirect impacts of AKST in relation to ownership of assets. Women often possess knowledge of the value and use of local plant and animal resources for nutrition. which are often carried out by women. need to care for family members and paid employment required to cover medical costs may cause families to the social capital within communities also erodes the transmission of knowledge between households and communities. Women of reproductive age as well as children are most affected by the increase of infectious diseases (e. 7]. Nutritional deficiency among women and children in South Asia also has reached crisis proportions [ESAP Chapter 1]. The worsening health situation is exacerbated by a high rate of malnutrition in children especially in regions. Counting female-headed households A sample of national agricultural censuses conducted worldwide between 1989 and 1999 found that barely half included information on female-headed households. tools and productive gardens [ESAP Chapter 4]. Intra-household food distribution often favors males. education and technologies will affect the ability of women to cope with climate change induced stresses. livestock. support to the development of women’s income generating activities and the reinforcement of women’s organizations and networks.g.. 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Africa Asia Pacific South America Total Censuses includes data on femaleheaded households SOURCE: FAO Censuses with no data on femaleheaded households IAASTD. green house gas emissions and adaptation/ mitigation in both the public and private sector. thus reducing women’s dependency on the male provider [ESAP Chapter 5]. Although the supply of gender disaggregated data and studies of women’s roles in agricultural production and food security is increasing. particularly women. and have given insufficient attention to food crops for domestic consumption. employment on and off farm. women often experiment with and adapt indigenous species and thus become experts in plant genetic resources [SSA Chapter 2]. Ketill Berger Figure SR-WA4. plant gatherers. Moreover. economic and natural resources through legal measures. appropriate credit schemes. The impact of HIV/ AIDS in an increasing number of countries has given rise to rapidly increasing numbers of female-headed households. Effects of flooding. will put an increasing expectation on women for coping with the effects of disaster and destruction. seed custodians and informal plant breeders [Global Chapter 2]. increase child mortality and maternal death during childbirth [Global Chapter 3]. notably in ESAP regions.78 | IAASTD Synthesis Report come. . with repeated droughts. Women are underrepresented in decision making about climate change. which are essential for household food security and environmental protection [Global Chapter 2]. play a key role in promoting sustainable methods of farming based on traditional knowledge and practices. Labor loss due to illness. In SSA women make up two-thirds of those infected with ducers of food and as family caretakers. Counting female-headed households. urgent action is needed to implement gender and social equity in AKST policies and practices. there is still a lack of sufficient data and in depth research on women’s practices and specific needs. recent impact assessments of participatory methods have more comprehensively addressed these issues [Global Chapter 3].g. gender roles. malaria). home gardeners. variations in crop seasons and temperature-related yield loss could mean extra hardship for the farming and food provisioning activities. Lower levels of access to training. retard physical growth. although. mation. floods and cyclones). health and income in their roles as family caretakers. Their capacity to sustain their families’ livelihoods is in fact often reduced as a result of the loss of seeds. Options for Action to Enhance Women’s Involvement in AKST In view of the continuing constraints faced by rural women and the current forms of agricultural restructuring likely to worsen farm women’s work and health conditions. and dependence on the elderly who face increasing workloads as they assume responsibil- ity for growing numbers of AIDS orphans [SSA Chapter 3]. Climate change. drought. Also agricultural research policies have tended to primarily focus on the intensive farming sector and export-oriented crops. thereby reducing the range of livelihood options for the next generation [Global Chapters 6. like SSA. wars and conflicts. Design: UNEP/GRID-Arendal.

forestry. The principle of equal pay for women working in agriculture. Women’s intellectual property rights relating to the knowledge of indigenous plant varieties and cultivation are in need of protection. environmental or “life” context: the Earth University in Costa Rica combines hands-on fieldwork experience with theoretical work on not only the agricultural sciences. and meet the social and physical requirements of women can contribute to limiting the negative effects of the gender division of labor in many regions. the development of drought-resistant breeds to provide a more reliable harvest to those living on marginal lands. including pesticides on women’s health. They could assist in collecting information on men and women’s roles. anthropology and sociology. geting rural and farm women’s needs and recognizing women’s specific knowledge. Modern agricultural technology should not undermine women’s autonomy and economic position. but also business administration. Targeted measures will be needed to ensure this does not happen. skills and experience in the production of food and the conservation of biodiversity. preparation and storage. AKST can enhance the success of technological adoption and eventually be more effective in enhancing rural livelihoods. Intellectual Property Rights that recognize women’s technological knowledge and biological materials are needed if development and sustainability goals are to be met. For social and economic sustainability. By integrating local and gender-differentiated understanding of seeds and the cultural values connected to food preservation. from access to clean water. requires AKST oriented towards the improvement of local food crops to better satisfy domestic markets. Development of techniques that reduce work load and health risks. Governments can facilitate access to grants or credit on concessionary terms to women and women’s groups. - Policies can reinforce the achievement of development and sustainability goals by recognizing and taking into account the role played by family farming and rural women in terms of production. preferential research aiming at a better understanding of how gender issues affect communities’ vulnerability and their ability to respond is indispensable. needs of AKST in different societies (including nomadic communities) and in sharing this on broader platforms. ogy. Support of the documentation and dissemination of women’s knowledge is an important aspect of a gendersensitive approach to IPR [Global Chapter 2] and is required to retain the knowledge of both women and men. Giving preference and support women’s access to education and information is critical to meeting development and sustainability goals. in order to improve women’s living and working conditions. innovative low-cost and sustainable technological options and services in water supply are among the measures that can enable more equitable benefit-sharing from AKST investments and wider access to services that benefit both women and men. access. ecology. There is an urgent need for priority setting in research to ensure that women benefit from modern agricultural technologies (e. As disaster-related and complex emergencies will become more frequent and larger in scale. resource management. Training and micro-credit programs should be interlinked to effectively transfer agricultural technology to . AKST systems that are gender sensitive would expand the range of crop. labor-saving technologies and reduced health risk techniques) rather than being overlooked in the implementation of technologies as has often occurred in the past [Global Chapter 3]. Strengthening women’s control over resources is central to achievement of development and sustainability goals as well as changes in discriminatory laws that exclude women from land ownership. They would take into account all phases of agronomic management and post-harvest activities. medicinal and animal species and varieties available for food provisioning and market sale. and greater focus on on-farm enterprises such as seasonal fish ponds that increase women’s economic contribution to household survival. This priority should be placed in the larger social. and countable for progress in the above areas. and measures to reduce use and exposure. all levels. Targeting female students for advanced education in agriculture and other sciences is a vital part of this preference as well as curriculum reform that expands the scope of knowledge relevant to meeting development and sustainability goals. entrepreneurship. Consolidation of the small-scale farming sector. Training women farmers as trainers for other women provides an opportunity to share their experience and knowledge. getting loans or opening bank accounts. including those of women and do not encourage others to dispossess women of land or control their labor and income.Themes: Women in Agriculture | 79 based opportunities by market institutions and policies giving explicit priority to women farmers groups in value chains. where women are particularly active. employment and household food sufficiency. in order to have gender issues taken seriously in the design of development plans and agricultural services. Gender differences in vulnerability and in adaptive opportunities should be better researched and acknowledged in the technology development to mitigate carbon emissions ensuring success of adaptation policies. health and environmental implications of adopting engineered crops and weigh these against lost opportunities to direct institutional attention towards proven low external input agroecological approaches and strengthening farmer-centered seed-saving networks. Communities and civil society could be further supported to voice their concern for gender-sensitive agricultural services.g. Policy makers and researchers would need to consider the complex social. it is important that technologies are appropriate to different resource levels.. Agricultural programs designed to increase women’s income and household nutrition would need to take much greater account of the cultural context of women’s work as well as patterns of intra-household food distribution and natural resource access if development and sustainability goals are to be met [Global Chapter 3]. horticultural.

6]. or gender specific technology. The development of agricultural enterprises owned and controlled by women. . Strategies can include making extension work attractive to women and promoting the education and hiring of women as extension agents.g. Mobile phones are also a portable market research tool. Specific mechanisms should also be developed to hold AKST organizations accountable for progress in the above areas. community-supported agriculture and farmers markets have proven potential to enhance women’s income opportunities and business capacities. Strengthening women’s ability to benefit from marketbased opportunities by market institutions and policies giving explicit priority to women farmers groups in value chains is essential and would allow women to benefit more from the added value of agricultural production. Such findings might point for instance to the need for female extension agents. is of crucial importance. particularly by Fair Trade organizations and NGOs. allowing producers to find and compare current market prices for their products and ensuring greater profits for their products [Global Chapters 2. forest management) can ensure that women and girls can participate effectively and equitably in emerging knowledge networks. Marketing. mountain landscapes. promoting women’s organizations and cooperatives. would generate a richer understanding of the costs and benefits in participating in alternative trade systems for both women and men..80 | IAASTD Synthesis Report women farmers. food processing and post-harvest sciences are well suited as areas of specialization for women who desire a career in extension work. marketing strategies or knowledge for male or female farmers. Linking women farmers with markets and using effective. The use of the mobile phone is an example of an information technology that is increasing exponentially among women in many developing regions. Adoption of techniques such as gender budgeting by departments/programs of agriculture would assist in the allocation of public and private investments needed to implement (and assess) gender and social equity in AKST policies. The availability of women-oriented content and selection of appropriate intermediaries and partnerships can enhance womens’ and girls’ access to and benefits from modern ICTs [Global Chapter 5]. Gender impact analyses in turn can inform producer organizations and alternative trade organizations on how to improve their impact and on whom to focus further capacity development efforts. Other benefits of ICT include linking up training and micro-credit programs to transfer agricultural technology between women farmers. Gender-sensitive communication strategies for natural resource management (e. treesoutside-forest. Furthering gender analysis in the alternative trade sector. Relevant expertise includes improved postharvest handling practices in the local marketplaces where women gather to sell their goods or to shop for food [Global Chapter 6]. Strengthening women’s participation in formal AKST decision-making at all levels. appropriate and cost-efficient ICTs can promote skills development among women. including international agricultural research centers and national agricultural research systems.

Canada: In recognizing the important and significant work undertaken by IAASTD authors. we acknowledge the reports are a useful contribution for consideration by governments of the role of AKST in raising sustainable economic growth and alleviating hunger and poverty. and we have noted them. The report is therefore noted as a useful contribution. We commend the tireless efforts of the authors. the Canadian Gov- ernment advocates these reports be drawn to the attention of governments for consideration in addressing the importance of AKST and its large potential to contribute to economic growth and the reduction of hunger and poverty. policy suggestions and other assertions and ambiguities. While acknowledging the valuable contribution these Reports provide to our understanding on agricultural knowledge. the United States is unable to provide unqualified endorsement of the reports. As we have specific and substantive concerns in each of the reports. which will be used for considering the future priorities and scope of AKST in securing economic growth and the alleviation of hunger and poverty. Nonetheless. United States of America: The United States joins consensus with other governments in the critical importance of AKST to meet the goals of the IAASTD. the Canadian Government notes these documents as a valuable and important contribution to policy debate which needs to continue in national and international processes. are such that Australia cannot agree with all assertions and options in the report. Further.Annex A Reservations on Synthesis Report Australia: Australia recognizes the IAASTD initiative and reports as a timely and important multistakeholder and multidisciplinary exercise designed to assess and enhance the role of AKST in meeting the global development challenges. The United States believes the Assessment has potential for stimulating further deliberation and research. there remain numerous areas of concern in terms of balanced presentation. Secretariat and stakeholders on the background Reports. The wide range of observations and views presented however. Co-Chairs and the Secretariat. editors. 81 . We welcome the IAASTD for bringing together the widest array of stakeholders for the first time in an initiative of this magnitude. We respect the wide diversity of views and healthy debate that took place. science and technology for development.

Connor University of Melbourne Tony Jansen TerraCircle Inc. (AGBIOS) M. Scarborough Ricardo Ramirez University of Guelph John M. Okanagan Université de Montréal UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Monash University Canada Jacqueline Alder University of British Columbia Guy Debailleul Laval University University of Toronto Tirso Gonzales University of British Columbia. Greenidge CFTC and Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery China Chinese Academy of Sciences Fu Quin Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) Ma Shiming Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) Li Xiande Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) Zhu Xiaoman China National Institute for Educational Research Benin Peter Neuenschwander International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Pesticide Action Network Bolivia Jorge Blajos PROINPA Foundation Ruth Pamela Cartagena CIPCA Pando 82 .Annex B Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports Argentina Walter Ismael Abedini Universidad Nacional de La Plata Universidad de Buenos Aires Cecilia Gelabert Universidad de Buenos Aires Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. Fisheries and Forestry David J.R. McLean Agriculture and Biotechnology Strategies Inc. Leakey James Cook University Andrew Lowe Anna Matysek Concept Economics Andrew Mears Majority World Technology Girija Shrestha Monash Asia Institute. Stone Carleton University Austria Maria Wurzinger University of Natural Resources & Applied Life Sciences Bangladesh Wais Kabir Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC) Karim Mahmudul Bangladesh Shrimp and Fish Foundation Chile Mario Ahumada International Committee for Regional Planning for Food Security Barbados Carl B.B. JoAnn Jaffe University of Regina Shawn McGuire Morven A. Monirul Qader Mirza Environment Canada and University of Toronto. Roger R. Comercio Internacional y Culto Maria Cristina Plencovich Universidad de Buenos Aires Marcelo Regunaga Universidad de Buenos Aires Sandra Elizabeth Sharry Universidad Nacional de La Plata Javier Souza Casadinho CETAAR-RAPAL Miguel Taboada Universidad de Buenos Aires INTA Centro Regional La Pampa Manuel de la Fuente National Centre of Competence in Research North-South Edson Gandarillas PROINPA Foundation Botswana Baone Cynthia Kwerepe Botswana College of Agriculture Brazil Flavio Dias Ávila Embrapa Antônio Gomes de Castro Embrapa André Gonçalves Centro Ecológico Dalva María Da Mota Embrapa Odo Primavesi Embrapa Pecuaria Sudeste (Southeast Embrapa Cattle) Sergio Salles Filho State University of Campinas (Unicamp) Embrapa Armenia Ministry of Agriculture Australia Department of Agriculture.

Egypt Sonia Ali Zagarid University Mostafa A. Agronomique (INRA) Perrine Burnod CIRAD Gérard Buttoud Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Patrick Caron CIRAD Bernard Chevassus French Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Emilie Coudel CIRAD Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Jean-François Dhôte Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Celine Dutilly-Diane CIRAD Fabrice Dreyfus University Institute for Tropical Agrofood Industries and Rural Development Michel Dulcire CIRAD Patrick Dugué CIRAD Nicolas Faysse CIRAD Stefano Farolfi CIRAD Guy Faure CIRAD Alia Gana National Center for Scientific Research CNRS/ Thierry Goli CIRAD Ghislain Gosse Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Jean-Marc Guehl Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Institute for Development Research (IRD) CIRAD Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Jacques Imbernon CIRAD Futuribles Trish Kammili Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Futuribles Marie de Lattre-Gasquet CIRAD Patrick Lavelle Institute for Development Research (IRD) Marianne Lefort Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique and AgroParisTech Jacques Loyat French Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Jean-Pierre Müller CIRAD Sylvain Perret CIRAD Costa Rica Marian Perez Gutierrez National Centre of Competence in Research North-South Mario Samper Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) Côte d’Ivoire Guéladio Cissé National Centre of Competence in Research North-South Centre Suisse de Recherche Scientifique Cyprus Georges Eliades Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) Costas Gregoriou Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) Christoph Metochis Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) Czech Republic State Phytosanitary Administration Democratic Republic of Congo Dieudonne Athanase Musibono University of Kinshasa Denmark Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) University of Aarhus Dominican Republic Rufino Pérez-Brennan ALIMENTEC S. Bedier Agricultural Economic Research Institute Salwa Mohamed Ali Dogheim Agriculture Research Center Azza Emara Agricultural Research Institute.A. Anandajayasekeram International Livestock Research Institute Gezahegn Ayele EDRI-IFPRI North-South Workneh Negatu Sentayehu Addis Ababa University Gete Zeleke Global Mountain Program Finland Riina Antikainen Finnish Environment Institute MTT Agrifood Research .Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports | 83 Colombia Inge Armbrecht University of the Columbian Amazon University of the Andes CIAT Elsa Nivia RAPALMIRA Edelmira Pérez Jyrki Niemi MTT Agrifood Research Riikka Rajalahti Ministry of Foreign Affairs Reimund Roetter MTT Agrifood Research Timo Sipiläinen MTT Agrifood Research France Jean Albergel Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Loïc Antoine IFREMER Martine Antona CIRAD Gilles Aumont Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Didier Bazile CIRAD Pascal Bergeret Ministry of Agriculture Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Pierre-Marie Bosc CIRAD Nicolas Bricas CIRAD Jacques Brossier Institut National de la Recherche. Agricultural Research Center Ahmed Abd Alwahed Rafea American University of Cairo Mohamed Abo El Wafa Gad GTZ Ethiopia Assefa Admassie Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute P.

84 | Annex B Indonesia (INRA) Iran Ireland (INRA) Ireland Italy The Gambia Germany Jamaica Japan Sciences (JIRCAS) Science and Technology (KNUST) Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS) Ghana Jordan Studies Technology Public Administration (GIMPA) India Management University Developing Countries (RIS) Kenya Semi-Arid Tropics Arid and Semi-arid Lands Development Kyrgyz Republic Sukhpal Singh Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Latvia Lebanon Research (NCAER) Science Policy (CRISP) .

Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports | 85

Madascagar
Applied Research for Rural Development)

Nicaragua
Sustainable Agriculture

Malaysia Nigeria Mauritius Mexico
University, Azcapotzalco (UNAM) (UNAM)

Oman

Pakistan

México (UNAM)

Initiatives

Society

Morocco

Mozambique Palestine
Moçambique (IIAM)

Nepal Netherlands

(PARC)

Panama
(MNP)

Peru
Cooperation (CTA)

Agrochemicals

Philippines

Agency (MNP) Agency (MNP) (MNP)

and Natural Resources Research and Development and Natural Resources Research and Development and Natural Resources Research and Development of Genetic Resources in Asia (PEDIGREA) Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development Partnership Foundation

New Zealand

86 | Annex B

and Natural Resources Research and Development Development, Inc.)

Poland

Russia
Technology.

Rwanda
Technology

Senegal Syria Slovakia South Africa Taiwan Spain Tajikistan
Agrarian Academy of Sciences

Tanzania Sri Lanka
Development

Institute Technology

Sudan
Institute

Thailand Sweden Trinidad and Tobago
Devleopment Resources (ASRP), IBD

Tunisia Switzerland
Agronomique de Tunisie

Authors and Review Editors of Global and Sub-Global Reports | 87

Program, ICARDA de Tunisie Zaghouan

Turkey

Ahmet Ali Koc

Akdeniz University

Affairs (end Mar 2006) Nicola Spence Central Science Laboratory Engineering and Biotechnology (RIGEB)

Uganda
Fisheries

Development

United States
Associates (NIDA) (NARO) U.S. Department of Agriculture Consultancy (EERAC)

Ukraine
Conservation International

United Arab Emirates United Kingdom
Institute London Development

Department of Agriculture Development Policy University of Illinois Uruguay Agropecuaria (INIA).88 | Annex B U.S. Tacuarembó (LATU) Uzbekistan Viet Nam Zambia Zimbabwe Technology the Semi-Arid Tropics .

Cole University of Toronto Friedman University of Toronto JoAnn Jaffe University of Regina Muffy Koch Agbios Iain C.A. Chandrasekhar Jawaharlal Nehru University Sudhir Kochhar Indian Council of Agricultural Research Aditya Misra Project Directorate on Cattle Suresh Pal NCAP C. Kenya Egypt Agricultural Research Center Christian Borgemeister International Center for Insect Physiology and Ecology Marcus Lee United Nations Environment Programme Evans Mwangi University of Nairobi Nalini Sharma United Nations Environment Programme Anna Stabrawa United Nations Environment Programme 89 Finland Riika Rajalahti Ministry of Foreign Affairs . MacGillivray Canadian International Development Agency Mary Stockdale University of British Columbia. Sarah Withers Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Germany Jan van Aken Greenpeace International India Austria Elfriede Fuhrmann BMLFUW Government of Austria Pradip Dey Indian Council of Agricultural Research Ramesh Chand NCAP C. Fisheries and Food Italy Agriculture Department FAO Susan Braatz FAO Jorge Csirke FAO Forestry Department FAO Gender.Annex C Peer Reviewers Argentina Sandra Elizabeth Sharry Universidad Nacional de La Plata France Louis Aumaitre EAAP Institute for Development Research (IRD) Jacques Loyat Ministry of Agriculture Michèle Tixier-Boichard Research Australia Government of Australia Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research University of Western Sydney Tony Jansen TerraCircle Inc.P. Upendranadh Benin Shellemiah Keya WARDA Peter Neuenschwander IITA Brazil Government of Brazil Odo Primavesi Embrapa Pecuaria Sudeste (Southeast Embrapa Cattle) Francisco Reifschneider Embrapa Indonesia Russell Dilts Environmental Services Program Iran Farhad Saeidi Naeini Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection Canada David Cooper Convention on Biological Diversity Donald C. Equity and Rural Employment Division of FAO FAO Shivaji Pandey FAO Teri Raney FAO Jeff Tschirley FAO FAO Denmark Frands Dolberg University of Arhus Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) Dominican Republic Rufino Pérez-Brennan ALIMENTEC S. Okanagan Ireland Government of Ireland Sharon Murphy Department of Agriculture.

Bereano University of Washington David Bouldin Cornell University Lynn Brown The World Bank Rodney Brown Glenn Carpenter U.S. Food and Rural Affairs Department for International Development Cathy Rozel Farnworth Independent Defra John Marsh Independent Clare Oxborrow Friends of the Earth England. Neil Macgregor Journal of Organic Systems Philippines Leo Sebastian Philippine Rice Research Institute Poland Ursula Soltysiak AgroBio Test Spain Mario Giampietro Marta Rivera-Ferre Sweden Independent Permilla Malmer Swedish Biodiversity Center Switzerland David Duthie United Nations Environment Programme Tanzania Jamidu Katima University of Dar es Salaam Tunisia Rym Ben Zid Independent Uganda Kevin Akoyi Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute United Kingdom Stephen Biggs University of East Anglia Janet Cotter Greenpeace International.S. Department of Agriculture Jean-Christophe Carret The World Bank Cheryl Christensen U. Pomona Nepal Rajendra Shrestha AFORDA Netherlands Judith Francis Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) Friends of the Earth International New Zealand A. UK Malaysia Li Ching Lim Third World Network United States Miguel Altieri University of California.J. Department of Agriculture Sara Scherr Ecoagriculture Partners Seth Shames Ecoagriculture Partners Doreen Stabinsky College of the Atlantic Lorann Stallones Colorado State University California Polytechnic. Department of Agriculture Gregory Jaffe Center for Science in the Public Interest Randy Johnson U.S. Department of Agriculture Bill Freese Center for Food Safety Government of the United States Doug Gurian-Sherman Union of Concerned Scientists Consumers Union of US U. Murray Colorado State University Michael Naim U. Department of Agriculture Janet Carpenter U. Berkeley Jock Anderson The World Bank Molly Anderson Food Systems Integrity Michael Arbuckle The World Bank Philip L.S. Forest Service Nadim Khouri The World Bank Jack Kloppenburg University of Wisconsin Masami Kojima The World Bank Anne Kuriakose The World Bank Saul Landau California Polytechnic. Pomona Jennifer Long University of Illinois.S.S. Wales and Northern Ireland EcoNexus Pete Riley GM Freeze Jo Ripley Independent Geoff Tansey Independent . McDonald Cornell University Rekha Mehra The World Bank Douglas L.S. Department of Agriculture John Nash The World Bank World Nieh US Forest Service Jon Padgham World Bank Mikko Paunio The World Bank Eija Pehu The World Bank Carl Pray Rutgers University Margaret Reeves Pesticide Action Network North America Peter Riggs Forum on Democracy & Trade Naomi Roht-Arriaza of Law Phrang Roy The Christensen Fund Marc Safley U.S. Chicago Karen Luz World Wildlife Fund William Martin The World Bank A.S.S. Department of Agriculture Michael Schechtman U. Department of Agriculture Indira Ekanayake The World Bank Erick Fernandes The World Bank Steven Finch U. Exeter University Stuart Coupe Practical Action Peter Craufurd Reading University Sue D’Arcy Masterfoods UK Department of Environment. Department of Agriculture Nata Duvvury International Center for Research on Women Denis Ebodaghe U.S.90 | Annex C Madagascar Xavier Rakotonjanahary FOFIFA Reyes Tirado Greenpeace International Stephanie Williamson Pesticide Action Network. Department of Agriculture Mary-Ellen Foley The World Bank Lucia Fort The World Bank Christian Foster U.

Berkeley Angus Wright California State University.S. Sacramento U. Agency International Development .Peer Reviewers | 91 South Dakota State University David Winickoff University of California.

Lamis Makhoul. Anna Stabrawa UNESCO Guillen Calvo Central and West Asia and North Africa – International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Mustapha Guellouz. Caroline Msrieh-Seropian. Pedro Marques. Eija Pehu. Kevin Cleaver. Ketill Berger and Eric Fuller (graphic design) Cosponsor Focal Points GEF UNDP UNEP UNESCO WHO World Bank Mark Zimsky Philip Dobie Ivar Baste Salvatore Arico.Annex D Secretariat and Cosponsor Focal Points Secretariat World Bank Pekka Jamsen. June Remy UNEP Marcus Lee. Wubi Mekonnen. Judi Wakhungu 92 . Nalini Sharma. Cathy Farnworth Latin America and the Caribbean – Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) Rodríguez. Beverly McIntyre. Ahmed Sidahmed. Elvin Nyukuri. Pedro Marques (proofing and graphics). Regional Institutes Sub-Saharan Africa – African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) Ronald Ajengo. Gustavo Sain East and South Asia and the Pacific – WorldFish Center With special thanks to the Publications team: Audrey Ringler (logo design). Walter Erdelen Jorgen Schlundt Mark Cackler.

School of Botany. Chief.Annex E Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment Steering Committee The Steering Committee was established to oversee the consultative process and recommend whether an international assessment was needed. Agribusiness Center for Competitiveness and Enterprise Development. Regional Program Officer for NGO Enhancement and Rural Development. Chief Executive. Offenheiser. Watson. Republic of South Africa Armando Paredes. International Council for Science (ICSU) Judi Wakhungu. Consejo Nacional Agropecuario (CNA) Nongovernmental Organizations Marcia Ishii-Eiteman. and if so. Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA) Monica Kapiriri. Unilever Mumeka M. Laureate Professor. Private Sector Momtaz Faruki Chowdhury. The World Bank Consumer Groups Greg Jaffe. Consumer Information Network Producer Groups Mercy Karanja. FAO Seyfu Ketema. Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) Samuel Bruce-Oliver. Director. the scope. Center for Rural and Technical Cooperation. Bimzi Ltd.. Peru Scientific Organizations Innovation. President. Bangladesh 93 . Center Directors Committee. Managing Director. World Board. Director. International Technology Development Group (ITDG). Kenya National Farmers’ Union Prabha Mahale. Assistant Director General for Agriculture. Former Deputy Minister of the Environment. Latin America Regional Office. Executive Secretary. Oxfam America Daniel Rodriguez. Senior Scientist. Wright. Chief Scientist. Director Social Conflict and Transformation Team. the expected outputs and outcomes. Professor of Food Economics. African Center for Technology Studies UN Bodies Ivar Baste. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Development Program Leader. Presidente. governance and management structure. Executive Director. Sam Dryden. Department of Agriculture. Colombia Rita Sharma. University of Melbourne. Chair. Director. Limpopo Province. Australia Denis Lucey. Aga Khan Raymond C. Center for Science in the Public Interest Samuel Ochieng. Global Forum for Agricultural Research Secretariat Adel El-Beltagy. Sustainable Development and Convention on Climate Change Biological Diversity At-large Scientists Adrienne Clarke. NARS Senior Fellow. of Food Business & Development. Executive Director. Government of Uttar Pradesh. Netherlands Sciences (TWAS) International Specialist and Nata Duvvury. Environment Assessment Branch. Director Agricultural Extension Services. Emergent Genetics International Steve Parry. location of the Secretariat and funding strategy. Senior Advisor. Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) Claudia Martinez Zuleta. Zambia Co-chairs Louise Fresco. International Federation Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Tsakani Ngomane. UN Environment Programme Wim van Eck. International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) Thomas Rosswall. Director. what was the goal. Biotechnology Project. Principal Secretary and Rural Infrastructure Commissioner. Dept. Ireland. India Robert T. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Carl Greenidge. University College Cork. Chief Executive Officer.

of International Cooperation. Director General Inst. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Eugene Terry. Department of Agriculture and Food Morocco Russia for Economy in Transition Uganda: Grace Akello. African Agricultural Technology Foundation . Senior Advisor on Biotechnology Policy. Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture. Dept. Biotechnology and Textile Trade Affairs. Agricultural Economics. Ireland: Aidan O’Driscoll.94 | Annex E Governments Australia: Peter Core. Director. Director. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research China: Keming Qian. Research for Sustainable Development. Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Hungary: Zoltan Bedo. Senior Advisor. Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science Finland Development. Director General. Director. Agricultural Research Institute. Minister of State for Northern Uganda Rehabilitation United Kingdom United States: Rodney Brown. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Germany Development. Ministry of Foreign Affairs France: Alain Derevier. Department of State Foundations and Unions Susan Sechler. Assistant Secretary General. Rockefeller Foundation Achim Steiner.

Rubens Nodari de Kairouan North America and Europe Private Sector Development Sub-Saharan Africa Producer Groups .Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment | 95 Advisory Bureau Non-government Representatives Consumer Groups Movements Government Representatives Central and West Asia and North Africa Security and Trade Ghamedi International organizations East/South Asia/Pacific NGOs Latin America and Caribbean Galerani.

.

Often the poorest of the poor have gained little or nothing. policy. Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) . producers. was a three-year collaborative effort begun in 2005 that assessed our capacity to meet development and sustainability goals of: Governed by a multi-stakeholder bureau comprised of 30 representatives from government and 30 from civil society. Mark Edwards (both images) of Peter Arnold. LLC Cover photos (left to right): Steve Raymer. director. Cover design by Linda McKnight. Inc. McKnight Design. and multiple international agencies involved in the agricultural and rural development sectors. the private sector. loss of agricultural land. This set of volumes comprises the findings of the IAASTD. and 850 million people are still hungry or malnourished with an additional 4 million more joining their ranks annually.SCIENCE | AGRICULTURE | CURRENT AFFAIRS “Although considered by many to be a success story. In addition to assessing existing conditions and knowledge. the IAASTD uses a simple set of model projections to look at the future.org All Island Press books are printed on recycled. rural/urban food and poverty dynamics. but it is food that is not always healthy and that costs us dearly in terms of water. the scientific community. and William Albert Allard of National Geographic Stock. Washington Covelo London www. We are putting food that appears cheap on our tables. acid-free paper. multilateral environment agreements (MEAs).islandpress. and 5 subglobal reports. on which Agriculture at the Crossroads is based. representing non-governmental organizations (NGOs). water availability. the process brought together 110 governments and 400 experts. It consists of a Global Report. . whether at the level of basic research. the IAASTD reports are an indispensable reference for anyone working in the field of agriculture and rural development. or practice. consumers. the benefits of productivity increases in world agriculture are unevenly spread. IAASTD The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge. Dean Conger. and climate change effects.” —Professor Bob Watson. based on knowledge from past events and existing trends such as population growth. soil and the biological diversity on which all our futures depend. a brief Synthesis Report. Taken as a whole.