1

IAASTD: 2003 - 2007

The InternationalAssessment of AgriculturalScience and Technology for

Developmentwww.agassessment.org

2

Content

• What is IAASTD?• Where are we in the process?• Key Findings• Multi-functionality of Agricuture• Options for Action• Why be involved & How?

3

What is IAASTD?

• An international assessment, co-sponsoredby 5 UN agencies (FAO, GEF, UNDP,UNEP, UNESCO, WHO) and the WorldBank

• A three year process 2003-2007• Managed by a multi-stakeholder steering

committee (Civil Society, Governmentrepresentatives, Private Sector, Academiaand research institutions) – about 70.

• Carried out by a team of agricultural experts– about 125

4

Purpose

• Assess Agricultural Knowledge, Scienceand Technology (AKST) in order to use itmore effectively to:

- Reduce hunger and poverty- Improve rural livelihoods- Facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially

and economically sustainable development• Evaluates the relevance, quality and

effectiveness of AKST• Evaluates effectiveness of public & private

policies, & institutional arrangements

5

The Scope of the Study – TheWorldDivided into 5 regions• LAC – Latin America & the Carribean• SSA – Sub Saharan Africa• CWANA – Central & West Asia and North

Africa• NAE – North America and Europe• ESAP – East and South Asia & the Pacific• Secretariat based at the World Bank but

supported by all 6 agencies + Finland• Budget – 11.1m $

6

Uniqueness

• Brings together all categories ofstakeholders in AKST

• Applies one framework for global and sub-global assessements

• Integrates scientifc info on a range of inter-linked topics

• Highlights linkages amongs Qns on agric,climate, biodiversity, natural resources,hunger, poverty and development.

• Will enable decision makers understand theconnections between issues

7

Users

• The co-sponsoring agencies• National governments and civil

society• International organisations• All stakeholders• The scientific community

8

Key Outputs

• Ensemble of peer-reviewed sub-global andglobal assessment reports on the role ofAKST in development

• With near to long term perspectives• Looks at policy and institutional issues• In the light of history and plausible future

scenarios• Reports in the 6 UN languages• To be presented and discussed at

international, national and sub-national userforums

9

Where we are in the Process

• Public review of the drafts atwww.agassessment.org 19/9 -22/10/2007. Comments !!!!

• Global Synthesis report• Global summary for decision makers• Sub-regional summary for decision

makers• Final plenary meeting in January,

2008 in Nairobi;

10

Key findings

1. Agric faces unprecedented challenges; -urbanisation,

- Migration- diet changes- climate change- shift to biofuels- population pressure etc – putting immense

pressure on natural resources• To respond - AKST must acknowledge

the multi-functionality of agriculture –see later

11

Findings cont’d

2. AKST has contributed to reducing hunger, povertyand under nutrition – but in an uneven way for somecountries and communities

3. Need to direct AKST toward relieving pressureson Natural resources but stronger efforts in;

- Limiting GHG emissions- Adapting to climate change and variability- Strengthening Food sovereignity- Reducing risk of conflict – competing resources- Coping with HIV/AIDS- Determining risks associated with new techs

(transgenics + nanotechnology)- Equitable national and international trade relations

12

Findings cont’d

4. Many of the challenges (50 yrs) requiretargeted application of formal, traditional andcommunity based apparoaches – includingorganic agriculture BUT

• No technology will help unless theinstitutional arrangements areappropriate.

5. Increased public research investment +favorable policy environment - enhancingproductivity, profitability and envsustainability of small scale agri-systems

13

Findings cont’d

6. Need for creative new approaches involving collectivedecision making – multi-stakeholder processes –including groups in the South.

7. Opening national Agr Mkts to internationalcompetition before basic institutions andinfrastructure are in place = long term –ve effects onpoverty, food security & environment (differentiatedpolicy farmeworks is the way)

8. Public policy, regulatory frameworks and int.Agreements are critical in driving more sustainablepractices – Policies can no longer externalise theeconomic, environmental and social costs of agproduction (the case with SA and organicagriculture).

14

Findings cont’d

9. Resource efficient agri systems arelinked to innovation in institutional andorg arrangements e.g. SA is more likelywhen legal frameworks and associationsexist to support access to credit, markets,land etc

10. Neither the supply side R-E-F link nor thedemand side chain linked approach willbe suitable without multi-organisationalpartnerships. Requires public & privateinvestment

15

Findings cont’d

11. More and better targeted AKSTinvestments taking into accountmulti-functionality of agriculture byboth public and private sector iskey.

12. Investment in multi-stakeholderpartnerships – require codes ofconduct + civil society involvement indecision making

16

Findings cont’d

13. There are diverse and competingintepretations of past and currentevents related to AKST (values andcontributions).

• Political, economic and socialinfluences have priviledged someover others – urgent to create spacefor diverse voices andperspectives.

17

Multi-functionality Of Agriculture

• Recognises agriculture as a multipleoutput activity (commodities e.g. food & biofuels + non-commodities e.g. ecosystemservices, landscape amenities and culturalheritage)

• Some of the non-commodity outputs thatexhibit x-tics of externalities or publicgoods imply that their mkts function poorlyor are non-existent.

• Highly contested in trade negotiations;Pro = the multi-functionality justifiessubsidies, Opp = Detach the non-commodityitems

18

OPTIONS FOR ACTION

Decrease hunger and increase food security• The best suited strategies are controversial –

acknowledge competing but well supportednarratives of S & T processes for effective policymaking.

• Combining community based knowledge and formalAKST aproaches is the best.

• AKST should be directed to poverty affectedlivelihoods and sustainability.

• There is urgent need to develop and retainknowledge in agriculture (curricula reform, ICTinfrastructure, … and encouraging Universityparticipation in recovering and recognising ITK –Incl.Org

19

Cont’d

• Alliancing between comnsumers andproducers has potential in addressinginequities created by industrial agric and tointernalise environmental and socialcosts

• Global food security and national foodsovereignity calls for ending themarginalisation of producers indeveloping countries

20

Improve human health &nutrition• Developing and implementing Good

Agricultural Practices (GAPs), includingintegrating ecological concepts acrossproduction systems

• Safety standards need to evolve to keepabreast with effects of climate change, newtechnologies and human mobility

• Integration of policies along food chainsrather than at specific points within a chain.

• Grounding AKST in ecological principleswill help address merging outbreaks of pestsand diseases

21

Decrease poverty & improverural livelihoods• Policy options that buffer developing countries to

enable response to crises & achieve food securityand sovereignity (e.g. democratic control, publicsector investment in empowerment of FOs, regionaltrading blocks etc.)

• Access to & control over land• Diversification• Access to inputs• Policy options that stabilise and increase farm gate

prices (coz liberalization has not benefited the poorsince it contributes to externalising the ecological footprint and social effects of agric. Production)

22

Increase equity

• Poorest countries being net losers in mostliberalisation scenarios – differentiation inpolicy frameworks and app Institutionalarrangements prior to opening mkts

• Fundamental changes to trade relations –to support AKST deal with –ve effects ofliberalisation

• The quality and transparency ofgovernance (incl. particpation ofstakeholders in AKST decision making isfundamental)

• Brokered contracual arrangements – butalso;

23

Cont’d• Expanding access to micro finance,

financing of value chains, local markets,supporting fair trade and organicagriculture and encouraging large scalepvt trading initiatives

• Promote innovation systems for pro-poordevelopment not tech transfer per se

• Strong policy and inst arrangements tobalance private, communal and nationalrights over K & resources

• Investments that improve women’s status,enhance their role & reduce theirburdens (preparing poor women toparticipate in mkts)

24

Environmental sustainability &NRM

• Address water scarcity due tocompeting econ forces thru;

- pricing policies targeted at developingwhole water sources

- Allocation polices taking into accountwhole water basins

- Integrating food production with otherecosystem services in muti-functionalsystems

25

Cont’d

• Innovative and better targeted AKSTinvestment policies to build natural, human,financial, social and physical for social &environmental sustainability

• Reverse ecological footprint of industrialagriculture thru – policies that promote SApractices (e.g. using mkt incentives toreward envorinmental services) – PES

- Recognises multi-functionality of agric,creates mechanisms to value and pay forbenefits of resource conserving ecosystemservices e.g.SA

26

Cont’d

• Fisheries; Employ integrated coastal mgt tomake appropriate choices on utilisation andresource & benefit sharing

• Design regulatory and incentive systemswhich ensure stable income for SFFs –more research needed.

• Harness AKST to mitigate –ve effects ofclimate change – which will be heavier intropics and sub-tropics but watchingagainst increased competition forresource use (e.g. agric for food or forbio-energy & foretry for C sequestration)

27

Cont’d

• Limit the magnitude of human-inducedclimate change e.g. a negotiated long terClean Development Mechanism –comprehensive & equitable regulatoryframework

• More research is needed into the benefits &risks of producing bio-energy

28

Improved governance, org & instarrangements• Resources to support transaction costs

among partners by all parties e.g. the needfor FOs to contract services from AKST,Farmer filed school interactions withresearch etc.

29

Why be involved and How?

• A unique opportunity to develop a common vision forthe future

• Critically assess info related to contentious issues• Develop new partnerships• Influence the future of ag. Research and policy• Influence decision makers in public and private sector• Provide consumers with info they need to choose

about nutrition & food safety• Provide farmers, foresters and fisherfolk with info

needed to increase productivity in an environmentallyand socially sustainable manner.