“Although considered by many to be a success story, the benefits of productivity increases inworld agriculture are unevenly spread. Often the poorest of the poor have gained little or nothing; and 850 million people are still hungry or malnourished with an additional 4 million morejoining their ranks annually. We are putting food that appears cheap on our tables; but it isfood that is not always healthy and that costs us dearly in terms of water, soil and the biological

IAASTDSCIENCE | AGRICULTURE | CURRENT AFFAIRS

diversity on which all our futures depend.”—Professor Bob Watson, director, IAASTD

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) , on which Agriculture at the Crossroads is based, 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 governmentand 30 from civil society, the process brought together 110 governments and 400 experts, representing non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, producers, consumers,
the scientific community, multilateral environment agreements (MEAs), and multiple international agencies involved in the agricultural and rural development sectors.
In addition to assessing existing conditions and knowledge, the IAASTD uses a simple set ofmodel 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 agriculturalland, water availability, and climate change effects.
This set of volumes comprises the findings of the IAASTD. It consists of a Global Report, abrief 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.
Cover design by Linda McKnight, McKnight Design, LLC
Cover photos (left to right): Steve Raymer, Dean Conger, andWilliam Albert Allard of National Geographic Stock, Mark
Edwards (both images) of Peter Arnold, Inc.

Washington • Covelo • London
www.islandpress.org
All Island Press books are printed on recycled, acid-free paper.

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development

Global Report• Reducing hunger and poverty• Improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods• Facilitating social and environmental sustainability

Agriculture
at aCrossroads

Global ReportIAASTD
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Scienceand Technology for Development

Global Report

00-fm.indd 1

11/3/08 10:36:20 AM

00-fm.indd 2

11/3/08 10:36:38 AM

IAASTD
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Scienceand Technology for Development

Global Report

Edited by

00-fm.indd 3

Beverly D. McIntyre

Hans R. Herren

Judi Wakhungu

Robert T. Watson

IAASTD Secretariat

Millennium Institute

African Centre forTechnology Studies

University of East Anglia

11/3/08 10:36:39 AM

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 andtechnology for development (IAASTD) : global report / edited by
Beverly D. McIntyre . . . [et al.].
   p.   cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-59726-538-6 (cloth : alk. paper) —ISBN 978-1-59726-539-3 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Agriculture—International cooperation. 2. Sustainable
development. I. McIntyre, Beverly D. II. Title: Global report.
HD1428.I544 2008
338.9´27—dc22      2008046043
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 9 800-fm.indd 4

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

12/2/08 5:15:55 PM

Contents

vii Statement by Governments
viii Forewordix Preface

1 Chapter 1

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators

57 Chapter 2		 Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation
145 Chapter 3		 Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals
255 Chapter 4		 Outlook on Agricultural Changes and its Drivers
307 Chapter 5		 Looking into the Future for Agriculture and AKST
377 Chapter 6		 Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals
441 Chapter 7		 Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments
495 Chapter 8		 Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns
551 Annex A		 Authors and Review Editors
555 Annex B		 Peer Reviewers
560 Annex C		 Glossary
568 Annex D		 Acronyms, Abbreviations and Units
572 Annex E		 Steering Committee and Advisory Bureau
575 Annex F		 Secretariat and Cosponsor Focal Points
576 Annex G		 Reservations by Governments
577 Index

00-fm.indd 5

11/3/08 10:36:39 AM

00-fm.indd 6

11/3/08 10:36:39 AM

Statement by Governments

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 recognize that the Global and sub-Global Reports are theconclusions 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, science and technology for development theyalso provide a diversity of views on some issues.
All countries see these Reports as a valuable and important contribution to our understanding on agricultural
knowledge, science and technology for development recognizing the need to further deepen our understanding of thechallenges ahead. This Assessment is a constructive initiative and important contribution that all governments needto take forward to ensure that agricultural knowledge,
science and technology fulfills its potential to meet thedevelopment and sustainability goals of the reduction ofhunger and poverty, the improvement of rural livelihoods
and human health, and facilitating equitable, socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development.

In accordance with the above statement, the following
governments accept the Global Report.
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin,
Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, China (People’s
Republic of), Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republicof Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia,
Finland, France, Gambia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Iran,
Ireland, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives,
Republic of Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Palau, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon
Islands, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, United Republicof 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 Global Report andtheir reservations are entered in Annex G.
Australia, Canada, and United States of America (3countries)vii

00-fm.indd 7

11/3/08 10:36:39 AM

Foreword

The objective of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development(IAASTD) was to assess the impacts of past, present andfuture agricultural knowledge, science and technology onthe• reduction of hunger and poverty,• improvement of rural livelihoods and human health,and• equitable, socially, environmentally and economicallysustainable development.
The IAASTD was initiated in 2002 by the World Bank andthe Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as a global consultative process to determine
whether an international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology was needed. Mr. Klaus Töepfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment
Programme (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 fivesubglobal reports; a global and five subglobal Summaries
for Decision Makers; and a cross-cutting Synthesis Reportwith an Executive Summary. The Summaries for Decision
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 andforemost on the dedication, enthusiasm and cooperation ofthese experts in many different but related disciplines. It is
the synergy of these interrelated disciplines that permitted
IAASTD to create a unique, interdisciplinary regional andglobal 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 outputsof 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-

retariat. We would specifically like to thank the cosponsoring organizations of the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
and the World Bank for their financial contributions as wellas the FAO, UNEP, and the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for theircontinued support of this process through allocation of 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 Kingdom) andthe 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 especiallysuccessful in engaging a large number of experts from developing countries and countries with economies in transition
in its work; the Trust Funds enabled financial assistance for
their travel to the IAASTD meetings.
We would also like to make special mention of the Regional Organizations who hosted the regional coordinatorsand staff and provided assistance in management and timeto ensure success of this enterprise: the African Center forTechnology Studies (ACTS) in Kenya, the Inter-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 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.
Signed:Co-chairs
Hans H. Herren,
Judi Wakhungu
Director
Robert T. Watsonviii

00-fm.indd 8

11/3/08 10:36:40 AM

Preface

In August 2002, the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations initiateda global consultative process to determine whether an international assessment of agricultural knowledge, scienceand technology (AKST) was needed. This was stimulated bydiscussions at the World Bank with the private sector andnongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on the state of scientific understanding of biotechnology and more specifically transgenics. During 2003, eleven consultations were held,
overseen by an international multistakeholder steering 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 steeringcommittee recommended to an Intergovernmental Plenary
meeting in Nairobi in September 2004 that an international
assessment of the role of agricultural knowledge, scienceand technology (AKST) in reducing hunger and poverty,
improving rural livelihoods and facilitating environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development
was needed. The concept of an International Assessment ofAgricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was endorsed as a multi-thematic, multispatial, multi-temporal intergovernmental process with amultistakeholder Bureau cosponsored by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Bank andWorld Health Organization (WHO).
The IAASTD’s governance structure is a unique hybridof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
and the nongovernmental Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). The stakeholder composition of the Bureau wasagreed 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 andinternational 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, toprepare the IAASTD Report (comprised of a Global and 5
sub-Global assessments). These experts worked in their own
capacity and did not represent any particular stakeholder

group. Additional individuals, organizations and governments were involved in the peer review process.
The IAASTD development and sustainability goals wereendorsed at the first Intergovernmental Plenary and are consistent with a subset of the UN Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs): the reduction of hunger and poverty, theimprovement of rural livelihoods and human health, andfacilitating equitable, socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development. Realizing these goals
requires acknowledging the multifunctionality of agriculture: the challenge is to simultaneously meet development
and sustainability goals while increasing agricultural production.
Meeting these goals has to be placed in the context of a
rapidly changing world of urbanization, growing inequities,
human migration, globalization, changing dietary preferences, climate change, environmental degradation, a trend
toward biofuels and an increasing population. These conditions are affecting local and global food security and putting pressure on productive capacity and ecosystems. Hence
there are unprecedented challenges ahead in providing foodwithin a global trading system where there are other competing uses for agricultural and other natural resources.
AKST alone cannot solve these problems, which are causedby complex political and social dynamics, but it can makea major contribution to meeting development and sustainability goals. Never before has it been more important for
the world to generate and use AKST.
Given the focus on hunger, poverty and livelihoods,
the IAASTD pays special attention to the current situation,issues and potential opportunities to redirect the current
AKST system to improve the situation for poor rural people, especially small-scale farmers, rural laborers and otherswith limited resources. It addresses issues critical to formulating policy and provides information for decision makers
confronting conflicting views on contentious issues such as
the environmental consequences of productivity increases,
environmental and human health impacts of transgenic
crops, the consequences of bioenergy development on theenvironment and on the long-term availability and price offood, and the implications of climate change on agricultural
production. The Bureau agreed that the scope of the assessment needed to go beyond the narrow confines of S&T andshould encompass other types of relevant knowledge (e.g.,knowledge held by agricultural producers, consumers andix

00-fm.indd 9

11/3/08 10:36:40 AM

x | Preface

end users) and that it should also assess the role of institutions, organizations, governance, markets and trade.
The IAASTD is a multidisciplinary and multistakeholder
enterprise requiring the use and integration of information,
tools and models from different knowledge paradigms including local and traditional knowledge. The IAASTD does
not advocate specific policies or practices; it assesses the major issues facing AKST and points towards a range of AKST
options for action that meet development and sustainability
goals. It is policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive. It
integrates scientific information on a range of topics thatare critically interlinked, but often addressed independently,
i.e., agriculture, poverty, hunger, human health, natural resources, environment, development and innovation. It will
enable decision makers to bring a richer base of knowledge
to bear on policy and management decisions on issues previously viewed in isolation. Knowledge gained from historicalanalysis (typically the past 50 years) and an analysis of somefuture development alternatives to 2050 form the basis forassessing options for action on science and technology, capacity development, institutions and policies, and investments.
The IAASTD is conducted according to an open, transparent, representative and legitimate process; is evidencebased; 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 basedon different worldviews; and identifies the key scientific uncertainties and areas on which research could be focused toadvance development and sustainability goals.
The IAASTD is composed of a Global assessment andfive sub-Global assessments: Central and West Asia andNorth Africa­—CWANA; East and South Asia and thePacific—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 civilsociety, private and public organizations on options for improving policies, practices, institutional and organizationalarrangements 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) involvedin 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 private investments in AKST. In addition, the IAASTD will enhance local and regional capacity to design, implement andutilize similar assessments.
In this assessment, agriculture is used in the widest sense
to include production of food, feed, fuel, fiber and otherproducts and to include all sectors from production of inputs (e.g., seeds and fertilizer) to consumption of products.
However, as in all assessments, some topics were covered

00-fm.indd 10

less extensively than others (e.g., livestock, forestry, fisheries
and the agricultural sector of small island countries, and agricultural engineering), largely due to the expertise of the selected authors. Originally the Bureau approved a chapter onplausible futures (a visioning exercise), but later there wasagreement to delete this chapter in favor of a more simple setof model projections. Similarly the Bureau approved a chapter on capacity development, but this chapter was dropped
and key messages integrated into other chapters.
The IAASTD draft Report was subjected to two roundsof peer review by governments, organizations and individuals. These drafts were placed on an open access Web siteand open to comments by anyone. The authors revised thedrafts based on numerous peer review comments, with theassistance of review editors who were responsible for ensuring the comments were appropriately taken into account.
One of the most difficult issues authors had to address was
criticisms that the report was too negative. In a scientificreview based on empirical evidence, this is always a difficultcomment to handle, as criteria are needed in order to say
whether something is negative or positive. Another difficulty
was responding to the conflicting views expressed by reviewers. The difference in views was not surprising given therange of stakeholder interests and perspectives. Thus one of
the key findings of the IAASTD is that there are diverse andconflicting 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 Reportwere approved at an Intergovernmental Plenary in April
2008. The Synthesis Report integrates the key findings fromthe Global and sub-Global assessments, and focuses on eight
Bureau-approved topics: bioenergy; biotechnology; climatechange; human health; natural resource management; traditional knowledge and community based innovation; tradeand markets; and women in agriculture.
The IAASTD builds on and adds value to a number ofrecent assessments and reports that have provided valuable
information relevant to the agricultural sector, but have notspecifically focused on the future role of AKST, the institutional dimensions and the multifunctionality of agriculture.
These include FAO State of Food Insecurity in the World(yearly); InterAcademy Council Report: Realizing the Promise and Potential of African Agriculture (2004); UN Millennium Project Task Force on Hunger (2005); Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (2005); CGIAR Science Council
Strategy and Priority Setting Exercise (2006); Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture: Guiding Policy Investments in Water, Food, Livelihoods andEnvironment (2007); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Reports (2001 and 2007); UNEP Fourth Global
Environmental Outlook (2007); World Bank World Development Report: Agriculture for Development (2007); IFPRI
Global Hunger Indices (yearly); and World Bank Internal
Report of Investments in SSA (2007).
Financial support was provided to the IAASTD by
the cosponsoring agencies, the governments of Australia,
Canada, Finland, France, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, US
and UK, and the European Commission. In addition, many

11/3/08 10:36:41 AM

Preface | xi

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 ofstakeholders, i.e., government policy makers, private sector,
NGOs, producer and consumer groups, international organizations and the scientific community. There are no recommendations, only options for action. The options for action
are not prioritized because different options are actionableby different stakeholders, each of whom have a different
set of priorities and responsibilities and operate in different
socio-economic-political circumstances.

00-fm.indd 11

11/3/08 10:36:41 AM

00-fm.indd 12

11/3/08 10:36:41 AM

1Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators

Coordinating Lead Authors
Hans Hurni (Switzerland) and Balgis Osman-Elasha (Sudan)
Lead Authors
Audia Barnett (Jamaica), Ann Herbert (USA), Anita Idel (Germany),
Moses Kairo (Kenya), Dely Pascual-Gapasin (Philippines), Juerg
Schneider (Switzerland), Keith Wiebe (USA)Contributing Authors
Guéladio Cissé (Cote d’Ivoire), Norman Clark (UK), Manuelde la Fuente (Bolivia), Berhanu Debele (Ethiopia), Markus
Giger (Switzerland), Udo Hoeggel (Switzerland), Ulan Kasimov(Kyrgyzstan), Boniface Kiteme (Kenya), Andreas Klaey (Switzerland),Thammarat Koottatep (Thailand), Janice Jiggins (Netherlands),
Ian Maudlin (UK), David Molden (USA), Cordula Ott (Switzerland),
Marian Perez Gutierrez (Costa Rica), Brigitte Portner (Switzerland),Riikka Rajalahti (Finland), Stephan Rist (Switzerland), Gete Zeleke(Ethiopia)
Review Editors
Judith Francis (Trinidad and Tobago) and JoAnn Jaffe (Canada)

Key Messages
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
1.4
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3

Setting the Scene 3
The IAASTD 3
Agriculture and its global context 5
Emerging issues 11
Conceptual Framework of the IAASTD 12
Framework for analysis—centrality of knowledge 12
Development and sustainability goals 14
Agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST) 16
Agrifood systems, agricultural products and services 20
Direct and indirect drivers 25
Development and Sustainability Issues 26
Poverty and livelihoods 26
Hunger, nutrition and human health 30
Environment and natural resources 35
Social equity 43
Sustainability Indicators 46
Indicators for the IAASTD 46
Working with indicators 47
Indicators in the IAASTD 49

1chapter 01.indd 1

11/3/08 10:41:09 AM

2 | IAASTD Global Report

Key Messages
1. Agriculture is multifunctional. It provides food, feed,
fiber, fuel and other goods. It also has a major influence onother essential ecosystem services such as water supply andcarbon sequestration or release. Agriculture plays an important social role, providing employment and a way of life.
Both agriculture and its products are a medium of culturaltransmission and cultural practices worldwide. Agriculturally based communities provide a foundation for local economies and are an important means for countries to secure
their territories. Agriculture accounts for a major part of thelivelihood of 40% of the world’s population and occupies
40% of total land area; 90% of farms worldwide have asize of less than 2 hectares. Agriculture includes crop-, animal-, forestry- and fishery-based systems or mixed farming,
including new emerging systems such as organic, precisionand peri-urban agriculture. Although agricultural inputs
and outputs constitute the bulk of world trade, most food isconsumed domestically, i.e., where it is produced.
2. Agricultural systems range across the globe from
intensive highly commercialized large-scale systems
to small-scale and subsistence systems. All of thesesystems are potentially either highly vulnerable or sustainable. This variability is rooted in the global agrifood
system, which has led to regional and functional differences
around the world—the social, economic and ecological effects of which have not yet been assessed and compared.
The global agricultural system faces great challenges today,
as it has to confront climate change, loss of biological andagrobiological diversity, loss of soil fertility, water shortageand loss of water quality, and population growth. Sustainable agricultural production is dependent on effective management of a range of interdependent physical and natural
resources—land, water, energy, capital and so on—as wellas on full internalization of currently externalized costs. The
sustainability of production also depends on the continuing
availability of and generalized access to public goods. Finding ways of dealing with these challenges is a highly contested matter: strategies differ because they are based on different visions of agriculture, different interests and diverging
values. However, while agriculture is a strong contributor
to the most critical problems we face today; it can also playa major role in their resolution.
3. Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology(AKST) can address the multifunctionality of agriculture. It plays a key role in shaping the quality and quantity of natural, human and other resources as well as
access to them. AKST is also crucial in supporting theefforts of actors at different levels—from householdto national, sub-global and global—to reduce poverty and hunger, as well as improve rural livelihoods
and the environment in order to ensure equitable andenvironmentally, socially and economically sustainable development. On the one hand, tacit and locallybased agricultural knowledge has been, and continues tobe, the most important type of knowledge particularly forsmall-scale farming, forestry and fishery activities. On theother hand, the development of formal agricultural knowl-

chapter 01.indd 2edge has been enormously successful particularly since the1950s, and forms a dominating part of agricultural knowledge today. Challenges ahead include the development anduse of transgenic plants, animals and microorganisms forincreased productivity and other purposes; access to anduse of agrochemicals; the emerging challenges of biofueland bioenergy development, and in a broader sense, the political, social and economic organization of agriculture as acomponent of rural development. All these challenges have
implications (both positive and negative) on the environment, human health, social well-being and economic performance of rural areas in all countries. The combinationof community-based innovation and local knowledge with
science-based approaches in AKST holds the promise of best
addressing the problems, needs and opportunities of therural poor.
4. The majority of the world’s poorest and hungry live inrural settings and depend directly on agriculture. Over
70% of the world’s poor live in rural areas. These 2.1 billion
people live on less than US$2 a day. This is not inevitable,
and an improved economic environment and greater social
equity at local, national, and global scales have the potential to ensure that agriculture is able to provide improved
livelihoods. Inextricably linked to poverty are vulnerabilities relating to production and consumption shocks, poor
sanitation, and lack of access to health care and deficientnutrient intake, placing many in agrarian societies at risk.
AKST may help mitigate these negative effects by supporting appropriate interventions, but it may also increase thevulnerability of poor farmers if no attention is paid to therisks and uncertainties to which these farmers are exposed.
The livelihoods of many poor farmers are oriented towards
meeting basic needs, particularly food. With insufficient income, households have little money to invest in increasing
the productivity or sustainability of their production systems. The global trend has been towards a decapitalizationof poor farmers and their resources (as well as rural areas),as they experience declining terms of trade and competition
with low-cost producers. AKST offers opportunities to contribute to recapitalization of such farming households.
5. A vicious circle of poor health, reduced working
capacity, low productivity and short life expectancy
is typical, particularly for the most vulnerable groups
working in agriculture. All persons have a right to sufficient, safe, nutritious and culturally acceptable food. Goodnutrition is a prerequisite for health. Although global production of food calories is sufficient to feed the world’s population, millions die or are debilitated every year by hunger
and malnutrition which makes them vulnerable to infectious
diseases (e.g., HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis). In many
developing countries hunger and health risks are exacerbated by extreme poverty and poor and dangerous working
conditions. In contrast, in industrialized countries, overnutrition and food safety issues, including food-borne illnesses
affecting human health as well as diseases associated with
agricultural production systems, are predominant concerns.
Notwithstanding, in industrialized countries there is also asignificant incidence of undernutrition among the poor, anda higher burden of both infectious and noncommunicable

11/3/08 10:41:09 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 3

diseases associated with metabolic syndromes. AKST has animportant role to play in both moving towards food security and food sovereignty, and breaking the malnutrition–
poor health–low productivity cycle.
6. A range of fundamental natural resources (e.g., land,
water, air, biological diversity including forests, fish)provide the indispensable base for the production of
essential goods and services upon which human survival depends, including those related to agricultural
ecosystems. During the last 50 years, the physical andfunctional availability of natural resources has shrunk fasterthan at any other time in history due to increased demand
and/or degradation at the global level. This has been compounded by a range of factors including human population
growth, and impacts have comprised unprecedented lossof biodiversity, deforestation, loss of soil health, and waterand air quality. In many cases, such negative impacts can be
mitigated; and in some cases, they are. Given the multifunctional nature of agriculture, it is critical to consider links
across ecosystems in which agricultural systems are embedded, as these have important implications for the resilienceor vulnerability of these systems. Linkages between natural
resource use and the social and physical environment acrossspace and time are an important issue for AKST, with significant implications for sustainable development and themitigation of adverse impacts.
7. Social equity issues, including gender, are major
concerns in agriculture, as they relate to poverty, hunger, nutrition, health, natural resource management
and environment, which are affected by various factors resulting in greater or lesser degrees of equity.
As a majority of the world’s poor and hungry live in rural
settings and are directly dependent on agriculture for theirlivelihoods, political, economic, cultural and technologicalfactors contribute to mitigating or reinforcing inequality.
Women and men have differing roles and responsibilities
in productive households, and they can derive varying degrees of benefits from AKST and innovations. Gender-based
patterns are context-specific, but a persistent feature is thatwomen have a key role in agricultural activities, yet they
have limited access to, and control of, productive resources
such as land, labor, credit and capital. Agricultural development sometimes strengthens patterns that are unfavorable
to women, such as male bias of the agricultural extension
system in many countries. Societies can develop governanceinstitutions, legal systems, social policy tools, and social/
gender sensitive methods (e.g., gender analysis) that seek
to minimize disparities and even opportunities out among
women and men.
8. Agriculture today is faced with several emerging
challenges and opportunities; the evaluation of thoserelating to climate change, land degradation, reduced
access to natural resources (including genetic resources), bioenergy demands, transgenics and traderequire special efforts and investments in AKST. About
30% of global emissions leading to climate change are attributed to agricultural activities. Climate change in turnaffects all types of agricultural production systems, fromchapter 01.indd 3

farming to forestry, livestock production and fishery; it particularly affects resource-poor agriculture. Current as well
as future damage due to temperature increases and more
extreme weather events and their consequences on the hydrology of watersheds and groundwater resources are yet
to be detected in detail. Agricultural households and enterprises need to adapt to climate change but they do not
yet have the experience in and knowledge of handling theseprocesses, including increased pressure due to biofuel production. Bioenergy is seen as a potential to mitigate theimpact of using fossil fuels as a source of energy, thereby
mitigating the impact on climate. While on-farm bioenergy
production is emerging as a possibility to make better use
of farm residues and excrements, the substitution of fossil
fuel through biofuel plantation for transport and mobility
is under contention and thus a matter of concern for AKST.
The development and use of transgenics is seen very differently by the different stakeholders, ranging from a purely
positivist view of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
as the solution to the problems of agriculture, to a purely
negativist view that considers GMOs to be uncontrollable
and life threatening. Finally, agricultural trading conditions,rules and standards are changing; together with emerging
alternatives, they offer challenges and opportunities.

1.1 Setting the Scene
1.1.1 The IAASTD
IAASTD, the International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development,
comes at a time of rapid change that is affecting both rural and urban areas, as well as the climate and other natural resources—in ways that present unprecedented threats.
However these changes also provide opportunities for sustainable development and poverty alleviation, and require
increased knowledge, science and technology in conjunction
with appropriate policies, institutions and investments.
The main goal of IAASTD is to provide decision makers with the information they need to reduce hunger andpoverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable,
environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development through the generation of, access to and use of
agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST).
IAASTD uses a conceptual framework that enables systematic analysis and appraisal of the above challenges based oncommon concepts and terminology.
The development and sustainability goals of the
IAASTD are to:(1) reduce hunger and poverty,(2) improve rural livelihoods, human health and nutrition,and(3) promote equitable and socially, environmentally andeconomically sustainable development.
Sustainable development is crucial to meet the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (see WCED, 1987). Using
AKST to achieve development and sustainability goals will
depend on the choices of different actors related to AKST
development and application.
Agriculture plays a prominent role for human well-

11/3/08 10:41:09 AM

4 | IAASTD Global Reportbeing on Earth; the IAASTD concentrates on how knowledge, science and technology can contribute to agriculturaldevelopment. This assessment is a specific step among several global efforts to achieve sustainable development thathave emerged in follow-up processes and policies of theWorld Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. AKST willcontribute to the achievement of these goals. Specifically,
the IAASTD will contribute to knowledge-based decision
making for future sustainable development by assessing: (1)those interrelations within AKST relevant to sustainable development; (2) knowledge and scientific development, technology diffusion, innovation, and adaptation of ecosystemmanagement; and (3) the integration of AKST within international, regional, national and local development policies
and strategies.
What is an assessment?
International assessments are very useful when they address complex issues of supranational interest and dimensions. A number of assessments have been undertaken by
many organizations and individuals in the past two decades:
the Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), the Ozone Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) reports, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(MA), the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (CA), the Global Environment Outlook(GEO), and now, the International Assessment of Agriculture, Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development(IAASTD).
The evidence-based analyses that underpin the outcomesof the various assessments have common characteristics. A
key point is that an assessment is not simply a review of therelevant literature; it can be based, in part, on a literature
review, but also needs to provide an assessment of the veracity and applicability of the information and the uncertaintyof outcomes in relation to the context of the identified questions or issues within a specified authorizing environment(Table 1-1).
To be effective and legitimate, the assessment process
was designed to be open, transparent, reviewed, and widelyrepresentative of stakeholders and relevant experts, and theresulting documents to be broadly reviewed by independent
experts from governments, private and nongovernmentalorganizations, as well as by representatives of the participating governments. Obtaining a balance of opinions in a
global assessment based on a literature review and relevant
expertise is an ongoing and iterative challenge to ensurethat it encompasses a broad range of disciplinary and geographical experience and different knowledge systems. The
IAASTD has been designed in a way that attempts to ensure
effectiveness and legitimacy.
The role of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology(AKST). Agricultural knowledge, science and technology areseen as key factors and instruments for future adjustment of
indirect and direct drivers of agricultural outputs, as well asof ecosystem services. Assessing AKST sets the stage for an
informed choice by decision-makers among various options
for development. It indicates how policy and institutionalframeworks at all organizational levels might affect sustainability goals. Specifically, it provides the basis for designing

chapter 01.indd 4

AKST in a way that mitigates detrimental development dynamics such as growing disparities, the decreasing shareof agricultural value-added and the degradation of ecosystems. In other words, the assessment draws lessons about
what conditions have led AKST to have an impact on development that has been positive for human and ecosystemwell-being, and where, when and why impacts have been
negative. Moreover, it explores the demands that are likely
to be made on agricultural systems (crops, livestock andpastoralism, fisheries, forestry and agroforestry, biomass,commodities and ecosystem services) in the future, asking
what agricultural goods and services society will need under
different plausible future scenarios in order to achieve thegoals related to hunger, nutrition, human health, poverty,
equity, livelihoods, and environmental and social sustainability, and whether and how access to these goods and services is hindered. The result is an evidence-based guide forpolicy and decision-making.
IAASTD commitment to sustainable development. IAASTD
sees the assessment of AKST and its implications for agriculture as a prerequisite for knowledge-based decision-making
for future sustainable development portfolios. Specifically,
IAASTD aims to contribute to knowledge-based, decisionmaking for future sustainable development by:
1. Identifying interrelations between agricultural knowledge, science and technology in view of sustainable development;
2. Exploring knowledge and scientific development, technology diffusion, innovations and adaptations of ecosystem management;
3. Supporting the integration of agricultural knowledge,
science and technology (AKST) within internationaland national development policies and strategies.
IAASTD’s relationship to the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(MA). The MDGs and the MA are cornerstones for development policy and serve as major references for the IAASTD.
In addition to these frameworks, the IAASTD assesses
AKST in relation to the objective of meeting broader development and sustainability goals. It is generally assumed that
AKST can play a major role in efforts to achieve the MDGs,
particularly that of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger(MDG 1) by improving the productivity of agriculture in
general and the competitiveness of smallholders and marginalized groups in the expanding global, national and local
markets in particular, as well as by creating employment
among poor rural people and making food available to consumers everywhere. AKST can also contribute directly or
indirectly to improving primary education and social andgender equity, reducing child mortality, improving maternal
health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases(MDG 2-6), and ensuring environmental sustainability(MDG 7) by delivering a variety of supporting, regulating
and cultural services (MDG 8). The IAASTD assessment enables a more adequate consideration of the linkage between
poverty reduction and environmental change.
Key questions for the IAASTD. The major question forthis assessment is: “How can we reduce hunger and11/3/08 10:41:10 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 5

Table 1-1. Differences between a review and an assessment.
Scientific Reviews

Assessment

Audience

Undertaken for scientists

Undertaken for decision-makers from a specified
authorizing environment

Conducted by

One or a few scientists

A larger and varied group based on relevant geographic anddisciplinary representation

Issues/Topics

Often deal with a single topic

Generally a broader and complex issue

Identifies gaps in

Research issues generally driven byscientific curiosity

Knowledge for implementation of outcomes; problem-driven

Uncertainty statements

Not always required

Essential

Judgment

Hidden; a more objective analysis

Required and clearly flagged

Synthesis

Not required, but sometimes important

Essential to reduce complexity

Coverage

Exhaustive, historical

Sufficient to deal with main range of uncertainty associatedwith the identified issues

Source: Watson and Gitay, 2004.

poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable,
environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development through the generation of, access to, and use of
AKST?” Three questions recur throughout the global andsub-global assessments of IAASTD. They concern:
1. Social disparities: How have changing markets andchanging access to markets affected development andsustainability goals, and how has this been influenced
by AKST? How and by what have cultural values, traditions and social equity (including gender equity) been
influenced? What are projected implications of market
changes in the future, and how can AKST contribute to
informed decision-making?
2. Ecology: How has availability of, access to and management of natural resources (particularly water and soil
resources, as well as plant, animal, genetic and otherresources) affected the development and sustainability
goals of IAASTD? How can AKST enhance knowledgeof natural resource management?
3. AKST: What have been, and what are projected to be,
the implications of institutional and policy changes andfunding (e.g., private versus public investment; intellectual property rights [IPR]; legislative frameworks) on
access to AKST, on innovation systems and on ownership of knowledge? How will AKST influence social,environmental and economic outcomes of agriculturaland food systems?
Other central issues relating to hunger, nutrition, humanhealth, poverty, livelihoods and the economy, as well as
productivity and technologies are part of the sustainability
goals and thus further emphasized in the document.
Diversity of views and value systems represented in
the IAASTD
AKST is not an entity; it is a diverse field of knowledge
and values. Achieving development and sustainability goals
requires probing and experimentation, negotiation, andlearning among diverse voices and interpretations, as well

chapter 01.indd 5

as taking into account place-based and context-relevant factors and voices to address the multiple functions of agriculture. The IAASTD has made clear how contested AKST areamong the hundreds of professionals involved, especiallyformal AKST. Conflicting perspectives on AKST have led
to different options for policy-making, and understanding
the competing interpretations of AKST does not guarantee aconsensual outcome. IAASTD focuses on AKST issues most
relevant to development and sustainability goals.
1.1.2 Agriculture and its global context
Importance of agriculture. Agriculture as the source ofhuman food, animal feed, fiber and fuel plays a key rolein efforts to achieve global sustainable development. It isa major occupational sector in developing countries, withthe poorest countries being those with predominantly agricultural economies and societies (FAO, 2000). Approximately 2.6 billion people—men, women and children —rely
on agricultural production systems, be it farming, livestock
production, forestry or fishery. Food security for a growing
world population is positioned to remain a challenge in thenext few decades. Most food is produced in Asia and otherdensely populated poor regions, and most of that food isconsumed domestically. Because of the high diversity of agricultural systems across the world IAASTD decided to carry out five sub-global assessments in addition to the global
one, in order to adequately address issues in the major agricultural regions of the world. These regions have developed
to their current state for a variety of reasons, and a more
specific reorientation of AKST is likely to be more effective
if it addresses region-specific issues in agriculture, development and sustainability. The IAASTD has put particularemphasis on addressing issues relevant to tackling poverty
reduction, which is central to the Millennium Development
Goals to be achieved by 2015, though these issues are also
expected to remain important long beyond that date.
In parallel with the spread and growth of human population, particularly during the last 300 years, but at a particularly impressive rate since 1950, the transformation of

11/3/08 10:41:10 AM

6 | IAASTD Global Reportnatural ecosystems into agriculturally used and managed
land has accelerated, which coincides with the time whenformal AKST began to have a significant impact. The world
population grew from about 2.5 billion people in 1950 to
6.5 billion in 2005, i.e., by a factor of 2.6; in most countries,
growth rates have just recently begun to decrease. Trends
indicate that the global population will reach between 7.5
and 11 billion people by 2050, depending on the expected
average number of children per women (Figure 1-1).
World agricultural output, or more specifically, foodoutput as measured in cereal and meat production, in turn,increased even more during the same period, due to large
increases in fertilizer use, herbicides, plant and animal
breeding, and extension of irrigated area (Figure 1-2). The
total cultivated area increased much less, i.e., from 1.4 to
1.5 million ha between 1950 and 2005 (Wood et al., 2000,
based on FAO data), although fallow systems were greatly
reduced.
For similar figures indicating equally moderate growthof crop area see also the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(MA, 2005a). However, more land was converted to cropland in the 30 years after 1950 than in the 150 years between 1700 and 1850 (MA, 2005a). More than half of all
the synthetic nitrogen fertilizer ever applied on the planet has
been used since 1985, and phosphorus use tripled between
1960 and 1990 (MA, 2005b). Globally, agricultural output
has been growing at about 2% per year since 1960, withhigher rates in developing countries because area productivity, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America,
is still much lower than in industrialized countries and in
Asia (FAO, 2006a). Along with an increase in agricultural
output, water use in agriculture has increased to 7,130 cubic
kilometers today and is expected to double by 2050 (CA,2007). Another form of competition has recently been observed between the use of crops for food and feed and theuse of the same crops (e.g., maize) for biofuels; moreover,a competition at the world level is rising for the supply ofprotein-rich animal feeds.
Today’s land use patterns in general reveal the importance of agriculture as a major land management systemtransforming and making use of natural ecosystems. Givena global land surface (without Antarctica) of 13,430 million ha (FAOSTAT, 2006), there are still about 30% forest ecosystems (nearly 4,000 million ha), part of which are
the least converted in a biological sense. About a further
26% (3,400 million ha) are pastureland (FAOSTAT, 2006),
of which about half was converted from natural grasslandand the rest from forestland or woodland. About 11.5%
are cropland (1,500 million ha) (FAOSTAT, 2006), most ofwhich was also converted from forestland. The remaining
share of the global land surface are deserts, shrubland andtundra (about 25%), inland water surfaces and wetlands(about 4%), and built up land for human settlements andother infrastructure (about 5%). In sum, more than half ofthe earth’s land surface is intensively used for agricultural
purposes such as cultivation, grazing, plantation forestry
and aquaculture; and since 1950 one third of the soil has
been profoundly altered from its natural ecosystem statebecause of moderate to severe soil degradation (Oldeman
et al., 1990).

chapter 01.indd 6

Figure 1-1. Total world population 1950-2050 and average numberof children per woman (total fertility). Source: UNFPA, 2007

Multifunctionality of agriculture. As an activity, agriculture
has multiple outputs and contributes to several ends at thesame time (Abler, 2004). Agricultural resource management
thus involves more than maintaining production systems.
Services such as mitigating climate change, regulating water,
controlling erosion and support services such as soil formation, providing habitats for wildlife, as well as contributions
to cultural activities such as use and preservation of landscapes and spiritual sites are some of the positive functions
that agriculture provides. The OECD identifies two key
elements of multifunctionality: externalities and jointness(OECD, 2005). Agriculture uses public goods—natural resources (landscapes, plants, animals, soils, minerals, waterand atmospheric N and C) for the production of public services, common goods, and private goods (food, feed, fiber,fuel). These natural resources are controlled and distributed
partly through public entities and partly via privately producing and marketing entities; hence the issue of externalityof costs are borne by the public. Agriculture is embedded
in local and regional contexts and is always bound to particular, socially defined relationships and interdependencies
between the production of private goods and the use andproduction of multifunctional public goods, which leads tothe issue of jointness (Abler, 2004).
Globalization in agriculture
Globalization in agriculture, aided by information and communication technologies (ICT), has resulted in economic
opportunities as well as challenges, particularly in developing countries. Globalization is typified by the increased
interlinkage and concentration at almost all stages of the
production and marketing chain, with functional and regional differentiations, and includes transnational corporations that are vertically and horizontally integrated in globalization and their increasing power over consumers andagricultural producers. Globalization is also characterized
by growing investments in agriculture, food processing andmarketing, and increasing international trade in food facilitated by reduced trade barriers (FAO, 2003). The creationof intellectual property rights has become an increasingly
important source of competitive advantage and accumula-

11/3/08 10:41:11 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 7

Figure 1-2. Global trends in cereal and meat production; nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer use; irrigation,and pesticide production.

tion in the production and trade of agricultural goods. Globalization has resulted in national and local governments
and economies ceding some sovereignty as agricultural production has become increasingly subject to international
agreements, such as the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Agriculture (WTO, 1995).
The progressive expansion of commercial-industrial
relations in agriculture has put further strain on manysmall-scale farmers in developing countries who must also
contend with direct competition from production systems
that are highly subsidized and capital intensive, and thus
able to produce commodities that can be sold more cheaply.
Newly industrialized countries like India have increasingly
subsidized inputs in agriculture since the early 1980s (IFPRI,
2005).
Competition, however, does not only originate in subsidies from agricultural policies of richer countries; it may
also derive from large entrepreneurial holdings that have
low production costs, which are primarily but not exclusively found in developing countries. Three phenomena
related to globalization are specific for a number of countries: the growing impact of supermarkets and wholesalers,of grades and standards, and of export horticulture, havesubstantially favored large farms (Reardon et al., 2001,
2002, 2003) except when small farmers get special assistance through subsidies, micro-contracts or phytosanitary
programs (cf. Minten et al., 2006), for example. A steadyerosion of local food production systems and eating patterns

chapter 01.indd 7

has accompanied the net flow of food from poorer to richer
countries (Kent, 2003).
While average farm sizes in Europe and North America
have increased substantially, in Asia, Latin America, and insome highly densely populated countries in Africa, averagefarm sizes have decreased significantly in the late 20th century, although they were already very small by the 1950s(Eastwood et al., 2004; Anriquez and Bonomi, 2007). Theseaverages conceal vast and still growing inequalities in thescale of production units in all regions, with larger industrialized production systems becoming more dominant particularly for livestock, grains, oil crops, sugar and horticulture
and small, labor-intensive household production systems
generally becoming more marginalized and disadvantaged
with respect to resources and market participation. In industrialized countries, farmers now represent a small percentage of the population and have experienced a loss ofpolitical and economic influence, although in many countries they still exercise much more power than their numbers
would suggest. In developing countries agricultural populations are also declining, at least in relative terms, with many
countries falling below 50% (FAO, 2006a). Although, there
are still a number of poor countries with 60-85% of the
population working in small-scale agricultural systems. The
regional distribution of the economically active population in agriculture is dominated by Asia, which accounts
for almost 80% of the world’s total active population, followed by Africa with 14%. Although the overall number

11/13/08 11:31:01 AM

8 | IAASTD Global Reportof women in agriculture is falling, the relative share is rising, i.e., women make up an increasing fraction of the labor
force in agriculture, especially in sub-Saharan Africa where
hoe agriculture is practiced extensively (Spieldoch, 2007).
While the agrifood sector in toto may still account for alarge portion of national economies, with the productionof inputs, industrial transformation and marketing of food,and transport becoming more important in terms of value
and employment, agricultural production itself accounts fora diminishing share of the economy in many countries while
the other sectors are expanding. Average farm sizes vary
greatly by region (see Table 1-2).
Trade and the agricultural sector
International trade and economic policies can have positive
and negative effects on different development and sustainability goals. In addition, AKST can have substantial rolesin the formation of better policies. Poverty-affected agricultural producers in particular have been poorly served bytrade; unless they have better access to efficient and equitable market systems, they cannot easily benefit from AKST
initiatives (IFAD, 2003). Trade policies and market dynamics are thus key determinants of whether and how AKST
systems can effectively address poverty, hunger, rural livelihoods and environmental sustainability. Although most agricultural production is not traded internationally, national
agricultural planning and AKST investment is increasingly
oriented towards export markets and designed to comply
with international trade rules. Agricultural trade has been
increasing in developing country regions particularly sincethe 1970s (FAO, 2005a).
The focus on export has left many small-scale producers, i.e., the majority of the rural poor, vulnerable to volatileinternational market conditions and international competition, often from subsidized producers in the North. The
globalization of agriculture has been accompanied by concentration of market power away from producers into thehands of a limited number of large-scale trade and retailagribusiness companies. Corporate concentration along theagrifood value chain can have a significant impact on international commodity prices, which have recently risen but
have generally been low relative to industrial and manufactured goods (FAO, 2005a). In addition, increased international trade in agricultural commodities has often led tooverexploitation of natural resources, and increased energy
use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Overall the impact of trade liberalization has been uneven in industrialized
and developing countries.

Small-scale farming as a particular challenge for agriculture
Despite the crucial role that agriculture has for rural populations in transition and developing countries, agriculturebased livelihoods and rural communities are endangeredby poverty worldwide. Based on FAO census data, it has
been estimated that about 525 million farms exist worldwide, providing a livelihood for about 40% of the world’s
population. Nearly 90% of these are small farms defined ashaving less than two hectares of land (see e.g., Nagayets,2005). Small farms occupy about 60% of the arable land
worldwide and contribute substantially to global farm production (Figure 1-3). In Africa, 90% of agricultural production is derived from small farms (Spencer, 2002). If a highpercentage of a country’s population is engaged in agriculture and derives its livelihood from small-scale farming, thewhole sector is predominantly subsistence-oriented, whichmakes livelihoods extremely vulnerable to changes in directdrivers such as diseases, pests, or climate, even though its
sensitivity to indirect drivers such as markets, infrastructureand external inputs is less pronounced. Not surprisingly,
subsistence farmers tend to be very aware of their multiple
vulnerabilities and therefore adopt diverse risk-minimizing
and mitigating strategies.
Poorly developed market infrastructure such as ruralroads and postharvest facilities are among the factors thathave limited market access for outputs and inputs (e.g., fertilizer) for the majority of small-scale farmers (FAO, 2005a)(Figure 1-4).
Growing disparities have developed over the last 50
years between small-scale farming that follows local practices and industrial agricultural systems that have incorporated formal AKST. A key factor is the tremendous increasein labor productivity in industrialized agriculture and thestagnating labor productivity in most small-scale systems

Table 1-2. Approximate farm size by world region.
World region
AfricaAverage farm size, ha
1.6

Asia

1.6

Latin America and Caribbean

67.0

Europe*27.0

North America

121.0

Source: Nagayets, 2005; von Braun, 2005.
*data includes Western Europe only.

chapter 01.indd 8

Figure 1-3. Regional distribution of small-scale farms. Source:
Nagayets, 2005 based on FAO 2001c, 2004c and national statisticalagencies.
Note: Small-scale farms are defined as those of less than 2 hectares. The
total number of small-scale farms is 404 million.

11/3/08 10:41:12 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 9

in developing countries (see Mazoyer and Roudard, 1997;
see Figure 1-5). In parallel, work incomes increased most inindustrialized countries (Mazoyer, 2001) and prices of industrial manufactured goods generally increased relative toagricultural goods, adding to disparities due to differences
between productivity levels.
Many small-scale systems have not been able to compete with industrialized production systems for a number ofreasons, including subsidies given to farmers in industrialized countries, cheap fossil energy in mechanized systems
compared to metabolic energy in small-scale systems, stabilized market prices in industrialized countries as opposed
to completely liberalized prices in developing countries, andthe inability to access inputs on favorable terms as compared to large-scale systems. Countries and communities
based mainly on small-scale economies are the poorest in
the world today, as well as the most threatened by ecosystemdegradation (UNEP, 2002). Most small farms with a size ofless than two hectares are in Asia (87%), followed by Africa(8%), Europe (4%) and America (1%) (Nagayets, 2005).
While the trend in industrial countries has been an increasein average farm size (from about ten to more than 100 ha), it
has been the opposite in densely populated developing countries (from about 2 to <1 ha). In some contexts small farm
size may be a barrier to investment, however, small farms
are often among the most productive in terms of output perunit of land and energy. As yet they are often ignored byformal AKST.
Historical trends suggest that small-scale farms willcontinue to dominate the agricultural landscape in the developing world, especially in Asia and Africa, at least forthe coming two to three decades (Nagayets, 2005). The absolute number of small farms is still increasing in a numberof countries on these continents, due to further subdivisionof landholdings and expansion of agricultural land. This isalso reflected in the labor force differences between countries (see Figure 1-6).

Figure 1-5. Productivity in developing country cereal systems
using motorized mechanization and chemicals and in those using
manual or animal-drawn cultivation. Source: Mazoyer, 2001.

Mazoyer, 2001.

Figure 1-4. Small-scale farmer heterogeneity; access and market
gap. Source: Huvio et al., 2004

chapter 01.indd 9

Figure 1-6. Labor force diversity and income circa 1992. Source:

11/3/08 10:41:20 AM

10 | IAASTD Global Report

Ecological changes induced by all types ofagriculture
Agricultural activities require change of the natural ecosystem to an agricultural system that is oriented towards human use. This concerns local agricultural practices as wellas industrial models and all forms in between. Deforestation
was, and still is, the first major step to convert primary tree
vegetation into cropland or grazing land, thereby reducing
biological diversity in most instances. Other environmental
impacts relate to soil, physical, biological and chemical degradation and problems of water quality and quantity.
On the one hand, even in traditional agricultural systems
cropping involves tillage operations that may cause accelerated soil erosion. Soil degradation is highest on cropland,but it also affects grazing land and even forest plantations
and other agricultural activities (Hurni et al., 1996). Smallscale farming can damage the environment, particularly
when practiced under increasing population pressure andwith scarce suitable land, involving shortened fallow periods and expansion of cropland areas into unsuitable environmental situations such as steep slopes. This process wasparticularly accelerated during the past 100 years due to the
expansion of farming, despite the emergence of agroecological practices and widespread efforts to introduce sustainable
land management technologies on small farms (Liniger andCritchley, 2007).
On the other hand, the advancement of industrial
models in agriculture has promoted the simplification ofagroecosystems, with reductions in the number of and variability within species. Increased specialization at the field,
farm, and landscape levels produces monocultures that potentially increase environmental risks because they reduce
biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecological resilience,and they may be highly vulnerable to climate change. Thesesystems have both benefited and endangered human healthand the environment in many industrial countries. Whileindustrial production systems yield large volumes of agricultural commodities with relatively small amounts of labor,
they are often costly in terms of human health (Wesseling
et al., 1997; Antle et al., 1998; Cole et al., 2002), have additional negative environmental impacts, and are frequently
inefficient in terms of energy use. Runoff and seepage ofsynthetic fertilizers and concentrated sources of livestock
waste damage aquifers, rivers, lakes, and even oceans—withcostly effects on drinking water quality, fish habitat, safetyof aquatic food, and recreational amenities (FAO, 1996a;
WWAP, 2003; FAO, 2006b; CA, 2007). This is occurring
particularly rapidly in some emerging industrialized countries. However, in countries with increasing industrial production one may also observe more effective food regulationand safety protocols, providing enhanced health protection
against foodborne illness. Commercial pesticides often affect non-target organisms and their habitats, and especiallywhen used without strict attention to recommended usage
and safety protocols, can negatively affect the health offarm workers (WWAP, 2003). The international transportation of crops, livestock and food products has promoted
the global spread of agricultural pests and disease organisms. Many recent significant disease outbreaks have been
due to informal, unregulated trade, smuggling, or the industrial restructuring of food systems. The global atmosphericchapter 01.indd 10transport of agricultural pollutants, including pesticides,
the breakdown products of other agrichemicals, and greenhouse gases, means that environmental costs are also borneby populations far removed from sites of production (Commoner, 1990; UNEP, 2005).
Food security and food sovereignty
Improvement of rural livelihoods, human health and nutrition. Livelihoods are a way of characterizing the resources
and strategies individuals and households use to meet theirneeds and accomplish their goals. Livelihoods are often described in terms of people, their capabilities and their meansof living (Chambers and Conway, 1991). Livelihoods encompass income as well as the tangible and intangible resources used by the household to generate income. Livelihoods are basically about choices regarding how, given theirnatural and institutional environments, households combine
resources in different production and exchange activities,
generate income, meet various needs and goals, and adjust
resource endowments to repeat the process.
Food security exists when all people of a given spatial
unit, at all times, have physical and economic access to safeand nutritious food that is sufficient to meet their dietaryneeds and food preferences for an active and healthy life,
and is obtained in a socially acceptable and ecologically sustainable manner (WFS, 1996). Food sovereignty is definedas the right of peoples and sovereign states to democraticallydetermine their own agricultural and food policies.
Food sovereignty, the right to food, equitable distribution of food, and the building of sufficient reserves to ensure food security for unexpected events of unpredictable
duration and extent (such as hurricanes or droughts), haveso far been strategies at the national and international levels with obvious advantages (Sen and Drèze, 1990, 1991).
Assumptions that national average food production figures
can indicate food security are belied by internal distribution constraints, political limitations on access, inabilities
to purchase available food, overconsumption in segmentsof a population, policies which encourage farmers to shift
from family food production to cash crops, crop failure,storage losses, and a range of other factors. Unless all persons feel food secure and are confident in their knowledgeof the quality, quantity, and reliability of their food supply, global food security averages cannot be extrapolated
to specific cases. The ability to access adequate food covers
industrial and cash-cropping farmers, subsistence farmers
during crop failures, and non-agriculturists. Access can belimited by local storage failures, low purchasing power, andcorrupt or inefficient distribution mechanisms, among otherfactors. Quality of food, in terms of its nutritional value, isdetermined by freshness or processing and handling techniques, variety, and chemical composition. A new component in the food security debate is increasing malnutrition inagricultural areas where cash crops, including biofuel crops,
replace local food crops.
Food insecurity has been defined in terms of availability,
access, stability and utilization. Food insecurity occurs when
there is insufficient food over a limited period of time, suchas a “hungry season” prior to harvest, or for extended orrecurring periods. Food insecurity may affect individuals,
households, specific population groups or a wider popula-

11/3/08 10:41:20 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 11

tion. The basic unit for food security within a poor community is the family. Parental sacrifices for children’s welfare
are demonstrated daily under conditions of scarcity. Families are affected by certain policies, which, perhaps as externalities, create unemployment, inconsistent agricultural
prices, and credit-based farming and lifestyles; this is why
they are the logical focus for definitions of food security. A
family’s food supply must be secure “at all times”, not simply on average, thereby implying that local storage facilities
must be effective, that staples are available out of season,and that distribution systems are uninterrupted by adverse
weather, political or budgetary cycles. Food insecurity canbe limited to small pockets or affect entire regions. Famine,in contrast, is used to define chronic hunger affecting entire
populations over an extended period of time in a famineaffected area, potentially leading to the death of part of the
population. Famine may have multiple causes, from political and institutional ones to social, ecological and climaticcauses (WFS, 1996).
Temporary food insecurity may be overcome when aharvest comes or when conditions such as weather, wages
or employment opportunities improve; it may require action
before, during, and even after the period of food insecurity.
Household livelihood strategies reflect this. For example, ahousehold that anticipates an upcoming “hungry season”
may seek to accumulate savings in advance in the form ofcash, grain, or livestock, or it may diversify its economic
activities by sending a household member away to seek employment elsewhere. A household experiencing a hungry
season may draw on those savings or receive remittancesfrom household members working elsewhere. In more severe cases, a household may borrow money, draw on informal social networks, seek food aid, or even be forced tosell assets (decapitalization)—perhaps achieving temporary
food security only at the expense of the ability to generate income in subsequent periods. Other strategies include
post-harvest technologies, which may improve storage of
products and hence increase both the quantity and qualityof available food.
In seeking to meet current needs, some households may
be forced to deplete their resources to the point that theyremain food insecure for extended periods of time or forrecurring periods over many years. In extreme cases, households may have depleted their reserves, exhausted other assets, and be reduced to destitution—with their labor being
their only remaining asset. The worst off may, in addition,
be burdened with debt and poor health, further limiting
their ability to meet current needs, let alone begin rebuilding their capacity to face future challenges.
Whether addressing temporary or chronic food insecurity, it is clear that the challenge goes well beyond ensuring sufficient food in any given period of time. Rather,understanding and meeting the challenge requires a broader
perspective on the full range of needs and choices facedby households, the resources and external conditions
that influence those choices, and the livelihood strategies
that could enable families to meet their food needs overtime.
Availability of and access to animal genetic resources
can be a problem for pastoralists and poor households. An
emerging problem is management of epidemics, as currently

chapter 01.indd 11

illustrated in Asia and increasingly in other parts of theworld, where thousands of animals are killed prophylactically because of avian influenza (GTZ, 2006).
1.1.3 Emerging issues
What can agriculture offer globally to meet emerging global
demands, such as mitigating the impacts of climate change,
dealing with competition over (dwindling) resources? Projections of the global food system indicate a tightening ofworld food markets, with increasing scarcity of naturaland physical resources, adversely affecting poor consumers. Improved AKST in recent years has helped to reducethe inevitable negative environmental impacts of trade-offs
between agricultural growth and environmental sustainability at the global scale. Growing pressure on food supply
and natural resources require new investment and policies
for AKST and rural development in land-based cropping
systems.
AKST is well placed to contribute to emerging technologies influencing global change, such as adaptations to climate change, bioenergy, biotechnologies, nanotechnology,
precision agriculture, and information and communication
technologies (ICT). These technologies present both opportunities and challenges, and AKST can play a central rolein accessing the benefits while managing the potential risks
involved.
About 30% of global emissions leading to climatechange are attributed to agricultural activities, including
land use changes such as deforestation. Additionally, environmental variations resulting from climate change havealso adversely affected agriculture. In extreme cases, severe
droughts and floods attributed to climate change make millions of people in resource poor areas particularly vulnerable when they depend on agriculture for their livelihoods
and food. AKST can provide feasible options for production
systems, manufacturing and associated activities which will
reduce the dependence on depleting fossil fuels for energy.
Similarly, AKST can provide information about the consequences of agricultural production on the hydrology ofwatersheds and groundwater resources. AKST can also beharnessed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions fromagriculture, as well as increase carbon sinks and enhance adaptation of agricultural systems to climate change impacts(Chapter 6).
Continuing structural changes in the livestock sector,
driven mainly by rapid growth in demand for livestock
products, bring about profound changes in livestock production systems. Growing water constraints are a major
driver of future AKST. Soil degradation continues to posea considerable threat to sustainable growth of agricultural production and calls for increased action at multiple
levels; this can be strongly supported by AKST. Forestry
systems will remain under growing pressure, as land use
systems and urbanization continue to spread particularly
into these ecologically favorable areas. Biodiversity is indanger as a result of some agricultural practices. Finally,
there is significant scope for AKST and supporting policies
to contribute to more sustainable fisheries and aquaculture,
leading to a reduction of overfishing in many of the world’s
oceans.
Bioenergy is being promoted in several countries as a

11/3/08 10:41:20 AM

12 | IAASTD Global Reportlucrative option to reduce GHG emissions from fossil fuels;
however, controversy is increasing on the economic, socialand ecological cost/benefit ratio of this option. On-farmbioenergy production utilizing farm residues has potential.
However, studies have revealed that bioenergy demand issensitive not only to biomass supply, but also to total energy
demand and competitiveness of alternative energy supply
options (Berndes et al., 2003). Additionally, the environmental consequences and social sustainability aspects of theprocessing of crops and feedstocks as biofuels have not yet
been thoroughly assessed.
Biotechnology has for millennia contributed to mankind’s well-being through the provision of value-added
foods and medicines. It has deep roots in local and traditional knowledge and farmer selection and breeding of crops
and animals, which continues to the present day. Micropropagation of plants by tissue culture is now a common
technique used to produce disease-free plants for both theagricultural and ornamental industries. Recent advances in
the area of genomics, including the ability to insert genes
across species, have distinguished “modern biotechnology”
from traditional methods. Resulting transgenic crops, forestry products, livestock and fish have potentially favorable
qualities such as pest and disease resistance, however withpossible risks to biodiversity and human health. Other apprehensions relate to the privatization of the plant breeding system and the concentration of market power in input
companies. Such issues have underpinned widespread public concern regarding transgenic crops. Less contentious biotechnological applications relate to bioremediation of soils
and the preparation of genetically engineered insulin. Commercial transgenic agricultural crops are typically temperatevarieties such as corn, soya and canola, which have been engineered to be herbicide resistant or to contain the biological agent Bt (bacillus thuringiensis), traits that are not yet
widely available for tropical crops important to developing
countries. Transgenic crops have spread globally since 1996,
more in industrialized than in developing countries, covering about 4% of the global cropland area in 2004 (CGIAR
Science Council, 2005).
Current trends indicate that transgenic crop production
is increasing in developing countries at a faster rate than inindustrialized nations (Brookes and Barfoot, 2006). This isoccurring against a background of escalating concerns in
the world’s poorest and most vulnerable regions regarding
environmental shocks that result from droughts, floods,
marginal soils, and depleting nutrient bases, leading to low
productivity. Plant breeding is fundamental to developing
crops better adapted to these conditions. The effectivenessof biotechnologies will be augmented, however, by integrating local and tacit knowledge and by taking into accountthe wider infrastructural and social equity context. Taking
advantage of provisions under the international protocol
on biosafety (Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety) as well as
establishing national and regional regulatory regimes are essential elements for using AKST in this domain.

1.2 Conceptual Framework of the IAASTD
1.2.1 Framework for analysis—centrality of knowledge
Conceptual framework of the AKST assessment (Figure

chapter 01.indd 121-7). There is huge diversity and dynamics in agricultural
production systems, which depend on agroecosystems andare embedded in diverse political, economic, social and cultural contexts. Knowledge about these systems is complex.
The AKST assessment considers that knowledge is coproduced by researchers, agriculturalists (farmers, forest users,
fishers, herders and pastoralists), civil society organizations
and public administration. The kind of relationship within
and between these key actors of the AKST system defines towhat degree certain actors benefit from, are affected by or
excluded from access to, control over and distribution ofknowledge, technologies, and financial and other resources
required for agricultural production and livelihoods. Thisputs policies relating to science, research, higher education,
extension and vocational training, innovation, technology,
intellectual property rights (IPR), credits and environmental
impacts at the forefront of shaping AKST systems.
Knowledge, innovation and learning play a key role in
the inner dynamics of AKST. But it is important to note thatthese inner dynamics depend on how the actors involved
respect, reject or re-create the values, rules and norms implied in the networks through which they interrelate. The
IAASTD considers that its own dynamics strongly dependon related development goals and expected outputs and services, as well as on indirect and direct drivers mainly at themacro level, e.g., patterns of consumption or policies.
The AKST model emphasizes the centrality of knowledge. It is therefore useful to clarify the differences between“information” and “knowledge”. Knowledge—in whateverfield—empowers those who create and possess it with thecapacity for intellectual or physical action (ICSU, 2003).
Knowledge is fundamentally a matter of cognitive capability, skills, training and learning. Information, on the other
hand, takes the shape of structures and formatted data thatremain passive and inert until used by those with the knowledge needed to interpret and process them (ICSU, 2003).
Information only takes on value when it is communicatedand there is a deep and shared understanding of what that
information means—thus becoming knowledge—both tothe sender and the recipient.
Such an approach has direct implications for the understanding of science and technology. The conventional
distinction between science and technology is that science
is concerned with searching for and validating knowledge,
while technology concerns the application of such knowledge in economic production (defined broadly to include
social welfare goals). In most countries institutional and organizational arrangements are founded on this distinction.
However, this distinction is now widely criticized in contemporary science and development literature, both from a
conceptual point of view and in terms of practical impacts.
Gibbons and colleagues are a good example of this critical debate: they distinguish between “mode 1” and “mode2” styles of knowledge development (Gibbons et al., 1994;
Nowotny et al., 2003). In very simple terms, the distinctionis that “mode 1” approaches (the traditional view) argue
for a complete organizational separation between scientific research on the one hand and its practical applications
for economic and social welfare on the other. Conversely“mode 2” approaches argue for institutional arrangementsthat build science policy concerns directly into the conduct

11/3/08 10:41:21 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 13

Figure 1-7. Conceptual framework of the IAASTD.

of research and development (R&D). As a practical contemporary example, this debate is very much at the heart ofcurrent discussions about how agricultural research should
be conducted in all countries.
Innovation and innovation systems. Scientific and technological knowledge and information can (1) add value toresources, skills, knowledge, and processes, and (2) create
entirely novel strategies, processes, and products (World
Bank, 2006a). An innovation system may be defined as the
network of agents, usually organized in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary manner, with interactions that determine the innovative impact of knowledge interventions,
including those associated with scientific research. The concept is now used as a kind of shorthand for the networkof interorganizational linkages that apparently successful
countries have developed as a support system for economic
production. In this sense it has been explicitly recognizedthat economic creativity actually relies on the quality of“technology linkages” and “knowledge flows” amongst
and between economic agents. Where interactions are dynamic and progressive, great innovative strides are often
made. Conversely, where systemic components are compartmentalized and isolated from each other, the result isoften that relevant research bodies are not innovative. Someapproaches suggest that innovation systems cannot be separated from the social, political and cultural context fromchapter 01.indd 13

which they emerge (Engel, 1997), and this context therefore
has to be included in the analysis of AKST. This implies aneed to focus on those factors that enable the emergenceof “innovative potential,” rather than on factors related directly to specific innovations.
Collaborative learning processes. The creation of favorable
conditions making it possible for different actors to engage incollaborative learning processes—i.e., the increase in spaceand capacity for innovativeness—has thus gained prime
importance. Approaches based on linear understandings ofresearch-to-extension-to-application are being replaced byapproaches focusing on processes of communication, mutual deliberation, and iterative collective learning and action (van de Fliert, 2003). More concretely, this implies thatsustainable use of natural resources requires a shift froma focus on technological and organizational innovation toa focus on the norms, rules and values under which suchinnovation takes place (Rist et al., 2006). The enhanced
AKST model considers that values, rules and norms that are
relevant to the promotion of agricultural development are
constantly produced and reproduced by social actors whoare embedded in the social networks and organizations towhich they belong. Social networks are important spaces
where the actors involved in the coproduction of knowledge
share, exchange, compare and eventually socialize their individually realized perceptions of what is important, good,

11/3/08 10:41:21 AM

14 | IAASTD Global Reportand bad, and enable the visions they have for their own
families, communities and wider social categories to which
they belong.
AKST-related policies. For the IAASTD model of AKST,
policy referring to AKST must be understood in a broad
sense. Policy can be thought of as a course or principle ofaction designed to achieve particular goals or targets. The
idea of policy is usually associated with government bodies,but other types of organization also formulate policies—for
example a local NGO may establish a policy about who iseligible for its programs (DFID, 2001). “Policy analysis” isthe process through which the interactions at and between
these various levels are explored and articulated. Policy relating to the AKST model is thus understood as the attempt
to systematically intervene in the process of shaping and reshaping the interrelationships between the different actors,
networks and organizations involved in the processes of
coproduction of knowledge for more sustainable and propoor agriculture and food production.
1.2.2 Development and sustainability goals
Reduction of poverty and hunger. Poverty can be defined indifferent ways, each requiring its own measurement. Poverty can be measured in terms of access to the basic needsof life, such as nutrition, clean water and sanitation, education, housing and health care. An income level of US$1
per day is widely accepted as a rough indicator of poverty
although there is general agreement that the multidimensional nature of poverty cannot be captured with this measure. Worldwide, about 1,200 million people live on lessthan US$1 per day; in percentage terms this is expected todrop from 19% of the world population in 2002 to 10%
by 2015 (World Bank, 2006b), although in absolute numbers the difference will be smaller because by then the total population will be larger by about 800 million people.
Moreover, many countries, particularly in Africa and SouthAsia, are not on track regarding achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (Global Monitoring Report,
2006) (Figure 1-8). Furthermore, these numbers should beinterpreted with caution. Any change from the nonmonetaryprovision of goods and services to the cash market, such asa shift from subsistence to commercial crops, will appear as
an increase in income whether or not there has been a concomitant improvement in standard of living or reduction inpoverty. This indicator focuses our attention exclusively on
income derived from market transactions and ignores othercomponents of livelihood.
Approximately 852 million people are unable to obtain enough food to live healthy and productive lives (FAO,
2004a). Hunger is discussed here in the wider sense of encompassing both food and nutritional insecurity (UN Millennium Project, 2005). An estimated 800 million persons,i.e., more than half of the people living in extreme poverty,
are occupied in the agricultural sector (CGIAR Science
Council, 2005). Their livelihoods are usually derived fromsmall-scale farming. In 1996, around 2.6 billion people,
or 44% of the total world population were living in agriculture-dependent households, mostly in Asia and Africa(Wood et al., 2000). Poverty is thus disproportionately rural(poor farmers and landless people) despite ongoing migra-

chapter 01.indd 14

tion from rural to urban areas. Among other factors such ascivil wars and diseases, migration has led to an increase infemale-headed households and intensified the already heavy
workload of rural women (García, 2005).
Decapitalization (e.g., through sale of livestock andequipment), deterioration of infrastructure and natural
capital (e.g., soils), and the general impoverishment of peasant communities in large areas in developing countries (forAfrica, see Haggblade et al., 2004) remains a serious threat
to livelihoods and food security. The loss or degradationof production assets is linked to the overexploitation of
scarce resources (land, water, labor), markets that are inequitable (IFAD, 2003) and difficult to access, competition
from neighboring farms, and in some instances the combined effects of competition from the industrialized sector(leading to low prices), and the direct and indirect taxationof agriculture. It may also be a consequence of the barriers
to capital accumulation and investment associated with therealities faced by some small-scale farmers (Mazoyer andRoudard, 1997). On the other hand, agricultural growthcan, despite this difficult context, lead to important benefits
for poverty alleviation (Byerlee et al., 2005). In some cases
the beneficiaries are people remaining in small-scale agriculture but there may also be important opportunities for
those who work, for example, in agriculture-related productprocessing activities.
Improvement of livelihoods, human health and nutrition.
Even though a large number of people depend entirely on
agriculture, off-farm income is important for many households that depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. The
resulting variety of livelihood strategies can be thought ofin terms of adjustments in the quantity and composition of
an individual’s or household’s resource endowment. Different resource endowments and different goals imply different
incentives, choices, and livelihood strategies.
Health is fundamental to live a productive life, meet basic
needs and contribute to community life. Good health offers
individuals wider choices regarding how to live their lives.
It is an enabling condition for the development of humanpotential. The components of health are multiple and theirinteractions complex. The health of an individual is strongly
influenced by genetic makeup, nutritional status, access tohealth care, socioeconomic status, relationships with family
members, participation in community life, personal habits
and lifestyle choices. The environment—natural, climatic,
physical, social or workplace—can also play a major role indetermining the health of individuals. For example, in mostsocieties, biomass fuel collection is a woman’s task. Women
often spend hours collecting and carrying fuelwood backhome over long distances. Poor women are among the morethan two billion people who are unable to obtain clean,safe fuels and have to rely on burning biomass fuels suchas wood, dung or crop residues. The time and labor spentin this way limits their ability to engage in other productive
activities; and their health suffers from hauling heavy loads
and from cooking over smoky fires (Lambrou and Piana,
2006). On the other hand about 50% of the health burdenof malnutrition is attributable to poor water, sanitation andhygiene (Prüss-Üstün and Corvalán, 2006). For example,
some long-standing problems such as mycotoxins continue

11/3/08 10:41:21 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 15

Figure 1-8. Poverty by region, 1990-2002, and forecasts to 2015. Source: Global Monitoring Report, 2006.

to significantly add to the health burden, especially of infants (Gong et al., 2004), and cause widespread problems
with basic foodstuffs (Strosnider et al., 2006). This has become an issue for formal AKST, as is water quality, which
is linked to improving rural livelihoods, human health andnutrition and to the covering of protein requirements, particularly in the case of children. Human health is also linked
with animal health: numerous examples of zoonoses are reported, including avian influenza, hoof and mouth disease,and brucellosis.
In 50% of cases undernutrition is due to poor sanitation and diseases (Prüss-Üstün and Corvalán, 2006). This
fundamental issue is reflected throughout the AKST context
and emphasizes traditional food safety, including hygiene issues related to animal husbandry and phytosanitary protection, food storage in homes and food handling in developing
countries. Furthermore, in developing countries such phytosanitary issues as Claviceps purpurea or ergotism, (which are
no longer problems in the North because of highly protectedindustrial food production), are significantly adding to thehealth burden, especially of infants (Gong et al., 2004) andcause hygienic problems amongst billions with basic foodstuffs (Strosnider et al., 2006). Poverty and undernourishment are intimately linked. The MDG targets for 2015 are
expected to be met by most regions except for sub-SaharanAfrica in particular and South Asia (see Figure 1-9).
A direct consequence of poverty is undernourishment,
which is an issue not only for the urban poor and for landless persons, but particularly for the underprivileged such as
women and children. Undernourishment also affects rural
people producing agricultural goods and services on farms

chapter 01.indd 15that are too small, not productive enough, or too degradedto produce sufficient outputs for a decent living. Good nutrition has thus much to contribute to poverty reduction. It is
intrinsic to the accumulation of human capital, since soundnutrition provides the basis of good physical and mental
health, and thus of intellectual and social development anda productive life. If global poverty is to be reduced, agricultural development will have to pay particular attention to
the problems faced by deprived small-scale producers andtheir families. Science and technology are expected to contribute to the achievement of this goal.
Promotion of socially equitable and environmentally andeconomically sustainable development. Sustainable development is about meeting current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Within this context, sustainability is envisaged within three
key dimensions: social, environmental and economic, allthree of which have direct and indirect linkages to agriculture. In the context of the IAASTD, the term “agriculture”
encompasses crop cultivation, livestock production, forestry
and fishery. This broader definition provides future opportunities for maximizing synergies in achieving development
and sustainability goals. It serves the primary goal of providing sufficient and nutritious food for humankind, in thepresent and in the future. It is indisputable that agriculture
as a sector cannot meet this goal on its own. Agriculture,
however, fulfills a series of additional goals besides foodproduction. Last but by no means least, agriculture ensuresthe delivery of a range of ecosystem services. In view of a
globally sustainable form of development, the importance

11/3/08 10:41:22 AM

16 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 1-9. Child malnutrition (low height for age) among preschool children in surveys since 1999.
Source: Rosegrant et al., 2006of this role may increase and become central for human survival on this planet.
1.2.3 Agricultural Knowledge, Science andTechnology (AKST)
A challenge for formal AKST is the great imbalance in numbers of researchers per million inhabitants: this number is
65 times smaller in Africa than in industrialized countries(Hurni et al., 2001). Nearly half of public agricultural research expenditures, amounting to US$23.0 billion in 2000,
are spent in developed countries, i.e., benefiting only a
few million, though highly productive, farmers (Pardey etal., 2006). While private agricultural research spending issomewhat higher than public spending in developed countries, private spending in developing countries is very low,
accounting for only 8% of total public and private investments in AKST (see chapter 8 for details of AKST investment levels).
Public agricultural research in industrial countries also
benefits farmers in other countries, since much public agricultural research is basic research that may later be applied
to a variety of agricultural settings through technology transfer, and public research often leads to publicly available cropvarieties that are widely distributed. Traditional experimental systems and many emerging farmers’ programs—someinitiated by international institutions such as FAO but mostfrom farmers’ organizations and social movements—are
also considered as a component of agricultural research.
Regional shares in public agricultural research expendi-

chapter 01.indd 16tures have been changing in the past 40 years (Pardey et al.,2006). While overall investments nearly doubled, industrialized countries, which had 55% of all investments in 1981,
received a smaller share—44% in 2000, while in China andother Asian states investments increased manyfold. In general, research and development (R&D) investments have so
far generated high returns (Byerlee and Alex, 2003; Chapter
8.2), however at a high ecological cost. For example, trends
in cereal production since 1960 show that area productivity increased by a factor of 2.5 in industrialized countries,
from 2.1 to 4.9 tonnes ha-1 on average on a total of 140 million hectares. In developing countries, the factor was evenhigher, i.e., 2.8, and the increase was from 1 to 2.8 tonnes
ha-1 on a total cropped area of 440 million ha (Cassman,2003). It must be noted, however, that stagnation in land
productivity increase has been observed in many areas since
about 1985 (Cassman, 2003).
Some recent changes in thinking have raised a number of cognate issues in formal AKST systems. The policy
agenda has evolved from a formal “science push” approach
to one that places more emphasis on participatory, multistakeholder, inter- and transdisciplinary, and client-driven
research agendas. Donors, supranational structures, regionalorganizations, and governments are looking for stronger interinstitutional support for development projects in order
to attract private sector investments. Largely, this has been
driven by changing contexts and circumstances since thedays of the Green Revolution. Perhaps the biggest challenge
is to fill the gap in research and technology that is relevant

11/3/08 10:41:23 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 17

to the poorest. In particular much private and public R&D
is spent on corn, wheat, maize, and rice, while very little isdevoted to cassava, millet, sorghum and potatoes. However,it has not proved easy for research and extension organizations to adapt their established practices (Graham et al.,2001) to the new way of understanding rural development
as part of an AKST system based on the idea that knowledge
is coproduced by all actors involved. The most importantof these issues are summarized in the present subchapter.
Thinking on rural development has shifted from the 1960s
to the 1990s and has reached a balanced state between the
productive and social sectors, and between state and market
interventions.
Effectiveness of formal AKST organizations. It is wellknown that many public research and development (R&D)
bodies of national agricultural research systems (NARS)
are finding it difficult to deal with poor farmer- and peasant economy-based issues in many countries. The problems range from resource constraints on the one hand to
rigid, disciplinary-bound research planning on the other(IAC, 2004). Often there is a lack of engagement with client sectors and unwillingness to exchange and co-generateknowledge with other research bodies in the sector. This isalso related to the process of identifying research problems,
which is often based solely on perceptions of disciplinarybased researchers with incentive systems usually grounded
mainly on the number of publications. The inevitable result
is that all too often resource allocation to the NARS does
not pay off in terms of economic, social and environmental
development possibilities for poor farmers. While a numberof countries have initiated some remedial policies for theseissues, the relevant literature shows that there is still some
way to go. The difficulties of more equality-based engagement with farmers, peasants, or “clients” has also to dowith an understanding of the reasons guiding rural actors’decisions, actions and livelihoods that is too narrow (seeYapa, 1993 for Asia; Wiesmann, 1998 for Africa; Trawick,
2003 for Latin America).
Promotion of other stakeholders’ AKST. Traditionally, thepassing on of results of agricultural research to users washandled by state-funded extension services. Not only havethese suffered through structural adjustment measures, but
an increasing number of questions have also been raised by
the extension systems themselves as operational organizational mechanisms (Farrington et al., 2002; IAC, 2004).
There is also evidence of an increased need to engage inpartnerships in order to reconceptualize (in theory andpractice) the delivery of technology in the context of an
AKST system that is based on the paradigms of knowledge
coproduced by scientists, policy makers and client groups.
These partners include private sector organizations, butthey also involve NGOs, community-based organizations(CBOs) and social movements that are able to bring skills
and knowledge to bear simply due to the close relationships
they have established with specific communities. Today’s
challenges in community development in developing countries make it more compelling for higher education to reacheffective changes of vision and prepare professionals to leadinnovative rural development processes. Training, capabil-chapter 01.indd 17

ity building, and reinforcement of small-scale farmers’ skills
to enable them to participate in the agriculture supply chain
are urgent tasks.
Coproduction of agricultural knowledge
The combination of various forms of exogenous scientificknowledge, e.g., from the natural, agronomic, economic orsocial sciences, with the many and highly diverse forms of
so-called “local”, traditional or endogenous knowledge isa basic challenge. These different forms of knowledge arerepresented by different local (farmers, traders, craftsmen,etc.) and external actor groups (civil servants, extensionists,
researchers, service providers, etc.). One can therefore callthem “knowledge systems”. Combining endogenous andexogenous knowledge is achieved by increased participationof “end users”—including marginalized and poor actors—
in the different forms of research and development. Whilethe initial focus of combining knowledge was on increasing
participation at local levels, today emphasis is shifting towards upscaling participatory processes into the meso- andmacro-levels of social organization (Gaventa, 1998) resulting in multilevel and multistakeholder approaches.
When taking into account the centrality and value ofendogenous, traditional or local forms of knowledge related
to agricultural development—e.g., through ethnological approaches in sciences studying agricultural soils, plants andanimals (Nazarea, 1999; Winklerprins, 1999)—it is necessary to reflect on the ethical and epistemological implications
related to the integration of different knowledge systems(Dove and Kammen, 1997; Olesen et al., 2000; Rist andDahdouh-Guebas, 2006). Integration of, and cooperation
between, different knowledge systems is often hampered
by interaction that does not take into account the need forthe process of communication to move beyond the practicaland generally tangible technological economic, ecologicaland social effects of innovations. In the long run, innovation can only be successful if it “makes sense” to all those
involved, i.e., it needs to be integrated into (and by) the different knowledge systems involved. This is also particularly
important for innovations in rural development (Dove andKammen, 1997; Olesen et al., 2000).
There is also growing consensus among researchers
concerned with sustainable agriculture that no single groupof actors should appropriate the right to define what typeof combination should exist between scientific and “local”
forms of knowledge (Röling and Wagemakers, 2000; Rist
and Dahdouh-Guebas, 2006). As a consequence, participatory forms of coproduction of knowledge, based on social
learning among actors involved, have become a key featureof sustainable agriculture and resource management (Wollenberg et al., 2001; Rist et al., 2003; Pahl-Wostl and Hare,
2004). This means that the role of science within a processof participatory knowledge production must be redefined.
Instead of striving to find and voice the ultimate instanceof “truth”, the scientific community must complement
conventional and generally discipline-based knowledge
production with inter- and transdisciplinary approaches.
The particularity of a transdisciplinary approach is that it
implies examining “real-world problems” from a perspective that (1) goes beyond specific disciplines by combining
natural, technical, economic and social sciences, and (2) is

11/3/08 10:41:23 AM

18 | IAASTD Global Reportbased on broad participation, characterized by systematiccooperation with those concerned (Hurni and Wiesmann,
2004). A major task of sciences relating to society in a transdisciplinary perspective is to assure that the diversity of actors, interests, complexity and dynamics of the processes
involved are given adequate consideration. More concretely
this means bringing three basic and interrelated questions
into societal debates on sustainable agriculture: (1) How doprocesses constitute a problem field, and where is the needfor change? (2) What are more sustainable practices? (3)How can existing practices be transformed (Hirsch Hadorn
et al., 2006).
Engagement with agribusiness opportunities. Agriculturalresearch partly faces the agenda of an agricultural researchsystem which is frequently inappropriate for the emerging
realities of the often poverty-affected agricultural sector indeveloping countries. While production, sale and consumption of major food crops remains important, a number ofniche sectors with impressive growth rates are emerging,and this is coupled with fundamental changes in the natureof the sector as a whole. New and rapidly growing markets
are emerging, e.g., for livestock, horticulture and cut flowers, pharmaceutical and nutriceutical crops, natural beauty
products, and industrial use products such as biofuels andstarch. The role of the private sector is increasing, and withit new issues arise, such as corporatization of craft-basedindustries, the exposure of producers and firms to competition, changing international trade rules and regulations
such as sanitary and phytosanitary standards, intellectual
property rights (IPR, see below), the knowledge-intensive
nature of these niche sectors, and the importance of innovation as a source of competitive advantage under rapidly
evolving market and technology conditions.
Transfer and use of imported AKST. The recent report of
Task Force 10 on Science, Technology and Innovation (UNMillennium Project, 2005) emphasizes the general importance for all actors involved in agricultural production andmarketing of acquiring knowledge in a globalized world. A
key change is the emergence of private sector research. Thisis partly a result of strengthened intellectual property protection regimes and technical advances in biotechnology. Also
significant are the opportunities that economic and tradeliberalization and globalization are now offering for private investments in agroindustries such as seed production.
The net result is that on the one hand, public agriculturalresearch systems have to consider more complex agendas
including for example how to appropriately acquire genetic
resources and how to establish equitable benefit-sharing regimes for those societies and communities from whose livelihood sphere the primary ingredients for corporate patents
often originate. On the other hand, this also implies that research and development centers have to learn how to better
respond to sociopolitical debates that can shape and define
the societal preconditions that influence the amounts, use
and allocation of financial and human resources available
for research and development in rural areas. Technocratic,hierarchical and disciplinary-based definitions of researchand development policies are no longer adequate in the con-chapter 01.indd 18

text of civil society organizations’ growing participation in
defining policies related to research and technology development. Against this background, an especially important
issue is related to local knowledge, which was perceived as
an “obstacle” for development, and is now considered an
important resource that contributes to better targeted development efforts (Scoones and Thompson, 1994; Blaikie
et al., 1997).
International agreements and implications for AKST. A related issue is that of the growing number of relevant international agreements that many developing countries havesigned and ratified. One good example is the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD), with a number of articles
on opportunities for sustainable agricultural development.
For example, Article 15 on access to genetic resources enjoins members to rationalize the use of biological resourcesin ways that promote exploitation of such resources for socioeconomic purposes. Many countries are aware that there
are significant opportunities here for the acquisition of significant off-farm income generation that could go some way
towards alleviating poverty, but there is often a severe shortage of technological capacity to realize these opportunities(Glowka et al., 1994). The key point is that such agreements
imply a need for developing countries to increase AKST capacity relevant to the new contexts.
Management of relevant “intellectual property rights”(IPR). Management (and protection) of intellectual property (IP) in agriculture is now recognized as a fundamental
task of knowledge-based development. But while large international companies have moved forward in this respect,many developing countries still have great difficulties ensuring that their creativity can achieve similar protection.
Part of the problem is clearly institutional. Scientists find
it difficult to understand that their research will often giverise to significant IP and that they have additional responsibilities in this respect, if only to protect the novel public
goods that they have helped to create. Similarly the organizations in which they work are often trapped in a “mode 1”
world (Gibbons et al., 1994) and see their responsibilities as
ending with the publication of scientific papers in refereed
journals. Moreover, patents on life forms create broad controversies, especially those connected with a ban on using
harvested grain as seed. Patent claims for animals currently
regard whole breeds.
Therefore, questions that arise in this context have to
do with the creation of capacity and related initiatives which
ensure that knowledge coproduction and technology development in developing countries are as fully informed as possible in these respects. However, it remains open whether the
global tendency to protect IP rights is realistic, considering
the fact that numerous instances of intellectual property arebased on societies’ centuries-old intellectual and empiricalinputs. In such situations, the quest for equitable benefit
sharing may seem impossible, thus calling into question theentire discussion about IPR. The patenting case of Neem
extracts (Azadirachta indica) may be quoted as an example.
By challenging the patent on a Neem product, the Indian
Government was able to prove that the same Neem product11/3/08 10:41:23 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 19

was industrialized and has been used in India for several
millennia (Sheridan, 2005).
Access to and reform of AKST education
A broader set of issues concerns the formal training of scientists and related workforce. As the MDG Task Force 10
has emphasized, higher education is increasingly being recognized as a critical aspect of the development process; atthe same time, however, most universities are ill-equipped
to meet the challenge. Outdated curricula, under-motivatedfaculties, poor management and a continuous struggle forfunds have undermined the capacity of universities to playtheir roles as engines of community or regional development (UN Millennium Project, 2005).
A report by the InterAcademy Council (IAC, 2004)
recently underlined the relative decline of the agriculturalresearch and education system in Africa in the past decades.
Among the reasons discussed in the report are the relative
weakness of science education in African schools, low investment in research in general, and the growth of student
numbers (by 8% per year), with funding falling short ofthis increase and funding decline accentuated by structuraladjustment. The report also notes an unexpected renewal
phase initiated by a half dozen African universities in the
recent past.
Some MSc and PhD programs in industrialized countries
do not always suit the needs of less industrialized countries.
The implications both for curriculum revision and access are
therefore considerable from an AKST standpoint and will becovered at various points in this report. A positive example
is the higher education system in Costa Rica, which is making significant efforts to focus agricultural development on
knowledge and technological innovation. It is also important to take into account the gender disparity in training aswell as the lack of focus on gender analysis in the curriculaof agricultural universities in developing and—most often
also in industrialized—countries.
Besides overcoming shortcomings with regard to quantitative aspects of human and financial resources, it will also
be of paramount importance to combine an increase in resource allocation and further capacity development of actors
involved in research and extension aimed at a qualitative
shift towards more societal modes of knowledge production
emphasizing inter- and transdisciplinary approaches (Hurni
and Wiesmann, 2004).
Capacity development is broadly defined here and includes developing (1) common understandings of problems,solutions and ways to approach them, using a variety of interpersonal and intra-social processes; (2) social and cultural
resources, not just human resources; (3) multiple, strategic
skills across a range of areas to intervene and advocate, notjust passive receipt of programs and policies, and (4) institutional and organizational bases of power. If policies for organizational reforms are introduced, medium- to high-level
scientific resources are made available for formal higher andtertiary education systems, and organizational change is initiated in the structure of relevant governance procedures,such as those concerned with the management of extension
services, funding of R&D, mobilizing of informal inputs
from NGO and related bodies, optimizing the use of for-chapter 01.indd 19

eign technology, and providing procedures for a balanced
use of the private sector, deployment of AKST will become
far more effective. Indeed, such changes will enable more
adequate analysis of agroecosystem services, which is usually not included in production-oriented AKST, and the finding of strategies to mitigate negative impacts (“damages”)
caused by agricultural practices to such services. Further
improvements can be achieved by promoting knowledgeof interventions that are environmentally and socially sustainable, including measures to empower women to a muchgreater degree than has been the case in the past.
Measurement of “knowledge” categories
There is a large gap in research intensity (measured as public R&D investment as a ratio of agricultural GDP) between
developing and industrialized countries. In 2000, the intensity ratio for the developing countries as a total averaged
0.53%, compared to 2.36% for the developed countries as agroup (Pardey et al., 2006). This intensity gap has increased
over the past decades as a result of a much higher growth inagricultural output in developing countries as group than in
the developed countries.
One of the problems in dealing with AKST policy (indeed, KST of all types) is that of measurement—both for“inputs”, i.e., investment in AKST, and “outputs”, i.e., indicators of resultant knowledge impacts. In the case of theformer, a range of proxies are used, the most common being
agricultural R&D expenditures in the public sector. Anotheris the number of persons with PhDs currently working in
agricultural R&D organizations. Both are unsatisfactory
for the obvious reason that they probably give a distorted
picture of knowledge investment. For example, they do notaccount for external inputs from overseas, which may behigher than the internal inputs. A similar problem exists
on the output side since outputs can also take a variety offorms, for instance number of patents, number of new plantvarieties registered or number of relevant scientific papers
published in refereed journals. Again, all kinds of problems
involved in the interpretation of these data are due to paucity of information, lack of disaggregation, variations in national practices, and of course the fact that they often do notpick up on several types of tacit knowledge. It is therefore
worth noting that attempts to be quantitative in this area
need to be treated with great care.
Giving local knowledge due recognition means to specifically monitor its integration into the processes of knowledge production at the interface of research and practice.
The above indicators must be differentiated more accurately,
taking into account the share of research and development
expenditures per sector, number of PhDs, and scientific publications, explicitly in relation to the search for new modesof knowledge production that focus on the integration of
local forms of knowledge. Indicators must not only allow
quantification of resources allocated to local and traditional
components of AKST systems. They must also make visible
to what degree the resources allocated to these components
of an AKST system reflect the overall relationship that local
or traditional knowledge and external knowledge actually
have in ensuring the livelihood systems of rural people ingeneral and of poor and marginalized people in particular.

11/3/08 10:41:24 AM

20 | IAASTD Global Report

Multifunctionality and sustainability would require indicators of both local and scientific knowledge.
1.2.4 Agrifood systems, agricultural products andservices
Agricultural systems, outputs and services. The major outputs generated by the multiple agricultural systems worldwide may be referred to as “provisioning services” (MA,2003):• Food consisting of a vast range of food products derived from plants, animals, and microbes for humanconsumption;• Feed products for animals such as livestock or fish, consisting of grass, herbs, cereals or coarse grains and othercrops;• Fiber such as wood, jute, hemp, silk, and other products;• Fuel such as wood, dung, biofuel plants and other biological materials as sources of energy;• Genetic resources including genes and genetic information used for animal and plant breeding, and for biotechnology;• Biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals
including medicines, biocides, food additives, and biological materials;• Ornamental resources including animal products suchas skins and shells, and ornamental plants and lawn
grass; and• Freshwater from springs and other sources, as an example of the linkage between provisioning and regulating
services.
Agricultural systems are highly complex, embracing economic, biophysical, sociocultural and other parameters.
They are based on fragile and interdependent natural systems and social constructions. Agriculture has a potential toplay positive roles at different scales and in different spheres(Table 1-3).
Diversity of agricultural systems
Globally, agricultural systems have been changing over timein terms of intensity and diversity, as agriculture undergoes
transition driven by complex and interacting factors related
to production, consumption, trade and political concerns.
There are a multitude of agricultural systems worldwide.
They range from small subsistence farms to small-scale andlarge commercial operations across a variety of ecosystems
and encompassing very diverse production patterns. These
can include polycultures or monocultures, mixed crop andlivestock systems, extensive or intensive livestock systems,
aquaculture systems, agroforestry systems, and others invarious combinations. In Africa alone, there are at least 20
major farming systems combining a variety of agricultural
approaches, be they small- or large-scale, irrigated or nonirrigated, crop- or tuber-based, hoe- or plough-based, inhighland or lowland situations (Spencer et al., 2003).
Agricultural systems are embedded in a multiplicity ofdifferent economic, political and social contexts worldwide.
The importance of the agricultural sector in these economies, or the type of agricultural policy enforced will therefore depend on the national economies. It is thus crucial

chapter 01.indd 20

to gain a clear knowledge of the state of agriculture in the
different ecological and socioeconomic contexts to be able
to assess the potential for further development of this sector in relation to development and sustainability goals. The
different contexts have led to economic disparities within
and among regions, countries and especially between industrial and small-scale farmers (FAO, 2000). Apart from differences in labor productivity, examples of disparities areaverage farm sizes (121 ha in North America vs. 1.6 ha in
Asia and Africa, see von Braun, 2005; 100,000 ha in Russia,
Ukraine and Kazakhstan, see Serova, 2007) and the crop
yield gap between high- and low-income countries.
The last 50 years have seen a tremendous increase in agricultural food production, at a rate more rapid than humanpopulation growth. This was mainly due to the increase inarea productivity, which differed between the regions of theworld, while cereal-harvested area stagnated almost everywhere (Cassman, 2003).
In all regions of the world, however, a decrease in theeconomic importance of the agricultural sector at different
stages of economic development can be observed. But there
is insufficient recognition of the fact that, in a monetizedeconomy, the central functions of agriculture support theperformance of other sectors. The regulating and supporting
functions of global ecosystems are insufficiently understood.
The findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA,2005b) show the key role of agriculture not only in productive and social aspects but also in preserving or endangering
ecosystem functions.
The crops component of agriculture
World crop and livestock output growth fell in 2005 to thelowest annual rate since the early 1970s, and well below
the rates reached in 2003 and 2004, with a strong decline
in industrialized countries as a group and negative 1.6%
growth in 2004 (FAO, 2006a). This was mainly due to adecrease in output growth in the crops sector from 12% in2004 to negative 4% in 2005 in industrialized countries.
But with growing resource scarcity, future food production
depends more than ever on increasing crop yields and livestock productivity (FAO, 2006a). The positive and negative
effects of technological progress have raised uncertainties.
Two groups of crops are cited here as examples.
Cereal crops. World cereal production, after several years ofstagnation, increased sharply in 2004/2005, reaching 2,065
million tonnes, a 9% increase from the previous year, andglobal utilization continued an upward trend (FAO, 2006a).
However, cereal yields in East Asia rose by an impressive
2.8% a year in 1961–2004, much higher than the 1.8%
growth in industrialized countries, mainly due to widespread use of irrigation, improved varieties, and fertilizer(Evenson and Gollin, 2003).
The green revolution doubled cereal production in Asia
between 1970 and 1995, yet the total land area cultivatedwith cereals increased by only 4% (Rosegrant and Hazell,2001) while in sub-Saharan Africa it changed little in thesame period.
Slowing down expansion of cultivated areas throughintensification benefited the environment by preserving theforests, wetlands and biodiversity. But there are negative

11/3/08 10:41:24 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 21

GlobalTable 1-3. Positive functions of agriculture.
Environmental

SocialFood Security

Economic

Cultural

Ecosystem resilience

Social stability
Poverty alleviation

Growth, international
trade

Cultural diversity

Mitigation of climatic change (carbon
sequestration, land cover)Food security/
food for all

Regional/National

Biodiversity
Ecosystem resilience

Balanced migration

Access to food

Economic stability

Landscapes

Soil conservation (erosion, siltation,salinization)

Social stability (andsheltering effects
during crisis)

National security

Employment

Cultural heritage

Food safety

Foreign exchange

Cultural identity

Tourism

Social capital

Employment effects
on secondary andtertiary sectors

Landscapes

Water retention/availability (flood andlandslide prevention)
Biodiversity (agricultural and wildlife)
Pollution abatement
Ecosystem resilience

Local

Soil conservation
Water retention
Biodiversity

Unemployment
prevention
Poverty alleviation
Social stability
Local and
(employment, family) household foodsecurity
Livelihoods
Balanced gender
relations

Pollution abatement

environmental impacts such as excessive use of agrochemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) resulting in water pollution,
which affects human and animal health and indirectly damages ecosystems. An example is the intensive and continuous monoculture of rice-wheat systems in the Indo-Gangetic
Plain of India and Pakistan, which led to soil and water
degradation that has canceled the gains from the green revolution (Ali and Byerlee, 2002). In all regions, especially inthe heterogeneous and risky rainfed systems of sub-SaharanAfrica, there is a need for sustainable technologies that increase the productivity, stability and resilience of production
systems (Conway, 1999). It is important to note that mostrice-producing areas such as China, India, Japan and Indonesia have experienced stagnation in rates of productivity
increase as of 1985-2000 (Cassman, 2003).
The fishery component of agriculture
Fisheries play a very important role in agriculture and theworld economy. Rapid population growth in developing
countries, changing consumer preferences and increased
disposable income have increased global demand for fishery products. About 200 million people worldwide, mostof them in developing countries, live on fishing and aquaculture, and fish provides an important source of food, cash
income for many poor households, and is a widely tradedfood commodity (Kurien, 2006; WorldFish Center, 2006).
Over a billion people worldwide rely on fish as their main
source of protein or their most inexpensive source of animal protein. In 2004, aquaculture production accounted for
43% of fish consumption (FAO, 2006b). Fish contributes tonational food sufficiency through direct consumption andthrough trade and exports.

chapter 01.indd 21

Indigenous, local
knowledge
Traditional
technologies
Cultural identity

Total fishery production in 2004 was 150.5 million
tonnes, of which 45.5 million tonnes were from aquaculture, of which 40% that entered international trade reacheda value of US$71.5 billion (FAO, 2006c). While capture increased moderately from 1970 to 1998, aquaculture multiplied by a factor of 15 in the same period, from about 2
million tonnes in 1970 to about 30 tonnes in 1998 (Delgado
et al., 2003; Figure 1-10). Fishery exports have become asignificant foreign currency earner for many developing
countries, contributing slightly less than 50% of such exports. The export value of world trade in fish, US$58 billion
in 2002, is more than the combined value of net exports ofrice, coffee, sugar and tea (World Bank, 2004a). Demand
for fish products is increasing rapidly as income levels risein Asia and the population grows in Africa. Led by Asia,
developing nations produce nearly three times as much fish
as industrialized countries (Delgado et al., 2003).
World capture fishery production was from 90 to 100
million tonnes in 2005, an increase of about 5% from 2003
(FAO, 2006c). Aquaculture may substitute for wild catchbut can create environmental problems, especially whenpracticed intensively, such as in large-scale, intensive operations, most of which (with the exception of shrimp farming)
are found in temperate countries.
The forestry component of agriculture
Forests are intensively linked to agriculture, providing products (i.e., wood, fuelwood, food, medicines), inputs for cropand livestock production (fodder, soil nutrients, pollination,etc.), and services (i.e., watershed protection, climate regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity conservation). World
roundwood production in 2004 reached an estimated 3,418

11/3/08 10:41:24 AM

22 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 1-10. Global capture fisheries and aquaculture production, 1950-2002. Source: FAO, 2007b; US
Census Bureau, 2007.

million cubic meters, of which 60% was produced in developing countries where wood is the most important source ofenergy (FAO, 2006d).
Forests cover 31% of global land surface (FAO, 2007a)and have potential to provide products and services, hence,
could contribute to meeting development and sustainability
goals. All types of forests contribute to agriculture in two
main ways: (1) the world’s forests act as a buffer against
climate change, storing 50% carbon in their biomass, deadwood, litter and soil, i.e., more than the amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere alone; and (2) they are a principal source of biodiversity. Forests also play a key role inagriculture as the source of much of the land and soils for
agriculture. “Slash and burn” agriculture is dependent on
forest ecosystems for regeneration of soils, and forests are
the source of many types of fruit, meat, timber, fuelwood,
medicine, etc. for rural people.
Almost a quarter of a billion people live in or near tropical forests, and their well-being depends on them (CIFOR,
2006). Two billion people, a third of the world’s population,use fuelwood and charcoal, most of which is harvested in
the forest; and two billion people rely on traditional medicines, much of which depends on forest products (CIFOR,
2006). The rapid development of agriculture has proceeded
through conversion of natural forests, mainly due to rapid
population growth, and the higher food production and cash
income that can be obtained from farming rather than fromforestry. Deforestation, mainly due to conversion of forests
to agricultural land, continues at the rate of 13 million ha
per year (FAO, 2005b). The net global change in forest areain 2000-2005 is estimated at -7.3 million ha per year, downfrom -8.9 million ha per year in 1990-2000 (FAO, 2005b).

chapter 01.indd 22

The deforestation trend is increasingly being reversed asforest goods and services are becoming scarce. Changes incropland show that most of this deforestation has not been
for conversion of cropland. Eighty percent of incremental
crop production in developing countries by 2030 will comefrom intensification and only 20% from area expansion(FAO, 2003).
The livestock component of agriculture
Global livestock production continues to grow more rapidly
than crop agriculture, with growth rates of 5% in the 1990s,
but has slowed down since 2004 (FAO, 2006a).The volume
of livestock production in developing countries has steadily
increased since the early 1980s, both for internal consumption and for export (COAG, 2005), driven by rising demandfor poultry, pork and eggs as income rises. Livestock production accounts for 40% of the agricultural GDP (FAO,
2006a), produces about one-third of humanity’s protein
intake, employs 1.3 billion people and creates livelihoodsfor one billion of the world’s poor (Steinfeld et al., 2006).
The social and energy benefits of livestock production havelong been recognized, as well as its economic contribution
outside the formal market system. Women play a key rolein small-scale livestock production, and in processing andmarketing animal products.
Outbreaks of animal diseases, in particular avian influenza, and subsequent consumer fears, trade bans anddeclines in poultry prices have caused slow growth rates.
Livestock production systems also cause environmental
problems, with negative impacts on land, climate, water
quality and quantity, and biodiversity (FAO, 2006a). As
poverty declines, there is predicted to be increased demand

11/3/08 10:41:28 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 23

for animal protein in diets, exacerbating already fragile environmental conditions in developing countries and causing
further loss of biodiversity.
Much of livestock production is on small farms, where
it is an integrated component of the farming system, often with multipurpose uses (Dolberg, 2001; LivestockNet,
2006). However, there are also nomadic systems, particularly in Africa, in extreme northern Asia, Europe andAmerica (in the tundra) where livestock continues to be theprimary source of livelihoods.
Some emerging agricultural systems
Organic agriculture. In the past few years, organic agriculture has developed rapidly with more than 31 million ha inat least 623,174 farms worldwide in 120 countries (Willer
and Yussefi, 2006).
Global sales of organic food and drink increased byabout 9% to US$27.8 billion in 2004, with the highest
growth in North America, where organic product sales are
expanding by over US$1.5 billion per year, with the UnitedStates accounting for US$14.5 billion sales in 2005 (Willer
and Yussefi, 2006).
Organic agriculture is a holistic production management system that promotes and enhances agroecosystems
health including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity (Codex Alementarius Commission, 2001). It
emphasizes the use of management practices in preference
to the use of off-farm inputs, taking into account that regional conditions require locally adapted systems. This canbe accomplished by using, wherever possible, cultural, biological, and mechanical methods instead of using synthetic
materials, to fulfill any specific function within the system.
Organic agriculture can contribute to socially, economicallyand ecologically sustainable development, firstly, because
organic practices use local resources (local seed varieties,
dung, etc.) and secondly, because the market for organic
products has high potential and offers opportunities forincreasing farmers’ income and improving their livelihood.
It also contributes to in situ conservation and sustainable
use of genetic resources. But organic agriculture also has
negative environmental impacts such as overuse of animal
manure, which can lead to nitrite pollution of water supplies; on the other hand, insufficient application of organic
manure can lead to soil mining and long-term productivity
declines (World Bank, 2004a).
The sustainability of organic agriculture is often debated, with divergent views regarding its feasibility and productivity potential in resource-poor areas. Most information
is from temperate countries and the technological needs in
low-potential areas are not addressed. Organic production
requires a high level of managerial knowledge, the ability
to protect crops from pests and diseases, and compliancewith production process requirements. Certification is oneof the most important cost items. Reliable and independent
accreditation and control systems are essential to enforce organic standards and regulations and to meet phytosanitary
standards and general quality requirements.
Urban and peri-urban agriculture refers to growing
plants and raising animals for food and other uses within
and around cities and towns, and related activities such as
the production and delivery of inputs and the processing

chapter 01.indd 23

and marketing of products (van Veenhuizen, 2006). It hasreceived increasing attention from development organizations and national and local authorities, and is likely to do
so in future as well, as migration of poor people from rural
to urban areas will continue to be a major trend in developing countries. This results in shifting poverty from rural
areas to urban slums and increasing the importance of urban and peri-urban agriculture, as it contributes to reliablefood supply and provides employment for a large numberof urban poor, especially women (World Bank, 2004a). It is
an integral part of the urban economic, social and ecologicalsystem (Mougeot, 2000).
Urban and peri-urban agriculture includes a range of
production systems from subsistence production and processing at household level to fully commercialized agriculture. It may include different types of crops (grains, root
crops, vegetables, mushrooms, fruit) or animals (poultry,
rabbits, goats, sheep, cattle, pigs, guinea pigs, fish) or combinations of these (ETC-Netherlands, 2003). Non-foodproducts include aromatic and medicinal herbs, ornamental
plants, tree products (seed, wood, fuel), and tree seedlings.
For example in Hanoi, Vietnam, urban and peri-urban agriculture supplies about one-half of the food demand andengages more than 10% of the urban labor force in processing, marketing, retailing, input supply, and seed and seedling production (Anh et al., 2004)
Urban and peri-urban agriculture is characterized bycloseness to markets, high competition for land, limited
space, use of urban resources such as organic solid wastes
and wastewater, a low degree of farmer organization, mainly
perishable products, and a high degree of specialization (vanVeenhuizen, 2006). Some critical issues include the use ofpesticides; use of urban waste in agricultural production;
environmental pollution caused by agricultural activities
in densely populated areas; conflicts over land and water
between agricultural, industrial, and housing uses; unhygienic food marketing; and inability of producers, wholesalers, retailers and other agents engaged in food processing
and marketing to adapt to coordinated food chains (World
Bank, 2004a). Urban planning will need to take into account the potential environmental impacts of urban andperi-urban agriculture.
Conservation agriculture. Conservation or zero-tillage agriculture is one of the most important technological innovations in developing countries, as part of Sustainable Land
Management approaches. It is a holistic agricultural system that incorporates crop rotations, use of cover crops,
and maintenance of plant cover throughout the year, withpositive economic, environmental and social impacts (Pieri,
et al., 2002). It consists of four broad intertwined management practices: (1) minimal soil disturbance (no plowing andharrowing); (2) maintenance of permanent vegetative soil
cover; (3) direct sowing; and (4) sound crop rotation.
The United States has the longest experience in conservation agriculture approaches, which were first implemented
in large and medium-sized farms. Conservation agriculture
then began to be widely used in diverse farming systems in
Brazil and adapted to small farms in the southern part of thecountry. It is rapidly being adapted to irrigated rice-wheat
systems in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, especially in India,

11/3/08 10:41:28 AM

24 | IAASTD Global Report

where 0.8 million hectares were planted in 2004 using thissystem (Malik, Yadav and Singh, 2005).
Broader adoption of conservation agriculture practices
would result in numerous environmental benefits such as decreased soil erosion and water loss due to runoff, decreased
carbon dioxide emissions and higher carbon sequestration,
reduced fuel consumption, increased water productivity, lessflooding, and recharging of underground aquifers (World
Bank, 2004a).
Agriculture, agrifood systems and value chains
Agrifood systems are described as including a range of activities involved at every step of the food supply chain fromproducing food to consuming it, the actors that both participate in and benefit from these activities, and the set offood security, environmental and social welfare outcomesto which food system activities contribute (Ericksen, 2006).
They include the primary agriculture sector and related service industries (i.e., veterinary and crop dusting services);the food and beverage, tobacco and non-food processing
sectors; the distribution sector (wholesale and retail); andthe food service sector. Value chains are multinational enterprises or systems of governance that link firms together in avariety of sourcing and contracting arrangements for global
trade. Lead firms, predominantly located in industrializedcountries and comprising multinational manufacturers,
large retailers and brand-name firms, construct these chains
and specify all stages of product production and supply(Gereffi et al., 2001). The value chain perspective shifts thefocus of agriculture from production alone to a whole rangeof activities from designing to marketing and consumption.
Agrifood systems range from traditional systems that are
localized where food, fuel and fiber are consumed close to
the production areas using local resources, to large agrifood
industries that are globalized and linked to integrated value
chains. Traditional systems may include hunter-gatheringand peasant agriculture that meet the needs of the community from local resources. The major traditional agrifood
systems comprise small family farms that supply products
to the local markets but are continuously being transformedin response to market signals. At the other end, there arelarge agrifood industries consisting of international or transnational companies that are globalized and integrated into
complete value chains. These systems are continuously beingtransformed by market and consumer demands, with new
agrifood systems emerging that consider social and environmental aspects and use technological innovations. Organic
agriculture is an example, which showed rapid growth in
the 1990s in Europe, where 4% of EU agricultural land area
is now organic, compared with only 0.3% in North America(Willer and Yussefi, 2006).
Agrifood systems have a strong influence on culture,politics, societies, economics and the environment, and theirinteractions affect food system activities. Agrifood system
activities can be grouped accordingly: producing, processing
and packaging, distributing and retailing, and consuming(Zurek, 2006). As the agrifood systems become more sophisticated and globalized, they have to adhere to regulations and standards to meet product safety and quality, andconsumers’ specific needs in order to survive. New and moreinnovative technology in food production, post-harvest

chapter 01.indd 24

treatment, processing, packaging and sanitary treatment are
now playing a more important role.
Agriculture and the environment
Land cover and biodiversity changes. Beyond its primaryfunction of supplying food, fiber, feed and fuel, agriculturalactivity can have negative effects such as leading to pollution of water, degradation of soils, acceleration of climatechange, and loss of biodiversity. Conversion of land for production of food, timber, fiber, feed and fuel is a main driverof biodiversity loss (MA, 2005b). Many agricultural production systems worldwide have not sufficiently adapted to
the local/regional ecosystems, which has led to disturbancesof ecosystem services that are vital for agricultural production. Requirements for cropland are expected to increase
until 2050 by nearly 50% in a maximum scenario, butmuch less in other, more optimistic scenarios (CA, 2007;
see Figure 1-11).
Soil degradation has direct impacts on soil biodiversity,on the physical basis of plant growth and on soil and water
quality. Processes of water and wind erosion, and of physical, chemical and biological degradation are difficult to reverse and costly to control once they have progressed. The
Global Assessment of Human-induced Soil Degradation(GLASOD) showed that soil degradation in one form or another occurs in virtually all countries of the world. About
2,000 million hectares are affected by soil degradation. Water and wind erosion accounted for 84% of these damages,
most of which were the result of inappropriate land management in various agricultural systems, both subsistence
and mechanized (Oldeman et al., 1990).
Water quality and quantity changes. Access to enough, safeand reliable water is crucial for food production and poverty reduction. Most people without access to an improved
water source are in Asia, but their number has been rapidly
decreasing since 1995, which is less the case in sub-SaharanAfrica, Latin America, West Asia and Northern Africa (seeFigure 1-12).
However, putting more water into agricultural services
threatens environmental sustainability. Water managementin agriculture thus has to overcome this dilemma (CA,2007). Intensive livestock production is probably the largest sectoral source of water pollution and is a key player
in increasing water use, accounting for over 8% of global
human water use (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Excessive use ofagrochemicals (pesticides and fertilizers) contaminates waterways. Better management of human and animal wastes
will improve water quality. Agriculture uses 85% of freshwater withdrawals in developing countries, mainly for use
in irrigation, and water scarcity is becoming an acute problem, limiting the future expansion of irrigation (CA, 2007).
Water conservation and harvesting also have an important
potential for rainfed farming (Liniger and Critchley, 2007)as water scarcity is widespread.
Climate change: Climate change influences and is influenced by agricultural systems. The impact of climate change
on agriculture is due to changes in mean temperature andto seasonal variability and extreme events. Global mean
temperature is very likely to rise by 2-3°C over the next

11/3/08 10:41:28 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 25

Figure 1-11. Scenarios of land requirements by regions from 2000 to 2050.

50 years, with implications for rainfall and the frequency
and intensity of extreme weather events (Stern, 2006). The
outcomes of this change will vary heavily by region. Cropclimate models predict an increase in crop production inslight to medium warming scenarios of less than 3°C (Parryet al., 2007). Livestock production is one of the major contributors to climate change within agriculture (Steinfeld etal., 2006).

Figure 1-12. Number of people in 1995 without access to an
improved water source, MDG goal and projection to 2015.
Source: Rosegrant et al., 2006.

chapter 01.indd 25

1.2.5 Direct and indirect drivers
Direct drivers of change
Changes in human well-being, as characterized by the development and sustainability goals of the IAASTD, comeabout as the result of a multitude of factors at a variety of
scales. For example, change for a particular household may
occur as the direct effect of a better harvest due to use of an
improved technology. The improved technology itself may
have been developed as a result of investment in agriculturalresearch, science and technology and its adoption may havebeen facilitated by changes in prices or improvements in
education and market infrastructure. Effective policy measures depend on a careful distinction between direct and indirect drivers of change.
Following the framework, direct drivers of change include food demand and consumption patterns, land usechange, the availability and management of natural resources, climate and climate change, energy and labor, as
well as the development and use of AKST.
Relevant natural resources include land resources—i.e.,soil, water, flora and fauna—and climate. Growing demand
for food, feed, fiber and fuel drives the pace of changes inland use. These changes may include clearing or plantingof forests, drainage of wetlands, shifts between pasture andcropland, and conversion to urban uses. Climate change has
the potential to change patterns of temperature and precipitation as well as the distribution of pests and diseases. Other
natural, physical, and biological drivers include evolution,
earthquakes, and epidemics, the use of labor, energy, inputs
such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation, andthe use of new plant and animal species or varieties. Finally,
direct drivers include AKST development and use, includ-

11/3/08 10:41:29 AM

26 | IAASTD Global Reporting new tools and new techniques such as soil and water
conservation or biotechnology. This may also comprise aspects of access to, control over and distribution of AKST,
such as extension and dissemination efforts, credit markets
and capital assets, and markets for information and knowledge. Species introduction or removal may be intentional orunintentional. Epidemics are increasing the vulnerability ofplant and animal production in a globalized economy andare therefore also considered to be direct drivers.
These changes may enhance the well-being of somepeople and diminish that of others; they may have beneficial
effects in the short term but adverse effects over time (orthe reverse), and they may have beneficial effects locally but
adverse effects at larger scales (or vice versa).
Indirect drivers of change
Many indirect drivers result in turn from a variety of otherindirect drivers. Demographic factors include total population and its composition and spatial distribution in terms ofage, gender, urbanization, and labor, as well as pressure onland resources within a farm or between farms. Economic
factors include prices and other market characteristics, globalization, trade, land tenure and access regulations, agribusiness, credits, markets, and technology. Sociopoliticalfactors include governance, formal and informal institutions,
legal frameworks such as international dispute mechanisms,
kinship networks, social and ethnic identity, and politicalstability. Indirect drivers also include infrastructure such astransportation, communication, utilities, and irrigation. Indirect drivers of science and technology include institutions
and policy, funding for R&D, knowledge and innovations
systems, advances and discoveries in biotechnology, intellectual property rights, communication systems and information technology, harnessing and adapting local knowledge,
and local and institutional generation of AKST. Education,
culture and ethics (e.g., in cultural and religious developments or choices individuals make about what and how
much to produce and consume and what they value) may
also influence decisions regarding direct drivers. Whether
direct or indirect, some drivers may have cumulative effects
that are felt only when a critical threshold level is reached,
as for example when rising pollutant levels exceed a watershed’s natural filtration capacity.
Finally, improvements in AKST are driven both by factors that help generate new AKST as well as factors thatencourage its adoption and use. Factors that help generate AKST include research policy and funding, intellectual
property rights, and farmers’ innovation capacity. Factorsthat affect adoption and use of AKST include extension services, education, and access to natural, physical, and financial resources. These will be explored fully in the chapters
to follow.
Conditions determined by political, economic, socialand cultural contexts
Agriculture and AKST are strongly bound to the humancontext in which they are embedded. For example, in thecontext of Switzerland, where the agricultural sector constitutes merely 3% of the tax-paying workforce, small-scale
farmers with an average farm size of 16 ha which they may
use for livestock breeding, will not generate sufficient in-chapter 01.indd 26

come for the family for a decent livelihood. Because of theimportance of agriculture for nonproductive services suchas cultural landscape preservation, recreation forests, andwater management, Swiss farmers are paid by society for
their environmental and social services, up to a total ofover 50% of their income, thus reaching the minimum national income standard of about US$35,000 in 2005 (BFS,
2006).
A farming household in Ethiopia, by contrast, typically survives on one hectare of cultivated land and somecommunal pastureland for livestock rearing. This family
produces about one tonne of cereals and pulses per year,of which about 10-20% is marketed and the rest is used
for home consumption. Such a household has to pay headtaxes but only very marginally profits from investment programs by government or foreign aid. There are millions offarming households all over the world in the same situation,
which have an average annual per capita GNP of less than
US$200.
Any assessment of the potential of AKST to contributeto more equitable development will thus have to take into
account the political, economic, social and cultural contexts
in which agricultural land users operate. Additionally, AKST
assessments are inherently inter- or multidisciplinary andgenerate knowledge through transdisciplinary approaches.
Conditions determined by ecosystems, agricultural
systems and production systems
The concept of ecosystems provides a valuable framework
for analyzing and acting on the linkages between people andthe environment (MA, 2005a). An ecosystem is defined as adynamic complex of plant, animal and microorganism communities and their nonliving environment, interacting as afunctional unit (UN, 1992). The AKST conceptual framework uses ecosystems as the broadest context within which
agricultural production/farming systems are analyzed.
The predominance of the “cultivated” ecosystem category for agriculture is immediately apparent in the table,
followed by mountain ecosystems, which constitute 26% of
the Earth’s land surface, followed by forestland, covering
about 30% of the land surface, as well as drylands, whichconstitute about one third of all land area worldwide. Together these land cover areas provide about 93% of agricultural products. It should be noted, however, that otherservices provided by agroecosystems will have a considerably different balance. An example is forests, which provide
clean water, reduce flooding, offer biodiversity protection
and recreational and spiritual value, which adds to the importance of the forests’ production value.

1.3 Development and Sustainability Issues
1.3.1 Poverty and livelihoods
Eradication of extreme poverty and hunger is a key goalof the assessment. Progress has been particularly striking
in Asia, but the proportion of people in sub-Saharan Africa
who live in extreme poverty has changed little since 1990.
Hunger is inextricably linked to poverty, and here again
progress is evident but uneven, with reductions in Asia andLatin America partly offset by increases in Africa and the
Middle East. Poverty and hunger arise out of the interaction

11/3/08 10:41:30 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 27

between economic, environmental, and social conditions
and the choices people make. Livelihoods depend not only
on current incomes but on how individuals, households,
and nations use resources over the long term. Physical andfinancial capital is critical and relatively easily measured.
Equally important but less easily measured are sustainable
use of natural capital and investment in human and social
capital.
Poverty and hunger
Extreme poverty (crudely measured by the percentage of
people living on less than US$1 per day) in developing
countries decreased from 28% in 1990 to 19% in 2002,
and is projected to fall further to 10% by 2015 (World
Bank, 2006c). Progress has been particularly striking in
East Asia and the Pacific, where the target of the MDGs has
already been achieved, and in South Asia, where progressis on track. But the proportion of people in sub-SaharanAfrica who live in extreme poverty has changed little since
1990, and remains at about 44% (World Bank, 2006c). The
prevalence of undernourishment has fallen from 20% of the
population of developing countries to 16% over the past
decade, with reductions in Asia and Latin America partly
offset by increases in Africa and the Middle East (World
Bank, 2006c). Poverty is most pronounced in Africa andSouth Asia.
In the simplest terms, hunger can be thought of as thesituation that occurs when consumption falls short of somelevel necessary to satisfy nutritional requirements. Similarly,
poverty can be thought of as the situation that occurs whenincome falls short of some level defined by society, usually interms of the ability to afford sufficient food and other basic
needs. These definitions provide a starting point, but simple
definitions mask more complex relationships. In fact, income and consumption fluctuate in response both to changing conditions and to choices made by farmers and others.
This challenges us to consider more carefully how hunger
and poverty arise out of the interaction between economic,
environmental, and social conditions and the choices people
make.
Hunger is still the result of insufficient consumption,
but insufficient consumption may itself arise for several reasons. For example, household income may be insufficientto acquire sufficient food to meet the nutritional requirements of its members, or food may be inequitably distributed within the household. Alternatively, income may allow
a household to acquire sufficient food, but doing so may
leave insufficient income to meet other needs, such as paying costs associated with schooling—forcing the household
to choose between competing priorities. Similarly, poverty
is still the result of insufficient income, but insufficient income may itself arise for a variety of reasons. For example,
drought or illness might reduce the amount of crops or labor a household has to sell, while low wages or prices may
reduce its value (Sen, 1981). Alternatively, income may below (or high) in part because of choices a household madeearlier in the season, such as which crops to plant, or how
much fertilizer to apply, or whether to migrate in search of
employment. These choices in turn depend on the resources
available to the household. Resources may include natural
resources such as land and water as well as the household’s

chapter 01.indd 27

labor power, tools and financial resources. Resources also
include the household’s social and institutional settings,
which shape property rights and access to infrastructure andsocial support services.
To complete the cycle, the quality and quantity of thehousehold’s resources in turn depend, at least in part, on the
consumption and investment choices the household madepreviously. Given its income last week (or last year), for example, a household will make decisions about how much tospend on food, health care or education (each of which affects the quality of its labor resources), how much to spend
on seeds, fertilizer and other agricultural inputs, and how
much to save or invest in other ways. Once we recognize thedynamic interaction between household resources, choices,and outcomes, it becomes clear that a more complete understanding of hunger and poverty requires not only a broader
understanding of the factors that affect them, but also a
longer-term perspective on how they interact over time.
Livelihoods
Livelihoods are a way of characterizing the resources andstrategies individuals and households use to meet their needs
and accomplish their goals or in other words: “people, theircapabilities and their means of living” (Chambers and Conway, 1991). Livelihoods encompass income as well as thetangible and intangible resources used by people to generate
income and their entitlements to them. In 2003 about 2.6
billion people, or 41% of the world’s population, depended
on agriculture, forestry, fishing or hunting for their livelihoods (FAOSTAT, 2006), even while agriculture (including
forestry and fishing) represented only 12% of GDP in developing countries in 2004, and 4% for the world as a whole(World Bank, 2006c).
Diversification of livelihoods, both within agriculture
and beyond, i.e., focusing on other sectors of the economy,
is particularly important for countries where the proportionof people engaged in the primary sector is above 40% of all
employment (ILO, 2004). This concerns about half of all
countries worldwide. The share of households with wagespecialized earnings appears to considerably contribute to
an increase of household GDP per capita (Hertel, 2004).
Migration is another livelihood strategy pursued bynearly 200 million people. Reasons for migration are manifold; they range from labor seeking, economic interest andfamily reunification to displacement due to natural or cultural disasters. Temporary migration and commuting tonational and international, rural and urban destinations
are now a routine part of the livelihood strategies of many
households, including farm households, both in industrialized and developing countries. The effects of migration on
agriculture are highly diverse—migration can be a negative phenomenon that creates labor shortage in rural areas,
leaving the land abandoned; or it can mitigate populationpressure and resource use, and the remittances from family
members can boost agricultural development (IOM, 2007).
IncomeEconomic well-being is most commonly thought of in termsof income (measured as a flow over a particular period oftime). For a farm household, for example, this may be inkind (such as food crops produced on the farm) as well as in

11/3/08 10:41:30 AM

28 | IAASTD Global Reportcash, and may come from both on-farm and off-farm sources. Gross national income per capita averaged US$1,502 in
developing countries in 2004, or about US$4 per day (World
Bank, 2006c); half the people in developing countries live on
less that US$2 per day, and 19% live on less than US$1 perday (World Bank, 2006c). By contrast, income per capita
in high-income countries averaged US$32,112 in 2004, orabout US$88 per day. Generally, there is a strong correlation between the average income per capita and the share
agriculture takes in GDP. The lower this share is, the higher
the income (see Figure 1-13).
A simple measure of economic well-being can be derived by comparing an individual’s or household’s income
over a given period of time with their needs or wants overthat same period of time. The disadvantage of such a simple
measure is that it could indicate that a household was welloff at present even if it was increasing its income in the shortterm by depleting its resources in a way that is unsustainable
over the long term. Thus a more complete measure of economic well-being requires knowledge about the resourcesfrom which an individual or household derives its income.
Resources. Control of resources shapes income-generating
opportunities, and determines how resilient households arewhen incomes fluctuate in response to changing economic
conditions or natural disasters. Resources can be groupedin various ways, e.g., natural, human and social capital andwealth (or man-made capital) (Serageldin, 1996). Wealthcan be further divided into physical and financial forms(Chambers and Conway, 1991). Access to different formsof capital varies widely across and within regions, affecting
the choices that households make in combining resourcesin their diverse livelihood strategies, and also affecting thetypes of AKST investments that are most relevant in any
particular context.
An important aspect of resources is the discussion oflabor productivity versus land productivity. These are often

compared to show the differences between the achievementsof formal AKST versus local knowledge. The value of production in industrialized countries is much higher than indeveloping countries (Wood et al., 2000), simply because
the energy balance is hardly taken into account when comparing mechanized with manual agricultural systems. It isnoteworthy, however, that there are groups of countries
where labor productivity made particular progress (probably
through mechanization), while others made most progressin land productivity, and sub-Saharan countries had only
little advances over the past 30 years, although with probably the best energy balance (Byerlee et al., 2005). Latin
America has the highest levels of labor productivity in thedeveloping world, followed by the Middle East and North
Africa, and transition economies. South-East Asia and subSaharan Africa have considerably lower labor productivity
levels although, in terms of growth, China is leading (ILO,
2004; see Figure 1-14).
Education. Reported gross primary school enrolment rates
are near universal in developing countries already, but completion rates are lower, and more than 100 million childrenof primary school age remain out of school. Gross enrolment rates drop to 61% for secondary education and 17%
for tertiary education (World Bank, 2006c). Primary andsecondary education are near-universal in high-income
countries, and drop to 67% for tertiary education. Adult
literacy rates in developing countries are 86 and 74% for
men and women, respectively (World Bank, 2006c).
Research. Expenditures for public agricultural research anddevelopment (R&D) averaged 0.5% of agricultural GDP in
high-income countries (Pardey et al., 2006), which in viewof the high disparity between the GDPs themselves must be
seen as a potentially greatly underrated difference. Moreover, about five times as many scientific and technical journal articles were published by authors from high-income

Figure 1-13. World distribution of GDP per capita and percentage of population working in
agriculture (Average of years 1990-2002). Source: Based on Hurni et al., 1996, with data from World
Bank, 2006c; ILO, 2007.

chapter 01.indd 28

11/3/08 10:41:31 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 29

Figure 1-14. Labor productivity in agriculture by region (1992-2001) and labor productivity
levels in 1992 and 2001. Source: ILO, 2004

countries as were published by authors from developing
countries in 2001 (World Bank, 2006c).
Measurement of the different forms of capital poses
many challenges, particularly for those forms that are nonmarketed. In an effort to better understand the importanceof different types of capital, the World Bank (1997) undertook to estimate the value of human resources, produced assets, and natural capital. They noted that human resources
include both raw labor power and the embodied knowledge
that comes from education, training and experience. Monetary values are admittedly imprecise, but what was striking
about their results was the uniform dominance of humanresources, which accounted for 60-80% of total wealth in
all regions except for the Middle East, where natural capital,in the form of energy reserves, accounted for an unusuallyhigh proportion.
Livelihoods, resilience, and coping strategies. Even though alarge number of people depend entirely on agriculture, offfarm income is important for the livelihoods of many farming households. Agriculture’s share of GDP was declining inboth developing and high-income countries, while the shareaccounted for by the service sector was increasing—to 52%
in developing countries and 72% in high-income countries(World Bank, 2006c). Data are scarce, but in many developing countries the informal sector accounts for a large (andin some cases rising) share of urban employment (World
Bank, 2006c). Remittances from workers abroad form an
increasing share of income in most developing regions, totaling US$161 billion in 2004 and accounting for more than
3% of GDP in South Asia (World Bank, 2006c). A household may be able to avoid hunger and maintain its humancapital during a drought by depleting its financial, physicalchapter 01.indd 29

or natural capital (for example, by drawing on its savingsor selling its livestock or failing to maintain the fertility ofits soils). But this may threaten its ability to survive over the
longer term. Alternatively, a household may accept severe
cuts in consumption in the short term, with consequences
for health and strength, precisely in order to protect its
endowment of other resources and its ability to recover infuture.
Different resource endowments and different goals imply different incentives, choices, and livelihood strategies.
For example, two households that have the same endowments of land, labor, and materials may choose different
cropping strategies if one household does not have access tosavings, credit or insurance and the other one does. In thiscase the first household may choose to plant a safe but lowyielding crop variety while the second household will planta riskier variety—expecting higher yields while at the sametime knowing that additional financial capital could help
sustain income (and consumption levels) even if it were to
suffer a poor harvest.
Likewise different livelihood strategies and different
weather and market conditions imply different outcomes,
which in turn imply different endowments. In the example
just mentioned, the first household may suffer smaller losses
in a drought year, but also smaller gains in average and goodyears. Even when both households suffer losses, their coping strategies might differ. The first, in order to meet consumption needs, might be forced to sell assets. If many otherhouseholds are in a similar position, asset prices might fall,
making it even more difficult to exchange them for sufficient
food. Households with sufficient food or financial reserves,by contrast, may be in a position to buy assets at discounted
prices, increasing not only their own ability to survive fu-

11/3/08 10:41:31 AM

30 | IAASTD Global Reportture droughts but also the degree of inequality in the region(Basu, 1986).
These sometimes desperate tradeoffs between different
components of the resource endowment illustrate why simple or short-term definitions of poverty, hunger and food security provide an incomplete understanding of household’s
livelihood strategies. They have important implications for
economic sustainability, which we will explore in the next
subchapter. They also have important implications for environmental sustainability and social equity.
Economic dimensions of sustainability
Sustainability, like food security, has been defined in many
ways. The Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987) definedsustainable development as “development that meets theneeds of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs.” But even suchan intuitively appealing definition raises difficult operational questions regarding both needs and ability (Serageldin,
1996). Abilities depend on the resources that individuals andhouseholds have at their disposal, and the ways in which
they can be combined and exchanged to produce goods andservices that they desire.
Sustainability can, in turn, be understood in terms of
maintaining or increasing a household’s ability to produce
desired goods and services—which may or may not involve
maintaining or increasing the level of each particular component of the household’s resource endowment. A very narrow interpretation of sustainability involves maintaining
each component of the resource endowment at its current
level or higher. In its strictest sense this would mean that
non-renewable resources could not be used at all, and that
renewable resources could be used only at rates less than orequal to their growth rates. Such a requirement would preclude extraction of oil to improve human capital, for example by investing in education for girls (Serageldin, 1996). A
broader interpretation of sustainability by contrast, involves
maintaining the total stock of capital at its present level orhigher, regardless of the mix of different types of capital.
This would require the unrealistic assumption that different types of capital can be substituted completely for one
another, and that complete depletion of one type is acceptable as long as it is offset by a sufficient increase in another.
An intermediate alternative involves maintaining the total
stock of capital, but recognizing that there may be criticallevels of different types of capital, below which society’s (oran individual’s, or a household’s) ability to produce desired
goods and services is threatened.
Measuring the different forms of capital poses considerable challenges, and these in turn complicate assessmentsof sustainability. In an effort to improve such assessments,
the World Bank (1997) sought to adjust national accounts
and savings rates for investment in and depletion of natural and other forms of capital not traditionally included inthose accounts. Accounting for changes in natural capitaland human resources, they found that high-income OECD
countries have had “genuine savings rates” of around 10%
per year over the past several decades—less than traditional
measures of investment, but still positive (and thus sustainable, at least in the broad sense). Asia and Latin America
have also had positive genuine savings rates, most notably

chapter 01.indd 30

in East Asia (with rates approaching 20% per year). SubSaharan Africa and the Middle East/North Africa, on theother hand, have consistently had negative genuine savings
rates of -5 to -10% per year (World Bank, 1997). Such patterns and concerns continue today.
The World Bank’s measure of adjusted net savings currently begins with gross savings, adds expenditures on education, and subtracts measures of consumption or depletionof fixed (i.e., produced) capital, energy, minerals, forest
products and damages from carbon dioxide and particulate
emissions. In contrast to gross savings of 27.5% of GNI indeveloping countries and 19.4% in high-income countries
in 2004, adjusted net savings after accounting for selectedchanges in human, physical, and natural capital were 9.4 and8.7% in the two regions, respectively. Adjusted net savings
were highest in East Asia and the Pacific (23.9% of GNI)
and lowest in sub-Saharan Africa (-2.0%) and the Middle
East and North Africa (-6.2%) (World Bank, 2006c). Thesefindings reinforce concerns about sustainability by any ofthe measures described above. Similarly, the recent growthin crops, livestock, and aquaculture production has comeat the expense of declines in the status of most other provisioning, regulating and cultural services of ecosystems (MA,2005a).
1.3.2 Hunger, nutrition and human healthSome key characteristics of hunger, nutrition and humanhealth are related to working conditions in agriculture andthe effects of HIV/AIDS on rural livelihoods. Health is fundamental to live a productive life, to meet basic needs and tocontribute to community life. Good health offers individuals wider choices in how to live their lives. It is an enabling
condition for the development of human potential. Societies
at different stages of development exhibit distinct epidemiological profiles. Poverty, malnutrition and infectious disease
take a terrible toll among the most vulnerable members ofsociety. Good nutrition, as a major component of health,has much to contribute to poverty reduction and improved
livelihoods.
HealthHealth has been defined as “a state of complete physical,
mental and social well-being and not merely the absence ofdisease or infirmity” (WHO, 1946). It is an enabling condition for the development of human potential. The components of health are multiple and their interactions complex.
The health of an individual is strongly influenced by genetic
makeup, nutritional status, access to health care, socioeconomic status, relationships with family members, participation in community life, personal habits and lifestyle choices.
The environment—whether natural, climatic, physical, social or at the workplace—can also play a major role in determining the health of individuals.
The health profile of a society can be framed in termsof both measurable aspects—for example, access to cleanwater, safe and nutritious food, improved sanitation, basic
health care, and education; mortality and morbidity rates
for various segments of the population; the incidence ofdisease and disability; the distribution of wealth across the
population—as well as factors that are less easily quantifiable. Among these are issues of equity or discrimination as

11/3/08 10:41:31 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 31

evidenced in a society’s treatment of minority groups, suchas indigenous peoples, immigrants and migrant workers,
and of vulnerable groups, such as women, children, the elderly and the infirm. These factors influence not only thegeneral sense of social well-being but also the health of individuals and groups. Multiple measurement approaches canmaximize data accuracy; however, the cost of such measurements must be taken into account.
Societies at different stages of development exhibit distinct epidemiological profiles. The prevalence of various
causes of death, average life expectancy, disability-adjusted
life years, infant and under-five mortality rates and maternal mortality rates all fluctuate in discernible patterns as
the economic underpinnings of society change. For example, societies that depend on hunting and gathering typically have short average life expectancies and deaths due
to accident or injury are more prevalent. Agrarian societies
show a greater prevalence of death from infectious disease
as the major cause of death, particularly among children.
In industrial societies, death from cardiovascular disease ispredominant, whereas in a service-based post industrial society, the major cause of death is cancer. In the societal form
now emerging, it is expected that the predominant cause ofdeath will be senescence—age-related disorders (Horiuchi,1999).
Such a typology is useful as a rough guide when examining the health statistics or “health profiles” of countries
at different stages of development. They demonstrate thelinkages between socioeconomic development and humanhealth: the heavy burden of infectious disease in poor, predominantly agrarian countries; the double burden of both
infectious and noncommunicable diseases in middle-income
developing countries where basic sanitation, clean waterand health care systems have already considerably reduced
under-five and maternal mortality rates and thereby lengthened average life spans. However, great differences still exist
in the health status of rural and urban population groups;
and advanced industrialized economies, with aging populations and a predominance of “lifestyle” diseases often related to excessive consumption, inadequate physical activity
and the use of tobacco.
Health gains in recent decades are nowhere more evident than in the extension of life expectancy at birth froma global average of 46 years in 1950-55 to 65.4 years ahalf century later. This progression is expected to continue,
reaching an estimated global average life expectancy of 75.1
years in the period 2045-2050 (UN, 2005a). These positive
gains are also witnessed in the speed with which developing
countries have narrowed the gap in life expectancy between
more industrialized and less developed regions of the world,from a difference of 25 years in the period 1950-1955 toslightly over 12 years in 2000-2005 (UN, 2005b). This rapid
improvement is due principally to greater access to cleanwater, sanitation, immunization, basic health services andeducation: all factors that have transformed the health profile of populations.
While these average figures demonstrate considerable
global progress, they also mask wide disparities at the local, national and regional levels. For example, for the past
decade, largely due to the ravages of AIDS, life expectancy
in Africa has been declining, reaching the current level ofchapter 01.indd 31

45 years, more than 20 years lower than the global average.
The gap in life expectancy between sub-Saharan Africa andthe industrialized economies of Europe and North America
in 2000 was wider than at any time since 1950 (World Bank,
2006a).
Quality of life questions gain in importance as average
life expectancy grows, and here too the gaps between richer
and poorer countries and regions are evident. People living
in developing countries not only have lower average life expectancies, but also spend a greater proportion of their lives
in poor health, than do those in industrialized countries.
More than 80% of the global years lived with disability occur in developing countries, and almost half occur in highmortality developing countries. Healthy life expectancy,that is, total life expectancy reduced by the time spent inless than full health due to disease or injury, ranges froma low of 41 years in sub-Saharan Africa to 71.4 years inWestern Europe, with the proportion of lost healthy years
ranging from 9% in Europe and the Western Pacific to 15%
in Africa (WHO, 2005).
Infectious disease has ceded its place to noncommunicable illnesses, such as heart disease, cancer and degenerative
conditions, as the primary cause of mortality worldwide.
Noncommunicable diseases accounted for about 60%
of all deaths and 47% of the global burden of disease in
2002, and figures are expected to rise to 73% and 60%
by 2020 (WHO, 2003b). Yet, once again, sub-Saharan Africa is the striking exception to the rule, since more than
60% of deaths in that region are attributable to infectious
disease, with HIV/AIDS as the number one killer of adults
aged 15-59 (WHO, 2003b). The resurgence of infectious
disease, whether due to the growth of drug-resistant germs,
as in tuberculosis, or the transmission to humans of viralpathogens of animal origin continue to pose health threats
worldwide.
Poverty, malnutrition and infectious disease take a terrible toll among the most vulnerable members of society. Of
the 57 million deaths worldwide in 2002, 10.5 million wereamong children less than five years of age. More than 98%of those childhood deaths occurred in developing countries.
The principal causes were peri-natal conditions, lower respiratory tract infections, diarrhea-related disease and malaria,
with malnutrition contributing to all (WHO, 2003b). Infections and parasitic diseases accounted for 60% of the total(WHO, 2003b). The prevalence of malnutrition and infectious disease among the young has important implications
for the health and well-being of the population as a whole,since the functional consequences of ill health in early childhood are likely to be felt throughout life, affecting the individual’s physical and mental development, susceptibility todisease and capacity for work. In rural areas, in particular,
where much work requires sustained physical effort, lack ofstrength and endurance can lower labor capacity, productivity and earnings. Much of the burden of death as a resultof malnutrition is attributable to moderate, rather than severe undernutrition (Caulfield et al., 2004). Young children
with mild to moderate malnutrition had 2.2 times the riskof dying compared to their better nourished counterparts,and for those who were severely malnourished the risk ofdeath was 6.8 times greater (Schroeder and Brown, 1994).
Children from poor households had a significantly higher

11/3/08 10:41:32 AM

32 | IAASTD Global Reportrisk of dying than those from richer households (WHO,2003b).
HungerAt the turn of the millennium, the world produced sufficient
food calories to feed everyone, mainly because of increased
efficiency brought about by the evolving plant science industry and innovative agricultural methods, including pesticides. The dietary energy supply for the global population
was estimated to be 2803 kcal per person per day, comfortably within the range of average energy intake consideredadequate for healthy living. Yet close to 800 million people
were undernourished. Uneven distribution and consumption
patterns across regions and among population groups, however, meant that the average actual food supply ranged from3273 kcal per capita per diem in industrialized countries
to 2677 in developing countries. Even these averages mask
tremendous disparities. Dietary energy supply per capita perdiem in Afghanistan, Burundi, the Democratic Republic ofCongo and Eritrea was less than half that in Austria, Greece,
Portugal and the United States (FAO, 2004a).
While global production of food calories has outpaced
population growth, thanks to improved farming methods
and advances in plant and animal sciences, the number ofpeople potentially supported by the world’s food supply depends heavily on the kind of diet people consumed. There
are vast regional differences in the prevalence of undernourishment (see Figure 1-15), which is increasing the vulnerability to hunger and famine.
It has been calculated that the global food supply in1993 was adequate to feed 112% of the world population
on a near vegetarian diet, but only 74% of the population
on a diet composed of 15% animal foods and just 56%of the population on a diet in which 25% of calories were
derived from animal products (Uvin, 1995; DeRose et al.,1998). By the early 1990s, roughly 40% of the world’s grain

supply was consumed in animal feed, with grain-to-livestock
ratios conservatively estimated at two kilos of grain to produce one kilo of chicken, four kilos for one kilo of pork andseven kilos for one kilo of beef (Messer and DeRose, 1998).
Demand for meat is increasing in many parts of the world
and feedlot livestock production will cause ever heavier demands on food resources as the proportion of industrially
produced animal products increases.
Almost 60% of the world’s undernourished people livein South Asia, whereas the highest incidence of undernourishment is in sub-Saharan Africa, where approximately
one-third of the population is underfed and hunger is on
the increase (FAO, 2006a). In sub-Saharan Africa, food production per capita has not grown in the past three decades.
Indeed, it declined during the 1970s and has remained stagnant ever since (FAO, 2006a).
Poor households spend a proportionately larger shareof their income on food than do wealthier households, andthis budget share tends to decline as income rises. It is not
unexpected, therefore, that per capita GDP is correlatedwith underweight of children under 5 (Haddad, 2000; see
Figure 1-16).
In low-income countries, average expenditure on food,beverages and tobacco represented 53% of household spending, compared to 35% in middle-income and 17% in highincome countries. The budget share ranged from 73% of
total household budget in Tanzania to less than 10% in the
United States. The composition of the foodstuffs purchased
varied according to income levels as well, with households
in low-income countries spending significant portions (overone-third) of their budget on cereals, and fruit and vegetables, including roots and tubers, whereas meat, dairy andtobacco took up higher shares in high-income countries.
Low value staple foods accounted for more than a quarterof consumers’ total food budget in low-income countries,
compared to less than one-eighth in wealthier countries

Figure 1-15. Proportion of the population unable to acquire sufficient calories to meet their daily caloric requirements, 2003 estimates.
Source: Rosegrant et al., 2006.

chapter 01.indd 32

11/3/08 10:41:32 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 33

Figure 1-16. Relationship between per capita gross national
product (GNP) and nutrition. Source: Haddad, 2000.

(Seale et al., 2003). Per capita meat consumption in highincome countries was more than 11 times higher than thatin low-income countries in 2002 (WRI, 2006).
Poor rural infrastructure contributes to high food costs
for rural poor people. For example, in the upper east region of Ghana, expenditure on food averages over 75% of
the household budget. Farmers who lack storage facilities
or access to credit are forced by necessity to sell their crops
soon after harvest when prices are at their lowest. During
the dry season, they buy food when prices are at their highest. In many cases it is women who spend the greatest effort
in ensuring food security for the family, cultivating gardenplots, carrying out income generating activities and spending the largest portion of their income on food, followed byhealth. In some cases, women’s enterprises pay their women
employees in food, in order to ensure that the household
benefits directly from the woman’s work and that cash earnings are not diverted to other purposes (IFAD, 1998).
Nutrition
Nutrition is one of the major components of health. A
healthy diet is typically seen as one which provides sufficient
calories to meet the individual’s energy needs, as well as adequate protein, vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids andtrace elements to ensure growth and maintenance of life.
While the volume of food intake is important, an adequate
intake of calories does not in itself ensure that the need for
micronutrients has been met. Good nutrition is based onprinciples of variety, proportion and balance in the choiceof foods. Good nutrition has much to contribute to poverty reduction. It is intrinsic to the accumulation of humancapital, since sound nutrition provides the basis for good
physical and mental health, and is thus a foundation for
intellectual and social development and a productive life.
Malnutrition is often linked to poverty and disease, foreach one lays the groundwork for the others and contributes
to its perpetuation. In developing countries where nutrient
deficiencies are most prevalent, malnutrition in children is
the result of a range of factors including insufficient food,poor food quality, and severe and repeated infectious disease. It is a contributing factor to childhood death fromdiarrhea, acute respiratory illness and to a lesser extent,malaria, all among the leading causes of under-five mortality. Even children with mild to moderate malnutrition are
at an increased risk of dying (Rice et al., 2000; Caulfield

chapter 01.indd 33

et al., 2004). Improving nutritional status, particularly of
biologically vulnerable groups such as infants, children, andpregnant and lactating women, weakens the transmission ofpoverty from one generation to the next. AKST has a role toplay in developing food crops of high nutritional value thatcan be produced at affordable prices.
More than 50 nutrients are needed to maintain good
health, but the scope and global impact of inadequate nutrition have been studied for only a few critical nutrients, such asiron, iodine, vitamin A and protein. Of these, iron deficiency
anemia is the most prevalent nutritional deficiency worldwide and is associated with parasitic infestation, chronic infection as well as other micronutrient deficiencies. It impairs
physical and cognitive development in children and leads toreduced capacity for work and lower productivity in adults.
In pregnant women, iron deficiency anemia contributes tomaternal morbidity and mortality and increases the risk offetal morbidity, mortality and low birth weight (UNSCN,
2004). Inadequate iodine in the diet affects nearly two billion people, approximately 23% of the global population,and is the primary cause of preventable mental retardationin children (UNSCN, 2004). Vitamin A deficiency, which
affects an estimated 140 million preschool children andseven million pregnant women every year, can lead to night
blindness, anemia, growth retardation and increased vulnerability to infectious disease and death (UNSCN, 2004).
Malnutrition can result from either excessive or inadequate intake of nutrients. Protein-energy malnutrition, forexample, results from an imbalance between the intake ofprotein and carbohydrates and the body’s actual need forthem. Inadequate intake leads to malnutrition in the form of
wasting, stunting and low weight; excessive intake leads toexcess weight and obesity. Child malnutrition is particularly
serious and more prevalent in rural than in urban areas.
A healthy diet is often pictured as a pyramid of foodgroups, with cereals and other staples at the base and progressively smaller layers of fruits and vegetables, followedby meat, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy products, and finallyculminating in small amounts of fats and sugar at the peak.
A balanced diet would draw on a variety of foods from eachof the main groups, respecting the proportions assigned toeach. Current patterns of food consumption involving overconsumption of fat, sugar and salt coupled with inadequate
intake of whole grains, fruits and vegetables as well as thetrend towards excess weight and obesity in many countries
demonstrate how far from the ideal the modern diet has
become. As the global burden of disease shifts to chronic
illnesses, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and cancer, there is a growing recognition of the impact of dietary habits, environmental hygiene and lifestylechoices on health outcomes (WHO, 2003a).
In recent years, efforts have been directed to analyzing the nutritional content of traditional, locally produced
foods, taking into account food availability and eating patterns, in order to draw up dietary guidelines that are culturally meaningful and easily applicable in local conditions.
Such food-based guidelines go beyond nutrients and foodgroups to a more holistic vision of nutrition based on how
foods are produced, prepared, processed and developed. The
health implications of agricultural practices, production anddistribution of food products, sanitary standards and com-

11/3/08 10:41:33 AM

34 | IAASTD Global Reportmon culinary practices are all considered. The guidelines
encourage the consumption of locally available foods andhealthy traditional dishes and suggest an increase in foodvariety based on healthy alternatives (WHO, 1999). “Eat local” campaigns geared towards supporting local agriculture
have engendered awareness of the benefits of fresh foods, aswell as renewed social interactions, contributing to overall
community health.
Food safety
Food-borne disease is estimated to affect 30% of the population in industrialized countries and to account for an
estimated 2.1 million deaths in developing countries annually (Heymann, 2002). Globally, the proportion of the
population at high risk of illness or death from food-borne
pathogens is rising in many countries due to factors suchas age, chronic diseases, immunosuppressive conditions andpregnancy. Well-publicized incidences of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE), hoof-and-mouth disease, avian influenza and the mass culling resulting from these outbreaks
have raised public concerns with regard to intensified foodproduction, particularly of meat. The reemergence of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis as well as the outbreaksof illness due to food-borne pathogens, such as salmonella,e. coli, and listeria, that may contaminate fruit, vegetables,
poultry, beef or dairy products, have pointed to the needfor strict food safety standards “from the farm to the fork”,
and raised awareness of the fact that the distances from thepoint of production to the point of consumption continue
to grow. As the general public has become increasingly interested in the linkages between agricultural production
systems and human health, the list of food-related healthconcerns has continued to grow. It includes uncertainty
with regard to the effects of GMOs on human health, fearof pesticide residues on foodstuffs, recognition of the rolethat widespread use of antimicrobial agents have had in theemergence of infectious pathogens resistant to antibiotics,
and concern with the impact of intensive, industrial-stylepoultry production on animal health and welfare. Such public concerns have all begun to affect food purchasing decisions in many countries (FAO, 2001a).
Both industrialized and developing countries have madeefforts to improve surveillance and investigative capabilities regarding food-borne disease outbreaks over the past
two decades. The experience acquired so far, together withmolecular biology techniques, ICT, as well as new risk assessment and mitigation methodologies have improved
prospects for targeted interventions to control and prevent
disease. Safety assurance systems, which provide complete
traceability from food production units through to the ultimate consumer, are being put in place in many countries.
Such upstream and downstream management systems augment food inspection systems, which have proven unable tocope with the rapidly expanding trade in food products.
Working conditions in agriculture
Much agricultural work is arduous by nature. It is physically demanding, involving long periods of standing, stooping,bending, and carrying out repetitive movements. Poor tool
design, difficult terrain and exposure to heat, cold, windand rain lead to fatigue and raise the risk of accidents. New

chapter 01.indd 34

technology has brought about a reduction in the physicaldrudgery of much agricultural work, but has also introduced
new risks, notably associated with the use of machinery andthe intensive use of chemicals without appropriate information, safety training or protective equipment. The level ofaccidents and illness is high in some countries and the fatal
accident rate in agriculture is twice the average for other industries. Worldwide, agriculture accounts for some 170,000
occupational deaths each year. Machinery and equipment,such as tractors and harvesters, account for the highest rates
of injury and death (ILO, 2000).
Exposure to pesticides and other agrochemicals constitutes one of the principal occupational hazards, withpoisoning leading to illness or death. The WHO has estimated that between two and five million cases of pesticide
poisoning occur each year and result in approximately
40,000 fatalities. Pesticide sales and use continue to risearound the world. In developing countries, the risks of serious accident is compounded by the use of toxic chemicals
banned or restricted in other countries, unsafe application
techniques, the absence or poor maintenance of equipment,
lack of information available to the end-user on the precautions necessary for safe use and inadequate storage practices, and handling and disposal practices (ILO, 1999). The
health risks associated with pesticides have spurred efforts
to reduce or eliminate their use, for example, through thedevelopment of integrated pest management (IPM) and theincrease in organic agriculture.
Farmers, agricultural workers and their families liveon the land. Their living and working conditions are interwoven, raising the threat of environmental spillover fromthe occupational risks mentioned above. Wider community
exposure to pesticides may come in the form of contamination of foodstuffs, the reuse of containers for food or water
storage, the diversion of chemically-treated seeds for human consumption, and the contamination of ground waterwith chemical wastes. Extensive public education efforts areneeded to raise awareness of the dangers involved in the improper handling, storage and disposal of agrochemicals aswell as of safe work practices that can prevent accidents andreduce exposure. National systems of chemical safety management can help to ensure that agrochemicals are properly
packaged and labeled throughout the distribution chain sothat end users in rural communities have the information
they need to handle these substances with the necessary precaution.
Animal handling and contact with dangerous plants
and biological agents give rise to allergies, respiratory disorders, zoonotic infections and parasitic diseases. In developing countries, in particular, a number of well-known andpreventable animal diseases, such as brucellosis, leishmaniasis and echinococcosis, are transmitted to those working closely with animals, affecting millions each year. New
threats to human health are posed by pathogens originating
in animals and animal products. Indeed, three-quarters of
the new diseases that have emerged over the past decade
have arisen from this source (WHO-VPH, 2007). Yet, many
countries lack effective veterinary and public health systems,
let alone the multisectoral environmental health practices,
required to prevent the spread of disease.
The interaction between poor living and working condi-

11/3/08 10:41:33 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 35

tions determines a distinctive morbidity-mortality pattern
among agricultural workers. A large number of rural workers live in extremely primitive conditions, often without adequate food, water supply or sanitation or access to healthcare. Poor diet combined with diseases prevalent among
the rural population (such as malaria, tuberculosis, gastrointestinal disorders, anemia, etc.), occupational disorders,and complications arising from undiagnosed or untreateddiseases can be deadly and is certainly debilitating. A vicious circle of poor health, reduced working capacity, low
productivity and shortened life expectancy is a typical outcome, particularly for the most vulnerable groups, such as
those working in subsistence agriculture (i.e., wage workers
in plantations, landless daily paid laborers, temporary andmigrant workers and child laborers).
While difficult to quantify, child labor in agriculture is
known to be widely prevalent. It is estimated that of the 250
million working children in the world, roughly 70% are active in agriculture. Many of these children work directly fora wage or as part of a family group, exposed to the same
work hazards as adults; they endure long daily and weekly
hours of work under strenuous conditions. Exposure toagrochemicals, injuries due to machinery or tools, and therepeated shouldering of heavy loads have a negative impact on their health and development with life-long consequences. Conditions of poverty, including poor housing, an
inadequate diet and lack of sanitation, little access to healthcare and loss of educational opportunity, compound these
health problems and mortgage their future (ILO, 2006).

male family member. Stigmatization further marginalizes
surviving family members from the community (UNAIDS,
2005).
HIV/AIDS has become a major factor in the pervasiveness of food insecurity, as it undermines farm families’ ability to cultivate adequate food for their members. Irregularand poor quality nutrition, in turn, hastens the onset of
AIDS in those weakened by HIV and increases vulnerability
to opportunistic infections.
The global labor force had lost 28 million economically
active people to AIDS by 2005, a figure which is expected
to rise to 48 million by 2010 and 74 million by 2015. Twothirds of these labor losses will be in Africa, where four
countries are expected to lose over 30% of their workforce
by 2015 (ILO, 2005). Fewer workers mean more families
left without providers, more children left without parents,
and the loss of transmission of knowledge, skills and values
from one generation to the next. Orphans are left in thecare of the elderly or to fend for themselves in poverty andwithout access to education.
Agriculture and health are interlinked in complex ways.
Agriculture produces the products on which humanity depends for its health—food—and yet, most of the poverty
and malnutrition in the world is found in rural areas among
those who work in agriculture. AKST has an important roleto play in ensuring that future food supplies are available tomeet growing demand for nutritious, safe and health-giving foods so that these can be made available at affordable
prices to those who need them most.

HIV/AIDS and its effects on rural livelihoods
The HIV/AIDS epidemic provides a compelling example ofthe linkages among poverty, illness, food insecurity and lossof productive capacity as well as the differentiated effects on
sufferers, caregivers, other family members and the wider
community. An estimated 40.3 million people were livingwith HIV in 2005, two-thirds of whom were in sub-SaharanAfrica, where agriculture is the mainstay of most economies
and women comprise the backbone of the agricultural labor
force. In that region, 57% of adults (15-49) living with HIV
were women (UNAIDS and WHO, 2005).
While the epidemic affects people of all ages and in
all walks of life, the disease cuts to the heart of the rural
economy, afflicting adults in the prime of life, reducing
their capacity to earn a living and provide for their families, whether from off-farm activities or from cultivationof the land. Women and girls, who already carry out thebulk of the work in small-scale, labor-intensive agriculture,
split their waking hours between care for the sick and theorphaned, their traditional productive work and additionaltasks taken on to compensate for the lost labor of family
members struck down by the disease (UNAIDS and WHO,
2005).
The viability of rural households is undermined by theloss of family labor and the increased cash requirements tomeet medical costs and eventually funeral expenses, which
can trigger sales of crops, livestock, farm tools and otherassets. The death of a male head of household can lead todestitution for wives and children in societies where customary law prevents women from inheriting property, or where“widow inheritance” transfers a surviving wife to another1.3.3 Environment and natural resources

chapter 01.indd 35

Natural resource issues
Natural resources are an indispensable basis for agriculture.
A range of ecosystems produce the wide range of goods andservices on which human survival depends. Production ofthese goods and services, including those related to agriculture such as food, is supported by a range of basic natural
resources including soil, water and air. The demand for foodwill continue to rise as the human population increases, andwhile in the short-to-medium term production is expected
to rise to meet this demand, there is growing concern about
the vulnerability of the productive capacity of many agroecosystems to stress imposed by intensification, e.g., water
scarcity and soil degradation (Thrupp, 1998; Conway, 1999;
MA, 2005c; CA, 2007). Thus for instance, loss of biodiversity through simplification of habitats when monocultures
are established in large areas is a major concern (Ormerod
et al., 2003). The negative impact of increased soil erosion
on downstream aquatic ecosystems and other activities suchas fisheries can also be discerned. The positive and negative
impacts of chemical inputs, particularly inorganic fertilizers
and pesticides, are also well documented.
Sustainable use of natural resources is critical for sustainable livelihoods, and it has a direct impact on the improvement of natural capital. Both the poor and the rich
impact the environment. Where access is easy and extraction is not capital-intensive, poor people may overuse natural resources; the poor also tend to be the most vulnerable tothe effects of environmental degradation. By contrast, whereextraction is highly capital intensive—such as in the case of

11/3/08 10:41:33 AM

36 | IAASTD Global Report

deep groundwater extraction—the rich tend to have the biggest impact (Watson et al., 1998).
Agriculture is sustainable if the productive resource baseis maintained at a level that can sustain the benefits obtained
from it. These benefits are physical, economic and social.
Ecological sustainability thus needs to be defined in relation
to the sustainable use of natural resources, i.e., maintaining
the productive capacity of an ecosystem.
Pressures on ecosystems have important consequences
for agricultural production. In turn, agriculture has ecological impacts on ecosystems, and on the services provided byecosystems.
The IAASTD recognizes that in agriculture, there ismost often a continuum between a farming system and anatural ecosystem, as the term agroecosystem indicates.
Farmers have a pivotal role as managers of these systems,
and as stewards of their resource base. Their role includes
for example the conservation of soil properties and water
availability, the development and maintenance of crop species and the pursuit of multipurpose production objectives.
Issues relating to NRM management are often framed as
specific problems such as soil degradation, water pollution,
biodiversity loss. We should also frame agriculture’s contribution to NRM positively: farmers create and enhanceresources such as arable soil, agrobiodiversity, productive
forest stands. Working with the natural resource base, theyoften enrich and enhance it.
Drivers of natural resource degradation and depletion. As
with other ecosystems, a range of direct and indirect drivers
influence changes in natural resources in agricultural ecosystems. These drivers can act directly or indirectly to causechange. They may range from well defined drivers to those
involving complex interactions. Among the key drivers assessed here is the role of decision makers and identificationof those drivers that influence their decisions. Also important are the specific temporal, spatial and organizational
scale dependencies as well as linkages and interactions between these drivers. The approach adopted also assumes
that decisions are made at local, regional and international
levels. Many globally recognized drivers are likely to influence natural resources in the context of agriculture, including demographic, economic, sociopolitical, science andtechnology, cultural and religious, and physical, biologicaland chemical drivers (see Figure 1-7).
Definition of natural resources
No unanimously accepted definition of natural resources
exists. Natural resources can be defined as “factors of production provided by nature. This includes land suitable for
agriculture, mineral deposits, and water resources useful for
power generation, transport and irrigation. It also includes
sea resources, including fish and offshore minerals” (Black,2003). Natural resources may also be more broadly referred
to as resources that “include all functions of nature that are
directly or indirectly significant to humankind, i.e., economic functions as well as cultural and ecological functions thatare not taken into account in economic models or which
are not entirely known” (CDE, 2002). Climate can also be
considered as a natural resource.

chapter 01.indd 36

In these broader definitions, resources such as timber
or fish are part of ecosystems that are living environments
containing forests, rivers, wetlands and drylands as wellagroecosystems embedded in broader ecosystems that makeuse of selected resources within the ecosystem (WRI, 2005).
From here, it is a short step to integrating natural resourcesin the “ecosystem services” concept (MA, 2005a), i.e., todescribe natural resources as system elements that ensure
human well-being through a range of interdependent regulating, supporting, provisioning and sociocultural functions.
Availability of natural resources. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded that the global availability ofnatural resources is shrinking. “Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly than in any
comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet
rapidly growing demand for [natural resources]. This has
resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in thediversity of life on earth” (MA, 2005a). Ecosystem changemeans that availability of natural resources should not be
expressed exclusively in terms of physical availability. Theirfunctional availability needs to be indicated as well.
Natural resource dynamics. As a result of intensifying global interactions, spatial and temporal effects become moreinterlinked and these are related to the weak recognitionof the multifunctional nature of agroecosystems at all hierarchical levels. Resource degradation in one location may
lead to pollution in another location. High discount rates
for agricultural investments, in particular in developing
countries, have been an incentive for short-term decision
making, with the effect that farmers undervalue both future
benefits and the costs of their present resource use. However, hunger may influence a household’s view of the agricultural discount rate. Thus, while many households are awarethat their decision-making is short term, the severe cost ofhunger makes long-term considerations of benefits of natural resources irrelevant to them. Both poverty-induced expansion of agricultural activities into fragile and vulnerable
lands (Bonfiglioli, 2004), and capital-intensive extraction of
resources such as groundwater can contribute to increased
vulnerability of natural resources.
The functionality of ecosystems and the temporal effects
of system alterations are insufficiently understood. For example, understanding and using ecosystem functions in agriculture could result in enormous ecological savings whileat the same time contributing to sustainable production offood (e.g., Costanza et al., 1997). There is an increased riskof non-linear changes as a result of system alteration (MA,2005a). Therefore, the understanding of spatial and temporal effects of natural resource use for agricultural production
is an increasingly important issue for science and technology
in agricultural development.
Vulnerability and resilience of natural resources. The lossof ecosystems such as wetlands and mangroves has reduced
natural protection of resources by destroying all or part ofthe inherent system functionality (MA, 2005a). The differences between damage caused by the December 2004 tsunami on shores protected by functional coral reefs and shores

11/3/08 10:41:33 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 37

where reefs had been degraded exemplifies the increase ofvulnerability as a result of unsustainable human activity(IUCN, 2005).
Natural ecosystems often have had to bear the brunt ofintensification in agriculture. The degradation of forests,
grasslands, coastal ecosystems and inland waters threatens
their services to, and thus the long-term productive capacityof, agroecosystems. It is known that in many cases agricultural activities have depleted natural resources (forests, soil,
water) to an extent that has resulted in net productivity losses; these developments are caused by a wide range of drivers. In other cases (e.g., rainfed agriculture or sustainablesoil conservation) agricultural practices have been operated
by generations of successive farmers in a sustainable way.
Natural resources and their management
Forestry. Agriculture has had an intimate and productive relation with forests: many historical and contemporary farming systems are built partly on that relationship. Swidden
agriculture in tropical areas, for example, uses forests as ameans of soil and nutrient restoration.
Agroforestry and home garden systems are ways ofcombining trees and other species with crop production or
animal husbandry. Up to the present, forests and agroforests
have played an important role in contributing to the foodsecurity of a large part of the world’s food insecure people.
They provide products (timber, fuelwood, food, and medicines), inputs for crop and livestock production (fodder, soil
nutrients, and pollination) and services (watershed protection, climate regulation, carbon storage, and biodiversity
conservation) (FAO, 2006a).
Some 350 million of the world’s poorest people are considered to be largely dependent on forests for their living,
including for food production (WCSFD, 1999). A majorityof farmers manage some trees on their land, or benefit fromforests adjacent to their land, often for environmental services (e.g., to shelter or shade homes, crops and livestock, orfor soil conservation), as well as for diverse products (suchas fuelwood and fruit) (Scherr et al., 2004; Molnar et al.,2005). Approximately 1.5 billion people use products fromtrees as key elements of their livelihoods (Leakey and Sanchez, 1997).
Deforestation has been identified as a major problem
facing forest resources. The expansion of agriculture in its
many forms at the expense of forestland is one of the factors
contributing to deforestation, though not the only one. The
conversion of forest to another land use or the long-term
reduction of the tree canopy cover below the minimum 10%
threshold is one definition of forestry. The rate of deforestation is proceeding at 13 million ha per year (FAO, 2007a).
Recent estimates show that forests cover about 31%
of global land surface (FAO, 2007a). Since pre-agricultural
times, forests have been reduced by 20 to 50% (Matthews
et al., 2000). Patterns of forest management and use varyacross the globe. Thus, for instance, while the last two and ahalf decades have seen an increase in forest area in industrial
countries, developing countries have on average witnesseda decline of about 10% (FAO, 2007a; Figure 1-17). An increasing trend is also the rapid expansion of mixed forest/

chapter 01.indd 37

agriculture zones encroaching on formerly intact forest areas. 80% of the fiber and fuelwood production is derived
from primary and secondary growth forests and therein lies
the importance of management of this important resource.
In addition to fiber and fuel, forests provide a range of ecosystems services. Forests make up two thirds of the morethan 200 ecoregions identified by WWF as outstanding representatives of the worlds’ ecosystems that include important endemic bird areas and more than three quarters of thecenters of plant biodiversity (Olson and Dinerstein, 1998).
Forest soils and vegetation store about 40% of all carbon
in the terrestrial biosphere. However, due to deforestation
rates that exceed growth, forests are currently a net source of
atmospheric carbon. Loss of forest cover in watersheds has
secondary effects on water resources through increased erosion, and alteration of water quantity and possibly floods.
It has been estimated that roughly 0.75 ha of forest is now
needed to supply each person on the planet with shelter andfuel (Lund and Iremonger, 1998).
Biological corridors play an important role in mitigating incidental or secondary effects. Thus, in some regions inCentral America, using local and foreign funds, internationalorganizations, governing institutions and rural committees
are working to connect natural reserves by planting native
tree species in deforested areas. These new green spots will
open routes for the safe migration and mating of wild animals, as well as preserve the wild and native flora.
Grasslands
Grasslands are mostly associated with drylands where plant
production is limited by water availability—the dominant
users are large mammals, herbivores including livestock, andcultivation. Drylands include cultivated lands, scrublands,
shrublands, grasslands, semideserts, and true deserts (MA,2005c). They are, as their name implies, natural landscapes
where the dominant vegetation is grass. Grasslands usually
receive more water than deserts, but less than forested regions. Worldwide, these ecosystems provide livelihoods fornearly 800 million people. Grasslands are also a source of

Figure 1-17. Annual net change in forest area, 2000-2005. Source:
FAO, 2007a.

11/3/08 10:41:34 AM

38 | IAASTD Global Reportforage for livestock, wildlife habitat, and a host of otherresources (White et al., 2000).
Grasslands provide feed for livestock farming across theglobe as well as a wide range of ecosystem services. For instance, grasslands provide part of the cover to some of theworld’s major watersheds. Most of the world’s meat comesfrom animals that forage on grasslands. World meat production has doubled since 1975, from 116 million to 233
million tonnes in 2000 (UNEP, 2002). Grasslands are also amajor component of important areas of bird endemism andwildlife sanctuaries, and store approximately 34% of the
global stock of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems.
Nearly 49% of grasslands are lightly to moderately degraded and at least 5% are considered strongly to extremely
degraded (White et al., 2000). The degree of degradation
is dependent on geographical location and management
practices as well as on characteristics of the soil, vegetation, and grazing patterns. Cultivation and urbanizationof grasslands, and other modifications can be a significant
source of carbon to the atmosphere. For instance, biomassburning, especially on tropical savannas, contributes over
40% of gross global carbon dioxide emissions (Baumert etal., 2005).
Fisheries
Fish play a key role as an economic commodity of significance to a great number of farming households and rural
poor people. Inland fisheries and aquaculture—for example
in irrigated rice agroecosystems—are not only important as adirect food source: fish are also a high value commodity thatcan be traded for cash, for other needs and cheaper foods,
by small-scale farmers and the poor, and provide a source of
direct employment for 38 million and indirect employment
for about 160 million people (FAO, 2004b; ICTSD, 2006).
The highest share of fish workers (fishers and aquaculture
workers) is in Asia (87%), followed by Africa (7%), Europe,
North and Central America and South America (about 2%
each) and Oceania (0.2%) (FAO, 2004b).
In 2002, about 76% (100.7 million tonnes) of estimatedworld fisheries production was used for direct human consumption. The remaining 24% (32.2 million tonnes) was
destined for non-food products, mainly the manufacture offishmeal and oil, slightly (0.4%) above levels in 1999 but
5.8% below levels in 2000 (FAO, 2004b). In 2002, total capture fisheries production amounted to 93.2 million tonnes.
Marine capture fisheries production contributed 84.5 million tonnes. Between 2000 and 2003, the reported landingsof marine capture fisheries have fluctuated between 80 and
86 million tonnes: a slight increase over the preceding decade (mean = 77 million tonnes). Production from different
capture and culture systems varies greatly (CA, 2007).
At the global level, inland capture fisheries have been
increasing since 1984. In 1997, inland fisheries accounted
for 7.7 million tonnes, or almost 12% of total capture available for human consumption, a level estimated to be at or
above maximum sustainable yields (Revenga et al., 2000).
In 2000-2002, inland capture fisheries were estimated ataround 8.7 million tonnes. However, there is still a lack ofreliable data on global inland fisheries production, which
are therefore estimated to be underreported by two or threetimes (FAO, 2004b).

chapter 01.indd 38

In 2004, aquaculture accounted for 43% of the world’s
food fish production and is perceived as having the greatest potential to meet the growing demand for aquatic food
(FAO, 2006c). World aquaculture has grown at an averageannual rate of 8.8% from 1950 to 2004. In recent years,
Asia and Africa have shown the highest growth with Latin
America displaying only moderate growth. Production in
North America, Europe and the former Soviet states has
however declined. The average growth rate for the Asia andthe Pacific region was 9.8%, while production in China,
considered separately, has grown at a rate of 12.4% peryear (FAO, 2006c).
In 2004, freshwater aquaculture was the predominant
form of aquaculture, accounting for 56% of the total production while mariculture contributed 36% and brackishwater aquaculture 7.4% (FAO, 2006c). During the last
decade, inland capture production has remained relatively
stagnant. For instance, during the period 2000-2005, production ranged between 8.8-9.6 million tonnes. During thesame period, aquaculture grew from 21.2 to 28.9 million
tonnes. Similar trends have been observed in marine environments. Thus overall, the total aquaculture production
grew from 35.5 to 47.8 million tonnes. Despite this increasein landings, maintained in many regions by fishery enhancements such as stocking and fish introductions, the greatest
overall threat for the long-term sustainability of inland fishery resources is the loss of fishery habitat and the degradation of the terrestrial and aquatic environment.
About 40% of the world’s population lives within 100
km of a coast. Because of the current pressures on coastal
ecosystems, and the immense value of the goods and services
derived from them, there is an increasing need to evaluate
trade-offs between different activities that may be proposed
for a particular coastal area. This important habitat is increasingly becoming disturbed due to human activity. Many
coastal habitats such as mangroves, wetlands, sea-grasses,
and coral reefs, which are important as nurseries, are disappearing at a fast pace. About 75% of all fish stocks forwhich information is available are in urgent need of better
management (Burke et al., 2001; FAO, 2004b).
A recent assessment of fish stocks by the FAO indicatesthat only 20% of fish species is moderately exploited andonly 3% is underexploited. Of the remaining 76%, 52% ofstocks is fully exploited, 17% is overexploited and 7% isdepleted (FAO, 2004b).
Depletion of marine resources is so severe that somecommercial fish species, such as the Atlantic Cod, five species of tuna, and haddock are now threatened globally, as
are several species of whales, seals, and sea turtles. The scaleof the global fishing enterprise has grown rapidly and exploitation of fish stocks has followed a predictable pattern,
progressing from region to region across the world’s oceans.
As each area in turn reaches its maximum production level,
it then begins to decline (Grainger and Garcia, 1996).
Apart from being an important food source, fish canalso be a source of contamination. In heavily polluted areas,in waters that have insufficient exchange with the world’s
oceans, e.g., the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, inestuaries, rivers and especially in locations that are close toindustrial sites, concentrations of contaminants that exceed
natural load can be found. These increasing amounts may

11/3/08 10:41:34 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 39

also be found in predatory species as a result of biomagnifications, which is the concentration of contaminants inhigher levels of the food chain, posing a risk for humanhealth (FAO, 2004b).
Water resources
In the hydrological cycle water resources can be divided into
“blue” and “green” water. The main source of water is rain
falling on the earth’s land surfaces (110,000km3) (CA, 2007).
Blue water refers to the water flowing or stored in rivers,
lakes, reservoirs, ponds and aquifers (Rockström, 1999).
Globally, about 39% of rain (43,500 km3) contributes toblue water sources, important for supporting biodiversity,
fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. Blue water withdrawals
are about 9% of total blue water sources (3,800 km3), with
70% of withdrawals going to irrigation (2,700 km3). The
concept of green water (Falkenmark, 1995) is now used torefer to water that is stored in unsaturated soil and is usedas evapotranspiration (Savenije and van der Zaag, 2000).
Green water is the water source of rainfed agriculture. Total
evapotranspiration by irrigated agriculture is about 2,200
cubic kilometers (2% of rain), of which 650 cubic kilometers are directly from rain (green water) and the remainderfrom irrigation water (blue water). To date, sub-SaharanAfrica has the smallest ration of irrigated to rainfed waterand more than half of irrigated land is in Asia (HDR, 2006;
see Figure 1-18).
Technological advancements, especially in the construction of dams, have markedly increased the volume andavailability of blue water for consumption and irrigation
purposes. Similarly, improvements in pumping have motivated farmers to extract more and more groundwater.
Moreover, the demand for water has increased at more thandouble the rate of population increase, leading to serious
depletion of surface water resources (Penning De Vries et al.,
2003; Smakhtin et al., 2004). Seventy percent of blue water
abstraction is for irrigation; given increasing competition
from other users water productivity is a priority concern.
Furthermore, much of water used in irrigation is lost to lessthan-optimal evaporation, not profiting plant growth.
On the other hand, half of the world’s wetlands are estimated to have been lost during the last century, as land wasconverted to agriculture and urban use, or filled to combat

Figure 1-18. Rainfed and irrigated arable land in developing
countries, 1998–2002. Source: HDR, 2006.

chapter 01.indd 39

diseases, such as malaria. Yet these freshwater wetlands provide a range of services including flood control, storage andpurification of water as well as being an important habitat
for biodiversity. Worldwide water quality conditions appear
to have been degraded in almost all regions with intensive
agriculture and other developments (Molden and de Fraiture, 2004). Pollution is a growing problem in most inland
water systems around the world while waterborne diseases
from fecal contamination of surface waters continue to bea serious problem in developing countries (Revenga et al.,2000).
There is no agriculture without water. Agriculture’s
sustainability agenda as regards water is twofold: access toclean water for the poor on the one hand, improvements
in water productivity and institutional arrangements on theother (CA, 2007).
Half of the world’s 854 million malnourished people
are small-scale farmers who depend on access to secure water supplies for food production, health, income and employment. Improving their access to clean water potentiallyhas an enormous impact on their livelihoods and productive strategies by reducing poverty and vulnerability (HDR,
2006). With scarcity and competing demands for water increasingly becoming evident, growing more food with lesswater is a high priority. There is much scope for better waterproductivity both in low-production rainfed areas and in
irrigated systems (CA, 2007). Blue water used in irrigation
has a particularly important role, as 40% of global crop
production is produced on irrigated soils (WWAP, 2003).
In addition, irrigation often depends on dams that impact
the environment in various ways, leading to disturbance ordestruction of habitats and fisheries (WCD, 2000). To mitigate these impacts, water use efficiency is also paramount.
Responses by AKST aiming at improving water use effectiveness include developing micro-irrigation systems (Postel,1999) and more precise management techniques generally,
but also breeding of drought-tolerant crop varieties such as
in maize (Edmeades et al., 1999).
Soils
Soil is the source of nutrients required for plant growth anditself the result of organic processes of living organisms. It istherefore the primary environmental stock that supports agriculture. Soil condition varies widely but global estimatessuggest that 23% of all used land is degraded to some degree, which is a cause of serious concern (Oldeman, 1994;
Wood et al., 2000). The key soil degradation processes include: erosion, salinization and water logging, compaction
and hard setting, acidification, loss of soil organic matter,soil nutrient depletion, biological degradation, and soil pollution. Agricultural activities influence all these processes(Scherr, 1999).
In crop cultivation, the resilience of arable soils is an issue of great concern. Different soil types have very different
erodibility characteristics, i.e., their ability to resist soil erosion caused by water, wind, or plowing varies a great deal.
Some soils will hardly recover once eroded, while others
may regenerate within a relatively short time. There are twodimensions to the degradation of soils: first their sensitivity
to factors causing degradation, and second their resilience todegradation, which is their ability to recover their original

11/3/08 10:41:35 AM

40 | IAASTD Global Report

properties after degradation has occurred. Sensitivity andresilience depend on climate and the biophysical structuresof the soil, and whether degradation has exceeded a threshold of resilience (such as loss of all organic matter or severe
compaction) beyond which recovery is not possible without
active intervention (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987).
Soil, just like water, is a key resource for agricultural
production. Sometimes erroneously subsumed under “land”
issues, the availability of soils for growing crops often seemto be taken for granted. Yet in both the developing and theindustrialized world, the loss of productive agricultural soils
to urban development is enormous. In addition, according
to an estimate by the Global Assessment of Human-induced
Soil Degradation (GLASOD), degradation had affected 38%of the world’s cropland, to some extent as a result of humanactivity (Oldeman et al., 1991). However, GLASOD did not
estimate productivity losses associated with land degradation. In the absence of data on the productivity impacts ofland degradation, estimates based on different methods vary
widely (Wiebe, 2003).
The direct influence of agricultural practices cannot be
neglected: they account for about a quarter of total soil degradation (GACGC, 1994). AKST is, and always has been,
crucial to address these problems both through more classical approaches (e.g., proposing mechanical protection suchas bunds and terraces to control surface runoff) and throughmore comprehensive frameworks aiming at greater integration of water conservation and soil protection and the useof biological methods (Shaxson et al., 1989; Sanders et al.,
1999; WOCAT, 2006).
The impact of nitrates from fertilizers and livestock production on soil and water resources is a related issue. This
impact can be described in general terms as the nitrification of the global ecosystem from inorganic fertilizers andalteration of the global nitrogen cycle. Eutrophication as aconsequence of nutrient runoff from agriculture poses problems both for human health and the environment. Impactsof eutrophication have been easily discernible in some areas
such as the Mediterranean Sea and northwestern Gulf of
Mexico (Wood et al., 2000).
Some agricultural activities have led to a reductionof system productivity. For instance, irrigated agriculture
has contributed to water logging and salinization, as well
as depletion and chemical contamination of surface andgroundwater supplies (Revenga et al., 2000; Wood et al.,
2000; CA, 2007). Manure from intensive livestock production has exacerbated the problem of water contamination.
Misuse of pesticides has led to contamination of land andwater, to negative impacts on non-target species, and to
the emergence of pesticide-resistant pests. These problems
compound to reduce system productivity (Thrupp, 1998;
Conway, 1999). The capacity of coastal and marine ecosystems to produce fish for human harvest is highly degradedby overfishing, destructive trawling techniques, and loss ofcoastal nursery areas. This is exacerbated by the decline ofmangroves, coastal wetlands, and seagrasses with resultant
loss of pollutant filtering capacity of coastal habitats.
Biodiversity
Biodiversity underpins agriculture by providing the genetic
material for crop and livestock breeding, raw materials forchapter 01.indd 40

industry, chemicals for medicine as well as other services
that are vital for the success of agriculture, such as pollination. The last century has seen the greatest loss of biodiversity through habitat destruction, for instance through conversion of diverse ecosystems to agriculture. Other factors
such as the growing threat from introduction of invasive
alien species, fostered by globalization of trade and transport, have further exacerbated the situation. On small islands, introduction of invasive alien species, many throughagriculture-related activities, is the main threat to biodiversity. In freshwater systems, an estimated 20% of fish species have become extinct (Wood et al., 2000). Globally, thecost of damage caused by invasive species is estimated to
run to hundreds of billions of dollars per year (Pimentel
et al., 2001). In developing countries, where agriculture,
forestry and fishing account for a high proportion of GDP,the negative impact of invasive species is particularly acute.
Globalization and economic development through increasing trade, tourism, travel and transport also increase thenumbers of intentionally or accidentally introduced species(McNeely et al., 2001). It is widely predicted that climatechange will further increase these threats, favoring species
migration and causing ecosystems to become more vulnerable to invasion.
While agriculture is based on the domestication anduse of crop and livestock species, the continuum between(wild) biodiversity and agrobiodiversity has been recognizedboth in research on plant genetic resources and in conservation efforts for many decades—starting with the hypothesis of “centers of diversity” of crop species proposed by
Vavilov in the 1920s. More recently an emphasis on theprovisioning services of biodiversity has been added: “Biodiversity, including the number, abundance, and composition of genotypes, populations, species, functional types,
communities, and landscape units, strongly influences theprovision of ecosystem services and therefore human wellbeing. Processes frequently affected by changes in biodiversity include pollination, seed dispersal, climate regulation,
carbon sequestration, agricultural pest and disease control,and human health regulation. Also, by affecting ecosystemprocesses such as primary production, nutrient and water
cycling, and soil formation and retention, biodiversity indirectly supports the production of food, fiber, potable water,
shelter, and medicines” (MA, 2005c).
Agrobiodiversity is the very stuff of food production
and an essential resource for plant and animal breeding. Yet
it is a resource that is being lost in situ: in farms and agroecosystems (FAO, 1996b; Thrupp, 1998; CBD, 2006). Itsconservation is somewhat framed by a paradox: new breeds
have boosted agricultural productivity, but simultaneously
they displaced traditional cultivars. In response, gene orseed banks have been created to fulfill a double function:
to resource plant breeders with the agrobiodiversity needed
for further crop development, and to conserve crop diversitythat may have disappeared from agricultural systems. Ex
situ conservation in seed repositories and gene banks haslong been considered to be the central pillar of agrobiodiversity conservation.
To be effective, agrobiodiversity management needs tooperate at several levels: local, national, and international.
Against the overall trend of declining diversity in agricultural

11/3/08 10:41:35 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 41

systems, crop diversity is still being created and preserved locally, and the importance of local in situ conservation efforts
has more recently been acknowledged under Article 8 of the
CBD. In situ conservation of crops and seeds on the farmor community level operates under a number of constraints,
partly organizational, partly economic. These constraints
can more easily be overcome if biodiversity management ispart of an integrated approach—such as sustainable land
management.
It is notable that plant varieties and animal breeds—very much like farming systems—are intricately linked tolanguages, environmental knowledge, farming systems, andthe evolution of human societies. They embody history, bothin their form which is a result of selection and adaptation
to human needs, and through the knowledge that is associated with them. In participatory research and selection, suchknowledge has increasingly been validated and valued.
In the contemporary context of rapid land use change,
the complex coevolution of agrobiodiversity, ecosystems
and human societies needs to be documented, analyzed andvalidated. An appropriate level for this task is the landscape.
Cultural landscapes are complex but spatially bounded expressions of ecosystems that have evolved under the influence of biophysical factors as well as of human societies.
They provide the context to understand how management
practices have shaped the productive and characteristic
landscapes of cultivated systems, and how crop knowledge
fits into these patterns (Brookfield et al., 2003).
Agriculture and climate change
Agriculture contributes to climate change through the release of greenhouse gases in its production processes. It isa significant emitter of CH4 (50% of global emissions) andN2O (70%) (Bathia et al., 2004). The levels of its emissions
are determined by various aspects of agricultural production: frequency of cultivation, presence of irrigation, the sizeof livestock production, the burning of crop residues andcleared areas. In many cases, emissions are difficult to mitigate because they are linked to the very nature of production; in a number of cases, however, technical measures canbe adopted to mitigate emissions from specific sources.
Agricultural activities account for 15% of global greenhouse gas (methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide)
emissions (Baumert et al., 2005). Two-fifths of these emissions are a result of land use or soil management practices.
Methane emissions from cattle and other livestock accountfor just over a quarter of the emissions. Wetland rice production and manure management also contribute a substantial
amount of methane. Land clearing and burning of biomass
also contributes to carbon dioxide production.
Changes in land use, especially those associated with
agriculture, have negatively affected the net ability of ecosystems to sequester carbon. For instance the carbon richgrasslands and forests in temperate zones have been replacedby crops with much lower capacity to sequester carbon. By
storing up to 40% of terrestrial carbon, forests play a keyrole, and despite a slow increase in forests in the northernhemisphere, the benefits are lost due to increased deforestation in the tropics (Matthews et al., 2000).
There is considerable potential in agriculture for mitigating climate change impacts. Changing crop regimes andchapter 01.indd 41

modifying crop rotations, reducing tillage, returning crop
residues into the soil and increasing the production of renewable energy are just a few options for reducing emissions(Wassmann and Vlek, 2004).
Climate change poses the question of risks for food security both globally and for marginal or vulnerable agroecological zones. People’s livelihoods are threatened, as weknow, if they lack resilience and the purchasing power tobridge production losses on their farms. The magnitude of
the threat to the agricultural sector, and to small-scale farmers in particular, is thus also dependent on the performanceof the non-agricultural sectors of developing economies, andon the opportunities they provide. Adaptation to climatechange is therefore an important topic for AKST. The needand the capacity to adapt vary considerably from region toregion, and from farmer to farmer (Smit, 1993; McCarthy
et al., 2001).
Change in water runoff by 2050 is expected to be considerable (Figure 1-19). Some regions will have up to 20%
less runoff, while others will experience increases of the sameorder, and only few countries will have similar conditionsas at present (HDR, 2006). Improving water use efficiency,
adapting to the risks related to topography, and changing
the timing of farming operations are some examples of adaptation that will be required.
Adaptation has a cost and often requires investments ininfrastructure. Therefore, where resource endowments are
already thin, adverse impacts may be multiplied by the lackof resources to respond. Farmers are masters in adapting tochanging environmental conditions because this has been
their business for thousands of years. This is a knowledge
base farmers will need to maintain and improve, even if climate change may pose challenges that go beyond problems
tackled in the past.
Sustainability implications of AKST
A key objective of agricultural policies since the 1950s,
both in industrialized and in developing countries, has been
to increase crop production. In its production focus, thesepolicies have often failed to recognize the links between
agricultural production and the ecosystems in which it isembedded. By maximizing provisioning services, crop production has often affected the functioning of the supporting
ecosystem services.
In the 1960s and 1970s, for instance, irrigated agriculture
was intensified in Asia and elsewhere to boost production of
one major food crop: rice. The effort was underpinned withmassive public investments in crop research, infrastructureand extension systems. While successful in terms of production and low commodity prices, this Green Revolution led
in some cases to environmentally harmful practices suchas excessive use of fertilizers or pesticides. As evidence ofnegative impacts on the environment—particularly on soil
and water—emerged, a number of corrective measures wereenvisaged.
In Indonesia, for example, a major effort was undertaken in the 1980s to introduce integrated pest management(IPM) in intensive rice production (Röling and van de Vliert,
1994). This required that farmers have better knowledge ofpests and their predators—knowledge that could be used
to reestablish pest-predator balances in rice agroecosystems,

11/3/08 10:41:35 AM

42 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 1-19. Climate change and water run-off. Source: HDR, 2006.

and to avoid the harmful use of pesticides. The successful,practical application of IPM is an example of the ecological services provided by agroecosystems, and the monetary,
health and environmental benefits they provide.
In the 1990s, management has become a key term inmost debates on natural resources, agriculture included.
The multifunctional character of agriculture implies a serious consideration of the links with the ecosystems in which
agricultural systems are embedded, beyond measures andpolicies addressing specific resources such as water and soil.
This is a very complex challenge concerning a multitude ofactors.
AKST and natural resource management (NRM)
There is now a strategic understanding that “the management of natural resources clearly has social and behavioral
components, the understanding of which is indispensablefor orienting biophysical research to these resources. Behavioral and sociocultural variables of resource management
are no less important for resource sustainability than physical parameters” (CGIAR, 2000).
Practitioners of NRM research in agricultural development have adjusted their research agendas to address thisproblem, often under the headings “policies”, “institutions”,
and “processes”. This allows them to frame the debate on
how access to resources should be regulated, and what typesof institutional regimes are needed to ensure environmental
sustainability of resource use in agriculture. Managementof natural resources is articulated on at least two levels: thehousehold and its livelihood, and the larger resource regimes
on the community, the national and the international levels. For this aspect, AKST has benefited from research thatchapter 01.indd 42

deals with common property and common pool resources(Ostrom, 1990). A balanced research agenda focusing bothon institutional aspects of resource management and on
biophysical parameters of the systems is key for managing
the multifunctional base and effects of agricultural production. AKST has also benefited from research on traditional
agricultural systems and their knowledge base. While local
knowledge forms are rarely equipped to respond to all thechanges in contemporary agricultural systems, participatory
research in AKST has demonstrated its value for grounded
and adapted solutions.
While national policies are evidently key in these areas,some approaches have become agreed notions in multilateralprocesses, like Agenda 21. Sustainable Land Management(SLM), for example, is defined as “the use of land resources,
including soils, water, animals and plants, for the production of goods to meet changing human needs, while ensuring
the long-term productive potential of these resources andthe maintenance of their environmental functions” (UN,1993a). This is a pertinent and comprehensive definition.
However, its impact on the promotion of innovative management strategies and on national and international policies is scarcely visible to date. We may also note that efforts
are devoted on the one hand to soil and water conservation, and on the other to conservation of biotic resources(agrobiodiversity), with little interlinkages between thetwo.
In sum, a shift towards the integrated analysis of natural
resource management has begun to transform the agricultural research agenda and AKST. However further progressin integrating biophysical with sociocultural and behavioral
variables, and the recognition—in practice—of the multi-

11/3/08 10:41:36 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 43

functional nature of agriculture may be needed. In addition
to techniques aiming at specific resources, the overall management of natural resources has become a concern in agricultural development.
1.3.4 Social equity
The sense of justice and injustice is a universal feature ofhuman society; yet complexity, stratification and inequality are enduring hallmarks of social organization. Nowhereis this more evident than in agriculture, where patterns ofland ownership, land tenure, social status, employment anddivision of labor have evolved in highly diverse ecological,
social and cultural contexts.
Social equity is intimately linked to a sense of justiceboth in terms of processes and outcomes. In its ideal form,
it incorporates notions of equality, as in equal rights under
the law, and of equivalence as in differentiated treatmentthat produces outcomes of comparable value or significancefor beneficiaries in disparate circumstances. In legal terms,
equity originated as a system of jurisprudence developed tocorrect injustices caused by inflexibility in the law. It was
based on the principle of natural justice. In this sense, equity
serves to bridge the gap between legality and legitimacy ofoutcomes, for example, when equal treatment would resultin the perpetuation of injustice.
Political, economic and cultural factors contribute to
greater or lesser degrees of equity in society, sometimes mitigating, sometimes reinforcing inequality. Many sources ofinequality are determined by the circumstances of birth. Sex,ethnicity, the wealth or poverty of parents, their educational
status, birth in a rural or urban setting are among these.
Other sources of inequality are cultural constructs. These
include gender roles in the world of work; the rights andduties of family members as defined by age, sex or birth order; parental expectations of sons and daughters; the loci ofdecision-making power within households and in the wider
community; and the formal and informal rules that determine access to land, water and other resources. Whether
determined by birth or culture, these sources of inequality
tend to widen or narrow the opportunities that individuals have to develop their inherent talents and their productive potential. Combating corruption can help improve
equity, as corruption is undermining justice in many partsof the world. Corruption is the abuse of entrusted powerfor private gain; this may include material and non-material gain from political interference to bribery (TI, 2007).
This will occur unless society develops institutions of governance, legal systems and social policy tools that tend tolessen disparities and equalize opportunities. With improved
women’s economic and social rights corruption is generally
reduced.
While economic forces tend to favor some to the detriment of others, it is common for social policy instruments toattempt to redress the balance in some measure by promoting equality of opportunity, ensuring that basic services areavailable to all and assisting vulnerable groups in meeting
their needs. Equity concerns underpin efforts to eliminate
discrimination, widen opportunities for social and economic
advancement, increase access to public goods and services,such as education and health care, provide fairer access toresources and promote empowerment through participation

chapter 01.indd 43

in decision-making (ILO, 1962). All of these are critical toreducing poverty and building a just society based on rights
for all.
Rights-based approach. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, there has been agrowing worldwide consensus that abject poverty, hunger,
and deprivation are an affront to human dignity and thatconditions must be created whereby all persons may enjoy
basic human rights (UNICCPR, 1966; UNICESCR, 1966).
Whether these rights are of a civil, political, economic, social or cultural nature, they are considered to be “universal, indivisible and interdependent and inter-related” (UN,
1993b).
Civil and political rights—such as political voice andrepresentation, freedom of association, and equal protection under the law—are important in themselves, but also
in their function as enabling rights. Such rights enable individuals and groups to participate in public debate, influence the decisions that affect the life of their communities,
defend their common interests, build more responsive economic and social institutions, and manage conflicts throughpeaceful, democratic means. Economic, social and culturalrights—such as the right to education, health care, food andan adequate standard of living—help to create the conditions under which civil and political rights can be freely exercised.
Social equity concerns and agriculture. Social equity concerns are gaining in importance in countries where large
numbers of people are engaged in agricultural production
and where productivity improvements are needed to keep
pace with or exceed population growth, in other words, inmost developing countries. Globalization has placed the agricultural sector in many countries under tremendous pressure as generally declining commodity prices, rising input
costs, low levels of investment and lack of credit take theirtoll, particularly on small-scale farmers, their families andagricultural workers. Loss of status, uncertainty of income,indebtedness, unfulfilled needs and the deterioration in theireconomic and social condition are among the factors thathave spurred able-bodied men and youth to leave rural areas in search of opportunities elsewhere. Many swell theranks of the urban unemployed, lacking the skill sets needed
to prosper in the new environment, subsisting through informal activities. Those remaining in agriculture—particularly, ethnic minorities, women, the elderly, children andyouth—find themselves increasingly on the margins of economic, social, and political life. They form the majority of
the world’s poor.
Potential beneficiaries of AKST are a heterogeneousgroup living in highly diverse social, economic and environmental contexts. Research, development and dissemination
efforts need to take their capacities and constraints into account in order to ensure that innovations are practical, affordable and offer real benefits to the poor among them.
Social equity concerns challenge policy-makers, researchers, practitioners and donors to work together across theirrespective disciplines to provide not only the technologicalmeans, but also the social support needed to encourage andenable uptake of new techniques by those who may not pre-11/3/08 10:41:36 AM

44 | IAASTD Global Reportviously have had access to skills training, extension services
or credit facilities.
A major social equity issue in agriculture is the perpetuation of poverty from one generation to the next due tothe high incidence of child labor. Approximately 70% of
all child labor is found in agriculture. Unpaid work on thefamily farm may or may not have an incidence on the child’s
school attendance and performance, depending on the hours
and conditions of work. However, time lost to education,
particularly if low achievement levels lead to early drop-out,
has lifelong consequences on earnings. Much child labor incommercial agriculture is invisible and unacknowledged, although it may account for a considerable portion of family
earnings (WDR, 2007).
Social equity issues, such as child labor, must be addressed if broad-based agricultural development is to contribute positively to both economic growth and poverty
reduction. The principal challenges are twofold: raising theliving standards of those working in agriculture, particularly
the poorest among them, and lessening the demographic
burden on agriculture by providing opportunities for morediversified and rewarding economic activity outside thesector. Educating rural children and preparing them for a
productive future addresses both those concerns and AKST
can be instrumental in achieving this in a number of ways.
For example, well targeted AKST can enable poor farmers
to increase their earnings sufficiently to keep their children
in school, rather than at work. The adoption by parents ofinnovative farming practices can teach children the experience of lifelong learning, openness to technological change
and the benefits of applying knowledge to production. Incorporating AKST into rural school programs could provide
young people with practical skill sets to help them makethe transition to more productive work in agriculture or inrural support services, or could inspire them to pursue otherscience based studies.
The labor requirements of various crops or cultivation
methods are an important variable that needs to be considered. AKST is not employment-neutral, nor can it be if it is
to improve the livelihoods of the rural poor. In some poor
communities and households, the greatest challenge is togenerate productive employment for able-bodied workers.
In such circumstances, the development of high-value, highly
nutritious, labor-intensive crops may offer opportunities for
improving livelihoods and well-being. In other cases, laborsaving crops and techniques may offer better outcomes, forexample, for labor-poor female headed households, or ruralcommunities suffering from a high incidence of HIV/AIDS
or other debilitating illnesses.
Many observers note a dichotomy between small-scale
agriculture and industrialized agriculture. Indeed, the unevencompetition that has emerged between small- and large-scale
production systems raises serious social equity issues within
the agricultural sector as a whole. The two systems differ
greatly in terms of resource consumption, capital intensity,
access to markets and employment opportunities. The economic and political power of agribusiness enterprises andtheir relative importance in national economies enable themto influence decisions regarding domestic support packages, infrastructure investment, the direction of agriculturalresearch and development and the setting of international

chapter 01.indd 44

trade rules in ways that small-scale farmers cannot. Anothermajor difference lies in their capacity to provide employment. Large-scale production systems are often in a position
to offer better terms of employment, but they tend to shedlabor as productivity gains are realized through technology
and more efficient work organization. Although the numberof persons working in small-scale agriculture has decreased
as a percentage of the global population in recent decades, it
has steadily increased in absolute numbers and is estimatedto include approximately 2.6 billion people or 40% of theworld’s population (Dixon et al., 2001).
While the notion of dichotomy may be useful in drawing out such contrasts, it tends to mask the wide range ofownership patterns, relationships to the land, forms of labor
force participation and employment relationships that generate profound social equity issues. It is instructive to consider how just one set of rights—property rights—affects the
livelihoods of various stake-holders in the agriculture sector:
plantation owners, medium to small-scale owner-cultivators,
tenant farmers, share-croppers, squatters, landless laborers,
bonded laborers, migrant workers, or members of an indigenous community sharing common lands. These categories
are not discrete; indeed, there is frequent overlap among
them, and cutting across all these categories are issues ofgender, which further define or delimit rights of ownership,
access, use and inheritance of the land.
Choices to be made: agricultural productivity andpoverty reduction
Most discussions of broad-based agricultural development
focus on the interaction of five main factors—innovation,
inputs, infrastructure, institutions and incentives (Hazell,1999). Equity issues are inherent, though they may not be
explicitly evoked, in the policy decisions that guide the investment of resources in these areas. For example, agricultural research and development is needed to generate productivity-enhancing technologies, but choices must be madeas to the orientation of research efforts. The improvementof local food crops to better satisfy nutritional needs, thedevelopment of drought-resistant breeds to provide a morereliable harvest to those living on marginal lands, or thedevelopment of horticultural produce suitable for export
may all be worthy goals in themselves, but have very different potential beneficiaries. Whether or not these activities
lead to improved livelihoods for the poor depends on manyfactors, not least among them being the social characteristics of particular rural communities and the convergence ofinnovation with other productivity factors. Ownership orcontrol of land and other assets, knowledge and skill levels,
roles and responsibilities with regard to production, accessto affordable credit, and rights with regard to distribution ofservices vary considerably across and within social groups.
Ethnicity, class, sex and age all affect the capacity of those
who work the land to access and use new technologies effectively and profitably, but take-up can be modified withwell-targeted interventions. Productivity enhancement is
not so much a technical issue, as one of political, economic
and social choices and constraints, hence an issue of equity(HDR, 2006).
This is well illustrated by a number of “equity modifiers” that have been suggested as a means to reduce poverty

11/3/08 10:41:36 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 45

and contribute to growth through broad-based agriculturaldevelopment. These include targeting small and mediumsized family farms as priority beneficiaries for publicly
funded agricultural research and extension, marketing,credit and input supplies; undertaking land reform, where
needed; investing in human capital to raise labor productivity and increase opportunities for employment; ensuringthat agricultural extension, education, credit and small business assistance programs reach rural women; setting public
investment priorities through participatory processes; andactively encouraging the rural non-farm economy (Hazell,1999). It is noteworthy that all six modifiers imply someform of human capital enhancement.
Adoption and implementation of such transformational
policies would require political will and political power, but
the potential beneficiaries, indeed, the major actors, arelargely absent from the decision-making process. The geographical locus of decision-making tends to be in the country’s capital or major commercial centers and competition
for government resources tends to be heavily weighted infavor of urban areas, where populations are concentrated,vocal and potentially active. Rural poor people in generaland rural women in particular tend to be “invisible” to policy makers and service providers, and are without voice orrepresentation in political decision-making.
Perhaps as a result of this, the rural sector has sufferedyears of neglect, notably during the course of structuraladjustment. Lack of investment in roads, water systems,
education and health services, and the dismantling of public
extension systems have all left their mark on rural areas andon the people who live there. Rural poverty rates consistently exceed those in urban areas. In all 62 countries forwhich data sets were available, a greater percentage of rural
people were living below the national poverty line comparedto their urban counterparts. In several cases, the rural-urban
poverty gap was more than 30% (World Bank, 2006b). If
it were measurable, the urban-rural disparity in politicalpower would most likely be greater. The male-female power
disparity certainly is.
Government ministries dealing with agriculture andrural development have a minority of women among theirprofessional and technical staff, and only a small percentage at decision-making levels. For example, a 1993 studyof women in decision-making positions found that overall,
women held 6% of decision-making positions in ministries
and government bodies in Egypt. Cooperative agriculturalsocieties had an almost exclusively male membership, agrarian reform societies were entirely within male hands, andland reclamation societies had no women members. In Benin, women held only 2.5% of high-level decision-making
positions in government, and comprised only 7.3% of thedecision-making and technical staff at the Ministry of Rural
Development (FAO-CDP, 2007).
Local government might appear to provide opportunities for greater involvement of women in political life, yet
proportional representation is nowhere the rule. In many
countries, patriarchal social systems, cultural prejudices,financial dependence and lack of exposure to political processes have made it difficult for women to participate inpublic life. The maleness of political institutions and thehigh cost of campaigning prevent many women from en-chapter 01.indd 45

tering electoral politics. When they do so, however, manysee themselves as role models whose political actions shouldhave a positive impact on people’s lives. A survey of womenin local government in 13 Asian and Pacific countries foundthat women also brought a more transformational political
agenda to the fore, one more attuned to social concerns,
such as employment, care of the elderly, poverty alleviation,
education, health care and sanitation—all subjects of critical importance to rural people. Women in politics understood the positive impact that female decision makers had
on women’s participation generally (UNESCAP, 2001).
GenderGender is a key category for understanding agrarian societies, as anthropological and historical research has consistently shown (Boserup, 1965; Linares, 1985; McC Netting,1993). The category refers not, as is often assumed, to therole of women as such, but to the specific social ascriptionof roles and functions according to gender. In agrarian societies, these roles and responsibilities have been, in most cases, clearly and specifically assigned to either men or womenin productive households. In addition, not only work, butalso assets are as a rule accessed and controlled according
to gender-based patterns. These patterns vary with time andplace; a persistent feature is that women have a key role inagricultural work, yet they have often limited access to, or
control over, the resource base such as land.
Hence, the management of resources in agriculture isrelated to gender. What does this imply for sustainability? It
certainly means that research needs to closely look at existing gender-related patterns of resource access and control,
to arrive at meaningful conclusions (Linares, 1985). Whilesustainability has to be a target of farm operations, there
may be differential factors at work here.
Agricultural development has sometimes strengthened
patterns that do not favor women. Two factors are considered in this context. First, the double male bias of agricultural extension systems: it is mainly men who represent thestate and its agencies, so men control information and communications; and it is men who are considered to represent
the community or farming household, so they are the ones
addressed. Second, as agricultural industrialization often implies a need for investments, market integration—handlinglarger sums of money—has favored men in many contexts,
as women are usually not considered eligible for credit.
With growing awareness of this imbalance, the international agricultural research community has developed
research to address the issues of women and discriminating
gender roles in agriculture. This has often implied establishing a participatory research agenda (Lilja et al., 2000),
such as in the CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory
Research and Gender Analysis (CGIAR, 2005). While this isa welcome trend towards research products that have beendeveloped with a greater involvement of women, it is not a
sufficient condition to change a social fabric that discriminates against women.
Gender and other identity issues in natural resource
management
The status and development potential of an individual depend on many social factors. In particular, they depend on

11/3/08 10:41:37 AM

46 | IAASTD Global Reporta person’s assigned gender, defined as the economic, social,political and cultural attributes and opportunities associatedwith being male and female (OECD, 1998). Other aspectsof social identity such as caste, ethnicity, age and religion
are just as influential with regard to an individual’s status
and development potential, and therefore need to be taken
into account in much the same way as outlined below in thecase of gender.
As a result of the gender division of labor, women andmen relate to different economic spheres. In addition, they
do not have the same stake in natural resources, social institutions and decision-making processes in the household andsociety. Nor do women and men have the same power to act
and make decisions. Women and men are therefore affecteddifferently by development. The dichotomy between men’s
and women’s spheres is, on the one hand, a social challenge,but on the other hand it is an opportunity to make resource
management truly stakeholder-oriented. Hence, for the assessment it is necessary to differentiate between male andfemale spheres by integrating disaggregated data.
In many instances and for a number of reasons women’s access to natural resources is limited and their power
to make decisions regarding natural resource management
is socially restricted (Worldwatch Institute, 2003). Yet the
majority of women in developing countries live and workin close association with natural resources (UNDP, 2005)
and are particularly affected by ecosystem changes (MA,2005a). Therefore, demands for a gender focus in natural
resource management range from “experimentation withinstitutional forms that are more hospitable to women andmarginalized groups” (Colfer, 2005), to demands calling forincreased emphasis on the needs of women when addressing
aspects of natural resource sustainability (Müller, 2006) andcalls for a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the policies
and programs in all political, economic and societal spheres
so that women and men benefit equally, and inequality is not
perpetuated (UN, 1997).
Much has been written in recent years regarding thefeminization of agriculture. As men have migrated to urban
areas to seek better livelihoods, small-scale farming has been
gradually feminized, with a larger percentage of women acting as head of household in rural areas, although their percentage in relation to all economically active women has
been dropping since 1980 worldwide, in developing countries as well as in low-income food-deficit countries (FAO,
2001b; Figure 1-20). Feminization does not represent anequalization of opportunities, but rather a further marginalization of small-scale farms, since many female heads ofhousehold are younger and less educated than male headsof household, have less land, less capital and less access tocredit. Fewer than 10% of women farmers in India, Nepal
and Thailand own land and credit schemes in five Africancountries award women less than 10% of the credit awarded
to male small-scale farmers (FAO-Gender, 2007) In mostcountries, the proportion of female-headed households is far
less than 50% of the total.
A lack of sex-disaggregated data means that women’sroles in agriculture and their specific needs are still poorly
understood. It is noteworthy that about one-fifth of farms
are headed by women. It is clear, however, that rural womenchapter 01.indd 46

are not a homogeneous group. Gender roles and the gender division of labor are highly specific to location, farming systems and peoples, but they are not fixed. Men andwomen constantly renegotiate their roles and relationships
as circumstances change, both within the household and in
the wider community. Their relative bargaining power canbe influenced by many factors, their economic importancewithin the household, kinship relations, cultural norms of
behavior, not to mention their individual character. Women
as well as men have the capacity to exercise agency, that is,
to make choices and decisions that can alter outcomes intheir lives. In many countries, however, institutions of governance, legal systems and social policies have not equalized
opportunities between men and women or created greatersocial equity between urban and rural dwellers, but havereinforced disparities instead.
A growing body of evidence suggests that economic efficiency gains can be realized through more widespread enjoyment of rights and more just distribution of opportunity.
Conversely, persistent inequality is increasingly seen to limit
the rate and quality of economic growth, threaten national
unity and fuel social conflict (WDR, 2007). The challenge
facing policymakers and practitioners is to mediate themodernization of agriculture in such a way that it leads toimproved social and economic outcomes for those working
in the sector, while supporting the transition to more valueadding activities for others. Investing in people will be thekey to achieving these goals.

1.4 Sustainability Indicators
1.4.1 Indicators for the IAASTD
Indicators are part of what we observe in the world aroundus as we attempt to detect patterns and extract information
meaningful for directing action. Indicators are quantitativeand qualitative variables that provide a simple and reliablemeans to track achievement, reflect changes connected to anintervention or trend, or help assess the performance of anorganization, an economic sector, or a policy measure withrespect to set targets and goals.
In science, state variables of high precision and generality tend to be favored as indicators. In everyday life, there isa strong preference for trend indicators. An indicator, however, does not exist independently of the observer. Once anindicator is established, there still remain multiple issues ofinterpretation and meaning. Experts use indicators to inform policy and to increase their own scientific understanding (Table 1-4).
On a methodological level, an assessment is not simply
a review of relevant literature; it can be based, in part, on
a literature review, but also needs to provide an assessmentof the veracity and applicability of the information and theuncertainty of outcomes within the context of the identified questions or issues within a specified environment. To
be effective and legitimate, an assessment process should beopen, transparent, reviewed, and include a broad representation of stakeholders and relevant experts.
Additional methodological elements include the selection of units of analysis, integrating biophysical and humansystems as the context of agricultural practice, temporal andspatial scales of assessments from regional to global, issues

11/3/08 10:41:37 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 47

Figure 1-20. Percentage of women in labor force (total and agricultural). Source: World Bank, 2004b;
ILO, 2007.

of values and valuation, dealing with uncertainty, dealing
with different knowledge systems, as well as modeling issues
and developing scenarios.
1.4.2 Working with indicators
What are indicators for? Indicators are used both for specialist purposes and in everyday life. In specialist applications the purposes are defined within the domain of expertise. In everyday life, they form part of the repertoire ofheuristics—simple rules for making decisions when time ispressing, information limited or partial, and deep reflection
a luxury (Gigerenzer et al., 1999). Indicators become partof what we observe in the world around us as we attempt
to detect patterns and extract information relevant to effective action. In this everyday sense, they can be accurate
and powerful (Gigerenzer et al., 1999) but also, if wrongly observed or interpreted, contribute to systemic failures(Dörner, 1996).
Referents and contexts. All indicators require a referent
measurement situation. To allow meaningful interpretationof indicators and utilization that will appropriately inform
policy processes, there is also a need for awareness of thecontext of use. Strictly speaking, indicators require application in a controlled environment (with/without, before/after). Rarely, however, is such a design possible in reality, forobvious practical and ethical reasons. Thus the present assessment has to accept that information is not perfect. One
approach to handle uncertainty is through scenarios thatare built on available indicators and assumptions.
State variables and trend indicators. The IAASTD uses two
kinds of indicators, describing either state or trends. Statevariables, of high precision and generality, tend to be favored in science, as they represent the current state of an
object or process and are thus measurable. In everyday life,

chapter 01.indd 47

there is a strong preference for accurate trend indicators. Especially at policy level, information is required on whether
situations are improving or worsening, and whether policy
objectives are getting closer to their goals or farther away.
Trend indicators tend to focus more on identifying thresholds that might indicate an imminent change of state, andless on constant values—the more favored emphasis of many
sciences. In many usages trend indicators are also used aslearning devices, leading to reestimation of achievement andredefinition of goals as trend data move through time.
Precision, accuracy, and generality. There is agreement in
the philosophy of logic and statistics that precision, accuracy, and generality cannot be simultaneously optimized. Anypair of the three may be. The construction and choice ofindicator thus has to take into consideration which combination is the most pertinent to the problem or situation forwhich the indicator might be used. There is a need to identify appropriate indicators and the relationships of thesewhen used at various spatial and temporal hierarchical levels. This is partly a matter of scale and structure of systems
hierarchies, and partly a matter of whether it is the statevariables or dynamics that the user considers important toobserve and monitor.
The dilemmas of interpretation and meaning
An indicator does not exist independently of the observer:
as mentioned above, a range of pre-analytic choices are
made before an indicator is constructed or brought into use.
These choices are inevitably value-laden, and enriched withmeaning that the indicator itself does not possess. Take,for example, poverty indicators: one can construct incomebased, nutrition-based, gender-based (etc.) indicators. Each
type of indicator both reveals what is important for theuser’s purpose but also conceals what is not considered preanalytically to be of importance.

11/3/08 10:41:38 AM

48 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 1-4. Overview of issues addressed by indicators in the IAASTD framework.
IAASTD framework components
Development and sustainability goals

Issues addressed by indicators• Decreased hunger and poverty• Improved nutrition and human health• Sustainable economic development• Enhanced livelihoods and equity• Environmental sustainability

AKST systems• Research/Innovation policies• Local and institutional setting of AKST
• Social organization• Generation, dissemination, access to, adoption and useof AKST• Agricultural markets

Agricultural outputs and services• Biomass, livestock, fish, crop production• Forestry for food
• Fiber• Carbon sequestration• Energy• Ecosystem services

Indirect drivers• Economic• Demographic• Sociopolitical

Direct drivers• Economic• Demographic• Availability and management of natural resources

Once an indicator is established, multiple issues of interpretation and meaning remain to be solved. Is an increasing
mechanization in agriculture that contributes to increased
area productivity on the one hand, yet increases externalities of various kinds on the other, an indicator of agricultural modernization or an indicator of the increasing lackof sustainability of that particular food system? Available
indicators for agricultural mechanization in most cases provide inadequate information. Only if indicators are placedin a context of meaning determined by prior adoption offrameworks that incorporate value systems and perceptions,can indicators be used for decision making. Unfortunately,
frameworks are rarely articulated explicitly, thereby greatly
decreasing the utility of indicators.
The conceptual framework of IAASTD does indeed provide tools to interpret indicators for agricultural mechanization, for example. While on the one hand, an increase inmechanization could contribute to food production in thecomponent “Development and Sustainability Goals” and“Food System and Agricultural Products and Services”,
on the other hand, such an increase generates a number ofnegative externalities in the component “Direct / Indirect
Drivers”. The four components of the IAASTD conceptual
framework, in turn, influence rules, norms and processes
where actors are involved. This, i.e., the outer ring of thechapter 01.indd 48

AKST component in the conceptual framework, is exactly thelevel at which the implications of a given indicator need to benegotiated, agreed upon and fed into the policy process.
Similarly, an indicator on female employment in agriculture needs to be interpreted in terms of the components ofthe conceptual framework. An increased employment rate
could have a positive impact on family nutrition, but might
be negatively interpreted in terms of an increased workload
for women. Therefore, an interpretation of the meaning of
an indicator as suggested by the outer ring of the conceptual
framework needs to take place in order to equip the indicator with context and meaning.
Expert-based versus participatory indicator construction
and use. Experts use indicators all the time to inform policy and to increase their scientific understanding. These arelegitimate and powerful usages. Problems arise, however,when assumptions are made about indicators as information
tools, and as motivators of the actions of others, because indicators rapidly lose their originally intended meaning when
they are moved to other domains. A further implication of
the IAASTD conceptual framework is that indicators are
powerful in developing our understanding and in motivating reflection and action when they are constructed with,rather than extended to, other actors.

11/3/08 10:41:38 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 49

1.4.3 Indicators in the IAASTD
The scope of the AKST assessment includes the relevance ofagricultural systems and encompasses major aspects of human well-being and environmental sustainability. This extended view of agricultural development is in line with the
major international initiatives addressing sustainable development, such as the MDGs and the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA). The assessment thus suggests indicatorsthat assist in observing critical changes in the area of humandevelopment, the environment, agriculture, and AKST. The
particular challenge for indicators is that they must be able
to link AKST with these three areas of sustainable development in a meaningful way.
This broad, sustainable development-oriented view ofthe process of agricultural development has also been adopted by major international actors in development for the
past two decades, e.g., the Agenda 21 of the UN Conference
on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 andthe World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in2002. The indication of effects of agricultural developmenton the broader aspects of human development and the environment poses major challenges to the identification of
impact and process indicators.
Identification of indicators for the AKST assessment
This global assessment occasionally uses some key indicators to show how different global and sub-global trends anddrivers—including effectiveness of investments in AKST
systems—affect the main agricultural outcomes and services, and more importantly, how they impact on the global
population and their well-being, and on the ecological systems used and/or affected. A global assessment like IAASTD
gains in efficiency and effectiveness if it focuses on a limited
number of representative indicators. Indicators are quantitative and qualitative variables that provide a simple andreliable means to track achievement, reflect changes connected to an intervention or trend, or help assess the performance of an organization, an economic sector, or a policy
measure against set targets and goals. Tracking changes
over time relative to a reference point (“baseline”) using
indicators, can provide useful feedback and help improvedata availability and thus support decision-making at alllevels.
For the purpose of the assessment, two main types ofindicators have been considered:
Impact indicators show impacts of AKST on society and theenvironment in terms of poverty, livelihoods, equity, or
hunger. These impacts are influenced by various technical, environmental and socioeconomic drivers and pressures, e.g., immediate outcomes of AKST investments.
The targets and goals used in this assessment are closely
linked to the internationally agreed MDGs.
Process/performance indicators show the influence of key
drivers on AKST, on AKST and main agricultural outputs/services, and on AKST and human well-being as
defined in the MDGs.
Because of their considerable policy relevance and practicaluse, the selection and presentation of the indicators is of
critical importance in the assessment. However, most of theunderlying data that is needed to derive the desired indica-

chapter 01.indd 49

tors is either organized along individual sectors (agriculture,
health, and environment), or highly aggregated into indexes
like the Human Development Index (HDI) or the Gender
Empowerment Measure (GEM). Therefore, the challenge is
to identify indicators which clearly describe the relationshipbetween agricultural science and technology and sustainable
development in the various aspects described above.
Indicator characteristics. As indicators are used for various
purposes, it is necessary to define general criteria for selecting indicators and validating their choice. Indicators (Hardi
and Zdan, 1997; Prescott-Allen, 2001) can be characterized
by their:
Relevance to measure change: for an indicator to be relevant, it must cover the most important aspects of the
topic “human capacity for AKST”. It must also be asign of the degree to which an objective is met.
Reliability from well-established data sources: an indicator
is likely to be reliable if it is well founded, accurate, andmeasured in a standardized way using an established or
peer-reviewed method, and sound and consistent sampling procedures.
Feasibility: an indicator is feasible if it depends on data thatare readily available or obtainable at reasonable cost.
To be consistent, an indicator must illustrate trends overtime, as well as differences between places and groups ofpeople. The usefulness of indicators depends on how wellthey meet the above criteria. When no direct indicators canbe found that adequately meet these criteria, then indirectindicators or “proxies” and/or a combination of indicatorsor aggregate indices can be used. The selection of variables
and indicators, together with underlying methodologies anddata sets, must also be clearly documented and referenced.
The more rigorous and systematic the choice of indicatorsand indices, the more transparent and consistent an assessment will be. And the more involved decision makers andother stakeholders are in the selection process, the higher
the chance of acceptance of assessment results.
However, three potential problems need to be notedhere:
1. Not all potential indicators are practical: data may not
be available; and data may be either too difficult or
too expensive to collect. For this reason, more distant(proxy) indicators need to be selected. These may not be
the most appropriate and reliable indicators, but they
can be interpreted to reflect the issue being monitored.
For example, if one is comparing innovation levels in
different countries, the proxy indicator of the numberof patents issued per million people per year may be
used to save time and resources, making use of existing
reliable data sources in order to give an approximate
idea of different innovation levels in different countries.
2. Experience with indicator identification for this assessment shows that one cannot expect to find clear andconcise indicators for many of the critical IAASTD areas such as (1) AKST and sustainable development ingeneral, exemplified through the MDGs; (2) AKST andhuman health; (3) AKST and social equity, etc. Therefore, indicators selected for this assessment will often

11/3/08 10:41:39 AM

50 | IAASTD Global Reportneed to compromise between being “exactly wrong or
approximately right”.
3. The time and technical skills required for selecting indicators might make it difficult for decision makers
and stakeholders to participate fully in the selection ofindicators. At the same time, experts carrying out theassessment have the responsibility of ensuring that the
selection of indicators and the assessment as a whole
are technically and scientifically sound.
Hence, in the area of indicators, a way must be foundto maximize both the technical excellence of the assessment
and the commitment of participants from government, civilsociety, and business.
The focus of this assessment on poverty, sustainable livelihoods and sustainable ecosystems marks a clear trend that
future agricultural development is moving away from theexclusive production focus of the past. However, indicators
available today can support assessment of these broadened
goals of agricultural development only partially: more efforts
are needed to develop sufficiently appropriate indicators.
Units of analysis and reporting. The IAASTD uses indicators which measure at several scales, from individual tofarm, nation, region and global levels. Numeric indicators
use metric units while qualitative indicators are descriptive. Information from smaller units will be aggregated up
to sub-global and global assessment levels. The results willthus be generic but presented in such a way that it makes
sense to other units of analysis.
Dealing with systems
The IAASTD basically deals with two different sets of systems, a biophysical and a socioeconomic set. On the one
hand, there is the biophysical set with the underlying ecosystem in which the agricultural system and the unit-based
production system is established. Primary ecosystems havebeen altered to a greater or lesser extent by agricultural
production systems that define themselves according toeconomic criteria of efficiency as opposed to the multifunctional character of ecosystems. Usually, forest ecosystems
are converted into grassland for livestock rearing, or a system with bare soils for cultivation. Depending on the capacity and suitability of this new agricultural land, production
takes place over shorter or longer periods of time, from asingle or a few years to decades and even centuries on themost suitable land. Assessing the future of these production
systems requires taking into account their current suitability, including the degradation of ecosystems or parts thereof
which has taken place, and the potential of these land areas
to support agricultural production of goods. In addition,
the multifunctional character of ecosystems has to be considered as a crucial aspect important to societies and theglobal community.
On the other hand, political, economic, social and cultural sets of systems shape human livelihoods and agricultural production systems in the different contexts in which
the latter operate. A large disparity exists between thesecontexts. A majority of agricultural workers are poor smallscale farmers in developing countries, with a high degreeof dependence on subsistence systems, i.e., production bychapter 01.indd 50

households for their own consumption, and a high degree of
dependence on both the biophysical and socioeconomic systems. A minority of agricultural workers live on larger production units and in industrialized nations, profiting fromwealthy economies and a variety of subsidies to maintaintheir production and/or production systems. Assessing thefuture of agricultural systems will require thorough analysis and evaluation of these different contexts and the livelihoods derived from them through agricultural activities.
Many of these contexts and systems are evolutionary;shifts in parameters must be expected, and the state of natural and human environments will continuously change, be
it through factors such as opportunity (e.g., new business
options or access to new resources) or constraints (such as
further decapitalization of small-scale farmers). The degrees
of uncertainty are rather great and difficult to foresee.
Dealing with scales (spatial and temporal)
Assessments need to be conducted at spatial and temporalscales appropriate to the process or phenomenon being examined. Analysis of issues must take place across several
spatial scales simultaneously because an analysis at a single
scale will miss important interactions. For example, national policies embedded in a global system have an impact on
local decisions regarding AKST. Moreover, vulnerabilities
are related to various scales. A comparison of a larger scale
poultry production system with a decentralized backyard
poultry system reveals different scales. While an infectionof the former system is relatively easy to prevent, a possible
outbreak would be catastrophic. In the latter system an infection of the flock is harder to prevent while an outbreakwould affect a smaller number of poultry. Most of the analysis in the IAASTD is carried out at national and regional
levels, but informed by experience from ground realities.
The IAASTD is structured as a multiscale assessment inorder to enable its findings to be of greater use at the many
levels of decision-making. A global assessment cannot meetthe needs of local farmers, nor can a local assessment meetthe collective needs of parties to a global convention. A multiscale assessment can also help remedy the biases that are
inevitably introduced when an evaluation is done at a single
geographic scale. For example, while a national AKST assessment might identify substantial national benefits from aparticular policy change, a local assessment would be more
likely to identify whether that particular community might
be a winner or loser as a result of the policy change. For
example, in contrast to privately funded research, where thedonor derives benefits, benefits derived from public goods
research does not go to the funding agency itself, rather toother members of society, and there is no direct incentive to
do more (CGIAR Science Council, 2005).
Dealing with values and valuation
The IAASTD deals with two valuation paradigms at thesame time. The utilitarian paradigm is based on the principle of human preference for satisfaction (welfare). AKST
systems provide value to human societies because people derive utility from their use, either directly or indirectly. Within this utilitarian concept of value, people also give value
to AKST aspects that they are not currently using (non-use
values), for example people value education systems even

11/3/08 10:41:39 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 51

though they themselves have completed their school education. Non-use values often rely on deeply held historical,
national, ethical, religious, and spiritual values. A different,
non-utilitarian value paradigm holds that something canhave intrinsic value; that is, it can be of value in and for itself, irrespective of its utility for someone else. For example,
birds are valuable, regardless of what people think about
them. The utilitarian and non-utilitarian value paradigms
overlap and interact in many ways, but they use different
metrics, with no common denominator, and cannot usually
be aggregated, although both value paradigms are used indecision-making processes.
How decisions are made will depend on the value systems
endorsed in each society, the conceptual tools and methods
at their disposal, and the information available. Making theappropriate choices requires, among other things, reliable
information on current conditions and trends of ecosystems
and on the economic, political, social, and cultural consequences of alternative courses of action. Assessments strive
to be value free, using evidence-driven results. But in fact,
all people involved in assessments come with value systems
and need to explicitly state these values wherever they are
at work. Another way to take advantage of different waysof thinking is to create diversity in the assessment in termsof background, region, gender, and experience in order tobalance views.
Dealing with different knowledge systems
The IAASTD aims to incorporate both formal scientific information and traditional or local knowledge. Traditionalsocieties have nurtured and refined systems of knowledge ofdirect value to those societies and their production systems,
but also of considerable value to assessments undertaken
at regional and global scales. To be credible and useful todecision makers, all sources of information, whether from scientific, local, or practitioner knowledge, must be critically assessed and validated as part of the assessment process throughprocedures relevant to the specific form of knowledge.
Substantial knowledge concerning both AKST and policy interventions is held within the private (and public) sec-

tor by “practitioners” of AKST, yet only a small proportionof this information is ever published in scientific literature,and much is kept in less accessible gray literature. Again,
broad participation can help include as many sources ofknowledge as possible.
Effective incorporation of different types of knowledge
in an assessment can both improve the findings and help toincrease their adoption by stakeholders if the latter believethat their information has contributed to those findings. At
the same time, no matter what sources of knowledge areincorporated in an assessment, effective mechanisms mustbe established to judge whether the information provides asound basis for decisions.
Modeling issues
Models are used in the IAASTD to analyze interactions
between processes, fill data gaps, identify regions for datacollection priority, or synthesize existing observations into
appropriate indicators of ecosystem services. Models also
provide the foundations for elaborating scenarios. As a result, models will play a synthesizing and integrative role in
the IAASTD, complementing data collection and analyticalefforts.
It is relevant to note that all models have built-in uncertainties linked to inaccurate or missing input data,
weaknesses in driving forces, uncertain parameter values,
simplified model structure, and other intrinsic model properties. One way of dealing with this uncertainty in the IAASTD
is to encourage the use of alternative models for computing
the same ecosystem services and then compare the resultsof these models. Having at least two independent sets ofcalculations can add confidence to the robustness of model
calculations, although it will not eliminate uncertainty.
It should be stressed that the majority of “human systemmodels” focus on economic efficiency and the economically
optimal use of natural resources. Thus the broader issuesof human well-being, including such factors as freedom of
choice, security, equity and health, will require a generationof new models. To deal with these issues IAASTD must relyon qualitative analysis.

References
Abler, D. 2004. Multifunctionality, agricultural
policy, and environmental policy. Agric.
Resour. Econ. Rev. 33(1):8-17.
Ali, M., and D. Byerlee. 2002. Productivity
growth and resource degradation in
Pakistan’s Punjab: A decomposition analysis.
Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 50(4):839-863.
Anh, M.T.P., M. Ali, H.L. Ahn, and T.T.T. Hua.
2004. Urban and peri-urban agriculture in
Hanoi: Resources and opportunities for foodproduction. Tech. Bull. 26. AVRDC, Tainan.
Anriquez, G., and G. Bonomi. 2007. Long-term
farming trends: An inquiry using agricultural
censuses: ESA Working Pap. No. 07-20.
Agric. Dev. Econ. Div., FAO, Rome.
Antle, J.M., D.C. Cole, and C.C. Crissman.
1998. Further evidence on pesticides,
productivity and farmer health: Potato

chapter 01.indd 51

production in Ecuador. Agric. Econ.
2(18):199-208.
Basu, K. 1986. The market for land: An analysis
for interim transactions. J. Dev. Econ.
20(1):163-177.
Bathia, A., H. Pathak, and P.K. Aggarwal. 2004.
Inventory of methane and nitrous oxide
emissions from agricultural soils of India andtheir global warming potential. Curr. Sci.
87(3):317-324.
Baumert, K.A., T. Herzog, and J. Pershing. 2005.
Navigating the numbers: Greenhouse gas
data and international climate policy. World
Resour. Inst., Washington DC.
Berndes, G., M. Hoogwijk, and R. van den
Broek. 2003. The contribution of biomass inthe future global energy supply: A review of
17 studies. Biomass Bioenergy 25:1-28.

BFS. 2006. Statistical data on Farming andForestry. (In German or French). Available
at http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/07.html. Swiss Fed. Stat. Off.,
Neuchâtel.
Black, J. 2003. A dictionary of economics.
Available at http://www.oxfordreference.com/
views/ENTRY.html?entry=t19.e2083&srn=2&ssid=205945865#FIRSTHIT. Oxford Ref.
Online, Oxford Univ. Press, UK.
Blaikie P., K. Brown, M. Stocking, L. Tang,
P. Dixon, and P. Sillitoe. 1997. Knowledge inaction: Local knowledge as a development
resource and barriers to its incorporation innatural resource research and development.
Agric. Syst. 55:217-237.
Blaikie, P., and H. Brookfield. 1987. Landdegradation and society. Methuen, London.

11/3/08 10:41:39 AM

52 | IAASTD Global Report

Bonfiglioli, A. 2004. Land of the poor.
Local environmental governance and thedecentralized management of natural
resources. UN Capital Dev. Fund, NY.
Boserup, E. 1965. The conditions of agricultural
growth: The economics of agrarian change
under population pressure. George Allen and
Unwin, London.
Bravo-Ortega, C., and D. Ledermann. 2005.
Agriculture and national welfare aroundthe world: Causality and international
heterogeneity since 1960. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Brookes, G., and P. Barfoot. 2006. GM crops:
The first ten years: global, socio-economicand environmental impacts. Brief No. 36.
ISAAA, Ithaca.
Brookfield H., H. Parsons, and M. Brookfield(ed) 2003. Agrodiversity: Learning fromfarmers across the world. UN Univ. Press,
Tokyo.
Burke, L., Y. Kura, K. Kassem, M. Spalding,
C. Revenga, and D. McAllister. 2001. Pilot
analysis of global ecosystems: Coastal ecosystems.
World Resour. Inst., Washington DC.
Byerlee, D., and G. Alex. 2003. Designinginvestments in agricultural research forenhanced poverty impacts. ARD Working
Pap. No. 6. World Bank, Washington DC.
Byerlee, D., X. Diao, and Ch. Jackson. 2005.
Agriculture, rural development, and pro-poor
growth: Country experiences in the postreform era. ARD Disc. Pap. 21. World Bank,
Washington DC.
CA. 2007. Water for food, water for life:
A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earthscan and
IWMI, London and Colombo.
Cassman, K.G., A. Dobermann, D.T. Walters,and H. Yang. 2003. Meeting cereal demand
while protecting natural resources andimproving environmental quality. Ann. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 28:315-358.
Caulfield, L.E., M. de Onis, M. Blössner, andR.E. Black. 2004. Undernutrition as anunderlying cause of child deaths associatedwith diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria andmeasles. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 80:193-8.
CBD. 2006. Global Biodiversity Outlook
2. Convention on Biological Diversity,
Montreal.
CDE. 2002. NRM - Natural resource
management. Available at http://www.cde.unibe.ch/Themes/NRM_Th.asp. Centre forDev. Environ., Berne.
CGIAR. 2005. Systemwide program onparticipatory research and gender analysis.
Available at http://www.prgaprogram.org/.
CGIAR, Rome.
CGIAR Science Council. 2005. Science for
agricultural development: Changing
contexts, new opportunities. Science Council
Secretariat, Rome.
Chambers, R., and G. Conway. 1991.
Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practicalconcepts for the 21st century. IDS Disc. Pap.
296. Inst. Dev. Studies, Brighton.

chapter 01.indd 52

CIFOR. 2006. Earning a living from the forest.
Available at http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/
Publications/Corporate/FactSheet/livelihood.
htm. CIFOR, Bogor Barat.
COAG. 2005. The globalizing livestock sector:
Impact of changing markets. Comm. Agric.,
FAO, Rome.
Codex Alementarius Commission. 2001.
Organically produced foods. FAO and
WHO, Rome.
Cole, D.C., S. Sherwood, C. Crissman,
V. Barrera, and P. Espinosa. 2002. Pesticides
and health in highland Ecuadorian
potato production: Assessing impacts anddeveloping responses. Int J. Occup Med.
Environ. Health 8(3):182-190.
Colfer, C.J.P. 2005. The complex forest:
Communities, uncertainties, and adaptive
collaborative management. RFF Press,
Washington DC.
Commission for Africa. 2005. Our common
interest. Rep. Commission for Africa. DFID,
London.
Commoner, B. 1990. Making peace with theplanet. Pantheon, NY.
Conway, G. 1999. The doubly green revolution:
Food for all in the 21st century. Cornell Univ.
Press, Ithaca.
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber,
M. Grasso, B. Hannon et al. 1997. The valueof the world’s ecosystem services and natural
capital. Nature 387:253-260.
Delgado, C.L., N. Nikolas, M.W. Rosegrant,
S. Meijer, and A. Mahfuzuddin. 2003. Fish
to 2020: Supply and demand in changing
global markets. IFPRI and WorldFish Center,
Washington DC and Penang.
DeRose, L., E. Messer, and S. Millman. 1998.
Who’s hungry and how do we know? Foodshortage, poverty and deprivation. UN Univ.
Press, Tokyo.
DFID. 2001. Sustainable livelihoods guidance
sheets. Sec. 8, Glossary. DFID, London.
Dixon, J., A. Gulliver, and D. Gibbon. 2001.
Farming systems and poverty: Improving
farmers’ livelihoods in a changing
world. FAO and World Bank, Rome andWashington DC.
Dolberg, F. 2001. A livestock development
approach that contributes to poverty
alleviation and widespread improvement of
nutrition among the poor. Livestock Res.
Rural Dev. 13(5).
Dörner, D. 1996. The logic of failure.
Recognising and avoiding error in complex
situations. Metropolitan Books, NY.
Dove, M. R., and D.M. Kammen. 1997. The
epistemology of sustainable resource use:
Managing forest products, swiddens, andhigh-yielding variety crops. Human Organ.
56:91-101.
Eastwood, R., M. Lipton, and A. Newell. 2004.
Farm size. Available at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/PRU/farm_size.pdf. Univ.
Sussex, UK.
Edmeades, G.O., J. Bolanos, S.C. Chapman,
H.R. Lafitte, and M. Bänziger. 1999.

Selection improves drought tolerance intropical maize populations. Crop Sci.
39(5):1306-1315.
Engel, P.G.H. 1997. The social organizationof innovation: A focus on stakeholderinteraction. Roy. Trop. Inst., KIT Press,
Amsterdam.
Ericksen, P.J. 2006. Conceptualizing foodsystems for global environmental change(GEC) research. GECAFS Working Pap. 2.
Global Environ. Change Food Syst., Environ.
Change Inst., Oxford.
ETC-Netherlands. 2003. Annotated Bibliography
on Urban Agriculture. ETC-Netherlands
Urban Agric. Prog., Leusden.
Evenson, R., and D. Gollin. 2003. Assessing theimpact of the green revolution, 1960-2000.
Science 300(5620):758-762.
Ezzati, M., A. Rodgers, A.D. Lopez, S.V. Hoorn,
and C.J.L. Murray. 2004. Mortality andburden of disease attributable to individual
risk factors. In Comparative quantificationof health risks: Global and regional burdenof disease attributable to selected major risk
factors, Vol. 2, Chap. 26. WHO, Geneva.
Falkenmark, M. 1995. Coping with water
scarcity under rapid population growth.
SADC Ministers Conf., Pretoria, 23-24 Nov
1995.
FAO. 1996a. Control of water pollution fromagriculture: FAO Irrig. Drainage Pap. 55.
FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1996b. Global plan of action for theconservation and sustainable utilizationof plant genetic resources for food andagriculture. Available at http://www.fao.org/
ag/AGP/AGPS/GpaEN/gpatoc.htm. FAO,Rome.
FAO. 2000. The state of food and agriculture:
Lessons from the past 50 years. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2001a. Genetically modified organisms,
consumers, food safety and the environment.
FAO Ethics Series. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2001b. Women, agriculture and foodsecurity. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2001c. Supplement to the report on the1990 World Census of Agriculture. FAO,Rome.
FAO. 2003. Report of the panel of eminent
experts on ethics in food and agriculture,
Second Session, 18-20 March 2002. FAO,Rome.
FAO. 2004a. The state of food and agriculture
2003: Agricultural biotechnology: Meetingthe needs of the poor? FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2004b. The state of world fisheries andaquaculture. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2004c. World census on agriculture, 1980,
1990, 2000 rounds. Available at http://www.
fao.org/es/ess/census/wcares/default.asp. FAO
Statistics Division, Rome.
FAO. 2005a. The state of food and agriculture.
Agricultural trade and poverty: Can trade
work for the poor? FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005b. Global forest resource assessment
2005: Progress towards sustainable forest
management. FAO, Rome.

11/3/08 10:41:40 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 53

FAO. 2006a. The state of food and agriculture
2006: Food aid for food security? FAO.
Rome.
FAO. 2006b. The State of world fisheries andaquaculture. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2006c. State of world aquaculture 2006:
Fish. Tech. Pap. 500. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2006d. Global forest resources assessment
2005: Progress towards sustainable forest
management: FAO For. Pap. 147. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2007a. State of the world’s forests 2007.
FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2007b. Yearbook of fishery statistics :Summary tables. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.
org/fi/stat/summary/default.htm. FAO, Rome.
FAO-CDP. 2007. FAO Corporate document
repository: Fact sheet Egypt and Fact sheet
Benin. Available at www.fao.org/docrep/
V9648e/v9648e01.htm and www.fao.org/
docrep/V7948e/v7948e.02.htm. FAO, Rome.
FAO-Gender. 2007. FAO Gender and foodsecurity in agriculture. Available at www.fao.
org/GENDER7en/agrib4-e.htm. FAO, Rome.
FAOSTAT. 2006. FAO statistical databases of
the FAO. Available at http://faostat.fao.org/.
FAO, Rome.
Farrington, J., I. Christoplos, A.D. Kidd, and
M. Beckman. 2002. Extension, poverty andvulnerability: The scope for policy reform:
Final report of a study for the Neuchâtel
Initiative. Overseas Dev. Inst., London.
GACGC. 1994. World in transition: The threat
to soils: Annual report. German Advisory
Council Glob. Change, Bonn.
García, Z. 2005. Impact of agricultural trade on
gender equity and rural women’s position indeveloping countries. FAO, Rome.
Gaventa, J. 1998. The scaling up andinstitutionalization of PRA: Lessons andchallenges. p. 153-166. In P. Blackburn, andJ. Holland (ed) Who changes? Institutionalizing
participation in development. Intermediate
Tech. Publ., London.
Gereffi, G., J. Humphrey, R. Kaplisky, andT.J. Sturgeon. 2001. Introduction:
Globalisation, value chains and development:
IDS Bulletin 32(3). Inst. Dev. Studies, Univ.
Sussex, UK.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny,
S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow.
1994. The new production of knowledge.
Sage Publ., London.
Gigerenzer, G., P.M. Todd, and the ABC
Research Group. 1999. Simple heuristics thatmake us smart. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
Gitay, H. 2005. Assessment process forComprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture: Meeting of
the working group on water pricing in
agriculture. Montpellier, 3-4 June. Available
at http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/files/
montpellier/assessment/process/203.1.ppt.
CA Secretariat, Colombo.
Global Monitoring Report. 2006. Millennium
development goals: Strengthening mutual
accountability, aid, trade, and governance.
World Bank, Washington DC.

chapter 01.indd 53

Glowka, L., F. Burhenne-Guilmin, H. Synge(with J.A. McNeely and L. Gundling). 1994.
A guide to the Convention on Biological
Diversity: Environmental Policy Law Pap.
No. 30. The World Conserv. Union, Gland.
Gong, Y., A. Hounsa, S. Egal, P.C. Turner,
A.E. Sutcliffe, A.J. Hall et al. 2004.
Postweaning exposure to aflatoxin resultsin impaired child growth: A longitudinal
study in Benin, West Africa. Environ. Health
Perspect. 112:1334-38.
Graham, T., E. van de Fliert, and D. Campilan.
2001. What happened to participatory
research at the International Potato Center?
Agric. Human Values 18:429-446.
Grainger, R.J.R., and S.M. Garcia. 1996.
Chronicles of marine fishery landings (195094): Trend analysis and fisheries potential.
FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. No. 359. FAO, Rome.
GTZ. 2006. Policies against hunger v. foodsecurity and poultry production: How tocope with Avian Influenza. Int. Workshop.
19-20 October 2006, Berlin. GTZ, Berlin.
Haddad, L.J. 2000. A conceptual framework forassessing agriculture-nutrition linkages. Food
Nutr. Bull. 21(4):367-373.
Haggblade, S., P. Hazell, I. Kirsten, and
R. Mkandawire. 2004. African agriculture:
Past performance, future imperatives. In
S. Haggblade (ed) Building on successes inAfrican agriculture. 2020 Focus No. 12.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Hardi, P., and T. Zdan (ed) 1997. Assessing
sustainable development: Principles inpractice. Int. Inst. Sustain. Dev., Winnipeg.
Hazell, P. 1999. Agricultural growth, poverty
alleviation, and environmental sustainability:
Having it all. 2020 Brief No. 59, March
1999. IFPRI, Washington DC.
HDR. 2006. Human development report.
Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and theglobal water crisis. UNDP, New York.
Hertel, Th.W., M. Ivanic, P.V. Preckel, and
J.A.L. Cranfield. 2004. The earnings
effects of multilateral trade liberalization:
Implications for poverty. World Bank Econ.
Rev. 18(2):205-236.
Heymann, D.L. 2002. Food safety, an essential
public health priority. Available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/004/Y3680E/
Y3680E05.htm. FAO, Rome.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., D. Bradley, C. Pohl, S. Rist,
and U. Wiesmann. 2006. Implications oftransdisciplinarity for sustainability research.
Ecol. Econ. 60(1):119-128.
Horiuchi, S. 1999. Epidemiological transitions indeveloped countries: Past, present and future.
p. 54-71. In J. Chamie, and R. Cliquet(ed) Health and mortality: Issues of global
concern. CBGS, Flemish Sci. Inst., NY and
Leuven.
Hurni, H. (with assistance from contributors).
1996. Precious earth: From soil andwater conservation to sustainable land
management. Int. Soil Conserv. Org. Centre
Dev. Environ., Wageningen and Berne.
Hurni, H., U. Christ, J.A. Lys, D. Maselli,and U. Wiesmann. 2001. The challenges
in enhancing research capacity. p. 50-58.
In KFPE. Enhancing research capacity
in developing and transition countries:
Experience, discussions, strategies andtools for building research capacity
and strengthening institutions in viewof promoting research for sustainable
development. Geo. Bernensia, Berne.
Hurni, H., and U. Wiesmann. 2004. Towards
transdisciplinarity in sustainability-oriented
research for development. p. 31-42. In
H. Hurni et al. (ed) Research for mitigating
syndromes of global change: Perspectives of
the Swiss NCCR North-South, Vol.1. Univ.
Berne, Geo. Bernensia, Berne.
Huvio, T., J. Kola, and T. Lundström (ed) 2005.
Proc. Seminar. Haikko, Finland, 18-19 Oct.
2004. Agric. Policy Publ. No. 38. Dep. Econ.
Manage., Univ. Helsinki.
IAC. 2004. Realizing the promise andpotential of African agriculture: Scienceand technology strategies for improving
agricultural productivity and food security
in Africa. InterAcademy Council Secretariat,
Amsterdam.
ICSU. 2003. Optimizing knowledge in theinformation society. Int. Council Science, Paris.
ICTSD. 2006. Fisheries, international trade andsustainable development: Policy Disc. Pap.
Int. Centre Trade Sustain. Dev., Geneva.
IFAD. 1998. Ghana — Women’s contribution tohousehold food security. Available at http://
www.ifad.org/hfs/learning/46.htm. IFAD, Rome.
IFAD. 2003. Promoting market access for therural poor in order to achieve the millennium
development goals: Disc. Pap. Available at
http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/gc/26/e/markets.
pdf. IFAD, Rome.
IFPRI. 2005. South Asia. Agricultural and ruraldevelopment. Proc. Seminars. New Delhi,
Lahore, Chennai, Dhaka. IFPRI, Washington
DC.
ILO. 1962. Convention concerning basic aims
and standards of social policy: Convention
No. 117. ILO, Geneva.
ILO. 1999. Safety and health in agriculture:
Int. Labour Conf., 88th Session, Geneva.
30 May-15 June, 2000. Rep. VI (1). ILO,
Geneva.
ILO. 2000. Occupational safety and health inagriculture. Available at http://www.ilo.
org/public/english/protection/safework/
agriculture/intro.htm. ILO, Geneva.
ILO. 2004. World Employment Report:
Employment Productivity and Poverty
Reduction. ILO, Geneva.
ILO. 2005. HIV/AIDS and employment.
ILOAIDS brief, September. ILO, Geneva.
ILO. 2006. The end of child labour within reach.
Int. Labour Conf., 95th Session, 2006, Rep.
1(B). ILO, Geneva.
ILO. 2007. Global employment trends. Available
at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/
employment/strat/global.htm. ILO, Geneva.
IOM. 2007. Migration initiatives appeal 2007.
Int. Org. Migration, Geneva.

11/3/08 10:41:40 AM

54 | IAASTD Global Report

IUCN. 2005. Healthy corals fared best against
tsunami. Press release. Available at http://
www.iucn.org/en/news/archive/2005/12/
cordio_iucn_report_2005.pdf. The World
Conservation Union, Gland.
Kent, G. 2003. Principles for food trade. SCN
News (26):43-44.
Kurien, J. 2006. Achieving a sustainable global
fish trade. Id21 insights 65:4.
Lambrou, Y., and G. Piana. 2006. Energy
and gender issues in rural sustainable
development. FAO, Rome.
Leakey, R.R.B., and P.A. Sanchez. 1997. How
many people use agroforestry products?
Agrofor. Today 9:4-5.
Lilja, N., J.A. Ashby, and L. Sperling (ed) 2000.
Proceedings of the seminar on assessing theimpact of participatory research and genderanalysis Sept 1998, Quito. CGIAR, Cali.
Linares, O.F. 1985. Cash crops and genderconstructs: The Jola (Diola) of Senegal.
Ethnology 24(2):83-93.
Liniger, H.P., and W. Critchley. 2007. Where theland is greener: Case studies and analysis
of soil and water conservation initiatives
worldwide. Centre Dev. Environ., Berne.
LivestockNet. 2006. Livestock production and
the Millennium Development Goals: The roleof livestock for pro-poor growth. Available at
http://www.livestocknet.ch/ne_news.htm. Swiss
College Agriculture/InfoAgrar, Zollikofen.
Lund, H.G. and S. Iremonger. 1998. Omissions,commissions, and decisions: The needfor integrated resource assessments. p.
182-189. In Environmental ResearchInstitute of Michigan (ed) Proc. Int. Conf.
Geospatial Information in Agriculture andForestry. Decision Support, Technology andApplications. Lake Buena Vista, Florida, 1-3
June. 1998. ERIM Int., Ann Arbor.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment).
2003. Ecosystems and human well-being:
A framework for assessment. Island Press,
Washington DC.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005a.
Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis.
Island Press, Washington DC.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005b.
Our human planet: Summary for decision
makers. Island Press, Washington DC.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005c.
Ecosystems and human well-being: Current
states and trends. Vol. 1. Island Press,
Washington DC.
Malik, R.K., A. Yadav, and S. Singh. 2005.
Resource conservation technologies in ricewheat cropping systems in Indo-Gangetic
Plains. In I.P. Abrol et al. (ed), Conservation
agriculture: Status and prospects. Center
Advance. Sustainable Agric., New Delhi.
Matthews, E., R. Payne, M. Rohweder, andS. Murray. 2000. Pilot analysis of global
ecosystems: Forest ecosystems. World
Resourc. Inst., Washington DC.
Mazoyer, M. 2001. Protecting small farmers andthe rural poor in the context of globalization.
FAO, Rome.

chapter 01.indd 54

Mazoyer, M., and L. Roudard. 1997. History of
the world’s agriculture. (In French). Editions
du Seuil, Paris.
McC Netting, R. 1993. Smallholders,householders: Farm families and the ecology
of intensive, sustainable agriculture. Stanford
Univ. Press, CA.
McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary,
D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White (ed) 2001.
Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptationand vulnerability. Third Assessment Report
IPCC. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
McNeely, J.A., H.A. Mooney, L.E. Neville,
P.J. Schei, and J.K. Waage (ed) 2001. Global
strategy on invasive alien species. The World
Conservation Union and Global Invasive
Species Prog., Cambridge.
Messer, E., and L.F DeRose. 1998. Foodshortage. p. 53-91. In L. DeRose et al. (ed)Who’s hungry and how do we know? Foodshortage, poverty and deprivation. UN Univ.
Press, Tokyo.
Minten, B., L. Randrianarison, and J.F.M.
Swinnen. 2006. Global retail chains andpoor farmers: Evidence from Madagaskar.
LICOS Disc. Pap. 164. Centre for Transition
Economies, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven.
Molden, D., and C. de Fraiture. 2004. Investingin water for food, ecosystems and livelihoods:
Blue Pap. CA, IWMI, Colombo.
Molnar, A., S.J. Scherr, and A. Khare. 2005.
Who conserves the world’s forests? A newassessment of conservation and investment
trends. Forest Trends and Ecoagriculture
Partners, Washington DC.
Moss, R.H., and S.H. Schneider. 2000.
Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR:
Recommendations to lead authors for moreconsistent assessment and reporting. p. 33-51.
In R. Pachauri et al. (ed) Guidance papers on
the cross-cutting issues of the third assessment
report of the IPCC. WMO, Geneva.
Mougeot, L. 2000. Urban agriculture: Definition,
presence, potentials and risks. In N. Bakker
et al. (ed) Growing cities, growing food.
Deutsche Stiftung für Entwicklung, Feldafing.
Müller, C. 2006. Synthesis and conclusion.
p. 331-352. In S. Premchander, and C. Müller(ed) Gender and sustainable development:
Case studies from NCCR North-South.
Perspectives of the Swiss NCCR North-South,
Univ. Bern, Vol.2. Geo. Bernensia, Berne.
Nagayets, O. 2005. Small farms: Current status
and key trends. Information brief. Future of
Small Farms Research Workshop. Wye,
26-29 June. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Nazarea, V.D. (ed) 1999. Ethnoecology: Situatedknowledge/located lives. Univ. Arizona Press,
Tucson.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2003.
“Mode 2” revisited: The new production ofknowledge. Minerva 41:179-194.
ODI. 2002. Rethinking rural development.
Briefing Pap. March. Overseas Dev. Inst.,
London.
OECD. 1998. Reaching the goals in the S-21:
Gender equality and the environment.

Working Party on Gender Equality. OECD,
Paris.
OECD. 2005. Multifunctionality in agriculture:
What role for private initiatives? OECD,
Paris.
Oldeman, L.R. 1994. The global extent of soil
degradation. p. 99-118. In D.J. Greenland and
I. Szabolcs (ed) Soil resilience and sustainable
land use. CABI, Wallingford.
Oldeman, L.R., R.T.A. Hakkeling, andW.G. Sombroek. 1991. World map of thestatus of human-induced soil degradation:
An explanatory note. Int. Soil Reference andInformation Centre and UNEP, Wageningen
and Nairobi.
Olesen, I., A.F. Groen, and B. Gjerde. 2000.
Definition of animal breeding goals forsustainable production systems. J. Anim. Sci.
78:570-582.
Olson, D.M., and E. Dinerstein. 1998. The
global 200: A representation approach toconserving the earth’s most biologicallyvaluable ecoregions. Conserv. Biol.
12(3):502-515.
Ormerod, S.J., E. J. P. Marshall, G. Kerby and
S. P. Rushton. 2003. Meeting the ecologicalchallenges of agricultural change: Editors’
introduction. J. Appl. Ecol. 40, 939-946.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The
evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Pahl-Wostl, C., and M. Hare. 2004. Processesof social learning in integrated resourcesmanagement. J. Community Appl. Soc.
Psychol. 14:193-206.
Pardey, P.G., N.M. Bientema, S. Dehmer, andS. Wood. 2006. Agricultural research: A
growing global divide? IFPRI Food Policy
Rep. IFPRI, Washington, D.C.
Parry, M., C. Rosenzweig, and M. Livermore.
2007. Climate change, global food supply
and risks of hunger. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
Lond., Ser. B. 360(1463):2125-2136.
Penning de Vries, F.W.T., H. Acquay, D. Molden,
S.J. Scherr, C. Valentin, and O. Cofie. 2003.
Integrated land and water management
for food and environmental security: CA
Res. Rep. 1. Comprehensive Assessment
Secretariat, Colombo.
Pieri, C., G. Evers, J. Landers, P. O’Connell,and E. Terry. 2002. No-till farming forsustainable rural development. ARD Working
Pap. World Bank, Washington DC.
Pimentel, D., S. McNair, J. Janecka, J.
Wightman, C. Simmonds, C. O’Connell et al.
2001. Economic and environmental threatsof alien plant, animal and microbe invasions.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 84:1-20.
Postel, S. 1999. Pillar of sand: Can the irrigation
miracle last? Worldwatch and W.W. Norton,NY.
Prescott-Allen, R. 2001. The wellbeing of
nations: A country by country index ofquality of life and the environment. Island
Press, Washington DC.
Prüss-Üstün, A., and C. Corvalán. 2006. Preventing
disease through healthy environments. Towards

11/3/08 10:41:41 AM

Context, Conceptual Framework and Sustainability Indicators | 55

an estimate of the environmental burden of
disease. WHO, Geneva.
Reardon, T., J. Berdegué, and J. Farrington.
2002. Supermarkets and farming in Latin
America: Pointing directions for elsewhere?
Perspectives 81 (Dec). DFID, London.
Reardon, T., J.-M. Codron, L. Busch, J. Bingen,
and C. Harris. 2001. Global change inagrifood grades and standards: Agribusinessstrategic responses in developing countries.
Int. Food Agrib. Manage. Rev. 2(3).
Reardon, T., C.P. Timmer, C.B. Barrett, andJ. Berdegué. 2003. The rise of supermarkets
in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Am. J.
Agric. Econ. 85(5):1140-1146.
Revenga, C., J. Brunner, N. Henninger, K.
Kassem, and R. Payne. 2000. Pilot analysisof global ecosystems: Freshwater systems.
World Resourc. Inst., Washington DC.
Rice, A.L., L. Sacco, A. Hyder, and R.E. Black.
2000. Malnutrition as an underlying cause ofchildhood deaths associated with infectious
diseases in developing countries. Bull. WHO
78(10):1207-1221.
Rist, S., M. Chiddambaranathan, C. Escobar,
U. Wiesmann, and A. Zimmermann. 2006.
Moving from sustainable management tosustainable governance of natural resources:
The role of social learning processes inrural India, Bolivia and Mali. J. Rural Stud.
23(1):23-37.
Rist, S., and F. Dahdouh-Guebas. 2006.
Ethnosciences: A step towards the integrationof scientific and non-scientific forms ofknowledge in the management of natural
resources for the future. Environ. Dev. Sust.
8(4):467-493.
Rist, S., F. Delgado, and U. Wiesmann. 2003.
The role of social learning processes in theemergence and development of Aymara land
use systems. Mountain Res. Dev. 23:263-270.
Rockström, J. 1999. On-farm green water
estimates as a tool for increased foodproduction in water scarce regions. Phys.
Chem. Earth 24(4):375-383.
Röling, N., and A. Wagemakers (ed) 2000.
Facilitating sustainable agriculture:
Participatory learning and adaptive
management in times of environmental
uncertainty. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
Röling, N., and E. Van de Fliert. 1994.
Transforming extension for sustainableagriculture: The case of integrated pest
management in rice in Indonesia. Agric.
Human Values 11(2- 3):96-108.
Rosegrant, M.W., and P.B.R. Hazell. 2001.
Transforming the rural Asian economy: The
unfinished revolution: 2020 Vision Brief 69.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Rosegrant, M.W., C. Ringler, T. Benson,
X. Diao, D. Resnick, J. Thurlow et al. 2006.
Agriculture and achieving the Millennium
Development Goals. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Sanders, D.W., P.C. Huszar, S. Sombatpanit,
and T. Enters. 1999. Incentives in soil
conservation. Science Publ., Enfield.

chapter 01.indd 55

Savenije, H.H.G., and P. van der Zaag. 2000.
Conceptual framework for the managementof shared river basins. Water Policy 2:9-45.
Scherr, S., A. White, A. Khare, M. Inbar, and
A. Molnar. 2004. For services rendered: The
current status and future potential of markets
for the ecosystem services provided byforests. Tech. Ser. No. 21. Int. Trop. Timber
Org., Yokohama.
Scherr, S.J. 1999. Soil degradation: A threat
to developing-country food security? 2020
Vision Food Agric. Environ. Disc. Pap. No.
27. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Schroeder, D.G., and K.H. Brown. 1994.
Nutritional status as a predictor of childsurvival: Summarizing the association andquantifying its global impact. Bull. WHO
72(4):569-79.
Scoones, I., and J. Thompson. 1994. Knowledge,
power and agriculture: Towards a theoreticalunderstanding. p. 16-31. In I. Scoones and
J. Thompson (ed) Beyond farmers first: Rural
people’s knowledge, agricultural research andextension practice. Intermediate Tech. Publ.,
IIED, London.
Seale, Jr., J., A. Regmi, and J. Bernsteing. 2003.
International evidence on food consumption
patterns: Tech. Bull. No.1904. Available atwww.ers.usda.gov/publications/tb1904. ERS,
USDA, Washington DC.
Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and famines: An essayon entitlement and deprivation. Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Sen, A., and J. Drèze (ed) 1990, 1991. The
political economy of hunger in 3 volumes.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Serageldin, I. 1996. Sustainability and the wealthof nations: First steps in an ongoing journey:
ESDS and Mono. Ser. No. 5. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Serova, E. 2007. Vertical integration in Russian
agriculture. In J. Swinnen (ed) Global supply
chains, standards and the poor: How the
globalization of food systems and standards
affects rural development and poverty. CABI,
Oxfordshire.
Shaxson, T.F., N.W. Hudson, D.W. Sanders,E. Roose, and W.C. Moldenhauer. 1989.
Land husbandry: A framework for soil andwater conservation. Soil Water Conserv. Soc.,
Ankeny IA.
Sheridan, C. 2005. EPO neem patent revocation
revives biopiracy debate. Nature Biotechnol.
23:511-512.
Smakhtin, V., C. Revenga, and P. Döll. 2004.
Taking into account environmental waterrequirements in global-scale water resources
assessments: CA Res. Rep. 2. Comprehensive
Assessment Secretariat, Colombo.
Smit, B. (ed) 1993. Adaptation to climatic
variability and change: Report of the Task
Force on Climate Adaptation. Canadian
Climate Prog., Univ. Guelph, Ontario.
Spencer, D. 2002. The future of agriculture in
sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia:
W(h)ither the small farm? In Sustainable
food security for all by 2020: Proc. Int. Conf.

Bonn. 4-6 Sept. 2001. IFPRI, Washington
DC.
Spencer, D.S.C., P.J. Matlon, and H. Löffler.
2003. African agricultural production andproductivity in perspective. InterAcademy
Council, Amsterdam.
Spieldoch, A. 2007. A row to hoe: The gender
impact of trade liberalization on our foodsystem, agricultural markets and women’shuman rights. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung,Geneva.
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar,
M. Rosales, and C. de Haan. 2006.
Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental
issues and options. Livestock, Environmentand Development. FAO, Rome.
Stern, N. 2006. Stern review: Economics ofclimate change. United Kingdom’s Treasury.
London.
Strosnider, H., E. Azziz-Baumgartner, M.
Banziger, R.V. Bhat, R. Breiman, M. Brune,
et al. 2006. Workgroup report: Public healthstrategies for reducing Aflatoxin exposurein developing countries. J. Environ. Health
Perspect. 114:1898-1903.
Thrupp, L.A. 1998. Cultivating diversity:
Agrobiodiversity and food security. World
Resourc. Inst., Washington DC.
Tillman, D., K.G. Cassman, P.A. Matsons,
R. Naylor, and S. Polasky. 2002. Agricultural
sustainability and intensive production
practices. Nature 418:671-677.
Trawick, P. 2003. Against the privatization ofwater: An indigenous model for improving
existing laws and successfully governing thecommons. World Dev. 31:977-996.
UN Millennium Project. 2005. Innovation:
Applying knowledge in development: Task
Force 10 on Sci. Tech. Innovation. Earthscan,
Washington DC.
UN. 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity.
Vol. 1760, I-30619. United Nations, N.Y.
UN. 1993a. Vienna Declaration and Programmeof Action. World Conf. Human Rights.
Vienna, 14-15 June. United Nations, N.Y.
UN. 1993b. Agenda 21: Earth Summit: The
United Nations Programme of Action from
Rio. UN Publ., NY.
UN. 1997. Coordination of the policies andactivities of the specialized agencies andother bodies of the United Nations System:
Mainstreaming the gender perspective into
all policies and programmes in the United
Nations system: E/1997/100. UN Econ. Soc.
Council, Geneva.
UN. 2005a. World population prospects: The
2004 revision. Vol. 1. Dep. Econ. Soc.
Affairs. United Nations, NY.
UN. 2005b. World population prospects: The
2004 revision. Vol. III. Dep. Econ. Soc.
Affairs. United Nations, NY.
UNAIDS, WHO. 2005. AIDS epidemic update:Special report on HIV prevention. UN
Prog. HIV/AIDS and WHO, New York andGeneva.
UNAIDS. 2005. Resource pack on gender andHIV/AIDS: Interagency task team on gender

11/3/08 10:41:41 AM

56 | IAASTD Global Reportand HIV/AIDS. Royal Trop. Inst. (KIT)
Publ., Amsterdam.
UNDP. 2005. Women’s empowerment:
Biodiversity for development: The genderdimension. Available at http://www.undp.org/
women/mainstream/index.shtml. UNDP, NY.
UNEP. 2002. Global Environment Outlook
3: Past, present and future perspectives.
Earthscan, London and Sterling VA.
UNEP. 2005. GEO Year Book 2004/5: An
overview of our changing environment.
UNEP, Nairobi.
UNESCAP. 2001. Women in local government
in Asia and Pacific: A comparative analysisof thirteen countries. UN Econ. Soc. Comm.
Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
UNFPA. 2007. State of world population.
Available at http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/
english/ch1/page7.htm. UNFPA, New York.
UNICCPR. 1966. International covenant on civil
and political rights. UN, NY.
UNICESCR. 1966. International covenant on
economic, social and cultural rights. UN, NY.
UNSCN. 2004. 5th Report on the world
nutrition situation: Nutrition for improved
development outcomes. UN Standing Comm.
Nutrition, Geneva.
US Census Bureau. 2007. World population
information. Available at http://www.census.
gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html. US
Census Bureau, Washington DC.
Uvin, P. 1995. The state of world hunger.
p. 1-18. In E. Messer and P. Uvin (ed) The
hunger report: 1995. Gordon and Breach Sci.
Publ., Amsterdam.
van de Fliert, E. 2003. Recognizing a climate forsustainability: Extension beyond transfer oftechnology. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 43:29-36.
van Veenhuizen, R. (ed) 2006. Cities farming forthe future: Urban agriculture for green andproductive cities. Resource Centres on Urban
Agric. Food Security Foundation, Leusden.
von Braun, J. 2005. Small-scale farmers in aliberalized trade environment. In Small-scale
farmers in a liberalized trade environment.
Available at http://honeybee.helsinki.fi/
mmtal/abs/Pub38.pdf. Dep. Econ. Manage.,
Univ. Helsinki.
Wassmann, R. and P.L.G Vlek. 2004. Mitigating
greenhouse gas emissions from tropicalagriculture: Scope and research priorities.
Environ. Dev. Sustain. 6(1-20):1-9.
Watson, R., and H. Gitay. 2004. Mobilization,diffusion and use of scientific expertise.
Institut du développement durable et desrelations internationales, Paris.
Watson, R.T., J.A. Dixon, S.P. Hamburg,
A.C. Janetos, and R.H. Moss. 1998.
Protecting our planet, securing our future:
Linkages among global environmental issues
and human needs. UNEP, NASA, and World
Bank, Washington DC.

chapter 01.indd 56

WCD. 2000. Dams and development: A new
framework for decision-making. Earthscan,
London.
WCED. 1987. Our common future. World
Commission on Environment. Oxford Univ.
Press, NY.
WCSFD. 1999. Our forests, our future. World
Commission on Forests and Sustainable
Development. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, New York, and Melbourne.
WDR. 2007. World development report 2007:
Development and the next generation. WorldBank and Oxford Univ. Press, Washington
DC and Oxford.
Wesseling, C., R. McConnell, T. Partanen, andC. Hogstedt. 1997. Agricultural pesticides
use in developing countries: Health effects
and research needs. Int. J. Health Serv.
27(2):273-308.
WFS. 1996. World Food Summit. FAO, Rome.
White, R., S. Murray, and M. Rohweder.
2000. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems:
Grassland ecosystems. World Resourc. Inst.,
Washington DC.
WHO. 1946. Preamble to the Constitution of
the World Health Organization as adopted
by the International Health Conference, New
York, 19-22 June, 1946. WHO, Geneva.
WHO. 1999. Development of food-based
dietary guidelines for the Western PacificRegion. WHO, Reg. Off. Western Pacific,
Manila.
WHO. 2003a. Diet, nutrition and the preventionof chronic diseases: WHO Tech, Rep. Ser.
No. 916. Geneva, 2003.
WHO. 2003b. The world health report 2003:
Shaping the future. WHO, Geneva.
WHO. 2005. The world health report 2005:
Make every mother and child count.
WHO,Geneva.
WHO. 2006. Preventing disease through healthy
environments. WHO, Geneva.
WHO-VPH. 2007. Veterinary public health(VPH) webpage. Available at www.who.int.
zoonoses/vph/en. WHO, Geneva.
Wiebe, K. (ed) 2003. Land quality, agricultural
productivity, and food security: Biophysicalprocesses and economic choices at local,
regional, and global scales. Edward Elgar
Publ., Cheltenham.
Wiesmann, U. 1998. Sustainable regional
development in rural Africa: Conceptual
framework and case studies from Kenya.
Geographica Bernensia, Berne.
Willer, H., and M. Yussefi. 2006. The world oforganic agriculture: Statistics and emerging
trends 2006. International Federation ofOrganic Agriculture Movements and Res.
Inst. Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Bonn,
Germany and Frick, Switzerland.
Winklerprins, A.W.G.A. 1999. Insights andapplications of local soil knowledge: A tool

for sustainable land management. Soc. Nat.
Resour. 12(2):151-161.
WOCAT. 2006. World overview of conservation
approaches and technologies. Available at
http://www.wocat.net/. Centre Dev. Environ.,
Berne.
Wollenberg, E., D. Edmunds, L. Buck, J. Fox,
and S. Brodt. 2001. Social learning incommunity forests. CIFOR and the East-WestCentre, Bogar Barat.
Wood, S., K. Sebastian, and S.J. Scherr.
2000. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems:
Agroecosystems. IFPRI and World Resourc.
Inst., Washington DC.
World Bank. 1997. Expanding the measureof wealth: Indicators of environmentally
sustainable development: ESDS Mono. Ser.
No. 17. World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2001. Engendering development:
Through gender equality in rights, resources,and voice: Policy Res. Rep. 21776. WorldBank and Oxford Univ. Press, UK.
World Bank. 2004a. Agriculture investment
sourcebook. The World Bank, Washington,
D.C.
World Bank. 2004b. Genderstats database.
Available at http://genderstats.worldbank.
org/home.asp. World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2006a. World Development Report
2006: Equity and development. Oxford Univ.
Press, NY.
World Bank. 2006b. Enhancing agricultural
innovation: How to go beyond thestrengthening of research systems? World
Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2006c. 2006 World development
indicators. World Bank, Washington DC.
WorldFish Center. 2006. The threat to fisheries
and aquaculture from climate change: Policy
Brief. WorldFish Center, Penang.
Worldwatch Institute. 2003. State of the world
2003. W.W. Norton, NY.
WRI. 2005. World resources 2005: The wealthof the poor: Managing ecosystems to fightpoverty. World Resourc. Inst., Washington DC.
WRI. 2006. EarthTrends. Environmental
information. Available at http://earthtrends.
wri.org. World Resourc. Inst., Washington
DC.
WTO. 1995. Agreement on agriculture. WTO,
Geneva.
WWAP. 2003. Water for people, water for life:
World water development report. UNESCO
and Berghahn Books, Paris.
Yapa, L. 1993. What are improved seeds? Anepistemology of the green revolution. Econ.
Geogr. 69:254-273.
Zurek, M.B. 2006. A short review of global
scenarios for food systems analysis: GECAFS
Working Pap. 1. Global Environmental
Change and Food Systems, Environ. ChangeInst., Oxford Univ. Centre Environ., Oxford.

11/3/08 10:41:41 AM

2Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in
Promoting Innovation
Coordinating Lead Authors
Fabrice Dreyfus (France), Cristina Plencovich (Argentina), Michel
Petit (France)
Lead Authors
Hasan Akca (Turkey), Salwa Dogheim (Egypt), Marcia Ishii-Eiteman(USA), Janice Jiggins (UK), Toby Kiers (USA), Rose Kingamkono(Tanzania)
Contributing Authors
Emily Adams (USA), Medha Chandra (India), Sachin Chaturvedi(India), Chris Garforth (UK), Michael Halewood (Canada), Andy
Hall (UK), Niels Louwaars (Netherlands), Jesus Moncada (Mexico),
Cameron Pittelkow (USA), Jeremy Schwartzbord (USA), Matthew
Spurlock (USA), Jeff Waage (UK)

2.1.4

2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.3
2.3.1

Review Editors
Stephen Biggs (UK) and Gina Castillo (Ecuador)

Key Messages
2.1
2.1.1

2.1.2

2.1.3

Science, Knowledge, Technology, and Innovation in
Agriculture 59
The specificity of agriculture as an activity 60
2.1.1.1 The characteristics of agriculture as a multidimensional
activity 60
2.1.1.2 The controversy on multifunctionality 61
Knowledge processes 62
2.1.2.1 Transfer of Technology as a model for organizing
knowledge and diffusion processes 63
2.1.2.2 Other models of knowledge generation and diffusion
processes 64
2.1.2.3 New challenges and opportunities 68
Science processes 70
2.1.3.1 Cultures of science 70
2.1.3.2 A changing contract between science and society 71

2.3.2

2.3.3

2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3

Technology and innovation processes 72
2.1.4.1 Changes in perspective: from technologies toinnovations 73
2.1.4.2 Market-led innovation 74
2.1.4.3 Technological risks and costs in a globalizing world 74
Key actors, Institutional Arrangements and Drivers 75
Farmers and community-based arrangements 75
Producers of AKST at national level 78
Producers of AKST at regional and international levels 82
Public-private and private sectoral arrangements 86
NGOs and other civil society networks 86
AKST Evolutions over Time: Thematic Narratives 87
Historical trends in germplasm management and theirimplications for the future 87
2.3.1.1 Summary of major trends in the history of global
germplasm management 87
2.3.1.2 Genetic resources as a common heritage 88
2.3.1.3 Major changes in germplasm management 90
2.3.1.4 Increasing consolidation of the private sector 94
2.3.1.5 Farmers, public and private sector: roles and relations 96
2.3.1.6 The need for a renewed design with distribution ofdiverse roles 98
Pest management 98
2.3.2.1 Chemical control 98
2.3.2.2 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 99
2.3.2.3 Institutional innovations and responses in pest
management 100
2.3.2.4 Overall assessment of trends and challenges in pest
management 106
Food systems management 107
2.3.3.1 Local food systems activities 107
2.3.3.2 Global food systems activities 107
2.3.3.3 Food systems outcome trends 108
Lessons from the Past: Implications for the Future 116
Multiple AKST actors and partnerships 118
AKST and education 118
Public policy and regulatory frameworks 118

57

chapter 02.indd 57

11/3/08 10:42:07 AM

58 | IAASTD Global Report

Key Messages
1. Acknowledging and learning from competing andwell evidenced historical narratives of knowledge,
science and technology processes and understanding the flaws in past and existing institutional arrangements and maintaining the space for diverse voices
and interpretations is crucial for designing policies
that are effective in reaching the integrated goals of
productivity, environmental sustainability, social equity and inclusion. Agricultural Knowledge, Science andTechnology (AKST) encompass diverse agricultural practices, interventions, institutional arrangements and knowledge
processes. Different and often conflicting interpretations of
the contributions of AKST to productivity, environmental
and social sustainability and equity exist side-by-side but
are not equally heard or recognized. Political power andeconomic influence have tended to privilege some types of
AKST over others. Dominant institutional arrangements
have established the privileged interpretations of the day
and set the agenda for searching for and implementing solutions. The narrative used to explain past events and AKST
choices has important implications for setting future priorities and projecting the future design of AKST.
2. In the prevailing AKST arrangements of the past,
key actors have been excluded or marginalized. Preference has been given to short-term goals vs. longer-term
agroecosystem sustainability and social equity and to powerful voices over the unorganized and voiceless. Development of appropriate forms of partnerships can help bring in
the excluded and marginalized and open AKST to a larger
set of policy goals. Many effective participatory approaches
exist that facilitate the establishment and operation of suchpartnerships. Targeted public support can help address thebiases in the dominant arrangements.
3. The Transfer of Technology (ToT) model has been
the most dominant model used in operational arrangements and in policy. However, the TOT model
has not been the most effective in meeting a broader
range of development goals that address the multiple
functions and roles of farm enterprises and diverse
agroecosystems. In this model, science and technology
are mobilized under the control of experts in the definitionof problems and the design of solutions, problem setting
and solving. Other types of knowledge have sometimes
been tapped, although mainly for local adaptation purposes. Where the TOT model has been applied appropriately with the conditions necessary for achieving impact, it
has been successful in driving yield and production gains.
These conditions include properly functioning producer andservice organizations, the social and biophysical suitabilityof technologies transferred in specific environments andproper management of those technologies at plot, farm andlandscape levels.
4. Successful education and extension programs havebuilt on local and traditional knowledge and innovation systems, often through participatory and experiential learning processes and multi-organizational

chapter 02.indd 58

partnerships that integrate formal and informal AKST.
Basic and occupational education empowers individuals
to innovate in farming and agroenterprises, adapt to newjob opportunities and be better prepared for migration. Attention to overcoming race, ethnic and gender biases that
hamper the participation of marginalized community members, diverse ethnic groups and women, is essential. Education and training of government policymakers and publicagency personnel, particularly in decentralized participatory planning and decision-making, and in understanding
and working effectively with rural communities and otherdiverse stakeholders has also proven effective. Effective options include but are not limited to experiential learninggroups, farmer field schools, farmer research circles, Participatory Plant Breeding, social forestry and related community-based forest landscape management, study clubs
and community interaction with school-based curriculum
development.
5. Investment in farmers and other rural actors’ learning and capacity to critically assess, define and engage in locally-directed development processes has
yielded positive results. Modern ICTs are beginning toopen up new and potentially powerful new opportunities
for extending the reach and scope of educational and interactive learning. Extension and advisory services complement
but do not substitute for rural education. The development
and implementation of successful learning and innovation
programs require skills in facilitating processes of interaction among partners, interdisciplinary science and working
with all partners’ experience and knowledge processes. Active development of additional options are needed to extend
these arrangements and practices to include more marginalized peoples and areas and in ways that respect and uphold
their roles, rights and practices.
6. Innovation is a multisource process and always andnecessarily involves a mix of stakeholders, organizations and types of knowledge systems. Innovative
combinations of technology and knowledge generated bypast and present arrangements and actors have led to moresustainable practices. These include for example, integrated
pest management, precision farming, and local innovations
in crop management (e.g., push-pull in Africa). Further experimentation with facilitated innovation is needed to capitalize on new opportunities for innovation under marketoriented development.
7. Partnerships in agricultural and social science research and education offer potential to advance public interest science and increase its relevance to development goals. Industry, NGOs, social movements andfarmer organizations have contributed useful innovationsin ecologically and socially sustainable approaches to foodand agriculture. Increased private sector funding of universities and research institutes has helped fill the gap createdby declining public sector funds but has mixed implications
for these institutions’ independence and future research directions. Effective codes of conduct can strengthen multistakeholder partnerships and preserve public institutions’capacity to perform public good research.

11/3/08 10:42:08 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 59

8. Public policy, regulatory frameworks, and international agreements informed by scientific evidence andpublic participation have enabled decisive and effective global transitions towards more sustainable practice. New national, regional and international agreements
will be needed to support further shifts towards ethical,
equitable and sustainable food and agriculture systems in
response to the urgent challenges posed by declining availability of clean water, climate change, and insupportable
labor conditions.
9. Awareness of the importance of ensuring full andmeaningful participation of multiple stakeholders ininternational and public sector AKST policy formation
has increased. For example, in some countries, pesticide
policies today are developed by diverse group of actors including civil society and private sector actors, informed byscience and empirical evidence and inclusive of public interest concerns. These policies have focused on the multifunctionality of agriculture.
10. The number and diversity of actors engaged in the
management of agricultural resources such as germplasm has declined over time. This trend reduces options for responding to uncertainties of the future. It
increases asymmetries in access to germplasm andincreases the vulnerabilities of the poor. Participatory
plant breeding provides strong evidence that diverse actors
can be engaged in an effective practice for achieving and sustaining broader goals of sustainability and development bybringing together the skills and techniques of advanced andconventional breeding and farmers’ preferences and germplasm management capacities and skills, including seed production for sale. Further development and expansion would
require adjustment of varietal release protocols and appropriate policy recognition under the International Union for
the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).
11. The debates surrounding the use of synthetic pesticides have led to new arrangements that have increased awareness, availability and effectiveness of
the range of options for pest management. Institutional responses have included the strengthening of regulatory
controls over synthetic chemical pesticides at global andnational levels, growing consumer and retail markets forpesticide-free and organic products, removal of highly toxic
products from sale, development of less acutely toxic products and more precise means of delivery and education ofusers in safe and sustainable practices. What constitutes safe
and sustainable practice has been defined in widely varying
ways by different actors reflecting different conditions ofuse as well as different assessments of acceptable tradeoffs.
The availability of and capacity to assess, compare andchoose from a wide range of options in pest management
is critical to strengthening farmers’ ability to incorporate
effective strategies that are safe, sustainable and effective in
actual conditions of use.
12. Integrated Pest Management exemplifies a flexible and wide-reaching arrangement of actors, institutions and practices that better address the needs ofchapter 02.indd 59

diverse farmers. Although definitions, interpretations andoutcomes of IPM programs vary widely among actors, IPM
typically incorporates KST from a broad range of sciences,including social sciences, and the experience and knowledgeof a diverse set of actors. IPM has become more common inhigh value production systems and has been adopted by anincreasing number of important commercial actors in foodprocessing and retailing. Successful approaches to introducing IPM to small-scale producers in the tropics include
farmer field schools, push-pull approaches, advisory services
provided under contractual arrangements for supply to central processing facilities and creative use of communication
tools such as farmer-to-farmer videos and focused-message
information campaigns. A combination of such approaches,
backed by strong policy reform to restrict the sale of outdated and highly toxic synthetic controls, will be needed
to meet future development goals. Further experimentation
with and operational fine-tuning of the institutional arrangements for IPM in the field in different settings is alsoneeded to ensure optimal efficacy. These can be evaluatedby comparative assessment using a combination of social,environmental and economic measures that include positive
and negative externalities.
13. Local food systems, known to sustain livelihoods
at micro level, are currently challenged by globalized
food systems. This trend brings opportunities but also
threatens livelihoods and sovereignties of marginalized communities and indigenous peoples. In some countries, social,
ethical and cultural values have been successfully integrated
in commercial mechanisms. Fair trade and ethnic labelingare examples of institutional options that can be consideredby those who wish to promote effective measures to protect
the interests of the marginalized and revitalize rural livelihoods and food cultures. The addition of a geographic indication can promote local knowledge and open opportunities for other agroenterprises such as tourism and specialty
product development, as well as collaboration with utilities
such as water companies. Production systems dominatedby export markets are weakened by erratic changes in international markets and have sparked growing concerns
about the sustainability of long-distance food shipping andthe ecological footprint and social impacts of international
trade practices. Local consumption and domestic outlets forfarmers’ products can alleviate the risks inherent in international trade.

2.1. Science, Knowledge, Technology andInnovation in Agriculture
The Asian AgriHistory Foundation translates historical
writings that remind us that formal processes for generating technology-led innovation were in place in some countries more than 3000 years ago. This subchapter focuses on
AKST processes and institutional arrangements, how thesehave been brought to bear on agricultural problems andcombined to bring about innovation in agricultural systems
when mobilized for different policy purposes. Subchapter
2.2 assesses the roles that various knowledge actors haveplayed in different contexts, noting changes over time fromdifferent perspectives so as to minimize the risk that past

11/3/08 10:42:08 AM

60 | IAASTD Global Reportactions are judged by current values or by those of only one
set of actors. The drivers are assessed at three levels—local,
regional, global. The assessments are further elaborated(2.3) in order to provide depth and detail in terms of threethematic narratives—(1) genetic resources management; (2)pest management; (3) food system management.
2.1.1 The specificity of agriculture as an activity
At the beginning of the period under assessment, policy
makers and other knowledge actors around the world had
vividly in mind the fact that food is a basic necessity of life
and that its supply and distribution is vulnerable to a rangeof disruptions that cannot always be well controlled. Only
for those for whom food is reliably abundant can food betreated as an industrial good subject to the laws of elasticity of price. The special characteristics of farming as a human activity for supplying a basic necessity of life and as
the cultural context of existence for a still large if declining
proportion of the world’s people are central to meaningful
historical assessment of AKST.
2.1.1.1 The characteristics of agriculture as amultidimensional activity
Agriculture is based on local management decisions madein interaction with the biophysical, ecological and social
context, this context to a large extent itself evolving independently of agriculture. It follows that AKST includes
both a set of activities that happen to deal with the particular domain of agriculture and activities that necessarily coevolve with numerous other changes in a society.
AKST thus involves many types of knowledge and many
suppliers of that knowledge acting in relation to vast numbers of (semi) autonomous enterprises and decision makers. This characteristic has provided special challenges but
also opportunities in the design of institutional arrangements for AKST (Yunus and Islam, 1975; Yunus, 1977;
Izuno, 1979; Symes and Jansen, 1994; Scoones et al.,
1996; Buck et al., 1998; Stroosnijder and Rheenen, 2001;
Edgerton, 2007).
A place-based activity. Agriculture as a place-based activity
relies on unique combinations of bioclimatic conditions andlocal resources in their natural, socioeconomic and culturaldimensions. Agricultural practices depend on and also influence these conditions and resources (Herdt and Mellor,1964). Specific knowledge of the locality is an asset decisive for the outcomes actually achieved through applicationof any technology (Loomis and Beagle, 1950; Hill, 1982;
Giller, 2002; Tittonell et al., 2005, 2007; Vanlauwe et al.,2006; Wopereis et al., 2006; Zingore et al., 2007) yet adominant trend over the period is the evolution of agricultures driven by nonlocal changes and by the introduction oftechnologies designed by actors and in places far removed
from their site of application (Merton, 1957; Biggs, 1978;
Anderson et al., 1991; Seur, 1992; Matson et al., 1997; Harilal et al., 2006; Leach and Scoones, 2006). This trend has
been tightly associated with the adoption of a science-based
approach to the industrialization of farming. It has allowed
greater control by farmers of production factors and thesimplification and homogenization of production situations
particularly for internationally-traded commodities andchapter 02.indd 60

high-value crops (Allaire, 1996).This has enabled large surpluses of a narrow range of basic grains and protein foods
to be generated, traded and also moved relatively quickly tomeet emergency and humanitarian needs. It has eased hunger and reduced poverty as well as kept food prices stable
and low relative to other prices and allowed investment inother economic sectors (FAO, 2004). However, the ecological and cultural context of farming is always and necessarily“situated” and cannot—unlike functions such as water use
or carbon trading—be physically exchanged (Berkes andFolke, 1998; Hubert et al., 2000; Steffen et al., 2004; Lalet al., 2005; Pretty, 2005). Advances especially in the ecological sciences and socioeconomic research as well as drivers originating in civil society movements (2.2, 2.3) havemobilized science, knowledge and technology in support ofapproaches appreciative of place-specific, multidimensionaland multifunctional opportunities (Agarwal et al., 1979;
Byerlee, 1992; Symes and Jansen, 1994; Gilbert, 1995; deBoef, 2000; Fresco, 2002). Examples include (Cohn et al.,2006), trading arrangements connecting those willing to
pay for specific ecological values and those who manage
the resources that are valued (Knight, 2007), urban councils
using rate levies to pay farmers for the maintenance of surrounding recreational green space or for ecosystem services
such as spreading flood water on their fields; hydroelectriccompanies such as Brazil-Iguacú paying farmers to practiceconservation tillage to avoid silting behind the dams andimprove communal water supplies; farmers’ markets; andcommunity-supported agriculture.
An embedded activity. The resulting flows of products andservices are embedded in a web of institutional arrangements and relationships at varying scales, such as farmers’organizations, industrial districts, commodity chains, terroirs, production areas, natural resource management areas, ethnic territories, administrative divisions, nations andglobal trading networks. Farmers are simultaneously members of a variety of institutions and relationships that frame
their opportunities and constraints, offering incentives andpenalties that are sometimes contradictory; farmers require
strategic ability to select and interpret the relevant information constituted in these institutions and relationships (Chiffoleau and Dreyfus, 2004). The various ways of organizing
science, knowledge and technology over the last sixty years
have taken different approaches to farmers’ strategic roles(see 2.1.2).
A collective activity. Farmers are not wholly independent
entrepreneurs; their livelihoods critically depend on relationships that govern access to resources. With asymmetrical social relations, access is not equitably or evenly distributed. Individuals, groups and communities attempt tocope with inequalities by developing relational skills andcapacity for collective action that help them to protect orenhance their access to and use of resources (Barbier and
Lémery, 2000); the form that collective action takes changes
over time and place and between genders. As commercial
actors such as supermarkets have become dominant in foodand farming systems, many farmers have transformed theirproduction-oriented organizations into market-orientedorganizations.

11/3/08 10:42:08 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 61

A disadvantaged activity. Agriculture is disadvantaged as
an economic sector in the sense that the majority of smallscale producers and farm workers even today, in developing countries particularly, suffer from restricted access toformal education and opportunities to learn more about
science and technology. Women and indigenous communities in particular tend to be more disadvantaged than othersin this respect (Moock, 1976; Muntemba and Chimedza,
1995; ISNAR, 2002; IFAD, 2003; FAO, 2004; UNRISD,
2006). Investment in educating farmers in their principal
occupation has been low compared to need throughout theperiod in most contexts. Master farmer classes, farmer field
schools, study clubs, land care groups and interactive rural school curricula are among the options that have beendeveloped in part simply to fill the gaps; few assessments
exist of their comparative cost-effectiveness as educational
investments. The potential of AKST to stimulate economic
growth is affected in multiple ways by educational opportunity although these effects have not been well quantified(Coulombe et al., 2004; FAO, 2004). Overcoming educational disadvantages by contracting out extension to private
suppliers as in Uganda poses new challenges (Ekwamu andBrown, 2005; Ellis and Freeman, 2006).
Wherever the structural and systemic disadvantages
have been coupled to a lack of effective economic demand
among cash-poor households, farmers in most parts of thedeveloping world have been excluded also from formal
decision making in agriculture and food policy and frompriority setting in agricultural research unless special arrangements have been made to include them, such as the
PRODUCE foundations in Mexico (Paredes and Moncado,
2000; Ekboir et al., 2006). Even under these arrangements
it is the better educated and socially advantaged who participate; the inclusion of poor farmers, women, and laborers in research agenda-setting typically requires additional
effort, for example by use of Citizen Juries (Pimbert andWakeford, 2002). Given poor farmers’ relative lack of education they also have been and remain vulnerable to exploitation in commercial relations (Newell and Wheeler, 2006),
a growing problem as competitive markets penetrate deeper
into rural areas. Market-oriented small-scale agriculture indeveloping countries is disadvantaged also by the huge andgrowing gap in the average productivity of labor between
small-scale producers relying mainly on hand tools and thelabor efficiency of farmers in areas that contribute the largest share of international market deliveries (Mazoyer, 2005;
Mazoyer and Roudard, 2005).
2.1.1.2 The controversy on multifunctionality
How AKST should or could address multifunctionality iscontroversial; while some have sought to balance the multiple functions of agriculture, others have made tradeoffs
among them, creating large variation in outcomes at different times and in changing contexts. The concept of multifunctionality itself has been challenged (Barnett, 2004). In
general (Figure 2-1) it refers to agriculture as a multi-output
activity producing not only commodities (food, fodder, fibers, biofuel and recently pharmaceuticals) but also noncommodity outputs such as environmental benefits, landscape amenities and cultural heritages that are not tradedin organized markets (Blandford and Boisvert, 2002). The

chapter 02.indd 61

frequently cited working definition proposed by OECD inturn associates multifunctionality with particular characteristics of the agricultural production process and its outputs:(1) the existence of multiple commodity and non-commodity outputs that are jointly produced by agriculture; andthat (2) some of the non-commodity outputs may exhibit
the characteristics of externalities or public goods, such thatmarkets for these goods function poorly or are nonexistent(OECD, 2001).
A multi-country FAO study (2008), Roles of Agriculture, identified the multifunctional roles of agriculture atdifferent scales (Table 2-1). The project’s country case studies underlined the many cross-sector links through which
agricultural growth can support overall economic growthand highlighted the importance to sustainable farming ofbalancing the interests of rural and urban populations; social stability, integration, and identities; food safety andfood cultures and the interests of nonhuman species andagroecological functioning.
In the early years under review the multifunctionality ofagriculture was undervalued in the tradeoffs made in technology choices and in formal AKS arrangements that were
responding to urgent needs to increase edible grain output
and high protein foods such as meat or fish. The successin meeting this essential but somewhat narrow goal tended
to lock AKST into a particular pathway that perpetuatedthe initial post World War II focus. The political environment evolved in a direction that gave further stimulus tothe organization of AKST devoted to the production ofinternationally traded goods (as advocated, for example,
by the Cairns group of nations) rather than to sustaining
multidimensional, place-based functionality in both its
biophysical and sociocultural dimensions. This suited thecircumstances of countries with large agricultural trade surpluses and relatively few small-scale producers in the areas
where the surpluses were grown (Brouwer, 2004). For the
majority of nations, agriculture throughout the period has

Figure 2-1. Multiple outputs produced from farm inputs. Source:
Adapted from OECD, 2001; Verhaegen et al., 2002; Wustenberghs et al.,2004, 2005.

11/3/08 10:42:16 AM

62 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 2-1. Roles of agriculture.
Role

Environmental

SocialFood Security

Economic

CulturalGlobalEcosystem resilience
Mitigation of climatic change (carbon
sequestration, land cover)
Biodiversity

Social stability
Poverty alleviation

Food security

GrowthCultural diversity

Regional/
National

Ecosystem resilience
Soil conservation (erosion, siltation,salinization)
Water retention (flood and landslide
prevention)
Biodiversity (agricultural, wild life)
Pollution abatement/generation

Balanced migration
Social stability (andsheltering effects
during crisis)
Unemployment
prevention
Poverty alleviation
Gender relations

Access tofood
National
security
Food safety

Economic
stability
Employment
Foreignexchange
Tourism

Landscape
Cultural heritage
Cultural identity
Social capital

Local

Ecosystem resilience
Soils conservation
Water retention
Biodiversity
Pollution abatement/generation

Social stability(employment, family)

Local andhouseholdfood safety

Employment
effects on
secondary andtertiary sectors

LandscapeIndigenous andlocal knowledge
Traditional
technologies
Cultural identity

Source: Adapted from FAO, 2008

remained a domestic issue, based in part on large numbersof small-scale producers who still need to ensure basic foodsecurity and here a different calculus of interests (Conway,1994). Countries such as Japan, Switzerland, Norway andthe European Union opted for redirecting AKST toward
maintaining the multifunctional capacity of agriculture once
food surplus was assured (De Vries, 2000; Huylenbroeck
and Durand, 2003; Sakamoto et al., 2007). In recent decades, changes in consumer demand and renewed emphasisby citizens on food quality, ethical issues, rural community
livelihoods as well as changes in policy concerns (including
resource conservation, tourism, biomass energy productionand environmental sustainability) have led to expectations
in many countries that agriculture will be able to play a balanced and sustainable role in meeting multifunctional goals(Cahill, 2001; Hediger and Lehmann, 2003; Rickert, 2004;
Paxson, 2007).
Debates about multifunctionality were taken up by theOECD and FAO leading to a clarification of the policy implications and a broader recognition among trading partners that agriculture does play multiple roles and that AKST
arrangements can and do have a part. The additional broad
benefits potentially associated with multifunctional agriculture, including conservation of biodiversity, animal welfare,cultural and historical heritage values and the liability andviability of rural communities (Northwest Area Foundation,
1994; de Haan and Long, 1997; Cahill, 2001; Hediger andLehmann, 2003) were in many countries returned to core
AKST agendas. A growing body of evidence concerning thesocial and environmental costs of past and current tradeoffs
among functions also began to be systematically quantified(Pimentel et al., 1992, 1993; Pretty and Waibel, 2005; Pretty,
2005a; Stern, 2006) as well as the benefits of reintroducing
multifunctionality to industrial agricultural environments(NRC, 1989; Northwest Area Foundation, 1995; Winter,
1996; Buck et al., 1998).The role of local knowledge andtechnology processes also became more widely recognizedchapter 02.indd 62

and formed the basis of AKST arrangements that sought tooffer rural youth a motivation and realistic opportunities
to stay in farming and develop agroenterprises (Breusers,
1998; FAO, 2004; Richards, 2005).
At some scales the multifunctional roles and functions
that different agricultural systems actually play today are
well described for many contexts and are noncontroversial.
However, many of the variables are difficult to assess and arerecognized as requiring the development of new knowledge
routines if they are to be addressed adequately (Raedeke
and Rikoon, 1997). In particular, some of the ecological andsocial goods, services and amenities that are not subject tocommercial transactions have proven difficult to measureand hence in recent years greater reliance has been placedon developing alternatives. These include the use of relevant
and efficient proxy indicators (Akca et al., 2005; Mukherjee
and Kathuria, 2006), “water footprint” estimations (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2003; Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007)
that show the extent to which farming systems, production
practices, consumption patterns and the composition ofagricultural trade affect net water balances at national levels (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2003) and environmentally
adjusted macroeconomic indicators for national economies(O’Connor, 2006). The experience has been mixed of applying these to actual decision-making. Developing andusing computer-simulated modeling of multifunctionality(McCown et al., 2002) at field-scale (e.g., McCown et al.,1996) or farm-to-landscape scale (e.g., Parker et al., 2002)
has led to robust applications in support of interactive
learning among diverse users (Walker, 2002; van Ittersum
et al., 2004; Nidumolu et al., 2007) seeking to balance interests in processes of adaptive management (Buck et al.,2001).
2.1.2 Knowledge processes
Knowledge processes refer to the collective processes ofcreating, transforming, storing and communicating about

11/3/08 10:42:17 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 63

knowledge (Beal et al., 1986). The organization of knowledge processes in agricultural development has been subsumed in powerful mental models of how science, knowledge and technology “get agriculture moving” (Mosher,
1966; Borlaug and Dowswell, 1995). Each of the mainmodels (Albrecht et al., 1989, 1990) has its own logic andfitness for purpose. They and their variants are discussed
and compared; in each case for the sake of clarity they are
first presented as commonly accepted abstractions followedby assessment of the dynamic ways in which the model has
been applied within specific institutional arrangements inparticular contexts. Institutional arrangements are important to the assessment because they provide different
ways of distributing power and influence among sources ofknowledge and hence are consequential for understanding
the kinds of impact that can be expected and were in fact
realized.
2.1.2.1 Transfer of Technology as a model for organizing
knowledge and diffusion processes
One model in particular has dominated as a guide to theorganization of knowledge processes in the public sector
in developing countries, the Transfer of Technology (ToT)
model. It was formally elaborated as a practical model for
guiding action and investment in specific AKST arrangements on the basis of empirical studies of knowledge management and diffusion processes in the midwest of America(Lionberger, 1960; Havelock, 1969). Science is positioned
in this model as a privileged problem-defining and knowledge generating activity carried out mainly by universities
and research stations whose knowledge, embedded in technologies, messages, and practices is transferred by extension agents to farmers. The model assumes a linear flow oftechnological products and information. Each of the entities
described in the model is treated more or less as a “blackbox.” Although in practice much local level interaction
takes place between extension agents, farmers and research
specialists, the underlying assumption of the model is that
farmers are relatively passive cognitive agents whose own
knowledge is to be replaced and improved as a result ofreceiving messages and technologies designed by others andcommunicated to them by experts (Röling, 1988; Compton,
1989; Eastman and Grieshop, 1989; Lionberger and Gwin,
1991; Blackburn, 1994; Röling and Wagemakers, 1998).
The model mirrored the prevailing AKST organizationalarrangements of states gaining their independence in the 1950s
and 60s. Many explicitly favored centrally-planned economic
development and most relied heavily on state organizations
as the catalyst of agricultural development and commodity
marketing (Hunter, 1969, 1970; Dayal et al., 1976). Extension field staff were positioned on the lowest rung in a hierarchy of relationships under the direction of departmentsof agriculture and publicly funded research stations anduniversities (Maunder, 1972; Peterson et al., 1989). Social,educational and political biases reinforced the idea that lackof access to “modern knowledge” was a constraint to production (Mook, 1974; Morss, et al., 1976). District development plans and projects to develop cooperatives, farmer
service societies and the like received considerable attention(Halse, 1966; Lele, 1975; Hunter et al., 1976).

chapter 02.indd 63

The ToT model assumes that wide impact is achievedon the basis of autonomous diffusion processes; this indeed
can be so (Rogers, 1962). The classic study of diffusion of
innovations was published in 1943 based on the rapid autonomous spread of hybrid maize among farmers in Iowa
(Ryan and Gross, 1943). The diffusion of innovations became a popular subject for empirical social science research,generating well over 2000 studies and much was learned
that was helpful concerning the conditions in which rapid
and widespread diffusion can occur, what helps and hinders
such processes and the limitations of diffusion for achieving impact. Diffusion research has continued even after thelate Everett Rogers (well-known for his classic decadal overviews of research on the diffusion of innovations) (Rogers,
1962, 1983, 1995, 2003) himself spoke of the “passing ofa dominant paradigm” (Rogers, 1976). The role of autonomous diffusion among farmers persists as one of the pillarsof the common understanding of the pathways of science
impact. The history of the rapid spread in Africa of exotic
crops such as cassava, maize, beans and cocoa is added testimony to the power of diffusion processes to change the faceof agriculture even without the kinds of scientific involvement of more recent years.
The positive impact of the ToT model. The ToT model
gained credibility from the rapid and widespread adoptionof the first products of the Green Revolution (GR) emerging
from basic and strategic research (Jones and Rolls, 1982;
Evenson, 1986; Jones, 1986; Evenson and Gollin, 2003a).
For example, in the poor, populous, irrigated areas of Asia
the GR allowed Bangladesh to move in 25 years from a net
importer of rice to self sufficiency while its population grewfrom 53 million to 115 million (Gill, 1995) and India, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Pakistan to avert major famine andkeep pace with population growth (Repetto, 1994). In China, wheat imports dropped from 7.2 tonnes in 1994 to 1.9
tonnes in 1997 and by 1997 net rice exports had risen to
1.1 tonnes. The Green Revolution not only increased the
supply of locally available staples but also the demand forfarm labor, increasing wage rates and thus the work-based
income of the “dollar-poor” (Lipton, 2005). National foodsecurity in food staples in the high population areas of developing countries throughout the world was achieved except in sub-Saharan Africa. The diet of many households
changed as more milk, fish and meat became available (Fanet al., 1998). Investment in industrialized food processing
and in agricultural engineering, often stimulated by heavy
government subsidies, in turn began to transform subsistence farming into a business enterprise and created new
employment opportunities in postharvest operations i.e.,storage, milling, marketing and transportation (Sharma
and Poleman, 1993). The ToT model clearly proved fit
for the overall purposes of disseminating improved seed,training farmers in simple practices and input use and disseminating simple messages within the intensive, high external input production systems characterizing the relatively
homogeneous irrigated wheat and rice environments ofSouth and Southeast Asia. Positive impacts were recorded
also in parts of sub-Saharan Africa (Moris, 1981, 1989;
Carr, 1989).

11/3/08 10:42:17 AM

64 | IAASTD Global Report

The ToT model’s drawbacks with respect to development
and sustainability goals. Criticism of the ToT model began
to emerge strongly in the late 1970s as evidence of negativesocioeconomic and environmental impacts of the GR accumulated (UNRISD, 1975; Freebairn, 1995) leading to sharp
controversies that are still alive today (Collinson, 2000).
Sometimes a technology itself was implicated; in other cases
the institutional and economic conditions for using a newtechnology effectively and safely were not in place or theservices needed for small-scale producers to gain access toor realize the benefits were inadequate, especially for the resource-poor, the indigent and the marginalized and women(Hunter, 1970; Roling et al., 1976; Ladejinsky, 1977; Swanson, 1984; Jiggins, 1986). The loss of entitlements to subsistence brought about by changes in the agricultural sector
itself and in societies as a whole; weather-related disasters;
civil unrest; and war also left many millions still vulnerable
to malnutrition, hunger, and starvation (Sen, 1981; Johnson,
1996). The evidence highlighted three areas of concern:
Empirical: The ToT model was shown to be unfit for organizing knowledge processes capable of impacting heterogeneous environments and farming populations (Hill,1982) and did not serve the interests of resource-poor
farmers in risky, diverse, drought prone environments(Chambers, 1983). In the absence of measures to address women’s technology needs and social condition,technologies transferred through male-dominated extension services largely bypassed women farmers andwomen in farm and laboring households (Hanger andMoris, 1973; Leonard, 1977; Harriss, 1978; Buvinic andYoussef, 1978; Fortmann, 1979; Bettles, 1980; Dauber
and Cain, 1981; Evans, 1981; Deere and de Leal, 1982;
Safilios-Rothschild, 1982; Mungate, 1983; Carloni,
1983; IRRI, 1985; Gallin and Spring, 1985; Muzale
with Leonard, 1985; Nash and Safa, 1985; Staudt,
1985; Gallin et al., 1989; Gallin and Ferguson, 1991;
Samanta, 1995). In addition, the improved seeds rapidly
displaced much of the genetic diversity in farmers’ fields
that sustained local (food) cultures (Howard, 2003) andwhich had allowed farmers to manage place-dependent
risks (Richards, 1985); the higher use of pest control
chemicals in irrigated rice in the tropics had detrimental
effects on beneficial insects, soils and water (Kenmore
et al., 1984; Georghiou, 1986; Gallagher, 1988; Litsinger, 1989) as well as on human health (Whorton et al.,
1977; Barsky, 1984).The evidence of negative effects onequity was claimed by some to be a first generation effect. Analysis of data from the Northern Arcot regionof Tamil Nadu, India, indicated that the differences inyield found between large and small-scale producers in
the 1970s had disappeared by the 1980s (Hazell andRamaswamy, 1991) but further empirical studies failed
to resolve the extent to which the second generation effects were the result of “catch up” by later adopters or
the result of smaller farmers having lost their land or
migrated out of farming (Niazi, 2004).
Theoretical: A basic assumption of the ToT model that“knowledge” can be transferred was shown to be
wrong. It is information and communications aboutothers’ knowledge and the products of knowledge thatcan be shared (Beal et al., 1986). No one is merely achapter 02.indd 64

passive “receiver” of information and technology since
every one engages in the full range of knowledge processes as a condition of human survival (Seligman andHagar, 1972; Maturana and Varela, 1992; Varela et al.,1993). Information about people’s existing knowledge,
attitudes and practices was found to be a poor predictorof their response to new ideas, messages, or technologies because knowledge processes and behaviors interact with the dynamic of people’s immediate environment (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). The organization ofprocesses for generating knowledge that is effective inaction (Cook and Brown, 1999; Hatchuel, 2000; Snowden, 2005) was shown to take many forms. Where therights of individuals and communities to be agents intheir own development and considerations of equity,
human health, and environmental sustainability were
important policy goals, the comparative advantages of
the ToT model also appeared less compelling (Jones andRolls, 1982; de Janvry and Dethier, 1985; Swanson,
1984; Jones, 1986).
Practical: The mix of organizational support and services
needed to gain maximum impact from the ToT model
often were inadequate, imposed high transaction costs
or were not accessible to the poor and to women (Howell, 1982; Korten and Alfonso, 1983; Ahmed and Ruttan, 1988; Jiggins, 1989). The positive role of local organizations as intermediaries in rural development wasdemonstrated but also the tendency for agricultural
services organized along ToT lines to bypass these (Esman and Uphoff, 1984). The credit markets introduced
to support technology adoption for instance typicallywere selective and biased in favor of resource rich regions and individuals (Howell, 1980; Freebairn, 1995)
although pioneering initiatives such as the Grameen
Bank in Bangladesh demonstrated that alternative approaches to the provision of microcredit to poor producers, women and farm laborers were possible (Yunus, 1982). Institutional analyses demonstrated how
and why ToT arrangements that worked well in one
context might fail to perform as well when introduced
into other contexts. A recent authoritative assessment
concludes that after “twenty-five years in which agricultural extension received the highest level of attention
it ever attracted on the rural development agenda” political support for ToT in the form of “relatively uniform packages of investments and extension practices
in large state and national programs” had disappeared(Anderson et al., 2006).
2.1.2.2 Other models of knowledge generation anddiffusion processes
By the early 1970s, empirical studies and better theoreticalunderstanding indicated that better mental models of knowledge processes were needed to guide practice if broader development goals were to be reached (Hunter, 1970). The
first wave of institutional innovation in the organizationof knowledge processes in noncommunist states sought tomake more effective the process of moving science “downthe pipeline” and technologies “off the shelf” by creating
mechanisms and incentives for obtaining feedback fromproducers so that their local knowledge and priorities could

11/3/08 10:42:17 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 65

be taken into account in targeting the specific needs of different categories of farmers. The Training and Visit (T&V)
approach is a particularly well known example of this effort (Benor et al., 1984). It was heavily supported by theWorld Bank and became standard practice in the majority
of noncommunist developing countries. Among other aims
it sought to strengthen the management of diffusion processes by selection of “contact” or “leading farmers” andin some cases also contact groups. Extension agents reportback “up the line” the problems and priorities of the farmer and farmer groups that they trained during their fortnightly field visits (Benor et al., 1984). The T&V approach
was criticized almost from its inception as an inadequate
response to the widespread evidence of the limitations of
ToT approaches (Rivera and Schram, 1987; Howell, 1988;
Gentil, 1989; Roberts, 1989). Little remains today of national T&V investments and service structures (Anderson
et al., 2006).
Farming systems research and extension (FSRE) is another well-known response. In this model, feedback came
directly through diagnostic surveys carried out by multidisciplinary teams, by farm level interactions between researchers and farmers in the course of technology design, testing
and adaptation and by the organization of farmer visits toresearch stations (Rhoades and Booth, 1982; Bawden, 1995;
Collinson, 2000). Wide impact in this case was sought by
the designation of farming systems within agroecological“recommendation domains” for which a specific technology or practice was designed to be effective and profitable.
FSRE practitioners explicitly took into account the contextual conditions that might compromise the effectiveness or
profitability of a problem-solution as well as sociocultural
factors such as women’s roles in farming. How well they
managed to do so was disputed (Russell et al., 1989). FSRE
produced interesting results but failed to have wide impact.
Although largely abandoned as an institutional arrangement, its influence lived on (Dent and McGregor, 1994)
through methodological innovations addressing the highly
differentiated livelihood needs of the rural poor (Dixon andGibbon, 2001), the stimulus it gave to revaluation of themultifunctionality of farming (Pearson and Ison, 1997) andthe ways in which it forged connections across scientific disciplines that endure within the organizational arrangementsof numerous research communities (Engel, 1990).
Neither T&V nor FSRE addressed the institutional challenge of creating “the mix” of support services necessary
for articulating innovation along the chain from producer
to consumer (Lionberger, 1986). In the private commercial
sector the production of tea, coffee, palm oil, rubber, pineapples and similar commodities in the small-scale sector
typically used the core-estate-with-out-growers model toaddress the challenge (Chambers, 1974; Hunter et al., 1976;
Compton, 1989), positioning producers under contract tosupply outputs to a processing facility that provided inputs
and services. The company assumed responsibility for assembling the scientific and market knowledge required aswell as the technology and infrastructure for securing company profits, drawing largely on knowledge resources in thehome country or from within the company’s international
operations. The approach provided reliable income to producers, employees and companies and through commodity

chapter 02.indd 65

taxes or export levies to governments. It was criticized forlocking small-scale producers into low income contracts. It
also proved open to corruption when applied through government owned Commodity Boards, with profits siphoned
off to intermediaries and elites (Chambers and Howe, 1979;
Sinzogan et al., 2007).
The challenge was addressed in Communist states bystate seizure of the means of production and by state controlof the provision of inputs and services and the distribution of
the product. The scientific knowledge base to support sucha high degree of planning was strong. However, the meanschosen within the prevailing ideology to translate knowledge generated at the scientific level into knowledge thatwas effective for practice was based on command and control. Support to the knowledge processes and experiential
capacity of those actually working the land—albeit under
direction of others—was not encouraged. In the exceptional
historical experiences of states such as Cuba (Carney, 1993;
Wright, 2005) or Vietnam state-directed knowledge processes contributed to basic food security but in general thecommand and control approach did not prove efficient ingenerating surplus nor a continuing stream of innovationin agriculture and became a source of vulnerability for statesurvival (Gao and Li, 2006). Since the fall of the Berlin Wallin 1989, the command and control model has been largely
abandoned.
A parallel wave of innovation in the organizational design of knowledge processes was centered in producers’ own
capacity to engage in “knowledge work” and on the role oflocal organizations in meeting development and sustainability goals (Chambers and Howes, 1979; Chambers, 1981).
Models for what became known as Farmer Participatory
Research and Extension (FPRE) were elaborated in practice by drawing on local traditions of association, knowledge generation and communication. Experience generated
under labels such as Participatory Learning and Action
Research, Farmer Research Circles, Community Forestry,
Participatory Technology Development and FAO’s People’s
Participation Program (Haverkort et al., 1991; Scoones andThompson, 1994; Ashby, 2003; Coutts et al., 2005; IIRR,
2005) showed that if time is taken to create effective andhonest partnerships in FPRE the results are significant andcan offer new opportunities to socially marginalized communities and those excluded under other knowledge arrangements. They share a number of generic features viz.
learner-centered, place dependent, ecologically informed
and use of interactive communication and of facilitation
rather than extension skills (Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985;
Ashby, 1986; Farrington and Martin, 1987; Gamser, 1988;
Biggs, 1989; Haverkort et al., 1991; Ashby, 2003). Scienceand off-the-shelf technologies are positioned as stores ofknowledge and as specialized problem-solving capacities
that can be called upon as needed. An FPRE approach has
been used for example in the development and promotionof on-farm multipurpose tree species in Kenya (Buck, 1990)
that had wide-scale impact and complemented the mobilization of women in tree-planting under the Green Belt movement (Budd et al., 1990).The development and promotion
through farmer-to-farmer communication and training ofa range of soil fertility and erosion control techniques inCentral America similarly was based on an FPRE approach

11/3/08 10:42:18 AM

66 | IAASTD Global Report(Bunch and Lopez, 1994; Hocdé et al., 2000; Hocdé et al.,2002) as were integrated rice-duck farming in Bangladesh(Khan et al., 2005) and the testing and adaptation of agricultural engineering prototypes by farmer members of the
Kondomin Group network in Australia. Nongovernmentorganizations (NGOs), community-based organizations(CBOs), universities and the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) played key roles inelaborating effective practice and supporting local FPRE
initiatives (Lumbreras, 1992; Dolberg and Petersen, 1997;
IIRR, 1996, 2005).
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) is a particular adaptation of FPRE: its client-oriented interactive approach to
demand-driven research has been shown to be particularly
effective for grains, beans and roots (de Boef et al., 1993;
Sperling et al., 1993; Farrington and Witcombe, 1998;
CIAT, 2001; Fukuda and Saad, 2001; Chiwona-Karltun,
2001; Mkumbira, 2002; Ceccarelli et al., 2002; Witcombe
et al., 2003; Virk et al., 2005). It is a flexible strategy for
generating populations, pure lines and mixes of pure lines
in self-pollinated crops as well as hybrids, populations, andsynthetics in cross-pollinated crops. Biodiversity is maintained or enhanced because different varieties are selected
at different locations (Joshi et al., 2001; Ceccarelli et al.,2001ab). Recent assessments of over 250 participatory plant
breeding projects in over 50 countries in Latin America,
Europe, south and southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa
led by farmers, NGOs or by national or international researchers or some mix of these actors (Atlin et al., 2001;
Joshi et al., 2001; Cleveland and Soleri, 2002; Ashby and
Lilja, 2004; Almekinders and Hardon, 2006; Mangione,
2006; Ceccarelli and Grando, 2007; Joshi et al., 2007)
demonstrate that PPB is a cost-effective practice that is bestviewed along a continuum of plant breeding effort. French
researchers, e.g., are working with marker-assisted selection
to develop virus resistant rice varieties for Central America
and the Cameroon in the context of PPB activities (www.ird.fr/actualites/2006/fas247.pdf). GIS and satellite-based
imaging are adding additional value to PPB activities.
While over 8000 improved varieties of food grains withwide adaptability have been released over a 40-yr period by
the CGIAR institutes (Evenson and Gollin, 2003b), PPB has
shown capacity to generate multiples of this output for target environments, specific problems and the needs of farmers overlooked by conventional breeding efforts. The threemajor differences of PPB compared to conventional breeding
are that testing and selection take place on the farm insteadof on-station; the key decisions are taken jointly by farmers
and breeders; the process can be independently implemented
in a large number of locations. The activity also incorporates seed production with farmers multiplying promising
breeding material in village-based seed production systems.
The assessments also highlights the improved research efficiencies and program effectiveness gained by faster progress toward seed release and the focus on the multiplicationof varieties known to be farmer-acceptable. Decentralized
selection in target environments for specific adaptations allows women’s seed preferences to be addressed (Sperling etal., 1993; Ashby and Lilja, 2004; Almekinders and Hardon,
2006). Sustained PPB activity has the additional advantage
of bringing about the progressive empowerment of indi-chapter 02.indd 66

vidual farmers and farmer communities (Almekinders andHardon, 2006; Cecccarelli and Grando, 2007). However,
the tightening of UPOV regulations and the increasing trend
toward seed patenting and IPR over genetic material has
given rise to concern (Walker, 2007) that despite PPB’s demonstrated advantages in a wide variety of contexts and for
multiple purposes the space for PPB may be closing.
As the case of PPB shows, wider scale impact in the caseof FPRE relies on the replication of numerous initiatives
in response to specific markets and non-market demands
rather than on supply-push and diffusion of messages ortechnologies, although diffusion processes can and do amplify the outcomes of FPRE. The process of replication canbe strengthened through investment in farmer-to-farmer
networking (Van Mele and Salahuddin, 2005), support tofarmer driven chain development (as in poultry or dairy
chains serving local markets) and in the creation of “learning alliances” among support organizations that aim topromote shared learning at societal scales (Pretty, 1994;
Lightfoot et al., 2002). FPRE has proved to be cost-effective and fit for the purposes of meeting integrated development and sustainability goals (Bunch, 1982; Hyman, 1992)
and for natural resource management (NRM) in agrarianlandscapes (Campbell, 1992, 1994; Hilhorst and Muchena,
2000; CGIAR, 2000; Stroosnijder and van Rheenen, 2001;
Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004). However, it has been criticized for failing in specific cases to take advantage of the“best” science and technology available, as self-indulgent
by supporting farm systems that some consider insufficiently
productive to provide surplus to feed the world’s growing
urban populations; as sometimes misreading the gender
power dynamics of local communities (Guijt and Shah,1998) and as incapable of involving a sufficient number ofsmall-scale producers (Biggs, 1995; Richards, 1995; Cooke
and Kothari, 2001). NGOs and community-based organizations have raised issues of equity. It has also been criticized
as too locally focused (see critiques of Australia’s Landcare
experience in Lockie and Vanclay, 1997; Woodhill, 1999)
and thus unable to address higher level economic and governance constraints and tradeoffs. This criticism has prompted
recent institutional experimentation with applying FPRE
under catchment scale regional development authorities(Australia) and in sustainable water development (South
Africa and Europe) (Blackmore et al., 2007) within normative policy frameworks that explicitly seek the sustainabilityof both human activity and agroecologies.
Innovations in the organization of knowledge processes
also occurred in relation to farmer-developed traditions ofagroecological farming (e.g., Fukuoka, 1978; Dupré, 1991;
Gonzales, 1999; Furuno, 2001), gathering and domestication of wild foods and non-timber forest products (Scoones
et al., 1992; Martin, 1995) and landscape management(Fairhead and Leach, 1996). For example migrants fromthe Susu community first encountered the rice-growing ethnic Balantes in Guinea Bissau around 1920; later on, theSusu (and the related Baga peoples) hired migrant Balantes
to carry out rice cultivation in the brackish waters of coastal
Guinea Conakry where the skills are now recognized as traditional knowledge (Sow, 1992; Penot, 1994).
Indigenous long-standing technologies include the useof Golden Weaver ants as a biocontrol in citrus and mango

11/3/08 10:42:18 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 67

orchards (Bhutan, Vietnam and more recently, with WARDA’s assistance, introduced to West Africa); stone lines andplanting 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); tank irrigation (India,
Sri Lanka); and many aspects of agroforestry, e.g., rubber,
cinnamon, and damar agroforests in Indonesia. Over theyears they have supported wildlife and biodiversity and richcultural developments.
It is this continuing indigenous capacity for placebased innovation that has been almost entirely responsible
for the initial bringing together of the science, knowledge
and technology arrangements for what have become overtime certified systems of agroecological farming such asorganic farming, confusingly known also as biological orecoagriculture; (Badgely et al., 2007) and variants such aspermaculture (Mollison, 1988; Holmgren, 2002). Systems
such as these are knowledge-intensive, tend to use less or
no externally supplied synthetic inputs and seek to generate
healthy soils and crops through sustainable management ofagroecological cycles within the farm or by exchange amongneighboring farms. Although there is considerable variationin the extent to which the actors in diverse settings initiallydrew on formal science and knowledge, as the products have
moved onto local, national, and international markets under various certification schemes the relationships between
formal AKST actors and producer organizations have become stronger along the entire chain from seed production
to marketing (Badgely et al., 2007). A distinctive feature inthese arrangements is the role of specialist farmers in producing certified seed on behalf of or as members of producer
organizations.
The relative lack of firm evidence of the sustainability
and productivity of these kinds of certified systems in different settings and the variability of findings from different
contexts allows proponents and critics to hold entrenched
positions about their present and potential value (Bindraban and Rabbinge, 2005; Tripp, 2005; Tripp, 2006a).
However, recent comprehensive assessments conclude that
although these systems have limitations, better use of local
resources in small scale agriculture can improve productivity and generate worthwhile innovations (Tripp, 2006b) andagroecological/organic farming can achieve high production
efficiencies on a per area basis and high energy use efficiencies and that on both these criteria they may outperformconventional industrial farming (Pimentel et al., 2005; Slighand Christman, 2007; Badgely et al., 2007). Despite having
lower labor efficiencies than (highly mechanized) industrial
farming and experiencing variable economic efficiency, latest
calculations indicate a capability of producing enough foodon a per capita basis to provide between 2,640 to 4,380 kilocalories/per person/per day (depending on the model used)
to the current world population (Badgely et al., 2007). Their
higher labor demand compared to conventional farming canbe considered an advantage where few alternative employment opportunities exist. Organic agriculture as a certified
system by 2006 was in commercial practice on 31 million hain 120 countries and generating US$40 billion per year.
Innovations with comparable goals but originating inprivate commercial experience (Unilever, 2005) or in thechapter 02.indd 67

context of partnerships among a range of farmers’ organizations, public and private commercial enterprises by the mid
1990s were reported with increasing frequency (Grimble andWellard, 1996). The Northwest Area Foundation experiencein the USA (Northwest Area Foundation, 1995), the New
Zealand dairy industry (Paine et al., 2000) or farming andwildlife advisory groups in the UK are among the numerous
compelling examples of an emerging practice. They indicate
a convergence of experience toward a range of options forbringing multifunctional agriculture into widespread practice in diverse settings by working with farmer-participatory
approaches in combination with advanced science solutions(Zoundi et al., 2001; Rickert, 2004).
The continuing role of traditional and local knowledge
in AKST for most of the world’s small-scale producers ingenerating innovations that sustain individuals and communities also merits highlighting. Indigenous knowledge (IK)
is a term without exact meaning but it is commonly taken
to refer to locally bound knowledge that is indigenous to a
specific area and embedded in the culture, cosmology andactivities of particular peoples. Indigenous knowledge processes tend to be nonformal (even if systematic and rigorous),
dynamic and adaptive. Information about such knowledge
is usually orally transmitted but also codified in elaborate
written and visual materials or artifacts and relates closely
to the rhythms of life and institutional arrangements thatgovern local survival and wellbeing (Warren and Rajasekaran, 1993; Darré, 1999; Hounkonnou, 2001). Indigenous
and local knowledge actors are not necessarily isolated intheir experience but actively seek out and incorporate information about the knowledge and technology of others (vanVeldhuizen et al., 1997). Sixty years ago such knowledge
processes were neglected except by a handful of scholars.
From the 1970s onward a range of international foundations, NGOs, national NGOs and CBOs began working locally to support IK processes and harness these in the causeof sustainable agricultural modernization, social justice andthe livelihoods of the marginalized (IIRR, 1996; Boven andMordhashi, 2002). Much more is known today about theinstitutional arrangements that govern the production of IK
in farming (Colchester, 1994; Howard, 2003; Balasubramanian and Nirmala Devi, 2006). Poverty and hunger persist
at local levels and among indigenous peoples and this indeed
may arise from inadequacies in the knowledge capacity ofrural people or the technology available, but field studies ofknowledge processes of indigenous peoples, their empirical
traditions of enquiry and technology generation capabilities (Gonzales, 1999) establish that that these also can behighly effective at both farm (Brouwers, 1993; Song, 1998;
Hounkounou, 2001) and landscape scales (Tiffen et al.,
1994; Darré, 1995). IK related to agriculture and natural
resource management is assessed today as a valuable individual and social asset that contributes to the larger public interest (Reij et al., 1996; Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001;
World Bank, 2006) and likely to be even more needed under
mitigation of and adaptation to climate change effects.
However, empirical research shows how economic drivers originating in larger systems of interest tend to undermine the autarchic gains made at local levels or to block
further development and upscaling (Stoop, 2002; Unver,2005). A major challenge to IK and more broadly to FPRE

11/3/08 10:42:19 AM

68 | IAASTD Global Reportover the last few decades has been the emergence of IPR
regimes (see 2.3.1) that so far do not adequately protect
or recognize individual farmers’ and communities’ ongoing and historic contributions to knowledge creation andtechnology development or their rights to the products andgermplasm created and sustained under their management.
Even so, innovative ways forward can be found: formal
breeders and commercial organizations in the globally important Dutch potato industry cooperate with Dutch potato
hobby specialists in breeding and varietal selection; farmers negotiate formal contracts which give them recognition
and reward for their intellectual contribution in all varieties
brought to market.
The inequities in access and benefit sharing under thevarious protocols and conventions negotiated at international levels have given rise to a strong civil society response(2.2.1; 2.2.3) reflected in the Declaration on Indigenous Peoples’ rights to genetic resources and IK—a collective statement on an international regime on access and benefit sharing issued by the indigenous peoples and organizations meeting at the Sixth Session of the United Nations Permanent
Forum on Indigenous Issues, in New York on 14-25 May,
2007 (ICPB-Net Indigenous Peoples’ Council on Biocolonialism, http://lists.ipcb.org/listinfo.cgi/ipcb-net-ipcb.org).
Recent experience with the development of enforceable rights
for collective innovations (Salazar et al., 2007) offers groundfor evolution of currently dominant IPRs. There are newconcerns that clean development mechanisms (CDMs), international payments for environmental services or payments
for avoided deforestation and/or degradation will override
the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.
The final model considered here is by far the most dominant model of knowledge processes associated with commercial innovation in the private sector, the chain-linked
model (Kline and Rosenberg, 1986). A distinctive featureis the effort made throughout every stage of product development to obtain feedback from markets and end users (Blokker et al., 1990); it is demand-driven rather than
supply-push. It has given significant impulse to the development of market economies wherever the enabling conditions
exist but has had little to offer where science organizations
have remained weak and consumer markets are unable toarticulate monetary demand—as in fact has been the casefor much of the period among the rural and urban poor andespecially among women and other marginalized peoples.
The recent emphasis among policy makers on developing market-oriented and market-led opportunities along entire value chains for small-scale producers and other rural
people (DFID 2002, 2005; NEPAD, 2002; IAC, 2004; FAO,
2005c; UN Millennium Project, 2005; World Bank, 2005c;
OECD, 2006a) has created wider interest in the model as aplatform where diverse actors in public-private partnerships
can find each other and organize their respective roles. Today it is being extended with varying energy mainly in the“new consumer economies” i.e., countries with populations
over 20 million (Argentina, Brazil, China, Colombia, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines,
Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea,
Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela). However, evidenceof the extent to which small-scale producers can participate
effectively, if at all, in these arrangements in the absence ofchapter 02.indd 68

strong producers’ organizations (Reardon et al., 2003) andof the impact on knowledge management (Spielman and
Grebner, 2004; Glasbergen et al., 2007) has shown that theinterests of private research and public-private partners may
diverge from the combined public interest goals of equity,
sustainability and productivity. Holding on to benefits may
be difficult for employees and national research systems inglobalizing markets as the recent rapid switch of a numberof commercial cut flower operations from Kenya to Ethiopia
illustrates, while global retailers’ ability to determine price,
quality, delivery and indirectly also labor conditions for suppliers and producers in the chain means that the burdens ofcompetition may be transferred to those least able to sustain
them (Harilal et al., 2006).
2.1.2.3 New challenges and opportunities
Transfer of technology has become important in recent
years as a means of shifting technological opportunity andknowledge among private commercial actors located indifferent parts of the world and through science networks
that stretch across geographic boundaries. It continues toguide practice as a means of promoting farm level change inwhat are still large public sector systems in countries such as
China (Samanta and Arora, 1997). However, increasingly
ToT has to find its place in an organizationally fragmented
and complex context that emphasizes demand-driven rather than supply-push arrangements (Rivera, 1996; Leeuwis
and van den Ban, 2004; Ekwamu and Brown, 2005). The
shift toward contracting or other forms of privatization ofresearch, extension and advisory services in an increasing
number of countries (Rivera and Gustafson, 1991; Byerleeand Echevveria, 2002; Rivera and Zijp, 2002; van den Ban
and Samantha, 2006) is an effort to reorganize the divisionof power among different players in AKST. In the process
the central state is losing much of its ability to direct technological choice and the organization of knowledge processes.
The effects and the desirability in different contexts of altering the balance between public and private arrangements
remain under debate as the expanding diversity of financing and organizational arrangements has not yet been fully
assessed (Allegri, 2002; Heemskerk and Wennink, 2005;
Pardey et al., 2006a).
Decentralization and devolution of development-related
governance powers from central to more local levels in an
increasing number of developing countries has opened thespace for many more instances of FPR&E in an increasingly
diverse array of partnerships that are not easy to classify
and demand new frames of understanding (Dorward et al.,
1998; AJEA, 2000). At the same time, the push for exportoriented agriculture and in an increasing number of countries, the strong growth in domestic consumer demand has
opened the space for the chain-linked model to be expressedmore widely and with deeper penetration into small-scale
farming communities. In addition, the “core estate-without-growers” model has taken on new life as international
food processors and retailers contract organized producer
associations to produce to specification. The partnership between IFAD and the Kenya Tea Development Authority tointroduce sustainable production techniques to small-scale
outgrowers by means of Field Schools is a strong exampleof how changing values in consuming countries can have

11/3/08 10:42:19 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 69

positive knock-on effects for the poor. Some models are
more fit than others for meeting development and sustainability goals (Table 2-2).
The growing recognition of the complexity of knowledge processes and relations among a multiplicity of diverse
actors has led to renewed attention to the role of information and communication processes (Rogers and Kincaid,1981). All parties in communication play roles of “senders”
and “receivers,” “encoders” and “decoders,” of information but communication typically is neither neutral nor symmetric: empirical studies demonstrate the extent to whichsocial, cultural and political factors determine whose voices
are heard and listened to (Holland and Blackburn, 1998).
The history of the last sixty years may be read in part as ahistory of struggle to get the voices of the poor, of womenand other marginalized people heard in the arenas wherescience and technology decisions are made (Leach et al.,2005; IDS, 2006).
By the 1980s the technologies of the digital age began to revolutionize the ability to obtain and disseminate
information. Computer communication technologies andmobile telephony are becoming available to populations indeveloping countries (ITU, 2006). Mobile telephony by end
2006 had become a US$25 billion industry across Africa
and the Middle East and Indian operators were signing up
6.6 million new subscribers a month. In the last five years
low cost mobile telephony has begun to overtake computerbased technology as the platform for information-sharing

and communication. For the first time, poor producers in remote places no longer have to remain isolated from market
actors or to rely on bureaucrats or commercial middlemen
for timely market information (Lio and Meng-Chun, 2006).
Initiatives such as TradeNet (Ghana) connect buyers andsellers across more than ten countries in Africa and Trade atHand provides daily price information to vegetable and fruit
exporters in Burkina Faso and Senegal.
The new ICTs are also opening up formal education
opportunities, ranging from basic literacy and numeracy
courses to advanced academic, vocational and professional
training. Free online libraries (e.g., IDRIS) and new institutional arrangements offer potential for further innovationin knowledge processes. For instance, the Digital Doorway,
a robust portable computer platform with free software fordownloading information, is being initiated at schools andcommunity forums throughout southern Africa by Syngenta
and the University of Pretoria to support locally adapted
curricula for Schools in the Field covering a range of crops,
animals, poultry, small rural agroenterprises and soil andwater management. Insufficient information is available
as yet to make robust assessments of these trends but theearly evidence is that their impact may be at least as important as technologies originating within AKST development.
Nonetheless, the rate of expansion of access to modern ICTs
continues to be much greater in developed than developing countries and among urban more than rural populations, raising concerns about how to avoid ICTs reinforcing

Table 2-2. Characteristics of models of knowledge processes in relation to fitness for purpose.
Modelchapter 02.indd 69

Model Characteristics

Fit for Purpose

ToT

Science as the source of innovation; linear
communication flows through hierarchicallyorganized linkages; farmers as passive cognitive
agents serving public interests

Productivity increase on the basis of substitutable
technologies, simple messages, simple practices;
catalyzing Cochrane’s “treadmill” (1958) i.e., forcing
farmers to adopt the latest price-cutting, yield
increasing measures in order to stay competitive in themarket. Not fit for promoting complicated technologies& management practices, complex behavior change,
and landscape scale innovations

Farmer-Scientist
Collaboration

Innovations as place dependent and multisourced, based on widely distributed
experimental capacity; communication flows
multi-sided, through networked social andorganizational linkages among autonomous
actors serving their own interests

Socially equitable, environmentally sustainable
livelihood development at local levels, multistakeholder landscape management, andempowerment of self-organizing producers andgroups. Not fit for rapid dissemination of simple
messages, substitutable technologies, simple
practices

Contractual
Arrangements

Science as an on-demand service to support
production to specification; communication
flows framed by processors’ and retailers’
need to supply to known market requirements;
farmers as tied agents serving company
interests

Sustains yield and profit in company interests; can beenvironmentally sustainable but not necessarily so.
Contractual arrangements can trap poor farmers in
dependent, unequal relationships with the company.
Crop focused, thus not fit for promoting whole systemdevelopment or landscape scale innovations

Chain-linked

Science as a store of knowledge and a
specialized problem-solving capacity; structured
communication among product/technology
development team around iterative prototyping,
continuously informed by market information;
farmers sometimes as team members but
primarily as market actors serving privateinterests

Motor of innovation in the private commercial sector
in the presence of monetized markets, consumers
able to articulate demand, and adequate sciencecapacity. Increasingly, practitioners have begun tointernalize within company R&D practices a range ofenvironmental and sustainable livelihood concerns—
the “triple bottom line”—under pressure from citizens
and regulation

11/3/08 10:42:19 AM

70 | IAASTD Global Report

existing patterns of inequality (Gao and Li, 2006).The history of broadcast radio suggests that over time the “digital divide” may become narrower. Issues of the quality andrelevance of the information available are likely to become
more important than those of access and ability to use thetechnology.
2.1.3 Science processes
Science processes are those involved in the creation anddissemination of scientific knowledge; including processes
within the scientific community and interactions between
scientific communities and other actors. Members of a scientific community are defined here as those who are principally involved as professional actors in such activities as
pre-analytic theorizing, problem identification, hypothesis
formulation and testing through various designs and procedures (such as mathematical modeling, experimentation or
field study), data collection, analysis and data processing andcritical validation through peer review and publication, i.e.,
activities commonly viewed as core practices of scientists.
Intellectual investment in these activities by individual
scientists is driven in part by human motivations such as
curiosity and the pleasure of puzzle-solving but also by the
structure of professional incentives that encourages—even
demands—that scientists pay closer attention to obtaining
the recognition of their work by peers in the scientific community rather than by other segments of society. However,scientific institutions cannot ignore the preoccupations andknowledge wielded by other actors (Girard and Navarette,2005) and in other societal forums. This is particularly obvious in the case of agriculture; no matter the science involvedin the origin and initial development of an idea, to be effective it has to become an applied science with potential forwide impact whose results are visible to all in the form ofchanges in agricultural landscapes. Thus it is unsurprisingthat opinions and drivers outside the domain of science itself
condition science for agriculture. This tension between the
incentives faced by individual scientists and the societal demands placed on scientific institutions in agriculture has been
growing in recent decades, posing a strong challenge for thegovernance of scientific institutions (Lubchenco, 1998).
2.1.3.1 Cultures of science
Agricultural science processes in our period have been associated with the cultures of thought distinguished by two
intellectual domains known respectively as “positivist realism” and “constructivism”. The positivist realist understanding of modern science as a neutral, universal, and value-free explanatory system has dominated the processes ofscientific inquiry in agriculture for the period under review.
The basic assumptions are that reality exists independentlyof the human observer (realism), and can be described andexplained in its basic constitution (positivism).This mind
set is legitimate for the work that professional scientists
do and enables transparent and rigorous tests of truth toguide their work. However, others (Kuhn, 1970; Prigogine
and Stengers, 1979; Bookchin, 1990; Latour, 2004) havefound this scheme problematic for explaining causality intheir own disciplines for a number of reasons: it appears to
exclude the qualitative (even if quantitative) ambiguous andhighly contextualized interpretations that human subjects

chapter 02.indd 70

give to the meaning of reality and it does not allow sufficiently for the unpredictability of the social effects of any intervention nor for the reflexive nature of social interactions(the object of enquiry never stabilizes; learning that something has happened changes decisions about what actions totake, in an unending dance of co-causality). This differencein legitimate perspective provides a partial explanation of
why “the history” of the last sixty or so years cannot stabilize around a single authoritative causal interpretation ofwhat has happened.
For scientists working within positive realist traditions
the locus of scientific knowledge generation is largely confined to public and private universities, independent science
institutions and laboratories and to an increasing extent
corporate research and development (R&D) facilities. These
offer the conditions for highly specialized expertise to be applied to study of immutable laws governing phenomena thatallow for prediction and control. Technology is conceived inthis logic as applied science, i.e., as a design solution developed by experts removed from the site of application. The
main task of the agricultural sciences in this perspective thus
becomes that of developing the best technical solutions tocarefully described problems (Gibbons et al., 1994; Röling,2004). The problem description can and often does include scientists’ understanding of environmental and social
dimensions.
The paradigm of positive realism has attracted largescale support for public and private science institutions as away of thinking about and organizing innovation in tropicalagriculture. It was harnessed to the expectation of maximizing yields and compensating for shortfalls in the quantity or
quality of the biotic and abiotic factors of production by theprovision of supplementary inputs, such as fertilizers andservices to improve the productivity of labor and land. As
such this paradigm lies at the heart of what is often called“productivism”, a doctrine of agricultural modernization
giving primary emphasis to increased productivity rather
than the multifunctionality of agriculture or to the role ofagriculture in rural development. It has constituted for muchof the period under review a primary justification for science
investments for development (Evenson et al., 1979).
The dominance of this paradigm has had notable institutional consequences. University agricultural faculties
progressively became divided into highly specialized departments. This split created “knowledge silos” that reflected
the increasing specialization of scientific disciplines that reduced agriculture as an integrated practice into smaller andsmaller fractions that largely excluded the human manager.
This reductionism made it harder to mobilize multidisciplinary teams to address more complex problems (Bentley,1994) and was consistent with the increasing specialization in modern farm sectors, developing countries and thesocial sciences.
More inclusive and integrated science practices began
to emerge from the 1970s onwards (Werge, 1978; Agarwal, 1979; Izuno, 1979; Biggs, 1980, 1982; Rhoades, 1982;
Biggs, 1983). The drivers for this included the emergence ofgender studies and women in agricultural development projects (Jiggins, 1984; Appleton, 1995; Doss and McDonald,1999); the impact studies, analyses, and evaluations commissioned through the reporting cycles of the UN Human

11/3/08 10:42:20 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 71

Development agency and the FAO’s Food and Hunger reportsthat showed the persistence of widespread hunger, rural unemployment and food insecurity for vulnerable populations;and studies of the land degradation, water pollution, andloss of flora or fauna species associated with narrow technological interventions. (Repetto, 1985; Loevinsohn, 1987;
Repetto et al., 1989; Repetto, 1990). The growing experienceof alternative ways of mobilizing science capacity (noted in
2.1.2-2.1.4) complemented these efforts and stimulated amore critical reflection within scientific communities (ODI,
1994) on the governance of agricultural science and the accountability of science as a source of innovation not only for“success” but also for “failure” in agricultural development.
Institutional responses included the creation around 1995
of a system-wide program on gender analysis and participatory research within the CGIAR and the beginning of thesustained long term research that fed into the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005).The ethical and political questions posed by scientific and technological choices
stimulated the spread and more rigorous use of ethics committees to address a broader range of societal considerations
and renewed efforts to bring together the natural, technicaland social sciences. This often involved the creation of specialist cross-disciplinary organizational units charged withthe task of integration around selected themes and of new
knowledge networks.
Scientists trained to specialize often struggled to understand their role in these arrangements. A different paradigm,
constructivism, offered a sound epistemological base for thekinds of interactive and integrative work that challenged
scientists as professionals to think about themselves andtheir work in new ways. The epistemological position of
constructivism is that reality and knowledge are actively created through social relationships and through interactions
between people and their environment. These relationships
and interactions are seen as affecting the ways in whichscientific knowledge is produced, organized and validated(Schütz, 1964; Berger and Luckmann, 1966). An authoritative overview of empirical research studies (Biggs and Farrington, 1991) robustly demonstrated the ways in which
institutional and political factors affected both the conductof agricultural science and the translation of research results
into farming practices. An important distinction became
more widely understood: i.e., between knowledge as a lived
experience of inquiry and hence transient and continuously
re-created and knowledge products that can be stabilized(e.g., in journal articles, technologies, artifacts and in thenorms of organizational behavior) and shared and under
the right conditions, will diffuse. It opened the door to science not only as a source of innovation but as potentially a
co-creator of knowledge in processes of enquiry shared withother actors (Borrini-Feyerabend, et al., 2004).
Collaboration among science disciplines tended to assume one of three forms: combining multiple disciplines ina single study; to a variable extent dissolving disciplinary
boundaries in purposive learning from each others’ disciplines and non-science actors; and transdisciplinary effort
that actively sought to build new frames of meaning and understanding (Figure 2-2). The founding precepts of General
Systems Theory, introduced by the biologist von Bertalanffy
in 1950 informed these efforts, especially from the 1970s

chapter 02.indd 71

onwards (Spedding, 1975; Cox and Atkins, 1979; Altieri,
1987). Strong interdisciplinary collaboration in developing
systemic approaches to agroecology occurred throughout
the world in the 1980s, often led by NGOs. The boundaries expanded to include on-farm fisheries, the role of wildand semi-domesticated foods and medicines (Scoones et al.,1992), forests and non-timber forest products (Ball, Carl,and Del Lungo, 2005). The agricultural sciences were newly
positioned at the interface of two complex and complementary systems: natural and social systems. Translationof this understanding into practice nonetheless faced strong
barriers within the scientific community and from market
specialization and the dominance of economic drivers oversocial and ecological sustainability concerns.
2.1.3.2 A changing contract between science and society
In the immediate post World War II period in what later became grouped as OECD countries there was a tacit understanding between science and society that what was goodfor science was good for humanity and that science would
deliver solutions to societal problems. The output response
in OECD agricultures and under the Green Revolution’s
early successes in Asia and then Latin America consolidated
this view and led over time to significantly higher national
investments in AKST and science in general. The less strong
impacts experienced in sub-Saharan Africa (Beintema andStads, 2006) reflected both the weakness of the scientificinfrastructures and personnel around the time of independence and the overall economic and social conditions of thetime, leading to a prolonged period of donor investment tostrengthen capacity (see Chapter 8). Although a few “islands of success” were created, the lack of sustained national investments meant that the capacity for science and technology development at the university, research institute orenterprise level in most of sub-Saharan Africa by the 1990s
had fallen to an exceptionally low level (Eisemon, 1986;
Eisemon and Davis, 1992; Gaillard and Waast, 1992). Recent renewed efforts by African leaders to build a stronger
contract between their societies and science have not yet
translated into adequate national investments in their own
science base.

Figure 2-2. Modes of science.

11/3/08 10:42:22 AM

72 | IAASTD Global Report

Over time science as a human activity began to beviewed more critically as the increasing reliance on scienceand technology to drive national economic growth progressively revealed also the technical risks of scientific development. This view resulted in a growing public mistrust insome countries concerning the effectiveness of science as theunqualified promoter of the public good, (Nelkin, 1975; Calvora, 1988; Gieryn, 1995; BAAS, 1999) although in others,
such as Sweden, public confidence in science has remained
high. For example, public concerns, themselves informedby science, surfaced for instance concerning the impact ofsynthetic chemicals on other species, human health and theenvironment. As these issues began to figure more strongly
in agricultural and food science research priorities (Byerlee and Alex, 1998) science began to occupy an ambiguous
position as a supplier of the objective knowledge needed togenerate new kinds of formal knowledge and technology
as well as that needed to identify and measure risks andthe evidence of harm that applications of knowledge andtechnology might cause in particular conditions of use; science as a human activity thus became implicated in societal
controversies (Nash, 1989; Brimblecombe and Pfister, 1993;
Gottlieb, 1993; Sale, 1993; Shiva, 2000; Maathai, 2003). It
experienced both optimistic support from the public about
its potential social utility and loss of credibility when it was
found in specific instances to have produced unintended orundesirable results. At the same time, the lines between public good science, not-for-profit science and science carriedout for commercial gain began to blur as the public sector
in many countries began to yield its role as a direct supplier and the private commercial sector emerged as a major
source of funding for agricultural science and technology
development.
The imbalance between science investments, infrastructures and staffing in OECD countries compared to tropicalcountries (UNESCO, 1993; Annerstedt, 1994) for much of
the period meant that “science’s contract with society” forthe goals of international agricultural development and sustainability had to be mobilized with the support of OECD
country electorates. That is, the resources had to be mobilized
by appeals to values and interests of people distanced fromthose experiencing the effects. This process stimulated thegrowth of civil society and NGOs working on international
development and the introduction of the broader concernsof citizens into the science agenda. As science institutions
by the 1990s in the poorest developing countries becameheavily dependent on foreign funding and foreign training
opportunities the concerns of donors tended to drive theiragendas. Other countries such as Brazil, South Africa, China
and India identified S&T as key drivers of their own economic development while giving relatively lower attention
specifically to the agricultural sciences. Private commercial
investment in science tended to concentrate on technologies
such as food preservation and processing, pest control technologies, feed stuffs, veterinary products and more recently
also on transgenic crops for which profits could be moreeasily captured; under competitive commercial pressures theconcerns of better-off consumers and urban residents alsobegan to influence the AKST agenda.
As a consequence of these complex interweaving trends,
public support for international agricultural development

chapter 02.indd 72

and sustainability was and remains peculiarly susceptible tocrises (EC, 2001; 2005). These include crises in intensive
agricultures, in the public mind in Europe associated with“the silent spring” (Carson, 1962) or diseases such as BSE(bovine spongiform encephalopathy—“mad cow disease”)
and more recently the risks of the spread of avian flu tothe intensive poultry industries of Europe and beyond. The
actual or potential human health consequences provided
an extra emotional dimension. Environmental crises, suchas the drying of Lake Aral through diversion of its waters
to feed the Soviet Union’s cotton farming or the unsustainable use of surface and groundwater in irrigated farmingin the southwest of the United States or in the Punjab orcrises of acute hunger and starvation, drought or flooding
similarly brought the agricultural sciences into question.
Fear of the unknown and suspicion of the concentration ofownership in commodity trading, food industries and input
supply (Tallontire and Vorley, 2005) and increasing private
control over new opportunities in agriculture arising fromadvances within science (WRI/UNEP/WBCSD, 2002) also
fed into public concerns. The first generation technologies resulting from genomics e.g., raised concerns about
the risks of increased spread of known allergens, toxins orother harmful compounds, and horizontal gene transfer
particularly of antibiotic-resistant genes and unintended effects (Ruan and Sonnino, 2006). An important consequenceis that demand has grown for stronger accountability,
stricter regulation and publicly funded evaluation systems
to determine objectively the benefits of new sciences andtechnologies.
Today in many industrialized countries an increasing
percentage of the funding for university science comes fromprivate commercial sources. It tends to be concentrated inareas of commercial interest or in advanced sciences suchas satellite imaging, nanotechnologies and genomics rather
than in applications deeply informed by knowledge of farming practice and ecological contexts. License agreementswith universities may include a benefit sharing mechanismthat releases funds for public interest research, but productdevelopment, especially the trials needed to satisfy regulatory authorities, is expensive and companies (as well as universities) need to recover costs. Hence a condition of fundingis that the source of funds often determines who is assigned
first patent rights on faculty research results. In some cases
the right to publication and the uninhibited exchange of information among scholars are also restricted. The assumption under these arrangements that scientific knowledge is a
private good changes radically the relationships within thescientific community and between that community and its
diverse partners
2.1.4 Technology and innovation processes
The relationship between technology and innovation has
remained a matter of debate throughout the period underreview. The analysis by scholars around the world of literally thousands of empirical studies of the processes thathave led to changes in practice and technology (not onlyin agriculture but in related sectors such as health) overtime has forced acceptance that innovation requires much
more than a new technology, practice, or idea and that not
all change is innovation. Innovation processes have been

11/3/08 10:42:23 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 73

driven mainly by for-profit drivers but there has been also
an as yet incomplete convergence toward AKST relationships, arrangements and processes that foster innovations
supportive of socially inclusive and ecologically sustainable
and productive agricultures.
2.1.4.1 Changes in perspective: from technologies toinnovations
The proposition that technical change could be a major engine of economic growth was demonstrated in the 1950s(Solow, 1957). Later analysis of empirical evidence showedthat small-scale producers, although handicapped by severe
constraints, made rational adaptations over time in theirpractices and technologies in response to those constraints.
Insofar as externally introduced technology released someof the constraints, technology could become a driver of significant change (Schultz, 1964). The Green Revolution subsequently appeared to vindicate the analysis and it quickly
became dominant in the agricultural economics profession(Mosher, 1966).The model that this analysis pointed toward
is the dominant way of organizing knowledge and diffusion
processes, i.e., “the transfer of technology model” (2.1.2)(e.g., Chambers and Jiggins, 1986). It is known also as apolicy model, variously as “the agricultural treadmill” (e.g.,
Cochrane, 1958) and “the linear model” (e.g., Kline andRosenberg, 1986); and its role in policy is assessed here.
In its simplest form it recommends technology supply-push,i.e., developing productivity enhancing component technologies through research for delivery, transfer, or release tofarmers, the “ultimate users”.
The model emerged in a specific historical context, theAmerican Midwest in the decennia after WWII (Van den Ban,1963); similar models were elaborated from empirical findings in other economic sectors. Although these mechanisms
driving the model’s impact are familiar to economists, they
are not necessarily as familiar to others so the persistenceof technology supply push as the dominant policy model
for stimulating technology change in agriculture warrants
a full explanation of the mechanisms. In the case of agriculture the empirical data robustly confirm the following
features:
1. Diffusion of innovations. Some technologies diffuse
quite rapidly in the farming community after their initial release, typically following the S-curve pattern of aslow start, rapid expansion and tapering off when all
farmers for whom the innovation is relevant or feasible have adopted. The classic case is hybrid maize in
Iowa (Ryan and Gross, 1943). Diffusion multiplies theimpact of agricultural research and extension effort“for free”. But diffusion is mainly observed ex-post: it
is difficult to predict (or ensure) that it will take place(Rogers, 2003).
2. Agricultural treadmill. The treadmill refers to the same
phenomenon but it focuses on the economics (Cochrane, 1958). Farmers who adopt early use of a technology that is more productive or less costly than theprevailing state-of-the-art technology, i.e., when prices
have not as yet decreased as a result of increased efficiency, capture a windfall profit. When others begin to
use the new technology, total production increases andprices start to fall. Farmers who have not yet adopted

chapter 02.indd 73

the technology or practice experience a price squeeze:
their incomes decrease even if they work as hard as before. Thus they must change; the treadmill refers to thefact that the market propels diffusion: it provides incentives for early adoption and disincentives for beinglate.
3. Terms of trade. A key underlying aspect of the treadmillis that farmers cannot retain the rewards of technical innovation. Because none of the thousands of small firms
who produce a commodity can control the price, all try
to produce as much as possible against the going price.
Given the low elasticity of demand of agricultural products, prices are under constant downward pressure.
During the last decennia, the price of food has continuously declined both in real and relative terms (World
Bank, 2008). The farm subsidies in the US and Europe
can be seen as a necessary cost for societal benefit without rural impoverishment.
4. Scale enlargement. In the tail of the diffusion process,farmers who are too poor, too small, too old, too stupid
or too ill to adopt eventually drop out. Their resources
are taken over by those who remain and who usually
capture the windfall profits. This shakeout leads toeconomies of scale in the sector as a whole.
5. Internal rate of return. Investing in agricultural researchand extension to feed the treadmill has a high internalrate of return (Evenson et al., 1979). The macro effects of relatively minor expenditures on technology
development and delivery are major in terms of (1) reallocating labor from agriculture to other pursuits asagriculture becomes more efficient, (2) improving thecompetitive position of a country’s agricultural exportson the world market, and (3) reducing the cost of food.
An advantage is that farmers do not complain. Theirrepresentatives in the farmers’ unions are among those
who capture windfall profits and benefit from the process, even though in the end the process leads to loss offarmers’ political power as their numbers dwindle to afew percent of the population. The treadmill encourages farmers to externalize social and environmental
costs, which tend to be difficult to calculate and hence
usually are not taken into account. One may note herethat this process, first described at the national level inthe case of the USA, also explains the growing gap in
the productivity of agricultural labor between industrialized and developing countries and that it leads tooverall efficiencies in production and reduced prices for
consumers, outcomes that have favored its persistence
as a dominant policy model.
However, other business analysts and social scientists
throughout the period under review have stressed the concept of innovation rather than mere technical change as ameasure of development. The evidence that technical change
itself requires numerous, often subtle, but decisive steps before an adoption decision is made reinforced this view (Rogers, 1983). Others pointed to biophysical, sociocultural, institutional and organizational factors such that when thesame technology is brought into use in different contexts
the effects vary (Dixon et al., 2001). Recently more emphasis has been given to development of “best fit” technology

11/3/08 10:42:23 AM

74 | IAASTD Global Report

options for a given situation, reflecting further discoveries
of institutional and sociological factors that shape technical opportunities (Herdt, 2006; Ojiem et al., 2006). This
understanding has deep roots in extension research (e.g.,
Loomis and Beagle, 1950; Ascroft et al., 1973; Röling et al.,1976), farming systems research (Collinson, 2000), 1980s
gender research (e.g., Staudt and Col, 1991; Sachs, 1996),
and 1990s policy research (e.g., Jiggins, 1989; Christopolos et al., 2000). However, the reasons that thinking about
policy began to change likely had little to do with this research and more to do with the realization that technology
supply-push could fuel massive social problems wherever
there were no alternative opportunities for those who could
not survive in farming. This lack of survival contributed
to the growth of megacity slums (UN Habitat, 2007), theease with which displaced youngsters eagerly turned toward
civil disorder and even civil war (Richards, 2002; UNHCR,
2007) and the growing numbers of internal and transboundary migrants (UNHCR, 2007). Supply-push arrangements were shown to produce agricultures accounting for
85% of the world’s water withdrawals and 21% (rising to35%) of gaseous emissions contributing to climate change;
and to the declining material condition of natural resources and biophysical functioning (MA, 2005; UNEP, 2005).
The cumulative evidence indicated a policy change was
overdue.
The concept of innovation systems offered itself as apolicy model for sustaining agricultures to meet ecologicaland social needs. Effective innovation systems were shownto need systemic engagement among a diversity of actors(Havelock; 1986; Swanson and Peterson, 1989; Röling
and Engel, 1991; Bawden and Packham, 1993; Engel andSalomon, 1997; Röling and Wagemakers, 1998; Chema etal., 2003; Hall et al., 2003, 2006). However, people andorganizations interact in diverse ways for the purposes ofcreating innovation for sustainable development; the rangeof actors needed to develop a specific innovation opportunity is potentially large and thus becomes increasingly
difficult to classify (Figure 2-3) (see 2.3). The “innovation
systems” concept, widely used in other industries, usefully
captures the complexity (Hall et al., 2006) by drawing attention to the totality of actors needed for innovation andgrowth; consolidating the role of the private sector and theimportance of interactions within a sector; and emphasizing
the outcomes of technology and knowledge generation andadoption rather than the strengthening of research systems
and their outputs.
Empirical studies emphasize that the dominant activity in the process is working with and reworking the stockof knowledge (Arnold and Bell, 2001) in a social processthat is realized in collaborative effort to generate individualand collective learning in support of an explicit goal. Innovation processes focus on the creation of products andtechnologies through ad hoc transformations in locally specific individual or collective knowledge processes. As suchinnovation is neither science nor technology but the emergent property of an action system (Crozier and Friedberg,1980) in which knowledge actors are entangled. The designof the action system thus is a determinant of the extent towhich an innovation meets sustainability and development
goals.

chapter 02.indd 74

2.1.4.2 Market-led innovation
From about the 1990s onwards innovation processes in agriculture principally have been driven by a rise in marketled development. Typical responses to market pressures inNorth America and Europe in terms of the way in which
technical requirements, market actors, and market institutions interact can provide an understanding of the “innovation space” for socially and ecologically sustainable agriculture (NAE Chapter 1; Figure 2-3).
2.1.4.3 Technological risks and costs in a globalizing world
The risk outlook fifty years ago could be described in general terms as high local output instability, relative autonomy
of food systems and highly diverse local technology options:an agricultural technology that failed in one part of theworld had few consequences for health, hunger or poverty
in other regions. The increase in aggregate food output andthe trend toward liberalizing markets and globalizing trade
has smoothed out much of the instability; it has integrated
food systems (mostly to the benefit of poor consumers) andit has spread generic technologies throughout the world for
local adaptation. The mechanisms of food aid, local seedbanks and other institutional innovations have been put
in place to cope with catastrophic loss of entitlements tofood or localized production shortfalls. Yet the world faces
technological risks in food and agriculture that have potential for widespread harm and whose management requires
the mobilization of worldwide effort (Beck et al., 1994;
Stiglitz, 2006). A robust conclusion is that human beings
are not very good at managing complex systemic interactions (Dörner, 1996).
Immediate costs of risks that cause harm typically arecarried by the poor, the excluded and the environment, forinstance with regard to choices of irrigation technologies(Thomas, 1975; Biggs, 1978; Repetto, 1986); crop management (Repetto, 1985; Kenmore, 1987; Loevinsohn, 1987);
and natural resource and forestry management (Repetto etal., 1989; Repetto, 1990; Repetto, 1992; Hobden, 1995).
The weight of the evidence is that power relations and preanalytic assumptions about how institutions and organizations actually work in a given context shape how scientificinformation and technologies are developed and used inpractice, producing necessarily variable and sometimes
damaging effects (Hobart, 1994; Alex and Byerlee, 2001).
Recent assessments for instance of the “long shadow” oflivestock farming systems (Steinfeld et al., 2006) and of agricultural use of water (Chapagrain and Hoekstra, 2003) leadto a well-founded conclusion that estimations of agricultural
technologies’ benefits, risks and costs have been in the past
too narrowly defined. The mounting scale of risk exposurein agriculture is delineated in the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2005), Global Water Assessment (2007), and
IPCC reports (2007).The accumulating weight of evidence
that past technology choices in agriculture have given rise tounsustainable risks has led to efforts to develop more appropriate technological risk assessment methods (Graham andWiener, 1995; Jakobson and Dragun, 1996; NRC, 1996)
and to take on differing perspectives on what levels of harm
are acceptable and for whom (Krimsky and Golding, 1992;
Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993; Funtowicz et al., 1998; Scanlon, 1998; Stagl et al., 2004). Important experience has been

11/3/08 10:42:23 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 75

gained in working with civil society on technological risk
assessments and sustainability appraisals, sometimes involving large numbers of citizens (Pimbert and Wakeford, 2002;
IIED, 2006; Pimbert et al., 2006).

2.2 Key Actors, Institutional Arrangements
and Drivers
Actors and institutions have power to set policy agendas
and influence how research and development investments
are made. All knowledge actors develop processes for generating AKST and innovation that evolve within their own
IAs and culture of understanding. These processes can generate stress when key actors are excluded or marginalized
by new or old arrangements (Table 2-3).
The main actors considered here are in the vast majority
farmers and farm laborers, many of whom are poor, withlimited access to external resources and formal education,
but rich in traditional and local knowledge and increasingly
organized and adept at sharing knowledge and innovating.
Additional domestic actors affecting the development andinnovation of AKST include local, provincial and national
governments, and the agencies, departments and ministries
devoted to agriculture, environment, education, health,trade, finance, etc. Still other actors with direct impacts on
AKST include regional consortia and international institutions, FAO, the Global Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Facility, the World Bank, CGIAR, private foundations, andothers. Each organization develops and brings its own setsof priorities, perspectives and agendas to the business of

AKST. Private sector actors who have played increasingly
important roles are commercial and corporate players andcivil society organizations (CSOs), including farmer andconsumer organizations, foundations and those working for
nonhuman species and the environment, as well as a range
of development and relief NGOs.
The currently dominant AKST systems are the productof a long history of attempts by diverse combinations ofthese actors, under numerous institutional arrangements(IAs), to meet the needs and challenges of agriculture indifferent contexts, as well as the actors’ own individual
or institutional needs. Their histories are made up of successes, but also failures and frustrations, often leading to
new attempts at meeting both local and global challenges.
In many instances, crises have led to the emergence of newactors and the reshuffling of roles and relationships. Institutional arrangements formally or informally coordinate thework of knowledge producers and engage them in distinctive knowledge processes, thus favoring the emergence ofdifferent kinds of innovation. Some become long-standing
permanent arrangements; others are ad hoc initiatives or of
more recent origin.
2.2.1 Farmer and community-based arrangements
The emergence of major producer organizations representing their members’ interests and rights at district, national,
regional and international levels may be seen as an increasingly strong driver of change over the last decades. Most ofthem are actively engaged in the provision of technology
and information services and have entered into partnerships

Figure 2-3. Elements of an agricultural innovation system. Source: Adapted from
Arnold and Bell (2001) in Hall et al. 2006.

chapter 02.indd 75

11/3/08 10:42:26 AM

76 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 2-3 Analytic map of the main features of AKST for development paradigms.
Label

Features of
Production System

Features of
AKST

Direct Drivers

Indirect Drivers

Pre-modern/
Traditional

Diverse products
locally; “natural”
systems; small-scale
units;
local/recycled inputs

Local knowledge
generation andrepositories

Biophysical: soils, local
climateResources: labor availability
Social factors: mutual help,social capital
Economic: local economy/
food need

Policy and economic: tax systems,
access to markets
Social: cultural practices related tofarming
Cognitive: focus on meeting local
needs

Industrial
agriculture
in capitalist
contexts

Mechanization; lessdiverse products—
greater specialization;
larger scale units
external inputs; private
sector production

Formal R&D(public andprivate);dissemination ofknowledge

Cognitive: profit and yield
maximization throughscience
Policy: subsidy for
production goals
Economic: agribusinesscorporations
Institutional: formal research
institutions

Social and economic: consumer
demandTrade: international trade
agreements
Economic: cheap energy;
externalization of health andenvironmental costs

Industrial
agriculture
in socialist
contexts

Mechanization; larger
scale units; external
inputs; collective
ownership of resources(labor, land); central
planning

Publicsector R&D,
dissemination bystate institutions

Policy: national food selfsufficiency
Institutional: funding for
research/extension

High external
input intensive
agriculture insouth(e.g., Green
Revolution;someplantation
systems)

HYVs; package ofexternal inputs;
pest management andnutrient management
through chemical
inputsNational agric.
universities andresearch stations;
CGIAR; global
transfer throughaid agencies/
projects; local
knowledge has
little influence

Cognitive: increase
production to keep up
with population; science
provides solutions
Policy: state support/
subsidy
Institutional: researchcommunity
Technological: growth of
new technologies
Trade: focus on export-led
growthEconomic and policy: post-colonial
drive for food self-sufficiency
Cognitive: faith in rational science& expert advice
Globalization and trade:
multinational agribusiness andagrochemical corporations; aidconditionalities
Social: loss of local knowledge;
perceived inefficiencies in previous
production systems

Low external
input
agriculture
in South (notnecessarily
sustainable)

Marginal land
resources; low yields;
low priority crops(national and tradeperspective); prone tonatural shocks; minimaluse of synthetic inputs

Little attention
from formal R&D;
reliance on local
knowledge andinnovation

Institutional and policy:
low provision of credit andtechnical assistanceInstitutional and policy: highpotential lands have beenprioritized
Trade: low value of output
means little attention from input
manufacturers and agribusiness
continued next page

with R&D providers. Many now have websites that act
as an information umbrella for and communication linkto thousands of affiliated farmers’ groups organized at
local levels. Examples include the Network of Farmers’
Organizations and Agricultural Producers from western
Africa (http://www.roppa-ao.org); the International Land
Coalition (www.landcoalition.org/partners/partact.htm);
the International Federation of Agricultural Producers(www.ifap.org); and Peasants Worldwide (www.agroinfo.nl/scripts/website.asp).
The focus on local mobilization masks the wide scale ofeffort and impact (Boven and Mordhashi, 2002). For example, in 2004 Catholic Relief Services was working directlywith 120,000 poor producers in community-based seedchapter 02.indd 76

system development (www.crs.org) and South East AsianRegional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE) (see 2.2.3). The local seeds movement pioneered bysuch organizations has given rise to information exchange
networks that assert individual and community rights to“first publication” so as to safeguard native IPR and germplasm. Over time, such organizations have strengthened
their own R&D networks by commissioning research andthrough organizing national and international technicalconferences, such as the International Farmers’ TechnicalConference held in conjunction with the 2005 Convention
on Biodiversity meeting.
Farmer research partnerships typically bring together
farmers, professors, scientists and researchers to compose a

11/3/08 10:42:26 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 77

Table 2-3 continued
Label

Features of
Production System

Features of
AKST

Direct Drivers

Indirect Drivers

Organic/
Low impact/
Sustainable
farming inSouth andNorth

Low use of external
inputs; crop nutritionand pest management;
based on natural
systems; focus on
maintaining/building
quality of soil andwater resources

South
Local learning,e.g., throughFarmer Field
Schools;
documentationand disseminationof localknowledge;
Cuba’s modelof centers to
reproduce
biological pest
control agentsSouth
Social: social capital,
collective effort
Economic: high cost of
external inputs; negative
impact on yields of highinput agriculture.
Policy: sustainability
Cognitive: farmer concern
with resource/ecosystemdamageTrade: high demand fororganic/niche products innorthern markets
Institutional: emergenceof local NGOs fordissemination of sustainable
practices; increase in aid for
low input agriculture

South
Globalization and investments:
international organizations (IFOAM)
Cognitive: farmer and researcher
recognition of externalities of highexternal input agricultureNorth
producers’organizations;
independent R&D
institutions
networking
among producers;
government
funding for
research onorganic andsustainable
farmingtechnical pool of expertise dedicated to collaboration with
farmers in research and development. These IA’s emphasize
the centrality of primary producers, food processors and laborers in agricultural and food systems. In general, they initially capitalize volunteerism and fund-raising activities toimplement farmer-led projects, but often move on to a holistic approach to development of livelihoods and welfare,community empowerment and measures to extend farmer
control over agricultural biodiversity. For instance, MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, Inc.)was established in the Philippines in 1987, after more than
five years’ collaboration between farmers concerned about
the negative impacts of high-yield rice and associated technologies on their livelihoods, local genetic resources, and environment, and a few progressive scientists. It then rapidly
developed into a large farmer-led network of people’s organizations, NGOs and scientists, promoting the sustainable use
and management of biodiversity through farmers’ controlof genetic and biological resources, agricultural production
and associated knowledge based on a strategy of placing
command of the skills and knowledge of the agronomic sci-

chapter 02.indd 77

North
Cognitive and social: recognition ofnegative environmental effects ofhigh input ag., and problems facedby family farms
Globalization and trade: disease
outbreaks leading to trade
restrictions
Institutional: rise of Green
movements and political parties

North (EU)Cognitive: idea of “natural”
and ecological farming
popularized
Policy: funding, subsidy andsupport for conversion
Economic and social:public awareness of organic
products
Institutional: good support
structure of organizations
and extension services

ences in the hands of small-scale producers. By 2004, MASIPAG was working with four national/regional civil society
networks and organizations, seven Philippino universities
and research centers and seven local government authorities
and line agencies. MASIPAG’s network of trial and research
farms included 72 in 16 provinces in the island of Luzon,
60 in 10 provinces in Visayas and 140 in 14 provinces in
Mindanao. MASIPAG today is recognized worldwide as aleading example of highly effective farmer-led and largely
farmer-funded and farmer-managed, R&D and extensionthat is building small-scale farm modernization, resource
conservation and food sector development on ecologicalprinciples (Salazar, 1992; Araya, 2000). At the other end of
the spectrum, systematic testing has been carried out of user
involvement in the barley breeding cycle in Syria (Ceccarelli
et al., 2000). The researchers initially designed four types oftrials: by farmers in their fields, with farmers on-station, bybreeders in farmers’ fields and by breeders on-station. Theirexperience of the rigor, reliability, and comparative costs
and benefits of the four led them to concentrate on testingand selection by farmers in their own fields, complemented

11/3/08 10:42:27 AM

78 | IAASTD Global Reportby seed multiplication on station. Similar achievements havebeen recorded in southwest China for maize (Vernooy andSong, 2004).

and weaknesses that might be taken into account if a morecomprehensive cost-benefit analysis were to be attempted(Almekinders and Louwaars, 1999).

Local research and innovation: the contribution of occupational education. Local level innovation can be promoted
if appropriate investments are made in educating farmers
but this has been a relatively neglected area. One of the major breakthroughs has been the development and spread of
farmer field schools (FFS) (Braun et al., 2006). Based on
adult education principles, the schools take groups of farmers through field-based facilitated learning curricula organized in cycles of observation, experimentation, measurement, analysis, peer review and informed decision-making.
FFS are making in aggregate a significant and influential
contribution to sustainable and more equitable small farmmodernization, particularly in the rain fed areas where twothirds of the world’s poor farm households live. Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda have included the approach in national
research and extension strategies, as has India. Systematic
review of available impact data (Braun et al., 2006; vanden Berg and Jiggins, 2007) and area-based impact studies (Braun et al., 2006; Pontius et al., 2002; Bunyatta etal., 2005; Mancini, 2006) demonstrate positive to strongly
positive achievements. Contributing effectively to farmer empowerment also contributes to the strengthening ofcivil society and self-directed development (Mancini et al.,2007). Others have criticized their cost in relation to thescale of impact (Quizon et al., 2000; Feder et al., 2004ab),
noted the weak diffusion of specific technologies, lack ofdiffusion of informed understanding (Rola et al., 2002)
and failure in some instances to develop enduring farmerorganizations (Bingen, 2003; Tripp et al., 2005). Further experimentation is warranted to test if combining farmer education such as FFS with complementary extension efforts
will overcome the perceived shortcomings (Van Mele andSalahuddin, 2005).
World Learning for International Development, theAlaska Rural Systemic Initiative project and the Global
Fund for Children similarly have documented gains (World
Bank, 2005a) in the effectiveness and efficiency of local research, school-based science education and the developmentof agroecological literacy at the grass roots brought about
by investing in farmers’ occupational education (Coutts etal., 2005).

2.2.2 Producers of AKST at national level
Countries have developed a complex array of public institutions, IAs and actors responsible for planning, funding,
implementing, assessing, and disseminating public interest
agricultural research. They include national, regional/municipal agricultural research institutions, universities andother higher education institutes and extension services.
Most of these arrangements historically have been publicly
financed because agricultural research investments involve
externalities, and are subject to long gestation periods (cfr.
Chapter 8, Table 8.1; Lele and Goldsmith, 1989; Beintema
and Stads, 2006; Pardey et al., 2006ab).
In the 1960s and 70s National Agricultural Research
Systems (NARS) in developing countries (see 2.1), especially
agricultural research institutes (ARIs), received strong financial support from governments and international donors tolaunch agricultural modernization through the dissemination of Green Revolution technologies (Chema et al., 2003).
In the 1980s, as a result of budgetary crises and adjustment
programs, public funds for agricultural research failed tokeep up with expanding demand. Public expenditure declined as proportion of total research and development
spending; expenditure per researcher declined much morebecause staffing continued to expand faster than budgets.
From the 1980s onwards, the main drivers of institutional
development of the NARS were structural reforms in national economies and adjustment policies, global politicalchanges; ideological demands for reduced public sector
involvement and intervention; a greater private sector roleand significant biotechnological breakthroughs (Byerleeand Alex, 1998; Iowa State Univ., 2007). These events havegiven rise to a diverse institutional landscape responding toboth domestic and global priorities and opportunities. Brazil’s EMBRAPA, for instance, has become an exporter ofcapacity, in 2007 opening liaison offices in West and East
Africa whereas NARS in sub-Saharan Africa continue toface many constraints (Jones, 2004).

Farmer-funded R&D and extension. Innumerable examples exist of effective technological advances pioneered by
farmers themselves; e.g., grafting against pests, biologicalcontrol agents such as the golden ant in citrus in Bhutan(Van Schoubroeck, 1999) and soil management and farming system development in the Adja Plateau, Benin (Brouwers, 1993).Yet the economic value of local and traditionalinnovations has not been much researched. One study in
Nigeria in the early 1990s estimated the contribution of theinformal agricultural sector where farmers are using mostly
indigenous innovations at about US$12 billion per year,
providing income for an estimated 81 million people (ECA,
1992). This estimate, however, does not include the cost ofopportunities foregone or traditional practices that do notwork. Recent literature begins to sketch out the strengths

chapter 02.indd 78

Sub-Saharan Africa’s National Research Systems. Overallbudget constraints throughout the period have weakened
public sector NARS in most African states. The general panorama today is of deep attrition of human resources, equipment facilities, capital funding and revenue, despite islandsof promise such as the revitalization of capacity in Uganda
under vigorous decentralization policies, in Ghana in relation to agroindustrial developments and in post-apartheid
South Africa. Nongovernmental organizations, the CGIAR,
private commercial actors and recently the establishment of
sub-regional bodies (Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development, CORAF), (Associationfor Strengthening of Agricultural Research in Eastern andCentral Africa, ASARECA) and similar arrangements forsouthern Africa supported by the Forum for Agricultural
Research in Africa (FARA), have filled the gaps only in part.
An alliance largely funded by a US-based philanthropic trust
recently has been established to transfer germplasm and advanced biotechnology skills to African NARS to catalyze

11/3/08 10:42:27 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 79

Africa’s “rainbow revolution”. Agricultural research trust
funds set up to lever matching research contracts from commercial enterprises, donors and government organizations,have not succeeded; although farmer-managed funds aremeeting with some modest success.
The Agricultural Research Council (ARC) model. Somelarge countries with complex research systems have established agricultural research councils to coordinate the work
carried out at research institutes. The ARC typically is a
public body which has—inter alia—the functions of managing, coordinating or funding research programs. Management of the councils has proved effective because they areboth autonomous and accountable to users and donors forplanning and executing research. In India, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has coordinated thehigher agricultural education system since the 1950s andin 1996 established an agricultural education accreditation
board (http://www.icar.org.in/aeac/ednac.htm). In Africa,
the role of ARCs has varied widely as some have moved beyond a policy and coordinating role to undertake researchthemselves (Bingen and Brinkerhoff, 2000). However, thecouncils that have proliferated have failed to live up to expectations, become bureaucratized (Chema et al., 2003) andbeen unable to influence national research budgets or coordinate agricultural research among institutions to reach out
to small-scale farmers (Byerlee, 1998; Rukuni et al., 1998;
Bingen and Brinkerhoff, 2000).
The National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) model. This model is common in Latin American countries,
where agricultural research has been conducted primarily at
the national level. They control, direct and manage all publicly funded agricultural research; they may be autonomousor semiautonomous in budgetary support, scientist recruitment, financial norms and disciplines with experiment stations as the basis for research organization. Their creationin the 1950s and early 1960s was driven mainly by the recognition of the leading role of technological change in themodernization of agriculture. In the late 1990s, rural development and poverty alleviation efforts became differentiated from research and technology development, accompanied by the increasing participation by private sector entities
in financing and implementing R&D activities. These shifts
were driven by changes in the wider socioeconomic and political context within which the NARIs operated (i.e., state
reform, deregulation, economic liberalization), and changes
in the scientific processes underlying agricultural research(i.e., privatization of knowledge, plant breeders´ rights, patent protection for R&D results. In Latin America, two important constraints have limited the role of the NARIs: thedecline in government funding and the weak incentives for
coordination and cooperation among research system components within each country. In two cases the NARIs also
had responsibility for extension: the National Institute ofAgriculture (INTA), Argentina, and the National Instituteof Agriculture (INIA), Chile. In 2005 INTA created a Center for Research and Technological Development for smallscale family agriculture (CIPAF), with three regional institutes. This signaled a decisive transition from the supplypush Transfer of Technology approach that hitherto char-chapter 02.indd 79

acterized the NARI model throughout Latin America, to aclient-oriented demand-pull approach based on participatory action-research (http://www.inta.gov.ar/cipaf/cipaf.htm).
Since 2003 Brazil has promoted biotechnology as a national
policy priority for the Brazilian Agriculture and LivestockResearch Company (EMBRAPA) in order to boost productivity in both family farms and large scale agroenterprises.
EMBRAPA is collaborating in the federal government’s
Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) program (http://www.fomezero.gov.br), taking a lead role in the global Cassava Biotechnology Net (CBN) through the Biotechnology Research Unitof Mandioca e Fruticultura (http://www.cnpmf.embrapa.br) and in Participatory Plant Breeding, principally through
EMBRAPA-CNPMF, Cruz das Almas, Bahia, together with
the Bahian Company of Agricultural Development (http://
www.ebda.ba.gov.br), Caetité, southeast Bahia and farmer
communities also located at Caetité.
The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) model. This model was
dominant in communist countries and in the immediate
postcolonial era and still prevails in countries where thereis less agricultural research capacity. It is characterized bycentralized governance and bureaucratic practice. However,in recent years new organizational patterns have begun toemerge that provide greater flexibility. Collectivization andnationalization resulted in significant and often irrational
concentration of agricultural production in state or quasi
cooperatives managed as industrial enterprises, affecting
the whole social and economic life of villages and rural areas in countries such as Tanzania and in the former soviet
bloc countries (Swinnen and Vranken, 2006). Adjustment
to new economic and political conditions has demanded
significant AKST role changes (Petrick and Weingarten,
2004) including redefinition of the role of government inagricultural research; separation of research funding, priority setting and implementation; decentralization of agricultural research both geographically and in terms of decision
making; strengthening of system linkages among multiple
innovation partners including CSOs, traders, input and processing industries (Swinnen and Vranken, 2006; Petrick andWeingarten, 2004).
Universities and other higher education models. Universities are institutions placed amidst three coordinating forces:
the academic oligarchy, the state and the market (Clark,
1983). These three forces are seldom in balance; they act
in a continuous and dynamic tension, which often brings
about intellectual, practical and organizational conflicts andruptures (Bourdieu, 1988) often leading to diffuse and contradictory missions (Weick, 1976; Busch et al., 2004). In agricultural universities (schools/colleges or faculties) there aremany such divides between purpose and mission; social andscientific power, among managers, teachers, researchers andextensionists; between the established canonical agricultural disciplines and disciplines, such as sociology, ethics andpublic administration (Readings, 1996; Delanty, 2001). Urgent societal demands, such as those posed by hunger, poverty, inequality, exclusion and solitude, and more recently
also natural resource degradation and climate change have
had to find their place against the background noises of collaboration and dissent. Universities, nonetheless, are widely

11/3/08 10:42:27 AM

80 | IAASTD Global Report

identified as key actors in national research systems (Castells, 1993; Clark 1995; Edquist, 1997; Mowery and Sampat, 2004), but their contribution to agricultural research,real or potential, often has been neglected in cost-benefit
analyses. Yet they have been and remain the major educators of agricultural scientists, professionals and technicians,
a voice of reason (and sometimes partiality) in controversial
debates about bioethics, transgenic seeds, IPR, food quality
and safety issues, etc., and a source of factual information(Atchoarena and Gasperini, 2002). Robust indicators do
not exist for the comparative assessment of the efficiency
and effectiveness of universities in generating knowledge,
science and technologies for sustainability and development.
For example, in a survey of Argentine agricultural scientists(1996 to 1998), the number of journal publications was a
proxy measure (Oesterheld et al., 2002), despite known limitations (Biggs, 1990; Gómez and Bordons, 1996; Garfield,
1998; Amin and Mabe, 2000; Bordons and Gómez, 2002).
Output was found to be highly variable and on average,
low but higher than in other institutions such as the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA), and the
National Council for Science and Technology (CONICET)(Oesterheld et al., 2002).
Higher-level agricultural education institutions can be
subdivided into (1) agricultural colleges embedded in a comprehensive university, (2) land grant universities, patterned
after the US land grant universities, and (3) tertiary levelagrotechnological institutes that are not part of a universityand depend on a ministry of education or of agriculture.
They all have similar constraints to achieving the diversityof their roles and purposes (Table 2-4).
(1) Agricultural schools or college/faculties model embedded in a comprehensive university. This model is shaped
after the German Humboldt tradition and has teaching, research and extension as central functions. It has diffused toother European countries as well as to other parts of theworld, mainly the Americas.
Until recently in many countries research universities
were autonomous, with public funds provided as block
grants by the Treasury to the Ministry of Education, whichtransferred them to the central university governing body;the agricultural colleges then had to compete against otherinterests. In Latin American countries, research budgets areoften less that 0.5% of the total university budget (Gentili, 2001) and little of this has reached the agricultural
departments, colleges and schools. However, in the last decades research has been financed by the use of competitive
funds open to all public research institutions and in somecases to private universities. International donors, philanthropic foundations and increasingly also commercial enterprises also contribute to financing (Echeverría et al., 1996;
Kampen, 1997; Gill and Carney, 1999). Their main asset
is research and their internal system of reward and promotion is designed to protect standards in this core activity.
The pressure to “publish or perish” favors acceptance ofactors and types of AKST that is produced in conditions that
support such performance and thus tends to increase thegap between developed and developing countries’ national
academic and research systems. It also further marginalizes
scientists and academics in the latter countries where funds

chapter 02.indd 80

for research, in particular for basic research, are scarce. The
incentive system legitimated the dominant position of universities in colonial and later in OECD countries as the centers of basic and strategic research in a hierarchy of AKST
providers. Students as well as trained agricultural scientists
and professionals continue to leave employment in tropical countries wherever national governments have failed toinvest in “catch up” institutional development at tertiarylevels.
In the United States policies were important in assisting the commercialization of research products and services.
The US Bayh-Dole Act passed in 1980 gave universities andcorporations the right to patent federally funded research
and was buttressed by the Federal Technology Transfer
Act of 1986 (Kennedy, 2001; Bok, 2003). These acts succeeded in their primary purpose but widened existing gaps
with most developing countries. Incentive systems designed
for the commercialization by universities of private good
research appear to perform less well in promoting public
goods research and its application in agriculture and foodindustries (Byerlee and Alex, 1998; Berdahl, 2000; Bok,
2003; Washburn, 2005).
The most immediate challenges tertiary institutions faceis how to respond to the often divergent interests of private and public actors, consumers and citizens as AKST systems become more demand-driven and hence also develop
or strengthen their capacity to become engaged in problem
solving in specific settings, and continue to provide generic
potential for sustainable development.
(2) Land-grant colleges and state universities. These havebeen patterned after the land-grant model originating in the
19th century in the United States. Key components are theagricultural experiment station program (Hatch Act 1887)(Kerr, 1987; Mayberry, 1991; Christy and Williamson, 1992;
BOA, 1995), and the link via extension programs to farmer
advisory, leadership development and training activities in
the community. The grant of land to finance research andeducation ensured in the original conception a high degreeof accountability to the application of science to local, practical problem solving and entrepreneurship. These distinctive features tended to attenuate over time or progressively
decline as the model spread to and then merged into different contexts. After World War II, the Rockefeller and Ford
Foundations and the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) played leading roles in the establishment of state agricultural universities in India modeled on
the US land-grant universities. State agricultural universities
of Pakistan and the Philippines also adopted the model as
their guide. In sub-Saharan Africa, the research and extension missions of the land-grant model generally introduced
under Ministries of Higher Education came into conflictwith research and extension departments in ministries ofagriculture. By the 1980s most of the land-grant universities
in SSA had become comprehensive universities emphasizing
training. Nevertheless, the model proved powerful; landgrant universities in the USA throughout the 20th century
have been central to North America’s farm modernization,
dominance in commodity trade and preeminence in global
food industries (Ferleger and Lazonick, 1994; Slaybaugh,
1996; Fitzgerald, 2003). The land-grant construct explicitly

11/3/08 10:42:28 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 81

Table 2-4. Constraints of university arrangements.
Funds

Universities have to share budgetary allocations with other public sector agencies for agricultural research. In Latin
America, e.g., expenditure per researcher diminished strongly in the 1980s, and then recovered in the nineties but
without reaching the previous position.

ScientificcultureDifferent knowledge paradigms and scientific culture pervade teaching, research and extension activities
addressing societal problems. Most public concerns or problems are multidisciplinary, while most university
departments are disciplinary. Research, especially in the agricultural colleges—produces fundamental knowledge
under standards of rigor focused on “manageable” (well defined) or “technical problems,” not always pertinent tosocial needs. Teaching follows the same disciplinary pattern, moving from simple units to complex ones in five to
six or more year programs. There is little latitude for interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary work, though professional
practice deals with ill-defined, complex and practical problems of agriculture that are “incapable of technicalsolution” and are intertwined with social and cultural patterns and ethical issues. Needs for synthesis of diverse
elements, and interdisciplinary approaches.
Outreach requires a different epistemology of science, because it faces real, synthetic and complex problems, andneeds training in communicative competences and participatory approaches.

PromotionandrewardAcademic staff are usually promoted and rewarded on the peer review system. Although this system has served
certain fields of agricultural science well, it does not allow much credit for societal value or social pertinence of
research contributions, and gives less value to teaching and extension. It also emphasizes the big gap between
basic and applied research and between wealthy and developing countries´ academic and research systems andalso marginalizes basic research in industrialized countries.

Curriculum
policies

In many universities, curricula were broadened to encompass environmental sustainability, poverty alleviation,
hunger elimination and gender issues. But this trend has not always been followed by specific fund allocation
to programs oriented to these goals, nor have interdisciplinary courses and social sciences–sociology oforganizations, cultural anthropology, IP issues, food security, and some crosscutting subjects, such as Ethics,
always been included. Change is sometimes cosmetic.

Enrollment
andgraduation
rates

Enrollment of agricultural students is today very low compared to total university enrollment. This is a generalized
trend even in countries with a high share of agricultural GDP in total GDP and a high ratio of rural to urban
population, mostly in non-industrialized countries. Likewise, graduates in agricultural programs (agriculture,
forestry and fishery and veterinary) have a very low percent of total graduates. In many countries where agriculture
is a major source of income, employment and export earnings, and thus critical to alleviating rural poverty andsafeguarding natural resources, the percent of graduates is low (UNESCO, 2005).

GenderissuesDespite their key role in agricultural and food production and security, agricultural information and education is notreaching women and girls. Greater awareness of women’s contributions to agriculture and changing discriminatory
practices and attitudes are needed to foster their participation in agricultural education and extension. Not many
women professionals are trained in agriculture due to factors rooted in the gendered nature of culture and society.
Women’s participation in higher education in agriculture is increasing, but is still lower than that of men, even in
the developed countries and in Latin America and the Caribbean, where women participate in higher education innearly equal numbers with men (UNESCO, 2005).

rests on concern for both agriculture and rural communities;
enterprise development, revenue and welfare; education andresearch as a privileged knowledge and information activity
for faculty and students and as a service to meet citizens’
needs. The task of forming, educating and empowering
farmers and young farm leaders has been a key strategic
objective, resting on tripartite funding contributions fromeducation, agriculture and state agencies at various levels.
Farmers have opportunities as well as a right to participate
in forming and assessing university research priorities andoutputs. Outreach and service count in professional advancement; and the universities’ own institutional advancement—even survival—rests on accountability to the broad
constituency it serves.

chapter 02.indd 81

On the other hand, in industrialized countries, particularly in the US, universities have emerged as the nation’s main
source for the three key ingredients to continued growth andprosperity: highly trained specialists, expert knowledge andscientific advances. There is some evidence that more recent
shifts in the balance of public and private funding is affecting the type of research and teaching and hence narrowing
the range of available AKST systems. One paradigmatic andcontroversial case was the agreement between the Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute and the Department ofPlant and Microbial Biology at the University of Berkeley.
Under this agreement Novartis provided $5 million per year
in support of basic research at the department and in return
was given the right to license patents held by the University

11/3/08 10:42:28 AM

82 | IAASTD Global Reportfor up to one-third of the patentable intellectual property
developed by the department, with the University retaining the patent rights and earning royalties from the patents.
Participating faculty, in turn, received access to proprietarydatabases held by Novartis (Berdahl, 2000; Busch et al.,2004). The Novartis agreement disquieted those who believed it indicated a transition toward the privatization of
public universities; critics argued that by allowing Novartis to participate even as a minority vote on the funding
committee, the University was allowing a private company
to chart the course of research at the University (Berdahl,
2000). Others pointed out that faculty members applying
for research support from the federal government possibly
also tailored their applications to increase their chances of
support. This situation illustrates the need for codes of conduct in universities to guide their interactions with industry(Washburn, 2005) in order to preserve independence andcapacity to deliver disinterested public goods and maintainpublic trust (Vilella et al., 2002). More public-private partnerships without ensuring such codes may reduce the spacefor public interest science (Washburn, 2005), although under certain conditions, university partnerships with private
actors may contribute to equitable and sustainable development. For instance, the Seed Nursery at the Faculty ofAgronomy, Buenos Aires University (www.agro.uba.ar)and the Argentine Agrarian Federation (www.faa.com.ar)developed high-yielding non-Bt corn hybrids (FAUBA 207,
209 and 3760), which are locally adapted and affordable bysmall-scale farmers and were released to market at less thanhalf the price of the main competitors (Vilella et al., 2003;
Federacion Agraria Argentina, 2005; http://www.todoagro.com.ar/todoagro2/nota.asp?id=6542).
(3) Agrotechnical institutes. Postsecondary institutes that are
not part of the university system usually depend on publicfunding from Ministries of Education or Agriculture. They
mostly train technicians in agricultural competences related
to local labor demand in order to bridge the gap between
untrained farmers, semi-skilled technicians and university
graduates. However, many developing countries have given
little attention to the training demanded by agricultural service agencies and agroindustries. Other countries, such as
India or Brazil, invested heavily in such training. In Brazil,
the Federal Centers of Technological Education (CEFETs)
originated in agrotechnical or technical schools that were
upgraded to tertiary-level institutes in the mid-1990s. They
have developed good links with the private sector and sometimes share resource training activities through “sandwich
courses.” They have become drivers for the application oftechnology, but an extension worker with certificate-leveltraining and field experience can seldom bridge to a degree
program (Atchoarena and Gasperini, 2002; Plencovich andCostantini, 2003). The Sasakawa Africa Fund for Extension Education (SAFE) specifically addresses this need in
SSA. Other countries have chosen an alternative agricultural school system shaped after the Maisons Familiale
Rurale (rural family house) (Granereau, 1969; Forni et al.,
1998; García-Marirrodriga and Puig Calvó, 2007). Today
there are more than 1,300 such schools in forty countries,
alternating residential training and experience on the family farm. In Argentina, a large group of secondary public

chapter 02.indd 82

schools managed privately by NGOs, foundations, andother private actors and federated under the umbrella ofan apex organization (FEDIAP; http://www.fediap.com.ar/)
manages 3,000 teachers and about 15,000 students, taking
occupational education deep into marginal and vulnerable
areas (Plencovich and Costantini, 2006).
2.2.3 Producers of AKST at regional and international
levels
The institutional arrangements for development-oriented
AKST at international levels have evolved from rather simple relationships organized largely by and in support of colonial interests, through focused support organized throughthe CGIAR system largely under the guidance of multilateraland bilateral development organizations, to arrangementsthat are rapidly diversifying under market pressures. The increasing attention to environmental issues, especially fromthe early 1980s onwards, also gave rise to arrangements thatmade effective use of collective capacity to address sharedpractical and policy problems related to such issues as watershed management, vector-borne diseases and biodiversity
conservation efforts. Examples include CSOs, such as theSouth East Asian Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE) in the Philippines (cf. http://www.searice.org.ph/), which serves as the secretariat for regionwide advocacy, lobbying and action among networks of
CSOs to promote and protect farmers’ seed exchanges andsales and to ensure legal recognition of farmer-bred varieties
and of community registries of local plants, animals, birds,
trees, and microorganisms. SEARICE has become a major
actor in the establishment of community-based native seeds
research centers, such as CONSERVE in the Philippines andfarmer field schools for plant genetic resource conservation
development and use in Laos, Bhutan, Vietnam and community biodiversity conservation efforts in Vietnam, Thailand,
and the Philippines. SEARICE today is recognized as an effective and legitimate partner in sustainable and equitabledevelopment. The Mekong River Commission (MRC) offers a different kind of arrangement; founded in 1995 by theAgreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin (http://www.mrcmekong.org/). It is funded by contributions from the downstream
member countries (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Viet Nam)and donors and is considered an important institutionalinnovation that is successfully bringing together cross-sectoral knowledge and helping actors to learn from policy experiments. However economic drivers within the member
states resulting in upstream development of irrigation andhydroelectric power in China are undermining local efforts
to forge more sustainable development pathways (Jensen,
2000; MRC, 2007). In SSA regional AKST arrangements
have emerged and today their NARIs also act as regional
service centers. ASARECA and CORAF were established in
the late 1990s in eastern and western Africa respectively tofill gaps and build on strengths but no assessment can yet
be made of their effectiveness. In southern Africa the formalization of interstate collaboration in AKST has not yet
occurred. The South African Agricultural Research Council and universities continue to provide a regional backup
service and various R&D networks seek to fill some of thesevere gaps in public and private capacity.

11/3/08 10:42:28 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 83

The tropical AKST institutions established by the colonial powers, such as the Royal Tropical Institute (Netherlands) or the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement(formerly ORSTOM) (France) and their supporting university networks similarly have surrendered their dominanceand undergone major transformations over the period (Jiggins and Poulter, 2007), yet they remain collectively thelargest source of knowledge on the diversity of ecologicaland ethnic situations in the tropics. These institutional arrangements were generally effective for their initial purpose,but they badly neglected the food crops consumed by indigenous populations, with the exception of a few such as
the federal research station for French West Africa createdin 1935 to increase food production (Benoît-Cattin, 1991).
The International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs),
subsequently grouped under the CGIAR umbrella, was inpart a response to this gap.
CGIAR. Assessing the role of the CGIAR is fraught withdifficulties, mainly because of the controversies raised bythis important actor, since its inception. Several external reviews of the CGIAR took place in the 1990s (World Bank,
2003), most of them organized by the CGIAR itself, indicating a willingness to change and adapt but also some uneasiness about the way the CGIAR worked, chose its priorities
and was governed. However, the reviews did not fully address some of the more fundamental questions raised by thecritics. There is insufficient space here to do justice to allthese debates.
Creation of the CGIAR. The role of the two US-based foundations, Rockefeller and Ford, in the creation of the firstinternational centers has been well-documented (Baum,1986). The first international research center, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center—in Spanish,
CIMMYT—was devoted to wheat and maize, the second
one—the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) established in the Philippines in 1960—to rice. This early
emphasis on cereals, i.e., on staple food crops, was a direct reaction, befitting the philanthropic nature of the twofoundations, to the emphasis on plantation crops during thecolonial era.
The emergence of this new type of institutional configuration had a profound impact on the IAs for agriculturalresearch in developing countries. In this respect, the rapid
evolution of the role of IRRI is exemplary. The first highyielding (HY) rice cultivar released by IRRI (IR8) grew outof a dwarf gene which originated in Japan. Soon, however,its limitations became obvious. The new variety was sensitive to multiple pests and did not have the taste desired bymany in Asia. The second generation of HY cultivars released by IRRI grew out of elaborate collaborations among
many national research institutions in Asia, permitting aquantum jump in the exchange of genetic material and thecoordinated testing of new genetic material in multiple locations. These new kinds of IA’s, based on networking among
public research institutions, with the hub located at an international center, set a pattern for the future. The role of theinternational centers in the development of new and moreproductive staple crop varieties has been well documented(Dalrymple, 1986) and is not by itself a controversial issue.

chapter 02.indd 83

Early criticisms. But early on, extensive criticisms were expressed; in particular, it was pointed out that a technological change, however rapid and even if called a revolution as
in the expression “green revolution”, could fall short of theradical changes in agrarian structures which many felt werenecessary to tackle the most glaring inequalities associatedwith unequal access to productive resources, land in particular (Griffin, 1979; Griffin and Khan, 1998). One mustrecall in this respect that the Green Revolution (GR) cameafter many attempts at promoting land reforms or agrarianreforms. Many of the reform attempts were made in a climate of bitter social struggles, often violent. In this context,
the promotion of an international consensus in support ofa technology-led green revolution could be seen as an alignment with conservative forces, nationally and internationally (Frankel, 1971). A similar criticism saw the GR, the
CGIAR and their promoters such as the World Bank, which
indeed had played a crucial role in the formal creation of
the CGIAR, patterned on other consultative groups sponsored by the Bank, as an attempt at “liquidating peasantries” in developing countries (Feder, 1976). These criticisms
prompted a large body of empirical research and interpretative analyses to evaluate the impact of the GR on poverty
and the survival of small-scale producers. The assessmentof the merits and limitations of the transfer of technology(ToT) model draws on that literature (2.1) (Harris, 1977;
Lipton and Longhurst, 1989; Biggs and Farrington, 1991;
Hazell and Ramaswamy, 1991; Lipton, 2005). One important lesson was that the social impacts of the technological changes associated with the GR varied greatly in space
and in time. This should not come as a surprise since weknow that technological change is only one component in
the complex evolution of social realities yet the implications
for how AKST were conducted within the CGIAR and with
the CG’s partners did not immediately sink in. The controversies themselves also reflect the fact that many views expressed in the controversies were oversimplifications drawn
from limited empirical data, giving privileged attention tosome aspects of the complex phenomena involved.
Similarly, the debates on the role of the CGIAR in theimpact of the GR on the environment have been heated(2.1). Those who defend the GR and the CGIAR emphasize
the millions of hectares of primary forests and other lands
saved from destruction through the intensification of existing cropland that the GR permitted (see Borlaug’s numerous
public speeches on the topic). There is no doubt, however,that negative environmental effects, ranging from pollution
to degradation of land and water resources also have beensignificant (Byerlee, 1992). Another environmental consequence, the increase in the uniformity of crop germplasm,with all the risks that the corresponding loss of biodiversity
entails, roused similar controversies (Hogg, 2000; Falcon
and Fowler, 2002).
Subsequent evolution of the CGIAR. These debates and therecognition that many issues were not well addressed led tochanges within the CGIAR. For instance, it was recognizedthat the focus on individual crops had serious limitations.
Mixed farming—the basis of many small-scale farming systems—agroecosystem sustainability and the managementof natural resources had not been addressed systematically.

11/3/08 10:42:28 AM

84 | IAASTD Global Report

The two livestock-focused centers had not achieved impacts
comparable to the crop-focused centers. These concerns led
to the creation in the 1970s and 1980s of a further wave ofinternational agricultural research centers that were initiallyoutside the ambit of the CGIAR (e.g., IWMI: water and irrigation, IBSRAM: soils, ICRAF: agroforestry, ICLARM:
aquatic resources, and INIBAP: plantains and bananas).
Generally speaking, the newer institutions developed more
extensive networks of partnerships with a wider range ofcivil society and public agencies than the original crop research centers. In the early 1990s, some of the new centerswere brought into the CGIAR ambit, after much discussion
and resistance by those who feared that the expansion of the
CGIAR would entail a reduction in funding for the original
centers. Two major concerns drove this expansion: the perceived need to widen the research agenda to include a systematic focus on natural resource management, and a broad
recognition of the need for CGIAR centers to diversify theirpartnerships and networking capacity. The international
centers were thus driven by a growing pressure to address
new issues, mainly related to natural resource management,
and to address more directly than before the needs of thepoorest producers and of undervalued clients, such as women (Jiggins, 1986; Gurung and Menter, 2004).
In response to donor calls for more efficient, collaborative and cost-effective approaches, the CG centers opened
up to new modes of collaboration, including “system-wide
programs” that draw together expertise from across therange of centers and other AKST actors in order to focus
on specific themes and the development of “partnerships
for innovation”. The increasing focus on innovation in turnrequired the centers to pay more attention to institutional
issues and the contexts in which a technology is inserted andto seek a wider range of partners in recognition of the emerging global architecture for AKST (Petit et al., 1996). However, the rate of change within the CG was considered by its
funders to be too slow and indecisive. One of the solutions
was the introduction of well-resourced, multistakeholder,regionally focused “Challenge Programs” (CGIAR, 2001),
often including a competitive research grant component.
Their emphasis on multiple partnerships is a potentially significant institutional development for the CGIAR system. As
yet however, there is insufficient evidence to assess their contribution to sustainable development or to driving change
within the CG. The Global Forum on Agricultural Research(GFAR) was established in 1996 as a complementary initiative to promote global leadership in AKST for shared public
interest goals; currently there is insufficient data for an assessment of GFAR’s effectiveness.

and not sufficiently receptive enough to new ideas. An illustration of this resistance to change is the assessment bysocial scientists (other than economists) that their expertisehas not been used as effectively as possible (a few have now
been integrated into some CG centers) (Rhoades, 2006;
Cernea and Kassam, 2006). Another frequent criticism, often heard in donor circles but not often openly expressed,
is that many centers are not open enough to broad partnerships with multiple and diverse actors. Others continue tofear a dilution of the main mission and unique role of the
CGIAR, lest it drift more and more towards becoming abroad based development agency. Thus, some convincingly
argue for a stronger CGIAR focus on international public
goods through its attention higher productivity, particularly
for orphan crops (Falcon and Naylor, 2005). One lesson to
draw from this debate may be the relevance of, but also thedifficulties associated with, the use of the concept of global
public goods (Dalrymple, 2006; Unnevehr, 2004).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) was founded in October 1945 under the United
Nations as a key pillar of the post WWII reconstruction,with a mandate to raise levels of nutrition and standards ofliving, to improve agricultural productivity and the condition of rural populations. From 1994 onwards, it has undergone significant restructuring in an effort to increase thevoice of tropical countries in its governance and priority
setting and in response to advances within AKST and thechanging architecture of public and private provision. Although remaining heavily male-dominated in its staffing andleadership, it has been a significant global actor in creatingawareness of gender issues, stimulating growth with equity
and in linking nutrition, food security and health issues.
It has played a leading role in organizing disinterested
technical advice in the international response to the healthand environmental concerns associated with synthetic
chemical pesticides (see 2.3.2), leading among other important outcomes to the International Code of Conduct on
the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and efforts to remove
stockpiles of obsolete pesticides. This code has encouraged
many countries to adopt pesticide legislation and regulations although governments may experience difficulty inimplementing and managing pesticide regulations in the faceof competing interests (Dinham, 1995). The FAO similarly
has played a critical role also in international efforts to protect crop genetic diversity through the International Treaty
on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Oneof the important spin-offs so far is the Global Crop Diversity Trust hosted jointly by FAO and IPGRI (http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm).

Current debates. In spite of the changes briefly sketchedabove, the debates and controversies about the CGIAR havenot disappeared. For some, “the CGIAR and the GR that it
created have arguably been the most successful investments
in development ever made” (Falcon and Naylor, 2005). Yet
criticisms abound. The old fundamental questions regarding
the insufficient inclusion of the poor and marginalized andthe consequences on the environment, particularly the lossof biodiversity, have not been resolved in the eyes of many.
Another criticism, often heard but seldom formalized, isthat the CGIAR is very much part of the “establishment”

The World Bank. The World Bank Group was established asanother of the key pillars of post World War II reconstruction. It consists of the International Bank of Rural Development (IBRD), the International Development Agency (IDA),
International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Multilateral
Investment Agency (MIGA). The Group has been and remains a leading global player in development policy, funding and advisory efforts. It has invested heavily in economic
and service infrastructures in rural areas; it was an earlybacker and consistent supporter of the emerging CG systemand particularly through the 1980s dominated investments

chapter 02.indd 84

11/3/08 10:42:29 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 85

in agricultural extension and advisory systems in developing
countries. The World Bank directly shapes the development
path of many borrower countries through its research andthrough structural adjustment programs that restructure
national economies or specific sectors (including agriculture). Yet Bank agricultural lending has decreased steadily
over the past 60 years; currently it constitutes less than 10%
of IBRD and IDA lending. The very mixed effects of thesetrends and shifts in financing on AKST and on innovation in
the agricultural sector have been assessed in the 2008 World
Development Report on Agriculture (World Bank, 2008).
Internal as well as external analysts over the last 15 years
have recommended that the trend be reversed.
Like other development actors, the World Bank has
evolved over the decades in response to different drivers,
external pressures and internal experiences (Stone andWright, 2007). According to one narrative, the Bank initially perceived its central role as the transfer of capital fromrich countries to poor ones. The bulk of its portfolio lay
in infrastructure projects developed by engineers. In the
1970s, Bank management concluded that infrastructuredevelopment alone was not sufficient to eliminate poverty
and so Bank agricultural economists focused on “poverty
alleviation.” In the 1980s, macroeconomists, who playeda leading role in designing investment projects at the Bank,
viewed the debt crisis as evidence that sectoral development
efforts could not succeed in the presence of major macroeconomic imbalances. Powerful interests in industrialized countries (where commercial banks feared that the loans they
had made to developing country governments were at risk),pressured their government representatives in the Bank, andin the IMF to intervene. Accordingly, Bank management
promoted structural adjustment programs as a condition ofits lending. In the 1990s, the Asian economic crisis demonstrated that a narrow macroeconomic perspective was not
appropriate for the pursuit of a sustainable development
agenda, and the role of social sciences was gradually recognized. Changes in the hierarchy of professional disciplines
within the Bank did not come about smoothly. Struggles
eventually led to greater inclusion of the social sciences(Kardan, 1993); Ismail Serageldin, a Bank vice-president,
spelled out why non-economic social scientists were not listened to earlier and delineated key intellectual challenges
that remained to be faced (Cernea, 1994).
Political economic, anthropological and ethnographic
analyses have also assessed the role of the Bank (Wade,
1996, 1997, 2001, 2004; Ferguson, 1990; Harris, 2001;
Mosse, 2004a; Broad, 2006; Bebbington et al., 2007). Simple causal linkages between external event, internal analysis, policy formation and subsequent implementation havebeen questioned (Mosse, 2004b). Evidence suggests that the
Bank through its principal research unit has constructed,
defended, maintained and promoted a neoliberal paradigm,
despite changing contexts and emerging empirical evidence
that challenge this paradigm (Broad, 2006). Organizational
dynamics and international political economy have consistently shaped policy statements produced by the Bank overthe period, while organizational culture—the everyday imperative to disburse loans and move projects through thepipeline, the internal incentive structure, hiring, staffing andsubcontracting decisions and, importantly, power relation-

chapter 02.indd 85

ships within the Bank and between it and other actors—
have been more decisive determinants of the outcomes ofBank interventions than its policy statements (Liebenthal,
2002; Mosse, 2004a; Bebbington et al., 2007). The empirical evidence indicates a need for more political economy
and social science-based analyses of the World Bank’s institutional behavior, culture, internal and external power relations and dynamics, and outcomes in terms of equitable andsustainable development.
The positive role of the Bank in the provision of financial resources to AKST includes loans to many governments
in support of public agricultural research and extension institutions. Such support usually accompanied commitment
to institutional reforms of these institutions. For instance,
in Mali a Bank loan permitted the creation of research user
committees at the level of regional research centers. These
committees were designed to give a voice to farmers in theselection of research topics and in the evaluation of the usefulness to them of research results. The initiative gave somespace for educated farmers with more resources to participate in research agenda-setting. In India, a large loan madein the late 1990s promoted significant reforms in the large
Indian public sector agricultural research establishment,
which had become quite bureaucratized. In Brazil, the volume of the loan made in the late 1990s was relatively modest; it was used by the then new leaders of EMBRAPA, thenational research institute, to facilitate institutional reforms.
The impact of Bank supported projects have been assessedand documented by the Bank’s own Operation Evaluation
Department (OED), a quasi-independent body which, whileproviding a degree of critical analysis, admittedly often reflects the dominant ideology in the Bank. Accordingly, the final and critical evaluation by OED of the T&V agriculturalextension system, long promoted by the Bank particularly in
Africa, was published only in 2003 (Anderson et al., 2006)
i.e., long after the shortcomings of T&V had been emphasized by its critics; thus internal institutional learning andreform has been slow.
In 1992, the Bank joined 178 governments in committing itself to Agenda 21, a global effort to articulate the link
between environment and development issues. An internal
World Bank review of progress towards environmentally
sustainable development found that it had failed to integrate environmental sustainability into its core objectives
or to forge effective cross-sectoral linkages between environmental and other development goals (Liebenthal, 2002).
External assessments similarly found that the Bank had notlived up to the expectations of its Agenda 21 commitment(FOE/Halifax Initiative, 2002). A four-year Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative, in which the WorldBank participated, reported that the effects of the Bank’s
structural adjustment programs on the rural poor over the
past 20 years had been largely negative (SAPRIN, 2002).
External analyses likewise found that these programs tended
to drive the evolution of AKST towards high external input
models of production, while the pressure of debt repayment
schedules in turn prevented governments from investing inpoverty-oriented multi-sector sustainable development programs at home (Hammond and McGowan, 1992; Danaher,
1994; Korten, 1995; Oxfam America, 1995; Clapp, 1997;
McGowan, 1997; Hellinger, 1999; SAPRIN, 2002).

11/3/08 10:42:29 AM

86 | IAASTD Global Report

An important lesson is that both because of its size andits role as a financial institution, the World Bank has notbeen deft in its interventions in countries’ institutional arrangements, particularly at the local level. This is a damaging limitation because as other subchapters demonstrate,
appropriate institutional arrangements, particularly at the
local level, are critical to the effectiveness of AKST in termsof the Assessment’s criteria of equitable and sustainable development. The Bank also has faced numerous demands inthe area of AKST from other development funding agencies
that are willing to fund initiatives through “trust fund arrangements.” The danger that the Bank could be drifting too
far from its primary role as a financial institution has been
keenly felt by some senior managers; as a result, the Bank
has at times taken up and then dropped AKST initiatives
that may have been worthwhile in advancing broader development goals. The consequences of its brief attention tothese issues have not been well assessed. The other regional
development banks have not held the central and symbolicrole of the World Bank. But they also have played an important role in their region and have sent powerful signals
regarding their AKST priorities to client governments. Morein-depth social scientific analyses of the nature of the banks’interactions with other AKST actors and their contributions
to equitable and sustainable development is warranted.
2.2.4 Public-private and private sectoralarrangements
Public-private arrangements. A number of countries haverelied on multi-organizational partnerships to carry AKST
to small-scale producers. For instance, the Foundation
for the Participatory and Sustainable Development of the
Small-scale producers of Colombia (Spanish acronym, PBA)
brings together members of the Ministry of Agriculture andRural Development, the Ministry of the Environment andthe DNP (National Planning Department); international
research centers, such as CIAT (International Center for
Tropical Agriculture); research agencies such as CORPOICA (Colombian Corporation of Agricultural Research) andCONIF (National Agency for Forestry Research); nationaland regional universities and local farmers’ organizations.
It is responsible for bringing together at local levels the expertise and support required for small-scale producers andrural entrepreneurs in research, technology generation, andextension and agroenterprise development. The Andean
consortium, established in the early 1990s on the initiativeof the PBA, brings together five Andean countries (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia) under a regional
project in order to strengthen participative exchange of research and technology with small-scale producers, as well
as mobilize international cooperation in AKST and funding.
The project has significantly advanced understanding of thesmall farm economy, established a strong nucleus of expertise in participatory research, developed the scientific, adaptive and applied research infrastructure and established key
agroenterprises for the production of clean seed and bioinputs, and initiated links with private commercial actors in
the development of value-adding chains in export-oriented
markets, e.g., cut flowers, tropical fruits and counter-season
vegetable supply.

chapter 02.indd 86

Organizations such as Solidaridad have extended theconcept and practices of public-private partnerships by linking fair trade to high return markets, such as the fashion industry and more recently, by moving an increasing amountof fair trade product into mass marketing. This effort is being guided by the multistakeholder negotiation of Codes ofConduct. For instance, the Common Code for the Coffee
Industry was introduced in September 2004. It is currently
operating in Vietnam and Uganda, with major expansion
from 2006 onwards under the sponsorship of the German
Ministry for Development Cooperation, the German Coffee
Association, producer associations and major coffee processors, such as Nestlé, Tchibo, Kraft and Sara Lee, and international organizations such as Consumers International.
Private sector arrangements for profit. The last sixty years
have witnessed a rapid increase in the concentration of commercial control by a handful of companies over the sale ofplanting seed for the world’s major traded crops—by 1999,
seven companies controlled a high percentage of global seedsales and the concentration has since increased through takeovers and company mergers. The budgets of the leading six
agrochemical companies in 2001-2002 combined equaled
US$3.2 billion—compared to a total CGIAR budget in2003 of US$330 million, an order of magnitude less (Dinham, 2005). At the same time, national small and mediumsized seed companies have emerged, playing an importantrole for small-scale producers and niche markets. They may
result in improved market access by small-scale farmers to
locally adapted and affordable seed but this remains to be
proven. Interesting innovations include the following three
examples. The Seeds of Development Program (SODP) isa capacity development and network initiative that seeks
to alleviate rural poverty through improved access to appropriate seed varieties. It offers an innovative program forsmall and medium sized indigenous seed companies in Africa. The network currently includes 25 seed companies ineight African countries. The SODP has been developed byMarket Matters, Inc., a US-based organization working incollaboration with Cornell University. Private seed companies operating in India for many years relied on ICRISATbred hybrid parents and while gradually developing theirown research and development capabilities; over time they
became a major channel for large-scale farm level adoptionof hybrids derived from ICRISAT-bred hybrid parents ortheir derivatives. ICRISAT realized that such partners havebetter integrated perceptions of farmers’ preferences andthis triggered the initiation in 2000 of the ICRISAT-Private
Sector Hybrid Parent Research Consortia for sorghum andpearl millet. The consortia expanded to include pigeon pea
in 2004. Small and medium sized manufactures of agricultural machinery and equipment, specialized for conservation agricultural equipment (e.g., no-till seeders and planters), especially in Brazil, provide agronomic assistance tofarmers and advice on conservation agriculture, which simultaneously increases their own market.
2.2.5 NGOs and other civil society networks
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are the so-called“third sector” of development, which is different from but

11/3/08 10:42:29 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 87interacts with both the state (public) and the for-profit private sector in AKST relationships ranging from complementarily to challenge (Farrington and Lewis, 1993; Farrington
et al., 1993). The NGO sector developed in response to theactual and perceived failures or shortcomings of the state,a desire to examine developmental questions from motives
other than those of profit and to question and analyze interests, priorities and the conditionalities imposed by donor
agencies and other organizational actors. A fundamental
basis of NGO activity is voluntarism (Uphoff, 1993) andthis conditions NGO perspectives and scope of action andimposes a degree of similarity on what is an otherwise diverse domain. The diversity in the domain may be usefullyclassified by the origin of the NGO (Southern, Northern,Northern with activities in the South, etc.); the nature of
the work—grassroots organizations (such as communities,
cooperatives, neighborhood communities, etc.), organizations that give support to the grassroots, and those that(whether in addition to other activities or solely focusedon this) are engaged in networking and lobbying activities;
their funding; relationships with the state and private sector; their membership base; their size, staffing and relationships with their constituencies (which could be as diverse as
rural farmers, urban slum dwellers, indigenous tribes), andthe mechanisms and procedures in place for accountability(Farrington and Lewis, 1993; Farrington et al., 1993). In
the case of the agricultural sector, the main types of NGOs
encountered are those working directly with farmers withclose involvement in dissemination of farming techniques
and processes, provision of agricultural inputs, technologies, access to markets and implements (i.e., developmental NGOs); NGOs that are engaged in conducting researchon agricultural crops, processes and products (researchNGOs); NGOs that lobby for specific issues related to agriculture ranging from farm-worker health, to gender empowerment among farming communities, to advocating forspecific regional, national and international agriculture andtrade policies (advocacy NGOs); NGOs focusing on activities such as microcredit for farmers and agricultural communities (support NGOs).
The nature of activities that NGOs undertake, their relationship with the state and the private sector, their core
constituency and nature of their involvement with it, theirown organizational character and staff profile determine
the attitude of an NGO towards the kinds of knowledge it
considers valid and consequently the nature of knowledge
processes it engages with and utilizes in its interactions with
its constituency (Pretty, 1994). The processes of engagement range from the commissioning of research providers
to inform NGO action, top-down dissemination of knowledge through NGO community trainers to engagement withfarming communities in research and enquiry through usergroups and participatory committees and direct involvement of farming communities in research agenda setting andknowledge selection. NGOs have become significant players
in AKST. One of the largest member-based NGOs, BirdLife
International has become a significant player in organizing
civil society-based collection of data that informs local, national and global environmental policy and conservation
effort. Local groups affiliated to this NGO and to WWF

chapter 02.indd 87(World Wildlife Fund) were instrumental in ensuring that
attention was paid to the impacts on native biodiversity in
UK trials of GM oilseed rape and other selected field crops.
Collaboration among three Indian NGOs (Deccan Development Society, Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defence of Diversity and Permaculture Association of India) supported
the first thorough assessment of Bt Cotton from farmers’
perspectives (Qayum and Sakkhari, 2005).

2.3 AKST Evolutions over Time:
Thematic Narratives
The implementation and evolution of different IAs (see 2.2),
have been causes as well as consequences of the main changes in AKST. Although it now appears that AKST presents
itself as a whole, or at least as a tightly intertwined ensembleof domains, it has not always been the case. Progressively,
over centuries, a hierarchy has developed between scientificknowledge, technological knowledge and agricultural production, the latter being progressively limited to the execution of external recipes. Paralleling this hierarchy, science itself established a hierarchy between emerging and evolving
disciplines: chemistry, biology, genetics, botany, entomology, economy, sociology, and anthropology are permanently
struggling for recognition, status and resources, and scientists engage in alliances with other actors in this purpose.
Science allied with technology branched out in different domains of application that resulted in new professions related
to various aspects of agricultural production, its products
and impacts. Hence, in modern times is that the role of scientific research in maximizing agricultural productivity has
increased exponentially (Cernea and Kassam, 2006). However, through the last decades, a reverse movement has occurred and the division between the different branches of
AKST have been blurred, the great divide of labor between
science and technology is currently challenged, the hierarchy among disciplines reveals its shortcomings and the roleof public and private actors has changed.
The following narratives are illustrative of how AKST
contributed and shaped (as well as resulted from) the management of three major elements: seeds, pests, and food.
These narratives identify trends, turns, and bifurcations ineach domain and look at the major actors who managed
them, in response to drivers relevant for them.
2.3.1 Historical trends in germplasm management
and their implications for the future
2.3.1.1 Summary of major trends in the history of global
germplasm management
Genetic resource management over the past 150 years has
been marked by an institutional narrowing with the number
and diversity of actors engaged in germplasm management
declining. Breeding has largely become an isolated activity,
increasingly separated from agricultural and cultural systems from which it evolved (Box 2-1).
This narrowing is illustrated in history by four major
trends: (1) a movement from public to private ownership of
germplasm; (2) unprecedented concentration of agrochemical, seed corporations, and commodity traders; (3) tensions

11/3/08 10:42:30 AM

88 | IAASTD Global Report

between civil society, seed corporations, breeders and farmers
in the drafting of IPR; (4) stagnation in funding for common
goods germplasm. These trends have reduced options for using germplasm to respond to the uncertainties of the future.
They have also increased asymmetries in access to germplasm
and benefit sharing and increases vulnerabilities of the poor.
For example, farmers have received no direct compensation for formerly held public accessions that have beensold on to the private sector but have generally benefited
from public breeding arrangements. It remains a question
if farmers now have to pay for accessing seed stock andgermplasm that contain lines and traits that originally werebred by them and originated in their own farming systems.
Meanwhile, decreases in funding for public breeding has
stagnated research innovations for the public good (e.g.,lack of research on orphan crops). New ownership and IPR
regimes have restricted movement and made developmentof noncommercial (public) good constructs more expensive.
These changes have limited those actors that do not havelegal, commercial and financial power.

tions to collect global germplasm were underway by several
nations and gene banks were established for the conservation of germplasm for use in research and breeding.
Public sector institutions were the dominant distributorsof improved varieties in first half of the 20th century, aiming
to reach as large a constituency possible. Where different
forms of mass selection formed the main breeding method in
the 19th century, the rediscovery of Mendel’s laws of heredity (1900) and the discovery of heterosis (1908) spurred thegrowth of the commercial industry, most notably with thefounding of Pioneer Hi-Bred in 1919 (Crow, 1998; Reeves
and Cassaday, 2002). Throughout the 20th century, universities and research institutes gradually specialized in basic
research while the private sector increased its capacity inpractical breeding. The public sector assumed primary responsibility for pre-breeding, managing genetic resources
and creating scientific networks that acted as conduits of information and technology flow (Pingali and Traxler, 2002),
and creating regulatory bodies for variety testing, official
release, and seed certification.

2.3.1.2 Genetic resources as a common heritage
Farmers as managers of genetic resources. Historically,
farmers have been the principal generators and stewards ofcrop genetic resources (e.g., Simmonds, 1979). This meansthat genetic resources have been viewed as a common heritage to be shared and exchanged. The concept places farmers at the center of control of their own food security. The
planting of genetically diverse, geographically localized
landraces by farmers can be conceptualized as a decentralized management regime with significant biological (Brush,
1991; Tripp, 1997; Almekinders and Louwaars, 1999) andpolitical (e.g., Ellen et al., 2000; Stone, 2007) implications.
Studies of traditional farming systems suggest that farmers
in Africa (Mulatu and Zelleke, 2002; van Leur and Gebre,2003) the Americas (Quiros et al., 1992; Bellon et al., 1997,
2003; Perales et al., 2003) and Asia (Trinh et al., 2003; Jaradat et al., 2004;) managed and continue to manage existing
varieties and innovate new ones through a variety of techniques including hybridization with wild species, regulationof cross-pollination, and directional selection (Bellon et al.,1997). In many parts of the world, it is women’s knowledge systems that select and shape crop genetic resources(Tsegaye, 1997; Howard, 2003; Mkumbira et al., 2003).
The fear is that erosion of crop diversity is commonly paralleled by erosion of the farmer’s skills and farmer empowerment (Bellon et al., 1997; Brown, 2000; Mkumbira et al.,
2003; Gepts, 2004). This loss of farmer’s skills (i.e., agricultural deskilling; see Stone, 2007) means a loss of community
sovereignty as less of the population is able to cultivate andcontrol their own food (see 2.3.3).

The first institutional arrangements exported to developing countries. The education, research and extension system triangle commonly found in industrial countries wasexported to developing countries to help foster agriculturaldevelopment and food security, mainly through the development of broadly adapted germplasm. With the aid of theRockefeller Foundation (and later the Ford Foundation), a
collaborative research program on maize, wheat and beans
in Mexico was founded in 1943. This laid the foundation
for the first international research centers of the CGIAR,
with the initial focus to improve globally important staple
crops (see 2.2.4).
The formation of the CGIAR centers laid the groundwork for the emergence of the technologies of the Green
Revolution. Borrowing from breeding work in developed
countries, high yielding varieties (HYV) of rice, wheat, andmaize were developed in 1960s and 70s. By the year 2000,
8000 modern varieties had been released by more than
400 public breeding programs in over 100 countries. The
FAO launched a significant program to establish formal
seed production capacities and so-called “lateral spread”
systems in developing countries to make the new varieties
available to as many farmers as possible. These public seedprojects, financed by UNDP, World Bank and bilateral donors were subsequently commercialized, often as parastatal
companies, before national or multinational seed companies
were established in these developing countries (World Bank,
1995; Morris 1998; Morris and Ekesingh, 2001).
The FAO has estimated the economic and social consequences of crop genetic improvement gains emanatingfrom the international agricultural research centers using
the IFPRI based model “IMPACT” (Evenson and Gollin,
2003b). Without CGIAR input, it is estimated that world
food and feed grain prices would have been 18-20% higher:
world food production 4-5% lower, and imports of food indeveloping countries about 5% higher. Debates continue as
to whether increases in food production, such as those of
the Green Revolution, necessarily lead to increases in foodsecurity (IFPRI, 2002; Box 2-2; see 2.3.3).

Development of public and private sector. The public sector emerged to catalyze formal crop improvement, focusingon yield with high input requirements and wide adaptability (Tripp 1997; Almekinders and Louwaars, 1999). Major
benefits arose from breeding with large, diverse germplasm
populations. These advancements had both negative andpositive impacts on farming communities as more uniform
crops replaced locally adapted crops. Meanwhile, expedi-

chapter 02.indd 88

11/3/08 10:42:30 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 89

Box 2-1. Timeline of genetic resource management.
10,000 years of agricultural history. Farmers as the generators& stewards of crop genetic resources (e.g conservation, selection,and management of open pollinated varieties)
1800s. Agricultural genetic resources—apart from plantation
crops—not a policy issue, and valued and managed by farmers
as a common good; First commercial seed companies (e.g., Sweden) and agricultural experiment stations in Germany and England; National school of agriculture founded in Mexico (1850s);
Discoveries of Darwin and Mendel (rediscovered and appliedin 1900 only). 1883 Paris Convention on patents (not applied toplants for a full century).
1910s. George Shull produces first hybrids (1916); Wheat rust
resistance breeding program in India
1920s. First maize hybrids available; Vavilov collects crop genetic
resources systematically and develops the concept of Centersof Diversity.
1930s. 1930 Plant Patent Act (USA) to cover plants that are reproduced asexually (e.g., apples and roses), excluding bacteria andedible roots and tubers (potato).
1940s. Bengal Famine 1943-1944; International Agricultural Research is conceived and funded; Rockefeller Foundation sets up
research program on maize, wheat and beans with Mexican government. Breeder’s rights laws develop in Europe.
1950s. Ford and Rockefeller Foundations place agricultural staff
in developing countries. Mexico becomes self-sufficient in wheat
as a result of plant breeding efforts. Watson and Crick describe
the double helix structure of DNA and Coenberg discovers andisolates DNA polymerase which became the first enzyme used tomake DNA in a test tube; Reinart regenerates plants from carrot
callus culture—important techniques for genetic engineering. The
National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSI) was opened in USA.
1960s. South Asian subcontinent on the brink of famine. High
Yielding Varieties (HYV) introduced. International Convention for
the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV, 1961) providing a
sui generis protection to crop varieties with important exemptions
for farmers and breeders. Establishment of IRRI, CIMMYT, IITA,
CIAT. Crop Research and Introduction Center established by the
FAO in Turkey for the study of regional germplasm.
1970s. Public inbred lines of maize disappear from USA. European
Patent Convention states that plants and animals are not patentable. Further development of international agricultural research
centers under the auspices of the CGIAR; IR8 (high-yielding semidwarf rice) grown throughout Asia. Hybrid rice introduced in China.
First recombinant DNA organism by gene splicing. Genentech Inc
founded and dedicated to products based on recombinant DNA
technology. First international NGOs focus on the seed sector (FAFI).
Technical meetings on genetic resources organized by FAO.

chapter 02.indd 89

1980s. First patents granted to living organisms by US courts.
Large scale mergers in the seed sector. International funding
for R&D begins to decline. Methods developed for Participatory Variety Selection and Plant Breeding as new institutional arrangement for breeding for development. (1985). Establishmentof the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Foodand Agriculture (CPGRFA) and the FAO-International Undertaking (IU-PGRFA): Legally non-binding undertaking that confirms a“heritage of mankind” principle over plant genetic resources andrecognises Farmers’ Rights. US EPA approved the release of thefirst GE tobacco plants.
1990s. Agrochemical, pharmaceutical, and seed companies
merge into “life science” companies; Major technological advances (e.g., marker assisted breeding, gene shuffling, genetic
engineering, rDNA Technology, and Apomixis); Share of HYV increases to 70% for wheat and rice in selected developing countries. Acceleration towards consolidation of seed industry with
agrochemical companies as main investors. Introduction of firstcommercial transgenic crops (e.g., Calgene’s “Flavr-Savr” tomato and herbicide and insect-tolerant crops); Gradual change
in CIMMYT approach from selection in high input environments
to include drought and nitrogen stress. Rate of funding of CGIAR
stagnant—more NRM-focused centers established. Regions
where agricultural R&D relies on donors are particularly hard-hit.
IU-PGRFA recognizes national sovereignty over PGRFA in thewake of CBD. CBD as legally binding agreement among all countries (except USA and some tiny states in Europe) lays the foundation for bilateral negotiations over access and benefit sharing
to genetic resources, including PGRFA. Cartagena Protocol seeks
to regulate international movement of transgenics. Agreement on
Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
spurs a debate on plants and varieties in developing countries;
European Patent Office moves to grant patents on plants (1999).
UPOV 1978 treaty closed to new accessions. Latest UPOV Act
prohibits farmers from sharing seed of protected varieties. Campaigns against strong IPRs in medical and agricultural research
grow, notably against “terminator technology”.
2000s. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Foodand Agriculture (IT-PGRFA) facilitating access and benefit sharing
and defining Farmers’ Rights; World Intellectual Property Organization member states set up an Intergovernmental Committee onIntellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Developing countries join UPOV or develop
their own sui generis protection (e.g., India, Thailand). Free Trade
Agreements put pressure on developing countries for stronger
than TRIPs protection. Over 180 transgenic crop events, involving
15 traits deregulated or approved in at least one of 27 countries.
Top 10 companies control half of the world’s commercial seedsales; however farmer-seed systems remain key source of seed.
Nanotechnologies enter agricultural sciences.

11/3/08 10:42:30 AM

90 | IAASTD Global ReportBox 2-2. Historical limitations of CGIAR arrangements.
Formal on-station breeding programmers have historicallyresulted in homogeneous varieties that favor uniform conditions, such as obtained with high inputs, rather than the
low-input heterogeneous ecological clines that characterize
the majority of small farmer’s fields. The prevalence of pests,
disease, and variability of climate and land requires a wide
range of locally adapted heterogeneous varieties (Brush,
1991; Wolfe, 1992; Lenne and Smithson, 1994; Brouwer et al.,1993). In many cases, small farmers have been economicallyconstrained from using high-input varieties. For instance, in
Zimbabwe, drought in the 1990s affected poorer farmers, who
had adopted hybrid maize, whereas richer farmers who had
benefited from an early adoption of the varieties had diversified into cattle, leaving them better protected from drought
shock. Weak performance of the hybrid maize under drought
conditions left poor farmers poorer. Following early lessons,the CIMMYT program began to develop varieties in sub-Saharan Africa under conditions of low nitrogen input and drought(CIMMYT, 2002). Gender played a role in the adoption of newvarieties, with women preferring open-pollinated traditionalvarieties disseminated by social networks, while the men
preferred the improved varieties. Networks and social relationships have both facilitated and constrained technology
dissemination (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2004).

Sharing of genetic resources as historical norm. Until the
1970s, there were very few national and international laws
creating proprietary rights or other forms of explicit restriction of access to plant genetic resources. The common heritage concept of genetic resources as belonging to the publicdomain had been the foundation of farming communities
for millennia where seed was exchanged and invention wascollective (Brush, 2003). Farmers and professional breeding have relied on genetic resources, in the public domain
or in the market, to be freely available for use in researchand breeding. The public-sector research “culture” is basedon this tradition of open-sharing of resources and researchfindings (Gepts, 2004) although this is changing (see below), with serious social and political implications. Indeed,
the global collaboration required for the development of the
HYVs of the Green Revolution demonstrated the effectiveness of an international approach to sharing of germplasm.
The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources,
1983, encapsulated this spirit citing the “universally accepted principle that plant genetic resources are a heritage ofmankind and consequently should be available without restriction.” Since that time, in many ways, the common heritage principle has been turned on its head, with the gradualencroachment of claims for control over access to and use ofgenetic resources grounded in IP laws, assertions of nationalsovereignty (Safrin, 2004) and or the intentional use of technologies that cannot be reused by farmers.
The common heritage or public goods approach to the useof Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA)

chapter 02.indd 90

has not been entirely eclipsed. It is worth noting in this regard
that the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) Conventions through their several revisions to further strengthen breeders’ rights have consistently
maintained a “breeders’ exemption” which allows researchers/breeders to use protected materials in the development of
new varieties without the permission of the owners (as longas the new varieties are not “essentially derived” from theprotected varieties). Furthermore, in what might be considered a surprise development in the context of the overall shift
in the genetic rights paradigm, the International Treaty on
PGRFA creates an international research and breeding commons within which individuals and organizations in member
states, and international organizations that sign special agreements, enjoy facilitated access (and benefit sharing) on preset,
minimal transaction costs. Farmers and other target groupsof this assessment have been inadvertently, and largely negatively, affected by the battles over genetic rights.
2.3.1.3 Major changes in germplasm management
The development of IPR in breeding. The business environment and size of the market are important factors for investment. Intellectual property rights (IPR) provides a level ofprotection. With the introduction of IPR, the private seedindustry has benefited from the ability to appropriate profits
to recoup investments and foster further research, organizational capability and growth (Heisey et al., 2001). The
stakes are high; IPR regimes have transformed the US$21
billion dollar global seed market and contribute to the restructuring of the seed industry (ETC, 2005).
The increasingly international character of IPR regimes
is a reflection of widespread and integrated trade in germplasm resources as well as global trends toward liberalization of markets and trade, privatization, and structuraladjustment that reduce the role of the public sector (Tripp
and Byerlee, 2000).
An evolution towards stronger IPR protection. Germplasm
protections have been both biological; (e.g., hybrid maize)
and legal. Initially plants were excluded from patentability for moral, technical and political reasons. For example,
special, so-called sui generis protection was developed forasexually reproduced plants (US Plant Act 1930). In Europe protection for all varieties in the 1940s was harmonized through the International Union for the Protection of
New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) (1961). This Plant Variety
Protection (PVP) system recognized farmers and breeders
exemptions. While PVP offers protection to private seedproducers by prohibiting others from producing and selling the protected variety commercially, it does not restrict
anyone from using a protected variety as parental material
in future breeding. This is known as “farmer’s privilege”
and responds to the traditional seed handling mechanisms
which allows farmers to save and exchange seed (1978 Act),a provision which was interpreted very widely in the USA,leading to large scale “brown bagging”.
Utility Patents on a bacterium in 1980 signaled the advent of an era of strong IPR (Falcon and Fowler, 2002),
marking the end of “farmer’s privilege”, which was restricted in the latest revision in UPOV (1991 Act). This
loss of privilege generated heated debate among ratifying

11/3/08 10:42:30 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 91

countries, especially developing nations, because it limits
the rights of farmers to freely save, exchange, reuse and sell
agricultural seeds (Tansey and Rajotte, 2008).
Patents entered plant breeding initially through court
decisions in the USA in the 1980s via association with biotechnology. They were subsequently granted in other OECD
countries, and offered greater protection to a wider array of
products and processes, such as genes, traits, molecular constructs, and enabling technologies (Lesser and Mutschler,
2002). However, varieties are excluded from patentability
in most countries. The EU introduced a breeder’s exemption
into its patent law, and some EU countries have introduced
a farmer’s privilege to avoid the pitfalls of excessively strong
protection (World Bank, 2006).
IPR limitations. Even though IPR may be important for private seed sector development, some sectors have been successful in developing countries without IP protection. For
example, the private seed sector in India has grown and diversified without the benefit of IPRs but in the context ofliberal seed laws and in many cases through the use of hybrids as a means of appropriation (Louwaars et al., 2005).
Some indicators suggest that the IPR in developing
countries may have occurred primarily as costs, as many
patents are thought to slow down research. This problem
is described as “the problem of the anti-commons” (Heller and Eisenberg, 1998) or “patent thickets” (Shapiro,
2001; Pray et al., 2005). Consider the example of Veery
wheat, which is the product of 3170 different crosses involving 51 parents from 26 countries that were globally,
publicly released. The development cycle of Veery would
have been very difficult if, for each parent and each cross,it was necessary to negotiate a separate agreement (SGRP,
2006). Even though IPR tends to be territorial, i.e., granted
at the national level, trade agreements have led to greater“harmonization” of IPR regimes (Falcon and Fowler, 2002)
with countries adopting laws and rules that may not benefit
seed-saving farmers (Box 2-3).
In many developing countries, institutional infrastructure required for implementation and enforcement of IPR
regimes is still lacking. Opposition against TRIPS and the
IP-clauses of free trade agreements concentrates on the lackof incentives for development of the seed industry in developing countries due to the harmonization approach. However, in agricultural biotechnology development, which ishighly concentrated, the IPR issues precipitate more in theform of licensing practices and policies, shaping the impactof patent systems to a large extent. Consequently, there has
been a misconception that existing problems can be best
solved through reshaping patent regulations and laws alone.
There is a related need to examine how licensing agreements
contribute to many problems at the intersection of IP andagricultural biotechnology (CIPP, 2004).
Sharing of genetic resources; challenge and necessity. A reaction to IPR: national sovereignty and equity issues. The
lack of explicit rules governing germplasm rights was thehistorical standard in agriculture until the 1990s. As pressure to protect IPR in improved varieties and “inventions”
increased, the atmosphere concerning access to and use ofgenetic resources became increasingly politicized. This waschapter 02.indd 91

Box 2-3. Emergence of TRIPs-Plus.
International IPR regimes under the TRIPS agreements of the
WTO allow for flexibilities for plant varieties, which may be exempted from patentability under the condition that an effective
sui generis protection is provided for. This flexibility has been
introduced by UPOV member countries, and creates a broad
option for developing countries to develop their own systems,
often balancing the rights of breeders with those of farmers.
However, bilateral and multilateral trade agreements with IPR
components dubbed “TRIPS-plus” often go far beyond thebaseline of TRIPS standards, eclipsing the relative flexibility
that was offered in TRIPS in favor of “harmonisation” at amore stringent, developed country IPR, level. For instance,
TRIPS-plus regimes may force countries to join UPOV under
the strict Act of 1991 or to allow patent protection on varieties. TRIPS-plus type regimes may take many forms and raise
concerns about bypassing appropriate democratic decision
making based on the interest of the national seed systems.
Such Free Trade Agreements may be bilateral between regional blocks, such as in the EU or the Andean Community. In
addition, the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization)is working to harmonise (i.e., strengthen) IPR globally, throughthe Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT), raising concerns
about development or conservation objectives.

augmented with concern, particularly among developing
countries, that inequitable global patterns were establishedin the distribution of benefits associated with the use of genetic resources. Concurrently, there was growing concernthat genetic diversity and local knowledge related to the useof those resources continued to be eroded under the pressures of modernization (Gepts, 2004).
In response, the international community attempted toaddress these tensions and create a new regime for accessto genetic resources and the sharing of benefits associatedwith their use. One of the most significant outcomes was
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1994) (Box
2-4 and Chapter 7), which came into force in 1993. The
CBD emphasized states’ sovereign rights over their natural
resources and their “authority to determine access to genetic
resources, subject to national legislation.” The Convention
also addresses rights of local and indigenous communities inthis respect. Over 160 countries have ratified the CBD; theUS is not among them. Most countries have interpreted theaccess and benefit sharing provisions of the CBD as the basis
for establishing much tighter procedural and substantive restrictions to gaining access to genetic resources within theirborders. To this end, they have developed, or are developing, bilaterally oriented access laws that require case-by-casenegotiations to establish legal conditions for obtaining andusing materials from a country although they are not binding, and few countries have reported implementing them.
Nonetheless, they are a good indicator that most countries
think of the CBD’s access and benefit sharing provisions as
requiring, or justifying, a bilateral and restrictive approach

11/3/08 10:42:31 AM

92 | IAASTD Global Report

to regulating access. Very different approaches were taken
by individual countries to implement their sovereignty
rights. Noticeably, the African Union and some countries
in Asia (notably India and Thailand) have developed an approach that combines aspects of access and benefit sharing
and breeder’s rights in one regulatory framework, thereby
clearly indicating the connection between the two issues.
While a restrictive bilateral approach to implementing
the CBD may be appropriate for wild endemic species offlora or fauna, it is not well suited to plant genetic resources
for food and agriculture (Box 2-4). All domesticated crops
are the end result of contributions of farmers from numerous
countries or continents over extremely long periods of time.

The CBD explicitly closed the concept of “heritage of mankind” that had been expressed in the 1980s. The nonbinding International Undertaking (Box 2-5) has re-established
a commons for the crops and forages included in its Annex
1. CIP and IRRI have reported that since the CBD cameinto force, movement of plant varieties from and to theirgene bank collections have been noticeably reduced andregulation of biological materials has resulted in increased
bureaucracy and expense. Very few cases of effective (evennon-monetary) benefit sharing as a result of CBD-based
regulation during the first decade of the Convention (Visser
et al., 2005). The key message is that promoting fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic

Box 2-4. Convention on Biological Diversity
Goals
1. Conservation of biological diversity
2. Sustainable use of its components
3. Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources
The CBD asserts sovereignty rights to regulate access to genetic
resources. It recognizes, and is to be interpreted consistent with,intellectual property over genetic resources. The sovereignty principal was to be implemented through prior informed consent andmutually agreed terms for access to genetic resources.
The Nairobi Final Act, 1993, resolution 3, signed by the signatories to the CBD acknowledged that the access and benefit
sharing framework established by the CBD did not sufficiently
address the situation of existing ex situ collections of PGRFA heldaround the world. It further states that it was important to promote
cooperation between the CBD and the Global System of Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture assupported by FAO. This resolution set the stage for the further
investigation into appropriate access and benefit sharing regime
or regimes for PGRFA. This led indirectly to the seven years of negotiations of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture.
Positive Outcomes• Heightened awareness globally of the inequitable distributionof benefits associated with the use of genetic resources• Heightened awareness globally of the need to value, use andconserve indigenous and local knowledge, and to promote insitu conservation.
• Created a framework for the development of a plan of coordinated work on Agricultural Biodiversity• Created a framework for funding for in situ conservation promotion projects through the Convention’s funding mechanism:
Global Environmental Facility
Problems• The CBD does not distinguish between domesticated agricultural resources, collected in the form of ascensions of given
crop (intra-species), and other biological resources, such as

chapter 02.indd 92••

wild plants collected for pharmaceutical applications. In fact,
the convention seems to have been drafted more with the latter in mind (bio-prospecting).
The CBD links benefit sharing to being able to identify thecountry of origin of a resource. The CBD defines the “country of origin of genetic resources” as “the country which possesses those genetic resources in in situ conditions.” In turn, it
defines “in situ conditions” as those “conditions where genetic
resources exist within ecosystems and natural habitats and,in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties.” Pursuant to this definition, the CBD requires more thansimply identifying the country of origin of a crop—it requires
the identification of the country of origin of the distinctive
properties of the crop. Because of the international nature of
the development and use of PGRFA, the CBD’s method oflinking the “origin” of traits to benefit sharing is impractical andoften impossible to make work.
The CBD has contributed to and reinforced exaggerated expectations about the commercial market value for local cropand forages varieties, leading countries to take measures torestrict access to those resources as a means of eventually
capturing their market value (through use licenses) rather thansharing them in cooperative research projects that would likely
result in significantly higher overall public benefit.

As a result of these factors, some critics feel the convention isinappropriate for the agricultural genetic resources, while allowingthat it may still have potential for redistributing benefits associated with the use of other forms of genetic resources.
In the field of agriculture, the CBD was a groundbreaking assertion of national sovereignty over genetic resources. The sovereignty principal was to be implemented through prior informed
consent and mutually agreed terms for access to genetic resources. Its implementation is through bilateral agreements between provider country and user.
Adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1992, came into
force 29 December 1993.

11/3/08 10:42:31 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 93

resources remains a major goal. Defining a monetary value
to estimate the historic or current contribution of farmers’varieties remains elusive (Mendelsohn, 2000). Identifying
the actual genetic resource property attributable to specific farming communities or even nations is “problematic”(Peeters and Williams, 1984; Visser et al., 2000). Some proponents have argued that benefit sharing would be more
successful in the form of transfer of international capital,
e.g., through development assistance to improve rural incomes in genetically diverse farming systems (Brush, 2005).
Another approach could be to reduce structural adjustment
policies that link agricultural credit to the planting of modern homogeneous varieties, and other crop and technology
choices (Morales, 1991; Foko, 1999; Amalu, 2002).
The question of facilitated access. To match the principle ofnational sovereignty with the needs of sustainable agriculture and food security, an International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture concluded in 2001
and entered force in June 2004 (Box 2-5 and Chapter 7).

With roughly the same objectives as the CBD, it translates
its conservation and sustainable use goals to agriculture,including both in situ, on farm and ex situ conservation
strategies, and various aspects of crop improvement byboth farmers and specialized plant breeders in implementing “sustainable use”.
The main novelties in the International Treaty are (1) the
creation of a Multilateral System for Access and Benefit Sharing for most important food crops and pasture species and(2) the definition of the concept of Farmers’ Rights. Farmers’
Rights include the right of benefit sharing, of protection of
traditional knowledge and of farmers’ involvement in relevant policy making. The objective is to have no restrictions
on the ability of farmers to save, use, exchange and sell seed.
However, signatory countries have freedom in specifying theFarmers’ Rights as “subject to national law and as appropriate.” The formulation was chosen to avoid conflict withexisting and future IPR laws. Some claim that this formulation has thus far prevented an international acceptance of an
inclusive Farmers’ Rights concept (Brush, 2005).

Box 2-5. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (adopted November 2001, came into
force June 2004).
1. Ensure access to and conservation of plant genetic resources.
2. Equitable sharing of benefit arising from agricultural genetic
resources.
The treaty is a legally binding mechanism specifically tailored toagricultural crops, in harmony with the CBD. Creates multilateralsystem (MLS) for access to genetic resources and benefit sharing, which is designed to lower transaction costs of exchanges ofmaterials to be used for research, conservation and training. The
International Treaty links benefit sharing to access from the MLS
as a whole. A proportion of monetary benefits arising from commercialization of new PGRFA developed using material from the
MLS (when others are restricted from using the new PGRFA evenfor research) will be paid into an international fund, ultimately controlled by the Governing Body of the Treaty. Funds will be used
for programs such as conservation and research, particularly indeveloping countries. The monetary benefit sharing provisions
are not triggered when new PGRFA are made freely available forresearch and breeding. 64 major food crops and forages are included within the MLS. The list could be expanded in the future,by consensus of the Governing Body.
Positive Results• It appears to be well on its way to becoming a truly global
Treaty, with an increasing number of countries ratifying or acceding to it.
• Specifically tailored for agricultural genetic resources.
• Regularizes access to genetic resources under a single uniform multilateral regime using a single fixed legal instrument
for all transfers.
• Includes a benefit sharing clauses, triggered through commer-

chapter 02.indd 93

cialization of new PGRFA products that incorporated materials
accessed from the MLS when those new products are notmade available for further research.
• Provides a permanent legal status for the ex situ collectionsof PGRFA hosted by the CGIAR Centres, placing the Centres
Annex 1 holding within the MLS (and making the Centres’ nonAnnex 1 holdings available on very similar terms).
• Recognizes the principal of Farmers Rights, and creates somemomentum for countries to implement national laws to advance Farmers’ rights.
Problems• Significant crops are excluded from the Treaty, (including soybeans, groundnuts, tomatoes, tropical forages, onions, sugarcane, melons, grapes, cocoa, coffee). The rules applying
to those crops is therefore uncertain, falling by default underwhatever systems countries put in place to implement the
CBD. Of course, additional species or genera can be included
within the MLS with the consensus of the Governing Body.
• While a number of major industrial countries have ratified theTreaty, the USA still has not, and it is not clear if or when it will
do so.
• The SMTA adopted by the Governing Body in June 2006 is
relatively long and relatively complex. It will take some time
before the global community fully understands what it says
and becomes comfortable using it. In the meantime, ancillary
efforts will be necessary, probably lead by organizations thatare going to be participants in the MLS and consequently, users of the SMTA, to raise awareness about the MLS, assist
countries in developing legal and administrative frameworks
to implement the Treaty, and build organizations’ capacity andcomfort level in participating in the MLS and using the SMTA.

11/3/08 10:42:31 AM

94 | IAASTD Global Report

2.3.1.4 Increasing consolidation of the private sector
The changing face of the seed industry. In the context of
newly emerging IPR regimes and the development of biotechnology (e.g., identification, cloning and transferring ofindividual genes), a major theme of consoldiation in the
agricultural plant biotechnology and seed industries has
emerged (Pingali and Traxler, 2002; Pray et al., 2005). This
consolidation significantly altered the course of germplasm
management and marked a major shift in the relationshipbetween the public and private sector.
Consolidation of the industry began with mergers offamily-owned seed companies by multinational chemical
firms to capitalize on synergies between seeds and chemical
inputs (Thayer, 2001; Falcon and Fowler, 2002). Consolidation in the seed industry had been ongoing since the 1970s,
but the unprecedented concentration in the 1990s resulted
in an extreme vertical integration of the seed and biotechnology industries (Hayenga, 1998). This was followed bya horizontal integration of agriculture and pharmaceuticals
into life sciences companies.
The first trend was driven by (1) the stagnation of the
agrochemical sector; (2) the changing knowledge base andinnovations in chemistry and biotechnology; and (3) the
policy environment, such as the increased burden of regulations (Hayenga, 1998; Falcon and Fowler, 2002). Between
1995 and 1998, in the US alone, approximately 68 seed
companies either were acquired by or entered into joint
ventures with the top six multinational corporations (King,
2001). An analysis for thirty UPOV member-countries identified a high degree of concentration in the ownership ofplant variety rights for six major crops at the national levelin the developed world (Srinivasan, 2004). The area withthe greatest concentration intensity in the past decades has
been genetic transformation (Pray et al., 2005; Box 2-6).
Liberalized foreign investment policies and multinational
structure have allowed agribusiness companies to provide
upstream research, with the local seed companies providing
the crop varieties developed for specific geographical markets. For developing countries, this concentration has implications for (1) the structure and autonomy of their domestic
seed industries; (2) their access to protected varieties; and(3) the use of important breeding technologies (Srinivasan,
2004).
Recent research demonstrates that the effects of theincreasing concentration of control over agricultural biotechnology has had mixed yield, economic, social and environmental effects in the United States, Argentina, South
Africa, India and China (Fukuda-Parr, 2007), with thedifferences caused in part by differences in technology adopted, the structure of farming, the organization of seedmarkets and in the regulatory and institutional contexts. For
instance, Emergent, the third largest cotton seed company
in India was recently acquired by the US based Monsanto(ETC, 2005), yet India maintains substantial domestic seed
company interests in GM technologies (Ramaswami andPray, 2007). Agricultural liberalization in East Africa has
led to an increase in the number of seed companies and varieties on the market but this has not led to an increase ofmaize yields or production per capita since the mid-1980s(De Groote et al., 2005).

chapter 02.indd 94

Today, the top 10 agribusiness companies (all based inEurope, the US or Japan) represent half of the world’s commercial seed sales (ETC, 2005). These ten firms increased
their control of biotechnology patents to over 50% in 2000
(Pray et al., 2005); indicating that instead of negotiating forthe rights to a competitor’s technology, it might be simpler,cheaper, or more advantageous to acquire the competitor
outright. Currently, patents on the foundational transformation technologies for grains are held by only three firms:
DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta (Brennan et al., 2005).
Implications of concentration. A relatively stable market
share may encourage corporations to invest in R&D, bothin terms of current profitability and a reasonable expectation of future profitability. However, recent analysis suggests that we are seeing the beginning of negative impacts
on innovation and competition through increased concentration within the private sector (Brennan et al., 2005). The
major concerns are (1) industrial concentration reduces theamount and the productivity of research because R&D expenditures are consolidated and narrowly focused; (2) concentrated markets create barriers to new firms and quell
creative startups; (3) concentration allows large firms togain substantial monopolistic power over the food industry,making food supply chains vulnerable to market maneuvers(see 2.3.3; Pray et al., 2005). For instance, a recent USDA
study suggests that consolidation in the private seed industry over the past decade dampened the intensity of researchundertaken on maize, cotton, and soybeans crop biotechnology (Fernandez-Cornejo and Schimmelpfennig, 2004).
This raises concerns that decreasing levels of research activity would stunt agricultural innovations, and brings into
question whether large biotech firms can be relied on to
conduct research with an eye on the public good as well as
their own profit margins (Pray et al., 2005). There is additional concern that the anticompetitive impacts of concentration have led to higher seed prices. USDA data suggestthat cotton seed prices in the US have increased 3-4 times
since the introduction of GM cotton and that GM fees havesubstantially raised the price of cotton seed in developing
nations, such as India (Iowa State Univ., 2007).
The dilemma of the public sector. The establishment andstrengthening of IPR in agriculture has contributed to a shift
in emphasis from public to private breeding (Moschini and
Lapan, 1997; Gray et al., 1999). The public research sector is increasingly restricted because fragmented ownershipof IPR creates a situation wherein no comprehensive set of
IPR rights can be amassed for particular crops. In 2003, thePublic-Sector Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture(PIPRA) regime was introduced by several US universities
in collaboration with Rockefeller and McKnight Foundations with the goal of creating a collective public IP asset
database. This collective management regime would allow
public sector institutions to retain rights to use the newest
and best technologies of agricultural biotechnology for the
public good when they issue commercial licenses (Atkinson
et al., 2003).
These creative IPR management regimes are needed forthe public sector because many public breeding programs

11/3/08 10:42:31 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 95

Box 2-6. Emergence of genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering (GE) or genetic modification of crops (GM) has
emerged as a major agricultural technology over the past decade,mainly in North America, China and Argentina. Soybeans, maize,
cotton and canola constitute 99 percent of the world’s acreage of
GE crops (James, 2004). Although GE traits encompass several
categories (pest and disease resistance, abiotic stress tolerance,yield, nutrition and vaccines), herbicide tolerance and insect
resistance dominate the market. A controversial dialogue has
emerged as to the role of GE technology in addressing agricultural problems. Whether farmers have realized benefits from GE
crops is a matter of debate. GE technology is seen as not being
scale neutral by some (Benbrook, 2004; Pemsl et al., 2005; Rosset, 2005), and in certain instances, GE crops have been shownto increase income distribution differentials within the agriculture
sector, favoring the establishment of large holdings and increased
farm size (see Santaniello, 2003; Pengue, 2005), However, there isalso evidence that GE has benefited farmers (Huang et al., 2001;
Ismael, 2001; Traxler et al., 2001; Huang et al., 2002a; Cattaneo etal., 2006). The impacts on pesticide use are debated, with somestudies indicating reduced use of insecticides (Huang et al., 2003)
and others indicating significant rise in herbicide use (USDA,
2000; Benbrook, 2004). New evidence of high insecticide use by
Chinese growers of GE insecticidal crops (Bt cotton) has demonstrated that farmers do not necessarily reduce their insecticide
use even when using a technology designed for that purpose(Pemsl et al., 2005). This illustrates the frequently documented
gap between the reality of how a technology is used (taken up in
a given social context) and its “in the box” design.
Globally, agricultural producers are reported as receiving 13%of the benefits of GE soya. In Argentina, soya producers received
90% of the benefits of GE soya, partly owing to weak IP protection (Qaim and Traxler, 2005), hence greatly favoring the expansion of the technology in Argentina. However, this increasing
reliance on a single technology in Argentina is causing ecologicaland social concerns (Benbrook 2004, Pengue 2005). Similarly, social, economic, political and cultural concerns have been raised in
Asia, Africa and Latin America, as GMOs have been assessed fortheir impacts on poverty reduction, equity, food sovereignty (deGrassi, 2003; FOE, 2005, 2006). Meanwhile, the roles and contributions of public institutions, scientists, governments, industry
and civil society are now beginning to be closely analyzed (deGrassi, 2003).
GE risk analysis has historically acknowledged the possibilityof negative ecological effects from the deliberate or inadvertent
releases of transgenes into the environment through pollen mediated gene transfer to weedy relatives of GM crops (Haygood
et al., 2003) and horizontal gene transfer. For most crops grownunder regulatory approval such as maize in the USA, the likelihood is negligible (Conner et al., 2003). In other cases, such as
canola in Canada, low levels of levels of transgenic DNA haveentered non-GM seed supplies (Friesen et al., 2003; Mellon andchapter 02.indd 95

Rissler, 2004). There have also been cases of contamination offood supply chain with possible litigation against farmers for theunintentional presence of transgenic DNA in their crops. This is
likely to emerge as an even larger issue as pharmaceuticals are
introduced into crops (Nature Biotechnology, 2004; Snow et al.,2005). Despite technical solutions to prevent such gene movement (e.g., controversial “terminator technology” and limitation oftransgenes to the chloroplast genome not carried in pollen) andtraditional plant variety purity protocols no method is likely to becompletely effective in preventing movement of transgenes (NRC,
2004).
GE R&D in developing countries is behind that of the developed world for a number of factors including: (1) private sector
in the developed world holds much of the IPR; (2) weak patent
protection resulting in low investment by the private sector; (3)consumer resistance and governmental regulations affecting
international trade in GM products and flow of germplasm; (4)and rising costs of development that inhibit the private research(Huang et al., 2002b). The costs of regulatory compliance havebeen cited as the largest obstacle to release of commercial GE
crops in many developing countries (Atanassov, 2004; Cohen,2005) and even developed countries. In developed countries likethe UK, where public opinion has been exposed to food safety
crises like BSE, studies highlight the mixed feelings about GMOs.
More broadly, citizens are concerned about the integrity andadequacy of present patterns of government regulation, and inparticular about official “scientific” assurances of safety. Betterscience is necessary but may never resolve the uncertainties
about the effects of new technologies (ESRC, 1999).
Crops derived from GE technologies have faced a myriad ofchallenges stemming from technical, political, environmental,
intellectual-property, biosafety, and trade-related controversies,
none of which are likely to disappear in the near future. Advocatescite potential yield increases, sustainability through reductions inpesticide applications, use in no-till agriculture, wider crop adaptability, and improved nutrition (Huang et al., 2002b; Christou andTwyman, 2004). Critics cite environmental risks and the widening social, technological and economic disparities as significant
drawbacks (Pengue, 2005). Concerns include gene flow beyond
the crop, reduction in crop diversity, increases in herbicide use,
herbicide resistance (increased weediness), loss of farmer’s sovereignty over seed, ethical concerns on origin of transgenes, lackof access to IPR held by the private sector, and loss of markets
owing to moratoriums on GMOs, among others. Finally, because new genetic technologies are not the only hurdle between
resource-poor farmers and secure livelihoods (Tripp, 2000), GM
technology can be only one component of a wider strategy including conventional breeding and other forms of agricultural research to provide a series of structural, regulatory, and economic
evaluations that relate economic, political, and scientific context
of GE crops to their region of adoption.

11/3/08 10:42:32 AM

96 | IAASTD Global Report

have been unsure of whether to complement or competewith the private sector; confusion has arisen as to how totake advantage of IPR to control the use of public material(Reeves and Cassady, 2002) or to capture royalties for bigger budgets (Fischer and Byerlee, 2002). These trends havetriggered concerns that the lure of potential royalty revenue
has distorted research priorities in public institutions awayfrom poverty alleviation and sustainability, as has been suggested by research managers in Uganda (Louwaars et al.,2005) and the emergence of the so called “University-Industrial Complex” in which universities are redirecting theirresearch to meet the needs of sponsoring corporations (Press
and Washburn, 2000). Historically, public sector institutions
have been the dominant distributor and pre-breeder of germplasm (Morris and Ekasingh, 2001). In contrast, the growing private sector has focused on widely commercialized,
competitive crops that are well protected by legal or technical IPR (Fernandez-Cornejo and Schimmelpfennig, 2004).
This has meant that tropical crops, crops for marginal areas(and other public goods attributes, such as safety, health,and environmental protection), and “orphan crops” haveremained outside the orbit of private investment (Naylor etal., 2004; Fernandez-Cornejo and Schimmelpfennig, 2004).
This will remain a problem until an incentive is created for
private firms to work on marginal crops or funding for theseimportant crops is increased in public institutions.
2.3.1.5 Farmers, public and private sector: roles and relations
Changes in funding and investments and the strengtheningof the private sector vis à vis the public sector. While global
agricultural research investment has grown dramaticallysince the 1960s (more than doubling between 1976 and1995), recent trends indicate a shift from public to private
sector dominated research. The top ten multinational bioscience companies spend $3 billion annually on agriculturalresearch while the global CGIAR system will spend justover $500 million in 2007 (see Chapter 8). The system has
seen its funding decline over the last 15 years compared to
the widening of its mandate to include NRM issues (Pardey
and Beintema, 2001). Lack of funding for the CGIAR is
expected to have negative consequences for NARS plant
breeding, particularly in Africa as more than one-third of
the approximately 8,000 NARS released crop varieties werebased on IARC germplasm. Additionally, structural adjustment programs have severely affected the ability of developing countries to support their own public R&D budget (Kumar and Sidharthan, 1997; CIPR, 2002; Chaturvedi, 2008).
A continued decline in public sector breeding (see Chapter8), coupled with increased private sector growth will only
increase the growing gap in research intensity between richand poor countries.
Emergence of new institutional arrangements. Public-private
partnerships to reach development and sustainability goals.
The changing character of the seed industry has highlighted
public/private partnerships as potential generators of valuable synergies (Table 2-5). Examples of partnerships thathave positively affected small-scale farmers include hybrid
rice development in India, insect resistant maize in Kenya,industry led associations to improve seed policy in Kenya

chapter 02.indd 96

and collaborative efforts to promote biosafety regulation inIndia (IFPRI, 2005).
Some public-private partnerships have a strong charitable character; others include a clear, but often long term,commercial benefit to the private partner. However, to datefew success stories that are pro-poor have emerged, and evenfewer examples have surfaced where partnerships have contributed to food security, poverty reduction and economic
growth. Major constraints have been identified, including(1) fundamentally different incentive structures between
collaborating organizations; (2) insufficient minimization of
costs and risks of collaboration; (3) limited use of creative
organizational mechanisms that reduce competition over
key assets and resources; and (4) insufficient access to information on successful partnership models (see Spielman and
von Grebmer, 2004). Creative IPR strategies may help inthe establishment of public-private partnerships. Licensingof IP rights by private to public sector actors for humanitarian uses has facilitated technology transfer, e.g., rice rich inpro-vitamin A and Ringspot Virus Resistance for papaya
Asia (Al-Babili and Beyer, 2005; Brewster et al., 2005).
Partnerships can be successful as in the case of the Daimler
Chrysler collaboration with Poverty and the Environment inAmazonia (POEMA) to use coconut fibers and natural latex
rubber (Zahn, 2001; Laird, 2002). Additionally, a recent
initiative, the Science and Knowledge Exchange Program, toexchange staff between the public and private sectors may
effectively develop productive pro-poor partnerships in foodand agriculture. In Africa, schemes have been put forward
to promote the acquisition of private sector innovations by
the public sector at a price based on their estimated value
to society (Kremer, 2003; Master, 2003). Private companies
would contribute to crop improvement through partnerships that use local varieties and provide source material
and information for improved regulatory passage (Keese etal., 2002; Cohen, 2005). However for complicated genetictransformations, dozens of patents are involved in a single
transformation (Guerinot, 2000). In this case, all public andprivate IPR holders must grant licenses to all IP involved in
the final product (Al-Babili and Beyer, 2005). Experiencesuggests that the public sector must take the lead in suchinitiatives on crops that are essential for food security, buthave marginal profitability.
Renewed involvement of farmers in genetic resource management: Participatory Plant Breeding as a new arrangement. Today, farmers remain indispensable actors in any
regime that seeks to conserve, improve, and disseminate
genetic diversity. It is estimated that 1.4 billion farmers saveseed from year to year (Pimentel et al., 1992; Cleveland etal., 1994; Bellon, 1996). There are many advantages of insitu conservation, in particular the relationship between diversity and yield stability (Amanor, de Boef, and Bebbington, 1993; Trinh et al., 2003; Abidin et al., 2005). Participatory plant breeding and in situ management relies on thecollaboration between farmer-breeders and corporate plant
breeders (Lipton and Longhurst, 1989; Sthapit et al., 1996;
Kerr and Kolavalli, 1999; Almekinders and Elings, 2001;
Witcombe et al., 2005). Traditionally, these projects are
judged on their ability to produce adapted crop material at

11/3/08 10:42:32 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 97

Table 2-5. Public-private partnerships in the CGIAR.

Partnership approach
research topic

CGIAR center

Private sector partners

Other partners

Collaborative Research – Global Programs
Apomixis

CIMMYT

Pioneer Hi-bred (US)Syngenta (Switzerland)
Limagrain (France)

L’Institut de Recherche pour leDéveloppement (France)

Golden Rice Humanitarium

IRRI

Syngenta

Rockefeller Foundation (US),Swiss Federal Institute ofTechnology, and others

HarvestPlus

CIAT, IFPRI

Monsanto (US)

Wheat improvemente

CIMMYT

Grains Research &Development Corp. (Aus)

Collaborative Research – Local/Regional Programs
Sorghum and millet research

ICRISAT

Consortium of private seed
companies incl. Monsanto(India), others

Forage seed improvement

CIAT

Grupo Papalotla (Mexico)

Insect resistant maize for
Africae

CIMMYTe

Kenyan Agricultural ResearchInstitute, Syngenta Foundation(Switzerland)Technology Transfers

Potato/Sweet potatotransformation

CIP

Plant Genetic Systemsa (US),Axis Geneticsb (UK), MonsantoGenomics for livestock
vaccine researche

ILRI

The Institute for Genomic
Research (US)

Bt genes for ricetransformation

IRRI(Switzerland), Plantech d(Japan)Positive selection technology
for cassava transformation

CIAT

Novartis c

Consortium of other publicresearch institutions

Source: Spielman and von Grebmer, 2004.
a

Now Bayer CropScience
Insolvent as of 1999b

Now Syngentacsubsidiary of Mitsubishid

The definition of a public-private partnership is extended here to include a collaboration between a CGIAR center and a philanthropic organization
established by a commercial entity, or an organization established to represent industry interests, on the other.
elower costs than conventional programs and on their ability
to produce higher genetic gains per year (e.g., Ceccarelli etal., 2001a, 2003; Smith et al., 2001; Witcombe et al., 2001;
Virk et al., 2003, 2005). However, participatory research
projects (composed of both formal and informal actors)
have also led to the spread of socially responsible, technical innovations and important policy changes (Joshi et al.,2007). These innovations have been shown to improve thewelfare of the poor and socially excluded. One of the best
examples is a 1997 client-oriented participatory crop improvement (PCI) project in Nepal in which there was formal
recognition that informal R&D processes were taking place,chapter 02.indd 97

and a move to encourage those processes (Biggs, 2006).
This led to changes in National Varietal Release Procedures
and to more effective collaboration between different actors. Informal developments were essentially legitimized
and supported. Nevertheless, the benefits of farmer participation may not be universal, and adoption of participatory
methods has not been as high as expected, notably becauseof methodological limitations to upscaling (Witcombe et al.,2005).
The quality issue. In developed countries, changes in the
consumers’ preferences have pushed the labeling of the

11/3/08 10:42:32 AM

98 | IAASTD Global Report

geographical origin of products, along with the notion of“terroir”, with the result that farmers and specialized breeders are reviving old crop varieties (Bérard and Marchenay,
1995; Bonneuil and Demeulenaere, 2007). The development of organic and sustainable food production systems
has created additional challenges, e.g., organic production
must use seeds that have been produced in organic conditions. Instead of working on larger domains of breeding forconventional agriculture, breeders select for specific adaptability to specific environments and practices. All thesetrends challenge the classical ways of evaluating varieties.
Since the multifactor and multisite experimentation, backed
by statistical analysis is more difficult to perform, new waysof assessing varieties and seeds are needed, e.g., simulation
modeling (Barbottin et al., 2006). The key conclusion is thatknowledge must be shared among different actors, including farmers, users and consumers. The overall globalizationof markets is increasingly pushing this issue in developing
countries that seek to cater to the needs of specific market
niches in industrialized countries.
2.3.1.6 The need for a renewed design with distribution ofdiverse roles
Germplasm management over the last 150 years has beencharacterized by standardization and scale of economies.
This has been paramount to the rapid spread and success of
widely adapted germplasm. It resulted in seed management
becoming largely separate from agricultural and cultural
systems, with a decline in the number and diversity of actors
actively engaged in seed systems. Moreover, the tighteningof IPR, access and benefit sharing laws and other forms ofcontrols over genetic resources weakened exchange of genetic resources among breeders. Industrial strategies havebeen based on strengthened IP arrangements; attempts tobalance IPRs with farmers, industry and the public sector
has added to hyper-ownership issues. Consolidation of theseed industry has facilitated the spread of rapid technological advances, but not always to the benefit of the poor. The
history of germplasm management has revealed shortcomings, specifically in social and ecological arenas.
Asymmetries in access to germplasm and benefit sharing have increased vulnerabilities of the poor. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is the first majorinternational policy that attempts to proactively address
the situation by creating a form of international germplasm
exchange and research commons. Other initiatives such as
Public-Sector Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture(PIPRA) aim to create a collective public IPR asset database to allow the public sector to continue to develop public
good germplasm. Public-private partnerships could lead topro-poor advances if current challenges, such as minimization of risks of collaboration, are tackled. This assessment
questions the current separation between researchers andfarmers and calls for an increased role of user’s knowledge, as exemplified in participatory plant breeding. Local
and diverse arrangements have been successful at meeting development and sustainability goals for germplasm
management. These arrangements will be important for
using germplasm to respond to the uncertainties of the
future.

chapter 02.indd 98

2.3.2 Pest management
Multiple approaches to pest management have emerged indifferent places during different periods in history. Eachhas been upheld by distinctive organizational arrangements
reflecting cultural values, societal norms and political andeconomic priorities of their time and place. Widely differinginterpretations exist that make competing claims regarding
the advantages and disadvantages of the range of options;other narratives may describe differently the identificationand implementation of sustainable solutions in pest management. The following narrative emerged from analysis of
publications of UN agencies, the World Bank, the CGIAR,
universities, national IPM programs in numerous countries,
and the work of physical and social scientists, researchers,
private sector actors including agrochemical companies, andNGOs actively involved on the ground in pest and pesticide
management programs.
2.3.2.1 Chemical control
Emergence of chemical control. Chemical control had its
roots in US and German chemical research before and after
both World Wars and was driven by formal interagency collaboration between military and public sector chemists andentomologists (Russell, 2001). The emphasis on crop protection and risk minimization supported pest control, rather than management and pest eradication using synthetic
chemicals (Perkins, 1982; Russell, 2001). The approach underpinned the priorities of industrial countries: maximizing
food and fiber production, increasing efficiency and releasing labor to other economic sectors. Research and extension
efforts directed at biological, cultural and mechanical management of risk dropped sharply at this time (Perkins, 1982;
Lighthall, 1995; Shennan et al., 2005). The pesticide industry grew rapidly, initially financed through government contracts and then loans, a practice that necessitated constantproduct innovation and marketing to repay debts (Perkins,1982). Significant concentration has occurred (DFID, 2004;
UNCTAD, 2006); by 2005, the top six multinational pesticide corporations accounted for 75% of the US$29,566 million global pesticide market (Agrow World Crop Protection
News, 2005; ETC, 2005).
National and global concerns over food security drove
the further intensification of agricultural production andadoption of synthetic chemical pesticides across much of
Asia and Latin America (Rosset, 2000). The CGIAR playeda pivotal role in the Green Revolution that carried synthetic
chemicals into widespread use in irrigated systems (see 2.1).
Multilateral and bilateral donor and development agencies
such as the World Bank, USAID and JICA provided direct
or subsidized supplies of synthetic pesticides, sometimes tying agricultural credit to adoption of input packages inclusive of these chemicals (Holl et al., 1990; Hammond and
McGowan, 1992; Jain, 1992; Korten, 1995; Clapp, 1997;
Ishii-Eiteman and Ardhianie, 2002; USAID, 2004). Direct state intervention in some cases enforced pest control
through calendar spraying regimes or established pesticide
distribution systems to ensure product use (Meir and Williamson, 2005). Farmers received pest control advice frompesticide sellers and extension agents operating under T&V
and similar state-directed systems. In some cases, govern-

11/3/08 10:42:32 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 99

ment extension personnel served also as pesticide distributors (Pemsl et al., 2005; Williamson, 2005) to supplement
low government wages. Smaller pesticide production anddistribution companies grew rapidly in developing countries such as Argentina, India, China and South Africa, often producing cheaper but more hazardous pesticides thantheir multinational counterparts (Pawar, 2002; Bruinsma,
2003).
Impacts of the chemical pest control approach. The significant yield gains and achievements in food security obtainedin many countries in the 1950s and 60s have been closely
linked to the use of hybrid seeds, synthetic fertilizers andother inputs including pesticides and to high levels of political and institutional investment in public sector researchand extension (Bhowmik, 1999; Evenson and Gollin, 2003a;
Lipton, 2005). Yield losses owing to disease and weed infestations have been reduced through chemical pest control(Bridges, 1992; CropLife, 2005ab); animal health has improved where insect-vectored diseases have been successfully controlled (Singh, 1983; Windsor, 1992; Kamuanga,2001) and soil resources have been conserved through notill practices, which sometimes rely on herbicide use (Lal,
1989; Holland, 2004). Some have speculated that widespread famines and devastation of crops from outbreaks of
disease and pests have been prevented (Kassa and Beyene,2001); from a historical evidence-based approach it is difficult to assess the validity of these claims. As early as 1950,
evidence of pest resistance to pesticides, resurgence where
natural enemy populations had been destroyed and secondary pest outbreaks began to accumulate (Stern et al., 1959;
Smith and van den Bosch, 1967; van Emden, 1974). Pesticide resistance (including cross-resistance to new products)
became extensive and has been thoroughly documented in
the scientific literature (MSU, 2000; Bills et al., 2003).
By the 1960s the adverse environmental and humanhealth effects of pesticide exposure had become known.
The impacts, widely documented in the scientific and medical literature and popularized (e.g., Carson, 1962), affected
not only pesticide applicators but entire rural communities and diverse biota in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
and watersheds (reviewed in Wesseling et al., 1997, 2005;
Hayes, 2004; Kishi, 2005; Pretty and Hine, 2005; Relyea,
2005; USGS, 2006; Desneux et al., 2007). Acute poisonings
by pesticide residues have had immediate adverse effects,
including death (Chaudhry et al., 1998; Rosenthal, 2003;
Neri, 2005). Social and environmental justice cases havebeen documented regarding the inequitable distribution of
the benefits of chemical control (largely accruing to better resourced farmers and manufacturers) and the harms in actual
conditions of use that are experienced disproportionately by
the poor and disadvantaged and the “ecological commons”(Wesseling et al., 2001; Reeves et al., 2002; Jacobs andDinham, 2003; Reeves and Schafer, 2003; Harrison, 2004;
Qayum and Sakkhari, 2005). A significant portion of thechemicals applied has proved to be excessive, uneconomic
or unnecessary in both industrialized (Pavely et al., 1994;
Yudelman et al., 1998; Reitz et al., 1999; Prokopy, 2003;
Pimentel, 2005) and developing countries (Ekesi, 1999;
Adipala et al., 2000; Jungbluth, 2000; Sibanda et al., 2000;

chapter 02.indd 99

Asante and Tamo, 2001; Dinham, 2003; Nathaniels et al.,2003). Pesticide reliance has also been linked to agricultural
deskilling (Vandeman, 1995; Stone, 2007), evidenced bysubsequent erosion of farmers’ knowledge of crop-insect
ecology and reduced ability to interpret and innovate in response to environmental cues at field level (Thrupp, 1990;
Pemsl et al., 2005).
Chemical control remains the cornerstone of pest
management in many parts of the world, sustained by its
immediate results, the technology treadmill (see 2.1) andpath-dependency (wherein a farmer’s accumulation ofequipment, knowledge and skills over time conditions her
potential to change direction). It is also upheld by the professional cultures and training of most advisory and extension programs (Mboob, 1994; Sissoko, 1994; Agunga,
1995; FAWG, 2001; Sherwood et al, 2005; Touni et al.,2007); the dominance of institutions promoting technologydriven intensification of agriculture; product innovations
and marketing by the agrochemical industries (FAO/WHO,
2001; Macha et al., 2001; Kroma and Flora, 2003; Touni
et al., 2007); and direct and indirect policy supports suchas tax or duty exemptions for pesticides (Mudimu et al.,
1995; Jungbluth, 1996; Gerken et al., 2000; Williamson,2005). In recent years, leading agrochemical companies
have integrated seed ventures and biotechnology firms, enabling them to establish synergies among key segments of
the agricultural market. This trend is expected to continue
and lead to increasing convergence between the segments,
with possible inhibition of public sector research and ofstart-up firms (UNCTAD, 2006). The history of chemical
control illustrates a phenomenon in agricultural scienceand technology development, in which early success of atechnical innovation (often measured by a single agronomic
metric such as productivity gains), when accompanied bysignificant private sector investment in advertising andpublic relations (Perkins, 1982) and by direct and indirect
policy supports from dominant institutional arrangements(Murray, 1994), translates into narrowing of organizational
research and extension objectives, widespread if uncriticalgrower adoption and delayed recognition of the constraints
and adverse effects of the technology (e.g., resistance, healthhazards, etc.).
2.3.2.2 Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Integrated Pest Management (Box 2-7) in its modern form
was developed in the 1950s in direct response to the problems caused by use of synthetic insecticides in actual conditions of use (Perkins, 1982). IPM took many forms but
in general emphasized cultural and biological controls (Box2-8) and selective application of chemicals that do not harm
populations of pest predators or parasitoids (Stern et al.,1959), based on scientific understanding of agroecosystems
described as complex webs of interacting species that canbe influenced to achieve crop protection. IPM adoption inindustrialized countries was stimulated by growing concern
for human health and the environment, consumer desire forlow or no pesticide residues in food (Williamson and Buffin,2005) and public sector recognition that regulatory interventions were needed to remove the most harmful chemicals from sale. The spread of IPM in the South was driven

11/3/08 10:42:33 AM

100 | IAASTD Global Reportby the high incidence of involuntary pesticide poisonings
among farmers and farm workers through occupational
exposure (Holl et al., 1990; Wesseling et al., 1993, 1997,
2002; Antle et al., 1998; Cole et al., 2002). Other drivers
were state authorities’ recognition of the high cost of pesticide purchase for poorer farmers and resulting problems
of indebtedness (Van Huis and Meerman, 1997); the potential of new markets spurred by consumer demand forpesticide-free produce both in the North (IFOAM, 2003;
Ton, 2003; Martinez-Torres, 2006) and in countries withgrowing middle class populations (e.g., Thailand, China,
India); export requirements of Maximum Residue Limits;
and international attention to issues such as pollution ofdrinking water, human rights to a safe home and workplaceand biodiversity loss.
Impacts of IPM paradigm. IPM can deliver effective crop
protection and pesticide reduction without yield loss (Heongand Escalada, 1998; Mangan and Mangan, 1998; Barzman
and Desilles, 2002; Eveleens, 2004). The yield advantagesof IPM have been particularly strong in the South and thus
have significant policy implications for food security in developing countries (Pretty, 1999; Pretty, 2002, Pretty et al.,2003). The community-wide economic, social, health andenvironmental benefits of farmer-participatory ecologicallybased IPM have been widely documented (Dilts, 1999; Pontius et al., 2002; Pontius, 2003; Braun, 2006; Braun et al.,2006; Mancini, 2006; Mancini et al., 2007; van den Bergand Jiggins, 2007), including measurable improvements
in neurobehavioural status as a result of reduced pesticide
exposure (Cole et al., 2007). Large-scale impacts on social
equity have not yet been assessed but higher household income, reduced poverty levels and significant reduction inuse of WHO Class 1 highly toxic compounds have beenshown in some cases (FAO, 2005a).
Difficulties in measuring the cost-effectiveness of large
scale farmer-participatory IPM has impeded wider adoption (Kelly, 2005) and raised questions about its fiscal sustainability as a national extension approach (Quizon et al.,
2000; Feder, 2004ab). As acknowledged by the authors,these studies did not calculate the economic savings fromreduced poisoning and pollution nor attempt to quantify
non-economic benefits. An evaluation of IPM research in
the CGIAR system points to the need for more comprehensive economic impact analyses that include these variables(CGIAR TAC, 2000). A recent meta-review of 35 publisheddata sets on costs and benefits of IPM farmer field schools
has meanwhile substantiated their effectiveness as an educational investment in reducing pesticide use and enabling
farmers to make informed judgments about agroecosystemmanagement (van den Berg and Jiggins, 2007).
More widespread adoption of IPM as defined in the
FAO Code of Conduct has been constrained by political,
structural and institutional factors, principally• limited capacity of extension services in both industrialized and developing countries in providing adaptive,
place-based, knowledge-intensive ecological educationand technical support in IPM (Blobaum, 1983; Anderson, 1990; Holl et al., 1990; Agunga, 1995; Paulson,
1995; Altieri, 1999; Norton et al., 2005; Rodriguez andNiemeyer, 2005; Touni et al., 2007);

chapter 02.indd 100

•

•

•

•

•

inadequate public sector and donor investment in IPM
research and extension and poor coordination between
relevant agencies (Mboob, 1994; ter Weel and van derWulp, 1999; Touni et al., 2007);
insufficient private sector interest in natural controls(Ehler, 2006) and widespread promotion of synthetic
chemical controls by pesticide suppliers and distributors (Kroma and Flora, 2003; Touni et al., 2007);
shifts in funding and research interests in agriculturalcolleges away from basic biology, entomology andtaxonomy and limited resources for ecological investigations (Jennings, 1997; Pennisi, 2003; Herren et al.,2005); an incentives system that discourages multidisciplinary collaboration in pest management (Ehler, 2006);
and a growing tendency, e.g., in the United States, toencourage research likely to return financial benefits tothe university rather than broader benefits to the public
or ecological commons (Kennedy, 2001; Berdahl, 2000;
Bok, 2003; Washburn, 2005) while offering private sector partners such as the agrochemical/biotechnology industry a wider role in shaping university research andteaching priorities (Krimsky, 1999; Busch et al., 2004);
vertical integration of ownership (FAO, 2003b) andconcentration in private sector control (Vorley, 2003;
DFID, 2004; Dinham, 2005) over chemical, food andagricultural systems, processes that tend to favor larger
scale, input-intensive monoculture production over thebiodiverse agroecosystems necessary to sustain effective
performance by natural enemies; andinequitable distribution of risks and costs: in the absence of public sector support, farmers typically bear
the upfront transaction costs and risks of conversion topest management practices that serve the public good
(Brewer et al., 2004; Ehler, 2006).

2.3.2.3 Institutional innovations and responses inpest management
Institutional innovations. FAO’s paradigm-shifting workin Asia provided (1) the scientific evidence that pesticideinduced pest outbreaks could contribute to crop failures
while reduction of pesticide use could improve systemstability and yields (Kenmore et al., 1984); (2) empirical evidence of the positive social impacts of field-based
experiential learning processes (Matteson et al., 1984;
Mangan and Mangan, 1998; Ooi, 1998); and (3) the
policy insight that a number of directives (e.g., ban of selected pesticides, removal of pesticide subsidies and national support for IPM) could transform the situation on
the ground, as in Indonesia (Kenmore et al., 1984; Settle
et al., 1996; Gallagher, 1999). Building on FAO’s farmer
field school methodology (http://www.farmerfieldschool.info/), participatory field-based educational processes in
IPM gained strength in the 1980s (Röling and Wagemakers,
1998). These innovations in knowledge, science, technology and policy subsequently led to an institutional innovation, the establishment of the Global IPM Facility (see2.2) and the implementation of farmer-participatory IPM
across Asia, Latin America, Africa and Central and Eastern
Europe (UPWARD, 2002; Jiggins et al., 2005; Luther et al.,2005; Braun et al., 2006). Plant Health Clinics (piloted in

11/3/08 10:42:33 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 101

Box 2-7. Integrated Pest Management.
There are many diverse definitions and interpretations of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The internationally accepted FAO
definition is “the careful consideration of a number of pest control
techniques that discourage the development of pest populations
and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels that areeconomically justified and safe for human health and the environment. IPM emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop with theleast possible disruption of agroecosystems, thereby encouraging
natural pest control mechanisms” (FAO, 2002b, 2005b). Additional
endorsement of the revised Code is reflected in the European Commission’s recent decision to include it in the forthcoming revision of
the EU pesticides authorization directive 91/414, and to use it as
the basis for proposing mandatory IPM for EU farmers by 2014.
Contrasting interpretations of IPM have emerged over the period, each with different emphases.
• Toolbox IPM combines two or more tactics from an array oftools and is utilized primarily to optimize crop productivity (OTA,
1979; Cate and Hinkle, 1994). IPM is presented as a continuumof practices, with choices ranging from reliance mainly on prophylactic controls and pesticides to more biologically-intensive
methods (USDA, 1993). The approach emphasizes a diversityof technical options, rather than the integration of multiple tactics under a broader ecological framework and does not necessarily require monitoring or conservation of natural enemies(Ehler and Bottrell, 2000; Ehler, 2006; Gray and Steffey, 2007).
• Pesticide-based IPM focuses primarily on the discriminate useof pesticides and improving the efficacy of pesticide applications (Ehler, 2006). The approach emphasizes pest monitoring
and the use of less hazardous, lower dose and more selective
pesticides, improved formulations, new application technologies, and resistance management strategies (CropLife, 2003;
Syngenta, 2006). Some pesticide industry IPM programs
may also feature use of the manufacturers’ chemical products (Sagenmuller, 1999; Dollacker, 2000). Nonchemical approaches such as biocontrol are mentioned in some industry
publications, but presented as “generally too often unreliable
or not efficient enough to be commercially used on their own”
(CropLife, 2003).

Nicaragua, currently in use in 16 other countries), the combination of mass media campaigns, and farmer-to farmer
extension and education (Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Vietnam,
Bangladesh) similarly have proven effective in promoting
IPM. In Africa and Latin America, communities are exploring economic innovations in self-financing mechanisms for
IPM field schools (Okoth et al., 2003).
Innovative agroenvironmental partnerships between
growers, extensionists and IPM scientists have implemented
integrated farming and alternative pest management strategies to reduce organophosphate insecticide use in majorcommodity crops across California (Warner, 2006ab) and
implement resource-conserving IPM in Michigan (Brewer etal., 2004; Hoard and Brewer, 2006). Their success derives

chapter 02.indd 101••

Biointensive IPM, also sometimes described as Preventative
IPM (Pedigo, 1989, 1992; Higley and Pedigo 1993) and Ecological Pest Management (Altieri, 1987; Altieri and Nicholls,
2004), emphasize the ecological relationships among species
in the agroecosystem (Shennan et al., 2005) and the availabilityof options to redesign the landscape and ecosystem to support natural controls (Dufour, 2001). Biological and ecologicalpest management offer robust possibilities to significantly andsustainably reduce pesticide use without affecting production(van Lenteren, 1992; Badgley et al., 2007; Scialabba, 2007).
Implementation remains limited globally as it often requires
structural changes in production systems (Lewis et al., 1997)
and redirection of market, research, policy and institutional
support to favor ecosystem-oriented approaches.
Indigenous pest management, based on detailed Indigenous
technical knowledge (ethnoscience) of pest ecology, local biodiversity and traditional management practices, focuses onachieving moderate to high productivity using local resources
and skills, while conserving the natural resource base (Altieri,
1993). Weeds, insect pests and crop pathogens are at times
tolerated and provide important foods, medicines, ceremonial
materials and soil improvers (Bye, 1981; Chacon and Gliessman, 1982; Brown and Marten, 1986). Control methods rely ona wide range of cultural, biological, physical and mechanicalpractices, water and germplasm management and manipulation of crop diversity (Altieri and Letourneau, 1982; Matteson
et al., 1984; Altieri, 1985) and are supported by knowledgeof the local agroecosystem and surroundings (Atteh, 1984;
Richards, 1985). In Africa, farmers traditionally practice intercropping with various crops, which can drastically reduce pest
densities, especially if the associated crop is a non-host of thetarget pest species (Khan et al., 1997; Schulthess et al., 2004;
Chabi-Olaye et al., 2005; Wale et al., 2006), although farmers are not always aware of the beneficial effect that mixed
cropping has on pest infestations (Nwanze and Mueller, 1989).
Partnerships between formally trained scientists and farmers
skilled in ethnoscience show promise for strengthening agroecological approaches (Altieri, 1993).

from collaborative partnership structures that emphasizeco-learning models, social networks of innovation (throughinformal grower networks and supported by statewide commodity boards) and building capacity in flexible place-based
decision-making rather than conventional transfer of technology (Mitchell et al., 2001; Getz and Warner, 2006; Warner, 2006ab).
Policy responses. Governments have responded to the scientific evidence of adverse environmental and health effects ofpesticides with legislation, regulatory frameworks and policy initiatives. A growing number of Southern governments
have national IPM extension and education programs (Box2-9), and several countries (Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay,

11/3/08 10:42:33 AM

102 | IAASTD Global ReportBox 2-8. Biological control
Biological control refers to the use of natural enemies of pests(i.e., their predators, parasitoids and pathogens) as pest control
agents. Globally, the annual economic contribution of natural enemies has been estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars
worldwide, much of this due to indigenous species (Costanza etal., 1997; Naylor and Ehrlich, 1997; Pimentel, 1997; Pimentel etal., 1997; Gurr and Wratten, 2000; Alene et al., 2005; Losey andVaughan, 2006). Conservation biocontrol supports the activity ofindigenous natural enemies by providing them with suitable habitats and resources (Doutt and Nakata, 1973; Jervis et al., 1993;
Kalkoven, 1993; Idris and Grafius, 1995; Murphy et al., 1998; Ricketts, 2001; Gurr et al., 2006) and by limiting the use of disruptive
pesticides. Since conservation approaches are locally adapted,
they rarely produce products that can be widely marketed andhave attracted little interest from the private sector. Yet they constitute one of the most economically important types of biocontrol
and form the cornerstone of much ecological pest management(Altieri and Nicholls, 2004). Farmers and public sector scientists
have demonstrated practical applications in, e.g., the BiologicallyIntegrated Orchard Systems (BIOS) of California (Thrupp, 1996),
vineyard habitat management (Murphy et al., 1998), and rice ecosystem conservation (Settle et al., 1996).
The importance of natural enemies is highlighted by the often
explosive outbreaks of pests introduced into regions where theylack specific natural enemies. Classical biological control restores
natural pest management by the identification and introduction of
specific and effective natural enemies from the pest’s home region(DeBach, 1964, 1974). Dramatic early successes in the late 19th
century (cottony cushion scale in citrus, Caltagirone and Doutt,1989) spurred classical biocontrol efforts around the world, butthese methods were later displaced by the widespread adoptionof cheaper and fast-acting synthetic pesticides. Under pressure
to deliver fast results, entomologists economized on ecologicalstudies and began releasing potential biocontrol agents prematurely with less success (Greathead, 2003). Confidence in biocontrol declined, until problems arising from pesticide use rekindledinterest (Perkins, 1982). With better institutional support andfunding, the success rate improved (Greathead, 2003). Initially,work in developing countries focused on large scale commercial,industrial and export tree crops with less direct impact on smallscale farmers (Altieri, et al., 1997). Subsequent programs focusedon staple food crops and on building indigenous capacity in biocontrol (Thrupp, 1996).
Institutional arrangements fostering collaboration enabled thescientific and technological processes associated with classicalbiocontrol in subsistence crops in Africa to provide a range ofsocial, environmental, economic and cultural benefits (Norgaard,
1988; Zeddies et al., 2001; Bokonon-Ganta et al., 2002; de Grooteet al., 2003; Neuenschwander et al., 2003; Moore, 2004; Macharia
et al., 2005; Maredia and Raitzer, 2006; Omwega et al., 2006;
ICIPE, 2006; Kipkoech et al., 2006; Macharia et al., 2007; Löhr etal., 2007). A noteworthy example is the control of cassava mealybug (Herren and Neuenschwander, 1991; Gutierrez et al., 1988;
Neuenschwander, 2001, 2004). Follow-on effects included exten-

chapter 02.indd 102

sive training of African scientists in biocontrol and the establishment of national programmes targeting invasive insect and weed
pests across the region (Herren and Neuenschwander, 1991;
Neuenschwander et al., 2003). Technical and administrative staff
played a key role in designing and maintaining complex networks
of collaboration (Wodageneh, 1989; Herren, 1990; Neuenschwander, 1993; Neuenschwander et al., 2003).
Ecologists have raised concerns regarding potential impacts
on non-target organisms of introduced biocontrol agents (Howarth, 1990; Simberloff and Stiling, 1996; Strong, 1997). However,after several early failures due to vertebrate and mollusc predator
introductions in the late 19th-early 20th century (Greathead, 1971),
the safety record of invertebrate biocontrol has become wellestablished (Samways, 1997; McFadyen, 1998; Wilson and McFadyen, 2000; Wajnberg et al., 2001; Hokkanen and Hajek, 2003;
van Lenteren et al., 2003). A substantial body of research has investigated nontarget effects of classical biological control (Boettner et al., 2000; Follett and Duan, 2000) and rigorous screening
protocols and methodologies for environmental risk assessmentof biocontrol agents now exist (Hopper, 2001; Strong and Pemberton, 2001; Bigler et al., 2006). FAO, CABI BioScience and theInternational Organization of Biological Control have developed a
Code of Conduct for the Import and Release of Biological Control
Agents to facilitate their safe import and release (Waage, 1996;
IPPC, 2005).
In contrast to conservation and classical biocontrol, augmentation involves mass production of naturally-occurring biocontrol agents to reduce pest pressure (DeBach, 1974; Bellows andFisher, 1999). The decentralized artisanal biocontrol centers of
Cuba offer one model of low-cost production for local use (Rosset and Benjamin, 1994; Altieri et al., 1997; Pretty, 2002). Augmentative control in Latin American field crops (van Lenteren andBueno, 2003) and throughout the European glasshouse system(Enkegaard and Brodsgaard, 2006) offer others. Growing consumer interest in pesticide-free produce has helped establish asmall but thriving biocontrol industry (van Lenteren, 2006), mostly
in industrialized countries (Dent, 2005), with some uses in developing countries where pesticide use is difficult or prone to trigger pest outbreaks (i.e., sugarcane, cotton and fruit trees). The
costs of production, storage and distribution of living organisms
have made these products less attractive to the private sector
than chemical pesticides; currently they comprise only 1-2% of
global chemical sales (Gelertner, 2005). Their relatively limited use
also reflects chronic underinvestment in public sector researchand development of biological products and a regulatory systemthat disadvantages biological alternatives to chemicals (Waage,1997). Biological pesticides, on the other hand, have been more
successful because they fit into existing systems for pesticide
development and delivery. Nevertheless, the growth of the global
market for biocontrol products, recently at 10-20% per annum,
is expected to continue (Guillon, 2004), and is most likely toplay a key role in crop systems where pesticide alternatives are
required.

11/3/08 10:42:34 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 103

Box 2-8. continued
Opportunities and constraints
Successful biocontrol systems have required public sector investment, political commitment to maintain and adequately
finance research, breeding and release programs, close collaboration between technical and regulatory agencies and donors atnational and regional levels, and minimal pesticide use to create a safe environment for biocontrol agents (Neuenschwander,
1993, Neuenschwander et al., 2003; Maredia and Raitzer, 2006;
Omwega et al., 2006). Where such commitments have existed(Western Europe; Kazakhstan, post-Soviet Cuba, many countries
throughout Africa), biocontrol programs have been important
contributors to agricultural production and national food security(Greathead, 1976; van Lenteren et al., 1992; Rosset and Benjamin, 1994; Pretty, 1995; Neuenschwander, 2001; Omwega et al.,2006; Sigsgaard, 2006; van Lenteren, 2006).
Biological control has provided effective control of pests inmany cropping systems, while maintaining high agricultural production (DeBach 1964; DeBach and Rosen, 1991; Bellows andFisher, 1999; Gurr and Wratten, 2000). Yet public sector investments, institutional support for research and practical applications
have been uneven over the period, reflecting shifting priorities ofdominant institutional arrangements (NRC, 1989; Cate and Hinkle,
1994; Jennings, 1997; Greathead, 2003; Hammerschlag, 2007).

China, Thailand and Vietnam) have taken the lead in banning WHO Class 1a and 1b pesticides (FAO, 2006a). Various European countries have implemented Pesticide Use
Reduction programs with explicit benchmarks for pesticide
reduction (Box 2-9) and Organic Transition Payment programs (Blobaum, 1997). Domestic US programs emphasized
IPM in the 1970s and 1990s but shifts in political priorities
have led to uneven national support and a more narrowinterpretation emphasizing pollution mitigation strategies
over preventative approaches to ensuring crop health (Cateand Hinkle, 1994; GAO, 2001; USDA/NRCS, 2001; Brewer
et al., 2004; Hammerschlag, 2007; see Hoard and Brewer,
2006 and Getz and Warner, 2006 for state-level innovations
in IPM). The CGIAR has established an inter-institutional partnership to promote participatory IPM (http://www.spipm.cgiar.org). Bilateral donor agencies have also prioritized biocontrol or IPM in their development aid, e.g., Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, IPM Europe and the UnitedStates (ter Weel and van der Wulp, 1999; SIDA, 1999; Dreyer et al., 2005; USAID, 2007). Maximum Residue Levels(MRL) regulations for pesticides in food have been established at national and international levels (see 2.3.3.). Theseand other international and national standards continue toundergo revisions in light of emerging scientific findings on
possible and actual effects of low dose and chronic exposure
to pesticide residues (NRC, 1993; Aranjo and Telles, 1999;
Baker et al., 2002; Thapinta and Hudak, 2000; Kumari andKumar, 2003; Pennycook et al., 2004).
The UN FAO Code on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (Box 2-9) focuses not only on minimizing hazards

chapter 02.indd 103

Substantial taxonomic, biological and ecological knowledge iscrucial to support successful biocontrol (Pennisi, 2003; Herren etal., 2005), but these fields have been neglected in many research
institutions (Jennings, 1997; Kairo, 2005). Greater public and private sector investment in institutional capacity could increase theability of farmers, extension staff, scientists, policy makers andthe food sector to capitalize on opportunities afforded by biocontrol (Neuenschwander, 1993; Waage, 1996; Williamson, 2001; vanLenteren 2006; Hammerschlag, 2007).
Global challenges for biocontrol include a possible growth inexotic pest problems due to globalization and climate change andthe threat posed by degraded agricultural and natural ecosystems to maintaining natural enemy communities. The Convention
on Biological Diversity raises important conceptual and practical issues for biocontrol: how to develop capacity and ensure
safe and equitable sharing of resources, research and benefits
among actors and countries (Waage, 1996). Natural enemies havepreviously demonstrated capacity to adapt to changing climatesencountered in expanding their geographic range (Tribe, 2003)
and to control invasive species (van Driesche and Hoddle, 2000;
Greathead, 2003) in a safe and sustainable manner. These attributes, along with the imperative to reduce pesticide contamination of drinking water supplies, suggest that biological control willplay an increasingly important role in future pest management
practices.

associated with pesticide use but also on promoting IPM.
It indicates that “prohibition of the importation, sale andpurchase of highly toxic products [such as] WHO Class I aand I b pesticides may be desirable” and recommends that
pesticides requiring use of personal protective equipment(e.g., WHO Class II pesticides) should be avoided wheresuch equipment is uncomfortable, expensive or not readily
available (e.g., in most developing countries). In 2007, the131st Session of the FAO Council mandated FAO to pursue a “progressive ban on highly toxic pesticides” (FAO,
2007). FAO has urged chemical companies to withdraw
these products from developing country markets and is calling on all governments to follow the example of countries
that have already banned WHO Class Ia and Ib pesticides(FAO, 2006a). Also in 2007, FAO hosted an international
conference that highlighted organic farming’s capacity tomeet food security goals without reliance on chemical pesticides (Scialabba, 2007; Sligh and Christman, 2007). The
FAO conference confirmed similar findings from numerous
recent studies on organic agriculture (Parrott and Marsden,
2002; Pimentel et al., 2005; Badgley, et al., 2007; Halberg,
et al., 2007; Kilcher, 2007).
The World Bank revised its pest management policy in
1998, in response to internal impact assessments (Schillhorn
van Veen et al., 1997), public pressure (Aslam, 1996; IshiiEiteman and Ardhianie, 2002) and donor government concerns (e.g., Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway,
Switzerland, United States). The policy now emphasizes“reducing reliance on chemical pesticides” and promoting“farmer-driven ecologically-based pest control” (World

11/3/08 10:42:34 AM

104 | IAASTD Global ReportBox 2-9. Policy instruments affecting pest management
Many national, regional and international policies and agreements
have focused on phasing out the most toxic pesticides, increasing public availability of information on pesticide bans and restrictions, and promotion of least toxic sustainable alternatives suchas IPM. They include:
National regulatory instruments, policies and programs:• Pesticide registration legislation, pesticide subsidies, usetaxes and import duties; establishment of Maximum Residue
Levels (MRLs)• Pesticide use, residue and poisoning databases; Pesticide
Use Reduction programs and Organic Transition Payments(Baerselman, 1992; Imbroglini, 1992; Blobaum, 1997; Reus
and Leendertse, 2000; Jensen and Petersen, 2001; Chunyanuwat, 2005)• National IPM extension programs (Briolini, 1992; Huus-Bruun,
1992; van Lenteren, 1992; FAO, 2005b)•••
Regional initiatives and frameworks (some examples):• OECD/DAC Guidelines on Pest and Pesticide Management
prioritize IPM and improved pesticide management, with formats for industry data submission and governmental pesticide
evaluation reports (OECD, 1995). The OECD has also initiateda Risk Reduction project (OECD, 2006b).
• The European Commission’s “thematic strategy” provides apolicy framework to minimize hazards and risks of pesticideuse (EC, 2006) filling a regulatory gap in the pesticide cycle
between the before-use (product approval) and after-use (impact) stages.
• North American Commission on Environmental Co-operation(NACEC) of NAFTA has established a Sound Management ofChemicals Working Group which has developed action plansto reduce use of specific pesticides (http://www.cec.org/).
• Permanent Inter-State Committee for Drought in the Sahel(CILSS) regional convention to support collaborative management and regulation of pesticides (http://80.88.83.202/dbinsah/index.cfm?lng=en&sect1=avant1&id=28)International agreements and treaties:• The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) International
Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides(agreed in 1985 and revised in 2002) sets voluntary standards
for the management and use of pesticides and provides guidance for the development of national pesticide legislation (FAO,
2005a;
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Code/PM_Code.htm). FAO is updating its guidelines on pesticide
labelling (FAO, 1995b) to include the UN Globally Harmonized
System of chemical classification and labelling (FAO, 2006b)
and is working with governments and commercial actors tophase out highly toxic pesticides (FAO, 2006ab, 2007).
• The Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC)
Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides
in International Trade (1998) requires that exporting countries

chapter 02.indd 104

•

•

•

provide notification to importing countries of bans and restrictions on listed pesticides (http://www.pops.int/). By 2006, 107
countries had ratified PIC.
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants(POPs), signed in 2001, provides phaseout plans for an initial twelve pollutants—nine of them pesticides—and defines
a process for adding new chemicals such as endosulfan,
lindance and chlordecone to the list (http://www.pops.int/).
By 2006, 126 countries had ratified the POPs treaty. The nongovernmental International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN)
works alongside the POPs treaty process.
The Montréal Protocol (1987) mandates the phasing out of
the ozone-depleting pesticide, methyl bromide (http://ozone.unep.org/). The Methyl Bromide Action Network, a coalitionof environmental, agriculture and labor organizations, was established in 1993 to assist governments in the transition toaffordable, environmentally sound alternatives.
Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (1994) is a WHO
sponsored mechanism to develop and promote strategies
and partnerships on chemical safety among national governments and intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations (http://www.who.int/ifcs/en/). The Inter-Organization
Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC)
and International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) are
two other international coordinating organizations relating tochemicals. The IFCS sponsors a Working Group on Acutely
Toxic Pesticides, which maintains a CD-ROM database on
acute pesticide poisonings worldwide.
UNEP’s Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (2006) articulates global commitments, strategies
and tools for managing chemicals more safely around theworld (http://www.chem.unep.ch/saicm/). The agreement emphasizes principles of prevention, polluter pays, substitution
for less harmful substances, public participation, precaution,and the public’s right to know.
The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (1992) focuseson controlling the movement of hazardous wastes, ensuring
their environmentally sound management and disposal, andpreventing illegal waste trafficking (http://ozone.unep.org/).
Now ratified by 149 countries including 32 of the 53 Africancountries, the convention explicitly includes obsolete pesticide stockpiles.
The Africa Stockpiles Project brings together diverse stakeholders to clean up and safely dispose of obsolete pesticide
stocks from Africa and establish preventive measures to avoid
future accumulation (http://www.africastockpiles.org/). Initiated by Pesticide Action Network UK and WorldWide Fundfor Nature (WWF) in 2000, the project is led by FAO (technical assistance on elimination and prevention), PAN and WWF(capacity-building, communication and outreach), CropLife
International (financial support and management) and theWorld Bank (administration of funds).

11/3/08 10:42:34 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 105

Bank, 1998a). Subsequent external and internal reviews ofWorld Bank lending and project monitoring noted weak
implementation of the Bank’s IPM policy (Tozun, 2001;
Ishii-Eiteman and Ardhianie, 2002; Hamburger and IshiiEiteman, 2003; Sorby et al., 2003; Karel, 2004) hampered
by lack of trained staff and an organizational culture andincentive system favoring loan approval over project quality(Liebenthal, 2002). Recent analyses of written policy andproject design documents suggest compliance may be improving (Karel, 2004; World Bank, 2005d) and a detailed
guidebook to support implementation of the Bank’s IPM
policy has been produced.
Significant international treaties (Box 2-9) are now inforce that seek to minimize and eliminate hazards associated with pesticide use. Multistakeholder initiatives such as
the Africa Stockpile Program have harnessed the energies
of diverse stakeholders in reducing the hazards and risks ofpesticides. Together these policy responses and international
agreements, informed by scientific evidence and public participation, have enabled decisive and effective transitions
towards more sustainable practice.
Civil society responses. Civil society has emerged as a powerful force in the movement towards ecological pest management, in Northern as well as Southern countries (e.g.,
India, Thailand, Ecuador, Philippines and Brazil). CSOs
and independent researchers (as well as FAO, ILO, WHOand some governments) have called for a rights-based approach to agricultural development, that explicitly recognizes agricultural workers’ and rural communities’ rights
to good health and clean environments (Robinson, 2002;
Fabra, 2002; Reeves and Schafer, 2003). NGOs working
with social justice, environmental and health causes havecontributed to national and international treaties and agreements on chemicals management, sustainable agriculture
and food safety. Development NGOs (Thrupp, 1996), social movements such as the Brazilian Landless Workers’
Movement (Boyce, et al., 2005) and farmer-NGO-scientist
partnerships such as MASIPAG in the Philippines, CLADESin Latin America (Chaplowe, 1997a) and the Latin American
Scientific Society of Agroecology (Sociedad Cientifica Latino
Americana de Agroecologia or SOCLA) are implementing
ecological pest management as a means towards achieving
sustainable development goals. Like other development actors, NGOs have limitations in terms of impact, resources,
capacity and performance; and accountability mechanisms
have been weak (Chaplowe, 1997b). Nevertheless, important
contributions to ecological pest management have resulted
from NGO efforts (Altieri and Masera, 1993; UNDP, 1995;
Chaplowe, 1997b; Altieri, 1999), although scaling up toachieve widespread impact, in the absence of broader policy
reforms, remains difficult (Bebbington and Thiele, 1993;
Farrington and Lewis, 1993; Farrington et al., 1993).
Market responses. There has been a notable rise in certification and labeling regimes to meet consumers’ demandfor information about the origins of foods and methods ofproduction. Food retailers are responding by insisting on
observance of legal MRL requirements and using pesticide
residue data as marketing material. Food industry actors
have focused on minimizing or eliminating pesticide use

chapter 02.indd 105

to meet consumer preferences and regulatory requirements
and reduce business costs. Some agrifood companies andthe US$30 billion food service company Sysco (Hammerschlag, 2007), food processors (e.g., tomato paste, coffee,
cacao/chocolate) and some food retailers (Williamson andBuffin, 2005; EurepGap, 2007) have taken steps to source
produce from suppliers—including thousands of small-scale
producers—using IPM and organic methods. Labels identifying organic or low-pesticide production methods and other successful market-oriented collaborations (IATP, 1998)
have encouraged growers to adopt these practices. Local
food systems also offer a small but growing alternative toconventional crop production and distribution (Williamson
and Buffin, 2005) (see 2.3.3).
Response from pesticide manufacturers. The multinational
agrichemical industry has responded to global concerns
about pesticides by developing less hazardous, lower doseand more selective pesticides, improved formulations, newapplication technologies and resistance management strategies (CropLife, 2003; Latorse and Kuck, 2006; Syngenta,
2006). These efforts can significantly reduce pesticide pressure on the environment, particularly in larger farm operations that can afford specialized equipment. Some pesticide
manufacturers have formed Resistance Action Committees
to assist advisors and growers in implementing pesticide resistance management practices (Jutsum et al., 1998). The
Danish chemical company, Cheminova, submitted plans
to FAO in 2006 to voluntarily phase out highly hazardous
WHO Class I pesticides from developing countries by 2010
(FAO, 2006a). At the same time, public health specialists
and development NGOs have criticized multinational pesticide companies for lobbying against stronger public healthregulations, for failing to comply with national laws andthe FAO Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of
Pesticides (Dinham, 2007), and in some cases for refusing
to voluntarily withdraw recognized highly hazardous active ingredients—including WHO Class 1 pesticides andacutely toxic organophosphate pesticides—in developing
countries (Rosenthal, 2003, 2005; Sherwood et al., 2005;
Wesseling et al., 2005). Competitive pressure from local
generic pesticide manufacturers that continue to produce
off-patent pesticides can be a factor (EJF, 2002; Pawar,
2002).
Industry actors have developed their own IPM programs (Dollacker, 2000; CropLife, 2006). Many of theseare built around continued or relatively small reductions in
use of a company’s pesticide products (Sagenmuller, 1999;
Dollacker, 2000; Ellis, 2000; CropLife, 2003, 2005ab). One
explanation for this is that a company’s need to maintaineconomic returns on its investments renders them less likely
to encourage substantial shifts towards pest management
strategies that would significantly reduce reliance on theirproducts (CGIAR TAC, 2000; FAO, 2001a; Murray and
Taylor, 2001; Sherwood et al., 2005).
Some newer products developed by private firms show
potential to strengthen IPM efforts (for instance, synthetic
pheromone products to be tried in the context of “pushpull” strategies in Europe). Other programs describe the integration of crop productivity and biodiversity conservation
efforts (Dollacker and Rhodes, 2007). Independent assess-

11/3/08 10:42:34 AM

106 | IAASTD Global Reportments of their effects in actual use, particularly in small scale
farming conditions in the tropics, have not been made.
The multinational agrichemical industry has also
launched “safe use” programs to train farmers in the use
and handling of pesticides and to ensure that products
are used in a manner consistent with national regulatory
frameworks (Syngenta, 2003; CropLife, 2005b). The efficacy of these pesticide use training programs is disputed,
with some sources reporting considerable success (Tobin,
1996; Grimaldi, 1998; Syngenta, 2006) and others finding no reduction in poisoning incidence among participating farmers (McConnell and Hruska, 1993; Murray, 1994;
Kishi et al., 1995; Murray and Taylor, 2000). “Safe use”
measures are often not affordable or feasible in tropical climates and under actual conditions of use in poor countries(Dinham, 1993, 2007; Cole et al., 2000; FAO, 2007). Even
when pesticides are used according to label specifications,adverse health effects have been documented (Nurminene
et al., 1995; Garry et al., 1996; Wargo, 1996; Schettler etal., 1996; Reeves et al., 2002). The industry’s overall contribution to broader equitable and sustainable development
goals, particularly in developing countries, has not as yet
been clearly demonstrated.
2.3.2.4 Overall assessment of trends and challenges inpest management
Despite the tightening national and international regulatoryenvironment around synthetic pesticides and notwithstanding the documented success of ecological pest management
in most crops and a fast-growing market for organic products, sales and use of synthetic pesticides is still growing,
especially in developing countries. These trends continue toresult in pesticide-induced pest outbreaks (Yudelman et al.,1998) and an unacceptably high level of unintentional pesticide poisonings under conditions of actual use, mostly but
not solely in the developing world (Wesseling et al., 1993;
Kishi, 2005, London et al., 2005). Public sector commitment
to pesticide reduction efforts and investments in IPM andother ecological approaches has not been consistent overtime (Cate and Hinkle, 1994). The prevalence of the use ofsynthetic pesticides today reflects their immediate results,
path dependency at farm and institutional support levels,and the significant political and economic influence of agribusiness interests, trade associations and lobbying groups
in the regulatory and policy arena (Ferrara, 1998; FAWG,
2001; Irwin and Rothstein, 2003; CAP/OMB Watch, 2004;
Mattera, 2004; UCS, 2004; Dinham, 2005; Wesseling etal., 2005; Shulman, 2006; Hardell et al., 2007). This influence has sometimes downplayed research findings on harmful effects and weakened regulatory assessment of risks(Castleman and Lemen, 1998; Watterson, 2001; Hayes,
2004).
Scientific and technological progress has not been linear;successful pathways (e.g., in biocontrol) have gained andlost popularity according to the economic and political priorities of dominant institutional arrangements. Advances inecological sciences (e.g., population, community, landscapeecology) have contributed to development of pest management options, but have been underutilized by most conventional extension systems. Genetically-engineered crops were
expected by many to reduce the need for and therefore use

chapter 02.indd 106

of synthetic insecticides. However, their impact on both insecticide and herbicide use has been mixed, in some cases
leading to increased recourse to synthetic controls. Theircultivation is perceived by some scientists and critics as potentially introducing new environmental hazards (Wolfenbarger and Phifer, 2000; CEC, 2004; Donald, 2004; Snow etal., 2005), reducing efficacy of biocontrol measures (Obryki
et al., 2002) or leading to adverse social impacts (de Grassi,
2003; Pengue, 2005; FOE, 2006) and health risks (Ewenand Pusztai, 1999; Prescott et al., 2005), constraining theiradoption in sustainable development initiatives.
The central technical issue facing pest management today is no longer yield maximization, but long-term stabilization and resilience in the face of unknown and changing
stresses (Reganold et al., 2001). New directions in scienceand technology can strengthen IPM efforts if the latter havea strong foundation in basic biology (entomology, botany,
plant pathology, taxonomy, ecology), economics and thesocial sciences (CGIAR TAC, 2000). Agroenvironmental
partnerships among farmers, extension agents and researchers that balance social and environmental learning (Warner,
2006b; Stone, 2007) and strengthen ecologically-informed
decision-making capacities (Röling and Wagemakers, 1998;
Getz and Warner, 2006; Warner, 2006a; Mancini et al.,2007; van den Berg and Jiggins, 2007) offer robust possibilities for meeting technical, social and institutional challenges
in sustainable pest management.
Policy decisions in pest management knowledge, science and technology often have been implicitly or explicitly
based upon perceptions of tradeoffs. The uneven distribution of gains and losses from these decisions reflect power
asymmetries between competing actors (Krimsky, 1999;
Kleinman and Vallas, 2001). They have fuelled social andpolitical tensions; in some cases, these have contributed tothe development of new institutional arrangements such as
international treaties and conventions to manage pesticide
problems. Dominant approaches to pest control have inmany cases failed to ensure the now-recognized human rightto a safe home and working environment (Fabra, 2002;
Robinson, 2002; Reeves and Schafer, 2003). The evidenceshows that if crop production is assessed solely by a simple
economic metric, then other societal goals will not be properly valued. Informed decision-making in pest management
requires integration of ecological and social equity metrics
as well.
The policy and investment choices regarding pest management have significant implications for how successfullysocieties will respond to major global challenges ahead (associated with, e.g., clean water, climate change, biodiversity,etc). Responses are varied, reflecting the complex and sometimes competing interests of diverse actors. UN agencies suchas the FAO, national governments, public health professionals, labor groups, NGOs, development experts and some private firms are working to eliminate WHO Class I and phaseout WHO Class II pesticides. Some pesticide manufacturers
are developing new less toxic products and improved delivery systems, although many continue to sell and promotehighly hazardous pesticides at the same time. Market leaders and innovators in the food industry are moving towards
sourcing organic, fairly traded products. Governments,
international commissions and initiatives such as UNCED

11/3/08 10:42:35 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 107(UNCED, 1993), and the UN IFCS (Box 2-9) use the precautionary and polluter pays principles in designing policy approaches to chemical use and distribution (EEA, 2001; City
and County of San Francisco, 2007; Fisher, 2007). Scientists
and researchers in the fields of public health, medicine, ecology and participatory development and extension call for
greater public sector investment in agroecological researchand education, and establishment of better institutional
linkages among farmers, extension agents and physical andsocial scientists (UNDP, 1995; Wesseling et al., 1997; Röling
and Wagemakers, 1998; SIDA, 1999; Sorby et al., 2003;
Norton et al., 2005; Warner, 2006a; Cole et al., 2007).
The weight of the evidence points towards the needfor more determined institutional and policy support forparticipatory ecologically-based decision making by farmers; agroenvironmental partnerships to foster social andenvironmental collaborative learning; stronger and enforceable policy and regulatory frameworks; and investments by
public sector, donor and commercial agencies in sustainable
and agroecological research, extension, education, productinnovation and marketing. More experimentation is needed
to develop and test institutional innovations that are likely
to enable further societal shifts towards sustainable pest
management.
2.3.3
Food systems management
Satisfaction of social needs and desires, and hunger, morethan nutritional needs, govern the selection and consumption of foods). Different food systems differently affect foodsecurity, safety and sovereignty. Food systems (Figure 2-4,2-5) include the complex interactive and interrelated processes involved in keeping a community fed and nourished(Ericksen, 2006ab). At the core are food system activities
that include production, processing, distribution, consumption and their outcomes: social welfare; food security andenvironmental welfare. A sustainable food system would
incorporate social justice into a more localized system; alleviate constraints on people’s access to adequate, nutritious
food; develop economic capacity to purchase local food;train people to grow, process, and distribute food; maintainadequate land to produce a high proportion of locally required food; educate people removed from food production,
to participate in, and respect, its generation; and integrate
environmental stewardship into process (Koc et al., 1999).
Food systems are assessed at the local and global level here
for the sake of simplicity, although more complex variations(e.g., regional systems) exist and much interaction actuallyoccurs among all the levels.
2.3.3.1 Local food systems activities
At the eve of World War II, local food systems (LFS) prevailed throughout the world. These predominantly fallow/rotational systems used manual labor (Mazoyer andRoudard, 2005), were family-owned, small and highly
diversified crop-animal systems with varying productivity(Fogel, 2004; Mazoyer and Roudard, 2005). Food processing in many parts of the world relied on local knowledge of preservation and packaging techniques, such as
salting, curing, curding, sun drying, smoking and fermentation (Johnson, 2000). Surplus produce was sold at thefarm gate or in local market places directly to consumers

chapter 02.indd 107

Figure 2-4. Holistic food system model. Source: Combs et al., 1996.

or to intermediary traders (Amilien, 2005). LFS directly
contributed to the incomes of small-scale farmers, providing fresh and culturally acceptable food to consumers, andallowing direct interaction between consumers and foodproducers. However, farmers and local processors often experienced high transaction costs, seasonal price highs andlows and flooded markets, while consumers often lacked
choice and quality foodstuffs or encountered contaminatedor unsafe products (Crosson and Anderson, 2002). Rural
households primarily acquired food from their own production (from local markets, relatives and friends; or fromgathering, hunting or fishing). LFS sustain livelihoods of asignificant number throughout the world, particularly in thesouthern hemisphere.
2.3.3.2 Global food systems activities
Over the past 50 years there has been a dramatic change infood systems particularly in developed countries (Knudsen
et al., 2005; LaBelle, 2005) from local to global, traditional
to an industrial, and from state regulated to a market- ortransnational corporations-dominated system monopolized by relatively few companies from production to retail(Hendrickson and Heffernan, 2005). LFS production haschanged for many into mechanized high-input specializedcommodity farming, employing fewer people (Lyson, 2005;
Dimitri et al., 2005; Knudsen et al., 2005). This transformation resulted in farm output growing dramatically, except in
Africa (Knudsen et al., 2005) and a dramatic rise in GDP(Crosson and Anderson, 2002); spurring rapid growth inaverage farm size accompanied by an similar rapid decline
in the number of farms and rural populations (Lyson, 2005;
Knudsen et al., 2005).
Prior to the 20th century, increases in food production
were obtained largely by bringing new land into production,
With the exception of a few limited areas of East Asia, in

11/3/08 10:42:38 AM

108 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 2-5. Food system activities and outcomes. Source: Adapted from GECAFS, 2008.

the Middle East, and in Western Europe (Welch and Graham, 1999; Stringer, 2000; Knudsen et al., 2005). Technology advancements and domestic food and agricultural
production policies allowed consumers to spend a smaller
portion of their income on food by the end of the 20th century (Johnson, 2000; Khush, 2001) allowed consumers tospend a smaller portion of their income on food (Knudsen
et al., 2005). Institutional factors like efficient marketingsystems, dynamic production technology and higher education played equally important roles in generating longterm growth in agricultural output per hectare and person
employed (Mellor, 1966; Hayami and Ruttan, 1985; Eicher
and Staatz, 1998). Food processing and preservation involving new technologies such as cold storage; irradiation; hightemperature treatments; chemical additives; canning; milling, labeling and sophisticated computer based controlled
systems emerged, both creating and taking advantage of
new mass markets. The advantages of pre-prepared timesaving food to rapidly urbanizing populations drove further
innovations in food preservation. In OECD countries, a few
international food processing giants controlled a wide range
of well-known food brands, coexisting with a wide arrayof small local or national food processing companies. Globalized food trade was originally confined to commodities
and non-perishables such as wine, salt, spices and dried fish
but expanded to include a wide range of perishable foods
transported, sold and consumed at long distances awayfrom their production and processing locality (Young, 2004;
Knudsen et al., 2005). Even consumers in rural areas becameless dependent on food supplies from local farms and markets (Roth, 1999). Meanwhile, small food retail groceries
merged or were swallowed by other emerging and increasingly powerful stores, chains and supermarkets (Smith andSparks, 1993; Roth, 1999). In the USA for example, from1990-2000, the market share of the meat industry held bychapter 02.indd 108

the nation’s top four retailers rose from 17 to 34%. Institutional linkages within local food systems (Lyson, 2005) werethus broken and economies of scale increased by means of
new institutional arrangements (Ericksen, 2006ab). Vertical integration in ownership of food supply chains (FAO,
2005c) and increasing concentration in private sector control over food systems (DFID, 2005) has been documented.
2.3.3.3 Food systems outcome trends
The globalized food system (GFS) is considered by some tobe economically efficient and productive (Welch and Graham, 1999; LaBelle, 2005) and draws on a range of science,
knowledge and technology that extends beyond the agricultural sector. The GFS however hides disparities among agricultural and food systems both in developed and developing
countries (Knudsen et al., 2005; LaBelle, 2005). Concerns
revolve around social welfare; food and nutritional security; food sovereignty, food safety and environmental welfare(Knudsen et al., 2005; Lyson, 2005) (Figure 2-6).
Social welfare. The GFS widened the gap between the mostproductive and least productive systems: it increased 20-foldover the last 50 years, particularly between industrialized
and developing countries1 (Knudsen et al., 2005; Mazoyer,2005). Characterized by capital intensive AKST and seed/animal breeds that required high inputs and favorable agronomic conditions, the GFS favored farming populations
with more resources (Knudsen et al., 2005; Lyson, 2005).
There is some evidence that the Green Revolution, e.g., inWith the exception of some portions of Latin America, North
Africa, South Africa and Asia where it has been adopted by large
national or foreign farms that have the necessary capital (Knudsen et al., 2005). Africa has the lowest production per unit area ofland in the world (Paarlberg, 2002).

1

11/3/08 10:42:41 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 109

Figure 2-6. Potentially problematic social and environmental aspects of global foodsystems sustainability. Source: adapted from Knudsen et al., 2005.

Bangladesh, benefited the poor and the landless as well as
those with resources and that small-scale farmers adopted
faster than large scale farmers (Crosson and Anderson,2002), but in many countries evidence demonstrates that
better resourced individuals and firms benefited, sometimes
at the expense of the poor and landless (see 2.2).
Food trade. The Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations
saw agriculture and food issues placed firmly within the
WTO although some countries and organizations argued
against their inclusion, maintaining that countries shouldhave the right to determine their own policies on such animportant issue as food security, i.e., they adopted a “foodsovereignty” position (FOEI, 2001). Nonetheless, the 1994
WTO Agricultural Agreement adopted minimum importrequirements and tariffs and producer subsidies that wereaccessible to transnational corporations both in USA andEurope (McMichael, 2001; Lyson, 2005), allowing them tooperate economies of scale that lowered agricultural product prices all over the world (Welch and Graham, 1999;
Wilson, 2005). Consumers and national economies benefited substantially from this agreement. These trends also
opened up agricultural and food markets for the northernhemisphere commodities, with USA becoming the major exporter of cereals (with surplus being disposed of as food aid;
Johnson, 2000) and Australia and New Zealand of dairy
products. This development negatively affected local producers in developing countries; many countries, particularly
in sub-Saharan Africa, increasingly became food importers(FAO, 2004). In developed countries, control of the foodchapter 02.indd 109

system became vertically integrated from seeds; production
inputs; processing; transportation and marketing, forming
food chain clusters (LaBelle, 2005; Lyson, 2005) and consequently, many small-scale producers lost their livelihoods(Watkins, 1996; Welch and Graham, 1999; Robinson andSutherland, 2002; Wilson, 2005), migrating to towns where
they faced new livelihood challenges and opportunities.
Food security (Box 2-10 and Figures 2-7 and 2-8)
greatly improved over the last few decades as a result pf theincrease in global food production (Johnson, 2000; Crosson and Anderson, 2002) and the global grain trade (Johnson, 2000). Although increases in global food production(Paarlberg, 2002; Knudsen et al., 2005) surpassed population growth (Crosson and Anderson, 2002; Bruinsma,
2003; Knudsen et al., 2005), and was accompanied by anincrease in the poorer country’s average food consumption,(Garrett, 1997; Stringer, 2000; Johnson, 2000), food andnutritional insecurity persisted throughout the world evenin countries which achieved national food security (Mellor,
1990; Stringer, 2000; LaBelle, 2005), particularly in subSaharan Africa (Wafula and Ndiritu, 1996; Knudsen et al.,2005).
Protein energy malnutrition in developing countries
declined from as high as 46.5% in the early 1960s to as
low as 17% in the late 1990s (Khush, 2001; Young, 2004),
with Africa contributing about a quarter (24%) of the total
undernourished population globally (Young, 2004). Thisphenomenon corresponds with the proportion of those withprolonged deficits in required energy intake as chronic foodshortages fell in Asia and Latin America except sub-Saharan

11/3/08 10:42:43 AM

110 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 2-7. A framework for understanding food security. Source: Webb and Rogers, 2003.

Africa (FAO, 2001b; Lipton, 2001). In addition to otherdrivers (Johnson, 2000; Chopra, 2004), the failure of aGreen Revolution in Africa (Crosson and Anderson, 2002)
may partially be explained by the lack of improvement orworsening of the situation in Africa. Based on the Global
Hunger Index (GHI)2 (Weismann, 2006), 97 developing and
27 transitional countries exhibit poor GHI trends; the malnutrition hot spots are in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, where wars and HIV/AIDS exacerbate the situation.
The commoditized monocropping characteristic of the
globalized food system (GFS) has resulted in a narrower genetic base for plant3 and animal production (Knudsen et al.,2005; Lyson, 2005; Wilson, 2005) and in declining nutritional value (Welch and Graham, 1999; Kataki et al., 2001)
and has negatively affected micronutrient reserves in thesoil (Bell, 2004). A Mexican study, however, suggested that
adoption of some improved varieties of maize had enhanced
maize genetic diversity (Brush et al., 1988). Increasing andwidespread micronutrient malnutrition has developed,
GHI captures three equally weighted indicators of hunger: insufficient availability of food (the proportion of people who are foodenergy deficient); prevalence of underweight in children <5 years
old; and child mortality (<5 years old mortality rate).
3
Wheat, rice and maize account for the majority of calories inhuman diets.
2

chapter 02.indd 110

affecting millions of people in industrialized and developing
countries alike (Welch and Graham, 1999; Khush, 2001)
with quantifiable costs through compromised health resulting from reduced productivity and impaired cognition(Welch and Graham, 1999). However, recent improvements
are noted in some parts of the developing world (Mason etal., 2005). Meanwhile, elements of the GFS, for example,
subsidies of commodity crops such as corn in the US (Fields,2004), have contributed to often radical and rapid changes
in dietary patterns characterized by an excess of highly refined carbohydrates, sucrose, glucose and syrups (ingredients in fast foods) and animal fats, with a parallel decline inintake of complex carbohydrates (Tee, 1999; Fields, 2004;
Young, 2004). These changes, combined with a decline inenergy expenditure associated with sedentary lifestyles, motorized transport and household domestic and work placelabor-serving devices (Young, 2004) have resulted in theemergence of obesity and other dietary-related chronic diseases afflicting both the affluent as well as the low income
population in industrialized and developing countries (Tee,1999; Fields, 2004; Young, 2004). This paradoxically coexists with undernutrition (Young, 2004), signifying growing imbalances and inequities in food systems.
In the 1980s, food production shifted toward products that were convenient and served ethnic and healthbased preferences. This shift has changed the structure of

11/3/08 10:42:50 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 111

Box 2-10. Evolution of the term food security.
Food security [is] a situation that exists when all people, at
all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs
and food preferences for an active and healthy life. (FAO, The
State of Food Insecurity 2001)
Food sovereignty is defined as the right of peoples andsovereign states to democratically determine their own agricultural and food policies.
The term food security originated in international development literature in the 1960s and 1970s (Ayalew, 1997; Stringer,
2000; Ganapathy et al., 2005; Windfuhr and Jonsén, 2005)
and public interest in global and domestic food security grew
rapidly following the oil crisis and related food crisis of 197274 (Saad, 1999; Stringer, 2000; Clover, 2003), the subsequent
African famine of 1984-85, and emergence of growing numbers of food banks in developed nations. Food security is aterm with many definitions, each used differently in international, national and local contexts (Ganapathy et al., 2005).
Early definitions of food security focused on aggregate foodsupplies at national and global levels (Clover, 2003). Over time
the concept evolved and expanded to integrate a wide rangeof food-related issues reflecting the complexity of the role offood in human society. Much of the paradigm shift of the concepts and definitions of food security over the years can be
attributed to NGO and civil societies’ movements in the early
1990s that led to the birth of the concept food sovereignty.

Figure 2-8. Determinants of nutrition security: Basic causes andlinks. Source: FAO, 1996a.
Notes: (i). Basic causes; (ii). Structural/institutional conditions, areas of
public action; (iii). Market conditions; (iv) Micro-level conditions (household,intra-household, gender).

chapter 02.indd 111

agricultural markets, further increasing specialization andprompting the emergence of contractual farming and vertical integration for supply and quality control, and development of special-use, high-value commodities (Barrett etal., 1999) particularly of farmed fish, livestock and specialty
crop operations (Knudsen et al., 2005). Concerns have beenraised regarding the impact of these structural changes on
the rural poor (Lindstrom and Kingamkono, 1991; Welch
and Graham, 1999; Grivetti and Olge, 2000) and marginalized urban populations.
Food safety. The right of everyone to have access to safeand nutritious food is reaffirmed by the Rome Declaration
on World Food Security. Yet food-borne poisonings and illnesses represent a major daily health threat and results insignificant economic costs in both developed and developing countries in spite of significant progress in the regulationof food standards, medicine, food science and technology(Box 2-11; FAO, 1999b).
The globalized food system, although it is subject tohigh controls and standards, can still threaten food safety,
particularly for marginalized populations in industrialized
and developing countries (Welch and Graham, 1999; Mol
and Bulkeley, 2002). High-profile risks such as those associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE); Belgian
dioxin chickens; vegetables contaminated with Chernobyl
nuclear fallout or with dioxins from waste-burning plants;
and GMOs have been profiled in recent decades. Other environmental and health threats, less reported in the media,
are also contributing to widespread concern about the GFS.
As food passes over extended periods of time through thefood production, processing, storage and distribution chain,control has become difficult, increasing the risks of exposing
food to intentional, undetected or involuntary contamination or adulteration. The use of pesticides and fertilizers, theuse of hormones in meat production, large-scale livestock
farming, and the use of various additives by food processing
industries are among the food safety concerns that are associated with the GFS. In developing countries, GFS safetyconcerns are compounded by rampant poverty negatively
influencing policy compliance and poor infrastructure for
enforcement of food control systems. Other threats to foodsafety in developing countries are offered by inadequate social services and service structures (potable water; health,education, transportation); population growth; high incidences of communicable diseases including Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS); competitive markets andtrade pressures that may encourage shortcuts that compromise food safety (CSPI, 2005).
Access to good quality food has been humankind’s mainendeavor from the earliest days of human existence (FAO,
1999b) with governing authorities codifying rules to protect
consumers from dishonest practices in the sale of food. The
first general food laws in modern times were adopted during the second half of the nineteenth century; subsequently
basic food control systems were established to monitor
compliance.
Efforts to deal with hazardous agents (pesticides andfood additives) began in the 1940s and 50s when toxicologists derived limits on exposure for protection of humanhealth (Rodricks, 2001). A major step in advancing a sci-

11/3/08 10:42:52 AM

112 | IAASTD Global Reportence-based food safety system was the development and implementation of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point(HACCP) procedures in the food industry in the 1960s. In
parallel, the development of “farm to fork” strategies by theindustry extended the notion of quality management along
the entire supply chain (Hanak et al., 2002).
Food contamination creates a social and economic burden on communities and their health systems. The market
costs of contaminated commodities cause significant export
losses (Box 2-11), while sampling and testing costs and costs
to food processors and consumers can be high.
The incidence of food-borne diseases may be 300 to 350
times higher than the number of reported cases worldwide.
Sources of food contamination may be either microbiological or chemical and may occur throughout the food chain,from the farm to the table. Risk, particularly in developing
countries, is in part due to difficulties in ensuring that appropriate procedures are followed.
Microbiological contaminants, the most reported causeof food-borne illnesses, include bacteria, fungi, viruses orparasites (Box 2-12) and usually result in acute symptoms.
Over the past few decades, the incidence of reported illnesses
caused by pathogenic microorganisms in food has increased
significantly.
Food-borne illnesses caused by chemicals are sometimes
difficult to link to a particular food, as the onset of effects
may be slow and hence may go unnoticed until permanentor chronic damage occurs. Contamination by pesticides,
heavy metals or other residues intentionally or unintentionally introduced into the food supply, or introduced throughpoor post-harvest techniques leading to mycotoxins, are included in this category (Box 2-13). On the other hand, foodpoisonings can also be acute with immediate adverse effects
including death, such as those caused by organophosphatepesticides (Box 2-13) (Kishi, 2005).
Food irradiation is another controversial food safety issue. Although useful in reducing the risk of microbial foodborne illness, the technology also destroys vitamins (OCA,
2006); affects taste and smell; poses dangers to workers
and the environment; may create toxic byproducts; and has
the potential for cellular or genetic damage. The European
Commission heavily regulates irradiated foods and food ingredients (EC, 1999).
Recent trends in global food production, processing,
distribution, and preparation are creating a growing demand by consumers for effective, coordinated, and proactive
national food safety systems. Although governments play
critical roles in protecting the food supply, many countries
are poorly equipped to respond to the growing dominanceof the food industry and to existing and emerging foodsafety problems. Fraudulent practices such as adulterationand mislabeling persist and can be particularly devastating
in developing countries where 70% of individual income
may be spent on food (Malik, 1981). The effectiveness of
HACCP is limited to large scale firms (Unnevehr and Jensen,
1999; Farina and Reardon, 2000). Export safety standards
are often higher than those applied to domestic products
markets particularly in developing countries. In some cases,
governments have shifted the burden of monitoring productsafety to the private sector, and in so doing, have become atmost an auditor of the industry’s programs.

chapter 02.indd 112

Box 2-11. Food-borne illnesses: Trends and costs.
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Contaminated food contributes to 1.5 billion cases of diarrhea in children each year, resulting in more than three
million premature deaths (WHO, 1999), in both developed
and developing nations. One person in three in industrialized countries may be affected by food-borne illness
each year. In the US food-borne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses annually among the country’s
294 million residents resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations
and 5,000 deaths (Mead et. al., 1999). Between 1993 and2002, 21 Latin American and Caribbean countries reported
10,400 outbreaks of food- and waterborne illness causingnearly 400,000 illnesses and 500 deaths (CSPI, 2005).
In 1995, the US experienced between 3.3-12 million casesof food-borne illness caused by seven pathogens costing
approximately US $6.5-35 billion in medical care and lost
productivity (WHO, 2002a).
In the European Union, the annual costs incurred by thehealth care system as a consequence of Salmonella infections alone are estimated to be around EUR €3 billion (BRF,
2004).
In the UK, care and treatment of people with the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) are estimated tocost about £45,000 per case from diagnosis and a further£220,000 may be paid to each family as part of the government’s no-fault compensation scheme (DHC, 2001). The
range of economic impacts to the UK is from £2.5 to £8billion, (Mathews, 2001).
Analysis of the economic impact of a Staphylococcus aureus outbreak in India (Sudhakar, et. al., 1988) showed that
41% of the total cost of the outbreak was borne by theaffected persons, including loss of wages or productivity
and other expenses.
Because of an outbreak of Cyclospora in Guatemalanraspberries in 1996 and 1997 the number of Guatemalanraspberry growers has decreased dramatically from 85 in
1996 to three in 2002.
Realization of existence of BSE in cattle population in the
US and Canada resulted in losses of $2.6 billion and $5
billion in beef exports in 2004 in the USA and Canada respectively.
Meanwhile a new category of risks has emerged, of which
BSE, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and zootic
diseases such as avian flu, are among the most prominent. The routes through which these risks may affect nature and society are more complex, less “visible” and lessdetectable than “conventional” risks, and are often highly
dissociated over space and time (Mol and Bulkley, 2002).

11/3/08 10:42:52 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 113

Box 2-12. Common microbiological contaminants
in food.

Box 2-13. Chemical contamination of food: A few
examples.

In Latin America, the most frequent bacterial agents involved
were Salmonella spp. (20% of the reported outbreaks) (FAO/
WHO, 2004), Staphylococcus aureus, and Clostridium perfringens (CSPI, 2005). Another pathogen, Escherichia coli
O157:H7, has increased dramatically in Central and SouthAmerica. Argentina has one of the highest incidences of
HUS—a serious complication of E. coli infection—especiallyin the pediatric age group (CSPI, 2005).
Food items most commonly associated with the reported
outbreaks were fish/seafood (22%), water (20%) and redmeats (14%) (CSPI, 2005). Examples include a major E. coli
O157:H7 outbreak in Japan linked to sprouts involving morethan 9,000 cases in 1996, and several recent Cyclospora
outbreaks associated with raspberries in North America andCanada, and lettuce in Germany (Bern et al., 1999; Hodeshi etal., 1999; Döller et al., 2002). In 1994, an outbreak of salmonellosis due to contaminated ice cream occurred in the USA affecting an estimated 224,000 persons. In 1988, an outbreak ofhepatitis A, resulting from the consumption of contaminatedclams, affected some 300,000 individuals in China (Halliday
et al., 1991). In 2005 in Finland, the most common cause offood and water-borne food poisonings was noro-virus (EVIRA,
2006). A 1998 outbreak of Nipah virus typically associatedwith pigs and pork (WHO, 2004) killed 105 people in Malaysia.
The parasitic disease trichinellosis is increasingly reported in
the Balkan region among the non-Muslim population, owing inpart to the consumption of pork products processed at home
without adherence to mandatory veterinary controls.

•

Major institutional arrangements. Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to guideand coordinate world food standards for protection of consumer health and to ensure fair food trade (Heggun, 2001).
Bodies that operate at regional levels include the European
Food Safety Authority (EFSA); and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Codex food standards are consideredvital in food control systems even in smaller and less developed countries. However, 96% of low-income countries
and 87% of middle-income countries do not participate in
the Codex actively and hence their priorities are not always
reflected in the standards developed by Codex (http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/evaluation_en.jsp). Recent findings on possible effects from low dose, chronic exposure tocontaminants and development of the risk assessment procedures has led to ongoing revisions of international andnational safety maximum residue levels of agrichemicals in
the US, EU and Codex.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Mercury: As many as 630,000 children are born each year
exposed to mercury in the womb (Ahmed, 1991).
Non-persistent organic compounds: In Spain in 19811982, contaminated rapeseed oil denatured with aniline
killed more than 2,000 people and caused disabling injuries to another 20,000—many permanently (CDCP, 1982).
Pesticide residues: The latest European monitoring of pesticide residues in food found 4.7% of all samples exceeding the legal threshold of pesticide residues in food andalmost half of all samples had detectable levels of pesticide residues (EC, 2006); Viet Nam reports a high burdenof disease associated with pesticide residues (Nguyên andDao, 2001).
Accidental pesticide poisonings: In India, in July 1997,
60 men were poisoned by eating pesticide-contaminatedfood at a communal lunch (Chaudry et al., 1998); in Tauccamarca, Peru, 24 children died in October 1999, after
consuming a powdered milk substitute contaminated by
the organophosphate pesticide methyl parathion, and 18
others suffered neurological damage (Rosenthal, 2003); in
the Philippines, carbamate poisoning killed 28 schoolchildren and caused vomiting and diarrhea spells in 77 othersin March, 2005 (Neri, 2005).
Deliberate poisoning: In China, in 2002, more than 200
school children sickened and 38 died when rat poison wasused to intentionally contaminate bakery products. (CNN,
2002).
Naturally-occurring toxins: The chronic incidence of aflatoxin in diets is evident from the presence of aflatoxin M1
in human breast milk in Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, andSudan and in umbilical cord blood samples in Ghana,
Kenya, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Together with the hepatitis B virus, aflatoxins contribute to the high incidence ofprimary liver cancer in tropical Africa. Moreover, children
exposed to aflatoxins may experience stunted growth or
be chronically underweight and thus be more susceptible
to infectious diseases in childhood and later life. (CSPI,2005).
Growth hormone: The EU banned the use of growth hormones in livestock in 1988 but the practice still continues
in the US, Canada and in Australia.
Dioxin: Exposure to dioxin causes serious adverse healtheffects, and remains a major public health concern in Europe, the United States and elsewhere (Schecter et al.,
2001; NAS, 2003).

Food sovereignty. Whereas food security focuses on access to food, the concept of food sovereignty encompasses
the right of peoples and sovereign states to democraticallydetermine their own agricultural and food policies. Many
definitions have emerged since the 1990s (FOEI, 2003;

chapter 02.indd 113

11/3/08 10:42:53 AM

114 | IAASTD Global Report

Chopra, 2004; Forum for Food Sovereignty, 2007). Thereis currently no universally agreed public policy and regulatory framework definition for the term food sovereignty(Windfuhr and Jonsén, 2005). However, most definitions
share a common reference point, starting from the perspective of those actually facing hunger and rural poverty
and developing a rights-based framework that links theright to food with democratic control over local and national food production practices and policies. The concept
often focuses on the key role played by small-scale farmers, particularly women, in defining their own agricultural, labor, fishing, food and land policies and practices, inways that are environmentally sustainable, and ecologically, socially, economically and culturally appropriate totheir unique circumstances (http://www.foodsovereignty.org/new/). Proponents also contend that decentralized, diverse, and locally adapted food and farming systems, based
upon democratic and participatory decision-making, can ultimately be more environmentally sustainable and equitable
than a globalized food system lacking such features (Cohn
et al., 2006).
Via Campesina, a global farmers’ movement developed
the concept in the early 1990s, with the objective of encouraging NGOs and CSOs to discuss and promote alternatives
to neoliberal policies for achieving food security (Windfuhr
and Jonsén, 2005). The concept was publicized as a result of
the International Conference of Via Campesina in Tlaxcala,
Mexico, in April 1996. At the World Food Summit in 1996,
Via Campesina launched a set of principles (Box 2-14) thatoffered an alternative to the world trade policies to realize the human right to food (Menezes, 2001; Windfuhr
and Jonsén, 2005). In August the same year, reacting to the
Mexican government’s decision to increase maize imports
from North America in accordance with the Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), a large number of Mexican entities
organized the Foro Nacional por la Soberania Alimentaria,
underscoring the need to preserve the nation’s autonomy
in terms of defining its food policy (Menezes, 2001). Since
then, a number of NGOs, CSOs and social movements havefurther developed the concept and its institutional implications (Menezes 2001; Windfuhr and Jonsén, 2005).
The concept of food sovereignty introduced into debates on food security and international trade regulation
the right of each nation to maintain and develop its own capacity (particularly of small-scale farmers) to produce foodto fulfill its own needs while respecting agroecosystem andcultural diversity (Menezes, 2001) and ensuring sustainable
access and availability of food in order to enable people tolead quality lives and exercise democratic freedoms (Rosset
et al., 2006; Riches, 1997). Market-oriented globalizationof economic activity is an important driver of change in theevolution of agricultural trade and food systems. The development of the right to food based on normative qualities isanother driver but with markedly different characteristics.
The efforts made over the last fifty years to express in international and national laws a series of universal rights,
including the right to food, has been an explicitly moral enterprise that stands in contrast to the economic processesof market-driven globalization. The right to food was included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948, following Franklin

chapter 02.indd 114

D. Roosevelt’s speech in 1941 that captured the world byproclaiming freedom from want and fear; freedom of speech
and faith (Oshaug et al., 1994). The UN Declaration on
the Right to Development Act 2 (UN, 1986; General Assembly Resolution 41/128, New York) states that “. . . thehuman being, being central subject to development, shouldbe the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development.” The various human rights instruments brought
into force have created expectations and obligations for the
behavior of individuals, social groups, and States (Oshaug
and Edie, 2003). People are expected to be responsible forsatisfying their needs, using their own resources individuallyor in association with others. States are expected to respect
and protect the freedom of the people to make these efforts
and the sovereignty over the natural resources around them,and are obliged to meet every individual’s right to food andnutritional security.
Successive efforts have been made to build such rights,
expectations, and obligations into national laws and thegovernance of food systems. Norway has formulated foodsecurity and the right to food as the basis of its agricultural
policy, strongly driven by consumer concerns. Brazil has extended the concept of cultural heritage under Article 215 of
its Constitution to include food cultures. Both these efforts
have had an explicit normative quality.
The concepts of economic, social and environmental
sustainability as applied to food systems have been developed in processes of negotiation and intensive discussions
that reflect contrasting political priorities and ideologies(Oshaug, 2005). The food sovereignty movement is increasingly challenged to actively develop more autonomous andparticipatory ways of knowing to produce knowledge thatis ecologically literate, socially just and relevant to context.
This implies a radical shift from the existing hierarchicaland increasingly corporate-controlled research system to an
approach that devolves more responsibility and decisionmaking power to farmers, indigenous peoples, food workers, consumers and citizens for the production of social andecological knowledge (Pimbert, 2006).
Organic agriculture. The term organic agriculture (OA) has
evolved from various initiatives, including biodynamics,
regenerative agriculture, nature farming, and permaculture
movements, which developed in different countries worldwide from as early as 1924.4 Since the early 1990s, OA has
been defined in various ways. The most widely accepted definitions are those developed by IFOAM and the FAO/WHO
Codex Alimentarius (Box 2-15). In response to the incipient marginalization of foods of local origin by supermarket
chain developments; those dissatisfied with a globalizing
food trade, desiring health foods or foods associated with
cultural landscapes opened the way during the late 1950s
and early 1960s for expansion of initiatives such as pickPioneered by German philosopher Rudolf Steiner, who theorizedthat a human being as part of a cosmic equilibrium has to live inharmony with nature and the environment (Stoll, 2002). Certification of biodynamic farms and processing facilities began in Europe
during the 1930s under the auspices of the DEMETER Bund, a
trademark chosen in 1927 to protect biodynamic agriculture.

4

11/3/08 10:42:53 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 115

Box 2-14. Via Campesina’s food sovereignty principles.

Box 2-15. Definitions of organic agriculture.

1. Food: A Basic Human Right: Everyone must have accessto safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food in sufficient quantity and quality to sustain a healthy life with full
human dignity. Each nation should declare that access tofood is a constitutional right and guarantee the development of the primary sector to ensure the concrete realization of this fundamental right
2. Agrarian Reform: A genuine agrarian reform is necessary which gives landless and farming people—especiallywomen—ownership and control of the land they work andreturns territories to indigenous peoples. The right to land
must be free of discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, race, social class or ideology; the land belongs to
those who work it.
3. Protecting Natural Resources: Food Sovereignty entails
the sustainable care and use of natural resources, especiallyland, water, and seeds and livestock breeds. The people whowork the land must have the right to practice sustainable
management of natural resources and to conserve biodiversity free of restrictive intellectual property rights. This canonly be done from a sound economic basis with security oftenure, healthy soils and reduced use of agrochemicals.
4. Reorganizing Food Trade: Food is first and foremost asource of nutrition and only secondarily an item of trade.
Food imports must not displace local production nor depress prices.
5. Ending the Globalization of Hunger: The growing influenceof multinational corporations over agricultural policies has
been facilitated by the economic policies of multilateralorganizations such as the WTO, World Bank and the IMF.
Regulation and taxation of speculative capital and a strictly
enforced Code of Conduct for Trans-National-Corporations is therefore needed.
6. Social Peace: Everyone has the right to be free from violence. Food must not be used as a weapon. Increasinglevels of poverty and marginalization in the countryside,along with the growing oppression of ethnic minorities andindigenous populations, aggravate situations of injusticeand hopelessness. The ongoing displacement, forced urbanization, repression and increasing incidence of racismof smallholder farmers cannot be tolerated.
7. Democratic control: Small-scale farmers must have direct
input into formulating agricultural policies at all levels. The
United Nations and related organizations will have to undergo a process of democratization to enable this to become a reality. Everyone has the right to honest, accurate
information and open and democratic decision-making.
These rights form the basis of good governance, accountability and equal participation in economic, politicaland social life, free from all forms of discrimination. Rural
women, in particular, must be granted direct and active
decision making on food and rural issues.

•

Source: Windfuhr and Jonsén, 2005.

chapter 02.indd 115

IFOAM: Organic agriculture includes all agricultural systems that promote the environmentally socially and economically sound production of food and fibers. Thesesystems take local soil fertility as a key to successful
production. By respecting the natural capacity of plants,
animals and the landscape, it aims to optimize quality inall aspects of agriculture and the environment. Organic
agriculture dramatically reduces external inputs by refraining from the use of chemo-synthetic fertilizers, pesticides
and pharmaceuticals. Instead it allows the powerful lawsof nature to increase both agricultural yields and disease
resistance.
• FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission: Organic agriculture is a holistic production management system that
promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including
biodiversity cycles and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management practices in preference tothe use of off-farm inputs. This is accomplished by using
where possible, agronomic, biological, and mechanicalmethods as opposed to using synthetic materials to fulfill
any specific function within the system.

your-own operations and farm stands that supported a slow
growth in alternative marketing channels for farm goods onwhich organically certified food capitalized (Roth, 1999).
Consumer demand for “healthy” foods has begun to encourage large distributors and retailers also to integrate local and regional products into their offerings (Tracy, 1993;
LaBelle, 2005).
Emerging evidence (Bavec and Bavec, 2006) indicatesthat organic farmers are able to sustain their livelihoods
and increase employment in local processing and marketing, thereby increasing community economic activity andincomes (FAO, 1999b; Parrot and Marsden, 2002; Halberg
et al., 2007; Kilcher, 2007; Scialabba, 2007). OA systems
rely on biological processes to improve soil fertility andmanage pests and are often high in crop biodiversity (Roth,1999). The resulting increased food variety and overall perarea productivity has led to diversified and increased nutrient intake and improved food safety and food security,
particularly for indigenous and resource-poor people (Roth,
1999; Scialabba, 2007; Sligh and Christman, 2007). Somestudies, however, suggest that crop yields in organic farming
are too low to sustain farmers’ livelihoods and to produce
quantities sufficient to meet growing and rapidly diversifying market needs (LaBelle, 2005) leading to concerns that
more land would be needed if OA were to become widespread (Crosson and Anderson, 2002). These claims havebeen challenged by recent findings (Halweil, 2006; Badgley
et al., 2007).
Technical challenges facing certified OA revolve aroundsourcing organically produced seed and fodder; consistentproduct quantity and quality; traceability; liability insurance of growers and processors; appropriate product attributes and pack size (LaBelle, 2005). More research is needed

11/3/08 10:42:53 AM

116 | IAASTD Global Reportconcerning the labor requirements of different OA systems.
Labor demands in organic farming could deter younger
generations from farming, but unemployment could be alleviated, since the labor is more evenly spread over a growing season (Pimentel, 1993; Sorby, 2002; Granatstein, 2003;
Pimentel et al., 2005). Commercial challenges include narrowing profit margins; regulatory overload; increased competition; and the need for constant innovations to stay aheadof consumer trends (Roth, 1999), as well as uncertain implications of large-scale corporate entry into the market. These
questions have prompted FAO to propose a framework forsocioeconomic analysis focusing on ecological, economic
and social performance as an instrument for farmers anddecision makers to understand the problems, tradeoffs andoutcomes in alternative scenarios for a range of OA systems(Scialabba, 2000).
Agriculture and human health. The interrelations between
agriculture and human health are complex (Figure 2-9). The
two are mutually and directly dependent on each others’
status and performance. Agriculture contributes to good
health through provision of food, fuel, fiber, fodder, materials for shelter and medicines. On the other hand, agricultural activities contribute to poor health through producewith nutritional deficiency; food-borne diseases; food poisoning; chemical pesticide residues; and a range of occupational hazards (including, for instance, induced hazards
such as schistosomiasis and malaria that may be inducedby irrigation developments). Similarly, human health also
affects agriculture either positively or negatively. It requires
a healthy individual and society to generate a productive
agricultural performance. Hence individuals or societies
with poor health are unable to provide the necessary quality human input in agricultural activities, leading to poor
agricultural productivity (quantitatively and qualitatively)
and low incomes that in turn perpetuates poor health—avicious circle.
The interrelationship between agriculture and humanhealth is mediated by the natural environment, human culture and technological inputs. How to achieve equitable

food production delivering optimum nutrition for healthrequires a better understanding of the interplay between
agriculture and environment, culture, and technical capacity, and how this interplay changes over time (Lang, 2006;
Snowden, 2006) (Table 2-6).

2.4 Lessons from the Past: Implications for
the Future
AKST encompasses different kinds of knowledge producedby numerous agencies and actors, notably but not only farmers. The complexity of the diverse and often unpredictableways in which knowledge is generated justifies a systemic
view of the processes involved in AKST. Well-evidenced but
divergent and often conflicting interpretations exist of thecontributions of AKST to such societal goals as increased
productivity, environmental and social sustainability andequity as well as to societal knowledge about the damaging
effects of agricultural technologies in different conditions ofuse. The resulting multiple narratives of past AKST processes
and arrangements are not equally heard or recognized. Political power and economic influence has privileged some
types of AKST processes, actors and institutional arrangements over others. Dominant institutional arrangements
established the privileged interpretations of the day and set
the agenda for searching for and implementing solutions.
The choice of historical narrative used to explain past
events and the AKST options brought into farm practicehas important implications for setting future priorities andprojecting the future design of AKST. Special effort has been
made here to render an account from differing perspectivesof past and often yet unresolved controversies regarding
AKST in order to present as comprehensive as possible anassessment of the effectiveness of different AKST systems
in promoting innovations associated with a range of policy goals Three main lessons regarding the effectiveness of
AKST in relation to the combined goals of sustainability anddevelopment are drawn: the critical importance of partnerships, the crucial role of educating farmers in their vocationand the role of public policies and regulations.

Figure 2-9. Linkages between agriculture and health. Source: Hawkes and Ruel, 2006.

chapter 02.indd 116

11/3/08 10:42:55 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 117

Table 2-6. Health implications of agricultural and food revolutions.
Era/Revolution

Date

Changes in farming

Implications for food-related health

Settled agriculture From 8500
BCE onDecline of hunter-gathering
greater control over foodsupply but new skills needed

Risk of crop failures dependent on local conditions andcultivation and storage skills; diet entirely local and subject
to self-reliance; food safety subject to herbal skills

Iron Age

5000-6000
BCE

Tougher implements (plows,saws)

New techniques for preparing food for domestic
consumption (pots and pans); food still overwhelmingly
local, but trade in some preservable foods (e.g., oil, spices)

Feudal andpeasant
agriculture insome regions

Variable,by region/
continent

Common land parceled up
by private landowners; useof animals as motive power;
marginalization of nomadism

Food insecurity subject to climate, wars, location;peasant uprisings against oppression and hunger

Industrial andagricultural
revolution in
Europe and U.S.

Mid-18th
century

Land enclosure; rotation
systems; rural labor leaves
for towns; emergence of
mechanization

Transport and energy revolutions dramatically raise
output and spread foods; improved range of foods
available to more people; emergence of commodity
trading on significant scale; emergence of industrial
working-class diets

Chemicalrevolution

From 19th
century on

Fertilizers; pesticides;
emergence of fortified foods

Significant increases in food production; beginning ofmodern nutrition; identification of importance of protein;
beginnings of modern food legislation affecting trade;
opportunities for systematic adulteration grow; scandals
over food safety result

Mendelian
genetics

1860s; appliedin early 20th
century

Plant breeding gives newvarieties with “hybrid vigor”

Plant availability extends beyond original “Vavilov”
area; increased potential for variety in the diet increases
chances of diet providing all essential nutrients for ahealthy life.

The oil era

Mid-20th
century

Animal traction replacedby tractors; spread ofintensive farming techniques;
emergence of large-scale foodprocessors and supermarkets

Less land used to grow feed for animals as motive
power; excess calorie intakes lead to diet-related chronic
diseases; discovery of vitamins stresses importance of
micronutrients; increase in food trade gives wider foodchoiceGreen Revolution
in developing
countries

1960s and after Plant breeding programs on
key regional crops to raiseyields; more commercialized
agriculture

Transition from underproduction to global surplus
with continued unequal distribution; overconsumption
continues to rise

Modern livestock
revolution

1980s and after Growth of meat consumption
creates “pull” in agriculture;
increased use of cereals to
produce meat

Rise in meat consumption; global evidence of
simultaneous under-, over-, and malconsumption

Biotechnology

End of 20th
century

Uncertain as yet; debates about safety and humanhealth impacts and whether biotechnology will deliver
food security gains to whole populations; investment
in technical solutions to degenerative diseases (e.g.,
nutrigenomics)

New generation of industrial
crops; emergence of“biological era”: crop
protection, genetic
modification

Source: Hawkes and Ruel, 2006.

2.4.1 Multiple AKST actors and partnerships
In the prevailing AKST arrangements of the past, key actors often have been excluded or marginalized. Preference
has been given to short-term considerations over longerterm agroecosystem sustainability and social equity and topowerful voices over the unorganized and voiceless. Strong
evidence shows that development of appropriate forms ofpartnerships can help bring in the excluded and marginalized and open AKST to a larger set of policy goals. A large
number of effective participatory approaches exist thatchapter 02.indd 117

facilitate the establishment and operation of such partnerships. Targeted public support can help promote the use of
these approaches and thereby address the biases in the hitherto dominant arrangements.
The Transfer of Technology (ToT) model, a supplypush approach, has dominated operational arrangements
and policy thinking. Where the ToT model has been applied appropriately under the conditions of use necessary
for achieving wide impact, it has been successful in driving
yield and production gains. These conditions include prop-

11/3/08 10:42:56 AM

118 | IAASTD Global Report

erly functioning producer and service organizations, the social and biophysical suitability of technologies transferredin specific environments and proper management of thosetechnologies at plot, farm and landscape levels. The implementation of the ToT model increased production at a fasterpace than population growth in most developing countries,
an achievement which did not appear likely thirty or forty
years ago when the specter of famine and food crises loomed
very large.
But AKST arrangements shaped by the ToT model havenot been effective in meeting a broader range of goals associated with the multiple functions and roles of farm enterprises and diverse agroecosystems. Recognition of theselimitations led to a growing awareness or rediscovery—
documented by robust evidence—that innovation is a multisource process of demand-pull that always and necessarily
involves a mix of stakeholders, organizations and types ofknowledge systems. Effective innovation for combined sustainability and development goals has been led by farmers
in association with a range of local institutional actors andhas occurred in both OECD and tropical settings. Multiorganizational partnerships for AKST that embraces bothadvanced scientific understanding and local knowledge andexperimental capacities have led to the development andwider adoption of sustainable practices such as participatory plant breeding, integrated pest management, precision
farming and multiyear nutrient management.
Agricultural and social science research and education
offer examples of diverse partnerships with potential to advance public interest science and increase its relevance toequitable and sustainable development goals. A range ofknowledge, science and technology partnerships among corporate actors in the agricultural and food industries, consumer organizations, NGOs, social movements and farmerorganizations have pioneered ecologically and socially sustainable approaches to food and agriculture. Experiencesuggests that effective and enforceable codes of conduct
can strengthen multi-organizational partnerships, preserve
public institutions’ capacity to perform public-good research
and mobilize private commercial capacity to serve sustainability and development goals.
2.4.2 AKST and education
The ability of farmers and other actors to collaborate effectively in demand-pull partnership arrangements for thegeneration and implementation of AKST critically depends
on the quality of the formal and informal education available to them. Basic and occupational education also empowers individuals and communities to drive the evolutionof farming and build agroenterprises, adapt to new job opportunities and be better prepared for migration if necessary. Over the past decades various education and extension
programs have enhanced farmers’ education through the integration of formal and informal AKST. Generally the mosteffective have built on local and indigenous knowledge andinnovation systems, typically through participatory and experiential learning processes and multi-organizational partnerships. Proven options include but are not limited to experiential learning groups, 4-H clubs, farmer field schools,
farmer research circles, participatory plant breeding, social
forestry and related community-based forest landscapechapter 02.indd 118

management, study clubs and community interaction withschool-based curriculum development. Their gains at local
levels often are undermined by higher level interests and byeconomic drivers.
Measures that remove or mitigate race, ethnic andgender biases that hamper the participation in educational
opportunity of marginalized community members, diverse
ethnic groups and women have been essential for local progress toward social equity but have not been widely adopted.
Investment in the education and training of government
policymakers and public agency personnel, particularly indecentralized participatory planning and decision-making
and in understanding how to work effectively with ruralcommunities and other stakeholders has also proven effective in promoting progress toward combined sustainability
and development goals; broader issues of governance remain a concern.
More generally, experience shows that investment inscience-informed, farmer-centered learning and in otherrural actors’ educational needs develops grassroots capacity to critically assess, define and engage in positive locallydirected development and the sustainable management of
their environment. Modern ICTs are beginning to open up
new and potentially powerful opportunities for extending
the reach and scope of educational and interactive learning
opportunities. Extension and advisory services complement
but do not substitute for rural and occupational education.
2.4.3 Public policy and regulatory frameworks
International agreements informed by scientific evidence
and public participation have enabled decisive and effective global transitions toward more sustainable practices(for example, the Montreal Protocols, the Rotterdam andStockholm Conventions, the FAO Code of Conduct, the EU
Thematic on Sustainable Agriculture). However, new national, regional and international agreements will be needed to support further shifts towards ethical, equitable andsustainable food and agriculture systems in response to theurgent challenges such as those posed by the declining availability of clean water and competing claims of water, lossof biodiversity, deforestation, climate change, exploitativelabor conditions.
Awareness of the importance of ensuring full and meaningful participation of multiple stakeholders in international
and public sector AKST policy formation has increased overthe period. For example, in some countries, pesticide policies today are developed by diverse group of actors including
civil society and private sector actors, informed by scienceand empirical evidence and inclusive of public interest concerns. These policies—exemplified by the 2007 European
thematic on IPM—focus on the multifunctionality of agriculture.
Three thematic narratives on the management of germplasm, pests and food systems illustrate the role of public policy and regulatory frameworks as key drivers of
AKST.
• The number and diversity of actors engaged in the
management of germplasm has declined over time,
driven in large part by advancements in science, privatization of seed supply and more widespread recourse
to various intellectual property regimes. This trend re-

11/3/08 10:42:56 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 119

duces the options available for responding to uncertainties in the future. It increases asymmetries in access to
germplasm and increases the vulnerabilities of the poor.
Participatory plant breeding provides strong evidence
that diverse actors can engage in an effective practice forachieving and sustaining the broader goals of sustainability and development by bringing together the skills
and techniques of advanced and conventional breeding
and farmers’ preferences and germplasm management
capacities and skills, including seed production for sale.
Further development and expansion would require adjustment of varietal release protocols and appropriate
policy recognition under UPOV 1991.
• The debates surrounding the use of synthetic pesticides have led to new arrangements that have increased
awareness, availability and effectiveness of the range ofoptions for pest management. Institutional responses
to evidence of harm caused by certain synthetic chemicals in actual conditions of use include the strengthening of regulatory controls over synthetic chemical pesticides at global and national levels, growing consumer
and retail markets for pesticide-free and organic products, removal of highly toxic products from sale, development of less acutely toxic products and more precise
means of delivery and education of users in safe andsustainable practices. What constitutes safe and sustainable practice has been defined in widely varying ways
by different actors reflecting different conditions of use
as well as different assessments of acceptable tradeoffs,
between crop security, productivity and economic gainon the one hand and health and environmental protections on the other.
		 IPM exemplifies a flexible and wide-reaching arrangement of actors, institutions and AKST practices
that better address the needs of diverse farmers and amore broadly acceptable balance of interests. Althoughdefinitions, interpretations and outcomes of IPM programs vary widely among actors, IPM typically incorporates KST from a broad range of sciences, including
social sciences, and the experience and knowledge of adiverse set of actors. IPM has become standard practicein a number of high value production systems and has
been adopted also by an increasing number of important commercial actors in food processing and retailing.
Successful approaches to introducing IPM to small-scale
producers in the tropics include farmer field schools,
push-pull approaches, advisory services provided under•contractual arrangements for supply to central processing facilities and creative use of communication tools
such as short farmer-to-farmer videos and focused-message information campaigns. A combination of suchapproaches, backed by strong policy reform to restrict
the sale of old-fashioned and highly toxic synthetic controls, will be needed to meet future development andsustainability goals. Further experimentation and operational fine-tuning of the institutional arrangements
for IPM in the field in different settings is also needed.
These can be evaluated by comparative assessment using a combination of social, environmental and economic measures that include both positive and negative
externalities.
Food systems have changed fundamentally over thelast decades. Local food systems, known to sustain
livelihoods at micro level, are currently challenged by
globalized food systems that are evolving to meet urban demands. This trend brings opportunities but also
threatens livelihoods and sovereignties of marginalized
communities and indigenous peoples. Evidence based research has shown that social, ethical and cultural values
in some countries can be integrated in the commercial
mechanisms driving the evolution of food systems. Fair
trade, territorial identities and ethnic labeling are among
the options that can be considered by decision makers
who wish to promote effective measures to protect theinterests of the marginalized and revitalize rural livelihoods and food cultures. The promotion of geographic
indicators can open development opportunities basedon local resources and knowledge. They also offer opportunities for new agroenterprises such as tourism andspecialty product development, as well as for collaboration with utilities such as water companies. Substantial evidence shows that production systems dominatedby export markets can be weakened by erratic changes
and price instability on international markets. Exportoriented food systems have sparked growing concern
about the sustainability of long-distance food shipping
and about the ecological footprint and social impacts
of international trade in food products and agriculturalcommodities. Local consumption and domestic outlets
for farmers’ products, often enhanced by the desire tosustain cultural identities associated with the consumption of products identified with their territorial origin,can alleviate the risks for food security and food sovereignty inherent in international trade.

References
Abidin, P.E., F.A. van Eeuwijk, P. Stam,
P.C. Struik, M. Malosetti, R.O.M. Mwanga
et al. 2005. Adaptation and stability analysis
of sweet potato varieties for low-input systems
in Uganda. Plant Breed. 124 (5):491-497.
Adipala, E., P. Nampala, J. Karungi, and P.
Isubikalu. 2000. A review on options for
management of cowpea pests: Experiences from
Uganda. Integr. Pest Manage. Rev. 5:185-196.
Agarwal, B.D. 1979. Maize on-farm researchchapter 02.indd 119

project. 1979 Report. G.B. Pant Univ. Agric.
Tech., Uttar Pradesh, India.
Agrow World Crop Protection News. 2005. No.
474. June 17. Available at http:// .agrow.co.uk.
Agunga, R. 1995. What Ohio extension agents
say about sustainable agriculture. J. Sustain.
Agric. 5(3):169-187.
Ahmed, F.E. (ed) 1991. Seafood safety. Inst.
Med., Nat. Academy Press, Washington DC.
Ahmed, I., and V.W. Ruttan (ed) 1988.

Generation and diffusion of agricultural
innovations: The role of institutional
factors. Gower Publ., Aldershot.
AJEA. 2000. Special issue: Improving
agricultural practices and decisions. Aus. J.
Exp. Agric. 40(4):493-642.
Akca, H., M. Sayili, and A. Kurunc. 2005.
Trade-off between multifunctional
agriculture, externality and environment. J.
Appl. Sci. Res. 1:298-301.

11/3/08 10:42:56 AM

120 | IAASTD Global Report

Al-Babili, S., and P. Beyer. 2005. Golden rice
— five years on the road, five years to go?
Trends Plant Sci. 12:565-573.
Albrecht, H., H. Bergmann, G. Diederich, E.
Grosser, V. Hoffmann, P. Keller et al. 1989.
Agricultural extension: Basic concepts andmethods. Vol. 1. GTZ, Eschborn.
Albrecht, H., H. Bergman, G. Diederich,
E. Grober, V. Hofman, P. Keller et al. 1990.
Agricultural extension: Examples andbackground material. Vol. 2. BMZ/GTZ/
CTA, Eschborn.
Alene, A.D., P. Neuenschwander, V. Manyong,
O. Coulibaly, and R. Hanna. 2005. The
impact of IITA-led biological controlof major pests in sub-Saharan African
agriculture: A synthesis of milestones andempirical results. IITA, Ibadan.
Alex, G. and D. Byerlee. 2001. Monitoring andevaluation for AKIS Projects: Frameworkand options. Available at http://siteresources.
worldbank.NTARD/825826-11114006361
62/20431913/monitoringandeval.pdf. World
Bank, Washington DC.
Allaire, G. 1996. Transformation des systèmesd’innovation: Réflexions à partir desNouvelles fonctions de l’Agriculture p.1-29.
In G. Allaire, B. Hubert and A. Langlet (ed)Nouvelles fonctions de l’Agriculture et del’Espace Rural; Enjeux et défis identifiés parla recherche. INRA Ed., Toulouse.
Allegri, M. 2002. Partnership of producer andgovernment financing to reform agriculturalresearch in Uruguay. In D. Byerlee andR.G. Echeverria (ed) Agricultural researchpolicy in an era of privatization. CABI Publ.,
Wallingford.
Almekinders, C., and N. Louwaars. 1999.
Farmers’ seed production. In New
approaches and practices. Intermediate Tech.
Publ., London.
Almekinders, C., and A. Elings. 2001.
Collaboration of farmers and breeders:Participatory crop improvement inperspective. Euphytica 122:525-438.
Almekinders, C., and J. Hardon (ed) 2006.
Bringing farmers back into breeding.
Experiences with participatory plant breeding
and challenges for institutionalisation.
AgroSpecial No. 5. Agromisa, Wageningen.
Alston, J.M., and P.G. Pardey.1996. Making
science pay: The economics of agricultural
R&D policy. Am. Enterprise Inst.,
Washington DC.
Altieri, M., 1985. Developing pest management
strategies for small farmers based on
traditional knowledge. Bull. Inst. Dev.
Anthropol. 3:13-18.
Altieri, M. 1987. Agroecology: The scientificbasis of alternative agriculture. Westview
Press, Boulder.
Altieri, M. 1993. Ethnoscience and biodiversity:
key elements in the design of sustainablepest management systems for small farmers
in developing countries. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 46:257-272.

chapter 02.indd 120

Altieri, M. 1999. Applying agroecology toenhance the productivity of peasant farming
systems in Latin America. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 1:197-217.
Altieri, M. and D.K. Letourneau. 1982.
Vegetation management and biologicalcontrol in agroecosystems. Crop Prot. 1:405430.
Altieri, M., and O. Masera. 1993. Sustainable
rural development in Latin America: Building
from the bottom up. Ecol. Econ. 7:93-121.
Altieri, M., P.M. Rosset and C.I. Nicholls.
1997. Biological control and agriculturalmodernization: Towards resolution of some
contradictions. Agric. Human Values 14:303310.
Altieri, M. and C. Nicholls. 2004. Biodiversity
and pest management in agroecosystems.
Food Products Press, NY.
Amalu, U.C. 2002. Food security: Sustainable
food production in sub-Saharan Africa.
Outlook Agric. 31:177-185.
Amanor, K.K., W. de Boef, and A. Bebbington.
1993. Genetic diversity, farmer
experimentation and crop research.
p. 1-13. In W. de Boef et al. (ed) Cultivatingknowledge. Intermediate Tech. Publ.,
London.
Amilien, V. 2005. Preface: About local food.
Anthropol. Food 4.
Amin, M. and Mabe, M. 2000. Impact factors:
Use and abuse. Perspect. Publ. 1:1−6.
Anderson, J.R., G. Feder, and S. Ganguly. 2006.
The rise and fall of training and visit (T&V)
extension: An Asian mini-drama with an
African epilogue. p.149-174. In A. Van den
Ban and R.K. Samanta (ed) 2006. Changing
roles of agricultural extension in Asian
nations. B.R. Publ., Delhi.
Anderson, M. 1990. Farming with reduced
synthetic chemicals in North Carolina. Am. J.
Alternative Agric. 5(2):60-68.
Anderson, R.A., E. Levy, and B.M.
Morrison.1991. Rice science anddevelopment politics. Research strategies and
IRRI’s technologies confront Asian diversity(1950-1980). Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Annerstedt, J. 1994. Measuring science,technology and innovation. In J.-J. Salomon,
et al. (ed) The uncertain quest: Science,technology and development. UN Univ. Press,
Tokyo.
Antle, J.M., D.C. Cole, and C.C. Crissman.
1998. Further evidence on pesticides,
productivity and farmer health: Potato
production in Ecuador. Agric. Econ.
2(18):199-208.
Appleton, H. (ed) l995. Do it herself: Womenand technical innovation. Intermediate Tech.
Publ., London.
Aranjo, A.C.P. and Telles, D.L. 1999. Endosulfan
residues in Brazilian tomatoes and their impact
on public health and the environment. Bull.
Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 62:671-676.
Araya, A. 2000. Masipag farmers bring natureback to farming. Available at http://www.

cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2000_0620_01.htm. CyberDyaryo.
Arnold, E. and M. Bell. 2001. Some new ideas
about research for development. p. 279316. In Partnership at the leading edge: A
Danish vision for knowledge, research anddevelopment. Danish Min. Foreign Affairs,
Copenhagen.
Asante, S.K., and M. Tamo. 2001. Integrated
management of cowpea insect pests using
elite cultivars, date of planting and minimum
insecticide application. Afr. Crop Sci. J.
9(4):655-665.
Ascroft, J., N. Röling, J. Kariuki, and F. Wa
Chege. 1973. Extension and the forgotten
farmer. Bull. van de Afdelingen Soc.
Wetenschappen. No. 37. Wageningen
Landbouwhoseschool, Wageningen.
Ashby, J. 1986. Methodology for the participationof small farmers in the design of on‑farmtrials. Agric. Admin. Extension 22(1):1‑19.
Ashby, J. 2003. Introduction: Uniting science andparticipation in the process of innovation research for development. p. 1-19. In
B. Pound et al. (ed) Managing natural resources
for sustainable livelihoods. Uniting science andparticipation. Available at http://www.idrc.ca/
en/ev-43431-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html. IDRC,
Earthscan, UK.
Ashby, J.A., and N. Lilja. 2004. Participatory
research: Does it work? Evidence fromparticipatory breeding. In New directions fora diverse planet. Proc. 4th Int. Crop Sci. Cong.,
26 Sep - 1 Oct 2004, Brisbane. [CDROM].
Web site www.cropscience.org.au.
Aslam, A. 1996. Environment-food: Groups
blast World Bank pesticides policy. [Online].
Available at www.link.no/ips/eng/intro.html.
Inter Press Service, Washington DC.
Atanassov, A. 2004. To reach the poor. Next
harvest study on genetically modified crops,
public research and policy implications.
EPTD Disc. Pap. 116. IFPRI, Washington
DC.
Atchoarena, D., and L. Gasperini. 2002.
Education for rural development: Towards
new policy responses. FAO/IIEP-UNESCO,
Paris.
Atkinson, R.C., R.N. Beachy, G. Conway,
F.A. Cordova, M.A. Fox, K.A. Holbrook et
al. 2003. Intellectual property rights: Public
sector collaboration for IP management.
Science 301:174-175.
Atlin, G.N., M. Cooper, and Å. Bjørnstad. 2001.
A comparison of formal and participatory
breeding approaches using selection theory.
Euphytica 122:463-475.
Atteh, O.D. 1984. Nigerian farmers´ perceptionof pests and pesticides. Insect Sci. Appl.
5:213-220.
Ayalew, M., 1997. What is food security andfamine and hunger. Internet J. Afr. Studies.
Issue No. 2, Mar. Available at www.brad.
ac.uk/research/ijasno2/ayalew.html.
BAAS (British Assoc. Advancement of Science).
1999. Evidence to the House of Lords Select11/3/08 10:42:57 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 121

Committee on Science and Technology
inquiry into society’s relationship with
science. Available at http://www.publications.
parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/
ldsctech/38/3801.htm. UK Parliament, London.
Badgley, C., J. Moghtader, E. Quintero,
E. Zakem, J. Chappell, K. Avilés-Vázquez etal. 2007. Organic agriculture and the global
food supply. Renewable Agric. Food Syst.
22:86-108.
Baerselman, F. 1992. The Dutch multi-year crop
protection plan (MJP-G): A contribution
towards sustainable agriculture. p. 141-147.
In J.C. van Lenteren et al. (ed) Biologicalcontrol and integrated crop protection:
Towards environmentally safer agriculture.
Proc. Int. Conf. organized by IOBC/WPRS.
Veldhoven, Netherlands. 8-13 Sept. 1991.
PUDOC, Wageningen.
Baker, B.P., C.M. Benbrook, E. Groth, and
K. Lutz. 2002. Pesticide residues inconventional, integrated pest management(IPM)-grown and organic foods: Insights
form three US data sets. Food Additives
Contamin. 19:427-446.
Ball, J., J. Carle, and A. Del Lungo. 2005.
Contribution of poplars and willows tosustainable forestry and rural development.
Unasylva 56:3-9.
Balasubramanian, A.V., and T.D. Nirmala Devi(ed) 2006. Traditional knowledge systemsof India and Sri Lanka. Center Indian
Knowledge Syst., Chennai.
Barbier, M., and B. Lémery. 2000. Learning
through processes of change in agriculture: A
methodological framework. p. 381-393. In M.
Cerf et al. (ed) Cow up a tree: Knowing andlearning for change in agriculture, case studies
from industrialised countries. INRA Ed., Paris.
Barbottin M., M. Le Bail, and M.H. Jeuffroy,
2006. Evaluation of the Azodyn crop model
for cultivar decision support. Agron. Sustain.
Dev. 26:107-115.
Barnett, A. 2004. From ‘research’ to poverty
reducing ‘innovation’. Sussex Res. Assoc.,
Brighton.
Barrett, B., P. Marenya, J. McPeak, B. Minten,
F. Murithi, W. Oluoch-Kosura et al. 2006.
Welfare dynamics in rural Kenya andMadagascar. J. Dev. Studies 42(2)248-277.
Barsky, O. 1984. Acumulación campesina
en el Ecuador: Los productores de papadel Carchi. Facultad Latinoamericana deCiencias Sociales, Quito.
Barzman, M., and S. Desilles. 2002. Diversifying
rice-based systems and empowering farmers
in Bangladesh using the farmer field school
approach. Chapter 16. In N. Uphpoff (ed)Agroecological innovations: Increasing foodproduction with participatory development.
Earthscan, London.
Baum, W. 1986. Partners against hunger:
CGIAR, World Bank, Washington DC.
Bavec, F., and M. Bavec, 2006. Organic
production and use of alternative crops. CRC
Press, Atlanta.

chapter 02.indd 121

Bawden, R. 1995. On the systems dimension of
FSR. J. Farming Syst. Res. Extension 5(2):119.
Bawden, R.J. and, R. Packam. 1993. Systemic
praxis in the education of the agricultural
systems practitioner. Systemic Practice
Actions Res. 6:7-19.
Beal, G.M., W. Dissanayake, and S. Konoshima(ed) 1986. Knowledge generation, exchange
and utilization. Westview Press, Boulder.
Bebbington, A., and G. Thiele (ed) 1993.
Non-governmental organizations and theState in Latin America: Rethinking roles
in sustainable agriculture development.
Routledge, London.
Bebbington, A., D. Lewis, S. Batterbury,
E. Olson, and M.S. Siddiqi. 2007. Of
texts and practices: Empowerment andorganisational cultures in World Bank-funded
rural development programmes. J. Dev.
Studies 43(4):597-621.
Beck, U., A. Giddens, and S. Lash. 1994.
Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition
and aesthetics in the modern social order.
Polity Press, Cambridge.
Beintema, N., and G-J. Stads. 2006. Agricultural
R&D investments in sub-Saharan Africa: An
era of stagnation. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Bell, R.W. 2004. Importance of micronutrientsin crop nutrition. IFA Int. Symp. on
Micronutrients New Delhi. 23-25 Feb 2004.
Int. Fertilizer Industry Assoc.
Bellon, M.R. 1996. The dynamics of crop
infraspecific diversity: A conceptual frameworkat the farmer level. Econ. Bot. 50:26-39.
Bellon, M.R., J.L. Pham, and M.T. Jackson.
1997. Genetic conservation: a role for rice
farmers. p. 263-289. In N. Maxted et al. (ed)Plant conservation: The in situ approach.
Chapman and Hall, London.
Bellows, T.S., and T.W. Fisher (ed) 1999.
Handbook of biological control. Academic
Press, San Diego.
Benbrook, C. 2004. Genetically engineered crops
and pesticide use in the United States: The
first nine years. BioTech Infonet Tech. Pap.
7. Available at http://www.biotech-info.net/
Full_version_first_nine.pdf.
Benoit-Cattin, M. 1991. Ideological andinstitutional antecedents of the new
agricultural policy. p. 59-68. In C. Delgado, S.
Jammeh (ed) The political economy of Senegal
under structural adjustment. Praeger, NY.
Benor, D., J.Q. Harrison, and M. Baxter. 1984.
Agricultural extension: The training and visit
system. The World Bank, Washington DC.
Bentley, J.W. 1994. Fact, fantasies and failures of
farmers participatory research. Agric. Human
Values 11(2-3):140-150.
Bérard, L., and P. Marchenay. 1995. Tradition,
regulation and intellectual property: local
agricultural products and foodstuffs inFrance. p. 230-243. In S.B. Brush,
D. Stabinsky (ed) Valuing local knowledge.
Indigenous people and intellectual property
rights. Island Press, Washington DC.

Berdahl, R. 2000. The privatization of public
universities. Lecture presented at Erfurt Univ.
Erfurt, Germany. 23 May 2000. Available at
http://cio.chance.berkeley.edu/chancellor/sp/
privatization.htm. Univ. California Regents,
Berkeley.
Berger, P.L., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The social
construction of reality: A treatise in thesociology of knowledge. Doubleday, NY.
Berkes, F., and C. Folke (ed) 1998. Linkingsocial and ecological systems. Management
practices and social mechanisms for building
resilience. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Bern, C., B. Hernandez, M.B. Lopez,
M.J. Arrowood, M. Alvarez de Mejia,
A.M. De Merida et al. 1999. Epidemiologic
studies of Cyclospora cayetanensis in
Guatemala. Emerging Infect. Dis. 5:766-74.
Bettles, F. 1980. Women’s access to agriculturalextension services in Botswana. Min. Agric.,
Dept. of Land Services, Gaberone.
Bhowmik Prasanta, C. 1999. Herbicides inrelation to food security and environment:
A global perspective. Ind. J. Weed Sci.
31(3,4):111.
Biggs, M. 1990. The impact of peer review on
intellectual freedom. Library Trends 39(12):145-167.
Biggs, S.D. 1978. Planning rural technologies in
the context of social structures and reward
systems. J. Agric. Econ. 24(3):257-274.
Biggs, S.D. 1980. On‑farm research in
an integrated agricultural technology
development system: A case study of triticale
for the Himalayan Hills. Agric. Admin.
7(2):133‑145.
Biggs, S.D. 1982. Generating agricultural
technology: Triticale for the Himalayan Hills.
Food Policy 7(1):69‑82.
Biggs, S.D. 1983. Monitoring and control in
agricultural research systems: Maize inNorthern India. Res. Policy 12:37‑59.
Biggs, S.D. 1989. Resource-poor farmers
participation in research: A synthesis ofexperiences from nine national agriculturalresearch systems. OFCOR Comparative
Study Pap. 3. ISNAR, The Hague.
Biggs, S.D. 1995. Participatory technology
development: A critique of the new
orthodoxy. AVOCADO Series 06/95. Olive
Org. Dev. Training, Durban.
Biggs, S. 2006. Learning from the positive
to reduce rural poverty: Institutionalinnovations in agricultural and natural
resources research and development. Impact
Assessment Workshop. 19-21 Oct 2005.
CIMMYT, Mexico.
Biggs, S., and J. Farrington. 1991. Agriculturalresearch and the rural poor. A review ofsocial science analysis. IDRC. Ottawa.
Bigler F., D. Babendreier, and U. Kuhlmann. (ed)2006. Environmental impact of invertebrates
for biological control of Arthropods: Methods
and risk assessment. CABI, Wallingford.
Bills, P.S., D. Mota-Sanchez, and M. Whalon.
2003. Background to the resistance database.

11/3/08 10:42:57 AM

122 | IAASTD Global Report

Available at www.cips.msu.edu/resistance.
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing MI.
Bindraban, P., and R. Rabbinge. 2005.
Development perspectives for agriculture in
Africa: Technology on the shelf is inadequate.
North-South Disc. Pap. WUR, Wageningen.
Bingen, J. 2003. Pesticides, politics and pest
management: Toward a political ecology of
cotton in Sub-Saharan Africa. p. 111-126. In
W.G. Moseley and B.I. Logan (ed) African
environment and development: Rhetoric,programs, realities. Ashgate Publ., Aldershot,UK.
Bingen, R.J., and D.W. Brinkerhoff. 2000.
Agricultural research in Africa and theSustainable Financing Initiative. Tech. Pap.
112. Office Sustain. Dev. Bur. Africa. USAID,
Washington DC.
Blackburn, D.J. (ed) 1994. Extension handbook:
Processes and practices for change
professionals. Uni­v. Guelph, Ontario.
Blackmore, C.P., R. Ison and J. Jiggins (ed)2007. Social learning: an alternative policy
instrument for managing in the context ofEurope’s water. Special Issue. Environ. Sci.
Policy 10(6):493-586.
Blandford, D., and R.N. Boisvert. 2002.
Multifunctional agriculture and domestic/
international policy choice. Estey Centre J.
Int. Law Trade Pol. 3:106-118.
Blobaum, R. 1983. Barriers to conversion toorganic farming practices in the Midwestern
United States. p. 263-278. In W. Lockeretz(ed) Environmentally sound agriculture.
Praeger Publ., NY.
Blobaum, R. 1997. Publicly funded models
supporting sustainable agriculture: Fourmodel profiles. Chapter 12. p. 193-203.
In J. Madden, S. Chaplowe (ed) For all
generations: Making world agriculture moresustainable. OM Publ., Glendale CA.
Blokker, K., S. Bruin, J. Bryden, I. Houseman,
C. Okkerse, C. Van Der Meer et al. 1990.
Agricultural policy and strategic investment
in information technology. Knowled. Tech.
Policy 3(3):76-83.
BOA (Board on Agriculture). 1995. Colleges ofagriculture in the land grant universities: A
profile. Nat. Academy Press, Washington DC.
Boettner, G., J. Elkinton, and C. Boet. 2000.
Effects of a biological control introduction
on three non-target native species of saturnid
moths. Conserv. Biol. 14:1998-1806.
Bok, D. 2003. Universities in the marketplace.
The commercialization of higher education.
Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton NJ.
Bokonon-Ganta, A.H., H. de Groote, and
P. Neuenschwander. 2002. Socio-economic
impact of biological control of mango
mealybug in Benin. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
93:367-378. Available at http://www2.
hawaii.edu/~messing/Publications/Impact%20
mango%20mealybug%20biocontrol.pdf
Bonneuil, C., and E. Demeulenaere. 2007. Vers
une génétique de pair à pair ? L’émergencede la sélection participative. p. 122-147.
In F. Charvolin et al. (ed) Des sciences

chapter 02.indd 122

citoyennes? La question de l’amateur dansles sciences naturalistes. Available at http://
www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/demeu/
pdfs/BONNEUIL_DEMEULENAERE2007_
in_Charvolin.pdf. Ed. de l’Aube, La Tourd’Aigues.
Bookchin, M. 1990. Remaking society: Pathways
to a green future. South End Press, Boston.
Bordons, M., and I. Gómez. 2002. Advantages
and limitations in the use of impact factor
measures for the assessment of research
perfomance in a peripherical country.
Scientometrics 53:195-206.
Borrini-Feyerband, G., M. Pimbert, M.T. Farvar,
A. Kothari, and Y. Renard. 2004. Sharing
power. Learning by doing in co-managementof natural resources throughout the world.
IIED and IUCN/CEESP/CMWG, Paris.
Bourdieu, P. 1988. Homo academicus. Stanford
Univ. Press, CA.
Borlaug, N.E., and C.R. Dowswell. 1995.
Mobilising science and technology to get
agriculture moving in Africa. Dev. Policy Rev.
13(2):115-29.
Boven, K. and J. Mordhashi (ed) 2002. Bestpractices using indigenous knowledge.
Available at http://www.unesco.org/most/
Bpikpub2.pdf. NUFFIC, The Hague and
UNESCO/MOST, Paris.
Boyce, J.K., P. Rosset, and E.A. Stanton. 2005.
Land reform and sustainable development.
Working Pap. Ser. 98. Available at http://
www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/
working_papers/working_papers_51-100/
WP98.pdf. Political Econ. Res. Inst., Univ.
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Braun, A. 2006. Inventory of farmer study group
initiatives in Africa. A synthesis report.
ENDELEA (SIDA), Wageningen.
Braun, A.R., J. Jiggins, N. Roling, H. van den
Berg, P. Snijders. 2006. A global survey andreview of farmer field school experiences.
Available at http://www.infobridge.org/asp/
documents/1880.pdf. ILRI (ENDELEA),
Wageningen.
Brennan, M., C. Pray, A. Naseem, andJ.F.Oehmke. 2005. An innovation market
approach to analyzing impacts of mergers
and acquisitions in the plant biotechnology
industry. AgBioForum 8:89-99.
Breusers, M. 1998. On the move. Mobility, land
use and livelihood practices on the Central
Plateau in Burkina Faso. Publ. PhD thesis.
Agric. Univ., Wageningen.
Brewer, M.J., R.J. Hoard, J.N. Landis, andL.E. Elworth. 2004. The case andopportunity for public-supported financial
incentives to implement integrated pest
management. J. Econ. Entomol. 97(6):1784.
Brewster, A.L., A.R. Chapman, and S.A. Hansen.
2005. Facilitating humanitarian access topharmaceutical and agricultural revolution.
Innovation Strategy Today 1(3):203-216.
BRF (Federal Institute for Risk Assessment ofGermany). 2004. The return of the germs.
Available at http://www.bgvv.de/cms5w/
sixcms/detail.php/4217.

Bridges, D. (ed) 1992. Crop losses due to weeds
in Canada and the United States. Weed Sci.
Soc. Amer., Champaign IL.
Brimblecombe, P. and C. Pfister. 1993. The
silent countdown: Essays in European
environmental history. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Briolini, G.1992. IPM in Italy with particularreference to the Emilia-Romagna region.
p. 181-186. In: J.C. van Lenteren et al.
(ed) Biological control and integrated crop
protection: Towards environmentally safer
agriculture. Proc. Int. Conf. Veldhoven,
Netherlands. 8-13 Sept. 1991. PUDOC,
Wageningen.
Broad, R. 2006. Research, knowledge, and theart of paradigm maintenance: The WorldBank’s Development Economics VicePresidency (DEC). Rev. Int. Politic. Econ.
13(3):387-419.
Brouwer, F. (ed) 2004. Sustainable agriculture
and the rural environment: Governance,
policy and multifunctionality. Edward Elgar
Publ., Northampton MA.
Brouwer, J., L. Fussell and L. Hermann. 1993.
Soil and crop growth micro-variability in theWest African semi-arid tropics: A possiblerisk-reducing factor for subsistence farmers.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 45:229-238.
Brouwers, J.H.A.M. 1993. Rural people’s
response to soil fertility decline: The Adjacase (Benin). Publ. PhD thesis. WAU Pap.
93/94. Wageningen Univ., Wageningen.
Brown, A.H.D. 2000. The genetic structure ofcrop landraces and the challenge to conserve
them in situ on farms. p. 29-48. In S.B. Brush(ed.) Genes in the field: On-farm conservationof crop diversity. Int. Dev. Res. Center Plant
Genetic Resour. Inst. Lewis Publ., US.
Brown, B.J., and G.G. Marten. 1986. The
ecology of traditional pest management insoutheast Asia. Working Pap., East-WestCenter, Honolulu.
Bruinsma, J. (ed) 2003. World agriculture:
Towards 2015/2030 — An FAO Perspective.
FAO, Rome.
Brush S., 1991. A farmer-based approach toconserving crop germplasm. Econ. Bot.
45:153-165.
Brush, S.B. 2003. The demise of ’common
heritage’ and protection for traditional
agricultural knowledge. Available at
http://law.wustl.edu/centeris/Confpapers/
PDFWrdDoc/StLouis1.pdf. Washington
Univ., St. Louis.
Brush, S.B. 2005. Farmer’s rights and protectionof traditional agricultural knowledge. CAPRi
Working Pap. 36. Available at http://www.capri.cgiar.org. CGIAR, Washington DC.
Brush, S.B, M.B. Corrales, and E. Schmidt. 1988.
Agricultural development and maize diversity
in Mexico. Human Ecol. 16(3):307-328.
Buck, L. 1990. Planning agro-forestry extension
projects: The CARE international approachin Kenya. p. 101-131. In W.W. Budd etal. (ed) Planning for agroforestry. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.

11/3/08 10:42:58 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 123

Buck, L.E., J.P. Lassoie, E.C.M. Fernandes (ed)1998. Agroforestry in sustainable agricultural
systems. Lewis Publ., CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Buck, L.E., C.G. Geisler, J.W. Schelhas, and E.
Wollenberg (ed) 2001. Biological diversity:
Balancing interests though adaptive
collaborative Management. CRC Press, Boca
Raton.
Budd, W.W., I. Duchart, L. Hardesty, and F.
Steiner. 1990. Planning for agroforestry.
Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Bunch, R. 1982. Two ears of corn: A guide topeople-centered agricultural improvement.
World Neighbors, Oklahoma City.
Bunch, R., and G.V. Lopez. 1994. Soilrecuperation in Central America: Measuring
the impact four and forty years after
intervention. IIED, London.
Bunyatta, D.K., J.G. Mureithi, C.A. Onyango,
and F.U. Ngesa. 2005. Farmer field school as
an effective methodology for disseminating
agricultural technologies: Up-scaling of soil
amange,ent technoogies in Trans-Nzoia
District, Kenya. p. 515-526. In Proc. 21stAnn. Conf. Assoc. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. San
Antonio TX.
Busch, L., R. Allison, C. Harris, A. Rudy,
B.T. Shaw, T.T en Eyck et al. 2004. External
review of the collaborative research
agreement between Novartis Agricultural
Discovery Institute, Inc. and The Regentsof the Univ. California. Inst. Food Agric.
Standards, Michigan State Univ., East
Lansing.
Buvinic, M., and N. Youssef. 1978. Women
headed households: The ignored factor indevelopment planning. Rep. Off. Women
Dev., USAID, Washington DC.
Bye, R.A. 1981. Quelities: ethnoecology ofedible greens — past, present and future. J.
Ethnobiol. 1:109-114.
Byerlee, D. 1992. Technical change, productivity
and sustainability in irrigated cropping
systems of South-Asia: Emerging issues in
the post-green revolution era. J. Int. Dev.
4(5):477-496.
Byerlee, D. 1998. The search for a new paradigm
for the development of national agriculturalresearch systems. World Dev. 26(6):1049-1055.
Byerlee, D., and G.E. Alex. 1998. Strengthening
national agricultural research systems,
policy issues and good practice. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Byerlee, D., and R. Echeverria (ed) 2002.
Agricultural research policy in an era ofprivatization. CABI Publ., UK.
Cahill, C. 2001. The multifunctionality ofagriculture: What does it mean? EuroChoices
1(1):36-41.
Calvora, R.G. 1988. Science in its confrontation
with society. Impact of Sci. Society
38(151):231-238.
Campbell, A. 1992. Taking the long view intough times: Landcare in Australia. Third
Annual Rep. Nat. Landcare Facilitator. Nat.
Soil Conserv. Prog., Canberra.
Campbell, A. 1994. Landcare. Communities

chapter 02.indd 123

shaping the land and the future. Allan and
Unwin, St. Leonards, Australia.
CAP (Center for American Progress)/OMB
Watch. 2004. Special interest takeover: The
Bush administration and the dismantlingof public safeguards [Online]. Available at
http://www.sensiblesafeguards.org/pdfs/
finalreport.pdf. CAP and OMB Watch,
Washington DC.
Carloni, A. 1983. Integration of women in
agricultural projects. Case studies of ten
FAO-assisted field projects. FAO, Rome.
Carney, J. (ed) 1993. Low input sustainableagriculture in Cuba. Special Issue. Agric.
Human Values 10:3.
Carr, S.J. 1989. Technology for small sclae
farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Tech. pap.
109. The World Bank, Washington DC.
Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton
Mifflin, Boston.
Castells, M. 1993. The university system: Engine
of development in the new world economy.
In A. Ransom et al. (ed) Improving higher
education in developing countries. Econ. Dev.
Inst. Seminar Ser. World Bank, Washington
DC.
Castleman, B. and R. Lemen. 1998. The
manipulation of international scientificorganizations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health
4:53-55.
Cate, J.R., and M.K. Hinkle. 1994. Integrated
Pest Management: The path of a paradigm.
Nat. Audubon Soc., Washington DC.
Cattaneo, M.G., C. Yafuso, C.Schmidt,
C. Huang, M.Rahman, C. Olson et al. 2006.
Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts oftransgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide
use and yield. PNAS 103:7571-7576.
CBD. 1994. Convention on Biological Diversity,
UNEP/CBD/94/1. Secretariat CBD, Montreal.
CEC (Comm. Environ.Cooperation). 2004.
Maize and biodiversity: The effects oftransgenic maize in Mexico. Available at
http://www.cec.org/maize/.
Ceccarelli, S., S. Grando, R. Tutwiler, J. Baha,
A.M. Martini, H. Salahieh et al. 2000. A
methodological study on participatory barley
breeding. I. Selection phase. Euphytica
111:91-104.
Ceccarelli, S., S. Grando, A. Amri, T.A. Asad,
A. Benbelkacem, M. Ilarrabi et al. 2001a.
Decentralized and participatory plant
breeding for marginal environments. p.115136. In D. Cooper et al. (ed) Broadening
the genetic base of crop production. CABI,
Wallingford.
Ceccarelli, S., S. Grando, E. Bailey, A. Amri,
M. El-Felah, F. Nassif et al. 2001b. Farmer
participation in barley breeding in Syria,
Morocco and Tunisia. Euphytica 122:521-536.
Ceccarelli, S., D.A. Cleveland, and D. Soleri.
2002. Farmers, scientists and plant breeding.
Integrating knowledge and practice. Univ.
California Press, Santa Barbara.
Ceccarelli, S., S. Grando, M. Singh, M. Michael,
A. Shikho, M. Al Issa et al. 2003. A
methodological study on participatory barley

breeding II. Response to selection. Euphytica
133:185-200.
Ceccarelli, S., and S. Grando. 2007.
Decentralized-participatory plant breeding:
An example of demand driven research.
Euphytica 155:349-360.
Cernea, M.M., and A. Kassam (ed) 2006.
Researching the culture of agri-culture:
Social science research for international
development. CABI, UK.
Cernea, M. 1994. Sociology, anthropology anddevelopment: An annotated bibliography ofWorld Bank Publications 1975-1993. World
Bank, ESD Mono. Ser. 3. Washington DC.
CGIAR. 2000. Equity, well-being and ecosystem
health. Participatory research for natural
resource management. CGIAR Prog.
Participatory Res. Gender Analysis. CIAT, Cali.
CGIAR. 2001. Designing and implementing
challenge programmes. Rep. CGIAR Interim
Exec. Council. 30 Aug 2001. CGIAR,
Washington DC.
CGIAR TAC. 2000. An evaluation of the impact
of integrated pest management research atinternational agricultural research centres.
FAO. Rome.
Chabi-Olaye, A., C. Nolte, F. Schulthess, andC. Borgemeister. 2005. Relationships ofintercropped maize, stem borer damage tomaize yield and land-use efficiency in thehumid forest of Cameroon. Bull. Entomol.
Res. 95:417-427.
Chacon, J.C., and S.R. Gliessman. 1982. Use of
the non-weed concept in traditional tropicalagroecosystems of south-eastern Mexico.
Agroecosystems 8:1-11.
Chambers, R. 1974. Managing rural development.
Scand. Inst. Afr. Studies, Uppsala.
Chambers, R. 1981. Rapid rural appraisal:
Rationale and repertoire. Public Admin. Dev.
1:95‑106.
Chambers, R. 1983. Rural development: Putting
the last first. Longman, London.
Chambers, R., and M. Howes. 1979. Rural
development: Whose knowledge counts? IDS
Bull. 10(2).
Chambers, R., and B.P. Ghildyal. 1985.
Agricultural research for resource-poor
farmers: the farmer-first-and-last model.
Agric. Admin. Ext. 20:1-30.
Chambers, R., and J. Jiggins. 1986. Agriculturalresearch for resource-poor farmers: A
parsimonious paradigm. IDS Disc. Pap. 220.
Inst. Dev. Studies, Brighton (Sussex).
Chapagain, A.K., and A.Y. Hoekstra. 2003.
Virtual water flows between nations inrelation to trade in livestock ad livestock
products. Value Water Res. Rep. Ser. 13.
UNESCO-IHE, Delft.
Chaplowe, S.G. 1997a. CLADES: Latin
American consortium on agroecology andsustainable development. p. 275-283. In
S. Chaplowe, and J. Madden (ed) For all
generations: Making world agriculture moresustainable. OM Publ., Glendale CA.
Chaplowe, S.G. 1997b. Non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) in sustainable

11/3/08 10:42:58 AM

124 | IAASTD Global Reportagriculture. p. 205-232. In J. Madden,
S. Chaplowe (ed) For all generations: Making
world agriculture more sustainable. OM
Publ., Glendale CA.
Chaturvedi, S. 2008. Agricultural biotechnology
and trends in IPR regime: Emerging
challenges before developing countries. In
D. Casle (ed) The role of intellectual property
rights in biotechnology innovation. Center
for Intellectual Protection Policy, Edward
Elgar, Toronto.
Chaudhry, R., S.B. Lall, B. Mishra, andB. Dhawan. 1998. A foodborne outbreak oforganophosphate poisoning: Indiscriminate
use of organophosphates without public
education on safety increases the potential
threat of foodborne outbreaks of poisoning.
Brit. Med. J. 317:268-269.
Chema, S., E. Gilbert, and J. Roseboom. 2003.
A review of key issues and recent experiencesin reforming agricultural research in Africa.
Res. Rep. 24. ISNAR, The Hague.
Chiffoleau, Y., and F. Dreyfus. 2004. Cognitive
styles and networks patterns: a combined
approach of learning processes in sustainableagriculture. Proc. 6th IFSA Eur. Symp.
Farming and rural systems research andextension. European farming and society insearch of a new social contract learning tomanage change. Int. Farming System Assoc.
(IFSA), Vila Real, Portugal.
Chiwona-Karltun, L. 2001. A reason to be
bitter. Cassava classification for the farmers’
perspective. Publ. PhD thesis. Karolinska
Institutet, Stockholm.
Chopra, M. 2004. Food security, ruraldevelopment and health equity in Southern
Africa. Equinet Disc. Pap. 22. Available
at http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/
d0001067/index.php. Equinet Africa.
Christopolos, I., J. Farrington, and A.D. Kidd.
2000. Extension, poverty and vulnerability:
Inception report of the study for the Neuchatel
Initiative. Working Pap. 144. ODI, London.
Christou, P., and R. Twyman. 2004. The potentialof genetically enhanced plants to address foodinsecurity. Nutr. Res. Rev. 17:23-42.
Christy, R., and L. Williamson (ed) 1992. A
century of service: Land-grant colleges andtheir universities, 1890-1990. Transaction
Publ., New Brunswick and London.
Chunyanuwat, P. 2005. Thailand Country
Report. In Proc. Asia Workshop on the
Implementation, Monitoring and Observanceof the Int. Code of Conduct on theDistribution and Use of Pesticides. Available
at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/af340e/
af340e0l.htm#bm21. FAO, Rome.
CIAT. 2001. An exchange of experiencesfrom South and South East Asia. Proc.
Int. Symp. Participatory Plant Breeding
and Participatory Plant Genetic Resource
Enhancement. Pokhara, Nepal 1-5 May
2000. CIAT, Cali.
CIMMYT. 2002. New maize varieties offers
economic lifeline for poor farmers.
CIMMYT, Mexico.

chapter 02.indd 124

CIPP. 2004. Agricultural biotechnology andintellectual property: A new framework.
Centre for Intellectual Property Policy,
Canada.
CIPR. 2002. Integrating intellectual property
rights and development policy. Commiss.
Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR), London.
City and County of San Francisco. 2007. City
and County of San Francisco Municipal
Environ. Code Ordinance 159-07, File
Number 070411, Approved July 3, 2007.
Municipal Code Corporation, FL. Available
at http://www.municode.com/Resources/
gateway.asp?pid=14134&sid=5
Clapp, J. 1997. Adjustment and agriculture in
Africa: Farmers, the state and the WorldBank in Guinea. St Martin’s Press, NY.
Clark, B.R. 1983. The higher education system.
Academic organization in cross-national
perspective. Univ. California Press, Berkeley.
Clark, B.R. 1995. Places of inquiry: Research
and advanced education in modern
universities. Univ. California Press, Berkeley.
Cleveland, D.A., D. Soleri, and S.E. Smith.
1994. Do folk crop varieties have a role insustainable agriculture? Incorporating folk
varieties into the development of locally
based agriculture may be the best approach.
Bioscience 44:740-751.
Cleveland, D.A., and D. Soleri. 2002. Farmers,scientists and plant breeding: Integratingknowledge and practice. CABI Publ., UK.
Clover, J. 2003. Food security in Sub-SaharanAfrica. Afr. Security Rev. 12(1):5-15.
CNN. 2002. Death sentence over Chinese
poisonings. 30 Sept. Available at http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/09/30/
china.poison.
Cochrane, W.W. 1958. Farm prices, myth andreality. Univ. of Minn. Press, Minneapolis.
Cohen, J. 2005. Poorer nations turn to publicly
developed GM crops. Nature Biotech 23:27-33.
Cohn, A., J. Cook, M. Fernandez, R. Reider,and C. Steward (ed) 2006. Agroecology
and the struggle for food sovereignty in
the Americas. Available at http://www.iied.
org/pubs/pdf/full/14506IIED.pdf. Yale Sch.
Forest. Environ. Studies, New Haven and
IIED, London.
Colchester, M. 1994. Salvaging nature,indigenous peoples, protected areas andbiodiversity conservation. DP 55. UNRISD,
Geneva.
Cole, D.C., F. Carpio, and N. Leon. 2000.
Economic burden of illness from pesticide
poisonings in highland Ecuador. Pan Am.
Rev. Public Health 8:196-201.
Cole, D.C., S. Sherwood, C. Crissman, V.
Barrera, and P. Espinosa. 2002. Pesticides
and health in highland Ecuadorian
potato production: Assessing impacts anddeveloping responses. Int. J. Occup. Environ.
Health 8(3):182-190.
Cole, D.C., S. Sherwood, M. Paredes, L.H.
Sanin, C. Crissman, P. Espinosa et al. 2007.
Reducing pesticide exposure and associatedneurotoxic burden in an Ecuadorian small

farm population. Int. J. Occup Environ.
Health 13:281-289.
Collinson, M. (ed) 2000. A history of farming
systems research. FAO, Rome and CABI
Publ., Wallingford.
Combs, G.F., R.M. Welch, J.M. Duxbury,
N.T. Uphoff, and M.C. Mesheim (ed)1996. Food-based approaches to prevent
micronutrient malnutrition: An international
research agenda. CIIFAD, Ithaca NY.
Compton, J.L. (ed) 1989. The transformationof internation­al agricultural research anddevelopment. Lynne Riener Publ., Boulder.
Conner, A.J., T.R. Glare, and J.P. Nap. 2003.
The release of genetically modified crops
into the environment. Part II. Overview of
ecological risk assessment. Plant J. 33:19-46.
Conway, G. 1994. Sustainability in agriculturaldevelopment: Trade-offs between
productivity, stability and equitability. J.
Farming Syst. Res. Extension 4(2):1-14.
Cook, S.D.N., and J.S. Brown. 1999. Bridging
epistemologies: The generative dance between
organizational knowledge and organizational
knowing. Org. Sci. 10(4):381-400.
Cooke, B., and U. Kothari (ed) 2001.
Participation: The new tyranny. Zed Books.
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S.
Farber, S. Grasso, B. Hannon et al. 1997. The
value of the world´s ecosystem services andnatural capital. Nature 387:253-260.
Coulombe, S., J.F. Tremblay, and S. Marchand.
2004. Literacy scores, human capital andgrowth across fourteen OECD countries. Int.
Adult Literacy Survey Mono. Ser. Statistics
Canada, Ottawa.
Coutts, J.R., K. Roberts, F. Frost, and A. Coutts.
2005. The role of extension in building
capacity - what works and why. Rep.
r05/094. Available at http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/HCC/05-094.pdf. Rur. Ind. Res.
Dev. Corp., Canberra.
Cox, G.W., and M.D. Atkins. 1979. Agricultural
ecology. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.
CropLife. 2003. Integrated Pest Management - theway forward for the plant science industry.
Available at http://www.croplife.org/library/attachments/2312df21-ae73-4921-a54e-df06778bf4f5/5/IPM-The-Way-Forward-(Dec-2004).pdf. Croplife Int., Brussels.
CropLife. 2005a. The value of herbicides in US
crop production: 2005 Update. Available at
http://croplifefoundation.org/cpri_benefits_herbicides.htm. Croplife Int., Brussels.
CropLife. 2005b. The value of fungicides in US
crop production: 2005 Update. Available at
http://croplifefoundation.org/cpri_benefits_fungicides.htm. Croplife Int., Brussels.
CropLife. 2006. Creating opportunities forsustainable development. CropLife Int.,
Brussels, Belgium.
Crosson, P., and J.R. Anderson. 2002.
Technologies for meeting future global
demands for food. Disc. Pap. 02-02
Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
Crow, J.F. 1998. 90 years ago: The beginning of
hybrid maize. Genetics 148:923-928.

11/3/08 10:42:59 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 125

Crozier, M., and E. Friedberg. 1980. Actors
and systems, the politics of collective action.
Chicago Univ. Press, IL.
CSPI. 2005. Food safety around the world.
Available at http://www.elika.net/pub_articulos_i.asp?tipo=&articulo=137#abajo.
CSPI, Washington DC.
Dalrymple, D. 1986. Development and spreadof high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice inthe less-developed nations. For. Agric. Econ.
Rep. 95. USDA, Washington DC.
Dalrymple, D. 2006. Impure public goods andagricultural research: Toward a blend oftheory and practice. Q. J. Int. Agric. 45:7581.
Danaher, K. (ed) 1994. Fifty years is enough: Thecase against the World Bank and the IMF.
Southend Press, Boston.
Darré, J.P. 1985. La parole et la technique:
L’univers de pensée des éleveurs du Ternois.
Ed. L’Harmattan, Paris.
Darré, J.P. 1995. L’invention des pratiques.
Karthala, Paris.
Darré, J.P. 1999. La Production de connaissancepour l’action. INRA. Editions de la Maisondes sciences de l’homme, Paris.
Dauber. R., M. Cain (ed) 1981. Women andtechnological change in developing countries.
Westview Press, Denver.
Dayal, I., K. Mathur, M. Battacharaya. 1976.
District Administration. Macmillan, New
Delhi.
De Boef, W. 2000. Tales of the unpredictable.
Learning about institutional frameworks
that support farmer management of agrobiodiversity. Publ. PhD thesis. Wageningen
Univ., Wageningen.
De Boef, W., K. Amanor, and K. Welland, with
A. Bebbington. 1993. Cultivating knowledge.
Genetic diversity, farmer experimentationand crop research. IT Publ., London.
De Grassi, A. 2003. Genetically modified crops
and sustainable poverty alleviation in SubSaharan Africa: An assessment of current
evidence. Available at http://www.twn.org.
Third World Network Africa.
De Groote, H., O. Ajuonua, S. Attignona,
R. Djessoub, and P. Neuenschwander. 2003.
Economic impact of biological control ofwater hyacinth in Southern Benin. Ecol.
Econ. 45(1):105-117.
De Haan, H., and N. Long (ed) 1997. Images
and realities of rural life. Van Gorcum, The
Netherlands.
de Janvry, A., and J.-J. Dethier. 1985.
Technological innovation in agriculture The Political economy of its rate and bias.
CGIAR Study Pap. No. 1. Washington DC.
DeBach, P. 1964. Biological control of insect pests
and weeds. Chapman and Hall, London.
DeBach, P. 1974. Biological control by natural
enemies. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
DeBach, P. and D. Rosen. 1991. Biologicalcontrol by natural enemies. 2nd ed.
Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Deere, C.D., and M.L. de Leal. 1982. Women in
Andean agriculture. ILO, Geneva.

chapter 02.indd 125

DeGregori, T. 2001. Agriculture and modern
technology: A defense. Iowa State Press andBlackwell Sci., Ames.
Delanty, G. 2001. Challenging knowledge. The
university in the knowledge society. The
Society for Res. into Higher Educ. Open
Univ. Press, Buckingham.
Dent, D. 2005. Overview of agrobiologicals andalternatives to synthetic pesticides. In J. Pretty(ed) The pesticide detox: Towards a moresustainable agriculture. Earthscan, London.
Dent, J.B., and M.J. McGregor (ed) 1994. Ruraland farming systems analysis. CABI, UK.
De Vries, B. 2000. Multifunctional agriculture in
the international context: A review. Available
at http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/
mba/MFAReview.pdf. The Land Stewardship
Project.
Desneux, N., A. Decourtye, and J.M. Delpuech.
2007. The sublethal effects of pesticides on
beneficial arthropods. Ann. Rev. Entomol.
52:81-106.
DFID. 2002. Better livelihoods for poor
people: The role of agriculture. Available
at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/
agricultureconsult.pdf. DFID, London.
DFID. 2004. Concentration in food and retailchains. Available at http://dfid-agricultureconsultation.nri.org/summaries/wp13.pdf.
DFID and IIED, London.
DFID. 2005. Growth and poverty reduction: The
role of agriculture. Available at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/growth-poverty-agriculture.pdf. DFID, London.
DHC (UK Department of Health Compensation).
2001. Scheme for variant CJD victims
announced. London, Oct. 1. Press release
2001/0457. DHC, London.
Dilts, R. 1999. Facilitating the emergence of
local institutions: Reflections from theexperience of the Community IPM Programin Indonesia. p. 50-65. Report of the APO
Study meeting on the role of institutions inrural community development. Colombo. 2129 Sept. 1998.
Dimitri, C., A. Effland, and N. Conklin. 2005.
The 20th century transformation of U.S.
agriculture and farm policy. Electronic
Inform. Bull. No. 3, June 2005.
Dinham, B. 1993.The Pesticide Hazard: A
Global Health and Environmental Audit. Zed
Books, London.
Dinham, B. 1995. 10 years of FAO Code fails to
reduce hazard problems. Available at http://
www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn28/pn28p6b.htm. Pesticide News No. 28.
Dinham, B. 2003. Growing vegetables indeveloping countries for local urban
populations and export markets: problems
confronting small-scale producers. Pest
Manage. Sci. 59:575-582.
Dinham, B. 2005. Corporations and pesticides,
p. 55-69. In J. Pretty (ed) Pesticide detox:
Towards a more sustainable agriculture.
Earthscan, London.
Dinham, B. 2007. Pesticide users at risk:
Survey of availability of personal protective

clothing when purchasing paraquat in China,
Indonesia and Pakistan and failures to meetthe standards of the Code of Conduct. Berne
Declaration, Switzerland. Available at http://
www.evb.ch/cm_data/Paraquat-Code_
Survey_FINAL_rev1.pdf
Dixon, J., A. Gulliver, D. Gibbon. 2001. Farming
systems and poverty: Improving farmers’
livelihoods in a changing world. FAO, Rome.
Dolberg, F., and P.H. Petersen (ed) 1997.
Maximising the influence of the user:
Alternatives to the training and visit
system. Proc. Workshop. 7-11 April Tune
Landboskole. Denmark. DSR Forlag,
Copenhagen.
Dollacker, A. 2000. Implementing sustainableagriculture: Practical approaches to IPM.
Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer53(2-3):198.
Dollacker, A. and C. Rhodes. 2007. Integrated
crop productivity and biodiversity
conservation pilot initiatives developed byBayer CropScience. Crop Prot. 26:408-416.
Döller, P.C, K. Dietrich, N. Fillip, S. Brockmann,
C. Dreweck, R. Vontheim et al. 2002.
Cyclosporiasis outbreak in Germany
associated with the consumption of salad.
Emerging Infect. Dis. 8(9):992-994.
Donald, P.F. 2004. Biodiversity impacts of some
agricultural commodity production systems.
Conserv. Biol. 18:17-37
Dörner, D. 1996. The Logic of failure:
Recognising and avoiding error in complex
situations. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.
Dorward, A., J. Kydd. and C. Poulton. 1998.
Smallholder cash crop production undermarket liberalisation: A new institutional
economics perspective. CABI, Wallingford.
Doss, C., and A. McDonald. 1999. Genderissues and the adoption of maize technology
in Africa. An annotated bibliography of
Twenty-five Years on Research on Women
Farmers in Africa: Lessons and implications
for agricultural research Institutions. Econ.
Prog. Pap. 99-02. CIMMYT, Mexico.
Doutt, R.L., and J. Nakata. 1973. The Rubus
leafhopper and its egg paraistoid: An
endemic biotic system useful in grape pest
management. Environ. Entomol. 2:381-386.
Dreyer, H., G. Fleischer, W. Gassert, H. Stoetzer,
J.P. Deguine, N. La Porta et al. 2005.
IPM Europe: The European network for
integrated pest management in development
cooperation. Proc. EFARD 2005 Conference,
Zurich.
Dufour, R. 2001. Biointensive integrated
pest management IPM: Fundamentals ofsustainable agriculture. July 2001. Available at
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/ipm.pdf.
Dupré, G. 1991. Savoirs paysans etdéveloppement. ORSTOM. Ed. Karthala.
Paris.
Eastman, C., and J. Grieshop. 1989. Technology
development and diffusion: Potatoes in
Peru. p. 33-58. In J.L. Compton (ed) The
transformation of international agriculturalresearch and development. Westview, Boulder.

11/3/08 10:42:59 AM

126 | IAASTD Global Report

EC (European Commission). 1999. Directive
1999/2/EC of the European Parliament andof the Council of 22 February 1999 on theapproximation of the laws of the Member
States concerning foods and food ingredientstreated with ionizing radiation. Available at
http://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food/eu_docs/
Manufacturing_Processing_Methods/
Irradiated/Dir1999_2.pdf. Off. J. European
Communities L 066, 13 March 1999.
EC (European Commission). 2000.
Communication from the Commission on the
Precautionary Principle, Brussels. Available
at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/
library/pub/pub07_en.pdf.
EC (European Commission). 2001. Europeans,science and technology. Standard
Eurobarometer. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/
ebs_154_en.pdf.
EC (European Commission). 2005. Special
Eurobarometer. Social values, Science andtechnology. Available on: http://europa.eu.int/
comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_
report_en.pdf
EC (European Commission). 2006. Monitoting ofpesticide residues in products of plant origin
in the EU, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/
specialreports/pesticides_index_en.htm.
ECA (Economic Commission for Africa). 1992.
Study on the role of the informal sectorin African economies. E/ECA/PSD.7/13.
7th Session Joint Conf. African Planners,
Statisticians and Demographers. Addis
Ababa, 2-7 March.
Echeverria, R.G., E. Trigo, and D. Byerlee. 1996.
Institutional change and effective financing ofagricultural research in Latin America. Tech.
Pap. 330. World Bank, Washington DC.
Edgerton, D. 2007. The shock of the old:
Technology and global history since 1900.
Oxford Univ. Press, UK.
Edquist, C. (ed) 1997. Systems of innovation:
Technologies, institutions and organizations.
Pinter, London.
EEA (European Environmental Agency).
2001. Late lessons from early warnings:
The precautionary principle 1896-2000.
Available at http://reports.eea.europa.eu/
environmental_issue_report_2001_22/en/
Issue_Report_No_22.pdf. EEA, Copenhagen.
Ehler, L. 2006. Integrated pest management(IPM): Definition, historical development
and implementation and the other IPM. Pest
Manage. Sci. 62:787-790.
Ehler, L., and D. Bottrell. 2000. The illusion of
integrated pest management. Issues Sci Tech.
16(3):61-64.
Eicher, C., and J. Staatz. 1998. International
agricultural development. Johns Hopkins
Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Eisemon, T.O. 1986. Foreign training andforeign assistance for university developmentin Kenya: Too much of a good thing? Int. J.
Educ. Dev. 6:1-13.
Eisemon, T.O., and C.H. Davis. 1992.

chapter 02.indd 126

Universities and scientific research capacity. J.
Asian Afr. Studies 27:68-93.
EJF (Environmental Justice Foundation). 2002.
Death in small doses: Cambodia’s pesticide
problems and solutions. EKF, London.
Ekboir, J.M., G. Datrénit, V. Martinez, A.
Torres-Vargas, and A. Vera-Cruz. 2006.
Las fundaciones produce a diez años de su
creaciòn: Pensando en el futuro. ISNAR Disc.
Pap. 10. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Ekesi, S. 1999. Insecticide resistance in field
populations of the legume pod-borer Maruca
vitrata Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
on cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.), Walp in
Nigeria. Int. J. Pest Manage. 45(1):57-59.
Ekwamu, A., and M. Brown. 2005. Four yearsof NAADS implementation: Programmeoutcomes and impact. p. 25-39. In Proc.
Mid-Term Review Nat. Agric. Advisory Serv.
31 May - 2 June 2005. Min. Agric. Anim.
Industry Fish., Kampala.
Ellen, R., P. Parkes, and A. Bicker (ed) 2000.
Indigenous environmental knowledge andits transformations. Harwood Acad. Publ.,
Amsterdam.
Ellis, W. 2000. A new paradigm for industry.
Available at http://www.croplifeasia.org/ref_library/ipm/ipmParadigm.pdf. Asia-Pacific
Crop Prot. Assoc., Bangkok.
Ellis, F. and H.A. Freeman. 2006. Rural
households and poverty reduction strategies
in four African countries. J. Dev. Studies
40(4):1-30.
Engel, P. 1990. Knowledge managementin agriculture: Building upon diversity.
Special Issue on the European Seminar on
Knowledge Management and Information
Technology. Wageningen. November 1989.
Knowledge Society 3(3)28-35.
Engel, P.G.H., and M. Salomon. 1997.
Facilitating innovation for development. A
RAAKS resource box/the social organizationof innovation — a focus on stakeholderinteraction. Royal Trop. Inst., Amsterdam.
Enkegaard, A., and H.F. Brodsgaard. 2006.
Biocontrol in protected crops: Is lack of
biodiversity a limiting factor? p. 91-122.
In J. Eilenberg, and H. Hokkanen (ed) An
ecological and societal approach to biologicalcontrol. Springer, Dordrecht.
Ericksen, P.J. 2006a. Conceptualization of foodsystems for global environmental change(GEC) research. GECAF Working Pap. 2.
ECI/OUCE, Oxford Univ., Wallingford.
Ericksen, P.J. 2006b. Assessing the vulnerabilityof food systems to global environmental
changes. ECI/OUCE, Oxford Univ.,
Wallingford.
Esman, M.J., and N. Uphoff. 1984. Localorganisations - Intermediaries in ruraldevelopment Cornell Univ. Press, London.
ESRC. 1999. The politics of GM food: Risk,
science and public trust. Available at http://
www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/gecp_
the_politics_of_gm_food_briefing.pdf. Spec.
Briefing 5. Econ. Social Res. Council, Global
Environ. Change Prog., Lancaster Univ.

ETC. 2005. Oligopoly, Inc.: Concentration incorporate power. Communique Issues#90-91.
EU. 2002. European Union consolidated versionsof the treaty on European Union and of thetreaty establishing the European community.
Off. J. Eur. Union, C325, 24 Dec 2002, Title
XIX, article 174, para. 2 and 3.
EurepGAP. 2007. The global partnership for safe
and sustainable agriculture. Good agricultural
practice standard. 3rd Vers. Berlin. Available
at http://www.eurepgap.org/documents/
infoletter/Press-conference_080207-KM2.pdf.
Evans, J. 1981. Report on extension-oriented
research with women in Phalombe. Farming
Systems Analysis Sec., Dep. Agric. Res., Min.
Agriculture, Malawi.
Eveleens, K. 2004. The history of IPM in Asia.
FAO, Rome.
Evenson, R.E. 1986. The economics of extension.
p. 65-90. In G.E. Jones (ed) Investing in ruralextension. Elsevier, London.
Evenson, R.E., and D. Gollin. 2003a. Assessing
the impact of the Green Revolution 1960 to2000. Science 300:758-762.
Evenson, R. E. and D. Gollin (ed) 2003b. Cropvariety improvement and its effects on
productivity: The impact of international
agricultural research. CABI, Wallingford.
Evenson, R.E., P.E. Waggoner, and V.W. Ruttan.
1979. Economic benefits from research: An
example from agriculture. Science 205:11011107.
EVIRA (Finnish Food Safety Authority). 2006.
Number of food poisoning epidemics
still on increase in 2005. Available http://
www.evira.fi/portal/en/food/current_issues/archive/?id=318.
Ewen, S.W.B., and A. Pusztai. 1999. Healthrisks of genetically modified foods. Lancet
354:684.
Fabra, A. 2002. The intersection of humanrights and environmental issues: A review
of institutional developments at theinternational level. Background Pap. 3;
Expert Seminar on Human Rights and theEnvironment, Geneva, 14-16 Jan. Available
at http://www.unhchr.ch/environment/bp3.html.
Fairhead, J., and M. Leach. 1996. Misreading
the African Landscape. Society and ecology
in a forest-savanna mosaic. Cambridge Univ.
Press, UK.
Falcon, W., and R. Naylor. 2005. Rethinking
food security for the 21st century. Am. J.
Agric. Econ. 87:113-1127.
Falcon, W.P., and C. Fowler. 2002. Carving
up the commons: emergence of a newinternational regime for germplasm
development and transfer. Food Policy
27:197-222.
Fan, S., P. Hazell, and S. Thorat. 1998.
Government spending, growth and poverty:
an Analysis of interlinkages in rural India.
EPTD Disc. Pap. 33. Available at http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd/dp/papers/eptdp33.pdf.
IFPRI, Washington DC.

11/3/08 10:43:00 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 127

FAO. 1995a. Prevention and disposal of obsolete
pesticides. Available at http://www.fao.org/
ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Disposal/index_
en.htm. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1995b. Guidelines on good labelling
practice for pesticides. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1996a. Food, agriculture and foodsecurity: developments since the World Food
Conference and prospects. World Food
Summit Tech. Background Doc. 1. Vol. 1.
FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1999a. Committee on agriculture:
Biotechnology. 25-29 January. COAG, FAO
1999. CGIAR in Latin America and the
Caribbean: Interactions, achievements andprospects. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1999b. The importance of food quality
and safety for developing countries.
Committee on World Food Security 25th
Session. Rome, 31 May-3 June.
FAO. 2001a. Mid-term review of the Global IPM
Facility. April-June. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2001b. The state of food insecurity in theworld 2001. Rome.
FAO, 2002a. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy(BSE) and foot and mouth disease risk
assessment: Implications for the Near East.
Twenty-Sixth FAO Reg. Conf. for the Near
East. Tehran. 9-13 Mar 2002. NERC/02/
INF/5. Available at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/004/Y3064E.
HTM. FAO Rome.
FAO. 2002b. International code of conduct
on the distribution and use of pesticides.
Adopted by the 123rd Session of the FAO
Council in November 2002. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2003a. Biosecurity in food and agriculture.
Committee on Agric., 17th Session.
Available at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/006/Y8453e.HTM. FAO, Rome.
FAO, 2003b. Trade reforms and food security.
Chapter 9 In The role of transnational
corporations, conceptualizing the linkages.
Commodities Trade Div., FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2004. The state of food insecurity in
the World. Monitoring progress towards
the World Food Summit and Millennium
Development Goals. FAO. Rome.
FAO. 2005a. Asia regional workshop on theimplementation, monitoring and observanceof the international code of conduct on the
distribution and use of pesticides. Bangkok.
26-28 July. Available at http://www.fao.org/
docrep/008/af340e/af340e00.htm. FAO Reg.
Off. Asia Pacific, Bangkok.
FAO. 2005b. International code of conduct
on the distribution and use of pesticides —revised version. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005c. The state of food and agriculture:
Agricultural trade and poverty: Can trade
work for the poor? FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005d. UN Agency says scale of toxic
pesticide in Latin America ‘frightening’,
funding for cleaning up needed. Available at
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/
sag369.doc.htm. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005e. Understanding the Codex

chapter 02.indd 127

Alimentarius. FAO, Rome. http://www.
fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/
docrep/008/y7867e/y7867e00.htm.
FAO. 2006a. FAO encourages early withdrawalof highly toxic pesticides; assurances given by
Danish company. Available at http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000471/
index.html. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2006b. The implementation of the
globally harmonized system of classificationand labelling of chemicals — FAO’s pastand present activities. Available at http://
www.unitar.org/cwg/publications/cbl/ghs/
Documents_2ed/F_Guidance_Awareness_Raising_and_Training_Materials/498_FAO_past-present-activities.pdf. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2006c. A global plant breeding initiative.
FAO Agriculture 21. Available at http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0606sp1.htm. FAO,Rome.
FAO. 2007. New initiative for pesticide risk
reduction. Committee on Agric., 20th Session
25-28 April 2007, RomeCOAG/2007/lnf.14.
Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/
meeting/011/j9387e.pdf. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2008. Roles of agriculture project.
Available at http://www.fao.org/es/esa/roa/index_en.asp. FAO, Rome.
FAO/WHO. 2001. Amount of poor-quality
pesticides sold in developing countries
alarmingly high. FAO/WHO press release,
1 Feb.
FAO/WHO. 2004. Cambodia country report onfood safety. FAO/WHO Regional Conference
on Food Safety for Asia and Pacific,
Seremban, Malaysia, 24-27 May 2004.
Farina, E., and T. Reardon. 2000. Agrifood
grades and standards in the extended
Mercosur: Their role in the changing
agrifood system. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
82:1170-1176.
Farrington, J., and A. Martin. 1987.
Farmer‑participatory research: A review ofconcepts and recent fieldwork. Agric. Admin.
Extens. 29:247‑264.
Farrington, J., A. Bebbington, K. Wellard,
D. Lewis. 1993. Reluctant partners? Nongovernmental organizations, the state andsustainable agricultural developments.
Routledge, NY.
Farrington, J., and D.L. Lewis. 1993. Nongovernmental organizations and the Statein Asia: Rethinking roles in sustainableagricultural development. Routledge, London.
Farrington, J., and J.R. Witcombe. 1998.
Regulatory frameworks: Why do we needthem. p. xvii-xxii. In J. Witcombe et al. (ed)Seeds of choice: Making the most of newvarieties for small farmers. IT Publ., London.
FAWG. 2001. Roots of change: Agriculture,
ecology and health in California. Available at
http://www.foodfunders.org/pdfs/roots_of_change.pdf. FAWG, San Francisco.
Feder, E. 1976. McNamara’s little green
revolution: World Bank scheme for selfliquidation of Third World peasantry. Econ.
Pol. Weekly 10:532-541.

Feder, G., R. Murgai and J. Quizon. 2004a. The
acquisition and diffusion of knowledge: Thecase of pest management training in farmer
field schools. Indonesia. J. Agric. Econ.
55(2):221-243.
Feder, G., R. Murgai, J. Quizon. 2004b. Sending
farmers back to school: The impact of farmer
field schools in Indonesia. Rev. Agric. Econ.
26:45-62.
Federación Agraria Argentina (FAA). 2005
.Informe Semanal Técnico NO. 167. Buenos
Aires, May 20. Available at http://www.faa.com.ar/.
Ferguson, J. 1990. The anti-politics machine:
Develoment, depoliticization andbureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge
Univ. Press, UK.
Ferleger, L., and W. Lazonick. 1994. Higher
education for an innovative economy: Landgrant colleges and the managerial revolutionin America. Business Econ. History
23(1):116-128.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and D. Schimmelpfennig.
2004. Have seed industry changes affected
research effort? Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February04/Features/
HaveSeed.htm. USDA Econ. Res. Serv.,
Washington DC
Ferrara, J. 1998. Revolving doors: Monsantoand the regulators. The Ecologist Sept/
Oct. Available at http://www.monitor.net/
monitor/9904b/monsantofda.html
Fields, S. 2004. The fat of the land: Do
agricultural subsidies foster poor
health? Environ. Health Perspect.
112(14):A820-A823.
Fischer, K., and D. Byerlee. 2002. Managing
intellectual property and income generationin public research organisations. p. 227244. In D. Byerlee and R. Echeverría (ed)Agricultural research policy in an era ofprivatization. CABI, Oxon.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude,
intention, and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research. Addison-Wesley,
Reading MA.
Fisher, E.C. 2007. Opening Pandora’s box:
Contextualising the precautionary principle
in the European Union. Oxford Legal Studies
Res. Pap. 2/2007. In Ellen Vos et al. (ed)Uncertain risks regulated: National, EU andinternational regulatory models compared.
Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=956952.
UCL Press, Cavendish Publ.
Fitzgerald, D. 2003. Every farm a factory: The
industrial ideal in American agriculture. Yale
Univ. Press.
FOE. 2005. Tackling GMO Contamination:
making segregation and identity preservationa reality. Available at: http://www.foei.org/
publications/index.html. FOE, Montreal.
FOE. 2006. Who benefits from GM crops?
Available at http://www.foei.org/publications/index.html. FOE, Nigeria.
FOE/Halifax Initiative. 2002. Marketing the
Earth: the World Bank and sustainable
development. Available at http://www.

11/3/08 10:43:00 AM

128 | IAASTD Global Reportpanna.org/campaigns/docsWorldBank/
MarketingEarth.pdf.
FOEI. 2001. Sale of the country? Peoples’ foodsovereignty. Friends of Earth Int., http://
www.foei.org.
FOEI. 2003. Trade and people’s food sovereignty.
Friends of Earth Int., http://www.foei.org.
Fogel, R.W. 2004. The escape from hunger andpremature death 1700-2100: Europe, America
and Third World, Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Foko, E. 1999. Arabica coffee in the agricultural
production system of the western highlandsof Cameroon. Cahiers Agric. 8:197-202.
Follet, P.A., and J.J. Duan (ed) 2000. Biologicalcontrol for a small planet: Nontarget effectsof biological control introductions. Kluwer,
Dordrecht.
Forni, F., G. Neiman, G. Bacalini, and L. Roldán.
1998. Haciendo escuela. Ciccus, Buenos
Aires.
Fortmann, L. 1979. Women and agriculturaldevelopment. In K.S. Kim et al. (ed)Papers on the political economy. Tanzania.
Heinemann, Nairobi.
Forum for Food Sovereignty. 2007. Declarationof Nyéléni. Sélingué, Mali, 27 Feb 2007.
Available at http://www.nyeleni2007.org/.
Frankel, F.R. 1971. India’s green revolution:
Economic gains and political costs. Princeton
Univ. Press, Princeton.
Freebairn, D.K. 1995. Did the green revolution
concentrate incomes? A quantitative study ofresearch reports. World Dev. 23(2):265-279.
Fresco, L. 2002. The future of agriculture:
Challenges for environment, health andsafety regulation of pesticides. Available atwww.fao.org/ag/magazine/oecd.pdf. FAO,
Rome.
Friesen, F., A.G. Nelson, and R.C. Van Acker.
2003. Evidence of contamination of
pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots inwestern Canada with genetically engineered
herbicide resistance traits. Amer. Soc. Agron.
J. 95:1342-1347.
Fukuda, W., and N. Saad. 2001. Participatory
research on cassava breeding with farmers inNortheastern Brazil. Empresa Brasileira dePesquisa Agropeccuária. EMBRAPA, Brasil.
Fukuda-Parr, S. (ed) 2007. The gene revolution.
GM crops and unequal development.
Earthscan, London.
Fukuoka, M. 1978. The one-straw revolution:
An introduction to natural farming. Rodale
Press, Emmaus.
Funtowicz, S.O., and J.R. Ravetz.1993. Science
for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739755.
Funtowicz, S.O., J. Ravetz, and M. O’Connor.
1998. Challenges in the use of science forsustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev.
1(1):99-108.
Furuno, T. 2001. The power of duck. Integrated
rice and duck farming. Tagari Publ.,
Tylagum, Australia.
Gaillard, J. and R. Waast. 1992. The uphillemergence of scientific communities in Africa.
J. Asian Afr. Studies 27(12):41-67.

chapter 02.indd 128

Gallagher, K. 1988. Effects of host resistanceon the micro-evolution of the rice brownplanthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stal.). PhD.
Thesis.: Univ. California, Berkeley.
Gallagher, K. 1999. Frequently asked questions on
HIV/AIDS facts: A Global IPM Facility Field
School Guide. Global IPM Facility, Rome.
Gallin, R.S., and A. Spring (ed) 1985. Women
creating wealth: Transforming economic
development. Selected Papers and Speeches
Assoc. Women in Dev. Conf., 25-27 April
Washington DC.
Gallin, R.S., M. Aronoff, and A. Ferguson(ed) 1989. The women and international
development annual. Vol. I. Westview Press,
Boulder.
Gallin, R.S., and A. Ferguson (ed) 1991. The
Women and International Development
Annual. Vol. II. (Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press);
Gamser, M. 1988. Innovation, technicalassistance and development: the importanceof technology users. World Dev. 16(6):711721.
Ganapathy, S., S.B. Duffy, C. Getz. 2005. A
framework for understanding food insecurity:
An anti-hunger approach, a food systemapproach. Centre Weight Health College Nat.
Resour., Univ. California, Berkeley. Available
at http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/cwh/PDFs/
Framework_Food_Insecurity_3.05.pdf.
GAO. 2001. Agricultural pesticides:
Management improvements needed tofurther promote integrated pest management.
Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d01815.pdf. GAO, Washington DC.
Gao, Q., and X. Li. 2006. Agricultural
information infrastructure development andinformation services in China. Chapter 16.
p. 369-387. In A. Van den Ban, and
R.K. Samanta (ed) Changing roles ofagricultural extension in Asian nations.
B.R. Publ., Delhi.
García-Marirrodriga, R., and P. Puig Calvó.
2007. Formación en alternancia y desarrollo
local. Aidefa, Rosario.
Garett, J. 1997. Challenges to the 2020 vision
for Latin America: Food and agriculture since1970. Food Agric. Environ. Disc. Pap. 21.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Garfield, E. 1998. From citation indexes toinformetrics: Is the tail now wagging the dog?
Libri 48(2):67-80.
Garry, V.F., D. Schreinemachers, M.E. Harkins
and J. Griffith. 1996. Pesticide appliers,
biocides and birth defects in Rural
Minnesota. Environ. Health Perspect.
104(4):394-399.
GECAFS. 2008. Food systems research: Why has
GECAFS taken a “food systems” approach?
Available at http://www.gecafs.org/research/
food_system.html. Environmental Change
Institute, Oxford, UK.
Gelernter, W.D. 2005. Biological control
products in a changing landscape. p. 293300. In Crop science and technology. Brit.
Crop Prot. Council, Hampshire, UK.

Georghiou, G.P. 1986. The magnitude of the
problem. In Pesticide resistance, strategies andtactics. Nat. Acad. Press, Washington DC.
Gentil, D. 1989. A few questions on the
training and visit method. p. 25-31 In
N. Roberts (ed) Agricultural extension in
Africa. Available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_
storage_01/0000019b/80/20/83/7c.pdf.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Gentili, P. 2001. The permanent crisis of the
public university. North American Congresson Latin America (NACLA) Rep. Americas
33(4):12-19.
Gepts, P. 2004. Who owns biodiversity and how
should the owners be compensated? Plant
Physiol. 134:295-1307.
Gerken, A., J.V. Suglo and M. Braun. 2000. Crop
protection policy in Ghana. An economic
analysis of current practice and factors
influencing pesticide use. Univ. Hannover and
GTZ, Accra.
Getz, C., and K.D. Warner. 2006. Integrated
farming systems and pollution prevention
initiatives stimulate co-learning extension
strategies. J. Extension 44(5), Article #5FEA4. Available at http://www.joe.org/
joe/2006october/a4.shtml.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny,
S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow.
1994. The new production of knowledge:
The dynamics of science and research incontemporary societies. Sage Publ., Thousand
Oaks CA.
Gieryn, T.F. 1995. Boundaries of science. p. 393443. In S. Jasanoff et al. (ed) Handbook ofscience and technology studies. Sage Publ.,
Thousand Oaks CA.
Gilbert, E. 1995. The meaning of the maizerevolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: Seeking
guidance from past impacts. Agric. Admin.
Network Pap. 55, Overseas Dev. Inst., London.
Gill, G.J. 1995. Major natural resource
management concerns in South Asia. 2020
Vision for Food Agric. Environ. Disc. Pap. 8,
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Gill, G.J., and D. Carney. 1999. Competitive
agricultural technology funds in developing
countries. Overseas Dev. Inst., London.
Giller, K.E., 2002. Targeting management oforganic resources and mineral fertilizers: Can
we match scientists’ fantasies with farmers’
realities? p. 155-171. In B. Vanlauwe et al.
(ed) Balanced nutrient management systems
for the moist savanna and humid forest zones
of Africa. CABI, Wallingford.
Girard, N., and M. Navarette. 2005. Quelles
synergies entre connaissances scientifiques etempiriques ? L’exemple des cultures du safranet de la truffe. Natures Sci. Sociétés 13:33-44.
Glasbergen, P., F. Biermann and A.P.J. Mol(ed) 2007. Partnerships, governance andsustainable development. Reflections
on theory and practice. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, UK.
Gómez, I. and M. Bordons. 1996. Limitaciones
en el uso de los indicadores bibliométricos

11/3/08 10:43:01 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 129

para la evaluación científica. PolíticaCientífica 46:21-26.
Gonzales, T.A. The cultures of the seed in the
Peruvian Andes. Chapter 8. In S. Brush(ed) 1999. Genes in the field. On farmconservation of crop diversity. IPGRI, Romeand IDRC, Ottawa.
Gottlieb, R. 1993. Forcing the spring:
The transformation of the American
environmental movement. Island Press,
Washington DC.
Graham, J.D., and J.B. Wiener. 1995. Risk vs.
risk. Tradeoffs in protecting health andthe environment. Harvard Univ. Press,
Cambridge MA.
Granatstein, D. 2003. Tree fruit production
with organic farming methods. Available
at http://organic.tfrec.wsu.edu/OrganicIFP/
OrganicFruitProduction/OrganicMgt.PDF.
Wenatchee Center Sustain. Agric. Nat.
Resour., Washington State Univ.
Granereau, A. 1969. Le livre de Lauzun. Les
Éditions Gerbert, Aurillac.
Gray, M.E. and K.L. Steffey, 2007. Maximizing
crop production inputs does not equate tointegrated pest management. Univ. Illinois
Extension, The Bull. 8, Article 2, 18 May
2007.
Gray, R., S. Malla, and P. Phillips. 1999. The
public and non-for-profit sectors in abiotechnology-based, privatising world:
The canola case. p. 501-522. In Proc.
Conf. Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics
of strategy and policy. Available at http://
agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.
pl?paperid=2192&ftype=.pdf.
Griliches, Z. 1992. The search for R&D
spillovers. Scand. J. Econ. 94 (Suppl.):29-47.
Greathead, D.J. 1971. A review of biologicalcontrol in the Ethiopian region. Tech. Comm.
No. 5. CAB, Farnham Royal.
Greathead, D.J. 1976. A review of biologicalcontrol in Western and Southern Europe.
CAB, Farnham Royal.
Greathead, D.J. 2003. Historical overview ofbiological control in Africa. p. 1-26. In
P. Neuenschwander et al. (ed) Biologicalcontrol in IPM systems in Africa. CABI Publ.,
Wallingford.
Griffin, K. 1979. Underdevelopment inhistory. In C.K. Wilber (ed) 1979. The
political economy of development andunderdevelopment. Random House, London.
Griffin, K., and A.R. Khan. 1998. Poverty in theworld: Ugly facts and fancy models. World
Dev. 6(3):295-304.
Grimaldi, L. 1998. Disminuyen accidentes pot
use de plaguicidas. Prensa Libre, 18-19.
Grimble, R. and K. Wellard. 1996. Stakeholder
methodologies in natural resource
management: a review of principles, contexts,
experiences and opportunities. Agric. Syst.
65(2):173-193.
Grivetti, L.E., and B. Olge. 2000. Value of
traditional foods in meeting macro- andmicronutrient needs: The wild plantconnection. Nutr. Res. Rev. 13:31-46.

chapter 02.indd 129

Guerinot, M.L. 2000. Enhanced: The green
revolution strikes gold. Science 287:241-243.
Guillon, M. 2004. Current world situation on
acceptance and marketing of biologicalcontrol agents BCAs. Available at http://
www.ibma.ch/pdf/20041028%
20Presentation%20BCAs%20Thailand%20%20&%20Indonesia%20Cuba.pdf. Int.
Biocontrol Manufact. Assoc. Pau, France.
Guijt, I., and M.K. Shah. 1998. The myth ofcommunity. IT Publ., London.
Gurr, G., and S. Wratten (ed) 2000. Measures ofsuccess in biological control. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Gurr, G.M., S.D. Wratten, P. Kehrli, and
S. Scarratt. 2006. Cultural manipulations toenhance biological control in Australia and
New Zealand: Progress and prospects. p.
154-166. In Proc. Int. Symp. on BiologicalControl of Arthropods. Davos, Switzerland.
12-16 Sept. 2005. USDA Forest Service,
FHTET, Fort Collins, CO.
Gurung, B., and H. Menter. 2004,
Mainstreaming gender-sensitive participatory
approaches: The CIAT case study. In
D. Pachico (ed) Scaling up and out: Achieving
widespread impact through agriculturalresearch. CIAT, Cali.
Gutierrez, A.P., P. Neuenschwander,
F. Schulthess, H.R. Herren, J.U. Baumgärtner,
B. Wermelinger et al.1988. Analysis of
biological control of cassava pests in Africa:
II. Cassava mealy bug Phenacoccus manihoti.
J. Appl. Ecol. 25:921-940.
GTZ. 2004. Combating world hunger throughsustainable agriculture. Available at http://
www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib/04-5888.pdf.
GTZ, Germany.
Halberg, N., H.F. Alroe, M.T. Knudsen, andE.S. Kristensen. 2007. Global developmentof organic agriculture: Challenges andprospects. CABI Publ., UK.
Hall, A.J., B. Yoganand, R.V. Sulaiman,
and N.G. Clark (ed) 2003. Post-harvest
innovations in innovation: Reflections on
partnership and learning. Crop Post-Harvest
Programme South Asia, Aylesford.
Hall, A.J., W. Janssen, E. Pehu, and R. Rajalahti.
2006. Enhancing agricultural innovation:
How to go beyond strengthening researchsystems. World Bank. Washington DC.
Halliday, M.L., L.Y. Kang, T.K. Zhou, M.D. Hu,
Q.C. Pan, T.Y. Fu et al. 1991. An epidemicof hepatitis A attributable to the ingestion of
raw clams in Shanghai, China/ J. Infect. Dis.
164(5):852-859.
Halse, M. (ed) 1966. Studies in blockdevelopment and co-operative organisation.
Indian Inst. Manage., Ahmedabad.
Halweil, B. 2006. Can organic farming feed us
all? World Watch 19(3):19-24.
Hamburger, J., and M. Ishii-Eiteman. 2003.
The struggle to reduce reliance on pesticides
in World Bank projects: Can communitybased monitoring lead to improved policy
compliance? PANNA, San Francisco.
Hammerschlag, K. 2007. More IPM please: How
USDA could deliver greater environmental

benefits from Farm Bill conservation
programs. Issue Pap. NRDC, San Francisco.
Hammond, R., and L. McGowan. 1992. The
other side of the story: The real impacts ofWorld Bank structural adjustment programs.
The Development Gap, Washington DC.
Hanak, E., E. Boutrif, P. Fabre, M. Pineiro (ed)2002. Food safety management in developing
countries. Proc. Int. Workshop, CIRAD-FAO.
Montpellier. 11-13 Dec. 2000. CIRAD-FAO.
CIRAD, Montpellier.
Hanger, J., J. Moris. 1973. Women and thehousehold economy. In R. Chambers, J. Moris(eds). Mwea: An irrigated rice settlement in
Kenya. Weltforum Verlag Munich.
Hardell, L., M.J. Walker, B. Walhjalt, L.S. Friedman,
and E.D. Richter. 2007. Secret ties to industry
and conflicting interests in cancer research.
Am. J. Indust. Med. 50:227-233.
Hardon, J. 2004. Plant patents beyond control:
Biotechnology, farmer seed systems andIntellectual Property Rights. Agromisa
Foundation, Wageningen.
Harilal, K.N., N. Kanji, J. Jeyaranjan, M. Eapen,
and P. Swaminathan. 2006. Power in global
value chains. Implications for employment
and livelihoods in the cashew nut industry inIndia. Summary Rep. IIED, London.
Harris, J. 1977. The limitations of HYVtechnology in North Arcot District: The
views from a village. In B.H. Farmer (ed)Green revolution? Technology and change
in rice growing areas of Tamil Nadu and Sri
Lanka. Westview Press, Boulder.
Harris, J. 2001. Depoliticizing development: The
World Bank and social capital. LeftWord
Books, Glasgow.
Harrison, J. 2004. Invisible people, invisible
places: Connecting air pollution and pesticide
drift in California. In E.M. Dupuis (ed)Smoke and mirrors: The politics and cultureof air pollution. NYU Press, NY.
Harriss, B. 1978. Rice processing projects
in Bangladesh: An appraisal of a decadeof proposals. Bangladesh J. Agric. Econ.
1(2):24-52.
Hatchuel, A. 2000. Intervention research and the
production of knowledge. p. 55-68. In M. Cerf
et al. (ed) Cow up a tree. Knowing and learningfor change in agriculture. Case studies fromindustrialised countries. INRA Ed., Paris.
Havelock, R.G. 1969. Planning for innovation
through dissemination and utilization ofknowledge. Center for Research on Utilizationof Scientific Knowledge, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Havelock, R.G. 1986. Modelling the knowledge
system. p. 77-105. In G.M. Beal et al. (ed)Knowledge, generation, exchange andutilisation. Westview, Boulder.
Haverkort, B., J. Van der Kamp, andA. Waters-Bayer (ed) 1991. Joining farmers’
experiments: Experiences in participatory
technology development. Intermediate Tech.,London.
Hayami, Y., and V. Ruttan. 1985. Agriculturaldevelopment: An international perspective.
The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.

11/3/08 10:43:01 AM

130 | IAASTD Global Report

Hayenga, M.L. 1998. Structural changes inthe biotech seed and chemical industrial
complex. AgBioForum 1:43-55.
Hayes, T.B. 2004. There is no denying this:Defusing the confusion about atrazine.
BioScience. 54:1138-1149.
Haygood, R., A.R. Ives, and D.A. Andow. 2003.
Consequences of recurrent gene flow fromcrops to wild relatives. Proc. R. Soc. London
B (Biol. Sci.) 270(1527):1879-1886.
Hawkes, C., and M.T. Ruel. 2006.
Understanding the links between agriculture
and health. Focus 13. May. Available at
http://www.ifpri.org. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Hazell, P., and C. Ramaswamy. 1991. The green
revolution reconsidered: The impact of highyielding rice varieties in South India. John
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Hediger, W., and B. Lehmann. 2003.
Multifunctional agriculture and thepreservation of environmental benefits. 25thInt. Conf. Agric. Econ., Durban. 16-22 Aug.
Available at http://www.iaae-agecon.org/conf/
durban_papers/papers/096.pdf.
Heemskerk, W., and B. Wennink, 2005.
Stakeholder-driven funding mechanisms for
agricultural innovation. Case studies from
Sub-Saharan Africa. Bull. 373. Dev. Policy
Practice, KIT, Amsterdam.
Heggun, C. 2001. Trends in hygiene
management: the dairy sector example. FoodControl 12:241-246.
Heisey, P.W, C.S. Srinivasan, and C.Thirtle.
2001. Public sector plant breeding in a
privatized world. ERS AIB 722. USDA,
Washington DC.
Heller, M.A., and R.S. Eisenberg. 1998. Can
patents deter innovation? The anticommonsin biomedical research. Science 280:698-701.
Hellinger, D. 1999. Statement at the First Public
Hearing of the International Financial
Institutions Advisory commission on
Civil Society Perspectives on the IMF andWorld Bank. Available at http://www.developmentgap.org/ifi_testimony.html. The
Development Gap, Washington DC.
Hendrickson, M.K., and W. Heffernan. 2005.
Can consolidated food systems achieve foodsecurity? p. 65-68. In Proc. New Perspectives
on Food Security. 12-14 Nov. Glynwood
Center, Cold Spring NY.
Heong, K.L., and M.M. Escalada. 1998.
Changing rice farmers’ pest management
practices through participation in a smallscale experiment. Int. J. Pest Manage.
44:191-197.
Herdt, R.W., and J.W. Mellor. 1964. The
contrasting response of rice to nitrogen: India
and the United States. J. Farm Econ. 46:150160.
Herdt, R.W. 2006. Establishing priorities forplant science research and developing world
food security. Eur. J. Plant Pathol.115:75-93.
Herren, H.R. 1990. Biological control as
the primary option in sustainable pest
management: The cassava pest project. Bull.
Soc. Ent. Suisse 63:405-413.

chapter 02.indd 130

Herren, H.R., and P. Neuenschwander. 1991.
Biological control of cassava pests in Africa.
Ann. Rev. Entomol. 36:257-283.
Herren, H., F. Schulthness and M. Knapp.
2005. Towards zero pesticide use in tropicalagroecosystems. p. 135-146 In J. Pretty(ed) The pesticide detox: Towards a moresustainable agriculture. Earthscan, London.
Higley, L.G., and L.P. Pedigo. 1993. Economic
injury level concepts and their use insustaining environmental quality. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 46:233-244.
Hill, P. 1982. Dry grain farming families.
Hausaland (Nigeria) and Karnataka (India)
compared. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Hilhorst, T., and F. Muchena (ed) 2000.
Nutrients on the move. Soil fertility dynamics
in African farming systems. IIED, London.
Hoard, R.J., and M.J. Brewer. 2006. Adoptionof pest, nutrient and conservation
vegetation management using financial
incentives provided by a U.S. Departmentof Agriculture conservation program. Hort
Tech. 16:306-311.
Hobart, M. 1994. Introduction: The growth ofignorance? Chapter 1. p. 1-30. In
M. Hobart (ed) An anthropological critiqueof development: The growth of ignorance.
Routledge, London.
Hobden, A. 1995. Paradigms and politics: The
cultural construction of environmental policy
in Ethiopia. World Dev. 23(6):1007-1022.
Hocdé, H., J.I. Vasquez, E. Holt, and
A.R. Braun. 2000. Towards a social
movement of farmer innovation: Campesinoa Campesino. ILEIA Newsl. 16(2):26-27
Hocdé, H., J. Lançon, and G. Trouche (ed)2002. La sélection participative: Impliquer
les utilisateurs dans l’amélioration desplantes. Actes de l’atelier. Available at
http://publications.cirad.fr/une_notice.php?dk=476017. Cirad, Montpellier.
Hodeshi, M., A. Kazuhiro, M. Shunsaku,
T. Satoshi, S. Nobumichi, M. Motonobu etal. 1999. Massive outbreak of Eschrichia
O157:H7 infection in schoolchildren in Sakai
City, Japan, associated with consumptionof white radish sprouts. Am. J. Epidemiol.
150:787-796.
Hoekstra, A.Y., and A.K. Chapagtain. 2007.
Water footprints of nations: Water use bypeople as a function of their consumption
patterns. p. 35-48 In E. Craswell et al. (ed)Integrated assessment of water resources andglobal change. Springer Verlag, Netherlands.
Hogg, D. 2000. Technological change in agriculture:
Locking into genetic uniformity. Macmillan
Press, UK and St. Martin’s Press, USA.
Hokkanen, H.M.T., and A.E. Hajek (ed) 2003.
Environmental impact of microbial insecticides:
Need and methods for risk assessment. Kluwer
Academic Publ., Dordrecht.
Holl, K., G. Daily, P. Ehrlich. 1990. Integrated
pest management in Latin America. Environ.
Conserv. 17:341-350.
Holland, J.M. 2004. The environmental
consequences of adopting conservation tillage

in Europe: Reviewing the evidence. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 103:1-25.
Holland, J., and J. Blackburn (ed) 1998. Whose
voice? Participatory research and policychange. Intermediate Tech. Publ., London.
Holmgren, D. 2002. Permaculture: Principles andpathways beyond sustainability. Holmgren
Design Serv., Hepburn, Victoria, Australia.
Hopper, K.R. 2001. Research needs concerning
non-target impacts of biological control
introductions. p. 39-56. In E. Wajnberg etal. (ed) 2001. Evaluating indirect effects ofbiological control. CABI Publ., Wallingford.
Hounkonnou, D. 2001. Listen to the cradle.
Building from local dynamics for African
renaissance. Case studies in rural areas in
Benin, Burkina Faso and Ghana. Publ. PhD
thesis. Wageningen Univ., Wageningen.
Howard, P.L. (ed) 2003. Women and plants.
Gender relations in biodiversity management
and conservation. ZED Books, London.
Howarth, F. 1990. Environmental impactsof classical biological control. Ann. Rev.
Entomol. 36:485-509.
Howell, J. (ed) 1980. Borrowers and lenders;
Rural financial markets and institutions indeveloping countries. Overseas Dev. Inst.,
London.
Howell, J. 1982. Managing agriculturalextension: The T&V system in practice.
Agric. Admin. 11:273-284.
Howell, J. (ed) 1988. Training and visit extension
in practice. Occas. Pap. 8. Overseas Dev.
Inst., London.
Huang, J., Q. Wang, Y. Zhang, and J. FalckZapeda. 2001. Agricultural bio-technology
development and research capacity in China.
Working Pap. Centre for Chinese Agric.
Policy, Chinese Acad. Sci., Beijing.
Huang, J., C. Pray, and S. Rozelle. 2002a.
Enhancing the crops to feed the poor. Nature
418:678-684.
Huang, J., R.Hu, S.Rozelle, F.Qiao, andC.E. Pray. 2002b. Transgenic varieties andproductivity of smallholder cotton farmers
in China. Austral. J. Agric. Res. Econ. 46:
367-387.
Huang, J., R. Hu, C.E. Pray, F. Qiao, and
S. Rozelle. 2003. Biotechnology as analternative to chemical pesticides: a casestudy of Bt cotton in China. Agric. Econ.
29:55-67.
Hubert, B., R.L. Ison, and N. Röling. 2000.
The „Problematique“ with respect toindustrialised-country agricultures. p. 14-29.
In Cow up a tree: Knowing and learningfor change in agriculture, case studies fromindustrialised countries. M. Cerf et al. (ed)INRA Ed., Paris.
Hunter, G. 1969. Modernising peasant societies.
Oxford Univ. Press, London.
Hunter, G. 1970. The administration ofagricultural development: Lessons from
India. Oxford Univ. Press, London.
Hunter, G., A.H. Bunting, and A.F. Bottrall(ed) 1976. Policy and practice in ruraldevelopment. ODI-Croom Helm, London.

11/3/08 10:43:02 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 131

Huus-Bruun, T. 1992. Field vegetables inDenmark: An example of the role of
the Danish Advisory Service in reducing
insecticide use. p. 201-207. In J.C. vanLenteren et al. (ed) Biological control
and integrated crop protection: Towards
environmentally safer agriculture. Proc. Int.
Conf. organized by IOBC/WPRS. Veldhoven,
Netherlands, 8-13 Sept. 1991. PUDOC,
Wageningen, Netherlands.
Huylenbroeck, G., and G. Durand (ed)2003. Multifunctional agriuclture: A newparadigm for european agriuclture and ruraldevelopment. Ashgate, Burlington VT.
Hyman, E.L. 1992, Local agro-processing withsustainable technology: Sunflower seed oil in
Tanzania. Gatekeeper Ser. 33. IIED, London.
IAC (InterAcademy Council) 2004. Realizing thepromise and potential of African agriculture.
Science and technology strategies for
improving agricultural productivity and foodsecurity in Africa. IAC, Amsterdam.
IATP. 1998. Marketing sustainable agriculture:
Case studies and analysis from Europe. IATP,
Minneapolis.
ICIPE. 2006. Activities and impacts of major
projects, 1996-2006. ICIPE, Afr. Insect Sci.
Food Health, Nairobi.
Idris, A.B., and E. Grafius. 1995. Wildflowers
as nectar sources for Diadegma insulare(Hymneoptera: Ichneumonidae), a parasitoidof diamondback moth (Lepidoptera:
Yponomeutidae). Environ. Entomol.
24(6):1726-1735.
IDS. 2006. Science and citizens: Global and local
voices. IDS Policy Briefing Issue 30. Univ.
Sussex, Brighton.
IFAD. 2003. Gender programme for IFAD’s
strategy equitable developmenyt for womenand men in the Near East and North Africa.
IFAD, Rome.
IFOAM. 2003. Organic trade a growing reality.
An overview and facts on worldwide organic
agriculture. IFOAM, Germany.
IIED. 2006. Rapport General Espace Citoyend’Interpellation Démocratique (ECID) surles OGM et l’avenir de l’agriculture au Mali.
Sikasso, Mali. 25-29 Jan. IIED, London.
IFPRI. 2002. Green Revolution — curse or
blessing? http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/ib/ib11.pdf. IFPRI, Washington DC.
IFPRI. 2005. Proceedings of an international
dialogue on pro-poor public-private
partnerships for food and agriculture.
Available at http://www.ifpri.org/events/
conferences/2005/ppp/PPPProc.pdf. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
IIRR. 1996. Recording and using indigenous
knowledge: A manual. IIRR, Cavite, Philippines.
IIRR. 2005. Linking people to policy. Fromparticipation to deliberation in the context ofPhilippine community forestry. IIRR, Cavite,
Philippines.
Imbroglini, G. 1992. Limited use of pesticides:
the Italian commitment. p. 149-157. In
J.C. van Lenteren et al. (ed) Biologicalcontrol and integrated crop protection:

chapter 02.indd 131

towards environmentally safer agriculture.
Proc. Int. Conf. organized by IOBC/WPRS.
Veldhoven, Netherlands. 8-13 Sept. 1991.
PUDOC, Wageningen.
Iowa State University. 2007. Impact bioeconomy.
Stories in agriculture and life sciences. College
Agric. Life Sci., Iowa State Univ. Ames.
IPPC. 2005. Revision of ISPM No. 3: Guidelines
for the export, shipment, import and releaseof biological control agents and beneficialorganisms. Draft for country consultation-2004. Available at https://www.ippc.int/IPP/
En/default.jsp. Int. Plant Prot. Conv. (IPPC).
IRRI. 1985. Women in rice farming. Gower
Publ., UK.
Irwin, A., and H. Rothstein. 2003. Regulatory
science in a global regime. p. 77-86 In
F. den Hond, et al. (ed) Pesticides: problems,
improvements, alternatives. Blackwell,
Oxford.
Ishii-Eiteman, M. and N. Ardhianie. 2002.
Community monitoring of integrated pest
management versus conventional pesticide
use in a World Bank project in Indonesia. Int.
J. Occup. Environ. Health 8:220-231.
Ismael, Y. 2001. Smallholder adoption andeconomic impacts of Bt cotton in the
Makhathini Flats, Republic of South Africa.
Rep. DFID Nat. Resour. Policy Res. Prog.,
Project R7946. DFID, London.
ISNAR. 2002. Gender and agriculture in theinformation society. Briefing Pap. 55. Sept.
Available at http://www.isnar.cgiar.org/
publications/briefing/bp55.htm. ISNAR,IFPRI, Washington DC.
ITU (International Telecommunications Union).
2006. World telecommunications/ICTdevelopment report 2006: Measuring ICT
for social and economic development. ITU,
Geneva.
Izuno, T. 1979. Maize in Asian cropping systems:
Historical review and considerations for the
future. Asian Rep. No. 9. CIMMYT, New
Delhi.
Jacobs, M., and B. Dinham (ed) 2003. Silent
invaders: Pesticides, livelihoods and women’s
health. Zed Books. NY.
Jain, V. 1992. Disposing of pesticides in the third
world. Environ. Sci. Tech. 26:226.
Jakobson, K.M., and A.K. Dragun (ed) 1996.
Contingent valuation and endangered species.
methodological issues and applications.
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
James, C. 2004. Global status of commercializedbiotech/GM crops: 2004. Brief No. 32.
ISAAA, Ithaca.
Jaradat, A.A., M. Shahid, and A.Y. Al Maskri.
2004. Genetic diversity in the Batini barleylandrace from Oman: I. Spike and seed
quantitative and qualitative traits. Crop Sci.
44:304-315.
Jennings, B. 1997. The killing fields: Science andpolitics at Berkeley, California, USA. Agric.
Human Values 14:259-271.
Jensen, R. 2000. Agricultural volatility andinvestments in children. Am. Econ. Rev.
90(2):399-404.

Jensen, J.E., and P.H. Petersen. 2001. The Danish
pesticide action plan II: Obstacles andopportunities to meet the goals. p. 449-454.
In The BCPC Conf. Weeds 2001, Brit. Crop
Prot. Council, Farnham UK.
Jervis, M.S., M.A. Kidd, M.D. Fitton,
T. Huddleson, and H. Dawah. 1993. Flower
visiting by hymnopteran parasitoids. J. Nat.
Hist. 27:287-294.
Jiggins, J. 1984. Rhetoric or reality: Where dowomen in development projects stand today?
Agric. Admin. Part I, 15(3):157-175; Part II,
15(4):223-237.
Jiggins, J. 1986. Gender-related impacts andthe work of the international agriculturalresearch centers. CGIAR Impact Study Pap.
No. 17. World Bank, Washington DC.
Jiggins, J. (ed) 1989 International seminaron rural extension policies. Proc. IAC,
Wageningen.
Jiggins, J., and G. Poulter. 2007. A strategic vision
for European ARD in 2015 and beyond. Rep.
ERA-Net project, European research area Agricultural research for development. June.
Available at www.era-ard.org.
Johnson, D.G. 1996. China’s rural andagricultural reforms: Successes and failure.
Chinese Econ. Res. Unit (CERU), Univ.
Adelaide.
Johnson, D.G. 2000. Facts, trends and issues ofopen markets and food security. Pap. No.
00-01. Available at www.aic.ucdavis.edu/
research/Aaas.pdf. Off. Agric. Econ. Res.,
Univ. Chicago.
Jones, G. (ed) 1986. Investing in rural extension:
Strate­gies and goals. Elsevier, London.
Jones, G.E., and M.J. Rolls. 1982. Progressin rural extensiona and community
development. John Wiley, NY.
Jones. M. 2004. The capacity of Africa’s
agricultural sector to contribute to achieving
the UN Millennium Development Goals.
Special Pap. Ann. Rep. 2004. CTA,
Wageningen.
Joshi, K.D., B.R. Sthapit, and J.R. Witcombe.
2001. How narrowly adapted are theproducts of decentralized breeding? The
spread of rice varieties from a participatory
plant breeding programme in Nepal.
Euphytica 122:589-597.
Joshi, K.D., A.M. Musa, C. Johansen,
S. Gyawali, D. Harris, and J.R. Witcombe.
2007. Highly client-oriented breeding, using
local preferences and selection, produces
widely adapted rice varieties. Field Crops
Res. 100:107-116.
Jungbluth, F. 1996. Crop protection policy inThailand-economic and political factors
influencing pesticide use. Pesticide Policy
Project Publ. Ser. No. 5, Institut fur
Gartenbauokonomie, Univ. Hannover,Germany.
Jungbluth, F. 2000. Economic analysis of crop
protection in citrus production in central
Thailand. Pesticide Policy Proj. Publ. Ser.
Special Issue 4, Inst. Gartenbauokonomie,
Univ. Hannover, Germany.

11/3/08 10:43:02 AM

132 | IAASTD Global Report

Jutsum, A.R., S.P. Heaney, B.M. Perrin, and
P.J. Wege. 1998. Pesticide resistance:
Assessment of risk and development andimplementation of effective management
strategies. Pest. Sci. 54:435-446.
Kairo, M.T.K. 2005. Hunger poverty andprotection of biodiversity: Opportunities andchallenges for biological control. p. 228-236.
In Proc. Int. Symp. Biological Control of
Arthropods. Davos, Switzerland. 12-16 Sept.
2005. USDA Forest Service, FHTET, Fort
Collins, CO.
Kalkoven, J.T.R. 1993. Survival of populations
and the scale of the fragmented agriculturallandscape. p. 83-90. In R.G.H. Bunce et al.
(ed) Landscape ecology and agroecosystems.
Lewis Publ., Boca Raton.
Kampen, J. 1997. Financing agriculturalresearch: Lessons learned with agriculturalresearch funds. World Bank, Washington DC.
Kamuanga, M. 2001. Farmers’ perceptions of the
impacts of tsetse and trypanosomosis control
on livestock production: evidence fromsouthern Burkina Faso. Trop. Anim. HealthProd. 33:(2)141.
Karel, B. 2004. The persistence of pesticide
dependence: A review of World Bank
projects and their compliance with the WorldBank’s pest management policy, 1999-2003.
PANNA, San Francisco.
Kardan, N. 1993. Development approaches andthe role of policy advocacy: The case of theWorld Bank. World Dev. 21(11):1173-1186.
Kassa, B., and H. Beyene. 2001. Efficacy andeconomics of fungicide spray in the controlof late blight of potato in Ethiopia. Afr. Crop
Sci. J. 9(1):245.
Kataki, P.K., S.P. Srivastava, M. Saifuzzaman,and H.K. Upreti. 2001. Sterility in wheat andresponse of field crops to applied boron in the
Indo-Gangestic plains. J. Crop Prod. 4:133-165.
Keese P., O. Galman-Omitogun, andE.B. Sonaiya. 2002. Seeds of promise:Developing a sustainable agricultural
biotechnology industry in sub-SaharanAfrica. Nat. Resour. Forum 26:234-244.
Kelly, L. 2005. Addressing challenges ofglobalization: An independent evaluationof the World Bank’s approach to global
programs. Operations Evaluation Dep.,
World Bank, Washington DC.
Kenmore, P.E., F.O Carino., C.A. Perez.,
V.A. Dyck, and A.P. Guttierez. 1984.
Population regulation of the brownplanthopper within rice fields in thePhilippines. J. Plant Prot. Trop. 1(1):19-37.
Kennedy, D. 2001. Enclosing the researchcommons: The privatization of scientificresearch. Science 294:2249.
Kerr, J., and S. Kolavalli. 1999. Impact ofagricultural research in poverty alleviation;
Conceptual framework with illustrations
from literature. EPTD Disc. Pap. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Kerr, N.A. 1987. The legacy: A centennial historyof the state agricultural experiment stations:
1887-1987. Univ., Missouri, Columbia.

chapter 02.indd 132

Khan, Z.R., K. Ampong-Nyarko, P. Chiliswa,
A. Hassanali, S. Kimani, W. Lwande et al.
1997. Intercropping increases parasitism ofpests. Nature 388:631-632.
Khush, G.S. 2001. Challenges of meeting the
global food and nutrient needs in the newmillennium. Proc. Nutrition Society, 60:1526.
Kilcher, L. 2007. How organic agriculture
contributes to sustainable development. J.
Agric. Res. Trop. Subtrop. (Suppl) 89:31-49.
King, J.L. 2001. Concentration and technology
in agricultural input industries. Agric.
Inform. Bull., 763. USDA, Washington DC.
Kipkoech, K.A., F. Schulthess, W.K. Yabban,
H.K. Maritim, and D. Mithoefer. 2006.
Economics of biological control of cereal
stem borers in Kenya. Ann. Soc. Entomol.
France 42:519-528.
Kishi, M. 2005. The health impacts of pesticides:
What do we know now? Chapter 2. In J.
Pretty (ed) The pesticide detox: Towards
a more sustainable agriculture. Earthscan,
London.
Kishi, M., N. Hirschhorn, M. Qjajadisastra,
L. Satterlee, S. Strowman, and R. Dilts. 1995.
Relationship of pesticide spraying to signs
and symptoms in Indonesian farmers. Scand.
J. Work Environ. Health 21:124-33.
Kleinman, D.L., and S.P. Vallas. 2001. Science,
capitalism and the rise of the “knowledge
worker”: The changing structure ofknowledge production in the United States.
Theory Society 30:451-492.
Kline, S., and N. Rosenberg. 1986. An overview
of innovation. p. 275-396. In R. Landau, and
N. Rosenberg (ed) The positive sum strategy.
Harnessing technology for economic growth.
Nat. Acad. Press, Washington DC.
Knight, R. 2007. Interim report 2006 on
investigating environmental benefits. The
voluntary initiative indicator farms project.
Crop Prot. Assoc. UK and Farming and Wildlife
Advisory Group (FWAG). Environ. Agency, UK.
Knudsen, M.T., N. Halberg, J.E. Olesen,
J. Byrne, V. Iyer, and N. Toly. 2005. Global
trends in agriculture and food systems. In
N. Halberg et al. (ed) Global development oforganic agriculture: Challenges and promises.
CABI, UK.
Koc, M., R. MacRae, L.J.A. Mougeot, and
J. Welsh (ed) 1999. For hunger-poor cities:
Sustainable urban food systems. IDRC,
Canada.
Korten, A. 1995. A bitter pill: Structuraladjustment in Costa Rica. Inst. Food Dev.
Policy, San Francisco.
Korten, D.C., and F.B. Alfonso. 1983
Bureaucracy and the poor: Closing the gap.
Kumarian, Westport.
Kremer, M. 2003. Encouraging private sector
for tropical agriculture. 7th Int. Conf. Public
Goods and Public Policy for Agric. Biotech.
Ravello, Italy.
Krimsky, S. 1999. The profit of scientificdiscovery and its normative implications.
Kent Law Rev. 75:15-39.

Krimsky, S., and D. Golding (ed) 1992. Social
theories of risk. Praeger, Westport.
Kroma, M.M., and C.B. Flora. 2003. Greening
pesticides: A historical analysis of the social
construction of farm chemical advertisements.
Agric. Human Values 20:21-35.
Kuhn, T.S. 1970.the structure of scientificrevolutions. Univ. Chicago Press.
Kumar, N., and N.S. Sidharthan. 1997.
Technology, market structure andinternationalisation: Issues and policies
for developing countries. UNU/INTECH
Routledge, London.
Kumari, B., and R. Kumar. 2003 Magnitude ofpesticidal contamination in winter vegetablesfrom Hisar, Haryana. Environ. Monitor.
Assess. 87(3):311-318.
LaBelle, J. 2005. How has the food systembecame vulnerable? Executive summary.
p.1-12. In Proc. New Perspectives on Food
Security. 12-14 Nov. Available at http://
www.glynwood.org/programs/foodsec/
Executive%20Summary.pdf. Glynwood
Center, Cold Spring NY.
Ladejinsky, L.J. (ed) 1977. Agrarian reform as
unfinished business: The selected papers ofWolf Ladejinsky. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
Laird, S.A. (ed) 2002. Biodiversity andtraditional knowledge. Equitable partnerships
in practice. Earthscan, London.
Lal, R. 1989. Conservation tillage for sustainableagriculture: Tropics versus temperateenvironments. Adv. Agron. 42:85-197.
Lal, R., N. Uphoff, B.A. Stewart, andD.O. Hansen. 2005. Soil carbon depletionand the impending food crisis. CRC Press,
Baton Rouge FL.
Lang, T. 2006. Agriculture, food and health:
Perspectives on a long relationship. In
C. Hawkes and M.T. Ruel (ed)Understanding the links between agriculture
and health. Focus 13, Brief 2, May. Available
at http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focus13/
focus13_02.pdf. IPPRI, Washington DC.
Latorse, M.P., and K.H. Kuck. 2006.
Phytophtora infestans: Baseline sensitivity
and resistance management for fluopicolide.
Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer 59 (23):317-322.
Latouche, K., P. Rainelli, and D. Vermersch.
1998. Food safety issues and the BSE scare:
Some lessons from the French case. Food
Policy 23(5):347-356.
Latour, B. 2004. Politics of nature. How to bring
the sciences into democracy. Harvard Univ.
Press, Cambridge MA.
Leach, M., I. Scoones and B. Wynne (ed) 2005.
Science and citizens: Globalization and thechallenge of engagement. Zed Books, London.
Leach, M., and I. Scoones. 2006. The slow
race. Making technology work for the poor.
Demos, London.
Leeuwis, C., and A. van den Ban. 2004.
Communication for rural innovation.
Rethinking agricultural extension. 3rd ed.
Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Lele, U. 1975. The design of rural development:

11/3/08 10:43:03 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 133

Lessons from Africa. Johns Hopkins Univ.
Press, Baltimore.
Lele, U. and A.A. Goldsmith. 1989. The
development of national agricultural research
capacity: India’s experience with the Rockefeller
Foundation and its significance for Africa.
Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 37(2):305-343.
Lenne, J.M., and J.B. Smithson. 1994. Varietal
mixtures: a viable strategy for sustainableproductivity in subsistence agriculture.
Aspects Appl. Biol. 39:161-170.
Leonard, D.K. 1977. Reaching the peasantfarmer. Organization, theory and practice in
Kenya. Univ. Chicago Press.
Lesser, W., and M. Mutschler. 2002. Lessons
from the patenting of plants. p. 103-118. In
M Rotschild, S. Newman (ed) Intellectual
property rights in animal breeding andgenetics. CABI, Wallingford.
Lewis, W.J., J.C. van Lenteren, S.C. Phatak,and J.H. Tumlinson. 1997. A total systemapproach to sustainable pest management.
PNAS 94(23):12243-12248.
Liebenthal, A. 2002. Promoting environmental
sustainability in development: An evaluationof the World Bank’s performance. Oper. Eval.
Dep., World Bank, Washington DC.
Lightfoot, C., C. Alders and F. Dolberg (ed)2002. Linking local learners: Negotiating
new relationships between village, district
and nation. ISG/ARDAF/Agroforum, Greve,
Denmark.
Lighthall, D. 1995. Farm structure and chemical
use in the corn belt. Rural Soc. 60(3):505-520.
Lindstrom, J., and R. Kingamkono. 1991. Foods
from forests, fields and fallows. Working Pap.
184. Swedish Univ. Agric. Sci., Uppsala.
Lio, M. and Meng-Chun Liu. 2006. ICT andagricultural productivity: Evidence fromcross-country survey data. Agric. Econ.
34(3):221-228.
Lionberger, H. 1960. Adoption of new ideas andpractices. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
Lionberger, H. 1986. Towards an idealised
systems model for generating and utilisinginformation in modernising societies.
p. 105-135. In G.M. Beal et al. (ed)Knowledge generation, exchange andutilization. Westview Press, Boulder.
Lionberger, H., and P. Gwin. 1991. Technology
transfer from research to Users. Univ.
Missouri Press, Colombia.
Lipton, M. 2001. Challenges to meet: Food andnutrition security in new millennium. Proc.
Nutr. Society 60:203-214.
Lipton, M. 2005. The family farm in a
globalizing world. The role of crop science inalleviating poverty. 2020 Disc.Pap. 40. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Lipton, M. and R. Longhurst. 1989. New seeds
and poor people. Unwin Hyman, London.
Litsinger, J.A. 1989. Second generation insect
pest problems on high yielding rices. Trop.
Pest Manage. 35(3):235-242.
Lockie, S., and F. Vanclay (ed) 1997. Criticallandcare. Centre Rural Social Res. Charles
Sturt Univ., WaggaWagga.

chapter 02.indd 133

Loevinsohn, M.E. 1987. Insecticide use andincreased mortality in rural Central Luzon,
Philippines. The Lancet 8546:1350-1362.
Löhr, B., R. Gathu, C. Kariuki, J. Obiero,and G. Gichini. 2007. Impact of an exotic
parasitoid on Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera:
Plutellidae) population dynamics, damage
and indigenous natural enemies in Lenya.
Bull. Entomol. Res. 97:337-350.
London, L., A. Ngowi, M. Perry, H.A. Rother,E. Cairncross, A. Solomon et al. 2005.
Health and economic consequences ofpesticide use: The experience of the HHED
programme on pesticides in Southern Africa.
Epidemiol. 16:S29.
Loomis, C.P., and J.A. Beagle. 1950. Rural social
systems. Prentice Hall, NY.
Losey, J.E. and M. Vaughan 2006. The economic
value of ecological services provided by
insects. Bioscience 56:310-323.
Louwaars, N.P., R. Tripp, D. Eaton, V. HensonApollonio, R. Hu, M. Mendoza et al. 2005.
Impacts of strengthened intellectual property
rights regimes on the plant breeding industry
in developing countries: A synthesis of fivecase studies. Centre for Genetic Resources,
Wageningen.
Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of
the environment: A new social contract forscience. Science 279:491-497.
Lumbreras, L.G. 1992. Cultura, tecnologica ymodelos alternatives de desarrollo. Comercio
Exterior 42:199-205.
Luther, G., C. Harris, S. Sherwood, K. Gallagher,
J. Mangan, and K. Touré Gamby. 2005.
Developments and innovations in farmer
field schools and training of trainers. p. 159190. In G.W. Norton et al. (ed) Globalizing
integrated pest management: A participatory
research process. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Lyson, T.A. 2005. Systems perspectives on foodsecurity. p. 65-68. In Proc. New Perspectives
on Food Security. 12-14 Nov. Glynwood
Center, Cold Spring NY.
Maathai, W. 2003. Green Belt Movement:
Sharing the approach and the experience.
Lantern Books, NY.
Macha, M., A. Rwazo, and H. Mkalanga.
2001. Retail sales of pesticides in Tanzania:
occupational human health and safety
considerations. Afr. Newsl. Occup. Health
Safety 11(2):40-42.
Macharia, I., B. Löhr and H. De Groote. 2005.
Assessing the potential impact of biologicalcontrol of Plutella xylostella (diamondback
month) in cabbage production in Kenya.
Crop Prot. 24: 981-989.
Macharia, I., D. Mithoefer, and B. Löhr. 2007.
Update of the ex-ante impact assessment of
the biological control of Plutella xylostella(Diamondback moth) in Kenya. In
A.M. Shelton et al. (ed) 2006. Proc. 5th Int.
Workshop on Diamondback Moth and other
Crucifer Insect Pests. Beijing. 24-27 Oct. 2006.
Malik, R.K. 1981. Food a priority for consumer
protection in Asia and the Pacific region.
Food Nutr. 7:2.

Mancini. F. 2006. An evaluation of farmer field
schools in the cotton areas of southern India:
Impacts on farmers’ health, the environment,labour use, farming systems and livelihoods.
Publ. PhD. Wageningen Univ., Wageningen.
Mancini, F., A. van Bruggen, J. Jiggins,2007. Evaluating cotton integrated pest
management (IPM) farmer field schooloutcomes using a sustainable livelihoods
approach in India. Exp. Agric. 43:97-112.
Mangan, J., and M. Mangan. 1998. A comparisonof two IPM training strategies in China: theImportance of concepts of the rice ecosystem
for sustainable insect pest management. Agric.
Human Values 15:209-221.
Mangione, D., S. Senni, M. Puccione, S. Gando,
S. Ceccarelli. 2006. The cost of partivciaptorybarley breeding. Euphytica 150:289-306.
Maredia, M.K., and D.A. Raitzer. 2006. CGIAR
and NARS partner research in sub-SaharanAfrica: evidence of impact to date [Online].
Available at http://www.sciencecouncil.cgiar.org/activities/spia/pubs/CGIAR_WP_
AI-proof3.pdf. CGIAR Sci. Council,
Washington DC.
Martin, G.J. 1995. Ethnobotany, a methods
manual. WWF International, Chapman andHall. London.
Martinez-Torres, M. 2006. Organic coffee:
Sustainable development by Mayan farmers.
Ohio Univ. Press.
Mason, J., A. Bailes, M. Beda-Andourou,
N. Copeland, T. Curtis, M. Deitchler et
al. 2005. Recent trends in malnutrition indeveloping regions: Vitamin A deficiency,
anaemia, iodine deficiency, and childundernutrition. Food Nutr. Bull. 26(1):59-107.
Master, W.A. 2003. Research prices: A
mechanism for innovation in African
agriculture. 7th ICABR Int. Conf. Public
Goods and Public Policy for Agricultural
Biotechnology. Ravello, Italy.
Mathews, K. Jr., and J. Buzby. 2001. Dissecting
the challenges of mad cow and foot-andmouth disease. ERS/USDA, Agricultural
Outlook/August, Washington DC.
Matson, P.A., W.J. Parton, A.G Power, and
M.J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural intensificationand ecosystem properties. Science 227:504509.
Mattera, P. 2004. USDA Inc.: How Agribusinesshas hijacked regulatory policy at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Corporate Res.
Project, Good Jobs First, Washington DC.
Matteson, P.C., M.A. Altieri and W.C. Gagne.
1984. Modification of small farmer practices
for better pest management. Ann. Rev.
Entomol. 24:383-402.
Maturana and Varela. 1992. The tree ofknowledge: The biological roots ofunderstanding. Shambhala, Boston.
Maunder, A.H. 1972. Agricultural extension. A
reference manual. FAO, Rome.
Mayberry, B.D. 1991. A century of agriculturein the 1890 land-grant institutions andTuskegee University—1890-1990. Vantage
Press, NY.

11/3/08 10:43:03 AM

134 | IAASTD Global Report

Mazoyer M. 2005. Développement agricole
inégal et sous-alimentation paysanne In
L. Roudard and M. Mazoyer (ed) La fracture
agricole et alimentaire mondiale, nourrir
l’humanité aujourd’hui et demain. Encycl.
Universalis, Paris.
Mazoyer, M., and L. Roudard. 2005. Brève
histoire des agricultures du monde In
M. Mazoyer and L. Roudard (ed) La fracture
agricole et alimentaire mondiale, nourrir
l’humanité aujourd’hui et demain. Encycl.
Universalis, Paris.
Mboob, S.S. 1994. Integrated pest management:
A review of the consutlants’ report andits relevance to West Africa. p. 9-12. In
IPM Working Group, Nat. Resources Inst,(ed) IPM Implementation Workshop forWest Africa. Workshop Proc. Accra. NRI,
Chatham.
McConnell, R., and A.J. Hruska. 1993. An epidemicof pesticide poisoning in Nicaragua: Implication
for prevention in developing countries. Am. J.
Public Health 83(11):1559-1562.
McCown, R.L., G.L. Hammer,
J.N.G. Hargreaves, D. Holzworth, andD.M. Freebairn. 1996. APSIM: A novelsoftware system for model development,
model testing and simulation in agricultural
systems research. Agric. Syst. 50:255-271.
McCown, R.L., Z. Hochman, and P.S. Carberry(ed) 2002. Learning from 25 Years ofagricultural DSS: Case histories of efforts toharness simulation models for farm work.
Agic. Syst. 74:1-220.
McFadyen, R.C. 1998. Biological control ofweeds. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 43:369-393.
McGowan, L. 1997. Democracy undermined,
economic justice denied: Structuraladjustment and the aid juggernaut in Haiti.
The Development Gap, Washington DC.
McMichael, P. 2001. The impact of
globalization, free trade and technology onfood and nutrition in the new millennium.
Proc. Nutr. Society. 60(2):195-201.
Mead, P.S., L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, L.F. McCaig,
J.S. Bresee, C. Shapiro et al. 1999. Foodrelated illness and death in The United States.
Emerging Infect. Dis. 5:607-625.
Meinzen-Dick, R., M. Adato, L. Haddad, and
P. Hazell. 2004. Science and poverty, aninterdisciplinary assessment of the impact ofagricultural research. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Meir, C., and S. Williamson. 2005. Farmer
decision-making for ecological pest
management. p. 82-96 in J. Pretty. (ed) The
pesticide detox: Towards a more sustainableagriculture. Earthscan, London.
Mellon, M., and J. Rissler. 2004. Gone to seed:Transgenic contaminants in the traditional
seed supply. Available at http://www.ucsusa.
org/food_and_environment/biotechnology/
page.cfm?pageID=13-15. Union Concerned
Scientists, Cambridge MA.
Mellor, J.W., 1966. The economics ofagricultural development. Cornell Univ.
Press, Ithaca.
Mellor, J.W. 1990. Global food balances andchapter 02.indd 134

food security. In C.K. Eicher and J.M. Staatz(ed) Agricultural development in the third
world. 2nd ed. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,
Baltimore.
Mendelsohn, R. 2000. The market value offarmers’ rights. In V. Santaniello et al. (ed)Agriculture and intellectual property rights:
Economic, institutional and implementation
issues in biotechnology, CABI Publ., UK.
Menezes, F. 2001. Food sovereignty: A vital
requirement for food security in the context
of globalization. Thematic Section: Putting
people centre stage. Society Int. Dev. SAGE
Publ., London.
Merton, R.K. 1957. Social theory and social
structure. The Free Press, Glencoe.
Mitchell, J.P., P.B. Goodell, R. Krebill-Prather, T.
Prather, K. Hembree, D. Munk et al. 2001.
Innovative agricultural extension partnerships
in California’s central San Joaquin valley. J.
Extension 39(6). Available at http://www.joe.
org/joe/2001december/rb7.html.
Mkumbira, J. 2002. Cassava development forsmall farmers. Approaches to breeding in
Malawi. PhD thesis. Agraria 365. Swedish
Univ. Agric. Sci., Uppsala.
Mkumbira, J., L. Chiwona-Karltun,
U. Lagercrantz, N.M. Mahungu, J. Saka,
M. Hone et al. 2003. Classification of
cassava into ‘bitter’ and ‘cool’ in Malawi:
From farmers’ perception to characterisation
by molecular markers. Euphytica 132:7-22.
Mol, A.P.J., and H. Bulkley. 2002. Food risks
and the environment: Changing perspectives
in a changing social order. J. Environ. Policy
Plan. 4:185-195.
Mollison, B. 1988. Permaculture: A designer’s
manual. Tagari Publications, Tylagum, Australia.
Moock, P.R. 1976. The efficiency of women as
farm managers: Kenya. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
58:831-835.
Mook, B. 1974. Value and action in Indian
bureaucracy. Disc. Pap. no. 65. IDS, Sussex.
Moore, D. 2004. Biological control of
Rastrococcus invadens. Biocontrol News
Inform. 25(1):17N-27N. Available at http://
www.pestscience.com/PDF/BNIra67.PDF.
CABI, UK.
Morales, J.A. 1991. Structural adjustment andpeasant agriculture in Bolvia. Food Policy
16:58-66.
Morgan, P, and H. Baser. 1993. Making
technical cooperation more effective. New
approaches in international development.
CIDA, Tech. Coop. Div., Hull.
Moris, J. 1981. Managing induced ruraldevelopment. Int. Dev. Inst., Bloomington.
Moris, J. 1989. Extension under East African
field conditions. p. 73-85. In N. Roberts (ed)1989. Agricultural extension in Africa. WorldBank Symp. Available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/
content_storage_01/0000019b/80/20/83/7c.
pdf. World Bank, Washington DC.
Morris, M. 1998. Maize seed industries indeveloping countries. Lynne Rienner Publ.,
Boulder CO.

Morris, M., and B. Ekasingh. 2001. Plant breeding
research in developing countries: what roles forthe public and private sectors. In D. Byerlee,
R. Echeverria (ed) Agricultural research policy
in an era of privatization: Experiences from thedeveloping world. CABI, UK.
Morss, E.R., J.K. Hatch, D.R. McElewait, andC.F. Sweet. 1976. Strategies for small farmer
development. An empirical study of ruraldevelopment projects in Gambia, Ghana,
Kenya, Lesotho, Nigeria, Bolivia, Colombia,
México, Paraguay and Peru. Westview Press,
Boulder CO.
Moschini, G., and H. Lapan. 1997. Intellectual
property rights and the welfare effects ofagricultural R&D. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
79:1229-1242.
Mosher, A.T. 1966. Getting agriculture
moving: Essentials for development andmodernization. Parts I & II. Agric. Dev.
Council, NY.
Mosse, D. 2004a. Social analysis as productdevelopment: Anthropologists at work in
the World Bank. p. 77-87. In A.K. Giri etal. (ed). The development of religion/The
religion of development, Eburon, Delft.
Mosse, D. 2004b. Is good policy
unimplementable? Reflections on the
ethnography of aid policy and practice. Dev.
Change 35(4):639-671.
Mowery, D.C., and B.N. Sampat. 2004.
Universities in national innovation systems.
p. 209-239. In The Oxford handbook ofinnovation. J. Fagerberg et al. (ed) Available
at http://www.globelicsacademy.net/pdf/
DavidMowery_1.pdf. Oxford Univ. Press, UK.
MRC. 2007. Report from the International
Conference on the Mekong River
Commission (MRC). MRC, Vietnam.
MSU. 2000. The database of arthropods
resistant to pesticides. Michigan State Univ.
Available at www.cips.msu.eud/resistance.
MSU, East Lansing MI.
Mudimu, G.D., S. Chigume, and M.
Chikanda.1995. Pesticide use and policies in
Zimbabwe. Pesticide policy project Publ. Ser.
no. 2, Institut für Gartenbauökonomie, Univ.
Hanover, Germany.
Mukherjee, S., and V. Kathuria. 2006. Is
economic growth sustainable? Environmental
quality of Indian States after 1991. Int. J.
Sustain. Dev. 9:1.38-60.
Mulatu, E., and H. Zelleke. 2002. Farmers’
highland maize (Zea mays L.) selection
criteria: Implication for maize breeding for
the Hararghe highlands of eastern Ethiopia.
Euphytica 127:11-30.
Mungate, D. 1983. Women: The silent farmmanagers in the small-scale commercial
areas of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Agric. J.
80(6):245-249.
Muntemba, S., and R. Chimedza. 1995. Women
spearhead food security. In Missing links:
Gender equity in science and technology fordevelopment. Available at www.idrc.ca/en/
ev-29519-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html. IDRCITDG Publ., Canada.

11/3/08 10:43:04 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 135

Murphy, B.C., J.A. Rosenheim, J. Granett,
C.H. Pickett, and R.V. Dowell. 1998.
Measuring the impact of a natural enemy
refuge: The prune tree/vineyard example.
p. 297-309. In C.H. Pickett and R.L. Bugg(ed) Enhancing biological control: Habitat
management to promote natural enemiesof agricultural pests. Univ. California Press,
Berkeley.
Murray, D.L. 1994. Cultivating crisis: The
human cost of pesticides in Latin America.
Univ. Texas Press, Austin.
Murray, D.L., and P.L. Taylor. 2000. Claimno easy victories: evaluating the pesticideindustry’s global safe use campaign. World
Dev. 28(10):1735-1749.
Muzale, P., with D.K. Leonard. 1985.
Kenya’s experience with women’s groups
in agricultural extension: Strategies
for accelerating improvements in foodproduction and nutrition awareness inAfrica. Agricultural Admin. 19(1):13-28.
Nash, R. 1989.The rights of nature: A history ofenvironmental ethics. Univ. Wisconsin Press,
Madison.
Nash, J., and H. Safa. 1985. Women and change
in Latin America. New directions in study ofsex and class. Bergen and Garvey, NY.
Nathaniels, N.Q.R., M.E.R. Sijaona,
J.A.E. Shoo, and N. Katinila. 2003. IPM
for control of cashew powdery mildew in
Tanzania: Farmers’ crop protection practices,perceptions and sources of information. Int.
J. Pest Manage. 49(1):25-36.
Nature Biotechnology. 2004. Drugs in crops —the unpalatable truth. Nature Biotech. 22:133.
Naylor, R., and R. Ehrlich. 1997. Natural pest
control services and agriculture. p. 151-174
In: G.C. Daily (ed) Nature’s services societal
dependence on natural ecosystems. Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Naylor, R., W.P. Falcon, R.M. Goodman.,
M.M. Jahn, T. Sengooba, H. Tefera et al.
2004. Biotechnology in the developing world:a case for increased investments in orphan
crops. Food Policy 29:15-44.
Nelkin, D. 1975. Changing images of science:
New pressures on old stereotypes. Newsl.
Progr. Public Concept. Sci. 14:21-31.
NEPAD (New Economic Program for African
Development). 2002. Comprehensive
Africa agriculture development programme(CAADP). FAO/NEPAD, Rome.
Neri, M.S. 2005. Pesticide poisoned Bohol
schoolchildren: Health department. SunStar
News, Philippines, Tuesday, Mar. 15.
Available at http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2005/03/15/pesticide.poisoned.
bohol.schoolchildren.health.dep.t.html.
Neuenschwander, P. 1993. Human interactionsin classical biological control. In M.
Altieri (ed) Crop protection strategies for
subsistence farmers. Westview Press, Boulder
and London.
Neuenschwander, P. 2001. Biological control of
the cassava mealybug in Africa: A review.
Biol. Control 21:214-229.

chapter 02.indd 135

Neuenschwander, P. 2004. Harnessing nature in
Africa: Biological pest control can benefit thepocket, health and the environment. Nature
432:801-802.
Neuenschwander, P., C. Borgemeister and
J. Langewald (ed) 2003. Biological control in
IPM systems in Africa. CABI Publ., UK
Newell, P. and J. Wheeler (ed) 2006. Rights,
resources and the politics of accountability.
ZED Books, London.
Nguyên H.H., and T.A. Dao. 2001. Vietnam
promotes solutions to pesticide risks.
Pesticide News 53:6-7.
Nidumolu, U.B., H. van Keulen, M. Lubbers,and H. Mapfumo. 2007. Combining
interactive multiple goal linear programmingwith an inter-stakeholder communication
matrix to generate land use options. Environ.
Modelling Software 22:73-83.
Norgaard, R.B. 1988. The biological control of
cassava mealybug in Africa. Am. J. Agric.
Econ. 70:366-371.
Northwest Area Foundation. 1994. A betterrow to hoe. The economic, environmental
and social impact of sustainable agriculture.
Northwest Area Foundation, St. Paul.
Northwest Area Foundation. 1995. Planting
the future: Developing an agriculture thatsustains land and community. Iowa Univ.
Press, Ames.
Norton, G.W., J. Tjornhorn, D. Bosch,J. Ogrodowczyk, C. Edwards, T. Yamagiwa
et al. 2005. Pesticide and IPM policy
analysis. p. 191-210. In G.W. Norton et al.
(ed) Globalizing integrated pest management:
A participatory process. Blackwell Publ.,
Ames.
NRC (National Research Council). 1989.
Alternative agriculture. Nat. Acad. Press,
Washington DC.
NRC (National Research Council). 1993.
Pesticides in the diet of infants and children.
Nat. Acad. Press, Washington DC.
NRC (National Research Council). 1996.
Understanding risk. Informing decisions
in a democratic society. Nat. Acad. Press,
Washington DC.
NRC (National Research Council). 2004.
Biological confinement of geneticallyengineered crops. Nat. Acad. Press,
Washington, DC.
Nurminene, T., R. Kaarina, K. Kurppa, andP.C. Holmberg. 1995. Agricultural work
during pregnancy and selected structural
malformations in Finland. Epidemiol.
6(1):23-30.
Nwanze, K.F., and R.A.E. Mueller.
1989. Management options for sorghum
stem borers for farmers in the semi-arid
tropics. In Int. Workshop on Sorghum
Stem Borers. 17-20 Nov. 1987. ICRISAT,
Patancheru, India.
Obryki, J.J., J.R. Ruberson, J.E. Losey. 2002.
Interactions between natural enemies andtransgenic insecticidal crops. p. 83-206. In
L.E. Ehler et al. (ed) Genetics, evolution andbiological control. CABI Publ., UK.

OCA. 2006. Global week of action against foodirradiation. Statement of Food and Water
Watch. Exec. Dir. Wenonah Hauter, Foodand Water Watch, Nov. 28.
O’Connor, M. 2006. The AICCAN, the geGDP
and the Monetisation Frontier: a typologyof ‘environmentally adjusted’ nationalsustainability indicators. Int. J. Sustain. Dev.
9:61-99.
ODI. 1994. The CGIAR: What future forinternational agricultural research? Briefing
Pap. Sept. Overseas Dev. Inst., London
OECD. 1995. Guidelines for Aid Agencies on Pest
and Pesticide Management. OECD, Paris.
OECD. 2001. Multifunctionality: Towards ananalytical framework. OECD, Paris.
OECD. 2006a. Promoting pro-poor growth:
Agriculture. OECD, France.
OECD. 2006b. Report of the OECD pesticide
risk reduction steering group: The second
risk reduction survey. OECD Ser. Pesticides.
No. 30. OCED, Paris.
Oesterheld, M., M. Semmartin, and A.J. Hall.
2002. Análisis bibliográfico de lainvestigación agronómica en la Argentina.
Ciencia Hoy 12:52-62.
Ojiem, J.O., N. de Ridder, B. Vanlauwe, andK.E. Giller. 2006. Socio-ecological niche:
A conceptual framework for integration oflegumes in smallholder farming systems. Int.
J. Sust. Agric. 4:79-93
Okoth, J., G. Khisa, and J. Thomas. 2003.
Towards self-financed farmer field schools.
LEISA 19(1):28-29.
Omwega, C.O., E. Muchugu, W.A Overholt,
and F. Schulthess. 2006. Release andestablishment of Cotesia flavipes (Hym.,
Braconidae) an exotic parasitoid of Chilopartellus (Lep., Cambridae) in East andSouthern Africa. Ann. Soc. Entomol. France
42:511-517.
Ooi, P. 1998. Beyond the farmer field school:
IPM and empowerment in Indonesia.
Gatekeeper Ser. No. 78. IIED, London.
Oshaug, A. 2005. Developing voluntary
guidelines for implementing theright to adequate food¨anatomy of aintergovernmental process. Chapter 11.
p. 259-282. In W.B. Edie and U. Kracht (ed)Food and human rights in development. Vol.
I. Legal and institutional dimensions andselected topics. Intersentia N.V., Antwerp.
Oshaug, A., W.B. Eide, and A. Eide. 1994.
Human rights: A normative basis for foodand nutrition-relevant policies. Food Policy
19:6, 491-516.
Oshaug, A. and W.B. Eide. 2003. The long processof giving consent to an economic, social andcultural right: Twenty-five years with the caseof the right to adequate food. Chapter XIII. p.
325-369. In M. Bergsmo (ed) Human rights
and criminal justice for the downtrodden.
Essays in honour of Asbjørn Eide. Marinus
Nijhoof Publ., Leiden and Boston.
OTA. 1979. Pest management strategies in crop
protection. Vol. 1. US Gov. Printing Off.,Washington DC.

11/3/08 10:43:04 AM

136 | IAASTD Global Report

Oxfam America. 1995. The impact of structuraladjustment on community life: Undoing
development. Oxfam, Boston.
Paarlberg, R.L. 2002. Governance and foodsecurity in an age of globalization. Food
Agric. Environ. Disc. Pap. 36. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Paine, M.S., C.R. Burke, G.A. Verkerk, and
P.J. Jolly. 2000. learning together about
dairy cow fertility technologies in relation
to farming systems in New Zealand. p. 163175. In M. Cerf (ed) Cow up a tree. Knowing
and learning for change in agriculture. Casestudies from industrialised Countries. INRA
Editions, Paris.
Paredes, A., and J. Moncado. 2000. Produce
foundations in Mexico: An innovative
participatory approach and demand-driven
technology innovation model. GFAR
meeting, Dresden, Germany.
Pardey, P.G., and N.M. Beintema. 2001. Slow
magic: Agricultural R&D a century after
Mendel. ASTI Initiative. IFPRI, Washington
DC.
Pardey, P.G., N.M. Beintema, S. Dehmer, andS. Wood. 2006a. Agricultural research: A
growing global divide? Food Policy Rep.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Pardey, P G., J.M. Alston, and R.R. Piggott (ed)2006b. Agricultural R&D in the developingworld too little, too late? IFPRI, Washington
DC.
Pardey, P.G., J.M. Alston, and R.R. Piggott(ed) 2006c. Shifting ground: Agricultural
R&D worldwide. Issue Brief No. 46. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Parker, P., R. Latcher, A. Jakeman, M.B. Beck,
G. Harris, R.M. Argent et al. 2002. Progressin integrated assessment and modelling.
Environ. Modelling Software 17:209-217.
Parrado-Rosselli, A. 2006. A participatory research
approach for studying fruit availability andseed dispersal. Chapter 7. In Fruit availability
and seed dispersal in terra firme rain forests ofColombian Amazon. Tropenbos PhD Ser. 2.
Tropenbos Int., Wageningen.
Parrott, N., and T. Marsden. 2002. The real
green revolution: Organic and agroecolocicalfarming in the South. Greenpeace Environ.
Trust, London.
Paulson, D.D. 1995. Minnesota extension
agents’ knowledge and views of alternative
agriculture. Am. J. Alternat. Agric.
10(3):122-128.
Paveley, N.D., D.J. Royle, R.J. Cook,
U.A. Schoefl, D.B. Morris, M.J. Hims et al.
1994. Decision support to rationalise wheat
fungicide use. p. 679-686. In The BCPC
Conference Pests and Diseases 1994. Brit.
Crop Prot. Council, Farnham, UK.
Pawar, C.S. 2002. IPM and plant science
industries in India [Online]. Available at
http://www.croplifeasia.org/ref_library/ipm/
IPM_PSI.PDF. Agrolinks, Croplife Asia,
Bangkok.
Paxson, H. 2007. Reverse engineering terroir —crafting nature-culture in American artisanal

chapter 02.indd 136

cheese production. Available at http:/web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/cheese.html. MIT
TechTalk 11 Dec 2006.
Pearson, C.J., and R. Ison. 1997. Agronomy ofgrasslands systems. 2nd ed.Cambridge Univ.
Press, UK. Pedigo, L.P. 1992. Integrating
preventive and therapeutic tactics in soybean
insect management. p. 10-19. In L.G. Coping
et al. (ed) Pest management in soybeans.
Elsevier, London.
Pedigo, L.P. 1989. Entomology and pest
management. Macmillan, N.Y.
Pedigo, L.P. 1992. Integrating preventive
and therapeutic tactics in soybean insect
management. p. 10-19 In L.G. Coping et al.
(ed) Pest management in soybeans. Elsevier,
London.
Peeters, J.P., and J.T. Williams. 1984. Towards
better use of genebanks with special reference
to information. Plant Genetic Resour. Newsl.
60:22-32.
Pemsl, D., H. Waibel, and A.O. Gutierrez. 2005.
Why do some Bt-cotton farmers in China
continue to use high levels of pesticides? Int.
J. Sustain. 3:44-56
Pengue, W.A. 2005. Transgenic crops inArgentina: The ecological and social debt.
Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc. 25:314-322
Pennisi, E. 2003. Modernizing the tree of life.
Science 300:1692-1697.
Penot, E. 1994. La riziculture de mangrove de lasociété balant dans la région de Tombali en
Guinée-Bissau. p. 209-221. In Dynamiqueet usages de la mangrove dans les pays desRivières du Sud (Du Sénégal à la Sierra
Leone), M.C. Cormier-Salem (ed) Colloqueset Séminaires, Orstom, Paris:
Pennycook, F.R., E.M. Diamand, A. Watterson,
and C.V. Howard. 2004. Modeling the
dietary pesticides exposures of young
children. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health
10:304-309.
Perales, Hugo R., S.B. Brush, and C.O. Qualset.
2003. Dynamic management of maizelandraces in Central Mexico. Econ. Bot.
57:21-34.
Perkins, J.H. 1982. Insects, experts, and theinsecticide crisis: The quest for new pest
management strategies. Plenum Press, NY.
Peterson, W., C. Sands, and B. Swanson. 1989
Technology development and transfer
systems in agriculture. INTERPAKS report.
Off. Int. Agric. University of Illinois, Urbana.
Petit, M.J., G.E. Alex, H. Blackburn, W. Collins,
J.J. Doyle, R.D. Freed et al. 1996. The
emergence of a global agricultural researchsystem. The role of the agricultural researchand extension group (ESDAR). World Bank,
Washington DC.
Petrick, M., and P. Weingarten. 2004. The role ofagriculture in Central and Eastern European
development: Engine of change or social
buffer? Available at http://www.iamo.de/dok/
sr_vol25.pdf. IAMO, Salle.
Pimbert, M.P., and T. Wakeford. 2002.
Prajateerpu: A citizen’s jury/scenario
workshop on food and farming futures forAndhra Pradesh, India. London, IIED and
Sussex, IDS.
Pimbert, M.P. 2006. farmers’ views on the futureof food and small-scale producers. IIED,
London.
Pimentel, D. 1993. Economics and energetics oforganic and conventional farming. J. Agric.
Environ. Ethics 6:53-60.
Pimentel, D. 1997. Pest management inagriculture. p. 1-12. In D. Pimentel (ed)Techniques for reducing pesticide use:
Environmental and economic benefits. John
Wiley, Chichester UK.
Pimentel, D. 2005. Environmental and economic
costs of the application of pesticides
primarily in the United States. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 7:229-252.
Pimentel, D., U. Stachow, D.A. Takacs,
H.W. Brubaker, A.R. Dumas, J.J. Meaney etal. 1992. Conserving biological diversity inagricultural/forestry systems. BioScience 42:354-362.
Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, M. Biltonen, P. Rice,
M. Silva, J. Nelson et al. 1993. Assessmentof environmental and economic impactsof pesticide use. p. 47-84. In D. Pimentel,
H. Lehman (ed.) The pesticide question:
Environment, economics and ethics.
Chapman and Hall, NY.
Pimentel, D., C. Wilson, C. McCullum,
R.Huang, P.D. Wen, J. Flack et al. 1997.
Economic and environmental benefits of
biodiversity. Bioscience. 47:747-757.
Pimentel, D., P. Hepperly, J. Hanson, D. Douds,
and R. Seidel. 2005. Environmental,
energetic, and economic comparisons oforganic and conventional farming systems.
BioScience 55:573-582.
Pimbert, M. 2007. Transforming knowledge andways of knowing for food sovereignty. IIED,
London.
Pimbert, M.P., and T. Wakeford. 2002.
Prajateerpu: A citizens jury / Scenario
workshop on food and farming futures forAndhra Pradesh, India. Available at http://
www.prajateerpu.org. IIED, London.
Pimbert, M.P., K. Tran-Thanh, E. Deléage,M. Reinert, C. Trehet, and E. Bennett (ed)2006. Farmers’ views on the future of foodand smallscale producers. IIED, London.
Pingali, P.L., and G. Traxler. 2002. Changing
locus of agricultural research: Will the poor
benefit from biotechnology and privatization
trends? Food Policy 27:223-228.
Plencovich, M., and A. Costantini. 2003.
Dimensiones productivas, sociopolíticas
y educativas de la inserción de Escuelas
Agrotécnicas de la Región Pampeana.
UBACYT. 2004-2007. Univ. Buenos Aires,
Buenos Aires.
Plencovich, M.C., and A. Costantini. 2006.
El itinerario de las escuelas agropecuarias:
la educación silenciosa. XX Jornadas deEducación Agropecuaria, 2006, Paraná.
FEDIAP. Available at www.fediap.com.ar/material/Lic.%20María%20Cristina%20
Plencovich.ppt.

11/3/08 10:43:05 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 137

Pontius, J., R. Dilts, and A. Bartlett. 2002. From
farmer field schools to community IPM: Ten
years of ipm training in Asia. FAO, Reg. Off.
Asia Pacific, Bangkok.
Pontius, J. 2003. Picturing impact: Participatory
evaluation of community IPM in three WestJava villages. p. 227-260. In CIP-UPWARD.
Farmer field schools: Emerging issues andchallenges. Users’ perspectives with agriculturalresearch and development. CIP, Los Baños.
Pray, C.E., J.F. Oehmke, and A. Naseem. 2005.
Innovation and dynamic efficiency in plantbiotechnology: An introduction to theresearchable issues. AgBioForum 8:52-63.
Prescott, V., P.M. Campbell, A. Moore,
J. Mattes, M.E. Rothenberg, P.S. Foster et al.
2005. Transgenic expression of bean alphaamylase inhibitor in peas results in alteredstructure and immunogenicity. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 53(23):9023-9030.
Pretty, J.N. 1994. Alternative systems ofinquiry for sustainable agriculture. IDS Bull.
25(2):37-48.
Pretty, J.N. 1995. Regenerating agriculture:
Policies and practice for sustainability andself-reliance. Earthscan, London and Nat.
Acad. Press, Washington DC.
Pretty, J.N. 1999. Can sustainable agriculture
feed Africa? New evidence on progress,
processes and impacts. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
1:253-274.
Pretty, J.N. 2002. Agri-Culture: Reconnecting
people, land and nature. Earthscan, London.
Pretty, J.N. (ed) 2005a. The earthscan reader insustainable agriculture. Earthscan, London.
Pretty, J.N. (ed) 2005b. The pesticide detox.
Towards a more sustainable agriculture.
Earthscan, London.
Pretty, J., and R. Hine. 2005. Pesticide use
and the environment. In J. Pretty (ed) The
pesticide detox: Towards a more sustainableagriculture. Earthscan, London.
Pretty, J., and H. Waibel. 2005. Paying the price:
The full cost of pesticides. p. 39-54. In
J. Pretty (ed) The pesticide detox. Earthscan,
London.
Pretty, J., J. Morison, R. Hine. 2003. Reducing
food poverty by increasing agricultural
sustainability in developing countries. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 95:217-234.
Prigogine, I., and I. Stengers. 1979. La nouvelle
alliance. Métamorphose de la science. Ed.
Gallimard, Paris.
Prokopy, R.J. 2003. Two decades of bottom-up,
ecologically based pest management in a small
commercial apple orchard in Massachusetts.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 94: 299-309.
Qaim, M., and G. Traxler. 2002. Roundup
ready soybeans in Argentina: Farm level
and aggregate welfare effects. Agric. Econ.
32:73-86.
Qayum, A., and K. Sakkhari. 2005. Bt Cotton
in Andhra Pradesh. A tree-year assessment.
Deccan Dev. Soc.Village Pastapur.
Zakeerabad, Medak District, AP, India.
Quiros, C.F., R. Ortega, L .Van Raamsdonk, M.
Herrera-Montoya, P. Cisneros, andchapter 02.indd 137

E. Schmidt. 1992. Increase of potato genetic
resources in their center of diversity: The roleof natural outcrossing and selection by the
Andean farmer. Genetic Resour. Crop Evol.
39:107-113.
Quizon J., G. Feder, and R. Murgai. 2000. A noteon the sustainability of the farmer field school
approach to agricultural extension. Dev. Econ.
Group, World Bank, Washington DC.
Raedeke, A.H., and J.S. Rikoon.1997. Temporaland spatial dimensions of knowledge:
Implications for sustainable agriculture.
Agric. Human Values 14:145-158.
Ramaswami, B. and C.E. Pray. 2007. India:
Confronting the challenge — the potential ofgenetically modified crops for the poor.
p. 156-174. Chapter 9 In S. Fukuda-Parr (ed)The gene revolution. GM crops and unequal
development. Earthscan, London.
Readings, B. 1996. The university in ruins.
Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge MA.
Reardon, T., C.P. Timmer, C.B. Barrett, andJ. Berdegué. 2003. The rise of supermarkets
in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Am. J.
Agric. Econ. 85(5):1140-1146.
Reeves, M., A. Katten, and M. Guzman.
2002. Pesticide safety laws fail to protect
farmworkers. In Field of poison. Available atwww.panna.org. PANNA, San Francisco.
Reeves, M., and K.S. Schafer. 2003. Greaterrisks, fewer rights: US farmworkers andpesticides. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health
9:30-39.
Reeves, T.G and K. Cassaday. 2002. History andpast achievements of plant breeding. Aust. J.
Agric. Res. 53:851-863.
Reganold, J.P., J. Glover, P. Andrews, and
H. Hinman. 2001. Sustainability of threeapple production systems. Nature 410:926930.
Reij, C., I. Scoones, and C. Toulmin (ed) 1996.
Sustaining the soil. Indigenous soil and water
conservation in Africa. Earthscan. London.
Reij, C., and A. Waters-Bayer. 2001. Farmer
innovation in Africa: a source of inspiration
for agricultural development. Earthscan,
London.
Reitz, S.R., G.S. Kund, W.G. Carson,
P.A. Phillips, and J. Trumble. 1999. Economicsof reducing insecticide use on celery throughlow-input pest management strategies. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 73:185-197.
Relyea, R.A. 2005. The impact of insecticides
and herbicides on the biodiversity andproductivity of aquatic communities. Ecol.
Applic. 15:618-627.
Repetto, R. 1985. Paying the price: Pesticides
subsidies in developing countries. Res. Rep.
No. 2. World Resour. Inst., Washington DC.
Repetto, R. 1986. Skimming the water: Rentseeking the performance of public irrigation
sytems. Res. Rep. 4. World Resour. Inst.,
Washington DC.
Repetto, R. 1990. Deforestation in the tropics.
Sci. Am. 262(4):18-24.
Repetto, R. 1992. Accounting for environmental
assets. Sci. Am. 266:94-100.

Repetto, R. 1994. The “second India” revisited:
Population, poverty and environmental stressover two decades. WRI, Washington DC.
Repetto, R., W. Magrath, M. Wells, C. Beer, and
F. Rossini. 1989. Wasting assets: Natural
resources in the national income accounts.
World Resour. Inst., Washington DC.
Reus, J.A.W.A., and P.C. Leendertse. 2000. The
environmental yardstick for pesticides: A
practical indicator used in the Netherlands.
Crop Prot. 19:637-641.
Rhoades, R.E. 2006. Seeking half our brains:
Reflections on the social context ofinterdisciplinary research and development.
p. 403-420. In M.M. Cernea, A.H. Kasam(ed) Researching the culture in agriculture: Social research for international
development. CABI Publ., Oxford.
Rhoades, R.E. 1982. The art of the informal
agricultural survey. Social Science Dep.
Training Doc. 1982‑2, CIP, Lima.
Rhoades, R.E., and R.H. Booth. 1982. Farmerback-farmer: a model for generating
acceptable agricultural technology. Agric.
Admin. 11:127-137.
Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous agricultural
revolution. Westview Press, Boulder.
Richards, P. 1995. Participatory rural appraisal:
A quick and dirty critique. p. 13-16 In PLA
Notes, No. 24. IIED, London.
Richards, P. 2002. Fighting for the rain forest:
War, youths and resources in Sierra Leone.
African Issues Ser. James Currey, Oxford.
Richards, P. (ed) 2005. No peace no war. An
anthropology of contemporary armed
conflicts. Ohio Univ. Press, Athens and James
Curry, Oxford.
Riches, G. (ed) 1997.First world hunger. Food
security and welfare politics Macmillan,
London and St. Martins, NY.
Rickert, K. 2004. Emerging challenges forfarming systems. Lessons from Australianand Dutch agriculture. Available at http://
www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/Ras/03-053.pdf.
Rural Industries Res. Dev. Corp., Gov.
Australia.
Ricketts, T. 2001. The matrix matters: effective
isolation in fragmented landscapes. The Am.
Naturalist 158(1):87-99.
Riddle, J. 2004. Crop trust to conserve plant
diversity. FAO newsroom. Available
at http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/
news/2004/51211/index.html.
Rivera, W.M. 1996. Agricultural extension intransition worldwide: Structural, financial
and managerial reform strategies. Public
Admin. Dev. 16:151-161.
Rivera, W.M., and S.G. Schram. 1987.
Agricultural extension worldwide: Issues,
practices and emerging priorities. Green
Helm, NY.
Rivera, W.M., and D.J. Gustafson (ed)1991. Agricultural extension: Worldwide
institutional evolution and forces for change.
Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Rivera, W.M., and W. Zijp. 2002. Contracting
for agricultural extension. International case

11/3/08 10:43:05 AM

138 | IAASTD Global Reportstudies and emerging practices. CABI Publ.,
UK.
Roberts, N. (ed) 1989. Agricultural extension
in Africa. World Bank Symposium.
Available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_
storage_01/0000019b/80/20/83/7c.pdf.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Robinson, M. 2002. Sustainable development
and environmental protection. Speech by the
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
delivered at the Civil Society Workshop on
Human Rights, World Summit Sustain. Dev.,
Johannesburg, 1 Sept 2002. Available at
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/A551686D4B5905D0C1256C28002B
F3D6?opendocument.
Robinson, R.A., and W.J. Sutherland. 2002.
Post-war changes in arable farming andbiodiversity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol.
39:157-176.
Rodríguez, L.C., and H.M. Niemeyer. 2005.
Integrated pest management, semiochemicals
and microbial antagonists in Latin American
agriculture. Crop Prot. 24(7):615-623.
Rodricks, J.V. 2001. Using science-based risk
assessment to develop food safety policy. p.
25-32 In Food safety policy, science and risk
assessment: Strengthening the connection.
Nat. Acad. Press, Washington DC.
Rogers, E.M. 1962. The diffusion of innovations.
Free Press, Glencoe NY.
Rogers, E.M. 1976. Communication anddevelopment: The passing of a dominantparadigm. Comm. Res. 3:213-240.
Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations.
3rd ed. Free Press, NY.
Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations.
4th ed. Free Press, NY.
Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations.
5th ed. Free Press, NY.
Rogers, E.M., and D.L. Kincaid. 1981.
Communication networks: Towards a newparadigm for research. Free Press, NY.
Rola, A., S. Jamias, J. Quizon. 2002. Do farmer
field school graduates retain and sharewhat they learn? An investigation in Iloilo,
Philippines. J. Int. Agric. Extens. Educ. 9:6576.
Röling, N. 1988. Extension science: Information
systems in agricultural development.
Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Röling, N. 2004. Communication fordevelopment in research, extension andeducation. Available at http://www.fao.org/
sd/dim_kn1/docs/kn1_040701a3b_en.pdf.
Wageningen Univ., the Netherlands.
Röling, N., J. Ascroft, and F. Wa Chege. 1976.
Diffusion of innovations and the issue ofequity in rural development. Comm. Res.
3:155-71.
Röling, N., and P.G.H. Engel. 1991. The
development of the concept of agricultural
knowledge and information systems(AKIS): Implications for extension. p. 125139 In W.M. Rivera, D.J. Gustafson (ed)Agricultural extension: World­wide institu­

chapter 02.indd 138

tional evolution and forces for change.
Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Röling, N., and M.A.E. Wagemakers (ed)1998. Facilitating sustainable agriculture.
Participatory learning and adaptive
management in times of environmental
uncertainty. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Rosenthal, E. 2003. The tragedy of
Tauccamarca: A human rights perspectiveon the pesticide poisoning deaths of 24
children in the Peruvian Andes. Int. J. Occup.
Environ. Health 9:53-58.
Rosenthal, E. 2005. Who’s afraid of nationallaws? Pesticide corporations use tradenegotiations to avoid bans and undercut
public health protections in Central America.
Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 11:437-443.
Rosset, P. 2000. Lessons from the green
revolution- do we need new technology toend hunger? Available at http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html. Inst. Food Dev. Policy, Oakland.
Rosset, P., and M. Benjamin. 1994. The greeningof the revolution: Cuba’s experiments withorganic agriculture. Ocean Press, Melbourne.
Rosset, P., R. Patel, and M. Courville. 2006.
Promised land: Competing visions ofagrarian reform. Inst. Food Dev. Policy,
Oakland, CA.
Roth, M. 1999. Overview of farm direct
marketing industry trends. Agric. Outlook
Forum. USDA, Washington DC.
Ruane, J., and A. Soninno. 2006. Results fromthe FAO biotechnology forum. Res. Tech
Pap. No. 11. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/
docrep/fao/009/a0744e/a0744e00.pdf. FAO,
Rome.
Rukuni, M., M.J. Blackie, and C.K. Eicher. 1998.
Crafting smallholder-driven agriculturalresearch systems in Southern Africa. World
Dev. 26(6):1073-1087.
Russell, E. 2001. War and nature: Fighting
humans and insects with chemicals fromworld War I to Silent Spring. Cambridge
Univ. Press, UK.
Ryan, B., and N. Gross. 1943. The diffusion of
hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities.
Rur. Soc. 8:15-24.
Saad, M.B. 1999. Food Security for the FoodInsecure: new challenges and renewed
commitments. Centre for Development
Studies, Dublin.
Sachs, C. 1996. Gendered fields. Rural women,
agriculture and the environment. Rur. Studies
Ser. Westview Press, Boulder CO.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. 1982. The persistenceof women’s invisibility in agriculture.
Theoretical and policy lessons from Leostho
and Sierra Leone. Centre for Policy Studies,
Working Pap. 88, The Population Council,
NY.
Safrin, S. 2004. Hyperownership in a time of
biotechnological promise: The international
conflict to control the building blocks of life.
The Am. J. Int. Law 98:641-684.
Sagenmuller, A. (ed) 1999. AgroEvo´scontribution to integrated crop management.

Hoechst Schering AgroEvo GmbH,
Frankfurt.
Sakamoto, K., Y. Choi, L.L. Burmesiter. 2007.
Farming multifunctionality: Agricultural
policy paradigm change in South Korea andJapan. Int. J. Soc. Food Agric. 15(11):24-45.
Salazar, R. 1992. MASIPAG: Alternative
community rice breeding in the Philippines.
Approp. Tech. 18:20-21.
Salazar, R., N.P. Louwaars, and B. Visser,
2007. Protecting farmers’ new varieties:
New approaches to rights on collective
innovations in plant genetic resources. World
Dev. 35(9):1515-1528.
Sale, K. 1993. The green revolution: The
American environmental movement, 19621999. Hill & Wang Sale, NY
Samanta, R.K. (ed) 1995. Women in agriculture.
Perspectives, issues and experiences. M.D.
Publ. New Delhi.
Samanta, R.K, and S.K. Aurora. 1997.
Management of agricultural extension in
global perspectives. BR Publ., New Delhi.
Samways, M. 1997. Classical biological control
and biodiversity conservation: What risks are
we prepared to accept? Biodivers. Conserv.
6:1309-1316.
Santaniello, V. 2003 Agricultural biotechnology:
Implications for food security. Proc. 25thInt. Conf. Agric. Econ. Durban. 18-22 Aug.
Available at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2004.00023.x
SAPRIN (Structural Adjustment Participatory
Rev. Int. Network). 2002. The policy roots ofeconomic crisis and poverty: A multi-country
participatory assessment of structuraladjustment. SAPRIN, Washington DC.
Scanlon, T.M. 1998. What we owe each other.
The Belknap Press, Cambridge MA.
Schecter, A.J., L.C. Dai, O. Päpke, J. Prange,
J.D. Constable, M. Matsuda et al. 2001.
Recent dioxin contamination from Agent
Orange in residents of a southern Vietnam
city. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 43(5):435-443.
Schecter, A., P. Cramer, K. Boggess, J. Stanley,
O. Päpke, J. Olson et al. 2001. Intake ofdioxins and related compounds from foodin the U.S. population. J. Toxicol. Environ.
Health (Part A) 63:1-18.
Schettler, T., G. Solomon, P. Burns, andM. Valenti. 1996. Generations at risk: How
environmental toxins may affect reproductive
health in Massachusetts. GBPSR and
MASSPIRG, Cambridge MA.
Schillhorn van Veen, T.W., D.A. Forno, S. Joffe,
D.L. Umali Deiniger, and S. Cooke. 1997.
Integrated pest management, strategies andpolices for effective implementation. Env.
Sustain. Dev. Studies Mono. Ser. No. 13,
World Bank, Washington DC.
Schulthess, F., A. Chabi-Olaye, and S. Gounou.
2004. Multi-trophic level interactions in a
cassava-maize relay cropping system in thehumid tropics of West Africa. Bull. Ent. Res.
94:261-272.

11/3/08 10:43:06 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 139

Schultz, T.W. 1964. Transforming traditional
agriculture, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven.
Schütz, A. 1964. Collected papers II: Studies insocial theory. A. Brodersen (ed) Martinus
Nijhoff, The Hague.
Scialabba, N. 2000. Opportunities andconstraints of organic agriculture: A socioecological analysis. Universitá degli Studidella Tuscia, Viterbo, 17-28 July.
Scialabba, N. 2007. Organic agriculture andfood security. In Int. Conf. Organic Agric.
Food Security. Rome. May 3-5. [Online].
Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/paia/organicag/
ofs/nadia.pdf. FAO, Rome.
Scoones, I., M. Melnyk, and J.N. Pretty.
1992. The hidden harvest. Wild foods andagricultural systems. A literature review andannotated bibliography. IIED, London.
Scoones, I., and J. Thompson (ed) 1994. Beyond
farmer first. Rural people’s knowledge,
agricultural research and extension practice.
Intermediate Tech., London.
Scoones, I., C. Chibudu, S. Chikura,
P. Jeranyama, D. Machaka, W. Machanja
et al. 1996. Hazards and opportunities.
Farming livelihoods in dryland Africa:
Lessons from Zimbabwe. Zed Books,
London.
Seligman, M.E.P., and J.L. Hagar. 1972.
Biological boundaries of learning. Meredith,NY.
Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and famines. An essay on
entitlement and depreviation. Clarendon,
Oxford.
Settle, W.H., H. Ariawan, E. Tri Astuti,
W. Cahyana, A.L. Hakim, D. Hindayana
et al. 1996. Managing tropical rice pests
through conservation of generalist natural
enemies and alternative prey. Ecology
77(7):1975-1988.
Seur, H. 1992. Sowing the good seed. Theinterweaving of agricultural change. Gender
relations and religion in Serenje District,Zambia. Publ. PhD thesis. Agricultural Univ.,
Wageningen.
SGRP. 2006. Developing Access and Benefit
Sharing Regimes: plant genetic resources forfood and Agriculture, System-wide Genetic
Resources Program of the CGIAR.
Shapiro, C. 2001. Navigating the patent thicket:
Cross licenses, patent pools and standard
setting, in innovation policy and theeconomy. In A. Jaffe et al. (ed) Innovation
policy and the economy. vol.1. Nat. Bureau
Econ. Res., Cambridge MA.
Sharma, R., and T.H. Poleman. 1993. The
new economics of India’s green revolution.
Income and employment diffusion in Uttar
Pradesh. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca.
Shennan, C., T. Pisani Gareau, and J.R. Sirrine.
2005. Agroecological approaches to pest
management in the US. p. 147-164. In J.
Pretty. (ed) The pesticide detox: Towards
a more sustainable agriculture. Earthscan,
London.
Sherwood, S., D. Cole, C. Crissman, and
M. Paredes. 2005 From pesticides to people:

chapter 02.indd 139

Improving ecosystem health in the northern
Andes. p. 147-164.In J. Pretty (ed) The
pesticide detox. Towards a more sustainableagriculture. Earthscan, London.
Shiva, V. 2000. Stolen harvest: The hijackingof the global food supply. South End Press,
Cambridge MA.
Shulman, S. 2006. Undermining science:
Suppression and distortion in the Bush
Administration. Univ. California Press,
Berkeley.
Sibanda, T., H.M. Dobson, J.F. Cooper,
W. Manyangarirwa, and W. Chiimba. 2000.
Pest management challenges for smallholder
vegetable farmers in Zimbabwe. Crop Prot.
19:807-815.
SIDA.1999. Sustainable agriculture: A summaryof SIDA’s experiences and priorities.
Available at http://www.sida.se/sida/jsp/sida.jsp?d=118&a=3320&language=en_
US&searchWords=sustainable%
20agriculture. SIDA, Stockholm.
Sigsgaard, L. 2006. Biological control ofarthropod pests in outdoor crops — the
new challenge. Proc. Int. Workshop
Implementation of Biocontrol in Practicein Temperate Regions — Present and Near
Future. Flakkebjerg, Denmark. 1-3 Nov.
2005. DIAS Rep. No. 119:153-167.
Simberloff, D., and P. Stiling. 1996. Risks ofspecies introduced for biological control.
Biol. Conserv. 78:185-192.
Simmonds, N.W. 1979. Principles of crop
improvement. Longman, London.
Singh, N.C. 1983. The economics of cattle tickcontrol in dry tropical Australia. Aust. Vet.
J. 60(2):37.
Sinzogan, A.A.C., J. Jiggins, S. Vodohué,
D. Kossou, E. Totin, and A. van Huis. 2007.
An analysis of the organizational linkagesin the cotton industry in Benin. Special Issue
Convergence of Sciences Research in West
Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 5(2-3):213-231.
Sissoko, M. 1994. Lutte Integree contre lesennemis du mil dans la zone de Banamba au
Mali. Sahel PV Info. 60:15-19.
Slaybaugh, Douglas. 1996. William I. Myers andthe modernization of american agriculture.
Henry A. Wallace Series on Agricultural
History and Rural Life. Iowa State Univ.
Press, Ames.
Sligh, M., and C. Christman. 2007. Organic
agriculture and access to food. In Int.
Conf. Organic Agric. Food Security. Rome.
May 3-5. Available at http://www.fao.org/
organicag/ofs/presentations_en.htm. FAO,
Rome.
Smith, R.F., and R. van den Bosch. 1967.
Integrated control. p. 295-340. In
W.W. Kilglore and R.L. Doutt (ed) Pest
control: Biological, physical and selectedchemical methods. Academic Press, NY.
Smith, D.L., and L. Sparks. 1993. The
transformation of physical distribution inretailing: The example of Tesco plc. Int. Rev.
Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 3(1):35-64.
Smith, M., G. Castillo, and F. Gomez. 2001.

Participatory plant breeding with maize in
Mexico and Honduras. Euphytica 122:551-565.
Snow, A., D. Andow, P. Gepts, E. Hallerman,
A. Power, J. Tiedje, and L. Wolfenbarger.
2005. Genetically engineered organisms
and the environment: Current status andrecommendations. Ecol. Applic. 15:377-404.
Snowden, S.J. 2005. Complex acts of knowing:
Paradox and descriptive self-awareness.
Special Issue. J. Knowledge Manage.
6(2):100-111.
Snowden, F.M. 2006. The conquest of malaria.
Italy, 1900-1962. Yale Univ. Press, New
Haven.
Solow, R.M. 1957. Technical change and theaggregate production function. Rev. Econ.
Statist. 39:312-320.
Song, Y. 1998. ‘New’ seed in ‘old’ China. Impact
of CIMMYT collaborative programme maize
breeding in South-western China. Available
at http://www.cimmyt.org/Research/
Economics/map/impact_studies/pdf/NewSeed.
pdf. Wageningen Univ., Netherlands.
Sorby, K. 2002. What is sustainable coffee?
Background Pap. Agric. Tech. Note 30.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Sorby, K., G. Fleischer, and E. Pehu. 2003.
Integrated pest management in development:
Review of trends and implementation
strategies. Agric. Rural Dev. Dep., Working
Pap. No. 5. World Bank, Washington DC.
Sow, M. 1992. La riziculture traditionnelle surles terres de mangrove en basse Guinée.
IRAG, Conakry.
Spedding, C.R.W. 1975. The biology ofagricultural systems. Academic Press,
London.
Sperling L., M. Loevinsohn, and B. Ntabomvura.
1993. Rethinking farmers’ role in plant
breeding: Local bean experts and on-station
selection in Rawanda. Exp. Agric. 29:509-519.
Spielman, D.J., and K. von Grebmer. 2004.
Public-private partnerships in agriculturalresearch: An analysis of challenges facing
industry and the CGIAR. Environ. Prod.
Tech. Div., IFPRI, Washington DC.
Srinivasan, C.S. 2004. Plant variety protection indeveloping countries: A view from the private
seed sector in India. J. New Seeds 6(1):67-89
Stagl, S., M. Getzner, and C. Spash. 2004.
Alternatives for environmental valuation.
Routledge, London.
Staudt, K. 1985. Women, foreign assistance andadvocacy administration. Praeger, NY.
Staudt, K., and J.M. Col. 1991. Diversity in East
Africa: Cultural pluralism, public policy andthe state. Women Int. Dev. Ann. 2:241-264.
Steffen, W., A. Sanderson, P.D. Tyson, J. Jäger,P.A. Matson, B. Moore et al. 2004. Globalchange and the Earth system: A planet underpressure. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar,
V. Castel, M. Rosales, and C. de Hahn. 2006.
Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental
issues and options. Available at http://
www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/
longshad/AOTO12EOO.pdf. FAO, Rome.

11/3/08 10:43:06 AM

140 | IAASTD Global Report

Stern, V.M., R.F. Smith, R. van den Bosch,and K.S. Hagen. 1959. The integrationof chemical and biological control of the
spotted alfalfa aphid. 1. The integrated
control concept. Higardia 29:81-101.
Stern, N.L. 2006. Review report on theeconomics of climate change. Cambridge
Univ. Press, UK
Sthapit, B.R., K.D Joshi, and J.R. Witcombe.
1996. Participatory rice breeding in Nepal.
Crop Improve. 23:179-188.
Stiglitz, J.E. 2006. Making globalization work.
W.W. Norton, NY.
Stoll, G. 2002. Asia and the international
context. Organic agriculture and rural
poverty alleviation: Potential and bestpractices in Asia. UN Econ. Social Comm.
for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
Stone, G.D. 2007. Agricultural deskilling andthe spread of genetically modified cotton in
Warangal. Curr. Anthropol. 48:67-103.
Stone, D., and C. Wright. 2007. The World Bankand governance: A decade of reform andreaction. Routledge, Oxford.
Stoop, W. 2002. A study and comprehensive
analysis of the causes for low adoption
rates of agricultural research results inWest and Central Africa: Possible solutions
leading to greater future impacts: The Maliand Ghana case studies. Interim Science
Council. CGIAR, Washington DC. and
FAO, Rome.
Stringer, R. 2000. Food security in developing
countries. Working Pap. No. 11. Available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=231211. CIES, Univ.
Adelaide.
Strong, D.R., Jr. 1997. Fear no weevil? Science
277:1058-1059.
Strong, D.R. and R.W. Pemberton. 2001. Foodwebs, risks of alien enemies and reform of
biological control. p. 57-80. In E. Wajnberg
et al. (ed) Evaluating indirect effects ofbiological control. CABI Publ., UK.
Stroosnijder, L.and T. van Rheenen (ed) 2001.
Agro-silvo-pastoral land use in Sahelianvillages. Adv. Geoecol. 33. Catena Verlag,
Reiskirchen.
Sudhakar P., R.N. Rao, R. Bhat, and C.P Gupta.
1988. The economic impact of a foodborne
disease outbreak due to Staphylococcus
aureus. J. Food Prot. 51(11):898-900.
Swanson, B. (ed) 1984. Agricultural extension:
Reference manual. 2nd ed. FAO, Rome.
Swanson, B., and W. Peterson. 1989. A
field manual for analysing technology
development and transfer systems.
INTERPAKS report. Off. Int. Agric. Univ.
Illinois, Urbana.
Swinnen, J.F.M., and L. Vranken. 2006. Patternsof land market development in transition.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Symes, D., and A.J. Jansen (ed) 1994.
Agricultural restructuring and rural change inEurope. Agricultural Univ., Wageningen.
Syngenta. 2003. The responsible stewardshipof our crop protection products. Available
at http://www.syngenta.com/en/ar2003/

chapter 02.indd 140

social_responsibility/intro_stewardship.aspx.
Syngenta, Switzerland.
Syngenta. 2006. Syngenta’s commitment
to IPM. Available at http://www.
syngentacropprotection-us.com/enviro/ipm/
index.asp?nav=ipm_syngenta. Syngenta Crop
Protection US.
Tansey, G., and T. Rajotte (ed) 2008. The futurecontrol of food. Earthscan, London.
Tallontire, A., and B. Vorley. 2005. Achieving
fairness in trading between supermarkets
and their agrifood supply chains. UK Food
Briefing Group, London.
Tee, E.S. 1999. Nutrition of Malaysians: Where
are we heading? Malaysian J. Nutr. 5:87-109.
Ter Weel, P., and H. van der Wulp. 1999.
Participatory integrated pest management.
Policy Best Practice Doc. 3. Netherlands Min.
For. Affairs, Dev. Coop. The Hague, The
Netherlands.
Thapinta, A., and T. Hudak. 2000. Pesticide use
and residue occurrence in Thailand. Environ.
Monitor. Assess. 60:103-114.
Thayer, A.M. 2001. Owning biotech. Chem.
Engineer. News 78:25-32.
Thomas, J.W. 1975. The choice of technology
for irrigation tubewells in East Pakistan: An
analysis of a development policy decision.
In P.C.Timmer et al. (ed) The choice oftechnology in developing countries: Somecautionary tales. Center Int. Affairs. Harvard
Univ. Press, Boston.
Thrupp, L.A. 1990. Inappropriate incentives
for pesticide use: Credit requirements for
agrochemicals in developing countries. Agric.
Human Values 7:62-69.
Thrupp, L.A. 1996. New partnerships forsustainable agriculture. World Resour. Inst.,
Washington DC.
Tiffen, M., M. Mortimore, and F. Gichuki. 1994.
More people, less erosion: Environmental
recovery in Kenya. Wiley, Chichester.
Tittonell, P., B. Vanlauwe, P.A. Leffelar, E. Rowe,and K.E. Giller. 2005. Exploring diversity
in soil fertility management of smallholder
farms in western Kenya. I: Heterogeneity
at regional and farm scales. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 110:149-165.
Tittonell, P., B. Vanlauwe, N. de Ridder,
K.E. Giller. 2007. Heterogeneity of crop
productivity and resource use efficiency
within smallholder Kenyan farms: Soil
fertility gradients or management intensity
gradients? Agric. Syst. 94:376-390.
Tobin, R.J. 1996. Pest management, theenvironment and Japanese foreign assistance.
Food Policy 21:211-228.
Ton, P. 2003. Organic cotton in sub-SaharanAfrica. Available at http://www.pan-uk.org/
pestnews/pn62p4.htm. PAN-UK, London.
Touni, E., B. Nyambo, and A. Youdeowei. 2007.
Potential NGO roles in prevention: Componentsof ASP projects. African Stockpiles Prog.
Prevention Res. Project. Available at http://www.pan-uk.org/Projects/Obsolete/PAN%20UK%20
Arusha% 20WORKSHOP%20REPORT.pdf.
PAN UK, London.

Tozun, N. 2001. New policy, old patterns:
A survey of IPM in World Bank projects.
Global pesticide campaigner. Available
at http://www.panna.org/resources/gpc/
gpc_200104.11.1.pdf. PANNA, San
Francisco.
Tracy, M. 1993. Food and agriculture in amarket economy: An introduction to theory,
practice and policy. APS, Belgium.
Traxler, G., S. Godoy-Avila, and J. FalckZepeda, and J. Espinoza-Arellano. 2001.
Transgenic cotton in Mexico: Economic andenvironment impacts. Dep. Agric. Working
Pap. Auburn Univ., AL.
Tribe, G.D. 2003. Biological control ofdefoliating and phloem- or wood-feeding
insects in commercial forestry in Southern
Africa. p. 113-130. In P. Neuenschwander etal. (ed) Biological control in IPM systems in
Africa. CABI Publ., UK.
Trinh, L.N., J.W. Watson, Hue, N.N. De,
N.V. Minh, P. Chu et al. 2003.
Agrobiodiversity conservation anddevelopment in Vietnamese home gardens.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 97:317-344.
Tripp, R.1997. The structure of the national seedsystems. p. 14-42. In R. Tripp (ed) New seeds
and old laws. Regulatory reform and thediversification of national seed systems. IT
Publ., London.
Tripp, R. 2000. Strategies for seed systemdevelopment in sub-Saharan Africa. Working
Pap. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.
Tripp, R. 2005. The performance of low external
input technology in agricultural development:
A summary of three case studies. Int. J.
Agric. Sustain. 3(3):143-153.
Tripp, R. 2006a. Is low external input
technology contributing to sustainableagricultural development? Nat. Resour.
Perspect. 102. Overseas Dev. Inst., London.
Tripp, R. 2006b. Self-sufficient agriculture:
Labor and knowledge in small-scale farming.
Earthscan, London.
Tripp, R., and D. Byerlee. 2000. Public plant
breeding in an era of privatisation. Natural
resources perspectives. No. 57. Available at
http://www.odi.org.uk/NRP/57.pdf. ODI,
London.
Tripp, R., M. Wijeratne, and V.H. Piyadasa.
2005. What should we expect from farmer
field schools? A Sri Lankan case study. World
Dev. 33:1705-1720.
Tsegaye, B. 1997. The significance of biodiversity
for sustaining agricultural production androle of women in the traditional sector:
The Ethiopian experience. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 62:215-227.
UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists). 2004.
Scientific integrity in policymaking: An
investigation into the Bush Administration’s
misuse of science. UCS, Cambridge.
UN Habitat 2007. State of the world’s cities. UN
Human Settlements Program, Nairobi.
UN Millennium Project. 2005. Halving hunger:
It can be done. Rep. Task Force on Hunger.
The Earth Institute at Columbia Univ., NY.

11/3/08 10:43:07 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 141

UNCED. 1993. Rio Declaration on Environmentand Development. Principle 15. Rio deJaneiro, Brazil. Available at http://habitat.igc.org/agenda21/rio-dec.htm. UN Conf.
Environ. Dev., NY.
UNCTAD. 2006. Tracking the trend towards
market concentration: The case of the
agricultural input industry. Available
at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/
ditccom200516_en.pdf. UNCTAD report
UNCTAD/DITC/COM/2005/16.
UNDP. 1995. Agroecology: Creating thesynergism for a sustainable agriculture.
UNDP Guidebook Ser. Sustain. Energy
Environ. Div., UNDP, NY.
UNEP. 2005. One planet, many people: Atlas ofour changing environment. UNEP, Nairobi.
UNESCO. 1993. World science report, 1993.
UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. 2005. Global education digest.
Comparing education statistics across theworld. Available at http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/ged/2005/ged2005_en.pdf.
UNESCO, Paris.
UNHCR. 2007. The state of the world’s refugees.
UN High Commission for Refugees, Geneva.
UNRISD. 1975. Rural institutions and plannedchange. UN Res. Inst. Social Dev., Geneva.
UNRISD, 2006. Land tenure reform and genderequality. Res. Policy Brief 4. UN Res. Inst.
Social Dev., Geneva.
Unilever. 2005. Unilever’s Colworth farmproject. Putting sustainable agriuclture to thetest. Unilever R&D, Colworth.
Unnevehr, L., and H.H. Jensen. 1999. The
economic implications of using HACCP as afood safety regulatory standard. Food Policy
24(6):625-635.
Unver, A. 2005. The road less chosen. A personalaccount of rural development in Turkey(1965-2005). TKV, Ankara.
Uphoff, N. 1993. Foreword. In J. Farrington etal. (ed) Reluctant partners? Non-governmentorganisations, the state and sustainableagricultural development. Routledge, London.
UPWARD. 2002. Papers for international
farmer field school workshop. Yogyakarta,
Indonesia. 21-25 Oct 2002. Available at
http://www.eseap.cipotato.org/UPWARD/
Events/FFS-Workshop-Yogya2002/
Draft-Workshop-Papers.htm.
USAID. 2004. USAID agricultural strategy:
Linking producers to markets. July 2004.
Available at http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/
agriculture/ag_strategy_9_04_508.pdf.
USAID, Washington DC.
USAID. 2007. Publications, presentations andother products of the IPM CRSP. Cumulative
compilation updated March 2007. Available
at http://www.oired.vt.edu/ipmcrsp/
communications/annrepts/NEW%
20PubList%2006-updated.pdf. USAID,
Washington DC.
USDA. 1993. The practice of integrated pest
management (IPM). The PAMS approach.
Available at http://www.ipmcenters.org/Docs/
PAMS.pdf. USDA, Washington DC.

chapter 02.indd 141

USDA. 2000. Genetically engineered crops: Has
adoption reduced pesticide use? ERS AO#273. USDA, Washington DC.
USDA/NRCS 2001. Pest management policy.
General Manual Title 190, Amend. 6. USDA,
Mat. Resources Conserv. Serv., Washington
DC.
USGS. 2006. The quality of our nation’s waters,
pesticides in the nation’s streams and groundwater, 1992-2001. Available at http://
ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pubs/circ1291/show_
description.php?chapter=6&figure=5. USGS,
Washington DC.
Van den Ban, A. 1963. Boer en
Landbouwvoorlicting. De Communciatie ven
Nieuwe Landbouwmethoden. Van Gorcum,
Netherlands.
Van den Ban, A., and R.K. Samanta (ed) 2006.
Changing roles of agricultural extension in
Asian nations. B.R. Publ., Delhi.
Van den Berg, H., and J. Jiggins. 2007. Investingin farmers: The impacts of farmer field
schools in integrated pest management.
World Dev. 35:663-686.
Van Driesche, R.G., and M.S. Hoddle. 2000.
Classical arthropod biological control:
measuring success, step by step. p. 39-75.
In G. Gurr, and S. Wratten (ed) Measuresof success in biological control. Kluwer,
Dordrecht.
Van Duuren, B. 2003. Integrated pest management
farmer training project, Cambodia. Assessmentof the impact of the IPM program at field level.
DANIDA, Phnom Penh.
Van Emden, H. 1974. Pest control and its
ecology. Inst. Biol., Studies in Biology No.
50. Edward Arnold, London.
Van Huis, A., and F. Meerman. 1997. Can we
make IPM work for resource-poor farmers
in subSaharan Africa? Int. J. Pest Manage.
43(4):313-320.
Van Ittersum, M.K., R.P. Roetter, H. Van Keulen,
N. De Ridder, C.T. Honah, A.G. Laborte
et al. 2004. A systems network (SysNet)
approach for interactively evaluating
strategic land use options at a national scale
in South and South-east Asia. Land Use
Policy 21:101-113.
Van Lenteren, J.C. (ed) 2006. IOBC internet
book of biological control. Available at http://
www.unipa.it/iobc/downlaod/IOBC%20
InternetBookBiCoVersion4October2006.pdf.
IOBC, Wageningen.
Van Lenteren, J.C., A.K. Minks and
O.M.B. de Ponti (ed) 1992. Biologicalcontrol and integrated crop protection:
Towards environmentally safer agriculture.
Pudoc, Wageningen.
Van Lenteren, J., and V. Bueno. 2003.
Augmentative biological control ofarthropods in Latin America. BioControl
48:123-139.
Van Leur, J.A.G., and H. Gebre. 2003. Diversity
between some Ethiopian farmer’s varietiesof barley and within these varieties among
seed sources. Genetic Resour. Crop Evol.
50:351-357.

Van Mele, P., and A. Salahuddin. 2005.
Innovations in rural extension. CABI, UK.
Van Schoubroeck, F. 1999. Learning to fight a fly.
Developing citrus IPM in Bhutan. Publ. PhD
thesis. Wageningen Univ., The Netherlands.
Van Veldhuizen, L., A. Waters-Bayer, R. Ramirez,
D.A. Johnson, and J. Thompson (ed) 1997.
Farmers’ research in practice. Lessons fromthe field. Intermediate Tech. Publ., London.
Vandeman, A.M. 1995. Management in a bottle:
Pesticides and the deskilling of agriculture.
Rev. Radical Pol. Econ. 27(3):49-55.
Vanlauwe, B., P. Tittonell, and J. Mukulama.
2006. Within-farm soil fertility gradientsaffect response of maize to fertiliser
application in western Kenya. Nut. Cycl.
Agroecosyst. 76:171-182.
Varela, F., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. 1993.
The embodied mind: Cognitive science andhuman experience. MIT Press, Cambridge
MA.
Verhaegen, E., V. Campens, H. Wustenberghs,
L. Lauwers, and R. Nutelet. 2002.
Environmental aspects of agriculturalaccounts. Execution Rep., Centre for Agric.
Econ., Brussels.
Vernooy, R., and Y.C. Song. 2004. New
approaches to supporting the agricultural
biodiversity important for sustainable rural
livelihoods. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2:55-66.
Vilella, F., C. Banchero, A. Fraschina, and
M.C. Plencovich. 2002. Torres de acero,torres de marfil: El reto de identificar
indicadores de calidad en la relación
universidad-industria del futuro. In
Educación y Desarrollo para el Futuro delMundo. Ed. Fundación para la Educación
Superior Int., A.C., México.
Vilella, F., M.C. Plencovich, A. Ayala Torales,
and C. Bogosian. 2003. La Facultad deAgronomía de la UBA ante el proceso deautoevaluación. Editorial EFA, Buenos Aires.
Virk, D.S., M. Chakraborty, J. Ghosh,S.C. Prasad, and J.R. Witcombe. 2005.
Increasing the client orientation of maize
breeding using farmer participation in
Eastern India. Exp. Agric. 41:413-426.
Visser, B., D. Eaton, N. Louwaars, and J. Engles.
2000. Transaction costs of germplasm
exchange under bilateral agreements. Doc.
No. GFAR/00/17-04-04. GFAR. Availableat www.egfar.org/documents/conference/
GFAR_2000/gfar1702.PDF. FAO, Rome.
Visser, B., R. Pistorius, R. van Raalte, D. Eaton,and N. Louwaars. 2005. Options for nonmonetary benefit sharing, an inventory.
Background Study Pap. No. 30. Comm. on
Genetic Resour. Food Agric. Available at
ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/BSP/bsp30e.pdf.
FAO, Rome.
Virk, D.S., D.N. Singh, S.C Prasad, J.S Gangwar,
and J.R Witcombe. 2003. Collaborative andconsultative participatory plant breeding ofrice for the rainfed uplands of eastern India.
Euphytica 132:95-108.
Virk, D.S., M. Chakraborty, J. Ghosh,S.C. Prasad, and J.R. Witcombe. 2005.

11/3/08 10:43:07 AM

142 | IAASTD Global Report

Increasing the client orientation of maize
breeding using farmer participation in eastern
India. Exp. Agric. 41:413-426
Vorley, B. 2003. Food, Inc: Corporate
concentration from farm to consumer. UK
Food Group, London.
Waage, J. 1996. Agendas, aliens and agriculture:
global biocontrol in the post-UNCED era.
Cornell Community Conf. Biol. Control. Apr
11-13. Cornell University, Ithaca.
Waage, J.K. 1997. Biopesticides at the cross-roads:
IPM products or chemical clones? p. 11-19. In
Microbial Insecticides: Novelty or necessity?
BCPC Proc. No. 68. Warwick, UK, 16-18
April 1996. BCPC Publ., Bracknell, UK.
Wade, R.H. 1996. Japan, the World Bank, andthe art of paradigm maintenance: The East
Asian miracle in political perspective. New
Left Rev. 217:3-36.
Wade, R.H. 1997. Greening the Bank: The
struggle over the environment 1970-95.
p. 611-734. In D. Kapur et al. (ed) The
World Bank: Its first half century. Vol. 2.
Brookings Inst. Press.
Wade, R.H. 2001. Making the World
Development Report 2000: Attacking
poverty. World Dev. 29(6):1435-42.
Wade, R.H. 2004. The World Bank and theenvironment. p. 72-93. In M. Boas and
D. McNeill (ed) Global institutions anddevelopment: Framing the world? Routledge,
London and NY.
Wafula, J.S., and C.C. Ndirutu. 1996.
Capacity building needs for assessment
andmanagement of risks posed by living
modified organisms, perspectives of adeveloping country. p. 63-70. In
K.J. Mulongoy et al. (ed) Transboundary
movement of living modified organisms
resulting from modern biotechnology. Int.
Acad. Environ., Geneva.
Wajnberg, E., J.K. Scott, and P.C. Quimby (ed)2001. Evaluating indirect effects of biologicalcontrol. CABI Publ., UK.
Wale, M., F. Schulthess, E.W. Kairu, andC.O. Omwega. 2006. Cereal yield losses
due to lepidopterous stemborers at different
nitrogen fertilizer rates in Ethiopia. J. Appl.
Entomol. 130:220-229.
Walker, D.H. 2002. Decision support, learningand rural resource management. Agric. Syst.
73:113-127.
Walker, T. 2007. Participatory varietal selection,
participatory plant breeding and varietal
change. Background paper for World
Development Report 2008, World Bank,
Washington DC.
Wargo, J. 1996. Our children’s toxic legacy:
How science and law fail to protect us frompesticides. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven CT.
Warner, K.D. 2006a. Agroecology in action:
Social networks extending alternative
agriculture. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Warner, K.D. 2006b. Extending agroecology:
Grower participation in partnerships is key
to social learning. Renewable Food Agric.
Syst. 21(2):84-94.

chapter 02.indd 142

Warren, D.M., and B. Rajasekaran. 1993.
Putting local knowledge to good use. Int.
Agric. Dev. 13:8-10.
Washburn, J. 2005. University, Inc.: The
corporate corruption of american higher
education. Basic Books.
Watkins, K. 1996. Free trade and farm fallacies.
From the Uruguay Round to the World Food
Summit. Ecologist 26:244-255
Watterson, A. 2001 Pesticide health and safety
and the work and impact of international
agencies: Partial successes and major failures.
Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 7(4):339-347.
Webb, P., and B. Rogers. 2003. Addressing the“in” in food insecurity. Available at http://
www.fantaproject.org/publications/ffpOP1.shtml. USAID Off. Food for Peace Occas.
Pap. No.1, Washington DC.
Weick, K. 1976. Educational organizations as
loosely coupled systems. Admin. Sci. Q.
21(1):1-19.
Weismann, D. 2006. Global hunger index:
Measurement concept, ranking of countries,
and trends. FCND Discussion Paper 212.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Welch, R.M., and R.D. Graham. 1999. A newparadigm for world agriculture: meeting
human needs — productive, sustainable,
nutritious. Field Crops Research 60:1-10.
Werge, R. 1978. Social science training forregional agricultural development. CIMMYTAsian Rep. No. 5. CIMMYT Asian Reg.
Off., New Delhi.
Wesseling C., L. Castillo, and C.G. Elinder.
1993. Pesticide poisonings in Costa Rica.
Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 19:227-235.
Wesseling, C., R. McConnell, T. Partanen, andC. Hogstedt. 1997. Pesticides in developing
countries: A review of occupational healthimpact and research needs. Int. J. HealthServ. 27:273-308.
Wesseling, C., B. van Wendel de Joode,
C. Ruepert, C. Leon, P. Monge, H.
Hermasillo et al. 2001. Paraquat indeveloping countries. Int. J. Occup. Environ.
Health 7:275-286.
Wesseling, C., M. Kiefer, A. Ahlbom, R. McConnell,
J. Moon, L. Rosenstock et al. 2002. Long term
neurobehavioral effects of mild poisoning withorganophosphate and n-methyl carbamate
pesticides among banana workers. Int. J. Occup.
Environ. Health 8(1):27-34.
Wesseling, C., M. Corriols, and V. Bravo. 2005.
Acute pesticide poisoning and pesticide
registration in Central America. Toxicol.
Appl. Pharmacol. 207:S697-S705.
WHO. 1999. Public health impact of pesticides
used in agriculture. WHO, Geneva.
WHO. 2002a. Global strategy for food safety:
Safer food for better health. Available at
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/general/en/strategy_en.pdf. WHO, Geneva.
WHO. 2004. Avian influenza A (H5N1) inhumans and in poultry in Asia: Food safety
considerations. 24 Jan. 2004. Available at
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/micro/avian1/
en/. WHO, Geneva.

Whorton, D., R.M. Krauss, S. Marshall, andT.H. Milby. 1977. Infertility in male pesticide
workers. The Lancet 310:1259-1261.
Williamson, S. 2001. Natural enemies andfarmer decision-making. Biocont. News
Inform. 22(4):91-94.
Williamson, S. 2005. Breaking the barriers
to IPM in Africa: Evidence from Benin,
Ethiopia, Ghana and Senegal. p. 165-180. In
J. Pretty (ed) The pesticide detox: Towards
a more sustainable agriculture. Earthscan,
London.
Williamson, S., and D. Buffin. 2005. Towards
safe pest management in industrialized
agricultural systems. p. 212-225. In J. Pretty(ed) The pesticide detox: Towards a moresustainable agriculture. Earthscan, London.
Wilson, C.G., and R.C. McFadyen. 2000.
Biological control in the developing world:
Safety and legal issues. p. 505-511. In
N.R. Spencer (ed) Proc. Xth Int. Symp. Biol.
Control of Weeds. 4-14 July 1999. Montana
State Univ., Bozeman.
Wilson, D. 2005.The context of food security.
Proc. Conf. New Perspectives on Food
Security 12-14 Nov. Available at www.
glynwood.org/programs/foodsec/FSC%
20Full%20Proceedings.pdf. Glywood Center,
Cold Spring NY.
Windfuhr, M., and J. Jonsén. 2005. Foodsovereignty: Towards democracy in localized
food systems. Schumacher Centre Tech. Dev.,
ITDG Publ., UK.
Windsor, R.S. 1992. Economic benefits ofcontrolling internal and external parasites inSouth American camelids. Annals NY Acad.
Sci. 653:398.
Winter, M. 1996. Rural politics. Policies for
agriculture, forestry and the environment.
Routledge, London.
Witcombe, J.R., K.D. Joshi, R.B Rana, and
D.S Virk. 2001. Increasing genetic diversity
by participatory varietal selection in highpotential production systems in Nepal andIndia. Euphytica 122:575-588.
Witcombe, J.R., A. Joshi, and S.N. Goyal. 2003.
Participatory plant breeding in maize: A
case study from Gujarat, India. Euphytica
120:413-422.
Witcombe, J.R., K.D. Joshi, S. Gyawali,
A.M. Musa, C. Johansen, D.S. Virk et
al. 2005. Participatory plant breeding isbetter described as highly client-oriented
plant breeding. I. Four indicators of clientorientation in plant breeding. Exp. Agric.
41:299-319.
Wodageneh, A. 1989. Constraints confronting
national biological control programs. p. 166172. In J.S. Yaninek, and H.R. Herren (ed)Biological control: A sustainable solution tocrop pest problems in Africa. Proc. InauguralConf. Workshop of the IITA BiologicalControl Program Center Africa. Cotonou.
5-9 Dec. 1988. IITA, Ibadan.
Wolfe, M. 1992. Barley diseases: Maintaining
the value of our varieties. Barley Genetics
6:1055-1067.

11/3/08 10:43:07 AM

Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 143

Wolfenbarger, L., and P. Phifer. 2000. The
ecological risks and benefits of geneticallymodified plants. Science 290:2088-2093.
Woodhill, J. 1999. Sustaining rural Australia:
A political economic critique of natural
resource management. PhD. Dissertation.
The Australian Nat. Univ., Canberra.
Wopereis, M.C.S., A. Tamélokpo, G. Ezui,
G. Gnakpénou, B. Fofana et al. 2006.
Mineral fertilizer management strategies formaize on farmer fields differing in organic
input history in the African Sudan savannazone. Field Crop. Res. 96:355-362.
World Bank. 1995. Bangladesh, India and Pakistan- Seed projects. Ind. Eval. Group Rep. No.
14761. World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 1998a. Operational Policy 4.09 onpest management. World Bank, Washington
DC. Available at http://wbIn0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf.
World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2003. The CGIAR at 31: An
independent meta-evaluation of theconsultative group on international
agricultural research. Vol. 3. Oper. Eval. Dep.
World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2005a. Education: Building on
indigenous knowledge. IK Notes No. 87.
Dec. Available at www.worldbank.org/afr/ik.
World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2005b. Food safety andagricultural health standards: Challenges
and opportunities for developing country
exports. Available at http://www.oecd.org/
dataoecd/5/24/34378759.pdf.
World Bank. 2005c. Agricultural growth for thepoor. An agenda for development. Available at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/
Resources/Agricultural_Growth_for_the_Poor.
pdf. World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2005d. Sustainable pest
management: Achievements and challenges.

chapter 02.indd 143

Rep. No. 32714-GLB. Available at
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/
library/201658/783%5FReport.pdf. World
Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2006. Cultural heritage andcollective intellectual property rights. IK
Notes No. 95. World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2008. Agriculture for developmentin the 21st Century. World Development
Report. World Bank, Washington DC.
WRI/UNEP/WCSD. 2002. Tomorrow’s markets.
Global trends and their implications forbusiness. WRI, Washington DC, UNEP,
Paris, WBCSD (World Business Council for
Sustainable Dev.), Geneva.
Wright, J. 2005. Falta Petroleo! Perspectives
on the mergence of a more ecologicalfarming and food system in post-crisis Cuba.
Publ. PhD. Wageningen University, The
Netherlands.
Wustenberghs, H., E. Verhaegen, L. Lauwers,
and E. Mathijs. 2004. Monitoring
agriculture’s multifunctionality by meansof integrated nation-wide accounting.
90th EAAE Seminar on Multifunctional
Agriculture, Policies and Markets:
Understanding the critical linkage, Rennes,
France. 27-29 Oct. Available at http://merlin.
lusignan.inra.fr:8080/eaae/website/pdf/45_
Wustenberghs.
Wustenberghs, H., E. Verhaegen, andL. Lauwers. 2005. Evaluation of landscapeamenity benefits in multifunctional
agriocultural accounts. Int. Conf.
Multifunctionality of Landscapes: Analysis,
Evaluation and Decision Support. Giesen,
18-20 May.
Young, E.M. 2004. Globalization and foodsecurity: Novel questions in a novel context?
Progress Dev. Studies 4(1):1-21.
Yudelmann, M., A. Ratta, and D. Nygaard.
1998. Pest management and food production.

Food, Agric. Environ. Disc. Pap. 25. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Yunus, M. 1977. Story of a deep tubewell witha difference: A report on Osmania School
purba beel tubewell. p. 84. In LocallySponsored Dev. Prog. Ser. Rep. No. 28, Rural
Studies Project, Dep. Econ., Chittagong
University, Bangladesh.
Yunus, M. 1982. Annual Report 1981. Grameen
Bank, Dhaka.
Yunus, M., and M. Islam. 1975. A report on
Shahjalaler Shyamal Sylhet. In LocallySponsored Dev. Prog. Ser. Rep. No. 1, Rural
Studies Project, Dep. Econ., Chittagong
University, Bangladesh.
Zahn, J. 2001. Social and environmental
responsibility of large enterprises in thenorth/south. Globalization as opportunity:
The example of Daimler Chrysler in Latin
America. POEMA Pap. No.1, Belém.
Zeddies, J., R.P. Schaab, P. Neuenschwander, and
H.R. Herren. 2001. Economics of biologicalcontrol of cassava mealybug in Africa. Agric.
Econ. 24:209-219.
Zingore, S., H.K. Murwira, R.J. Delve, andK.E. Giller. 2007. Influence of nutrient
management strategies on variability of soil
fertility, crop yields and nutrient balanceson smallholder farms in Zimbabwe. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 119:112-126.
Zoundi, S.J., M.H. Collion., and H. Hocdé.
2001. Partnerships between producer
organizations and research and extension
institutions. p. 38-45. In P. Rondot and
M.H. Collion (ed) Agricultural producer
organizations: Their contribution to rural
capacity building and poverty reduction.
Available at http://publications.cirad.fr/
une_notice.php?dk=507572. World Bank,
Washington DC.

11/3/08 10:43:08 AM

chapter 02.indd 144

11/3/08 10:43:08 AM

3
Impacts of Akst on Development and Sustainability Goals

Coordinating Lead Authors
Roger Leakey (Australia) and Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic (Ghana).
Lead Authors
Patrick Caron (France), Peter Craufurd (UK), Adrienne Martin (UK),
Andy McDonald (USA), Walter Abedini (Argentina), Suraya Afiff(Indonesia), Ndey Bakurin (Gambia), Steve Bass (UK), Angelika
Hilbeck (Switzerland), Tony Jansen (Australia), Saadia Lhaloui(Morocco), Karen Lock (UK), James Newman (USA), Odo Primavesi(Brazil), Teresa Sengooba (Uganda)
Contributing Authors
Mahfuz Ahmed (Bangladesh), Elizabeth Ainsworth (USA), MubarikAli (Pakistan), Martine Antona (France), Patrick Avato (Germany/
Italy), Debi Barker (USA), Didier Bazile (France), Pierre-Marie Bosc
(France), Nicolas Bricas (France), Perrine Burnod (France), Joel
Cohen (USA), Emilie Coudel (France), Michel Dulcire (France),
Patrick Dugué (France), Nicholas Faysse (France), Stefano Farolfi(France), Guy Faure (France), Thierry Goli (France), David Grzywacz(UK), Henri Hocdé (France), Jacques Imbernon (France), Marcia
Ishii-Eiteman (USA), Andrew Leakey (USA), Chris Leakey (UK),
Andy Lowe (UK), Ana Marr (UK), Nigel Maxted (UK), Andrew
Mears (Botswana), David Molden (USA), Jean-Pierre Muller (France),
Jonathan Padgham (USA), Sylvain Perret (France), Frank Place (USA),

Anne Lucie Raoult-Wack (France), Robin Reid (USA), Charlie Riches(UK), Sara Scherr (USA), Nicole Sibelet (France), Geoff Simm (UK),
Ludovic Temple (France), Jean-Philippe Tonneau (France), Guy
Trebuil (France), Steve Twomlow (UK), Tancrède Voituriez (France)
Review Editors
Tsedeke Abate (Ethiopia) and Lorna Michael Butler (USA)Key Messages
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2

3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
3.4

Methodology 147
Assessment and Analysis of AKST Impacts 148
Agriculture productivity, production factors andconsumption 148
Impacts of AKST on sustainability, through integrated
technologies and the delivery of ecosystem services andpublic goods 172
Impacts of AKST on livelihoods, capacity strengthening andempowerment 193
Relationships between AKST, coordination and regulatory
processes among multiple stakeholders 211
Objectivity of this Analysis 222
Lessons and Challenges 222

145

chapter 03.indd 145

11/13/08 11:31:57 AM

146 | IAASTD Global Report

Key Messages
1. Agriculture is multifunctional and goes far beyond
food production. Other important functions for sustainable development include provision of nonfood products;
provision of ecological services and environmental protection; advancement of livelihoods; economic development;
creation of employment opportunities; food safety and nutritional quality; social stability; maintenance of culture andtradition and identity. However, the promotion and achievement of multifunctionality is hindered by a lack of systematic quantitative and other data that allow a complete assessment of the impacts of wider functions. Nevertheless,enhanced recognition of the wider functions of agriculture
has prompted efforts towards developing integrated land
use systems that deliver a diverse set of social, economicand environmental functions, and address the tradeoffs between them.
2. Advances in AKST have enabled substantial gains
in crop and livestock production, which have reduced
levels of hunger and malnutrition. World cereal production has more than doubled since 1961, with average yields
per hectare also increasing around 150% in many high- andlow-income countries, with the notable exception of mostnations in sub-Saharan Africa. Substantial gains in crop andlivestock production are due to advances in many types of
AKST, including biotechnology (e.g., genetic gain, stress resistance), physical (e.g., fertilizer, irrigation, mechanization),policy (e.g., intellectual property rights, variety release processes), microfinance (e.g., credit, provision of inputs), education and communication (e.g., farmer-field schools), andmarket and trade (e.g., demand, incentives). More recently,
modern biotechnology is starting to have an impact on production. Advances have also been made in fish breeding,tree improvement and in crop and livestock husbandry. Allof these advances in agricultural production have contributed to the improvement of many farmers’ livelihoods andto economic growth in developed countries, although large
deficiencies remain. In real terms food has become cheaperand calorie and protein consumption have increased, resulting in lower levels of hunger. On a global scale, the proportion of people living in countries with an average per capita
caloric availability of less than 2200 kcal per day dropped
from 57% in the mid-1960s to 10% by the late 1990s.
3. AKST has made some substantial positive contributions to different dimensions of livelihoods. These
include:• increased incomes, reduced hunger and malnutrition,
improved health and cognitive development, improved
levels of education and increased employment opportunities, reducing vulnerability to drought, pest and disease outbreaks.
• increased access to water for domestic and productive
uses with positive impacts on health, food and nonfood
production and environmental sustainability.
• improved relevance of AKST for different producer andconsumer groups, through participatory approaches toresearch, extension and market assessment.
• improved support and integration of social and envi-

chapter 03.indd 146•

ronmental sustainability (e.g., watershed management,
community forestry management, integrated pest management (IPM) and strengthening of local seed systems)
through participatory and community-based approaches to NRM at different scales.
improved integration of gender and diversity concerns
within AKST institutions, which has contributed togender sensitive planning and awareness in AKST processes.

4. Despite much progress in agricultural development,
persistent challenges remain. These include:• Uneven distribution of livelihood impacts: The benefits
from AKST have not been evenly distributed, varying
between regions and agroecological zones, as well as between social groups. Industrialized regions have gained
the most from innovations in AKST, while agroecological zones with severe biophysical constraints and marginalized social groups have benefited least. Levels ofpoverty, hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity stillaffect millions of people, particularly in SSA as well as
parts of Asia, Latin America and Melanesia. Three billion people earn less than the purchasing power equivalent of US$2 per day. In some circumstances, especiallyin Africa, many of the poor have become ensnared in“poverty traps” without sufficient financial resources toimprove or sustain their food security or livelihoods.
The distributional impact of AKST has been affectedby rights and access to assets—land, water, energy resources, markets, inputs and finance, training, information and communications. Despite advances in genderawareness, access to AKST products and participationin AKST processes remain limited for women and forother marginalized groups. Only limited attention has
been paid to issues of vulnerability and social exclusion,or to the interaction of AKST related opportunities withsocial protection policies.
• Health and human nutrition: Globally, over 800 million people are underweight and malnourished, whilechanges in diet, the environment and lifestyle worldwide have resulted in 1.6 billion overweight adults; thistrend is associated with increasing rates of diet-relateddiseases such as diabetes and heart disease. Anothercause of acute and long-term human health risks arises
from the misuse of toxic agrichemicals.
• Environmental sustainability: Agricultural use of natural resources (soils, freshwater, air, carbon-derived energy) has, in some cases, caused significant and widespread degradation of land, freshwater, ocean and atmospheric resources. Estimates suggest that resource
impairment negatively influences 2.6 billion people. In
many poor countries (and in marginalized communities
within countries), many farmers lack access to the appropriate management interventions required to restore
and sustain productivity. In addition to forest clearance
and burning, the growing reliance on fossil fuels in agriculture has increased emissions of “greenhouse gases.”
5. In many instances, AKST has begun to address sustainability challenges with strategies that recognize
the production, livelihoods, and ecosystem service

11/3/08 10:55:04 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 147

functions required for achieving sustainable agricultural systems that span biophysical, socioeconomic andcultural diversity. The consequences of population growthand economic expansion have been a reduced resource basefor future agriculture; now there are pressing needs for new
agricultural land and water resources. In recent decades thedevelopment of integrated pest/water/nutrient management
practices, crop/livestock systems, and crop/legume mixtures
has contributed greatly to increased agricultural sustainability, but further progress is needed, especially to combat declining soil fertility. While fertilizer amendments restore fertility efficiently, many poor farmers are without themeans to buy fertilizers. Consequently they suffer from a“yield gap” (the difference between crop yield potential andyield achieved). Agroforestry offers them a partial solution:
biological nitrogen-fixation by leguminous trees/shrubs andcrops can substantially increase crop yields. The integrationof trees into field systems and by replanting watersheds, riparian and contour strips, also diversifies and rehabilitates
the farming system, restoring soil organic matter, sequestering carbon in the biomass, improving water percolation andmicroclimate, reducing radiation losses to the atmosphere,
and promoting biodiversity through the development ofan agroecological succession. There are many indigenous
tree species that have the potential to play these important
ecological roles and also produce marketable food, fodder,and nonfood products. In this way, the ecological services
traditionally obtained by long periods of unproductive fallow are provided by productive agroforests yielding a wide
range of food and nonfood products. Some of these tree species are currently the subject of participatory domestication
programs using local knowledge. Domestication is aimed
at promoting food sovereignty, generating income and employment and enhancing nutritional benefits. Consequently,
this approach brings together AKST with traditional knowledge as an integrated package capable of helping to meetdevelopment and sustainability goals.
6. Sustainable agriculture is more complex andknowledge intensive than ever before, covering sociocultural, ecological and economic dimensions.
To be effective at using AKST to meet development
and sustainability goals requires a wide range of actors and partnerships, and arrangements that realize
the synergies between different forms of agriculture;
between agriculture and other sectors; between different disciplines and between local and global organizations. Examples of measures that have contributed torealizing synergies include:• the development of international regulatory frameworks on IPR, trade, and the environment.
• processes.
• linking multiple sources of knowledge created throughthe engagement of multiple stakeholders in AKST
processes, including farmer organizations, civil society
groups, the private sector and policy makers, as well as
public sector organizations.
There is a growing recognition that the institutional, policy,
financial, infrastructural and market conditions required
for AKST to help meet development and sustainability
goals are an intrinsic part of innovation processes. This has

chapter 03.indd 147

encouraged a growing emphasis on forging partnerships
and linkages, which is beginning to have positive results.
Much remains to be learned about the effective development and functioning of these partnerships to create an effective combination of different disciplines and knowledge
traditions; overcome the separation of formal organizations
involved in AKST and to institutionalize broader consultation processes among stakeholders with diverse interests,
professional and organizational cultures, funding arrangements and capacity.
7. Since the mid-20th Century, there have been two
relatively independent pathways to agricultural development: globalization and localization. Globalization, which initiated in developed countries, has dominatedformal AKST and has been driven by public sector agricultural research, international trade and marketing policy.
Localization has come from civil society and has involved
locally based innovations, including value-addition, thatmeet the needs of local people and communities. Localization addresses the integration of social and environmental
issues with agricultural production, but has lacked a rangeof market and policy linkages in support of new products
and opportunities. Some current initiatives are drawing thetwo pathways together through public/private partnerships(e.g., fair-trade tea/coffee, forestry out-growers) involving
global companies and local communities in the implementation of new regulatory frameworks and agreements thatoffering new paradigms for economic growth and development. Mobilizing and scaling up locally appropriate AKST
in ways that integrate agricultural production with economic, social and environmental sustainability, permits localization and globalization to play complementary roles.

3.1 Methodology
The goals of this Assessment reflect an evolution of the concept of agriculture from a strong technology-oriented approach at the start of the Green Revolution to today’s morehuman and environment-oriented paradigm. Assessing thebiophysical impacts of AKST is simpler than assessing thesocial impacts, because of differences in complexity, and thegreater emphasis on agronomic research, much of which
has been on-station, rather than on-farm. This evolution ofagriculture is reflected in the expansion of the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR, including centers with a greater focus on natural resources
systems, and more recently, on holistic and integrated approaches, including the livelihoods of poor farmers. This
integration of technological advances with socially and environmentally sensitive approaches has not occurred uniformly across all sectors of AKST.
The preparation of this Chapter started with a reviewof the international literature (journals, conference proceedings, the reports of many and various organizations frominternational and nongovernmental development agencies,
international conventions and development projects, andthe internet). The information from this literature was thenused to develop statements about the impacts and sustainability of AKST in the context of development and sustainability goals (see Chapter 1).

11/3/08 10:55:04 AM

148 | IAASTD Global Report

The main criteria used to assess the positive and negative impacts (including risks associated with technologies)
of AKST were:• Social sustainability—effects on livelihoods, nutritionand health, empowerment, equity (beneficiaries—including landless and labor), gender, access.
• Environmental sustainability—effects on natural capital, agroecosystem function, climate change.
• Economic sustainability—poverty, trade and markets,
national and international development.
Levels of certainty were attributed to impact and sustainability statements based on evidence found in the international literature and the expert judgment of the authors.
This certainty was associated with the range of impacts reported and to the appropriate measures of scale and specificity (Table 3-1).

3.2 Assessment and Analysis of AKST Impacts
In this subchapter we present Impact Statements (in bold),
analyzed and quantified as explained above (Table 3-1).
3.2.1 Agriculture productivity, production factors andconsumption
Since the mid-20th Century, there have been two relatively independent pathways to agricultural development. The first,
which has dominated formal AKST, was initiated globallyand has involved public-sector agricultural research coordinated by the International Agricultural Research Centers(IARCs) of the CGIAR.
3.2.1.1 Food production, consumption, and human welfare
The improvement of farm productivity was the major outcome of the Green Revolution, especially in the early years,
Large benefits from resulted from the application of AKSTin crop and livestock breeding, improved husbandry, increased use of fertilizers, pesticides and mechanization.
However, these benefits were accompanied by some environmental issues.

Modern agricultural science and technology has positively
affected a large number of people worldwide.
Goals
N, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
0 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Especially in industrial andtransitional countries

Despite large increases in population (see Chapter 1), agricultural systems have provided sufficient food resources
to reduce undernourishment rates by about 50% in Asia/
Pacific and Latin American/Caribbean since 1970. Large increases in agricultural production of vegetables, roots andtubers, cereals, fruits and pulses, have been made possible
through genetic improvement, soil fertility management,
irrigation, pesticides and mechanization (Salokhe et al.,
2002; Figure 3-1). On a global scale, AKST has increased
per capita production of calories, fats/oils, proteins and micronutrients (Evenson and Gollin, 2003ab). For example,
available caloric availability increased from 2360 kcal/
person/day in the mid-1960s to 2803 kcal person-1 day-1 inthe 1997-1999 (Bruinsma, 2003). At present, 61% of theworld’s population consume >2700 kcal per day. Prices forstaple foods have also declined (Bruinsma, 2003), benefiting
many poor since they spend a large portion of their income
on food. However, AKST benefits have been unevenly realized among and within regions and some estimates suggestthat around a third of humanity has not been affected bymodern agricultural science.
Agricultural science and technology has had positive impacts on the productivity (yield per unit area) of staple foodcrops, but these gains have not been universally realized.
Goals
N, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Especially in industrial andtransitional countries

The cereal staples maize, rice, and wheat contribute around
60% of the caloric energy for humans on the global scale(Cassman et al., 2003). Among industrialized countries andin the developing regions of Asia and Latin and Central
America (LAC), average cereal yields have sustained annual
rates of increase (43 to 62 kg ha-1 yr -1), and have more than

Table 3-1. Criteria used in the analysis of data
Goals

Certainty

Enhancement of:
N = Nutrition(reducedhunger)H = Human health
L = Rural
livelihoods
E = Environmental
sustainability
S = Social
sustainability
D = Sustainableeconomicdevelopment

A = Well established
B = Established
C = Competing
explanations
D = Expected, but
to be confirmed
E = Long-term
impacts not yet
available
F = Speculative

chapter 03.indd 148

Range
of
impacts-5 to +5

Scale

Specificity

G = Global
R = Regional
N = National
M-L = Multi-locational
L = Local
E = Experimental/
pilotsExamples:• Wide applicability,• Applicable in dry
areas,• Occurs throughout
tropics,• Especially in Africa,• Mainly insubsistence
agriculture,• Negative in poorand positive in richcountries.

11/3/08 10:55:05 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 149

Figure 3-1. Global trends in cereal and meat production; nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer use;
irrigation, and pesticide production.

doubled in absolute terms since the 1960s (Figure 3-2). In
contrast, in developing countries in Africa the average cereal yields have increased at a rate of 10 kg ha-1 yr -1 andproductivity levels are about one-half of those achieved inindustrialized countries in the early 1960s. In sub-SaharanAfrica (SSA) approximately 66% of the crop production increase since 1961 is linked to area expansion. These broader
trends mask significant differences among the grain staples.
For example, in industrialized countries, maize productivity has grown at average rate of 122 kg ha-1 yr -1, increasingfrom a base of 3 tonnes ha-1 in 1961 to nearly 8 tonnes ha-1
in 2005. In 1961, maize productivity was approximately 1
tonne ha-1 in developing countries. Since then, maize yields
have steadily increased in developing regions of Asia (72kg ha-1 yr -1), demonstrated intermediate growth in Central
America (37 kg ha-1 yr -1), but achieved only slow growthamong developing countries in Africa (12 kg ha-1 yr -1). A
major reason for this, especially in Africa, has been the lackof investment in public and private sector plant breeding
programs (Morris, 2002). Similar trends are evident in riceand for other major commodities such as vegetables, roots,
pulses and tubers (Figure 3-2).
Recently horticulture, including fruit production, has been
the fastest growing food sector worldwide
Goals
N, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Especially China

Horticulture production has increased from 495 million
tonnes in 1970 to 1379 million tonnes in 2004 (178%)(FAOSTAT, 2007). The vegetable subsector grew at an an-

chapter 03.indd 149

nual average rate of 3.6% during 1970-2004 from 255
million tonnes in 1970 to 876 million tonnes in 2004 (Ali,
2006). Most of this increased production came from area
expansion with productivity per unit area increasing at
less than 1% from 1970-2004. The slow improvement in
the yield of horticulture crops suggests comparatively low
investments in horticultural research. During 1970-2004,
52% of the increase in horticulture production came from
China, 40% from all other developing countries, and remaining 8% from developed countries (Ali, 2006). This
increase is having significant positive effects on income, employment, micronutrient availability and health of people inpoor countries. Moreover, the share of horticulture products in trade, especially from developing countries, has increased (Ali, 2006).
Global production and consumption of livestock products
have been growing dramatically over the last few decades.
Goals
N, H, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

From 1979 to 2003, global meat production nearly doubled
to 260 million tonnes (FAOSTAT, 2007). Among developing
countries, those with large populations and rapidly growing
economies (e.g., China, Brazil and India) accounted for over
50% of meat and milk production in 2005. Consumption of
livestock products has also increased sharply, in part due torising incomes and increasing urbanization in several partsof the developing world. Between 1962 and 2003 per capita
meat consumption grew by a factor of 2.9, and milk by 1.7 indeveloping countries (Steinfeld et al., 2006; FAO, 2006a).

11/3/08 10:55:09 AM

150 | IAASTD Global Report

A

C

B

D

Figure 3-2. Yield of (a) roots and tubers, (b) vegetables, (c) pulses, and (d) cereals between 1961 and 2004. Source: FAOSTAT, 2007.

Global fish production (wild harvest and aquaculture) has
increased by about 230% between 1961 and 2001
Goals
N, H

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide

Between 1961 and 2001, global fish production (wild harvest and aquaculture) for all uses increased by about 230%
from 39.2 million to nearly 130 million tonnes. Developing countries supply 75% of the volume and 50% of thevalue of the global fish trade (Kurien, 2004). Together thedeveloping countries of Asia form the largest fish producer, with production reaching 71.2 million tonnes in 2001
(FAOSTAT, 2005). Aquaculture currently provides approximately 40% of the world’s total food fish supply (Delgado
et al., 2003ab; Kurien, 2004). Technological breakthroughs
in aquaculture, triggered by private sector growth, increased
demand for high-value fish in the world market and simultaneous changes in international laws, treaties and institutions, contributed to the rapid growth in fish supply (Ahmedand Lorica, 2002).

chapter 03.indd 150

3.2.1.1.1 Trends in resource use (land, water, genetic
resources, fertilizer, pesticides and mechanization)
Globally, land reserves have been severely depleted by cultivation
Goals
N, E, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-1 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide

Africa and Latin American countries do have significant
tracts of undeveloped land that could be cultivated, but estimates suggest that only a small fraction these areas (7%Africa, 12% LAC) are free from the types of severe soil
constraints that limit profitable and sustainable production(Wood et al., 2000). Moreover, many of the remaining undeveloped areas are of regional and global importance forbiodiversity and ecosystem services (Bruinsma, 2003). The
need to preserve natural areas and to avoid production on
marginal lands (e.g., highly erodible hill slopes) provides
strong incentives for advancing agricultural production
through yield intensification (i.e., production per unit area)rather than area expansion.

11/3/08 10:55:10 AMImpacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 151

The breeding and dissemination of Modern Varieties (MV)has had a major impact on food production.
Goals
N, L, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

The breeding and dissemination of Modern Varieties withgreater yield potential, better pest and disease resistanceand improved organoleptic quality have, in conjunction
with irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides and mechanization, hada major impact on food production (Figure 3-1). Modern
Varieties, especially of cereals but also of root, protein andhorticultural crops, have been widely adopted; Asia grows
modern cereal varieties on 60-80% of the cultivated area
(Evenson and Gollin, 2003a). Modern Varieties are also
widely grown in Latin America but there has been less impact in sub-Saharan Africa and CWANA. Other than in
CWANA there has been little impact of Modern Varieties
on protein crops (mostly annual legumes).
Evidence relating farm size to productivity and efficiency
is weak.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-4 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Variable

Farms operated by small-scale producers are typically more
efficient the smaller they are (Feder et al., 1988; Place andHazell, 1993; Deininger and Castagnini, 2006). However,in large-scale mechanized farming economies of scale areimportant. For example, some regionally specific research
has concluded that productivity and efficiency are positively
related to farm size (Yee et al., 2004; Hazarika and Alwang,2003), although there is also evidence that some large-scale
mechanized farms are less efficient than smaller family
farms (Van Zyl, 1996). The lack of clarity about the relationship between farm size and productivity and efficiency(Sender and Johnston, 2004) suggests confounding factors,
such as land quality, and access to labor, markets, sources ofcredit and government farm policies (Van Zyl, 1996; Chen,
2004; Gorton and Davidova, 2004). For example, land per
capita has been found to be a major determinant of overallhousehold income (Jayne et al., 2003). Good management,on large- and small-scale farms, may be the most important factor affecting production efficiency. Typically, largescale farmers with financial resources intensify agrichemical inputs and seek economies of scale, while resource-poor
small-scale farmers reduce inputs, diversify, and seek risk
aversion (Leakey, 2005a). Interestingly, it is often among
the latter group that some of the best examples of sustainable agriculture are found, especially in the tropics (Palm etal., 2005b).

increasingly by small-scale private investments. Irrigation
was essential to achieving the gains from high-yielding
fertilizer-responsive crop varieties. Approximately 70% of
the world’s irrigated land is in Asia (Brown, 2005), where
it accounts for almost 35% of cultivated land (Molden etal., 2007a). Forty percent of the world cereal production isfrom irrigated land and as much as 80% of China’s grain
harvest comes from irrigated land. By contrast, there is very
little irrigation in sub-Saharan Africa. Trends have changed
from the 1970s and early 1980s when donor spending on
agricultural water reached a peak of more than US$1 billion a year. Funding fell to less than half that level by thelate 1980s; benefit-cost ratios deteriorated; and as fallingcereal prices and rising construction costs highlighted thepoor performance of large-scale irrigation systems, opposition mounted to the environmental degradation and social
dislocation sometimes caused by large dams. Today, there
appears to be consensus that the appropriate scale of infrastructure should be determined by the specific environmental, social, and economic conditions and goals with theparticipation of all stakeholders (Molden et al., 2007a).
Increased fertilizer use is closely associated with crop productivity gains in regions that have been most successful at
reducing undernourishment.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+2 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Especially in Asia

On a global scale, total fertilizer consumption has increased
from approximately 31 million in 1961 to 142 million
tonnes in 2002 (FAOSTAT, 2007). From almost no use in theearly 1960s, total fertilizer consumption rates in the developing countries of Asia (140 kg ha -1 yr -1) now exceed thosein industrialized nations (FAOSTAT, 2006) and have beena principal driver of improved crop productivity. In subSaharan Africa where cereal productivity has increased only
modestly since the 1960s, average fertilizer consumption remains exceptionally low—under 20 kg ha-1 yr -1 (FAOSTAT,
2006). For cereal crops, approximately 50% of the yield
increases observed after the introduction of modern crop

Globally there has been an extensive increase in irrigatedareas, but investment trends are changing.
Goals
N, E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-1 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Globally except SSA

Since 1961, the area of irrigated land has doubled to 277
million ha (in 2000)—about 18% of farmed land, funded initially by investments by international developmentbanks, donor agencies, and national governments but later

chapter 03.indd 151

Figure 3-3. Trend in nitrogen fertilizer efficiency of crop
production calculated as annual global cereal production/annual
global application of N. Source: Tilman et al., 2002.

11/3/08 10:55:11 AM

152 | IAASTD Global Reportvarieties in countries such as India can be attributed to increased fertilizer use (Bruinsma, 2003). However, there isalso evidence of declining efficiency of nitrogen applications
in cropping systems (Figure 3-3).
Tractors and other sources of mechanization are increasingly important to agriculture in developing countries, butmany systems remain dependent on traditional forms ofhuman and animal power.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-1 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Developing countries

In developing countries, human, draft animal, and tractor
power are used in approximately equivalent proportions interms of total land under cultivation. There are, however,significant differences between and within countries and between regions and different types of agricultural systems. In
SSA, about two-thirds of all agricultural land is cultivatedby hand, whereas in LAC approximately 50% of the landis mechanically cultivated (Bruinsma, 2003). Although it isdifficult to directly establish cause and effect relationships
between single classes of assets and human welfare, it isgenerally recognized that households with animal or mechanical power tend to have better crop yields, more opportunities to pursue off-farm employment, and greater foodsecurity (Bishop-Sambrook, 2004).
Pesticide use is increasing on a global scale, but increases
are not universally observed; several of the most hazardous
materials are being phased out in well-regulated markets.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-5 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Developed and developing
countries

In constant dollars, global expenditures on agricultural pesticide imports has increased more than 1000% since 1960
(Tilman et al., 2001) with some estimates placing recent
growth rates for pesticide use at between 4.0 and 5.4% perannum (Yudelman et al., 1998). There are exceptions tothese trends, particularly in OECD countries. For example,
in the US, agricultural pesticide use declined significantly
after peaking in the late 1970s and has remained relatively
constant since the 1990s (Aspelin, 2003). Moreover, regulatory and technological advances have, in some cases, resulted in the phase-out of particularly toxic organic compounds
and the introduction of pesticides with lower non-target
toxicity, which are less persistent in the environment andcan be applied at lower rates (Aspelin, 2003; MA, 2005).
Total factor productivity has increased worldwide, withsome regional variation.
Goals
D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-1 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Especially in intensive systems

Total Factor Productivity (TFP), i.e., the efficiency withwhich all the factors of agricultural production (land, water, fertilizer, labor, etc.) are utilized, has improved over thelast fifty years (Coelli and Rao, 2003). The index of TFP forworld agriculture has increased from 100 in 1980 to 180 in
2000. The average increase in TFP was 2.1% per year, withchapter 03.indd 152

efficiency change contributing 0.9% and technical change
1.2% (Coelli and Rao, 2003). The highest growth was observed in Asia (e.g., China 6%) and North America and thelowest in South America followed by Europe and Africa.
However, a positive trend does not necessarily imply a sustainable system since rapid productivity gains from newtechnologies may mask the effects of serious resource degradation caused by technology-led intensification, at least in
the short to medium-term (Ali and Byerlee, 2002).
3.2.1.1.2 Agriculture has impacts on natural capital andresource quality
In regions with the highest rates of rural poverty and undernourishment, depletion of soil nutrients is a pervasive
and serious constraint to sustaining agricultural productivity.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-1 to -5

Scale
R

Specificity
SSA, ESAP

To sustain long-term agricultural production, nutrients exported from the agroecosystem by harvest and through environmental pathways (e.g., leaching, erosion) must be sufficiently balanced by nutrient inputs (e.g., fertilizer, compost,
atmospheric deposition, in situ biological nitrogen fixation).
In the tropical countries where shifting agriculture is the
traditional approach to regenerating soil fertility, increasing population pressure has resulted in shorter periods offallow and often severe reductions in soil stocks of organiccarbon and nutrients (Palm et al., 2005a). Nutrient depletion is particularly acute in many of the continuous cereal
production systems on the Indian sub-Continent, Southeast
Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, especially since many of thesoils in these regions have low native fertility (Cassman etal., 2005). With reduced land availability for fallows, low
use of fertilizer amendments, and (in some circumstances)high rates of erosion, many soils in sub-Saharan Africa arehighly degraded with respect to nutrient supply capacity(Lal, 2006; Vanlauwe and Giller, 2006). It has been estimated that 85% of the arable land in Africa (ca. 185 millionha) has net depletion rates of nitrogen, phosphorous andpotassium (NPK) that exceed 30 kg ha-1 yr -1 (Henao andBaanante, 2006) with 21 countries having NPK depletion
rates in excess of 60 kg ha-1 yr -1.
In high-yielding agriculture, the application of modern
production technologies is often associated with environmental damage. In some cases, this damage is most attributed to inappropriate policies and management practices
rather than to the technologies per se.
Goals
E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to -5

Scale
GSpecificity
Widespread

The adoption of MVs and yield enhancing technologies likeinorganic fertilizer use and irrigation have been linked to aloss of biodiversity, reduced soil fertility, increased vulnerability to pests/diseases, declining water tables and increased
salinity, increased water pollution, and damage to fragile
lands through expansion of cropping into unsuitable areas.
A detailed assessment of the environmental impacts asso-

11/3/08 10:55:12 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 153

ciated with productivity enhancing technologies concluded
that empirical evidence for these associations only exists
for three scenarios—salinity, lower soil fertility, and pesticides and health (Maredia and Pingali, 2001). Furthermore,
many of the best documented environmental costs from agriculture are related to the misapplication of technologies
or over-use of resources rather than to the direct impactsof technology per se. Examples of this include the subsidydriven exploitation of groundwater for irrigation (Pimentel
et al., 1997) and a lack of a complementary investment indrainage to reduce salinity problems in irrigated areas withpoorly-drained soils (NAS, 1989). Some authors highlightthe need for a counterfactual argument, i.e., what would
have happened in the absence of yield enhancing technologies (e.g., Maredia and Pingali, 2001). For example, howmuch extra land would be required if yield levels had notbeen enhanced? Estimates suggest that at 1961 yield levels,
an extra 1.4 billion ha of cultivated land would be required
to match current levels of food production (MEA, 2005).
Resource-conserving technologies may reduce or eliminate
some of the environmental costs associated with agricultural production with mixed results in terms of yield andoverall water use.
Goals
H, L, E, D

Certainty
A, B

Range of Impacts-2 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread

Resource-conserving technologies (RCT) such as reduced
tillage and conservation agriculture systems have been
widely adopted by farmers in the last 25 years. For example,
no-till systems now occupy about 95 million ha, mostly inNorth and South America (Derpsch, 2005), with current
expansion in the Ingo-Gangetic Plain of South Asia (Hobbs
et al., 2006; Ahmad et al., 2007). In general, no-till systems
are associated with greatly reduced rates of soil erosion fromwind and water (Schuller et al., 2007), higher rates of water infiltration (Wuest et al., 2006), groundwater recharge,
and enhanced conservation of soil organic matter (West andPost, 2002). Yields can be increased with these practices, butwhile the physical structure of the surface soil regenerates,
there can be significant interactions with crop type (Halvorson and Reule, 2006), disease interactions (Schroeder andPaulitz, 2006), surface residue retention rates (Govaerts etal., 2005), and time since conversion from conventional tillage. Other resource conserving technologies such as contour farming and ridging are also useful for increasing water
infiltration, and reducing surface runoff and erosion (Reij etal., 1988; Habitu and Mahoo 1999; Cassman et al., 2005).
Evidence from Pakistan (Ahmad et al., 2007) suggests thatwhile RCT results in reduced water applications at the field
scale, this does not necessarily translate into reduced overallwater use as RCT serves to recharge the groundwater andthen be reused by farmers through pumping. The increased
profitability of RCTs also results in the expansion of thearea cropped.
Modern agriculture has had negative impacts on biodiversity.
Goals
E

chapter 03.indd 153

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to -5

Scale
GSpecificity
Widespread

The promotion and widespread adoption of modern agricultural technologies, such as modern crop and livestock varieties and management practices, has led to a reduction in
biodiversity, though this is contested for some crops (Maredia and Pingali, 2001; Smale et al., 2002; Dreisigacker etal., 2003). Although biodiversity may have been temporally reduced, genetic diversity is now increasing in major
cereal crops. The CGIAR and other research centers holdin trust large numbers of crop plant accessions representing
diversity.
Land degradation is a threat to food security and rural
livelihoods through its effects on agricultural production
and the environment.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-1 to -5

Scale
GSpecificity
Especially severe in the tropics

Land degradation typically refers to a decline in land function due to anthropogenic factors such as overgrazing,
deforestation, and poor agricultural management (FAO/
UNEP, 1996; www.unep.org/GEO/geo3). Degradation affects 1.9 billion ha and 2.6 billion people and with varying
degrees of severity, and potential for recovery, encompasses
a third of all arable land with adverse effects on agricultural
productivity and environmental quality (Eswaran, 1993;
UNEP, 1999; Esawaran et al., 2001, 2006). Inadequate replenishment of soil nutrients, erosion, and salinization areamong the most common causes of degradation (Guerny,
1995; Nair et al., 1999). The GEO Report foresees that by
2030 developing countries will need 120 million additional
hectares for agriculture and that this will need to be met bycommercial intensification and extensification, using lands
under tropical forest and with high biodiversity value (Ashet al., 2007). The restoration of degraded agricultural land
is a much more acceptable option. Restoration techniques
are available, but their use is inadequately supported bypolicy. The recovery potential of degraded land is a function of the severity, and form of degradation, resource availability and economic factors. Soil nutrient depletion can be
remedied by moderate application of inorganic fertilizer ororganic soil amendments, which can dramatically improvegrain yields in the near-term, although responses are sensitive to factors such as soil characteristics (Zingore et al.,2007). Low-input farming systems, which are characterized
by diversification at the plot and landscape scale can reverse
many of the processes of land degradation, especially nutrient depletion (Cooper et al., 1996; Sanchez and Leakey,
1997; Leakey et al., 2005a).
Global livestock production is associated with a range
of environmental problems and also some environmental
benefits.
Goals
N, E, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-3 to 0Scale
GSpecificity
Widespread applicability

The environmental problems associated with livestock
production include direct contributions to greenhouse gas
emissions from ruminants and indirect contributions to environmental degradation due to deforestation for pastures,
land degradation due to overstocking, and loss of wildlife

11/3/08 10:55:12 AM

154 | IAASTD Global Report

habitats and biodiversity (FAO, 2006d). Additionally, livestock require regular access to water resources, which they
deplete and contaminate. On the other hand, extensive pastoral systems like game ranching, are more compatible withbiodiversity conservation than most other forms of agriculture (Homewood and Brockington, 1999).

alien species, reduction of water quality, genetic isolation
through habitat fragmentation, and reduced production offloodplain and other inland and coastal fisheries.

Intensive agricultural systems can damage agroecosystem
health.

Goals
N, H, L, S, D

Goals
N, L, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-1 to -5

Scale
GSpecificity
Most agricultural systems

Agroecosystem health is important for nutrient, water andcarbon cycling, climate regulation, pollination, pest anddisease control and for the maintenance of biodiversity (Altieri, 1994; Gliessman, 1998; Collins and Qualset, 1999).
Intensive production systems, such as the rice-wheat systemin the Punjab, have led to deterioration in agroecosystem
health, as measured by soil and water quality (Ali and Byerlee, 2002). This deterioration has been attributed to unsustainable use of fertilizer and irrigation, though whether
this is due to intensification per se or to mismanagement
is unclear. For example, in China, grain yield would haveincreased by 5% during 1976-89 given less erosion and lesssoil degradation (e.g., increased salinity) (Huang and Rozelle, 1995). More evidence is needed about the relationships
between total factor productivity and long-term agroecosystem health. In some cases, intensified production on prime
agricultural land may reduce negative impacts on ecosystem
health by reducing the incentive to extend production onto
marginal lands or into natural areas (e.g., highly erodible
hillslopes).
Poor irrigation management causes land degradation withnegative impact on livelihoods.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-1 to -3

Scale
R

Specificity
Especially in the dry tropics

Irrigation increases crop productivity in dry areas, but
can result in land degradation. Poor drainage and irrigation practices have led to waterlogging and salinization ofroughly 20% of the world’s irrigated lands, with consequentlosses in productivity (Wood et al., 2000). While livelihoods
have improved through increased production and employment, demands for irrigation water have degraded wetland
biodiversity (Huber-Lee and Kemp-Benedict, 2003 quotedin Jinendradasa, 2003). Poorly conceived and implemented
water management interventions have incurred high environmental and social costs, including inequity in benefit
allocation and loss of livelihood opportunities. Common
property resources such as rivers and wetlands, importantfor poor fishers and resource gatherers, have been appropriated for other uses, resulting in a loss of livelihood opportunities. Communities have been displaced, especially in areas behind dams, without adequate compensation. A large
proportion of irrigation’s negative environmental effects
arise from the diversion of water away from natural aquatic ecosystems (rivers, lakes, oases, and other groundwater
dependent wetlands). Direct and indirect negative impacts
have been well documented, including salinization, channel erosion, declines in biodiversity, introduction of invasive

chapter 03.indd 154

In some river basins, water scarcity due to irrigation has
become a key constraint to food production.
Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-1 to -5

Scale
R

Specificity
Especially severe in the drytropics

Fifty years ago water withdrawal from rivers was one thirdof what it is today, with 70% of freshwater withdrawals(2,700 km3 or 2.45% of rainfall) attributable to irrigatedagriculture (CA, 2007). About 1.6 billion people live inwater-scarce basins. Water availability is a worldwide problem (Figure 3-4) despite a decline in water withdrawal for
agriculture over the past 20 years (FAO AQUASTAT, 2007)
in developed (58 to 39%) and developing countries (76 to71%), a decline of 69 to 61% globally (FAOSTAT, 2006).
In both irrigated and rainfed areas, a decline in water available for irrigation, without compensating investments andimprovements in water management and water use efficiency, has been found to reduce production with a consequent
increase in international cereal prices and negative impacts
on low-income developing countries (Rosegrant and Cai,
2001). Global investment in water distribution systems for
agriculture has declined relative to other sectors during recent decades.
Agriculture contributes to degradation and pollution ofwater resources.
Goals
E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-1 to -5

Scale
GSpecificity
Most agricultural systems

Traces of the herbicide “Atrazine” and other pesticides areroutinely documented in shallow ground and surface waters
in industrialized countries. Recent surveys in the U.S. suggest that pesticides concentrations exceed human health andwildlife safety standards in approximately 10% of streams
and 1% of groundwater wells (USGS, 2006). In intensive
agricultural regions, streamwater nitrogen concentrations
have been found to be nearly nine times higher than downstream from forested areas (Omernik, 1977). Increasing
concentrations of nitrate nitrogen in the Mississippi River
have also been linked to hypoxic conditions in the Gulf of
Mexico (Rabalais et al., 1996).
3.2.1.1.3 Impacts on diet and health
Patterns of food consumption are becoming more similar
throughout the world,
Goals
N, H, L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to +2

Scale
R

Specificity
Widespread in the tropics

The Green Revolution did not focus on nutrient-rich foods
like fruits, vegetables, legumes and seafood. The focus on
cereals led to an increased per capita consumption of cereals, while in most developing countries, consumption ofvegetables remained far below the minimum requirementlevel of 73 kg per person (Ali and Abedullah, 2002). Likewise, per capita consumption of pulses in south Asia fell

11/3/08 10:55:12 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 155

Supplies of nutritious traditional food are in decline, butreversible.
Goals
N, H, L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to -4

Scale
R

Specificity
Widespread in the tropics

Deforestation and increasing pressures from urban infrastructure have reduced the fresh sources of food supply
from forests and urban gardens (Ali et al., 2006). Projects
to reverse this trend promote traditional foods as new crop
plants (Leakey, 1999a; Leakey et al., 2005a) and encourage their consumption. For example in Zambia, the FAO
Integrated Support to Sustainable Development and Food
Security Program (IP-Zambia) is promoting the consumption of traditional foods (www.fao.org/sd/ip).

Figure 3-4. Agricultural water withdrawal as percentage of
total water withdrawal for agricultural, domestic and industrial
purposes worldwide. Source: FAO AQUASTAT, 2007.

from 17 kg in 1971 to 12 kg in 2003 (Ali et al., 2005). Recently, however, vegetable production has increased in developing countries, through public-private collaboration in
the introduction of modern varieties and technologies. The
replacement of traditional plant based diets with increased
consumption of more energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods
with high levels of sugar and saturated fats in all world regions (Popkin, 2003) has been driven by increased incomes
and other factors such as changes in food availability, andretail and marketing activities. Increased protein consumption (e.g., meat and dairy products) is occurring in developing countries, but high costs limit consumption primarily tothe urban elite.
The application of modern AKST has led to a decline in theavailability and consumption of traditional foods.
Goals
N, H, L, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to -4

Scale
R

Specificity
Widespread in the tropics

In the past, many traditional foods were gathered fromforests and woodlands, which provided rural householdswith food and nutritional security. With the loss of habitat through deforestation, population growth, increased
urbanization and poverty and an emphasis on staple foodcultivation, this wild resource has diminished. In addition,
improved access to other food crops and purchased foods(Arnold and Ruiz Pérez, 1998) have contributed to the trend
towards diet simplification, reduced fresh food supply, anddisappearance of nutrient rich indigenous food. This simplification has had negative impacts on food diversity andsecurity, nutritional balance, and health. Indigenous fruits
and vegetables have been given low priority by policy makers, although they are still an important component of diets,
especially in Africa.

chapter 03.indd 155

3.2.1.2 Biotechnology: conventional breeding and tissue
cultureThe modification of plants and animals through domestication and conventional plant breeding (i.e., excluding use of
nucleic acid technologies and genetic engineering) has madea huge contribution to food production globally: the Green
Revolution for plants, the Blue Revolution for fish and theLivestock Revolution.
3.2.1.2.1 Impact of modern varieties of crops (including
trees) and improved livestock breeds
The impact of domestication and conventional breeding, especially in annual crop plants, has been well documented.
Modern varieties and breeds have had positive impacts onyield and production, especially where environments havebeen favorable and management has been good. However,there have also been some negative effects on the environment and on biodiversity. There is also some concern thaton-station and on-farm yields are stagnating.
Agriculture is dependent on very few species of animals
and plants.
Goals
N, H, L, E

Certainty
A, B

Range of Impacts-2 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Agriculture began with the domestication of wild animals
and plants. About 1000 plant species have been domesticated resulting in over 100 food and 30 non-food crops (fiber,
fodder, oil, latex, etc., excluding timber). Approximately
0.3% of the species in the plant kingdom have been domesticated for agricultural purposes (Simmonds, 1976) and
4.1% for garden plants (Bricknell, 1996). These proportions rise to 0.5 and 6.5% respectively if limited to the higher plants (angiosperms, gymnosperms and pteridophytes)
of which there are some 250,000 species (Wilson, 1992),
but are small when compared with the 20,000 edible species used by hunter-gatherers (Kunin and Lawton, 1996). A
similar pattern has occurred in animals and fish, with only asmall proportion of the species traditionally consumed domesticated through AKST. Over the last 50-60 years plant
and animal breeding was a major component of the Green
Revolution.

11/3/08 10:55:14 AM

156 | IAASTD Global Report

Overall, the impacts of the Green Revolution have been
mixed.
Goals
N, L, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
0 to -3

Scale
GSpecificity
Mainly small-scale agriculture

Positive impacts on yield have been achieved in Latin America with an increase of 132% (36% from improved varieties
and 64% from other inputs) on 32% less land (Evenson and
Gollin, 2003a). Negative effects on yield occurred in subSaharan Africa even though overall yield increased 11%(130% coming from improved varieties and -30% fromother inputs), since 88% more land was used). In SSA andCWANA, MVs were released but not adopted throughout
the 1960s and 70s (Evenson, 2003). In some cases, MVs
lacked desired organolepic qualities or were not as well
adapted as Traditional Varieties (TVs). However, in manycases the lack of adoption resulted from inadequate delivery of seeds to farmers (Witcombe et al., 1988). Poor seeddelivery systems remain a major constraint in many parts ofAfrica (Tripp, 2001).
PlantsDomestication, intensive selection and conventional breeding have had major impacts on yield and production of
staple food crops, horticultural crops and timber trees.
Goals
N

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+2 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

Yield per unit area of the world’s staple food crops, especially cereals (rice, wheat and maize) have increased overthe last 50 years (Figure 3-2), as a result of publicly and privately funded research on genetic selection and conventional breeding (Simmonds, 1976; Snape, 2004; Swaminathan,2006). Increased wheat and barley yield in the UK (Silvey,
1986, 1994), and maize yield in the USA (Duvick and Cassman, 1999; Tollenaur and Wu, 1999), e.g., is attributed
equally to advances in breeding and to improved crop andsoil management. Gains in productivity between 1965 and1995 were about 2% per annum for maize, wheat and rice
(Pingali and Heisey, 1999; Evenson and Gollin, 2003a),though rates have declined in the last decade. Similarly,
productivity measured as total factor productivity (TFP)
also increased in rice, wheat and maize (Pingali and Heisey,
1999; Evenson, 2003a). The impact of crop improvement
on non-cereals has been less well documented as these crops
are often far more diverse, occupy smaller areas globallyand are not traded as commodities. For example, in total legumes occupy 70.1 m ha globally, but there a greater diversity of legume species is used with clear regional preferences
and adaptation (e.g., cowpeas, Vigna unguiculata, in West
Africa; pigeon pea, Cajanus cajan, and mung bean, Vigna
radiata, in India). Nonetheless, plant breeding has increased
yields in many protein crops (Evenson and Gollin, 2003b).
Much of the increase in crop yield and productivity can be
attributed to breeding and dissemination of Modern Varieties (MV) allied to improved crop management.
Goals
N, L, D

chapter 03.indd 156

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

A number of studies (Pingali and Heisey, 1999; Heisey
et al., 2002; Evenson and Gollin, 2003ab; Hossain et al.,
2003; Raitzer, 2003; Lantican et al., 2005) have quantified
the large impact (particularly in industrialized countries andAsia) of crop genetic improvement on productivity (Figure3-2). Much of this impact can be attributed to IARC genetic
research programs, both direct (i.e., finished varieties) andindirect (i.e., parents of NARS varieties, germplasm conservation). Benefit-cost ratios for genetic research are substantial: between 2 (significantly demonstrated and empirically attributed) and 17 (plausible, extrapolated to 2011)(Raitzer, 2003). Two innovations—rice and wheat MVs
rice (47% and 31% of benefits, respectively) account formost of the impact. Benefits can also be demonstrated formany other crops. For example, an analysis of the CIAT
bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) breeding program (Johnson et al.,2003) showed that 49% of the area under beans could be
attributed to the CIAT breeding program, raising yield by
210 kg ha-1 on average and resulting in added production
value of US$177 m. For Africa, where the breeding program
started later, about 15% of the area is under cvs that canbe attributed to CIAT, with an added value of US$26 million. The estimated internal rate of return was between 18
and 33%, with more rapid positive returns in Africa, whichbuilt upon earlier work in LAC.
Although the adoption of MVs is widespread, many MVs
may be old and farmers are therefore not benefiting fromthe latest MV with pest/disease resistant and superior
yield.
Goals
N, L, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-1 to -3

Scale
GSpecificity
High and low potential systems

Although new and potentially better MVs have been releasedin many countries, these have not been grown by farmers,
more often than not due to the inefficiency of the varietal release and seed multiplication system (Witcombe et al., 1988)
rather than poor suitability. For example, in high potential
areas of the Punjab the most commonly grown wheat andrice MVs were 8-12 and 11-15 years old (Witcombe, 1999;
Witcombe et al., 2001). The age of an MV in use may also
vary with environment, with lower rates of turnover in moremarginal areas where suitable MVs have not been released(Smale et al., 1998; Witcombe et al., 2001). Assuming thatgenetic gains in potential yield achieved each year are on
the order of 1 to 2% (e.g., Figure 3-5), then farmers may belosing 16 to 30% of potential yield; these losses will be evenhigher where MVs have superior disease or pest resistance.
Gains in productivity from MVs have been greatest in highpotential areas, particularly irrigated rice and wheat, but
benefits have also occurred is less favorable areas.
Goals
N, L, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Low potential environments

Yield gains of wheat on farmers’ fields in more marginalenvironments were between 2-3% between 1979 and 1996
(Byerlee and Moya, 1993; Lantican et al., 2005), comparedwith increases with irrigation of about 1% per annum between 1965 and 1995 (Lantican et al., 2005). These more
recent gains stem from breeding efforts based on greater

11/3/08 10:55:15 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 157

Smale et al., 1998; Hartell et al., 1998). This has been confirmed by a recent molecular study of genetic diversity inwheat (Reif et al., 2005). However, molecular analysis of
MVs by ages, areas and genealogies, has shown clearly thatdiversity in spring wheat in developing countries has notdecreased since 1965 (Smale et al., 2002).
Genetic yield potential is not increasing.
Goals
N

Figure 3-5. Current yield potential of rice modern varieties (MVs)
as a function of year of release. Source: Cassman et al., 2003, derived
from Peng et al., 1999.
Note: Dashed line indicates the yield potential of IR8 when it was released
in 1966. Graphic illustrates the importance of “maintenance breeding” andof stagnating yield potential.

understanding of marginal environments, such as thosewith acid soils or heat/drought stress (Reynolds and Borlaug, 2006). In maize, about 50% of the increase in yield
attributed to genetic gain is due to improvements in stress
tolerance (Tollenaur and Wu, 1999), which has contributed
to maize expansion in more marginal environments.
Crop improvement has reduced genetic diversity, but current breeding strategies are tackling this problem.
Goals
E

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-2 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread

In Asia, MVs account for >75% area for wheat and riceand village level studies in Nepal have shown incidencesof a single wheat MV, CH45, occupying 96% of the area
(Evenson and Gollin, 2003b; Witcombe et al., 2001). Elsewhere, notably in Africa and CWANA, MVs occupy smaller
proportions and many more TVs can be found (Evenson
and Gollin, 2003b). The loss of genetic diversity due to thewidespread adoption of MVs has resulted in negative environmental impacts (Evenson and Gollin, 2003ab): reducing
the availability of genes for future crop improvement, creating the possibility for inbreeding depression (with negative
impacts on production), reducing species ability to adapt
to change (eg. climate change) and evolving resistance to
new pest and disease outbreaks. However, this is disputed(Maredia and Pingali, 2001). Genetic diversity can vary
both temporally and spatially, and both have to be taken
into account in assessing impacts on diversity. The rapid replacement of old varieties with newer ones has increased thetemporal diversity in Mexico and Pakistan, especially whencurrent breeding programs increasingly use more geneticallydiverse traditional varieties in their parentage (Smale, 1997;

chapter 03.indd 157

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-3 to +1

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread

Plant breeding in developed and less developed countries
has to date been successful at delivering new, higher yielding
varieties, largely through better adaptation, greater partitioning of biomass to seed (i.e., harvest index; Austin et al.,
1980; Sayre et al., 1997) and disease resistance. However,under conditions where pests are efficiently controlled andthere are no limitations to the supply of water and nutrients,
there is evidence (Figure 3-5) that the yield potential of themost productive rice, wheat, and maize cultivars has notmarkedly increased since the Green Revolution (Duvick andCassman, 1999; Peng et al., 1999; Sayre et al., 2006). Evenin the UK, where the benefits of plant breeding have been
well documented (Silvey, 1986, 1994), national wheat yields
are only increasing slowly (Sylester-Bradley et al., 2005); although in any given year yields of the best varieties in National Recommended List trials show average gains >2% peryear above the most recently released varieties (Austin, 1999;
http://www.hgca.com/content.template/23/0/Varieties/
Varieties/Varieties%20Home%20Page.mspx) It is clear thatwhen harvest indices in some annual grasses and legumes
approach their theoretical maximum, selection for increased
total crop biomass and/or the exploitation of hybrid vigor
will be important. Hybrid rice, which yields about 15%
more than conventionally bred rice, is already grown onsome 15 million ha in China (about half the total area inrice) (Longping, 2004), and hybrid sorghum shows similar
promise.
Gains in yield per unit area per year are expected to remain lower than historical yields.
Goals
N

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to 0Scale
GSpecificity
Widespread

Conceptually, crop improvement goes through stages ofdomestication to produce Traditional Varieties (TVs), andthen TVs are replaced by a succession of MVs (Otsuka andYamano, 2005). In wheat, rice and maize gains were initially much higher (35-65%) when MV replaced traditionalvarieties (Otsuka and Yamano, 2005) Subsequent gains
when MV2 replace MV1 have been lower (10-30%). This
reduction in gain is to be expected, as many TVs were notnecessarily well adapted, especially to changing climates,
and yield may have been constrained by susceptibility tomajor pest and diseases, or non-biotic constraints such as
lodging. Furthermore, once major constraints are tackled,most breeding efforts go into maintaining resistance and enhancing quality, and not simply increasing yield potential(Legg, 2005; Baenziger et al., 2006). Constraints due to soil
fertility and structure, and diseases and pests from continuous cultivation limit increases in yield potential (see below;

11/3/08 10:55:15 AM

158 | IAASTD Global Report

Cassman et al., 2003). Nonetheless, further small gains are
expected, through continued genetic gain and a better understanding and breeding for specific target environments(Reynolds and Borlaug, 2006). In developing countries andlow yield potential environments the benefits of breeding
for specific environments will be further enhanced with the
adoption of more localized and/or participatory breeding,i.e., with the exploitation of G × E or local adaptation.
In several intensive production environments, cereal yields
are not increasing.
Goals
N, L, E, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to -4

Scale
G

Specificity
Intensive production systems

In several of the most important regions for irrigated riceproduction (e.g., areas of China, Japan, Korea) there isstrong evidence of persistent yield stagnation at approximately 80% of the theoretical productivity levels predictedby simulation models (Cassman et al., 2003). This type ofstalled exploitation of potential production is primarily
caused by economic factors since the rigorous management
practices required for yield maximization are not cost effective (Pingali and Heisey, 1999; Cassman et al., 2003). Riceyield stagnation has also been observed in areas like Central Java and the Indian Punjab at levels significantly below
80% of the theoretical productivity. In long-term cropping
system experiments (LTE) with the highest-yielding rice varieties under optimal pest and nutrient management, rice
yield potential declined at several locations. Subsequentevidence from a larger set of LTEs suggested that this phenomenon was not widespread, but that rice yield potential
was essentially stagnant in most regions despite putative
innovations in management and plant genetic resources(Dawe et al., 2000). For irrigated production systems in themaize belt of the United States, yields achieved by the mostproductive farmers have not increased since the mid-1980s(Duvick and Cassman, 1999). For spring wheat producers
in Mexico’s Yaqui Valley, only nominal increases in yield
have been observed since the late 1970s.
In many regions the production potential for the staple cereal crops has not been exhausted.
Goals
N L, E, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to +2

Scale
R

Specificity
Not clear

In contrast to concerns about limited future opportunities
for yield improvement in cereals, there are some examplesof yield increases. For example, coordinated efforts to improve management practices and profitability of Australianrice systems increased productivity from 6.8 tonnes ha-1 inthe late 1980s to 8.4 tonnes ha-1 by the late 1990s (Ferrero
and Nguyen, 2004). Farm-level maize yields in the UnitedStates are typically less than half of the climate-adjusted potential yield (Dobermann and Cassman, 2002). At the statelevel in India, an analysis (Bruinsma, 2003) suggests thatrice productivity could be increased by 1.5 tonnes ha-1 (ca.
50%) without exceeding the 80% criteria commonly used
to establish the economically-exploitable component of thebiophysical yield potential (Bruinsma, 2003).

chapter 03.indd 158

In developing countries the productivity of many smallscale farming systems is often constrained by limited accessto inputs and modern varieties (MVs) and poor management practices.
Goals
N, L, E, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to -5

Scale
Specificity
G
Small-scale farms in developing
countries

In upland rice systems in Laos, the importance of the adoption of improved varieties and N fertilization has been
demonstrated (Saito et al., 2006). By substituting MVs for
traditional landraces, rice yields doubled to 3.1 tonnes ha-1
with a moderate dose of nitrogen fertilizer further improving yield by 1 tonne ha-1. Among farmers in Nepal, modern crop management practices (e.g., timely establishment,
precision planting, two weedings) together with site-specificnutrient management boost rice productivity by 2 tonnes
ha-1 over typical farmer practices (Regmi and Ladha, 2005).
In West Africa, rural surveys show that most farmers have
limited knowledge of soil fertility management and of optimal establishment practices for rice (Wopereis et al., 1999).
In these areas, nitrogen deficiency, inadequate weeding,and late planting are commonly associated with low cereal
productivity (Becker and Johnson, 1999). Poor knowledgeof efficient practices for maintaining soil fertility has also
been identified as an important component of the low yields
achieved by Bangladeshi rice farmers (Gaunt et al., 2003).
Barriers to clonal forestry and agroforestry have been overcome by the development of robust vegetative propagation
techniques, which are applicable to a wide range of tree
species.
Goals
L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+3 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

Techniques of vegetative propagation have existed for thousands of years (Hartmann et al., 1997), but the factors affecting rooting capacity seem to vary between species andeven clones (Leakey, 1985; Mudge and Brennan, 1999).
However, detailed studies of the many morphological andphysiological factors affecting five stages of the rooting process in stem cuttings (Leakey, 2004) have resulted in someprinciples, which have wide applicability (Dick and Dewar,1992) and explain some of the apparently contradictory
published information (Leakey, 2004). Robust low-technology vegetative propagation techniques are now being
implemented within participatory village-level developmentof cultivars of indigenous fruit/nut tree species to diversify
cocoa farming systems in West Africa (Leakey et al., 2003).
Participatory domestication techniques are using low-techapproaches to cloning to develop cultivars of new tree crops
for agroforestry.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
M-L

Specificity
Wide applicability

Simple, inexpensive and low-tech methods for the rootingof stem cuttings have been developed for use by resource
poor farmers in remote village nurseries (Leakey et al.,1990). These robust and appropriate techniques are basedon a greatly increased understanding of the factors affecting

11/3/08 10:55:16 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 159

successful vegetative propagation (Leakey, 2004). The identification of selection criteria is being based on the quantitative characterization of many fruit and nut traits (Atangana
et al., 2001, 2002; Anegbeh et al., 2003, 2004; Waruhiu
et al., 2004; Leakey, 2005b; Leakey et al., 2005bc). Using
participatory approaches (Leakey et al., 2003), the implementation of these techniques is being successfully achievedby small-scale farmers from 40 communities (Tchoundjeu
et al., 2006).
Clonal approaches to the genetic improvement of timbertree species result in large improvements in yield and quality traits.
Goals
L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+2 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

For example in timber species, clones of E. urophylla x E.
grandis hybrid in Congo were planted in monoclonal blocksof 20-50 ha at a density of 800 stems ha-1 and resulted inmean annual increments averaging 35 m3 ha-l, comparedwith 20-25 m3 ha-l from selected provenances, and about 12
m3 ha-l from unselected seedlots (Delwaulle, 1983). In Brazil,
mean annual increments between 45-75 m3 ha-l and up to 90
m3 ha-l have been recorded (Campinhos, 1999). Clonal approaches require (Leakey, 1987; Ahuja and Libby 1993ab)
genetic diversity (Leakey, 1991), wise deployment (Foster
and Bertolucci, 1994) and appropriate silviculture (Lawson,
1994; Evans and Turnbull, 2004) to maximize gains, minimize pest and pathogen risks and maintain species diversity
in the soil microflora (Mason and Wilson, 1994), soil invertebrates (Bignell et al., 2005) and insect populations (Wattet al., 1997, 2002; Stork et al., 2003).
Increased private sector involvement in timber plantations
has recently been more inclusive of social and environmental goals.
Goals
E

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-1 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

In the past, the cultivation of planted timber trees has mostly
been implemented by national forestry agencies, often withinadequate attention to establishment techniques. In the last
20-30 years there has been increasing private sector investment, much of which has been multinational, and often
in partnership with local companies or government agencies (Garforth and Mayers, 2005). These companies havefocused on a few fast-growing species, especially for pulp
and paper industries, often grown as exotic species outside
their natural range. In these plantations genetic improvement has typically been achieved by provenance selection
and clonal technologies. Increasingly, such plantations arebeing designed as “mosaic” estates with a view to greatersynergies with both local agricultural conditions and areas
protected for biodiversity (IIED, 1996) and as joint ventureswith communities to provide non-fiber needs in addition towood (Mayers and Vermeulen, 2002).

chapter 03.indd 159

Livestock and fish
Domestication and the use of conventional livestock breeding techniques have had a major impact on the yield andcomposition of livestock products.
Goals
N, H, L

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
0 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread but, mostly indeveloped countries

There has been widespread use of breed substitution in industrialized countries and some developing countries, often
leading to the predominance of a few very specialized breeds,
and often pursuing quite narrow selection goals. Organizedwithin-breed selection has been practiced much less widely
in many developing countries, partly because of the lack ofinfrastructure, such as national or regional performance recording and genetic evaluation schemes. Genetic improvement—breed substitution, crossbreeding and within-breed
selection—has made an important contribution to meeting
the growing global demand for livestock products. Selection
among breeds or crosses is a one off, non-recurrent process:the best breed or breed cross can be chosen, but further improvement can be made only by selection within the populations (Simm et al., 2004). Crossbreeding is widespread incommercial production, exploiting complementarity of different breeds or strains, and heterosis or hybrid vigor (Simm,1998). Trait selection within breeds of farm livestock typically produces annual genetic changes in the range 1-3% of
the mean (Smith, 1984). Higher rates of change occur for
traits with greater genetic variability, in traits that are notage- or sex-limited, and in species with a high reproductive rate, like pigs and poultry (McKay et al., 2000; Merks,
2000), fish and even dairy cattle (Simm, 1998). These rates
of gain have been achieved in practice partly because of theexistence of breeding companies in these sectors. Typically,
rates of genetic change achieved in national beef cattle andsheep populations have been substantially lower than thosetheoretically possible, though they have been achieved inindividual breeding schemes. The dispersed nature of ruminant breeding in most countries has made sector-wide improvement more challenging.
In most species, rates of change achieved in practicethrough breeding have increased over the last few decades
in developed countries.
Goals
N, H, L

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
0 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Developed countries

The greatest gains in productivity as a result of genetic improvement have been made in poultry, pigs and, to a lesser
extent, dairy cattle. Greater success through breeding programs in developed countries has been the result of better
statistical methods for estimating the genetic merit (breeding value) of animals, especially best linear unbiased prediction methods; the wider use of reproductive technologies,
especially artificial insemination; improved techniques formeasuring performance (e.g., ultrasonic scanning to assess
carcass composition in vivo); and more focused selection
on objective rather than subjective traits, such as milk yieldrather than type. Developments in the statistical, reproductive and molecular genetic technologies available have the

11/3/08 10:55:16 AM

160 | IAASTD Global Reportpotential to increase rates of change further (Simm et al.,2004). In recent years there has been a growing trend in developed countries for breeding programs to focus more on
product quality or other attributes, rather than yield alone.
There is also growing interest in breeding goals that meetwider public needs, such as increasing animal welfare or reducing environmental impact.
Gains in productivity have been variable if breeds are notmatched to the environment
Goals
N, H, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Developing countries

The gains in productivity per animal have been greatest in developed countries, and in the more “industrialized” production systems in some developing or “transition” countries.
The enormous opportunities to increase productivity throughwider adoption of appropriate techniques and breeding goals
in developing countries are not always achieved. Breed substitution and crossing have both given rapid improvements,
but it is essential that new breeds or crosses are appropriate
for the environment and resources available over the entire
production life cycle. Failure to do this has resulted in herds
that have succumbed to diseases or to nutritional deprivation to which local breeds were tolerant, e.g., the introduction of high performing European dairy breeds into thetropics that had lower survival than pure Zebu animals andtheir crosses. The reproductive rate of the pure European
breeds is often too low to maintain herd sizes (de Vaccaro,1990). It is also important that valuable indigenous Farm
Animal Genetic Resources are protected.
Large scale livestock production can lead to environmental
problems.
Goals
N, L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Urban centers in developing
countries

Recently, livestock production has increased rapidly, particularly in developing countries where most of the increased
production comes from industrial farms clustered aroundmajor urban centers (FAO, 2005c). Such large concentrationof animals and animal wastes close to dense human population often causes considerable pollution problems withpossible negative effects on human health. Large industrial
farms produce more waste than can be recycled as fertilizer and absorbed on nearby land. When intensive livestock
operations are crowded together, pollution can threaten thequality of the soil, water, air, biodiversity, and ultimately
public health (FAO, 2005c). In less intensive mixed farming
systems, animal wastes are recycled as fertilizer by farmers
who have direct knowledge and control of their value andenvironmental impact. However in industrial production,
there is a longer cycle in which large quantities of wastes
accumulate.
Livestock production is a major contributor of emissionsof polluting gases.
Goals
N, L, S

chapter 03.indd 160

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
All livestock

Livestock production is a major contributor of emissions ofpolluting gases, including nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas
whose warming potential is 296 times that of carbon dioxide. Livestock contributes 18% of the total global warming effect, larger even than the transportation worldwide(Steinfeld et al., 2006). The share of livestock production inhuman-induced emissions of gases is 37% of total methane,
65% of nitrous oxide, 9% of total carbon dioxide emissions
and 68% of ammonia emissions (Steinfeld et al., 2006). This
atmospheric pollution is in addition to the water pollution
caused by large-scale industrial livestock systems.
Aquaculture has made an important contribution to poverty
alleviation and food security in many developing countries.
Goals
N, H, L, S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Developing countries

Aquaculture, including culture-based fisheries, has been theworld’s fastest growing food-producing sector for nearly 20
years (FAO, 2002c; Delgado et al., 2003a; Bene and Heck,
2005a; World Bank, 2007b). In 1999, 42.8 million tonnesof aquatic products (including plants) valued at US$53.5
billion were produced, and more than 300 species of aquatic organisms are today farmed globally. Approximately
90% of the total aquaculture production is produced indeveloping countries, with a high proportion of this produced by small-scale producers, particularly in low income
food deficit countries (Zeller et al., 2007). While exportoriented, industrial and commercial aquaculture practices
bring in needed foreign exchange, revenue and employment,
more extensive and integrated forms of aquaculture make asignificant grassroots contribution to improving livelihoods
among the poorer sectors of society and also promote efficient resource use and environmental conservation (FAO,
2002c). The potential of aquaculture has not yet been fully
realized in all countries (Bene and Heck, 2005ab; World
Bank, 2007b).
Globally, per capita fish consumption increased by 43%
from 11 kg to 16kg between 1970 and 2000.
Goals
N, H

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Asia particularly

In developing countries, fish have played an important rolein doubling animal protein consumption per capita overthe last 30 years—from 6.3 to 13.8 kg between 1970 and
2000. In the developed world, fish consumption increased
by less than one-half during the same period. Urbanization,
income and population growth are the most significant factors increasing fish consumption in developing countries,
particularly in Asia (Dey et al., 2004).
The recent increase in aquaculture production is primarily
due to advances in induced breeding or artificial propagation techniques (hypophysation).
Goals
N, L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Freshwater carp farming

Induced breeding and hypophysation have particularly occurred in the carp polycultures and in freshwater fish farmingin rice fields, seasonal ditches, canals and perennial ponds.

11/3/08 10:55:17 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 161

However, in Bangladesh, hatchery-produced stock (mainly
carps) have shown adverse effects such as reduced growth
and reproductive performance, increased morphologicaldeformities, and disease and mortalities. These effects areprobably due to genetic deterioration in the hatchery stocks
resulting from poor fish brood stock management, inbreeding depression, and poor hatchery operation (Hussain and
Mazid, 2004).

nature of environment-by-gene interactions was not recognized and yield under stress has a low heritability (Baenziger
et al., 2006). Drought, for example, is not easily quantifiable (or repeatable) in physical terms and is the result of acomplex interaction between plant roots and shoots, andsoil and aerial environments (Passioura, 1986). Furthermore, much effort was expended on traits that contributed
to survival rather than productivity.

Aquaculture has had positive and negative effects on theenvironment.

Although yield and drought tolerance are complex traits
with low heritability, it has been possible to make progress
through conventional breeding and testing methods.

Goals
N, L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Coastal ecosystems

There have been negative and positive impacts of aquaculture on the environment, depending on the intensification of
the production systems. An incremental farmer participatory approach to the development of sustainable aquaculture
in integrated farming systems in Malawi (Brummett, 1999)
found that integrated farming systems are more efficient atconverting feed into fish and produce fewer negative environmental impacts. The widespread adoption of integrated
aquaculture could potentially improve local environmentsby reducing soil erosion and increasing tree cover (Lightfoot and Noble, 1993; Lightfoot and Pullin, 1995; Brummett, 1999). Negative environmental effects resulting fromthe aquaculture industry include threats to wild fish stocks(Naylor et al., 2000); destruction of mangrove forests andcoastal wetlands for construction of aquaculture facilities; use of wild-caught rather than hatchery-reared finfish
or shellfish fry to stock captive operations (often leading
to high numbers of discarded by-catch of other species);
heavy fishing pressure on small ocean fish for use as fishmeal (depleting food for wild fish); transport of fish diseases
into new waters; and non-native fish that may hybridize orcompete with native wild fish. Improvements in management can help to reduce the environmental damage (Lebel etal., 2002), but only to a minor extent. However, economic
impacts are site-specific. Intensive aquaculture has also had
important effects on the landscape, e.g., in Thailand 5065% of the mangroves have been replaced by shrimp ponds(Barbier and Cox, 2002).
3.2.1.2.2 Breeding for abiotic and biotic stress tolerance
Crops and plants, especially in marginal environments,
are subjected to a wide and complex range of biotic (pests,
weeds) and abiotic (extremes of both soil moisture and air/soil temperature, poor soils) stresses. Abiotic stresses, especially drought stress (water and heat) have proved more
intractable.
Progress in breeding for marginal environments has been
slow.
Goals
N

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +1

Scale
R

Specificity
Widespread aplicability

Progress in breeding for environments prone to abiotic
stresses has been slow, often because the growing environment was not characterized or understood (Reynolds andBorlaug, 2006), too many putative stress tolerant traits
proved worthless (Richards, 2006), and because the complex

chapter 03.indd 161

Goals
N

Certainty
D

Range of Impacts
0 to +1

Scale
R

Specificity
CWANA, SSA

Breeding for marginal and stressed environments has notbeen easy, especially where wide-adaptation was also important. However, breeding programs that make full use
of locally-adapted germplasm and TVs (Ceccarelli et al.,1987), and select in the target environments (Ceccarelli andGrando, 1991; Banziger et al., 2006) have been successful.
For example, in Zimbabwe, where soil fertility is low anddrought stress common, the careful selection of test environments (phenotyping) and selection indices can increasemaize yields across the country and regionally (Banziger
et al., 2006). Equal weight to three selection environments(irrigated, drought stress, N-stress), the use of moderately
severe stress environments, and the use of secondary traits
with higher heritabilities improved selection under stress.
In multilocation trials, lines selected using this method outyielded other varieties at all yield levels, but more so in moremarginal environments. This would seem to be a successful blue print for conventional breeding for stress environments.
Although drought tolerance is a complex trait, progress has
been made with other aspects of abiotic stress tolerance.
Goals
N

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Many crops

Yield is the integration of many processes over the life of acrop, and as such it is unsurprising that heritabilities are low
and progress slow. In contrast, the effects of some abiotic
stresses are associated with very specific stages of the life
cycle (particularly flowering and seed-set) or are associatedwith very specific mechanisms, and these appear to be moreamenable to selection. Progress has been made in breeding
for tolerance to a number of stresses, including extremes oftemperature (hot and cold), salt and flooding/submergence,and nutrient deficiency. For example, tolerance to extremesof temperature, which are important constraints in many
crop species at and during reproductive development (i.e.,in the flowering period), have been identified (Hall, 1992;
Craufurd et al., 2003; Prasad et al., 2006) and in somecases genes identified and heat tolerant varieties bred (Hall,
1992). These particular responses will be increasingly valuable as climate changes.

11/3/08 10:55:17 AM

162 | IAASTD Global Report

Biological control has been successfully adopted in pest
control programs to minimize the use of pesticides and reduce environmental and human health risks.
Goals
N, E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
M-L

Specificity
Wide applicability

Ten percent of the world’s cropped area involves classicalbiological control. The three major approaches to biological control are importation, augmentation and conservation of natural enemies (DeBach, 1964). Biological control
through importation can be used in all cropping systems indeveloping and industrialized countries (Gurr and Wratten,
2000; van Lenteren, 2006) and has been applied most successfully against exotic invaders. Successful control is mostoften totally compatible with crop breeding (DeBach, 1964;
Thomas and Waage, 1996), and provides economic returns
to African farmers of the same magnitude as breeding programs (Raitzer, 2003; Neuenschwander, 2004). In augmentation forms of biological control, natural enemies (predators, parasitoids and pathogens) are mass produced andthen released in the field, e.g., the parasitic wasp Trichogramma is used on more than 15 million ha of agricultural
crops and forests in many countries (Li, 1994; van Lenteren
and Bueno, 2003), as well as in protected cropping (Parrella
et al., 1999; van Lenteren, 2000). A wide range of microbial insect pathogens are now in production and in use inOECD and developing countries (Moscardi, 1999; Copping,2004). For example, the fungus Metarhizium anisopliae var
acridum “Green Muscle”® is used to control Desert Locust(Schistocerca gregaria) in Africa (Lomer et al., 2001). Since
agents vary in advantages and disadvantages, they must be
carefully selected for compatibility with different cropping
systems. However, agents are playing an increasing role in
IPM (Copping and Menn, 2000). In conservation biological control, the effectiveness of natural enemies is increased
through cultural practices (DeBach and Rosen, 1991; Landis et al., 2000) that enhance the efficiency of the exotic orindigenous natural enemies (predators, parasitoids, pathogens).
The economic benefits of biological control can be substantial.
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
+5

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Cultures of the predatory mite, Metaseiulus occidentalis,used in California almond orchards saved growers $59 to$109 ha-1 yr -1 in reduced pesticide use and yield loss (Hoy,
1992). The fight against the cassava mealy bug in Africa
has had even greater economic benefits (Neuenschwander,2004). IITA and CIAT found a natural enemy of the mealy
bug in Brazil in the area of origin of the cassava crop. Subsequently, dissemination of this natural enemy in Africa saved
million of tonnes of cassava per year and brought total benefits of US$ billions (Zeddies et al., 2001; Raitzer, 2003).
Similar benefits for small-scale farmers have accrued fromother programs on different crops and against different invaders across Africa (Neuenschwander, 2004).

chapter 03.indd 162

Weed competition is a significant barrier to yield and profitability in most agroecosystems.
Goals
N, L, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to -5

Scale
GSpecificity
Widespread

In many developing countries, hand weeding remains theprevailing practice for weed control. On small-scale farms,
more than 50% of preharvest labor is is devoted to weed
management, including land preparation and in-crop weed
control (Ellis-Jones et al., 1993; Akobundu, 1996). Despite
these labor investments crop losses to weed competition are
nearly universally identified as major production constraints,
typically causing yield reductions of 25% in small-scale agriculture (Parker and Fryer, 1975). Delayed weeding is a common problem caused by labor shortages, and reduced laborproductivity resulting from diseases such malaria and HIV/
AIDS. Hence, cost-effective low-labor control methods havebecome increasingly important. In Bangladesh with current
methods, one-third of the farmers lose at least 0.5 tonne
ha-1 grain to weeds in each of the three lowland rice seasons(Ahmed et al., 2001; Mazid et al., 2001). Even in areas that
employ herbicides, yield losses are substantial; in the early
1990s annual losses of US$4 billion were caused by weedcompetition in the US. For staple cereal and legume crops
like maize, sorghum, pearl millet, upland rice in semiarid
areas of Africa, the parasitic witchweeds (Striga species) cancause yield losses ranging from 15 to 100% (Boukar et al.,2004). Striga infestation is associated with continuous cultivation and limited returns of plant nutrients to the soil,i.e., conditions typical of small-scale resource poor farms(Riches et al., 2005).
Intensive herbicide use has contributed to improved weed
management but there are concerns about sustainable use
and environmental quality.
Goals
N, H, L, E, D

Certainty
A, B

Range of Impacts-2 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread

Globally, approximately 1 billion kg of herbicide active
ingredients are applied annually in agricultural systems(Aspelin and Grube, 1999). The benefits of judicious herbicide use are broadly recognized. In addition to tillage, prophylactic application of herbicide is the method of choice
for managing weeds in industrialized countries and is also
widely employed in highly productive agricultural regionsin developing countries like Punjab and Haryana Statesin India. Herbicide use is also becoming more common insmall-scale rice/wheat systems in Eastern India and in ricein countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh where theprice of labor is rising faster than crop values (Auld andMenz, 1997; Riches et al., 2005). Substitution of labor byherbicides in Bangladesh reduces weeding costs by 40-50%(Ahmed et al., 2001). Herbicides sold in small quantities areaccessible to poor farmers who realize their value; rice herbicide sales have been increasing at 40-50% per year since
2002 (Riches et al., 2005). However, herbicide resistance(currently documented in 313 weed biotypes: www.WeedScience.org) and environmental contamination are growing
problems. Traces of Atrazine and other potential carcinogens are routinely documented in ground and surface water
resources in industrialized countries (USGS, 1999), and on

11/3/08 10:55:18 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 163

a global scale the quantity of active ingredient applied asherbicide and the energy required for manufacturing andfield application is larger than all other pesticides combined(FAO, 2000a). In the developing country context, acute poisoning of agricultural workers from improper handling of
herbicides also poses a significant public health risk that is
linked to factors such as insufficient access to high-quality
protective gear, poor product labeling, and low worker literacy rates (Repetto and Baliga, 1996). However, many of
the newer classes of herbicide chemistry entering the market have much more favorable environmental profiles thancommonly used insecticides and can be used at very low
doses. Registration of new classes of herbicides has slowed(Appleby, 2005), which places a heightened imperative on
maintaining the long-term efficacy of existing herbicides.
There are also concerns for the sustainable use of compounds like glyphosate that are applied in conjunction withherbicide resistant crops (HRCs). Farmers using HRCs tend
to extensively rely on a single herbicide at the expense of allother weed control measures, thereby decreasing long-term
efficacy by increasing the odds of evolved herbicide resistance. However these worries are less of an issue in smallerscale systems where HRCs have not been previously usedand seed systems make their widespread use less likely in thenear future. Herbicides also have potential for reducing thecost of management of some important perennial and parasitic weed problems. Glyphosate is showing promise with
farmers in Nigeria to reduce competition from the perennial
grass Imperata cylindrica (Chikoye et al., 2002) and can
reduce tillage inputs for management of other intractable
perennial species, while in East Africa imazapyr herbicide
tolerant maize has been introduced to combat Striga (Kanampiu et al., 2003).
Non-chemical control strategies can Iimit crop damage
from weed competition.
Goals
N, H, L, E, D

Certainty
B, D

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread

Weed management attempts to reduce densities of emerging
weeds, limit crop yield losses from established weeds, andpromote the dominance of comparatively less damaging anddifficult to control species. The first line of defense against
weeds is a vigorous crop; basic crop management and cultural practices are important to maximize crop competitiveness and thereby reduce weed competition. Cultivars
that are bred for competitive ability (Gibson et al., 2003),
diverse crop rotations that provide a variety of selection
and mortality factors (Westerman et al., 2005), and simple
management changes such as higher seeding rates, spatiallyuniform crop establishment (Olsen et al., 2005), and banded fertilizer placement (Blackshaw et al., 2004) can reduce
crop losses from uncontrolled weeds and, in some cases,
reduce herbicide dependence. In conventional production
settings, few of these options have been explicitly adopted
by farmers. Cultural practice innovations for weed control
work best if they are compatible and efficient complements
to existing agronomic practices; hence, it is important tonote the needs and constraints of farmers when developing
new options for weed management (Norris, 1992). Hence
participatory approaches are commonly used to ensure thatchapter 03.indd 163

practices are appropriate to farmer needs (Riches et al.,2005; Franke et al., 2006).
Parasitic weeds are major constraints to several crops but a
combination of host-plant resistance and management cancontrol them.
Goals
N

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+2 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Farmers in Africa, Asia andMediterranean

Parasitic weeds such as Striga spp. and Alectra vogelii aremajor production constraints to several important crops,
especially maize, sorghum and cowpea in SSA. Sources ofresistance to S. gesneroides and A. vogellii were identified
by traditional methods and the genes conferring resistanceto and A. vogellii were subsequently identified using Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism markers (Boukar etal., 2004) and successfully deployed in cowpea across W.
Africa (Singh et al., 2006). Host-plant resistance to S. asiatica and S. hermonthica is now being deployed widely in
new sorghum cultivars in East Africa but has been harder tofind in maize. Inbred maize lines carrying tolerance to Striga
have been developed and tolerance is quantitatively inherited (Gethi and Smith, 2004). However, the most successful
strategy for controlling Striga in maize in West Africa is theuse of tolerant cultivars used in rotation, and trap-cropping,using legumes, especially soybean, to germinate Striga seeds
to reduce the seedbank (Franke et al., 2006). As Striga infestation is closely associated with low soil fertility, nutrient
management, especially addition of nitrogen, can greatly
increase yields of susceptible crops on infested fields. Farmers are now adopting green manures in legume/cereal rotations in Tanzania as a low-cost approach to reversing theyield decline of maize and upland rice (Riches et al., 2005).
The interplanting of maize with Desmodium spp. within the“push-pull” system (Gatsby Charitable Foundation, 2005;
Khan et al., 2006) is a promising approach to Striga suppression in East Africa. The broomrapes, Orobanche spp.
are a major problem on sunflower, faba bean, pea, tomato
and other vegetable crops in the Mediterranean basin, central and eastern Europe and the Middle East. Sources ofresistance to broomrapes (Orobanche species) in a numberof crops and the associated genes have been identified andmapped (Rubiales et al., 2006).
The increasing rate of naturalization and spread (i.e., invasions) of alien species introduced both deliberately andaccidentally poses an increasing glo­bal threat to native
biodiversity and to production.
Goals
E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-1 to -5

Scale
R

Specificity
Widespread occurrence

Alien species are introduced deliberately either as newcrops/livestock or as biocontrol agents; or by mistake as
contamination of seed supplies or exported goods. Naturaldispersal mechanisms account for only a small proportionof newly introduced species. This environmental problem
has been ranked second only to habitat loss (Vitousek etal., 1996) and has totally changed the ecology of some areas (e.g., Hawaii). Negative economic and environ­mental

11/3/08 10:55:18 AM

164 | IAASTD Global Report

impacts include crop failures, altered functioning of naturaland manmade eco­systems, and species extinctions (Ewel etal., 1999). For example, in just one year the impact of theintroduced golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata) on
rice production cost the Philippine economy an estimated
US$28-45 million, or approximately 40% of the Philippines’ annual ex­penditure on rice imports (Naylor, 1996).
The late 20th century saw the emergence of highly virulent
forms of wheat stem rust and cassava mosaic disease thatare serious threats to food security.
Goals
N, H ,L, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-5 to -4

Scale
G

Specificity
Most agricultural systems

The Ug99 race of Puccinia graminis, first discovered in
East Africa, is virulent on most major resistance genes inwheat, which have provided effective worldwide protection against epidemic losses from wheat rust over the past
40 years (CIMMYT, 2005; Pretorius et al., 2002; Wanyera
et al., 2006). Yield loss from Ug99 typically ranges from40 to 80%, with some instances of complete crop failure(CIMMYT, 2005). The capacity for long-range wind dissemination of viable spores on the jet stream, the ubiquityof susceptible host germplasm, and the epidemic nature ofwheat stem rust pose a significant threat to wheat producing regions of Africa and Asia, and possibly beyond. The
Ug99 race recently crossed the Red Sea to Yemen, and is
projected to follow a similar trajectory as the Yr-9-virulent
wheat stripe rust, making its arrival in Central and South
Asia possible within the next five or more years (CIMMYT,
2005; Marris, 2007).
Cassava mosaic virus (CMV) is a threat to a staple cropvital for food security.
Goals
N, H, L, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-4 to -3

Scale
R, G

Specificity
Especially in Africa

In the late 1980s, CMV underwent recombinant hybridization of two less virulent virus types resulting in a severe andrapidly spreading form of cassava mosaic disease (Legg andFauquet, 2004). CMD has expanded, via whitefly transmission and movement of infected planting stock, throughout
East and Central Africa causing regional crop failure andfamine (Mansoor et al., 2003; Anderson et al., 2004; Leggand Fauquet, 2004). CMD represents the first instance ofa synergy between viruses belonging to the same family,
which could confront agriculture with the future emergenceof new and highly virulent geminivirus diseases (Legg andFauquet, 2004). Cassava is important to future food security in Africa since it is hardy under normally low diseasepressure conditions, and has minimal crop management
requirements. These qualities make it an emergency crop in
conflict zones (Gomes et al., 2004), and a potentially important component of agricultural diversification strategies foradaptation to climate change.
Cereal cultivars resistant to insect pests have reduced yield
losses.
Goals
Nchapter 03.indd 164

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
USA,CWANA

Aphids, sun pest and Hessian fly are among the most serious pests of cereals worldwide (Miller et al., 1989; Ratcliffeand Hatchett, 1997; Mornhinweg et al., 2006). Hessian fly
attacks result in yield losses of up to 30% in USA and Morocco, with estimated damage exceeding US$20 m per annum (Lafever et al., 1980; Azzam et al., 1997; Lhaloui et al.,2005). The most effective means of combating this pest has
been found to be the development of cultivars with genes
H1 to H31 for host plant resistance (antibiosis, antixenosis
and tolerance) (Ratcliffe and Hatchett, 1997; Williams etal., 2003; Ohm et al., 2004). The development of wheat
varieties resistant to the Hessian fly has been estimated togenerate an internal rate of return of 39% (Azzam et al.,1997). A similar resistance approach has been taken with
Russian wheat aphid, Diuraphis noxia) in wheat and barley in the US (Mornhinweg et al., 2006), and with soybean
aphid (Aphis glycines). Storage pests, such as weevils, lower
the quality of stored grain and seeds, and damage leads tosecondary infection by pathogens, causing major economic
losses. Host plant resistance has been identified against weevils, such as the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais and Callosobruchus spp., which also affect legumes e.g., cowpea(Dhliwayo et al., 2005).
Ethnoveterinary medicine for livestock could be a key veterinary resource.
Goals
N

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
USA, CWANA

Ethnoveterinary medicine (EVM) differs from the paternal
approach by considering traditional practices as legitimate
and seeking to validate them (Köhler-Rollefson and Bräunig,
1998). Systematic studies on EVM can be justified for threemain reasons (Tabuti et al., 2003), they can generate useful
information needed to develop livestock healing practices
and methods that are suited to the local environment, canpotentially add useful new drugs to the pharmacopoeia, andcan contribute to biodiversity conservation.
3.2.1.2.3 Improving quality and postharvest techniques
Traditionally, breeding was concerned primarily with yield,
adaptation and disease/pest resistance rather than quality and postharvest processing traits. In recent years, moreemphasis has been given to quality, especially user-definedquality (i.e., consumer acceptance), industrial processing
and bioenhancement. In particular, more breeding programs
are now focusing on fodder and forage quality, and not justgrain quality.
Breeding for improved and enhanced quality is increasingly important.
Goals
H

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
0 to +1

Scale
G

Specificity
Maize, rice

Bioenhancement or biofortification is not a new concept,
e.g., CIMMYT has worked on quality protein maize (QPM)
for more than two decades, but concerns over micronutrient
deficiencies (Bouis et al., 2000; Graham et al., 1999; www.
harvestplus.org) in modern diets are driving renewed interest. Vitamin A deficiency affects 25% of all children under
5 in developing countries (i.e., 125,000 children), while ane-

11/3/08 10:55:19 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 165

mia (iron deficiency) affects 37% of the world’s population(www.harvestplus.org). Using genetic manipulation, genes
for higher vitamin A have been inserted into rice (Golden
Rice) (Guerinot, 2000), and efforts are underway to produce micronutrient-dense iron and zinc varieties in rice.
Breeding for fodder and forage quality and yield is becoming more important.
Goals
H

Certainty
E

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
R

Specificity
India

The recognition that most small-scale farmers use crops for
multiple purposes and the rapid expansion in livestock production has resulted in breeding programs that target fodder and forage quality and yield. For example, Quantitative
Trait Loci (QTLs) for stover quality traits that can be usedin marker assisted breeding (MAB) have been identified inmillet (Nepolean et al., 2006); ICRISAT now tests sorghum,
millet and groundnut breeding lines for fodder quality andproduction.
A large number of postharvest technologies have been developed to improve the shelf life of agricultural produce.
Goals
N, H

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Developed countries

Postharvest technologies include canning, bottling, freezing,
freeze drying, various forms of processing (FFTC, 2006),
and other methods particularly appropriate for large commercial enterprises. Studies on the effects of storage atmosphere, gaseous composition during storage, postharvest
ethylene application and ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, andeffect of plant stage on the availability of various micronutrients in different foods are being examined to provide
increased understanding of the sensitivity of micronutrient
availability to the ways in which foods are handled, stored
and cooked (Welch and Graham, 2000; Brovelli, 2005).
3.2.1.3 Recent biotechnologies: MAS, MAB and Genetic
Engineering
Nucleic acid technologies (Table 3-2) and their applicationin genomics is beginning to have an impact on plant (Baenziger et al., 2006; Swamininathan, 2006) and animal breeding, both through increased knowledge of model and crop
species genomes, and through the use of marker assisted
selection (MAS) or breeding (MAB).
Plants
The tools and techniques developed by applied modern
biotechnology are beginning to have an impact on plant
breeding and productivity.
Goals
N

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Many crops

The use of genomic-based breeding approaches are alreadywidespread (e.g., Generation Challenge Program: http://
www.generationcp.org/index.php), particularly MAS or
MAB. CIMMYT, for example, routinely uses five markers
and performs about 7000 marker assays per year (Reynolds
and Borlaug, 2006). These markers include two for cereal

chapter 03.indd 165

Table 3-2. Techniques being used to elucidate the genetic structureof populations for conservation or utilization within crop/
livestock breeding programs.
Haploid/conservative single gene markers
Polymerase Chain Reaction - Restriction fragment length
polymorphism (PCR-RFLP)
Single Strand Conformation Polymorphism (SSCP)
PCR sequencing
Codominant single locus markers
Allozymes/isozymes
Microsatellites or simple sequence repeats (SSRs)
Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)
Dominant multilocus markers
Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD)Inter/anchored SSRs (iSSRs)
Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP)

cyst nematode, one for barley yellow dwarf, one to facilitate
wide crossing and one for transferring disease resistancefrom different genomes. Likewise, ICRISAT routinely uses
MAS to incorporate genes for downy mildew resistance inpearl millet (ICRISAT, 2006). MAS can shorten the breeding
cycle substantially and hence, the economic benefits are substantial (Pandey and Rajatasereekul, 1999). Using MAS, it
took just over three years to introduce downy mildew resistance compared to nearly nine years by conventional breeding (ICRISAT, 2006). QTLs identified for submergence tolerance in rice have also been fine-mapped and gene-specificmarkers identified (Xu et al., 2006), shortening the breeding
cycle with MAB to 2 years. At present, as in the examples
above, most MAS is with major genes or qualitative traits
and MAS is likely to be most useful in the near future totransfer donor genes, pyramid resistance genes and finger
print MVs (Koebner and Summers, 2003; Baenziger et al.,2006). To date, MAS has been less successful with more
complex, quantitative traits, particularly drought tolerance(Snape, 2004; Steele et al., 2006).
Knowledge of gene pathways and regulatory networks inmodel species is starting to have impacts on plant breeding.
Goals
N

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

The genome of the model plant species Arabidopsis and its
function have been studied in great detail. One of the mostimportant traits in crop plants is the timing of flowering andcrop duration, which determines adaptation. Genes that
control the circadian rhythm and the timing of flowering
have been extensively studied in Arabidopsis (Hayama and
Coupland, 2004; Bernier and Perilleux, 2005; Corbesier and
Coupland, 2005) and modeled (Welch et al., 2003; Locke
et al., 2005). Homologues of key flowering pathway genes
have been identified in rice and many other crop plants, andflowering pathways and the control of flowering time better
understood (Hayama and Coupland, 2004), thus providing
an opportunity to manipulate this pathway. Drought resistance has also been studied in Arabidopsis and two genes,
the DREB gene (Pellegrineschi et al., 2004) and the erecta

11/3/08 10:55:19 AM

166 | IAASTD Global Reportgene (Masle et al., 2005); these confer some tolerance towater deficits or increase water-use efficiency. Promising
constructs of the DREB gene have been produced in rice,wheat and chickpea (Bennett, 2006).
Modern biotechnology, no matter how successful at increasing yield or increasing disease and pest resistance, will not
replace the need for traditional crop breeding, release anddissemination processes.
Goals
N

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

The products of most current biotechnology research areavailable to farmers through the medium of seed, and will
therefore still go through current national registration, testing and release procedures. The same constraints to adoption
by farmers apply for GM and non-GM organisms. There
are arguments for shortening testing and release proceduresin the case of existing varieties that have their resistance“updated” against new strains of disease. In India a newversion of a widely grown pearl millet variety (HHB67) wasapproved for release that incorporates resistance to a newand emerging race of downy mildew (identified by DNA
finger-printing and incorporated using MAS backcrossing)(ICRISAT, 2006). Only a few countries currently have biosafety legislation or research capacities that allow for testing
GM crops and assessing and understanding the structure ofwild genetic resources (see 3.2.2.2.3).
Livestock
There have been rapid developments in the use of molecular genetics in livestock over the past few decades.
Goals
N, E, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

Good progress has been made in developing complete genome maps for the major livestock species (initial versions
already exist for cattle and poultry). DNA-based tests forgenes or markers affecting traits that are difficult to measure
currently, like meat quality and disease resistance, are being sought. However, genes of interest have differing effects
in breeds/lines from different genetic backgrounds, and indifferent production environments. When these techniques
are used, it is necessary to check that the expected benefits
are achieved. Because of the cost-effectiveness of current
performance recording and evaluation methods, new molecular techniques are used to augment, rather than replace,
conventional selection methods with the aim of achieving, relevant, cost-effective, publicly acceptable breeding
programs.
Biotechnologies in the livestock sector are projected to havea future impact on poverty reduction.
Goals
N, L, E, D

Certainty
F

Range of Impacts-2 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
North v SouthAt present, rapid advances in biotechnologies in both livestock production and health hold much promise for bothpoverty alleviation and environmental protection (Makkar
and Viljoen, 2005). Areas of particular note include newchapter 03.indd 166

generation vaccines and transgenic applications to enhance
production (Cowan and Becker, 2006). Polymerase chain
reaction (PCR) technology can be utilized to reduce themethane production of cattle (Cowan and Becker, 2006)
and grain crops can now be genetically manipulated to lower nitrogen and phosphorous levels in animal waste. Suchtools can also be utilized to characterize indigenous animal
genetic resources to both understand key factors in disease
resistance and adaptation and further protect local breeds.
Nevertheless, the impact on poverty reduction and safety ofmany of these technologies is currently unknown (Nangju,
2001; Cowan and Becker, 2006).
3.2.1.4 Genetic engineering
Modern biotechnological discoveries include novel genetic
engineering technologies such as the injection of nucleic
acid into cells, nuclei or organelles; recombinant DNA techniques (cellular fusion beyond the taxonomic family andgene transfer between organisms) (CBD, 2000). The products of genetic engineering, which may consist of a number
of DNA sequences assembled from a different organism, areoften referred to as “transgenes” or “transgene constructs”.
Public research organizations in both high- and low-income
countries and the private sector are routinely using biotechnology to understand the fundamentals of genetic variationand for genetic improvement of crops and livestock. Currently, most of the commercial application of genetic engineering in agriculture comes through the use of geneticallymodified (GM) crops. The commercial use of other GM
organisms, such as mammals, fish or trees is much more
limited.
PlantsAdoption of commercially available GM commodity crops
has primarily occurred in chemical intensive agricultural
systems in North and South America.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
Not yet known

Scale
R

Specificity
Controlled by government
regulation

The two dominating traits in commercially available crop
plants are resistance to herbicides and insects (Bt). Resistance is primarily to two broad spectrum herbicides: glyphosate and glufosinate. Resistance against insects is basedon traits from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The four primary
GM crop plants in terms of global land area are soybean(57%), maize (25%), cotton (13%) and canola/oilseed
rape (5%) (James, 2006) with the the US (53%), Argentina(18%), Brazil (11%) and Canada (6%) as major producers. In Asia, GM cotton production occurs in smaller scale
systems in India (3.7%) and China (3.5%) (James, 2006).
Sixteen other countries make up the remaining area (4.8%)of global GM crop production (James, 2006). GM crops
are mostly used for extractive products (e.g., lecitines andoil from soybean, starch from maize) or for processed products such as cornflakes, chips or tortillas. Whole grain GM
maize is only consumed as “food aid” sent to famine areas,
while some parts of GM cotton plants are used as animal
feed. A great diversity of novel traits and other crops plants(e.g., for pharmaceutical and industrial purposes) are under

11/3/08 10:55:19 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 167

development and their impacts will need to be evaluatedin the future. The main challenge here will be to keep GM
pharma and industrial crops separate from crops for food(Ellstrand, 2003; Ledford, 2007).
Environmental impacts of GM crops are inconclusive.
Goals
L, E, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
Not yet known

Scale
G,R

Specificity
Complex interacting factors
being identified

Both negative and benign impacts have been reported, depending on the studied system and the chosen comparator.
Contradictory reports from laboratory and field studies
with GM crops (Bt- and herbicide resistant) show a great
diversity of impacts on non-target organisms, including
arthropods and plants (Burke, 2003; O’Callaghan et al.,2005; Squire et al., 2005; Hilbeck and Schmidt, 2006; Sanvido et al., 2006; Torres and Ruberson, 2006). Some reports
claim that GM crops do not adversely affect biodiversity ofnon-target organisms, or have only minor effects, while others report changes in the community composition of certain
biocontrol taxa (Torres and Ruberson, 2006). Some reports
find that the key experiments and fundamental issues related to environmental impacts are still missing (Wolfenbarger
and Phifer, 2000; Snow et al., 2005). Another controversial
topic surrounds claims that GM crops significantly reduce
pesticide use and thus help to conserve biodiversity (Huang
et al., 2002; Pray et al., 2002; Qaim and Zilberman, 2003;
Bennett et al., 2004ab; Morse et al., 2004). Contradictoryevidence has also been provided (e.g., Benbrook, 2003,
2004; Pemsl et al., 2004, 2005), which in part may be attributable to the dynamic condition of pest populations andtheir outbreaks over time. A further complication arises
from the development of secondary pests which reduce thebenefits of certain Bt crops (Qayum and Sakkhari, 2005;
Wang et al., 2006). The effects of Bt crops on pesticide use
and the conservation of biodiversity may depend on the degree of intensification already present in the agricultural system at the time of their introduction (Cattaneo et al., 2006;
Marvier et al., 2007). A recent meta-analysis of 42 fieldstudies (Marvier et al., 2007) in which scientists concluded that the benefits of Bt-crops are largely determined by
the kind of farming system into which they are introduced,
found that Bt-crops effectively target the main pest when introduced into chemical intensive industrial farming systems.
This provides some support to the claim that Bt plants can
reduce insecticide use. However, when Bt crops were introduced into less chemical intensive farming systems the benefits were lower. Furthermore when introduced into farming systems without the use of synthetic pesticides, (e.g.,organic maize production systems), there were no benefits
in terms of reduced insecticide use. In fact, in comparison
with insecticide-free control fields, certain non-target taxa
were significantly less abundant in Bt-crop fields. Most fieldstudies were conducted in pesticide-intensive, large-scalemonocultures like those in which 90% of all GM crops are
currently grown (Cattaneo et al., 2006); consequently, theseresults have limited applicability to low-input, small-scale
systems with high biodiversity and must be assessed separately. Introducing GM crops accompanied by an intensification strategy that would include access to external inputs

chapter 03.indd 167

could enhance benefits for small-scale systems (Hofs et al.,2006; Witt et al., 2006).
Currently there is little, if any, information on ecosystembiochemical cycling and bioactivity of transgene products
and their metabolites, in above and below ground ecosystems.
Goals
E

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
Not yet known

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread

There are multiple potential routes for the entry of Bt-toxins
into the ecosystem, but there is little information to confirm
the expected spread of Bt-toxins through food chains in thefield (Harwood et al., 2005; Zwahlen and Andow, 2005;
Harwood and Obrycki, 2006; Obrist et al., 2006). One
expected route would be embedded in living and decaying
plant material, as toxins leach and exude from roots, pollen,
feces from insects and other animals. There is confirmationof the presence of Bt toxin metabolites in feces of cows fed
with Bt-maize feed (Lutz et al., 2005). Several experiments
have studied the impacts of Bt-crop plant material on soilorganisms with variable results ranging from some effects,
only transient effects, to no effects (e.g., Zwahlen et al.,
2003; Blackwood and Buyer, 2004). However, to date there
has not been a study of the ecosystem cycling of Bt toxins
and their metabolites, or their bioactivity.
Evidence is emerging of herbicide and insecticide resistancein crop weeds and pests associated with GM crops.
Goals
E

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
Not yet known

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread

Since 1995 there have been reports of an increase from 0
to 12 weed species developing resistance to glyphosate, themain broad spectrum herbicide used in GM crops fromcountries where herbicide-resistant GM crops are grown(van Gessel, 2001; Owen and Zelaya, 2005; Heap, 2007).
In addition, the use of glyphosate has greatly increased since
the introduction of herbicide tolerant crops. With the exception of Australia (http://www.ogtr.gov.au/rtf/ir/dir059finalrarmp1.rtf: 2006, Australian Gene Technology Act 2000)
no resistance management plans are required for the production of herbicide resistant crops; management strategies
are required for insect-resistant Bt-crops, in most countries
where they are grown. There has been only one report ofan insect pest showing resistance to one of the commonlyused Bt-toxins (Gunning et al., 2005). Strategies are neededfor efficient resistance management and the monitoring of
the spread and impacts of GM-resistance genes in weed andpest populations.
There are reported incidents of unintentional spread (viapollen and seed flow) of GM traits and crops.
Goals
H, N, L,
E, D

Certainty
C

Range of
Impacts
Not yet known

Scale
G, R

Specificity
Worldwide, controlled bygovernment enforcement ofregulations

The consequences from unintentional spread of GM traits
and GM crops could be serious. GM traits and crops withvarying levels of approval are spreading fast throughout theworld; intentional spread occurs mainly through human

11/3/08 10:55:20 AM

168 | IAASTD Global Reporttransport and trade. However, a number of unapproved
varieties have also spread unintentionally, creating potential genetic contamination problems that countries must
be increasingly prepared to tackle (www.gmcontaminationregister.org/ or link through CBD Cartagena Protocol
Biosafety Clearinghouse). In 2006, unapproved GM traits
which originated in rice field trials in the US and China were
found in commercial rice sold in European supermarkets;consequently farmers suffered serious economic losses due
to subsequent bans on imports. Later there were additionalcosts in both countries for certification of freedom from unapproved GM traits. Similar controversy followed the discovery of transgenes in landraces of maize in Mexico (Quist
and Chapela, 2001; Kaplinski, 2002; Kaplinski et al., 2002;
Metz and Fütterer, 2002ab; Quist and Chapela, 2002; Suarez, 2002; Worthy et al., 2002). There is also evidence ofincreased invasiveness/weediness as a result of the gene flowof GM traits, such as herbicide and insect resistance, into
cultivated or wild and weedy relatives (e.g., Snow et al.,
2003; Squire et al., 2005), making them more difficult tocontrol (Cerdeira and Duke, 2006; Thomas et al., 2007). In
Canada, double and triple herbicide resistant oilseed rapevolunteers occur in other crops, including other resistantsoybeans and maize requiring the use of herbicides otherthan glyphosate or glufosinate (e.g., Hall et al., 2000; Beckie et al., 2004). The same is true for herbicide-resistant crop
volunteers in the US (e.g., Thomas et al., 2007). In Canada,organic oilseed rape production in the prairies was largely
abandoned because of widespread genetic contamination
with transgenes or transgenic oilseed rape (Friesen et al.,
2003; Wong, 2004; McLeod-Kilmurray, 2007).
Current risk assessment concepts and testing programs forregulatory approval are incomplete and still under development.
Goals
E

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
Not yet known

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Risk assessment concepts for genetically modified (GM)plants exist in regulations, guidelines and discussion documents in some countries, e.g., USA (Rose, 2007), Canada(Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2004), the European
Union (EC, 2002; EFSA, 2004, 2007) and internationally(OCED, 1986, 1993; Codex Alimentarius, 2003). Somegroups have expressed the view that premarket testing forenvironmental risks of GM crops to nontarget organisms
needs to follow protocols for chemicals, such as pesticides(Andow and Hilbeck, 2004), and have called for alternative approaches. A number of concepts are currently being
developed and discussed (Hilbeck and Andow, 2004; Andow et al., 2006; Garcia-Alonso et al., 2006; Hilbeck et al.,2006; Romeis et al., 2006).
The development of regulatory and scientific capacity forrisk assessment as well as training for farmers on proper
technology use is needed to enable developing countries tobenefit from biotechnology.
Goals
H, N, L, E,
S, D

chapter 03.indd 168

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
Not yet known

Scale
G,R

Specificity
Mainly in developing countries

Realization of the benefits of GM technology in the countries will be closely linked to the understanding of the technology and the involved biosafety issues at all levels (e.g.,
policy, regulation, science, legal, socioeconomic, farm) andwith the countries’ capabilities to implement the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety (www.cbd.int/biosafety/default.shtml). All signatory countries are currently working on theimplementation of the Protocol within national contexts.
However, developing countries lack national capacities on
almost all involved fields, particularly biosafety. A numberof capacity development projects for the implementation of
the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety are currently on-going(www.gmo-guidelines.info; www.biosafetrain.dk/, www.
ribios.ch; www.unep.ch/biosafety/) but need to be complemented by efforts to develop academic educational programs for biosafety degrees (www.cbd.int/doc/newsletters/
bpn/bpn-issue02.pdf).
Livestock/fish
Production of transgenic livestock for food production istechnically feasible, but at an earlier stage of development
than the equivalent technologies in plants.
Goals
N, E, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
Not yet known

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

Progress has been made in developing transgenic technologies in animals, including fish. To date, at least 10 speciesof fish have been modified for enhanced growth, includingcommon carp, crucian carp, channel catfish, loach, tilapia,
pike, rainbow trout, Atlantic salmon, chinook salmon, andsockeye salmon (Dey, 2000). These, however, have yet tobe approved for commercialization (Aerni, 2001 as citedin Delgado et al., 2003). In animals there is also a focus
on disease resistance through transferring genes from one
breed or species to another. Coupled with new dissemination methods (e.g., cloning) these techniques are expected todramatically change livestock production. However, there
are many issues that need to be addressed regarding the lackof knowledge about candidate genes for transfer, as well as
ethical and animal welfare concerns and a lack of consumer
acceptance in some countries. Other constraints include thelack of an appropriate industry structure to capitalize on thetechnologies, and the high cost of the technologies.
3.2.1.5 Advances in soil and water management
Fertilizer and irrigation AKSTs have had a significant impact
on agricultural production globally. The focus is currently
on increasing the efficiency of resource use in order to reduce the negative environmental effects of over use and to
reduce use of a diminishing resource.
Soil management
The use of traditional natural fallows to sustainably increase
the carrying capacity of the land is now uncommon.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
0 to +4

Scale
R

Specificity
Mainly in the tropics

Traditionally, degraded crop fields were restored by allowing
native vegetation to regenerate as a natural fallow. Fallows

11/3/08 10:55:20 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 169

restore biodiversity, improve soil permeability through root
activity; return organic matter to the soil; protect against
erosion by rain and wind, and provide protection fromdirect radiation and warming (Swift and Anderson, 1993;
Swift et al., 1996). Natural fallows of this sort are no longer applicable in most places because population pressure ishigh; consequently shorter and more efficient fallows using
leguminous shrubs and trees are being developed (Kwesiga
et al., 1999). When soil fertility is severely depleted, someexternal mineral nutrients (phosphorus, calcium) or micronutrients may be needed to support plant growth and organic matter production.
In many intensive production systems, the efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen use is low and there is significant scope for
improvement with better management.
Goals
H, L, E, D

Certainty
E

Range of Impacts Scale-5 to -2
G to LSpecificity
Widespread

The extent of soil degradation and loss of fertility is muchgreater in tropical than in temperate areas. Net nutrient balances (kg ha-1 per 30 years) of NPK are respectively: -700,-100, -450 for Africa; and +2000, +700, +1000 for Europe
and North America. Low fertilizer recovery efficiency can
reduce crop yields and net profits, increase energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to thedegradation of ground and surface waters (Cassman et al.,2003). Among intensive rice systems of South and Southeast Asia, crop nitrogen recovery per unit applied N averages less than 0.3 kg kg-1 with fewer than 20% of farmers
achieving 0.5 kg kg-1 (Dobermann and Cassman, 2002). Ata global scale, cereal yields and fertilizer N consumption
have increased in a near-linear fashion during the past 40
years and are highly correlated. However, large differences
exist in historical trends of N fertilizer usage and nitrogenuse efficiency (NUE) among regions, countries, and crops.
Interventions to increase NUE and reduce N losses to theenvironment require a combination of improved technologies and carefully crafted local policies that contribute to theadoption of improved N management practices. Examples
from several countries show that increases in NUE at rates
of 1% yr-1 or more can be achieved if adequate investments
are made in research and extension (Dobermann, 2006).
Worldwide NUE for cereal production is approximately
33% (Raun and Johnson, 1999). Many systems are grossly
overfertilized. Irrigated rice production in China consumes
around 7% of the global supply of fertilizer nitrogen. Recent on-farm studies in these systems suggest that maximum
rice yields are achieved at N fertility rates of 60-120 kg N
ha-1, whereas farmers are fertilizing at 180-240 kg N ha-1
(Peng et al., 2006).
Good soil management enhances soil productivity.
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Especially important in thetropics

In the tropics, the return of crop residues at a rate of 10-12
tonnes dry matter ha-1 represents an input of 265 kg carbon
ha-1 in the upper 10 cm soil layer (Sá et al., 2001ab; Lal,2004). Given an appropriate C:N ratio, this represents anchapter 03.indd 169

increased water holding capacity of 65-90 mm, potentiallya 5-12% increase in maize or soybean yield, and increased
income of US$40-80 ha-1 (Sisti et al., 2004; Diekow et al.,2005). Soil carbon and yields can be increased on degradedsoils through conservation agriculture (e.g., no-till), agroforestry, fallows with N-fixing plants and cover crops, manure and sludge application, and inoculation with specificmycorrhiza (Wilson et al., 1991; Franco et al., 1992). Organic matter can improve the fertility of soils by enhancing
the cation exchange capacity and nutrient availability (Raij,
1981; Diekow et al., 2005).
Poor nutrient recovery is typically caused by inadequate
correspondence between periods of maximum crop demand and the supply of labile soil nutrients
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
L

Specificity
Wide applicability

The disparity between periods of maximum crop demand
and the supply of labile soil nutrients (Cassman et al., 2003)
can be exacerbated by overfertilization (e.g., Peng et al.,2006; Russell et al., 2006). For elements like nitrogen which
are subject to losses from multiple environmental pathways, 100% fertilizer recovery is not possible (Sheehy et al.,2005). Nevertheless, precision management tools like leaf
chlorophyll measurements that enable real-time nitrogen
management have been shown to reduce fertilizer N application by 20-30% while maintaining rice productivity (Penget al., 1996; Balasubramanian et al., 1999, 2000; Hussain
et al., 2000; Singh et al., 2002). From 1980 to 2000 in the
US, maize grain produced per unit of applied N increasedby more than 40%, with part of this increase attributed topractices such as split-fertilizer applications and preplantsoil tests to establish site-specific fertilizer recommendations (Raun and Johnson, 1999; Dobermann and Cassman,2002). Despite improved management practices, average N
recovery in US maize remains below 0.4 kg N per kg fertilizer N (Cassman et al., 2002), indicating significant scopefor continued improvement.
Precision application of low rates of fertilizer can boost
productivity among resource poor farmers.
Goals
Certainty
N, L, E, S
B

Range of
Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
N, R

Specificity
Small-scale farms of the semiarid
tropics.

Resource constraints prevent many small-scale farmers fromapplying fertilizer at rates that maximize economic returns.
ICRISAT has been working in SSA to encourage small-scale
farmers to increase inorganic fertilizer use and to progressively increase their investments in agricultural production.
This effort introduces farmers to fertilizer use thoroughmicro-dosing, a concept based on the insight that farmers
are risk averse, but will gradually take larger risks as theylearn and benefit from new technologies (Dimes et al., 2005;
Rusike et al., 2006; Ncube et al., 2007). Micro-dosing involves the precision application of small quantities of fertilizer, typically phosphorus and nitrogen, close to the crop
plant, enhancing fertilizer use efficiency and improving productivity (e.g., 30% increase in maize yield in Zim­babwe).
Yield gains are larger when fertilizer is combined with the

11/3/08 10:55:21 AM

170 | IAASTD Global Reportapplication of animal manures, better weed control, andimproved water management. Recent innovations have focused on formulating the single-dose fertilizer capsules.
Grain legumes can provide a significant source of nitrogen
fertility to subsequent non-leguminous crops.
Goals
N, L, E, D

Certainty Range of Impacts Scale
A, B+1 to +5G

Specificity
Widespread

Nitrogen fertility is the most common constraint to crop
productivity in many developing countries (Cassman etal., 2003). In industrialized countries, synthetic N fertilizer accounts for around 30-50% of the fossil fuel energy
consumption in intensively cropped systems (Liska et al.,2007). Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) from leguminous
crops offers benefits in both intensive and non-intensive agricultural systems. Grain legumes are particularly attractive
because they can provide an independent economic return,in addition to residual soil fertility benefits for subsequentcrops. These residual benefits, however, are contingent on
the amount of N that remains in the field after harvest.
In Zimbabwe, sorghum grain yield following legumes increased by more than 1 tonnes ha-1 compared to yieldachieved with continuous sorghum production (e.g., 1.62 to
0.42 tonnes ha-1). Other studies in Africa have also demonstrated the value of using grain legumes such as groundnuts
to improve nitrogen fertility (Waddington and Karigwindi,
2001). However, degraded soils low in soil phosphorous
may limit the effectiveness of BNF (Vitousek et al., 2002).
In the United States, soybean provides between 65-80 kg
N ha-1 to subsequent grain crops and hence fertilizer applications can be reduced accordingly (Varvel and Wilhelm,2003) (See 3.2.2.1.7).
Water management
Potential per capita water availability has decreased by
45% since 1970.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-5 to -1

Scale
GSpecificity
Poor people in dry areas aremost affected

Due to population growth, the potential water availability
decreased from 12,900 m3 per capita per year in 1970 toless than 7,800 m3 in 2000 (CA, 2007). Freshwater available for ecosystems and humans globally is estimated at~200,000 km3 (Gleick, 1993; Shiklomanov, 1999), withthe freshwater available for human consumption between
12,500 and 14,000 km3 each year (Hinrichsen et al., 1998;
Jackson et al., 2001). Groundwater represents over 90%of the world’s readily available freshwater resource (Boswinkel, 2000). About 1.5 billion people depend upongroundwater for their drinking water supply (WRI, UNEP,
UNDP, World Bank, 1998). The amount of groundwater
withdrawn annually is roughly estimated at ~600-700 km3,
representing about 20% of global water withdrawals. The
volume of water stored in reservoirs worldwide is estimatedat 4,286 km3 (Groombridge and Jenkins, 1998). A large
number of the world’s population is currently experiencing water stress and rising water demands greatly outweighchapter 03.indd 170

greenhouse warming in defining the state of global water
systems to 2025 (Vörösmarty et al., 2000).
Water management schemes are resulting in increased efficiency of water use.
Goals
N,L,E,S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

To enhance the efficiency of water management, different
forms of water resources have been identified, partitioned
and quantified by land use system (Falkenmark and Rockström, 2005): basin water is “blue” water and contributes toriver runoff, and green water, which passes through plants(Falkenmark, 2000). Land use changes can reallocate green
water and alter the blue–green balance. There are a numberof different strategies to improve water productivity values(production per unit of evapotranspiration) for both blueand green water: (1) improve timing and increase the reliability of water supplies; (2) improve land preparation andfertilizer use to increase the return per unit of water; (3)reduce evaporative losses from fallow land, lakes, rivers andirrigation canals; (4) reduce transpiration losses from nonproductive vegetation; (5) reduce deep percolation and surface runoff; (6) minimize losses from salinization and pollution; (7) reallocate limited resources to higher-value users; and (8) develop storage facilities (Molden et al., 2003,
2007b). The reallocation of water can have serious legal,
equity and other social considerations. A number of policy,
design, management and institutional interventions may allow for an expansion of irrigated area, increased cropping
intensity or increased yields within the service areas. Possible interventions are reducing delivery requirements by improved application efficiency, water pricing and improved
allocation and distribution practices (Molden et al., 2003).
Small-scale, informal types of irrigation such as water harvesting and groundwater pumps can reduce risk of crop
failure and increase yield.
Goals
N, L

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Applicable in dry areas

Water harvesting is a traditional water management technology with increasing importance and potential to ease water
scarcity in many arid and semi-arid regions of world. The
water harvesting methods applied depend on local conditions and include such widely differing practices as bunding,pitting, microcatchments, and flood and ground water harvesting (Prinz, 1996; Critchley and Siegert, 1991). On-farmwater-productive techniques coupled with improved management options, better crop selection, appropriate cultural
practices, improved genetic make-up, and socioeconomic interventions such as stakeholder and beneficiary involvement
can help achieve increased crop yields (Oweis and Hachum,2004), and reduce the risk of crop failure. Most of the techniques are relatively cheap and are viable options when irrigation water from other sources is not readily available or
too costly and using harvested rainwater helps in decreasing
the use of groundwater.

11/3/08 10:55:21 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 171

Soil and moisture conservation, and micro-irrigation techniques have been developed to increase crop yields by small
farmers.
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty Range of Impacts ScaleB+2 to +4
N, R

Specificity
Small-scale farms of the semiarid
tropics.

Many soil and moisture conservation and micro-irrigation
techniques have been developed to increase crop yields bysmall farmers. Soil and moisture conservation techniques include tillage practices, planting grasses, such as vetiver, andother living barriers, terracing, bunding and contour planting (Tripp, 2006). Micro-irrigation techniques include drip
irrigation, basin planting or “zai” pits, and the introductionof treadle pumps and water harvesting (Mupangwa et al.,2006). To reduce the quantities of water and nutrients usedduring crop establishment, ICRISAT and several NGO partners have promoted a “conservation agriculture” package
based on basin planting; small basins (approx. 3375 cm3)
are prepared during the dry season when labor demands
are relatively low. Basin planting utilizes limited resources
more efficiently by concentrating nutrients and water applications. For small-scale systems in dry areas of southern
and western Zimbabwe, maize yields were 15-72% (mean= 36%) greater from basin planting than from conventional
plowing and whole-field cultivation.
In many urban areas across the world, sewerage is usedas source of water and nutrients in urban and peri-urban
agriculture.
Goals
H

Certainty
B

Range of
Impacts-3 to -1

Scale
LSpecificity
Especially around large cities indeveloping countries

Global assessments show that in developing countries only
a minor part of the generated wastewater is treated while
the large majority enters natural water bodies used for various purposes including irrigation. Recent studies suggestthat at least 2 to 4 million ha of land are globally irrigatedwith untreated, treated, diluted or partially treated wastewater (Furedy, 1990; Drechsel et al., 2006). Generally, it isestimated that about 25-100% of food demand in an urban environment is met through production of food in thesame setting (Birley and Lock, 1999), while about 10% of
wastewater generated in towns has further use in urban agriculture. These estimates take account urban horticulture,
aquaculture and livestock; 25-80% of urban households engage in some form of agriculture. In many developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, sewage sludge has
been used for some time (Furedy, 1990; Strauss, 2000). The
risks associated with downstream recycling wastewaters areespecially great in countries within arid and seasonally aridzones (Strauss, 2000). New WHO Guidelines for the Safe
Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater (WHO, 2006)
recognize the health issues concerning wastewater use in agriculture, but water pollution and its management will be anissue of concern for populations around the world for sometime (Furedy, 1990; Dey et al., 2004).

Many river basins can no longer sustainably supply water
for agriculture and cities.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Range of Impacts-1 to -3

Scale
R

Specificity
Especially in the dry tropics

Unsustainable use of water resources for irrigation meansthat extraction exceeds recharge. For example, large-scale
irrigation since the 1960s has had devastating impacts onwater resources and soil productivity in Central Asia. The
water level of the Aral Sea has dropped by 17 m, resulting
in a 50% reduction in its surface area and a 75% reductionin its volume. The resulting economic and health impacts
to the Aral Sea coastal communities have also been serious(http://www.fao.org/ag/agl /aglw/aquastat/regions/fussr/index8.stm).
3.2.1.6 Advances in information and communications
technologies (ICT)
Innovations in information technology have been essential
for progress in biotechnology.
Goals
N, H

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
0 to +4

Scale
R

Specificity
Mainly in developed countries

Genomics, proteomics and metabolomics generate large
quantities of data that require powerful computers andlarge database storage capacities for effective use; advancesin ICT have been fundamental to their success. The growthof the worldwide web has allowed data to be widely accessed and shared, increasing impact. The complexity andsize of tasks such as describing the genome of model plants
has led to global collaboration and data-sharing.
Climate and crop modeling is positively affecting crop production.
Goals
N,H

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread

The increasing availability of climate data and the use ofsimulation models, globally, regionally and locally, are having a positive impact on agricultural production. Field-scale
crop growth and yield simulation models can help define
breeding traits and growing environments, and analyze G
x E interactions (Muchow et al., 1994; van Oosterom etal., 1996; Sinclair et al., 2005). At a larger scale, global andregional climate models (GCMs and RCMs) are producing
more accurate forecasts and there is collaboration between
meteorologists and crop scientists on seasonal weather forecasts (Slingo et al., 2005; Sivakumar, 2006) ranging frommonths to weeks; these forecasts have proved of practicaland financial benefit in countries such as Australia (Stone
and Meinke, 2005). More attention needs to be given toproviding forecasts to farmers as climate change increases
in importance.
Remote sensing and site-specific management benefit from
ICT.
Goals
N

chapter 03.indd 171

Certainty
A

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread

11/3/08 10:55:22 AM

172 | IAASTD Global ReportSite-specific management and precision agriculture benefits
from ICT (Dobermann and Cassman, 2002; Dobermann etal., 2002), such as global positioning systems. Remote sensing and Geographic Information Systems enable detailed
monitoring, evaluation, and prediction of land use changes(see 3.2.2.1.1).
3.2.2 Impacts of AKST on sustainability, throughintegrated technologies and the delivery of
ecosystem services and public goods
The second pathway to agricultural development has comefrom the grassroots of civil society and involved locallybased innovations that meet the needs of local people andcommunities. This pathway has its foundations in traditional farming systems and addresses the integration of social and environmental issues with agricultural production.
With the realization that the globalized pathway was notleading to sustainable land use systems, numerous different types of organizations initiated efforts to bring abouta change; however, the agriculture “Establishment” has ingeneral marginalized these efforts, and they have not been
mainstreamed in policy, or in agribusiness. Nevertheless,public-funded research has increasingly become involved,
as illustrated by the creation of NRM programs in CGIAR
Centers and and other research centers with natural resource management mandates. These and other initiatives
have now given credibility to Integrated Natural Resources
Management (INRM), in various forms (e.g., agroforestry
and ecoagriculture) and recognized the importance of, andneed for, new scientific research agendas (INRM Committeeof CGIAR).
3.2.2.1 Integrated natural resource management systems
Sustainable rural development research has taken different
approaches to the integration of management technologies
in the search for a more holistic agricultural system (e.g.,
Integrated Pest Management, Integrated Water Resources
Management, Integrated Soil and Nutrient Management
and Integrated Crop and Livestock Management). These
concepts are not foreign to developing country farmers,
who traditionally have implemented various mixed farming
systems appropriate to the local ecology. Research has also
examined many of the ways that farmers approached integrated farm management, through various forms of mixed
cropping. Over the last 25 years, agroforestry research hasrecognized that for millennia trees have played a role infood production both as tree crops and as providers of ecological services. Organic farming has especially focused onorganic approaches to pest control, soil health and fertility
rather than the use of inorganic inputs. There is a growing
recognition of the importance of maintaining a functional
agroecosystem capable of providing ecological services, biodiversity conservation (Cassman et al., 2005; MA, 2005c),
and public goods such as water resources, watershed management, carbon sequestration and the mitigation of climatechange.
Integrated Natural Resources Management (INRM) has
provided opportunities for sustainable development andthe achievement of development and sustainability goals.

chapter 03.indd 172

Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +5

Scale
L, R

Specificity
Wide applicability

There are good localized examples of INRM enhancing agricultural sustainability (e.g., Palm et al., 2005b). INRM,
like Farming Systems Research (www.fao.org/farming systems/ifsa_mandate), aims at simultaneously improving livelihoods, agroecosystem resilience, agricultural productivity
and the provision of environmental services by augmenting social, physical, human, natural and financial capital(Thomas, 2003). It focuses on resolving complex problems
affecting natural resources management in agroecosystems
by improving the capacity of agroecological systems to continuously supply a flow of products and services on whichpoor people depend. It does this by improving the adaptive capacity of systems (Douthwaite et al., 2004). INRM
innovations help to restore biological processes in farming
systems, greatly enhancing soil fertility, water holding capacity, improving water quality and management, and increasing micronutrient availability to farming communities(Sayer and Campbell, 2004), through such processes as thediversification of farming systems and local economies; theinclusion of local culture, traditional knowledge and the useof local species; use of participatory approaches with poor
farmers to simultaneously address the issues of poverty,
hunger, health/malnutrition, inequity and the degradationof both the environment and natural resources (Campbell
and Sayer, 2003). INRM reduces vulnerability to risk andshocks (Izac and Sanchez, 2001) by combining concepts ofnatural capital and ecosystem hierarchy.
Resource-conserving technologies have been demonstrated
to benefit poor farmers.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B, E

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
M-L

Specificity
Wide applicability

A study of projects involving IPM, integrated nutrient management (INM), conservation tillage, agroforestry with multifunctional trees in farming systems, aquaculture within
farming systems, water harvesting and integrated livestock
systems (Pretty et al., 2006) has examined to what extent
farmers can increase food production using low-cost andavailable technologies and inputs, and their impacts on environmental goods and services. The multilocational study,
covering 3% of cultivated land in 57 developing countries,
identified very considerable benefits in productivity, whichwere often associated with reduced pesticide use, enhanced
carbon sequestration and increased water use efficiency(WUE) in rainfed agriculture (Pretty et al., 2006). The study
concluded that the critical challenge is to find policy andinstitutional reforms in support of environmental goods
and services from resource conserving technologies that also
benefit food security and income growth at national andhousehold levels.
3.2.2.1.1 Techniques and concepts
A number of new research and monitoring techniques andtools have been developed for this relatively new area of
INRM research and land management (see also 3.2.3.3).

11/3/08 10:55:22 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 173

Remote sensing and geographical information systems haveprovided tools for the monitoring, evaluation and better
management of land use systems.
Goals
E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
0 to +4

Scale
L, R

Specificity
Tools with wide applicability

Monitoring land use and land use change is an integral component of sustainable development projects (Janhari, 2003;
Panigrahy, 2003; Verma, 2003). Remote sensing and GIS
can cost-effectively assess short- and long-term impacts ofnatural resource conservation and development programs(Goel, 2003). They also have useful applications in studiesof (Millington et al., 2001) urbanization, deforestation, desertification, and the opening of new agricultural frontiers.
For example, these technologies have been used to study
the spread of deforestation, the consequences of agriculturaldevelopment in biological corridors, the impact of refugee
populations on the environment and the NRM impacts ofpublic agricultural policies (Imbernon et al., 2005). Modeling can extrapolate research findings and develop simulations using data obtained through remote sensing and GIS(Chapter 4).
3.2.2.1.2 Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
IPM is an approach to managing pests and disease that simultaneously integrates a number of different approaches
to pest management and can result in a healthy crop andthe maintainence of ecosystem balance (Abate et al., 2000).
IPM approaches may include genetic resistance, biologicalcontrol and cultivation measures for the promotion of natural enemies, and the judicious use of pesticides (e.g., Lewis
et al., 1997).
The success of IPM is based on effective management, rather than complete elimination, of pests.
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +4

Scale
N, L

IPM produces positive economic, social and environmental
effects.
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +4

Scale
M-L

Specificity
Wide applicability

The past 20 years have witnessed IPM programs in many
developing countries, some of which have been highly successful (e.g., mealy bug in cassava, Waibel and Pemsi, 1999).
Positive economic, social and environmental impacts of IPM
are a result of lower pest control costs, reduced environmental pollution; higher levels of production and income andfewer health problems among pesticide applicators (Figure3-6). IPM programs can positively affect food safety, water quality and the long-term sustainability of agricultural
system (Norton et al., 2005). Agroforestry contributes to
IPM through farm diversification and enhanced agroecological function (Altieri and Nicholls, 1999; Krauss, 2004).
However, the adoption of IPM is constrained by technical,
institutional, socioeconomic, and policy issues (Norton etal., 2005).
Within IPM, integrated weed management reduces herbicide dependence by applying multiple control methods toreduce weed populations and decrease damage caused by
noxious weeds.
Goals
N, E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
L

Specificity
Wide applicability

In contrast to conventional approaches to weed managementthat are typically prophylactic and uni-modal (e.g., herbicide or tillage only), Integrated Weed Management (IWM)
integrates multiple control methods to adaptively manage
the population levels and crop damage caused by noxious weeds, thereby increasing the efficacy, efficiency, andsustainability of weed management (Swanton and Weise,

Specificity
Wide applicability

Success is evaluated on the combination of pest populationlevels and the probability of plant injury. For example, whenclimatic conditions are conducive for disease, fungicide has
been found to be ineffective in controlling Ascochyta blightof chickpeas (ICARDA, 1986), but when combined withhost resistance, crop rotation and modified cultural practices, fewer fungicide treatments can be both more effective
and more economical. As an alternative to pesticides, IPM is
most beneficial in high-value crops because of additional labor costs, but when the labor costs are low or IPM is part ofa wider strategy to improve yields, IPM can also be of value
economically (Orr, 2003). IPM can result in reductions ofpesticide use up to 99% (e.g., van Lenteren, 2000). When
compared to unilateral use of pesticides, IPM provides a
strategy for enhanced sustainability and improved environmental quality. This approach typically enhances the diversity and abundance of naturally-occurring pest enemies andalso reduces the risk of pest or disease organisms developing
pesticide resistance by lowering the single-dimension selection pressure associated with intensive pesticide use.
Figure 3-6. The effects of agroecosystem management andassociated cultural practices on the biodiversity of natural enemies
and the abundance of insect pests. Source: Altieri and Nicholls, 1999.

chapter 03.indd 173

11/3/08 10:55:25 AM

174 | IAASTD Global Report1991). IWM systems are typically knowledge intensive andmake use of ecological principals. Examples of IWM elements include cultivars that are bred for competitive ability(Gibson et al., 2003), diverse crop rotations that provide avariety of selection and mortality factors (Westerman et al.,2005), and simple management changes like higher seeding rates, spatially-uniform crop establishment (Olsen etal., 2005), banded fertilizer placement (Blackshaw et al.,2004), and biological control, particularly when the weed
is an exotic invader (Zimmermann and Olckers, 2003). The
serious parasitic weed of cereal crops (Striga spp.) in Africa
can be regulated in sorghum by varietal resistance (Tesso etal., 2006), and by bait crops, like Sesbania sesban, Desmodium spp. that trigger suicidal germination of Striga seed
(Gatsby Charitable Foundation, 2005; Khan et al., 2007).
Herbicide use in agriculture has not been markedly reduced
by integrated weed management, as weed science has lagged
behind pest and disease management initiatives in terms ofdeveloping the basic biological and ecological insights typically required for integrated management (Mortensen et al.,
2000; Nazarko et al., 2005).

ment 1999; Boulton, 1999, 2003). Much of this degradation
has been caused by land clearance, clearance of waterways,
and inappropriate European farming methods (Erskine,
1999; Erskine and Webb, 2003). Natural Sequence Farming is based on an understanding of how water functions inand hydrates the floodplain and involves techniques to slow
down the drainage of water from the landscape and reinstate more natural hydrological processes (Andrews, 2005).
The reported impacts (www.naturalsequence farming.com)
of this have included increased surface and subsurface water storage, reduced dependence on borehole water fromaquifers, significantly reduced salinity, improved productive
land capacity, recharged aquifers, increased water use efficiency, increased farm productivity with lower water inputs,
reduced runoff during peak inflows, and reduced use of pesticides (85%), fertilizers (20%) and herbicides (30%).

3.2.2.1.3 Integrated water resources management (IWRM)
IWRM acknowledges water resource management conflicts
by using participatory approaches to water use and management; resource development and environmental protection (van Hofwegen and Jaspers, 1999). It recognizes thatwater use in agriculture, especially irrigation water, meetsthe needs of fisheries, livestock, small-scale industry and thedomestic needs of people, while supporting ecosystem services (Bakker et al., 1999; CA, 2007).

The deforestation of watersheds has led to flooding; landslides; downstream siltation of waterways, wetlands andreefs and water shortages. However, the role of forests inregulating the availability of water resources involves a complex set of relationships involving site-specific functions ofslope, soil type and surface cover, associated infrastructureand drainage, groundwater regimes, and rainfall frequency and intensity (Calder, 2005). Water quality from forest
catchments is well recognized as better than that from mostalternative land uses (Hamilton and King, 1983; Calder,2005). In spite of the lack of clarity of land use-hydrologicalrelations, payment systems or markets for watershed services are becoming popular in urban areas. For example,
New York City has been assisting farmers to change landuse, and in doing so has avoided the cost of constructing alarge water purification plant.

IWRM helps to resolve the numerous conflicts associatedwith water use and management; resource development
and environmental protection.
Goals
L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Wide applicability

Examples of IWRM at the field scale include alternate tillage
practices to conserve water and low-cost technologies suchas treadle pumps (Shah et al., 2000), and water-harvesting
structures. IWRM recognizes the need to integrate water
management at the basin level and to promote the linkages
between different water uses at this level. It supports river
basin management to ensure optimal (and efficient) allocation of water between different sectors and users. Throughthese approaches, IWRM has achieved a better balance
between protecting the water resources, meeting the social
needs of users and promoting economic development (Visscher et al., 1999).
Natural Sequence Farming is restoring the hydrologicalbalance of dryland farms in Australia.
Goals
L, E, S

Certainty
D

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
L

Specificity
Wide applicability in dry areas

Many agricultural landscapes in Australia are facing a landdegradation crisis as a result of increasing salinity, soil acidification and erosion, coupled with severe drought, costing
the economy 2.4 billion year--1 (CRC Soil and Land Manage-

chapter 03.indd 174

Forestry has a role in regulating water supplies for agriculture and urban areas.
Goals
L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
R

Specificity
Wide applicability

3.2.2.1.4 Integrated soil and nutrient management (ISNM)
There are multiple pathways for loss of soil nutrients from
agroecosystems, including crop harvest, erosion, and leaching. Soil nutrient depletion is one of the greatest challenges
affecting the sustainability and productivity of small-scale
farms, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Globally, N, P and
K deficits per hectare per year have been estimated at an average rate of 18.7, 5.1, and 38.8 kg, respectively (Lal et al.,2005). In 2000, NPK deficits occurred respectively on 59%,85%, and 90% of harvested area. Total annual nutrient
deficit (in millions of tonnes) was 5.5 N, 2.3 P, and 12.2 K;
this was associated with a total potential global production
loss of 1,136 million tonnes yr−1 (Lal et al., 2005). Methods for restoring soil fertility range from increased fertilizer
use to application of organic amendments like compost or
manure. Applied in sufficient and balanced quantities, soil
amendments may also directly and indirectly increase soilorganic matter (see also 3.2.1.5). In addition to providing
a source of plant nutrition, soil organic matter can improvethe environment for plant growth by improving soil structure. A well-structured soil typically improves gas exchange,

11/3/08 10:55:26 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 175

water-holding capacity, and the physical environment forroot development.
Agriculture has accelerated and modified the spatial patterns of nutrient use and cycling, especially the nitrogen
cycle.
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-3 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Nitrogen fertilizer has been a major contributor to improvements in crop production. In 2000, 85 million tonnes of N
were used to enhance soil fertility (Figure 3-1). The use of N
fertilizers affects the natural N cycle in the following ways:
1. increases the rate of N input into the terrestrial nitrogen
cycle;
2. increases concentrations of the potent greenhouse gas
N2O globally, and increases concentrations of other N
oxides that drive the formation of photochemical smog
over large regions of Earth;
3. causes losses of soil nutrients, such as calcium and potassium, that are essential for the long-term maintenance of soil fertility;
4. contributes substantially to the acidification of soils,
streams, and lakes; and5. greatly increases the transfer of N through rivers to estuaries and coastal oceans.
In addition, human alterations of the N cycle have increased
the quantity of organic carbon stored within terrestrial ecosystems; accelerated losses of biological diversity, especiallythe loss of plants adapted to efficient N use, and the lossof the animals and microorganisms that depend on theseplants; and caused changes in the composition and functioning of estuarine and near-shore ecosystems, contributing tolong-term declines in coastal marine fisheries (Vitousek etal., 1997).
Innovative soil and crop management strategies can increase soil organic matter content, hence maintaining or
enhancing crop performance.
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts Scale+1 to +5G

Specificity
Especially important in thetropics

The organic matter content of the world’s agricultural soils
is typically 50-65% of pre-cultivation levels (Lal, 2004).
Strategies to increase soil organic matter (carbon) include
the integration of crop and livestock production in smallscale mixed systems (Tarawali et al., 2001, 2004); no-till
farming; cover crops, manuring and sludge application; improved grazing; water conservation and harvesting; efficientirrigation; and agroforestry. An increase of 1 tonnes in soil
carbon on degraded cropland soils may increase crop yieldby 20 to 40 kg ha-1 for wheat, 10 to 20 kg ha-1 for maize,
and 0.5 to 1 kg ha-1 for cowpeas. The benefits of fertilizers
for building soil organic matter through enhanced vegetation growth only accrue when deficiencies of other soil nutrients are not a constraint.
No-tillage and other types of resource-conserving crop production practices can reduce production costs and improve

chapter 03.indd 175

soil quality while enhancing ecosystem services by diminishing soil erosion, increasing soil carbon storage, and facilitating groundwater recharge.
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty Range of Impacts
B
0 to +3

Scale
Specificity
R
Mostly applied in dry areas temperate/
sub-trop zone

Low-External Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) is a
global initiative aimed at the promotion of more sustainable farming systems (www.leisa.info). In the US, more than
40% of the cultivated cropland uses reduced or minimum
tillage. At the global scale, no-till is employed on 5% of all
cultivated land (Lal, 2004), reportedly covering between 60
million ha (Harington and Erenstein, 2005; Dumanski etal., 2006; Hobbs, 2006) and 95 million ha (Derpsch, 2005).
Minimum tillage is a low-cost system and this drives adoption in many regions. No-till can reduce production costs
by 15-20% by eliminating 4-8 tillage operations, with fuelreductions of up to 75% (Landers et al., 2001; McGarry,2005). Conservation agriculture, which combines no-tillwith residue retention and crop rotation, has been shownto increase maize and wheat yields in Mexico by 25-30%(Govaerts et al., 2005). In the USA, the adoption of notill increases soil organic carbon by about 450 kg C ha-1
yr -1, but the maximum rates of sequestration peak 5-10
yrs after adoption and slow markedly within two decades(West and Post, 2002). In the tropics soil carbon can increase at even greater rates (Lovato et al., 2004; Landers etal., 2005) and in the Brazilian Amazon integrated zero-till/
crop-livestock-forest management are being developed forgrain, meat, milk and fiber production (Embrapa, 2006).
On the down-side, no-till systems often have a requirement
for increased applications of herbicide and can be vulnerable to pest and disease build-up (e.g., wheat in America inlate 1990s).
Short-term improved fallows with nitrogen-fixing trees allow small-scale farmers to restore depleted soil fertility andimprove crop yields without buying fertilizers.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+2 to +4

Scale
R

Specificity
Especially important in Africa

Especially in Africa, short-rotation (2-3 years), improved
agroforestry fallows with nitrogen-fixing trees/shrubs (e.g.,
Sesbania sesban and Tephrosia vogelii) can increase maize
yield 3-4 fold on severely degraded soils (Cooper et al.,
1996; Kwesiga et al., 1999). Unlike hedgerow inter-cropping, which as a high labor demand, these fallows are welladopted (Jama et al., 2006). Similar results can be achieved
with legume trees and rice production in marginal, nonirrigated, low yield, conditions. The use of these improved
fallows to free small-scale maize farmers from the need topurchase N fertilizers is perhaps one of the greatest benefits
derived from agroforestry (Buresh and Cooper, 1999; Sanchez, 2002) and is a component of the Hunger Task Force(Sanchez et al., 2005) and the Millennium Development
Project (Sachs, 2005). By substantially increasing maize
yields in Africa, these easily-adopted fallows can reduce thegap between potential and achieved yields in maize.

11/3/08 10:55:26 AM

176 | IAASTD Global Report

Deeply-rooted, perennial woody plants have greater andvery different positive impacts on soil properties, comparedwith shallow-rooted annual crops.
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+2 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability: important in
the tropics

The perennial habit of trees, shrubs and vines reduces soil
erosion by providing cover from heavy rain and reducing
wind speed. Their integration into farming systems also creates a cool, shady microclimate, with increased humidity
and lower soil temperatures (Ong and Huxley, 1996; Ong
et al., 1996; van Noordwijk et al., 2004). The deep andwidespread roots both provide permanent physical support
to the soil, and aid in deep nutrient pumping, decreasing
nutrient losses from leaching and erosion (Young, 1997;
Huxley, 1999). Trees also improve soils by nutrient recycling, increasing organic matter inputs from leaf litter andthe rapid turnover of fine roots. This improves soil structure
and creates ecological niches in the soil for beneficial soil
microflora and symbionts (Lapeyrie and Högberg, 1994;
Mason and Wilson, 1994; Sprent, 1994). Additionally, leguminous trees improve nutrient inputs through symbiotic nitrogen fixation. These tree attributes have been a dominantfocus of agroforestry systems (Young, 1997). Most of thebenefits from trees come at the expense of competition forlight, water and nutrients (Ong et al., 1996). Consequently
a net benefit only occurs when the tradeoffs (ecological, social and economic) are positive.
Harnessing the symbiotic associations between almost allplants and the soil fungi (mycorrhizas) on their roots isbeneficial to crop growth and soil nutrient management.
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+2 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability: important in
the tropics

Many agricultural practices (land clearance, cultivation,
fertilizer and fungicide application) have negative impacts
on mycorrhizal populations, affecting the species diversity,
inoculum potential, and the fungal succession. Techniques
to harness the appropriate fungi, ectomycorrhizas on gymnosperms and some legumes (Mason and Wilson, 1994),
and endomycorrhizas on most other plants (Lapeyrie andHögberg, 1994), include the conservation of natural soil inoculum and the inoculation of nursery stock prior to planting (Mason and Wilson, 1994). These techniques are criticalfor sustainable production as mycorrhizal associations are
essential to plant establishment and survival, especially indegraded environments. It is now recognized that the soil
inoculum of these fungal species is an important componentof the soil biodiversity that enhances the sustainable function of natural ecosystems and agroecosystems (Waliyar etal., 2003).
Extensive herding, the most widespread land use on earth,
is more sustainable than commonly portrayed.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
Specificity
L
Especially important in dry Africa

Pastoralism is a widespread, ancient and sustainable formof land use. Mobile and extensive herding is highly compat-

chapter 03.indd 176

ible with plant and animal diversity (Maestas et al., 2003).
When returns to livestock are sufficient, herding can compete well economically with other forms of farming, allowing land to remain open and lightly used (Norton-Griffiths
et al., 2007). Land degradation by overgrazing has been
overstated with livestock playing a much smaller negativerole than climate in constraining productivity in drier rangelands (Ellis and Swift, 1988; Oba et al., 2000), particularly
in Africa. However, in wetter rangelands, feedbacks between
livestock and vegetation can be strong and sometimes negative (Vetter, 2005). Degradation most commonly occurs
when crop farming extends into marginal lands, displacing
herders (Geist and Lambin, 2004) (See 3.2.2.1.9).
3.2.2.1.5 Integrated crop and livestock systems
Worldwide, livestock have traditionally been part of farming systems for millennia. Integrated systems provide synergy between crops and livestock, with animals producing
manure for use as fertilizer and improvement of soil structure (as well as a source of fuel), while crop by-products area useful source of animal and fish food. In addition, fodder
strips of grasses or fodder shrubs/trees grown on contours
protect soil from erosion. The production of meat, milk,
eggs and fish within small-scale farms generates income andenriches the diet with consequent benefits for health. On
small farms, a few livestock can be stall-fed, hence reducing
the negative impacts of grazing and soil compaction.
Integrated crop and livestock production is an ancient andcommon production system.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide applicability

Close linking of crops and livestock in integrated systems
can create a win-win with greater productivity and increased
soil fertility (McIntire et al., 1992; Tarawali et al., 2001).
Without this linkage, soil fertility can fall in cereal-based
systems and surplus livestock manure is wasted (Liang etal., 2005). Linking crops and livestock forms a “closed” nutrient system that is highly efficient. Crop-livestock systems
are usually horizontally and vertically diverse, providing
small habitat patches for wild plants and animals (Altieri,
1999) and greater environmental sustainability than crop
monocultures (Russelle et al., 2007).
In small-scale crop—livestock systems, fodder is often
a limiting resource, which can be supplemented by tree/
shrub fodder banks.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Worldwide applicability

In Kenya, tree-fodder from Calliandra calothyrsus grownin hedgerows and neglected niches has overcome the constraint of inadequate and low-quality feed resources andimproved milk production and increasing income of around1000 farmers by US$98-124 per year (Franzel et al., 2003).
Three kg of C. calothyrsus fodder equals 1 kg of concentrategiving a yield of >10kg milk d-1 with a buttermilk content
of 4.5%. Likewise, in the Sahel Pterocarpus erinaceus andGliricidia sepium are grown in fodder banks as a dry season
resource for cattle and goats and this fodder is also traded

11/3/08 10:55:27 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 177

in local markets (ICRAF, 1996; 1997). In western Australia,
Chamaecytisus proliferus hedges grown on a large scale arebrowsed by cattle (Wiley and Seymour, 2000) and have theadded advantage of lowering the water tables and thereby
reducing risks of salinization.

Table 3-3. Examples of land areas under agroforestry.
Country

Integrated crop and livestock production can reduce social
conflict between nomadic herdsmen and sedentary farmers.

Area(millionhectares)Indonesia12.80 Jungle rubber agroforests

Indonesia2

3.50 All multistrata agroforests

3

India

7.40 National estimate

Niger

5 to 6 Recently planted

4

Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
Specificity
L
Especially important in dry Africa

Small-scale livestock producers, especially nomadic herdsmen, follow broad production objectives that are driven
more by immediate needs than by the demands of a market(Ayalew et al., 2001). Conflicts between nomadic herdsmen and sedentary farmers have occurred for thousands ofyears. Nomadic herdsmen in the Sahel have the right during
the dry season to allow their herds to graze in areas wheresedentary farmers grow crops in the wet season. This leads
to the loss of woody vegetation with consequent land degradation, reduced opportunities for gathering natural products (including dry season fodder), and to lowering of thesustainability of traditional farming practices. The development of living fences/hedges to protect valuable food crops
and regenerating trees has the potential to enhance production for the sedentary farmers, but unless the nomads needfor continued access to wells, watering holes and dry season
fodder is also planned at a regional scale, may lead to worsened conflict (Leakey et al., 1999; Leakey, 2003) In this situation, effective integration of crop and livestock systems has
to make provision for alternative sources of dry season fodder (e.g., fodder banks), and corridors to watering holes andgrazing lands. Participatory approaches to decision making
can avoid such conflicts between sedentary and nomadic
herdsmen (Steppler and Nair, 1987; Bruce, 1998; UN CCD,
1998; Blay et al., 2004).
3.2.2.1.6 Agroforestry and mixed cropping
Agroforestry practices are numerous and diverse and usedby 1.2 billion people (World Bank, 2004a), while tree
products are important for the livelihoods of about 1.5 billion people in developing countries (Leakey and Sanchez,1997) with many of the benefits arising from local marketing (Shackleton et al., 2007). The area under agroforestry
worldwide has not been determined, but is known for a few
countries (Table 3-3). In Africa trees are typically dominant
in agriculture in the areas where they are a major component of the natural vegetation (Fauvet, 1996). Agroforestry
practices include many forms of traditional agriculture common prior to colonization; complex multistrata agroforests
developed by indigenous peoples in the last one hundredyears, scattered trees in pastoral systems, cash crops suchas cocoa/tea/coffee under shade, intercropping, improved
fallows, and many more (Nair, 1989). As a consequence,
while the number of trees in forests is declining, the number of trees on farm is increasing (FAO, 2005e). Agroforestry is the integration of trees within farming systems andlandscapes that diversifies and sustains production with social, economic and environmental benefits (ICRAF, 1997).
Agroforestry is therefore a practical means of implementing

chapter 03.indd 177

Specific information

Mali5

5.10 90% of agricultural land

C. America

9.20 Silvopastural systems

C. America

0.77 Coffee agroforests

Spain/Portugal76.00 Dehasa agroforestry

Worldwide

7.80 Cocoa agroforests

66

8

80% of Indonesian rubber (approximately 24% of world production);
Wibawa et al., 2006.

1

Including jungle rubber (above), durian, benzoin, cinnamon, dammar andothers; M. van Noordwijk, World Agroforestry Centre, Bogor.

2

Robert Zomer, International Center for Integrated Mountain
Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu.

3

Gray Tappan, Science Applications International Corp. SAIC, USGS
Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science, Sioux Falls.

4

Cissé, 1995; Boffa, 1999.

5

Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala; Beer et al.
2000.

6

Gaspar et al., 2007

7

5.9 million ha in West and Central Africa, 1.2 million ha in Asia and 0.7
million ha in South and Central America; P. van Grinsven, Masterfoods
BV, Veghel, The Netherlands.

8

many forms of integrated land management, especially forsmall-scale producers, which builds on local traditions andpractices.
Increased population pressure has resulted in sustainable
shifting cultivation systems being replaced by less sustainable approaches to farming.
Goals
E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-5 to +1

Scale
G

Specificity
Small-scale agriculture

Throughout the tropics, shifting (swidden) agriculture was
the traditional approach to farming with a long forest fallow, representing a form of sequential agroforestry. It was
sustainable until increasing population pressure resulted
in the adoption of slash-and-burn systems with increasingly shorter periods of fallow. These have depleted carbon
stocks in soils and in biomass, and lower soil fertility (Palmet al., 2005b), resulting in a decline in crop productivity. In
the worst-case scenario, the forest is replaced by farmlandthat becomes so infertile that staple food crops fail. Farmers
in these areas become locked in a “poverty trap” unable toafford the fertilizer and other inputs to restore soil fertility(Sanchez, 2002).

11/3/08 10:55:27 AM

178 | IAASTD Global Report

Small-scale farmers in the tropics often protect trees producing traditionally important products (food, medicines,etc.) on their farms when land is cleared for agriculture.
Goals
N, H, L, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Mainly small-scale agriculture

Throughout the tropics, reduced cycles of shifting cultivation
with shorter periods of fallow deplete soil fertility resulting
in unsustainable use of the land, loss of forest and other adverse environmental impacts. However, trees of traditionally important species have often been saved within new fieldsystems. These trees are sometimes sacred trees, but manyare protected or planted as a source of products that wereoriginally gathered from the wild to meet the needs of local
people. Now, despite the often total loss of forest in agricultural areas, these same species are commonly found in fieldsystems, often in about a 50:50 mix with introduced species
from other parts of the world (Schreckenberg et al., 2002,
2006; Kindt et al., 2004; Akinnifesi et al., 2006). A recent
study in three continents has identified a number of moresedentary and sustainable alternative farming systems (Palmet al., 2005b; Tomich et al., 2005; Vosti et al., 2005). These
take two forms: one practiced at the forest margin is anenrichment of the natural fallow with commercial valuablespecies that create an “agroforest” (Michon and de Foresta,
1999), while the second is the integration of trees into mixed
cropping on formerly cleared land (Holmgren et al., 1994).
It has long been recognized that deforestation of primary
forest is a typical response to human population growth,
but now it is additionally recognized (Shepherd and Brown,1998) that after the removal of natural forest, there is anincrease in tree populations as farmers integrate trees into
their farming systems (Shepherd and Brown, 1998; Michon
and de Foresta, 1999; Place and Otsuka, 2000; Schreckenberg et al., 2002; Kindt et al, 2004;) to create new agroforests. This counter intuitive relationship, found in east andwest Africa (Holmgren et al., 1994; Kindt et al., 2004), theSahel (Polgreen, 2007), and southeast Asia (Michon and deForesta, 1999), seems to be partly a response to labor availability, partly domestic demand for traditional forest products or for marketable cash crops and partly risk aversion(Shepherd and Brown, 1998). Typically these trees are morecommon in small farms, e.g., in Cameroon, tree density was
inversely related to area in farms ranging from 0.7-6.0 ha(Degrande et al., 2006). Accumulation curves of species diversity have revealed that a given area of land had a greater
abundance and diversity of trees when it was composed of agreater number of small farms (Kindt et al., 2004). Interestingly, tree density can also be greater in urban areas than in
the surrounding countryside (Last et al., 1976).
The increase in tree planting is partly due to the uptake ofcash crops by small-scale farmers as large-scale commercial plantations decline.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+2 to +4

Scale
R

Specificity
Mainly small-scale agriculture

The dynamics of cash-cropping is changing, with smallscale farmers increasingly becoming more commercialized
and growing cash crops formerly grown exclusively by estates in mixed systems. This gives them opportunities to re-chapter 03.indd 178

duce their risks by commercializing their cropping systems
and income, and expand their income generation, making
their farms more lucrative (Vosti et al., 2005). In Indonesia,
many small-scale farmers now grow “jungle rubber”, producing 25% of world rubber. These farmers can be classified as falling between the two extremes of being completelydependent on wage labor, and completely self-sufficient(Vosti et al., 2005).
The search for alternatives to slash-and-burn led to theidentification of sites where farmers have independently
developed complex agroforests.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
0 to +5

Scale
R

Specificity
Small-scale agriculture

In Indonesia, when the food crops are abandoned after 2-3
years, a commercial agroforest develops which provides acontinuous stream of marketable tree products (e.g., dammar resin, rubber, cinnamon, fruit, medicines, etc). There
are about 3 million ha of these agroforests in Indonesia(Palm et al., 2005ab), which have been developed by farmers since the beginning of the last century (Michon andde Foresta, 1996) to replace unproductive forest fallows.
These highly productive agroforests are biologically diverse, provide a good source of income, sequester carbon
and methane, protect soils, maintain soil fertility and generate social benefits from the land (Palm et al., 2005ab),
as well as providing other environmental services. Similar
processes are occurring in many places around the world(e.g., the cocoa agroforests of Cameroon, the Highlands of
Kenya, the uplands of the Philippines, and Amazonia). In
the case of Cameroon, indigenous fruit and nut trees arecommonly grown to provide marketable products in addition to the environmental service of shade for the cocoa(Leakey and Tchoundjeu, 2001). Interestingly, in parallelwith these developments, farmers have also initiated theirown processes of domesticating the indigenous fruits andnuts of traditional importance (Leakey et al., 2004). From
the above examples, it is clear that traditional land use hasoften been effective in combining forest and cropping benefits. In many places, farmers have independently applied
their own knowledge to their changing circumstances—situations which arose from such factors as deforestation, theintensification of agriculture, declining availability of land,and changes in land ownership.
There are many wild species in natural ecosystems thathave traditionally been collected and gathered from natural ecosystems to meet the day-to-day needs of people.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
All but the harshest
environments

For millennia, people throughout the tropics, as huntergatherers, relied on the forest as a source of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for all their needs, such as food, medicines, building materials, artifacts (Abbiw, 1990; Falconer,
1990; de Beer and McDermott, 1996; Villachica, 1996;
Cunningham, 2001). NTFPs are still of great importance tocommunities worldwide (Kusters and Belcher, 2004; Sunderland and Ndoye, 2004; Alexiades and Shanley, 2005).

11/3/08 10:55:28 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 179

With enhanced marketing they have the potential to support
forest community livelihoods and increase the commercial
value of natural forests, thus strengthening initiatives topromote the conservation of forests and woodlands, especially in the tropics. NTFPs can be a rich in major nutrients,
minor nutrients, vitamins and minerals (Leakey, 1999a) andhave the potential to provide future products for the benefit of humankind. However, future innovations based on
NFTPs must recognize Traditional Knowledge, community
practice/law/regulations and be subject to Access and Benefit Sharing Agreements, in accordance with the Convention
on Biological Diversity (Marshall et al., 2006).
Non-timber forest products (NTFP) formerly gathered as
extractive resources from natural forests are increasingly
being grown in small-scale farming systems, and have become recognized as farm produce (Agroforestry Tree Products—AFTPs).
Goals
N, H, L, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Relevant worldwide

Small-scale farming systems commonly include both exotic
and native tree species (Schreckenberg et al., 2002, 2006;
Shackleton et al., 2002; Kindt et al., 2004; Degrande et al.,2006) producing a wide range of different wood and nonwood products. Such products include traditional foods
and medicines, gums, fibers, resins, extractives like rubber,and timber, which are increasingly being marketed in local, regional and international markets (Ndoye et al., 1997;
Awono et al., 2002). These recent developments are generating livelihoods benefits for local communities (Degrande
et al., 2006) in ways that require little investment of cash
and have low labor demands. The term AFTP distinguishes
these from extractive NTFP resources so that their role infood and nutritional security and in the enhancement of thelivelihoods of poor farmers can be recognized in agricultural statistics (Simons and Leakey, 2004).

for livestock (Bonkoungou et al., 1998), potential new markets, e.g., vegetable oils (Kapseu et al., 2002) and pharmaceuticals or nutriceuticals (Mander et al., 1996; Mander,1998), for helping farmers meet specific income needs, e.g.,school fees and uniforms (Schreckenberg et al., 2002), andfor buffering the effects of price fluctuations in cocoa andother commodity crops (Gockowski and Dury, 1999). Thisemerging market orientation needs to be developed carefully as it potentially conflicts with community-oriented values and traditions. A series of “Winners and Losers” projects on the commercialization of NTFPs (now Agroforestry
Tree Products—AFTPs) have examined these options (e.g.,
Leakey et al., 2005a; Marshall et al., 2006). These systems
target the restoration of natural capital, the wellbeing of
the resource-poor farmer and combine ecological benefits
with cash generation (Leakey et al., 2005a), making thema component of a “Localization” strategy. The integrationof domesticated indigenous fruit and nut trees into cocoa
agroforests would further improve a land use system that isalready one of the most profitable and biologically diverse
systems (Figure 3-7).
Domesticated agroforestry trees are producing productsthat meet many of the needs of small-scale farmers andhave the capacity to produce new agricultural commodities
and generate new industries.
Goals
N, L

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+2 to +3

Scale
L

Specificity
Mainly small-scale agriculture

Participatory rural appraisal approaches to priority setting
species selected for domestication found that indigenous
fruits and nuts were the species most commonly identified by rural communities (Franzel et al., 1996). Many ofthese fruits and nuts are important traditional foods withIn the last 10 years there has been increasing investment
in agroforestry programs to domesticate species producing
AFTPs as new cash crops for income generation by smallscale farmers.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
Early adoption
phase

Scale
M-L

Specificity
Especially relevant to wet/dry
tropics

Socially- and commercially-important herbaceous andwoody species are now being domesticated as new crops tomeet the needs of local people for traditional foods, medicines, other products (Okafor, 1980; Smartt and Haq, 1997;
Guarino, 1997; Schippers and Budd, 1997; Sunderland etal., 1999; Schippers, 2000), and for expanded trade (Ndoye
et al., 1997). Participatory domestication of AFTPs is in theearly phases of adoption, especially in Africa (Tchoundjeu
et al., 2006), small-scale farmers recognize the importanceof producing and trading these traditional food species
for domestic and wider use and the enhancement of foodsovereignty. These programs are improving livelihoods at
the household level (Schreckenberg et al., 2002; Degrande
et al., 2006), and increasing food and nutritional security.
Many of these new crops are important as sources of feedchapter 03.indd 179

Figure 3-7. Landuse systems in the humid zone of Cameroon interms of profitability and plant species diversity. Source: Izac andSanchez, 2001.
* Based on field assessments
Note: (1= Community forest; 2 = Long fallow farming; 3 = Extensive cocoa
farm; 4 = Short fallow farming; 5 = Short fallow oil palm; 6 = Extensive
cocoa with fruits; 7 = Intensive cocoa; 8 = Forest oil palm; 9 = Intensive
cocoa with fruits)

11/3/08 10:55:31 AM

180 | IAASTD Global Reportmarket potential. However, some are also sources of edibleoils which are needed for cooking and livestock feed but are
deficient in many tropical countries (FAO, 2003b). In West
Africa, edible oils are extracted from the fruits/kernels ofAllanblackia spp. (Tchoundjeu et al., 2006), Irvingia gabonensis (Leakey, 1999a), Dacryodes edulis (Kapseu et al.,2002), Vitellaria paradoxa (Boffa et al., 1996) and manyother agroforestry species (Leakey, 1999a). Unilever is investing in a new edible oil industry in West Africa, using
Allanblackia kernel oil (Attipoe et al., 2006). Many agroforestry trees are also good sources of animal fodder, especially in the dry season when pasture is unavailable, andcan be grown as hedges, which can be regularly harvested oreven grazed by livestock. Opportunities for cattle cake exist
from by-products of species producing edible fruits and nuts
(e.g., Dacryodes edulis, Canarium indicum, Barringtonia
procera, etc.). The nuts of Croton megalocarpus are goodpoultry feed (Thijssen, 2006). In Brazil, new agriculturalcommodities from agroforestry systems are being used in
the manufacture of innovative products for the automobile
industry (Panik, 1998).
Twenty-five years of agroforestry research have developed
techniques and strategies to assist farmers to reverse soil
nitrogen depletion without the application of fertilizers.
Goals
N, E

Certainty
A

Range of
Impacts+2 to +4

Scale
M-L

Specificity
Mainly small-scale agriculture

Leguminous trees fix atmospheric nitrogen through symbiotic associations with soil microorganisms in root nodules(Sprent and Sprent, 1990; Sprent, 2001). The soil improving
benefits of this process can be captured in ways that both
improve crop yield and are easily adopted by resource-poor
farmers (Buresh and Cooper, 1999), conferring major foodsecurity benefits to these farming households. Some techniques, such as alley-cropping/hedgerow intercropping areof limited adoptability because of the labor demands, whileothers such as short-term improved fallows are both effective and adoptable (Franzel, 1999; Kwesiga et al., 1999).
Short-term improved fallows in Africa involving species
such as Sesbania sesban, Gliricidia sepium,
and Tephrosia-1
vogelii, accumulate 100 to 200 kg N ha in 6-24 months
and to raise maize yields from about 0.5 to 4-6 tonnes ha-1
(Cooper et al., 1996). An external source of phosphorus isneeded for active N fixation in many P-deficient tropicalsoils.
Tree/crop interactions are complex but can be managed for
positive outcomes.
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to +3

Scale
M-L

Specificity
Many situations

There are many different types of competitive interactions
between trees and crops in mixed farming systems, which
can be evaluated on the basis of the Land Equivalent Ratio.
After 25 years of intensive study the complex physiological and ecological impacts of tree/crop interactions are now
well understood (Ong and Huxley, 1996; Huxley, 1999;
van Noordwijk et al., 2004); there is much evidence of theoverall productivity (biomass) of agroforestry systems being

chapter 03.indd 180

greater than annual cropping systems, due to the captureof more light and water, and improved soil fertility (Ongand Huxley, 1996). Ultimately, however, it is the economic
and social outcomes of beneficial interactions that usually
determine the adoption of agroforestry systems (Franzel
and Scherr, 2002). The numerous examples of agroforestry
adoption indicate that farmers, especially small-scale farmers, recognize that the benefits are real.
Vegetated riparian buffer strips are planted for bioremediation of herbicide and nitrate pollution.
Goals
H, E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+2 to +3

Scale
L

Specificity
Temperate and tropicalagriculture

Vegetated buffer strips have been shown to retain >50%of sediment within the first few meters (Young et al., 1980;
Dillaha et al., 1989; Magette et al., 1989; Mickelson et al.,2003). The planting of trees in strategically important partsof the catchment to maximize water capture and minimize
runoff is one of the generally recognized ways of conserving
water resources (Schultz et al., 1995, 2000; Louette, 2000;
Lin et al., 2003, 2005). In the corn belt of the US, agroforestry strips (trees planted in grass strips) on the contour in acorn/soybean rotation had decreased loss of total P by 17%
and loss of nitrate N by 37% after three years (Udawatta etal., 2004). This minimization of nutrient loss is one of themost important environmental services performed by agroforestry trees (van Noordwijk et al., 2004). Among several
possible management practices, a tree-shrub-grass buffer
placed either in upland fields (Louette, 2000) or in riparian areas (Schultz et al., 1995, 2000) is recognized as a costeffective approach to alleviating non-point sources of agricultural pollutants transported from cropland. Herbicide
retention by buffers can also be substantial (Lowrance et al.,
1997; Arora et al., 2003).
Enhanced agroecological function is promoted by agroforestry.
Goals
E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
M-L

Specificity
Especially in the tropics

Agroecological function is dependent on the maintenanceof biological diversity above and below ground, especially the keystone species at each trophic level. The ways inwhich biodiversity stimulates the mechanisms and ecological processes associated with enhanced agroecological
function are poorly understood in any crop (Collins andQualset, 1999); nevertheless, based on numerous studies,
the principles are well recognized (Altieri, 1989; Gliessman,1998) and are based on those of natural ecosystems (Ewel,1999). Through the integration of trees in farming systems,
agroforestry encourages and hastens the development ofan agroecological succession (Leakey, 1996; Schroth etal., 2004), which creates niches for colonization by a wide
range of other organisms, above and below-ground, in fieldsystems (Ewel, 1999; Leakey, 1999b; Schroth et al., 2004;
Schroth and Harvey, 2007). Integrating trees encourages
and enhances agroecological function, providing enhanced
sustainability as a result of active life cycles, food chains,nutrient cycling, pollination, etc., at all trophic levels, and11/3/08 10:55:31 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 181

helping to control pests, diseases, and weeds (Collins andQualset, 1999) in about two thirds of the agroforests tested(Schroth et al., 2000). Agroforestry is thus capable of rehabilitating degraded farmland. Agroforestry systems support
biodiversity conservation in human-dominated landscapesin the tropics (Schroth and Harvey, 2007), through reducing the conversion of primary habitat and providing protective ecological synergies; providing secondary habitat; andby offering a more benign matrix for “islands” of primary
habitat in the agricultural landscape, especially by buffering
forest edges and creating biological corridors which provide
maintenance of meta-population structure (Perfecto andArmbrecht, 2003). Scaling up successful agroforestry approaches requires both improving livelihood and biodiversity impacts at the plot scale, and strategic placement withina landscape mosaic to provide ecosystem services (e.g., watershed protection, wildlife habitat connectivity).
Agroforestry strategies and techniques have been developed
for the rehabilitation of degraded agroecosystems and the
reduction of poverty particularly in Africa.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts Scale+1 to +4
M-L

Specificity
Wide applicability, especiallyin tropics

Agroforestry has evolved from an agronomic practice forthe provision of environmental services, especially soil fertility amelioration, to a means of enhancing agroecological function through the development of an agroecologicalsuccession involving indigenous trees producing marketableproducts (Leakey, 1996). In this way it now integrates environmental and social services with improved economic outputs (Leakey, 2001ab). At the community level, agroforestry can positively affect food security andthe livelihoods ofsmall-scale farmers. It can also reverse environmental degradation by providing simple biological approaches to soil
fertility management (Young, 1997; Sanchez, 2002); generating income from tree crops (Degrande et al., 2006); minimizing risk by diversifying farming systems (Leakey, 1999b)
and; restoring agroecosystem services (Sanchez and Leakey,1997). Consequently, agroforestry has been recognized as
an especially appropriate alternative development strategy
for Africa (Leakey, 2001 ab), where the Green Revolution
has had only modest success (Evenson and Gollin, 2003).
Agroforestry can mitigate anthropogenic trace gas emissions through better soil fertility and land management,
and through carbon sequestration.
Goals
E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +2

Scale
L

Specificity
Small number of studies in thetropics

The integration of trees in cropping systems can improvesoil organic matter, nutrient cycling and the efficient use ofwater, reduce erosion and store carbon due to improved
plant growth. Early assessments of national and global terrestrial CO sinks reveal two primary benefits of agroforestry systems: direct near-term C storage (decades to centuries)
in trees and soils, and, potential to offset immediate greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation and shifting agriculture. Within the tropical latitudes, it is estimatedchapter 03.indd 181

that one hectare of sustainable agroforestry can potentially
offset 5 to 20 ha of deforestation. On a global scale, agroforestry systems could potentially be established on 585 to
1275×106 ha of technically suitable land, and these systems
could store 12 to 228 (median 95) tonnes C ha-1 under current climate and soil conditions (Dixon, 1995). Landscapescale management holds significant potential for reducing
off-site consequences of agriculture (Tilman et al., 2002),
leading to integrated natural resources management (Sayer
and Campbell, 2001) (see 3.2.2.2.4).
Mixed farming systems, such as those involving cereal/legume mixtures can increase productivity and sustainability of intensive systems.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Especially important in Asia

African savanna has a short growing season (4-5 months)
with annual precipitation of 300-1300 mm. In these areas
farmers typically grow maize, millet, sorghum, soybean,
groundnut, and cowpea, often integrated with livestock
production. Traditionally, the sustainability of intensive cereal-based systems in Asia was due to the presence of green
manuring practices for soil fertility management and retention of below-ground biodiversity. However, increasing
land prices and wage rates had made this option economically unviable at least in the short term and the use of green
manures has declined substantially (Ali, 1998). Now shortduration grain legume varieties are available that can be incorporated in the cereal-based intensive systems (Ali et al.,1997). These grain legumes have enhanced farmers’ incomein the short term and improved cropping system productivity and sustainability in the long-term (Ali and Narciso,1996). Mixed cropping also has the benefit of reducing pest
infestations and diseases.
3.2.2.1.8 Watershed management
Watersheds are often mosaics that integrate many different
land uses; when denuded they are very vulnerable to degradation, with severe downstream consequences in termsof flooding, landslides, siltation and reduced water quality (CA, 2007). Additionally, surface water tends to passthrough deforested watersheds more quickly leaving towns
and villages more susceptible to water shortages. Water
storage schemes to supply urban populations and industrial
complexes, or for irrigation schemes, can be wasteful andcreate conflicts between different water users.
Environmental sustainability of water resources is greatest when people work with natural systems and processes,
rather than against them.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
0 to +4

Scale
R

Specificity
Wide applicability

The most successful watershed management schemes involve
participation of local communities. For example, there are
traditional user-managed, water catchment and management projects in many parts of the world (e.g., in southern
India, the mountainous regions of the Andes, Nepal, andupland South East Asia), which are more sustainable thanthose imposed by hierarchical water authorities. Schemes

11/3/08 10:55:32 AM

182 | IAASTD Global Reportinvolving local communities tend to use water more sustainably (Ruf, 2001; Molle, 2003) than modern schemes.
For example, by 2001 the Syr and Amu Dar’ya rivers had
decreased to less than half their size in 1957 due to intensive irrigation of cotton and rice in the former Soviet Union(UNEP, 2002).
The Lake Victoria Basin project is an integrated watershed
approach to assessing the biophysical and socioeconomic
effects of environmental degradation.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
N

Specificity
Widespread applicability

Lake Victoria, the world’s second largest lake (68,000 km2),
is located in an agricultural area with high population density (28 million people on 116,000 km2 of farm land). It
displays multiple water degradation problems associatedwith high river sediment loads from erodible soil, and unsustainable farming practices such as intense cultivationand nutrient depletion. The local communities have serious
and wide-scale socioeconomic problems as a result of low
crop productivity. The Lake Victoria Basin project has used
an integrated watershed approach involving participatory
monitoring and evaluation, coupled with spectral reflectance and remote sensing, to characterize the problems anddevelop agroforestry interventions and livestock exclusion
trials to promote more environmentally sustainable farming
practices (Swallow et al., 2002).
3.2.2.1.9 Organic systems and biointensive agriculture
Organic agriculture includes both certified and uncertified
production systems that encompass practices that promote
environmental quality and ecosystem functionality. Organic
agriculture is based on minimizing the use of synthetic inputs for soil fertility and pest management. From a consumer viewpoint, this is valuable for avoiding the perceived
health risks posed by pesticide residues, growth-stimulating
substances, genetically modified organisms and livestock
diseases. There are also environmental benefits associatedwith organic production practices that arise from lower
levels of pesticide and nutrient pollution in waterways andgroundwater (FAO/WHO, 1999).
Organic agriculture is a small industry (1-2% of global
food sales) but it has a high market share in certain products and is a fast growing global food sector.
Goals
D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Niche marketing worldwide

Although global food sales are minimal (1-2%), there aresome products with a substantial market; in Germany organic milk products have >10% market share and organic
ingredients in baby food comprise 80 to 90% of market
share. In the USA, organic coffee accounts for 5% of themarket although it is only 0.2% worldwide (Vieira, 2001).
The total market value of organic products worldwide,
reached US$27.8 billion in 2004. There has been annual
market growth of 20-30% (growth in the overall food production sector is 4-5% per year) (ftp://ftp.fao.org/paia/organicag/2005_12_doc04.pdf).

chapter 03.indd 182

Food labeled as organic or certified organic is governed bya set of rules and limits, usually enforced by inspection andcertification mechanisms known as guarantee systems.
Goals
H, E, S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

There has been a steady rise in the area under organic agriculture. With very few exceptions, synthetic pesticides,
mineral fertilizers, synthetic preservatives, pharmaceuticals,
sewage sludge, GMOs, and irradiation are prohibited inorganic standards. Sixty industrialized countries currently
have national organic standards; there are hundreds of private organic standards worldwide (FAO/ITC/CTA, 2001;
IFOAM, 2003, 2006). Regulatory systems for organics usually consist of producers, inspection bodies, an accreditationbody for approval and system supervision and a labelingbody. There are numerous informal regulatory systems outside of formal organic certification and marketing systems(peer or participatory models) that do not involve thirdparty inspection and often focus on local markets. The harmonization of organic standards is an issue in international
trade. Harmonization has been facilitated by the organic
agriculture global umbrella body, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) andthrough Codex guidelines. The Codex guidelines concern
the production process and provide consumer and producer
protection from misleading claims and guide governments
in setting standards (FAO/WHO, 1999; El-Hage Scialabba,
2005). The extent of non-certified systems is difficult to estimate, particularly in developing countries.
Worldwide, more than 31 million ha of farmland were under certified organic management in 2006.
Goals
N, H, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide applicability

Globally organic production covers 31 million ha on morethan 600,000 farms in approximately 120 countries. Organic production is rapidly expanding with an aggregate
increase of 5 million hectares from 2005 to 2006. Australia
has the largest area of land under organic certification systems (12.2 million ha), but Latin America has the greatest
total number of organic farms (Willer and Yussefi, 2006).
By region, most of the world’s certified organic land is inAustralia/Oceania (39%), Europe (21%), Latin America(20%), and Asia (13%). In Switzerland, more than 10%of all agricultural land is managed organically. Large areas,
particularly in developing countries and some former Soviet
States, are organic by default (i.e., noncertified), as farmers
cannot afford to purchase fertilizers and pesticides (Willer
and Yussefi, 2006). The extent of such nonmarket organic
agriculture is difficult to quantify, but >33% of West African agricultural production comes from noncertified organic systems (Anobah, 2000). In Cuba which has madesubstantial investments in research and extension, organic
systems produce 65% of the rice, 46% of fresh vegetables,
38% of non-citrus fruit, 13% of roots, tubers and plantains
and 6% of the eggs (Murphy, 2000).

11/3/08 10:55:32 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 183

Yields in organic agriculture are typically 10-30% lower
than those with conventional management, but in manycases organic systems are economically competitive.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-1 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Widespread applicability

Yield reductions are commonly associated with adoption oforganic practices in intensive production systems (Mäder etal., 2002; Badgley et al., 2007). While yields may be 10-30%
lower, profits are, on average, comparable to those on conventional farms. Pest and fertility problems are particularlycommon during transitions to organic production. As withall production systems, the yield penalty associated with organic agriculture depends on farmer expertise with organic
production methods and with factors such as inherent soil
fertility (Bruinsma, 2003). In contrast to the reduced productivity responses observed in many high-yielding systems,
traditional systems converted to organic agriculture, yields
typically do not fall and may increase (ETC/KIOF, 1998).
Organic agriculture greatly reduces or eliminates the use ofsynthetic agents for pest control.
Goals
H, E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread

The use of synthetic agrochemicals, the foundation of modern agriculture, has been linked to negative impacts suchas ground and surface water contamination (Barbash et al.,
1999; USGS, 2006), harm to wildlife (Hayes et al., 2002),
and acute poisoning of agricultural workers, particularly inthe developing world where protection standards and safety
equipment are often inadequate (Repetto and Baliga, 1996).
Organic systems greatly reduce or eliminate synthetic pesticide use (Mäder et al., 2002), thereby diminishing theseconcerns. However, a small minority of the pest control
substances allowed under organic standards (e.g., copperfor downy mildew control in viticulture) also pose humanand environmental health risks. Also, the lower efficacy ofsome organic pest control methods contributes to the yield
penalty associated with organic systems. In the longer term,increased biodiversity and an increase in predator species
can contribute to a more balanced agroecosystem.
Enhanced use of organic fertility sources can improve soil
quality and sustain production, but in some situations
supplies of these sources can be inadequate for sustaining
high-yielding organic production.
Goals
H, E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread

Adequate soil organic matter are vital for maintaining soil
quality; it is a source of macro and micronutrients for plant
nutrition, enhances cation exchange capacity and nutrient
retention, and facilitates aggregation and good soil structure. However, shortages of organic soil amendments arecommon in many developing regions (e.g., Mowo et al.,2006; Vanlauwe and Giller, 2006), especially where highpopulation density and cropping intensity preclude rotations with N-fixing legumes or improved fallows and there
are competing uses for animal manures (e.g., for cookingfuel). When population pressure is high or environments

chapter 03.indd 183

are degraded, some of the most common organic resources
available to farmers (e.g., cereal stovers) are of poor quality,with low nutrient concentrations and macronutrient ratios
not commensurate with plant needs. Modern best practiceguidelines for conventional production systems advise thefull use of all indigenous fertility sources (composts, crop
residues, and animal manures), with mineral fertilizers employed to bridge deficits between crop needs and indigenous
supplies (e.g., http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/ssnm/)
Some facets of organic agriculture have clear benefits forenvironmental sustainability; evidence for others is mixed,
neutral, or inconclusive.
Goals
E

Certainty
A, C

Range of Impacts-2 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Since organic agriculture is more clearly defined by what itprohibits (e.g., synthetics) than what it requires, the environmental benefits that accrue from organic production are
difficult to generalize. Some evidence suggests that aboveand below-ground biodiversity is higher in organic systems(Bengtsson et al., 2005; Mäder et al., 2006), but neutral
outcomes are also reported from long-term experiments(e.g., Franke-Snyder et al., 2001); species richness sometimes increases among a few organisms groups while others
are unaffected (Bengtsson et al., 2005). Biodiversity impacts
from organic agriculture are influenced by factors such as
crop rotation and tillage practices, quantity and quality oforganic amendments applied to the soil, and the characteristics of the surrounding landscape. Although some studies
demonstrate reduced environmental losses of nitrate N inorganic systems (e.g., Kramer et al., 2006), most evidence
suggests that nitrate losses are not reduced in high-yielding
organic systems when contrasted to conventional production system (Kirchmann and Bergstroem, 2001; DeNeve etal., 2003; Torstensson et al., 2006). While fossil energy consumption can be substantially reduced in organic systems,
energy savings must be balanced against productivity reductions (Dalgaard et al., 2001). For organic systems with substantially lower yields than conventional alternatives, total
enterprise energy efficiency (energy output per unit energy
input) can be lower than the efficiency of conventional systems (Loges et al., 2006).
Organic markets are mostly in industrialized countries but
organic markets, with a comparative advantage are emerging in developing countries.
Goals
D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide applicability

Although the highest market growth for organic produce
is in North America, the highest reported domestic market
growth (approx. 30%) is in China; organic is also increasingin Indonesia. The range of marketing approaches is diverse
and includes organic bazaars, small retail shops, supermarkets, multilevel direct selling schemes, community supported
agriculture and internet marketing (FAO/ITC/CTA, 2001;
IFOAM, 2006; Willer and Yussefi, 2006). The low external
input production systems found in many developing countries are more easily converted to certified organic systems
than to high external intensive production systems. Organic

11/3/08 10:55:33 AM

184 | IAASTD Global Reporttropical and subtropical products such as coffee, tea, cocoa,
spices, sugar cane and tropical fruits transition more easily to organic since they are generally low external input
systems. The higher labor requirements of organic farming
provide a comparative advantage to developing countries
with relatively low labor costs (de Haen, 1999).
There are significant constraints for developing countries
to the profitable production, processing and marketing oforganic products for export.
Goals
D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-1 to -3

Scale
R

Specificity
Developing economies

Organic markets require high quality produce and theadded costs and complexities of certification. This is a constraint for developing countries where market access may bedifficult due to limited and unreliable infrastructure and alack of skilled labor. Evidence suggests that the current pricepremium for organic produce will decline in the long term
as supply rises to meet demand and as larger corporate producers and retailers enter the market. A lower price premium may make organic agriculture uneconomical for manysmall-scale producers in developing countries with poor rural infrastructure and services (de Haen, 1999). However,these constraints provide an opportunity for industrializedcountries to assist developing countries to expand valueadding skills and infrastructure.
Organic demand is increasingly driven by big retailers
with brands that dictate standards.
Goals
L, D

Certainty Range of Impacts Scale
Specificity
A-3 to +3
G
Negative in poor and positive in richcountries

Large and vertically coordinated supermarket chains now
account for a major share of the retail markets for freshand processed organic foods. Supermarket sales of organic
produce range from 40% in Germany, 49% in USA, to 80%
in Argentina and the UK, and 85% in Denmark. Most large
food companies have acquired organic brands and small
firms, initiated partnerships with organic companies, or
have their own organic lines. Mergers and acquisitions oforganic brands and companies affect production, processing, certification and distribution pathways, e.g., in California, 2% of organic growers represent 50% of organic
sales. The world’s largest organic food distributor has salesof US$3.5 billion. Increasing domination of the organic
market by big companies may control market access, andlead to price regulation that reduces returns to farmers. This
trend could potentially undermine one of the central principles of organic agriculture: providing a better return tofarmers to support the costs of sustainable production. Industry concentration is leading to pressure to erode organic
standards (El-Hage Scialabba, 2005). There may however
be other benefits to some producers such as ease and scaleof marketing and more standardized production.
The localization of marketing has some benefits for smallscale organic producers.
Goals
L, D

chapter 03.indd 184

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
M-L

Specificity
Small-scale producers andtraders

Some initiatives (organic farmers markets, box home delivery and community supported agriculture) have successfully empowered small-scale farmers and promoted localized
food systems by supporting community-based, short foodsupply chains in domestic markets Generally these initiatives are small in scale but seen in total and as a global trend
in industrialized and developing countries their impact issignificant. One example of larger scale success is a farmin Denmark that delivered 22, 000 organic boxes per week
(annual sales of Euros 20 million) in 2005. Other innovations to promote the localization of organic production are
the facilitation of dialogue between different government
Ministries (e.g., agriculture, trade, environment, rural development, education, health, tourism) and civil society operators (e.g., farmer associations, inspectors, accreditors, traders, retailers, consumers) and location-specific research andknowledge sharing through Organic Farmers-Field-Schools
to promote location-specific research and knowledge sharing (El-Hage Scialabba, 2005).
3.2.2.2 Managing agricultural land for ecosystem services
and public goods
Agroecosystems are increasingly recognized as potential
providers of ecosystem services, yet typically cultivated land
has lower biodiversity than natural ecosystems, and is frequently associated with reduced ecosystem services (Cassman et al., 2005), consequently necessitating tradeoffs between production and ecosystem services.
3.2.2.2.1 Water quality and quantity
The available global freshwater resource has been estimated at 200000 km3 (Gleick, 1993; Shiklomanov, 1999), of
which over 90% is groundwater (Boswinkel, 2000). Population growth has reduced annual per capita water availability from 12,900 m3 in 1970 to less than 7,800 m3 in2000 (CA, 2007). With water a scarce resource, the role ofagriculture in wise water resource management is increasing
in importance (CA, 2007). Currently, 7,200 km3 of water
are used in crop production annually and this is predicted to
double by 2050 (IWMI, 2006). There are two major trends
in water management—government intervention on large
scale projects (Molden et al., 2007b), and private and community investments in small scale projects (e.g., 26 million
private small scale irrigation pumps owners in India). Largedams, reservoirs and irrigation systems are typically built
by government agencies, which often continued to operatethem for economic development (including agriculture, urbanization, power generation), without adequate consideration of farmer needs.
Present trends in irrigation water management within public and private sector have significant positive and negative
effects on environment.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide

Rainfall contributes about 110,000 km3 of water per year
worldwide, 40% enters rivers and groundwater (43,500
km3) (Molden et al., 2007a). The rapid increase of irrigationin the last 50 years (Figure 3.1c) has led to dramatic modi-

11/3/08 10:55:33 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 185

fications of hydrological systems around the world with thediversion of water from natural aquatic ecosystems (2700km3) for irrigation having well documented negative environmental effects (Richter et al., 1997; Revenga et al., 2000;
WCD, 2000; MA, 2005ab; Falkenmark et al., 2007). These
include salinization (20-30 million ha—Tanji and Kielen,2004), river channel erosion, loss of biodiversity, introduction of invasive alien species, reduction of water quality, genetic isolation through habitat fragmentation, and reduced
production of floodplain and other inland/coastal fisheries.
Conversely, water management practices have also contributed to environmental sustainability, with the developmentof irrigation reducing the amount of land required for agriculture. In recent years irrigation and water storage havealso been found to create new habitats for water birds inAsia, leading to population increase (Galbraith et al., 2005).
Thus the coexistence of wetlands and agriculture for 10,000
years has influenced many ecological modifications (Bambaradiniya and Amerasinghe, 2004), but now the balancetends to be negative.

can be achieved by more reliable and precise application ofirrigation water, improved soil fertility and improved soil
conservation practices. Improving water productivity—
gaining more yield per unit of water—is an effective meansof intensifying agricultural production and reducing environmental degradation (Molden et al., 2007b). Increased
agricultural productivity can also occur when women’s land
and water rights are strengthened and there is gender sensitivity in the targeting of credit and input provision, training, and market linkages, especially in areas where women
are the farm decision makers (Quisumbing, 1995; van Koppen, 2002). However, gains in water productivity are often
overstated as much of the potential has already been met in
highly productive systems; a water productivity gain by one
user can be a loss to another, e.g., upstream gains in agriculture may be offset by a loss in downstream fisheries, either
through increased extraction or agrochemical pollution.

Improved water management can lead to more equitablewater use, but this is not common.

Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Access to water is critical for poverty reduction with large
positive impacts on agricultural productivity when combined with equitable distribution (Merrey et al., 2007). Targeted investments in water management in both rainfed andirrigated areas can effectively reduce inequity by providing
more opportunities for the poor (Castillo et al., 2007). In
China equity tends to increase with agricultural water management, because crops grown on irrigated land have thehighest effect on lowering inequality (Huang et al., 2005).
Equity in irrigation and agricultural water management are
increased by equitable land distribution, secure ownershipor tenancy rights, efficient input, credit, and product markets; access to information; and nondiscriminatory policies for small-scale producers and landless laborers (Smith,
2004; Hussain, 2005), but these conditions are rarely met
and inequity occurs if wealthy and powerful people gain
preferential access to water (Cernea, 2003). Interventions
often exacerbate the existing imbalance between men andwomen’s water ownership rights, division of labor and incomes (Ahlers, 2000; Chancellor, 2000; Boelens and Zwarteveen, 2002). The poorest farmers are often those at theend of irrigation systems because they receive less water andhave the lowest certainty about the timing and amount delivered.
Improved water management can lead to efficient water
use.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Better water management can result in gains in water productivity, better management of rainfed agriculture, improvements in stakeholder management of schemes and reduced
evaporation. In low-yielding rainfed areas and in poorly
performing irrigation systems, improved water productivity

chapter 03.indd 185

Water user groups are emerging as the key social tool tomeet the needs of different communities.
Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Wide applicability

Access to water is critical for poverty reduction (Molden
et al., 2007b). However, poor farmers often have poor access to water, as their traditional systems of water rights areoverlooked by water management agencies. Smaller-scalecommunity investments in water projects can allow better
access to adequate and better quality water. One way ofmanaging water delivery is the establishment of Water User
Associations (Abernethy, 2003), but communities of water
users face numerous challenges in gaining equitable andsustainable access to, and allocations of, water (Bruns and
Meinzen-Dick, 2000; Meinzen-Dick and Pradhan, 2002).
Social reforms to improve the equity of water allocation include providing secure water rights for users and reducing
or eliminating water subsidies. Acknowledging customarylaws and informal institutions can facilitate and encourage local management of water and other natural resources(CA, 2007). Clarifying water rights can ensure secure access to water for agriculture for poor women and men andother disadvantaged groups, such as the disabled (IFAD,
2006; CA, 2007) and ensure better operations and maintenance. The management of water resources can be further
improved through training and capacity development. The
benefits of farmer-managed irrigation schemes were confirmed in a worldwide study of 40 irrigation schemes (Tang,
1992), and a study of over 100 irrigation systems in Nepal(Lam, 1998). Management of water at the local level has tobe part of an integrated process: basin, regional, nationaland sometimes trans-boundary (CA, 2007).
Structurally complex land use systems can enhance hydrological processes and provide some relief from water scarcity.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B, E

Range of Impacts+1 to +2

Scale
R

Specificity
Large land masses

On a regional scale, the capacity of vegetation to trap moisture and to return it to the atmosphere by surface evaporation and transpiration affects hydrological processes and11/3/08 10:55:34 AM

186 | IAASTD Global Reporthence the distribution of rainfall (Salati and Vose, 1984).
Regional-scale advection of atmospheric moisture is adversely affected by removal of woody vegetation (naturaland crops), because of greater water losses to surface runoff, groundwater and a reduction of evaporation and transpiration from the canopy (Salati and Vose, 1984; Rowntree, 1988; Shuttleworth, 1988). Thus the maintenance of
perennial vegetation has positive effects on rainfall patterns
that enhance hydrological processes (Meher-Homji, 1988)
affecting the amount of moisture that can be advected
downwind to fall as rain somewhere else (Salati and Vose,
1984). Mixed perennial agricultural systems can probably mimic these hydrological functions of natural forests(Leakey, 1996).
Estuarine habitats are the interface between terrestrial
freshwater and marine environments. They are importantnursery grounds for the production of commercially important marine fishes, but are subject to detrimental agricultural, urban and industrial developments.
Goals
N, L, E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-1 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Worldwide applicability

Qualitative evidence of the use of estuarine habitats by juvenile marine fishes is plentiful (Pihl et al., 2002), but recent quantitative research, including stable isotope analysis and otolith chemistry (Hobson, 1999; Gillanders et al.,2003), has confirmed and emphasized the importance ofriver estuaries in the connectivity between freshwater andmarine habitats (Gillanders, 2005; Herzka, 2005; Leakey,2006). While few marine fish species are considered to be
dependent on estuaries, substantial energetic subsidies tofish populations are derived from their juvenile years living
and feeding in estuaries (Leakey, 2006). Given the continued vulnerability of estuaries to the loss of water quality
from degradation, pollution and other detrimental humanimpacts, information about the behavior and resource useof juvenile fishes is crucial for future fisheries management
and conservation (Leakey, 2006). In the tropics, mangroveswamps are particularly important (Mumby et al., 2004).
3.2.2.2.2 Conserving biodiversity (in situ, ex situ) andecoagriculture
Biodiversity is the total variation found within living organisms and the ecological complexes they inhabit (Wilson,
1992) and is recognized as a critical component of farming systems above and below ground (Cassman et al., 2005;
MA, 2005c). It is important because there are many undomesticated species that are currently either underutilized, or
not yet recognized as having value in production systems.
Secondly, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems contain many
species crucial to the effective functioning of foodchains andlifecycles, and which consequently confer ecological sustainability or resilience (e.g., regulation of population size,
nutrient-cycling, pest and disease control). The conservation of genetic diversity is important because evolutionary
processes are necessary to allow species to survive by adapting to changing environments. Crop domestication, like thisevolution requires a full set of genes and thus is grounded
in intraspecific genetic diversity (Harlan, 1975; Waliyar etal., 2003).

chapter 03.indd 186

Biological diversity plays a key role in the provision ofagroecological function.
Goals
E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-3 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
General principle

Ecological processes affected by agroecosystem biodiversity
include pollination, seed dispersal, pest and disease management, carbon sequestration and climate regulation (Diaz etal., 2005; MA, 2005c). Wild pollinators are essential to thereproduction of many crops, especially fruits and vegetables(Gemmill-Herren et al., 2007). To maintain a full suite ofpollinators and increase agricultural productivity requires
the protection of the habitats for pollinators (forests, hedgerows, etc.) within the agricultural landscape. A number of
emerging management approaches to diversified agriculture(ecoagriculture, agroforestry, organic agriculture, conservation agriculture, etc.) seek to preserve and promote biodiversity (described above in 3.2.2.1).
The conservation of biological diversity is important because it benefits humanity.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-4 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide

Humans have exploited plant diversity to meet their everyday needs for food, medicine, etc., for millennia. Agrobiodiversity is increasingly recognized as a tangible, economic
resource directly equivalent to a country’s mineral wealth.
These genetic resources (communities, species and genes) areused by breeders for the development of domesticated crops
and livestock (IPGRI, 1993). Species and ecosystems can beconserved for their intrinsic qualities (McNeely and Guruswamy, 1998), but biodiversity conservation is increasingly
recognized for its importance in combating malnutrition, ill
health, poverty and environmental degradation. Collecting
and conserving the world’s germplasm in gene banks has
been estimated at US$5.3 billion (Hawkes et al., 2000), but
the cost is greatly outweighed by the value of plant genetic
resources to the pharmaceutical, botanical medicine, major
crop, horticultural, crop protection, biotechnology, cosmetics and personal care products industries (US$500-800 billion per year) (ten Kate and Laird, 1999).
Agrobiodiversity is threatened.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-4 to 0Scale
GSpecificity
Worldwide problem

Agrobiodiversity is rapidly declining due to the destruction
and fragmentation of natural ecosystems, overexploitation, introduction of exotic species, human socioeconomicchanges, human-instigated and natural calamities, and especially changes in agricultural practices and land use, notably
the replacement of traditional crop varieties with modern,more uniform varieties. Nearly 34,000 species (12.5% of
the world’s flora) are currently threatened with extinction(Walters and Gillett, 1998), while 75% of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost since the beginningof the last century (FAO, 1998a). On 98% of the cultivatedarea of the Philippines, thousands of rice landraces havebeen replaced by two modern varieties, while in Mexico and11/3/08 10:55:34 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 187

Guatemala, Zea mexicana (teosinte), the closest relative ofmaize has disappeared. The loss of endangered food crop
relatives has been valued at about US$10 billion annually(Phillips and Meilleur, 1998).
There are two major conservation strategies: ex situ andin situ.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts
0 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Widely applicable

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992) defines ex situ conservation as the conservation of componentsof biological diversity outside their natural habitats and insitu conservation as the conservation of ecosystems andnatural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable
populations of species in their natural surroundings. In an
ideal world It would be preferable to conserve all diversity
naturally (in situ), rather than move it into an artificial environment (ex situ). However, ex situ conservation techniques
are necessary where in situ conservation cannot guarantee
long-term security for a particular crop or wild species. In
both cases, conservation aims to maintain the full diversityof living organisms; in situ conservation also protects the
habitats and the interrelationships between organisms andtheir environment (Spellerberg and Hardes, 1992). In theagrobiodiversity context, the explicit focus is on conserving
the full range of genetic variation within taxa (Maxted etal., 1997). The two conservation strategies are composed ofa range of techniques (Table 3-4) that are complementary(Maxted et al., 1997).
Ecoagriculture is an approach to agricultural landscapemanagement that seeks to simultaneously achieve production, livelihoods and wildlife/ecosystem conservation.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide applicability

The Ecoagriculture Initiative secures land as protected areas
for wildlife habitat in recognition that these areas may need
to be cleared for future agriculture (McNeely and Scherr,
2003; Buck et al., 2004). A set of six production approaches
have been proposed: (1) creating biodiversity reserves that
benefit local farming communities, (2) developing habitat
networks in non-farmed areas, (3) reducing land conversion
to agriculture by increasing farm productivity, (4) minimizing agricultural pollution, (5) modifying management ofsoil, water and vegetation resources, (6) modifying farmsystems to mimic natural ecosystems (McNeely and Scherr,2003). A review of the feasibility of integrating production
and conservation concluded that there are many cases of
biodiversity-friendly agriculture (Buck et al., 2004, 2007),
both for crop and livestock production (Neely and Hatfield,2007). Nevertheless, economic considerations involving issues of valuation and payment for ecosystems services, aswell as building a bridge between agriculturalists and conservation scientists remain a major challenge.
Modern molecular techniques for assessing and understanding the structure of wild genetic resources have greatly enhanced crop and animal breeding programs.
Goals
N, E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Relevant worldwide

Over the last 20 years, a range of molecular marker techniques (Table 3-2) have informed plant genetic resource
management activities (Newton et al., 1999; Lowe et al.,2004). These techniques have revolutionized genetics by allowing the quantification of variations in the genetic codeof nuclear and organellar genomes, in ways which give highquality information, are reproducible, easily scored, easily automated, and include bioinformatics handling steps.
These techniques involve universal primers that can be used
across a range of plant, animal and microbial taxonomic
groups, avoiding the need for individual development. They
also provide unequivocal measures of allele frequencies;

Table 3-4. Conservation strategies and techniques.
Methods of Conservation
Strategies

Techniques

Ex situconservation

Seed storage

Dried seed samples in a gene bank kept at subzero temperatures.

In vitro storage

Explants (tissue samples) in a sterile, or cryopreserved/frozen state.

Field gene bank

Large numbers of living material accessions transferred and planted at a second
site.

Botanic garden/arboretum

Small numbers of living material accessions in a garden or arboretum.

DNA/pollen storage

DNA or pollen stored in appropriate, usually refrigerated, conditions.

In situconservation

chapter 03.indd 187

Genetic reserve

Definition

The management of genetic diversity in designated natural wild populations.

On-farm

Sustainably managed genetic diversity of traditional crop varieties and associatedspecies within agricultural, horticultural or other cultivation systems.

Home garden
conservation

Sustainably managed genetic diversity of traditional crop varieties within a household’s
backyard.

11/3/08 10:55:35 AM

188 | IAASTD Global Reportdistinguish homozygotes and heterozygotes and allow rapid
identifications of gene fragments using different DNA sequences (Lowe et al., 2004).

Domesticated populations can have conservation value.

Molecular techniques are contributing to different approaches of surveying and assessing genetic variation for
management and conservation purposes.

Recent studies using molecular techniques have foundthat when domestication occurs in ways that do not leadto the loss of wild populations, genetic erosion or genetic
bottlenecks, the domesticated population can itself provide
a valuable contribution to genetic resource management
and conservation. In Latin America, Inga edulis, which has
been utilized by local people for several thousands of years(Dawson et al., 2008), has remained genetically diverse infive sites in the Peruvian Amazon relative to natural stands(Hollingsworth et al., 2005). In this example, genetic differentiation estimates indicated that the domesticated stands
were introduced from remote sources rather than fromproximate natural stands (Dawson et al., 2008). Despite
maintaining high levels of diversity, this suggests that domesticated stands can also have negative impacts on longterm performance through source mixing.

Goals
N, E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Relevant worldwide

Assessments of population genetic structure using molecular techniques (Table 3-2) have involved the following approaches: (1) surveys of a species to identify genetic
hot spots (e.g., Lowe et al., 2000), genetic discontinuities(Moritz, 1994), genetically isolated and unique populations (Cavers et al., 2003) or populations under different
geopolitical management that need to be uniformly managed for the conservation of the species (Karl and Bowen,
1999; Cavers et al., 2003); (2) identification of the genetic
history of domesticated species to construct a history of introduction and likely sources of origin (Zerega et al., 2004,
2005), and weed invasions including the search for biological control agents from a relevant source region (McCauley
et al., 2003); (3) examination of remnant populations ofan exploited or depleted species to assess future population
viability and develop appropriate management actions anddetermine processes and ecological factors affecting geneflow dynamics, and (4) development of genetic resource
management strategies for plants in the early stages of domestication by comparisons of exploited and nonexploited
populations or between domesticated and natural populations.
Domestication can lead to reduced genetic diversity.
Goals
N, E

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-4 to +1

Scale
G

Specificity
Relevant worldwide

The loss of genetic diversity can arise from processes associated with domestication: (1) competition for land resources
resulting from the widespread planting of domesticated varieties may lead to the elimination of natural populations,(2) pollen or seed flow from cultivars in production areas
can overwhelm those of remnant wild populations, causing genetic erosion of the natural populations, (3) a genetic
bottleneck is formed when selective breeding of one or a
few superior lines (e.g., Inga edulis—Hollingsworth et al.,2005; Dawson et al., 2008) results in increased inbreedingor increased genetic differentiation relative to source populations. Consequently domesticated lines often contain only
a subset of the genetic variation of natural populations.
Conversely, however, the breeding process can also be used
to fix extreme traits or introduce additional variation in selected phenotypic characters. Agricultural diversity depends
on wild sources of genes from neglected and underutilized
species in order to maintain the productivity and adaptability of domesticated species. The optimization of livelihood
benefits during environment change requires a stronger integration between initiatives to conserve agricultural biodiversity and wild biodiversity (Thompson et al., 2007).

chapter 03.indd 188

Goals
N, E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Relevant worldwide

Village-level domestication strategies have conservation
advantages in the context of global genetic resource management.
Goals
N, E

Certainty
D

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Relevant worldwide

Village-level domestication has been promoted for the development of new tree crops in developing countries (Weberet al., 2001; Leakey et al., 2003), rather than the centralized
distribution of a single line or a few selected genotypes. This
practice involves individual communities or villages developing superior lines of new crops from local populations
or landraces that are specific to the participating communities, using established domestication practices. This strategy
has the inherent advantage of harnessing adaptive variation
for a range of local environmental factors, while sourcing
from multiple villages ensures that a broad range of genetic
variation is preserved across the species range. This strategy
provides long-term benefit for genetic diversity conservation
where native habitats are increasingly being lost to development. The success of this strategy lies partly in developing
an appreciation for a diversity of forms within the new crop,
such as has occurred in the wine industry, where customers
have been educated to appreciate the diversity of flavors offered by different grape varieties.
Biodiversity and genetic diversity have been “protected” byinternational policies.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
Expected to be positive

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992) was
ratified in 1993 to address the broad issues of biodiversity
conservation, sustainable use of its components and the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of biodiversity. Its Global Strategy of Plant Conservation (GSPC)
included global targets for 2010, such as “70% of the genetic diversity of crops and other major socioeconomicallyvaluable plant species conserved.” The International Treaty

11/3/08 10:55:35 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 189

on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO,
2002a) specifically focuses on agrobiodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The imperative to address current
threats to genetic diversity was recognized by the Conference of the Parties (www.cbd.int/2010-target) to the CBD2010 Biodiversity Target, which committed the parties “toachieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate ofbiodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level asa contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of alllife on earth.” Thus it is recognized that the international,
regional and national level conservation and sustainable useof agrobiodiversity is fundamental for future wealth creation and food security.
3.2.2.2.3 Global warming potential, carbon sequestrationand the impacts of climate change
The combustion of fossil fuels, land use change, and agricultural activities constitute the dominant sources of radiatively-active gas emissions (i.e., greenhouse gases—GHG) since
the advent of the industrial revolution. Expressed in CO2
equivalents (i.e., global warming potential—GWP), agriculture now accounts for approximately 10-12% of net GWPemissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources(IPCC, 2007; Smith et al., 2007), excluding emissions fromthe manufacture of agrochemicals and fuel use for farm
practices. The IPCC also reports that nearly equal amountsof CO2 are assimilated and released by agricultural systems,
resulting in an annual flux that is roughly in balance on
a global basis. In contrast, agriculture is a significant net
source of the important greenhouse gases methane (CH4)and nitrous oxide (N2O), contributing approximately 58%
and 47% of all emissions, respectively (Smith et al., 2007).
Agriculture affects the radiative forcing potential of theatmosphere (Global Warming Potential—GWP) in various
ways, including: (1) heat emission from burnings of forests,
crop residues and pastureland (Fearnside, 2000); (2) carbon dioxide emissions from the energy-intensive processes
required to produce agricultural amendments like nitrogen
fertilizers, pesticides, etc. (USEPA, 2006); (3) greater sensible
heat fluxes from bare soils (Foley et al., 2003); (4) infrared
radiation from bare soil (Schmetz et al., 2005) and reduced
evapotranspiration from soils without vegetative cover; (5)decreased surface albedo (i.e., sunlight reflectance) whenplant residues are burned (Randerson et al., 2006); (6) soilorganic matter oxidation promoted by tillage (Reicosky,1997); (7) methane emissions from ruminant livestock(Johnson and Johnson, 1995) and wetland rice cultivation(Minami and Neue, 1994); and (8) nitrous oxide emissions(Smith et al., 1997) from poorly drained soils, especially under conditions where N fertilizers are misused. In aggregate,
agriculture is responsible for approximately 15% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, 58% of methane (CH4) emissions
and 47% of N2O (Smith et al., 2007).
Agroecosystems can also be net sinks for atmospheric GWP.
Best agricultural practices help to minimize emissions ofgreenhouse gases.
Goals
N, L, E, S

chapter 03.indd 189

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-3 to +3

Scale
G

In addition to being a source of greenhouse gas emissions,certain agricultural practices found to increase the “sink”
value of agroecosystems include (1) maintaining good aeration and drainage of soils to reduce CH4 and N2O emissions,(2) maximizing the efficiency of N fertilizer use to limit N2Oemissions (Dixon, 1995) and to reduce the amount of CO2
released in the energy-intensive process of its manufacture,(3) minimizing residue burning to reduce CO2 and O3 emissions, and (4) improving forage quality to reduce CH4 andN2O emissions from ruminant digestion (Nicholson et al.,2001), (5) maximizing woody biomass and (6) avoiding
burning that promotes ozone formation which is photochemically active with OH radicals; OH radicals remove atmospheric CH4 (Crutzen and Zimmerman, 1991; Chatfield,2004).
Recent studies on wheat, soybean and rice in Free-Air
Concentration Enrichment (FACE) field experiments suggest that yield increases due to enhanced CO2 are approximately half that previously predicted.
Goals
N, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to +2

Scale
R

Specificity
Wide applicability

Free-Air Concentration Enrichment (FACE) experiments fumigate plants with enhanced CO2 concentrations in open air
field conditions (Ainsworth and Long, 2005). Yield stimulation of major C3 crops in elevated [CO2] is approximately
half of what was predicted by early experiments in enclosed
chambers (Kimball et al., 1983; Long et al., 2006), casting
doubt on the current assumption that elevated carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset the negative effectsof rising temperature and drought, and sustain global foodsupply (Gitay et al., 2001). Notably the temperate FACE
experiments indicate that: (1) the CO2 fertilization effectmay be small without additions of N fertilizers (Ainsworthand Long, 2005), and (2) harvest index is lower at elevated[CO2] in soybean (Morgan et al., 2005) and rice (Kim et al.,2003).
Crop responses to elevated to CO2 vary depending on thephotosynthetic pathway the species uses.
Goals
N, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-3 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Variation between crop species

Wheat, rice and soybean are crops in which photosynthesis
is directly stimulated by elevated CO2 (Long et al., 2004).
When grown at 550 ppm CO2 (the concentration projected
for 2050), yields increased by 13, 9 and 19% for wheat, riceand soybean, respectively (Long et al., 2006). In contrast,
photosynthetic pathways in maize and sorghum are not directly stimulated by elevated CO2; these crops do not show
an increase in yield when grown with adequate water supply in the field at elevated CO2 (Ottman et al., 2001; Wall etal., 2001; Leakey et al., 2004, 2006). At elevated CO2, there
is an amelioration of drought stress due to reduced wateruse, hence yields of maize, sorghum and similar crops might
benefit from elevated CO2 under drought stress.

Specificity
Especially important in thetropics

11/3/08 10:55:35 AM

190 | IAASTD Global Report

Soil-based carbon sequestration (CS) can provide a significant, but finite sink for atmospheric CO2.
Goals
E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+2 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
WorldwideIn recognition that social and economic factors ultimately
govern the sustained adoption of land-based CS, strategies
have been sought that sequester carbon while providing tangible production benefits to farmers (Ponce-Hernandez etal., 2004). For arable systems, no-till cultivation has beenpromoted as a “win-win” strategy for achieving net Global
Warming Potential (GWP) reductions. Tillage disrupts soil
aggregates, making organic matter pools that had been
physically protected from microbial degradation more vulnerable to decomposition (Duxbury, 2005). Higher levelsof soil organic matter are associated with attributes, suchas crop tilth, water holding capacity and fertility that are
favorable to crop growth (e.g., Lal, 1997). Although concerns have been raised about the methodologies used to assess soil carbon stocks (Baker et al., 2007), recent synthesisof data from many sites across the United States suggeststhat adoption of no-till (West and Post, 2002) or conversionof cropland into perennial pastures (Post and Kwon, 2000)
generates soil organic carbon increases on the order of 450
kg C ha-1 yr -1. Depending on factors such as soil texture andland use history, maximum rates of C sequestration tend topeak 5-10 yrs after adoption of CS practices and slow markedly within two decades. Hence increasing the organic matter content of soils is as an interim measure for sequestering
atmospheric CO2. Estimates from the United States suggestthat if all US cropland was converted to no-till, enhanced
CS rates would compensate for slightly less than 4% of theannual CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in the U.S. (Jacksonand Schlesinger, 2004). On a global scale, carbon sequestration in soils has the potential to offset from 5 to 15% of thetotal annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in
the near-term (Lal, 2004).
Improved management of the vast land area in rangelands
has led to significant carbon sequestration, but the benefitsof carbon credit payments are not currently accessible, particularly in common property systems.
Goals
L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +3
R

Specificity
Wide applicability

Grazing lands cover 32 million km2 and sequester large
quantities of carbon (UNDP/UNEP/WB/WRI, 2000). Processes that reduce carbon sinks in grazing lands include
overgrazing, soil degradation, soil and wind erosion, biomass burning, land conversion to cropland; carbon can be
improved by shifting species mixes, grazing and degradation management, fire management, fertilization, tree planting (agroforestry), and irrigation (Ojima et al., 1993; Fisher
et al., 1994; Paustian et al., 1998). But where land is heldin common, mitigation is particularly complex. Mitigation
activities are most successful when they build on traditional
pastoral institutions and knowledge (excellent communication, strong understanding of ecosystem goods and services)and provide pastoral people with food security benefits atthe same time (Reid et al., 2004).

chapter 03.indd 190

Agroecosystems involving tree-based carbon sequestration
can offset greenhouse gas emissions.
Goals
E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Early assessments of national and global terrestrial CO2
sinks reveal two primary benefits of agroforestry systems:
direct near-term C storage (decades to centuries) in trees
and soils, and, potential to offset immediate greenhouse gas
emissions associated with deforestation and shifting agriculture. On a global scale, agroforestry systems could potentially be established on 585-1275 106 ha, and these systems
could store 12-228 (median 95) tonnes C ha-1 under current
climate and soil conditions (Dixon, 1995). In the tropics,
within 20-25 years the rehabilitation of degraded farming
systems through the development of tree-based farming
systems could result in above-ground carbon sequestration from 5 tonnes C ha-1 for coffee to 60 tonnes C ha-1 forcomplex agroforestry systems (Palm et al., 2005a). Belowground carbon sequestration is generally lower, with an upper limit of about 1.3 tonnes C ha-1 yr -1 (Palm et al., 2005a).
Agroforestry systems with nitrogen-fixing tree species,
which are of particular importance in degraded landscapes,
may be associated with elevated N2O emissions (Dick et al.,2006). The benefits of tree-based carbon sequestration canhave an environmental cost in terms of some soil modification (Jackson et al., 2005) (see 3.2.2.1.7).
The value of increased carbon sequestration in agroecosystems (e.g., from no-till) must be judged against the fulllifecycle impact of CS practices on net greenhouse warming
potential (GWP).
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to +2

Scale
R

Specificity
Temperate zone

Increased carbon sequestration is not the only GWP-related change induced by adoption of agronomic practices
like no-till. No-till maize systems can be associated withcomparatively large emissions of N2O (Smith and Conen,
2004; Duxbury, 2005). Over a 100-yr timeframe, N2O is
310 times more potent in terms of GWP than CO2 (Majumdar, 2003) and higher N2O emissions from no-till systems
may negate the GWP benefits derived from increased rates
of carbon sequestration. On the other hand, soil structuralregeneration and improved drainage may eventually resultin a fewer N2O emissions in no-till systems. Nitrogen fertilization is often the surest method for increasing organic
matter stocks in degraded agroecosystems, but the benefitsof building organic matter with N fertilizer use must be discounted against the substantial CO2 emissions generated in
the production of the N fertilizer. By calculating the full lifecycle cost of nitrogen fertilizer, many of the gains in carbon
sequestration resulting from N fertilization are negated by
CO2 released in the production, distribution, and application of the fertilizer (Schlesinger, 1999; Follett, 2001; West
and Marland, 2002).
Climate change is affecting crop-pest relations.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to -3

Scale
GSpecificity
Worldwide

11/3/08 10:55:36 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 191

Climate change results in new pest introductions and hencechanges in pest-predator-parasite population dynamics ashabitat changes (Warren et al., 2001; McLaughlin et al.,
2002; Menendez et al., 2006; Prior and Halstead, 2006;
UCSUSA, 2007). These changes result from changes ingrowth and developmental rates, the number of generations
per year, the severity and density of populations, the pest
virulence to a host plant, or the susceptibility of the hostto the pest and affect the ecology of pests, their evolution
and virulence. Similarly, population dynamics of insect vectors of disease, and the ability of parasitoids to regulate pest
populations, can change (FAO, 2005a), as found in a study
across a broad climate gradient from southern Canada to
Brazil (Stireman et al., 2004). Changing weather patterns
also increase crop vulnerability to pests and weeds, thus decreasing yields and increasing pesticide applications (Rosenzweig, 2001; FAO, 2005a). Modeling can predict some ofthese changes (Oberhauser and Peterson, 2003) as well as
consequences hence aiding in the development of improved
plant protection measures, such as early warning and rapid
response to potential quarantine pests. Better informationexchange mitigates the negative effects of global warming.
However, the impacts of climate change are not unidirectional; there can be benefits.

emergencies are occurring with increasing frequency (FAO,
2005a; Jenkins et al., 2006; Oden et al., 2006). These problems are thought to be further exacerbated by climate change
because hunger, thirst and heat-stress increase susceptibility
to diseases. Small-scale farmers do not have the resources totake appropriate action to minimize these risks.

There is evidence that changes in climate and climate variability are affecting pest and disease distribution and prevalence.

3.2.2.2.4 Energy to and from agricultural systems—
bioenergy
Bioenergy has recently received considerable public attention. Rising costs of fossil fuels, concerns about energy security, increased awareness of global warming, domestic
agricultural interests and potentially positive effects for economic development contribute to its appeal to policy makers and private investors. However, the costs and benefits ofbioenergy depend critically on local circumstances and are
not always well understood (see also Chapters 4, 6, 7).

Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to -3

Scale
R

Specificity
Worldwide

Pests and diseases are strongly influenced by seasonal
weather patterns and changes in climate, as are crops andbiological control agents of pests and diseases (Stireman
et al., 2004; FAO, 2005a). Established pests may become
more prevalent due to favorable growing conditions such as
include higher winter temperatures and increased rainfall.
In the UK the last decade has been warmer than average andspecies have become established that were seen rarely before, such as the vine weevil and red mites ` with potentiallydamaging economic consequences (Prior and Halstead,2006). Temperature increase may influence crop pathogen
interactions and plant diseases by speeding up pathogen
growth rates (FAO, 2005a). Climate change may also havenegative effects on pests.
Livestock holdings are sensitive to climate change, especially drought.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-1 to -3

Scale
R

Specificity
Especially in dry tropics

Climate fluctuation is expected to threaten livestock holders in numerous ways (Fafchamps et al., 1996; Rasmussen,2003). Animals are very sensitive to heat stress, requiring
a reliable resource of drinking water, and pasture is sensitive to drought. In addition, climate change can affect the
distribution and range of insect vectors of human and livestock diseases, including species like mosquitoes (malaria,
encephalitis, dengue), ticks (tick typhus, lyme disease), andtsetse fly (sleeping sickness). These infectious and vectorborne animal diseases have increased worldwide and disease

chapter 03.indd 191

The Kyoto Protocol has recognized that Land Use, Land
Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) activities can play asubstantial role in meeting the ultimate policy objective of
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Goals
E

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

LULUCF activities are “carbon sinks” as they capture andstore carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis,
conservation of existing carbon pools (e.g., avoiding deforestation), substitution of fossil fuel energy by use of modem
biomass, and sequestration by increasing the size of carbon
pools (e.g., afforestation and reforestation or an increased
wood products pool). The most significant sink activities of
UNFCCC (www.unfccc.int) are the reduction of deforestation, and the promotion of tree planting, as well as forest,
agricultural, and rangeland management.

Biomass resources are one of the world’s largest sources ofpotentially sustainable energy, comprising about 220 billion dry tonnes of annual primary production.
Goals
E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

World biomass resources correspond to approximately 4,500
EJ (Exajoules) per year of which, however, only a small partcan be exploited commercially. In total, bioenergy provides
about 44 EJ (11%) of the world’s primary energy consumption (World Bank, 2003). The use of bioenergy is especiallyhigh (30% of primary energy consumption) in low-income
countries and the share is highest (57%) in sub-Saharan Africa, where some of the poorest countries derive more than
90% of their total energy from traditional biomass. Also
within developing countries the use of bioenergy is heavily
skewed towards the lowest income groups and rural areas.
In contrast, modern bioenergy, such as the efficient use ofsolid, liquid or gaseous biomass for the production of heat,electricity or transport fuels, which is characterized by highversatility, efficiency and relatively low levels of pollution,accounts for 2.3% of the world’s primary share of energy(FAO, 2000b; IEA, 2002; Bailis et al., 2005; Kartha, et al.,2005).

11/3/08 10:55:36 AM

192 | IAASTD Global Report

Traditional bioenergy is associated with considerable social, environmental and economic costs.
Goals
L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-3 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Especially in the tropics

The energy efficiency of traditional biomass fuels (e.g.,woodfuels) is low, putting considerable strain on environmental biomass resources, which are also important sourcesof fodder and green manure for soil fertility restoration as
well as other ecosystem services. Inefficient biomass combustion is also a key contributor to air pollution in thehomestead leading to 1.5 million premature deaths per year
(WHO, 2006). Collecting fuelwood is time-consuming, reducing the time that people can devote to productive activities each day e.g., farming and education (UNDP, 2000;
IEA, 2002; Goldemberg and Coelho, 2004; Karekezi et al.,
2004; World Bank, 2004b; Bailis et al., 2005).
Production of modern liquid biofuels for transportation,
predominantly from agricultural crops, has grown rapidly(25% per year) in recent years, spurred by concerns aboutfossil energy security and global warming and pressuresfrom agricultural interest groups.
Goals
E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Modern liquid biofuels, such as bioethanol and biodiesel
contributed only about 1% of the total road transport fueldemand worldwide in 2005 (IEA, 2006c). The main first
generation products are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol is
produced from plant-derived starch (e.g., sugar cane, sugar
beet, maize, cassava, sweet sorghum), primarily in Brazil(16,500 million liters) and the US (16,230 million liters).
In 2005, world production was over 40,100 million liters(Renewable Fuels Association, 2005). Sugar cane derived
ethanol meets about 22% of Brazil’s gasoline demand(Worldwatch Institute, 2006), much of it used in flexfuel
vehicles, which can operate under different gasoline-ethanol
blends (e.g., 10% ethanol: 90% gasoline). In terms of vehicle fuel economy, one liter of ethanol is equivalent to about
0.8 liters of gasoline—accounting for its lower energy content but higher octane value (Kojima and Johnson, 2005).
Biodiesel is typically produced chemically from vegetableoils (e.g., rapeseed, soybeans, palm oil, Jatropha seeds) bytrans-esterification to form methyl esters. Germany was theworld’s biggest producer (1,920 million liters) in 2005, followed by other European countries and the USA. Biodiesel
production has been growing rapidly (80% in 2005) but
overall production levels are an order of magnitude smaller
than ethanol (REN 21, 2006). Biodiesel contains only about
91% as much energy as conventional diesel, and can be usedin conventional diesel engines, either pure or blended withdiesel oil (EPA, 2002). Other biofuels such as methanol andbutanol only play a marginal role in markets today but may
become more important in the future.
The production of liquid biofuels for transport is rarely
economically sustainable.
Goals
E

chapter 03.indd 192

Certainty
C, E

Range of Impacts
Not yet known

Scale
G

Specificity
Mainly in developed
countries

The economic competitiveness of biofuels is widely debatedand depends critically on local market conditions and production methods. The main factors determining biofuels
competitiveness are (1) the cost of feedstock, which typicallycontributes about 60-80% of total production costs (Berg,
2004; Kojima and Johnson, 2005), (2) the value of byproducts (e.g., glycerin for biodiesel and high fructose maizesyrup for maize ethanol), (3) the technology that determines
the scale of the production facility, the type of feedstock andconversion efficiency, and (4) the delivered price of gasoline
or diesel. Brazil is widely recognized to be the world’s mostcompetitive ethanol producer from sugar cane, with 20042005 production costs of US$0.22-0.41 per liter of gasoline
equivalent (vs US$0.45-0.85 per liter in USA and Europe),
but the world price of sugar and the exchange rate of theBrazilian currency determine price competitiveness. Brazilian ethanol production can be competitive with oil prices atabout US$40-50 per barrel (versus about US$65 per barrel in Europe and USA, if one takes agricultural subsidies
into account). It is estimated that oil prices in the range of
US$66-115 per barrel would be needed for biodiesel to becompetitive on a large scale. In remote regions and landlocked countries, where exceptionally high transport costs
add to the delivered price of gasoline and diesel, the economics may be more favorable but more research is needed toassess this potential (IEA, 2004ab; Australian Government
Biofuels Task Force, 2005; European Commission, 2005;
Henke et al., 2005; Kojima and Johnson, 2005; Henninges
and Zeddies, 2006; Hill et al., 2006; IEA, 2006c; OECD,
2006a; Worldwatch Institute, 2006; Kojima et al., 2007). In
order to promote production despite these high costs biofuels are most often subsidized (see Chapter 6).
Bioelectricity and bioheat are produced mostly from biomass wastes and residues.
Goals
E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Both small-scale biomass digesters and larger-scale industrial applications have expanded in recent decades. The major
biomass conversion technologies are thermo-chemical andbiological. The thermo-chemical technologies include direct
combustion of biomass (either alone or co-fired with fossil
fuels) as well as thermo-chemical gasification (to producer
gas). Combined heat and power generation (cogeneration)is more energy efficient and has been expanding in many
countries, especially from sugarcane bagasse (Martinot etal., 2002; FAO, 2004b; REN 21, 2005; IEA, 2006a; DTI,
2006). The biological technologies include anaerobic digestion of biomass to yield biogas (a mixture primarily of
methane and carbon dioxide). Household-scale biomass
digesters that operate with local organic wastes like animal manure can generate energy for cooking, heating andlighting in rural homes and are widespread in China, India
and Nepal. However their operation can sometimes posetechnical as well as resource challenges. Industrial-scale
units are less prone to technical problems and increasingly widespread in some developing countries, especially in
China. Similar technologies are also employed in industrial
countries, mostly to capture environmentally problematic
methane emissions (e.g., at landfills and livestock holdings)

11/3/08 10:55:37 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 193

and produce energy (Balce, et al., 2003; Ghosh, et al., 2006;
IEA, 2006b). Despite the fact that production costs can becompetitive in various settings, in the past many attempts topromote wider distribution of modernized bioenergy applications have failed. Common problems included technicaldifficulties and the failure to take into account the needs andpriorities of consumers, as well as their technical capabilities, when designing promotion programs (Ezzati and Kammen, 2002; Kartha, et al., 2005; Ghosh et al., 2006).
Bioelectricity and bioheat production can be competitive
with other sources of energy under certain conditions, especially the combination of heat and power generation
within industries producing waste biomass.
Goals
E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

The competitiveness of bioelectricity and bioheat dependson (1) local availability and cost of feedstocks—many ofwhich are traded on market with strong prices variations
both regionally and seasonally; (2) capital costs and generation capacity; (3) cost of alternative energy sources; and (4)local capacity to operate and maintain generators. Generally, bioelectricity production is not competitive with gridelectricity but generation costs can compete with off-grid
option such as diesel generators in various settings. Key
to competitiveness is a high capacity utilization to compensate for relatively high capital costs and exploit cheap
feedstock costs. High capacity factors can best be reachedwhen proven technologies (e.g., thermochemical combustion) are employed 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. Estimates for power generation costs in such facilities range
from US$0.06-0.12/kWh (WADE, 2004; REN 21, 2005;
World Bank, 2005a; IEA, 2006b). In combined heat andpower mode, when capital investments can be shared between electricity and heat generation, electricity generation
costs can decrease to US$0.05-0.07/kWh, depending on thevalue of the heat (REN 21, 2005; IEA, 2006b). Thermochemical gasification can have higher generation costs andlow capacity utilization due to weak electricity demand, andtechnical failures caused by improper handling and maintenance can lead to even higher production costs (Larson,
1993; World Bank, 2005a; Banerjee, 2006; Ghosh et al.,2006; Nouni et al., 2007). Data on electricity production
costs with anaerobic digesters are not widely available,
because most digesters are not installed commercially but
through government programs to provide (1) energy accessfor rural households and villages, often solely for the provision of cooking fuel or heating or (2) methane capture on
environmental grounds (e.g., in several industrialized countries). Overall, the economics of biomass power and heatcan be improved through carbon credits.
3.2.3. Impacts of AKST on livelihoods, capacity
strengthening and empowerment
3.2.3.1 Methodologies and approaches for assessing impact
Assessing the evidence for the contribution of AKST to improving livelihoods and empowerment is complex. While

chapter 03.indd 193

there is evidence of contribution to increasing productivityof agriculture and sustainability of natural resource use, theextent to which this is relevant to specific groups of people
and translates into improved livelihoods, is more complicated, involving differential impacts between and within
populations. The difficulty of attribution applies similarly
to negative outcomes. The paths of causality are complex
and highly contingent on specific conditions (Adato andMeinzen-Dick, 2007) involving interactions between AKST
and the policies and institutional contexts in which AKST
products are promoted and adopted. Hence the assessmentsof impacts are sometimes contradictory or controversial.
The methodological challenges of impact assessment areconsiderable; especially when going beyond economic measures of impact or individual case studies. Thus it is difficult
to make broader statements on the poverty and livelihood
impacts of AKST investments and products across different
geographical regions and client groups. Impact assessments
rely on comparison—before and after a specific intervention
or change, or a “with” and “without” situation (the counterfactual either being empirically measured, or theoretically constructed assuming the best available alternatives are
pursued). This approach has been helpful in establishing the
economic returns from agricultural research and the contribution of increased productivity, but is more difficult toconstruct for the livelihood dimensions.
3.2.3.1.1 Assessment of the economic impacts of AKST
Past assessments of impacts of specific AKSTs have documented adoption, productivity increases and financial returns and consequences for national food security (Hazell
and Ramasamy, 1991; Evenson and Gollin, 2003a). Thereis evidence that agricultural productivity growth has a substantial impact on poverty reduction, although this is conditional on contextual and socioeconomic conditions, e.g.,
equitable land distribution (Kerr and Kolavalli, 1999; Hazell and Haddad, 2001; Jayne et al., 2003; Mathur et al.,
2003; Thirtle et al., 2003). Economists have developed techniques to quantify the total economic value of the multitudeof products and services (social/environmental and local/
global) from agricultural programs, such as agroforestry(Pearce and Mourato, 2004).
Impact assessments of investment in agricultural research
have shown that it has been highly cost effective.
Goals
L, E, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale+2 to +4
G, R, N

Specificity
Wide applicability

Investment in research has resulted in substantial economic gains from increased productivity. For example, in thecase of the CGIAR system benefit-cost ratios for research
have been between 1.94 (significantly demonstrated andempirically attributed) and 17.26 (plausible, extrapolated
to 2011) (Raitzer, 2003). Three innovations—MVs of rice
(47% of benefits), MVs of wheat (31% of benefits) and cassava mealy bug biocontrol (15% of benefits) account formost of the impact using the most stringent criteria, and areworth an estimated US$30 billion [at 1990 values] (Heisey
et al., 2002; Evenson and Gollin, 2003b; Hossain et al.,
2003; Raitzer, 2003; Lantican et al., 2005). While focusedon a very narrow range of species, as a measure of this

11/3/08 10:55:37 AM

194 | IAASTD Global Reportsuccess, the CGIAR has estimated that 30 years of agricultural research on seven major crops and three livestock
products has improved yield gains so much that, had thisgain not occurred, an additional 170-340 million ha of forests and grasslands would have been needed for production(Nelson and Maredia, 1999; FAO, 2003a). Other estimatesof forestalled conversion of habitat to agricultural use areas high as 970 million ha (Golkany, 1999). A cost/benefit analysis by ACIAR (Raitzer and Lindner, 2005) foundthat research projects involving forestry/agroforestry had
the greatest benefits (42.9%). Increases in total factor productivity, which contribute to increased output, are always
associated with investment in research (Pingali and Heisey,
1999; McNeely and Scherr, 2003). These studies pay lessattention to the social and institutional distribution of impacts or to noneconomic benefits.
3.2.3.1.2 Assessment of livelihood impacts of AKST
Systematic and detailed impact assessments of AKST’s contribution to livelihood improvement and the sustainabilityof livelihoods over time are generally lacking. A livelihood
is said to be sustainable “when it can cope with and recover from shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities
and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base” (Carney, 1998). 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 thefinancial and economic impacts (Hazell and Haddad, 2001;
Meinzen-Dick et al., 2004), although recent impact assessments of Participatory Methods have more comprehensively addressed these issues. Comparative case studies of
livelihood change incorporating qualitative dimensions andcomplementing other methods have begun to document the
noneconomic impacts of AKST. (www.prgaprogram.org/
modules.php?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&req=viewlink&cid=133&min=0&orderby=titleA&
show=10).
Livelihoods approaches have usefully contributed to conceptual and methodological innovations.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
R, N, LSpecificity
Wide applicability

The concept of “sustainable livelihoods” is both an AKST
product and a tool, which facilitates the analysis of livelihood status and changes and the understanding of ex anteand ex post impacts. The livelihoods framework considers
livelihoods as comprising the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. This is a broader andmore holistic view than just equating “livelihood” with income or employment (Booth et al., 1998). It links the notion of sustaining the means of living with the principle ofenvironmental sustainability (Carney, 1998).
The elements of the livelihoods framework include theassets that people use and combine to make a living, thefactors which cause vulnerability; the policies, institutions
and processes which affect the environment for livelihoods;
the livelihood strategies followed and the outcomes. The
livelihoods framework has been used to assist situational

chapter 03.indd 194

analysis for research and development planning and to assess specific institutional, policy and technology and ruraldevelopment options prior to intervention (Ashley andCarney, 1999; Shackleton et al., 2003; OECD, 2006b).
More recently it has been used to assist evaluation of outcomes and impacts (Ashley and Hussein, 2000; Adato andMeinzen-Dick, 2003; Meinzen-Dick et al., 2004; Adato andMeinzen-Dick, 2007) and has complemented more macrolevel economic impact assessments. Livelihoods analysis has
been further assisted by the development and refinement ofparticipatory tools for poverty and situational analysis, especially in the context of improving client orientation andgender relevance of agricultural research and development(World Bank, 1998). Recently, the framework has helped to
identify principles and processes critical to achieving sustainable livelihoods, and to understand the complexities associated with partnerships to promote local empowerment,
resiliency and diversification (Butler and Mazur, 2007). Its
limitations include the absence of integration of dimensionsof power, the unspecified nature of “institutions and processes” which require further elaboration of knowledge,
culture and innovation and the need for further tools to understand the dynamics of livelihood changes.
3.2.3.2 The contribution of AKST to livelihoods improvement
The improvement of livelihoods depends on the accessibility of the products of AKST. This depends on the factors
influencing uptake, the distribution of benefits of specifictechnologies and their impacts. Particular attention is paid
to impacts on overall levels of poverty and economic status,
human health; natural and physical assets, social relationships, and vulnerability.
3.2.3.2.1 AKST and poverty
Some gains have been made in the reduction of poverty,
but the contribution of AKST to increasing agricultural
production and agriculture based incomes has been very
different in different regions, agroecologies and for different groups of people.
Goals
L, D

Certainty Range of Impacts ScaleA-2 to +3
R, N, LSpecificity
Incidence of poverty remains highin some African countries

AKST and agricultural transformation have had an important influence on the economic and social situation of many
countries. Poverty is a serious global problem with 3 billion people (2.1 billion are rural poor) earning less than thepurchasing power equivalent of US$2/day. The impacts of
AKST are location specific and depend on complex interacting factors. Between 1990 and 2002, the proportion ofpeople living in extreme poverty fell more rapidly in muchof Asia compared with Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean (UN, 2006a); while in central and eastern Europe,
the poverty rates increased. In sub-Saharan Africa, although
there was a small decline in the rate of poverty, the numberof people living in extreme poverty increased by 140 million. Poor countries (especially in SSA) have gained proportionately less than some richer countries (USA and Europe).
Similarly, major benefits have escaped marginal agroecological regions (rain-fed dryland areas) and marginalized

11/3/08 10:55:38 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 195

The initial success of the Green Revolution was a result of
its focus on more favorable irrigated rice and wheat systems(Huang et al., 2002), but crop varieties bred for responsiveness to such conditions were less successful when the focus
shifted to more marginal and variable environments (Smaleet al., 1998; Witcombe et al., 2001). Although the adoptionof “modern” varieties has been widespread (up to 70% insome crops) (Evenson and Gollin, 2003ab), farmers in moremarginal areas have not always benefited from the latest
research on pest/disease resistance and yield (Witcombe,
1999; Witcombe et al., 2001). Varieties bred on researchstations have not always been well adapted to local conditions and preferences; nor for acceptable quality, utility for
multipurpose uses; or acceptable postharvest characteristics(e.g., easy to thresh/process, good taste, good storability).
Consequently, comparatively few of the hundreds of rice varieties released in India are grown by farmers (Witcombe etal., 1998) while some traditional varieties, e.g., a peanut variety grown in southern India, remain popular (Bantilan etal., 2003). Some new and potentially better modern varieties have failed to reach farmers due to the inefficiency of thevarietal release and seed multiplication system (Witcombe
et al., 1988). Participatory approaches can help overcome
this inefficiency (Uphoff, 2002).

600 million livestock keepers globally, most of whom are inmixed rainfed systems, 430 million are resource poor andconcentrated in SSA and south Asia (Heffernan et al., 2005).
The important developments in livestock technologies (feedtechnologies in intensive livestock production systems; artificial insemination; embryo transfer, etc.) are more widelyused in the industrialized world, as there are constraints toapplying these technologies in developing countries (Madan,2005). Thus, the rapid growth in consumption of livestock
products in developing countries has been due to increased
numbers, rather than increased productivity (Delgado etal., 1999). Vaccination against major animal diseases has
been successful in developing countries, e.g., rinderpest in
Africa and Newcastle disease in Asia. In Africa, net annual
economic benefit attributed to the elimination of rinderpest
has been valued at US$1 billion (http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/aph/stories/2005-rinderpest-eradication.html).
Likewise, heat stable vaccination against Newcastle disease
has led to improved village poultry production in Indonesia and Malaysia, with returns equivalent of US$1.3 million
and $2.15 million respectively. The latter success was associated with understanding of the social implications andsituation at village level, well developed extension packages,
government leadership, and training workshops for seniorpolicy administrators, laboratory staff and livestock officers(http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/207692/7_1_1_cases.PDF). Tsetse fly eradication projects have had some success, especially where farmer-based and demand-driven approaches to control are adopted and where cohesive groups
can function as the basis for collective action (Dransfield etal., 2001). Positive impacts of livestock research for poor
producers have occurred through the introduction of new
institutional forms, such as dairy cooperatives in India andwith a supportive national policy and legislative environment. Nevertheless, many livestock projects have not had
satisfactory long-term effects on the livelihoods of the poor
(LID, 1999). In general, the uptake and impact of livestock
technologies in developing countries is often constrained by
the lack of a poverty reduction focus, their higher financial
and labor demands, an overly narrow technical focus, inappropriate technologies, failure to take into account the social context of production, patterns of ownership and local
knowledge and weak private sector development (Livestock
in Development, 1999), or because wealthier farmers or
herders captured the benefits (Heffernan et al., 2005).

Livestock are important for rural livelihoods, but livestock
technologies have made only a limited contribution to improving rural livelihoods.

Social and economic impacts of GMOs depend on the socioeconomic and institutional circumstances of the countryof introduction.

people (small-scale farmers, landless people, seasonally mobile populations, women and the poorest) (Fan et al., 2000;
Hazell and Haddad, 2001; Sayer and Campbell, 2001).
While the Green Revolution yielded large production gains
in some commodity crops, basic grains and livestock, it wasoften at the expense of environmental degradation (Pingali and Rosegrant, 1994). Elsewhere, for example, in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in India, it benefited the poor,
including some landless laborers, reducing inequality andimproving economic opportunities (Hazell and Ramasamy,
1991; Sharma and Poleman, 1993). Intensive agriculturaldevelopment, particularly in Europe, led to oversupply,
sanitary problems affecting livestock production and ecological issues, while the concentration of production caused
economic and social decline in marginal areas (Hervieu andViard, 1996).
Farmers have not always benefited from crop breeding.
Goals
N, H, L, S

Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G, R, N, L

Range of Impacts Scale+1 to +3
R, N, LSpecificity
Widespread

Specificity
New AKST more positive inindustrialized countries.

Livestock are of greater importance to poor people and thelandless than those with higher incomes (Delgado et al.,1999). Livestock management in difficult environments isknowledge-intensive and integrated into complex social
and natural resource management systems. In general,
small-scale farmers have largely relied on traditional andlocal knowledge to sustain their livestock production systems (Falvey and Chantalakhana, 1999). Of an estimatedchapter 03.indd 195

Goals
L, E, S, D

Certainty
CE

Range of
Impacts-3 to +2

Scale
N

Specificity
Mainly in large scale farms inindustrialized countries

There have been positive farm level economic benefits from
GMOs for large scale producers, but less evidence of positive impact for small producers in developing countries. The
adoption of the commercially available GM commodity
crops (over 90% of global area planted) has mostly occurredin large scale industrial, chemical intensive agricultural systems in North and South America (95.2% of production),with small areas in India and China (James, 2006), and the

11/3/08 10:55:38 AM

196 | IAASTD Global Reportrest is shared among 16 other countries worldwide. There islittle consensus among the findings from the assessments ofeconomic and environmental impacts of GMOs. An analysis of the global impact of biotech crops from 1996 to 2006
showed substantial net economic benefits at the farm level;
reduced pesticide spraying, decreased environmental impact
associated with pesticide use and reduced release of greenhouse gas emission (Brookes and Barfoot, 2006). A different
study of the economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries found positive, but highly variable economic
returns to adoption (Raney, 2006). In this case, institutional
factors such as the national agriculture research capacity,
environmental and food safety regulations, IPRs and agriculture input markets determined the level of benefits, asmuch as the technology itself (Raney, 2006). Adoption ofGM cotton in South Africa is symptomatic, not of farmer
endorsement of GM technology, but of the profound lack offarmers’ choice and a failure to generate sufficient incomein agroecosystems without a high level of intensification(Witt et al., 2006). Other studies have concluded that GM
technologies have contributed very little to increased foodproduction, nutrition, or the income of farmers in less-developed countries (Herdt, 2006), or even led to deskilling of
farmers (Stone, 2007). In Argentina, many large scale farmers have greatly benefited from the use of herbicide resistantsoybeans (Trigo and Cap, 2003; Qaim and Traxler, 2004).
However significant socioeconomic and environmental
problems have arisen from the increased area of soybeans
linked to the introduction of GM soybean for small-scale orlandless farmers, which enabled them to produce at significantly lower costs, with expansion on marginal lands (Trigo
and Cap, 2003; Benbrook, 2005; Joensen et al., 2005; Pengue, 2005). In India, claims regarding benefits or damages
are highly controversial with reports presenting opposing
data and conclusions (e.g., Qayum and Sakkhari, 2005 vs.
Morse et al., 2005).
3.2.3.2.2 Health and nutrition
Rates of hunger have been decreasing but hunger is stillcommon despite the advances of AKST and the Green Revolution.
Goals
N, H, L, S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-3 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Mostly in developing countries

Although the Green Revolution and other AKST have hadsignificant impacts on increased food supply, the reductionof hunger and malnutrition has been unevenly distributed
across the world. Currently, the number of people definedas hungry in 2006 was 854 million people, of whom 820
million lived in developing countries (FAO, 2006e). In parallel, food consumption per person has risen from 2358 to
2803 kcal per day between the mid 1960s and late 1990s.
Now, only 10% of the global population lives in countries
with food consumption below 2200 kcal, while 61% live incountries consuming over 2700 kcal (FAO, 2005c). However the incidence of hunger has not declined in many countries of sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2005c), where population
growth (3%) outstrips increases in food production (2%).
In 2005, it was estimated that 13% of the world population(850 million people) are energy-undernourished, of whom

chapter 03.indd 196

780 million were in developing countries (FAO, 2005c).
Hunger is not explained by a simple relationship between
food supply and population, as adverse agricultural conditions, poverty, political instability, alone or in combination,
are contributing factors (Sen, 1981).
Rates of malnutrition are decreasing, but undernutrition isstill a leading cause of health loss worldwide despite AKST
advances.
Goals
N, H, L, S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-4 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Mostly in developing countries

AKST has been important in reducing malnutrition, especially in mothers and children. Although the world food system provides protein and energy to over 85% people, only
two-thirds have access to sufficient dietary micronutrientsfor good health (Black, 2003). Child stunting malnutrition
reduced in developing countries from 47% in 1980 to 33%
in 2000, but is still a major public health problem with 182
million stunted preschool children in developing countries(70% in Asia and 26% in Africa) (de Onis, 2000). Factors
implicated include low national per capita food availability, lack of essential nutrients due to poor diet diversity,
poor child breast feeding patterns, high rates of infectious
disease, poor access to safe drinking water, poor maternal
education, slow economic growth and political instability(de Onis, 2000). Under nutrition remains the single leading
cause of health loss worldwide (Ezzati et al., 2003), andbeing underweight causes 9.5% of the total disease burden
worldwide. In developing countries this is linked with nearly
50% of malaria, respiratory diseases and diarrhea. Selecteddietary micronutrient deficiencies (iron, vitamin A and zinc
deficiency) were responsible for 6.1% of world disease burden (Ezzati et al., 2003).
A focus on increased production and food security rather
than diet quality has contributed to a rise in obesity worldwide and the double burden of under- and overnutrition indeveloping countries.
Goals
N, H, L, S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to+2

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide

A focus on energy needs, rather than improved nutrition andaccess to a balanced and healthy diet, has been one factor inincreasing overweight and obesity worldwide (Black, 2003;
Hawkes, 2006). Increased food production and per capita
availability together with a decline in world prices since the1960s has created food energy abundance for more than
60% of the world (FAO, 2005c). Dietary and nutritionaltransitions have occurred worldwide, with actual patternsof diet change and hence health impacts varying (Popkin,
1998; Caballero, 2005). Socioeconomic, demographic
and environmental changes have occurred that affect foodavailability, food choices, activity and life patterns (e.g., urbanization, work practices, transport, markets and trade)(Hawkes, 2006). Diet trends have resulted in widespread decreasing intake of fruits and vegetables and increasing intakeof meat, sugar, salt and energy-dense processed foods (Popkin, 1998; WHO/FAO, 2003). Dietary fat now accounts for
up to 26-30% of caloric intake, and there has been marked
increases in both meat and fish intake (see 3.2.1). These

11/3/08 10:55:39 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 197

dietary changes have contributed to rapidly rising obesity
and its related chronic diseases such as “type 2” diabetes,
hypertension, heart disease and cancers globally (WHO/
FAO, 2003). In 2005 more people were overweight (1.6 billion adults [age 15+]) than underweight worldwide and 400
million adults were obese (WHO, 2005a). This problem is
now increasing in low- and middle-income countries (below
5% in China, Japan and certain African nations, to 40%
in Colombia, Brazil, Peru (www.iaso.org), and over 75%
in the Pacific), particularly in urban settings—almost 20%
in some Chinese cities (WHO, 2003). In Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific, there is now the double diet-relateddisease burden of undernutrition and obesity (Filozof et al.,
2001; Monteiro et al., 2002; Rivera et al., 2002; Caballero,2005).
Dietary diversity is a key element of a healthy diet.
Goals
N, H, L, S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+2 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide

With the increased focus on staple starch crops, and global
food trends, dietary diversity has declined over recent decades (Hatloy et al., 2000; Marshall et al., 2001; Hoddinott
and Yohannes, 2002). However, many studies have recognized the need for a diverse and balanced diet for optimum
health (Randall et al., 1985; Krebs-Smith et al., 1987; Hatloy et al., 2000; Marshall et al., 2001). Healthy diets include
fruits and vegetables, animal source proteins, and sourcesof fiber to (1) minimize the risks of cancer (Tuyns et al.,1987), vascular (Wahlquist et al., 1989) and cardiovasculardiseases (Cox et al., 2000; Veer et al., 2000); (2) optimize
birth weight of children (Rao et al., 2001), maintain overall
health (Ruel, 2002), and prolong life expectancy (Kant etal., 1993), and (3) maximize earning capacity from manuallabor (Ali and Farooq, 2004; Ali et al., 2006). Various measures and standards have been developed for food quality,
which include Diet Quality Index (Patterson et al., 1994),
Analysis of Core Foods (Kristal et al., 1990), and Healthy
Eating Index (Kennedy et al., 1995). In addition, Dietary
Diversity Scores are being devised to measure diet quality(Kant et al., 1993, 1995; Hatloy et al., 1998; Marshall etal., 2001; Ali and Farooq, 2004). A methodology has beendeveloped to prioritize food commodities based on their total nutritive values (Ali and Tsou, 2000). Unlike food safety
standards, measures of food quality or diet diversity havenot been implemented nationally or internationally.
Food based approaches to tackle micronutrient deficiencies
have long term benefits on health, educational ability andproductivity.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+2 to +4

Scale
R

Specificity
Mainly in developing countries

Although the potential of food based dietary diversification to reduce micronutrient deficiency disease has not been
fully explored or exploited (Ruel and Levin, 2000), new approaches to overcoming micronutrient deficiencies are focusing on diet diversification and food fortification. Foodfortification has to date mostly been applied in industrialized countries, as technical, sociocultural, economic andchapter 03.indd 197

other challenges have constrained their use in less developed
countries (WHO, 2005c). Food fortification is potentiallymore cost effective and sustainable than treating people
with food supplements and is compatible with giving greater attention to diversified production of fruits, vegetables,
oilcrops and grain legumes, as well as diverse animal source
proteins including fish, poultry and dairy products (FAO,
1997). It is likely that a combination of strategies, including greater emphasis on traditional foods (Leakey, 1999a),is required to tackle micronutrient malnutrition (Johns andEyzaguirre, 2007).
Animal source protein is one component of a healthy dietbut rapid increases in livestock production and red meat
consumption pose health risks by directly contributing tocertain chronic diseases.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
A/B

Range of Impacts+3 to -3

Scale
GSpecificity
Worldwide

Animal source protein can be an important component of ahealthy diet, but moderate consumption of meat and fish is
desirable. A rapid rise in meat consumption in high, middle
and some low income countries is linked to increased rates
of ischaemic heart disease (particularly related to saturatedfat), obesity and colorectal cancer (Law, 2000; Delgado,
2003; Popkin and Du, 2003; Larsson and Wolk, 2006). In
the lowest income countries, especially Africa, consumptionof animal source foods is often low, leading to malnutrition(Bwibo and Neumann, 2003). Moderate fish consumption
has health benefits, e.g., reducing rates of coronary heartdisease deaths (Mozaffarian and Rimm, 2006). Replacing
ruminant red meat by monogastric animals or vegetarian
farmed fish would create sources of animal source protein
which would reduce rates of chronic diseases. A positive environmental side-effect could be reduced methane gas emissions (McMichael et al., 2007).
AKST has not solved food security problems for the rural
poor.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-4 to -2

Scale
R

Specificity
Rural poor in developing
countries

The rural poor (who comprise 80% of those hungry worldwide) are dependent on environmental resources and services, are highly vulnerable to environmental degradationand climate change, and have poor access to markets, healthcare, infrastructure, fresh water, communications, and education. Wild and indigenous plants and animals are important to the dietary diversity and food security of an estimated 1 billion people (FAO, 2005b). Increased populationpressures on forests and woodlands has led to a decline ingathered natural foods (Johns et al., 2006), which are oftenrich in nutrients, vitamins and minerals (Leakey, 1999a).
The expansion of urban areas has also reduced the sourcesof fresh food from home gardens (Ali et al., 2006), as has
the focus on large-scale, industrial production of crops andlivestock at the expense of smaller mixed farming systems
employed by the poor.

11/3/08 10:55:39 AM

198 | IAASTD Global Report

AKST has led to improvements in food safety although
microbiological and chemical hazards continue to cause asignificant health problem.
Goals
N, H, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-3 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide

The emphasis of current food safety is on reducing thetransmission of food- and water-borne infectious disease
related to production, processing, packaging and storage,
and chemical and other non-infectious food contamination. The latter include environmental contaminants suchas mercury in fish and mycotoxins, as well as food additives,
agrochemicals and veterinary drugs, such as antibiotics andhormones (Brackett, 1999; Kitinoja and Gorny, 1999). To
improve food safety and quality there has been increased
attention to traceability, risk assessment, the provision ofcontrols (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point [HACCP])
and the implementation of food safety standards, such as
GAP, GMP like ISO 9000, EUREP GAP and HACCP. In
addition, AKST has developed both simple and high-technology solutions to extend shelf life and make stored foods
safer. Techniques include low-cost, simple technology treatment of wastewater for irrigation; cost-effective methods
for reducing microbial load on intact and fresh-cut fruit andvegetables; improved efficacy of water purification, suchas chlorination/ozonizations (Kader, 2003); refrigerationand deep freezing; food irradiation; modified atmospherepackaging, laboratory and production-line surveillance,and genetic engineering. However public concern about thepotential risks associated with new technologies has led tocalls for rigorous risk assessments based on international
standards (WHO, 2002). These technologies, linked to better transport have increased year-round access to healthy,safe food for many, but these public health benefits are unequally distributed and favor high-income consumers.
Emerging human and animal infectious diseases are linked
to poor or limited application of AKST.
Goals
N, H, L, S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide

Of 204 infectious diseases currently emerging in both highand low income countries, 75% are zoonotic (transmitted
between animals and humans) (Taylor et al., 2001). Theypose direct threats to human health and indirect socioeconomic impacts affecting rural livelihoods due to trade
restrictions. Recent high-profile examples of these animal
diseases infecting humans through the food chain include
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in cows and avian influenza (H5N1) in poultry. In both cases transmission
has been linked to low standards in the animal feed industry and the increase of antimicrobial resistance arising fromthe use of antibiotics in industrialized farming systems. As
this resistance will limit prevention and treatment of these
diseases, the World Health Organization recommended theelimination of subtherapeutic medical antibiotic use in livestock production in 1997, and called for strict regulationand phasing out of other subtherapeutic treatments, such as
growth promotants (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/03/1058&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en). Adequate surveillance

chapter 03.indd 198

and control programs have not been introduced in many
countries.
The health focus of industrial food processing and marketing has mainly been on adding value and increasing shelflife, and not on improving nutrition.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide

AKST has focused on adding value to basic foodstuffs (e.g.,using potatoes to produce a wide range of snack foods).
This has led to the development of cheap, processed foodproducts with long shelf life but reduced nutritive value(Shewfelt and Bruckner, 2000). Postharvest treatments toextend shelf life of fruit and vegetables degrade provitaminA, such as β-carotene, and reduce the bioavailability of nutrients (AVRDC, 1987; Zong et al., 1998). The benefits ofthis food processing technology tend to be unequally distributed between producer and retailer, with increasingly lower
percentages of the final cost of processed food reaching therural producers. In developed countries this has led to concerns that retailers may abuse their market power vis-à-vis
other producers and consumers. The emphasis on “adding
value” has also has also lowered the incentive to promotehealthy fresh produce such as fruits and vegetables. Recent
initiatives to develop processed “health foods” are predominantly aimed at rich consumers (Hasler, 2000). Food labeling and health claims on packaged foods are a major sourceof nutritional information for consumers (EHN, 2001),
but voluntary labeling approaches (such as guideline daily
amounts) are difficult for consumers to understand, reducing their ability to make informed choice about the nutritional value of the foods. As mentioned earlier, processedenergy-dense foods (high in fat, salt and sugar) are contributing to increasing rates of obesity and associated chronic
diseases (Nestle, 2003).
Agricultural production and trade policies have influenced
negative trends in global nutrition and health.
Goals
N, H, L, S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-3 to -1

Scale
GSpecificity
Worldwide

Despite the clear links between diet, disease and health, agricultural policy has been dominated by production rather
than diet objectives (Lang and Heasman, 2004). There is international agreement on the requirements of a healthy diet
(WHO/FAO, 2003), and the ability of diets rich in fruits andvegetables to reduce diseases like heart disease, stroke, andmany cancers (Ness and Powles, 1997; WCRF/AICR, 1997;
Bazzano et al., 2001; Lock et al., 2005). Saturated fatty acids (naturally present in animal fats) lead to increased serum cholesterol levels and a higher risk of coronary heartdisease. Trans-fatty acids, caused by industrial hydrogenation of vegetable or marine oils by the food industry, cause
higher risks of heart disease (Mozaffarian et al., 2006; Willet et al., 2006). Agricultural policies and production methods influence what farmers grow, and what people consume, through their influence on food availability and price(Hawkes, 2007). The liberalization of agricultural markets
and the rise of a global, industrialized food system have had

11/3/08 10:55:39 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 199

major effects on consumption patterns, resulting in highpublic health costs and externalities (Lang and Heasman,2004). This has resulted in a convergence of consumption
habits worldwide, with lower income groups increasingly
exposed to energy dense foods, while high-income groups
benefit from the global market (Hawkes, 2006).
Agrochemical use can have both positive and negative impacts on health.
Goals
H, L, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-3 to 0

Scale
R

Specificity
Mainly in developing countries

Agrochemicals have been responsible for increasing foodproduction and as part of the control of some important
human diseases such as malaria. However, they can also
cause a wide range of acute and chronic health problems(O’Malley, 1997; Kishi, 2005). Chronic health effects include reproductive, neurological, developmental/learning
disabilities, endocrine-disruption, and some cancers. WHO
has estimated that there are at least 3 million cases eachyear of pesticide poisoning worldwide, one million of which
are thought to be unintentional poisoning and two million
suicide attempts, leading to about 220,000 deaths annually(WHO, 1986). The majority of these cases occur in developing countries where knowledge of health risks and safe use
is limited, and harmful pesticides, whose use may be banned
in developed regions, are easily accessible (Smit, 2002). In
developing countries, acute poisoning of agricultural workers can result from poor training and lack of proper safety
equipment (Repetto and Baliga, 1996), as well as an inability to read and understand health warnings. Small-scale
farmers may be too poor to purchase the necessary protective equipment (if available), and may not have access towashing facilities in the fields or at home. Studies of farmworkers and children living in agricultural areas in the USA
and in developing countries indicate that adverse health impacts are also experienced by children playing around pesticide treated fields, and people drinking pesticide contaminated water supplies (Curl et al., 2002; Fenske et al., 2002).
Pesticide related illness results in economic losses (Cole etal., 2000).
Poor health has negative impacts on agricultural productivity and the application of AKST.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S,

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-4 to -2

Scale
R

Specificity
Mainly developing countries

Agricultural production can be negatively affected by thepoor health of agricultural workers, resulting from malnutrition, chronic noncommunicable diseases and infectious diseases (Croppenstedt and Muller, 2000; Jayne et al.,2004). Poor health also affects farmers’ ability to innovateand develop farming systems (Jayne et al., 2004). Many
studies show that communities with high disease prevalence
experience financial and labor shortages. They respond bychanging crops and reducing the area of land under cultivation, consequently decreasing productivity (Fox, 2004;
Jayne et al., 2004). Ill health among families of producers
can further reduce household income or other outputs offarm work as the able-bodied absent themselves from workin order to care for their sick family members (Jayne et al.,chapter 03.indd 199

2004). In developing countries these issues are most clearly
illustrated by the impact of HIV/AIDS (Fox, 2004; Jayne etal., 2004), which, due to reductions in life expectancy, also
results in loss of local agricultural knowledge and reduced
capacity to apply AKST.
Agriculture has one of the worst occupational health andsafety records.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-4 to 0

Scale
R, G

Specificity
Worldwide

Irrespective of age, agriculture is one of the three most dangerous occupations (with mining and construction) in termsof deaths, accidents and occupational-related ill-health(ILO, 2000). Half of all fatal accidents worldwide occur inagriculture. Many agricultural practices are potentially hazardous to the health of agricultural workers, including useof agrochemicals and increasing mechanization. Agriculture
is traditionally an underregulated sector in many countries
and enforcement of safety regulations is often difficult due todispersed nature of agricultural activity and lack of awareness of the nature and extent of the hazards. It is estimatedthat some 132 million children under 15 years of age workon farms and plantations worldwide due to lack of policies
to prevent agricultural child labor (ILO, 2006). This work
exposes them to a number of health hazards, as well as removing them from education. AKST has not addressed thetradeoffs of policies and technologies to minimize harm andmaximize the health and livelihoods benefits.
The limited availability of supplies of fresh potable water
is a health issue, especially in dry areas with diminishingwater resources and where there are threats from nitratepollution of water bodies and aquifers.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to 0

Scale
R

Specificity
Developing countries mainly

The lack of access to clean drinking water is estimated tobe responsible for nearly 90% of diarrheal disease in developing countries (Ezzati et al., 2003). Reducing this healthhazard and improving the access to clean drinking water is
one of the Millennium Development Goals; currently Africa
is not on track to meet these targets. In some areas of the
Sahel, aquifers are becoming seriously polluted by N pulses
reaching water tables (Edmunds et al., 1992; Edmunds andGaye, 1997). This N is probably of natural origin, since Nfixing plants used dominate in natural vegetation and, in
the absence of land clearance, the N was probably recycled
in the upper soil profile through leaf litter deposition anddecomposition. However, following deforestation, the nutrient recycling process is lost and N is slowly leached down
the profile. High N contamination has serious implications
for the future potability of groundwater for the human population and their livestock.
The safety of GMO foods and feed is controversial due tolimited available data, particularly for long-term nutritional consumption and chronic exposure.
Goals
N, H, L, E

Certainty
C, E

Range of Impacts-3 to 0

Scale
Specificity
N, R Mainly in industrialized countries

11/3/08 10:55:40 AM

200 | IAASTD Global Report

Food safety is a major issue in the GMO debate. Potential
concerns include alteration in nutritional quality of foods,
toxicity, antibiotic resistance, and allergenicity from consuming GM foods. The concepts and techniques used forevaluating food and feed safety have been outlined (WHO,2005b), but the approval process of GM crops is consideredinadequate (Spök et al., 2004). Under current practice, data
are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible.
Recently, the data for regulatory approval of a new Bt-maize
variety (Mon863) was challenged. Significant effects havebeen found on a number of measured parameters and a callhas been made for more research to establish their safety(Seralini et al., 2007). For example, the systemic broad spectrum herbicide glyphosate is increasingly used on herbicide
resistant soybean, resulting in the presence of measurable
concentrations of residues and metabolites of glyphosate
in soybean products (Arregui et al., 2004). In 1996, EPA
reestablished pesticide thresholds for glyphosate in various
soybean products setting standards for the presence of such
residues in herbicide resistant crop plants (EPA, 1996ab).
However, no data on long-term consumption of low dosesof glyphosate metabolites have been collected.
3.2.3.2.3 Access to assets
Increased returns from agriculture result in improvementsin the educational status of children.
Goals
L, S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +4G

Specificity
Wide applicability

The successful application of AKST results in improvementsin the access of children to education. Enrollment in primary education has increased in developing countries (86%overall). This is highest in southern Asia (89%) but lower
in some countries of Africa, western Asia and Oceania (UN,2006a). Numbers of children out of school are much greaterin poor rural areas (30%) than in urban areas (18%); 20%of girls and 17% of boys do not attend primary school. A
key factor linking agriculture and education is that womenare more likely to invest their assets in children’s food andeducation when they have control of the assets and the benefits from increased productivity (Quisumbing and Maluccio, 1999) (see 3.2.3.4).
Access and rights to natural assets (agricultural, grazing,
forest land and water) and the conditions and security ofthat access, critically affect the livelihoods of many of theworld’s poorest households.
Goals
L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts Scale-4 to +4G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Land tenure systems are dynamic and subject to change;e.g., in situations of population expansion, competition forland for new investment opportunities, urban expansion
and road development (Platteau, 1996; Barbier, 1997; Toulmin and Quan, 2000; Chauveau et al., 2006). Differences inaccess to land resources relate to status and power with migrants, women and people of lower social status being themost vulnerable to expropriation (Blarel, 1994; Jayne et al.,2003). Disputes over land are common in much of Africa

chapter 03.indd 200(Bruce and Migot-Adholla, 1994; Place, 1995; Deininger
and Castagnini, 2006). Households with land are generally
better placed to make productive use of their own resources(especially labor), as well as to access capital for investment(Deininger, 2003). Conversely, land concentration and increasing landlessness may give rise to conflicts and threatensocial stability, unless alternative investments and opportunities are available (Gutierrez and Borras, 2004; Mushara
and Huggins, 2004; Cotula et al., 2006). In many countries,
particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, there are a number ofcoexisting systems of authority related to land. The main
contrast is between customary and statutory law, althoughthese categories mask multiple secondary rights. Security ofland tenure is seen as a precondition for intensifying agricultural production and as a prerequisite for better natural resources management and sustainable development
and therefore a factor for poverty alleviation (Maxwell
and Wiebe, 1998; Mzumara, 2003). Secure tenure is also
important to facilitate access to credit and input markets;
however, conclusions drawn about the effects of land tenure systems on investment and productivity vary considerably. Policies and programs establishing individual rights
in land through land titling have not produced clear evidence showing tenure has led to greater agricultural growth(Quan, 2000), or to improved efficiency (Place and Hazell,1993). In contrast, without supportive policies, it is difficultfor poor small-scale farmers, particularly women, to enter
emerging land markets (Toulmin and Quan, 2000; Quan etal., 2005). Despite women’s key role in agricultural production, in many countries women’s rights over land are lessthan those of men (Place, 1995; Lastarria-Cornhiel, 1997;
Meinzen-Dick et al., 1997; Jackson, 2003). Formal rights
to land for women can have an impact on intra-household
decision making, income pooling, and women’s overall rolein the household economy as well as empowering their
participation in community decision making (World Bank,
2005b). Government land registration processes have sometimes further entrenched women’s disadvantage over landby excluding their rights and interests (Lastarria-Cornhiel,1997). In some countries, land policy strategies have explored alternatives that limit open access while avoiding
the rigidity of individual private ownership and titles; forexample management by user groups (Ostrom, 1994) andmore open participatory and decentralized policies and institutions for land and land rights management. Regarding
water resources, poor communities are often adversely affected by limited access to water for drinking, domestic use,
agriculture and other productive purposes. Water access has
been improved by institutional and policy innovations inwater management and water rights (see 3.2.4.1).
Large scale applications of modern AKST in the water sector have resulted in winners and losers among rural communities.
Goals
L, E, S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale-3 to + 2
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Large scale irrigation schemes have had important impacts
on livelihoods. However, while building the value of assets
for some, the displacement of populations is one of the notable negative consequences of irrigation schemes, especially

11/3/08 10:55:40 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 201

where large scale infrastructure has been built. Dams havefragmented and transformed the world’s rivers, displacing
40-80 million people in different parts of the world (WCD,
2000). Criteria for land allocation do not necessarily guarantee a place in the irrigated schemes for those who havelost their land and resettlement can result in impoverishment (Cernea, 1999).
Access to energy provides important livelihood benefits andimproves opportunities to benefit from AKST.
Goals
H, L, E, S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +4
R, N LSpecificity
Wide applicability

Energy is an essential resource for economic development(DFID, 2002), but more than 1.5 billion people are without
access to electricity. In developing countries, approximately
44% of rural and 15% of urban households do not haveaccess to electricity, while in sub-Sahara Africa, these figures increase to 92% and 42% respectively (IEA, 2006c).
There is a direct correlation between a country’s per capita
energy consumption (and access) and its industrial progress,
economic growth and Human Development Index (UNDP,
2006a). Estimates of the financial benefits arising from access to electricity for rural households in the Philippines
were between $81 and $150 per month, largely due to theimproved returns on education and opportunity costs fromtime saved, lower cost of lighting, and improved productivity (UNDP/ESMAP, 2002a). Affordable and reliable ruralenergy is important in stimulating agricultural related enterprises (Fitzgerald et al., 1990). However, rapid electrification, without the necessary support structures to ensure
effectiveness and sustainability, does not bring benefits. Decentralized approaches to electricity provision delivered byprivate sector, NGOs or community based organizations arepresenting viable alternatives that can improve access forrural households.
Improved utilization of biomass energy sources and alternative clean fuels for cooking can benefit livelihoods, especially for women and children.
Goals
H, L, E, S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +4

Scale
Specificity
N, L Mainly developing countries

More than 2.5 billion people use biomass such as fuel wood,
charcoal, crop waste and animal dung as their main sourceof energy for cooking. Biomass accounts for 90% of household energy consumption in many developing countries(IEA, 2006c). Smoke produced from the burning of biomass
using simple cooking stoves without adequate ventilation,
can lead to serious environmental health problems (Ezzati
and Kammen, 2002; Smith, 2006), particularly for womenand children (Dasgupta et al., 2004). Women and children
are most often responsible for fuel collection, an activity
with competes significantly with time for other activities, including agriculture (e.g., 37 hours per household per monthin one study in rural India) (UNDP/ESMAP, 2002b). Simple
interventions such as improved stoves can reduce biomass
consumption by more than 50% and can reduce the effects
of indoor smoke (Baris et al., 2006).

chapter 03.indd 201

The successful achievement of development goals is greatest when social and local organizational development isa key component of technology development and dissemination and when resource poor farmers are involved inproblem-solving.
Goals
L, S,D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +3G

Specificity
Widespread in developing
countries

The social and cultural components of natural resource use
and agricultural decision making are fundamental influenceson the outcomes from AKST. They operate both at the levelof individual actors and decision makers, and at group orcommunity level. Community based approaches have had
important results in promoting social cohesion; enhancing
governance by building consensus among multiple stakeholders for action around problem issues; and facilitating
community groups to influence policy makers (Sanginga etal., 2007). Community based, collective resource management groups that build trust and social capital increasingly
common (Scoones and Thompson, 1994; Agrawal and Gibson, 1999; Pretty, 2003). Since the early 1990s, about 0.40.5 million local resource management groups have been established. In the US, hundreds of grassroots rural ecosystem
place-based management groups have been described as a
new environmental movement (Campbell, 1994), enhancing the governance of “the commons” and investment confidence (Pretty, 2003). They have been effective in improving the management of watersheds, forests, irrigation, pests,
wildlife conservation, fisheries, micro-finance and farmer’s
research. In conservation programs, however, there aresometimes negative impacts from social capital; the social
exclusion of certain groups or categories or the manipulation of associations by individuals with self-interest (Olivier
de Sardan, 1995; Pretty, 2003). When promoting community participation and decision making, it is important to set
in place mechanisms to ensure the participation of the mostvulnerable or socially excluded groups such as women, thepoorest, or those living in remote areas, to ensure their voices are heard and their rights protected (see 3.2.3.3).
Initiatives to enhance social sustainability are strengthened if accompanied by policies that ensure the poorest
can participate.
Goals
L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +4G

Specificity
Widespread in the tropics

Poor people in the community are empowered by programs
that build or transfer assets and develop human capital(health care, literacy and employment—particularly in offfarm enterprises) (IDS, 2006; UNDP, 2006b). The alternative and more costly scenario is the mitigation of livelihoodand natural resource failure in poor rural areas, throughlong-term welfare support and emergency relief (Dorward
et al., 2004).
3.2.3.2.4 Vulnerability and risk
Although AKST has had many positive impacts, it is now
clear that in some circumstances it has also been a strong

11/3/08 10:55:41 AM

202 | IAASTD Global Reportnegative driver/factor for exclusion/marginalization processes.
Goals
L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-3 to 0Scale
GSpecificity
Wide applicability

Although AKST has often had positive benefits on peoples’
livelihoods, there have also been negative impacts. Exclusion and marginalization processes such as poverty, hunger
or rural migration, have often occurred because of differences in people’s capacity to make use of knowledge andtechnology and to access resources (Mazoyer and Roudart,1997). These differences are usually the result of discriminatory or exclusionary practices due to gender, class, age orother social variables. The implementation of new technology has implications for social differentiation, sometimes
excluding farmers and their families from production andmarketing.
Target-oriented programs have responded to this problem by building in awareness of access issues relating to
AKST into project design; by monitoring poverty related
indicators throughout implementation and through accompanying institutional arrangements.
Impacts of AKST have been more widely evident where
they respond to, or are consistent with, the priority that thepoor place on managing risk and vulnerability.
Goals
L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +3
R, L

Specificity
Widespread in developing
countries

Established cultural traditions define the values and influence practices of small-scale communities. These typicallyemphasize low-input and risk-averse strategies which are atvariance with the maximized production orientation of modern AKST. Small-scale producers make rational decisions to
optimize overall benefits from limited resources (Ørskov
and Viglizzo, 1994). Thus, risk management, reduction of
dependence on agricultural inputs, avoidance of long-term
depletion of productive potential and more careful control
of environmental externalities are important to them (Conway, 1997). Local knowledge and innovation respond tothese priorities; an important assessment criterion of AKST
is the extent to which it has helped to reduce both shortterm local risk and vulnerability to external factors (e.g.,
economic changes, climate variability etc). Farmers’ own
assessment of risk is fundamental in influencing patterns ofchange in farming practices. High levels of risk are likely tonegatively affect adoption (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2004). Perceptions of risk and the priorities of men and women vary in
relation to their asset base; especially land and labor.
The risks and costs associated with agriculture and ruraldevelopment have recently been addressed by innovative
microfinance initiatives.
Goals
L, S, D

Certainty
D

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
N,L

Specificity
Developing countries and poor
urban areas of developed
countries

Based on successful experiences in various developing countries, a model, termed agricultural microfinance, is emerg-

chapter 03.indd 202

ing (CGAP, 2005). The model combines the most promisingfeatures of traditional microfinance, traditional agricultural
finance, leasing, insurance, and contracts with processors,
traders, and agribusinesses. The original features of themodel include innovative savings mechanisms, highly diversified portfolio risk, and loan terms and conditions thatare adjusted to accommodate cyclical cash flows and bulky
investments. Perhaps two of the most innovative products
contributing towards greater rural development are thoserelated to savings and remittances (Nagarajan and Meyer,2005). Deposits are made to mobile deposit collectors at
the savers’ doorstep, so reducing the transaction costs ofrural farmers and households. Electronic innovations, suchas the use of simple mobile phones, ATMs and remittanceservices, may also help drive down the costs of handlingmany small transactions in dispersed rural areas, and bringpositive benefits to rural communities reliant on migrantlabor. Successful remittance services are designed with clients to provide appropriate products and choose strategic
partners at both ends of the remittance flow. Despite recent
innovations, reaching the remote and vulnerable rural poor
still remains a major challenge.
3.2.3.2.5 Livelihood strategies—diversification,
specialization and migration
The ways in which rural people combine and use their assets to make a living varies considerably between regions,individuals, households and different social groups. Choiceof livelihood strategies is affected by economic, social andcultural considerations (e.g., what is appropriate according
to gender, age, status). The range of livelihood choices isgenerally more restricted for the “asset” poor.
Opportunities for diversification of rural income help toreduce vulnerability of the poor.
Goals
L, S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +4G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

Where agriculture and natural resources are the basis of
livelihoods, small-scale farmers often spread their risks bydiversification, as for example in mixed cropping systems(Dixon et al., 2001). Diversification affects agricultural productivity in different ways, in some cases positively (Ellis
and Mdoe, 2003). Diversification is a response to an environment which lacks the conditions needed to reap the benefits of agricultural specialization: enterprises with efficient
market integration, input and credit supply systems, knowledge access, relatively stable commodity pricing structuresand supportive policies (Townsend, 1999). However, diversification is at variance with the emphasis of much agricultural policy in developing countries, which promotes
more specialization in the production of high value products for national, regional and export markets. The larger,
but lower value, markets for staple food crops are perceived
as less risky than higher value markets, and less dependent
on technical support services and inputs. Diversification andrisk reduction strategies for rural households can include
non-farm income; however, this is more difficult for the extreme poor, including female-headed households (Block andWebb, 2001). While there have been advances in rural non-

11/3/08 10:55:41 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 203

agricultural employment opportunities, women’s share inthis did not greatly increase between 1990 and 2004 (UN,2006a). In the general context of rising youth unemployment, young rural women in particular, have difficulty inentering the labor market. Some have argued that the increasing proportion of rural income from non-agricultural
sources in Africa is indicative of the failure of agriculture
to sustain the livelihoods of the rural poor (Reardon, 1997;
Bryceson, 1999; Ellis and Freeman, 2004). There is evidence
that the larger the proportion of non-farm to farm income,the larger the overall income.
Where farm size or productivity can no longer sustain theneeds of the household, alternative strategies of migration
or investment are likely.
Goals
L, S, D

Certainty
B

Range of
Impacts-1 to +3

Scale
GR

Specificity
Particularly in rainfed areas indeveloping countries

Factors which increase vulnerability constitute severe challenges to the sustainability of livelihoods, e.g., populationpressure, land and water shortages, declining productivity
due to climate change, collapse of soil fertility, unstable anddeclining market prices. In these circumstances, some family members, often the young men, migrate to urban centers
within or outside their country, in search of employment.
These decisions are affected by generational and gender relationships (Chant, 1992; Tacoli, 1998; Bryceson, 1999),
and contribute to the “feminization” of agriculture (Song,
1999; Abdelali-Martini et al., 2003), and the increasing dependence of poor rural households on remittances for theirsurvival. Increasingly the migrants include young women,leaving the old and the very young on the farm. In somecases, this has negatively affected agricultural production,
food security, and service provision. Labor constraints
have encouraged investment in technologies and options
which are less demanding in labor, e.g., the establishmentof tree crops which are profitable with lower labor inputs(Schreckenberg et al., 2002; Kindt et al., 2004; Degrande
et al., 2006). Off-farm remittances have in some cases also
encouraged broader investments, e.g., in Andean rural communities, remittances are used for small-scale agriculture,living expenses, and construction and home improvements
aimed at the agro-tourism industry (Tamagno, 2003). Thereis also some evidence for other aspects of more sustainable
farming at very high population densities and dependenceon migrant community members (see 3.2.2.1.6), combining
intensification of production and erosion control (Tiffen etal., 1994; Leach and Mearns, 1996).
3.2.3.3 Participation and local knowledge systems
There is a growing body of work that systematically seeks
to assess the impacts of participatory and gender sensitive
approaches in agricultural research and development, andthe role of local knowledge—for example the Systemwide
Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis
Program of the CGIAR (Lilja et al., 2001, 2004).

chapter 03.indd 203

3.2.3.3.1 Participatory research approaches
Participatory approaches have developed in response to thelack of economically useful, socially appropriate and environmentally desirable applications from AKST generated
by agricultural research and development organizations.
Goals
L, E, S, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts Scale-3 to +2
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

There is much evidence that the technological advances of
the Green Revolution have sometimes led to environmental
degradation and social injustice (Conway, 1997). This has
stimulated interest in new participatory approaches, methods and techniques to meet sustainability criteria (Engel etal., 1988) and to contribute to a new development paradigm(Jamieson, 1987) targeting development goals (Garrity,2004) (see Chapter 2). It has required major advances in theanalysis of the behavior of the complex social systems foundin rural communities. The growing interest in participatory
approaches from the 1980s onwards, was in part a responseto the contrast in the successes of Green Revolution technology in some contexts and its lack of, or negative, impact
in others, particularly those characterized by high diversity, inaccessibility and weak institutions and infrastructure(Haverkort et al., 1991; Okali et al., 1994; Scoones andThompson, 1994; Röling and Wagemakers, 1998; Cerf etal., 2000). Participatory approaches, in which development
agencies and technical specialists participate, use existing
local skills and knowledge as the starting point (Croxton,
1999). They are built around a process that enables farmers to control and direct research and development to meettheir own needs and to ensure a sense of ownership in decisions and actions (Engel et al., 1988). The main advantagesof participatory approaches have been their responsivenessto local ecological and socioeconomic conditions, needs
and preferences; building on local institutions, knowledge
and initiatives and fostering local organizational capacity.
Criticisms have focused on their resource requirements, thedifficulties of scaling-up successes from small focus areas(Cooke and Kothari, 2001), the lack of radical change ininstitutional relationships and knowledge sharing, and thelimited engagement with market and policy actors.
Participatory approaches to genetic improvement of crops
and animals results in better identification of farmer’s
requirements and preferences, leading to higher levels ofadoption and benefit.
Goals
N, L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +3
G, N, LSpecificity
Wide applicability

In cereals and legumes, participatory approaches have beenpromoted in response to perceived weaknesses in conventional variety testing and formal release procedures whichhave not delivered suitable varieties to farmers in marginalenvironments, especially, but not exclusively, small-scale
farmers (Witcombe et al., 1998). Formal release systems
are often centralized, use a research station or other atypically favorable environment for testing, and select for average performance. Farmers or consumers are also rarely
involved in this process. Consequently, varieties from these

11/3/08 10:55:42 AM

204 | IAASTD Global Reportconventional release systems are often poorly adapted tosmall-scale farmer conditions and environments. Similarly,
they have not always met the farmers’ requirements for
multipurpose uses (e.g., fodder and seed), or have not had
acceptable postharvest characteristics (e.g., easy to thresh/
process, good taste, good storability). Participatory cropdevelopment allows for the better identification of farmer
preferences and the requirements of their systems of production as well as optimizing local adaptation through thecapture of Genotype X Environment interactions. Genetic
diversity can also benefit from participatory approaches as
farmers usually select and introduce cultivars that are unrelated to the modern varieties already grown (Witcombe
et al., 2001). Other benefits of the participatory approach
include a shortened breeding cycle in which new varieties
are grown by farmers prior to the 12-15 year period of formal multilocational testing and release. This considerablyincreases the cost-benefit ratios, net present value and net
social benefit (Pandey and Rajatasereekul, 1999). Anotherbenefit of participatory breeding is enhanced compatibility
with local or informal seed systems, which is especially important in times of extreme climatic and other stresses. Participatory approaches in livestock research have responded
to criticisms that technologies were developed but seldom
delivered, or if delivered, did not benefit poor farmers/
herders (Hefferman et al., 2005) and have demonstrated
the importance of understanding the particular needs andcircumstances of resource poor farmers, building on local
knowledge. These approaches have been more appropriate
to farmer circumstances and are more likely to be adopted(Catley et al., 2001; Conroy, 2005); however, the benefits forcrop and livestock sectors are largely experienced at local orregional levels, and the problem of scaling-up remains.
Participatory approaches have been successfully developed
for the domestication of indigenous trees for integration
into agroforestry systems.
Goals
Certainty
N, H, L, E, S,D
D, E

Range of Impacts Scale
Specificity
0 to +2
R
Especially relevant to the tropics

Throughout the tropics local tree species provide traditional
foods and medicines (Abbiw, 1990; Villachica, 1996; Leakey,
1999a; Walter and Sam, 1999; Elevitch, 2006) many ofwhich are marketed locally (Shackleton et al., 2007). Someof these species are being domesticated using a participatory approach to cultivar production (Leakey et al., 2003;
Tchoundjeu et al., 2006), using simple and appropriate vegetative propagation methods (Leakey et al., 1990) so that
local communities are empowered to create their own opportunities to enter the cash economy (Leakey et al., 2005a)(see 3.2.1.2.1 and 3.2.2.1.6). The use of participatory approaches ensures that the benefits of domestication accrue
to the farmers. In this respect, these techniques are in accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity (Articles
8 and 15) and provide a politically and socially acceptableform of biodiscovery. It is clear that this approach is also
encouraging the rapid adoption of both the techniques andthe improved cultivars (Tchoundjeu et al., 2006).

chapter 03.indd 204

Participatory approaches are important in addressing
knowledge-intensive, complex natural resource management problems.
Goals
L, S

Certainty
D, E

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

In an impact assessment of participatory approaches to development of cassava based cropping systems in Vietnam
and Thailand (Dalton et al., 2005), participating farmers
gained additional yield benefits, compared with those who
merely adopted the new planting material. The integrationof management practices into the participatory learning activities resulted in a better understanding of the interrelationships between system components and led to efficiency
gains.
Community entry and participatory approaches have higher initial costs, but improved efficiency in technology development, capacity strengthening and learning.
Goals
L, E, S, D

Certainty Range of Impacts Scale
B, E
+2
N, L

Specificity
Subsistence households of thesemiarid tropics.

Crop management research increasingly involves farmers in
the participatory evaluation of new technologies, identifying
adoption constraints and opportunities for improving farm
performance to produce more sustainable impact. Between
1999 and 2001, ICRISAT and its partners in Malawi and
Zimbabwe evaluated the impact of participatory research inconnection with a range of “best bet” soil fertility and water management technologies. The main findings were that
community entry and participatory approaches that engage
farmers in decision making throughout the research-development-diffusion-innovation process improved efficiency
and impact, both through the development of relevant technology and in building farmers’ capacity for experimentation and collective learning, but that these benefits had
higher initial costs than traditional approaches (Rusike etal., 2006, 2007). The study recommended that public and
NGO investments be targeted to build wider-scale district
and village-level innovation clusters to make the projects
more sustainable over a larger area. Similarly, in Colombia,
participatory approaches with local agricultural researchcommittees showed significant social and human capital
benefits for members (http://www.prgaprogram.org/index.
php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=12). However, in Honduras, where educational levels were lower andpoverty higher, it was found that the process took longer;
because of the need for more intensive assisted learning andsocial development to support the participatory technology
component (Humphries et al., 2000).
3.2.3.3.2 Indigenous knowledge and innovation systems
The complex and dynamic interactions between culture,society and nature and its resources are central to socialand environmental sustainability.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +4G

Specificity
Worldwide

11/3/08 10:55:42 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 205

Culture and tradition are important components of social
sustainability. Traditional and local knowledge are part ofculture and belief systems and codified in oral forms and incultural and religious norms. These cultural meanings areembedded in local people’s understanding of the environment, the management of natural resources and agricultural practice (Warren et al., 1995; Posey, 1999). Yams area staple crop of economic and cultural significance for thepeople in West Africa. For example, yams (Dioscorea spp.)
play a vital role in society in the Dagomba ethnic group in
north Ghana. About 75% of farmers in the northern region
cultivate yam, as part of the African “yam zone” (Cameroon to Côte d’Ivoire) that produces 90% or 33.7 million
tonnes of the world’s yams each year. During the celebrationof the yam festival boiled yams are smeared on the surfaceof stones to secure the goodwill and patronage of deities.
The Dagomba invoke their gods during the communal laborthrough which they exchange yam germplasm. Seed yam
obtained through communal labor enjoys the blessing of thegods and produces high yields according to tradition. For
the Dagomba, the yam has transcended agriculture to become part of the society’s culture (Kranjac-Berisavljevic andGandaa, 2004). Failure to recognize this would result in (1)the breakdown of traditional social structure; and (2) the
loss of valuable yam germplasm in many cases.

manure and draft power and strengthening their capacity
to cope with income shocks (Ashley et al., 1999; Heffernan and Misturelli, 2001). In India, for example, livestock
holdings are more equitably distributed than land holdings(Taneja and Birthal, 2003). Livestock ownership directly
and indirectly affects the nutritional status of children indeveloping countries (Tangka et al., 2000). In Africa, thelivestock sector, particularly in arid and semiarid areas, depends to a large extent on traditional and local knowledge
for animal management and animal breeding (Ayantude etal., 2007, but receives little investment in international andnational research. The depth of local knowledge has advantages when developing localized initiatives, for example, inanimal feeding and forage production. Productivity in animal agriculture systems can be increased under dry conditions without great external inputs (Lhoste, 2005). Participatory methods for diagnosis of animal diseases have also
shown promise, both in characterization of diseases and thelinkages between local knowledge and modern veterinary
knowledge (Catley et al., 2001). Such participatory local
analysis has been used to develop control programs adapted
to local conditions and knowledge (Catley et al., 2002).

The knowledge of many indigenous communities has provided almost all their basic food, fibre, health and shelter
needs as well as some products for cash income.

Significant gains have been made when farmer innovation(particularly in small-scale agriculture) is appropriately
linked to formal AKST.

Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts Scale+2 to +5G

Specificity
Worldwide

Typically, traditional and local KST has been developed
through observation and experimentation, over many cycles,
to achieve efficient and low-risk human welfare outcomes(Warren et al., 1995). A wide range of local institutions are
significant in developing, disseminating and protecting thisknowledge as it differs greatly from the specialized knowledge used by research and extension institutions working
with agricultural science (Warren et al., 1989). The traditional actors harbor distrust for mainstream organizations
and are comparatively marginalized by them. Consequently,
identifying an appropriate and acceptable means of making use of traditional knowledge and protecting the valuable rights of indigenous communities to their traditional
knowledge is a priority if this knowledge is not to be lost,and if the communities are to benefit (ten Kate and Laird,1999). A good example is the patent protecting the rights
of women in Botswana to traditional knowledge associatedwith Marula kernel oil (www.phytotradeafrica.com/awards/
criteria.htm).
The important role of livestock for poor people’s livelihoods
has been sustained primarily through the effectiveness of
indigenous knowledge.
Goals
N, L, H, E, S, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
0 to + 4

Scale
L, N

Specificity
Especially in the tropics

Livestock are an important asset of many poor people, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia (Thornton etal., 2002, 2004), providing a source of food, cash income,chapter 03.indd 205

3.2.3.3.3 Linking scientific and indigenous knowledge andmanagement capability

Goals
L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +4G

Specificity
Especially in the tropics

Formal research and extension organizations have often
not recognized the contribution of farmers’ knowledge andstrategies (Richards, 1985; Sibelet, 1995). However, there
are good examples in plant breeding where farmers havecommunicated their local knowledge to researchers, andworked together in experimentation and decision making(Hocdé, 1997), researchers and stakeholders jointly designing experimentation, sharing and validating results (Liu,
1997; Gonzalves et al., 2005; Liu and Crezé, 2006). Agroforestry researchers working with farmers have investigatedprogressively more complex issues together, integrating
biophysical and socioeconomic disciplines to resolve thesustainability problems in areas where poverty and environmental degradation coexist. This has required a unique
mixture of new science (Sanchez, 1995) with local understanding of the day-to-day concerns of resource-poor farmers; the approach enhances the adoption of new ideas andtechnologies (Franzel and Scherr, 2002). Innovations likethese evolve as a result of collective learning as well as fromthe pressure to constantly adapt to the changing economic
environment.
The influence of social institutions on land management,
based on local knowledge and norms, may be underminedby policies based on the different perspectives of professionals.
Goals
L, E, S

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts Scale-3 to 0L

Specificity
Widespread applicability

11/3/08 10:55:43 AM

206 | IAASTD Global Report

Local knowledge, and the local institutions associated withit, have been regarded as an important foundation for community-based natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. However, this has been challenged as aromantic view, dependent on conditions of low population
density, lack of modern technology and limited consumer
demand (Attwell and Cotterill, 2000). The overexploitationof natural capital has been widely attributed to a number offactors, including the loss of social institutions at the community level. In some cases this arises from changes in local systems of administration and governance. In India, thebreakdown of regulations on livestock resulted in unregulated grazing (Pretty and Ward, 2001), while water resource
degradation followed the replacement of collective irrigation systems by private ownership. Similarly, the failure ofmany formal attempts to halt rotational shifting cultivationin Thailand, Laos and Vietnam was, at its most fundamental
level, associated with differing perspectives. That is, “policy
makers believed that shifting cultivation was the main causeof environmental problems such as floods and landslips”(Bass and Morrison, 1994) whereas others recognized the
dynamic and diverse types of shifting cultivation in which
farmers engaged, and the associated economic, social, cultural and environmental values.
Institutions are crucial for sustainable development; the innovation systems approach offers more insights than previous paradigms into the complex relationships of technology development and diffusion.
Goals
L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +3G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

The linear model of research and extension in which innovations are transferred as products from researchers to farmers via intermediaries in extension, has been challenged byexperience showing that the pathways for technical changes
are more diverse. In the last 15 years, the importance ofknowledge in innovation processes has been more clearlyrecognized (Engel and Röling, 1989; Röling, 1992). Knowledge is considered as a factor of production; considered bysome to be more important than land, capital and labor.
More recent approaches view innovation as a complex social process (Luecke and Katz, 2003) which takes multiple
forms and involves the participation and interaction of a diversity of key actors and organizations (Sibelet, 1995; Spielman, 2005). These relationships or networks, “the innovation system”, operate within specific institutional and cultural contexts. Similarly, evaluation approaches have shiftedfrom focusing on impacts of research to tracking the institutional changes and effective operation of the innovation systems (Hall et al., 2003). The innovation systems approachemphasizes continuous learning and knowledge flows, interaction of multiple actors and institutional change. Innovation Systems thinking has encouraged greater awarenessof the complexity of these relationships, the processes of
institutional learning and change, market and non-market
institutions, public policy, poverty reduction, and socioeconomic development (Hall et al., 2003; Ferris et al., 2006).
However, the approach does not explicitly engage with poverty and development agendas by examining the relationship between innovation systems, economic growth and thechapter 03.indd 206

distributional effects on poverty reduction and policy options which would support this (Spielman, 2005).
Devolution of resource management to local institutions
has been successful where targeted support and enabling
conditions were in place.
Goals
L, E, S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +3G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

Local institutions have the capacity to manage local resources and avert possible “tragedies of the commons” (Ostrom,1992). Rules can be created to accommodate the heterogeneity found within communities (Agrawal and Gibson,
1999; Ostrom, 2005) and there are opportunities for comanagement with government (Balland and Platteau, 1996).
In conservation programs, the participation of the range ofstakeholders in consensus building and consideration of
benefit distribution reduces the risk of conflict and the costsof implementation and control, and increases the chances ofsustainability (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1997; Guerin, 2007). In
some cases, (e.g., the transfer of irrigation management tocommunities) the drive to establish local management has
led to rigid, hierarchical user associations with functionaland democratic shortcomings (Agrawal and Gupta, 2005).
However, research in the irrigation sector has identified thata supportive legal policy framework, secure water rights, local management capacity development and favorable cost/benefit relationships, are conditions favoring the successfultransfer of management to communities (Shah et al., 2002).
These characteristics encourage farmers’ contributions andcreate a strong sense of ownership, which together lead tobetter subsequent operations and maintenance (Bruns andAmbler, 1992). Finally, research has shown the diversity
and complexity of water rights in many developing countries and the importance of recognizing both formal legal
rights and customary or indigenous rights in a “pluralistic”
approach (Bruns, 2007).
Local or informal seed systems provide most seed used by
farmers and are increasingly being used to deliver new varieties to farmers.
Goals
1

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts+1 to +5

Scale
R

Specificity
Developing countries

Nearly all developing country farmers depend on their own
seed, or seed obtained locally from relatives or markets, forplanting (Almekinders and Louwaars, 1999; Tripp, 2001).
In contrast, most new varieties released in developing countries originate from public sector organizations, Hybridmaize is the exception; it originates from the private sector and seeds are delivered through commercial networks(Morris, 2002), although these are not tailored to specificlocal situations. Local seed systems are therefore very important. Typically they support the local economy and arevery robust and effective. Studies in India have shown thatseed can move many kilometers through these informal
systems, and that local entrepreneurs quickly act to meet ademand for seed (Witcombe et al., 1999). Consequently, anumber of initiatives have built on informal seed systems to
distribute seed. For example, relief agencies promote thesesystems by using seed vouchers in times of drought or civil

11/3/08 10:55:43 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 207

unrest (Sperling et al., 2004). The Program for Africa’s Seed
Systems (funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation)is promoting the distribution of improved crops varieties
through private and public channels, including community
seed systems.
Scaling up the adoption of new technologies requires new
approaches to partnerships and information sharing.
Goals
L, S

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts Scale-2 to +2
G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

Adoption and impact of new agricultural technologies havebeen negatively affected by overlooking the human/cultural issues, ignoring local knowledge systems, and reducing
the solution of agricultural problems to merely technology(Feder et al., 1985). The factors affecting adoption of technological innovations are numerous and complex. The interaction of technologies with the economic, social, culturaland institutional context influences the scale of adoption(Feder et al., 1985). Factors shown to affect adoption include complementarity with existing systems and practices,
the relative “profitability” and benefits of alternative technologies; and the incentives of the policy environment. Partnership networks and information sharing are needed for
scaling up (Lilja et al., 2004); this is particularly importantin non-seed based knowledge intensive technologies.
3.2.3.4 Learning and capacity strengthening
A key factor for widescale adoption of new AKST is thedissemination of information to the farmers by extension,
farmer training and information management. Recent advances in ICT provide important new tools.
3.2.3.4.1 Extension and training
Education and training contribute to national economic
wellbeing and growth.
Goals
L, S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +4G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

Formal capacity development in developing countries goesbeyond disciplinary expertise. It produces broad-based professionals that recognize the “systems” nature of innovationand change, and its relationships with society (Pretty, 2002;
FAO, 2005c). This is needed because of the interlinking ofsociological, cultural, agricultural and environmental issues
and the differing and often conflicting land use needs andstrategies of a multiplicity of stakeholders. Innovative methods and tools can effectively improve coordination, mediation and negotiation processes aimed at more decentralized and better integrated natural resources management(D’Aquino et al., 2003). The combined use of modeling androle-playing games helps professionals and stakeholders tounderstand the dynamics of these interactions (Antona etal., 2003).
Lack of appropriate education/extension and learning opportunities are a constraint to technology transfer, tradeand marketing, and business development.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts Scale-5 to 0G

Specificity
Worldwide

Many developing countries have large numbers of illiterate
people. This is a constraint to economic and social development, as well as agriculture (Ludwig, 1999). Some important goals include the rehabilitation of university infrastructures, particularly information and communication facilities; organizational designs that link institutions of higher
education to hospitals, communities, research stations, andthe private sector; and curricula and pedagogy that encourage creativity, enquiry, entrepreneurship and experiential
learning (Juma, 2006).
Gender imbalances in agricultural extension, education
and research systems limit women’s access to information,
trainers and skills.
Goals
L, S

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts Scale-2 to +4G

Specificity
WorldwideCountries with higher levels of income generally have higher
levels of education. Human capital, which includes both formal education and informal on-the-job training, is a major
factor in explaining differences in productivity and income
between countries (Hicks, 1987). Agricultural education
plays a critical role in the transfer of technology and agricultural extension makes an important economic contribution
to rural development (Evenson, 1997). Agricultural centersof excellence are yielding new technologies, and agricultural
education is assisting with technology transfer activities by
being part of interdisciplinary research programs. Informal
mechanisms for information sharing, such as farmer-tofarmer models of agricultural development, are increasing
in importance (Eveleens et al., 1996).

There is a severe gender imbalance in agricultural extension
services (Swanson et al., 1990; FAO, 1995; FAO, 2004a).
Women constitute only 12.3% of extension workers in
Africa (UN, 1995). Sensitivity to gender issues and vulnerable populations (disabled, HIV/AIDS affected, youth etc.)
can determine the success or failure of training/extension
activities. The number of women seeking higher educationin agriculture is increasing in some developing countries, although female enrolment rates remain considerably lower
than males (FAO, 1995). More women are now employedin national agricultural institutions than in the 1980s, but
men still comprise the overwhelming majority of those employed, especially occupying in managerial and decision
making positions (FAO, 1995).

A better understanding of the complex dynamic interactions between society and nature is strengthening capacity
for sustainable development.

In Africa, expenditures related to agriculture and extension have been reduced in quantity and quality, thereby
affecting productivity.

Goals
L, E, S

chapter 03.indd 207

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +3G

Specificity
Widespread applicability

Goals
N, L, E, S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale-3 to 0R

Specificity
Africa11/3/08 10:55:43 AM

208 | IAASTD Global Report

There has been a decline in government funding to agricultural extension services in many developing countries (Alexet al., 2002; Rusike and Dimes, 2004). In the past, extension
services financed by public sector (Axinn and Thorat, 1972;
Lees, 1990; Swanson et al., 1997) were a key component of
the Green Revolution. Today, two out of three farmers in
Africa, particularly small-scale farmers and women farmers(FAO, 1990), have no contact with extension services, andworldwide publicly funded extension services are in decline.
Critics of public extension claim that its services need tobe reoriented, redirected and revitalized (Rivera and Cary,
1997) as the poor efficiency of traditional extension systems
has undermined interest in them (Anderson et al., 2004).
Both public and private delivery services can provide agricultural extension for modern farming.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide

There is a trend towards the privatization of extension
organizations, often as parastatal or quasi-governmental
agencies, with farmers asked to pay for services previously
received free (FAO, 1995; FAO, 2000a; Rivera et al., 2000).
This trend is stronger in the North than the South (Jones,
1990; FAO, 1995). Inclusion of the private sector can ensure competition and increase the efficiency of agricultural
service delivery, especially with regard to agricultural inputsupply firms (Davidson et al., 2001). However, problems
exist in terms of incentives and stakeholder roles. In Southern Africa, private sector led development showed that private firms have significant potential to improve small-scale
crop management practices and productivity by supplying
farmers with new cultivars, nutrients, farm equipment, information, capital, and other services. However, market, institutional, government, and policy failures currently limit
expanded private sector participation (Rusike and Dimes,
2004).
The participation of a broad range of information providers on agricultural technologies, policies and markets, hasbeen shown to play an important role in sustainable agricultural development.
Goals
N, L, E, S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +3G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Currently, countries in Africa are searching for participatory, pluralistic, decentralized approaches to service provision for small-scale farmers. The private sector, civil society
organizations and national and international NGOs are
increasingly active in agricultural research and development (Rivera and Alex, 2004), supporting local systems
that enhance the capacity to innovate and apply knowledge.
In the poorest regions, NGOs have strengthened their extension activities with poor farmers by using participatory
approaches and developing initiatives to empower farmerorganizations (Faure and Kleene, 2004).

Community based participatory learning processes andfarmer field schools (FFS) have been effective in enhancing
skills and bringing about changes in practice.
Goals
L, S

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +3G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Agricultural extension and learning practitioners are increasingly interested in informal and community based participatory learning for change (Kilpatrick et al., 1999; Gautam, 2000; Feder et al., 2003). Group learning and interaction play an important role in changing farmer attitudes andincreases the probability of a change in practice (AGRITEX,
1998) by recognizing that farming is a social activity, which
does not take place in a social or cultural vacuum (Dunn,
2000). In Kamuli district in Uganda, a program to strengthen farmers’ capacity to learn from each other, using participatory methods and a livelihoods approach, found that
farmer group households increased their production andvariety of foods, reduced food insecurity and the number offood insecure months and improved nutritional status (Mazur et al., 2006; Sseguya and Masinde, 2006).
Farmer field schools (FFS) have been an important
methodological advance to facilitate learning and technology dissemination (Braun et al., 2000; Thiele et al., 2001;
van den Berg, 2003). Developed in response to overuseof insecticides in Asia rice farming systems, they have become widely promoted elsewhere (Asiabaka, 2002). In FFS,
groups of farmers explore a specific locally relevant topic
through practical field-based learning and experimentation over a cropping season. Assessments of the impacts offarmer field schools have generally been positive, dependingon the assumptions driving the assessment. FFS have significantly reduced pesticide use in rice in Indonesia, Vietnam,
Bangladesh, Thailand, and Sri Lanka (where FFS farmers
used 81% fewer insecticide applications), and in cotton in
Asia (a 31% increase in income the year after training, frombetter yields and lower pesticide expenditure) (Van den Berget al., 2002; Tripp et al., 2005). Opinions on positive impacts are not unanimous (Feder et al., 2004). Farmer field
schools have been criticized for their limited coverage anddifficulty in scaling up; the lack of wider sharing of learning,
their cost in relation to impact (Feder et al., 2004), the lackof financial sustainability (Quizon et al., 2001; Okoth etal., 2003), the demands on farmers’ time and the failure todevelop enduring farmer organizations (Thirtle et al., 2003;
Tripp et al., 2005; Van Mele et al., 2005). However, there
are few alternative models for advancing farmers’ understanding and ability to apply complex knowledge intensive
technologies. There is potential for FFS to self-finance insome cases (Okoth et al., 2003). FFS can stimulate further
group formation (Simpson, 2001), but sharing local knowledge and sustaining relationships with different stakeholder
groups post-FFS has often not been given sufficient attention(Braun et al., 2000).
International organizations are training community workers and promoting important participatory approaches torural development.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S,

chapter 03.indd 208

Certainty
B

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +2
G

Specificity
Widespread in developing
countries

11/3/08 10:55:44 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 209

The World Agroforestry Centre is an example of one international institution which is providing training to farmers, through mentorship programs with Farmer Training
Schools, scholarships for women’s education, support ofyoung professionals in partner countries and the development of Networks for Agroforestry Education, e.g., ANAFE(124 institutions in 34 African countries) and SEANAFE (70institutions in 5 South East Asian countries) (Temu et al.,2001). Similarly, agencies such as the International Foundation for Science (www.ifs.se), and the Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research (www.aciar.gov.au), provide funds to allow graduates trained overseas toreestablish at home. At IITA in West Africa, the Sustainable
Tree Crops Program is training groups of Master Trainers, who then train “Trainers of Trainers”, and eventuallygroups of farmers in the skills needed to grow cocoa sustainably (STCP Newsletter, 2003). The results of this initiative
are promising (Bartlett, 2004; Berg, 2004), but there still
remain crucial problems related to (1) the need for strong
farmers’ governance to monitor and assess extension activities, (2) sustainable funding with fair cost sharing between
the stakeholders including the State, private sector, farmerorganizations, and farmers, and (3) the need for Farmer
field training to evolve into community-based organizations,to enable the community to continue benefiting on a sustained basis from the momentum created (Mancini, 2006).
Environmental and sustainable development issues are being included in extension programs.
Goals
N, H, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale-2 to +4G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Extension services are now including a larger number ofstakeholders that are not farmers in their target groups. Increasingly environmental and sustainable development issues are being incorporated into agricultural education andextension programs (FAO, 1995; van Crowder, 1996; Garforth and Lawrence, 1997).
3.2.3.3.2 Information management
ICTs are increasingly being used to disseminate agricultural
information, but new techniques require new forms of support.
Proper information management is frequently a key limiting factor to agricultural development.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale-4 to +4G

Specificity
Worldwide

Information access is limited in low-income countries, but
farmers have an array of informal and formal sources (extension leaflets, television, mobile films, etc.) from which
they obtain information (Nwachukwu and Akinbode, 1989;
Olowu and Igodan, 1989; Ogunwale and Laogun, 1997). In
addition, village leaders, NGO agents and farmer resource
centers are used as information hubs so that informationand knowledge about new technologies and markets diffuse
through social networks of friends, relatives and acquaintances (Collier, 1998; Conley and Udry, 2001; Fafchamps
and Minten, 2001; Barr, 2002). Inevitably, issues of equitablechapter 03.indd 209

access and dissemination arise as marginalized populations
tend to be bypassed (Salokhe et al., 2002). The challenge
is how to improve accessibility of science and technology
information to contribute to agricultural development andfood security. This challenge is multidimensional, covering
language issues as well as those of intellectual property andphysical accessibility (World Bank, 2002; Harris, 2004).
ICTs are propelling change in agricultural knowledge andinformation systems, allowing the dissemination of information on new technologies, and providing the means toimprove collaboration among partners.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +4G

Specificity
Worldwide

Information and communication technologies (ICT) are revolutionizing agricultural information dissemination (Richardson, 2006). Since the advent of the internet in the 1990s,
communications technologies now deliver a richer array of
information of value to farmers and rural households (Leeuwis, 1993; Zijp, 1994; FAO, 2000c); extension services deliver information services interactively between farmers andinformation providers (FAO, 2000c) via rural telecenters,
cellular phones, and computer software packages. Important ICT issues in rural extension systems include private
service delivery, cost recovery, and the “wholesaling” of information provided to intermediaries (NGOs, private sector,
press, and others) (Ameur, 1994). In rural areas, ICTs are
now used to provide relevant technical information, market
prices, and weather reports. The Livestock Guru™ software
program was created as a multimedia learning tool whichenables farmers to obtain information on animal healthand production and has had greater impact than more conventional media, illustrating the potential of these tools to
help meet global agricultural and poverty alleviation objectives (Heffernan et al., 2005; Nielsen and Heffernan, 2006).
ICTs help farmers to improve labor productivity, increase
yields, and realize a better price for their produce (www.
digitaldividend.org/pubs/pubs_01_overview.htm). A market information service in Uganda has successfully used a
mix of conventional media, Internet, and mobile phones
to enable farmers, traders, and consumers to obtain accurate market information resulting in farmer control of farm
gate prices (http://www.comminit.com/strategicthinking/st2004/thinking-579.html). Similar services exist in India,
Burkino Faso, Jamaica, Philippines and Bangladesh (www.
digitaldividend.org/pubs/pubs_01_overview.htm). ICT also
provides the opportunity to create decision support systems
such as e-consultation or advisory systems to help farmers
make better decisions. ICT facilitates smooth implementation of both administrative and development undertakings.
However with these ICT advances comes the task of managing and disseminating information in an increasingly complex digital environment.
Advances in information technology are providing more
tools for agricultural information management.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale-2 to +3G

Specificity
Wide applicability

11/3/08 10:55:44 AM

210 | IAASTD Global Report

Due to advances in ICT, international organizations suchas FAO have been able to respond to the need for improved
information management by providing technical assistancein the form of information management tools and applications, normally in association with advice and training(http://www.fao.org/waicent). Agricultural thesauri like
AGROVOC are playing a substantial role in helping information managers and information users in document indexing and information retrieval tasks.
ICTs have widened the “digital divide” between industrialized and developing countries, as well as between ruraland urban communities.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale-2 to +3G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Although ICT improve information flow, not all people haveequal access to digital information and knowledge of thetechnology creating a “digital divide”, a gap between thetechnology-empowered and the technology-excluded communities (http://www.itu.int/wsis/basic/faqs.asp; Torero andvon Braun, 2006). Digital information is concentrated inregions where information infrastructure is most developed,
to the detriment of areas without these technologies (http://
www.unrisd.org). This, together with the ability of people
to use the technology, has had an impact on the spread of
digital information (Herselman and Britton, 2002). The
main positive impacts on poverty from ICTs have been fromradio and from telephone access and use, with less clear impacts evident for the internet (Kenny, 2002).
3.2.3.4 Gender
Farming practices are done by both men and women, but
the role of women has typically been overlooked in the past.
Resolving this inequity has been a major concern in recent
years. For social and economic sustainability, it is important that technologies are appropriate to different resource
levels, including those of women and do not encourage others to dispossess women of land or commandeer their laboror control their income (FAO, 1995; Buhlmann and Jager,
2001; Watkins, 2004).
Women play a substantial role in food production worldwide.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale-3 to +3G

Specificity
Worldwide

In Asia and Africa women produce over 60% and 70% of thefood respectively, but because of inadequate methodologicaltools, their work is underestimated and does not normallyappear as part of the Gross National Product (GNP) (Kauland Ali, 1992; Grellier, 1995; FAO, 2002b; CED, 2003;
Quisumbing et al., 2005; Diarra and Monimart, 2006).
Similarly, women are not well integrated in agricultural
education, training or extension services, making them “invisible” partners in development. Consequently, women’scontribution to agriculture is poorly understood and their
specific needs are frequently ignored in development planning. This extends to matters as basic as the design of farm

chapter 03.indd 210

tools. The key importance of the empowerment of women
to raising levels of nutrition, improving the production anddistribution of food and agricultural products and enhancing the living conditions of rural populations has been acknowledged by the UN (FAO, www.fao.org/gender).
Mainstreaming gender analysis in project design, implementation, monitoring and policy interventions is an essential part of implementing an integrated approach inagricultural development.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +3G

Specificity
Wide applicability

The substantial roles of resource poor farmers such as women and other marginalized groups are often undervalued inagricultural analyses and policies. Agricultural programs
designed to increase women’s income and household nutrition have more impact if they take account of the culturalcontext and spatial restrictions on women’s work as well as
patterns of intra-household food distribution. The latter often favors males and can give rise to micronutrient deficiencies in women and children. The deficiencies impair cognitive development of young children, retard physical growth,
increase child mortality and contribute to the problem ofmaternal death during childbirth (Tabassum Naved, 2000).
Income-generating programs targeting women as individuals must also provide alternative sources of social support inorder to achieve their objectives. In Bangladesh, an agricultural program aimed at improving women’s household income generated more benefits from a group approach for fish
production than from an individual approach to homestead
vegetable production. The group approach enabled women
members to overcome the gender restrictions on workspace,to increase their income and control over their income andto improve their status. In many countries of Asia, Africa,and Latin America, privatization of land has accelerated theloss of women’s land rights. Titles are reallocated to men
as the assumed heads of households even when women are
the acknowledged household heads. Women’s knowledge,
which is critical to S&T and food security, becomes irreparably disrupted or irrelevant as a result of the erosion ordenial of their rights (Muntemba, 1988; FAO, 2005d).
The feminization of agriculture places a burden on women
who have few rights and assets.
Goals
L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale-3 to 0G

Specificity
Especially in the tropics

Progress on the advancement of the status of rural women
has not been sufficiently systematic to reverse the processes
leading to the feminization of poverty and agriculture, tofood insecurity and to reducing the burden women shoulderfrom environmental degradation (FAO, 1995). The rapid
feminization of agriculture in many areas has highlighted
the issue of land rights for women. Women’s limited accessto resources and their insufficient purchasing power are
products of a series of interrelated social, economic and cultural factors that force them into a subordinate role to thedetriment of their own development and that of society as
a whole (FAO, 1996). The contribution of women to food

11/3/08 10:55:45 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 211

security is growing as men migrate to the city, or neighboring rural areas, in search of paid jobs leaving the women to
do the farming and to provide food for the family (FAO,
1998b; Song, 1999).
At the institutional and national levels, policies that discriminate against women and marginalized people affectthem in terms of access to and control over land, technology, credit, markets, and agricultural productivity.
Goals
L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale-2 to +3G

Specificity
Common occurrence

Women’s contribution to food security is not well reflectedin ownership and access to services (Bullock, 1993; FAO,
2005c: FAO, 2006c). Fewer than 10% of women farmers
in India, Nepal and Thailand own land; while women farmers in five African countries received less than 10% of thecredit provided to their male counterparts. The poor availability of credit for women limits their ability to purchaseseeds, fertilizers and other inputs needed to adopt new
farming techniques. Although this is slowly being redressedby special programs and funds created to address women’s
particular needs, women’s access to land continues to pose
problems in most countries. In Africa, women tend to be
unpaid laborers on their husbands’ land and to cultivate
separate plots in their own right at the same time. However, while women may work their own plots, they may notnecessarily have ownership and thus their rights may notsurvive the death of their spouse (Bullock, 1993). In the caseof male migration and de facto women heads of households,
conflicts may arise as prevailing land rights rarely endow
women with stable property or user rights (IFAD, 2004).
Traditionally, irrigation agencies have tended to exclude
women and other marginalized groups from access to water—for example, by requiring land titles to obtain access toirrigation water (Van Koppen, 2002). Explicitly targeting
women farmers in water development schemes and giving
them a voice in water management is essential for the success of poverty alleviation programs. There are insufficientlabor-saving technologies to enable women’s work to be
more effective in crop and livestock production. Armed
conflict, migration of men in search of paid employment
and rising mortality rates attributed to HIV/AIDS, have led
to a rise in the number of female-headed households and an
additional burden on women. Women remain severely disadvantaged in terms of their access to commercial activities(Dixon et al., 2001). In the short-term, making more material resources available to women, such as land, credit andtechnology at the micro level is mostly a question of putting
existing policies into practice. Changes at the macro-level,
however, will depend on a more favorable gender balance at
all levels of the power structure. In Africa, the creation ofnational women’s institutions has been a critically important step in ensuring that women’s needs and constraints are
put on the national policy agenda (FAO, 1990). The introduction of conventions, agreements, new legislation, policies and programs has helped to increase women’s access
to, and control over, productive resources. However, rural
people are frequently unaware of women’s legal rights andhave little legal recourse if rights are violated (FAO, 1995).

chapter 03.indd 211

Given women’s role in food production and provision, any
set of strategies for sustainable food security must address
women’s limited access to productive resources. Ensuring
equity in women’s rights to land, property, capital assets,
wages and livelihood opportunities would undoubtedly impact positively on the issue.
Historically, women and other marginalized groups have
had less access to formal information and communication
systems associated with agricultural research and extension.
Goals
L, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale-3 to 0G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Worldwide, there are relatively few professional women in
agriculture (Das, 1995; FAO, 2004a). In Africa, men continue to dominate the agricultural disciplines in secondary
schools, constitute the majority of the extension department
personnel, and are the primary recipients of extension services. Men’s enrolment in agricultural disciplines at the university level is higher than women’s and is also increasing(FAO, 1990). Only 15% of the world’s agricultural extension agents are women (FAO, 2004a). Only one-tenth of thescientists working in the CGIAR system are women (Rathgeber, 2002) and women rarely select agricultural courses
in universities.
3.2.4 Relationships between AKST, coordination andregulatory processes among multiple stakeholders
The interactions between AKST and coordination processes
among stakeholders are critically important for sustainability. Technical changes in the form of inventions, strengthened innovation systems and adoption of indigenous production systems in AKST are dependent on the effectivenessof coordination among stakeholders involved in natural
resources management, production, consumption and marketing, e.g., farmers, extension, research, traders (Moustieret al., 2006; Temple et al., 2006). Failure to recognize thisleads to poor adoption potential of the research outputs(Röling, 1988; World Bank, 2007c). Scaling-up requires articulation between stakeholders acting at multiple levels oforganizational from the farmer to international organizations and markets (Caron et al., 1996; Lele, 2004). AKST
can contribute by identifying the coordination processes involved in scaling-up, but this is now recognized to involve
more than the typical micro-macro analysis of academic
disciplines. AKST also contributes to understanding coordination mechanisms supporting change, adaptation andtechnological innovation, through approaches that connect
experimental/non-experimental disciplines, basic/appliedresearch, and especially, technical, organizational, and economic variables (Griffon, 1994; Cerf et al., 2000).
3.2.4.1 Coordination and partnership toward greater collective interest
AKST affects sustainability through collective action andpartnership with new stakeholders (e.g., agroforestry sector) that strengthen farmer organizations and their ability
to liaise with policy-makers, and support the design of neworganizations (e.g., water users associations).

11/3/08 10:55:45 AM

212 | IAASTD Global Report

Major social, economic and political changes in agriculturaland rural development have emerged in the last two decades
through the involvement of new civil society actors.
Goals
S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Since the 1980s, civil society actors (NGO, farmer and ruralorganizations, etc.) have become increasingly active in national and international policy negotiations (Pesche, 2004).
The emergence of new rural organizations and civil society
intermediaries coincides with the trend towards decentralization (Mercoiret et al., 1997ab). More recently, federated
regional civil society organizations have emerged (Touzard
and Drapieri, 2003). In 2000, ROPPA (Réseau des organisations paysannes et des producteurs d’Afrique de l’Ouest)
was created in West Africa, under the umbrella of UEMOA(Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest-Africaine). Similarly, in South America, Coprofam (Coordenadora de Organizaciones de Productores Familiares del Mercosur) was
created at the time of the implementation of the Mercosurmechanisms, in order to defend family agriculture.
Farmer organizations representing a large number of poor
agricultural producers have had great impact on rural livelihoods through the provision of services.
Goals
N, L, E, S, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

tions regarding sustainability and social justice (Hammani
et al., 2005; Richard-Ferroudji et al., 2006).
3.2.4.2 Markets, entrepreneurship, value addition andregulation
The outcomes and efficiency of market rules and organizations directly affect sustainability. Efficient trading involves(1) farmers acting within an active chain of agricultural
production and marketing; (2) dynamic links to social, economic and environmental activities in the region; (3) development plans appropriate to heterogeneity of agriculture
among countries; and (4) recognition of the differences infarming methods and cultural background. Many farmers
have a good understanding of the nature of the demand interms of its implications for varieties, timing, packaging
and permitted chemicals. As a result of knowledge-based
approaches, they progressively modify their production
practices and their portfolio of products in response tochanging patterns of demand. The implementation of newnorms regarding the use of AKST modifies market rules andorganizations and differentially affects rural livelihoods, depending on local conditions.
Both locally and internationally the food sector is processing a wider range of tropical products.
Goals
N, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Farmer organizations have enlarged their activities from enhanced production to many other support functions, andnot all are for profit (Bosc et al., 2002). The support includes coordination, political representation and defense ofinterests, literacy and other training, and cultivation methods for sustainability of production systems and social services. In some cases, these farmer organizations have taken
direct responsibility for research and dissemination (as in
the Coffee Producer Federation of Colombia).

Many different products can be processed from a single crop,e.g., maize in Benin is processed into forty different products,
in large part explaining the limited penetration of imported
rice and wheat into Benin. The branding of products by areaof origin is becoming an important marketing tool affecting
the competitiveness of local products in the tropical foodsector (Daviron and Ponte, 2005; van de Kop et al., 2006).
Competitiveness in the international market involves thepromotion of distinctive properties of tropical foodstuffs(e.g., color, flavor) in products such as roots and tubers.

Access to water resources has been improved by water user
associations and organizations ensuring access to waterrights through user-based, agency and market allocations.

In aquaculture, there is increased coordination of private
sector-led production and processing chains.

Goals
E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts Scale0 to +3G

Specificity
Mainly in tropical countries

Dissatisfaction with performance of government managed
irrigation has led to the promotion of participatory irrigation
management over the past twenty years. However, problems
remain with efficiency of operations, maintenance, sustainability and financial capacity. The involvement of private
sector investors and managers is gaining credibility as a way
to enhance management skills, and relieve the governmentof fiscal and administrative burdens (World Bank, 2007a).
Water User Association (WUA) schemes in several states inIndia (Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, West Bengal,
Uttar Pradesh) have improved access to water resources andincreased production through increased irrigation. Likewise, in Mexico, Turkey and Nepal, transferring irrigation
management to farmers has resulted in improved operation,better maintenance of infrastructure, reduced government
expenditure, and increased production (World Bank, 1999).
In many countries, this evolution has also raised new ques-chapter 03.indd 212

Goals
E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Formal and informal links between small-scale producers
and large processing companies are contributing to more
efficient and competitive aquaculture (shrimp, Vietnamese
catfish, African catfish and tilapia), resulting in better quality for consumers, and secured margins for producers (Kumaran et al., 2003; Li, 2003). Export certification schemes
are further streamlining production, processing, distribution and retail chains (Ponte, 2006).
Seasonal fluctuation in fruit and vegetable supplies is amajor problem in the marketing of perishable products.
Goals
N

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-3 to +1

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Various approaches have been developed to reduce theimpacts of seasonality. For example, market-based risk
management instruments have been instituted, such as thepromotion of the cold-storage, insurance against weather-

11/3/08 10:55:46 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 213

induced damage and encouragement of over-the-counter
forward contracts (Byerlee et al., 2006). Initiatives like theseare enhanced by the development of varieties and production technologies that expand the productive season andovercome the biotic and abiotic stresses, which occur during
the off-season (Tchoundjeu et al., 2006).
Consumers’ concerns about food safety are affecting international trade regulations.
Goals
N, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
R

Specificity
Wide applicability

The effects of the implementation of food safety standards
on global trade is valued at billions of US dollars (Otsuki etal., 2001; Wilson and Otsuki, 2001). However, the regulatory environment for food safety can be seen as an opportunity to gain secure and stable access to affluent and remunerative new markets, and generate large value addition
activities in developing countries (World Bank, 2005b).
Food standards are increasingly important and have implications for consumer organizations and private firms.
Goals
N

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

New instruments of protection and competitiveness haveemerged as “standards” and new forms of coordination between actors in the food chain have been developed in response to consumer and citizen concerns. Actors in the foodchain work together to specify acceptable production conditions and impose them on suppliers (Gereffi and Kaplinsky,
2001; Daviron and Gibbon, 2002). Initially limited to somecompanies, standards are becoming accepted globally (e.g.,
Global Food Standard, International Food Standard [IFS],GFSI [Global Food Safety Initiative], FLO [Fair Trade Labeling Organization]) (JRC, 2007). The multiplication ofthese standards, which are supposed to improve food safety,
preserve the environment, and reduce social disparities, etc.,
raises questions about international regulation, coordination,and evaluation (in the case of forests, Gueneau, 2006).
Food labeled as “organic” or “certified organic” is governed by a set of rules and limits, usually enforced by inspection and certification mechanisms known as “guarantee systems”.
Goals
H, E, S, D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts Scale+1 to +3G

Specificity
Wide applicability

With very few exceptions, synthetic pesticides, mineral fertilizers, synthetic preservatives, pharmaceuticals, sewage
sludge, genetically modified organisms and irradiation areprohibited in all organic standards. Sixty mostly industrialized countries currently have national organic standards aswell as hundreds of private organic standards worldwide(FAO/ITC/CTA, 2001; IFOAM, 2003, 2006). Regulatory
systems for organics usually consist of producers, inspection bodies, an accreditation body for approval and systemsupervision and a labeling body to inform the consumer(UN, 2006b). There are numerous informal organic regulation systems outside of the formal organic certificationand marketing systems. These are often called “peer” orchapter 03.indd 213“participatory” models. They do not involve third-party
inspection and often focus on local markets (UN, 2006b).
The IFOAM and Codex guidelines provide consumer andproducer protection from misleading claims and guide governments in setting organic standards in organic agriculture(see 3.2.2.1.9). The cultivation of GMO crops near organic
crops can threaten organic certification due to the risk ofcross-pollination and genetic drift.
Some food standards are now imposing minimum conditions of employment.
Goals
L, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-3 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

To face the inequalities that accrue from benefits to largescale producers, standards have been developed to encourage small-scale producers. The most prominent example isthe Fair Trade Movement (www.fairtrade.org.uk), whichaims to ensure that poor farmers are adequately rewarded
for the crops they produce. In 2002 the global fair trade
market was conservatively estimated at US$500 million(Moore, 2004). This support has helped small organizations to market their produce directly by working similarly
to that of forest certification. Where foreign buyers impose
labor standards, the terms and conditions of employment in
the formal supply chains are better than in the informal sector. Enforcement of food standards furthermore improve theworking environment and ensure that agricultural workers
are not exposed to unhealthy production practices.
The globalization of trade in agricultural products is not
an import-export food model that addresses poverty andhunger in developing countries.
Goals
N, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-4 to 0Scale
GSpecificity
Wide applicability

Many complex factors affect the economy of a country. The
following evidence suggests that international policies that
promote economic growth through agriculture do not necessarily resolve the issue of poverty (Boussard et al., 2006;
Chabe-Ferret et al., 2006):• An estimated 43% of the rural population of Thailand
now lives below the poverty line even though agricultural exports grew 65% between 1985 and 1995.
• In Bolivia, after a period of spectacular agricultural export growth, 95% of the rural population earned lessthan a dollar a day.
• The Chinese government estimates that 10 million
farmers will be displaced by China’s implementation of
WTO rules, with the livelihoods of another 200 million small-scale farmers expected to decline as a resultof further implementations of trade liberalization andagriculture industrialization.
• Kenya, which was self-sufficient in food until the 1980s,
now imports 80% of its food, while 80% of its exports
are agricultural.
• In the USA net farm income was 16% below average
between 1990-1995, while 38,000 small farms wentout of business between 1995-2000.
• In Canada, farm debt has nearly doubled since the 1989
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

11/3/08 10:55:46 AM

214 | IAASTD Global Report••

The U.K. lost 60,000 farmers and farm workers between 98-2001 and farm income declined 71% between
1995-2001.
To provide clearer and broader figures, the World Bank
has implemented the Ruralstruc project to assess theimpact of liberalization and structural adjustment strategies on rural livelihoods (Losch, 2007). These examples indicate that poverty alleviation requires more thaneconomic policies that aim at promoting global trade.

The globalization of the food supply chain has raised consumer concerns for food safety and quality.
Goals
N

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-3 to 0Scale
GSpecificity
Wide applicability

The incidence of food safety hazards such as: “mad cow disease” (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), contaminationof fresh and processed foods (e.g., baby milk, hormones inveal, food colorings and ionized foodstuffs in Europe, mercury in fish in Asia, etc.) have resulted in the emergence oftraceability as a key issue for policy and scientific researchin food quality and safety. Over the past ten years considerable research effort has been directed towards assessing
risks and providing controls (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point—HACCP). These have included the implementation of food traceability systems complying with marketing
requirements (Opara and Mazaud, 2001). Consumer concerns about the safety of conventional foods and industrial
agriculture as result of the use of growth-stimulating substances, GM food, dioxin-contaminated food and livestock
epidemics, such as outbreaks of foot and mouth disease,
have contributed to the growth in demand for organic food.
Many consumers perceive organic products as safer and of
higher quality than conventional ones. These perceptions,rather than science, drive the market (http://www.fao.org/
DOCREP/005/Y4252E/y4252e13.htm#P11_3).
“Enlightened Globalization” is a concept to address needsof the poor and the global environment and promote democracy.
Goals
E, S, D

Certainty
D

Range of Impacts
Not yet known

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

The concept of Enlightened Globalization has been proposed to address “the needs of the poorest of the poor, theglobal environment, and the spread of democracy” (Sachs,
2005). It is focused on “a globalization of democracies, multilateralism, science and technology, and a global economic
system designed to meet human needs”. In this initiative,
international agencies and countries of the industrial Northwould work with partners in the South to honor their commitments to international policies and develop new processing industries focused on the needs of local people in developing countries while expanding developing economies.
Enlightened Globalization also is aimed at helping poor
countries to gain access to the markets of richer countries,
instead of blocking trade and investment.
There is new and increasing involvement of the corporate
sector in agroforestry.

chapter 03.indd 214

Goals
E, S

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
R

Specificity
Wide applicability

Typically, multinational companies have pursued largescale, high input monocultures as their production systems.
However, a small number of multinational companies are
now recognizing the social, environmental, and even economic, benefits of community engagement and becoming
involved in agroforestry to develop new crop plants thatmeet specific needs in a diversifying economy. There are
now several examples of new niche products becoming newinternational commodities (Mitschein and Miranda, 1998;
Wynberg et al., 2002; Tchoundjeu et al., 2006). In Brazil,
DaimlerChrysler has promoted community agroforestry
for the production of a range of raw plant materials used
to make a natural product alternative to fiberglass in car
manufacture (Mitschein and Miranda, 1998; Panik, 1998),
while in Ghana, Unilever is developing new cash crops like
Allanblackia sp. as shade trees for cocoa (IUCN, 2004; Attipoe et al., 2006). In South Africa, the “Amarula” liqueurfactory of Distell Corporation buys raw Sclerocarya birrea
fruits from local communities (Wynberg et al., 2003). New
public/private partnerships such as those developed by thecocoa industry can set the standard for the integration ofscience, public policy and business best practices (Shapiro
and Rosenquist, 2004).
3.2.4.3 Policy design and implementation
Policy instruments can be introduced at many different levels: sectorial, territorial, international science policies, andinternational policies, treaties and conventions.
Analyses reveal that the Green Revolution was most successful when the dissemination of AKST was accompaniedby policy reforms.
Goals
N

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
R

Specificity
Wide applicability

Policy reform has been shown to be particularly important
for the successful adoption of Green Revolution rice production technologies in Asia. When Indonesia, implemented
relevant price, input, credit, extension and irrigation policies
to facilitate the dissemination of the cultivation of potentially high-yielding, dwarf varieties, physical yields increased
by a factor of 4-5 per unit area, as well as achieving verysignificant increases in labor productivity and rural employment (Trebuil and Hossain, 2004). Likewise, in Vietnam,
increased rice production in the Mekong delta in 1988 was
associated with the implementation of similar policies (LeCoq and Trebuil, 2005).
Agricultural policies that in the past gave inadequate attention to the needs of small-scale farmers and the rural
poor are now being replaced by a stronger focus on livelihoods.
Goals
L

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-3 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Agricultural policy over the last 50 years focused on the
production of agricultural commodities and meeting the immediate staple food needs to avoid starvation in the growing

11/3/08 10:55:47 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 215

world population (Tribe, 1994), and rarely explicitly targeted the multiple needs of the rural population (World Bank,
2007a). This situation has changed over the last 10 years
with the development of a livelihoods focus in rural development projects, but in many countries, national policies
are still focused on high-input farming systems with a strongemphasis on intensive farming that differs from the smallscale, low-input, mixed cropping systems of small-scale
farmers which may be hurt by untargeted policy reforms(OECD, 2005). A stronger livelihood approach is based onsustainability issues, diversification of benefits, better use ofnatural resources, ethical trade and a more people-centricfocus. Diversified farming systems often mimic natural
ecosystems as noted in best-bet alternatives to slash-andburn (Palm et al., 2005b). These typically provide radical
improvements in farmer livelihoods (Vosti et al., 2005) andenvironmental benefits (Tomich et al., 2005).
Organizations that support and regulate the production ofagricultural crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry are often poorly interconnected at the national and international
level, and are also poorly connected with those responsible
for the environment and conservation.
Goals
E

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-3 to 0Scale
GSpecificity
Wide applicability

The creation of synergies between increased production anddevelopment and sustainability goals are often limited by
the “disconnects” between agriculture and the environment.
Thus the ideal of sustainable land use is often more a subjectof political rhetoric than government policy. However, there
are signs that some of the INRM initiatives—in agroforestry, organic agriculture, sustainable forestry certification,
etc—are starting to influence environmental land use planning and agricultural authorities (Abbott et al., 1999; DalalClayton and Bass, 2002; Dalal-Cayton et al., 2003), as they
are also in fisheries (Sanchirico et al., 2006).
In the agricultural and food sectors, coordination of thedevelopment of international policies created by the WTO
have strongly interacted with global AKST actors.
Goals
D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-1 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Changes during the period of structural adjustment had
considerable impact on the ability of developing countries
to define targets and find the means to implement their
public research and policy interventions. The need formore “policy space” is now widely acknowledged (Rodrik,2007), creating a wide gap between the demand for policy and the implementation of either new policy or public/
private stakeholder initiatives (Daviron et al., 2004). It is
not clear whether the centralized and public AST policiesof the last century can be replaced by modern decentralized public/private partnerships (such as private investment on R&D, standardization initiatives, third-party
certification and farmer organization credit and saving
programs) targeting the reduction of poverty and increased
sustainability.

chapter 03.indd 215

3.2.4.3.1 Sectoral policies
Many of the different sectors encompassed by agriculture
have policies which specifically address a particular production system, target population, or natural resource. Likewise, specific agricultural policies concern food safety andhealth issues. This can create problems, as these different
sectors of agriculture are often poorly integrated, or evendisconnected. However, a few examples (e.g., agroforestry
and forestry) are emerging which illustrate some convergence between sectors.
One of the consequences of structural adjustment policies
has been the abandonment of the land by poor farmers,
who can no longer afford farm inputs.
Goals
L

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-4 to 0Scale
GSpecificity
Mainly small-scale agriculture

Rising input prices have resulted in high migration from thecountryside to urban centers in search of jobs; often low
paid manufacturing jobs. In India, for example, the numbers of landless rural farmers increased from 27.9 to over
50 million between 1951 and the 1990s, hampering economic growth. This illustrates that achieving higher aggregate economic growth is only one element of an effective
strategy for poverty reduction (Datt and Ravallion, 2002)
and that redressing existing inequalities in human resource
development and between rural and urban areas are otherimportant elements of success.
Although governments have expanded their role in water
management, particularly in large scale irrigation schemes,sustainability requires effective institutional arrangements
for the management of the resource and particularly public-private coordination.
Goals
E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Large dams, reservoirs and irrigation systems have usually
been built by government agencies for economic development, including agriculture, urbanization and power generation. In most countries, agriculture has been by far thelargest user of water and typically its allocation and management has been a public concern of government (de Sherbinin and Dompka, 1998). In the 1980s dissatisfaction withirrigation management and sustainability was common andthe importance of empowering farmers, together with theirtraditional systems of water rights, was recognized as important. This led to the concept of participatory irrigation
management in the 1990s. Nevertheless, communities ofwater users have faced numerous challenges in gaining sustainable and equitable access to water (Bruns and MeinzenDick, 2000; Meinzen-Dick and Pradhan, 2002). Water User
Associations (WUA) have emerged as an effective way ofmanaging water delivery (Abernethy, 2003; Schlager, 2003).
This approach, as well as the rise of the private sector, has
led to the redefinition of the role of governments over the
past 20 years. Governments are now viewed as facilitatorsof investments, regulators of this sector and responsible forsustainable management at the watershed scale (Hamann
and O’Riordan, 2000; Perret, 2002; ComMod Group,2004).

11/3/08 10:55:47 AM

216 | IAASTD Global Report

Deforestation is often an outcome of poorly linked intersectorial policies.
Goals
N, L, E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts+1 to +4

Scale
R

Specificity
Mainly small-scale agriculture

One of the common and dominant outcomes from an international study of slash-and-burn agriculture was that smallscale farmers cut down tropical forests because current
national and international policies, market conditions, andinstitutional arrangements either provide them with incentives for doing so, or do not provide them with alternatives(Palm et al., 2005b; Chomitz et al., 2006). This trend willcontinue if tangible incentives that meet the needs of local
people for more sustainable alternatives to slash-and-burnfarming are not introduced. Some options linked to the delivery of international public goods and services, like carbon
storage, may be very expensive (Palm et al., 2005a), whileothers like the participatory domestication of trees providing both environmental services and marketable, traditional
foods and medicines (Tchoundjeu et al., 2006), that help
farmers to help themselves may be a cheaper option (see3.2.2.1.6).
Integrating forestry with other land uses has economic, environmental and social benefits.
Goals
E, S, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Recently forest agencies have recognized that tree cover outside public forests and in farmland are important for national forest-related objectives (FAO, 2006b). In forest certification the links between civil society and market action
have been a key driver in the social integration of intensive
forest plantations (Forest Stewardship Council www.fsc.
org and Pan-European Forest Certification www.pefc.org).
Consequently, certification standards are improving the direction of both forest policy and forest KST at national andinternational levels (Bass et al., 2001; Gueneau and Bass,
2005). Forest certification is linking land use issues from thetree stand, to the landscape, and ultimately to global levels
for the production of sustainable non-timber benefits andenvironmental services (Pagiola et al., 2002; Belcher, 2003).
When KST and market conditions are right, the flow of financial benefits can make multipurpose forest systems economically superior to conventional timber-focused systems(Pagiola et al., 2002). Non-wood forest products produce a
global value of at least $4.7 billion in 2005 (FAO, 2005b).
Public interest in food safety has increased and food standards have been developed to ensure that the necessary
safety characteristics are achieved.
Goals
N

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Public interest in the chemical residues in fresh produce(Bracket, 1999; Kitinoja and Gorny, 1999) has been heightened by the provision of quantitative data on chemical use
in agriculture (OECD, 1997; Timothy et al., 2004), especially the use of banned pesticides in developing country
agriculture. Of special concern is the permitted thresholdsof heavy metals (Mansour, 2004), and their status as con-chapter 03.indd 216

taminants, especially as food administrators in developed
countries have tended to set increasingly lower levels oftolerance. Traceability has become an important criterionof food quality (Bureau et al., 2001). Internationally recognized food safety standards include GAP, GMP like ISO
9000, EUREP GAP, HACCP. Similarly, various measuresand standards have been developed for food quality including Diet Quality Index (Patterson et al., 1994), Analysis ofCore Foods (Kristal et al., 1990), and Healthy Eating Index(Kennedy et al., 1995). Dietary Diversity Scores are also now
increasingly used to measure food quality (Kant et al., 1993,
1995; Hatloy, et al., 1998; Marshall et al., 2001; Ali andFarooq, 2004), while total nutritive values are being used toprioritize food commodities (Ali and Tsou, 2000). Althoughconsumers benefit from the better quality and greater safety
attributes of food products, the enforcement of food quality
standards also may increase food prices (Padilla, 1992). In
addition, the cost of applying food safety standards can bea drain on public resources or may lead to disguised protection, as in the case of “voluntary certifications” which are
increasingly a prerequisite for European retailers (Bureau
and Matthews, 2005).
GMOs are experiencing adoption difficulties in Europe.
Goals
E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to -4

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

GM crops are only grown commercially in 3-4 European
countries, (primarily Spain) (James, 2006) and very few GM
crops and foods have been approved for commercialization.
Rejection by consumers, food companies and supermarkets
is responsible for poor adoption and can taken as an indication that consumer demand for GM products is almost nonexistent (Bernauer, 2003). However, it is unclear to what
extent consumer demand has been the result of EU regulations or vice versa and debate continues about the level ofappropriate regulations. Before the mid-1980s, there were
no GMOs on the market in Europe, but since then the EU
has adopted regulations on the approval of GM crops andfoods. The strict labeling laws have resulted in very few GM
foods sold on the European market. There is however moretolerance of non-food GM crops in Europe and recent reports indicate that some 75% of cotton imported into the
EU today is from GM varieties, mainly from the USA andChina. In other parts of the world the situation with GM
foods is very different, Fifteen of 16 commercial crops inChina have genetically engineered pest resistance (8/16 virus, 4/16 insect, 4/16 disease resistance) and herbicide resistance (2/16) (See 3.2.1.4).
Adoption of GMOs has had some serious negative economic impacts in Canada and USA.
Goals
D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-3 to -4

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

After the adoption of GM varieties, Canadian farmers losttheir market for $300 million of canola (oilseed rape) to
GMO-free markets in Europe (Freese and Schubert, 2004;
Shiva et al., 2004). Likewise, after leading US food allergists judged Bt-corn to be a potential health hazard (Freese,2001), US$1 billion worth of product recalls followed the

11/3/08 10:55:47 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 217

discovery of animal feed Bt-corn in products for human consumption (Shiva et al., 2004). Maize exports from USA toEurope have also declined from 3.3 million tonnes in 1995
to 25,000 tonnes in 2002 due to fears about GMOs (Shiva
et al., 2004). The American Farm Bureau estimates this loss
has cost US farmers $300 million per year (Center for Food
Safety, 2006).
3.2.4.3.2 Territorial policies
Attention to the livelihood needs of small-scale farmers
and the rural poor has been insufficient, but now many
developing nations are implementing policies to enhanceincomes and reduce poverty.
Goals
L, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-2 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Improving the livelihood of small-scale farmers has typically focused on market participation, through better accessto information, increased efficiency of input supply systems,
provision of credit, and better market chains and infrastructure (Sautier and Bienabe, 2005). In some countries, agricultural policies and market liberalization have increased
economic differentiation among communities and households (Mazoyer and Roudart, 2002; IFAD, 2003). Smallscale, low-input agriculture systems have an important role
as a social safety net (Perret et al., 2003), help to maintaincultural and community integrity, promote biodiversity andlandscape conservation. However, the impacts of these commercialization policies on social conflict, land ownership,
kinship, and resource distribution are not usually assessed(Le Billon, 2001).
Policy responses have been developed to enhance food andnutritional security, and food safety, and to alleviate theimpacts of seasonal fluctuations on the poor.
Goals
N

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Responses to food and nutritional insecurity have included
the provision of infrastructure for health facilities and parental education (Cebu Study Team, 1992; Alderman andGarcia, 1994); programs ensuring equitable distribution ofnutritious foods among family members; regulations to enforce the provision by retailers of nutritional information
on food purchases (Herrman and Roeder, 1998), and theimprovement of safety practices for those preparing, serving
and storing food (Black et al., 1982; Stanton and Clemens,
1987; Henry et al., 1990). Other approaches to supporting
marketing have included linking the domestic and international markets through involvement of the private sector,
developing food aid, food-for-work programs, and price instability coping mechanisms (Boussard et al., 2005).
National conservation and development strategies haveincreasingly promoted more integration of sustainability
goals at local and national levels.
Goals
E, S, D

chapter 03.indd 217

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

National conservation and development strategies have recently gained as much political profile as land use planningin the past. National poverty reduction strategies, conservation strategies, and sustainable development strategies form
a pool of cross-cutting approaches that seek to link institutions. This has involved the engagement of local stakeholders in participatory processes to negotiate broad visions of
the future, and to focus local, regional and national institutions on poverty reduction, environmental sustainability(Tubiana, 2000), sustainable development (Dalal-Clayton
and Bass, 2002) and participatory agroenterprise development (Ferris et al., 2006).
Government ministries and international agencies responsible for agriculture, livestock, fisheries and food crops are
typically disconnected and in competition for resources,
and power.
Goals
E, S, D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-3 to 0Scale
GSpecificity
Wide applicability

In many countries around the world the disconnections between the various subsectors of agriculture place them incompetition for resources and power. Consequently, lack ofcompatibility between the policies and laws of different sectors make it difficult to promote sustainable development,
as the potential synergies are lost, e.g., promoting forest
removal for farmers to secure agricultural land tenure andgrants (Angelsen and Kaimowitz, 2001). To address thisproblem, cross-sectoral national forums associated with international agreements/summits, have developed strategicplanning initiatives to provide an integrated framework forsustainable development and poverty reduction, with mixed
results. For example, the Action Plans of the Rio Earth Summit (www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21) and theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) put apremium on national level planning as a means to integrate
economic, social and environmental objectives in development (Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002). These Action Plans
have been most successful where they have (1) involved
multistakeholder fora; consulted “vertically” to grassroots
as well as “horizontally” between sectors; focused on different sectors’ contributions to defined development and sustainability outcomes (rather than assuming sector roles); (2)been driven by high-level and “neutral” government bodies, and (3) been linked to expenditure reviews and budgets(Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002; Assey et al., 2007). In mostcountries the importance of farming for both economic
growth and social safety nets is clear in such strategies, but
few have stressed the links with forestry. However, due tolack of updated information, it has been difficult to progressbeyond a broad, consultative approach and to identify specific tradeoff decisions, especially concerning environmental
issues (Bojo and Reddy, 2003).
3.2.4.3.3 Scientific policies
Scientific policies shape the design and the use of AKST andsubsequently, its impact on development, in various ways.
Examples include the organization of disciplines within academic and AKST institutions, and the implementation of
specific policies on intellectual property rights.

11/3/08 10:55:48 AM

218 | IAASTD Global Report

Typically, AKST development has rationalized production
according to academic discipline, constraining the development of integrated production systems.
Goals
E

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-3 to +1

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

In the past, crop, livestock and forest sciences have typically been implemented separately. However, agroforestry
integrates trees with food crops and/or livestock in a single
system, improving the relationships between food crops,
livestock and tree crops for timber or other products, but
this level of integration is rarely visible in international institutions, national governments and markets. For example,
the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development (1999), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests do
not focus on agricultural links. Likewise, the InterAcademy
Council Report on African Agriculture (2004) paid scantattention to forestry, or even to agroforestry. However, thisis changing and a few new forms of local organization andcollective action are emerging, such as Landcare (www.
landcare.org), Ecoagriculture (McNeely and Scherr, 2003);
community forestry associations (Molnar et al., 2005),
and biological corridor conservation projects. This change
has just emerged at the policy level, with the European
Union approving a measure entitled “First establishmentof agroforestry systems on agricultural land” (Article 44 ofRegulation No 1698/2005 and Article 32 Regulation No
1974/2006, Annex II, point 5.3.2.2.2) in 2007 to provide
funds for the establishment of two agroforestry systems inmainland Greece.
IPR policies are used to protect plant genetic resources thatare important for food and agriculture.
Goals
E, S

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-3 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Most developed countries have a system to register Plant
Breeders Rights, often supported by Trade Marks and Patents. These schemes are genuinely fostering innovation andconferring benefits to innovators, while also protecting genetic resources. They are supported by the International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (TRIPS) and the Convention on Biological Diversity(UNEP, 1993) which aim to promote both the conservationand sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food andagriculture and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits
arising out of their use (FAO, 2001, 2002b). The treaty addresses the exchange of germplasm between countries andrequired all member countries of World Trade Organization
to implement an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) systembefore 2000 (Tirole et al., 2003; Trommetter, 2005) “forthe protection of plant varieties by patents or by an effective
sui generis system” (Mortureux, 1999; Célarier and MarieVivien 2001; Feyt, 2001). Germplasm arising from international public-funded research is protected on behalf of humankind by the FAO (Frison et al., 1998; Jarvis et al., 2000;
Sauvé and Watts, 2003). Agriculture is being integrated into
the program and work of the CBD, including conservationof domesticated species, genetic diversity and goals for conservation of wild flora and agricultural landscapes.

chapter 03.indd 218

Intellectual property rights regulatory frameworks currently do not protect the innovations or rights of communities
or farmers in developing countries to their indigenous genetic resources.
Goals
E, S

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

The development of IPR frameworks at international andnational scales through patents, trade marks, contracts,
geographical indicators and varieties do not offer muchprotection for poor farmers and there are many unresolved
issues. For example, in developing countries many farmers
do not have the ability or income to protect their rights,
and the identification of the innovator can be controversial.
Consequently much international activity by NGOs andfarmer organizations is focused on trying to develop effective protection mechanisms for farmers and local communities based on traceability and transparency (Bazile, 2006),
as for example in the Solomon Islands (Sanderson and Sherman, 2004). This is important to prevent biopiracy and topromote legitimate biodiscovery that meets internationallyapproved standards.
To assess and manage potential risks from LMOs and
GMOs, governments are developing National Biosafety
Frameworks.
Goals
H, L, E, S

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts
Not yet known

Scale
G

Specificity
WorldwideCountries need to have capacity and mechanisms to makeinformed decisions as they accept or reject products of modern biotechnology (Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001).
Currently many Governments, including eighty developing
countries, have developed National Biosafety Frameworks(NBF) to support the application and use of modern biotechnology in accordance with national policies, laws andinternational obligations, in particular the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CBD, 2000). This is the first step towards the development of improved capacity for biosafetyassessment and implementation of the Cartagena Protocol
under the UNEP-GEF Biosafety Project (http://www.unep.ch/biosafety/news.htm). NBFs have had some success but
they have not always been adopted by governments. Many
African countries still lack biosafety policies and regulations
and technical enforcement capacity.
3.2.4.3.4 International policy, treaties and conventions
The globalization process has been supported by international and regional trade policy frameworks, and by thepolicy recommendations (structural adjustment programs)of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
Goals
D

Certainty
A

Range of Impacts-2 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

There are links between global trade and economic agreements and institutions, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Regional Trade Agreements (e.g., NAFTA,
EPA), IMF, bilateral agreements, and domestic and regional
agricultural policies, technologies, R&D and natural resource use. AKST played a role in this process, particularly

11/3/08 10:55:48 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 219

neo-classical economic theory which emphasized the needto shift resources in line with comparative advantages atnational level, and restore price incentives to generate income at local level. Assessment of the impact of marketoriented policies has demonstrated the need for complementary and supportive public policies to cope with some of theunsustainable impacts of globalization and to reinforce theneed for greater sustainability of development and growth(Stiglitz, 2002).
Development microeconomics and agricultural economics
of international markets have called for sui generis policies.
Goals
E, S, D

Certainty
D

Range of Impacts
0 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Two approaches have been taken to development economics
research and policy. Firstly, there has been a shift of focus
from macro issues to micro problems; e.g., from markets tohouseholds, from products to people (Sadoulet et al., 2001;
Banerjee and Duflo, 2005). In this approach, research on
the impacts of risk and imperfect information at the household level provided insights on the cost of market failure
for households and countries (Rothschild and Stiglitz, 1976;
Newberry and Stiglitz, 1979; Binswanger, 1981; Stiglitz,
1987; Boussard et al., 2006). For example, local market andinstitutional conditions were found to determine the success or failure of public policy. In China and other emerging
economies sui generis macro policies have outperformed theso-called “Washington consensus” policies (Santiso, 2006).
This is increasing interest in sui generis development andtrade policies (Stiglitz and Greenwald, 2006; Rodrik, 2007).
In the second approach, agricultural economics researchcontinues to explore the value and power distribution alonginternational commodity market chains (Gereffi and Korzeniewicz, 1994; Daviron and Ponte, 2005; Gibbons andPonte, 2005), to determine how new patterns of labor organization throughout the chain have impact upon its overall
function—and notably how they affect farmer income.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has greatly expanded the scope of trade and commodity agreements as
set out in the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade(GATT).
Goals
D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-3 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Agricultural economic research on the causes and consequences of market instability on people and national economies (e.g., Schultz, 1949) shaped the postwar developmentof developing countries policies prior to Independence.
These policies led to new institutional schemes to addressdevelopment issues, e.g., the creation of UNCTAD and theformulation of special arrangements under GATT in the
1970s, such as the definition of rules with regard to setting trade quotas and tariffs (Ribier and Tubianz, 1996).
Other matters have remained under the purview of national
governments. Although not without flaws, this system has
provided tools such as trade barriers which allow countries
to protect their domestic markets. The Uruguay Round ofnegotiations, which led to the creation of the WTO, greatly

chapter 03.indd 219

expanded the power of international arenas over agriculture, limiting the authority of national governments to fixed
policies governing their own farmers, consumers, and natural resources (Voituriez, 2005). The impacts of these WTO
policies on the agricultural sector have been controversial.
Ex post analysis indicates negative impacts on the lives ofpoor food producers and indigenous peoples, while ex ante
analysis on current Doha Scenarios point to possible welfare losses in the short term for some poor countries andpoor households (Hertel and Winters, 2005; Polaski, 2006).
Some of the losers from trade liberalization are also among
the poorest (Chabe-Ferret et al., 2006). Similarly, traditional small scale farming and fishing communities worldwide
have suffered from globalization, which has systematicallyremoved restrictions and support mechanisms protecting
them from the competition of highly productive or subsidized producers. To redress these negative impacts, current
AKST initiatives include the examination of (1) broader
special and differential treatment for developing countries,
allowing them to experiment with ad hoc policy within awider policy space and (2) the resort to special “rights”—
e.g., the Right to food or “Food Sovereignty” under UN
auspices (Ziegler, 2003).
Regional Trade Agreements have had major impacts onfood exports and agriculture systems in some countries.
Goals
D

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-3 to +2

Scale
R

Specificity
North and South America

The implementation of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had major social and economic impacts
on agriculture and the trading of food. For example, while
beneficial to USA, corn production in Mexico collapsed
with an associated decline in the real rural wage (Hufbauer
and Schott, 2005). This situation arose because as a condition for joining NAFTA, Mexico had to change its Constitution and revoke the traditional “ejido” laws of communal
land and resource ownership, and dismantle its system of
maintaining a guaranteed floor price for corn, which sustained more than 3 million corn producers. Within a year,
production of Mexican corn and other basic grains fell byhalf and millions of peasant farmers lost their income andlivelihoods. Many of these farmers are part of the recordhigh number of immigrants crossing U.S. borders.
One of the side effects of the increased food trade has been
worldwide increase in the number of food and food-borne
diseases.
Goals
N

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts Scale-3 to 0G

Specificity
Wide applicability

The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified thatthe increased trade of food has contributed to increased levels of human illness worldwide. In part this may simply be
due to the increased volume of food imports. The WTO’s
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) has set criteria for member nations to follow regarding their domestic
trade. These policies affect food safety risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins, veterinary drug and pesticide
residues or other disease-causing organisms. The primary
goal of the SPS is to facilitate trade by eliminating differences

11/3/08 10:55:48 AM

220 | IAASTD Global Report

above and below SPS standards in food, animal, and plant
regulations from country to country. Independently fromthe international standard (Codex Alimentarius, www.codexalimentarius.net), national standards might imply anasymmetry of trade exchanges.
Structural adjustment policies (SAPs) of the World Bankand the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have significantly reshaped national agriculture policies in developing
countries.
Goals
D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-3 to +1

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

The structural adjustment policies were aimed at helping
countries cut down their debt. Many SAPs required developing countries to cut spending. As a result, centralized seed
distribution programs, price supports for food and farm
inputs, agricultural research, and certain commodities (often locally consumed foods) were eliminated or downsized(Bourguignon et al., 1991). While national support systems
protecting traditional livelihoods (maintaining native crops,
landraces, etc.), food security, rural communities, and local cultures suffered, private corporations were given loans
to partner with developing countries to develop industrial
agriculture with crops mainly for export. Such financial
mechanisms controversially promoted monocultural cropping that required farm inputs such as commercial seeds,
chemicals, fossil-fuel based machinery, as well as requiring
an increase in water usage.
Rising environment concerns and the recognition of global
environmental public goods have had impacts on tradeand livelihoods.
Goals
E, S

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-3 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Increased interest in tropical forest conservation and the potential role of marketing non-timber forest products has led
to heightened interest in the international trade of a wide
range of natural products (e.g., Kusters and Belcher, 2004;
Sunderland and Ndoye, 2004). The Convention on Biological Diversity has brought attention to issues of access to,and use of genetic resources of a wide range of species notformerly considered as crops, but of significance in horticulture, biotechnology, crop protection and pharmaceutical/
nutriceutical and cosmetics industries (ten Kate and Laird,
1999; Weber, 2005). The CBD also outlined the ways inwhich these industries should interact responsibly with traditional communities, the holders of Traditional Knowledge
about products from this wide array of potentially usefulspecies when engaging in “biodiscovery” and “bioprospecting” (Laird, 2002). In particular, it has highlighted the need
to appreciate the interactions between nature conservation,
sustainable use and social equity through the developmentof “fair and equitable benefit sharing agreements” that respect the culture and traditions of indigenous people, andthat support and enhance genetic diversity (Almekinders
and de Boef, 2000).
3.2.4.4 Territorial governanceTerritory is a new scale, intermediate between local and national issues, allowing market and state failures to be ad-chapter 03.indd 220

dressed. It is a portion of space delimited by a social groupthat implements coordination institutions and rules andthus is useful when developing integrated approaches torural development (Sepulveda et al., 2003; Caron, 2005).
Applied to agricultural production, the concept helps toaddress disconnects between scales with regard to ecological processes, individual decisions, collective management
and policies. As it is controlled by local stakeholders, it also
strengthens participation in the design of new activities andpolicies to reduce or prevent marginalization.
The concept of multifunctionality in agriculture and rural areas has simultaneously opened the way to changes inpolicies, research and operational issues.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts-5 to +5

Scale
G

Specificity
Worldwide

Multifunctional agriculture became a new policy goal in
Europe in 2000 (www.european-agenda.com), which encouraged the transformation of rural areas towards a“multifunctional, sustainable and competitive agriculture
throughout Europe”. The main idea was to encourage theproduction of non-commodity goods or services throughthe subsidy of commodity outputs (Guyomard et al., 2004).
Promoting multifunctionality has sometimes been the milestone of new policies, such as the French “Territorial Management Contract” (Contrat Territorial d’Exploitation,CTE) implemented through the 1999 Agricultural Act. The
objectives have been partially achieved (Urbano and Vollet,2005) in areas where the supply of high quality products
has been increased through contracts between government
and farmers, while protecting natural resources, biodiversity and landscapes. However, it is not limited to developed
countries and in some developing countries, notably Brazil,
multifunctional agriculture has promoted policies for family
agriculture (Losch, 2004). Multifunctionality has also been
advocated as a sustainable approach to land use in Africa(Leakey, 2001ab). In Europe, the concept of multifunctionality has progressed through state-of-the-art research projects (www.multagri.net), for example through new modelingtools to understand the integration of different functions.
Multifunctional approaches of rural territories contributeto the evaluation of rural development practices in which
agricultural and non-agricultural business come together.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +4

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Rural development to reduce poverty and improve the rural
environment is recognized as an integrated activity requiring policies that take into account the holistic nature of thetask. Consequently, current approaches are maintaining abroad vision of agriculture that involves: farmers integrated
into the appropriate agricultural production-trade chain
with dynamic links to social, economic and environmental
activities in their region. Development plans are specific to
the needs of the farmer and the rural development sector
and recognize the heterogeneity of agriculture and its cultural setting, within and between countries (Sebillote, 2000,
2001)

11/3/08 10:55:49 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 221

In Australia, multifunctionality has stimulated a debate
about Globalized Productivism versus Land Stewardship.
Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
Not yet achieved

Scale
L

Specificity
Wide applicability

In Australia, the unsustainability of agriculture lies in theapplication of European type of farming systems in an environment to which they are inherently unsuited (Gray and
Lawrence, 2001), and, in pursuit of market liberalism, theapplication of neoliberal policies targeting “competitive” or“globalized” productivism (Dibden and Cocklin, 2005). In
this scenario, with the increasing influence of multinational
agrifood companies, landholders are pressured to increase
production and extract the greatest return from the land
in a competitive marketplace in ways that do not reward
environmental management (Dibden and Cocklin, 2005).
To reverse the social, economic and environmental declineof Australian agriculture, the Victorian government has
discussed strategies with farmers for moving towards Land
Stewardship. The outcome favored voluntary and education-based tools over market-based instruments and saw
command-and-control regulation as a last resort (Cocklin
et al., 2006, 2007). In this debate, Land Stewardship wasseen as a hybrid between the “market-based instruments
policy prescription” and a newer “multifunctional approach”, with the recognition that people are a vital element in the sustainability equation (Cocklin et al., 2006).
Multifunctionality and Land Stewardship therefore emerge
as strategies promising new income streams associated withthe economic diversification of the enterprise within a more
spatially-variable rural space, founded on genuine social,economic and environmental integration.
Participatory land use planning has recently reemergedhighlighting its political and economic nature and an increased concern with equity rather than just productivity.
Goals
S, D

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

The disciplines of land use and rural planning now bring together the different sectors of the rural economy, especiallyfarming, forestry and ecosystem conservation. Comparisons of actual land use with “notional potential” derived
from analysis of soils, vegetation, hydrology and climate,have been based on systems of resource survey and assessment (Dalal-Clayton et al., 2003). In the post-colonial era,these systems have tended to be technocratic tools used bycentrally-planned economies and development agencies thathave played key roles in both the process of conversion offorest to farming, and the improvement of farm productivity (Dalal-Clayton et al., 2003), optimally at a watershed
level or regional level. This hierarchical approach was notoften recognized by stakeholders, especially politicians,
and was neutral to all-important market influences (DalalClayton et al., 2003). Consequently, land use planning has
become: (1) more decentralized, often being absorbed into
district authorities; (2) more focused on processes of learning based on natural resource capabilities, rather than producing one-off master plans segregating different sectoral

chapter 03.indd 221

land uses; and (3) more based on participatory approaches
to recognize the need for greater equity, to identify locallydesirable land use planning options and to improve commitment and “ownership” (Caron, 2001; Lardon et al., 2001;
Dalal-Clayton et al., 2003). These approaches have led tobetter national conservation and development strategies but
they usually have major capacity constraints, which resultin blunt sector-based plans and that do not realize all thepotential synergies.
Modeling water allocation at the territorial level contributes to a more efficient water management.
Goals
E

Certainty
B

Range of Impacts
0 to +2

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Optimization economic models on water allocation among
competing sectors for decision support have dominated theinternational literature for a long time (Salman et al., 2001;
Weber, 2001; Firoozi and Merrifield, 2003). Recently, there
have been an increasing number of studies adopting simulation and multi-objective frameworks. Examples include water allocation between irrigation and hydropower in North
Eastern Spain (Bielsa and Duarte 2001), an economic optimization model for water resources planning in areas withirrigation systems (Reca et al., 2001), a multi-objective optimization model for water planning in the Aral Sea Basin
which has uncertain water availability (McKinney and Cai,
1997), and water allocation to different user sectors from asingle storage reservoir (Babel et al., 2005). Links between
policy and basin hydrology for water allocation are now
being used to allocate water among users based on flow
and shortage rights, consumptive rights and irrigation efficiencies (Green and Hamilton, 2000), although the recent
implementation of new approaches needs to be better assessed.
A territorial approach to the examination of land management has mitigated issues of land insecurity, inequitable
distribution of land, and social conflict.
Goals
S

Certainty
C

Range of Impacts-4 to +3

Scale
G

Specificity
Wide applicability

Customary land tenure issues can potentially create social
tension if the rights of all farmers and herdsmen are notaddressed when developing new land use practices. Understanding local land management makes it possible to assess
the impact of policies and to question their relevancy (Platteau, 1996; Ensminger, 1997; DeSoto, 2005), and assess thesuitability of individual land rights (LeRoy et al., 1996).
Local rights and institutions are now recognized by the international authorities (Deininger and Binswanger, 2001;
World Bank, 2003) and entitlement policy is no longer considered to be the only solution. Beyond the identificationof the various regulation authorities (Schlager and Ostrom,1992), the territorial approach now articulates the local level with national and international levels (Lavigne Delville,
1998; Mathieu et al., 2000), thereby taking into account theplurality of systems, local authorities and land rights.

11/3/08 10:55:49 AM

222 | IAASTD Global Report

Research has paid little attention to the serious impacts ofsocial conflicts and disorders on agricultural production.
Goals
N, S

Certainty
D

Range of Impacts-5 to 0Scale
GSpecificity
Wide applicability

Wars may arise from conflicts for agricultural resources (Collier, 2003), notably for land (Chauveau, 2003), or claims onforest (Richards, 1996), resulting in agricultural stagnation(Geffray, 1990; Lacoste, 2004); declining productivity ofcrops and livestock and the decreasing access and availability of food (Dreze and Sen, 1990; Stewart, 1993; Macrae
and Zwi, 1994); destruction of storage and transformation
infrastructures; ground and water pollution; higher foodprices and obstacles to the transport of agricultural inputs
and products. This stagnation is reinforced by factors likecivil disorders, state collapse, urbanization, declining involvement of youth in agriculture, HIV and other diseases,
the decline of the agricultural workforce and the development of illegal activities. Although difficult to quantify, theagricultural losses related to wars have been increasing sincethe 1990s (FAO, 2000a).
Postconflict programs may alleviate difficulties. This isparticularly the case with the reorganization of input delivery systems, e.g., as seen in Rwanda, which was addressedby the “Seeds of Hope Project” (Mugungu et al., 1996;
www.new-agri.co.uk/01-2/focuson/focuson3.html).

3.3 Objectivity of this Analysis
To determine the balance of this assessment in terms of reporting on positive and negative impacts of AKST, the frequency distribution of reported impacts was determined foreach main part of the Chapter (Figure 3-8). The result indicates that about one-third of reported impacts were negative and two thirds positive. Although there were small differences between the subchapters, the trends were similar,
suggesting that the authors are in general agreement aboutbalance of this Assessment and the overall outcomes of 50
years of AKST.

Figure 3-8. Frequency distribution of impact scores from thisAssessment

chapter 03.indd 222

3.4 Lessons and Challenges
The fundamental challenge for AKST in rural development
is how to make agriculture both more productive and moresustainable as a source of income, food and other products
and services for the benefit of all people worldwide, most ofwhom are living below or a little above the US$2 per day
poverty line—but who also suffer many health, livelihoodand environmental deprivations that are not best measured
in dollars. A new approach to sustainable agriculture has tobe achieved despite the growing population pressure on limited sources of all forms of natural capital (especially land,
water, nutrients, stocks of living organisms and global climatic stability), many of which have already been severely
degraded by former approaches to agricultural production,
and which have externalized the costs of the environmental
and social impacts of AKST. This Chapter has shown thatthe current serious situation has resulted from a culture of
exploitation, coupled with a uni-dimensional approach thatfailed to appreciate and develop the multifunctionality ofagriculture.
The overriding lesson of this chapter is that, although
AKST has made great improvements in productivity, theglobal focus of AKST to date on production issues has beenat the expense of environmental and social sustainability at
the local level. Consequently, natural resources have typically been overexploited and the societies have lost someof their traditions and individuality. The sustainable implementation of AKST has been impeded by inadequate understanding, inappropriate policy interventions, socioeconomic
exclusion, and a failure to address the real needs of poor
people. This has been exacerbated by an overemphasis on
trade with industrialized countries and a set of “disconnects” between disciplines, organizations and different levelsof society that have marginalized environmental and social
objectives. In developing countries, and especially in Africa,
the combined effect has been that poor people’s livelihoods
have not benefited adequately from the Green Revolution
and from globalization, due to their exclusion from the benefits of AKST. At the same time, there is a diverse body ofwork on improving the productivity of degraded farming
systems that is based on more sustainable approaches. These
are more socially-relevant, pro-poor, approaches to agriculture, with a strong reliance on both natural resources andsocial capital at community and landscape levels. This bodyof evidence, albeit disparate at present, is largely based ondiversified and integrated farming systems, which are especially appropriate for the improvement of small-scale farms
in the tropics. It has a stronger emphasis on environmentallyand socially sustainable agriculture and offers the hope ofa better future for many millions of poor and marginalized
rural households. The overriding challenge is, therefore, torevitalize farming processes and rehabilitate natural capital, based on an expanded understanding of INRM within
AKST. Much of this will involve the provision of appropriate
information for policy-makers and farmers and the removalof the “disconnections” between different disciplines, organizations and levels of society at the heart of AKST. This
will be fundamental for the integration of the different components of AKST and the scaling-up of the existing sociallyand environmentally sustainable agricultural practices.

11/3/08 10:55:51 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 223

This Chapter has presented an analysis of the positive
and negative impacts of AKST over the last 50 years, whichallows us to address the key IAASTD question: “What are
the development and sustainability challenges that can beaddressed through AKST?” We highlight ten concerns thatpose the key AKST challenges to improving agriculture’s
sustainability, while meeting the needs of a growing population dependent on a limited and diminishing resource base:First, the fundamental failure of the economic development policies of recent generations has been reliance on thedraw-down of natural capital, rather than on production
from the “interest” derived from that capital and on the
management of this capital. Hence there is now the urgent
challenge of developing and using AKST to reverse the misuse and ensure the judicious use and renewal of water bodies, soils, biodiversity, ecosystem services, fossil fuels andatmospheric quality.
Second, AKST research and development has failed
to address the “yield gap” between the biological potential of Green Revolution crops and what the poor farmers
in developing countries typically manage to produce in thefield. The challenge is to find ways to close this yield gap
by overcoming the constraints to innovation and improving
farming systems in ways that are appropriate to the environmental, economic, social and cultural situations of resourcepoor small-scale farmers. An additional requirement is forfarm products to be fairly and appropriately priced so that
farmers can spend money on the necessary inputs.
Third, modern public-funded AKST research and development has largely ignored traditional production systems
for “wild” resources. It has failed to recognize that a largepart of the livelihoods of poor small-scale farmers typicallycomes from indigenous plants (trees, vegetables/pulses androot crops) and animals. The challenge now is to acknowledge and promote the diversification of production systems
through the domestication, cultivation, or integrated management of a much wider set of locally-important species
for the development of a wide range of marketable natural
products which can generate income for the rural and urban
resource poor in the tropics—as well as provide ecosystemservices such as soil/water conservation and shelter. Thosefood crops, which will be grown in the shade of tree crops,
will need to have been bred for productivity under shade.
Fourth, AKST research and development has failed to
fully address the needs of poor people, not just for calories,
but for the wide range of goods and services that confer
health, basic material for a good life, security, community
wellbeing and freedom of choice and action. Partly as a consequence, social institutions that had sustained a broaderbased agriculture at the community level have broken down
and social sustainability has been lost. The challenge now is
to meet the needs of poor and disadvantaged people—bothas producers and consumers, and to reenergize some of the
traditional institutions, norms and values of local societythat can help to achieve this.
Fifth, malnutrition and poor human health are stillwidespread, despite the advances in AKST. Research on the
few globally-important staple foods, especially cereals, hasbeen at the expense of meeting the needs for micronutrients,
which were rich in the wider range of foods eaten traditionally by most people. Now, wealthier consumers are also fac-chapter 03.indd 223

ing problems of poor diet, as urban people are choosing to
eat highly processed foods that are high in calories and fat,while low in micronutrients. In addition, there are increasing concerns about food safety. The challenge is to enhance
the nutritional quality of both raw foods produced by poor
small-scale farmers, and the processed foods bought by urban rich from supermarkets. A large untapped resource ofhighly nutritious and health-promoting foods, produced byundomesticated and underutilized species around the world,
could help to meet both these needs. Negative health impacts have also arisen from land clearance, food processing
and storage, urbanization, use of pesticides, etc., creatingprocurement and marketing challenges for food industries
and regulatory challenges for environmental and food safety
organizations.
Sixth, intensive farming is frequently promoted andmanaged unsustainably, resulting in the destruction of environmental assets and posing risks to human health, especially in tropical and sub-tropical climates. Many practices
involve land clearance, soil erosion, pollution of waterways,
inefficient use of water, and are dependent on fossil fuels
for the manufacture and use of agrochemicals and machinery. The key challenge is to reverse this by the promotion
and application of more sustainable land use management.
Given climate change threats in particular, we need to produce agricultural products in ways that both mitigate andadapt to climate change, that are closer to carbon-neutral,
and that minimize trace gas emissions and natural capitaldegradation.
Seventh, agricultural governance and AKST institutions
alike have focused on producing individual agriculturalcommodities. They routinely separate out the different production systems that comprise agriculture, such as cereals,
forestry, fisheries, livestock, etc, rather than seeking synergies and optimum use of limited resources through technologies promoting Integrated Natural Resources Management.
Typically, these integrating technologies have been treatedas fringe initiatives. The challenge now is to mainstream
them so that the existing set of technologies can yield greater
benefits by being brought together in integrated systems. A
range of biological, ecological, landscape/land use planningand sustainable development frameworks and tools canhelp; but these will be more effective if informed by traditional institutions at local and territorial levels. Becauseof the great diversity of relevant disciplines, socioeconomic
strata and production/development strategies, sustainableagriculture is going to be more knowledge-intensive thanever before. This growing need for knowledge is currently
associated with a decline in formal agricultural extension
focused on progressive farmers and its replacement by arange of other actors who often engage in participatory activities with a wider range of farmers, but who often needgreater access to knowledge. Thus part of the challenge isto reinvent education and training institutions (colleges,
universities, technical schools and producer organizations),
and support the good work of many NGOs by also increasing long-term investments in the upstream and downstream
transfer of appropriate knowledge.
Eighth, agriculture has also been very isolated from nonagricultural production-oriented activities in the rural landscape. There are numerous organizational and conceptual

11/3/08 10:55:51 AM

224 | IAASTD Global Report“disconnects” between agriculture and the sectors dealing
with (1) food processing, (2) fibre processing, (3) environmental services, and (4) trade and marketing and which
therefore limit the linkages of agriculture with other drivers of development and sustainability. The challenge for the
future is for agriculture to increasingly develop partnerships
and institutional reforms to overcome these “disconnects”.
To achieve this it will be necessary for future agriculturalists to be better trained in “systems thinking” and entrepreneurship across ecological, business and socioeconomic
disciplines.
Ninth, AKST has suffered from poor linkages among its
key stakeholders and actors. For example: (1) public agricultural research is usually organizationally and philosophically isolated from forestry/fisheries/environment research;(2) agricultural stakeholders (and KST stakeholders ingeneral) are not effectively involved in policy processes for
improved health, social welfare and national development,such as Poverty Reduction Strategies; (3) poor people do
not have power to influence the development of prevailing
AKST or to access and use new AKST; (4) weak education
programs limit AKST generation and uptake (especially for
women, other disadvantaged groups in society and formal
and informal organizations for poor/small farmers) andtheir systems of innovation are not well connected to formal
AKST; (5) agricultural research increasingly involves the private sector, but the focus of such research is seldom on theneeds of the poor or in public goods, (6) public research
institutions have few links to powerful planning/financeauthorities, and (7) research, extension and development
organizations have been dominated by professionals lacking the skills base to adequately support the integration ofagricultural, social and environmental activities that ensure

the multifunctionality of agriculture, especially at the local
level. The main challenge facing AKST is to recognize all the
livelihood assets (human, financial, social, cultural, physical, natural, informational) available to a household and/or community that are crucial to the multifunctionality ofagriculture, and to build systems and capabilities to adopt
an appropriately integrated approach, bringing this to verylarge numbers of less educated people—and thus overcoming this and other “disconnects” mentioned earlier.
Finally, since the mid-20th Century, there have been
two relatively independent pathways to agricultural development—the “Globalization” pathway and the “Localization” pathway. The “Globalization” pathway has
dominated agricultural research and development, as wellas international trade, at the expense of the Localization;
the grassroots pathway relevant to local communities (Table
3.5). As with any form of globalization, those who are better connected (developed countries and richer farmers) tend
to benefit most. The challenge now is to redress the balance between Globalization and Localization, so that both
pathways can jointly play their optimal role. This concept,
described as Third-Generation Agriculture (Buckwell andArmstrong-Brown, 2004), combines the technological efficiency of second-generation agriculture with the lower environmental impacts of first-generation agriculture. This will
involve scaling up the more durable and sustainable aspectsof the community-oriented “grassroots” pathway on the
one hand and thereby to facilitate local initiatives throughan appropriate global framework on the other hand. In thisway, AKST may help to forge and develop Localization
models in parallel with Globalization. This approach should
increase benefit flows to poor countries, and to marginalized
people everywhere. This scaling up of all the many small

Table 3-5. Globalization and localization activities.

chapter 03.indd 224

11/3/08 10:55:53 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 225

and often rather specific positive impacts of local AKST heldby farmers and traders could help to rebuild natural and social capital in the poorest countries, so fulfilling the African
proverb:“If many little people, in many little places, do many little
things, they will change the face of the world.”
This will also require that developed country economies andmultinational companies work to address the environmental and social externalities of the globalized model (“Enlightened Globalization”), by increasing investment in thepoorest countries, by honoring their political commitments,
and by addressing structural causes of poverty and environmental damage with locally available resources (skills,
knowledge, leadership, etc). In turn, this is highly likely torequire major policy reform on such issues as trade, businessdevelopment, and intellectual property rights—especially in
relation to the needs of poor people, notably women.
The ten lessons above have drawn very broadly on theliterature. A specific lesson-learning exercise covering 286
resource-conserving agricultural interventions in 57 poor

countries (Pretty et al., 2006) offers an illustration of thepotential of implementing more sustainable approaches
to agriculture with existing strategies and technologies. In
a study covering 3% of the cultivated land in developing
countries (37 million ha), increased productivity occurred
on 12.6 million farms, with an average increase in crop yieldof 79%. Under these interventions, all crops showed gains
in water use efficiency, especially in rainfed crops and 77%
of projects with pesticide data showed a 71% decline in pesticide use. Carbon sequestration amounted to 0.35 tonnes C
ha-1y-1. There are grounds for cautious optimism for meeting
future food needs with poor farm households benefiting themost from the adoption of resource-conserving interventions (Pretty et al., 2006). Thus great strides forward can bemade by the wider adoption and upscaling of existing propoor technologies for sustainable development, in parallelwith the development of ways to improve the productivityof these resource-conserving interventions (Leakey et al.,2005a). These can be greatly enhanced by further modification and promotion of some of the socially and environmentally appropriate AKST described in this chapter.

References
Abate, T., A. van Huis and J.K.O. Ampofo.
2000. Pest management strategies in
traditional agriculture: An African
perspective. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 45:631-659.
Abbiw, D.K. 1990. Useful plants of Ghana: West
African uses of wild and cultivated plants.
Intermediate Tech. Publ., London.
Abbott J., S. Roberts, and N. Robins. 1999.
Who benefits? A social assessment ofenvironmentally-driven trade. IIED, London.
Abdelali-Martini, M, P. Goldey, G.E. Jones andE. Bailey. 2003. Towards a feminization ofagricultural labour in Northwest Syria.
J. Peasant Studies 30(2):71-94.
Abernethy, L.C. 2003. Administrative andimplementation concerns of water rights. In
Proc. Int. Working Conf. on Water Rights:
Institutional options for improved water
allocation. Hanoi, Vietnam. 12-15 Feb 2003.
[CD-ROM]. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Adato, M. and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2003.
Assessing the impact of agricultural researchon poverty using the sustainable livelihoods
framework. EPTD Disc. Pap. 89/FCND Disc.
Pap. 128. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Adato, M. and R. Meinzen-Dick (ed) 2007.
Agricultural research livelihoods and poverty.
Studies of economic and social impacts in six
countries. IFPRI, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,
Baltimore.
Aerni, P. 2001. Aquatic resources andtechnology: Evolutionary, environmental,
legal and developmental aspects. Sci. Tech.
Innovation Disc. Pap. No. 13. Center Int.
Dev., Cambridge MA.
Agrawal, A. and C.C. Gibson. 1999.
Enchantment and disenchantment. The

chapter 03.indd 225

role of community in natural resources
conservation. World Dev. 27(4):629-649.
Agrawal, A. and K. Gupta 2005.
Decentralization and participation: The
governance of common pool resources in
Nepal’s Terai. World Dev. 33(7):1101-14.
AGRITEX. 1998. Learning together throughparticipatory extension: A guide to an
approach developed in Zimbabwe. Dep.
Agric., Tech. Extension Serv., Harare.
Ahlers, R. 2000. Gender issues in irrigation.
In C. Tortajada (ed) Women and water
management: The Latin American
experience. Oxford Univ. Press, New Delhi.
Ahmad, M.D., H. Turral, I. Masih,
M. Giordano, and Z. Masood. 2007. Watersaving technologies: Myths and realities
revealed in Pakistan’s rice-wheat systems.
IWMI Res. Rep. 108 IWMI, Colombo.
Ahmed, G.J.U., M.A. Hassan, A.J. Mridha,
M.A. Jabbar, C.R. Riches, E.J.Z. Robinson
et al. 2001. Weed management in intensified
lowland rice in Bangladesh. p. 205-210.
In Proc. Brighton Crop Protection Conf. —Weeds. 13-15 Nov. 2001. Farnham, UK.
Brit. Crop Prot. Council.
Ahmed, M., and M. Lorica. 2002. Improving
developing county food security throughaquaculture development — lessons from
Asia. Food Policy 27:25-141.
Ahuja, M.R., and W.J. Libby. 1993a. Clonal
Forestry 1: Genetics and biotechnology.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Ahuja, M.R., and W.J. Libby. 1993b. Clonal
Forestry 2: Conservation and application.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Ainsworth, E.A., and Long, S.P. 2005. What

have we learned from 15 years of free-air
CO2 enrichment? A meta-analytic reviewof the responses of photosynthesis, canopy
properties and plant production in risingCO2. New Phytol. 165:351-371.
Akinnifesi, F.K., F. Kwesiga, J. Mhango,
T. Chilanga, A. Mkonda, C.A.C. Kadu
et al. 2006. Towards the development of
Miombo fruit trees as commercial tree crops
in southern Africa. For. Trees Livelihoods
16:103-121.
Akobundu, O. 1996. Principles and prospects for
integrated weed management in developing
countries. p. 591-600. In Proc. Second Int.
Weed Control Congress. 25-28 June 1996.
Copenhagen.
Alderman, H., and M. Garcia. 1994. Food
security and health security: Explaining thelevels of nutritional status in Pakistan, Econ.
Dev. Cult. Change 42:485-508.
Alex, G., W. Zijp, and D. Byerlee. 2002. Rural
extension and advisory services: New
directions. Rur. Dev. Strategy Background
Pap. 9. World Bank, Washington DC.
Alexiades, M.N., and P. Shanley (ed)2005. Forest products, livelihoods andconservation: Case studies of non-timber
forest product systems. Vol. 3 - Latin
America. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Ali, M. 1998. Green manure evaluation in tropicallowland rice systems. Field Crops Res. 61:61-7.
Ali, M. 2006. Horticulture revolution
for the poor: Nature, challenges andopportunities. Available at http://
siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/
Resources/2795087-1191427986785/Ali_Horticulture_for_the_Poor.pdf.

11/3/08 10:55:54 AM

226 | IAASTD Global Report

Ali, M., and Abedullah. 2002. Economic andnutritional benefits from enhanced vegetableproduction and consumption in developing
countries. J. Crop Prod. 6:145-76.
Ali, M., and D. Byerlee. 2002. Productivity
growth and resource degradation in
Pakistan’s Punjab: a decomposition analysis.
Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 50:839-864.
Ali, M., H. de Bon, and P. Moustier. 2005.
Promoting the multifunctionalities of urban
and peri-urban agriculture in Hanoi. Urban
Agric. 15:11-13.
Ali, M., and U. Farooq. 2004. Dietary diversity
to enhance rural labor productivity: Evidence
from Pakistan. In Proc. Ann. Meeting AAEA.
Denver. 1-4 July 2004.
Ali, M., I.A. Malik, H.M. Sabir, and B. Ahmad.
1997. Mungbean green revolution in
Pakistan. Tech. Bull. No. 24. AVRDC,
Shanhua, Taiwan.
Ali, M., and J.H. Narciso. 1996. Farmers
perceptions and economic evaluation ofgreen manure use in the rice-based farming
system. Trop. Agric. 73(2):148-154.
Ali, M., N.T. Quan, and N.V. Nam. 2006. An
analysis of food demand pattern in Hanoi:
Predicting the structural and qualitativechanges. Tech. Bull. 35. AVRDC, Shanhua,
Taiwan.
Ali, M., and C.S. Tsou. 2000. The integrated
research approach of the Asian Vegetable
Res. and Dev. Center (AVRDC) to enhancemicronutrient availability. Food Nutr. J.
21:472-482.
Almekinders, C. and N. Louwaards. 1999.
Farmers’ seed production: New approaches
and practices. Intermediate Tech. Publ.,
London.
Almekinders, C., and W. de Boef. 2000.
Encouraging diversity: The conservationand development of plant genetic resources.
Intermediate Tech. Publ., London.
Altieri, M.A. 1989. Agroecology: A new researchand development paradigm for world
agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 27:37-46.
Altieri, M.A. 1994. Biodiversity and pest
management in agroecosystems. Food
Products Press, NY.
Altieri, M.A. 1999. The ecological role ofbiodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 74:19-31.
Altieri, M.A., and C.I. Nicholls, 1999.
Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and insect
pest management in agricultural systems.
p. 69-84. In W.W. Collins and C.O.Qualset(ed) Biodiversity in agroecosystems. CRC
Press, NY.
Ameur, C. 1994. Agricultural extension: A stepbeyond the next step. Tech. Pap. 247. World
Bank, Washington DC.
Anderson J.R., G. Feder, and S. Ganguly. 2004.
The rise and fall of training and visit extension:
An Asian mini-drama with an African epilogue.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Anderson, P.K., A. A. Cunningham, N.G. Patel,
F.J. Morales, P.R. Epstein and P. Daszak.
2004. Emerging infectious diseases of plants:

chapter 03.indd 226

pathogen pollution, climate change andagrotechnology drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol.
19(10):535-544.
Andow, D.A., and A. Hilbeck 2004. Sciencebased risk assessment for non-target effectsof transgenic crops. BioScience 54:637-649.
Andow, D.A., G.L. Lövei and S. Arpaia 2006.
Ecological risk assessment for Bt crops.
Nature Biotechnology (reply) 24:749.
Andrews, P. 2005. Back from the brink. ABC
Books, Australia.
Anegbeh, P.O., V. Ukafor, C. Usoro,
Z. Tchoundjeu, R.B.B. Leakey, and
K. Schreckenberg. 2004. Domestication of
Dacryodes edulis: 1. Phenotypic variationof fruit traits from 100 trees in southeast
Nigeria. New Forests 29:149-160.
Anegbeh, P.O., C. Usoro, V. Ukafor,
Z. Tchoundjeu, R.R.B. Leakey, and
K. Schreckenberg. 2003. Domestication of
Irvingia gabonensis: 3. Phenotypic variationof fruits and kernels in a Nigerian village.
Agrofor. Syst. 58:213-218.
Angelsen A., and D. Kaimowitz. 2001.
Agricultural technologies and tropicaldeforestation. CABI, Wallingford, UK.
Anobah, R. 2000. Development of organic
markets in western Africa. In T. Alföldi,W. Lockeretz and U. Nigli (ed) IFOAM 2000
-The world grows organic. Proc. 13th Int.
IFOAM Scientific Conf. CH-Basel, 28-31
Aug. 2000. Hochschulverlag AG an derETH, Zürich.
Antona, M., P. D’Aquino, S. Aubert,
O. Barreteau, S. Boissau, F. Bousquet et al.
(Collectif Commod). 2003. Our companion
modelling approach (La modélisation commeoutil d’accompagnement). J. Artificial
Societies Social Simulation 6(2). Available at
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/1.html.
Appleby, A. 2005. A history of weed control
in the United States and Canada - a sequel.
Weed Sci. 53:762- 768.
Arnold, J.E.M., and M. Ruiz Pérez. 1998.
The role of non-timber forest products inconservation and development. p. 17-41.
In E. Wollenberg and A. Ingles (ed) Incomesfrom the forest: Methods for the development
and conservation of forest products for local
communities. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Arora, K., S.K. Mickelson, and J.L. Baker.
Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips in
reducing pesticide transport in simulated
runoff. Trans. ASAE 46(3):635-644, 2003.
Arregui, M.C., A. Lenardon, D. Sanchez,
M.I. Maitre, R. Scotta, and S. Enrique. 2004.
Monitoring glyphosate residues in transgenic
glyphosate-resistant soybean. Pest Manage.
Sci. 60:163-166.
Ash, N., A. Fazel, Y. Assefa, J. Baillie, M. Bakarr,
S. Bhattacharjya et al. 2007. Biodiversity.
p. 157-192. In GEO4 Global Environmental
Outlook: Environment for development. Sec.
B. UNEP, Nairobi.
Ashley, C., and D. Carney. 1999. Sustainable
livelihoods: Lessons from early experience.
DFID Issues Seriee. DFID, London.

Ashley, C. and K. Hussein. 2000. Developing
methodologies for livelihood impact
assessment: Experience of the African
Wildlife Foundation in East Africa. ODI
Working Pap. 129. Available at http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/wp129.pdf.
Ashley, S., S. Holden, and P. Bazeley. 1999.
Livestock in poverty focused development.
Livestock in development. Crewkerne, UK.
Asiabaka, C. 2002. Promoting sustainable
extension approaches: farmer field school
FFS and its role in sustainable agriculturaldevelopment in Africa. CODESRIA-IFS
Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Workshop.
Kampala, Uganda. 15-16 Dec. 2002.
Available at http://www.codesria.org/Links/
conferences/ifs/Asiabaka.pdf.
Aspelin, A. 2003. Pesticide usage in the UnitedStates: Trends during the 20th Century.
CIPM Tech. Bull. #105. Center for Integrated
Pest Manage., North Carolina State Univ.,
Raleigh NC.
Aspelin, A.L., and G.R. Grube. 1999. Pesticideindustry sales and usage: 1996 and 1997
market estimates. Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Pub # 733R-99-001. EPA, Washington DC.
Assey, P. 2007. Environment at the heart of
Tanzania’s development: Lessons from
Tanzania’s national strategy for growth andreduction of poverty (MKUKUTA). Nat.
Resour. Issues Ser, No. 6. Vice-President’s
Office, Dar es Salaam and IIED, London.
Atangana, A.R., Z. Tchoundjeu, J-M. Fondoun,
E. Asaah, M. Ndoumbe, and R.R.B. Leakey.
2001. Domestication of Irvingia gabonensis:
1. Phenotypic variation in fruit and kernels
in two populations from Cameroon. Agrofor.
Syst. 53:55-64.
Atangana, A.R., V. Ukafor, P.O. Anegbeh,
E. Asaah, Z. Tchoundjeu, C. Usoro et al.
2002. Domestication of Irvingia gabonensis:
2. The selection of multiple traits forpotential cultivars from Cameroon and
Nigeria. Agrofor. Syst. 55:221-229.
Attipoe, L., A. van Andel and S.K. Nyame.
2006. The Novella Project: Developing asustainable supply chain for Allanblackia oil.
p. 179-189 In R. Ruben, M. Slingerland,
H. Nijhoff (ed) Agro-food chains andnetworks for development. Springer, NY.
Available at http://library.wur.nl/ojs/index.
php/frontis/article/view/982/553.
Attwell, C.A.M., and F.P.D. Cotterill. 2000.
Postmodernism and African conservation
science. Biodivers. Conserv. 9:559-577.
Auld, B., and K.M. Menz. 1997. Basic economic
criteria for improved weed management indeveloping countries. Expert consultation on
weed ecology and management. Rome. 22-24
Sept. 1997. FAO, Rome.
Austin, R.B. 1999. Yield of wheat in the United
Kingdom: Recent advances and prospects.
Crop Sci. 39:1604-1610.
Austin, R.B., J. Bingham, R.D. Blackwell,
L.T. Evans, M.A. Ford, C.L. Morgan, and
M. Taylor. 1980. Genetic improvements

11/3/08 10:55:54 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 227

in winter wheat yields since 1900 andassociated physiological changes. J. Agric.
Sci. Camb. 94:675-689.
Australian Government Biofuels Task Force.
2005. Rep. of the biofuels task force to thePrime Minister. Commonwealth of Australia,
Barton.
AVRDC (The World Vegetable Center). 1987.
AVRDC 1985 Progress Rep. Shanhua,
Taiwan.
Awono, A., O. Ndoye, K. Schreckenberg,
H. Tabuna, F. Isseri, and L. Temple.
2002. Production and marketing of Safou(Dacryodes edulis) in Cameroon andinternationally: Market development issues.
For. Trees Livelihoods 12:125-147.
Axinn, G.H. and Thorat, S. 1972. Modernisingworld agriculture: A comparative study ofagricultural extension education systems.
Praeger, NY.
Ayalew, W., J.M. King, E. Bruns, andB. Rischkowsky. 2001. Economic evaluationof smallholder subsistence livestock
production: Lessons from an Ethiopian
goat development program. Milano: The
Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Note diLavoro Series Index: 107. Available at (http://
www.feem.it/web/activ/_activ.html.
Ayantunde, A.A., M. Kango, P. Hiernaux,
H.M.J. Udo, and R. Tabo. 2007 Herders’perceptions on ruminant livestock breeds andbreeding management in southwestern Niger,
Human Ecol. (USA) 35:139-149.
Azzam, A., S. Azzam, S. Lhaloui, A. Amri,
M. El Bouhssini, and M. Moussaoui. 1997.
Economic returns to research in Hessian fly
resistant bread wheat varieties in Morocco.
J. Econ. Entomol. 90:1-5.
Babel, M.S., A. Dasgupta, and D.K. Nayak.
2005. A model for optimal allocation ofwater to competing demands, Water Res.
Manage. 19:693-712.
Badgley, C., J. Moghtader, E. Quintero,
E. Zakem, M.J. Chappell, K. Aviles-Vazquez,
A. Samulon and I. Perfecto. 2007. Organic
agriculture and the global food supply.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems
22: 86-108.
Baenziger, P., W. Russell, G. Graef, and
B. Campbell. 2006. Improving lives: 50 yearsof crop breeding, genetics, and cytology.
Crop Sci. 46:2230-2244.
Bailis, R., M. Ezzati, and D.M. Kammen. 2005.
Mortality and greenhouse gas impacts ofbiomass and petroleum energy futures inAfrica. Science 308:98-103.
Baker, J.M., T.E. Ochsner, R.T. Venterea, andT.J. Griffis. 2007. Tillage and soil carbon
sequestration - What do we really know?
Agric. Ecosyst. and Environ. 118:1-5.
Bakker, M., R. Barker, R. Meinzen-Dick, F.
Konradsen (ed) 1999. Multiple uses of waterin irrigated areas: A case study from Sri
Lanka. SWIM Pap. 8. IWMI, Colombo.
Balasubramanian, V., A.C. Morales, R.T. Cruz,and S. Abdulrachman. 1999. On-farm
adaptation of knowledge-intensive nitrogen

chapter 03.indd 227

management technologies for rice systems.
Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 53:59-69.
Balasubramanian, V., A.C. Morales,
T.M. Thiyagarajan, R. Nagarajan, M. Babu,
S. Abdulrachman, and L.H. Hai. 2000.
Adoption of the chlorophyll meter (SPAD)
technology for real-time N management inrice: A review. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 25:4-8.
Balce, G.R., T.S. Tjaroko, and C.G. Zamora.
2003. Overview of biomass for power
generation in Southeast Asia. ASEAN Center
for Energy, Jakarta.
Balland, J., and J. Platteau. 1996. Halting
degradation of natural resources: Is there arole for rural communities? FAO, Rome andClarendon Press, Oxford.
Bambaradeniya, C.N.B., and F.P. Amerasinghe.
2004. Biodiversity associated with the rice
field agro-ecosystem in Asian Countries: A
brief review. IWMI Working Pap. 63. IWMI,
Colombo.
Banerjee, A., and E. Duflo 2005. Growth theory
through the lens of development economics.
p. 473-552. In Handbook Dev. Econ., Vol.
1a. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Banerjee, R. 2006. Comparison of options for
distributed generation in India. Energy Policy
24:101-11.
Bantilan, M.C.S., U.K. Deb, and S.N. Nigam.
2003. Impacts of genetic improvement ingroundnut. p. 293-313. In R.E. Evenson and
D. Gollin (ed) Crop variety improvement andits effect on productivity. CABI, Wallingford,
UK.
Banziger, M., P. Setimela, D. Hodson, and
B. Vivek. 2006. Breeding for improved
abiotic stress tolerance in maize adapted
to southern africa. Agric. Water Manage.
80:212-224.
Barbash, J.E., G.P. Thelin, D.W. Kolpin, and
R.J. Gilliom. 1999. Distribution of major
herbicides in ground water of the UnitedStates. Water Resources Investigation
Rep. 98-4245. USGeolgical Survery,
Washington DC.
Barbier, E.B. 1997. The economic determinantsof land degradation in developing countries.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.
352(1356):891-899.
Barbier, E.B. and M. Cox. 2002. Economic anddemographic factors affecting mangrove loss
in the coastal provinces of Thailand, 19791996. Ambio 31(4):351-357.
Baris, E., S. Rivera, Z. Boehmova, and
S. Constant. 2006. Indoor air pollution incold climates: The cases of Mongolia andChina. Knowledge Exchange Ser. No. 8 Dec.
ESMAP, World Bank, Washington DC.
Barr, A. 2002. The functional diversity andspillover effects of social capital. J. African
Econ. 11(1):90-113.
Bartlett, A. 2004. Entry points for empowerment.
A report for CARE Bangladesh. Available at
http://www.communityipm.org/docs/Bartlett-EntryPoints-20Jun04.pdf.
Bass, S., and E. Morrison. 1994. Shifting
cultivation in Thailand, Laos andVietnam: Regional overview and policy
recommendations. Int. Inst. Environ. Dev.,
For. Land Use Ser. No. 2. IIED, London.
Bass, S., K. Thornber, M. Markopoulos,
S. Roberts, and M. Grieg-Gran. 2001.
Certification’s impacts on forests,
stakeholders and supply chains. IIED,
London.
Bazile, D., 2006. State-farmer partnerships forseed diversity in Mali. Gatekeeper Ser., 127.
IIED, London.
Bazzano, L.A., J. He, L.G. Ogden, C. Loria,
S. Vupputuri, L. Myers, and P.K. Whelton.
2001. Legume consumption and risk ofcoronary heart disease in US men andwomen. Arch. Internal Med. 161:2573-2578.
Becker, M., and D.E. Johnson. 1999. Rice yieldand productivity gaps in irrigated systems of
the forest zone of Cote d’Ivoire. Field Crops
Res. 60:201-208.
Beckie, H.J., G. Séguin-Swartz, H. Nair,
S.I. Warwick, and E. Johnson. 2004. Multiple
herbicide-resistant canola can be controlled
by alternative herbicides. Weed Sci. 52:
152-157.
Beer, J., M. Ibrahim, and A. Schlonvoigt. 2000.
Timber production in tropical agroforestry
systems of Central America. p. 777-786. In
Krishnapillay et al (ed) Forests and society:
The role of research. Vol. 1 Subplenary
Sessions. XXI IUFRO World Congress, Kuala
Lumpur, 7-12 Aug 2000.
Belcher, B.M. 2003. What isn’t an NTFP? Int.
For. Rev. 5:161-168.
Benbrook, C.M. 2003. Impacts of geneticallyengineered crops on pesticide use in the
United States: The first eight years. BioTech
InfoNet Tech. Peper No 6. Available at www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper6.html.
Benbrook, C.M. 2004. Genetically engineered
crops and pesticide use in the United States:
The first nine years. BioTech InfoNet Tech.
Pap. 7. Available at www.biotech-info.net/
Full_version_first_nine.pdf.
Benbrook, C. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down
soils, and rising costs — problems facing
soybean producers in Argentina. [Online]
www.greenpeace.org/international_en/reports/
ex-summary?item_id=715074&language_id=en.
Bene, C., and S. Heck. 2005a. Fish and foodsecurity in Africa. NAGA, WorldFish Center
Quar. 28(3&4):14-18.
Bene, C., and S. Heck 2005b. Fisheries and theMillennium Development Goals:
Solutions for Africa. NAGA, WorldFish Center
Q. 28(3&4):19-23.
Bengtsson, J., J. Ahnstrom, and A.C. Weibull.
2005. The effects of organic agriculture on
biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis.
J. Appl. Ecol. 42(2):261-269.
Bennett, J. 2006. Evaluation and deployment oftransgenic varieties [Online] http://www.generationcp.org/arm/ARM06/day_1/
SP3_session/transgenic_varieties.pdf (verified
Feb 07).
Bennett, R., Y. Ismael, S. Morse, and B. Shankar.

11/3/08 10:55:54 AM

228 | IAASTD Global Report

2004a. Reductions in insecticide use fromadoption Bt cotton in South Africa: impacts
on economic performance and toxic loadto the environment. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb)
142:665-674.
Bennett, R.M., Y. Ismael, V. Kambhampati,and S. Morse. 2004b. Economic impactof genetically modified cotton in India.
AgBioForum 7:96-100.
Berg, C. 2004. World fuel ethanol analysis andoutlook. Available at http://www.distill.com/
World-Fuel-Ethanol-A&O-2004.html.
Bernauer, T. 2003. Genes, trade and regulation:
The seeds of conflict in food biotechnology.
Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
Bernier, G., and C. Perilleux. 2005. A physiologicaloverview of the genetics of flowering time
control. Plant Biotech. J. 3:3-16.
Bielsa, J., R. Duarte. 2001. An economic model
for water allocation in north eastern Spain.
Water Resour. Dev. 17(3):397-410.
Bignell, D.E., J. Tondoh, L. Dibog, S.P.
Huang, F. Moreira, D. Nwaga et al. 2005.
Belowground biodiversity assessment:
Developing a key functional group approachin best-bet alternatives to slash and burn. In
C. Palm et al. (ed) Slash and burn: The search
for alternatives. Columbia Univ. Press, NY.
Binswanger, H.P. 1981. Attitudes toward risk:
Theoretical implications of an experiment inrural India. The Econ. J. 91(364):867-890.
Birley, M.H., and K. Lock. 1999. The healthimpacts of peri-urban natural resource
development. Int. Centre Health Impact
Assessment, Liverpool Sch. Trop. Med.,
Liverpool.
Bishop-Sambrook, C. 2004. Farm power andsmallholder livelihoods in Sub-SaharanAfrica. Available at http://www.fao.org/sd/
dim_pe4/pe4_040902a1_en.htm.
Black, R., 2003. Micronutrient deficiency-an
underlying cause of morbidity and mortality.
Bull. WHO 2003;81:79.
Black, R.E., K.H. Brown, S. Becker, A. Arma,and M.H. Merson. 1982. Contaminationof weaning foods and transmission ofenterotoxigenic Escherichia coli diarrhoea inchildren in rural Bangladesh. Trans. R. Soc.
Trop. Med. Hyg. 76:259-64.
Blackshaw, R.E., L.J. Molnar, and
H.H. Janzen. 2004. Nitrogen fertilizer
timing and application method affect weed
growth and competition with spring wheat.
Weed Sci. 52:614-622.
Blackwood, C.B., and J.S. Buyer. 2004. Soil
microbial communities associated with Bt
and mon-Bt corn in three soils. J. Environ.
Qual. 33:832-836
Blarel, B. 1994. Tenure security and agricultural
production under land scarcity: The case of
Rwanda. p. 71-96. In J.W. Bruce, and S.E.
Migot-Adholla (ed) Searching for land tenure
security in Africa. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque,
Iowa.
Blay, D., E. Bonkoungou, S.A.O. Chamshama,and B. Chikamai. 2004. Rehabilitationof degraded lands in sub-Saharan África:

chapter 03.indd 228

Lessons learned from selected case studies.
Forestry Res. Network for Sub-SaharanAfrica (Fornessa. Int. Union of Forest Res.
Org.. Available at (http://www.etfrn.org/
ETFRN/workshop/degradedlands/documents/
synthesis_all.pdf.
Block, S., and P. Webb. 2001. The dynamics
of livelihood diversification in post famine
Ethiopia. Food Policy 26:333-350.
Boelens, R., and M. Zwarteveen. 2002. Genderdimensions of water control in Andean
Irrigation. In R. Boelens and P. Hoogendam(ed) Water rights and empowerment. Van
Gorcum, Assen, Netherlands.
Boffa, J-M. 1999. Agroforestry parklands in SubSaharan Africa. FAO Conserv. Guide
34. FAO, Rome.
Boffa, J-M., G. Yaméogo, P. Nikiéma, andD.M. Knudson. 1996. Shea nut (Vitellaria
paradoxa) production and collection inagroforestry parklands of Burkina Faso.
p. 110-122. In R.R.B. Leakey et al. (ed)Non-wood forest products 9. FAO, Rome.
Bojo, J. and R.C. Reddy. 2003. Status andevolution of environmental priorities in
the Poverty Reduction Strategies: A reviewof 50 poverty reduction strategy papers.
Environ. Econ. Series Pap. 93, World Bank,
Washington DC.
Bonkoungou, E.G., M. Djimdé, E.T. Ayuk,
I. Zoungrana, and Z. Tchoundjeu. 1998.
Taking stock of agroforestry in the Sahel —Harvesting results for the future. ICRAF,
Nairobi.
Booth, D., J. Holland, J. Hentschel, P. Lanjouw,
and A. Herbert. 1998. Participation andcombined methods in African poverty
assessment: Renewing the agenda. DFID,
London.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 1997. Beyond fences.
Seeking social sustainability in conservation.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Bosc P.-M., D. Eychenne, K. Hussein, B. Losch,M.-R. Mercoiret, P. Rondot et al. 2002.
The role of rural producer organisations in
the World Bank rural development strategy.
Rural Strategy Background Pap. No 8. World
Bank, Washington DC.
Boswinkel, J.A., 2000. Information Note. Int.
Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre(IGRAC). Netherlands Institute of Applied
Geoscience, Netherlands.
Bouis, H.E., R.D. Graham, and R.M. Welch.
2000. The Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
micronutrients project: Justification andobjective. Food Nutrition Bull. 21(4): 374381. Available at http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/
articles/2000/bouis00_02.pdf.
Boukar, O., L. Kong, B.B. Singh, L. Murdock,and H. W. Ohm. 2004. AFLP and AFLPDerived SCAR markers associated with
Striga gesnerioides resistance in cowpea.
Crop Sci. 44:1259-1264.
Boulton, A.J. 1999. An overview of river healthassessment: philosophies, practice, problems
and prognosis. Freshwater Biol. 41:469-479.

Boulton, A.J. 2003. Parallels and contrasts
in the effects of drought on stream macro
invertebrate assemblages. Freshwater Biol.
48:1173-1185.
Bourguignon F., C. Morrisson, and J. De Melo.
1991. Poverty and income distribution
during adjustment: issues and evidence fromthe OECD project. World Dev. 19:14851508.
Boussard, J.M., B. Davidron, F. Gerard, andT. Voituriez. 2005. Food security andagricultural development in Sub-SaharanAfrica: Building a case for more support.
Background document. Final Rep., FAO,
Rome.
Boussard, J.-M., F. Gérard, M.-G. Piketty,
M. Ayouz, and T. Voituriez. 2006.
Endogenous risk and long run effects ofliberalisation in a global analysis framework.
Econ. Modelling 23:457-475.
Brackett, R.E. 1999. Incidence, contributing
factors, and control of bacterial pathogens in
produce. Postharvest Biol. Tech. 15:305- 311.
Braun, A., G. Thiele and M. Fernandez. 2000.
Farmer Field Schools and local agriculturalresearch committees: Complementary
platforms for integrated decision making insustainable agriculture. AgREN Network
Pap. No. 105. ODI, London.
Bricknell, C. (ed) 1996. A-Z encyclopedia ofgarden plants. Royal Hort. Soc., Dorling
Kindersley, London.
Brookes, G. and P. Barfoot. 2006. Global
impact of biotech crops: Socio-economic andenvironmental effects in the first ten years ofcommercial use. AgBioForum 9:139-151.
Brovelli, E. 2005. Different paths for the freshmarket and the neutriceutical industry. Acta
Hort. (ISHS) 682:859-864.
Brown, L.R. 2005. The Japan syndrome. In
Outgrowing the Earth: The food security
challenge in an age of falling water tables andrising temperatures. W.W. Norton, NY.
Bruce, J.W. 1998. Country profiles of land tenure:
Africa, 1996. LCT Res. Pap. No.130. Univ.
Wisconsin/Land Tenure Center, Madison.
Bruce, J.W. and S.E. Migot-Adholla (ed) 1994.
Searching for land tenure security in Africa,
Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa.
Bruinsma, J. (ed) 2003. World agriculture:
Towards 2015/2030 — An FAO perspective.
FAO, Rome.
Brummett, R.E. 1999. Integrated aquaculture
in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environ. Dev.
Sustainability 1(3/4):315-321.
Bruns, B. 2007. Pro-poor intervention strategies.
Irrigated Agric. Irrigation Drainage 56(2-3):237-246.
Bruns, B., and J. Ambler. 1992. The use ofcommunity organizers in improving people’s
participation in water resources development.
Promoting farmer contributions in irrigation
system development. Visi, Irigasi Indonesia
6:33-41.
Bruns, B. R., and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2000.
Negotiating Water Rights. Intermediate Tech.
Publ., London.

11/3/08 10:55:55 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 229

Bryceson, D.F. 1999. African rural labour,
Income diversification and livelihood
approaches: A long term perspective. Rev.
Afric. Pol. Econ. 80:171-189.
Buck, L.E., T.A. Gavin, D.R. Lee, N.T. Uphoff,
D. Chandrasekharan Behr, L.E. Drinkwater
et al. 2004. Ecoagriculture: A review andassessment of its scientific foundations.
Cornell Univ. and Univ. Georgia, SANREM
CRSP, Athens GA.
Buck, L.E., T.A. Gavin, N.T. Uphoff , and
D.R. Lee. 2007. Scientific assessment of
ecoagriculture. p. 20-45. In S.J. Scherr and
J.A. McNeely (ed) Farming with nature: The
science and practice of ecoagriculture. Island
Press, NY.
Buckwell, A.E. and S. Armstrong-Brown. 2004.
Changes in farming and future prospects:
technology and policy. IBIS: Int. J. Avian Sci.
146 (2)14-21.
Buhlmann, H., and M. Jager (ed) 2001.
Skills development in Swiss Development
Cooperation: Insights and outlook. Swiss
Dev. Cooperation, Berne.
Bullock, S. 1993. Women and work. Women andWorld Dev. Ser., Zed Publ., London.
Bureau, J.C., and A. Matthews. 2005. EU
agricultural policy: What developing
countries need to know. IIIS Disc. Pap. 91.
Trinity College, Dublin.
Bureau, J.C., W. Jones, E. Gozlan, and
S. Marette. 2001. Issues in demand for
quality and trade. p. 3-33. In B. Krissof,
M. Bohman, J. Caswell (ed) Global foodtrade and consumer demand for quality.
Kluwer Academic Publ., NY.
Buresh, R.J., and P.J.M. Cooper. 1999. The
science and practice of short-term fallows.
Agrofor. Syst. 47:1-358.
Burke, M. 2003. Farm scale evaluations.
Managing GM crops with herbicides —effects on farmland wildlife. Farmscale
Evaluations Res. Consortium and Scientific
Steering Committee, UK.
Butler, L.M. and R.E. Mazur. 2007. Principles
and processes for enhancing sustainable
rural livelihoods: Collaborative learning in
Uganda. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 14:
604-617.
Bwibo, N.O. and C.G. Neumann. 2003. The
need for animal source foods by Kenyan
children. J. Nutr. 133(Suppl.):3936S- 3940S.
Byerlee, D., and P. Moya. 1993. Impacts ofinternational wheat breeding research in
the developing world, 1966-90. CIMMYT,
Mexico.
Byerlee, D., B. Myers, and T. Jayne. 2006.
Managing food price risks and instability
in an environment of market liberalization.
ARD, World Bank, Washington DC.
CA (Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture). 2007. Water
for food, water for life: A comprehensive
assessment of water management inagriculture. Summary. Earthscan, London
and IWMI, Colombo.
Caballero, B. 2005. A nutrition paradox-

chapter 03.indd 229

underweight and obesity in developing
countries. New Engl. J. Med. 352:15141516.
Calder, I.R. 2005. Blue revolution: Integrated
land and water resource management. 2nd
ed. Earthscan, London.
Campbell, A. 1994. Landcare: Communities
shaping the land and the future. Allen and
Unwin, Australia.
Campbell, B.M., and J.A. Sayer. 2003.
Integrated natural resources management:
Linking productivity, the environment anddevelopment. CABI Publ., Wallingford.
Campinhos, E. 1999. Sustainable plantations ofhigh yield Eucalyptus trees for productionof fiber: The Aracruz case. New For. 17:129143.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2004.
Assessment criteria for determining
environmental safety of plants with novel
traits. Directive 94-08. Available at http://
www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dir/
dir9408e.shtml.
Carney, D. 1998 Sustainable rural livelihoods:
What contribution can we make? DFID,
London.
Caron, P. 2001. Zonage à dires d’acteurs: desreprésentations spatiales pour comprendre,
formaliser et décider. In p.343-357. Le cas deJuazeiro, au Brésil, Représentations spatiales
et développement territorial. Hermès, Paris.
Caron, P. 2005. A quels territoires s’intéressent
les agronomes? Le point de vue d’ungéographe tropicaliste. EDP Sciences. Natures
Sci. Sociétés 13:145-153.
Caron, P., J.-P.Tonneau, E. Sabourin. 1996.
Planification locale et régionale: enjeux
et limites. Le cas du Brésil Nordeste. In
Globalisation, competitivness and humansecurity: Challenge for development policy
and institutional change. VIIIth Conf.
European Assoc. Dev., Res. and Training
Institutes. Vienne. 11-14 Sept. 1996. EADI.
Cassman, K.G., A. Dobermann, D.T. Walters.
2002. Agroecosystems, nitrogen-use
efficiency, and nitrogen management. AMBIO
31:132-140.
Cassman, K.G., A. Dobermann, D.T. Walters andH. Yang. 2003. Meeting cereal demand while
protecting natural resources and improving
environmental quality. Ann. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 28:315-358.
Cassman, K.G., S. Wood, P.S. Choo, H.D.
Cooper, C. Devendra, J. Dixon et al. 2005.
Cultivated systems. p. 745-794. In R. Hassan
et al. (ed) Ecosystems and human well-being:
current state and trends: Findings of theConditions and Trends Working Group. The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ser. v. 1.
Island Press, NY.
Castillo, G.E., R.E. Namara, H. Munk
Ravnborg, M.A. Hanja, L. Smith and
M. H. Hussein. 2007. Reversing the flow:
agricultural water management pathways
for poverty reduction. p. 149-191. In D.
Molden (ed) Water for food, water forlife: A comprehensive assessment of water

management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.
Catley, A., P. Irungu, K. Simiyu, J. Dadye,
W. Mwakio, J. Kiragu and S.O. Nyamwaro.
2002. Participatory investigations of bovine
trypanosomiasis in Tana River District
Kenya. Med. Vet. Entomol. 16(1):55- 66.
Catley, A., S. Okoth, J. Osman, T. Fison,
Z. Njiru, J. Mwangi et al. 2001. Participatory
diagnosis of a chronic wasting disease incattle in southern Sudan. Prev. Vet. Med.
51:161-181.
Cattaneo, M.G., C. Yafuso, C. Schmidt,
C-Y. Huang, M. Rahman, C. Olson et al.
2006. Farm-scale evaluation of the impactsof transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticideuse, and yield. PNAS 103:7571-7576.
Cavers, S., C. Navarro, A.J. Lowe. 2003. A
combination of molecular markers (cpDNA
PCR-RFLP, AFLP) identifies evolutionarily
significant units in Cedrela odorata L.
(Meliaceae) in Costa Rica. Conserv. Genetics
4:571-580.
CBD. 1992. Convention on Biological
Diversity: Text and Annexes. Secretariatof the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Montreal.
CBD. 2000. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to
the Convention on Biological Diversity: Text
and annexes. Secretariat Convention Biol.
Control, Montreal.
Cebu Study Team. 1992. A child healthproduction function estimated fromlongitudinal data. J. Dev. Econ. 38:323-351.
Ceccarelli, S., and S. Grando. 1991. Environmentof selection and type of germplasm inbarley breeding for low-yielding conditions.
Euphytica 57:207-219.
Ceccarelli, S., S. Grando, and J.A.G. Vanleur.
1987. Genetic diversity in barley landracesfrom Syria and Jordan. Euphytica 36:389405.
CED. 2003. Reducing global poverty: The roleof women in development. Committee Econ.
Dev. NY.
Célarier, M.-F., and D. Marie-Vivien. 2001.
Les droits de propriété intellectuelle.
Guide pratique. Documents de la direction
scientifique et de la direction des relations
extérieures n°4. CIRAD, F-Montpellier.
Center for Food Safety. 2006. Genetic
engineering. California food and agriculture:
Report card. Genetic Engineering Policy
Alliance, Morro Bay, CA, USA.
Cerdeira, A.L., and S.O. Duke. 2006. The
current status and environmental impacts ofglyphosate-resistant crops - A review.
J. Environ. Qual. 35:1633-1658.
Cerf, M., D. Gibbon, B. Hubert, R. Ison,
J. Jiggins, M. Paine et al. 2000. Cow up atree. Knowing and learning for change in
agriculture. Case studies from industrialised
countries. INRA. Paris.
Cernea, M.M. 2003. For a new economics ofresettlement: A sociological critique of thecompensation principle. Int. Social Sci. J.
55(175):37-45.

11/3/08 10:55:55 AM

230 | IAASTD Global Report

Cernea, M.M. (ed) 1999. The economics ofinvoluntary resettlement: Questions andchallenges. World Bank, Washington DC.
CGAP. 2005. Managing risks and designing
products for agricultural microfinance:
Features of an emerging model. Occasional
Pap. No. 11. Consultative Group to Assist
the Poor, Washington DC.
Chabe-Ferret S., J. Gourdon, M.A. Marouani, andT. Voituriez. 2006. Trade-Induced changes
in economic inequalities: Methodologicalissues and policy implications for developing
countries. ABCDE World Bank Conf., Tokyo.
29-30 May 2006.
Chancellor, F. 2000. Sustainable irrigation andthe gender question in Southern Africa.
In A. Pink (ed) Sustainable development
international. 3rd ed. ICG Publishing Ltd.,
London.
Chant, S. (ed) 1992. Gender and migrationin developing countries. Belhaven Press,
London.
Chatfield, R. 2004. The photochemistry ofozone. Presentation at Univ. Kwazulu-Natal.
Available at http://geo.ar.c.nasa.gov/sgg/
chatfield/PhotochemFreeTrop.pdf.
Chauveau, J.P. 2003. Crise foncière, crise dela ruralité et relations entre autochtones et
migrants sahéliens en Côte d’Ivoire forestière.
Communication au colloque OCDE — Clubdu Sahel et Ministère des Affaires Etrangères:Conflits dans les pays du fleuve Mano et en
Côte d’Ivoire: stabiliser et reconstruire. Paris.
13-14 mai 2003.
Chauveau, J.P., J.P. Clin, J-P.Jacob, P. Lavigne
Delville, and P-Y. Le Meur. 2006. Landtenure and resource access in West Africa.
IIED, London.
Chen, Z. 2004. Panel econometric evidence ofChinese agricultural household behavior in
the later 1990s: production efficiency, size
effects and human mobility. Ph.D. Thesis,
Iowa State Univ., USA.
Chikoye, D., V.M. Manyong, R.J. Carsky,
G. Gbehounou, and A. Ahanchede. 2002.
Response of speargrass (Imperata cylindrica)
to cover crops integrated with hand-weeding,and chemical control in maize and cassava.
Crop Protection 21:145-156.
Chomitz, K., P. Buys, G. de Luca, T.S. Thomas,
and S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff. 2006. At
loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty
reduction and the environment in the tropicalforests, World Bank Policy Res. Rep.,
Washington DC.
CIMMYT. 2005. Sounding the alarm on global
stem rust. An assessment of Race Ug99 in
Kenya and Ethiopia and the potential for
impact in neighboring regions and beyond.
Expert Panel on the Stem Rust Outbreak in
Eastern Africa, CIMMYT, Mexico.
Cisse, M.I. 1995. Les parcs agroforestiers au
Mali. Etat des connaissances et perspectives
pour leur amélioration. AFRENA Rep. 93.
ICRAF, Nairobi.
Cocklin, C., J. Dibden, and N. Mautner. 2006.
From market to multifunctionality? Land

chapter 03.indd 230

stewardship in Australia. The Geograph. J.
172:197-205.
Cocklin, C., N. Mautner, and J. Dibden,
J. 2007. Public policy, private landholders:
Perspectives on policy mechanisms forsustainable land management. J. Environ.
Manage. 85(4):986-998.
Codex Alimentarius. 2003. Guideline forthe conduct of food safety assessmentof foods derived from recombinant-dna
plants. CAC/GL 45-2003. Available atwww.codexalimentarius.net/download/
standards/10021/CXG_045e.pdf.
Coelli, T. and D.S. Prasada Rao. 2003. Total
factor productivity growth in agriculture: A
Malmquist Index analysis of 93 countries,
1980-2000. Working Pap. Ser. No. 02/2003.
Centre for Efficiency and Productivity
Analysis, School of Econ., Univ. Queensland.
Cole C., F. Carpio, and N. Leon. 2000.
Economic burden of illness from pesticide
poisonings in highland Ecuador. Rev. Panam.
Salud Publ. 8(3):196-201. Available at http://
www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1020-.
Collier, P. 1998. Social capital and poverty. Social
Capital Initiative Working Pap. No 4. World
Bank, Washington DC.
Collier, P. 2003. Breaking the conflict trap: Civil
war and development policy. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Collins, W.W. and C.O. Qualset. 1999.
Biodiversity in agroecosystems. CRC Press,
NY.
ComMod Group. 2004. ComMod: A companion
modelling approach. Available at http://
cormas.cirad.fr/en/reseaux/ComMod/charte.
htm.
Conley, T. and C. Udry. 2001. Social learning
through networks: The adoption of new
agricultural technologies in Ghana. Am. J.
Agric. Econ. 83 (3):668- 673.
Conroy, C. 2005. Participatory livestock
research: A guide. ITDG Publ., UK.
Conway, G. 1997. The doubly green revolution:
Food for all in the 21st century. Penguin
Books, London.
Cooke, B. and U. Kothari (ed) 2001.
Participation: The new tyranny? Zed Books,
London.
Cooper, P.J., R.R.B. Leakey, M.R. Rao, and
L. Reynolds. 1996. Agroforestry and themitigation of land degradation in the humid
and sub-humid tropics of Africa. Exp. Agric.
32:235-290.
Copping, L.G. 2004. The manual of biocontrol
agents. Brit. Crop Prot. Council Publ., Alton,
UK.
Copping, L.G., and J.J. Menn. 2000
Biopesticides a review of their action
application and efficacy. Pesticide Manage.
Sci. 56:651-676.
Corbesier, I., and G. Coupland. 2005.
Photoperiodic floweing of arabidopsis:
Integrating genetic and physiologicalapproaches to characterization of the floral
stimulus. Plant Cell Environ. 28:54-66.

Cotula, L., C. Toulmin, and J. Quan. 2006.
Better land access for the rural poor. Lessons
from experience and challenges ahead. IIED,FAO.
Cowan, T., and G. Becker. 2006. Biotechnology
in animal agriculture: Status and current
issues. CRS Rep. for Congress, March, 2006.
Available at http://www.usis.it/pdf/other/
RL33334.pdf.
Cox, B.D., M.J. Whichelow and A.T. Prevost.
2000. Seasonal consumption of salad
vegetables and fresh fruits in relation to thedevelopment of cardiovascular disease andcancer. Public Health Nutr. 3:19-29.
Craufurd, P.Q., P.V. Vara Prasad, V.G. Kakani,
T.R. Wheeler, and S.N. Nigam. 2003. Heat
tolerance in groundnut. Field Crops Res.
80:63-77.
CRC Soil and Land Management. 1999. The
costs of soil acidity, sodicity and salinity forAustralia: Preliminary estimates, Coop. Res.
Centre Soil Land Manage. Rep. CRCSLM/
CTT2/6/99.
Critchley, W., and K. Siegert. 1991. Water
harvesting. FAO, Rome.
Croppenstedt, A., and C. Muller. 2000. The
impact of farmers’ health and nutritional
status on their productivity and efficiency:
Evidence from Ethiopia. Econ. Dev. Cult.
Change 48:475-502.
Croxton, S. 1999. Users in control: Farmer
participation in technology research anddevelopment. In P. Starkey and P. Kaumbutho(ed) Meeting the challenges of animal traction.
A resource book of the animal traction networkfor eastern and southern Africa (ATNESA).
Harare, Zimbabawe, IT Publ., UK.
Crutzen, P.J., and P.H. Zimmerman. 1991. Thechanging photochemistry of the troposphere.
Tellus 43AB:136-151.
Cunningham, A.B. 2001. Applied ethnobotany:
People, wild plant use and conservation.
Earthscan, London.
Curl, C.L., R.A. Fenske, J.C. Kissel,
J.H. Shirai, T.F. Moate, W. Griffith,et al. 2002. Evaluation of take-homeorganophosphorus pesticide exposure among
agricultural workers and their children.
Environ. Health Perspect. 110(12):A787-92
D’Aquino, P., C. Le Page, F. Bousquet, and
A. Bah. 2003. Using self-designed roleplaying games and a multi-agent system toempower a local decision-making process
for land use management: The SelfCormas
experiment in Senegal. J. Artificial Soc. Social
Simulation 6(3) .
Dalal-Clayton, B., and S. Bass. 2002. Sustainable
development strategies: A resource book.
OECD and UNDP, Earthscan, London.
Dalal-Clayton, B., D. Dent, and O. Dubois.
2003. Rural planning in developing
countries: Supporting natural resource
management and sustainable livelihoods.
Earthscan, London.
Dalgaard, T., N. Halberg, and J.R. Porter.
2001. A model for fossil energy use in
Danish agriculture used to compare organic

11/3/08 10:55:56 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 231

and conventional farming. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 87:51-65.
Dalton, T.J., N. Lilja, N. Johnson, andR. Howeler. 2005. Impact of participatory
natural resource management research in
cassava based cropping systems in Vietnam
and Thailand. Working Doc. No. 23.
Systemwide Program PRGA Tech. Dev. Inst.
Innovation. CGIAR, Cali.
Das, M.D. 1995. Improving the relevanceand effectiveness of agricultural extension
activities for women farmers. Rome, FAO.
Dasgupta, S., M. Huq, M. Khaliquzzaman,
C. Meisner, K. Pandey, and D. Wheeler.
2004. Monitoring indoor air pollution.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Datt, G., and M. Ravallion. 2002. Is India’s
economic growth leaving the poor behind?
Policy Res. Working Pap. 2846. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Davenport, J., G. Burnell, T. Cross, S. Culloty,
S. Ekaratne, B. Furness et al. 2003.
Aquaculture: The ecological issues. The Brit.
Ecol. Soc. Ecological Issues Ser. Blackwell,
Oxford.
Davidson, A.P., M. Ahmad, and T. Ali. 2001.
Dilemmas of agricultural extension in
Pakistan: Food for thought. AgREN Network
Pap. No. 116 July 2001. ODI, London.
Daviron B., B. Faivre-Dupaigre, V. Ribier,A. Fallot, and T. Voituriez (ed) 2004. Manueld’élaboration des politiques agricoles.
[Handbook of agricultural policies’ definitionand negotiation]. Editions du GRET, Paris.
Daviron, B., and P. Gibbon. 2002. Global
commodity chains and African export
agriculture. J. Agrarian Change 2(2):137-161.
Daviron, B., and S. Ponte. 2005. The coffee
paradox. Zed Books, UK.
Dawe, D., A. Dobermann, P. Moya, S.
Abdulrachman, B. Singh, P. Lal, S. Li et al.
2000. How widespread are yield declines
in long-term rice experiments in Asia? Field
Crops Res. 66:175-193.
Dawson, I.K., P.M. Hollingsworth, J.J. Doyle,
S. Kresovich, J.C. Weber, S. Sotelo-Montes
et al. 2008. Tree origins and conservation
on-farm: A case study from the Peruvian
Amazon. Conserv. Genetics 9:361-372.
De Haen, H. 1999. Producing and marketing
quality organic products: opportunities
and challenges, Sixth IFOAM Trade Conf.
Florence, Oct 1999. Available at http://www.fao.org/organicag/doc/IFOAMf-e.htm.
De Beer, J.H., and M.J. McDermott. 1996. The
economic value of non-timber forest products
in Southeast Asia. Netherlands Committee/
IUCN, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
De Onis, M, E.A. Frongillo, and M. Blossner.
2000. Is malnutrition declining? An analysis
in levels of child malnutrition since 1980.
Bull. WHO 78:1222-1333.
De Sherbinin, A., and V. Dompka (ed) 1998.
Water and population dynamics: Case studies
and policy implications. Introduction. AAAS,
Washington, DC.
De Vaccaro, L.P. 1990. Survival of European

chapter 03.indd 231

dairy breeds and their crosses with zebus in
the tropics. Anin. Breeding Abstr. 58:475494.
DeBach, P. 1964. The scope of biological control.
In P. DeBach (ed) Biological control of insect
pests and weeds. Reinhold, NY.
DeBach, P., and D. Rosen. 1991. Biologicalcontrol by natural enemies. Cambridge Univ.
Press, UK.
Degrande, A., K. Schreckenberg, C. Mbosso,
P.O. Anegbeh, J. Okafor, and J. Kanmegne.
2006. Farmers’ fruit tree growing strategies
in the humid forest zone of Cameroon and
Nigeria. Agrofor. Syst. 67:159-175.
Deininger, K.W. 2003. Land policies for growthand poverty reduction. Policy Res. Rep..
World Bank, Washington DC.
Deininger, K., and H. Binswanger. 2001. The
evolution of the World Bank’s land policy.
Chapter 17 In A. de Janvry et al. (ed) Accessto land: Rural poverty and public action.
Oxford Univ. Press, NY.
Deininger, K.W., and R. Castagnini 2006.
Incidence and impact of land conflict in
Uganda. J. Econ. Behavior Org. 60(3):321345.
Delgado, C.L. 2003. Rising consumption ofmeat and milk in developing countries hascreated a new food revolution. J. Nutr.
133:3907S-3910S.
Delgado, C.L., M. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld,
S. Ehui, and C. Courbois. 1999. Livestock to
2020. The next food revolution. Food, Agric.
Environ. Disc. Pap. 28. IFPRI, Washington
DC.
Delgado, C.L., N. Wada, M.W. Rosegrant,
S. Meijer, and M. Ahmed. 2003a. Fish to
2020: Supply and demand in changing global
markets. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Delgado, C.L., N. Wada, M.W. Rosegrant,
S. Meijer, and M. Ahmed. 2003b. Outlook
for fish to00202020: Meeting global demand.
IFPRI, Washington, DC and WFC, Penang,
Malaysia.
Delwaulle, J.C. 1983. Creation et multiplication
vegetative par bouturage d’Eucalyptus
hybrides en Republique Populaire du Congo.
Silvicultura 8:775-778.
Deneve, S., I. Dieltjens, E. Moreels, andG. Hofman. 2003. Measured and simulated
nitrate leaching on an organic and aconventional mixed farm. Biol. Agric. Hort.
21:217-229.
Derpsch, R. 2005. The extent of conservation
agriculture adoption worldwide: Implications
and impact. Proc. Third World Congress onconservation agriculture: Linking production,
livelihoods and conservation. Nairobi,
Kenya. 3-7 Oct. 2005.
DeSoto, H. 2005. Le mystère du capital.
Pourquoi le capitalisme triomphe en Occident
et échoue partout ailleurs? Flammarion,
Paris.
Dey, M.M. 2000. The impact of genetically
improved farmed Tilapia in Asia. Aquacult.
Econ. Manage. 4(1-2):107-24.
Dey, M.M., M.A. Rab, K.M. Jahan, A. Nisapa,

A. Kumar, and M. Ahmed. 2004. Foodsafety standards and relatory measures:
Implications for selected fish exporting Asian
countries. Aquacult. Econ. Manage. 8(3-4):217-236.
DFID. 2002. Energy for the poor: Underpinning
the Millennium Development Goals. DFID,
London.
Dhliwayo, T., K.V. Pixley, and V. Kazembe.
2005. Combining ability for resistance tomaize weevil among 14 Southern Africanmaize inbred lines. Crop Sci. 45:662-667.
Diarra, M., and M. Monimart. 2006. Landless
women, hopeless women? Gender, land anddecentralisation in Niger. Drylands Issue Pap.
143. Oct. 2006. IIED, London.
Diaz, S., D. Tilman, J. Fargione, F.S. Chapin
III, R. Dirzo, T. Kitzberger et al. 2005.
Biodiversity regulation of ecosystem services.
p. 297-339. Chapter 11 In R. Hassan et al.
(ed) Ecosystems and human well-being. Vol
1. Current states and trends. Millennium
Ecosyst. Assessment, Island Press,
Washington DC.
Dibden, J., and C. Cocklin. 2005. Sustainability
and agri-environmental governance. p. 135152. In V. Higgins and G. Lawrence (ed)Agricultural governance: Globalization andthe new politics of regulation. Routledge,
London.
Dick, J.M., and R.C. Dewar. 1992. A mechanistic
model of carbohydrate dynamics during
the adventitious root development in leafy
cuttings. Annals Bot. (London) 70:371-377.
Dick, J., U. Skiba, R. Munro, and D. Deans.
2006. Effect of N-fixing and non N-fixing
trees and and crops on NO and N2Oemissions from Senegalese soils. J. Biogeo.
33:416-423.
Diekow, J., J. Mielniczuk, H. Knicker, C. Bayer,
D.P. Dick, and I. Koegel-Knabner. 2005.
Soil C and N stocks as affected by cropping
systems and nitrogen fertilization in asouthern Brazil Acrisol managed under notillage for 1 year. Soil Till. Res. 81:87-95.
Dillaha, T.A. S.M. Renueau, and D. Lee. 1989.
Vegetative filter strips for agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. Trans. ASAE
32:.513-519.
Dimes, J., S. Twomlow, J. Rusike, B. Gerard,
R. Tabo, A. Freeman, and D. Keatinge. 2005.
Increasing research impacts through low-costsoil fertility management options for Africa’s
drought-prone areas. In G.O. Omanya,
D. Paternak (ed) Sustainable agriculture
systems for the drylands. Proc. Int. Symp.
Sustainable Dry Land Agric. Systems.
Niamey. 2-5 Dec. 2003.
Dixon, J., A. Gulliver, and D. Gibbon. 2001.
Farming systems and poverty, improving
farmers’ livelihoods in a changing world.
FAO and World Bank, Rome.
Dixon, R.K. 1995. Agroforestry systems: sourcesor sinks of greenhouse gases? Agrofor. Syst.
31:99-116.
Dobermann, A. 2006. Nitrogen use efficiency in
cereal systems. Proc. 13th Australian Agron.

11/3/08 10:55:56 AM

232 | IAASTD Global Report

Conf. Available at http://www.regional.org.
au/au/asa/2006/plenary/soil/dobermannad.htm
Dobermann, A., and K.G. Cassman. 2002.
Plant nutrient management for enhanced
productivity in intensive grain production
systems of the United States management for
irrigated rice in southeast China. Agron. J.
93:869-878.
Dobermann, A., C. Witt, D. Dawe, G.C. Gines,
R. Nagarajan, S. Satawathananont et al.
2002. Site-specific nutrient management for
intensive rice cropping systems in Asia. Field
Crops Res. 74:37-66.
Dorward, A., S. Fan, J. Kydd, H. Lofgren,
J. Morrison, C. Poulton et al. 2004,
Institutions and economic policies for pro
poor agricultural growth. Disc. Pap. No. 15
Dev. Strategy and Governance Div., IFPRI
and Centre for Dev. Poverty Reduction, Dep.
Agric. Sci. Imperial College, London.
Douthwaite, B., J.M. Ekboir, S.J. Twomlow,
and J.D.H. Keatinge. 2004. The concept
of integrated natural resource management(INRM) and its implications for developing
evaluation methods. p. 321-340. In B.
Shiferaw et al. (ed) Natural resource
management in agriculture: Methods
for assessing economic impact andenvironmental impacts. ICRISAT and CABI,
Wallingford.
Dransfield, B., I. Maudlin, P. Stevenson, and
A. Shaw. 2001. Reality vs rhetoric — asurvey and evolution of tsetse control in East
Africa. Agric. Human Values 18:219-233.
Drechsel, P., S. Graefe, M. Sonou, andO.O. Cofie. 2006. Informal irrigation in
urban West Africa: An overview. Res. Rep.
102. IWMI, Colombo.
Dreisigacker, S., P. Zhang, M.L. Warburton,
M. van Ginkel, D. Hoisington, M. Bohn,
and A.E. Melchinger. 2003. SSR andpedigree analyses of genetic diversity among
CIMMYT wheat lines targeted to different
megaenvironments. Crop Sci. 44:381-388.
Dreze, J., and A. Sen. 1990. The political
economy of hunger. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
DTI. 2006. The energy challenge. Energy Review
Rep. 2006. UK Dept, Trade and Industry(DTI), London.
Dumanski, J., R. Peiretti, J.R. Benites,
D. McGarry and C. Pieri. 2006. The
paradigm of conservation agriculture.
p. 58-64. In Proc. World Assoc. Soil andWater Conserv. Pap. P1-7. Available at http://
www.unapcaem.org/admin/exb/ADImage/ConservationAgri/ParaOfCA.pdf
Dunn, A., I. Gray, and E. Phillips. 2000. Frompersonal barriers to community plans: A
farm and community planning approachto the extension of sustainable agriculture.
Part 1. Extension theory. In A.D. Shulman,
and R.J. Price (ed) Case studies in increasing
the adoption of sustainable resource
management practices. Land Water Resour.
Res. Dev. Corp., Canberra.
Duvick, D.N., and K.G. Cassman. 1999. Post-

chapter 03.indd 232

green-revolution trends in yield potential of
temperate maize in the north-central UnitedStates. Crop Sci. 39:1622- 1630.
Duxbury, J. 2005. Reducing greenhouse warming
potential by carbon sequestration in soils:
opportunities, limits and tradeoffs. In R. Lal
et al. (ed) Climate change and global foodsecurity. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
EC. 2002. Commission Decision of 24 July 2002
establishing guidance notes supplementing
Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC of theEur. Parliament and of the Council on the
deliberate release into the environment ofgenetically modified organisms and repealing
Council Directive 90/220/EEC notified
under Doc. No. C(2002) 2715. OJ L 200,
30.7.2002. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.
eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&numdoc=32002D
0623&model=guichett&lg=en. European
Commission, Brussels.
EC. 2005. Shift gear to biofuels. Results andrecommendations from the VIEWLS project
for the EC. European Commission, Brussels.
Edmunds, W.M., W.G. Darling, D.G. Kinniburgh,
S. Kotoub, and S. Mahgoub. 1992. Sourcesof recharge at Abu Delaig. Sudan J. Hydrol.
131:1-24.
Edmunds, W.M., and C.B. Gaye. 1997. Naturallyhigh nitrate concentrations in groundwatersfrom the Sahel. J. Environ. Qual. 26:12311239.
EFSA. 2004. Guidance document of the Sci.
Panel GMOs for the risk assessment ofgenetically modified plants and derived
food and feed. Available at http://www.efsa.
europa.eu/en/science/gmo/gmo_guidance/.
EFSA J. 99.1-94. Eur. Food Safety Authority.
EFSA. 2007. Guidance document for the risk
assessment of genetically modified plants
containing stacked transformation events by
the Sci. Panel GMOs. EFSA-Q-2003-005D.
Available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/
Scientific_Document/gmo_guidance_ej512_
GM_stacked_events_en.pdf. Eur. Food Safety
Authority.
EHN. 2001. Nutrition and health claims. A
European Heart Network Position Paper.
EHN, Brussels.
Elevitch, 2006. Traditional trees of PacificIslands: Their culture, environment and use.
Permanent Agric. Resources, Hawaii.
El-Hage Scialabba, N. 2005. Global trends inorganic agriculture markets and Countries’
demand for FAO assístance. Global Learning
Opportunity — Int. Farming Systems Assoc.
Roundtable: Organic Agriculture. 1 Nov.
2005. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/paia/organicag/2005_12_doc04.pdf. FAO, Rome.
Ellis, F., and H.A. Freeman 2004. Rural
livelihoods and poverty reduction strategies
in four African countries. J. Dev. Studies
40(4):1-30.
Ellis, F., and N. Mdoe 2003. Livelihoods andrural poverty reduction in Tanzania. World
Dev. 31(8)1367-1384.
Ellis, J., and D.M. Swift. 1988. Stability of

African pastoral ecosystems: Alternative
paradigms and implications for development.
J. Range Manage. 41:450-459.
Ellis-Jones, J., S. Twomlow, T. Willcocks,
C. Riches, H. Dhliwayo, and M. Mudhara.
1993. Conservation tillage/weed control
systems for communal farming areas in semiarid Zimbabwe. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.
Weeds 3:1161-1166.
Ellstrand, N. 2003. Going to ‘great lengths’ toprevent the escape of genes that produce
specialty chemicals. Plant Phys. 132:17701774.
Embrapa. 2006. Sistemas de produção
sustentáveis para a amazônia legal. Available
at http://www.embrapa.br/publicacoes/index_htm.
Engel, P., B. Haverkort, and J. Jiggins. 1988.
Concepts and processes in participativetechnology development. Proc. ILEIA
Workshop on operational approaches inparticipative technology development insustainable agriculture. E.T.C., Leusden,
Netherlands.
Engel, P., and N. Röling 1989. IKS (Indigenous
Knowledge System) and knowledge
management: Utilizing indigenous knowledge
in institutional knowledge systems. p. 10115. In D.M. Warren et al. (ed) Indigenous
knowledge systems: Implications for
agriculture and international development.
Iowa State Univ., Tech. Social Change Prog.,Ames.
Ensminger, J. 1997. Changing property rights:
Reconciling formal and informal rights toland in Africa. p. 95-119. In The frontiers of
the new institutional economics. Academic
Press, Londres.
EPA. 1996a. Pesticide tolerances for glyphosate.
Federal Register Vol. 61 No. 6: April 5.
EPA. 1996b. Pesticide thresholds for glyphosate
in various soybean media. Available at http://
www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1996/April/Day-05/
pr-636.html.
EPA. 2002. A comprehensive analysis of
biodiesel impacts on exhaust emissions, Draft
Technical Rep.. EPA420-P02-001. Environ.
Prot. Agency, USA. Available at http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/20021001_gen-323.pdf (accessed
22 Jan. 2007).
Erskine, W.D. 1999. Oscillatory response versus
progressive degradation of incised channels
in South Eastern Australia. p. 67-95. In
S.E. Darby and A. Simon (ed) Incised river
channels: Processes, forms, engineering, andmanagement. Wiley, Chichester.
Erskine, W.D. and A.A. Webb. 2003. Desnagging
to resnagging: New directions in river
rehabilitation in South Eastern Australia.
River Res. and Applications 19:233-249.
Eswaran, H. 1993. Soil resilience and sustainable
land management in the context of Agenda
21. p. 21- 32. In D.J. Greenland and
I. Szabolcs (ed) Soil resilience and sustainable
land use. CABI, Wallingford.
Eswaran, H., R. Lal and P.F. Reich. 2001. Land

11/3/08 10:55:56 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 233

degradation: an overview. In Bridges, E.M.,
I.D. Hannam et al. (ed) Responses to landdegradation. Proc. 2nd. Int. Conf. Land
Degradation and Desertification, Khon Kaen,
Thailand. Available at http://soils.usda.gov/
use/worldsoils/papers/land-degradationoverview.html. Oxford Press, New Delhi.
Eswaran, H., P. Reich, and F. Beinroth. 2006.
Land degradation: an assessment of thehuman impact on global land resources. In
World Congr. Soil Sci., 18th, Philadelphia.
Abstract. Available at http://crops.confex.
com/crops/wc2006/techprogram/P11487.
HTM.
ETC/KIOF, 1998. On-farm agro-economic
comparison of organic and conventional
techniques in high and medium potential
areas of Kenya. Netherlands, ETC and Kenya
Inst. Organic Farming, Leusden/Nairobi,
March.
Evans, J., and J.W. Turnbull. 2004. Plantation
forestry in the tropics. 3rd ed. Oxford Univ.
Press, UK.
Eveleens, K.G., R. Chisholm, E. Van de Fliert,
M. Kato, P.T. Nhat, and P. Schmidt. 1996.
Mid-term Review of Phase III Rep.. FAO
Inter-country Prog. Dev. Appl. Integrated Pest
Control in Rice in South and South-east Asia,
Manila, Philippines.
Evenson, R. 1997. The economic contributionsof agricultural extension to agricultural andrural development. In B.E. Swanson,
R.P. Bentz, and A.J. Sofranko (ed) Improving
agricultural extension: A reference manual.
FAO, Rome.
Evenson, R., and D. Gollin. 2003a. Assessing
the impact of the green revolution, 1960 to2000. Science 300:758-762.
Evenson, R.E., and D. Gollin. 2003b. Crop
genetic improvement in developing countries:
overview and summary. p. 7-38. In
R.E. Evenson and D. Gollin (ed) Crop variety
improvement and its effect on productivity.
CABI, Wallingford.
Ewel, J.J. 1999. Natural systems as models forthe design of sustainable systems of land use.
Agrofor. Syst. 45:1-21.
Ewel, J.J., D.J. O’Dowd, J. Bergelson,
C.C. Daeler, C.M. D’Antonio, L. Diego
Gomez et al. 1999. Deliberate introductionsof species: Research needs. BioScience
49:619-630.
Ezzati, M., S.V. Hoorn, A. Rodgers, A.D. Lopez,
C.D. Mathers, and C.J.L. Murray. The
Comparative Risk Assessment CollobaratingGroup. 2003. Estimates of global andregional potential health gains fromreducing multiple major risk factors Lancet
362(9380):271-80 erratum 365(9453).
Ezzati, M., and D.M. Kammen. 2002. the healthimpacts of exposure to indoor air pollution
from solid fuels in developing countries:
Knowledge, gaps, and data needs. Environ.
Health Perspect. 110(11).
Fafchamps, M., and Minten, B. 2001. Social
capital and trade. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
83(3):680-685.

chapter 03.indd 233

Fafchamps, M., C. Udry, and K. Czukas. 1996.
Drought and saving in West Africa: Are
livestock a buffer stock? Available at SSRN
http://ssrn.com/abstract=71374.
Falconer, J. 1990. The major significance of‘minor’ forest products: The local use andvalue of forests in the West African humid
forest zone. Forests Trees People. Community
Forestry Note 6. FAO, Rome.
Falkenmark, M. 2000. Competing freshwaterand ecological services in the river basin
perspective: an expanded conceptual
framework. Water Int. 25:172- 177.
Falkenmark, M., C.M. Finlayson, L.J. Gordon,
E.M. Bennett, T. Matiza Chiuta, D.
Coates et al. 2007. Agriculture, water andecosystems: Avoiding the costs of going too
far. p. 233-277. In Water for food, water
for life: A comprehensive assessment ofwater management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.
Falkenmark, M., and J. Rockström. 2005. Rain:
The neglected resource. Swed. Water House
Policy Brief Nr. 2. SIWI.
Falvey, F., and C. Chantalakhana (ed) 1999,
Smallholder dairying in the tropics. ILRI,
Nairobi.
Fan, S., P. Hazell, and T. Haque. 2000. Targeting
public investments by agro-ecological zone toachieve growth and poverty alleviation goals
in rural India. Food Policy 25:411-428.
FAO. 1990. Women in agricultural development:
Rural women and the changing socioeconomic conditions in the Near East.
W/U2076 R.
FAO. 1995. The Fourth Progress Report on
the WCARRD Programme of Action. FAO,
Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1996. Focus: Women and food security.
Women and Population Div. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1997. Preventing micronutrient
malnutrition: a guide to food based
approaches. Why policymakers should givepriority to food based approaches. FAO,Rome.
FAO. 1998a. The state of the world’s plant
genetic resources for food and agriculture.
FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1998b. FAO factfile: Feminization ofagriculture. FAO. Rome.
FAO. 2000a. The state of food and agriculture
2000. Part II. World food and agriculture:
Lessons from the last 50 years. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2000b. Bioenergy. Background Pap.
No. 2. FAO/Netherlands conf. on themultifunctional character of agriculture andland, Maastricht. 12-17 Sept.
FAO. 2000c. The role of information andcommunication technologies in ruraldevelopment and food security. Workshop
Rep. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2001. Le traité international surles ressources phytogénétiques pourl’alimentation et l’agriculture. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2002a. International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
FAO, Rome.

FAO. 2002b. Women, agriculture and foodsecurity. FAO fact sheet. FAO, Rome. www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/english/fsheets/
women.pdf.
FAO. 2002c. Fishery statistics: Reliability andpolicy implications. FAO, Rome. Available at
http://www.FAOorg/fi/statist/ nature_china/30jan02.asp.
FAO. 2003a. Biological management of soil
ecosystems for sustainable agriculture. Rep.
of the Int. Tech. Workshop. Londrina, Brazil.
24-27 June 2002. World Soil Resour. Rep.,
101. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2003b. Food balance sheet. Available at
http://www.FAOorg/.
FAO. 2004a. Gender and food security. Available
at http://www.fao.org/Gender/gender.htm
FAO. 2004b. Unified bioenergy terminology UBET. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005a. Special event on impact of climatechange, pests and diseases on food security
and poverty reduction. 31st Session of theCommittee on World Food Security andPoverty Reduction. Background Document.
FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005b. Global forest resource assessment
2005. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005c. The state of food insecurity inthe world: Eradicating world hunger. Key
to achieving the Millennium Development
Goals. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005d. Gender and land. Compendium ofcountries studies. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005e. State of the world’s forests. FAO,Rome.
FAO. 2006a. Livestock report 2006. FAO,Rome.
FAO. 2006b. Responsible management ofplanted forests: Voluntary guidelines. FAO
Forestry Working Pap., Rome.
FAO. 2006c. State of world aquaculture 2006.
FAO Inland Water Resour. Aquacult. Serv.,
Fish. Resour. Div., Fisheries Dep. FAO
Fisheries Pap. No. 500, Rome.
FAO. 2006d. Livestock’s long shadow.
Environmental issues and options. Availableat (http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/
key_pub/longshad/a0701e/A0701E01.pdf
FAO. 2006e. State of food insecurity in theWorld 2006: Eradicating world hunger —taking stock ten years after the World Food
Summit. FAO, Rome.
FAO AQUASTAT. 2006. www.fao.org/ag/agl/
aglw/ aquastat/main/index.htm
FAOSTAT. 2005/2006/2007. Available at http://
faostat.fao.org/site/584/default.aspx.
FAO/ITC/CTA. 2001. World markets for organic
fruit and vegetables. Opportunities fordeveloping countries in the production andexport of organic horticultural products.
International Trade Centre, FAO, Rome.
Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/
y1669e/y1669e00.htm#Contents.
FAO/UNEP. 1996. Our land, our future. A
new approach to land use planning andmanagement. FAO, Rome.
FAO/WHO. 1999. Guidelines for the

11/3/08 10:55:57 AM

234 | IAASTD Global Report

production, processing, labelling andmarketing of organically produced foods.
Codex Alimentarius Commission, CAC/GL
32-1999. FAO/WHO, Rome.
Faure G., P. Kleene. 2004. Lessons from newexperiences in extension in West Africa:
Management advice for family farms andfarmers’ governance. J. Agric. Extension
Educ. 10:(1)37-49.
Fauvet, N. 1996. Tree vegetation map, CIRADForêt. Available at www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/
bgn/2828.htm. US Dep. State, Bur. African
Affairs, Washington DC.
Feder, G., R.E. Just, and D. Zilberman. 1985.
Adoption of agricultural innovations indeveloping countries: A survey. Econ. Dev.
Cult. Change 33:255-298.
Feder, G., R. Murgai, and J.B. Quizon. 2003.
Sending farmers back to school: The impactof farmer field schools in Indonesia. Policy
Res. Working Pap. 3022. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Feder, G., R. Murgai, and J.B. Quizon. 2004.
The acquisition and diffusion of knowledge:
The case of pest management training infarmer field schools, Indonesia. J. Agric.
Econ. 55:221-243.
Feder, G., T. Onchan, Y. Chlamwong, andC. Hongladorom. 1988. Land policies andfarm productivity in Thailand. John Hopkins
Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Fenske, R.A., G. Kedan, C. Lu, J.A. FiskerAndersen, and C.L. Curl, 2002. Assessmentof organophosphorous pesticide exposures inthe diets of preschool children in Washington
State. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol,
12(1);21-28.
Ferris, S., E. Kaganzi, R. Best, C. Ostertag,
M. Lundy, and T. Wandschneider. 2006.
Enabling rural innovation in Africa: A
market facilitator’s guide to participatory
agroenterprise development. CIAT Enabling
Rural Inovation Guide 2. CIAT, Kampala.
Ferrero, A. and N.V. Nguyen. 2004. The
sustainable development of rice-based
production systems in Europe. Rice for life.
Int. Rice Commission Newsl. 53. FAO,
Rome.
Feyt, H., 2001. Propriété intellectuelle etsélection dans les pays du Sud. O.C.L.,
8(5):546-550.
FFTC (Food and Fertilizer Technology Center).
2006. Food processing and post-harvest
technology. Available at http://www.agnet.
org/library/list/subcat/P.html.
Filozof, C, C. Gonzalez, M. Sereday, C. Mazza,
and J. Braguinsky. 2001. Obesity prevalence
and trends in Latin-American countries.
Obesity Rev. 2(2):99-106.
Firoozi, F., and J. Merrifield 2003. An optimal
timing model of water reallocation andreservoir construction. Eur. J. Operational
Res. 145(1):165-174.
Fisher, M.J., I.M. Rao, M.A. Ayarza,
C.E. Lascano, J.I. Sanz, R.J. Thomas,
and R.R. Vera. 1994. Carbon storage byintroduced deep-rooted grasses in the Southchapter 03.indd 234

American savannas. Nature 371:236-238.
Fitzgerald, K., D. Barnes, and G. McGranahan.
1990. Interfuel substitution and changes in
the way households use energy: The caseof cooking and lighting behavior in urban
Java. Industry and Dev. Dep., World Bank,
Washington DC.
Foley, J.A., M.H. Costa, C. Delire,
N. Ramankutty, and P. Snyder. 2003. Green
surprise? How terrestrial ecosystems could
affect earth´s climate. Frontier Ecol. Environ.
1(1):38-44. Available at www.frontersinecology.org. Ecol. Soc. Am.
Follett, R.F. 2001. Soil management concepts
and carbon sequestration in cropland soils.
Soil Tillage Res. 61:77-92.
Foster, G.S., and F.L.G. Bertolucci. 1994. Clonal
development and deployment: Strategies toenhance gain while minimising risk. p. 103111. In R.R.B. Leakey and A.C. Newton (ed)Tropical trees: The potential for domesticationand the rebuilding of forest resources. HMSO,
London.
Fox, M.P., S. Rosen, W.B. MacLeod, M. Wasunna,
M. Bii, G. Foglia, and J.L. Simon. 2004. The
impact of HIV/AIDS on labour productivity in
Kenya. Trop. Med. Int. Health 9(3):318-324.
Franco, A.A., E.F. Campello, E.M.R. Silva,
S.M. Faria. 1992. Revegetation of degradedsoils. (In Portuguese.) Embrapa Agrobiologia.
Embrapa/Centro Nacional de Pesquisa deBiologia do Solo, Comunicado Técnico, 9,
Rio de Janeiro.
Franke, A.C., J. Ellis-Jones, G. Tarawali,
S. Schulz, M.A. Hussaini, I. Kureh et al.
2006. Evaluating and scaling-up integrated
Striga hermonthica control technologies
among farmers in northern Nigeria. Crop
Protection 25:868-878.
Franke-Snyder, M., D.D. Douds Jr., L. Galvez,
J.G. Phillips, P. Wagoner, L. Drinkwater, andJ.P. Morton. 2001. Diversity of communities
of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi present
in conventional versus low-input agriculturalsites in eastern Pennsylvania, USA. Appl. Soil
Ecol. 16:35-48.
Franzel, S. 1999. Socio-economic factors affecting
the adoption potential of improved tree
fallows in Africa. Agrofor. Syst. 47:305-321.
Franzel, S., G.L. Denning, J.P.B. Lillesø and A.R.
Mercado. 2003. Scaling up the impact ofagroforestry: Lessons from three sites in Africa
and Asia. Agrofor. Systems 61-62:329-344.
Franzel, S., H. Jaenicke, and W. Janssen. 1996.
Choosing the right trees: Setting priorities
for multipurpose tree improvement. p. 87. In
ISNAR Res. Rep. 8. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Franzel, S., and S. Scherr. 2002. Trees on thefarm: Assessing the adoption potential ofagroforestry practices in Africa. CABI,
Wallingford.
Freese, W., and B. Schubert. 2004. Safety testing
and regulation of genetically engineered foods.
p. 299-325. In S.E. Harding (ed) Biotech.
Genetic Eng. Rev., Intercept, Andover.
Freese, W. 2001. The StarLink affair. Friendsof the Earth, July 2001. Available at http://

www.foe.org/camps/comm/safefood/gefood/starlink.pdf.
Friesen, L.F., A.G. Nelson, and R.C. van
Acker. 2003. Evidence of contamination of
pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots inwestern Canada with genetically engineered
herbicide resistance traits. Agron. J. 95:13421347.
Frison, E., O. Smith, and M.S. Swaminathan
1998. UN Millennium Development Goals:
Five years later. Agricultural biodiversity andelimination of hunger and poverty. p.12. In
The Chennai Platform for Action. IPGRI,
Rome.
Furedy, C. 1990. Socially aspects of human excra
reuse: Implications for aquacultural projects
in Asia. p. 251-66. In P. Edwards and
R.S.V. Pullin (ed) Wastewater-fed
aquaculture. Proc. Int. Seminar on
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse for
Aquaculture. Calcutta, India. 6-9 Dec 1988.
xxix. Environ. Sanitation Infor. Center, Asian
Inst. Tech., Bangkok.
Galbraith, H., P. Amerasinghe, and A. Huber-Lee.
2005. The effects of agricultural irrigation on
wetland ecosystems in developing countries:
A literature review. CA Disc. Pap. 1.
Comprehensive Assessment Secretariat, IWMI,
Colombo.
Galston, W.A., and K.J. Baehler. 1995. Rural
development in the United States: Connecting
theory, practice, and possibilities. Island
Press, Washington DC.
Garcia-Alonso, M., E. Jacobs, A. Raybould,
T.E. Nickson, P. Sowig, H. Willekens et al.
2006. A tiered system for assessing the riskof genetically modified plants to non-target
organisms. Environ. Biosafety Res. 5:57-65.
Garforth, C., and A. Lawrence. 1997.
Supporting sustainable agriculture throughextension in Asia. Nat. Resour. Perspect., No.
21, June 1997. ODI, London. Available at
http://www.odi.org.uk/NRP/21.html.
Garforth M., and J. Mayers (ed) 2005.
Plantations, privatisation and power:
Changing ownership and management ofstate forests. Earthscan, London.
Garrity, D.P. 2004. World agroforestry and theachievement of the Millenium Development
Goals. Agrofor. Syst. 61:5-17.
Gaspar, P., F.J. Mesías, M. Escribano, A. Rodriguez
de Ledesma, and F. Pulido. 2007. Economic
and management characterization of dehasa
farms: implications for their sustainability.
Agrofor. Syst. 71:151-162.
Gatsby Charitable Foundation. 2005. The quiet
revolution: Push-pull technology and theAfrican farmer. Occasional Pap., Gatsby
Charitable Foundation, London.
Gaunt, J.L., S.K. White, J.R. Best, A.J. Sutherland,
P. Norrish, E.J.Z. Robinson et al. 2003.
The researcher-farmer interface in ricewheat systems: moving from agricultural
productivity to livelihoods. In Improving the
productivity and sustainability of rice-wheat
systems: Issues and impacts. ASA Special Publ.
65, Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.

11/3/08 10:55:57 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 235

Gautam, M. 2000. Agricultural Extension: The
Kenya experience: An impact evaluation.
World Bank Oper. Eval. Study. Washington
DC.
Geffray, C. 1990. La cause des armes au
Mozambique. Anthropologie d’une guerre
civile. Éditions Karthala, Paris.
Geist, H.J., and E.F. Lambin. 2004. Dynamic
causal patterns of desertification. BioScience
54:817-829.
Gemmill-Herren, B., C. Eardley, J. Mburu,
W. Kinuthia, and D. Martins. 2007.
Pollinators. p. 166-177. In S.J. Scherr and
J.A. McNeely (ed) Farming with nature: The
science and practice of ecoagriculture. Island
Press, NY.
Gereffi, G., and R. Kaplinsky (ed) 2001. The
value of value chains: Spreading the gains
from globalisation. Special issue of the IDS
Bulletin 32:3(July).
Gereffi, G., and M. Korzeniewicz (ed) 1994.
Commodity chain and global capitalism.
Greenwood Press and Praeger, Westport.
Gethi J.G. and M.E. Smith. 2004. Genetic
responses of single crosses of maize to Striga
hermonthica (Del.) Benth. and Striga asiatica(L.) Kuntze. Crop Sci. 44:2068-2077.
Ghosh, D., A.D. Sagar, and V.V.N. Kishore.
2006. Scaling up biomass gasifier use: An
application-specific approach. Energy Policy
34:1566-82.
Gibbons, P., and S. Ponte. 2005. Trading down.
Africa, value chains and the global economy.
Temple Univ. Press, Philadelphia PA.
Gibson, K.D., A.J. Fischer, T.C. Foin, andJ.E. Hill. 2003. Crop traits related to weed
suppression in water-seeded rice (Oryza
sativa L.). Weed Sci. 51:87-93.
Gillanders, B.M. 2005. Using elemental chemistryof fish otoliths to determine connectivity
between estuarine and coastal habitats.
Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 64:47-57.
Gillanders, B.M., K.W. Able, J.A. Brown,
D.B. Eggleston, and P.F. Sheridan. 2003.
Evidence of connectivity between juvenile
and adult habitats for mobile marine fauna:
An important component of nurseries.
Marine Ecol.-Progress Ser. 247:281-295.
Gilliom, R.J., J.E. Barbash, C.G. Crawford, P.A.
Hamilton, J.D. Martin, N. Nakagaki et al.
2006. The quality of our nation’s waters Pesticides in the nation’s streams and groundwater, 1992-2001. Available at http://pubs.
usgs.gov/circ/2005/1291/. US Geological
Survey Circ. 1291, Washington DC.
Gitay, H., S. Brown, W. Easterling, and B.
Jallow. 2001. Ecosystems and their goods
and services, p. 237-342. In J.J. McCarthy
et al. (ed) Climate change 2001: Impacts,
adaptation and vulnerability. IPCC,
Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Gleick, P.H. (ed) 1993. Water in crisis: A guideto the world’s freshwater resources, Oxford
Univ. Press, NY.
Gleick, P.H. 2003. Global freshwater resources:
Soft-path solutions for the 21st century.
Science 302:1524- 1528.

chapter 03.indd 235

Gliessman, S.R. 1998. Agroecology: Ecologicalprocesses in sustainable agriculture. Ann
Arbor Press, Chelsea.
Gockowski, J.J., and S. Dury. 1999. The
economics of cocoa-fruit agroforests insouthern Cameroon. p. 239-241. In
F. Jiménez and J. Beer (ed) Multi-strata
agroforestry systems with perennial crops.
CATIE, Turrialba.
Goel, R.S. 2003. Remote sensing and GIS
application in water resources development-An
Overview. p. 429-436. In B. Venkateswara
Rao (ed) Proc. Int. Conf. Hydrol. Watershed
Manage. Vol. 2, Hyderabad.18-20 December
2002. BS Publ., Hyderabad, India.
Goldemberg, J., and S.T. Coelho. 2004.
Renewable energy - traditional biomass vs.
modern biomass. Energy Policy 32:711-14.
Golkany, I.M. 1999. Meeting global foodneeds: the environmental trade offs
between increasing land conversion andland productivity. p. 256-291. In J. Morris,
R. Bate (ed) Fearing food. ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford.
Gomes, R., J. duGuerny, M.H. Glantz, and L.
Hsu. 2004. Climate and HIV/AIDS:
A hotspots analysis for early warning rapid
response systems. UNDP, FAO, and NCAR,
Bangkok.
Gonzalves, J., T. Becker, A. Braun, D. Campilan,
H. De Chavez, E. Fabjer et al. (ed) 2005.
Participatory research and development forsustainable agriculture and natural resource
management. A sourcebook. CIP, IDRC,
IFAD, UPWARD, Laguna.
Gorton, M., and S. Davidova. 2004. Farm
productivity and efficiency in the CEE
applicant countries: A synthesis of results.
Agric. Econ. 30:1-16.
Govaerts, B., K.D. Sayre, and J. Deckers. 2005.
Stable high yields with zero tillage andpermanent bed planting? Field Crops Res.
94:33-42.
Graham, R.D., D. Senadhira, S.E. Beebe,
C. Iglesias, and I. Ortiz-Monasterio. 1999.
Breeding for micronutrient density in edible
portions of staple food crops: Conventional
approaches. Field Crop Res. 60:57-80.
Gray, I., and G. Lawrence, 2001. A future
for regional Australia: Escaping global
misfortune. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Green, G.P., and J.R. Hamilton. 2000. Water
allocation, transfers and conservation: Links
between policy and hydrology, Water Res.
Dev. 16(2):265-273.
Grellier, R. 1995. All in good time: Women’s
agricultural production in Sub-SaharanAfrica. Nat. Resources Inst., Chatham.
Griffon, M. 1994. Analyse de filière et analysede compétitivité. Economie des politiques
agricoles dans les pays en développement.
Revue Française d’Economie, Paris.
Groombridge, B., and M. Jenkins. 1998.
Freshwater biodiversity: a preliminary global
assessment. 2. Biodiversity in freshwaters.
World Conserv. Monitoring Centre, WCMC
Biodiversity Ser. No. 8. Available at: http://

www.unep-wcmc.org/information_services/publications/freshwater/2.htm.
Guarino, L. 1997. Traditional African
vegetables. IPGRI, Rome.
Gueneau, S. 2006. Livre blanc sur les forêts
tropicales humides, La Documentation
Française, Paris.
Guéneau, S., and S. Bass. 2005. Global forest
governance: effectiveness, fairness andlegitimacy of market-driven approaches.
IDDRI, Idées pour le débat, n°13.
Guerin, K. 2007. Adaptive governance andevolving solutions to natural resource
conflicts. March 2007. New Zealand
Treasury Working Pap. 07/03.
Guerinot, L. 2000. Plant biology enhanced:
The Green Revolution strikes gold. Science
287:241-243.
Guerny, J. 1995. Population and landdegradation. Available at http://www.un.org/
popin/fao/land/land.html. UN Pop. Div.,
Dep. Econ. Social Affairs, NY.
Gunning, R.V., H.T. Dang, F.C. Kemp,
I.C. Nicholson, and G.D. Moores. 2005. New
resistance mechanism in Helicoverpa armigera
threatens transgenic crops expressing Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxin. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 71:2558-2563.
Gurr, G.M., and S.D. Wratten (ed) 2000.
Biological control: Measures of success.
Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Gutierrez, E.U., and S.M. Borras 2004 The Moro
conflict: Landlessness and misdirected statepolicies. Policy Studies 8, East-West Center,
Washington DC.
Guyomard, H., C. Le Mouël, and A. Gohin.
2004. Impacts of alternative agricultural
income support schemes on multiple policy
goals. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 31:125-148.
Habitu, N., and H. Mahoo. 1999. Rainwater
harvesting technologies for agricultural
production: A case for Dodoma, Tanzania.
In Conservation tillage with animal traction,
P.G. Kambutho and T.E. Simalenga (ed)Animal Traction Network for Eastern andSouthern Africa, Zimbabwe.
Hall, A., V. Rasheed Sulaiman, N. Clark, andB. Yoganand. 2003. From measuring
impact to learning institutional lessons: An
innovation systems perspective on improving
the management of international agriculturalresearch. Agric. Syst. 78:213-241.
Hall, A.E. 1992. Breeding for heat tolerance.
p. 129-168. In J. Janick (ed) Plant breeding
reviews. Vol. 10. John Wiley, NY.
Hall, L., K. Topinka, J. Huffman, L. Davis, and
A. Good. 2000 Pollen flow between herbicide
resistant Brassica napus (Argentine canola)is the cause of multiple resistant B. napus
volunteers. Weed Sci. 48:688-694.
Halvorson, A.D., C.A. Reule. 2006. Irrigatedcorn and soybean response to nitrogen underno-till in Northern Colorado. Agron. J.
98:1367-1374.
Hamann, R., and T. O’Riordan. 2000. Resource
management in South Africa. S. Afr. Geog. J.
82(2):23-34.

11/3/08 10:55:57 AM

236 | IAASTD Global Report

Hamilton, L.S., and P.S. King. 1983. Tropicalforest watersheds: Hydrologic and soils
response to major uses and conversions.
Westview Press, Boulder.
Hammani, A., M. Kuper, and A. Debbarh. 2005.
La modernisation de l’agriculture irriguée.
Actes du séminaire euro-méditerranéen.
19-23 Avril 2004, Rabat, Maroc. Projet
INCO-WADEMED, IAV Hassan II, Rabat.
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons.
Science 162:1243-1248.
Harlan, J.R. 1975. Crops and Man. ASA/CSSA,
Madison, WI.
Harrington, L., and O. Erenstein. 2005.
Conservation agriculture and resource
conserving technologies — a global perspective.
III World Congress on Conservation
Agriculture. Available at http://www.act.org.
zw/postcongress/theme_02_05.asp
Harris, R. 2004. Information and communication
technologies for poverty alleviation. UNDP’s
Asia-Pacific Dev. Infor. Prog. (UNDP-APDIP),
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Available at http://
www.apdip.net/documents/eprimers/poverty.pdf.
Hartell, J., M. Smale, P.W. Heisey, and B. Senauer.
1998. The contribution of genetic resourcesand diversity to wheat production in the
Punjab of Pakistan. p. 146-158. In M. Smale(ed) Farmers, gene banks and crop breeding:
Economic analyses of diversity in wheat,maize, and rice. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
Hartmann, H.T., D.E. Kester, F.T. Davis, and
R.L. Geneve. 1997. Plant propagation:
Principles and practices. 6th ed., PrenticeHall, NJ.
Harwood, J.D., and J.J. Obrycki. 2006. The
detection and decay of Cry1Ab Bt-endotoxins
within non-target slugs, Deroceras
reticulatum (Mollusca: Pulmonata),
following consumption of transgenic corn.
Biocontrol Sci. Tech. 16:77-88.
Harwood, J.D., W.G. Wallin, and J.J. Obrycki.
2005. Uptake of Bt endotoxins by nontarget
herbivores and higher order arthropod
predators: Molecular evidence from atransgenic corn agroecosystem. Mol. Ecol.
14:2815-23.
Hasler, C.M. 2000. The changing face offunctional foods. J. Am. College Nutr.
19(90005):499S-506S.
Hatloy, A., J. Hallund, M.M. Diarra, and
A. Oshaug. 2000. Food variety, socioeconomic status and nutritional status in
urban and rural areas in Koutiala (Mali).
Public Health Nutr. 3:57-65.
Hatloy, A., L.E. Torheim, and A. Oshaug. 1998.
Food variety - a good indicator of nutritional
adequacy of the diet? A case study froman urban area in Mali, West Africa. Eur. J.
Clinic. Nutr. 52:891-898.
Haverkort , B., J. van der Kamp, andA. Waters-Bayer (ed) 1991. Joining farmers’
experiments. Inter. Tech. Publ., London.
Hawkes, C. 2006. Uneven dietary development:
linking the policies and processes ofglobalisation with the nutrition transition,
obesity and diet-related chronic diseases.

chapter 03.indd 236

Global. Health 2:4. Available at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1440852&blobtype=pdf.
Hawkes, C. 2007. Promoting healthy dietsand tackling obesity and diet-related
chronic diseases: what are the agricultural
policy levers? Food Nutr. Bull. 28(2Suppl):S312-322.
Hawkes, J.G., N. Maxted, and B.V. Ford-Lloyd.
2000. The ex situ conservation of plant
genetic resources. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Hayama, R., and G. Coupland. 2004.
The molecular basis of diversity in thephotoperiodic flowering responses ofarabidopsis and rice. Plant Physiol. 135:6
77-684.
Hayes, T.B., A. Collins, M. Lee, M. Mendoza,
N. Noreiga, A.A. Stewart, and A. Vonk.
2002. Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs
after exposure to the herbicide atrazine
at low ecologically relevant doses. PNAS
99:5476-5480.
Hazarika, G., and J. Alwang. 2003. Access tocredit, plot size and cost inefficiency amongsmallholder tobacco cultivators in Malawi.
Agric. Econ. 29:99-109.
Hazell, P., and L. Haddad, 2001. Agriculturalresearch and poverty reduction. Food, Agric.,
Environ. Disc. Pap. 34. IFPRI, Washington
DC.
Hazell, P.B.R.C., and C. Ramasamy. 1991. The
Green Revolution reconsidered. The impactof high-yielding rice varieties in South India.
IFPRI, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Heap, I. 2007 International survey of herbicide
resistant weeds. Available at www.weedscience.org/in.asp.
Heffernan, C., and F. Misturelli. 2001.
Perception of poverty among poor livestock
keepers in Kenya. A discourse analysis
approach. J. Int. Dev. 13:863-875.
Heffernan, C., F. Misturelli, R. Fuller, S. Patnaik,
N. Ali, W. Jayatilaka, and A. McLeod.
2005. The livestock and poverty assessment
methodology: An overview. p. 53-69. In
E. Owen et al. (ed) Livestock and wealthcreation. Improving the husbandry of animals
kept by resource poor people in developing
countries. Nottingham Univ. Press, UK.
Heisey, P.W., M.A. Lantican, and H.J. Dubin.
2002. Impacts of international wheat
breeding research in developing countries,
1966-97. CIMMYT, Mexico
Henao, J., and C. Baanante. 2006. Agricultural
production and soil nutrient mining in
Africa. Summary IFDC Tech. Bull. IFDC,
Muscle Shoals, AL.
Henke, J.M., G. Klepper, and G. Schmitz. 2005.
Tax exemption for biofuels in Germany:
Is bio-ethanol really an option for climate
policy? Energy 30:2617-2635.
Henninges, O. and J. Zeddies. 2006. Bioenergy
in Europe: Experiences and prospects.
Brief 9. In P. Hazell and R.K. Pachauri (ed)Bioenergy and agriculture: Promises andchallenges. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Henry, F.J., Y. Patwary, S.R.A. Huttly, andK.M.A. Aziz. 1990. Bacterial contaminationof weaning foods and drinking water in rural
Bangladesh. Epidemiol. Infect. 104:79-85.
Herdt, R.W. 2006. Biotechnology in agriculture.
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31:265-295.
Herrick, J.E., and M.M. Wander. 1997.
Relationships between soil organic carbon
and soil quality in cropped and rangelandsoils: The importance of distribution,
composition, and soil biological activity.
p. 405-426. In R. Lal et al. (ed) Soil processes
and the carbon cycle. CRC Press, Boca
Raton.
Herrmann, R., and C. Roeder. 1998. Someneglected issues in food demand analysis:
retail-level demand, health information andproduct quality. Aust. J. Agric. Res. Econ.
42:341-367.
Herselman, M.E. and K.G. Britton. 2002.
Analysing the role of ICT in bridging thedigital divide amongst learners. South Afric.
J. Educ. 22(4):270-274.
Hertel, T.W., and L.A. Winters (ed) 2005.
Poverty and the WTO. Impacts of the
Doha development agenda. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Hervieu, B., and J. Viard, 1996, Au bonheur
des campagnes (et des provinces), L’Aube,
Marseille.
Herzka, S.Z. 2005. Assessing connectivity ofestuarine fishes based on stable isotope ratio
analysis. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 64:
58-69.
Hicks, N. 1987. Education and economic
growth. p. 101-107. In G. Psacharopoulos(ed) Economics of education: Research andstudies. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Hilbeck, A., and D.A. Andow (ed) 2004.
Environmental risk assessment of geneticallymodified organisms. Vol. 1. A case study ofBt maize in Kenya. CABI, Wallingford.
Hilbeck, A., D.A. Andow and E. Fontes (ed)2006. Environmental risk assessmentof genetically modified organisms. Vol.
2. Improving the scientific basis forenvironmental risk assessment throughthe case of Bt cotton in Brazil. CABI,
Wallingford.
Hilbeck, A. and J.E.U. Schmidt. 2006. Anotherview on Bt proteins — how specific are they
and what else might they do? Biopesticides
Int. 2:1-50.
Hill, J., E. Nelson, D. Tilman, S. Polasky,and D. Tiffany. 2006. From the cover:Environmental, economic, and energetic costs
and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels.
PNAS 103:11206-11210.
Hinrichsen D., B. Robey and U.D. Upadhyay.
1998. Solutions for a water-short world.
Chapter 3 In The coming era of water stressand scarcity. Popul. Rep., Ser. M No. 14.
Johns Hopkins Sch. Public Health, Baltimore.
Hobbs, P.R. 2006. Conservation agriculture:
What is it and why is it important for
future sustainable food production? p. 15.
In (ed) M.P. Reynolds et al. Challenges tointernational wheat improvement. Available

11/3/08 10:55:58 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 237

at http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/hobbs/
Papers/Hobbs_final_Mexico_paper.pdf.
CIMMYT, Mexico.
Hobbs, P.R., K. Sayre and R. Gupta. 2006. The
role of conservation agriculture in sustainableagriculture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. (UK). Cornell
Univ. Dep. Crop Soil Sci. Available at: http://
www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/hobbs/Papers/
Cultivation%20Techniques%20for%20
Conservation%20Agriculture%20Systems.
pdf and http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/
hobbs/publications.htm
Hobson, K.A. 1999. Tracing origins andmigration of wildlife using stable isotopes:
A review. Oecologia 120:314-326.
Hocdé, H. 1997. Crazy but not mad! p. 49-66. In
L. van Veldhuizen (ed) Farmers´ research inpractice. Lessons from the field. Intermediate
Tech. Publ., London.
Hoddinott, J., and Y. Yohannes. 2002. Dietary
diversity as a food security indicator. FCND
Disc. Pap. No. 136. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Hofs, J-L., M. Fok, and M. Vaissayre. 2006.
Impact of Bt cotton adoption on pesticide
use by smallholders: A 2-year survey in
Makhatini Flats (South Africa). Crop Prot.
25:984-988.
Hollingsworth, P.M., I.K. Dawson, W.P. GoodallCopestake, J.E. Richardson, J.C. Weber,C. Sotelo Montes et al. (2005). Do farmers
reduce genetic diversity when they domesticate
tropical trees? A case study from Amazonia.
Mol. Ecol. 14:497-501.
Holmgren, P., E.J. Masakha, and H. Sjöholm.
1994. Not all African land is being degraded:
A recent survey of trees on farms in Kenya
reveals increasing forest resources. Ambio
23:390-395.
Homewood, K., and D. Brockington. 1999.
Biodiversity, conservation and developmentin Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Global
Ecol. Biogeography 8:301-313.
Hossain, M., D. Gollin, V. Cabanilla, E. Cabrera,
N. Johnson, G.S. Khush, and G. McLaren.
2003. International research and genetic
improvement in rice: Evidence from Asia andLatin America. p. 71-108. In R.E. Evenson
and D. Gollin (ed) Crop variety improvement
and its effect on productivity. CABI,
Wallingford.
Hoy, M.A. 1992. Biological control of arthropods:
Genetic engineering and environmental risks.
Biol. Control 2:166-170.
Huang, J., and S. Rozelle. 1995. Environmental
stress and grain yields in China. Am. J. Agric.
Econ. 77:853-864.
Huang, J., S. Rozelle, C. Pray, and Q. Wang.
2002. Plant biotechnology in China. Science
295:674-676.
Huang, J., Q. Zhang and S. Rozelle. 2005.
Macroeconomic policies, trade liberalizationand poverty in China. CCAP Working Pap.,
Chinese Acad. Sci., Beijing.
Huber-Lee, A., and E. Kemp-Benedict. 2003.
Agriculture: Re-adaptation to environment.
In S.S. Jinendradasa (ed) Issues of water
management in agriculture: Compilation

chapter 03.indd 237

of essays. Comprehensive Assessment
Secretariat, IWMI, Colombo.
Hufbauer, G.C., and J.J. Schott. 2005. NAFTA
revisited. Achievements and challenges. Inst.
Int. Econ., Washington DC.
Humphries, S., J. Gonzales, J. Jimenez, and
F. Sierra. 2000. Searching for sustainable
land use practices in Honduras: Lessons froma programme of participatory research withhillside farmers. Agricultural Res. Extension
Network Pap. No.104 July 2000, London,
ODI.
Hussain, F., K.F. Bronson, S. Yadvinder, S. Bijay,
and S. Peng. 2000. Use of chlorophyll meter
sufficiency indices for nitrogen management ofirrigated rice in Asia. Agron. J. 92: 875- 879.
Hussain, I. 2005. Pro-Poor intervention
strategies in irrigated agriculture in Asia:
Poverty in irrigated agriculture-Issues,lessons, options, and guidelines: Bangladesh,
China, India, Pakistan, and Viet Nam. Final
synthesis Rep. 1. IWMI, Colombo.
Hussain, M.G., and M.A. Mazid. 2004. Carp
genetic resources in Bangladesh. p. 16-25. In
D. Penman, M.V. Gupta, and M. Dey (ed)Carp genetic resources in Asia. World Fish
Center, Penang.
Huxley, P. 1999. Tropical agroforestry. Blackwell
Sci., London.
ICARDA. 1986. Food legume improvement
program: Annual Report for 1986. ICARDA,
Aleppo.
ICRAF. 1996. Annual Report 1995, ICRAF,
Nairobi.
ICRAF. 1997. Annual Report 1996, ICRAF,
Nairobi.
ICRISAT. 2006. Integrating MAS andconventional breeding for downy mildew
resistance, p. 4-5 Nurturing the seeds ofsuccess in the semi-arid tropics. ICRISAT,
Patancheru, India.
IDS. 2006. Looking at social protection througha livelihoods lens. IDS In Focus, Issue 01,
May 2006.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2002. World
energy outlook 2002. IEA, Paris.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2004a.
Analysis of the impact of high oil prices on
the global economy. IEA, Paris.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2004b.
Biofuels for transport. An international
perspective. IEA, Paris.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2006a.
Co-utilization of biomass with fossil fuels.
Summary and conclusions from the IEA
Bioenergy ExCo55 Workshop. Paris.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2006b.
Energy technology perspectives 2006. In
support of the G8 Plan of Action. IEA, Paris.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2006c.
World energy outlook 2006. IEA, Paris.
IFAD. 2003. Promoting market access for therural poor in order to achieve the Millennium
Development Goals. Roundtable disc.
Pap. 25th Anniversary Session of IFAD’s
Governing Council, February 2003.
IFAD. 2004. Rural women’s access to land andproperty in selected countries. Progress
towards achieving the aims of Articles 14, 15
and 16 of the Convention on the Eliminationof All Forms of Discrimination against
Women. Available at http://www.landcoalition.org/pdf/cedawrpt.pdf.
IFAD. 2006. Ghana: Upper west agriculturaldevelopment project interim evaluation.
IFAD, Rome.
IFOAM. 2003. The world of organic agriculture
2003 - Statistics and future prospects.
Available at http://www.soel.de/inhalte/
publikationen/s/s_74.pdf. FAO, Rome.
IFOAM. 2006. The world of organic agriculture
2006 - Statistics and emerging trends. 8th ed.
Int. Fed. Organic Agric. Move., Bonn.
IIED. 1996. Towards a sustainable paper cycle.
WBCSD, Geneva.
ILO. 2000. Safety and health in agriculture. Int.
Labour Office Conf., 88th Session 2000. 30
May - 15 June. Report VI(1). ILO, Geneva.
ILO. 2006. Tackling hazardous child labour inagriculture: Guidance on policy and practice.
User Guide. ILO, Geneva.
Imbernon, J., J.L. Villacorta Monzon,
C.L. Zelaya, and A.A. Valle Aguirre. 2005.
Fragmentación y conectividad del bosque en
El Salvador. Aplicación al Corredor Biológico
Mesoamericano. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques
286:15-28.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The physicalscience basis. Summary for decision makers.
Contribution of the working group I to
the fourth assessment report of the IPCC.
Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, UK.
IPGRI. 1993. Diversity for development. IPGRI,
Rome.
IUCN. 2004. Allanblackia seeds help Ghanaian
communities improve livelihoods. INCN
News Release, 13 May 2004.
IWMI. 2006. Water for food, Water for life.
Insights from the Comprehensive Assessmentof Water Management in Agriculture.
Stockholm World Water Week, 2006.
Izac, A-M., and P.A. Sanchez. 2001. Towards an
NRM paradigm for international agriculture.
Agric. Syst. 69:5-25.
Jackson, C. 2003. Gender analysis of land:
Beyond land rights for women? J. Agrar.
Change 3(4):453-480.
Jackson, R.B., E.G. Jobbàgy, R. Avissar, S.B. Roy,
D.J. Barratt, C.W. Cook et al. 2005. Trading
water for carbon with biological carbon
sequestration. Science 310:1944-1947.
Jackson, R.B., and W.H. Schlesinger. 2004.
Curbing the U.S. carbon deficit. PNAS
101:15827-15829.
Jama, B., F. Kwesiga, and A. Niang. 2006.
Agroforestry innovations for soil fertility
management in sub-Saharan Africa:
Prospects and challenges ahead. p. 53- 60.
In D. Garrity et al. World agroforestry into
the future. World Agroforestry Centre,
Nairobi.
James, C. 2006. Global status of commercializedbiotech/GM crops. ISAAA Brief No. 35.
ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.

11/3/08 10:55:58 AM

238 | IAASTD Global Report

Jamieson, N., 1987. The paradigmatic shift of
rapid rural appraisal. In Proc. 1985 Int.
Conf. Rapid Rural Appraisal. Khon Kaen
Univ., Thailand.
Janhari, V.P. 2003. Summary of findings, analysis
of austainability and suggestions. p. 1222. In B. Venkateswara Rao (ed) Proc. Int.
Conf. Hydrol. Watershed Manage. Vol.
2. Hyderabad,18-20 Dec 2002. BS Publ.,
Hyderabad.
Jarvis, D., B. Sthapit, and L. Sears (ed) 2000.
Conserving agricultural biodiversity in situ:
A scientific basis for sustainable agriculture.
Proc. workshop. 5-12 July 1999. Pokhara,
Nepal. IPGRI, Rome.
Jayne, T.S., P. Pingali, M. Villareal, and G.
Memrich. 2004. Interactions between the
agricultural sector and HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Implications for agricultural policy. ESA
Working Pap. No. 04-06. FAO, Rome.
Jayne, T.S., T. Yamano, M.T. Weber, D. Tschirley,
R. Benfica, A. Chapoto, and B. Zulu. 2003.
Smallholder income and land distribution in
Africa: Implications for poverty reduction
strategies. Food Policy 28(3):253-275.
Jenkins, E.J., A.M. Veitch, S.J. Kutz, E.P.
Hoberg, and L. Polley. 2006. Climate change
and the epidemiology of protostrongylid
nematodes in northern ecosystems:
Parelaphostrongylus odocoilei andProtostrongylus stilesi in Dall’s sheep (Ovisd. dalli). Parasitology 132(Pt 3):387-401.
Joensen, L., S. Semino, and H. Paul. 2005.
Argentina: A case study on the impact ofgenetically engineered soya. Available atwww.econexus.info/pdf/Enx-ArgentinaGE-Soya-Report-2005.pdf. The Gaia
Foundation, London.
Johns, T., and P.B. Eyzaguirre. 2007.
Biofortification, biodiversity and diet: asearch for complementary applications
against poverty and malnutrition. Food
Policy 32:1-24.
Johns, T., I.F. Smith, and P.B. Eyzaguirre. 2006.
Agrobiodiversity, nutrition, and health:
Understanding the links between agriculture
and health. 2020 Vision Briefs No. 13(12).
Available at http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/
focus13/focus13_12.pdf. IFPRI, Washington
DC.
Johnson, K.A. and D.E. Johnson. 1995. Methane
emissions from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73:
2483-2492.
Johnson, N.L., D. Pachico, and C.S. Wortmann.
2003. The impact of CIAT’s genetic
improvement research in beans p. 257274. In R.E. Evenson and D. Gollin (ed)Crop variety improvement and its effect on
productivity. CABI, Wallingford.
Jones, M. 1990. Efficiency and effectiveness in an
African public administration context, Int. J.
Public Sector Manage. 3:58-64.
JRC. 2007. Food quality schemes project. Joint
Research Center, European Commission.
Available at http://foodqualityschemes.jrc.es/
en/index.html.
Juma, C. 2006. Reinventing African economies.

chapter 03.indd 238

Technological innovation and thesustainability transition. Published keynote
address for The John Pesek Colloquium
on Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State
Univ., April 6-7, 2006. Available at http://
www.wallacechair.iastate.edu/endeavors/
pesekcolloquium/.
Kader, A.A. 2003. A perspective on postharvest
horticulture (1978- 2003). Hort. Sci.
38(5):1004-1008.
Kanampiu, F.K., V. Kabambe, C. Massawe,
L. Jasi, D. Friesen, J.K. Ransom et al.
2003. Multi-site, multi-season field tests
demonstrate that herbicide seed-coating
herbicide-resistance maize controls Striga
spp. and increases yields in several Africancountries. Crop Prot. 22:697-706.
Kant, A.K., A. Schatzkin, and R.G. Ziegler.
1995. Dietary diversity and subsequentcause-specific mortality in the NHANES I
epidemiologic follow-up study. J. Am. Coll.
Nutr. 14, 233-238.
Kant, A.K., G. Block, A. Schatzkin, R.G. Ziegler,and T.B. Harris. 1993. Dietary diversity andsubsequent mortality in the first national
health and nutrition examination survey
epidemiologic follow-up study. Am. J. Clinic.
Nutr. 57:434-440.
Kaplinski, N. 2002. Conflicts around a study of
Mexican crops. Nature 417:898.
Kaplinski, N., D. Braun, E. Lisch, A. Hay,
S. Hake, and M. Freeling. 2002. Biodiversity(Communications arising): Maize transgene
results in Mexico are artefacts. Nature
416:601-602.
Kapseu, C., E. Avouampo, and B. Djeumako.
2002. Oil extraction from Dacryodes
edulis (G. Don) H.J. Lam fruit. For. Trees
Livelihoods. 11:97-104.
Karekezi, S., K. Lata and S.T. Coelho. 2004.
Traditional biomass energy. Improving its
use and moving to modern energy use. Int.
Conf. Renewable Energies, Bonn. Jan. 2004.
Available at http://www.renewables2004.de/doc/DocCenter/TBP11-biomass.pdf.
Karl, S.A., and B.W. Bowen. 1999. Evolutionary
significant units versus geopoliticaltaxonomy: molecular systematics of anendangered sea turtle (genus Chelonia).
Conserv. Biol. 13:990- 999.
Kartha, S., G. Leach, and S.C. Rajan. 2005.
Advancing bioenergy for sustainable
development. Guidelines for policymakers
and investors. ESMAP, World Bank,
Washington DC.
Kaul, R.N. and A. Ali, 1992. Gender issues
in African farming: A case for developing
farm tools for women. J. Farming Syst. Res.
Extens. 3:35-46.
Kennedy, E.T., J. Ohls, S. Carlson, and
K. Fleming. 1995. The healthy eating index:
Design and applications. J. Am. Dietary
Assoc. 95:1103-1108.
Kenny, C. 2002. The internet and economic growthin LDCs; A case of managing expectations? UN
University, World Inst. Dev. Econ. Res. Disc.
Pap. No. 2002/75, Helsinki. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588483#PaperDownload.
Kerr, J. and S. Kolavalli. 1999. Impact ofagricultural research on poverty alleviation:
conceptual framework with illustrations fromthe Literature. EPTD Disc. Pap. 56. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Khan, Z.R., C.A.O. Midega, A. Hassanali,
J.A. Pickett and L.J. Wadhams. 2007.
Assessment of different legumes for thecontrol of Striga hermonthica in maize andsorghum. Crop Sci. 47: 730-734.
Khan, Z.R., C.A.O. Midega, A. Hassanali,
J.A. Pickett, L.J. Wadhams, and A. Wanjoya.
2006. Management of witchweed, Striga
hermonthica, and stemborers in sorghum,
Sorghum bicolor, through intercropping withgreenleaf desmodium, Desmodium intortum.
Int. J. Pest Manage. 52:297-302.
Kilpatrick, S., R. Bell, and I. Falk. 1999. The roleof group learning in building social capital,
J. Voc. Educ. Training 51:(1)129-144.
Kim H.Y., M. Lieffering, K. Kobayashi,
M. Okada, M.W. Mitchell and M. Gumpertz.
2003. Effects of free-air CO2 enrichment andnitrogen supply on the yield of temperatepaddy rice crops. Field Crops Res. 83:261270.
Kimball, B.A. 1983. Carbon dioxide andagricultural yield: An assemblage andanalysis of 430 prior observations. Agron. J.
75:779-788.
Kindt, R., A.J. Simons, and P. van Damme. 2004.
Do farm characteristics explain differences intree species diversity among western Kenyan
farms? Agrofor. Syst. 63:63-74.
Kirchmann, H., and L. Bergstrom. 2001. Do
organic farming practices reduce nitrateleaching? Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Analysis
32:997-1028.
Kirk, G. 2004. The biochemistry of submergedsoils. John Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Kishi, M. 2005, The health impacts of pesticides:
What do we now know? p. 23-38. In J.
Pretty (ed) The pesticide detox. Earthscan,
London.
Kitinoja, L., and J.R. Gorny. 1999. Postharvest
technology for small-scale produce
marketers: economic opportunities, quality
and food safety. Univ. CA, Davis, Postharvest
Hort. Serv. 21.
Koebner, R.M.D. and R.W. Summers. 2003. 21st
century wheat breeding: Plot selection orplate detection? Trends Biotech. 21:22:59-63.
Koenig, D. 2001. Toward local development andmitigating impoverishment in developmentinduced displacement and resettlement.
Final Rep. Prepared for ESCOR R7644 andthe Research Programme on DevelopmentInduced Displacement and Resettlement.
Refugee Studies Centre, Univ. Oxford, UK.
Köhler-Rollefson, I. and J. Bräunig. 1998.
Anthropological veterinary medicine: The
need for indigenizing the curriculum. 9th
AITVM Conf. Harare. 14-18 Sept. 1998.
Available at http://www.vetwork.org.uk/ilse2.htm.

11/3/08 10:55:58 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 239

Kojima, M., and T. Johnson. 2005. The potential
for biofuels for transport in developing
countries. Rep. 312/05. ESMAP, World Bank,
Washington DC.
Kojima, M., D. Mitchell, and W. Ward. 2007.
Considering biofuel trade policies. ESMAP,
World Bank, Washington DC.
Kramer, S.B., J.P. Reganold, J. Glover,
B.J.M. Bohannan, and H.A. Mooney. 2006.
Reduced nitrate leaching and enhanced
denitrifier activity and efficiency in organicallyfertilized soils. PNAS 103:4522-4527.
Kranjac-Berisavljevic’, G., and B.Z. Gandaa.
2004. The cultural roles of yam. Geneflow.
Available at http://ipgri-pa.grinfo.net/
iGeneflow.php?itemid=697. IPGRI, Rome.
Krauss, U. 2004. Diseases in tropicalagroforestry landscapes: The role ofbiodiversity. p. 397-412. In Agroforestry
and biodiversity conservation in tropicallandscapes, G. Schroth et al. (ed) Island
Press, Washington.
Krebs-Smith, S.M., H. Smiciklas-Wright,
H.A. Guthrie, and J. Krebs-Smith. 1987. The
effects of variety in food choices on dietary
quality. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 87:897-903.
Kristal, A.R., A.L. Shattuck, and H.J. Henry.
1990. Patterns of dietary behavior associatedwith selecting diets low in fat: Reliability andvalidity of a behavioral approach to dietaryassessment. J. Am. Dietary Assoc. 90:214220.
Kumaran, M., N. Kalaimani, K. Ponnusamy,
V. S. Chandrasekaran, and D. Deboral
Vimala. 2003. A case of informal srimp
farmers’ association and its role insustainable shrimp farming in Tamil Nadu.
Aquacult. Asia 7(2):10-12.
Kunin, W.E. and J.H. Lawton. 1996. Does
biodiversity matter? p. 283-308. In
K.G. Gaston (ed) Biodiversity: A biology of
numbers and difference. Blackwell, Oxford.
Kurien, J. 2004. Responsible fish trade andfood security — toward understanding therelationship between international fish tradeand food security. Roy. Norweg. Min. For.
Affairs and FAO, Rome.
Kusters, K., and B. Belcher. 2004. Forest
products, livelihoods and conservation: Casestudies of non-timber forest product systems.
Vol. 1. Asia. CIFOR, Jakarta.
Kwesiga, F., S. Franzel, F. Place, D. Phiri, andC.P. Simwanza. 1999. Sesbania sesban
improved fallows in eastern Zambia:
Their inception, development and farmer
enthusiasm. Agrofor. Syst. 47:49-66.
Lacoste, Y. 2004. Géopolitique des drogues
illicites. Hérodote 112. Available at http://
www.herodote.org/article.php3?id_article=57.
Lafever, H.N., O. Sosa Jr., R.L. Gallun, J.E. Foster,and R.C. Kuhn.1980. Survey monitors Hessian
fly population in Ohio wheat. Ohio Reporter
65:51-53.
Laird, S.A. 2002. Biodiversity and traditional
knowledge: Equitable partnerships inpractice. People Plants Conserv. Ser.
Earthscan, London.

chapter 03.indd 239

Lal, R. 1997. Long term tillage and maize
monoculture effects on tropical Alfisol inwestern Nigeria. II. Soil chemical properties.
Soil Till. Res. 42:161-174.
Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts
on global climate change and food security.
Science 304:1623-1627.
Lal, R. 2006. Managing soils for feeding a global
population of 10 billion. J. Sci. Food Agric.
86:2273-2284.
Lal, R., Z.X. Tan, and K.D. Wiebe. 2005. Global
soil nutrient depletion and yield reduction.
J. Sustain. Agric. 26(1):123-146.
Lam, W.F. 1998. Governing irrigation systems
in Nepal: Institutions, infrastructure, andcollective action. Institute for Contemporary
Studies. Oakland, CA.
Landers, J.N., J. Clay and J. Weiss. 2005.
Integrated crop-livestock ley farming with zero
tillage: Five case studies of the win-win-win
strategy for sustainable farming in the tropics.
p. 6. In Proc. Third World Congress on
Conservation Agriculture: Linking production,
livelihoods and conservation. Nairobi, Kenya.
Available at www.act.org.zw/postcongress/
documents/Sess4(Strat+approaches)/
Landers%20et%20al.doc
Landers, J.N., H.M. Saturnino, and P.L. de Freitas.
2001. Organizational and policy considerations
in zero tillage. In H.M. Saturnino and J.N.
Landers (ed) The environment and zero tillage.
Associação de Plantio Direto no Cerrado,Federacão Bras. Plantio Direto na Palha, Brasil.
Landis, D.A., S.D. Wratten, and G.M. Gurr. 2000.
Habitat management to conserve natural
enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture.
Ann. Rev. Entomol. 45:175-201.
Lang, T., and M. Heasman. 2004. Food wars:
The global battle for mouths, minds andmarkets. Earthscan, London.
Lantican, M.A., H.J. Dubin, and M.L. Morris.
2005. Impacts of international wheat
breeding research in the developing world,
1988- 2002. CIMMYT, Mexico.
Lapeyrie, F., and P. Högberg, 1994. Harnessing
symbiotic associations: ectomycorrhizas.
p. 158-164. In R.R.B. Leakey and
A.C. Newton (ed) Tropical trees: The potential
for domestication and the rebuilding of forest
resources. HMSO, London.
Lardon, S., P. Maurel, and V. Piveteau. 2001.
Représentations spatiales et développement
territorial. Hermès, Paris.
Larson, E.D. 1993. Technology for electricity
and fuels from biomass. Ann. Rev. Energy
Environ. 18:567-630.
Larsson S.C., A. Wolk. 2006, Meat consumption
and risk of colorectal cancer: A metaanalysis of prospective studies. Int. J. Cancer
119(11):2657-2664.
Last, F.T., J.E.G. Good, R.H. Watson, and
D.A. Greig. 1976. The city of Edinburgh its stock of trees, a continuing amenity andtimber resource. Scottish Forestry 30:112-126.
Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. 1997. Impact ofprivatization on gender and property rights
in Africa. World Dev. 25:1317-1333.

Lastarria-Cornhiel, S., and J. Melmed-Sanjak.
1999. Land tenancy in Asia, Arica, and Latin
America: A look at the past and a view to the
future. Land Tenure Center Working Pap. 76,
Univ. Wisconsin, Madison.
Lavigne Delville, P. 1998. Quelles politiques
foncières en Afrique rurale? Ministère de la
Coopération/Karthala, Paris.
Law, M. 2000. Dietary fat and adult diseases andthe implications for childhood nutrition: an
epidemiologic approach. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
72(5 Suppl):1291S-1296S.
Lawson, G.J. 1994. Indigenous trees in West
African forest plantations: The need fordomestication by clonal techniques. p. 112123. In R.R.B. Leakey and A.C. Newton(ed) Tropical trees: The potential fordomestication and the rebuilding of forest
resources. HMSO, London.
Le Billon, P. 2001. The political ecology of war:
Natural resources and armed conflicts. Polit.
Geog. 20:561-584.
Le Coq, J.F., and G. Trebuil. 2005. Impact of
economic liberalization on rice intensification,
agricultural diversification and rural
livelihoods in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.
Southeast Asian Studies 42(4):519-547.
Le Roy, E., A. Karsenty, and A. Bertrand. 1996.
La sécurisation foncière en Afrique. Pour une
gestion viable des ressources renouvelables.
Karthala, Paris.
Leach, M., and R. Mearns. 1996. The lie of theland: Challenging received wisdom on the
Africa environment. IDS, Sussex.
Leakey, A.D.B., C.J. Bernacchi, F.G. Dohleman,
D.R. Ort, and S.P. Long. 2004. Will
photosynthesis of maize (Zea mays) in the
US Corn Belt increase in future [CO2] richatmospheres? An analysis of diurnal courses
of CO2 uptake under Free-Air Concentration
Enrichment (FACE). Glob. Change Biol.
10:951-962.
Leakey, C.D.B. 2006. Quantifying inhabitation,
feeding and connectivity between adjacentestuarine and coastal regions for threecommercially important marine fishes. PhD
thesis. Univ. Plymouth.
Leakey, R.R.B. 1985. The capacity for vegetative
propagation in trees. p. 110-133. In M.G.R.
Cannell and J.E. Jackson (ed) Attributes oftrees as crop plants. Inst. Terr. Ecol., Abbots
Ripton, Huntingdon, England.
Leakey, R.R.B. 1987. Clonal forestry in thetropics - A review of developments, strategies
and opportunities. Commonwealth For. Rev.
66:61-75.
Leakey, R.R.B. 1991. Towards a strategy forclonal forestry: Some guidelines based on
experience with tropical trees. p. 27-42.
In J.E. Jackson (ed) Tree breeding andimprovement, Roy. For. Soc. Engl., Wales andNorthern Ireland, Tring, England.
Leakey, R.R.B. 1996. Definition of agroforestry
revisited. Agrofor. Today 8:5-7.
Leakey, R.R.B. 1999a. Potential for novel foodproducts from agroforestry trees. Food
Chem. 64:1-14.

11/3/08 10:55:59 AM

240 | IAASTD Global Report

Leakey, R.R.B. 1999b. Agroforestry forbiodiversity in farming systems. p. 127145. In W.W. Collins and C.O. Qualset (ed)Biodiversity in agroecosystems. CRC Press, NY.
Leakey, R.R.B. 2001a. Win:Win landuse
strategies for Africa: 1. Building on
experience with agroforests in Asia and Latin
America. Int. For. Rev. 3:1-10.
Leakey, R.R.B. 2001b. Win:win landuse
strategies for Africa: 2. Capturing economicand environmental benefits with multistrata
agroforests. Int. For. Rev. 3:11-18.
Leakey, R.R.B. 2003. The domestication ofindigenous trees as the basis of a strategy forsustainable land use. p. 27-40. In J. Lemons,
R. Victor, and D. Schaffer (ed) Conserving
biodiversity in arid regions. Kluwer
Academic Publ., Boston.
Leakey, R.R.B. 2004. Physiology of vegetative
reproduction in trees. p. 1655-1668. In J.
Burley, J. Evans and J.A. Youngquist (ed)Encycl. For. Sci. Academic Press, London.
Leakey, R.R.B. 2005a. Agricultural sustainability
in FNQ: Boom or bust? A global perspective.
p. 392-400. In Cairns 2020/2050 BusinessRes. Manual Project, Cairns 2020/2050
BRM Partnership, Cairns.
Leakey, R.R.B. 2005b. Domestication potentialof Marula (Sclerocarya birrea subsp caffra)
in South Africa and Namibia: 3. Multi-trait
selection. Agrofor. Syst. 64:51-59.
Leakey, R.R.B., J.F. Mesén, Z. Tchoundjeu,
K.A. Longman, J. McP. Dick., A.C. Newton
et al. 1990. Low-technology techniques forthe vegetative propagation of tropical tress.
Commonwealth For. Rev. 69:247-257.
Leakey, R.R.B., K. Pate, and C. Lombard. 2005c.
Domestication potential of Marula (Sclerocaryabirrea subsp caffra) in South Africa andNamibia: 2. Phenotypic variation in nut andkernel traits. Agrofor. Syst. 64:37-49.
Leakey, R.R.B., and P.A. Sanchez. 1997. How
many people use agroforestry products?
Agrofor, Today 9(3):4-5.
Leakey, R.R.B., K. Schreckenberg, andZ. Tchoundjeu. 2003. The participatory
domestication of West African indigenous
fruits. Int. For. Rev. 5:338-347.
Leakey, R.R.B., S. Shackleton, and P. du Plessis.
2005b. Domestication potential of Marula(Sclerocarya birrea subsp caffra) in South
Africa and Namibia: 1. Phenotypic variationin fruit traits. Agrofor. Syst. 64:25-35.
Leakey, R.R.B., and Z. Tchoundjeu. 2001.
Diversification of tree crops: Domesticationof companion crops for poverty reductionand environmental services. Exp. Agric.
37:279-296.
Leakey, R.R.B., Z. Tchoundjeu,
K. Schreckenberg, S. Shackleton, andC. Shackleton. 2005a. Agroforestry Tree
Products (AFTPs): Targeting poverty
reduction and enhanced livelihoods. Int.
J. Agric. Sustain. 3:1-23.
Leakey, R.R.B., Z. Tchoundjeu, R.I. Smith,
R.C. Munro, J-M. Fondoun, J. Kengue et al.
2004. Evidence that subsistence farmers havechapter 03.indd 240

domesticated indigenous fruits (Dacryodes
edulis and Irvingia gabonensis) in Cameroon
and Nigeria. Agrofor. Syst. 60:101-111.
Leakey, R.R.B., J. Wilson, and J.D. Deans. 1999.
Domestication of trees for agroforestry indrylands. Ann. Arid Zones 38:195-220.
Lebel, L., H.T. Nguyen, S. Amnuay, P. Suparb,
B. Urasa and K.T. Le. 2002. Industrial
transformation and shrimp aquaculturein Thailand and Vietnam: Pathways toecological, social and economic sustainability.
Ambio 31: 311-323.
Ledford, H. 2007. Out of bounds. Nature
445:132-133.
Lees, J.W. 1990. More than accountability:
Evaluating agricultural extension
programmes. The Rural Dev. Centre, Univ.
New England, Armidale, NSW.
Leeuwis, C. 1993. Of computers, myths andmodelling: The social construction ofdiversity, knowledge, information andcommunication technologies in Dutch
horticulture and agricultural extension.
Wageningen Studies in Sociology 36.
Wageningen Agricultural Univ., Wageningen.
Legg, B. 2005. Crop improvement technologies
for the 21st century. p. 31-50. In R. SylvesterBradley and J. Wiseman (ed) Yields of farmed
species. Nottingham Univ. Press, UK.
Legg, J.P. and C.M. Fauquet. 2004. Cassava
mosaic geminiviruses in Africa. Plant Mol.
Biol. 56:585-599.
Lele, U. 2004. Technology generation,
adaptation, adoption and impact: towards aframework for understanding and increasing
research impact. Working Pap. 31964, World
Bank, Washington DC.
Lewis, W.J., J.O., J.C. van Lanteren, S.C. Phatak,and J.H.Tumlinson, III. 1997. A total systemapproach to sustainable management. PNAS
94(23):12243-12248.
Lhaloui, S., M. El Bouhssini, N. Nsarellah,
A. Amri, N. Nachit, J. El Haddoury, and
M. Jlibene. 2005. Les cecidomyies des cereals
au Maroc: Biologie, dégâts et moyens de lutte.
Lhoste, P. 2005. L’étude des systèmes d’élevage
en zones tropicales concepts et méthodes.
p. 97-115. In Manuel de zootechnie
comparée Nord-Sud. INRA, Paris.
Li, L-Y. 1994. Worldwide use of Trichogramma
for biological control on different crops:
A survey, p. 37-54. In E. Wajnberg and
S.A. Hassan (ed) Biological control with egg
parasitoids. CABI, Wallingford.
Li, S.F. 2003. Aquaculture research and its
relationship to development in China. In
Agricultural development and opportunities
for aquatic resources research in China.
WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia.
Liang, L., T. Nagumo, and R. Hatano.
2005. Nitrogen cycling with respect toenvironmental load in farm systems inSouthwest China. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst.
73:119-134.
LID (Livestock in Development). 1999. Livestockin poverty focused development. Livestock in
Development, Crewkerne.

Lightfoot, C., and R.P. Noble. 1993. A
participatory experiment in sustainableagriculture. J. Farming Syst. Res. Ext.
4(1):11-34.
Lightfoot, C., and R.S.V. Pullin. 1995. Why an
integrated resource management approach?
In R.E. Brummett (ed) Aquaculture policy
options for integrated resource managementin SubSaharan Africa. ICLARM Conf. Proc.,
ICLARM, Manila.
Lilja, N., J. Ashby, and L. Sperling (ed) 2001.
Assessing the impact of participatory researchand gender analysis. PRGA Program,
Coordination Office, CIAT, Cali.
Lilja, N., J.A. Ashby, and N. Johnson. 2004.
Scaling up and out the impact of agriculturalresearch with farmer participatory research.
In D. Pachico (ed) Scaling up and out:
Achieving widespread impact throughagricultural research. CIAT, Cali.
Lin, C.H., R.N. Lerch, H.E. Garrett, and
M.F. George. 2005. Incorporating forage
grasses in riparian buffers for bioremediationof atrazine, isoxaflutole and nitrate in
Missouri. Agrofor. Syst. 63:91-99.
Lin, C.H., R.N. Lerch, H.E. Garrett,
W.G. Johnson, D. Jordan, and M.F. George.
2003. The effect of five forage species ontransport and transformation of atrazine andisoxaflutole (Balance) in lysimeter leachate.
J. Environ. Qual. 32:1992-2000.
Liska, A.J., H.S. Yang, V. Bremer, W.T. Walters,
D. Kenney, P. Tracy et al. 2007. Biofuel
energy systems simulator: LifeCycle energy
and emissions analysis model for cornethanol biofuel (ver. 1.0, 2007). Available at
http://www.bess.unl.edu. Univ. Nebraska.
Liu, M., 1997. Fondements et pratiques dela recherche-action. Logiques sociales,
L’Harmattan, Paris.
Liu, M. and F. Crezé. 2006. La recherche action
et les transformations sociales. Coll. Logiquessociales. L’Harmattan, Paris.
Lock, K., J. Pomerleau, L. Causer, D.R. Altmann,and M. McKee. 2005. The global burden of
disease attributable to low consumption offruit and vegetables: Implications for the global
strategy on diet. Bull. WHO 83:100-108.
Loges, R., M.R. Kelm, and F. Taube. 2006.
Nitrogen balances, nitrate leaching andenergy efficiency of conventional and organic
farming systems on fertile soils in Northern
Germany. Adv. Geoecol. 39:407- 414.
Lomer C. J., R.P. Bateman, D.L. Johnson,
J. Langewald, and M. Thomas. 2001.
Biological control of locusts andgrasshoppers. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 46:667702.
Long, S.P., E.A. Ainsworth, A.D.B. Leakey,
J. Nosberger, and D.R. Ort. 2006. Food forthought: Lower-than-expected crop yieldstimulation with rising CO2 concentrations.
Science 312:1918-1921.
Long, S.P., E.A. Ainsworth, A. Rogers, and
D.R. Ort. 2004. Rising atmospheric carbon
dioxide: plants FACE the future. Ann. Rev.
Plant Biol. 55:591-628.

11/3/08 10:55:59 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 241

Longping, Y. 2004. Hybrid rice for food security
in the world. Available at http://www.fao.org/
docrep/008/y5682e/y5682e06.htm#bm06.
FAO, Rome.
Losch, B. 2004. Debating the multifunctionalityof agriculture: From trade negotiations
to development policies by the South. J.
Agrarian Change 4:336-360.
Losch, B. 2007. Quel statut pour l’instabilitédes prix dans les changements structurels
des agricultures des Suds? p. 113-131.
In La régulation des marchés agricoles
internationaux: Un enjeu décisif pour ledéveloppement. L’Harmattan, Paris.
Louette, D. 2000. Traditional management ofseed and genetic diversity. What is a landrace?
p. 109-142. In S.B. Brush (ed) Genes in thefield: On-farm conservation of crop diversity.
IPGRI, Rome and IDRC, Ottawa.
Lovato, T., J. Mielniczuk, C. Bayer and
F. Vezzani. 2004. Carbon and nitrogen
addition related to stocks of these elements
in soil and corn yield under management
systems. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do
Solo 28(1):175-187. (Abstract in English)
Available at http://www.scielo.br/scielo.
php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-0683200
4000100017
Lowe, A.J., S.A. Harris, and P. Ashton. 2004.
Ecological genetics: Design, analysis andapplication. Blackwell, Oxford.
Lowe, A.J., J. Wilson, A.C.M. Gillies, and
I. Dawson. 2000. Conservation genetics
of bush mango from central/west Africa,
implications from RAPD analysis. Mol. Ecol.
9:831-841.
Ludwig, B.G. 1999, Extension professionals’
perspectives on global programming. 1999
Conf. Proc. Assoc. Int. Extension Education.
Port of Spain, Trinidad.
Luecke, R., and R. Katz. 2003. Managing
creativity and innovation. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston.
Lutz, B., S. Wiedemann, and C. Albrecht. 2005.
Degradation of transgenic Cry1Ab proteinfrom genetically modified maize in the bovine
gastrointestinal tract. J. Agric. Food Chem.
53:1453-1456.
MA. 2005a. Ecosystem and human well-being:
Health synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment. World Resources Inst.,
Washington DC.
MA. 2005b. Ecosystems and human Well-being:
Wetlands and water synthesis. Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources
Inst., Washington DC.
MA. 2005c. Ecosystems and human well-being.
Vol 1. Current state and trends. R. Hassan etal. (ed) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Island Press, Washington.
Macrae, J., and A. Zwi (ed) 1994. War andhunger: Rethinking international responses incomplex emergencies. Zed Books, Londres.
Madan, M.L. 2005. Animal biotechnology:
Applications and economic implications indeveloping countries Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int.
Epiz. 24(1):127-139.

chapter 03.indd 241

Mäder, P., A. Fliebeta, D. Dubois, L. Gunst,
P. Fried, and U. Niggli. 2002. Soil fertility
and biodiversity in organic farming. Science
296:1694-1697.
Mäder P., A. Fliessbach, D. Dubois, L. Gunst,
W. Jossi, F. Widmer et al. 2006. The DOK
experiment (Switzerland). p. 41-58. In
J. Raupp et al. (ed) ISOFAR: Long-term field
experiments in organic farming. Available at
http://www.isofar.org/publications/documents/
raupp-etal-2006-long-term-content.pdf.
ISOFAR, Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin.
Maestas, J.D., R.L. Knight, and W.C. Gilgert.
2003. Biodiversity across a rural land-use
gradient. Conserv. Biol. 17:1425-1434.
Magette, W.L., R.B. Brinsfield, R.E. Palmer, andJ.D. Wood. 1989. Nutrient and sedimentremoval by vegetated filter strips. Trans.
ASAE 32:663-667.
Majumdar, D. 2003. Methane and nitrous
oxide emission from irrigated rice fields:
Proposed mitigation strategies. Current Sci.
84(10):1317- 1326.
Makkar, H., and G. Viljoen (ed) 2005.
Applications of gene-based technologies for
improving animal production and healthin developing countries. Springer, The
Netherlands.
Mancini, F. 2006. Impact of integrated pest
management farmer field schools on health,farming systems, the environment, andlivelihoods of cotton growers in Southern
India. Publ. PhD, Available at http://library.
wur.nl/wda/dissertations/dis3936.pdf.
Wageningen Univ., The Netherlands.
Mander, M. 1998. Marketing of indigenous
medicinal plants in South Africa: A casestudy in KwaZulu-Natal. FAO, Rome.
Mander, M., J. Mander, and C. Breen. 1996.
Promoting the cultivation of indigenous
plants for markets: Experiences from
KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. p.104-109.
In R.R.B. Leakey et al. (ed) Domesticationand commercialisation of non-timber forest
products. Non-Wood Forest Products No. 9.
FAO, Rome.
Mansour, S.A. 2004. Pesticide exposure —Egyptian scene. Toxicology 198:91-115.
Mansoor, S.R., W. Briddon, Y. Zafar, and
J. Stanley. 2003. Gemnivirus disease
complexes: an emerging threat. Trends Plant
Sci. 8(3):128-134.
Maredia, M., and P. Pingali. 2001.
Environmental impacts of productivityenhancing crop research: A critical review.
CGIAR TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome.
Marris, E. 2007. Wheat fungus spreads out of
Africa. Available at http://www.nature.com/
news/2007/070122/full/070122-3.html
Marshall, E., K. Schreckenberg, andA.C. Newton (ed) 2006. Commercializationof non-timber forest products: Factors
influencing success. Lessons learned
from Mexico and Bolivia and policy
implications for decision makers. UNEPWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre,
Cambridge, UK.

Marshall, T.A., P.J. Stumbo, J.J. Warren, and
X.J. Xie. 2001. Inadequate nutrient intakes
are common and are associated with low dietvariety in rural, community-dwelling elderly.
J. Nutr. 131:2192-2196.
Martinot, E., A. Chaurey, D. Lew, J.R. Moreira,and M. Wamukonya. 2002. Renewableenergy markets in developing countries. Ann.
Rev. Energy Env. 27:309-3048.
Marvier, M., C. McCreedy, J. Regetz, and
P. Kareiva. 2007. A meta-analysis of effectsof Bt cotton and maize on nontarget
invertebrates. Science 316:1475-1477.
Masle, J., S.R. Gilmore and G. Farquhar.
2005. The ERECTA gene regulates planttranspiration efficiency in Arabidopsis.
Nature 436:866-870.
Mason, P.A., and J. Wilson. 1994. Harnessing
symbiotic associations: Vesicular-arbuscular
mycorrhizas. p. 165-175. In R.R.B. Leakeyand A.C. Newton (ed) Tropical trees:
The potential for domestication and therebuilding of forest resources. HMSO,
London.
Mathieu, P., P. Lavigne Delville, H. Ouedrago,
L. Pare and M. Zongo. 2000. Sécuriser lestransactions foncières au Burkina Faso,
Rapport de synthèse sur l’évolution destransactions foncières, GRET/Ministèrede l’Agriculture/Ambassade de France au
Burkina Faso.
Mathur, S., D. Pachico, and A.L. Jones. 2003.
Agricultural research and poverty reduction,some issues and evidence. Pub. No. 335,
Econ. Impact Ser. 2. CIAT, Cali.
Maxted, N., B. Ford-Lloyd, J.G. Hawkes. 1997.
Plant genetic conservation: The in situ
approach. Chapman and Hall, London.
Maxwell, D., and K. Wiebe. 1998. Land tenure andfood security: A review of concepts, evidence
and methods. Res. Pap. No. 129. Land Tenure
Center, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison.
Mayers, J., and S. Vermeulen. 2002. Companycommunity forest partnerships: From raw
deals to mutual gains? IIED, London.
Mazid, M.A., M.A. Jabber, C.R. Riches,
E.J.Z. Robinson, M. Mortimer, and
L.J. Wade. 2001. Weed management
implications of introducing dry-seeded rice in
the Barind Tract of Bangladesh. p. 211-216.
In Proc. BCPC Conf. — Weeds. Brit. Crop
Prot. Council, Farnham, UK
Mazoyer, M., and L. Roudart. 1997. Histoire desagricultures du monde. Du néolithique à lacrise contemporaine. Seuil, Paris.
Mazoyer, M. and L. Roudart. 2002. Histoire desagricultures du monde. Du néolithique à lacrise contemporaine. Points Histoire. Seuil,Paris (F).
Mazur, R., H. Sseguya, D. Masinde, J. Bbemba,
and G. Babirye. 2006. Facilitating farmerto-farmer learning and innovation forenhanced food, nutrition and income security
in Kamuli District, Uganda. Innovation
Africa Symposium Proceedings. Kampala.
21-23 Nov. 2006. Center for Sustain. Rural
Livelihoods, Iowa State Univ..

11/3/08 10:56:00 AM

242 | IAASTD Global Report

McCauley, D.E., R.A. Smith, J.D. Linsenby,
and C. Hsieh. 2003. The hierarchicalspatial distribution of chloroplast DNA
polymorphism across the introduced rangeof Silene vulgaris. Mol. Ecol. 12:32273235.
McGarry, D. 2005. Mitigating land degradationand improving land and environmental
condition via field-practical methods ofconservation agriculture. Beyond the 3th
Congress on Conservation Agriculture.
Nairobi. Available at http://www.act.org.zw/
postcongress/theme_07_02.asp
McIntire, J., D. Bourzat, and P. Pingali. 1992.
Crop-livestock interaction in sub-SaharanAfrica. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
McKay, J.C., N.F. Barton, A.N.M. Koerhuis,
and J. McAdam. 2000. The challenge ofgenetic change in the broiler chicken. In
The challenge of genetic change in animal
production. Brit. Soc. Animal Sci, Occas.
Publ. No. 27. W.G. Hill et al (ed) Brit. Soc.
Anim. Sci. Available at http://www.bsas.org.
uk/publs/genchng/contents.pdf.
McKinney, D.C., and X. Cai. 1997.
Multiobjective optimization model for water
allocation in the Aral Sea basin. p. 44-48. In
Proc. 3rd Joint USA/CIS Joint Conf. Environ.
Hydrol. Hydrogeol. Am. Inst. Hydrol., St.
Paul MN.
McLaughlin, J.F., J.J. Hellmann, C.L. Boggs, and
P.R. Ehrlich. 2002. Climate change hastens
population extinctions. PNAS 99:6070-6074.
McLeod-Kilmurray, H. 2007. Hoffmann v.
Monsanto: Courts, class actions, andperceptions of the problem of GM drift. Bull.
Sci. Tech. Society 27:188-201.
McMichael, A.J., J.W. Powles, C.D. Butler, andR. Uauy. 2007. Food, agriculture, energy,
climate change and health. The Lancet
370:1253-1263.
McNeely, J.A., and L.D. Guruswamy. 1998.
Conclusions: How to save the biodiversity ofplanet earth. p. 376-391. In D.G. Lakshman
and J.A. McNeely (ed) Protection of global
biodiversity: Converging strategies. Duke
Univ. Press, Durham.
McNeely, J.A., and S.J. Scherr. 2003.
Ecoagriculture: Strategies to feed the worldand save wild biodiversity. Island Press,
Washington DC.
Meher-Homji, M. 1988. Effects of forests
on precipitation in India. In E.R.C.
Reynolds, F.B. Thompson (ed) Forests,
climate, and hydrology: Regional
impacts. Available at http://www.unu.edu/
unupress/unupbooks/80635e/80635E00.
htm#Contents. The UN Univ., Tokyo.
Meinzen-Dick, R., M. Adato, L. Haddad, and
P. Hazell. 2004. Science and poverty: Aninterdisciplinary assessment of the impact ofagricultural research. Food Policy Rep. No.
16. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Meinzen-Dick, R.S., L.R. Brown, H.S. Feldstein,
A.R. Quisumbing. 1997. Gender, property
rights, and natural resources. FCND Disc.
Pap. 29. IFPRI, Washington DC.

chapter 03.indd 242

Meinzen-Dick, R., and R. Pradhan. 2002.
Legal pluralism and dynamic property
rights. CAPRi Working Pap. 22. CGIAR,
Washington DC.
Menendez, R., A.G. Megias, J.K. Hill,
B. Braschler, S.G Willis, Y. Collingham et al.
2006. Species richness changes lag behindclimate change. Proc. R. Soc London B
273:1465-1470.
Mercoiret, M-R., J. Berthomé, P-M. Bosc,and J. Guillaume. 1997a. Les relationsorganisations paysannes et recherche
agricole. Rapport non spécifique.
CIRAD-SAR, Montpellier.
Mercoiret, M-R., J. Berthomé, D. Gentil, and
P-M. Bosc. 1997b. Etats désengagés, paysans
engagés; perspectives et nouveaux rôles desorganisations paysannes en Afrique et en
Amérique latine. Fondation Charles Léopold
Meyer, Paris.
Merks, J.W.M. 2000. One century of genetic
change in pigs and the future needs. In
W.G. Hill (ed) The challenge of genetic change
in animal production. Brit.Soc. Anim. Sci.
Occas. Pub. No. 27. Brit. Soc. Animal Science.
Merrey, D.J., R. Meinzen-Dick, P.P. Mollinger,
E. Karar, W. Huppert, J. Rees et al. 2007.
Policy and institutional reform: The art ofthe possible. p. 193-231. In Water for food,water for life: A comprehensive assessment ofwater management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.
Metz, M., and J. Fütterer. 2002a. Biodiversity(Communications arising): Suspect evidenceof transgenic contamination. Nature
416:600-601.
Metz, M., and J. Fütterer 2002b. Biodiversity(Communications arising): Conflicts arounda study of Mexican crops. Nature 417:897.
Michon, G., and H. de Foresta. 1996.
Agroforests as an alternative to pure
plantations for the domestication andcommercialization of NTFPs. p. 160-175.
In R.R.B. Leakey et al. (ed) Domesticationand commercialisation of non-timber forest
products. Non-Wood Forest Products No. 9.
FAO, Rome.
Michon, G., and H. de Foresta. 1999.
Agroforests: Incorporating a forest visionin agroforestry. L.E. Buck, J.P. Lassoie,
and E.C.M. Fernandez (ed) Agroforestry insustainable agricultural systems. CRC Pressand Lewis Publ., NY.
Mickelson S. K., J. L. Baker, and S. I. Ahmed.
2003. Vegetative filter strips for reducing
atrazine and sediment runoff transport.
J. Soil Water Conserv. 58:359-367.
Miller, R. H., A. Kamel, S. Lhaloui, and
M. El Bouhssini. 1989. Survey of Hessian fly
in Northern Tunisia. Rachis 8:27-28.
Millington, A.C., S.J. Walsh and P.E. Osborne(ed) 2001. GIS and remote sensing.
Applications in biogeography and ecology.
Kluwer Acad. Publ., NY.
Minami, K., and H.U. Neue. 1994. Rice
paddies as a methane source. Climatic
Change 27(1):13-26. Available at

http://www.springerlink.com/content/
t74hvj70425426w4/.
Mitschein, T.A., and P.S. Miranda. 1998.
POEMA: A proposal for sustainable
development in Amazonia. p. 329-366. In
D.E. Leihner and T.A. Mitschein (ed) A
third millennium for humanity? The searchfor paths of sustainable development. Peter
Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Molden, D., K. Frenken, R. Barker, C. de
Fraiture, B. Mati, M. Svendsen et al.
2007a. Trends in water and agriculturaldevelopment. p. 57-89. In D. Molden(ed) Water for food, water for life: A
comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Chapter 2.
Earthscan, London and IWMI, Colombo.
Molden, D., H. Murray-Rust, R. Sakthivadivel
and I. Makin. 2003. A water-productivity
framework for understanding and action. In
J.W. Kijne, R. Barker, D. Molden (ed) 2003.
Water productivity in agriculture: Limits andopportunities for improvement. CABI and
IWMI, Colombo.
Molden, D., T.Y. Oweis, P. Steduto, J.W. Kijne,
M.A. Hanjra, P.S. Indraban et al. 2007b.
Pathways for increasing agricultural waterproductivity. p. 279-310. In D. Molden (ed)Water for food. Earthscan, London and
IWMI, Colombo.
Molnar, A., S. Scherr, and A. Khare. 2005. Whoconserves the world’s forests? For. Trends
Ecoagric. Partners, Washington DC.
Molle, F. 2003. Development trajectories of river
basins: A conceptual framework. Res. Rep.
72. IWMI, Colombo.
Monteiro, C.A., W.L. Conde, and B.M. Popkin.
2002. Is obesity replacing or adding toundernutriton? Evidence from different social
classes in Brazil. Public Health Nutr. 5:105-112.
Moore, G. 2004. The Fair Trademovement: Parameters, issues and future
research. J. Business Ethics 53:73-86.
Morgan, P.B., G.A. Bollero, R.L. Nelson,
F.G. Dohleman, and S.P. Long. 2005.
Smaller than predicted increase inaboveground net primary production andyield of field-grown soybean under fully
open-air [CO2] elevation. Glob. Change
Biol. 11:1856-1865.
Moritz, C. 1994. Defining ‘evolutionarily
significant units’ for conservation. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 9(10):373-375.
Mornhinweg, D.W, M.J. Brewer, and D.R. Porter.
2006. Effect of Russian wheat aphid onyield and yield components of field grownsusceptible and resistant spring barley. Crop
Sci. 46:36-42.
Morris, M.L. 2002. Impacts of internationalmaize breeding research in developing
countries: 1966- 98. CIMMYT, Mexico.
Morse, S., R. Bennett, and Y. Ismael. 2004. Why
Bt cotton pays for small-scale producers inSouth Africa. NatureBiotech. 22:370-780.
Morse, S., R. Bennett, and Y. Ismael. 2005.
Comparing the performance of official andunofficial genetically modified cotton in

11/3/08 10:56:00 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 243

India. AgBioForum 8:1-6. Available at http://
www.agbioforum.org.
Mortensen, D.A., L. Bastiaans, and M. Sattin.
2000. The role of ecology in the developmentof weed management systems: An outlook.
Weed Res. 40:49-62.
Mortureux, V. 1999. Droits de propriété
intellectuelle et connaissances, innovationset pratiques des communautés autochtones
et locales. Les études du BRG. Bureau desRessources Génétiques, Paris.
Moscardi, F. 1999. Assessment of the applicationof baculoviruses for control of Lepidoptera.
Ann. Rev. Entomol. 44:257-289.
Moustier, P., M. Figuié, N.T.T. Loc, and H.T. Son.
2006. The role of coordination in the safe andorganic vegetable chains supplying Hanoi. In
P.J. Batt and N. Jayamangkala (ed) Proc. First
Int. Symp. on Improving the Performance ofSupply Chains in Transitional Economies.
Chiang Mai, Thailand. 19-23 July 2005.ISHS,
Louvian.
Mowo, J.G., B.H. Janssen, O. Oenema,
L.A. German, J.P. Mrema, and R.S. Shemdoe.
2006. Soil fertility evaluation andmanagement by smallholder farmer
communities in northern Tanzania. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 116:47-59.
Mozaffarian, D., M.B. Katan, A. Ascherio,
M.J. Stampfer and W.C. Willett. 2006 Transfatty acids and cardiovascular disease. New
England J. Med. 354:1601-13.
Mozaffarian, D., and E.B. Rimm. 2006. Fishintake, contaminants, and human health:Evaluating the risks and the benefits. JAMA
296:1885-99.
Muchow, R.C., G.L. Hammer, and R.L. Vanderlip.
1994. Assessing climate risk to sorghum
production in water-limited subtropicalenvironments ii. Effects of planting dates, soil
water at planting, and cultivar phenology. Field
Crops Res. 36:235-246.
Mudge, K.W., and E.B. Brennan. 1999. Clonal
propagation of multipurpose and fruit trees
used in agroforestry, p. 157-190. In L.E. Buck,
J.P. Lassoie and E.C.M. Fernandes (ed)Agroforestry in sustainable ecosystems. CRC
Press/Lewis Publishers, NY.
Mugungu, C, K. Atta-Krah, A. Niang, and
D. Boland. 1996. Rebuilding the Rwandan
Tree Seed Centre: Seeds of hope project. For.
Genetic Resour. 24. FAO, Rome.
Mumby, P.J., A.J. Edwards, J.E. Arias-Gonzalez,
K.C. Lindeman, P.G. Blackwell, A. Gall et
al. 2004. Mangroves enhance the biomass ofcoral reef fish communities in the Caribbean.
Nature 427: 533-536.
Muntemba, S. 1988. Women as food producers
and suppliers in the 20th century: The caseof Zambia. p. 407-427. In R.E. Pahl (ed) On
work: Historical, comparative, and theoretical
approaches. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, UK.
Mupangwa, W., D. Love, and S.J. Twomlow.
2006. Soil-water conservation and rainwater
harvesting strategies in the semi-arid
Mzingwane Catchment, Limpopo Basin,
Zimbabwe. Physics Chem. Earth 31:893-900.

chapter 03.indd 243

Murphy, C. 2000. Cultivating Havana: Urban
agriculture and food security in the years ofcrisis. Inst. Food Dev. Policy, Oakland, CA.
Mushara, H., and C. Huggins 2004. Landreform, land scarcity and post conflictreconstruction. A case study of Rwanda.
Eco-conflicts. Vol. 3 No. 3. African Centre
Tech. Studies, Nairobi.
Mzumara, D. 2003 Land tenure systems andsustainable development in Southern Africa.
Economic Commission for Africa, Lusaka.
Nagarajan, G., and R.L. Meyer. 2005, Rural
finance: Recent advances and emerging
lessons, debates, and opportunities. Rural
Finance Program. Ohio State Univ..
Nair, P.K. 1989. Agroforestry defined. p. 13-18.
In P.K. Nair (ed) Agroforestry systems in
the tropics. Kluwer Academic Publ., The
Netherlands.
Nair, P.K.R., R.J. Buresh, D.N. Mugendi, andC.R. Latt. 1999. Nutrient cycling in tropicalagroforestry systems: Myths and science,p. 1-31. In L.E. Buck, et al. (ed) Agroforestry
in sustainable agricultural systems. CRC
Press, NY and Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.
Nangju, D. 2001. Agricultural biotechnology,
poverty reduction and food security: A
working paper. Asian Dev. Bank, Manila.
NAS. 1989. Irrigation induced water quality
problems - What can be learned from the San
Joaquin Valley experience. Nat. Academy
Press, Ithaca, NY.
Naylor, R.L. 1996. Energy and resource
constraints on intensive agricultural
production. Ann. Rev. Energy Environ.
21:99-123.
Naylor, R.L., R.J. Goldburg, J.H. Primavera,
N. Kautsky, M.C.M. Beveridge, J. Clay et
al. 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish
supplies. Nature 405:1017-1024.
Nazarko, O.M., R.C. Van Acker, and M.H. Entz.
2005. Strategies and tactics for herbicide use
reduction in field crops in Canada: a review.
Can. J. Plant Sci. 85:457-479.
Ncube, B., J. Dimes, S. Twomlow, W.
Mupangwa, and K. Giller. 2007. Raising
the productivity of smallholder farms undersemi-arid conditions by use of small doses ofmanure and nitrogen: A case of participatory
research. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 77:53-67
Ndoye, O., M. Ruiz-Perez, and A. Ayebe. 1997.
The markets of non-timber forest productsin the humid forest zone of Cameroon. Rural
Dev. For. Network, Network Pap. 22c, ODI,
London.
Neely, C.L., and R. Hatfield. 2007. Livestock
systems. p. 121-142. In S.J. Scherr and
J.A. McNeely (ed) Farming with nature: The
science and practice of ecoagriculture. Island
Press, NY.
Nelson, M., and M. Maredia. 1999.
Environmental impacts of the CGIAR - An
initial assessment. Tech. Advisory Comm.
Secretariat, FAO, Rome.
Nepolean, T., M. Blummel, A.G. Bhasker Raj,
V. Rajaram, S. Senthilvel, and C.T. Hash.
2006. QTLs controlling yield and stoverquality traits in pearl millet. J. SAT Agric.
Res. 2(1). http://www.icrisat.org/Journal/
bioinformatics/v2i1/v2i1qtls.pdf.
Ness, A.R., and J.W. Powles. 1997. Fruit andvegetables, and cardiovascular disease: A
review. Int. J. Epidemiol. 26:1-13.
Nestle, M. 2003. Food politics. How the foodindustry influences nutrition and health.
Univ. Califormia Press, Berkeley.
Neunschwander, P. 2004. Harnessing nature in
Africa: Biological pest control can benefit thepocket, health and the environment. Nature
432:801-802.
Newberry, D.M.G., and J.E. Stiglitz. 1979. The
theory of commodity price stabilisation rules:
Welfare impacts and supply responses. The
Econ. J. 89(356):799-817.
Newton, A.C., T. Allnutt, A.C.M. Gillies,
A.J. Lowe, and R.A. Ennos. 1999. Molecularphylogeography, intraspecific variation andthe conservation of tree species. Trends Ecol.
Evol. 14:140-145.
Nicholson, C.F., R.W. Blake, R.S. Reid, and
J. Schelhas. 2001. Environmental impactsof livestock in the developing world.
Environment 43:7-17.
Nielsen, L., and C. Heffernan. 2006. New tools
to connect people and places: The impact
of ICTs on learning among resource poor
farmers in Bolivia. J. Int. Dev. 18 (6):889900.
Norris, R.F. 1992. Have ecological andbiological studies improved weed control
strategies? p. 7-33. In Proc. First Int. Weed
Control Congress. Melbourne, Australia.
Norton, G.W., K. Moore, D. Quishpe,
V. Barrera, T. Debass, S. Moyo, andD.B. Taylor. 2005. Evaluating socioeconomic impacts of IPM. p. 225- 244. In
G.W. Norton et al. (ed) Globalizing
integrated pest management: A participatory
process. Blackwell Publ., Ames.
Norton-Griffiths, N., M.Y. Said, S. Serneels,
D.S. Kaelo, M.B. Coughenour, R. Lamprey
et al. 2007. Land use economics in the
Mara area of the Serengeti ecosystem. In
A.R.E. Sinclair (ed) Serengeti III: Impacts ofpeople on the Serengeti ecosystem. Chicago
Univ. Press, Chicago.
Nouni, M.R., S.C. Mullick, and T.C. Kandpal.
2007. Biomass gasifier projects fordecentralized power supply in India: A
financial evaluation. Energy Policy 35(2):1373-85.
Nwachukwu, I., and A. Akinbode. 1989. The
use of television in disseminating agricultural
technology: A case study of selected
communities in Oyo State, Nigeria. Rural
Dev. Nigeria 3(2):111- 115.
O’Callaghan, M., T.R. Glare, E.P.J. Burgess,and L.A. Malone 2005. Effects of plants
genetically modified for insect resistance on
nontarget organisms. Ann. Rev. Entomol.
50:271-292.
O’Malley, M. 1997. Clinical evaluation ofpesticide exposure and poisonings. Lancet
349:1161-1166.

11/3/08 10:56:00 AM

244 | IAASTD Global ReportOba, G., N.C. Stenseth, and W.J. Lusigi. 2000.
New perspectives on sustainable grazing
management in arid zones of sub-SaharanAfrica. BioScience 50:35-51.
Oberhauser, K., and A. T. Peterson. 2003.
Modeling current and future potential
wintering distributions of eastern North
American monarch butterflies. PNAS
100:14063-14068.
Obrist, L.B., A. Dutton, R. Albajes, and F. Bigler
2006. Exposure of arthropod predators
to Cry1Ab toxin in Bt maize fields. Ecol.
Entomol. 31:143-154.
Oden, N.H, A. Maarouf, I.K. Barker, M. BigrasPoulin, L.R. Lindsay, M.G. Morshed et al.
2006. Climatic change and the potential for
range expansion of the Lyme disease vector
Ixodes scapularis in Canada. Int. J. Parasitol.
36(1):63-70.
OECD. 1986. Recombinant DNA safety
considerations for industrial, agriculturaland environmental applications of organisms
derived by recombinant DNA techniques(‘The Blue Book’). OECD, Paris.
OECD. 1993. Safety considerations forbiotechnology: Scale-up of crop plants.
OCED, Paris.
OECD. 1997. Impacts of fruit and vegetableproduction on the environmental and policy
responses: European Union Community
instruments relating to the environmental
aspects of the fresh fruit and vegetable sector.
OECD, Paris.
OECD. 2005. Review of agricultural policies —Brazil. OECD, Paris.
OECD. 2006a. Agricultural market impacts offuture growth in the production of biofuels.
OECD, Paris. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/62/36074135.pdf.
OECD. 2006b. Promoting pro-poor growth,harmonising ex ante poverty impact
assessment. OECD, Paris.
Ogunwale, A.B., and E.A. Laogun. 1997.
Extension agents’ avenues for information
dissemination and other perception of
farmers sources of information in Oyo
State Agric. Dev. Program. p. 141-118. In
T.A. Olowu (ed) Towards the survival of
agricultural extension system in Nigeria.
Proc. Third Ann. Nat. Conf. Agric. Extension
Soc. Nigeria (AESON). Ilorin.
Ohm, H.W., F.L. Patterson, S.E. Ratcliffe,
S.E. Cambron, and C.E. Williams 2004.
Registration of Hessian fly resitant wheat
germplasm line P921696. Crop Sci 44:22722273.
Ojima, D.S., W.J. Parton, D.S. Schimel,
J.M.O. Scurlock, and T.G.F. Kittel. 1993.
Modeling the effects of climate and CO2changes on grassland storage of soil C. Water,Air, Soil Pollution 70:643-657.
Okafor, J.C. 1980. Edible indigenous woody
plants in the rural economy of the Nigerian
forest zone. Forest Ecol. Manage. 3:45-55.
Okali, C., J. Sumberg, and J. Farrington. 1994.
Farmer participatory research. ODI, London.
Okoth, J.R., G.S. Khisa, and T. Julianus, 2003.

chapter 03.indd 244

Towards self financed farmer field schools.
LEISA Mag. 19(1):28-29.
Olivier de Sardan, J.P. 1995. Anthropologie etdéveloppement. Essai en socio-anthropologie
du changement social, p. 221. Hommes etsociétés. Karthala, Paris.
Olowu, T.A., and C.O. Igodan. 1989. Farmers’
media use pattern in six villages of Kwara
State. Rural Dev. Nigeria 3(2):98-102.
Olsen, J., L. Kristensen, J. Weiner, and H.W.
Griepentrog. 2005. Increased density andspatial uniformity increase weed suppression
by spring wheat. Weed Res. 45:316-321.
Omernik, J.M. 1977. Nonpoint source-stream
nutrient level relationships - A nationwide
study. EPA Res. Series EPA-600/3-P77-105.
US EPA, Corvallis Environmental Res.
Laboratory.
Ong, C.K., and P. Huxley. 1996. Tree-crop
interactions: A physiological approach. CABI
Wallingford.
Ong, C.K., C.R. Black, F.M. Marshall, andJ.E. Corlett. 1996. Principles of resource
capture and utilization of light and water.
p. 73-158. In C.K. Ong and P. Huxley (ed)Tree-crop interactions: A physiologicalapproach. CABI, Wallingford.
Opara, L.U., and F. Mazaud. 2001. Foodtraceability from food to plate. Outlook
Agric. 30:239-247.
Orr, A. 2003. IPM for resource-poor African
farmers: Is the emperor naked? World Dev.
31 (5):831-846.
Ørskov, E.R., and E.F. Viglizzo. 1994. The roleof animals in spreading farmer’s risks: A newparadigm for animal science. Outlook Agric.
23:81-89.
Ostrom, E. 1992. The rudiments of a theory of
the origins, survival, and performance ofcommon-property institutions. In
D.W. Bromley (ed) Making the commons
work: Theory, practice and policy. ICS Press,
San Francisco.
Ostrom, E. 1994. Institutional analysis, designprinciples and threats to sustainablecommunity governance and managementof commons. p. 34-50. In R.S. Pomeroy(ed) Community management and common
property of coastal fisheries in Asia and thePacific: Concepts, methods and experiences.
Workshop Reprint Ser., R94-11. ICLARM,
Manila.
Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional
diversity. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton NJ.
Otsuka, K., and T. Yamano. 2005. Green
revolution and regional inequality:
Implications of Asian experience for Africa.
p. 239-252. In The African food crisis:
Lessons from the Asian green revolution.
CABI, Wallingford.
Otsuki, T., J.S. Wilson, and M. Sewadeh. 2001.
Saving two in a billion: Quantifying the tradeeffect of European food safety standards on
African exports. Food Policy 29:131-146.
Ottman, M.J., B.A. Kimball, P.J. Pinter Jr,
G.W. Wall, R.L. Vanderlip, S.W. Leavitt et al.
2001. Elevated CO2 on sorghum growth andyield at high and low soil water content. New
Phytologist 150: 261-273.
Oweis, T., and A. Hachum. 2004. Water
harvesting and supplemental irrigation forimproved water productivity of dry farming
systems in West Asia and North Africa. New
directions for a diverse planet. Proc. 4th Int.
Crop Sci. Congress. Brisbane, Australia. 26
Sept -1 Oct 2004.
Owen, M.D.K., and I.A. Zelaya. 2005.
Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistanceto herbicides. Pest Manage. Sci. 61:301-311.
Padilla, M., and L. Malassis. 1992. Politiques
agricoles et politiques alimentaire: Efficacite
et equite. Econ. et Societes 21(6):175-192.
Pagiola, S., J. Bishop, and N. Landell-Mills.
2002. Selling forest environmental services:
Market-based mechanisms for conservationand development. Earthscan, London.
Palm, C.A., M. van Noordwijk, P.L. Woomer,
J.C. Alegre, L. Arévalo, C.E. Castilla et al.
2005a. Carbon losses and sequestration afterland use change in the humid tropics, p.
41-63. In C.A. Palm, S.A. Vosti, P.A. Sanchez
and P.J. Ericksen (ed) Columbia Univ.
Press, NY.
Palm, C.A., S.A. Vosti, P.A.. Sanchez, and
P. Ericksen. 2005b. Slash-and-burn
agriculture: The search for alternatives.
Columbia Univ. Press, NY.
Pandey, S., and S. Rajatasereekul. 1999.
Economics of plant breeding: The value ofshorter breeding cycles for rice in Northeast
Thailand. Field Crops Res. 64:187-197.
Panigrahy, B.K. 2003. Watershed evaluation:
Problems and perspectives. p. 736-739. In
B. Venkateswara Rao (ed) Proc. Int. Conf.
Hydrology and Watershed Management Vol.
1. Hyderabad, India.18-20 Dec 2002. BS
Publ., Hyderabad, India.
Panik, F. 1998. The use of biodiversity andimplications for industrial production. p. 5973. In D.E. Leihner and T.A. Mitschein (ed)A third millennium for humanity? The searchfor paths of sustainable development. Peter
Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Parella, M.P., L. Stengarf Hansen, and J. vanLenteren. 1999. Glasshouse environments.
p. 819-839. In T.S. Bellows and T.W. Fisher(ed) Handbook of biological control.
Principles and applications of biologicalcontrol. Academic Press, San Diego,
London.
Parker, C., and J. Fryer. 1975. Weed control
problems causing major reduction in world
supplies. FAO Plant Prot. Bull. 23:83-95.
Passioura, J.B. 1986. Resistance to drought andsalinity: Avenues for improvement. Aust. J.
Plant Physiol. 13:191-201.
Patterson R.E., P.S., Haines, and B.M. Popkin.
1994. Diet Quality Index: capturing a
multidimensional behavior. J. Am. Dietary
Assoc. 94:57-64.
Paustian, K., C.V. Cole, D. Sauerbeck, and
N. Sampson. 1998. CO2 mitigation by
agriculture: An overview. Clim. Change
40:135-162.

11/3/08 10:56:01 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 245

Pearce, D., and S. Mourato. 2004. The economic
valuation of agroforestry’s environmental
services. p. 67-86. In G. Schroth et al. (ed)Agroforestry and biodiversity conservationin tropical landscapes. Island Press,
Washington.
Pellegrineschi, A., M. Reynolds, M. Pacheco,
R.M. Brito, R. Almeraya, K. YamagughiShinozaki, and D. Hosington. 2004. Stressinduced expression in wheat of Arabidopsis
thaliana DREB1A gene delays water stresssymptoms under ghreenhouse conditions.
Genome 47:493-500.
Pemsl, D., H. Waibel, and A.P. Gutierrez 2005.
Why do some Bt-cotton farmers in China
continue to use high levels of pesticides? Int.
J. Agric. Sustain. 3:44-56.
Pemsl, D., and H. Waibel, and J. Orphal. 2004.
A methodology to assess the profitability of
Bt-cotton: Case study results from the stateof Karnataka, India. Crop Prot. 23:12491257.
Peng, S., R.J. Buresh, J. Huang, J. Yang, Y. Zou,
X. Zhong, and G. Wang. 2006. Strategies
for overcoming low agronomic nitrogen use
efficiency in irrigated rice systems in China.
Field Crops Res. 96:37-47.
Peng, S., K.G. Cassman, S.S. Virmani, J. Sheehy,
and G.S. Khush. 1999. Yield potential
trends of tropical rice since the release of
IR8 and the challenge of increasing rice yieldpotential. Crop Sci. 39:1552-1559.
Peng, S., F.V. Garcia, R.C. Laza., A.L. Sanico,
R.M. Visperas, and K.G. Cassman. 1996.
Increased N-use efficiency using a chlorophyll
meter on high yielding irrigated rice. Field
Crops Res. 47:243- 252.
Pengue, W.A. 2005. Transgenic crops inArgentina: The ecological and social debt.
Bull. Sci. Tech. Society 25:314-322.
Perfecto, I., and I. Armbrecht. 2003. The coffee
agroecosystem in the neotropics: Combining
ecological and economic goals. p. 157-192. In
J. Vandermeer (ed)Tropical agroecosystems.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.
Perret, S. 2002. Water policies and smallholding
irrigation schemes in South Africa: A history
and new institutional challenges. Water
Policy 4:283-300.
Perret, S., M.-R. Mercoiret. 2003. Supporting
small-scale farmers and rural organisations:Learning from experiences in West Afria. A
handbook for development operators andlocal managers. Protea Book House, Pretoria.
Pesche, D., and K.K. Nubukpo. 2004. L’afriquedu coton à Cancun: Les acteurs d’unenégociation. Politique Africaine 95:158-168.
Phillips, O.L., and B. Meilleur. 1998. Usefulness
and economic potential of the rare plants of
the United States: A status survey. Econ. Bot.
52(1):57-67.
Pihl, L., A. Cattrijsse, I. Codling, S. Mathieson,
D.S. McLusky, and C. Roberts. 2002.
Habitat use by fishes in estuaries and otherbrackish areas, p. 10-53. In M. Elliott and
K. L. Hemingway (ed) Fishes in estuaries.
Blackwell Science, UK.

chapter 03.indd 245

Pingali, P.L., and P.W. Heisey. 1999. Cereal
productivity in developing countries: pasttrends and future prospects. CIMMYT
Economics Program Pap. 99- 03. CIMMYT,
Mexico.
Pingali, P.L., and M.W. Rosegrant. 1994.
Confronting the environmental consequencesof the green revolution in Asia. EPTD Disc.
Pap. No. 2. Environ. Prod. Tech. Div. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., and E. Schioler, 2001.
Seeds of contention: World hunger and theglobal controversy over GM crops. John
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Place, F. 1995. The role of land and tree tenureon the adoption of agroforestry: Technologies
in Zambia, Burundi, Uganda, and Malawi: A
summary and synthesis. Land Tenure Center,
Univ. Wisconsin, Madison.
Place, F. and P. Hazell. 1993. Productivity effects ofindigenous land tenure systems in Sub-SaharanAfrica. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 75(1):10-19.
Place, F., and K. Otsuka. 2000. Population pressure,land tenure, and tree resource management in
Uganda. Land Econ. 76:233-251.
Platteau, J.P., 1996. The evolutionary theory ofland rights as applied to Sub-Saharan Africa: acritical assessment. Dev. Change 27(1):29-86.
Polaski, S. 2006. Winners and losers. Impact of
the Doha Round on developing countries.
Carnegie Endowment Int. Peace, NY.
Polgreen, L. 2007. In Niger, trees and crops turnback the desert. p. 1. The New York Times,
11 Feb 2007.
Ponce-Hernandez, R. 2004. Assessing carbon
stock and modelling win-win scenariosof carbon sequestration through land-use
change. FAO, Rome.
Ponte, S. 2006. Ecolabels and fish trade: Marine
stewardship council certification and South
African hake industry. Tralac Working Pap.
No. 9/2006. Available at http://www.tralac.org/scripts/content.php?id=5212.
Popkin, B.M. 1998. The nutrition transition
and its health implications in low income
countries. Public Health Nutr. 1:5-21.
Popkin, B.M., and S. Du. 2003. Dynamics ofthe nutrition transition toward the animal
foods sector in China and its implications:
A worried perspective. J. Nutr. 133(11Suppl2):3898S-3906S
Posey, D. (ed) 1999. Cultural and spiritual valuesof biodiversity. Intermediate Tech. Publ.,
London.
Post, W.M., and K.C. Kwon 2000. Soil carbon
sequestration and land-use change: Processes
and Potential. Glob. Change Biol. 6:317-328.
Prasad, P.V.V., K.J. Boote, L.H. Allen Jr, J.E.
Sheehy, and J.M.G. Thomas. 2006. Species,
ecotype and cultivar differences in spikelet
fertility and harvest index of rice in response
to high temperature stress. Field Crops Res.
95:398-411.
Pray, C.E., J. Huang, R. Hu, and S. Rozelle. 2002.
Five years of Bt cotton in China — the benefits
continue. The Plant J. 31(4):423-430.
Pretorius, Z.A., W.H.P. Boshoff, B.D. Van

Niekerk, and J.S. Komen 2002. First reportof virulence in Puccinia graminis f.sp. tritici
to wheat stem rust resistance genes Sr8b andSr38 in South Africa. Plant Dis. 86(8):922.
Pretty, J. 2002. Agri-Culture: Reconnecting
people, land and nature. Earthscan, London.
Pretty, J. 2003. Social capital and the collective
management of resources. Science 302:19121914.
Pretty, J., and H. Ward. 2001. Social capital andthe environment. World Dev. 29:209-227.
Pretty, J.N., A.D. Noble, D. Bossio, J. Dixon,
R.E. Hine, F.W.T. Penning de Vries et al.
2006. Resource-conserving agriculture
increases yields in developing countries.
Environ. Sci. Tech. 40:1114-1119.
Prinz, D. 1996. Water harvesting - History,
techniques, trends. Z. f. Bewaesserungswirtschaft
31:64-105.
Prior, C., and A. Halstead. 2006. Gardening
in the global greenhouse. Pest and disease
threats. Roy. Hort. Soc., UK.
Qaim, M., and G. Traxler 2004. Roundup
ready soybeans in Argentina: Farm level,
environmental and welfare effects. Agric.
Econ. 32:73-86.
Qaim, M., and D. Zilberman. 2003. Yield effects
of genetically modified crops in developing
countries. Science 299:900-902.
Qayum, A., and K. Sakkhari 2005. Bt cotton inAndhra Pradesh: A three-year assessment.
Deccan Dev. Society. Available at www.grain.org/research_files/BT_Cotton_-_A_three_year_report.pdf.
Quaak, P., H. Knoef, and H. Stassen. 1999.
Energy from biomass. A review of
combustion and gasification technologies.
Tech. Pap. Energy Ser. No. 422. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Quan, J. 2000. Land tenure, economic growthand poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. p. 31-49.
In C. Toulmin and J. Quan (ed) Evolving
land rights, policy and tenure in Africa.
DFID/IIED/Univ. Greenwich Nat. Resourc.
Inst., London.
Quan, J., S. Tan, and C. Toulmin (ed) 2005.
Land in Africa: Market asset or secure
livelihood. Proc. Land in Africa Conf.
London. 8-9 Nov. 2004. IIED, NRI, and theRoy. Afric. Soc., London.
Quist, D. and I. Chapela. 2001. Transgenic DNA
introgressed into traditional maize landraces
in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414:541-543.
Quist, D. and I. Chapela. 2002. Biodiversity(Communications arising, reply): Suspectevidence of transgenic contamination/Maizetransgene results in Mexico are artefacts.
Nature 416:602.
Quisumbing, A.R., L.R. Brown, H.S. Feldstein,
L. Haddad, and C. Peña. 1995. Women: The
key to food security. Food Policy Statement
21. IFPRI, Washington, DC.
Quisumbing, A.R., and A. Maluccio. 1999.
Intrahousehold allocation and gender
relations: New empirical evidence. Res. reporton Gender and Development. Working Pap.
Ser. No. 2. World Bank, Washington DC.

11/3/08 10:56:01 AM

246 | IAASTD Global Report

Quizon, J., G. Feder, and R. Murgain. 2001.
Fiscal sustainability of agricultural extension:
the case of the Farmer Field school approach.
J. Int. Agric. Extension Educ. 8:13-24.
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, D. Justic, Q.
Dortch, W.J. Wiseman, and B.K. Sen Gupta.
1996. Nutrient changes in the Mississippi
River and system responses to the adjacentcontinental shelf. Estuaries 19:386-407.
Raij, B. 1981. Soil fertility evaluation. (InPortuguese). Instituto da Potassa y Fosfato,
Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
Raitzer, D.A. 2003. Benefit-cost meta-analysisof the investment in the international
agricultural research centres of the CGIAR.
Sci. Council Secretariat, FAO, Rome.
Raitzer, E.D.A., and R. Lindner. 2005. Reviewof the returns to ACIAR’s bilateral R&D
investments, Impact Assessment Ser. Rep.
No. 35, Aug 2005.
Randall, E., M.Z. Nichaman, and C.F. Contant,
Jr. 1985. Diet diversity and nutrient intake.
J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 85:830-836.
Randerson, J.T., H. Liu, M.G. Flanner,
S.D. Chambers, Y. Jin, P.G. Hess et al. 2006.
The impact of boreal forest fire on clmate
warming. Science 314:1130-1132.
Raney, T. 2006. Economic impact of transgenic
crops in developing countries. Curr. Opinion
Biotech. 17:174-178.
Rao, S., C.S. Yajnik, A. Kanade, C.H.D. Fall,
B.M. Margetts, A.A. Jackson et al. 2001.
Intake of micronutrient-rich food in ruralindian mothers is associated with the size of
their babies at birth. Pune maternal nutrition
Study. J. Nut. 131:1217-1224.
Rasmussen, K. 2003. Effects of climatechange on agriculture and environment in
the semi-arid tropics, with Senegal as an
example. Univ.Copenhagen/ The North/South Priority Res. Area, Centre of African
Studies, Impacts of future climate change.
Available at http://www.eldis.org/static/
DOC15855.htm and http://glwww.dmi.dk/
f+u/publikation/dkc-publ/klimabog/ CCRchap-21.pdf.
Ratcliffe, R.H., and J.H. Hatchett. 1997. Biology
and genetics of the Hessian fly and resistancein wheat. p. 47-56. In K. Bondari (ed) New
developments in entomology. Sci. Inform.
Guild, Triv anddram, India.
Rathgeber, E.M. 2002. Female and male CGIAR
scientists in comparative perspective. CGIAR.
Gender and Diversity Working Pap. 37.
Available at http://www.genderdiversity.cgiar.
org/publications/genderdiversity_WP37.pdf.
CGIAR, Nairobi.
Raun, W.R., and G.V. Johnson. 1999. Improving
nitrogen use efficiency for cereal production.
Agron. J. 91:357-363.
Reardon, T. 1997. Using evidence of householdincome diversification to inform study of
the rural non-farm labour market in Africa.
World Dev. 25(5):735-747.
Reca, J., J. Roldan, M. Alcaide, and E. Camacho.
2001. Optimization model for water
allocation in deficit irrigation system:

chapter 03.indd 246

I. Description of the model. Agric. Water
Manage. 48(2):103-116.
Regmi, A.P., and J.K. Ladha. 2005. Enhancing
productivity of rice-wheat system throughintegrated crop management in the EasternGangetic plains of South Asia. J. Crop
Improve. 15:147-170.
Reicosky, D.C. 1997. Tillage-induced CO2
emission from soil. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys.
49:273-285.
Reid, R.S., P.K. Thornton, G.J. McCrabb,
R.L. Kruska, F. Atieno, and P.G. Jones.
2004. Is it possible to mitigate greenhousegas emissions in pastoral ecosystems of thetropics? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 6:91-109.
Reif, J.C., P. Zhang, S. Dreisigacker,
M.L. Warburton, M. van Ginkel,
D. Hosington et al. 2005. Wheat genetic
diversity trends during domestication andbreeding. Theor. Appl. Genet. 110:859864.
Reij, C., P. Mulder, and L. Begemann. 1988.
Water harvesting for agriculture. Tech. Pap.
No. 91. World Bank, Washington DC.
REN 21. 2005. Renewables 2005 global status
report. Renewable Energy Policy Network,
Paris and Washington DC.
REN 21. 2006. Renewables global status report
2006 update. Renewable Energy Policy
Network, Paris and Washington DC.
Renewable Fuels Association. 2005. Homegrown
for the homeland. Industry Outlook 2005.
Washington DC.
Repetto, R., and S. Baliga. 1996. Pesticides andthe immune system: The public health risks.
World Resources Inst., Washington DC.
Revenga, C., J. Brunner, N. Henniger, K. Kassem,
and R. Payner. 2000. Pilot analysis of global
ecosystems, freshwater systems. World
Resources Inst., Washington DC.
Reynolds, M.P., and N. Borlaug. 2006. Impactsof breeding on international collaborative
wheat improvement. J. Agri. Sci. Camb.
144:3-17.
Ribier, V., and L. Tubiana. 1996. Globalisation,
compétitivité et accords du GATT.
Conséquences pour l’agriculture des pays endéveloppement. Notes et documents CIRAD.
CIRAD, Paris.
Richard-Ferroudji A., P. Caron, J-Y. Jamin, andT. Ruf. 2006. Coordinations hydrauliques
et justices sociales. Programme commun
systèmes irrigués. 4ème séminaireinternational et interdisciplinaire,
Montpellier. 26 Nov 2004.
Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous agricultural
revolution. Westview Press, Boulder.
Richards, P. 1996. Fighting for the rain forest:
War, youth and resources in Sierra Leone.
James Currey, Oxford.
Richards, R.A. 2006. Physiological traits usedin the breeding of new cultivars for waterscarce environments. Agric. Water Manage.
80:197-211.
Richardson, D. 2006. ICTs — Transforming
agricultural extension? CTA Working Doc.
No. 8034, The ACP-EU Technical Centre for

Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA),
Wageningen.
Riches, C.R., A.M. Mbwaga, J. Mbapila,
and G.J.U. Ahmed. 2005. Improved weed
management delivers increased productivity
and farm incomes for rice in Bangladesh andTanzania. Aspects Appl. Biol. 75:127-138.
Richter, B.D., D.P. Braun, M.A. Mendelson,
and L.L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled
freshwater fauna. Conserv. Biol. 11(5):10811093.
Rivera, J.A., S. Barquera, F. Campirano,
I. Campos, M. Safdie, and V. Tovar. 2002.
Epidemiologial and nutritional transition
in Mexico: Rapid increase of noncommunicable chronic diseases and obesity.
Public Health Nutr. 5:113-122.
Rivera, W.M. and G. Alex. 2004. The continuingrole of government in pluralistic extension
Systems. Int. J. Agric. Educ. Extension.
11(2):41-52.
Rivera, W.M., and J.W. Cary. 1997. Privatising
agricultural extension. In B.E. Swanson etal. (ed) Improving agricultural extension: A
reference manual. FAO, Rome.
Rivera, W.M., W. Zijp, and G. Alex. 2000.
Contracting for extension: Review of
emerging practice. AKIS Good Practice Note.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Rodrik, D. 2007. The cheerleaders threat to
global trade. Financial Times, 27 Mar 2007.
Röling, N. 1988. Extension Science. Infor.
Systems in Agric. Development. CUP,
Cambridge.
Röling, N. 1992. The emergence of knowledge
system thinking: Changing perception ofrelationships among innovation, knowledge
processes and configuration. Knowledge andPolicy 5(2).
Röling, N., and M.A.E. Wagermakers. 1998.
Facilitating sustainable agriculture.
Cambridge Univ. Press, NY.
Romeis, J., M. Meissle, and F. Bigler. 2006.
Transgenic crops expressing Bacillus
thuringiensis toxins and biological control.
Nature Biotech. 24:63-71.
Rose, R.I. 2006. Tier-based testing for effects ofproteinaceous insecticidal plant-incorporated
protectants on non-target arthropods in thecontext of regulatory risk assessment. IOBC/
wprs Bull. 29(5):145-152.
Rosegrant, M.W., and X. Cai. 2001. Water andfood production. 2020 Vision for food,agriculture, and the environment. Focus No.
9. Overcoming water scarcity and quality
constraints. Brief No.2/14. Available at
http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focus09/
focus09_02.asp. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Rothschild, M., and J. Stiglitz. 1976. Equilibriumin competitive insurance markets: An essayon the economics of imperfect information.
Q. J. Econ. 90(4):629-649.
Rowntree, P.R. 1988. Review of generalcirculation models as a basis for predicting
the effects of vegetation change on climate.
In E.R.C. Reynolds, F.B. Thompson(ed) Forests, climate, and hydrology.

11/3/08 10:56:01 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 247

Available at http://www.unu.edu/
unupress/unupbooks/80635e/80635E00.
htm#Contents. The UN Univ., Tokyo.
Rubiales, D., A. Perez de Luque, M. FernandezAparica, J.C. Sillero, B. Roman, M. Kharrat
et al. 2006. Screening techniques and sourcesof resistance to parasitic weeds in grain
legumes. Euphytica 147:187-199.
Ruel, M.T. 2002. Is dietary diversity an indicatorof food security or dietary quality? A
review of measurement issues and researchneeds. FCND Disc. Pap. No. 140. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Ruel, M.T., and C.E. Levin. 2000. Assessing thepotential for food based strategies to reduce
vitamin A and iron deficiencies: A review ofrecent evidence. FCND Disc. Pap. No. 92.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Ruf, T. 2001. The institutional cycles of
peasants’ irrigation: Historical debates onownership and control of water in south ofFrance and in the Ecuadorian Andes. The
role of water in history and development.
IWHA 2nd Conf., Bergen, Norway.
Rusike, J., and J.P. Dimes. 2004. Effectingchange through private sector client services
for smallholder farmers in Africa. In Proc.
4th Int. Crop Sci. Congr. Brisbane. Available
at http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/
symposia/4/6/997_rusikej.htm .
Rusike, J., S.J. Twomlow, H.A. Freeman,and G.M. Heinrich, 2006. Does farmer
participatory research matter for improved
soil fertility technology development anddissemination in Southern Africa? Int. J.
Agric. Sustain. 4(2):1- 17.
Rusike, J., S.J. Twomlow, and A. Varadachary.
2007. Impact of Farmer Field Schools
on adoption of soil water and nutrient
management technologies in dry areas ofZimbabwe. In Mapiki A and C. Nhira (ed)Land and water management for sustainableagriculture. Proc. EU/SADC Land and Water
Management Applied Research and Training
Programme’s Inaugural Scientific Symposium,
Malawi Inst. Manage., Lilongwe, Malawi.
14-16 Feb 2006.
Russell, C.A., B.W. Dunn, G.D. Batten,
R.L. Williams, and J.F. Angus. 2006. Soiltests to predict optimum fertilizer nitrogenrate for rice. Field Crops Res. 97:286-301.
Russelle, M.P., M.H. Entz, and A.J. Franzluebbers.
2007. Reconsidering integrated crop-livestock
systems in North America. Agron. J. 99:325334.
Sa, J.C.M., C.C. Cerri, W.A. Dick, R. Lal,
S.P. Venzke Filho, M.C. Piccolo, and B. Feigl.
2001a. Carbon sequestration in a plowed
and no-tillage chronosequence in a Brazilian
oxisol. p. 466-471. In D.E. Stott et al. (ed)The global farm. Selected papers from the10th Int. Soil Conservation Org. Meeting.
USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Res. Lab.
Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN.
Sa, J.C.M., C.C. Cerri, R. Lal, W.A. Dick, S.P.
Venzke Filho, M.C. Piccolo, and
B. Feigl. 2001b. Organic matter dynamics

chapter 03.indd 247

and sequestration rates for a tillage
chronosequence in a Brazilian Oxisol. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:1486-1499.
Sachs, J. 2005. The end of poverty: How we
can make it happen in our lifetime. Penguin
Books, London.
Sadoulet, E., A. de Janvry, and B. Davis. 2001.
Cash transfer programs with income
multipliers: PROCAMPO in Mexico. World
Dev. 29(6):1043-1056.
Saito, K., B. Linquist, G.N. Atlin, K.
Phanthaboon, T. Shiraiwa, and T. Horie.
2006. Response of traditional and improved
upland rice cultivars to N and P fertilizer innorthern Laos. Field Crops Res. 96:216-223.
Salati, E., and P.B. Vose. 1984. Amazon basin: A
system in equilibrium. Science 225:129-138.
Salman, A.Z., E.K. Al-Karablich, and F.M. Fisher.
2001. An inter-seasonal agricultural water
allocation system (SAWAS). Agric. Syst.
68(3):233-252.
Salokhe, G., A. Pastore, B. Richards, S. Weatherley,
A. Aubert, J. Keizer et al. 2002. FAO’s role in
information management and dissemination —challenges, innovation, success, lessons learned.
Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/
af238e/af238e00.pdf. FAO, Rome.
Sanchez, P.A. 1995. Science in agroforestry.
Agrofor. Syst. 30:5-55.
Sanchez, P.A. 2002. Soil fertility and hunger inAfrica. Science 295:2019-2020.
Sanchez, P.A., and R.R.B. Leakey. 1997. Land use
transformation in Africa: Three determinants
for balancing food security with natural
resource utilization. Eur. J. Agron. 7:15-23.
Sanchez, P.A., M.S. Swaminathan, P. Dobie, andN. Yuksel. 2005. Halving hunger: It canbe done. UN Millennium Project Task on
Hunger. Earthscan, London.
Sanchirico, J.N., M.D. Smith, and D.W. Lipton.
2006. An approach to ecosystem-based
fishery management. RFF Disc. Pap. 06-40.
Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
Sanderson, J., and B. Sherman. 2004. A nut
to crack a growing problem. Partners in
Research and Development. Dec 2004.
ACIAR, Canberra, Australia.
Sanginga, P.C., R.N. Kamugisha, and
A.M. Martin. 2007. The dynamics of social
capital and conflict management in multiple
resource regimes: A aase of the southwestern
highlands of Uganda. Ecol. Society 12(1):6.
Santiso, J. 2006. Latin America’s political
economy of the possible: Beyond good
revolutionaries and free marketers. MIT
Press, NY.
Sanvido, O., M. Stark, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler.
2006. Ecological impacts of geneticallymodified crops. Experience from 10 years
experimental field research and commercial
cultivation. Available at http://www.services.
art.admin.ch/pdf/ART_SR_01_E.pdf.
ART-Schriftenreihe 1, Zürich.
Sautier, D., and E. Biénabe. 2005. The roleof small-scale producers’ organisations inaddressing market access. Beyond agriculture- making markets work for the poor p. 69-

85. In Proc. Int. Seminar. Westminster. 28
Feb- 1 March 2005. CPHP, London.
Sauvé, R., and J. Watts 2003. An analysis of
IPGRI’s influence on the International Treaty
on Plant Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture. Agric. Syst. 78:307-327.
Sayer, J., and B.M. Campbell. 2001. Research
to integrate productivity enhancement,
environmental protection, and humandevelopment. Conserv. Ecol. 5(2):32.
[Online] http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/
art32.
Sayer, J., and B.M. Campbell. 2004. The scienceof sustainable development: Local livelihoods
and the global environment. Cambridge Univ.
Press, UK.
Sayre, K.D., A. Limon-Ortega, and R. Gupta.
2006. Raised bed planting technologies
for improved efficiency, sustainability andprofitability. Yield Potential Symp. March
2006. CIMMYT, Mexico.
Sayre, K.D., S. Rajaram, and R.A. Fischer. 1997.
Yield potential progress in short bread wheats
in northwest Mexico. Crop Sci. 37:36-42.
Schippers, R.R. 2000. African indigenous
vegetables: an overview of the cultivatedspecies. NRI/ACP-EU. Tech. Centre Agric.
Rur. Coop., London.
Schippers, R.R., and L. Budd. 1997. African
indigenous vegetables. IPGRI, Rome and
NRI, UK.
Schlager, E., 2003. The political economy ofwater reform. Int. Working Conf. Water
Rights: Institutional options for improved
water allocation, Hanoi. 12-15 Feb 2003.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Schlager, E., and E. Ostrom. 1992. Propertyrights regime and natural resources: A
conceptual analysis. Land Econ. 68(3).
Schlesinger, W.H. 1999. Carbon and agriculture:
Carbon sequestration in soils. Science
284:2095.
Schmetz, J., Y. Govaerts, M. Konig, H-J. Lutz,
A. Ratier, and S. Tjemkes 2005. A short
introduction to METEOSAT Second
Generation (MSG). CIRA, Colorado State
Univ., Fort Collins.
Schreckenberg, K., A. Awono, A. Degrande,
C. Mbosso, O. Ndoye, and Z. Tchoundjeu.
2006. Domesticating indigenous fruit trees
as a contribution to poverty reduction. For.
Trees Livelihoods 16:35-51.
Schreckenberg, K., A. Degrande, C. Mbosso,
Z. Boli Baboulé, C. Boyd, L. Enyong et al.
2002. The social and economic importanceof Dacryodes edulis (G.Don) H.J. Lam insouthern Cameroon. For. Trees Livelihoods
12:15-40.
Schroeder, K.L., and T.C. Paulitz. 2006. Rootdiseases of wheat and barley during thetransition from conventional to direct
seeding. Plant Dis. 90:1247-1253.
Schroth, G., G.A.B. Da Fonseca, C.A. Harvey,
C. Gascon, H.L. Vasconcelos, and
A.-M. Izac. 2004. Agroforestry andbiodiversity conservation in tropicallandscapes. Island Press, Washington DC.

11/3/08 10:56:02 AM

248 | IAASTD Global Report

Schroth, G., and C. Harvey (ed) 2007.
Biodiversity conservation in cocoa
production landscapes. Biodiversity Conserv.
16:2237-2444.
Schroth, G., U. Krauss, L. Gasparotto,
J.A. Duarte-Aguilar, and K. Vohland. 2000.
Pests and diseases in agroforestry systems of
the humid tropics. Agrofor. Syst. 50:199-241.
Schuller, P., D.E. Walling, A. Sepulveda, A.
Castillo, and I. Pino. 2007. Changes insoil erosion associated with the shift fromconventional tillage to a no-tillage system,
documented using 137Cs measurements. Soil
Till. Res. 94:183-192.
Schultz, R.C., J.P. Colletti, T.M. Isenhart, C.O.
Marquez, W.W. Simpkins, and C.J. Ball.
2000. Riparian forest buffer practices.
p. 189-281. In H.E. Garrett et al. (ed) North
American agroforestry: An integrated scienceand practice. ASA, Madison WI.
Schultz, R.C., J.P. Colletti, T.M. Isenhart,
W.W. Simpkins, C.W. Mize, and
M.L. Thompson. 1995. Design andplacement of a multi-species riparian buffer
strip system. Agrofor. Syst. 29:201-226.
Schultz, T.W. 1949. Production and welfare of
agriculture. Macmillan, NY.
Scoones, I., and J. Thompson (ed) 1994. Beyond
farmer first. ITDG Publ., London.
Sebillotte, M., 2000. Des recherches pourle développement local. Partenariat ettransdisciplinarité, Revue d’économie
Régionale et Urbaine 3:535-556.
Sebillotte, M., 2001. Des recherches enpartenariat pour et sur le développement
régional. Ambitions et questions. Natures Sci.
Sociétés 9(3):5-7.
Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and famines: An essay on
entitlement and deprivation. Oxford Univ.
Press, UK.
Sepùlveda, S., A. Rodriguez, R. Echevelly,
M. Portilla. 2003. El enfoque territorial deldesarrollo rural. IICA, San José.
Seralini, G.E., D. Cellier, and J. Spiroux deVendomois. 2007. New analysis of a rat
feeding study with a genetically modified
maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.
Arch. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 52:596602.
Shackleton, S.E., C.M. Shackleton, A.B. Cunningham,
C. Lombard, and C. Sullivan. 2002. An
overview of current knowledge on Sclerocaryabirrea (A. Rich) Holst, with particular reference
to its importance as a non-timber forest
product in Southern Africa: A summary. Part 1.
Taxonomy, ecology and role in rural livelihoods.
Southern Afric. For. J. 194:27-41.
Shackleton, S.E., P. Shanley, and O. Ndoye,2007. Invisible but viable: Recognizing local
markets for non-timber forest products. Int.
For. Rev. 9:697-712.
Shackleton, S.E., R.P. Wynberg, C.A. Sullivan,
C.M. Shackleton, R.R.B. Leakey, M. Mander
et al. 2003. Marula commercialisation forsustainable and equitable livelihoods: Synthesisof a southern African case study. In Winners
and losers in forest product commercialization.

chapter 03.indd 248

Final Technical Rep. to DFID, FRP R7795,
App. 3.5 CEH, Wallingford.
Shah, T., I. Makin, R. Sakthivadivel, and M. Samad.
2002. Limits to leapfrogging: Issues intransposing successful river basin management
institutions in the developing world. In C.L.
Abernethy (ed) Intersectoral management ofriver basins. IWMI, Colombo.
Shah, T., M. Alam, M.D. Kumar, R.K. Nagar,
and M. Singh. 2000. Pedaling out ofpoverty: Social impact of a manual irrigation
technology in South Asia. IWMI Res. Rep.
45. IWMI, Colombo.
Shapiro, H-Y., and E.M. Rosenquist, 2004. Public/
private partnerships in agroforestry: The
example of working together to improve cocoa
sustainability. Agrofor. Syst. 61:453-462.
Sharma, R., and T. Poleman. 1993. The new
economics of India’s Green Revolution.
Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca.
Sheehy, J.E., P.L. Mitchell, G.J.D. Kirk, andA.B. Ferrer. 2005. Can smarter nitrogen
fertilizers be designed? Matching nitrogen
supply to crop requirements at high yields
using a simple model. Field Crops Res.
94:54-66.
Shepherd, G., and D. Brown. 1998. Linking
international priority-setting to local institutional
management. p. 77-87. In S. Doolan (ed)African rainforests and the conservation of
biodiversity. Earthwatch, Oxford.
Shewfelt, R.L., and B. Bruckner. 2000. Fruits
and vegetable quality: An integrated view.
Technomic Publ., Pennsylvania.
Shiklomanov, I. A. 1999. World water resources:
Modern assessment and outlook for the
21st century. Summary of world water
resources at the beginning of the 21stCentury, prepared in the framework of the
IHP UNESCO. Federal Service of Russia
for Hydrometeorology & Environment
Monitoring, State Hydrological Inst., St.
Petersburg.
Shuttleworth, W.J. 1988. Evaporation from
Amazonian rainforest. Proc. Royal Soc.,
London.
Sibelet, N. 1995. L’innovation en milieu paysanou la capacité des acteurs locaux à innover en
présence d’intervenants extérieurs. Nouvelles
pratiques de fertilisation et mise en bocagedans le Niumakélé (Anjouan, Comores),
INA-PG, Paris.
Silvey, V. 1986. The contribution of new varieties
to cereal yields in England and Wales
between 1947 and 1983. J. Nat. Inst. Agric.
Bot. 17:155-168.
Silvey, V. 1994. Plant breeding in improving crop
yield and qulaity in recent decades. Acta
Hort. (ISHS) 355:19-34. Available at http://
www.actahort.org/books/355/355_2.htm
Simm, G. 1998. Genetic improvement of cattle
and sheep. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Simm, G., L. Bünger, B. Villanueva, andW.G. Hill. 2004. Limits to yield of farm
species: Genetic improvement of livestock.
p. 123-141. In R. Sylvester-Bradley and
J. Wiseman (ed) Yields of farmed species.

Constraints and opportunities in the 21st
century. Nottingham Univ. Press.
Simmonds, N.W. (ed) 1976. Evolution of crop
plants. Longmans, London and NY.
Simons, A.J., and R.R.B. Leakey. 2004. Treedomestication in tropical agroforestry.
Agrofor. Syst. 61:167-181.
Simpson, B.M. 2001. IPPM farmer field schools
and local institutional development: Casestudies of Ghana and Mali. Annex B10 in
FAO 2001. Midterm review of the Global
IPM Facility. FAO Rome.
Sinclair, T.R., G.L. Hammer, and E.J. Van
Oosterom. 2005. Potential yield andwater-use efficiency benefits in sorghumfrom limited maximum transpiration rate.
Functional Plant Biol. 32:945-952.
Singh, B.B., O.O. Olufajo, and M.E. Ishiyaku.
2006. Registration of six improved
germplasm lines of cowpea with combined
resistance to Striga gesnerioides and Alectra
vogelii. Crop Sci. 46:2332-2333.
Singh, B., Y. Singh, J.K. Ladha, K.F. Bronson,
V. Balasubramanian, J. Singh, and C.S. Khind.
2002. Chlorophyll meter and leaf color chart
based nitrogen management for rice and wheat
in northwestern India. Agron. J. 94:821-829.
Sisti, C.P.J., H.P. Santos, R. Kohhann, B.J.R.
Alves, S. Urquiaga, and R.M. Boddey. 2004.
Change in carbon and nitrogen stocks in soil
under 13 years of conventional or zero tillage
in southern Brazil. Soil Till. Res. 76:39-58.
Sivakumar, M.V.K. 2006. Climate prediction
and agriculture: Current status and futurechallenges. Clim. Res. 33:3-17.
Slingo, J.M., A.J. Challinor, B.J. Hoskins,
and T.R. Wheeler. 2005. Food crops in achanging climate. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B
360(1463):1983-1989.
Smale, M. 1997. The green revolution andwheat genetic diversity: Some unfoundedassumptions. World Dev. 25:1257-1269.
Smale, M., J. Hartell, P.W. Heisey, and B.
Senauer. 1998. The contribution of genetic
resources and diversity to wheat productionin the Punjab of Pakistan. Am. J. Agric.
Econ. 80:482-493.
Smale, M., M.P. Reynolds, M. Warburton,
B. Skovmand, R. Trethowan, R. Singh et al.
2002. Dimensions of diversity in modern
spring bread wheat in developing countries.
Crop Sci. 42:1766-1779.
Smartt, J., and N. Haq. 1997. Domestication,
production and utilization of new crops.
Int. Centre for Underutilized Crops,
Southampton, UK.
Smit, L.A.M. 2002. Pesticides: Health impacts
and alternatives. Working Pap. 45. IWMI,
Colombo.
Smith, C. 1984. Rates of genetic change in farm
livestock. Res. Dev. Agric. 1:79-85.
Smith, K. 2006. Rural air pollution: A major
but often ignored development concern.
Commission on Sustainable Development
Thematic Session on Integrated Approaches
to Addressing Air Pollution and Atmospheric
Problems. United Nations, NY.

11/3/08 10:56:02 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 249

Smith, K.A., and F. Conen. 2004. Impacts of land
management on fluxes of trace greenhousegases. Soil Use Manage. 20:255-263.
Smith, K.A., P. McTaggarti, and H. Tsuruta.
1997. Emission of N2O and NO associatedwith nitrogen fertilization in intensive
agriculture, and the potential for mitigation.
Soil Use Manage. 13:296-304.
Smith, L.E.D. 2004. Assessment of thecontribution of irrigation to poverty
reduction and sustainable livelihoods. Water
Resour. Dev. 20(2):243-257.
Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary,
H. Janzen, P. Kumar et al. 2007. Agriculture.
In Climate change 2007: Mitigation.
Contribution of Working Group III to
the Fourth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
B. Metz et al. (ed) Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge and NY.
Snape, J.W. 2004. Challenges of integrating
conventional breeding and biotechnology: A
personal view! 4th Int. Crop Sci. Congress,
Brisbane, Australia. Available at http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/plenary/3/1394_snapejw.htm.
Snow, A.A., D.A. Andow, P. Gepts, E.M. Hallerman,
A. Power, J.M. Tiedje et al. 2005. Geneticallyengineered organisms and the environment:
current status and recommendations. Ecol.
Appl. 15:377-404. [Online] www.esa.org/pao/
esaPositions/Papers/geo_position.htm
Snow, A.A., D. Pilson, L.H. Rieseberg, M.J.
Paulsen, N. Pleskac, M.R. Reagon et al.
2003. A Bt trasngen reduces herbivory andenhances fecundity in wild sunflower. Ecol.
Appl. 13(2):279-286.
Song, Y. 1999. Feminisation of maize agricultural
production in Southwest China. Biotech. Dev.
Monitor 37:6-9.
Spellerberg, I.F., and S.R. Hardes. 1992.
Biological conservation. Cambridge Univ.
Press, UK.
Sperling, L., T. Remington, J.M Haugen, and
S. Nagoda (ed) 2004. Addressing seed
security in disaster response: Linking relief
with development. Available at http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/africa/seeds.htm. CIAT, Cali.
Spielman, D.J. 2005. Innovation systems
perspectives on developing-country agriculture:
A critical review. ISNAR Disc. Pap. 2. Sept2005. IFPRI, ISNAR Division, Washington DC.
Spök, A., H. Hofer, P. Lehner, R. Valenta, S. Stirn,
and H. Gaugitsch 2004. Risk assessmentof GMO products in the European Union:
Toxicity assessment, allergenicity assessment
and substantial equivalence in practiceand proposals for improvement andstandardisation. Umweltbundesamt, Vienna.
Sprent, J.I. 1994. Harnessing symbiotic
associations: the potentials of nitrogen fixing
trees. p. 176-182. In R.R.B. Leakey and
A.C. Newton (ed) Tropical trees: The potential
for domestication and the rebuilding of forest
resources. HMSO, London.
Sprent, J.I. 2001. Nodulation in legumes. Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew, London.

chapter 03.indd 249

Sprent, J.I., and P. Sprent. 1990. Nitrogen fixing
organisms. Clapham and Hall, London.
Squire, G.R., C. Hawes, D.A. Bohan, D.R. Brooks,
G.T. Champion, and L.G. Firbank. 2005.
Biodiversity effects of the management
associated with GM cropping systems in
the UK. Final Rep. to DEFRA Project EPG
1/5/198. Scottish Crop Res. Inst., Dundee, UK.
Sseguya, H., and D. Masinde. 2006. Annual
Monitoring and Evaluation Results 2006.
CSRL-VEDCO Kamuli Program. Center for
Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. Iowa State
Univ., Ames, IA.
Stanton B.F., and J.D. Clemens. 1987. A
randomized trial to assess the impact of theintervention on hygiene behaviors and rates
of diarrhea. Am. J. Epidemiol. 125:292-301.
STCP. 2003. Sustainable Tree Crops Program
Newsl., Issue No. 3 June 2003, IITA, Ibadan.
Steele, K., A.H. Price, H. Shashidhar, and
J.R. Witcombe. 2006. Marker-assisted
selection to introgress rice QTLs controllingroot traits into an Indian upland rice variety.
Theor. Appl. Genetics 112:208-221.
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel,
M. Rosales, and C. de Haan. 2006.
Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues
and options. FAO, Rome.
Steppler, H., and P.K. Nair (ed) 1987. Agroforestry,a decade of development. Available at http://
www.worldagroforestry.org/units/library/books/PDFs/07_Agroforestry_a_decade_of_development.pdf. ICRAF, Nairobi.
Stewart, F. 1993. War and underdevelopment:
Can economic analysis help reduce the costs?
J. Int. Dev. 5(4):357-380.
Stiglitz, J. 1987. Markets, market failures, anddevelopment. Am. Econ. Rev. 79(2):197-203.
Stiglitz, J. 2002. Globalization and its
discontents. Penguin Press, NY.
Stiglitz, J., and B. Greenwald. 2006. Helping
infant economies grow: Foundations of trade
policies for developing countries. Am. Econ.
Rev. 96(2):141-146.
Stireman, J.O. III., L.A. Dyer, D.H. Janzen,
M.S. Singer, J.T. Lill, R.J. Marquis et al. 2005.
Climatic unpredictability and parasitism ofcaterpillars: Implications of global warming.
PNAS 102(48):17384-17387.
Stone, G.D. 2007. Agricultural deskilling andthe spread of genetically modified cotton in
Warangal. Curr. Anthropol. 48:67-103.
Stone, R.C., and H. Meinke. 2005 Operational
seasonal forecasting of crop performance.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
360(1463):2109-2124.
Stork, N.E., A.D. Watt, E. Srivastava, and T. Larsen.
2003. Butterfly diversity and silvicultural
practice in lowland rainforest of southern
Cameroon. Biodivers. Conserv. 203:387-410.
Strauss, M. 2000. Human waste (excreta andwastewater) reuse. Contribution to ETC/SIDA
Bibliography on Urban Agriculture. EAWAG/
SANDEC, Duebendorf, Switzerland. Available
at http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/sandec/schwerpunkte/wra/
documents/human_waste_reuse.

Suarez, A. (plus 13 co-signatories) 2002. Letters:
Conflicts around a study of Mexican crops.
Nature 417:897.
Sunderland, T.C.H., L.E. Clark, and P. Vantomme.
1999. Non-wood forest products of central
Africa: Current research issues and prospects
for conservation and development. FAO,
Rome.
Sunderland, T.C.H., and O. Ndoye (ed) 2004.
Forest products, livelihoods and conservation:
Case studies of non-timber forest productsystems. Vol. 2 Africa. CIFOR, Indonesia.
Swallow, B., A. Okono, C. Ong, and F. Place.
2002. Case three. TransVic: Improved land
management across the Lake Victoria Basin.
Available at http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/
TAC/Y4953E/y4953e07.htm
Swaminathan, M. 2006. An evergreen
revolution. Crop Sci. 46:2293-2203.
Swanson, B.E., R.P. Bentz and A.J. Sofranko (ed)1997. Improving agricultural extension: A
reference manual. Rome, FAO.
Swanson, B.E., B.J. Farmer, and R. Bahal. 1990.
The current status of agricultural extension
worldwide. In B.E. Swanson (ed) Reportof the global consultation on agriculturalextension. FAO, Rome.
Swanton, C.J., and S.F. Weise. 1991. Integrated
weed management: The rationale andapproach. Weed Tech. 5:657-663.
Swift, M.J., and J.M. Anderson. 1993.
Biodiversity and ecosystem function inagricultural systems. p. 15-42. In E-D.
Schulze and H.A. Mooney (ed) Biodiversity
and ecosystem function. Springer Verlag,
Berlin.
Swift, M.J., J. Vandermeer, P.S. Ramakrishnan,
J.M. Anderson, C.K. Ong, and B.A. Hawkins
1996. Biodiversity and agroecosystem
function. p. 261-298. In H.A. Mooney et al.
(ed) Functional roles of biodiversity: A global
perspective. John Wiley, NY.
Sylvester-Bradley, R., M. Foulkes, and
M.P. Reynolds. 2005. Future wheat yields:
Evidence, theory and conjecture, p. 233-260.
In R. Sylvester-Bradley and J. Wiseman (ed)Yields of farmed species. Nottingham Univ.
Press, Nottingham.
Tabassum Naved, R. 2000. Intrahousehold
impact of the transfer of modern agricultural
technology: a gender perspective. FCND
Disc. Pap. 85, May 2000. IFPRI, Washington
DC.
Tabuti, J.R.S., S.S. Dhillion, and L.A. Lye. 2003.
Ethnoveterinary medicines for cattle (Bosindicus) in Bulamogi county, Uganda: Plant
species and modes of use. J. Ethnopharmacol.
88:279-286.
Tacoli, C. 1998. Rural-urban interactions: A
guide to the literature. Environ. Urban.
10:147-166.
Tamagno, C. 2003. Entre celulinos y cholulares:
Los procesos de conectividad y laconstrucción de identidades transnacionales.
Available at http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/
Lasa2003/TamagnoCarla.pdf. Int. Congress
Latin Amer. Studies Assoc (LASA), Dallas.

11/3/08 10:56:03 AM

250 | IAASTD Global Report

Taneja, V., and P. S. Birthal. 2003. Role ofbuffalo in food security in Asia. Asian
Buffalo 1:4-13.
Tang, S.Y. 1992. Institutions and collective
action: Self-governance in Irrigation. Inst.
Contemporary Studies Press, San Francisco.
Tangka, F.K., M.A. Jabbar, and B.I. Shapiro.
2000. Gender roles and child nutrition inlivestock production systems in developing
countries. A critical review. Socioeconomics
and policy Res. Working Pap. 27. ILRI,
Nairobi.
Tanji, K.K., and N.C. Kielen. 2004. Agriculturaldrainage water management in arid andsemi-arid areas. FAO Irrigation and Drainage
Pap. 61. FAO, Rome.
Tarawali, S.A., J.D.H. Keatinge, J.M. Powell,
O. Lyasse and N. Sanginga. 2004. Integrated
natural resource management in West African
crop-livestock systems. In T.O. Williams etal. (ed) Sustainable crop-livestock production
for improved livelihoods and natural
resource management in West Africa. ILRI,
Nairobi and Technical Centre Agric. Rural
Cooperation (CTA), Wageningen.
Tarawali, S.A., A. Larbi, S. Fernadez-Rivera,
and A. Bationo, 2001. The role of livestockin the maintenance and improvement of soil
fertility. p. 281-304. In G.Tian et al. (ed)Sustaining soil fertility in West Africa. SSSA
Special Public. No. 58. SSSA/ASA, Madison.
Taylor, L.H., S.M. Latham, M.E. Woolhouse.
2001, Risk factors for human disease
emergence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.
B Biol. Sci. 356(1411):983-989.
Tchoundjeu, Z., E. Asaah, P. Anegbeh,
A. Degrande, P. Mbile, C. Facheux et al. 2006.
AFTPs: Putting participatory domestication
into practice in West and Central Africa. For.
Trees Livelihoods 16:53-70.
Temple, L., M. Kwa, R. Fogain, and A. Mouliom
Pefoura. 2006. Participatory determinantsof innovation and their impact on plantainproduction systems in Cameroon. Int. J.
Agric. Sustain. 4(3):233-243.
Temu, A., I. Mwanje, and K. Mogotsi. 2003.
Improving agriculture and natural resources
education in Africa. World Agroforestry
Centre, Nairobi.
Temu, A.B., P. Rudebjer, and I. Zoungrana.
2001. Networking educational institutions
for change: The experience of ANAFE. World
Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi.
Ten Kate, K., and S. Laird. 1999. The
Commercial use of biodiversity: Accessto genetic resources and benefit-sharing.
Earthscan, London.
Tesso, T., A. Deressa, Z. Gutema, A. Adugna,
B. Beshir, T. Tadesse, and O. Oumer. 2006.
Integrated Striga management provides relief
from plague of witchweed. p. 141-158. In
T. Abate (ed) Successes with value chain.
EIAR, Addis Ababa.
Thiele, G., R. Nelson, O. Ortiz, and S. Sherwood.
2001. Participatory research and training: ten
lessons from the Farmer Field Schools (FFS) in
the Andes. Currents 27:4-11.

chapter 03.indd 250

Thijssen, R. 2006. Croton megalocarpus, thepoultry-feed tree: How local knowledge
could help to feed the world. p. 226-234.
In R.R.B. Leakey et al. (ed) Domesticationand commercialisation of non-timber forest
products. Non-Wood Forest Products No. 9.
FAO, Rome.
Thirtle, C., L. Lin, and J. Piesse. 2003. The impactof research-led agricultural productivity growthon poverty reduction in Africa, Asia and Latin
America. World Dev. 31:1959-1975.
Thomas, M., and J. Waage. 1996. Integration of
biological control and host-plant resistancebreeding. CTA, Wageningen.
Thomas, W.E., W.J. Everman, B. Scott, andJ.W. Wilcut. 2007. Glyphosate-resistant corninterference in glyphosate-resistant cotton.
Weed Tech. 21:372-377.
Thompson, J., T. Hodgkin, K. Atta-Krah,
D. Jarvis, C. Hoogendoorn, and S. Padulosil.
2007. Biodiversity in agroecosystems. p. 4660. In Farming with nature: The science andpractice of ecoagriculture, S.J. Scherr and
J.A. McNeely (ed) Island Press, NY.
Thornton, P.K., P.M. Kristiansen, R.L. Kreskas,and R.S. Reid. 2004. Mapping livestock andpoverty. p. 37-50. In E. Owen et al. (ed)Responding to the Livestock revolution - Therole of globalisation and implications forpoverty alleviation. Brit. Soc. Anim. Sci. Pub.
No. 33. Nottingham Univ. Press, UK.
Thornton, P., R. Kruska, N. Henninger,
P. Kristjanson, R. Reid, F. Atieno et al.
2002. Mapping poverty and livestock in thedeveloping world. ILRI, Nairobi.
Tiffin, M., M. Mortimore, and F. Gichuki. 1994.
More people, less erosion: Environmental
recovery in Kenya. ACTS Press, Nairobi.
Tillman, D., K.G. Cassman, P.A. Matson,
R. Naylor, and S. Polasky. 2002. Agricultural
sustainability and intensive production
practices. Nature 418:671-677.
Tilman, D., J. Fargione, B. Wolff, C. D’Antonio,
A. Dobson, R. Howarth et al. 2001. Forecasting
agriculturally driven global environmental
change. Science 292(5515):281-284.
Timothy, K., D. Donaldson, and A. Grube. 2004.
Pesticides industry sales and usage: 2000
and 2001 market estimates. Off. Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. US EPA,
Washington DC.
Tirole, J., C. Henry, M. Trommetter, L. Tubiana,
and B. Caillaud. 2003. Propriété intellectuelle.
La documentation française, Paris.
Tollenaur, M., and J. Wu.1999. Yield improvementin temperate maize is attribuatble to greater
stress tolerance. Crop Sci. 39:1597-1604.
Tomich, T.P., A. Cattaneo, S. Chater, H.J. Geist,
J. Gockowski, D. Kaimowitz et al. 2005.
Balancing agricultural development andenvironmental objectives: Assessing tradeoffs in
the humid tropics. p. 415-440. In C.A. Palm etal. (ed) Columbia Univ. Press, NY.
Torero, M., and J. von Braun. 2006. Informationand communication technologies fordevelopment and poverty reduction. Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.

Torres, J.B. and J.R. Ruberson. 2006. Canopyand ground-dwelling predatory arthropods
in commercial Bt and non-Bt cotton fields:
Patterns and mechanisms. Environ. Entomol.
34:1242-1256.
Torstensson, G., H. Aronsson, and L. Bergström.
2006. Nutrient use efficiencies and leachingof organic and conventional cropping
systems in Sweden. Agron. J. 98:603-615.
Toulmin, C., and J.F. Quan (ed) 2000. Evolving
land rights, policy and tenure in Africa.
DFID, IIED, NRI, London.
Touzard, J.-M., J-F. Draperi. 2003. Les
coopératives entre territoires et mondialisation.
Les cahiers de l’Economie sociale n°2.
L’Harmattan, Paris.
Townsend, R. 1999. Agricultural incentives in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Policy Challenges. Tech.
Pap. 444. World Bank, Washington DC.
Trebuil, G., and M. Hossain. 2004. Le riz: Enjeuxécologiques et économiques. Collection
Mappemonde, Editions Belin, Paris.
Tribe, D.E. 1994. Feeding and greening theworld: The role of international agriculturalresearch. CABI, Wallingford.
Trigo, E.J., and E.J. Cap. 2003. The impact of
the introduction of transgenic crops into
Argentinian agriculture. AgBioForum 6:87-94.
Tripp, R. 2001. Seed provision and agriculturaldevelopment. ODI with James Currey,
Oxford and Heinemann, Portsmouth,
London.
Tripp, R., 2006. Self-sufficient agriculture.
Labour and knowledge in small-scale
farming. Earthscan, London.
Tripp, R., M. Wijeratne, and V.H. Piyadasa.
2005. What should we expect from Farmer
fields Schools? A Sri Lanka case study. World
Dev. 33-10:1705-1720.
Trommetter, M. 2005. Biodiversity andinternational stakes: A question of access.
Ecol. Econ. 53:573-583.
Tubiana, L. 2000. Environnement etdéveloppement : L’enjeu pour la France.
Rapport au Premier ministre Documentationfrançaise, Paris.
Tuyns, A.J., E. Riboli, G. Doornbos, and
G. Penquignot. 1987. Diet and esophageal
cancer in Calvados (France). Nutr. Cancer
9:81-92.
UCSUSA. 2007. Confronting climate change in
California. Available at http://www.climatechoices.org/. http://www.ucsusa.org/.
Udawatta, R.P., P.R. Motavalli, and H.E.
Garrett. 2004. Phosphorus loss and runoff
characteristics in three adjacent agricultural
watersheds with claypan soils. J. Environ.
Qual. 33:1709-1719.
UN. 1995. Report of the Fourth World Conf.
Women. Beijing. 4-15 Sept. 1995. Available
at http://www.un.org/esa/gopher-data/conf/
fwcw/off/a--20.en
UN. 2006a. Millennium development goals report.
Available at www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/
mdg2007.pdf
UN. 2006b. Strategy on solutions for harmonizing
international regulation of organic agriculture.

11/3/08 10:56:03 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 251

Vol. 2, Background papers of the International
Task Force on Harmonization and Equivalencein Organic Agriculture. UNCTAD, FAO, andIFOAM, Geneva and Bonn.
UN CCD. 1998. Rational use of rangelands
and developments of fodder crops in Africa.
UN Secretariat Convention to Combat
Desertification. Rep. on the CCD/ILRI
workshop. Addis Ababa. 4-7 Aug 1998.
Available at http://www.unccd.int/regional/
africa/meetings/regional/workshop98/reporteng.pdf.
UNDP. 2000. Bioenergy primer. Modernizedbiomass energy for sustainable development.
UNDP, NY.
UNDP. 2006a. Human development report.
UNDP, NY.
UNDP. 2006b. Social protection, the role of cashtransfers, in poverty in focus. International
Poverty Centre, UNDP, NY.
UNDP/ESMAP. 2002a. Rural electrification anddevelopment in the Philippines: Measuring
the social and economic benefits. ESMAP
Rep. 255/02. World Bank, Washington DC.
UNDP/ESMAP. 2002b. Energy strategies forrural India: Evidence from six states. ESMAP,
World Bank, Washington DC.
UNDP/UNEP/WB/WRI. 2000. World resources
2000-2001: People and ecosystems- thefraying web of life. Available at: http://www.wri.org/publication/world-resources-2000-2001-people-and-ecosystems-fraying-web-life#. World Resources Inst., Washington, DC.
UNEP. 1993. Convention on biological diversity.
Text and annexes. CBD/94/1. UNEP/CBD,
Montreal.
UNEP. 1999. Global Environment Outlook - 2000.
UNEP, DEIA&EW, Nairobi. Earthscan, London.
UNEP. 2002. Vital water graphics. Available
at http://www.unep.org/dewa/assessments/
ecosystems/water/vitalwater/. UNEP, Nairobi.
Uphoff, N. (ed) 2002. Agroecologicalinnovations. Increasing food production
with participatory development. Earthscan,
London.
Urbano, G., and D. Vollet. 2005. L’évaluation
du Contrat territoirial d’exploitation (CTE).
p. 69-110. In Notes et études économiques
n°22. Ministère de l’Agric. et de la Pêche,Paris.
US EPA (Evironmental Protection Agency). 2006.
Climate change, greenhouse gas emissions.
Human-related sources and sinks of carbon
dioxide. Available at http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
US GS (Geological Survey). Water-resources
investigations Rep. 00-4053. Sacramento, CA.
Van Crowder, L. 1996. Agricultural extension
for sustainable development. SD Dimensions.
FAO, Rome.
Van de Kop, P., D. Sautier, and A. Gerz. 2006.
Origin-based products — Lessons for propoor market development. KIT, CIRAD,
Paris.
Van den Berg, H. 2003. IPM Farmer schools. A
synthesis of 25 Impact evaluations. Global
IPM facility, Rome.

chapter 03.indd 251

Van den Berg, H., H. Senerath, and L. Amarasinghe.
2002. The impact of particiaptory IPM in Sri
Lanka. Int. learning workshop on farmer field
schools FFS. Emerging issues and challenges.
Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 21-25 Oct. 2002.
Van Gessel, M.J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistanthorseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703705.
Van Hofwegen, P.J.M., and F.G.W. Jaspers.
1999. Analytical framework for integrated
water resources management. IHE Mono.
2, Inter-Am. Dev. Bank, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Van Koppen, B. 2002. A gender performanceindicator for irrigation: Concepts, tools andapplications. Res. Rep. 59. IWMI, Colombo.
Van Lenteren, J.C. 2000. A greenhouse without
pesticides: Fact or fantasy? Crop Prot.
19:375-84.
Van Lenteren, J.C. 2006. Benefits of biologicalcontrol. REBECA Macrobials Meeting. April
2006. http://www.rebeca-net.de/downloads/
Risk%20assessment%20macrobials%20
van%20Lenteren.pdf. Int. Org. Biol. Control(IOBC-WPRS.org).
Van Lenteren, J.C. and V.H.P. Bueno. 2003.
Augmentative biological control ofarthropods in Latin America. BioControl
48:123-139.
Van Mele, P., A. Salahuddin, and N. Magor (ed)2005. Innovations in rural extension: Casestudies from Bangladesh. CABI, Wallingford.
Van Noordwijk, M., G. Cadish, and C.K. Ong(ed) 2004. Below-ground Interactions intropical agroecosystems: concepts and models
with multiple plant components. CABI, UK.
Van Oosterom, E.J., V. Mahalakshmi, F.R. Bidinger,
and K.P. Rao. 1996. Effect of water availability
and temperature on the genotype-byenvironment interaction of pearl millet insemi-arid tropical environments. Euphytica
89:175-183.
Van Zyl, J. 1996. The farm size-efficiency
relationship. In J. van Zyl et al. (ed)Agricultural land reform in South Africa:
Policies, markets and mechanisms. Oxford
Univ. Press, Cape Town.
Vanlauwe, B., and K.E. Giller. 2006. Popular
myths around soil fertility management in
sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
116:34-46.
Varvel, G.E., and W.W. Wilhelm. 2003. Soybean
nitrogen contribution to corn and sorghum
in western corn belt rotations. Agron. J.
95(5):1220-1225.
Veer, V.P., M.C. Jansen, M. Klerk, and F.J. Kok.
2000. Fruits and vegetables in the preventionof cancer and cardiovascular disease. Public
Health Nutr. 3:103-107.
Verma, H.N. 2003. Major issues related tosoil and water conservation in watersheds.
p. 490-493. In B. Venkateswara Rao (ed)Proc. Int. Conf. Hydrology and Watershed
Management. Vol. 1. Hyderabad, India.
18-20 Dec. 2002. BS Publ., Hyderabad.
Vetter, S. 2005. Rangelands at equilibrium andnon-equilibrium: Recent developments in thedebate. J. Arid Environ. 62:321-341.

Vieira, M. 2001. Brazil’s organic cup not yet
overflowing. World Organic News 13(11).
January.
Villachica, H. 1996. Frutales y Hortalizas
Promisorios de la Amazonia. Tratado de
Cooperacion Amazonica, Lima.
Visscher, J.T., P. Bury, T. Gould, and P. Moriaty,
1999. Integrated water resources management
in water and sanitation projects: Lessons fromprojects in Africa, Asia and South America.
IRC Int. Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft,
The Netherlands.
Vitousek, P.M., J.D. Aber, R.W. Howarth,
G.E. Likens, P.A Matson, D.W. Schindler
et al. 1997. Human alteration of the global
nitrogen cycle: Causes and consequences.
Ecol. Applic. 7:737-750.
Vitousek, P.M., K. Cassman, C. Cleveland,
T. Crews, C.B. Field et al. 2002. Towards
an ecological understanding of biologicalnitrogen fixation. Biogeochemistry 57:1-45.
Vitousek P.M., C.M. D’Antonio, L.I. Loope, and
R. Westbrooks. 1996. Biological invasion as
global environmental change. Am. Scientist
84:468-478.
Voituriez, T. 2005. Sustainable development andtrade liberalisation: The opportunities andthreat roused by the WTO. OCL. Oléagineux
Corps Gras Lipides 12:129-133.
Vörösmarty, M.C.J., P. Green, J. Salisbury, and
R.B. Lammers. 2000. Global water resources:
Vulnerability from climate change andpopulation growth. Science 289:284-288.
Vosti, S.A., J. Gockowski, and T.P. Tomich.
2005. Land use systems at the margins oftropical moist forest: Addressing smallholder
concerns in Cameroon, Indonesia, and Brazil.
p. 387-414. In C.A. Palm et al. (ed) Slash andburn: The search for alternatives. Columbia
Univ. Press, NY.
Waddington, S.R., and J. Karigwindi. 2001.
Productivity and profitability of maize+ groundnut rotations compared with
continuous maize on smallholder farms in
Zimbabwe. Exp. Agric. 37:83-98.
WADE. 2004. Bagasse cogeneration — Global
review and potential. World Alliance for
Decentralized Energy, Edinburgh.
Wahlquist, M.L., C.S. Lo, and K.A. Myres.
1989. Food variety is associated with lessmacrovascular disease in those with type II
diabetes and their healthy controls. J. Am.
Coll. Nutr. 8:515-523.
Waibel, H., and D. Pemsi. 1999. An evaluationof the impact of integrated pest management
research at international agricultural research
centres. CGIAR, TAC, CGIAR Secretariat,
Washington DC.
Waliyar, F., L. Collette, and P.E. Kenmore(ed) 2003. Beyond the gene horizon:
Sustaining agricultural productivity
and enhancing livelihoods throughoptimization of crop and crop-associatedbiodiversity with emphasis on semi-arid
tropical agroecosystems. Proc. Workshop.
Patancharu, India. 23-25 Sept 2002.
ICRISAT, Hyderabad.

11/3/08 10:56:04 AM

252 | IAASTD Global Report

Wall, G.W., T.J. Brooks, N.R. Adam,
A.B. Cousins, B.A. Kimball, P.J. Pinter Jr.
et al. 2001. Leaf photosynthesis and water
relations of grain sorghum grown in Free-Air
CO2 Enrichment (FACE) and water stress.
New Phytologist 152:231-248.
Walter, A., and C. Sam. 1999. Fruits of Oceania.
IRD, Paris and ACIAR, Australia.
Walters, K.S. and H.J. Gillett. 1998. 1997
IUCN red list of threatened plants. World
Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.
Wang, S., D.R. Just and P. Pinstrup-Andersen..
2006. Damage from secondary pests and theneed for refuge in China. In R.E. Just et al.
(ed) Regulating agricultural biotechnology:
Economics and policy. Nat. Resour. Manage.
Policy 30:625-637.
Wanyera, R., M.G. Kinyua, Y. Jin, and
R.P. Singh. 2006. The spread of stem rustcaused by Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici, withvirulence on Sr31 in wheat in Eastern Africa.
Plant Dis. 90(1):113.
Warren, D.M., L.J. Slikkerveer, and S.O. Titilola(ed) 1989. Indigenous knowledge systems:
Implications for agriculture and international
development. Studies in Tech. Social Change
No. 11. Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA.
Warren, D. M., L.J. Slikkerveer, and D. Brokensha(ed) 1995. The cultural dimension ofdevelopment: Indigenous knowledge systems.
Intermediate Tech. Publ., London.
Warren, M.S., J.K. Hill, J.A. Thomas, J. Asher,
R. Fox, B. Huntley et al. 2001. Rapid
responses of British butterflies to opposing
forces of climate and habitat change. Nature
414(6859):65-69.
Waruhiu, A.N., J. Kengue, A.R. Atangana,Z. Tchoundjeu, and R.R.B. Leakey, 2004.
Domestication of Dacryodes edulis: 2.
Phenotypic variation of fruit traits in 200 tressfrom four populations in the humid lowlandsof Cameroon. Food Agric. Environ. 2:340-346.
Watkins, F. 2004. Evaluation of DFID
development assistance: Gender equality
and women’s empowerment DFID’s
experience of gender mainstreaming: 1995
to 2004.. Available at http://www.oecd.org/
dataoecd/47/52/35074862.pdf. Evaluation
Dep., East Kilbride, Glasgow.
Watt, A.D., N.E. Stork, and B. Bolton 2002.
The diversity and abundance of ants inrelation to forest disturbance and plantation
establishment in southern Cameroon. J.
Appl. Ecol. 39:18-30.
Watt, A.D., N.E. Stork, C. McBeath, andG.R. Lawson. 1997. Impact of forest
management on insect abundance and damage
in a lowland tropical forest in southern
Cameroon. J. Appl. Ecol. 34:985-998.
WCD. 2000. Dams and development: A new
framework for decision-making. The report of
the World Commission on Dams. Available at
http://www.damsreport.org/wcd_overview.htm[Geo-1-033]. Earthscan, London.
WCRF/AICR. 1997. Food, nutrition and theprevention of cancer: A global perspective.

chapter 03.indd 252

Available at http://www.wcrf.org/research/
fnatpoc.lasso. World Cancer Res. Fund Int.,
Amer. Inst. Cancer Res., Washington DC.
Weber, J. 2005. Access to the benefits of sharing,p. 9-10 In Biodiversity and local ecologicalknowledge in France. INRA, Paris.
Weber, J.C., C. Sotelo Montes, H. Vidaurre,
I.K. Dawson, and A.J. Simons. 2001.
Participatory domestication of agroforestry
trees: An example from the Peruvian
Amazon. Dev. Practice 11(4):425-433.
Weber, M.L. 2001. Markets for water rights
under environmental constraints. J. Environ.
Econ. Manage. 42(1):53-64.
Welch, R.M., and R.D. Graham. 2000. A newparadigm for world agriculture: Productive,
sustainable, nutritious, healthful foodsystems. Food Nutr. Bull. 21(4):361-366.
Welch, S., J. Roe, and Z. Dong. 2003. A genetic
neural network of flowering time control inarabidopsis thaliana. Agron. J. 95:71-81.
West, T.O., and G. Marland. 2002. A synthesisof carbon sequestration, carbon emissions,and net carbon flux in agriculture:
Comparing tillage practices in the UnitedStates. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 91:217-232.
West, T.O., and W.M. Post. 2002. Soil organiccarbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop
rotation: A global data analysis. J. Soil Sci.
Soc. America 66:1930-1946.
Westerman, P.R., M. Liebman, F.D. Menalled,
A.H. Heggenstaller, R.G. Hartzler, andP.M. Dixon. 2005. Are many little hammers
effective? Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti)
population dynamics in two- and four-year
crop rotation systems. Weed Sci. 53:382-392.
WHO. 1986. Informal consultation on planningfor the prevention of pesticide poisonings.
Doc. VBC/86.926. WHO, Geneva.
WHO. 2002. Global strategy for food safety:
safer food for better health. WHO, Geneva.
WHO. 2003. Obesity and overweight. Fact
sheet. WHO Global strategy on Diet,
Physical activity and Health. Available at
http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/
media/en/gsfs_obesity.pdf
WHO. 2005a. Global database on Body Mass
Index. Available at http://www.who.int/ncd_surveillance/infobase/web/InfoBaseCommon/
WHO. 2005b. Modern food biotechnology,
human health and development: An evidence
based study. Available at http://www.who.int/
foodsafety/publications/biotech/biotech_en.pdf
WHO. 2005c. Guidelines on food fortification
with micronutrients for control ofmicronutrient malnutrition. WHO, Geneva.
WHO. 2006. Fuel for life: Household energy andhealth. WHO, Geneva.
WHO/FAO, 2003. Diet, nutrition and theprevention of chronic diseases. Rep. of thejoint WHO/FAO expert consultation. WHO
Technical Rep. Series, No. 916 (TRS 916).
Wibawa, G., L. Joshi, M. van Noordwijk, and
E. Penot. 2006. Rubber-based agroforestry
systems (RAS) as alternatives for rubber
monoculture system. IRRDB Conf.,

Vietnam, 2006. Int. Rubber Res. Dev.
Board, Malaysia.
Wiley, T., and M. Seymour. 2000. Systems forbrowsing sheep on the perennial fodder
shrub Tagasaste. Agriculture Western
Australia FarmNote 49/2000, Dep. Agric.,
Western Australia.
Willer, H., and M. Yussefi (ed) 2006. The worldof organic agriculture — statistics andemerging trends. IFOAM, Bonn, Germany
and FiBL, Frick, Swit.
Willett, W. 2006. Health effects of trans fatty
acids intake. Testimony 30 Oct 2006 before
NYC Board of Health. Available at http://
www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/
Printer%20Friendly/Health_Effects_Trans_Fat.pdf.
Williams, C.E., N. Collier, C.C. Sardesai,
H.W. Ohm, and S.E. Cambron, 2003.
Phenotypic assessment and mappedmarkers for H31, a new wheat geneconferring resistance to Hessian fly (Diptera:
Cecidomyiidae). Theor. Appl. Genetics
107:1516-23.
Wilson, E.O. 1992. The diversity of life. Penguin,London.
Wilson, J., R.C. Munro, K. Ingleby, P.A. Mason,
J. Jefwa, P.N. Muthoka et al. 1991. Treeestablishment in semi-arid lands of Kenya: Roleof mycorrhizal inoculation and water-retaining
polymer. For. Ecol. Manage. 45:153-163.
Wilson, J.S., and T. Otsuki. 2001. Global tradeand food safety: Winners and losers in a
fragmented system. DECRG, World Bank,
Washington DC.
Witcombe, J.R. 1999. Do farmer-participatory
methods apply more to high potential areas
than to marginal ones? Outlook Agric.
28:43-49.
Witcombe, J.R., R. Petre, S. Jones, and A. Joshi.
1999. Farmer participatory crop
improvement. IV. The spread and impactof a rice variety identified by participatory
varietal selection. Exp. Agric. 35:471-487.
Witcombe, J.R., K. Joshi, R. Rana, and D.S.
Virk. 2001. Increasing genetic diversity
by participatory varietal selection in highpotential production systems in Nepal andIndia. Euphytica 122:575-588.
Witcombe, J.R., A.J. Packwood, A.G.B. Raj,and D.S. Virk, 1988. The extent and rateof adoption of modern cultivars in India. p.
53-68. In J.R. Witcombe et al. (ed) Seeds ofchoice. IDTG Publ., London.
Witcombe, J.R., D. Virk, and J. Farrington (ed)1998. Seeds of choice. ITDG Publ., London.
Witt, H., R. Patel and M. Schnurr. 2006. Can
the poor help GM crops? Technology,
representation and cotton in the Makhatini
Flats, South Africa. Rev. Afric. Pol. Econ.
109:497-513.
Wolfenbarger, L.L., and P.R. Phifer 2000. The
ecological risks and benefits of geneticallyengineered plants. Science 290:2088-2093.
Wong, C. 2004. Saskatchewan organic farmers
file lawsuit against Monsanto and Aventis.
The Canadian Press, 10 Jan 2004.

11/3/08 10:56:04 AM

Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 253

Wood, S., K. Sebastian, and S.J. Scherr. 2000.
Pilot analysis of global ecosystems. IFPRI/World Resources Inst., Washington DC.
Wopereis, M.C.S., C. Donovan, B. Nebíe,
D. Guindo, and M.K. Diaye. 1999. Soil
fertility management in irrigated rice systems
in the Sahel and Savanna regions of West
Africa. Field Crops Res. 61:125-145.
World Bank. 1998. Participation and social
assessment: Tools and techniques. World
Bankl, Washington DC.
World Bank. 1999. The irrigation sector. World
Bank, South Asia Region and Gov. India, Min.
Water Resources. Allied Publ., New Delhi.
World Bank. 2002. Extension and ruraldevelopment: Converging views for
institutional approaches. Workshop
Summary. World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2003. Land policies for growth andpoverty reduction. World Bank Policy Res.
Rep. Oxford Univ. Press, UK.
World Bank. 2004a. Sustaining forest: A
development strategy. World Bank,
Washington DC.
World Bank. 2004b. Renewable energy fordevelopment. The role of the World Bank
Group. World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2005a. Technical and economic
assessment: Off grid, mini-grid and gridelectrification technologies. Final Rep. Energy
and Water Dep., Washington DC.
World Bank. 2005b. Gender issues and bestpractices in land administration projects: A
synthesis report. PREM/ARD, World Bank,
Washington DC.
World Bank. 2007a. World Dev. Rep. 2007.
World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2007b. Changing the face of
the waters: The promise and challengeof sustainable aquaculture. World Bank,
Washington DC.
World Bank. 2007c. Enhancing agricultural
innovation: How to go beyond strengthening
agricultural research systems. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Worldwatch Institute. 2006. Biofuels fortransportation: Global potential andchapter 03.indd 253

implications for sustainable agriculture andenergy in the 21st Century. Worldwatch,
Washington DC.
Worthy, K., R.C. Strohman, and P.R. Billings.
2002. Conflicts around a study of Mexican
crops. Nature 417:897.
WRI, UNEP, UNDP, and World Bank, World
Resources 1998. 1998-99 - A guide to theglobal environment. Oxford Univ. Press, NY.
Wuest, S.B., J.D. Williams, and H.T. Gollany.
2006. Tillage and perennial grass effects on
ponded infiltration for seven semi-arid loesssoils. J. Soil Water Conserv. 61:218-223.
Wynberg, R., J. Cribbins, M. Mander, S. Laird,
C.R. Lombard, R. Leakey et al. 2002. An
overview of current knowledge on Sclerocaryabirrea (A. Rich) Holst, with particularreference to its importance as a non-timber
forest product in Southern Africa: A summary.
Part 2. Commercial use, tenure and policy,
domestication, intellectual property rights andbenefit-sharing. S. Afric. For. J. 196:67-77.
Wynberg, R.P., S.A. Laird, S. Shackleton,
M. Mander, C. Shackleton, P. du Plessis
et al. 2003. Marula policy brief. Marulacommercialisation for sustainable andequitable livelihoods. For. Trees Livelihoods
13:203-215.
Xu, K., X. Xu, T. Fukao, P. Canlas, R. MaghirangRodriguez, S. Heuer et al. 2006. Sub1a is an
ethylene-response-factor-like gene that confers
submergence tolerance to rice. Nature 442:705-708.
Yee, J., M.C. Ahearn, and W. Huffman. 2004.
Links among farm productivity, off-farmwork, and farm size in the Southeast. J.
Agric. Appl. Econ. 36:591-603.
Young, A. 1997. Agroforestry for soil management.
CABI, Wallingford.
Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, W. Anderson. 1980.
Effect of vegetated buffer strips in controlling
pollution from feedlot runoff. J.Environ.
Qual. 9:483-487.
Yudelman, M., A. Ratta, and D. Nygaard. 1998.
Pest management and food production:
looking to the future. Food Agric. Environ.
Disc. Pap. 25. IFPRI, Washington DC.

Zeddies, J., R.P. Schaab, P. Neuenschwander,
H.R. Herren. 2001. Economics of biologicalcontrol of cassava mealybug in Africa. Agric.
Econ. 24:209-219.
Zeller, D., S. Booth and D. Pauly. 2007. Fisheries
contributions to GDP: Understanding smallscale fisheries in the Pacific. Marine Resour.
Econ. 21:355-374.
Zerega, N.J.C., D. Ragone, T.J. Motley. 2004.
Complex origins of breadfruit (Artocarpus
altilis, Moraceae): implications for humanmigrations in Oceania. Am. J. Bot. 91:760-766.
Zerega, N.J.C., D. Ragone, T.J. Motley. 2005.
Systematics and species limits of breadfruit(Artocarpus, Moraceae). Syst. Bot. 30:603- 615.
Ziegler, J. 2003. Le droit à l’alimentation, Milleet Une Nuits, Paris.
Zijp, W. 1994. Improving the transfer anduse of agricultural information - A guideto information technology. World Bank,
Washington.
Zimmermann, H.G., and T. Olckers, 2003.
Biological control of alien plant invaders
in southern Africa. p. 27-44. In
P. Neuenschwander et al. (ed) Biologicalcontrol in IPM systems in Africa. CABI,
Wallingford.
Zingore, S., H.K. Murwira, R.J. Delve, andK.E. Giller. 2007. Soil type, management
history and current resource allocation:
Three dimensions regulating variability incrop productivity on African smallholder
farms. Field Crops Res. 101:296-305.
Zong, R.J., L.L. Morris, M.J. Ahrens,
V. Rubatzky, and M.I. Cantwell. 1998.
Postharvest physiology, and quality ofGail-lan (Brassica oleracea Alboglabra)
and Choi-sum (Brassica rapa subsp.
parachinensis). Acta Hort. 467:349-356.
Zwahlen, C., and D.A. Andow. 2005. field
evidence for the exposure of ground beetles
to Cry1Ab from transgenci corn. Environ.
Biosafety Res. 4:113-117.
Zwahlen, C., A. Hilbeck, R. Howald, and
W. Nentwig. 2003. Effects of transgenic Bt
corn litter on the earthworm Lumbricus
terrestris. Mol. Ecol. 12:1077-1086.

11/3/08 10:56:04 AM

chapter 03.indd 254

11/3/08 10:56:04 AM

4
Outlook on Agricultural Change and Its Drivers

Coordinating Lead Authors
Detlef P. van Vuuren (the Netherlands), Washington O. Ochola(Kenya), Susan Riha (USA)
Lead Authors
Mario Giampietro (Spain/Italy), Hector Ginzo (Argentina), Thomas
Henrichs (Germany), Sajidin Hussain (Pakistan), Kasper Kok (theNetherlands), Moraka Makhura (South Africa), Monirul Mirza(Canada), K.P. Palanisami (India), C.R. Ranganathan (India), Sunil
Ray (India), Claudia Ringler (Germany), Agnes Rola (Philippines),
Henk Westhoek (Netherlands), Monika Zurek (Germany)
Contributing Authors
Patrick Avato (Germany/Italy), Gustavo Best (Mexico), Regina
Birner (Germany), Kenneth Cassman (USA), Charlotte de Fraiture(Netherlands), Bill Easterling (USA), John Idowu (Nigeria), Prabhu
Pingali (USA), Steve Rose (USA), Phil Thornton (UK), Stan Wood
(UK)
Review Editors
Sandra Brown (UK) and Suat Oksuz (Turkey)

Key Messages
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.6
4.6.1
4.6.2

Driving Forces of Agricultural Change 257
Recent International Assessments 258
Indirect Drivers of Agricultural Change 260
Demographic drivers 260
Economics and international trade 263
Sociopolitical drivers of alternative futures in agricultureand AKST 268
Science and technology 270
Education, culture and ethics 272
Changes in biogeophysical environment 273
Assessment of Direct Drivers 274
Food consumption patterns 274
Natural resources 277
Land use and land cover change 281
Climate variability and climate change 284
Energy 288
Labor 292
Existing Assessments of Future Food Systems, Agricultural
Products and Services 293
Assessments relevant for changes in food systems 293
Indication of projected changes 294
Relevance for Development and Sustainability Goals and
AKST in the Future 299
What development and sustainability goals can to be addressed
through AKST? 299
What are the conditions needed to help AKST realize
development and sustainability goals? 300

255

chapter 04.indd 255

11/3/08 10:37:50 AM

256 | IAASTD Global Report

Key Messages
1. Agriculture will need to respond to several key
changes in driving forces in the next decades. Key
drivers include an increasing global population,changes in dietary and in trade patterns, land competition, increases in agricultural labor productivity,
climate change and demands for agriculture to provide ecosystem services. A driver is any natural or human-induced factor that directly or indirectly influences the
future of agriculture. Categories of indirect drivers include
changes in demographic, economic, sociopolitical, scientificand technological, cultural and religious and biogeophysical change. Important direct drivers include changes in foodconsumption patterns, natural resource management, land
use change, climate change, energy and labor.
2. A range of recent global assessments provides information on plausible future developments regarding agricultural production systems and their driving
forces; however, no assessment has explicitly focusedon the future role of AKST. Global assessments provided
by, among others, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
the UN Food and Agriculture Organization AT 2015/2030,
and the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Managementin Agriculture have explored plausible future developments
in agriculture. These assessments have made use of different
approaches to address future agricultural changes, and usually are based either on detailed projections or scenario analyses. These approaches do not aim to predict the future—
rather they provide a framework to explore key interlinkages between different drivers and resulting changes. In that
context, one should also realize that assessment is limitedby the ranges of key scenario inputs that are considered. For
instance, while crop prices have increased abruptly over thelast few years (driven by among other an expansion of biofuel production and rapid increases in food demand) thesehave not been considered in most existing assessments yet.
3. Existing assessments expect increases in global
population over the next 50 years (about 2-3 billion
people), ongoing urbanization, and changing life patterns to lead to a strongly increasing demand for foodand pressure on the agricultural system. Increasing income implies changes in diet (from carbohydrates to protein
based, thus the livestock revolution), and in the manner offood preparation. These changes are expected to affect foodconsumption patterns and increase demand for non-homebased preparation of food. Demand for food is also very
likely to be affected by the demographic changes, e.g., theageing population of many developed countries. Urbanization is projected to continue and to lead to a decline in thepercentage of the population depending on agriculture forincome, changes in food systems and additional pressureson arable land.
4. Most existing assessments project that international trade in agricultural commodities will increase andoften predict developing countries as an aggregate
will become net importers. There are many reasons forincreasing agricultural trade, such as increasing demand forchapter 04.indd 256

food, increasing interregional relationships and commodity
specialization—possibly facilitated by trade liberalization.
As a result, increases in agricultural trade are reported in the
majority of existing scenarios, even while many assessments
have used contrasting assumptions with respect to ongoing
globalization for the scenarios that were developed. Globalization and liberalization will affect countries and groups
within countries in different ways. While agricultural trade
among developing countries is likely to increase, as a groupthey may become net importers of agricultural commodities with a possibility of further widening agricultural trade
deficits. Conversely, industrialized countries tend to become net beneficiaries of trade arrangements as they are
expected to face less pressure to reduce their support for
agriculture.
5. Existing assessments highlight the importance of
democratization, decentralization and other sociopolitical developments in shaping agricultural policy
choices. While these factors are hard to quantify, assumptions underlying different scenarios are partly built aroundthem (e.g., increasing international governance). Several
scenarios expect participation of local farmer groups inagricultural policy formulation to increase. Most scenarios
also assume that governance effectiveness is also expected
to increase over time and this can reduce corruption, perceived to be prevalent in developing economies. But improving states’ capacities in governance and effectiveness in policy implementation is a long term process, and impacts arestill uncertain. Key options discussed in these assessments
include building “soft” infrastructure, such as networks, organizations, cooperatives, in order to produce social capitalthat may reduce conflicts at all governance levels; facilitating common-pool agricultural resource management; andenhancing access of farmer groups to markets.
6. Existing assessments project a combination of intensification of agricultural production and expansionof cultivated land to meet increasing demands for food,feed, fiber and fuel. A major uncertainty in the scenarios
presented in these assessments results from the degree ofextensification versus intensification in agricultural production. Roughly 70-80% of the extra production is projected
to stem from intensification. Major expansion of agricultural land is projected to take place in sub-Saharan Africa,
Latin America and East Asia (excluding China). New developments in AKST are expected to focus on increases in
efficiency in the entire food production chain.
7. Existing assessments indicate a major increase inbioenergy production; in the medium term this mightlead to a tradeoff between energy security and foodsecurity, especially for the poor. Several scenarios, inparticular those that emphasize climate policy and energysecurity, indicate that agriculture may become an important producer of bioenergy. They, however, also highlightthat bioenergy production can become a major use of land,possibly increasing, even in the long-term, food prices anddecreasing biodiversity. Bioenergy production based on theconversion of cellulose to fuel ethanol or other hydrocarbons will impact food security and biodiversity less than

11/3/08 10:37:50 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 257

first generation biofuels. Most assessments also expect higher energy prices. These higher prices (and possible changes
in energy subsidies) are likely to encourage the use of moreenergy-efficient technologies in agricultural production as
well as in processing and distributing food.

be easily accessible and applicable to least developing countries. To effectively apply advances in the emerging researchareas to diverse agriculture systems requires knowledge generated in the traditional agricultural disciplines. The effectof the shift in investments on AKST is not fully explored.

8. Existing assessments indicate that while agriculture is a major contributor to global environmental
change—such as land degradation, nutrient pollution,
biodiversity loss, decreasing surface and groundwater availability and climate change—it will also haveto adapt to these changes. Assessments indicate an increased demand for water from the non-agricultural sectors,
which could further exacerbate water limitations alreadyfelt by developing country farmers. Increasing rates of landdegradation in many regions may limit the ability of agriculture systems to provide food security. Business-as-usual scenarios indicate a further increase in the already substantial
negative contribution of agriculture in global environmental
change. However, alternative scenarios highlight that there
are also many opportunities for enhancing the positive roleof agriculture in providing ecosystem services and minimizing its environmental impacts.

4.1 Driving Forces of Agricultural Change

9. Existing assessments expect agriculture to increasingly be affected by global warming and changes inclimate variability. For agriculture, changes in seasonalvariability and extreme events are even more important
than changes in mean temperature and precipitation. Recent studies, such as presented in IPCC’s Fourth Assessment
Report, indicate that negative impacts on agriculture tend
to concentrate in low income regions. In temperate regions
impacts could result in net positive yields. Developments in
AKST will determine the capacity of food systems to respond to the likely climate changes. Agriculture is also asource of greenhouse gas emissions and therefore agriculture can play a significant role in mitigation policies. In order to play this role, new AKST options for reducing net
emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide
need to be developed.
10. Trends observed over the last decade, as describedin existing assessments, show that the share of employment in agriculture is declining and this emerging
trend is expected to continue. The expected increase inurbanization and international labor migration as well as
better working conditions in other sectors will catalyse alabor shift away from agriculture to other sectors. Agricultural labor productivity is expected to increase as a result of
improved mechanisation and developments in AKST thatare responsive to emerging agricultural and food systems.
11. There is a trend in many regions to reduce investment in traditional agricultural disciplines in favor of
emerging research areas such as plant and microbial
molecular biology, information technology and nanotechnology. Investment in AKST is increasingly less driven
by the needs of agriculture per se, but is a spin-off of otherresearch priorities such as human health and security. These
investments mainly occur in industrialized countries andadvanced developing countries and the products may not

chapter 04.indd 257

Changes in agriculture are a result of the developments ofa range of underlying driving forces—both direct and indirect—and their many interactions. Previous chapters havedescribed past agricultural changes in general, and change
in agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST)in particular, in their political, economic, social, cultural,environmental contexts (Global Chapters 1-3). This assessment presents a conceptual framework to structure theanalysis of agriculture and development towards reachingsustainability goals. This framework highlights that agriculture, although a central focus of this assessment, needs to be
seen as part of a larger societal context and is dynamicallylinked to many other human activities. Changes in these
activities can both directly and indirectly drive change in
agriculture (Figure 4-1).
Driving forces or drivers are those factors that directly
or indirectly induce changes in the agricultural system. A
direct driver unequivocally influences agricultural production and services and can therefore be identified and measured with differing degrees of accuracy. An indirect driver
operates more diffusely, often by altering one or more directdrivers, and its influence is established by understanding its
effect on a direct driver. When assessing past developments
and the prospects for future changes in agricultural systems
and the role of AKST, it is crucial to understand the current trends in the driving forces that shape the agricultural
system.
This chapter gives an overview of current literature on
how agriculture and its drivers may change in the future—thus setting the context for looking specifically at how future agricultural development can be influenced by AKST
(Global chapters 5-9). By identifying plausible assumptions
on future changes of drivers of agricultural systems, an ideaof the most prominent challenges that agriculture might faceover the next 50 years emerges, and based on this understanding, key uncertainties can be distilled. Published outlooks, projections and scenario studies are presented here to
give an overview of how some of the most important indirect drivers of agricultural changes are expected to unfold,based on current literature and recent international assessments—the main indirect drivers discussed in this chapterare:
1. Demographic developments, including changes in population size, age and gender structure, and spatial distribution (4.3.1);
2. Economic and international trade developments, including changes in national and per capita income,macroeconomic policies, international trade, and capital flows (4.3.2);
3. Sociopolitical developments, including changes in democratization and international dispute mechanisms(4.3.3);
4. Scientific and technological developments, including

11/3/08 10:37:50 AM

258 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 4-1. The conceptual framework of IAASTD.

56changes in rates of investments in research and development and the rates of adoption of new technologies,
including biotechnologies and information technologies(4.3.4);
Education, cultural and religious developments, including changes in choices individuals make about what andhow much to consume and what they value (4.3.5);
Global environmental change, including nutrient cycling, water availability, biodiversity and soil quality—all of which are affected by global environmental
change (4.3.6).

In addition, a number of direct drivers relevant to agricultural systems are discussed in this chapter and outlooks on
how they might unfold over the coming decades presented,
again based on published literature—the main direct drivers
presented in this chapter are:
1. Changes in food consumption patterns, i.e., consumptions levels of crops and meat products (4.4.1);
2. Land use change, i.e., land availability as a constraint toagriculture (4.4.2);
3. Natural resource management, i.e., the impact of agriculture on natural resources and the constraints ofnatural resource availability and management on agriculture (4.4.3);
4. Climate change, i.e., the impacts of climate change on
agriculture (4.4.4);

chapter 04.indd 258

5. Energy, i.e., the relationship between energy and agriculture and the impact of large-scale bioenergy production (4.4.5);
6. Labor, i.e., the relationship between agriculture and thedemand and supply of labor force (4.4.6).
Looking across the expected developments of the different
individual driving forces presented in this chapter gives afirst idea of how agricultural systems and their role in providing agricultural products and services might unfold overthe coming decades (4.5). The future role of and options for
AKST in agricultural development are explored in detail in
the remainder of this report. To inform this discussion, thischapter concludes by highlighting some of the key uncertainties for future agricultural changes as well as for AKST
as identified in current literature and recent international
assessments (Figure 4-2).

4.2 Recent International Assessments
Recent international assessments provide a wealth of information about expected or plausible future developments—
either by directly providing an outlook on expected developments in agriculture or by discussing possible developments of key driving forces and pressures that shape thefuture of agricultural systems. None of the existing global
assessments, however, has addressed the role of and future

11/3/08 10:37:56 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 259

Figure 4-2. Complexity and uncertainty associated with forwardlooking assessments. Source: Zurek and Henrichs, 2007.

prospects for agricultural science, technology and knowledge (AKST) in much detail. Nevertheless, these assessments
still provide important sources of information for discussing future developments underpinning agriculture and therole of AKST. In general, assessments are helpful in exploring possible development pathways for the most importantdrivers and their interactions. However, assessments arelimited by the ranges of key scenario inputs they consider.
For example, crop production has abruptly increased in thepast few years (driven by demand for biofuels and increasedfood demand) with prices of some crops doubling. These
price increases clearly exceed the range in price projections
in existing assessments. Hence, although assessments arehelpful in assessing interaction forces in terms of directionof change, they need to be treated carefully as they poorly
capture abrupt changes falling outside the range of modeled
scenarios.
Assessments of particular relevance for the IAASTD include a wide range of exercises—some of which focus onagriculture, while others address agricultural development
within the context of other issues. These assessments can beroughly grouped in two categories: Projection-based studies(which commonly set out to present a probable outlook orbest estimate on expected future developments) and exploratory studies (which develop and analyze a range of alternative scenarios to address a broader set of uncertainties)(Box 4-1).
Prominent examples of projection-based assessments ofdirect relevance to IAASTD include the FAO’s World Agriculture 2030 (Bruinsma, 2003) and IFPRI’s World Food
Outlook (Rosegrant et al., 2001). Important examples ofrecent international assessments that explore a wider range
alternative scenarios include the global scenarios discussed
by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005a),
UNEP’s Global Environment Outlooks (UNEP 2002, 2007;
RIVM/UNEP 2004), IPCC’s Scenarios as used in Third andchapter 04.indd 259

Fourth Assessment Reports (IPCC 2001, 2007abc) and theComprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (CA, 2007).
Most of the above mentioned assessments have either
focused on informing sustainable development in general or
addressed crosscutting environmental issues. Only two global
scale assessments ( i.e., IFPRI and FAO) have focused on projecting future agricultural production (yet even these have notaddressed the full spectrum of agrarian systems and AKST
from the perspective of a range of different plausible futures)(Table 4-1). It should be noted that, in addition, a range ofnational or regional projections of agricultural production
and food security exists, but will not be discussed here.
All of the international assessments highlighted above
have identified detailed assumptions about the future developments of key driving forces and reflected on a numberof underlying uncertainties about how the global context
may change over the coming decades. While the numberof uncertainties about plausible or potential future developments is vast, a limited number of key uncertainties seem toreappear in several recent international assessments. This iswell illustrated by looking at a few “archetypical” scenarios(see Raskin, 2005; van Vuuren, 2007). These scenario archetypes not only share the perspective on key uncertainties
about future developments, but as a result also have similarassumptions for different driving forces (Table 4-2, 4-3):
Economic optimism/conventional markets scenarios: i.e.,
scenarios with a strong focus on market dynamics andeconomic optimism, usually associated with rapid technology development. Examples of this type of scenario
include the A1 scenario (IPCC), the Markets First scenario (UNEP) or the Optimistic scenario (IFPRI).
Reformed Market scenarios: i.e., scenarios that have a similar basic philosophy as the first set, but include some
additional policy assumptions aimed at correcting market failures with respect to social development, poverty
alleviation or the environment. Examples of this typeof scenario includes the Policy First scenario (UNEP) or
the Global Orchestration scenario (MA).
Global Sustainable Development scenarios: i.e., scenarioswith a strong orientation towards environmental protection and reducing inequality, based on solutions
found through global cooperation, lifestyle change andmore efficient technologies. Examples of this type of scenario include the B1 scenario (IPCC), the Sustainability
First scenario (UNEP) or the TechnoGarden scenario(MA).
Regional Competition/Regional Markets scenarios; i.e.,
scenarios that assume that regions will focus more on
their more immediate interests and regional identity, often assumed to result in rising tensions among regions
and/or cultures. Examples of this type of scenario include the A2 scenario (IPCC), the Security First scenario(UNEP), the Pessimistic scenario (IFPRI) or the Orderfrom Strength scenario (MA).
Regional Sustainable development scenarios: i.e., scenarios,that focus on finding regional solutions for current environmental and social problems, usually combining
drastic lifestyle changes with decentralization of governance. Examples of this type of scenario include the

11/3/08 10:37:57 AM

260 | IAASTD Global ReportBox 4-1. Assessing the future: Projections and scenarios.
Recent international forward-looking assessments have madeuse of a variety of different approaches to explore key linkages
between driving forces and assess resulting future developments. The type of approaches employed range from forecasts,
to projections, to exploring plausible scenarios. While these approaches differ substantially, they have in common that they set
out to assess possible future dynamics and understand related
uncertainties and complexity in a structured manner (Figure 4-2).
Projection-based studies commonly present one (or evenseveral) probable outlook on future developments, which is often
mainly based on quantitative modelling. Commonly, such projections are based on reducing the level of uncertainty within aforward-looking assessment, either by addressing a limited time
horizon or by focusing only on a subset of components of thesocioeconomic and ecological system. Projections are particularly useful when they are compared against different variants tohighlight expected outcomes of policy assumptions and welldefined options. Projections have also been referred to as futurebaselines, reference scenarios, business-as-usual scenarios, or
best-guess scenarios, which usually hold many existing trends indriving forces constant.
Conversely, forward-looking assessments based on more exploratory approaches aim to widen the scope of discussion about
future developments, or identify emerging issues. These types ofassessments build on the analysis of alternative projections or
scenarios that highlight a range of plausible future developments,
based on quantitative and qualitative information. Such scenarios
have been described as plausible descriptions of how the future
may develop based on a coherent and internally consistent setof assumptions about key driving forces and relationships (MA,2005a). Multiple projections or scenarios are most useful whenstrategic goals are discussed and reflected against a range ofplausible futures, or when aiming to identify and explore emerging
issues.
Determining the forward-looking approach best suited to address a specific issue depends much on the level and type of
uncertainty for which one needs to account. Uncertainties havea range of sources, including the level of understanding of theunderlying causal relationships (i.e., “what is known about driving

B2 scenario (IPCC) or the Adapting Mosaic scenario(MA).
Business-as-usual scenarios: i.e., scenarios that build on
the assumption of a continuation of past trends. Thus
these scenarios are of a somewhat different quality
than the archetypes presented above, as they are notconstructed around key uncertainties. Instead businessas-usual scenarios might be described as projections.
Examples of this type of scenario include the Reference scenario (IFPRI) or the Agriculture Towards 2030
scenario (FAO).

chapter 04.indd 260

forces and their impacts?”), the level of complexity of underpinning system’s dynamics (i.e., “how do driving forces, impacts andtheir respective feedbacks determine future developments?”), thelevel of determinism of future developments (i.e., “to what degree do past trends and the current situation predetermine future
developments?”), the level of uncertainty introduced by the time
horizon (i.e., “how far into the future?”), or even surprises andunpredictable future developments (either because these factors occur randomly or because existing knowledge is not able
to explore them well enough) (for a discussion of different typesof uncertainties and their consequences for methods to explore
the future, see Van Vuuren, 2007). As a consequence, when assessments are faced only with relatively low levels of uncertainty
with regard to future developments, some approaches allow
predicting—or at least—projecting plausible future developmentswith some degree of confidence. Conversely, where the context
of high uncertainty makes predictions or projections meaningless,
exploratory scenario approaches can help explore possible developments.
Whereas different approaches to developing and analyzing
projections and explorative scenarios exist, some common features have emerged in past assessments (see, for example, EEA,
2002). These include:
1. Current state, i.e., a description of the initial situation of therespective system, including an understanding of past developments that lead to the current state;
2. Driving forces, i.e., an understanding of what the main actors
and factors are, and how their choices influence the dynamics
of their system environment;
3. Step-wise changes, i.e., a description of how driving forces
are assumed to develop and interact, and affect the state of asystem along different future time steps;
4. Image(s) of the future, i.e., a description of what a plausible
future may look like as a consequence of assumptions on drivers, choices and their interactions;5. Analysis, by looking across the scenarios to understand theirimplications and implied tradeoffs.

4.3 Indirect Drivers of Agricultural Change
4.3.1 Demographic drivers
4.3.1.1 Driving forces behind population projections
Past and future demographic trends, such as those for fertility levels, mortality levels and migration, are influenced
by varied social, economical, environmental and cultural
factors. The “demographic transition” (Thompson, 1929;
Notestein, 1945) has proved to be a useful concept to describe these trends in terms of several stages of transition.

11/3/08 10:37:58 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 261

Table 4-1. Overview of relevant global scenario studies.
Main focus

Character of assessment

GSG

Sustainable development

Strong focus on storyline, supported by quantitative accounting
system

IPCC-SRES

Greenhouse gas emissions

Modelling supported by simple storylines. Multiple models elaborate
the same storyline to map out uncertainties.

IPCC-TAR andAR4

Climate change, causes and impacts

Assessment of available literature and some calculations on thebasis of IPCC-SRES

UNEP-GEO3/
GEO4

Global environmental change

Storylines and modelling; modelling on the basis of linked models

MA

Changes in ecosystem services

Storylines and modelling; modelling on the basis of linked models

FAO-AT2020

Changes in agriculture

Single projection, mostly based on expert judgement.

IFPRI

Changes in agriculture

Model-based projections

CA

Water and agriculture

Storylines and modelling; modelling on the basis of linked models

Table 4-2. Key assumptions in different scenario “archetypes”.
Economic
optimism

ReformedMarkets

Global SD

Regional
competition

Regional SD

Business as
Usual

Economicdevelopment

very rapid

rapid

ranging fromslow to rapid

slow

ranging from mid
to rapid

medium(globalisation)

Population
growth

low

low

low

high

mediummediumTechnology
development

rapid

rapid

ranging from mid
to rapidslow

ranging fromslow to rapid

mediumMainobjectives

economic
growthvarious goals

globalsustainability

security

local
sustainability

not defined

Environmental
protection

reactive

both reactive
and proactive

proactive

reactive

proactive

both reactive
and proactive

Tradeglobalisation

globalisation

globalisation

trade barriers

trade barriers

weakglobalisation

Policies andinstitutions

policies create
open markets

policies reduce
market failuresstrong global
governancestrong national
governments

local steering;
local actors

mixed

Note: This table summarises key assumptions in very general terms. Where differences within a set of archetypes exist, broad ranges are indicated.

Table 4-3. Recent scenario-based assessments mapped against scenario “archetypes”.
IPCC-SRES
Conventional
Markets

A1

ReformedMarkets

UNEP GEO-3

GSG

Markets First

Conventional
worlds

Policies First

Policy reform

Global SD

B1 (B1-450)

Sustainability First

Regional
Competition

A2

Security First

Regional SD

B2

Business as
Usual

B2

MA

IFPRI

FAO

Optimistic
scenario
GlobalOrchestration
TechnoGarden

Barbarisation

Order from
Strength

Great transitions

Adapting Mosaic

Pesimistic
scenario

Referencescenario

FAO AT2020

Note: Italics are used to indicate that scenarios are not completely consistent with the group in which it is categorised.

chapter 04.indd 261

11/3/08 10:37:59 AM

262 | IAASTD Global Report

This notion is underlying most projections. Stage one refers
to a preindustrial society where both birth and death rates
are high and fluctuate rapidly. In stage two, the death rates
decline rapidly due to better economic, environmental andhealth conditions with increase in life spans and decreasein disease attacks. This stage began in Europe during theAgricultural Revolution of the 18th century. Less developed
countries entered this stage in the second half of the lastcentury. In stage three, birth rates decline and population
moves towards greater stability due to increases in urbanization, female literacy and improvements in contraceptive
measures. During stage four, there are both low birth anddeath rates. In 43 developed countries (accounting for about
19% of the world population) fertility has dropped to well
below the replacement level (two births per woman) leading
to a shrinking population.
International migration is also important factor that
determines the future population size and composition.
However, compared to fertility and mortality, future international migration is more difficult to predict because it isoften influenced by short-term changes in social, economic
and political developments (see also 4.3.3). It is estimatedthat during 2005, about 191 million persons (representing
3% of the world population) were migrants (UN, 2005b).
Of these, 60% reside in the more developed regions, while
the remaining 40% reside in less developed regions. How
these numbers will change is important for future regionaland national demographic developments. Scenario developers have tried to capture international relationships by describing changes in these factors in the storylines (e.g., IPCC,
2000; MA, 2005a), but there has been little feedback into
the demographic assumptions (the MA is an exception).
4.3.1.2 Global population: Current trends and projections
The population projections used in international assessment
mostly originate from two important demographic institutions: the United Nations Population Division (UN, 2004)
and the probabilistic projections from the International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA) (IIASA, 2001;
Lutz et al., 2001, 2004). However, population projections
are also provided by the US Bureau of Census (US Census
Bureau, 2003) and the World Bank (World Bank, 2004b).
The range of the most commonly used projections indicatesan increase of the global population from 6.5 billion today to 6.9 to 11.3 billion in 2050. The range of the latest
UN scenarios spans a range from 7.7-10.6 billion (with 9.3
billion median) for 2050 (Figure 4-3). These numbers are
considerably lower than demographic projections that were
published in the past. The most important reason for thisis that fertility trends have been revised downwards in response to recent trends. This implies that the realization ofthese projections is contingent upon ensuring that couples
have access to family planning measures and that efforts toarrest the current spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemic are successful in reducing its growth momentum.
Different global assessments have used different population projections (Table 4-4). The Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), the Global Environment Outlook
and the Millennium Assessment Working Group each usedscenarios that covered a wide range of possible outcomes(all within the IIASA 95% probability interval). A compari-chapter 04.indd 262

Figure 4-3. Projected global population (present-2050) according
to different scenarios.

son of these scenarios with the most recent projections forthe world shows a downward revision to the medium projections. This implies that older assessments (e.g., the IPCC
SRES scenarios) tend to have higher population projections
than more recent assessments (the higher population projections of the IPCC-SRES are by now less plausible but not impossible). Among the total set of demographic projections,
the Millennium Ecosystem scenarios are most advanced as
it used explicit storyline elements to specify trends in total
population numbers and also to specify the assumptions forunderlying dynamics.
All scenarios indicate that the global population ismainly driven by population increases in less developed regions. In the UN medium scenario by 2050, the populationof most developed regions declines by about 1.2 million peryear while, in less developed regions, there is an increase of
35 million per year and the least developed countries experience an increase of about 22 million per year. As this trend isbasically repeated in all other scenarios, one concludes thatleast developed countries will be the primary contributors
to the increase in population; this situation may aggravate
poverty.
Less information is generally found on internationalmigration. Looking at the UN medium scenario, during the
2005-2050 period, the net number of international migrants
from less to more developed regions is projected to be 98 million (UN, 2005b) at the rate of 2.2 million per annum. This
migration rate is likely to have substantial changes on the age
structure, size and composition of the population of the receiving nations and lead to populations of mixed origin. In the
MA scenarios, the migration assumptions at the global level
have been coupled to storylines, with high migration rates
in scenarios assuming further globalization and lower rates inscenarios assuming stronger regional emphasis.
4.3.1.2 Urbanization and ageing of world population
Most assessments do not specify the extent of urbanization;
however, the underlying UN scenarios provide information.
In the UN medium projection, the world’s urban population reached 3.2 billion persons in 2005 and is expected

11/3/08 10:38:00 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 263

Table 4-4. Population projections in different assessments.
Projections
IPCC-SRES

4 scenarios ranging from 8.7-11.4
billion people in 2050

MA

4 scenarios ranging from 8.1-9.6
billion people in 2050

FAO, 2001

UN medium variant

IFPRI

UN medium, high, and low variants,
different UN projections

GEO4

4 scenarios, 8.0-9.5 billion people
in 2050

OECD outlook

1 scenario; UN-medium (9.1 billion)

to rise to 5 billion persons by 2030 (UN, 2005a). At thesame time, the rural population of the world is expected
to decline slightly from 3.3 billion in 2005 to 3.2 billion in
2030. The share of urban population of the world, which
was nearly 30% in 1950, is expected to reach more than
60% in 2030. The most changes are likely to happen indeveloping regions. The share of urban population in 2030
is expected to increase gradually to about 82% in developed countries, but increases from only 40% to 57% in lessdeveloped regions (UN, 2005b). As urbanization advances,
this will have important consequences for agricultural systems; foremost will be feeding urban dwellers according totheir changing diets (4.4.1) while also providing sufficient
access to other resources such as clean water and other basic
services. Urbanization can also increase pressure on cropareas as expansion of cities and industrial areas often occurs
on good agricultural land. Finally, urbanization is likely toaffect access to labor (see 4.4.6).
An important dominant demographic trend is the aging of population. During the 20th century, the proportionof older persons (60 years or above) continued to rise; thistrend is expected to continue well into this century. For example, proportion of older persons was 8% in 1950, 10%
in 2005 and is projected to reach about 22% by the middleof the current century (UN medium scenario). This implies
that by 2050, the world is expected to have some 2 billion
older persons; a tripling of the number in that age groupwithin a span of 50 years. These trends in the UN medium
scenarios are similar to those in other scenarios. The pace of
population aging is much faster in the developing countries
than in the developed ones. Hence, developing countries will
have less time to adjust to the adverse impacts of aging.
Moreover, population aging in developing countries is taking place at much lower level of socioeconomic development
than that which has occurred in industrialized countries.
Trends in life expectancy are projected to continue inall scenarios. Using the UN medium scenario as an example: global average life expectancy (47 years in 1950-55)
increased to to 65 years in 2000-2005 and is projected toincrease to 75 years by mid-century. The UN projections assume that life expectancy may not increase beyond 85 years;
some demographers believe this age represents an intrinsic
limit to the human life span. Another important demo-

chapter 04.indd 263

graphic trend is the decline in mortality in most countries,(including infant and under 5 years old mortality), becauseof better public hygiene and education, improved nutrition
and advances in medical science (Lee, 2003). However, themortality rate has increased in countries with deterioratingsocial and economic conditions and in those affected by
HIV/AIDS epidemic.
4.3.1.4 Demographic change and its impact on agriculture
Although population projections have slowed from past estimates, a large absolute increase in population raises serious
concerns about the capability of the agricultural production
and associated natural resource base (Pimentel and Wilson, 2004). A key question is whether agriculture can feed
the expanding global population in the ensuing decades. A
key issue involves the effects of increased urbanization ontransport of agricultural products into urban areas, with associated development of infrastructure and markets. Directconsequences include a more distant relationship between
consumer and producer and an increasingly important role
for actors involved in food distribution and markets (e.g.,supermarkets).
4.3.2 Economics and international trade
4.3.2.1 Future trends and scenarios of economic growth
and the agricultural economy
Economic change is a primary driver for future agricultural systems. The most employed indicator for economicchange, GDP per capita, is used as a driver in most scenario
studies.
Historically, GDP has grown substantially. Between 1950
and 2000 world GDP grew by 3.85% annually resulting in a
per capita income growth rate of 2.09% (Maddison, 2003).
Global GDP growth decelerated over time from 2.1% peryear in the 1970s, to 1.3% per year in the 1980s, and to 1.0%
annually in the 1990s (Nayyar, 2006), but this may havebeen a consequence of particular events such as the transition process in countries of the Former Soviet Union. Projections of future economic growth vary considerably. In manyenvironmental assessments, GDP projections are not an
outcome—but an assumption (e.g., in SRES, GEO and theMA). All studies expect economic growth to continue. The
World Bank short-term outlook, for instance, uses values
that are comparable to historic rates (around 2%). The
four scenarios in SRES show a wide range of global annual
economic growth rates from 1 to 3.1% (van Vuuren andO’Neill, 2006) (Figure 4-4 and 4-5). Many other studies use
a somewhat smaller range.
All assumptions are that growth in industrialized countries will be slower than those in developing economies(Table 4-5). Among the developing regions, Asia, particularly East Asia will continue to have higher growth rates.
Different outlooks exist with respect to sub-Saharan Africa.
Most recent assessments assume that institutional barriers
will result in slower (though positive) economic growth thanin other developing regions. Other current work (OECD,
2006a), however, projects Africa to grow faster than Latin
America, and slowing growth to 2030, except for MENA
and sub-Saharan Africa. For the Asia region, alternative percapita income growth projections (GDP per capita) for the

11/3/08 10:38:01 AM

264 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 4-4. Comparison of global GDP growth in the SRES scenarios and more recent projections.
Source: see note.
Note: SRES = Nakicenovic et al., 2000 using Scenarios A1, B1, B2, and A2; WB = WorldBank, 2004b; DoE = US.DoE,
2004; IEA = IEA, 2002, 2004.

Figure 4-5. Comparison of regional GDP annual average growth rates between 2000-2015 in the
SRES scenarios and more recent studies. Source: See note.
Note: WB = World Bank, 2004b; DoE = USDoE, 2004; IEA = IEA, 2002, 2004. Hist = Historic data from World
Bank, 2003.
The horizontal lines in the figure indicate the range of growth rates set out by the SRES marker scenarios. The
vertical lines showing uncertainty bars for the SRES scenarios indicate the range of different outcomes of SRES
scenarios within the same family (while the bars indicate the growth rates of the Marker scenarios). The historicalrate represents the 1990-2000 period.

chapter 04.indd 264

11/3/08 10:38:13 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 265

four SRES scenarios, the four Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Scenarios, and the four GEO-3 scenarios (Westhoek et al., 2005) also show lower growth projections forthe period 2025-2050 compared to 2000-2025.
4.3.2.2 Implications of income growth for agriculture
Changes in per capita income growth do affect the mix of
economic activities, and this affects agriculture in a significant way, with important implications for access to labor.
Along with economic development, demand for food quantity in countries initially increases and then stabilizes; foodexpenditures become more diverse (see also 4.4.1). At thesame time, the demand for nonagricultural goods and services increases more than proportionally. A general tendency observed in the past (and assumed in most assessments) isthat the economy responds to this trend by shifting resources out of agriculture; and the share of agricultural output
in total economic activity declines (Figure 4-6). While highincome countries typically produce more output per hectare
as a result of higher inputs, industrial and service output
grows much faster so the relative contribution of agriculture
declines. Technological change further replaces most of thelabor force in agriculture. In this context, it is important tonote that many factors discussed in elsewhere in this chapter
are closely related. For instance, demographic factors (graying of the population, labor supply) (4.3.1) may have important implications for growth projections. Similarly, developments in energy supply in the coming decades (e.g., oil
scarcity) could have important consequences for economic
projections. High economic growth rates are likely to havean upward pressure on energy prices and, in turn, might
increase the demand for alternative fuels such as bioenergy.
4.3.2.3. International trade and agriculture
Increasing trade patterns in the future. Trade is as animportant distinguishing factor for scenarios in several assessments: the MA, GEO and SRES have scenarios with andwithout trade liberalization. Nevertheless, in terms of actual

trade flows the scenarios all show an increasing trade, evenin scenarios without trade liberalization (Bruinsma, 2003;
MA, 2005a). An important reason for this increase is that
population growth and the development of agricultural production is expected to occur unevenly. The largest increase is
expected for total trade in grain and livestock products (seealso Table 4-6). Some region specific patterns are expected
also, e.g., the OECD region is likely to respond to increasing cereal demands in Asia and MENA. The very rapid yield
and area increases projected in sub-Saharan Africa could
turn the region from net cereal importer at present to net
grain exporter by 2050. Net trade in meat products increases 674%. Net exports will increase in Latin America, by
23000 Gg, while the OECD region and Asia are projected toincrease net imports by 15000 and 10000 Gg, respectively(MA, 2005a). Asian demand for primary commodities, suchas natural rubber and soybean, is likely to remain strong,boosting the earnings of the exporters of these products.
China will become the world’s largest importer of agricultural commodities in terms of value by 2020, with imports
increasing from US$5 billion in 1997 to US$22 billion in2020 (UNCTAD, 2005).
At a more aggregated scale important trends can benoted (see Rosegrant et al., 2001). The overall trade surplus
in agricultural commodities for developing countries may
dissappear completely and by 2030 they could, as a group,
become net importers of agricultural commodities, especially of temperate zone commodities (FAO, 2003). At thesame time, the agricultural trade deficit of the group of least
developed countries could quadruple by 2030 primarily due
to the fact that industrialized countries tend to be the major
beneficiaries of trade arrangements (FAO, 2006b). Many
countries have faced much less pressure to reduce support
for their agricultural sector primarily due to the fact thatcommitments to liberalize were based on historically highlevels of support and protection. The future of this driver
hinges on the outcomes of the Doha Round of trade talks
about agricultural support and market access. Export subsi-

Table 4-5. Per capita income growth projections, per year various assessment results.
RegionHistoric

MA

1971-2000

FAO

OECD

1995-2020

2020-2050

2000-2030

2030-2050

2010-2020

2020-2030

Former Soviet
Union

0.4

2.24-3.5

2.64-4.91

4.5

4.3

3.7

3.4

Latin America

1.2

1.78-2.8

2.29-4.28

2.3

3.1

2.9

2.8

Middle East/
North Africa

0.7

1.51-1.96

1.75-3.42

2.4

3.1

3.6

3.9

OECD

2.1

2-2.45

1.31-1.93

2.2

2.4

2.2

2.0

Asia

5

3.22-5.06

2.43-5.28

5

4.95

4.76

4.1

Sub-SaharanAfrica-0.4

1.02-1.69

2.12-3.97

1.6

2.8

4.2

4.4

World

1.4

1.39-2.38

1.04-3

2.1

2.7

2.7

2.5

Source: MA, 2005; FAO, 2006b; OECD, 2006a.

chapter 04.indd 265

11/3/08 10:38:13 AM

266 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 4-6. Sectoral distribution (1820-1992) for selected countries. Source: MA, 2005a.

dies remain substantial with EU accounting for bulk of directexport subsidies (FAO, 2006b). Removal of price support andother subsidies to 2030 could result in moderately increasing
international prices, while prices would fall substantially incountries with high levels of protection (FAO, 2006b).
The impact of trade on developing countries is very
controversial. Most of the conclusions that imply developing countries stand to lose in future trade arrangements
are premised on the fact that developing countries will still
be dependent on industrialized countries for trade. There isextensive evidence of emerging South-South trade relations(UNCTAD, 2005). These relations could imply that even if
industrialized countries form a substantial component of demand for exports from developing countries, the limited outlook for growth of industrialized countries puts them behindthe emerging strong demand of Asian countries, particularly
China and India. Developing countries that export non-oil
primary commodities benefit from increased demand and rising prices for their exports despite low commodity prices.
Terms of trade have significant impacts on affordabilityof food imports and food security for countries with a large
share of agricultural trade. Many of the lesser developed
countries have faced deteriorating terms of trade since the1980s. Agricultural terms of trade fell by half from a peak in1986 to a low in 2001 (Figure 4-7). Because many of thesecountries depend on commodity exports to finance food imports, a decline in terms of trade for agriculture threatens
food security (FAO, 2004b). The region that has suffered
most from declining terms of trade is sub-Saharan Africa.
Since the 1970s, the deterioration of agriculture terms oftrade in that region has led to a substantial reduction in
the purchasing power of commodity exports. In addition
to declining terms of trade, fluctuations and trends in prices
negatively affected African agriculture. The declining andchapter 04.indd 266

fluctuating export prices and increasing import prices compound socioeconomic difficulties in the region, as well as agricultural patterns (Alemayehu, 2000). Short-term outlooks
such as those from the World Bank project this situation topersist (e.g., UNCTAD, 2005).
A number of model results recently reviewed (Beierle
and Diaz-Bonilla, 2003) whether trade liberalization (in theform of reduced protection and export subsidies and lowered import restrictions) would benefit small-scale farmers
and others in poverty in developing countries. Several key
findings from their review and other assessments are:• Most models demonstrate negative impacts of current
industrialized country (OECD) trade protection policies but positive impacts from developed country liberalization on developing country welfare, agricultural
production and incomes, and food security.
• Impacts vary by country, commodity, and sector, andfor regions within countries.
• OECD market access restrictions harm developing
countries, although effects of production and incomesupport subsidies are more ambiguous.
• Developing countries tend to gain more from liberalization of their own policies than from reforms by theOECD. Consumers in developing countries benefit
widely from these reforms.
• Model results differ on the basis of assumptions such as
the scope of commodity coverage, mobility of resourcesamong alternative crops and between farm and nonfarm employment, availability of underutilized labor,
and static versus dynamic analysis.
• Multilateral liberalization reduces the benefits derived
from preferential trade agreements, but these losses are
relatively small compared to the overall gains from thebroader reforms.

11/3/08 10:38:14 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 267

Figure 4-7. Income terms of trade for agriculture. Source: FAO, 2004b.

Most models have not had sufficient resolution to analyze the impacts of reforms on small-scale and subsistence farmers, and other poor households (Gulati andNarayanan, 2002; Tokarick, 2002; Beierle and DiazBonilla, 2003; Hertel and Winters, 2005).

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is an important sourceof capital flows for development. FDI for agriculture is generally lower than that of other sectors. In countries suchas Vietnam, FDI in agriculture and rural areas is declining
similar to other regions; IBRD/IDA commitments to the agricultural sector are also declining (Binh, 2004).

4.3.2.4 Agricultural investments
The investment requirements to achieve projected scenarios
are seldom computed. Based on an assessment of five key
drivers for agricultural development (agricultural research,irrigation, rural roads, education, and clean water) investment requirements to generate modest levels of agricultural
production growth have been estimated at US$579 billion
during 1997-2020 (Rosegrant et al., 2001) (Table 4-7). According to this study, levels of investment required will varyfrom region to region, e.g., South Asia and Latin America
would require the highest levels. Sub-Saharan Africa’s investment requirements would total US$107 billion during
1997-2020 and would represent 19% of 1997 government
spending on an annual basis. At the sector level, irrigation
would account for 30% of the total investments, public agricultural research and rural roads for another 21% each,with educations’ share the lowest at 13 percent.

4.3.2.5 Implications for AKST
Projected income growth is likely to lead to shifts in fooddemand patterns, e.g., from cereals to meat consumption(see 4.4.1). It can be hypothesized that with this shift, sustainable technologies for intensive livestock production,and policy safeguards for meat safety ( i.e., meat inspection
services), and environmental regulation will be needed.
Higher incomes will also mean more expensive farm labor; this can be addressed through increased mechanization,and clustering of small farms, whenever applicable, for more
efficient management (assuming sufficient access to capital
and/or demand for labour in other economic sectors). Due
to higher opportunity costs of time, supermarkets will be in highdemand. In addition, food quality assurance will need to be met
through certification, labeling, and appropriate packaging. These
conditions are currently deficient in most developing countries.

•

Table 4-7. Investment in food security under the baseline scenario, 1997-2020.
Region/Country

Irrigation

Rural Roads

Education

National
Agricultural
Research

Clean
Water

Total
Investments

Billions of US Dollars
Latin America

44.8West Asia/North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
South Asia

36.7

12.1

9.8

37

17.9

7.3

28.1

37.9

61.3

140.4

21.5

8.5

25.3

80.5

15.7

17.3

8

106.9

27.4

14.5

27

18

148.2

India

42.5

23.5

10.5

18.4

15.6

110.5

Southeast Asia

18.6

3.9

6.8

9.4

14.1

52.6

China

3.2

6.8

2.4

14.4

14.6

41.4

174.6

120.3

75.9

86.5

121.7

578.9

Developing countries

Source: IFPRI IMPACT Projections, June, 2001.

chapter 04.indd 267

11/3/08 10:38:15 AM

268 | IAASTD Global Report

With increased trade liberalization, developing countries would need science based regulatory frameworks for
sanitary and phytosanitary issues and institutional market
infrastructures to strengthen market information systems,
including grades and standards. Human and organizational
capacity to effectively implement the international standards
will also need to be developed.
The projected decrease in FDI would create a need formore domestic investment in agriculture. Developing country decision makers will need tools to help in agricultural
strategic planning and budget prioritization.
4.3.3 Sociopolitical drivers of alternative futures inagriculture and AKST
4.3.3.1 Types of sociopolitical drivers
The direct and the indirect drivers of AKST (Figure 4-1)
are influenced by public policies, which are the outcome ofpolitical processes. Therefore, the sociopolitical factors that
influence public policy making and the implementation of
public policies are important drivers of alternative futures in
AKST. These factors include (1) the political system (type ofpolitical regime, political culture, ideology, political stability); (2) public administration and its effectiveness in policy
implementation; (3) the structure of society (social stratification, social values, ethnicity; social conflicts); and (4) extent
of regional and global collaboration. For an assessment ofalternative scenarios for the future of agriculture and AKST,
it is necessary to assess major trends of change in politicaland administrative systems and in society, and to evaluate
how these changes will influence the choice of public policies and sociopolitical events. For obvious reasons, the possibilities to project sociopolitical change are more limited
than the possibilities to project trends in other drivers suchas, for example, demography.
4.3.3.2 Change in political systems and public policy choices
Major political trends after World War II were an increasein authoritarian regimes (autocracies) until the early 1970s,
followed by a rapid decline (see Figure 4-8). Accordingly,
the number of democracies has increased rapidly since theearly 1970s. The number of “anocratic” states, intermediate states where elites maintain power despite the existenceof democratic procedures, has increased, too. A conventional thought is that these trends continue into the future(this underlies a large number of long-term scenarios including, for instance, most reference scenarios—but also 3
out of 4 scenarios in the Millennium Ecosystem assessment(Global Orchestration, Technogarden and Adapting Mosaic)). There has also been a trend towards increasing citizen
participation in the formulation of development strategies.
Sectoral policy documents such as agricultural sector strategies are increasingly developed with broad stakeholder
consultation. Another important trend in political systems
throughout the developing world is democratic decentralization, i.e., the transfer of political authority to lower levelsof government.
How do these trends of democratization, decentralization and participatory policy making influence the choice of
public policies? The relationship between democracy andeconomic development is complex (Bardhan, 1999), but

chapter 04.indd 268

Figure 4-8. Global regimes by type (1946-2006). Source: Based on
Marshal, 2006.

changes in political systems that allow citizens to participate
more broadly in political decision making will reduce “urban bias” (Lipton, 1977) and increase the attention given
to agriculture, because this sector employs a large part ofthe population in developing countries. However, there isno empirical evidence of such an effect (see Fan and Rao,2003). In democratic political regimes, agricultural interest
groups are often able to exercise political pressure to obtain
subsidies and protection, which typically benefit larger-scale
more than small-scale farmers, whereas it is more challenging
to create political pressure for investments in public goods,
such as agricultural research (cf. Lopez, 2005). The influenceof political regime type on other agricultural policies, suchas access to land, agroenvironmental policies, and regulation
against unfair competition, is not straightforward.
While the evidence on the link between political regime
type and general agricultural policies is inconclusive, evidence suggests that democratization will lead to a stronger
focus on food security. None of the great famines occurredin a democracy (Sen, 1981). Moreover, famines can be
avoided by fairly elementary government actions, because
they are rarely caused by absolute shortages in food supply(Sen, 1981). Subsequent work showed that the freedom ofpress does, in fact, play an important role in avoiding foodcrises and famines (cf. Sen and Drèze, 1989). In this light,
an increase in number of democracies appears to imply that
increased accountability would lead to less food crises.
For authoritarian regimes, political ideology, development orientation and the time horizon of the regime influence the commitment to agriculture and the choice ofagricultural policies. Indonesia (under Suharto) and China
are examples of authoritarian regimes that invested heavily
in agriculture and rural development, though with limited
recognition of the need for environmental sustainability. In
Africa, there is evidence that military leadership has had anegative influence on public spending for agriculture (Palaniswamy and Birner, 2006). The trend towards democratization and citizen participation in policy making, which
is projected to continue, has ambiguous implications withregard to alternative future scenarios for agricultural and11/3/08 10:38:17 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 269

food systems and AKST. Hence, it will be necessary to workwith different assumptions when formulating scenarios.
For Asia, the political commitment to the agricultural
sector is projected to continue as indicated by a relatively
high budget share to this sector. In Africa, one can also observe an increased emphasis on agriculture; e.g., one indication is the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, led by
the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi
Annan. African Heads of State, in their Maputo Declaration, made a commitment to allocate at least 10% of theirnational budgetary resources to agricultural development(African Union, 2003). This goal is also supported by theComprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program(CAADP), which is high on the agenda of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). However, it still
remains to be seen whether these commitments will indeed
translate into increased investment on agriculture in Africa. In formulating scenarios, one also has to take into account regional and global trade agreements, which limit the
choices that countries can make regarding their agricultural
policies (see 4.2.1).
4.3.3.3 State capacity for policy implementation
To assess the impact of public policies on the developmentof AKST, it is necessary to consider government effectiveness, e.g., the quality of the bureaucracy, the competence
and independence of the civil service, and the credibility of
the government’s commitment to its policies. Control of corruption is also important for the effective implementation ofagricultural policies, especially in agricultural infrastructure
provision, such as irrigation. Since agricultural development depends on the ability of the state to overcome market
failures, which are prevalent especially in early phases ofagricultural development (Dorward et al., 2004), changes
in state capacity are an important sociopolitical driver. Governance problems tend to be greater in low-income countries; they are particularly prevalent in the Central African
region, in spite of some recent improvements (Kaufmann etal., 2006). The state capacity for policy implementation canbe improved by governance reforms, including public sector
management reforms, the use of e-government, outsourcing
and public-private partnerships, all of which are importantin the agricultural sector. Improving state capacity is a longterm process, however, lasting often for several decades before a real impact can be achieved (Levi, 2004). Hence, forshort- and medium-term scenarios, it will be useful to take
into account the current variation in state capacity, as measured by governance indicator data sets (Kaufmann et al.,2006).
4.3.3.4 Social factors that shape the future of agriculture
The social factors that shape the future of agriculture include conflicts, changes in social values and social structure(related to social stratification, gender roles and ethnicity).
In view of the complexity and country specificity of social
factors, it is difficult to identify general global trends thatcan be used to formulate scenarios. There are, however,some projections on global trends; e.g., economic development gives rise to cultural changes that make individual autonomy, gender equality and democracy increasingly likely(Inglehart and Welzel, 2005).

chapter 04.indd 269

These findings correspond to the “End of History.” In
this view, liberal democracy and Western values comprisethe only alternative for nations in the post-Cold War world(Fukuyama, 1993). This view forms the basis of several scenarios in global assessments such as the A1b scenario in
IPCC’s SRES scenarios and (to some degree) the Global Orchestration scenario (MA). This view has been challenged by
the controversial “Clash of Civilizations” theory (Huntington, 1996); i.e., that people’s cultural and religious identity
rather than political ideologies or economic factors will be
the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world,
especially between Islamic and non-Islamic civilizations.
Again, this view forms the basis of several scenarios (A2 in
IPCC SRES; Order from Strength in MA). It should be noted,
however, there is no evidence for an increase in the frequency
of intercivilizational conflicts in the post-Cold War period (e.g.,
Tusicisny, 2004). With regard to agricultural development, internal conflicts and civil wars matter as much, or even more,than international conflicts. The number of wars reacheda peak of 187 in the mid-1980s, but was reduced by half in2000 (Marshall et al., 2003). Most of these wars were internal
conflicts, and most of them occurred in poor countries.
Instability can be defined as the incidence of revolutionary and ethnic wars, adverse regime changes, genocides orpoliticides (government targeting of specific communal orpolitical groups for destruction) (Goldstone et al., 2005).
The percentage of countries experiencing periods of instability reached a peak of almost 30% in the early 1990s (Figure4-9). A predictive model with four variables (regime type,infant mortality, a “bad neighborhood” indicator—four ormore bordering states in armed civil or ethnic conflict—andthe presence or absence of state-led discrimination) showedthat ethnically factionalized nascent democracies, without
fully open access to political office and without institutionalized political competition, are particularly prone to wars
and conflicts, even with favorable economic conditions(Goldstone et al., 2005).
The implications of wars and armed conflicts for agricultural development are far-reaching: crop and livestock production are reduced or abandoned due to insecurity, lack of labor,
environmental degradation and destruction of infrastructure.
Wars and conflicts may affect AKST in different ways, for example, by reducing the availability of public funds for agricultural research and extension, and by a loss of local knowledge
due to displacement of agricultural producers.
Another important social factor shaping the future of
agriculture is the capacity of communities and societies tocooperate, also referred to as social capital (see, e.g., Putnam, 1993). In agriculture, especially in small-scale agriculture, producer organizations play an important role inaddressing market failures while avoiding government failures. They provide political voice to agricultural producers,
help them to hold government organizations accountable,
and engage in the provision of agricultural services. Theirrole has been increasing in recent years due to investmentsin their capacity and conducive factors such as democratization (Rondot and Collion, 2001).
4.3.3.5 Regional and global collaboration
The future of AKST will also depend on the developmentof regional and global political organizations; e.g., regional

11/3/08 10:38:17 AM

270 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 4-9. Incidence and prevalence of political instability
worldwide, 1955-2006. Source: Update of Goldstone et al., 2005.

organizations, such as NEPAD or ECOWAS (Economic
Community of West African States) play an increasing rolein shaping agricultural policies. Global organizations suchas the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), the World Organization for Animal Health, and theConsultative Group on International Agricultural Research(CGIAR) are important players in AKST, as are treaties,e.g., the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources,
and issue-specific global networks, such as the Global Fundfor Control of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza. Thus,
the ability of the international community to cooperate toprovide global public goods for agriculture is an importantsociopolitical driver.
4.3.3.6 Sociopolitical factors in existing assessments
Predictive models are available and can be used for formulating future scenarios. Thus far, sociopolitical drivers havebeen included in assessments as scenario storylines. The
IPCC SRES report used the degree of globalization versus
regionalization as an important distinction between scenarios. The other axis is the extent to which a scenario focuseson social and environmental objectives versus economic objectives. This basic idea (that relates to several of the factors
discussed above) has been further specified in many otherscenario studies (MA, 2005a; Westhoek et al., 2005).
4.3.4 Science and technology
Scientific breakthroughs and technological innovationsin the last century fueled substantial gains in agricultural
productivity in many countries (see FAO statistics). These
innovations not only helped meet the world’s gross foodand fiber needs but, along with new transport and storage
technologies, transformed much of northern agriculture
from subsistence to commercial market-oriented farming,
thus offering more opportunities for participation in global
markets. Technology is considered a core driver of futurechanges, affecting economic growth, social and environmental change and agriculture productivity.

chapter 04.indd 270

4.3.4.1 Previous Assessments
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,
2000) discusses in detail the approaches and problems encountered in predicting the impact of science and technology on global change. The IPCC identifies five commonalities in the innovation process (Box 4-2). Although the IPCC
is particularly concerned with how the innovation process
may affect the energy sector, these five commonalities could
reasonably be applied to the agricultural sector.
There is widespread agreement that the innovation
process is complex and difficult to predict. There is still noagreement on what assumptions to make regarding (1) how
government and investment in industrial research and development (R&D) will impact the innovation process, (2)the motivation of producers of new technologies and (3)the role of consumers. Therefore, models and assessments
mostly describe technology change in much more aggregatedparameters such as exogenously assumed yield changes orlearning-by-doing functions (e.g., for production costs ofenergy technologies). Different assumptions concerningthese technology parameters have been used as importantdrivers to contrast the IPCC-SRES scenarios, i.e., technology change was assumed to be lower in scenarios with lessglobalization (resulting in lower yield improvement and lessrapid economic growth). IPCC-SRES scenarios have also
been built around the direction of technology change (IPCC,
2000).
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005a)
recognizes science and technology as a major driver ofchange in ecosystems and their services. The MA identified
three key concerns regarding technological trends. First, theinstitutions needed to foster the research and development
process are not yet well established in much of the developing world. Secondly, the rate of spread of new technologies
may be outpacing the time frame required to identify andaddress their negative consequences. Lastly, technologies
can produce unexpected consequences that might lead to
disruptions of ecosystems affecting large numbers of people. Like in the IPCC-SRES scenarios, the rate of technology change was used to contrast the different MA scenarios(Figure 4-10).

Box 4-2. Five commonalities in the innovation
process.
1. The process is fundamentally uncertain: outcomes cannot
be predicted.
2. Innovation draws on underlying scientific or other knowledge.
3. Some kind of search or experimentation process is usually
involved.
4. Many innovations depend on the exploitation of “tacitknowledge” obtained through “learning by doing” or experience.
5. Technological change is a cumulative process and depends on the history of the individual or organization involved.

11/3/08 10:38:19 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 271

Figure 4-10. Global trends of technological efficiencies in MA
scenarios. Source: Alcamo et al., 2005.
Note: Technological efficiency refers, for example, to the conversion
efficiency of power plants, or the yield of all crops per hectare.

The Global Environment Outlook report (GEO 3)(UNEP, 2002), focused on the distribution of benefits andcosts of technological developments in the future. To theextent that technological innovation is increasingly undertaken by the private sector and driven by profit, benefits areseen as primarily accruing to those who are most powerfulin the marketplace. The assessment suggests that cautious
government policies and empowerment of consumers may
act as disincentives to technological innovation by the private sector. However, such an approach may also result in
more equitable distribution of benefits. The quantitative assumptions resemble those of the IPCC-SRES scenarios.
4.3.4.2 Important trends for the future
Trends in investment. Although the innovation process iscomplex, investment in research and development is central. Typically, the ratio of R&D expenditures to GDP is anindicator of the intensity of R&D activities over time and in
relation to other economies. OECD nations typically spend

2.26% of their GDP in overall R&D while Nicaragua canafford to spend only 0.07%.
While there is an increase in absolute R&D expendituresin agriculture, there is a concern that investment in agricultural R&D is declining in North America, Western Europe
and East Asia relative to overall spending on research. While
existing scenarios are not explicit on agricultural R&D
trends, a plausible trend could be a further increase in absolute numbers but a decreasing ratio compared to overall
GDP leading to concerns about the ability to use AKST asa response to challenges. However, several trends in R&D
investment could mitigate these concerns. First, there appears to be a trend toward increasing globalization of R&D,
driven by multinational corporations seeking to take advantage of knowledge of local and regional markets, technicalexpertise, fewer restrictions on intellectual property, andlower costs for R&D in non-OECD countries. Secondly,
many countries with large public sector R&D investments
continue to promote international linkages, and this emphasis is likely to become more significant as globalization
continues (OECD, 2006b). Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, China, with a very large, poor, rural population,
now ranks second in R&D expenditures (Figure 4-11). It is
plausible that China will shortly become the major center
for agricultural research, particularly research relevant topoor rural areas. (A more detailed discussion of investment
in agricultural R&D is presented in chapter 8.)
Trends in performing sector. In the last century, key innovators were national agricultural research systems, including universities, agricultural field stations, agricultural input
companies, and extension services (Ruttan, 2001). Two international organizations, CIMMYT in Mexico and IRRI
in the Philippines, contributed significantly to the advancement of the Green Revolution, and were mainly fundedby the public sector in the first half of the last century. In
contrast, in the United States, the private sector has always
played a central role in the development of agriculturalequipment and the performance of agricultural researchand development. Private-sector research grew substantiallyin the last decades of the 20th century as legal rights were

Figure 4-11. Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (billion $). Source: OECD, 2006b.

chapter 04.indd 271

11/3/08 10:38:23 AMF
4-11

272 | IAASTD Global Reportobtained for genetic modifications (Huffman and Evenson, 1993). Given these trends, it is safe to conclude thatthe future of biotechnology as applied to agriculture will
likely be driven by demands for specific traits to enhance
production and add value. Value added output traits with
consumer-oriented benefits, such as improved nutritionaland other health-related characteristics, will attract the support of the private sector because these traits will turn many
agricultural commodities into premium priced and quasispecialty products (Shimoda, 1998). Again, while existing
scenarios do not explicitly relate to these issues, new scenario development focusing on the agricultural sector could
provide a richer assessment basis with the inclusion ofthese trends.
Internationally competitive biotechnology research anddevelopment systems are expected to emerge, accelerating
the pace of biotechnology research. Although the investment in biotechnology is on the rise in various countries,
there are scientific, political and economic uncertainties associated with it. Due to potential environmental and healthrisks associated with GM products, the EU has imposed
stringent regulatory measures on foods containing or produced from GMOs (Meijer and Stewart, 2004). On the other
hand, the production and consumption of GMOs has been
widespread in other countries, such as the US and Canada.
The future of agriculture will depend on how the debate on
GMOs unfolds. A directly related factor, which is importantfor future GMO use as well, are societal choices with respect
to high-input agriculture in general (Giampietro, 2007).
Another noticeable trend that could influence future agricultural development is the increase in unregulated tradein agricultural inputs and outputs in many countries (see4.3.2). This process has created a new set of incentives forinvestment in private research and has altered the structureof the public/private agricultural research endeavor, particularly with respect to crop improvement (Falcon and Fowler,
2002; Pingali and Traxler, 2002).
Finally, since the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg in 2002, more researchhas gone into local and traditional knowledge systems.
Nongovernmental organizations, research bodies, funding
agencies, and the United Nations system are lending financial and technical support to locally prioritized research anddevelopment efforts that value, investigate, and protect the
local and traditional knowledge systems.
Trends in adoption. The full benefits of scientific breakthroughs will not be realized without the dissemination
and adoption of new technologies. There is a great dealof unused scientific knowledge and technologies “on the
shelf” for immediate application, particularly for developing country agriculture. In each country, the successful
local development of technologies or the transfer and adaptation of innovations from others will depend on incentives and barriers faced by investors and producers. Poor
farmers can adapt new technology if small risks are associated with it; with larger risks, they may need guarantees
from the state or insurance providers. Many existing onthe-shelf technologies could be adopted if the perceived
risks of using them were significantly lowered or if someof the hindrances to adoption, such as missing input supply

chapter 04.indd 272

chains, poor or nonexistent marketing channels for surplus
production, and little or no access to credit or new knowledge were reduced or eliminated. Adoption of GMO material by small farmers may be limited by high costs of planting material, restrictions on the replanting of seeds, and uncertainty of market acceptability. If these concerns are notaddressed, much biotechnology will likely not be adopted
by poor farmers. Existing scenarios assuming high rates oftechnology change imply high rates of adoption.
4.3.5 Education, culture and ethics
4.3.5.1 Education
Many international organizations have addressed the issue ofpoverty alleviation through the diffusion and improvementof rural basic to tertiary education with global, regional orcountry-specific programs (see CGIAR, 2004; FAO, 2006a;
UNESCO, 2006). There also are programs implemented by organizations from developed countries (e.g., Noragric1) to help
individual developing countries identify and address problems
with their rural education systems (Noragric, 2004).
Presently there are numerous, thorough studies that
demonstrate education is a necessary (but not sufficient)driving force for alleviating hunger and poverty. However,there are very few assessments, scenarios or projections ofplausible futures for educational policies directed toward
this end. In fact, the scenarios of the major existing assessments relevant for agriculture (see 4.2) provide very little
information on this issue (some attention is paid in IPFRI
modeling). On historic trends, UNESCO’s databases2 showthat information provided by countries on multiple educational variables seldom is complete on either a yearly or aserial basis (or both). Hence it is not surprising that few
educational indicators have been projected into the future.
One educational indicator that has been projected into the
future is the school-age population. Two features stand out:
(1) projected changes in school-age population are highlyvariable among countries; and (2) there may be no change inthe population aged 5-14 (in some countries this age groupdecreased, whereas the opposite trend was predicted forother countries in this group).
One important unknown is what proportion of the population aged 15-19 and 20-29 would receive a rural (or agricultural) higher education and/or training. In poor countries
with large rural populations it is likely that emphasis onrural and agricultural education will take a growing shareof the total educational effort as measured in terms of GDP,but that a decreasing share of the GDP is likely in thosecountries in transition to a larger-scale and/or more mechanized agriculture. While this agricultural transition will require less unskilled human labor, it will require professional
practitioners able to address the challenges of reduced landavailability, changing climates, and increased demands forsustainable farming practices, while maintaining or increasing productivity. If sustainability is considered an important
production paradigm, the curricula of rural education would
Dep. Int. Environ. Dev. Studies, Norwegian University of Life
Sciences2
http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev_en.php?URL_ID=3753&URL_
DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SUBCHAPTER=201
1

11/3/08 10:38:23 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 273

need to include management of complex production systems
like agroforestry, polycultural, and silvo-pastoral systems.
There are many methods for estimating the costs andbenefits of educational policies; the cost-benefit analysis(CBA) is possibly one of the most used. The results of many
CBA studies for developing countries in Africa, Asia andLatin America between 1960 and 1985 have been compiled
and summarized (Hough, 1993). Major conclusions fromthis study included the following: (1) private Rate-of-Returns3 (ROR) are always higher (27%) than social RORs4(19%); (2) RORs are always highest (32%) at the lowest
level of education, but vary across regions; (3) social RORs
to higher education are always lower (14%) than those to
secondary education (16.7%), but the converse was true withprivate rates (24.3% and 21.3% for higher and secondary
education, respectively); (4) public subsidies are particularlyhigh in the cases of both primary and higher education, andin general, the poorer the country, the more subsidized is its
education, particularly higher education, and (5) where timeseries data on earnings exist, there appears to be a decline
in RORs over time (Psacharopoulos and Patrinos, 2004).
Finally, some types of education that exhibit higher ratesof-return are general education for women and lowest percapita income sector, and vocational education.
4.3.5.2 Culture
Culture has had a profound influence on the creation of new
agricultural systems, as well as on the continued improvement of existing ones and will continue to do so in the future. However, as with education—cultural factors are often
difficult to capture in scenarios.
One factor where culture plays a role is in diets. On
an aggregated level changes in diet seem to mostly follow
closely changes in income, independent of cultural factors
or geographical location (FAO, 2002b). However, at equivalent incomes, cultural differences become conspicuous drivers of food quality and type (FAO, 2002b) (e.g., low pork
consumption rates in some regions and low beef consumption rates in others). These factors are generally taken into
account in the projections of existing assessments (see also
4.4.1).
Organic agriculture has been increasing in the past, andfurther expansion seems likely—certainly if the actual costs ofagricultural commodity and food production were reflectedin both domestic and international agricultural prices. It is,however, unlikely that organic farming will become a real
substitute for industrial agricultural production systems,
even if organic farming yield were similar to conventional
yield (see e.g., Badgley et al., 2007). Production costs would
likely be higher because it is a more labor-intensive activity
and it might have additional standardization costs (OECD,
2002; Cáceres, 2005). Organic farming therefore does notplay a very important role in the scenarios of existing assessments though it could have an impact on poverty andhunger alleviation in, for instance, least developed countries
These RRs take into account the costs borne by the students and/or their families in regard to net (post-tax) incomes.
4
These RRs relate all the costs to society to gross (before deduction of income tax) incomes.
3

chapter 04.indd 273

with large rural populations, mostly of small-scale farmers
living from subsistence traditional agriculture. This trend
may be explored in new scenarios.
Another factor that might be considered is that traditional and indigenous cultures may be sources of agricultural knowledge useful for devising sustainable production
systems. However, the future of that knowledge is likely to
be grim in a globalized world if those who retain this knowledge do not receive assistance to pursue their futures in amanner acceptable to their value system (Groenfeldt, 2003).
The practical knowledge stored in traditional and indigenous agriculture could be conserved if it were the subject ofinterdisciplinary inquiry by research organizations and universities (Thaman, 2002; Rist and Dahdouh-Guebas, 2006)
with the aim of adapting otherwise unsustainable production systems to the likely incoming environmental shocks,
such as the changing climate caused by global warming (cf.
Borron, 2006), natural resource depletion (e.g., irrigationwater), and pollution.
4.3.5.3 Ethics
The use of biotechnology (see 4.3.4) may have considerable benefits for society, but will likely raise ethical concerns about food and environmental safety (FAO, 2002b).
The adaptation of these technologies in different scenarios
should therefore be related to assumptions on ethical factors. In the next decade, development of biotechnologicalproducts will be faster for issues that relate to challenges
recognized by the general public (e.g., herbicide-tolerant
plants) than for other areas.
4.3.6 Changes in biogeophysical environment
Over the last 50 years, the use of fertilizers, primarily N
fertilizers, has increased rapidly (FAO, 2003; IFA, 2006;
Figure 4-12). In the same period, the quantity of nutrients
supplied in the form of manure has increased as well (Bouwman et al., 2005). Increased use made a major increase incrop production possible. However, only a portion of the
supplied nutrients are taken up by crops, with the remainder lost in different forms to the environment. These losses
cause progressively serious environmental problems (Galloway et al., 2002; MA, 2005a), some of which can directly
affect agriculture through a reduction in water quality andthrough climate change, and can indirectly affect agriculture through increased pressure for agricultural systems tominimize off-site environmental impacts.
To produce more food and feed in the future, the fertilizer demand is projected to increase from 135 million tonnes
in 2000 to 175 million tonnes in 2015 and to almost 190
million tonnes in 2030 (Bruinsma, 2003). These projections
are based on assumed crop yield increases. In a “Constant
Nitrogen Efficiency scenario” the use of nitrogen fertilizers is
projected to grow from 82 million tonnes in 2000 to around
110 million tonnes in 2020 and 120-140 million tonnes in
2050 (Wood et al., 2004). In an “Improved Nutrient Use
Efficiency scenario” the use increases to around 100 million
tonnes in 2020 and 110-120 million tonnes in 2050. Thesenitrogen fertilizer projections are based on the crop yields
projected by AT 2030 (FAO, 2003) and they have been used
for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005a). As
the number of livestock is projected to increase as well, the11/3/08 10:38:23 AM

274 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 4-12. Nitrogen application (fertilizer and manure) in 1995
and 2030. Source: Bouwman et al., 2005.

quantity of manure is expected to increase, especially in Asia
(Bouwman et al., 2005).
The increased use of fertilizer and manure will lead inmany regions in the world to increased losses of reactive
N and of phosphorous (P) to the environment, causing increasingly more severe environmental problems. Emissions
do not only stem from agriculture; the combustion of (fossil)
fuels and emissions from industries and households lead toincreased levels of N and P in the environment (Figure 4-13).
These emissions have already caused a range of environmental problems (MA, 2005a). The presence of excess nutrients(N, P) in water can lead to eutrophication (Bennett et al.,
2001; Galloway et al., 2002) causing algal blooms, changes
in resident organisms, low dissolved oxygen, and generally
lower water quality. Nitrogen losses to groundwater can increase nitrate (NO3) concentrations to levels which can haveserious effects on human health. Aerial deposition of reactive N into natural terrestrial eco­systems, especially temperate grasslands, shrublands, and forests, could lead to lower
plant diversity. Nitrous oxide is a powerful greenhouse gas.
In 2000, nitrous oxides stemming from agriculture were responsible for more than 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions (EPA, 2006).
Nutrient loading will become an increasingly severe
problem, particularly in developing countries and in Eastand South Asia (MA, 2005a). On the basis of projections forfood production and wastewater effluents, the global river
N flux to coastal marine systems may increase by 10-20%
in the next 30 years. While river N flux will not change inmost wealthy countries, a 20-30% increase is projected forpoorer countries, which is a continuation of the trend observed in the past decades. The export is expected to reach
50 million tonnes year-1 by the year 2030 with the Pacific
Ocean experiencing the greatest increase (Bouwman et al.,2005; MA, 2005a).

chapter 04.indd 274

Figure 4-13. Global trends in the creation of reactive nitrogen byanthropogenic activities. Source: MA, 2005a.

4.4 Assessment of Direct Drivers
4.4.1 Food consumption patterns
4.4.1.1 Expected changes in food consumption patterns
and nutritional transformation
As incomes increase, direct per capita food consumptionof maize and coarse grains declines as consumers shift towheat and rice. When incomes increase further and lifestyles change with urbanization, a secondary shift fromrice to wheat takes place. In general, existing assessments
project a continuation of these trends. The expected income
growth in developing countries (see 4.3.2) could become astrong driving force for increases in total meat consumption, in turn inducing strong growth in feed consumption of
cereals. With growing urbanization, consumption is expected to shift as well towards increased consumption of fruits,
vegetables, milk and milk products and to more consumerready, processed foods (increasingly procured in [international] supermarket chains, and fast food establishments).
At the same time, growth in per capita food consumption indeveloped countries is expected to continue to slow as diets
have reached on average reached saturation levels. These
trends will lead to an increase in the importance of developing countries in global food markets (Cranfield et al., 1998;
Rosegrant et al., 2001; Schmidhuber, 2003).
Several drivers of nutritional transformation are (1)gains in purchasing power of food, (2) declining food prices,

11/3/08 10:38:25 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 275(3) shifts in demographic patterns, (4) growing urbanization, (5) changes in women’s roles, (6) an enhanced understanding of the impact of diets on health, (7) government
interventions towards certain foods, (8) influence exerted by
the food industry, (9) growing international trade, and (10)an increasing globalization of tastes (Schmidhuber, 2003).
Urbanization is generally associated with factors like higher
incomes, more opportunities for women to enter the paidwork sector; and a major boost in the amount of information, goods and services. In relation to dietary habits thistranslates into access to a large variety of food products, exposure to different, “globalized” dietary patterns, adoptionof urban lifestyles with less physically intensive activities
requiring less food energy, and a preference for precooked,
convenient food. Moreover, urbanization entails a physicalseparation of the agricultural sector from the postharvest
sector and the final consumption sector (Smil, 2000; Giampietro, 2003; Schmidhuber, 2003).
Shifts in food expenditures. Decisions on food purchases
will continue to be related to other household expenditure
choices, such as housing, clothing, education, and healthcosts. With greater affluence the number of low-income
countries that spend a greater portion of their budget on
basic necessities, including food, will decline (Seale et al.,2003). Shifts in food expenditures for selected countries(see Table 4-8) with expected slow declines in food budget
shares over time as well as slow declines in expenditures on
grains are also projected (Cranfield et al., 1998).
Changes in agricultural production and retailing systems.
The nutritional transformation will induce changes in agricultural production systems. Increased consumption of
livestock products, e.g., will drive expansion of maize production for animal feed. Given that diets will continue tochange with increasing incomes and urbanization, a doubling of cereal yields may be required. Because of the highrate of conversion of grains to meat, some analysts have argued that a reduction in meat consumption in industrializedcountries, either through voluntary changes in dietary patterns, or through policies such as taxes on livestock, would
shift cereal consumption from livestock to poor people indeveloping countries (e.g., Brown, 1995). While the longterm prospects for food supply, demand, and trade indicate
a strengthening of world cereal and livestock markets, theimprovement in food security in the developing world will
be slow and changes in the dietary patterns in industrializedcountries are not an effective route to improve food security
in developing countries (Rosegrant et al., 1999).

At the same time, the agricultural production sector iscatering more to globalized diets through growing industrialization and intensification of the food production process.
Retailing through supermarkets is growing at 20% per annum in some countries and is expected to penetrate mostdeveloping countries over the next decades, as urban consumers demand more processed foods, shifting agricultural
production systems from on-farm production toward agribusiness chains. International supermarket chains directly
accelerate the nutritional transformation; e.g., the increasein the availability of yogurt and pasteurized milk has led toincreases in consumption of dairy products in Brazil. Supermarkets will emerge in China and most other Asian developing countries, and more slowly in sub-Saharan Africa overthe next three to five decades. The penetration of supermarkets for 42 countries based on the major drivers of change,
including income, income distribution, urbanization, female
participation in the labor force and openness to foreign competition through foreign direct investment, explains 90% of
the variation in supermarket shares (Traill, 2006). Income
growth was an important determinant for further supermarket penetration in Latin America, and further income
growth and urbanization are crucial determinants for future
supermarket growth in China (Traill, 2006).
The food retailing sector will increasingly serve as theprimary interface between consumers and the rest of the
agricultural sector (Figure 4-14). Food processing industries and supermarkets are expected improve food safety
and support dietary diversification; on the other hand, theymight contribute to less healthy diets through retailing ofless healthy foods, such as refined white flour with reduced
levels of fibers, minerals, and vitamins, or through oil hydrogenation processes.
4.4.1.2 Changing food consumption patterns in global
assessments
Studies focusing on food and agriculture have seldom projected changes in food consumption patterns to 2050 at
the global level; most projections in this area focus at thenational level (Bhalla et al., 1999). Only two food and agriculture focused studies have done so: the FAO World Agriculture Outlook towards 2030/2050 interim report (FAO,
2006b) and IFPRI’s food supply and demand projections(Von Braun et al., 2005 using the IFPRI IMPACT model)(Table 4-9).
Most studies and assessments agree that overall calorie
availability continues to increase and dietary diversification
continues following country and locale-specific pathwaysof nutritional transformation. Calorie availability levels in

Table 4-8. Projections of food budget shares and share of expenditures on grains, selected countries.
Food budget shares

Share of expenditures on grains

1985

2020

1985

2020

Ethiopia

0.52

0.51

0.22

0.21

Senegal

0.41

0.37

0.13

0.11

United States

0.11

0.07

0.02

0.01

Source: Cranfield et al., 1998.

chapter 04.indd 275

11/3/08 10:38:25 AM

276 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 4-14. Agricultural food business chain. Source: Based on stock market data* and World
Bank, 2005b.
Note: CR5 represents the market share of the top five companies listed in the global retail industry.
* http://www.wsj.com

these studies tend to asymptotically reach maximum availability levels of 3,500-4,000 kcal per capita (Tables 4-10,
4-11; Figures 4-15, 4-16, 4-17).
• The global consumption of meats and milk, fats, andsugars increases considerably, while consumption ofroots and tubers, pulses, and cereals as food is stable orslightly declines.
• In regions with an average total daily consumption ofless then 2500 kcal per capita (sub-Saharan Africa andSouth Asia) the situation slightly improves over time,
but in 2050 the average food intake is still significantly
lower then in other regions.
• In regions with low access to calories, food consumption
increases in general more in more globalizing worlds(A1b, B1—IPCC SRES scenarios; Policy First—GEO-3
UNEP; GO—Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Global Orchestration scenario).
• In regions with high average total daily consumption the
consumption remains stable or increases only slightly,
with little or no differentiation between the scenarios.

•

•
•

•

In middle-income regions (South East Asia, Central
America, South America) food consumption slowly
rises towards the level of OECD countries; with little
differentiation across the scenarios.
Differences in the consumption of animal products aremuch greater than in total food availability: both between regions, between scenarios and between years.
Food demand for livestock products more or less doubles in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia from around
200 in 2000 to around 400 kcal d-1 by 2050; again withthe highest values in globalizing scenarios. Consumption levels by 2050 can surpass 600 kcal/day in parts ofAfrica and South Asia.
In most OECD countries with already high availabilityof kilocalories from animal products (1000 calories per
capita per day or more) consumption levels are expected to barely change, while levels in South America andcountries of the Former Soviet Union increase to OECDlevels.

Table 4-9. Incorporation of changing food demand patterns in global assessment studies.
No.

Assessment Title

Publication
Date

Projections
timeframe

Food demand
mentioned

Projections follow/adapted from1

GEO-3 Assessment

2002

2032

2

GEO-4 Assessment

2007

2000-2050

Explicitly

IFPRI IMPACT

3

IPCC 3 Assessment

2001

VariousNot explicitly

Various, IPCC-SRES

4

IPCC 4 Assessment

2007

VariousNot explicitly

Various, IPCC-SRES

5

Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment

2005

2000-2100

Explicitly

IFPRI IMPACT

6

Comprehensive
Assessment of Water
Management inAgriculture2007

2000-2050

Explicitly

Watersim, based on IFPRI IMPACT

7OECD Outlook

2006 Draft

2000-2030

Not explicitlyPartly FAO

8World Energy Outlook

2006

2030

Not explicitly

-

rd
th

FAO (2015/2030 outlook)

Sources: UNEP, Global Environmental Outlook, 2002; IPCC, 2001, 2007; MA, 2005; de Fraiture et al., 2007; OECD, 2006; IEA, 2006.

chapter 04.indd 276

11/3/08 10:38:27 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 277

Table 4-10. Per capita food consumption (kcal/person/day).
1969/71

1979/81

1989/91

1999/01

World

2411

2549

2704

2789

2015
2950

2030
3040

2050
3130

Developing countries

2111

2308

2520

2654

2860

2960

3070

Sub-Saharan Africa

2100

2078

2106

2194

2420

2600

2830

excluding Nigeria

2073

2084

2032

2072

2285

2490

2740

Near East/North Africa

2382

2834

3011

2974

3080

3130

3190

Latin America and Caribbean

2465

2698

2689

2836

2990

3120

3200

South Asia

2066

2084

2329

2392

2660

2790

2980

East Asia

2012

2317

2625

2872

3110

3190

3230

Industrial countries

3046

3133

3292

3446

3480

3520

3540

Transition countries

3323

3389

3280

2900

3030

3150

3270

Source: FAO, 2006b.

4.4.1.4 Implications for health
Changes in food demand to 2050 are expected to contributeto increased nutrition and human health. Dietary diversification will likely increase if urbanization and income growth
proceed. On the other hand, obesity rates and associateddiseases are expected to increase. Obesity is increasingly
becoming a public health concern as it contributes to increased mortality through noncommunicable diseases suchas diabetes, hypertension, stroke, and cardiovascular diseases, among others. Factors responsible for increases in obesity include a mix of biological and ecological factors suchas gene-mediated adaptation, increases in labor mechanization, urbanization, sedentary activities and lifestyle changes(Caballero, 2001). It is estimated that by 2020, 60% of thedisease burden in developing countries will result from noncommunicable diseases, further exacerbated because of obesity (Caballero, 2001).
4.4.2 Natural resources
The sustainable use and management of natural resources
presents a critical factor for future agriculture. The develop-

ment and adoption of appropriate AKST and management
practices will be needed to ensure food security and agricultural livelihoods. One of the greatest challenges likely
to continue facing global agriculture is resolving conflicts
caused by growing competition for soil, water, and othernatural resources on which agriculture depends (Antle andCapalbo, 2002). Conversely, the sustainable management ofthese natural resources will determine productivity in agriculture and food systems.
4.4.2.1 Water
Water availability for agriculture is one of the most critical factors for food security in many regions of the world,
particularly in arid and semiarid regions in the world, wherewater scarcity has already become a severe constraint onfood production (Rockstrom et al., 2003; CA, 2007). With
increasing population, urbanization, changing diets andhigher living standards water demand is increasing rapidly.
Assuming the amount of potentially utilizable water does
not increase, there will be less water available on a per capita basis. In 1989, approximately 9,000 m3 of freshwater per

Table 4-11. Changes in the commodity composition of food by major country groups in kg/person/year.
World

1969/71

1979/81

1989/91

1999/01

2030

2050

Cereals, food

148.7

160.1

171

165.4

165

162

Cereals, all uses

302.8

325

329.3

308.7

331

339

Roots and tubers

83.7

73.4

64.5

69.4

75

75

Sugar (raw sugar equiv.)

22.4

23.4

23.3

23.6

26

27

Pulses, dry

7.6

6.5

6.2

5.9

6

6

Vegetable oils, oilseeds and products (oil equiv.)

6.8

8.3

10.3

12

16

17

Meat (carcass weight)

26.1

29.5

33

37.4

47

52

Milk and dairy, excl. butter (fresh milk equiv.)

75.3

76.5

76.9

78.3

92

100

Other food (kcal/person/day)

216

224

241

289

325

340

Total food (kcal/person/day)

2411

2549

2704

2789

3040

3130

chapter 04.indd 277

11/3/08 10:38:27 AM

278 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 4-15. Kilocalorie availability per capita per day, 1995 and 2050. Source: Westhoek et al.,2005.
Notes: A1, A2, B1, and B2 are storylines used in IPCC assessments. These results are data underlying but notreported in the third IPCC Assessment Reports. In UNEP’s assessment these data are not presented in the
final GEO3 report.

person was available for human use. By 2000, that number
had dropped to 7,800 m3 and it is expected to decline to
5,100 m3 per person by 2025, when the global population is
projected to reach 8 billion. Already 1.2 billion people live
in areas where water is physically scarce, and this number
may double by 2050 (CA, 2007). The problem is becoming
more urgent due to the growing share of food produced on
irrigated land; the rapid increase of water use in industry
and households; increasing water use for environmental
and ecological purposes; and water quality deterioration(Rosegrant et al., 2002).

The last 50 years saw great investments in large scale,surface irrigation infrastructure as part of a successful effort
to rapidly increase world staple food production and ensure
food self-sufficiency. During this period, in many countries
more than half of the public agricultural budget and morethan half of World Bank spending was devoted to irrigation(Faures et al., 2007). Spending on irrigation reached a peakof over US$1 billion per year in the late 1970s (in constant1980 US dollars) but fell to less than half that level by thelate 1980s (Rosegrant and Svendsen, 1993). The irrigatedarea roughly doubled from 140 million ha in the 1960s to

Figure 4-16. Kilocalorie availability per capita per day from livestock products only, 1995 and2050. Source: Westhoek et al., 2005.
Notes: A1, A2, B1, and B2 are storylines used in IPCC assessments. These results are data underlying but notreported in the third IPCC Assessment Reports. In UNEP’s assessment these data are not presented in the final
GEO3 report.

chapter 04.indd 278

11/3/08 10:38:33 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 279

Figure 4-17. Average global food availability, Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment Scenarios. Source: MA, 2005ab.
Notes: GO, AM, OS and TG stand for the Global Orchestration, theAdapting Mosaic, Order from Strength, and TechnoGarden Scenarios,
respectively.

280 million ha in 2003, primarily in Asia (FAO, 2006c). By
contrast, irrigation in sub-Saharan Africa is applied to lessthan 4% of the total cultivated area. The agricultural sector is
expected to remain the major water user accounting for 69%
of the withdrawals and 84% of the consumptive uses.
Many projections agree that water will increasingly be a
key constraint in food production in many developing countries, and call for the need to improve water management
and increase water use efficiency (Seckler et al., 2000; Shiklomanov, 2000; Rosegrant et al., 2002; Bruinsma, 2003;
World Water Assessment Program, 2006; CA, 2007). The
assessments differ in their views on the best way forward.
Scenario analysis conducted as part of the Comprehensive
Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (CA, 2007)
indicates that growth in global water diversions to agriculture varies anywhere between 5 and 57% by 2050 depending on assumptions regarding trade, water use efficiency,
area expansion and productivity growth in rain fed and irrigated agriculture (de Fraiture et al., 2007) (Figure 4-18).
Trade can help mitigate water scarcity if water-scarce countries import food from water abundant countries (Hoekstra
and Hung, 2005). Cereal trade from rain fed areas in thetemperate zones (USA, EU, Argentina) to arid areas (Middle East) reduces current global irrigation water demandby 11 to 13% (Oki et al., 2003, de Fraiture et al., 2004);
but political and economic factors may prove stronger drivers of agricultural systems than water (de Fraiture et al.,2004).
Enhanced agricultural production from rain fed areasand higher water productivity on irrigated areas can offset
the need for the development of additional water resources(Molden et al., 2000; Rosegrant et al., 2002; Rockstrom etal., 2003). However, the potential of rain fed agriculture andchapter 04.indd 279

the scope to improve water productivity in irrigated areas
is subject to debate (Seckler et al., 2000; Rosegrant et al.,2002). Only 5% of increases in future grain production are
projected to come from rain fed agriculture (Seckler et al.,2000). Over 50% of all additional grains will come fromrain fed areas, particularly in developed countries, whiledeveloping countries will increasingly import grain (Rosegrant et al., 2002). Projected contribution to total global foodsupply from rain fed areas declines from 65% currently to
48% in 2030 (Bruinsma, 2003).
Currently, agriculture receives around 70% of total
water withdrawal and accounts for 86% of consumption.
Projections in growth of irrigated areas vary: 29% (Seckler et al., 2000); 24% (FAO, Bruinsma, 2003); and 12%(Rosegrant et al., 2002) (Table 4-12).The global irrigatedarea is expected to grow from 254 million ha in 1995 tobetween 280 and 350 million ha in 2025. However, towards
2050, the proportion of water used for agriculture is likely
to decrease slightly, mainly at the expense of more intensive
growth in other water demands such as environment, industry and public water supply. The regional water withdrawal
and consumption shares for agriculture will vary as a function of stage of industrialization, climate and other management and governance factors. In many water scarce areas
current per capita water consumption is unsustainable.
Globally, water is sufficient to produce food for a growing and wealthier population, but continuance with today’s
water management practices will lead to many acute water
crises in many parts of the world (CA, 2007).
While major tradeoffs will occur between all water using sectors, they will be particularly pronounced between
agriculture and the environment as the two largest water demanding sectors (Rijsberman and Molden, 2001). Signs ofsevere environmental degradation because of water scarcity,
overabstraction and water pollution are apparent in a growing number of places and the adverse impacts of irrigation
on ecosystems services other than food production are well
documented (Pimentel and Wilson, 2004; MA, 2005a; Khanet al., 2006; CA, 2007). Reduction in ecosystem services
often has severe consequences for the poor, who depend
heavily on ecosystems for their livelihoods (Falkenmark etal., 2007). Aquifer depletion and groundwater pollution
threaten the livelihoods of millions of small-scale farmers inSouth Asia; in response, various local initiatives to recharge
groundwater and stop overuse have been developed (Shahet al., 2007).
4.4.2.2 Soils and fertilizers
Sustainable management of soil is vital to agricultural productivity and food security. Among the many driving forcesthat will affect soils and their utility in sustaining world
agriculture are population growth, land use planning andpolicies, land development and growth and demands for
agricultural products (Blum, 2001). These driving factors
operate directly and interact in different ways to produce
positive (sustainability) and negative effects (degradation)
on soil. Soil degradation due to improper farming practices
has had more devastating effects on soil quality in many
developing countries than the industrialized world. Whiledemand for food has risen with increasing population, thepresent productivity from the arable land of the developing

11/3/08 10:38:34 AM

280 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 4-18. Land and water use today and in the future under different scenarios. Source:CA, 2007
Note: The dark gray bar represents the worst case scenario in which no productivity improvements
occur in rainfed or irrigated agriculture. The ‘rainfed scenario’ assumes that most of future investments
are targeted to upgrading rainfed agriculture. The medium-dark bar denotes the difference between
optimistic and pessimistic yield assumptions and gives an indication of the risks involved in this
scenario. The ‘irrigation scenario’ assumes a major drive in improvement of water productivity andexpansion of irrigated areas. The ‘trade scenario’ assumes increased food trade from water abundant
to water scarce areas. The ‘Comprehensive Scenario’ combines elements from all three scenarios
depending on regional opportunities.

world has not been able to support its increasing population. The challenge is highly likely to persist towards 2050.
At the global level, out of the total ice-free land area of
13.4 x 109 ha, only 4.9 x 109 ha are agricultural lands. The
Food and Agriculture Organization Database (WRI, 1997;
FAO, 2006c) has provided individual country assessmentson quantity of arable land and other indicators for nationaland global assessments. Out of the agricultural lands, 3.2 x
109 ha are in developing countries, while 1.8 x 109 ha are inindustrialized countries (FAO, 2003). Some (1.3 x 109 ha)of this area has been classified as low productivity. Abouthalf of the potentially arable land is actually cultivated, whileremaining lands are under permanent pastures, forests andwoodland (Scherr, 1999). In the future, feeding an increasing
population will remain a challenge, particularly as per capita
land availability decreases and soil degradation continues.
Population pressure and improper land use practices are
expected to continue giving rise to soil degradation, manifesting itself through processes such as erosion, desertification, salinization, fertility loss. Especially in regions with low

Table 4-12. Comparison of recent global water use forecasts.
AuthorProjection
periodIncrease inrain-fed cereal
production

Increase inirrigated yield

Increasein irrigatedharvested
area

Increase incereal trade

Increase inagricultural
water
withdrawals

annual growth rateannual growthrateannual growthrateannual growthrateannual growthrate

Shiklomanov 2000

1995-2025

0.74%

Seckler et al. 2000

1995-2025

0.19%

1.13%

0.95%

0.64%

Rosegrant et al. 2002

1995-2025

1.14%

1.14%

0.36%

2.41%

Faures et al. 2002

1995-2030

1.10%

1.00%

0.95%

2.08%

0.43%

Alcamo et al. 2005

2000-2050

0.06%-0.18%

1.85%-2.44%

0.40%-1.22%

Fraiture et al. 2007

2000-2050

0%-0.56%

0.98%-2.01%

0.10%-0.90%

0.63%-1.03%

0.58%-1.15%

0.68%
0.56%

Source: adapted from CA, 2007.

chapter 04.indd 280

11/3/08 10:38:36 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 281(average) fertilizer use, many fields have a negative soil nutrient balance. Although the fertilizer use projections show
an increased use for sub-Saharan Africa, application rates
remain too low to compensate losses and crop yields will
therefore remain low. Some believe that land degradation
will not be a major issue in food security for the future generations (Crosson, 1994; Rosegrant and Sombilla, 1997);
others argue that it will be a major constraining factor forfood production in the future (Brown and Kane, 1994; Hinrichsen, 1998).
Crops are highly depended on an adequate supply ofnutrients, notably N, P and potassium (K). The use of mineral fertilizer has increased significantly over the last 50
years, from 30 million tonnes in 1960, to 70 million tonnes
in 1970 to 154 million tonnes in 2005 (IFA, 2006). This increased use is one of the drivers behind the increase in crop
yield over the last 50 years. About two thirds of the global
N fertilizer is currently used in cereal production (Cassman
et al., 2003). Fertilizer use is expected to increase by 188
million tonnes by 2030 (FAO, 2004a). The projections for2030 indicate that approximately 70% of the increase intotal crop production will stem from higher yields per haand about 30% from expansion of harvested areas. The increased (and more efficient) use of fertilizers is one of the key
drivers to attain these higher crop yields.
The use of mineral and organic fertilizers is very diverse
between countries and regions (Palm et al., 2004; Bouwman et al., 2005; IFA, 2006). Nitrogen input varies fromvirtually nil to over 500 kg N per ha; with these differences
likely to continue (Daberkow et al., 2000; Bruinsma, 2003;
Bouwman et al., 2005). The use of fertilizers is expected toincrease further in South and East Asia; in sub-Saharan Africa the present low application rates are projected to persist
and seriously hamper crop production. Low application iscaused by a range of factors, which without targeted policies
and interventions are likely to persist. These factors include
a weak crop response to fertilizers (e.g., limited water availability, poor soil conditions), unfavorable price relations between input and output, and low net returns (Kelly, 2006).
The increase in consumption of animal products is, next
to population growth, one of the major causes of the increase of global fertilizer use. World meat consumption (andproduction) is expected to grow by 70% in the period 20002030 and 120% in the period 2000-2050 (FAO, 2006b).
The production and consumption of pig and poultry meatis expected to grow at a much higher speed than of bovine
and ovine meat. Over the last years there has been a major
expansion in large scale, vertically integrated industrial livestock systems, and this development is expected to continue
over the coming decades (Bruinsma, 2003). These systems
can lead to concentration of manure; although manure is avaluable source of nutrients, concentrated spreading of manure leads to significant emissions, to air, soil and water.
4.4.3 Land use and land cover change
Growing demand for food, feed, fiber and fuel, as well as
increasing competition for land with other sectors (e.g.,human settlement, infrastructure, conservation, and recreation), drive the need for change in the use of land alreadydedicated to agricultural production, and often for additional land to be brought into production. The significancechapter 04.indd 281

of the cumulative historical growth in demand for agricultural products and services is reflected in the fact that agriculture now occupies about 40% of the global land surface.
There is also clear evidence that this enormous change inland use and land cover has brought about, and continues
to bring significant impacts on local, regional and global
environmental conditions, as well as on economic and social welfare. In turn, such impacts spur demand for specifictypes of improvements in agriculture. AKST can help mitigate negative outcomes and enhance positive ones.
In this context, AKST can be seen as playing a dualrole in both shaping and responding to a dynamic balanceof land use and land cover conditions that deliver specificmixes of agricultural and other goods and services. As human well-being needs and preferences evolve in different
societies, so too will the goals and priorities for the development of new AKST. The relative scarcities of land in Japan and labor in the USA shaped their agricultural research
priorities (Hayami and Ruttan, 1985). Global experience
with rampant land degradation caused by inappropriate
production practices that gave rise to degradation of land
cover, migration and often further expansion of the agricultural frontier has driven the search for new knowledge
on sustainable farming technologies and land management
practices. Land use/cover change is a complex process withmultiple factors and drivers acting synergistically. In thetropics, deforestation was frequently driven by an interplayof economic, institutional, technological, cultural, and demographic factors (Geist and Lambin, 2004) (Figure 4-19).
There are numerous other studies that link environmental
land cover change to socioeconomic factors (e.g., Hietel etal., 2005; Xie et al., 2005).
4.4.3.1 Global land cover and land use change
Current drivers. Globally, there are a small number of recurrent drivers of land use and land use change (Figure 4-19):
demographic; economic; technological; policy; and cultural.
Yet, some factors play a decisive role in determining land
use and thus land use change. For example, globally 78%
of the increase in crop production between 1961 and 1999
was attributable to yield increases and 22% to expansion of
harvested area (Bruinsma, 2003). While the pattern of yield
increases outpacing increases in harvested area was true formost regions, the proportions varied. For example, 80%of total output growth was derived from yield increases inSouth Asia, compared to only 34% in sub-Saharan Africa.
In industrial countries, where the amount of cultivated landhas been stable or declining, increased output was derived
predominantly through the development and adoption of
AKST that served to increase yields and cropping intensities. Thus, the role of land use change and (adoption of)
AKST has varied greatly between regions. Particularly in
Latin America, land abundance has slowed the introductionof new technologies.
Projected global land cover and land use changes. Few
global studies have produced long-term land cover andland use projections. The most comprehensive studies, interms of land type coverage, are the Land Use and CoverChange Synthesis book (Alcamo et al., 2005), IPCC Special
Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (IPCC, 2000), the11/3/08 10:38:37 AM

282 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 4-19. Indirect and direct drivers of land cover change. Source: Adapted from Geist and Lambin, 2004.

scenarios from the Global Scenarios Group (GSG) (Raskin
et al., 2002), UNEP’s Global Environment Outlook (UNEP,
2002), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005a)
and some models from Stanford University’s EMF-21 Studyof the Energy Modeling Forum (e.g., Kurosawa, 2006; vanVuuren et al., 2006). Recent sector specific economic studies have also contributed global land use projections, especially for forestry (Sands and Leimbach, 2003; Sathaye etal., 2006; Sohngen and Mendelsohn, 2007; Sohngen andSedjo, 2006) (Figure 4-20). Note that some scenario exercises are designed to span a range of diverse futures (e.g.,
SRES, GSG, and MA). For example, under the SRES scenarios agricultural land area could increase by 40% or decrease by 20% by 2050. Other scenarios focus on a single
projected reference land-use characterization (e.g., GRAPEEMF21, IMAGE-EMF21, GTM-2007). The more recent
scenarios suggest greater agreement than under SRES or
GSG, with agricultural land extent stable or growing by
10% by 2050.
In general, the recent scenarios for agricultural landuse (cropland and grazing land) have projected increasing
global agricultural area and smaller forest land area. The developments in forest land are, for the most part, the inverseof those for agriculture, illustrating the potential forest conversion implications of agricultural land expansion, as wellas providing insights into current modeling methodologies.
To date, long-term scenarios have not explicitly modeled
competition between land use activities (Sands and Leimbach, 2003, is an exception). A new generation of global

chapter 04.indd 282

modeling is forthcoming that will directly account for theendogenous opportunity costs of alternative land uses andoffer new more structurally rigorous projections (e.g., vanMeijl et al., 2006).
Projected changes in agricultural land are caused primarily by changes in food demand and the structure of
production as defined by technology, input scarcity, and environmental condition. Scenarios with a greater extent ofagricultural land result from assumptions of higher population growth rates, higher food demands, and lower rates oftechnological improvement that limit crop yield increases.
Combined, these effects are expected to lead to a potentiallysizeable expansion of agricultural land. Conversely, lower
population growth and food demand, and more rapid technological change, are expected to result in lower demand for
agricultural land.
There are very few published global scenarios of changes
in urban areas (Kemp-Benedict et al., 2002; UNEP, 2004).
All show a steep increase over the next decade, with about
half estimating a stabilization of urban areas by 2025. Final
total urban area is about 50% larger than in 1995. Although
the total increase in area is relatively small, the implications
for agriculture might be disproportionately large, since mostof the urban growth is at the expense of high-value agricultural lands.
4.4.3.2 Regional and local changes
Regional and local drivers of land use change are even more
complex than global drivers because a large number of di-

11/3/08 10:38:38 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 283

Figure 4-20. Projected landuse changes for (a) agricultural land and (b) forest land from selected scenarios (indexed to year 2000)
Notes: Agricultural land is an aggregate of cropland and grazing/pasture/grassland land types. The following scenarios were redrawn from Alcamo et al.,
2006: GSG xx = Global Scenarios Group (Raskin et al., 2002) scenarios from the PoleStar model (MF = Market Forces, PR = Policy Reform, FW = Fortress
World, GT = Great Transition); GEO-3 xx = Global Environment Outlook 3 (UNEP, 2004) scenarios using the PoleStar model (MF = Market First, PF =Policy First). The other scenarios were assembled from various sources: SRES (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios) = IPCC, 2000; IMAGE-EMF21= van Vuuren et al., 2006 scenario from EMF-21 Study; IMAGE-MA-xx = MA, 2005 scenarios from the IMAGE model for four storylines (GO = Global
Orchestration, OS = Order from Strength, AM = Adapting Mosaic, TG = TechnoGarden); AgLU-0.5% = Sands and Leimbach, 2003 scenarios with 0.5%
annual growth in crop yield; GTM-EMF21 = Sohngen and Sedjo, 2006 global forest scenario from EMF-21 Study; GCOMAP-EMF21 = Sathaye et al.,2006 global forest scenario from EMF-21 Study; GTM-2007 = Sohngen and Mendelsohn, 2007 global forest scenario; GRAPE-EMF21 = Kurosawa, 2006
scenario from EMF-21 Study.

rect drivers act in addition to global (indirect) drivers. For
example, in cultivated systems, cultural, socioeconomic,
and educational background as well as expectations, perceptions, preferences, and attitudes toward risk of farmers
and farm households can play significant roles in shaping
land use choices.
Tropical deforestation depicts the connectedness of multiple drivers. In the humid tropics, deforestation is primarily
the result of a combination of commercial wood extraction,
permanent cultivation, livestock development, and the extension of overland transport infrastructure (e.g., Strengers
et al., 2004; Verbist et al., 2005; Busch, 2006; Rounsevell etal., 2006). However, regional variations exist. Deforestation
driven by swidden agriculture (see 4.5.1.2) is more widespread in upland and foothill zones of Southeast Asia thanin other regions. Road construction by the state followedby colonizing migrant settlers, who in turn practice slashand-burn agriculture, is most frequent in lowland areas of
Latin America, particularly in the Amazon Basin. Pasturecreation for cattle ranching is causing deforestation almost
exclusively in the humid lowland regions of mainland SouthAmerica. Expansion of small-scale agriculture and fuelwood
extraction for domestic uses are important causes of deforestation in Africa (Geist and Lambin, 2002; FAO, 2006b)
and Latin America (Echeverria et al., 2006). Recently, two
new land use types that are partly related to new drivers
have emerged: bioenergy production (see 4.4.5.4) and soybean expansion driven by international markets, but also
by the development of GMOs has rapidly become a major
threat in Latin America (see Box 4-3).

chapter 04.indd 283

The range of combinations of factors is not infinite, although single-factor causes are rare (Reid et al., 2006). A significant share of land use changes involves lifestyle choices
and shifting consumption patterns; governance; global markets and policies. Underlying causes often have a strong influence on local land use and cover changes. In the same way,land use alters in multiple ways agricultural production and
AKST.
Global forces are the main determinants of land usechange, as they amplify or attenuate local factors (Lambin
et al., 2001). Less visible but of no lesser importance is thebuild-up of small impacts at lower levels of the spatial andtemporal scales to generate impacts at higher levels; cumulative impacts are caused by incremental impacts at the individual level and are felt usually after some period of timeat the regional or even the national level. The issue of scale
is implicated in these and similar instances and makes theuse of “scale-sensitive” analytical approaches imperative.
Multiscale efforts bring global, regional, and local studies
together (e.g., MA, 2005a).
Many recent scenarios include land cover and land usechanges, and many of those include explicit information on
the main land use drivers. The scenarios also acknowledge
the complexity of environmental, social, and economic drivers of land use change. However, due to lack of data, a limited subset of drivers is included in the modeling efforts. The
dynamics of land use (and thus of land cover) are largely
governed by human (e.g., policy and socioeconomic) factors, that are well-documented as indirect drivers (see 4.2),
but poorly represented as direct drivers. Important drivers

11/3/08 10:38:41 AM

284 | IAASTD Global ReportBox 4-3. Genetically modified soybeans in Latin
America.
At the global scale, soybean is one of the fastest expanding
crops; in the past 30 years planted area more than doubled(FAO, 2002b). Of the world’s approximately 80 million ha, morethan 70% are planted in the USA, Brazil and Argentina (Grauet al., 2005). Argentina’s planted area increased from less thana million ha in 1970 to more than 13 million ha in 2003 (Grauet al., 2005). Soybean cultivation is seen to represent a newand powerful force among multiple threats to biodiversity in
Brazil (Fearnside, 2001). Deforestation for soybean expansion has, e.g., been identified as a major environmental threat
in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay (Fearnside, 2001;
Kaimowitz and Smith, 2001). In part, area expansion has occurred in locations previously used for other agricultural or
grazing activities, but additional transformation of native vegetation plays a major role. New varieties of soybean, including glyphosate-resistant transgenic cultivars, are increasing
yields and overriding the environmental constraints, making
this a very profitable endeavor for some farmers (Kaimowitz
and Smith, 2001). Although until recently, Brazil was a key global supplier of non-GM soya, planting of GM soy has been legalized in both Brazil and Bolivia. Soybean expansion in Brazil
increased; as did research on soybean agronomy, infrastructure development, and policies aimed at risk-reduction during
years of low production or profitability (Fearnside, 2001). In
Brazil alone, about 100 million ha are considered to be suitable for soy production. If projected acreage in Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay are realized, an overproduction of 150 million
tonnes will be reached in 2020 (AIDE, 2005).

to consider for land use dynamics are: the perceptions andvalues of local stakeholders land resources, its goods andservices; land tenure and property rights and regulations;the development and adoption of new sources of AKST; andurban-rural connections.
4.4.4 Climate variability and climate change
Agricultural systems are already adapting to changes in climate and climate variability in many part of the world. This
is in particular the case in arid areas. The IPCC concluded in
its latest assessment that it is very likely that humans caused
most of the warming observed during the twentieth century(IPCC, 2007a). The report also indicates that future climatechange is to be expected, as a function of continuing andincreasing emissions of fossil fuel combustion products,
changes in land use (deforestation, change in agricultural
practices), and other factors (for example, variations in solar radiation). Changes in climate will not only manifest
themselves in changes in annual means (precipitation, temperature) but also in changes in variability and extremes.
4.4.4.1 Driving forces of climate change
A set of scenarios (IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios—SRES) was used to depict possible emission trends

chapter 04.indd 284

under a wide range of assumptions in order to assess thepotential global impact of climate change (IPCC, 2000).
Subsequent calculation showed that these scenarios resulted in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 of 540-970 parts
per million in 2100 compared with around 370 parts per
million in 2000. This range of projected concentrations is
primarily due to differences among the emissions scenarios.
Model projections of the emissions of other greenhouse gasses (primarily CH4 and N­2O) also vary considerably by 2100
across the IPCC-SRES emissions scenarios. The IPCC scenarios are roughly consistent with current literature—with
the majority of the scenarios leading to 2100 emissions ofaround 10-22 Gt C (Van Vuuren and O’Neill, 2006) (Figure4-21) with projections by the IEA-2006 World Energy Outlook in the middle of this range. The IPCC-SRES scenarios
do not explicitly include climate policies. Stabilization scenarios explore the type of action required to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (alternative climate
policy scenarios may look into the impact of a particular setof measures; or choose to peak concentrations). Ranges ofstabilization scenarios giving rise to different stabilizationlevels are compared to development without climate policy(Figure 4-22) (IPCC, 2007c). The ranges in emission pathways result from uncertainty in land use emissions, otherbaseline emissions and timing in reduction rates.
4.4.4.2 Projections of climate change
IPCC calculations show that different scenarios without
climate policy are expected to lead to considerable climatechange: the global mean surface air temperature is expected
to increase from 1990 to 2100 for the range of IPCC-SRES
scenarios by 1.4 to 6.4 C° (IPCC, 2007a) (Figure 4-23). The
total range given above is partly a consequence of differencesin emissions, but also partly an impact of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, i.e., the relationship between greenhouse gas
concentration and the increase in global mean temperature(after equilibrium is reached). Over the last few years,
there has been a shift towards expressing the temperature
consequences of stabilization scenarios more in terms ofprobabilistic expressions than single values and/or ranges.
A 50% probability level for staying below 2oC corresponds
approximately to 450 ppm CO2­-eq, while for 2.5oC the corresponding concentration is around 525 ppm CO2-eq. Similarly, a scenario that would lead to 2oC warming as the most
likely outcome could also lead to a 0.9 to 3.9oC warming(95% certainty). Handling uncertainty therefore represents
an important aspect of future climate change policy. Costsof stabilization increase for lower concentration levels, andvery low concentration levels, such as 450 ppm CO2-eq may
be difficult to reach (IPCC, 2007c).
Combining the current scenarios with climate policy
and the expected temperature increase for different greenhouse gas levels shows that the former would decrease thelower bound of the expected temperature increase to about
0.5-1.0 °C above the 1990 level (i.e., based on an insensitive
climate system and using a strong climate policy scenario)(Van Vuuren et al., 2006). This implies that although thesevalues may be uncertain, climate change is very likely. Highrates of temperature change are in fact most likely to occur
in the first half of the century as a result of climate system inertia, the limited impacts of climate policy and lower

11/3/08 10:38:41 AM

Emissions (GtC)

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 285

Figure 4-21. Comparison of current CO2 emission scenarios(scenarios since IPCC’s Third Assessment Report 2001; mean +std. deviation), IPCC-SRES (A1, A2, B1, B2) and WEO2006.

sulfur emissions. The latter are currently having a cooling effect on the atmosphere. Whereas the computation of
global mean temperature is uncertain, the patterns of local
temperature change are even more uncertain (Figure 4-24)(IPCC, 2007a).
For precipitation, climate models can currently provide
insight into overall global and regional trends but cannot
provide accurate estimates of future precipitation patterns
in situations where the landscape plays an important role(e.g., mountainous or hilly areas). A typical result of climate

Figure 4-22. Comparison of emission pathways leading to 650,
550 and 450 ppm CO2-eq. and the IPCC-SRES scenarios (left)
and the WEO-2006 scenarios.

models is that approximately three-quarters of the land surface has increasing precipitation. However, some arid areas
become even drier, including the Middle East, parts of China,
southern Europe, northeast Brazil, and west of the Andes in
Latin America. This will increase water stress in these areas.
In other areas rainfall increases may be more than offset byincrease in evaporation caused by higher temperatures.
Although climate models do not agree on the spatial patterns of changes in precipitation, they do agree that global
average precipitation will increase over this century. This is

Figure 4-23. Scenarios for GHG emissions from 2000 to 2100 (in the absence of climate policies) andprojections of surface temperatures. Source, IPCC, 2007.
Left Panel: Global GHG emissions (in GtCO2-eq) in the absence of climate policies: six illustrative marker scenarios(solid lines) and the 80th percentile range of recent scenarios published since 2000 (shaded area). Dashed lines
show the full range of scenarios since 2000. Right Panel: Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface
warming for scenarios A2, A1B and B1, shown as continuations of the 20th-century simulations. The lowest line is
not a scenario, but is for Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model (AOGCM) simulations where atmosphericconcentrations are held constant at year 2000 values. The bars at the right of the figure indicate the best estimate(solid line within each bar) and the likely range assessed for the marker scenarios at 2090-2099. All temperatures
are relative to the period 1980-1999.

chapter 04.indd 285

11/3/08 10:38:46 AM

286 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 4-24. Projected surface temperature changes for the late 21st century (2090-2099). Source: IPCC, 2007. The map shows the multiAOGCM average projection for the A1B SRES scenario. Temperatures are relative to the period 1980-1999.

consistent with the expectation that a warmer atmosphere
will stimulate evaporation of surface water, increase the humidity of the atmosphere and lead to higher overall rates ofprecipitation. An important factor for agriculture is also thechanges in inter-year variability, but while some report important increases in this factor, this is still very uncertain (see
IPCC, 2007a). Climate change may also affect agriculture if
it causes substantial melting of glaciers that feed major rivers that are used for irrigation. Without additional storage
to capture increased summer runoff, more water will flow
unused to the ocean, leading to water scarcity in the driermonths (see IPCC, 2007a).
4.4.4.3 The potential impact of climate change on future
agricultural yields
The impacts of climate change on agriculture have been assessed by IPCC (IPCC, 2007b). In fact, two combined effects have to be accounted for: the impacts of climate itself
and the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. Increased
concentrations of CO2 can increase yields and make plants
more stress-resistant against warmer temperatures anddrought (although the extent to which this occurs is uncertain, and depends on crop type). Climate change can lead toboth increases and decreases in yields, depending on the location of changes of temperature and precipitation (climate
patterns) and the crop type (Parry et al., 1999; Alcamo et.
al., 2005). A crucial factor is whether farmers are able tochapter 04.indd 286

adapt to temperature increases by changing planting dates
or crops, or crop varieties (Droogers, 2004; Droogers andAerts, 2005).
The preponderance of global agricultural studies (Adams et al., 1999; Parry et al., 1999, Fischer et al., 2001)shows that climate change is not likely to diminish global
agricultural production by more than a few percent, if atall, by 2050; some regions may benefit ( i.e., North America, Europe) and some regions may suffer ( i.e., the tropics).
Any losses would be on top of substantial gains in world
production (which could be 55% greater than current by2030). As another indicator of this trend, a small but growing suite of modeling studies generally predict that worldcrop (real) prices are likely to continue to decline throughthe first 2-3oC of warming before increasing with additional
warming. Hence, 2-3oC of warming appears to be a crucial
threshold for crop prices.
While the global situation looks manageable, there arereasons for serious concern at regional levels. The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), reported that a number of models simulate
the potential production of temperate crops (wheat, maize,rice) to absorb 2-3oC of warming before showing signs ofstress (Easterling and Apps, 2005). More recent assessment
work found that agronomic adaptation extends the threshold for warming to beyond 5oC for those crops. Existing
tropical crops exhibit immediate yield decline with even

11/3/08 10:38:46 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 287

slight warming (Figure 4-25) because they are currently
grown under conditions close to maximum temperature
tolerances. Adaptation gives tropical regions a buffer of approximately 3oC of warming before yields of wheat, maize
and rice decline below current levels.
Two regions that are likely to experience large negative impacts of climate change on agricultural production
are Asia and Africa. Studies indicate that rice production
across Asia could decline by nearly 4% over this century.
In India, a 2oC increase in mean air temperature could decrease rice yield by about 0.75 tonnes ha-1 and cause a decline in rain fed rice in China by 5 to 12%. Sub-SaharanAfrica could lose a substantial amount of cropland due toclimate change-induced land degradation. Based on resultsfrom one climate model (HadCM3), as many as 40 foodinsecure countries of sub-Saharan Africa may lose an average of 10 to 20% of their cereal-production potential due
to climate change. Whether such declines are problematic
depends on possibilities for trade and responses from agronomic research. However, some studies suggest that the
impacts of climate change within a region are likely to be
extremely heterogeneous, depending on local conditions.
Several crop and livestock systems in sub-Saharan Africa
that are highly vulnerable may experience severe climatechange (Thornton et al., 2006). These include the more mar-

ginal mixed (crop-livestock) and pastoral systems in parts of
the Sahel, East Africa, and southern Africa. In some areas,
growing seasons may contract, and crop and forage yields
may decline substantially as a result (Jones and Thornton,2003). Vulnerable households in such places will need toadapt considerably if food security and livelihoods are to bepreserved or enhanced.
While most studies still focus on changes in means, infact changes in variability and extreme weather events may
be even more important for agriculture than the changes inmeans. For instance, changing the frequency of dry years
may seriously affect agriculture in certain areas.
Climate change will not be a major challenge to agricultural production systems in temperate regions until wellinto this century. In the tropics, especially Asia and Africa,
however, even with adaptation, food (especially grain) production may decline with only modest amounts of climatechange. Modeling studies also suggest that real food prices
will reverse their long-term decline at about 3oC of warming, resulting in increasing prices thereafter.
4.4.4.4 Climate change mitigation and agriculture
According to several assessments, agriculture and forestry can play a significant role in mitigation policies (FAO,
2006d; IPCC, 2007c) as it is also a major source of green-

Figure 4-25. Sensitivity of cereal yield to climate change. Source: IPCC, 2007.
The diamond markers indicate studies reporting responses without adaptation; the block markers indicate
studies reporting responses with adaptation. The lower line in each panel provides the trend line for thestudies without adaptation; the upper line provides the trend line for studies with adaptation. The studies on
which the figure is based span a range of precipitation ranges and CO2 concentration and vary in the way
how the present changes in climate variability.

chapter 04.indd 287

11/3/08 10:38:49 AM

288 | IAASTD Global Report•

Mitigation. Agriculture is also a major source of emissions. Although some technologies already exist to reduce CH4 and N2O emissions from agriculture, further
progress is required to reduce emissions beyond 2020.

4.4.5 Energy

Figure 4-26. Estimated historical and projected N2O and CH4
emissions from 1970-2050. Source: Van Vuuren et al., 2007.

house gases (GHGs) (Figure 4-26). This particularly holds
for methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both with higher global warming potential than CO2. Methane emissions
are primarily caused by livestock production and flooded
rice fields, while N2O emissions are related to the use of organic and inorganic N fertilizers. Finally, CO2 emissions arealso caused by land use changes and agricultural practices.
Several studies have found that reducing non-CO2
greenhouse gases from agriculture and CO2 emissions fromland use change can effectively reduce emissions. These multigas emissions reduction scenarios are able to meet climate
targets at substantially lower costs for the same targets as
was found in the EMF-21 study (IPCC, 2007c; Lucas et al.,2007). A variety of options exists for mitigation of GHG
emissions in agriculture (Table 4-13). Effective options are
improved crop and grazing land management, restorationof drained organic (peat) soils and restoration of degradedlands (IPCC, 2007c). Lower, but still significant mitigationis possible with improved water and rice management, conservation plots, land use change and agroforestry. The relevant measures depend highly on the carbon price, i.e., themarket price for reducing GHG emissions. At low carbon
prices, profitable strategies are minor changes in present
production systems, such as changes in tillage, fertilizer application, livestock diet formulation and manure management. Higher prices could allow the use of costly animal
feed-based mitigation options, or lead to changes in landuse. Effective options however, depend in general on local
conditions, including climate, agricultural practices andsocioeconomic circumstances; there is no universally applicable list of effective options (IPCC, 2007c).
4.4.4.5 Consequences for AKST
Based on the discussion above, challenges for AKST in thefield of agriculture consist of:• Adaptation. As climate change is likely to result in atleast 2oC warming by the end of the century, and possibly >6oC, agricultural systems need to adapt to climatechange. This will be even more important in developing
countries than in developed countries. Effective adaptation should focus on extremes as well as changes inmeans. AKST will need to create less vulnerable system
and AKST actors will need to provide information on
options for adaptation.

chapter 04.indd 288

4.4.5.1 Trends in world energy use
There are very important relationships between energy andagriculture. The industrial revolution led to improved access to energy services based on fossil energy (e.g., Smil,
1991) and allowed for higher production levels per unit ofland or labor in the agriculture sector. In turn, this allowed
for a dramatic increase in the global population, a (related)decrease in arable land per capita, and a movement of thework force away from agricultural production.
Global energy use during the last century increased byabout 2.5% annually, with a clear transition in consumption of primary sources from coal to oil to natural gas (Figure 4-27). The large majority of current scenarios project acontinuation of these trends. Global energy use continues togrow; in the first decades growth will primarily be based on
fossil fuel consumption. Primary energy consumption projections can be found in the IPCC-SRES scenarios, World
Energy Outlook (IEA, 2002; IEA, 2004) United States Department of Energy (US DoE, 2004) and the OECD environmental outlook (OECD, 2006a). The differences between the
different scenarios (Figure 4-28) can be explained in termsof underlying economic growth assumptions and assumed
emphasis on dematerialization. In nearly every scenario, thelargest contribution to global energy increase comes fromdeveloping countries. The scenarios also share the projection that in 2030 the majority of global energy use needs
come from fossil fuels. Nevertheless, clear differences in theenergy mix may occur. The most important determinants
are the stringency of future climate policy, differences intechnology expectation, and assumed societal preferences.
Studies also indicate that global energy consumption could
increase by 25-100% in the next 30 years, a huge challenge
to production. In the longer term, the energy mix may diversify in many different ways, ranging from almost total
coal use (e.g., IPCC’s A2 scenario) versus nearly total renewable energy (e.g., under stringent climate policy scenarios).
The growing awareness of both the “global warming” and“peak oil” issues is finally forcing decision makers and thegeneral public to put energy high on policy agendas.
4.4.5.2 The relationship between energy use and agriculture
The food and energy systems have historically interacted inseveral ways (e.g., Pimentel and Pimentel, 1979; Pimentel,
1980; Stanhill, 1984; Leach et al., 1986; Smil, 1987, 1991;
Stout, 1991, 1992). As indicated above, a dominant trend
during the last century was increasing energy use leading
to continuous increasing productivity of agricultural land.
The implication of this trend can be seen when comparing
the performance of industrialized and developing countries, in the relationship between energy inputs and yields(Giampietro, 2002). Agricultural production represents onlya small part of global energy consumption. However, energy
consumption not only occurs in the production stage. In theEU, the food supply chain used nearly 4 EJ of primary en-

11/3/08 10:38:54 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 289

Table 4-13. Proposed measures for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural ecosystems, their apparent effects on reducing
emissions of individual gases where adopted (mitigative effect), and an estimate of scientific confidence in their reduction of overall net
emissions at the site of adoption.
Mitigative effects1
		MeasureCroplandmanagement

Grazing land
management/
pastureimprovement

Examples

CO2

CH4

Net mitigation1(confidence)
N2O

Agreement

Evidence

Agronomy

+

+/-

***

**

Nutrient management

+

+

***

**

Tillage/residue management

+

+/-

**

**

Water management (irrigation,
drainage)

+/-

+

*

*

Rice management

+/-

+/-

**

**

Agro-forestry

+

+/-

***

*

Set-aside, land-use change

+

+

+

***

***

+/-

+

Grazing intensity

+/-

+/-

*

*

Increased productivity (e.g.,
fertilization)

+

+/-

**

*

Nutrient management

+

+/-

**

**

Fire management

+

+/-

*

*

Species introduction (including
legumes)

+

+/-

*

**

Management oforganic soils

Avoid drainage of wetlands

+

+/-

**

**

Restoration of
degraded lands

Erosion control, organic
amendments, nutrient amendments

+

+/-

***

**

Livestock
management

Improved feeding practices

+

+

***

***

Specific agents and dietary additives

+

**

***

Longer term structural andmanagement changes and animal
breeding

+

+

**

*

Improved storage and handling

+

+/-

***

**

Anaerobic digestion

+

+/-

***

*

+

***

**

+/-

***

**

Manure/biosolidmanagement

Bioenergy

More efficient use as nutrient source+

Energy crops, solid, liquid, biogas,
residues

+

+

-

+/-

Notes:+ denotes reduced emissions or enhanced removal (positive mitigative effect)- denotes increased emissions or suppressed removal (negative mitigative effect)+/- denotes uncertain or variable response
A qualitative estimate of the confidence in describing the proposed practice as a measure for reducing net emissions of greenhouse gases, expressed as CO2-eq

1

Agreement refers to the relative degree of consensus in the literature (the more asterisks, the higher the agreement); Evidence refers to the relative amountof data in support of the proposed effect (the more asterisks, the more evidence).
Source: IPCC, 2007, adapted from Smith and Bertaglia, 2007.

chapter 04.indd 289

11/3/08 10:38:55 AM

290 | IAASTD Global Reportfor food processing. Overall, this is likely to lead to further
growth in agriculture energy demand, although at a lower
rate than overall growth of energy consumption.
One additional factor is the role of energy prices; current
high prices for oil and natural gas do have consequences,primarily on fertilizer use and transport, for agriculture.
Projections for energy prices in the next decades have beenrevised upward in most reports (e.g., IEA, 2006), but stilla considerable uncertainty remains. Higher projections arefound for those projections that take into account further
increased demand in Asia and restrictions (e.g., limited investments, depletion) on increases in supply.

Figure 4-27. Global energy use from 1880-2000. Source: Van
Vuuren, 2007.

ergy, or about 7% of total consumption (Ramirez-Ramirez,2005). Within this total, nearly 45% is consumed by thefood processing industries, around 25% by agriculture,around 10-15% by transport of foodstuffs and fodder andthe remainder (5-10% each) for fertilizer manufacturing
and transport of agricultural products.
The rapid population growth expected in developing
countries is likely to have important implications for the
relationship between energy use and agriculture. Increasing
food production will require a strategy of intensification andconsequently a further increase in the consumption of fossil
energy for agricultural production. As this process is likely
to coincide with structural changes in the economy, lower
labor supply in agriculture will also lead to further intensification. As a result, systems in developing countries are
expected to see considerable growth in energy consumption

Figure 4-28. Trends in 21st century energy use. Comparison oftrends in SRES total primary energy consumption and more
recent studies by US.DoE and IEA. Source: USDoE, 2004; IEA 2004,
2006.

chapter 04.indd 290

4.4.5.3 Bioenergy
Climate change, energy security and the search for alternative income sources for agriculture have increased interest in
bioenergy as an alternative fossil fuel. Many scenario studies, with and without climate policy constraints, project astrong increase in the use of bioenergy, with major implications for future agriculture (see IPCC, 2007c). However, atthe same time there is a strong debate on the implicationsof bioenergy use; the outcome of this debate will critically
influence its future use (see also Slesser and Lewis, 1979;
Smil, 2003; Smeets and Faaij, 2004; Hoogwijk et al., 2005).
Crucial controversies with respect to bioenergy use include
whether bioenergy can provide net energy gains, reducegreenhouse gas emissions, cost-benefit ratio, environmental
implications and the effects on food crop production (Box4-4).
The potential for bioenergy production typically isbased on land use projections (e.g., Smeets and Faaij, 2004).
From a technical perspective, bioenergy could supply several
hundred exajoules per year from 2050 onwards compared
to a current global energy use of 420 EJ of which some 10%
is covered by bioenergy already, predominantly in the formof traditional bioenergy. The major reason for the divergence among different estimates of bioenergy potentials isthat the two most crucial parameters, land availability andyield levels in energy crop production, are very uncertain.
The development of cellulosic ethanol could lead to muchhigher yields per hectare (see Chapter 6). Another factor
concerns the availability of forest wood and agriculture andforestry residues. In particular, the use of forest wood has
been identified as a potentially major source of biomass forenergy (up to about 115 EJ yr−1 in 2050) but very low estimates are also reported.
In evaluating the information on bioenergy potential,
the costs, land requirements and the environmental constraints will determine whether biomass can be transformed
into a viable net energy supply to society. Hence, the drivers
are (1) population growth and economic development; (2)intensity of food production systems, (3) feasibility of theuse of marginal/degraded lands, (4) productivity forests andsustainable harvest levels, (5) the (increased) utilization of
biomaterials, (6) limitations in land and water availability.
Scenario studies evaluate bioenergy mostly in terms of competition against energy carriers and thus give an indicationof demand. Bioenergy use in various energy scenarios varies
widely (Figure 4-29). In these scenarios, use of bioenergy
varies between 0 and 125 EJ yr-1 in 2030 and 25 and 250
EJ in 2050.

11/3/08 10:38:58 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 291

Box 4-4. Controversies on bioenergy use and its implications.
(a) Net energy gains and greenhouse gas emissions
There are many studies on the net energy gains of bioenergy, but
results differ. These differences can often be traced to different
technological assumptions, accounting mechanisms for by-products and assumed inputs (e.g., fertilizers). In some the productionof ethanol from maize energy outputs has a small net gain (Farrell
et al., 2006), while in others the net result is negative (Cleveland etal., 2006; Kaufmann, 2006; Hagens et al., 2006). Some other crops
have a more positive energy balance, including ethanol fromsugar cane, oil crops and conversion of cellulosic material (e.g.,switchgrass) to second-generation biofuels. The greenhouse gasbalance, a function of production patterns and agroclimatic conditions, is also important. Maize ethanol in the U.S. is believed to
cut GHG emissions only by 10 to 20% compared to regular gasoline (Farrell et al., 2006) but some other crops are reported to obtain better reductions, e,g., ethanol from sugarcane—up to 90%
reduction (CONCAWE, 2002; Farrell et al., 2006; Hill et al., 2006)
and biodiesel up to 50-75% (CONCAWE, 2002; IEA, 2004; Bozbas,
2005; Hill et al., 2006; Rosegrant et al., 2006). More conservative
analyses represent a minority, but they point to potential flaws in
the mainstream lifecycle analyses, most notably with respect toassumptions about land use and nitrous oxide emissions.
(b) Costs of bioenergy
Studies on bioenergy alternatives generally find the low cost
range from bioenergy to start at around $12-15 per GJ for liquidbiofuels from current sugar cane to around US $15-20 per GJ for
production from crops in temperature zones. In most cases, thisis considerably more expensive than $6-14 per GJ for petroleumbased fuels crude oil price for oil prices from $30 per bbl to $70
per bbl. It is expected that costs of biofuels (especially the moreadvanced second-generation technology) will be further reduced
due to technology progress, but the actual progress rate is highly
uncertain. Agricultural subsidies and the economic profitability
also affect the value of emission reductions under different climate policy scenarios.

duction, energy and environmental sustainability. The productionof 1st generation biofuels from agricultural and energy crops isvery land intensive. Land evaluation depends on (1) availability ofabandoned agriculture land, (2) suitability of degraded lands forbiofuel production and (3) use of natural areas. Obviously, biofuels can also compete with food production for current agricultural land and/or expansion of agricultural land into forest areas.
Examples of this can already be seen where expansion of crop
plantations for biofuels production have led to deforestation anddraining of peatlands, e.g., in Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia (Curran et al., 2004; FOE, 2005; FBOMS, 2006; Kojima et al., 2007).
(d) Impact on food prices
As long as biofuels are produced predominantly from agricultural
crops, an expansion of production will raise agricultural prices(for food and feed). This has now become evident in the priceof maize (the major feedstock in U.S. ethanol production), which
increased 56% in 2006. Price rises are expected for other biofuels feedstock crops in the future (OECD, 2006; Rosegrant etal., 2006). This increase in price can be caused directly, throughthe increase in demand for the feedstock, or indirectly, throughthe increase in demand for the factors of production (e.g., land,
water, etc.). More research is needed to assess these risks andtheir effects but it is evident that poor net buyers of food would
suffer strongly under increasing prices. Some food-importing developing countries would be particularly challenged to maintainfood security.
(e) Environmental implications
Whereas implications for the environment are relatively low for
current small-scale production levels, high levels of biofuels feedstock production will require considerable demand for water andperhaps, nutrients. Some studies have indicated there could betradeoffs between preventing water scarcity and biofuel production (CA, 2007). Bioenergy production on marginal lands and theuse of agricultural residues could negatively affect soil organic
matter content (Graham et al., 2007).

(c) Impact on land use
A serious concern in the debate on biofuels is the issue of land
scarcity and the potential competition between land for food pro-

Implications for agriculture. Based on the discussion above,
one possible outcome in this century is a significant switchfrom fossil fuel to a bioenergy-based economy, with agriculture and forestry as the leading sources of biomass (FAO,
2006f). The outcomes can be unclear. One can envision thebest scenarios in which bioenergy becomes a major sourceof quality employment and provides a means through whichenergy services are made widely available in rural areas
while it gives rise to environmental benefits such as carbon
reductions, land restoration and watershed protection. On
the other hand, one can envision worst case scenarios inwhich bioenergy leads to further consolidation of land hold-chapter 04.indd 291

ings, competition for cropland and displacement of existing
livelihoods while it incurs environmental costs of decreased
biodiversity and greater water stress (World Bank, 2005a).
Currently, bioenergy fuel use is rapidly expanding in
response to government policies and subsidies, high energy
prices and climate policy initiatives. In this context, bioenergy can also offer development opportunities for countries
with significant agricultural resources, given lower barriers
to trade in biofuels. Africa, with its significant sugar cane
production potential, is often cited as a region that could
profit from Brazil’s experience and technology, thoughobstacles to realizing it (infrastructure, institutional, etc.)

11/3/08 10:38:59 AM

Bioenergy use (EJ/yr)

292 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 4-29. Biomass use in the different global energy scenarios.
(range of different studies). Source: Dornburg et al., 2008.

should not be underestimated. Obviously, transporting bioenergy across the world would become a major new challenge as well.
While there is controversy on the size of the effect, major bioenergy use certainly affects environmental resources(e.g., water, land and biodiversity). Therefore, it is very important to understand and quantify the impacts and performance of bioenergy systems for determining how successful
the use of biomass for energy (and materials) is, how thebenefits of biomass use can be optimized and how negative
impacts can be avoided.
4.4.5.5 Most important implications for AKST
Large scale use of bioenergy could transform the agricultural system into a net producer of energy. As indicated inlatter parts of this assessment, the potential of bioenergy issuch that it requires data and information tools for decision making based on solid technical, social and economic
knowledge. The intrinsic interdisciplinary character of bioenergy means that implications for AKST will encompass areas as varied as agricultural and energy policies, natural resources and biodiversity protection and rural development.
Interaction between the agricultural sector and the energy,
environment and industrial sectors as well as sustainability
protocols will be vital for successful bioenergy use. From
the overall bioenergy chain point of view, it is important
to monitor and further improve systems with respect to (1)implications for soil and water; (2) supply of agricultural
inputs (fertilizer, fuel, machinery); (3) increasing overall efficiency and (4) minimizing effects on biodiversity.
4.4.6 Labor
4.4.6.1 Trends in employment of labor in agriculture
Hardly any information on labor projections is found in thecurrently published scenario studies. Therefore, historical
trends are used here to assess future trends. Over the last 10
years, there has been a global decline in the relative shareof employment in agriculture: from 46% in 1994 to 43%
in 2004. However, agriculture continued to be the largest

chapter 04.indd 292

source of employment (around 60%) in sub-Saharan Africa,
South Asia and East Asia. At the same time, the share of
agriculture in total employment in developed countries issmall: only 4% in 2004 and likely to decline further. As thetrends observed above (both in time—and across regions)
are global, they are projected to continue, leading to everlower numbers employed in agriculture. This decline underlies many of the economic projections of future scenarios.
The share of agriculture in total employment will decrease
dramatically in developing countries and decline more slowly in industrialized countries.
4.4.6.2 Labor productivity in agriculture
Future trends in labor productivity are expected to increase,
based on the evidence over the past decade. Labor productivity in the world increased by almost 11% over the pastten years (ILO, 2005). This increase was primarily driven by
the impressive growth in labor productivity in Asia and theindustrialized economies. The transition economies havealso contributed to the world’s recent growth in productivity. The Latin America and the Caribbean realized productivity increase of just over 1% over 10 years, mainly due to theeconomic crisis in the beginning of the century. There were
no changes in the Middle East and North Africa, while subSaharan Africa experienced declining productivity on average.
Similar trends in future productivity are anticipated.
Based on historical data for 71 countries from 1980 to 2001,
agricultural GDP per worker in sub-Saharan Africa on average grew at a rate of 1.6% per year slower than for countries
in Asia, Latin America, the transition economies and theMediterranean countries (Gardner, 2005). Agricultural GDP
per laborer and national GDP were positively correlated
based on data for 85 countries for 1960-2001. Within eachof the regional grouping (Africa, Asia, and Latin America),
the countries that grew fastest in national GDP per capita
also grew fastest in agricultural GDP per worker, with a few
notable exceptions, e.g., Brazil (Gardner, 2005; ILO, 2005).
Levels of productivity in Latin America are the highest in thedeveloping world, followed by the Middle East and North
Africa and the transition economies. East Asia, South Asiaand sub-Saharan Africa, where the majority of the poor live,
have considerably lower average labor productivity (World
Bank, 2004a).
An increase in agricultural labor productivity has a moresignificant direct effect on poverty reduction than increases
in total factor productivity (ILO, 2005) and there are indirect effects on poverty from changes in food production andfood prices (Dev, 1988; ILO, 2005).
Productivity gains can lead to job losses, but productivity gains also lead to employment creation, since technology also creates new products and new processes; hence,
the increasing trends in productivity could lead to expanded
employment in other sectors such as information and communications technologies (ILO, 2005).There will be a
critical need to provide adjustment strategies (financial assistance and retraining) for displaced workers and to ensure
growth in the long-term.
While in the short run, increased productivity might affect growth of employment in agriculture adversely, this outcome may not hold in the long run. Economic history shows

11/3/08 10:39:00 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 293

that over the long-term, the growth of output, employment
and productivity progress in the same direction (ILO, 2005).
However, social costs in the short-term can be high.
4.4.6.3 Gender perspectives in agricultural labor
As agriculture and food systems evolve over the next decades, gender issues and concerns are highly likely to continue to be central to AKST development, at least in the developing countries where women have played a significant
role in traditional agricultural production. Over the years
improvements in agricultural technologies have seldom
been targeted as recipients of improved technologies. Yet
there are more women working in agriculture than men,e.g., women in rural Africa produce, process and store up to
80% of foodstuffs, while in South and South East Asia they
undertake 60% of cultivation work and other food production (UNIFEM, 2000).
Employment of female vis-à-vis male workers is likely
to decline in the future as women obtain more employment
in other sectors. Historically, there has been a global decline
in the world over the last 10 years (47% in 1994 to 43% in2004). While this may imply further declines in the future, it
may also be true that female employment in agriculture will
increase as a result of changing production patterns.
The increasing participation of women in subsistence
production in agriculture is highly likely to continue facilitating male out-migration to urban areas and to other sectors such as mining and commercial farming (at lower costs
to society than would otherwise be possible). The greaternumber of men moving out of the agricultural sector ishighly likely to continue. A slightly increasing feminizationof the agricultural labor force in most developing countries
may reflect the fact that women are entering into high value
production and processing and thus less likely to abandon
their agricultural ventures (Mehra and Gammage, 1999).

4.5 Existing Assessments of Future Food
Systems, Agricultural Products and Services
4.5.1 Assessments relevant for changes in foodsystems
Existing assessments provide information how agriculturaland food systems might change in response to the changes
in the direct and indirect drivers discussed in the previous
subchapters (note that the outcomes of these assessments
may be compared to the reference scenario presented in
Chapter 5). Over the past 50 years, there have been at least
30 quantitative projections of global food prospects (supply and demand balances). We have reviewed several recent
global assessments (see 4.2) that provide information relevant for future agriculture and food systems, either directly(i.e., assessments with an agricultural focus) or indirectly(other assessments that include agriculture). Important organizations that provide specific agricultural outlooks at
the global scale include the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (FAPRI), some of the research centers of the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) such as the International
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the OECD, and thechapter 04.indd 293

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Other
food projection exercises focus on particular regions, such as
the European Union. Finally, many individual analyses andprojections are implemented at the national level by agriculture departments and national level agricultural research
institutions.
In subchapter 4.2, we introduced a selection of global
assessments and discussed their objectives and use of scenarios. None of these—IPCC’s Assessment Reports (IPCC
2001, 2007abc), UNEP’s Global Environment Outlooks(UNEP 2002, 2007; RIVM/UNEP, 2004), the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005a), IFPRI’s World Food
Outlook (Rosegrant et al., 2001), FAO’s World Agriculture
AT 2015/2030 (Bruinsma, 2003) and IWMI’s Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management for Agriculture (CA,2007)—address the full spectrum of the food system andAKST from the perspective of a range of different plausible
futures (Table 4-14). This is not surprising given the different
objectives of these assessments (see 4.2), but it does imply
that an assessment that meets development objectives cannot be met solely through analyzing earlier assessments. Although the projections provided by FAO and IFPRI address
agricultural production and services to some degree, theattention paid to AKST elements is relatively limited. Thishighlights a need for new work to integrate plausible futureswith regard to the interactions between driving forces andfood systems while addressing AKST in more detail. Analysis of recent scenarios exercises indicates that while someelements related to the future of food systems are touched
upon, the focus of these exercises is more on production
and consumption than on the distribution component offood systems. Most studies addressed qualitative and quantitative production indicators, and provide assumptions onyields for various crops, area under certain crops, input use
or exchange mechanisms. Consumption as well as accessto food (including affordability, allocation and preference),
has often been addressed through modeling food demandin different scenarios. For example, assumptions regarding
allocation of food through markets are made indirectly under different scenarios by assuming whether and how wellmarkets and governance systems function. Food preferences
are usually covered in a more qualitative manner throughassumptions made about changes due to various culturaland economic factors (Zurek 2006).
The area least covered by the reviewed scenario exercises is food utilization (Zurek 2006). The IFPRI and MA
exercises calculated the number of malnourished children
under each scenario (a very basic indicator of hunger andwhether nutritional standards are met), but nutritional outcomes under different diets and their possible changes are
seldom addressed. Little, if anything, is said in any of theexercises concerning food safety issues or the social value offood, both of which can have important consequences forfood preferences. The MA does quantitatively assess certain
health indicators; these could be used to give a further indication on human nutritional status in different scenarios.
Further in-depth research is needed on some of the specificfood systems variables and their changes in the future, specifically for those related to food utilization, as well as anumber related to food accessibility.

11/3/08 10:39:00 AM

294 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 4-14. Overview of existing assessment and their relationship to agriculture.
IPCC/IPCCSRESUNEP-GEO3MAIFPRI 2020

FAO AT 2015/
2030

CGIAR CA

Crop production levels
and consequences for
land

Some

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Livestock productionlevels and consequences
for land

Some

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Some

Some

Yes

Yes

Fisheries (production andstocks)Forestry

Some

Some

Distribution

Indirect

Indirect

Indirect

Yes

IndirectExchange

International
trade

International
trade

International
trade

International
trade

International
trade

Affordability

Some

Yes

Yes

Yes

Allocation

MarketYes

MarketMarketIndirect

Preferences

Yes

Yes

Yes

Nutritional Value

Yes

Yes

Yes

Social Value
Food Safety
Relationship withenvironmental variables

Some
ClimateYes

Explicit description of
AKST issues

Some

Yes

Some

Some

Some

Some

Some

Yes

Source: Zurek and Henrichs, 2006.

4.5.2 Indication of projected changes
Food systems can be classified into (1) production and (2)distribution and delivery. Most assessments discussed here
concentrate much more on the first. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the global food projections by IFPRI
and the Agriculture towards 2015/30 study by FAO provide
the most relevant information in the context of the IAASTD(see Table 4-9). It should be noted the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment used four diverging scenarios (Global Orchestration, Technogarden, Adapting Mosaic and Orderfrom Strength). Together these four scenarios cover a broad
range of possible outcomes for the development of different
ecological services.
4.5.2.1 Changes in production systems
Agricultural production systems can be classified in different
ways. A system based on two key dimensions of cultivatedsystems: an agroecological dimension and an enterprise/management dimension was proposed for MA (Cassman etal., 2005). Such an approach can easily be coupled to bothbiogeographic factors and long-term trends in agricultural
management, and hence provides a very useful structure toassess potential future changes in production systems. It pro-chapter 04.indd 294

vides a basis to integrate socioeconomic analysis (looking at
the economic and social viability of agricultural systems)
and biophysical analysis (looking at the environmental consequences). Unfortunately, however, the different existingassessments generally tend to analyze information at a much
more aggregated scale, because data is lacking, particularly
on agricultural management in developing countries.
General trends. In the system proposed above a useful
distinction can be made along the management axis in the
degree of intensification. Such a distinction would include(1) intensive (or fully colonized) agroecosystems (e.g., producing crops, often in monocultures, intensive livestock andspecialized dairy farms); (2) intermediate (partially colonized) agroecosystems (e.g., pastoralism, agroforestry, slashand burn); and (3) the exploitation of uncontrolled ecosystems (e.g., fishing in the ocean or in big rivers, hunting andgathering). From a human perspective, this distinction of
intensification refers to an assessment of costs and benefits.
Taking out products from an exploited ecosystem requiresa degree of “investment” (e.g., tilling the soil, taking careof animals, preparing fishing nets), which needs to deliver
an adequate return in terms of value. This distinction is

11/3/08 10:39:00 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 295

relevant also from an ecological perspective. In the case ofsustainable fishing, hunting and gathering, the basic structure of the ecosystem is preserved. In partial colonization,
humans manage to produce crop plants and/or livestock
at a density higher than that typical of natural ecosystems.
Full colonization, finally, generates agroecosystems withvery little in common with the natural ecosystem that they
replace. Historically, there has been a trend towards intensification of agricultural systems, although in many areas
extensive systems are also still common. In crop, livestock,
forestry and fishery production systems, further intensification is projected to meet increasing demand worldwide. A
natural consequence of the related increase in agricultural
inputs (e.g., energy, fertilizers) will also be further pressure
on natural ecosystems. Without intensification increasing
demands would need to be met by further expansion.
Global crop production. Worldwide, numerous cropping
systems can be distinguished based on agroecological parameters, cultivation and the type of crops grown. In termsof cultivation, these categories range from irrigated systems,
to high external-input rain fed and low external-input rain
fed systems, shifting cultivation and mixed crop and livestock systems. In time, a noticeable trend can be observedin many countries from low-input systems to high-input
systems. This shift follows from an assessment of costs andbenefits, weighing the costs of inputs against the increased
yield levels. The shift to high-input systems had occurredin several regions of the world by the middle of the lastcentury, but in other areas it has occurred during the last 40
years (e.g., the Green Revolution in Asia). A basic underlying driver of this shift is increasing global food demand as aresult of increasing population (see 4.3.1 and 4.4.1). Lowinput systems still provide a substantial share of total agriculture, in addition to providing livelihoods for hundredsof millions of resource-poor people in developing countries.
For instance, shifting cultivation is the dominant form of agriculture in tropical humid and sub-humid upland regions,and low-input rain fed systems are still important in many
parts of the world (FAO, 2002b).
All assessments provide relatively little information on
trends in underlying production systems for food crops; thediscussion is more on an aggregated crop level with mostattention focused on cereals. Worldwide, cereals represent
about two-thirds of the total crop production and the total
harvested area. In all assessments, the production of cereals
is expected to increase (Figure 4-30). Interestingly, differences among the scenarios of these different assessments arevery small. One underlying reason is that in all cases, the increase of global cereal production seems to be coupled to theincrease in the global population. The increase in cereal production in the next few decades ranges from around 0.9%
annually (lowest MA scenarios) to 1.3% (the IFPRI projection), which is slightly below the annual increase for the
total crops production reported in these assessments. This
number is, however, considerably lower than the increase inproduction over the past 30 years (around 2.1% and up to
3.1% annually in developing countries) (also the historic increase is nearly equal to the increase in population over thesame period). These numbers are aggregated: for both thehistoric numbers and the projections there is a large varia-

chapter 04.indd 295

tion at the regional and country scale, implying important
trends in food trade and food security. Finally, it is important
to note that in the time frame of the scenarios an increasing
share of cereals will be used as animal feed to supply the very
rapidly growing demand for livestock products.
There are two main sources of growth in crop production: (1) expansion of harvested land area and (2) yield increases. Globally over the last three decades yield increases forcereals have provided about 70-80% of production growth,
while harvested land expansion contributed about 20-30%
of growth. In the scenarios developed by these assessments,
contribution of expansion of harvested land to increase incereal production ranged from as low as 5 to around 30%.
The lowest numbers are reported for the MA scenarios thatassume high levels of technology change (Global Orchestration and Technogarden); all other scenarios find values
that are near, or somewhat below the historic values. The
lower contribution to total production from the expansionof crop area can be attributed to increasing land scarcity andpossibly the lower overall rate of production increase. A decreasing quality of land brought into production, however,
could imply that a greater percentage of gains in total production will be attributable to crop area expansion than has
historically been the case (as indicated in the MA). Even in
the two scenarios with little global expansion of harvested
land, a considerable expansion of arable land still occurs in
Africa, Latin America and partly in Asia, but this is compensated for by a decrease of harvested area in temperate zones.
In the other scenarios, the largest expansion also occurs inthese regions. The yield growth in these scenarios is about
0.6-0.9% annually at a global level. Several factors contribute to this (reasons are reported in more detail in the FAO
and IFPRI assessment than in the MA), including increased
irrigation and shifts from low-input to high-input agriculture. In any case, the assumed yield growth in each of the
scenarios is considerably below the historic rate of change.
The suggested trends in expansion of agricultural land intropical zones are controversial, with questions about how
this expansion can happen in many parts of the tropics (particularly in Africa) in any meaningful way.
For total agricultural land (all crops), similar trends arereported, although the area expansion is somewhat higher

Figure 4-30. Global cereal production in selected scenarios

11/3/08 10:39:01 AM

296 | IAASTD Global Reportthan for cereals alone. Across the assessments, the area incrop production increases from 1.5 billion ha (or 11% of
the earth’s land surface) to 1.60 to 1.77 billion ha. As indicated by FAO, this expansion is within the scope of total
land available for crop production. The fact that the assessments considered here agree on a rather flexible continuous
response of the agriculture system to demand increases is interesting, as more skeptical views have also been expressed.
An important implication, however, is further loss of thearea available to unmanaged ecosystems.
Global livestock production. Livestock production systems
differ greatly across the world. Confined livestock production systems in industrialized countries are the source ofmost of the world’s poultry and pig meat production, andhence of global meat supplies (FAO, 2002b). Such large-scale
livestock systems are also being established in developing
countries, particularly in Asia, to meet increasing demand
for meat and dairy products. Livestock production also occurs in mixed crop-livestock farming systems and extensive
grazing systems. Mixed crop-livestock systems, where crops
and animals are integrated on the same farm, represent the
backbone of small-scale agriculture throughout the developing world. Globally, mixed systems provide 50% of theworld’s meat and over 90% of its milk, and extensive pasture and grazing systems provide about 20-30% of beef andmutton production. To date, extensive grazing systems indeveloping countries have typically increased production
by herd expansion rather than by substantial increases in
productivity, but the scope for further increases in herd
numbers in these systems is limited. The share of extensive
grazing systems is declining relative to other systems, dueboth to intensification and to declining areas of rangeland.
Considering all food production systems together, livestock
production is the world’s largest user of land (about a quarter of the world’s land), either directly for grazing, or indirectly through consumption of feed and fodder.
As incomes increase, demand for animal products increases as well. This trend, which has been empiricallyestablished in all regions, is assumed to continue in the scenarios of the three assessments considered here. As a result,meat demand is projected to increase at a greater rate than
the global population. Changing dietary preferences also
contribute to this increased demand in the scenarios. Interestingly, future meat production varies considerably morethan future cereal production among the scenarios (Figures
4-31, 4-32, 4-33). Assessments indicate similar growth rates
for other animal products such as milk.
The increases in meat production will occur through anumber of means, including changes that lead to intensified production systems, such as expansion of land use forlivestock, and more efficient conversion of feed into animal
products (Figure 4-34). Both the MA and FAO assessments
indicate that most of the increases in world livestock production will occur in developing countries; second, while
scenarios differ in their projections of future pasture area,
compared with crop land area most scenarios expect very
little increase in pasture land. For grazing systems, thismeans that some intensification is likely to occur particularly in the humid-subhumid zones where this is feasible.
Considerable intensification is likely in the mixed systems,

chapter 04.indd 296

with further integration of crop and livestock enterprises inmany places. Strong growth is implied for confined livestock
production systems; in the FAO scenario at least 75% of
the total growth is in confined systems, although there arelikely to be strong regional differences (e.g., less growth ofthese systems in Africa). This is a continuation of historic
trends. The major expansion in industrial systems has beenin the production of pigs and poultry, as they have short
reproductive cycles and are more efficient than ruminantsin converting feed concentrates (cereals) into meat. Industrial enterprises now account for 74% of the world’s total poultry production, 40% of pig meat and 68% of eggs
(FAO, 1996). At the same time, a trend to more confinedsystems for cattle has been observed, and a consequent rapid
increase in demand for cereal- and soy-based animal feeds(these trends are included in the projections discussed in theprevious subchapter) (see Delgado et al., 1999).
Finally, while there are good economic arguments forthe concentration of large numbers of animals in confinedsystems, there can be significant impacts on surrounding
ecosystems, something that is only recently started to be assessed in sufficient detail in agricultural assessments. The
effects primarily involve N and P cycles. While some typesof manure can be recycled onto local farmland, soils canquickly become saturated with both N and P since it is costly
to transport manure.
Forestry. The FAO assessment pays considerable attention
to forestry and the outlook for forestry, but mostly in aqualitative way. The MA also considers the future of forestry, but focuses more on the extent of natural forests than thedevelopment of forestry as a production system (althoughsome data is available). Overall, both assessments agree onthat the general trend over the last decades of a decreasing
forest resource base and an increasing use of wood products
will continue.
Important driving forces for forestry include demographic, sociopolitical and economic changes, changes inextend of agricultural land, and environmental policy. Bothpopulation and economic growth affect forestry directly via
an increase in demand for wood and indirectly via the impact
on agricultural production. There is strong evidence thatwith rising incomes, demand for forest products increases,
especially for paper and panel products. The increasing demand for wood products is also assumed in the scenarios of
the FAO and MA (Figure 4-35). The demand for industrial
roundwood is expected to increase by about 20-80%. The
lowest projection results from the Technogarden scenario(assumes a high efficiency of forest utilization in order toprotect forests) while the highest projection results from the
Global Orchestration scenario (reflecting the very high economic growth rate).
The use of wood products as a source of energy (fuelwood) is not expected to grow fast, and may even decline.
The use of fuelwood is particularly important at lower incomes; wealthier consumers prefer and can afford otherforms of energy. As a result, fuelwood consumption is afunction of population growth (increasing fuelwood demand) and increased income (decreasing demand), with the
net results being a small decline and rise over the next 30
years. The impact of environmental policies on forestry may

11/3/08 10:39:01 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 297

Figure 4-31. Harvested area for cereals and all crops in selected scenarios. Source: MNP, 2006.
Note: FAO refers to the implementation of the FAO AT2015/2030 scenario in the IMAGE model. FAO report
only provides areas in developing countries.

be important: e.g., increasing protection of forests and strategies to mitigate climate change may both result in encouraging less deforestation and reforestation initiatives to offset
energy related greenhouse gas emissions.
The resulting trends in forested areas are presented in
the MA for forests as a whole. The MA scenarios mostly
show a further decline in forest area, but at a much slower
rate than historically. In fact, the slow global deforestation
trend is a result of a net reforestation in temperate zones,
and a net deforestation in tropical areas. The slower deforestation trend is a direct result of the lower rate of expansionof agricultural areas coupled with greater forest conservation efforts.
Figure 4-32. Indication of factors underlying production growthin selected scenarios. Source: MNP, 2006.
Note: FAO numbers refer to IMAGE implementation.

Figure 4-33. World meat production in selected scenarios. Source:
MNP, 2006.

chapter 04.indd 297

Fisheries. Potential trends in world fisheries are discussed
in qualitative terms in the FAO assessment, while the MA
provides some projection for world fish consumption. Bothassessments indicate that production of wild capture fisheries is approaching (or has passed) its sustainable limits, indicating that no real increase is expected. This implies that any
growth in production will need to come from aquaculture(which is already the fastest growing component of world
fisheries; especially in developing countries). It should be
noted, however, that currently aquaculture mostly relies on
feed that is provided by wild capture fisheries and can also
cause serious pollution. Further growth, therefore, relies onfinding sustainable ways to increase aquaculture. The MA
reports both more conservative views (supported by ecological models) and more optimistic models (supported byagroeconomic projections). The FAO assessment presents asimilar open-ended view on the future of aquaculture, indicating growth is likely to occur, but provided sustainablesources for feed are found.
4.5.2.2 Changes in food distribution and delivery
As indicated earlier, the amount of information on how other parts of the food system may change in the future is far
less elaborated than the information on production systems.
Based on the driving forces discussed earlier in this chapter,

11/3/08 10:39:05 AM

298 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 4-34. Number of large livestock and total grazing area in selected scenarios. Source:
MNP, 2006.
Note: FAO refers to the IMAGE implementation of the FAO scenario.

and the limited information found in the 3 assessments
looked at here some trends may be hypothesized:• Assessments expect agricultural trade to increase, as
indicated earlier (see 4.3.1). These increases are mostpronounced in the globalization scenarios (assuming
a reduction of trade barriers)—but also occur in scenarios that assume a more regional focus as a result of
increasing demand for agricultural products. Obviously, this trend may have very important implications forboth commercial and small-scale farmers in developing
countries. Another implication may be the increasing
importance of multinational companies.
• As discussed earlier, urbanization is likely to continue inall scenarios. As a consequence, food will increasingly
be available to consumers via retailers and supermarkets, a trend that represents a continuation of a major trend already taking place in developing countries(Reardon et al., 2003. This trend will slowly influence•

the importance of different actors in the food systems(see 4.4.1), although consequences are hard to assess.
The role of farmers may, for instance, be very different in the MA’s Global Orchestration scenario (witha strong market focus) than under the MA’s Adaptive
Mosaic scenario (in which farmers may successfullyorganize themselves). Important consequences of thetrend towards retailers and supermarkets (and underlying urbanization) also include changes in diets (4.4.1),
an increasing focus on production standards, demanding quality and safety attributes, and an increasing commercialization of upstream production processes.
There are direct relationships between the above discussed demographic trends and agricultural production
processes as well. For instance, location in relation tourban centers affects access to markets for purchased
inputs and the costs of such inputs often leading to confined agricultural in periurban zones (thus reinforcing

Figure 4-35. World production of forest products in selected scenarios. Source: FAO, 2006b; MA
2005a.

chapter 04.indd 298

11/3/08 10:39:07 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 299•

trends towards the intensified systems discussed earlier). Confined production systems facilitate the management of nutrition, breeding and health (responding to
the need for production standards), but do so at the costof increased investment demand. There are economies
of scale in the provision of such processing services andthe associated product marketing, and possibly in the
supply of inputs (feed and feed supplements) and genetic material (e.g., day old chicks or semen). Again, this
implies that under most of the scenarios discussed an increase in cooperative group activity or vertical integration of small-scale producers with large scale processing
and marketing organizations.
None of the assessment explored scenarios that completely challenge currently seen developments, such asa (1) strongly rising demand for ecologically produced
food in developed countries, (2) an adoption of vegetarian diets across the world (the MA scenarios only explore slower and more rapid increase in meat demand),(3) major shifts in productivity levels as result of successful development in GMOs or other new agricultural
technologies, or (4) a trend towards healthy food (vegetables, fruits) versus more high animal protein diet.

4.6 Relevance for Development andSustainability Goals and AKST in the Future
Agriculture is a complex system that can be described byeconomic, biophysical, sociocultural and other parameters.
However, its future is determined by an even larger set of direct and indirect drivers. Global assessments, e.g., provided
by the IPCC, the MA, and FAO, and reviewed in this chapter, have addressed plausible future developments in agriculture. These assessments have made use of different approaches to address future agricultural changes, and usuallyemploy either detailed projections accompanied by limited
policy simulations or scenario analyses that consider a wide
range of uncertainties in an integrated manner. Neither ofthese approaches aims to predict the future, but rather provide a framework to explore key interlinkages among different drivers and their resulting changes. Though these recent
global assessments provide a host of information on plausible future developments regarding agricultural production
systems and their driving forces, none of these assessments
has explicitly focused on the future role of AKST.
4.6.1 What development and sustainability goals canto be addressed through AKST?
Some of the trends in direct and indirect drivers benefit agriculture and its role in realizing more sustainable development.
Other trends, however, imply considerable challenges. Amongthe most important drivers identified in this chapter are:
• Land use change (balancing land claims in response to
an increasing demand for agricultural products with theobjective of protecting natural ecosystems)• Changes in trade patterns (in particular consequences
for smallholder farmers)
Land degradation and water scarcity• Climate change• Urbanization (in particular with respect to consequences for food-supply chains)chapter 04.indd 299

•
•
•
•

Demand for bioenergy
Governance
Breakthrough in crop and soil management, including
ecological intensification, biotechnology and information technologies applied to agriculture
Investments in AKST (both the volume and direction)

The projected increase in the global population in the next
50 years (2-3 billion people), ongoing urbanization, andchanging lifestyles are likely to lead to a strongly increasing demand for agricultural products and services. Assessments indicate that this could exert pressure on the natural resource base. Historic evidence shows shifts towards
more meat-intensive consumption patterns with increasing
incomes, and projections are similar for the future. The demand for agricultural products will need to be met while
simultaneously addressing the critical role agriculture andland use change play in global environmental problems. In
this context, demand for agricultural products, land use,biodiversity and AKST are intrinsically linked. In addition
to demand for food, feed and fiber, demand for bioenergy
is expected to increase. A major uncertainty in the land usechange scenarios presented in the literature stems from theassumed degree of extensification and intensification of agriculture. Most assessments indicate that roughly 70-80%
of the extra production is projected to stem from intensification. This implies that increasing demands are also partly
met by expansion of cultivated land. This is particularly thecase in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and East Asia.
AKST may help in addressing the need for productivity
gains while simultaneously considering the role of agriculture and land use on local, regional and global environmental problems.
There are many reasons for increasing agricultural
trade, such as increasing demand for food, increasing interregional relationships and commodity specialization, possibly facilitated by trade liberalization. Interestingly, evenscenarios that assumed no further trade liberalization reported increases in agricultural trade (driven by increased
demand for agricultural products). Several studies reportthat further globalization and liberalization will affect countries and groups within countries in different ways. Whileagricultural trade among developing countries is likely toincrease, as a group they may become net importers of agricultural commodities with a possibility of further widening
agricultural trade deficit. Conversely, industrialized countries tend to become net beneficiaries of trade arrangements
as they are expected to face less pressure to reduce theirsupport for agriculture.
Existing assessments (in particular the MA) also highlighted the role of agriculture as a major contributor to
global environmental change, such as land degradation,
nutrient pollution and increasing water scarcity. The rapid
expansion of irrigation and associated agricultural water
withdrawals for improved productivity is expected to continue to depend on availability of water resources sufficient
to produce food for the growing world population while atthe same time meet increasing municipal, industrial and environmental requirements. Earlier assessments indicate thatwater availability for agriculture is one of the most criticalfactors for food security, particularly in arid and semiarid

11/3/08 10:39:07 AM

300 | IAASTD Global Report

regions in the world, where water scarcity has already become a severe constraint to food production. Water scarcity
and increasing rates of soil degradation in many regions
may limit the ability of agriculture systems to reduce foodinsecurity and to meet the MDG target of halving hunger
by 2015. Moreover, increasing rates of land degradation in
many regions may limit the ability of agriculture systems toprovide food security. A final important factor is the roleof agriculture in the N cycle, with effects on both local andregional scales. Decreasing these impacts may require important changes in soil fertility management. AKST must
continue to address the need to develop sustainable agricultural systems in these regions. In this context, it should be
noted that there are several scenarios that highlight many
opportunities for enhancing the positive role of agriculture
in providing ecosystem services, minimizing its environmental impacts and adapting to global environmental change.
Agriculture, a highly climate-sensitive sector, is alreadystrongly affected by climate variability in many parts of theworld, and it will be even more affected by climate change
in the future. The relevant changes in climate of importanceto agriculture include not only changes in mean temperatureand precipitation, but even more importantly, seasonal andinterannual variability and extreme events. The outcomesof the impact of climate change will vary significantly byregions. Current studies indicate that negative impacts tend
to concentrate in low income regions. In some other regions,
often at high latitude, there could be net positive impacts onyields. Developments in AKST will certainly influence thecapacity of food systems to respond to the likely changes.
Agriculture is also a source of CO2 and non-CO2 greenhousegases and therefore can play a significant role in mitigation
strategies. In order to play this role, new AKST options for
reducing emissions of methane and NOX from agriculture
are needed.
The projected urbanization will likely coincide with adecline in the percentage of population depending directlyon agriculture for their livelihood. At the same time, projected increasing income levels are likely to lead to changing
diets and changing manner of food preparation. The consequences of this for the food supply chain, and in particular
the role of retailers can be an important factor in future agriculture. Demand for food is also very likely to be affectedby other demographic changes, e.g., the aging population in
many industrialized countries. AKST will have to address
the impact of changes from urbanization, consumption patterns and the agricultural labor force on agricultural production and technologies in order for food demands of the
future to be met.
Energy will continue to play an increasingly importantrole in agriculture. Various forms of agriculture use different levels of energy; with transitions in agricultural production systems in general leading to a substitution of energy
for labor. Most assessments also expect higher energy prices
which could encourage the use of more energy-efficient technologies in agricultural production as well as in processing and distributing food. The most important factor withrespect to energy, however, is that agriculture may become
an important producer of energy in the form of bioenergy,
based on both energy-security and climate change considerations. Existing assessments indicate a major increase inchapter 04.indd 300

bioenergy production; this might lead to a tradeoff between
energy security and food security, especially for the poor. In
several scenarios large areas are devoted to bioenergy production. Because of potential environmental and food security impacts, bioenergy is very controversial and its value
depends on assumptions about overall efficiency, tradeoffs
with food production and biodiversity. Reports show thatbioenergy production based on conversion of cellulose toethanol or other hydrocarbon fuels will have less impact onfood security and biodiversity than 1st generation fuels. In
this context, AKST can play an important role in the development of bioenergy systems, as well as address the need tomake agricultural systems more energy efficient.
While governance and other sociopolitical issues are
hard to quantify in scenarios, it is known that these factor will be critically important for the future of agriculture.
Scenarios primarily address these issues by building scenarios that are based on contrasting underlying assumptions
concerning the role of government. Several scenarios expect
governance effectiveness to increase over time (reducing thecorruption that is perceived to be prevalent in developing
economies). However, improving states’ capacities in governance and effectiveness in policy implementation is a longterm process, and effects are still uncertain. Some scenariosemphasize these uncertainties by showing consequences offailed reforms (e.g., the Order from Strength scenario of theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment). Key options discussed
in existing assessments include building “soft” infrastructure, such as networks, organizations, and cooperatives, inorder to produce social capital that may reduce conflicts at
all governance levels. These may facilitate common-pool agricultural resource management; and enhance the access offarmer groups to markets.
4.6.2 What are the conditions needed to help AKST
realize development and sustainability goals?
AKST functions within a larger system of knowledge generation, technological development and diffusion. The formal funding of this larger system will therefore affect AKST.
Global spending on all research and development (R&D)
is likely to increase in the future both absolutely and as apercentage of total global economic activity, though many
countries outside North America, Western Europe and East
Asia with small economies will probably continue to have
low investments in R&D.
Public investment in AKST is increasingly less driven
by the needs of agriculture per se, but is a spinoff of otherresearch priorities such as human health and security. Thereis a trend in many areas to reduce investment in traditional
agricultural disciplines in favor of emerging research areas
such as plant and microbial molecular biology, information technology and nanotechnology. This trend is likely tobe sustained and its impact on AKST is not fully explored.
However, China, with a very large, poor, rural population,
is now the country with the second largest total R&D expenditure. It is possible that China may make substantial
investments in research relevant to poor rural areas.
Assessing potential development routes of the world agriculture system is of crucial importance if AKST is to realize
development and sustainability goals. As discussed previously, there are multiple significant direct and indirect driv-

11/3/08 10:39:07 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 301

ers of the agricultural system and many of these are likely
to change significantly within the decades. Though the time
horizon for research may be reduced in the future, there is
now and likely to be in the future a significant lag between
the recognition of development and sustainability goals andthe time required for AKST to contribute to addressing thosegoals. Frameworks that consider important drivers of change
and their interlinkages can be used to initially explore andat least partially assess the likely consequences of developing particular technologies. Additionally, the impact of thesetechnologies can be considered when projecting future outcomes, thus giving policy makers and others the opportunity to explore and assess different approaches to AKST.
However, no model provides a full description of potentialchanges in agriculture and AKST in the coming decades.

While a number of modelling paradigms exist, most represent agriculture primarily from a particular disciplinary
perspective. Given its importance and complexity, there is aclear need for a forward looking assessment that is focusedon agriculture and can consider the impact of AKST. There
are two main approaches in the literature with respect tofuture outlooks: (1) the use of multiple scenarios and (2) theuse of one central projection. The first handles uncertainties
better, but is more complex and time consuming. To date,agricultural assessments use one central projection whereas
most environmental assessments use multiple scenarios. The
use of multiple models in assessments can help explore andunderstand sensitivities and uncertainties. Linking different
types of models can result in a more comprehensive exploration of important issues.

References
Adams, R.M., B.A. McCarl, K. Seerson,
C. Rosenzweig, K.J. Bryant, B.L. Dixon et al.
1999. The economic effects of climatechange on U.S. agriculture. Chap. 2 In
R. Mendelsohn and J. Neumann (ed) Impactsof climate change on the US economy.
Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
African Union. 2003. Second Summit.
Mozambique.
AIDE (Advice Res. Dev. Environ.). 2005.
Factsheet for soy production in SouthAmerica. AIDE, Amsterdam.
Alcamo, J., D. Van Vuuren, W. Cramer, J. Alder,
E. Bennett, S. Carpenter et al. 2005. Changes
in ecosystem services and their drivers acrossthe scenarios. p. 297-373 In S.R. Carpenter
et al. (ed) Ecosystems and human well-being.
Vol. 2. Scenarios. Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, Island Press, Washington DC.
Alemayehu, M. 2000. Industrializing Africa:
Development options and challenges for the
21st century. Africa World Press, Asmara.
Antle, J.M., and S.M Capalbo. 2002. Agriculture
as a managed ecosystem: Policy implications.
J. Agric. Resource Econ. 27(1):1-15.
Badgley, C., J. Moghtader, E. Quintero,
E. Zakem, J. Chappell, K. Avilés-Vázquez etal. 2007. Organic agriculture and the global
food supply. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 22:86108.
Bardhan, P. 1999. Democracy and development— A complex relationship. In I. Shapiro and
C. Hacker-Cordon (ed) Democracy’s values.
Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Beierle, T., and E. Diaz-Bonilla. 2003. The
impact of agricultural trade liberalization on
the rural poor: An overview. Workshop on
agricultural trade liberalization and the poor.
3-4 Nov. RFF/IFPRI, Washington DC.
Bennett, E. M., S. R. Carpenter, and N.
Caraco. 2001. Human impact on erodable
phosphorus and eutrophication: A global
perspective. BioScience 51:227-234.
Bhalla, G.S., P. Hazell, and J. Kerr. 1999.
Prospects for India’s cereal supply andchapter 04.indd 301

demand to 2020. 2020 Vision Disc. Pap. 29.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Binh, T.N. 2004. FDI for agriculture 1988-2003
and orientations to 2010. Available at http://
www.isgmard.org.vn/Information%
20Service/Report/General/FDI%20in%2
0Agri-E.pdf. Min. Agric. Rural Dev., Hanoi.
Blum, W.E.H. 2001. Using the soil DPSIR
framework — driving forces, pressures, state,
impacts, and responses — for evaluating landdegradation. p. 4-5. In E.M. Bridges et al.
(eds) Response to land degradation. Oxford
and IBH, New Delhi.
Borron, S. 2006. Building resilience for an
unpredictable future: how organic agriculture
can help farmers adapt to climate change.
Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/
ah617e/ah617e.pdf. FAO, Rome.
Bouwman A.F., K.W. Van Der Hoek,
B. Eickhout, and I. Soenario. 2005.
Exploring changes in world ruminant
production systems. Agric. Syst. 84:121-153.
Bozbas, K. 2005. Biodiesel as an alternative
motor fuel: Production and policies in theEuropean Union. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 9 (4).
Brown, L.R. 1995. Who will feed China?
Wake-up call for a small planet. Worldwatch
Environ. Alert Ser. W.W. Norton, NY.
Brown, L., and H. Kane. 1994. Full house:
Reassessing the Earth’s population carrying
capacity. Norton, NY.
Bruinsma, J.E. (ed) 2003. World agriculture:
Towards 2015/2030. An FAO perspective.
Earthscan, London.
Busch, G. 2006. Future European agriculturallandscapes — What can we learn fromexisting quantitative land use scenario
studies? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114:121140.
CA (Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture). 2007. Water
for food, water for life: A comprehensive
assessment of water management inagriculture. Earthscan, London.

Caballero, B. 2001. Symposium: Obesity
in developing countries: Biological andecological factors. J. Nutr. 131(3):866.
Cáceres, D. 2005. Non-certified organic
agriculture: An opportunity for resourcepoor farmers? Outlook Agric. 34(3):135-140.
Cassman, K.G., A. Dobermann, D.T. Walters,and H. Yang. 2003. Meeting cereal demand
while protecting natural resources andimproving environmental quality. Ann. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 28:315-328,
Cassman, K.G., S. Wood, P.S. Choo,
H.D. Cooper, C. Devendra, J. Dixon etal. 2005. Cultivated systems. p. 745794. Chapter 26. In R. Hassan et al. (ed)Ecosystems and human well-being: Current
state and trends. Vol. 1. Conditions andtrends. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
Island Press, Washington DC.
CGIAR. 2004. The CGIAR initiative fora global open agriculture and fooduniversity (GO-FAU). Available at http://
www.openaguniversity.cgiar.org. CGIAR,
Washington DC.
Cleveland, C.J, C.A.S. Hall, R.A. Herendeen.
2006. Letters - energy returns on ethanol
production. Science 312:1746.
CONCAWE. 2002. Energy and greenhouse gasbalance of biofuels for Europe — an update.
Available at www.concawe.be/download/
reports/rpt_02-2.pdf. CONCAWE ad-hoc
group on alternative fuels, Brussels, April 2002.
Cranfield, J.A.L., T.W. Hertel, J.S. Eales, andP. Preckel. 1998. Changes in the structureof global food demand. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
80(5):1042-1050.
Crosson P. 1994. Is U.S. agriculture sustainable?
Resources 117:16-19.
Curran, L.M., S.N. Trigg, A.K. McDonald,
D. Astiani, M. Hardiono, P. Siregar et al.
2004. Lowland forest loss in protected areasof Indonesian Borneo. Science 303:10001003.
Daberkow, S., H. Taylor, and W. Huang. 2000.
Agricultural resources and environmental

11/3/08 10:39:08 AM

302 | IAASTD Global Report

indicators: Nutrient use and management.
USDA, Washington DC.
De Fraiture, C., X. Cai, U. Amarasinghe,
M. Rosegrant, and D. Molden. 2004. Does
international cereal trade save water? The
impact of virtual water trade on global wateruse. In Comprehensive Assessment Res. Rep.,
IWMI, Sri Lanka.
De Fraiture, C., D. Wichelns, E.K. Benedict, andJ. Rockstrom. 2007. Scenarios on water forfood and environment. Chapter 3 In Water
for food, water for life: A comprehensive
assessment of water management inagriculture. Earthscan, London and IWMI,
Colombo.
Delgado C., Rosegrant M., Steinfeld H., Ehui S.
and Courbois C. (1999) Livestock to 2020
— the next food revolution. Food Agric.
Environ. Disc. Pap. 28 IFPRI, FAO and ILRI,
Rome.
Dev, S. Mahendra. 1988. Regional disparities
in agricultural labour productivity andrural poverty in India. Indian Econ. Rev.
23:(2)167-205.
Dornburg, V., A. Faaij, P. Verweij, H. Langeveld,
G. van de Ven, F. Wester et al. 2008. Biomass
assessment: Assessment of the applicabilityof biomass for energy and materials.
Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency, Bilthoven the Netherlands.
Dorward, A., S. Fan, J. Kydd, H. Lofgren, J.
Morrison, C. Poulton et al. 2004. Institutions
and policies for pro-poor agricultural
growth. Dev. Policy Rev. 22:611-622.
Droogers, P. 2004. Adaptation to climate change
to enhance food security and preserve
environmental quality: Example for Southern
Sri Lanka. Agric. Water Manage. 66:15-33.
Droogers, P., and J. Aerts. 2005. Adaptation
strategies to climate change and climate
variability: a comparative study between
seven contrasting river basins. Physics Chem.
Earth 30:339-346.
Easterling, W.E., and M. Apps. 2005. Assessing
the consequences of climate change for foodand forest resources: A view from the IPCC.
Climat. Change 70:165-189.
Echeverria, C., D. Coomes, J. Salas, J.M. ReyBenayas, A. Lara, and A. Newton. 2006.
Rapid deforestation and fragmentation ofChilean temperate forests. Biol. Conserv.
130:481-494.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2002.
Scenarios as a tool for international
environmental assessments. Environ. Issue
Rep. No. 24. EEA, Copenhagen.
EPA. 2006. Global mitigation of non-CO2
greenhouse gases. EPA Rep. 430-R-06-005.
US Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington DC.
Falcon, W.P., and C. Fowler. 2002. Carving
up the commons — emergence of a newinternational regime for germplasm
development and transfer. Food Policy
27:197-222.
Falkenmark, M., C.M. Finlayson, L.J. Gordon,
E.M. Bennett, T. Matiza Chiuta, D. Coates etal. 2007. Agriculture, water and ecosystems:

chapter 04.indd 302

Avoiding the costs of going too far. p. 233277. In comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture, water for food,water for life: Earthscan, London and IWMI,
Colombo.
Fan, S., and N. Rao. 2003. Public spending
in developing countries — Trends,
determination and impact. Environ. Prod.
Tech. Div. Disc. Pap. 99. IFPRI, Washington
DC.
FAO. 1996. Food for consumers - marketing,processing and distribution. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2002a. HIV/AIDS, agriculture and foodsecurity in mainland and small countries ofAfrica. Proc. Twenty-First Reg. Conf. Africa,
Cairo. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2002b. The role of agriculture in thedevelopment of least developed countries
and their integration into the world
economy. Available at http://www.fao.org/
DOCREP/007/Y3997E/Y3997E00.htm. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2003. Compendium of agriculturalenvironmental indicators. Statistics Div.,
FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2004a. Fertilizer requirements in 2015 and2030 revisited. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2004b. State of agricultural commodity
markets 2004. Available at ftp:/ftp.fao.org/
docrep/fao/007/y5419e/yy5419e00.pdf,7.
FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2006a. Education for rural people (ERP).
Available at http://www.fao.org/sd/erp/index_
en.htm. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2006b. World agriculture: Towards
2030/2050. Prospects for food, nutrition,
agriculture and major commodity groups,
Interim Rep. Global Perspect. Studies Unit,
FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2006c. FAOSTAT. Available at www.fao.org.
FAO. 2006d. Livestock’s long shadow. FAO,Rome.
FAO. 2006e. www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/
english/fsheets/biotech.pdf
FAO. 2006f. Presenting the international
bioenergy platform. FAO, Rome.
Farrell, A.E., R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner, A.D. Jones,
M. O’Hare, and D.M. Kammen. 2006.
Ethanol can contribute to energy andenvironmental goals. Science 311(5760):506508.
Faures, J.M., M. Svendsen, and H. Turral.
2007. Reinventing irrigation. In
D. Molden (ed) Water for food, water forlife: A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.
FBOMS. 2006. Impacts of monoculture expansion
on bioenergy production in Brazil. Brazilian
Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for
the Environment and Development, Nucleo
Amigos da Terra/ Brasil and Heinrich Boell
Foundation, Rio de Janeiro.
Fearnside, P.M. 2001. Soybean cultivation as athreat to the environment in Brazil. Environ.
Conserv. 28(01):23-38.

Fischer, G., M. Shah, H. van Velthuizen, and
F. Nachtergaele. 2001. Global agro-ecologicalassessment for agriculture in the 21st century.
IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.
FOE. 2005. The oil for ape scandal. How palm
oil is threatening orang-utan survival. Friendsof the Earth, London.
Fukuyama, F. 1993. The end of history and thelast man. Free Press, NY.
Galloway, J.N., E.B. Cowling, S.J. Seitzinger, and
R. Socolow. 2002. Reactive nitrogen: Toomuch of a good thing? Ambio 31:60-63.
Gardner, B.L. 2005. Causes of rural economic
development. Agric. Econ. 32(s1):21-41.
Geist, H.J., and E.F. Lambin. 2002. Proximate
causes and underlying driving forces of tropicaldeforestation. BioScience 52(2):143-150.
Geist, H.J., and E.F. Lambin. 2004. Dynamic
causal patterns of desertification. BioScience
54(9):817-829.
Giampietro, M. 2002. Energy use in agriculture.
In Encyclopedia of life sciences. Available at
http://www.els.net/. Nature Publ.
Giampietro, M. 2003. Multi-scale integrated
analysis of ecosystems. CRC Press, Boca
Raton.
Giampietro, M. 2007. The future of agriculture:
GMOs and the agonizing paradigm ofindustrial agriculture. In A. Guimaraes
Pereira and S. Funtowicz (ed) Science forpolicy: Challenges and opportunities. Oxford
Univ. Press, New Delhi.
Goldstone, J.H., R.H. Bates, T.R. Gurr,
M. Lustig, M.G. Marshall, J. Ulfelder et al.
2005. A global forecasting model of politicalinstability. Ann. Meeting Am. Political Sci.
Assoc. Washington, 1-4 Sept.
Graham, R.L., R. Nelson, J. Sheehan, R.D. Perlackand L.L. Wright. 2007. Current and potential
U.S. corn stover supplies. Agron. J. 99:1-11.
Grau, H.R., N.I. Gasparri, and T.M. Aide. 2005.
Agriculture expansion and deforestationin seasonally dry forests of north-west
Argentina. Environ. Conserv. 2(2):140-148.
Groenfeldt, D. 2003. The future of indigenous
values: Cultural relativism in the face ofeconomic development. Futures 35:917-929.
Gulati, A., and S. Narayanan. 2002. Rice tradeliberalization and poverty. MSSD Disc. Pap.
51. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Hagens N., R. Costanza, and K. Mulder.
2006. Letters—energy returns on ethanol
production. Science 312:1746.
Hayami, Y., and V. Ruttan. 1985. Agriculturaldevelopment. An international perspective.
John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Hertel, T.W., and L.A. Winters. 2005. Estimating
the poverty impacts of a prospective Dohadevelopment agenda. The World Econ.
28(8):1057-1071.
Hertel, T., H-L. Lee, S. Rose and B. Sohngen.
2006. The role of global land use indetermining greenhouse gases mitigation costs.
GTAP Working Pap. 36 . Global Trade andAnalysis Project, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette.
Hietel, E., Waldhardt, R., Otte, A., 2005.
Linking socio-economic factors, environment

11/3/08 10:39:08 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 303

and land cover in the German highlands,
1945-1999. J. Environ. Manage. 75:133-143.
Hill, J., E. Nelson, D.Tilman, S.Polasky,and D. Tiffany. 2006. From the cover:Environmental, economic, and energetic costs
and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels.
PNAS 103:11206-11210.
Hinrichsen, D. 1998. Feeding a future world.
People Planet 7(1):6-9.
Hoekstra, A.Y., and P.Q. Hung. 2005.
Globalisation of water resources: International
virtual water flows in relation to crop trade.
Global Environ. Change 15(1):45-56.
Hoogwijk, M., A. Faaij, B. Eickhout, B. de
Vries, and W. Turkenburg. 2005. Potential of
biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC
SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy
29:225-257.
Hough, J.R. 1993. Educational cost-benefit
analysis. Educ. Res. Pap. 2. ODA, UK.
Huffman, W., and R. Evenson. 1993. Science for
agriculture. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
Huntington, S. 1996. The clash of civilizations
and the remaking of world order.
Touchstone, NY.
IEA. 2002. World energy outlook 2002.
International Energy Agency, Paris.
IEA. 2004. World energy outlook 2004.
International Energy Agency, Paris.
IEA. 2006. World energy outlook 2006.
International Energy Agency, Paris.
IFA. 2006. Fertilizer consumption statistics. Int.
Fert. Indust. Assoc., Paris.
IIASA. 2001. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/
POP/proj01/index.htm. Int. Inst. Applied
System Analysis, Austria.
ILO. 2005. World employment report 200405. Available at http://www.ilo.org/public/
english/employment/strat/wer2004.htm. ILO,
Geneva.
Inglehart, R., and C. Welzel. 2005.
Modernization, cultural change anddemocracy: The human development
sequence. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change). 2000. Special report on emission
scenarios: Understanding and modelingtechnological change. IPCC and Oxford
Univ. Press, UK.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change). 2001. Climate change 2001:
Synthesis report. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change). 2007a. Climate change 2007: The
physical science basis: Summary for policy
makers. Working group 1 Fourth Assessment
Report. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change). 2007b. Climate change 2007:
Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.
Working group 2 Fourth Assessment Report.
Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change). 2007c. Climate change 2007:
Mitigation of climate change. Working group
3 Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge
Univ. Press, UK.

chapter 04.indd 303

Jones, P.G., and P.K. Thornton. 2003. The
potential impacts of climate change intropical agriculture: the case of maize inAfrica and Latin America in 2055. Global
Environ. Change 13:51-59.
Kaimowitz, D., and J. Smith. 2001. Soybean
technology and the loss of natural vegetationin Brazil and Bolivia. p. 195-211. In
A. Angelsen and D. Kaimowitz (ed)Agricultural technologies and tropicaldeforestation. CABI Publ. UK.
Kaufmann, R.K. 2006. Letters - Energy returns
on ethanol production. Science 312:1747.
Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi.
2006. Governance matters:
Governance indicators for 1996-2005. Policy
Res. Dep. Working Pap. 4012. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Kelly, V.A. 2006. Factors affecting demand for
fertilizer in Sub-Saharan Africa. ARD Disc.
Pap. 23. World Bank, Washington DC.
Kemp-Benedict, E., C. Heaps, and P. Raskin.
2002. Global scenario group futures:Technical notes. SEI PoleStar Ser. Rep. 9.
Stockholm Environ. Inst., Boston.
Khan, S., R. Tariq, C. Yuanlai, and J. Blackwell.
2006. Can irrigation be sustainable? Agric.
Water Manage. 80(1-3):87-99.
Kojima, M., D. Mitchell, and W. Ward. 2007.
Considering trade policies for liquid biofuels.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Kurosawa, A. 2006. Multigas mitigation: An
economic analysis using GRAPE Model.
Multigas mitigation and climate policy.
Energy J. Spec. Issue #3.
Lambin, E.F., B.L. Turner II, H.J. Geist,
S.B. Agbola, A. Angelsen, J.W. Bruce et al.
2001. The causes of land use and land-coverchange: Moving beyond the myths. Global
Environ. Change 11(4):261-269.
Leach G., L. Jarass, G. Obermair, and L.
Hoffmann. 1986 Energy and growth. A
comparison of 13 industrial and developing
countries. Butterworths, London.
Lee, R. 2003. The demographic transition: Three
centuries of fundamental change. J. Econ.
Perspect. 17:167-190.
Levi, B. 2004. Governance and economic
development in Africa: Meeting the challengeof capacity building. In B. Levi and S. Kpundeh(ed) Building state capacity in Africa. WorldBank and Oxford Univ. Press, Washington DC.
Lipton, M. 1977. Why poor people stay poor:
Urban bias in world development. Harvard
Univ. Press, Boston.
Lopez, R. 2005. Why governments shouldstop non-social subsidies: Measuring theirconsequences for rural Latin America. Policy
Res. Working Pap. No. 3609. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Lucas, P.L., D.P. Van Vuuren, J.G.J. Olivier,and M.G.J. Den Elzen. 2007. Long-term
reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhousegases. Environ. Sci. Policy 10(2):85-103.
Lutz, W., W.C. Sanderson., and S. Scherbov.
2001. The end of world population growth.
Nature 412:543-545.

Lutz, W., W.C. Sanderson, and S. Scherbov.
2004. The end of world population growthin the 21th century. New challenges forhuman capital formation and sustainable
development. Earthscan, London.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment).
2003. Ecosystems and human well-being:
A framework for assessment. Island Press,
Washington.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005a.
Ecosystems and human well-being: Scenarios.
Island Press, Washington DC.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005b.
Ecosystems and human well-being: Policy
responses. Island Press, Washington DC.
Maddison, A. 2003. The world economy:
Historical statistics. OECD, Paris.
Marshall, M.G. 2006. Polity IV project: Politicalregime characteristics and transitions,1800-2006. Available at: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm. Polity
IV Project, George Mason Univ., Virginia.
Marshall, M.G., T.R. Gurr, J. Wilkenfeld,
M.I. Lichbach, and D. Quinn. 2003. Peaceand conflict 2003—A global survey of armed
conflicts. Self-determination movements anddemocracy. Center Int. Dev. Conflict Manage.
Univ. Maryland, College Park.
Mehra, R., and S. Gammage. 1999. Trend,
countertrends and gaps in women’s
employment. World Dev. 27(3):533-550.
Meijer, E., and R. Stewart. 2004. The GM cold
war: How developing countries can go frombeing dominos to being players. RECIEL(Rev. Eur. Community and Int. Environ.
Law) 13(3):247-262.
MNP. 2006. Integrated modeling of global
environmental change: An overview of
IMAGE 2.4. Netherlands Environment
Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven, The
Netherlands.
Molden, D., R. Sakthivadivel, and Z. Habib.
2000. Basin level use and productivity ofwater: Examples from South Asia. Res. Rep.
49. IWMI, Colombo.
Nakicenovic, N., J. Alcamo, G. Davis, B. de Vries,
J. Fenham, S. Gaffin et al. 2000. Special reporton emissions scenarios. Working Group III,
IPCC. Cambridge Univ. Press,UK.
Nayyar, D. 2006. Globalization, history anddevelopment: A tale of two centuries.
Cambridge J. Econ. 30:137-159.
Noragric. 2004. Poverty reduction strategies andrelevant participatory learning processes inagricultural higher education. Case studies
from Ethiopia, Malawi, Tanzania andUganda. Frik Sundstøl (ed) Noragric Rep.
21A. Agric. Univ. Norway.
Notestein, F.W. 1945. Population — The longview. In T.W. Schultz (ed) Food for theworld. Univ. Chicago Press, IL.
NSF. 2006. U.S. R&D continues to rebound in
2004. InfoBrief. Sci. Resourc. Stat. Nat. Sci.
Foundation, Washington DC.
OECD. 2001. Environmental indicators for
agriculture. Vol. 3: Methods and results.
OECD, Paris.

11/3/08 10:39:08 AM

304 | IAASTD Global Report

OECD. 2002. Workshop on organic agriculture.
Washington DC. Sept 2002. OECD, Paris.
OECD. 2006a. Working party on global andstructural policies. Revised environmental
baseline for the OECD environmental
outlook to 2030. Environ. Directorate (Nov).
ENV/EPOC/GSP(2006)23. OECD, Paris.
OECD. 2006b. Science, technology and industry
outlook. OECD, Paris.
Oki, T., M. Sato, A. Kawamura, M. Miyake,
S. Kanae, and K. Musiake. 2003. Virtualwater trade to Japan and in the world. In
A.Y. Hoekstra (ed) Virtual water trade:
Proc. Int. Expert Meeting Virtual Water
Trade. Value of Water Res. Rep. Ser. No. 12.
UNESCO-IHE, Delft.
Palaniswamy, N., and R. Birner. 2006.
Explaining the “political will” to support
agricultural development in Sub-SaharanAfrica. Paper presented at the Annual Conf.
Verein fuer Socialpolitik, Res. Committee
Dev. Econ. Berlin, KWF, 2-3 June 2005.
Palm, C.A., P.L.O.A. Machado, T. Mahmood,
J. Melillo, S.T. Murrell, J. Nyamangara etal. 2004. Societal responses for addressing
nitrogen fertilizer needs: balancing foodproduction and environmental concerns.
p. 71-92. In A.R. Mosier et al. (ed)Agriculture and the nitrogen cycle. Island
Press, Washington.
Parry, M., G. Fischer, M. Livermore,
C. Rosenzweig, and A. Iglesias. 1999.
Climate change and world food security:
A new assessment. Global Environ. Change
9:S51-S67.
Pimentel, D. (ed) 1980. Handbook of energy
utilization in agriculture. CRC Press, Boca
Raton.
Pimentel, D., and M. Pimentel. 1979. Food,energy and society. John Wiley, NY.
Pimentel, D., and A. Wilson. 2004. World
population, agriculture, and malnutrition.
World Watch Mag. 17(5).
Pingali, P.L., and G. Traxler. 2002. Changing
locus of agricultural research: will the poor
benefit from biotechnology and privatization
trends? Food Policy 27(3):223-238.
Psacharopoulos, G., and H.A. Patrinos. 2004.
Returns to investment in education: A further
update. Educ. Econ. 12:111-135.
Putnam, R.D. 1993. Making democracy work:
Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton
Univ. Press, NJ.
Ramirez-Ramirez, A. 2005. Monitoring energy
efficiency in the food industry. PhD thesis.
Utrecht Univ., Netherlands.
Raskin, P.D. 2005. Global scenarios: Backgroundreview for the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment. Ecosystems 8:133-142.
Raskin, P., T. Banuri, G. Gallopin, P. Gutman,
A. Hammond, R. Kates et al. 2002. Greattransition: The promise and lure of the times
ahead. Stockholm Environ. Inst., Boston.
Reardon, T., C.P. Timmer, C.B. Barrett, andJ. Berdegué. 2003. The rise of supermarkets
in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Am. J.
Agric. Econ. 85(5):1140-1146.

chapter 04.indd 304

Reid, R.S., T.P. Tomich, J.C. Xu, H. Geist, and
A.S. Mather. 2006. Linking land-change
science and policy: Current lessons andfuture integration. p. 157-171. In
E.F. Lambin, and H.J. Geist (ed) Land-use
and land-cover change. Local processes andglobal impacts. Springer, Berlin.
Rijsberman, F.R., and D.J. Molden. 2001.
Balancing water uses: Water for foodand water for nature. p. 43-56. Thematic
Background Papers, Int. Conf. Freshwater,Bonn, 3-7 Dec.
Rist, S. and F. Dahdouh-Guebas. 2006.
Ethnosciences — A step towards theintegration of scientific and indigenous formsof knowledge in the management of natural
resources for the future. Environ. Develop.
Sustain. 8:467-493.
RIVM/UNEP. 2004. The GEO-3 scenarios
2002-2032. Quantification and analysis ofenvironmental impacts. Dutch Nat. Inst.
Public Health Environ., Bilthoven.
Rockstrom, J., J. Barron, and P. Fox. 2003.
Water productivity in rainfed agriculture:
Challenges and opportunities for smallholder
farmers in drought-prone tropical agroecosystems. p. 145-162. In J.W. Kijne et al.
(ed) Water productivity in agriculture: Limits
and opportunities for improvement. CABI
Publ., Wallingford.
Rondot, P., and M. Collion. 2001. Agricultural
producer organizations: Their contribution
to rural capacity building and poverty
reduction. World Bank, Washington DC.
Rosegrant, M., X. Cai, and S. Cline. 2002.
World water and food to 2025. Dealing withscarcity. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Rosegrant, M., N. Leach, and R.V. Gerpacio.
1999. Alternative futures for world cereal
and meat consumption. Proc. Nutr. Society
58(2):219-234.
Rosegrant, M., S. Msangi, T. Sulser and
R. Valmonte-Santos. 2006. Biofuels andthe global food balance. In: Bioenergy
and Agriculture: Promises and Challenges.
FOCUS 14. IFPRI, Washington, DC.
Rosegrant, M., M. Paisner, S. Meijer, and
J. Witcover. 2001. Global food projections
to 2020: Emerging trends and alternative
futures. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Rosegrant, M., and M.A. Sombilla. 1997.
Critical issues suggested by trends in food,
population, and the environment to the year
2020. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79(5):1467-1470.
Rosegrant, M., and M. Svendsen. 1993. Asianfood production in the 1990s: Irrigation
investment and management policy. Food
Policy 18:13-32.
Rounsevell, M.D.A., I. Reginster, M.B. Arau´jo,
T.R. Carter, N. Dendoncker, F. Ewert etal. 2006. A coherent set of future land usechange scenarios for Europe. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 114:57-68.
Ruttan, V.W. 2001. Technology, growth, anddevelopment: An induced innovation
perspective. Oxford Press, NY.
Sands, R.D., and M. Leimbach. 2003. Modeling

agriculture and land use in and integrated
assessment framework. Climatic Change
56(1-2):185-210.
Sathaye, J., W. Makundi, L. Dale, P. Chan,and K. Andrasko. 2006. GHG mitigation
potential, costs and benefits in global forests:
A dynamic partial equilibrium approach.
Energy J.
Scherr, S.J. 1999. Poverty-environment
interactions in agriculture: Key factors andpolicy implications. Paper prepared for
UNDP and the European Commission expert
workshop on Poverty and the Environment,
Brussels, 20-21 Jan.
Schmidhuber, J. 2003. The outlook for longterm changes in food consumption patterns:
Concerns and policy options. Paper prepared
for the FAO Scientific Workshop on
Globalization of the Food System: Impacts
on food security and nutrition. 8-10 Oct.
FAO, Rome.
Seale, J., A. Regmi, and J. Bernstein. 2003.
International evidence on food consumption
patterns. Available at http://www.ers.usda.
gov/publications/tb1904/tb1904.pdf. ERS,
USDA, Washington DC.
Seckler, D., D. Molden, U. Amarasinghe, andC. de Fraiture. 2000. Water issues for 2025:
A research perspective. IWMI, Colombo.
Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and famines: An essay on
entitlement and deprivation. Oxford Univ.
Press, NY.
Sen, A., and J. Drèze. 1989. Hunger and public
action. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Shah, T., J. Burke, and K. Villholth. 2007.
Groundwater: A global assessment of scaleand significance. In D. Molden (ed) Water
for food, water for life: A comprehensive
assessment of water management inagriculture. Earthscan, London and IWMI,
Colombo.
Shiklomanov, I. 2000. Appraisal and assessmentof world water resources. Water Int.
25(1):11-32.
Shimoda, S.M. 1998. Agricultural biotechnology:
Master of the universe? AgBioForum 1(2).
Slesser, M., and C. Lewis. 1979. Biologicalenergy resources. Halsted, NY.
Smeets, E., and A. Faaij 2004. Biomass resource
assessment on global scale for identifying
biomass production and export potentials.
Report prepared for NOVEM and Essent.
Copernicus Inst. Sustain. Dev. Utrecht Univ.,
Netherlands.
Smil, V. 1987. Energy–food–environment. Realities–
myths–options. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Smil, V. 1991. General energetics. Wiley, NY.
Smil, V. 2000. Feeding the world: A challenge forthe twenty first century. MIT Press, Boston.
Smil, V. 2003. Energy at the crossroads: Global
perspectives and uncertainties. MIT Press,
Boston.
Smith, P., and M. Bertaglia. 2007. Greenhousegas mitigation in agriculture. In
C.J. Cleveland (ed) Encyclopedia of Earth.
Available at http://www.eoearth.org/article/
Greenhouse_gas_mitigation_in_agriculture.

11/3/08 10:39:09 AM

Outlook on Agricultural Changes and Its Drivers | 305

Environ. Inform. Coalition, Nat. Council Sci.
Environ., Washington DC.
Sohngen, B., and R. Mendelsohn. 2007. A
sensitivity analysis of carbon sequestration.
In M. Schlesinger (ed) Human-induced
climate change: An interdisciplinary
assessment. Cambridge University Press, UK.
Sohngen, B., and R. Sedjo. 2006. Carbon
sequestration in global forests under different
carbon price regimes. Energy J. (Spec. Issue#3):109-126.
Stanhill, G. (ed) 1984. Energy and agriculture.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Stout, B.A. 1991. Handbook of energy for world
agriculture. Elsevier, NY.
Stout, B.A. (ed) 1992. Energy in world
agriculture. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Strengers, B., R. Leemans, B. Eickhout, B. de
Vries, and L. Bouwman. 2004: The land-use
projections and resulting emissions in the
IPCC SRES scenarios as simulated by the
IMAGE 2.2 model. GeoJournal 61(4):381393.
Thaman, K.H. 2002. Shifting sights: The cultural
challenge of sustainability. Higher Educ.
Policy 15:133-142.
Thompson, W.S. 1929. Population. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 34(6):959-975.
Thornton, P.K., P.G. Jones, T. Owiyo,
R.L. Kruska, M.P. Herrero, P. Kristjanson etal. 2006. Mapping climate vulnerability andpoverty in Africa. Available at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/research/mapping-climate.pdf.
ILRI, Nairobi.
Tokarick, S. 2002. Trade issues in the Doha
Round: Dispelling some misconceptions.
Policy Disc. Pap. IMF, Washington DC.
Traill, W.B. 2006. The rapid rise of
supermarkets? Dev. Policy Rev. 24(2):163174.
Tusicisny, A. 2004. Civilizational conflicts: Morefrequent, longer, and bloodier? J. Peace Res.
41(4):485-498.
UN. 2004. World population to 2300. United
Nations, NY.
UN. 2005a. World population prospects: The
2004 revision highlights. United Nations,NY.
UN. 2005b. Population challenges anddevelopment goals. United Nations, NY.
UN Millennium Project. 2005. Halving hunger:
It can be done. UN Taskforce on Hunger,NY.

chapter 04.indd 305

UNCTAD. 2005. Trade and development report.
Available at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/
tdr2005_en.pdf. UN Conf. Trade Dev., NY.
UNEP. 2002. Global environment outlook 3(GEO-3). UNEP, Nairobi and Earthscan,
London.
UNEP. 2004. Global environment outlook
scenario framework. Background Rep. GEO3. UNEP, Nairobi.
UNEP. 2007. Global environment outlook 4(GEO-4). UNEP, Nairobi and Earthscan,
London.
UNESCO. 2006. http://portal.unesco.org/
education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=50558&URL_
DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
UNIFEM. 2000. Progress of the world’s women.
UN Dev. Fund Women, NY.
US Census Bureau. 2003. International database. Updated 26 April 2005. US. Bureau of
the Census, Washington DC.
US DoE. 2004. International Energy Outlook.
Energy Inform. Admin., US Dep. Energy,
Washington DC.
US EPA. 2006. Global anthropogenic non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions: 1990­2020.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/
econ-inv/international.html. US Environ.
Prot. Agency, Washington DC.
Van Meijl, T., A. Van Rheenen, A. Tabeau, andB. Eickhout. 2006. The impact of different
policy environments on land use in Europe.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114:21-38.
Van Vuuren, D.P. 2007. Energy systems andclimate policy. Long-term scenarios for an
uncertain future. PhD thesis, Utrecht Univ.,
Netherlands.
Van Vuuren, D.P., M.G.J Den Elzen, P.L. Lucas,
B. Eickhout, B.J. Strengers, B.J. Ruijven,
et al. 2007. Stabilizing greenhouse gas
concentrations at low levels: An assessmentof reduction strategies and costs. Climatic
Change, 81:2:119-159.
Van Vuuren, D.P., B. Eickhout, P.L. Lucas, and
M. Den Elzen. 2006. Long-term multigas scenarios to stabilise radiative forcing— Exploring costs and benefits within an
integrated assessment framework. Energy J.
(Spec. Iss.) 3:201-234.
Van Vuuren, D.P, and B.C. O’Neill. 2006. The
consistency of IPCC’s SRES Scenarios torecent literature and recent projections.
Climate Change. Springer, NY.

Verbist, B., A.E.D. Putra, and S. Budidarsono.
2005. Factors driving land use change:
Effects on watershed functions in a coffee
agroforestry system in Lampung, Sumatra.
Agric. Syst. 85:254-270.
Von Braun, J., M. Rosegrant, R. Pandya-Lorch,
M.J. Cohen, S.A. Cline, M.A. Brown et al.
2005. New risks and opportunities for foodsecurity: Scenario analyses for 2015 and2050. IFPRI, Washington, DC.
Westhoek, H., D.P. van Vuuren, and B. Eickhout.
2005. A brief comparison of four scenario
studies: IPCC-SRES, GEO-3, Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, and FAO towards
2030. Netherlands Environ. Assessment
Agency (MNP).
Wood, S., J. Henao, and M. Rosegrant. 2004.
The role of nitrogen in sustaining foodproduction and estimating future nitrogen
fertilizer needs to meet food demand. In
A.R. Mosier et al. (ed) Agricultural and thenitrogen cycle. Scope, Washington.
World Bank. 2003. World development
indicators, 2003. World Bank, Washington,
DC.
World Bank. 2004a. Agricultural investment
sourcebook. Available at www.worldbank.
org/agsourcebook. ARD, World Bank,
Washington DC.
World Bank. 2004b. World economic prospects
2004. 1990-2000 Trends and recent
projections. World Bank. Washington DC.
World Bank. 2005a. Advancing bioenergy forsustainable development. ESMAP, World
Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2005b. World development
indicators. World Bank, Washington DC.
WRI. 1997. World resources 1996-97. World
Resourc. Inst., Washington DC.
Xie, Y., Y. Mei, T. Guangjin, and X. Xuerong.
2005. Socio-economic driving forces ofarable land conversion: A case study of
Wuxian City, China. Global Environ. Change
15:238-252.
Zurek, M., 2006. A short review for global
scenarios for food systems analysis. Working
Paper 1. GECAFS, Wallingford.
Zurek, M., and T. Henrichs. 2007. Linking
scenarios across geographical scales ininternational environmental assessments.
Tech. Forecasting Soc. Change 74:12821295.

11/3/08 10:39:09 AMchapter 04.indd 306

11/3/08 10:39:09 AM

5Looking into the Future for Agriculture and AKST

Coordinating Lead Authors
Mark W. Rosegrant (USA), Maria Fernandez (Peru), Anushree Sinha(India)Lead Authors
Jackie Alder (Canada), Helal Ahammad (Australia), Charlotte deFraiture (Netherlands), Bas Eickhout (Netherlands), Jorge Fonseca(Costa Rica), Jikun Huang (China), Osamu Koyama (Japan),
Abdallah Mohammed Omezzine (Oman), Prabhu Pingali (USA),
Ricardo Ramirez (Canada/Mexico), Claudia Ringler (Germany),
Scott Robinson (USA), Phil Thornton (UK), Detlef van Vuuren(Netherlands), Howard Yana-Shapiro (USA)Contributing Authors
Kristie Ebi (USA), Russ Kruska (USA), Poonam Munjal (India),
Clare Narrod (USA), Sunil Ray (India), Timothy Sulser (USA), Carla
Tamagno (Peru), Mark van Oorschot (Netherlands), Tingju Zhu(China)

5.3.2
5.3.3

5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.4.6

Review Editors
R.S. Deshpande (India), Sergio Ulgiati (Italy)

5.5
5.5.1
5.5.2

Key Messages

5.5.3
5.5.4
5.6

5.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.3

5.6.1
5.6.2
5.6.3
5.7

5.3.1

Scope of the Chapter and How to Use the Results 309
Rationale and Description of Selected Tools 310
Rationale for model selection 310
Interactions of models in this assessment 313
Description of Reference World, Including
Quantification 314
Rationale of reference world 314

Inputs into the reference world 314
Description of reference world outcomes 316
5.3.3.1		 Food sector 316
5.3.3.2		 Global trends in water availability and emerging
challenges to water supply 324
5.3.3.3		 Results for energy production and use 326
5.3.3.4		 Climate 327
5.3.3.5		 Environmental consequences—land use change 327
5.3.3.6		 Environmental consequences—forests and terrestrial
biodiversity 328
Assessment of Selected, Major Policy Issues 330
Climate change policies and agriculture 330
Trade policies and international market constraints 331
Investment in AKST 333
Focus on bioenergy 340
The scope of improving water productivity 341
Changing preferences for meat and certified organic
products 343
Emerging Issues that Influence the Future 346
Interface of human, animal, and plant health 346
Information and communication technology and tradtional andlocal knowledge 349
Food safety and food security 350
Biotechnology and biodiversity 352
Implications of Policy Simulations and Emerging Policy
Issues: Synergies and Tradeoffs 354
Poverty and equity 354
Hunger, health and food security 354
Natural resources and environmental sustainability 355
Implications for AKST in the Future 355
Appendix. Model Descriptions 356

307

chapter 05.indd 307

11/5/08 10:02:29 AM

308 | IAASTD Global Report

Key Messages
1. Quantitative projections indicate a tightening ofworld food markets, with increasing resource scarcity,
adversely affecting poor consumers. Real world prices
of most cereals and meats are projected to increase in the
coming decades, dramatically reversing trends from the past
several decades. Price increases are driven by both demandand supply factors. Population growth and strengtheningof economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa, together withalready high growth in Asia and moderate growth in Latin
America drive increased growth in demand for food. Rapid
growth in meat and milk demand is projected to put pressure on prices for maize and other coarse grains and meals.
Bioenergy demand is projected to compete with land andwater resources. Growing scarcities of water and land areprojected to increasingly constrain food production growth,causing adverse impacts on food security and human wellbeing goals. Higher prices can benefit surplus agricultural
producers, but can reduce access to food by a larger numberof poor consumers, including farmers who do not produce a
net surplus for the market. As a result, progress in reducing
malnutrition is projected to be slow.
2. Improved Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (AKST) helps to reduce the inevitable tradeoffs
between agricultural growth and environmental sustainability at the global scale. AKST can help to maximize
the socioeconomic benefits of extracting natural resourcesfrom a limited resource base, through increasing water productivity and intensifying crop, livestock and fish production.
Without appropriate AKST development further production
increases could lead to degradation of land, water and genetic resources in both intensive and extensive systems.
3. Growing pressure on food supply and natural resources require new investments and policies for
AKST. Tightening food markets indicate that a businessas-usual approach to financing and implementing AKST
cannot meet the development and sustainability goals of
reduction of hunger and poverty, the improvement of rural
livelihoods and human health and equitable, environmentally sustainable development. Innovative AKST policies are
essential to build natural, human and physical capital forsocial and environmental sustainability. Such policies will
also require more investment in AKST. Important investments supporting increased supply of and access to foodinclude those in agricultural research and development, irrigation, rural roads, secondary education for girls, and access to safe drinking water.
4. Continuing structural changes in the livestock sector, driven mainly by rapid growth in demand for livestock products, bring about profound changes in livestock production systems. Structural changes in the livestock sector have significant implications for social equity,
the environment and public health. Projected increases inlivestock numbers to 2050 vary by region and species, but
substantial growth opportunities exist for livestock producers in the developing world. The availability of animal feed
will however affect both the rate and extent of this growth,

chapter 05.indd 308

since competition is growing between animal and aquaculture feeds that both use fishmeal and fish oil. Livestock feeds
made with fish products contribute to superior growth andsurvival but are increasing prices and consumption of fishmeal and fish oil in the aquaculture sector. The corresponding decrease in the use of these products in the livestock
sector, especially for pigs and poultry, can affect production
and increase prices. Moreover, declining resource availability could lead to degradation of land, water, and animal genetic resources in both intensive and extensive livestock systems. In grassland-based systems, grazing intensity (numberof animals per ha of grazing land) is projected to increaseby 50% globally, and by up to 70% in Latin America. In
addition to the potential environmental impacts of more intensive livestock production systems, the sector faces major
challenges in ensuring that livestock growth opportunities
do not marginalize smallholder producers and other poor
people who depend on livestock for their livelihoods.
Other tradeoffs are inevitably going to be required
between food security, poverty, equity, environmental sustainability, and economic development. Sustained public
policy action will be necessary to ensure that livestock system development can play its role as a tool for growth andpoverty reduction, even as global and domestic trends andeconomic processes create substantial opportunities for sector growth.
5. Growing water constraints are a major driver of the
future of AKST. Agriculture continues to be the largest userof freshwater resources in 2050 for all regions, although its
share is expected to decline relative to industrial and domestic uses. Sectoral competition and water scarcity related
problems will intensify. Reliability of agricultural watersupply is projected to decline without improved water management policies. There is substantial scope to improve water management in both rainfed and irrigated agriculture.
AKST and supporting interventions geared towards water
conserving and productivity enhancement in rainfed andirrigated agriculture are needed to offset impacts of water
scarcity on the environment and risks to farmers.
6. There is significant scope for AKST and supporting
policies to contribute to more sustainable fisheries, byreducing the overfishing that has contributed to growing scarcity of resources and declining supplies of fishin the world’s oceans. To date, AKST and supporting
policies have not contributed to halting overfishing of theworld’s oceans. There are some initiatives to rebuild depleted stocks, but recovery efforts are quite variable. A common
and appropriate policy response is to take an ecosystem approach to fisheries management but many governments arestill struggling to translate guidelines and policies into effective intervention actions. Other policy options have included eliminating perverse subsidies, establishing certification,
improving monitoring, control and surveillance, reducing
destructive fishing practices such as bottom trawling bans,
expanding marine protected areas and changing fishing access agreements. There are also policy responses to reduce
efforts in industrial scale fishing in many areas, while also
supporting small-scale fisheries through improved access toprices and market information and increasing awareness11/5/08 10:02:30 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 309

of appropriate fishing practices and post-harvest technologies.
Rapid growth in demand for aquaculture products will
also be adversely affected by growing scarcity of coastal landand offshore areas and water scarcity in land-based operations. The most appropriate policy response to this problem
is integrated coastal management that better utilizes theseshared resources for wider benefit. Another policy option is
promoting best management practices, which include looking into appropriate feeding strategies as fish oil, on which
the production of high value species depends, becomes increasingly scarce.
7. Expected climate changes are likely to affect agriculture, requiring attention to harmonizing policies on
climate mitigation and adaptation with others on agriculture and forest land for bioenergy and on forestry
for carbon sequestration. Climate change is expected tohave increasing impacts on the agriculture sector. This impact can be positive or negative. For example, CO2 fertilization, increased precipitation and higher temperature canlengthen the growing season and improve crop yields in specific regions. Elsewhere, however, with higher temperaturesand more erratic precipitation, the impact on crop yield canbe negative. Under higher climate sensitivity, climate impacts are very likely to be negative for all regions. Even withsmall climate change projections, impacts are projected tobe negative for dryland areas in Africa, Asia and the Mediterranean area. These climate impacts can be mitigated byclimate policies, but very low stabilization experiments (450ppmv CO2-equivalents) will likely require measures such ascarbon sequestration and bioenergy plantations that compete for land. Therefore, climate mitigation policy options
might require reprioritizing among alternative development
and sustainability goals.
8. Food safety regulations can help improve the quality of life, but need to be designed to avoid adversely
affecting poor farmers’ access to markets. Demand for
products with high quality and safety standards is expected
to grow in industrialized countries. This market will only
be accessible to those developing countries with sufficient
AKST capacity and knowledge to meet the higher standards,
especially in post-harvest handling. Better quality standards
are only likely to emerge in developing countries if consumers are educated about the benefits of consumption of
perishable products, if public health regulation and liability
laws are established, and if better laboratory infrastructureis built. Challenges in coming decades include ensuring safer
food for consumers and raising the quality of life without
reducing food availability, access and use by the poor or bycreating barriers to poor countries and smaller producers
by excluding their exporting produce through multinational
companies. Implementation of quality and food safety control programs with intensive internal and external supervision can improve productivity without increasing costs for
consumers. Government actions toward product quality
standardization should consider the effect on the distribution of costs and benefits between actors.
9. Rural communities have a greater say in the future ofsmall-scale agriculture as their access to information

chapter 05.indd 309

via information communication and technology (ICT)and to financial capital via remittance investment plansincreases. The attributes of ICTs are linked directly andindirectly with the sustainability and development goals. Asinternet access increases in rural areas, small-scale producers will benefit from more readily available information,
both traditional and local knowledge and technological andmarket information, if private and public institutions takeup the challenge of providing climate, weather, and pricedata. In addition cellular phone use among national andinternational migrants will enhance information flows andtheir participation in decisions. As a result, migrant organizations in receiving countries will reinforce links with theirhome communities and most likely influence the choice of
local development paths. Taken together, increased accessto ICTs and migrant remittances will impact the land management, food security and livelihood strategies of ruralcommunities in new ways.
10. Society benefits from involving women in all levels of processes from education to decision making
and work, increasing their access and contribution to
AKST. In the developing world it is expected that an increasing share of women workers would participate in rural farm
activities and in agro-based industries and agro-based service sectors. Investments in health services, child care, andeducation are fundamental to achieving the development
and sustainability goals that support women’s participationin agriculture and AKST. AKST policies and investments
in rural infrastructure, which improve women’s status, enhance women’s role, and reduce their burden through better
water and energy supply, would help improve livelihoods
while also supporting other AKST policies.

5.1 Scope of the Chapter and How to Use theResults
This chapter examines the potential future for agricultureand AKST using primarily quantitative methods combinedwith qualitative analyses of those issues that cannot easily
be addressed in quantified models. For this approach a reference run is developed from 2000 to 2050, based on theassessment of drivers of agriculture and AKST explained in
Chapter 4. It builds on changes in drivers used in previous
assessments and uses a set of modeling tools to sketch out aplausible future based upon past trends. This reference run
is used to indicate how the development and sustainability
goals (see Chapter 1) might take shape out to 2050. In subchapter 5.3 the reference run is described and the results
are shown. No important policy actions are assumed in thereference run to show more sharply the consequences of anoninterventionist reference case.
In a second step, in subchapter 5.4, a set of policy actions are simulated in order to assess the impact these could
have on the attainment of development and sustainability
goals. Here, policy experiments on investments in AKST, climate mitigation, extensive use of bioenergy, trade liberalization, changes in water productivity and in dietary changes,
such as shifts to consumption of organic food or less meat,
are implemented and analyzed. In this way, the quantified
impact and tradeoffs of these specific policy actions can be

11/5/08 10:02:30 AM

310 | IAASTD Global Report

made visible. Not all future developments, however, can beassessed with the various tools that are used in this subchapter. Subchapter 5.5 therefore describes a series of important,emerging issues related to AKST that can affect the reference
world and alternative policy pathways. Subchapters 5.6 and
5.7, finally, examine synergies and tradeoffs and implications for AKST in the future, respectively.

5.2 Rationale and Description of Selected Tools
The inclusion of various tools in the assessment process
enables the examination of the various relationships thattranspire determined by major drivers. Also synergies andtradeoffs between specific policy interventions can be madevisible through the use of modeling tools. Modeling results
can be used to support policy analysis in this assessment.
Clearly, models cannot provide answers for all issues. In
that case, qualitative translations of the modeling results
are used in this Chapter to assess the most crucial policy
options that have been identified in Chapter 4.
5.2.1 Rationale for model selection
In this assessment, with its focus on agriculture and the roleof AKST, the partial equilibrium agricultural sector International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade, or IMPACT (Rosegrant et al., 2002), playsa pivotal role. Partial equilibrium agricultural sector models
are capable of providing insights into long-term changes infood demand and supply at a regional level, taking into account changes in trade patterns using macro-economic assumptions as an exogenous input. To be able to assess theenvironmental consequences of changes in the agricultural
sector, a range of environmental models is used as well. The
integrated assessment model IMAGE 2.4 (Eickhout et al.,2006) is central in this environmental assessment, while
specific models like EcoOcean and GLOBIO3 (Alkemade
et al., 2006) are used to provide consequences for specificissues, marine and terrestrial biodiversity, respectively. The
livestock spatial location-allocation model, SLAM, (Thornton et al., 2002, 2006) and the water model WATERSIM(de Fraiture 2007) are used to give specific insights in crucial
sectors for agriculture and AKST. The computable generalequilibrium (CGE) model GTEM (Ahammad and Mi, 2005)
is used to validate the GDP and population input data toachieve cross-sectoral consistency for the reference run. The
regional models, GEN-CGE for India (Sinha and Sangeetz,
2003; Sinha et al., 2003) and the Chinese Agricultural Policy Simulation Model (CAPSiM) (Huang and Li, 2003), areused to add local flavors to the global analyses that havebeen performed by the other tools. India and China werechosen since future policy change in these two countries willaffect global food supply, demand, prices, and food security. Moreover, China- and India-specific modeling tools areused to provide deeper insights about specific development
goals such as the distributional aspects of equity and poverty which cannot be addressed by global models.
The tools used in this assessment for the reference runout to 2050 (Table 5-1). A selection of the models is also
used for the policy experiments in subchapter 5.4 (Table
5-1). Short descriptions of model types are provided below

chapter 05.indd 310

and longer descriptions, including an assessment of major
uncertainties are introduced in the appendix to this chapter.
Linkages among models are presented in subchapter 5.2.2.
5.2.1.1 Partial equilibrium agricultural sector models
Partial equilibrium models (PE) treat international markets
for a selected set of traded goods, e.g., agricultural goods inthe case of partial equilibrium agricultural sector models.
These models consider the agricultural system as a closed
system without linkages with the rest of the economy, apartfrom exogenous assumptions on the rest of the domestic
and world economy. The strength of these partial equilibrium models is their great detail of the agricultural sector.
The “food” side of these models generally uses a system ofsupply and demand elasticities incorporated into a series oflinear and nonlinear equations, to approximate the underlying production and demand functions. World agriculturalcommodity prices are determined annually at levels thatclear international markets. Demand is a function of prices,income and population growth. Biophysical information ona regional level (e.g., on land or water availability), is constraining the supply side of the model.
Food projections’ models that simulate aggregations ofcomponents—regions, commodities and larger countries—
tend to be more reliable (McCalla and Revoredo, 2001).
PE modeling approaches require (1) consistent and clearly
defined relations among all variables, (2) a transfer of thestructure of interrelationships among variables, which wasconsistent in the past, to the future, (3) changes in complex
cross-relationships among variables over time, (4) the simultaneous and managed interaction of many variables and themaintenance of consistent weights and (5) an organized andconsistent treatment of massive numbers of variables andlarge amounts of data (McCalla and Revoredo, 2001).
Food projection models make major contributions in
exploring future food outcomes based on alternative assumptions about crucial exogenous and endogenous variables. Results from alternative policy variants can be used
to alert policy makers and citizens to major issues that needattention to avoid adverse food security outcomes. A test
for the usefulness of these models may therefore be whether
or not the analysis enriched the policy debate (McCalla andRevoredo, 2001).
While models can make important contributions at the
global and regional levels, increasingly food insecurity will
be concentrated in individual countries with high population growth, high economic dependence on agriculture,poor agricultural resources and few alternative development
opportunities. These countries continue to be overlooked inregional and global studies, since, on aggregate, resources
are sufficient to meet future food demands.
Whereas the methodology and underlying supply anddemand functional forms are well established in the literature and have been validated through projections of historical trends, the driving forces and elasticities underlying thecommodity and country and regional-level supply and demand functions towards the future continue to be debatedin the literature. Moreover, income and population growth
projections, as well as lasting external shocks contribute to
the uncertainty of projection outcomes.

11/5/08 10:02:30 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 311

Table 5-1. Overview of quantitative modeling tools.
Model nameType

Features

Output indicators

Policy experiments
Investment in AKST,
Trade liberalization,
Organic/change inmeat demand

IMPACT-WATER

Partial equilibrium
agricultural sector modelwith water simulation
moduleSimulates foodproduction and water
based on economic,
demographic, andtechnological change

Food supply anddemand, water supply
and demand,
Food price and trade,
number of malnourishedchildren

SLAM

Simulated Livestock
Allocation Model

Simulates the allocationof land to ruminant
livestock based systems
using livestock numbers

Areas and density ofgrazing ruminants

IMAGE

Integrated Assessment
model

Simulates energy
supply and demand,translates energy
outcomes and foodoutcomes from IMPACT
into environmental
consequences (land usechange, climate change,
emissions)

Energy demand andmix, greenhouse gas
emissions, land usechange, temperatureand precipitation
change, C and N fluxes

GTEM

CGE model

Simulates the working of
the global economy

WATERSIM

Partial equilibrium
agricultural sector modelwith water simulation
moduleGLOBIO3

Dose-response
biodiversity model

ECO-OCEAN

Climate change,
Bioenergy

Trade liberalization
Food supply anddemand, water supply
and demand,
Food price and trade

Water productivity

Translates environmentalpressures mainly from
IMAGE into indicators of
biodiversity

Mean Species
Abundance Index

Bioenergy

Marine biomass balance
model

Simulates world marine
capture fisheries basedon the 19 FAO fishingareas

Catch, Value, Diversity,and Marine Trophic
Index

GEN-CGECGE model for India

Multisectoral generalequilibrium modelfor India with genderdisaggregated data

Food and nonfood
supply and demandat country level,
employment by worker
types distinguished bygender, wages of female
and male workers andincome by households

CAPSiM

CAPSiM

Partial equilibrium
agricultural sector model
for China

Simulates foodproduction,
consumption, andfarmers’ income basedon major driving forcesof demand and supply

Trade liberalization

Source: Compiled by authors.

5.2.1.2 Integrated assessment models
Integrated Assessment models (IAMs) are tools to address
global environmental change in a consistent manner, using
feedbacks from climate change, land use change and changes
in atmospheric composition. They provide information ona global scale and take into account the regional interrela-chapter 05.indd 311

tions on many aspects like energy demand, land use change
and air quality. IAMs are strong in providing insights into
the consequences of specific policy options and can support
policy discussions in this area.
Although the integration in most models is high fromthe perspective of the limited (environmental) problems they

11/5/08 10:02:31 AM

312 | IAASTD Global Reportwere developed for, their integration from the perspectiveof the IAASTD’s objective is still rather low. In particular,
feedbacks from ecological changes to socioeconomic drivers
are limited, with some exceptions on the impacts of foodproduction and climate policy on socioeconomic drivers.
Processes that change ecosystems and their services
mostly occur at highly disaggregated levels. Models therefore
require regional specificity. A tendency to increase the levelof explicit geographic information in models, for instanceby using a detailed grid, can be seen in the literature. Understanding interregional links, but also regional differences
will be an important research issue for integrated modelingin the coming years. A nested approach to integrated assessment modeling could be a helpful way forward, in which
global models provide context for detailed, regional (ecological) models.
Uncertainties are a key element in IAMs, given the highcomplexity and its focus on decision-making. These uncertainties include, for example, variability of parameters, inaccuracy of model specification or lack of knowledge withregard to model boundaries. Although the existence of uncertainties has been recognized early in the process of developing IAMs, uncertainty analysis is typically included only
partially or not at all.
5.2.1.3 CGE models
CGE models are widely used as an analytical framework to
study economic issues of national, regional and global dimension. CGE models provide a representation of national
economies, next to a specification of trade relations between
economies. CGE models are specifically concerned with resource allocation issues, that is, where the allocation of production factors over alternative uses is affected by certain
policies or exogenous developments. International trade istypically an area where such induced effects are importantconsequences of policy choices. These models provide an
economy-wide perspective and are very useful when:• The numerous, and often intricate, interactions between
various parts of an economy are of critical importance.
As for agriculture, such interactions occur between agriculture sectors themselves (e.g., competing for limited
productive resources including various types of land) as
well as between agricultural sectors with other sectors/
actors which either service agricultural sectors or operate in the food and fiber chain including downstream
processors, traders and distributors, final consumers
and governments (e.g., public policies).
• The research objective is to analyze counterfactual policy alternatives and/or plausible scenarios about how the
future is likely to evolve. Examples could include theimplications for agriculture of likely multilateral tradeliberalization in the future, the implications for agriculture of future growth in food demand and shifts in
consumer preference, or the role of bioenergy in climatechange mitigation and implications for agriculture.
For analyzing such issues, the modeling of sectoral interactions is fundamental (e.g., among agriculture, energy, processing and manufacturing as well as services), trade (domestic and international), and existing policies. Given theireconomy-wide coverage, some variant of this type of mod-chapter 05.indd 312

els has become a part of the Integrated Assessment models(e.g., IMAGE; Eickhout et al., 2006).
A strength of CGE models is their ability to analyze theinteraction between different sectors such as agricultural
sectors, manufacturing sectors and services. In their conventional usage, CGE models are flexible price models andare used to examine the impact of relative price changes on
resource allocations (of goods and factors) across a rangeof economic agents. Thus, in addition to providing insights
into the economy-wide general equilibrium effects of policychanges, CGE models allow key interindustry linkages to be
examined. However, CGEs are poor in addressing distributional issues within the regions: only average adjustmentsin the regional economies are simulated. Moreover, CGE
models should be handled with care for long-term projections since fundamental changes in the economic structureof a region cannot be simulated by a CGE model. Therefore,
CGE models are only used in this assessment for assessing
the global economic consequences of trade liberalization.
5.2.1.4 Marine biomass balance models
Fisheries models, such as EcoOcean, allow managers to
explore how marine systems, especially fisheries, might respond to policy changes at the scale of the ocean basin or
region not addressed by most other fisheries models. Thismodel reduces what is a highly complex and dynamic system that covers 70% of the Earth’s surface to 19 regions
and describes the world’s fisheries for the last 50 years withreasonable accuracy (often with 10% or less variation ofwhat is recorded by FAO between 1950 and 2003). A complete marine system is modeled that ranges from detritus
to top predators including marine mammals and seabirds,
and provides sufficient detail to assess changes but avoids
complexity so that it is computationally possible. The predator-prey relationships between functional groups are also
accounted for in the model. Because EcoOcean is based on
the Ecopath suite of software and uses a trophic structure aswell as predator-prey relationships, consumption rates andfishing effort, it provides a description of the ecological dynamics of the system and an indication of how the diversityof the fisheries will change over time.
The models have some weaknesses. The functionalgroups used in EcoOcean are broad groupings of marineorganisms, which limit their ability to describe in detail how
a particular species or groups of species may respond to a
specific policy intervention. The model is based on biomass
from published time series studies and does not necessarily include a comprehensive suite of species to provide anestimate of the biomass for each functional group. The FAO
regions used in the model are broad and cannot include
climate or oceanographic features. This limitation makes
it difficult to accurately model the small pelagic fish group(e.g., anchoveta) which is highly influenced by changes inoceanographic conditions as seen in the offshore upwellingsystem in Peru. The tuna groups do not differentiate between long-lived slow-growing species such as bluefin tunaand short-lived ones such as yellowfin. This can result inoverestimation of tuna landings as well as resilience. Effort,
based on seven fleets, is the driver of the model and whilesome effort is gear-specific, such as tuna long-line and tunapurse seiners, effort for the demersal fleet is based on a range

11/5/08 10:02:31 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 313

of gear including trawlers, nets, traps and hook and linethat can be difficult to map to the narrative storylines. The
lack of artisanal fishing information especially in Asia andseveral regions in Africa results in some underestimation oflandings and effort. Antarctic and Arctic models are incomplete, as there is poor catch, effort and biomass data available for these areas. Consequently they are not included inthis assessment.
5.2.2 Interactions of models in this assessment
The focus of the analyses in this Chapter is on the issues
summarized in Figure 5-1. This figure illustrates whichmodels address which issue.
5.2.2.1 Relations between the models
The most important inputs—population and GDP growth—
are used exogenously in all modeling tools to enhance consistency of the analyses. The global CGE model is used toprovide consistency among population, economic growth,and agricultural sector growth. Climate is used as an input in many of the modeling tools. Future climate change
is simulated by the IMAGE 2.4 model and is then used byother models as well.
In the chain of models, IMPACT simulates food supply
and demand and prices for agricultural commodities for a set of
115 countries/subregions for 32 crop and livestock commodities, including all cereals, soybeans, roots and tubers, meats,
milk, eggs, oils, oilcakes and meals, sugar and sweeteners, andfruits and vegetables. The country and regional submodels areintersected with 126 river basins—to allow for a better representation of water supply and demand—generating results for
281 Food Producing Units (FPUs). Crop harvested areas andyields are calculated based on crop-wise irrigated and rainfed area and yield functions. These functions include water
availability as a variable and connect the food module withthe global water simulation model of IMPACT.
The SLAM model is using the livestock supply anddemand from IMPACT. In the SLAM model, land is allocated to four categories: landless systems, livestock only/
rangeland-based systems (areas with minimal cropping),
mixed rainfed systems (mostly rainfed cropping combinedwith livestock) and mixed irrigated systems (a significant
proportion of cropping uses irrigation and is interspersedwith livestock). The allocation is carried out on the basis ofagroclimatology, land cover, and human population density(Kruska et al., 2003; Kruska, 2006). The second componentof the model then allocates aggregated livestock numbers
to the different systems, allowing disaggregated livestock
population and density data to be derived by livestockbased system. The structure of the classification is based on
thresholds associated with human population density andlength of growing period, and also on land-cover information. The primary role of SLAM in this assessment is to convert the livestock outputs of the IMPACT model (numberof livestock slaughtered per year per FPU) to live-animal
equivalents by system, so that changes in grazing intensity
by system can then be estimated. These estimates of grazing
intensity are subsequently used as input data to the IMAGE
model to assess the land-use change.
The crop and livestock supply and demand from IMPACT and the grazing intensity from SLAM are used as

chapter 05.indd 313

input by IMAGE 2.4, a model designed to cover the mostimportant environmental issues. For land-use changes, theinput from IMPACT and SLAM is used. For changes inthe energy sector, the IMAGE energy model TIMER (vanVuuren et. al., 2007) is used. Because of the focus of the
IMAGE model on land and energy, it is most suitable to also
address bioenergy. The potential for bioenergy is determinedby the land-use model of IMAGE 2.4 and, through pricemechanisms of price supply curves, the amount of bioenergy
in the total energy mix is determined by the TIMER model(Hoogwijk et al., 2005). All socioeconomic drivers are simulated for 24 regions (26 regions in the TIMER model); theland-use consequences on grid scale of 0.5 x 0.5 degrees.
Through linkages of the terrestrial system to carbon andnitrogen cycle models, the atmospheric concentrations ofgreenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone are simulated aswell. A simple climate model combined with a geographicalpattern scaling procedure (Eickhout et al., 2004) translates
these concentrations to local changes in temperature andprecipitation.
The terrestrial changes as simulated by IMAGE are used
as input by the terrestrial biodiversity model GLOBIO3(Alkemade et al., 2006). GLOBIO3 is using dose-response
relationships for each region and ecosystem type to translate environmental pressures (like climate change, nitrogen
deposition, land-use change and infrastructure) to average
quality values of these ecosystem types. For this analysis all
ecosystems are represented by a set of representative species.
The quality of the ecosystem types are therefore an approximation of the mean species abundance (MSA) present ineach ecosystem type. Note that each MSA value is by definition between 0 and 1.
The fisheries EcoOcean model is used to assess the futurecatch, value and mean trophic index of marine systems in
different oceanic parts of the world. The FAO statistical areas provide a manageable spatial resolution for dividing theworld into a reasonable number of spatial units. Similarly
43 trophic groups represent the different functional groups
that are found in most areas of the world’s oceans. For eachof the 19 regions, information from the “Sea Around Us”

Figure 5-1. Interaction of models in this assessment. Source:
Authors.

11/5/08 10:02:34 AM

314 | IAASTD Global Reportcatch database is used for each year from 1950 to present
to fit the catches. Once the model has been tuned and isdeemed to perform satisfactorily, a series of future-oriented
evaluations is performed. The EcoOcean model is not linked
to any of the other models and is only used to add insights
about the future quality of the marine systems.
IMPACT provides broad insights into socioeconomic
consequences. The regional GEN-CGE and CAPSiM models
provide added insights into distributional consequences andgender for China and India, respectively. The WATERSIM
model is used to provide more insights into the water balance. Water demand for irrigation, domestic purposes, industrial sectors, livestock and the environment is estimatedon a basin scale. Water supply for each basin is expressed
as a function of climate, hydrology and infrastructure. The
model iterates between basin, region and globe until theconditions of economic equilibrium and hydrologic waterbalance are met.
5.2.2.2 Policy experiments
IMPACT is the core modeling tool used to assess agricultureand AKST for the IAASTD. It is therefore represented inmost of the policy experiments. Investments requirements
in AKST and changes in diets (both organic and nonmeat)
are simulated by IMPACT. Climate mitigation and bioenergy policies are implemented first in IMAGE. Trade liberalization is performed by GTEM, simulating changes in theeconomic structure. IMPACT then picks up changes in theeconomic structure and simulates the consequences for foodsupply and demand. The regional consequences are examined through the regional GEN-CGE and CAPSiM models
for India and China. Finally, changes in water productivity
are assessed by WATERSIM.

5.3 Description of Reference World, Including
Quantification
5.3.1 Rationale of reference world
The reference case imagines a world developing over the
next decades as it does today, without anticipating deliberate interventions requiring new or intensified policies in
response to the projected developments. Current policy
pathways are expected to continue out to 2050. This continuation of the “real world” is plausible. In subchapter 5.4
some of the major questions affecting the future of agriculture and AKST are simulated and results are compared to
the reference world.
5.3.2 Inputs into the reference world
5.3.2.1 Population
In the reference case the global population increases fromslightly more than 6.1 billion in 2000 to over 8.2 billion in
2050. Most of the growth is concentrated in middle-income
and low-income countries like Brazil, India, China and Russia
and the rest of the world (Table 5-2). Population growth continues to slow in high-income countries. Population growth
drives changes in food demand and is an indirect driver for
AKST. The data for population changes are taken from themedium variant projections of the UN (UN, 2005), based on
an assessment of previous studies (see also Chapter 4).

chapter 05.indd 314

5.3.2.2 Overall economic growth
Economic growth assumptions are loosely based on the TechnoGarden (TG) scenario of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005). Incomes are expressed as MER-basedvalues. The economic growth assumptions of the TechnoGarden scenario are near the mid-range growth scenarios in theliterature for the world as a whole and most regions. In someregions the scenario is a relatively optimistic scenario (e.g.,
sub-Saharan Africa). A comparison of economic growth projections in other scenarios is made in Chapter 4. Information
at the regional level is provided in Table 5-3.
5.3.2.3 Agricultural productivity
Agricultural productivity values are based on the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA) TechnoGarden (TG) scenario
and the recent FAO interim report projections to 2030/2050(FAO, 2006a). MA assumptions have been adjusted fromthe TG assumptions to allow for conformity to FAO projections of total production and per-capita consumption inmeats and cereals, and to our own expert assessment. The
main recent developments regarding technological changewith continued slowing of growth overall have been taken
into account. Growth in numbers and slaughtered carcass
weight of livestock has been adjusted in a similar fashion.
5.3.2.4 Nonagricultural productivity
Growth in nonagricultural sectors is projected to be lower than in agriculture in the reference case. The nonagricultural GDP growth rates are likewise based on the MA
TechnoGarden scenario but with adjustments to align withWorld Bank medium-term projections. While the relatively
higher productivity in agriculture reflects largely the declining trends in the agricultural terms of trade, this is nottranslated into higher output growth in agricultural sectors
relative to nonagricultural sectors.
Disparities in growth rates among countries in the developing world are projected to continue to remain high whilemore developed regions will see more stable growth. Developed regions will see relatively low and stable to declining
growth rates between 1 and 4% per year out to 2050. Mostof NAE falls into this category while several countries in
ESAP (East and South Asia and the Pacific) (South Korea,
Japan, New Zealand, Australia) and South Africa are quite
similar in growth patterns. The LAC region will also see
stable growth rates through the projection period, thoughslightly higher than for developed regions between 3.5 and4.5% per year out to 2050.
East and Southeast Asia will also see stable to declining GDP growth rates through the projection period, but
the rates will remain relatively high between 4 and 7% per
year. In particular, China’s economy will be slowing fromthe 10% growth in recent years to a more stable rate of
5.6% per year on average out to 2050. On the other hand,
growth in South Asia will follow the strong reforms andinitiatives in India focusing on macroeconomic stabilizationand market reforms and should lead to projected improved
income growth in that subregion of 6.5% per year out to2050. CWANA will also see an increase in GDP growth
rates through the projection period though the rates are a
bit more modest and will lead to an average 4% per year out
to 2050 for the region.

11/5/08 10:02:34 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 315

Table 5-2. Population growth.
2000-05

2005-10

2010-152015-20

2020-252025-30

2030-35

2035-40

2040-452045-50

NAE

0.3%

0.3%

0.2%

0.2%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

-0.1%

CWANA

2.0%

1.9%

1.8%

1.7%

1.5%

1.3%

1.2%

1.0%

0.9%

0.8%

LAC

1.4%

1.3%

1.2%

1.0%

0.9%

0.7%

0.6%

0.5%

0.3%

0.2%

SSA

2.3%

2.2%

2.2%

2.1%

2.0%

1.9%

1.7%

1.6%

1.5%

1.4%

ESAP

1.1%

1.0%

0.9%

0.8%

0.6%

0.5%

0.4%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

Source: UN, 2005.

Growth in SSA has been low in the recent past, butthere is much room for recovery, which will lead to strong,
if modest growth. All of SSA should see an average of 3.9%
growth out to 2050. Central and Western SSA will see fairly
stable to slightly increasing growth with most countries experiencing annual growth in the 5-6% range. The remainder of SSA will see strong increases in GDP growth rates
as recovery continues. Though many countries in East andSouthern SSA will be experiencing growth less than 4% out
to 2025, all of these countries are projected to see growth
rates reach 6 to 9% by 2050.
5.3.2.5 Livestock
The reference run was implemented in the following way:
First, global livestock systems were mapped for the baseline
year (2000) and for the reference run for 2030 and 2050,
using the reference populations and General Circulation
Model (GCM) scenarios for these years. The latter was used
to generate surfaces of length of growing period (numberof days per year) to 2030 and 2050. In the absence of GCM
output for diurnal temperature variation and maximum or
minimum temperatures, average monthly diurnal temperature variation was estimated using a crude relationship involving average (24 hour) daily temperature and the average
day-time temperature. The 0.5° latitude-longitude grid sizeof the GCM data was downscaled to 10 arc-minutes (0.17°
latitude-longitude), and characteristic daily weather data forthe monthly climate normal for the reference run in 2030
and 2050 were generated using the methods of Jones andThornton (2003). For the second part of the analysis, thelivestock numbers that were generated as output from the
IMPACT model at the resolution of the FPUs were converted
to live-animal equivalents using country-level ratios of live-

to-slaughtered animals from FAOSTAT for 1999-2001 (thesame base that was used for the IMPACT simulations). To estimate changes in grazing intensity, the extent of each system
type within each FPU was estimated, and livestock numbers
within each FPU were allocated to each system within the
FPU on a pro-rata basis. Existing global ruminant livestock
distribution maps for current conditions were used as a basis
for the future variants, to derive the livestock allocation proportions appropriate to each system within each FPU.
The eleven livestock systems in the Seré and Steinfeld
classification were aggregated to three: rangeland systems,
mixed systems (rainfed and irrigated), and “other” systems.
These “other” systems include the intensive landless systems, both monogastric (pigs and poultry) and ruminant.
5.3.2.6 Trade
Trade conditions seen today are presumed to continue out
to 2050. No trade liberalization or reduction in sectoral
protection is assumed for the reference world.
5.3.2.7 Water
Projections for water requirements, infrastructure capacity
expansion, and water use efficiency improvement are conducted by IMPACT-WATER. These projections are combined with the simulated hydrology to estimate water use
and consumption through water system simulation by IMPACT-WATER (Rosegrant et al., 2002). “Normal” priority
has been given to all sectors, with irrigation being the lowest, compared with domestic, industrial and livestock uses.
The hydrology module of the IMPACT-WATER global
food and water model derives effective precipitation, potential and actual evapotranspiration and runoff at these 0.5
degree pixels and scale them up to the level of FPUs, which

Table 5-3. Per capita income growth.
Region2000-05

2005-10

2010-152015-20

2020-252025-30

2030-35

2035-40

2040-452045-50

NAE

3.3%

2.2%

2.8%

2.8%

2.7%

2.5%

2.3%

2.0%

1.8%

1.7%

CWANA

4.3%

3.6%

3.7%

3.6%

3.5%

3.8%

4.1%

4.5%

4.8%

5.0%

LAC

4.3%

1.1%

3.7%

4.6%

4.4%

4.4%

4.5%

4.6%

4.6%

4.5%

SSA

3.6%

3.4%

4.2%

4.3%

4.4%

4.6%

4.9%

5.1%

5.2%

5.2%

ESAP

3.2%

2.7%

3.7%

3.8%

3.6%

3.7%

3.7%

3.8%

3.8%

3.7%

Source: Authors (based on MEA 2005).

chapter 05.indd 315

11/5/08 10:02:35 AM

316 | IAASTD Global Report

are also used for some of the other analyses, in the spatial
operational unit of IMPACT-WATER. Projections for waterrequirements, infrastructure capacity expansion, and water use
efficiency improvement are conducted by IMPACT-WATER.
These projections are combined with the simulated hydrology
to estimate water use and consumption through water systemsimulation by IMPACT-WATER (Rosegrant et al., 2002).
5.3.2.7 Energy use and production
As discussed in Chapter 4, the energy sector may develop invery different ways. For the reference projection, we havechosen to loosely couple future outcomes to IEA reference
scenario—a scenario that lies central in the range of available energy projections. The policy variant has been developed using the IMAGE/TIMER model and incorporates
the specific assumptions of the IAASTD reference projection with respect to economic growth and land use change.
In terms of energy demand growth the IEA scenario is a
mid-range scenario compared to full range of scenarios published in literature. For the development of the energy mix,
it is a conventional development scenario assuming no major changes in existing energy policies and/or societal preferences. These assumptions are also included in the IAASTD
reference projection.
5.3.2.8 Climate change
Climate change is both driving different outcomes of key
variables of the reference run (like crop productivity andwater availability) and is an outcome of the agriculturalprojections of the reference run, through land-use changes
and agricultural emissions, mainly from the livestock sector (FAO, 2006b). Given the medium energy outcomes in
the reference run (see 5.3.3.3), results from the B2 scenario
are directly used in most of the modeling tools. From theavailable B2 scenario, the ensemble mean of the results ofthe HadCM3 model for B2 scenario was used. The patternscaling method applied was that of the Climate Research
Unit, University of East Anglia. The “SRES B2 HadCM3”
climate scenario is a transient scenario depicting gradually
evolving global climate from 2000 through 2100. In the IMAGE model, climate change is an output of the model. The
IMAGE model uses a global climate model (MAGICC) to
calculate global mean temperature change—and uses downscaling techniques to downscale this data to a 0.5 x 0.5 grid.
Through this approach, different GCM results can be used
to assess the consequences of the uncertainty in local climate change. For the reference run, the pattern of Hadley
Centre’s HadCM2 is used for the downscaling approach,which is consistent with the pattern used in the other modeling tools. For the simulations of the reference world, the medium climate sensitivity value is used of the Third Assessment
Report (2.5°C), which has been adjusted slightly in the latest
IPCC report. According to IPCC, the climate sensitivity islikely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate ofabout 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C (IPCC,
2007). Climate sensitivity is not a projection but is defined as
the global average surface warming following a doubling ofcarbon dioxide concentrations (IPCC, 2007). The uncertainties in the climate sensitivity are not assessed in the reference
world. Specific sensitivity analyses will show the importanceof the uncertainties in values of the climate sensitivity.

chapter 05.indd 316

5.3.3 Description of reference world outcomes
5.3.3.1 Food sector
Food supply and demand. In the reference run, global foodproduction increases 1.2% per year during 2000-2050.
This growth is a result of rapid economic growth, slowing
population growth, and increased diversification of diets.
Growth of demand for cereals slows during 2000-2025 andagain from 2025-2050, from 1.4% per year to 0.7% per
year. Demand for meat products (beef, sheep, goat, pork,
poultry) grows more rapidly, but also slows somewhat after
2025, from 1.8% per year to 0.9% annually.
Changes in cereal and meat consumption per capita varysignificantly among IAASTD regions (Figures 5-2 and 5-3).
Over the projection period, per capita demand for cereals
as food declines in the LAC region and in the ESAP region.
On the other hand demand is projected to considerably increase in the sub-Saharan Africa region and also increase in
the NAE and CWANA regions. Recovery and strengthening of economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa will drive
relatively fast growth in regional demand for food. In developing countries and particularly Asia, rising incomes andrapid urbanization will change the composition of cereal
demand. Per capita food consumption of maize and coarse
grains will decline as consumers shift to wheat and rice. As
incomes rise further and lifestyles change with urbanization, there will be a secondary shift from rice to wheat. In
the SSA region, growing incomes are expected to lead to ashift from roots and tubers to rice and wheat. Per capita
food demand for roots and tubers in SSA is projected to decline from 171 kg to 137 kg between 2000 and 2050, while
rice and wheat demand are expected to grow from 18-20
kg to 30-33 kg (Table 5-4). Under the reference run, thecomposition of food demand growth across commodities
is expected to change considerably. Total cereal demand is
projected to grow by 1,305 million tonnes, or by 70%; 50%of the increase is expected for maize; 23% for wheat; 10%
for rice; and the reminder, for sorghum and other coarse
grains.
Demand for meat products continues to grow rapidly
across all six IAASTD regions, by 6-23 kilograms per person. The increase is fastest in the LAC and ESAP regions andslowest in the SSA and NAE regions. Rapid growth in meatand milk demand in most of the developing world will put
strong demand pressure on maize and other coarse grains
as feed. Globally, cereal demand as feed increases by 553
million tonnes during 2000-2050, a staggering 42% of total
cereal demand increase (Figure 5-4).
Tables 5-5, 5-6, 5-7 and 5-8 present results for changes
in livestock numbers for beef, sheep and goats, pigs, andpoultry, respectively, for the IAASTD regions. The global
population of bovines is projected to increase from some 1.5
billion animals in 2000 to 2.6 billion in 2050 in the reference run. Substantial increases are projected to occur in all
regions except NAE: the number of bovines is projected to
double in CWANA and ESAP, and to increase by 50% in
SSA, for example. Cattle numbers are projected to peak in
SSA in about 2045. Bovine populations are relatively stablein NAE to 2050 in the reference run.
Similar patterns are seen for changes in sheep and goat
populations. The global population is expected to increase

11/5/08 10:02:35 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 317

Figure 5-2. Per capita availability of cereals as food, 2000 and
2050, reference run, by IAASTD region. Source: IFPRI IMPACT

Figure 5-4. Cereal demand as feed, food & other uses, 2000 andprojected 2050, reference run, by IAASTD region. Source: IFPRIIMPACT model simulations.

model simulations.

from 1.7 billion in 2000 to 2.7 billion in 2050, again with
substantial increases in all regions except NAE. In ESAP,
sheep and goat numbers are increasing to 2050 still, but
the rate of increase is declining markedly. In all other regions, numbers reach a peak sometime around 2040, andthen start to decline.
Globally, pig numbers are expected to peak around2030 and then start to decline, and numbers in no region
are projected to increase between 2040 and 2050. Poultry
numbers are projected to more than double by 2050. Peak
numbers are reached around 2045 in NAE, with small declines thereafter, while numbers are continuing to increase
somewhat in CWANA and SSA and still rapidly in LAC and
ESAP. Growth in cereal and meat consumption will be muchslower in developed countries. These trends are expected
to lead to an extraordinary increase in the importance ofdeveloping countries in global food markets.

Figure 5-3. Per capita availability of meats, 2000 and 2050,
reference run, by IAASTD region. Source: IFPRI IMPACT model
simulations.

chapter 05.indd 317

Sources of food production growth. How will the expanding food demand be met? For meat in developing countries,
increases in the number of animals slaughtered have accounted for 80-90% of production growth during the past
decade. Although there will be significant improvement inanimal yields, growth in numbers will continue to be themain source of production growth. In developed countries,
the contribution of yield to production growth has been
greater than the contribution of numbers growth for beef
and pig meat; while for poultry, numbers growth has accounted for about two-thirds of production growth. In the
future, carcass weight growth will contribute an increasing
share of livestock production growth in developed countries
as expansion of numbers is expected to slow.
For the crops sector, water scarcity is expected to increasingly constrain production with virtually no increasein water available for agriculture due to little increase insupply and rapid shifts of water from agriculture in key water-scarce agricultural regions in China, India, and CWANA(see water resources discussion below). Climate change
will increase heat and drought stress in many of the current breadbaskets in China, India, and the United States andeven more so in the already stressed areas of sub-SaharanAfrica. Once plants are weakened from abiotic stresses, biotic stresses tend to set in and the incidence of pest anddiseases tends to increase.
With declining availability of water and land that canbe profitably brought under cultivation, expansion in area is
not expected to contribute significantly to future production
growth. In the reference run, cereal harvested area expands
from 651 million ha in 2000 to 699 million ha in 2025 before contracting to 660 million ha by 2050. The projectedslow growth in crop area places the burden to meet futurecereal demand on crop yield growth.
Although yield growth will vary considerably by commodity and country, in the aggregate and in most countries
it will continue to slow down. The global yield growth rate
for all cereals is expected to decline from 1.96% per year in
1980-2000 to 1.02% per year in 2000-2050; in the NAE

11/5/08 10:02:42 AM

318 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 5-4. Per capita food availability, various agricultural commodities, by IAASTD region.
2000

2025

2050

2000

NAE

2025

2050

2000

CWANA

2025

2050

2000

ESAP

2025

2050

2000

LAC

2025

2050

SSA

Meat
Beef

24

26

25

6

8

11

4

7

9

25

28

30

5

7

11

Pork

32

32

31

0

0

0

16

20

19

9

10

11

1

2

3

Lamb

2

2

2

5

7

8

1

2

3

1

1

1

2

2

2

Poultry

25

31

30

8

11

13

7

12

19

23

29

33

3

4

6

Eggs

12

12

13

4

4

5

9

11

13

8

9

9

2

2

3

Milk

102

107

113

59

64

77

22

31

42

84

86

89

17

21

31

Rice

6

7

8

16

17

19

94

90

82

26

26

25

18

24

30

Wheat

108

112

112

146

141

142

58

59

60

51

49

49

20

24

33

Maize

9

9

10

14

14

16

14

13

13

48

45

45

49

40

39

Sorghum

0

0

0

8

8

11

3

2

2

0

0

0

20

21

28

Millet

0

0

0

1

2

3

3

3

3

0

0

0

16

21

29

Other grain

9

7

6

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

Potato

86

74

70

29

25

25

23

21

24

27

25

29

10

9

9

Sweet
potato
& yam

1

1

1

1

1

1

18

12

7

4

4

4

44

42

34

0

0

0

2

2

2

9

8

6

25

22

19

117

111

94

Cereals

Root crops &TubersCassava
Soybean

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

4

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

Vegetable

88

108

129

65

71

86

100

137

141

40

47

61

29

34

43

Sugar cane/
Beet

36

42

44

21

26

32

11

16

20

38

43

49

16

17

20

Sweetener

11

13

15

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

2

2

0

0

0

Subtropical
fruit

55

66

76

59

66

85

47

65

79

90

98

122

33

38

44

Temperate
fruit

24

29

37

26

28

32

10

13

14

5

6

9

0

0

0

Oils

28

31

35

13

15

20

10

16

25

14

17

26

8

10

15

Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

Table 5-5. Bovines for the reference run, by IAASTD region (billion head).
Region

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

CWANA

0.124

0.162

0.192

0.218

0.237

0.248

ESAP

0.578

0.745

0.911

1.055

1.165

1.209

LAC

0.349

0.430

0.507

0.566

0.610

0.627

NAE

0.268

0.288

0.306

0.311

0.304

0.282

SSA

0.179

0.219

0.253

0.273

0.278

0.270

World

1.498

1.844

2.170

2.423

2.593

2.636

Source: ILRI SLAM model simulations.

chapter 05.indd 318

11/5/08 10:02:43 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 319

region, average crop yield growth will decline to 1.02% per
year; in CWANA to 1.26% per year, and in ESAP to 0.84%
annually, while cereal yield is expected to grow at a higher
1.61% and 1.68% per year in LAC and SSA, respectively.
Area expansion is significant to projected food production growth only in sub-Saharan Africa (28%) and in the
LAC region (21%) in the reference run (Figure 5-5).
Table 5-9 presents regional estimates of grazing intensity
in the reference world. These were calculated as the numberof Tropical Livestock Units (TLU) (bovines, sheep and goats,
where one bovine is equivalent to one TLU and a sheep andgoat to 0.1 TLU) in the rangeland system per hectare ofrangeland system occurring in each FPU. These figures wereagain aggregated to the five IAASTD regions. Ruminantgrazing intensity in the rangelands increases in all regions in
the reference run, but there are considerable regional variations. In LAC, for instance, average grazing intensities are
expected to increase by about 70%, from 0.19 in 2000 to
0.32 TLU per ha for the reference run. Most of these increases will be due to higher inputs in the grazing systems
in the humid and subhumid savannas. The increases are lessin CWANA and SSA, and for the latter, grazing intensities
are fairly stable after 2030—cattle numbers have peaked by
2040 and there are fewer in 2050 than in 2030 (see Table5-5), small ruminant numbers by 2050 are only somewhat
above those for 2030, while at the same time the model indicates some loss of grazing land in SSA to necessarily marginal
mixed rainfed systems. Grazing intensities change relatively
little in NAE. Again, given typical stocking rates of 10-15
ha per animal in the arid and semiarid grazing systems, theseresults of the reference run imply considerable intensificationof livestock production in the humid and subhumid grazing
systems of the world, but particularly in LAC.
It should be noted that the rate of conversion of rangeland to mixed systems will be underestimated in this analysis. The impact of infrastructural development is not taken
into account, so the projected changes in grazing intensities
are likely to be underestimated as a result. The analysis also
makes implicit assumptions about the relative share of production that is projected to come from the rangeland versus
the mixed systems in the future, in terms of relative animal
numbers. Even so, given the fragility of semiarid and arid
rangelands, particularly in SSA, and the uncertainties con-Table 5-6. Sheep and goats for the reference run, by region(billion head).

Region

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

CWANA

0.403

0.491

0.556

0.597

0.614

0.601

ESAP

0.723

0.871

1.008

1.115

1.184

1.210

LAC

0.116

0.136

0.154

0.168

0.175

0.174

NAE

0.195

0.218

0.235

0.244

0.244

0.231

SSA

0.271

0.346

0.406

0.443

0.459

0.457

World

1.707

2.061

2.359

2.566

2.677

2.673

Source: ILRI SLAM model simulations.

Table 5-7. Pigs for the reference run, by region (billion head).
Region

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

CWANA

<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001

ESAP

0.539

0.622

0.669

0.664

0.627

0.558

LAC

0.080

0.096

0.110

0.119

0.123

0.122

NAE

0.274

0.295

0.307

0.304

0.290

0.262

SSA

0.019

0.024

0.029

0.032

0.034

0.034

World

0.912

1.038

1.115

1.121

1.076

0.978

Source: ILRI SLAM model simulations.

Table 5-8. Poultry for the reference run, by region (billion head).
Region

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

CWANA

1.449

1.677

1.901

2.108

2.306

2.424

ESAP

7.478

10.112

12.97915.71218.16819.687

LAC

2.286

2.893

3.531

4.151

4.762

5.245

NAE

4.180

4.677

5.180

5.542

5.780

5.750

SSA

0.784

0.991

1.170

1.306

1.407

1.445

World

16.17820.35024.76028.81932.42334.551

Source: ILRI SLAM model simulations.

% per year

Table 5-9. Grazing intensities in rangeland systems to 2030 and
2050 for the reference run, by region (TLU per ha).

Figure 5-5. Sources of cereal production growth, reference run,
2000-2050 by IAASTD region. Source: IFPRI IMPACT model
simulations.

chapter 05.indd 319

Region

2000

2030

2050

CWANA

0.052

0.077

0.083

ESAP

0.044

0.067

0.067

LAC

0.188

0.293

0.318

NAE

0.052

0.063

0.060

SSA

0.062

0.090

0.090

World

0.064

0.094

0.098

Source: ILRI SLAM model simulations.

11/5/08 10:02:46 AM

320 | IAASTD Global Reportcerning technological change and the institutional landscapethat will affect these livestock systems in the future (Freeman
et al., 2006), the shifts in production to the wetter and mixed
systems that are implied are likely to have considerable potential environmental impacts in the reference run.
Food trade, prices, and food security. Real world prices ofmost cereals and meat are projected to increase significantly
in coming decades, reversing trends from the past several
decades. Maize, rice, and wheat prices are projected to increase by 21-61% in the reference world, prices for beef
and pork by 40% and 30%, respectively, and for poultry
and sheep and goat by 17% and 12%, respectively (Table
5-10). These substantial changes are driven by new developments in supply and demand, including much more rapid
degradation on the food production side, particularly as aresult of rapidly growing water scarcity, rapidly growing
demands, both food and nonfood, combined with slowing
yield growth unable to catch up with developments on the
supply and demand side.
World trade in food will continue to increase, with tradein cereals projected to increase from 257 million tones annually in 2000 to 657 million tonnes in 2050 and trade inmeat products rising from 15 million tonnes to 62 million
tonnes. Expanding trade will be driven by the increasing
import demand from the developing world, particularly
CWANA, ESAP, and SSA, where net cereal imports willgrow by 200%, 170%, and 330%, respectively (Figure 5-6).
Thus, sub-Saharan Africa will face the largest increase infood import bills despite significant area and yield growth
expected during the next 50 years in the reference world.
With rising prices due to the inability of much of thedeveloping countries to increase food production rapidly
enough to meet growing demand, the major exporting countries—mostly in the NAE and LAC regions—will provide
an increasingly critical role in meeting food consumption
needs (Figures 5-6 and 5-7). The USA, Brazil, and Argentina
are a critical safety valve in providing relatively affordable
food to developing countries. Maize exports are expected

Figure 5-6. Net trade in cereals, reference run, by IAASTD region.
Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

to double in the United States to 102 million tonnes, and togrow to 38 million tonnes in Argentina and 10-11 million
tonnes in Brazil and Mexico. Wheat exports are projected
to grow to 60 million tonnes in the United States, and to
37 million tonnes in Russia, 34 million tonnes in Australia,
and 31 million tonnes in Argentina, respectively. Soybean
exports are projected at 20 million tonnes in Argentina and15 million tonnes in Brazil. Net meat exports are expected
to increase sharply in the United States and Argentina. Europe is expected to also increase exports, mainly because ofslow or no growth in demand with stable population. For
rice, Myanmar is expected to join Thailand and Vietnam as
particularly significant exporters.
The substantial increase in food prices will slow growthin calorie consumption, with both direct price impacts andreductions in real incomes for poor consumers who spend
a large share of their income on food. As a result, there will
be little improvement in food security for the poor in many
regions. In sub-Saharan Africa, daily calorie availability is

Table 5-10. Selected international food prices, 2000 and projected2025 and 2050, reference run.
2000

2025

Food

2050

US$ per metric ton

Beef

1,928

2,083

2,691

Pork

878

986

1,142

Sheep & goat

2,710

2,685

3,039

Poultry

1,193

1,192

1,399

Rice

191

223

232

Wheat

99

136

160

Maize

72

108

102

Millet

227

293

289

Soybean

186

216

216

Note: All values are three-year averages.
Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

chapter 05.indd 320

Figure 5-7. Net trade in meat products, reference run, by IAASTD
region. Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

11/5/08 10:02:54 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 321

Box 5-1. Outcomes for China.
China’s development has major impacts on both current and future food markets of the world. Key results from a disaggregated,partial agricultural equilibrium model are presented below:
Crop production
Under the baseline (or reference) run, total crop area will gradually
decline. In addition, wages are predicted to rise as will the opportunity cost of land for agricultural production. Why? The main driversof these shifts are industrialization, urbanization and the slowingof the rate of growth of population (as well as labor supply). Sown
area is projected to decline by about 10%, which implies an annual
rate of 0.2 over the next 50 years (Table 5-27). The decline will belargest for the cereal sector. In contrast, the sown area of crops
with positive income elasticities of demand (e.g., cash crops) will
expand slightly. Non-staple crop yields will grow in the reference
world since the rising demand for these commodities will lead tohigher prices which, in turn, will induce enhanced productivity frominvestment in these sectors (both in R&D and in production).

Table 5-27. Area and yield of major agricultural commodities,
China (in million hectares and tonne per hectare,respectively).
2004

2020

2050

Cereal83

75

70

Soybean + oil crops

24

21

19

Cotton5

5

4Area (million ha):those in which farmers have more comparative advantage (laborintensive crops, such as vegetables, fruit, pork and poultry).
Overall, China’s food security will remain high. While there will
be a few agricultural and food commodities that could experiencea significant decline in national self-sufficiency levels (for example
maize, soybeans and edible oils, sugar and ruminant meats, as
shown in Table 5-28, rising imports of these few commodities
will not threaten the basic food security status of either Chinaor the world. Cereal imports will rise, but cereal self-sufficiency
will remain at about 90% in 2020 and above 85% through 2050.
Cereal imports rise mainly because of increasing demand for feed
(especially, maize). Rising feed demand is inextricably linked to
the rapidly growing livestock sector. Self-sufficiency in maize will
fall from the current level of more than 100% (China actually wasa net maize exporter in the 1990s and 2000s) to less than 70%
after 2020. However, due to declining demand for rice and wheat(on a per capita basis) and the falling rates of population growth(with nearly no growth in the 2020s and falling population numbers thereafter), our projections suggest that China could reachnear self-sufficiency in wheat and become a large exporter of rice
into international markets, as long as the rest of the world liberalizes their agricultural sectors.

Table 5-28. Self-sufficiency levels of selected major agriculturalcommodities in China (in percent).
2004

2020

2050

Cereal

102

92

86

Rice

101

107

112

Wheat

99

95

98

Sugar

2

2

2

Vegetable

18

19

20

Fruit

9

11

12

140

132

127

CottonRice (in milled rice)

4.3

5.2

5.7

Sugar

Wheat

4.0

4.8

5.3

Vegetables

101

Maize

5.0

6.1

6.4

Fruit

Cotton

1.1

1.6

1.8

Pork

Sugar

5.6

7.8

8.7

Beef

100

Vegetable

19.4

25.9

27.6

Mutton

99

94

95

Fruit

9.5

15.2

17.1

Poultry

100

105

111

Milk

96

79

75

Sum of above crops
Yield (tonne/ha):Source: CAPSIM reference run.

Maize

108

79

69

Soybean

49

41

38

Oil crops

67

63

58

85

74

58

91

79

65

105

106

101

106

102

101

102

102

86

85

Source: CAPSIM reference run.

Implications for food security, poverty and equity
China’s economic growth and trade liberalization in the reference
world will facilitate many changes in the basic structure of agricultural sector. China’s agriculture will be gradually shifting from crops
in which its farmers have less comparative advantage (i.e., landintensive sectors, such as grains, edible oils, sugar and cotton) to

Outside China, a rapidly growing Chinese economy will help
those countries with a comparative advantage in land-intensive
products. Such countries (such as Brazil, Argentina, Brazil, theUS, Canada and Australia) will expand their production and increase their exports to China. Developing countries, in particular,continued

chapter 05.indd 321

11/5/08 10:02:54 AM

322 | IAASTD Global ReportBox 5-1. continued

will be able to export a fairly large number of agricultural products to China. China’s open trade regime and rising demand will
increase the consumption of imported soybeans and other edibleoils, maize, cotton, sugar, tropical and subtropical fruits, as well
as some livestock products (e.g., milk, beef and mutton).
Incomes will increase across all segments of the income distribution in China. The rises will come, in part from agriculture. However, most of the growth will be based on rising nonagriculturalactivities, including off farm wages and self employment earnings. On average, per capita income will rise about 6% annually
over the next two decades and 3-5% annually during the period
from 2020-2050. Income growth from agriculture will be positive,
but much lower. China’s rapid economic growth and the rise in thenation’s overall wealth will be accompanied by widening income
inequality unless substantial efforts are undertaken to directly
support the poor. Since most of the poor in China have land, improving agriculture and other activities in farming areas will positive affect the welfare of the poorest people in rural China.

As growth proceeds, China will significantly reduce its population under the poverty line. In 2001, about 11% of China’s rural
population was below the US$1/day poverty line (Table 5-29).
With rising incomes from both the agricultural and nonagricultural sectors, the share of the poor in the total rural population
is expected to be reduced to 5.4% by 2010 and to less than 1%
by 2020. Moreover, under the reference run, the share of the rural
population that lives in poverty would essentially be completely
eliminated after 2022, a level of reduction that is faster than thetargets suggested under the Millennium Development Goalsof the United Nations. Specifically, the poorest 20% of China’s
households (based on their income levels in 2001) are expected
to reduce their population share from 22.6% in 2001 to 3.9% by2030 (Table 5-29). After about 2035, the entire rural population in
the lowest income class (quintile) is expected to have graduatedto the second or even third income quintiles.

Table 5-29. Population shares by income group in rural China(in percent).
Income group

2001

2010

2020

2030

2050

Under poverty

11.0

5.4

0.9

0.0

0.0

1st quintile

22.6

15.8

8.9

3.9

0.0

2 quintile

21.3

24.0

25.2

25.2

12.3

By household income in 2001
nd

3 quintile

20.0

18.9

17.5

16.3

19.1

4th quintile

19.0

17.4

15.2

13.0

7.6

5 quintile

17.0

24.0

33.2

41.6

61.1

rd

th

Note: Households under poverty means that per capita income is less than 1$/day in PPP. Rural population with less 1$/
day income accounted for 11% of total rural households in 2001. Each quintile of households accounted for 20% of
total rural households in 2001, but the shares of population in lower quintiles are more than those in higher quintiles.
Source: CAPSIM reference run.

expected to only grow to 2,738 kilocalories by 2050, compared to 3,000 or more calories available, on average, in allother regions. Only the South Asia subregion has similar
low gains in calorie availability—at 2,746 calories per capita per day by 2050. Calorie availability is expected to growfastest in the ESAP region at 630 kilocalories over 20002050 (Figure 5-8).
In the reference run, childhood malnutrition (childrenof up to 60 months) will continue to decline, but cannot
be eradicated by 2050 (Figure 5-9). Childhood malnutrition
is projected to decline from 149 million children in 2000
to 130 million children by 2025 and 99 million children
by 2050. The decline will be fastest in Latin America at
51%, followed by the CWANA and ESAP regions at 46%
and 44%, respectively. Progress is slowest in sub-SaharanAfrica—despite significant income growth and rapid area

chapter 05.indd 322

and yield gains as well as substantial progress in supporting
services that influence well-being outcomes, such as female
secondary education, and access to clean drinking water. By
2050, an increase in child malnutrition of 11% is expected,
bringing the total to 33 million children in the region.
Fisheries. The reference run is set up so that the value of
landings was optimized throughout the years modeled witheffort driving the model. The effort for all fleets is the sameas what the effort was in the year 2003 until 2010, and after
2010 only the effort in the small pelagic fleet is allowed tovary. A second reference world was run so that after 2010,
the effort in the small pelagic fleet was increased by 2%each year, which represents a modest growth in the sector, inparticular carnivorous species which consume much of thesmall pelagic fish landed through fishmeal and fish oil. The

11/5/08 10:02:55 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 323

reference run can be attributed to Areas 77, 67 and 61 andchanges in trophic levels can be attributed to Area 87. However, in the 2% effort variant the landings increase in most
FAO areas but the trophic level only declines in FAO Areas
87 and 61. Much of the change in landings and trophic levelare due to increasing biomass of small pelagics and declining biomass of most other groups.

Figure 5-8. Average daily calorie availability per capita, selected
regions, reference run. Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

2% value is based on recent FAO reports on the growth of
aquaculture (FAO/WHO, 2006; see also Table 5-11).
Atlantic Ocean. Under the reference run there is an overall
decline in landings (5.4%) between 2003 and 2048 but under the 2% increase in small pelagic effort variant there is a
7% increase in landings. In both alternatives the trophic levelof the catch declines between 2 and 2.5%. Six FAO areas are
represented in the Atlantic, and in all areas except 34 and21 landings increase in the reference run and trophic level
declines. In FAO areas where landings continue to decline,
the trophic level in Area 34 is the only area where it increases
while in Area 21 it continues to decline. In the 2% effort variant landings in most areas increase or remain steady except in
Area 21 where it declines. The trophic level decreases in all
but Area 31 where it increases slightly. The changes in biomass of the major species is seen in increases in small pelagic
fish (e.g., capeline, herring) and declines in large demersal
and large bentho-pelagic fish (e.g., cod, haddock).
Pacific Ocean. The baseline modeling for the Pacific resultsin declines in landings by 5% from 203 to 2048, while inthe 2% increase in effort in the small pelagic fleet there isan overall increase (117%) in landings. The trophic levelremains unchanged in the baseline but declines by 1.3% in
the small pelagic effort variant. Six FAO areas are includedin the Pacific and much of the change in landings in the

Indian Ocean. In the reference run landings initially decline
while stocks rebuild and then landings increase but only to
1% more than in 2003 by 2048. However, the trophic levelof the catch does not decline with increased landings. Landings increase in the 2% effort variant. The growth is small,less than 5% but also the sustainability of these fisheries
policy is uncertain since the trophic level of the catch continues to decline under the 2% policy from 2003 to 2008.
The Indian Ocean represents two FAO Areas (51 and 57)
and much of the overall increase in landings is due to increased small pelagic biomass in Area 57.
Mediterranean. Landings in the reference run increase by
7% with a corresponding decline in trophic level of 3%.
In the 2% small pelagic effort variant, landings increase by
50% then level off while the trophic level declines steadily
and by 3% from 2003. The sustainability of this policy is
Table 5-11. Fisheries, reference run.
FAO Area

Baseline%change inlandings
2003 to2048% changein trophic
level 2003
to 20482%
increase%change inlandings
2003 to2048%
changeintrophiclevel2003 to2048

Atlantic
21

-39

-5.9

-35

-6.0

27

15

-1.5

22

-2.4

31

20

2.8

25

2.3

34

-30

1.1

3.9

-1.3

41

26

-1.2

34

-1.9

47

33

-3.1

13.9

-0.9

Pacific
61

19

-2.3

14

-2.7

67

47

-2.8

44

-2.6

71

-15

0.5

11.4

-0.9

77

56

1.5

47

0.4

81

13

-0.1

2.8

-0.2

87

-38

3.9

13

-1.8

51

-21

1.3

-10

-1.3

57

73

4.8

56

2.1

Med 37

71

-3.8

50

-3.1

IndianFigure 5-9. Number of malnourished children, 2000 and projected2025 and 2050, selected developing country regions. Source: IFPRIIMPACT model simulations.

chapter 05.indd 323

Source: ECO-OCEAN.

11/5/08 10:02:59 AM

324 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 5-12. Share of global renewable water resources and population at 2000 and 2050, reference run.
RegionIRW

Share of Global IRW

Share of Global
Population(Km3/year)

(%)

(%)

2000

2050

2000

2050

2000

2050

North America and Europe (NAE)

8,677

14,802

21

32

18

13

East-South Asia and Pacific (ESAP)

12,922

15,218

31

33

54

49

Central-West Asia and North Africa (CWANA)

1,328

1,184

3

3

10

13

Latin America and Caribbean (LAC)

14,000

11,225

34

24

8

9

sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

4,639

4,345

11

9

10

17

Developed Countries

9,946

15,424

24

33

20

14

Developing Countries

31,62031,349

76

67

80

86

World

41,566

46,773

100

100

100

100

Note: IRW = Internal renewable water resources.
Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

uncertain since small pelagic biomass declines steadily toward the end of the modeled time period and the biomassof the large bentho-pelagic fish also declines.
5.3.3.2 Global trends in water availability and emerging
challenges to water supply
Changes in human use of freshwater are driven by population
growth, economic development and changes in water use efficiency. Historically, global freshwater use had increased at
a rate of about 20% per decade between 1960 and 2000,
with considerable regional variations due to different development pressures and efficiency changes. Because of uneven
distribution of fresh water in space and time, however, today only 15% of the world population lives with relative
water abundance, and the majority is left with moderate tosevere water stress (Vorosmarty et al., 2005).
This global water picture may be worsened in the future
under climate change and population growth. For the reference run, by 2050 internal renewable water (IRW) is estimated to increase in developed countries but is expected todecrease in the group of developing countries (Table 5-12).
The disparity of changes of IRW and population by 2050
will increase the challenge to satisfy future water demands,
especially for the group of developing countries.
Table 5-13 presents total water consumption, which refers to the volume of water that is permanently lost (throughevapotranspiration or flow to salty sinks, etc.) and cannot
be reused in the water system, typically a river basin. In
the reference world, by 2050 world water consumption
is expected to grow by 14%. Regionally, by 2050, SSA is
projected to more than double water consumption, LAC is
expected to increase water consumption by 50%, and ESAPby 13%, while in the NAE region the increase is modest, at
6%. Only CWANA reduces its water consumption—as a result of further worsened water scarcity. The IRW reductionof CWANA makes its global share of IRW decrease from
3.2% to 2.5% (Table 5-12). Combined with the increase ofchapter 05.indd 324

population share from 10% to 13% CWANA is expected
to face the largest challenge in meeting demands exerted bysocioeconomic development and conservation demands tosustain ecological systems.
Irrigation is expected to continue to be the largest water user in 2050 for all regions (Table 5-14). However, it isestimated that the share of irrigation consumption in total
water depletion will decrease by about 8% from 2000 to
2050, largely due to the more rapid growth of nonirrigation water demands that compete for water with irrigation(Table 5-15), and also because of projected declines in irrigated areas in some parts of the world. Actual irrigation
consumption will decline significantly in CWANA due tochronically worsening water scarcity in the reference run.
For individual dry river basins the IWSR could be evenlower than these spatially-averaged values since abundant
water in some basins mask scarcity in the dry river basins.
On the other hand, significant increases are expected in the
LAC and SSA regions at 45% and 77% respectively.
Constraints to water supply vary across regions. Water
shortages today and in the future are not solely problemsof resource scarcity, but are also closely related to stagesof economic development. Three types of water scarcity
constraints will become more important in the future: firstis absolute resource scarcity, which will become more andmore a feature of regions characterized by low and highlyvariable rainfall and runoff, often accompanied by highevapotranspiration potential. They include countries andsubnational regions in CWANA, ESAP (for example, northwestern China), and NAE (for example, southwestern US),
among others. The second type is infrastructure constraints,
typically in regions where water availability is not extremely
low but infrastructures to store, divert/pump, and convey
water is underdeveloped. Despite rapid development of irrigation-related and other water infrastructure in the SSA
region, the region will remain infrastructure constrained out
to 2050. The third type, water scarcity, is caused by water

11/5/08 10:02:59 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 325

Table 5-13. Total water consumptive use, reference world.
RegionTotal Water Consumption by all Economic Sectors(km3 yr-1)
2000

2050

North America and Europe (NAE)

737

778

East-South Asia and Pacific (ESAP)

1,384

1,570

Central-West Asia and North Africa(CWANA)

519

486

Latin America and Caribbean (LAC)

252

377

sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

61

146

Developed Countries

753

791

Developing Countries

2,199

2,567

World

2,952

3,358

Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

Table 5-14. Potential and actual consumptive water use for irrigation, and irrigation water supply reliability for 2000 and 2050.
RegionPotential Irrigation Water
Consumption

ActualIrrigation Water
Consumption

Irrigation Water
Supply Reliability(IWSR)(km3 yr-1)(km3 yr-1)

(%)

2000

2050

2000

2050

2000

2050

North America and Europe (NAE)

731

960

598

615

82

64

East-South Asia and Pacific (ESAP)

1,950

2,277

1,256

1,259

64

56

Central-West Asia and North Africa (CWANA)

758

915

489

420

65

46

Latin America and Caribbean (LAC)

268

390

224

324

83

83

sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

50

101

50

88

99

87

Developed Countries

710

946

606

623

85

66

Developing Countries

3,047

3,697

2,010

2,085

66

56

World

3,757

4,643

2,616

2,707

70

58

Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

Table 5-15. Non-irrigation consumptive water use for 2000 and 2050 (in km3 yr -1).
RegionDomestic
2000

Industrial

2050

2000

Livestock

2050

2000

Total Non-Irrigation
2000

2050

North America and Europe (NAE)

41.0

47.8

91.2

109.7

6.0

2050
5.3

138.2

162.9

East-South Asia and Pacific (ESAP)

64.1

153.3

48.3

133.7

16.0

23.7

128.4

310.6

Central-West Asia and North Africa(CWANA)

11.1

31.1

6.4

16.0

12.0

19.0

29.4

66.2

Latin America and Caribbean (LAC)

15.3

29.6

6.5

14.2

6.4

8.7

28.3

52.5

sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

6.6

45.3

1.0

6.6

4.0

6.7

11.5

58.6

Developed Countries

45.4

51.4

94.4

111.4

6.7

5.9

146.5

168.7

Developing Countries

92.6

255.6

59.0

168.9

37.7

57.5

189.3

481.9

World

138.0

307.0

153.4

280.2

44.4

63.4

335.8

650.7

Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

chapter 05.indd 325

11/5/08 10:03:00 AM

326 | IAASTD Global Reportquality constraints, which are becoming increasingly normal in regions where rivers and aquifers are contaminatedby insufficiently treated or untreated industrial wastewaterand nonpoint source pollution from agricultural practices.
An increasing number of countries in ESAP are included inthis category, for example, the Huai River Basin in China.
As a result of increased potential irrigation water consumption and reduction or moderate increase in actual irrigation consumption, irrigation water supply reliability(IWSR) is expected to decline in all regions. Globally, the
IWSR decreases from 70% to 58% from 2000 to 2050.
Regionally, LAC is likely to maintain a stable IWSR overthe next 50 years given its abundance in water resources,
although its water availability will decline by nearly 20%
over this period. The IWSR of CWANA is expected to be below 50% by 2050 due to increased irrigation water demand(largely due to increased potential evapotranspiration) andreduced water availability. This would impose a significant
impact on crop yield, and potentially jeopardize food security in this region.
Total harvested irrigated area is expected to increase
from 433 million ha in 2000 to 478 million ha in 2025 andto then slightly decline to 473 million ha by 2050. Cereals
account for more than half of all irrigated harvested area
over the reference run period. Over the projections horizon,
irrigated area is projected to more than double in SSA. However, by 2050, SSA is expected to still account for less than
2% of global harvested irrigated area. Increases in LAC and
ESAP are projected at 41% and 12%, respectively, whereas
almost no changes are projected for the CWANA and NAE
regions (Figure 5-10).
Sharp increases in nonirrigation water demands are projected over the next 50 years, with increases concentrated in
the group of developing countries (Table 5-15). In the reference run, globally, nonirrigation water consumption would
almost double by 2050, approaching 651 km3 per year. Notably, nonirrigation consumption in developing countries is
estimated to reach 482 km3, more than doubling from 2000.
In comparison, total nonirrigation water consumption indeveloped countries only increases moderately. The mostsignificant increase in the group of developing countries isdomestic water consumption, which grows rapidly from 93
km3 to 256 km3 over 50 years. This dramatic increase isdriven by both population growth and per capita demand
increase due to income growth. Industrial demand would
also increase significantly, with the largest relative increase
in SSA (though still low by population size) and the largest
absolute increase in ESAP.
5.3.3.3 Results for energy production and use
In terms of final energy demand, the reference projection
shows an increase of 280 EJ in 2000 to around 500 EJ in
2030 and more than 700 EJ in 2050 (see also Figure 5-11).
This is somewhat faster than the historic trend. This difference is the result of the fact that (1) historically several
events have slowed down demand in energy consumption(energy crises, economic transition in FSU, Asia financial
crisis), and (2) the increasing weight of developing countries
with typically higher growth rates in the global total.
Most of the increase in energy demand takes place inthe group of developing countries. At the same time, how-chapter 05.indd 326

Figure 5-10. Changes in irrigated harvested area, 2000, andprojected 2025, and 2050, reference run, by IAASTD region.
Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

ever, it should be noted that per capita energy consumption remains much higher in developed countries than indeveloping countries. In terms of energy carriers, most of
the energy consumption continues to be derived from fossil
fuels—in particular oil (for transport). The growth of oil issomewhat slowed down in response to high oil prices. Modern bioenergy represents a fast growing alternative to oil—but remains small in terms of overall energy consumption.
Coal use increases slightly—as high oil and gas prices imply
that coal remains an attractive fuel in the industry sector.
This partly offsets the trend away from coal in the buildings
sector. Natural gas use increases at about the same rate as
the overall growth in energy consumption. Finally, the levelof electricity use increases dramatically.
In electric power, the reference run expects coal to continue to remain dominant as a primary input into power
production. In fact, its share increases somewhat in response
to high oil and gas prices—and as a result of high growthin electric power production in countries with high sharesof coal and limited access to natural gas supplies (such as
India and China). Rapidly growing alternative inputs suchas solar/wind power and bioenergy gain market share, butform only about 10% of primary inputs by the end of thereference run period.
In terms of supply, it is expected that oil and natural
gas production will concentrate more and more in a small
number of producing countries as a result of the depletion of
low-cost supply outside these countries. It is also expectedthat fossil fuel prices remain relatively high. In that context
it should be noted that current high oil prices are mostly
a result of (1) rapid increases in demand, (2) uncertainties
in supply, and (3) underinvestment in production capacity.
Some of these factors could continue to be important in the
future—although estimates are hard to make (and strongly
depend on perspectives of the future with respect to globalization and cooperation, regional tensions, etc.). In addition, depletion of low-cost resources will lead to upward
pressure on prices. As a result, it is likely that fossil fuelprices remain at a relatively high level—although probably
somewhat below 2005-2007 levels. Continued high price

11/5/08 10:03:02 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 327

Figure 5-11. Total energy use, reference run. Source: IMAGE model.

levels will provide incentives to invest in alternative energy
sources such as bioenergy.
5.3.3.4 Climate
Under the IAASTD reference run, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gas rises driven mainly by increasing
emission of greenhouse gases from the energy sector (seeFigure 5-12 for CO2). The concentration of greenhouse gases reflects the balance of net fluxes between terrestrial areas,
oceans and the atmosphere. By 2030 the CO2 concentration
reaches 460 ppmv, and increases further to 560 ppmv in
2050, a doubling of the preindustrial level. This trend is notstabilizing in 2050, so higher concentrations will occur on
the longer term.
The effect of more greenhouse gases is a rise in global
mean temperature above the preindustrial level to 1.2°C in
2030 and 1.7°C in 2050 (Figure 5-13). These values are wellin line with IPCC, where best estimate values at the end of
the twenty-first century range between 1.8 and 4.0°C. This
range is even larger when the uncertainties in the climate
sensitivity are taken into account as well. Including thisrange of uncertainty, the IPCC gives a temperature range
between 1.1 and 6.4°C by the end of the twenty-first century. Taking uncertainties in climate sensitivity into accountin the reference run, global-mean temperature increase will
be around 1.0 and 2.5°C in 2050.
The calculations show that in the first few decades of
the twenty-first century, the rate of temperature change issomewhat slightly slowed down compared to the current
rate, in response to lower emissions, e.g., due to a slowdown
in deforestation, stable methane concentration in recent decades and increasing sulfur emissions, mainly in Asia, witha cooling effect. In the following decades these trends are
discontinued, driving the temperature change rate upwards
again. Factors that contribute to this increase are increasing
greenhouse gas concentration in combination with reduced
sulfur emissions. By 2030 the temperature increases by arate of more than 0.2°C per decade, augmenting the climatic
impacts and increasing the need for adaptation (Leemans
and Eickhout, 2004), especially in nature and agriculture.
Changes in global mean temperature cannot reflect theregional effects that climate change may have on crop yield,
water resources and other environmental services for hu-

chapter 05.indd 327

man development. Therefore, the regional aspects of climatechange need to be addressed as well, although the extent of
the regional effect is still very uncertain. Although the global
mean temperature change is around 1.4°C between 1990 and
2050 (see Figure 5-13), regionally this can imply changes ofmore than 2.5-3°C (Figure 5-14). The IPCC concluded thatmany of the developing countries are most vulnerable toclimate change, mainly because of their dependency on sectors, which are relying on climatic circumstances, and their
low ability to adapt (IPCC, 2007). For example, agricultural production, including access to food, is projected to be
severely compromised by climate variability and change inmany African countries and regions (IPCC, 2007). The area
suitable for agriculture, the length of growing seasons andyield potential, particularly along the margins of semiarid
and arid areas, are expected to decrease.
The impact on crop growth is one of the most important direct impacts of climate change on the agricultural sector. Through CO2 fertilization, the impact can be positive,
although this effect is not larger than 20% (IPCC, 2007).
However, at higher temperature increases the impacts oncrop yields will be dominated by negative impacts (IPCC,
2007). In total, the impact in 2050 is still relatively small,apart from some crucial regions like South Asia (Figure 5-15).
Results can become even more negative when changes in climate variability are included as well, which is not includedin this analysis. These conclusions are in line with IPCC,
where it was concluded that, globally, the potential for foodproduction is projected to increase with increases in local
average temperature over a range of 1-3°C, but above this it
is projected to decrease (IPCC, 2007). Moreover, increases
in the frequency of droughts and floods due to changes inclimate variability are projected to affect local production
negatively, especially in subsistence sectors at low latitudes(IPCC, 2007).
5.3.3.5 Environmental consequences—land use change
The impacts of changes in agriculture and demand for biofuels lead to changes in land use. Although expansion in
pastureland is compensated by an increase in grazing intensity, and increase in crop land is partially compensated bytechnological improvements (see 5.3.3), total land use for

Figure 5-12. Atmospheric CO2 concentration out to 2050,
reference world. Source: IMAGE model.

11/5/08 10:03:07 AM

328 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 5-13. Global surface temperature change above preindustrial levels up to 2050, reference world. Source: IMAGE model.

humans is still increasing until 2050 with an expansion of 4
million km2. The increasing demand for bioenergy is one of
the important reasons for this development (Figure 5-16).
In Figure 5-17, the regional breakdown is given for bioenergy areas being used for energy purposes. Although Latin
America is currently one of the most important energy crop
growing regions, in the future regions where land abandonment will occur increasingly (like in Russia) are expected toovertake this market. This is mainly due to a high increaseof agriculture in Latin America which leaves little room forany additional energy crops (see also 5.3.3.3). Moreover, in
this approach most of the bioenergy is grown on land that isabandoned or on land that is low productive (see Appendix
for the methodology; Hoogwijk et al., 2005).
These changes in land use also affect air quality andthe atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases. Land use
related emissions will continue to increase, mainly due toincreased animal production (CH4 emissions) and fertilizeruse (N2O emissions) (Figure 5-18). Carbon dioxide emissions due to land use change (deforestation) are expected tostay more or less constant.
5.3.3.6 Environmental consequences—forests and terrestrial biodiversity
Forests represent valuable natural ecosystems, with highpotential to provide a variety of services to mankind andrich in biodiversity measured by the number of species. Although forest can regrow with time after clear-cutting fortimber production, and after abandonment of agricultural
production, these areas will revert only slowly to a morenatural state, if ever. As a somewhat arbitrary definition,
only forests that were established before 1970 are includedin the count presented here. Therefore, regrowth forests after

Figure 5-14. Change in mean annual surface temperature, 1990-2050. Source: IMAGE model.

chapter 05.indd 328

11/5/08 10:03:13 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 329

Figure 5-17. Bioenergy area in 2050 for different countries andregions in the world, reference run. Source: IMAGE model.
Figure 5-15. Change in potential crop yield (1990-2050)
attributed to climate change. Source: IMAGE model.
Note: Regions are North America (NAM), Europe (EUR), Japan and Korea(JPK), Oceania (ANZ), Brazil (BRA), Russia (RUS), South Asia (mainly India;
SOA), China (CHN), Middle East (MEA), Other Asia (OAS), Eastern Europe
and Central Asia (ECA), Other Latin America (OLC) and Africa (AFR).

1970 are excluded from the areas shown in Figure 5-19. The
only new areas included are those that change from othernatural biomes to forest as a consequence of climate change
and without human intervention. The figure illustrates thatnatural forest areas decline in all regions, but most clearlyin developing regions like LAC and ESAP.
Biodiversity is expressed in terms of the indicator mean
species abundance (see Appendix on GloBio3). The MSA
value is affected by a range of human induced stress factors.
For terrestrial biodiversity these include loss of habitat, climate change, excess nitrogen deposition, infrastructure andfragmentation. These stress factors are the direct drivers of
biodiversity loss and are derived from indirect drivers suchas population, GDP and energy use.
Loss of the biodiversity quality in the natural biomes
started already many centuries ago, as can be seen in the his-Figure 5-16. Agricultural area (food crops, pastureland andbiofuel crops) globally, 2000 to 2050, reference run. Source:
IMAGE model.

chapter 05.indd 329

torical graph from 1700 to 2000 (Figure 5-20). The strongest declines occur in the temperate and tropical grasslands
and forests. The remaining biodiversity is found more andmore in biomes that are less suitable for human development and thus less likely to be affected, such as deserts andpolar biomes. This trend continues with an anticipated andaccelerating further loss of biodiversity.
At the global level, there is a substantial biodiversity
loss in the reference run: the remaining MSA level drops
another 10% after 2000. The rate of decrease for the period 2000-2050 is even higher than in the period 1970 to2000 (Figure 5-21). The role of agricultural land-use changeremains the largest of all pressure factors, which is clearly
related to the strong increase in crop areas (see 5.3.3.5). The
major contributors to the additional biodiversity loss from2000 to 2050 are: expanding infrastructure, agriculture andclimate change. The influence of nitrogen deposition andfragmentation does not increase, even though these factors
share similar indirect drivers as the other factors. In fact,
through expanding agriculture, less natural biomes are left
where these stresses can exert their influence.

Figure 5-18. Land-use emissions from CO2, CH4 and N2O from2000 to 2050, reference run. Source: IMAGE model.

11/5/08 10:03:21 AM

330 | IAASTD Global Report

5.4 Assessment of Selected, Major Policy
IssuesFigure 5-19. Change in forest areas excluding regrowth, 2000,
2025, and 2050. Source: IMAGE model.

Figure 5-20. Development of global biodiversity 1700-2050
in mean species abundance in various natural biomes. Source:
GLOBIO 3.

Figure 5-21. Biodiversity development for the world, andcontribution of stress factors to the decline in the reference run.
Source: GLOBIO 3.

chapter 05.indd 330

5.4.1 Climate change policies and agriculture
In the previous subchapters, we have shown that the reference projection leads to a strong increase in greenhousegas concentration—and thus considerable climate change.
In contrast, the recent IPCC reports indicate that avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system may require stabilization of GHG concentration at
relatively low levels. Current studies on emission pathways,
for instance, indicate that in order to achieve the objectiveof EU climate policy (limiting climate change to 2oC compared to pre-industrial) with a probability of at least 50%
may require stabilization below 450 ppm CO2-eq. Stabilization at 450, 550 and 650 ppm CO2-eq, is likely to lead toa temperature increase of respectively, about 1.2-3oC, 1.54oC, and 2-5oC. The Stern review recently concluded thatgiven all evidence, limiting temperature increase to about
2oC would be an economically attractive goal (Stern, 2006).
This conclusion has been debated by some authors, but also
found strong support by others. For the purpose of this report, we have decided to explore the impact of stringent
climate policies.
The IPCC AR4 WGIII report concludes on the basis ofmodel-supported scenario analysis that several model studies show that it is technically possible to stabilize greenhousegas emissions at 450 ppm CO2-eq. after a temporary overshoot. This is also supported by the model analysis carriedout for IAASTD. Emission reductions required to stabilize
at 450 ppm (around 60% in 2050 and 90% in 2100, globally) can be reached through various emission reduction options (Figure 5-22). Efficiency plays an important role in
the overall portfolio. Carbon capture and storage is anotherimportant technology under default assumptions—but
may be substituted at limited additional costs against otherzero-carbon emitting technologies in the power sector. Obviously, the concentration target forms a tradeoff between
costs and climate benefits. The net present value of abatement costs (2010-2100) for the B2 baseline scenario (a medium scenario) increases from 0.2% of cumulative GDP to
1.1%, going from stabilization at 650 to 450 ppm. On theother hand, the probability of meeting the EU climate target(limiting global mean temperature increase to 2oC) increases
from 0-10% to 20-70%.
One important option in the overall portfolio is alsobioenergy. As discussed in Chapter 4, there is a strong debate on the advantages and disadvantages of bioenergy.
The 450 ppm stabilization case is likely to lead to a strong
increase in land use for bioenergy. A recent paper by van
Vuuren et al. (2007) on the basis of a comparable scenario
found land for bioenergy to increase from 0.4 to 1.0 Gha
in 2100, while at the same time land for carbon plantation
increased from 0 to 0.3 Gha.
Obviously, the climate policy variant has important benefits in reducing climate change, although some of these may
only materialize in the long-term (Figure 5-23). As shown,
the emission reductions are likely to reduce greenhouse gas
concentration substantially in 2050. At the same time, however, the medium-term (2050) impacts on temperature increase are relatively slow. The latter is due to inertia in the

11/5/08 10:03:26 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 331

Figure 5-22. Contribution of various options in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from baseline to the 450 ppm CO2-eq variant andthe costs associated with stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. Source: IMAGE-model; Van Vuuren, 2007
Note: Net present value of abatement costs at 5%; discount rate as percentage of GDP

climate system, but also due to the fact that climate policy
also reduces SO2 emissions, reducing atmospheric aerosolsthat lead to a net cooling. In other words, impacts on agriculture in 2050 are similar in the stringent policy case as in
the reference run (see 5.3.3.4). Uncertainty does not comefrom different variants—but differences in climate sensitivity. In the longer run, however, the temperature of the policy
case will remain significantly below the reference case.
5.4.2 Trade policies and international market
constraints
Support policies and border protection of wealthy OECD
countries, valued at hundreds of billions of dollars eachyear, cause harm to agriculture in developing countries.
Evaluating the overall effects of subsidies and trade protec-

tion policies of industrialized countries on developing countries and poverty within developing countries is challenging.
The evaluation must rest on counterfactual simulation ofalternative policy variants leading to a diverse set of policies
and application of a range of different models.
As part of this report, GTEM was applied to two hypothetical variants representing two alternative global trade
policy regimes. Variant 1 represents a global economy inwhich import tariffs (and tariff equivalents) on all goods
are removed incrementally between 2010 and 2020 acrossthe globe. Variant 2, on the contrary, represents a world inwhich trade barriers will escalate gradually between 2010
and 2020 such that by 2020 these barriers will be equivalent
to twice the size of the existing tariff (and tariff equivalent)barriers across the board.

Figure 5-23. Atmospheric CO2 and CO2-eq concentration between 2000 and 2050. Source: IMAGE-model

chapter 05.indd 331

11/5/08 10:03:30 AM

332 | IAASTD Global Report

The key impacts of the two alternative variants at 2025
are analyzed below. Unless otherwise stated, the impacts are
expressed as deviations from the reference case which represents no trade liberalization or reduced sectoral protection throughout the projection period. It should be notedthat the impacts of trade policy changes only represent static
gains/losses associated with resource reallocation and do
not encapsulate any potential dynamic gains/losses associated with any long-run productivity changes. Furthermore,
except for the trade policies in question, all other policies
remain unchanged as in the reference case.
Figure 5-24 shows the overall impacts of trade liberalization under variant 1 in terms of changes in gross regional
product (a regional equivalent to GDP). The world economy is projected to benefit from multilateral trade liberalization. In particular, gross regional products in CWANA
and SSA regions are projected to grow the most, by morethan 2% relative to the reference case at 2025. However,about two-fifths of the global benefits (in today’s dollars)
are projected to accrue to the ESAP region. Interestingly,
while the removal of trade barriers under variant 1 is projected to increase income and food consumption, the global
structure of food production appears to undergo significant
changes. Compared with the reference case, a significant
increase in meat production is projected to occur in LAC
and SSA regions with a substantial decline projected for the
NAE region (Figure 5-25). The structural change in global
production of nonmeat food is not as striking as in the caseof meat. In nonmeat production, LAC and SSA regions areprojected to register the most growth relative to the reference case at 2025 (Figure 5-26).
There is an increase globally in overall trade volume
under liberalization, with a noticeably larger effect, relative
to the reference case, in 2025 (soon after the liberalization iscomplete), compared with 2050 (Figure 5-27). Figure 5-28
presents changes in cereal production as a result of the tradeliberalization variant. The removal of protection for important cereals in North Africa leads to a decline in productionin the CWANA region, as well as in the NAE region. On theother hand, production in ESAP, SSA, and LAC increases.
Trade liberalization leads to increased prices for cereals andmeats in 2025 (Figure 5-29), but prices decline again somewhat in the later period.
While estimates of the benefits of removal of global agricultural subsidies and trade restrictions vary, other analyses have found similarly positive outcomes for Africa. One
study finds that under full global agricultural trade liberalization (complete removal of trade barriers), Africa would
receive annual net economic benefits of US$5.4 billion(Rosegrant et al., 2005). Another study indicated that European Union agricultural policies have reduced Africa’s total
potential agricultural exports by half. Without these agricultural policies, the current US$10.9 billion food-related
exports annually from SSA could actually grow to nearly
US$22 billion (Asideu, 2004).
Under variant 2 in which trade protection will be doubled between 2010 and 2020, all broad regional economies
are projected to decline relative to the reference case (Figure5-30). Again, CWANA and SSA regions are projected to beaffected the most, declining by about 1.5% relative to thereference case at 2025.

chapter 05.indd 332

Figure 5-24. Projected impacts on gross regional product of tradeliberalisation under variant 1 at 2025. Source: GTEM.

Figure 5-25. Projected impacts on meat production under variant
1 at 2025. Source: GTEM.

Figure 5-26. Projected impacts on nonmeat food production
under variant 1 at 2025. Source: GTEM.

11/5/08 10:03:33 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 333

Figure 5-27. Projected impacts on global traded volumes of meats
and cereals of decreased trade protection at 2025 and 2050.
Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

Figure 5-28. Projected impacts on regional cereals productionof decreased trade protection at 2025 and 2050. Source: IFPRIIMPACT model simulations.

Figure 5-29. Projected impacts on world meat and cereal prices
of decreased trade protection at 2025 and 2050. Source: IFPRIIMPACT model simulations.

chapter 05.indd 333

Figure 5-30. Projected impacts on gross regional product ofincreased trade protection under variant 2 at 2025. Source: GTEM.

5.4.3 Investment in AKST
As has been described above, the reference run describes
slowly declining rates of growth in agricultural research(and extension). In the following, two alternative variations
are analyzed using two sets of changing parameters. The
first set of variations looks at different levels of investments
in agriculture during 2005-2050. Different levels of investments can result in either higher (AKST_high) or lower
crop yield and livestock numbers growth (AKST_low). The
second set of variations analyzes the implications of evenmore aggressive or reduced growth in agricultural R&D
together with advances in other, complementary sectors(AKST_high_pos and AKST_low_neg with “pos” for higher
investments in complementary infrastructure and social services and “neg” for decelerating growth in these services).
Such other sectors include investments in irrigation infrastructure (represented by accelerated or slowing growth inirrigated area and efficiency of irrigation water use and byaccelerated or reduced growth in access to drinking water,
and changes in investments of secondary education for females, an important indicator for human well-being (Tables
5-16 and 5-17).
Results of the four alternative variations are presented
in Figures 5-37 to 5-45 and Table 5-18 and 5-19. The AKST
high variant, which presumes increased investment in AKST,
results in higher food production growth and reduced foodprices and makes food more affordable for the poor whencompared to the reference world. As a result, demand for cereals is projected to increase both as food and as feed, by 339
million tonnes or 13% (Figure 5-31 and Table 5-17). The
combination of even more aggressive investment in AKST
with sharp increases in expenditures for supporting social
services results in even higher demand for cereals as bothfood and feed, 633 million tonnes or 24%. On the other
hand, if levels of investment in AKST drop somewhat fasterthan in recent decades and if investments in key supporting
services are not strengthened, food prices would rise, anddemand would be depressed.
Despite these strong changes in AKST behavior, yield
growth will continue to contribute most to future cereal production growth under both the AKST_low and AKST_highvariants (Figures 5-38 and 5-39). However, under AKST_
low, area expansion would contribute 38% to production

11/5/08 10:03:37 AM

334 | IAASTD Global ReportBox 5-2. Trade policy and gender, case of India
In the reference world the overall growth in agriculture would
be slightly lower than the current long-term trend in Indian agricultural growth (i.e., 3%) in 2025 and would be slightly higher
in 2050. Overall growth in manufacturing sector in the reference
period is 10% through the first 25 years and by about 8% in thenext 25 years till 2050. With such growth rates projections takenfrom the IMPACT model and trend growth (for non-agricultural
sectors) from Indian macro economic data sets, we find that thegrowth in resultant investment is healthy (see Table 5-30) anddecelerating inflation that reaches the 1.4% by 2050. In brief,for India the macro picture is of robust with stable growth in theeconomy in the reference world. However, the rural-urban divide
continues while urban households continue to improve their real
income. In the longer run this gap somewhat declines. Moreover, the wage gap between men and women workers in the first
25 years declines. In the reference world the consumption of thelower deciles of the population improves continuously.
The impacts of trade policies on agriculture and AKST are
studied as a variant to the reference run based on the GEN-CGE
model for 2025 and 2050 for the case of India. The alternative run
assumes that the peak tariff rate as an average of both agriculturalHence wage rates of male workers rise less than wages of female
workers, i.e., the low intensive factors of production.
The reference world out to 2050 and related sensitivity exercises are less accurate compared to 2025. This is because various structural factors that undergo changes cannot be captured
very well in the economic analysis for a 50-year projection. By
2050 wage rates generally fall as there is a contraction of domestic production in manufacturing, mainly because of the way the
economy has been driven together with lower protection. Only
real wage rates of the male casual workforce would witness amarginal positive growth in 2050 and in 2050-1. Driving growth
only through AKST without balanced growth in non-agriculture
would lead to skewed growth and adversely affect real wages ingeneral.
The findings show that the present trend of real wage growthof the female workforce may continue until 2025 narrowing thegender gap. The wage growth of both male and female workforce
would then experience a downturn. The AKST measure is sustainable till 2025 as regards improvement of wages. In the next
25 years, i.e., by 2050, AKST needs enhanced market penetration
to lead to real wage growth. Otherwise low-end manufacturing
may be the only expanding sector demanding casual male labor,
which would explain their wage gains.

Table 5-30. Some key economic variables for India in the reference world.
2000

2025
Level

CPI (Index)
Total Investment (Constant Prices)(Rs. 10 Million)
GDP Real (Rs. 10 Million)

2025-1(%)

2050

2050-1

Annual Growth

100

2.44

2.2

1.42

1.4

429,741

5.36

5.77

7.56

7.53

1,962,996

5.23

5.23

4.87

4.87

Source: GEN-CGE model simulations.

and nonagricultural goods would fall by 88% in the first 25 years
with the backdrop of WTO bindings. This alternative simulationfor 2025 is noted as 2025-1. In 2050, the tariff would further fallby close to another 7%. Under this simulation, the tariff in 2050
would be around 2%.
By 2025, there would be positive growth of both casual andregular male and female workers’ average real wage rate (Table
5-31). However, the rise would be higher for the female workforce,indicating a greater demand for female workers in 2025 comparedto male workers. In India, the underlying production process reflected by the 2002 structure informs that female workers are lessintensive in all sectors except in agro-based sectors. With AKST,
there is improvement in agricultural growth, creating a higher
growth for the interlinked agro-based sectors. Further, with tariff
reduction, the manufacturing sector faces higher competition andexperiences lower growth. Therefore, demand for more intensive
factors of production in manufacturing experiences comparatively
lower growth compared to agricultural and agro-based sectors.

Per capita private income increases more in urban areas (atconstant prices) than in rural areas during 2025-2050 (Table 5-32).
Interestingly, income in the informal sector is growing faster thanwages, causing a declining share of wages in total income. Moreover, as tariff rates are rationalized the situations of both ruraland urban households improve relative to a situation with a more
restrictive tariff regime. Any divergence occurs only in the caseof the households earning from informal activities like petty tradeand low-end manufacturing both in the rural and urban areas.
Moreover, rural households gain gradually through the next 25
years and significantly in the following 25 years to 2050. So by
the year 2050, the extent of inequality may not be as wide as one
finds today, with further improvement with reduced protection.
Table 5-33 presents population deciles and per capita consumption expenditures. For the bottom 30% urban and rural
population the per capita consumption level is similar. Moreover, per capita consumption of the lowest 30% of the population

continued

chapter 05.indd 334

11/5/08 10:03:38 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 335

Box 5-2. continued

Table 5-31. Average real wage rate by skill for India in the reference world and under trade liberalization.
Base =
2000

2025

Unit
Rs.

2025-12050

2050-1

Annual Growth Rate(%)

Labor casual female

1,476.32

3.00

2.77

-0.21

-0.22

Labor regular female

8,443.14

3.23

3.32

-3.43

-3.96

Total Female

2,137.04

3.09

2.99

-0.93

-0.99

Labor casual male

3,183.97

2.70

2.52

0.40

0.41

Labor regular male

8,865.69

0.87

0.80

-0.89

-0.89

Total Male

4,453.40

1.98

1.84

-0.08

-0.06

Grand Total

3,697.08

2.21

2.08

-0.21

-0.21

Note:
2025-1 = Peak tariff rate is reduced by 88 percent over 2000
2050-1 = Peak tariff rate is reduced by 98 percent over 2000
Source: GEN-CGE model simulations.

Table 5-32. Per capita private gross income (growth rate in %). Constant prices, India.
Base =
2000

2025

Unit = Rs.

2025-12050

2050-1

Annual Growth Rate (%)

Rural Poor Formal

23,633

0.88

1.12

0.64

0.66

Rural Non-Poor Formal

30,433

0.88

1.12

0.64

0.66

Rural Poor Informal

19,346

2.40

2.63

2.21

2.23

Rural Non Poor Informal

17,554

1.79

1.99

3.31

3.33

Total Rural

18,359

2.01

2.23

2.92

2.94

Urban Poor Formal

25,952

2.77

3.01

2.13

2.16

Urban Non Poor Formal

31,763

2.77

3.01

2.13

2.16

Urban Poor Informal

18,274

4.13

4.38

3.94

3.96

Urban Non Poor Informal

23,836

3.74

3.97

4.33

4.35

Total Urban

25,619

3.33

3.57

3.38

3.40

Grand Total

20,283

2.20

2.43

2.93

2.95

Note: 1 USD = Rs. 43.3 in 2000.
Source: GEN-CGE model simulations.

continued

chapter 05.indd 335

11/5/08 10:03:38 AM

336 | IAASTD Global ReportBox 5-2. continued
improves throughout 2025 to 2050 and more so in liberalized
regimes; hence both rural and urban households improve theirconsumption. The marginally better performance in consumptionof rural poor households under AKST reassures that a more agriculture oriented growth process lead to decline of the rural-urban
consumption gap in the long run.

livestock” is expected to grow with annual growth rate of 23%.
The availability of non-agricultural goods in the domestic market
is also expected to grow ranging from 2-5% per annum. Overall,
total domestic supply is expected to grow by 4-5% every year
out to 2050. The availability of goods for the domestic market

Table 5-33. Population deciles with per capita consumption expenditure changes over reference run India(in ascending order).
Per capita consumption
Population Deciles

2000

2025

2025-12050

2050-1(Rupees)
Rural

Urban

1st Decile (poorest 10%)

1,245

1,874

2,018

5,349

5,408

2nd Decile

1,606

2,417

2,603

6,901

6,976

3rd Decile

1,854

2,790

3,005

7,965

8,053

Poorest 30%

1,571

2,364

2,545

6,748

6,822

4th Decile

2,082

3,134

3,375

8,946

9,044

5th Decile

2,310

3,476

3,743

9,922

10,031

6th Decile

2,575

3,874

4,172

11,06011,182

7th Decile

2,879

4,333

4,666

12,36812,504

8th Decile

3,291

4,952

5,333

14,137

14,292

9th Decile

3,954

5,949

6,407

16,984

17,17010th Decile (richest 10%)

6,281

9,452

10,17926,98327,279All Rural

2,806

4,222

4,547

12,054

12,186

1st Decile (poorest 10%)

1,260

1,604

2,059

4,956

5,017

2nd Decile

1,691

2,152

2,659

6,651

6,732

3rd Decile

2,010

2,559

3,145

7,907

8,004

Poorest 30%

1,653

2,105

2,621

6,504

6,583

4th Decile

2,323

2,957

3,466

9,137

9,248

5th Decile

2,678

3,409

3,866

10,534

10,663

6th Decile

3,092

3,936

4,286

12,162

12,311

7th Decile

3,604

4,588

4,811

14,177

14,351

8th Decile

4,337

5,522

5,435

17,063

17,272

9th Decile

5,512

7,017

6,595

21,682

21,94810th Decile (richest 10%)

10,226

13,01910,43740,22740,719All Urban

3,672

4,675

4,675

14,445

14,622

Note: 1 USD = Rs. 43.3 in 2000.
Source: GEN-CGE model simulations.

Table 5-34 shows an improvement of per capita availability ofdifferent agricultural crops through 2025 and further till 2050. The
domestic supply in agriculture is projected to grow by 2.87% annually to 2050, and by 4.72% to 2050. The only sector showing adecline is the “meat” sector. However, apart from “meat”, “otherindicates that domestic production along with imports remains
healthy even after fulfilling demand for exports. Domestic supply
of goods grows more significantly for the nonagricultural sectors
and then again for the later years from 2025 through 2050.

continued

chapter 05.indd 336

11/5/08 10:03:39 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 337

Box 5-2. continued
Table 5-34. Total domestic supply of goods and services, India, reference run and trade liberalization variant.
Base = 2000
Unit Rs. 10
million2025  2025-12050

2050-1

Annual Growth (%)   

Rice170,095

1.7

0.62

2.91

2.79

Wheat

50,853.5

4.62

4.1

4.96

4.86

Maize

5,556.32

4.48

4.32

4.6

4.48

Other coarse grains

8,833.8

4.53

4.16

5.6

6.36

Pulses

21,635.1

4.59

4.28

5.03

4.93

Potatoes

7,036.53

4.59

4.27

5.12

5.28

Other crops

230,682

1.83

4.66

4.22

4.36

Oilseeds and edible oils

133,039

1.14

1.14

2.44

2.46

Meat

39,045.7

4.59

4.2

2.27

2.08

Fishing

21,015

4.6

4.08

1.54

1.9

Other livestock

115,019

4.63

4.2

5.19

5.34

Total Agriculture

802,810

2.87

2.3

3.79

3.88

Fertilizers

34,902.5

2.49

3.26

1.13

0.81

Other manufacturing

1,458,410

2.59

2.71

1.58

1.58

Other services

1,248,214

2.7

2.89

1.4

0.89

Total Nonagriculture

2,741,526

2.64

2.8

1.5

1.35

Grand Total

3,544,336

2.69

2.69

2.28

2.24

Note: 1 USD = Rs. 43.3 in 2000.
Source: GEN-CGE model simulations.

growth in SSA and LAC, and 25% in CWANA, compared
to 27, 21, and 7% under the reference world. This could
lead to further forest conversion into agricultural use. At thesame time, rapid expansion of the livestock population under AKST_high requires expansion of grazing areas in SSA
and elsewhere, which could also contribute to accelerated
deforestation.
What are the implications of more aggressive production growth on food trade and food security? Under AKST_
high, SSA cannot meet the rapid increases in food demandthrough domestic production alone. As a result, importsof both cereals and meats increase compared to the reference run, by 137% and 75%, respectively (Figure 5-34 and5-41). Under AKST_high, ESAP would also increase its net
import position for meats and cereals, while NAE would

chapter 05.indd 337

strengthen its net export position for these commodities.
Under AKST_low_neg, on the other hand, high food prices
lead to depressed global food markets and reduced global
trade in agricultural commodities.
Water scarcity is expected to increase considerably in
the AKST_low_neg variant as a result of a sharp degradation of irrigation efficiency. The irrigation water supply reliability index therefore drops sharply (Table 5-19).
Sharp increases in international food prices as a resultof the AKST_low and combined variants (Table 5-18) depress demand for food and reduce availability of calories(Figure 5-36). In the most adverse, AKST_low_neg variant,average daily kilocalorie availability per capita declines by
1,100 calories in sub-Saharan Africa, pushing the region below the generally accepted minimum level of 2,000 calories

11/5/08 10:03:40 AM

338 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 5-16. Assumptions for high/low agricultural investment variants.
Parameter changes
for growth rates

2050 REFERENCE RUN

2050 High AKST variant(#1)

2050 Low AKST variant (#2)

3.06 % per year

3.31 % per year

2.86 % per year

Base model output numbers growth
2000-2050
Livestock: 0.74%/yr
Milk: 0.29%/yr

Increase in numbers growthof animals slaughtered by
20%
Increase in animal yield by
20%

Reduction in numbers growth ofanimals slaughtered by 20%
Reduction in animal yield by 20%

Food crop yield growth Base model output yield growth
rates 2000-2050:
Cereals: %/yr: 1.02
R&T: %/yr: 0.35
Soybean: %/yr 0.36
Vegetables: %/yr 0.80
Sup-tropical/tropical fruits: 0.82%/yr

Increase yield growth by
40% for cereals, R&T,
soybean, vegetables, ST
fruits & sugarcane, dryland
crops, cotton
Increase production growthof oils, meals by 40%

Reduce yield growth by 40%
for cereals, R&T, soybean,vegetables, fruits & sugarcane,dryland crops, cotton
Reduce production growth of oils,
meals by 40%

GDP growth
Livestock numbers
and yield growth

Source: Authors.

Table 5-17. Assumptions for high/low agricultural investment combined with high/low Investment in other AKST-related factors(irrigation, clean water, water management, rural roads, and education).
Parameter changes
for growth rates

2050 BASE

2050 High AKST combinedwith other services (#3)

2050 Low AKST combinedwith other services Low (#4)

3.06 % per year

3.31 % per year

2.86 % per year

Livestock numbers
growthBase model output numbers growth
2000-2050
Livestock: 0.74%/yr
Milk: 0.29%/yr

Increase in numbers growth ofanimals slaughtered by 30%
Increase in animal yield by 30%

Reduction in numbers growthof animals slaughtered by 30%
Reduction in animal yield by
30%

Food crop yield
growthBase model output yield growth
rates 2000-2050:
Cereals: %/yr: 1.02
R&T: %/yr: 0.35
Soybean: %/yr 0.36
Vegetables: %/yr 0.80
Sup-tropical/tropical fruits: 0.82%/yr

Increase yield growth by 60%
for cereals, R&T, soybean,vegetables, ST fruits &sugarcane, dryland crops,
cottonIncrease production growth ofoils, meals by 60%

Reduce yield growth by 60%
for cereals, R&T, soybean,vegetables, fruits & sugarcane,dryland crops, cotton
Increase production growth ofoils, meals by 60%

Irrigated area growth(apply to all crops)

0.06

Increase by 25%

Reduction by 25%

Rain-fed area growth(apply to all crops)

0.18

Decrease by 15%

Increase by 15%

Basin efficiency

Increase by 0.15 by 2050,
constant rate of improvement
over time

Reduce by 0.15 by 2050,
constant rate of decline overtime

Access to water

Increase annual rate of
improvement by 50% relative tobaseline level, (subject to 100 %maximum)

Decrease annual rate of
improvement by 50% relative
to baseline level, constant rateof change over time

Female secondary
education

Increase overall improvement by
50% relative to 2050 baseline
level, constant rate of changeover time unless baseline
implies greater (subject to 100% maximum)

Decrease overall improvement
by 50% relative to 2050
baseline level, constant rateof change over time unlessbaseline implies less

GDP growth

Source: Authors.

chapter 05.indd 338

11/5/08 10:03:40 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 339

Figure 5-31. Cereal feed, food and other demand projections,2050, alternative AKST variants. Source: IFPRI IMPACT model
simulations.

Figure 5-34. Cereal trade in 2050, alternative AKST variants,
IAASTD regions. Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

Figure 5-32. Sources of cereal production growth, High_AKST
variant, by IAASTD region. Source: IFPRI IMPACT model
simulations.
Figure 5-35. Meat trade 2050, alternative AKST variants,
IAASTD regions. Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

Figure 5-33. Sources of cereal production growth, Low_AKST
variant, by IAASTD region. Source: IFPRI IMPACT model
simulations.

and thus also below the levels of the base year 2000. Calorie
availability together with changes in complementary service
sectors can help explain changes in childhood malnutritionlevels (see Rosegrant et al., 2002). Under the AKST_highand AKST_high_pos variants, the share of malnourishedchildren in developing countries is expected to decline to
14% and 8%, respectively, from 18% in the reference world
and 27% in 2000 (Figure 5-37). This translates into absolute declines of 25 million children and 55 million children,

chapter 05.indd 339

respectively, under the more aggressive AKST and supporting service variations (Figure 5-38). On the other hand, if investments slow down more rapidly, and supporting services
degrade rapidly then absolute childhood malnutrition levels
could return or surpass 2000 malnutrition levels with 189
million children in 2050 under the AKST_low_neg variationand 126 million children under the AKST_low variation.
What are the implications for investment under thesealternative policy variants? Investment needs for the groupof developing countries for the alternative AKST variants
have been calculated following the methodology describedin Rosegrant et al. (2001) (Figure 5-39). Investment requirements for the reference run for key investment sectors, including public agricultural research, irrigation, ruralroads, education and access to clean water are calculated at
US$1,310 billion (see also Tables 5-16 and 5-17 for changes
in parameters used). As the figure shows, the much better
outcomes in developing-country food security achieved under the AKST_high and AKST_High_pos variants do not
require large additional investments. Instead they can beachieved at estimated investment increases in the five key
investment sectors of US$263 billion and US$636 billion,
respectively.

11/5/08 10:03:49 AM

340 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 5-36. Average daily calorie availability per capita,
projected 2050, selected regions, AKST variants. Source: IFPRIIMPACT model simulations.

Figure 5-37. Malnourished children under alternative AKST
variants in developing countries. Source: IFPRI IMPACT model
simulations.

5.4.4 Focus on bioenergy
Among the renewable sources, bioenergy deserves special
attention (energy from crops, lingo-cellulosic products andtimber byproducts). Currently, bioenergy is the only alternative to fossil fuels that is available for the transport sector.
Studies of the potential confirm that the production of liquid fuels from biomass could meet the demand in the global
transport sector. Bioenergy can also be used to produce electricity and heat. Large-scale application of biomass as anenergy source will mean that in the short term bioenergy
will primarily be derived from specific crops that are cultivated for energy production (sugar cane, maize, oil crops).
The eventual contribution from biomass greatly depends onthe expectations of extracting energy from lingo-cellulosic
products (both woody and non-woody products, like poplar and grass). The large-scale cultivation of biomass forenergy applications can mean a considerable change in future land use, and could compete with the use of this land
for food production. Other aspects of sustainability, suchas maintaining biodiversity and clean production methods,
also play a role here (see Chapters 3, 4 and 6). Under scenarios in which agricultural land could become available
as a result of rapid yield improvement and slow population growth, bioenergy potential is considerably higher thanin land-scarce scenarios. Results for bioenergy can become
more positive when the second generation bioenergy (theFigure 5-38. Malnourished children under alternative AKST
variants in developing countries. Source: IFPRI IMPACT model
simulations.

chapter 05.indd 340

lingo-cellulosic bioenergy sources) becomes available, sincethese sources offer more CO2 reductions and use less land
per unit of energy. However, this second generation bioenergy is not expected to become available within the coming
10 to 15 years (UN-Energy, 2007).
To explore the bioenergy potential under the IAASTD
reference case, the procedure of De Vries et al. (2007) isfollowed in which the potential for bioenergy is defined as
the amount of bioenergy that could be produced from (1)abandoned agricultural land and (2) 40% of the natural
grass areas (see Appendix). Under these assumptions, thetechnical potential in 2050 is around 180 EJ in the absenceof residues mainly from USA, Africa, Russia and Central
Asia, South East Asia and Oceania. Obviously this number
is very uncertain—and depends, among other factors, on(1) agricultural yields for food production, (2) yields andconversion rates for bioenergy, (3) restrictions in supply of
bioenergy (to reduce biodiversity damage), and (4) uncertainty in water supply. The potential supply from residues isalso very uncertain and estimates range from very low numbers to around 100 EJ. In the reference projection, a potential supply of 80 EJ is assumed. Until 2050, in this scenario
the overall impact of bioenergy on biodiversity is negative,
given the direct loss of land for nature versus the long-term
gain of avoided climate change (SCBD/MNP, 2007).

Figure 5-39. Investment requirements, alternative AKST variants,
developing countries. Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

11/5/08 10:03:56 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 341

Table 5-18. Selected international food prices, projected to 2050, reference run and AKST variations.
Referencerun

AKSThigh

AKST_lowFood

AKST_high_pos

AKST_low_neg

US$ per metric ton

Beef

2,756

-23%

36%

-31%

63%

Pork

1,164

-29%

48%

-40%

84%

Sheep & goat

3,079

-24%

36%

-34%

60%

Poultry

1,434

-34%

62%

-46%

114%

Rice

245

-46%

105%

-62%

232%

Wheat

173

-53%

173%

-68%

454%

Maize

114

-67%

311%

-81%

882%

Millet

312

-59%

204%

-72%

459%

Sorghum

169

-57%

200%

-70%

487%

Other coarse
grains

104

-74%

545%

-86%

1952%

Soybean

225

-31%

56%

-43%

106%

Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

5.4.5 The scope of improving water productivity
The reference run foresees a substantial increase in water
consumption in agriculture, and particularly in non-agricultural sectors. This may be reason for concern. First, alreadymore than a billion people live in river basins characterized by physical water scarcity (CA, 2007). In these areas
water availability is a major constraint to agriculture. With
increased demand for water, existing scarcity will deepen
while more areas will face seasonal or permanent shortages.
Second, competition for water between sectors will intensify. With urbanization, demand for water in domestic andindustrial sectors will increase between 2000 and 2050. In
most countries water for cities receives priority over water for agriculture by law or de facto (Molle and Berkoff,2006), leaving less water for agriculture, particularly nearlarge cities in water-short areas, such as MENA, Central Asia,
India, Pakistan, Mexico, and northern China. Water for energy, i.e., hydropower and crop production for biofuels, willfurther add to the pressure on water resources. Third, signsof severe environmental degradation because of water scarcity, overabstraction and water pollution are apparent in a
growing number of places (Pimentel et al., 2004; MA, 2005;
Khan et al., 2006; CA, 2007) with often severe consequences for the poor who depend heavily on ecosystems for theirlivelihoods (Falkenmark et al., 2007). Lastly, climate change
may exacerbate water problems particularly in semiarid areas in Africa were the absolute amount of rain is expected
to decline, while seasonal and interannual variation increases (Wescoat, 1991; Rees and Collins, 2004; Alcamo et al.,2005; Barnett et al., 2005; Kurukulasuriya et al., 2006).

Table 5-19. Irrigation water supply reliability, projected to 2050, reference run and AKST variations.
Reference

AKST_high_pos

North America and Europe (NAE)

64

72

60

East-South Asia and Pacific(ESAP)

56

66

51

Central-West Asia and North Africa(CWANA)

46

52

39

Latin America and Caribbean (LAC)

83

86

75

sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

87

92

85

RegionAKST_low_neg

Percent

Developed Countries

66

74

62

Developing Countries

56

65

51

World

58

67

53

Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

chapter 05.indd 341

11/5/08 10:03:56 AM

342 | IAASTD Global Report

Fortunately, there is ample scope to improve water productivity and basin efficiency, to minimize additional waterneeds (Molden et al., 2007). AKST plays an important rolein achieving these improvements. Three broad avenues toincrease agricultural production while minimizing water use
are to (CA, 2007) (1) improve productivity in rainfed settings,(2) increase productivity in irrigated areas, and (3) expand
international agricultural trade. The scope and relevant policy measures differ considerably by region (Table 5-20).
5.4.5.1 SSA
Considering the ample physical potential and the willingness of donors to invest in African agriculture, the scopeof irrigated area expansion is large. But the contributionof irrigation to food supply will likely remain limited (lessthan 11% of total food production), even after doubling
its area. The investment cost of doubling the irrigated area
is high and to make this investment economically viablemassive investments in marketing infrastructure are needed(roads, storage, communication) (Rosegrant et al., 2005).
On the other hand, investments in irrigated area expansion
for high-value crops (vegetables, cotton, fruits) can be an
important vehicle for rural growth, and poverty alleviation
particularly when geared to smallholders. Without substantial improvements in the productivity of rainfed agriculture,
food production in SSA will fall short of demand. From abiophysical point of view, water harvesting techniques have
proven successful in boosting yields, often up to a two or
threefold increase (Röckstrom, 2003, 2007). But, low adoption rates of water harvesting techniques indicate that upscaling local successes pose major challenges for AKST.
5.4.5.2 South Asia
In South-Asia 95% of the areas suitable for agriculture arein use, of which more than half are irrigated. The biggest
scope for improvement lies in the irrigated sector where
yields are low compared to the obtainable level. Under ahigh productivity variant, all additional water and land forTable 5-20. Regional variation in scope for productivity improvements and area expansion.
RegionScope forimproved
productivity inrain-fed areas

Scope forimproved
productivity inirrigated areas

Scope forirrigatedarea
expansion

subSaharanAfrica

+++

+

+++

Need forimports

High potential options in agricultural water
management• water harvesting and supplemental irrigation;
resource-conserving agricultural practices tomitigate land degradation• small-scale irrigation geared to smallholders• multiple use water systems to alleviate poverty• adopt development approaches that combine
access to markets, soil fertility and irrigation
infrastructure

MENA

+

+

-

+++

• use of low quality water• coping with increased sectoral competition andwater pollution• integrating livestock with irrigation

C. Asia,
E. Europe

+

++

+

• institutional reforms in irrigated areas• restore ecosystems services• modernize large-scale irrigation systems

South
Asia

+++

+++

+

+

• institutional reforms in irrigated areas• integrating livestock and fisheries• water harvesting and supplemental irrigation;
resource-conserving practices to mitigate landdegradation

East Asia

++

+++

+

++

Latin
America++++• land expansion and sustainable land use• support and regulation of private irrigation

OECD

+

+

+

• coping with increased sectoral competition• water productivity in rice
• reducing groundwater overdraft

Key: +++ high, ++ medium, - low, - very limited
Source: Derived from CA scenario analysis (CA, 2007)

chapter 05.indd 342

11/5/08 10:03:56 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 343

food can be met by improving land and water productivity
in irrigated areas (de Fraiture et al., 2007). The scope for
productivity improvement in rainfed areas is equally promising. In the high yield variant all additional land and waterfor food can be met by improving water productivity (deFraiture et al., 2007). But there is considerable risk associated with this strategy. Yield improvements in rainfed areas
are more uncertain than in irrigated areas because of highrisk for individual farmers. If yield improvement targets are
not achieved (i.e., adoption of water harvesting techniques is
low or fluctuations in production due to climate variability
are too high), the shortfall has to be met mainly by imports,
because the scope of area expansion is limited. The scopefor irrigated area expansion is limited, though groundwater
expansion by private well owners will continue.
5.4.5.3 MENAIn the MENA region the scope to expand irrigated areas isvery limited due to severe water shortages. Rainfed agriculture is risky due to unreliable rainfall. With climate change,
variation in rainfall within the year and between years willfurther increase, particularly in semiarid areas. Trade willplay an increasingly important role in food supply.
Table 5-21 shows the outcomes of a variant in which
all high potential options are successfully implemented. The
results from the WATERSIM model show that a major partof additional water use to meet future food demand canbe met by increasing the output per unit of water, throughappropriate investments in both irrigated and rainfed agriculture, thus relieving pressure on water resources. The
output per unit water in rainfed areas increases by 31%.
The potential in sub-Saharan Africa is highest (75%), while
in OECD countries where productivity already is high theoutput per unit water increases by 20%. Overall the scopefor enhancing water productivity in irrigated areas is higher
than in rainfed areas (48% and 31%, respectively). In South
Asia the output per unit of water can be improved by 62%.
When multiple uses of water are encouraged and fisheries
and livestock production are integrated, the output per unitof water in value terms may be even higher. Improvementof water productivity is often associated with higher fertilizer use, which may result in increased polluted return flows
from agricultural areas. A challenge for AKST is to develop
ways in which the tradeoff between enhanced water productivity and polluted return flows is minimized.
While a major part of additional water demand in agriculture can be met by improvements in water productivity
on existing areas, further development of water resources
is essential, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa where infrastructure is scarce. In total, irrigated areas expand by 50 million hectares (16%). In sub-Saharan Africa the expansion islargest (78%), in the MENA region the expansion is negligible because of severe water constraints. Agricultural water
diversions will increase by 15% globally. A major challenge
is to manage this water with minimal adverse impacts onenvironmental services, while providing the necessary gains
in food production and poverty alleviation.
In the realization of optimistic water productivity AKST
plays an essential role. Challenges for AKST are listed inTable 5-22.

chapter 05.indd 343

5.4.6 Changing preferences for meat and certified
organic products
Consumer preferences are evolving for both meat-focuseddiets and foods that are produced using integrated nutrient
management. These two trends could (both individually andcollectively) lead to several important differences from thereference case presented here. Rising interest in the healthand environmental impacts, among other concerns, of conventional agriculture has pointed many consumers towards
changing dietary habits away from meat and towards products that are certified in their use of better nutrient management practices (Knudsen et al., 2006, Steinfeld et al., 2006).
As a result of the slowdown in meat demand, there is thepotential for a shift in consumer preferences that would decrease the share of meat products in the typical person’s dietand emphasize nonmeat foods. The main consequence ofgrowing consumer demand for certified products that comefrom integrated nutrient management, which includes bothmeat and nonmeat commodities, will be the shift in production toward certified practices that would impact productivity. The impact on productivity depends on the region inwhich it is practiced, however. In industrial country regions,which already practice high-input intensity, conventional
agriculture, the adoption of integrated nutrient management techniques would likely lower productivity and cause
higher unit costs of production, while still providing greater
satisfaction to those consumers who value such products. In
regions like sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand—where
fairly low-intensity agriculture is still widely practiced—the
adoption of integrated nutrient management techniques will
likely cause an increase in yields, over and above the reference levels.
The IMPACT modeling framework, which was describedearlier, was used to simulate these trends for comparing andcontrasting with the reference case. Though the shift toward
a less meat-intensive diet has the potential to be a global phenomenon, introduction of production techniques that practiceintegrated nutrient management is more practical in industrial country regions due to infrastructure and institutional
requirements that are more readily available and applicable(see Halberg et al., 2006 for further discussion).
5.4.6.1 Specification of the low growth in meat demand
policy issue
The global slowdown in the growth of meat demand is implemented via adjustments to the income demand elasticities for meat and vegetarian foods. Income demand elasticities for meat products (beef, pork, poultry, and sheep/goat)
decline at a faster pace than in the reference case. At thesame time income demand elasticities decline at a slower
pace for vegetarian foods (fruits and vegetables, legumes,roots, tubers, and cereal grains). Elasticities for animal
products such as dairy and eggs are left the same as in thereference case. This happens globally using a differentiatedset of multipliers for developed versus developing regions,and assumes that the slowdown in meat demand is stronger
in the industrialized regions, compared to that in developing
regions. Regional average income demand elasticities formeat and nonmeat foods for IAASTD regions are presented
in Table 5-23. The effect, in general, is that the meat income

11/5/08 10:03:57 AM

344 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 5-21. Scenarios (policy experiment outcomes).
RegionIrrigated area

Rain-fed area

Rain-fed cereal
yield

m ha

m ha

t/ha

%
change%changeIrrigated cereal yield% changet/haRain-fed waterproductivity%
changekg/m3%change

SSA

11.3

78%

174.2

10%

2.34

98%

4.37

99%

0.28

75%

MENA

21.5

5%

16.1

-12%

1.19

59%

5.58

58%

0.25

47%

C Asia, E
Europe

34.7

6%

120.7

-5%

3

47%

6.06

78%

0.69

47%

South Asia

122.7

18%

83.9

-12%

2.54

91%

4.84

89%

0.46

82%

East Asia

135.6

16%

182.2

17%

3.96

51%

5.97

49%

0.57

36%

Latin America

19.5

18%

147.9

46%

3.9

58%

6.77

68%

0.63

50%

OECD

47.3

4%

179

4%

6.35

33%

8.03

22%

1.3

25%

World

394

16%

920

10%

3.88

58%

5.74

55%

0.64

31%

RegionIrrigated waterproductivity
Kg/m3% change

Crop water depletion

Irrigation water
diversions

km3

km3

% changeTrade% change

M ton

% of
consumption

SSA

0.5

58%

1,379

29%

100

46%

-25

-12%

MENA

0.82

41%

272

7%

228

8%

-127

-61%

C Asia, E
Europe

1.22

51%

773

0%

271

11%

66

22%

South
Asia

0.79

62%

1,700

15%

1195

9%

2

0%

East Asia

1.16

45%

1,990

19%

601

16%

-97

-12%

Latin
America

0.91

52%

1,361

52%

196

12%

18

6%

OECD

1.6

20%

1,021

4%

238

2%

151

26%

World

1.01

48%

8,515

20%

2,975

14%

490

15%

Source: Watersim simulations (CA, 2007).

demand elasticities in industrialized countries and regions
decline by 150% for meat products and 50% for nonmeat
commodities compared to the reference run. In developing
regions, the rates of decline are taken to be 110% and 90%of the baseline rates, for the meat and nonmeat commodities, respectively.
5.4.6.2 Specification of the adoption of integrated nutrient management.
The rise of industrialized country agricultural practices thatuse integrated nutrient management follows on the specification of the organic agriculture scenario in Halberg etal. (2006). This variant is specified purely as a supply-side
adjustment in the industrialized world to yields of crops
and livestock most easily converted to integrated nutrient
management production techniques. Crops include maize,
wheat, soybeans, other grains, and potatoes. Beef, dairy,and sheep/goat are the focus for livestock. The variant adjusts the yield growth rates from 2005 to 2015 such thatthe agronomic yields for the specified commodities achieve

chapter 05.indd 344

the differences from the baseline specified in Halberg et al.
(2006) as laid out in Tables 5-24 and 5-25. The principalchange from Halberg et al. (2006) in this implementationof widespread adoption of integrated nutrient managementin agriculture is that the apex of the spread is achieved in2015, which would cover roughly half of the area harvested
or managed animal herds. This year marks a turnaroundin the decline of average yields for these crops, and baseline yield growths from 2015 to 2050 are achievable due
to technology investments and farming system adaptations.
This specification is meant to be illustrative of the potential
impacts of such developments but it is an optimistic representation of such a large-scale shift to organic production.
The commodity price impacts of these two alternative
outcomes compared to the reference case is fairly straightforward. In a future of increased vegetarianism, the income
demand elasticities are much lower for meats and muchhigher for nonmeat foods than in the reference case. Prices
will directly follow the changes in income demand elasticities with meat prices falling and nonmeat food prices in-

11/5/08 10:03:57 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 345

Table 5-22. Challenges for AKST.
RegionChallenges for AKST

sub-Saharan Africa• Development of affordable irrigation infrastructure, suitable for smallholders, including supporting roads,
and markets• Development of suitable water harvesting techniques and small supplemental irrigation methods toupgrade rain-fed areas• Creating the right institutional and economic environment for widespread adoption of these methods

MENA• Development of environmentally sound ways to reuse return flows, often of low quality• Design of appropriate policies addressing sectoral competition and water pollution• Reduce adverse impacts of groundwater overexploitation

C. Asia, E. Europe• Design of politically feasible institutional reforms in irrigated areas• Measures to restore ecosystems services• Adapting yesterday’s large-scale irrigation systems to tomorrow’s needs

South Asia

• Design of politically feasible institutional reforms in irrigated areas• Water conserving and yield boosting technologies to increase the output per unit of water in irrigated areas• Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation; resource-conserving practices to mitigate land and water
degradation and the creation of enabling environment for the adoption of available techniques

East Asia• Techniques to enhance the water productivity, particularly in rice areas (such as alternative wet-dry)• Reduce adverse impacts of groundwater overexploitation

Latin America• Land expansion and sustainable land use• Support and regulation of private irrigation

OECD• Policies addressing increased sectoral competition• Restoring ecosystem services

Source: Based on CA, 2007, pp 131-136.

creasing. Figure 5-40 shows the resulting differences fromthe reference case for the two types of foods: a 13% decrease
in meat prices and a 10% increase in the price of nonmeat
foods. As the rise of integrated nutrient management in agriculture results in a decline in average yields, commodity
prices increase between 11-13% for major meat commodities and 3-21% for major crops like maize and soybean (Figures 5-47 and 5-48).
Per capita food consumption also shifts in these alternatives to the reference baseline. With the rise in prices in thecase of increasing use of integrated nutrient managementin agriculture, per capita consumption of all foods leads todecreases of up to 17%, but varies across regions, according to dietary patterns. On the other hand, the slowdown
in meat demand growth shifts food preferences away frommeat and toward nonmeat foods, which is commensuratewith the price shifts discussed earlier, and the consumption
shifts shown in Table 5-26, with a few exceptions. In subSaharan Africa the countervailing force of the price shifts
actually leads to increased consumption of meat in addition
to nonmeat foods. The price shifts in North America/Europe
actually leads a slight inversion of the expected outcome,but this is due to the changes being implemented on thealready low elasticities in this region not having as mucheffect as in other regions.
The calculation of the malnutrition indicators in the
IMPACT framework (malnourished children by weightunder five years old) has per capita kilocalorie consump-

chapter 05.indd 345

tion as an important factor and this follows the food consumption changes noted above. Nonmeat foods are denser
in calories on a per kilogram basis, so a decrease in meat
demand would lead to a decline in malnourishment. Figure5-43 shows the impact on this malnutrition indicator aggregated to the developing world. Ultimately, a reduction in thegrowth of meat consumption with relatively more consumption of nonmeat foods sees a 0.5% decline in malnourishedchildren while a certified organic world would see a 3%
increase.
The potential evolution of consumer preferences formore use of integrated nutrient management practices inagriculture and nonmeat foods is uncertain. While the reference case presented previously already includes a certain
amount of these shifting preferences, the purpose of thisanalysis is to highlight the potential impacts if these trends
strengthen in the future. If meat demand were to decreaseat a global level, the primary challenge will be to augment
productivity investments on the crops that will maintain abalanced diet for consumers, particularly for crops that will
constitute balanced proteins to replace meats. Increasing demands and prices for nonmeat foods will be the main challenge for agricultural production. Meanwhile, an increasein the use of integrated nutrient management practices inagriculture would raise a different set of challenges. In particular, maintaining productivity levels and controlling costs
will be the most important issues to address. Alternative organic inputs for large-scale production that will maintain

11/5/08 10:03:58 AM

346 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 5-23. Changes to average income demand elasticities for meat and vegetarian foods by IAASTD region under low growth in meat
demand variant.
2000
Meat

Vegetarian Foods

Baseline

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

CWANA

0.72230.66730.60950.55760.51470.4806ESAP

0.55380.51450.48090.45070.42880.4169LAC

0.56790.51290.45820.4023

0.34680.2914NAE

0.27610.24020.20540.17320.14380.1161SSA

0.81210.79660.78080.76340.74430.7221Low Meat

CWANA

0.72230.6554

0.58670.52530.47550.4375

DemandESAP

0.55380.49530.44600.40640.38530.3844LAC

0.56790.5046

0.4416

0.37810.31640.2562NAE

0.27610.21780.16720.12270.08580.0533SSA

0.8121

0.79310.77360.75290.73050.7044CWANA

0.24860.22990.21560.20630.20210.2025ESAP

0.22430.20030.18470.16600.14380.1222LAC

0.15790.14210.13430.13220.13110.1324NAE

0.27330.25470.23870.22350.20790.1930SSA

0.33590.27750.23640.20270.17900.1751Low Meat

CWANA

0.24860.23370.22230.21490.21200.2134

DemandESAP

0.22430.21380.20980.2046

0.19540.1848LAC

0.15790.14360.13670.13450.13300.1337NAE

0.27330.26870.26440.25990.25390.2477SSA

0.33590.28340.24730.21640.19410.1887

Baseline

Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

soil nutrients and improve labor efficiencies will be rather
important.

5.5. Emerging Issues that Influence the Future
5.5.1 Interface of human, animal, and plant health5.5.1.1 Future trends
Human, animal, and plant diseases associated with AKST
will continue to be of importance to future populations, including more urbanized populations in low-income countries. Two trends will be of particular importance—continued emergence and reemergence of infectious diseases andthe growing human health burdens of noncommunicablediseases.1
Currently, 204 infectious diseases are considered to be
emerging; 29 in livestock and 175 in humans (Taylor et al.,Diseases and disabilities can be categorized into communicablediseases, maternal, and perinatal conditions, and nutritional deficiencies; noncommunicable diseases (primarily chronic diseases);and injuries.

1

chapter 05.indd 346

2001). Of these, 75% are zoonotic (diseases transmitted between animals and humans). The number of emerging plant,
animal, and human diseases will increase in the future, withpathogens that infect more than one host species more likely
to emerge than single-host species (Taylor et al., 2001). Factors driving disease emergence include intensification of cropand livestock systems, economic factors (e.g., expansion ofinternational trade), social factors (changing diets and lifestyles) demographic factors (e.g., population growth), environmental factors (e.g., land use change and global climatechange), and microbial evolution. Diseases will continue toemerge and reemerge; even as control activities successfully
control one disease, another will appear. Most of the factors that contributed to disease emergence will continue,
if not intensify, in the twenty-first century (Institute ofMedicine, 1992). The increase in disease emergence will
impact both high- and low-income countries, with serious
socioeconomic impacts when diseases spread widely withinhuman or animal populations, or when they spill over fromanimal reservoirs to human hosts (Cleaveland et al., 2001).
Emerging infectious diseases of crop plants pose a significant threat to agricultural productivity and, in cases of

11/5/08 10:03:58 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 347

able 5-24. Change in average crop yields under integrated nutrient management variant.
RegionCrop

Irrigated

Rain-fed

USA

Maize

-14

-14

European Union (15)

Maize

-14

-14

Other Developed

Maize

0

-14

Eastern Europe

Maize

0

0

USA

Wheat

-14

-14

European Union (15)

Wheat

-14

-14

Other Developed

Wheat

-14

-14

Eastern Europe

Wheat

0

0

USA

Soybean-14-14

European Union (15)

Soybean-14-14

Other Developed

Soybean-14-14

Eastern Europe

Soybean

-10

-10

USA

Other grains

-14

-14

European Union (15)Other grains

-14

-14

Other Developed

Other grains

-14

-14

Eastern Europe

Other grains

0

0

USA

Potato-20-20European Union (15)Potato-20-20

Other Developed

Potato-20-20

Eastern Europe

Potato

-12.5

-12.5

Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

Table 5-25. Change in average livestock carcass weight underintegrated nutrient management variant.
RegionMeat

Livestock

USA

Beef

-12.5

European Union (15)

Beef

-7.5

Other Developed

Beef

-12.5

Eastern Europe

Beef

-10

USA

Sheep & goat

-5

European Union (15)

Sheep & goat

-7.5

Other Developed

Sheep & goat-5

Eastern Europe

Sheep & goat

-10

USA

Dairy

-10

European Union (15)

Dairy

-7.5

Other Developed

Dairy

-5

Eastern Europe

Dairy

0

Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

chapter 05.indd 347

globally important staple crops, food security. The emergence of new plant diseases has largely resulted from theaccidental introduction of pathogens in infected seed andin contaminated machinery and globally traded agricultural
products. Furthermore, increased intensification of agricultural systems both facilitates the establishment and spreadof these new pathogens, and imposes selection pressure forgreater pathogen virulence (Anderson et al., 2004). Climate
also plays an important role in disease emergence: winds
disperse fungal and bacterial spores, nematodes and insect
vectors of plant viruses; crop-canopy microclimatic conditions influence pathogen colonization of leaf surfaces; andseasonal climatic extremes mediate the extent of yield loss
from plant diseases. The negative impact that increased
climate variability and change will exert on host-pathogen
dynamics could accelerate the process of pathogen migration into new agroecosystems, and provide conditions
that elevate disease organisms from minor to major status(Coakley et al., 1999).
A second trend of importance is that noncommunicablediseases, such as heart disease, diabetes, stroke and cancer,
account for nearly half of the global burden of disease (at allages) and the burden is growing fastest in low- and middleincome countries (Mascie-Taylor and Karim, 2003). Chronic
diseases are expected to rapidly increase as a result of moresedentary, urbanized lifestyles. In addition, the overall large
increase in calorie availability in developing countries is ex-

11/5/08 10:03:58 AM

348 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 5-26. Change in per capita food consumption of meats andcereals under low meat demand variant. Source: IFPRI IMPACT
model simulations.
Crop
Cereals

Figure 5-40. Average world prices for meats and other foods
under reference run and low growth in meat demand variant.
Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

Meat

Region

2025

2050

NAE

1.6%

3.1%

CWANA

0.2%

0.9%

ESAP

0.7%

1.8%

LAC

0.3%

1.1%

SSA

0.4%

1.0%

NAE

-1.2%

-0.6%

CWANA

0.5%

-1.3%

ESAP

-4.0%

-9.8%

LAC

1.0%

-0.1%

SSA

2.3%

4.6%

Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

Figure 5-41. World prices for maize and soybean under reference
run and increasing use of integrated nutrient management variant.
Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

pected to lead to rapidly raising levels of obesity and associated noncommunicable diseases. Weight gain, hypertension,high blood cholesterol, and a lack of vegetable and fruit
intake result in significant health burdens in both high andlow-income countries (Ezzati et al., 2002). The greater supply of and demand for energy-dense, nutrient-poor foodsis leading to obesity and related diseases in countries thathave yet to overcome childhood undernutrition (Hawkes
and Ruel, 2006).
Further, approximately 840 million people do not receive
enough energy from their diets (Kennedy et al., 2003) andover three billion people are micronutrient deficient, most ofthem women, infants, and children in resource-poor families
in low-income countries (Welch and Graham, 2005). Micronutrient deficiencies increase morbidity and mortality, decrease worker productivity, and cause permanent impairmentof cognitive development in infants and children.

Figure 5-42. World prices for beef and sheep/goat under reference
run and increasing use of integrated nutrient management variant.
Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

Figure 5-43. Change in number of malnourished children in thedeveloping world under integrated nutrient management andlow growth in meat demand variants compared to reference run.
Source: IFPRI IMPACT model simulations.

chapter 05.indd 348

11/5/08 10:04:05 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 349

5.5.1.2 Impacts of development
Development is expected to reduce some of the risks of current human, plant, and animal diseases, with new communicable diseases arising in their place. Communicable diseases are the primary cause for variations in life expectancy
across countries, so reducing the burden of communicablediseases will increase life expectancy in low-income countries. Significant challenges will continue for several decades
in building capacity to reduce emerging infectious diseases
in low-income countries. Developing countries need laboratories and research centers (and the human and financial resources to staff and maintain them), along with resources in primary health care systems to identify, control,
and treat disease outbreaks. High-income countries need tocommit to additional resources for research and development on communicable diseases. Although progress is being made for some diseases, history suggests that diseases
will continue to emerge faster than they are identified andcontrolled—infectious disease control is an ongoing processwith long-term improvement, but without the possibility oferadicating all infectious diseases.
While agricultural and income growth are contributing
to rapid reductions in the overall number of underweightchildren, the global decline masks differences across regionsthat will continue to adversely affect development overthe coming decades. Unless more attention is paid to the
problems of micronutrient deficiencies, the human healthconsequences will reduce the ability of nations to achieve
development and sustainability goals (Welch and Graham,2005).
Key forces that will affect development over the coming decades include demographic change; rate and degreeof increase in climate variability; trends in ecosystem services; impact of climate change on freshwater resources,
agricultural systems, livestock, wildlife, forests, and marine
systems; economic growth and its distribution; rate of technology development; trends in governance; degree of investment in public health and other infrastructure.
A trend expected to continue is the highly inequitable
distribution of health workers (WHO, 2006). The level ofhealth expenditure is an indication of the resources for public health. Regions with the lowest relative need have thehighest numbers of health workers, while those with thegreatest health burden have a much smaller health workforce. Africa suffers more than 24% of the global disease
burden but has access to only 3% of health workers andless than 1% of the world’s financial resources, even whenloans and grants are included. The Americas (Canada andthe U.S.) experience 10% of the global disease burden, have
37% of the world’s health workers, and spend more than
50% of the world’s financial health resources.
5.5.1.3 Policies to facilitate achievement of development
and sustainability goals
Reducing the threat of emerging infectious diseases requires enhancing disease surveillance and control programs
through (1) strengthening existing research and monitoring
facilities and establishing new laboratories and research
centers for disease identification and control, (2) improving
primary health care systems, and disease surveillance andcontrol at local and global levels, and (3) developing thechapter 05.indd 349

capacity to understand the interactions of factors that drive
disease emergence. Developing these programs requires additional resources. Multidisciplinary collaboration, particularly across health and agricultural sectors, will facilitate
identification of policies and measures to reduce the burdenof communicable and noncommunicable diseases. One approach for reducing the burden of human and animal epidemics is the development of national networks for emergency response, with the human and financial resources tointerpret forecasts, detect signs of emerging plant, animal,or human diseases, and environmental crises, and develop
and implement effective responses.
Reducing undernutrition requires greater attention tofood security, not just to crop yields. Although there is promising research arising on modifying crops and soil fertility
to improve micronutrient content, considerable additional
research is needed on new cultivars and approaches to improve the lives of billions of people worldwide. Additional
resources are needed to be able to effectively deploy current
and emerging technologies and cultivars. An issue likely tocontinue to be important is how low-income countries canafford the costs of new seeds and inputs. Development ofeffective policy options (including enforcement) can reduce
current food safety issues.
5.5.1.4 Regional differences
As noted previously, there are large regional differences inthe burden of infectious diseases and undernutrition, withthe largest burdens in Africa and South and Southeast Asia.
The burden of chronic diseases is now similar across mostcountries.
5.5.2 Information and communication technology andtraditional and local knowledge
5.5.2.1 The promise of ICTs
ICT is increasing in importance for agriculture particularly
for those producers who have access to markets. It is possible
to attract investments when natural resource management
activities are linked to the outside world (e.g., remittanceworkers sending funds that are invested in farm inputs) or
across sectors (e.g., municipalities aggregating their health,education and local government needs for bandwidth). It
follows then that the broad promise of ICTs tends to be
described at the macro level:• There is a positive link between telecommunications
infrastructure and GDP, suggesting that a 1% increasein telecommunications infrastructure penetration mightlead to a 0.03% increase in GDP (Torero and vonBraun, 2006).
• The welfare effect of rural households is most closely
associated with rural telephony which brings about immediate savings to the users (Kenny, 2002; Torero andvon Braun, 2006) which is referred to as consumer surplus (Kayani and Dymond, 1997) and has been reported
to represent a savings ranging from 4-9 times the costsof a single phone call (Bayes et al., 1999; Richardson etal., 2000).
• The promise of ICTs is most directly related with those
MDGs that relate to health and education (Torero andvon Braun, 2006).

11/5/08 10:04:05 AM

350 | IAASTD Global Report

5.5.2.2 The barriers associated with ICTs
Among the major barriers associated with ICT, we include uneven access, human resource development and local content(Torero and von Braun, 2006). Uneven access is most dramatic
between urban and rural areas, and unfortunately most ICT
indicators—when available—are nation-wide and therefore
mask these fundamental differences. Other barriers include:• The macroeconomic models referred to above work bestfor middle and high income countries; and for lower income countries the economic development impact from
ICTs is expected to be modest (Torero and von Braun,2006).
• The investments required are not simply about infrastructure. The valuation of the benefits of ICTs goesbeyond the essential “access perspective”, to one of“effective use”. Effective use brings together several
prerequisites: reliable access to infrastructure and user
equipment, relevant content, cost-saving or meaningmaking services, capacity development and financial
sustainability (Gurstein, 2003).
• The human and organizational development aspects of
ICTs have in the past been eclipsed by a fascination withthe technological dimension. Capacity development refers to the training of individuals across the wide rangeof technologies, services, applications and content areas, and to the capacities by small and medium size enterprises to make use of ICTs.
• There is evidence that, while those with higher income
and levels of education derive most benefits from ICTs,
the poor spend roughly 3.7% of their monthly incomeon telecommunications services (Kayani and Dymond,
1997; Song and Bertolini, 2002). To date, the poverty
alleviation impact of ICTs has been confirmed for radio
and telephony, whereas the evidence for the Internet isless consistent (Kenny, 2002). In other words, the poor
benefit from communication services significantly morethan from information services.
5.5.2.3 ICTs and traditional and local knowledge
The development and spread of traditional and local knowledge can benefit directly from ICTs when holders of thisknowledge have access to it and control over its utilization(Srinivasan, 2006). The integration of traditional and local knowledge and western scientific knowledge will needan interface that allows each to express its wisdom andforms, without sacrificing its cultural relevance. However,increased globalization and integration of markets presents
both an opportunity and a threat to traditional and local
knowledge. While knowledge will be transferred more easily across regions and countries, traditional and local knowledge might well disappear if adequate support systems are
not put in place.
Challenges in terms of power and control will increase
under the baseline: the consortia that own and operate ICT
infrastructure work under a market logic that has little currency for respecting local and traditional knowledge. The importance of mediating organizations thus becomes evident if
we are to minimize the potential abuse that such power differentials create. Moreover, mediating organizations would
be necessary to coordinate the coming together of all inter-

chapter 05.indd 350

ested parties involved. The challenge turns to the unresolved
barriers of providing access to connectivity across rural andremote areas with weak demand, uneven market access andcompeting public investment requirements.
5.5.2.4 Policy implications
At present, Universal Access policies have failed to reachthe most marginal; they have in fact given the elite groups a
renewed relative advantage. This skewed impact is reminiscent of the initially uneven benefits from the Green Revolution. Under the reference conditions a divide continues togrow regarding access to ICTs between very poor and richer
farmers. Hence, a more strategic targeting of policies, investment and incentive plans, and methodological innovation isnecessary; the following are possible policy scenarios:• There is an emerging understanding in ICT circles thatno single approach to service delivery will satisfy theneeds of all users (Ramírez and Lee, 2005). Increasing
access to ICTs cannot be carried out by market forcesalone. The liberalization and privatization of telecommunications created effective competition only in highdensity markets (in industrialized and in developing
economies). Government participation in subsidizing
capital infrastructure—often though competitive grants
to the private sector—remains a central policy instrument, yet it needs to be adapted to the conditions ofeach country.
• Access is not enough. The notion of effective use calls
for attention in tandem to a wide range of readiness
requirements; training requirements, service development, local content development, to name but three.
• Local or “mediating” organizations that work as mediators between community needs, technology, markets
and government programs can be strategic in this aspect. Mediating organizations can aggregate demand
from health, education, and the business community tohelp attract infrastructure and service investments.
• For local content and traditional knowledge to be respected and harnessed, attention is first needed on issuesof power and control over the infrastructure. The importance of policies that nurture local organizations is once
again of paramount importance in the content area.
The era of seeing ICTs as magic bullets is past. ICTs are nota panacea for the poor in terms of the agriculture or natural
resource management options; in contrast they do give anedge to the better off who already link with markets. Indeed
for the poor the short term promise of ICTs is more evident
in enhancing health and education services and especially in
reducing their transaction costs (communication). On theother hand its information potential is only achievable if it
is integrated with a comprehensive rural community development strategy.
5.5.3 Food safety and food security
5.5.3.1 The reference case
Trust in agricultural product quality has become one of
the most important issues for consumers, since food represents security, comfort and the ability to provide basic

11/5/08 10:04:05 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 351

needs to those who rely on others for protection and support (Bruemmer, 2003). Food safety will continue receiving
attention in both industrialized and in less developed countries (Unnevehr, 2003) because (1) The “demand” for safe
food rises as income increases. Consumers become willingto pay more for food with lower risk of microbial contamination, pesticides, and other disease-causing substances; (2)As technology improves, it is easier to measure contaminants in food and document their impact on human health;(3) Trade liberalization has increased opportunities for agricultural exports, and food safety regulations have become
the binding constraint on food trade in many cases; (4)International food scares, such as BSE and avian flu, havemade consumers, producers, and legislators more aware of
the risks associated with agricultural food safety problems(Unnevehr, 2003; Narrod et al., 2005).
Appropriate food safety regulation is considered fundamental to expand product export from developing countries (Babu and Reidhead, 2000; Pinstrup-Andersen, 2000).
However, the increased food safety standards are particularly worrisome in terms of food security and the livelihoodof the poor as multinational retail companies that dominate
the market often exclude small growers that find it difficult
to meet foreign as well as domestic standards (Narrod et al.,2005). Labeling will be likely used to demonstrate that the
food is safe to eat, however, a highly stringent label regulation,
including description of origin of the ingredients of processed
agricultural products, could inevitably create an unnecessary
obstacle to future trade agreements (Matten, 2002).
Producers face four distinct problems: (1) How to produce safe food; (2) How to be recognized as producing safe
food; (3) How to identify cost-effective technologies for reducing risk; (4) How to be competitive with larger producers
who have the advantage of economies of scale in compliancefor food safety requirements (Narrod et al., 2005). For somedeveloping countries several constraints hamper the progress in implementing food safety regulations, including lackof human capacity, importance of food safety in the political agenda and inadequate postharvest and laboratory infrastructure and organization (Babu and Reidhead, 2000).
The continuous increase in urban development embedded within agricultural production areas raises concerns
since it may affect both the quality of living and the safeness of final crop products. The risks posed by agricultural
production systems in urban areas to health and environment may be associated with the inappropriate use of agricultural chemicals (pesticides, nitrogen, phosphorus) which
may contaminate drinking water sources; cause air pollution (carbon dioxide and methane from organic matter,ammonia, nitrous oxide and nitrogen oxide from nitrates);and create odor nuisance (Carvalho, 2006). Further, close
proximity of great number of people and domestic animals
to production areas, accompanied with high populationof wildlife creates an ideal scenario for potential diseasesources (e.g., warm-blooded animals, humans) and vectors(e.g., animals, insects) to increase the risk for contaminationof irrigation water and crop plants. Optimal managementof urban resources and well established good agricultural
practices are needed for sustainable agricultural production(Fonseca, 2006).

chapter 05.indd 351

5.5.3.2 Identified routes
Food safety hazards can be encountered anywhere, fromthe farm to the table. Therefore efficient control programs
are needed throughout the whole supply chain (Todd et al.,2006) especially because no intervention mechanism, otherthan irradiation, is currently available to completely decontaminate agricultural commodities eaten raw (Fonseca,2006). The demand for products with high standards ofoverall quality and safety will continue to grow in industrialized countries. Meanwhile in developing countries, better
quality standards will only occur if consumers are educatedabout the benefits of consumption of perishable products, if
public health regulation and liability laws are established,
and if better surveillance and analysis capacity is built (Berdegué et al., 2005). The development of a national foodsafety “culture” in the future will be influenced by who willbe the regulatory/audit agents and to what extend the different actors will be involved (Schlundt, 2002; Reardon et al.,
2003; Codron et al., 2005; Carvalho, 2006)
In one scenario, private rather than public standards
will continue to be the predominant drivers of agri-food systems (Henson and Reardon, 2005). In developing countries
where institutional capacity often limits the enforcementof mandatory public standards, firms will continue relying
on private standards (Loader and Hobbs, 1999). The private sector will need to develop better training in certain
agricultural practices. Implementation of quality and foodsafety control programs with intensive internal and external
supervision can improve productivity rather than increase
costs for consumers. In some developing countries large
produce suppliers with dedicated and specialized perishable
wholesalers will be able to save significant amount of salerelated costs as a result of production cost reduction withtechnical assistance, quality assurance systems and selectionof preferred growers, in a semi vertical-integrated business(Berdegué et al., 2005).
In a second scenario, governmental policies will havegreat influence on food safety issues. In the event of foodsafety crises, governments will react by creating state foodsafety agencies, certifying and monitoring the implementation of standards and record keeping, increasing the rigor ofminimum quality standards and establishing new rules for
product traceability (Codron et al., 2005). In some developing countries the role of the government will still be amply
intensive even in a private sector-leading scenario. This isbecause the infrastructure for examining water and product samples might not be economically feasible for private
agencies, which in turn will force the government to provide the service (Berdegué et al., 2005). Moreover, in somedeveloped and developing countries, with a leading private
sector in the food safety area, governments will also play animportant role through the establishment of job benefits.
An important amount of workers and produce handlers arewilling to work when they are ill because they can’t afford tostay at home without pay (Fonseca and Nolte, 2007).
For some developing countries several constraints hamper progress in implementing food safety regulations, including lack of human capacity, lack of importance of foodsafety in the political agenda and inadequate postharvest
and laboratory infrastructure and organization (Babu and11/5/08 10:04:06 AM

352 | IAASTD Global Report

Reidhead, 2000). One way small scale producers could meetincreased food safety requirements in the future is by pursuing the direction of fewer and less persistent pesticides.
However in the short term the cost of these new environmentally friendly pesticides seems higher than older pesticides. Many cases aren’t affordable to producers in the least
developed world, where low-cost labor often compensates
for the multiple applications, needed with some of the oldpesticides, which might be of low quality or adulterated(Dinham, 2003; Carvalho, 2006). Countries in the tropicalbelt are challenged by environmental conditions and by notenough AKST developed to overcome their intrinsic productivity limitations, while complying with acceptable foodsafety guidelines.
5.5.3.3 Challenges as affected by policies
The main challenges for the next decades will be first toensure safer food to consumers and raise the quality oflife without creating a barrier to poor countries/producers
for opportunities of success. Food security is a concern as
food safety may only be “purchased” by some consumers,
a situation that could be particularly notorious with products sourced from long-distance areas (Schillhorn van Veen,
2005). Secondly, in our search for mechanisms to improve
food security in the world we are challenged to develop asystem that will not cause the emergence of currently unknown health problems. The free trade market movement
and the need to reduce internal hunger will likely result in
more governments imposing their own rules or mandating
the established international regulations. This will certainly
create a major challenge as there are concerns about thepossibility of mishandled information to affect the perception of the international consumer (Schlundt, 2002). Thus,
governments will act influenced by how the actions will affect the distribution of benefits across the entire population(Codron et al., 2005).
It will become particularly difficult to control factorsthat compromise outbreak risks without collaborative international effort (Burlingame and Pineiro, 2007). A new
approach will be necessary, one that incorporates foodsafety issues into the development of trade negotiations.
Enhancing communication among policy makers fromcountries with common interests will allow the transfer ofsuccessful schemes to those in more need (Babu, 2004). The
two future paths on food safety regulatory mechanisms described above (private sector providing education, auditing
and analyses or government enforcement and monitoring)
will be affected by the type of market to which products
are directed. Moreover, even with national enforcements,
some countries might continue to have regulation that differs substantially from those required in the export market
and other local markets. The pressure over natural resources
will determine some “natural” differences among countries(Hamilton, 2005). Some countries with known overdependence on pesticides but with the potential capacity to develop a more systematic approach will have the opportunity
to improve internal standards and increase presence in theexport market (Gupta, 2004). In this regard, the narrower
the gap between the traditional and urban market, the more
likely a country will find its way to comply with food safety
expectations in the international arena (Kurien, 2005), how-chapter 05.indd 352

ever very little change will occur if no major effort is made ineducating local consumers and developing AKST to produce
for the export market.
5.5.4 Biotechnology and biodiversity
5.5.4.1 The reference case
A number of challenges—scientific, regulatory, social andeconomic—will fundamentally influence the degree to which
genetic engineering is used in crop and livestock improvement research over the coming decades. Greater or lesser
use of genetic engineering will, in turn, shape the evolutionof the agricultural sector and biodiversity. Conventional
breeding and genetic engineering are complements; thus thereference case development pathway includes a combination of a strong traditional plant breeding capacity together
with the use of transgenic traits when useful, cost-efficient,
pro-poor, and environmentally sustainable. A wide range of
new traits are at various stages of development, some ofwhich are likely to lead to varieties that are drought-resistant, exhibit improved nutritional content of feed and feedstuffs, and offer enhanced shelf-life (Graff et al., 2005). It
is likely that a combination of transgenic and conventional
breeding approaches will be necessary to meet the crop improvement requirements of the next 50 years. Factors shaping future adoption of new technologies include improved
profits, decreased risk, increased health and well-being, andreduced effort, compared to earlier technologies used. They
also include institutional and physical constraints affecting
farming, like availability and terms of credit, information andproduct support provided by extension and technology providers, tenure conditions, and land ownership. Furthermore,
the availability and quality of technology are dependent onpolicy and institutional variables, such as national agriculturalresearch capacity, environmental and food safety regulations,
intellectual property rights protection, and the existence ofefficient agricultural input and output markets, which matter at least as much as the technology itself in determining
the level and distribution of economic benefits (Raney, 2006).
Potential constraints include property rights constraints, aswell as evolving biosafety and food safety regulations aroundthe world. Based on the literature assessing both constraints
and benefits of crop technologies, the status quo pathway
will involve continued rapid adoption of insect resistantand herbicide tolerant maize, soybean, cotton and canola
varieties in the developing countries where they are alreadyapproved. More developing countries are likely to approvethese crops—especially Bt cotton and yellow maize—understatus quo conditions. Adoption of Bt maize in Europe willcontinue to expand slowly due to consumer resistance, despite growing tension between consumers and farmers (whosee their competitiveness eroding in the face of competition
from countries where adoption is proceeding).
5.5.4.2 Alternative pathways—more biotechnology
In spite of the limited growth in the development of transgenics, it is possible that these technologies will reemerge asa major contributor to agricultural growth and productivity.
The continued safe introduction and use of the current generation of genetically engineered crops and the emergenceof transgenic innovations of direct benefit to consumers or

11/5/08 10:04:06 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 353

the environment could lead to greater public acceptance oftransgenic approaches and ultimately to a rationalization ofregulatory regimes across countries, traits and crops. Thisin turn could mean that the costs (monetary and temporal)of transgenic research, development and deployment could
fall significantly, leading to the rapid growth in the number of transgenic events and their pace of adoption. New
biotechnological discoveries and their successful application in a country like China, where experimentation andinvestment in crop biotechnology continue, may lead othercountries to follow suit. Finally, the concern about climatechange and increasing energy prices could lead to significant
investment in the development of biofuels, which, in turn,would increase rapidly growing resource scarcity and possibly higher food prices. Higher food scarcity, in turn, would
increase the value of improved agricultural productivity andmay lead countries to reassess the regulations restricting the
growth of biotechnology. Furthermore, the development of
biofuel crops may also rely on transgenic varieties and leadto enhancement of agricultural biotechnology and increase
their acceptance.
Under such an alternative pathway, oilseeds with improved lipid profiles and staple grains with vitamin andmineral fortification could be introduced, and three majortransgenic food crops that are already on the brink of approval (Bt rice, herbicide tolerant wheat and nutrient reinforced rice) could expand in developing countries andindustrial countries alike. Furthermore, such a pathway
could see traits for the remediation of polluted or degraded
land or adaptation to heat and drought, which could assist
in dealing with current agroenvironmental challenges and in
the adaptation to rapid climate change.
5.5.4.3 Alternative pathways—less biotechnology
If society determines that the risks associated with transgenesis in agriculture exceed the benefits, the tool might
be abandoned over the next several decades. Agricultural
improvement research would continue, however, as it must
to meet current and future challenges. Other research tools
would be used more intensively, including conventional andmutagenic breeding. Non-transgenic molecular tools would
also be used, such as marker assisted breeding. Under thisalternative pathway, it is likely that a wider range of genetic
variation would be sought within crops and wild relatives,and molecular tools would facilitate this search.
In industrial countries, more than half of all agricultural research expenditures are currently made by the private sector. Much of that research is aimed at developing
patentable genetic constructs for use in crop and livestock
improvement through transgenesis. The overall level of agricultural research expenditures in industrial countries could
be reduced substantially if transgenic tools were abandoned,
unless firms could assert binding intellectual property rights
over discovered traits. At the same time, the costs associated with the regulation of transgenic crops would also be
avoided. Overall, it is likely that the elimination of a powerful tool like transgenesis would slow but not stop the pace ofagricultural research and improvement. As a result, humanity would likely be more vulnerable to climatic and othershocks and to increased natural resource scarcity under thisalternative pathway.

chapter 05.indd 353

5.5.4.4 Implications for the agricultural sector
For new technologies to be pro-poor, they need to relate
to crops consumed by subsistence and small-scale farmers,
allow for small-scale cultivation practices, and they need
to be adapted to the human, physical, financial and social
capital of the rural poor. Economic impacts tend to be more
pro-poor where significant market competition exists in the
supply of new technologies. The increased supply, as well as
enhanced quality of improved technologies could contributeto reduced food prices, providing extra benefits to the urban
poor. Improved food productivity can also be an important
force to counter increased energy prices that are likely tocontribute to increased food prices, which have a disproportionate negative effect on the poor.
5.5.4.5 Implications for biodiversity
The impacts of a rapid expansion of transgenic crops on
natural and agricultural biodiversity over the next 50 years
could be significant and will depend in part on how regulatory regimes evolve. Natural biodiversity could be affected
through crop yields and the implications of transgenic crops
for land use, potential outcrossing of transgenic material torelated crop and wild species, and direct and indirect effects
on non-target species. Agricultural biodiversity could be affected indirectly, much as it was by the spread of modern
green revolution varieties, as well as directly through the useof the technology.
The most direct way transgenic crops could affect natural biodiversity is through their effect on crop yields andassociated pressures influencing land use. To the extent thattransgenic innovations support yield growth (or reduce crop
losses to pests and diseases), they could alleviate pressure to
expand crop production into currently uncultivated areas,
endangering the natural biodiversity that exists there.
The potential for outcrossing to wild or agricultural
relatives varies by crop. Transgenic varieties of crops thathave a high propensity to outcross typically have not been
approved for cultivation in areas where wild relatives areendemic. Most crop species, whether transgenic or not, areunlikely to be able to reproduce and persist in the wild, andmanagement strategies can be used to minimize the risk
(FAO, 2004). The potential for transgenic crop varieties tocross with conventional varieties clearly exists, althoughtransgenic traits that do not confer a competitive advantage are unlikely to persist in farmers’ fields unless they are
specifically selected. Outcrossing to wild or cultivated relatives could be prevented by the use of genetic use restriction technologies, but this approach is controversial and has
not been developed commercially. Whether the existence ofan otherwise benign transgenic trait in an agricultural crop
constitutes a meaningful loss of biodiversity is a matter of
debate, particularly if it is a trait farmers have selected for(Raney and Pingali, 2005).
Whether modern variety adoption necessarily reduces
agricultural biodiversity is a matter of debate. Agricultural
biodiversity is important because it influences the resilienceof crop ecosystems and maintains a “library” of genetic
resources for current and future breeding activities. The
domestication of wild plants into landraces narrowed thegenetic base for these crops as farmers selected among thefull range of plant types for those that produced more desir-

11/5/08 10:04:06 AM

354 | IAASTD Global Reportable results (Smale, 1997). Although more genetically uniform than their early relatives, landraces are characterized
by a high degree of genetic diversity within a particular field.
Modern varieties, on the other hand, tend to exhibit little
diversity within a particular field, but each plant contains
genetic material from a wide variety of progenitors and is
adapted to perform well across a wide range of agroclimaticconditions. A simple count of the varieties in a particulararea or measures of genetic distance among varieties thus
may not tell us much about the resilience of crop ecosystems or the availability of crop genetic resources for breeding programs (Raney and Pingali, 2005).
Transgenic techniques can directly affect agricultural
genetic diversity. Transgenesis permits the introduction of genetic materials from sexually incompatible organisms, greatly
expanding the range of genetic variation that can be used inbreeding programs. Transgenesis allows the targeted transfer of the genes responsible for a particular trait, without
otherwise changing the genetic makeup of the host plant.
This means that a single transgenic event can be incorporated into many varieties of a crop, including perhaps evenlandraces. Compared with conventional breeding in which
an innovation comes bundled within a new variety thattypically displaces older varieties, transgenesis could allow
an innovation to be disseminated through many varieties,
preserving desirable qualities from existing varieties andmaintaining or potentially increasing crop genetic diversity(Raney and Pingali, 2005).
On the other hand, the widespread incorporation of asingle innovation, such as the Bt genes, into many crops may
constitute a kind of genetic narrowing for that particular
trait. Furthermore, transgenic crops that confer a distinct
advantage over landraces may accelerate the pace at whichthese traditional crops are abandoned or augmented withthe transgenic trait (Raney and Pingali, 2005). Regulatory
regimes are concerned with the potentially harmful consequences of gene flow from transgenic crops to conventional varieties or landraces. In this context, it is importantto recognize that gene flow from conventional varieties tolandraces frequently occurs (especially for open-pollinatedcrops such as maize) and is often consciously exploited by
farmers. It is likely that, in the same way, farmers would
consciously select for transgenic traits that confer an advantage (de Groote et al., 2005).
Regulatory decisions influence the implications of transgenic approaches for biodiversity, often in unexpected ways.
For example, when biosafety procedures require the separate approval of each plant variety containing a transgenic
event, it slows the development of new varieties and narrows
the range of genetic diversity available to farmers. Similarly,
when new transgenic approaches to address a given production constraint (such as herbicide tolerance) are delayed, theapproved technology may be overused with negative consequences for biodiversity and other environmental indicators.
Finally, genetic engineering allows scientists to takeadvantage of biodiversity. Increased documentation of genomes and understanding of functional genomics provides
information that is needed to develop new traits and newvarieties that are of high value. Thus, the availability oftools for biotechnology and their development enhance thevalue of biodiversity, and to some extent, biotechnology

chapter 05.indd 354

and biodiversity are complementary. Furthermore, biotechnology provides tools to restore local varieties after slight
modification allowing them to withstand disease or otherpressures. The development of precision farming technologies that allow for the modification of application of inputs,
including seeds, in response to changes in ecological conditions will provide impetus to increase crop diversity to takeadvantage of these new possibilities.

5.6 Implications of Policy Simulations andEmerging Policy Issues: Synergies andTradeoffs
5.6.1 Poverty and equity
Chapter 5 examined projected changes in agriculture and
AKST out to 2050 based on existing assessments and methodologies. At this point there are no established methodologies to adequately describe changes in poverty and equity
out to 2050. This can only be inferred based on the state ofliterature and the analyses presented here. Increased agricultural productivity has been a key driver for economic andincome growth in most countries at some stage of economic
development and will continue to be key to growth in many
agriculture-dependent developing countries out to 2050.
However, although agricultural and economic growth are
critical drivers for poverty reduction and explain a significant share of the historical decline in poverty in most regions of the world, policies and investments in the fields ofeducation, health, and infrastructure are also essential forsustained poverty reduction. Lipton and Sinha (1998) argue
that, while globalization is changing the outlook for the rural poor by raising average incomes, it also tends to increase
income variability both across regions (leaving some regions
and countries behind) and across time, thus increasing thevulnerability of those who can least afford it. Moreover,while changes in macroeconomic and trade policy tend to
produce large gains for both rural and urban areas, poor
farmers and (landless) agricultural laborers, who often lackthe skills, health, information, or assets needed to seize newopportunities (Sinha and Adam, 2006, 2007), tend to be left
out of the general economic growth process, as they may beconcentrated in remote rural areas or geographic regions illequipped to gain from globalization/liberalization.
To redress potentially adverse impacts on equity, investments in human capital are crucial for the poor. Moreover,given emerging health and food safety issues, investments
in health and nutrition are similarly important. Even with
rapid economic growth and active investment in social services, some of the poor will be reached slowly if at all. Andeven among those who do benefit to some extent, many willremain vulnerable to adverse events. These groups will need
to be reached through income transfers, or through safety
nets that help them through short-term stresses or disasters.
5.6.2 Hunger, health and food security
The reference run has shown that a substantial increase infood prices will cause relatively slow growth in calorie consumption, with both direct price impacts and reductions inreal incomes for poor consumers who spend a large share of
their income on food. This in turn contributes to slow im-

11/5/08 10:04:06 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 355

provement in food security for the poor and in food sovereignty for many regions. Progress is slowest in sub-SaharanAfrica—despite rapid income growth and significant areaand yield growth as well as substantial progress in supporting services that influence well-being outcomes, such as
female secondary education, and access to clean drinking
water. By 2050, there will be a reduction by only 7% in thenumber of malnourished children in sub-Saharan Africa.
Alternative policy experiments show that with higher
investments in AKST, the share of malnourished children
in the group of developing countries is projected to decline
from a baseline of 99 million by 2050 to only 74 million.
If these higher investments in AKST are combined with improvements in complementary service sectors, such as healthand education, the projections show that an even greater reduction, to 43 million, could be achieved. By contrast, either
flatlined or slowed rates of investments in AKST will negatively affect regional food security and exacerbate childhood
malnutrition, with levels that could easily surpass current
malnutrition levels.
Moreover, uncertainties regarding a whole range of
emerging issues, ranging from public health and food safety
to policies in the areas of climate change and bioenergy
could worsen (or improve) projected quantitatively modeled outcomes.
5.6.3 Natural resources and environmental
sustainability
Regarding resources, scarcity is expected to become aprominent challenge for policy makers. In particular, growing water and land scarcity are projected to increasingly
constrain food production growth with adverse impacts
on food security and human well-being goals. Growth of
population combined with shifts towards high land/fodderintensive meat diets is resulting in additional demands forland. Although crop productivity is expected to increase (asdescribed in the reference run) the uncertainty as to whether
this productivity increase can actually be met is also increasing. The increased production of livestock is expected tocome from the same or a declining resource base, and without appropriate action there are prospects that this could
lead to degradation of land, water, and animal genetic resources in both intensive and extensive livestock systems.
In addition, new demands on land for products such as
biofuels (stimulated by concerns about climate change andenergy self-sufficiency) are very likely to grow exponentiallyin the coming decades. This will not only impact food prices
but will also lead to greater competition for land. The combination of demand factors will lead to rather grim impacts
on biodiversity. The target of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) to reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity
significantly by 2010 seems impossible to reach. Moreover,some policy options to reduce pressures on the natural system (e.g., climate mitigation strategies as described in thischapter) have a negative impact on biodiversity through additional land-use change required for biofuels.
Water demand is projected to grow rapidly, particularly
in developing countries. Irrigation remains the single largest
water user over the 50-year projection period, but the increase in demand is much faster for domestic and industrial
uses than for agriculture. Given significantly faster growth

chapter 05.indd 355

in water demand in all sectors and declining water availability resulting from climate change in this baseline, developing
countries are substantially more negatively affected by declining water supply reliability for irrigation and other uses
than developed countries. This is especially so for developing countries with arid climates, poor infrastructure development, and rapidly increasing populations. Overall, tosatisfy future water demand and secure food supply, investments in maintenance, new technology and policy reform
in water and irrigation management are all necessary tomaintain water supply reliability and to reduce water supply
vulnerability for irrigation, especially in developing countries. Besides water supply augmentation, demand management is also of high importance in balancing future water
demand and supply. Other research indicates that more investment in basin efficiency improvement would potentiallybring similar effects in securing irrigation water supply as
more investment is made in water infrastructures. Likewise,
water saving technology and conservation measures in theindustrial, rural and urban domestic sector would result in
more reliable water supply in nonirrigation sectors and relieve the increasingly intensified intersectoral competition
for water.
On the fisheries front, although small pelagic species arerobust, the behavior of the small pelagic fish towards theend of the modeled period (2048) indicate that policies ofmining small pelagic fisheries to support a growing aquaculture industry may not be sustainable in the long-term except
in a limited part of the world’s oceans. Caution needs to betaken even with this interpretation since small pelagic fish
are extremely sensitive to oceanographic changes and if thepredictions for changes in sea temperature come about, thespecies dynamics within this group will change significantlywith potential reverberating effects up through higher trophic
levels since most animals, especially marine mammals andseabirds, rely on this group of fish for much of their food.
Therefore, a policy of increasing landings would need to becarefully considered in the light of climate change.
The tradeoffs between increased income for small farmers via crop production for food and fuel, livestock production, conservation and marketing of native varieties andspecies, and soil and water management for sustainability,
will require a balancing act over the next 50 years. However,synergies do exist; biofuel crops, biotechnology, ICT, foodsafety standards, and globalization and trade liberalization
can offer new opportunities to smallholders—if supporting
policies and investments are implemented—and large agricultural producers alike making an ever more diverse rangeof products available to consumers.

5.7 Implications for AKST in the Future
As the reference world in 2050 and the various policy discussions show, agriculture will have to face a number of
new and difficult challenges. Food security and food sovereignty are likely to still be problems 50 years from now. Agricultural production is likely to be increasingly constrainedby competition for land and water and by climate change.
Strategies for adapting to new regulations for food safety,
and the development of biotechnology and bioenergy posesignificant challenges and opportunities.

11/5/08 10:04:07 AM

356 | IAASTD Global Report

Food prices will most likely rise as a result of these opportunities and constraints. In addition, regional and national income growth, urbanization and growing global
interconnectedness are expected to increase diet diversification and homogenization. Trade liberalization and greater
integration of global food markets can support more reliable food supplies and lowered food prices in real terms. But
as the reference run shows this is unlikely to be achieved in
the coming decades.
With declining availability of water and land that can be
profitably brought under cultivation, expansion in area willcontribute very little to future production growth. The projected slow growth in crop area places the burden to meet
future cereal demand on crop yield growth. The key to improving yields under increasingly constrained conditions lies
in technology to improve agricultural productivity in orderto regenerate productivity growth. Biotechnology could play

an important role here. To adapt to and mitigate the various
effects from climate change requires the development of newcultivars. Likewise, CO2 emissions can be reduced throughnew crop management practices supported by appropriate technologies. To achieve such breakthroughs, existing
global and regional research-for-development networks for
agricultural production technologies and knowledge need towork closely together so that technology and knowledge canflow to allow farmers to face the risks associated with future
harvests. Information and communication technologies andtraditional and local knowledge could play key roles in theregeneration of future productivity growth. As the alternative policy experiments in this chapter have shown, higher,
judiciously placed investments in technology, development
can significantly improve outcomes for food availability andfood security.

APPENDIX

Model descriptions

A.5.1 The International Model for Policy Analysis of
Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT)
A.5.1.1 Introduction
IMPACT was developed in the early 1990s as a response
to concerns about a lack of vision and consensus regarding
the actions required to feed the world in the future, reducepoverty, and protect the natural resource base (Rosegrant
et al., 1995). In 2002, the model was expanded throughinclusion of a Water Simulation Model (WSM) as water wasperceived as one of the major constraints to future food production and human well-being (Rosegrant et al., 2002).
A.5.1.2 Model structure and data
The current IMPACT model combines an extension of theoriginal model with a WSM that is based on state-of-the-art
global water databases (Rosegrant et al., 2002). The water
module projects the evolution of availability and demandwith a base year of 2000 (average of 1999-2001), taking
into account the availability and variability in water resources, the water supply infrastructure, and irrigation andnonagricultural water demands, as well as the impact ofalternative water policies and investments. Water demands
are simulated as functions of year-to-year hydrologic fluctuations, irrigation development, growth of industrial anddomestic water uses, and environmental and other flow requirements (committed flow). Off-stream water supply forthe domestic, industrial, livestock, and irrigation sectors isdetermined based on water allocation priorities, treating ir-

chapter 05.indd 356

rigation water as a residual. Environmental flows are included as constraints.
The food module is specified as a set of 115 country
or regional sub-models. Within each sub-model, supply,
demand and prices for agricultural commodities are determined for 32 crop, livestock, fish commodities and fishmeal,sugar and sweeteners, fruits and vegetables, and low valueand high value fish. These country and regional sub-models
are intersected with 126 river basins—to allow for a better representation of water supply and demand—generating
results for 281 Food Producing Units (FPUs). The “food”
side of IMPACT uses a system of food supply and demand
elasticities incorporated into a series of linear and nonlinear
equations, to approximate the underlying production anddemand functions. World agricultural commodity prices are
determined annually at levels that clear international markets. Demand is a function of prices, income and population growth. Growth in crop production in each country
is determined by crop prices and the rate of productivity
growth. Future productivity growth is estimated by its component sources, including crop management research, conventional plant breeding, wide-crossing and hybridization
breeding, and biotechnology and transgenic breeding. Other
sources of growth considered include private sector agricultural research and development, agricultural extension andeducation, markets, infrastructure and irrigation. IMPACT
projects the share and number of malnourished preschool
children in developing countries as a function of average percapita calorie availability, the share of females with second-

11/5/08 10:04:07 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 357

ary schooling, the ratio of female to male life expectancy atbirth, and the percentage of the population with access to safe
water (see also Rosegrant et al., 2001; Smith and Haddad,
2000). The model incorporates data from FAOSTAT (FAO,
2003); commodity, income, and population data and projections from the World Bank (2000), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005), and the UN (2000) andUSDA (2000); a system of supply and demand elasticities
from literature reviews and expert estimates (Rosegrant etal., 2001); and rates for malnutrition (UN ACC/SCN, 1996;
WHO, 1997) and calorie-child malnutrition relationships
developed by Smith and Haddad (2000).
A.5.1.3 Application
IMPACT has been used for analyzing the current and future roles of agricultural commodities and impacts on foodsecurity and rural livelihoods, including the future of fisheries (Delgado et al., 2003); the role of root and tuber crops(Scott et al., 2000a, 2000b); and the “livestock revolution”(Delgado et al., 1999). IMPACT has also been applied toregional analyses as well as selected country-level studies, forexample, China (Huang et al., 1997), Indonesia (SEARCA/
IFPRI/CRESECENT 2004), sub-Saharan Africa (Rosegrant
et al., 2005a) and Central Asia (Pandya-Lorch and Rosegrant, 2000). IMPACT has also been used to analyze structural changes, including the impact of the Asian economic
and financial crisis (Rosegrant and Ringler, 2000); longerterm structural changes in rural Asia (Rosegrant and Hazell,
2000); as well as global dietary changes (Rosegrant et al.,1999). The model has also been used to describe the roleof agriculture and water for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (von Braun et al., 2004; Rosegrant et al.,2005b).
Model runs have been carried out for individual centersof the CGIAR, the World Bank and the Asian Development
Bank. The model has also been used for agricultural scenario
analysis of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Alcamo
et al., 2005; MA, 2005), and is currently being used for the
Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-4) assessment carriedout by UNEP. Other work includes investigations into regional and global scale impacts of greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture and theoretical large-scale conversion toorganic food production.
A.5.1.4 Uncertainty
In the following tables, the points related to uncertainty inthe model are summarized, based on the level of agreement
and amount of evidence.

A.5.2 The Integrated Model to Assess the Global
Environment (IMAGE) 2.4
A.5.2.1 Introduction
The IMAGE modelling framework had been developed originally to study the causes and impacts of climate change within
an integrated context. Now the IMAGE 2.4 is used to study
a whole range of environmental and global change problems,in particular aspects of land use change, atmospheric pollution and climate change. The model and its submodels havechapter 05.indd 357

been described in detail in several publications (Alcamo et al.,
1998; IMAGE team 2001; Bouwman et al., 2006).
A.5.2.2 Model structure and data
The IMAGE 2.4 framework describes global environmental change in terms of its cause-response chain, and belongs
to the model family of integrated assessment models. The
IMAGE model consists of two major parts: the socioeconomic system, elaborating on future changes in demographics, economy, agriculture and the energy sector, and the biophysical system, comprising land cover and land use, atmospheric composition and climate change. The IMAGE model
focuses on linking those two parts through emissions andland allocation. Land allocation follows inputs from the IMPACT model, allowing an assessment of the environmental
consequences of changes in the agricultural sector. One of
the crucial parts of the IMAGE 2.4 model is the energy model, Targets IMage Energy Regional (TIMER). The TIMER
model describes the chain, going from demand for energy
services (useful energy) to the supply of energy itself throughdifferent primary energy sources and related emissions. The
steps are connected by demand for energy and by feedbacks,
mainly in the form of energy prices. The TIMER model has
three types of sub-models: (1) a model for energy demand,(2) models for energy conversion (electricity and hydrogenproduction) and (3) models for primary energy supply. The
final energy demand (for five sectors and eight energy carriers) is modelled as a function of changes in population,
economic activity and energy efficiency. The model for electricity production simulates investments in various electricity production technologies and their use in response to electricity demand and to changes in relative generation costs.
Supply of all primary energy carriers is based on theinterplay between resource depletion and technology development. Technology development is introduced either as
learning curves (for most fuels and renewable options) orby exogenous technology change assumptions (for thermal
power plants). To model resource depletion of fossil fuels
and uranium, several resource categories that are depleted inorder of their costs are defined. Production costs thus rise as
each subsequent category is exploited. For renewable energy
options, the production costs depend on the ratio between
actual production levels and the maximum production level.
Climate change mitigation policies can be implemented in
the TIMER model, allowing assessing changes in the energy
composition due to these policies (Van Vuuren et al., 2006;
Van Vuuren et al., 2007).
The TIMER model also simulates the potential importance of biomass as an energy category. The structure of thebiomass sub-model is similar to that of the fossil fuel supply
models but with a few important differences (see also Hoogwijk et al., 2005). First, in the bioenergy model, depletion
is not governed by cumulative production but by the degree
to which available land is being used for commercial energy
crops. Available land is defined as abandoned agriculturalland and part of the natural grasslands in divergent land use
variants for the twenty-first century and is based on IMAGE
alternative variant calculations. This assumption excludes
any possible competition between bioenergy and food production, which is a simplification of reality. The potential
available land is categorized according to productivity levels

11/5/08 10:04:07 AM

358 | IAASTD Global Report

Table A.5.1 Overview of major uncertainties in IMPACT Source: Based on MA, 2005
Model Component
Model structure

Uncertainty• Based on partial equilibrium theory (equilibrium between demand and supply of allcommodities and production factors)• Underlying sources of growth in area/numbers and productivity• Structure of supply and demand functions and underlying elasticities, complementary andsubstitution of factor inputs.
• Water simulations and connection between Water and Food modules

Parameters

Input parameters:• Base year, 3-year centered moving averages for area, yield, production, numbers for 32
agricultural commodities and 115 countries and regions, and 281 Food Producing Units• Elasticities underlying the country and regional demand and supply functions• Commodity prices• Drivers
Output parameters:• Annual levels of water supply and demand (withdrawals and depletion), both agricultural andnonagricultural, food supply, demand, trade, international food prices, calorie availability,
and share and number of malnourished children

Driving Force

Economic and demographic drivers:• Income growth (GDP)• Population growthTechnological, management, and infrastructural drivers:• Productivity growth (including management research, conventional plant breeding) for
rainfed and irrigated areas• Rainfed and irrigated area growth• Livestock feed ratios• Changes in nonagricultural water demand• Supply and demand elasticity systems
Policy drivers:• Commodity price policy as defined by taxes and subsidies on commodities, drivers affecting
child malnutrition, food demand preferences, water infrastructure, etc.

Initial Condition

Baseline: 3-year average centered on 2000 of all input parameters and assumptions for driving
forcesModel operation

Optimization in Water Simulation Model using GAMS

that are assumed to reflect the cost of producing primarybiomass. The biomass model also describes the conversionof biomass (such as residues, wood crops, maize and sugarcane) to two generic secondary fuel types: biosolid fuels(BSF) and bioliquid fuels (BLF). The solid fuel is used in theindustry and power sector, and the liquid fuel in other sectors, in particular, transport.
The output of TIMER is affecting the biophysical system of IMAGE through land use changes (for bioenergy)
and emissions (from the energy sector). Changes in foodproduction are taken from IMPACT. The land cover modelof IMAGE simulates the change in land use and land coverchapter 05.indd 358

in each region driven by demands for food, including crops,
feed, and grass for animal agriculture, timber and biofuelsin addition to changes in climate (Bouwman et al., 2005;
Eickhout et al., 2007). The model distinguishes 14 naturaland forest land cover types and six land cover types createdby people. A crop module based on the FAO agroecological zones approach computes the spatially explicit yields ofthe different crop groups and grass and the areas used fortheir production, as determined by climate and soil quality(Alcamo et al., 1998). In case expansion of agricultural land
is required, a rule-based “suitability map” determines which
grid cells are selected. Conditions that enhance the suitabil-

11/5/08 10:04:08 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 359

Table A.5.2 Level of confidence in different types of scenario calculations from IMPACT Source: Based on (MA, 2005)
Level ofHigh

Established but incomplete:

Agreement/• Projections of Rainfed Area, Yield

Well established:

Assessment• Projections of Irrigated Area, Yield• Changes in Consumption Patterns• Projections of Livestock Numbers,

and Food Demand

Production• Number of Malnourished Children• Calorie availability• Climate variability
Low

Speculative:

Competing explanations:• Projections of Commodity Prices• Commodity Trade• Climate change

Low

High

Amount of evidence (theory, observations, model outputs)

ity of a grid cell for agricultural expansion include potential
crop yield (which changes over time as a result of climatechange and technology development), proximity to otheragricultural areas and proximity to water bodies. The land
cover model also includes a modified version of the BIOME
model (Prentice et al., 1992) to compute changes in potential vegetation. The potential vegetation is the equilibrium
vegetation that should eventually develop under a given climate. The shifts in vegetation zones, however, do not occur
instantaneously. In IMAGE 2.4 such dynamic adaptation ismodelled explicitly according to the algorithms developedby Van Minnen et al. (2000). This allows for assessing theconsequences of climate change for natural vegetation (Leemans and Eickhout, 2004).The land use system is modelled
on a 0.5 by 0.5 degree grid.
Both changes in energy consumption and land use patterns give rise to emissions that are used to calculate changes
in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases andsome atmospheric pollutants such as nitrogen and sulphuroxides (Strengers et al., 2004). Changes in the concentrationof greenhouse gases, ozone precursors and species involvedin aerosol formation form the basis for calculating climaticchange (Eickhout et al., 2004). Next, changes in climate arecalculated as global mean changes which are downscaled
to the 0.5 by 0.5 degree grids using patterns generated by aGeneral Circulation Model (GCM). Through this approach,different GCM patterns can be used to downscale the global-mean temperature change, allowing for the assessmentof uncertainties in regional climate change (Eickhout et al.,2004). An important aspect of IMAGE is that it accounts
for crucial feedbacks within the system, such as among temperature, precipitation and atmospheric CO2 on the selection of crop types and the migration of ecosystems. This
allows for calculating changes in crop and grass yields andas a consequence the location of different types of agriculture, changes in net primary productivity and migration ofnatural ecosystems (Leemans et al., 2002).

chapter 05.indd 359

A.5.2.3 Application
The IMAGE model has been applied to a variety of global
studies. The specific issues and questions addressed in thesestudies have inspired the introduction of new model features and capabilities, and in turn, the model enhancements
and extensions have broadened the range of applications
that IMAGE can address. Since the publication of IMAGE
2.1 (Alcamo et al., 1998), subsequent versions and intermediate releases have been used in most of the major global
assessment studies and other international analyses, like the
IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (Nakicenovic
et al., 2000), UNEP’s Third and Fourth Global Environment
Outlook (UNEP, 2002; 2007 ), The Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA, 2006), the Second Global Biodiversity
Outlook (SCBD/MNP, 2007) and Global Nutrients from
Watersheds (Seitzinger et al., 2005).
A.5.2.4 Uncertainty
As a global Integrated Assessment model, the focus of IMAGE is on large scale, mostly first order drivers of global
environmental change. This obviously introduces some important limitations to its results, and in particular the interpretation of its accuracy and uncertainty. An important
method for handling some of the uncertainties is by using
a scenario approach. A large number of relationships andmodel drivers whose linkages and values are either currently not known or depend on human decisions are varied inthese scenarios. To explore their uncertainties, see IMAGE
Team, 2001. In 2001 a separate project was performed toevaluate the uncertainties in the energy model using bothquantitative and qualitative techniques. With this analysis the model’s most important uncertainties were seen to
be linked to its assumptions for technological improvement in the energy system, and how human activities aretranslated into a demand for energy (including human lifestyles, economic sector change and energy efficiency, seen in
Table A.5.3).

11/5/08 10:04:08 AM

360 | IAASTD Global Report

Table A.5.3 Overview of major uncertainties in IMAGE 2.4
Model component

Uncertainty

Model structure• TIMER Energy model: Integration in larger economy and dynamic formulationin energy model (learning by doing)• Land model: Rule-based algorithm for allocating land use• Environmental system: Scheme for allocating carbon pools in the carbon
cycle modelParameters• Energy: Resource assumption and learning parameters• Land: Biome model parameter setting and CO2 fertilization• Environment: Climate sensitivity, climate change patterns and multipliers inclimate model (Leemans et al., 2002)

Driving force• Income growth (GDP)• Population growth• Assumptions on technology change in energy model• Environmental policies

Initial condition• Emissions in base year (2000)• Historic energy use• Initial land use/land cover map• Historical land use data (from FAO)
• Climate observations in initial year

Model operation• Downscaling method in climate change model (Eickhout et al., 2004)

The carbon cycle model has also recently been used
for a sensitivity analysis to assess uncertainties in carbon
cycle modeling in general (Leemans et al., 2002). Finally, amain uncertainty in IMAGE’s climate model has to do with
(1) “climate sensitivity,” i.e., the response of global temperature computed by the model to changes in atmosphericgreenhouse gas concentrations, and (2) regional patternsof changed temperature and precipitation. IMAGE 2.2 has
actually been set up in such a way that these variables canbe easily manipulated on the basis of more scientifically-detailed models. To summarize, most of IMAGE would needto go into the category of established but incomplete knowledge (Table A.5.4).

A.5.3 The Global Trade and Environment Model(GTEM)
A.5.3.1 Introduction
GTEM has been developed by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) specificallyto address policy issues with global dimensions and issues
where the interactions between sectors and between economies are significant. These include issues such as international climate change policy, international trade and investment liberalisation and trends in global energy markets.

Table A.5.4 Level of confidence in different types of scenario calculations from IMAGE
Level of Agreement/

High

Assessment

Established but incomplete• Climate impacts on agriculture

Well established• Energy modeling and scenariosand biomes• Carbon cycle
Low

Speculative• Grid-level changes in driving
forcesCompeting explanations• Global climate change, including
estimates of uncertainty• Impacts of land degradation• Local climate change• Land use change

Low

High

Amount of evidence (theory, observations, model outputs)

chapter 05.indd 360

11/5/08 10:04:08 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 361

A.5.3.2 Model structure and data
GTEM is a multiregion, multisector, dynamic, general equilibrium model of the global economy. The key structuralfeatures of GTEM include:• A computable general equilibrium (CGE) frameworkwith a sound theoretical foundation based on microeconomic principles that accounts for economic transactions occurring in the global economy. The theoretical structure of the model is based on the optimizing
behavior of individual economic agents (e.g., firms andhouseholds), as represented by the model equation systems, the database and parameters.
• A recursively dynamic analytical framework characterized by capital and debt accumulation and endogenous
population growth, which enables the model to account for transactions between sectors and trade flows
between regions over time. As a dynamic model, it accounts for the impacts of changes in labor force andinvestment on a region’s production capabilities.
• The representation of a large number of economies (upto 87 regional economies corresponding to individual
countries or country groups) that are linked throughtrade and investment flows, allowing for detailed analysis of the direct as well as flow-on impacts of policy andexogenous changes for individual economies. The model tracks intraindustry trade flows as well as bilateral
trade flows, allowing for detailed trade policy analysis.
• A high level of sectoral disaggregation (up to 67 broad
sectors, with an explicit representation of 13 agricultural sectors) that helps to minimize likely biases that
may arise from an undue aggregation scheme.
• A bottom-up “technology bundle” approach adopted inmodeling energy intensive sectors, as well as interfuel,interfactor and factor-fuel substitution possibilities allowed in modeling the production of commodities. The
detailed and explicit treatment of the energy and energy
related sectors makes GTEM an ideal tool for analysing
trends and policies affecting the energy sector.
• A demographic module that determines the evolutionof a region’s population (and hence the labor supply)
as a function of fertility, migration and mortality, alldistinguished by age group and/or gender.
• A detailed greenhouse gas emissions module that accounts for the major gases and sources, incorporates
various climate change response policies, including international emissions trading and quota banking, andallows for technology substitution and uptake of backstop technologies.
For each regional economy, the GTEM database consistsof six broad components: the input–output flows; bilateral
trade flows; elasticities and parameters; population data;technology data; and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions data. For the input–output and bilateral trade flows
data, and the key elasticities and parameters, the GTAP
version 6 database (see https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/databases/v6/default.asp) has been adapted. The databases for population, energy technology and anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions, have been assembled by ABARE
according to GTEM regions using information from a rangeof national and international sources. The base-year forchapter 05.indd 361

GTEM is 2001. For this exercise, the model database has
been aggregated to 21 regions that correspond to the five
IAASTD sub-global regions and to 36 commodities that include 12 agricultural sectors and one fisheries sector.
GTEM equations are written in log-change forms andthe model is solved recursively using the GEMPACK suite ofprograms (http://www.monash.edu.au/policy/gempack.htm). For
IAASTD modeling purposes, the GTEM projection period
extends to 2050. The model simulation provides annual
projections for many variables including regional gross national product, aggregate consumption, investment, exports
and imports; sectoral production, employment and other input demands; final demand and trade for commodities; andgreenhouse gas emissions by gas and by source.
A detailed description of the theoretical structure of
GTEM can be found in Pant (2002, 2007). Pezzey and Lambie (2001) describe the key structural features of GTEM and
Ahammad and Mi (2005) discuss an update on the modeling of GTEM agricultural and forestry sectors.
A.5.3.3 Application
GTEM has been applied to a wide range of medium- tolong-term policy issues or special events. These include climate change response policy analysis (e.g., Ahammad et al.,2006; Ahammad et al., 2004; Fisher et al., 2003; Heyhoe,
2007; Jakeman et al., 2002; Jakeman et al., 2004; Jotzo,
2000; Matysek et al., 2005; Polidano et al., 2000; Tulpulé
et al., 1999); global energy market analysis (e.g., Ball et al.,2003, Fairhead et al., 2002; Heaney et al., 2005; Mélanie
et al., 2002; Stuart et al., 2000); and on agricultural tradeliberalisation issues (e.g., Bull and Roberts 2001; Fairhead
and Ahammad, 2005; Freeman et al., 2000; Nair et al.,2005; Nair et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 1999; Schneider etal., 2000).
A.5.3.4 Uncertainty(See Table A.5.3.4)
A.5.4 WATERSIM
A.5.4.1 Introduction
Watersim is an integrated hydrologic and economic model,
written in GAMS, developed by IWMI with input from IFPRI and the University of Illinois. It seeks to:• Explore the key linkages between water, food security,and environment.
• Develop scenarios for exploring key questions for foodwater, food, and environmental security, at the global
national and basin scale
A.5.4.2 Model structure and data
The general model structure consists of two integrated modules: the “food demand and supply” module, adapted from
IMPACT (Rosegrant et al., 2002), and the “water supply
and demand” module which uses a water balance based on
the Water Accounting framework (Molden, 1997) that underlies the policy dialogue model, PODIUM combined withelements from IMPACT (Cai and Rosegrant, 2002). The
model estimates food demand as a function of population,
income and food prices. Crop production depends on economic variables such as crop prices, inputs and subsidies on

11/5/08 10:04:08 AM

362 | IAASTD Global Report

Table A.5.3.4 Overview of key uncertainties in GTEM.
Model component
Model structure

Uncertainty• Based on general equilibrium theory.
• Conforms to a competitive market equilibrium—no “supernormal” economic profit.
• Structured on nested supply and demand functions representing technologies, tastes,
endowments and policies.
• Incorporates the Armington demand structure—a commodity produced in one region
treated as an imperfect substitute for a similar good produced elsewhere.
• Total demand equals total supply—for all commodities at the global level and for
production factors at the regional level.

Parameters

Input parameters:• Base year input-output flows and (bilateral) trade flows for 67 commodities and 87
countries and regions.
• Numerous elasticities underlying demand and supply equations.
• Technical coefficients for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Driving Force• Regional income growth (GDP).
• Population growth.
• Changes in policies (taxes and subsidies).
• Technological changes—productivity growth and energy technology options.
The choice of the model closure, i.e., the distinction between exogenous (drivers or
shocks) and endogenous (determined or projected) variables of the model, is quite flexible.
The above variables, e.g., could also be determined endogenously within the model forsome specific economic closure characterized by a well specified set of economic anddemographic shocks.

Initial Condition• The 2001 global economy in terms of production, consumption and trade.

Model operation• Suite of GEMPACK programs.

one hand, and climate, crop technology, production mode(rainfed or. irrigated) and water availability on the other. Irrigation water demand is a function of the food production
requirement and management practices, but constrained by
the amount of available water.
Water demand for irrigation, domestic purposes, industrial sectors, livestock and the environment are estimated atbasin scale. Water supply for each basin is expressed as afunction of climate, hydrology and infrastructure. At basin
level, hydrologic components (water supply, usage and outflow) must balance. At the global level, food demand andsupply are leveled out by international trade and changes incommodity stocks. The model iterates between basin, region
and globe until the conditions of economic equilibrium andhydrologic water balance are met.
Different aspects of the model use different spatial units.
To model hydrology adequately, the river basin is used as thebasic spatial unit. For food policy analysis, administrative
boundaries should be used since trade and policy making
happens at national level, not at the scale of river basins.
WATERSIM takes a hybrid approach to its spatial unit ofmodeling. First, the world is divided into 125 major river
basins of various sizes with the goal of achieving accuracy
with regard to the basins most important to irrigated agri-

chapter 05.indd 362

culture. Next the world is divided into 115 economic regions composed of mostly single nations with a few regionalgroupings. Finally the river basins are intersected with theeconomic regions to produce 282 Food Producing Units(FPUs). The hydrological processes are modeled at basin
scale by summing up relevant parameters and variables overthe FPUs within one basin; similarly economic processes aremodeled at regional scale by summing up the variables overthe FPUs belonging to one region.
The model uses a temporal scale with a baseline year of
2000. Economic processes are modeled at an annual timestep, while hydrological and climate variables are modeled
at a monthly time-step. Crop related variables are either determined by month (crop evapotranspiration) or by season(yield, area). The food supply and demand module runs atregion level on a yearly time-step. Water supply and demandruns at FPU level at a monthly time-step. For the area andyield computations the relevant parameters and variables
are summed over the months of the growing season.
A.5.4.3 Application
Watersim has been used in the following cases:• Scenario analysis in the Comprehensive Assessment of
Water Management in Agriculture (CA, 2007)

11/5/08 10:04:09 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 363

Table A.5.6 Overview of major uncertainties in Watersim model
Model Component

Uncertainty

Model Structure

Food module is based on IMPACT (well established). Water module borrows from

Parameters

Output: projections on water demand by basin (128) and country (115), water scarcity

Podium, IMPACT and Water accounting methodology (all well established)indices, production coming from irrigated and rainfed areas, crop water use, waterproductivity and basin efficiency• population and GDP growthDriving force• crop demand• improvements in water productivity• improvements in basin efficiency
Initial condition

Parameters are calibrated to the base year (2000).
Based on the best available data sources, uncertainty minimized as far as possible, but inparticular water use efficiency data are sketchy in developing countries

Model operation

Runs in GAMS

Table A.5.7 Level of confidence for scenario calculations with Watersim model
Level of Agreement/

High

Assessment

Established but incomplete:

Well-established:• Areas suffering from water scarcity

Global estimates and projections of crop water use• Virtual water flows due to food
trade
Low

Speculative:• Crop losses due to water

Competing Explanations:• Projections of irrigated areas and production• Projections of rainfed areas and production

shortages• Impacts of environmental flow
policies on food production
Low• Projections of irrigation water demand• Projections of water productivity
High

Amount of Evidence (Theory, Observations, Model Outputs)•••

Sub-Saharan Africa investment study
ICID – India Country paper
Scenarios at basin level for the benchmark basins in the
Challenge Program on Water and Food

A.5.4.4 Uncertainty
The water and food modules are calibrated at the base year
2000 and 1995. Model outcomes aggregated at a relatively
high level (globe, continent, major basins such as the IndoGangetic) tend to have a better agreement than outcomes at
sub-basin level. This reflects the uncertainty associated with
global datasets, shown in Table A.5.6.
A.5.5 CAPSiM
A.5.5.1 Introduction
China’s Agricultural Policy Simulation and Projection Model (CAPSiM) was developed at the Center for Chinese Agri-chapter 05.indd 363

cultural Policy (CCAP) in the mid-1990s as a response to theneed to have a framework for analyzing policies affecting
agricultural production, consumption, prices, and trade in
China (Huang et al., 1999; Huang and Chen, 1999). Since
then CAPSiM has been periodically updated and expanded
at CCAP to cover the impacts of policy changes at regionaland household levels (Huang and Li, 2003; Huang et al.,2003).
A.5.5.2 Model structure and data
CAPSiM is a partial equilibrium model for 19 crop, livestock and fishery commodities, including all cereals (fourtypes), sweet potato, potato, soybean, other edible oil crops,
cotton, vegetable, fruits, other crops, six livestock products,
and one aggregate fishery sector, which together account for
more than 90% of China’s agricultural output. CAPSiM
is simultaneously run at the national, provincial (31) andhousehold (by different income groups) levels. It is the first

11/5/08 10:04:09 AM

364 | IAASTD Global Reportcomprehensive model for examining the effects of policies
on China’s national and regional food economies, as well ashousehold income and poverty.
CAPSiM includes two major modules for supply anddemand balances for each of 19 agricultural commodities.
Supply includes production, import, and stock changes. Demand includes food demand (specified separately for ruraland urban consumers), feed demand, industrial demand,
waste, and export demand. Market clearing is reached simultaneously for each agricultural commodity and all 19
commodities (or groups).
Production equations, which are decomposed by areaand yield for crops and by total output for meat and otherproducts, allow producers’ own- and cross-price market responses, as well as the effects of shifts in technology stockon agriculture, irrigation stock, three environmental factors—erosion, salinization, and the breakdown of the local
environment—and yield changes due to exogenous shocksof climate and other factors (Huang and Rozelle, 1998b;
deBrauw et al., 2004). Demand equations, which are broken
out by urban and rural consumers, allow consumers’ ownand cross-price market responses, as well as the effects ofshifts in income, population level, market development andother shocks (Huang and Rozelle, 1998a; Huang and Bouis,
2001; Huang and Liu, 2002).
Most of the elasticities used in CAPSiM were estimatedeconometrically at CCAP using state-of-the-art econometrics, including assumptions for consistency of estimated parameters with theory. Demand and supply elasticities varyover time and across income groups. Recently, CAPSiM
shifted its demand system from double-log to an “Almost
Ideal Demand System” (Deaton and Muellbauer, 1980).
CAPSiM generates annual projections for crop production (area, yield and production), livestock and fish production, demand (food, feed, industrial, seed, waste, etc), stockchanges, prices and trade. The base year is 2001 (averageof 2000-2002) and is currently being updated to 2004 The
model is written in Visual C++.
A.5.5.3 Application
CAPSiM has been frequently used by CCAP and its collaborators in various policy analyses and impact assessments.
Some examples include China’s WTO accession and implications (Huang and Rozelle, 2003; Huang and Chen, 1999),
trade liberalization, food security, and poverty (Huang et al.,
2003; Huang et. al., 2005a and 2005b), R&D investment
policy and impact assessments (Huang et al., 2000), land
use policy change and its impact on food prices (Xu et. al.,2006), China’s food demand and supply projections (Huang
et. al., 1999; Rozelle et al., 1996; Rozelle and Huang, 2000),
and water policy (Liao and Huang, 2004).
A.5.5.4 Uncertainty
Tables A.5.8 and A.5.9 below summarize points related to
uncertainty in the model, based on the level of agreement
and amount of evidence.

chapter 05.indd 364

A.5.6 Gender (GEN)-Computable General Equilibrium(CGE)
A.5.6.1 Introduction
The GEN-CGE model developed for India is based on a Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) using the Indian fiscal year
1999-2000 as the base year (Sinha and Sangeeta, 2001).
Generally SAMs are used as base data set for CGE Models
where one can take into account multi-sectoral, multi-classdisaggregation. In determining the results of policy simulations generated by CGE model, a base-year equilibrium
data set is required, which is termed calibration. Calibration is the requirement that the entire model specification
be capable of generating a base year equilibrium observation as a model solution. There is a need for constructionof a data set that meets the equilibrium conditions for thegeneral equilibrium model, viz. demand equal supplies for
all commodities, nonprofits are made in all industries, alldomestic agents have demands that satisfy their budget constraints and external sector is balanced. A SAM provides
the most suitable disaggregated equilibrium data set for the
CGE model.
The SAM under use distinguishes different sectors of
production having a thrust on the agricultural sectors anddifferent factors of production distinguished by gender. The
workers are further distinguished into rural, urban, agricultural, nonagricultural and casual and regular types. The
other important feature of the SAM is the distinction ofvarious types of households and each household type being
identified with information on gender worker ratios. As themodel incorporates the gendered factors of production, it isenabled to carry out counterfactual analysis to see the impactof trade policy changes on different types of workers distinguished by gender, which in turn allows the study of welfare ofhouseholds again distinguished by ratio of workers by gender.
Households are divided into rural and urban groups, distinguished by monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) levels.
Rural households include poor agriculturalists, with MPCE
less that Rs. 350; nonpoor agriculturalists (above Rs. 351);
and nonagriculturalists at all levels of income. Urban households are categorized as poor, with MPCE of less than Rs. 450
and the nonpoor, with MPCE of between Rs. 451 and 750.
A.5.6.2 Model structure and data
The GEN-CGE model follows roughly the standard neoclassical specification of general equilibrium models. Markets for goods, factors, and foreign exchange are assumed
to respond to changing demand and supply conditions,which in turn are affected by government policies, the external environment, and other exogenous influences. The
model is Walrasian in that it determines only relative prices
and other endogenous variables in the real sphere of theeconomy. Sectoral product prices, factor prices, and theforeign exchange rate are defined relative to a price index,
which serves as the numeraire. The production technology
is represented by a set of nested Cobb-Douglas and Leontief functions. Domestic output in each sector is a Leontieffunction of value-added and aggregate intermediate input
use. Value-added is a Cobb-Douglas function of the primaryfactors, like capital and labor. Fixed input coefficients are
specified in the intermediate input cost function. The model

11/5/08 10:04:09 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 365

Table A.5.8 Overview of major uncertainties in CAPSiM
Model component
Model structure

Uncertainty• Based on partial equilibrium theory (equilibrium between demand and supply of allcommodities and production factors)• One country model (international prices are exogenous)
Parameters

Input parameters:• Some household data on production and consumption may not be consistent withnational and provincial demand and supply functions• Elasticities underlying the national and provincial demand and supply functions• International commodity prices• Drivers
Output parameters:• Annual levels of food and agricultural production, stock changes, food and otherdemands, imports and exports, and domestic prices at national level• Annual levels of food and agricultural production, food and other demands at
provincial and household level
Driving force

Economic and demographic drivers:• Per capita rural and urban income• Population growth and urbanization
Technological drivers:• Yield response with respect to research investment, irrigation, and others• Livestock feed rations
Policy drivers:• Cultivated land expansion/control• Public investment (research, irrigation, environmental conservation, etc.)• Trade policy• Others
Initial condition

Baseline: Three-year average centered on 2001 of all input parameters and assumptions
for driving forces

Model operation

Visual C++ programming language

Table A.5.9 Level of confidence in different types of scenario calculations with CAPSiM
Level of Agreement/
Assessment

High

Established but incomplete

Well established• Projections of R&D and• Changes in crop area and yield

irrigation investment• Projections of livestock feed
ratios• Impacts on farmers income
Low

Speculative• Changes in food consumption in bothrural and urban areas• Food production and consumption athousehold level by income group
Competing explanations• Projections of commodity prices• Commodity trade
Low

High
Amount of evidence (theory, observations, model outputs)

More than 20 papers published in Chinese and international journals based on CAPSiM

chapter 05.indd 365

11/5/08 10:04:09 AM

366 | IAASTD Global Report

assumes imperfect substitutability, in each sector, between
the domestic product and imports. All firms are assumed
to be price takers for all imports. What is demanded is thecomposite consumption good, which is a constant elasticity
of substitution (CES) aggregation of imports and domestically produced goods. Similarly, each sector is assumed to
produce differentiated goods for the domestic and export
markets. The composite production good is a constantelasticity of transformation (CET) aggregation of sectoral
exports and domestically consumed products. Such product differentiation permits two-way trade and gives somerealistic autonomy to the domestic price system. Based on
the small-country assumption, domestic prices of imports
and exports are expressed in terms of the exchange rate andtheir foreign prices, as well as the trade tax. The import tax
rate represents the sum of the import tariff, surcharge, andapplicable sales tax for each commodity group. The foreignexchange rate, an exogenous variable in the base model, isin real terms. The deflator is a price index of goods for domestic use; hence, this exchange rate measure represents therelative price of tradable goods vis-a-vis nontradables (inunits of domestic currency per unit of foreign currency).
A.5.6.3 Application
The GEN-CGE model can be used for studying the impactof tariff changes, removal of nontariff barriers (measured as
tariff equivalents), changes in world GDP, changes in world
prices, and changes in agricultural technology on employment by sector, prices, household income and welfare. One
version of this model has been used for studying the impactof trade reforms in India in 2003 under a project with IDRC
in Canada.

A.5.6.4 Uncertainty
A.5.7 The Livestock Spatial Location-Allocation
Model (SLAM)
A.5.7.1 Introduction
Seré and Steinfeld (1996) developed a global livestock production system classification scheme. In it, livestock systems
fall into four categories: landless systems, livestock only/
rangeland-based systems (areas with minimal cropping),
mixed rainfed systems (mostly rainfed cropping combinedwith livestock) and mixed irrigated systems (a significant
proportion of cropping uses irrigation and is interspersedwith livestock). A method has been devised for mapping theclassification, based on agroclimatology, land cover, and human population density (Kruska et al., 2003). The classification system can be run in response to different scenariosof climate and population change, to give very broad-brushindications of possible changes in livestock system distribution in the future.
A.5.7.2 Model structure and data
The livestock production system proposed by Seré andSteinfeld (1996) is made up of the following types:• Landless monogastric systems, in which the value of
production of the pig/poultry enterprises is higher thanthat of the ruminant enterprises.
• Landless ruminant systems, in which the value of production of the ruminant enterprises is higher than thatof the pig/poultry enterprises.
• Grassland-based systems, in which more than 10% of
the dry matter fed to animals is farm produced and in

Table A.5.10 Overview of major uncertainties in GEN-CGE model
Model Component

Uncertainty

Model Structure

Labor skill

Parameters

Taken from past studies, literature

Driving force

Exogenous variables to the model

Initial condition

Base level SAM

Model operation

Data based

Table A.5.11 Level of confidence for scenario calculations
Level of Agreement/High

Established but incomplete• Trade reform analysis on

Assessment

employment
Low

Well-established• Trade reform analysis on theeconomySpeculative

Competing Explanations• The impact on migration of• Tradeoff between welfare andworkers

growthLow

High

Amount of Evidence (Theory, Observations, Model Outputs):
Please see references for model outputs

chapter 05.indd 366

11/5/08 10:04:10 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 367••

which annual average stocking rates are less than ten temperate livestock units per hectare of agricultural land.
Rainfed mixed farming systems, in which more than
90% of the value of non-livestock farm production
comes from rainfed land use, including the followingclasses.
Irrigated mixed farming systems, in which more than
10% of the value of non-livestock farm production
comes from irrigated land use.

The grassland-based and mixed systems are further categorizedon the basis of climate: arid–semiarid (with a length of growing period < 180 days), humid–subhumid (Length of Growing
Period or LGP > 180 days), and tropical highlands/temperateregions. This gives 11 categories in all. This system has been
mapped using the methods of Kruska et al. (2003), and is now
regularly updated with new datasets (Kruska, 2006). For landuse/cover, we use version 3 of the Global Land Cover (GLC)
2000 data layer (Joint Research Laboratory, 2005). For Africa,
this included irrigated areas, so this is used instead of the irrigated areas database of Döll and Siebert (2000), which isused for Asia and Latin America. For human population,
we use new 1-km data (GRUMP, 2005). For length of growing period, we use a layer developed from the WorldCLIM
1-km data for 2000 (Hijmans et al., 2004), together with a
new “highlands” layer for the same year based on the samedataset (Jones and Thornton, 2005). Cropland and rangeland are now defined from GLC 2000, and rock and sandareas are now included as part of rangelands.
The original LGP breakdown into arid-semiarid, humid-subhumid and highland-temperate areas has now been
expanded to include hyper-arid regions, defined by FAO as
areas with zero growing days. This was done because livestock are often found in some of these regions in wetter
years when the LGP is greater than zero. Areas in GLC 2000
defined as rangeland but having a human population density
greater than or equal to 20 persons per km2 as well as an
LGP greater than 60 (which can allow cropping) are now
included in the mixed system categories.
The landless systems still present a problem, and are
not included in version 3 of the classification. Urban areas
have been left as defined by GLC 2000. To look at possible
changes in the future, we use the GRUMP population dataand project human population out to 2030 and 2050 byprorata allocation of appropriate population figures (e.g.,the UN medium-variant population data for each year bycountry, or the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment countrylevel population projections). LGP changes to 2030 and
2050 are projected using downscaled outputs of coarsegridded GCM outputs, using methods outlined in Jones andThornton (2003).
A.5.7.3 Application
The mapped Seré and Steinfeld (1996) classification was
originally developed for a global livestock and poverty mapping study designed to assist in targeting research and development activities concerning livestock (Thornton et al.,
2002; 2003). Estimates of the numbers of poor livestock
keepers by production system and region were derived andmapped. This information was used in the study of Perryet al. (2002), which was carried out to identify priority re-chapter 05.indd 367

search opportunities that can improve the livelihoods of thepoor through better control of animal diseases in Africa andAsia. Possible changes in livestock systems and their implications have been assessed for West Africa (Kristjanson etal., 2004). The methods have recently been used in work toassess the spatial distribution of methane emissions fromAfrican domestic ruminants to 2030 (Herrero et al., 2008),
and in a study to map climate vulnerability and poverty in
sub-Saharan Africa in relation to projected climate change(Thornton et al., 2006).
A.5.7.4 Uncertainty
Uncertainties in the scheme are outlined in Table A.5.12,
together with levels of confidence for scenario calculationsin Table A.5.13.
A.5.8 Global Methodology for Mapping Human
Impacts on the Biosphere (GLOBIO 3)
A.5.8.1 Introduction
Biodiversity as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) encompasses the diversity of genes, species,and ecosystems. The 2010 target agreed on by the CBD
Conference of the Parties (COP) in 2002 specifies a significant reduction in the rate of loss of biodiversity.
Biodiversity loss is defined as the long-term or permanent qualitative or quantitative reduction in components of
biodiversity and their potential to provide goods and services, to be measured at global, regional and national levels.
A number of provisional indicators of biodiversity loss havebeen listed for use at a global scale and suggested for use at aregional or national scale as appropriate (UNEP, 2006). These
indicators include trends in the extent of biomes/ecosystems/
habitats, trends in the abundance or range of selected species,
coverage of protected areas, threats to biodiversity and trends
in fragmentation or connectivity of habitats.
The GLOBIO3 model produces a response indicatoron an aggregated level, called the Mean Species Abundance(MSA) relative to the original abundance of species in eachnatural biome. The model incorporates this indicator in scenario projections, being uniquely able to project trends inthe abundance of species (SCBD/MNP, 2007). A large number of species-climate or species-habitat response models
exist, which examine the response of individual species tochange. GLOBIO3 differs from these models as it measures
habitat integrity through the lens of remaining species-level
diversity, rather than individual species abundance.
A.5.8.2 Model structure and data
The GLOBIO 3 model framework describes biodiversity bymeans of estimating remaining mean species abundance oforiginal species, relative to their abundance in primary vegetation. This measure of MSA is similar to the Biodiversity
Integrity Index (Majer and Beeston, 1996) and the Biodiversity Intactness Index (Scholes and Biggs, 2005) and can beconsidered as a proxy for CBD indicators (UNEP, 2004).
The core of GLOBIO 3 is a set of regression equations
describing the impact on biodiversity of the degree of pressure using dose–response relationships. These dose–response
relationships are derived from a database of observations ofspecies response to change. The database includes separate

11/5/08 10:04:10 AM

368 | IAASTD Global Report

Table A.5.12 Major uncertainties in the mapped Seré & Steinfeld (1996) classification
Model component
Model Structure

Uncertainty• Based on thresholds associated with human population density and length of growing
period• Also based on land-cover information that is known to be currently weak with respect tocropland identification• The global classification is quite coarse, and no differentiation is made of the mixed
systems
Parameters

Inputs:• Land cover, length of growing period, human population density, irrigated areas, urban
areas• Observed or modeled livestock densities
Outputs:• Areas associated with grassland-based systems and mixed crop-livestock systems (rainfed
and irrigated), broken down by AEZ (which can then be combined with other national or
sub-national information, such as poverty rates)
Driving force

Even at the broad-brush level, population change and climate change will not be the only
drivers of land-use change in livestock-based systems, globally

Initial condition

Some validation of the systems layers has been carried out for current conditions, but more isneededModel operation

Assembling the input data and running the classification is not an automated procedure. It
requires separate sets of FORTRAN programmes for estimating changing agroclimatologicalconditions; and various sets of ArcInfo scripts for spatially allocating population data andrerunning the classification

measures of MSA, each in relation to different degrees ofpressure exerted by various pressure factors or driving
forces. The entries in the database are all derived from studies in peer-reviewed literature, reporting either on change
through time in a single plot, or on response in parallel plots
undergoing different pressures.
The current version of the database includes data fromabout 500 reports: about 140 reports on the relationshipbetween species abundance and land cover or land use, 50
on atmospheric N deposition (Bobbink, 2004), over 300 on
the impacts of infrastructure (UNEP, 2001) and several literature reports on minimal area requirements of species.

The driving forces (pressures) incorporated within themodel and their sources are as follows:• Land cover change (IMAGE)• Land use intensity (IMAGE / GLOBIO3)• Nitrogen deposition (IMAGE)• Infrastructure development (IMAGE / GLOBIO2)• Climate change (IMAGE)
Climate change is treated differently from other drivers in
GLOBIO3, as the empirical evidence compiled in GLOBIO
dose-response relationships so far is limited to areas that are
already experiencing significant impacts of change (such as

Table A.5.13 Level of confidence for scenario calculations
Level ofHigh

Established but incomplete

Well-established• Agricultural and land-use intensification • Impacts of human population

Agreement/
Assessment

processes
Low

densities on agricultural land-use
Speculative• Climate change scenarios

Competing Explanations• Different or expanded sets of• Human population change scenarios

variables as drivers of system• Impacts of changing climate on

intensification

agricultural land-use
Low

High

Amount of Evidence (Theory, Observations, Model Outputs)

chapter 05.indd 368

11/5/08 10:04:10 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 369

the Arctic and montane forests). The current implementation in the model is based on changing temperature only.
Estimates from a European model of the proportion of species lost per biome (Bakkenes et al., 2002; Leemans andEickhout, 2004; Bakkenes et al., 2006) for increasing levelsof temperature are applied within the GLOBIO3 model ona global scale. This regional bias and the absence of a modeled response to changes in moisture availability are important areas for model improvement.
Some responses to change take some time to become
apparent. The loss of species from a particular area may
take 30 years or may be instantaneous, depending on thetype and strength of the pressure. Because of these lags, themodel outcome portrays the possible impact over the short
to medium term (~5 to 30 years). These lags must be better characterized, and for that the underlying databases aredeveloped further.
There is little quantitative information about the interaction between pressures. Various assumptions can therefore
be included in the model, ranging from “all interact” (onlythe maximum response is delivered) to “no interaction” (responses to each pressure are cumulative). The GLOBIO 3
model calculates the overall MSA value by multiplying the
MSA values for each driver for each IMAGE 0.5 by 0.5
degree grid cell according to:
MSAi = MSALU MSAN MSAI MSAF MSACC
where i is the index for the grid-cell, MSAXi relative mean
species abundance corresponding to the drivers LU (landcover/use), N (atmospheric N deposition), I (infrastructuraldevelopment), F (fragmentation) and CC (climate change).
MSALUi is the area-weighted mean over all land-use categories within a grid cell.

The model relates 0.5° IMAGE maps to Global Land
Cover 2000 as a base map at a 1-km scale, based on a seriesof simple decision rules. These maps are used to estimate
the response to changes in land cover and land use intensity within each 0.5° grid cell. The land-use cover maps andthe maps representing other pressures are used to generate
maps of the share of remaining biodiversity, which may bederived either in terms of remaining share of original species richness, or remaining share of mean original species
abundance. More data is being collated for abundance thanfor richness—this is the favored indicator, as it is closest to
those specified by CBD. Outputs are derived at a 0.5° scaleand can be scaled up to IAASTD regions.
A.5.8.3 Application
GLOBIO3 has been used in global and regional assessments. GLOBIO3 analyses contributed to an integrated assessment for the Himalaya region (Nellemann, 2004); fordeserts of the world and the Global Biodiversity Outlook(SCBD/MNP, 2007).
A.5.8.4 Uncertainty
GLOBIO3 reflects a relatively new model approach. The
level of confidence is highly related to the data quality andquantity, a lot of which is derived from other models, in particular, the IMAGE 2.4 model, infrastructure maps (Digital
Chart of the World or DCW) and other land cover maps.
The biodiversity indicator generated (MSA) is designed tobe compatible with the trends in abundance of species indicator as specified by CBD. Other indicators might lead todifferent results. However the patterns of the global analyses
are in line with earlier global analyses. Table A.5.14 provides
an overview of major parameters and model structure.

Table A.5.14 Overview of major uncertainties in the GLOBIO 3 model
Model component
Model structure

Uncertainties• Coupling of data from different sources and resolutions, e.g., from
IMAGE, Global Land Cover database 2000.

• Applying and combining statistical (regression) equations on input data
to derive
Parameters

Input:• Regression parameter for relationships between drivers andbiodiversity output indicator (MSA)
Output:• Biodiversity indicator is Mean species abundance of original species
relative to their original abundance (MSA)
Driving force• Climate (mean annual temperature)• Land use (incl. forestry) and land use pattern• Infrastructure• Nitrogen deposition

Initial condition• Baseline for biodiversity is “original vegetation” as simulated by the
BIOME model in the IMAGE 2.4 model (Prentice et al., 1992)• Baseline for input are calculated maps for 2000 from the IMAGE model
Model operation

chapter 05.indd 369

ArcGIS maps, Access data bases, VB scripting language

11/5/08 10:04:10 AM

370 | IAASTD Global Report

Table A.5.15 Level of confidence in different types of scenario calculations from GLOBIO3
Level of Agreement/
Assessment

High

Established but incomplete

Well established• Dose-response relationships• Selection of pressure factors

based on existing studies witha regional bias.
Low

Speculative

Competing explanations• Interaction between pressure• Use of species distribution andfactors

abundance
Low

High

Amount of evidence(theory, observations, model outputs)

A.5.9 EcoOcean
A.5.9.1 Introduction
EcoOcean is an ecosystem model complex that can evaluate
fish supply from the world’s oceans. The model is constructed based on the Ecopath with Ecosim modeling approachand software, and includes a total of 42 functional groupings. The spatial resolution in this initial version of the Ecoocean model is based on FAO marine statistical areas, and
it is run with monthly time-steps for the time period from1950. The model is parameterized using an array of global
databases, most of which are developed by or made available through the Sea Around Us project. Information about
spatial fishing effort by fleet categories will be used to drive
the models over time. The models for the FAO areas will
be tuned to time series data of catches for the period 1950
to the present, while forward looking scenarios involving
optimization routines will be used to evaluate the impact of
GEO4 scenarios on harvesting of marine living resources.
A.5.9.2 Model structure and data
The Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) modeling approach has
three main components:• Ecopath—a static, mass-balanced snapshot of the system;• Ecosim—a time dynamic simulation module for policy
exploration; and• Ecospace—a spatial and temporal dynamic module primarily designed for exploring impact and placement ofprotected areas.
The initial EcoOcean model will be composed of 19 EwE
models. The EwE approach, its methods, capabilities andpitfalls are described in detail by Christensen and Walters(2004).
The foundation of the EwE suite is an Ecopath model(Christensen and Pauly, 1992; Pauly et al., 2000), which creates a static mass-balanced snapshot of the resources in an
ecosystem and their interactions, represented by trophicallylinked biomass “pools.” The biomass pools consist of a single species, or species groups representing ecological guilds.
Ecopath data requirements are relatively simple, and generally already available from stock assessment, ecologicalchapter 05.indd 370

studies, or the literature: biomass estimates, total mortality
estimates, consumption estimates, diet compositions, andfishery catches. The parameterization of an Ecopath modelis based on satisfying two “master” equations. The firstequation describes how the production term for each groupcan be divided:
Production = catch + predation + net migration +biomass accumulation + other mortality
The second “master” equation is based on the principle ofconservation of matter within a group:
Consumption = production + respiration +unassimilated food
Ecopath sets up a series of linear equations to solve for unknown values establishing mass-balance in the same operation.
Ecosim provides a dynamic simulation capability at theecosystem level, with key initial parameters inherited fromthe base Ecopath model. The key computational aspects arein summary form:• Use of mass-balance results (from Ecopath) for parameter estimation;• Variable speed splitting enables efficient modeling of the
dynamics of both ”fast” (phytoplankton) and “slow”
groups (whales);• Effects of micro-scale behaviors on macro-scale rates:
top-down vs. bottom-up control incorporated explicitly.
• Includes biomass and size structure dynamics for key
ecosystem groups, using a mix of differential and difference equations. As part of this EwE incorporates:– Age structure by monthly cohorts, density- and riskdependent growth;– Numbers, biomass, mean size accounting via delaydifference equations;– Stock-recruitment relationship as “emergent” property
of competition/predation interactions of juveniles.
Ecosim uses a system of differential equations that express
biomass flux rates among pools as a function of time varying biomass and harvest rates, (Walters et al., 1997, 2000).

11/5/08 10:04:11 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 371

Predator prey interactions are moderated by prey behavior
to limit exposure to predation, such that biomass flux patterns can show either bottom-up or top down (trophic cascade) control (Walters et al., 2000). Conducting repeatedsimulations Ecosim simulations allows for the fitting of predicted biomasses to time series data, thereby providing moreinsights into the relative importance of ecological, fisheries
and environmental factors in the observed trajectory of one
or more species or functional groups.

A.5.9.4 Uncertainty
Table A.5.16 Overview of major uncertainties in
EcoOcean Model

A.5.9.3 Application
The core of this global ocean model is Ecopath with Ecosim,
which has been used for a number of regional and sub-regional models throughout the world. This global ocean model
will be used for this assessment and the GEO4 Assessment.

Model component

Uncertainty

Model structure

lowParameters

Input parameters• Most have medium to low
uncertainty; a few havehigh uncertainty

Driving force effort:

Medium to high depending oneither direct or relative

the FAO area at this stage

Initial condition

lowModel operation

mediumTable A.5.17 Level of confidence for scenario calculations with EcoOcean model
Level of Agreement/

High

Assessment

Established but

Well-established:incomplete:• Marine trophic• Catches

index (MTI)• Value• Landing diversity
Low

Speculative

Competing

Jobs

Explanations

Low

High

Amount of Evidence (Theory, Observations, Model
Outputs)

References
Ahammad, H., R. Curtotti, and A. Gurney.
2004. A possible Japanese carbon tax:
Implications for the Australian energy sector.
ABARE eReport 04.13. Available at http://
www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/
climate/climate_04/climate_04.html. ABARE,
Canberra.
Ahammad, H., A. Matysek, B.S. Fisher, R.
Curtotti, A. Gurney, G. Jakeman et al.
2006. Economic impact of climate change
policy: The role of technology and economic
instruments. ABARE Res. Rep. 06.7.
Available at http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/climate/climate_06/
climate_06.html. ABARE, Canberra.
Ahammad, H., and R. Mi. 2005. Land usechange modeling in GTEM: Accounting
for forest sinks. Australian Bureau Agric.
Resource Econ. (ABARE) Conf. Pap. 05.13.

chapter 05.indd 371

Energy Modeling Forum 22: Climate Change
Control Scenarios, Stanford University, 2527 May.
Alcamo, J., R. Leemans, and G.J.J. Kreileman.
1998. Global change scenarios of the 21st
century. Results from the IMAGE 2.1 model.
Pergamon and Elsevier, London
Alcamo, J., D. van Vuren, C. Ringler, W.
Cramer, T. Masui, J. Alder, and K. Schulze.
2005. Changes in nature’s balance sheet:model-based estimates of future worldwide
ecosystem services. Ecol. Society 10(2):19.
Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art19/.
Alkemade, R., M. Bakkenes, R. Bobbink,
L. Miles, C. Nelleman, H. Simons et al. 2006.
GLOBIO 3: Framework for the assessmentof global terrestrial biodiversity. In A.F.
Bouwman et al. (ed) Integrated modeling of

global environmental change. An overview
of IMAGE 2.4. Netherlands Environ.
Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven.
Anderson, P.K., A.A. Cunningham, N.G. Patel,
F.J. Morales, P.R. Epstein, and P. Daszak.
2004. Emerging infectious diseases of plants:
pathogen pollution, climate change andagrotechnology drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol.
19(10):535-544.
Asiedu, E. 2004. Policy reform and foreign direct
investment in Africa: Absolute progress but
relative decline. Dev. Policy Rev. 22(1):41-48.
Babu, S. 2004. Future of the agri-food system:
Perspectives from the Americas. Food Policy
29:669-674.
Babu, S., and W. Reidhead. 2000. Poverty, foodsecurity and nutrition in Central Asia: A casestudy of the Kyrgyz Republic. Food Policy
25:647-660.

11/5/08 10:04:11 AM

372 | IAASTD Global Report

Bakkenes, M., J.R.M. Alkemade, F. Ihle,
R. Leemans, and J.B. Latour. 2002. Assessing
effects of forecasted climate change on thediversity and distribution of European higher
plants for 2050. Global Change Biol. 8:390407.
Bakkenes, M., B. Eickhout, and R. Alkemade.
2006. Impacts of different climate
stabilisation scenarios on plant species in
Europe. Global Environ. Change16:19-28.
Ball, A., A. Hansard, R. Curtotti, and
K. Schneider. 2003. China’s changing coalindustry — Implications and outlook.
ABARE Res. Rep. 03.3 Available at http://
agsurf.abareconomics.com/publications_
html/energy/energy_03/er03_coal.pdf.
ABARE, Canberra.
Barnett, T.P., J.C. Adam, and D.P. Lettenmaier.
2005. Potential impacts of a warming climate
on water availability in snow-dominatedregions. Nature 438(17):303-309.
Bayes, A., J. von Braun, and R. Akhter. 1999.
Village pay phones and poverty reduction:
Insights from a Grameen phone initiative in
Bangladesh. Disc. Pap. Dev. Policy No. 8.
ZEF, Bonn.
Berdegué, J.A., F. Balsevich, L. Flores, andT. Reardon. 2005. Central American
supermarkets’ private standards of quality
and safety in procurement of fresh fruits andvegetables. Food Policy 30:254-269.
Bobbink, R. 2004. Plant species richness andthe exceedance of empirical nitrogen criticalloads: an inventory. Internal report. Utrecht
Univ., The Netherlands.
Bouwman, A.F., T. Kram, K. Klein Goldewijk(ed) 2006. Integrated modelling of
global environmental change. An
overview of IMAGE 2.4. MNP Rep.
500110002. Available at http://www.
mnp.nl/en/publications/2006/Integrated
modellingofglobalenvironmentalchange.
AnoverviewofIMAGE2.4.html. Netherlands
Environ. Assessment Agency (MNP),
Bilthoven.
Bouwman, A.F., K.W. van der Hoek,
B. Eickhout, and I. Soenario. 2005. Exploringchanges in world ruminant production
systems. Agric. Syst. 84(2):121-153.
Bruemmer, B. 2003. Food biosecurity. J. Amer.
Diet. Assoc. 103:687-691.
Bull, T., and I. Roberts. 2001. Agricultural trade
policies in Japan — The need for reform.
ABARE Res. Rep. 01.5. ABARE, Canberra.
Burlingame, B., and M. Pineiro. 2007. The
essential balance: Risks and benefits in foodsafety and quality. J. Food Comp. Anal.
20:139-146.
CA (Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture). 2007. Water
for food, water for life: A comprehensive
assessment of water management inagriculture. Earthscan and IWMI, London
and Colombo.
Cai, X., and M. Rosegrant. 2002. Global water
demand and supply projections. Part 1: A
modeling approach. Water Int. 27(3):159-169.

chapter 05.indd 372

Carvalho, F.P. 2006. Agriculture, pesticides, foodsecurity and food safety. Environ. Sci. Policy
9:685-692.
Christensen, V. and Pauly, D. 1992. Ecopath
II — A software for balancing steady-stateecosystem models and calculating network
characteristics. Ecol. Model. 61:169-185.
Christensen, V. and C.J. Walters. 2004. Ecopath
with Ecosim: Methods, capabilities andlimitations. Ecol. Model. 172:109-139.
Cleaveland, S., M.K. Laurenson, and
L.H. Taylor. 2001. Diseases of humans
and their domestic mammals: Pathogen
characteristics, host range and the risk ofemergence. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B.
356:991-999.
Coakley, S.M., H. Scherm, and S. Chakraborty,
1999. Climate change and plant disease
management. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol.
37:399-426.
Codron, J-M., E. Giraud-Heraud, and L-G. Soler.
2005. Minimum quality standards, premium
private labels, and European meat and fresh
produce retailing. Food Policy 30:270-283.
De Brauw, A., J. Huang, and S. Rozelle. 2004.
The sequencing of reform policies in China’s
agricultural transition. The Econ. Transition
12(3):427-465.
De Fraiture, C., D. Wichelns, E. Kemp Benedict,and J. Rockstrom. 2007. Scenarios on waterfor food and environment. In D. Molden(ed) A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Water for food,water for life. Earthscan and IWMI, London
and Colombo.
De Groote, H., S. Mugo, D. Bergvinson, andB. Odhiambo. 2005. Assessing the benefits
and risks of GE crops: Evidence from theinsect resistant maize for Africa project.
Inform. Syst. Biotech. ISB News Rep. Feb
2005. Available at http://www.isb.vt.edu/
news/2005/artspdf/feb0503.pdf.
De Vries, H.J.M., M. Hoogwijk, and D.P. van
Vuuren. 2007. Potential of wind, solar andbiofuels. Energy Policy 35 (4):2590-2610.
Deaton, A., and J. Muellbauer. 1980. An almost
ideal demand system. Am. Econ. Rev.
70:312-329.
Delgado, C.L., M.W. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld,
S. Ehui, and C. Courbois. 1999. Livestock to
2020. The next food revolution. 2020 Vision
for Food, Agric. Environ. Disc. Pap. 28.
Available at http://www.ifpri.org/2020/dp/
dp28.pdf. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Delgado, C.L., N. Wada, M.W. Rosegrant,
S. Meijer, and A. Mahfuzuddin. 2003. Fish to2020. Supply and demand in changing global
markets. Available at http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/fish2020book.htm. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Dinham, B. 2003. Growing vegetables indeveloping countries for local urban
populations and export markets: Problems
confronting small-scale producers. Pest
Manage. Sci. 59:575-582.
Döll, P., and S. Siebert. 2000. A digital global
map of irrigated areas. ICID J. 49(2):55-66.

Eickhout, B., M.G.J. den Elzen, and
G.J.J. Kreileman. 2004. The atmosphereocean system of IMAGE 2.2: A global model
approach for atmospheric concentrations,and climate and sea level projections. RIVM
Rep. No. 481508017. Nat. Inst. Public
Health Environ., Netherlands.
Eickhout, B., H. van Meijl, and A. Tabeau.
2006. Modeling agricultural trade and foodproduction under different trade policies. In
A.F. Bouwman et al. (ed) Integrated modelingof global environmental change. An overview
of IMAGE 2.4. Netherlands Environ.
Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven.
Eickhout B., H. van Meijl, A. Tabeau, and T. van
Rheenen, 2007. Economic and ecologicalconsequences of four European land use
scenarios. Land Use Policy 24:562-575.
Ezzati, M., A.D. Lopez, A. Rodgers, S. Cander
Hoorn, and C.J. Murray. 2002. Comparativerisk assessment collaborating group. Selectedmajor risk factors and global and regionalburden of disease. Lancet 360:1347-1360.
Fairhead, L., and H. Ahammad. 2005. China’s
future growth: Implications for selected
Australian industries. ABARE eReport 05.13
Prepared for the Australian Government
Dep. Industry, Tourism and Resources.
ABARE, Canberra.
Fairhead, L., J. Mélanie, L. Holmes,
Y. Qiang, H. Ahammad, and K. Schneider.
2002. Deregulating energy markets in
APEC: Economic and sectoral impacts.
APEC#202-RE-01.3 and ABARE Res. Rep.
02.5. Available at http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/energy/energy_02/
apec.pdf. ABARE for Asia-Pacific Econ.
Coop. Energy Working Group, Canberra.
Falkenmark, M., Finlayson, and L. Gordon.
2007. Agriculture, water and ecosystems:
The cost of going too far. In D. Molden(ed) Comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture, Water for food,water for life. Earthscan and IWMI, London
and Colombo.
FAO. 2003. FAOSTAT database. Available fromhttp://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx. FAO,Rome.
FAO. 2004. The state of food and agriculture
2003-04. Agricultural biotechnology:
Meeting the needs of the poor? FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2006a. World agriculture: towards
2030/2050. Interim report. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2006b. Livestock’s long shadow.
Environmental issues and options. FAO,
Rome.
FAO/WHO. 2006. A model for establishing
upper levels of intake for nutrients andrelated substances. Rep. Joint FAO/WHOTechnical Workshop on Nutrient Risk
Assessment, WHO Headquarters, Geneva,
2-6 May 2005. Available at http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/nra_final.pdf/. FAO, Rome.
Fisher, B.S., G. Jakeman, K. Woffenden,
V. Tulpulé, and S. Hester. 2003. Dealing withclimate change: Possible pathways forward.
APPEA J. 611-622.

11/5/08 10:04:11 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 373

Fonseca, J.M. 2006. Post-harvest handling andprocessing: sources of microorganisms andimpact of sanitizing procedures. p. 85-120.
In K.R. Matthews (ed) Microbiology of fresh
produce. ASM Press, Washington DC.
Freeman, A., A. McLeod, B. Day, J. Glenn,
J.A. van de Steeg, and P.K. Thornton (ed)2006. The future of livestock in developing
countries to 2030. Meeting Rep., Nairobi,
13-15 Feb 2006, ILRI-FAO, Nairobi.
Freeman, F., J. Mélanie, I. Roberts, D. Vanzetti,
A. Tielu, and B. Beutre. 2000. The impact ofagricultural trade liberalisation on developing
countries, ABARE Res. Rep. 2000.6.
ABARE, Canberra.
Graff, G. D., D. Zilberman, and A.B. Bennett.
2005. Nutritional and product quality
innovation in the aricultural R&D pipeline:
New crop biotechnologies and their potential
economic impacts. Public Intellectual
Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA),
Davis, CA.
GRUMP. 2005. Global Urban-Rural Mapping
Project (GRUMP). Available at http://beta.
sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw. Center for
Int. Earth Science Inform. Network (CIESIN)of the Earth Inst., Columbia Univ., NY.
Gupta, P.K. 2004. Pesticide exposure — Indianscene. Toxicology 198:83-90.
Gurstein, M. 2003. Effective use: A community
informatics strategy beyond the digital
divide. First Monday 8(12). Available at
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issues_12/
gurstein/index.html.
Halberg, N., T.B. Sulser, H. Høgh-Jensen,
M.W. Rosegrant, and M.T. Knudsen. 2006.
The impact of organic farming on foodsecurity in a regional and global perspective.
In N. Halberg et al. (ed) Global developmentof organic agriculture: Challenges andpromises. CAB Int., Wallingford.
Hamilton, A.J., A. Boland, D. Stevens, J. Kelly,
J. Radcliffe, A. Ziehrl et al. 2005. Positionof the Australian horticultural industry withrespect to the use of reclaimed water. Agric.
Water Manage. 71:181-209.
Hawkes, C., and M.T. Ruel. 2006. Overview. In
C.Hawkes and M.T. Ruel (ed) Understanding
the links between agriculture and health.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Heaney, A., S. Hester, A. Gurney, L. Fairhead,
S. Beare, J. Melanie et al.. 2005. New energy
technologies: Measuring potential impacts
in APEC. APEC Energy Working Group,
APEC#205-RE-01.1 and ABARE Res. Rep.
05.1, Canberra.
Henson, S., and T. Reardon. 2005. Private
agri-food standards: Implications for foodpolicy and the agri-food system. Food Policy
30:241-253.
Heyhoe, E., Y. Kim, S. Crimp, N. Flood, P.
Kokic, R. Nelson et al. 2007. Adapting toclimate change: Issues and challenges in the
agricultural sector. Outlook 2007. ABARE,
Canberra.
Hijmans, R.J., S. Cameron, and J. Parra. 2004.
WorldClim climate surfaces. Available

chapter 05.indd 373

at http://biogeo.berkeley.edu/worldclim/worldclim.htm.
Hoogwijk, M., A. Faaij, B. Eickhout, B. de
Vries, and W. Turkenburg. 2005. Potential of
biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC
SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy
29(4):225-257. Available at doi:10.1016/j.
biombioe.2005.05.002.
Huang, J., and H. Bouis. 2001. Structuralchanges in the demand for food in Asia:
Empirical evidence from Taiwan. Agric.
Econ. 26:57-69.
Huang, J., and C. Chen. 1999. Effects of tradeliberalization on agriculture in China:
Commodity and local agricultural studies.
UN ESCAP CGPRT Centre, Bogor.
Huang, J., and N. Li. 2003. China’s agricultural
policy simulation and projection modelCAPSiM. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. (Social Sci.
Ed.) 3(2):30-41.
Huang, J., N. Li, and C. Chen. 2000. WTO
and China’s agriculture: Challenge ahead.
Enriching World 2:18-19.
Huang, J., N. Li, and S. Rozelle. 2003. Tradereform, household effect, and poverty
in rural China, Amer. J. Agric. Econ.
85(5):1292-1298.
Huang, J. and H. Liu. 2002. Income growth andlife-style changes in rural and urban China.
Chinagro Project Report WP1.7. Center for
Chinese Agric. Policy, Chinese Acad. Sci.,
Beijing.
Huang, J., and S. Rozelle. 1998a. Market
development and food consumption in rural
China, China Econ. Rev. 9:25-45.
Huang, J., and S. Rozelle. 1998b. China’s grain
economy toward the 21st century. China’s
Agric. Press, Beijing.
Huang, J., and S. Rozelle. 2003. Trade reform,
WTO and China’s food economy in the 21st
century. Pacific Econ. Rev. 8(2):143-156.
Huang, J., S. Rozelle, and M.W. Rosegrant.
1997. China’s food economy to the twentyfirst century: Supply, demand, and trade.
2020 Vision for Food, Agric. Environ. Disc.
Pap. 19. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Huang, J., S. Rozelle, and M.W. Rosegrant.
1999. China’s food economy to the 21st
century: Supply, demand and trade. Econ.
Dev. and Cultural Change, 47:737-766.
Huang, J., Z. Xu, N. Li, and S. Rozelle, 2005a.
Trade liberalization and Chinese agriculture,poverty and equality. Issues Agric. Econ.
7:9-14.
Huang, J., Z. Xu, N. Li, and S. Rozelle. 2005b.
A new round of trade liberalization: China’s
agriculture, poverty and environment. Bull.
Nat. Natural Sci. Foundation of China 19(3)(Sum 83).
IMAGE Team. 2001. The IMAGE 2.2
implementation of the SRES scenarios. A
comprehensive analysis of emissions, climatechange and impacts in the 21st century.
RIVM CD-ROM publication 481508018.
National Inst. Public Health Environ., The
Netherlands.
Institute of Medicine. 1992. Emerging infections:

Microbial threats to health in the UnitedStates. Nat. Academy Press, Washington DC.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007.
Contribution of Working Group 1 to IPCC’s
Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge Univ.
Press, UK.
Jakeman, G., K. Hanslow, M. Hinchy,
B.S. Fisher, and K. Woffenden. 2004. Induced
innovations and climate change policy.
Energy Econ. 26(6):937-960.
Jakeman, G., E. Heyhoe, S. Hester,K. Woffenden, and B.S. Fisher. 2002. Kyoto
Protocol: the first commitment period andbeyond. Aust. Commodities 9(1):176-197.
Joint Research Laboratory (JRL). 2005. GLC
2000 (Global Land Cover) data layer. JRL,
Ispra, Italy.
Jones, P.G., and P.K. Thornton. 2003. The
potential impacts of climate change intropical agriculture: the case of maize inAfrica and Latin America in 2055. Global
Environ. Change 13:51-59.
Jones, P.G., and P.K. Thornton. 2005. Global
LGP dataset. ILRI, Nairobi.
Jotzo, F., C. Polidano, E. Heyhoe, G. Jakeman,
V. Tulpulé, and K. Woffenden. 2000,
Climate change policy and the European
Union: Emission reduction strategies andinternational policy pptions, ABARE Res.
Rep. 2000.12, Canberra.
Kayani, R., and A. Dymond. 1997. Options forrural telecommunications development. Tech.
Rep. No. 359. World Bank, Washington DC.
Kennedy, G., G. Nantel, and P. Shetty. 2003.
The scourge of ‘hidden hunger’: Global
dimensions of micronutrient deficiencies.
Food Nutr. Agric. 32:8-16.
Kenny, C. 2002. Information andcommunication technologies for directpoverty alleviation: Costs and benefits. Dev.
Policy Rev. 20(2):141-157.
Khan, S., R. Tariq, C. Yuanlai, and J. Blackwell.
2006. Can irrigation be sustainable? Agric.
Water Manage. 80(1-3):87-99.
Knudsen, M.T., N. Halberg, J.E. Olesen,
J. Byrne, V. Iyer, and N. Toly. 2006. Global
trends in agriculture and food systems. In
N. Halberg et al. (ed) Global development oforganic agriculture: Challenges and promises.
CAB Int., Wallingford.
Kristjanson, P.M., P.K. Thornton, R.L. Kruska,
R.S.Reid, N. Henninger, T.O. Williams
et al. 2004. Mapping livestock systems
and changes to 2050: Implications forWest Africa. In T.O. Williams et al. (ed)Sustainable crop-livestock production
for improved livelihoods and natural
resource management in West Africa. CTA,
Wageningen.
Kruska, R.L. 2006. Seré and Steinfeld version 3.
Digital data set. ILRI, Nairobi.
Kruska, R.L., R.S. Reid, P.K. Thornton,
N. Henninger, and P.M. Kristjanson. 2003.
Mapping livestock-orientated agricultural
production systems for the developing world.
Agric. Syst. 77:39-63.

11/5/08 10:04:12 AM

374 | IAASTD Global Report

Kurien, J. 2005. Responsible fish trade andsecurity. Report of the study on the impact
of international trade in fishery product onfood security. FAO Fisheries Tech. Pap. 456.
FAO and the Roy. Norwegian Min. Foreign
Affairs, Rome.
Kurukulasuriya, P., R. Mendelsohn, R. Hassan,
J. Benhin, M. Diop, H.M. Eid et al. 2006.
Will African agriculture survive climatechange? World Bank Econ. Rev. 20(3):367388.
Leemans, R., and B. Eickhout. 2004. Anotherreason for concern: Regional and global
impacts on ecosystems for different levelsof climate change. Global Environ. Change
14:219-228.
Leemans, R., B. Eickhout, B. Strengers,
L. Bouwman, and M. Schaeffer. 2002. The
consequences of uncertainties in land use,
climate and vegetation responses on theterrestrial carbon. Science in China, Ser. C,
45 (Supp.), 126.
Liao, Y., and J. Huang. 2004. A projection
analysis of the grain demand in the ninemajor Chinese river basins in the 21stCentury. South-to-North Water Transfers.
Water Sci. Tech. 2(1):29-32.
Lipton, M., and S. Sinha 1998. Issues Paper
for Discussion. Prepared for Brainstorming
Workshop on IFAD’s Strategic Focus on
Poverty, Rome, 20-21 Oct. Int. Fund Agric.
Dev. (IFAD), Rome.
Loader, R., and J. E. Hobbs. 1999. Strategic
responses to food safety legislation. Food
Policy 24(6):685-706.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005.
Ecosystems and human well-being. Vol. 2:
Scenarios. Findings of the Scenarios Working
Group. Island Press, Washington DC.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2006.
Ecosystems and human well-being. Synthesis
report. Island Press, Washington DC.
Majer, J.D., and G. Beeston, 1996. The
biodiversity integrity index: An illustration
using ants in Western Australia. Conserv.
Biol. 10:65-73.
Mascie-Taylor, C.G, and E. Karim. 2003. The
burden of chronic disease. Science 302:19212.
Matten, E. 2002. Food labeling in Codex
Alimentarus. Econ. Perspect. 7:26-28
Matysek, A., M. Ford, G. Jakeman, R. Curtotti,
K. Schneider, H. Ahammad et al. 2005.
Near zero emissions technologies. ABARE
eReport 05.1[Online]. Available at http://
www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/
climate/climate_05/climate_05.html. ABARE,
Canberra.
McCalla, A.F., and C.L. Revoredo. 2001.
Prospects for global food security: A criticalappraisal of past projections and predictions.
2020 Vision for Food, Agric. Environ. Disc.
Pap. 35. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Mélanie, J., R. Curtotti, M. Saunders,K. Schneider, L. Fairhead, and Y. Qiang.
2002. Global coal markets: Prospects to2010. ABARE Res. Rep. 02.2 [Online].

chapter 05.indd 374

Available at http://www.abareconomics.com/
publications_html/energy/energy_02/coal.pdf.
ABARE, Canberra.
Molden, D. 1997. Accounting for water use andproductivity. SWIM Paper 1. IIMI, Colombo.
Molden, D., T. Oweis, P. Steduto, J. Kijne,
M.A. Hanjra, and P. Bindraban. 2007.
Pathways for increasing agricultural waterproductivity. In A comprehensive assessmentof water management in agriculture. Water
for food, water for life: Earthscan and IWMI,
London and Colombo.
Molle, F., and J. Berkoff. 2006. Cities versus
agriculture: Revisiting intersectoral watertransfers. Potential gains and conflicts. Res.
Rep. 10. Comprehensive Assessment of
Water Management in Agriculture. IWMI,
Colombo.
Nair, R., D. McDonald, A. Jacenko, and
D. Gunasekera. 2006. Multilateral tradereform — Potential trade impacts of the Doha
Round. Aust. Commodities 13(1):209-219.
Nair, R., C. Chester, D. McDonald, T. Podbury,
D. Gunasekera, and B.S. Fisher. 2005. Timingof the US Farm Bill and WTO negotiations: A
unique opportunity. ABARE eReport 05.11.
ABARE, Canberra.
Nakicenovic N., et al. 2000. Special report on
emissions scenarios. IPCC Special Rep.,
Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Narrod, C., A. Gulati, N. Minot, and
C. Delgado. 2007. Food safety research
priorities for the CGIAR-A concept notefrom IFPRI for the Science Council. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Nellemann, C. et al. 2004. The fall of thewater. Available at http://www.grida.no/_documents/himalreport_scr.pdf. UNEP GRID
Arendal, Norway.
Pandya-Lorch, R. and M.W. Rosegrant. 2000.
Prospects for food demand and supply inCentral Asia. Food Policy 25(6):637-646.
Pant, H. 2002. Global Trade and Environment
Model (GTEM): A computable generalequilibrium model of the global economy
and environment. Available at http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/
models/models/gtem.pdf.
Pant, H. 2007. GTEM Global Trade andEnvironment Model. Available at http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/GTEM/.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, and C. Walters. 2000.
Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace as tools forevaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries.
ICES J. Marine Sci. 57:697-706.
Perry, B.D., J.J. McDermott, T.F. Randolph, K.R.
Sones, and P.K. Thornton. 2002. Investing inanimal health research to alleviate poverty.
ILRI, Nairobi.
Pezzey, J.C.V., and N.R. Lambie. 2001.
Computable general equilibrium models
for evaluating domestic greenhouse policies
in Australia: A comparative analysis. Rep.
to the Productivity Commission [Online].
Available at http://www.pc.gov.au/research/
consultancy/cgegreenhouse. AusInfo,
Canberra.

Pimentel, D., B. Berger, D. Filiberto, M. Newton,
B. Wolfe, E. Karabinakis et al. 2004. Water
resources: Agricultural and environmental
issues. BioScience 54(10):909-918.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 2000. Food policy researchfor developing countries: emerging issues andunfinished business. Food Policy 25:125-141.
Polidano, C., F. Jotzo, E. Heyhoe, G. Jakeman,
K. Woffenden, and B.S. Fisher. 2000. The
Kyoto Protocol and developing countries:
Impacts and implications for mechanism
design. ABARE Res. Rep. 2000.4, Canberra.
Prentice, I.C., W.P. Cramer, S.P. Harrison,
R. Leemans, R.A. Monserud, and
A.M. Solomon. 1992. A global biome
model based on plant physiology anddominance, soil properties and climate. J.
Biogeo. 19:117-134.
Ramírez, R., and R.A. Lee. 2005. Service delivery
systems for natural resource stakeholders:Targeting, information and communication
functions and policy considerations. Paper
presented at the 5th Conf. European Fed.
Inform. Tech. Agric. Food Environ. 3rd
World Congress on Computers in Agric.
Natural Resources. Vila Real, Portugal. 2528 July.
Raney, T. 2006. Economic impact of transgenic
crops in developing countries. Curr. Opinion
Biotech. 17:1-5.
Raney T., and P. Pingali. 2005. Private
research and public goods: Implications ofbiotechnology for biodiversity. In
J. Cooper (ed) Agricultural biodiversity andbiotechnology in economic development.
Springer, NY.
Reardon, T., C. Timmer, C. Barrett, andJ. Berdegue. 2003. The rise of supermarkets
in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Am. J.
Agric. Econ. 85(5):1140-1146.
Rees, G., and D. Collins. 2004. An assessmentof the potential impacts of deglaciation on
the water resources of the Himalayas. HR
Wallingford, UK.
Richardson, D., R. Ramírez, and M. Haq. 2000.
Grameen Telecom’s village phone program:
A mult-media case study. Available at http://
www.telecommons.com/villagephone/
finalreport.pdf. CIDA, Ontario.
Roberts, I., T. Podbury, F. Freeman, A. Tielu,
D. Vanzetti, N. Andrews et al. 1999.
Reforming world agricultural trade policies.
ABARE Res. Rep. 99.12, and RIRDC Publ.
99/96, ABARE, Canberra.
Rockström, J. 2003. Water for food and naturein drought-prone tropics: Vapour shift inrain-fed agriculture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B
358(1440):1997-2009.
Rockström, J. 2007. Managing water in rainfed
agriculture. In A comprehensive assessmentof water management in agriculture. Water
for food, water for life. Earthscan and IWMI,
London and Colombo.
Rosegrant, M.W., M.C. Agcaoili-Sombilla, and
N. Perez. 1995. Global food projections to
2020: Implications for investment. 2020
Vision Disc. Pap. 5. IFPRI, Washington DC.

11/5/08 10:04:12 AM

Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKST | 375

Rosegrant, M.W., X. Cai, and S.A. Cline. 2002.
World water and food to 2025: Dealing withscarcity. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Rosegrant, M.W., S.A. Cline, W. Li, T.B. Sulser,
and R. A. Valmonte-Santos. 2005a. Looking
ahead. Long-term prospects for Africa’s
agricultural development and food security.
2020 Disc. Pap. 41. Available at http://
www.ifpri.org/2020/dp/vp41.asp. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Rosegrant, M.W., and P.B.R. Hazell. 2000.
Transforming the rural Asian economy: The
unfinished revolution. Oxford Univ. Press,
Hong Kong.
Rosegrant, M.W., N. Leach, and R.V. Gerpacio.
1999. Alternative futures for world cereal
and meat consumption. Proc. Nutr. Society
58(2):219-234.
Rosegrant M.W., M.S. Paisner, S. Meijer, and
J. Witcover. 2001. Global food projections
to 2020: Emerging trends and alternative
futures. Available at http://www.ifpri.org/
pubs/books/globalfoodprojections2020.htm.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Rosegrant, M.W., and C. Ringler. 2000. Asian
economic crisis and the long-term global
food situation. Food Policy 25(3):243-254.
Rosegrant, M.W., C. Ringler, T. Benson,
X. Diao, D. Resnick, J. Thurlow et al. 2005b.
Agriculture and achieving the Millennium
Development Goals. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Rozelle, S., and J. Huang. 2000. Transition,
development and the supply of wheat in
China. Aust. J. Agric. Resource Econ.
44:543-571.
Rozelle, S., J. Huang, and M. Rosegrant. 1996.
Why China will NOT starve the world.
Choices First Q:18-24.
SCBD/MNP. 2007. Cross-roads of life onearth: Exploring means to meet the 2010
biodiversity target. Solution-oriented
scenarios for Global Biodiversity Oulook
2. Sec. Convention on Biological Diversity(SCBD) and Netherlands Environ.
Assessment Agency (MNP). CBD Tech. Ser.
No. 31/MNP Rep. 555050001. SCBD/MNP,
Montreal and Bilthoven.
Schillhorn van Veen, T.W. 2005. International
trade and food safety in developing countries.
Food Control 16:491-496.
Schlundt, J. 2002. New directions in foodborne
disease prevention. Int. J. Food. Microbiol
78:3-17.
Schneider, K., B. Graham, C. Millsteed,
M. Saunders, and R. Sturt. 2000. Trade andinvestment liberalisation in APEC: Economicand energy sector impacts. ABARE Res. Rep.
2000.2. ABARE, Canberra.
Scholes, R.J., and R. Biggs, 2005. A biodiversity
intactness index. Nature 434:45-49.
Scott, G., M.W. Rosegrant, and C. Ringler.
2000a. Global projections for root andtuber crops to the year 2020. Food Policy
25(5):561-597.
Scott, G., M.W. Rosegrant, and C. Ringler.
2000b. Roots and tubers for the 21st century:

chapter 05.indd 375

Trends, projections, and policy options. 2020
Vision Disc. Pap. No. 31. Available at http://
www.ifpri.org/2020/dp/2020dp31.pdf. IFPRI,
Washington, DC.
SEARCA/IFPRI/CRESCENT. 2004. Agriculture
and rural development strategy study. Final
Rep. ADB TA 3843-INO. Bogor, Indonesia.
Seitzinger, S.P., J.A. Harrison, E. Dumont,
A.H.W. Beusen, and A.F. Bouwman. 2005.
Sources and delivery of carbon, nitrogen,and phosphorus to the coastal zone: an
overview of Global NEWS models and theirapplication. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 19.
GB4S01, doi:10.1029/2005GB002606.
Seré, C., and H. Steinfeld. 1996. World livestock
production systems: Current status, issues
and trends. FAO Animal Production HealthPap. 127. FAO, Rome.
Sinha, A., and N. Sangeeta. 2000. Gender in amacroeconomic framework: A CGE model
analysis. Presented at the Second Ann.
Meeting of the Gender Planning Network,
22-24 Nov. IDRC, Canada.
Smith, L., and L. Haddad. 2000. Explaining
child malnutrition in developing countries:
A cross-country analysis. Res. Rep. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Song, G., and R. Bertolini. 2002. Informationand communication technologies (ICTs) for
rural development: An example from rural
Laos. Landnutzung und Landentwicklunk
43(2):64-79.
Sinha, A. and C. Adam. 2006. Reforms andinformalization: What lies behind joblessgrowth in India. In B. Guha-Khasnobis and
R. Kanbur (ed) Informal labour markets anddevelopment. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sinha, A. and C. Adam. 2007. Modelling theinformal economy in India: An analysis oftrade reforms. In B. Hariss-White and
A. Sinha (ed) Trade liberalization and India’s
informal economy. Oxford Univ. Press, India.
Sinha, A., and N. Sangeeta. 2001. Gender in amacro economic framework: a CGE model
analysis. Available at http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/
dspace/handle/123456789/29824.
Sinha, A. and N. Sangeeta. 2003. Genderin macroeconomic framework. In
S. Mukhopadhaya and R.M. Sudarshan(ed) Tracking gender equity under economic
reforms: Continuity and change in South
Asia. Kali for Women and IDRC.
Sinha A., N. Sangeeta and K.A. Siddiqui.
2003. Informal economy: Gender, poverty
and households. In R. Jhabvala et al. (ed)Informal economy centre stage. Sage Publ.,
Delhi.
Smale, M. 1997. The Green Revolution andwheat genetic diversity: Some unfoundedassumptions. World Dev. 25(8):1257-1269.
Srinivasan, R. 2006. Indigenous, ethnic andcultural articulations of new media. Int. J.
Cultural Studies 9(4):497-518.
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V.
Castel, M. Rosales, and C. de Haan. 2006.
Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental
issues and options. Available at http://

www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/
longshad/A0701E00.htm. FAO, Rome.
Stern, N. 2006. Stern review: The economic ofclimate change. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Strengers, B., R. Leemans, B. Eickhout, B. De
Vries and A.F. Bouwman. 2004. The land
use projections in the IPCC SRES scenarios
as simulated by the IMAGE 2.2 model.
Geojournal 61:381-393.
Stuart, R., K. Schneider, and M. Stubbs. 2000.
Impacts of international policies on APEC
coal markets: Trade liberalisation and climatechange. ABARE Conf. Pap. 2000.4 presented at
the Sixth APEC Coal Flow Seminar, Coal in the
New Millennium. Kyongju, Korea, 14-15 Mar.
Taylor, L.H., S.M. Latham, and
M.E.J. Woolhouse. 2001. Risk factors forhuman disease emergence. Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. Lond. B. 356:983-989.
Thornton, P.K., P.G. Jones, T. Owiyo.,
R.L. Kruska, M. Herrero, P. Kristjanson
et al. 2006. Mapping climate vulnerability
and poverty in Africa. Rep. DFID. [Online]
Available at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/research/
mapping-climate.pdf. ILRI, Nairobi.
Thornton, P K, R.L. Kruska, N. Henninger,
P.M. Kristjanson, and R.S. Reid. 2003.
Livestock and poverty maps for researchand development targeting in the developingworld. Land Use Policy 20:311-322.
Thornton, P.K., R.L. Kruska, N. Henninger,
P.M. Kristjanson, R.S. Reid, F. Atieno et al.
2002. Mapping poverty and livestock inthe developing world. Available at http://
www.ilri.org/InfoServ/Webpub/Fulldocs/
Mappoverty/index.htm. ILRI, Nairobi.
Todd, E., and C. Narrod. 2006. Agriculture,
food safety, and foodborne diseases:
Understanding the links between agriculture
and health. IFPRI 2020 Vision Focus Brief
13(5). Available at http://www.ifpri.org/2020/
focus/focus13/focus13_05.pdf. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Torero, M., and J. von Braun. 2006. Informationand communication technologies fordevelopment and poverty reduction. John
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Tulpulé, V., S. Brown, J. Lim, C. Polidano,
H. Pant, and B.S. Fisher. 1999. The Kyoto
Protocol: An economic analysis using GTEM.
Energy J. (Kyoto Special Issue):257-285.
UN. 1996. Update on the nutrition situation. UN
Admin. Comm. Coordination, Subcommittee
on Nutrition (ACC-SCN), Geneva.
UN. 2000. World population prospects: The
2000 revision. UN Population Div. Dep.
Econ. Social Affairs of the UN Secretariat.
UN, NY.
UN. 2005. World population prospects: The
2004 revision. UN Population Div. Dep.
Econ. Social Affairs UN Secretariat. UN, NY.
UN-Energy, 2007. Sustainable bioenergy: A
framework for decision makers. UN-Energy
Publ. April 2007. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/
fao/010/a1094e/a1094e00.pdf. UN, NY.
UNEP. 2001. GLOBIO. Global methodology formapping human impacts on the biosphere.

11/5/08 10:04:13 AM

376 | IAASTD Global Report

Rep. UNEP/DEWA/TR 25. UNEP,
Nairobi.
UNEP. 2002. Global environment outlook 3(GEO 3). UNEP. Earthscan, London.
UNEP. 2004. Decision VII/30 Strategic plan:
future evaluation of progress. Seventh
Conference of the Parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity, Kuala Lumpur.
UNEP. 2006. COP8 Decision VII/30 (2006).
[online] Available at http://www.biodiv.org/
decisions/default.aspx?dec=VII/30. UNEP,
Nairobi.
UNEP. 2007. Global environment outlook 4(GEO-4): Environment for development.
UNEP. Earthprint, Stevenage, England.
Unnevehr, L. 2003. Food safety in food security
and food trade: Overview. Brief 1 in 2020
Focus 10. Food safety in food security andfood trade. IFPRI, Washington DC.
USDA. 2000. Data obtained from the Economic
Research Service’s (ERS) Foreign Agricultural
Trade of the United States database [Online]
Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/
FATUS/. USDA, Washington DC.
Van Minnen, J.G., R. Leemans, and F. Ihle.
2000. Defining the importance of includingtransient ecosystem responses to simulate
C-cycle dynamics in a global change model.
Global Change Biol. 6:595-611.
Van Vuuren, D.P. 2007. Energy systems

chapter 05.indd 376

and climate policy. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht
University. Netherlands Environment
Assessment Agency, Bilthoven.
Van Vuuren, D.P., B. Eickhout, P.L. Lucas and
M.G.J. den Elzen. 2006. Long-term multigas scenarios to stabilise radiative forcing— Exploring costs and benefits within an
integrated assessment framework. Energy J.
(special issue Nov):201-233.
Van Vuuren, D., M. den Elzen, P. Lucas,
B. Eickhout, B. Strengers, B. van Ruijven
et al. 2007. Stabilizing greenhouse gas
concentrations at low levels: An assessmentof reduction strategies and costs. Climatic
Change 81(2):119-159.
Von Braun, J., M.S. Swaminathan, and
M.W. Rosegrant. 2004. Agriculture, foodsecurity, nutrition and the millennium
development goals. 2003-2004 IFPRI Ann.
Rep. Essay. Available at http://www.ifpri.org/
pubs/books/ar2003/ar2003_essay.htm. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Vorosmarty, C.J., C. Leveque, and C. Revenga.
2005. Fresh water. In Ecosystem and humanwell-being. Vol. 1: Current state and trends.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island
Press, Washington DC.
Walters, C., V. Christensen, and D. Pauly. 1997.
Structuring dynamic models of exploited
ecosystems from trophic mass-balance

assessments. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries
7:139-172.
Walters, C., D. Pauly, V. Christensen, andJ.F. Kitchell. 2000. Representing density
dependent consequences of life history
strategies in aquatic ecosystems: EcoSim II.
Ecosystems 3:70-83.
Welch, R.M., and R.D. Graham. 2005.
Agriculture: The real nexus for enhancing
bioavailable micronutrients in food crops. J.
Trace Elements Med. Biol. 18:299-307.
Wescoat, J.L., Jr. 1991. Managing the Indus
River basin in light of climate change: Fourconceptual approaches. Global Environ.
Change 1 (5):381-95.
WHO. 1997. WHO global database on child
growth and malnutrition. Programme of
Nutrition. WHO Doc. WHO/NUT/97.4.
WHO, Geneva.
WHO. 2006. World health report 2006 —Working together for health. WHO, Geneva.
World Bank. 2000. Global commodity markets:
A comprehensive review and price forecast.
Dev. Prospects Group, Commodities Team.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Xu, Z., J. Xu, X. Deng, J. Huang, E. Uchida,
and S. Rozelle. 2006. Grain for green versus
grain: Conflict between food security andconservation set-aside in China. World Dev.
34(1):130-148.

11/5/08 10:04:13 AM

6Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development andSustainability Goals
Coordinating Lead Authors
Ameenah Gurib-Fakim (Mauritius) and Linda Smith (UK)
Lead Authors
Nazimi Acikgoz (Turkey), Patrick Avato (Germany/Italy), Deborah
Bossio (USA), Kristie Ebi (USA), André Gonçalves (Brazil), Jack A.
Heinemann (New Zealand), Thora Martina Herrmann (Germany),
Jonathan Padgham (USA), Johanna Pennarz (Germany), Urs
Scheidegger (Switzerland), Leo Sebastian (Philippines), MiguelTaboada (Argentina), Ernesto Viglizzo (Argentina)
Contributing Authors
Felix Bachmann (Switzerland), Barbara Best (USA), Jacques Brossier(France), Cathy Farnworth (UK), Constance Gewa (Kenya), Edwin
Gyasi (Ghana), Cesar Izaurralde (Argentina), Roger Leakey (UK),
Jennifer Long (Canada), Shawn McGuire (Canada), Patrick Meier(USA), Ivette Perfecto (Puerto Rico), Christine Zundel (Brazil)
Review Editors
David Bouldin (USA) and Stella Williams (Nigeria)

6.4.1
6.4.2
6.5
6.6
6.6.1
6.6.2

6.6.3

6.7
6.7.1
6.7.2
6.7.3

Key Messages
6.1
6.1.1

6.1.2

6.1.3

6.1.4
6.2
6.3
6.3.1

6.3.2
6.4

Improving Productivity and Sustainability of Crop
Systems 379
Small-scale, diversified farming systems 379
6.1.1.1 Research options for improved productivity 379
6.1.1.2 Land use options for enhancing productivity 386
Achieving sustainable pest and disease management 386
6.1.2.1 Diversification for pest resistance 387
6.1.2.2 Tools for detection, prediction, and tracking 388
Plant root health 389
6.1.3.1 Low input options 389
6.1.3.2 Research needs and options 389
Value chains, market development 390
Improve Productivity and Sustainability of Livestock
Systems 391
Breeding Options for Improved Environmental and Social
Sustainability 391
Crop breeding 391
6.3.1.1 Options for conventional plant breeding 392
6.3.1.2 Optimize the pace and productivity of plant breeding 392
Livestock breeding options 395
Improve Forestry and Agroforestry Systems as Providers ofMultifunctionality 396

6.7.4

6.7.5

On-farm options 396
Market mechanisms and incentives for agroforestry 396
Sustainable Management of Fishery and Aquaculture
Systems 398
Improve Natural Resource Management and Habitat
Preservation 399
The landscape management challenge 399
Address poor land and soil management to deliver sustainable
increases in productivity 400
6.6.2.1 Options for fertile lands 400
6.6.2.2 Options for low fertility lands 402
Sustainable use of water resources to meet on-farm food andfiber demands 402
6.6.3.1 Managing evapotranspiration 403
6.6.3.2 Multiple use livelihoods approach 404
6.6.3.3 Management and financing options 406
Using AKST to Improve Health and Nutrition 407
On-farm options for reducing malnutrition and micronutrient
deficiencies 407
Research needs for reducing malnutrition and micronutrient
deficiencies 408
Reduce factors that facilitate the emergence and reemergenceof human and animal diseases 409
6.7.3.1 On-farm options 409
6.7.3.2 Research needs 410
Tackling persistent chemicals to protect human health and theenvironment 410
6.7.4.1 On-farm options 410
6.7.4.2 Off-farm technology 410
Information and knowledge systems 411
6.7.5.1 Traditional, local knowledge options 411
6.7.5.2 Science and technology options 411
6.7.5.2.1 Remote sensing technology 411
6.7.5.2.2 Information and communications technology (ICT) 412
6.7.5.2.3 Nanotechnology 415

6.8
6.8.1

6.8.2

6.7.5.3 Participatory approaches to AKST 415
Adaptation to Climate Change, Mitigation of Greenhouse
Gases 416
AKST innovations 416
6.8.1.1 Technological (high-input) optionsn 416
6.8.1.2 On-farm (low input) options 418
Sustainable use of bioenergy 422
6.8.2.1 Liquid biofuels for transport 422
6.8.2.2 Bioenergy and rural development 424

377

chapter 06.indd 377

11/3/08 10:44:13 AM

378 | IAASTD Global Report

Key Messages
1. Many of the challenges facing agriculture over the
next 50 years will be able to be resolved by smarterand more targeted application of existing AKST. But
new science and innovation will be needed to respondto both intractable and changing challenges. These
challenges include climate change, land degradation, availability of water, energy use, changing patterns of pests anddiseases as well as addressing the needs of the poor, fillingthe yield gap, access to AKST, pro-poor international cooperation and entrepreneurialism within the “localization”
pathway.
2. Smarter and more targeted application of existing
best practice AKST will be critical to achieving development and sustainability goals. It is essential to buildon the competences and developments in a wide range ofsectors to have the maximum impact. The greatest scopefor improvements exists in small-scale diversified production systems.
3. The challenges are complex, so AKST must be integrated with place-based and context relevant factors
to address the multiple functions of agriculture. A demand-led approach to AKST needs to integrate the expertisefrom a range of stakeholders, including farmers, to develop
solutions that simultaneously increase productivity, protect
natural resources including those on which agriculture isbased, and minimize agriculture’s negative impact on theenvironment. New knowledge and technology from sectors
such as tourism, communication, energy, and health care,can enhance the capacity of agriculture to contribute to thedevelopment and sustainability goals. Given their diverse
needs and resources, farmers will need a choice of options
to respond to the challenges, and to address the increasing
complexity of stresses under which they operate. There areopportunities to enhance local and indigenous self-sufficiency where communities can engage in the development anddeployment of appropriate AKST.
4. Advances in AKST, such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, remote sensing, precision agriculture,
information communication technologies, and better
understanding and use of agroecological processes
and synergies have the potential to transform our approaches in addressing development and sustainability goals, but will need to be inclusive of a wide variety of approaches in order to meet sustainability anddevelopment goals. The widespread application of thesebreakthroughs will depend on resolving concerns of access,affordability, relevance, biosafety, and the policies (investment and incentive systems) adopted by individual countries. There will be new genotypes of crops, livestock, fish,
and trees to facilitate adaptation to a wider range of habitats and biotic and abiotic conditions. This will bring newyield levels, enhance nutritional quality of food, produce
non-traditional products, and complement new production
systems. New approaches for crop management and farming systems will develop alongside breakthroughs in scienceand technology. Both current and new technologies will

chapter 06.indd 378

play a crucial role in response to the challenges of hunger,
micronutrient deficiencies, productivity, and environmental
protection, including optimal soil and water quality, carbon
sequestration, and biodiversity. Ecological approaches tofood production also have the potential to address inequities created by current industrial agriculture.
5. Transgenic approaches may continue to make significant contributions in the long term, but substantial
increases in public confidence in safety assessments
must be addressed. Conflicts over the free use of genetic
resources must be resolved, and the complex legal environment in which transgenes are central elements of contention
needs further consideration.
6. AKST can play a proactive role in responding to thechallenge of climate change and mitigating and adapting to climate-related production risks. Climate change
influences and is influenced by agricultural systems. The
negative impacts of climate variability and projected climatechange will predominately occur in low-income countries.
AKST can be harnessed to mitigate GHG emissions fromagriculture and to increase carbon sinks and enhance adaptation of agricultural systems to climate change impacts.
Development of new AKST could reduce the reliance of agriculture and the food chain on fossil fuels for agrochemicals, machinery, transport, and distribution. Emerging research on energy efficiency and alternative energy sources
for agriculture will have multiple benefits for sustainability.
7. Reconfiguration of agricultural systems, including
integration of ecological concepts, and new AKST
are needed to address emerging disease threats. The
number of emerging plant, animal, and human diseases will
increase in future. Multiple drivers, such as climate change,
intensification of crop and livestock systems, and expansionof international trade will accelerate the emergence process.
The increase in infectious diseases (HIV/AIDS, malaria, etc.)
as well as other emerging ones will challenge sustainable
development and economic growth, and it will ultimately
affect both high and low-income countries.
8. Improving water use in agriculture to adapt to water
scarcity, provide global food security, maintain ecosystems and provide sustainable livelihoods for therural poor is possible through a series of integrated
approaches. Opportunities exist through AKST to increase water productivity by reducing unproductive losses
of water at field and basin scales, and through breeding andsoil and crop management. The poor can be targeted forincreased benefit from the available water through systems
that are designed to support the multiple livelihood uses ofwater, and demand led governance arrangements that secure equitable access to water. Economic water scarcity canbe alleviated through target water resources developmentthat includes socioeconomic options ranging from large tosmall scale, for communities and individuals. Allocation policies can be developed with stakeholders to take into accountwhole basin water needs. Integration of food production
with other ecosystem services in multifunctional systems
helps to achieve multiple goals, for example, integrated rice/

11/3/08 10:44:13 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 379

aquaculture systems or integrated crop/livestock systems.
While the greatest potential increases in yields and waterproductivity are in rainfed areas in developing countries,
where many of the world’s poorest rural people live, equallyimportant is improved management of large dams and irrigation systems to maintain aquatic ecosystems.
9. The potential benefits and risks of bioenergy arestrongly dependent on particular local circumstances.
Research is needed on better understanding these effects andimproving technologies. Expansion of biofuel production
from agricultural crops (1st generation) may in certain cases
promote incomes and job creation, but negative effects onpoverty (e.g., rising food prices, marginalization of smallscale farmers) and the environment (e.g., water depletion,
deforestation) may outweigh these benefits and thus need tobe carefully assessed. Small-scale biofuels and bio-oils could
offer livelihood opportunities, especially in remote regions
and countries where high transport costs impede agricultural
trade and energy imports. There is also considerable potential for expanding the use of digesters (e.g., from livestock
manure), gasifiers and direct combustion devices to generate
electricity, especially in off-grid areas and in cogeneration
mode on site of biomass wastes generating industries (e.g.,rice, sugar and paper mills). The next generation of liquidbiofuels (cellulosic ethanol and biomass-to-liquids technologies) holds promise to mitigate many of the concerns about
1st generation biofuels but it is not clear when these technologies may become commercially available. Moreover,considerable capital costs, large economies of scale, a highdegree of technological sophistication and intellectual property rights issues make it unlikely that these technologies
will be adopted widely in many developing countries in thenext decades. Research and investments are needed to accelerate the development of these technologies and explore
their potential and risks in developing countries.

6.1 Improving Productivity and Sustainabilityof Crop Systems
6.1.1 Small-scale, diversified farming systems
Considerable potential exists to improve livelihoods andreduce the environmental impacts of farming by applying
existing AKST in smarter ways to optimize cropping andlivestock systems, especially in developing countries.
Small-scale diversified farming is responsible for thelion’s share of agriculture globally. While productivity increases may be achieved faster in high input, large scale,specialized farming systems, greatest scope for improving
livelihood and equity exist in small-scale, diversified production systems in developing countries. This small-scale
farming sector is highly dynamic, and has been responding
readily to changes in natural and socioeconomic circumstances through shifts in their production portfolio, and specifically to increased demand by increasing aggregate farm
output (Toumlin and Guèye, 2003).
Small-scale farmers maximize return on land, makeefficient decisions, innovate continuously and cause lessdamage to the environment than large farms (Ashley andMaxwell, 2001). Yet they have lower labor productivity andare less efficient in procuring inputs and in marketing, es-chapter 06.indd 379

pecially in the face of new requirements regarding produce
quality. Land productivity of small-scale farms was found to
be considerably higher than in large ones in a comparison
across six low-income countries (IFAD, 2001).
AKST investments in small-scale, diversified farming
have the potential to address poverty and equity (especially
if emphasis is put on income-generation, value-adding andparticipation in value chains), improve nutrition (both interms of quantity and quality through a diversified production portfolio) and conserve agrobiodiversity. In small-scale
farming, AKST can build on rich local knowledge. Understanding the agroecology of these systems will be key
to optimizing them. The challenges will be to: (1) to comeup with innovations that are both economically viable andecologically sustainable (that conserve the natural resourcebase of agricultural and non-agricultural ecosystems); (2)develop affordable approaches that integrate local, farmerbased innovation systems with formal research; (3) respondto social changes such as the feminization of agriculture andthe reduction of the agricultural work force in general bypandemics and the exodus of the young with the profound
implications for decision making and labor availability.
Small-scale farming is increasingly becoming a part-time activity, as households diversify into off-farm activities (Ashley and Maxwell, 2001) and AKST will be more efficient, if
this is taken into account when developing technologies andstrategies for this target group.
6.1.1.1 Research options for improved productivity
To solve the complex, interlinked problems of small farmers
in diverse circumstances, researchers will have to make eachtime a conscious effort to develop a range of options. There
will be hardly any “one-size-fits-all” solutions (Franzel etal., 2004; Stoop and Hart, 2006). It is questionable if AKST
will have the capacity to respond to the multiple needs ofsmall-scale diversified farming systems (Table 6-1, 6-2).
AKST options that combine short-term productivity benefits for farmers with long-term preservation of the resourcebase for agriculture (Douthwaite et al., 2002; Welches andCherrett, 2002) are likely to be most successful. In smallscale, diversified farming systems, suitable technologies are
typically highly site-specific (Stoop and Hart, 2006) and systems improvements need to be developed locally, in response
to diverse contexts.
Integrated, multifactor innovations. In the past, a distinction was made between stepwise improvements of individual elements of farming systems and “new farming systems design”. Stepwise improvement has had more impact(Mettrick, 1993), as it can easily build on local knowledge.
Recently, successful innovations of a more complex nature
were developed, often by farming communities or withstrong involvement of farmers. Examples include successcases of Integrated Pest Management (see 6.4.3) as well alternative ways of land management such as the herbicidebased no-till systems of South America (Ekboir, 2003), themechanized chop-and-mulch system in Brazil (Denich et al.,2004) or the Quesungual slash-and-mulch systems in Honduras (FAO, 2005).
In the future, research addressing single problems willprobably become less relevant, as the respective opportuni-

11/3/08 10:44:14 AM

380 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 6-1. Key Relationships between Future Challenges and Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Tecnology (AKST) Options for Action

ties for simple, one-factor improvements have been widely
exploited already. It will be more promising to develop innovations that address several factors simultaneously (as in theabove examples) and which will therefore be more context
and site specific and more information-intensive.
This will require a change of emphasis in research forfarming system optimization. Research needs to develop
decision support tools that assist extension workers andfarmers in optimizing specific farm enterprises. Such tools
already exist for farm economics, site-specific nutrient management, crop protection and land use planning. Integrative
approaches such as RISE (Response Inducing Sustainability
Evaluation) (Häni et al., 2003), which combine economic,
social and ecological aspects, aim at assessing and improving sustainability at the farm level.
Two-thirds of the rural poor make their living in lessfavored areas (IFAD, 2001). They will continue to dependon agriculture. Returns on investment in AKST may be limited in these areas due to their inherent disadvantages (remoteness, low-fertility soils, climatic risks) and the highly
diverse systems (Maxwell et al., 2001). On the other hand,
the impact of innovations on poverty, equity and environmental health may be substantial. Recent examples showthat improvements are possible in less favored areas, bothfor simple technological changes (e.g., more productive cropvarieties) as well as for more complex innovations (e.g., themucuna cover crop system or the slash-and-mulch system
in Honduras).

chapter 06.indd 380

Sustainable alternatives to shifting cultivation. Shifting cultivation was the most widespread form of land use in thetropics and subtropics, but over the past decades, a transition occurred to managed fallows or continuous croppingwith crop rotation in densely populated areas. Alternatives
to slash-and-burn clearing have been developed, which better conserve the organic matter accumulated during the fallow periods. Managed fallows and sound rotations may enhance soil fertility regeneration and even produce additional
benefits. This allows for extending cropping periods andreducing fallow periods without compromising sustainability. The resulting “offshoots” of shifting cultivation raise anumber of issues to be addressed by AKST. Firstly, it will be
important to understand the transition process, its drivers
and the newly emerging problems in order to assist farmers. Secondly, for targeted up-scaling of local experiences,it will be crucial to examine the potentials and limitationsof different offshoots of shifting cultivation (Franzel et al.,2004).
In less favored areas, low external input agriculture is
the rule, as in these circumstances the use of mineral fertilizers and pesticides is risky and only profitable in selectedcases (e.g., in high value crops). Most of the successful innovations developed for these areas built strongly on local
knowledge.
Due to the site specificity of these innovations, transfer
to other unfavorable environments has worked only to avery limited extent (Stoop et al., 2002). The challenge for

11/3/08 10:44:17 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 381

Table 6-2. AKST options for addressing main challenges with related AKST gaps and needs.
AKST potential to address challenge

AKST gaps and needs:
Technology and knowledge

AKST gaps and needs:
Capacity building, policies, andinvestments

Regional
applicability

Minimize the negative impacts ofagriculture expansion on ecosystemservices (6.3.1.1, 6.1.1.1).

Trade-offs analysis to assess dynamic
relations between the provision of
ecosystem and economic services
in conflicting areas. Develop
biotechnologies to reduce impacts

Training of researchers, technicians,
land administrators and policy
makers for the application of tradeoffs analytical tools, and adoptionof improved crop plants.

LAC (B)

Design of multifunctional agriculturallandscapes that preserve and strength asustainable flow of ecosystem services(6.7.5.2).

Configure systems to resemble structuraland functional attributes of natural
ecosystems

Enhance local capacities to develop
land use strategies and policies tomaximize the supply of essential
ecosystem services.

LAC, SSA,
tropical Asia
(B)

Enhance the geographical spread ofmultifunctional agricultural systems andlandscapes (6.7.5.2.1).

Typify the ecological service supplier as a
new category of rural producer.

Implementation of publicrecognition and payment systems
for ecological service suppliers thatprovide demonstrable services tosociety.

All regions

Creation of more conservation
management areas (6.3.1.1)

Research designed to optimize
productivity of the small/subsistence
farmer. Incentives for in situ conservation

Promote transboundary initiatives
and legislation

All regions

Sustainable management of fisheries andaquaculture (6.5)

Improved knowledge of contributions of
capture and cultured fisheries to food andnutrition, food security and livelihoods

Promote alternative strategy formeeting the increasing demands forfish products

All regions

Environmental management of dams to
reduce impact on aquatic ecosystems(6.6.3)

Environmentally sound management ofdams

Basin water management (6.6.3.2)

Basin management tools

Preserving and maintaining natural
resources and ecosystems

Promote improved fish technology

Benefit sharing tools for negotiation

All regions

Policies for effective water
allocation

All regions

Improving water management
Improve water productivity by reducing
evaporative losses (6.6.3.1)

Biotechnologies including genetics andphysiology B,CRestore existing irrigation systems(6.6.3.1)

Environmentally sound management ofirrigation systems

Increase sustainable use of groundwater(6.6.3.2)

Hydrologic process understanding forsustainable use of groundwater

Precision irrigation, deficit irrigation(6.6.3.1)

Technologies for use of low quality waterin precision irrigation

Semiarid
areas (A)Investment in irrigation

S and
SE Asia,
CentralAsia, China(A); SSA (B)S. Asia,
China (A)SSA (B)

Policies for secure access to waterand for effective water allocation

NAE, MENA(A)
S&SEAsia,
SSA (B)

Rain water harvesting, supplemental
and small scale irrigation for rainfed
agriculture (6.6.3)
Integrated soil water and soil fertility
management (6.4.2.1)

Affordable small scale technologies
for rain water harvesting and water
management

Investment in water management
for rain-fed systems

S.Asia, SSA(A)S. Asia,
SSA (A)

continued

chapter 06.indd 381

11/3/08 10:44:17 AM

382 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 6-2. continued
AKST potential to address challenge

AKST gaps and needs:
Technology and knowledge

AKST gaps and needs:
Capacity building, policies, andinvestments

Regional
applicability

Multiple water use systems, domestic
and productive uses, crops/livestock/fisheries (6.4.2.2)

Institutional and design requirements for
MUS systems

Policy that promotes sector
integration

All regions

Basin water management (6.4.2.2)

Basin management tools

Policies for effective water
allocation

All regions

Benefit sharing tools for negotiation
Linking knowledge systems
Promote local uses of biodiversity (6.1.2;
6.8.1.2)

Mobilize and promote indigenous
technologies and innovation systems,
and resolve intellectual property issues.

Education, training anddissemination, extension;international coordination of IPR
systems.

All regions

Enhance participatory approaches fornatural resource management (6.7.5.1)

Merge farmer-based and region-specificinnovation systems with formal research

Gender mainstreaming

All regions

Improved collaborative NRM for rare
species (CITES)

Education, training and extension,
equity, transboundary initiatives andcollaborations

Formal and indigenous mapping tools formonitoring of fragmented biodiversity

Scientific and digital divide

Increase participatory research thatmerges indigenous and Western science(farmer field schools, seed fairs) (6.6.1;
6.7.5.1)

Develop affordable technologies that
integrate local, farmer-based innovation
systems with formal research

Promotion of grassroot extension,transboundary collaborations

All regions

Promote underutilized crops (6.6.1)

Develop approaches that integrate local
knowledge systems with formal research

IPR, biopiracy, information anddissemination

All regions

Improve understanding of diseasetransmission dynamics

Public health infrastructure andhealth care systems

Better surveillance of zoonotic diseases

More rapid and accurate diagnostic tools

Early disease warning systems

Improved vaccines

Better integration of human andveterinary healthEnhancing health and nutrition
Detection, surveillance, and response to
emerging diseases (6.7.3)

Integrated vector and pest
management

SSA, S. andSE Asia (B)Develop faster genomic-based methods
for diagnostics and surveillance

Environmental management of dams to
reduce vector-borne disease
Biofortification of crop germplasm (6.2;
6.7.1; 6.7.2)

Cost effective and efficient screening
methods for breeding and introducing
multi-gene traits

Public sector financing and workforce
Biosafety protocol

SSA, S. andSE Asia(A, B)

Incorporate multiple nutrient traits

Public sector investment

Institutional and design requirements
for MUS systems, such as Rice+Fishprogram; rice livestock programs

Policy that promotes sector
integration; Enhance incentives forbreeders

All regions

Improve practices for root healthmanagement (6.1.3)

Genomics-based diagnostic tools forunderstanding root disease dynamics

Bolster S&T capacity in pest
management

All regions

Conventional Breeding/rDNA assisted(6.3.1.1; 6.8.1.1)

Incorprate traits that confer stableperformance like weed competitiveness,
resistance to pest & diseases & tolerance
to abiotic stresses

IPTGR

All regions

Plant Variety Protection(A, B)Develop biosafety testing methodologies.

Biosafety protocol

Incorporate genes conferring stableperformance

Public sector investment

Enhance nutrient cycling

Improve access to grazing andwater-endowed areas for nomadic
and semi-nomadic communities

Multiple water use systems, domestic
and productive uses, crops/livestock/fisheries (6.6.3)
Closing yield gaps in low productivity
systems

Transgenics (GM) (6.3)

Improve the performance of livestock inpastoral and semi-pastoral subsistence
communities. (6.2)

chapter 06.indd 382

Public sector investment
All regions(A, B)SSA (A, B)

11/3/08 10:44:17 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 383

Table 6-2. continued
AKST potential to address challenge

AKST gaps and needs:
Technology and knowledge

AKST gaps and needs:
Capacity building, policies, andinvestments

Regional
applicability

Rain water harvesting, supplemental andsmall scale irrigation for rainfed systems(6.8.1.2)

Affordable small scale technologies
for rain water harvesting and water
management

Investment in water management
for rainfed systems

SAsia, SSA(A)

Integrate soil water and soil fertility
management (6.6.2.2; 6.6.3.3)

Enhance crop residue return to bolster
soil organic matter levels, seed treatmentof fertilizer with improved rainwater
captureMultiple water use systems, domestic
and productive uses, crops/livestock/fisheries (6.6.3.2)

Institutional and design requirements for
MUS systems

Policy that promotes sector
integration

All regions

Conventional Breeding/rDNA assisted(6.3.1.1)

Develop varieties with higher yieldpotential

IPTGR; Plant Variety Protection

All regions

Transgenics (GM) (6.3.1.2)

Incorporate yield enhancing traits

All regions

Appropriateness to small holder systems

Biosafety protocol; Public sector
investment IPR issues to resolve

Soil nutrient management to reduce
pollution (6.6.2.1)

Wider adoption of precision agriculture
technologies

Regulations and law enforcement indeveloping countries

All regions

Improve performance in intensive
livestock systems (6.2)

Application of production methods andtechniques to optimize the use of inputs.

All regions
withlivestocksystems

Enhance livestock productivity throughuse of biotechnology, genomics andtransgenics for breeding (6.3.2)

Enhance capacities for gene identificationand mapping, gene cloning, DNA
sequencing, gene expression.

All regions

Restore existing irrigation systems(6.6.3.1)

Environmentally sound management ofirrigation systems

Increase sustainable use of groundwater(6.6.3.2)

Hydrologic process understanding forsustainable use of groundwater

Improve sustainability of protected
cultivation (6.1.1.1)

Low-cost multifunctional films

SAsia, SSA(A)

Maintaining yields in high productivity
systems
Reinvest in plant breeding
professionals

Investment in irrigation

SE Asia,
S. Asia,
CentralAsia, China(A); SSA (B)S. Asia,
China (A)SSA (B)

Precision irrigation, deficit irrigation(6.6.3.1)

Internalize externalities

NAE,
Mediterranean

Ecologically sound management forgreenhouses(A) LAC, SSA (B)Technologies for use of low quality waterin precision irrigation

Policies for secure access to waterand for effective water allocation

NAE, MENA(A) S. andSE Asia,
SSA (B)

Broader adoption of soil conserving
practices to reduced projected increasein soil erosion with climate change(6.8.1.1)

Prioritization of soil erosion ‘hotspots’Enhance land tenure security
Strengthen conservation allotment
policies.

All regions,esp. inmountainousdevelop.
countries

Conventional breeding andbiotechnology to enhance abiotic stress
tolerance (6.3.1.1; 6.2; 6.8.1.1)
Genetic and agronomic improvement ofunderutilized crops (6.8.1.1)

Change crop types; agroecosystem zone
matching;
Identify genes needed for GM

Biosafety protocol

All regions

Adaptation to and mitigation of climatechangechapter 06.indd 383

Public sector investment

11/3/08 10:44:18 AM

384 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 6-2. continued
AKST potential to address challenge

AKST gaps and needs:
Technology and knowledge

AKST gaps and needs:
Capacity building, policies, andinvestments

Regional
applicability

Increase water productivity to bridge dry
spells (6.8.1.2)

Broader promotion of supplemental
irrigation, soil nutrient management,
improved crop establishment practices.

Policies for secure access to water
Investment in risk reduction
strategies

SSA, S.
Asia, MENA(A)

Environmentally sound construction andmanagement of large dams

Enhance land tenure security
Water rights and access

SSA, S.
Asia (A)Transitional costs associated withland management changes

All regions

Small-scale development of drip
irrigation, treadle pumps (6.6.3.3)
Storage: rain water harvesting, small
scale, large scale (6.6.3; 6.8.1.2)

Decision support for scale of storage thatis environmentally and socially soundReduce agricultural GHG emissions(6.8.1.1)

Aerobic rice production (CH4 and N2O)
Site specific nutrient management (N2O)
Animal feed improvement (CH4 and N2O)
Expand land-based C sequestration
potential

Capacity building for outreach andextension

Sustainable use of bioenergy
Production and use bioenergy topromote rural development (6.8.2)

Improvements in the environmental andeconomic sustainability of liquid biofuels
for transport (6.8.2.1)

Promote R&D for small-scale biodiesel
and unrefined bio-oils for local use
to improve energy access in local
communities

Capacity building, promote accessto finance

SSA, S. andSE Asia,
LAC

Promote R&D to reduce costs andimprove operational stability of biogas(digesters), producer gas systems andco-generation applications

Develop demonstration projects,
product standards and disseminate
knowledge

All regions

Promote R&D for 2nd generation biofuels
focusing on reducing costs to make themcompetitive.

Facilitate the involvement of smallscale farmers in 2nd generation
biofuels/feedstock production andlow-income countries, e.g., bydeveloping smallholder schemes,
improving access to informationand dealing with IPR

Highincome
regions (B)Conduct research on environmental
effects of different production pathways.

Lowincomeregions (C)Key: A = AKST exists, B = AKST emerging, C = AKST gaps
Source: Authors’ elaboration.

AKST will be to find ways for combining local knowledge
with innovations developed in similar other contexts togenerate locally adapted new options. The question development agents will have to address is, under which circumstances they may scale up innovations per se and when theyshould focus on scaling-up innovation processes (Franzel etal., 2004). In the scaling-up process, it will be crucial that
research and extension act in a careful, empirical and critical way (Tripp, 2006). If wide dissemination of innovations
that were successful in a certain context is attempted, thismay create exaggerated expectations and hence frustration, if these innovations are not adapted in many othercontexts. This happened for example with alley cropping(Carter, 1995; Akyeampong and Hitimana, 1996; Swinkels
and Franzel, 2000; Radersma et al., 2004) or the system ofrice intensification (SRI) developed in Madagascar (Stoop etal., 2002). Agricultural research and extension still largely
works with technologies that rely strongly on external inputs, even in less favored areas (Stoop, 2002).
Potential for innovation in low external input agriculture is highest if research focuses on understanding andchapter 06.indd 384

building on local concepts of farming such as the exploitation of within-farm variation, or intercropping. However,
if research and extension work with technologies that rely
strongly on external inputs, farmers will seldom adopt theresults (Stoop, 2002). A further challenge is the dissemination, as farmer-to-farmer diffusion is less important thancommonly assumed for such innovations (Tripp, 2006).
Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA)
comprises organic farming. Organic farming and conventional (non-labeled) LEISA can mutually benefit from eachother. Organic farming with its stringent rules on external
input use has to be even more innovative to solve production problems, sometimes opening up new avenues. Organic
farming has the additional opportunity of deriving benefits
from close links between producers and consumers. The
challenge, however, is to exploit this potential.
New low external input technologies have the potential to improve productivity while conserving the natural
resource base, but there is no evidence that they are specifically pro-poor (Tripp, 2006). An important concern in
low external input farming is soil nutrient depletion. Across

11/3/08 10:44:18 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 385

Africa, nutrient depletion is widespread, with average annual rates of 22 kg N, 2.5 kg P and 15 kg K per ha of arable
land (Stoorvogel and Smaling, 1990). Low external input
technologies aiming at soil fertility improvement can seldom
reduce these rates (Onduru et al., 2006).
Protected cultivation systems. Protected cultivation ofhigh value crops has expanded rapidly in the past decades(Castilla et al., 2004), especially in the Mediterranean basin (Box 6-1). At present, however, greenhouse production
with limited climate control is ecologically unsustainable
as it produces plastic waste and contaminates water due tointensive use of pesticides and fertilizers. Demand for innovation thus exists with regard to reducing environmental
impact, as well as enhancing productivity, product qualityand diversity.
Scope exists to develop affordable plastic films that
improve radiation transmission quantitatively and qualitatively. Multilayer, long-life, thermal polyethylene films can
combine desirable characteristics of various materials suchas anti-drop and anti-dust effects. Photoselective films havethe potential to influence disease and insect pest behavior
by blocking certain bands of the solar radiation spectrum(Papadakis et al., 2000) or to limit solar heating without
reducing light transmission (Verlodt and Vershaeren, 2000).
Protected cultivation has its own, specific pest and disease
populations as well as specific challenges related climate andsubstrate. Plant breeding for these specific conditions has thepotential to reduce significantly the amount of pollutantsreleased, while improving productivity. Grafting vegetables
to resistant rootstocks is a promising option to control soilborne pathogens (Oda, 1999; Bletsos, 2005; Edelstein and
Ben-Hur, 2006) and may help to address salt and low temperature stress (Edelstein, 2004), but needs further research
to improve rootstocks. Pest and disease control with the useof antagonists has developed quickly in protected culturesin Northern Europe and Spain (Van Lenteren, 2000, 2003).
There are many site and crop specific possibilities for further development of non-chemical pest control for protected
cultivation.
Production in low-cost greenhouses has the potential
to increase productivity and income generation, to improvewater use efficiency and reduce pollution of the environment. Variability in climatic and socioeconomic conditions
will require the development of location-specific solutions.
Post-harvest loss. Although reduction of post-harvest losses
has been an important focus of AKST and development programs in the past, in many cases the technical innovations
faced sociocultural or socioeconomic problems such as low
profit margins, additional workload or incompatibility withthe existing production or post-production system (Bell,1999). The divergence between technical recommendations
and the realities of rural life translated in many cases into
low adoption rates.
In specific cases, large shares of food produced are lost
after harvest. Yet, the rationale for improvements in the
post-harvest systems has been shifting from loss prevention (Kader, 2005) to opening new markets opportunities(Hellin and Higman, 2005). Making markets work for thepoor (Ferrand et al., 2004) is emerging as the new rationaleof development, reflecting a shift away from governmental

chapter 06.indd 385

Box 6-1. Advantages of the Mediterranean glasshousesystem.
The Mediterranean greenhouse agrosystem represents greenhouse production in mild winter climate areas and is characterized by low technological and energy inputs. Strong
dependence of the greenhouse microclimate on external
conditions (La Malfa and Leonardi, 2001) limits yield potential, product quality, and the timing of production. It keeps
production costs low as compared to the Northern European
greenhouse industry. The latter is based on sophisticatedstructures, with high technological inputs that require important investments, and produces higher yields at higher costs(Castilla et al., 2004).

operation of post-harvest tasks to enabling frameworks forprivate sector initiatives in this field (Bell et al., 1999).
Ecological agricultural systems, which are low external
input systems that rely on natural and renewable processes,
have the potential to improve environmental and social sustainability while maintaining or increasing levels of foodproduction. There is now increasing evidence of the productive potential of ecological agriculture (Pretty, 1999; Pretty,
2003; Pretty et al., 2006; Badgley et al., 2007; Magdoff,2007).
Some contemporary studies also show the potential of
ecological agriculture to promote environmental services
such as biodiversity enhancement, carbon sequestration,soil and water protection, and landscape preservation (Culliney and Pimentel, 1986; Altieri, 1987; Altieri, 1999; Altieri,
2002; Albrecht and Kandji, 2003).
There is now substantial scientific evidence to showthat designing and managing agricultural systems based on
the characteristics of the original ecosystem is not a threat
to food security. A survey of more than 200 projects from
Latin America, Africa, and Asia, all of which addressed theissue of sustainable land use, found a general increase infood production and agricultural sustainability (Pretty etal., 2003). Likewise, low external input crop systems, whenproperly managed, have demonstrated the potential to increase agricultural yield with less impact on the environment (Bunch, 1999; Tiffen and Bunch, 2002; Rasul andThapa, 2004; Pimentel et al., 2005; Badgley et al., 2007;
Scialabba, 2007). A recent investigation comparing organic
with conventional farming experiences from different partsof the world indicates that sustainable agriculture can produce enough food for the present global population and,eventually an even larger population, without increasing thearea spared for agriculture (Pretty et al., 2003; Badgley etal., 2007).
In spite of the advantages of ecological agriculture in
combining poverty reduction, environmental enhancement
and food production, few studies address the issues of how
to assess the tradeoffs (Scoones, 1998). Tradeoff analysis toassess dynamic relations between the provision of ecosystem and economic services can help to harmonize land use
options and prevent potential conflict regarding the accessto essential ecosystem services (Viglizzo and Frank, 2006).

11/3/08 10:44:18 AM

386 | IAASTD Global Report

Methods are focused on the identification of tradeoffs andcritical thresholds between the value of economic and ecological services in response to different typologies of humanintervention.
In the same way, the concept of ecological agricultureneeds a better understanding of the relationship among themultiple dimensions of rural development, i.e., agricultural
productivity, environmental services, and livelihood. Suchquestions are still open for further elaboration and pose achallenge to AKST (Buck et al., 2004; Jackson et al., 2007).
6.1.1.2 Land use options for enhancing productivity
Productivity of farming systems can be enhanced by more
intensive use of space or time. Intercropping (including relay intercropping and agroforestry) is a traditional form ofsuch intensification, widespread in food production in lowincome countries, especially in less favored areas. Growing
several crops or intercrops in sequence within a year offers
the possibility to intensify land use in time. This intensification was made possible by changes in the crops and varieties
grown (day-length-neutral or short-season varieties; varieties tolerant to adverse climatic conditions at the beginningor the end of the growing season) or in land management(no-till farming, direct seeding, etc.). On the other hand,
farmers quickly change to simpler cropping systems, if economic prospects are promising (Abdoellah et al., 2006).
The development of new elements (crops or crop varieties, pest and land management options), which farmers
then integrate according to a multitude of criteria into theirfarm systems will continue to enhance productivity. Similarly, agroforestry initiatives will be most successful, where
research concentrates on developing a range of options with
farmers (Franzel et al., 2004).
Intercropping has the potential to increase return toland by investing (usually) more labor. The challenge for
AKST will be to strike a balance between (1) understanding
the interactions in highly complex intercropping and agroforestry systems (including learning from and with farmers)and (2) developing options that farmers may add to theirsystems. Adding new elements may offer potential for farmers to participate in value chains and enhance income generation while ensuring subsistence. There exists considerable
potential for AKST to develop germplasm of agroforestry
species with commercial value (Franzel et al., 2004).
AKST has contributed substantially to intensificationin time, especially in high potential areas. However, double
or triple cropping in rice or rice-wheat production created
new challenges on the most fertile soils (Timsina and Connor, 2001). In spite of such drawbacks, there is promise forfurther intensifying land use in time by optimizing rotation
management and developing novel varieties that can copewith adverse conditions.
Mixed farming. In many low-income countries, integrationof crop and livestock has advanced substantially for the pastfew decades. In densely populated areas, mixed farming
systems have evolved, where virtually all agricultural byproducts are transformed by animals (Toumlin and Guèye,
2003). With the demand for livestock products expected tosurge in most low-income countries, potential for income
generation exists. A major challenge for AKST will be tochapter 06.indd 386

understand the tradeoffs between residue use for livestockor soil fertility and to optimize nutrient cycling in mixed
systems.
Improve sustainability through multifunctional agriculture
and ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems sustain and fulfill human life (Daily, 1997) and can be classified
in four utilitarian functional groups: (1) provisioning (e.g.,food, freshwater), (2) regulating (e.g., climate and disturb
regulation), (3) cultural (e.g., recreation, aesthetic) and (4)supporting (e.g., soil formation, nutrient cycling) (MA,2005). Given that many ecosystem services are literally irreplaceable, estimations of socioeconomic benefits and costsof agriculture should incorporate the value of ecosystemservices (Costanza et al., 1997). Because of the rapid expansion of agriculture on natural lands (woodlands, grasslands)
and the trend to use more external inputs (Hails, 2002;
Tilman et al., 2002), the negative impact of agriculture on
ecosystem services supply will require increasing attention(Rounsevell et al., 2005).
The construction of multifunctional agroecosystems
can preserve and strengthen a sustainable flow of ecosystemservices (Vereijken, 2002). They are best modeled after the
structural and functional attributes of natural ecosystems(Costanza et al., 1997). Multifunctional agroecosystems will
provide food and fiber, control disturbances (e.g., flood prevention), supply freshwater (filtration and storage), protect
soil (erosion control), cycle nutrients, treat inorganic andorganic wastes, pollinate plants (through insects, birds andbats), control pests and diseases, provide habitat (refugium
and nursery), provide aesthetic and recreational opportunities (camping, fishing, etc.) and culture (artistic and spiritual). The evaluation of ecosystem services is an evolving
discipline that currently has methodological shortcomings.
However, methods are improving and site-specific valuation will be possible in the coming years. The applicationof tradeoff analysis to support the design of multifunctional
rural landscapes will demand expertise on multicriteria
analysis and participatory approaches.
Frequently recommended measures (Wayne, 1987;
Viglizzo and Roberto, 1998) for addressing multifunctional
needs include (1) diversification of farming activities in timeand space rotational schemes, (2) the incorporation of agroforestry options, (3) conservation/rehabilitation of habitat
for wildlife, (4) conservation/management of local water
resources, (5) the enforcement of natural nutrient flows andcycles (exploiting biological fixation and bio-fertilizers), (6)the incorporation of perennial crop species, (7) the well-balanced use of external inputs (fertilizers and pesticides), (8)the application of conservation tillage, (9) biological controlof pests and diseases, (10) integrated management of pests,(11) conservation and utilization of wild and underutilized
species, (12) small-scale aquaculture, (13) rainfall water
harvesting.
6.1.2 Achieving sustainable pest and disease
management
Agricultural pests (insect herbivores, pathogens, and weeds)
will continue to reduce productivity, cause post-harvest losses and threaten the economic viability of agricultural liveli-

11/3/08 10:44:19 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 387

hoods. New pest invasions, and the exacerbation of existing pest problems, are likely to increase with future climatechange. Warmer winters will lead to an expansion of insect
and pathogen over wintering ranges (Garrett et al., 2006);
this process is already under way for some plant pathogens(Rosenzweig et al., 2001; Baker et al., 2004). Within existing over winter ranges, elevation of pest damage following
warm winters is expected to intensify with climate change(Gan, 2004; Gutierrez et al., 2006; Yamamura et al., 2006).
Increased temperatures are also likely to facilitate range expansion of highly damaging weeds, which are currently limited by cool temperatures, such as species of Cyperus (Terry,2001) and Striga (Vasey et al., 2005).
Several current AKST strategies for managing agricultural pests could become less effective in the face of climatechange, thus potentially reducing the flexibility for future
pest management in the areas of host genetic resistance,
biological control, cultural practices, and pesticide use (Patterson, 1999; Strand, 2000; Stacey, 2003; Bailey, 2004;
Ziska and George, 2004; Garrett et al., 2006). For example,
loss of durable host resistance can be triggered by deactivation of resistance genes with high temperatures, and by
host exposure to a greater number of infection cycles, suchas would occur with longer growing seasons under climatechange (Strand, 2000; Garrett et al., 2006). Recent evidence
from CO2-enrichment studies indicates that weeds can besignificantly more responsive to elevated CO2 than crops,
and that weeds allocate more growth to root and rhizome
than to shoot (Ziska et al., 2004). This shift in biomass allocation strategies could dilute the future effectiveness of
post-emergence herbicides (Ziska and George, 2004; Ziska
and Goins, 2006). Elevated CO2 is also projected to favor
the activity of Striga and other parasitic plant species (Phoenix and Press, 2005), which currently cause high yield losses
in African cereal systems.
In addition to range expansion from climate change,
the future increase in the trans-global movement of people
and traded goods is likely to accelerate the introduction ofinvasive alien species (IAS) into agroecosystems, forests, andaquatic bodies. The economic burden of IAS is US$300 billion per year, including secondary environmental hazards
associated with their control, and loss of ecosystem services
resulting from displacement of endemic species (Pimentel etal., 2000; GISP, 2004; McNeely, 2006). The costs associatedwith invasive species damage, in terms of agricultural GDP,
can be double or triple in low-income compared with highincome countries (Perrings, 2005).
6.1.2.1 Diversification for pest resistance
To enhance the effectiveness of agroecosystem genetic diversity for pest management, some options include shifting the
focus of breeding towards the development of multi- rather
than single-gene resistance mechanisms. Other options include pyramiding of resistance genes where multiple minor
or major genes are stacked, expanding the use of varietal
mixtures, and reducing selection pressure through diversification of agroecosystems.
Multigene resistance, achieved through the deployment
of several minor genes with additive effects rather than a single major gene, could become an important strategy where
highly virulent races of common plant diseases emerge, as inchapter 06.indd 387

the case of the Ug99 race of wheat stem rust for which major
gene resistance has become ineffective (CIMMYT, 2005).
Integration of genomic tools, such as marker-assisted selection (MAS) to identify gene(s) of interest, will be an important element of future resistance breeding. Future breeding
efforts will need to include greater farmer involvement forsuccessful uptake and dissemination, e.g., farmer-assisted
breeding programs where farmers work with researchand extension to develop locally acceptable new varieties(Gyawali et al., 2007; Joshi et al., 2007). Better development of seed networks will be needed to improve local access to quality seed.
Gene pyramiding (or “stacking”) has the potential to
become a future strategy for broadening the range of pests
controlled by single transgenic lines. For example, expressing two different insect toxins simultaneously in a single
plant may slow or halt the evolution of insects that are resistant, because resistance to two different toxins would haveto evolve simultaneously (Gould, 1998; Bates et al., 2005).
Though the probability of this is low, it still occurs in a small
number of generations (Gould, 1998); the long-term effectiveness of this technology is presently not clear. The use ofgene pyramiding also runs the risk of selecting for primaryor secondary pest populations with resistance to multiple
genes when pyramiding resistance genes to target a primary
pest or pathogen (Manyangarirwa et al., 2006). Gene flowfrom stacked plants can accelerate any undesirable effects
of gene flow from single trait transgenic plants. This could
result in faster evolution of weeds or plants with negative
effects on biodiversity or human health, depending on thetraits (as reviewed by Heinemann, 2007). Finally, mixturesof transgenes increase the complexity of predicting unintended effects relevant to food safety and potential environmental effects (Kuiper et al., 2001; Heinemann, 2007).
Varietal mixtures, in which several varieties of the same
species are grown together, is a well-established practice,particularly in small-scale risk-adverse production systems(Smithson and Lenne, 1996). While this practice generally
does not maximize pest control, it can be more sustainable
than many allopathic methods as it does not place high selection pressure on pests, and it provides yield stability inthe face of both biotic and abiotic stresses. For example,
varietal mixtures could play an important role in enhancing
the durability of resistance for white-fly transmitted viruses
on cassava (Thresh and Cooper, 2005). Research on varietal mixtures has been largely neglected; more research isneeded to identify appropriate mixtures in terms of bothpest resistance and agronomic characteristics, and to backcross sources of pest and disease resistance into local andintroduced germplasm (Smithson and Lenne, 1996).
In addition to varietal mixtures, future AKST could enhance the use of cropping system diversification for pest control through supporting and expanding, where appropriate
and feasible, practices such as intercropping, mixed cropping, retention of beneficial noncrop plants, crop rotation,and improved fallow, and to understand the mechanismsof pest control achieved by these practices. The underlying
principal of using biodiversity for pest control is to reducethe concentration of the primary host and to create conditions that increase natural enemy populations (Altieri,
2002). The process of designing systems to achieve multiple

11/3/08 10:44:19 AM

388 | IAASTD Global Reportfunctions is knowledge intensive and often location specific.
An important challenge for AKST will be to better elucidate
underlying pest suppression mechanisms in diverse systems,
such as through understanding how pest community genetics influence functional diversity (Clements et al., 2004). An
equally important task will be to preserve local and traditional knowledge in diverse agroecosystems.
6.1.2.2 Tools for detection, prediction, and tracking
AKST can contribute to development through the enhancement of capacity to predict and track the emergence of newpest threats. Some recent advances are discussed below.
Advances in remote sensing. Applications include linking
remote sensing, pest predictive models, and GIS (Strand,
2000; Carruthers, 2003), and coupling wind dispersal andcrop models to track wind-dispersed spores and insects (Kuparinen, 2006; Pan et al., 2006). Recent advances in remotesensing have increased the utility of this technology for detecting crop damage from abiotic and biotic causal factors,
thus remote sensing has good prospect for future integration
with GIS and pest models. The spread of these technologies
to low-income countries will likely to continue to be impeded by high equipment costs and lack of training. The further
development and dissemination of low-cost thermocyclers
for PCR (polymerase chain reaction) techniques could help
to address this need. In general, a lack of training and poor
facilities throughout most of the developing countries hinders the ability to keep up with, let alone address, new pest
threats.
Advances in molecular-based tools. Emerging tools such as
diagnostic arrays will help to better identify the emergenceof new pest problems, and to differentiate pathovars, biovars, and races and monitor their movement in the landscape (Garrett et al., 2006). Using molecular methods forpathogen identification has excellent potential in high-income countries.
Advances in modeling pest dynamics. Recent progress in developing new mathematical approaches for modeling uncertainties and nonlinear thresholds, and for integrating pest
and climate models, are providing insights into potential
pest-host dynamics under climate change (Bourgeois et al.,
2004; Garrett et al., 2006). Increased computational poweris likely to facilitate advances in modeling techniques forunderstanding the effects of climate change on pests. However, the predictive capacity of these models could continue,
as it currently is, to be hampered by scale limitations ofdata generated by growth chamber and field plot experiments, inadequate information concerning pest geographical range, and poor understanding of how temperature andCO2 interactions affect pest-host dynamics (Hoover andNewman, 2004; Scherm, 2004; Chakaborty, 2005; Zvereva
and Kozlov, 2006). Greater focus on addressing these limitations is needed. Improved modeling capacity is needed forunderstanding how extreme climate events trigger pest anddisease outbreaks (Fuhrer, 2003). Modeling pests of tropicalagriculture will likely have the greatest impact on helping
AKST to address food security challenges, as these regions
will be most negatively affected by climate change. This will

chapter 06.indd 388

require a substantial investment in training, education, andcapacity development.
Prevention of invasive alien species. The invasive alien species issue is complex in that an introduced organism canbe a noxious invasive in one context yet a desirable addition (at least initially) in another (McNeely, 2006). International assistance programs (development projects, foodaid for disaster relief, and military assistance) are an important means through which IAS are introduced into terrestrial and freshwater systems, as in the case of fast growing
agroforestry trees, aquaculture species, and weed seed-contaminated grain shipments (Murphy and Cheesman, 2006).
Addressing this problem will require much more detailed
information on the extent of the problem, as well as greater
understanding of vectors and pathways. Raising awareness in the international aid community, such as throughtoolkits developed by the Global Invasive Species Program(GISP, 2004) are an important first step, as are prereleaserisk assessments for species planned for deliberate release(Murphy and Cheesman, 2006).
More rigorous risk assessment methods are needed todetermine the pest potential of accidentally introduced organisms and those intentionally introduced, such as for foodand timber production, biological control, or soil stabilization. Elements needed to build risk assessment capacity
include broad access to scientific literature about introduced
species, access to advanced modeling software and processing time, improved expertise for determining risks related toinvasive characteristics, and development of public awareness campaigns to prevent introduction (GISP, 2004).
Early detection of invasive alien species. The capacity to survey for introduction of nonnative species of concern could
be enhanced. Where resources for conducting surveys arelimited, surveys can prioritize towards species known to beinvasive and that have a high likelihood of introduction athigh risk entry points, or areas with high value biodiversity(GISP, 2004). Develop contingency planning for economically important IAS.
Management of invasive alien species. Current mechanical,
chemical and biological control methods are likely to continue to be important in the future. In the case of biological control, the use of plant pathogens as natural enemies
is emerging as an alternative or complement to classicalbiological control using arthropods, and it is being piloted
in tropical Asia for controlling the highly damaging weed,
Mikania micrantha (Ellison et al., 2005). Additionally, newand emerging genomic tools could aid IAS management,
particularly for preventing the conversion of crops into
weeds (Al-Ahmad et al., 2006).
Basic quantitative data on the impacts and scale of the
IAS problem is still lacking in many developing countries (Ellison et al., 2005). Gaining greater knowledge of the extent
of the problem will require better cross-sectoral linkages,
such as between institutions that serve agriculture, natural
resource management, and environmental protection.
Risk assessment for entry, establishment, and spread is
a newly developing area for IAS (GISP, 2004). For example,
Australia recently instituted a weed risk assessment system

11/3/08 10:44:19 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 389

based on a questionnaire scoring method to determine theweed inducing potential of introduced organisms. Risk
assessment is only one tool of many, and will likely have
limited utility given that the number of potentially invasive
species far outstrips the ability to assess the risk of each one,and high-income countries are better equipped to conduct
risk assessments than low-income ones. Full eradication is
generally quite difficult to achieve, and requires a significant
commitment of resources. Therefore prioritization of IAS
management by potential impacts, such as to those that alter
fundamental ecosystem processes, and to value of habitats is
an important starting point.
6.1.3 Plant root health
The ability to address yield stagnation and declining factor
productivity in long-term cropping systems will depend on
efforts to better manage root pests and diseases primarily
caused by plant-parasitic nematodes and plant-pathogenic
fungi (Luc et al., 2005; McDonald and Nicol, 2005). Soilborne pests and diseases are often difficult to control because symptoms can be hard to diagnose and management
options are limited, such as with plant-parasitic nematodes.
Nematodes prevent good root system establishment andfunction, and their damage can diminish crop tolerance toabiotic stress such as seasonal dry spells and heat waves,and competitiveness to weeds (Abawi and Chen, 1998; Nicol and Ortiz-Monasterio, 2004). With future temperature
increase, crops that are grown near their upper thermal
limit in areas with high nematode pressure, such as in somecereal systems of South and Central Asia (Padgham et al.,
2004; McDonald and Nicol, 2005), could become increasingly susceptible to yield loss from nematodes. Approaches
for managing soil-borne pests and diseases are changing due
to increasing pressure (commercial and environmental) for
farmers to move away from conventional broad-spectrum
soil fumigants, and greater recognition of the potential toachieve biological root disease suppression through practices that improve overall soil health.
6.1.3.1 Low input options
Soil solarization, heating the surface 5-10 cm of soil by applying a tightly sealed plastic cover, can be a highly effectivemeans of improving root health through killing or immobilizing soilborne pests, enhancing subsequent crop root colonization by plant-growth promoting bacteria, and increasing plant-available nitrogen (Chen et al., 1991). Biofumigation of soils is achieved by the generation of isothiocynate
compounds, which are secondary metabolites released fromthe degradation of fresh Brassica residues in soil. They havea similar mode of action as metamsodium, a common synthetic replacement of methyl bromide, and have been used
to control a range of soilborne fungal pathogens including
Rhizoctonia, Sclerotinia, and Verticillium (Matthiessen and
Kirkegaard, 2006). For many plant parasitic nematodes,
significant control is often achieved when solarization is
combined with biofumigation (Guerrero et al., 2006).
Soil solarization is an environmentally sustainable alternative to soil fumigation, though its application is limited tohigh value crops in hot sunny environments (Stapleton et al.,2000), Soil solarization of nursery seedbeds is an important
but underutilized application of this technology, particularly

chapter 06.indd 389

for transplanted crops in the developing world, where farmers contend with high densities of soilborne pests and havefew if any control measures. Solarization of rice seedbed
soil, which is commonly infested with plant parasitic nematodes, can improve rice productivity in underperforming
rice-wheat rotation areas of South Asia (Banu et al., 2005;
Duxbury and Lauren, 2006). This technique has potential
for broader application, such as in transplanted vegetable
crops in resource-poor settings. Biofumigation using isothiocynate-producing Brassicas has reasonably good potential
for replacing synthetic soil fumigants, especially when combined with solarization. Commercial use of biofumigation
is occurring on a limited scale. However, there are significant hurdles to the broad-scale adoption of Brassica green
manures for biofumigation related to its highly variablebiological activity under field conditions compared with invitro tests, and to the logistical considerations involved withfitting Brassicas into different cropping systems and growing environments (Matthiessen and Kirkegaard, 2006). The
repeated use of chemical replacements for methyl bromide
and biofumigation can lead to a shift in soil microbial communities. This shift can result in enhanced microbial biodegradation of the control agent, diminishing its effectiveness(Matthiessen and Kirkegaard, 2006).
6.1.3.2 Research needs and options
Biological control. Future nematode biocontrol could bemade more effective through shifting the focus from controlling the parasite in soil to one of targeting parasite life
stages in the host. This could be accomplished through theuse of biological enhancement of seeds and transplants witharbuscular mycorrhiza, endophytic bacteria and fungi, andplant-health promoting rhizobacteria, combined with improved delivery systems using liquid and solid-state fermentation (Sikora and Fernandez, 2005; Sikora et al., 2005).
Better biocontrol potential for both nematodes and fungi
could also be achieved through linking biocontrol researchwith molecular biology to understand how colonization by
beneficial mutualists affects gene signaling pathways related
to induced systemic resistance in the host (Pieterse et al.,2001).
Disease suppression. Understanding the link between cultural practices that enhance soil health (crop rotation, conservation tillage, etc.) and the phenomena of soil diseasesuppressiveness would aid in developing alternative approaches to chemical soil fumigation, and could enhance
appreciation of local and traditional approaches to managing soilborne diseases. Soil health indicators are neededthat are specifically associated with soilborne disease suppression (van Bruggen and Termorshuizen, 2003; Janvier etal., 2007). Given the complex nature of soils, this would
necessitate using a holistic, systems approach to develop indicators that could be tested across different soil types andcropping systems. Advances in genomics and molecular biology could aid in developing such indicators. Advances in
the application of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based
molecular methods of soil DNA may enable greater understanding of functional diversity, and relationships between
soil microbial communities and root disease suppression

11/3/08 10:44:19 AM

390 | IAASTD Global Reportlinked to soil properties and changes in crop management
practices (Alabouvette et al., 2004).
The loss of broad-spectrum biocides, namely methyl
bromide, has created opportunities for investigating new
directions in managing root diseases. Synthetic substitutes,
such as chloropicrin and metam sodium, are generally lesseffective than methyl bromide, can cause increased germination of nutsedge and others weeds (Martin, 2003), and pose
substantial health risks to farm workers and adjacent communities (MMWR, 2004).
Biocontrol of soilborne pests and pathogens will likely
continue to succeed on the experimental level, and yet still
have only limited impact on field-based commercial applications of biocontrol until impediments to scaling up biocontrol are addressed. These include the exceedingly high costsof registration, and lack of private sector investment (Fravel,2005). The recent success in scaling up nematode biocontrol using a nonpathogenic strain of Fusarium oxysporum
to control the highly destructive Radopholus similis, causal
agent of banana toppling disease (Sikora and Pokasangree,2004), illustrate how the alignment of multiple factors—
a very effective biocontrol agent, a highly visible diseaseproblem with significant economic impact, and substantial
private-sector investment—was necessary to allow for development of a potential commercial product.
Long-term and stable organic production systems generally have less severe root disease problems than conventionally managed systems; however, the specific mechanismsthat lead to soilborne disease suppression remain poorly understood (van Bruggen and Termorshuizen, 2003). Given
that soilborne pests and disease play a role in the productivity dip associated with the transition from conventional
to organic production, greater attention towards developing
indicators of root disease suppression would help to better
address development and sustainability goals.
6.1.4 Value chains, market development
Although reduction of post-harvest losses has been an important focus of AKST and development programs in thepast, in many cases the technical innovations faced sociocultural or socioeconomic problems such as low profit
margins, additional workload or incompatibility with theexisting production or postproduction system (Bell et al.,1999). The divergence between technical recommendations
and the realities of rural life translated in many cases into
low adoption rates.
In specific cases, large shares of food produced arelost after harvest. Yet, the rationale for improvements inthe postharvest systems has been shifting from loss prevention (Kader, 2005) to opening new markets opportunities(Hellin and Higman, 2005). Making markets work for thepoor (Ferrand et al., 2004) is emerging as the new rationaleof development, reflecting a shift away from governmental
operation of postharvest tasks to enabling frameworks forprivate sector initiatives in this field (Bell et al., 1999).
Research and capacity development needs. Increasing attention is being placed on value and market-chain analysis, upgrading and innovation. Processing, transport andmarketing of agricultural products are increasingly seen as
a vertical integration process from producers to retailers,

chapter 06.indd 390

to reduce transaction costs and improve food quality andsafety (Chowdhuri et al., 2005).
In market-chain analysis, some of the challenges include
improving small-scale farmer competitiveness and farmers’organizations (Biénabe and Sautier, 2005); institutional capacity building (especially access to information) (Kydd,
2002); and the reinforcement of links and trust among actors in the market chain (Best et al., 2005).
Demand driven production asks for improved market literacy of producers as a prerequisite for access to supermarkets, a challenge especially for small-scale farmers(Reardon et al, 2004; Hellin et al., 2005). Building trust
among the stakeholders in the market chain is a crucial component of vertical integration (Best et al., 2005; Chowdhury
et al., 2005; Giuliani, 2007). It enhances transparency ofthe market chain and exchange of information. Typically,
actors in the market chains are at first skeptical about information sharing; when they realize that all can benefit from
more transparency along the market chain they more readily provide information. Maximizing added value at farmor village level is a promising option for small-scale farmers; rural agroenterprises and household level processing
can increase income generation (Best et al., 2005; Giuliani,2007).
The creation of community-based organizations or
farmers groups can result in economies of scale. Collectively,
small-scale farmers are able to pool their resources and market as a group, hence reducing transaction costs (Keizer etal., 2007). It can improve their access to resources such as
inputs, credit, training, transport and information, increasebargaining power (Bosc et al., 2002) and facilitate certification and labeling.
Better market access is often a key concern of smallscale farmers (Bernet et al., 2005). Promising market options directly linked to rural poor small-scale producers
and processors include fair-trade channels, private-public
partnership, and the creation of local niche markets (ecolabeling, certification of geographical indications of origin,
tourism-oriented sales outlets, etc.). Crops neglected so far
by formal research and extension hold promise for upgrading value chains (Hellin and Highman, 2005; Gruère et al.,2006; Giuliani, 2007) in which small-scale farmers have acomparative advantage.
Value-chain analysis investigates the complexity of theactors involved and how they affect the production-to-consumption process. It incorporates production activities (cultivation, manufacturing and processing), non-production
activities (design, finance, marketing and retailing), andgovernance (Bedford et al., 2001). The analysis of livelihoods of small-scale producers, processors and traders andtheir current and potential relation to markets is a starting
point in ensuring that markets benefit the poor. Analyzing
the market chain and the requirements and potentials of
all its actors allows for identifying interventions along thechain likely to provide benefits to low-income households(Giuliani, 2007).
Investments in value chain research have the potential
to improve equity by opening up income opportunities forsmall-scale farmers. The challenge will be to make smallscale farmers competitive and to identify opportunities anddevelop value chains which build on their potential (labor

11/3/08 10:44:20 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 391

availability, high flexibility). Increasing requirements ofthe market regarding food quality, safety and traceability
will limit small-scale farmer participation in certain value
chains. Further, access to market may be limited by inadequate infrastructure, such road systems and refrigerated
transport and storage.
Successes in value chain development have been achieved
through an extensive consultation processes (Bernet et al.,2005) that generate group innovations based on well-led
and well-structured participatory processes. These processes
stimulate interest, trust and collaboration among membersof the chain. The costs and benefits of such approaches will
have to be carefully assessed to determine where investment
is justified; e.g., investments for upgrading the market chain
could be high compared with potential benefits for niche
products with limited market volume.

6.2 Improve Productivity and Sustainability ofLivestock Systems
On-farm options
Mixed systems. Mixed crop-livestock systems can contributes to sustainable farming (Steinfeld et al., 1997). Improving the performance of mixed crop-livestock production
systems and promoting livestock production, particularly
on small-scale farms can be attained by providing access toaffordable inputs for small-scale livestock keepers. Alongwith inputs, adequate knowledge and technologies for onfarm nutrient cycling, on-farm production of feed and fodder, and the use of crop residues and crop by-products, canalso provide benefits to small-scale producers.
Intensifying the livestock component in these systems
increases the availability of farmyard manure, leading toincreased fodder production and increased crop yields.
More research is needed on the storage and application of
farmyard manure, the conservation of cultivated fodder andcrop residues, and the use of crop by-products as animal
feed.
Livestock keeping can improve health and nutritionin many small households and generate additional income
and employment (ILRI, 2006), even when households have
limited resources such as land, labor and capital (PPLPI,
2001; Bachmann, 2004). Output per farm may be small,but the combined effect of many small-scale enterprises canbe large, e.g., small-scale dairy in India (Kurup, 2000), piggery in Vietnam (FAO, 2006) and backyard poultry in Africa (Guye, 2000).
Extensive systems. There is little scope for extensive livestock production systems to further extend the area presently being grazed without environmentally unsustainable
deforestation (Steinfeld et al., 2006). In some areas evenpasture land is decreasing as it is converted into cropland,
often resulting in land use conflicts (ECAPAPA, 2005).
Where pasture areas with open access remain more or lessstable, productivity of land and ultimately of livestock isthreatened due to overstocking and overgrazing.
Livestock productivity can be increased through the improvement of pasture and rangeland resources and better
animal health. Better animal health may require improved
access to veterinary services, such as the establishment of sys-

chapter 06.indd 391

tems of community based animal health workers (Leonard
et al., 2003). Feeding conserved fodder and feeds (primarily
crop by-products) may help overcome seasonal shortages,
while planting fodder trees, more systematic rotational grazing and fencing may improve grazing areas. Tree planting
may gain further importance when linked to carbon trade
programs. Fencing, on the other hand, may not be socially or
culturally acceptable, in particular in areas with communal
grazing land (IFAD, 2002). Land use strategies that include
participatory approaches are more effective at avoiding conflicts (ECAPAPA, 2005).
Biological complexity and diversity are necessary forsurvival in traditional pastoral communities (Ellis and Swift,1988). Long term conservative strategies often work bestin traditional systems. The introduction of new breeding
techniques (e.g., sexing of sperm straw) might cause a rapid
increase in the number of cattle, but may also lead to thedisappearance of local breeds and a reduction in the genetic
diversity of rustic breeds of cattle, which are well adapted to
extreme environments.
The overall potential of pastoral grazing systems is high(Hesse and MacGregor, 2006); the primary issue is the environmental sustainability of these systems (Steinfeld et al.,2006). Hence options to improve productivity must focus
more on the application of management than the technology(ILRI, 2006).
Intensive systems. Increasingly, intensive livestock production trade is associated with a fear of contamination of air
and water resources (de Haan et al., 1997; FAO, 2006). Future systems will need to consider human health aspects aswell as the whole livestock food value chain (fodder andanimal feed production, processing and marketing of products, etc). Since cross-regional functions such as assembly,transport, processing and distribution can cause other externalities, they must be assessed as part of an integrated
system. Intensive systems are prone to disease and animals
can spread zoonotic diseases like tuberculosis or bird flu
that can affect humans (LEAD, 2000).
Improvements in intensive livestock production systems
include locating units away from highly populated areas,
and using management practices and technologies that minimize water, soil and air contamination.

6.3 Breeding Options for Improved
Environmental and Social Sustainability
6.3.1 Crop breeding
Climate change coupled with population growth will produce unprecedented stress on food security. Abiotic stresses
such as drought and salinity may reduce yields worldwide by
up to 50% (Jauhar, 2006). Increasing demand cannot always
be met by increasing the land devoted to agriculture (Kumar,2006), however, it may be possible to improve plant productivity. Traits that are the focus of abiotic stress resistanceinclude optimized adaptation of temperature-dependent enzymes (to higher or lower temperatures), altering day-length
regulation of flower and fruit development, optimization ofphotosynthesis including circumventing inherent limitations
in C3 and C4 pathways in plants (Wenzel, 2006).

11/3/08 10:44:20 AM

392 | IAASTD Global Report

6.3.1.1 Options for conventional plant breeding
The following options apply to plant breeding to help meetworld demand for nutrition and higher yields in low external input production systems and lower resource demands
in high external input production systems. However useful these innovations might be, biotechnology per se cannot
achieve development and sustainability goals. Therefore,
it is critical for policy makers to holistically consider biotechnology impacts beyond productivity goals, and address
wider societal issues of capacity building, social equity andlocal infrastructure.
Modern, conventional and participatory plant breeding
approaches play a significant role in the development of newcrop varieties (Dingkuhn et al., 2006). The exodus of a specialist workforce in plant breeding (Baenziger et al., 2006),
especially from the public sector, is a worrisome trend formaintaining and increasing global capacity for crop improvement. Critical to improved plant breeding is ensuring
the continuity of specialist knowledge in plant breeding. Approaches that encourage research in the field and continuityof career structure for specialists are key to the continuationof conventional plant breeding knowledge.
There is a need for new varieties of crops with highproductivity in current and emerging marginal and unfavorable (e.g., water stressed) environments; resource limited
farming systems; intensive land and resource use systems;
areas of high weed pressure (Dingkuhn et al., 2006); andbioenergy. Ensuring access to locally produced high-quality
seeds and to opportunities for farmer-to-farmer exchanges
will improve productivity, decrease poverty and hunger, encourage retention of local knowledge, safeguard local intellectual property, and further exploit the biological diversityof crop wild relatives.
Plant breeding is facilitating the creation of new genotypes with higher yield potentials in a greater range of environments (Dingkuhn et al., 2006; Hajjar and Hodgkin, 2007)
mainly through recruiting genes from within the gene pool ofinterbreeding plants and also through biotechnology assisted
hybridization and tissue regeneration (Wenzel, 2006).
Crop biodiversity is maintained both through ex situ
and in situ conservation in the genomes of plants from whichcrops were derived, and in the genomes of crop relatives(Brush and Meng, 1998). The value of traits sourced fromwild relatives has been estimated at US$340 million to the
US economy every year (Hajjar and Hodgkin, 2007). Traits
such as pest and disease resistance are usually determined bysingle genes. Wild relatives have so far contributed modestly
as a source of genes for introduction of multigene traits,
such as abiotic stress tolerances, but there is considerable
diversity still to be tapped (Hajjar and Hodgkin, 2007).
In developing countries, public plant breeding institutions are common but their continued existence is threatened by globalization and privatization (Maredia, 2001;
Thomas, 2005). Plant breeding activities differ between
countries; public investment in genetic improvement may
benefit from research units that include local farming communities (Brush and Meng, 1998). Moreover, differences
in intellectual property protection philosophies could endanger in situ conservation as a resource for breeding. For
example, patent protection and forms of plant variety pro-chapter 06.indd 392

tection place a greater value on the role of breeders than thatof local communities that maintain gene pools through insitu conservation (Srinivasan, 2003).
Options for strengthening conservation in order to preserve plant genetic diversity include:• Integrating material on the importance of biodiversity
into curricula at all educational levels;• Channeling more resources into public awareness at
CGIAR and NGO system level;• Facilitating national programs to conduct discussions
with farmers about the long-term consequences of losing agrobiodiversity;• Studying and facilitating the scaling up of indigenous
agroecosystems that feature a high degree of agrobiodiversity awareness;• Involving farmers in a fully participatory manner in research focused on agrobiodiversity conservation;• Undertaking surveys of farmers and genebanks to establish which communities want their landraces back, and tofind out if the landrace is still maintained in a genebank;• Developing sustainable reintroduction campaigns;• Developing a system whereby genebanks regenerate
landraces and maintained them in farmers’ fields: a hybrid in situ and ex situ conservation system;• Involving farmers in the characterization of landraces
to increase exposure and possible utilization of the material at farm level;• Promoting the development of registration facilities thatrecognize a given landrace as the indigenous property ofa particular area or village to enhance the importance ofthe landrace as an entity that is a part of local heritage;• Developing and promoting viable and sustainablemultistakeholder incentive schemes for communities
who maintain local material in their agroecosystem.
Provided that steps are taken to maintain local ownershipand control of crop varieties, plant breeding remains a viableoption for meeting development and sustainability goals. It
will be important to find a balance between exclusive access secured through intellectual property (IP) mechanisms
and the need for local farmers and researchers to develop
locally adapted varieties (Srinivasan, 2003; Cohen, 2005).
An initial approach could include facilitating NGOs to help
develop the capacity of local small-scale farmers, and providing farmer organizations with advisers to guide their investments in local plant improvement.
6.3.1.2 Optimize the pace and productivity of plant breeding
Biotechnology and associated nanotechnologies provide
tools that contribute toward the achievement of development and sustainability goals. Biotechnology has been described as the manipulation of living organisms to produce
goods and services useful to human beings (Eicher et al.,2006; Zepeda, 2006). In this inclusive sense, biotechnology includes traditional and local knowledge (TK) and thecontributions to cropping practices, selection and breedingmade by individuals and societies for millennia (Adi, 2006);
it would also include the application of genomic techniquesand marker-assisted breeding or selection (MAB or MAS).
Modern biotechnology includes what arises from the use ofin vitro modified genes. Most obvious in this category is ge-

11/3/08 10:44:20 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 393

netic engineering, to create genetically modified/engineeredorganisms (GMOs/GEOs) through transgenic technology
by insertion or deletion of genes.
Combining plants with different and desirable traits canbe slow because the genes for the traits are located in manydifferent places in the genome and may segregate separately
during breeding. Breeding augmented by molecular screening
may yield rapid advances in existing varieties. This process,however, is limited by breeding barriers or viability in thecase of cell fusion approaches, and there may be a limit to therange of traits available within species to existing commercial
varieties and wild relatives. In any case, breeding is still themost promising approach to introducing quantitative traitloci (Wenzel, 2006). Emerging genomics approaches areshowing promise for alleviating both limitations.
Genomics. Whole genome analysis coupled with moleculartechniques can accelerate the breeding process. Further development of approaches such as using molecular markers
through MAS will accelerate identification of individuals
with the desired combinations of genes, because they canbe rapidly identified among hundreds of progeny as well as
improve backcross efficiencies (Baenziger et al., 2006; Reece and Haribabu, 2007). The range of contributions thatMAS can make to plant breeding are being explored and are
not exhausted (e.g., Kumar, 2006; Wenzel, 2006). It thus
seems reasonable that MAS has the potential to contributeto development and sustainability goals in the long term,
provided that researchers consistently benefit from funding
and open access to markers. MAS is not expected to make asignificant improvement to the rate of creating plants withnew polygenic traits, but with future associated changes ingenomics this expectation could change (Baenziger et al.,2006; Reece and Haribabu, 2007).
Regardless of how new varieties are created, care needs
to be taken when they are released because they could become invasive or problem weeds, or the genes behind their
desired agronomic traits may introgress into wild plants
threatening local biodiversity (Campbell et al., 2006; Mercer et al., 2007).
MAS has other social implications because it favors
centralized and large scale agricultural systems and thus
may conflict with the needs and resources of poor farmers(Reece and Haribabu, 2007). However, breeding coupled
to MAS for crop improvement is expected to be easily integrated into most regulatory frameworks and meet little orno market resistance, because it does not involve producing transgenic plants (Reece and Haribabu, 2007). Varietiesthat are developed in this fashion can be covered by many
existing IP rights instruments (e.g., Baenziger et al., 2006;
Heinemann, 2007) and would be relatively easy for farmers to experiment with under “farmers’ privilege” provided
that suitable sui generis systems are in place (Sechley andSchroeder, 2002; Leidwein, 2006). The critical limitation of
MAS is its ultimate dependence on plant breeding specialists
to capture the value of new varieties; unfortunately, current
and projected numbers of these specialists is inadequate (Reece and Haribabu, 2007).
Transgenic (GM) plants. Recombinant DNA techniques allow rapid introduction of new traits determined by genes

chapter 06.indd 393

that are either outside the normal gene pool of the species
or for which the large number of genes and their controls
would be very difficult to combine through breeding. Anemphasis on extending tolerance to both biotic (e.g., pests)
and abiotic (e.g., water stress) traits using transgenes is relevant to future needs.
Assessment of transgenic (GM) crops is heavily influenced by perspective. For example, the number of years that
GM crops have been in commercial production (approximately 10 years), amount of land under cultivation (estimated in 2007 at over 100 million ha) and the number ofcountries with some GM agriculture (estimated in 2007 at
22) (James, 2007) can be interpreted as evidence of their
popularity. Another interpretation of this same data is thatthe 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 andCanada), the small number of tested traits (at this writing,mainly herbicide and pest tolerance) and the shorter-term
experience with commercial GM cultivation outside of the
US (as little as a year in Slovakia) (James, 2007), indicate
limited uptake and confidence in the stability of transgenic
traits (Nguyen and Jehle, 2007).
Whereas there is evidence of direct financial benefits forfarmers in some agriculture systems, yield claims, adaptability to other ecosystems and other environmental benefits,
such as reduced alternative forms of weed and pest control
chemicals, are contested (Pretty, 2001; Villar et al., 2007),leaving large uncertainties as to whether this approach will
make lasting productivity gains. The more we learn about
what genes control important traits, the more genomics alsoteaches us about the influence of the environment and genetic context on controlling genes (Kroymann and MitchellOlds, 2005; MacMillan et al., 2006) and the complexityof achieving consistent, sustainable genetic improvements.
Due to a combination of difficult to understand gene by environment interactions and experience to date with creatingtransgenic plants, some plant scientists are indicating thatthe rate at which transgenic plants will contribute to a sustained increase in future global food yields is exaggerated(Sinclair et al., 2004).
Adapting any type of plant (whether transgenic orconventionally bred) to new environments also has the potential to convert them into weeds or other threats to foodand materials production (Lavergne and Molofsky, 2007;
Heinemann, 2007). This problem is particularly relevant
to transgenes because (1) they tend to be tightly linked
packages in genomes, making for efficient transmission bybreeding (unlike many traits that require combinations ofchromosomes to be inherited simultaneously), and (2) thetypes of traits of most relevance to meeting development
and sustainability goals in the future are based on genesthat adapt plants to new environments (e.g., drought andsalt tolerance). Through gene flow, wild relatives and othercrops may become more tolerant to a broader climatic range
and thus further threaten sustainable production (Mercer etal., 2007). An added complication is that these new weeds
may further undermine conservation efforts. The emergence of a new agricultural or environmental weed species
can occur on a decade (or longer) scale. For example, it cantake hundreds of years for long-lived tree species to achieve

11/3/08 10:44:21 AM

394 | IAASTD Global Report

populations large enough to reveal their invasive qualities(Wolfenbarger and Phifer, 2000). These realities increase uncertainty in long term safety predictions.
Transgene flow also creates potential liabilities (Smythet al., 2002). The liability is realized when the flow resultsin traditional, economic or environmental damage (Kershen,
2004; Heinemann, 2007). Traditional damage is harm to human health or property. Economic damage could occur if aconventional or organic farmer lost certification and therefore revenue because of adventitious presence. Environmental
damage could result from, for example, harm to wildlife.
There are a limited number of properly designed andindependently peer-reviewed studies on human health (Domingo, 2000; Pryme and Lembcke, 2003). Among the studies that have been published, some have provided evidence
for potential undesirable effects (Pryme and Lembcke, 2003;
Pusztai et al., 2003). Taken together, these observations create concern about the adequacy of testing methodologies
for commercial GM plants fueling public skepticism and thepossibility of lawsuits. A class-action lawsuit was filed by
USA consumers because they may have inadvertently consumed food not approved for human consumption (a GM
variety of maize called Starlink) because of gene flow or another failure of segregation. The lawsuit ended with a settlement against the seed producer Aventis. This suggests that
consumers may have grounds for compensation, at least in
the USA, even if their health is not affected by the transgenic
crop (Kershen, 2004).
Farmers, consumers and competitors may be the sourceof claims against, or the targets of claims from, seed producers (Kershen, 2004; Center for Food Safety, 2005; Eicher etal., 2006). For example, when non-GM corn varieties from
Pioneer Hi-Bred were found in Switzerland to contain novel
Bt genes, the crops had to be destroyed, and compensation
paid to farmers (Smyth et al., 2002).
Even if liability issues could be ignored, the industry
will remain motivated to track transgenes and their users
because the genes are protected as IP. Transgene flow cancreate crops with mixed traits because of “stacking” (twotransgenes from different owners in the same genome) or
mixed crops (from seed mediated gene flow or volunteers),
resulting in potential IP conflicts. IP protection includes particular genes and plant varieties as well as techniques forcreating transgenic plants and product ideas, such as theuse of Bt-sourced Cry toxins as plant-expressed insecticides.
Broad IP claims are creating what some experts call “patent
thickets”; the danger of thickets is that no single owner canpossess all the elements in any particular transgenic plant(Thomas, 2005).
Release of insect resistant GM potatoes in South Africa illustrates the complexity that IP and liability create fortransgenic crops. The potato has elements that are claimedby two different companies. One of the IP owners has been
unwilling to license the IP to South Africa for fear of liability
should the potatoes cross into neighboring countries (Eicher
et al., 2006).
The harms associated with transgene flow might be addressed by a combination of physical and biological strategies for containment (for a comprehensive list, see NRC,
2004). However, no single method and possibly no combi-

chapter 06.indd 394

nation of methods would be wholly adequate for preventing
all flow even though for some genes and some environments,
flow might be restricted to acceptable levels (Heinemann,2007). Future strategies for containment involving sterilization (i.e., genetic use restriction technologies, GURTs)
remain highly controversial because of their potential tocause both unanticipated environmental harm and threaten
economic or food security in some agroeconomic systems(Shand, 2002; Heinemann, 2007).
For transgenic approaches to continue to make significant contributions in the long term, a substantial increasein public confidence in safety assessments will be needed(Eicher et al., 2006; Herrero et al., 2007; Marvier et al.,2007); conflicts over the free-use of genetic resources must
be resolved; and the complex legal environment in whichtransgenes are central elements of contention will need further consideration.
Epigenetic modification of traits. Epigenes are defined asunits of inheritance that are not strictly based on the order of nucleotides in a molecule of DNA (Strohman, 1997;
Heinemann and Roughan, 2000; Gilbert, 2002; Ashe andWhitelaw, 2007; Bird, 2007). A growing number of traits
are based on epigenetic inheritance, although at present
most of these are associated with disease, such as Mad Cow
Disease and certain forms of cancer.
In the future, it may be possible to introduce traits basedon epigenes. For example, double-stranded RNA (dsRNA)
is the basis of at least two commercial transgenic plants andis proposed for use in more (Ogita et al., 2003; Prins, 2003).
Small dsRNA molecules appear to be the basis for the trait
in “flavr savr” tomatoes—even though at the time of development the epigenetic nature of the modification was probably not known or fully understood (Sanders and Hiatt,2005)—and the basis for viral resistance in papaya (Tennant
et al., 2001). In these cases, the epigene is dependent upona corresponding change at the DNA level, but in time it will
be possible to use the epigenetic qualities of dsRNA to infectiously alter traits without also altering the DNA content of
the recipient genome using rDNA techniques. Such promise has already been demonstrated using nematodes where
feeding, or soaking the worm in a liquid bath of dsRNA,
was sufficient for systemic genetic modification of the worm
and the stable transmission of the epigene for at least twogenerations (Fire et al., 1998; Cogoni and Macino, 2000).
The effects of dsRNA also can be transmitted throughout aconventional plant that has been grafted with a limb modified to produce dsRNA (Palauqui et al., 1997; Vaucheret etal., 2001; Yoo et al., 2004).
RNA-based techniques will accelerate research designed to identify which genes contribute to complex traits
and when and where in the organisms those genes are expressed (“turned on”). Generally, dsRNA causes transient,
long-term, sometimes heritable gene silencing (turns genes“off”). While silencing that occurs by the general pathways
controlled by dsRNA molecules are targeted to sequence
matches between the dsRNA and the silenced genes, there
are often effects on nontarget genes as well. The number ofgenes simultaneously silenced by a single dsRNA (including the targets) can number in the hundreds (Jackson et al.,

11/3/08 10:44:21 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 395

2003; Jackson and Linsley, 2004; Jackson et al., 2006), anda variety of dsRNAs with no sequence similarity can silence
the same genes (Semizarov et al., 2003).
Once established, the effects of dsRNA may persist insome kinds of organisms, being transmitted to offspring.
The instigating event is the initial combination of genetic
elements with similar DNA sequences, but the silencing effect may persist even in hybrids that retain a single copy of
the gene.
Furthermore, not all genes that are silenced remain so,
nor are all plants grafted with tissues from silenced plants
capable of acquiring the silenced phenotype. The science of
infectious gene silencing is still young, leaving gaps in understanding how the molecules are transmitted and maintained, and in how the phenotype is regulated or reversed.
If this or other epigenetic strategies for genetic modification
are in time adopted, they must benefit from fundamentallynew kinds of safety assessments in both their environmental
and human health context. Importantly, these assessments
should be conducted by competent researchers that are independent of the developing industry.
6.3.2 Livestock breeding options
Technologies such as artificial insemination and embryotransfer, which are routine in industrialized countries havebeen successfully transferred and introduced in other partsof the world (Wieser et al., 2000). However, breeding technologies are not exploited to the extent possible because
animals are not adapted to local conditions, logistical problems and poor support for breeding services and information management (Ahuja et al., 2000). There is scope tofurther develop conventional breeding technologies, in particular through North-South cooperation. To be effective atmeeting development goals breeding policies, programs andplans need to be location specific (Kurup, 2003; Chacko
and Schneider, 2005).
Thus far the impact of genomics in livestock agriculture
is limited to the use of transgenic animals such as chickens and cattle to produce pharmaceutical or therapeuticproteins in eggs and milk (Gluck, 2000). Genomics fordiagnostics and animal vaccine development, and in feed
production and formulation (Machuka, 2004) may further boost the livestock industry, although the competition
from alternative sources will probably be strong (Twyman
et al., 2003; Chen, 2005; Ma et al., 2005). Moreover, allthese new technologies create safety risks and may notalways increase sustainable production. Hence, applications should be thoroughly evaluated to ensure that they
do not also undermine development and sustainability
goals.
There are currently no transgenic food animals in commercial production and none likely in the short term (vanEenennaam, 2006). Over the next 10-50 years there is somepotential for development and introduction of transgenic
animals or birds with disease resistance, increased or higher
nutritional value meat or milk production, or as biofactories for pharmaceuticals (Machuka, 2004). The science andtechnology is available, but the barriers include regulatory
requirements, market forces and IP, safety concerns andconsumer acceptance, i.e., the same range of issues as de-chapter 06.indd 395

scribed for crops (Powell, 2003; van Eenennaam, 2006; van
Eenennaam and Olin, 2006).
Responding to the increased demand for livestock products without additional threats to the environment is a major challenge for agriculture and for AKST. One option forsatisfying the additional demand for animal protein is to usemeat from monogastric animals (pigs and poultry) and eggs.
Feed conversion rates and growth for monogastric animals
are better than for ruminants, which is one reason why theincreasing demand for meat tends to be met with chicken
and pork. This development may be positive with regard to
the direct pressure on (grazing) land caused by ruminants,
but has resulted in the establishment of large pig and poultry
production units which are often placed in peri-urban areas.
Large volumes of animal feed are produced elsewhere andtransported, while disposal of waste from these large units
has become an environmental issue (FAO, 2006). Althoughthese large livestock farms may generate some employment
opportunities, the capital required excludes most smallscale farmers. One approach to increase the total efficiency
and sustainability of the intensive livestock production system is area-wide integration, i.e., the integration of production with cropping activities. The main objective is to linkthese specialized activities on a regional scale to limit theirenvironmental damage and enhance social benefits (LEAD,
2000).
Recent outbreaks of diseases, including some thatthreaten human as well animal health, highlight the needto scrutinize large livestock units and their sustainability inwider terms with regard to environment and health (Steinfeld et al., 2006).
For small-scale farmers in rural areas, local markets willremain the primary outlets for their products. These local
markets may also provide opportunities for processed products. However, processing of meat and livestock products
into high value niche produces for distant markets might beeconomically attractive. Some associated risks include therequired investment in marketing for a successful enterprise
may decrease the “additional” product value. In addition,
rural processors may not be able to meet the quality standards to compete for distant urban or export markets (ILRI,
2006).
Further extension of grazing land to produce meatfrom ruminants is not a sustainable way to meet the growing demand for meat and livestock products (Steinfeld etal., 2006). Therefore, pastoralists and rangelands livestock
keepers will only benefit from an increased demand for livestock products if they are able to improve their present production systems by efficient use of existing resources, i.e.,
breed improvement (Köhler-Rollefson, 2003) improvementof animal health and disease control (Ramdas and Ghotge,2005), of grazing regime and pasture management, including the planting of fodder trees, and if possible supplementary feeding during times of limited grazing. Where there ispotential for mixed farming, policies need to facilitate thetransition of grazing systems into mixed farming systems
in the semiarid and subhumid tropics through integrating
crops and livestock (Steinfeld et al., 1997).

11/3/08 10:44:21 AM

396 | IAASTD Global Report

6.4 Improve Forestry and Agroforestry
Systems as Providers of Multifunctionality
6.4.1 On-farm options
The ecological benefits of low-input agroforestry systems
are more compatible with small-scale tropical/subtropicalfarming systems than for large farms. However, the coincidence of land degradation and poverty is also greatest in thetropics and subtropics and there is therefore considerable
relevance of agroforestry for the attainment of development
and sustainability goals. Disseminating and implementing
a range of agroforestry practices, tailored to particular social and environmental conditions, on a wide scale will require large-scale investment in NARS, NARES, NGOs and
CBOs, with support from ICRAF and regional agroforestry
centers. Rehabilitation of degraded land and improving
soil fertility can be accomplished by promoting a range of
ecological/environmental services such as: (1) erosion control, (2) nutrient cycling, (3) protection of biodiversity infarming systems, (4) carbon sequestration, (5) promoting
natural enemies of pests, weeds and diseases, (6) improving
water availability, and (7) the restoration of agroecological
function.
Agroforestry practices can also improve soil fertility inthe future, which is crucial for achieving food security, human welfare and preserving the environment for smallholder
farms (Sanchez, 2002; Oelberman et al., 2004; Schroth etal., 2004, Jiambo, 2006; Rasul and Thapa, 2006). An integrated soil fertility management approach that combines
agroforestry technologies—especially improved fallows ofleguminous species and biomass transfer—with locally available and reactive phosphate rock (e.g., Minjingu of northern
Tanzania) can increase crop yields severalfold (Jama et al.,2006).
Tree crops can be established within a land use mosaic
to protect watersheds and reduce runoff of water and erosion restoring ecological processes as the above- and belowground niches are filled by organisms that help to perform
helpful functions such as cycle nutrients and water (Anderson and Sinclair, 1993), enrich organic matter, and sequester
carbon. (Collins and Qualset, 1999; McNeely and Scherr,
2003; Schroth et al., 2004). Many of these niches can be
filled by species producing useful and marketable food andnonfood products, increasing total productivity and economic value (Leakey, 2001ab; Leakey and Tchoundjeu,
2001). A healthier agroecosystem should require fewer purchased chemical inputs, while the diversity alleviates risks
for small-scale farmers. On large mechanized farming systems the larger-scale ecological functions associated with aland use mosaic can be beneficial.
As the science and practice of agroforestry are complex
and comprise a range of disciplines, communities and institutions, strengthening strategic partnerships and alliances(farmers, national and international research organizations,
government agencies, development organizations, NGOs,
ICRAF, CIFOR, The Forest Dialogue, etc.) is crucial inorder to foster the role of agroforestry in tackling futurechallenges. Local participation could be mobilized by incorporating traditional knowledge and innovations, as wellas ensuring the scaling up and long-term sustainability ofagroforestry.

chapter 06.indd 396

Rights to land and trees tend to shape women’s incentives and authority to adopt agroforestry technologies morethan other crop varieties because of the relatively long time
horizon between investment and returns (Gladwin et al.,2002). Agroforestry systems have high potential to help
AKST achieve gender equity in property rights. This is especially true in customary African land tenure systems whereplanting or clearing trees is a means of establishing claims,on the trees, but also on the underlying land (Gari, 2002;
Villarreal et al., 2006).
Reducing land degradation through agroforestry. Land degradation is caused by deforestation, erosion and salinizationof drylands, agricultural expansion and abandonment, andurban expansion (Nelson, 2005). Data on the extent of landdegradation are extremely limited and paradigms of desertification are changing (Herrmann and Hutchinson, 2005).
Approximately 10% of the drylands are considered degraded, with the majority of these areas in Asia and Africa.
In all regions more threatened by deforestation, like thehumid tropics, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Central
Africa, deforestation is primarily the result of a combination of commercial wood extraction, permanent cultivation,
livestock development, and the extension of overland transport infrastructure (Zhang et al., 2002; Vosti et al., 2003;
Nelson, 2005). Decreasing current rates of deforestation
could be achieved by promoting alternatives that contribute to forest conservation. Methods may include improving
forest management through multiple-use policies in natural forests and plantations of economic (cash) trees within
forests (Wenhua, 2004) off-farm employment (Mulley andUnruh, 2004); and implementing an industrial development
model, based on high-value added products.
Sustainable timber management implies ensuring forests continue to produce timber in long-term, while maintaining the full complement of environmental services andnon-timber products of the forest. Although sustainabletimber management sometimes provides reasonable rates
of return, additional incentives are often needed as conventional timber harvesting is generally more profitable (Pearceand Mourato, 2004). Effective use of AKST supported bysustainable policy and legal systems and sufficient capacity is needed; the Chinese government’s forest management
plan implemented in 1998 offers a working example (Wenhua, 2004). However, local authorities are often inefficientin monitoring and enforcing environmental laws in large
regions, as in Brazilian Amazonia where the construction of
highways and the promotion of agriculture and cattle ranching facilitated the spread of deforestation. Off-farm employment can contribute significantly to forest conservation in
the tropics, e.g., the tea industry in western Uganda (Mulleyand Unruh, 2004).
6.4.2 Market mechanisms and incentives foragroforestry
Agroforestry is a method by which income can be generated by producing tree products for marketing as well as
domestic use. There are many wild tree species that produce traditionally important food and nonfood products(e.g., Abbiw, 1990). These species can be domesticated to
improve their quality and yield and to improve the unifor-

11/3/08 10:44:21 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 397

mity of marketed products (Leakey et al, 2005) and enhance
farmers’ livelihoods (Schreckenberg et al., 2002; Degrande
et al., 2006). Domestication can thus be used as an incentive
for more sustainable food production, diversification of therural economy, and to create employment opportunities in
product processing and trade. The domestication of these
species previously only harvested as extractive resources,
creates a new suite of cash crops for smallholder farmers(Leakey et al., 2005). Depending on the market size, someof these new cash crops may enhance the national economies, but at present the greatest benefit may come from local level trade for fruits, nuts, vegetables and other foodand medicinal products for humans and animals, including
wood for construction, and fuel.
This commercialization is crucial to the success ofdomestication, but should be done in ways that benefit
local people and does not destroy their tradition and culture (Leakey et al., 2005). Many indigenous fruits, nuts
and vegetables are highly nutritious (Leakey, 1999b). The
consumption of some traditional foods can help to boost
immune systems, making these foods beneficial against diseases, including HIV/AIDS (Barany et al., 2003; Villarreal
et al., 2006). These new nonconventional crops may play avital role in the future for conserving local and traditional
knowledge systems and culture, as they have a high local
knowledge base which is being promoted through participatory domestication processes (Leakey et al., 2003; World
Agroforestry Centre, 2005; Garrity, 2006; Tchoundjeu etal., 2006). Together these strategies are supportive of foodsovereignty and create an approach to biodiscovery that
supports the rights of farmers and local communities specified in the Convention on Biological Diversity.
A participatory approach to the domestication of indigenous trees is appropriate technology for rural communities worldwide (Tchoundjeu et al., 2006), especially in thetropics and subtropics, with perhaps special emphasis on
Africa (Leakey, 2001ab), where the Green Revolution has
been least successful. In each area a priority setting exercise is recommended to identify the species with the greatest potential (Franzel et al., 1996). Domestication should be
implemented in parallel with the development of postharvest and value-adding technologies and the identification of
appropriate market opportunities and supply chains. With
poverty, malnutrition and hunger still a major global problem for about half the world population, there is a need todevelop and implement a range of domestication programs
for locally-selected species, modeled on that developed by
ICRAF and partners in Cameroon/Nigeria (Tchoundjeu etal., 2006), on a wide scale. There will also be a need forconsiderable investment in capacity development in the appropriate horticultural techniques (e.g., vegetative propagation and genetic selection of trees) at the community level,in NARS, NARES, NGOs and CBOs, with support fromICRAF and regional agroforestry centers.
Agroforestry can be seen as a multifunctional package
for agriculture, complemented by appropriate social sciences, rural development programs and capacity development. Better land husbandry can rehabilitate degraded land.
For many poor farmers this means the mitigation of soil
nutrient depletion by biological nitrogen fixation and thesimultaneous restoration of the agroecosystem using low-

chapter 06.indd 397

input, easily-adopted practices, such as the diversification of
the farming system with tree crops that initiate an agroecological succession and produce marketable products.
Over the last 25 years agroforestry research has provided some strong indications on how to go forward by replanting watersheds, integrating trees back into the farming
systems to increase total productivity, protecting riparian
strips, contour planting, matching tree crops to vulnerable
landscapes, soil amelioration and water harvesting. There
are many tree species indigenous to different ecologicalzones, that have potential to play these important roles,
and some of these are currently the subject of domestication programs. In this way, the ecological services traditionally obtained by long periods of unproductive fallow areprovided by productive agroforests yielding a wide range offood and nonfood products. This approach also supports
the multifunctionality of agriculture as these species andproducts are central to food sovereignty, nutritional security
and to maintenance of tradition and culture. Additionally,
women are often involved in the marketing and processing of these products. Consequently this approach, whichbrings together AST with traditional and local knowledge,
provides an integrated package which could go a long way
towards meeting development and sustainability goals. The
challenge for the development of future AKST is to develop
this “Localization” package (Chapter 3.2.4; 3.4) on a scalethat will have the needed impacts.
This integrated package is appropriate for large-scale
development programs, ideally involving private sector
partners (building on existing models—e.g., Panik, 1998;
Mitschein and Miranda, 1998; Attipoe et al., 2006). Localization is the grassroots pathway to rural development,
which has been somewhat neglected in recent decades dominated by Globalization. Programs like that proposed would
help to redress the balance between Globalization and Localization, so that both pathways can play their optimal role.
This should increase benefit flows to poor countries, and to
marginalized people. There would be a need for considerable investment in capacity development in the appropriate
horticultural and agroforestry techniques (e.g., vegetative
propagation, nursery development, domestication and genetic selection of trees) at the community level, in NARS,NARES, NGOs and CBOs, with support from ICRAF andregional agroforestry centers.
By providing options for producing nutritious food andmanaging labor, generating income, agroforestry technologies may play a vital role in the coming years in helping
reduce hunger and promote food security (Thrupp, 1998;
Cromwell, 1999; Albrecht and Kandji, 2003; Schroth et al.,
2004; Oelberman et al., 2004; Reyes et al., 2005; Jiambo,
2006; Rasul and Thapa, 2006; Toledo and Burlingame,2006).
Recent developments to domesticate traditionally important indigenous trees are offering new opportunities toenhance farmer livelihoods in ways which traditionally provided household needs (especially foods) as extractive resources from natural forests and woodlands (Leakey et. al.,2005; Schreckenberg et al., 2002). These new non-conventional crops may play a vital role in the future for conserving local and traditional knowledge systems, as they have ahigh local knowledge base which is being promoted through11/3/08 10:44:22 AM

398 | IAASTD Global Report

participatory domestication processes (Leakey et al., 2003;
World Agroforestry Centre, 2005; Garrity, 2006)

ing sectors, where they work long hours under dangerous
conditions.

6.5 Sustainable Management of Fishery and
Aquaculture Systems

Tenure and access privileges. Large-scale social and ecological experiments are needed to implement culturally appropriate approaches to marine tenure and access privilegesthat can be applied to both large-scale industrialized fisheries and small-scale artisanal fisheries (Fisheries Opportunity Assessment, 2006; Pomeroy and Rivera-Guieb, 2006).
Rights-based or privilege-based approaches to resource
access can alter behavioral incentives and align economic
incentives with conservation objectives (Sanchirico andWilen, 2007).

Globally, fisheries products are the most widely tradedfoods, with net exports in 2002 providing US$17.4 billion
in foreign exchange earnings for developing countries, avalue greater than the combined net exports of rice, coffee,
sugar, and tea (FAO, 2002). In spite of the important rolethat fisheries play in the national and local economies ofmany countries, fisheries around the globe are frequently
overfished and overexploited as a result of not only weak
governance, but of poor management, non-selective technology, perverse subsidies, corruption, unrestricted accessand destructive fishing practices (FAO, 2002; World Bank,
2004). Reforming both the governance and management ofthese critical natural resources is essential to stable and longterm economic development, future food security, sustainable livelihoods, poverty prevention and reduction, continuation of the ecosystem goods and services provided bythese natural resources, and the conservation of biodiversity(Fisheries Opportunity Assessment, 2006; Christie et al.,2007; Sanchirico and Wilen, 2007).
Governance and management options
In most cultures, wild fisheries and marine resources are
considered as common property and suffer from open, unregulated access to these valuable resources. The concept ofland tenure and property rights has been instrumental in reforming terrestrial agriculture and empowering small-scale
farmers. Similarly, the concepts of marine tenure and accessprivileges are needed to address the “wild frontier” attitude
generated by open access to fisheries and to promote shared
responsibilities and comanagement of resources (Pomeroy
and Rivera-Guieb, 2006; Sanchirico and Wilen, 2007). Several traditional management approaches, such as in the Pacific Islands, have evolved that are based upon the conceptof marine tenure.
For fisheries, major goals of zoning are to (1) protect
the most productive terrestrial, riparian, wetland and marine habitats which serve as fisheries nurseries and spawning
aggregation sites, and (2) allocate resource use—and thus
stewardship responsibility—to specific users or user groups.
Appropriate zoning would allow for the most sustainable
use of various habitats types for capture fisheries, aquaculture, recreation, biodiversity conservation and maintenanceof ecosystem health. Future zoning for specific uses and usergroups would also shift shared responsibility onto those
designated users, thus increasing self-enforcement and compliance (Sanchirico and Wilen, 2007). The greatest benefit
would be in those countries where government, rule of law
and scientific management capacity is weak.
Improving fisheries management is critical for addressing food security and livelihoods in many developing countries, where fishing often serves as the last social safety net
for poor communities and for those who have no land tenure rights. Fisheries has strong links to poverty—at least
20% of those employed in fisheries earn less than US$1 perday—and children often work in the capture and/or process-chapter 06.indd 398

Seascape “zoning”. As in terrestrial systems, zoning would
protect essential and critical fisheries habitats that are necessary for “growing” fisheries populations and maintaining ecosystem health. The science of large-scale planningis relatively young and further research and implementation is needed. Future zoning should allow for the mostsustainable use of various marine habitat types for capture
fisheries, low trophic level aquaculture, recreation, biodiversity conservation and maintenance of ecosystem health.
Ultimately, integrating landscape and seascape use designs
are needed to conserve and protect ecosystem goods andservices, conserve soils, reduce sedimentation and pollution
runoff, protect the most productive terrestrial, wetlands andmarine habitats, and promote improved water resourcesmanagement.
Socioeconomic and environmental scenarios could be
developed that explore the potential tradeoffs and benefits
from applying different management regimes to improvewild fisheries management. Scenarios can guide the application of science to management decisions for reforming fisheries governance, both large-scale and small-scale fisheries,
and incorporate cultural and traditional knowledge (Fisheries Opportunity Assessment, 2006; Philippart et al., 2007).
The Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs) approachin the Pacific builds upon cultural practices of setting aside
specific areas as off-limits to fishing for rebuilding fisheries
and biodiversity (www.LMMAnetwork.org).
Ecosystem-based management approaches focus onconserving the underlying ecosystem health and functions,thus maintaining ecosystem goods and services (Pikitch etal., 2004). Developing these approaches requires an understanding of large-scale ecological processes; identifying
critical fisheries nurseries, habitats and linkages between
habitats, such as between mangrove forests and coral reefs;
understanding freshwater inflows into coastal estuaries andmaintaining the quantity, quality and timing of freshwaterflows that make wetlands some of the most productive ecosystems in the world; and how human activities, such as
fishing, affects ecosystem function (Bakun and Weeks, 2006;
Hiddinks et al,. 2006; Lotze et al., 2006; Olsen et al., 2006;
www.worldfishcenter.org). Ecosystem based fisheries management also requires protection of essential fish habitats
and large-scale regional use planning.
Ecosystem based fisheries management approaches are
relatively new management tools. Given the ecological complexity of ecological systems, especially the tropical systems
in many developing countries, the application of Ecosystem

11/3/08 10:44:22 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 399

based fisheries management needs to be further developed
and assessed. Major governance and ecological challenges
exist as management is scaled up in geographic area. Institutional, governance and environmental challenges will
require monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management(Christie et al., 2007).
Fisheries reserves. The design and establishment of networks of fisheries reserves are necessary to improve andprotect fisheries productivity, as well as improve resiliencein the face of climate change and increasing variability.
Well-designed and placed fisheries reserves, which restrict
all extractive uses, are needed to rebuild severely depleted
ecosystems and fisheries and to serve as “insurance” against
future risks; however, critical science gaps will need to beaddressed before fishery reserves can be effectively utilized(Gell and Roberts, 2003).
Multispecies approaches. The concept of “maximum sustainable yield” and managing by a species-by-species orpopulation-by-population approach has not proved effective for fisheries management given the complexity of ecosystems and foodwebs. Overfishing and “fishing down thefood web” has occurred, seriously threatening the future
productivity of wild fisheries (Pauly et al., 2005). Non-linear, multispecies models which incorporate trophic levels,
reproductive potential and “maximum economic yield”
need to be developed and applied for determining more sustainable levels, types and sizes of fish extracted (Pauly andAdler, 2005).
Environmentally friendly extraction technologies. New
technology is needed that selectively removes target species
and size classes, thus reducing wasteful “bycatch”, allowing
nonreproductive individuals to reach maturity, and protecting large individuals that disproportionately contribute to
the next generation (Hsieh et al., 2006). Some advocate that
destructive fishing practices—such as bottom-trawling andblast fishing—are illegal in some countries and should beprohibited and replaced with nondestructive methods (Bavinck et al., 2005; Dew and McConnaughey, 2005).
About 30% of capture fisheries are currently used tocreate “fish meal” destined for aquaculture and other livestock, and this percentage is expected to increase as aquaculture expands and more high-trophic level fish (such as
salmon, grouper and tuna) are cultured and farmed. Illplaced and designed aquaculture facilities have also reduced
the productivity of wild fisheries and degraded environments
through loss of critical habitats, especially mangrove forestsand coral reefs; introduction of invasive species, pests anddiseases; and use of pesticides and antibiotics.
Environmentally friendly and sustainable aquaculture.
While aquaculture is one of the fastest growing food sectors
in terms of productivity, this achievement has been at greatcost and risk to the health and well-being of the environment, as well as the well-being of small-scale fishers andfarmers. The future of aquaculture is truly at a crossroads:
the future direction of aquaculture will affect the health andproductivity of wild fisheries, the survival of many livelihoods, and global food security (World Bank 2006).

chapter 06.indd 399

The future contribution of aquaculture to global foodsecurity and livelihoods will depend on the promotion of
more environmentally sustainable and less polluting culture
techniques; the use of low-trophic level species, especiallyfilter-feeding species; the use of native species; appropriate
siting and management approaches; and inclusion and empowerment of small-scale producers (World Bank, 2006).
The culture of local, native species should be promoted
to decrease the displacement of native species by escaped
exotics, such as tilapia. Proper siting of aquaculture facilities is crucial to reduce environmental impact and ensure
long-term sustainability and profitability; improperly sitedaquaculture facilities, especially for shrimp farms, have led
to the destruction of wetlands and mangrove forest that arevital to capture fisheries and the protection of coastal communities from storms, tsunamis and other coastal hazards.
Enclosed, recirculating tanks that are properly sited show
great promise in meeting some of these objectives and in decreasing the pollution of wild gene pools through escapes of
species used in aquaculture. A more balanced approach toaquaculture is needed that incorporates environmental sustainability, integrated water resources management and equitable resources use and access to benefits (www.ec.europa.eu; www.icsf.net; www.worldfishcenter.org).
Greater emphasis is needed to develop sound fisheries“growth” practices and approaches—such ecosystem based
fisheries management, networks of reserves, new quota
models and new extraction technology—which will restore
ecosystem productivity and resiliency. It is estimated thatwith proper fishing practices, capture fisheries production
could be increased significantly, reversing present declines.

6.6 Improve Natural Resource Managementand Habitat Preservation
6.6.1 The landscape management challenge
Losing habitats is the greatest threat to biodiversity; overthe past 50 years people have destroyed or fragmented ecosystems faster and more extensively than in any period inhuman history (MA, 2005). Rapidly growing demands forfood, freshwater, timber, and fuel driving this change haveput enormous pressure on biodiversity. The creation of
more conservation management areas, promotion of local
biodiversity, increased participatory approaches to natural
resource management (e.g., GELOSE project, Madagascar)
and a close collaboration between all relevant stakeholders
in biodiversity management initiatives (Mayers and Bass,
2004) will be vital to addressing further loss of existing
habitats.
Restoration of fragile habitats is a way of improving
degraded ecosystems or creating new areas to compensate
for loss of habitat elsewhere. Enhancing transboundary initiatives (e.g., Agenda Transandina for mountain biodiversity
in the Andes) has multiple benefits to conserve and restore
fragile habitats. The appropriate use of technology, such as
remote sensing or GIS can improve monitoring of ecosystem fragmentation (e.g., INBio Costa Rica) and can help
in the protection of large areas of native vegetation withinregions to serve as sources of species, individuals and genes.
Landscape management can also help maintain or reestablish connectivity between native habitats at multiple scales

11/3/08 10:44:22 AM

400 | IAASTD Global Reportwith large contiguous areas of native vegetation for as widea group of plant and animal species as possible. Remaining areas of native habitat within the agricultural landscape(giving priority to patches that are large, intact and ecologically important) can be conserved while further destruction,
fragmentation or degradation prevented.
Active management of landscapes and land uses will be
required to maintain heterogeneity at both patch and landscape levels, making agricultural systems more compatible
with biodiversity conservation. Threats to native habitats
and biodiversity can be identified and specific conservation strategies applied for species or communities that areof particular conservation concern. Areas of native habitat
in degraded portions of the agricultural landscape can berestored and marginal lands taken out of production andallowed to revert to native vegetation.
For freshwaters, some management options include:• Maintain or restore native vegetation buffers;• Protect wetlands and maintain critical function zone innatural vegetation;• Reestablish hydrological connectivity and natural patterns of aquatic ecosystems (including flooding);• Protect watersheds with spatial configuration of perennial natural, planted vegetation and maintain continuous year-round soil cover to enhance rainfall infiltration
Nonnative, exotic species. Species that become invasive areoften introduced deliberately, and many of these introductions are related to agriculture, including plants and trees introduced for agricultural and forestry purposes and species
used for biological control of pests (Wittenberg and Cock,
2001; Matthews and Brandt, 2006). Policy for control ofinvasive species is essential, but AKST must also develop abetter understanding of when and how species become invasive and how to best monitor and control them. Improved
prediction and early detection of pest invasions, appears torely heavily on the scale and frequency of introductions (notparticular phenotypic characteristics of the invader) (Lavergne and Molofsky, 2007; Novak, 2007). Since the scaleof introduction is a critical factor, commercial trade in allliving organisms, including seeds, plants, invertebrates andall types of animals has the greatest potential to augment
the invasion potential of exotic species. The most promisingmechanism for targeting this critical phase in invasion is anincrease in the capacity of exporting and importing nations
to monitor the content of agricultural goods. This cannot
be done effectively by individual countries; collective action
is needed, through UN or other international bodies withappropriate global capacity development, e.g., UN Biodiversity Convention and the Cartagena Protocol.
6.6.2 Address poor land and soil management todeliver sustainable increases in productivity
The approach to addressing increased productivity will be
distinctly different for fertile and low fertile lands (Hartemink, 2002).
6.6.2.1 Options for fertile lands
On-farm, low input options. The adoption of zero tillage
prevents further water erosion losses, increases water use

chapter 06.indd 400

efficiency, soil organic carbon sequestration, and maintains
good structure in topsoil (Díaz-Zorita et al., 2002; Bolliger
et al., 2006; Steinbach and Alvarez, 2006; Lal et al., 2007).
About 95 million ha are under zero tillage management
worldwide (Lal et al., 2007) in countries with industrialized
agriculture, but the land area may increase in response tofuel prices and soil degradation. Zero tillage has well known
positive effects upon soil properties; one negative effect isincreased greenhouse gas emissions (N2O, CH4) due tohigher denitrification rates (Baggs et al., 2003; Dalal et al.,
2003; Passianoto et al., 2003; Six et al., 2004; Steinbach andAlvarez, 2006; Omonode et al., 2007). Tradeoffs between
higher C sequestration and higher GHG emissions will needmore assessment (Dalal et al., 2003; Six et al., 2004; Lal etal., 2007). Zero tillage can promote shallow compaction infine textured topsoils (Taboada et al., 1998; Díaz-Zorita etal., 2002; Sasal et al., 2006) and no-till farming can reduceyield in poorly drained, clayey soils. Soil-specific research isneeded to enhance applicability of no-till farming by alleviating biophysical, economic, social and cultural constraints(Lal et al., 2007).
Excessive soil compaction is of critical concern in industrial agriculture due to the use of heavier agricultural
machines. A typical hazard is when high yielding crops (e.g.,maize) are harvested during rainy seasons. Compaction recovery is not easy in zero tilled soils (Taboada et al., 1998;
Díaz-Zorita et al., 2002; Sasal et al., 2006), which depend
on soil biological mechanisms to reach a loosened condition. The alleviation and control of deep reaching soil compaction can be attained by adopting management strategies
that control field traffic (Spoor et al., 2003; Pagliai et al.,
2004; Hamza and Anderson, 2005; Spoor, 2006) and use
mechanical (e.g., plowing) or biological (cover crop root
channels) compaction recovery technology (Robson et al.,
2002; Spoor et al., 2003).
A better understanding of biological mechanisms areneeded, with particular focus on the role played by plantroots, soil microorganisms and meso- and macrofauna in
the recovery of soil structure (Six et al., 2004; Taboada etal., 2004; Hamza and Anderson, 2005).
Increased botanical nitrogen-fixation can occur whenlegumes crops are rotated with cereals (Robson et al., 2002);
green manure crops improve the N supply for succeeding
crops (Thorup-Kristensen et al., 2003). In farms near animal production facilities (feed lots, poultry, pigs, dairy, etc.),organic animal manures may be a cheap source of essential
plant nutrients and organic carbon (Edwards and Someshwar, 2000; Robson et al., 2002). The use of organic manures
can be limited by problems associated with storage, handling, and transport (Edwards and Someshwar, 2000). In
livestock grazing production systems, grazing intervals canbe restricted and seasonal grazing intensity altered to reduce
soil physical damage (Taboada et al., 1998; Menneer et al.,
2004; Sims et al., 2005).
Continuous crop removal may eventually deplete native
soil supplies of one or more nutrients. Some predict depletion of easily accessible P by 2025 at present annual exploitation rates of 138 million tonnes (Vance et al., 2003) whileothers estimate far less. Soil microbiology could potentially
improve access to P, for example, through the use of P-solubilizing bacteria (Yadav and Tarafdar, 2001; Taradfar and11/3/08 10:44:22 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 401

Claassen, 2005) and arbuscular mycorrhiza (Harrier andWatson, 2004). However, the use of microbes in P delivery
to plants is complex. A better understanding of root growthis the optimal balance among plant, soil and microorganisms (Vance et al., 2003).
More field research is required to optimize the selection
and production of crop varieties/species that enrich the dietwith such elements as Ca, Zn, Cu, and Fe. Given the usually substantial residual effects of most of fertilizer nutrients(except N), they should be considered as investments in the
future rather than annual costs. Replenishment of nutrientssuch as P, K, Ca, Mg, Zn through the use of agricultural
by-products and biosolids and substitution and recycling ofphosphorus (P) sources has been recommended (Kashmanian et al., 2000).
Soil conservation practices can reduce soil losses bywind and water erosion. Strategies for controlling sediment
loss include (1) planting windbreaks and special crops toalter wind flow; (2) retaining plant residue after harvesting;(3) creating aggregates that resist entrainment, (4) increasing surface roughness; (5) improving farm equipment and(6) stabilizing soil surfaces using water or commercial products (Nordstrom and Hotta, 2004).
Improved management practices to prevent sediment
loss may be effective (Nordstrom and Hotta, 2004). Many
management techniques do not require sophisticated technology or great costs to implement, but they may require
farmer willingness to change practices. Barriers to adoptionof conservation measures include start-up or transition costs
associated with new methods or equipment, inadequate education, reliance on past traditions, or a history of failed
field experiments (Uri, 1999). Reluctance to implement soil
conservation policies and practices can be overcome whensevere erosion events associated with periods of drought remind society of the advantages of compatible methods offarming (Todhunter and Cihacek, 1999).
Shifting cultivation leads to deforestation and degradation, (Zhang et al., 2002). Most technical options to prevent agricultural expansion and abandonment are similar
to those for preventing deforestation. They are also basedon the promotion of off-farm employment (Mulley and Unruh, 2004), or the production of high-added value products
combined with air transport. In order to increase farmers’
natural capital and thereby increase long term flows of farm
outputs, modifying the management of soil, water and vegetation resources, based on agroecology, conservation agriculture, agroforestry and sustainable rangeland and forest
management, as well as wildlife biology and ecology has
been supported (Buck et al., 2004).
Cultivation of new lands in some biomes would neither compensate nor justify the loss of irreplaceable ecological services. Other biomes are less sensitive and would
not be similarly affected. The functional complementationof biomes is an effective land use option to explore on abroad scale (Viglizzo and Frank, 2006). For example, agricultural expansion in South America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia) was based on the replacement of
natural forests by cattle ranching and soybean cropping(Cardille and Foley, 2003; Vosti et al., 2003; Etter et al.,2006). There are potential benefits to conservation management that arise from agricultural land abandonment or

chapter 06.indd 401

extensification. In China conversion of cultivated land has
not always decreased national food security, since many
converted lands had low productivity (Deng et al., 2006).
Abandonment of agricultural land does increase the vulnerability of farmers. Positive outcomes in one sector can haveadverse effects elsewhere (Rounsevell et al., 2006). Modern biomass energy will gain a share in the future energy
market and abandoned agricultural land is expected to be
the largest contributor for energy crops; the geographicalpotential of abandoned land for 2050 ranges from about
130 to 410 EJ yr−1 and for 2100, from 240 to 850 EJ yr−1. Ata regional level, significant potentials are found in the former USSR, East Asia and South America (Hoogwijk et al.,2005).
Large scale, high input options. Large scale approaches tosoil management are available and based on the replenishment of soil nutrients, site specific nutrient management andzero tillage. These approaches include: adoption of cropmodels to synchronize N supply with crop demand (Fageria and Baligar, 2005; Francis, 2005); adoption of precision
agriculture and variable rate technologies for inputs suchas nutrients, pesticides and seeds (Adrian et al., 2005); andimprovement of N fertility for non-legumes by legume fixation, fertilizers, manures and composts.
Nitrogen use efficiency is currently less than 50% worldwide, thus increasing N efficiency may reduce the use of N
fertilizers (Sommer et al., 2004; Fageria and Baligar, 2005;
Ladha et al., 2005). Deep rooting crops could potentiallyserve to redistribute N for crops in areas with nitrate polluted groundwater (Berntsen et al., 2006).
Crop models assess tradeoffs among yield, resourceuse efficiency and environmental outcomes (Timsina andHumphreys, 2006), but their effective adoption requires
local calibration and validation, improved farmer knowledge, cost-effective and user friendly techniques (Ladha etal., 2005). The adoption of precision and variable rate technologies by farmers is significantly affected by their perception of usefulness and net benefit (Adrian et al., 2005). To
be of more benefit to farmers, crop models need to more
effectively couple the spatial variability of crop yields andsoil properties obtained by remote sensing and variable rate
machinery needs improvement. Motivations for widespread
uptake adoption of these technologies may come from environmental legislation and public concern over agrochemicaluse (Zhang et al., 2002).
Efficient use of N fertilizer requires that the amount andtiming of the fertilizer application be synchronized with theneeds of the crop (Ladha et al., 2005). The availability of thesoil to supply N to the crop is closely linked with soil organic
matter; maintenance of soil organic matter is a key factor inmaintaining N fertility (Robson et al., 2002). Legumes aregrown in rotations both for the contribution to the residual
N and for the value of the crop itself (i.e., forage or food). To
encourage the adoption of modern agricultural technologies
governments and others will need to ensure farmers haveaccess to technical advice, economic incentives and public
education programs.
Whereas N efficiency and uptake is key for some regions, in others soil erosion control practices, such as contour cropping and terracing in soils of better quality (Popp

11/3/08 10:44:23 AM

402 | IAASTD Global Reportet al., 2002), are more viable options. Soil erosion control
can be costly and hence difficult to implement in developing
countries (Wheaton and Monke, 2001). Governments canhelp by providing technical advice, economic incentives andpublic education programs (Warkentin, 2001). Land careschemes have been successfully adopted in several countries,
and are effective in promoting “land literacy” and good agricultural practices, including leys and crop rotations andgrowing cover crops (Lal, 2001).
6.6.2.2 Options for low fertility lands
Agroforestry. In tropical areas, low fertility is often foundin deforested areas, where critical topsoil has washed away.
The replacement of traditional slash and burn cultivation bymore diversified production systems based on forest products, orchard products, and forages and food products (Barrett et al., 2001; Ponsioen et al., 2006; Smaling and Dixon,
2006) and applying agroecological principles creatively (Altieri, 2002; Dalgaard et al., 2003) can improve soil fertility.
The adoption of agroforestry can maintain land productivity, decrease land degradation and improve rural people’s livelihood (Albrecht and Kandji, 2003; Oelberman etal., 2004; Schroth et al., 2004; Reyes et al., 2005; Jiambo,
2006; Rasul and Thapa, 2006). At the landscape scale, thespatial organization of tree and forest landscape elements
can provide filters for overland flow of water and sediments
as well as corridors for forest biota, connecting areas withmore specific conservation functions. At plot and regional
scales, the relationship is more variable because watershedfunctions not only depend on plot-level land use but also on
the spatial organization of trees in a landscape, infiltration,
dry-season flow, and other factors (Van Noordwijk et al.,2007).
Consecutive nutrient exports may lead to extremely low
K and P levels (Alfaia et al., 2004), e.g., decreased N andP availability with alley cropping (Radersma et al., 2004).
Some crops, e.g., sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) seemto be unsuitable for agroforestry (Pinto et al., 2005). Ecological agriculture could become an alternative if market
distortions created by subsidies were removed, financial
benefits were provided to resource-conserving farmers, andextension, credit, research were available (Rasul and Thapa,
2003). The adoption of integrated soil fertility management
strategies at the farm and landscape scale requires consensus
building activities (Barrios et al., 2006). However, promoting and supporting participatory technologies have limited
impact when they are not grounded in participatory policy
development and implementation (Desbiez et al., 2004; De
Jager, 2005). Labor-intenseive ecoagriculture will not succeed unless farmers and the agricultural sector have higher
total factor productivity including total labor productivity(Buck et al., 2004).
Soil water conservation and storage. The adoption of conservation agriculture is key to increasing water storage inmarginal lands, and in most places suitable equipment isavailable (hand, animal-drawn, or tractor-drawn) for resource-poor farmers (Bolliger et al., 2006). Adoption ofconservation agriculture also reduces soil erosion losses,(den Biggelaar et al., 2003) decreases siltation and pollution of water bodies, and has benefits for human health andchapter 06.indd 402

biodiversity. Efforts to promote soil water conservation andstorage will need to address site-specific conditions (Knowler
and Bradshaw, 2007). Widespread implementation will require integration into institutions, incentive structures, andeducation (Molden et al., 2007) and extension outreach.
Methods to be considered include (1) conservation agriculture, including the use of water-efficient crops; (2) supplemental irrigation in rainfed areas; and (3) water harvestingin drier environments (Goel and Kumar, 2005; Hatibu et al.,2006; Oweis and Hachum, 2006).
Soil amendments. Municipal waste materials, composted or
uncomposted (such as leaves and grass clippings, sludges,etc.), can be valuable soil amendments for farms near cities or towns and are inexpensive if transport costs are low(Smith 1996; Kashmanian et al., 2000). Municipal sludges
can be also applied to cropland provided they possess thequalities needed by their potential users and do not possess
toxins or heavy metals, such as nickel or cadmium (Smith,
1996). Other developments such as N-fixation by non-legume crops (e.g., Azospyrilllum), P solubilizing bacteria,
and mycorrhizal associations in tropical cropping systems
are expected to result from future biotechnology investigations (Cardoso and Kuyper, 2006).
The high risk of crop failure from insufficient soil moisture hinders investments in soil fertility and tilth, which inturn diminishes the potential of soils to capture and retain
water, therefore increasing the vulnerability to drought. A
challenge for AKST will therefore be how to couple incremental improvements in crop water relations with low-cost
investments to replenish soil fertility in order to break thiscycle (Rockström, 2004; Sanchez, 2005). More widespreaduse of practices like green manuring, composting, farmyard
manure management, and use of agricultural by-products
and residues can guide decision-making.
6.6.3 Sustainable use of water resources to meeton-farm food and fiber demands
A major challenge over the next 50 years will be to meet foodand fiber demand with minimal increases in the amount ofwater diverted to agriculture. Aquatic ecosystems and people whose livelihoods depend on them are likely to be thebiggest losers as more and more fresh water is diverted toagriculture on a global scale.
AKST can provide options for improving water management in agriculture that can address the growing problem of water scarcity, ecosystem sustainability and poverty
alleviation. Chapters 4 and 5 present projections concerning
the land and water required at the global level to produce
enough food to feed the world in 2050. These include reliance on various options including intensification and expansion of rainfed and irrigated agriculture and trade as entry
points to reduce the need to expand water and land diverted
to agricultural production. In an optimistic rainfed scenario,
reaching 80% maximum obtainable yields, while relying on
minimal increases in irrigated production, the total cropped
area would have to increase by 7%, and the total increasein water use would be 30%, with direct water withdrawals
increasing by only 19%. In contrast, focusing on irrigation
first could contribute 55% of the total value of food supply
by 2050. But that expansion of irrigation would require 40%

11/3/08 10:44:23 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 403

more withdrawals of water for agriculture, surely a threat toaquatic ecosystems and capture fisheries in many areas.
The factors that contribute to optimistic and pessimistic
estimates of total water needs are primarily differences inwater productivity. Without gains in water productivity, water resources devoted to agricultural production will likely
increase by 70-90%. On top of this is the amount of water
needed to produce fiber and biomass for energy. The realworld is more complex than the scenarios. Improvements
will need to be made in water management across all agricultural systems, rainfed, irrigated, and combinations in between. It will be necessary to look beyond increasing waterproductivity to target poor people and ecosystems to benefit
from these improvements. AKST will be needed that targets
both physical (not enough water to meet all demands) andeconomic (not enough investment in water) water scarcity.
Climate change and bioenergy increase the scale of the challenge, by increasing pressures on resources, and by increasing climate variability, but do not alter the nature of thechallenge.
6.6.3.1 Managing evapotranspiration
Optimistic scenarios for mitigating increased water demandin agricultural systems require that water productivity be
increased. This can be achieved with existing AKST, e.g., at
the plot level in rainfed systems where evaporation can bevery high and soil constraints are still significant, and at asystem and basin level by reducing unproductive losses inlandscapes. Crop breeding to gain increased benefit fromwater used and as yet unexplored opportunities to use precision water management to raise biomass/transpiration ratios are promising for intensive systems.
There is significant scope to reduce evapotranspiration(ET) per unit of yield by reducing evaporation and improving soil quality (Figure 6-1) (Molden et al., 2007). In many
parts of the world, reducing evaporation and removing soil
constraints are still important options for increasing waterproductivity. In very productive agricultural areas of theworld, which produce most of the world’s food, the historic
sources of growth in water productivity—increased harvest
index, soil nutrients—are being rapidly exhausted (Keller
and Seckler, 2004). In contrast, currently areas with thegreatest potential to increase water productivity in terms ofET are low production regions, especially sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (Figure 6-2). These are also areas withhigh rates of poverty and high dependence of the poor on
agriculture. Focus on these areas will both help reduce poverty, and also reduce the amount of additional water neededin agriculture.
Evaporation varies from 4-25% in irrigated systems(Burt et al., 2001), and from 30-40% and more in rainfed
systems (Rockström et al., 2003) and depends on application method, climate and how much of the soil is shadedby leaves by the crop canopy; it can be very high in rainfed
systems with low plant densities. Practices increasing water productivity such as mulching, plowing or breeding forearly vigor of leaf expansion in order to shade the groundas rapidly as possible or longer superficial roots can reduce
evaporation and increase productive transpiration.
Improvement of soil fertility can significantly improvetranspiration efficiency and improving soil physical prop-

chapter 06.indd 403

Figure 6-1. Water productivity ‘gap.’ Source: Sadras and Angus, 2006.

Figure 6-2. Water productivity and yield. Source: Adapted from
Zwart and Bastiaanssen, 2004.

erties including infiltration and water storage capacity can
reduce evaporation. Together these methods can result in
100% or larger increases in crop water productivity (Bossio
et al., 2008). Recent examples of water productivity improvement potential through resource-conserving agricultural practices demonstrate this (Table 6-3). Only moderate
effects on crop water productivity should be expected fromplant genetic improvements over the next 15 to 20 years,
because these gains have already been realized throughbreeding for increased harvest index in major grain crops.
However harvest index gains through breeding strategies
that target crops like millet and sorghum that have not received as much attention as the “green revolution” grains
may be possible. An opportunity for improving value perunit of water also lies in enhancing nutritional quality of staple foods. Here perhaps biotechnology may offer significant
potential over time (Molden et al., 2007). New precision ap-

11/3/08 10:44:28 AM

404 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 6-3. Changes in water productivity (WP) by crop with adoption of sustainable agricultural
technologies and practices in 144 projects.
Crops

WP before
intervention

WP afterintervention

WP gain-------------------kg food m-3 water ET-----------------

Increasein WP%

Irrigated
Rice (n = 18)
Cotton (n = 8)

1.03 (±0.52)
0.17 (±0.10)

1.19 (±0.49)
0.22 (±0.13)

0.16 (±0.16)
0.05 (±0.05)

15.5
29.4

Rain-fed
Cereals (n = 80)
Legumes (n = 19)
Roots and tubers (n = 14)

0.47 (±0.51)
0.43 (±0.29)
2.79 (±2.72)

0.80 (±0.81)
0.87 (±0.68)
5.79 (±4.04)

0.33 (±0.45)
0.44 (±0.47)
3.00 (±2.43)

70.2
102.3
107.5

Source: Pretty et al., 2006.

proaches to water management, such as irrigation of partial
root systems may hold promise for increasing production
per unit of water transpired in specialized production systems (Davies et al., 2002).
Besides crop and field practices, there is significant scopefor reducing evaporation at the basin and landscape scales(Molden et al., 2007). High evaporation rates from highwater tables and waterlogged areas can be reduced by drainage, or reducing water applications, after ensuring that these
are not wetland areas supporting other ecosystem services.
In degraded arid environments, up to 90% of rainfall evaporates back into the atmosphere with only 10% available fortranspiration. Water harvesting in dry areas is an effective
method of making available the non-beneficial evaporationof rainwater for crop transpiration (Oweis, 1999). Microand macro-catchment techniques capture runoff and makeit available for plants and livestock before evaporation, increasing the availability of beneficial rainwater, nearly halving evaporation and quadrupling increase in transpiration.
Another option is to increase the use of marginal quality
water for agricultural production. While marginal-quality
waters, (wastewater, saline or sodic water), potentially represent a valuable source of water for agricultural production,
long term environmental and health risks are significant andmust be mitigated. The prevalence of and opportunities forincreasing, the use of marginal quality water in agricultural
production was recently assessed (Qadir et al., 2007). Public agencies in several countries already implement policies
on marginal-quality water. Egypt plans to increase its official reuse of marginal-quality water from 10% in 2000
to about 17% by 2017 (Egypt MWRI, 2004). In Tunisia in
2003 about 43% of wastewater was used after treatment.
Wastewater use will increase in India, as the proportion of
freshwater in agricultural deliveries declines from 85% today to 77% by 2025, reflecting rising demand for freshwater in cities (India CWC, 2002).
Worldwide, marginal-quality water will become an increasingly important component of agricultural water supplies, particularly in water-scarce countries (Abdel-Dayem,1999). Water supply and water quality degradation areglobal concerns that will intensify with increasing water
demand, the unexpected impacts of extreme events, andchapter 06.indd 404

climate change in resource-poor countries (Watson et al.,1998). State of the art systems to maximize use of saline
drainage waters are currently under development in California and Australia (Figure 6-3) (Qadir et al., 2007). AKST
development for sustainable use of marginal quality water
is an urgent need for the future.
6.6.3.2 Multiple use livelihoods approach
Poverty reduction strategies entail elements primarily related
to policy and institutional interventions to improve accessfor the poor to reliable, safe and affordable water. AKST
contributes to increase the effectiveness agricultural water
utilization by the poor. To secure water use rights now andin the future and to avoid or control the risks of unsustainable water management, it is important to understand water
as a larger “bundle of rights” (water access and withdrawal
rights, operational rights, decision making rights) (Cremers
et al., 2005; Castillo et al., 2007). Policy and institutional
interventions are described in later chapters; here the focus
is on AKST options that can contribute to poverty alleviation in the future, namely, multiple use system design, small
scale water management technologies, and sustainable development of groundwater resources, primarily aimed atsmall scale farming systems in tropical countries.
While most water use analysis focuses on crop production (particularly in irrigated systems), it is possible toincrease the productivity of other components of mixed systems to provide greater overall benefit for the rural poor
(Molden et al., 2007), improve health for the local population and increase biodiversity. The design, development andmanagement of water resources infrastructure from a multiple use livelihoods perspective, can maximize the benefits
per unit of water, and improve health. The integration ofvarious water use sectors including crop, livestock, fisheries and biodiversity in infrastructure planning can result inincreased overall productivity at the same level of water use,and can be compatible with improving health and maintaining biodiversity.
Livestock. Although there are few examples of research
and assessments that attempt to understand the total waterneeds of livestock and how animal production affects water

11/3/08 10:44:28 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 405

Figure 6-3. Sequential reuse of drainage water on drainage
affected lands. Source: Qadir et al., 2007.
Note: As proposed in the San Joaquin Valley drainage Implementation
Program, California.

resources, a recent assessment (Peden et al., 2007) describes
four entry points to maximize investment returns in waterand livestock in mixed systems:• Improving the source of feeds; e.g., in low productivity
mixed systems in Ethiopia, livestock water productivity
increases as the share of animal diets composed of crop
residues increases (Figure 6-4) (Peden et al., 2007);• Enhancing animal productivity through traditional animal science interventions in nutrition, genetics, veterinary health, marketing and animal husbandry;• Conserving water resources critically need for grazing
management; and• Providing sufficient drinking water; water deprivation
reduces feed intake and lowers production. For lactating cows water deprivation can greatly lower milk production (Staal et al., 2001).
While more research and site specific knowledge is needed,
it is clear that securing improved outcomes in the development of agricultural water in the future will benefit from
effective integration and consideration of animal use andtheir effect on water resources (Peden et al., 2007).
Fisheries. Fisheries can be enhanced in many existing andplanned water management structures such as small dams,
reservoirs, and impounded floodplains through stocking
with appropriate species, greatly increasing productivity.
Stocking technologies have produced high yields in lakes(Welcomme and Barley, 1998); in dams and reservoirs in
Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia (Fernando, 1977), in China (De Silva, 2003), and India (Sugunan
and Katiha, 2004); and in floodplains in Hungary (Pinter,1983), Bangladesh (Ahmed, 1998), and India (Sugunan and
Sinha, 2001). Species introductions, and other enhancement technologies, such as fish holes, drain-in ponds, dugouts and finger ponds also effectively increase production(Dugan et al., 2007). Improved stocking management canincrease production in integrated agriculture-aquaculture
systems; a widespread type is integration of fish into ricepaddies. While typically rice paddies produce 120-300 kg

chapter 06.indd 405

Figure 6-4. Livestock water productivity relative to dietary crop
residues and by-products in Ethiopia’s Awash River Valley. Source:
Peden et al., 2007.

ha-1 yr- of mixed fish which contribute directly to household
diets, managed fish stocking and harvest can increase rice
yields (due to weed control and the aeration of soils) bysome 10% while producing up to 1,500 kg ha-1 fish (de la
Cruz, 1994; Halwart and Gupta, 2004).
Health and water management systems. Under conditions
that allow control of water levels, such as irrigated areas,
dry season irrigation in monsoon areas and on relatively freedraining soils, water management techniques can bridge thegap between agricultural and health departments (Bakker
et al., 1999). These techniques include alternate wet anddry irrigation; water saving irrigation technologies; modernization of infrastructure to minimize standing water andreduce sites for disease vector breeding; and organizational
initiatives such as Water Users Associations and improved
extension services. Banning the use of the most toxic pesticides and promoting integrated pest management (IPM) is ahigh priority for preventing poisoning via water (Eddleston
et al., 2002). In this case, human health and environmental
interests (reducing pesticide loads) are complimentary. In
addition, operation of existing dams can be re-optimized to
improve health and environmental performance, such as torestore floodplain ecosystems, and new irrigation schemes
can be planned and designed to minimize environmental impacts (Faurés et al., 2007).
Biodiversity. Water resources infrastructure and agricultural landscapes can be managed to maintain biodiversity
and other ecosystem services beyond production of foodand fiber. Water resources infrastructure can be planned andimplemented in ways that minimize the impact on the native biodiversity. Biodiversity concerns need to be addressedfrom the earliest stages of project planning; e.g., situating
infrastructure in such a way as to avoid harming critical
habitats (Ledec and Quintero, 2003). At the landscapescale, the spatial organization of tree and forest landscape

11/3/08 10:44:33 AM

406 | IAASTD Global Report

elements can provide filters for overland flow of water andsediments and corridors for forest biota, connecting areas
with more specific conservation functions (Van Noordwijk
et al., 2007). At plot and regional scales, the relationship ismore variable because watershed functions not only dependon plot-level land use but also on the spatial organization oftrees in a landscape, infiltration, dry-season flow, and otherfactors. Natural disturbance has a role in maintaining landscape biodiversity. Options for conserving biodiversity inirrigated agricultural systems include increasing water productivity and many water management designs and practices that support diverse landscapes, crops and connectivity for plant and animal movement (Molden and Tharme,
2004).
Traditional irrigation infrastructure development is one
avenue for poverty alleviation; significant benefits have been
demonstrated through a variety of primary and secondary
effects of irrigation system development (Hussain, 2005;
Castillo et al., 2007) and management strategies can improve equity in irrigation systems and can be complimentary to productivity enhancement (Hussain, 2005). As an
example, land distribution that results in larger numbers ofsmaller holding can improve benefit sharing. Appropriate
irrigation service charges can ensure adequate spending on
operations and maintenance; this supports the poor, who
tend to suffer the most when system level maintenance isinadequate.
6.6.3.3 Management and financing options
In order to maintain aquatic ecosystems, managers are
increasingly pressed to maintain agricultural returns with
reduced water delivery to irrigation systems. Reducing water delivered to irrigation requires two actions—a change
in agricultural practice combined with a change in water
allocation (Molden et al., 2007). Increasing blue water productivity by reducing water deliveries to agriculture, yet
maintaining output, is an important strategy to retain waterin aquatic ecosystems, to reallocate supplies, and to help
in more precise water management, giving water managers
more flexibility to deliver water to where it is needed, when
it is needed. Excessive deliveries generate excessive drainage
that are hard to control, require energy for pumping, reduce
the quality of water and water bodies can provide breeding
ground for disease vectors. Moreover, there are high ecological benefits in keeping water in rivers.
There are significant opportunities to improve irrigationwater productivity through a combination of field and system management practices, and policy incentives that raisewater productivity, manage salinity and increase yields (e.g.,
Van Dam et al., 2006). For example, there is substantial
scope to reduce water deliveries to irrigation, especially torice (Bouman et al., 2007). In addition to producing more
food, there are ample opportunities in irrigation to generate
more value and incur less social and environmental costs.
Supplemental irrigation, the addition of small amountsof water optimally timed to supplement rain, is probably
the best way to increase water productivity of supplies. In
Burkina Faso and Kenya, yields were increased from 0.5
to 1.5-2.0 tonnes ha-1 with supplemental irrigation andsoil fertility management (Rockström et al., 2003). Yields

chapter 06.indd 406

can be further increased with deficit irrigation, where water supplied is less than crop requirements (Zhang, 2003).
Increased precision in water management is more capitalintensive and therefore particularly relevant to maintaining high productivity while decreasing water diversions. In
Western Syria, yields increased from 2 to 5 tonnes ha-1 withthe timely application of 100 to 200 mm of water (Oweis
et al., 2003). It must be noted, however, that precision anddeficit irrigation increase risk, and therefore are most appropriate under conditions where access to water is assured,and can be carefully managed.
A key point however, is that increasing productivity ofwater does not necessarily drive water savings; it may encourage increased water use because it is more productive(Ahmed et al., 2007). Thus changing allocation policies isalso essential to realize reduced diversions of water.
Reducing deliveries also does not necessarily save waterand can have unintended detrimental side effects that canbe understood by considering what happens to drainage
flows. A common misperception is that because irrigation istypically 40 to 50% efficient at converting irrigation water
into evapotranspiration, the focus should be on increasing
efficiency and therefore reducing drainage flows (Seckler etal., 2003). Increasing efficiency can be a valuable objective
for reducing uptake of water in the system and thus diminishing energy costs of pumping and operation and maintenance. However, drainage water plays an important role.
Because so much drainage flow is reused downstream, thereis actually much less scope in saving water in irrigation thancommonly perceived. In fact, in irrigated regions in dry areas it is common to document ratios of evapotranspiration
to irrigation plus rain greater than 60% reaching to over
100% when aquifers are mined. These areas include theGediz basin in Turkey (Droogers and Kite, 1999), Egypt’s
Nile (Keller and Keller, 1995), Chistian sub-division in Pakistan and the Bhakra irrigation system (Molden et al., 2000),
the Liu Yuan Ku irrigation system (Khan et al, 2006), theTunuyuan irrigated area in Argentina, the Fayoum in Egypt,
and Nilo Coelho in Brazil (Bos, 2004). The perennial vegetation at Kirindi Oya has been shown to evapotranspire
about the same volume of water as rice and generate valuable ecosystem services; giving a different picture (65% of
inflows beneficially depleted) than if paddy rice were considered alone (22% of inflows depleted by rice) (Renaud et al.,2001). In these cases, the problem is not wastage, but thathigh withdrawals and ET rate reduce drainage and tend to
dry up rivers and wetlands, and leave little to downstream
use. It is important to consider each case from a basin perspective, i.e., considering the quality and quantity of waterand how drainage flows are used downstream.
Technologies such as treadle pumps, small diesel pumps,
low-cost drip, and low-cost water storage can increase productivity and incomes for poor farmers (Sauder, 1992; Shahet. al., 2000; Keller et al., 2001; Polak et al., 2004). These
approaches provide water at lower unit costs than large scale
hydraulic infrastructure, and can be available immediately,
without the long delay times of larger scale projects. Innovative development and marketing approaches that focus
on increasing local private enterprise capacities and market
promotion have been credited with successful dissemination

11/3/08 10:44:33 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 407

to the poor (Shah et al., 2000). Credit schemes focusing on
women also can have a positive effect on poverty alleviation (Van Koppen and Mahmud, 1996). By improving the
precision of water delivery, these technologies can also help
to increase water use efficiency, under the right conditions.
There are different niches where these technologies are useful. In general treadle pumps are most suitable when watertables are within 2-4 m of soil surface. This situation is common in monsoon Asia, and exists when treadle pumps arelinked to rainwater harvesting structures, but is relatively
rare outside wetland or direct pumping from lakes and water bodies in Africa.
Groundwater resources. Groundwater can provide flexible,
on-demand irrigation to support diversified agriculture in
all climate zones. Sustainable management requires thataquifer depletion be minimized and water quality be preserved. Overwhelming evidence from Asia suggests thatgroundwater irrigation promotes greater gender, class, andspatial equity than do large irrigation projects. Evidence
from Africa, Asia, and Latin America also suggests thatgroundwater is important for poor farmers to improve theirlivelihoods through small scale farming based on shallow
groundwater (Shah et al., 2007). Small scale technologies(see above) can improve access of the poor to groundwater
resources. In all parts of the developing world key common
priorities for AKST are to improve the data base, upgrade
the understanding of groundwater supply and demand conditions, and create effective programs for public educationin the sustainable use of groundwater resources (Shah et al.,2007). Participatory approaches to sustainable groundwater
management will need to combine supply-side AKST suchas artificial recharge, aquifer recovery, inter-basin transfer
of water, with demand-side AKST such as groundwater
pricing, legal and regulatory control, water rights and withdrawal permits (see chapter 7), and promotion of watersaving crops and technologies.
Decreasing land degradation. Water use efficiency, which isoften as low as only 40%, in irrigated areas (Deng et al.,2006), can be increased. This is key to reducing recharge tonaturally saline areas and water tables. Where soil salinity ishigh, leaching fractions must be applied to remove salt fromthe root zone, without adding it to groundwater or mobilizing it to the river system; this is difficult and requires wellthought out, innovative drainage solutions. Recognized options for management of salinity risk, or to reduce existingareas of saline soil, are revegetation with alternative species,
pumping to lower the water table and construction of ditch
drains for control of surface water and shallow groundwater (Peck and Hatton, 2003).
Management of salinity is complex and requires integrated solutions at catchment and basin scale with the
key being to minimize mobilization of salt and reduce theamount for disposal—disposal through the stream system
is undesirable and environmentally costly. All options for
management of salinity risk are constrained by the economics of dry land farming and pumping or drainage is further
constrained by possible environmental impacts of disposalof saline water. In Australia, the bulk of effort has been di-chapter 06.indd 407

rected at ”living with saline land and water,” with immense
public and private investment in tree planting and the search
for new low recharge farming systems (Peck and Hatton,
2003). Practices to improve water use efficiency include
biological mechanisms of water-saving agriculture and irrigation technologies, including low pressure irrigation, furrow irrigation, plastic mulches, drip irrigation under plastic,
rainfall harvesting and terracing (Deng et al., 2006).

6.7 Using AKST to improve Health andNutrition
AKST can improve human health and nutrition through reductions in (1) malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies;(2) food contaminants; and (3) the emergence and reemergence of human and animal diseases, including HIV/AIDS.
Key driving forces over the coming decades for these challenges include not just AKST, but also demographic change;changes in ecosystem services; global environmental change;
reductions in freshwater resources; economic growth and its
distribution; trade and travel; rate of technology development; governance; degree of investment in public health andhealth care systems; and others.
In addition, some food systems are not providing therange of nutrients needed to ensure adequate nutritional
status. Approaches to improve dietary quality are needed toensure adequate availability, accessibility, and utilization offoods with nutrients appropriate to the needs of the population.
6.7.1 On-farm options for reducing malnutrition andmicronutrient deficiencies
Integrated farm systems, based on a variety of foods, canhelp meet the challenge of micronutrient malnutrition (Tontisirin et al., 2002). Improving crop diversity is an important part of improving dietary diversity, and thereby dietary
quality. The diversity of wild and cultivated traditional
plant varieties in rural areas of low-income countries provides many opportunities to identify high quality, but underutilized, nutritious foods. Increased research on locally
adapted traditional varieties could lead to the developmentof improved varieties that are higher yielding or more resistant to pests and abiotic stresses such as drought. Household processing of wild foods collected by subsistence farmers as part of a traditional diet would increase storage lifeand make additional foods available during periods whenfood is inadequate. For example, solar drying techniques
have been used to preserve foods such as mangoes, bananas
and sweet potatoes.
Possible improvement of these varieties through breeding is currently limited because private and public sector
breeding programs rarely focus on minor crops. Identifying
and exploiting the potential of these varieties will require
increased research in both high- and low-income countries.
In Kenya, when farmers produced underutilized leafy green
vegetable varieties, consumption was increased among
farmers, and the producers found a market among middle
and high income consumers who began to purchase thesenovel varieties (Frison et al., 2006). Once researchers identify health promoting compounds in indigenous and under-

11/3/08 10:44:34 AM

408 | IAASTD Global Reportutilized plants, plant breeders can develop varieties of thesefoods that can be produced and consumed by small-scale
farmers as well as sold in high value niche markets. Beyond
increasing the availability of diverse foods, preservation
methods must be improved to reduce the loss of micronutrients (Ndawula et al., 2004).
In addition to increasing the range of plant foods in thediet, animal source foods, such as meat, milk, and insectsfrom wild and domesticated sources can provide critical nutrients that may be completely unavailable in plant-based
diets, such as vitamin B12 (Neumann et al., 2002; for Kenyan
example see Siekmann et al., 2003). An effective strategy
to increase the intake of animal source foods could include
the improved small-scale livestock production through theuse of appropriate breeds, disease prevention and control, and affordable high quality animal feeds (Brown,2003).
Improving soil management practices, such as increasing the organic matter in the soil and mineral fertilizers(Sheldrick and Lingard, 2004), can improve food security
and enable farmers to produce sufficient yields and allow for
more crop diversification. These practices can optimize plant
nutritional quality. For example, crops grown on zinc deficient soils often produce grains with low zinc concentrations
and these seeds may produce plants with lower grain yields
and poorer seed quality (Rengel, 2001). Soil management
solutions have the advantage of providing a wide range ofnutrients, while other approaches, such as fortification andsupplements are limited to specific nutrients.
6.7.2 Research needs for reducing malnutrition andmicronutrient deficiencies
Biofortified crops developed through plant breeding can improve human nutrition. Biofortification has shown promisein feeding studies in the Philippines where iron biofortified
rice consumption improved iron status in the study participants (Murray-Kolb et al., 2004). While conventional processed food fortification can work well to improve the availability of critical nutrients in the diet, rural subsistence producers may not have access to fortified foods. Thus, where
food processing facilities are unavailable, biofortification
can improve the availability of target nutrients. In addition,
where government regulation and enforcement of food fortification is still in the nascent stages of development, biofortified crops can serve as a cost-effective source of micronutrients. Dietary quality can be improved by selection ofcrop varieties that are more nutritionally dense when theseare substituted for less nutritious alternatives. Consumptionof carotenoid-rich red palm oil in lieu of other vegetable oils
has improved vitamin A status in Burkina Faso (Zagre etal., 2003), while lysine and tryptophan-rich maize may offer improved growth potential for undernourished children
consuming diets with low protein quality (Graham et al.,1990).
While plant breeding efforts to biofortify staple crops
are underway, plant-breeding programs can also target
health-related qualities such as antioxidants in fruits orvegetables (HarvestPlus, 2006). For example, plant breeders can select for high lutein content, an antioxidant with
beneficial effects on eye health (Seddon, 2007) in carrots

chapter 06.indd 408(Nicolle et al., 2004). Plant breeding can include traditional
techniques and approaches using advances in biotechnology, such as rDNA. Conventional plant breeding methods
have been used to develop biofortified crops and rDNA approaches have increased carotenoid content in rice (Beyer etal., 2002). While approaches using rDNA and similar techniques have the potential to contribute to developing nutritionally improved crop varieties, research, monitoring, andevaluation are needed to ensure there are no adverse unintended consequences to human and environmental health.
Reducing food contaminants. When present in food systems,
heavy metals and other contaminants, veterinary drug residues, pesticide residues, pathogens, and the toxins producedby pathogens such as mycotoxins can cause a range of shortand longer-term adverse human health consequences.
Good agricultural practices (GAPs) can lead to safer
use of pesticides and veterinary drugs. GAPs can also enable the management of risks associated with pathogen
contamination of foods such as fruits and vegetables. FAO
has developed guidance for governments and the private
sector on conducting risk assessments and to implementing risk management options throughout food systems, including on-farm practices and in food processing facilities(FAO/WHO, 2006). Hazard analysis critical control point
principles can be used to target issues of biosecurity, disease monitoring and reporting, safety of inputs (including
agricultural and veterinary chemicals), control of potential
foodborne pathogens, and traceability (Olson and Slack,2006). The development and adoption of GAPs for specificproduction systems and food safety/quality issues can befacilitated by approaches that involve broad participation.
Plants can become susceptible to infection with the fungus
that produces aflatoxins when they are exposed to water
stress or insect damage (Dowd, 2003). There are readily
available approaches management approaches (preharvest,
harvest, and postharvest) to reduce aflatoxin (Mishra andDas, 2003); e.g., in tree nuts, peanuts, and cereals such asmaize.
In addition, dietary approaches are being developed tocounteract the effects of mycotoxins (Galvano et al., 2001).
Additional research is needed to verify the detoxification
ability of the proposed food components, their long-term
efficacy and safety, and their economic and technical feasibility. To manage risks associated with pathogens such as
Escherichia coli O157:H7 in fruit and vegetable production,
sanitation systems throughout the food production chain
are integral to GAPs guidance for preventing the presenceof these organisms (Fairbrother and Nadeau, 2006). Additional strategies are being developed to reduce foodborne
pathogens, e.g., chlorate as a food supplement to preventcolonization of food-producing animals by E. coli and otherpathogens (Anderson et al., 2005).
Achieving fuller deployment of GAPs to improve foodsafety and public health requires establishing effective
national regulatory standards and liability laws that areconsistent with international best practice, along with thenecessary infrastructure to ensure compliance, including
sanitary and phytosanitary surveillance programs for animal and human health, laboratory analysis and research ca-

11/3/08 10:44:34 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 409

pabilities, and training and auditing programs. Challenges
include harmonization of regulations establishing upper levels of intake of nutrients and other substances (Bennett andKlich, 2003), and improving food safety without creating
barriers for poor producers and consumers.
Heavy metal contamination in soils affects the quality
and safety of foods. For example, rice grains can accumulate cadmium (Cd) from Cd-contaminated soils, thereby
exposing consumers to serious health consequences fromconsumption of locally produced rice (Chaney et al., 2004).
Undernourished populations are particularly at risk, asiron and zinc deficiencies can cause increases in Cd absorption from the food supply (Anderson et al., 2004). While
increased soil pH or maintaining soil flooding until grain
maturation can reduce Cd levels in rice grains, yields can beaffected (Chaney et al., 2004). Bioremediation with selectedecotypes of Thlaspi caerulescens, a hyperaccumulator of Cd,
could effectively reduce levels in contaminated soil (Chaney
et al., 2000). However, these wild ecotypes of T. caerulescens need to be improved for commercialization before
practical applications of this technology would be available(Chaney et al., 2004).
6.7.3 Reduce factors that facilitate the emergenceand reemergence of human and animal diseases
Communicable diseases are the primary cause for variations
in life expectancy across countries (Pitcher et al., 2008).
AKST is important for three broad categories of infectious
diseases: diseases whose incidence is affected by agricultural
systems and practices (e.g., malaria and bovine spongiform
encephalopathy), foodborne zoonotic diseases, and epidemic zoonotic disease (e.g., avian influenza). For example, theexpansion of irrigated agriculture, as a result of the need tofurther intensify food production and to better control water supplies under increased climate variability and change,
is expected to contribute to an increased incidence of malaria in some areas and the rapidly increasing demand forlivestock products could increase the likelihood of BSE to
spread more widely.
The geographic range and incidence of many humanand animal diseases are influenced by the drivers of AKST.
Currently, 204 infectious diseases are considered to be
emerging; 29 in livestock and 175 in humans (Taylor et al.,2001). Of these, 75% are zoonotic (diseases transmitted between animals and humans). The number of emerging plant,
animal, and human diseases will increase in the future, withpathogens that infect more than one host species more likely
to emerge than single-host species (Taylor et al., 2001). Factors driving disease emergence include intensification of cropand livestock systems, economic factors (e.g., expansion ofinternational trade), social factors (changing diets and lifestyles) demographic factors (e.g., population growth), environmental factors (e.g., land use change and global climatechange), and microbial evolution. Most of the factors that
contributed to disease emergence will continue, if not intensify, this century (IOM, 1992). The increase in disease
emergence will affect both high- and low-income countries.
Serious socioeconomic impacts can occur when diseases
spread widely within human or animal populations, orwhen they spill over from animal reservoirs to human hosts

chapter 06.indd 409(Cleaveland et al., 2001). Animal diseases not only affectanimal and human health and welfare, they also influence
perceptions of food safety, result in trade restrictions, adversely affect rural incomes and livelihoods, adversely affectnon-livestock rural industries, have detrimental environmental effects, and adversely affect national economies forcountries heavily dependent on agriculture Even small-scale
animal disease outbreaks can have major economic impacts
in pastoral communities (Rweyemamu et al., 2006).
6.7.3.1 On-farm options
The adoption integrated vector and pest management at thefarm level, have been tested for reducing the persistence ofhuman and animal diseases. These include environmental
modification, such as filling and draining small water bodies, 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 (Mutero et al.,
2004; Mutero et al., 2006).
Specific farming practices can facilitate infectious disease emergence and reduce the incidence of certain diseases,
such as malaria, in endemic regions (van der Hoek, 2004).
However, the relationships between agriculture and infectious disease are not always straightforward. For example,
whereas rice irrigation increases breeding grounds for themosquito that carries malaria, in some regions the prevalence of malaria in irrigated villages is lower than in surrounding villages because better socioeconomic conditions
allow greater use of antimalarials and bed nets (Ijumba etal., 2002) and/or because the mosquito vector tends to preferentially feed on cattle (Mutero et al., 2004). However, inother regions, intensification of irrigated rice reduces thecapacity of women to manage malaria episodes among children, leading to a higher prevalence of malaria (De Plaenet al., 2004). Therefore, greater understanding is needed ofthe ecosystem and socioeconomic consequences of changes
in agricultural systems and practices, and how these factors
interact to alter disease risk.
In areas affected by high rates of HIV/AIDS, laborsaving agricultural technologies and systems are needed tosupport sustainable livelihoods. Ensuring access to diverse
diets can also reduce the adverse impacts of disease on livelihoods and health. Agroforestry interventions, in particular,
can improve communities’ long-term resilience against HIV/AIDS and other external shocks in ways that agriculturalinterventions alone cannot (Gari, 2002).
In addition, improved agricultural information andknowledge exchange between experienced farmers andyouth and widows is needed (Peter et. al., 2002). Agroforestry technology can respond to the cash, labor and shortages confronted by AIDS-affected communities, both in the
short term and in the long term. Medicinal plants and trees
often provide the only source of symptomatic relief available to the poor. Future agroforestry programs and forest
policies in general should be reviewed to assess their effects
on key determinants of HIV vulnerability (Villarreal et al.,2006). Using less labor intensive crops that need fewer inputs can help households allocate labor more efficiently infood producing activities (Ngwira et al., 2001). While di-

11/3/08 10:44:34 AM

410 | IAASTD Global Reportversifying food crop production to reduce labor demands
can be helpful, the nutritional quality of the total diet must
be considered.
6.7.3.2 Research and technological options beyond
the farm
Resource poor farmers have limited resources to mitigate thespread of diseases. Controlling emerging infectious diseases
requires early detection, through surveillance at national,
regional, and international levels, and rapid intervention.
For animal diseases, traceability, animal identification, andlabeling also are needed. The main control methods for human and animal diseases include diagnostic tools, disease
investigation facilities, and safe and effective treatments
and/or vaccines. AKST under development can facilitate
rapid detection of infectious pathogens, e.g., genetic tools
were used in recent HPAI outbreaks to identify the viruses
involved and to inform development of appropriate control
programs (FAO/OIE/WHO, 2005). Syndromic surveillanceof farm animals coupled with notification using internet-accessible devices is being used in some high-income countries
to detect emerging diseases (Vourc’h et al., 2006).
The increasing importance of zoonotic diseases requires
better integration of human and veterinary public healthapproaches for their detection, identification, monitoring,and control. Decreased funding in recent decades has eroded
the required infrastructure and training underlying veterinary services and surveillance activities (Vallat and Mallet,
2006). Incentives to report cases of disease at the local andnational levels and pay for culling of animals when appropriate could facilitate early identification of outbreaks.
There is an urgent need to replenish basic capacity in manyhigh-income countries and to increase capacity in middleand low-income countries. Linkage of regional and international organizations and agencies is critical. Improved
understanding is needed of disease transmission dynamics
in order to develop more effective and efficient diagnostic
systems and interventions. Diagnostic systems should bedesigned to process large numbers of samples and identify
multiple infectious agents.
Although vaccines are a cornerstone of primary prevention, vaccine effectiveness is severely limited in remote rural
areas with high infectious disease burdens, particularly Africa, South America, and Asia, due to the lack of vaccines,
the lack of resources to afford vaccines, or the logisticalproblems of trying to use temperature-sensitive vaccines.
Marker vaccines are needed so that vaccinated/treated animals can be distinguished from subclinically infected or convalescent animals in real time during epidemics (Laddomada,2003).
The emergence and dissemination of bacteria resistantto antimicrobial agents is the result of complex interactions
among antimicrobial agents (e.g., antibiotics), microorganisms, disease transmission dynamics, and the environment(Heinemann, 1999; Heinemann et al., 2000). The increasing incidence of antimicrobial resistant bacterial pathogens
will limit future options for prevention and treatment of
infectious diseases in animals and humans (McDermott etal., 2002). The World Health Organization has called forhuman and veterinary antimicrobial agents to be sold only
under prescription, and for the rapid phaseout of antimi-

chapter 06.indd 410

crobial agents used as growth promotants (WHO 2003).
They also recommend that all countries establish monitoring programs for tracking antimicrobial use and resistance.
Research on the use of other treatments, such as probiotics and vaccines, holds promise (Gilchrist et al., 2007). The
ongoing costs of research and development, and challenges
to delivery will prevent acute drug treatments from ever becoming a stand-alone solution.
6.7.4 Tackling persistent chemicals to protect humanhealth and the environment
Persistent chemicals include potentially toxic elements likeheavy metals and organic pollutants that are normallypresent at relatively low concentrations in soils, plants, or
natural waters, and which may or may not be essential forthe growth and development of plants, animals, or humans(Pierzynski et al., 2000).
6.7.4.1 On-farm options
More effective and less costly in situ management strategies
are available to mitigate the effects of persistent chemicals
and to restore soil quality. The load of persistent chemicals
such as fertilizer and pesticide residues, to ground and surface waters can be significantly reduced by available technologies, such as precision agriculture. Restorative technologies like bioremediation and phytoremediation (plant
based remediation) are costly and still in development. Basic
research is needed on the factors affecting biotransformation processes (Adriano et al., 1999; Khan, 2005).
Intrinsic remediation using indigenous organisms candegrade industrial solvents (e.g., PCBs) and many pesticides
on affected sites (Sadowski and Turco, 1999). In situ bioremediation can potentially treat organic and inorganic pollutants, clean soil without excavation and it is more costeffective than excavating and treating the soil on site bioremediation techniques. Such treatments remove the mobileand easily available fractions but cannot complete removalof all the contaminants (Doelman and Breedveld, 1999).
Phytoremediation refers to the extraction of contaminants via root uptake to shoot biomass and has wide application in the remediation of surface-polluted soils. Further
analysis and discovery of genes for phytoremediation may
benefit from recent developments in biotechnology (Krämer,2005). Phytoremediation has potential risks, such as those
associated to the use of transgenic techniques, release ofnonindigenous species (potential weed) and transfer of
toxic compounds to the other environmental compartments(Wenzel et al., 1999; Alkorta and Garbisu, 2001).
6.7.4.2 Off-farm technology
More effective and sensitive technologies for identifying
early effects of pollution on ecosystems can also be developed. Damage could be prevented if the source of the pollution and the presence of the pollutants could be identified
at minimal concentrations. Preventing or limiting the flowof chemical pollutants into the environment should be more
effective than limiting damage by remediation.
New technologies that significantly increase awareness of biological impacts include biosensors and chemical
approaches (Water Science and Technology Board, 2001;
Heinemann et al., 2006). These approaches can also use

11/3/08 10:44:34 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 411

indigenous organisms, e.g., ecotoxicological assessmentsof soils polluted with chromium and pentacholorophenol.
The portal DATEST (http://projects.cba.muni.cz/datest) is a
web-based engine that complements and stores information
about a wide range of ecotoxicological tests and bioindication methods used in Ecological Risk Assessment (Smid etal., 2006).
6.7.5 Information and knowledge systems
6.7.5.1 Traditional, local knowledge options
Traditionally, many innovations for improving AKST occurred at the community level, and were diffused throughcommunity institutions (Gyasi et al., 2004). Traditional
communities have domesticated dozens of plant species,
have bred and conserved thousands of crop varieties andanimals, and have developed farming (cropping and animal) systems and practices adapted to specific conditions(Kaihura and Stocking, 2003). Tapping on those resources
and capacities and giving them recognition as well as legitimacy is a key development goal. A focus on agroecology
can enrich the production and deployment of new farming
practices and technologies that are environmentally, sociallyand culturally sustainable (Koontz et al., 2004).
Options for enhancing agricultural knowledge and innovation in local and indigenous societies include:• Enhance local and traditional knowledge systems andgrassroots innovation capacities;• Empower communities to access knowledge and to participate in innovation processes so they have more options to respond to future changes and to biodiversity
and livelihood challenges (Colfer, 2005);• Develop a new agenda that builds on agricultural knowledge and innovation in local and indigenous societies:
increase projects of international agricultural research
institutions such as Bioversity International (formerly
IPGRI);• Foster participatory agricultural and environmental
research projects that bring together traditional andwestern science (Brookfield et al., 2003; Colfer, 2004),
journals such as Etnoecologica, and academic coursesthat include traditional and local knowledge.
Farmer field schools (see Chapter 2) could play a vital partas a community-based initiative for participatory research,
enabling farmers to define and analyze problems, and experiment with options. Seed fairs can facilitate the selectionof varieties better adapted to local conditions (Orindi andOchieng, 2005) and adaptation to climate change. The establishment of “lead farmers” and the implementation ofvarious grassroots extension mechanisms could reinforce
the role of communities in the production and diffusion ofknowledge.
6.7.5.2 Science and technology options
Advances in nanotechnology, remote sensing (RS), geographic information systems (GIS), global positioning systems (GPS) and information communication technology(ICT) can enhance progress in the application of precisionand site-specific agriculture (PA).
A concern in precision agriculture is the accessibility

chapter 06.indd 411

and affordability of the technology for small farming systems. This is not surprising considering that the generaltrend is that farmers with large farmlands of more than
300 ha, tend to be the first to invest in the new technology,
whereas small farmers are more reluctant to invest in GPS
equipment (Pedersen et al., 2004). A nationwide survey in
the USA concluded that adoption of PA technologies was
related to farm size and large farmers are the first to adopt(Daberkow and McBride, 2001). Adoption rate is also fasterin regions with larger farm sizes and more specialized incertain cash crops (Blackmore, 2000; Fountas et al., 2005).
Adoption is likely to continue in countries where labor is
scarce, and vast tracts of land exist, with rates of adoption
accelerating when commodity prices are high and interest
rates low (Swinton and Lowenberg-DeBoer, 2001).
Particularly for developing countries, the use of yieldmonitors, sensors, GIS and GPS, supported by advanced
tools such as computer, digital camera, image processing
technique, laser technology, and network system appear
too complex for small-scale farmers, particularly for those
whose field operations are not mechanized. Nevertheless,since precision farming being a management approach not atechnology, it can be applied to developing countries industrialized countries, but the implementation may be different(Griepentrog and Blackmore, 2004).
Precision agriculture practices that can easily be adapted
in developing countries include site specific nutrient management (SSNM) and simple integrated crop management(ICM) version like rice check (Lacy et al., 1999; Fairhurst
et al., 2007; PhilRice, 2007). Thus, while the ownership ofprecision farming technologies is still an emerging option
for small-scale agriculture, the adoption strategy can beadapted. Custom services can be used to help build precision
farming databases while small-scale farmers gain experience
with the spatial variability of their fields (Lowenberg-DeBoer, 1996).
6.7.5.2.1 Remote sensing technology
Remote sensing (RS) has a broad range of applications (urban and transportation planning, applied geosciences, landuse, environmental change, etc.) in many countries, especially Europe and the United States where it is widely used,and can enhance agricultural planning for low productivity
areas in developing countries.
For agriculture, RS techniques play an important rolein crop identification, crop area inventory, crop yield forecasting, crop damage detection, soil and water resources inventory, and assessment of flood damage (Syam and Jusoff,
1999; Van Neil and McVicar, 2001; Patil et al., 2002). It
also provides required inputs for land and water resources
development plans, wasteland mapping and reclamation, irrigation development, crop-yield and crop-weather models,integrated pest management, integrated nutrient management, watershed management, agrometeorological services,and more recently, precision farming (Patil et al., 2002).
Remote sensing contributes to the information needs of precision agriculture (PA) in the assessment of soil and cropconditions using multispectral imagery (Barnes and Floor,1996).
Remote sensing is currently not widely applied in mostdeveloping countries because of timeliness, limited accessi-

11/3/08 10:44:35 AM

412 | IAASTD Global Reportbility and cost of satellite data, and financial constraints ingathering ground data that can be correlated to the remotesensing data. It has, however, potential in improving agricultural planning in developing countries particularly in addressing food security, poverty alleviation, and sustainable
development issues.
If combined with other sources of data (e.g., traditional
method agrometeorological data collection) remote sensing can improve accuracy and effectiveness of various agricultural planning in developing countries. For example,
RS estimates of crop yields and production of staple foods
based on preharvest crop acreage and production can serve
as input to a number of policy level decisions on buffer foodstock (Van Neil and McVicar, 2001).
Remote sensing data can provide a sampling frame
construction for agricultural statistics, crop acreage estimation, and cropland data layer or map (Allen, Hanuschak,and Craig, 2002; Saha and Jonna, 1994; Rao, 2005). Mapping soils can reveal soil properties across production fields(Dalal and Henry, 1986; Shonk et al., 1991; Mzuku et al.,2005). Remote sensing information also aids analysis of soil
degradation and risk of soil erosion in agricultural lands(Thine, 2004).
By combining RS with GIS techniques, and hydrologic
modeling, irrigation management can be improved for more
complex water management tasks such as irrigation system
performance evaluation, snowmelt runoff forecasts, reservoir sedimentation and storage loss assessments, prioritization of watersheds and their treatment, environmental
impact assessment of developmental projects, prospectingof under ground water, locale specific water harvesting andrecharge, interlinking of rivers and monitoring of spatial
and temporal distribution of rainfall (Thiruvengadachariand Sakthivadivel, 1996). Given more time and resources,
applications of RS in agricultural planning can be greatly
enhanced in developing countries.
Remote sensing can also be applied to global agroenvironmental health and resources monitoring and assessment.
Remote sensing can be used to assess biodiversity through(1) direct mapping of individual plants or associations of
single species in relatively large, spatially contiguous units;(2) habitat mapping and predictions of species distribution
based on habitat requirements; and (3) establishment of direct relationships between spectral radiance values recorded
from remote sensors and species distribution patterns recorded from field observations (Nagendra, 2001; Zutta,
2003; Rao, 2005).
Satellite RS is increasingly becoming an importantsource of agrometeorological data (humidity, rainfall, temperature, wind, global radiation) as it can complement
traditional methods of agrometeorological data collection(Sivakumar and Hinsman, 2004). Indian satellite systems,
for example, operationally support disaster management by
providing emergency communication links, cyclone warnings, flood forecasting data, rainfall monitoring and cropcondition assessments (Rao, 2005).
Remote sensing can be used to globally monitor and assess natural resources and ecosystem for sustainable development, providing more accurate and timely information on
the condition and health of agroenvironmental resources.

chapter 06.indd 412

There are, however, some technical issues and limitations ofcurrent remote sensing technologies use (Table 6-4).
6.7.5.2.2 Information and communications technology (ICT)ICT models can be mainstreamed and upscaled to enhancedelivery of services and access to market.
Market information. In Uganda, ICT is providing farmers
with reliable price data for better farm gate prices. A market
information service network reaching over 7 million people
each week uses conventional media, Internet, and mobile
phones to enable farmers, traders, and consumers to obtainaccurate market information. Over the past four years thenumber of markets dominated by farmers’ associations has
increased from 4 to 8 (Ferris, 2004).
Weather forecasting. In Africa, ICT is enabling more rapid
dissemination of locally analyzed weather data. The European Meteosat Second Generation (MSG) satellite is providing detailed data and high-resolution spectral and spatial images that are expected to revolutionize the process
of forecasting short-term extreme weather events, such as
thunderstorms, fog and small but intense depressions thatcan lead to devastating storms, as well as other applications,e.g., agrometeorology, climate monitoring, and natural resource management (Taube, 2006).
Web-based marketing systems. New business models are
rapidly evolving that can suit the needs of small farmers, e.g., the www.B2Bpricenow.com a free agriculture emarketplace that provides updates via SMS messaging tofarmers in the Philippines (www.digitaldividend.org/pubs/
pubs_01_overview.htm). In India, e-Choupal kiosks of theagriexporter ITC Limited and “Parry’s Corners” of EID
Parry agricultural company provide farmers with valuable
information, and allow them to sell their produce directly
to these companies eliminating the middleman. E-commerce
platform can also allow small farmers and farmer cooperatives to expand distribution channels for their produce (Ninomiya, 2004).
E-consultation, advisory system and training. ICT can provide farmers with electronic forums and e-consultations byemail, or permit the participation of a wider electronic community in location-based seminars (Painting, 2006). Farmers can also access tools for both diagnosing field problems
and making crop management decisions (e.g., TropRice[124.81.86.181/rkb/knowledgeBank/troprice/default.htm#Introduction_to_TropRice.htm] and Rice Knowledge
Bank [www.knowledgebank.irri.org]). The so called “virtual
academy for farmers” in the Philippines and India uses
ICT through a virtual network that provides information
on-demand, online learning and content development of
information based on farmers’ needs. Trained farmers andextension workers serve as resource persons in cyber communities thereby making ICTs accessible and user-friendly.
E-governance. India is enhancing rural development programs and improving the delivery of public services with theuse of government computerization schemes, satellite com-

11/3/08 10:44:35 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 413

Table 6-4. Current remote sensing technologies for global agroenvironmental health and resources monitoring and assessment forsustainable development.
			Types of remote sensing		Sensor description

Example of			
imaging sensors
Resolution

1.

Optical Imaging

a.

Panchromatic

Single channel detector IKONOS Pan
sensitive to broad
wavelength range
produce black andwhite imagery
SPOT Panb. Multispectral

1.

Optical Imagingc. Superspectral

chapter 06.indd 413

Multichannel detector
with a few spectral
bands. Sensitive toradiation with narrow
wavelength band.
The image contains
brightness and color
information of thetargets.

Applicationin agriculture

Other applications• Highly detailed land
• Precision• Unlikeuse discrimination, urban
farming
microwave
mapping, natural resources
remote sensing,and natural disasters• Property
acquisition
mapping, environmental
damage control
of cloud freeand verification of planning, land registration,
image using
crop damage, e.g., public health, biodiversity
optical bands
Spatial: 10 m
drought and hail. conservation, coastal
is impossible
Spectral: 1
monitoring, homeland
becauseband
security.
• Farm planning,
Temporal: 1-26 of its shortprecision farming
wavelengthdays• Urban planning, featurethat cannot
and asset mapping, land
penetrate clouds
use mapping
and rain
Spatial: 1 m
Spectral: 1
band
Temporal: 1-3
days

Landsat MSS

Spatial: 5080 m
Spectral: 5bands
Temporal: 18
days

Landast TM

Spatial: 25 m
Spectral: 7bands
Temporal: 16
days

SPOT HRV-XS
Imaging sensor has
many more spectral
channels (typically >10)
than a multispectral
sensor. The bands havenarrower bandwidths
that capture finer
spectral characteristicsof the targets.

Limitations

Spatial: 20 m
Spectral: 3bands
Temporal: 1-26
days

• General• Resolution
vegetation
tradeoff: Highspatial resolution inventories andassociated with classification
low spectral
resolution.

• Multi, superand hyper
spectral haveresolution trade
off: Sensors
with highmultispectral
resolution
can only offer
low spatial
resolution.

• Environmental monitoring,land use mapping andplanning, forest mapping,statistical land-use survey
global-change, urban area
mapping, detection of siltwater flowing and landscapeanalysis.

• Discrimination ofvegetation types
and vigor, plantand soil moisturemeasurement,
Cropping patternmapping,chlorophyll
absorption,
biomass survey,
plant heat stress• Water penetration, differentiation of snow and
ice landscape analysis,
lineament detection, lithological classification, urban
environment assessment,
delineation of water bodies,hydrothermal mapping.

• Vegetation
mapping andmonitoring,soil erosion,
agricultural
boundary
detection,• Urban mapping, forestry
mapping and planning,land use and land coverdiscrimination, maritime
and coastal management,
resource stewardshipmonitoring, habitat supply
planning, wildfire mapping,landslide and mudflow
detection, and rapid urbanchange.
• Environmental analysis,
land management, urban
growth mapping andupdating, disaster mitigationand monitoring
Highly detailed land use
discrimination• Atmospheric temperature
measurement, ozone/cloud/atmospheric properties,
ocean color, phytoplankton,
biogeochemistry, land cover
mapping, land use planningland cover characterizationand change detection.

KOOS MS

Spectral: 4bands
Temporal: 1-3
days• Precision
farming,
vegetation
mapping, disease
detection

MODIS

Spatial:250,500,1000 m
Spectral: 36
bands
Temporal: 1-2
days• Drought
detection,
vegetation
monitoring andforecasting

11/3/08 10:44:36 AM

414 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 6-4. Continued.
			Types of remote sensing		Sensor description

Example of			
imaging sensors
Resolution

1. Optical Imaging(continued)
d. Hyperspectral

It acquires images in
ENVISAT MERIS
about a 100 or more
contiguous spectral
bands. The precise
spectral information
enables bettercharacterization andidentification of targets.

2. Microwave Imaging

Encompasses bothactive and passive
remote sensing.
It covers longwavelengths from
1cm-1m, which canpenetrate throughcloud cover, haze,
dust, and all but theheaviest rainfall all
day and all weather
imaging.

(widely used bands)
a. C Band

8,000-4,000 MHz; (3.8- RADARSAT-SAR(5.6 cm)
7.5 cm)b. L Band

2,000-1,000 MHz;
(15.0-30.0 cm)

3. Light Detection andRanging (LIDAR)

LIDAR (airborne)
An active sensor thattransmits laser pulses
to the targets andrecords the time thepulse returned to thesensor receiver.
Laser is able toprovide light beamwith high intensity,
high collimation,high coherence, highspectral purity, andhigh polarization purity.

Hyperion

ALOS-PALSAR(1270 MHZ)

Limitations

Applicationin agriculture

Other applications

Spatial: 300,
1200 mSpectral: 15
bands
Temporal: 3
days• Inventory andyield estimation.
• Crop typemapping• Monitoring of
seasonal land
cover changes.
• Globalvegetation
monitoring• Evaluation of
tropohospheric aerosol
properties, hazard
monitoring

Spatial: 30 m
Spectral: 220
bands
Temporal: 16
days• Precision
farming, crop
type mapping,monitoring of crop
health, moistureand maturity.

• Measures sea surface
temperature, color andsurface roughness• Coastal management(monitoring of phytoplanktons, pollution andbathymetry changes)• Image• Crop monitoring
distortions.
and forecasting,
Extensive
crop mapping
shadowingof areascharacterizedwith relief.
• Coarse• Agricultural
Spatial: 10-100 resolution,
especiallymonitoringm Spectral: Lband Temporal: for passive
applications.
46 days• Radar images
are rather
difficult to deal
with. The few
commercial
softwarepackages thatexist to deal withradar imagery
offer a limited
amount offunctions.
• Results are
better whencombined with
optical images
as they havebeen provencomplimentary
Spatial:8,25,30,50,
100m
Spectral: Cband
Temporal: 24
days

Spatial: 0.75 m • Disadvantages
Spectral: 1.045- are low
coverage area
1.065 µm
and high cost
Temporal:dependent on per unit area
flight schedule of groundcoverage. It
is not costeffective tomap a large
area using anairborne remotesensing system.

• Flood detection, fordisaster management,risk assessment, pollution
control (oil spill), coastline
mapping.

• Distinction of forest fromgrassland, land coverclassification volcanic
activity monitoring, flood
monitoring, landslide andearthquake detection,
detection of oil slick, forest
biomass estimation.

• Crop monitoring, • Forestry management,
shoreline and beach volume
plant specieschanges lines, flood risk
detection, cananalysis, habitat mapping,be used forsubsidence issues,agriculturalplanning and crop emergency response,
urban development, andestimation
monitoring of environmental
changes.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

chapter 06.indd 414

11/3/08 10:44:36 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 415

munications, and distance education and training via theInternet. Some of these projects have been quite successful
suggesting that the potential impact of IT on development
can be enormous, particularly in terms of improved health,hygiene, nutrition, and education (Pigato, 2001
ICT can complement conventional methods to meetthe growing demand of stakeholders in accessing improved
technologies and timely information and support services,
improving productivity and livelihoods in poor rural communities. Although ICT allows greater and faster flow of information, due to the technical and knowledge requirements,
not all people have the same level of access. ICT can further
widen the “digital divide” between developed and developing
countries, as well as between rural and urban communities
within a country (Herselman and Britton, 2002).
6.7.5.2.3 Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology (see Glossary) may improve agriculture
and resource management, particularly soil fertility, crop/
animal production, pest management, veterinary medicine,product safety and quality, and farm waste management.
Applications of nanotechnology in agriculture are rapidly
expanding and developing (Binnig and Rohrer, 1985; Mills
et al., 1997; Huang et al., 2001; Dutta, and Hofmann, 2004;
Hossain et al., 2005; Graham-Rowe, 2006). Investment on
nanotechnology R&D from both public and private sectors
has been increasing (Kuzma and VerHage, 2006). The potential of nanotechnologies in terms of environmental impacts, including those with agriculture applications (waste
management, water purification, environmental sensors,
and agricultural pollution reduction) has been assessed (Defra, 2007).
Biosensors developed into nanosensors expedite rapid
testing and analysis of soil, plants, and water making nutrient and water management in the farm more efficientand less laborious (Birrel and Hummel, 2001; Alocilja andRadke, 2003). Nanoporous materials such as zeolites canhelp release the right dosage of fertilizer at the right timeowing to well-controlled stable suspensions with absorbed
or adsorbed substances. Nanoelectrocatalytic systems could
optimize purification of highly contaminated and salinatedwater for drinking and irrigation; and nanostructured materials may offer clean energy solutions through the use ofsolar cells, fuel cells, and novel hydrogen storage (Court etal., 2005).
Nanomaterials can provide environmental filters or as
direct sensors of pollutants (Dionysiou, 2004). Nanoparticles have been used in photocatalysis that enhance degradation process in solid, farm or wastewater treatment (Blake,
1997; Herrmann, 1999). Air pollution could also be reduced(Peral et al., 1997) through on the use of photocatalysis for
purification, decontamination, and deodorization of air.
The integration of nanotechnology, biotechnology, andinformation and communications technology could revolutionize agriculture this century (Opara, 2004).These technologies could contribute to reducing hunger and improving
nutrition by optimizing plant health and eliminating pathogens or other organisms that might contaminate food.
Despite the rapidly expanding products and market of
nanotechnology (nanotechnology food market in 2006 wasabout US$7 billion in 2006 and may reach a total of $20.4

chapter 06.indd 415

billion by 2010 (HKC, 2006), there are some biosafety and
IPR concerns. Their application in agriculture will directly
introduce them into ground and surface water catchments
where they may accumulate in concentrations that may
undermine the goals of food safety and environmental sustainability (NSTC, 2000; ETC Group, 2005). Nanomaterials are built from nanoparticles that may be too diverse
for stereotypical risk assessments (Colvin, 2003). However,since nanoscale particles have minute dimensions in common, these can direct research to likely exposure routes. For
example, their small size but large-scale release may lead totheir accumulation in groundwater because even particles
that are not soluble in water can form colloidal species thatcan be carried in water (Colvin, 2003).
As with biotechnology, nanotechnologies are not evenly
distributed: wealthier industrial nations produce and own
the technologies. A single nanoscale innovation can be relevant for widely divergent applications across many industry
sectors and companies, and patent owners could potentially
put up tolls on entire industries. IP will play a major role indeciding who will capture nanotech’s market, who will gain
access to nanoscale technologies, and at what price (ETCGroup, 2005).
6.7.5.3 Participatory approaches to AKST
Efforts to preserve natural resources and guarantee theprovisioning of essential ecosystem services are frequently
characterized by social, political and legal conflicts (Wittmer et al., 2006). Broad-scale approaches are necessary to
face problems that extend beyond a local site and a shorttime span.
The asymmetric administration of shared lands andnatural resources is a potential source of conflict in manytrans-boundary eco-regions of the world (Viglizzo, 2001).
The cross-border externalization of negative environmental
impacts due to asymmetries in land conversion and intensityof farming represents a challenge to neighboring countries.
The problem may become critical in shared basins with interconnected rivers and streams where downstream countries often have to pay the cost of negative impacts that havenot been properly internalized upstream.
AKST can be employed to prevent or mitigate consequences of conflict over environmental resources, particularly through the use of participatory approaches supported
to enhance the commitment of stakeholders to the decisionmaking process and to share the responsibility of managing common resources. Strategies include (1) developing
stakeholder appreciation for importance of trans-boundarybasin management (2) jointly designed land-use strategies toprevent potential conflicts due to negative externalities fromneighboring areas, (3) environmental impact assessment for
ex-ante evaluation of potentially conflicting projects, and(4) acceptance of third party independent arbitration to facecurrent or potential conflicts when necessary.
Agricultural and environmental conflicts are characterized by the interaction of both ecological and societal
complexity (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994). Participatory approaches (De Marchi et al., 2000) and multicriteria analysis(Paruccini, 1994) can help resolve agroenvironmental conflicts. Multiple criteria analysis uses different approaches(normative, substantive and instrumental) to deal with dif-

11/3/08 10:44:36 AM

416 | IAASTD Global Reportferent types and levels of conflict resolution; it can be a powerful analytical tool in cases where a single decision-making
criterion fails and where impacts (social, ecological or environmental) cannot be assigned monetary values.
Currently, most agricultural technology aims at resolving environmental problems that occur at the small spatial
scale (e.g., the plot and farm level), but broad-scale technologies (Stoorvogel and Antle, 2001) are necessary to reveal
impacts that are not perceived with site-specific studies. The
importance of information technology increases as we scaleup to undertake problems that occur at broader geographical scales. The integration of maps, remote-sensing images,
and data bases into geographic information systems (GIS) is
needed to assess, monitor and account critical resources andlarge-scale agroenvironmental processes. This informationbase, coupled to models and expert systems (De Koning etal., 1999), can help support the application of participatory approaches and multicriteria analysis to resolve present or potential conflicts. Likewise, these tools become tools
to support decision-making on large-scale land-use policies
and managerial schemes.
The impact of climate change may exacerbate risks ofconflict over resources and further increase inequity, particularly in developing countries where significant resource
constraints already exist. An estimated 25 million people per
year already flee from weather-related disasters and global
warming is projected to increase this number to some 200
million before 2050 (Myers 2002); semiarid ecosystems are
expected to be the most vulnerable to impacts from climatechange refugees (Myers, 2002). This situation creates a very serious potential for future conflict, and possible violent clashes
over habitable land and natural resources such as freshwater(Brauch, 2002), which would seriously impede AKST efforts
to address food security and poverty reduction.

6.8 Adaptation to Climate Change, Mitigationof Greenhouse Gases
The effectiveness of adaptation efforts is likely to vary significantly between and within regions, depending on geographic location, vulnerability to current climate extremes,
level of economic diversification and wealth, and institutional capacity (Burton and Lim, 2005). Industrialized agriculture, generally situated at high latitudes and possessing
economies of scale, good access to information, technology and insurance programs, as well as favorable terms ofglobal trade, is positioned relatively well to adapt to climate change. By contrast, small-scale rainfed production
systems in semi-arid and subhumid zones presently contend
with substantial risk from seasonal and interannual climate
variability. Agricultural communities in these regions generally have poor adaptive capacity to climate change due tothe marginal nature of the production environment and theconstraining effects of poverty and land degradation (Parryet al., 1999).
AKST will be confronted with the challenge of needing
to significantly increase agriculture output—to feed two to
three billion more people and accommodate a growing urban demand for food—while slowing the rate of new GHG
emissions from agriculture, and simultaneously adapting to
the negative impacts of climate change on food production.

chapter 06.indd 416

Agriculture will have to become much more efficient in its
production if it is to accomplish this without significantly
increasing its climate forcing potential. All of this will haveto be achieved in a future where agricultural crops may bein direct competition with crops grown for energy purposes
as well as without significant extensification and loss of biodiversity.
6.8.1 AKST innovations
6.8.1.1 Technological (high-input) options
Modeling. Climate simulation models indicate the intensification of the hydrologic cycle, climatic conditions which
will significantly challenge efforts to control soil erosion
and rehabilitate degraded lands even in well-endowed production environments (Nearing, 2004). Tropical soils withlow organic matter are expected to experience the greatest impact of erosion on crop productivity because of thepoor resilience of these soils to erosive forces, and the highsensitivity of yields to cumulative soil loss (Stocking, 2003;
Nearing, 2004). Evidence of significant soil erosion can often be difficult to detect, and its impact on crop productivity can be masked by use of inorganic fertilizer (Knowler,
2004; Boardman, 2006). Extreme events, which significantly contribute to total erosion, are very likely to increase withclimate change (Boardman, 2006), as will climate-inducedchanges in land use that leave soils vulnerable to erosion(Rounsevell et al., 1999).
The improvement of soil erosion modeling capacity
can address the role of extreme events in soil erosion andencompass the influence of socioeconomic factors on land
use change (Michael et al., 2005; Boardman, 2006). One
new technique estimates the impact of more frequent extreme events under different climate scenarios by using meteorological time series projections (Michael et al., 2005).
The effects of extreme events on erosion can be more simply modeled with two-dimensional hill slope approaches(Boardman, 2006); GIS can be used to develop landslide
hazard maps (Perotto-Baldiviezo et al., 2004).
Recent developments in modeling techniques show potential for estimating the future impact of extreme events,
through downscaling from General Circulation Models.
Global climate models, however, will continue to be limited
by uncertainties (Zhang, 2005). The lack of quantitative
data and the technological complexity of many contemporary models are likely to limit the applicability of soil erosion modeling in less developed steep land regions (Morgan
et al., 2002; Boardman, 2006). Better field-level assessmentsof current erosion under different crops and management
practices, and, where possible, through integrating GIS into
land-use planning could help developing countries assess theimpacts of climate change.
Agroecological zone (AEZ) tools used by FAO (FAO,
2000) to determine crop suitability for the world’s major
ecosystems and climates has potential to enhance efforts todevelop crop diversification strategies. The AEZ methodology, which combines crop modeling with environmental
matching, allow assessment of the suitability of particular
crop combinations given future climate scenarios. However,the data sets that underlie AEZ need to be improved in orderto realize the full potential of these tools for crop diversifica-

11/3/08 10:44:37 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 417

tion. For example the current scale of the FAO world soil
maps at 1:5,000,000 needs finer resolution (FAO, 2000).
Early warning, forecasting systems. Timely forecasts, including the starting date of the rainy season, average weather
conditions over the coming season, conditions within the season that are critical to staple crops and animals, and appropriate responses can increase the economic, environmental, andsocial stability of agricultural systems and associated communities. Advances in atmospheric and ocean sciences, a better
understanding of global climate, and investments in monitoring of the tropical oceans have increased forecasting skill
at seasonal to interannual timescales. Early warning systems
using seasonal forecasts (such as the FAO Global Information and Early Warning System) and monitoring of local
commodity markets, are increasingly used to predict likely
food shortfalls with enough advance warning for effective
responses by marketing systems and downstream users.
Traditional coping mechanisms depend on the ability
to anticipate hazard patterns, which are increasingly erraticwith the advent of climate change. One option for improving early detection and warning would be to broaden the useof GIS-based methodologies such as those employed by the
Conflict Early Warning and Response Network (CEWARN),
the Global Public Health Information Network (G-PHIN).
Early warning systems are important because they
help to untangle the multiple but interdependent crises thatcharacterize complex emergencies, particularly in response to
climate change. In other words, continuous information gathering serves to identify the socioecological ingredients of complex crises before they escalate into widespread violence. Thismeans technological systems are also needed. To this end, theadded value of technological early warning systems should
therefore be judged on their empowerment of local peoplecentered systems that build on the capacity of disaster-affected communities to recover with little external assistancefollowing a disaster. Further applied research is needed on
local human adaptability in decentralized settings as well as
self-adaptation in dynamic disaster environments.
Linking early warning to more effective response requires a people-centered approach to climate change (UN,2006). The quest for early warning must be more than justan “exercise in understanding how what is happening overthere comes be known by us over here” (Adelman, 1998).
Instead, the international community should focus on thereal stakeholders and add to their capacity for social resilience. On the policy front, the lack of institutionalized early
warning systems that survey the localized impact of climatechange on ecological and political crises inhibits the formulation of evidence-based interventions (Levy and Meier, 2004).
Regrettably, little collaboration currently exists between thedisaster management and conflict prevention communities
despite obvious parallels in risk assessments, monitoring
and warning, dissemination and communication, response
capability and impact evaluation (Meier, 2007).
Bringing climate prediction to bear on the needs of agriculture requires increasing observational networks in themost 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,chapter 06.indd 417

quantitative evidence of the utility of forecasts for agricultural risk management, enhanced stakeholder participation,and commodity trade and storage applications (Giles 2005;
Hansen, 2005; Hansen et al., 2006; Doblas-Reyes et al.,2006; Sivakumar, 2006). For seasonal climate forecasts tobe an effective adaptation tool, advances in forecasting skills
need to be matched with better pathways for dissemination
and application, such as by linking forecasts to broader
livelihood and development priorities, and by training organizations, such as extension agencies, to facilitate theend users’ ability to make effective decisions in response toforecasts (Ziervogel 2004; Garbrecht et al., 2005; Hansen
2005; Vogel and O’Brien, 2006). Substantial investments bynational and international agricultural and meteorologicalservices are needed.
Improve crop breeding potential for drought, salinity andheat tolerance. Abiotic stress of agricultural crops is expected to increase in most regions due to warmer temperatures,experienced both as episodic heat waves and mean temperature elevation, prolonged dry spells and drought, excess soil
moisture, and salinity linked to higher evapotranspiration
rates and salt intrusion. Expected temperature increases of
2-3°C by mid-century could significantly impair productivity of important staple crops of the developing world, suchas wheat, and in truly marginal areas, millet. One-third ofirrigated agricultural lands worldwide are affected by highsalinity, and the area of salt-affected soils is expected to increase at a rate of 10% per year (Foolad, 2004). The magnitude of these impacts could test our capacity to achieve
breakthroughs in germplasm improvement equivalent to thechallenge at hand.
Advances in plant genomics, linked to the Arabidopsis
model system, and the integration of genomics with physiology and conventional plant breeding could lead to the development of new varieties with enhanced tolerance to drought,
heat, and salinity. Emerging genomic tools with future potential include whole-genome microarrays, marker-assisted
selection using quantitative trait loci, bioinformatics, andmicroRNAs (Edmeades et al., 2004; Foolad, 2004; Ishitani
et al., 2004; White et al., 2004; Denby and Gehring, 2005).
Phenological adaptation, e.g., matching crop duration toavailable season length, is central to successful breeding efforts; thus conventional breeding, augmented with genomic
tools, is a likely configuration of future plant breeding programs. An example of this would be the integration of phenotyping (differences in crop germplasm performance under
different stress environments) with functional genomic approaches for identifying genes and mechanisms (Edmeades
et al., 2004; Ishitani et al., 2004). Improvement in seasonal
forecasting and in the use of remote sensing and other observational tools could also be used to further support breeding programs, through better characterization of cropping
environments.
Future breakthroughs in understanding how crop plants
respond to abiotic stress are very likely, given the scientificresources dedicated to investigating the Arabidopsis thaliana, a model system used for plant genetics and genomics
studies with a small, completely sequenced genome and ashort life cycle. For example, progress in genomics related
to salt tolerance in Arabidopsis mutants has enhanced un-

11/3/08 10:44:37 AM

418 | IAASTD Global Report

derstanding of gene function, which could provide opportunities to exploit these mechanisms in crop species (Foolad,
2004; Denby and Gehring, 2005). However, direct extrapolation of single gene responses, gained through Arabidopsis
studies, to functional abiotic tolerance of cultivated crop
species could continue to be limited by differences in genesequence between Arabidopsis and crop species (Edmeades
et al., 2004; White et al., 2004). Moreover, gene expressionin Arabidopsis changes when exposed to field conditions(Miyazaki et al., 2004, as reviewed by White et al., 2004),
as would be expected given the influence of genotype by environment interactions. Genes for heat tolerance have been
identified in a number of species, including rice, cowpea,
and groundnut, which is likely to provide future opportunities for heat-tolerance breeding.
Attaining more effective use of genomics for abiotic
stress-tolerance breeding will depend on closer integrationof this discipline with physiology, which could lead to better
understanding of how genes confer changes in whole-plantbiological function and agronomic performance (genotypeto-phenotype relationships) (Edmeades et al., 2004; Whiteet al., 2004). However, the current imbalance between genomic research and field-based physiological studies, in favor of the former, could undermine future AKST progress
towards developing new stress-tolerant germplasm. Lastly,
the scope of abiotic stress research needs to be extended
to include more investigations of stress caused by mineral
deficiencies and toxicities (Ishitani et al., 2004), as thesefactors strongly influence root development with implications for tolerance to climatic extremes (Lynch and St. Clair,2004). For example, many tropical agricultural soils havehigh levels of exchangeable Al which stunt root system development. Bringing mineral stress tolerance more closely
into the realm of abiotic stress research, while increasing
the complexity of the breeding challenge, could possibly
avoid short-circuiting progress on drought, heat and salinity
breeding efforts when scaling up to actual field conditions
where multiple and complex stresses occur.
Technological breakthroughs in breeding for abiotic
stress tolerance could ultimately be limited by a potential
loss of crop wild relatives to climate change. In the next 50
years, 16 to 22% of species that are wild relatives of peanut, potato, and cowpea could become extinct as a resultof temperature increases and shifts in rainfall distribution,and most of the remaining species could lose over 50% of
their range size (Jarvis et al., 2008). These three crops areimportant for food security in low-income countries, andtheir wild relatives are a vital genetic resource for developing future drought and pest resistant crop varieties, as wellas varieties with enhanced nutritional value. Greater efforts
to collect seed for gene banks (ex situ conservation) andto target in situ conservation, such as through addressing
habitat fragmentation, could help to mitigate these potential
losses. Strengthening links between conservation, breeding,and farmers’ groups is an important component of this effort. However, diversity for its own sake is not useful, as
farmers retain varieties for specific traits, not for the sake ofconservation (Box 6-2).
Agronomic and genetic improvement of underutilized(or “lost”) crops could provide a good opportunity to enhance agricultural diversification, particularly in Africa

chapter 06.indd 418

where approximately 2,000 underutilized food species are
consumed (NRC, 1996). Crops such as the legume Bambara
groundnut (Vigna subterranean) and the cereal fonio (Digitaria exilis and Digitaria iburua) still figure prominently in
the African diet. Fonio has very good prospects for semiarid and upland areas because it is widely consumed, tolerates poor soil and drought conditions, matures very quickly(6-8 weeks), and has an amino acid profile superior to today’s major cereals (NRC, 1996). Unlocking the genetic
potential of this cereal through conventional breeding andbiotechnology to address low yields, small seeds, and seedshattering could help meet development and sustainability
goals (Kuta et al., 2003; NRC, 1996). Similar potential exists for Bambara groundnut (Azam-Ali, 2006; Azam-Ali etal., 2001), which is still cultivated from landraces. Researchneeds for underutilized crops include germplasm collection,marker assisted breeding, assessments of agronomic characteristics and nutritional content, development of improved
processing technologies, and market analyses. While thesecrops cannot replace the major cereals, their improvement
could significantly enhance food security options for ruralcommunities confronted with climate change.
Diversification of agriculture systems is likely to become
an important strategy for enhancing the adaptive capacityof agriculture to climate change. Diversification strategies in
the near term will need to be flexible, given that the disruptive impacts of climate change are projected to be experienced more in terms of increased variability, than as meanchanges in climate. Therefore, improved skill in predicting
how short-term climate phenomena, such as the El Niño
Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation,affect seasonal and interannual variability, and the timely
dissemination of forecasts will be essential for farmer decisions about whether to grow high or low water-consumptive
crops and use of drought-tolerant varieties (Adams et al.,
2003; Stige et al., 2006).
6.8.1.2 On-farm (low input) options
The knowledge and tools currently available could be better
deployed to reduce the vulnerability of rainfed agriculture toseasonal climate variability. For example, poor crop establishment is a significant but solvable constraint in semiarid
farming environments (Harris, 2006). Similarly, seasonal
dry spells can be bridged using improved rainfall catchment
and incremental amounts of fertilizer (Rockström, 2004).
By focusing on the “manageable part of climatic variability”(Rockström, 2004), AKST could have a significant positive
impact on improving the adaptive capacity of rainfed agriculture to climate change. It is also important to recognizethat risk aversion practices are themselves an adaptation toclimate variability, and to understand the functional linkages between existing coping strategies and future climatechange adaptation.
The greatest period of risk in rainfed agriculture is theuncertainty around the timing of sufficient rainfall for crop
sowing. High rainfall variability and poor quality seed leads
to slow germination and emergence, causing patchy stands,
and multiple and delayed replanting, making poor crop establishment a significant contributor to the productivity gap
in semiarid agriculture (Harris, 2006). Emphasis can be put
on targeting technologies and practices that reduce the ex-

11/3/08 10:44:37 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 419

Box 6-2. The importance of crop varietal
diversification as a coping strategy to manage risk.
A study of traditional practices of conserving varieties of yam,Dioscorea sp., and of rice, Oryza glaberrima, was carried out
in Ghana in 2003-2004 under an IPGRI-GEF-UNEP projecton crop landraces in selected sub-Saharan African countries(Gyasi et al., 2004). It identified 50 varieties of yam and 33
varieties of rice that are managed by a wide diversity of locally
adapted traditional practices in the study sites located in thesemiarid savanna zone in the northern sector. The case study
findings underscore the importance of crop varietal diversification as security against unpredictable rainfall, pest attack,fluctuating market and other such variable environmental andsocioeconomic conditions, not to mention its importance formodern plant breeding and wider use of farm resources, notably labor and the diversity of on-farm ecological niches.

posure of sensitive crop growth stages to seasonal climate
variability.
Options for addressing this challenge include improving
farmer access to quality seed, adoption of improved crop
establishment practices, and the use of healthy seedlings intransplant systems. Seed priming—soaking seeds in water
for several hours but short of triggering germination—is an
example of a simple but effective technology for improving crop establishment. Priming of some seeds results inmore even and fuller stand establishment, accelerates seedling emergence and improves early growth, often leading
to earlier flowering and maturity, avoidance of late-season
drought and improved yields (Harris et al., 2001; Harris,
2006). Experimental crop transplanting methods in milletsorghum areas of Africa can also reduce planting risk; e.g.,
staggered transplanting from seedling nurseries to allow
for variable onset of the rainy season (Young and Mottram, 2001; Mottram, 2003; CAZS, 2006). This method,
though more labor intensive, results in faster crop establishment with fewer gaps, and a harvest 2-3 weeks earlier thanconventional seeding methods, leading to higher grain andstover yields.
By reducing crop establishment risk and decreasing thetime to maturity, these technologies provide a small measureof flexibility to farmers in high-risk environments. Technologically simple approaches to improve crop establishment
and seedling vigor generally have minimal downside risks,
immediate and tangible benefits, and can be easily tailored to
producer needs; thus they are appropriate options for smallscale rainfed systems. Seed priming, which has been tested ina wide array of dryland cereals and pulses, consistently results in average 30% increases in yield with minimal farmer
investment (Harris, 2006). Similar mean yield increases havebeen observed with seedbed solarization of rice nurseries,
though with somewhat greater farmer investment in material and time. While these are simple technologies, they dorequire some local testing and training to ensure that proper
techniques are followed. Millet transplanting systems show
good potential, though labor shortages could be an issue inchapter 06.indd 419

some regions. An analysis of the tradeoff between labor fortransplanting versus the labor and extra seed required for
multiple resowing of millet fields would help to clarify theissue of labor expenditure.
Soils. Improved adoption of soil conserving practices canalso mitigate the damaging effects of climate variability.
Methods include the use of cover crops, surface retentionof crop residues, conservation tillage, green manures, agroforestry, and improved fallow (Sanchez, 2000; Benites andAshburner, 2003; Lal, 2005). Although these are very soundpractices for soil protection, achieving broad-scale and longterm adoption of them will be a significant challenge given
the current and likely future, disincentives to investment
as described in the previous subchapter (Stocking, 2003;
Knowler, 2004; Cherr et al., 2006; Patto et al., 2006). The
resilience of conservation farming systems in the Central
American highlands to recent El Niño drought (Cherrett,1999), and to the catastrophic soil losses from Hurricane
Mitch (Holt-Gimenez, 2001) provide strong evidence ofconservation agriculture’s potential as an adaptation response to increased rainfall variability and storm intensitywith climate change.
Long-term investment in rehabilitating degraded lands
is another option for addressing the negative feedback between high rainfall risks and declining soil fertility. Recent
evidence of revegetation and agricultural intensification in
the Sahel, catalyzed by a crisis of diminished rainfall anddeclining yields (Herrmann et al., 2005; Reij et al., 2005;
Tappan and McGahuey, 2007; USAID, 2006), could informfuture AKST efforts at integrating soil and water conservation and land reclamation into adaptation planning. Technologies and practices deployed in these areas to reclaim
declining or abandoned land include rock lines, rock “Vs”,
and manure-amended planting pits. These techniques wereused to break soil crusts, enhance water capture and retention, and regenerate N-fixing trees to improve soil fertility.
Soil reclamation using these methods encompassed several
hundred thousand ha in Burkina Faso and Mali, and wellover a million ha in Niger (Reij et al., 2005; Tappan and
McGahuey, 2007; USAID, 2006).
Important elements gleaned from these studies include:• Legal code reforms that provided farmer, rather thangovernment, ownership of trees was an essential precondition; the former sometimes taking the lead and thelatter following;• By improving land and claiming ownership, women
were one of the main beneficiaries, and improved household food security one of the most tangible outcomes;• Investment in fertilizer occurred after farmers invested
in measures to conserve soil moisture and increase soilorganic matter.
AKST could play an important role in documenting the effectiveness of these practices for seasonal climate risk management, e.g., investigating how these soil improvement
practices affect soil fertility, soil moisture retention, andcrop yields over a range of variable rainfall years, as wellas conducting detailed socioeconomic analyses of how thebenefits are distributed in local communities. Local controlof the resource base is necessary for creating the enabling

11/3/08 10:44:38 AM

420 | IAASTD Global Reportconditions that spur local action towards natural resource
improvements, and an understanding of this dynamic isneeded to effectively support local initiatives. Stabilizing
and improving the natural resource base of agriculture are
essential preconditions for investing in technologies forlong-term adaptation to climate change (Stocking, 2003;
Sanchez, 2005).
Reduction of greenhouse gas emission for agriculture. Reduction of N2O emissions from agriculture could be achievedby better matching fertilizer application with plant demandthrough the use of site-specific nutrient management that
only uses fertilizer N to meet the increment not supplied
by indigenous nutrient sources; split fertilizer applications;use of slow-release fertilizer N; and nitrification inhibitors(DeAngelo et al, 2005; Pampolino et al., 2007). Another option to address N2O emissions would be the use of biologicalmeans to inhibit or control nitrification in soils. Gene transfer from species exhibiting biological nitrification inhibition
to cultivated species could offer another way to reduce N2O
emissions to the atmosphere and nitrate pollution of water
bodies (Fillery, 2007; Subbarao et al., 2007).
Improved management of agriculture and rangelands
targeted at soil conservation, agroforestry, conservation
tillage (especially no-till), agricultural intensification, andrehabilitation of degraded land can yield C sequestration
benefits (IPCC, 2000; Izaurralde et al., 2001; Lal, 2004).
Carbon sequestration potential in soils is greatest on degraded soils (Lal, 2004), especially those with relatively highclay content (Duxbury, 2005; Lal, 2004).
Another promising approach would be to use plantmaterial to produce biochar and store it in soil (Lehman,
2007a). Heating plant biomass without oxygen (a process
known as low-temperature pyrolysis) converts plant material (trees, grasses or crop residues) into bioenergy, and in
the process creates biochar as a coproduct. Biochar is a very
stable compound with a high carbon content, surface area,
and charge density; it has high stability against decay, andsuperior nutrient retention capacity relative to other formsof soil organic matter (Lehmann et al., 2006). The potential
environmental benefits of pyrolysis combined with biochar
application to soil include a net withdrawal of atmosphericCO2, enhancement of soil fertility, and reduced pollution ofwaterways through retention of fertilizer N and P to biochar surfaces (Lehmann, 2007b). Future research is needed
to more fully understand the effect of pyrolysis conditions,feedstock type, and soil properties on the longevity and nutrient retention capacity of biochar.
The robustness of soil carbon sequestration as a permanent climate change mitigation strategy has been questioned
because soil carbon, like any other biological reservoir, may
be reverted back to the atmosphere as CO2 if the carbon
sequestering practice (e.g., no till practice) were to be abandoned or practiced less intensively. Increasing soil organic
matter through carbon sequestering practices contributes
directly to the long-term productivity of soil, water, andfood resources (IPCC, 2000; Lal, 2004). Thus it would seem
unlikely that farmers would suddenly abandon systems of
production that bring so many economic and environmental benefits. Other reports suggest that certain soil carbon
sequestering practices, such as no till, may increase N2O

chapter 06.indd 420

emissions (Ball et al., 1999; Duxbury, 2005). This outcome,however, may be location specific (e.g., humid climatic conditions) as revealed by a comprehensive review of Canadian
agroecosystem studies (Helgason et al., 2005).
Globally, farmers continue to adopt no-till as their conventional production system. As of 2001, no-till agriculture
had been adopted across more than 70 million ha worldwide
with major expansion in South America (e.g., Argentina,
Brazil, and Paraguay) (Izaurralde and Rice, 2006). With anarea under cropland estimated globally at 1.5 billion ha,
there exists a significant potential to increase the adoptionof no-till as well as other improved agricultural practices,which would have other environmental benefits such as improved soil quality and fertility, reduced soil erosion, andimproved habitat for wildlife. Much work remains to bedone, however, in order to adapt no-till agriculture to thegreat variety of topographic, climatic, edaphic, land tenure,land size, economic, and cultural conditions that exist in
agricultural regions of the world.
In developing strategies all potential GHG emissions
need to be considered for example, efforts to reduce CH4
emissions in rice can lead to greater N2O emissions throughchanges in soil nitrogen dynamics (Wassmann et al., 2004;
DeAngelo et al., 2005; Yue et al., 2005; Li et al., 2006).
Similarly, conservation tillage for soil C sequestration can
result in elevated N2O emissions through increased fertilizer
use and accelerated denitrification in soils (Ball et al., 1999;
Duxbury, 2005). However, one of the most comprehensive
long-term studies of GHG emissions across several land use
practices in Michigan (Robertson et al., 2000) revealed thatno-till agricultural methods had the lowest Global Warming Potential when compared to conventional and organic
agricultural methods.
From a GHG mitigation standpoint, strategies that emphasize the avoidance of N2O and CH4 emissions have apermanent effect as long as avoided emissions are tied tohigher productivity, such as through increased energy efficiency and better factor productivity (Smith et al., 2007). Indeed, many of the practices that avoid GHG emissions andincrease C sequestration also improve agricultural efficiency
and the economics of production. For example, improving
water and fertilizer use efficiency to reduce CH4 and N2Oemissions also leads to gains in factor productivity (Gupta
and Seth, 2006; Hobbs et al., 2003) while practices that
promote soil C sequestration can greatly enhance soil quality (Lal, 2005). Improved water management in rice production can have multiple benefits including saving water while
maintaining yields, reducing CH4 emissions, and reducing
disease such as malaria and Japanese encephalitis (van der
Hoek et al., 2007). There is significant scale for achieving this“win-win” approach, with the approach largely determinedby the size and input intensity of the production system,e.g., N-fixing legumes in smallholder systems and precision
agriculture in large systems (Gregory et al., 2000).
There is potential for achieving significant future reductions in CH4 emissions from rice through improved water
management. For example, CH4 emissions from China’s
rice paddies have declined by an average of 40% over thelast two decades, with an additional 20 to 60% reduction
possible by 2020 through combining the current practice of
mid-season drainage with the adoption of shallow flooding,

11/3/08 10:44:38 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 421

and by changing from urea to ammonium sulfate fertilizer,
which impedes CH4 production (DeAngelo et al., 2005; Li etal., 2006). There is also potential to achieve CH4 reduction
through integrating new insights of how the rice plant regulates CH4 production and transport into rice breeding programs (Wassmann and Aulakh, 2000; Kerchoechuen, 2005).
Emerging technologies that could provide future options for reducing CH4 and N2O emissions from livestockinclude: adding probiotics, yeasts, nitrification inhibitors,
and edible oils to animal feed that reduce enteric CH4 andN2O emissions from livestock systems (Smith et al., 2007)
and controlling methanogenic archae, microorganismsthat live in the rumen and generate CH4 during their metabolism More extensive use of the antibiotic Rumensin(monensin sodium), currently used to improve feed efficiency and prevent Coccidiosis, a parasitic intestinal infection, would improve energy utilization of feedstuffs throughincreased production of proprionic acid by rumen microorganisms and reduce the production of CH4. However, because
Rumensin is also toxic to methanogenic bacteria, it should not
be fed to cattle whose waste is to be used for CH4 generation.
Seeds. A viable option for small-scale production systems
would be to refine and more widely disseminate the practice of adding small quantities of fertilizer to seed, such as
through seed coating (Rebafka et al., 1993) or soaking/priming (Harris, 2006) methods. Addition of fertilizer P
and micronutrients to seed, rather than soil, is an inexpensive but highly effective means for improving plant nutrition
and increasing yield (> 30% average yield increase reported)on drought-prone, acidic, low fertility soils. Seed primingwith dilute fertilizer has average benefit/cost ratios 20 to 40
times greater than that achieved with fertilizer addition to
the soil.
This is could be an effective strategy for small-scale
systems, though there are several impediments such as low
availability of quality fertilizer in local markets, lack of extension services for conveying technical information, and inability of farmer to pay for fertilizer-treated seed. Imbedding
these technologies within larger efforts to overhaul the seed
sector, which could include credit for purchasing improved
seed and information about improved crop establishment
practices could facilitate farmer adoption of these technologies. These technologies also could be disseminated into local communities by targeting farmers that have made priorland improvements to increase soil water retention, and may
therefore be less risk adverse.
Water resources and fisheries. While the broad implicationsof climate change on marine systems are known—including
rising sea levels, sea surface temperatures, and acidification—the degree and rate of change is not known, nor are
the effects of these physical changes on ecosystem function
and productivity (Behrenfeld et al., 2006). To adjust andcope with future climatic changes, a better understanding of how to predict the extent of change, apply adaptive
management, and assign risk for management decisions isneeded (Schneider, 2006).
To ensure the survival of many communities, their livelihoods and global food security, new approaches to monitoring, predicting, and adaptively responding to changes inchapter 06.indd 421

marine and terrestrial ecosystems need to be developed. Ecosystem resilience can be built into fisheries and essential fish
habitats (including wetlands and estuaries) and approaches
developed that reduce risk and ensure continuation of ecosystem goods and services (Philippart et al., 2007). Rising
sea levels will alter coastal habitats and their future productivity, threatening some of the most productive fishingareas in the world. Changes in ocean temperatures will alter
ocean currents and the distribution and ranges of marine
animals, including fish populations (di Prisco and Verde,
2006; Lunde et al., 2006; Sabates et al., 2006; Clarke etal., 2007). Rising sea surface temperatures will result in additional coral reef bleaching and mortality (Donner et al.,2005). Rising atmospheric CO2 will lead to acidificationof ocean waters and disrupt the ability of animals (such ascorals, mollusks, plankton) to secrete calcareous skeletons,
thus reducing their role in critical ecosystems and food webs
(Royal Society, 2005).
Precautionary approaches to management of fish andfreshwater resources are needed to reduce the impacts fromclimate change, including conserving riparian and coastal
wetlands that can buffer changes in sea level rise and freshwater flows. Human-induced pressures on fish populations
from overfishing must be reduced so that fish populations
have a chance of withstanding the additional pressures fromwarming seas and changes in seasonal current patterns. Human demand for increasing freshwater supplies needs to beaddressed through water conservation and water reuse, thus
allowing environmental flows to maintain riparian and wetland ecosystems.
Small-scale fishers, who lack mobility and livelihood alternatives and are often the most dependent on specific fisheries, will suffer disproportionately from such large-scale
climatic changes. In Asia, 1 billion people are estimated to
be dependent upon coral reef fisheries as a major sourceof protein, yet coral reef ecosystems are among the mostthreatened by global climate change. The combined effects
of sea surface temperature rise and oceanic acidification
could mean that corals will begin to disappear from tropical reefs in just 50 years; poor, rural coastal communities indeveloping countries are at the greatest risk and will suffer
the greatest consequences (Donner and Potere, 2007; www.
icsf.net). Climate change is a major threat to critical coastal
ecosystems such as the Nile, the Niger and other low-lying
deltas, as well as oceanic islands which may be inundated
by rising sea levels. The environmental and socioeconomic
costs, especially to fisheries communities in developing
countries, could be enormous.
Water related risk can be reduced through adaptation
and adoption of strategies to improve water productivity
in rainfed farming systems. These strategies entail shiftingfrom passive to active water management in rainfed farming
systems and include water harvesting systems for supplemental irrigation, small scale off-season irrigation combinedwith improved cropping system management, including useof water harvesting, minimum tillage and mulch systems, improved crop varieties, improved cropping patterns (Molden
et al., 2007), and particularly mitigation of soil degradation(Bossio et al., 2007). These existing technologies allow active
management of rainfall (green water), rather than only managing river flows (blue water) (Rockstrom et al., 2007).

11/3/08 10:44:39 AM

422 | IAASTD Global Report

The scope for improvement is tremendous (Molden et al.,2007): rainfed farming covers most of the world croplands(80%), and produces most of the world’s food (60-70%).
Poverty is particularly concentrated in tropical developing
countries in rural areas where rainfed farming is practiced(Castillo et al., 2007). Half of the currently malnourishedare concentrated in the arid, semiarid and dry subhumid
areas where agriculture is very risky due to extreme variability of rainfall, long dry seasons, and recurrent droughts,
floods and dry spells (Rockstrom et al., 2007). Current productivity is generally very low (yields generally less than halfof irrigated systems and in temperate regions where water
risks are much lower). Even in these regions, there is generally enough water to double or often quadruple yields inrainfed farming systems. In these areas the challenge is to
reduce water related risks rather than coping with absolutescarcity of water. With small investments large relative improvements in agricultural and water productivity can beachieved in rainfed agriculture. Small investments providing
1000 m3 ha-1 (100 mm ha-1) of extra water for supplemental
irrigation can unlock the potential and more than double
water and agricultural productivity in small-scale rainfed
agriculture, which is a very small investment compared to
the 10000-15000 m3 ha-1 storage infrastructure required
to enable full surface irrigation (Rockstrom et al., 2007).
Provided that there are sufficient other factor inputs (e.g.,N), the major hurdle for rain water harvesting and supplemental irrigation systems is cost effectiveness. Investment in
R&D for low cost small scale technologies is therefore important to realize gains. This approach can address seasonalvariability in rainfall (expected to increase with climatechange) but have little impact in conditions of more severeinterannual variability (very low rainfall), which can only
be addressed by systems with storage (dams and groundwater) or buffering (lag in hydrologic response to thatriver flows are substantially maintained through drought
periods).
Climate change will require a new look at water storage, to mitigate the impact of more extreme weather, copewith changes in total amounts of precipitation, and copewith changing distribution of precipitation, including shifts
in ratios between snowfall and rainfall. Developing morestorage (reservoirs and groundwater storage) and hydraulicinfrastructure provides stakeholders with more influence indetermining the precise allocation to desired activities including agriculture and hydropower production.
In the process of adapting to climate change multiple
interests at the basin scale can be incorporated and managed, and tradeoffs with other livelihood and environmental interests included in the planning (Faurés et al., 2007).
Storage will itself be more vulnerable to climatic extremes
resulting from climate change, and therefore be less reliable. Furthermore, it will have proportionately greater
impacts on wetland and riverine ecosystems, which are
already under stress. The arguments on the relative meritsof further storage will become sharper and more pressing(Molden et al., 2007). The role of groundwater as a strategic reserve will increase (Shah et al., 2007) How to plan
appropriate and sustainable storage systems that address
climate change is a pressing need for future AKST development.

chapter 06.indd 422

6.8.2 Sustainable use of bioenergy
6.8.2.1 Liquid biofuels for transport
Current trends indicate that a large-scale expansion of production of 1st generation biofuels for transport will create
huge demands on agricultural land and water—causing
potentially large negative social and environmental effects,
e.g., rising food prices, deforestation, depletion of water
resources (see Chapter 4) that may outweigh positive effects. The following options are currently being discussed asmeans to alleviating these problems.
Reducing land and water requirements through increasing
yields of agricultural feedstocks. Efforts are currently focused on increasing biofuel yields per hectare while reducing agricultural input requirements by optimizing cropping
methods or breeding higher yielding crops. For example,
Brazil has been able to increase yields and reduce crop vulnerability to drought and pests by developing more than
550 different varieties of sugar cane, each adapted to different local climates, rainfall patterns and diseases (GTZ,2005). Both conventional breeding and genetic engineering
are being employed to further enhance crop characteristics
such as starch or oil content to increase their value as energy
crops. There is a great variety of crops in developing countries that are believed to hold large yield potential but more
research is needed to develop this potential (Cassman et al.,2006; Ortiz et al., 2006; Woods, 2006). However, even if
yields can successfully be increased, several problems will
persist for the production of liquid biofuels on a large scale.
Total land area under cultivation will still need to expand considerably in order to meet large-scale demand forbiofuels and food production (Table 6-5).
Land availability and quality as well as social and environmental value and vulnerability of this land differ widely
by country and region and needs to be carefully assessed at
the local level (FAO, 2000; WBGU, 2003; European Environment Agency, 2006). Moreover, various studies predictthat water will be a considerable limiting factor for whichfeedstock production and other land uses (e.g., food production, ecosystems) would increasingly compete (Giampietro etal., 1997; Berndes, 2002; De Fraiture et al., 2007). In addition
to these environmental problems, special care must be taken
to avoid displacement and marginalization of poor people
who often have weakly enforceable or informal property andland-use rights and are thus particularly vulnerable (Fritsche
et al., 2005; FBOMS, 2006; The Guardian, 2007).
Economic competitiveness will continue to be an issue.
Even in Brazil, the world leader in efficient ethanol production, biofuels are competitive only under particularly favorable market conditions. To increase total land area under
production, less productive areas would have to be brought
into production, either for bioenergy feedstocks directly orfor other agricultural crops which may be displaced on themost productive lands. This depends on economic incentives
for farmers and investments in productivity enhancements
and could have strong effects on agricultural systems andfurther accentuate food price effects.
Environmental concerns, associated with issues such as
high-input feedstock production, the conversion of pristineland for agricultural production, the employment of trans-

11/3/08 10:44:39 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 423

Table 6-5. Land area requirements for biofuels production.
Percentage of total 2005 global
crude oil consumption to be
replaced by bioenergy

Energy yield
1 generation biofuelsst

Next generation biofuels

40 GJ/ha

60 GJ/ha

250 GJ/ha

700 GJ/ha

5% ~ 1500 million barrels/year

230 million ha

153 million ha

37 million ha

13 million ha

10% ~ 3010 million barrels/year

460 million ha

307 million ha

74 million ha

26 million ha

20% ~ 6020 million barrels/year

921 million ha

614 million ha

147 million ha

53 million ha

Conversion factors: 1 GJ=0.948 million BTU; 1 barrel of oil ~ 5.8 million BTU
Source: Avato, 2006.

genic crops, the depletion of water resources as well as the
problematic resemblance of some biofuels feedstocks withinvasive species (Raghu et al., 2006) need to be carefully assessed with special emphasis on the local context.
Producing biofuels from inedible feedstock and on marginallands. It is often argued that using inedible energy crops forthe production of biofuels would reduce pressures on foodprices. Moreover, many of these crops, e.g., Jatropha, poplar
and switchgrass, could be grown productively on marginalland, without irrigation and potentially even contributing toenvironmental goals such as soil restoration and preservation (GEF, 2006; IEA, 2004; Worldwatch Institute, 2006).
Inedible feedstocks. Food price increases can be caused directly, through the increase in demand for the biofuel feedstock, or indirectly, through the increase in demand for thefactors of production (e.g., land and water). For example,
land prices have risen considerably in the US “corn belt”
over the past years—an effect that is largely attributed tothe increased demand for ethanol feedstocks (Cornhusker
Economics, 2007; Winsor, 2007). Such factor price increases lead to increasing production costs of all goods for which
they are used as inputs. Thus, using nonedible plants as energy feedstocks but growing them on agricultural lands may
only have a limited mitigating effect on food prices.
Marginal lands. Cultivating energy crops on degraded landor other land not currently under agricultural production
is often mentioned as an option but it is not yet well understood. Several key issues deserve further attention:(1) The production of energy crops on remote or less productive land would increase biofuels production costs (dueto lower yields, inefficient infrastructure, etc.), leading to
low economic incentives to produce on these lands. In fact,
while estimates of available marginal land are large, especially in Africa and Latin America (FAO, 2000; Worldwatch
Institute, 2006), much of this land is remotely located or
not currently suitable for crop production and may requirelarge investments in irrigation and other infrastructure.
(2) Environmental effects of bringing new stretches of land
into production are problematic and need to be carefully
analyzed, especially with regards to soil erosion, water resources and biodiversity.
Development of next generation biofuels. Significant potential is believed to lie with the development of new energy

chapter 06.indd 423

conversion technologies—next generation biofuels. Several different technologies are being pursued, which allow
the conversion into usable energy not only of the glucose
and oils retrievable today but also of cellulose, hemicellulose and even lignin, the main building blocks of mostbiomass. Thereby, cheaper and more abundant feedstocks
such as residues, stems and leaves of crops, straw, urban
wastes, weeds and fast growing trees could be converted
into biofuels (IEA, 2006; Ortiz et al., 2006; Worldwatch
Institute, 2006; DOE, 2007). This could significantly reduce land requirements, mitigating social and environmental pressures from large-scale production of 1st generation
biofuels (Table 6-5). Moreover, lifecycle GHG emissions
could be further reduced, with estimates for potential reductions ranging from 51 to 92% compared to petroleum
fuels (IEA, 2004; European Commission, 2005; GEF,
2005; Farrell et al., 2006). However there are also environmental concerns associated with potential overharvesting of agricultural residues (e.g., reducing their important
services for soils) and the use of bioengineered crops andenzymes.
The most promising next generation technologies arecellulosic ethanol and biomass-to-liquids (BTL) fuels. Cellulosic ethanol is produced through complex biochemical processes by which the biomass is broken up to allow
conversion into ethanol of the cellulose and hemicellulose.
One of the most expensive production steps is the pretreatment of the biomass that allows breaking up the cellulose
and removing the lignin to make it accessible for fermentation. Research is currently focused on how to facilitate
this process, e.g., through genetically engineering enzymes
and crops. BTL technologies are thermo-chemical processes,
consisting of heating biomass, even lignin-rich residues left
over from cellulosic ethanol production, under controlled
conditions to produce syngas. This synthetic gas (mainlyof carbon monoxide and hydrogen), is then liquefied e.g.,
by using the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process to produce different fuels, including very high-quality synthetic diesel,
ethanol, methanol, buthanol, hydrogen and other chemicals
and materials. Research is also focusing on integrating the
production of next generation biofuels with the productionof chemicals, materials and electricity in biorefineries (Adenet al., 2002; IEA, 2004; GEF, 2006; Hamelinck and Faaij,
2006; IEA, 2006; Ledford, 2006; Ragauskas et al., 2006;
Woods, 2006).
Next generation biofuels have to overcome several critical steps in order to become a viable and economic source

11/3/08 10:44:39 AM

424 | IAASTD Global Reportof transport fuels on a large scale and be able to contributeto the development and sustainability goals. First, next generation biofuels technologies have not yet reached a stageof commercial maturity and significant technological challenges need to be overcome to reduce production costs. It
is not yet clear when these breakthroughs will occur andwhat degree of cost reductions they will be able to achieve
in practice (Sanderson, 2006; Sticklen, 2006; DOE, 2007).
The U.S. Department of Energy has set the following ambitious goals for its cellulosic ethanol program: reducing
the cost per liter from US$0.60 to 0.28 and capital investment costs from currently $0.80 to 0.49 by 2012 (DOE,2007). Second, even if these breakthroughs occur, biofuels
will have to compete with other energy technologies thatare currently being developed in response to high oil prices.
For example, with regards to transport fuels, technologicalprogress is currently reducing costs of conventional (e.g.,
deep sea) and unconventional (e.g., tar sands) oil production
and also of coal and gas to liquid technologies. Third, while
countries like South Africa, Brazil, China and India are currently engaged in advanced domestic biofuels R&D efforts,high capital costs, large economies of scale, a high degreeof technical sophistication as well as intellectual property
rights issues make the production of next generation biofuels problematic in the majority of developing countries even
if the technological and economic hurdles can be overcome
in industrialized countries.
6.8.2.2 Bioenergy and rural development
Living conditions and health of the poor can be considerably
improved when households have the opportunity to upgradefrom inefficient, polluting and often hazardous traditional
forms to modern forms of energy. Through their importancefor the delivery of basic human needs such as potable water,food and lighting, these modern energy services are among
the primary preconditions for advancements in social andeconomic development (Barnes and Floor, 1996; Cabraal etal., 2005; Modi et al., 2006). Moreover, bioenergy and ancillary industries may promote job creation and income generation. However, the balance of positive and negative effects of different forms of bioenergy is subject to significant
debate and is highly context specific. Careful assessments oflocal needs, economic competitiveness as well as social andenvironmental effects are needed to determine under which
circumstances modern bioenergy should be promoted.
The domestic production of biofuels from agricultural crops (1st generation) is often credited with positive
externalities for rural development through creating new
sources of income and jobs in feedstock production and energy conversion industries (e.g., Moreira and Goldemberg,
1999; von Braun and Pachauri, 2006; Worldwatch Institute,2006). However, the actual effect of 1st generation biofuels
production on rural economies is complex and has strong
implications for income distribution, food security and theenvironment.
Economically, the major impact of biofuels productionis the increase in demand for energy crops. In fact, biofuels
have historically been introduced as a means to counteract
weak demand or overproduction of feedstock corps, e.g.,this was a principal reason for Brazil to introduce its ProAlcool Program in 1975 (Moreira and Goldemberg, 1999). On

chapter 06.indd 424

the one hand, this additional demand can increase incomesof agricultural producers, increase productivity enhancing
investments and induce dynamic processes of social and economic development (FAO, 2000; Coelho and Goldemberg,
2004; DOE, 2005; Worldwatch Institute, 2006).
On the other hand, this needs to be evaluated against
economic, social and environmental costs that may arise
from large increases in biofuels production. First, even if
biofuels can be produced competitively, at least part of therise in agricultural incomes would represent a mere redistribution of income from consumers of agricultural products
to producers. The extent of this redistribution depends onthe degree to which food prices are affected. Second, in cases
when biofuels are promoted despite having higher costs
than petroleum fuels, an analogous redistribution fromenergy consumers to agricultural producers takes place. In
both cases the effects on poverty are highly complex. Somerural poor may gain if they can participate in the energy
crop production, biofuel conversion and ancillary sectors orotherwise benefit from increased economic activity in rural
areas. This depends critically on aspects such as production
methods (e.g., degree of mechanization) and institutional arrangements (e.g., structure of the agricultural sector, property rights of agricultural land and security of land tenure).
Conversely, those rural and urban poor people who spend aconsiderable share of their incomes on energy and especiallyfood are bound to lose if they have to pay higher prices.
Food-importing developing countries would also suffer under globally rising food prices. Time lags in the responseof producers to increased feedstock demand may lead priceincreases to be more accentuated in the short-term than in
the medium to long-term.
Biofuels are considerably more labor intensive in production than other forms of energy such as fossil fuels andthus they are often proposed as a means for improving employment in the agricultural sector as well as in other downstream industries that process by-products such as cakes andglycerin (Goldemberg, 2004; Worldwatch Institute, 2006).
However, estimating actual effects on employment is highly
complex. First, any newly created employment needs to beweighed against jobs that are displaced in other sectors, including jobs that would have been created in the feedstock
production sector even in the absence of biofuels production. These dynamics are complex and may involve very different industries, e.g., the livestock industry, food processors
and other major user of agricultural crops (CIE, 2005).
Second, while bioenergy is labor intensive compared toother energy industries, it is not necessarily labor intensive
compared to other forms of farming. In fact, energy crop
production very often takes the form of large-scale mechanized farming. Thus, in cases where traditional farming is
replaced by less labor intensive energy crop production,jobs may actually be lost. Similarly, no new jobs are createdif biofuels production simply displaces other agricultural
crops. It is unsure whether such job substitution is actually
beneficial, especially considering that many jobs in feedstock production are temporary and seasonal (Fritsche etal., 2005; Kojima and Johnson, 2005; Worldwatch Institute,2006).
Consequently, the overall effects on employment andincomes are highly complex and context specific and there is

11/3/08 10:44:40 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 425

no consensus on magnitude or even direction of net effects.
Even if in certain cases longer term dynamic effects may
dominate for the economy as a whole, the considerable risks
of welfare losses for certain stakeholders warrant carefulconsideration—especially with regard to the most vulnerable persons. More research is needed to develop and applyinterdisciplinary tools that assess these issues more clearly(e.g., economic cost-benefit analysis).
Development of small-scale applications for biodiesel andunrefined bio-oils. The environmental and social costs ofproducing biofuels can be considerably lower in small-scale
applications for local use due to more contained demands
on land, water and other resources. At the same time, thebenefits for social and economic development may be higher, especially in remote regions, where energy access and agricultural exports are complicated by high transport costs(Kojima and Johnson, 2005). Landlocked developing countries, small islands, and also remote regions within countries may fall into this category—if they can make available
sufficient and cheap feedstock without threatening foodsecurity. Especially biodiesel offers potential in small-scale
applications as it is less technology and capital intensive to
produce than ethanol. Unrefined bio-oils offer similar benefits and their production for stationary uses such as water
pumping and power generation is being analyzed in several
countries, e.g., focusing on Jatropha as a feedstock (Indian
Planning Commission, 2003; Van Eijck and Romijn, 2006).
Such schemes may offer particular potential for local communities when they are integrated in high intensity smallscale farming systems which allow an integrated productionof food and energy crops. More research is needed on thecosts and benefits to society of these options, taking into
consideration also other energy alternatives.
Conduct R&D on electricity and heat generation technologies from biomass to improve operational reliability. Someforms of bioelectricity and bioheat can be competitive withother off-grid energy options (e.g., diesel generators) andtherefore are viable options for expanding energy access incertain settings. The largest potential lies with the production of bioelectricity and heat when technically mature andreliable generators have access to secure supply of cheap
feedstocks and capital costs can be spread out over highaverage electricity demand. This is mostly the case on siteor near industries that produce biomass wastes and residues
and have their own steady demand for electricity, e.g., sugar,
rice and paper mills. The economics as well as environmental effects are particularly favorable when operated in combined heat and power mode. Biomass digesters and gasifiers
are more prone to technical failures that direct combustion
facilities, especially when operated in small-scale applications without proper maintenance. More research and development is needed to improve the operational stabilityof these technologies as well as the design of institutionalarrangements, including potential integration with biomass
processing industries, livestock holdings and mixed farming. However, modern bioenergy is only one of several options available for advancing energy access and in each caselocal alternatives need to be compared regarding economic
costs as well as social and environmental externalities (Table 6-6).

Table 6-6. Bioenergy: Potential and limitations.
Technological Application

Potential Benefits

1st Generation Biofuels• R&D on improving yields• Limited economic• Energy securityof feedstocks and fuelcompetitiveness• Income and employment
conversion• Social concerns, (e.g., pressurescreation• More research on social,on food prices)• GHG emission reductions
environmental and• Environmental concerns (e.g.,
economic costs anddepletion of water resource,
benefits
deforestation)• Policies/initiatives furthering• GHG emission reductionssocial and environmental
strongly dependent onsustainability
circumstances

Next Generation Biofuels• Larger production
potential and better
GHG balance than 1st
generation• Less competition withfood production• Unclear when technology will becommercially viable• High capital costs and IPR issues
limit benefits for developing
countries and small-scale farmers• Issues with over-harvesting ofcrop residues, GMOs

• Increase R&D to acceleratecommercialization• Develop approaches toimprove applicability indeveloping countries andfor small-scale farmers

Bioelectricity and Bioheat(large-scale)• Low GHG emissions• Issues with operational reliability• Favorable economics inand costs
certain off-grid applications • Logistical challenges offeedstock availability(e.g., bagasse cogeneration)• Develop demonstration
projects, product standards• Disseminate knowledge• Access to finance

Bioelectricity and Bioheat(small-scale)• Potential for increasingenergy access sustainably
in off grid areas with low
energy demand using
locally available feedstocks

chapter 06.indd 425

Risks and Limitations• Costs, operational reliability,
maintenance requirements

Options for Action• R&D on small-scalestationary uses of biodiesel
and bio-oils• Capacity building on
maintenance

11/3/08 10:44:40 AM

426 | IAASTD Global Report

References
Abawi, G.S., and J. Chen. 1998. Concomitantpathogen and pest interactions. p. 135-158.
In Plant and nematode interactions. Mono.
36. K.R. Barker et al. (ed) ASA, Madison WI.
Abbiw, D. 1990. Useful plants of Ghana: West
African uses of wild and cultivated plants.
Intermediate Tech. Publ., Roy. Botanic
Gardens, Kew.
Abdel-Dayem, S. 1999. A framework forsustainable use of low quality water in
irrigation. Proc. 17th Int. Congress on
Irrigation and Drainage Granada, Spain.
Available at http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/
ESSD/ardext.nsf/11ByDocName/Aframework
forSustaunableUseofLowQualityWaterinIrrig
ation/$FILE/Lowqualitywaterinirrigation.pdf.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Abdoellah, O.S., H.Y. Hadikusumah,
K. Takeuchi, S. Okubo, and Parikesit. 2006.
Commercialization of homegardens in an
Indonesian village: Vegetation composition
and functional changes. Agroforest. Syst.
68:1-13.
Adams, R.M., L.L. Houston, B.A. McCarl,
M. Tiscareño, J. Matus, and R.F. Weiher.
2003. The benefits to Mexican agricultureof an El Niño-southern oscillation (ENSO)
early warning system. Agric. For. Meteorol.
115:183-194.
Adelman, H. 1998. Defining humanitarian early
warning. In S. Schmeidl and H. Adelman (ed)Early warning and early response. Available
at http://www.ciaonet.org/book/schmeidl/.
Columbia Int. Affairs, NY.
Aden, A., M. Ruth, K. Ibsen, J. Jechura,
K. Neeves, J. Sheehan et al. 2002.
Lingocellulosic biomass to ethanol process
design and economics utilizing co-current
dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatichydrolysis for corn stover. NREL, Golden
CO.
Adi, B. 2006. Intellectual property rights inbiotechnology and the fate of poor farmers’
agriculture. J. World Intellect. Prop. 9:91112.
Adrian, M.A., S.H. Norwood, and P.L. Mask.
2005. Producers’s perceptions and attitudes
toward precision agriculture technologies.
Computers Electron. Agric. 48:256-271.
Adriano, D.C., J.M. Bollage, W.T. Frankenberger,
Jr, and R.C. Sims (ed) 1999. Bioremediationof contaminated soils. Agron. Mono. 37.
ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison WI.
Ahmed, M., H. Turral, I. Masih, M. Giordano,
and Z. Masood. 2007. Water saving
technologies: myths and realities revealed inPakistan’s rice-wheat systems. Res. Rep. 108.
IWMI, Colombo.
Ahmed, M.N. 1998. Fingerling stocking in open
waters. p. 201-208. In H.A.J. Middendorp
et al. (ed) Sustainable inland fisheries
management in Bangladesh. ICLARM Conf.
Proc. 58. ICLARM, Penang.
Ahuja, V., P.S. George, S. Ray, K.E. McConnell,
M.P.G. Kurup, V. Gandhi, et al. 2000.

chapter 06.indd 426

Agricultural services and the poor: Case of
livestock health and breeding services inIndia. Indian Inst. Management, Ahmedabad.
Akyeampong, E., and L. Hitimana. 1996.
Agronomic and economic appraisal of alley
cropping with Leucaena diversifolia onan acid soil in the highlands of Burundi.
Agrofor. Syst. 33:1-11.
Alabouvette, C., D. Backhouse, C. Steinberg,
N.J. Donovan, V. Edel-Hermann, andL.W. Burgess. 2004. Microbial diversity insoil — effects on crop health. p. 121-138.
In P. Schjoning et al. (ed) Managing soil
quality: Challenges in modern agriculture.
CAB Int., Wallingford.
Al-Ahmad, H., J. Dwyer, M. Moloney, and J.
Gressel. 2006. Mitigation of establishment ofBrassica napus transgenes in volunteers using
a tandem construct containing a selectively
unfit gene. Plant Biotech. J. 4:7-21.
Albrecht, A., and S. Kandji. 2003. Review.
Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry
systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 99:15-27.
Alfaia, S.S., G.A. Ribeiro, A.D. Nobre,
R.C. Luizão, and F.J. Luizão. 2004.
Evaluation of soil fertility in smallholder
agroforestry systems and pastures in western
Amazonia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 102:409-414.
Alkorta, I., and G. Garbisu. 2001. Review paper.
Phytoremediation of organic contaminants insoils. Bioresource Tech. 79:273-276.
Alocilja, E.C., and S. Radke. 2003.
Commercializing biosensors. Biosens.
Bioelectron. 18:841-846.
Altieri, M.A. 1987. Agroecology: The scientificbasis of alternative agriculture. Westview
Press, Boulder.
Altieri, M.A. 1999. The ecological role ofbiodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 74:19-31.
Altieri, M.A. 2002. Review: Agroecology: The
science of natural resource management forpoor farmers in marginal environments.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 93:1-24.
Anderson, L.S., and F.L. Sinclair. 1993.
Ecological interactions in agroforestry
systems. Agroforest. Abstr. 6:57-91.
Anderson, P.K., A. A. Cunningham, N.G. Patel,
F.J. Morales, P.R. Epstein, and P. Daszak.
2004. Emerging infectious diseases of plants:
Pathogen pollution, climate change andagrotechnology drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol.
19:10:535-544.
Anderson, R.C., R.B. Harvey, J.A. Byrd,
T.R. Callaway, K.J. Genovese, T.S. Edrington
et al. 2005. Novel preharvest strategies
involving the use of experimental chlorate
preparations and nitro-based compounds
to prevent colonization of food-producing
animals by foodborne pathogens. Poultry Sci.
84:649-654.
Ashe, A., and E. Whitelaw. 2007. Another rolefor RNA: a messenger across generations.
Trends Genet. 23:8-10.

Ashley, C., and S. Maxwell. 2001. Rethinking
rural development. Dev. Policy Rev. 19:
395-425.
Attipoe, L., A. van Andel, and S.K. Nyame,
2006. The Novella project. Developing asustainable supply chain for Allanblackiaoil. p. 179-189. In R. Ruben et al. (ed) Agrofood chains and networks for development.
Available at http://library.wur.nl/frontis/
agro-food_chains/15_attipoe.pdf. Springer,
Netherlands.
Avato, P.A. 2006. Bioenergy: An assessment.
Sustainable development network
background paper. World Bank, Washington
DC.
Azam-Ali, S. 2006. Can underutilized crops
be used for agricultural diversification in
Africa’s changing climates? Trop. Agric.
Assoc. Newslet. 26(2):17-20.
Azam-Ali, S.N., A. Sesay, S.K. Karikari,
F.J. Massawe, J. Anguilar-Manjarrez, and
M. Bannayan. 2001. Assessing the potentialof an underutilized crop — a case study using
Bambara groundnut. Exp. Agric. 37:433-472.
Badgley, C., J. Moghtader, E. Quintero, E.
Zakem, M.J. Chappell, K. Aviles-Vazquez
et al. 2007. Organic agriculture and theglobal food supply. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.
22(2):86-108.
Baenziger, P.S., W.K. Russell, G.L. Graef, andB.T. Campbell. 2006. Improving lives: 50
years of crop breeding, genetics, and cytology(C-1). Crop Sci 46:2230-2244.
Baggs, E.M., M. Stevenson, M. Philatie,
A. Regar, H. Cook, and G. Cadiz. 2003.
Nitrous oxide emissions following
application of residues and fertilizer use
under zero and conventional tillage. Plant
Soil 254:361-370.
Bailey, S.W. 2004. Climate change anddecreasing herbicide persistence. Pest
Manage. Sci. 60:158-162.
Baker, K.M., W.W. Kirk, J.M. Stein, and
J.A. Andersen. 2004. Climatic trends andpotato late blight risk in the upper Great
Lakes region. HortTech. 15(3):510-518.
Bakker, M., R. Barker, R. Meinzen-Dick, andF. Konradsen (ed) 1999. Multiple usesof water in irrigated areas: A case study
from Sri Lanka. SWIM Pap. no. 8. IWMI,
Colombo.
Bakun, A., and S.J. Weeks. 2006. Adverse
feedback sequences in exploited marine
systems: are deliberate interruptive actions
warranted? Fish Fisheries 7(4):316-333.
Ball, B.C., A. Scott, and J.P. Parker. 1999.
Field N2O, CO2 and CH4 fluxes in relation
to tillage, compaction and soil quality in
Scotland. Soil Till. Res. 53:29-39.
Banu, S.P., M.A. Shaheed, A.A. Siddique,
M.A. Nahar, H.U. Ahmed, and M.H. Devare.
2005. Soil biological health: A major factor
in increasing the productivity of the ricewheat cropping system. Int. Rice Res. Notes
30(1):5-11.

11/3/08 10:44:41 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 427

Barany, M., A.L. Hammett, R.R.B. Leakey,
and K.M. Moore. 2003. Income generating
opportunities for smallholders affected by
HIV/AIDS: Linking agro-ecological change
and non-timber forest product markets. J.
Manage. Studies 39:26-39.
Barnes, D.F., and W.M. Floor. 1996. Rural
energy in developing countries: A challenge
for economic development. Ann. Rev. Energy
Environ. 21:497-530.
Barrett, C.B., T. Reardon, and P. Webb. 2001.
Nonfarm income diversification andhousehold livelihood strategies in rural
Africa: Concepts, dynamics, and policy
implications. Food Policy 26:315-331.
Barrios, E., R.J. Delve, M. Bekunda, J. Mowo,
J. Agunda, and J. Ramisch. 2006. Indicatorsof soil quality: A South–South developmentof a methodological guide for linking
local and technical knowledge. Geoderma
135:248-259.
Bates, S.L., J.Z. Zhao, R.T. Roush, and
A.M. Shelton. 2005. Insect resistancemanagement in GM crops: past, present andfuture. Nature Biotech. 23:57-62.
Bavinck, M., R. Chuenpagdee, M. Diallo,
P. van der Heijden, J. Kooiman, R. Mahon etal. 2005. Interactive governance for fisheries:
A guide to better practice. Eburon Acad.
Publ., Delft.
Bedford, A., M. Blowfield, D. Burnett, andP. Greenhalgh. 2001. Value chains: Lessons
from the Kenya tea and Indonesia cocoa
sectors. Focus 3. Resource Centre Soc.
Dimens. Business Practice, London.
Behrenfeld, M.J., R.T. O’Malley, D.A. Siegel,
C.R. McClain, J.L. Sarmiento, andG.C. Feldman. 2006. Climate-driven trends
in contemporary ocean productivity. Nature444(7120):752-755.
Bell, A., F. Mazaud, and O. Mueck. 1999.
Guidelines for the analysis of postproduction systems. FAO, Rome.
Benites, J.R., and J.E. Ashburner. 2003. FAO’s
role in promoting conservation agriculture.
p. 139-153. In L. Garcia-Torres et al. (ed)Conservation agriculture: Environment,
farmers experience, innovations, socioeconomy, policy. Kluwer Acad. Publ.,
Netherlands.
Bennett, J. W., and M. Klich. 2003. Mycotoxins.
Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 16:497-516
Berndes, G. 2002. Bioenergy and water —the implications of large-scale bioenergy
production for water use and supply. Global
Environ. Change 12:253-271.
Bernet, T., A. Devaux, O. Ortiz, and G. Thiele.
2005. Participatory market chain approach.
Beraterinnen News 1:8-13.
Berntsen, J., J.E. Olesen, B.M. Petersen, andE.M. Hansen. 2006. Long-term fate ofnitrogen uptake in catch crops. Eur. J. Agron.
25:83-390.
Best, R., S. Ferris, and A. Schiavone. 2005.
Building linkages and enhancing trust
between small-scale rural producers, buyers
in growing markets and suppliers of criticalchapter 06.indd 427

inputs. p. 19-50 In F.R. Almond, and
S.D. Hainsworth (ed) Proc. Int. Seminar
Beyond agriculture: Making markets workfor the poor. London, 28 Feb-1 Mar 2005.
CPHP and Practical Action, UK.
Beyer, P., S. Al-Babili, X. Ye, P. Lucca,
P. Schaub, R. Welsch et al. 2002. Golden rice:
Introducing the beta-carotene biosynthesis
pathway into rice endosperm by genetic
engineering to defeat vitamin A deficiency.
J. Nutr. 132:506S-510.
Biénabe, E., and D. Sautier. 2005. The roleof small scale producers’ organizations inaddressing market access. p. 69-85. In
F.R. Almond, and S.D. Hainsworth (ed) Proc.
Int. Seminar: Beyond agriculture: Making
markets work for the poor. London, 28 Feb-1
Mar 2005. CPHP and Practical Action, UK.
Binnig, G., and H. Rohrer. 1985. Scanningtunneling microscopy. Sci. Am. 253:40-46.
Bird, A. 2007. Perceptions of epigenetics. Nature
447:396-398.
Birrel, S.J., and J.W. Hummel. 2001. Real-time
multi ISFET/FIA soil analysis system with
automatic sample extraction. Computers
Electron. Agric. 32(1):45-67.
Blackmore, S. 2000. Developing the principles ofprecision farming. p. 11-13. In Proc. ICETS
2000. China Agric. Univ., Beijing.
Blake, M. 1997. Bibliography of work on
photocatalytic removal of hazardous
compounds from water and air. NREL/
TP-430-22197. Nat. Renew. Energy Lab.,
Golden CO.
Bletsos, F.A. 2005. Use of grafting and calcium
cyanamide as alternatives to methyl bromide
soil fumigation and their effects on growth,yield, quality and Fusarium wilt control in
melon. J. Phytopathol. 153:155-161.
Boardman, J. 2006. Soil erosion science:
Reflections on the limitations of current
approaches. Catena. 68:73-86.
Bolliger, A., J. Magid, T.J.Carneiro Amado,
F. Skóra Neto, M. de F. Dos Santos Ribeiro,
and A. Calegari. 2006. Taking stock of theBrazilian “zero-till revolution”: A review
of landmark research and farmers’ practice.
Adv. Agron. 91:47-109.
Bos, M.G. 2004. Using the depleted fraction to
manage the groundwater table in irrigatedareas. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 18:201-209.
Bosc, P., M. Eychenne, K. Hussen, B. Losch,
M.R. Mercoiret, and P. Rondot. 2002. The
role of rural producer organizations in theWorld Bank rural development strategy.
Rural Dev. Strategy Background Pap. World
Bank, Washington DC.
Bossio, D., W. Critchley, K. Geheb, G. van
Lynden, and B. Mati. 2007. Conserving land,
protecting water. p. 551-583. In
D. Molden (ed) Water for food, water forlife: A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.
Bossio, D., A. Noble, D. Molden, and V. Nangia.
2008. Land degradation and water productivity
in agricultural landscapes. In D. Bossio and

K. Geheb (ed) Conserving land, protecting
water: ‘Bright Spots’ reversing trends in land
and water degradation. CABI, UK.
Bouman, B., R. Barker, E. Humphreys, andT.P. Tuong. 2007. Rice: Feeding the billions.
In D. Molden (ed) Water for food, water forlife: A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London, and IWMI, Colombo.
Bourgeois, G., A. Bourque, and G. Deaudelin.
2004. Modeling the impact of climate change
on disease incidence: a bioclimatic challenge.
Can. J. Plant Pathol. 26:284-290.
Brauch, H.G. 2002. Climate change,
environmental stress and conflict. p. 9-112
In Climate change and conflict. Fed. Ministry
Environ., Nature Conserv. Nuclear Safety,
Berlin.
Brookfield, H., H. Parsons, M. Brookfield (ed)2003. Agrodiversity: Learning from farmers
across the world. UNU Press, Tokyo.
Brown, D.L. 2003. Solutions exist for
constraints to household production andretention of animal food products. J. Nutr.
133:4042S-4047S.
Brush, S.B., and E. Meng. 1998. Farmer’s valuationand conservation of crop genetic resources.
Genet. Res. Crop Eval. 45: 139-150.
Buck, L.E., T.A. Gavin, D.R. Lee, N.T. Uphoff,
D. Chandrasekharan Behr, L.E. Drinkwater
et al. 2004. Ecoagriculture: A review andassessment of its scientific foundations.
Cornell Univ. and Univ. Georgia, SANREM
CRSP, Athens GA.
Bunch, R. 1999. More productivity with fewer
external inputs: Central American casestudies of agroecological development andtheir broader implications. Environ. Develop.
Sustain. 1(3-4):219-233.
Burt, C.M., D.J. Howes, and A. Mutziger.
2001. Evaporation estimates for irrigatedagriculture in California. p. 103-110.
In Proc. Ann. Irrig. Assoc. Meeting.
Available at http://www.itrc.org/ papers/
EvaporationEstimates/ EvaporationEstimates.
pdf. Irrigation Assoc, Falls Church VA.
Burton, I., and B. Lim. 2005. Achieving adequate
adaptation in agriculture. Clim. Change
70:191-200.
Cabraal, R.A., D.F. Barnes, and S.G. Agarwal.
2005. Productive use of energy for ruraldevelopment. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour.
30:117-144.
Campbell, L.G., A.A. Snow, and C.E. Ridley.
2006. Weed evolution after crop gene
introgression: greater survival and fecundityof hybrids in a new environment. Ecol. Lett.
9:1198-1209.
Cardille, J.A., and J.A. Foley. 2003. Agriculturalland-use change in Brazilian Amazonia
between 1980 and 1995. Remote Sensing
Environ. 87:551-582.
Cardoso, I., and T.W. Kuyper. 2006. Mycorrhizas
and tropical soil fertility. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 116:76-84.
Carruthers, R.I. 2003. Invasive species
research in the United States Department

11/3/08 10:44:41 AM

428 | IAASTD Global Reportof Agriculture. Agric. Res. Service. Pest
Manage. Sci. 59:827-834.
Carter, J. 1995. Alley farming: Have resourcepoor farmers benefited? ODI Nat. Resource
Perspect. No. 3, Jun. ODI, London.
Cassman, K., V. Eidman, and E. Simpson. 2006.
Convergence of agriculture and energy:
Implications for research and policy. CAST
Commentary QTA2006-3. Available at
http://www.cast-science.org/websiteUploads/
publicationPDFs/QTA2006-3.pdf. CAST,
Washington DC.
Castilla, N., J. Hernandez, and A.F. AbouHadid. 2004. Strategic crop and greenhousemanagement in mild winter climate areas.
Acta Hort. 633:183-196.
Castillo G.E., R.E. Namara, H.M. Ravnborg,
M.A. Hanjra, L. Smith, and M.H. Hussein.
2007. Reversing the flow: Agricultural water
management pathways for poverty reduction.
In D. Molden (ed) Water for food, water forlife: A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.
CAZS (Centre for Arid Zones Studies). 2006.
Transplanting sorghum and millet, a key risk
management in semi-arid areas. Available
at http://www.bangor.ac.uk/transplanting.
CAZS, Bangor, UK.
Center for Food Safety. 2005. Monsanto vs. U.S.
Farmers. CFS, Washington DC.
Chakaborty, S. 2005. Potential impact of climatechange on plant-pathogen interactions.
Australas. Plant Pathol. 34:443-448.
Chacko, C.T. and F. Schneider. 2005. Breeding
services for small dairy farmers-sharing theIndian experience. Oxford and IBH Publ.,
New Delhi.
Chaney, R.L, Y.M. Li, S.L. Brown, F.A. Homer,
M. Malik, J.S. Angle et al. 2000. Improving
metal hyperaccumulator wild plants todevelop commercial phytoextraction systems:
Approaches and progress. p. 129-158. In
N. Terry et al. (ed) Phytoremediation ofcontaminated soil and water. Lewis Publ.,
Boca Raton FL.
Chaney, R.L., P.G. Reeves, J.A. Ryan,
R.W. Simmons, R.M. Welch, and J.S. Angle.
2004. An improved understanding of soil
cd risk to humans and low cost methods toremediate soil cd risks. Biometals 17:5:549553.
Chen, M., X.Liu, Z. Wang, J. Song, Q. Qi,
and P.G. Wang. 2005. Modification ofplant N-glycans processing: The future of
producing therapeutic protein by transgenic
plants. Med. Res. Rev. 25:343-360.
Chen, Y., A. Gamliel, J.J. Stapleton, andT. Aviad. 1991. Chemical, physical, andmicrobial changes related to plant growth indisinfected soils. p. 103-129. In J. Katan and
J.E. DeVay (ed) Soil solarization. CRC Press,
Boca Raton FL.
Cherr, C.M.J., M.S. Scholberg, and R. McSorley.
2006. Green manure approaches to crop
production: A synthesis. Agron. J. 98(2):302319.

chapter 06.indd 428

Cherrett, I. 1999. Soil conservation by stealth.
Int. Agric. Develop. 19(3):13-15.
Chowdhury, S., A. Gulati, and E. Gumbira-Sa’id.
2005. High value products, supermarkets
and vertical arrangements in Indonesia.
MTID Disc. Pap. 83. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Christie, P., D.L. Fluharty, A.T. White, R.L.
Eisma-Osorio, and W. Jatulan. 2007.
Assessing the feasibility of ecosystem-based
fisheries management in tropical context.
Marine Policy 31:239-250.
CIE (Centre for International Economics). 2005.
Impact of ethanol policies on feedgrain users
in Australia. Report prepared for MLA on
behalf of the Australian Beef Industry. CIE,
Canberra.
CIMMYT. 2005. Sounding the alarm on global
stem rust. An assessment of race Ug99 in
Kenya and Ethiopia and the potential for
impact in neighboring regions and beyond.
CIMMYT, Mexico.
Clarke, A., E.J. Murphy, M.P. Meredith,
J.C. King, L.S. Peck, and D.K.A. Barneset.
2007. Climate change and the marine
ecosystem of the western Antarctic Peninsula.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.
Ser. B 362(1477):149-166.
Cleaveland, S., M.K. Laurenson, and
L.H. Taylor. 2001. Diseases of humans
and their domestic mammals: pathogen
characteristics, host range and the risk ofemergence. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B
356:991-999.
Clements, D.R., A. DiTommaso, N. Jordan,
B.D. Booth, J. Cardina, and D. Doohan.
2004. Adaptability of plants invading North
American cropland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
104:379-398.
Coelho, S.T., and J. Goldemberg. 2004. Alternativetransportation fuels: Contemporary casestudies. Encycl. Energy 1:67-80.
Cogoni, C., and G. Macino. 2000. Posttranscriptional gene silencing acrosskingdoms. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 10:638643.
Cohen, J.I. 2005. Poorer nations turn to publicly
developed GM crops. Nature Biotech. 23:27-33.
Colfer, P.C.J. (ed) 2004. The equitable forest:
diversity and community in sustainable
resource management. RFF Press,
Washington DC.
Colfer, P.C.J. (ed) 2005. The complex forest:
communities, uncertainty, and adaptive
collaborative management. RFF Press,
Washington DC.
Collins, W.W., and C.O. Qualset (ed) 1999.
Biodiversity in agroecosystems. CRC Press,
New York.
Colvin, V.L. 2003. The potential environmental
impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nature
Biotech. 21:1166-1170.
Cornhusker Economics. 2007. Ethanol fueling landmarket advances. Available at http://www.agecon.unl.edu/Cornhuskereconomics/3-21-07.pdf. Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln.
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber,
M. Grasso, and B. Hannon. 1997. The valueof the world’s ecosystem services and natural
capital. Nature 387:253-260.
Court, E.B., A.S. Daar, and D.L. Persad. 2005.
Tiny technologies for the global good.
Nanotoday. May 2005. p. 14-15.
Cremers, L., M. Ooijevaar, and R. Boelens. 2005.
Institutional reform in the Andean irrigation
sector: Enabling policies for strengthening
local rights and water management. Nat.
Res. Forum 29:37-50.
Cromwell, E. 1999. Agriculture, biodiversity andlivelihoods: Issues and entry points. Overseas
Dev. Inst., London.
Daberkow, S.G., and W.D. McBride. 2001.
Adoption of precision agriculture
technologies by U.S. farmers. In P.C. Robert
et al. (ed) Precision agriculture [CD-ROM].
Proc. Int. Conf., Minneapolis, 16-19 Jul
2000. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison WI.
Daily, G.C. 1997. Nature’s services: Societal
dependence on natural ecosystems. Island
Press, Washington DC.
Dalal, R.C., and R.J. Henry. 1986. Simultaneous
determination of moisture, organiccarbon and total nitrogen by near infrared
reflectance spectrophotomery. Soil. Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 50:120-123.
Dalal, R.C., W. Wang, G.P. Robertson, andW.J. Parton. 2003. Nitrous oxide emission
from Australian agricultural lands andmitigation options: a review. Aust. J. Soil
Res. 41:165-195.
Dalgaard, T., N.J. Hutchings, and J.R. Porter.
2003. Review. Agroecology, scaling andinterdisciplinarity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
100:39-51.
Davies, W.J., S. Wilkinson, and B. Loveys. 2002.
Stomatal control by chemical signalling
and the exploitation of this mechanism toincrease water use efficiency in agriculture.
New Phytologist 153(3):449-460.
De Angelo, B., S. Rose, C. Li, W. Salas.,R. Beach, and T. Sulser. 2005. Estimatesof joint soil carbon, methane, and N2O
marginal mitigation costs from world
agriculture. p. 609-617. In A. van Amstel(ed) Proc. Fourth Int. Symp. NCGG-4.
Millpress, Rotterdam.
De Fraiture, C., M. Giordano, and Y. Liao.
2007. Biofuels: Implications for agricultural
water use. Paper presented Int. Conf.
Linkages between energy and water
management for agriculture in developing
countries. Hyderabad, 29-31 Jan 2007.
De Jager, A. 2005. Participatory technology,
policy and institutional development toaddress soil fertility degradation in Africa.
Land Use Policy 22:57-66.
De Haan, C., H. Steinfeld, and H. Blackburn.
1997. Livestock and the environment:
Finding a balance. European Commission
Directorate-General for Development,
Brussels.
De Koning, G.H.J., P.H. Verburg, A. Veldkamp,
and L.O. Fresco. 1999. Multi-scales
modeling of land use change dynamics in
Ecuador. Agric. Syst. 61:77-93.

11/3/08 10:44:42 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 429

De la Cruz, C.R. (ed) 1994. Role of fish inenhancing ricefield ecology and in integrated
pest management. ICLARM Conf, Proc. 43,
WorldFish Center, Penang.
De Marchi, S., S. Funtowicz, L. Cascio, andG. Munda. 2000. Combining participativeand institutional approaches withmulticriteria evaluation: An empirical study
for water issues in Troina, Sicily. Ecol. Econ.
34:267-282.
De Plaen, R., M.L. Seka, and A. Koutoua. 2004.
The paddy, the vector and the caregiver:lessons from an ecosystem approach toirrigation and malaria in Northern Coted’Ivoire. Acta Trop. 89:135-46.
De Silva, S. 2003. Culture-based fisheries: anunderutilized opportunity in aquaculture
development. Aquaculture 221:221-243.
Defra. 2007. Environmentally beneficial
nanotechnologies: Barriers and opportunities.
Available at http://www.defra.gov.
uk/environment/nanotech/policy/pdf/
envbeneficial-report.pdf. Defra, London.
Degrande, A., K. Schreckenberg, C. Mbosso,
P.O. Anegbeh, J. Okafor, and J. Kanmegne.
2006. Farmers’ fruit tree growing strategies
in the humid forest zone of Cameroon and
Nigeria. Agroforest. Syst. 67:159-175.
Den Biggelaar, C., R. Lal, K. Wiebe, H. Eswaran,
V. Brenenman, and P. Reich. 2003. The
global impact of soil erosion on productivity.
II. Effects on crop yields and production overtime. Adv. Agron. 81:49-95.
Denby, K., and C. Gehring. 2005 Engineering
drought and salinity tolerance in plants:
lessons from genome-wide expression
profiling in Arabidopsis. Trends Biotech.
23(11):547-552.
Deng, X., J. Huang, S. Rozelle, and E. Uchida.
2006. Cultivated land conversion andpotential agricultural productivity in China.
Land Use Policy 23:373-384.
Denich, M., K. Vielhauer, M.S. de A Kato,
A. Block, O.R. Kato, and T.D. de Abreu
Sá. 2004. Mechanized land preparation inforest-based fallow systems: The experiencefrom Eastern Amazonia. Agroforest. Syst.
61:91-106.
Desbiez, A., R. Matthews, B. Tripathi, and
J. Ellis-Jones. 2004. Perceptions andassessment of soil fertility by farmers in the
mid-hills of Nepal. Agric. Ecos. Environ.
103:191-206.
Dew, C.B., and R.A. McConnaughey. 2005. Did
trawling on the brood stock contribute to thecollapse of Alaska’s king crab? Ecol. Applic.
15(3):919-941.
Di Prisco, G., and C. Verde. 2006. Predicting
the impacts of climate change on theevolutionary adaptations of polar fish. Rev.
Environ. Sci. Biotech. 5(2-3):309-321.
Díaz-Zorita, M., G. Duarte, and J. Grove.
2002. A review of no-till systems and soil
management for sustainable crop productionin the sub-humid and semi-arid Pampas ofArgentina. Soil Till. Res. 65:1-18.
Dingkuhn, M., B.B. Singh, B. Clerget,

chapter 06.indd 429

J. Chantereau, and B. Sultan. 2006. Past,
present and future criteria to breed crops forwater-limited environments in West Africa.
Agric. Water Manage. 80:241-261.
Dionysiou, D.D. 2004. Environmental
applications and implications of
nanotechnology and nanomaterials.
J. Environ. Engineer. 130:723-724.
Doblas-Reyes, F.J., R. Hagedorn, andT.N. Palmer. 2006. Developments in dynamicalseasonal forecasting relevant to agricultural
management. Climate Res. 33:19-26.
DOE. 2005. Biofuels and the economy. Available
at http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/economics.html.
Dep. Energy, Washington DC.
DOE. 2007. Biomass program. Multi-year
technical plan. Dep. Energy, Washington DC.
Doelman, P., and G. Breedveld. 1999. In situ
versus on site practices. p. 539-558. In
D.C. Adriano et al. (ed) Bioremediation of
cantamianted soils. Agron. Mono. 37. ASACSSA-SSSA. Madison, WI.
Domingo, J.L. 2000. Heath risks of GM foods:
Many opinions but few data. Science
288:1748-1749.
Donner, S.D., and D. Potere. 2007. The inequityof the global threat to coral reefs. BioScience57(3):214-215.
Donner, S.D., W.J. Skirving, C.M. Little, M.
Oppenheimer, and O. Hoegh-Guldberg,
2005. Global assessment of coral bleaching
and required rates of adaptation underclimate change. Global Change Biol.
11:2251-2265.
Douthwaite, B., V.M. Manyong, J.D.H. Keatinge,
and J. Chianu. 2002. The adoption of alley
farming and mucuna: Lessons for research,development and extension. Agrofor. Syst.
56:193-202.
Dowd, P.F. 2003. Insect management to facilitate
preharvest mycotoxin management. p. 327350. In H.K. Abbas (ed) Aflatoxin and foodsafety part 1. J. Toxicol. Toxins Rev. 22:2&3.
Droogers, P., and G. Kite. 1999. Water
productivity from integrated basin modeling.
Irrig. Drain. Syst. 13(3):275-290.
Dugan, P., V.V. Sugunan, R.L. Welcomme,
C. Béné, R.E. Brummett, and M.C.M. Beveridge.
2007. Inland fisheries and aquaculture. In
D. Molden (ed) Water for food, water for life: A
comprehensive assessment of water managementin agriculture. Earthscan, London and IWMI,
Colombo.
Dutta, J., and H. Hofmann. 2004. Selforganization of colloidal nanoparticles.
Encycl. Nanosci. Nanotech. 9:617-640.
Duxbury, J. M. 2005. Reducing greenhousewarming potential by carbon sequestration insoils: Opportunities, limits, and tradeoffs.
p. 435-450. In R. Lal et al. (ed) Climatechange and global food security. Taylor andFrancis, NY.
Duxbury, J., and J. Lauren. 2006. Enhancing
technology adoption for the rice-wheat
cropping system of the Indo-Gangetic Plains.
Ann. Rep. Soil Manage. CRSP, Honolulu

HI. Available at http://www.css.cornell.
edu/FoodSystems/RW%20project-a.html
productivity.
ECAPAPA. 2005. Managing conflicts overpasture and water resources in semi-arid
areas: Beyond misleading myths and ethnic
stereotypes. Policy Brief No. 8. Eastern andCentral Africa Programme for Agricultural
Policy Analysis. ECAPAPA, Entebbe.
Eddleston, M., L. Karalliedde, N. Buckley,
R. Fernando, G. Hutchinson, and G. Isbister.
2002. Pesticide poisoning in the developingworld: A minimum pesticides list. Lancet
12(360):1163-1167.
Edelstein, M. 2004. Grafting vegetables-crop
plants: Pros and cons. Acta Hort. 659:235-238.
Edelstein, M., and M. Ben-Hur. 2006. Use ofgrafted vegetables to minimize toxic chemical
usage and damage to plant growth and yield
quality under irrigation with marginal water.
Acta Hort. 699:159-168.
Edemeades, G.O., G.S. McMaster, J.W. White,and H. Campos. 2004. Genomics and thephysiologist: Bridging the gap between genes
and crop response. Field Crops Res.
90:5-18.
Edwards, J.H., and A.V. Someshwar. 2000.
Chemical, physical, and biologicalcharacteristics of agricultural and forest byproducts for land application. p. 1-62. In
W.R. Bartels (ed) Land application ofagricultural, industrial, and municipal byproducts. Book Ser. No. 6. SSSA, Madison WI.
Egypt MWRI (Ministry of Water Resources
and Irrigation). 2004. The national water
resources plan. MWRI, Cairo.
Eicher, C.K., K. Maredia, and I. Sithole-Niang.
2006. Crop biotechnology and the African
farmer. Food Policy 31:504-527.
Ekboir, J.M. 2003. Research and technology
policies in innovation systems: Zero tillage inBrazil. Res. Policy 32:573-586.
Ellis, J.E., and D.M. Swift. 1988. Stability of
African pastoral ecosystems: Alternate
paradigms and implications for development.
J. Range Manage. 41:450-459.
Ellison, C.A., S.T. Murphy, and R.J. Rabindra.
2005. Facilitating access for developing
countries to invasive alien plant classicalbiocontrol technologies: The Indian
experience. Aspects Appl. Biol. 75:71-80.
ETC Group. 2005. Down on the farm: The
impact of nanoscale technologies on foodand agriculture. Available at http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.
html?pub_id=80. ETC, Ottawa.
Etter, A., C. McAlpine, K. Wilson, S. Phinn, and
H. Possingham. 2006. Regional patterns ofagricultural land use and deforestation in
Colombia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114:
369-386.
European Commission. 2005. Shift gear to
biofuels. Results and recommendations
from the VIEWLS project for the European
Commission, Brussels.
European Environment Agency. 2006. How
much bioenergy can Europe produce without

11/3/08 10:44:42 AM

430 | IAASTD Global Reportharming the environment. Rep. No. 7/2006.
EEA, Copenhagen.
Fageria, N.K., and V.C. Baligar. 2005. Enhancing
nitrogen use efficiency in crop plants. Adv.
Agron 88:97-185.
Fairborther, J.M. and É. Nadeau. 2006. Escherichia
coli: On-farm contamination of animals. Rev.
Sci.Tech.Off.Int.Epiz. 25:555-569.
Fairhurst, T.H., C. Witt, R.J. Buresh, and A.
Doberman. 2007. Rice: A practical guide tonutrient management. Available at www.irri.org/irrc/ssnm. IRRI, Philippines.
FAO. 2000. Bioenergy. In Cultivating our futures.
Background papers. No. 2. Available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/x2775e/X2775E02.htm. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2002. The state of world fisheries andaquaculture 2002. Fisheries Dep., FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005. El sistema agroforestal Quesungual:Una opción para el manejo de suelos en
zonas secas de ladera. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2006. Pollution from industrialized
livestock production. Livestock Policy Brief
02. FAO, Rome.
FAO/OIE/WHO. 2005. A global strategy forthe progressive control of highly pathogenic
avian influenza (HPAI). FAO, Rome, OIE,
Paris, WHO, Geneva.
FAO/WHO. 2006. Food safety risk analysis: A
guide for national food safety authorities.
FAO, Rome.
Farrell, A.E., R.J. Plevin, and B.T. Turner.
2006. Can ethanol contribute to energy andenvironmental goals. Science 311:506-508.
Faurés, J.M., M. Svendsen and H. Turral.
2007. Reinventing irrigation. In D.
Molden (ed) Water for food, water forlife: A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.
FBOMS. 2006. Impacts of monoculture
expansion on bioenergy production in
Brazil. Brazilian Forum of NGOs andSocial Movements for the Environment andDevelopment, Nucleo Amigos da Terra/
Brasil and Heinrich Boell Foundation, Riode Janeiro.
Fernando, C.H. 1977. Reservoir fisheries ofSouthesast Asia: Past, present and future.
Proc. IPFC 17(3):475-489.
Ferrand, D., A. Gibson, and H. Scott. 2004.
Making markets work for the poor: An
objective and an approach for governments
and development agencies. ComMark Trust.
Woodmead, South Africa.
Ferris, T. 2004. The interplay of modernism,
postmodernism and systems engineering.
2004. p. 1003-1007. In M. Xie et al. (ed)IEEE Int. Engineer. Manage. Conf. Proc.:
Innovation and entrepreneurship forsustainable development. Vol. 3. IEEE, NY.
Fillery, I.R.P. 2007. Plant-based manipulationof nitrification in soil: A new approach to
managing N loss? Plant Soil 294:1-4.
Fire, A., S. Xu, M.K. Montgomery, S.A. Kostas,
S.E. Driver, and C.C. Mello. 1998. Potent
and specific genetic interference by double-

chapter 06.indd 430

stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans.
Nature 391:806-811.
Fisheries Opportunities Assessment. 2006.
Coastal Resources Center, Univ. Rhode
Island, and Florida Int. Univ.
Foolad, M.R. 2004. Recent advances in genetics
of salt tolerance in tomato. Rev. Plant
Biotech. Appl. Genet. 76:101-119.
Fountas, S., S.M. Pedersen, and S. Blackmore.
2005. ICT in precision agriculture —diffusion of technology. p. 15. In E. Gelb andA. Offer (ed) (e-book) ICT in Agriculture:
Perspectives of technological innovation.
Available at http://departments.agri.huji.ac.il/
economics/ gelb-pedersen-5.pdf. Hebrew
Univ., Jerusalem.
Francis, G. 2005. Best management practices forminimizing nitrate leaching. Grower 60:68-69.
Franzel, S., G.L. Denning, J.P.B. Lilleso, and A.R.
Mercado. 2004. Scaling up the impact ofagroforestry: Lessons from three sites in Africa
and Asia. Agroforest. Syst. 61:329-344.
Franzel, S., H. Jaenicke, and W. Janssen. 1996.
Choosing the right trees: Setting priorities for
multipurpose tree improvement. Res. Rep. 8.
ISNAR, Washington DC.
Fravel, D.R. 2005. Commercialization andimplementation of biocontrol. Ann. Rev.
Phytopath. 43:337-359.
Frison, E.A., I.F. Smith, T. Johns, J. Cherfas, andP.B. Eyzaguirre. 2006. Agricultural biodiversity,
nutrition, and health: Making a difference tohunger and nutrition in the developing world.
Food Nutr. Bull. 27:167-179.
Fritsche, U.R., K. Hunecke, and K. Wiegmann.
2005. Kriterien zur Bewertung desPflanzenanbaus zur Gewinnung von
Biokraftstoffen in Entwicklungslaendern
unter Oekologischen, Sozialen und
Wirtschaftlichen Gesichtspunkten. Available
at http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/232/2004023-de.pdf. BMZ, Berlin.
Fuhrer, J. 2003. Agroecosystem responses
to combinations of elevated CO2, ozone,
and global climate change. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 97:1-20.
Funtowicz, S. and J.R. Ravetz. 1994. Emergent
complex systems. Futures 26:568-582.
Galvano, F., A. Piva, A. Ritieni, and G. Galvano.
2001. Dietary strategies to counteract theeffects of mycotoxins: A review. J. Food Prot.
64:120-131.
Gan, J. 2004. Risk and damage of southern pine
beetle outbreaks under global climate change.
For. Ecol. Manage. 191:61-71.
Garbrecht, J.D., H. Meinke, M. Sivakumar,
R. Motha, and M. Salinger. 2005. Seasonal
climate forecasts and application by
agriculture: a review and recommendations.
Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 86:227-228.
Garí, J.A. 2002. Agrobiodiversity, food security
and HIV/AIDS mitigation in Sub-SaharanAfrica: strategic issues for agricultural policy
and programme responses. In Sustainable
development dimensions. Available at http://
www.fao.org/sd/2002/PE0104a_en.htm.
FAO, Rome.

Garrett, K.A., S.P. Dendy, E.E. Frank,
M.N. Rouse, and S.E. Travers. 2006. Climatechange effects on plant disease: genomes toecosystems. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 44:201221.
Garrity, D. 2006. Science-based agroforestry
and the achievement of the millennium
development goals. In D. Garrity et al. (ed)World agroforestry into the future. World
Agroforesty Centre, Nairobi.
GEF. 2005. Technology state-of-the-art: Review
of existing and emerging technologies forthe large-scale production of biofuels andidentification of promising innovations indeveloping countries. Background Pap. No.
2. STAP, Washington DC.
GEF. 2006. Report of the GEF-STAP Workshop
on Liquid Biofuels. GEF/C.30/Inf.9/Rev.1.
GEF, Washington DC.
Gell, F.R., and C.M. Roberts. 2003. Benefits
beyond boundaries: The fishery effects ofmarine reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:448455. Available at http://assets.panda.org/
downloads/benefitsbeyondbound2003.pdf
Giampietro, M., S. Ulgiati, and D. Pimentel.
1997. Feasibility of large-scale biofuel
production. Bioscience 47:587-600.
Gilbert, S.F. 2002. The genome in its ecologicalcontext: Philosophical perspectives oninterspecies epigenesis. Ann. NY Acad. Sci.
981:202-218.
Gilchrist, M.J., C. Greko, D.B. Wallinga,
G.W. Beran, D.G. Riley, and P.S. Thorne.
2007. The potential role of concentrated
animal feeding operations in infectious
disease epidemics and antibiotic resistance.
Environ. Health Perspect. 115:313-316.
Giles, J. 2005. Solving Africa’s climate-data
problem. Nature 435:863.
GISP (Global Invasive Species Programme).
2004. Invasive alien species: A toolkit of best
prevention and management practices.
R. Wittenberg and M.J.W. Cock (ed) CAB
Int. Wallingford, UK.
Giuliani, A. 2007. Developing markets foragrobiodiversity: Securing livelihoods indryland areas. Earthscan, London andBioversity Int., Rome.
Gladwin, C., J. Peterson, D. Phiri, andR. Uttaro. 2002. Agroforestry adoption
decisions, structural adjustment and genderin Africa. In C.B. Barrett et al. (ed) Natural
resources management in African agriculture:
Understanding and improving current
practices. CABI Publ., Nairobi.
Gluck, R. 2000. Current trends in transgenic
animal technology. Genetic Eng. News 20:16.
Goel, A.K., and R. Kumar. 2005. Economic
analysis of water harvesting in a
mountainous watershed in India. Agric.
Water Manage. 71:257-276.
Goldemberg, J. 2004. The case for renewableenergies. Available at http://www.renewables
2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP01-rationale.pdf. Int.
Conf. Renew. Energies. Secretariat, Bonn.
Gould, F. 1998. Sustainability of transgenic
insecticidal cultivars: integrating pest genetics

11/3/08 10:44:42 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 431

and ecology. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 43:
701-726.
Graham, G.G., J. Lembcke, E. Morales. 1990.
Quality protein maize and as the sole sourceof dietrary protein and fat for rapidly
growing young children. Pediatrics 85:85-91.
Graham-Rowe, D. 2006. Nanoporous material
gobbles up hydrogen fuel. New Scientist
Tech. 7 Nov. 2006.
Gray, J.S., P. Dayton, S. Thrush, and
M.J. Kaiser. 2006. On effects of trawling,
benthos and sampling design. Marine Pollut.
Bull. 52(8):840-843.
Gregory, P.J., J.S.I. Ingram, R. Andersson,
and R.A. Betts. 2000. Environmental
consequences of alternative practices forintensifying crop production. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 1853:1-12.
Griepentrog, H.W., and B.S. Blackmore. 2004.
Rural poverty reduction through researchfor development. Sustainable agriculture andprecision farming in developing countries.
5-7 Oct 2004. Deutscher, Tropentag.
Gruère, G., A. Giuliani, and M. Smale. 2006.
Marketing underutilized plant species for the
benefit of the poor: A conceptual framework.
EPTD Disc. 147. IFPRI, Washington DC.
GTZ. 2005. Liquid biofuels for transportation in
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. GTZ, Germany.
Guerrero, M.M., C. Ros, M.A. Martinez, and
M.C. Martinez. 2006. Biofumigation vs.
biofumigation plus solarization to control
Meloidogyne incognita in sweet pepper. Bull.
OILB/SROP 29(4):313-318.
Gupta, R., and A. Seth. 2007. A review ofresource conserving technologies forsustainable management of the rice-wheat
cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic plains(IGP). Crop Prot. 26:436-447.
Gutierrez, A.P., T. D’Oultremont, C.K. Ellis, and
L. Ponti. 2006. Climatic limits of pinkbollworm in Arizona and California: Effects ofclimate warming. Acta Oecolog. 30:353-364.
Guye, E.F. 2000. The role of family poultry inpoverty alleviation, food security and thepromotion of gender equality in rural Africa.
Outlook Agric. 29:129-136.
Gyasi, E.A., G. Kranjac-Berisavljevic, E.T.
Blay, and W. Oduro (ed) 2004. Managing
agrodiversity the traditional way: Lessons
from West Africa in sustainable use of
biodiversity and related natural resources.
UN Univ. Press, Tokyo.
Gyawali, S., S. Sunwar, M. Subedi, M. Tripathi,
K.D. Joshi, and J.R. Witcombe. 2007.
Collaborative breeding with farmers can beeffective. Field Crops Res. 101(1):88-95.
Hails, R.S. 2002. Assessing the risks associatedwith new agricultural practices. Nature
418:685-688.
Hajjar, R., and T. Hodgkin. 2007. The use ofwild relatives in crop improvement: A surveyof developments over the last 20 years.
Euphytica 156:1-13.
Halwart, M., and M.V. Gupta (ed) 2004. Cultureof fish in rice fields. FAO and The WorldFish
Center, Penang.

chapter 06.indd 431

Hamelinck, C.N., and A.P.C. Faaij. 2006.
Outlook for advanced biofuels. Energy Policy
34:3268-3283.
Hamza, M. A., and W. K. Anderson. 2005. Soilcompaction in cropping systems. A review of
the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil
Till. Res. 82:121-145.
Häni, F., F. Braga, A. Stämpfli, T. Keller,
M. Fischer, and H. Porsche. 2003. RISE, atool for holistic sustainability assessment at
the farm level. Available at http://www.ifama.org/conferences/2003Conference/papers/
haeni.pdf. Int. Food Agribusiness Manage.
Rev. 6:4.
Hansen, J. 2005. Integrating seasonal climate
prediction and agricultural models for
insights into agricultural practice. Phil. Trans.
Roy. Soc. B 360:2037-2047.
Hansen, J.W., A. Challinor, A. Ines, T. Wheeler,
V. Moron. 2006. Translating climate
forecasts into agricultural terms: Advancesand challenges. Climate Res. 33:27-41.
Harris, D. 2006. Development and testing of ‘onfarm’ seed priming. Adv. Agron. 90:129-178.
Harris, D., A.K. Pathan, P. Gothkar, A. Joshi,
W. Chivasa, and P. Nyamudeza. 2001.
On-farm seed priming: using participatory
methods to revive and refine a key
technology. Agric. Syst. 69:151-164.
Hartemink, A.E. 2002. Soil science in tropical andtemperate regions. Adv. Agron.77:269-291.
HarvestPlus. 2006. Biofortification brochure.
CIAT and IFPRI, Washington DC.
Hatibu, N., K. Mutabazi, E.M. Senkondo,
and A.S.K. Msangi. 2006. Economics ofrainwater harvesting for crop enterprises insemi-arid areas of East Africa. Agric. Water
Manage. 80:74-86.
Heinemann, J.A. 1999. How antibiotics cause
antibiotic resistance. Drug Discov. Today
4:72-79.
Heinemann, J.A. 2007. A typology of the effectsof (trans)gene flow on the conservation andsustainable use of genetic resources. FAO,
Rome.
Heinemann, J.A., H. Rosen, M. Savill,
S. Burgos-Caraballo, and G.A. Toranzos.
2006. Environment arrays: A possible
approach for predicting changes inwaterborne bacterial disease potential.
Environ. Sci. Tech. 40:7150-7156.
Heinemann, J.A., and P.D. Roughan. 2000.
New hypotheses on the material nature ofhorizontally transferred genes. Ann. New
York Acad. Sci. 906:169-186.
Helgason, B.L., H.H. Janzen, M.H.
Chantigny, and C.F. Drury. 2005. Toward
improved coefficients for predicting direct
N2O emissions from soil in Candian
agroecosystems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst.
72(1):87-99.
Hellin, J., A. Griffith, and M. Albu. 2005.
Mapping the market: Market-literacy for
agricultural research and policy to takle rural
poverty in Africa. In F.R. Almond, and
S.D. Hainsworth (ed) Proc. Int. Seminar
Beyond agriculture: Making markets workfor the poor. London, 28 Feb-1 Mar 2005.
CPHP and Practical Action, UK.
Hellin, J., and S. Highman. 2005. Crop diversity
and livelihood security in the Andes. Dev.
Practice 15:165-174.
HKC (Helmut Kaiser Consultancy). 2006. Study.
Nanotechnology in food and food processing
industry worldwide. HKC, Switzerland.
Herrero, M., E. Ibanez, P.J. Martin-Alvarez, andA. Cifuentes. 2007. Analysis of chiral aminoacids in conventional and transgenic maize.
Anal. Chem. 79:5071-5077.
Herrmann, J. 1999. Heterogeneous
photocatalysis: Fundamentals and applications
to the removal of various types of aqueous
pollutants. Catalysis Today 53:115-129.
Herrmann, S.M., A. Anyamba, and C.J. Tucker.
2005. Recent trends in vegetation dynamics
in the African Sahel and their relationship toclimate. Global Environ. Change 15:394-404.
Herrman, S.M., and C.F. Hutchinson. 2005.
The changing contexts of the desertification
debate. J. Arid Environ. 63:538-555.
Herselman, M. and K. Britton. 2002. Analysing
the role of ICT in bridging the digital divide
amongst learners. South Afric. J. Educ.
22(4):270-274.
Hiddinks, J.G., S. Jennings, and M.J. Kaiser.
2006. Indicators of the ecological impact
of bottom-trawling disturbance on seabedcommunities. Ecosystems 9(7):1190-1199.
HKC. 2006. Instruments and tools fornanotechnology: 2006-2010-2015.
Market, technology and developments for
instruments, tools, automation, informationand service. HKC Consulting, Switzerland.
Hobbs, P., R. Gupta, R.K. Malik, andS.S. Dhillon. 2003. Conservation agriculture
for the rice-wheat systems of the IndoGangetic plains of South Asia: A case study
from India. In Proc. 1st World Congr.
Conserv. Agric. Madrid, 1-5 Oct 2001.
Available at http://www.ecaf.org/documents/
hobbs.pdf.
Holt-Gimenez, E. 2001. Measuring farmers
agroecological resistance to hurricane Mitch.
LEISA Magazine p. 18-21.
Hoogwijk, M., A. Faaij, B. Eickhout, B. de
Vries, and W. Turkenburg. 2005. Potential of
biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC
SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy
29:225-257.
Hoover, J.K., and J.A. Newman. 2004.
Tritrophic interactions in the context ofclimate change: a model of grasses, cereals
Aphids and their parasitoids. Global Change
Biol. 10:1197-1208.
Hossain, M.K., S.C. Ghosh, C.T. Boontongkong,and J. Dutta. 2005. Growth of zinc oxide
nanowires and nanobelts for gas sensing
applications. J. Metastable Nanocrystal.
Materials 23:27-30.
Hsieh, C.H., C.S. Hunter, J.R. Beddington,
R.M. May, and G. Sugihara. 2006. Fishingelevates variability in the abundance of
exploited species. Nature 443(7113):859-862.
Huang, H.M., Y. Wu, H. Feick, N. Tran,

11/3/08 10:44:43 AM

432 | IAASTD Global Report

E. Weber, and P. Yang. 2001. Catalytic
growth of zinc oxide nanowires by vapor
transport. Adv. Materials (13):113-116.
Hussain, I. 2005. Pro-poor intervention strategies
in irrigation agriculture in Asia: Poverty inirrigated agriculture — Issues, lessons, options
and guidelines. IWMI, Colombo.
IEA. 2004. Biofuels for transport. An
international perspective. IEA, Paris.
IEA. 2006. Energy technology perspectives 2006.
In support of the G8 Plan of Action. IEA,
Paris.
IFAD 2001. The challenge of ending rural
poverty. Rural poverty report. Oxford Univ.
Press, UK.
IFAD. 2002. Republic of Namibia: Northern
regions livestock development project.
Interim evaluation rep. 1313-NA. IFAD,
Rome.
Ijumba, J.N., F.W. Mosha, and S.W. Lindsay.
2002. Malaria transmission risk variations
derived from different agricultural practices
in an irrigated area of northern Tanzania.
Med. Vet. Entomol. 16:28-38.
ILRI. 2006. Livestock — a pathway out ofpoverty. ILRI’s strategy to 2010. ILRI,
Nairobi.
India CWC (Central Water Commission). 2002.
Water and related statistics. Min. Water
Resources, Water Planning and Projects
Wing, New Delhi.
Indian Planning Commission. 2003. Report of
the Committee on Development of Bio-Fuel
Gov. India, New Delhi.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1992. Emerging
infections: Microbial threats to health in the
United States. Nat. Acad. Press, Washington
DC.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change). 2000. Land use, land-use change,
and forestry. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Ishitani, M., I. Rao, P. Wenzl, S. Beebe, andJ. Tohme. 2004. Integration of genomics
approach with traditional breeding towards
improving abiotic stress adaptation: Drought
and aluminum toxicity as case studies. Field
Crops Res. 90:35-45.
Izaurralde, R.C., and C.W. Rice. 2006. Methods
and tools for designing pilot soil carbon
sequestration projects. p. 457-476. In R. Lal(ed) Carbon sequestration in Latin America.
Haworth Press, NY.
Izaurralde, R.C., N.J. Rosenberg, and R. Lal.
2001. Mitigation of climatic change bysoil carbon sequestration: issues of science,monitoring and degraded lands. Adv. Agron.
70:1-75.
Jama, B., F. Kwesiga, and A. Niang. 2006.
Agroforestry innovations for soil fertility
management in sub-Saharan Africa:
Prospects and challenges ahead. p. 53- 60.
In D. Garrity et al. (ed) World agroforestry
into the future. World Agroforestry Centre,
Nairobi.
James, C. 2007. Global status of commercializedbiotech/GM crops: 2006. Available at http://
www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/chapter 06.indd 432

briefs/35/executivesummary/default.html.
ISAAA, Ithaca NY.
Janvier, C., F. Villeneuve, C. Alabouvette,
V. Edel- Hermann, T. Matielle, and C.
Steinberg. 2007. Soil health through soil
disease suppression: Which strategy fromdescriptors to indicators? Soil Biol. Biochem.
39:1-23.
Jarvis, A., A. Lane, and R. Hijmans. 2008.
The effect of climate change on crop wild
relatives. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
Jauhar, P.P. 2006. Modern biotechnology as anintegral supplement to conventional plant
breeding: The prospects and challenges. Crop
Sci. 46:1841-1859.
Jiambo, L. 2006. Energy balance and economic
benefits of two agroforestry systems innorthern and southern China. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 116:255-262.
Joshi, K.D., A.M. Musa, C. Johansen,
S. Gyawali, D. Harris, and J.R. Witcombe.
2007. Highly client-oriented breeding, using
local preferences and selection, produces
widely adapted rice varieties. Field Crops
Res. 100(1):107-116.
Kader, A.A. 2005. Increasing food availability by
reducing postharvest losses of fresh produce.
Acta Hort. 682:2169-2176.
Kaihura, F., and M. Stocking (ed) 2003.
Agricultural biodiversity in smallholder
farms of East Africa. UN Univ. Press, Tokyo.
Kashmanian, R.M., D. Kluchinski, T.L.
Richard, and J.M. Walker. 2000. Quantities,
characteristics, barriers, and incentives
for use of organic municipal by-products.
p. 127-167. In W. R. Bartels (ed) Landapplication of agricultural. Industrial andmunicipal by-products. SSSA Book Ser. No.
6. SSSA, Madison, WI.
Keizer, M., F. Kruijssen, and A. Giuliani. 2007.
Collective action for biodiversity andlivelihoods. LEISA Mag. 23(1).
Keller, A.A., and J. Keller. 1995. Effective
efficiency: A water use efficiency concept forallocating freshwater resources. Disc. Pap.
22. Center Econ. Policy Studies. Winrock
Int., Washington DC.
Keller, A., and D. Seckler. 2004. Limits toincreasing the productivity of water in crop
production. Winrock, Arlington VA.
Keller, J., D. Adhikari, M. Peterson, and
S. Suryanwanshi. 2001. Engineering low-cost
micro-irrigation for small plots. Int. Dev.
Enterprises, Lakewood CO.
Kerdchoechuen, O. 2005. Methane emissions
in four rice varieties as related to sugars andorganic acids of roots and root exudates
and biomass yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
108:155-163.
Kershen, D.L. 2004. Legal liability issues inagricultural biotechnology. Crop Sci.
44:456-463.
Khan, A. G. 2005. Role of soil microbes in therhizospheres of plants growing on trace metal
contaminated soils in phytoremediation. J.
Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 18:355-364.
Khan, S., R. Tariq, C. Yuanlai, and J. Blackwell.

2006. Can irrigation be sustainable? Agric.
Water Manage. 80(1-3):87-99.
Knowler, D., and B. Bradshaw. 2007. Farmers’
adoption of conservation agriculture: A
review and synthesis of recent research. Food
Policy 32:25-48.
Knowler, D.J. 2004. The economics of soil
productivity: local, national, and global
perspectives. Land Degrad. Dev. 15:543-561.
Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2003. Community based
management of animal genetic resources —with special reference to pastoralists. p. 1326. In FAO. Community based managementof animal genetic resources. Wkshp. Proc.,
Mbabane, Swaziland, 7-11 May, 2001. FAO,
Rome.
Kojima, M., and T. Johnson. 2005. The potential
for biofuels for transport in developing
countries. ESMAP Rep. 312/05. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Koontz, T.M., T.A. Steelman, J. Carmin,
K.S. Korfmacher, C. Moseley, andC.W. Thomas. 2004. Collaborativeenvironmental management: what roles forgoverment? RFF Press, Washington DC.
Krämer, U. 2005. Phytoremediation: novel
approaches to cleaning up polluted soils.
Curr. Opinion Biotech. 16:133-141.
Kroymann, J., and T. Mitchell-Olds. 2005.
Epistasis and balanced polymorphism
influencing complex trait variation. Nature
435:95-98.
Kuiper, H.A., G.A. Kleter, H.P.J.M. Noteborn,
and E.J. Kok. 2001. Assessment of the foodsafety issues related to genetically modified
foods. Plant J. 27:503-528.
Kumar, S. 2006. Climate change and crop
breeding objectives int he twenty first
century. Curr. Sci. 90:1053-1054.
Kuparinen, A. 2006. Mechanistic models forwind dispersal. Trends Plant Sci. 11(6):296-301.
Kurup, M.P.G. 2000. Milk production in India:
Perspective 2020. Indian Dairyman 52:
1:25-37.
Kurup, M.P.G. (ed) 2003. Livestock in Orissa:
The socio-economic perspective. Manohar
Publ., New Delhi.
Kuta, D.D., E. Kwon-Ndung, S. Dachi,
M. Ukwungwu, and E. Imolehin. 2003.
Potential role of biotechnology tools forgenetic improvement of ‘lost crops of Africa’:
The case of fonio (Digitaria exilis andDigitaria iburua). Afr. J. Biotech. 2(12):580-585.
Kuzma, J., and P. VerHage. 2006.
Nanotechnologies in agriculture and foodproduction, anticipated applications. Project
on emerging nanotechnologies. Available at
ww.hhh.umn.edu/img/assets/7260/cv.pdf.
Woodrow Wilson Int. Center Scholars,
Washington DC.
Kydd, J. 2002. Agriculture and rural livelihoods:
is globalization opening or blocking paths
out of rural poverty? Agric. Res. Extension
Network Pap. No. 121. Overseas Dev. Inst.,
London.

11/3/08 10:44:43 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 433

La Malfa, G., and C. Leonardi. 2001. Crop
practices and techniques: Trends and needs.
Acta Hort. 559:31-42.
Lacy J., W.S. Clampett, L. Lewin. R. Reinke.
G. Batten, R. Williams et al.1999. Rice
Check Recommendations. A guide to
objective rice crop management for
improving yields, grain quality and profits.
NSW Agric., Australia.
Laddomada, A. 2003. Control and eradicationof OIE list A diseases — the approach of theEuropean Union to the use of vaccines. Dev.
Biol. (Basel) 114:269-80.
Ladha, J.K., H. Pathak, T.J. Krupnik, J. Six, andC. Van Kessel. 2005. Efficiency of fertilizer
nitrogen in cereal production: Retrospects
and prospects. Adv. Agron. 87:85-156.
Lal, R. 2001. Managing world soils for foodsecurity and environmental quality. Adv.
Agron. 74:155-192.
Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to
mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123:1-22.
Lal, R. 2005. Climate change, soil carbon
dynamics, and global food security. p. 113143. In R. Lal et al. (ed) Climate change andglobal food security. CRC Press, NY.
Lal, R., D.C. Reicosky, and J.D. Hanson. 2007.
Editorial: Evolution of the plow over 10,000
years and the rationale for no-till farming.
Soil Till. Res. 93:1-12.
Lavergne, S., and J. Molofsky. 2007. Increased
genetic variation and evolutionary potential
drive the success of an invasive grass. PNAS(USA) 104:3883-3888.
LEAD (Livestock, Environment and Development).
2000. Introductory Paper for the Electronic
Conference on Area Wide Integration of
Crop and Livestock Production. Available
at http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/ele/
awi_2000/1session/1paper.pdf. FAO, Rome.
Leakey, R.R.B. 1999b. Potential for novel foodproducts from agroforestry trees. Food
Chem. 64:1-14.
Leakey, R.R.B. 2001a. Win: Win landuse
strategies for Africa: 1. Building on
experience with agroforests in Asia and Latin
America. Int. For. Rev. 3:1-10.
Leakey, R.R.B. 2001b. Win: Win landuse
strategies for Africa: 2. Capturing economicand environmental benefits with multistrata
agroforests. Int. For. Rev. 3:11-18.
Leakey, R.R.B., K. Schreckenberg, andZ. Tchoundjeu. 2003. The participatory
domestication of West African indigenous
fruits. Int. For. Rev. 5:338-347.
Leakey, R.R.B., and Z. Tchoundjeu. 2001.
Diversification of tree crops: Domesticationof companion crops for poverty reductionand environmental services. Exp. Agric.
37:279-296.
Leakey, R.R.B., Z. Tchoundjeu, K.
Schreckenberg, S.E. Shackleton, andC.M. Shackleton. 2005. Agroforestry
tree products (AFTPs): Targeting poverty
reduction and enhanced livelihoods. Int. J.
Agric. Sustain. 3:1-23.
Ledec, G., and J.D. Quintero. 2003. Good

chapter 06.indd 433

dams and bad dams: environmental criteria
for site selection of hydroelectric projects.
Sustainable Dev. Working Pap. 16. World
Bank, Washington DC.
Ledford, H. 2006. Making it up as you go along.
Chemists make liquid fuels from biomass —or from coal. Nature 444:677-678.
Lehmann, J. 2007a. A handful of carbon. Nature
447:143-144.
Lehmann, J. 2007b. Bio-energy in the black.
Frontiers Ecol. Environ. 5:381-387.
Lehmann, J., J. Gaunt, and M. Rondon. 2006.
Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems— a review. Mitigation Adaptation Strategies
Global Change 11:403-427.
Leidwein, A. 2006. Protection of traditional
knowledge associated with biological andgenetic resources. General legal issues andmeasures already taken by the European
Union and its member states in the field ofagriculture and food production. J. WorldIntell. Prop. 9:251-275.
Leonard, D. K., C. Ly, and P.S.A. Woods.
2003. Community-based animal healthworkers and the veterinary profession in
the context of African privatization. p. 1921. In Proc. Primary animal health care in
the 21st century: Shaping the rules, policies
and institutions. Community-based Animal
Health and Participatory Epidemiology Unit
(CAPE), OAU, Mombasa.
Levy, M., and P. Meier. 2004. Early warningand assessment of environment, conflict, andcooperation. In Understanding environment,
conflict, and cooperation. UNEP, Nairobi.
Li, C., W. Salas, B. DeAngelo, and S. Rose.
2006. Assessing alternatives for mitigating
net greenhouse gas emissions and increasing
yields from rice production in China overthe next twenty years. J. Environ. Qual.
35:1554-1565.
Lotze, H.K., S.L. Hunter, B.J. Bourque,
R.H. Bradbury, R.G. Cooke, M.C. Kay et al.
2006. Depletion, degradation, and recovery
potential of estuaries and coastal seas.
Science 312:1806-1809.
Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. 1996. Precision farming
and the new information technology:
implications for farm management, policy,
and research: Discussion. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
78(5):1281-1284.
Luc, M., J. Bridge, and R. A. Sikora. 2005.
Reflections on nematology in subtropical andtropical agriculture. p.1-10. In M. Luc, et al.
(ed) Plant parasitic nematodes in subtropicaland tropical agriculture, 2nd ed. CABI Publ.,
Wallingford.
Lund, D.C., J. Lynch-Stieglitz, and W.B. Curry.
2006. Gulf stream density structure andtransport during the past millennium. Nature444(7119):601-604.
Lynch, J.P., and S.B. St. Clair. 2004. Mineralstress: The missing link in understanding how
global climate change will affect plants inreal world soils. Field Crops Res. 90:
101-115.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005.

Ecosystems and human well-being. Vol 1.
Current state and trends. R. Hassan et al.
(ed) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Island Press, Washington DC.
Ma, J.K.C., E. Barros, R. Bock, P. Christou,
P.J. Dale, P.J. Dix et al. 2005. Molecularfarming for new drugs and vaccines. EMBO
Rep. 6:593-599.
Machuka, J. Agricultural genomics andsustainable development: Perspectives andprospects for Africa. Afr. J. Biotech. 3:2:127135.
MacMillan, K., K. Emrich, H.P. Piepho,
C.E. Mullins, and A.H. Price. 2006. Assessing
the importance of genotype × environment
interaction for root traits in rice using amapping population II: Conventional QTL
analysis. Theor. Appl. Genet. 113:953-964.
Magdoff, F. 2007. Ecological agriculture. Renew.
Agric. Food Syst. 22:2:109-117.
Manyangarirwa, W., M. Turnbull, G.S.
McCutcheon, and J.P. Smith. 2006. Genepyramiding as a Bt resistance management
strategy: How sustainable is this strategy?
Afr. J. Biotech. 5(10):781-785.
Maredia, M.K. 2001. Application of intellectual
property rights in developing countries:
Implications for public policy andagricultural research institutes. Available at
http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/studies/pdf/
study_k_maredia.pdf. World Intell. Property
Org., Geneva.
Martin, F.N. 2003. Development of alternative
strategies for management of soilborne
pathogens currently controlled with methyl
bromide. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 41:325350.
Marvier, M., C. McCreedy, J. Regetz, and
P. Kareiva. 2007. A meta-analysis of effectsof Bt cotton and maize on nontarget
invertebrates. Science 316:1475-1477.
Matthews S. & Brandt K. 2006. South America
Invaded: The growing danger of invasive
alien species [Online]. Available at http://
www.gisp.org/casestudies/showcasestudy.as
p?id=274&MyMenuItem=casestudies&wo
rldmap=&country. Global Invasive Species
Programme (GISP), Nairobi.
Matthiessen, J.N., and J.A. Kirkegaard. 2006.
Biofumigation and enhanced biodegradation:
opportunity and challenge in soilborne pest
and disease management. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci.
25:235-265.
Maxwell, S., I. Urey, and C. Ashley. 2001.
Emerging issues in rural development. An
issues paper. Overseas Dev. Inst., London.
Mayers, J. and S. Bass. 2004. Policy that works
for forests and people: Real prospects forgovernance and livelihoods. Earthscan,
Sterling VA.
McDermott, P.F., S. Zhao, D.D. Wagner,
S. Simjee, R.D. Walker, and D.G. White.
2002. The food safety perspective of antibiotic
resistance. Anim. Biotech. 13:71-84.
McDonald, A.H. and J.M. Nicol. 2005.
Nematode parasite of cereals. p. 131-191. In
M. Luc et al. (ed) Plant parasitic nematodes

11/3/08 10:44:44 AM

434 | IAASTD Global Reportin subtropical and tropical agriculture. 2nd
ed. CABI, Wallingford.
McNeely, J.A. 2006. As the world gets smaller,
the chances of invasion grow. Euphytica
148:5-15.
McNeely, J.A. and S.J. Scherr. 2003.
Ecoagriculture: Strategies to feed the worldand save wild biodiversity. Island Press,
Washington DC.
Meier, P. 2007. From theory to action:
Mainstreaming disaster and conflict early
warning in response to climate change. In
H.G. Brauch et al. (ed) Coping with global
environmental change, disasters and security
threats: Challenges, vulnerabilities and risks.
Springer, Berlin.
Menneer, J.C., S. Ledgard, C. McLay, and
W. Silvester. 2004. The impact of grazing
animals on N2 fixation in legume-based
pastures and management options for
improvement. Adv. Agron. 83:181-241.
Mercer, K.L., D.A. Andow, D.L. Wyse, andR.G. Shaw. 2007. Stress and domestication
traits increase the relative fitness of crop-wildhybrids in sunflower. Ecol. Lett. 10:383-393.
Mettrick, H. 1993. Development oriented
research in agriculture: An ICRA textbook.
Int. Center Dev. Oriented Res. Agric. (ICRA),
Wageningen.
Michael, A., J. Schmidt, W. Enke, T. Deutschländer,
and G. Malitz. 2005. Impact of expected
increase in precipitation intensities on soil loss
— results of comparative model simulations.
Catena 61(2-3):155-164.
Mills, A., L. Punte, and M. Stephen. 1997. An
overview of semiconductor photocatalysis.
J. Photochem. Photobiol. 108:1-35.
Mishra, H.N. and C. Das. 2003. A review
on biological control and metabolism ofaflatoxin. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 43:245-264.
Mitschein, T.A., and P.S. Miranda. 1998.
POEMA: A proposal for sustainable
development in Amazonia. p. 329-366. In
D.E. Leihner and T.A. Mitschein (ed) A
third millennium for humanity? The searchfor paths of sustainable development. Peter
Lang, Frankfurt.
Miyazaki, S., M. Fredricksen, K.C. Hollis,
V. Poroyko, D. Shepley, and D.W. Galbraith.
2004. Transcript expression profiles for
Arabidopsis thaliana grown under open-air
elevation of CO2 and O3. Field Crops Res.
90:47-59.
MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report). 2004. Brief Report: Illness
Associated with Drift of Chloropicrin Soil
Fumigant into a Residential Area — Kern
County, California, 2003. 53(32):740-742.
Modi, V., S. McDade, D. Lallement, and J.
Saghir. 2006. Energy and the Millennium
Development Goals. UNDP, UN Millennium
Project and World Bank, NY.
Molden, D.J., R. Sakthivadivel and Z. Habib.
2000. Basin level use and productivity ofwater: Examples from South Asia. Res. Rep.
49. IWMI, Colombo.
Molden, D.J., and R. Tharme. 2004. Water,

chapter 06.indd 434

food, livelihood and environment:
Maintaining biodiversity in irrigatedlandscapes. Int. Ecoagriculture Conf. andPractitioners’ Fair, 27 Sep-1 Oct 2004.
Nairobi.
Molden, D., T. Oweis, P. Steduto, J. Kijne,
M. Hanjra, and P.S. Bindraban. 2007.
Pathways for increasing agricultural waterproductivity. In D. Molden (ed) Water
for food, water for life: A comprehensive
assessment of water management inagriculture. Earthscan, London and IWMI,
Colombo.
Moreira, J.R., and J. Goldemberg. 1999. The
alcohol program. Energy Policy 27:229-245.
Morgan, R.P.C., and M.A. Nearing. 2002. Soil
erosion models: present and future. p. 187205. In J.L. Rubio et al. (ed) Man and soil at
the Third Millennium. Proc. Int. Cong. Eur.
Soc. Soil Conserv., Valencia, Spain, 28 Mar.-1
Apr. 2000. Inst. Water Environ., Cranfield
Univ., Bedfordshire.
Mottram, A. 2003. Transplanting sorghum andpearl millet — a key to risk management insemi-arid areas. PhD Thesis, Univ. Wales,
UK.
Mulley, B.D., and J.D. Unruh. 2004. The
role of off-farm employment in tropicalforest conservation: labor, migration, andsmallholder attitudes toward land in western
Uganda. J. Environ. Manage. 71:193-205.
Murphy, S.T., and O.D. Cheesman. 2006.
The aid trade — international assistanceprograms as pathways for the introduction ofinvasive alien species. Biodiversity Ser., Pap.
No. 109. World Bank, Washington DC.
Murray-Kolb, L.E., A. Felix, A. del Mundo,
G. Gregorio, J.D. Haas, and J.L. Beard.
2004. Biofortified rice as a source of iron foriron deficient women. In FASEB J. 18:A511.
Mutero, C.M., C. Kabutah, V. Kimani,
L. Kabuage, G. Gitau, J. Ssennyonga et al.
2004. A transdisciplinary perspective on thelinks between malaria and agroecosystems in
Kenya. Acta Trop 89:171-86.
Mutero, C.M., M. McCartney, and R. Boelee.
2006. Agriculture, malaria, and waterassociated diseases. p. 1-2. In Understanding
the links between agriculture and health.
C. Hawkes, and M.T. Ruel (ed) IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Myers, N. 2002. Environmental refugees:
A growing phenomenon of the 21st Century.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lon. Biol. Sci. B 357:
609-613.
Mzuku, M., R. Khosla, R. Reich, D. Inman,
F. Smith, and L. MacDonald. 2005. Spatial
variability of measured soil properties acrosssite-specific management zones. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 69:1572-1579.
Nagendra, H. 2001. Using remote sensing toassess biodiversity. Int. J. Remote Sensing
22(12):2377-2400.
Ndawula, J., J.D. Kabasa, and Y.B. Byaryhanga.
2004. Alterations in fruit and vegetablebeta-carotene and vitamin C content causedby open-sun drying, visqueen-covered andpolyethylene-covered solar-dryers. Afr.
Health Sci. 4:125-30.
Nearing, M.A., F.F. Pruski, and M.R. O’Neal.
2004. Expected climate change impacts on
soil erosion rates: a review. J. Soil Water
Conserv. 59(1):43-50.
Nelson, G.C. 2005. Drivers of change inecosystem condition and services, p. 175222. In Ecosystems and human well-being:
Scenarios. Vol. 2. Island Press, Washington
DC.
Neumann, C., D.M. Harris, and L. Rogers.
2002. Contribution of animal source foods
in improving diet quality and function inchildren in the developing world. Nutr. Res.
22:193-220.
Nguyen, H.T., and J.A. Jehle. 2007. Quantitative
analysis of the seasonal and tissue-specificexpression of Cry1Ab in transgenic maize
Mon810. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 114:82-87.
Ngwira, N., S. Bota, and M. Loevinsohn. 2001.
HIV/AIDS, agriculture, and food security in
Malawi: Background to action. Available atwww.synergyaids.com/documents/rmalawi_hivAids_agricFoodSecurity.pdf.
Nickel, J.L. 1973. Pest situations in changing
agricultural systems: A review. Bull. Entomol.
Soc. Am. 19:136-142.
Nicol, J.M., and I. Ortiz-Monasterio. 2004.
Effect of root lesion nematode on wheatyields and plant susceptibility in Mexico.
Nematology 6(4):485-493.
Nicolle, C., G. Simon, E. Rock, P. Amouroux,
and C. Remesy. 2004. Genetic variability
influences carotenoid, vitamin, phenolic, andmineral content in white, yellow, purple,
orange, and dark-orange carrot cultivars. J.
Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 129:523-529.
Ninomiya, S. 2004. Successful information
technology for agriculture and ruraldevelopment. Extens. Bull. 549 (Sept).
Available at http://www.agnet.org/library/eb/549/. Food Fert. Tech. Center for Asian
Pacific Reg., Taiwan.
Nordstrom, K.F. and S. Hotta. 2004. Wind
erosion from cropland in the USA: A review
of problems, solutions, and prospects.
Geoderma 121:157-167.
Novak, S.J. 2007. The role of evolution in theinvasion process. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
104:3671-3672.
NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Lost
crops of Africa. Vol. 1 Grains. National
Acad. Press, Washington DC.
NRC (National Research Council). 2004.
Biological confinement of geneticallyengineered organisms. Nat. Acad. Press,
Washington DC.
NSTC. 2006. The national nanotechnology
initiative. Resaerch and development leading
to a revolution in technology and industry.
Supplement to the President’s fiscal year 2007
budget. Nat. Sci. Tech Council, Washington
DC.
Oda, M. 1999. Grafting of vegetables to improvegreenhouse production. Extens. Bull. Food
Fert. Tech. Center 480:1-11. Available at

11/3/08 10:44:44 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 435

http://www.agnet.org/library/abstract/eb480.
html. Food Fert. Tech. Center for Asian
Pacific Reg., Taiwan.
Oelberman, M., R.P. Voroney, and
A.M. Gordon. 2004. Review. Carbon
sequestration in tropical and temperateagroforestry systems: A review with examples
from Costa Rica and southern Canada.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 104:359-377.
Ogita, S., H. Uefuji, Y. Yamaguchi, N. Koizumi,
and H. Sano. 2003. Producing decaffeinatedcoffee plants. Nature 423:823.
Olsen, S.B., T.V. Padma, and B.D. Richter. 2006.
Managing freshwater inflows to estuaries:
a methods guide. Coastal Resources Center,
Univ. Rhode Island.
Olson, K.E. and G.N. Slack. Food safety begins
on the farm: The viewpoint of the producer.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 25:2:529-539.
Omonode, R.A., T.J. Vyn, D.R. Smith,
P. Hegymegi, and A. Gál. 2007. Soil carbon
dioxide and methane fluxes from long term
tillage systems in continuous corn and cornsoybean rotation. Soil Till. Res. 92:182-195.
Onduru, D.D., A. De Jager, and G.N. Gachini.
2006. The hidden costs of soil mining toagricultural sustainability in developing
countries: a case study of Machakos District,
Eastern Kenya. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 3:167-176.
Opara, L. 2004. Emerging technologicalinnovation triad for smart agriculture in the
21st century. Part I. Prospects and impactsof nanotechnology in agriculture. Agric.
Engineer. Int. The CIGR J. Sci. Res. Dev. Vol.
6 (Jul. 2004).
Orindi, V.A., and A. Ochieng. 2005. Seed fairs
as a drought recovery strategy in Kenya.
Bulletin 36:4. Inst. Dev. Studies, Univ. Sussex,
UK.
Ortiz, R., J.H. Crouch, M. Iwanaga, K. Sayre,
M. Warburton, L.L. Araus et al. 2006.
Bioenergy and agricultural research fordevelopment. Brief 8 of 12. Available at
http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focus14/
focus14_07.pdf. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Oweis, T.Y., and A.Y. Hachum. 2003. Improving
water productivity in the dry areas of West
Asia and North Africa. p. 179-198. In
J.W. Kijne et al. (ed) Water productivity inagriculture: Limits and opportunities for
improvement. CABI, Wallingford and IWMI,
Colombo.
Oweis, T.Y., and A. Hachum. 2006. Water
harvesting and supplemental irrigation forimproved water productivity of dry farming
systems in West Asia and North Africa.
Agric. Water Manage. 80:57-73.
Oweis, T., A. Hachum and J. Kijne. 1999. Water
harvesting and supplemental irrigation forimproved water use efficiency in the dry
areas. SWIM Pap. 7. IWMI, Colombo.
Oweis T., P.N. Rodrigues, L.S. Pereira. 2003.
Simulation of supplemental irrigation
strategies for wheat in Near East to copewith water scarcity. p. 259-272. In: G. Rossi
et al. (eds) Tools for drought mitigation in
Mediterranean regions. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

chapter 06.indd 435

Padgham, J. L., G. S. Abawi, J. M. Duxbury,and M. A. Mazid. 2004. Impact of wheat
on meloidogyne graminicola populationsin the rice-wheat system of Bangladesh.
Nematropica 34:2:183-190.
Pagliai, M., N. Vignozzi, and S. Pellegrini. 2004.
Soil structure and the effect of management
practices. Soil Till. Res. 79:131-143.
Painting, K. 2006. Mainstreaming ICTs:
Challenges for CTA. Available at http://
ictupdate.cta.int/index.php/article/
eview/316/1/59. CTA, Netherlands.
Palauqui, J.-C., T. Elmayan, J.-M. Pollien,and H. Vaucheret. 1997. Systemicacquired silencing: transgene-specific posttranscriptional silencing is transmitted bygrafting from silenced stocks to non-silenced
scions. EMBO J. 16:4738-4745.
Pampolino, M.F., I.J. Manguiat, S. Ramanathan,
H.C. Gines, P.S. Tan, T.N. Chi et al. 2007.
Environmental impact and economic
benefits of site-specific nutrient management(SSNM) in irrigated rice systems. Agric.
Syst. 93:1-24.
Pan, Z.X., B. Yang, S. Pivonia, L. Xue,
R. Pasken, and J. Roads. 2006. Longterm prediction of soybean rust entry into
the continental United States. Plant Dis.
90(7):840-846.
Panik, F. 1998. The use of biodiversity andimplications for industrial production. p. 5973. In D.E. Leihner and T.A. Mitschein (ed),A third millennium for humanity? The searchfor paths of sustainable development. Peter
Lang, Frankfurt.
Papadakis, G., D. Briassoulis, G. Scarascia
Mougnoza, G. Vox, P. Feuilloley, and
J.A. Stoffer. 2000. Radiometric and thermal
properties of, and testing methods for,greenhouse covering materials. J. Agric.
Engineer. Res. 76:7-38.
Parry, M., C. Rosenzweig, A. Iglesias, G. Fischer,and M. Livermore. 1999. Climate change
and world food security: A new assessment.
Global Environ. Change 9:S51:S67.
Paruccini, M. 1994. Applying multicriteria aid
for decision to environmental management.
Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Passianoto, C.C., T. Ahrens, B.J. Feigi,
P.A. Steudler, J.B. do Carmo, and J.M.
Melillo. 2003. Emissions of CO2, N2O andNO in conventional and no- till management
practices in Rhondonia, Brazil. Biol. Fert.
Soils 38:200-208.
Patil, V., A. Maru, G.B. Shashidhara, andU.K.Shanwad. 2002. Remote sensing, GIS
and precision farming in India: Opportunities
and challenges. In M. Fangquan (ed) Proc.
AFITA Conf. Beijing, 26-28 Oct 2002.
Patterson, D.T., J.K. Westbrook, R.J.V. Joyce,
P.D. Lindgren, and J. Rogasik. 1999. Weeds,
insects, and diseases. Climatic Change.
43:711-727.
Patto, M.C.V., B. Skiba, E.C.K. Pang, S.J.
Ochatt, F. Lambein, and D. Rubiales. 2006.
Lathyrus improvement for resistance against
biotic and abiotic stresses: from classicalbreeding to marker assisted selection.
Euphytica 147(1-2):133-147.
Pauly, D., R. Watson, and J. Adler. 2005. Global
trends in world fisheries: Impacts on marine
ecosystems and food security. Phil. Trans.
R. Soc. B. 360:5-12.
Pearce, D., and S. Mourato. 2004. The economic
valuation of agroforestry’s environmental
services. p. 67-86. In G. Schroth et al. (ed)Agroforestry and biodiversity conservationin tropical landscapes. Island Press,
Washington.
Peck, A.J., and T. Hatton. 2003. Salinity andthe discharge of salts from catchments inAustralia. J. Hydrol. 272:191-202.
Peden, D., G. Tadesse and A.K. Misra. 2007.
Water and livestock for human development.
In D. Molden (ed) Water for food, water forlife: Comprehensive assessment on water inagriculture. Earthscan, London and IWMI,
Colombo.
Pedersen, S.M., S. Fountas, B.S. Blackmore,
M. Gylling, and J.L. Pedersen. 2004.
Adoption and perspective of precision
farming in Denmark. Acta Agric. Scand. Sec.
B, Soil and Plant Sci. 54 (1):S.2-6
Peral, J., X. Domenech, and D.F. Ollis. 1997.
Heterogeneous photocatalysis for purification,
decontamination and deodorization of air. J.
Chem. Tech. Biotech. 70:117-140.
Perotto-Baldiviezo, H.L., T.L. Thurow,
C.T. Smith, R. F. Fisher, and X.B. Wu. 2004.
GIS-based spatial analysis and modeling forlandslide hazard assessment in steeplands,
southern Honduras. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
103:165-176.
Perrings, C. 2005. Biological invasions andpoverty. Available at http://www.public.asu.edu/~cperring/Perrings,%20Poverty%20
and%20Invasive%20Species%20(2005).pdf.Int. Inst. Sustain., Tempe AZ.
Peter, P., P. Pinstrup-Andersen, S. Gillespie,and L. Haddad. 2002. AIDS and foodsecurity: Annual report essay reprint. IFPRI,
Washington, DC.
Phillipart, C.J.M., J.J. Beukema, G.C. Cadee,
R. Dekker, P.W. Goedhart, J.M. van Iperen
et al. 2007. Impacts of nutrient reduction
on coastal communities. Ecosystems DOI
10.1007/s10021-006-9006-7.
PhilRice (Philippine Rice Res. Inst.). 2007.
PalayCheck system for irrigated lowland rice.
PhilRice Nueva Ecija and FAO, Rome.
Phoenix, G.K., and M.C. Press. 2005. Effects
of climate change on parasitic plants: theroot hemiparasitic orobanchaceae. Folia
Geobotan. 40:205-216.
Pierzynski, G.M., J. T. Sims, and G.F. Vance.
2000. Soils and environmental quality. CRC
Press, NY.
Pieterse, C.M.J., J.A. van Pelt, S.C.M. vanWees, J. Ton, and L.C. van Loon. 2001.
Rhizobacteria-mediated induced systemic
resistance: triggering, signaling, andexpression. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 107:51-61.
Pigato, M. 2001. Information andcommunication technology, poverty and11/3/08 10:44:45 AM

436 | IAASTD Global Reportdevelopment in sub-Saharan Africa andSouth Asia. Afr. Reg. Working Pap. Ser. 20.
World Bank. Washington DC.
Pikitch, E.K., C. Santora, E.A. Babcock,
A. Bakun, R. Bonfil, D.O.Conover et al.
2004. Science 305:346-347.
Pimentel, D., P. Hepperly, J. Hanson,
D. Douds, and R. Seidel. 2005.
Environmental, energetic, and economic
comparisons of organic and conventionalfarming systems. BioScience 55:573-582.
Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and
D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental andeconomic costs of non-indigenous species in
the United States. Bioscience 50:53-65.
Pinter, K. 1983. Hungary. In E.E. Brown(ed) World fish farming, cultivation andeconomics. AVI Publ., Westport CT.
Pinto, L.F.G., M.S. Bernardes, M. vanNoordwijk, A.R. Pereira, B. Lusiana, andR. Mulia. 2005. Simulation of agroforestry
systems with sugarcane in Piracicaba, Brazil.
Agric. Systems 86:275-292.
Pitcher, H., K.L. Ebi, and A. Brenkert. 2008.
Population health model for integrated
assessment models. Clim. Change. [Online]
DOI:10.1007/s10584-007-9286-8.
Polak, P., J. Keller, R. Yoder, A. Sadangi,
J.N. Ray, T. Pattanyak et al. 2004. A
low-cost storage system for domestic andirrigation water for small farmers. Int. Dev.
Enterprises, Lakewood CO.
Pomeroy, R.S. and R. Rivera-Guieb. 2006.
Fisheries co-management: A practicalhandbook. CABI and IDRC, Ottawa.
Ponsioen. T.C., H. Hengsdijk, J. Wolf,
M.K. van Ittersum, R.P. Rötter, T.T. Son et al.
2006. TechnoGIN, a tool for exploring andevaluating resource use efficiency of cropping
systems in East and Southeast Asia. Agric.
Systems 87:80-100.
Popp, J., D. Hoag, and J. Ascough II. 2002
Targeting soil conservation policies forsustainability; New empirical evidence. J. Soil
Water Conserv. 57:66-74.
Powell, K. 2003. Barnyard biotech — lame duckor golden goose? Nature Biotech. 21:965-967.
PPLPI. 2001. Pro-poor livestock policy facility;
facilitating the policy dialogue in support ofequitable, safe and clean livestock farming.
Project description. FAO, Rome.
Pretty, J.N. 1999. Can sustainable agriculture
feed Africa? New evidence on progress,
processes and impacts. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
1:253-274.
Pretty, J. 2001. The rapid emergence of genetic
modification in world agriculture: Contested
risks and benefits. Environ. Conserv. 28:
248-262.
Pretty, J. 2003. Social capital and the collective
management of resources. Science 302:
1912-1914.
Pretty, J.N., J.I.L. Morison, and R.E. Hine.
2003. Reducing food poverty by increasing
agricultural sustainability in developing
countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
95(1):217-234.

chapter 06.indd 436

Pretty, J.N., A.D. Noble, D. Bossio, J. Dixon,
R.E. Hine, F.T.W. Penning de Vries et al.
2006. Resource-conserving agriculture
increases yields in developing countries.
Environ. Sci. Tech. 40(4):1114-1119.
Prins, M. 2003. Broad virus resistance intransgenic plants. Trends Biotech. 21:373-375.
Pryme, I.F., and R. Lembcke. 2003. In vivo
studies on possible health consequences ofgenetically modified food and feed — withpaticular regard to ingredients consisting ofgenetically modified plant materials. Nutr.
Health 17:1-8.
Pusztai, A., S. Bardocz, and S.W.B. Ewen. 2003.
Genetically modified foods: potential humanhealth effects. p. 347-371. In J.P.F. D´Mello(ed) Food safety: Contaminants and toxins.
CABI, UK.
Qadir, M., D. Wichelns, L. Raschid-Sally,
P.S. Minhas, P. Drechsel, A. Bahri et al.
2007. Agricultural use of marginal-quality
water — opportunities and challenges. In
D. Molden (ed) Water for food, water forlife: A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.
Radersma, S., H. Otieno, A.N. Atta-Krah,
and A.I. Niang. 2004. System performance
analysis of an alley-cropping system inWestern Kenya and its explanation by
nutrient balances and uptake processes.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 104:631-632.
Ragauskas, A.J., C.K. Williams, B.H. Davison,
G. Britovsek, J. Cairney, C.A. Eckart et al.
2006. The path forward for biofuels andbiomaterials. Science 311:484-489.
Raghu, S., R.C. Anderson, C.C. Daehler,
A.S. Davis, R.N. Wiedenmann, D. Simberloff
et al. 2006. Adding biofuels to the invasive
species fire? Science 313:1742.
Ramdas, S.R. and N.S. Ghotge. 2005. Bank onhooves: Your companion to holistic animal
health care. Anthra, Pune, India.
Rao, P.P.N. 2005. Space technology applications
in agriculture. Available at www.digital
opportunity.org/article/view/116635.
Rasul, G., and G.B. Thapa. 2003. Sustainability
analysis of ecological and conventional
agricultural systems in Bangladesh. World
Dev. 31:1721-1741.
Rasul, G., and G.B. Thapa. 2004. Sustainabilityof ecological and conventional agricultural
systems in Bangladesh: an assessment basedon environmental, economic and social
perspectives. Agric. Syst. 79(3):327-351.
Rasul, G., and G.B. Thapa. 2006. Financial andeconomic suitability of agroforestry as analternative to shifting cultivation: The caseof the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh.
Agric. Syst. 91:29-50.
Reardon, T.A., J.A. Berdegué, M. Lundy,
P. Schütz, F. Balsevich, R. Hernández et al.
2004. Supermarkets and rural livelihoods:
A research method. Michigan State Univ.,
East Lansing.
Rebafka, F.P., A. Bationo, and H. Marschner.
1993. Phosphorous seed coating increases

phosphorous uptake, early growth and yieldof pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L)grown on an acid sandy soil in Niger, West
Africa. Fert. Res. 35(3):151-160.
Reece, J.D., and E. Haribabu. 2007. Genes tofeed the world: the weakest link? Food Policy
32:459-479.
Reij, C., G. Tappan, and A. Belemvire. 2005.
Changing land management practices andvegetation on the Central Plateau of Burkina
Faso (1968-2002). J. Arid Environ. 63:642659.
Renault, D., M. Hemakumara, and D. Molden.
2001. Importance of water consumption
by perennial vegetation in irrigated areas of
the humid tropics: evidence from Sri Lanka.
Agric. Water Manage. 46:215-230.
Rengel, Z. 2001. Agronomic approaches toincreasing zinc concentration in staple foodcrops. In I. Cakmak and R. Weldch (ed)Impacts of agriculture on human health andnutrition. Encycl. Life Support Systems.
UNESCO, EOLSS Publ., Oxford.
Reyes, T., M. Quiroz, and S. Msikula. 2005.
Socio-economic comparison between
traditional and improved cultivation methods
in agroforestry systems, East Usambara
Mountains, Tanzania. Environ. Manage.
36:682-690.
Robertson, G.P., E.A. Paul, and R.R. Harwood.
2000. Greenhouse gases in intensive
agriculture: Contributions of individual gases
to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere.
Science 289:1922-1925.
Robson, M.C., S.M. Fowler, N.H. Lampkin,
C. Leifert, M. Leitch, D. Robinson et al.
2002. The agronomic and economic potentialof break crops for ley/arable rotations intemperate organic agriculture. Adv. Agron.
77:369-427.
Rockström, J. 2004. Making the best of climatic
variability: Options for upgrading rainfed
farming in water scarce regions. Water Sci.
Tech. 49(7):151-156.
Rockström, J., P. Fox, and J. Barron. 2003.
Water productivity in rain fed agriculture:
challenges and opportunities for smallholder
farmers in drought-prone tropicalagroecosystems. In J.W. Kijne et al. (ed)Water productivity in agriculture: Limits andopportunities for improvement. CABI, UK
and IWMI, Colombo.
Rockström, J., N. Hatibu, T. Oweis, andS. Wani. 2007. Managing water in rainfed
agriculture. In D. Molden (ed) Water
for food, water for life: Comprehensive
assessment on water in agriculture.
Earthscan, London and IWMI, Colombo.
Rosenzweig, C., A. Iglesias, X.B. Yang,
P.R. Epstein, and E. Chivian. 2001. Climatechange and extreme weather events:
implications for food production, plantdiseases, and pests. Glob. Change Hum.
Health 2:90-104.
Rounsevell, M.D.A., P.M. Berry, and P.A.
Harrison. 2006. Future environmental change
impacts on rural land use and biodiversity:

11/3/08 10:44:45 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 437

a synthesis of the ACCELERATES project.
Environ. Sci. Policy 9:93-100.
Rounsevell, M.D.A., S.P. Evans, and P. Bullock.
1999. Climate change and agricultural soils:
Impacts and adaptation. Clim. Change.
43:683-709.
Rounsevell, M.D.A., F. Ewert, I. Reginster,R. Leemans, and T.R. Carter. 2005. Futurescenarios of European agricultural land use. II.
Projecting changes in cropland and grassland.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 107:117-135.
Royal Society. 2005. Ocean acidification due toincreasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The
Royal Soc., London.
Rweyemamu, M.M., J. Musiime, G. Thomson,
D. Pfeiffer, and E. Peeler. 2006. Futurecontrol strategies for infectious animal
diseases: Case study of the UK and subSaharan Africa. p. 1-24. In Foresight,
infectious diseases, preparing for the future.
Available at www.foresight.gov.uk. UK Dep.
Trade Industry, London.
Sabates, A., P. Martin, J. Lloret, and V. Raya.
2006. Sea warming and fish distribution:
the case of the small pelagic fish, Sardinella
aurita, in the western Mediterranean. Glob.
Change Biol. 12(11):2209-2219.
Sadowsky, M.J., and R.F. Turco. 1999.
Enhancing indigenous microorganisms tobioremediate contaminated soils. p. 274-288.
In D.C. Adriano et al. (ed) Bioremediation of
cantamianted soils. Agron. Mono. 37. ASACSSA-SSSA, Madison WI.
Sadras, V.O. and J.F. Angus. 2006. Benchmarking
water use efficiency of rainfed wheat in dry
environments. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 57:8.
Saha, S.K., and S. Jonna. 1994. Paddy
acreage and yield estimation and irrigatedcropland inventory using satellite andagrometeorological data. Asian Pac. Rem.
Sens. J. 6(2):79-87.
Sanchez, P.A. 2000. Linking climate change
research with food security and poverty
reduction in the tropics. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 82:371-383.
Sanchez, P.A. 2002. Soil fertility and hunger inAfrica. Science 295:2019-2020.
Sanchez, P.A. 2005. Reducing hunger in tropical
Africa while coping with climate change. p.
3-19. In R. Lal et al. (ed) Climate change andglobal food security. Taylor and Francis, NY.
Sanchirico, J.N., and J.E. Wilen. 2007. Global
marine fisheries resources: Status andprospects. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 7(2,3).
Sanders, R.A., and W. Hiatt. 2005. Tomatotransgene structure and silencing. Nature
Biotech. 23:287-289.
Sanderson, K. 2006. A field in ferment: To move
US biofuels beyond subsidized corn will be achallenge. Nature 444:673-676.
Sasal, M.C., A. Andriulo, and M.A.Taboada.
2006. Soil porosity characteristics on water
dynamics under direct drilling in Argiudollsof the Argentinean Rolling Pampas. Soil Till.
Res. 87:9-18.
Sauder, A. 1992. International development
enterprises evaluation of marketing

chapter 06.indd 437

appropriate technology Phase II. CIDA,
Canada.
Scherm, H. 2004. Climate change: Can we
predict the impacts on plant pathology andpest management? Can. J. Plant Pathol.
26:267-273.
Schneider, S.H. 2006. Climate change: Do weknow enough for policy action? Sci. Engineer.
Ethics 12(4):607-636.
Shonk, J.L., L.D. Gultney, D.G. Schulze andG.E. Van Scoyoc. 1991. Spectroscopic
sensing of soil organic matter content. Trans.
ASAE 34:1978-1984.
Schreckenberg, K., A. Degrande, C. MBosso,
Z. Boli Baboulé, C. Boyd, L. Enyoung et al.
2002. The social and economic importanceof Dacryodes edulis (G.Don) H.J. Lam inSouthern Cameroon. For. Trees Livelihoods
12:15-40.
Schroth, G., G.A.B. da Fonseca, C.A. Harvey,
C. Gaston, H.L. Vasconcelos and
A-M.N. Izac (ed) 2004. Agroforestry
and biodiversity conservation in tropicallandscapes. Island Press, Washington DC.
Scialabba, N. 2007. Organic agriculture andfood security. In Int. Conf. Organic Agric.
Food Security. Rome. May 3-5. Available at
ftp://ftp.fao.org/paia/organicag/ofs/nadia.pdf.
FAO, Rome.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods:
A framework for analysis. IDS Working Pap.
72. IDS, Brighton.
Sechley, K.A., and H. Schroeder. 2002.
Intellectual property protection of plantbiotechnology inventions. Trends Biotech.
20:456-461.
Seckler, D., D. Molden and R. Sakthivadivel. 2003.
The concept of efficiency in water resourcesmanagement and policy. p. 37-51. In J.W. Kijne
et al. (ed) Water productivity in agriculture:
Limits and opportunities for improvement.
CABI, UK and IWMI, Colombo.
Seddon, J.M. 2007. Multivitamin-multimineral
supplements and eye disease: Age-related
macular degeneration and cataract.
Am.J.Clin.Nutr. 85:1:304S-307S.
Semizarov, D., L. Frost, A. Sarthy, P. Kroeger,
D.N. Halbert, and S.W. Fesik. 2003.
Specificity of short interfering RNA
determined through gene expression
signatures. PNAS USA 100:6347-6352.
Shah, T., J. Burke and K. Vilholth. 2007.
Groundwater: A global assessment of scaleand significance. In D. Molden (ed) Water
for food, water for life: A comprehensive
assessment of water management inagriculture. Earthscan, London and IWMI,
Colombo.
Shah, T., M. Alam, D. Kumar, R.K. Nagar, and
M. Singh. 2000. Pedaling out of poverty:
Social impact of a manual technology inSouth Asia. Res. Rep. 45. IWMI, Colombo.
Shand, H. 2002. Terminator no solution to gene
flow. Nature Biotech. 20:775-776.
Sheldrick, W.F., and J. Lingard. 2004. The use ofnutrient audits to determine nutrient balancesin Africa. Food Policy 29:61-98.

Siekmann, J., L.H. Allen, N.O. Bwibo,
M.W. Demment, S.P. Murphy, and
C.G.Neumann. 2003. Kenyan schoolchildren
have multiple micronutrient deficiencies,
but increased plasma vitamin B12 is the
only detectable micronutrient response tomeat or milk supplementation. J. Nutr.
133:3972S-3980S.
Sikora, R.A., J. Bridge, and J.L. Starr. 2005.
Management practices: An overview
of integrated nematode management
technologies. p. 793-826. In M. Luc et al.
(ed) Plant parasitic nematodes in subtropicaland tropical agriculture. CABI, UK.
Sikora, R.A. and E. Fernandez. 2005. Nematodeparasites of vegetables. p. 319-392. In
M. Luc et al. (ed) Plant parasitic nematodes
in subtropical and tropical agriculture.
CABI, UK.
Sikora, R.A., and L.E. Pocasangre. 2004. New
technologies to increase root health and crop
production. Infomusa. 13(2):25-29.
Sims, J.T., L. Bergstrom, B.T. Bowman, andO. Oenema. 2005. Nutrient management
for intensive animal agriculture: Policies andpractices for sustainability. Soil Use Manage.,21(Suppl.):141-151.
Sinclair, T.R., L.C. Purcell, and C.H. Sneller.
2004. Crop transformation and the challenge
to increase yield potential. Trends Plant Sci.
9:70-75.
Sivakumar, M.V.K.. 2006. Climate prediction
and agriculture: Current status and futurechallenges. Climate Res. 33:3-17.
Sivakumar, M.V.K. and D.E. Hinsman. 2004.
Satellite remote sensing and GIS applications
in agricultural meteorology and WMO
satellite activities. p. 1-22. In M.V.K.
Sivakumar (ed) 2004. Satellite remotesensing and GIS applications in agriculturalmeteorology. Proc. Training Workshop. Dehra
Dun, India, 7-11 Jul 2003. WMO, Geneva.
Six, J., H. Bossuyt, S.Degryze, and K. Denef.
2004. A history of research on the link
between (micro) aggregates, soil biota, andsoil organic matter dynamics. Soil Till. Res.
79:7-31.
Smaling, E.M.A., and J. Dixon. 2006. Adding asoil fertility dimension to the global farming
systems approach, with cases from Africa.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 116:15-26.
Smid, R., M. Kubasek, D. Klimes, L. Dusek,
J. Jarkovsky, B. Marsalek et al. 2006. Web
portal for management of bioindication
methods and ecotoxicological tests inecological risk assessment. Ecotoxicology
15:623-627.
Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary,
H. Janzen, P. Kumar et al. 2007. Policy andtechnological constraints to implementationof greenhouse gas mitigation options inagriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118:6-28.
Smith, S.R. 1996. Agricultural recycling of
sewage sludge and the environment. CABI,
Wallingford, UK.
Smithson, J.B., and J.M. Lenne. 1996. Varietal
mixtures: a viable strategy for sustainable

11/3/08 10:44:46 AM

438 | IAASTD Global Report

productivity in subsistence agriculture. Ann.
Appl. Biol. 128:127-158.
Smyth, S., G.G. Khachatourians, and
P.W.B. Phillips. 2002. Liabilities andeconomics of transgenic crops. Nature
Biotech. 20:537-541.
Sommer, S.G., J.K. Schjoerring, andO.T. Denmead. 2004. Ammonia emission
from mineral fertilizers and fertilized crops.
Adv. Agron. 82:557-622.
Spoor, G. 2006. Alleviation of soil compaction:
Requirements: Equipment and techniques.
Soil Use Manage. 22:113-122.
Spoor, G., F.G. Tijink, and P. Weisskopf. 2003.
Experiences with the impact and preventionof subsoil compaction in the Euporean
Union. Soil Till. Res. 73:175-182.
Srinivasan, C.S. 2003. Exploring the feasibility offarmers’ rights. Dev. Pol. Rev. 21:419-447.
Staal, S., M. Owango, G. Muriuki, B. Lukuyu,
F. Musembi, O. Bwana et al. 2001. Dairy
systems characterization of the greater
Nairobi milk-shed. SDP Res. Rep., KARI and
ILRI, Nairobi.
Stacey, D.A. 2003. Climate and biologicalcontrol in organic crops. Int. J. Pest Manage.
49(3):205-214.
Stapleton, J.J., C.L. Elmore, and J.E. DeVay.
2000. Solarization and biofumigation help
disinfect soil. Calif. Agric. 54(6):42-45.
Steinbach, H.S., and R. Alvarez. 2006. Changes
in soil organic carbon contents and nitrous
oxide emissions after introduction of no-tillin Pampean agroecosystem. J. Environ. Qual.
35:3-13.
Steinfeld, H., C. De Haan and H. Blackburn.
1997. Livestock–Environment Interactions:Issues and options. European Commission
Directorate-General for Development,
Brussels.
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar,
V. Castel, M. Rosales, and C. de Haan. 2006.
Livestock’s long shadow, environmental
issues and options. FAO, Rome.
Sticklen, M. 2006. Plant genetic engineering to
improve biomass characteristics for biofuels.
Curr. Opin. Biotech. 17:315-319.
Stige, L.C., J. Stave, K.S. Chan, L. Ciannelli,N. Pettorelli, M. Glantz et al. 2006. The
effect of climate variation on agro-pastoral
production in Africa. PNAS 103(9):30493053.
Stocking, M.A. 2003. Tropical soils andfood security: The next 50 years. Science
302:1356-1359.
Stoop, W. 2002. A study and comprehensive
analysis of the causes for low adoption rates
of agricultural research results in West andCentral Africa: Possible solutions leading togreater future impacts: The Mali and Ghanacase studies. Interim Sci. Council. CGIAR,
Washington DC and FAO, Rome.
Stoop, W.A., and T. Hart. 2006. Research anddevelopment towards sustainable agriculture
by resource-poor farmers in Sub-SaharanAfrica: Some strategic and organisational
considerations in linking farmer practicalchapter 06.indd 438

needs with policies and scientific theories Int.
J. Agric. Sustain. 3:206-216.
Stoop, W., N. Uphoff, and A. Kassam. 2002.
A review of agricultural research issues
raised by the system of rice intensification(SRI) from Madagascar: Opportunities for
improving farming systems for resource-poor
farmers. Agric. Syst. 71:249-274.
Stoorvogel, J.J., and J.M. Antle. 2001. Regional
land use analysis: The development ofoperational tools. Agric. Syst. 70:623-640.
Stoorvogel, J.J., and E.M.A. Smaling. 1990.
Assessment of soil nutrient depletion in SubSaharan Africa: 1983-2000. Winand Staring
Centre, Wageningen.
Strand, J.F. 2000. Some agrometeorologicalaspects of pest and disease management
for the 21st century. Agric. For. Meteorol.
103:73-82.
Strohman, R.C. 1997. The coming Kuhnian
revolution in biology. Nature Biotech.
15:194-200.
Subbarao, G.V., M. Rondon, O. Ito, T. Ishikawa,
I.M. Rao, K. Nakahara et al. 2007.
Biological nitrification inhibition (BNI) — isit a widespread phenomenon? Plant Soil
294:5-18.
Sugunan, V.V. and P.D. Katiha. 2004. Impact
of stocking on yield in small reservoirs inAndhra Pradesh, India. Fisheries Manage.
Ecol. 11:65-69.
Sugunan, V.V., and M. Sinha. 2001. Sustainablecapture and culture-based fisheries infreshwaters of India. p. 43-70. In
T.J. Pandian (ed) Sustainable Indian fisheries.
Nat. Acad. Agric. Sci., New Delhi.
Swinkels, R., and S. Franzel. 2000. Adoption
potential of hedgerow intercropping inmaize-based cropping systems in thehighlands of western Kenya 2. Economic andfarmers’ evaluation. Exp. Agric. 33:211-223.
Swinton, S.M., and J. Lowenberg-DeBoer. 2001.
Global adoption of precision agriculture
technologies: Who, when and why. p.
557-562. In third European conference on
precision agriculture. G. Grenier and S.
Blackmore (ed) Agro Montpellier (ENSAM),
Montpellier.
Syam, T., and K. Jusoff. 1999. Remote sensing(RS) and Geographic Information System(GIS) technology for field implementationin Malaysian agriculture. Seminar on
repositioning agriculture industry in thenext millennium, 13-14 Jul 1999. Bilik
Persidangan IDEAL, Universiti Putra
Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor.
Taboada, M.A., O. A. Barbosa, M.B. Rodríguez,and D.J. Cosentino. 2004. Mechanisms of
aggregation in a silty loam under different
simulated management regimes. Geoderma
123:233-244.
Taboada, M.A., F.G. Micucci, D.J.Cosentino,
and R.S. Lavado. 1998. Comparison ofcompaction induced by conventional andzero tillage in two soils of the Rolling Pampa
of Argentina. Soil Till. Res. 49:57-63.
Tappan, G., and M. McGahuey. 2007. Tracking

environmental dynamics and agriculturalintensification in southern Mali. Agric. Syst.
94:38-51.
Tarafdar, J.C., and N. Claassen. 2005.
Preferential utilization of organic andinorganic sources of phosphorus by wheat
plant. Plant Soil 275:285-293.
Taube, A. 2006. ACP-EU Update: PUMA,
weather satellite data for Africa. Available
at http://ictupdate.cta.int/index.php/article/
view/353.
Taylor, L.H., S.M. Latham, and
M.E.J. Woolhouse. 2001. Risk factors forhuman disease emergence. Phil. Trans.
R. Soc. Lond. B 356:983-989.
Tchoundjeu, Z., E. Asaah, P. Anegbeh,
A. Degrande, P. Mbile, C. Facheux etal. 2006. AFTPs: Putting participatory
domestication into practice in West andCentral Africa. For. Trees Livelihoods
16:53-70.
Tennant, P., G. Fermin, M.M. Fitch,
R.M. Manshardt, J.L. Slightom, and
D. Gonsalves. 2001. Papaya ringspot virus
resistance of transgenic rainbow and sunup isaffected by gene dosage, plant development,
and coat protein homology. Eur. J. Pl. Pathol.
107:645-653.
Terry, P.J. 2001. The Cyperaceae — still theworld’s worst weeds? p. 3-18. In C.R. Riches(ed) The world’s worst weeds. Brighton,
UK.
The Guardian. 2007. Massacres and paramilitary
land seizures behind the biofuel revolution:
Colombian farmers driven out as armed
groups profit Lucrative ‘green’ crop less risky
to grow than coca. The Guardian, 5 June.
Thiruvengadachari, S. and R. Sakthivadivel.
1996. Satellite remote sensing for assessmentof irrigation system performance: A casestudy in India. IWMI, Colombo.
Thomas, Z. 2005. Agricultural biotechnology
and proprietary rights. challenges and policy
options. J. World Intel. Prop. 8:711-734.
Thorup-Kristensen, K., J. and J. Magid, and
L. Stoumann. 2003 Catch crops and green
manures as biological tools in nitrogen
management in temperate zones. p. 227-302.
In Advances in Agronomy. Elsevier, NY.
Thresh, J.M., and R.J. Cooper. 2005. Strategies
for controlling cassava mosaic virus disease
in Africa. Plant Path. 54:587-614.
Thrupp, L.A. 1998. Cultivating diversity:
Agrobiodiversity and food security. World
Resources Inst., Washington DC.
Tiffen, M., and R. Bunch. 2002. Can a more
agroecological agriculture feed a growing
world population? p. 71-91. In N. Uphoff(ed) Agroecological innovations: increasing
food production with participatory
development. Earthscan, London.
Tilman, D., K.G. Cassman, P.A. Matson,
R. Naylor, and S. Polasky. 2002. Agricultural
sustainability and intensive production
practices. Nature 418:671-677.
Timsina, J., and D.J. Connor. 2001. Productivity
and management of rice-wheat cropping

11/3/08 10:44:46 AM

Options to Enhance the Impact of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 439

systems: issues and challenges. Field Crops
Res. 69:93-132.
Timsina, J., and E. Humphreys. 2006.
Performance of CERES-Rice and CERESWheat models in rice-wheat systems: A
review. Agric. Systems 90:5-31.
Todhunter, P.E. and L.J. Cihacek. 1999.
Historical reduction of airborn dust in the
Red River Valley of the North. J. Soil Water
Conserv. 54:543-551.
Toledo, A., and B. Burlingame (ed) 2006.
Biodiversity and nutrition: A common path.
J. Food Compos. Analy. 19(6-7).
Tontisirin, K., G. Nantel, and L. Bhattacharjee.
2002. Foodbased strategies to meet thechallenges of micronutrient malnutrition in
the developing world. Proc. Nutr. Society
61:243-250.
Toumlin, C., and B. Guèye. 2003.
Transformation in West African agriculture
and the role of family farms. Issue Pap. 123.
IIED, London.
Tripp, R. 2006. The performance of low external
input technology in agricultural development:a summary of three case studies. Int. J. Agric.
Sustain. 3:143-153.
Twyman, R.M., E. Stoger, S. Schillberg,
P. Christou, and R. Fischer. 2003. Molecularfarming in plants: host systems and expression
technology. Trends Biotech. 21:570-578.
United Nations. 2006. Global survey for early
warning systems: An assessment of capacities,
gaps and opportunities toward building acomprehensive global early warning system
for all natural hazards. A Report prepared at
the request of the Secretary-General.
UN, NY.
Uri, N., 1999. Conservation tillage in U.S.
agriculture: Environmental, economic, andpolicy issues. Haworth Press, Binghamton NY.
USAID (US Agency Int. Dev.). 2006. Etude de laregeneration naturelle assistee dans la regionde Zinder (Niger). Available at http://www.
frameweb.org/ev_en.php?ID=14310_201&
ID2=DO_COMMUNITY. USAID,
Washington DC.
Vallat, B. and E. Mallat. 2006. Ensuring good
governance to address emerging and reemerging animal disease threats: Supporting
the veterinary services of developing
countries to meet OIE international
standards on quality. Rev.Sci.Tech.Off.Int.
Epiz. 25:1:389-401.
Van Bruggen, A.H.C., and A.J. Termorshuizen.
2003. Integrated approaches to root disease
management in organic farming systems.
Australas. Plant Pathol. 32:141-156.
Van Dam, J.C., R. Singh, J.J.E. Bessembinder,
P.A. Leffelaar, W.G.M. Bastiaanssen,
R.K. Jhorar et al. 2006. Assessing options toincrease water productivity in irrigated river
basins using remote sensing and modelingtools. Water Res. Dev. 22(1):115-133.
Van der Hoek, W. 2004. How can better farming
methods reduce malaria? Guest editorial.
Acta Tropica 89:95-87.
Van der Hoek, W., R. Sakthivadivel,

chapter 06.indd 439

M. Renshaw, J.B. Silver, M.H. Birley, andF. Konradsen. 2007. Alternate wet/dry
irrigation in rice cultivation; a practical
way to save water and control malaria andJapanese encephalitis? Available at http://
www.iwmi.cgiar.org/. IWMI, Colombo.
Van Eenennaam, A.L. 2006. What is the futureof animal biotechnology? Cal. Agric.
60:132-139.
Van Eenennaam, A.L., and P.G. Olin. 2006.
Careful risk assessment needed to evaluate
transgenic fish. Calif. Agric. 60:126-131.
Van Eijck, J., and H. Romijn. 2006. Prospects
for Jatropha biofuels in developing countries.
an analysis for Tanzania with strategic niche
management. 4th Ann. Globelics Conf.
Innovation systems for competitiveness andshared prosperity in developing countries.
Thiruvananthapuram, 4-7 Oct.
Van Koppen, B., and S. Mahmud. 1996. Women
and water pumps in Bangladesh. The impact ofparticipation in irrigation groups on women’s
status. Intermediate Tech. Publ., London.
Van Lenteren, J.C. 2000. Measures of successin biological control of arthropods byaugmentation of natural enemies, p. 77-103.
In S. Wratten and G. Gurr (ed) Measures ofsuccess in biological control. Kluwer Acad.
Publ., Dordrecht.
Van Lenteren, J.C. 2003. Integrated pest
management in greenhouses: Experiences ofEuropean countries. p. 327-339. In
K. Maredia (ed) IPM in the Global Arena.
CABI Publ., Wallingford.
Van Neil, T.G., and T.R. McVicar. 2001. Remotesensing of rice-based irrigated agriculture:a review. Rice CRC Tech. Rep. Available atwww.ricecrc.org.
Van Noordwijk, M., F. Agua, B. Verbist,
K. Hairiah, and T. Tomich. 2007. Watershedmanagement. p. 191- 212. In S. Scherr and
J. McNeely (ed) Farming with nature: The
science and practice of ecoagriculture. Island
Press, Washington DC.
Vance, C.P., C.Uhde-Stone, and D. L. Allan.
2003. Tansley review: Phosphorus acquisition
and use: Critical adaptations by palnts forsecuring a nonrenewable resource. New
Phytologist 157:423-447.
Vasey, R.A., J.D. Scholes, and M.C. Press. 2005.
Wheat (Triticum aestivum) is susceptible tothe parasitic angiosperm Striga hermonthica,a major cereal pathogen in Africa.
Phytopathol. 11:1293-1300.
Vaucheret, H., C. Beclin, and M. Fagard. 2001.
Post-transcriptional gene silencing in plants.
J. Cell Sci. 114:3083-3091.
Vereijken, P.H. 2002. Transition to multifunctional land use and agriculture.
Netherlands J. Agric. Sci. 50:171-179.
Verlodt, I., and P. Verschaeren. 2000. New
interference film for climate control. Acta
Hort. 514:139-146.
Viglizzo, E.F. 2001. The impact of global changeon the rural environment in ecoregions of
the southern cone of South America. p.
103-122. In O.T. Solbrig et al. (ed) Impact

of globalisation and information society on
the rural environment. Harvard Univ. Press,
Cambridge.
Viglizzo, E.F., and F.C. Frank. 2006. Land-use
options for Del Plata Basin in South America:
tradeoffs analysis based on ecosystem service
provision. Ecol. Econ. 57:140-151.
Viglizzo, E.F., and Z.E. Roberto. 1998. On tradeoffs in low-input agro-ecosystems. Agric.
Syst. 56:253-264.
Villar, J.L., B. Freese, A. Bebb, N. Bassey,
C. Améndola, and M. Ferreira. 2007. Whobenefits from GM crops? Friends of the
Earth, Amsterdam.
Villarreal, M., C.H. Anyonge, B. Swallow, andF. Kwesiga. 2006. The challenge of HIV/
AIDS: Where does agroforestry fit in? p.
181-192. In D. Garrity et al. (ed) Worldagroforestry into the future. World
Agroforesty Centre, Nairobi.
Vogel, C., K. O’Brien. 2006. Who can eat
information? Examining the effectivenessof seasonal climate forecasts and regional
climate-risk management strategies. Climate
Res. 33:111-122.
Von Braun, J., and R.K. Pachauri. 2006. The
promises and challenges of biofuels forthe poor in developing countries. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Vosti, S.E., E. Muñoz, B. Chantal, L. Carpentier,
M.V.N. d’Oliveira, and J. Witcover. 2003.
Rights to forest products, deforestationand smallholder income: evidence fromthe Western Brazilian Amazon. World Dev.
31:1889-1901.
Vourc’h, G., V.E. Bridges, J. Gibbens, B.D.
DeGroot, L. McIntyre, R. Poland et al. 2006.
Detecting emerging diseases in farm animals
through clinical observations. Emerg. Infect.
Dis. 12:204-210.
Warkentin, B.P. 2001. Diffuse pollution: Lessons
from soil conservation policies. Water Sci.
Tech. 44:197-202.
Wassmann, R., and M.S. Aulakh. 2000. The roleof rice plants in regulating mechanisms of
methane emissions. Biol. Fertil. Soils
31:20-29.
Wassmann, R., H.U. Neue, J.K. Ladha, and
M.S. Aulakh. 2004. Mitigating greenhouse gas
emissions from rice-wheat cropping systems in
Asia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 6:65-90.
Water Science and Technology Board. 2001.
Virulence-factor activity relationships.
p. 143-207. In: Water Science andTech. Board. Classifying drinking watercontaminants for regulatory consideration.
Nat. Acad. Press, Washington DC.
Watson, R.T., R.H. Moss, and M.C. Zinyowera(ed) 1998. The regional impacts of climatechange: an assessment of vulnerability. IPCC,
Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Wayne, R. 1987. Crop mixtures for enhanced
yield and stability. Rural Res. (CSIRO)
135:16-19.
WBGU. 2003. Welt im Wandel: Energiewende
zur Nachhaltigkeit. (In German) German
Adv. Council Global Change, Berlin.

11/3/08 10:44:47 AM

440 | IAASTD Global Report

Welches, L.A., and I. Cherrett. 2002. The
quesungual system in Honduras: An
alternative to slash-and-burn. LEISA
18:10-11.
Welcomme, R.L., and C.M. Bartley. 1998. An
evaluation of present techniques for theenhancement of fisheries. J. Fisheries Ecol.
Manage. 5:351-382.
Wenhua, L. 2004. Degradation and restorationof forest ecosystems in China. Forest Ecol.
Manage. 201:33-41.
Wenzel, G. 2006. Molecular plant breeding:Achievements in green biotechnology andfuture perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotech.
70:642-650.
Wenzel, W.W., D.C. Adriano, D. Salt, and
R. Smith. 1999. Phytoremediation: A
plant-microbe based remediation system.
p. 457-508. In D.C. Adriano et al. (ed)Bioremediation of cantamianted soils. Agron.
Mono. 37. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison WI.
Wheaton, R.Z., and E.J. Monke. 2001. Terracing
as a “best management practice” forcontrolling erosion and protecting water
quality. AE-114. Available at www.ces.
purdue.edu/extmedia/AE/AE-114.HTML.
Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN.
White, J.W., G.S. McMaster, and G.O.
Edemeades. 2004. Genomics and crop
response to global change: what have welearned? Field Crops Res. 90:165-169.
WHO. 2003. Impacts of antimicrobial growthpromoter termination in Denmark. World
Health Organization int. rev. panel’s
evaluation of the termination of the use of
antimicrobial growth promoters in Denmark,6-8 Nov 2002. WHO/EDS/CPE/ZFK/2003.1.
Copenhagen.
Wieser, M., F. Schneider and S. Waelty. 2000.
Capitalisation of experiences in livestock
production and dairying (LPD) in India(CAPEX). Intercooperation, Switzerland.
Winsor, S. 2007. Ethanol fuels land prices. Corn
Soybean Digest 1(Feb).
Wittenberg, R. and M.J.W. Cock. 2001. Invasive
alien species: How to address one of thegreatest threats to biodiversity: A toolkit ofbest prevention and management practices.
CABI, Wallingford.
Wittmer, H., F. Rauschmayer, and B. Klauer.
2006. How to select instruments for the
resolution of environmental conflicts? Land
Use Policy 23(1):1-9.

chapter 06.indd 440

Wolfenbarger, L.L., and P.R. Phifer. 2000. The
ecological risks and benefits of geneticallyengineered plants. Science 290:2088-2093.
Woods, J. 2006. Science and technology options
for harnessing bioenergy’s potential. Brief 6
of 12. In P. Hazell et al. (ed) Bioenergy andagriculture: Promises and challenges. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
World Agroforestry Centre. 2005. Treesof change: A vision for an agroforestrytransformation in the developing world.
ICRAF, Nairobi.
World Bank 2004. Saving fish and fishers:
Toward sustainable and equitable governanceof the global fishing sector. Rep. 29090-GLB.
World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2006. Aquaculture: Changing theface of the waters — meeting the promiseand challenge of sustainable aquaculture.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Worldwatch Institute. 2006. Biofuels fortransportation: Global potential andimplications for sustainable agriculture andenergy in the 21st century. Worldwatch,
Washington DC.
Yadav, R.S., and J.C. Tarafdar. 2001. Influence oforganic and inorganic phophorus supply on
the maximum secretion of acid phosphataseby plants. Biol. Fert. Soils 34:140-143.
Yamamura, K., M. Yokozawa, M. Nishimori,
Y. Ueda, and T. Yokosuka. 2006. How
to analyze long-term insect population
dynamics under climate change: 50-year dataof three insect pests in paddy fields. Popul.
Ecol. 48:31-48.
Yoo, B.-C., F. Kragler, E. Varkonyi-Gasic,
V. Haywood, S. Archer-Evans, Y.M. Lee etal. 2004. A systemic small RNA signaling
system in plants. Pl. Cell 16:1979-2000.
Young, E.M., and A. Mottram. 2001.
Transplanting sorghum and millet as a meansof increasing food security in semi-arid,
low-income countries.Trop. Agric. Assoc.
Newslet. 21(4):14-17.
Yue, L., Q. Xiaobo, G. Qingzhu, W. Yunfan, and
X. Wei. 2005. Simulation of management
practices impacts on GHG emissions fromagricultural soil. p. 619-626. In A. van
Amstel (ed) Proc. Fourth Int. Symp.
NCGG-4. Millpress, Rotterdam.
Zagre, N.M., D. Delpeuch, P. Traissac, and
H. Delisle. 2003. Red palm oil as a source ofVitamin A for mothers and children: Impactof a pilot project in Burkina Faso. Public
Health Nutr. 6:733-742.
Zepeda, J.F. 2006. Coexistence, geneticallymodified biotechnologies and biosafety:
Implications for developing countries. Am. J.
Ag. Econ. 88:1200-1208.
Zhang, H. 2003. Improving water productivity
through deficit irrigation: Examples from
Syria, the North China Plain and Oregon,
USA. p. 301-309. In J.W. Kijne et al. (ed)Water productivity in agriculture: limits
and opportunities for improvement. CABI,
Wallingford and IWMI, Colombo.
Zhang, Q., C.O. Justice, and P.V. Desanker.
2002. Impacts of simulated shifting
cultivation on deforestation and the carbon
stocks of the forests of central Africa. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 90:203-209.
Zhang, X.C. 2005. Spatial downscaling of
global climate model output for site-specificassessment of crop production and soil
erosion. Agric. For. Meteorol. 135(1-4):
215-229.
Ziervogel, G. 2004. Targeting seasonal climate
forecasts for integration into household level
decisions: The case of smallholder farmers
in Lesotho. The Geograph. J. 170:6-21. doi:
10.1111/j.0016-7397.2004.05002.x.
Ziska, L.H., S.S. Faulkner, and J. Lydon. 2004.
Changes in biomass and root shoot ration offield-grown Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)with elevated CO2: Implications of control
with glyphosphate [N-(phosphonomethyl)
glycine] in weedy species. Weed Sci. 52:584588.
Ziska, L.H., and K. George. 2004. Risingcarbon dioxide and invasive, noxious plants:
Potential threats and consequences. World
Res. Rev. 16(4):427-447.
Ziska, L.H., and E.W. Goins. 2006. Elevatedatmospheric carbon dioxide and weed
populations in glyphosphate treated soybean.
Crop Sci. 46:1354-1359.
Zutta, B. 2003. Assessing vegetation functional
type and biodiversity in southern California
using spectral reflectance. A thesis presented
to the Faculty Dep. Biol. Microbiol. Calif.
State Univ., CA.
Zvereva, E.L., and M.V. Kozlov. 2006.
Consequences of simultaneous elevation ofcarbon dioxide and temperature for plantherbivore interactions: A metaanalysis. Glob.
Change Biol. 12:27-41.

11/3/08 10:44:47 AM

7Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments

Coordinating Lead Authors
Anne-Marie Izac (France), Henrik Egelyng (Denmark), Gustavo
Ferreira (Uruguay)
Lead Authors
David Duthie (UK), Bernard Hubert (France), Niels Louwaars (Netherlands), Erika Rosenthal (USA), Steve Suppan (USA), Martin Wierup(Sweden), Morven McLean (Canada), Elizabeth Acheampong (Ghana)Contributing Authors
Patrick Avato (Germany/Italy), Daniel de la Torre Ugarte (Peru),
Shaun Ferris (UK), Edwin Gyasi (Ghana), Niek Koning (Netherlands),
Douglas Murray (USA), Laura T. Raynolds (USA), Peter Robbins (UK)

7.2.6

7.2.7

Review Editor
Niels Röling (Netherlands)

Key Messages
7.1
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.1.3

7.2
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3

7.2.4

7.2.5

Natural Resources and Global Environmental Change 443
Resources, processes of change and policies 443
Reducing the impacts of climate change and the contribution ofagriculture to climate change 445
Managing the natural resource base of agriculture 446
7.1.3.1 Soils, nutrients and pests 446
7.1.3.2 Genetic resources and agrobiodiversity 447
7.1.3.3 Water scarcity, water quality and the distribution ofwater 449
Trade and Markets 452
Trade and markets: the enabling policy context for AKST
contributions to sustainability and development goals 452
Policy challenges and tradeoffs 453
Policy flexibility to pursue development, poverty reduction andfood security agendas 453
7.2.3.1 Special products, special safeguard mechanisms anddeeper preferences 454
7.2.3.2 Distributional impacts of welfare benefits and losses fromtrade liberalization 455
7.2.3.3 Meeting new regulatory costs associated withinternational trade 456
Policy options to address the downward pressure on prices forthe small-scale sector 456
7.2.4.1 Subsidies 456
7.2.4.2 Supply management for tropical commodities 458
7.2.4.3 Escalating tariffs 459
Options to increase market size, competition, and value capture
in commodity chains to increase incomes for small-scale farm
sector 459

7.3
7.3.1

7.3.2

7.3.3

7.3.4
7.4
7.4.1
7.4.2
7.4.3
7.4.4
7.5
7.5.1
7.5.2
7.5.3
7.5.4

7.2.5.1 Regional integration 459
7.2.5.2 State trading enterprises for developing country export
commodities 459
7.2.5.3 Microfinance and microcredit 460
7.2.5.4 Alternative trade channels: Fair Trade, certified organics,
and mark of origin 460
Market mechanisms to optimize environmental externalities 462
7.2.6.1 Policy options for internalizing environmental
externalities 462
7.2.6.2 Payments for agroenvironmental services 462
Enhancing governance of trade and technologies 465
7.2.7.1 Governance of trade and environmental decisionmaking 465
7.2.7.2 International competition policy and antitrust: governingcommodity markets to promote development goals 465
7.2.7.3 Strategic impact assessment and comparative technology
assessment 466
Food Safety, Animal and Plant Health 467
Food safety 467
7.3.1.1 Surveillance challenges 467
7.3.1.2 Financing a public good 468
7.3.1.3 Food safety standards for domestic public health benefits 469
Animal health 469
7.3.2.1 Major epizootic diseases and impacts on trade anddeveloping countries 469
7.3.2.2 Zoonoses as foodborne infections—policies for integrated
approach 470
7.3.2.3 Endemic diseases—the major challenge and potential 471
7.3.2.4 Animal welfare 471
7.3.2.5 Priority setting for disease control technologies 472
Plant health 472
7.3.3.1 The challenge of international phytosanitary standards 472
7.3.3.2 Opportunities through regionalism 472
7.3.3.3 Biosafety and plant protection 473
7.3.3.4 Meeting the plant health needs of small-scale farmers 473
7.3.3.5 The private sector and third party certification 473
7.3.3.6 Climate change and plant health 473
Ways forward 474
Knowledge and Knowledge Management­—Property Rights 475
Public research and the generation of public goods 475
Multilateral negotiations on rights systems 475
Effects of rights on AKST at the national and institutional levels 477
Rights systems on natural resources: from simple ownership tobundle of rights 479
Pro-Poor Agricultural Innovation 481
Technology supply push and the global agricultural treadmill 481
Brokered long-term contractual arrangements 482
Endogenous development and traditional knowledge 482
Innovation systems (IS) 485

441

chapter 07.indd 441

11/3/08 10:45:24 AM

442 | IAASTD Global Report

Key Messages
1. Policy approaches to improve natural resource
management and the provision of environmental services can benefit from security of, access to and tenure to resources and land and the explicit recognitionof the multiple functions of agriculture. Options include
increased investment in sustainable surface water delivery
to stop aquifer water-mining; establishment and strengthening of agencies administrating large water systems thatcross traditional administrative boundaries; systems formonitoring forest conditions and forest dwellers’ welfare;
more resource efficient use, more transparent allocations ofuse and better enforcement of regulations over forests andlands; and recognition of communal rights of local and indigenous communities.
2. Mechanisms to better inform and democratize
AKST policy making are fundamental to achieving development and sustainability goals. The complexities of
the globalizing world require vast amounts of knowledge
for informed policy development on emerging technologies,
trade, environmental and other issues to support the objectives of the IAASTD. Options include increased comparative technology assessment, strategic impact assessment,
and increased trade capacity development for developing
countries. Strongly improved governance is needed to respond to discontinuities arising from global environmental
change and conflict. Options include adoption of enhanced
governance mechanisms at all levels (i.e., to institutionalizetransparency, access to information, participation, representation and accountability) will help assure that social andenvironmental concerns, including those of the small farm
sector, are better represented in local, national and international policy making.
3. Market mechanisms to internalize environmental
externalities of agricultural production and reward theprovision of agroenvironmental services are effective
to stimulate the adoption of sustainable agricultural
practices and improve natural resources management. Market mechanisms that include payment/reward
for environmental services (PES) are one approach thatrecognizes the multifunctionality of agriculture, and creates
mechanisms to value and pay for the benefits of ecosystemservices provided by sustainable agricultural practices suchas low-input/low-emission production, conservation tillage,watershed management, agroforestry practices and carbon
sequestration. Other approaches include taxes on carbon
and pesticide use to provide incentives to reach internationally or nationally agreed use-reduction targets, support for
low-input/low-emission, incentives for multiple functionuse of agricultural land to broaden revenue options for land
managers, and carbon-footprint labeling of food. Incentive and regulatory systems structured to generate stablerevenue flows that contribute to long-term sustainability ofservice-providing landscapes will benefit small-scale farmers
and local communities.
4. Decisions around small-scale farm sustainability pose difficult policy choices. Special and differential

chapter 07.indd 442

treatment is an acknowledged principle in Doha agricultural
negotiations and may be warranted for small farm sectors
without a history of government support. New payment
mechanisms for environmental services by public and private utilities such as catchment protection and mitigationof climate change effects are of increasing importance andopen new opportunities for the small-scale farm sector.
5. Opening national agricultural markets to international competition before basic national institutions
and infrastructure are in place can undermine theagricultural sector, with potential long-term negative
effects for poverty alleviation, food security and theenvironment. Some developing countries with large export
sectors have achieved aggregate gains in GDP, although
their small-scale farm sectors have not necessarily benefitedand in many cases have lost out. The poorest developing
countries are net losers under most trade liberalization scenarios. These distributional impacts call for differentiationin policy frameworks as embraced by the Doha work plan
(special and differential treatment and non-reciprocal access). Trade policy reform aimed at providing a fairer global
trading platform can make a positive contribution to the alleviation of poverty and hunger. Developing countries could
benefit from reduced barriers and elimination of escalating
tariffs for processed commodities in developed countries;
deeper preferential access to developed country markets
for commodities important for rural livelihoods; increased
public investment in local value addition; improved accessfor small-scale farmers to credit; and strengthened regional
markets.
6. Intensive export oriented agriculture has increased
under open markets, but has been accompanied inmany cases by adverse consequences such as exportation of soil nutrients, unsustainable soil or water
management, or exploitative labor conditions. AKST
innovations that address sustainability and development
goals would be more effective with fundamental changes inprice signals, for example, internalization of environmental
externalities and payment/reward for environmental services.
7. Better integration of sanitary and phytosanitary
standards (SPS) and policy and regulation related tofood safety, plant and animal health needs to be better
integrated internationally to more effectively utilize thelimited national resources that are available for issues.
Strong international food safety standards are importantbut present major regulatory costs for developing countries;
lack of resources means that these countries are often only
able to implement SPS standards for the purpose of trade facilitation with little benefit to domestic consumers who are
affected by a wide array of food-borne illnesses. Confining
Codex, OIE and IPPC to work within their constitutional
mandates may be of less relevance today given the globalization of agriculture and trade. The efficacy of working
within the traditional international mandates is challenged
by the emergence of alternative regulatory mechanisms that
integrate food safety, animal and plant health related standards and production practices in on-farm HACCP plans.

11/3/08 10:45:24 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 443

Revising SPS-related policy and regulatory measures withina biosecurity framework may be one option for promoting cross-sectoral interventions, as is increased international
support for domestic application of food safety measures indeveloping countries.
8. IPRs may undermine research and use of AKST
to meet development and sustainability goals. Even
though license agreements may promote technology transfer by clarifying roles and responsibilities in some cases,
policy mechanisms are needed to protect and remunerate
traditional knowledge and genetic resources used to develop
industrialized products. Even though IPRs have a role in acommercial approach to innovation, in many countries itis the public sector research institutions that promote theintroduction of IPRs in agriculture. This promotion may beat odds with the public tasks of contributing to poverty alleviation and household nutrition security. Reliance on IPR
based revenues is likely to lead to a change in public research priorities from development to business opportunities, e.g., commercial crops like maize and oil crops at thecost of research on small grains and pulses.
9. Climate mitigation options employing the agricultural sectors are not well covered under current national
and international policy instruments. A much morecomprehensive agreement is needed that looks forward into the future if we want to take full advantageof the opportunities offered by agriculture and forestry
sectors. Achieving this could be accomplished through,among other measures, a negotiated global long-term (3050 years), comprehensive and equitable regulatory framework with differentiated responsibilities and intermediatetargets. Within such a framework there could be a modified
Clean Development Mechanism, with a comprehensive setof eligible agricultural mitigation activities, including: afforestation and reforestation; avoided deforestation, usinga national sectoral approach rather than a project approachto minimize issues of leakage, thus allowing for policy interventions; and a wide range of agricultural practices including zero/reduced-till, livestock and rice paddy management.
Other approaches include reducing agricultural subsidies
that promote GHG emissions and mechanisms that encourage and support adaptation, particularly in vulnerable regions such as in the tropics and subtropics.

7.1 Natural Resources and Global
Environmental Change“We are moving now into new, post-industrial, third-generation agriculture (TGA). The challenge for TGA is tocombine the technological efficiency of second-generation
agriculture with the lower environmental impacts of firstgeneration agriculture. . . . Policy tools, many of which are
now available, must be further developed and integrated.
Through a combination of regulation against pollution
and degradation, the creation of markets for public goods
through the rural development regulation, and enablingand educating consumers to opt for goods produced to highenvironmental standards, the environmental benefits of agriculture could be delivered to a high level alongside out-

chapter 07.indd 443

puts of food and fibre.” (Buckwell and Armstrong-Brown,
2004)
7.1.1. Resources, processes of change and policies
The broad history of the relation between natural resources,
i.e., the natural world, and agriculture has been one of aslow transition from small patches of agriculture in a surrounding matrix of natural habitat, to one of small patchesof natural habitat embedded in a matrix of agricultural orotherwise human influenced land. This trend is likely tocontinue at the global level over the next 50 years.
There is an obvious, but in fact poorly quantified, twoway interaction between agricultural land and natural systems. This interaction has changed significantly as the global“footprint” of agriculture has expanded. Natural systems
provide “services” to agriculture both as sources of environmental goods (provisioning services) and also as sinks (regulating services), while agriculture often acts as a driver innatural resource degradation. Natural systems provide not
only environmental goods and provisioning and regulating
services. In Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) terms,
the most critical services natural systems provide to agriculture are “supporting services,” such as nutrient cycling andpollination. Over the past 50 years, agriculture has gonefrom being a relatively minor source of off-site environmental degradation to becoming a major contributor to natural
resource depletion and degradation, acting through habitat
loss and fragmentation, invasive alien species, unsustainable
use (over harvesting), pollution (especially of aquatic systems) and, increasingly, climate change.
Policy responses to this trend toward natural resource
degradation have occurred at international, regional and local levels. An essential component of all necessary policy
reforms for mitigating agricultural impacts is to integrate
environmental, natural resource, and biodiversity concerns
into policy making at the highest possible level in order toachieve the necessary facilitation and leverage on lower-level
policies. For example, in the European Union the revised
EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU-SDS II) includes
biodiversity conservation, but still lacks an overarchingcommitment to reduction in drivers that other sectoral policies could then address in more detail within the stronger
mandate provided by EUSDS II. Further revision of the EUSDS could provide better integration of the EU’s internaland global commitments (WSSD, Doha and Monterrey)
and provide better harmonization between different European sustainable development processes (Cardiff, Lisbon,
Gothenburg and Johannesburg) and instruments (Extended
Impact Assessment and Indicators for Sustainable Development). High level integration can also be achieved, to someextent, via Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs),
for example through the agreed Programme of Work for
Agricultural Biodiversity of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
The CBD Agricultural Biodiversity work program focuses on (1) assessing the status and trends of the world’s agricultural biodiversity and of their underlying causes, as well
as of local knowledge of its management, (2) identifying andpromoting adaptive-management practices, technologies,
policies and incentives, (3) promoting the conservation andsustainable use of genetic resources of actual/potential value

11/3/08 10:45:25 AM

444 | IAASTD Global Reportfor food and agriculture, (4) assessing the impact of newtechnologies, such as modern biotechnology in general andGenetic Use of Restriction Technologies (GURTs) in particular. The work program also has cross-cutting initiatives
for conservation and sustainable use of pollinators and soil
biodiversity, studies the impacts of trade liberalization on
agricultural biodiversity, identifies policy to promote mainstreaming and integration of biodiversity into sectoral andcross-sectoral plans and programs. But the CBD is a framework, or umbrella agreement that requires its constituent
Parties to adopt policies and enact legislation for effective
implementation of its Decisions.
Even if its Decisions are adopted and implemented fullyat the national level, there is a danger that the CBD, likemany other policy instruments, will be continually “runningbehind the future,” (e.g., the CBD 2010 Target) to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss. Historically, theprincipal policy instrument has been the establishment ofprotected areas, although this has been ineffective whereprime agricultural land and high biodiversity compete, as
can be seen by the underrepresentation of lowland, fertile
land in the majority of current national protected area systems (WCMC, 2006).
Broadly, natural habitats around the world can be divided into three categories, each requiring different, but
overlapping or integrated sets of policies to ensure their survival in the long-term (Chomitz, 2007).The first category
can be defined as wilderness: the majority of the land (oraquatic) area is natural, and anthropogenic land use has had
a minor impact. With the exception of the major tropicalrainforest regions of Amazonia, the Congo, Indonesia andPapua New Guinea, the majority of these areas are in temperate regions and do not harbor high levels of biodiversity,
although they may provide valuable ecosystem services, especially in terms of water supply and carbon sequestration.
Policies that promote establishment of protected areas inthese regions are still feasible due to lack of pressure fromalternative land use, but even in these areas, protected area
design must consider the external threats arising from climate change (e.g., increased wildfires, and global transportof pollutants).
The second major category of land could be termed
frontier: land potentially suitable for agriculture that is close
to an expanding agricultural system. Effective policies forthe sustainable management of natural resources in theseareas are difficult to design and implement. In most countries, traditional concepts of agriculture are used to develop
protection policies based on the ecosystem representationand species richness as sole criteria. However, (sensu Peres
and Terborgh, 1995) the development of sustainable natural resource management policies in terms of local community support and resilience in the face of climate change
will be critical in coming years. Also critical will be theacknowledgement that appropriate policies and institutional arrangements (e.g., providing positive incentives tofarmers to adopt sustainable soil management practices inareas where soils are depleted) can ultimately result in improved natural resources quality through agricultural use(Izac, 1997).
Increasingly, improved methods of measuring and mapping total ecosystem value of natural land are allowing land-

chapter 07.indd 444

use planners and landholders to make informed economic
decisions based on a broader range of criteria than agricultural production alone (Troy and Wilson, 2006). Thisis allowing policy makers to introduce land-use planning“rules” (zoning) and economic incentives to better conserve
natural environments in complex agricultural land-use mosaics.
At a relatively large scale, this kind of planning is increasingly emerging in the Brazilian Amazon and Atlantic
rainforests, (Campos and Nepstad, 2006; Wuethrich, 2007,
respectively), where government and landholders are slowly
forging agreements on establishment of a complex mosaic
of protected areas, sustainable use forests and agriculturalland. This represents a shift in policy away from prescriptive land use decisions made by the imposition of protectedarea on unwilling land-users towards the use of incentives,
including payments for conservation. Auction bids for direct payments for conservation services such as native forest
protection, reforestation, and restoration of riparian vegetation can further improve efficiency (Chomitz et al., 2006).
Under this type of policy, eligible landowners voluntarily
decide whether to apply for participation, and the resultant
conservation network emerges as a consequence of many
independent choices about participation. Similar incentivebased schemes may be found in the US Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), the Bush Tender program in Australia andthe Costa Rica Environmental Services Payment program(see references in Chomitz et al., 2006).
In the more “crowded” landscapes of Europe and thewest coast of the USA, where remaining natural land exists
in an agricultural and urban matrix rather than the converse, similar trends towards land use planning based on
ecosystem service valuation and “multifunctionality” arebeing explored (Zander et al., 2007). In California, a spatially explicit conservation planning framework to explore
trade-offs and opportunities for aligning conservation goals
for biodiversity with six ecosystem services (carbon storage,
flood control, forage production, outdoor recreation, croppollination, and water provision) has been used. Although
there are important potential trade-offs between conservation for biodiversity and for ecosystem services, a systematicplanning framework offers scope for identifying valuable
synergies (Chan et al., 2006).
In Europe, agroenvironmental subsidies have been used
as incentives to maintain and promote biodiversity-friendly
land use on agricultural land. There has been some criticism
that the schemes do not deliver all of the environmental andbiodiversity benefits for which they were designed, especiallyas the scale of implementation becomes too small and fragmented (Whittingham, 2007). One option that avoids thissituation is the adoption of regional planning approaches(e.g., the OECD environmental farm plan programs) togenerate more coordinated land use patterns across larger
landscapes (Manderson et al., 2007).
A recent summary (Chan et al., 2006) of the policies
for sustainable development at the interface between tropical forest and agriculture shows how these can be used topromote the trends described above:
At the international level:• Mobilize carbon finance to reduce deforestation andpromote sustainable agriculture.

11/3/08 10:45:25 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 445

•
•
•

•

•

•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•

chapter 07.indd 445

Mobilize finance for conservation of globally significant
biodiversity.
Finance national and global efforts to monitor forestsand evaluate the impacts of forest projects and policies—including devolution of forest control.
Foster the development of national-level research andevaluation organizations through twinning with established foreign partners.

•

At the national level:
Create systems for monitoring forest conditions and forest dwellers’ welfare, make land and forest allocations
and regulations more transparent, and support civil society organizations that monitor regulatory complianceby government, landholders, and forest concessionaires.
The prospect of carbon finance can help motivate these
efforts.
Make forest and land use regulations more efficient, reformulating them to minimize monitoring, enforcement,
and compliance costs. Economic instruments can help.

•

In wilderness areas:
Avert disruptive races for property rights by equitably
assigning ownership, use rights, and stewardship ofthese lands.
Options for forest conservation include combinationsof indigenous and community rights, protected areas,
and forest concessions. Some forests may be converted
to agriculture where doing so offers high, sustainable
returns and does not threaten irreplaceable environmental assets.
Plan for rational, regulated expansion of road networks—including designation of roadless areas.
Experiment with new ways of providing services andinfrastructure to low-density populations.
In frontier areas:
Equitably assign and enforce property rights.
Plan and control road network expansion.
Discourage conversion in areas with hydrological hazards, or encourage community management of thesewatersheds.
Use remote sensing, enhanced communication networks, and independent observers to monitor logging
concessionaires and protect forest-holders against encroachers.
Consider using carbon finance to support governmentand community efforts to assign and enforce property
rights.
Encourage markets for environmental services in community-owned forests.
In disputed areas:
Where forest control is transferred to communities,build local institutions with upward and downward accountability.
Where community rights are secure and markets arefeasible, provide technical assistance for community
forestry.
Make landholder rights more secure in “forests withouttrees.”•

When forest tenure is secure, use carbon markets topromote forest regeneration and maintenance.
Mosaic lands:
Reform regulations to reward growing trees. Promote
greener agriculture—such as integrated pest management and silvo-pastoral systems—through research anddevelopment, extension efforts, community organization, and reform of agriculture and forest regulations.
Develop a wide range of markets for environmental
services—carbon, biodiversity, water regulation, recreation, pest control—to support more productive, sustainable land management.

7.1.2 Reducing the impacts of climate change and thecontribution of agriculture to climate change
Agriculture can contribute to climate change in four majorways:• Land conversion and plowing releases large amountsof stored carbon as CO2 from original vegetation andsoils;• Carbon dioxide (CO2) and particulate matter is emitted from fossil fuels used to power farm machinery, irrigation pumps, and from drying grain, etc., as well as
fertilizer and pesticide production;• Nitrogen fertilizer applications and related cropping
practices such as manure applications and decomposition of agricultural wastes result in emissions of nitrous
oxide (N2O); and• Methane (CH4) is released mostly through livestock digestive processes and rice production.
The share of the agricultural sector to total global GHG emissions is approximately 58% of CH4 and 47% of N2O making
it a significant contributor with a good deal of potential for
reduction in emissions in mitigation strategies (Smith et al.,2007). With appropriate policies, each of these well-known
sources of GHG can be mitigated to some extent.
Many of these mitigation options are “win-win” as longas they are supported by policy interventions that remove
entry barriers and reduce transaction costs. For example,
lower rates of agricultural extensification into natural habitats and the re-use/restoration of degraded land, could be
encouraged through the participation of farmers in emissions trading, or biofuel production. Farmers can benefit
financially depending on the amount of credits generated
through carbon storage projects under the Kyoto Protocol,
as is already occurring in a number of countries. Despitesome transaction costs associated with quantifying andmaintaining stored carbon, farmers who implement conservation agriculture; use cover crops to reduce erosion; or reforest degraded lands with tree species that have commercial
value could profit financially by selling their credits in anemissions trading market. Agricultural N2O and CH4 mitigation opportunities include proper application of nitrogen
fertilizer, effective manure management, and use of feed that
increases livestock digestive efficiency. To date, there is little
policy or legislation that recognizes the ability of the agricultural sector to provide GHG reductions through mitigationof N2O and CH4 and that provides positive incentives forfarmers to adopt more sustainable practices.

11/3/08 10:45:25 AM

446 | IAASTD Global Report

Under the Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), deliberate land management actions thatenhance the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) or reduce its
emissions have the potential to remove a significant amountof CO2 from the atmosphere in the short and medium term.
The quantities involved may be large enough to satisfy a portion of the Kyoto Protocol commitments for some countries(but are not large enough to stabilize atmospheric concentrations without additional major reductions in fossil fuelconsumption). Carbon sequestration options or sinks that
include land-use changes (LUCs) can be deployed relatively
rapidly at moderate cost and could play a useful bridging
role while new energy technologies are being developed. A
challenge remains to find a commonly agreed and scientifically sound methodological framework and equitable waysof accounting for carbon sinks. These should encourage andreward activities that increase the amount of C stored interrestrial ecosystems but at the same time avoid rewarding inappropriate activities or inaction. Collateral issues,
such as the effects of LUC on biodiversity and on the statusof land degradation, should be addressed simultaneouslywith the issue of carbon sequestration in order to exploit
potential synergies between the goals of UNCBD, UNCCD,
UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Such measures would
also improve local food security and alleviate rural poverty(FAO, 2004b).
7.1.3 Managing the natural resource base of
agriculture
7.1.3.1 Soils, nutrients and pests
Soils. Multifunctional agriculture recognizes the many ecosystem services of soil, including: (1) services that support
the growth of plants, including nutrient regulation, watersupply and water cycle; (2) storage of carbon in soil organic
matter and hence regulation of GHGs; (3) regulation of
the impact of pollutants through biological activities andabsorption on soil particles; (4) habitat for a very large
component of biodiversity (e.g., soil microorganisms andinvertebrates); (5) biodiversity pool, such as habitats, species and genes; (6) physical and cultural environment forhumans and human activities; (7) source of raw materials;(8) archive of geological and archeological heritage (Kibblewhite et al., 2007). The framework European Commission
strategy for soil protection (CEC, 2006) is based on identification of risk of loss of function, and putting in place remediation measures to mitigate threat. Many of these remediation measures could be applied to agricultural lands, butwill need to be driven by a different mix of command andcontrol, incentive-based, or market-based trading policy
measures appropriate to different situations. Policies basedon payments per tonne C or market sales of C are likely
to be more efficient than those based on a per hectare basis, but will require new methods and techniques to provide
cost effective information about the relationship between
carbon sequestration and land quality, use and managementin addition to estimates of base line for effective enforcement and verification (Antle and Mooney, 2002). Policy
measures that promote carbon sequestration in soils would
most likely generate positive results for the other functions
listed above (Swift et al., 2004).

chapter 07.indd 446

Projected increases in certified organic agriculture raise
additional sets of opportunities for AKST to contribute tomaintaining productivity and soil nutrient levels while controlling costs and improving labor efficiencies (Chapter 5).
Policy options for reforming institutional environments,
policies and programs to be more conducive to sustainableagricultural methods (Egelyng and Høgh-Jensen, 2006)
include:• Investing in the development of organic certification indeveloping countries.
• Reforming tax systems to shift the conditions underwhich certified organic farming compete with energy
intensive agricultural systems, involving a shift fromtaxing wages towards taxing pollution and consumption of resources. (Chapter 2)• Increasing awareness of organic certification to domestic consumers in developing countries;• Supporting development of methods for organic certification compliant pest (and weed) and soil nutrient management, particularly non-proprietary, methods for the public good, such as biocontrol using natural enemies, nonchemical, and cultural methods of pest management.
• Supporting AKST to further energy efficiency in organic
agriculture;• Developing certified organic seeds that are better adapted to low-input farming landscapes (Chapter 2).
• Investing in low external input technologies aimed atsoil fertility improvement (Chapter 6)
Nutrients. Although in many countries policies for reductions of point source pollution have been successfully introduced, controlling non-point source pollution remains amore difficult challenge. Agriculture’s contribution to nonpoint source pollution varies widely as a complex functionof land use, cropping system, soil type, climate, topography, hydrology, animal density, and nutrient management
techniques. Despite this complexity, research based nutrient
management practices that are effective at reducing nonpoint source pollution are available. Wider implementationof currently recommended nutrient management plans isimportant for further gains in environmental quality.
Site-specific, nutrient management planning should
guide the implementation of agricultural nutrient management practices that will be profitable and protective of theenvironment. Modern agricultural science innovations canincrease not only efficiency of production, but also efficiencyof nutrient use. Examples include (1) increased plant nutrient recovery and nutrient retention by animals; (2) improved
understanding and modeling of the fate and transport ofnutrients in soils; and (3) development of mitigation andbioremediation strategies such as wetlands, riparian buffers,
and filter strips to limit total nutrient exports from agricultural systems.
Adoption of efficient agricultural nutrient management
practices may be limited by current market processes that
do not provide for positive or negative externalities and thepolitics of crop and animal production. Social and politicalpressures to prevent nutrient overloads from agriculture are
increasing, but many in the sector cannot afford the hightransaction costs to introduce mitigation measures andmaintain profits under current agricultural business models

11/3/08 10:45:26 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 447

without subsidies. In countries where these subsidies havebeen introduced the key policy challenge is to improve costeffectiveness through competitive bidding; environmental
cost-benefit analysis; and performance-based payments forfarmers to remove environmentally sensitive land from crop
production.
Pests. Invasive alien species (IAS) are a threat to global biodiversity and can have devastating effects on both agricultural and natural systems at large scales after small isolated
introductions. A major policy challenge from IAS is the factthat the vast majority of current and future IAS were either poorly known species, or were unknown as pests before their introduction to a new location. This is the main
reason for the failure of past policies to deal with IAS, eventhose using the best available risk assessment methodologies(Keller et al., 2007).
Future IAS policies should be based on the following
principles in order to mitigate this weakness.
• National IAS systems should be linked to regional andglobal databases of known IAS and their treatment.
• IAS control systems should be based on a “pathways ofentry” approach where detection and control effort isfocused on the most likely points of entry into a country(or region). Introductions of IAS occur through various
channels or pathways, both intentionally and unintentionally. Primary pathways of intentional introductionof potential IAS include horticultural products, foodproducts, and exotic pets, the use of nonnative organisms in aquaculture and for restocking of marine andinland water systems for commercial and recreational
fisheries; scientific research; horticulture; trade in pets
and aquarium species; biocontrol agents; and ex situ
breeding projects. Pathways of unintentional introductions include ballast water and ballast sediments,
ship hulls, packaging materials and cargo containers,
garbage and waste, international assistance programs;
tourism; military activities, and unprocessed materials,
such as timber.
• Risks posed by pathways of IAS prior to introductionand establishment should be addressed and mitigatedboth before the IAS reach the border and at the border. Preventing introductions before they occur is themost effective and cost-efficient approach to addressing
IAS issues. Removing IAS once they have become established requires significantly more financial, technical,
and personnel resources than preventing their introduction; and, often, complete removal is not even possible.
• An operating principle of the system should be that it
is based on a list of approved species for deliberate introduction, and that any species not on the list must
pass through a risk assessment process before being approved for entry.
A number of policy initiatives have been undertaken for
specific major pathways of introduction including:• Importation of living plants and plant material. Many
attempts are being made to address plant-related pathways of invasive species. One voluntary initiative, basedon the Missouri Botanic Garden St. Louis Declaration,
is developing and implementing self-governed and self-

chapter 07.indd 447•

regulated codes of conduct for nursery professionals,
government agencies, the gardening public (specifically garden clubs), landscape architects, and botanic
gardens/arboreta, designed to stop use and distributionof invasive plant species. Working with these respective industries, the process has generally appealed to
the responsible use and import of horticultural products by the private sector to minimize the introductionof IAS. There is an urgent need for the IPPC to more
effectively address, perhaps through a quarantine/sterilization-based international sanitary and phytosanitary
measure (ISPM) based the problem of “hitchhikers”
on horticultural products, which are potential IAS, but
may not be considered plant pests per se (e.g., spiders,ants).
FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. This
code includes a section encouraging the use of legal
and administrative frameworks to promote responsible aquaculture, including discussions with neighboring states prior to the introduction of nonindigenous
species, minimizing the impacts of nonindigenous or
genetically altered fish stocks, as well as minimizing
any adverse genetic or disease impacts. While the Codeserves as a useful guide, it is not focused on specific prevention, management and control measures related to
IAS within the field of aquaculture and fisheries.

Given the role of trade in the production and transport ofgoods, approaches to regulating pathways of IAS should
consider relevant trade rules and agreements. The World
Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Sanitary andPhytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) defines the basic
rights and obligations of WTO members regarding use ofsanitary and phytosanitary measures to protect human, animal or plant life or health from the entry, establishment or
spread of pests, diseases, disease carrying organisms; andprevent or limit other damage from the entry, establishment
or spread of pests (see 7.3.3 for details).
7.1.3.2 Genetic resources and agrobiodiversity
Three major types of policy tools are available to support
conservation of genetic resources (1) public investment in insitu and ex situ conservation; (2) clearer intellectual property rights, including for farmer innovations, particularly indeveloping countries; and (3) material transfer agreements(Rubenstein et al., 2005). Apart from ecological approaches
to agriculture, connected to nature management, strategies
for conservation and sustainable use of agricultural genetic
resources also include “ex situ” and “in situ, on farm” approaches. Ex situ conservation in gene banks is well established for major crops under the auspices of the FAO by
the centers of the CGIAR, and at national plant and farmanimal gene banks. A Global Crop Diversity Trust has recently been initiated to generate funds for the sustainable
conservation of the most important collections worldwide,
on behalf of all future generations, and Norway is hostinga long-term conservation facility in the Arctic at Svalbard.
Public policies converged progressively through the International Undertaking (1985) to the International Treaty
on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA – 2005) providing special rules for the conservation

11/3/08 10:45:26 AM

448 | IAASTD Global Reportof PGRFA, their sustainable use and the sharing of benefits
arising from their use. It also contains mechanisms for facilitated access and benefit sharing through its Multilateral
System. Many signatory countries (116 in June 2007) are yet
to implement the Treaty. Policy options range from contributing to the Global Crop Diversity Trust (currently mainly
OECD countries, but also countries like Colombia and Brazil), to establishing or expanding national ex situ collections(e.g., India), and for liberal or restrictive regimes for accessto these collections, including the sharing of informationon these resources. The agricultural sector generally supports liberal access regimes in order to promote availabilityof genetic resources for plant breeding in support of foodsecurity and rural development.
On-farm policy approaches to management of genetic
resources include various types of support to farmers who
maintain and further develop genetic resources, such as payments based on cultural heritage (e.g., historic cattle breeds),
technical support to foundations for crop-hobbyists (e.g.,
old apple variety clubs in Europe) to participatory plant
breeding strategies in many developing countries (Almekinders and Hardon, 2006). Such mechanisms may conflictwith existing policies and laws that focus on seed systemdevelopment, including seed laws, plant breeder’s rights,
etc. The EU recently developed the concept of “conservation varieties” for this reason. National policies to bringthese objectives in harmony with each other are supportedby the concept of Farmers’ Rights of the IT PGRFA. However, countries may make these rights “subject to nationallaw and as appropriate” (Art. 9 – IT PGRFA) which provides broad options for national priorities and implementation strategies. The use of a range of standard economic
tools (taxes, subsidies, “cap and trade” with permits) can
help maintain higher level of plant genetic diversity in seedmarkets recognizing that information barriers limit market
efficiency (Heal et al., 2004).
Recent advances in molecular biology have provided awhole new set of tools for investigating biodiversity, including the diversity of agricultural plants and animals. While
there has undoubtedly been significant loss of diversity overtime of plant and animal genetic resources for agriculture atthe varietal level, there is some evidence that overall losses ofgenetic diversity when measured at the genetic level have notbeen so great and that modern biotechnological breeding
tools can regenerate some of this diversity, especially if thetools can be transferred to developing country agriculturalresearch levels through support for initiatives such as African Agricultural Technology Foundation and Public Sector
Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PSAPRA)(USDA, 2003).
Livestock. The livestock sector is an important source ofgreenhouse gases and factor in the loss of biodiversity,
while in developed and emerging countries it is a significant
source of water pollution.1 Current decision-making on the
livestock–environment–people nexus is characterized by se(The following text draws heavily on a major review of thenegative impact of livestock production on the environment by
Steinfeld et al., 2006.)

1

chapter 07.indd 448

vere underpricing of virtually all natural processes that go
into livestock production process. This includes neglect ofmajor downstream externalities. Limiting livestock’s impact
on the environment to more socially optimal levels requires
measures to reduce land and other natural resources requirements for livestock production. This could be achieved byintensification of the most productive arable and grasslandused to produce feed or pasture; and retirement of marginally used land, where this is socially acceptable and whereother uses of such land, such as for environmental purposes,
are in demand, and have higher value. Intensification canlead to gradual reductions of resource use and waste emissions across the sector. For example, precision feeding anduse of improved genetics can greatly reduce emissions ofgases (carbon dioxide, methane, etc.) and of nutrients perunit of output.
The major policy goals for addressing environmentalpressure points arising from current policy and market processes in the livestock sector are:• Controlling expansion into natural ecosystems;• Managing rangeland in a sustainable way;
• Reducing nutrient loading in livestock concentration
areas; and• Reducing the environmental impact of intensive feed
production.
Because the major stressors arising from the livestock sector
differ in different parts of the world—ranging from overgrazing in Australia and sub-Saharan Africa, biodiversity
loss from pasture expansion in Latin America, to pollution
arising from intensive pig production in Europe and SE
Asia—the mix and emphasis of the policy instruments willneed to be different in different parts of the world, but could
include measures to:• Limit livestock’s land requirements,• Correct distorted prices,• Strengthen land titles,• Price water and water quality internalizing all externalities,• Remove subsidies,• Liberalize trade, and• Support intensification and promoting research and extension of cutting edge technology.
The choice of policy instruments should take into consideration the broader goals of efficiency; effectiveness and equity(Hahn et al., 2003), given the major economic contribution
and social role played by the livestock sector globally.
Aquaculture. “Traditional” aquaculture has been an integral part of one of the world`s most sustainable agricultural systems—the polyculture Chinese fish-farm (FAO/IPT,1991) for around 3000 years, but recent rapid expansionof commercial aquaculture, in the absence of appropriate
policies, is generating negative environmental and social impacts that threaten to undermine the long-term sustainability of the industry. In recognition of these growing negative
impacts, broad environmental management principles havebeen agreed for the sector (e.g., FAO Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries, Article 9; FAO Technical Guidelines

11/13/08 11:36:24 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 449

for Responsible Fisheries No. 5. Development of Aquaculture). However, these have often not been well integrated
into national policy and legislative frameworks.
A number of policy tools have been used to regulate
unsustainable aquaculture expansion, e.g., banning of mangrove utilization for aquaculture practices, determining
maximum production per area, standards for feed, rules fordisease control, and the use of drugs.
Regulations focused on individual production units
alone cannot guarantee sustainability at the landscape level
because they do not consider the cumulative impacts of multiple farms on a particular area. In addition, existing regulatory structures for aquaculture mostly do not allow, or
facilitate, a production mode or approach that is conducive
to long-term sustainability. Nutrient cycling and reutilization of wastes by other forms of aquaculture (polyculture)or local fisheries are frequently prohibited or discouraged.
FAO and progressive industries are now increasingly
promoting an ecosystem approach to aquaculture which
will “balance diverse societal objectives, taking into accountknowledge and uncertainties of biotic, abiotic and human
components of ecosystems including their interactions,flows and processes and applying an integrated approach toaquaculture within ecologically and operationally meaningful boundaries” (FAO, 2006a). The purpose of an ecosystemapproach should be to plan, develop and manage the sector
in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires ofsocieties, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services
provided by aquatic ecosystems.
Policy options for improved environmental performanceof the aquaculture sector could include:• Further development of guidelines for environmentallysound and sustainable aquaculture industry and promotion of compliance with the guidelines;• Promotion of the adoption of exclusion zones that protect wild stocks in areas considered to be essential totheir continued survival in the wild and to maintaincommercial wild fisheries;• Improved integration of aquaculture development withwild fish stock management, including, where appropriate, enhancement strategies for aquatic species to help
wild stock fisheries recover and to provide additional
recreational opportunities;• Promotion and enforcement of regulations that require
Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of potential aquaculture developments at the landscape leveland develop land use plans that maintain total production within environmentally sustainable limits;• Adoption of production unit design and management
practices that encourage integration, recycling and reuse of effluents, provide for disposal and/or processingof wastes;• Adoption of production unit design and management
practices that minimize and, where practicable, eliminate the use of agriculture and veterinary chemicals
and ensure the correct use and disposal of registeredchemicals;• Support for the development and use of diets and feeding strategies which minimize adverse environmental
impacts;

chapter 07.indd 449

•
•

•
•

Promotion of improved monitoring and enforcement ofmanagement systems to reduce the risk deliberate andunintentional releases.
Development of appropriate protocols regarding thesafe transfer and culture of exotic species and the translocation of live product within and between states, including living modified organisms (see Myhr and Dalmo, 2005)
Promotion of industry training and education opportunities in environmental awareness, clean production
methods and best practice; andPromotion of an information clearinghouse and information dissemination system for environmentally soundaquaculture.

7.1.3.3 Water scarcity, water quality and the distributionof water
The broad policy recommendations which can be made for
improved water management in the agricultural sector havetheir roots in the same fundamental paradigm shift that isrequired for all aspects of sustainable development—fullcost accounting and recognition of the multifunctionality
and interdependence of landscapes. There is a need for overall reform in the water sector which must address the following: getting technical water bureaucracies to see water
management as a social and political as well as a technicalissue; supporting more integrated approaches to agricultural water management; creating incentives to improve equity,
efficiency, and sustainability of water use; improving the effectiveness of the state itself, particularly its regulatory role;developing effective coordination and negotiation mechanisms among various water development and management
sectors; and empowering marginalized groups, including
women to have a voice in water management (Merrey etal., 2007).
Improve investment in sustainable irrigation. There are four
principal reasons to invest in irrigation over the next three
to five decades:
1. To reduce rural poverty—in countries and regions that
rely on agriculture for a large portion of their GDP(much of SSA), increased agricultural productivity is themost viable option for poverty reduction;
2. To keep up with food demand and changing food preferences;
3. To adapt to changing condition—increasing competition for water will require investments that enable
farmers to grow more food with less water; increasingclimate variability and extremes, due to climate change,
may require further irrigation development and changes
in the operation of existing schemes; and4. To increase multiple benefits and ecosystem services
from existing systems, while reducing negative impacts(Faurės et al., 2007).
Investment has traditionally meant public expenditure on
new irrigation systems (capital investment). A broader definition is needed that includes public investment in irrigationand drainage development, institutional reform, improved
governance, capacity building, management improvement,

11/3/08 10:45:28 AM

450 | IAASTD Global Report

creation of farmer organizations, and regulatory oversight,
as well as farmers’ investment in joint facilities, wells, andon-farm water storage and irrigation equipment. The appropriate focus for both policy and investment will dependon both the scale and type of irrigation, and the structure ofnational economies (Faurės et al., 2007)
Develop locally relevant groundwater management strategies that support aquifer recharge and manage demand. A
large body of evidence from Asia suggests that groundwater
irrigation promotes greater interpersonal, intergender, interclass, and spatial equity than do large irrigation projects.
Evidence from Africa, Asia, and Latin America also suggeststhat groundwater is important in settings where poor farmers find opportunities to improve their livelihoods throughsmall-scale farming based on shallow groundwater circulation. However, pumping costs are rising, and irrigationsupporting subsidies are compromising the viability of ruralenergy providers. India is a prime example. Moreover, theimpacts of groundwater depletion on water quality, stream
flows, wetlands, and down-gradient users in certain pockets
are rapidly threatening to undermine the benefits. In arid
regions, where fossil groundwater is a primary source ofwater for all uses, intensive groundwater irrigation may
threaten future water security. In addition, with anticipatedshifts in precipitation patterns induced by climate change,
groundwater’s value as strategic reserve is set to increase
worldwide (Shah et al., 2007). Because groundwater use
and dependency will continue to grow in many parts of thedeveloping world, participatory approaches to sustainablegroundwater management will need to combine supplyside measures, such as artificial recharge, aquifer recovery,
interbasin transfer of water and the like, with demand-side
measures, such as groundwater pricing, legal and regulatory control, water rights and withdrawal permits and promotion of water-saving crops and technologies (Shah et al.,2007).
Establish and strengthen the authority of agencies administrating large water systems that cross traditional administrative boundaries. The state has historically played a leadingrole in water development, both in supporting large-scale irrigation, hydropower, and flood control as well as facilitating private and small-scale farmer managed irrigation (Merrey et al., 2007). There are good reasons for the state’s central role in regulating and managing this vital public good
resource. While the state remains the main actor to initiate
reforms, these reforms are needed at all jurisdictional levels,from local to national level, and even at regional level. A
recent trend has been to promote river basin organizations
to manage competition for water at the basin level. Thereis general agreement on the long-term benefits of effective
integrated management of river basins, especially with increasing competition and environmental degradation. But
attempts to impose particular models of river basin organizations in developing countries, especially models derived
from the experiences of rich countries, are not likely to succeed because the objectives and institutional contexts differ so greatly (Shah et al., 2005). An externally imposed
one-size-fits-all strategy for managing such complexity is
unlikely to be effective. Numerous models for institutional

chapter 07.indd 450

arrangement for basin water governance exist, and their effectiveness will depend on local basin and national conditions (Molle et al., 2007).
Better integration of water use between agricultural andindustrial users. Water use by agriculture could limit theamount available for other uses when water becomesscarce, however usually the opposite is true. Higher value
uses (e.g., domestic purposes and industries in urban areas)
have precedence; hence agriculture must adapt to reduced
allocations. Uses with lower priority than agriculture areaquatic ecosystems and the environment (CA, 2007). Industrial and domestic use can also affect agriculture throughthe discharge of untreated wastewater from urban areas
into surface-water system, decreasing the quality of waterused in irrigation. Intersectoral water allocation is to a large
extent a product of broader political and economic considerations, such as the political clout of urban areas andindustrial interests (see Molle and Berkoff, 2005). Negotiating and crafting new types of organizational arrangements
for managing irrigation, therefore, are not possible without
considering broader institutional arrangements and policies
in the water, agricultural, and rural sectors as well as currency, trade, and overall macroeconomic policies (Merrey
et al., 2007).
Water markets to better allocate water amongst uses andusers. Water markets are playing an increasingly important role in the developed world in allocating water on aregional basis. There are examples in which government has
used markets or market-like arrangements to resolve vexing
problems of allocation. Water pricing is one market vehicle
that has received considerable attention. The difficulties of
implementing water pricing in developing countries, however, are substantial. Pricing policies for full cost recovery
of infrastructure development and operation and maintenance, for example, risk seriously aggravating water deprivation and poverty (Dinar, 2000; Molle and Berkoff, 2007).
A sliding-scale pricing strategy is one possible solution(Schreiner and van Koppen, 2001). Another water market
reform mechanism is tradable water rights, which represents
the greatest degree of privatization in water management. In
addition to clearly defined water rights (including transfer
rights), water markets require physical infrastructure thatallows water to be transferred, and institutional arrangements to protect against negative impact on third parties(Easter et al., 1998). Earlier enthusiasm for market-based
water reforms was at best premature (Merrey et al., 2007).
The conditions necessary for market-based reforms to contribute to sustainable water management in agriculture are
extremely rare in developing countries and uncommon evenin rich countries. The Chile and Valencia (Spain) water market reforms have been held up as examples, but closer inspection raises many questions (Bauer, 1997, 2005; Ingo,
2004; Trawick, 2005). As in all market and private property rights situations, questions of regulation (who sets therules and what are the rules?) and capture of benefits (whowins and who loses in imperfect markets?) are central forassessing market-inspired reforms. A phased approach ofvesting rights in existing users and currently excluded users
and of clarifying regulatory mechanisms before developing

11/3/08 10:45:28 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 451

detailed water market mechanisms may be more appropriate and politically more feasible than a rush to markets (seeBruns et al., 2005).
Encourage water-saving irrigation practices and technology.
Farmers in most industrialized countries have only recently
begun to adopt water saving practices, whereas in developing countries they have been relying on traditional watersaving practices for a long time. Low levels of adoption ofwater-saving may be because the knowledge and incentives
are not in place for farmers to benefit directly by saving water. There is an important role for the private sector in making low-cost agricultural water management technologies
such as treadle pumps, small power pumps, and bucket anddrip kits more widely available. Such technologies can bereadily acquired and used by individual small-scale farmers,
both men and women, and in many situations can substantially improve nutrition and incomes (Shah et al., 2000; Namara et al., 2005; Mangisoni, 2006; Merrey et al., 2006).
Restrictive policies in some sub-Saharan African countries
are retarding the wider use of these technologies, in marked
contrast to South Asian countries.
Reform of irrigation management to involve local stakeholders. The establishment of Water User Associations andcontracting the management of lateral canals to individuals
can improve water management by providing incentives forusers and managers to conserve water and improve fee collection to increase irrigation revenues. However, pilot projects to transfer management from the state to user groups
on government-built schemes have rarely been scaled up
effectively to cover larger areas. Many governments werereluctant, even when project documents promised to do so.
Another reason was the failure to recognize the critical differences between government- and farmer-managed irrigation systems. Management transfer programs in countries
as diverse as Australia, Colombia, Indonesia Mali, Mexico,
New Zealand, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and the UnitedStates have demonstrated some positive results from involving farmers and reducing government expenditures, but they
have rarely shown improvements in output performanceor quality of maintenance (Vermillion, 1997; Vermillion
and Garcés-Restrepo, 1998; Samad and Vermillion, 1999;
Vermillion et al., 2000). The few notable exceptions are
middle-income developing countries such as Mexico andTurkey and high income countries such as New Zealandand the United States. Research in the 1990s on irrigation
management transfer processes and outcomes produced
many case studies and some useful guidelines for implementation (e.g., Vermillion and Sagardoy, 1999). There is broad
agreement on the necessary conditions, but very few cases
where they have been met on a large scale (Merrey et al.,2007).
Further “coping” strategies proposed for addressing
water scarcity (see also Chapter 6 for more details on theoptions) need attention at policy levels to incorporate theirpotential into water management agendas to optimize theuse of limited water resources:
a. Desalinization: Currently, the costs of desalinated waterremain too high for use in irrigated agriculture, withthe exception of intensive horticulture for high-value

chapter 07.indd 451

cash crops, such as vegetables and flowers (mainly ingreenhouses), grown in coastal areas (where safe waste
disposal is easier than in inland areas), but recent advances in membrane technology are reducing costs. At
the global level the volume of desalinated water produced annually (estimated at 7.5 km3) is currently quite
low, representing about 0.2% of the water withdrawn
for human use (FAO, 2006b).
b. Urban wastewater: Two features complicate policies
pertaining to wastewater use in agriculture: most wastewater is generated outside the agricultural sector, andmany individuals and organizations have policy interests pertaining to wastewater use (Qadir et al., 2007).
Millions of small-scale farmers in urban and peri-urban
areas of developing countries use wastewater for irrigating crops or forest trees or for aquaculture, reducing
pressure on other freshwater resources. Surveys across
50 cities in Asia, Africa and Latin America have shownthat wastewater irrigation is currently a common reality in three-quarters of cities (IWMI, 2006). Most domestic wastewater generated in developing countries
is discharged into the environment without treatment
but the dominant trend is for more wastewater treatment as countries develop national integrated water resources management plans or improved environmental
policies, for example in Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Costa
Rica (UNCSD, 2005). Israel currently uses 84% of its
treated sewage effluent in agricultural irrigation and ina few cities, such as Windhoek in Namibia, the water
is treated to a very high standard so that it can even be
used as drinking water (UNIDO, 2006).
c. Virtual water and food trade: The import of food fromwater-rich countries allows water-poor countries to savewater they would have used to grow food (equivalent
to the import of “virtual water”), and scarce water reserves can be used for more valuable domestic, environmental and industrial purposes. Countries with limited
water resources might also change their production patterns to prioritize production of agricultural commodities requiring less water and to import those requiring
more water (FAO/IFAD, 2006). Whereas the strategy
of importing virtual water is appealing from a water
perspective, political, social and economic issues, rather
than water abundance or scarcity, drive much of thecurrent world food trade.
d. Improving the productivity of water use in agriculture(see Chapter 6 for detailed options). Productivity gains
could improve overall water use efficiency in irrigatedand rainfed agriculture. Agronomic improvements toimprove overall productivity will also reduce the global“water footprint” of agriculture. This could be achieved
by, for example, improving the efficiency of fertilizer
use; improving soil moisture retention capacity throughbuildup of organic matter; preventing crop productivity
losses due to insects, diseases and weeds; or reducing
post-harvest losses due to insects, fungi and bacteria.
Each of these is an area for research and technology
development, or even for the reintroduction of older
management systems, to promote water use efficiency
gains which places a high demand on AKST (CA, 2007;
Hsiao et al., 2007).

11/3/08 10:45:28 AM

452 | IAASTD Global Report

7.2 Trade and Markets
7.2.1 Trade and markets: The enabling policy
context for AKST contributions to sustainability anddevelopment goals
Market and trade policies can limit or enhance the abilityof agricultural and AKST systems to drive development,
strengthen food security, maximize environmental sustainability, and help make the small-scale farm sector profitableto spearhead poverty reduction. Over seventy percent of theworld’s poor are rural and most are involved in farming;
about 2.5 billion people, or 40% of the world population,
depend on agricultural activities for their livelihoods, an increase of a billion over the past half century (FAOSTAT,
2005). In the poorest countries agriculture is the engine of
the rural economy (Diouf, 2007).The steep decline in commodity prices and terms of trade for agriculture-based economies has had significant negative effects on the millions
of small-scale producers. Although there has been a recent
upturn in commodity prices, in part due to an increase indemand compounded by a weak US dollar, market analysts
do not anticipate that will continue (FAO, 2006c). Continuing overproduction in NAE countries contributes to these
depressed world commodity prices.
Supporting the rural farm sector has been and continues to be a preferred option in NAE and other countries; itoffers a compelling option for reducing poverty in developing countries (Lappe et al., 1998; CA, 2007; Diouf, 2007).
Agriculture provides multiple public goods, such as the conservation of ecosystem goods and services (e.g., biodiversity
and watersheds), poverty reduction and food security (Incoand Nash, 2004; McCalla and Nash, 2007). How to structure trade and market policy platforms to drive development and support the multiple functions of agriculture is ahighly debated issue, discussed in a large body of literature.
It is generally acknowledged that analyses, projections andrelated policy options derived from research on trade andmarket policy are controversial and susceptible to different
interpretations. Some studies suggest that liberalization has
been associated with reduced poverty and enhanced food security, whereas others indicate the opposite (FAO, 2006c).
The uptake of AKST by farmers does not occur in an
economic vacuum. It takes place in a national market environment that is, in turn, partly determined and shaped byinternational trade (and its effects on national and market
processes).
Policy options are determined by distinct national circumstances and different states of development (Dorward
et al., 2004; FAO, 2006c; Morrisey, 2007; Morrison andSarris, 2007). Policy options will differ as a function of acountry’s stage of economic development and governanceoverall; the stage of development, composition and competitiveness of its agricultural sector; and its initial factor
conditions and endowments.
The IAASTD mission statement leads to an assessmentof policies that pay particular attention to poorer rural sectors and poorer countries. A “business as usual” policy
will not enable these countries to address development andsustainability goals. Agricultural export trade can offer opportunities for the poor, but there are major distributional

chapter 07.indd 452

impacts among countries and within countries that in manycases have not been favorable for the small-scale farm sector and rural livelihoods. There is growing concern that developing countries have opened their agricultural sectors tointernational competition too extensively and too quickly,
before basic institutions and infrastructure are in place, thus
weakening their agricultural sectors with long-term negative effects for poverty, food security and the environment(Diouf, 2007; Morrison and Sarris, 2007). The poorest developing countries are net losers under most trade liberalization scenarios (FAO, 2006c).
The assertion that greater openness will benefit poor developing countries irrespective of their stage of agriculturaldevelopment (and the trade policies and implementation
practices of their trading partners) is increasingly questioned
in the literature, and by developing countries and other relevant stakeholders (African Group, 2006). This literature
indicates that the investments required to allow shifts of resources out of traditional agricultural activities into higher
value alternative activities (either agricultural or nonagricultural) are not likely to occur where market failures are pervasive without some form of state intervention (Morrisonand Sarris, 2007). For countries at earlier stages of development, trade liberalization can be damaging to food security
in the short to medium term if introduced before a packageof policy measures to raise productivity and maintain employment has been implemented (FAO, 2006c).
There is broad agreement across the IAASTD sub-Global
reports and in the literature on the need to increase investment in human capital, land tenure (titling and expansionof land ownership by small producers and landless workers), water access, technology, infrastructure, nonagricultural rural enterprises, organizations of small scale farmers,
and other forms of expansion of social capital and politicalparticipation for the poor and vulnerable (Díaz-Bonilla etal., 2002). A reinvigorated look at how these policy packages can be funded, given that developing country generalrevenues are often reduced when tariffs are reduced, andoverseas development assistance (ODA) to the agricultural
sector has been flagging. Developing countries must addresssignificant local production, marketing and institutional
constraints. There is wide agreement in the literature that arenewed donor effort is urgently needed if development andsustainability goals are to be advanced, and specifically toenable a supply response to any opportunities for the smallscale farm sector that may arise from future trade negotiations (Diaz-Bonilla et al., 2003; FAO, 2006c; Diouf, 2007).
Trade policy reform aimed at providing a fairer global
trading platform can make a positive contribution to the alleviation of poverty and hunger (FAO, 2006c; Diouf, 2007;
Morrison and Sarris, 2007). Approaches that are tailoredto distinct national circumstances and different stages ofdevelopment, and that target increasing the profitability ofthe small-scale farm sector, are effective options to reducepoverty in developing countries. Flexibility and differentiation in trade policy frameworks will enhance the ability ofdeveloping countries to benefit from agricultural trade; pursue food security, poverty reduction and development goals;
and minimize potential dislocations associated with tradeliberalization.

11/3/08 10:45:29 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 453

7.2.2 Policy challenges and tradeoffs
Whether and how ASKT systems are generated, delivered
and used in ways that promote poverty reduction and environmental sustainability can be enhanced or limited bytrade and market policies. The sub-Global IAASTD reports
identify many policy challenges:
1. crafting trade rules that allow developing countries
needed flexibility to pursue development, poverty reduction and food security agendas, and that address
the distributional impacts of welfare benefits and loses
from trade liberalization;
2. achieving remunerative prices for small-scale farmers;
3. increasing the value captured by small-scale producers
in vertically integrated agrifood chains;
4. addressing the increased regulatory responsibilities required by trade agreements with limited tax revenues,
which can be diminished by tariff reductions;5. addressing the environmental externalities of agriculture; and6. improving governance of agriculture sector policy making, including decisions about AKST research, development and delivery, and trade policy decision-making.
There are also important synergies and tradeoffs between
policy options that merit special consideration. Potential
liberalization of biofuels trade is a clear example, presenting tradeoffs between food security, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission reductions, and rural livelihoods which need tobe carefully assessed for different technologies and regions.
There are likely to be significant tradeoffs between for example policies to promote agricultural development, such as
the reduction of agricultural subsidies and increased investment in roads to help rural farmers, and environmental andsocial impacts such as increased tropical deforestation andincreased agricultural land concentration in some parts ofthe developing South. Forest protection policies in many ofthese countries may not be sufficiently strong to resist theincreased economic pressure to expand the agricultural land
and increase tropical deforestation. Note that these concerns
also apply to other policy interventions that may work toincrease agricultural rents including increased road building
and other market access measures that tend to increase thepressure on forests (Angelsen and Kaimowitz, 1999).
7.2.3 Policy flexibility to pursue development, poverty
reduction and food security agendas
There is broad acknowledgement that agricultural trade
can offer opportunities for the poor under the right circumstances. Numerous studies show that the impact of the economic growth spurred by trade on poverty, hunger and theenvironment depends as much on the nature of the growth
as on its scale. National agricultural trade policy to advancesustainability and development goals will depend upon thecompetitiveness and composition of the sector. Appropriate
trade policy for the agriculture sector in developing countries will depend upon the extent to which the sector produces exportable products, import substituting basic foods,
and non-tradable products (Morrison and Sarris, 2007).
Advice to developing countries has tended to focus on promoting opportunities for increased exports to international

chapter 07.indd 453

markets (traditional and nontraditional crops) rather thanenhancing competitiveness or market opportunities in domestic and regional markets; greater balance among thesepolicy approaches may be indicated.
Market conditions and opportunities for domesticallyor regionally produced staples are potentially more favorable to poorer developing countries than are the opportunities for expanding exports to the global market (Diao andHazell, 2004; Morrison and Sarris, 2007). For example,
Africa imports 25% of basic grains such as maize, rice, andwheat. Domestic production could potentially replace someof these imports.
Appropriate agricultural trade policy at early stages ofdevelopment, for countries with an important agricultural
sector, may include moderate levels of import protection,and in countries where applied tariffs are already low, further liberalization may not be appropriate (Morrison andSarris, 2007). A recent FAO study concluded that, for countries at earlier stages of development, trade liberalization
can be damaging to food security in the short to medium
term if introduced before a package of policy measures toraise productivity and maintain employment has been put
in place (FAO, 2006c). Lower tariffs will imply intensifiedcompetition from imported foods for the domestic agricultural sector. Reduced tariffs also increase vulnerability ofdomestic production to competition arising from importsurges. A number of instances have been reported in which adeveloping country’s agricultural production has been negatively affected by such sudden, short-run increases in foodimports (FAO, 2006c).
For many developing countries sustainable food security
depends on local food production; ensuring policy space forthese countries to maintain prices for crops that are important to food security and rural livelihoods is essential (FAO,
2006c). Trade policies designed to ensure sufficient levelsof domestic production of food, not just sufficient currency
reserves to import food, and to balance domestic production
with food stocks and foreign exchange reserves, are reported
as important components of food security and sovereignty
in the ESAP, LAC and SSA IAASTD sub-Global reports.
Agricultural policies in industrialized countries, including
export subsidies, have reduced commodity 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 multiplierfor the whole economy (Diaz-Bonilla et al., 2003). Reducing
industrialized countries’ trade distorting policies including
subsidies is a priority, particularly for commodities such as
sugar, groundnuts and cotton where developing countries
compete. Some observers point out that net agricultural importing countries (particularly net food importers in Africa)
will suffer a balance of payments loss from the negative
terms of trade effect as world commodity prices rise, but at
the same time stress the importance of lifting subsidies tobenefit the rural sectors of these countries, where poverty
is concentrated, because of higher world agricultural prices(Panagariya, 2004).
The steep secular decline in commodity prices (Figure7-1) and terms of trade for agriculture-based economies
has had significant negative effects on the millions of small-

11/3/08 10:45:29 AM

454 | IAASTD Global Reportscale producers. For example, from 1980 to 2001, the priceof robusta coffee fell from 411.7 to 63.3 cents kg-1; cotton
fell from 261.7 to 110.3 cents kg-1 and rice (Thai) dropped
from $521.40 to 180.20 per tonne. (Ong’wen and Wright,
2007). Even the best performing agricultural subsector(horticultural products) saw an annual 1.35% price decline
over 1961-2001 (FAO, 2005a). Although the increase in thevolume of exports over the past two decades has resulted
in a 30% aggregate trade revenue increase for developing
countries as a whole, this volume-driven increase accrued toa small number of net exporting developing countries. Export earnings of the least developed countries (LDCs) fell by
30% during that time, with countries in SSA suffering mostfrom the fall in prices and incomes (FAO, 2005a).
Although most aggregate agricultural production is
not traded internationally, and most primary producers do
not supply global commodity chains, national agriculturalplanning is increasingly oriented towards exports. Intergovernmental institutions are advising governments how
to integrate small scale producers into these supply chains,with the goal of reducing poverty, particularly in developing
countries dependent on commodity exports for the majority of their hard currency revenues (UNCTAD, 2005). This
export focus has left small scale producers, the majority of
the rural poor, ever more vulnerable to international market
factors (Figure 7-2). For example, as a result of a supermarket price war in the United Kingdom, Costa Rican banana
plantation workers wages fell from US$12-15 a day in 2000
to $7-8 in 2003 (Vorley and Fox, 2004).
The increase in absolute numbers of agriculturally dependent populations during the past two decades, together
with the inability of primary producers to capture morethan a small fraction of those increased trade incomes, hasmeant that growth in agricultural trade flows have had on
aggregate a very modest effect on poverty reduction. Thisimplies that policy options are needed to provide greater
opportunities for small-scale producers to increase theirprofitability in such an international context. Failure to do
so will result in missed opportunities to promote sustainable
development.
7.2.3.1 Special products, special safeguard mechanisms
and deeper preferences
There is broad agreement that the rules of the international
trading system should recognize the food security and development needs and priorities of developing countries(FAO, 2006c). Flexibility and differentiation in trade policy
frameworks (i.e., “special and differential treatment”) can
enhance developing countries’ ability to benefit from agricultural trade; pursue food security, poverty reduction anddevelopment goals; and minimize negative impacts of tradeliberalization. This includes the principle of nonreciprocal
access, i.e., that the developed countries and wealthier developing countries should grant nonreciprocal access to lessdeveloped countries has a significant history and role to playin trade relations to foster development. Preferential market access for poorer developing countries, least developed
countries and small island economies will be important.
At the household level depressed prices can mean inability to purchase AKST, the need to sell productive assets,chapter 07.indd 454

Figure 7-1. Trends in real commodity prices. Source: FAO, 2006c

11/3/08 10:45:37 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 455

curity and other sensitive crops at very low levels, increasing the vulnerability of their farmers to the drop in global
commodity prices. At the same time many DCs did notreserve the right to use emergency safeguard measures.
The experience of the GATT round shows that following trade liberalization agricultural imports in developing
countries have risen more rapidly than have exports, leading to import surges and a deterioration of net agricultural
trade.

Figure 7-2. Level playing field. Source: Barsotti, 2004.

or missed school fees. World Trade Organization country
categories that better reflect the heterogeneity of food security conditions in developing countries’ food security could
help ensure that no food insecure country is denied use of
these mechanisms. These measures aim to provide tariff options to developing countries so that they may support rural livelihoods. The formula for applying safeguards undersome regional and bilateral trade agreements can limit theireffectiveness (see e.g., CAFTA) and may need to be revisited
if safeguards are to effectively address rural livelihood issues(Priyadarshi, 2002; Stiglitz, 2006).
Flexibility and differentiation in trade policy will thus
enhance developing countries’ ability to benefit from agricultural trade, and pursue food security, poverty reduction anddevelopment goals. Multilateral trade regime is currently
based on the principle of “reciprocity for and among all
countries” with the principle of reciprocity among equals,
but differentiation between those countries in markedly different circumstances. The principle of nonreciprocal access,i.e., that the developed countries and wealthier developing
countries should grant nonreciprocal access to countries lessdeveloped than themselves, has a significant history and roleto play in trade relations to foster development. The European Union for example followed this approach by unilaterally opening its markets to the poorest countries of theworld, and eliminating most tariffs and trade restrictions
without demanding any reciprocal concessions (Stiglitz,
2006; Stiglitz and Charlton, 2005).
The WTO July Framework Agreement of 2004 acknowledges that developing countries will need to designate
some products as special products based on livelihood security, food security and rural development concerns. Developing countries may require significant time periods forinvestments in their agriculture sectors, including targeted
ASKT research, development and delivery to the small scale
sector, enhanced institutional and organization capacity andgovernance, to make the sector competitive on the international market (Polaski, 2006).
When they signed the Agreement on Agriculture, somedeveloping countries bound tariffs on important food se-chapter 07.indd 455

7.2.3.2 Distributional impacts of welfare benefits andlosses from trade liberalization
Most of the gains from any further liberalization are likely
to accrue to developed countries and the larger, wealthierdeveloping countries (FAO, 2006c). For developing countries, the projected, or potential, welfare benefits resulting
from the most likely Doha Round scenarios for the Agreement on Agriculture and non-agricultural market accessoutcomes are just US$6.7 billion and concentrated in justa few developing country WTO members (Anderson andMartin, 2005) (Figure 7-3, 7-4). The poorest countries including those of SSA, except South Africa, are net losers according to these estimates (Anderson et al., 2005; Jaramillo
and Lederman, 2005).
There are major differences and distinct distributional
impacts between regions, among countries within a region,and between different farm sectors within any particularcountry (Figure 7-5). One analysis of World Bank CGE
projections (Anderson and Martin, 2005) for likely Dohaoutcomes calculated that the “benefit to the developing
countries is more than $17 per person per year, or almost$.05 per person per day” whereas high income countries
would realize more than ten times the per capita welfare
benefits of developing countries (Ackerman, 2005).
Model-based analyses that have been used to bolster thecase for further trade liberalization are often overoptimistic
in their assumptions as to the ability for resources to beinvested in “higher return” activities (and the assumptionof full employment in developing countries); the use of theirresults in arguing for further trade liberalization in poorer
economies could be misleading (Morrison and Sarris, 2007).
The models assume that markets function competitively (ignoring vertical integration within value chains that can limit
competition); assume that within highly aggregated regions
producers have access to similar technologies; and assume
faithful implementation of commitments by all parties (Morrison and Sarris, 2007). Additionally, many CGE models are
based on assumptions, such as a net zero tax revenue impact
from tariff reductions, and full employment, that be difficult
or impossible to realize in the real world.
“[T]here is a general consensus that the trade agreements,
reforms and policies adopted throughout Latin America
and the Caribbean within the last ten to fifteen years have
had uneven impacts, with many of the benefits concentrated
in the hands of the elite few, while the poorest often bear thebrunt of the ills wrought by greater exposure to the world
market. The fact is that trade liberalization has not reduced
poverty nor inequity. And clearly there are winners and losers” (IADB, 2006).

11/3/08 10:45:37 AM

456 | IAASTD Global Report

7.2.3.3 Meeting new regulatory costs associated withinternational trade
Developing countries are facing significant new regulatory
costs related to international trade, e.g., meeting international SPS standards, with fewer resources due to tariff revenues losses (which represent a significant percentage of collected tax revenues in many countries). For many countries,
decreased tariff revenues means decreased funds available
for social and environmental programs and agriculture sector development, as other taxes (such as consumption taxes)
can be politically and administratively difficult to collect.
Concern that the high costs of regulatory measures to comply with sanitary and phytosanitary standards will divert
resources from national food and animal safety priorities
is an example. The fundamental practical question of how
developing countries can advance sustainability and development objectives without significant increases in donor
driven efforts is noted across the developing South.
Tariffs represent about a quarter of tax revenue in developing countries; other taxes are hard to collect in poor
countries, particularly with large informal sectors (Panayatou, 2000; Bhagwhati, 2005). Tariff revenue reduction as aresult of liberalization can represent a significant proportionof government revenues (Díaz-Bonilla et al., 2002; FAO,
2006c). This compounds the effects of structural adjustment programs, which weakened the institutional capacityof developing governments to carry out basic functions suchas tax collection, enforcement of laws, and provision of basic health, sanitation and education services (Jaramillo andLederman, 2005).
7.2.4 Policy options to address the downward
pressure on prices for the small-scale sector

Figure 7-3. Projected gains (losses) for developed and developing
countries under Doha scenarios for agriculture.

chapter 07.indd 456

7.2.4.1 Subsidies
Price stability at remunerative prices is an important factor in determining farmer’s capacity to invest and innovate
rather than pursue low-return, risk-averse behavior (African Group, 2006; Murphy, 2006). Reducing or eliminating
agricultural subsidies and protectionism in industrializedcountries, especially for those commodities in which developing countries compete (e.g., cotton, sugar and groundnuts) is an important objective of trade reform to reduce thedistortionary impact in those markets (Figure 7-6) (DíazBonilla et al., 2002; Dicaprio and Gallagher, 2006; Nash
and McCalla, 2007).
For developed countries agriculture is a very small shareof the economy and employment, yet subsidies and othersupports are highest, unfairly tilting the benefits of agricultural trade in their favor (Watkins and Von Braun, 2002).
Agricultural research, farmers’ support and investment ininfrastructure have also been greatest in these countries(Pardey and Beintema, 2001). The result is increased concentration of agricultural production capacity in the very
few countries. This leads to a relevant question: where aresubsidies used, what would be the impact of their elimination on the redistribution of production capacity? Developing country income would be some 0.8% higher by 2015
if all merchandise trade barriers and agricultural subsidies
were removed between 2005 and 2010, with about two-

11/3/08 10:45:40 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 457

Figure 7-4. Poorest countries lose income under all Doha scenarios.

Figure 7-5. Developing countries: Share of agricultural exports (HK scenario).

chapter 07.indd 457

11/3/08 10:45:47 AM

458 | IAASTD Global Reportbaseline and other factors (Baffes, 2006). It is questionable
however if such a price increase from depressed agriculturalcommodity prices reported by FAO (2005b) would suffice
to reach the “normal” price, which, according to the WTO,
is the zero degree of trade distortion.
Policy tools in addition to subsidy cuts may be needed
to raise agricultural prices to remunerative levels (African
Group, 2006). Proposals for a plurilateral commitment
from major exporting countries not to allow trade at prices
below cost of production (CoP)—dumping—and for OECDmember countries to publish full CoP figures annually are
options that merit further study. (Full CoP would include
the primary producer’s production costs + government support costs [Producer Subsidy Estimates] + transportationand handling on a per unit basis.) Publication of full CoP
figures, when compared to freight on board (FoB) export
prices would enable calculation of the percentage of the pricethat is dumped on world markets (Murphy et al., 2005).
Further refinements of the dumping calculation methodology have been made in the context of determining the extent
to which industrialized animal production receive input subsidies from below CoP feed grains (Starmer et al., 2006).

Figure 7-6. Price change of key commodities. Source: Lundy et al.,2005.

thirds of the total gain coming from agricultural trade andsubsidy reform (Anderson et al., 2005).
In globally integrated markets, international prices affect domestic prices across the globe, even for small farmers who grow only for the domestic market (Stiglitz, 2006).
Nevertheless reducing trade distorting export subsidies inindustrialized countries, although widely agreed to be necessary, is also acknowledged as insufficient by itself to establish
higher world prices for many commodities. For example,
the reduction or lifting of export subsidies by the US and EU
is critically important for some commodities such as cotton,
but is unlikely to have a large positive effect on developing
countries as a whole, e.g., there will be a number of countries that gain but also a number of countries that lose (Nget al., 2007). The short-run impact of global subsidy reform
will largely depend on whether a country is a net importeror exporter of the products concerned. Countries such as
Argentina, for which products subject to export subsidies
for some WTO members constitute a large share of exports,
are likely to benefit greatly from elimination of export subsidies. Conversely, countries such as Bangladesh that export
virtually no products that are subsidized in industrial countries but import a substantial share of such products (13%of imports) are unlikely to benefit in the short run from removal of export subsidies (Ng, Hoekman, and Olarreaga,2007).
Econometric simulations suggest that removal of tradedistorting subsidies would increase agricultural commodity prices only modestly; for example, even cotton, which isheavily subsidized, would increase an average of merely 4 to13.7%, depending on policy scenario assumptions, defined

chapter 07.indd 458

7.2.4.2 Supply management for tropical commodities
On average, prices of tropical products (taking dollar inflation into account) are only about one seventh of what
they were in 1980 (UN General Assembly). Essentially, lessincome is earned as more commodities are produced. At thesame time, retail prices of products made from coffee (roasted and instant coffee) have increased substantially over thesame period. This phenomenon also applies to many otherprimary commodities produced by developing countries,e.g., cocoa, sugar, cotton, maize, spices. An OECD reportacknowledges that “there is concern not only that oligopolistic retailing and processing structure will lead to abuseof market power, but that the lion’s share of the benefits ofany future reforms in the farming sector may be capturedby the processors and retailers . . .” (Lahidji et al., 1996)(Figure 7-7).
The view on supply management held by most institutions and conventional economic perspective is that supply
management has been tested and is too costly and prone
to problems of free-riding and quota abuse. However, it isalso the case that supply management is being used in many
commercial markets, given this success a new approach tosupply management, that is regulated through the private
sector rather than government, may be an effective andfundamental solution to a growing world problem. A variant on this policy approach is to refocus global commodity
supply management on the concept of sustainable development. The option suggests that the International Commodity Agreements (ICAs) could be reformed to reduce pricevolatility, building on the coffee, cocoa and sugar lessonsof the 1980s.
The African proposal to explore supply management
mechanisms is an option to achieve the production control
mechanisms common to other economic sectors (African
Group, 2006).
Policy options to help meet the sustainability and development objectives include a bundle of mechanisms tostabilize and increase prices. Supply management mecha-

11/3/08 10:45:49 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 459

gotiations on regulating fisheries subsidies have attracted
considerable attention at the WTO, but other areas thatare critical to the fisheries sector, including market access,non-tariff barriers, and measures taken under multilateralenvironmental agreements, have not been addressed. Many
stakeholders in the debate, foremost among them the fishing communities whose livelihoods are at stake, have been
marginalized in these discussions (ITCSD, 2006).
7.2.5 Options to increase market size, competition,and value capture in commodity chains to increase
incomes for small-scale farm sector

nisms should be investigated, market by market, to determine their potential to do this. One critical policy issues iswhether the objective should be price stabilization or priceincreases (Lines, 2006). To address the continued slide inglobal commodity prices an increasing number of development groups and policy analysts are suggesting that supply
management can provide a viable means of dealing with thischronic problem. In the OECD supply management is used
to regulate the supply and demand of more than 50 goodson the world market.

7.2.5.1 Regional integration
Regional integration to create larger, regional markets with
common external tariffs but no restrictions to internal trade,as a substitute for lack of a large domestic market, can help
maintain more consistent demand and stable, higher prices,for locally produced commodities. Large domestic internalmarkets have often been found to be a prerequisite to agriculture based growth in Asian economies, since they facilitated the shifting of the commodity from surplus to deficit
areas, helping to ensure effective demand was maintainedeven in times of surplus and therefore assisting in stabilizing
prices (Morris and Sarris, 2007).
Supporting food production encourages local and regional market integration. In many low income countries
especially in Africa, emphasis on cash crop production forexport has encouraged transportation networks linking rural areas direct to ports bud neglecting internal connections
such as local market feeder roads that would benefit small
scale farmers producing for local and regional markets.
Greater emphasis on food production for local markets reduces the need for domestic farmers to contract as suppliers to multinationals and encourages greater independence.
While some producers will continue to find it profitable tolink into global commodity chains, regional integration cancreate the opportunity for small scale producers to diversity
their markets with potentially significant benefits for rural
livelihoods (Morrisey, 2007).

7.2.4.3 Escalating tariffs
Current tariff structure is a disincentive for investment in
the creation of value-added agroprocessing in the developing south, because developed countries use escalating tariffs. Escalating tariffs discourage development by placing
higher tariffs on manufactured goods than on raw commodities and materials. Levying much higher tariffs on processed agricultural products than raw commodities makes
it more difficult for developing countries to promote andgain from value-added local agroprocessing industries,
which could provide much needed off-farm rural employment (Wise, 2004). Reducing or eliminating tariff escalation
would greatly facilitate off-farm diversification in developing countries (Koning et al., 2004) and encourage valueadded agroprocessing (Stiglitz, 2006).
The fisheries sector in many of the poorest countries
face trade barriers to diversifying production and exports
towards value-added processing products. These barriers
include tariff escalation, stringent standards, and rules oforigin requirements, among others (ITCSD, 2006). Ne-

7.2.5.2 State trading enterprises for developing country
export commodities
Many observers note that that in many marginalized markets the private sector has not filled the gap left by withdrawal of the state from its significant role in providing
secure outlets for small-scale producers including more remote producers or producers in higher risk environments(Morrison and Sarris, 2007). The reestablishment of state
trading enterprises (STEs) for developing country commodities, if designed with improved governance mechanisms to
reduce rent-seeking, may provide enhanced market accessfor small-scale farmers in developing countries and createcompetition in concentrated export markets. Export statetrading enterprises can thus offer a competitive counterweight to concentrated export markets.
STEs have real costs and it is widely acknowledged thatthey have been marred by corruption and cronyism in somecountries. Nonetheless, properly overseen and controlled
by farmers’ organizations, they offer important benefits,
especially in developing countries where the private sector

Figure 7-7. Cost of coffee between Uganda production and UK
retail. Source: Ferris and Robbins, 2003

chapter 07.indd 459

11/3/08 10:45:54 AM

460 | IAASTD Global Reportis undercapitalized (Stiglitz, 2006). Nonetheless, STEs canpotentially provide a useful counterbalance to the market
power of global agribusiness thereby increasing competition. STEs may be only market for producers in remote areas of developing countries, and governments can insist that
STEs provide this service, whereas they cannot demand it ofprivate corporations (Murphy, 2006).
Current WTO rules require that governments completequestionnaires about any STEs operating in their country,
but no similar requirement applies to transnational agribusiness, although they may control a significant share of
global trade in a particular commodity. This information
generation requirement could be expanded to include any
company—private or public—with, for example, more thana given percentage of the import or export market. This
information could be gathered by the WTO or under the
auspices of the UN Conference on Trade and Development
which has a long-standing mandate to monitor restrictive
business practices (Murphy, 2006).
7.2.5.3 Microfinance and microcredit
Almost all small-scale agricultural systems benefit significantly from rural credit; this credit will not flow from commercial sources, so policy action is needed (Najam et al.,2007). Microfinance and microcredit programs and bankspresent a key alternative strategy for many developing countries’ agricultural market infrastructure.
Because so much of the developing South’s agricultural
output is generated by small-scale farmers and other microentrepreneurs, microfinance (as the set of financial services whose scale matches the needs of micro and small
producers) is the mechanism by which agricultural producers are able to expand their production, buy fertilizer andother inputs and technologies, smooth seasonal fluctuations
in household and enterprise income, and introduce flexibility into small-farm/microproducer investment and asset
building.
Newer financial services and products, such as crop or
rain insurance, are critical to reducing the risk associatedwith adopting new technology, transitioning to sustainableagricultural practices, and innovating production and marketing methods. Credit terms tailored to agricultural production and marketing, such as loan repayment terms thattrack with seasonal crop production, are vitally important
to enabling agricultural producers to take advantage of economic opportunities.
7.2.5.4 Alternative trade channels: Fair Trade, certified
organics, and mark of origin
As a means of developing pro-poor procurement, initiatives
such as Fair Trade and environmentally linked production
systems, such as organic and eco-friendly production, wereintroduced as alternatives to the mainstream commodity
markets. While these models offer small-scale producers
better terms of trade, the market share for these trading systems has been slow to grow and still only occupies a small
percentage of global trade. Nevertheless, the principles wereproven and a new generation of business models needs tobe designed that can provide windows for the less endowed
producers to enter mainstream markets through trading

chapter 07.indd 460

platforms that promote greater stability of demand (Berdegue et al., 2005).
There are now almost 600 Fair Trade producer groups
across 54 Latin American, African and Asian countries selling 18 certified products (FLO, 2008). Over five million
farmers, farm workers and their families currently benefit
from Fair Trade with many more seeking to enter thesemarkets (FLO, 2008). Sales of Fair Trade certified products
increased 42% between 2005 and 2006 with a value of over
US$2 billion in 2006 (FLO, 2007).
Fair Trade is no longer a niche market with certified
products now sold by large mainstream food processing corporations (such as Proctor and Gamble and Nestle), giant
retailers (such as Carrefour, Costco, and Sam’s Club), andfast food chains (such as McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts)(Krier, 2005; Raynolds et al., 2007). (For a business perspective on this growth see Kroger, 2004; Roosevelt, 2004).
Market research suggests that there is a very large poolof potential Fair Trade consumers. In the UK, the ethicalfood market is currently valued at US$3.2 billion per year
(Cooperative Bank, 2003). In the US, 68 million consumers with purchases of US$230 billion per year are identified
as “Lohas” (lifestyles of health and sustainability) shoppers(Cortese, 2003).
Fair Trade is increasingly envisioned in Latin America asan avenue for bolstering small-scale production in domestic
markets and for South-South trade, in addition to northernmarkets (Bisaillon et al., 2005). Mexico has already developed its own Fair Trade labeling organization (Comercio
Justo Mexico) and certification agency (Certimex). This expanded vision of Fair Trade’s future is encouraging efforts
to expand Fair Trade to include basic food products, suchas corn and beans.
There are a number of policy options for promoting
Fair Trade as a concrete vehicle for ameliorating poverty andhunger and bolstering environmental sustainability and rural
livelihoods. These policies can foster Fair Trade by strengthening the involvement of Fair Trade organizations, producers, traders, and consumers. Governments and multilateralorganizations could complement existing ethical businessand civil society initiatives, and thus broaden Fair Trade’s
benefit streams, via a suite of policy options. These include:
educating consumers, producers, and businesses about Fair
Trade; supporting producer cooperatives and worker organizations to ensure that they have the capacity, information,
contacts, and product quality to enter Fair Trade networks;
committing to source Fair Trade items; and encouraging thecreation of new Fair Trade networks, for example, for basic
food stuffs to promote South-South trade.
Similarly, certified organics can work as an effective
policy instrument to promote broader rural development
and environmental protection goals. Policy options exist to
make institutional and policy environments more conducive
to certified organic agriculture and less conducive to energy
intense (net energy consuming) agriculture. A number of recent case studies confirm the benefits for small-scale farmersof participating in certified organic farming schemes (Eyhorn, 2007; FAO, 2007).
With organic global sales now approaching US$40
billion, certified organic agriculture (COA) offers a chal-

11/3/08 10:45:54 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 461

lenging, but attractive rural development pathway for smallscale producers and for policy makers wishing to support
the production of global public goods. Organic agriculture
can help develop an alternative global market that improves
agricultural performance through better access to food, relevant technologies, and environmental quality and social
equity (FAO, 2007).
COA is value-added agriculture, which is accessible to small farmers who cannot purchase off-farm synthetic inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides (Egelyng and
Høgh-Jensen, 2006) and the knowledge intensive methods
practiced in COA are particularly compatible with traditional and local knowledge capacity for innovation. COA
may provide a way out of poverty for developing country
farmers. Widening adoption is therefore a clear policy option; several governments now have targets for the expansion of certified or compliance assessed organic production.
To this end, the FAO/IFOAM/UNCTAD International Task
Force on Harmonization and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture has generated international organic guarantee tools,
adoption of which would help support further developmentof organic market.
Policy options generated by the FAO International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security (Rome,
3-5 May 2007) include increased advocacy and training
on organics, investing in organic awareness in agriculturaland environmental education, building organic knowledge
in university and research institutions, transitional crop insurance, providing organic training to extension officers,
and supporting investments that facilitate the transition ofsmall-scale producers to organic agriculture. Some of thesehave been incorporated into developing countries, national
policies and legal frameworks (FAO, 2007).
A number of Latin American countries have also
adopted policies and legal frameworks to promote organic
agriculture. For example, Costa Rica adopted a national
law to develop organic agriculture which sets out a seriesof mechanisms and incentives to support the organic sector(Asamblea Legislativa de Costa Rica, 2006). These policy
tools include incentives to promote increased professional
education on organic production, organic certification options for the national and international market, crop insurance for farmers transitioning to organic production, special
credit lines for small and medium scale organic producers,
and tax exemptions on inputs for organic production as wellas on profits from the sale of organic products.
Mark of Origin or Appellation is an approach thathas been widely used in France as a means of locking inadded value via protection of specific spatial areas, such asa defined geographic area known to produce a high quality
brand, or an area that has traditionally developed a specific
type of food processing. The classic examples of this are thewine denominations that allow buyers to purchase products based on geographic location, grape variety and year.
Whereas this has proven to be very effective in areas that respect such legal definitions, the products are generally basedon long-term consumer loyalty and cultural standards. As
such this system is unlikely to be applied to mainstream
products unless this strategy is used in combination withother standards such as air-miles and or carbon footprints.

chapter 07.indd 461

Certification is another approach to locking in access tohigher value markets is to join a certification scheme such as
those offered for organic production and rainforest production. All of these movements aim to capture a premium pricefor producers who can provide evidence that they are meeting and have been monitored to prove their compliance withspecific ethical and environmental standards. While the areaof certification is gaining appeal, the system is extremely
expensive and unless charges can be passed onto consumers
the ability of poor producers to comply with such regulations will be doubtful.
An Agricultural Market Analysis Unit could be established and supported in developing countries. This unit would
be concerned with coordinating and developing policy on
the development of market-oriented strategy in agriculture
and setting policy guidelines for agricultural research. The
Unit would also coordinate its activities with relevant regional bodies and work closely with the private sector and,especially, with those private-sector support groups working
to stimulate production for growth markets.
Many actors in the agricultural sectors in poor developing countries are still not familiar with the idea of competitive markets. A National Market Education Programme
could be established targeted, primarily at farmers, traders
and agricultural product processors. Such a programmeneeds to be linked to the Agricultural Market Analysis Unit(see above). Market Information Services (see below) andrun in conjunction with other stakeholders including Ministries of Agriculture, Education and Trade, farmers’ andtraders’ associations and other private sector actors andwith extension services.
The program needs to set targets for training farmers tounderstand how competitive markets work, to take advantage of market information and to inform them of the difficulties and opportunities associated with market conditions.
Issues addressed need to include the stimulation of collective
activity to improve economies of scale, linking supply variety and quality to market needs, negotiation of sales andinputs and the use of credit and business management. The
program should have a limited duration and should be administered efficiently as a separate unit within a national
agricultural development reform program.
Many small- and medium-scale farmers, traders andprocessors in poor developing countries have limited access to information about prices and market conditions of
the commodities they produce. Farmers find themselves ina weak bargaining position with traders which results inlower-than-market farm-gate prices, high transaction costs
and wastage. Market Information Services need to be established at local, national, and regional levels to collect, process, and disseminate market information in the appropriate
language of intended recipients. Such services need to be
fully coordinated with each other and involve full participation of stakeholders.
To assist developing countries to compete successfullyin the world economy research and extension institutions
need to develop or acquire new skills and expertise in market analysis and market linkage. Producers need to ensurethat there are viable markets for any existing or new products. They need to ensure that the quality and packaging of

11/3/08 10:45:55 AM

462 | IAASTD Global Report

those products meet the requirements of customers both on
the domestic and export market. Research and extension
services have a vital role to play in this effort and must be
prepared to reform quickly to meet the challenges of globalization.
In many respects national research programs have succeeded in their goal to achieve food security, the current emphasis should now be to develop dynamic and commerciallyoriented research that supports improved market analysis,
market access and added value processing. Extension services should now focus on assisting producers to trade more
effectively within a liberalised market. Special attention
should be given to aspects such as linkage of production tomarkets, access to credit and collective marketing which will
enable the millions of atomised, small-scale farmers to gainfrom economies of scale in their input and output markets.
Government research services need to work closely withthe private sector which is increasingly developing its own
research capacity, particularly in regard to higher valuecommodities and research related to issues and problems
further up the value chain.
7.2.6 Market mechanisms to optimize
environmental externalities
Agriculture generates environmental externalities (see 7.1).
There are currently few market mechanisms that internalize
these externalities.
The environmental impacts of agricultural trade stemat least in part from the globalization of market failures, aswell as the lack of market mechanisms to internalizing theenvironmental externalities of production and account forthe positive externalities (Boyce, 1999). Trade liberalization
leading to the displacement of traditional jute production
in Bangladesh by imported synthetic fibers is an example.
Nearly the entire price advantage enjoyed by synthetics overjute would be eliminated if environmental externalities werefactored into the price (Boyce, 1999). At the same time, traditional producers receive no compensation for the positiveenvironmental externalities, e.g., biodiversity conservation,
associated with many forms of traditional production. Similarly, U.S. corn production which requires significant energy
and agrochemical inputs that cause significant environmental externalities is sold at below the cost of production in
Mexico, displacing traditional corn production in the small
and medium farmers who plant diverse traditional varieties(Nadal and Wise, 2004).
Trade agreements bring two distinct kinds of production
into direct competition, with vastly different environmental
impacts and with significant ramifications. In both cases themarket price for the modern product fails to internalize or
account for significant environmental externalities. At thesame time, the positive environmental externalities that arepresent in many forms of traditional agriculture are not assessed.
7.2.6.1 Policy options for internalizing environmental
externalities
Some OECD countries adopted economic measures, including environmental taxes on agricultural inputs as a partof a policy package to reduce the environmental impacts

chapter 07.indd 462

of pesticides, fertilizer and manure waste. Denmark, Norway and Sweden, for example, have introduced taxes on
pesticide use, as incentives to reach pesticide use reduction
targets. Similarly, the Netherlands imposed an excise manure tax. The recent reforms of the European CAP may beinterpreted as a move towards rewarding farmers, not only
as producers of food, but as caretakers of natural resourcesand environmental services. European support for organic
agriculture is an important aspect of this recognition (Egelyng and Høgh-Jensen, 2006).
Many critical ecosystem services are undervalued orunvalued; there are no market signals that would spur technological development of alternative supplies (Najam et al.,2007). Charges to internalize cost of transportation energy
expenditure in globalized agriculture, such as “food mile”
taxes are one policy approach. Food mile taxes could help
internalize the social and environmental externalities oftransport, including the climate impacts, pollution, and thecross-border movement of pests and livestock pathogens,among others (Jones, 2001).
Policy approaches to assist small-scale producers toarticulate their carbon rating will be key, especially as anoversimplified response may be to simply ban long haul agricultural goods, and provide greater support to local foodsystems and season procurement policies that could end year
round supply of off-season goods. In some cases though,an integrated analysis of energy costs and GHG emission
from distant developing country production as comparedto local northern country production will be favorable fordeveloping country production. For example a recent analysis showed that Kenyan flower production exported long
distances to the European market nonetheless generated
fewer GHG emissions than hot-house flower production in
the Netherlands (DFID, 2007).
7.2.6.2 Payments for agroenvironmental services
Ecosystem services remain largely unpriced by the market.
These services include climate regulation, water provision,
waste treatment capacity, nutrient management, watershedfunctions and others. Payments for environmental services(PES) reward the ecosystem services provided by sustainableagriculture practices. PES is a policy approach that recognizes the multifunctionality of agriculture and creates mechanisms to value and pay for these benefits. In principle, payments for environmental services (PES) such as watershedmanagement, biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration, can advance the goals of both environmental protection and poverty reduction (Alix-Garcia et al., 2005).
PES is an approach that, like economic instruments
used for pollution prevention, seeks to support positive environmental externalities through the transfer of financial
resources from beneficiaries of the services to those who
protect or steward the environmental resources that provide the service. PES schemes often focus on environmental services provided by forest conservation, reforestation,
sustainable forest extraction, and certain agroforestry andsilvo-pastoral practices. Carbon sequestration services arealso involved in several PES schemes, both to increase active
absorption through reforestation or to avoid carbon emissions through forest conservation.

11/3/08 10:45:55 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 463

A key objective of PES schemes is to generate stable revenue flows that can help ensure long-term sustainability ofthe ecosystem that provides the service; and to structure thearrangement so that small farmers and communities, notjust large landowners, may participate and benefit (this may
involve increased transaction costs, and tends to be more effective where farmers are well organized). Examples in Latin
America show that community participation and equitable
rules are key; promoting rural livelihoods must be a statedobjective of the PES program otherwise the lion’s share ofbenefits will go to wealthy landowners. In one example in
Costa Rica 70% of PES for carbon sequestration in one year
went to a single wealthy landowner (Rosa et al., 2004).
PES revenues can be generated by user fees, taxes, subsidies, and grants by IFIs and donor organizations and NGOs.
Long-standing programs, including those established by
New York City and Quito, Ecuador, which levy increased
fees on water users to fund watershed conservation are wellknown. A similar, smaller programs in the Cauca Valley ofColombia works on a similar principle; farmer associationsorganized a PES program which levies additional water use
fees to promote the adoption of conservation measures onover one million hectares and maintain dry-season waterflows (Mayrand and Paquin, 2004).
PES schemes may also include measures to assist local
communities with market development and revenue diversification as part of the compensation, or payment, package
for the environmental service protected and provided. For
example, in Brazil, rubber tappers receive payments for forest conservation services they provide through their management of forest resources. In the US, the Conservation
Reserves Program provides funding to farmers to remove
sensitive lands from production, prevent land degradationand preserve biodiversity.
Other projects promote the adoption of improved silvopastoral practices in degraded pasture areas that may provide
valuable local and global environmental benefits, including
biodiversity conservation; payment-for-service mechanism
are being employed to encourage the adoption of silvopastoral practices in three countries of Central and SouthAmerica: Colombia, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. The project
has created a mechanism that pays land users for the global
environmental services they are generating. Another example is
the Coffee and Biodiversity project supported by the GEF and
the World Bank in El Salvador, which provides marketing andtechnical support as a proxy for direct payments, to promotebiodiversity protection and habitat creation on shade-growncoffee plantations via niche marketing of “shade-grown,”song-bird friendly coffee (Pagiola and Agostini, 2002).
Supportive national policy environments are important.
In 1997 Costa Rica reformed its forest law to allow land
users to receive payments for specified land uses, including
new plantations, sustainable logging, and forest conservation. The amended law recognizes four types of environmental services: carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation
services, hydrological services, and scenic beauty and ecotourism. The law also introduced a fuel tax to finance forest
conservation and established an agency (Fonafifo) to raise
funds and manage the PES scheme. Similarly, the Ecuadorian
National Biodiversity Policy recommends the establishment

chapter 07.indd 463

of markets for environmental services, and the establishment of the mechanisms for water and watershed conservation, coastal protection, global climate changes services,and compensation to landowners—importantly, to both individuals and communities (Mayrand and Paquin, 2004).
Another variant of a PES scheme is the BioCarbon
Fund established by the World Bank to buy certified emission reductions from land-use, land-use change, and forestry
projects admissible under the Kyoto Protocol. The Fund isdesigned to target agricultural and forestry projects thatenhance other ecosystem services, such as biodiversity andwatershed protection, while improving the livelihoods of local people. Projects include conservation agriculture, such as
shade-grown coffee, agroforestry to restore degraded areas,
improved agricultural practices, such as shifting from subsistence farming to organic agriculture, and reforestation(Kumar, 2005).
Bioenergy and biofuels: subsidies and standards. Large direct
and indirect subsidies, including tax credits for biofuels,
have been used to build bioenergy production and markets.
Fuel blending mandates and import restrictions, particularly
tariffs on ethanol likewise have helped to build domestic
markets (UN Energy, 2007). How the bioenergy value chain
is structured is crucial for determining the development
benefits of this sector. Policy options to support small andmedium size enterprises in bioenergy should be considered
because of studies showing the multiplier economic anddevelopment effects of local ownership in local economies(Morris, 2007; UN Energy, 2007).
First generation liquid biofuels: trade, subsidy andsustainability issues. When subsidies are granted to biofuels,
they should be tied to objectively observable positive
externalities. Biofuels policies set incentives for producers
that directly affect the extent of externalities, the primary
justification for granting the subsidies in the first place. In thecase of current policies in most countries it is apparent thatthese incentives are rarely closely linked to the externalities
they are allegedly supposed to provide. In fact, the majorityof policies in OECD countries create incentives to maximize
production of 1st generation biofuels, irrespective of quality
and quantity of externalities. Consequently, many biofuels
are produced with intensive use of energy inputs, leading to
low energy balances and GHG emission reductions while
contributing to environmental problems.
Biofuels produced from agricultural feedstocks (first
generation) are rarely competitive with other forms of energy
and practically all producing countries support their biofuels
industries through a complex set of federal and state-level
policies. The most common forms of support are reductions
on excise taxes that are designed to foster consumption by
reducing the cost of biofuels relative to conventional fuels.
On the supply side, these policies are often complemented
with direct production support, e.g., payments of Euro
45 ha-1 for energy crops grown on non-set-aside land in
the EU and subsidized credit for producers in Brazil andthe U.S. In addition, biofuels also benefit indirectly fromhighly distorted agricultural markets in OECD countries,e.g., the U.S. maize sector, the primary ethanol feedstock in

11/3/08 10:45:55 AM

464 | IAASTD Global Report

the country, received US$37.4 billion in subsidies between
1995-2003 (UNCTAD, 2006). In many countries, subsidies
are accompanied by blending mandates, e.g., the E.U. set
a voluntary 5.75% biofuels target for 2007, supported byseveral mandatory targets at the country level. The differential treatment of ethanol and biodiesel under international
trade rules (ethanol is classified as an agricultural product,
biodiesel is classified as a chemical/industrial product) has
important implications on international market access andalso affects how the fuels would be treated under a proposed
WTO category of “environmental goods and services” (IEA,
2004; IEA, 2006; Kopolow, 2006; UNCTAD, 2006; USDA,
2006; Kojima et al., 2007).
Together, these forms of policy support generate substantial economic costs—reducing funds available for otherpolicy goals, including energy conservation and support
for other alternative energy generation technologies. Current levels of subsidies are considerable. For example, total
annual subsidies to liquid biofuels in the US are estimatedat US$5.1-6.8 billion, corresponding to US$0.38-0.49 andUS$0.45-0.57 per liter of petroleum equivalent ethanol andbiodiesel, respectively (Kopolow, 2006). Moreover, taxes onfuels represent a significant source of government income inmany countries and reductions are often difficult to compensate. While blending mandates are attractive to policy makers because they do not directly affect government budgets,they too create considerable economic costs. In addition,
blending mandates create inefficiencies by guaranteeing amarket for biofuels producers irrespective of costs and limiting competition. This reduces incentives to develop more efficient and cheaper production—an effect that is reinforcedby trade barriers.
Against these costs stand potential benefits in terms ofrural development, climate change mitigation and energy security as well as possible negative effects on the environment
and food prices. Consequently, decision makers need to carefully assess whether the full social costs of bioenergy and associated promotion policies are worth achievable benefits.
Policy options to reduce the social and environmental
externalities of 1st generation biofuels production such assustainability standards are widely noted in the literature,
but developing effective standards that balance environmental and social interests with access to export markets
for developing countries is a significant challenge. Given
the potentially adverse social and environmental effects oflarge-scale increases in biofuels production (see Chapters 4
and 6), the development of sustainability standards is being discussed in different private and government supported
forums.
In the absence of universal regulations and enforcement,
standards are viewed as key to limiting negative effects andimproving benefits for small-scale farmers (O’Connell etal., 2005; Reijnders, 2006; WWF, 2006). In addition to disagreements on the definition of these standards, with large
differences of opinion between industrialized and developing countries, uncertainty persists on how effective suchstandards can actually be. Given that biofuels are fungible
export commodities, their effectiveness would depend on
the participation of all major consumers and producers.
Moreover, qualifying for standards and obtaining certification can be a considerable financial and institutional burden

chapter 07.indd 464

for poor producing countries. It is therefore essential thatdeveloping countries are included and supported in the process of the development of sustainability standards to ensurethat environmental and social considerations are balancedwith the broader needs of developing countries, including considerations about the needs of small-scale farmers,
farmer cooperatives and access to the markets of industrialized countries.
Liberalization of biofuels trade would shift production
to developing countries. There is significant question as towhether this would benefit small-scale farmers and in theabsence of effective safeguards the resulting expansion of
production in these countries could magnify social and environmental costs. Growing crops for biofuels could worsenwater shortages; biofuel crop production in addition to foodcrops will add another new stress on water use and availability (de Fraiture et al., 2007b).
Second generation biofuels. The U.S. Department of Energy
calculates that if all corn now grown in the US wereconverted to ethanol, it would satisfy only about 15% of
the country’s current transportation needs (USDOE, 2006);
others put that figure as low as 6% (ETC, 2007). A second
approach is to produce ethanol from cellulose, which has thepotential to obtain at least twice as much fuel from the same
area of land as corn ethanol, because much more biomass
is available per unit of land. Thus promoting research anddevelopment for second generation biofuels is an often
noted policy option. Synthetic biology approaches to break
down cellulose and lignin, crucial for second generation“cellolosic” biofuels production, are still years off but
may be promising. Importantly, efforts are also needed
to allow developing countries and small-scale farmers to
profit from the resulting technologies (Diouf, 2007). Whilesome countries have recently increased their support for
research and development on 2nd generation biofuels, more
public efforts international efforts are needed to focus ondeveloping means by which 2nd generation biofuels may
benefit small-scale farmers and developing countries. This
includes tackling the high capital intensity of technologies,
facilitating farmer cooperatives and dealing with intellectual
property rights issues.
If any of the synthetic biology approaches are successful, the agricultural landscape could quickly be transformed
as farmers plant more switchgrass or miscanthus as feedstock crops—not only in North America, but also acrossthe global South. By removing biomass that might previously have been returned to the soil, fertility and soil structure would also be compromised. As presently envisioned,large-scale, export-oriented biofuel production in the global
South could have significant negative impacts on soil, water,
biodiversity, land tenure and the livelihoods of farmers andindigenous peoples (de Fraiture et al., 2007a).
Bioelectricity and bioheat. There is considerable potential
for bioelectricity and bioheat to contribute to economic andsocial development (see Chapters 3 and 6) and a numberof clear policy options to promote a better exploitation ofthis potential (Stassen, 1995; Bhattacharya, 2002; Kishore
et al., 2004; Kartha et al., 2005; Ghosh et al., 2006).
Promotion of R&D, development of technical standards as

11/3/08 10:45:56 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 465

well as better access to information and finance are needed
to better exploit the potential of bioelectricity and bioheat
in developing countries.
Promoting research and development to improve theoperational stability and reducing capital costs promises toimprove the attractiveness of bioenergy, especially of small
and medium-scale biogas digesters and thermo-chemical
gasifiers, is important for the developing South. The development of product standards and dissemination of knowledge is also key. A long history of policy failures and a wide
variety of locally produced generators with large differencesin performance have led to considerable skepticism aboutbioenergy in many countries. The development of productstandards as well as better knowledge dissemination cancontribute to increase market transparency and improve
consumer confidence.
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. Therefore, building local capacity, ensuring that
local consumers are closely engaged in the development aswell as the monitoring and maintenance of facilities, and increased access to finance for bioenergy are necessary. Compared to other off-grid energy solutions, bioenergy often
exhibits higher initial capital costs but lower long-term feedstock costs. This cost structure often forces poor households
and communities to forego investments in modern bioenergy, even when payback periods are very short. Improved
access to finance can help to reduce these problems.
7.2.7 Enhancing governance of trade andtechnologies
Agricultural policymaking and AKST investment are affected by global governance issues that may apply in a numberof economic sectors, including agriculture. This section addresses a suite of governance issues in trade and environmental decision-making, including the democratization of
global trade regimes, as well as international competition
policy to govern corporate power over commodity markets
and promote more equitable distribution of agriculturalrents that could help drive development and improve rural livelihoods. The section also reviews policy options forinternational instruments (agreements and intuitions) to assess the impact of proposed trade agreements and emerging technologies against the development and sustainability
goals; these processes, including strategic impact assessments of proposed trade agreements and comparative technology assessments, could help educate policy makers andstakeholders, increase transparency, and assist in making
decisions that would support development goals.
7.2.7.1 Governance of trade and environmental
decision-making
If trade negotiation processes were made more transparent,social and environmental concerns would likely be better
represented in the resulting agreements. The principles ofgood governance, such as representation, transparency, accountability, access to information and systematic conflict
resolution should be fully internalized and implemented byinternational trade and environmental institutions (Stiglitz,
2006). Developing countries, which often lack personnel

chapter 07.indd 465

and institutional capacity to deal with the complexity oftrade negotiations are at a distinct disadvantage negotiating
for the interests of their rural sectors in these fora, and often
lack resources to analyze important and highly complex issues, to develop negotiating positions and to respond quickly and effectively to their various negotiating teams. Civil
society participation is limited from negotiations throughdispute resolution process, much of which takes place behind closed doors.
Policies to strengthen developing country negotiating
capacity in trade talks are important. Trade capacity development, as a part of “aid for trade” packages, are one
option. Consideration may also be given to establishingnational and regional teams of experts with the necessary
authority to analyze the interests of their stakeholder groups
and to establish appropriate negotiating positions.
Another option is to develop CSO consultative committees to support negotiators, giving farmer organizations,business and NGOs the opportunity to provide valuable
input and support negotiators. A number of countries, forexample Kenya, the Philippines and India, have creatednational consultative committees to the WTO (Murphy,2006).
Without effective global environmental governance,
nation-states, subject to the pressures of globalization, may
drift towards a low-level environmental policy convergencethat is insensitive to local ecological conditions and does
not respect the diversity of preferences and priorities acrossand within nations (Zarsky, 1999). The creation of a United
Nations Environmental Organization, perhaps modeled on
the World Health Organization, has been proposed as one
policy approach to address this significant global governance deficit and promote technologies and behaviors that
respect ecosystems more effectively (Esty, 1994; Friends of
the UNEO, 2007).
7.2.7.2 International competition policy and antitrust:governing commodity markets to promote development
goals
Vertical and horizontal concentration in global commodity
markets is a primary cause of market distortion. Possible
policy responses include an international review mechanism
for proposed mergers and acquisitions among agribusinesscompanies that operate in a number of countries simultaneously (Stiglitz, 2006), the establishment of international
competition policy, and the reestablishment of state trading
enterprises.
One of the major anticompetitive effects of globalization has been a rapid concentration of market power awayfrom producers into the hands of a limited number of tradeand retail companies (Vorley et al., 2007). What looks likebuying and trading between countries is often the redistribution of capital among subsidiaries of the same parent
multinational corporation (Shand, 2005). As a result, thenegotiating power within agricultural chains over the past
20 years has moved rapidly away from the producer end of
the market chain. The first level of consolidation was madeat the wholesale level through a series of mergers, acquisitions and takeovers that reduced the number of international traders from hundreds of family based enterprises to ahandful of international trade houses that dominate particu-

11/3/08 10:45:56 AM

466 | IAASTD Global Reportlar commodities, such as Archer Daniel Midland, Unileverand Cargill.
This situation means that even when farmers organize
and aggregate, produce quality goods, and sell collectively,
they have insufficient volumes of sale to negotiate effectively
with four to five giant corporations. There is increasing concern that lack of competition in the marketplace is having
seriously negative social effects on agricultural producers;
the most vulnerable are the poorly organized, resource poor
farmers in developing nations (Figure 7-8).
One approach to address this imbalance in trade relationships is the establishment of international competition
policy in the form of multilateral rules on restrictive business practices. A potential model for this approach is the
French law (Loi Galland) that prohibits selling at a loss and“excessively low prices.”
Another policy option that is widely noted is the reintroduction of price bands as a means of cushioning theimpact of world price instability. For example Chile’s Free
Trade Agreements with EU and Canada allowed it to keep
its agricultural price band which was designed to stabilize
import costs of agricultural staples (including wheat, sugar,oil) through adjustment to tariffs on such with the objectiveof allowing a fair rate of return to Chilean farmers even if
they were competing with heavily subsidized US farmers.
In contrast the US-Chile Free Trade Agreement committed Chile to phase out its agricultural price band system.
An international competition policy framework might also
include creation of an independent UN agency to addresssome of the issues that UN Center for Transnational Corporations used to address.
7.2.7.3 Strategic impact assessment and comparativetechnology assessment
There is often a dearth of information on the potentialsocial and economic benefits and risks of proposed trade
agreements and emerging technologies alike. Policy tools toallow developing countries to better analyze benefits, risks
and tradeoffs of proposed trade agreements and the introduction of new technologies are needed. Policy approaches
to redress this issue include Strategic Impact Assessment(SIA) of trade agreements and Comparative Technology Assessment for emerging technologies. Additionally, increased
research and more sensitive trade policy stimulations tailored to countries at different stages of development withdifferent characteristics to their agricultural sectors may be
helpful to inform policy choices to address development andsustainability goals (Morrison and Sarris, 2007).
SIAs have provided early warnings as well as research
evidence that failing to mitigate negative environmental
effects can substantially reduce net economic and welfare
gains from trade. In this way, these assessments can provide
critical information to governments and stakeholders allowing them to consider whether or not to reject or mitigate a
trade policy proposal that is likely to worsen poverty, inequity or environmental degradation in certain sectors.
Strategic impact assessment of trade agreements thathave been undertaken for regional agreements, such as
NAFTA and multiple EU trade agreements, aim to give negotiators a fuller understanding of potential environmental
impacts in their own countries, such that they may be taken

chapter 07.indd 466

Figure 7-8. Agricultural market concentration.

into account alongside the economic and social considerations on which trade negotiations have traditionally been
based. The fuller information on environmental issues enables negotiators to make more reliable tradeoffs, in thosecases where the effects do not provide win-win outcomesfor national and international economic, social and environmental concerns.
The European Commission for example has defined thegoal of SIA as generating information to integrate sustainability into European trade policy by assessing a proposed
trade agreement’s potential impacts on sustainable development. SIAs, which are public documents, inform negotiatorsand interested stakeholders of the possible social, environmental, and economic consequences of a trade agreement;
provide analysis that will help maximize benefits of theagreement through better management of environmental,social and economic resources; and inform the design of policy options, including capacity building and international
regulation, that may maximize the benefits and reduce thenegative impacts of the proposed trade agreement (George
and Kirkpatrick, 2003).
Another noted policy option to increase informationand transparency is the establishment of an intergovernmental framework for the comparative assessment of newtechnologies as they evolve from initial scientific discovery
through to possible commercialization. For example, observers have noted that rapid developments in nanotechnologies and nano-material production may outcompete
developing countries’ primary commodities in international
markets in the near and mid-term (ETC Group, 2005).
All stakeholders, perhaps especially including developing

11/3/08 10:46:08 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 467

country governments that are negotiating market access fortheir agricultural commodities and raw materials in various multilateral, regional and bilateral agreements, could be
provided with information on how future technology development may affect them and the markets that are essential
for their economies.
The potential benefits and risks of nanotechnologies
present an example of the benefits for the realization ofdevelopment and sustainability goals that a technology assessment agreement or agency might afford. There has been
considerable reporting and analysis of the potential benefitsof nanoscale technologies for developing countries, particularly with regard to water and energy. The potential healthand environmental risks of this new technology platform, as
well as nanotechnology’s potential impacts on commodity
markets and the social and economic disruption that may
cause, are less well studied. Nanotechnologies are still very
new; nonetheless if a new engineered nano-material outperforms a conventional material, including for example cotton
textiles, copper or rubber, that are key commodities for developing country economies, significant economic dislocation may result (ETC Group, 2005).
Emerging technologies, including nanoscale technologies, require scientific, socioeconomic and societal evaluation in order for governments to make informed decisions
about heir risks and benefits. Rather than approaching technology assessment in a piecemeal, technology-by-technology fashion, governments and the international community
could consider longer term strategies to address technology
introduction on an ongoing basis. One option for the international community is to consider an independent bodythat is dedicated to assessing major new technologies andproviding an early warning and early listening system.
Comparative technology assessment could help policy makers and stakeholders monitor and assess the introduction of
new technologies and their potential socioeconomic, healthand environmental impacts.
One policy approach might be to reinvigorate the capacity of the UN System to Conduct Technology Assessment for Development. The UN Commission on Science andTechnology for Development has become a subsidiary bodyof the Economic and Social Council, where it operates withgreatly reduced staff and funding. This commission could
be strengthened, or another specialized UN agency could begiven the mandate to both conduct technology assessments
and build capacity in developing countries to assess technologies, with the goals of promoting poverty reduction, healthand environmental protection, and sustainable development(ETC Group, 2005).
Another policy option could be the establishment of alegally-binding multilateral agreement on comparative technology assessment, potentially negotiated through a specialized agency such as UNCTAD, the ILO, or ECOSOC’s
Commission on Sustainable Development. The objective ofsuch a convention would be to provide an early warning andassessment framework capable of monitoring and assessing
emerging technologies in transparent processes and their potential benefits as well as costs and risks for human health,the environment, and poverty reduction and development.
At the same time, such an agreement might help to generate information that would help educate citizens and stake-chapter 07.indd 467

holder groups, via participatory and transparent processes,
support broader societal understanding of emerging technologies, encourage scientific innovation, and facilitate equitable benefit and risk-sharing. Alternatively, a specialized
Technology Assessment Agency could be created, within theUN system to conduct comparative technology assessmentsof new and emerging technologies.

7.3 Food Safety, Animal and Plant Health
The management of food safety, animal and plant healthissues along the farm to fork continuum requires a levelof coordination and integration that often is not provided
by the current international policy and regulatory framework for agriculture. Instead, these three issues are largely
addressed in terms of international standards elaboration
through parallel programs developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, World Animal Health Organization(OIE) and the International Plant Protection Convention(IPPC) for food safety, animal health and plant health respectively. These standards and related sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures are implemented and enforced to agreater or lesser degree through an array of often uncoordinated national initiatives variously managed by ministries
such as agriculture, health, environment, forestry, fisheries,
trade, commerce and international affairs. Related to thislack of coordination, or perhaps because of it, alternative
regulatory mechanisms such as third party standard andcertification systems mandated by private sector retailers, in
response to increased consumer demand for improved foodsafety and food quality, have been implemented. Much of
the cost burden for meeting these private regulatory requirements is borne by primary producers.
The increasing internationally traded volume and variety of food, food ingredients, feed, animals and plants poses
many challenges for private quality assurance programs andgovernment SPS programs. SPS system failures affect both
exporting and importing countries. For example, recent U.S.
imports of contaminated pet food from China resulted not
only in the deaths and illnesses of an unknown number ofpets and the closing of 180 processing plants in China, but
a U.S. Congressional proposal for reorganization of US foodimport inspection. Yet proposals to equip SPS authorities
and private establishments with adequate personnel andtechnology to enforce standards sometimes encounter not
only bureaucratic resistance and/or opposition from industry segments of the supply chain, but broader resistancebased on credible threats of trade retaliation in nonfood andagriculture sectors (Barboza, 2007; Clayton, 2007; Weiss
2007). Whether or not food and agriculture trade expands
to the extent projected by FAO for 2030 (FAO, 2006c), thecost-benefit framed tension between measures to protect human, animal and plant health and broader trade pressures
is likely to remain.
7.3.1 Food safety
7.3.1.1 Surveillance challenges
The lack of reliable data or data that are comparable between countries on the prevalence and severity of foodborne
disease, despite several WHO initiatives to develop global

11/3/08 10:46:08 AM

468 | IAASTD Global Reportand regional surveillance and outbreak reporting systems,
continues to impede the development of evidence-based
food safety interventions in many WHO member countries(WHO, 2002a, 2004). For example, the EU has undertaken
a fully harmonized baseline surveillance study for Salmonella in poultry production which is the basis of targetedinterventions to manage the prevalence of this foodborne
pathogen (EFSA, 2006a).
Epidemiological uncertainty about the origin, prevalence and severity of much foodborne illness makes it
difficult to target resources and do comprehensive and proactive food safety control planning. More than 200 known
diseases are transmitted by food, however underreporting,illnesses caused by unknown pathogens and other factors,
such as water sanitation, obscure the origin of foodborne
illness. The confluence of these factors impedes estimates tocharacterize the burden of existing foodborne illness, muchless the evolution of future pathogens.
Pathogens featured in today’s headlines, such as Listeria
monocytogenes or E. coli O157:H7, were not identified as
major causes of foodborne illness 20 years ago (Mead etal., 1999). However, for most foodborne infections effective
preventive interventions can be taken despite a lack of exact
epidemiological knowledge. Furthermore, the majority of
foodborne infections in most countries are caused by a few
pathogens e.g., in the EU, Salmonella and Campylobacteraccounted for about 96% of reported zoonoses cases in2005 (EFSA, 2006a). In developing countries, actions suchas water sanitation and heat treatment of food in combination with measures for basic sanitary and hygienic routines would have significant health benefits, even without
immediate support of detailed surveillance data. Diarrhea
is the leading causes of illness and death in less developed
countries, killing an estimated 1.9 million people annuallyworldwide and almost all deaths are caused by food or waterborne microbial pathogens (Schlundt et al., 2004). This
incidence of morbidity and mortality is consequent to thefact that globally > 1 billon people, and in sub-Saharan Africa > 40%, lack access to clean drinkable water and 2.4
billion do not have basic sanitation (CA, 2007). In practice,
this means that these people have to drink water with fecal
contamination from humans and animals and their intestinally excreted pathogens.
For countries with weak surveillance and outbreak detection systems, estimating the burden of foodborne illness iseven a more daunting challenge, despite the assistance provided by WHO’s Global Salm-Serv, Global Outbreak andResponse Network (GOARN), International Food Safety
Authorities Network (INFOSAN) and the FAO/OIE/WHO
Global Early Warning System and Response for zoonotic
disease surveillance (Flint et al., 2005). Further complicating the future of foodborne disease surveillance is the likelihood that as a result of climate change, new pathogens
will emerge, particularly in fish and shellfish raised in water whose quality is degraded or contaminated (Rose et al.,2001).
The timeliness and efficacy of preventive or prophylactic food safety interventions depend on accurate, comprehensive and timely surveillance information. The factors of
uncertainty in calculating the burden of foodborne illness
are compounded by weak national surveillance systems

chapter 07.indd 468

upon which the international systems depend. Many governments, particularly in least developed countries, are unable to finance the development of such surveillance systems
as part of national health system planning.
Since welfare benefits from agricultural trade are expected to increase for only a few developing countries as aresult of the WTO Doha Round of negotiations (Bouet etal., 2004; Anderson and Martin, 2005; Polaski, 2006), it
is unlikely that non-benefiting countries will be able to pay
the costs of foodborne disease surveillance systems and SPS
interventions from trade revenues. Therefore, in what follows we assume that some form of public finance and donor
assistance will be required for capacity building in surveillance and other food safety activities. Furthermore, publicfinance may be involved in helping to insure against global
foodborne illnesses risks that are not and perhaps cannot be
insured by private firms.
7.3.1.2 Financing a public good
The globalization of the food and feed trade enables abroader and more rapid transmission of foodborne illness,particularly from high-risk microbial pathogens of animal
origin (OIE, 2006). Development of surveillance data often
becomes a priority only if a food contamination incident or
zoonosis threatens trade, e.g., BSE and avian influenza. Suchthreats to trade usually focus only on emerging diseases andless on those that are prevalent and perennially cause major problems. Yet the costs of foodborne illness far exceed
those that can be recovered from inspection fees or otherforms of trade related SPS financing, even when the originof an illness can be traced back to a specific source. Whereas the costs of food safety measures can be internalized tosome extent in the cost of a product, there is no adequate
mechanism for financing the public health costs resulting
from transborder foodborne illness. FAO and WHO recognize that “[f]ood safety is an essential public health issue forall countries,” but the normative framework and technicalassistance planning for food safety in developing countries
is largely a function of trade policy, or more broadly of theeconomics of private markets. Donor interest in and exporting country demand for SPS related assistance tends to be
triggered by the threat of trade disruption or to ensure thatfood imports are safe (World Bank, 2005).
Although food safety is characterized as a global public
good, economic analysis of food safety interventions often
is framed largely in cost/benefit terms of market failures, inthis case, the failure to internalize such negative cross border
externalities as foodborne illness. Attempts to mitigate theseexternalities on an ad hoc emergency basis “is a costly andunsustainable form of assistance” (World Bank, 2005). The
role of public food safety management is defined in termsof serving the market, without, however, an adequate financing mechanism designed to enable the development offood safety as a public good and taking into consideration
the full and considerable cost for foodborne infection e.g.,loss of labor time and cost for medical care. New proposed
public finance mechanism (e.g., Kaul and Conceição, 2006)
could be adapted to the provision of food safety, both on a
global and regional basis, as a global public good. A WorldBank study has argued cogently for a more proactive andpreventative supply and demand approach to providing

11/3/08 10:46:08 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 469

capacity building for food safety to facilitate trade (World
Bank, 2005) but such capacity building need not be limited
to trade facilitation.

particularly for SPS infrastructure, the assistance provided
by donors that is often limited to training to understand SPS
rules (CAC, 2002).

7.3.1.3 Food safety standards for domestic public healthbenefits
In theory, trade related food safety standards and control
measures may also be applied readily to domestic food safety
programs. In practice, according to developing country official respondents to survey input into the FAO/WHO FoodStandards Programme Evaluation, developing countries
adopt few international food standards into domestic legislation because they lack the resources and technical capacity
to implement and enforce the standards (CAC, 2002).
The unmet challenge remains, how to apply food safetymeasures not only for internationally traded products but
for the great share of global food production that is nottraded internationally. Of particular concern is the implementation of standards and other guidance to prevent foodborne illness resulting from new foodborne pathogens indomestically produced and consumed foods or from existing pathogens whose prevalence or severity has increased.
The challenge of applying standards domestically for publichealth benefits is even greater in countries where food safetycontrol systems are not integrated into the public healthsystem but are instead largely confined to export establishments and import inspection. Policy options, outlined below, to meet this challenge should take into account capacity
building challenges.
Despite the proliferation of international public and private standards, compliance with which is required for market entry, there are relatively few public studies of sanitary/phytosanitary (SPS) compliance costs for developing country
agricultural exports (Pay, 2005). These few quantified studies indicate that existing levels and kinds of trade related
technical assistance are far from providing the necessary facilities, such as accredited laboratories for measuring pesticide residue levels, to enable SPS standards implementationand enforcement (e.g., Larcher Carvalho, 2005). However,in some developing countries, qualitative needs assessments
should suffice to demonstrate the desirability of donor financing of basic SPS infrastructure and training.
Notwithstanding the technical capacity shortfall to
implement the SPS requirements of trade agreements, theview that “aid for trade” should be a binding, scheduled andenforceable part of trade negotiations for least developed
countries (WTO, 2004; Stiglitz and Charlton, 2006) has notreceived support from developed country WTO members.
While “best endeavor” capacity building can be helpful, thetradeoff in depending largely on private sector SPS infrastructure investment is that WTO members not integrated
into transnational corporate food supply chains likely will
be unable to ensure that their agricultural exports meet SPS
requirements.
In the absence of adequate funding, proliferation of
unfunded negotiating mandates may result in attempts toavoid SPS rule compliance. Furthermore, domestic adoptionof international standards will not be enhanced by a simple
increase in current capacity building initiatives, since there
is a considerable disjuncture between the sanitary-phytosanitary technical assistance requested by developing countries,

7.3.2 Animal healthInternationally, policies aimed at managing infectious animal diseases, including emerging or reemerging humandiseases caused by animal-borne pathogens (Taylor et al.,2001), have been directed to improving preparedness.
Methods of controlling and responding to zoonoses havebeen proposed, through developing and strengthening surveillance systems and identifying risks, including the economic, sociological and political implications and the needfor intersectoral collaboration (e.g., WHO, 2004). It isparticularly challenging for developing countries to try tomeet internationally defined or driven regulations and policies for the animal health sector as these are continuously
shifting in response to the increasing needs and ambitionsof developed countries. This is assessed below in relation
to the major groups of infectious animal diseases and thecurrent principles for their control and regulatory support(Figure 7-9).

chapter 07.indd 469

7.3.2.1 Major epizootic diseases and impacts on trade anddeveloping countries
The effectiveness of current policies (eradication and SPS
standards for maintaining disease free status) successfully
applied in developed countries to prevent outbreaks of the
major epizootic diseases (Leforban and Gerbier, 2002; DG
SANCO, 2007) means that many developing countries willcontinue to be excluded from accessing the high-value international markets. This is generally because of the conflict
between free trade and the protection of health status. The
eradication of important epizoootic diseases, a core principle of the OIE who determine the animal health standards
within the SPS Agreement, is not considered achievable indeveloping countries in the next decades because it requires
significant efforts and investments in surveillance and veterinary service to meet eradication and control policies(Scoones and Wolmer, 2006). The magnitude of the challenges involved is demonstrated by the fact that an estimated 200 million poultry producers in Asia are on small holdings (e.g., 97% in Thailand and 75% in Cambodia (FAO,
2004a; Gilbert et al., 2006).
International debate on this dilemma has focused on
an increased implementation in developing countries ofother policies such as using a risk- and commodity-based
approach that allows an alternative to the total restriction
in trade of animals and animal products (Brückner, 2004;
Thomson et al., 2004; Perry et al., 2005; Thomson et al.,2006). The concept is that different commodities pose very
different risks for the spread of pathogens. For example,
deboned meat has a reduced risk in relation to whole carcasses and is applied by certain countries to facilitate import from certain foot and mouth disease infected countries(Sabirovic et al., 2005). Similarly, policies that limit import
restrictions to certain export producing areas (regions) instead of restrictions on whole countries or continents arealso recommended. Such regionalization is considered as a
useful additional tool in maintaining trade flow by limiting
import restrictions in the case of new outbreaks of animal

11/3/08 10:46:09 AM

470 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 7-9. Infectious animal diseases.

diseases, and also allowing import from individual countries or regions based on their improvement of the animal
health status food products (DG SANCO, 2006). However,these policies require a reliable and independent system ofcertification based on international standards (Thomson etal., 2006).
Instead of focusing on achieving high value exports fromAfrican countries to Europe and the U.S, bilateral agreements between developing countries that protect exporting countries and producers could be promoted (Scoones
and Wolmer, 2006). A third alternative e.g., for Africancountries, is to initially focus on local trade and markets
to supply the growing local and regional demand for meat
(Kulibaba, 1997; Diao et al., 2005; Scoones and Wolmer,2006). These alternative policies for developing countriesemphasize benefits to their producers by using food safety
and animal health standards needed for the local and regional market.
In addition to the introduction of advanced and new
methods for improved and more cost effective disease andoutbreak control (e.g., DIVA vaccines), the recent pandemicof highly pathogenic avian influenza virus demonstrated theimportance of providing international support to developing countries when coordinated interventions are required
to manage international emergencies, and also that sustained improvements in national disease control systems
are required so that countries view such activities as investments rather than internationally imposed costs (Lokuge
and Lokuge, 2005).
7.3.2.2 Zoonoses as foodborne infections—policies for
integrated approach
The BSE crisis, the avian influenza pandemic and the threatof global warming with vectors and diseases moving into
new areas has highlighted the importance of the animal–
human link via the food chain and the need for capacity

chapter 07.indd 470

building for surveillance and control of zoonotic diseases(FAO, 2006d). In addition to these and other emerging
zoonotic diseases, as highlighted above, there is also a basic
need for effective policies for the prevention of the majorityof the foodborne outbreaks that in most part of the world
are caused by agents like Salmonella and Campylobacter.
In the US it is estimated that Campylobacter causes 2
million cases of foodborne infections annually and Salmonella is estimated to cause another 1.4 million infections,the latter at a total estimated annual cost of US$3 billion
annually (Mead et al., 1999; USDA, 2007). In developing
countries the situation is likely to be at least of the same
magnitude. The vast majority of these infections primarily
originate from animal production so the overriding aim forthe animal health sector is safe food and consumer protection (Schlundt et al., 2004). A problem is that these infections usually cause no or very limited economic losses toanimal production. Thus efforts are needed to implement
policies with economic incentives for producers to improve
hygiene in their animal production in order to decrease theinput of potential pathogens to the food chain.
The need for integrated approaches is emphasized wheninterventions are needed along the whole food chain. Of
particular interest are challenges posed by the increasing
global demand for protein as animal feed, in response to theincreasing global demand for meat (Morgan and Prakash,2006). To meet that demand soybean production has increased e.g., in Brazil, which has resulted in deforestationand monoculture followed by environmental degradationfrom high pesticide use and significant problems with pesticide residues in the soy products produced (Klink andMachado, 2005). In addition, many countries have experienced an increased risk of Salmonella contamination in soy
meal, which constitutes an important route for introducing Salmonella into animal production when used as animal
feed (Hald et al., 2006; EFSA, 2006b). A pandemic spread

11/3/08 10:46:14 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 471

of Salmonella occurred when contaminated fishmeal fromSouth America was exported to the U.S. and Europe, causing more than one million human cases in the U.S. alone(Clark et al., 1973; Crump, Griffin and Angulo, 2002). Salmonella contamination has become a significant challenge
to the global marketing of animal feed and food products(Plym-Forshell and Wierup, 2006).
7.3.2.3 Endemic diseases—the major challenge and potential
Categorization of livestock diseases is critical for the determination of public intervention, as highlighted in the recent
assessment of the EU animal health policy (DG SANCO,
2006). International and national policy and legislation focuses on the control of the major epizootic diseases and,increasingly, on the foodborne zoonotic diseases. Economic
compensation in case of outbreaks, surveillance and othermeasures are generally limited to these, so-called, listed diseases (Table 7-1) (WHO, 2006).
Endemic diseases comprise the majority of animal diseases and, in developed countries, continuous implementation of disease prevention measures directed against theseendemic diseases is necessary for efficient production. The
economic importance of endemic diseases is recognized andin many developed countries a number of the endemic diseases have been successfully eradicated or controlled (e.g.,
Aujeszky´s disease in pigs, infectious bovine respiratory
disease and bovine virus diarrhea in cattle). Such programs
have been found to be very cost effective (e.g., Valle et al.,2005). The increasing focus on reducing antibiotic use toprevent resistance and on animal welfare further emphasizes
the importance of control and/or eradication of animal diseases (Wierup, 2000; Angulu et al., 2004).
Control of animal diseases and the promotion and protection of animal health are essential components of any
effective animal breeding and production program (FAO,
1991). However, despite remarkable technical advances inthe diagnosis, prevention and control of animal diseases, thecondition of animal health through the developing world
remains generally poor, causing substantial economic losses
and hindering any improvement in livestock productivity(FAO, 1991, 2002). Consequently, in addition to efforts
to minimize the negative effects of the major epizootic andfoodborne diseases, policy could also focus on the prevention and control of endemic diseases, even though the producer is generally considered to bear the responsibility for
production losses caused by this group of diseases. However, such actions could also have a direct strengthening effect on food safety and food security and, in this respect it
has been emphasized that a focus on safe food in the context
of strengthening export capacities of developing countries
should come second to the primary objective of improving
food safety for local consumption (Byrne, 2004).
The global burden of animal diseases when also including the cost for public health and loss of labor is also estimated to be dominated by the endemic diseases, in contrast
to the public focus on the control of the epizootic diseases.
7.3.2.4 Animal welfare
The protection of animal welfare and the demand for asustainable animal production system, which is increasingly being considered in animal health policies and in SPSassociated regulations, can be an additional constraint fordeveloping countries trying to access international markets.
However, sustainable extensive livestock production practices in developing countries that promote animal welfare
could open niche market opportunities in developed countries. This is in contrast to intensive livestock production in
many sectors of the industrialized world where in the shortterm the implementation of systems for improved animal
welfare often are associated with increased cost of production (OIE, 2005a; Kyprianou, 2006).
The veterinary services of developing and transition
countries are in urgent need of the necessary resources andcapacities that will enable their countries to benefit more

Table 7-1. Estimated global burden of infectious animal diseases.
Classification of
infectious animal
diseases

Qualitative
estimation ofrelative number

Qualitative estimation of relative cost and importance for major
stakeholders
Public sector cost
Animal health

Producers cost

Public health

Developed
countries

Developing
countries

Major
epizoootics

+

+++++

-

-*

++

Other major diseases
including major
zoonoses

++

+++

+++

++

++

Endemic diseases
including “neglected”
zoonoses

+++++

+

+++++

+++++

+++++

*Diseases eradicated or absent. Elimination policy applied in case of outbreaks when significant costs may occur.
**Losses of production and labor and costs of control and medical treatment.
Source: M. Wierup and K. Ebi.

chapter 07.indd 471

11/3/08 10:46:14 AM

472 | IAASTD Global Reportfully from market access opportunities in trade agreements,
while at the same time providing greater protection for human and animal health, animal welfare and reducing therisks linked to zoonoses (OIE, 2004; Thomson et al., 2006).
It is of utmost importance that the ongoing initiatives from
OIE and others to support veterinary services, in particularin developing countries, continue. OIE emphasizes the needfor veterinary services to support access of animals and theirproducts into national markets, indicating the importanceof animal health control in a safe and secure food supply. A
challenging factor is the limited availability of veterinarians
trained in veterinary public health (WHO, 2002b), which indeveloping countries has opened discussions on the need ofparaprofessionals such as community animal health workers (Scoones and Wolmer, 2006).
7.3.2.5 Priority setting for disease control technologies
Historically significant resources have been directed towards
tools to implement eradication policies and research often
focuses on the production of a vaccine that simply shouldbe the key to success. These resources are also often directed
to diseases that gain special attention in relation to international trade but that might be of less economic importancein an endemic situation in a developing country (Scoones
and Wolmer 2006). However, effective vaccines are available only for a limited number of infections and therefore
preventive actions need to come into focus. Many important diseases have been successfully controlled throughthe application of simple, preventive hygienic methods; a“bottom-up” approach to priority setting can therefore berecommended (Scoones and Wolmer, 2006). Recommending that milk be boiled prior to consumption in South Africa
could more simply and cheaply limit human health risks
due to Brucellosis than a comprehensive vaccination control program in a cattle population where the disease caused
relatively limited production losses (Mokaila, 2005).
7.3.3 Plant health
Food availability depends in the first instance on the actual
production of food, which is influenced by agroecologicalproduction potential as well as by available production technologies and input and output markets (FAO, 2005b). Plant
pests are key constraints to achieving the true yield potentialof food and fiber crops, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions where conditions necessary for the reproduction of pests may be present year-round (FAO, 2005c).
In addition to their direct and deleterious effect on the yieldand quality of plant products, plant pests can also pose an
absolute barrier to imports when countries apply phytosanitary measures to regulate the entry or plants, plant products
or others materials capable of harboring plant pests.
7.3.3.1 The challenge of international phytosanitary
standards
International phytosanitary standards recognized as authoritative by the SPS Agreement can be a positive driverin developing countries. When applied to high value foodproducts, these have played a beneficial role in stimulating
improvements to existing regulatory systems and the adoption of safer and more sustainable production practices(World Bank, 2005). More commonly, however, interna-

chapter 07.indd 472

tional phytosanitary standards are considered as barriers
to trade that particularly discriminate against developing
country stakeholders who can neither afford to meet thehigh costs of compliance associated with these nor participate effectively in their development by international standard setting bodies like the International Plant Protection
Convention (IPPC) (e.g., Simeon, 2006). Governments, institutions and farmers may respond to such standards in a
number of ways: support or participate in programs thatwill address the management of the pest problem; find alternative foreign markets for nationally produced goods;
focus on increasing domestic demand for trade-prohibited
plants and products; or exit production, with or withoutcompensation and/or incentives to promote diversification
into other crops.
Governments generally divide resources applied to address phytosanitary considerations in two ways: (1) to meetthe phytosanitary requirements of importing countries (export certification); and (2) to meet domestic phytosanitaryrequirements, including those applied to imported agricultural products. In both developed and developing countries
these regulatory tasks are typically addressed through anarray of plant protection and quarantine (PPQ) programs.
Core services of traditional PPQ programs include activities such as: detection and control or management of plantpests of quarantine or economic significance; undertaking
pest risk analyses; and managing import, export and/or
domestic certification programs. These programs are being
challenged by increases in the volume and kinds of agricultural products being traded internationally, the number ofcountries exporting such products, and international travel
which creates more opportunities for the rapid introduction
and spread of new pest species (FAO, 2003).
7.3.3.2 Opportunities through regionalism
For some countries, particularly those with limited resources applied to national PPQ programs, regional or subregional programs may be a workable alternative. Regional
initiatives to harmonize standards where trade between theparticipating member countries for specific plant products
is significant and where an international standard is notneeded (i.e., a different, less restrictive or less economicallypunitive standard will suffice). Regional pooling of scientificresources (human and institutional) to collectively manage
plant pests and implement surveillance programs can enable
developing countries to meet the surveillance and pest risk
assessments required for compliance with import requirements. Surveillance data is important to ensure that domestic phytosanitary measures are equivalent to those applied
to imported commodities so that discrimination against
imports based on pest exclusion is not supported. Efforts
to collect these data for key pests that affect movement ofplant material from or within a specific region may be best
addressed by establishing harmonized protocols for datacollection and then pooling resources to acquire the necessary information to demonstrate pest-free status. Initiatives
to promote meaningful, results-based regional cooperation
to address plant health issues will require incentives to promote cooperation both within and between national agricultural systems. Where regional regulatory programs may
be government to government, these should also actively

11/3/08 10:46:14 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 473

encourage the inclusion of other stakeholders, especially theprivate sector and producer groups.
7.3.3.3 Biosafety and plant protection
With the ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, many governments are in the process of developing
or implementing national biosafety regulatory programs(GEF, 2006). With the rapid adoption and global trade oftransgenic maize, soybean, cotton and canola the primary
focus of these new programs is typically the regulation oftransgenic crops. National, bilateral and international support for the establishment of biosafety regulatory programs
has favored the creation of new regulatory entities underministries other than agriculture. Given the shared natureof many of the regulatory functions of PPQ and biosafety
programs (e.g., risk assessment, monitoring and inspection
activities) and the inclusion of Living Modified Organisms
in ISPM No. 11 (Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests,
Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living
Modified Organisms), there exists an opportunity to apply
new resources available for biosafety regulatory capacity
building to strengthen existing PPQ programs so that theobjectives of both can be achieved without building redundant administrative services. This could be achieved under
the umbrella of “plant biosecurity” to include plant health,plant biosafety and also invasive alien plant species. Inputs
for programs related to plant biosafety or, more broadly,plant biosecurity should be actively sought from, if not led
by, ministries of agriculture.
7.3.3.4 Meeting the plant health needs of small-scale
farmers
Control of plant pests that are important from a trade perspective may be of little or no significance to small-scale
farmers who are not exporting their plant products. Instead,their priorities are likely to be management of local pests
that will have a direct impact on their harvested or postharvest yield. Policy makers could ensure that the smallscale farmer, whose fields may be an inoculum source of a
trade-prohibited pest, is provided with incentives to assist
in the management of such pests so that export certification of the commodity in question can still be achieved. This
could come in the form of support that links breeding or
pest management programs designed to address the priorities of the small farmer with activities that will also assist
in the management of the prohibited plant pest. Similarly, agovernment could strengthen the capacity of regulators to
enforce compliance with internationally relevant phytosanitary standards but couple this with direct support for the
primary producer where production practices may have to
be modified so that pest exclusion goals can be attained.
An alternative policy option is to realign public sector
AKST funding to support research explicitly directed to improving small-scale, diversified farming practices that promote improved yields and enhanced food quality throughsustainable pest management practices. These could variously include IPM, organic farming, and improved plant
breeding programs, including the development of pest resistant varieties through marker assisted selection or recombinant DNA techniques. National prioritization of the needsof resource-poor farmers may be more important in the fu-

chapter 07.indd 473

ture as scientific and agricultural technology spillovers fromdeveloped countries that are adapted by developing countries may be less available (Alston et al., 2006).
7.3.3.5 The private sector and third party certification
The private sector has responded to enhanced consumerawareness and concern about food safety by developing
their own phytosanitary (and sanitary) standards, enforced
through third party certification (Hatanaka et al., 2005).
This means that participating primary producers have tomeet an array of requirements that go beyond those mandated in government regulations, such as implementing
traceability programs or participating in accreditation programs that add expense and complexity to more traditional
production systems. While there are examples of developing country farmers who have benefited from third party
certification (Hatanaka et al., 2005), arguably these private
sector standards discriminate against resource poor farmers who cannot afford the high costs of participation. In
response, governments may decide to align their public sector investment to ensure that AKST is applied to assistingproducers to meet only statutory phytosanitary standards,
through agricultural research, extension and/or education
systems. Individual farmers or commodity-specific producer
associations would have to use their own resources to meet
additional private-sector requirements. Alternatively, governments could strategically invest in AKST that will promote the participation of small-scale farmers in third party
certification, through the provision of education programsand technical assistance. This may also provide a stimulus
for the development of off-farm employment opportunities
through the provision of services such as third-party accreditation of farms or production systems. Internationally,
the private sector in developed countries, which is driving
third party certification, should promote the harmonizationof private sector standards and streamline accreditation, especially where these apply to plant products produced indeveloping countries (Jaffee, 2005).
7.3.3.6 Climate change and plant healthA significant consideration for policy makers tasked withaddressing plant health issues is the impact that climatechange will have on plant production. Climate change
can affect plant health by: modifying the encounter rate
between host and pest by changing the ranges of the two
species; introducing new hosts, vectors and/or pests; causing social changes such as shifts in agricultural labor; andshifting land use patterns that will alter the potential for
populations of plants and pests to migrate to fragmented
landscapes (Garrett et al., 2006). In response to this, policy
makers will be challenged to decide if investments in development and deployment of AKST will be proactive (e.g., inclusion of climate prediction in forecasting models of plantdisease) or reactive (e.g., deployment of resistant varieties
after the emergence of a new plant disease). Action to mitigate the impacts of climate change on crop production will
require integrated strategies developed and implemented ina participatory fashion that emphasizes the need to include
non-traditional players in agricultural research. Coherent
policies could be developed cooperatively through multidisciplinary partnerships within government (e.g., Minis-

11/3/08 10:46:15 AM

474 | IAASTD Global Reporttries of Agriculture, Energy, Trade, Health and Commerce)
and with significant guidance from academic, agricultural,nongovernmental and private sector players.
7.3.4 Ways forward
Recognizing that food safety, animal health and plant healthare global public goods, new mechanisms to support the development and, most importantly, implementation of proactive and preventative policies and programs to facilitate
compliance with SPS standards could be explored. Internationally, donor support could be targeted to specifically assist those countries that cannot adequately finance SPS standard implementation nationally but attention could also be
paid to ensuring that trade facilitation is not the only driverof SPS program delivery. The application of AKST to address yield and quality losses associated with pests or pathogens that are of domestic, but not international, importance
may have more impact on reducing hunger and poverty, andimproving nutrition and health, particularly in the least developed countries, than applying these resources exclusively
to accessing international markets. For small developing
countries, the possibility of regional food safety “trusts” toprovide a continuous funding source for shared SPS related
surveillance programs, infrastructure and personnel should
be considered. An international SPS insurance mechanismthat would supplement or replace current ad hoc funding
to detect and mitigate transborder food contamination incidents, zoonoses and plant health contagion should also be
considered.
Given the globalization of agriculture and trade, the institutional separation of Codex, OIE and IPPC may be oflimited relevance in the future. The traditional mandates ofthese international organizations are already challenged by
the emergence of alternative regulatory mechanisms that integrate food safety, animal and plant health related standards
and production practices e.g., Good Agricultural Practices,
Good Manufacturing Practices, on-farm HACCP plans andother retailer-driven certification programs. Revising SPSrelated policy and regulatory measures within an explicitly
coordinated biosecurity framework may be one option for
promoting cross-sectoral interventions. Internationally, policy and regulation related to food safety, plant and animal
health could be better integrated if the mandates of Codex,
OIE and IPPC were recast to remove areas of duplication,
identify sources of conflict and promote opportunities forpolicy and program coordination to more effectively utilize
the limited resources that are applied to SPS issues.
Policy options• For smaller and contiguous developing countries,
strengthening or starting regional foodborne, animal andplant health surveillance systems may be a viable option,
particularly where dietary patterns, agricultural practices, and natural resources for agriculture are similar.
• Consideration should be given to establishment of national or regional food safety trust funds invested toensure a continuous funding mechanism to graduallybuild the national or regional surveillance systems uponwhich effective food safety interventions depend. The
trusts could be financed from an increase in ODA andfrom an increase in agrifood corporate taxes. Alterna-

chapter 07.indd 474

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

tively, governments can continue to respond ad hoc tofood safety emergencies or SPS related threats to trade,financed by voluntary funds for each purpose.
Governments should consider expanding current “aidfor trade” commitments to include the financing ofspecific SPS infrastructure requested by WTO memberswith documented incapacity to finance that infrastructure from domestic sources. Since it is unlikely thatgovernments will support binding and enforceable “aidfor trade” commitments, governments should consider
developing a model contract for expedited needs assessment that is not tied to import of SPS technology or
training from any one donor.
Considering that SPS standards are largely implemented
in developing countries for the purpose of trade facilitation, often with little benefit to local consumers of domestically produced food, policies that focus on domestic food production and domestic priorities for animaland plant health, food safety and public health could
receive greater attention.
Weak national SPS surveillance systems could be
strengthened to improve the timeliness and efficacy of
preventative or prophylactic food safety, animal andplant health interventions. Even where there is an absence of detailed epidemiological or surveillance data,
foodborne infections and animal and plant diseases
could be better managed through policies that promote
simple, workable SPS programs implemented at the farmor community level. Capacity building could be redirected from training to understand SPS rules to technicalsupport needed to operationalize such programs.
Eradication of the major epizootic animal diseases is unlikely to be achieved in the foreseeable future in many
developing countries in spite of significant investment
and effort to do so. An alternative, commodity based
approach could instead be used as a tool to promote
access to international markets which would also allow
resources to be allocated for the prevention of losses
caused by other animal and zoonotic diseases.
Governments could align their public sector investment
to ensure that AKST is applied to assisting producers tomeet only statutory SPS standards, through agriculturalresearch, extension and/or education systems.
Governments could strategically invest in AKST to promote the participation of small-scale farmers in third
party certification, through the provision of education
programs and technical assistance.
The ongoing initiatives from OIE and others to support
veterinary services in developing countries could continue as a means to support access of animals and theirproducts into national and international markets andto improve food safety and secure food supply. Policies
that recognize and support the training of paraprofessionals such as community animal health workers could
be promoted to compensate for the limited availabilityof veterinarians trained in veterinary public.
Policies could support the provision of international
support to developing countries when coordinated interventions are required to manage international emergencies (e.g., highly pathogenic avian influenza virus)
and sustained improvements in national disease control

11/3/08 10:46:15 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 475•

systems could be viewed as investments rather than internationally imposed costs.
FAO, WHO and OIE could consider establishing a jointtask force to examine what those agencies and theirmember governments might do to prepare their SPS surveillance and intervention systems to identify SPS risks
and hazards that may result from anticipated effects ofclimate change on food and agriculture production anddistribution.

7.4 Knowledge and Knowledge
Management—Property Rights
The generation, dissemination and maintenance of AKST
increasingly depend on property rights, placing AKST in
private, community, and public domains. As opportunities to protect AKST increase, access to innovations, local
knowledge and genetic resources become restricted throughdifferent regulatory systems. Public research may result in
privately controlled knowledge, either as a result of institutional policies or of public-private partnerships. IPRs havemultiple objectives, ranging from stimulating investments in
R&D, facilitating technology transfer and bringing knowledge to the public domain through publication and setting
time limits to any exclusive rights. However, the validity ofthese in a low income country (LIC) and development context of low technical capacity is contested. Nevertheless, public research institutions have to decide how to deal with thesedevelopments and how far to go in developing capacities
to manage proprietary knowledge and materials (Egelyng,2005).
Opportunities to legally protect knowledge can be analyzed in terms of the likely impact on the generation of andaccess to such knowledge for development purposes. This
analysis refers to both the strength of intellectual property
rights in general and to the policies towards the use of theprotection systems by public (research) organizations. IPRs
fit in a paradigm of market-led development which is essentially different from both the concept of sharing ideasthat characterize most farming communities (and whichis essentially different from medicinal knowledge in many
communities) and from the public goods paradigm which
dominated the agricultural research for development policies for over 50 years. Strong intellectual property rights
may support commercial investments in research, but may
not be effective in stimulating research for non-market uses
to serve the need of the poor.
Changes in property rights systems impact the roles ofthe stakeholders in AKST. National policies, such as the
Bayh-Dole Act in the USA, promoting “protection” of IP bypublic universities, led to new commercialization strategies
for publicly developed AKST, including exclusive licensingof IP to companies in exchange for follow-up university research contracts and product commercialization. Reduced
public expenditure on agricultural research in a number ofcountries, and the expansion of public-private partnerships
in agricultural research also tend to stimulate the protection of knowledge by public research institutions in orderto generate income (Louwaars et al., 2006). An analysis of
the impact of the Bayh-Dole Act in the USA (Rosenberg and
Nelson, 1994) indicates that, as a result of the high costs

chapter 07.indd 475

of managing IP, very few schools make a net profit on their
R&D investment.
The design of systems of rights and the forms in whichthese are implemented are examples of interactions between
various levels of organization ranging from international
conventions and commitments to local forms of interpretation with or without the filter of national policy and legal
systems. If different rights systems do not specify how results
produced by AKST system are used, exploited and disseminated, those knowledge products and technologies may beunused by the intended AKST beneficiary. If the public sector
is stimulated to use the rights to create a flow of revenue, public sector researchers are likely to change their programmingaway from the needs of the poor (World Bank, 2006).
7.4.1 Public research and the generation of public
goods
The status and nature of AKST as “public/private good” iscritical for its value in development.
Anthropologists and sociologists (Fuller, 1993; Callon, 1994) hold that science is a public good. Innovation, achange in order to solve a constraining situation, is both a
key for human development and a tool for competitiveness.
The report of a Commission initiated by the British government to look at how IPR might work better for poor people
and developing countries remains a most important analysis of this challenge (Commission on Intellectual Property
Rights, 2002).
Both the international priorities for the production of
global public goods in global schemes (e.g., in the CGIAR),
and national innovation programs can to be viewed in thischanging perspective when they are to deal with multiple development objectives. The introduction of private, community and national rights creates a wide range of challenges
for public research.
Realization of environmental objectives are very appropriate areas of inquiry for publicly funded AKST: research towards fulfilling these objectives can frame natural
resources as public goods requiring collective management,such as climate, air quality, water, landscapes. Knowledge
can help private stakeholders, like farmers, forest owners,
rural factories, to develop environmentally friendly practices even in those areas that are privately owned.
7.4.2 Multilateral negotiations on rights systems
Attempts to import concepts from one multilateral agreement to another to enhance their mutual compatibility have
met with strong opposition.2 For example, the proposal
to make the CBD’s Prior Informed Consent in the use of
traditional knowledge and genetic resources a substantive
2
How to protect and license the use of intellectual property (IP)and traditional knowledge (TK) continues to be fiercely debatedin World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the WTO
negotiations to amend the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property (TRIPs) and in various civil society forums.
The implementation of national sovereignty over genetic resources
and arrangements for Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) as debatedwithin the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) also link with the protection of IP and TK.

11/3/08 10:46:15 AM

476 | IAASTD Global Reportrequirement of patentability in TRIPS has not prospered(Visser, 2004).
WIPO and WTO. Proposed binding WIPO norms to protect traditional knowledge and genetic resources fromunauthorized and unremunerated misappropriation (i.e.,“biopiracy”) have been rejected as a threat to WTO IP
rules (e.g., paragraph 211, WIPO, 2006a). The nature of
the threat is, however, not specified, but likely relate to
the collective stewardship of traditional knowledge, whichfrom a classical IP viewpoint would represent an undermining of the individual status of patent ownership (Finger,
2004). It remains an option to further explore a developing country proposal to amend TRIPs Article 29 to require
disclosure in patent applications of traditional knowledge
and genetic resources used in the development of patented
products (WTO, 2006a).3 Proponents of disclosure argue
that disclosure would improve patent quality (Article 27.1),
prevent abuse of the patent system and promote the public interest (Article 8), provide social and economic benefits
to WTO members (Article 7) and make TRIPs supportiveof the CBD, particularly its ABS provisions (Articles 1 and
15). Opponents of disclosure opponents contend that ABS
is best implemented through contracts that offer a cash payment or other benefits in exchange for the rights to patentproducts developed from an agreed number of genetic resource samples (WTO, 2006b).
Intellectual property regimes alone, no matter how comprehensive, fully implemented, and mutually supportive ofother multilateral treaties, are insufficient to enable development of the seed systems needed to fulfill goals, and poorly
designed and implemented regimes can be detrimental toachieving these objectives (World Bank, 2006).
Genetic resources in agriculture. Challenges to bringing theprivate rights of IPRs in harmony with the collective rights
over traditional knowledge and local genetic resources arefurther complicated by the rights based on national sovereignty over the physical genetic resources, as established in
the CBD. Apart from conceptual and legal challenges, thiscomplication has led in the past years to practical problems in the exchange of genetic resources, which affects the
agricultural use of genetic resources in plant and animal
breeding more that any other type of use. Important steps
have been taken in the sharing of benefits derived from theuse of these resources in a multilateral way through the
IT PGRFA’s conclusion of the Standard Material Transfer
Agreement The IT PGRFA confirms the Farmers’ Right ofprotection of TK, which established a link with the debate
in WIPO, the right of benefit sharing linking it further tothe CBD, and the right to participate in decision making
at the national level on matters related to the conservationand sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food andagriculture. The IT PGRFA refers the implementation ofthese rights to the national level (Article 9.2C). However, it
may prove difficult for national policy makers to implement
these Farmers’ Rights while avoiding conflicts among IPR,
biodiversity and seed regulations with the right of farmers
to save, use, exchange and see farm-saved seed.
Traditional knowledge (TK) and genetic resources. A reviewof technical papers in support of the WIPO negotiations
has proposed that an “international enforcement pyramid”
be constructed from existing practices to enable developing countries to control and sustainable use traditional
knowledge and genetic resources (Drahos, 2006). The “enforcement pyramid” would integrate indigenous and national government practices and would be coordinated bya Global BioCollecting Society under the aegis of WIPO,
FAO and the CBD. Complicating the construction of an effective enforcement mechanism for traditional knowledge
and genetic resources are differences between indigenous
customary law and governance, and national government
jurisdiction, particularly where indigenous territories crossnational boundaries (IIED, 2006).
WIPO negotiations for a Substantive Patent Law Treaty(SPLT) present a framework for IP protection and enforcement very different from an enforcement pyramid based onnational and indigenous group enforcement practices for
traditional knowledge and genetic resources protection.
The SPLT is part of a Patent Agenda to create and enforce
a “global patent” with mechanisms far more specific andpowerful than the TRIPs enforcement provisions (Article41), and reduced transaction costs (WIPO, 2001). The U.S.,
EU and Japan are the main SPLT advocates and cooperate inpatent matters. Some IP scholars are concerned that the SPLT
could negatively affect public AKST and access to publicly
held genetic resources, particularly in countries where rules
on plant variety protection do not yet limit farmers’ rights
to save or exchange seed (e.g., Tvedt, 2005). The SPLT may
also limit developing countries ability to shape their patentlaws to their own specific needs, taking into account thedevelopment stage that they are in. SPLT is thus seen as supporting only a trade agenda rather than supporting a Development Agenda (WIPO, 2004). The debate is ongoing.
Nevertheless, elements of the draft SPLT are being carried forward in Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) andso-called “TRIPs plus” provisions in bilateral Free Trade
Agreements (FTAs)4. BITs with many of these parties define“TRIPS plus” agreements assert TRIPS as a foundation but add
some provisions that arguably conflict with TRIPS provisions. Recent FTAs require the patenting of biological resources, thus overriding the patenting exemption in TRIPs Article 27.3, and require
countries to become members of the Union for the Protection of
new Varieties of Plants (UPOV), thus closing the door for alternative breeder’s rights protection systems, including earlier versionsof the UPOV Act that are more compatible with farmers’ seedsystems (World Bank, 2006). These FTAs also prohibit parties
from citing resource constraints as a legal defense for nonenforcement of IP obligations (Fink and Reichenmiller, 2005).

4

The information embedded in the genetics of the seed and the associated farmers’ and scientific knowledge comprise a significant
part of AKST. The value of TK appropriated for use in patented
agricultural and medical products would represent at least $5
billion annually in royalties to developing countries, if TK were
protected and licensed as patents are (McLeod, 2001). Just halfof such a sum, if invested for the in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity and if distributed effectively to the often collective
and indigenous stewards of that biodiversity, could help realize
development and sustainability goals.

3

chapter 07.indd 476

11/3/08 10:46:15 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 477

IP and genetic resources in ABS agreements as “investmen­­ts” and allow a very broadly defined “investor” to sue states
for nonenforcement or inadequate enforcement of investor
rights, no matter how resource constrained the developing
countries parties may be (Correa, 2004).
IP and TK economics. Desegregated data on agricultural IP
costs5 could help policy makers make more informed decisions about whether to assume the costs and legal obligations of specific patented agricultural products. The cost isdifficult to justify in light of the aggregate 53% price drop in
agricultural export commodities from 1997 to 2001 (FAO,
2005a), nor from the expected 2.8% price increase resulting from WTO Doha Round (Bouët et al., 2004). In ourassessment, the terms of trade rationale for investment inpatented AKST becomes weaker still when taking into account the costs of state liability for non-enforcement of IP
as “investment” in BITs and individual producer liability
for violating patent holder rights, e.g., of agricultural biotechnology firms.
There is no agreed methodology for estimating the economic value of traditional and local knowledge and genetic
resources, for the purpose of licensing its use in specific patented products (Drahos, 2006). Agreement on such a methodology might be derived on the basis of experience withstudies estimating the value of traditional knowledge andgenetic resources used in specific patent products. A royalty
or licensing fee system based on the value in the seed market
is incorporated in national laws in some countries (e.g., thegene fund in India) and in the IT PGRFA that will be used tofund genetic resource conservation. Seed sales royalty funding therefore remains a policy option.6
The global costs of withholding access to genetic resources due to national access regimes are insufficiently
researched. Given the interdependence of countries on genetic resources (Flores-Palacios, 1997) and the fact that exchange of agricultural genetic resources among developing
countries is much more frequent than transfer from Southto North (Fowler et al., 2001), such costs are likely to beborne to a large extent by developing countries. Providing
financing mechanisms to facilitate genetic resource accessand transfer from agrobiodiverse rich developing countries
One estimate suggests that developing country TRIPs commitments in the Uruguay Round amounted to $60 billion annually in
implementation costs, licensing fees and royalties (Finger, 2004).
6
As part of a project to measure genetic resource erosion andto suggest how royalties be paid to source countries of genetic
resources might provide incentives for conservation, it was estimated that a 1% royalty on sales of patented seeds incorporating
traditional knowledge and genetic resources would return about$150 million per annum to the source countries, most of themdeveloping countries (FAO, 1998). However, with the creation of
the Global Crop Diversity Trust in 2004, FAO’s erstwhile interestin using royalties to pay for protection and enhancement of crop
diversity has diminished. The Trust Fund has shifted away from
FAO’s prior dependence on annual donor government contributions towards funding Trust activities from an endowment supplemented by foundation grants. Nevertheless, the Trust states that
there are many crop diversity conservation activities that it cannot
and will not finance.
5chapter 07.indd 477

to agrobiodiverse poor developing countries is one option
for remedying this situation.
Other policy options regarding intellectual property
and traditional knowledge include:
1. Insofar as traditional knowledge and genetic resources may form part of the prior art of a patented AKST
product, adoption of a disclosure amendment in TRIPS
could serve to enhance patent quality and might be adisincentive of misappropriation. Information so disclosed could be part of the legal basis for any licensing agreement on traditional knowledge and genetic
resources used in a patented product. WTO members
might also wish to consider adopting a weaker interim
standard of TK protection, such as a Declaration on
Trade and Traditional Knowledge (Gervais, 2005).
2. Given the impasse at the WTO over disclosure, developing country members are seeking to protect traditional
knowledge and genetic resources with strong norms in
WIPO negotiations. However, in the absence of the capacity to enforce such norms, members could agree on
the design of mechanisms for and the financing of an“enforcement pyramid” (Drahos, 2006) for any norms
that are agreed, preferably under the coordination of a
joint agency under CBD, FAO and WIPO. This could
ensure that local and indigenous stewards of agrobiodiversity would participate in member government decisions
on the licensing of traditional knowledge and genetic resources, as called for in Article 9 of the ITPGRFA.
3. Both multilateral IP negotiations and implementation
discussion lack ex ante and ex post economic analysisof the cost and benefits of adopting IP commitments
and patented AKST. Analysis of, not rhetorical claims
about, IP benefits for developing countries, could inform bilateral agreements and national government IP
policy and legislation (Park and Lippoldt, 2004). Multilateral and technical assistance could include financing
for IP economic analysis.
4. A methodology for valuing the ex-post contribution of
traditional knowledge and genetic resources in patented
AKST option to agree, as a prerequisite for any agreement on how to license traditional knowledge and genetic resources in patented products. Decision makers
may consider ex-post studies of traditional knowledge
and genetic resources valuation in existing patented
products to better delineate the elements for an agreed
methodology.
5. Facilitating access to and sustainable use of traditional
knowledge and genetic resources among developing
countries, particularly for the benefit of agrobiodiverse
poor developing countries may be a an issue that policy
makers may wish to move higher in the priorities of themultilateral AKST agenda, Both for food security andagroenvironmental sustainability reasons, it remains an
option for policy makers to consider developing guidelines for a specific facility for the benefit of agrobiodiverse poor developing countries.
7.4.3 Effects of rights on AKST at the national andinstitutional levels
IPRs on products and processes that are relevant to agricultural development in the widest sense create novel con-

11/3/08 10:46:16 AM

478 | IAASTD Global Reportditions for the use of AKST at different levels. The trend
towards privatization of AKST is particularly felt in thesphere of plant breeding and biotechnology.
Stimulating private investments in research. IPRs are meant
to stimulate private investment in research, but even thoughevidence of such effects in various industries may be available, it is very weak in the agricultural sector, notably plant
breeding (Pray, 1991; Alston and Venner, 2000). IPRs protected in LDCs with a limited research capacity are more
likely to improve access to proprietary technologies fromabroad (e.g., Bt cotton). There are claims of positive effects
of protection of breeder’s rights for a selective number ofcases; however, without taking into account alternative
explanations for the observed effects and without providing data for other crops in the same case study countries(UPOV, 2005). Other studies show inconclusive results ofthe value of IP protection for the plant breeding sector in
LDCs. Based on evidence in five developing countries, IPRs
may support the development of a private seed industry, but
only when this sector has reached a certain level of maturity; IP protection is not a major stimulus for initial investments in the sector (World Bank, 2006).
Public-private partnerships in research. In a market system,
IPRs provide a way to share benefits among the different
chain partners through the transfer of technology fees (royalties). They are the basis for negotiating partnerships in research between private and public partners, notably private
IPR-holders and public research institutions in accessing
technologies in a certain country. However, the reliance onnegotiated license agreements also introduces prospects forunequal sharing of benefits based on differences in negotiating capabilities and power of the partners.
Financial support to the public research systems throughIPRs. Even though IPRs fit in a commercial approach to innovation, it is, in many countries, the public sector research
institutions that promote the introduction of IPRs in agriculture. This promotion is based primarily on a perception thatthese institutes may obtain significant revenue when theirinventions (e.g., plant varieties) may be protected. This revenue is welcomed when there is underinvestment in publicresearch (common in many countries since the 1990s), but
may be viewed differently if such benefits can only be obtained in commercial markets (e.g., seed markets). Relianceon IPR based revenues is likely to lead to a change in publicresearch priorities, in some cases to commercial crops likemaize and oil crops to the detriment of research on small
grains and pulses, and to benign ecologies and market oriented farmers, to the detriment of a small-scale farmer focus(Fischer and Byerlee, 2002). Such research shifts may fit inmarket orientation priorities of national development strategies, but may at the same time challenge to some extent
the public tasks of contributing to poverty alleviation andhousehold nutrition security (Louwaars et al., 2006).
The most common alternative strategy for a public research institute may be to publish its innovations, i.e., placein the public domain. This strategy reduces opportunities toobtain financial revenue and may limit public-private partnerships.

chapter 07.indd 478

Challenges to technology transfer—thickets of rights. Even
though license agreements may promote technology transfer
by clarifying roles and responsibilities, IPRs may also poseserious limitations to research and the use of technologies
in development. Particularly in advanced research, so-called
thickets of rights lead to the tragedy of the anti-commons
leading to underinvestment and underutilization of technologies (Heller and Eisenberg, 1998). Property rights on
research tools, processes and products create very complex
situations for researchers and their institutions, potentiallyleading to underutilization of technologies. Research institutes have to learn how to establish and negotiate theirfreedom to operate on these technologies. The quality andenforceability of the claims of a patent may significantly differ between jurisdictions; negotiating access to a technology
can be very difficult when unequal partners are involved;
so-called humanitarian use licenses (license on a technology
for R&D for development with “soft” conditions) may be
granted when the use of a technology is unlikely to challenge the commercial interests of the rights holder, but the“small print” license details can create significant obligations for the recipient.
These are new policy challenges for most developing
countries, the actual impact of which cannot be readily
assessed yet (World Bank, 2006). The rights on enabling
technologies create challenges for producing public goods,
which has been the main focus of public research, and more
specifically for the centers of the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research. When more and more
technologies are protected by IPRs in their target countries,
producing international public goods may become more andmore difficult (Fischer and Byerlee, 2002). Currently, thesecenters are venturing in license strategies on their protected
technologies that provide a public good status for the purpose of poverty alleviation and food security in developing
countries, while maintaining ownership in commercial markets both in developing and industrialized countries.
Costs of compliance. Compliance with the rights of IPRholders requires public and private research institutions
alike to invest in capacities that they had not required in
the past, notably legal and commercial specialists. There
are already commercial seed companies that spend far moreon legal services than on research. This preponderance oflegal over research expense in fighting through the patent
thicket may be a “warning” to public research institutions
that emulating commercial plant breeding practices to produce public goods may be a less an optimal production
pathway. Legal advice is not only needed to channel the useof research results in development oriented and commercial markets through contracts that need to be negotiatedand concluded and court and settling disputes. Legal considerations are also more and more influencing the researchitself. Scientists may be required to use old (free or cheap)
technologies instead of effective ones which may be costly
or not available.
Scientists frequently feel stifled by the legal advisors who
have to make sure that third party IP rights of contributive
technologies are respected and that the IP produced by thescientists can be protected, by putting restrictions on scientific communication before a patent application is filed.

11/3/08 10:46:16 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 479

Another compliance cost is the need to transfer obligations derived from contracts downstream, i.e., a research institute working in plant breeding with genetic materials thathave been obtained through contracts may have to require
farmers involved in local testing of potential new varieties tosign contracts restricting their use of the varieties that theyobtained (e.g., farmers participating in rice research in thePhilippines).
Humanitarian use licenses on individual parts of AKST
can reduce these transaction costs to a limited extent since
the negotiations that lead to such licenses may be lengthy.
One policy option is more generic approaches that limit
such costs have been initiated by international consortiumsof research institutions forming the “Generation Challenge
Program” (Barry and Louwaars, 2005), and those collaborating in PIPRA (Public Intellectual Property Resource for
Agriculture).
Application of open-source approaches to genetic technologies (www.bios.net) is a policy option for providing
more sustainable solutions to the emerging patent thicket,
but its impact is yet limited.
Private, community and national rights. It is not only theprivate rights (primarily IPRs) that affect the organization of agricultural research for development. Community
rights, such as those based on traditional knowledge, andsovereign national rights (on genetic resources based on theCBD) affect research institutions in a similar way. Transaction costs are increased through the need to negotiate accessand terms, the opportunities to use the best available inputs
in research are reduced, and the use of the research results
may be restricted (Safrin, 2004; Louwaars, 2006). Research
institutions need to trace all the knowledge, technologies
and genetic materials in the various research programs andmay have to check at the start of every program or experiment whether third party rights may interfere with theirprogram or experimental design. These institutions may
have to consult with legal advisors regarding these rights
at every step of making their new technologies available tofarmers. One policy option is to expand and strengthen theInternational Treaty on Plant Genetic resources for Foodand Agriculture, the implementation of which is likely to
reduce the transaction costs at least for the use of genetic resources of the major field crops and pasture species coveredby the Standard Material Transfer Agreement.
Challenges for public research and policy options. Whether
or not public research organizations intend to obtain revenue through protecting their own intellectual property, theyneed to develop institutional policies how to deal with suchrights. Such policies need to be supported at the national
level of policy and regulation.
Option to strengthen awareness of the issues and professional capacity in IP-strategy and marketing (Erbisch andFischer, 1998) can focus on three different levels: scientists,
research managers and policy makers (Cohen et al., 1999),
which often requires the establishment of specialized technology transfer offices (Maredia and Erbisch, 1999).
Above all, national policy makers responsible for agricultural development and the national agricultural researchsystems need to be aware of the challenges that new rights

chapter 07.indd 479

regimes on intellectual property, traditional knowledge andgenetic resources pose in the public research institutes andtheir relation with an emerging private sector. Policies that
reduce public expenditure, that promote the use of IPRs by
public research institutions or that restrict access to genetic
resources and traditional agricultural knowledge could bebased on a thorough understanding of the role of public research in the arena of access, development and use of AKSTin development.
Policy options at the national level to make sure thatthickets of rights do not develop in technologies and materials that are important for development and sustainability
goals particularly include mechanisms to exempt the use ofknowledge and materials for use for these goals when theseare protected by private, community and national rights.
7.4.4 Rights systems on natural resources: from
simple ownership to bundle of rights
Scientific knowledge takes into account the frames throughwhich the real world is perceived by stakeholders, such as
scientists (fundamental and applied), local innovators, policy makers, businessmen, negotiators in international arenas.
The knowledge on local management systems of natural resources and the theories to which this knowledge refers are
the basis upon which decisions and agreements are made.
Appropriate AKST can contribute to the improvement of
the understanding of what is relevant at the field level andwith local situations.
There are a wide variety of rights and management
systems for natural resources. For example, one may own
the land but not the subsoil resources, or the trees in a forest. A participant in a common property regime may haveguaranteed exclusive use of a parcel she has cleared, or thatparcel may be subject to reassignment by a tribal elder. An
untitled farmer at the agricultural frontier may have what iscommonly considered “ownership” of the “improvement”
to the land, which may not be de jure, but sufficiently enshrined in a de facto sense that those improvements can bebought and sold in the market. Some common property regimes have proven to be far more sustainable than individual property regimes. Commons are open access resources,
the property of which is not allocated to individuals but
supposedly owned in common. Commons are not excludable and are in se not rivalrous. (Kaul et al., 1999; Woutersand de Meester, 2003). Strengthening the focus on new rules
and international agreements that take into account more
complex situations in regard of property rights and regimes
is an option.7
There are many examples of successful management “in common”, based on a variety of rights which are used to regulate
access to, usage, exploitation, ownership, alienation, exclusion,etc. of such resources. Even though land is a rival and excludable
good, many traditional societies maintain nonexclusive grazing
and hunting grounds. And some communities effectively manage
as commons such natural resources as land, forests, water andplant and animal species (Demsetz, 1967; Bromley, 1990; Barzel,1997), thus reconfirming that excludable resources do not necessarily have to be made private or exclusive. Doing so is a policy
choice.

7

11/3/08 10:46:16 AM

480 | IAASTD Global Report

This issue is raised without further details in Article
10c of the CBD (Sustainable Use of Components of Biological Diversity): “protect and encourage customary use ofresources in accordance with traditional cultural practices
that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements.” This Article is now in legal tribunals by native
populations experiencing difficulties with norms they feelare being imposed on them (Goldman, 2004). Such rules
may lead to confusion about ownership or accountabilityof “resources” that have meaning and values at the local
as well as at the global levels or aggravate the situation of
those who are marginalized by the negotiated rules (Allier,
1997, 2002).
Studies on local management systems can contribute todesigning new systems that better fit to evolving and dynamic conditions. Conceptual analyses has greatly benefited
from scientific research since the late 1980s (Schlager andOstrom, 1992; Sandberg, 1994; Le Roy, 1996; Chauveau,
1998; Lavigne Delville, 1998; Karsenty, 2003). Taking into
account the different forms of knowledge involved, e.g.,“explicit” and “incorporated,” can lead to a more complex
view of what is at stake in a range of situations (Box 7-1).
The principle of legal plurality facilitates operational
understanding of two coexisting legal worlds These normative productions were defined as “droits de la pratique”, i.e.,rights based on practice, as a “plural set based on different
ages and particular stakes, actors and formalisms”, specifying what is commonly designated as the “law of the land”.
A piece of land may be viewed as a “good” while theresources may be seen as “things” free of access or as an“having” (as defined above) open to harvesting by people
other than the owner with his/her authorization. All thesemanagement practices may be subject to seasonal variation depending on the types of resources to be taken (grass,crops, berries, mushrooms, game, fish, etc.). The “right tohand over” (Chauveau, 1998) between the right of exclusion and of alienation, as hybrid forms of access to land,such as buying land for migrants, which gives them the rightto pass it on to their heirs, but not the right to sell it. This
traditional order may evolve with time. This system commonly falls within the more general social norms, and follows an intrinsic evolution as a result of overall change inthe customary order, and of interactions with the positive
law implemented by the modern state. The trend towards
commoditization of land and resources will challenge theauthority of these different modes and is likely to lead to individual property and ownership as understood by capitalist
economy and modern law.
However when the excess capacity of common goods islimited, congestion may turn the consumption of the goodas rival, i.e., when an additional unit of the good consumed
by one member negatively affects other members’ satisfaction of the public good. An example of this situation is thefish-stock in oceans. Overfishing depletes the world’s fishstock and threatens endangered species with extinction(Wouters and de Meester, 2003). Thus a complex set of laws
and agreements have completed the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea (1982), which introduced two fundamental
principles: (1) the territorial sea, providing a coastal statewith the right to control a narrow band of sea as an exten-

chapter 07.indd 480

Box 7-1. Clarifying a bundle of rights.
Analysis of property rights on aquatic resources in Lapland(Schlager and Ostrom, 1992; Sandberg, 1994) specified thenotion of access, catch, management, exclusion, alienationaccording to a cumulative gradient (for instance, the right toalienate includes all other rights). Each right is associated witha category of users, the proprietor holding the right of exclusion and the owner the right to alienate, which clarifies thedistinction between property and ownership. This latter term
only encompasses the meaning of absolute private ownership. Thus the distinction between the authorized (who has
the right to “harvest”) and unauthorized user (who only has
right of access) enables detection of tacit rights of free accessfor small catches. Following this hierarchy of rights, action isorganized on three levels: the constitutional level in whichrights are being constantly elaborated and challenged, the operational level on which the rights of access and catches are
exercised, and an intermediary level at which management
and exclusion decisions are taken, and which the authors
define as the “collective” level (Schlager and Ostrom, 1992).
This denomination throws light on the individual or collective
nature of rights and decisions, according to the hierarchicalrank of a right but does not, however, specify the collective
level concerned for each type of right. The theory of “maîtrises
foncières/fruitières” (Le Roy, 1996) allows increased genericity
on this aspect and better characterization of the diversity ofactual arrangements. It enriches the typology by the added
dimension of comanagement modes of the holders of theseproperty rights and distinguishes five forms of property rights,
i.e. modes of appropriation linked to comanagement modes.
These comanagement modes include:
1. “Undifferentiated property rights” with rights of access to“a thing”;
2. “Priority property rights” encompassing access and extraction rights (notion of “having”);
3. “Exclusive property rights” encompassing the same rights
as above plus the right to exclude (notion of “functional
property”);
4. “Specialized property rights” encompassing rights of access, of extraction and management (notion of “ownership”) and;5. “Absolute exclusive property rights”, i.e., the right to use
and sell, hand over, etc., therefore to alienate what canconsequently be called a “good”.
These different types of property rights may be applied to
public commons (belonging to all) or appropriated by “one orn groups” that are internal or external to a defined community,or even privately appropriated; they rely on how knowledge(on the objects, the interaction with objects and the relationship within people) is shared between the stakeholders.

11/3/08 10:46:17 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 481

sion of its sovereignty offshore; and (2) freedom of the highseas, meaning the freedoms of navigation and fishing in thehigh sea beyond that offshore coastal area (Joyner, 2000).
The first principle relies on the comanagement between
states and coastal communities in planning, regulating, andconducting resource management (Borgese, 1999). One of
the main issues is the obligation for states to maintain or
restore populations of harvested fish at levels that produce a“maximum sustainable yield”. “Non-exploitive users”, i.e.,
the rest of society’s citizens, also have a right of access to
the Exclusive Economic Zone for other functions, which include permission to locate aquaculture installations, mineralmining, shipping access, etc. decisions on which remain withgovernment (Caddy, 1999).
On the second principle, a UN Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks andHighly Migratory Fish Stocks has been adopted in 1995,
mandating states to establish subregional and regional conventions and organizations to facilitate conservation andmanagement of living resources, and an International Seabed Authority for the deep ocean floor and non living marine resources. Except for sedentary species of the sea floor,international fisheries agreements do not speak in terms ofownership of resources but of access rights. This distinction raises the fine point as to the timing of the access andeven whether this right could be extended to include theprogeny of the resource share in future rights. A corpus ofinternational law has evolved around the 1982 Law of the
Sea Convention for protecting and managing the world’s
oceans (Joyner, 2000), which will likely be extended in the
future (Caddy, 1999). Assessments such as the MA, pointout that these arrangements are insufficient to avoid a decline of populations of harvested fisheries and 25% of theoceans are overfished, creating problems for both the fish
species and the fishermen depending on them. The settingof fishing quotas doesn’t take into account the effects of thewithdrawal of one species on the functioning of the wholemarine ecosystem: it alters not only the targeted fish population but also the other trophic levels concerned by thisspecies as prey or predator. In most situations there is insufficient knowledge on the functioning of marine complex
ecosystems to design better management rules.
Challenges for public research and policy options. Scientificknowledge has to help to understand the complexity of suchsituations, in the oceans as well as on the continents, to formalize these different sets of right regimes and also to design
new ways for collective action for the fair implementationof such rights, and reach optimally sustainable managementof renewable natural resources. Such knowledge has toguide the design of laws, incentives, contracts, taxes, quotas, permits and licenses that take into account the diversityof situations and that avoid blueprint solutions.
Natural Resources Management Policies. Since state appropriation of NRM based on positive law may coexist with themodalities of local rights systems, which distinguish access
to, usage, exploitation, ownership, alienation, exclusion, of“common” goods at a collective level, one option is to recognize that the “law of the land” may further involve land tenure

chapter 07.indd 481

systems that cannot be reduced to individual ownership.
Collective ownership and management of natural resources
is protected in Article 10c of the CBD (Sustainable Use ofComponents of Biological Diversity). Indigenous groups
have referenced this Article to help defend their collective
rights and NRM practices against governments that would
ignore these rights in fulfilling commitments to protect“global” resources. New instruments for collective action
have to make explicit and feasible the fair implementationof collective rights and NRM practices in order to obtain
the best and sustainable management of renewable natural
resources. Formal institutions have to take into account thisdiversity of NRM knowledge and avoid conforming only toa concept of individual ownership and rights.

7.5 Pro-Poor Agricultural Innovation
7.5.1 Technology supply push and the global
agricultural treadmill
The dominant policy model for promoting innovation iscalled the linear model (Kline and Rosenberg, 1986), or thetransfer of technology model (Chambers and Jiggins, 1987;
Chapter 2). Also known as “technology supply push,” thisapproach relies on the agricultural treadmill (Cochrane,1958) i.e., market-propelled waves of technological changethat squeeze farm-gate prices, stimulate farmers to capture
economies of scale, deliver high internal rates of return toinvestments in agricultural research (Evenson et al., 1979),
but also encourage externalization of significant social andenvironmental costs (Lal et al., 2005; Mukherjee and Kathuria, 2006).
While the technology push model provided the basis forthe positive impacts of the Green Revolution in favorable
areas (Castillo, 1998) and under defined conditions thattypically included high subsidies on fertilizers and pesticides(Pontius et al., 2002), it has not served nearly as well as
resource-poor areas that are highly diverse, rain fed, andrisk prone, and that currently hold most of the world’s poor
(Anderson et al., 1991; Biggs and Farrington, 1991; Vanlauwe et al., 2006).
The market-propelled diffusion of innovations called“the agricultural treadmill” (Cochrane, 1958) has been ongoing in developed market economies for 50 years or more.
The literature observing the process for hybrid maize in theAmerican Midwest goes back to 1943 (Ryan and Gross,1943). During these 50 years, farmers in those economies
have been able to capture significant economies of scale. The
treadmill process in those economies has been heavily supported in terms of public funding of agricultural research,education and extension, credit subsidies, land and irrigation development, supportive legislation, access to inputs,
services and markets, and the evolution of farmers’ organizations and their lobbies that represent farmers’ interests atstate and federal or EU levels. One can now speak of a “global
treadmill” that allows farmers in developed economies toexport their (sometimes subsidized) products to developing
countries and compete with local small-scale farmers.
Value added per agricultural worker in 2003 (constant2000 US$) in developed market economies was 23,081 witha growth over 1992-2003 of 4.4% (FAO, 2005b). For sub-11/3/08 10:46:17 AM

482 | IAASTD Global Report

Saharan Africa the figures are 327 and 1.4%, respectively.
As long as the global treadmill is operating, even with all
OECD subsidies removed, efforts to uplift rural poverty willremain severely handicapped and it will continue to be difficult to enlist the vast arable lands in developing countries
that are now underperforming and degrading for purposesof global food security. In these circumstances, to continue
with a technology-supply push conception of innovation
seems inappropriate. The rural poor are not on the global
treadmill; instead the global treadmill prevents them fromdevelopment. Required are institutional framework conditions that provide realistic opportunities to subsistence
farmers to become small-scale commercial farmers.
In imperfect markets the benefits are uneven and do notalways reach the poor. Policy responses of proven historicalefficacy to addressing unevenness in competitiveness and opportunity include institutional framework conditions within
which AKST can play a more positive role, i.e., by stimulating targeted investment in creating small farmers’ access tomarket opportunities, inputs, alternative employment and tocreating value-adding enterprises and by temporary market
protection to infant agro-industries. The contemporary andfuture challenge is to achieve positive policy outcomes in waysthat internalize the environmental and social costs as well.
7.5.2 Brokered long-term contractual arrangements
Brokered long-term contractual arrangements (BLCA; aterm used here to designate a suite of modern contractual
arrangements) have proven effective in improving the livelihoods of poor farmers and fostering rural innovation (seeBox 7-2) (Little and Watts, 1994; Key and Runsten, 1999).
However, the set of conditions required for this policy option to be attractive are rather restrictive. BLCAs were initiated to use the good aspects of state trading enterprises(STEs) because STEs proved sensitive to corruption, rent
seeking, gender discrimination and externalization of costs
to farmers (Hobart, 1994; Dorward et al., 1998). A major
challenge facing expanded use of BLCAs as a policy option
is to avoid repetition of the historical record that provides
ample evidence of the misuse and abuse of nationalized
BLCA-like (STE) schemes.
BLCAs, under favorable social conditions with transparency and strong farmer organization, provide a policy
option for public sectors to invest in the creation of opportunities for poor farmers. Synergies between long term
contractual arrangements and the organic and fair trade
markets increase when such types of contractual arrangements are coupled with group certification of small-scale organic producers. Policy options include retooling abolished
STEs and creating legal, financial and technical support for
emerging new BLCAs that are pro-poor.
7.5.3 Endogenous development and traditional
knowledge
Endogenous development draws mainly on locally available
resources, local knowledge, culture and leadership, with an
openness that allows for integration of outside knowledge
and practices (Haverkort et al., 2002; Millar, 2005).
Traditional knowledge can be effective and reliable(Brammer, 1980; Warren et al. 1991; Reij et al., 1996; Brammer, 2000; Balasubramanian and Devi, 2005) with respect

chapter 07.indd 482

Box 7-2. Pineapple export in Ghana.
Ghana traditionally exported Cayenne pineapples. But since
2002, international demand has shifted to the extra sweet
MD2 variety with quite dramatic consequences for Ghana’sexporters and small-scale producers. Many of the latter quit
production altogether, while the former faced loss of their market contracts in Europe unless they could change to MD2.
That was no sinecure. An acre requires 22,000 suckers andsome of the larger exporters grow hundreds of hectares. Initially tissue culture material from Latin America was imported,but this proved expensive and some mishaps occurred. Then
BOMARTS Farms Ltd (about 400 ha pineapple), faced with termination of its contract, decided to set up a commercial tissue
culture lab with assistance from scientists of the Departmentof Botany at the University of Ghana. Millions of plantlets were
produced, some of which were sold to commercial producers
who in turn could provide their out-growers. MD2 makes many
suckers per plant, so that farmers themselves can quickly multiply the variety. At the time, most small-scale producers were
not ready to spend money on buying plantlets. The Government stepped in to save Ghana’s second largest export cropand contracted BOMARTS to produce over a two-year period
4.8 million plantlets at cost (3 eurocents per plantlet). Twice a
week, the Ministry of Agriculture collects 44,000 plantlets anddistributes them to farmers through Sea Freight Pineapple Exporters Ghana (SPEG) and Horticultural Association of Ghana(HAG) on credit at a tenth of the price. BOMARTS itself has
few out-growers and largely exports its own produce.
At the other extreme are exporters who have no farm operations themselves. The typical setup is a mix with out-growers
making a substantial contribution to the consignment of theexporter. Exporting companies make detailed contracts with
out-growers, providing inputs on credit, specifying the timesof planting, force flowering (uniformity) and harvesting, so thatthe company has a steady supply. Around harvesting time,
the company will inspect and spray the crop and it harvests
and transports the fruits. Companies exert very strict quality
control (e.g., water content). The sanctions are high: costs ofdestruction of a rejected assignment in Europe are deductedby importers. Farmers whose crop is rejected have to sell in
the local market, often below cost price. At the time of writing, Ghana’s pineapple exports are getting back on track andthe number of small farmers growing MD2 is rapidly expanding. For many, pineapple is their main source of monetary
income.
Source: E. Acheampong.

to: (1) knowledge about the agroecosystem and seasonality
in which the farmers operate; (2) information about what
local people need, want and have capacity for in terms ofresources, access to markets; (3) locally adapted technicalknowledge and practices and (4) a system view based on
having to live by the results.

11/3/08 10:46:17 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 483

Farmers may innovate at the system level. For example,
farmers on the very densely inhabited Adja Plateau in Beninhave developed an “oil palm fallow” rotation that allows
them to suppress Imperata cylindrica, restore soil fertility
for annual crops, and make money from distilling palm wine
once the palms are cut down (Brouwers, 1993). But traditional knowledge may have weaknesses such as attributing
plant disease to rain and thus foregoing useful management
measures (Almekinder and Louwaars, 1999) or an inability
to respond to rapidly changing circumstances, e.g., climatechange. Experience with multiagent approaches suggeststhat mobilizing the intelligence of a great many actors toaddress a new and complex problem can be an effective andefficient way to solve such systemic complexity (Funtowicz
and Ravetz, 1993; Gilbert and Troitzsch, 1999).
Policy options for promoting endogenous development
include decentralization; use of rapid rural appraisals andparticipatory approaches; empowerment initiatives; multistakeholder processes; and strengthening farmer organizations. Decentralization as in India or Uganda, however, may
strengthen and widen the base for democratic participationin agricultural research decision making, open new opportunities for collaboration in agroenterprise innovations andservice delivery, address specific local development problems, and improve responsiveness to the needs of the poor
(e.g., SNV and CEDELO, 2004).
Rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory approaches may supply more accurate or insightful information than questionnaire surveys or more relevant or better
adapted technologies than the experiments of scientists conducted in conditions and places remote from the fields (e.g.,
Collinson, 2000). Participation has long been dominant in
pro-poor development approaches and may range from simple consultation to support for autonomous decision-making (e.g., Pretty, 1994; Biggs, 1995). RRA and participatory
approaches may be poorly performed and insufficient, however, for addressing the multiple scales of policy intervention
required (Biggs, 1978; Biggs, 1995; Cleaver, 2001; Cooke
and Kothari, 2001). The challenge in meeting development
and sustainability goals is to create complementarity thatdraws on best practice across the range of pro-poor approaches and policies (Biggs, 1982; Biggs, 1989; Bunders,
2001; Ceccarelli et al., 2002; Chema et al., 2003).
Participatory Technology Development (PTD) (Jiggins
and De Zeeuw, 1992) is a concrete approach to the designof complementary action that is relevant for achieving development and sustainability goals but has some negatives
associated with it. With very small windows of opportunity,
it is not easy to reduce poverty by enhancing productivity at
the farm level, even through PTD. The challenge is to stretch
those windows through access to markets, better prices, thedevelopment of services, and the removal of extractive practices and patrimonial networks. Given opportunities, West
African farmers have time and again considerably increased
their production without major technical change. Technology becomes important once framework conditions begin to
improve (Box 7-3).

Box 7-3. The Convergence of Sciences Program (CoS)in Ghana and Benin.
To ensure that the research problems chosen were based on
the needs and opportunities of resource-poor farmers, CoS
pioneered a new pathway for science that used technography,
diagnostic studies, and with farmer participatory experimental
field research (van Huis et al., 2007). A key component was
ex-ante impact assessment and pre-analytical choice making
that optimized sensitivity to context and avoided cul-de-sac
path dependency. Technography (Richards, 2001) was used tomap the coalitions of actors, processes, client groups, framework conditions and contextual factors at a macro level, so as
to identify realistic opportunities. Given the small windows ofopportunity, technography identified space for change. Diagnostic studies (Nederlof et al., 2004; Röling et al., 2004) ensured that research outcomes would work in the local context,
be appropriate to prevailing land tenure, labor availability andgender, and take into account farmers’ opportunities, livelihood
strategies, culture, and felt needs. The diagnostic studies also
identified and established forums of stakeholders for learningfrom a concrete experimental activity, and gave farmers a sayin the design of field experiments. CoS conducted 21 experiments with small farmers on themes such as soil fertility andweed management, crop agrobiodiversity and integrated pest
management (IPM). The studies showed that participatory low
external input technology development within carefully identified windows of opportunity can be beneficial. However, theresearchers also ran into the limitations of this approach andstarted to include experiments with creating space for change
through institutional innovation. Soil fertility improvement depends on land tenure (Saïdou et al., 2007). They negotiatedland use rules between migrant farmers and landowners thatallowed improving soil management practices. In Ghana, anorganization was established to procure Neem seeds from theNorth as a condition for small-scale cocoa farmers to reduce
their use of synthetic pesticides (Dormon et al., 2007). This inturn stimulated collective arrangements for processing Neemseeds because their use in maize mills is unacceptable due totheir bitter taste.
With very small windows of opportunity, it is not easy to
reduce poverty by enhancing productivity at the farm level,
even through PTD. The challenge is to stretch those windows
through access to markets, better prices, the development ofservices, and the removal of extractive practices and patrimonial networks. Given opportunities, West African farmers havetime and again considerably increased their production without major technical change. Technology becomes important
once framework conditions begin to improve.
Source: Hounkonnou et al., 2006; Van Huis et al., 2007.

Empowerment. The corollary of recognizing resource-poor
farmers as partners in complementary and collaborative approaches to development is to accept their empowerment.

chapter 07.indd 483

11/3/08 10:46:17 AM

484 | IAASTD Global Report

It can be more efficient to increase farmers’ countervailing power than to increase an agency’s intervention power
through investing in more vehicles, agent training or budget
support. Farmer field schools (FFS) (Box 7-4) is an optionthat warrants further empirical research to determine theconditions under which this may be so and the kinds of policy environment that best enable empowerment strategies
to be effective in meeting development and sustainability
goals. (Van den Berg and Jiggins, 2007, for a review andassessment of IPM FFS literature).
Multistakeholder processes. A special participatory approach is the facilitation of multistakeholder processes(Leeuwis and Pyburn, 2002; Wals, 2007). Especially in resource dilemmas, where different categories of interdependent stakeholders make competing claims on common pool
resources, sustainable solutions cannot come from regulation, technology or market interventions only. The way forward is a facilitated process of negotiation, shared (social)learning, and agreement on concerted action, based on trust,fairness and reciprocity. There is increasing evidence thathumans are capable of agreeing on sustainable solutions
and of creating institutional conditions that support theimplementation of such solutions if drawn into appropriate
knowledge processes (e.g., Ostrom et al., 1992; Blackmore
et al., 2007). Multistakeholder processes increasingly areimportant with respect to climate change adaptation, whenagreements have to be reached to avoid crisis or when lossof ecosystem services becomes a key cause of poverty.
The Chain-Linked Model. Commercial innovation studies
give a central place to the entrepreneur who sees a possibility to capture an opportunity by mobilizing resources, including knowledge (Kline and Rosenberg, 1986). The driverof innovation in these situations typically is the entrepreneur spotting or creating market-related or social organizational opportunity. Policy support to innovation in thesecases is provided by helping entrepreneurs to access specialized sources of knowledge, services and skills (Coehoorn,
1994; Crul, 2003). International experience of supporting
innovation in small and medium enterprises in nonfarming
sectors can be useful in guiding pro-poor agricultural enterprise development.
Strengthening farmer organizations. Investing in people’sorganizations is a policy option (Toulmin, 2005) with a long
history. The experience of the USA and Europe shows thatstrong farmers’ organizations can be a necessary condition
for commercially efficient agricultural development (Biggand Satterthwaite, 2006). An African example is provided
by ROPPA in West Africa (Koning and Jongeneel, 2006;
ROPPA, 2006). Organizations such as AGRITERRA in The
Netherlands attempt to strengthen farmers’ organizations indeveloping countries through training, delegating researchfunds to farmers’ organizations, and building farmers’ capacities as effective partners in the negotiation of contracts
as well as in research-priority setting. Since farmers’ organizations need allies in other sectors or at other levels if they
are to become strong and act effectively in collaborative
AKST partnerships (Wennink and Heemskerk, 2006) it is a
useful policy option to invest in “platforms” (or organizedchapter 07.indd 484

Box 7-4. Farmer field schools.
The invention of the Farmer field schools (FFS) by the Indonesian FAO team that introduced IPM in rice after the emergenceof the Brown Planthopper was an enormous breakthrough,given the prevalence of the TandV system of extension at thetime (Pontius et al., 2002). The FFS turned the linear model upside down: instead of ultimate users, farmers became experts;
technology transfer was replaced by experiential learning; andinstead of teaching content up front, the agent stayed in theback and facilitated the process. Evaluations of FFS programs(Van de Fliert, 1993; Van den Berg, 2003) indicate that FFS
participants increase their productivity, reduce pesticide use,lower costs, and show remarkable signs of empowerment,in terms of speaking in public, organizational skills, and selfconfidence. The effect is so remarkable that the most effective
ways to convince politicians and senior civil servants of FFS
impact is to expose them to an FFS in action. Such visitors
quickly grasp what the FFS can do in terms of enlisting theelusive small-scale farmer in the national project.
It is one thing to implement an effective FFS pilot, quite another to scale it up to the national level. A certain set of practices determines FFS quality. Erosion of these practices soon
leads to loss of fidelity and loss of the remarkable effects.
Vulnerabilities include the curriculum (e.g., use of a field as
the main tool for teaching), process facilitation (e.g., avoiding
reverting to technology supply push or promoting government
agendas), training facilitators in non-directive methods, timeliness (i.e., coinciding with the growing season), financing (e.g.,
utilizing public funds for snacks for farmers). FFS programsare vulnerable to corruption by the pesticide industry (e.g.,
Sherwood, 2005).
The FFS does not fit a bureaucratic, centralized, hierarchical government system. The FFS is a form of farmer education
rather than a form of extension, which is not “fiscally sustainable” in the short term (Feder et al., 2004).

social arenas) where farmers and researchers can meet on alevel playing field. The inclusion of small farmers’ representatives on such platforms (as in the PRODUCE foundationsin Mexico) may require special effort but may still end up
favoring those with sufficient assets to seize commercial opportunity.
One of the persistent experiences in agricultural development is that, while it can be relatively easy to promote
pro-poor endogenous development, collaborative AKST
partnerships and the mobilization of indigenous knowledgein pilot projects, the prevailing governance conditions makeit difficult to scale up and embed successful pilot experiencesin routine institutional behaviors The difficulty in part lies insocial realities that position power and opportunity as highly
contested zero-sum contests. In 1986, when Java’s rice fields
were devastated by resurgent waves of brown plant hoppers(BPH) resistant to pesticides destroyed the natural enemies
or predators of the BHP, it took considerable time for thegovernment to respond. The problem was a principle called

11/3/08 10:46:18 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 485“asal bapak senang” that may be translated as “as long as
father is happy” (with the sense of “to avoid upsetting yourboss with negative information”). At each level in the hierarchy, the bad news about the devastation in the rice fields
was watered down. It was only when the people from his
own village came to the President directly to ask for helpthat he learned that something was seriously amiss. In ourassessment, policy initiatives that aim at empowerment andendogenous development would be most accepted where
democratic forms of government and a strong civil society
exist; most poor people live in countries where these conditions are not present.
7.5.4 Innovation systems (IS)Innovation is the emergent property of the interaction
among organizations and people who make the complementary contributions required for innovation to take place(Röling and Engel, 1991; Bawden and Packam, 1993). The
configuration of actors is not fixed (Engel and Salomon,1997).
The empirical research of successful and innovative
economies that stimulated the recent interest in innovation
Systems has found that “the essential determinant of innovation appeared to be that the suppliers of new knowledge
were intimately engaged with the users of that knowledge”(Barnett, 2006).
Older traditions of systems thinking and practice (e.g.,
Checkland, 1981; Checkland with Scholes, 1990) drewattention to linkages, relationships, interfaces, conflicts,
convergence, and reciprocity in innovation processes. The
application of such thinking and practice to pro-poor development in agriculture has been stimulated also by the evidence that it appears to be suited to dealing with the kind of
institutional development that The New Institutional Economics (North, 2005) sees as a precursor to growth.
The “innovation systems” approach in recent years has
become an ex-ante policy model (World Bank, 2007) thatdraws on the aforementioned traditions as well as on empirical research on the emergence of Asian economies. Suchmodels are an increasingly important tool for stimulating innovation at the interface of agriculture, sustainable natural
resource management and economic growth, for instancein the context of the EU’s Water Framework Directive (e.g.,
Blackmore et al., 2007) and Land Care and more recently
Catchment Management Authorities in Australia (Campbell, 1994). These experiences also show up the weaknessof the IS approach: absent appropriate enabling policy
frameworks and economic drivers at higher system scales,
successful lower scale innovations can peter out or become

frustrated. The lessons may be linked to the widespreadconfidence that rational choice theory offers an appropriate foundation for policy designed to support innovation;
the empirical evidence suggests to the contrary that, given
the public good character of development and sustainability
goals, policies based on an understanding of the role of collective management in innovation processes may be more
appropriate (Ostrom et al., 1993; Gunderson et al., 1995).
Conditions under which the policy options may be conducive to meeting development and sustainability goals. The
following concrete steps have been proposed to make aninnovation systems approach work in resource-poor environments (see Tripp, 2006; McCann et al., 2006; Van Huisand Houkonnou, 2007):• Public, private and civil society agencies identify a number of priority themes based on national plans, or poverty reduction strategies;• For each theme, rapid appraisal of agricultural knowledge systems (RAAKS) (Engel and Salomon, 1997) orother methods are used to identify configurations ofstakeholders (including researchers, farmer organizations, etc.) that constitute promising innovation systems. Such configurations include actors at the both thenational and the decentralized local government level;• Key representatives of these stakeholders are facilitated
to form a “Community of Practice” (COPs) (Wenger,
1998) at decentralized (e.g., district) and national levels, where the national level has the power and ability tocreate conducive institutional framework conditions forthe concrete activities at the decentralized level. An IS
approach thus requires trained facilitators who operate
within a national mandate that recognizes the importance of IS;• For each COP, diagnostic studies identify concrete opportunities that can be realized through concerted action by the stakeholders;• Each COP submits proposals to a national fund set up
for this purpose;• Each COP is monitored to allow national learning
about the IS approach as a basis for staff training andincreasing management effectiveness.
The IS approach assumes considerable political will and anunderstanding of processes that cannot be captured by hierarchy and market since creating windows of opportunity
for small-scale producers will require new kinds of institutional innovation (Egelyng, 2000).

References
Ackerman, F. 2005. The shrinking gains fromtrade: A critical assessment of Doha Roundprojections. Global Dev. Environ. Inst. Tufts
Univ., Medford MA.
African Group. 2006. Communication to theCommittee on Agriculture. TN/AG/GEN/18.
June 7, 2006. World Trade Organization,
Geneva.

chapter 07.indd 485

Alix-Garcia, J., A. de Janvry, E. Sadoulet
and J.M. Torres. 2005. An assessment of
Mexico’s payment for environmental services
program. Prepared for FAO, Rome. Available
at http://are.berkeley.edu/~sadoulet/papers/
FAOPES-aug05.pdf. Univ. California,
Berkeley.
Allier, J.M. 1997. Ecological economics (energy,

environment and society). Blackwell, Oxford.
Allier, J.M. 2002. The environmentalism of thepoor — A study of ecological conflicts andvaluation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Almekinder, C., and J. Hardon (ed) 2006.
Bringing farmers back into breeding.
Experiences with participatory plant
breeding and challenges for

11/3/08 10:46:18 AM

486 | IAASTD Global Reportinstitutionalisation. Agromisa Special 5,
Agromisa, Wageningen.
Almekinder, C. and N. Louwaars (ed) 1999.
Farmers’ seed production: A new handbook.
ITDG Publ., London.
Alston, J.M., P.P. Pardey, and R.R. Piggott. 2006.
Synthesis of themes and policy issues. p. 361372. In P.P. Pardey (ed) Agricultural R&D
in the developing world: Too little, too late?
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Alston, J.M., and R.J. Venner. 2000. The effectsof the US Plant Variety Protection Act on
wheat genetic improvement. EPTD Disc. Pap.
62. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Anderson, K., and W. Martin. 2005. Agricultural
trade reform and the Doha development
agenda. World Bank, Washington DC.
Anderson, K., W. Martin, and D. van der
Mensbrughhe. 2005. Market and welfare
implications of Doha reform scenarios. In
K. Anderson and W. Martin (ed) Agricultural
trade reform and the Doha development
agenda. World Bank, Washington DC.
Anderson, R.A., E. Levy, and B.M. Morrison.
1991. Rice science and development politics.
Research strategies and IRRI’s technologies
confront Asian diversity (1950-1980).
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Angelsen, A., and D. Kaimowitz. 1999.
Rethinking the causes of deforestation:
Lessons from economic models. World Bank
Res. Observ. 14:73-98
Angulu, J.A , J.A. Nunnery, and H.D. Bair. 2004.
Antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic entericpathogens. Rev. Sci. Tech. 23:485-96.
Antle, J.M., and S. Mooney. 2002. Designingefficient policies for agricultural soil carbon
sequestration. p. 323-336. In J. Kimble (ed)Agriculture practices and policies for carbon
sequestration in soil. CRC Press, Boca RatonFL.
Asamblea Legislativa de la República deCosta Rica. 2006. Ley para el desarrollo,
promoción y fomento de la actividad
agropecuaria orgánica. Expediente No.
16.028. Texto Final Aprobado. Primer
debate: 5 de sept. Segundo debate: 7 de sept
2006.
Baffes, J. 2006. Cotton and the developing
countries: Implications for developing
countries. p. 119-128. In R. Farmer(ed) Trade, Doha and development.
Available at http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/
Resources/239054-1126812419270/9.
Cotton&.pdf. World Bank, Washington DC.
Balasubramanian, A.V., and T.D. Nirmala Devi(ed) 2005. Traditional knowledge systemsof India and Sri Lanka. Centre for Indian
Knowledge Systems, Chennai.
Barboza, D. 2007. Food safety crackdown in
China. The New York Times. June 28.
Barnett, A. 2006. Innovations: Lessons fromthe UK funded crop post-harvest research.
p. 48-50 In RAWOO knowledge makesa difference. Science and the Millennium
Development Goals. Report of a Seminar.

chapter 07.indd 486

The Hague RAWOO Sept. 2006. Publ. 30.
Barry, G., and N. Louwaars. 2005.
Humanitarian licenses: Making proprietary
technology work for the poor. p. 23-34. In
N. Louwaars (ed) Genetic resource policies
and the generation challenge programme.
Available at http://www.generationcp.
org/latestnews/GenResPol_and_GCP.pdf.
Generation Challenge Program, CIMMYT,
Mexico.
Barzel, Y. 1997. Economic analysis of property
rights. 2nd ed. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Barsotti, C. 2004. Level playing field. Cartoon.
Nov. 22. The New Yorker, New York.
Bauer, C.J. 1997. Bringing water markets down
to earth: The political economy of waterrights in Chile, 1976-1995. World Dev.
25:639-656.
Bauer, C.J. 2005. Siren song: Chilean water law
as a model for international reform. RFF
Press, Washington DC.
Bawden, R.J., and R. Packam. 1993. Systems
praxis in the education of the agricultural
systems practitioner. Paper pre­sented at the1991 Ann. Meeting Int. Soc. Systems Sciences.
Östersund, Sweden. Systems Practice 6:7-19.
Berdegué, J.A., F. Balsevich, L. Flores, andT. Reardon. 2005. Central American
supermarkets private standards of quality
and safety in procurement of fresh fruits andvegetables. Food Policy 30(3):254-269.
Bhagwati, J. 2005. In defense of globalization.
Oxford Univ. Press, NY.
Bhattacharya, S.C. 2002. Biomass energy in Asia:
A review of status, technologies and policies
in Asia. Energy Sust. Dev. 6:5-10.
Bigg, T., and D. Satterthwaite (ed) 2005. How
to make poverty history: The central role oflocal organisations in meeting the MDGs.
IIED, London.
Biggs, S.D. 1978. Planning rural technologies in
the context of social structures and reward
systems. J. Agric. Econ. 29:257-274.
Biggs, S.D. 1982. Generating agricultural
technology: Triticale for the Himalayan hills.
Food Policy 7:69‑82.
Biggs, S.D. 1989. Resource-poor farmers’participation in research: a synthesis ofexperiences from nine national agriculturalresearch systems. OFCOR Comparative
Study Pap. 3. ISNAR, The Hague.
Biggs, S.D. 1995. Participatory technology
development: A critique of the new
orthodoxy, p. 1-10. In Two articles
focusing on participatory approaches.
AVOCADO Series 06/95. Olive Organization
Development and Training, Durban.
Biggs, S., and J. Farrington. 1991. Agriculturalresearch and the rural poor. A review ofsocial science analysis. IDRC, Ottawa.
Bisaillon, V., C. Gendron, and M.-F. Turcotte.
2006. Fair trade and the solidarity economy:
The challenges ahead. Ecole des Sciences dela Gestion, Univ. Montreal, Canada.
Blackmore, C., R. Ison, and J. Jiggins (ed)2007. Social learning: An alternative policy
instrument for managing in the context ofEurope’s water. Special Issue. Environ. Sci.
Policy 10(6).
Borgese, E.M. 1999. Global civil society: Lessons
from ocean governance. Futures 31:983-991.
Bouet, A., J.-C. Bureau, Y. Decreux, and S. Jean.
2004. Multilateral agricultural tradeliberalization: The contrasting fortunes ofdeveloping countries in the Doha Round.
Working Pap. No. 2004-18. Centred’Études Prospectives et d’Informations
Internationales, Paris.
Boyce, J.K. 1999. The globalization of market
failure? International trade and sustainableagriculture. Political Economy ResearchInstitute (PERI), Amherst MA.
Brammer, H. 1980. Some innovations do not
wait for experts: A report on applied researchby Bangladesh peasants. CERES 13:24‑28.
Brammer, H. 2000. Agroecological aspects ofagricultural research in Bangladesh. Univ.
Press, Dhaka.
Bromley, D.W. (ed) 1990. Essay on thecommons. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Brouwers, J. 1993. Rural people’s knowledge
and its re­sponse to declining soil fertility. The
Adja case (Benin). Wageningen Papers. Agric.
Univ., Wageningen.
Brückner, G.K. 2004. Working towards
compliance with international standards.
Rev. Sci. Tech. 23:95-107.
Bruns, B.R., C. Ringler, and R.S. Meinzen-Dick(ed) 2005. Water rights reform: Lessons for
institutional design. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Buckwell, A., and S. Armstrong-Brown. 2004.
Changes in farming and future prospects.
Tech. Policy 146(Supp. 2):14-21.
Bunders, J. 2001. Utilization of technologicalresearch for resource-poor farmers: the needfor an interactive innovation process. p. 2737. In Utilization of research for development
cooperation: Linking knowledge production
to development policy and practice. Publ. 21.
Netherlands Dev. Assistance Res. Council(RAWOO), The Hague.
Byrne, D. 2004. The impact of EU sanitaryand phytosanitary legislation on developing
countries. Meeting with World Bank
Executive Directors Washington DC.
SPEECH/04/139. Available at http.//www.eurunion.org/news/speeches/2004/040318db.htm.
CA (Comprehensive Assessment on Water
Management in Agriculture). 2007.
D. Molden (ed) Water for food, water forlife: A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.
CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission). 2002.
Report of the evaluation of the Codex
Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO FoodStandards Work (ALINORM 03/25/3). CAC,
Rome.
Caddy, J.F. 1999. Fisheries management in thetwenty-first century: Will new paradigms
apply? Rev. Fish Biology Fish. 9:1-43.
Callon, M. 1994. Is science a public good? Sci.
Tech. Human Values 19(4):395-424.

11/3/08 10:46:18 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 487

Campos, M.T., and D.C. Nepstad. 2006.
Smallholders, the Amazon’s newconservationists. Conserv. Biol. 20(5):1553-1556.
Campbell, A. 1994. Landcare. Communities
shaping the land and the future. Allan and
Unwin, St Leonards, Australia.
Castillo, G.T. 1998. A social harvest reaped froma promise of springtime: User-responsive
participatory agricultural research in Asia.
Chapter 11, p. 191-214. In N. Röling and
M. Wagemakers (ed) Facilitating sustainableagriculture. Participatory learning andadaptive management of environmental
uncertainty. CUP, Cambridge.
CEC. 2006. Proposal for a directive of Eu­
ropean Parliament and of the Council
establishing a framework for the protectionof soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC.
Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels.
Ceccarelli, S., D.A. Cleveland, and D. Soleri.
2002. Farmers, scientists, and plant breeding.
Integrating knowledge and practice. Univ.
California Press, Santa Barbara.
Chambers, R., and J. Jiggins. 1987. Agriculturalresearch for resource-poor farmers. Part I:
Transfer-of technology and farming systems
research. Part II: A parsimo­nious paradigm.
Agric. Admin. Extension 27:35-52, 109-128.
Chan, K.M.A., M.R. Shaw, D.R. Cameron,
E.C. Underwood, and G.C. Daily. 2006.
Conservation planning for ecosystemservices. PLoS 4(11):e379.
Chauveau, J.-P. 1998. La logique des systèmes
coutumiers. p. 66-75 In P. Lavigne Delville(ed) Quelles politiques foncières pourl’Afrique rurale?, Karthala — Coopérationfrançaise, Paris.
Checkland, P. 1981. Systems thinking, systems
practice. John Wiley, Chicester.
Checkland, P., and J. Scholes. 1990. Soft systems
methodolo­gy in action. John Wiley, Chicester.
Chema, S., E. Gilbert, and J. Roseboom. 2003.
A review of key issues and recent experiencesin reforming agricultural research in Africa.
Res. Rep. 24. ISNAR, The Hague.
Chomitz, K.M. 2007. At loggerheads?
Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction,and environment in the tropical forests.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Chomitz, K.M., G.A.B. Da Fonseca, K. Alger,
D.M. Stoms, M. Honzák, E. Charlotte
Landau et al. 2006. Viable reserve networks
arise from individual landholder responses
to conservation incentives. Ecol. Society
11(2):40. Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art40/.
Clark, G. M., A.F. Kaufmann, E.J. Gangarosa,
and M.A. Thompson.1973. Epidemiologyof an international outbreak of Salmonella
agona. Lancet 2:490-3.
Clayton, C. 2007. USDA eyed for foodinspection. DTN. April 26. Available at
http://www.dtn.com
Cleaver, F. 2001. Institutions, Agency and thelimitations of participatory approaches tochapter 07.indd 487

development. p. 36-55. In B. Cooke andU. Kothari (ed) Participation: The newtyranny. Zed Books, London.
Cochrane, W.W. 1958. Farm prices, mythand reality. Univ. of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis.
Coehoorn, C.A. 1994. The Dutch innovation
centres: Implementation of technology policy
or facilitation of small enterprises. Ph.D.
thesis, RUG, Groningen.
Coelho, S.T. 2005. Biofuels — advantages andtrade barriers. Working Pap. UNCTAD/
DITC/2005/1. UNCTAD, Geneva.
Cohen, J.I., C. Falconi, J. Komen, S. Salazar, and
M. Blakeney, 1999. Managing proprietaryscience and institutional inventories for
agricultural biotechnology. p. 249-260
In J.I. Cohen (ed) Managing agricultural
biotechnology: Addressing research
programme needs and policy implications.
Biotechnol. Agric. Ser. No. 23. CABI,
Wallingford.
Collinson, M. (ed) 2000. History of farming
systems research. FAO and CABI, Wallingford.
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights.
2002. Integrating intellectual property rights
and development policy. Rep. Commission
on Intellectual Property Rights. Available atwww.iprcommission.org
Cooke, B., and U. Kothari (ed) 2001.
Participation: The new tyranny. Zed Books,
London.
Cooperative Bank. 2003. The ethicalconsumerism report. The Cooperative Bank,
London.
Correa, C.M. 2004. Bilateral investment
agreements: Agents of new global standards
for the protection of intellectual property
rights Available at http://www.grain.org/
briefings/?id=186
Cortese, A. 2003. They care about the world(and they shop, too). New York Times,
20 July.
Crul, M. 2003. Eco-design in Central America.
PhD thesis. Technical Univ., Delft.
Crump, J.A., P.M. Griffin, and F.J. Angulo. 2002.
Bacterial contamination of animal feed andits relation to human foodborne illness. Clin.
Infect. Dis. 35:859-65.
De Fraiture, C., X. Cai, U. Amarasinghe,
M. Rosegrant, and D. Molden. 2004.
Does cereal trade save water? The impactof virtual water trade on global wateruse. Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture Research Report
4. IWMI, Colombo.
De Fraiture, C., M. Giordano, and L. Yongsong.
2007a. Biofuels: Implications for agricultural
water use. IWMI, Colombo.
De Fraiture, C., D. Wicheins, J. Rockstrom, andE. Kemp-Benedict. 2007b. Looking ahead
to 2050: Scenarios of alternative investment
approaches. In D. Molden (ed) Water
for food, water for life: A comprehensive
assessment of water management inagriculture. Earthscan, London and IWMI,
Colombo.

Demsetz, H., 1967. Towards a theory ofproperty rights. Am. Econ. Rev. 57(2):347-359.
DFID. 2007. Balancing the cost of food air
miles: Listening to trade and environmental
concerns. September. Available at http://
www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/foodmiles.asp
DG SANCO. 2006. Evaluation of theCommunity Animal Health Policy (CAHP)
1995-2004 and alternatives for the future.
Tender No 2004/ S 243-208899. Available
at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/
strategy/cahp_termsref_en.pdf. European
Commission, Brussels.
DG SANCO. 2007. A new animal healthstrategy for the European Union (20072013) where prevention is better than cure.
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/
diseases/strategy/index_en.htm. European
Commission, Brussels.
Diao, X., and P. Hazell. 2004. Exploring market
opportunities for African smallholders. 2020
Africa Conf. Brief No. 6. IFPRI, Washington
DC.
Diao, X., M. Johnson, S. Gavian, and P. Hazell.
2005. Africa without borders: Building
blocks for regional growth. IFPRI Issue Brief
38, Washington DC. Available at www.ifpri.org/pubs/ib/ib38.pdf.
Díaz-Bonilla, E., X. Diao, and S. Robinson.
2003. Thinking inside the boxes: Protectionin the development and food security boxes
versus investments in the green box. In
E. Diaz-Bonilla et al., WTO negotiations
and agricultural liberalization: The effect ofdeveloped countries’ policies on developing
countries. CABI Publ., UK.
Díaz-Bonilla, E., M. Thomas, and S. Robinson.
2002. On boxes, contents, and users: Food
security and WTO negotiations. TMD Disc.
Pap. 82. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Dicaprio, A., and K.P. Gallagher. 2006. The
shrinking of development space: How big isthe bite? In J. World Investment Trade 7(5).
Diouf, J. 2007. Biofuels should benefit the poor,
not the rich. The Financial Times. 15 Aug.
Dinar, A. (ed) 2000. The political economy ofwater pricing reforms. Oxford Univ. Press,
NY.
Dorward A., J. Kydd, and C. Poulton (ed) 1998.
Smallholder cash crop production undermarket liberalisation: A new institutional
economics perspective. CABI, Wallingford.
Dorward, A., J. Kydd, J. Morrison, and
I. Urey. 2004. A policy agenda for pro-poor
agricultural growth. World Dev. 32(1):73-89.
Drahos, P. 2006. Towards an internationalframework for the protection of traditionalgroup knowledge and practice. UNCTADCommonwealth Sec. Workshop. 2-4 Feb
2006. UNCTAD, Geneva.
Easter, K.W., M.W. Rosegrant, and A. Dinar(ed) 1998. Markets for water: Potential andperformance. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Boston.
EFSA. 2006a. Community summary report on
trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic

11/3/08 10:46:19 AM

488 | IAASTD Global Reportagents and antimicrobial resistance in theEuropean Union in 2005. The European
Food Safety Authority. The EFSA J. 94.
EFSA. 2006b. Opinion of the Scientific Panelon Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) andof the Scientific Panel on Animal Healthand Welfare (AHAW) on Review of theCommunity Summary Report on trends andsources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents andantimicrobial resistance in the European
Union in 2004 (EFSA-Q-2006-050/051).
Egelyng, H. 2000. Managing agricultural
biotechnology for sustainable development:
the case of semi-arid India. Int. J. Biotech.
2(4).
Egelyng, H. 2005. Evolution of capacity forinstitutionalized management of intellectual
property at International Agricultural
Research Centers: A strategic case study.
AgBioForum 8(1):7-17.
Egelyng, H., and H. Høgh-Jensen. 2006. Towards
a global research programme for organic
research and farming. p. 232-342 In
N. Halberg et al. (ed) Global development oforganic agriculture: Challenges and promises.
CABI, Wallingford.
Engel, P.G.H., and M. Salomon. 1997. Facilitating
innovation for development. A RAAKSResource Box. KIT, Amsterdam.
Erbisch, F.H., and A.J. Fischer. 1998.
Transferring intellectual properties. p. 3148. In F.H. Erbisch and F.M. Maredia (ed)Intellectual property rights in agricultural
biotechnology. CABI, Wallingford.
ETC Group. 2005. The potential impacts ofnano-scale technologies on commodity
markets: The implications for commodity
dependent developing countries. November.
ETC and The South Centre, Canada.
Evenson, R.E., P.E. Waggoner and V.W. Ruttan.
1979. Econom­ic benefits from research: An
example from agriculture. Science 205:11011107.
Eyhorn, Frank. 2007. Organic farming forsustainable livelihoods in developing
countries? The case of cotton in India. VDF,
Zürich.
FAO. 1991. Integrated livestock-fish production
systems. In Proc. FAO/IPT Workshop
on Integrated Livestock-Fish Production
Systems. Inst. Advanced Studies, Univ.
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 16-20 Dec. 1991.
FAO. 1998. State of the world’s plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2002. Improved animal health for poverty
reduction and sustainable livelihoods. Animal
Prod. Health Pap. 153. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2003. Biosecurity in food and agriculture.
COAG/2003/9. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2004a. Animal health special report avian
influenza - related issues: Socioeconomic
costs. WATT poultry global e-news. FAO,Rome.
FAO. 2004b. Assessing carbon stocks andmodeling win-win scenarios of carbon
sequestration through land-use changes.
FAO, Rome.

chapter 07.indd 488

FAO. 2005a. State of agricultural commodities
markets 2004. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005b. The state of food and agriculture.
Available at www.fao.org/docrep/008/
a0050e/a0050e10.htm. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005c. Special event on impact ofclimate change, pests and diseases on foodsecurity and poverty reduction: Backgrounddocument. 31st Sess. Committee World Food
Security. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2006a. State of world aquaculture
2006. Fisheries Tech. Pap. No. 500. Rome.
Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/
a0874e/a0874e00.htm. Fisheries Dep., FAO,Rome.
FAO. 2006b. Water desalination for agricultural
applications. In J. Martínez Beltrán and
S. Koo-Oshima (ed) Proc. FAO expert
consultation on water desalination for
agricultural applications. Rome, 26-27 April
2004. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2006c. The state of agriculturalcommodities markets 2006. Rome, FAO,
FAO. 2006d. Capacity building for surveillanceand control of zoonotic diseases. FAO/WHO/OIE Expert and Technical Consultation.
Rome, 14-16 June 2005.
FAO. 2007. Organic agriculture and foodsecurity. Int. Conf. Rome, 3-5 May 2007.
Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/
meeting/012/j9918e.pdf. FAO, Rome.
FAO/IFAD. 2006. Water for food, agriculture
and rural livelihoods. Chapter 7 of the 2nd
UN World Water Development Report:
Water, a shared responsibility. FAO andIFAD, Rome.
FAOSTAT. 2005. Available at http://faostat.fao.org/site/584/default.aspx.
Farina, E.M.M.Q. 1999. Challenges for Brazil’s
food industry in the context of globalizationand Mercosul consolidation. Int. Food
Agribusiness Manage. Rev. 2:315-330.
Faurės, J.-M., M. Svendsen, and H. Turral.
2007. Reinventing irrigation. In
D. Molden (ed) Water for food, water forlife: A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.
Ferris, R.S.B, and P. Robbins. 2003. The coffee
conundrum: Retail prices rising, farmers
income falling. ACIAR Newsl. March.
Finger, J.M. 2004. Introduction and overview. p.
1-36. In J.M. Finger and P. Schuler (ed) Poor
people’s knowledge: Promoting intellectual
property in developing countries. World Bankand Oxford Univ. Press, Washington DC.
Fink, C., and P. Reichenmiller. 2005. Tightening
TRIPs: The intellectual property provisionsof recent U.S. Free Trade Agreements. Trade
Note No. 20. World Bank, Washington DC.
Fischer, K., and D. Byerlee. 2002. Managing
intellectual property and income generationin public research organizations. p. 227-244.
In D. Byerlee and R. Echeverría. Agriculturalresearch policy in an era of privatization.
CABI, Oxon.
Flint, J.A., Y.T. Van Duynhoven, F.J. Angulo,

S.M. DeLong, P. Braun, M. Kirk et al.
2005. Estimating the burden of acutegastroenteritis, foodborne disease andpathogens commonly transmitted by food:An international review. Clinical Infect. Dis.
41:698-704.
FLO. 2007. Shaping global partnerships.
Annual Report 2006/7. Fairtrade Labelling
Organizations Int. (FLO).
FLO. 2008. About FLO. Available at http://
www.fairtrade.net/sites/aboutflo. Fairtrade
Labelling Organizations Int. (FLO).
Fowler, C., M. Smale, and S. Gaiji. 2001.
Unequal exchange? Recent transfers ofagricultural resources. Dev. Policy Rev.
19(2):181-204.
Friends of the UNEO. 2007. Presidency overview
report. Agadir, 12-13 April. Available atwww.reformtheun.org/index.php?module=up
loads&func=download&fileId=2277.
Fuller, S. 1993. Knowledge as product andproperty. p.157-190. In N. Stehr and
R. Ericson (ed) The culture and power ofknowledge. Walter de Guyter, Berlin.
Funtowicz, S.O., and J.R. Ravetz 1993. Science forthe post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739-755.
Garrett, K.A., S.P. Dendy, E.E. Frank, M.N.
Rouse, and S.E. Travers. 2006. Climatechange effects on plant disease: Genomes toecosystems. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 44:
489-509.
GEF. 2006. Evaluation of GEF support forbiosafety. Global Environment Facility(GEF), Washington DC.
George, C., and C. Kirkpatrick. 2003.
Sustainability impact assessment of world
trade negotiations: Current practice andlessons for further development. Impact
Assessment Research Center, Inst. Dev. Policy
and Management (IDPM), Univ. Manchester.
UK.
Gervais, Daniel. 2005. Traditional knowledge
and intellectual property: A TRIPS
compatible approach. Michigan State Law
Rev. Spring.
Ghosh, D., A.D. Sagar, and V.V.N. Kishore.
2006. Scaling up biomass gasifier use: An
application-specific approach. Energy Policy
34:1566-1582.
Gilbert, N., and K. Troitzsch. 1999. Simulation forthe social scientist. Open U. P., Buckingham.
Gilbert, M., P. Chaitaweesub, T.
Parakamawongsa, S. Premashthira,T. Tiensin, W. Kalpravidh et al. 2006. Freegrazing ducks and highly pathogenic avian
influenza, Thailand. Emerg. Infect. Dis.
12(2):227-34.
Goldman, M. 2004. Eco-governmentality andother transnational practices of a ‘green’
World Bank. p. 166-192. In R. Peet and
M. Watts (ed) Liberation Ecology. Routledge,
London and New York.
Gunderson, L.H., C.S. Hollings and S. Light (ed)1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of
ecosystems and institutions. Colombia Press,
NY.
Hahn, R.W., S.M. Olmstead, and R.N. Stavins.

11/3/08 10:46:19 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 489

2003. Environmental regulation during the
1990s: A retrospective analysis. Harvard
Environ. Law Rev. 27:377-415.
Halberg, N., H. Alroe, M. Knudsen, and
E. Kristensen (ed) 2006. Global developmentof organic agriculture: Challenges andpromises. CABI, UK.
Hald, T, A. Wingstrand, T. Brondsted, andD.M. Wong. 2006. Human health impactof salmonella contamination in imported
soybean products: A semiquantitative risk
assessment. Foodborne Pathogens Dis. 3:422431.
Hall, A.J., V. Rasheed Suliaman V., N.G. Clark,
and B. Yoganand. 2003. From measuring
impact to learning institutional lessons: An
innovation systems perspective on improving
the management of international agriculturalresearch. Agric. Syst. 78:213-241.
Hatanaka, M., C. Bain, and L. Busch. 2005.
Third-party certification in the global
agrifood system. Food Policy 30:354-369.
Haverkort, A.W., K. Van’t Hooft, and
W. Hiemstra (ed) 2002. Ancient roots, newshoots, endogenous development in practice.
Zed Books, London.
Heal, G.M., G. Walker, S. Levine. 2004. Genetic
diversity and interdependent crop choices
in agriculture. Resourc. Energy Econ.
26(2):175-184.
Heller, M., and R. Eisenberg, 1998. Can patents
deter innovation? The anticommons inbiomedical research. Science 280:698-701.
Herdt, R.W., and J.W. Mellor. 1964. The
contrasting response of rice to nitrogen: India
and the United States. J. Farm Econ. 46:
150-160.
Hobart, M. (ed) 1994. An anthropologicalcritique of development: The growth ofignorance. Routledge, London.
Hounkonnou, D., D. Kossou, T.W. Kuyper,
C. Leeuwis, P. Richards, N. Röling etal. 2006. Convergence of sciences: The
management of agricultural research forsmall-scale farmers in Benin and Ghana.
NJAS Wageningen J. Life Sci. 53(3-4):
343-367.
Hsiao, T.C., P. Steduto, and E. Fereres. 2007.
A systematic and quantitative approach to
improve water use efficiency in agriculture.
Irrig. Sci. 25:209-231.
IADB. 2006. The poverty impact of tradeintegration. June 27. Available at www.iadb.org. IADB, Washington DC.
IEA. 2004. Biofuels for transport. An
international perspective. IEA, Paris.
IEA. 2006. World energy outlook 2006. IEA,
Paris.
IIED. 2006. Protecting community rights overtraditional knowledge: Implications ofcustomary laws and practices. Nov. 2006.
Int. Inst. Environ. Dev. (IIED), London.
Inco, M., and J. Nash. 2004. Agriculture andthe WTO: Creating a trading system fordevelopment. Oxford Univ. Press and World
Bank, Washington DC.
Ingo, G. 2004. El derecho local a los recursos

chapter 07.indd 489

hídricos y la gestión ambiental regional deChile: estudios de caso. In F. Peña (ed) Los
pueblos indígenas y el agua: Desfíos de siglo
XXI. El Colegio de San Luis, Water Law andIndigenous Rights (WALIR), Mexican Sec.
Environ. (SEMARNAT), and Mexican Inst.
Water Tech. (IMTA), San Luis de Potosí,
Mexico.
ITCSD. 2006. Fisheries. ITCSD Dev. Series. Int.
Trade Sustain. Dev., Geneva.
IWMI. 2006. Recycling realities: Managing
health risks to make wastewater an asset.
Water Policy Briefing 17. IWMI, Colombo.
Izac, A-M. 1997. Developing policies for soil
carbon management in tropical regions.
Geoderma 79:261-276.
Jaffee, S.M. 2005. Food safety and agricultural
health standards and developing country
exports: Rethinking the impacts and policy
agenda. Trade Note 25. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Jaramillo, C.F., and D. Lederman. 2005.
DR-CAFTA: Challenges and opportunities
for Central America. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Jones, A. 2001. Eating oil — Food in a changing
climate. Sustain. Elm Farm Res. Centre,
London.
Joyner, C.C. 2000. The international ocean
regime at the new millennium: A surveyof the contemporary legal orders. Ocean
Coastal Manage. 43:163-203.
Karsenty, A. 2003. Différentes formes de droit
dans l’accès et la gestion des ressources en
Afrique et à Madagascar. p. 263-283. In
E. Rodary et al. (ed) Conservation de lanature et développement: l’intégration
impossible. Karthala, GRET, Paris.
Kartha, S., G. Leach, and S.C. Rajan. 2005.
Advancing bioenergy for sustainable
development. Guidelines for policymakers
and investors. ESMAP, World Bank,
Washington DC.
Kaul, I., and P. Conceição. 2006. The changes
underway: Financing global challenges
through international cooperation behindand beyond borders. In I. Kaul and
P. Conceição (ed) The new public finance:
Responding to global challenges. UNDP/
Oxford University Press, London.
Kaul, I., I. Grunberg, and M.A. Stern (ed)1999. Global public goods. International
Cooperation in the 21st Century. Oxford
Univ. Press, Oxford.
Keller, R.P., D.M. Lodge, and D.C. Finnoff.
2007. Risk assessment for invasive species
produces net bioeconomic benefits. PNAS
104:202-207.
Key, N., and D. Runsten. 1999. Contract
farming, smallholders, and rural developmentin Latin America: The organization ofagroprocessing firms and the scale ofoutgrower production. World Dev. 27:
381-402.
Kibblewhite, M.G., K. Ritz, and R.S. Swift.
2007. Soil health in agricultural systems Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B

Kishore, V.V.N., P.M. Bhandari, and P. Gupta.
2004. Biomass energy technologies forrural infrastructure and village power Opportunities and challenges in the context
of global climate change concerns. Energy
Policy 32:801-810.
Kline, S., and N. Rosenberg. 1986. An overview
of innova­tion. p. 275-306. In R. Landau and
N. Rosenberg (ed) The positive sum strategy.
Harnessing technology for economic growth.
National Acad. Press, Washington DC.
Klink, C., and R. Machado.2005. Conservationof Brazilian cerrado. Conserv. Biol. 19:
707-713.
Kojima, M., D. Mitchell, and W. Ward. 2007.
Considering biofuel trade policies. ESMAP,
World Bank, Washington DC.
Koning, N., M. Calo, and R. Jongeneel. 2004.
Fair trade in tropical crops is possible:
International commodity agreements
revisited. Wageningen UR North-South
Centre, The Netherlands.
Koning, N., and P. Jongeneel. 2006. Foodsovereignty and export crops, could ECOWAS
create an OPEC for sustainable cocoa? Paper
for the Forum on Food Sovereignty. Niamey,
Sep 2006.
Kopolow, D. 2006. Government support forethanol and biodiesel in the United States[Online]. Available at www.globalsubsidies.
org. IISD Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI).
Krier, J.M. 2005. Fair trade in Europe 2005:
Facts and figures on fair trade. In
P. Kristiansen, et al. (ed) Organic agriculture:
A global perspective. CABI, UK.
Kroger, C. 2004. Fair trade product elbows
organic domain. The Packer, May 3, 2004.
Kulibaba, N.P. 1997. Good governance in sheep’s
clothing: Implementing the action plan forregional facilitation of the livestock trade inWest Africa’s central corridor. Implementing
Policy Change Project, Case Study 3. USAID,
Washington DC.
Kumar, P. 2005. Market for ecosystem services.
Int. Inst. Sustain. Dev. (IISD). Winnipeg,
Canada.
Kyprianou, M. 2006. Animal welfare — a partof EU food chain policy. Int. Conf. organizedby the Austrian Presidency Brussels, Eur.
Commissioner for Health and Consumer
Prot. Ref., SPEECH/06/211.
Lahidji, R., W. Michalski, and B. Stevens. 1998.
The future of food: An overview of trends
and key issues. The future of food: Longterm prospects for the agrofood sector.
OECD, Washington DC
Lal, R., N. Uphoff, B.A. Stewart, D.O. Hansen.
2005. Soil carbon depletion and theimpending food crisis. CRC Press, Baton
Rouge, Fl.
Lappe, F.M., J. Collins, and P. Rosset. 1998.
World hunger: Twelve myths. Food First andGrove Press, NY.
Larcher Carvalho, A. 2005. Cost of agrifood
safety and SPS compliance: Mozambique,Tanzania and Guinea tropical fruits. UN
Conf. Trade Development, Geneva.

11/3/08 10:46:20 AM

490 | IAASTD Global Report

Lavigne Delville, P. 1998. L’environnement,
dynamiques sociales et interventions
externes, construire et gérer l’interface entre
acteurs. p. 381-394. In G. Rossi et al. (ed)Sociétés rurales et environnement. Festion
des ressources et dynamiques locales au Sud.
Karthala, Paris.
Le Roy, E. 1996. La théorie des maîtrises
foncières. p. 59-76. In E. Le Roy et al. (ed)La sécurisation foncière en Afrique. Pour une
gestion viable des ressources renouvelables.
Karthala, Paris.
Leeuwis, C., and R. Pyburn (ed) 2002.
Wheelbarrows full of frogs. Social learningin natural resource management. Koninklijke
Van Gorcum, Assen.
Leforban, Y., and G. Gerbier. 2002. Review ofthe status of foot and mouth disease andapproach to control/eradication in Europe
and Central Asia. Rev. Sci. Tech. 21:477-92.
Lines, T. 2006. Market power, price formationand primary commodities. November. South
Centre, Geneva.
Little, P.D., and M. Watts. 1994. Living undercontract: Contract farming and agrariantransformation in sub-Saharan Africa. Univ.
Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Lokuge B., and K. Lokuge. 2005. Avian
Influenza, world food trade and WTO Rules:
The economics of transboundary disease
control. Available at http://cgkd.anu.edu.
au/menus/workingpapers.php. Regulatory
Institutions Network, The Australian Nat.
Univ., Canberra.
Louwaars, N. 2006. Ethics watch: Controls overplant genetic resources — a double-edged
sword. Nature Rev. Genetics 7:241.
Louwaars, N., R. Tripp, and D. Eaton. 2006.
Public research in plant breeding andintellectual property rights: A call for
new institutional policies. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Lundy, M. C.F. Ostertag, M.V. Gottret, R. Best,and S. Ferris. 2005. A territorial based
approach to agro-enterprise development.
CIAT, Colombia.
Manderson, A.K., A.D. Mackay, andA.P. Palmer. 2007. Environmental whole
farm management plans: Their character,diversity, and use as agri-environmental
indicators in New Zealand. J. Environ.
Manage. 82(3):319-331.
Mangisoni, J. 2006. Impact of treadle pumpirrigation technology on smallholder poverty
and food security in Malawi: A case studyof Blantyre and Mchinji Districts. IWMI,
Pretoria.
Maredia, K.M., and F.H. Erbisch. 1999.
Capacity building in intellectual property
management in agricultural biotechnology.
p. 49-62 In F.H. Erbisch and F.M.
Maredia (ed) Intellectual property rights
in agricultural biotechnology. CABI,
Wallingford.
Mayrand, K. and Paquin, M. 2004. Payments
for environmental services: A survey andassessment of current schemes. Unisféra

chapter 07.indd 490

Int. Center Comm. Environ. Coop. North
America, Montreal.
McCalla, A.F., and J. Nash (ed) 2007. Reforming
agricultural trade for developing countries:
Issues, challenges, and structure of thevolume. Vol. 2. World Bank, Washington
DC.
McCann, J., T. Dalton, and M. Mekuria. 2006.
Breeding Africa’s new smallholder maize
paradigm. Int. J. Agric. Sustainability (IJAS)
4(2):99-107.
McLeod, K. 2001. Owning culture: Authorship,ownership and intellectual property law. In
T. Miller (ed) Popular culture and everyday
life series. Peter Lang Publ.
Mead, P.S., L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, L.F. McCaig,
J.S. Bresee, and C. Shapiro. 1999. Foodrelated illness and death in the United States.
Emerg. Infect. Dis. 5:607-625.
Merrey, D.J., R. Meinzen-Dick, P.P. Mollinga,
and E. Karar. 2007. Policy and intuitional
reform: the art of the possible. In
D. Molden (ed) Water for food, water forlife: A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.
Merrey, D. J., R. Namara, and M. de Lange.
2006. Agricultural water management
technologies for small scale farmers
in Southern Africa: An inventory andassessment of experiences, good practices,and costs. IWMI, Pretoria.
Millar, D. 2005. Endogenous development: Some
issues of concern. Ghana J. Dev. Studies 2(1):92-109.
Mokaila, P. 2005. Bovine Brucellosis eradication
scheme in South Africa, is the battle wonor not? Understanding veterinary policy
processes. Institutional and Policy Support
Team (IPST)/AU-IBAR. Case study prepared
for the workshop on Understanding
Veterinary Policy Processes. Aberdare,
Kenya. 31 Jan. - 3 Feb. 2005. Institutionaland Policy Support Team (IPST)/AU-IBAR,
Nairobi.
Molle, F., and J. Berkoff. 2005. Cities versus
agriculture: Revisiting intersectoral watertransfers, potential gains, and conflicts.
Comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Res. Rep. 10.
IWMI, Colombo.
Molle, F., and J. Berkoff (ed) 2007. Irrigationwater pricing policy in context: Exploring
the gap between theory and practice. CABI,
Wallingford and IWMI, Colombo.
Molle, F., P. Wester, and P. Hirsch. 2007. Riverbasin development and management. In
D. Molden (ed) Water for food, water forlife: A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.
Morgan, N., and A. Prakash. 2006. International
livestock markets and the impact of animal
disease. Rev. Sci. Technol. Off. Int. Epiz.
25:517-528.
Morris, D. 2007. Energizing rural America:
Local ownership of renewable energy

production is the key. January. Center Am.
Progress, Washington DC.
Morrisey, O. 2007. What types of WTOcompatible trade policies are appropriate fordifferent stages of development? p. 58-78.
In J. Morrison and A. Sarris (ed) WTO rules
for agriculture compatible with development.
FAO, Rome.
Morrison, J., and A. Sarris. 2007. Determining
the appropriate level of import protection
consistent with agriculture led developmentin the advancement of poverty reduction
and improved food security. p. 14-57. In
J. Morrison and A. Sarris (eds.) WTO rules
for agriculture compatible with development.
FAO, Rome.
Mukherjee, S., and V. Kathuria. 2006. Is
economic growth sustainable? Environmental
quality of Indian States after 1991. Int. J.
Sustain. Dev. 9:38-60.
Murphy, S. 2006. Concentrated market power
and agricultural trade. Ecofair Trade
Dialogue Disc. Pap. Wuppertal Inst. andHeinrich Boëll Foundation, Berlin.
Myhr, A.I., and R.A. Dalmo. 2005. Introduction ofgenetic engineering in aquaculture: Ecologicaland ethical implications for science andgovernance. Aquaculture 250 (3-4):542-554.
Nadal, A., and T.A. Wise. 2004. The
environmental costs of agricultural tradeliberalization: Mexico-U.S. maize tradeunder NAFTA. Disc. Pap. DP04. Available
at http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/
DP04NadalWiseJuly04.pdf. Working Groupon Dev. Environ in Americas.
Najam, A., D. Runnalls, and M. Halle. 2007.
Environment and globalization: Fivepropositions. Int. Inst. Sustain. Dev (IISD),
Winnipeg, Canada.
Namara, R., B. Upadhyay, and R.K. Nagar. 2005.
Adoption and impacts of microirrigation
technologies from selected localities ofMaharashtra and Gujarat States of India.
IWMI Res. Rep. 93. IWMI, Colombo.
Nash, J., and A.F. McCalla. 2007. Agricultural
trade reform and developing countries:
Issues, challenges, and structure of thevolume. In A.F. McCalla and John Nash (ed)Reforming agricultural trade for developing
countries. The World Bank, Washington DC.
Ng, F., B. Hoekman, and M. Olarreaga. 2007.
The impact of agricultural support policies
on developing countries. In A. McCallaand J. Nash. (ed) Reforming agricultural
trade for developing countries. World Bank,
Washington DC.
North, D. 2005. Understanding the process of
economic change. Princeton Univ. Press, NJ.
O’Connell, D., B. Keating, and M. Glover. 2005.
Sustainability guide for bioenergy: A scoping
study. RIRDC/L&WA/FWPRDC/MDBC
Joint Venture Agrofor. Prog. RIRDC Publ.
05/190. Gov. Australia, Kingston.
OIE (World Organization for Animal Health).
2004. Veterinary institutions in thedeveloping world: Current status and futureneeds. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 23 (1).

11/3/08 10:46:20 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 491

OIE (World Organization for Animal Health).
2005a. Animal welfare: Global issues, trends
and challenges. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz.
24(2).
OIE (World Organization for Animal Health).
2006. Report of the fifth meeting of the OIE
working group on animal production foodsafety. Appendix XXXVIII. Cooperation
between the Codex Alimentarius Commission
and the OIE on food safety throughout the
food chain. OIE, Paris.
Ong’wen, O., and S. Wright. Small farmers
and the future of sustainable agriculture.
2007. EcoFar Trade Dialogue Disc. Pap.
No. 7.
Ostrom, E. 1992. Governing the commons. The
evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Ostrom, E., L. Schroeder, and S. Wynne. 1993.
Institutional incentives and sustainable
development. infrastructural policies inperspective. Westview Press, Boulder.
Pagiola, S., P. Agostini, J. Gobbi, C. De Haan,
M. Ibrahim, E. Murguietio et al. 2002.
Paying for biodiversity conservation services
in agricultural landscapes. Available at ftp://
ftp.fao.org/docrep/nonfao/lead/x6154e/x6154e00.pdf.
Panayotou, T. 2000. Economic growth and theenvironment. Center for Int. Dev. Harvard
Univ., Cambridge MA.
Panagariya, A. 2004. Subsidies and tradebarriers: Alternative perspective. In
B. Lomborg (ed) Global crises, global
solutions. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
Park, W., and D.C. Lippoldt. 2004. International
licensing and the strengthening of intellectual
property rights in developing countries.
Trade Policy Working Pap. 10, OECD, Paris.
Pay, E. 2005. Overview of the sanitary andphytosanitary measures in quad countries on
tropical fruits and vegetables imported fromdeveloping countries. Trade-Related Agenda,
Development and Equity (TRADE) Res. Pap.
No.1:45-46. South Centre, Geneva.
Peres, C. A., and J. Terborgh. 1995. Amazonian
nature reserves: An analysis of the
defensibility status of existing conservation
units and design criteria for the future.
Conserv. Biol. 9:34-46.
Perry, B., A. Nin Pratta, K. Sones, andC. Stevens. 2005. An appropriate private
level of risk: Balancing the need for safe
livestock products with fair market access forthe poor. Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative,
Working Pap. No 23. FAO, Rome.
Plym-Forshell, L., and M. Wierup. 2006.
Salmonella contamination - a significant
challenge to the global marketing of animal
food products. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz.
25: 541-554.
Polaski, S. 2006. Winners and losers: Impact of
the Doha Round on developing countries.
Carnegie Endowment Rep. 2006. Carnegie
Endowment, Washington DC.
Pontius, J., R. Dilts, and A. Bartlett. 2002. From
farmer field schools to community IPM. Tenchapter 07.indd 491

years of IPM training in Asia. FAO, Regional
Off. Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
Pray, C., 1991. Plant breeder’s rights legislation,
enforcement and RandD: lessons fordeveloping countries. In G.H. Peters and
B.F. Stanton (ed) Sustainable agriculturaldevelopment: the role of international
cooperation. Proc. 21st Int. Conf. Agric.
Economists. Dartmouth Publ., Aldershot UK.
Pretty, J. 1994. Alternative systems of inquiry forsus­tainable agriculture. IDS Bull. 25(2):37-49.
Priyadarshi, S. 2002. Reforming global tradein agriculture: A developing country
perspective. Trade environment anddevelopment. Carnegie Endowment Int.
Peace, Washington DC.
Qadir, M., D. Wichelns, L. Raschid-Sally,
P.S. Minhas, P. Drechsel, A. Bahri, and
P. McCornick. 2007. Agricultural use of
marginal-quality water- opportunities
and challenges. In D. Molden (ed) Water
for food, water for life: A comprehensive
assessment of water management inagriculture. Earthscan, London and IWMI,
Colombo.
Raynolds, L.T., D. Murray, and A. Heller. 2007.
Regulating sustainability in the coffee sector:
A comparative analysis of environmental andsocial certification initiatives. Agric. Human
Values 24:147-163.
Reardon, T., and C.H. Barrett. 2000.
Agroindustrialization and international
development: An overview of issues, patterns
and determinants. Agric. Econ. 23:195-205.
Reij, C., I. Scoones, and C. Toulmin (ed) 1996.
Sustaining the soil. Indigenous soil and water
conservation in Africa. Earthscan. London.
Reijnders, L. 2006. Conditions for thesustainability of biomass based fuel use.
Energy Policy 33:863-876.
Röling, N., and P. Engel (1991). The developmentof the concept of Agricultural Knowledge andInformation Systems (AKIS): Implications forextension. p. 125-139. In W. Rivera and
D. Gustafson (ed) Agricultural extension:
World­wide institu­tional evolution and forces
for change. Elsevier Science Publishers,
Amster­dam.
ROPPA. 2006. Appèl de Niamey pour lasoveraineté alimentaire de l’Afrique de‘lOuest. ROPPA, Niamey.
Rosa, H., D. Barry, S. Kandel, and L. Dimas.
2004. Compensation for environmental
services and rural communities: Lessons fromthe Americas. Polit. Econ. Res. Inst., Univ.
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rose, J.B., P.R. Epstein, E.K. Lipp, B.H. Sherman,
S.M. Bernard, and J.A. Patz. 2001. Climate
variability and change in the United States:
Potential impacts on water and foodborne
diseases caused by microbiologic agents.
Environ. Health Perspect. 109(Suppl.2):
211-220.
Rosenberg, N., and R.R. Nelson. 1994.
American universities and technical advancein industry. Res. Policy 23:323-348.
Roosevelt, M. 2004. The coffee clash: Many

firms see a marketing advantage in selling
politically correct beans: Will Starbucks get
hurt? Time, 8 Mar 2004.
Rubenstein, K., P. Heisey, R. Shoemaker,
J. Sullivan, and G. Frisvold. 2005. Crop
genetic resources: An economic appraisal.
Econ. Inform. Bull. No. 2. ERS, USDA,
Washington DC.
Ryan, B., and N. Gross. 1943. The diffusion of
hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities.
Rural Soc. 8:15-24.
Sabirovic, M., P. Grimely, and F. Landeg. 2005.
Foot and mouth disease in Brazil (EUExporting Area). DEFRA, London.
Safrin, S., 2004. Hyperownership in a time of
biotechnological promise. The international
conflict to control the building blocks of life.
Am. J. Int. Law 98: 641-685
Samad, M., and D.L. Vermillion. 1999.
Assessment of the impact of participatory
irrigation management in Sri Lanka: Partial
reforms, partial benefits. IWMI Res. Rep. 34.
IWMI, Colombo.
Sandberg, A. 1994. Gestion des ressources
naturelles et droits de propriété dans legrand nord norvégien: éléments pour une
analyse comparative. Natures Sci. Soc.
2(4):323-333.
Schlager, E., and E. Ostrom. 1992. Property
rights regimes and natural resources: A
conceptual analysis. Land Econ. 68:249-262.
Schlundt, J., H. Toyofuku, J. Jansen, and
S.A. Herbst. 2004. Emerging food-borne
zoonoses. Rev. Sci. Tech. 23:513-33.
Schreiner, B., and B. van Koppen. 2001.
From bucket to basin: poverty, gender,
and integrated water management inSouth Africa. In C.L. Abernethy et al. (ed)Intersectoral management of river basins.
Proc. int. workshop on integrated water
management in water stressed river basins
in developing countries. Strategies forpoverty alleviation and agricultural growth.
IWMI, German Foundation of International
Development, Colombo.
Scoones, I., and W. Wolmer. 2006. Livestock,disease, trade and markets: Policy choices forthe livestock sector in Africa. IDS Working
Pap. 269:1-53.
Shah, T., M. Alam, D. Kumar, R.K. Nagar, and
M. Singh. 2000. Pedaling out of poverty:
Social impacts of a manual irrigation
technology in South Asia. IWMI Res. Rep.
45. IWMI, Colombo.
Shah, T., I. Makin, and R. Sakthivadivel. 2005.
Limits to Leapfrogging: Issues in transposing
successful river basin management
institutions in the developing world. In
M. Svendsen (ed) Irrigation and river basin
management: Options for governance andinstitutions. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Shah, T., J. Burke, and K. Villholth. 2007.
Groundwater: A global assessment of scaleand significance. In Water for Food, water
for life: A comprehensive assessment ofwater management in agriculture. Earthscan,
London and IWMI, Colombo.

11/3/08 10:46:21 AM

492 | IAASTD Global Report

Shand, H. 2005. Oligopoly, Inc. ETC Group,
Ottawa.
Simeon, M. 2006. Sanitary and phytosanitary
measures and food safety: Challenges andopportunities for developing countries. Rev.
Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 25:701-712.
Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary,
H. Janzen, P. Kumar et al. 2007. Agriculture.
In B. Metz et al. (ed) Climate change 2007:
Mitigation. Contribution of Working GroupIII to the Fourth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge Univ. Press, UK.
SNV and CEDELO. 2004. La décentralisation au
Mali: du discours à la practique. Bull. 358.
KIT, Amsterdam.
Starmer, E., A. Witteman and T.A. Wise. 2006.
Feeding the factory farm: Implicit subsidies
to the broiler chicken industry. Working Pap.
06-03. Available at http://www.ase.tufts.edu/
gdae/Pubs/wp/06-03BroilerGains.pdf. Global
Dev. Environ. Inst., Tufts Univ., Medford
MA.
Stassen, H. 1995. Small-scale biomass gasifiers
for heat and power. A global review. ESMAP,
World Bank, Washington DC.
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar,
V. Castel, M. Rosale, and C. de Haan. 2006.
Livestock`s long shadow: Environmental
issues and options. FAO, Rome.
Stiglitz, J.E. 2006. Making globalization work.
W.W. Norton, NY.
Stiglitz, J.E., and A. Charlton. 2005. Fair trade
for all. Oxford Univ. Press, NY.
Swift, M.J., A.M. Izac, and M. van Noordwijk.
2004. Biodiversity and ecosystem services
in agricultural landscapes: Are we asking
the right questions? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
104(1):113-134.
Taylor L.H., S.M. Latham and M.E. Woolhouse.
2001. Risk factors for human disease
emergence. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol.
Sci. 356(1411):983-989.
Thomson, G.R., B.D. Perry, A. Catley,
T.J. Leyland, M.L. Penrith, andA.I. Donaldson. 2006. Certification forregional and international trade in livestock
commodities: The need to balance credibility
and enterprise. Vet. Rec.159:53-7.
Thomson, G.R., E.N. Tambi, S.K. Hargreaves,
T.J. Leyland, A.P. Catley, G.G. van’t
Klooster et al. 2004. International tradein livestock and livestock products: The
need for a commodity-based approach. Vet.
Rec.155:429-33.
Toulmin, C. 2005. Foreword In T. Bigg and
D. Satterthwaite (ed) How to make poverty
history: The central role of local organisations
in meeting the MDGs. IIED, London.
Trawick, P. 2005. Going with the flow: The
state of contemporary studies of water
management in Latin America. Latin
American Res. Rev. 40:443-456.
Tripp, R. 2006. Self-sufficient agriculture:
Labour and knowledge in small-scale
farming. Earthscan, London.
Troy, A., and M.A. Wilson. 2006. Mapping

chapter 07.indd 492

ecosystem services: Practical challenges
and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer. Ecol. Econ. 60:435-449.
UNCSD. 2005. Sanitation: Policy options andpossible actions to expedite implementation.
Report of the Secretary-General. 13th Sess.
UN Comm. Sustainable Development. 11-22
April 2005.
UNCTAD 2005. Commodity policies fordevelopment: A new framework for thefight against poverty. UN Comm. Tradeand Development. T/B/COM 1/75. Dec 8.
UNCTAD, Geneva.
UNCTAD. 2006. The emerging biofuels
market: Regulatory, trade and development
implications. UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2006/4.
UN Conf. Trade and Development, Geneva.
UN Energy. 2007. Sustainable bioenergy: A
framework for decision makers. April.
Available at http://esa.un.org/un-energy/pdf/
susdev.Biofuels.FAO.pdf. United Nations
Energy, Rome.
UNIDO. 2006. Water and industry. Chapter 8of the 2nd UN World Water Development
Report: Water, a shared responsibility. UN
Industrial Dev. Org.
UPOV. 2005. Report on the impact of plantvariety protection. Union for the Protectionof New Varieties of Plants (UNPOV),
Geneva.
USDA. 2003. 21st century agriculture: A criticalrole for science and technology. USDA,
Washington DC.
USDA. 2006. Bio-fuels: Alternative future
for agriculture 2006. GAIN Rep.
CH6049. Available at www.fas.usda.gov/
gainfiles/200608/146208611.pdf. Foreign
Agric. Service, USDA, Washington DC.
USDA. 2007. Foodborne illness cost calculator.
USDA, Washington DC. Available at http://
www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodborneillness
Valle, P.S., E. Skjerve, S.W. Martin, R.B. Larssen,
O. Osteras, and O. Nyberg. 2005. Ten yearsof bovine virus diarrhoea virus (BVDV)
control in Norway: A cost-benefit analysis.
Prev. Vet. Med. 72:189-207.
Van de Fliert, E. 1993. Integrated pest
management. Farmer field schools generate
sustainable practices: A case study in Central
Java evaluating IPM Training. WU Papers
93-3. Agri­cultural University, Wageningen.
Van den Berg, H. 2003. IPM farmer field schools:
A synthesis of impact evaluations. Global
IPM Facility, FAO, Rome.
Van den Berg, H., and J. Jiggins. 2007. Investingin farmers: The impact of farmer field schools
in relation to integrated pest management.
World Dev. 35(4):663-686.
Van Huis, A., and D. Hounkonnou (ed)2007. CoS-SIS: Convergence of sciences:Strengthening innovation systems in Benin,
Burkina Faso, Ghana and Mali. 5th vers.,
June 2007. Research Proposal submitted to
DGIS and Royal Netherlands Embassies.
WUR, Entomology, Wageningen.
Van Huis, A., J. Jiggins, D. Kossou, C. Leeuwis,
N. Röling, O. Sakyi-Dawson et al. 2007. Can

convergence of agricultural sciences support
innovation by resource-poor farmers in
Africa? The cases of Benin and Ghana. Int. J.
Agric. Sustain. 5:91-108.
Vanlauwe, B., P. Tittonell, and J. Mukalama.
2006. Within-farm soil fertility gradientsaffect response of maize to fertilizer
applications in western Kenya. Nutr. Cycl.
Agroecosyst. 76:171-182.
Vermillion, D.L. 1997. Impacts of irrigation
management transfer: A review of theevidence. IWMI Res. Rep. 11. IWMI,
Colombo.
Vermillion, D.L., and C. Garcés-Restrepo. 1998.
Impacts of Colombia’s current irrigation
management transfer program. IWMI Res.
Rep. 25. IWMI, Colombo.
Vermillion, D.L., M. Samad, S. Pusposutardjo,
S.S. Arif, and S. Rochdyanto. 2000.
An assessment of small-scale irrigation
management turnover program in Indonesia.
IWMI Res. Rep. 38. IWMI, Colombo.
Vermillion, D.L., and J.A. Sagardoy. 1999.
Transfer of irrigation management services,
guidelines. FAO Irrig. Drainage Pap. 58.
FAO, Rome.
Visser, C. 2004. Making intellectual property
laws work for traditional knowledge. p. 207240. In J.M. Finger and P. Schuler (ed) Poor
people’s knowledge: Promoting intellectual
property in developing countries. Oxford
Univ. Press, UK.
Vorley, B., and T. Fox. 2004. Global foodchains — constraints and opportunities
for smallholders. Paper for OECD DAC
POVNET. Agriculture and pro-poor growthteam workshop. 22. OECD, Paris.
Vorley, B., A. Fearne and D. Ray. 2007.
Regoverning markets: A place for smallscale producers in modern agri-food chains?
Gower Publ., IIED, London.
Wals, A. (ed) 2007. Social learning: Towards asustainable world. Wageningen Acad. Publ.,
The Netherlands.
WCMC. 2006. World database of protectedareas. Online database. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/index.htm. UNEP, Nairobi.
Warren, D.M., L.J. Slikkeveer, and D. Brokensha(ed) 1991. Indigenous knowledge systems: thecultural dimension of development. KeganPaul Int., London.
Watkins, K., and J. Von Braun. 2002. Time tostop dumping on the world‘s poor. 20022003 Annual Report: Trade policies and foodsecurity. IFPRI, Washington, DC.
Wei, A., and J. Cacho. 2000. Establishinglinkages between globalization,
developing country economic growth andagroindustrialization: The case of East Asia.
Int. Food Agribusiness Manage. Rev. 2(3-4).
Weiss, R. 2007. Tainted Chinese imports
common. The Washington Post. May 20.
Wennink, B. and W. Heemskerk (ed) 2006.
Farmers’ organisations and agricultural
innovation. Case studies from Benin, Rwanda
and Tanzania. Bull. 374. KIT, Amsterdam.
Whittingham, M.J. 2007. Will agri-environment

11/3/08 10:46:21 AM

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 493

schemes deliver substantial biodiversity gain,
and if not why not? J. Appl. Ecol. 44(1):1-5.
Wierup, M. 2000. The control of microbial
diseases in animals: Alternatives to the useof antibiotics. Int. J. Antimicrobial. Agents
14:315-319.
WHO. 2002a. WHO global strategy for foodsafety: Safer food for better health. WHO,
Geneva.
WHO. 2002b. Future trends in veterinary publichealth. WHO Tech. Rep. Ser. 907. WHO,
Geneva.
WHO. 2004. Report of the WHO/FAO/OIE
joint consultation on emerging zoonotic
diseases. Geneva, Switzerland. 3-5 May
2004. WHO/CDS/CPE/ZFK/2004.9. WHO,
Geneva.
WHO. 2006. The control of neglected zoonotic
diseases- A route to poverty alleviation.
Report of a joint WHO/DFID-AHP meetingwith the participation of FAO and OIE.
Geneva. 20-21 Sept. 2005, WHO/SDE/
FOS/2006.1. WHO, Geneva.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property
Organization). 2001. Agenda fordevelopment of the international patent
system. A/36/14 Aug 6. WIPO, Geneva.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property
Organization). 2004. Proposal by Argentina
and Brazil for the establishment of adevelopment agenda for WIPO. WO/
GA/31/11. 27 Aug 2004. WIPO General
Assembly. WIPO, Geneva.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property

chapter 07.indd 493

Organization). 2006a. Intergovernmental
Comm. Intellectual Property and Genetic
Resources, Traditional Knowledge andFolklore, 9th Sess., WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/14
Prov. 20 July 2006. Paragraph 211. WIPO,
Geneva.
Wise, T.A. 2004. The paradox of agricultural
subsidies: Measurement issues, agricultural
dumping, and policy reform. Available
at http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/0402AgSubsidies.pdf . Global Dev. Environ.
Inst. Working Pap. 04-02. Tufts Univ., MA.
World Bank. 2005. Food safety and agricultural
health standards: Challenges andopportunities for developing country exports.
Rep. No. 31207. World Bank, Washington
DC.
World Bank. 2006. Intellectual property rights.
Designing regimes to support plant breedingin developing countries. ARD Rep. No.
35517-GLB. World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. 2007. Enhancing agricultural
innovation: How to go beyond strengthening
agricultural research systems. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Wouters, J., and B. de Meester. 2003. The roleof international law in protecting public
goods. regional and global challenges.
Leuven Interdisciplinary Research Group on
International Agreements and Development(LIRGIAD), Working Pap. no.1.
WTO. 2004. The future of the WTO:
Addressing institutional challenges in the
new millennium. A report to the Director-

General by a Consultative Board chairedby P. Sutherland World Trade Organization
Secretariat, Geneva.
WTO. 2006a. Doha Work Programme — The
outstanding implementation issues on therelationship between the TRIPs agreement
and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
General Council, WT/GC/W/564. 31 May
2006.
WTO. 2006b. Amending the trips agreement
to introduce and obligation to disclose theorigin of genetic resources and traditional
knowledge in patent applications. WT/
GC/W/566. 14 June 2006.
WTO. 2007. Communication from the African
Group on Commodities. Committee on
Agriculture. JOB (07)/118. July 2, 2007.
World Trade Organization, Geneva.
Wuethrich, B. 2007. Reconstructing Brazil’s
Atlantic rainforest. Science 315:1070-1072.
WWF. 2006. Sustainability standards forbioenergy. World Wide Fund for Nature
Germany, Frankfurt.
Zander, P., A. Knierim, J.C.J. Groot, and
W.A.H. Rossing. 2007. Multifunctionalityof agriculture: Tools and methods for impact
assessment and valuation. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 120:1-4.
Zarsky, L. 1999. Havens, halos and spaghetti:
Untangling the relationship between FDI and
the environment. p. 47-73. In Foreign direct
investment and the environment. OECD,
Paris.

11/3/08 10:46:21 AM

chapter 07.indd 494

11/3/08 10:46:21 AM

8Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology:
Investment and Economic Returns
Coordinating Lead Authors
Nienke Beintema (The Netherlands), Ahmet Ali Koc (Turkey)
8.2.5

Lead Authors
Ponniah Anandajayasekeram (Australia), Aida Isinika (Tanzania),
Frances Kimmins (UK), Workneh Negatu (Ethiopia), Diane Osgood(Switzerland/USA), Carl Pray (USA), Marta Rivera-Ferre (Spain), V.
Santhakumar (India), Hermann Waibel (Germany)
Contributing Authors
Jock Anderson (Australia), Steven Dehmer (USA), Veronica Gottret(Bolivia), Paul Heisey (USA), Philip Pardey (Australia)

8.2.6
8.2.7
8.2.8
8.3

Review Editors
Harriet Friedman (USA) and Osamu Ito (Japan)

Key Messages
8.1
8.1.1

8.1.2

8.1.3
8.1.4
8.2
8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4

Spending and Funding Trends in AKST˜ 497
Trends in agricultural R&D spending 497
8.1.1.1 Public sector spending 497
8.1.1.2 Private sector spending 500
8.1.1.3 Intensity of research 502
8.1.1.4 International agricultural R&D 504
Determinants of public and private R&D investments 505
8.1.2.1 Determinants of public research 505
8.1.2.2 Determinants of private research 506
Investments in other AKST components 507
Funding agricultural R&D in the developing world 507
Impacts of AKST Investments 509
Conceptual framework 509
Economic impact assessment 509
Methodological limitations of impact measurements 510
Empirical evidence 511
8.2.4.1 Rate of returns to national AKST investments 511
8.2.4.2 Rates of return to crop genetic improvement
investments 511
8.2.4.3 Economic impacts of research and extension
investments 511
8.2.4.4 Agricultural research and education investments andagricultural growth 514
8.2.4.5 Rates of return to CGIAR investments 516

8.3.1
8.3.2
8.3.3

8.3.4
8.3.5
8.4
8.4.1
8.4.2

8.4.3

8.2.4.6 Rates of return to agricultural R&D investments in subSaharan Africa 517
Environmental impacts of AKST investments 517
8.2.5.1 Agriculture 518
8.2.5.2 Livestock 518
8.2.5.3 Forestry 520
8.2.5.4 Aquaculture 520
8.2.5.5 Traditional and local knowledge 520
Health impacts of agricultural R&D investments 520
Spillover effects 522
Impacts of public sector agricultural R&D investments onpoverty 524
Governance of AKST Investments: Towards a Conceptual
Framework 527
Demand for improved governance 527
Defining and judging governance in relation to the AKST
investments 527
Analyzing the experience of governing AKST investments 529
8.3.3.1 Public funding /public sector research 529
8.3.3.2 International donors 531
8.3.3.3 Competitive funding 531
8.3.3.4 Commodity boards and growers’ associations 532
8.3.3.5 Private research 532
AKST governance and changes in the larger institutional
environment 533
The future roles of governance and institutional structure 534
Investment Options 535
Criteria and methods for guiding AKST investments 535
Investment options 536
8.4.2.1 Options for societies aiming to give major support toenvironmental sustainability 538
8.4.2.2 Options for societies aiming to give major support toimproving nutrition and human health 540
8.4.2.3 Options for societies aiming to give major support to thehunger and poverty reduction 540
8.4.2.4 Options for societies aiming to give major support toeconomically sustainable development 541
8.4.2.5 A portfolio of AKST investments to meet multiple
goals 541
Future AKST investment levels and priorities 542
8.4.3.1 Levels of AKST investments 542
8.4.3.2 Allocation of AKST resources 542

495

chapter 08.indd 495

11/3/08 10:47:55 AM

496 | IAASTD Global Report

Key Messages
1. On average, investments in agricultural researchand development (R&D) are still growing but at a decreasing rate for the public sector during the 1990s.
However, there has been an increasing diversity in investment trends among countries. Investment in public
agricultural R&D in many developed countries has stalled or
declined and has become a small proportion of total Science& Technology (S&T) spending. Many developing countries
are also stagnating or slipping in terms of public agricultural
R&D investments, except for a selected few (often the moreindustrialized countries). The slowing growth in agricultural R&D investment in the public sector has implications
for attaining the development goals. Investments by the private sector in developed countries have been increasing, buthave remained small in most developing countries. There isa knowledge gap in other areas of AKST investments suchas extension, traditional knowledge, farming systems, social
sciences, ecosystems services, mitigation and adaptation ofclimate change, and health in agriculture.
2. Funding for public agricultural R&D in developing
countries is heavily reliant on government and donor contributions, but these sources have declined.
Despite declining government budgets for agriculture in
general, and agricultural R&D specifically, government remains the major source of funding for public agricultural
R&D in most developing countries. The trend indicates that
donor support for agricultural R&D has substantially declined since the mid-1980s with the majority of this smaller
amount supporting global research rather than research at
the country level.
3. The participation of nongovernmental agencies inagricultural R&D is increasing. AKST in the more developed world is increasingly undertaken by the private sector. Private sector research is also growing in the developingworld, but is concentrated in a few countries where the private sector thinks it can make a profit. In addition, higher education agencies, NGOs, foundations, and producergroups are also increasing their participation in agricultural
R&D. Still, publicly funded research in developing countries
is mostly conducted by government-sponsored agencies.
4. There is evidence of underinvestment in research inagriculture. Rates of Return (ROR) in AKST across commodities, countries and regions on average are high (4050%) and have not declined over time. They are higher than
the rate at which most governments can borrow money,
which suggests underinvestment in AKST. Although limited,
evidence indicates that the investments in agricultural R&D
perform equally well or better than the other public sector
investments in the agricultural sector.
5. Public investments in AKST have significantly contributed to overall economic growth, but this has notalways translated into poverty reduction. Public investments in AKST have in some countries significantly contributed to poverty reduction, but AKST’s impact on poverty
varies greatly depending on the policies, institutions, andchapter 08.indd 496

access to resources of the country. Before AKST investments
are made, distributional aspects should be explicitly taken
into account. Additional analysis is required to understandbetter who has benefited from this additional growth andwhy it did not always translate into commensurate improvement of poverty and food security. Likewise, agricultural
price policies and trade policies influence the distributional
impacts of productivity-increasing technology, as do land
and access patterns.
6. Rates of return alone are not sufficient to guide
AKST investment decisions. AKST investment generates
economic, social, environmental, health and cultural costs
and benefits to society, some of which are considered as externalities (positive or negative) and spillovers. These noneconomic impacts are also important to society, but often
not included in conventional RoR analysis due to quantification and valuation problems. The challenge is to factor
these aspects into the macro-level decision-making process.
RoR analysis needs to be complemented by other approaches to estimating impact of AKST investment on poverty reduction, ecosystem services and well-being. More evidenceis needed on the economic and social impact of AKST investment in sectors such as forestry and fisheries, as well as
in policy-oriented social science research.
7. AKST investments could have been more effective
and efficient in achieving sustainable development
goals had more attention been given to governance.
Governance is an important determinant of mobilizationof resources for AKST. It also plays a major role in allocation of resources between different components of AKST.
Increased demand for effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness to stakeholder needs, accountability and transparency
is a driving force leading to changes in AKST investment
decisions. High transaction costs in knowledge generationand transfer, inefficiency in resource allocation and utilization, lack of transparency, exclusion of some stakeholders,unequal access, and fear of private monopoly over technologies developed through public AKST institutions haveprompted changes in AKST systems. The ability to allocate
resources more effectively will also depend on a significant
improvement in the capacity in public and private sectors
to forecast and respond to environmental, social, and economic changes, locally and globally. This will include thecapacity to make strategic technological choices, create effective public policy and regulatory frameworks, and pursue educational and research initiatives.
8. Increasing participation of nongovernmental stakeholders and more appropriate incentive systems are
required to improve the effectiveness of AKST investments. Institutional arrangements for AKST resource mobilization and allocation have, in the past, largely excluded
users of research information, resulting in inefficiency andineffectiveness in AKST investments. These arrangements
have also resulted in unequal access to technologies. The
demands for enhanced stakeholder participation, improved
accountability and transparency are leading to institutionalinnovations around AKST investment governance issues.
These are new and unproven arrangements, so investments

11/3/08 10:47:55 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 497

will be needed to carefully monitor, evaluate and learn fromthe lessons in order to derive best practices. Investment isalso required for strengthening capacity in order to institutionalize such practices.
9. More government funding and better targeted government investments in AKST in developing countries
can make major contributions to meeting development and sustainability goals. Developing countries needto increase the intensity of AKST investments. This would
involve a major increase in public sector investments, which
is justified given the high rates of return to research and theevidence that AKST investments can reduce poverty. However, to do this, public investments must be targeted using
evidence other than simply overall RORs, as they usually do
not include environmental and human health impacts, positive or negative, or information on the distribution of costs
and benefits among different groups.
10. Major public and private research and development investments will be needed in plant and animal
pest and disease control. Continued intensification of agricultural production, changes in agriculture due to global
warming, the development of pests and diseases that are resistant to current methods of controlling them, and changes
in demand for agricultural products, will lead to new challenges for farmers and the research system. Investments inthis area by the public and private sector have provided highreturns in the past and are likely to provide even higher returns in the future. In addition, these investments could
lead to less environmental degradation by reducing the useof older pesticides and livestock production methods; increased demand for labor, which could reduce poverty; andpositively improve human health of farmers and their families by reducing their exposure to pesticides. This is an area
in which public and private collaboration is essential.
11. Increasing investments in agricultural research,innovation, and diffusion of technology by for-profit
firms can also make major contributions to meetingdevelopment and sustainability goals. Private firms(large and small) have been and will in the future continue
to be major suppliers of inputs and innovations to commercial and subsistence farmers. They will not provide public
goods or supply good and services for which there is nomarket, but there could be spillovers from private suppliers of technology to farmers and consumers. To make thebest use of private investments in AKST, governments must
provide regulations to guard against negative externalities
and monopolistic behavior, and support good environmental practices, while at the same time providing firms withincentives to invest in AKST.
12. AKST investment that increases agricultural productivity and improves existing traditional agriculturaland aquaculture systems in order to conserve scarce
resources such as land, water and biodiversity remains
as a high priority; these investments can improve livelihoods and reduce poverty and hunger. The major resource constraint on increasing agricultural production in
the future will continue to be agricultural land. AKST must

chapter 08.indd 497

focus on increasing output per unit of land through technology and management practices. Water is the next mostimportant resource constraint to agricultural production
and is likely to become more of a constraint in the future.
AKST resources need to be reallocated into water-saving
techniques, improved policies and management techniques.
Fossil fuels reserves are limited; high fuel prices and environmental concerns have recently focused attention on the needfor agriculture to more efficiently use this resource. Government investment in AKST may be necessary to reduce thedependence of the agricultural sector on petroleum.
13. AKST investment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide other ecosystem services is anotherpriority investment area. AKST investments are needed
to develop policies, technologies and management strategies that reduce agriculture’s contribution to greenhousegas (GHG) emissions, and consequent global warming. Thisrequires the development of new farming systems, which
use better technologies, produce less GHG, and build on local and traditional knowledge to improve current cropping
systems in order to become more sustainable. Investments
are also needed to underpin policies such as payments forenvironmental services to farmers, which could induce thedevelopment and adoption of practices that provide stronger environmental services. Some of the agricultural technologies and policies that provide these ecosystem services
can be designed to use the assets of the poor, such as labor
in labor-abundant economies.

8.1 Spending and funding trends in AKST
8.1.1 Trends in agricultural R&D spending
8.1.1.1 Public sector spending
Worldwide, public investments in agricultural research anddevelopment (R&D) increased, in inflation-adjusted terms,
over the past two decades from an estimated $15 billion in1981 to $23 billion in 2000 (in 2000 international dollars);
an increase of about one-half (Table 8-1 and Figure 8-2).1
2
The share of the developing countries as a group have increased considerably over the years; during the 1990s the
Public includes government, higher education, and nonprofit.
Unless otherwise stated, financial figures in this subchapter havebeen expressed in inflation adjusted “international dollars” using
the benchmark year 2000 and purchasing power parities (PPPs).
PPPs are synthetic exchange rates used to reflect the purchasing
power of currencies, typically comparing prices among a broader
range of goods and services than conventional exchange rates.
Using PPPs as conversion factors to denominate value aggregatesin international dollars results in more realistic and directly comparable agricultural research spending amounts in countries thanif market exchange rates are used. This is because the latter tends
to underestimate the quantity of spending used in economies withrelatively low prices while overestimating the quantity for thosecountries with high prices. This is particularly a problem whenvaluing something like expenditures on agricultural R&D, where
normally about two-thirds of the resources are spent on local scientist and support staff salaries and not on capital or other goods
and services that are normally traded internationally.

1
2

11/3/08 10:47:56 AM

498 | IAASTD Global Reportgroup invested more on public agricultural R&D than the
combined total in the industrialized world. Investments by
Asia and Pacific countries as a group grew relatively resulting in an increasing share of the global total; the regional
share was 33% in 2000 compared to only 20% in 1981.
Most of this growth took place during the late-1990s. In
contrast, the corresponding share for sub-Saharan Africa
continued to decline, falling from 8 to 6% of the global
total between 1981 and 2000.
Public agricultural R&D has become increasingly concentrated in just a handful of countries. Among the richcountries, the United States (US) and Japan accounted for
54% of public spending in 2000; about the same as two
decades earlier. Three developing countries, China, India,
and Brazil, spent 47% of the developing world’s public agricultural research total, an increase from 33% in 1981.
Meanwhile, only 6% of the agricultural R&D investments
worldwide were conducted in 80 countries that combined
had a total to more than 600 million people in 2000.
Growth in inflation-adjusted spending has slowed down
since the 1970s when most regions experienced high growth
rates (Figure 8-2). Overall spending in the Asia and Pacificregion increased with an annual growth rate of 3.9% during the 1990s; lower than the regional growth in the 1980s(Beintema and Stads, 2006). However the average growth

Figure 8-1. Total public agricultural research expendituresby region, 1981-2000. Source: Pardey et al., 2006b based on
Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) data at
www.asti.cgiar.org
Note: See Table 8-1

Table 8-1. Total public agricultural research expenditures by region, 1981, 1991, and 2000.
Agricultural R&D spending
1981

1991

Shares in global total

2000

1981

(million 2000 international dollars)Asia & Pacific (28)
China
India
Latin America & Caribbean (27)Brazilsub-Saharan Africa (44)West Asia & North Africa (18)Developing countries, subtotal (117)

Japan
USA

1991

2000

(percent)

3,047

4,847

7,523

20.0

24.2

32.7

1,049

1,733

3,150

6.9

8.7

13.7

533

1,004

1,858

3.5

5.0

8.1

1,897

2,107

2,454

12.5

10.5

10.7

690

1,000

1,020

4.5

5.0

4.4

1,196

1,365

1,461

7.9

6.8

6.3

764

1,139

1,382

5.0

5.7

6.0

6,904

9,459

12,819

45.4

47.3

55.7

1,832

2,182

1,658

12.1

10.9

7.2

2,533

3,216

3,828

16.7

16.1

16.6

Subtotal, higher-income countries (22)8,293

10,534

10,191

54.6

52.7

44.3

Total (139)

15,197

19,99223,010

100.0

100.0

100.0

Notes: The number of countries included in regional totals is shown in parentheses. These estimates exclude East Europe and former Soviet Union
countries. The high-income countries total excludes a number of high income countries such as South Korea and French Polynesia (which has been groupedin the Asia and Pacific total), Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates (grouped in West Asia and North Africa), and Bahamas (Latin
America and Caribbean). To form these regional totals national spending estimates were scaled up for countries that represented 79% of the reported subSaharan African total, 89% of the Asia and Pacific total, 86% of the Latin America and Caribbean total, 57% of the West Asia and North Africa total, and
84% of the high-income total.
Source: Pardey et al., 2006b based on Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) data at www.asti.cgiar.org.

chapter 08.indd 498

11/3/08 10:47:58 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 499

rate in total spending in China and India increased during
the 1990s. This was in part due to an increase in total agricultural R&D spending in both countries during the second
half of the 1990s, which reflects new government policies torevitalize public agricultural research and improve its commercialization prospects. Two other regions, Latin America
and the Caribbean, and West Asia and North Africa, bothexperienced relative less growth in total spending during the
1990s (2.0 and 3.3%, respectively). In contrast, the increase
in total spending in sub-Saharan Africa decreased in the
1990s from 1.3 to 0.8% compared to a decade earlier. An
even more severe drop in spending is found in many subSaharan African countries. In about half of the 24 countries
for which time series data were available, the public sector
spent less on agricultural R&D in 2000 than 10 years earlier.
Noteworthy is the decline in total agricultural R&D
spending among the rich countries; during the 1990s total
spending declined by an annual rate of 0.6%. SpecificallyJapan, and to a lesser degree a few European countries, reduced their investments in agricultural research. Support for
publicly performed agricultural research among rich countries has declined over a long period in time due to changes
in government spending priorities and a shift toward privately performed agricultural R&D. These slowdowns inagricultural R&D spending may curtail the future spilloversof technologies from rich to poor countries (Pardey et al.,2006a) (see 8.2.7).
The allocation of resources among various lines ofresearch is a significant policy decision and takes place
at different levels and, in theory (although not always inpractice), follows the priorities set across commodity andmultidisciplinary research programs. More than one half ofthe full-time equivalent (fte) researchers in a sample of 45
developing countries conducted crops research while 15%
focused on livestock and 8% on natural resources research(Table 8-2). Asia-Pacific had relatively less livestock research-ers (13%) than sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America (18%each). Forestry, fisheries, and postharvest accounted for 4
to 6% each. The remaining 9% of the research staff in thedeveloping world conducted research in other agriculture
related sciences.
For all three regions, fruits and vegetables are among
the major crops being researched. Unsurprisingly, rice is arelatively important crop in the Asia-Pacific region whilemaize has high importance in Latin America.
The allocation of resources above does not cover the fullscope of AKST, e.g., areas of importance in the future may
include bioenergy, climate change, transgenics and biodiversity. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change(Stern, 2007) concludes that an annual investment of 1%
of global GDP is required to mitigate the negative effects ofclimate change. Although economists argue whether the figures in the Stern review are right, most agree that the cost of
failing to tackle climate change will so vastly outweigh thecost of succeeding that further refinement of the calculations
are largely irrelevant to the political and investment choicesthat must be made now. Among these could be the creationof incentives for investment in low-carbon technologies.
Some limited information on the budget levels in bioenergy R&D in OECD countries is available through theInternational Energy Agency (IEA). Total R&D budgets forbioenergy are estimated to have increased almost three-foldsince 1992 to a total of $271 million (in 2005 international
dollars) in 2005. Despite the increased interest in renewable energy and energy-saving technological innovations
to mitigate climate change, total budgets on energy R&D
in OECD countries, in adjusted terms, have remained flat
since 1992. As a result, the share of bioenergy R&D in totalenergy R&D investments also grew almost threefold during
1992-2005 (IEA, 2006).
In this chapter, public agricultural research includes
research performed by government, higher education, andnonprofit agencies. There are substantial differences among

Figure 8-2. Growth rates of public agricultural R&D spending. Source: Pardey et al., 2006b based on Agricultural
Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) data at www.asti.cgiar.org
Notes: See Table 8-1. Annual growth rates were calculated using the least-squares regression method, which takes into accountall observations in a period. This results in growth rates that reflect general trends that are not disproportionately influenced by
exceptional values, especially at the end point of the period.

chapter 08.indd 499

11/3/08 10:48:01 AM

500 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 8-2. Commodity focus by main research area, various years.
Asia-Pacific(10), 2002/03

sub-SaharanAfrica (26),
2000/01

Major commodity area

Latin America(9), 1996

Total
developing
countries (45)(percent)

Crops

52.5

48.1

53.5

52.1

Livestock

13.2

17.8

17.9

14.7

Forestry

6.5

6.1

4.8

6.2

Fisheries

5.8

4.8

4.3

5.4

Post-harvest

3.6

6.5

3.9

4.1

Natural Resources

8.6

7.1

8.8

8.4

Other

9.8

9.5

6.7

9.2

Wheat

6.2

4.9

4.3

5.7

Rice

18.0

7.6

6.1

14.4

Major crops

Maize

5.4

8.0

13.8

7.3

Cassava

0.6

5.8

2.2

1.6

Vegetables

9.4

9.0

18.6

11.0

Fruits

11.7

11.0

17.4

12.7

Sugarcane

5.0

4.9

3.7

4.7

Coffee

0.6

3.0

6.3

2.0

Other

43.3

45.7

27.4

40.7

Note: Shares based on allocation of full-time equivalent researchers.
Source: ASTI database, 2007.

countries and between regions in the structure of the publicresearch sector (Figure 8-3). Public research in the UnitedStates is done mainly in state agricultural experiment stations
located primarily in colleges of agriculture and in federally
administered, but often regionally located, laboratories. A
large share of public agricultural R&D in Asia-Pacific andLatin America is conducted by government agencies (about
three-quarters of the total). This is similar to the government agency share in a 27-country sub-Saharan African total. A small, but growing proportion of public agriculturalresearch in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa is conducted by nonprofit institutions. Nonprofit institutions areoften managed by independent boards not directly under
government control. Many are closely linked to producer
organizations from which they receive the large majority of
their funding, typically by way of taxes levied on production
or exports (see 8.3.3).
8.1.1.2 Private sector spending
Agricultural R&D investments by the private sector havegrown in recent years and in the industrialized world now
account for more than half of the sum of the public andprivate research investments. Although private sector performed agricultural R&D appears to have increased insome developing countries, overall the role of the private
sector is still small and will likely remain so given weakfunding incentives for private research. In addition, manyof the private sector R&D activities in developing countries

chapter 08.indd 500

focus solely on the provision of input technologies or technological services for agricultural production with most ofthese technologies produced in the industrialized world.
Private sector share of total agricultural research investments are estimated at 37% (Table 8-3). Most of which was
performed in the industrialized countries (94%) where theyspent on average more on agricultural research than the

Figure 8-3. Organizational orientation of public agricultural
R&D, 1981, 1991, 2000. Source: Pardey et al., 2006b based on ASTI
data.
Note: The number of countries included in regional totals is shown inparentheses. The reported shares for Japan and the United States may
understate the role of nonprofit institutions. n/a indicates not available.

11/3/08 10:48:04 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 501

Box 8-1. Plant breeding and biotechnology research.
Trends in multinational plant and biotech research
One of the most rapidly growing areas of private sector agricultural research has been the plant biotech area. This researchstarted in the 1970s, increased very rapidly in the late 1980s and1990s to over a billion dollars of research in response to the technological opportunities offered by the breakthroughs of cellularand molecular biology and also due to stronger intellectual property rights particularly in the US. Some of this change was due tocompanies shifting research resources from chemical research tobiological research.
Since 1999, several of the six largest biotech firms, which
dominate private biotech research worldwide, have reduced theiragricultural biotechnology research, and in the aggregate agricultural biotechnology research expenditures probably stagnated.
Monsanto reduced its research expenditure, which is about 85%
agricultural biotechnology and plant breeding, from US$588 million in 2000 to US$510 million in 2003 before increasing backto $588 million in 2005. Syngenta’s plant science R&D expenditures declined from $161 million in 2000 to $109 million in 2003
and to $100 million in 2005 (Syngenta, 2006). In contrast Bayerand BASF seem to be increasing their investments in biotech.
Bayer purchased Aventis Crops Sciences, which had a major
biotech research program, in 2001. Bayer has made a substantial investment in Agricultural biotech R&D since then and now
spends about $80 million on seed and biotech research expenses(Garthof, 2005). BASF spent approximately $82 million in 2004
(Garthof, 2005). They recently (2006) acquired the Belgium biotech firm CropDesign and have committed themselves to spending $320 million on biotech research over the new three years(Nutra Ingredients, 2006).

public sector. In contrast, only 8% of total spending in thedeveloping world was conducted by private firms with theremaining 92% by public agencies. In the developing world,
private sector involvement in agricultural research was relatively higher in the Asia and Pacific region with an averageof 11% in 2000 (Pardey et al., 2006b).
Private sector involvement in agricultural R&D inOECD countries differs from one country to another. In
2000, more than 80% of total agricultural R&D spending in
Belgium, Sweden, and Switzerland was done by the private
sector. In contrast, private sector shares were below 25%
in Australia, Austria, Iceland, and Portugal that same year.
Private and public sectors are involved in different types ofresearch. In 1993 only 12% of the private research in fiveindustrialized countries (Australia, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, UK, and the US) focused on farm-oriented technologies compared to 80% in the public sector. Food and otherpostharvest accounted for 30 to 90% of agricultural R&D
investments in Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, and New
Zealand. Chemical research accounted for 40 and 75% ofchapter 08.indd 501

Public sector investment in agricultural biotech growing rapidly in some large developing countries
Despite the controversy about transgenic crops and generally
sluggish investments in biotechnology, government investments
in agricultural biotechnology research and development are growing rapidly in some large developing countries. The most dramatic
growth in public biotech investments is in China from under 300
million yuan in 1995 to over 1.6 billion yuan in 2003 (equivalent to
US$ 200 million). This 1.3 billion yuan increase accounts for between
25 to 33% of the increase in all agricultural research in the same time
period (Huang et al., 2005). In addition Chinese cities and provinces
have announced major government programs to commercialize theresults of public sector biotech research such as the new center in
Beijing, which will invest US$160 million over the next three years
to nurture 100 companies and 500 labs (Gong, 2006).
National governments in Brazil, Malaysia, and South Africa arealso making major investments in agricultural biotech researchand some provincial governments such as Sao Paolo in Brazil andAndhra Pradesh in India are also making substantial investments.
In July 2006 the Brazilian government announced that it would
invest US$3.3 billion over the next 10 years to develop biotechnology for health, industry, and agriculture (checkbiotech.org).
Malaysia announced that it would invest US$3.12 billion in agriculture in the next plan period and that agricultural biotechnology
would play a major role (Government of Malaysia, 2006). Indian
officials said in the spring of 2006 that it will invest US$100 million
and the US will add US$24 million on agricultural biotechnology
in India (Jayaraman, 2006). South Africa launched Plantbio (www.
plantbio.org.za) in late 2004 to support the commercialization ofplant biotech products.

private research in the UK and US, but was less importantin Australia, and almost negligent in New Zealand (Alston
et al., 1999).
A survey of seven Asian countries during the mid-1990s
showed that the share of private investments had grown inthree countries (China, India, and Indonesia) even more than
the increases in public sector investments (Pray and Fuglie,
2001). However, this growth was uneven across subsectors.
Total investments in the agricultural chemical industry in
Asia, which includes mostly pest control chemicals and, toa lesser extent, fertilizer and biotechnology, tripled during
mid-1980s and mid-1990s. Private spending on livestock
research also grew considerably, but growth was substantially slower in other subsectors such as plantation crops
and machinery. Both locally-owned and multinational firms
played similar important roles in agricultural R&D. Multinational firms accounted for an average of 45% of total
private research spending in the seven Asian countries, butwith substantial differences among countries. Almost all research in China by truly private firms (rather than govern-

11/3/08 10:48:04 AM

502 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 8-3. Estimated public and private agricultural R&D investments, 2000.
Expenditures
PublicPrivateShares
Total

Public(millions 2000 international dollars)

Private(percent)

Asia & Pacific

7,523

663

8,186

91.9

8.1

Latin America &Caribbean

2,454

124

2,578

95.2

4.8

sub-Saharan Africa

1,461

26

1,486

98.3

1.7

West Asia & North Africa

1,382

50

1,432

96.5

3.5

Developing countries,
subtotal

12,819862

13,682

93.7

6.3

Higher-income countries,
subtotal

10,191

12,08622,277

45.7

54.3

Total

23,01012,94835,95864.0

36.0

Source: Pardey et al., 2006b based on ASTI data.

ment-owned, commercial firms) was by multinational firms
in the mid-1990s while in Malaysia only 10% of private
sector investment from multinationals. Foreign firms wereconcentrated in the agricultural chemical and livestock subsectors; i.e., those with the highest growth rates (Pray andFuglie, 2001).
In SSA, only 2% of total agricultural R&D is conductedby the private sector.3 Almost two-thirds of the region’s private research was done in South Africa. Most firms in SSA
have few research staff with low total spending and they
focus on crop improvement research, often export crops(Beintema and Stads, 2006).4 Similarly as in the Asian region, multinationals and locally owned companies play asimilarly important role. Given the tenuous market realities facing much of African agriculture, it is unrealistic to
expect marked and rapid development of locally conductedprivate R&D. Yet there may be substantial potential for tapping into private agricultural R&D done elsewhere throughcreative public-private joint venture arrangements (Osgood,
2006).
In 2000, total investments in all sciences conducted by
the public and private sectors combined were over $700
billion (in 2000 international prices) (Table 8-4). The regional shares in the global total differ substantially from theshares in agricultural R&D spending. Industrialized countries combined accounted for about 80% of total scienceand technology (S&T) spending while SSA’s share was lessthan one percent. There are also considerable differences inthe shares of public and private agricultural R&D spending
in total S&T spending. Agricultural R&D spending in SSA
accounted for more than one-third of the region’s total sci-ence spending while in the other regions in the developingworld these shares were considerably lower (9 to 12%). In
the industrialized world spending in agricultural R&D wasonly 4% of the total S&T investments.
8.1.1.3 Intensity of research
In order to place a country’s agricultural R&D efforts in
an internationally comparable context, measures other thanabsolute levels of expenditures and numbers of researchers
are needed, e.g., the intensity of investments in agriculturalresearch. The most common research intensity indicator isa measure of total public agricultural R&D spending as apercentage of agricultural output (AgGDP).5 The industrialized countries as a group spent $2.36 on public agricultural
R&D for every $100 of agricultural output in 2000, a large
increase over the $1.41 they spent per $100 of output two
decades earlier, but slightly down from the 1991 estimate
of $2.38 (Figure 8-4). This longer-run increase in researchintensity is in stark contrast to the group of developing
countries; this group has seen no measurable growth in theintensity of agricultural research since 1981. In 2000, thedeveloping world spent just 53 cents on agricultural R&D
for every $100 of agricultural output. Agricultural output
grew much faster in the developing countries as a groupthan in the industrialized countries. As a result, intensity
ratios remained fairly stable for the developing regions as
a group despite overall higher growth rates in agricultural
R&D spending in the developing countries, and the intensity gap between rich and poor countries has widened over
the years. More than half of the industrialized countries forSome exclude for-profit private agricultural research expenditures when forming this ratio, presuming that such spending
is directed toward input and postharvest activities that are notreflected in AgGDP. For reasons of consistency with these otherstudies, we excluded national and multinational private companies (but not nonprofit institutions) from the calculated intensity
ratios.

5

The private sector does, however, play a stronger role in funding
agricultural research, as opposed to performing research itself.
Many private companies contract government and higher-education agencies to perform research on their behalf.
4
Examples are cotton in Zambia and Madagascar and sugar canein Sudan and Uganda.
3chapter 08.indd 502

11/3/08 10:48:04 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 503

Table 8-4 Total S&T spending by region and shares agriculture in total, 2000.
S&T spending

Shares inglobal total S&T
spending(millions 2000
international dollars)

Agricultural R&D asa share of
total S&T spending(percent)

Asia & Pacific (26)94,950

13.4

8.6

Latin America & Caribbean (32)21,244

3.0

12.1

sub-Saharan Africa (44)

3,992

0.6

37.2

West Asia & North Africa (18)14,893

2.1

9.6

Developing countries, subtotal (120)135,079

19.1

10.1

Higher-income countries (23)573,964

80.9

3.9

Total (143)709,043100

5.1

Note: These estimates exclude East Europe and former Soviet Union countries. The number of countries included inregional totals is shown in parentheses. Regional sample sizes are slightly different from those in Table 8-1.
Source: Pardey et al., 2006b.

which data exists have higher research intensity ratios in2000 than they did in 1981 (and the majority of them spentin excess of $2.50 on public agricultural R&D for every$100 of AgGDP). Most countries in our Asian and Latin
American sample (9 out 11 Asian countries and 8 out of
11 Latin American countries) increased their intensity ratios
over the 1981-2000. Only six of the 26 countries in SSA had
higher intensity in 2000 compared to two decades earlier.
The large and growing gap between developing and industrialized countries as groups is even larger in terms of
total, i.e., public and private, agricultural research spending(Figure 8-5). In 2000, the intensity of total spending wasnine times higher in rich countries than in poor ones; andfour times higher than when only public research spendingis used as the basis of the intensity calculation.
Other research intensity ratios can be calculated as well.
The industrialized countries as a group spent $692 on public

agricultural research per agricultural worker in 2000, morethan double the corresponding 1981 ratio (Table 8-5). The
developing countries as a group spent just $10 per agricultural worker in 2000, substantially less than double the 1981
figure. These differences are not too surprising consideringthat a much smaller share of the workforce in industrializedcountries is employed in agriculture, and the absolute number of agricultural workers declined more rapidly in thesecountries than it did in the developing countries.
Expressing agricultural R&D spending per capita givesa different trend than the other two intensity calculations.
Spending per capita for the industrialized countries as agroup increased substantially from 1981 to 1991, but has
declined since then. About half of the rich countries experienced declining levels of spending per capita; Japan most
severely due to the sharp decline in agricultural R&D spending in that country during the 1990s. Spending per capita

Figure 8-4. Intensity of public agricultural R&D investments over agricultural output. Source: Pardey etal., 2006b based on ASTI data.
Note: The intensity ratios measure total public agricultural R&D spending as a percentage of agricultural GDP.

chapter 08.indd 503

11/3/08 10:48:07 AM

504 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 8-5. Public, private and total agricultural research intensities, 2000. Source: Pardey et al., 2006b based on
ASTI data.
Note: The intensity ratios measure total public and private agricultural R&D spending as a percentage of agricultural GDP.

levels are much lower for the developing countries. Most
countries, especially those in Africa, spent less than $3 per
capita in 2000; while 59% of the industrialized countries
invested more than $10 per capita in 2000. In contrast to
the group of rich countries, agricultural R&D spending per
capita for the developing countries as a group continued toincrease from $2.12 per capita in 1981 to $2.72 in 2000.
The exception is SSA where spending per capita has declined
during the 1981-2000 period.
8.1.1.4 International agricultural R&D
International agricultural research efforts began in the middle of the 20th century when the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations placed agricultural staff in developing countries tocollaborate with national scientists. These efforts evolved
into the establishment of four international organizations

during the 1960s. In 1971 these centers formed the basis
for the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR or CG). Currently there exist 15 centers(see Chapter 2.2.4), with a total budget of US$415 million
in 2004—US$384 million in 2000 prices. Although the CG
system has played an important role in the Green Revolution, it only spends a small part of total of the global agricultural R&D investment. In 2000, the CG represented 1.6%of the US$23 billion global public sector investment in agricultural R&D (from 0.8% in 1981); 2.9% when spendingby the rich countries is excluded (Pardey et al., 2006a).
After an initial expenditure of US$7 million in 1960,
total spending rose to US$13 million per year in 1965, in
inflation-adjusted terms. By 1970, the four founding centers(IRRI, CIMMYT, IITA, and CIAT) were allocated a total of
US$15 million annually. During the next decade, the total

Table 8-5. Other intensity ratios, 1981, 1991 and 2000.
Public agricultural R&D spending
Per capita
1981

1991

Per capita of economically active
agricultural population
2000

1981

1991

2000

(2000 international dollars)Asia & Pacific

1.31

1.73

2.35

3.84

5.23

7.57

Latin America & Caribbean

5.43

4.94

4.96

45.10

50.54

60.11

sub-Saharan Africa

3.14

2.69

2.28

9.79

9.04

8.22

West Asia & North Africa

3.24

3.63

3.66

19.15

27.30

30.24

Developing countries, subtotal

2.09

2.34

2.72

6.91

8.14

10.19

Higher-income countries, subtotal

10.91

13.04

11.92

316.52528.30691.63

Total

3.75

4.12

4.13

14.83

16.92

18.08

Source: Pardey et al., 2006b based on ASTI data.

chapter 08.indd 504

11/3/08 10:48:10 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 505

number of centers increased to twelve, and the funding per
center increased. This led to a tenfold increase in nominal
spending to US$141 million in 1980. During the 1980s,
spending continued to grow, more than doubling in nominal
terms to reach US$305 million in 1990. The rate of growth
had slowed but was still substantial. In the 1990s, however,
although the number of centers still grew, funding did not
grow enough to maintain the level of spending per centerand growth rates declined. Since 2000, funding has grownin total but with a continuing trend toward earmarked support for specific projects and programs of research involving
multiple centers and other research providers outside theCGiAR. In 1980, the share of the four founding centers of
total CG spending was 54%, but by 2004 it had slipped toonly 36% (Pardey et al., 2006a).
8.1.2 Determinants of public and private R&D
investments
A conceptual model of the factors that influence these investments is needed to make a critical assessment of research
investments trends.
8.1.2.1 Determinants of public research
In the absence of public intervention, private firms will under-invest in research when the output of that research has
the characteristics of a public good—that is, the outputs ofresearch are often non-rival and non-excludable. Becauseof the public goods nature of research, the social benefits
are much higher than the private benefits, and hence thejustification for public intervention. While many public investments have high social benefits, public investment will
only be justified if the return is higher than other forms of
public investment. A review of the RORs to research (see8.2) shows that public investments do have high payoffs, often 40 to 50% or more. Considering that private companies
and governments usually can obtain credit at interest rates
below 10% and the public RORs on other types of government investments are considerably lower than 40%, these
returns are very high.
Whereas studies that show high social RORs to research
investments may convince economists that agricultural research is a good investment, most policy makers who actually do not appear to have been sufficiently convinced thatthese high social RORs warrant large investments. Rather,public investments in agricultural research respond to manyof the same forces that influence the amount and directionof private research (Hayami and Ruttan, 1985).
Public agricultural R&D increases when there are advances in basic knowledge and technology in fields such as
biology, chemistry, engineering, and information technology that increase the possibility of an innovation or reducethe cost of developing an innovation. This is referred to as
an increase in technological opportunity. The discovery of
dwarfing genes in rice and wheat created the opportunity
for plant breeders around the world to produce many new
types of varieties that would respond to higher doses of nutrients and water. These opportunities increased the potential return to research and led to major increases in public
sector plant breeding research around the world. Likewise,
the tools of biotechnology have created a major shift in theinnovation possibility curve for plant and animal breeding,chapter 08.indd 505

pest control, and abiotic stress tolerance, and many governments have again responded by increasing their investments
in research (Box 8-1).
Changes in the demand for agricultural products by
farmers and consumers induced public R&D investments(Hayami and Ruttan, 1985). Historically in Asia, population and per capita income increases increased the demandfor basic food grains such as rice; farmers were unable toincrease production rapidly due to limited land and agricultural prices increased. Private firms did not attempt research
to fulfill this demand because profits were projected to be
insufficient. When farmers and consumers were sufficiently
well organized and demanded a solution, Asian governments
invested in agricultural research. For example, following
World War I Japan had very high rice prices and consumers
demanded cheaper food, but Japanese farmers had no landfor expansion. The government responded by investing inresearch that eventually led to nutrient-responsive rice varieties; this resulted in biological technologies and inexpensive fertilizers increased yields per unit of land. In the late
1950s, national governments, nonprofit foundations, andaid donors responded in a similar manner to the food crisisand high food prices caused by rapid population growthin other Asian countries and invested in the international
agricultural research centers and the national agriculturalresearch systems.
Demand for solutions to specific problems, such as a
new disease or pest or the shortage of a key input (such as
the aforementioned land shortages in Asia and resulting development of land-saving technologies), also lead to public
sector research investments and can direct the allocation of
investments. The worldwide public sector response to Avian
Influenza is a current example. There are also demands thatreceive insufficient investments, for example, research on
diseases such as malaria or investment in appropriate agricultural technologies for poor people. Whether these factors will actually lead to more or less R&D investments bygovernments depends on the structure of the government,
its ability to raise money, and the power of various interest
groups to influence government spending decisions.
Some governments are more committed to R&D as amajor tool for economically sustainable development. They
will put a larger share of their budget into research of all
types including agriculture (Anderson, 1994). The structureof the research system will also influence the size and direction of agricultural research (Morris and Ekasingh, 2002).
Some governments have structured their R&D system to be
more responsive to the demands of the agricultural sector
while others are more responsive to demands of the foodconsumers, agricultural scientists, or foreign aid donors.
The size and power of different interest groups can also
have a major impact on the size and direction of agricultural
R&D. Commercial farmers can push their governments forlarge investments in research that is likely to concentrate on
reducing costs crop production or increasing demand. If the
textile industry is strong, research will be focused on bringing down the cost of cotton. Strong consumer lobbies arelikely to lead to research that lower food prices. In countries
where private research on topics such as maize breeding or
poultry breeding become strong, the companies that are doing this research will lobby for government to stop compet-

11/3/08 10:48:10 AM

506 | IAASTD Global Reporting with them in the applied research of the development of
new varieties and to move upstream to work on things likegermplasm enhancement (Pray and Dina Umali-Deininger,
1998; Pray, 2002).
8.1.2.2 Determinants of private research
For private firms agricultural R&D is an investment thatthey hope will increase their profits. The returns to private
research improve in the presence of sizable expected demand for the research products, the availability of exclusion mechanisms to appropriate part of the benefits fromthe new product or process, favorable market structure, anda favorable business environment that permits efficient operations (Pray and Echeverría, 1991). The profitability ofprivate research also depends on technological opportunities (Pray et al., 2007).
Potential demand for inputs and consumer products
developed through research, and thus market size, varies
among regions depending on the size of the population, thepurchasing power of the prospective buyers, local agroclimatic conditions, and sectoral and macroeconomic policies
that influence input and output prices. In 2000, for example,
the size of the global crop protection market was estimatedto be US$28 billion (Syngenta, 2004), and consequently the
first generation of biotechnology traits were designed tocapture a portion of this market by either substituting for, or
enhancing the productivity of, existing chemicals. Firms introduced these traits into crops with large markets, thereby
enhancing their ability to extract rents.
Changes in the incentive environment affect the demand
for research services and the speed at which countries canadopt new agricultural innovations. Macroeconomic andsectoral policies alter the relative profitability of agriculturalactivities which in turn affect the expected profitability of
adopting different agricultural innovations, as well as thecapacity of different segments of the farm community toacquire the new technologies (Anderson, 1993). The effectiveness of agricultural support services delivery (public
and private), in particular agricultural extension, and rural
infrastructure (roads, markets, irrigation) will also have amajor influence on the types and range of technologies introduced and the speed of adoption. Bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and phytosanitary legislation reshapetrading rules and influence market access and thus potential
market size (Spielman and von Grebmer, 2004).
Government policies that affect the local business environment directly influence the returns to private research.
Examples of such policies are government marketing of inputs that reduce the market share of private firms and licensing and investment regulations that favor smaller firms overlarger firms (Pray and Ramaswami, 2001).
Appropriability is an important precondition for private for-profit firms to participate in agricultural research.
If firms can not capture (appropriate) some of the social
benefits of their research, they cannot make profits on theirresearch investments and will stop investing (Byerlee andFischer, 2002). To capture some of the benefits from the innovation, the innovating firm must be able to prevent imitators from using the innovation. The ability to do this is afunction of the characteristics of the technology, the laws
on intellectual property and their enforcement, the struc-chapter 08.indd 506

ture of the industry that is producing the technology andthe industry that is using it. The legal means of protection
against unauthorized use include patents, plant breeder’srights, contracts, and trademarks. They also control theiruse by keeping inventions or key parts of their inventions
secret, which in some countries is protected by trade secrecy
law. These legal means tend to give limited protection indeveloping countries (Pray et al., 2007).
Inventors can also protect their inventions by biologicalmeans such as putting new characteristics into hybrid cultivars or including other technical means to prevent copying.
In the case of hybrids the seeds will yield 15 to 20% less.
This is usually sufficient incentive for farmers to purchasenew seeds each year. In the case of genetic use restriction
techniques some of the proposed techniques (none are incommercial use yet) would use genetically engineered crops,
which would produce sterile seed unless the seed had beentreated with a specific chemical.
The degree of appropriability achieved is a function of
the strength of intellectual property laws, and other factors causing farmers to prefer to purchase a technology, thedegree to which government agencies can enforce the law
which exist, the structure of industry that reduces the costof enforcing IPRs, and the technical capacity of firms to balance the value they can charge farmers for their products,
which ultimately depends on the farmers receiving morevalue than they pay for, protect their varieties through theuse of hybrids (Pray et al., 2007).
Private research investments are also determined by thepotential costs of the agricultural research program and theassociated risks (Pray and Echeverria, 1991). The cost ofresearch is the combination of quantity and price of research
inputs, the number of years needed to develop a new technology, and available knowledge in the area of science. Suchcosts decrease with the supply of research inputs, the presence of a favorable business environment, the stock of existing knowledge and technology, and available human capitalfor conducting research activity. Research costs increase in
the presence of anticompetitive markets or when firms haveto meet certain regulatory requirements.
The supply of research inputs and thus their price depends on the availability and accessibility of research tools
and knowledge, many of which are produced by the public
sector. For example, private breeders, to add desirable traits
to new private varieties, may use improved populations ofcrop germplasm developed by public research programs as
parent material. The advances in biotechnology knowledge
have led to a significant increase in private investment inagricultural research in the United States and Europe overthe past two decades. Greater private sector R&D implies
that the marginal cost of applied agricultural research will
decline as firms take advantage of economies of scale andscope. However, the concentration of key research inputs
amongst a few firms raises the possibility that the cost of
conducting research for those who do not have access tosuch technologies will increase (Pray et al., 2007).
The domestic supply and quality of human capital, a
key input to the research activity, influences the level of research investments. In the Philippines, the availability andlow cost of hiring local well-trained research personnel encouraged some multinational firms to transfer their research

11/3/08 10:48:11 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 507

programs to teams of Filipino scientists (Pray, 1987). The
domestic supply of skilled personnel is heavily dependent on
the level and composition of public and private expenditures
on education.
Several aspects of the business environment affect thelevel and productivity of research costs. Industrial policy can
influence the degree of market concentration, the intensityof competition, and the prices of research inputs and outputs. Various government incentive programs, such as government contracts for new products and processes, grants
and concessional loans, technical information services, andtax incentives, reduce research costs. Indirectly, the development of capital markets makes it easier for firms to raise
funds for research (for example, venture capital). Bilateraland multilateral agreements also improve trade opportunities by facilitating access to intermediate technologies.
Regulation such as product quality standards, quality testing regulations and seed certification procedures
can greatly increase the costs of commercializing research
output and they can delay the adoption to new technology
which reduces the incentive to innovate and reduces the benefits to farmers. Regulations that have been put in place inmany countries to ensure that products developed using biotechnology are environmentally benign and safe for humanconsumption are necessary to gain consumer acceptance,
but they have greatly increased the cost of developing andreleasing transgenic plant varieties. For example, one seed
company spent US$1.6 to 1.8 million to obtain regulatory
approval for Bt cotton in India. This is more than the annual research budgets of most Indian seed companies. As aresult, only the largest companies can afford to attempt tocommercialize genetically modified crops (Pray et al., 2005).
Bangladeshi regulations that required irrigation pumps anddiesel engines meet efficiency standards of wealthy countries delayed the commercialization of inexpensive Chinese
irrigation equipment and slowed the spread of high-yielding
rice varieties by 5 to 10 years (Gisselquist et al., 2002)
8.1.3 Investments in other AKST components
Investment data for other AKTS components, such as education and mainstreaming traditional knowledge, are difficult to obtain.
Due to the public good attributes of extension services,
it not surprising that the great majority of official extension
workers worldwide are publicly-funded and most extension
is delivered by civil servants. Universities, autonomous public organizations, and NGOs deliver perhaps 10% of extension services, and the private sector may deliver another 5%(Anderson and Feder, 2003).
The structure and function of national extension systems continue to change, particularly as the level and sourceof funding, especially public funding, changes across different countries. In many countries, there is a continuing effort to shift the cost of extension to farmers, although thesedifferent approaches to privatizing extension or to increase
cost recovery by public extension systems have met withdifferent levels of success (Anderson, 2007), private sector
involvement remains small.
Given the numbers of extension personnel and the likely
costs incurred in the different country contexts, agriculturalextension investment is of the same order of magnitude

chapter 08.indd 507(although likely lower) as the agricultural research worldpresented in expenditure terms (Table 8-1); so it is surprising that it has been subject to relatively little critical datacollection and analysis. In contrasting differences between
developing and more industrialized countries, one featureis the even more extreme differentiation between public
and private entities; however, the situation is not fully clear(World Bank, 2006; Anderson, 2007).
8.1.4 Funding agricultural R&D in developing
countries
Although various new funding sources and mechanisms for
agricultural research have emerged in recent decades (see8.3), the government remains the principal source of funding for many developing countries. For example, the principal agricultural research agencies in the largest countries(in terms of agricultural R&D investments) such as Brazil,
China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, and South Africa are still
mostly funded by the government. In contrast, the principal
agencies in a number of countries have been able to diversify their sources of support through contract research (forexample, Chile and Cote d’Ivoire) or a commodity tax on
agricultural production or export (for example, Uruguay,
Malaysia, Colombia) (ASTI, 2007).
Bilateral and multilateral funding has been an important source for agricultural R&D for many countries.
Since 1970, both multilateral and bilateral assistance grewin real terms, but began to decline after the early 1990s to
only US$51.2 billion by 2001. In recent years, ODA has
increased again (Table 8-7). After several decades of strong
support, international funding for agriculture and agricultural research began to decline around the mid-1980s. Thisdecrease is mostly related to the significant increase in theshare of ODA spent on social infrastructure and services(FAO, 2005a). Data on the sectoral orientation of aid areavailable for bilateral funds only. The agricultural component of bilateral assistance grew steadily and accounted for
16% in 1985, declining thereafter to 4% in 2003. Regionallythe largest proportional reductions in assistance occurred in
Asia. ODA to agriculture halved in SSA and decreased by
83% in South and Central Asia during the period 19802002 (FAO, 2005a).
Data on aggregate trends of donor funding for agriculture and agricultural research are unavailable, but information on agricultural R&D grants and loans from the WorldBank and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is accessible. The amount of funding that
USAID directed toward agricultural research conducted bynational agencies in less-industrialized countries declinedby 75% in inflation-adjusted terms from the mid-1980s to
2004. Again, Asian countries experienced the largest losses,
but funding to Africa and LAC was also cut severely (Pardey
et al., 2006b). Over the past two decades, World Bank lending to the rural sector has been erratic, but after adjustingfor inflation, the general trend has been downward as well.
The exception is the large amount of lending in 1998, which
resulted mostly from loans with large research components
approved for India, China, and Ethiopia (Pardey et al.,2006b).
There appears to be no single cause for the decline to thedonor support for agriculture between1980-2003, although

11/3/08 10:48:11 AM

508 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 8-6. Aid to agriculture, 1970-2004.
Year

Total official
development assistance(ODA)

Bilateral aid
Amount(million 2000 U.S. dollars)

Share to agriculture(percent)

1970

24,71920,8864.91

1975

35,44826,233

11.13

1980

49,16631,875

16.63

1985

41,77330,782

15.93

1990

67,07147,540

11.39

1995

64,077

44,1299.82

2000

53,74936,0646.36

2003

65,50247,222

4.22

2004

74,483a50,700an/aNote: n/a indicates not available.
Preliminary estimateaSource: Pardey et al., 2006b.

the following factors could have contributed (Morrison etal., 2004):• Loss in donor confidence in agriculture;• Perceived high transaction costs and complexities in agricultural investments;• Changes in definitions in aid statistics;• Weaker demand for assistance to agriculture from many
developing country governments;• Changes in development policy and approaches to moremarket led approaches• Shifting emphasis towards the education and health sectors;• Changes in aid modalities, such as the movement awayfrom the green revolution technologies of the 1960s to
1980s and the integrated rural development projectsof the 1980s and 1990s, to the current sector wide approaches and support to poverty reduction strategies(Eicher, 2003).
However, science and the use of new ideas have been acknowledged by many as being important in delivering the
MDGs and there has been renewed interest by the donor
community on the role of agriculture in promoting economic growth and poverty reduction. In addition, a numberof new funding sources such as the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation have become available.
A number of developing countries, especially in SSA,
have become increasingly dependent on donor funding. Although the share of donor contributions in total funding
for SSA agricultural R&D has declined slightly in the later
half of the 1990s (Figure 8-6). These declines resulted inpart from the termination of a large number of World Bank
projects in support of agricultural R&D or the agricultural
sector at large. Donor contributions (including World Bank

chapter 08.indd 508

loans) accounted for an average of 35% of funding to principal agricultural research agencies in 2000. Five years earlier,close to half the funding of the 20 countries for which timeseries data were available was derived from donor contributions. These regional averages mask great variation among
countries. In 2000, donor funding accounted for more thanhalf of the agricultural R&D funding in seven of the 23
sample countries. Eritrea, in particular, was highly dependent on donor contributions. In contrast, donor funding
was virtually insignificant in Botswana, Malawi, Mauritius,and Sudan (under 5%) (Beintema and Stads, 2006).
Since the International Conference on Financing for Development convened in Monterrey 2002, the share of aid toleast developed countries in donor gross national income(GNI) has increased to 0.08%, and longer term commitments to reach 0.7% have been made by donors but it is stillshort of the target, and the level of the external assistance toagriculture has remained unchanged (FAO, 2005a). However the situation continues to change.
To improve upon past efforts to achieve food security,
the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)
has developed the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). In line with CAADP’s goalof improving agricultural productivity with an average of 6
percent per year, is the recommendation to double the region’s intensity in agricultural research by 2015 (IAC, 2004).
Doubling Africa’s agricultural research intensity ratio from
0.7% in 2000 to about 1.5% by 2015 would require an average annual growth rate in agricultural R&D spending of
10% (Beintema and Stads, 2006). This goal seems unlikely
considering that growth in Africa’s R&D spending averaged
1% per year during the 1990s as reported earlier. There isno evidence that governments and donor organizations havesubstantially increased their funding to agricultural research

11/3/08 10:48:12 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 509(2) make scientists and researchers aware of the broader implications, if any, of their research; (3) Identify weak links
in the research to affect pathways; and (4) better informmanagers on the complementarities and tradeoffs between
different activities within a research program (Maredia etal., 2001).

Figure 8-6. Country-level sources of funding in sub-SaharanAfrica, 1995/96 and 2000. Source: Beintema and Stads, 2006.
Notes : Figure includes only funding data from the main agriculturalresearch agencies in each of the respective countries. Combined, theseagencies accounted for 76% of total spending for the 23-country sample in
2000. Data for West Africa, with the exception of Nigeria, are for 2001.

since the late 1990s and it is unlikely that the high level ofdonor support will continue indefinitely.

8.2 Impacts of AKST Investments
The purpose of undertaking and impact assessment of agricultural AKST depends on when the assessment is donein relation to the project cycle. It can be undertaken before
initiating the research (ex-ante) or after completion of theresearch activity (ex-post). Ex-ante impact studies (proactive) can indicate the potential benefits from research and,
therefore, assist managers in planning, priority setting and,
consequently, in allocating scarce resources. They can also
provide a framework for gathering information to carry out
an effective ex-post evaluation. Ex-post studies (reactive)
can demonstrate the impacts of past investments in achieving the broader social and economic benefits. Most commonly, ex-post impact assessments are carried out because
decision makers and research managers usually requirethem as a precondition for support. They are undertaken to(1) help managers by providing better and more convincing
advice on strategic decisions about future AKST investment;

chapter 08.indd 509

8.2.1 Conceptual framework
AKST investments generate different outputs including
technologies of various types, management tools and practices, information, and improved human resources. In theliterature the term impact is used in many different ways
(DANIDA, 1994; Cracknell, 1996; Pingali, 2001). In thischapter we refer to impact of AKST investment as the broad
long-term economic, social and environmental effects (SPIA,
2001). Impact assessment is a process of measuring whether
a research program has produced its intended effects, suchas increase in production and/or income, improvement in thesustainability of production systems (Anderson and Herdt,
1990) or improvements in livelihood strategies. In any comprehensive impact assessment, it is necessary to differentiate
between the research results (outputs) and the contributionof research to development efforts (outcomes) and bothaspects should be addressed simultaneously. A conceptual
framework for assessing impacts (Figure 8-7) incorporates
the multifaceted consequences of AKST investment in termsof both institutional and developmental impacts including
spillover effects. This framework recognizes the multiple
impacts of AKST investments and the need for multi-criteria
analysis as well as RORs earned by such investments.
A comprehensive impact assessment requires multiple
techniques using both qualitative and quantitative assessment. This means that not all impacts associated with AKST
investment can be quantified and valued in monetary terms,
although new techniques are emerging that could complement ROR measures especially in valuing social and environmental consequences (Anandajayasekeram et al., 2007).
There are also concerns about exclusively reliance on ROR
for decision making. The portfolio approach considers theinternal rates of return across projects rather than considering them in isolation and aims to maximize the expected
returns to the entire AKST investment. Despite its shortcomings the ROR to investment is the most commonly usedmeasure to compare the relative performance of investments and a frequently used measure of research efficiency.
Most literature on impact assessment of AKST investment
is largely based on RORs and these studies are assessed in
the following sections (Alston et al., 2000a; Anandajayasekeram et al., 2007).
8.2.2 Economic impact assessment
Economic impact measures economic benefits produced
by an AKST project or program and relates these benefits
with the economic costs associated with the same projector program. This information is used to compute measures
like benefit-cost ratio, internal rate of return (IRR) and netpresent value of benefits (NPV). Economic impact evaluations are intended to measure whether a project or program
actually had (or expected to have) an economic impact andcompare this impact with project or program costs. They do
not measure whether it was designed or managed and ex-

11/3/08 10:48:16 AM

510 | IAASTD Global Report

Figure 8-7. Comprehensive impact assessment framework for R&D investment. Source: Shrestha
and Bell, 2002.

ecuted optimally (Evenson, 2001). An AKST program may
have other relevant impacts, such as social (poverty reduction, enhanced nutrition, equity) and environmental effects;
and benefits of the research may be distributed in different
ways. Some nonmarket impacts such as environmental or
health effects of AKST could potentially be given economic
value and incorporated into economic analysis. Measurement in these cases is, however, usually more difficult thanthe measurement of economic impacts that are observablein product or input markets. These attributes should be accounted for in some way, even if economic values cannot
be ascertained, when a more realistic evaluation of research
impacts is required. In any meaningful empirical analysis,
a multi-criteria approach is recommended to assess the impact of AKST assessment.
The literature on economic impact studies includes awide range of levels of impact analysis. The economic basis
for government involvement in agricultural AKST is the perception of market failure leading to private underinvestment(Nelson, 1959; Arrow, 1962; Alston and Pardey, 1998). The
appropriate criterion for the assessment of policy aiming tocorrect market failure is the effect on net social benefits,
and this can be expressed as a social rate of return (ROR)
to public investment in agricultural AKST (Alston et al.,2000a).6

In the literature the terms financial, economic and social rates
of returns mean different things, but in this chapter the term
economic rate of return and social rates of return are used interchangeably. This is because the various meta-analyses do not
explicitly make this distinction.

6

chapter 08.indd 510

8.2.3 Methodological limitations of impact
measurements
Although there have been significant developments in impact assessment methodologies a number of issues still needfurther attention. Key among these are the issues of attribution, incrementality, causality, defining counterfactual situations, and estimating economic impacts for organizational
and institutional innovation and social science and policy
research. The issue of counterfactual situations refers to thesignificant problem of determining what the pattern of productivity growth would have been in the absence of a particular research investment (Alston and Pardey, 2001). Thisis associated with dynamics of productivity factors even in
the absence of AKST investment. AKST programs operatein environments in which ordinary or “natural” sequencesof events influence outcomes. Impact assessment and ROR
estimates must arrive at estimates of net intervention effects,
i.e., they should measure the changes attributable to the intervention.
Causality is another issue that merits attention. In measuring the impacts of AKST investments, it is important
to ensure that the impacts measured are the results of thetechnologies and activities undertaken within the program/project. However, as one moves from the direct product/
output to broader economic, social and environmental effects, the chain of causal events is too long and complex, andthe variables affecting ultimate outcomes are too numerous
to permit the identification and measurement of impactsof specific interventions (Biggs, 1990; Rossi and Freeman,1993). This is further complicated by the time lag between
initial investment and reaping its return.
Attribution problems arise when one believes or is trying to claim that a program has resulted in certain outcomes,

11/3/08 10:48:20 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 511

and there are alternative plausible explanations. Relating an
impact indicator with a specific research investment is only
valid in the absence of other effects on indicators, such as
markets and policies (Ekboir, 2003). In addition, many ROR
estimates often fail to account for the effects of work doneby others in the research development continuum. Temporal aspects of the attribution problem would result whenassuming a specific time lag between research results andtheir implementation. At times, the period over which research affects productivity may be overestimated. A numberof strategies can be used to address attribution, called contribution analysis (Mayne, 1999), which may enhance thevalidity of the estimates, but do not eliminate the problem.
In many estimates the spill-over effects are not usually
included as benefits (see 8.2.7). In others, the effects resulting from changes in rural employment, health and education policies and programs are excluded. Environmental
impacts, both negative and positive, are often ignored (see8.2.5) as well as those costs arising from institutional marketing arrangements. This issue can be addressed throughestimations of the ROR for research and complementary
services, as well as research. Increasingly it is likely thatvaluation of nonmarket impacts of agricultural AKST will
be incorporated into economic analysis. Past studies did not
address these issues because of measurement difficulties andthe fact that research impacts directly observable in commodity and factor markets were abundantly available. Research systems are now increasingly called upon to provide
positive nonmarket environmental or health benefits as wellas to mitigate past negative impacts. A number of economic
tools are now available to measure nonmarket environmental benefits and costs such as environmental quality, longevity, and health effects (Freeman, 1985; Feather et al., 1999;
Dolan, 2000; Hurley, 2000).
There has been little empirical work in the area of assessing the ROR for social science research, and organizational
and institutional innovations including capacity strengthening. This lack is associated with the difficulty of attributing
any change in policy, institutions or process and the linked
economic growth or poverty reduction to research information generated by social science or other factors (Alston
and Pardey, 2001). Attempts to quantify the ROR to social
science research have used esoteric methods, utilizing “incredible identifying assumptions” that cannot be robustly
defended (Gardner, 2003; Schimmelpfenning and Norton,
2003; Schimmelpfennig et al., 2006). In addition, social andapplied science research is often undertaken jointly and difficult to isolate.
8.2.4 Empirical evidence
There are many studies on the ROR of investment in agricultural development. This critique draws heavily upona number of meta-analyses (Alston et al., 2000a; Evenson,
2001; Evenson and Rosegrant, 2003; Thirtle et al., 2003),
which cover 80% of published materials (more than one
thousand studies). Most of these studies are associated withproduction technologies, far fewer address other research
outputs e.g., post harvest processing, marketing, policy, organizational or institutional innovations. We recognize theshortcomings in these data but these reviews provide useful insights into impacts of AKST investments across con-chapter 08.indd 511

tinents, commodities and components (research, extension,
private sector research.
8.2.4.1 Rate of returns to national AKST investments
One meta-analysis estimated the economic impact of agricultural R&D investment at the national level for 48 selected developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Thirtle et al., 2003) The analysis revealed that R&D
expenditures per unit of land have an elasticity of 0.44 interms of productivity. It was also noted that the elasticity
of agricultural R&D is positive and highly significant in allcases and is slightly larger for Africa than Asia and bothare over 50% greater than the Latin America’s elasticity.
The elasticity of value added per unit of land with respect
to agricultural R&D was used to calculate ROR to agricultural R&D at the country and the continental level (Table
8-7). The estimated ROR for the sample countries in Africa
ranged between -12 and 58%. In only three cases the gains
were less than the expenditures. For the Asian countries, theestimated ROR ranged between -1 and 50%; and appears
to be less varied and generally higher. The mean of the country RORs for Asia (26%) is better than for Africa (18%)
and the weighted mean (31%) is still higher. These meansare dominated by the huge agricultural sectors of China andIndia, both of which seem to have done well in economic
terms. In the case of Latin America, only five of the thirteen
countries had positive RORs. The estimated ROR ranged
between -22 and 40%. The poor results for the Latin American countries are at least partly due to the limitation ofdata availability (Thirtle et al., 2003).
8.2.4.2 Rates of return to crop genetic improvement investments
Over the years, a significant amount of AKST resources havebeen devoted to genetic improvement. A second assessmentof economic consequences of crop genetic improvement
estimated the economic impact of 17 commodities and 35
country/regions using a “global market equilibrium” model(Evenson and Rosegrant, 2003). Benefit/cost ratio (using
6% as the external interest rate) and IRRs of crop genetic
improvement programs by region have been computed forboth national agricultural research systems (NARS) and international agricultural research centers (IARCs) (Table 8-8).
The IRRs for the NARS ranged between 9 and 31%, which
are considerably lower than the ones reported in individual
studies. This is primarily because most individual studies
tend to ignore the research costs to build the germplasm
stock that is required to reach the stage where benefits areproduced. The lowest IRR was observed for SSA (9%). The
IRRs for the IARC programs are very high and ranged between 39 and 165%. The lowest IRR was observed for Latin
America. These high RORs reflect the leveraging associatedwith the high production of IARC crosses and high volume
of IARC germplasm (Evenson and Rosegrant, 2003).
8.2.4.3 Economic impacts of research and extension
investments
A number of economic impact studies were assessed toevaluate the contribution of agricultural research and extension programs both public and private, using the estimated
ROR on investment to index economic impacts (Evenson,

11/3/08 10:48:20 AM

512 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 8-7. Comparison of Rate of Return (ROR) for national agricultural R&D expenditureacross sub-regions.
Sub-regions

Countries

Mean ROR(%)

Weighted mean
ROR (%)

AfricaCountries with negative
ROR

Algeria, Botswana, Ethiopia, Cote d’Ivoire,
Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho,
Mauritania, Morocco, Rwanda, Senegal,
Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

18

22

Lesotho, Senegal,
Tanzania

Asia

Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Jordan,
Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, SriLanka, Thailand

23

26

Sri-Lanka

Latin America

Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa-Rica,
Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras,
Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Venezuela

10-6Brazil, Dominican
Republic, Jamaica,
Mexico, Panama, Peru,
Venezuela

Source: Thirtle et al., 2001.

2001) (Table 8-9). The benefit exceeded cost in SSA almost
15 years later than was the case for Latin America and Asia,
causing the low IRR. The available evidence suggests thatthe economic RORs to agricultural R&D are high (Evenson, 2001). The broad scope of the evidence for high returns suggests considerable international spillovers. Economic RORs to agricultural research are likely to be above
most public and private rates (Fuglie et al., 1996; Alston
et al., 2000a; Evenson, 2001). Recently studies have been
carried out on the impact of natural resource management
research. In most cases however these were satisfactory but
lower than in germplasm improvement research (Waibel
and Zilberman, 2007).
Due to a variety of market failures, private returns to
R&D are far smaller than economic returns as private developers cannot appropriate many of the benefits associatedwith their research (Evenson and Westphal, 1995; Scotchmer, 1999; Shavall and van Ypserle, 2001) (see 8.1.2). In
agriculture in particular, firms often have difficulty in capturing much of the economic benefits of their investments(Huffman and Evenson, 1993); e.g., in the US seed companies retained 30 to 50% of the economic benefits fromenhanced hybrid seed yields and 10% of benefits from nonhybrid seed during 1975-1990 (Fuglie et al., 1996). A key
market failure that inhibits developers from recovering thecost of R&D in agriculture is the potential for resale of seeds(Kremer and Zwane, 2005). The gap between social andprivate returns may be more acute in tropical agriculture,
where market failures are particularly severe and the intellectual property rights (IPR) environment is weaker (Prayand Umali-Deininger 1998; Kremer and Zwane, 2005).
Very often the reported higher economic ROR is attributed to the selectivity bias. First, highly successful programs
are likely to be evaluated. Second, the unsuccessful evaluations are less likely to be published than evaluations showing impact. However, one can compare the studies covering
aggregate programs, which includes both successful and unsuccessful, with studies of specific commodity programs andthe evidence is based on a substantial part the world’s agricultural research and extension programs (Evenson, 2001).
Returns to AKST investments vary across continents, commodities, types of research, methods of estimation, public
versus private, and over time (Alston et al., 2000a) (Tables
8-10, 8-11, 8-12).
The distribution of ROR for crops, livestock, and multiple commodities is similar to that for the entire sample(Table 8-11). A substantial difference in the distribution
of ROR is observed for resources research; these estimates
mostly include forestry research, for which the research lags
are relatively long, contributing to the relatively low average

Table 8-8. Costs-benefits and internal rate of return for NARS and IARC crop genetic improvement
programs by region.
NARSs

IARCs

Estimated benefits
IRR

B/C

Estimated

Lower range

IRR

B/C

Latin America

31

56

39

34

Asia

33

115

115

104

West Asia-North Africa

22

54

165

147

sub-Saharan Africa

9

4

68

57

Note: The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) model
developed by IFPRI is a partial equilibrium model covering 17 commodities and 35 country/regions.
Source: Evenson and Rosegrant, 2003.

chapter 08.indd 512

11/3/08 10:48:21 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 513

Table 8-9. Summary of Internal Rate of Return (IRR) estimates.
Numberof IRRs
reportedDistribution
0-20

21-40

41-60

(count)61-80

81-100100+

Approx.
medianIRR(percent)

Extension
Farm observation:

16

56

0

6

6

5

6

18

Aggregate observations

29

24

14

7

0

27

27

80

Combined research andextension

36

14

42

28

03

8

16

37

19

11

31

16

0

11

16

50

By region:
OECD
Asia

21

24

19

19

14

.09

14

47

Latin America

23

13

26

34

8

.08

.09

46

Africa

10

40

30

20

10

0

0

27

All extension

81

26

23

16

3

.19

13

41

Project evaluation

121

25

31

14

18

6

7

40

Statistical

254

14

20

23

12

10

20

50

Aggregate programs

126

16

27

29

10

9

9

45

30

30

13

17

10

13

17

51

Applied research

Commodity programs:
Wheat
Rice

48

8

23

19

27

8

14

60

Maize

25

12

28

12

16

8

24

56

Other cereals

27

26

15

30

11

7

11

47

Fruits and vegetables

34

18

18

09

15

9

32

67

All crops

207

19

19

14

16

10

21

58

Forest products

13

23

31

68

16

0

23

37

Livestock

32

21

31

25

9

3

9

36

OECD

146

15

35

21

10

07

11

40

Asia

120

08

18

21

15

11

26

67

By region:

Latin America

80

15

29

29

15

7

6

47

Africa

44

27

27

18

11

11

5

37

All applied research

375

18

23

20

14

8

16

49

Pre-invention science

12

0

17

33

17

17

17

60

Private sector R&D

11

18

9

45

9

18

0

50

Ex-ante research

87

32

34

21

6

1

6

42

Source: Evenson, 2001.

chapter 08.indd 513

11/3/08 10:48:22 AM

514 | IAASTD Global Report

Table 8-10. Ranges of rates of return.
SampleNumber ofobservations

Rate of return
Mean

Mode

MedianMinimum

Maximum(percent)(count)Full samplea
Research only

1,144

99.6

46.0

48.0

-7.4

5,645

Extension only

80

84.6

47.0

62.9

0

636

Research andextension

628

47.6

28.0

37.0

-100.0430

All observations

1,852

81.3

40.0

44.3

-100.05,645

Research only

598

79.6

26.0

49.0

-7.4

910

Extension only

18

80.1

91.0

58.4

1.3

350

Research andextension

512

46.6

28.0

36.0

-100.0430

All observations

1,128

64.6

28.0

42.0

-100.0910

Regression sampleb

The original full sample included 292 publications reporting 1,886 observations. Of these, 9 publications were
dropped because, rather than specific rates of return, they reported results such as >100% or <0. As a result of theseexclusions, 32 observations were lost. Of the remaining 1,854, two observations were dropped as extreme (andinfluential) outliers. These two estimates were 724,323% and 455,290% per year.

aExcludes outliers and observations that could not be used in the regression owing to incomplete information on
explanatory variables.

b

Source: Alston et al., 2000a.

rates of return. The highest ROR observed for all agriculture, field crops, livestock, tree crops, resources and forestry
were 1,219; 1,720; 5,645; 1,736; 457; and 457, respectively.
All studies related to livestock and trees had a positive ROR.
The mean ROR for livestock R&D was around 121. These
data demonstrate that the estimated RORs for livestock species are comparable to the rates estimated for the other sectors. In addition, in this study the overall estimated ROR for
animal research was 18% but when this was decomposed,
the ROR for animal health research and animal improvement research were found to be 15 and 27%, respectively;
indicating the underestimation of ROR for the overall investment. Probably, the decomposition by species would
also show different RORs associated to each of them.
Although the mean ROR estimates for industrializedcountries is higher than that for developing countries (98and 60%, respectively), the median are virtually identical(46 versus 43%) (Table 8-12). While there are not manystudies from Africa assessing the returns to R&D, the existing analyses generally indicate high returns in the range of 4
to 100% for country level studies (Anandajayasekeram andRukuni, 1999).
The key findings of the last meta-analysis were (Alston
et al., 2000a):• Research has much higher ROR than extension only orboth research and extension combined;

chapter 08.indd 514

•
•
•
•

•
•

There is no measurable difference in estimated ROR between privately and publicly performed research;
The RORs were 25% per year higher for research on
field crops and 95% per year lower for research on natural resources than for total agriculture;
There is no significant difference in rates of return related to whether studies reported basic or other categories
of research;
The estimate also indicates that if research took place in
an industrialized country, the ROR was higher by 13%
per year, but this effect was not statistically significant
at the 10% level. The estimated rates of return tended
to be lower in Africa and West Asia and North Africa
than in Latin America and the Caribbean or Asia;
There is no evidence that the ROR to agricultural R&D
has declined over time;
Unable to detect any effect of accounting for spillovers
or market distortions on measured rates of return toresearch.

8.2.4.4 Agricultural research and education investments
and agricultural growth
A summary of studies that have applied decomposition
analysis to agricultural growth in developing countries suggests that past investments in agricultural research may
have contributed anywhere from 5 to 65% of agricultural

11/3/08 10:48:22 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 515

Table 8-11. Rates of return by commodity orientation.
Commodity
orientation

Number ofobservations

Rate of return
Mean

Mode

(count)Multicommoditya

MedianMinimum

Maximum(percentage)

436

80.3

58.0

47.1

-1.0

1,219.0

58.0

44.0

-1.0

1,219.0

45.0

59.0

17.0

562.0

16.4

35.9

16.4

69.2

40.0

43.6

-100.01,720.0

29.0

47.3

-100.01,720.0

23.0

40.0

-47.5

290.0

37.0

51.3

11.4

466.0

14.0

53.0

2.5

5,645.0

20.0

33.3

1.4

1,736.0

7.0

16.5

0.0

457.0

7.0

13.6

0.0

457.0

46.0

44.0

-100.05,645.0(110.7)
All agriculture

342

75.7
(110.9)Crops and80

livestock106.3(115.5)

14

Unspecifiedb

42.1(19.8)

Field cropsc

916

74.3
(139.4)

Maize

170

134.5
(271.2)

Wheat

155

50.4
(39.4)

Rice

81

75.0
(75.8)

233

Livestockd

120.7(481.1)

Tree cropse

108

87.6
(216.4)

78

Resourcesf37.6(65.0)

Forestry60

42.1(73.0)All studies

1,772

81.2
(216.1)

Notes: See Table 8-10. Standard deviations are given in parentheses. Sample excludes two extreme outliers andincludes only returns to research only and combined research and extension, so that the maximum sample size is1,772. In some instances further observations were lost owing to incomplete information on the specific characteristics
of interests.
aIncludes research identified as all agriculture or crops and livestock, as well as unspecified.
Includes estimates that did not explicitly identify the commodity focus of the researchbIncludes all crops, barley, beans, cassava, sugar cane, groundnuts, maize, millet, other crops, pigeon pea or chickpea,
potato, rice sesame, sorghum and wheat.
cIncludes beef, swine, poultry, sheep or goats, all livestock, dairy, other livestock, pasture, dairy and beef.

dIncludes other tree and fruit and nuts.

eIncludes fishery and forestry.

f

Source: Alston et al., 2000a.

chapter 08.indd 515

11/3/08 10:48:23 AM

516 | IAASTD Global Report

growth, depending on the country and time period (Pingali
and Heisey, 2001). Decomposition of recent measurementsof African agricultural growth suggests that up to one-thirdof the growth in aggregate agricultural productivity is attributable to past investments in agricultural research (Oehmke et al., 1997). This roughly corresponds to a contribution of agricultural research to economic growth of ¼ of apercentage point.
A study on agriculture growth and productivity in the
United States demonstrated similar results (Shane et al.,1998). During 1974-1991 annual growth rate of agriculture productivity was estimated to be 2.2% and entire economy productivity growth was 0.2% in the U.S. total factor
productivity (TFP) growth rate was 2.3% during 1959-91.
During 1949-91, productivity growth in agriculture can be
attributed to four major factors: public investment in agricultural R&D (50%), public expenditure on infrastructure(25%), private investment in R&D, and technological advances embodied in material inputs such as fertilizers andchemicals (combined 25%).
Technological advancements depend on the quality
and quantity of scientific capacity of the national institutes(Mashelkar, 2005). There is a positive relationship between
science enrolment and technology achievement indices indicating that increased investment in human capacity can
result in better technological advancement. This relationship has not been fully understood or analyzed in the development literature. In general, there is a lack of analysis orquestioning of the role of increased capacity in explaining
growth performance in developing counties (Ul Haque andKhan, 1997).
Detailed evidence on the ROR of investments in agricultural education is very limited, but a number of studies haveshowed that education has a positive impact on economic
growth and positive benefits to health and other noneconomic benefits (UNESCO and OECD 2003; Evenson, 2004;
World Bank, 2007). Economic growth increases 4% for every additional year of schooling of the adult population;
particularly high attainment levels in secondary and tertiary education are relatively more important for economic
growth (UNESCO/OECD 2003). The available evidence on
the impacts of tertiary education on economic growth andpoverty reduction in the case of SSA Africa show that an increase of one year of tertiary education will result in growthincrease of 6% in the first year, and about 3% after five years(Bloom et al., 2007). Another study found that an increasein the number of degrees awarded in natural sciences andengineering in East Asia have a strong positive relationshipon GDP per capital levels (Yusuf and Nabeshima, 2007).
The expected rates of return to investments in education at
primary, secondary and higher level for selected countries inAfrica range from 24% for primary education, 18.2% forsecondary to 11.4% for higher education (Psacharopoulos,
1994).
Per capita income levels are higher among counties
that have invested in educating their population (Babu andSengupta, 2006) and increased capacity will result in better
implementation of programs and policies that reduce poverty and hunger (Kaufman et al., 2003). Whereas there is apositive relationship between increased capacity and better
governance, there is a need for better understanding of thechapter 08.indd 516

nature and magnitude of the capacity needed to increase
governance of development programs and policies thattranslate the development goals into development outcomes(Babu and Sengupta, 2006).
There is ample evidence available from the literaturethat AKST investments have contributed significantly toorganizational and institutional innovations in the form of
methods, tools development, capacity strengthening, andunderstanding how institutes interact with each other inachieving developmental goals. However, not much work
has been done on assessing the RORs on investments in agricultural training and capacity strengthening. Assessing the
economic impacts of non-research products such as training,
networking and advisory services policy and institutional reforms need greater emphasis. Detailed analysis of causalityof agricultural education and capacity strengthening on development outcomes will require identifying indicators thatreflect institutional and human capacity to contribute better
development processes.
8.2.4.5 Rates of return to CGIAR investments
The CGIAR Science Council’s Standing Panel on Impact
Assessment (SPIA) commissioned an independent study toweigh the measurable benefits of CGIAR research against
the total cost of system operation to 2001 (Raitzer, 2003).
The analysis found that the value of documented benefits
generated by the CGIAR surpasses total investment in thesystem. The analysts did not calculate a single benefit-cost
ratio for all potential audiences. Instead, they offered fivedifferent versions of the benefit-cost ratio to allow for its
sensitivity to different assumptions regarding the credibilityof the values derived for key measures of benefit. The mostrestrictive assessment yields a benefit cost ratio of 1.9, i.e.,
returns of nearly 2 dollars for every dollar invested. The
most inclusive estimate puts the benefits–cost ratio nearlynine times higher.
The analysis excluded the benefits from the vast majority
of CGIAR work, which has not been subject to large-scale
ex-post economic assessment. The analysis aggregated only
published large-scale economic assessments that met a strict
set of criteria for plausibility and demonstration of causality. As a result, only a few isolated examples of success areused to produce these substantial benefit levels, and many
probable impacts that lack reliable quantification are omitted. To underscore this point, the economic value of benefits derived from just three CGIAR innovations is estimatedto be greater than the entire US$7 billion (in 1990 prices)
invested in the IARCs since the CGIAR was established.
Under very conservative assumptions, benefits generated(through 2001) from (1) new, higher yielding rice varietiesin Latin America, Asia, and West Africa; (2) higher-yielding
wheat in West Asia, North Africa, South Asia, and Latin
America; and (3) cassava mealybug biocontrol throughout
the African continent combined almost twice the aggregate
cumulative CGIAR costs. If slightly more generous assumptions were applied, the estimated benefits generated to dateby these three technologies rise to more than eight times
the total funds invested in CGIAR research and capacitybuilding programs. If impact assessment were applied to alarger proportion of the system’s portfolio then these three
innovations will result in much higher aggregate benefit

11/3/08 10:48:23 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 517

values. Furthermore, the aggregated studies do not take
into account multiplier effects that result from stimulated
growth in the nonfarm economy, or nonmarket benefits. As
a result, even the most generous of the values reported may
be considered as conservative (Raitzer, 2003).
8.2.4.6 Rates of return to agricultural R&D investments
in sub-Saharan Africa
A compilation of the available case studies on ROR for
African agricultural R&D investment support findings offour meta-analyses (Table 8-13). Of the 27 RORs to past
investments in agricultural technology development anddissemination (TDT), 21 show RORs in excess of 12%.
Detailed investigations into the lower RORs suggest that
researchers had not yet found the right mix of activities to
produce cost-effective solutions in challenging agroecological environments. Examining the future potential impact ofinnovations released or still in the development stage, 24
of 30 forward-looking RORs show expected returns in excess of 12%. The second study reviewed the impact studies conducted in Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) during
1978-2005 (Anandajayasekeram et al., 2007). The RORs
for those studies using the noneconometric methods ranged
from 0 to 109. For those studies using the econometricmethods ranged between 2 to 113%. Only 10 out of the
86 observations were below 12% under the worst case scenario. These compilations confirm that returns to research
in SSA are similar to those found elsewhere, showing a highpayoff for a wide range of programs.
8.2.5 Environmental impacts of AKST investments
The success of modern agriculture in recent decades has often masked significant externalities that have positively andnegatively affected natural resources. Externalities of agriculture include the depletion of resources such as fossil fuel,water, soil and biodiversity; pollution of the environment by
the products of fuel combustion, pesticides and fertilizers;
and economic and social costs to communities. In the past,
the objectives of AKST investments have been largely to increase quality, quantity and to improve food security. Thus

the environmental impacts of agricultural technologies were
not usually considered in ROR and other decision-making
tools. Their importance, however, is increasingly understoodbecause of the positive link between ecologically sustainable
development and poverty reduction (UNEP, 2004a). A good
example at the national level is a study that estimates thetotal external environmental and health costs of “modern
agriculture” in the United Kingdom at a total cost of £2343
million in 1996 (Pretty et al., 2000). This is equivalent to
89% of average net farm income and £208 per hectare ofarable and permanent pasture. These estimates only include
those externalities that give rise to financial costs, and so
are likely to underestimate the total negative impacts to theenvironment.
The quality and size of environmental impacts dependon many external forces. Different agroecological zones,
market conditions, and financial and social incentives as well
as specific technologies play significant roles in determining
impacts. In order to quantify and value the environmental
impact of an agricultural R&D investment, it is importantto understand the source of the impact, the nature, and therelationship between the impact and those variables that
can affect producers and consumers. Agriculture globally(including livestock and land use, but excluding transportof agricultural products) has an estimated contribution to
GHG emissions of 32% (Stern, 2007).
Although many economic valuation techniques havebeen developed and refined over the last twenty years, obtaining monetary values of environmental impacts is difficult
due to two basic reasons. First, the issue of time and scalecomplicates the data collection and valuation. Many of theenvironmental impacts are accumulative by nature, and thustime is a critical constraint in estimating values. Geographic
scale is also critical, for example, captive shrimp production
leads to a large-scale pollution of marine environments anddestruction of mangroves (Clay, 2004). In general, environmental and ecological economists consider the scale either
through an ecosystem-centric lens: the plot, the farm, thewatershed, and region (Izac and Swift, 1994) or a humancentric lens: the individual farmer, the local community,

Table 8-13 Summary of results of Economic Assessment of African R&D Investments.
AuthorType ofanalysis

Number ofobservations

Range of RORs

(count)Oehmke et al. (1997)

Anandajayasekeram etal. (2007)

Range of B/C ratio

Geographicalcoverage(percent)

Ex-post27< 0 to 135—

Ex-ante19< 0 to 271

1.35 :1 to 149 :1

Combined46< 0 to 271

1.35 :1 to 149 :1

Econometricmethods

25

2 to 113—Noneconometricmethods

61< 0 to 109

1.35:1 to 149

Combined86< 0 to 113

1.35:1 to 149

sub-SaharanAfricaEast and Southern
AfricaSources: Oehmke et al., 1997; Anandajayasekeram et al., 2007.

chapter 08.indd 517

11/3/08 10:48:23 AM

518 | IAASTD Global Report

downstream communities, national citizens and the global
population. These issues of scale are seldom incorporated
into ROR calculations or other decision-making tools, andthus they exclude the critical elements of “who pays, who
benefits”. Second, reconciling different levels of aggregation to obtain reliable estimates is complex. For example,
movement of pesticides through soil is determined by several factors such as specific soil characteristics (physical andchemical), properties of the soil, the climate, crop management practices, and so on. The problem is how to generate
information that reflects the complex of physical, biologicaland technical factors. One of the more difficult areas to estimate is the value of impacts on and by biodiversity, because
the links between biodiversity and ecosystem functions andservices is less understood than many other environmental
interactions. Moreover, no monetary values can be given to
it and the value is also context-specific and relative to thelivelihoods and uses given to biodiversity. The willingness isrelated to the knowledge of the impacts of biodiversity loss,
including the impact of climate change (Turpie, 2003).
New development in economic science, such as ecological economics, can bring promising tools in the future
to measure externalities and tackle the problems identified
above (Proops, 1989; Jacobs, 1996). One example is theevaluation of one century of agricultural production in the
Rolling Pampas of Argentina by analysing energy flows
within systems (Ferreyra, 2006). The ecological footprint
quantifies the amount of resources required by a production method or a technology related to AKST, and thus cangive an idea of the environmental impact (Wackernagel andRees, 1997) and was used to assess the resource use anddevelopment limitations in shrimp and tilapia aquaculture(Kautsky et al., 1997).
Due to the complexity of agriculture and the links withthe food chain, most studies, particularly ecological economic studies, examine the impacts of food systems and not
the technologies in isolation. There is a significant paucity
of data and studies on environmental impacts (see below aswell as Table 8-14).
8.2.5.1 Agriculture
Biodiversity loss. Reduction in the use of biodiversity in agriculture is driven by the increased pressures and demandsof urban and rural populations and by the global development paradigm, which favors specialization and intensification (FAO, 2003). Most studies combine influences and impacts from crop and livestock systems. The total economic
benefits of biodiversity with special attention to the services
that soil biota activities provide worldwide is estimated to
be US$1,542 billion per year (Pimentel et al., 1997). The estimated total damage to UK’s wildlife, habitats, hedgerows
and drystone walls was £125 million in 1996 (Pretty et al.,2000).
Soil erosion. Scientists estimate the global cost of soil erosion at more than US$400 billion per year. This includes thecost to farmers as well as indirect damage to waterways,
infrastructure, and health (Pimentel et al., 1995). In the UK,
the combined cost of soil erosion with organic carbon losses
was £106 million in 1996 (Pretty et al., 2000).

chapter 08.indd 518

Pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Agricultural runoff pollutes ground and surface waters with large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural waste. Agriculture is the main cause of pollution in
US rivers and contributes to 70% of all water quality problems identified in rivers and streams (Walker et al., 2005).
In the UK the cost of contamination of drinking water withpesticides is £120 million per year (Pretty et al., 2000).
Carbon sink. Agricultural systems contribute to CO2 emissions through several mechanisms: (1) the direct use of fossil fuels in farm operations; (2) indirect use of fossil fuels
through inputs, such as fertilizers; and (3) the loss of soilorganic matter. On the other hand, agricultural systems accumulate carbon when organic matter is accumulated in thesoil, or when above-ground woody biomass acts either asa permanent sink or is used as an energy source that substitutes for fossil fuels (Pretty and Ball, 2001). A 23-year
ongoing research project by the Rodale Institute in the US
found that if 10,000 medium-sized farms in the US converted to organic production, the carbon stored in the soil
would equal taking 1.2 million cars off the road, or reducing car travel by 27 billion kilometers (The Rodale Institute, 2003). Forty sustainable agriculture and renewableresource-management projects in China and India (Pretty
et al., 2002) increased carbon sinks in soil organic matterand above-ground biomass; avoided carbon emissions fromfarms by reducing direct and indirect energy use; and increased renewable energy production from biomass. The
potential income from carbon mitigation is $324 million at$5 tonne-1 of carbon (Pretty et al., 2002).
Water use. Agriculture consumes about 70% of fresh water
worldwide. For example, the water required for food andforage crops growing ranges from about 300 to 2,000 liter kg-1 dry crop yield, and for beef production 43,000 liter
kg-1 (Pimentel et al., 2004). Virtual water refers to the waterused in the production process of an agricultural product(Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2003). Using a virtual water approach, some countries are net importers of water whileothers are exporters. It is expected that in the future, approaches to quantify the amount of water used by different
countries or regions will be extremely important.
8.2.5.2 Livestock
The livestock sector has enormous impacts on the environment: it is responsible for 18% of GHG emissions measured
in CO2 equivalents, and 9% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, including the combustion of fossil fuels to make theadditional inputs. Globally, it accounts for about 8% of
human water use, mostly for the irrigation of feed crops(Steinfeld et al., 2006). It is estimated that 1 kg of edible
beef results in an overall requirement of 20 to 43 tonnes water per kg of meat (Smil, 2002; Pimentel et al., 2004). The
total area occupied by grazing is equivalent to 26% of theworld land; the total agricultural area dedicated to feedcrop
production is 33%. In all, livestock production accounts for
70% of agricultural land and 30% of land globally (Steinfeld et al., 2006). It is probably the largest sectoral sourceof water pollution. In the US, livestock are responsible for

11/3/08 10:48:24 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 519

Table 8-14. Relative size of environmental impacts of high-external input farming systems in absence of monetized or otherwise
quantified assessments.

Agricultureb

Individual
farmer and/orhouseholdLocalcommunity

Downstream
community

Globalsociety

Biodiversity loss, off and onfarm species and plant genetic
resources

--

--

-

-----

Some

Erosion and soil quality

----

-

----

-----

Many

Run-off of agro-chemicals(eutrophization)

0

-

-----

---

Many

Pesticides and impact on nontarget species

-

---

----

---

Many

Water table loss

-

--

-----

-

Few

Fossil Fuel Use: Non-renewable
and climate change impact-- (financial
cost)

0

0

-----

Some

Genetic improvement++++++

0

0

++

Many

Carbon sequestration

0

0

0

+++++

Some

+++++

++

0

++++

Many

Biodiversity loss, off- and onfarm species and animal genetic
resources

--

--

-

-----

Few

Water contamination (surface
and underground) andeutrophization

-

--

-----

-

Some

Fossil Fuel Use

--

0

0

---

Some

Land use and deforestation foranimal nutrition

0

0

-

-----

Many

GHG emissions

0

0

0

-----

Some

Land saving
Livestock

Genetic improvement
Aquaculture

Data availability
for economic
quantificationa++++++

0

0

++

Some

Fisheries decline (due tofishmeal production andcapture of wild gravid females
and/or post larvae seeds)

-----

-----

0

--

Few

Destruction of coast forest(e.g., mangrove for shrimp
production)

-----

-----

-----

-----

Some

Erosion and release of CO2 into
atmosphere

--

--

--

-----

Few

Fossil Fuel Use

--

0

0

---

Few

Soil and water salinization

----

-----

-----

-

Few

Runoff of agro-chemicals

0

-

-----

---

Few

Biodiversity loss (due todiseases, hybridization andcompetition with wild fish)

-

-

--

-----

Few

Note: + = positive impact. - = negative impact. Degree of impact: + minimal; ++ moderate; +++ high; ++++ very high, and +++++ very high likelihood ofsome irreversibility.
Economic valuation refers both to monetary and other methods of valuation tools.

aAgriculture impacts include the livestock and aquaculture impact derived from the crops required for the animal and fish nutrition industry (e.g., 33% ofworld feedcrop land is dedicated to animal nutrition, thus, it is a livestock impact added to agriculture).

b

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

chapter 08.indd 519

11/3/08 10:48:24 AM

520 | IAASTD Global Report

55% of soil erosion and sediment, 37% of pesticide use,
50% of antibiotic use and a third of the loads of nitrogenand phosphorus into freshwater resources (Steinfeld et al.,2006). Data are not available to estimate these impacts
from an economic perspective. “Emergy” evaluations haverecently been used to evaluate the costs of grazing cattlein Argentina’s Pampas (Rótolo et al., 2007); to compare
soy production systems in Brazil (Ortega et al., 2003); andto compare organic and conventional production systems(Castellini et al., 2006).
The rapid spread of large-scale industrial livestock production focused on a narrow range of breeds is the biggest
threat to the world’s farm animal diversity (FAO, 2007).
Traditional livestock losses worldwide range from one breed
per week (Thrupp, 1998) to one per month (FAO, 2007).
Many traditional breeds have disappeared as farmers focus
on new breeds of cattle, pigs, sheep, and chickens. In theyear 2000, over 6,300 breeds of domesticated livestock wereidentified; of these, over 1,300 are now extinct or considered to be in danger of extinction. Many others have notbeen formally identified and may disappear before they arerecorded or widely known. When breeds without recorded
population data are included, the number at risk may be
as high as 2,255. Europe records the highest percentage ofextinct breeds or breeds at risk (55% for mammalian and
69% for avian breeds). Approximately 80% of the value of
livestock in low-input developing-country systems can be
attributed to non-market roles, while only 20% is attributable to direct production outputs (FAO, 2007). By contrast,
over 90% of the value of livestock in high-input industrialized-country production systems is attributable to the latter.
How to measure or evaluate the importance of consideringnonmarket values of livestock when planning AKST investment is lacking. Obtaining such data frequently requires themodification of economic techniques for use in conjunction
with participatory and rapid rural appraisal methods (FAO,
2007).
8.2.5.3 Forestry
There are different forestry systems ranging from systems
of monoculture of trees (aiming to obtain products such as
cellulose, wood or other products) to systems that cultivate
different tree species with other agricultural products, including livestock. Agroforestry systems (AFS) provide a mixof market and nonmarket goods and services with a highlevel of output per purchased investments and minimal environmental impacts (Diemont et al., 2006). An agricultural
system that includes agroforestry is more profitable than aconventional system (Neupane and Thapa, 2004); agroforestry has great potential to minimize the rate of soil degradation, increase crop yields and food production, and raise
farm income in a sustainable manner.
8.2.5.4 Aquaculture
Intensification of aquaculture has resulted in higher impacts
into the environment. A deeply analyzed case is that ofshrimp farming. In a simple cost-benefit analysis, industrial
shrimp farming is usually found to be profitable; however,cost-benefit analyses that include environmental costs, cancontradict these findings. For example, a study performed inIndia concluded that shrimp culture caused more economic

chapter 08.indd 520

harm than good. The economic damage (loss of mangroves,salinization and increasing unemployment) outweighed thebenefits by 4 to 1 or 1.5 to 1, depending on the areas considered (Primavera, 1997). In Thailand, the total economic
value of an intact mangrove exceeds that of shrimp farmingby 70% (Castellini et al., 2006). The estimated internal benefits of developing shrimp farms are higher than the internalcosts in the ratio of 1.5 to 1 (Gunawardena and Rowan,2005). When the wider environmental impacts are morecomprehensively evaluated, the external benefits are much
lower than the external costs in a ratio that ranges between
1 to 6 and 1 to 11.
In Malawi, the ecological footprint approach applied
to integrated aquaculture showed that when waste fromeach farming enterprise is recycled into other enterprises,
the economic and ecological efficiencies of all are increased(Brummet, 1999).
8.2.5.5 Traditional and local knowledge
Traditional knowledge and local farming systems associatedare often either ignored or sidelined by new technologies
and profit-oriented interventions (Upreti and Upreti, 2002).
Though there is no economic valuation estimated in monetary terms, it is well recognized that there is tremendous
value in traditional knowledge for maintaining and improving farming systems, particularly with regard to agrobiodiversity management and utilization.
In recent years researchers have started to address thissignificant gap. For example, a new conceptual framework
was developed to assess the value of pastoralism that goesbeyond conventional economic criteria (Hesse and McGregor, 2006). The objective is to provide fresh insights to its
contribution to poverty reduction, sustainable environmental management and the economically sustainable development of dryland areas of East Africa in the context ofincreasing climate uncertainty. One can associate environmental impacts of pastoralist traditional knowledge in termsof sustainable land use and risk management in disequilibrium environments, biodiversity conservation and improved
agricultural returns, but these too are rarely captured in national statistics or recognized by policy makers.
8.2.6 Health impacts of agricultural R&D investments
The interactions between agriculture and human health are
well recognized. Agricultural technologies through their effects on productivity, income, and food quality and security
can improve the health status of producers and consumers(Table 8-15); healthier people will generally be more productive than people who suffer from sickness or who areundernourished. On the other hand, agricultural technologies can have negative effects on the health status of farmers, farm laborers, farm household members and consumers(Table 8-16).
Pesticides are an example of positive (increases in productivity), and negative (environment and human health)effects (see also 8.2.5). There are at least 1 million casesof pesticide poisoning annually, with women and children
in developing countries disproportionably affected (WHO,1990; UNEP, 2004b). The total number of unintentional
fatal poisonings from all sources, including agriculturalchemicals, is 350,000 per year (WHO, 2006). These global

11/3/08 10:48:24 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 521

Table 8-15. Positive contributions of AKST for human health by sector.
SectorAKST productConsequences forhuman health

Data availability
for economic
quantification

Crops

Micronutrient trait in cropvarieties

Prevent human diseases

Ex-ante assessments
for Biofortification

Livestock

Animal Protein

Balanced diet

Unknown

Aquaculture

Animal Protein andmicronutirents

Balanced diet

Unknown

Forestry

Non-timber products andfood from natural resources

Prevent food insecurity

Unknown

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

figures are not collected systematically or on a regular basis;
estimation of the incidence of pesticide poisoning is difficult
as surveillance systems may be inadequate and tend to underreport (PAHO, 2002; London and Bailie, 2001). Hence
official reports represent lower bound estimates. Farmers
in the developing world experience high rates of exposure
to human health risks when using pesticides (Jeyaratnam
et al., 1982 and 1987; Kishi et al., 1995; Ajayi, 2000; Rolaand Pingali, 1993; Antle et al., 1998; Crissman et al., 1994
and 1998). Some authors (Cuyno et al., 2001; Garming andWaibel, 2006) established that farmers reveal a willingness
to pay for reducing the negative health effects from chemical
pesticides.
Economic studies carried out in industrialized countries
found that health costs make up about 10% of the total ex-

ternality costs of pesticides (Pimentel et al., 1993ab; Waibel
et al., 1999). Pesticide use globally continues to rise andhence the concerns about the implications for human healthremain (Ecobichon, 2001).
Considerable AKST investments were made by the public and the private sector to minimize the negative healtheffects of pesticides. These investments included two major
products, safe use technology packages and IPM. Chemical companies have developed modules on safe use training,which is an example of a private sector AKST. Pilot projects
were carried out in Mexico, India and Zimbabwe (Atkin andLeisinger, 2000), Guatemala, Kenya and Thailand (Hurst,
1999). Successes were very limited; Farmers often went
back to their old practices shortly after the training (Atkinand Leisinger, 2000). In addition, some safe use technolo-

Table 8-16. Negative effects of AKST for human health by sector.
SectorType of effect

Crops

Livestock

Aquaculture

Consequences

Data availability for economic
quantification

Acute and chronic diseases

Case studies including
economic evaluations andoccasional country statistics

Water pollution with pesticides andnitrogen fertilizer

Intoxication/death from drinking
water

Statistics and case studies
mainly in developed countries

Air pollution (e.g., transport, fertilizers
production, deforestation)

Respiratory and allergic diseases

Unknown

Increase of cheap meat production andconsumption

Obesity (cancer, diabetes, coronary Studies mainly for the U.S.
diseases)

Antibiotics use

Increasing resistance to antibiotics

Few studies

Water pollution with animal wastes

Intoxication/death from drinking
water

Unknown

Air pollution (transport, GHG emissions, Respiratory and allergic diseases
deforestation)

Unknown

Increasing animal trade

Increasing number of zoonosis

Recent studies

Antibiotics use

Increasing resistance to antibiotics

Few studies

Air pollution (transport)

Respiratory and allergic diseases

Unknown

Residues in aquaculture feed (mercury,dioxins, polychlorinated bromides

Intoxication, neurotoxicity

Few studies

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

chapter 08.indd 521

11/3/08 10:48:25 AM

522 | IAASTD Global Reportgies (e.g., protective equipment) and management practices,(e.g., hygienic measures after spraying, compliance with reentry intervals, safe storage of equipment and pesticides)
were often found unfeasible in tropical climates and under
the conditions of poor countries (Cole et al., 2000).
A good of example of public sector AKST investment
to mitigate the negative impact of pesticide use is IPM; IPM
technologies are site-specific in that they need to be developed for specific agroecological, socioeconomic and policy
conditions. As a result a wide range of examples exist in
both developing and industrialized countries. Despite thelarge amount of investment in IPM, global impact studies
are rare. A meta-analysis for the CGIAR in 1999 showed
that, although no aggregate ROR could be established, theROR for IPM was above 30%, and this does not include
the significant environmental and health benefits. In the industrialized countries several successful IPM programs havebeen implemented in selected crops (e.g., Norton, 2005), but
successes on the aggregate level remain questionable due toa lack of enabling policy conditions (Waibel et al., 1999).
Iron, zinc and iodine deficiencies are widespread nutritional imbalances (WHO, 2002; FAO, 2004; Hotz and
Brown, 2004; UN-SCN, 2004). The adverse health outcomesof micronutrient deficiencies include child and maternalmortality, impaired physical and mental activity, diarrhea,
pneumonia, stunting or blindness, among others (Stein etal., 2005). Biofortification research aims to reduce malnutrition by breeding essential micronutrients into staple crops.
The CGIAR HarvestPlus Challenge Program concentrates
on increasing iron, zinc and beta-carotene (provitamin A)
content in six staple crops species (rice, wheat, maize, cassava, sweet potatoes and beans). In addition, the programsupports exploratory research in ten additional crops (Qaimet al., 2006). Most biofortified crops are in R&D phase,
except for beta-carotene rich orange fleshed sweet potatoes
and Golden Rice (Low et al., 1997; Goto et al., 1999; Ye
et al., 2000; Lucca et al., 2001; Murray-Kolb et al., 2002;
Drakakai et al., 2005, Ducreux et al., 2005).
Thus far, only ex-ante economic analyses exist for biofortified crops. An evaluation of the potential health benefitsof Golden Rice in the Philippines showed that micronutrient
deficiencies can lead to significant health costs, which could
be reduced through biofortification (Zimmermann and
Qaim, 2004). In an ex-ante impact assessment using disability adjusted life years (DALYS) approach (Qaim et al.,2006) the estimated Internal Rate of Return (IRR) was very
high, ranging 31 to 66% (pessimistic scenario) and 70 to
168% (optimistic scenario). Ex-ante studies on the expected
impact of biofortification research under HarvestPlus havebeen conducted for rice in the Philippines, beans in Brazil
and Honduras, sweet potato in Uganda, maize in Kenya andcassava in Nigeria and Brazil; health-cost reductions range
from 3 to 38% in the pessimistic scenario and from 11 to
64% in the optimistic scenario depending on crop and location (Meenakshi et al., 2006).
To find out if biofortified crops will be adopted bygrowers on a large scale requires research including ex-poststudies building on observable data to verify the preliminary
results. Further research is also needed on the bioavailability
and micronutrient interactions in the human body. The key
conclusion emerging from the available ex-ante studies ischapter 08.indd 522that biofortification could play an important role in achieving nutrient security in particular situations. However, its
benefits will depend on the necessary institutional framework that can facilitate the effective introduction of thesetechnologies as well as an enabling policy framework.
Other impacts of AKST on health, both positive andnegative, can be shown with the development of industrial
livestock. Livestock products contribute to improved nutrition globally and are linked to disease, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer (Walker etal., 2005).
8.2.7 Spillover effects
The wide applicability of research results over a range of agricultural production conditions or environments often cutting across geographical and national boundaries are generally referred to as spillover effects. Spillover effects are a
combination of four effects: price effects from the increased
production caused by reduced costs which are captured in
the supply and demand framework (Hesse and McGregor,
2006). Spill-over technology from country “Y” which canbe adopted without any research in country “X”; spilloverof technology from country “Y” which requires adaptive
research before it is applicable in country “X”; and spilloverof scientific knowledge which ultimately enhances future research in many areas.
Technological spillovers increase the returns to researchand can be spill-ins or spill-outs. Spill-ins take place when acountry is adapting a technology developed elsewhere. This
reduces the national research costs and shortens the timerequired for developing and disseminating the finished product. The gains from spill-ins are important to all researchorganizations, but are higher in smaller systems. Spill-outs
take place when research findings are used by other countries. Spill-outs are important when one is interested in the
total benefits occurring to the country where the technology
was developed as well as the country where it was adopted.
This aspect is critical when performing impact assessment ofa regional network (Anandajayasekeram et al., 2007).
It has been long recognized that AKST spillovers areboth prevalent and important (Evenson, 1989; Griliches,1992). A study that fails to account appropriately for spillins will overestimate the benefits from its own research
investment.7 Similarly if state to state or nation to nation
spillovers are important—as in the case of regional research
networks—and the study measures its own benefit at thenational level and ignores the “spill-outs”, this will underestimate the ROR. Only 12% of the 292 studies in the sample
of one of the aforementioned meta analysis made any allowance for technology spillovers; even fewer allowed for international spillovers (Alston et al., 2000a). They also notedthat by far the majority of research impact studies that haveallowed for international agricultural technology spillovers
were commodity specific studies, rather than national aggregate studies, and mostly they were studies of crop varietal
improvements.
Farmer to farmer spill in/outs are also important, not just locally
but where they happen through travel, guest worker return etc,
but not easy to capture.

7

11/3/08 10:48:25 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 523

A study covering twelve different commodities and using a multicountry trade model, found that spillover effects
from regions where research is conducted to over regionswith similar agroecologies and rural infrastructures ranged
from 64 to 82% of total international benefits (Davis et al.,1987). An analysis of 69 national and international wheat
improvement research programs found that given the magnitude of potential spill-ins from the international researchsystem, many wheat programs could significantly increase
the efficiency of resource use by reducing the size of theirwheat research programs and focusing on the screening ofvarieties developed elsewhere (Davis et al., 1987). The impact of research conducted within individual Latin American and Caribbean countries covering edible beans, cassava,maize, potatoes, rice, sorghum, soybeans and wheat showedthat when allowance was made for spillovers to other regions of the world, the resulting price impacts had important consequences for the distribution of benefits between
producer and consumers and thus among countries within
Latin America and the Caribbean (Alston et al., 2000b). At
least for the United States, the locational range of spill-in
effects for crop production is lower than for livestock production (Evenson, 1989). Crop genetic improvements in the
United States had spillover effects into the rest of the world,with consumers in the rest of the world gaining but producers outside the United States losing (Frisvold et al., 2003).
Overall increases in net global welfare from United States
crop improvements were distributed 60% to the US, 25%
to other industrialized countries, and the remainder to developing and transitional economies.
Growth in public funding for international research
has slowed over the last twenty years (see 9.1). Thus, understanding the ROR of the CGIAR is very important, including the spill in and spill out impacts. Over the years, anumber of studies have attempted to value the benefits toparticular countries from research conducted at CG centers,in some cases comparing them against donor support provided by the countries in question (Brennan, 1986, 1989;
Burnett et al., 1990; Byerlee and Moya, 1993; Bofu et al.,
1996; Fonseca et al., 1996; Pardey et al., 1996; Brennan
and Bantilan, 1999; Johnson and Pachico, 2000; Brennan
et al., 2002; Heisey et al., 2002). For the period 1973-1984,
Australia gained US$747 million in terms of cost savings towheat producers as a United States benefit from its adoptionof wheat varieties from CIMMYT and rice varieties from
IRRI (Brennan, 1986, 1989). Depending on the attribution
rule used, the United States’ economy gained at least US$3.4
billion and up to US$14.6 billion from 1970 to 1993 fromthe use of improved wheat varieties developed by CIMMYTand US$30 million and up to US$1 billion through the useof rice varieties developed by IRRI.8 These estimates did notaccount for the world price impact as a result of the rest of
the world having adopted CIMMYT wheat varieties andthereby driving down the price of wheat.
Assessments were made of Australia’s benefits fromresearch conducted by ICRISAT and ICARDA taking explicit account of the world price impacts (Brennan and Bantilan, 1999; Brennan et al., 2002). Research on sorghum
For a discussion of the issues related to these estimate see Alston(2002) and Pardey et al. (2002).

8

chapter 08.indd 523(ICRISAT) resulted in a national benefit of US$3.6 million (producer loss of US$1.7 million and consumer gainof US$5.3 million) for Australia. Similarly, ICRISAT’s research on chickpeas would have given a national benefitof US$1.2 million (producer loss of US$2.6 million and a
consumer gain of US$3.8 million). The average estimatednet gain to Australia as a result of the overall research effort
at ICARDA in five crops (durum wheat, barley, chick pea,
lentils and faba bean) is US$7.4 million per year (in 2001
dollars and exchange rates) over the period to 2002 (Brennan et al., 2002). This represents 1% of the gross value ofAustralia’s production of the five crops. Most of those gains
are achieved in the faba bean and lentil industries. Producers
receive most of the welfare gains in Australia, amounting to
US$6.5 million of the total.
The main findings of the various studies are (Alston,2002):• Intra national and international spillovers of public agricultural AKST results are very important.
• Spillovers can have profound implications for the distribution of benefits from research between consumers
and producers and thus among countries, depending on
their trade status and capacity to adopt the technology.
• It is not easy to measure these impacts, and the results
can be sensitive to the specifics of the approach taken,
but studies that ignore spillovers are likely to obtain seriously distorted estimates of ROR.
• Because spillovers are so important, research resources
have been misallocated both within and among nations.
The estimation of these state, national or multinational impacts is data intensive, difficult, and adds to the measurement problems (Alston, 2002). However, there can be little
doubt that agricultural AKST generates very large benefits
and that a very large share of those benefits comes throughspillovers. The omission or mismeasurement of spillover effects may have contributed to a tendency to overestimate
ROR to agricultural AKST in some instances. Clearly, theissue of international research spillovers is an important one
for the allocation of resources for research both nationallyand internationally. The spillover benefits to industrializedcountries from international agricultural research have positive funding implications. More work is needed in this area
to develop better methods to measure spillovers and also todevelop the necessary policy institutional arrangements toharness the full potential of spillover effects of AKST technologies (Alston, 2002; Anandajayasekeram et al., 2007).
Agricultural machinery and agricultural chemicals are
obvious cases where industrial AKST is directed towards the
improvement of agricultural inputs. Recent studies conclude
that when new industrial products first come on the market,
they are priced to only partially capture the real value ofthe improvement (most new models of equipment are betterbuys than the equipment that they replace) (Evenson, 2001).
This produces a spill-in impact. Another type of spill-in thatis recognized in few studies is the “recharge” spill-in frompre-invention science. Many of the studies summarized in
the meta-analysis actually covered a wide range of research
program activities including many pre-invention science activities. Some studies specifically identified pre-invention ex-

11/3/08 10:48:25 AM

524 | IAASTD Global Reportpenditures and activities as well as industrial spill-ins (Table
8-17). These studies report relatively high rates of returnand are roughly equal to the social RORs to public agricultural research.
8.2.8 Impacts of public sector agricultural R&D
investments on poverty
Several recent studies (Fan et al., 2000; 2004ab, 2005; Fanand Zhang, 2004) clearly indicate that public investment inagricultural R&D is the most efficient public sector investment (with the exception of Ethiopia). In terms of numberof poor people moving out of poverty, agricultural R&D
investments ranked among the top three. Although limited,
this evidence indicates that the investment in agricultural
R&D performs equally as well or better than the other public sector investments and contributes significantly to poverty reduction. These studies measured the effects of public
spending on growth and poverty reduction in selected Asianand African countries using pooled time-series and crossregion data (Table 8-18).To assess the impact of public investment on poverty, the number of poor people who would
come out of poverty for a fixed investment across different

sectors was estimated. Similar to estimate the economic benefit of the investment the benefit/cost ratios were estimatedat the national level based on the increase in household income and/or productivity per unit of investment. In Asian
countries, the growth effects of investments in agriculturalresearch, roads and education are found to be large. Regional differences were observed within the countries. This
demonstrates that there is an opportunity to improve thegrowth and poverty impacts of total public investments
through better regional targeting of specific types of investment (Fan et al., 2005).
Effects of improved technology on income distribution
across farms with different resource endowments have been
ambiguous. Poverty reduction is largely about distribution.
The benefits of agricultural research investments are large
and undisputed, but their actual levels and distributional
effects remain under discussion (Alston and Pardey, 2001).
Measurement of distributional effects can, in principle, bemade using economic surplus methods (Alston et al., 1995),
although such measurement is not common. One reason why
the debates continue may be that discussions of research impacts on poverty implicitly refer to only one of two separate

Table 8-17. Economic impact studies: Private sector R&D spill-in and pre-invention science spill-in.
StudyCountry/
regionPeriod of study

IRR

Private sector R&D spill-in:
Rosegrant and Evenson, 1993

India

1956-87

Domestic
Foreign

50+
50+

Huffman and Evenson, 1993US

1950-85

Crops

41

Ulrich et al., 1985

CanadaMalting barley

35

Gopinath and Roe, 1996

US

1991

Food processing
Farm machinery
Total social

7.2
1.6
46.2

Evenson, 1991

US

1950-85

Crop
Livestock

45-71
81-89

Evenson and Avila, 1996

Brazil1970-75-80-85

NC

Evenson, 1979

US

1927-50
1946-71

110
45

Huffman and Evenson, 1993USA

1950-85

Crops
Livestock
Aggregate

Evenson et al., 1999

India

1954-87

Domestic
Foreign

Evenson and Flores, 1978

Int. (IRRI)

1966-75

Evenson, 1991

US

1950-85

Azam et al., 1991

Pakistan

1966-68

Pre-invention science spill-in:

57
83
64

74-100Crops
Livestock

40-59
54-83
39

NC= Not calculated
Source: Evenson, 2001.

chapter 08.indd 524

11/3/08 10:48:25 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 525

concepts, absolute and relative poverty. Absolute poverty isa measure of how many people lie below a certain income
threshold; relative poverty measures the degree of income
inequality. Studies that show positive effects of agricultural
R&D on poverty alleviation may implicitly be considering
absolute poverty; studies that indicate negative effects may
be more likely to refer to relative poverty (Foster, 1998).
There are three sets of factors which further conflate
attempts to analyze the impact of AKST on poverty reduction. First, what is the role of underlying socioeconomic
conditions in determining the benefits/costs of AKST? It iseasy to find cases in which poor farmers with small landholdings have benefited as much as large-scale farmers, andthose in which the benefits of new technology were confined
to wealthy, more commercialized farms only. Which outcome predominates depends primarily on the underlying socioeconomic conditions of a particular case rather than thecharacteristics of the technology per se (Kerr and Kolavalli,1999). Second, what is the role of the underlying social andpolitical institutions? A review of the impacts of agricultural research on the poor (Kerr and Kolavalli, 1999) showsthat it is difficult to make generalizations about the impactsof agricultural research on the poor and the distribution of
benefits depends on the underlying social and political institutions rather than technology per se. Effects of improved
technology on income distribution across farms with different resource endowments have been ambiguous. About
80% of a review of 324 papers on the distributional impactsof the green revolution argued that inequity worsened, butthere were significant variations within the data set (Freebairn, 1995). Innovations in agricultural research will not
reduce poverty in the absence of poverty-focused policy andaction (Gunasena, 2003). Third, in the absence of specificdata on the impacts of AKST on poverty alleviation, one
cannot simply use economic growth nor yield increases as
a proxy for poverty reduction. The effect of agricultural research on poverty is usually linked in the literature throughits effects on agricultural productivity (Kerr and Kolavalli,

Table 8-18. Ranking of public investment effects in selected Asian and African countries.
China

India

Thailand

Vietnam

UgandaTanzania

Ethiopia

Ranking of returns in agricultural production
Agricultural R&D

1

1

1

1

1

1
(52.46)3Irrigation

5

4

5

6

Education

2

3

3

3

3

3
(9.00)

2

Roads

3

2

4

4

2

2
(9.13)

1

Telecommunications

4

Electricity

62
8

Health7

Soil and water
conservation

6

Anti-poverty
programs

5

2

5
4

Ranking of returns in poverty reduction
Agricultural R&D

2

2

2

1

Irrigation

7

7

5

6

Education

1

3

4

Roads

3

1

3

Telecommunications

4

Electricity

58
6Soil and water
conservation

5
6

3*

3

3

2

4

2

4

2

HealthAntipoverty
programs

1

1

1

5
4

4

Sources: Fan et al., 2000, 2004ab, 2005; Fan and Zhang, 2004; Mogues et al., 2006.

chapter 08.indd 525

11/3/08 10:48:26 AM

526 | IAASTD Global Report1999). However, increasing productivity is not enough todecrease poverty (Palmer-Jones and Sen, 2006). There areother factors that can affect poverty which are not affectedby the increase in productivity, such as the distribution of
the income, the adoption of the technology or the suitabilityof the technology for the rural community. In addition, increased food supply does not automatically mean increasedfood security for all. What is important is who produces thefood, who has access to the technology and knowledge to
produce it, and who has the purchasing power to acquireit (Pretty and Hine, 2001). Sub-Saharan Africa has experienced growth in the agricultural sector (FAO, 2005b); additional analysis is needed to understand who has benefited
from this growth, and why this growth did not translate into
increased food security.
There is no agreement in the literature as to what kindof technologies would have the biggest impact on the reduction of hunger and poverty. While some authors agree
that the main problem is not the technology itself, but theaccess of the poor to new technologies, others would argue that the problem is that the technologies developed are
not pro-poor, and benefit only the wealthier farmers. Often,
poor farmers do not have access to the technologies anddo not participate in the decision process on technologies.
Thus the research process ignores farmers’ knowledge andexperience even though they may offer insights that could
help identify and/or develop effective technologies for unfavorable areas. For that reason the technologies developed
may increase productivity but this may not be their main
objective. Such systems may perpetuate a sense of helplessness among resource-poor farmers as they wait for effective
technological solutions. Recently, some explicit efforts arebeing made to include farmers’ needs in the R&D agenda.
All actors seem to agree that participatory approaches areneeded; participatory plant breeding seems to be promising (Almekinders and Eling, 2001). What remains unclear
is what role the industry would play in this democratization
process.
The poverty reduction effect can be substantial and it
is free, in the sense that R&D has already paid for itself,
whereas redistribution can be counterproductive due to its
negative effects on growth (Thirtle et al., 2003). A longrun view of technological change must take into account the
distributional effects of agricultural research investments.
These research investments go beyond technology and include institutional innovations and the structure of the innovation system catering to agriculture. The distributional
impact of technological change ultimately depends on theparticular context of policies, markets, and institutions andon interregional connectedness through infrastructure (vonBraun, 2003) (Figure 8-8). Adoption of technologies andsuccess depends on many factors, e.g., land ownership, access to water, and availability and efficient use of diverse
plant genetic resources (von Braun, 2003). This is in linewith the argument that at the farm level, prices, access to
inputs and resources, credit and markets, education levels
and the distribution of land, affect both the rate of uptake of
improved technologies and the extent to which they benefit
the poor (Hazell, 1999). Improved technologies may fail tobenefit poor farmers, not because they are inherently biased
against the poor, but because the distribution of land, or

chapter 08.indd 526

Figure 8-8. The conditioning of agricultural growth anddistributional effects. Source: Von Braun, 2003

access to resources and markets is inequitable. When these
are taken into account it becomes possible to explain why
similar technologies can have very different impacts on thepoor in different regions, or at different times.
Research needs to focus on commodities used by poor
people, and on areas where the poor are concentrated (rainfed highlands, semiarid tropics and marginal lands) (Gunasena, 2003). Without adequate investment in infrastructure,technology and human development in these areas, conditions are likely to deteriorate further. Technologies likely to
succeed in these areas include mixed farming systems—livestock and agroforestry, improved fallows, and cover crops(Gunasena, 2003). In all cases marketing institutions need
to be developed to support the small-scale farmers.
Although less controversial than biotechnology, low-external-input agriculture (LEIA) is also the subject of considerable disagreement (DIFD, 2004). Debate on the relevanceof these technologies is unfortunately often clouded by ideology. A dataset containing information on 208 cases from52 developing countries show that in these projects and initiatives, about 9 million farmers have adopted sustainableagriculture practices and technologies on 29 million hectares(Pretty and Hine, 2001). This demonstrates that sustainableagriculture can reduce food poverty through (1) appropriate technology adapted by farmers’ experimentation; (2) asocial learning and participatory approach between projects
and farmers; (3) good linkages between projects/initiatives
and external agencies, together with the existence of working partnerships between agencies; (4) presence of social
capital at local level. A variety of options are available toincrease the returns to families from their production, either by reducing losses to pests (better storage and treatment) and inefficient processes (e.g., fuel-saving stoves); or
by adding value before sale or use (conversion of primary
products through processing). Adding value through direct
or organized marketing may involve improvements to physical infrastructure (e.g., roads, transport); or through direct
marketing and sales to consumers (thus cutting out wholesalers and “middlemen”).
Other aspects that need attention are the effects ofthe crop technology adoption on gender, for example, inthe distribution of work roles in the cropping (Von Braunand Webb, 1989) and the significant spatial dependence on

11/3/08 10:48:29 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 527

growth rates of agricultural output (Palmer-Jones and Sen,
2006).
Additional important issues to be considered in termsof effects of AKST on poverty reduction include (1) how
researchers are evaluated (Gunasena, 2003); (2) poverty
alleviation as specific target in agricultural policy (Gunasena, 2003); (3) relationship of increased productivity to reduced food prices, and evidence that rural poverty is linked
to international world prices (Minota and Daniels, 2005;
Yavapolku et al., 2006). In addition, indebted countries may
have economic growth but not poverty reduction as theymust pay a substantial part of GDP to external debt.
The future is not just about the need for more scientific effort and technical breakthroughs generated by bothmore public funding and private sector interventions, but
about the political economy of agriculture and food in thedeveloping world (Scoones, 2003). Two basic componentsof well-being are having a secure livelihood to meet one’s
basic needs, and realizing and expanding one’s capabilities
in order to achieve fulfillment. For that reason measuring
the link between poverty and agricultural growth by using
the human development index or developing new indexes
may be necessary.

8.3 Governance of AKST Investments:
Towards a Conceptual Framework
8.3.1 Demand for improved governanceParticularly since the mid-1980s, there has been increasing demand for AKST systems to be accountable to various
stakeholders. These demands have been prompted by thehigh transaction costs of conventional agricultural researchsystems in knowledge generation and transfer as well as inefficiency in resource allocation and utilization (Von Oppen
et al., 2000). Other reasons for recent demands include lackof transparency, exclusion of other stakeholders from theprocess of setting research agendas, unequal access to technologies emanating from research and fear of private sector
monopoly over technologies, particularly in biotechnology(McMahon, 1992; Reisfschneider et al., 1997; Echeverria,
1998; Von Oppen et al., 2000).
The pressure for accountability is varied across countries and regions. For example, in industrialized countries
issues of efficiency and pluralism in the research process
are becoming more important (Heemskerk and Wennink,2005). In most Asian and Latin American countries, thepressure for more accountability seems to be driven by local stakeholders (Byerlee and Alex, 1998; Von Oppen et al.,
2000; Hartwich and Von Oppen, 2000). In the case of subSaharan Africa, it is the donors, who provide more than
one-half of the funding for agricultural research in somecountries (see 8.1), who pressure for accountability (Herz,
1996). These demands for accountability have resulted inchanges in both the sources and the mechanisms for funding
AKST (8.1.4) and hence the rules and modalities which govern the mobilization and utilization of AKST investments.
8.3.2 Defining and judging governance in relation to
AKST investments
The changes in governance of AKST can be viewed as partof an “induced institutional innovation” (Ruttan, 2003),

chapter 08.indd 527

which sees changes in institutions or governance driven
by factors of demand and supply. On the demand side, thecontemporary economic and social realities (including developments of new technologies) are pushing for changes
in governance and institutions mediating AKST investments
globally, nationally and at lower levels within nations. On
the supply side, advances in social science knowledge are increasingly an important source of shifts in the supply of institutional solutions (Ruttan, 2003). Thus the accumulated
knowledge (both theoretical and empirical) on the functioning of institutions can be viewed as facilitating the supply of
new institutional solutions.
The discussion of governance and the criteria to judge
good governance can be approached in several ways. These
criteria can be based on certain outcomes such as how efficient or effective is the governance in meeting predetermined
objectives (Box 8-2).
Box 8-2. On the theoretical framework to analyze
governance.
There are different streams of theoretical literature informing
the discussion on governance. One such framework is that of
New Institutional Economics (NIE), an extended framework ofneoclassical economics. It takes into account demand factors
such as the role of relative prices since such prices play animportant role in deciding what is an appropriate institution ina given context. However NIE admits the possibility that theevolution of appropriate institutional innovation need not be
an automatic process. There can be social, political, and eveninstitutional reasons that distort or blunt the evolution of appropriate institutions. There has been significant development
in institutional analysis during the last two decades highlighting the possibilities of persistence of institutional inefficiency
due to reasons of path dependence, political economy andinformational problems. An alternative framework is that of`
the national innovation system (NIS) (Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1992). It treats R&D as an innovation system in which
both the producers and users are seen as parts of the same
system and attempts to identify certain patterns in system relationships, governance, capacity-building or learning, evolving roles, and wider institutional contexts (Hall and Yoganand,2002). However from the point of view of NIE, NIS approachlacks a coherent theoretical framework, and thus is unable
to develop consistent stories or explanations of different institutional changes taking place in different socioeconomic
contexts. Meanwhile, the criticism of the innovation system
proponents on the NIE-based approach would be that thelatter is inadequate to handle power structures and learning. However the issues of incorrect learning and information
problems have become part of the agenda of NIE increasingly
in the nineties (North, 1991) and the New Political Economy
takes into account the role of power struggles in facilitating or
blocking beneficial institutional changes.

11/3/08 10:48:29 AM

528 | IAASTD Global Report

Governance has three core functions: (1) To identify
what is the “optimal” institutional structure; (2) To manage institutions, which implies monitoring, sustaining, finetuning, and facilitating of all these activities (3) to change
the existing institutions or bring about newer ones to close
the gap between the existing and the “optimal” structures.
Institutions are the formal and informal rules, including
norms and practices. Organizations are not institutions but
actors within institutions. Institutions often include markets too. However nonmarket or meta-market institutions
are also required for AKST investments because of multiple
forms of market failures. Some of these market failures areobservable in any R&D investment requiring institutional
interventions such as patent rules. In general, market failures arise from the public good nature of some forms of
AKST, implying that it is very difficult or costly to exclude
people from using a technology (Norton, 1991; Stiglitz,
2000).
The framework for assessing governance of AKST systems comprises of a set of characteristics that the outcomesof institutional interventions mediated through good governance is expected to have. These are briefly discussed below
to provide clarity of the analytical framework:• Good governance should address identifiable market
failure problems, in order to allocate public resourcesin areas where uncoordinated action of private individuals would be inadequate or inappropriate. Nonetheless, correcting market failure is only justified where
the losses from the failure are higher than the cost ofcorrecting it, including both direct and indirect costs
of institutional intervention. Where there are multiple
forms of market failure occurring at different points ofthe technology development process, each failure must
be addressed accordingly.
• Where agricultural growth is not the constraining factor
to poverty reduction or to attaining economic growth,prioritization of appropriate intervention among sectors
or between agricultural research and other interventions within agriculture is another important outcome.
There may be cases where factors other than R&D become binding constraints to agricultural competitiveness (Garelli, 1996). The appropriate level of resource
allocation for agricultural R&D is also related to sectoral prioritization (Tabor et al., 1998). AKST decisions
are made by many actors; each of them takes into account the expected action of others. For example, poorand small developing countries may want to depend on
international technology transfer and this may be thebest option for certain technologies in order to avoid
unnecessary and costly duplication of efforts (Tabor etal., 1996). However, such dependence may not always
be possible for tropical countries, whose commodities(crops, livestock, fisheries, and forests) are unlikely to
be cultivated or raised in the industrialized world.
• Good governance should ensure that institutions andorganizations (as well as individuals who work withinthese organizations) serve the intended purpose effectively and efficiently under all conditions. The achievement of efficiency in research investments is complex
due to problems of economies (some times disecono-

chapter 08.indd 528•

mies) of scale and scope, which determines the required degree of specialization or diversification of
specific research organizations. These considerations
may also lead to contracting out or contracting in of
specific activities, and also the extent of decentralization in decision-making. The role of governance is toenable the internalization of such efficiency concerns
in decision-making. This requires design of institutions
with: (1) The ability to shape specific objectives to suit
socioeconomic realities. This implies that there shouldbe mechanisms to discontinue research programs thatare no longer acceptable to stakeholders. (Sometimes
inefficient institutions may continue to persist due topath dependence and lock-ins. Meanwhile, efficient institutions have a built-in ability to adapt to changing
realities through feedback.) (2) The ability to meet theobjectives with reasonable assessment of risk and uncertainty. (3) The ability to assess current and potential
future demands of AKST investments. (4) The ability
to carry out assignments and tasks in the most efficientmanner, which entails producing given output at thecheapest possible cost or achieving maximum output
for a given cost. Higher institutional efficiency can beachieved by aligning the incentives of actors to be intune with institutional objectives, which in turn shouldchange with evolving economic environment.
Good governance should aim at following proceduresthat ensure transparency and accountability for minimizing mistakes and errors of judgment to ensure thatbroader societal priorities are reflected in decision making without being captured by distributional struggles
of narrow interest groups. For example, although local
scientists may be better informed about national agricultural priorities, their decisions on funding priority
may be biased towards maximizing the flow of funds totheir own area of work (Tabor et al., 1998).

There can also be process-based criteria for good governance, where the concern is not only on outcomes but also
on how these outcomes are produced. For example, participation of specific stakeholders can be viewed as important for efficiency or effectiveness of outcomes but also as
an important element on its own, with the assumption that
pursuing participation is good irrespective of its impact on
efficiency or effectiveness. Thus there have also been arguments that good governance should follow certain procedural correctness which should permit• Negotiation of diverse interests and the identification ofcommon interests;• Negotiation of clear rules and norms among multiple
stakeholders, their effective implementation and the setting-up of control mechanisms for compliance to theserules and norms;• Equitable access to resources (economic/financial, human, natural, social, physical) and AKST;• Participation in strategic decision-making of all relevant
stakeholders;• Adequate equilibrium among power forces in decisionmaking and implementation of strategic decisions, and• Capacity to influence policy making.

11/3/08 10:48:29 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 529

Governance can also be viewed at multiple levels; at thelevel of a research station, a national research system, a regional research network as well as at the global level. When
we analyze the issues of governance of a research station,
we take the external environment including the objectives
given to the station as exogenous, and try to see how thegovernance of the station can be improved to meet thesegiven objectives within the resource constraints. One canalso analyze the larger question of governance at which one
critically looks at whether the objectives defined by, or resources given to the station are appropriate and meet thecriteria of good governance. Based on the conceptual framework as given here, one can develop a set of questions thatare relevant for analyzing the governance of, and institutions involved in AKST investments (Table 8-19).
8.3.3 Analyzing the experience of governing AKST
investments
8.3.3.1 Public funding/public sector research
The model of public sector research organization came toexist in many parts of the world during the second half ofthe nineteenth century. The founding of the public researchorganization was based on an assumption that nongovernmental agencies (including private firms and farmers themselves) are unable to mobilize adequate resources and skills
required to generate agricultural research (see also 2.2.2).
It was then assumed that farmers generally needed to be
educated on the benefits of new technologies and did nothave any major role in the generation of technology directly.
Thus government, either national or regional, provided theresources for the establishment of these research establishments from the taxes, international aid or other assets suchas state-owned land. This perception of the farmer, however, has changed in recent years.
Investment for AKST by governments has been successful on certain counts. It enhanced the capacity of a numberof countries to carry out good quality research. In manypoor countries, there would not have been any significant
level of agricultural R&D without these institutions due tothe limited capacity as well as inadequate interest of the private or not-for-profit sectors to provide agricultural R&D,
which mostly falls in the public good domain. Governmentfunding for AKST has also played an important role in enhancing the awareness of farmers, in creating a wide poolof trained personnel and informing policy making at thenational level in a number of countries.
Despite such achievements, this model has had several
problems. For example, it did not perform well in assessing the needs of farmers in many parts of the world and it
has been fairly slow in responding to social and economicchanges. There have been innumerable cases where research
investments were directed in a way that they failed to meetset objectives, even if the uncertainty inherent in R&D activities is accounted for. Public organizations were not very
successful in taking into account local agroclimatic andsocioeconomic features in their research programs (Santhakumar and Rajagopalan, 1995). Efficiency of public R&D
organizations is also open to question, and one feature notedin many developing countries is the spending of a greater
amount of financial resources to provide the salary of permanently employed staff, with little left for actual research
activities, which in turn affect the research output and hence
the research efficiency (Eicher, 2001). This may not be directly evident in ROR calculations of agricultural research.
It is possible to have high ROR even with these levels of
inefficiency. There have been inappropriate resource allocations between capital and operating expenditures in the
public sector, resulting in a pool of inadequately trained andequipped personnel, research laboratories without sufficient
operational and maintenance funds, or other inefficiencies.
The fiscal problems of the governments of many developing countries have led to a reduction of resources madeavailable to public research systems, which often reduced

Table 8-19. Guiding questions for institutional assessment on governance.
Issue/Actor
Governance

Guiding Question
1. What are the appropriate intervention strategies in different sectors given the overall social objectives?
2. What is the appropriate intervention given the objectives in the agricultural sector?
3. What is the problem of market failure to be addressed?
4. What is the institutional mechanism required given the problem of market failure?
5. How to ensure that governance decisions are accountable and transparent?

Institutions

6. Is the institutional arrangement capable of meeting the objective?
7. Is the institutional arrangement capable of internalizing the requirements or demands of its potential
clients?
8. Is the institutional arrangement leading to efficient decisions given its alternatives?
9. Does the arrangement have flexibility to evolve in tune with the changing socioeconomic realities?

Organizations

10. What kind of feedback is likely to be generated by the organizations operating within this institutionalframework?

Individuals

11. Are the incentives (monetary as well as other nonmonetary rewards) of the individual actors aligned withthe stated objectives of the organizations?

chapter 08.indd 529

11/3/08 10:48:30 AM

530 | IAASTD Global Report

the funds available for recurring and operating costs (Premchand, 1993; Eicher, 2001). The rewards of the agricultural
staff tend to be misaligned leading to difficulties in keeping
the best talent on the one hand, while the indexed salaries
of employees without much concern for market wages tend
to balloon the overall budget for this purpose. There is also
the widely discussed problem of wage erosion, meaning theloss of salary purchasing power, which impacts negatively
on commitment and morale of research staff.
Sometimes allocations of public resources can lead tospending being spread too thinly across commodities, regions and research themes. There can also be other inefficiencies within public organizations leading to wastage ofresources, corruption and poor planning in public-funded
research. Public sector scientists can continue with researchon commodities (crops, livestock, and natural resources)
and technologies even when farmers move out of these areas
due to economic reasons. Some studies show that returns
to public sector agricultural extension became low due tothe multitude of “non-extension” duties, and that extension
agents were not the main sources of technical information
to farmers (Isinika and Mdoe, 2001).
During the 1980s, public research models were reformed
to become more participatory. This was to make public research organizations more responsive to the requirements offarmers, especially those that are poor and live in resourcedeprived areas (Kaimowitz, 1993). Only limited successes
were achieved through such participatory research models.
This could be due to the fact that the structure of publicresearch organizations was not reformed. The channels ofpriority setting do not correspond to the funding channels,
in other words, funding is provided from other sources thanthose setting research priorities (Hartwich and von Oppen,
2000). Another reason could be that the incentives for individual researchers were not always adequately oriented toparticipatory research. These incentives include not merely
additional money but also additional facilities to carry out
participatory research, but also intangible ones.
Public research organizations have also responded tothe criticisms on their inefficiency by adopting impact assessment of their efforts, priority-setting exercises, and also
the introduction of operation and management reforms
through measures such as decentralization, accountability,transparency and cost recovery among others (Hall et al.,2000). Moreover there have been efforts to give more autonomy to research organizations, remove them from civil
service regulations and to provide greater flexibility to manage their physical, financial and human resources (World
Bank, 2000). One can see such examples from the industrialized world. There has also been decentralization of researchand extension systems in developing countries including
Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Zambia and Ethiopia (Anandajayasekeram and Rukuni, 1999). Similar examples of morepluralism in AKST systems were documented for various
other African and Latin American countries (Shao, 1996;
Byerlee, 1998; Echeverria, 1998; Heemskerk and Wennink,2005). But the experiences in different countries are mixed.
Research practices and administrative and financial procedures of national research systems have not witnessed any
major changes in a number of countries. On the other hand,reforming compensation in the national agricultural system

chapter 08.indd 530

of Chile has made the public research sector more attractive
to talented agricultural researchers (Venezian and Muchnik,1994).
The resource allocation for public sector research,though ideally driven by considerations of social welfare,is determined in reality by the political economy9 , i.e., thestruggle between the interests of different societal sections(social groups, regions, growers of specific crops, gender),and also those who dominate decision-making. Evidence
from different parts of the world indicates the influence ofsuch political-economy factors in resource allocation for
agricultural research. Research and extension spending islinked to the political effectiveness of farm interests (RoseAckerman and Evenson, 1985). A study of 37 countries
show that structural changes in the economy have important effects on the political incentives to invest in public agricultural research (Swinnen et al., 2000).
Thus even when agricultural research provides higher
returns or has the potential to reduce poverty; it does not
get enough investments in the public allocation of resources.
Sometimes ideological considerations lead to high priority
being placed on certain crops, thus making investments
economically inappropriate. For example, concerns aboutfood security in certain states of India have led to excessive
research investments on some crops, and farmer adoption ofcommercial crops unsuited for the region (Santhakumar andRajagopalan, 1995; Santhakumar et al., 1995). Gender isan area where political economy influences research investments and outcomes. This manifests itself in certain situations through inadequate investment in research on crops
cultivated by women or technologies which would reducethe drudgery of female agricultural workers. In certain othersituations, new technologies produced through researchlead to the displacement of women workers. An example isaccess women have to ICT, which may be limited because of
their reduced physical access to resources and infrastructure,social and cultural norms, education and skills, and poverty
and financial constraints (Hambly Odame et al., 2002).
Does democracy help in achieving the socially desirable objectives through AKST investments? There is no
straightforward answer evident from the literature (e.g.,
Diamon and Plattner, 1995) on whether democracy vs. theresponsiveness of governments has a higher degree of suchachievement. Even in democratic countries the political process can be captured by narrow interest groups, whose goals
do not necessarily aim at overall social welfare. Even if therole of such groups are controlled, democracy is likely tobe driven by the preference of the median voter, and there
are situations in which the interest of such a voter need not
be in tune with the maximization of the overall welfare of
the society. Thus, though democracy is valuable by itself,
and provides greater opportunity for wider participation inpolitical decision-making, there is no assurance that it willlead to decisions that enhance the welfare of the society as awhole. The lesson for AKST is that democratic governanceis not sufficient to ensure effective and efficient investments
aimed at achieving larger development goals.
The term political economy is used within the framework of“new political economy” (e.g., Bardhan, 1997).

9

11/3/08 10:48:30 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 531

8.3.3.2 International donors
Broadly, international donors are motivated by three objectives for extending funding for ASKT to developing countries. These are:• International charity or resource transfer based on altruistic considerations;• Correction of international market failure or the provision of international public goods; and/or• Expansion of the markets of the donor countries.
These objectives have motivated international donors to
support agricultural research and extension capacity to enhance food production in many developing countries during
the last 50 or more years.
Although international funding for AKST is a major
source of support in the developing or poorer countries anddomestic research would not have developed without thiscrucial support, international funding can also create distortions. The availability of international funding at times
may encourage domestic players from mobilizing internal
resources. This is most visible in Africa where donor support to agricultural research has increased in relation todomestic support so that nearly half of the agricultural investment in Africa is from donors including developmentbanks (see 8.1.4). This has perpetuated donor dependence
and undermined efforts to develop domestic political support for sustainable funding, especially for the smallholder
sector (Rukuni et al., 1998; Eicher, 2001). The allocationsof international funds between different types of expenditures, such as between capital and recurring costs, do notneed to adequately reflect the domestic opportunity costof the resources. There have been instances where external
aid has compounded the inefficiencies in AKST investment
decisions in developing countries. The risk of bad investment goes up when grants are easily available (Tollini,1998).
Correcting market failures at the international level
could be another force driving international donors to fund
AKST systems or generation. There are at least two major
forms of market failures. There can be international negative externalities, which need action at the international
level, but there may also be instances where it is efficient for
the international community to take action to address certain problems within the developing countries that have thepotential for global impact. The recent incidence of avian
flu is a good example. Even if the interest in the industrialized world is to protect itself, financing some activities indeveloping world on preventative measures at the source ofthe problem would be a more effective and efficient strategy
rather than spending money only on protective activities
within the industrialized world. Similar arguments apply
for international public goods. Certain technologies or technology generation systems themselves can be seen as international public goods. The ideal strategy would be for theindustrialized and developing world to pool their resources
together, but there are problems of coordinating such efforts. The severity of lacking such public goods perceived in
the industrialized world would encourage them to take proactive steps, whereas developing countries who face othermore pressing problems would give low priority. How far
AKST investments driven by the requirements of correcting

chapter 08.indd 531

international market failure reflect the economic variablesof the world as a whole, would determine their effectiveness,
efficiency and outcomes. Moreover, it is important to seethat such investments made in the developing world do notcreate distortions in their economies.
The expansion of markets or cost-reduction of global
production has also driven industrialized countries, multinational firms and multilateral agencies to make AKST
investments in developing countries. These, however, raise
a number of issues: (1) Trade and nontrade barriers (andassociated transaction costs) might influence where such investments take place and at what cost; (2) Since the domestic institutions in many developing countries are weak, thismay lead to an intensification of “market failure” problems
in such countries. For example, there are apprehensions on
increasing field research of new (genetically modified) seedvarieties in developing countries as part of international contract research, without taking adequate safeguards against
the unknown long-term impacts of such seed varieties andalso for the preservation of local genetic materials.
The urge to expand the lending of multilateral funding
agencies has also received criticism during the last decade.
The incentives of the personnel in these agencies could bedirected towards excessive lending, and this, combined with
the incentive of political and administrative decision makers of developing countries to borrow excessively (morethan what is warranted by the domestic economy considerations), can lead to excessive loans. Whether this incentive
problem has affected the efficiency of multilateral funding
for AKST in developing countries is an issue that needs tobe analyzed.
8.3.3.3 Competitive funding
Block grants have been used for allocating research resources for many years. Now block grants have become lessattractive as concerns have been raised about inefficiency inresource allocation, effectiveness and relevance of research aswell as exclusion of other stakeholders in the research process, from priority setting to execution of research projects/
programs (McMahon, 1992; Echeverria, 1998; Reisfschneider et al., 1998; Von Oppen et al., 2000). This has led to
the gradual evolution of competitive funding mechanisms at
the international and national levels. Competitive grants:• Allow for a wider network of actors to participate in the
research process broadening the scientific talent available(Von Oppen et al., 2000);• Allow for a possibility to seek a diversity of funding
sources (Byerlee, 1998);• Improve research quality (Byerlee and Alex, 1998);• Improve allocation of research resources (Alston et al.,1995).
However, competitive funds have the disadvantage of having high transaction costs (Echeverría, 1998). Competitive
grants take scientists’ time (funded through core funding)for preparation of research proposals, and evaluation (Huffman and Johnson, 2001). There is also significant increasein administrative costs for managing research competition.
Another disadvantage of competitive grants is that they do
not contribute to capacity development in terms of infrastructure and human capital development. They also tend to

11/3/08 10:48:30 AM

532 | IAASTD Global Report

be of short term in nature, which may divert attention from
more crucial research topics and national priorities (Echeverría, 1998). It has been noted in Africa that competitive
grants (1) fail to include beneficiaries in the research process; (2) fail to prioritize and hence tend to spread resources
too thinly; (3) create uncertainty as to whether the funds
are truly competitive and are able to link to performance,
given the limited number of researchers in the region; (4) are
expensive to operate; and (5) are not sustainable without
external donor support. The inherent ex-ante uncertainty
in research, asymmetric information that makes monitoringof scientists by administration difficult, and the sharing ofrisk between funding agencies, administrators and scientists
are issues that may make contract-oriented reforms in R&D
complex even in industrialized countries.
8.3.3.4 Commodity boards and growers’ associations
The growing role of commodity boards, producer-fundedor growers’ associations, in research is also a related development. Nonprofit organizations constitute a comparatively large share of agricultural research in Colombia andsome Central American countries (Beintema and Pardey2001). Colombia has twelve nonprofit institutions, which
accounted for about one-quarter of the country’s agricultural research investments during the mid-1990s. Many ofthese agencies began conducting research several decades
ago and are funded largely through export or production
taxes or voluntary contributions (Beintema et al., 2006). In
Africa examples include agencies conducting research ontea (Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zimbabwe), coffee (Uganda,
Kenya, Tanzania), cotton (Zambia), and sugar (Mauritius,South Africa). There are, however, other forms of nonprofit
institutions in a number of countries, including Madagascar
and Togo, although these play a limited role in agriculturalresearch (Beintema and Stads, 2006). There is no evidence
that the involvement of growers’ associations or private sector has added more investment for AKST or have been replacing government funding.
How far research driven by these agencies is different
in terms of efficiency and effectiveness from that in statefunded organizations, especially in the developing world, isa question requiring further investigation. In tea researchin India the R&D carried out under planters’ association
leads to the development of appropriate technology due tothe greater awareness of clients’ requirements, and fasteror timely communication of these technologies to the users(Muliyar, 1983). If commodity boards have also a mandate
for marketing and/or the provision of other support services(including subsidies), they may have a greater incentive forbeing effective in terms of technology generation and extension, even if these boards function under the government(Narayana, 1992). In Kenya, acceptable ratios of personnel/
operations cost prevail in coffee and tea research, which isfinanced by a cess. But there are also cases in Kenya where
growers’ associations became politicized and hence being
less accountable to the growers (Kangasniem, 2002).
One concern is that the producers’ associations or commodity boards focus on the sole benefit to producers andthereby mostly neglecting the welfare of the consumers andthe economy as a whole. It is not uncommon to see thegrowers’ associations and commodity boards lobbying forchapter 08.indd 532

enhanced protection of their products in domestic markets
or support for exports, both of which may have a negative
impact on domestic consumers. Moreover, the provision ofsubsidies associated with the propagation of specific technologies, as well as the bureaucratic compulsions of commodity boards may also lead to excessive inducement offarmers to adopt specific production systems, which may
not be sustainable in a more market-determined situation.
Finally, it is possible that producer organizations may not
be the best suppliers of research services except for adaptive
on-farm research (Echeverria et al., 1996). These shortcomings provide a justification for continuation of government
funding for basic and strategic research even in industrialized countries. Moreover, for crops that have a large numberof cultivators such as rice or wheat, the concept of growers’
association becomes unmanageable and would have problems similar to those of government-owned research. Additionally, to what extent the small farmers are represented
by these associations remains unclear and depends on thecommodity and the countries.
8.3.3.5 Private research
In the industrialized countries and the more advanced
developing countries, the inadequacies of the public research model led to the gradual emergence of private sector (or broadly market-oriented) reforms in agricultural
R&D investments in the late seventies and eighties. Thiswas facilitated by the interests and the capability that theprivate sector has developed in AKST investments. The
structural adjustment policies implemented in many developing countries,10 the global changes in trade regime anddevelopments in biotechnologies, have also facilitated thistransition.11 This transition is manifested in the increase in
private sector funding in public sector organizations anduniversities, and the increase of the research directly carried out by private sector organizations. The commercial orapplication-orientation of the private sector to some extent
fills the gap between technology generation and extensionthat existed in the public research model. There has been an
increasing involvement of the private sector in agriculturalextension as well (Umali and Schwartz, 1994).
There are variations between countries and regions interms of the contribution of private sector in agriculture research (see 8.1.1). Though private sector investments play
an important role in OECD countries, their share in many
developing countries continues to remain insignificant. Not
surprisingly, there may be a linkage between national income of the countries and the role of the private sector in
agricultural research (McIntire, 1998). But the lack of significant private research is also often the result of the legal
and administrative environment in many countries (Ahmed
and Nagy, 2001).12 There are indications that mutually10
See Tabor (1995) for a number of articles dealing with the impact
of structural adjustment policies on agricultural research system.
11
Private sector involvement in agricultural biotechnology
research started much before, and by the 1990s, private sector
investment in this regard has exceeded that of the universities andgovernment owned laboratories (Lewis, 2000).
12
On the other hand some countries (for example, Thailand) seemto have government policies favorable to private sector research.

11/3/08 10:48:30 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 533

negative perceptions of public and private players, unresolved issues of risk and liability, high transaction and opportunity costs act as barriers against the development ofpublic-private partnerships (Spielman, 2004; Spielman andGrebmer, 2004).
Each of these funding mechanisms has advantages anddisadvantages. In developing countries where governancestructures are still weak, the advantages may not be apparent during initial stages of the funding options (Box 8-3).
8.3.4 AKST governance and changes in the larger
institutional environment
So far we have considered only the institutions directly
governing AKST investments. However the broader institutional environment encompassing the ownership of rights
over land, water, and other common property resources
would also influence indirectly the governance of AKST investments. The institutions under this category can include
land reform, water management, forest protection, international standards related to food products and agricultural
imports, international law of the seas, global agreements on
climate change and so on. These institutions that set therules for managing natural resources locally, nationally andinternationally would have a direct bearing on the effectiveness, nature and content of AKST investments. Similar is
the impact of emerging organizational forms in the tradeof agricultural and related commodities. For example, contract farming for export-oriented horticultural crops is expanding in many developing countries, and this will havea bearing on how AKST is generated and used, and consequently how investments are made for this purpose (Porterand Phillips-Howard, 1997; Haque, 1999). It is not onlythat the effectiveness of AKST investments is influenced byinstitutions governing natural resource management anduse, but, increasingly AKST investments are also seen as solutions, albeit partially for sustaining the natural resourcebase. This is especially important in a context where urban
and environmental interests in resources such as land andwater compete with farming interests (Farrell, 2004). AKST
investments and the institutions of natural resource management are in turn influenced by the wider political and economic institutions of countries and the world. The market
expansion in developing countries,13 changes in world trade
regime,14 structural adjustment policies in many countries,
and others are going to influence not only natural resource
management but also investments in AKST.
In addition to these institutions, the way human consumption especially that of food and agricultural commodities changes in the future would have a strong influence on
the nature of AKST investments. Though economic variPoorly developed market infrastructure can influence the distribution of gains from agricultural research (Dasgupta and Stiglitz,1980).
14
The opening up of an economy may result in having less farmers influence prices; hence they may become less capable of being
the major beneficiaries of agricultural innovations. Changes
in trade regime may have a greater potential in changing the
distribution of direct benefits of agricultural research in a country
than other routes such as better targeting of agricultural researchexpenditure (Voon, 1994; Sexton and Sexton, 1996).
13

chapter 08.indd 533

Box 8-3. Experience of new funding options in
African countries.
Many African countries have implemented new governanceenhancing strategies such as separation of policy making, funding and service provision, decentralization of public administration, deconcentration of service provision, andempowerment of communities and farmers organizations.
Experience from Tanzania and Benin (Heemskerk and Wennink, 2005) have shown that local R&D funding schemes havecontributed significantly to financial diversification for agricultural innovation. However, real and substantial empowermentof farmers’ organizations in controlling financial research foradaptive research and pre-extension is still low. Although
downward accountability has improved, real client control offunds has stagnated and farmers’ representation in management teams of competitive grant schemes remains weak due
to traditional top down attitudes of researchers and research
managers.
Decentralization and deconcentration of local innovation
development funds have been more successful in technology
generation, and in fostering the competitive element, which
has enhanced the quality of research and the sense of ownership. Nonetheless, other concerns such as developing more
viable mechanisms for client representation, priority focus
and pro-poor focus of available funds, level of co-sharing andcost sharing are all yet to be resolved. In addition, some of
the competitive grants and commodity based innovation development funds are insufficiently integrated into the national
financing system.
In terms of effectiveness and efficiency, there is evidence
that more adaptive technologies are flowing to farmers undercompetitive funding, but there is no effective mechanism tosystematize the information on the innovation adoption process. There has also been improvement in priority setting,planning and implementation, but not as much in monitoring
and financing. Competitive grants tend to spread resources
too thinly. Experience in Tanzania showed that effectivenessof competitive grants could be improved by focusing on asingle theme using the value chain approach. Another disadvantage in the African context is that competition may belimited due to insufficient numbers of competent researchers.
In addition, competitive funds in African have been dependenton donors, whose pledges by donors have sometimes notbeen forthcoming. Cofinancing from local sources has also
been unpredictable. Competitive funds are also expensive tooperate due to high transaction cost especially for monitoringand evaluation (Lema and Kapange, 2005ab).

ables such as income play an important role, social, culturaland ideological factors do have significant influence on theevolution of human food and consumption systems. There
need not be a linear evolution from traditional and homebased subsistence consumption to a full reliance on globally
integrated markets for commodities produced with factory-

11/3/08 10:48:31 AM

534 | IAASTD Global Reportbased inputs and modern technology. There are indications
from India and China that economic growth and development do not lead to a decline in (if not an increase of) the
demand for the so-called traditional systems of food-making
or nature-dependent health care systems. This underscores
the importance of visualizing different scenarios of future
and their likely influence on the investments of AKST. However one probable scenario on the governance of AKST in
the near future is outlined below.
8.3.5 The future roles of governance and institutional
structure
In many developing countries the domestic private sector
may continue to play only a small role in the near future.
Even in industrialized countries, the new set of research instruments is not going to replace the conventional publicresearch model. It is envisaged that there will be a combination of public and private investments with the latter
increasing over time. The additional costs associated withcompetitive funding would encourage the persistence of a
combination of conventional forms of funding (such as formula funding) and competitive grants in the near future.
However competitive funding as a mechanism complementary to the regular budgetary support seems to be inevitable(Gage et al., 2001), or project funding and institutional
grants may have to coexist (Becker, 1982).
Similarly one should not expect that the private sector
is going to replace the public sector even in areas such as
agricultural biotechnology in which private organizations
have an upper hand. Private sector research will concentrateon areas where (a greater part of the) benefits can be privately appropriated as in export or plantation crops, hybrid
seed development or in off-farm processing of agricultural
products, and in the diffusion of capital goods such as agrochemicals. For example, USAID recognizes that the private
sector will not deliver biotechnology applications for many
crops (such as minor or food security crops), will not address all biotic and abiotic production constraints, which
are important in developing countries nor will it realize
the development of commercial markets in all developing
countries (Lewis, 2000). Public sector research will have tofill these gaps. Moreover, some of the conventional market
failures associated with agricultural R&D are still important and hence some form of societal or state intervention
may continue to be necessary. Some of these market failures,
which make private investments alone inadequate, are thefollowing:• Given the scale economies in specific research initiatives, competition and existence of multiple firms may
not be economical. This would lead to monopoly powers of the existing firms, which would warrant certain
regulations to remove entry barriers in order to avoid
social losses;• Given the features of positive externality or public good
associated with the development of agricultural innovations and knowledge, it is very likely that there can beunderinvestment (less than the socially optimal levels)by private firms in such cases. This may be particularly
so in the creation of what can be called basic or pureknowledge where the appropriation or excludability
problem is acute;chapter 08.indd 534

•

•

•

Certain innovations or technologies may have negative
externalities especially with regard to environmental
pollution or long-term health hazard. This is an area
where institutional intervention by the state or society
is required to make the private firms internalize theseexternalities;
There can also be a distributional issue which would
prompt governments to intervene (that need not necessarily be through state-owned research organizations)to see that technologies that help poorer farmers livingin less resource-endowed areas (for example droughtprone) are also generated. It is argued that the disbursement of funds in public sector research through competitive grants is likely to generate regional disparities
as well as less money for activities such as managing
natural resources and the environment, which neednot be profitable in market value terms. This too can
encourage public support for research, which are notsolely based on commercial considerations;
Agricultural research has to stand on the firm foundation of higher education. In many countries, including
those in the industrialized world, higher education in
AKST is closely linked to research laboratories. Higher
education is unlikely to thrive solely on profit-oriented
investments. This would necessitate the functioning of
public/private organizations involved in agriculturalresearch based albeit partially on public funds and endowments or other nonprofit oriented investments.

However it is very likely that there is more and more rethinking on the specific roles governments (both national
and local), funding organizations and public sector researchorganizations in AKST investments. It is quite possible thatstate-owned institutions devote more resources on technologies to be used by the poor, and also on environmental
conservation and other related areas where due to the externalities, private firms are less likely to invest adequately.
(This is based on the assumption that the distributional
struggles, political economy and the overall governance,
including the role of democracy, are such that poverty reduction and mitigation of externalities become priorities of
the governments.) In future there will be more and more
public private partnerships in agricultural research and here
the experience from OECD countries seem to be successful
in making research systems more responsive to the rapidtransformation of economy and their innovation requirements (Guinet, 2004). There are multiple ways of enlisting
private partnership in public research and here the choice of
mechanisms is very important to enhance the overall benefits. Governments and public sector organizations may be
more involved in regulation and quality control of products
and technologies developed by the scientists from both public organizations and private firms. Scientists may have toencounter more competition in getting research funds not
only from international organizations but also from theirnational governments. The labor market for scientists may
also become more flexible with shorter-period incentivebased contracts rather than permanent jobs. Though thereis evidence that participation by private partners enables
publicly funded research to concentrate on areas where
private incentives are weaker (Day-Rubenstein and Fuglie,

11/3/08 10:48:31 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 535

1999), care is needed to ensure that institutional changes inpublic sector and changing sources of funding do not undermine the research agenda of public institutions, especiallythe generation of knowledge, which may not seem to be
profitable and viable by the private firms.

8.4 Investment options
The goal of this international assessment of AKST is toprovide policy makers with investment options for meeting the development and sustainability goals. Since no single
investment can meet all goals at once, a portfolio of AKST
investments are needed. Countries are likely to have different weights on the importance of the different objectives
and so alternative combinations of AKST investments will
be presented based on whether countries place more weighton environmental goals, improving health and nutrition,
reducing poverty and hunger, or maximizing economic
growth.
This subchapter focuses on the research investment
options of governments, international organizations, andfoundations that support AKST in order to achieve development and sustainability goals. The questions that theseorganizations would like to be answered include:• How much should governments invest in AKST versus
other public goods?
• How should AKST resources be allocated? Which commodities? Where—for example, less favored land, small
poor countries? What type of technology—for example, labor using, land saving, or water saving technologies? Which disciplines? Which components of AKST?
Which institutions?
• What methods should be used to decide how muchmoney to invest and how to set AKST priorities?
The answers to the first two questions need to incorporate
multiple criteria, which should include at least public RORs
to research as well as the impacts on poverty, human health,and environment (see 8.2). Societies and policy makers
who place more emphasis on poverty reduction rather thaneconomically sustainable development or environmental
sustainability could place more weight on the AKST investments that reduce poverty than societies that favor improving the environment. Societies with more poor people mayplace more weight on research to improve the livelihood of
the poor than on research to reduce greenhouse gases Countries in which agribusiness plays a big role in the economy
and a large role in governance of the public research institutes, may invest more in developing productivity-increasing change.
Formal priority-setting methods, including those basedon ROR studies, are in practice only occasionally used to set
research priorities, and formal multi-criteria techniques forresearch resource allocation are used even less (Alston et al.,1995). This is because they are expensive, time consuming,and some factors are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify.
The impacts of agricultural research on environment, healthand poverty have been particularly difficult to measure (see8.2.5, 8.2.6, 8.2.8). As a result, most of the studies that wewere able to assess and base our policy options on are thoseof the ROR type. However, making mistakes when invest-

chapter 08.indd 535

ing in AKST can also be a problem. Investing money in an
AKST project that has little social or economic importance,large negative consequences, or very little chance of succeeding can be even more expensive than formal priority setting.
Thus investing in formal priority setting can save money andhave high payoffs. Changes in governance that incorporate
users of this technology into the priority setting and evaluation processes can also be productive.
When looking forward—particularly 50 years forward—
people who decide on AKST investments often simply haveto look for major problems that appear to be coming andinvest to fill gaps in knowledge.
8.4.1 Criteria and methods for guiding AKST
investments“Any research resource allocation system, regardless of how
intuitive or how formal in its methodology, cannot avoid
making judgments on two major questions. What are thepossibilities of advancing knowledge or technology if resources are allocated to a particular commodity, problem
or discipline? What will be the value to society of the newknowledge or the new technology if the research effort issuccessful?” (Ruttan, 1982).
ROR studies and broader comprehensive impact assessments can be undertaken before initiating any AKST investment (ex-ante) or after completion of the R&D activities(ex-post) depending on the purpose. The purpose of undertaking ex-ante assessments is to study the likely economic
impact of the proposed investment, to formulate research
priorities by examining the relative benefits of the different AKST investments, to identify the optimal portfolio
of investments and to provide a framework for gathering
information to carry out an effective and efficient ex-post
assessment. Thus the greatest benefit of ex-ante assessment
is derived from its power to assist decision makers to makeinformed decisions on investments i.e., in setting priorities
to allocate the scarce resources.
AKST investment priorities are set at both micro andmacro levels. More formal quantitative methods are usedat the macro level and participatory methods are increasingly being used at the micro level. Priority setting is carriedout explicitly or implicitly in all AKST investments throughallocation of research resources to different commodities,
regions, disciplines problems and type of technology. Since
priority setting occurs at various levels of decision making,the resource allocation questions and methods employedvary depending on the level at which priorities are set. Priority setting also requires intensive consultation among andbetween politicians, administrators, planners, researchers aswell as the beneficiaries. Formal procedures facilitate thisprocess as they systematize the consideration of key variables and multiple objectives in the analysis and allow aninteractive process to develop.
Priority setting based on ex-ante assessment employs arange of methods that can be broadly classified into supplyand demand-oriented approaches; although some combination of these approaches is often used in empirical studies.
Supply-oriented approaches to priority setting and resource
allocation often are conducted at the more aggregative regional and national level and use a variety of methods from

11/3/08 10:48:31 AM

536 | IAASTD Global Report

informal methods based on previous allocations; discussions and consensus among research managers taking into
account national agricultural goals and strategies; to formal
quantitative methods such as scoring models, congruency
analysis, domestic resource cost ratio, mathematical programming, and simulation techniques. The more sophisticated approaches such as programming and simulation rely
on mathematical optimization of a multiple goal objectivefunction to select the optimum portfolio of AKST investment. These are data and skill intensive and thus often quite
costly to undertake. Many attempts have been made in thepast to use a formal priority setting exercise to ensure that
research resources are allocated in ways that are consistent
with national and regional objectives and needs. Studies
which have been undertaken to assess ex-ante AKST investment priorities have included those employing criteria which
include equity and distributive concerns (Fishel, 1971; Pinstrup-Andersen et al., 1976; Binswanger and Ryan, 1977;
Oram and Bindlish, 1983; Pinero, 1984; Von Oppen and
Ryan, 1985; ASARECA, 2005) those focusing more on efficiency criteria such as congruency (Scobie, 1984); those employing the notion of comparative advantage using domestic
resource cost analysis (Longmire and Winkelmann, 1985);
those using economic surplus to examine research priorities(Schuh and Tollini, 1979; Norton and Davis, 1981; Ruttan, 1982; Davis et al., 1987, Omamo et al., 2006); andthose using an optimization routine (Pinstrup-Andersen andFranklin, 1977; Mutangadura, 1997). One of the most comprehensive studies of research resource allocation lists methods for allocating research resources (Alston et al., 1995).
These combine information from scientists, technicians andother experts on the expected output of science, their probability of success and possible timelines with informationfrom economists and other social scientists on what the potential economic and social payoff would be if the research
investment is successful. The formal methods have been
extended to include environmental consequences of AKST
investments (Crosson and Anderson, 1993). The overall aim
is to foster consistency of research priorities with goals andobjectives and to improve the efficiency of the AKST investments in meeting the needs of the producers, consumers andsociety at large.
In demand-oriented approaches, priorities are set basedon the perspective of major stakeholders from outside theresearch system—especially the users. These might employ
consultative and participatory methods using various formsof ranking techniques or users themselves might be empowered to make decisions on research priorities. However, it
is worth keeping in mind that demand-led and supply-led
approaches are not mutually exclusive. Better results canbe obtained by combining formal supply-led priority settingwith participatory approaches leading to better ownershipof resulting priorities and greater chances that the priorities
will be translated into actual resource allocation. Even theimperfect participation and empowerment of beneficiaries islikely to produce better results than conventional supply-led
approaches on both efficiency and equity grounds, as they
can improve the probability of broad-based adoption oftechnologies and knowledge generated, thereby enhancing
innovation capacity. The challenge is to develop a judicious
blend of bottom-up (demand-led) and top-down (supply-

chapter 08.indd 536

led) approaches to priority setting incorporating the multiple goals of AKST investments.
Formal models exist for the ex-ante evaluation of research projects, which are being used increasingly in moreindustrialized countries to allocate research funds but this isless common in developing countries (Pardey et al., 2006a).
Few formal ex-ante models incorporate the goals of reducing poverty and hunger and the environmental consequences
as explicit criteria for allocating research resources. Some
progress has been made recently to incorporate these aspects
in the analytical process. The two ex-ante studies reported
in Eastern and Southern Africa (ASARECA, 2005; Omamo
et al., 2006) consider the ex-ante benefits of all major commodities and the economic and poverty reduction potential of research investments. In addition, there are specificstudies on site-specific maize research in Kenya (Mills et al.,1996) and the research priority setting under multiple objectives for Zimbabwe (Mutungadura, 1997; Mutungaduraand Norton, 1999). The extent to which such results are
actually used for setting the R&D agenda remains unclear.
These approaches (based on expected costs and benefits) arevery useful in allocating resources among applied and adaptive research programs and projects. However, they are ofvery little use to allocate resources between basic, strategic,
applied and disciplinary research.
It is not just methods per se that are problematic; it isalso the ability of would-be analysts gaining the requisite
skills to use what methods are available. In the context of
NARS, the task of developing the needed capacity to address
aspects such as environmental and economic assessment ofagricultural technology consequences on NRM (Crosson
and Anderson, 1993) is still not yet adequately developed,
especially in an era of profound underfunding of research,
at local, national and regional levels. An important issue indeveloping and implementing AKST investment priorities is
to explicitly incorporate the requirements of those who are
expected to benefit from such investments.
Our approach in this study, which presents the empirical evidence available on the economic, health and environmental impacts of research but does not try to use a formal
priority setting process to weight the importance of different
criteria, reflects the discussion of well-intentioned, but often
misguided attempts to deal with such multi-criteria formulations of research priorities (Alston et al., 1995). The review
of methods based on scoring models suggests that there
are definitely methodological challenges in such work yet
to be satisfactorily dealt with. This fact shows the need ofmore resources to develop easier and more effective evaluation methods that can include environmental and societal(poverty, nutrition and health) impacts, both positive andnegative.
8.4.2 Investment options
The ideal social planner would be able to rank research investments by their expected contribution to economicallysustainable development, decreased hunger and poverty,
improved nutrition and health, and environmental sustainability; and then would solicit weights from society basedon the relative value society places on these expected contributions. Each country will have different weights based on
the governance of the system and the countries’ available re-11/3/08 10:48:32 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 537

sources, their culture, their institutions and their technology.
More investment in AKST can make important contributions to the goals of economically sustainable development,
hunger and poverty reduction, environmental sustainability,
and improvement of nutrition and health.
The private sector will not make major investments inthe provision of public goods, poverty reduction, and theprovision of environmental services and health services forwhich there is no market (see 8.3.5). Therefore most governments, especially in developing countries, need more public sector investments into AKST that will produce public
goods and services necessary to reach development and sustainability goals. Few countries are likely to reach the 2%
research intensity level of OECD countries, but they willneed a major increase in investment in agricultural researchintensity from the current level of 0.5% (see 8.1).
As reported in 8.2.8, studies of seven countries in Asia
and Africa showed the returns to agricultural research werehigh relative to other investments that countries could makesuch as irrigation, roads, electricity, and other government
programs (Fan et al., 2000, 2004ab, 2005; Fan and Zhang,2004). Agricultural research was one of the leading investments that governments could make to reduce poverty. Research by itself will not lead to poverty reduction, but it canbe an important component of a poverty reduction strategy.
The other component of AKST in these studies was primaryeducation which also made a major contribution to poverty
reduction. The evidence shows that research alone cannot
reduce poverty and thus funding for AKST must be accompanied by other pro-poor policies, such as access to natural
resources, equity of distribution, good governance practices,and local market development.
Projections in Chapter 5 of this report show that thebaseline scenario will have a limited impact on reducing
child malnutrition—it would decline 15% in the reference
world (see 5.3). However, with increased levels of AKST
investments accompanied by other complementary investments, the share of malnourished children is expected to
decline. In addition, projections suggest that returns to research will stay high. Under the business-as-usual scenario,
the demand for agricultural products will continue to growrapidly in the next 50 years; resources that are now used to
produce agricultural products will be increasingly in short
supply—water, land, and clean air; and basic science will
move rapidly ahead creating new opportunities for appliedscience and technology, which will also increase returns toresearch.
An additional factor that will be required to keep returns high is good governance (see 8.3). Specifically, thefarmers, who will be the primary users of the research, must
be included in determining how public money is invested in
AKST and how that funding is allocated. In addition, consumers of food and other ecosystem services from agriculture must be represented. Finally, the private sector, which
provides inputs to the agricultural sector and purchases,
markets and processes agricultural products, must also be
represented.
Private sector investments in agricultural research, innovation, and diffusion of technology and management
systems in developing countries are also essential to meeting development and sustainability goals (Pray et al., 2007).

chapter 08.indd 537

While the private sector will not make major investmentin the provision of public goods and poverty reduction forwhich there is no market, private agricultural input companies can be an efficient way to provide poor farmers with
inputs such as improved seeds and livestock, which can help
improve the incomes of the poor and other private companies can develop and supply farmers with inputs needed toincrease their supply of ecosystem services (see 8.1.2 and8.3.5). By encouraging companies to develop and supply
technology and management systems to the commercial sector, the public sector can concentrate its limited resources on
research to produce public goods, the development and supply of technology to the poor and the development and diffusion of environmental and health services.
It appears that the underinvestment in private researchin developing countries is even greater than in public sector
research. Because of the spillovers of the benefits of technology from private suppliers of technology to farmers andconsumers, substantial benefits have accrued to farmers
and consumers from private sector research (see 8.2.4 and8.2.7). The median rate of return to society from researchby private firms is 50% (Evenson, 2001). Aggregate studies in India (Evenson et al., 2001) and the US (Huffman
and Evenson, 1993) have shown that private research andprivate imported technology have made major contributions to agricultural productivity growth. Case studies of
specific private research programs have shown that the benefits of private research can reach farmers growing poor
peoples’ crops such as pearl millet and sorghum in rainfed
environments such as the semiarid tropics of India (Pray etal., 1991). Despite these benefits, research investments by
the private sector in developing countries lags even farther
behind OECD countries than by the public sector investments, both in absolute amounts and in research intensity.
Private research investment as a share of Agricultural GDP
is 0.03% in developing countries and almost 3% in industrialized countries (see 8.1). To induce more private research,governments can invest in educating scientists and technicians and developing research infrastructure such as ex situ
and in situ germplasm collections and basic research programs such as enhancing the diversity of plant and animal
germplasm, which will generate ideas for new technology inthe private sector. It also requires an enabling business environment for private investment (see 8.1). The components
of an enabling business environment include a system forprotecting intellectual property rights, the ability to enforce
contracts, a stable regulatory environment, functioning markets for agricultural inputs and outputs, and so on. To makesure that private investments in AKST meet societies’ goals,
governments need to put in place incentives that will induce
private firms to meet social goals. These incentives can bepositive such as payments for environmental services that
could induce firms to develop technology to more effectively
provide those services. These incentives can also be negative,
for example environmental and food safety regulations andliability laws that penalize negative externalities from introduced technologies. In addition, industrial policies that limit
monopoly power will also be needed. Government alone
cannot enforce regulations and industrial policies. The active involvement of NGOs and other parts of civil society
is essential.

11/3/08 10:48:32 AM

538 | IAASTD Global Report

Tradeoffs occur between different development goals
when different choices of AKST investments on specificcommodities or types of institutions are made (Table 8-20).
For example, RORs to wheat research have been high (see8.2.4), but the research that produced high-yielding wheat
varieties may also have induced more irrigation of wheat
in poorly drained regions, which has led to increased salinity, destroyed land, and displaced farmers. Pesticide useon wheat is limited so there has been little negative impactof pesticides. Green revolution wheat varieties reduced
prices of wheat, which increased consumption of wheat by
the poor improving their health. The high yielding wheat
varieties during the green revolution period in South Asia
increased demand for labor and thus the incomes of thepoor (Lipton, 2001). An example of research that has positive effects on economically sustainable development, but
a negative impact on other development goals is research
to increase the productivity of intensive livestock production. It has high RORs but major negative environmental
effects through water and air pollution, and negative healthimpacts through E. coli and other public health crises (see8.2.5 and 8.2.6). At the same time it can have positive healthimpacts through dramatic declines in the price of meat andpoultry, which in turn facilitates access for more people toanimal protein and other essential nutrients.
8.4.2.1 Options for societies aiming to give major support
to environmental sustainability
For these societies investment in AKST can have three different, but complementary, alternatives: reducing the negative environmental impacts of farming systems, enhancing
existing agricultural systems that have been shown to beenvironmentally sustainable, and developing new agricultural systems. They will have to focus on providing ecosystem services such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions,absorption of the carbon dioxide, reduced water pollution
and slowing the loss of biodiversity.
We have made judgments about the most important
negative impacts of agricultural technologies on the environment (see 8.2.5); unfortunately, data is not available toknow which of the impacts are most important or which
negative impacts could be mitigated most effectively throughinvestments in AKST. This gap suggests that the first important need for AKST investment is for social and ecologicalscientists working with other scientists to develop methodologies and to quantify the externalities of high and low
external input farming systems from a monetary perspective as well as from other perspectives such as the conceptof energy flows used in “emergy” evaluations. Evidence onthese externalities’ potential implications on food security
also needs to be analysed.
There are three other types of AKST investments inwhich countries can invest. First is research to develop management practices, technologies, and policies that reduce theecological footprint of agriculture, such as reducing agriculture’s use of fossil fuels, pesticides and fertilizers. This would
include AKST investments to develop management practices
such as: no-tillage systems to reduce use of fossil fuels for tillage, integrated pest management strategies to avoid overuseof inorganic pesticides, integrated soil management technologies to reduce the need for inorganic fertilizer, rotational

chapter 08.indd 538

grazing and support of mixed farming systems to improve
the nutrient cycling within agriculture and livestock production. In this area, investments on sustainable and low-input
farming practices would also be recommended. AKST investments can also increase agriculture’s role as a carbon
sink. The greatest dividends would come from conversion
from grain crops to agroforestry as there is a benefit fromboth increased soil organic matter and the accumulation ofabove-ground woody biomass. Thus agroforestry can playa major role in the two key dimensions of climate change:
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation tochanging environmental conditions (Garrity, 2004). Other
management strategies such as including grasslands withinrotations, zero-tillage (or no-till) farming, green manures,and high amendments of straw and manures, would also
lead to substantial carbon sequestration (Pretty and Ball,
2001).
A second type of AKST activity would be the development of biological substitutes for industrial chemicals or
fossil fuels. These would include new biopesticides, improvements in biological nitrogen fixation, and search foralternative sources of energy that do not compete with foodproduction and do not induce deforestation. There is someevidence that research in this area can provide a good economic ROR, and the RORs are likely to rise as more governments put policies in place that reward farmers for theprovision of these services.
Third, research to support traditional knowledge on
effective ways of using and conserving available resources
such as soils, water, and biodiversity to improve rural livelihoods will be required. This knowledge has been neglected
but research and management systems based on this knowledge have been shown to have positive ecological and economical impacts in all areas of agriculture (crops, livestock,aquaculture and agroforestry). New nonconventional crops
and breeds may play a vital role in the future for conserving
local and indigenous knowledge systems and culture, as they
have a high local knowledge base which is being promoted
through participatory domestication processes (Leakey etal., 2005; World Agroforestry Centre, 2005; Garrity, 2006;
Tchoundjeu et al., 2006).
This may be an area of AKST that had lower returns
to public investments research than some other types of research historically. This is due in part to the difficulty ofmeasuring the impact of research in this area and the lackof studies of the impact of these types of research. It is also
partly due to the fact that the complementary policies andinstitutions needed to implement solutions developed by
AKST are often not in place. Considering that agriculture
and land use contribute to 32% of global emissions, more
research is needed to analyse the potential contribution of
new and existing but ignored agricultural technologies andpractices that could contribute to decreasing global warming and climate change. Another important type of research
investment needed is social science research which develops
recommendations for policy and institutional changes thatreward farmers for reducing the negative externalities, enhancing the multiple functions of agriculture, and for theprovision of ecosystem services. Investments in incentives
for private sector to develop technologies that assist farmers
to provide ecosystems services are also needed.

11/3/08 10:48:32 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 539

Table 8-20. Summary of impacts of productivity increasing technology—economic returns, externalities and spillovers.
Median of ROR for
Productivity Increases

Environmental externalities

Health externalities

Impact on poor

Evenson(2001)

Alston et al.
(2001a)All crops

57

44

Wheat

51

40

-- Irrigation with poor drainage+ high yields reduce need toclear forest

0/+

+/-

Rice

60

51

-- over irrigation & highpesticide use+ high yields reduce need toclear forest- pesticides

+/-

Maize

56

47

-- over irrigation & highpesticides+ high yields reduce need toclear forest- pesticides+/-

Other cereals

57

n/a

Fruits andvegetables

67

n/a

-- high pesticide use-- high pesticides
affect laborers &consumers+ improves nutrientsin diet+ home gardens/commercial

Livestock36

53-- for intensive livestock
production which can leadto nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution of water- zoonotic diseases- food poisoning+ increases protein& minerals in diet

+ if subsistence or
milk coops- if intensive
or contract
production???

Forestryn/a14+ if agroforestry

Forest products

37

n/a

?

Tree crops

n/a

33

- plantations that replace
uncultivated land can reduce
biodiversity+ plantations that replace
crops could be a carbon sink

- if plantations

Resource
management

n/a

17

+ if reduce use of++ for more effective
management which substitutes pesticides
labor for chemicals+ if saving
resources of pooror tech is labor
intensive

Developing countries

37-67

43

CGIAR

39-16540

Private

50

34

0

+/-

++
-- intensive livestock
and pesticide use, but
management & biotech can
reduce chemical pesticides- if increases
pesticide use+ if it reduces
pesticide use- or 0Note: - small negative impact; -- large negative impact; + small positive impact; and ++ large positive impact; n/a means not available.
Sources: Evenson (2001), Alston et al. (2000a) and the judgments of the authors.

chapter 08.indd 539

11/3/08 10:48:32 AM

540 | IAASTD Global Report

For AKST for environmental services to have adequatelevels of funding and for the funding to be sustainable, consumers and environmental groups must have a role in thegovernance of the research system.
8.4.2.2 Options for societies aiming to give major support
to improving nutrition and human health
As in the case of the environmental sustainability, this areaof AKST investment can adopt several different but complementary goals: to reduce the negative documented impactof agriculture on health and to develop policies and technologies aiming to improve the nutritional and health statusof population. The key areas of AKST investment could bein improved quantity and nutritional quality of culturally
appropriate food to the poor, safer management or reduction in use of pesticides and research to improve food safety.
This is another area for which evidence is lacking and where
investments are needed to obtain data on the size of the
problem and the potential of AKST to solve it.
AKST has positive and negative effects on human health(see 8.2.6). Increased plant and animal productivity have
reduced prices of these food products and often reduced
undernutrition of the poor and led to more balanced diets.
At the same time, increased productivity has led to environmental pollution (of water and air) and overuse of antibiotics and pesticides (including toxic residues in plants andanimals and resistance to antibiotics) have lead to serious
health impacts. Additionally, problems of growing obesity
in industrialized and developing countries are also indirectly
linked to AKST.
The evidence on negative impacts suggests that one areaof major AKST investment needs to be on improved pesticide management and the reduction in use of dangerous
pesticides and antibiotics (see 8.2.6). In particular investments in IPM and substituting less dangerous chemicals or
biopesticides for dangerous pesticides appear to be important investments. Farming systems which improve productivity while using little or no pesticide, chemical fertilizer
and antibiotics need to be studied and developed in orderto improve their management and increase their potential
to feed the local population. Organic agriculture is one
type of farming system that reduces pesticide use and has a
growing demand, so investments in research to increase theproductivity and resilience of organic agriculture would beappropriate.
AKST investment to develop and implement schemes forfood safety and quality standards to improve public healthand consumer confidence is a major area in the health portfolio. In addition, investments to increase the nutritional
values of crops and livestock products with the objective ofimproving the nutritional status of global population, suchas biofortification, need more emphasis in plant breeding
research. Biofortification is one of the few areas where there
have been careful studies both of the size of the health problem and that AKST investments can reduce these problems(see 8.2.6).
Farming system diversification can also improve nutrition. The expansion of vegetable and fruit tree cultivation
on farms can have a significant effect on the quality of childnutrition. Many indigenous fruits, nuts and vegetables arehighly nutritious (Leakey, 1999). The consumption of somechapter 08.indd 540

traditional foods can also help to boost immune systems,
making these foods beneficial against diseases, including
HIV-AIDS (Barany et al., 2003; Villarreal et al., 2006). If
countries neglect investments to improve the farming systems of both subsistence and commercial farmers, major
health problems would increase.
Reduction of nutritional imbalances would require
research on educational programs and policy mechanisms
to provide appropriate incentives for facilitating the accessto healthier products and healthier consumption patterns
while penalizing in the market those products leading to nutritional problems, for example, through the internalizationin the final price of the products the health costs calculated
by means of AKST. Still, more AKST from social sciences isneeded in order to find and develop the best policy strategies
to avoid malnutrition. The AKST investments to continue
the reduction in the numbers of the undernourished throughproductivity increasing research or better distributional orcommercialization strategies of food are described in moredetail below in the section on poverty.
8.4.2.3 Options for societies aiming to give major support
to hunger and poverty reduction
These societies will need to target investments in research,
policy and institutional change in organizations that provide research to produce public goods. These include publicresearch, extension and education programs as well as theinternational research centers of the CGIAR.
AKST investments can increase the productivity of major subsistence crops such as rice, wheat, and other basic
staples that are grown and/or consumed by the poor (see8.4.3.1) while respecting the culture and livelihoods of those
who produce the food. Investment can also be allocated tothe productivity-increasing research in regions where thepoor are located, such as rain-fed and marginal areas, even
if these are not the areas which would increase total Agricultural GDP the most. Also, investments to preserve biodiversity and traditional systems that maintain the livelihoodsof millions of people are required in order to increase thewealth of poor populations in many countries. For example,
research on animal genetic resources conservation programs
could be directed to increase drought resistance or disease
resistance of local domestic breeds. This implies appropriate technologies that do not destroy the environment whileat the same time aims to improve the existing local knowledge of traditional farming systems towards the needs ofthe farmers.
Research for the poor should aim to develop and maintain crop and animal production techniques that allow
extending the assets controlled by the poor such as labor,
management skills, or biodiversity with assets owned by thewealthy, such as land.
Investments in institutional change and policies which
improve the access of the poor to food, education, land,
water, seeds, markets and improved technology for producing food, better access to jobs, and more influence on thegovernance of research systems are a major need for reducing poverty (see 8.3.4). The investments in improved institutions might include AKST programs that support small scale
agricultural and food industry innovators and public private
partnership with the aim to (1) encourage adaptation and11/3/08 10:48:33 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 541

adoption of pro-poor technologies from the public research
agencies; (2) adapt scientific discoveries from industrializedcountries and, if needed, import technology from them that
increases the productivity of poor farmers; and (3) transfer
technology from neighboring countries, which may havedeveloped technology that is more appropriate for poor
farmers in developing countries than those of industrialized countries. These technologies can flow through multinational corporations, local private firms, public sector
research systems and their regional networks, and farmerto-farmer communication.
8.4.2.4 Options for societies aiming to give major support
to economically sustainable development
These societies should consider investing in AKST which
provides evidence of high future (ex ante) RORs. These investments will include some areas that had high ROR in
the past such as yield increasing technologies and promisehigh returns in the future since there will be continued demand for these technologies and science. AKST investments
in water management and pest and disease management,
which have less history of high returns but are likely to havehigh returns in the future because of high demand or recent
advances in science, would also be included. In addition,some AKST investments that did not have high returns in
the past, such as NRM, are likely to have high ROR in the
future if policies, such as carbon trading under the Kyoto
protocol or subsidies for good environmental practices inagricultural policies, provide incentives to adopt these technologies. It is clear that economically sustainable development can only be achieved if the environment is at the sametime preserved.
Governments must continue to invest in AKST to develop productivity-increasing technology and management
systems that save on the use or reduce the misuse of scarce
resources such as land, water, and in fossil fuels. The major
resource constraint to increasing agricultural production in
the future will continue to be agricultural land. In the future AKST must focus on increasing output per unit of landthrough technology and management practices. RORs toland saving research are high. There are a limited number ofstudies which show substantial returns to land management
research. However, future AKST must avoid the negative
externalities of past investments in this area.
Water is the next most important resource constraint
to agricultural production and is likely to be even more ofa constraint in the next 50 years. AKST resources are being
reallocated into water-saving techniques, improved policies
and management techniques. The expected ROR to investments in water productivity research may be lower thanfor germplasm research. Nevertheless, comparing the costof science-based studies with the costs of inaction (growing poverty, malnutrition and disaster relief) indicates thatthe benefits of science-based actions vastly exceed the costs(Kijne and Bennet, 2004). Still, a few examples of water-saving research, which were evaluated by SPIA had high returns(Waibel and Zilberman, 2006), and some of the research on
drought tolerant crops (both breeding new varieties and recovering existing ones) looks very promising. However, thedevelopment of these technologies will take time, and majorchanges in water pricing policies are likely to be needed tochapter 08.indd 541

give farmers in irrigated areas incentives to adopt such technologies.
Fossil fuels in the long run may run out. Concerns about
their impact on global warming, and the high price of fossil
fuel has once again focused attention on the need for agriculture to save on the use of this scarce resource and support agricultural systems that have higher outputs per unitof sustainable energy. In this context, low-external-input agriculture could bring promising opportunities. There is little
evidence yet from the ROR literature of high returns, but
the demand is there and agricultural research has the capacity to produce appropriate technologies (see also chapter 6).
Since prices are likely to continue to fluctuate due to politics
as much as to scarcity, AKST investments by governments
will be necessary to develop these technologies and to inform farmers how they may best reduce agricultural use offossil fuels.
Major public and private R&D investments will beneeded in emerging issues such as plant and animal pest anddisease control. Continued intensification of agricultural
production, changes in agriculture due to global warming,the development of pests and diseases that are resistant tocurrent methods of controlling them, or changes in demand
for agricultural products such as the increasing demand fororganic products, will lead to new challenges for farmers
and the research system. Investments in this area by the public and private sector have provided high returns in the past
and are likely to provide even higher returns in the future.
In addition, these investments could lead to less environmental degradation by reducing the use of older pesticides
and improving livestock production methods. These technologies could also use more labor, which in labor abundant
countries, could reduce poverty. They would also positively
impact human health. Pest and disease control is an area inwhich public and private collaboration is essential.
Pre-invention, strategic, and basic research can be justified in many countries and in international research centers.
The studies that try to estimate the separate impacts of different components of AKST find that both applied and morebasic research investments have high returns (see 8.2.4). Advances in basic biological knowledge such as genomics andproteomics, nanotechnology, ICT, and other new advancesin AKST will create major new opportunities for meeting development and sustainability goals (see Chapter 6).
Emerging knowledge of agroecological processes and synergies, and the application of resultant technologies, will playa crucial role in future AKST investments. Both new andexisting but neglected knowledge can pay off by increasing
public and private development of technologies and management practices that improve agricultural production,
mitigate climate change, improve health or reduce poverty.
Thus it is not inherently productivity increasing or polluting
but is needed to achieve economically sustainable development. A major increase in private sector research will beneeded to increase agricultural productivity growth for developing countries.
8.4.2.5 A portfolio of AKST investments to meet multiple
goals
If, as has been argued earlier in this subchapter, a large infusion of public funding in AKST is needed, a coalition of

11/3/08 10:48:33 AM

542 | IAASTD Global Reportinterest groups will have to lobby for this increased funding.
This suggests that policy makers and advocates for AKST
activities that increase environmental sustainability, achieve
economically sustainable development, improve nutritionand health, and reduce poverty, should attempt to put together an AKST investment portfolio that attracts groups
beyond the traditional agricultural community. The investment areas listed above, which can meet multiple criteria,
could be attractive to these different groups. As indicatedabove, many AKST investments can meet multiple goals.
Other investments primarily meet one goal but still play avaluable role and should not be eliminated because they
do not make major contributions to all of the goals. For
example, private research to increase poultry productivity
may create increased pollution, but this does not mean thatgovernments should try to prevent private poultry research.
A more appropriate approach may be to encourage the private sector to do productivity-enhancing research but at thesame time prevent the potential pollution through more effective enforcement of laws against pollution, by mandating waste management plans or by public sector research todevelopment management systems which reduce pollution
and improved public health.
One strategy is to make small public investments inan enabling policy environmental that would encourage
private research and shift public research into the production of public goods and meeting other social goals suchas improving the environment or developing technology forresource poor farmers or into basic research. For example,
many countries could reduce their public research investments on improving the productivity hybrid maize, which
will be done by the private sector, and shift those resources
into productivity-enhancing research on cassava or open
pollinated varieties of maize grown by poor people. Or the
resources could be shifted into fertilizer and pest management to reduce overuse of chemicals that create pollution
and can harm human health. Shifting more public AKST
investments to increase the productivity and adoption of organic agriculture for which markets are available can also
reduce the use of nonorganic pesticides and chemical fertilizers.
8.4.3 Future AKST investment levels and priorities
8.4.3.1 Levels of AKST investments
More government funding and better targeted government
investments in AKST in developing countries can makemajor contributions to meeting development goals. The
evidence of returns to AKST investments shows that public investments have high payoffs, in the order of 40-50%
and can reduce poverty (see 8.2.4 and 8.2.8). These returns
are high compared to other public sector investments andevidence shows that AKST investments are one of the mosteffective ways to reduce poverty. In addition, public investments in AKST can be used to reduce agriculture’s contribution to global warming and to improve public health.
However, to do this public investments must be targetedusing evidence other than the ROR, which usually do notinclude environmental and human health impacts, positiveor negative, or the distribution of costs and benefits among
different groups.

chapter 08.indd 542

Increasing investments in agricultural research, innovation, and diffusion of technology by for-profit firms canalso make major contributions to meeting development andsustainability goals. Private firms both large and small havebeen and in the future will continue to be major suppliersof inputs and innovations to both commercial and subsistence farmers. They will not provide public goods or supply goods and services for which there is no market; butevidence shows that there are spillovers from private suppliers of technology to farmers and consumers. However,private research intensity in developing countries is only one
hundredth of the corresponding ratio in industrialized countries. To make the best use of private investments in AKST,
governments must provide both government regulations toguard against negative externalities and monopolistic behavior and support good environmental practices providing
firms with incentives to invest in AKST.
8.4.3.2 Allocation of AKST resources
Social science research to assist priority-setting, to measure
the impact of past AKST investments in health and the environment, to improve AKST and complementary institutions
and policies, and to link with indigenous knowledge is ahigh priority investment. One of the major constraints ofthis assessment is the lack of evidence on both the positive
and negative impact of AKST on the environment, humanhealth, and, to a lesser extent, on poverty reduction (see8.2.5, 8.2.6, 8.2.8). Investments are needed to develop better methodologies and indicators to measure these impacts,
both with monetary and nonmonetary values. In addition,
investments are needed to develop better methods for measuring the contributions of indigenous knowledge, social
science research on institutions and policies, the value of
improving governance systems, and better priority-setting
tools and methods. Finally more investments are needed inresearch priority setting processes in developing countries
which include both social and natural scientists and input
from stakeholders (see 8.4.1).
AKST investments that can increase the productivity ofagriculture and improve the existing traditional systems ofagriculture and aquaculture in order to conserve scarce resources such as land, water and biodiversity remains a highpriority. The major resource constraint on increasing agricultural production in the future will continue to be agricultural land. AKST must focus on increasing output per unitof land through technology and management practices.
AKST investment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and provide other ecosystem services is another priority investment area. Agriculture and land use contribute 32% of
total GHG emissions (Stern, 2007). Thus, AKST investments
to develop policies, technologies and management strategies
that reduce agriculture’s contribution could facilitate to decreasing global warming. This requires the development of
new farming systems, which use fewer technologies, produces less GHG, and builds on indigenous knowledge toimprove current cropping systems to be more sustainable.
These systems could include practices such as no-tillage systems, integrated pest management strategies, integrated soil
management technologies, rotational grazing and supportof mixed farming systems to improve the nutrient cycling.
A second, complementary type of AKST activity is the de-

11/3/08 10:48:33 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 543

velopment of policies such as payments for environmental
services from farmers, which could induce the development
and adoption of practices that provide environmental services. In addition, some of the agricultural technologies andpolicies for provide these ecosystem services can be designed
to use the assets of the poor, such as labor in labor-abundanteconomies which would reduce poverty.
Major public and private research and development
investments will be needed in plant and animal pest anddisease control. Continued intensification of agricultural
production, changes in agriculture due to global warming,the development of pests and diseases that are resistant tocurrent methods of controlling them, and changes in demand for agricultural products, will lead to new challenges
for farmers and the research system. Investments in this areaby the public and private sector have provided high returns
in the past and are likely to provide even higher returns in
the future. In addition, these investments could lead to: lessenvironmental degradation by reducing the use of older pesticides and livestock production methods; more labor use,which could reduce poverty; and positively improve humanhealth of farmers and their families by reducing their exposure to pesticides. This is an area in which public and private
collaboration is essential.

References
Ahmed, M., and J.G. Nagy. 2001. Private
investment in agriculture research: Pakistan.
ERS, USDA, Washington DC.
Ajayi, O.O.C. 2000. Pesticide use practices,
productivity and farmers’ health: The caseof cotton-rice systems in Cóte d’lvoire, West
Africa. Pesticide Policy Publ. Series. Spec.
Issue 3. Univ. Hannover.
Akinnifesi, F.K., R. Leakey, A.J. Simons,Z. Thoundjeu, and P. Matakala (ed)2007. Domestication, utilization andcommercialization of indigenous fruit
trees and products in the tropics. CABI,
Wallingford.
Alavalapati, J.R.R., R.K. Shrestha, G.A. Stainback,and J.R. Matta. 2004. Agroforestry
development: An environmental economic
perspective. Agrofor. Syst. 61:299-310.
Almekinders, C.J.M., and A. Eling. 2001.
Collaboration of farmers and breeders:Participatory crop improvements perspective.
Euphytica 122(3):425-438.
Alston, J.M. 2002. Spillovers. Aust. J. Agric. Res.
Econ. 46:315-346.
Alston, J.M., C. Chan-Kang., M.C. Marra.,
P.G. Pardey, and T.J. Wyatt. 2000a. A metaanalysis of rates of return to agricultural
R&D: Ex pede herculem? IFPRI Res. Rep.
No. 113. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Alston, J.M., G.W. Norton, and P.G. Pardey.
1995. Science under scarcity: Principles andpractice for agricultural research valuationand priority setting. Cornell Univ. Press,
Ithaca.
Alston, J.M., and P.G. Pardey. 2001. Reassessing
research returns: Attribution and related
problems. In G. Peters and P. Pingali(ed) Tomorrow’s agriculture: Incentives,
institutions, infrastructure, and innovations.
Proc. 24th Int. Conf. Agric. Economists.
Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.

chapter 08.indd 543

Alston, J.M., P.G. Pardey, and J. Roseboom.
1998. Financing agricultural research:
International investment patterns and policy
perspectives. World Dev. (26)6:1057-1071.
Alston, J.M., P.G. Pardey, and V.H. Smith. 1999.
Paying for agricultural productivity. Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Alston, J.M., P.G. Pardey, S. Wood, and L. You.
2000b. Strategic technology investments for
LAC agriculture: A framework for evaluating
the local and spillover effects of R&D. Paper
presented as part of an IDB-sponsored
project policies on food, agriculture and theenvironment, and indicators and priorities for
agricultural research. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Anandajayasekeram, P. and M. Rukuni. 1999.
Agricultural research and poverty alleviation:
Lessons from Eastern and Southern Africa.
Int. workshop on assessing the impact ofagricultural research on poverty alleviation.
San Jose, Costa Rica, 14-16 Sept.
Anandajayasekeram, P., M. Rukuni, S. Babu,
F. Liebenberg, and C.L. Keswani. 2007.
Impact of science on African agriculture andfood security. CABI, Wallingford.
Anderson, J.R. 1993. The economics of newtechnology adaptation and adoption. Rev.
Marketing Agric. Econ. 61(2):301-9.
Anderson, J.R. (ed) 1994. Agricultural
technology: Policy issues for the international
community, CABI, Wallingford.
Anderson, J.R. 2007. Agricultural advisory
services, Background Pap. 2008 WDR Agric.
Dev., World Bank, Washington DC.
Anderson, J.R. and R.W. Herdt. 1990.
Reflections on impact assessment. In
R.G. Echeverría (ed) Methods for diagnosing
research system constraints and assessing
the impact of agricultural research. Vol. 1.
Diagnosing agricultural system constraints.
ISNAR, The Hague.

Anderson, J.R. and G. Antony, and J.S Davis. 1990.
Research priority setting in a small developing
country: The case of Papua New Guinea. p.
169-78. In R.G. Echeverría (ed) Methods fordiagnosing research system constraints andassessing the impact of agricultural research.
Vol. 2. Assessing the impact of agriculturalresearch. ISNAR, The Hague.
Antle, J. M., D.C. Cole, and C. Crissman. 1998.
The role of pesticides in farm productivity
and farmer health. Economic, environmental,
and health tradeoffs in agriculture. In C.C.
Crissman, J. M. Antle, S.M. Capalbo (ed)Pesticides and the sustainability of Andean
potato production. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
ASARECA (Assoc. Strengthening Agricultural
Research in Eastern and Central Africa).
2005. Strategic choices and programmepriorities for ASARECA Animal Agricultural
Network (A-AARNET). ASARECA
Secretariat, Entebbe, Uganda.
ASTI (Agricultural Science and Technology
Indicators). 2007. ASTI [Online]. Availableat www.asti.cgiar.org
Atkin, J., and K.M. Leisinger. 2000. Safe andeffective use of crop protection products indeveloping countries. CABI, Wallingford.
Azam, O.T., E.A. Boom, and R.E. Evenson.
1991. Agricultural research productivity
in Pakistan. Pakistan Agric. Res. Council,
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Babu, S.C., and D. Sengupta, 2006. Capacity
development as a research domain:
Frameworks, approaches, and analysis.
ISNAR Disc. Pap. 9. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Barany, M., A.L. Hammett, R.R.B. Leakey,
and K.M. Moore. 2003. Income generating
opportunities for smallholders affected by
HIV/AIDS: Linking agro-ecological change
and non-timber forest product markets.
J. Manage. Studies 39:26-39.

11/3/08 10:48:34 AM

544 | IAASTD Global Report

Bardhan, P.K. 1997. The role of governance ineconomic development: A political economy
approach. OECD, Paris.
Becker Jr., W.E. 1982. Behavior and productivity
implications of institutional and projectfunding of research: Comment. Amer. J.
Agric. Econ. 64:595-598.
Beintema, N.M., and G.J. Stads. 2006.
Agricultural R&D investments in subSaharan Africa: An era of stagnation. ASTI
Background Rep., IFPRI, Washington DC.
Biggs, S.D. 1990. A multiple source ofinnovation model of agricultural researchand technology promotion. World Dev.
18:1481-1499.
Binswanger, H.P., and J.G. Ryan. 1977.
Efficiency and equity issues in ex ante
allocation of research resources. Indian J.
Agric. Econ. 32(3):217-31.
Birner, R., and J.R. Anderson. 2007. How tomake agricultural extension demand-driven?
The case of India’s agricultural extension
policy. Disc. Pap. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Bloom, D., D. Canning, and K. Chan. 2006.
Higher education and economic developmentin Africa. Africa Region Human Dev. Dep.,
World Bank, Washington DC.
Bofu, S., T. Weiming, W. Jimin, W. Chunlin, Y.
Zhengui, W. Shengwu et al. 1996. Economic
impact of CIP-24 in China. In T.S. Walker,
C.C. Crissman (ed) Case studies of the
impact of CIP-related technologies. CIP,
Lima.
Bouis, H.E., 2002. Plant breeding: A new tool
for fighting micronutrient malnutrition. J.
Nutri. 132:491S-494S.
Brennan, J.P. 1986. Impact of wheat varieties
from CIMMYT on Australian wheat
production. Agric. Econ. Bull. No. 5, NSW
Dep. Agric., Sydney.
Brennan, J.P. 1989. Spillover effects ofinternational agricultural research:
CIMMYT-based semi-dwarf wheat inAustralia. Agric. Econ. 3:323-332.
Brennan, J.P., A. Aw-Hassan, K.J. Quade, andT.L. Nordblum. 2002. Impact of ICARDA
research on Australian agriculture. Report
prepared for ACIAR. Econ. Res. Rep. No.
11, NSW Agric., Wagga Wagga, Australia.
Brennan, J.P., and M.C.S. Bantilan. 1999.
Impact of ICRISAT research on Australian
agriculture. Econ. Res. Rep. No. 1, ACIAR,
NSW Agric., Wagga Wagga, Australia.
Brummett, R. 1999. Integrated aquaculture in
sub-Saharan Africa. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
1:315-321.
Burnett, P.A., G.O. Edmeades, J.P. Brennan,
H.A. Eagles, J.M. McEwan, and W.B. Griffin.
1990. CIMMYT’s contributions to wheat
production in New Zealand’, p. 311-316. In
Proc. Sixth Assembly of the Wheat Breeding
Society of Australia.
Byerlee, D. 1998. The search for a new paradigm
for the development of national agriculturalresearch systems. World Dev. 26(6):10491055.
Byerlee, D., and G.E. Alex. 1998. Strengthening

chapter 08.indd 544

national agricultural research systems: Policy
issues and good practices. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Byerlee, D., and K. Fischer. 2002. Accessing
modern science: Policy and institutional
options for agricultural biotechnology indeveloping countries, World Dev. 30(6):931-48.
Byerlee, D., and P. Moya. 1993. Impacts ofinternational wheat breeding research in
the developing world, 1966-90. CIMMYT,
Mexico City.
Byerlee, D., G.E. Alex, and R. Echeverría.
2002. The evolution of public researchsystems in developing countries: Facing newchallenges, In D. Byerlee and R. Echeverría(ed) Agricultural research policy in an era ofprivatization. CABI, Wallingford.
Castellini, C., S. Bastianoni, C. Granai, A. Dal
Bosco, and M. Brunetti. 2006. Sustainabilityof poultry production using the emergy
approach: Comparison of conventional andorganic rearing systems. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 114:343-350.
Chambers, R. 1997. Whose reality counts?
Intermediate Tech. Publ., London.
Clay, J. 2004. World agriculture and theenvironment. Island Press, Washington DC.
Cole, D.C., F. Carpio and N. León. 2000.
Economic burden of illness from pesticide
poisonings in highland Ecuador. Panam. J.
Public Health 8(3):196-201.
Cracknell, B. 1996. Evaluating development
aid: Strengths and weaknesses. Evaluation
2(1):23-34.
Crissman, C.C., J.M. Antle, and S.A. Capalbo.
1998. Economic, environmental, and healthtradeoffs in agriculture: Pesticides and thesustainability of Andean potato production.
Kluwer Acad. Publ., London.
Crissman, C.C., D.C. Cole, and F. Carpio. 1994.
Pesticide use and farm worker health inEcuadorian potato production. Am. J. Agric.
Econ. 76 (8):593-597.
Crosson, P., and J.R. Anderson. 1993. Concerns
for sustainability: Integration of natural
resource and environmental issues for the
research agendas of NARS. Res. Rep. 4.
ISNAR, The Hague.
Cuyno, L.C.M., G.W. Norton, and A. Rola.
2001. Economic analysis of environmental
benefits of integrated pest management: A
Philippine case study. Agric. Econ. 25:227233.
Diamon, L. and M.F. Plattner (ed) 1995.
Economic reform and democracy. John
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
DANIDA (Danish International Development
Agency). 1994. Evaluation report:
Agricultural sector evaluation. Impact
studies. Vol. 2. Methods and findings.
DANIDA, Copenhagen.
Dasgupta, P., and J. Stiglitz. 1980. Industrial
structure and innovative activity. Econ. J.
90:266-293.
Davis, J.S., P.A. Oram, and J.G. Ryan. 1987.
Assessment of agricultural research priorities:

An international perspective. ACIAR Mono.
No. 4, ACIAR, Canberra.
Dawe, D., R. Robertson, and L. Unnevehr.
2002. Golden rice: What role could it playin alleviation of vitamin A deficiency? Food
Policy 27:541-560.
Day-Rubenstein, K., and K. Fuglie. 1999.
Resource allocation in joint public-private
agricultural research. J. Agribusiness 17:123134.
Desai, M., S. Fukuda-Parr, C. Johansson, and
F. Sagasti. 2002. Measuring the technology
achievement of nations and the capacity toparticipate in the network age. J. Human
Dev. 3(1): 95-122.
Dey, M.M., P. Kambewa, M. Prein, D. Jamu,
F.J. Paraguas, D.E. Pemsl, and R.M. Briones.
2007. Impact of the development anddissemination of integrated aquacultureagriculture technologies in Malawi.
In Waibel, H. and D. Zilberman (ed)International research on natural resource
management: Advances in impact assessment.
CABI, Wallingford.
DFID (UK Dep. Int. Dev.). 2004. What is propoor growth and why do we need to know?
Pro-poor growth briefing note 1. DFID,
London.
Diamon, L., and M.F. Plattner (ed) 1995.
Economic reform and democracy. John
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Diemont, S., J. Martin, and S. Levy-Tacher,
S.I. 2006. Emergy evaluation of Lacandon
Maya indigenous swidden agroforestry in
Chiapas, Mexico. Agrofor. Syst. 66:23-42.
Dolan, P. 2000. The measurement of healthrelated quality of life for use in resource
allocation decisions in health care. p.17231760. In A.J. Culyer and J.P. Newhouse(ed) Handbook of health economics. Vol. I.
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
Drakakaki, G., S. Marcel, R.P. Glahn,
E.K. Lund, S. Pariagh, R. Fischer et al.
2005. Endosperm-specific co-expression ofrecombinant soybean ferritin and aspergillus
phytase in maize results in significant
increases in the levels of bioavailable iron.
Plant Mol. Biol. 59: 869-880.
Ducreux, L.J.M., W.L. Morris, P.E. Hedley,
T. Shepherd, H.V. Davies, S. Millam, and
M.A. Taylor. 2005. Metabolic engineeringof high carotenoid potato tubers containing
enhanced levels of β-carotene and lutein. J.
Exp. Bot. 56:81-89.
Echeverria, R.G. 1998. Will competitive funding
improve performance of agriculturalresearch? Disc. Pap. 98-16. ISNAR, The
Hague.
Echeverria, R.G., E. J. Trigo and D. Byerlee.
1996. Institutional change and effective
financing of agricultural research in Latin
America. Tech. Pap. 330. World Bank.
Washington DC.
Ecobichon, D.J. 2001. Pesticide use in developing
countries. Toxicology 160:27-33.
Eicher, C.K. 2001. Africa’s unfinished business:building sustainable agricultural research

11/3/08 10:48:34 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 545

systems. Dep. Agric. Econ. Staff Pap. 200110. Michigan State Univ., East Lansing MI.
Eicher, C.K. 2003. 50 years of donor aid to
African agriculture. Successes in African
Agriculture Conf., Pretoria, 1-3 Dec.
Ekboir, J. 2003. Why impact analysis should not
be used for research evaluation and what thealternatives are. Agric. Systems 78(2):166182.
Evenson, R.E. 1979. Agricultural research,extension and productivity change in U.S.
agriculture: A historical decomposition
analysis. Agric. Res. Extension Evaluation
Symp. Moscow, Idaho. 21-24 May.
Evenson, R.E. 1989. Spillover benefits ofagricultural research: Evidence from US
experience. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 71(2):447452.
Evenson, R.E. 1991. Human resource andtechnological development. Seminar on
Overseas Education for Development.
E.T.S. May 27-29.
Evenson, R.E. 1999. Economic impacts ofagricultural research and extension. In
B.L. Gardner and G.C. Rausser (ed)Handbook of agricultural economics.
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
Evenson. R.E. 2001. Economic impacts ofagricultural research In B. Gardner and
G. Rausser (ed) Handbook of agricultural
economics. North Holland/Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Evenson, R.E. 2004. Private and public valuesof higher education in developing countries:
Guidelines for investment. J. Higher Educ.
Africa 2(1):151-176.
Evenson, R.E., and A.F. Avila. 1996. Productivity
change and technological transfer in theBrazilian grain sector. R. Econ. Rural
34(2):93-109.
Evenson, R.E., and P. Flores. 1978. Economic
consequence of new rice technology in Asia.
IRRI, Los Banos.
Evenson, R.E., C.E. Pray, and M.W. Rosegrant.
1999. Agricultural research and productivity
growth in India. Res. Rep. No. 109. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Evenson, R.E., and M. Rosegrant. 2003. The
economic consequences of crop genetic
improvement programmes. In R. Evenson
and D. Gollin (ed) Crop variety improvement
and its effect on productivity. The impact ofinternational agricultural research. CABI,
Wallingford.
Evenson, R.E., and L.E. Westphal, 1995.
Technological change and technology
strategy. p. 2209-2299. In J. Behrman
and T.N. Srinivasan (ed) Handbook ofdevelopment economics. Elsevier Sci., NY.
Fan, S., P. Hazell, and S. Thorat. 2000.
Government spending, agricultural growthand poverty in rural India. Am. J. Agric.
Econ. 82:1038-1051.
Fan, S., P. Huong, and T. Long. 2004a.
Government spending and poverty reduction
in Vietnam. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Fan, S., D. Nyange, and N. Rao. 2005.

chapter 08.indd 545

Public investment and poverty reductionin Tanzania: Evidence from household
survey data. DSGD Disc. Pap. 18. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
Fan, S., and X. Zhang. 2004. Investment,
reforms and poverty in rural China. Econ.
Dev. Cult. Change 52(2):395-422.
Fan, S., X. Zhang, and N. Rao. 2004b. Public
expenditure, growth and poverty reduction
in rural Uganda. DSG Disc. Pap. 4. IFPRI,
Washington DC.
FAO. 2003. Why should soil biodiversity be
managed and conserved? [Online] Available
at http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/soilbiod/
consetxt.stm
FAO, 2004. The state of food insecurity in theworld 2004. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005a. The state of the food insecurity inthe world 2005. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2005b. Food security and agriculturaldevelopment in sub-Saharan Africa: Building
a case for more public support. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2007. The state of the world’s animal
genetic resources for food and agriculture.
Comm. Genetic Resourc. Food Agric.
CGRFA-11/07/Inf.6. Rome.
Farrell, K.R. 2004. Public–private relationships
in agricultural research: Policy implications,presented at inaugural lecture of the Farrell
distinguished public policy lectureship. Univ.
Guelph, 1 Dec.
Feather, P, D. Hellerstein, and L. Hansen. 1999.
Economic valuation of environmental
benefits and the targeting of conservation
programs: The case of the CRP. Agric. Econ.
Res. Rep. No. 778. ERS, USDA, Washington
DC.
Ferreyra, C. 2006. Emergy analysis of one
century of agricultural production in the
Rolling Pampas of Argentina. Int. J. Agric.
Resourc. Govern. Ecol. 5(2-3):185-205.
Fishel, W.L. 1971. The Minnesota agriculturalresearch resource allocation system andexperiment. In W.L. Fisher (ed) Resource
allocation in agricultural research. Univ.
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Fonseca, C., R. Labarta, A. Mendoza, J. Landeo,
and T.S. Walker. 1996. Economic impact of
the high-yielding, late-blight resistant variety
Canchan-INIAA in Peru. p. 51-63 In
T.S. Walker and C.C. Crissman (ed)Case studies of the impact of CIP-related
technologies. CIP, Lima.
Foster, J.E. 1998. Absolute vs. relative poverty.
Am. Econ. Rev. 88(2):335-341.
Freebairn, D.K. 1995. Did the green revolution
concentrate incomes? A quantitative study ofresearch reports. World Dev. 23(2):265-279.
Freeman, A.M. 1985. Methods for assessing thebenefits of environmental programs. p.223270. In A.V. Kneese and J.L. Sweeney (ed)Handbook of natural resource and energy
economics. Vol. I. Elsevier Sci., Amsterdam.
Freeman, C. 1987. Technology policy andeconomic performance: Lessons from Japan.
Pinter, London.
Frisvold, G., J. Sullivan, and A. Raneses. 2003.

Genetic improvements in major U.S. crops:
The size and distribution of benefits. Agric.
Econ. 28(2):109-119.
Fuglie, K., N. Ballenger, K. Day, C. Ollinger,
M. Reilly, J. Vassavada, and J. Yee. 1996.
Agricultural research and development:
Public and private investments underalternative markets and institutions.
Agric. Econ. Rep. No. 735. ERS, USDA,
Washington DC.
Gage, J.D., C.T. Sarr, and C. Adoum. 2001.
Sustainable agricultural research: institutionaland financing reforms in Senegal. Sustainable
Financing Country Study No. 3. Bureau
for Africa, Off. Sustain. Dev., USAID,
Washington DC.
Gardner, B. 2003. Global public goods fromthe CGIAR: Impact assessment. Thematic
working paper for the CGIAR at 31: An
independent meta-evaluation of the CGIAR.
OED, World Bank, Washington DC.
Garelli, S. 1996. The fundamentals of worldcompetitiveness. In IMD (ed) World
Competitiveness Yearbook. IMD, Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Garming, H., and H. Waibel. 2007. Pesticides
and farmer health in Nicaragua - A
willingness to pay approach. Annual Conf.
Verein für Socialpolitik Res. Comm. Dev.
Economics, Göttingen, 29-30 June 2007.
Garrity, D.P. 2004. Agroforestry and theachievement of the Millennium Development
Goals. Agrofor. Syst. 61:5-17.
Garrity, D.P. 2006. Science-based agroforestry
and the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals. In D.P. Garrity et al.
(ed) World agroforestry into the future.
World Agroforesty Centre, Nairobi.
Garthoff, B. 2005. Innovation leading future
growth. Presentation given at Bayer R&D
Investor Day, London, December.
Gisselquist, D., C. Pray, and J. Nash. 2002.
Deregulating technology transfer inagriculture: impact on technical change,
productivity, and incomes. World Bank Res.
Observer 17(2):.237-265.
Gopinath, M., and T.L. Roe. 1996. Sourcesof growth in U.S. GDP and economy-wide
linkages to the agricultural sector. J. Agric.
Res. Econ. 78(4):325-340.
Goto, F., T. Yoshihara, N. Shigemoto S. Toki,and F. Takaiwa. 1999. Iron fortification ofrice seed by soybean ferritin gene. Nature
Biotech. 17:282-286.
Government of Malaysia. 2006. Ninth Malaysia
Plan 2006-2010 Econ. Planning Unit Prime
Dep., Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Griliches, Z. 1992. The search for R&D
spillovers. Scandinavian J. Econ. 94(Suppl.):29-47.
Guinet. 2004. Public-private partnerships forresearch and innovation: An evaluation of
the Dutch experience. OECD, Paris.
Gunasena, H.P.M. 2003. Food and poverty:
Technologies for poverty alleviation. South
Asia conf. on technologies for poverty
reduction. New Delhi, 10-11 Oct.

11/3/08 10:48:34 AM

546 | IAASTD Global Report

Gundwardana, M. 2005. Economic valuation ofa mangrove ecosystem threatened by shrimp
aquaculture in Sri Lanka. Environ. Manage.
36(4):535-550.
Hall, A.J., R. V. Sulaiman., N.G. Clark,
M.V.S. Sivamohan, and B. Yoganand. 2000.
Public and private sector partnerships inIndian agricultural research: Emerging
challenges to creating an agricultural
innovation system. Twenty-fourth Int. Conf.
Agric. Economists. Berlin, 13 Aug.
Hall, A.J., and B. Yoganand. 2002. New
institutional arrangements in agricultural
R&D in Africa: Concepts and case studies.
In H.A. Freeman, D.D. Rohrbach, andC. Ackello-Ogut (ed.). Targeting agriculturalresearch for development in the semiarid tropics of Sub-Saharan Africa. Proc.
workshop, 1-3 July 2002. ICRISAT, Nairobi.
Hambly Odame, H., N. Hafkin, G. Wesseler,
and I. Boto. 2002 Gender and agriculture in
the information society, CTA/ISNAR Briefing
Pap. 55. ISNAR, The Hague.
Haque, T. 1999. Impact of contract farmingin India: A case study of Pepsico, (Punjab),Hindustan Lever (Punjab) and VST Natural
Products Ltd (Andhra Pradesh). NCAP, New
Delhi.
Hartwich, F., and M. Von Oppen. 2000.
Knowledge brokers in agricultural researchand extension. p. 445-454. In F. Graef etal. (ed) Adapted farming in West Africa:
Potentials and perspectives. Verlag Ulrich E.
Grauer, Stuttgart.
Hayami, Y., and V.W. Ruttan. 1985. Agriculturaldevelopment: An international perspective.
Rev. Ed. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,
Baltimore.
Hazell, P.B.R. 1999. The impact of agriculturalresearch on the poor: A review of the state ofknowledge. CIAT workshop on assessing theimpact of agricultural research on poverty
alleviation. San Jose, Costa Rica,14-16 Sept.
Heemskerk, W., and B. Wennink (ed) 2005.
Stakeholder-driven funding mechanisms for
agricultural innovation:Case Studies from
Sub-Saharan Africa. KIT Development,
Policy and Practice, Bull. 373. Roy. Trop.
Inst., Amsterdam.
Heisey, P.W., M.A. Lantican, and H.J. Dubin.
2002. Impacts of international wheat
breeding research in developing countries,
1966-97. CIMMYT, Mexico City.
Hesse, C., and J. MacGregor. 2006. Pastoralism:
Drylands’ invisible asset? Developing
a framework for assessing the value of
pastoralism in East Africa. Issue Pap. 142.
IIED, London.
Hotz, C., and K.H. Brown (ed), 2004.
Assessment of the risk of zinc deficiency inpopulations and options for its control. Int.
Zinc Nutrition Consultative Group Tech.
Doc. 1, Food Nutr. Bull. 25:S91-S204.
Huffman, W.E., and R.E. Evenson. 1993. Science
for agriculture: A long-term perspective.
Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
Huffman, W.E., and M.A. Johnson. 2001.

chapter 08.indd 546

Research, extension, and education policy.
p. 209-214. In J.L. Outlaw andE.G. Smith (ed) 2002 Farm bill: Policy
options consequences. The Farm Foundation,
Oak Brook IL.
Hurley, J. 2000. An overview of the normative
economics of the health sector. p 55-118.
In A.J. Culyer and J.P. Newhouse (ed)Handbook health econ., Vol. I. Elsevier Sci.,
Amsterdam.
Hurst, P. 1999. The global pesticide industry’s“safe use and handling” training project inGuatemala. Int. Union Food Agric. Workers
43, Geneva.
IAC (InterAcademy Council). 2004. Inventing
a better future: A strategy for building
worldwide capacities for science andtechnology. Roy. Netherlands Acad. Arts Sci.,
Amsterdam.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2006. R&D
statistics: Version 2005 [online]. Available at
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/rd.asp.
Isinika, A.C., and N.S.Y. Mdoe, 2001. Improving
farm management skills for poverty
alleviation: The case of Njombe District.
Research for poverty alleviation (REPOA)
Rep. 01.1, Mkuki Na Nyota, Dar-es-Salaam.
Izac, A.M., and M. Swift. 1994. On agricultural
sustainability and its measurements in smallscale farming in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ecol.
Econ. 11(2):105-126.
Jacobs, M. 1996. What is socioecologicaleconomics? Ecol. Econ. Bull. 1(2):14-16.
Jayaraman, S.K. 2006 US-Indian agbiotech deal
under scrutiny. Nature Biotech. 24(5):481.
Jeyaratnam, J., K. C. Lun, and W.O. Phoon.
1987. Survey of acute pesticide poisoning
among agricultural workers in four Asian
countries. Bull. WHO 65(4):521-527.
Jeyaratnam, J., R.S. de Alwis Seneviratne,
and J.F. Copplestone. 1982. Survey ofpesticide poisoning in Sri Lanka. Bull. WHO
60(4):615-619.
Johnson, N., and D. Pachico. 2000. Impact ofpast research on crop genetic improvement.
In D. Pachico (ed) Impact assessment annual
report. CIAT, Cali.
Kaimowitz, D. (ed) 1993. Making the link:
Agricultural research and technology transfer
in developing countries. West-View Press,
Boulder CO.
Kangasniem, J. 2002. Financing agriculturalresearch by producer organizations in
Africa. p. 81-104. In D. Byerlee, andR.G. Echeverria (ed) Agricultural researchpolicy in an era of privatization. CABI,
Wallingford.
Kautsky, N., H. Berg, C. Folke, J. Larsson, and
M. Troell. 1997. Ecological footprint forassessment of resource use and development
limitations in shrimp and tilapia aquaculture.
Aquaculture Res. 28:753-766.
Kaufman, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi.
2003. Governance matters III: Governanceindicators for 1996-2002. Res. Pap. 3106.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Kerr, J., and S. Kolavalli. 1999. Impact ofagricultural research on poverty alleviation:
Conceptual framework with illustrations
from the literature. EPTD Disc. Pap. 56.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Kijne, J., and J. Bennet. 2004. Science-based
crop water productivity improvement:
What is it and who pays? Available atwww.knowledgebank.irri.org/theme1/pdfs/
sciencebasedcwp.pdf.
Kishi, M., N. Hirschhorn, M. Djajadisastra,
L.N. Satterlee, S. Strowman and R. Dilts
1995. Relationship of pesticide spraying tosigns and symptoms in Indonesian farmers.
Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 21:124-133.
Kremer, M., and A.P. Zwane. 2005. Encouraging
private sector research for tropicalagriculture. World Dev. 33(1):87-105.
Law, M.T., G.J. Miller, and J.M. Tonon. 2004.
Earmarked: The political economy ofagricultural research appropriations. Univ.
Vermont, Burlington and Washington Univ.,
St. Louis.
Leakey, R.R.B. 1999. Potential for novel foodproducts from agro-forestry trees. Food
Chem. 64:1-14.
Leakey, R.R.B., Z. Tchoundjeu, K. Schreckenberg,
S.E. Shackleton, and C.M. Shackleton.
2005. Agro-forestry tree products (AFTPs):
Targeting poverty reduction and enhanced
livelihoods. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 3:1-23.
Lema, N., and B. Kapange. 2005a. The national
agricultural research fund in Tanzania. In
W. Heemskerk and B. Wennink (ed)Stakeholder-driven funding mechanisms for
agricultural innovation: Case studies from
Sub-Saharan Africa. KIT Dev., Policy Practice
Bull. 373. Roy. Trop. Inst., Amsterdam.
Lema, N., and B. Kapange. 2005b. Zonal
agricultural research funds in Tanzania. In
W. Heemskerk and B. Wennink (ed)Stakeholder-driven funding mechanisms for
agricultural innovation: Case studies from
Sub-Saharan Africa. KIT Dev., Policy Practice
Bull. 373. Roy. Trop. Inst., Amsterdam.
Lewis, J. 2000. Leveraging partnerships between
the public and the private sector: Experienceof USAID™ agricultural biotechnology
programs. p. 196-199. In G.J. Persley
and M.M. Lantin (ed) Proc. Int Conf.
Agricultural biotechnology and the poor.
21-22 Oct. 1999. CGIAR, Washington DC.
Lipton, M. 2001. Reviving global poverty
reduction: What role of genetically modified
plants? J. Int. Dev. 13:823-846.
London, L. and R. Bailie. 2001. Challenges
for improving surveillance for pesticide
poisoning: Policy implications for developing
countries. Int. J. Epidemiol. 30:564-570.
Longmire, J., and D. Winkelmann. 1985. Research
allocation and comparative advantage.
Paper presented at the 19th Int. Conf. Agric.
Economists, Malaga, Spain, 26 Aug-4 Sept
1985. Econ. Prog., CIMMYT, Mexico.
Low, J., P. Kinyae, S. Gichuki, M.A. Oyunga,
V. Hagenimana, and J. Kabira. 1997.
Combating vitamin A deficiency through theuse of sweetpotato. CIP, Lima.

11/3/08 10:48:35 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 547

Lucca, P., R. Hurrell, and I. Potrykus. 2001.
Genetic engineering approaches to improvethe bioavailability and the level of iron in ricegrains. Theor. Appl. Genetics 102:392-397.
Lundvall, B.A. (ed.) 1992. National innovation
systems: Towards a theory of innovation andinteractive learning. Pinter, London.
Mansfield, E., J. Rapoport, A. Romeo, S.
Wagner, and G. Beardsley. 1977. Socialand private rates of return from industrial
innovations. Q. J. Econ. 91(2):221-240.
Maredia, M.K., and D. Byerlee. 2000. Efficiencyof research investments in the presence ofinternational spillovers: Wheat research indeveloping countries. Agric. Econ. 22:1-16.
Maredia, M.K., D. Byerlee, and J.R. Anderson.
2001. Ex post evaluation of economic impactsof agricultural research programs: A tour ofgood practice. p. 5-42. In The future of impact
assessment in the CGIAR: Needs, constraints
and options. Proc. workshop organized by
SPIA of the Tech. Advisory Committee (TAC),
3-5 May 2000. FAO, Rome.
Mashelkar, R.A. 2005. Nation building throughscience and technology: a developing world
perspective. 10th Zukerman Lecture, Roy.
Soc. London. Innov. Strategy Today 1:16-22.
Mayne, J. 1999. Addressing attribution throughcontribution analysis using performancemeasures sensibly. Disc. Pap. Off. Auditor
General of Canada, Ottawa.
McIntire, J. 1998. Coping with fiscal stress indeveloping country agricultural research.
p. 81-96. In S. Tabor et al. (ed) Financing
agricultural research: A sourcebook. ISNAR,The Hague.
McMahon, M. 1992. Getting beyond thenational institute model for agriculturalresearch in Latin America: A cross -country
study of Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico.
Latin America and the Caribbean Tech. Dep.,
Reg. Studies Prog. Rep. 20. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Meenakshi, J.V., N. Johnson, V.M. Manyong,
H. De Groote, D. Yanggen, J. Javelosa et
al. 2006. Analyzing the cost-effectiveness of
biofortification: A synthesis of the evidence.
Paper presented at the Ann. AAEA Meeting,Long Beach CA, 23-26July.
Mills, B.R., R. Hassan and P.G. Pardey. 1996.
Ex-ante benefits from site-specific agriculturalresearch: Maize in Kenya. p. 133-162. In
Global agricultural science policy for the
Twenty First Century. Melbourne, Australia,
26-28 Aug.
Minota, N., and L. Daniels. 2005. Impact of
global cotton markets on rural poverty in
Benin. Agric. Econ. 33(Suppl):453-466.
Mogues, T. 2006. Shocks, livestock asset
dynamics and social capital in Ethiopia.
DSGD Disc. Pap. 38. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Morris, M., and B. Ekasingh. 2002. Plant
breeding research and developing countries:
What roles for the public and private
sectors. In D. Byerlee and R. Echeverría (ed)Agricultural research policy in an era ofprivatization. CABI, Wallingford.

chapter 08.indd 547

Morrison, J., D. Bezermer, and C. Arnold.
2004. Official development assistance toagriculture. DFID, London.
Moyo, S., G.W. Norton, J. Alwang, I. Rhinehart,
and M. Deom. 2007. Peanut researchand poverty reduction: Impacts of variety
improvement to control peanut viruses in
Uganda. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 89(2):448-60.
Muliyar, M.K. 1983. Transfer of technology inplantation crops. J. Plantation Crops 11(1):1-12.
Murray-Kolb, L.E., F. Takaiwa, F. Goto,
T. Yoshihara, E.C. Theil, and J.L. Beard,
2002. Transgenic rice is a source of iron foriron-depleted rats. J. Nutr. 132:957-960.
Mutangaduraa, G., and G.W. Norton. 1999.
Agricultural research priority setting undermultiple objectives: An example from
Zimbabwe. Agric. Econ. 20(3): 277-286.
Mutungadura, G. 1997. Agricultural research
priority setting under multiple objectives:
The case of Zimbabwe. Ph.D. thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ.
Myers, N. 1999. The next green revolution:
Its environmental underpinnings. Curr. Sci.
76(4):507-513.
Nadiri, I. 1993. Innovations and technologicalspillovers. NBER Working Pap. 4423. Nat.
Bur. Econ. Res., Boston.
Narayana, D. 1992. Interaction of Price andtechnology in the presence of structural
specifications: An analysis of crop productionin Kerala. Ph.D. dissertation, Indian
Statistical Inst., Koltaka.
Nelson. R. 1959. The simple economics of basic
scientific research. J. Political Econ. 67:297-306.
Neupane, R.P., and G.B. Thapa. 2001. Impactof agroforestry intervention on farm income
under the subsistence farming system of the
middle hills, Nepal. Agrofor. Syst. 53(1):31-37.
North, C.D. 1991. Institutions. J. Econ. Perspect.
5(1):97-112.
Norton, G.W. and J.S. Davis. 1981. Evaluating
returns to agricultural research: A review.
Am. Agric. Econ. 63(4) 685-699.
Norton, G.W., E.A. Heinrichs, G.C. Luther, andM.E. Irwin (ed) 2005. Globalizing integrated
pest management: A participatory research
process. Blackwell, Ames IA.
Nutra Ingredients. 2006. BASF expands crop
biotech capabilities. [online] Available at
http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=Sho
wNewsItem&id=7558.
Oehmke, J.F., P. Anandajayasekeram, andW.A. Masters. 1997. Agricultural technology
development and transfer in Africa: Impacts
achieved and lessons learned. USAID Tech.
Pap. 77. USAID, Washington DC.
Omamo, S.W., X. Diao, S. Wood, J. Chamberlin,
L. You, S. Benin et al. 2006. Strategic
priorities for agricultural development inEastern and Central Africa. Res. Rep. No.
150. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Oram, P., and V. Bindlish. 1983. Investment inagricultural research in developing countries:
progress, problems, and the determination ofpriorities. IFPRI, Washington DC.

Ortega, E., M. Miller, M. Anami, and P.R.
Beskow. 2001. From emergy analysis to
public policy: soybean in Brazil. Proc. Second
Biennial Emergy Res. Conf. 20-23 Sept.,
Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Osgood, D. 2006. Living the promise? The roleof the private sector in enabling small scale
farmers to benefit from agro-biotech. Int. J.
Tech. Global. 2(1/2):30-45.
PAHO (Pan-American Health Organization).
2002. Epidemiological situation of acutepesticide poisoning in Central America 19922000. Epidemiol. Bull. Pan Am. Health Org.
23:5-9.
Palmer-Jones, R., and K. Sen. 2006. It iswhere you are that matters: The spatial
determinants of rural poverty in India. Agric.
Econ. 34:229-242.
Pardey, P.G., J.M. Alston, J.E. Christian, and S.
Fan. 1996. Hidden harvest: US benefits frominternational research aid. Food Policy Rep.,
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Pardey, P.G., J.M. Alston, and R.R. Piggott (ed)2006a. Agricultural R&D in the developingworld: Too little, too late? IFPRI, Washington
DC.
Pardey, P.G., and N.M. Beintema. 2001. Slow
magic: Agricultural R&D a century after
Mendel. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Pardey, P.G., N.M. Beintema, S. Dehmer, andS. Wood. 2006b. Agricultural research: A
growing global divide? Food Policy Rep.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
Pardey, P.G., C. Chan-Kang, and J.M Alston.
2002. Donor and developing-country benefits
from international agricultural research:
Double dividend? IFPRI, Washington DC.
Pimentel, D. 1997. Economic and environmental
benefits of biodiversity. BioScience47(11):747-758.
Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, M. Biltoneen, P. Rice,
M. Silva, J. Nelson et al. 1993a. Assessmentof environmental and economic impacts ofpesticide use. p. 46-84. In D. Pimentel and
H. Lehmann (ed) The pesticide question- environment, economics, and ethics.
Chapman and Hall, London.
Pimentel, D., B. Berger, D. Filiberto, M. Newton,
B. Wolfe, E. Karabinakis et al. 2004. Water
resources: Agricultural and environmental
issues. Bioscience 54(10):909-918.
Pimentel, D., C. Harvey, P. Resosudarmo,
K. Sinclair, D. Kurz, M. McNair et al. 1995.
Environmental and economic costs of soil
erosion and conservation benefits. Science267(5201):1117-1123.
Pimentel, D., L. McLaughlin, A. Zepp,
B. Lakitan, T. Kraus, P. Kleinman et al.
1993b. Environmental and economic effects
of reducing pesticide use in agriculture.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 46:273-288.
Pinero, M.E. 1984. An analysis of research
priorities in the CGIAR system: A discussion
paper. FAO, Rome.
Pingali. P.L. 2001. Milestones in impact
assessment research in the CGIAR, 19701999. With an annotated bibliography of

11/3/08 10:48:35 AM

548 | IAASTD Global Report

impact assessment studies conducted in
the CGIAR, 1970-1999, prepared by M.P.
Feldmann. SPIA of Tech. Advisory Comm.
CGIAR, Mexico City.
Pingali, P.L., and P.W. Heisey. 2001. Cereal-crop
productivity in developing countries: Past
trends and future prospects. p. 56-82. In
J.M. Alston et al. (ed) Agricultural science
policy: Changing global agendas. Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., N.R. de Londono, andE. Hoover. 1976. The impact of increasing
food supply on human nutrition: implications
for commodity priorities in agriculturalresearch and policy. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
58(2):131-42.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., and D. Franklin. 1977.
A systems approach to agricultural researchresource allocation in developing countries.
p. 416-35. In G.M. Arndt et al. (ed) Resource
allocation and productivity in national andinternational agricultural research. Univ.
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Porter, G. and K. Phillips-Howard. 1997.
Comparing contracts: An evaluation ofcontract farming schemes in Africa. World
Dev. 25(2):227-238.
Pray, C.E. 1987. Private sector agriculturalresearch in Asia p 411-432. In V.W. Ruttan
and C.E. Pray (ed) Policy for agriculturalresearch. Westview, Boulder CO.
Pray, C.E. 2002. The growing role of the private
sector in agricultural research. In D. Byerlee
and R. Echeverría (ed) Agricultural researchpolicy in an era of privatization. CABI,
Wallingford.
Pray, C.E., and R.G. Echeverría. 1991.
Determinants and scope of private sector
agricultural research in developing countries.
p. 343-364. In P.G. Pardey et al. (ed)Agricultural research policy: International
quantitative perspectives. Cambridge Univ.
Press, Cambridge.
Pray, C.E., and K.O. Fuglie. 2001. Private
investments in agricultural research andinternational technology transfer in Asia
ERS Agric. Econ. Rep. 805. ERS, USDA,
Washington DC.
Pray, C.E., and B. Ramaswami. 2001.
Technology, IPR, and reform options: A casestudy of the seed industry with implications
for other input industries. Int. Food Agric.
Marketing Rev. Spec. Issue 2(3/4):407-420.
Pray, C.E., and L. Umali-Deininger 1998. The
private sector in agricultural research system:
Will it fill the gap? World Dev. 26(6):11271148.
Pray, C.E., P. Bengali, and B. Ramaswami. 2005.
Costs and benefits of biosafety regulation inIndia: A preliminary assessment. Quar. J. Int.
Agric. 44( 3):267-289.
Pray, C.E., D. Johnson, and K.O Fuglie. 2007.
Private sector research. In R.E. Evenson and
P. Pingali (ed) Handbook of agricultural
economics 3 -Agricultural development:
Farmers, farm production and farm markets.
Elsevier, Amsterdam.

chapter 08.indd 548

Pray, C.E., S. Ribeiro, R.A.E. Mueller, andP.P. Rao. 1991. Private research and publicbenefit: The private seed industry forsorghum and pearl millet in India. Res. Policy
20:315-324.
Premchand, A. 1993. Public expenditure
management. IMF, Washington DC.
Pretty, J.N. 2000. Towards sustainable food andfarming systems in industrialized countries.
Int. J. Agric. Resourc. Govern. Ecol. 1(1):77-94.
Pretty, J.N., and A.S. Ball. 2001. Agricultural
influences on carbon emissions andsequestration: A review of evidence andthe emerging trading options. Centre forEnviron. Society Occas. Pap. 2001-03. Univ.
Essex, UK.
Pretty, J.N. and R. Hine. 2001. Reducing foodpoverty with sustainable agriculture: A
summary of new evidence. Final Report fromthe SAFE-World (The Potential of Sustainable
Agriculture to Feed the World). Univ. Essex,
UK.
Pretty, J.N., A.S. Ball, L. Xiaoyun, and
N.H. Ravindranath. 2002. The role ofsustainable agriculture and renewableresource management in reducing
greenhouse-gas emissions and increasing
sinks in China and India. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.
London A, 360:1741-1761.
Pretty, J.N., C. Brett, D. Gee, R.E. Hine,
C.F. Mason, J.I.L. Morison et al. 2000. An
assessment of the total external costs of UK
agriculture. Agric. Syst. 65:113-136.
Primavera, J.H. 1997. Socioeconomic impactsof shrimp culture. Aquaculture Res. 28:815827.
Proops, J.L.R. 1989. Ecological economics:
Rationale and problem areas. Ecol.
Econ.1:59-76.
Psacharopoulos, G. 1994. Returns to investment
in education: A global update. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Qaim, M., A.J. Stein, and J.V. Meenakshi, 2006.
Economics of biofortification. A plenary
paper prepared for the Int. Assoc. Agric.
Economists (IAAE) Conf., Gold Coast,
Australia, 12-16 Aug.
Raitzer, D.A. 2003. Benefit-cost meta-analysis ofinvestment in the international agriculturalresearch centres of the CGIAR. CGIAR Sci.
Council Secretariat, Rome.
Reifschneider, F.J.B., U. Lele, and A.D.
Portugal. 1997. Strategies for financing
agricultural research in Brazil: Sustainable
and diversification for a competitive future.
Agric. Res. Extension Unit, World Bank,
Washington DC.
Robleto, M.L., and W. Marcelo. 1992. La deuda
ecológica. Una perspectiva sociopolítica.
Area Internacional, Inst. de Ecologia Política,
Santiago, Chile.
Rola, A.C., and P.L. Pingali. 1993. Pesticides,
rice productivity, and farmer’s health:An economic assessment. IRRI, Manila,
Philippines.
Rose-Ackerman, S., and R.E. Evenson. 1985.

The political economy of agriculturalresearch and extension: Grants, votes, andreapportionment. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 67:1-14.
Rosegrant, M., and R.E. Evenson. 1993.
Agricultural productivity growth in Pakistan
and India: A comparative analysis. Pakistan
Dev. Rev. 32(4):433-438.
Rossi, P.H., and H.E. Freeman. 1993.
Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage
Publ., Beverly Hills.
Rótolo, G.C., T. Rydberg, G. Lieblein, and
C. Francis. 2007. Emergy evaluation ofgrazing cattle in Argentina’s Pampas. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 119:383-395.
Rukuni, M., M.J. Blackie, and C.K. Eicher. 1998.
Crafting smallholder-driven agriculturalresearch systems in Southern Africa. World
Dev. 26:1049-1056.
Ruttan, V.W. 1982. Agricultural research policy.
Univ. Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Ruttan, V.W. 2003. Social science knowledge
and economic development: An institutional
design perspective. Univ. Michigan Press,
Ann Arbor.
Santhakumar, V., and R. Rajagopalan. 1995.
Green revolution in Kerala? A discourseon technology and nature. South-Asia Bull.
15(2):109-119.
Schimmelpfennig, D., and G.W. Norton. 2003.
Measuring the benefits of international
agricultural economics research. Quar. J. Int.
Agric. 42(2):207-222.
Schimmelpfennig, D., C. O’Donnell, andG.W. Norton. 2006. Efficiency effects ofagricultural economics research in the U.S.
Agric. Econ. 34(3):273-280.
Schuh, G.E. and H. Tollini. 1979. Costs andbenefits of agricultural research: State of thearts. World Bank Staff Working Pap. 360.
World Bank, Washington DC.
Scobie, G.M. 1984. Investment in agriculturalresearch: Some economic principles. Working
Pap., CIMMYT, El Batan, Mexico.
Scoones, I. 2003. Can agricultural biotechnology
be pro-poor? Democratizing biotechnology:
Genetically modified crops in developing
countries. Briefing 2. Inst. Dev. Studies,
Brighton, UK.
Scotchmer, S. 1999. On the optimality of thepatent renewal system. RAND J. Econ.
30(2):181-196.
Sexton, R.J. and T.A. Sexton. 1996. Measuring
research benefits in an imperfect market.
Agric. Econ. 13:201-204.
Shane, M., T. Roe, and M. Gopinath. 1998.
U.S. agricultural growth and productivity:
An economy wide perspective. USDA/ERC Agric. Econ. Rep. AER-758. USDA,
Washington DC.
Shao, F.M. 1996. Funding of agriculturalresearch in Tanzania. In Funding agriculturalresearch in Sub-Saharan Africa. p 113-141.
In FAO (ed) Report of the FAO/SPAAR/
KARI expert consultation on funding ofagricultural research in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Kenya Agric. Res. Inst. (KARI), 6 -7 July
1993. FAO, Rome.

11/3/08 10:48:35 AM

Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology: Investment and Economic Returns | 549

Shavall, S., and T. Ypserle. 2001. Van rewards
versus intellectual property rights. J. Law
Econ. 44(2):525-547.
Shrestha, S., and M.A. Bell. 2002. Impact fromresearch and collaboration with the national
agricultural research and extension systems:
A brief review. IRRI, Philippines.
SPIA (Standing Panel on Impact Assessment).
2001. The future of impact assessment in
the CGIAR needs, constraints and options.
Proceedings of a workshop organized by
SPIA, Tech. Advisory Comm. Rome, 3-5
May. CGIAR Sci. Council, Rome.
Spielman, D.J., and K. Von Grebmer. 2004.
Public-private partnerships in agriculturalresearch: An analysis of challenges facing
industry and the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research. EPTD
Disc. Pap. 113. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Spielman, D.J. 2004. Agricultural sector
investment and the role of public-private
partnerships. African development andpoverty reduction. The Macro-Micro
Linkages Forum Paper. Cornell Univ., Ithaca
NY.
Stein, A.J., J.V. Meenakshi, M. Qaim, P. Nestel,
H.P.S. Sachdev, and Z.A. Bhutta, 2005.
Analyzing the health benefits of biofortified
staple crops by means of the disabilityadjusted life years approach: A handbook
focusing on iron, zinc and vitamin A. Harvest
Plus Tech. Mono. 4. IFPRI, Washington DC
and CIAT, Cali.
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar,
V. Castel, M. Rosales, and C. de Haan. 2006.
Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues
and options. Livestock, Environment andDevelopment Initiative (LEAD). FAO, Rome.
Stern, N. 2007. The economics of climate change:
The Stern review. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Stiglitz, J.E. 2000. Economics of the public sector.
WW Norton, NY.
Swanson, B.E. 2006. The changing role ofagricultural extension in a global economy. J.
Int. Agric. Extension Educ. 11(3):5-17.
Swinnen, J.F.M., H. de Gorter, G.C. Rausser, and
A.N. Banerjee. 2000. The political economyof public research investment and commodity
policies in agriculture: An empirical study.
Agric. Econ. 22(2):111-122.
Syngenta. 2004. Annual Report 2003. Syngenta,
Basel.
Syngenta. 2006. Annual Report 2005. Syngenta,
Basel.
Tabor, S., H. Tollini, and W. Janssen. 1996.
Globalization of agriculture research: Do
winners take all? Disc. Pap. 96-11. ISNAR,The Hague.
Tabor, S.R. (ed) 1995. Agricultural research inan era of adjustment: Policies, institutions,and progress. EDI Seminar Series. Econ. Dev.
Inst., World Bank and ISNAR, Washington
DC.
Tabor, S.R., W. Janssen and H. Bruneau (ed)1998. Financing agricultural research: A
sourcebook. ISNAR, The Hague.
Tchoundjeu, Z., E. Asaah, P. Anegbeh,

chapter 08.indd 549

A. Degrande, P. Mbile, C. Facheux et al. 2006.
AFTPs: Putting participatory domestication
into practice in West and Central Africa. For.
Trees Livelihoods 16:53-70.
The Rodale Institute. 2003. The Rodale Institutefarming systems trial. [Online]. Availableat www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_
trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml. Rodale, PA.
Thirtle, C., L. Lin. and J. Piess. 2003. The impactof research-led agricultural productivity
growth on poverty reduction in Africa, Asiaand Latin America. World Dev. 31(12):19591975.
Thrupp, L.A. 1998. Cultivating diversity:
Agrobiodiversity and food security. World
Resourc. Inst., Washington, DC.
Tollini, H. 1998. Capital investment policies andagricultural research. p. 29-45. In S. Taboret al. (ed) Financing agricultural research: A
sourcebook. ISNAR, The Hague.
Turpie, J.K. 2003. The existence value of
biodiversity in South Africa: how interest,
experience, knowledge, income and perceived
level of threat influence local willingness topay. Ecol. Econ. 46(2):199-216.
UI Haque, N., and A.M. Khan. 1997.
Institutional development: Skill transference
through reversal of “human capital flight”
or technical assistance. Working Pap. 97/89.
IMF, Washington DC.
Ulrich, A., W.H. Furtan, and A.Schmitz 1985.
Public and private returns from joint venture
research in Canada. Univ. Calgary Press,
Calgary.
Umali, D.L., and L. Schwartz. 1994. Public
and private agricultural extension: Beyond
traditional frontiers. Disc. Pap. 236. World
Bank, Washington DC.
UNEP. 2004a. Exploring the links: Human wellbeing, poverty and ecosystem services. UNEP,
Nairobi.
UNEP. 2004b. Childhood pesticide poisoning:
Information for advocacy and action.
Chemicals Programme of the United Nations.
UNEP, Nairobi.
UNESCO and OECD. 2003. Financing
education: Investments and returns: Analysis
of world education indicators. 2002 ed.
UNESCO and OECD, Paris.
UN-SCN (United Nations Standing Committee
on Nutrition), 2004. 5th Report on theWorld Nutrition Situation. UN-SCN,
Geneva.
Upreti, B.R., and Y.G. Upreti. 2002. Factors
leading to agro-biodiversity loss indeveloping countries: The case of Nepal.
Biodivers. Conserv.11:1607-1621.
Vasconcelos, M., K. Datta, N. Oliva, M.
Khalekuzzaman, L. Torrizo, S. Krishnan et al.
2003. Enhanced iron and zinc accumulationin transgenic rice with the Ferritin gene. Plant
Sci. 164:371-378.
Venezian, E., and E. Muchnik. 1994. Structuraladjustment and agricultural research in Chile.
Briefing Pap. 9. ISNAR, The Hague.
Villarreal, M., C. Holding Anyonge, B. Swallow,
and F. Kwesiga. 2006. The challenge of HIV/

AIDS: Where does agroforestry fit in? In
D. Garrity (ed) Science-based agroforestry
and the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals. World Agroforestry
Center, Nairobi.
Von Braun, J. 2003. Agricultural economics anddistributional effects. Presidential addressof the 25th Int. Conf. Agric. Economists.
Durban, South Africa. 16-22 Aug.
Von Braun, J., and P.J. Webb. 1989. The
impact of new cropping technology on
the agricultural division of labor in a West
African setting. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change
37:513-534.
Von Oppen, M., and J.G. Ryan. 1985. Researchresource allocation: Determining regional
priorities. Food Policy 10(3):253-264.
Von Oppen, M., S. Abele, E. van den Akker,
F. Hartwich, E. Krüsken, and U. vonPoschinger-Camphausen. 2000. Alternatives
to public and private funding of agriculturalresearch in developing countries: Potentialsof the third sector. Paper presented at theDeutscher Tropentag 2000, Hohenheim,
11-12 Oct.
Voon, J.P. 1994. Measuring research benefits in
an imperfect market. Agric. Econ. 10:89-93.
Wackernagel, M., and W.E. Rees. 1997.
Perceptual and structural barriers to investingin natural capital: Economics from anecological footprint perspective. Ecol. Econ.
20:3-24.
Waibel, H., and D. Zilberman (ed) 2007.
International research on natural resource
management: Advances in impact assessment.
CABI, Wallingford.
Waibel, H., G. Fleischer and H. Becker. 1999.
The economic benefits of pesticides: A casestudy from Germany. German J. Agric. Econ.
48(6):219-230.
Walker, P., P. Rhubart-Berg, S. McKenzie,
K. Kelling, and R.S. Lawrence. 2005. Publichealth implications of meat production andconsumption. Public Health Nutri. 8(4):348-356.
WHO. 1990. Public health impact of pesticides
used in agriculture. WHO, Geneva.
WHO. 2002. The World health report 2002:
Reducing risks, promoting healthy life.
WHO, Geneva.
WHO. 2006. Agrochemicals: Linking health andenvironmental management. Policy Brief.
Available at http://www.who.int/heli/risks/
toxic/chemicals/index.html. WHO, Geneva.
World Agroforestry Centre. 2005. Treesof change: A vision for an agroforestrytransformation in the developing world.
World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi.
World Bank. 2000. Agricultural technology
notes. No. 25. Rural Dev. Dep., World Bank,
Washington DC.
World Bank. 2006. Investments in agriculturalextension and information services. Module
3 in the AgInvestment Sourcebook. Available
at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/
EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTARD/EXTAGISO
U/0,,contentMDK:20930620~menuPK:275

11/3/08 10:48:36 AM

550 | IAASTD Global Report6949~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~
theSitePK:2502781,00.html #. World Bank,
Washington DC.
Wright, B.D. 1983. The economics of invention
incentives: Patents, prizes, and researchcontracts. Am. Econ. Rev. 73:691-707.
Yavapolkul, N., G. Munisamy, and A. Gulatic.

chapter 08.indd 550

2006. Post–Uruguay round price linkages
between developed and developing countries:
The case of rice and wheat markets. Agric.
Econ. 34:259-272.
Ye, X., S. Al-Babili, A. Klöti, J. Zhang, P. Lucca,
P. Beyer, and I. Potrykus, 2000. Engineering
the provitamin A (β-carotene) biosynthetic

pathway into (carotenoid-free) riceendosperm. Science 287:303-305.
Zimmermann, R., and M. Qaim. 2004. Potential
health benefits of golden rice: A Philippine
case study. Food Policy 29:47-168.

11/3/08 10:48:36 AM

Annex A

Authors and Review Editors

Argentina

Costa Rica

Walter Ismael Abedini • La Plata National University
Héctor D. Ginzo • Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio
Internacional y Culto
Maria Cristina Plencovich • Universidad de Buenos Aires
Sandra Elizabeth Sharry • Universidad Nacional de La Plata
Miguel Taboada • Universidad de Buenos Aires
Ernesto Viglizzo • INTA Centro Regional La Pampa

Marian Perez Gutierrez • National Centre of Competence in
Research North-South, Centre Suisse de Recherche Scientifique

Côte d’Ivoire
Guéladio Cissé • National Centre of Competence in ResearchNorth-South

Denmark
Australia
Helal Ahammad • Department of Agriculture, Fisheries andForestry
Tony Jansen • TerraCircle Inc.
Roger R.B. Leakey • James Cook University
Andrew Lowe • Adelaide State Herbarium and Biosurvey
Andrew Mears • Majority World Technology

Henrik Egelyng • Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Thomas Henrichs • University of Aarhus

Egypt
Mostafa A. Bedier • Agricultural Economic Research InstituteSalwa Mohamed Ali Dogheim • Agriculture Research Center

Ethiopia
Bolivia

Baone Cynthia Kwerepe • Botswana College of Agriculture

P. Anandajayasekeram • International Livestock ResearchInstitute
Berhanu Debele • National Centre of Competence in ResearchNorth-South
Workneh Negatu Sentayehu • Addis Ababa University
Gete Zeleke • Global Mountain Program

BrazilFinlandAndré Gonçalves • Centro Ecológico
Odo Primavesi • Embrapa Pecuaria Sudeste (Southeast Embrapa
Cattle)Riikka Rajalahti • Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Manuel de la Fuente • National Centre of Competence in
Research North-South

Botswana

CanadaJacqueline Alder • University of British Columbia
Harriet Friedman • University of Toronto
Thora Martina Herrmann • Université de Montréal
Sophia Huyer • UN Commission on Science and Technology for
Development.
JoAnn Jaffe • University of Regina
Shawn McGuire
Morven A. McLean • Agriculture and Biotechnology Strategies
Inc. (AGBIOS)
M. Monirul Qader Mirza • University of Toronto, ScarboroughRicardo Ramirez • University of Guelph

China
Jikun Huang • Chinese Academy of Sciences

Colombia
Maria Veronica Gottret • CIATFranceMartine Antona • Centre International de Recherche en
Agriculture pour le Développement
Didier Bazile • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Pierre-Marie Bosc • Centre International de Recherche en
Agriculture pour le Développement
Nicolas Bricas • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Jacques Brossier • Institut National de la Recherche.
Agronomique (INRA)
Perrine Burnod • Centre International de Recherche en
Agriculture pour le Développement
Patrick Caron • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Emilie Coudel • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Fabrice Dreyfus • University Institute for Tropical Agrofood
Industries and Rural Development
Michel Dulcire • Centre International de Recherche en
Agriculture pour le Développement551

chapter backmatter.indd 551

11/3/08 10:54:10 AM

552 | Annex A

Patrick Dugué • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Stefano Farolfi • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Guy Faure • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Nicolas Faysse • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Thierry Goli • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Henri Hocdé • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Bernard Hubert • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique(INRA)
Jacques Imbernon • Centre International de Recherche en
Agriculture pour le Développement
Jean-Pierre Müller • Centre International de Recherche en
Agriculture pour le Développement
Sylvain Perret • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Michel Petit • Institut Agronomique Mediterraneen Montpellier
Anne-Lucie Raoult-Wack • Agropolis Fondation
Nicole Sibelet • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Ludovic Temple • Centre International de Recherche en
Agriculture pour le Développement
Jean-Philippe Tonneau • Centre International de Recherche en
Agriculture pour le Développement
Guy Trebuil • Centre International de Recherche en Agriculture
pour le Développement
Tancrede Voituriez • Centre International de Recherche en
Agriculture pour le Développement

The Gambia

Indonesia
Suraya Afiff • KARSA (Circle for Agrarian and Village Reform)

Italy
Gustavo Best • Independent
Michael Halewood • Bioversity International
Anne-Marie Izac • Alliance of the CGIAR Centres
Prabhu Pingali • FAO
Sergio Ulgiati • Parthenope University of Naples
Keith Wiebe • FAO
Monika Zurek • FAO

Jamaica
Audia Barnett • Scientific Research Council

Japan
Osamu Ito • Japan International Research Center for Agricultural
Sciences (JIRCAS)
Osamu Koyama • Japan International Research Center for
Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS)

JordanMahmud Duwayri • University of Jordan

Kenya
Tsedeke Abate • International Crops Research Institute for theSemi-Arid Tropics
Boniface Kiteme • Centre for Training and Integrated Research in
Arid and Semi-arid Lands Development
Washington Ochola • Egerton University
Frank M. Place • World Agroforestry Centre

Kyrgyz Republic
Ulan Kasymov • Central Asian Mountain Partnership Programme

Ndey Sireng Bakurin • National Environment Agency

Germany
Anita Idel • Mediatorin (MAB)
Hermann Waibel • Leibniz University of Hannover

Ghana
Elizabeth Acheampong • University of Ghana
Edwin A. Gyasi • University of Ghana
Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic • University for Development
Studies
Carol Markwei • University of Ghana

India
Sachin Chaturvedi • Research and Information System forDeveloping Countries (RIS)
Purvi Mehta-Bhatt • Science Ashram
Poonam Munjal • CRISIL Ltd
K.P. Palanisami • Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
C.R. Ranganathan • Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
Sunil Ray • Institute of Development Studies
V. Santhakumar • Centre for Development Studies
Anushree Sinha • National Council for Applied Economic
Research (NCAER)

chapter backmatter.indd 552

Malaysia
Khoo Gaik Hong • International Tropical Fruits Network

Mauritius
Ameenah Gurib-Fakim • University of Mauritius

MexicoJesus Moncada • Independent
Scott S. Robinson • Universidad Metropolitana - Iztapalapa

MoroccoSaadia Lhaloui • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique

Netherlands
Nienke Beintema • International Food Policy Research Institute
Bas Eickhout • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency(MNP)
Judith Francis • Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural
Cooperation (CTA)
Janice Jiggins • Wageningen University
Toby Kiers • Vrije Universiteit
Kaspar Kok • Wageningen University
Niek Koning • Wageningen University
Niels Louwaars • Wageningen University
Niels Röling • Wageningen University

11/3/08 10:54:10 AM

Authors and Review Editors | 553

Mark van Oorschot • Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency (MNP)
Detlef P. van Vuuren • Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency (MNP)
Henk Westhoek • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency(MNP)

Stephan Rist • University of BernUrs Scheidegger • Swiss College of Agriculture
Juerg Schneider • State Secretariat for Economic Affairs
Christine Zundel • Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL)

TaiwanMubarik Ali • World Vegetable Center

New ZealandJack A. Heinemann • University of Canterbury

Tanzania

Nigeria
Stella B. Willliams • Obafemi Awolowo University

Aida Cuthbert Isinika • Sokoine University of Agriculture
Rose Rita Kingamkono • Tanzania Commission for Science &Technology

Oman

ThailandAbdallah Mohamed Omezzine • University of Nizwa

Thammarat Koottatep • Asian Institute of Technology

Pakistan

TurkeySyed Sajidin Hussain • Ministry of Environment

Nazimi Acikgoz • Ege University
Hasan Akca • Gaziosmanpasa University
Ahmet Ali Koc • Akdeniz University
Suat Oksuz • Ege University

Peru
Maria E. Fernandez • National Agrarian University
Carla Tamagno • Universidad San Martin de Porres

UgandaPhilippines
Mahfuz Ahmed • Asian Development Bank
Dely Pascual Gapasin • Institute for International Development
Partnership Foundation
Agnes Rola • University of the Philippines Los Baños
Leo Sebastian • Philippine Rice Research InstituteSouth Africa
Moraka Makhura • Development Bank of Southern Africa
Urmilla Bob • University of KwaZulu-Natal

Spain
Mario Giampietro • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Marta Rivera-Ferre • Autonomous University of Barcelona

Sri Lanka
Deborah Bossio • International Water Management InstituteCharlotte de Fraiture • International Water Management InstituteDavid Molden • International Water Management InstituteSudan
Balgis M.E. Osman-Elasha • Higher Council for Environment &Natural Resources (HCENR)

SwedenMartin Wierup • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Theresa Sengooba • International Food Policy Research Institute

United Kingdom
Steve Bass • International Institute for Environment andDevelopment
Stephen Biggs • University of East Anglia
Norman Clark • The Open University
Peter Craufurd • University of Reading
Cathy Rozel Farnworth • Independent
Chris Garforth • University of ReadingDavid Grzywacz • University of Greenwich
Andy Hall • United Nations University – Maastricht
Frances Kimmins • NR International Ltd
Chris D.B. Leakey • University of Plymouth
Karen Lock • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Ana Marr • University of Greenwich
Adrienne Martin • University of Greenwich
Ian Maudlin • Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine
Nigel Maxted • University of Birmingham
Johanna Pennarz • ITAD
Charlie Riches • University of GreenwichPeter Robbins • Independent
Geoff Simm • Scottish Agricultural College
Linda Smith • Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (end Mar 2006)
Philip Thornton • International Livestock Research Institute
Jeff Waage • London International Development Centre

Switzerland
Felix Bachmann • Swiss College of Agriculture
David Duthie • United Nations Environment ProgrammeMarkus Giger • University of BernAnn D. Herbert • International Labour Organization
Angelika Hilbeck • Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Udo Hoeggel • University of Bern
Hans Hurni • University of Bern
Andreas Klaey • University of Bern
Cordula Ott • University of Bern
Brigitte Portner • University of Bernchapter backmatter.indd 553

United States
Emily Adams • Independent
Elizabeth A. Ainsworth • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Jock Anderson • The World Bank
Patrick Avato • The World Bank
Debbie Barker • International Forum on Globalization
Barbara Best • US Agency for International Development
Regina Birner • International Food Policy Research Policy
InstituteDavid Bouldin • Cornell University

11/3/08 10:54:10 AM

554 | Annex A

Sandra Brown • Winrock International
Lorna M. Butler • Iowa State University
Kenneth Cassman • University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Gina Castillo • Oxfam America
Medha Chandra • Pesticide Action Network North America
Regional Center (PANNA)
Joel I. Cohen • Independent
Daniel de la Torre Ugarte • University of Tennessee
Steven Dehmer • University of Minnesota
William E. Easterling • Pennsylvania State University
Kristie L. Ebi • ESS, LLC
Shaun Ferris • Catholic Relief Services
Jorge M. Fonseca • University of Arizona
Constance Gewa • George Mason University
James C. Hanson • University of Maryland
Paul Heisey • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Omololu John Idowu • Cornell University
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman • Pesticide Action Network North America
Regional Center (PANNA)
R. Cesar Izaurralde • Joint Global Change Research InstituteMoses T.K. Kairo • Florida A&M University
Russ Kruska • International Livestock Research Institute
Andrew D.B. Leakey • University of Illinois
A.J. McDonald • Cornell University
Patrick Meier • Tufts University
Douglas L. Murray • Colorado State University
Clare Narrod • International Food Policy Research InstituteJames K. Newman • Iowa State University
Diane Osgood • Business for Social Responsibility
Jonathan Padgham • World Bank

chapter backmatter.indd 554

Philip Pardey • University of Minnesota
Ivette Perfecto • University of Michigan
Cameron Pittelkow • Independent
Carl E. Pray • Rutgers University
Laura T. Raynolds • Colorado State University
Robin Reid • Colorado State University
Susan Riha • Cornell University
Claudia Ringler • International Food Policy Research Institute
Steven Rose • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mark Rosegrant • International Food Policy Research Institute
Erika Rosenthal • Center for International Environmental Law
Sara Scherr • Ecoagriculture Partners
Jeremy Schwartzbord • Independent
Matthew Spurlock • University of Massachusetts
Timothy Sulser • International Food Policy Research Institute
Steve Suppan • Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Stan Wood • International Food Policy Research InstituteAngus Wright • California State University; Sacramento
Howard Yana Shapiro • MARS, Inc.
Tingju Zhu • International Food Policy Research InstituteUruguay
Gustavo Ferreira • Instituto Nacional de Investigación
Agropecuaria (INIA), Tacuarembó

Zimbabwe
Stephen Twomlow • International Crops Research Institute for
the Semi-Arid Tropics

11/3/08 10:54:10 AM

Annex B

Peer Reviewers

Argentina
Stella Navone • Buenos Aires University
Sandra Sharry • Redbio
Victor Trucco • Argentine Association of Producers in Direct
Seeding

Australia
Lindsay Falvey • University of Melbourne
Simon Hearn • Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research
Stuart Hill • University of Western Sydney
Geoffrey Lawrence
Gabrielle Persley • Doyle Foundation
Jim Ryan • Science Council, CGIARDavid Vincent • Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research
Sarah Withers • Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Harriet Friedman • University of Toronto
Cathy Holtslander • Saskatchewan Organic Directorate
Sophia Huyer • UN Commission on Science and Technology for
Development
JoAnn Jaffe • University of Regina
Muffy Koch • Agbios
Lucio Munoz • Independent
Vaclav Smil • University of Manitoba
Iain C. MacGillivray • Canadian International Development
AgencyMary Stockdale • University of British Columbia, Okanagan

Chile
Sarah Gladstone • Independent

Colombia
Andrew Jarvis • Bioversity International/CIAT

Austria

Costa Rica

Elfriede Fuhrmann • BMLFUWCarlos Araya Fernandez • Universidad Nacional

Bangladesh

Denmark

Mohamed Ataur Rahman • Homestead Cropping and Ecoagriculture Research Center for Sustainable Rural Development

Frands Dolberg • University of Aarhus
Henrik Egelyng • Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Niels Halberg • University of Aarhus
Høgh Jensen • University of Copenhagen

Belgium
Kevin Akoyi • Vredeseilanden
Helen Holder • Friends of the Earth Europe
Melanie Miller • Independent
Christian Verschueren • CropLife International

Benin
Shellemiah Keya • WARDA
Peter Neuenschwander • IITA

Egypt
Ayman Abou-Hadid • Agricultural Research Center
Malcolm Beveridge • WorldFish Center
Salah Galal • Ain Shams University

Ethiopia

BrazilDavid Spielman • International Food Policy Research InstituteWilberforce Kisamba-Mugerwa • International Food Policy Research Institute

Government of Brasil
Francisco Reifschneider • Embrapa

Finland

CanadaSaikat Basu • University of Lethbridge
R. Thomas Beach • Agricultural Institute of Canada
Eleanor Boyle • Independent
David Coates • Convention on Biological Diversity
Donald C. Cole • University of Toronto
David Cooper • Convention on Biological Diversity
Howard Eliot • Independent

Traci Birge • University of Helsinki
Jukka Peltola • MTT Agricultural Research
Riika Rajalahti • Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Marja-Liisa Tapio-Biström • Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

FranceLouis Aumaitre • EAAP
Jacques Loyat • Ministry of AgricultureMichèle Tixier-Boichard • Ministry of Higher Education and Research

555

chapter backmatter.indd 555

11/3/08 10:54:11 AM

556 | Annex B

Sophie Valleix • Centre National de Ressources en Agriculture
Biologique
Bruno Vindel • Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche

Germany
Annik Dollacker • Bayer CropScience
Jan van Aken • Greenpeace International

India
Ramesh Chand • NCAP
C.P. Chandrasekhar • Jawaharlal Nehru University
Pradip Dey • Indian Council of Agricultural ResearchNata Duvvury • International Center for Research on Women
Jayati Ghosh • Jawaharlal Nehru University
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Pramod Joshi • NCAP
Sudhir Kochhar • Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Sushil Kumar • NDRI
Aditya Misra • Project Directorate on Cattle
Suresh Pal • NCAP
V.N. Sharda • Central Soil & Water Conservation Research &Training Institute
C. Upendranadh • Institute for Human Development

Indonesia
Suraya Affif • KARSA (Circle for Agrarian and Village Reform)
Russell Dilts • Environmental Services Program
Yemi Katerere • CIFORDavid Raitzer • CIFOR

IranMohammad Abdolahi-Ezzatabadi • Iran Pistachio ResearchInstitute
Reza Sedaghat • Iran Pistachio Research InstituteFarhad Saeidi Naeini • Iranian Research Institute of Plant
Protection

IrelandGovernment of IrelandCharles Merfield • University College Dublin
Sharon Murphy • Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Italy
Agriculture Department • FAO
Gustavo Anriquez • FAO
Susan Braatz • FAO
Jelle Bruinsma • FAO
Jorge Csirke • FAO
Forestry Department • FAO
Theodor Friedrich • FAO
Peter Gardiner • FAO
Mario Giampietro • National Research Institute on Food andNutrition
Michael Halewood • Bioversity International
Paul Harding • Bioversity International
Toby Hodgkin • Bioversity International
Devra Jarvis • Bioversity International
Timothy Kelley • Science Council, CGIARPeter Kenmore • FAO
Yianna Lambrou • FAO
Annie Lane • Bioversity International

chapter backmatter.indd 556

Brian Moir • FAO
Piero Morandini • University of Milan
Shivaji Pandey • FAO
Plant Protection Service • FAO
Teri Raney • FAO
Per G. Rudebjer • Bioversity International
Jan Slingenbergh • FAO
Andrea Sonnino • FAO
Clive Stannard • FAO
Henning Steinfeld • FAO
Jeff Tschirley • FAO
Harry van der Wulp • FAO

Japan
Kozo Mayumi • The University of Tokushima

JordanAhmad Abu Awaad
Barakat Abu Irmaileh • University of Jordan
Amad Hijazi

Kenya
Sabrina Barker • United Nations Environment Programme
Christian Borgemeister • International Center for Insect
Physiology and Ecology
Salif Diop • United Nations Environment Programme
Dennis Garrity • World Agroforestry Center
Mario Herrero • ILRI
Jan Laarman • World Agroforestry Center
Marcus Lee • United Nations Environment Programme
Bernhard Löhr • International Center for Insect Physiology andEcology
Dagmar Mithöfer • International Center for Insect Physiology
and Ecology
Evans Mwangi • University of Nairobi
Manitra Rakotoarisoa • ILRI
Thomas Randolph • ILRI
Robin Reid • Colorado State University
Karl Rich • ILRI
Fritz Schulthess • International Center for Insect Physiology andEcology
Deborah Scott • ACORD
Nalini Sharma • United Nations Environment ProgrammeGemma Shepherd • United Nations Environment ProgrammeAnna Stabrawa • United Nations Environment Programme

Malaysia
Stephen Hall • WorldFish Center
Froukje Kruijssen • Bioversity International
Li Ching Lim • Third World Network
Percy Sajise • Bioversity International

Madagascar
Xavier Rakotonjanahary • FOFIFA

MexicoBruce G. Ferguson • El Colegio de la Frontera Sur
Luis García-Barrios • El Colegio de la Frontera Sur
Rodomiro Ortiz • CIMMYT
Armando Paredes • Consejo Coordinador Empresarial

11/3/08 10:54:11 AM

Peer Reviewers | 557

Netherlands

UgandaHuub Loffler • Wageningen University
Juan Lopez Villar • Friends of the Earth International
Rudy Rabbinge • Science Council, CGIAR
Johan C. van Lenteren • IOBC Global
Henk Westhoek • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency(MNP)

Kevin Akoyi • Vredeseilanden
Henry Ssali • Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute

New ZealandA. Neil Macgregor • Journal of Organic Systems
Simon Terry • Sustainability Council

Oman
Ahmed Al Rawahi • University of Nizwa

Pakistan
Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Pak-EPA)

Philippines
Teodoro Mendoza • University Los Banos
Patrick Safran • Asian Development Bank

PolandUrsula Soltysiak • AgroBio Test

Qatar
Mohammad Ghanim Abdulla • Supreme Council for
Environment and Natural Reserves

RussiaEugenia Serova • IET, Center AFE

Sri Lanka
Sithara Atapattu • IWMICharlotte de Fraiture • IWMIDavid Molden • IWMI
Hugh Turral • IWMI

SwedenUlf Herrström • Independent
Permilla Malmer • Swedish Biodiversity Center
Martin Wierup • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Switzerland
Else Katrin Bueneman • Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Adrian Dubock • Syngenta
David Duthie • United Nations Environment Programme
Annabé Louw-Gaume • Institute of Plant Sciences ETHZ
Jeffrey A. McNeely • IUCN-The World Conservation Union

Tanzania
Jamidu Katima • University of Dar es SalaamTunisia
Rym Ben Zid • Independent

TurkeySuat Oksuz • Ege University

chapter backmatter.indd 557

United Kingdom
Azra Awan-Hamlyn • CABI
Roy Bateman • Imperial College London
Ken Becker • CABI
Andrew Bennett • Syngenta Foundation
Claire Brown • United Nations Environment ProgrammePhilip Bubb • United Nations Environment Programme
Matthew Cock • CABI
Jeremy Cooper • University of Greenwich
Janet Cotter • Greenpeace International, Exeter University
Stuart Coupe • Practical ActionPeter Craufurd • Reading University
Sue D’Arcy • Masterfoods UK
UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
UK Department for International Development
Barbara Dinham • Pesticide Action Network
Mary Dix • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Carol Ellison • CABILes Fairbank • Institute of Grassland & Environmental Research
Cathy Farnworth • Independent
Ioan Fazey • University of Wales
Arabella Fraser • Oxfam UK
Michael Fullen • University of Wolverhampton
John Gowing • Newcastle University
Lesley Hamill • Department for International Development
David Harris • Bangor University
Jim Harvey • Department for International Development
Geoff Hawtin • World Biodiversity Trust
Emma Hennessey • Department of Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs
Mark Holderness • CABI
Janice Jiggins • University of Wageningen
Brian Johnson • English Nature
Amir Kassam • Reading University
Deborah Keith • Syngenta
Greg Masters • CABI
Graham Matthews • Imperial College London
Lera Miles • United Nations Environment Programme
Joe Morris • Cranfield University
Patrick Mulvaney • Practical Action
Rebecca Murphy • CABI
Trevor Nicholls • CABI
Clare Oxborrow • Friends of the Earth England, Wales andNorthern Ireland
Sam Page • CABI
Helena Paul • EcoNexus
Michel Pimbert • International Institute for Environment andDevelopment
Pete Riley • GM Freeze
Jo Ripley • Independent
Jonathan Robinson • Independent
Flavie Salaun • Department of Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs
Peter Sanguinetti • Crop Protection Association
Tracey Scarpello • Institute of Food Research, Norwich
Francis Shaxson • Tropical Agriculture Association
Julian Smith • Central Science Laboratory, York

11/3/08 10:54:11 AM

558 | Annex B

Janet Stewart • CABI
Margaret M. Stewart • The Springs Foundation
Steve Suppan • Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Harry Swaine • Syngenta
Geoff Tansey • Independent
Dan Taylor • Find your Feet/ UK Food Group
Reyes Tirado • Greenpeace International
Jeff Waage • Imperial College London
Jim Waller • CABI
Christof Walter • Unilever
Hilary Warburton • Practical Action
Stephanie Williamson • Pesticide Action Network, UK

United States
Jonathan Agwe • The World Bank
Kassim Al Khatib • Council for Agricultural Science andTechnology
Miguel Altieri • University of California, Berkeley
Jock Anderson • The World Bank
Molly Anderson • Winrock International
Michael Arbuckle • The World Bank
Patrick Avato • The World Bank
Catherine Badgley • University of Michigan
Donald C. Beitz • Council for Agricultural Science andTechnology
Philip L. Bereano • 49th Parallel Biotechnology Consortium
Philip Berger • U.S. Department of AgricultureCharles Bertsch • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Regina Birner • International Food Policy Research Institute
Jan Bojö • The World Bank
William Boyd • U.S. Department of Agriculture
John M. Bonner • Council for Agricultural Science andTechnology
Lynn Brown • The World Bank
Michael Brewer • Michigan State University
Marilyn Buford • U.S. Forest Service
Russ Bulluck • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Jim Byrum • Michigan Agribusiness Association
Kitty Cardwell • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Glenn Carpenter • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Janet Carpenter • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Jean-Christophe Carret • The World Bank
Cheryl Christensen • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Harold Coble • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Leonard Condon • US Council for International Business
Daren Coppock • National Association of Wheat Growers
CropLife International
Jonathan Crouch • CIMMYTTom Crow • U.S. Forest Service
Ralph Crawford • U.S. Forest Service
Dana Dalrymple • U.S. Agency for International Development
Christopher Delgado • The World BankCharles Di Leva • The World Bank
Mary Dix • U.S. Forest Service
Rex Dufour • National Center for Appropriate Technology
Edgar Duskin • Southern Crop Protection Association
Denis Ebodaghe • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Svetlana Edmeades • The World Bank
Indira Ekanayake • The World Bank
Norman Ellstrand • University of California, Riverside
Gershon Feder • The World Bank

chapter backmatter.indd 558

Erick Fernandes • The World Bank
Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Steven Finch • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mary-Ellen Foley • The World Bank
Lucia Fort • The World Bank
Christian Foster • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Bill Freese • Center for Food Safety
John Gowdy • Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteJames T. Greenwood • Biotechnology Industry Association
Peter Gregory • Cornell University
Doug Gurian-Sherman • Union of Concerned Scientists
Jeanette Gurung • Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture
and Natural Resource Management (WOCAN)
Julie Guthman • University of California at Santa Cruz
Kimberly Halamar • United States Council for International
Business
Michael Hansen • Consumers Union of US
Karen Hauda • US Patent and Trademark Office
Paul Heisey • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Brian Hill • Pesticide Action Network North America
Kenneth Hinga • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman • Pesticide Action Network North America
Cheryl Jackson • U.S. Agency for International Development
Gregory Jaffe • Center for Science in the Public Interest
Steven Jaffee • The World Bank
Willem Janssen • The World Bank
Randy Johnson • U.S. Forest Service
Tim Josling • Stanford University
John Keeling • National Potato Council
Kieran Kelleher • The World Bank
Drew Kershen • University of Oklahoma
Nadim Khouri • The World Bank
Lisa Kitinoja • Extension Systems International
Kristie Knoll • Knoll Farms
Jack Kloppenburg • University of Wisconsin
Susan Koehler • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Masami Kojima • The World Bank
Anne Kuriakose • The World Bank
Saul Landau • California Polytechnic, PomonaAndrew W. LaVigne • American Seed Trade Association
Josette Lewis • U.S. Agency International Development
Jennifer Long • University of Illinois, Chicago
R.S. Loomis • University of California, Davis
Douglas Luster • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Karen Luz • World Wildlife Fund
William Martin • The World Bank
Rachel Massey • Tufts University and University of
Massachusetts, Lowell
William Masters • Purdue University
Peter Materu • The World Bank
Shaun McKinney • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Rekha Mehra • The World Bank
Stephen Mink • The World Bank
Andrew D. Moore • National Agricultural Aviation Association
Helen Murphy • University of Washington
Douglas L. Murray • Colorado State University
Farah Naim • U.S. Department of Agriculture
John Nash • The World Bank
Gerald Nelson • University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
World Nieh • US Forest Service
Nwanze Okidegbe • The World Bank

11/3/08 10:54:11 AM

Peer Reviewers | 559

Craig Osteen • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Susan J. Owens • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Jon Padgham • World BankJohn Parrota • U.S. Forest Service
Mikko Paunio • The World Bank
Eija Pehu • The World Bank
Ivette Perfecto • University of Michigan
Cameron Pittelkow • Pesticide Action Network North America
C.S. Prakash • Ag Bioworld
Catherine Ragasa • The World Bank
Margaret Reeves • Pesticide Action Network North America
Adam Reinhart • U.S. Agency International Development
Peter Riggs • Forum on Democracy & Trade
Claudia Ringler • International Food Policy Research InstituteJane Rissler • Union of Concerned Scientists
Peter M. Robinson • US Council for International Business
Naomi Roht-Arriaza • University of California Hastings Collegeof Law
Mary Rojas • Chemonics
Jill Roland • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Matt Rooney • U.S. Department of State
Erika Rosenthal • Center for International Environmental Law
Julienne Roux • The World Bank
Phrang Roy • The Christensen Fund
E.C.A. Runge • Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
Marita Sachiko • The World Bank
Marc Safley • U.S. Department of Agriculture
William Saint • The World Bank
Michael Schechtman • U.S. Department of Agriculture

chapter backmatter.indd 559

Sara Scherr • Ecoagriculture Partners
Seth Shames • Ecoagriculture Partners
Hope Shand • ETC Group
Animesh Shrivastava • The World Bank
Jimmy W. Smith • The World BankJohn Soluri • Carnegie Mellon University
Meredith Soule • US Agency International Development
Robert Spitzer • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Doreen Stabinsky • College of the Atlantic
Lorann Stallones • Colorado State University
Steven Sweeney • U.S. Department of AgriculturePeter Tabor • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Greg Traxler • Auburn University
Gwendolyn H. Urey • California Polytechnic, Pomona
Evert Van der Sluis • South Dakota State University
John Vandermeer • University of Michigan
Bea VanHorne • US Forest Service
Jay Vroom • CropLife America
Jennifer Washburn • New America Foundation
Ross Welch • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Sybil Wellstood • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Ford West • The Fertilizer InstitutePai-Yei Whung • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Keith Wiebe • U.S. Department of Agriculture
David Winickoff • University of California, Berkeley
Barbara Wolff • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Angus Wright • California State University, Sacramento
Stacey Young • U.S. Agency International Development
Cristóbal Zepeda • U.S. Department of Agriculture

11/3/08 10:54:12 AM

Annex C

Glossary

Agriculture A linked, dynamic social-ecological system basedon the extraction of biological products and services froman ecosystem, innovated and managed by people. It thus
includes cropping, animal husbandry, fishing, forestry,
biofuel and bioproducts industries, and the productionof pharmaceuticals or tissue for transplant in crops andlivestock through genetic engineering. It encompasses allstages of production, processing, distribution, marketing,retail, consumption and waste disposal.
Agricultural biodiversity Encompasses the variety and variability of animals, plants and microorganisms necessary
to sustain key functions of the agroecosystem, its structure and processes for, and in support of, food production and food security.
Agricultural extension Agricultural extension deals with thecreation, transmission and application of knowledge
and skills designed to bring desirable behavioral changes
among people so that they improve their agricultural
vocations and enterprises and, therefore, realize higher
incomes and better standards of living.
Agricultural innovation Agricultural innovation is a sociallyconstructed process. Innovation is the result of the interaction of a multitude of actors, agents and stakeholders
within particular institutional contexts. If agricultural research and extension are important to agricultural innovation, so are markets, systems of government, relations
along entire value chains, social norms, and, in general,a host of factors that create the incentives for a farmer todecide to change the way in which he or she works, andthat reward or frustrate his or her decision.
Agricultural population The agricultural population is defined as all persons depending for their livelihood on
agriculture, hunting, fishing or forestry. This estimate
comprises all persons actively engaged in agriculture andtheir non-working dependants.
Agricultural subsidies Agricultural subsidies can take many
forms, but a common feature is an economic transfer,often in direct cash form, from government to farmers.
These transfers may aim to reduce the costs of production in the form of an input subsidy, e.g., for inorganic
fertilizers or pesticides, or to make up the difference
between the actual market price for farm output and ahigher guaranteed price. Subsidies shield sectors or products from international competition.
Agricultural waste Farming wastes, including runoff andleaching of pesticides and fertilizers, erosion and dust
from plowing, improper disposal of animal manure andcarcasses, crop residues and debris.

Agroecological Zone A geographically delimited area withsimilar climatic and ecological characteristics suitable for
specific agricultural uses.
Agroecology The science of applying ecological concepts andprinciples to the design and management of sustainableagroecosystems. It includes the study of the ecologicalprocesses in farming systems and processes such as: nutrient cycling, carbon cycling/sequestration, water cycling, food chains within and between trophic groups(microbes to top predators), lifecycles, herbivore/predator/prey/host interactions, pollination, etc. Agroecological functions are generally maximized when there is highspecies diversity/perennial forest-like habitats.
Agroecosystem A biological and biophysical natural resource system managed by humans for the primary purpose of producing food as well as other socially valuable
nonfood goods and environmental services. Agroecosystem function can be enhanced by increasing the planned
biodiversity (mixed species and mosaics), which creates
niches for unplanned biodiversity.
Agroforestry A dynamic, ecologically based, natural resourcesmanagement system that through the integration of trees
in farms and in the landscape diversifies and sustains
production for increased social, economic and environmental benefits for land users at all levels. Agroforestry
focuses on the wide range of work with trees grown on
farms and in rural landscapes. Among these are fertilizer
trees for land regeneration, soil health and food security;
fruit trees for nutrition; fodder trees that improve smallholder livestock production; timber and fuelwood trees
for shelter and energy; medicinal trees to combat disease;and trees that produce gums, resins or latex products.
Many of these trees are multipurpose, providing a rangeof social, economic and environmental benefits.
AKST Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology(AKST) is a term encompassing the ways and means used
to practice the different types of agricultural activities,
and including both formal and informal knowledge andtechnology.
Alien Species A species occurring in an area outside of its
historically known natural range as a result of intentionalor accidental dispersal by human activities. Also referred
to as introduced species or exotic species.
Aquaculture The farming of aquatic organisms in inland andcoastal areas, involving intervention in the rearing process to enhance production and the individual or corporate ownership of the stock being cultivated. Aquaculture
practiced in a marine environment is called mariculture.

560

chapter backmatter.indd 560

11/3/08 10:54:12 AM

Glossary | 561

Average Rate of Return Average rate of return takes thewhole expenditure as given and calculates the rate of return to the global set of expenditures. It indicates whether
or not the entire investment package was successful, but
it does not indicate whether the allocation of resources
between investment components was optimal.
Biodiversity The variability among living organisms fromall sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine andother aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexesof which they are part; including diversity within species
and gene diversity among species, between species andof ecosystems.
Bioelectricity Electricity derived from the combustion of
biomass, either directly or co-fired with fossil fuels suchas coal and natural gas. Higher levels of conversion efficiency can be attained when biomass is gasified before
combustion.
Bioenergy (biomass energy) Bioenergy is comprised of bioelectricity, bioheat and biofuels. Such energy carriers canbe produced from energy crops (e.g. sugar cane, maize,
oil palm), natural vegetation (e.g. woods, grasses) andorganic wastes and residues (e.g. from forestry and agriculture). Bioenergy refers also to the direct combustion of
biomass, mostly for heating and cooking purposes.
Biofuel Liquid fuels derived from biomass and predominantly
used in transportation. The dominant biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol is produced by fermenting
starch contained in plants such as sugar cane, sugar beet,maize, cassava, sweet sorghum or beetroot. Biodiesel istypically produced through a chemical process called
trans-esterification, whereby oily biomass such as rapeseed, soybeans, palm oil, jatropha seeds, waste cooking
oils or vegetable oils is combined with methanol to form
methyl esters (sometimes called “fatty acid methyl ester”
or FAME).
Bioheat Heat produced from the combustion of biomass,
mostly as industrial process heat and heating for buildings.
Biological Control The use of living organisms as control
agents for pests, (arthropods, nematodes, mammals,
weeds and pathogens) in agriculture. There are three
types of biological control:
Conservation biocontrol - the protection and encouragementof local natural enemy populations by crop and habitat
management measures that enhance their survival, efficiency and growth.
Augmentative biocontrol - the release of natural enemies
into crops to suppress specific populations of pests over
one or a few generations, often involving the mass production and regular release of natural enemies.
Classical biocontrol - the local introduction of new speciesof natural enemies with the intention that they establish
and build populations that suppress particular pests, often introduced alien pests to which they are specific.
Biological Resources Include genetic resources, organisms
or parts thereof, populations, or any other biotic component of ecosystems with actual or potential use or value
for humanity.
Biotechnology The IAASTD definition of biotechnology isbased on that in the Convention on Biological Diversity
and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. It is a broad

chapter backmatter.indd 561

term embracing the manipulation of living organisms
and spans the large range of activities from conventional
techniques for fermentation and plant and animal breeding to recent innovations in tissue culture, irradiation,
genomics and marker-assisted breeding (MAB) or marker
assisted selection (MAS) to augment natural breeding.
Some of the latest biotechnologies, called ‘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 physiologicalreproductive or recombination barriers.
Biosafety Referring to the avoidance of risk to human healthand safety, and to the conservation of the environment,
as a result of the use for research and commerce of infectious or genetically modified organisms.
Blue Water The water in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds andaquifers. Dryland production only uses green water,while irrigated production uses blue water in addition
to green water.
BLCAs Brookered Long-term Contractual Arrangements(BLCAs) are institutional arrangements often involving
a farmer cooperative, or a private commercial, parastatal
or a state trading enterprise and a package (inputs, services, credit, knowledge) that allows small-scale farmers
to engage in the production of a marketable commodity,
such as cocoa or other product that farmers cannot easilysell elsewhere.
Catchment An area that collects and drains rainwater.
Capacity Development Any action or process which assists
individuals, groups, organizations and communities instrengthening or developing their resources.
Capture Fisheries The sum (or range) of all activities to harvest a given fish resource from the ‘wild’. It may refer tothe location (e.g., Morocco, Gearges Bank), the target
resource (e.g., hake), the technology used (e.g., trawl orbeach seine), the social characteristics (e.g., artisanal, industrial), the purpose (e.g., [commercial, subsistence, orrecreational]) as well as the season (e.g., winter).
Carbon Sequestration The process that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Cellulosic Ethanol Next generation biofuel that allows converting not only glucose but also cellulose and hemi-cellulose—the main building blocks of most biomass—into
ethanol, usually using acid-based catalysis or enzymebased reactions to break down plant fibers into sugar,
which is then fermented into ethanol.
Climate Change Refers to a statistically significant variationin either the mean state of the climate or in its variability,
persisting for an extended period (typically decades or
longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal
processes or external forcing, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere orin land use.
Clone A group of genetically identical cells or individuals thatare all derived from one selected individual by vegetative propagation or by asexual reproduction, breedingof completely inbred organisms, or forming genetically
identical organisms by nuclear transplantation.
Commercialization The process of increasing the share of income that is earned in cash (e.g., wage income, surplus
production for marketing) and reducing the share that is

11/3/08 10:54:12 AM

562 | Annex C

earned in kind (e.g., growing food for consumption by
the same household).
Cultivar A cultivated variety, a population of plants within a
species of plant. Each cultivar or variety is geneticallydifferent.
Deforestation The action or process of changing forest land
to non-forested land uses.
Degradation The result of processes that alter the ecologicalcharacteristics of terrestrial or aquatic (agro)ecosystems
so that the net services that they provide are reduced.
Continued degradation leads to zero or negative economic agricultural productivity.
		 For loss of land in quantitative or qualitative ways,
the term degradation is used. For water resources rendered unavailable for agricultural and nonagriculturaluses, we employ the terms depletion and pollution. Soil
degradation refers to the processes that reduce the capacity of the soil to support agriculture.
Desertification Land degradation in drylands resulting fromvarious factors, including climatic variations and humanactivities.
Domesticated or Cultivated Species Species in which theevolutionary process has been influenced by humans tomeet their needs.
Domestication The process to accustom animals to live withpeople as well as to selectively cultivate plants or raiseanimals in order to increase their suitability and compatibility to human requirements.
Driver Any natural or human-induced factor that directly or
indirectly causes a change in a system.
Driver, direct A driver that unequivocally influences ecosystem processes and can therefore be identified and measured to different degrees of accuracy.
Driver, endogenous A driver whose magnitude can be influenced by the decision-maker. The endogenous orexogenous characteristic of a driver depends on the organizational scale. Some drivers (e.g., prices) are exogenous
to a decision-maker at one level (a farmer) but endogenous at other levels (the nation-state).
Driver, exogenous A driver that cannot be altered by thedecision-maker.
Driver, indirect A driver that operates by altering the level orrate of change of one or more direct drivers.
Ecoagriculture A management approach that provides fairbalance between production of food, feed, fuel, fiber,and biodiversity conservation or protection of the ecosystem.
Ecological Pest Management (EPM) A strategy to manage pests that focuses on strengthening the health andresilience of the entire agro-ecosystem. EPM relies onscientific advances in the ecological and entomologicalfields of population dynamics, community and landscapeecology, multi-trophic interactions, and plant and habitat
diversity.
Economic Rate of Return The net benefits to all membersof society as a percentage of cost, taking into accountexternalities and other market imperfections.
Ecosystem A dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and their nonliving environment
interacting as a functional unit.
Ecosystem Approach A strategy for the integrated manage-

chapter backmatter.indd 562

ment of land, water, and living resources that promotes
conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way.
		 An ecosystem approach is based on the application of
appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of
biological organization, which encompass the essential
structure, processes, functions, and interactions amongorganisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component and managers of many ecosystems.
Ecosystem Function An intrinsic ecosystem characteristic
related to the set of conditions and processes whereby
an ecosystem maintains its integrity (such as primary
productivity, food chain biogeochemical cycles). Ecosystem functions include such processes as decomposition,
production, pollination, predation, parasitism, nutrient
cycling, and fluxes of nutrients and energy.
Ecosystem Management An approach to maintaining or restoring the composition, structure, function, and deliveryof services of natural and modified ecosystems for thegoal of achieving sustainability. It is based on an adaptive, collaboratively developed vision of desired future
conditions that integrates ecological, socioeconomic, andinstitutional perspectives, applied within a geographic
framework, and defined primarily by natural ecologicalboundaries.
Ecosystem Properties The size, biodiversity, stability, degree of organization, internal exchanges of material andenergy among different pools, and other properties thatcharacterize an ecosystem.
Ecosystem Services The benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as foodand water; regulating services such as flood and disease
control; cultural services such as spiritual, recreational,
and cultural benefits; and supporting services such as
nutrient cycling that maintain the conditions for life on
Earth. The concept “ecosystem goods and services” issynonymous with ecosystem services.
Ecosystem Stability A description of the dynamic properties of an ecosystem. An ecosystem is considered stable
if it returns to its original state shortly after a perturbation (resilience), exhibits low temporal variability (constancy), or does not change dramatically in the face of a
perturbation (resistance).
Eutrophication Excessive enrichment of waters with nutrients, and the associated adverse biological effects.
Ex-ante The analysis of the effects of a policy or a projectbased only on information available before the policy or
project is undertaken.
Ex-post The analysis of the effects of a policy or project basedon information available after the policy or project has
been implemented and its performance is observed.
Ex-situ Conservation The conservation of components ofbiological diversity outside their natural habitats.
Externalities Effects of a person’s or firm’s activities on others which are not compensated. Externalities can either
hurt or benefit others—they can be negative or positive.
One negative externality arises when a company pollutes
the local environment to produce its goods and does notcompensate the negatively affected local residents. Positive externalities can be produced through primary education—which benefits not only primary school students

11/3/08 10:54:12 AM

Glossary | 563

but also society at large. Governments can reduce negative externalities by regulating and taxing goods withnegative externalities. Governments can increase positive
externalities by subsidizing goods with positive externalities or by directly providing those goods.
Fallow Cropland left idle from harvest to planting or during
the growing season.
Farmer-led Participatory Plant Breeding Researchers and/or development workers interact with farmer-controlled,
managed and executed PPB activities, and build on farmers’ own varietal development and seed systems.
Feminization The increase in the share of women in an activity, sector or process.
Fishery Generally, a fishery is an activity leading to harvestingof fish. It may involve capture of wild fish or the raisingof fish through aquaculture.
Food Security Food security exists when all people of a given
spatial unit, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet theirdietary needs and food preferences for an active andhealthy life, and that is obtained in a socially acceptableand ecologically sustainable manner.
Food Sovereignty The right of peoples and sovereign states
to democratically determine their own agricultural andfood policies.
Food System A food system encompasses the whole range offood production and consumption activities. The foodsystem includes farm input supply, farm production, foodprocessing, wholesale and retail distribution, marketing,and consumption.
Forestry The human utilization of a piece of forest for a certain purpose, such as timber or recreation.
Forest Systems Forest systems are lands dominated by trees;
they are often used for timber, fuelwood, and non-woodforest products.
Gender Refers to the socially constructed roles and behaviorsof, and relations between, men and women, as opposed
to sex, which refers to biological differences. Societies
assign specific entitlements, responsibilities and values
to men and women of different social strata and subgroups.
		 Worldwide, systems of relation between men andwomen tend to disadvantage women, within the family
as well as in public life. Like the hierarchical frameworkof a society, gender roles and relations vary according tocontext and are constantly subject to changes.
Genetic Engineering Modifying genotype, and hence phenotype, by transgenesis.
Genetic Material Any material of plant, animal, microbial orother origin containing functional units of heredity.
Genomics The research strategy that uses molecular characterization and cloning of whole genomes to understandthe structure, function and evolution of genes and to answer fundamental biological questions.
Globalization Increasing interlinking of political, economic,
institutional, social, cultural, technical, and ecological issues at the global level.
GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) An organism inwhich the genetic material has been altered anthropogenically by means of gene or cell technologies.
Governance The framework of social and economic systems

chapter backmatter.indd 563

and legal and political structures through which humanity manages itself. In general, governance comprises the
traditions, institutions and processes that determine how
power is exercised, how citizens are given a voice, andhow decisions are made on issues of public concern.
Global Environmental Governance The global biospherebehaves as a single system, where the environmental impacts of each nation ultimately affect the whole. Thatmakes a coordinated response from the community ofnations a necessity for reversing today’s environmental
decline.
Global Warming Refers to an increase in the globally-averaged surface temperature in response to the increase ofwell-mixed greenhouse gases, particularly CO2.
Global Warming Potential An index, describing the radiative
characteristics of well-mixed greenhouse gases, that represents the combined effect of the differing times thesegases remain in the atmosphere and their relative effectiveness in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. This
index approximates the time-integrated warming effectof a unit mass of a given greenhouse gas in today’s atmosphere, relative to that of carbon dioxide.
Green Revolution An aggressive effort since 1950 in which
agricultural researchers applied scientific principles ofgenetics and breeding to improve crops grown primarily in less-developed countries. The effort typically was
accompanied by collateral investments to develop or
strengthen the delivery of extension services, production
inputs and markets and develop physical infrastructures
such as roads and irrigation.
Green Water Green water refers to the water that comes fromprecipitation and is stored in unsaturated soil. Green water is typically taken up by plants as evapotranspiration.
Ground Water Water stored underground in rock crevices
and in the pores of geologic materials that make up the
Earth’s crust. The upper surface of the saturate zone iscalled the water table.
Growth Rate The change (increase, decrease, or no change) in
an indicator over a period of time, expressed as a percentage of the indicator at the start of the period. Growth rates
contain several sets of information. The first is whether
there is any change at all; the second is what direction
the change is going in (increasing or decreasing); and thethird is how rapidly that change is occurring.
Habitat Area occupied by and supporting living organisms.
It is also used to mean the environmental attributes required by a particular species or its ecological niche.
Hazard A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon
and/or human activity, which my cause injury, property
damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation.
		 Hazards can include latent conditions that may represent future threats and can have different origins.
Household All the persons, kin and non-kin, who live in thesame or in a series of related dwellings and who share income, expenses and daily subsistence tasks. A basic unit
for socio-cultural and economic analysis, a household
may consist of persons (sometimes one but generally two
or more) living together and jointly making provision forfood or other essential elements of the livelihood.
Industrial Agriculture Form of agriculture that is capital-

11/3/08 10:54:13 AM

564 | Annex C

intensive, substituting machinery and purchased inputs
for human and animal labor.
Infrastructure The facilities, structures, and associated equipment and services that facilitate the flows of goods andservices between individuals, firms, and governments. It
includes public utilities (electric power, telecommunications, water supply, sanitation and sewerage, and waste
disposal); public works (irrigation systems, schools, housing, and hospitals); transport services (roads, railways,
ports, waterways, and airports); and R&D facilities.
Innovation The use of a new idea, social process or institutional arrangement, material, or technology to change anactivity, development, good, or service or the way goods
and services are produced, distributed, or disposed of.
Innovation system Institutions, enterprises, and individuals
that together demand and supply information and technology, and the rules and mechanisms by which thesedifferent agents interact.
		 In recent development discourse agricultural innovation is conceptualized as part and parcel of social andecological organization, drawing on disciplinary evidence and understanding of how knowledge is generated
and innovations occur.
In-situ Conservation The conservation of ecosystems andnatural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural habitats andsurroundings and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties and were managed by
local groups of farmers, fishers or foresters.
Institutions The rules, norms and procedures that guide how
people within societies live, work, and interact with eachother. Formal institutions are written or codified rules,
norms and procedures. Examples of formal institutions
are the Constitution, the judiciary laws, the organizedmarket, and property rights. Informal institutions arerules governed by social and behavioral norms of the society, family, or community. Cf. Organization.
Integrated Approaches Approaches that search for the bestuse of the functional relations among living organisms
in relation to the environment without excluding theuse of external inputs. Integrated approaches aim at theachievement of multiple goals (productivity increase,environmental sustainability and social welfare) using avariety of methods.
Integrated Assessment A method of analysis that combines
results and models from the physical, biological, economic, and social sciences, and the interactions between
these components in a consistent framework to evaluate
the status and the consequences of environmental change
and the policy responses to it.
Integrated Natural Resources Management (INRM) An
approach that integrates research of different types ofnatural resources into stakeholder-driven processes ofadaptive management and innovation to improve livelihoods, agroecosystem resilience, agricultural productivity
and environmental services at community, eco-regionaland global scales of intervention and impact. INRM thus
aims to help to solve complex real-world problems affecting natural resources in agroecosystems.
Integrated Pest Management The procedure of integrating

chapter backmatter.indd 564

and applying practical management methods to manage
insect populations so as to keep pest species from reaching damaging levels while avoiding or minimizing the potentially harmful effects of pest management measures onhumans, non-target species, and the environment. IPM
tends to incorporate assessment methods to guide management decisions.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) Legal rights granted bygovernmental authorities to control and reward certain
products of human intellectual effort and ingenuity.
Internal Rate of Return The discount rate that sets the netpresent value of the stream of the net benefits equal tozero. The internal rate of return may have multiple values
when the stream of net benefits alternates from negative
to positive more than once.
International Dollars Agricultural R&D investments in local currency units have been converted into international
dollars by deflating the local currency amounts witheach country’s inflation ration (GDP deflator) of baseyear 2000. Next, they were converted to US dollars witha 2000 purchasing power parity (PPP) index. PPPs aresynthetic exchange rates used to reflect the purchasing
power of currencies.
Knowledge The way people understand the world, the way inwhich they interpret and apply meaning to their experiences. Knowledge is not about the discovery of some finale objective ‘truth’ but about the grasping of subjective
culturally-conditioned products emerging from complex
and ongoing processes involving selection, rejection, creation, development and transformation of information.
These processes, and hence knowledge, are inextricably
linked to the social, environmental and institutional context within which they are found.
Scientific knowledge: Knowledge that has been legitimized
and validated by a formalized process of data gathering,
analysis and documentation.
Explicit knowledge: Information about knowledge that has
been or can be articulated, codified, and stored and exchanged. The most common forms of explicit knowledge
are manuals, documents, procedures, cultural artifacts
and stories. The information about explicit knowledge
also can be audio-visual. Works of art and product design
can be seen as other forms of explicit knowledge where
human skills, motives and knowledge are externalized.
Empirical knowledge: Knowledge derived from and constituted in interaction with a person’s environment. Modern
communication and information technologies, and scientific instrumentation, can extend the ‘empirical environment’ in which empirical knowledge is generated.
Local knowledge: The knowledge that is constituted in agiven culture or society.
Traditional (ecological) knowledge: The cumulative bodyof knowledge, practices, and beliefs evolved by adaptive
processes and handed down through generations. It may
not be indigenous or local, but it is distinguished by theway in which it is acquired and used, through the social
process of learning and sharing knowledge.
Knowledge Management A systematic discipline of policies,
processes, and activities for the management of all processes of knowledge generation, codification, applicationand sharing of information about knowledge.

11/3/08 10:54:13 AM

Glossary | 565

Knowledge Society A society in which the production anddissemination of scientific information and knowledge
function well, and in which the transmission and use ofvaluable experiential knowledge is optimized; a society inwhich the information of those with experiential knowledge is used together with that of scientific and technicalexperts to inform decision-making.
Land Cover The physical coverage of land, usually expressedin terms of vegetation cover or lack of it. Influenced by
but non synonymous with land use.
Land Degradation The reduction in the capability of the land
to produce benefits from a particular land use under aspecific form of land management.
Landscape An area of land that contains a mosaic of ecosystems, including human-dominated ecosystems. The term
cultural landscape is often used when referring to landscapes containing significant human populations.
Land Tenure The relationship, whether legally or customarily defined, among people, as individuals or groups, withrespect to land and associated natural resources (water,
trees, minerals, wildlife, and so on).
		 Rules of tenure define how property rights in land are
to be allocated within societies. Land tenure systems determine who can use what resources for how long, andunder what conditions.
Land Use The human utilization of a piece of land for a certain purpose (such as irrigated agriculture or recreation).
Land use is influenced by, but not synonymous with, land
cover.
Leguminous Cultivated or spontaneous plants which fix atmospheric nitrogen.
Malnutrition Failure to achieve nutrient requirements, which
can impair physical and/or mental health. It may result
from consuming too little food or a shortage or imbalance of key nutrients (eg, micronutrient deficiencies orexcess consumption of refined sugar and fat).
Marginal Rates of Return Calculates the returns to the last
dollar invested on a certain activity. It is usually estimatedthrough econometric estimation.
Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) The use of DNA markers
to improve response to selection in a population. The
markers will be closely linked to one or more target loci,which may often be quantitative trait loci.
Minimum Tillage The least amount possible of cultivation orsoil disturbance done to prepare a suitable seedbed. The
main purposes of minimum tillage are to reduce tillage
energy consumption, to conserve moisture, and to retain
plant cover to minimize erosion.
Model A simplified representation of reality used to simulate
a process, understand a situation, predict an outcome or
analyze a problem. A model can be viewed as a selective
approximation, which by elimination of incidental detail, allows hypothesized or quantified aspects of the realworld to appear manipulated or tested.
Multifunctionality In IAASTD, multifunctionality is usedsolely to express the inescapable interconnectedness ofagriculture’s different roles and functions. The concept ofmultifunctionality 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

chapter backmatter.indd 565

services, landscape amenities and cultural heritages (SeeGlobal SDM Text Box).
Natural Resources Management Includes all functions andservices of nature that are directly or indirectly significant
to humankind, i.e. economic functions, as well as othercultural and ecological functions or social services thatare not taken into account in economic models or not
entirely known.
Nanotechnology The engineering of functional systems at theatomic or molecular scale.
Net Present Value (NPV) Net present value is used to analyze
the profitability of an investment or project, representing the difference between the discounted present valueof benefits and the discounted present value of costs. If
NPV of a prospective project is positive, then the project
should be accepted. The analysis of NPV is sensitive tothe reliability of future cash inflows that an investment
or project will yield.
No-Till Planting without tillage. In most systems, plantermounted coulters till a narrow seedbed assisting in theplacement of fertilizer and seed. The tillage effect on
weed control is replaced by herbicide use.
Obesity A chronic physical condition characterized by too
much body fat, which results in higher risk for healthproblems such as high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Commonly it
is defined as a Body Mass Index (BMI) equal to or morethan 30, while overweight is equal to or more than 25.
The BMI is an index of weight-for-height and is definedas the weight in kilograms divided by the square of theheight in meters (kg/m2).
Organic Agriculture An ecological production management
system that promotes and enhances biological cycles andsoil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of offfarm inputs and on management practices that restore,
maintain and enhance ecological harmony.
Organization Organizations can be formal or informal. Examples of organizations are government agencies (e.g.,
police force, ministries, etc.), administrative bodies (e.g.,
local government), non governmental organizations, associations (e.g., farmers’ associations) and private companies (firms). Cf. with Institutions.
Orphan Crops Crops such as tef, finger millet, yam, roots andtubers that tend to be regionally or locally important forincome and nutrition, but which are not traded globallyand receive minimal attention by research networks.
Participatory Development A process that involves people(population groups, organizations, associations, politicalparties) actively and significantly in all decisions affecting
their lives.
Participatory Domestication The process of domesticationthat involves agriculturalists and other community members actively and significantly in making decisions, taking
action and sharing benefits.
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) Involvement of a rangeof actors, including scientists, farmers, consumers, extension agents, vendors, processors and other industry
stakeholders—as well as farmer and community-basedorganizations and non-government organization (NGOs)
in plant breeding research and development.
Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS) A process by which

11/3/08 10:54:13 AM

566 | Annex C

farmers and other stakeholders along the food chain are
involved with researchers in the selection of varieties
from formal and farmer-based collections and trials, todetermine which are best suited to their own agroecosystems’ needs, uses and preferences, and which should
go ahead for finishing, wider release and dissemination.
The information gathered may in turn be fed back into
formal-led breeding programs.
Pesticide A toxic chemical or biological product that killsorganisms (e.g., insecticides, fungicides, weedicides, rodenticides).
Poverty There are many definitions of poverty.
Absolute Poverty: According to a UN declaration that resulted from the World Summit on Social Developmentin 1995, absolute poverty is a condition characterized bysevere deprivation of basic human needs, including food,safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter,
education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services.
Dimensions of Poverty: The individual and social characteristics of poverty such as lack of access to health andeducation, powerlessness or lack of dignity. Such aspects
of deprivation experienced by the individual or group are
not captured by measures of income or expenditure.
Extreme Poverty: Persons who fall below the defined poverty
line of US$1 income per day. The measure is converted
into local currencies using purchasing power parity (PPP)
exchange rates. Other definitions of this concept haveidentified minimum subsistence requirements, the denialof basic human rights or the experience of exclusion.
Poverty Line: A minimum requirement of welfare, usually defined in relation to income or expenditure, used
to identify the poor. Individuals or households with incomes or expenditure below the poverty line are poor.
Those with incomes or expenditure equal to or above theline are not poor. It is common practice to draw morethan one poverty line to distinguish different categoriesof poor, for example, the extreme poor.
Private Rate of Return The gain in net revenue to the private
firm/business divided by the cost of an investment expressed in percentage.
Processes A series of actions, motions, occurrences, amethod, mode, or operation, whereby a result or effectis produced.
Production Technology All methods that farmers, market
agents and consumers use to cultivate, harvest, store,
process, handle, transport and prepare food crops, cash
crops, livestock, etc., for consumption.
Protected Area A geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives as defined by society.
Public Goods A good or service in which the benefit received
by any one party does not diminish the availability ofthe benefits to others, and/or where access to the goodcannot be restricted. Public goods have the properties of
non-rivalry in consumption and non-excludability.
Public R&D Investment Includes R&D investments done by
government agencies, nonprofit institutions, and highereducation agencies. It excludes the private for-profit enterprises.
Research and Development (R&D) Organizational strategies

chapter backmatter.indd 566

and methods used by research and extension program to
conduct their work including scientific procedures, organizational modes, institutional strategies, interdisciplinary team research, etc.
Scenario A plausible and often simplified description of how
the future may develop based on explicit and coherent
and internally consistent set of assumptions about key
driving forces (e.g., rate of technology change, prices)and relationships. Scenarios are neither predictions nor
projections and sometimes may be based on a “narrative storyline”. Scenarios may be derived from projections but are often based on additional information fromother sources.
Science, Technology and Innovation Includes all forms ofuseful knowledge (codified and tacit) derived from diverse branches of learning and practice, ranging from basic scientific research to engineering to local knowledge.
It also includes the policies used to promote scientificadvance, technology development, and the commercialization of products, as well as the associated institutionalinnovations. Science refers to both basic and applied sciences. Technology refers to the application of science, engineering, and other fields, such as medicine. Innovation
includes all of the processes, including business activities
that bring a technology to market.
Shifting Cultivation Found mainly in the tropics, especially inhumid and subhumid regions. There are different kinds;
for example, in some cases a settlement is permanent, but
certain fields are fallowed and cropped alternately (‘rotational agriculture’). In other cases, new land is cleared
when the old is no longer productive.
Slash and Burn Agriculture A pattern of agriculture in which
existing vegetation is cleared and burned to provide spaceand nutrients for cropping.
Social Rate of Return The gain to society of a project or investment in net revenue divided by cost of the investment,
expressed by percentage.
Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) A combination of appropriate technology and successful approach. Technologies promote the sustainable use of agricultural soils byminimizing soil erosion, maintaining and/or enhancing
soil properties, managing water, and controlling temperature. Approaches explain the ways and means which
are used to realize SWC in a given ecological and socioeconomic environment.
Soil Erosion The detachment and movement of soil from theland surface by wind and water in conditions influenced
by human activities.
Soil Function Any service, role, or task that a soil performs,
especially: (a) sustaining biological activity, diversity,and productivity; (b) regulating and partitioning waterand solute flow; (c) filtering, buffering, degrading, anddetoxifying potential pollutants; (d) storing and cycling
nutrients; (e) providing support for buildings and otherstructures and to protect archaeological treasures.
Staple Food (Crops) Food that is eaten as daily diet.
Soil Quality The capacity of a specific kind of soil to function,
within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhancewater and air quality, and support human health andhabitation. In short, the capacity of the soil to function.

11/3/08 10:54:14 AM

Glossary | 567

Subsidy Transfer of resources to an entity, which either reduces the operating costs or increases the revenues ofsuch entity for the purpose of achieving some objective.
Subsistence Agriculture Agriculture carried out for the useof the individual person or their family with few or no
outputs available for sale.
Sustainable Development Development that meets the needsof the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.
Sustainable Land Management (SLM) A system of technologies and/or planning that aims to integrate ecologicalwith socioeconomic and political principles in the management of land for agricultural and other purposes toachieve intra- and intergenerational equity.
Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Natural resource
use is sustainable if specific types of use in a particular
ecosystem are considered reasonable in the light of boththe internal and the external perspective on natural resources. “Reasonable” in this context means that all actors agree that resource use fulfils productive, physical,
and cultural functions in ways that will meet the longterm needs of the affected population.
Technology Transfer The broad set of deliberate and spontaneous processes that give rise to the exchange anddissemination of information and technologies among
different stakeholders. As a generic concept, the term isused to encompass both diffusion of technologies andtechnological cooperation across and within countries.
Terms of Trade The international terms of trade measures a
relationship between the prices of exports and the prices
of imports, this being known strictly as the barter termsof trade. In this sense, deterioration in the terms of trade
could have resulted if unit prices of exports had risen lessthan unit prices for imports. The inter-sectoral terms oftrade refers to the terms of trade between sectors of theeconomy, e.g., rural and urban, agriculture and industry.
Total Factor Productivity A measure of the increase in total
output which is not accounted for by increases in total
inputs. The total factor productivity index is computed
as the ratio of an index of aggregate output to an index
of aggregate inputs.
Tradeoff Management choices that intentionally or otherwisechange the type, magnitude, and relative mix of services
provided by ecosystems.
Transgene An isolated gene sequence used to transform anorganism. Often, but not always, the transgene has been
derived from a different species than that of the recipient.
Transgenic An organism that has incorporated a functional
foreign gene through recombinant DNA technology. The
novel gene exists in all of its cells and is passed throughto progeny.
Undernourishment Food intake that is continuously inadequate to meet dietary energy requirement.
Undernutrition The result of food intake that is insufficient
to meet dietary energy requirements continuously, poor
absorption, and/or poor biological use of nutrients consumed.

chapter backmatter.indd 567

Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture Agriculture occurring
within and surrounding the boundaries of cities throughout the world and includes crop and livestock production,
fisheries and forestry, as well as the ecological services
they provide. Often multiple farming and gardening systems exist in and near a single city.
Value Chain A set of value-adding activities through which a
product passes from the initial production or design stage
to final delivery to the consumer.
Virtual Water The volume of water used to produce a commodity. The adjective ‘virtual’ refers to the fact that mostof the water used to produce a product is not containedin the product. In accounting virtual water flows we keep
track of which parts of these flows refer to green, blueand grey water, respectively.
		 The real-water content of products is generally negligible if compared to the virtual-water content.
Waste Water ‘Grey’ water that has been used in homes, agriculture, industries and businesses that is not for reuse
unless it is treated.
Watershed The area which supplies water by surface and subsurface flow from precipitation to a given point in thedrainage system.
Watershed Management Use, regulation and treatment ofwater and land resources of a watershed to accomplish
stated objectives.
Water Productivity An efficiency term quantified as a rationof product output (goods and services) over water input.
Expressions of water productivity. Three major expressions of water productivity can be identified: (1)the amount of carbon gain per unit of water transpired by the leaf or by the canopy (photosynthetic
water productivity); (2) the amount of water transpired by the crop (biomass water productivity); or(3) the yield obtained per unit amount of water transpired by the crop (yield water productivity).
Agricultural water productivity relates net benefits gained
through the use of water in crop, forestry, fishery, livestock and mixed agricultural systems. In its broadest
sense, it reflects the objectives of producing more food,income, livelihood and ecological benefits at less socialand environmental cost per unit of water in agriculture.
Physical water productivity relates agricultural production
to water use—more crop per drop. Water use is expressed
either in terms of delivery to a use, or depletion by a use
through evapotranspiration, pollution, or directing water
to a sink where it cannot be reused. Improving physicalwater productivity is important to reduce future waterneeds in agriculture.
Economic water productivity relates the value of agricultural production to agricultural water use. A holistic
assessment should account for the benefits and costs ofwater, including less tangible livelihood benefits, but thisis rarely done. Improving economic water productivity isimportant for economic growth and poverty reduction.

11/3/08 10:54:14 AM

Annex D

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Units

ABS
AEZ
AIDS
AFS
AFTP
AKST
ARC
ARI
ASARECA
ASB
AST
ASTI
billion
BIT
BLCA
BNF
BPH
BSE
Bt

C
Ca
CA
CAADP
CBD
CBN
CBO
Cd
CDM
CGE
CGIAR
CH4

Access and Benefit Sharing
agricultural zone
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome
agroforestry systems
Agroforestry Tree Product
Agricultural knowledge, science andtechnology
Agricultural Research Council
agricultural research institute
Association for Strengthening of Agricultural
Research in Eastern and Central Africa
Alternatives to slash and burn
Agricultural science and technology
Agricultural Science and Technology
Indicators
one thousand million
Bilateral Investment Treaty
brokered long-term contractual arrangement
Biological nitrogen fixation
brown plant hoppers
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (usuallyrefers to plants made insecticidal using avariant of various cry toxin genes sourced
from plasmids of these bacteria)carboncalciumComprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture
Development Program
Convention on Biological Diversity
Cassava Biotechnology Net
Community-based organization
cadmium
Clean Development Mechanism
computable general equilibrium
Consultative Group on International
Agricultural ResearchmethaneCIAT
CIFOR
CIMMYT
CIP
CIPAF

CMD
CMV
C:N
CO2
CO2-eq
[CO2]
COA
Codex
CoP
COP
Coprofam
CORAF
CoS
CS
CSO
Cu
CWANA
Defra
DFID
DNA
dsRNA
EFSA
EJ
Embrapa
EPA
ESAP
ET
EU

International Center for Tropical Agriculture
Center for International Forestry ResearchInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement
CenterInternational Potato Center
Center for Research and Technological
Development for small-scale family
agriculture
cassava mosaic diseasecassava mosaic virus
carbon to nitrogen ratio
carbon dioxidecarbon dioxide equivalentcarbon dioxide concentration
certified organic agriculture
Codex Alimentarius
cost of production
community of practice
Coordenadora de Organizaciones deProductores Familiares del MercosurCentral African Council for Agricultural
Research and Development
Convergence of Sciences program
carbon sequestration
civil society organizationcopperCentral and West Asia and North Africa
UK Department of Environment, Food andRural Affairs
UK Department of International Development
deoxyribonucleic aciddouble-stranded ribonucleic acid
European Food Safety Authority
Exajoules
Brazilian Agriculture and Livestock ResearchCompany
US Environmental Protection Agency
East and South Asia and the Pacificevapotranspiration
European Union

568

chapter backmatter.indd 568

11/3/08 10:54:14 AM

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Units | 569

EVM
FACE
FAO
FARA
FDA
FDI
Fe
FFS
FLO
FoB
FPRE
FPU
FSRE
FTA
g
G×E
GBA
GCM
GDP
GE
GEF
GFAR
GEO
GFS
GFSI
Gg
Gha
GHG
GHI
GIS
GISP
GLASOD
GM
GMO
GNP
GPS
GR
GSG
GSPC
Gt
GURT
GWP
ha
HACCP
HI
HIV
HR
HRC
HT

chapter backmatter.indd 569

Ethnoveterinary medicine
Free-Air Concentration Enrichment
Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
US Food and Drug Administration
Foreign Direct Investment
iron
farmer field school
Fair Trade Labeling Organization
freight on board
Farmer participatory research and extension
food producing unit
Farming systems research and extension
Free Trade Agreement
gram (10-3 kg)
gene by environment
Global Biodiversity Assessment
general circulation model
Gross domestic productgenetic engineering/genetically engineered
Global Environment Facility
Global Forum on Agricultural Research
Global Environment Outlook
globalized food system
Global Food Safety Initiative
gigagram (106 kg)
gigahectare (109 hectare)greenhouse gas
Global Hunger Index
geographic information system
Global Invasive Species Program
Global assessment of human-induced soil
degradation
genetically modified/genetic modification
genetically modified organism
Gross National Productglobal positioning system
Green revolution
Global Scenarios Group
Global Strategy of Plant Conservation
gigaton/gigatonne; 1019 tonnes
Genetic Use of Restriction Technologies
global warming potential
hectare (104 m2)
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
harvest index
Human immunodeficiency virus
herbicide resistantherbicide resistant crop
herbicide tolerant

HYV
IAIAASTD

IAM
IARC
IAS
IBRD
ICA
ICAR
ICARDAICRAFICRISAT
ICT
IDA
IEA
IFAD
IFC
IFI
IFOAM
IFPRI
IFS
IIASA
IITA
IK
ILO
ILRI
IMF
INM
INRM
IP
IPCC
IPGRI
IPM
IPPC
IPR
IR
IRR
IRRI
IS
ISNM
ISPM
ITU
IWM

High yielding variety
institutional arrangement
International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development
Integrated assessment modelInternational Agricultural Research Center
invasive alien species
International Bank of Rural Development
International Commodity Agreement
Indian Council of Agricultural ResearchInternational Center for Agricultural Researchin the Dry Areas
World Agroforestry Center
International Crops Research Institute for
Semi-arid Tropics
information and communication technologies
International Development Agency
International Energy Agency
International Fund for Agricultural
Development
International Finance Corporationinternational financial institution
International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements
International Food Policy Research InstituteInternational Food Standard
International Institute for Applied System
AnalysisInternational Institute for Tropical Agriculture
Indigenous knowledge
International Labour Organisation
International Livestock Research InstituteInternational Monetary Fund
Integrated Nutrient Management
Integrated Natural Resources Management
intellectual property
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Bioversity International
Integrated pest management
International Plant Protection Convention
intellectual property rights
insect resistantinternal rate of return
International Rice Research Instituteinnovation systems
Integrated soil and nutrient management
International sanitary and phytosanitary
measureInternational Telecommunications Union
Integrated Weed Management

11/3/08 10:54:14 AM

570 | Annex D

IWMI
IWRM
IWSR
K
kcal
kg
km
kWh
LAC
LDC
LEISA
LIC
LFS
LLMA
LTE
LUC
m
MA
MAB/S
MASIPAG
MDG
Mg
mg
MIGA
MLS
MRL
MSA
MV
N
NAE
NAFTA
NARI
NARS
NBF
NEPAD
ng
NGO
N2O
NPK
NPV
NRM
NTFP
NUE
O3
OA
ODA
OECD
OH
OIE
p

chapter backmatter.indd 570

International Water Management InstituteIntegrated water resources management
irrigation water supply reliability
potassium
kilocalorie
kilogram, 103 grams
kilometer
kilowatt hour
Latin America and the Caribbean
least developed countries
Low-External Input Sustainable Agriculture
low income countries
local food system
Locally Managed Marine Area
long-term cropping system experiments
land use change
102 cmMillennium Ecosystem Assessment
marker assisted breeding/selection
Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development,
Inc
Millennium Development Goals
magnesium
milligram (10-3 grams)
Multilateral Investment Agency
multilateral system
maximum residue levelmean species abundanceModern variety
nitrogenNorth America and Europe
North American Free Trade Agreement
National agricultural research institutenational agricultural research systems
National Biosafety Frameworks
New Partnership for Africa’s Development
nanogram (10-9 grams)
nongovernmental organization
nitrous oxide
nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium
net present value of benefits
Natural resource management
non-timber forest productnitrogen use efficiency
ozone
organic agriculture
overseas development assistance
Organization of Economic Cooperation andDevelopmenthydroxyl
World Animal Health Organization
phosphorus

PA
PCR
PE
PES
PGRFA
PIPRA
PPB
ppm
ppmv
PPP
PPQ
PVP
QPM
QTL
R&D
RCT
RISE
RNA
ROPPA
ROR
RRA
RS
S&T
SAP
SEARICE
SIA
SODP
SPIA
SPLT
SPS
SRES
SSA
SSNM
STE
TFP
TG
TGA
TK
tonne
ToT
TRIPS
T&V
TV
UEMOA
UNCBD
UNCCD

precision agriculture
Polymerase chain reaction
partial equilibrium
Payments for environmental services
Plant Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture
Public-Sector Intellectual Property Resource
for Agriculture
Participatory plant breeding
parts per million
parts per million by volume
Purchasing Power Parity
plant protection and quarantine
plant variety protection
quality protein maize
Quantitative Trait Loci
research and development
Resource-conserving technologies
Response Inducing Sustainability Evaluation
ribonucleic acid
Réseau des organisations paysannes et desproducteurs d’Afrique de l’Ouest
rates of returnrapid rural appraisal
remote sensing
science and technology
Structural adjustment policies
South East Asian Regional Initiatives forCommunity Empowerment
Strategic Impact Assessment
Seeds of Development Program
Standing Panel on Impact Assessment
Substantive Patent Law Treaty
Sanitary and PhytosanitarySpecial Report on Emission Scenarios
Sub-Saharan Africasite specific nutrient management
state trading enterprise
Total Factor Productivity
Technogarden scenario
third generation agriculture
traditional knowledge
103 kg (metric ton)
Transfer of Technology
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rightstraining and visit
Traditional variety
Union Economique et Monétaire OuestAfricaine
UN Convention on Biodiversity
UN Commission to Combat Desertification

11/3/08 10:54:15 AM

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Units | 571

UNCED
UNCTAD
UNDP
UNEP
UNFCCC
UPOV
USDA
UV

chapter backmatter.indd 571

UN Conference on Environment andDevelopment
UN Conference on Trade and Development
United Nations Development Program
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate ChangeInternational Union for the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants
U.S. Department of Agriculture
ultraviolet

WARDA
WHO
WIPO
WP
WRI
WSSD
WUA
WUE
WWF
yr
Zn

Africa Rice Center
World Health Organization
World Intellectual Property Organizationwater productivity
World Resources InstituteWorld Summit on Sustainable Development
Water User Associationwater use efficiency
World Wildlife Fund
year
zinc

11/3/08 10:54:15 AM

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, 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 theEnvironment, Colombia
Rita Sharma, Principal Secretary and Rural Infrastructure
Commissioner, Government of Uttar Pradesh, India
Robert T. Watson, Chief Scientist, The World Bank

Private Sector
Momtaz Faruki Chowdhury, Director, Agribusiness Center for
Competitiveness and Enterprise Development, Bangladesh
Sam Dryden, Managing Director, Emergent Genetics
David Evans, Former Head of Research and Technology, Syngenta
International
Steve Parry, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Development
Program Leader, Unilever
Mumeka M. Wright, Director, Bimzi Ltd., Zambia

Consumer Groups
Michael Hansen, Consumers International
Greg Jaffe, Director, Biotechnology Project, Center for Science in
the Public Interest
Samuel Ochieng, Chief Executive, Consumer Information
Network

Producer Groups

Benny Haerlin, Advisor, Greenpeace International
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

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 ofSouth Africa
Armando Paredes, Presidente, Consejo Nacional Agropecuario(CNA)

UN Bodies

Scientific Organizations

Nongovernmental Organizations

Ivar Baste, Chief, Environment Assessment Branch, UN
Environment Programme
Wim van Eck, Senior Advisor, Sustainable Development and
Healthy Environments, World Health Organization
Joke Waller-Hunter, Executive Secretary, UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change
Hamdallah Zedan, Executive Secretary, UN Convention on
Biological Diversity

At-large Scientists
Adrienne Clarke, Laureate Professor, School of Botany, Universityof Melbourne, Australia
Denis Lucey, Professor of Food Economics, Dept. of FoodBusiness & Development, University College Cork, Ireland,
and Vice-President NATURA
Vo-tong Xuan, Rector, Angiang University, Vietnam

Jorge Ardila Vásquez, Director Area of Technology andInnovation, 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 TechnicalCooperation, Netherlands
Mohamed Hassan, Executive Director, Third World Academy of
Sciences (TWAS)
Mark Holderness, Head Crop and Pest Management, CAB
International
Charlotte Johnson-Welch, Public Health and GenderSpecialist and Nata Duvvury, Director Social Conflict andTransformation Team, International Center for Research on
Women (ICRW)Thomas Rosswall, Executive Director, International Council for
Science (ICSU)

572

chapter backmatter.indd 572

11/3/08 10:54:15 AM

Steering Committee for Consultative Process and Advisory Bureau for Assessment | 573

Judi Wakhungu, Executive Director, African Center forTechnology Studies

Governments
Australia: Peter Core, Director, Australian Centre forInternational Agricultural Research
China: Keming Qian, Director General Inst. Agricultural
Economics, Dept. of International Cooperation, Chinese
Academy of Agricultural Science
Finland: Tiina Huvio, Senior Advisor, Agriculture and Rural
Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
France: Alain Derevier, Senior Advisor, Research for Sustainable
Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Germany: Hans-Jochen de Haas, Head, Agricultural and Rural
Development, Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (BMZ)
Hungary: Zoltan Bedo, Director, Agricultural Research Institute,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Ireland: Aidan O’Driscoll, Assistant Secretary General,
Department of Agriculture and Foodchapter backmatter.indd 573

Morocco: Hamid Narjisse, Director General, INRA
Russia: Eugenia Serova, Head, Agrarian Policy Division, Institutefor Economy in Transition
Uganda: Grace Akello, Minister of State for Northern Uganda
Rehabilitation
United Kingdom Paul Spray, Head of Research, DFID
United States: Rodney Brown, Deputy Under Secretary ofAgriculture and Hans Klemm, Director of the Office ofAgriculture, 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

11/3/08 10:54:15 AM

574 | Annex E

Advisory Bureau

Anita Morales • Apit Tako
Nizam Selim • Pioneer Hatchery

Non-government Representatives
Consumer Groups
Jaime Delgado • Asociación Peruana de Consumidores y Usuarios
Greg Jaffe • Center for Science in the Public Interest
Catherine Rutivi • Consumers International
Indrani Thuraisingham • Southeast Asia Council for Food
Security and Trade
Jose Vargas Niello • Consumers International Chile

International organizations
Nata Duvvury • International Center for Research on Women
Emile Frison • CGIARMark Holderness • GFAR
Mohamed Hassan • Third World Academy of Sciences
Jeffrey McNeely • World Conservation Union (IUCN)
Dennis Rangi • CAB International
John Stewart • International Council of Science (ICSU)NGOs
Kevin Akoyi • Vredeseilanden
Hedia Baccar • Association pour la Protection de l’Environmentde Kairouan
Benedikt Haerlin • Greenpeace International
Juan Lopez • Friends of the Earth International
Khadouja Mellouli • Women for Sustainable Development
Patrick Mulvaney • Practical Action
Romeo Quihano • Pesticide Action Network
Maryam Rahmaniam • CENESTA
Daniel Rodriguez • International Technology Development Group

Private Sector
Momtaz Chowdhury • Agrobased Technology and Industry
Development
Giselle L. D’Almeida • Interface
Eva Maria Erisgen • BASF
Armando Paredes • Consejo Nacional Agropecuario
Steve Parry • Unilever
Harry Swaine • Syngenta (resigned)

Producer Groups
Shoaib Aziz • Sustainable Agriculture Action Group of Pakistan
Philip Kiriro • East African Farmers Federation
Kristie Knoll • Knoll Farms
Prabha Mahale • International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements

chapter backmatter.indd 574

Government Representatives
Central and West Asia and North Africa
Egypt • Ahlam Al Naggar
Iran • Hossein Askari
Kyrgyz Republic • Djamin Akimaliev
Saudi Arabia • Abdu Al Assiri, Taqi Elldeen Adar, Khalid Al
GhamediTurkey • Yalcin Kaya, Mesut Keser

East and South Asia and the Pacific
Australia • Simon Hearn
China • Puyun Yang
India • PK Joshi
Japan • Ryuko Inoue
Philippines • William Medrano

Latin America and Caribbean
Brazil • Sebastiao Barbosa, Alexandre Cardoso, Paulo Roberto
Galerani, Rubens Nodari
Dominican Republic • Rafael Perez Duvergé
Honduras • Arturo Galo, Roberto Villeda Toledo
Uruguay • Mario Allegri

North America and Europe
Austria • Hedwig Woegerbauer
Canada • Iain MacGillivray
Finland • Marja-Liisa Tapio-Bistrom
France • Michel Dodet
Ireland • Aidan O’Driscoll, Tony Smith
Russia • Eugenia Serova, Sergey Alexanian
United Kingdom • Jim Harvey, David Howlett, John Barret
United States • Christian Foster

Sub-Saharan Africa
Benin • Jean Claude Codjia
Gambia • Sulayman Trawally
Kenya • Evans Mwangi
Mozambique • Alsácia Atanásio, Júlio Mchola
Namibia • Gillian Maggs-Kölling
Senegal • Ibrahim Diouck

11/3/08 10:54:15 AM

Annex F

Secretariat and Cosponsor Focal Points

Secretariat
World BankMarianne Cabraal, Leonila Castillo, Jodi Horton, Betsi 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

Latin America and the Caribbean – Inter-American Institute for
Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)
Enrique Alarcon, Jorge Ardila Vásquez, Viviana Chacon,
Johana Rodríguez, Gustavo Sain
East and South Asia and the Pacific – WorldFish Center
Karen Khoo, Siew Hua Koh, Li Ping Ng, Jamie Oliver,Prem Chandran Venugopalan

Cosponsor Focal Points
GEF
UNDP
UNEP
UNESCOWHOWorld BankMark Zimsky
Philip Dobie
Ivar Baste
Salvatore Arico, Walter Erdelen
Jorgen Schlundt
Mark Cackler, Kevin Cleaver, Eija Pehu,
Juergen Voegele

Sub-Saharan Africa – African Centre for Technology Studies(ACTS)
Ronald Ajengo, Elvin Nyukuri, Judi Wakhungu
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

575

chapter backmatter.indd 575

11/3/08 10:54:16 AM

Annex G

Reservations on Global 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 wide range of observations and views presented however, are such that Australia cannot agree with all assertions and options in the report. The reportis therefore noted as a useful contribution which will be used forconsidering 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 stakeholders on the
background Reports, the Canadian Government notes these documents as a valuable and important contribution to policy debate
which needs to continue in national and international processes.
While acknowledging the valuable contribution these Reports
provide to our understanding on agricultural knowledge, scienceand technology for development, there remain numerous areas ofconcern in terms of balanced presentation, policy suggestions andother assertions and ambiguities. Nonetheless, the Canadian Government 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.

United States of America: The United States joins consensus
with other governments in the critical importance of AKST to meetthe goals of the IAASTD. We commend the tireless efforts of theauthors, editors, Co-Chairs and the Secretariat. We welcome the
IAASTD for bringing together the widest array of stakeholders forthe first time in an initiative 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 thereports, the United States is unable to provide unqualified 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 raising sustainable economic
growth and alleviating hunger and poverty.

576

chapter backmatter.indd 576

11/3/08 10:54:16 AM

IndexNote: Any italicized page number is for a page that has a table, box, or figure.

A
Africa: agricultural information providers, 208,
208; agriculture/extension expenditures, 207–
208, 207; Alliance for a Green Revolution
in Africa, 269; Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP),
269, 508; funding options, 533; Green Revolution, 181, 222, 397; national research systems, 78–79; R&D funding sources, 82–83,
509; R&D investment assessment, 517, 517;
science and societies, 71, 72
African Union, 92
Africa Stockpiles Program, 104, 105
Agenda 21, UN Conference on Environment andDevelopment (1992), 49, 85
Agricultural challenges: summary, 3. See also
specific challenges
Agricultural change: intensification of production, 256, 299; international trade future,256; land use, 256; overview, 256–257;
policy choices, 256. See also Drivers of agricultural change
Agricultural knowledge: co-production of,
17–19; measurement categories, 19–20;
for organic agriculture, 23. See also AKST;
knowledge types
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology.
See AKST
Agricultural Market Analysis Unit, 461
Agricultural Research Council (ARC) model, 79
Agricultural schools, 80
Agricultural systems: diversity of, 20; emerging
systems, 23–24; provisioning services, 20
Agricultural systems components: crops, 20–21;
fisheries, 21; forestry, 21–22; livestock, 22–23“Agricultural treadmill,” 73, 481–482
Agriculture: components, 15–16; dependence on
few species, 155, 155; emerging issues overview, 11–12; eras/revolutions, 117; humanhealth interrelations, 116, 116; importancesummary, 5–6; as multidimensional activity,
60–61; positive functions, 21; social conflicts
effects, 222, 222; subsectors disconnection,
217, 217
Agriculture working conditions: accidents, 34,
35; animal diseases and, 34; pesticide risks,34, 35, 99–100, 106, 199, 199, 520–521;
poor living conditions and, 34–35; problems
overview, 34–35; stakeholders’ impacts, 213,
213
Agrifood systems, 24
Agrobiodiversity: climate change adaptation,
416–417, 418, 419; decline, 40, 186–187,

186, 520; description, 40; managing, 40–41;
village-level domestication strategies and,
188, 188. See also Genetic diversity
Agrochemicals use: health impacts, 199, 199.
See also specific types
Agroecology: biodiversity importance, 186,
186; collaborative approaches, 71; indigenous technologies, 66–67
Agroecosystems: agroforestry rehabilitation,
180–181, 180, 181; AKST impacts on, 148,
152, 162, 172, 173, 174, 176, 183, 184,
186, 189, 190, 196; description, 36; intensive agricultural systems effects, 154, 154;
weed competition, 162, 162
Agroforestry: agroecological function,
180–181, 180, 181, 396; AKST impact
enhancement, 396–398; anthropogenic gas
emissions and, 181, 181; carbon sequestration, 181, 181, 190, 190; cash-cropping,
178, 178, 179–180, 179; cloning and, 158,
158; complexity of interactions, 180, 180;
corporate sector, 214, 214; description, 37,
218, 520; fodder, 176–177, 176, 180; foodsovereignty and, 147; health of humans
and, 397; indigenous technologies/traditional knowledge, 67, 147; indigenous tree
species, 147; IPM, 173; “jungle rubber,”178; land areas with, 177; land degradation reduction, 396; with low fertility soil,
402; market and, 396–398; mixed cropping
with, 177–181, 177–181; non-timber forest
products (NTFP), 179, 179; participatory
approaches, 158, 158, 204, 204; poverty
reduction, 181, 181; protection of trees,
178, 178; research/techniques, 180, 180;
riparian buffer strips, 180, 180; supplying
daily needs, 178–179, 178, 179–180, 179;
sustainability, 397; traditional/local knowledge, 179, 397–398; training, 209; vegetative propagation techniques, 158–159, 158;
women and, 396, 397; “yield gap” and, 147
Agroforestry Tree Products (AFTPs), 179, 179
Agrotechnical institutes, 82
AKST: challenges by region, 345; challenges
summary, 2, 222, 223–224, 345, 355–356;
direct drivers, 76–77; emerging issues and,
11–12; exclusion/marginalization and, 58,
201–202, 202; future, 355–356; gaps/needs,
381–384; importance summary, 2; indirectdrivers, 76–77; interpretation variations,58; lessons learned/implications, 116–119;
natural resource management, 42–43;
NGOs and, 86–87; organizations effective-

ness, 17; private sector for-profit arrangements, 86; production systems, 76–77;
public-private arrangements, 86; researchintensity gaps, 19; role, 4–5; sustainability
goals, 299–301; traditional/local knowledge
and, 67; transfer of, 18. See also IAASTD;
specific components
AKSTD paradigm, 76–77
AKST impact assessment: access to assets,
200–201, 200, 201; agroecosystem healthwith intensive agriculture, 154, 154; alien
species, 163–164, 163; aquaculture environmental effects, 161, 161, 520; aquaculture
poverty/food security effects, 160, 160;
aquaculture production, 160–161, 160; biodiversity conservation, 186–189, 186–189;
biodiversity reduction, 153, 153; bioenergy,
191–193, 191–193; biological control, 162,
162; breeding for abiotic stressors, 161,
161; breeding for quality, 164–165, 164,
165; cassava mosaic disease, 164, 164; cereal productivity, 148–149, 148, 150, 158,
158; criteria, 148, 148; cultivars resistant
to insect pests, 164, 164; dependence on
few species, 155, 155; economic impacts,
193–196, 193–195; environmental damage
and productivity, 152–153, 152; ethnoveterinary medicine, 164, 164; fallow system vs.
nutrient applications, 168–169, 168; farmsize-productivity relationship, 151, 151;
fertilizer use, 169–170, 169; fertilizer useproductivity relationship, 151–152, 151;
fish consumption, 160, 160; fisheries, 150,
150; food consumption patterns, 154–155,
154; food security, 354–355; gender issues,
210–211, 210, 211; genetic diversity in cereal crops, 153; genetic diversity reduction/
solution, 157, 157; genetic improvement oftimber tree species, 159, 159; genetic yieldpotential, 157, 157; global effect on people,
148, 148; GMOs socioeconomic impacts,
195–196, 195; Green Revolution, 156,
156; health/nutrition, 196–200, 196–200;
herbicides, 162–163, 162; horticulture,
149, 149; information and communications
technologies (ICT), 171–172, 172; information management, 209–210, 209, 210;
integrated natural resource management
systems, 172–184, 172–184; irrigated areas,
151, 151; irrigation, 151, 151, 154, 154,
200–201, 200; land degradation, 153, 153;
land reserves, 150, 150; land restoration,
153; livelihoods, 193–211, 193–211; live-

577

chapter backmatter.indd 577

11/3/08 10:54:16 AM

578 | IAASTD Global Report

AKST impact assessment (continued)
stock breeding techniques/effects, 159–160,
159; livestock gas emissions, 153, 160, 160;
livestock production, 149, 149, 160, 160;
livestock production/environment effects,
153–154, 153, 160, 160, 518, 519, 520;
management for ecosystem services/public
goods, 184–193, 184–193; mechanization
effects, 152, 152; methodologies, 147–148,
193; Modern Varieties effects, 151, 151,
156–157, 156, 157; nitrogen fertility, 170,
170; objectivity, 222, 222; organic systems,
182–184, 182–184; parasitic weeds, 163,
163; participatory domestication techniques/cloning, 158–159, 158; pesticideuse, 152, 152, 518, 520–522; plant MAB/
MAS, 165, 165; plants, 156–159, 156, 157,
158, 159; policy design/implementation,
214–222, 214–222; postharvest technologies/shelf life, 165, 165, 198, 198; regional
disparities, 148, 149; resource-conserving
technologies, 153, 153; small-scale farmers
productivity, 158, 158; soil nutrients depletion, 152, 152; spillover effects, 522–524,
524; stakeholders relationships, 211–222,
211–222; sustainability, 172–193, 172–193;
timber plantation investments, 159, 159;
Total Factor Productivity (TFP), 152, 152;
traditional foods, 155, 155; vegetative
propagation techniques, 158–159, 158;
vulnerability/risk, 201–202, 202; water
management, 170–171, 170, 171, 184–186,
184–186; water pollution/degradation, 154,
154; watershed management, 181–182,
181, 182; weed competition, 162–163, 162,
163; wheat stem rust, 164, 164; yield perunit area per year, 157–158, 157. See also
Research and development investment assessment
AKST impact assessment/biotechnology: Bt
toxins/ecosystem, 167, 167; environmental
impacts of GM crops, 167, 167; fish, 168,
168; gene pathways/regulatory networks
knowledge use, 165–166, 165; geneticallymodified plants, 166–167, 166; genetic
engineering, 166, 166; GM traits/crops
spread, 167–168, 167; herbicide resistance,
167, 167; insecticide resistance, 167, 167;
livestock, 168, 168; livestock molecular
genetics, 166, 166; livestock/poverty reduction, 166, 166; risk assessment, 168; traditional crop breeding and, 166, 166
AKST impact enhancement: bioenergy, 379;
breeding options, 391–395; challenges/
needs overview, 381–384; climate change
adaptation/mitigation, 378, 416–425; crop
productivity/sustainability, 379–391; fisheries/aquaculture, 398–399; forestry/agroforestry, 396–398; health/nutrition, 407–412,
413–414, 415–416; key messages, 378–379;
livestock productivity/sustainability, 391;
natural resource management/habitat
preservation, 399–407; options/challenges
overview, 380, 381–384; water productivity,
378–379, 403–404, 403, 404
AKST producers: national level, 78–82; regional/international level, 82–86

chapter backmatter.indd 578

Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative project, 78
Alien species. See Invasive alien species (IAS)
Alternative energy, 326–327
Andean consortium, 86
Animal health: animal welfare, 34, 471–472;
developing countries and, 469–471, 470,
471; disease and agriculture working conditions, 34; endemic diseases, 470, 471, 471;
epizootic diseases, 469–470, 470, 471; ethnoveterinary medicine, 164, 164; foodborne
infections, 470–471; global disease burden,
469–470, 470, 471; global legislation,
469–470, 470; policy, 442–443, 469–472,
474–475; priority control technologies, 472;
zoonoses, 470–471, 470, 471. See also specific diseases
Annan, Kofi, 269
Aphids, 164
Aquaculture: Bangladesh problems, 161; environmental effects, 161, 161, 519, 520; feed
competition, 308; food security, 160, 160;
policy needs/options, 448–449; poverty alleviation, 160, 160; production (1950-2002),
22; production increase factors, 160–161,
160; stakeholders’ impacts, 212, 212; statistics on, 21, 22, 38, 150; sustainability policies, 309, 399; technological advances, 150
Aral Sea, 72, 171
Argentine Agrarian Federation, 82
ASARECA, 82
Asian AgriHistory Foundation, 59
Assessments: definition/description, 4; examples, 4, 256, 259; overview of existingassessments, 294; scientific reviews vs., 5.
See also AKST impact assessment; Future of
agriculture/AKST assessment; Policy issues
assessment; Research and development investment assessment
Assessments/future developments: approaches,
260; complexity/uncertainty, 259; existingassessments, 293–299; features, 260; foodsystem changes, 293–299; overview, 256,
258–260, 259, 260; scenarios, 259–260, 261
Assets access: AKST impact assessment, 200–
201, 200, 201; women and, 35, 200, 200,
210–211, 210, 211. See also specific assets
Atrazine, 154, 164
Avian influenza, 11, 15, 22, 34, 112, 505

B
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), 166, 167, 167, 354
Bayh-Dole Act (U.S. 1980), 80, 475
Beef: prices, 320, 320; production, 316, 318
Belgian dioxin chickens, 111
Bengal Famine (1943-1944), 89“Best fit” technology, 73–74
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 207, 508
BioCarbon Fund, 463
Biochar production/use, 420
Biodiesel, 425“Biodiscovery,” 220, 220
Biodiversity: agricultural landuse systems, 179,
179; agriculture land cover changes, 24;agroecology/agroecosystems and, 173, 183,
186, 186; benefits to humanity, 186, 186;
bioenergy and, 256–257; change factors, 40;
climate change and, 40, 329; conserving,

186–189, 186–189; definition, 367; deforestation effects, 10, 37; ex situ conservation,
92, 93, 93, 187, 187, 392, 447; forestry/forests, 22, 37; genetic resources, 40, 187–188,
187; GM/GMOs and, 353–354; habitat loss
and, 399; importance to agriculture, 40; insitu conservation/management, 41, 92, 93,
96, 187, 187, 392, 447; invasive alien species and, 40, 163–164, 163; loss (modelingoutcomes), 329, 330; loss definition, 367;
loss factors, 40, 152, 153, 153, 283, 284,
329, 330; mean species abundance, 329;
organic agriculture, 183; overview, 40–41;
PPB and, 66; protection, 188–189, 188;
water resources management and, 405–406.
See also Agrobiodiversity; Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD); GLOBIO 3
model
Bioelectricity, 192–193, 192, 193, 425, 464–465
Bioenergy: agriculture implications, 291–292,
300; biodiesel, 425; biodiversity and, 256–
257; bioelectricity, 192–193, 192, 193, 425,
464–465; bioheat, 192–193, 192, 193, 425,
464–465; biomass, 192–193, 192, 201,
201, 292, 327, 340, 420; controversies, 3,
11–12, 192, 192, 290, 291, 292, 379; costs,
192, 192, 291; drivers of, 290; employment/incomes and, 424–425; environmental
implications, 291, 424, 425; food priceimpacts, 291, 355, 424; food security and,
256–257, 300, 355, 424; greenhouse gas
emissions and, 291; IMAGE model (2.4)
and, 313; land use impacts, 291, 327–328,
329; limitations, 424–425, 425; net energy
gains/losses, 291; potential, 290, 292, 340,
424–425, 425; rural development and,
424–425; sustainable use, 422–425; trade/market policy options, 463–465; unrefined
bio-oils, 425; use, 191, 191; use effects(modeling outcomes), 327–328, 329. See
also Fuelwood; Liquid biofuels
Bioenergy/AKST: impact assessment, 191–193,
191–193; impact improvement, 379, 384;
implications, 292
Bioenhancement, 164
Biofortification, 164, 408, 522
Biofuels. See Bioenergy; Liquid biofuels
Biofumigation of soils, 389
Bioheat, 192–193, 192, 193, 425, 464–465
Biointensive IPM, 101
Biological control: approaches, 102, 162; assessment, 162, 162; augmentation, 102,
162; economic benefits, 102, 162, 162;
nematode control, 389, 390; overview,
102–103; plant root health, 389, 390; problems/constraints with, 101, 102; successes/
opportunities, 102–103
Biological corridors, 37
Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF), 170, 170,
175, 175, 180, 400
Biomagnification, 38–39
Biomass, 192–193, 192, 201, 201, 292, 327,
340, 420
Biomass-to-liquid (BTL) fuels, 423
BIOME model, 359“Bioprospecting,” 220, 220
Bioremediation, 409, 410

11/3/08 10:54:17 AM

Index | 579

Biosafety: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 89,
168, 218, 218, 473; plant protection, 473
Biotechnology: adoption trends, 272; in Brazil,
79; breeding options/plants, 392–395; ethics
and, 273; genetic structure of populations,
165; health implications, 117; nanotechnology, 415, 467; overview, 12; plant MAB/
MAS, 165; traditional crop breeding and,
166, 166. See also AKST impact assessment/
biotechnology; specific technologies
BirdLife International, 87
Block grants, 531
Blue Revolution, 155“Blue” water, 39, 170
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), 34,
111, 112, 214
Bovine tuberculosis, 34
Brazilian Agriculture and Livestock ResearchCompany (Embrapa), 78, 79, 85
Breeding: climate change adaptation, 417–418;
drought tolerance, 161, 161, 165–166; marginal environments, 161, 161; for quality,
164–165, 164, 165
Breeding options/livestock: AKST impact enhancement, 395; genomics, 395; techniques/effects, 159–160, 159; transgenic livestockpotential, 395
Breeding options/plants: AKST impact enhancement, 391–395; biotechnology, 392–395;
conventional breeding, 392–395; in developing countries, 392; epigenetic modification of traits, 394; genetically modified/organisms (GM/GMOs), 392–394; genetic
diversity preservation, 392; genomics, 393;
heat tolerance, 417, 418; malnutrition reduction, 407–408; RNA-based techniques,
394–395; salt tolerance, 417–418; underutilized (“lost”) crops, 418
Brokered long-term contractual arrangements(BLCA), 482, 482
Brucellosis, 15, 34
Brundtland Commission, 30

C
Caloric availability: AKST effects, 146, 148,
340; food consumption patterns and, 276,
278; livestock products, 276, 278; modelingoutcomes, 320, 322, 323; undernourishment, 32, 32, 146
Capacity development, 19
CAPSiM model: applications, 310, 311, 314,
364; description, 311, 363–364, 365; history, 363; structure/data, 363–364; uncertainty, 364, 365
Carbon cycle modeling, 360
Carbon dioxide: crop responses to elevatedlevels, 189, 189. See also Climate change
Carbon sequestration: agriculture, 2, 21, 24,
41, 48, 189, 189, 190, 190, 518; agroforestry, 181, 181, 190, 190; biodiversity and,40; grazing lands, 190, 190; no-till agriculture, 190, 190; as PES, 462; policies, 445,
446; soil-based sequestration, 190, 190
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 89, 168, 218,
218, 473
Cassava mealy-bug, 102
Cassava mosaic disease, 164, 164

chapter backmatter.indd 579

CBD. See Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD)
Cellulosic biofuels, 379, 423, 424
Centers of Diversity concept, 89
Cereal: availability, 316, 317, 317, 318, 319;
prices, 333
Cereal production: AKST effects, 146, 333,
339; China, 321; climate change effects,
287, 287; cultivars resistant to insect pests,
164, 164; Green Revolution, 20, 21, 154,
155; growth sources, 295, 297, 319; irrigation, 151; potential, 158, 158; productivity
comparison by farming system, 9; trade policies and, 333; trends, 7, 20–21, 146, 148–149,
148, 149, 150, 158, 158, 295, 296, 297
Cereal production/modeling projections: demand by uses/regions, 317, 318; per capita
availability, 317
Cereal trade: AKST effects, 339; modelingoutcomes, 320, 320; projections, 320; trade
policies and, 333
Certification approaches, 461
Certified organic agriculture (CAO): for developing countries, 460–461. See also Organic
agriculture
CGE models: applications, 310, 312, 313;
strengths, 312. See also GEN-CGE model;
GTEM model
CGIAR: budget, 96; “Challenge Programs,” 84,522; creation/evolution, 83–84, 88; criticism
of, 83; current debates, 84; HarvestPlus
Challenge Program, 522; investment ROR,
516–517; IPM, 103; limitations, 90; MA
and, 71; public-private partnerships, 97;
role/functions, 83, 504; Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender
Analysis, 45, 203
Chain-linked model: description, 68, 69; “newconsumer economies” and, 68
Chemical contamination: food safety, 112, 113,
198; off-farm reduction options, 410–411;
on-farm reduction options, 410; phytoremediation, 410. See also Fertilizers; Heavy
metal contamination; Herbicides; Insecticides; Pesticides, synthetic
Cheminova, 105
Chernobyl nuclear fallout, 111
Child labor: education and, 44; poverty perpetuation, 44; risks, 35; statistics, 35
China: economic growth predictions, 314; foodavailability/supply, 310; food demand, 310;
food prices, 310; food security, 310; poverty/hunger reduction, 322
China (modeling outcomes): cereal production,
321; comparative advantage, 321; crop
production, 321; imports, 321–322; population by income group, 322
China’s Agricultural Policy Simulation and
Projection Model. See CAPSiM model
Civil society organization (CSOs), 82
Climate change: agricultural yields, 286–287,
287; agriculture effects from, 3, 24–25, 41,257, 286–287, 287, 300, 309, 327, 329; agriculture impacts on, 25, 41, 287–288, 289,
445; agroforestry and, 181, 181; biodiversity and, 40, 329; crop-pest relations, 190,
191, 191; crop yield change modeling, 329;

deforestation effects, 37, 191, 191, 327;
diseases and, 191, 191, 347, 541; driving
forces of, 284; extreme events, 287, 416,
417; fisheries and, 421; gas emission projections, 284–285, 285, 288, 327, 327, 328,
329; invasive alien species, 40; IPCC, 189,
284, 286, 316, 327, 330; livestock effects
from, 191, 191; livestock greenhouse gas
emissions, 153, 160, 160, 421, 448, 518;
LULUCF activities, 191, 191; modeling outcomes, 327, 327, 330, 416; overview, 284;
pests/management, 190, 191, 541; plant
health, 473–474; precipitation changes,
285–286; projected surface temperatures,
286, 328; projections, 284–286, 285, 286,
288, 328; regional variations, 416; salinization, 417–418; soil erosion, 416; temperate
vs. tropical regions, 286–287; water availability, 324, 341, 421; water runoff, 41,
42. See also Carbon sequestration; IMAGE
model (2.4)
Climate change adaptation: agrobiodiversity,
416–417, 418, 419; biochar production/use, 420; crop breeding for, 417–418; crop
diversification strategies, 416–417, 418,
419; fisheries, 421; forecasting, 417, 418;
on-farm options, 418–422; for rainfed agriculture, 418–419, 421–422; soil conserving
strategies, 419–420; varietal diversification, 419; warnings, 417; water resources,
421–422
Climate change mitigation: agriculture and, 41,
287–288, 289, 330–331, 378, 383, 420–421,
445, 497, 542–543; by forests, 22, 37, 287–
288, 327; gas emission reduction, 189, 189,
287–288, 289, 291, 330–331, 331, 378, 420–
421, 445–446, 497, 542–543; PES schemes,
463; policies, 309, 330–331, 331, 443, 445–
446. See also Carbon sequestration
Cloning, 158–159, 158, 159
Coal use, 326, 327
Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Useof Pesticides, 84, 100, 103, 104
Codes of Conduct, 86
Codex Alimentarius Commission, 113, 114,
115, 116, 182, 213, 442, 467, 474
Coenberg, 89
Collaborations, regional/global: examples, 270;
as sociopolitical drivers, 269–270
Collectivization, 79
Commodity boards, 532
Common Code for the Coffee Industry, 86
Communication. See Information and communication technologies (ICT)
Communist states command and control, 65
Competitive funding, 531–532, 533
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development
Programme (CAADP), 269, 508
Computable general equilibrium models. See
CGE models
Conservation: ecoagriculture, 187, 187; exsitu conservation/collection, 92, 93, 93,
187, 187, 392, 447; habitat preservation,
399–407; habitat restoration, 399; in situ
conservation/management, 41, 92, 93, 96,
187, 187, 392, 447; tropical rain forest/effects, 220, 220

11/3/08 10:54:18 AM

580 | IAASTD Global Report

Conservation agriculture: definition/description,
23–24; environmental benefits, 24“Conservation varieties,” 448
CONSERVE, 82
Constructivism, 70, 71
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. See CGIAR
Contractual arrangements model, 69
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD):AKST and, 18; description/role, 18, 89,
91–92, 92, 187, 220, 443–444; equity and,
92–93; genetic resources sovereignty, 92;
impacts, 89, 92–93; indigenous/local knowledge, 91, 92; IPM, 103; IPR, 218; problems,
92–93, 92; ratification, 91
Convergence of Sciences Program (CoS), 483
CORAF, 82
Coral reefs: degradation, 36–37, 38; importance, 36–37, 38
Core-estate-with-out-growers model, 65, 68
Crick, 89
Crop production: in agricultural systems,
20–21; China, 321; global projections,
295–296, 295, 297; mixed crop-livestock
systems, 176–177, 176, 177, 296, 386,
391; mixed cropping benefits, 177–181,
177–181. See also Cereal production; specific crops
Crop/rain insurance, 460
Crop Research and Introduction Center, 89
CSOs (civil society organization), 82
Culture: as agriculture change driver, 273. See
also Indigenous knowledge; Traditional/local knowledge

D
Dagomba ethnic group, 205
Daimler Chrysler, 96, 214
Darwin, 89
Declaration on Indigenous Peoples’ rights togenetic resources and IK, 68
Deforestation: AKST effects, 337; biodiversity
and, 10, 37; climate change, 37, 191, 191,
327; drivers, 283, 396; environmental consequences, 174, 174; GM soybeans, 283,
284; intersectorial policies, 216, 216; landdegradation, 153, 174, 396; livestock production, 153; rates/statistics, 22, 37, 396;
swidden agriculture, 283
Demand-pull approach, 79, 118
Democracies: AKST investments and, 530; economic development and, 268–269
Demographic drivers: aging population, 263;
impacts on agriculture, 263; life expectancy,
263; migration, 262; overview, 260, 262–
263. See also Urbanization
Demographic transition, 260, 262
Desalinization, 451“Diffusion of innovations,” 63, 73
Digital divide, 70, 210, 210
Digital Doorway, 69
Dioxins, 111, 214
Direct drivers of AKST, 76–77
Disease reduction: AKST potential/gaps, 382;
challenges with, 349, 382; on-farm options,409–410; research/technological options,
410; vaccines/effectiveness, 410
Diseases: agricultural transportation and, 10;

chapter backmatter.indd 580

AKST application and, 198, 198; antimicrobial agents use/resistance, 410; climatechange and, 191, 191, 347, 541; drivers of
emergence, 346, 409; effects overview, 409;
food-/water-borne diseases, 34, 111, 112,
112, 113, 198, 219–220, 219; future, 33,
346–348, 349; future trends of infectious
diseases, 33, 346–347; future trends of noncommunicable diseases, 33, 347–348; lifestyle diseases, 31, 33, 110, 146, 277, 348;
mortality, 31; poverty/hunger, 2–3. See also
Animal health; Epidemics; specific diseases
Distribution/delivery changes in food systems,
297–299
DNA structure discovery, 89
Drivers of agricultural change: definition/description, 256, 257; overview, 257–258
Drivers of agricultural change, direct: assessment, 274–293; definition/description, 257;
examples, 256, 258. See also specific drivers
Drivers of agricultural change, indirect:
definition/description, 257; examples, 256,
257–258; overview, 260, 262–274. See also
specific drivers
Drought: breeding for tolerance, 161, 161,
165–166; climate change and, 417; livestock
production, 191, 191; Natural Sequence
Farming, 174, 174
Dumping regulations, 458, 466
DuPont, 94

EEcoagriculture Initiative, 187
Ecological economics, 518
Ecological Pest Management, 101
Ecological questions and IAASTD, 5
Economics/international trade drivers: agricultural investments, 267, 267; agriculture and,
265–268, 265, 266, 267, 298, 299; AKST
and, 267–268; developing vs. developed
countries, 266–267, 267; future trends,
263, 264, 265; GDP, 263, 264, 265; income
terms of trade, 267; protection policies,
266; sectoral distribution (1820-1992), 266;
South-South trade relations, 266
Economic well-being, 28
E-consultation, 412
EcoOcean model: applications, 310, 311,
313–314, 370, 371; description, 311, 312,
370–371, 371; structure/data, 370–371;
uncertainty, 371; weaknesses, 312–313
Ecopath, 370, 371
Ecosim (EwE), 370–371
Ecosystem definition/description, 26
Education: access/reform, 19; as agriculturechange driver, 272–273; capacity development, 19; Costa Rica example, 19; cost-benefit analyses, 273; developing vs. developed
countries, 28; eliminating biases, 117–118;
illiteracy effects, 207, 207; income effects, 200, 207, 207; lessons learned, 118;
literacy rates in developing countries, 28;
marginalized community members and,58; occupational education, 78; statistics
for developing countries, 28; training andvisit approach, 64–65. See also Extension
programs
E-governance, 412, 415

Electricity use, 326, 327
Electric power, 326
Embrapa (Brazilian Agriculture and LivestockResearch Company), 78, 79, 85“Emergy” evaluations, 520, 538“End of History” view, 269
Endogenous development, 482–483
Energy: access, 201, 201; alternative energy,
326–327; energy use/agriculture, 288, 290,
300; global energy use (1880-2000), 290;
price effects, 290; production/use (modelingoutcomes), 326–327, 327; projected use bytypes, 326–327, 327; trends in use, 288,
290. See also specific types; TIMER model
Enlightened Globalization, 214, 214, 225
Environmental services: agroecosystems and,
184, 186; assessment of managing, 184–
193, 184–193; description/types, 36, 386,
443; paying for, 174, 442, 462–463; policy
options, 442, 462; of soil, 446
Environment and agriculture: biodiversity and,
24; Bt toxins, 167, 167; carbon sink, 518;
disconnect, 215, 215; impact assessment,
518, 519, 520; negative effects overview,
10, 24, 37, 146; productivity and, 152–153,
152; R&D investment assessment, 517–
520; reducing negative impacts, 538, 540;
resource-conserving technologies, 153, 153;
technological risks and, 74. See also GLOBIO 3 model; Natural resources; specificcomponents
Epidemics: as direct driver of change, 26;
management problems, 11. See also specificdiseases
Epigenetic inheritance, 394
Equity, social: agriculture and, 43–44; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 92–93;
corruption and, 43; definition/description,
43; factors affecting, 43; globalization and,43; IAASTD and, 5, 43–46; importance,
30–31; overview, 3, 43–46; poverty reduction, 44–45; property rights and, 44; rightsbased approach, 43; Universal Declarationof Human Rights (1948), 43. See also
Gender issues; Inequity, social; Participatory
approaches; Women’s issues
Ergotism (Claviceps purpurea), 15
Escherichia coli, 34, 113, 468
Estuarine habitats, 186, 186
Ethanol: net energy gain/loss, 291; sources,
192, 291
Ethics: as agriculture change driver, 273; biotechnology and, 273
Ethnic labeling of products, 59
Ethnoscience, 101. See also Indigenous knowledge (IK)
Ethnoveterinary medicine, 164, 164
European Patent Convention, 89
Eutrophication, 40, 274
Evapotranspiration management, 403, 403, 404
Ex-ante studies, 509
Exotic species. See Invasive alien species (IAS)
Ex-post studies, 509
Ex situ conservation/collection, 92, 93, 93, 187,
187, 392, 447
Extension programs: environmental issues, 209,
209; expenditure reduction, 207–208, 207;
gender issues, 207, 207, 208; marginalized

11/3/08 10:54:18 AM

Index | 581

community members and, 58; options, 58;
participatory approach, 208, 208; pesticideuse, 98–99; private/public services, 208,
208; as publicly funded, 507; R&D investment assessment, 511–512, 513; sustainable
development issues, 209, 209; ToT model
and, 64
Externalities of agriculture multifunctionality, 6

F
Fair trade: description/statistics, 213; as trade/marketing option, 59, 113, 460
Fair Trade Movement, 213
Fallow system today, 168–169, 168, 175, 175
Family planning access, 262
Famines: avoiding, 268; Bengal Famine (19431944), 89; definition/description, 11; South
Asian subcontinent (1960s), 89
Farmer field schools (FFS), 68–69, 78, 208,
208, 209, 411, 484, 484
Farmer Participatory Research and Extension(FPRE): description, 65; examples using,
65–66; intellectual property rights and,
67–68; local levels, 68; support for, 66
Farmer-scientist collaboration model, 69
Farming systems research and extension(FSRE), 65
Farm size: changes in, 7; disparities in, 20; byworld region, 8
Feasibility (indicators), 49
Federal Centers of Technological Education(CEFETS), 82
Fertilizer, nitrogen: biogeophysical environmental changes, 273–274; efficient use,
401–402; eutrophication and, 40, 274;
Gulf of Mexico hypoxic conditions, 154;
management needs, 169, 169; nitrogen cycle
effects, 175, 175, 273–274, 274; productivity relationship, 151, 152; riparian buffer
strips, 180, 180; use projections, 273–274,
274; use statistics, 6, 7, 149, 274, 281
Fertilizers: adding to seeds, 421; biogeophysicalenvironmental changes, 273–274; developing countries use, 6; food safety concerns,
111; with Green Revolution, 41; livestock
production and, 281; management needs,
169–170, 169; micro-dosing, 169; nutrient
loading, 274; overuse, 169, 169; phosphorus,
6, 7, 149; productivity relationship, 151–
152, 151; site-specific management, 420;
use projections, 281; use statistics, 6, 7, 281;
water pollution, 10, 21, 40, 273, 274
Field schools, 68–69, 78, 208, 208, 209, 411,
484, 484
Fisheries: AKST impact enhancement, 398–399;
Atlantic Ocean, 323, 323; Blue Revolution,
155; “bycatch” reduction, 399; climatechange adaptation, 421; climate change
impacts, 421; consumption, 160, 160;
contamination and, 38–39; economics of,21, 22, 38, 398; estuarine habitats, 186,
186; fertilizers, 10, 21, 40, 175, 273, 274;
Indian Ocean, 323, 323; management,
398–399; Mediterranean, 323–324; modeling outcomes, 322–324, 323; modelingweaknesses, 312–313; overfishing, 38, 40,308, 398, 399; Pacific Ocean, 323, 323;
production (1950-2002), 22; sustainability

chapter backmatter.indd 581

policies, 308–309, 355, 398–399; transgenic
fish, 168, 168; trends, 150, 150, 297; tuna,
312–313; UN Convention on the Law of theSea, 480–481; water resources management,
405. See also Aquaculture; EcoOcean model;
Marine biomass models; Water pollution
Fisheries reserves, 399
Fodder: agroforestry and, 176–177, 176, 180;
importance, 192; quality, 165, 165
Food additives, 111
Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO) overview, 84
Food availability/supply: AKST and, 308;
China/India, 310; by food type/region, 318;
innovation needs, 308; projections, 279,
308; traditional foods, 155, 155
Food consumption patterns: as agriculturechange driver, 274–277; assessments,
275–276, 276; changes in commodity
composition (1969-2050), 277; demand for
ecologically produced food, 299; driversof, 274–275; expected changes, 274–275,
275, 276; food expenditure changes, 275,
275; health implications, 277; kilocalorie
availability per capita, 276, 278; nutrientpoor foods, 155; per capita consumption,
277; retailing systems, 275, 276; traditional
foods, 155, 155; trends, 154–155, 154, 299;
trend towards healthy foods, 299; vegetarian diets, 299
Food demand: China/India and, 310; determination factors, 310; of future, 256
Food fortification, 197
Food insecurity: definition/description, 10–11;
framework for understanding, 110; HIV/
AIDS, 35; temporary food insecurity, 11;trends in, 109
Food irradiation, 112
Food prices: AKST effects, 333, 337, 341; bioenergy effects, 291, 355, 424; China/India
and, 310; determination factors, 310; withincreased vegetarianism/integrated nutrient
management agriculture, 344–345, 348;
modeling outcomes, 320, 320; spillover
effects, 523
Food production: AKST effects, 333, 339; increase in, 20, 156, 156; Modern Varieties
effects, 151, 151, 152, 156–157, 156, 157;
projection models, 310; trade policies and,
331–332, 332, 333
Food quality issues, 214, 214
Food safety: AKST impacts, 198, 198, 352;
chemical/environmental contamination,
112, 113, 198; demand for, 351; developing
countries and, 309, 351–352; exposure limits, 111; financing, 468–469; food contaminants reduction, 408–409; food scares, 352;
food traceability systems, 214, 216, 216;
food-/water-borne diseases, 34, 111, 112,
112, 113, 198, 219–220, 219, 467–468;
fraudulent practices, 112; globalization effects, 214, 214, 468; GMO foods, 199–200,
199; good agricultural practices (GAPs),
408–409; heavy metal contamination, 409;
historical efforts, 111–112; lack of data on,
467–468; microbiological contaminants,
112, 113; overview, 34, 111–112, 112, 113;
pesticides and, 34, 103, 112; postharvest

technologies/shelf life, 165, 165, 198, 198;
producers’ problems, 351; regulations, 198,
213, 213, 216, 216, 218, 218, 219–220,
219, 351, 442–443, 468–469, 474–475;
risks, 111, 112, 112, 113; stakeholders’ impacts, 213, 213; standards/regulations, 198,
213, 213, 216, 216, 218, 218, 219–220,
219, 351, 442–443, 468–469, 474–475;
threats in developing countries, 111
Food security: agricultural investments, 267,
267; AKST and rural poor, 197, 197,
354–355; aquaculture effects, 160, 160;
bioenergy impacts, 256–257, 300, 355,
424; China/India and, 310; climate change
and, 41, 391; definition/description, 10, 11,111; evolution of term, 111; framework
for understanding, 110; future challenges,
352, 354–355; modeling outcomes, 320,
322; models, 310; obesity and, 196, 196;
soil management, 408; trends in, 109–111;
women’s efforts and, 33. See also Foodprices; specific agricultural pests
Food sovereignty: agroforestry, 147; definition/
description, 10, 111, 113–114; globalization and, 7; movements for, 114, 115; overview, 113–114
Food systems: activities, 108; assessments onchange, 293–299; classification, 294; definition/description, 107; distribution/delivery
changes, 297–299; food utilization assessments, 293; global crop production projections, 295–296, 295, 297; global systems/
activities, 107–108, 109, 110, 118–119;
holistic model, 107; intensification degrees,
294–295; local systems/activities, 107,
118–119; management overview, 107–116;
outcomes/trends, 108–116, 108; production systems changes, 294–297; public
policy importance, 118–119; social welfare,
108–109; specialization, 111; sustainable
food system description, 107. See also specific systems
Food traceability systems, 214, 216, 216
Food utilization assessments, 293
Ford Foundation, 80, 83, 88, 89, 504
Forestry/forests: annual net changes (20002005), 37; biodiversity and, 22, 37; certification, 216; climate change mitigation, 22,
37, 287–288, 327; clonal approaches, 159,
159; driving forces, 296; environmental policy effects, 296–297; genetic improvements,
159, 159; importance in agriculture, 21–22,
37; integration with other land uses, 216,
216; investment in timber plantations, 159,
159; management, 37; modeling outcomes,
328–329, 330; product production, 298;
projected changes in land, 283; projected
forest area decline, 329, 330; reforestation,
297; re-growth, 328–329; services provided,
21–22, 37; swidden agriculture, 37. See also
Agroforestry; Deforestation; Fuelwood
Fossil fuel: coal use, 326, 327; natural gas use,
326, 327; need for alternatives, 541; oil use,
326, 327; prices, 326, 541. See also ClimatechangeFoundation for the Participatory and Sustainable Development of the Small-scale Producers of Colombia, 86

11/3/08 10:54:19 AM

582 | IAASTD Global Report

Free-Air Concentration Enrichment (FACE)
experiments, 189, 189
Frontier areas, 444, 445
Fuelwood: economic status and, 296; environmental/social problems, 192, 192; production/use, 296, 298
Future of agriculture/AKST assessment: biotechnology, 352–354; biotechnology/
biodiversity, 353–354; diseases, 346–347,
349; environmental sustainability, 355; foodsafety, 350–352; food security, 352; ICT,
349–350; malnourishment, 349; micronutrient deficiencies, 349; model interactions,
313–314, 313; model overview, 311; model
selection, 310–313; natural resources sustainability, 355; poverty and equity, 354;
reference run/world description, 309, 310,
314; scope overview, 309–310. See also
Modeling

G
Game ranching, 154
GDP: projection comparisons, 264; regional
GDP growth (2000-2015), 264; trends, 263,
264, 265
GDP per capita: as economic indicator, 263;
growth, 265, 266; projections, 265
GEN-CGE model: applications, 310, 311, 314,
366; description, 311, 364, 366, 366; history, 364; structure/data, 364, 366; uncertainty, 366
Gender (GEN)-Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model. See GEN-CGE model
Gender issues: agriculture and, 3, 45; AKST
impact assessment, 210–211, 210, 211;
gender trends in labor, 293; germplasm
management, 88, 90; literacy rates in developing countries, 28; natural resourcesmanagement, 45–46; research investments/
outcomes, 530; Systemwide Program on
Participatory Research and Gender Analysis, 45, 203; water resources management,
185. See also Women’s issues; Women’sissues in agriculture
Genentech Inc., 89
Gene pyramiding (stacking), 387
General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade(GATT), 219, 219
General Systems Theory, 71
Gene splicing history, 89
Genetically modified/organisms (GM/GMOs):
adoption difficulties, 216–217, 216, 352;
adoption in future, 352–353; biodiversity
implications, 353–354; breeding options/plants, 392–393; Bt toxins in ecosystem,
167, 167, 354; controversy/fear with, 3, 12,34, 199–200, 199, 214, 216, 216, 273, 352,
393–394; economic effects, 216–217, 216;
ecosystem cycling, 167, 167; environmental
impacts, 167, 167; EU regulations, 216,
216, 272, 352; examples of use, 196; futurescenarios, 352–353; herbicide resistance,
166, 166, 167; history, 89; insecticide resistance, 167, 167; insect resistance (Bt crops),
166, 166, 167; invasiveness, 168; landraces
and, 354; liability issues, 394; livestock,
168, 168; livestock potential, 395; poverty

chapter backmatter.indd 582

and, 353; productivity effects, 299; risk
assessment, 168; socioeconomic impacts,
195–196, 195; soybeans, 283, 284; tobacco
plants, 89; transgenic crops in developing
countries, 12; transgenic crops production
controversy, 12; transgenic fish, 168, 168;
UK trials of GM rape seed oil, 87; unintentional spread of GM traits/crops, 167–168,
167. See also Genetic engineering
Genetic diversity: cereal crops, 153; changes
in, 110, 153, 157, 157; domestic populations, 188, 188; genetic resources policies,
447–448; preservation, 188, 188–189, 188,
392; reduction problem, 157, 157, 188,
188; techniques for assessing, 187–188,
187, 188. See also Agrobiodiversity
Genetic engineering (GE): assessment, 166,
166; emergence, 89, 95; environmental riskssummary, 95; herbicide use and, 95, 106;
insecticide use and, 95, 106; overview, 95;
pesticide use and, 95, 106; risks summary,
95; RNA-based techniques, 394–395. See
also Genetically modified/organisms (GM/
GMOs); Germplasm management
Genetic improvement: participatory approaches, 203–204, 203, 204; spillover
effects, 523; timber tree species, 159, 159.
See also specific methods
Genetic resources: indigenous genetic resources,
68, 160, 218, 218; intellectual property
rights, 218, 218, 475–476, 479; policies,
447–448; sovereignty, 92
Genetic yield potential, 157, 157
Genomics: benefits/risks, 12; breeding options/
livestock, 395; breeding options/plants, 393.
See also Genetic engineering (GE); Germplasm management“Genuine savings rates,” 30Germplasm management: CGIAR public-private partnerships, 97; as common heritage,88, 89, 90; community sovereignty, 8, 88;
consolidation effects, 94; for developing
countries, 88; equity and, 92–93, 96, 98;
farmers, 88, 96–97; IPR and, 88, 89, 90–93,
94, 96, 98; narrowing of, 87–88, 118–119;
need for new design, 98; overview, 87–98;
public policy importance, 118–119; public/
private sector development, 88, 94, 96;
public sector dilemma, 94, 96; quality,
97–98; recombinant DNA history, 89; timeline of, 89
Global Assessment of Human-induced Soil
Degradation (GLASOD), 24, 40
Global Crop Diversity Trust, 84
Global Environment Outlook (GEO) reports:
agricultural land needs, 153; drivers of agricultural change, 261, 263, 265, 271, 276,
276, 294
Global Forum on Agricultural Research(GFAR), 84
Global Fund for Children, 78
Global Hunger Index, 110
Global IPM Facility, 100
Globalization: change description, 107–108,
110, 118–119; disparities with, 7, 8, 43,
59, 108–109, 213–214, 213; Enlightened
Globalization, 214, 214, 225; food safetyissues, 214, 214, 468; gap in productivity,
108–109; localization vs., 147, 224–225,
224; market concentrations, 465–466, 466;
overview, 6–8; policy frameworks, 218–
219, 218; potential social/environmental
problems, 109; sovereignty and, 7; technological risks/costs, 74–75
Global Methodology for Mapping Human
Impacts on the Biosphere. See GLOBIO 3
model
Global population: 1950-2050, 6; demographictransition, 260, 262; developing vs. developed countries, 262; family planning access,262; growth by region, 315; HIV/AIDS
spread, 262; natural resources and, 3, 5–6;
projection differences, 262, 263; trends/projections, 6, 256, 262, 262, 299, 314, 315;water availability issues, 170, 170
Global Trade and Environment Model. See
GTEM model
Global Warming Potential (GWP): agriculturaleffects, 189, 189. See also Climate change
Global Water Assessment, 74
GLOBIO 3 model: applications, 310, 311,
313, 367, 369; description, 311, 367–369,
369–370; structure/data, 367–369; uncertainty, 369, 369
Glyphosate, 163
Golden Weaver ants, 66–67
Governance: of AKST investments, 496, 527–
535; assessing, 527–529, 527, 529; functions, 528; future roles, 534–535; territorial
governance, 220–222, 220, 221, 222
Grain-to-livestock ratios, 32, 275
Grasslands: degradation, 38; description,
37–38; importance, 37–38
Green Belt Movement, 65
Greenhouse agrosystems: improving, 385, 385;
in Mediterranean, 385, 385
Green manure, 192
Green Revolution: Africa, 181, 222, 397;
AKST/policy reforms, 214, 214; cereal
crops and, 20, 21, 154, 155; CIMMYT
contributions, 271; criticism, 41, 83, 109,
110, 117, 156, 156, 195, 203; environmental harm, 41, 98, 195, 203; fertilizer use,
41; IRRI contributions, 271; irrigation use,
195; pesticide use, 41, 98; R&D investment,
504; successes/impacts, 63, 71, 73, 78, 84,
88, 90, 108–109, 117, 148, 154, 156, 195,
538; technology supply-push, 481; “yieldgap,” 223
“Green” water, 39, 170
Groundwater harvesting, 170, 170
Groundwater resources/sustainability, 170, 170,
407, 422, 450
Growers’ associations, 532
GTEM model: applications, 310, 311, 314,
361; description, 311, 360–361; history,
360; structure/data, 361; uncertainty, 362
Gulf of Mexico pollution, 154

H
Habitat: estuarine habitats, 186, 186; loss effects, 399; preservation, 399–407; restoration, 399
HarvestPlus Challenge Program, 522

11/3/08 10:54:19 AM

Index | 583

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point(HACCP), 112, 198
Health of a society: development stages and,31; equity and, 30–31; measurable aspectsof, 30
Health of humans: agricultural eras/revolutions,
117; agricultural production/trade policies
effects on, 198–199, 198; agroforestry and,
397; AKST effects assessment, 520–522,
521; AKST impact enhancement, 407–412,
413–414, 415–416; animal health and, 15,34; animal source protein effects, 197, 197;
definition/description, 30; dietary diversity,
197, 197; effects on agricultural production/
AKST use, 199, 199; factors affecting, 30;
health workers distribution, 349; hygiene
and, 14; improving, 540; interrelations with
agriculture, 115, 115, 117; malnutritionburden, 14–15; prevalence of poor health,
223; sanitation, 14; socioeconomic development and, 31; water quality and, 14, 15. See
also Agriculture working conditions; Diseases; Malnutrition; specific problems
Heavy metal contamination: bioremediation,
409, 410; examples, 409; food safety, 409
Hepatitis A, 113
Herbicide resistant crops (HRCs), 163, 166,
167
Herbicides: assessment, 162–163, 162; genetic
engineering (GE) and, 95, 106; health problems, 162–163; IWM and, 174; pest resistance to, 167; riparian buffer strips, 180,
180; use, 162
Hessian fly, 164
High yielding varieties (HYV), 89, 90
HIV/AIDS: Africans life expectancy and, 31;
effects overview, 35; food insecurity with,
35; immune system and, 540; reducing impacts, 262, 409–410; rural livelihoods, 35;
statistics, 35
Hoof and mouth disease, 15, 34
Horticulture, 149, 149
Human Development Index (UNDP), 201
Human population. See Global population
Hunger: AKST impacts, 196, 196; causes/
complexities, 27; definition/description, 27;
diet disparities, 32; food and nutritional
insecurity with, 14; food budget disparities,
32–33; food calories disparities, 32, 32;
Global Hunger Index, 110; globalization
and, 213–214, 213; nutrition and, 14, 30,
33–34; statistics, 196. See also Famines;
Malnutrition; Poverty/hunger

I
IAASTD: biophysical systems, 50; diversity ofviews/values in, 5; goals, 3–4, 14–16; keyquestions for, 4–5; knowledge systems, 51;
MDGs/MA and, 4; modeling issues, 51; socioeconomic systems, 50; spatial scales, 50;
sustainable development and, 3, 4; temporalscales, 50; valuation, 51; values, 50–51. See
also AKST
IAASTD conceptual framework, 13, 258; agricultural systems, 13, 20–25; AKST and, 13,
16–20; AKST-related policies, 13, 14; crops,
20–21; development and sustainability

chapter backmatter.indd 583

goals, 13, 14–16, 26–46; direct drivers ofchange, 13, 25–26; human context and, 26;
indirect drivers of change, 13, 26; innovation/innovation systems, 13, 13; knowledge,
12–13, 13; learning process, 13–14, 13;
sustainability indicators, 46–51
ICRISAT, 86
IMAGE model (2.4): applications, 310, 311,
313, 314, 359; carbon cycling modeling,360; description, 311, 357–360, 360; history, 357; structure/data, 357–358, 360;
uncertainty, 359–360
IMPACT model: applications, 310, 313, 314,
345, 357; description, 310, 314, 356–357,
358–359; history, 356; structure/data, 356–
357, 358; uncertainty, 357, 358
IMPACT-WATER model: applications, 313,
315–316; description, 311
Income: developing vs. developed countries,
28; economic well-being and, 27–28; foodconsumption patterns and, 343–345, 346;
resources and, 28
Income per capita: agricultural GDP and, 28,
28; growth by region, 315; statistics/trends,
28, 315
India: food availability/supply, 310; food demand, 310; food prices, 310; food security,
310; per capita gross income, 335; population deciles/per capita consumption, 336;
trade liberalization effects, 335, 337; trade
policy and gender, 334, 336
Indian Council of Agricultural Research(ICAR), 79
Indicators: AKST, 48, 49–50; definition/description, 46, 47, 49; impact indicators, 49;interpretation, 47–48; problems, 49–50;
process/performance indicators, 49; proxies
for, 49; referents/context, 47; units of analysis, 50; working with, 47. See also Sustainability indicators
Indigenous knowledge (IK): agroecology technologies, 66–67; agroforestry technologies,
67, 147; Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD), 91, 92; Declaration on Indigenous
Peoples’ rights to genetic resources and
IK, 68; description, 67; effectiveness, 205,
205; ethnoveterinary medicine, 164, 164;
genetic resources, 68, 160, 218, 218; innovations, 78; integrated pest management,
101; intellectual property rights, 67–68, 76,
218, 218; livestock and, 205, 205; scientificknowledge and, 205–206, 205; sustainability, 204–205, 204, 273. See also Traditional/
local knowledge
Indirect drivers of AKST, 76–77
Industrialized agrifood systems, 24
Inequity, social: discriminating policies, 211,
211; disease burden, 349; health workers
distribution, 349; information/communication technologies (ICT), 69–70, 210, 210,
211, 211; irrigation, 200–201, 200; poverty
perpetuation and, 44; small-scale farming
vs. industrial agricultural systems, 8–9, 44.
See also Equity, social; Gender; Poverty;
Women’s issues
Information and communication technologies(ICT): barriers, 350; biotechnology use,

171, 171; changes/effects, 69–70; climate/crop modeling, 171, 171; e-consultation,
412; e-governance, 412, 415; enhancementof, 412, 415; future, 349–350; impact, 209–
210, 209; importance, 222, 349; inequities,
69–70, 210, 210, 211, 211; market information/systems, 412; policy, 350; potentialof, 58; poverty and, 350; remote sensing/site-specific management, 171, 172; ruralcommunities, 309; technology adoption,
207, 207; traditional/local knowledge and,
350; weather forecasting, 412
Information management: information technology and, 209–210, 210; as limiting factor,
209, 209
Information vs. knowledge, 12Innovations: “agricultural treadmill,” 73; commonalities process, 270; description, 58,
74, 485; “diffusion of innovations,” 63, 73;
farmers/community-based arrangements,
75–78; key actors/institutional arrangements, 75–87; market-led innovations, 74;
partnerships with, 58; small-scale farmers,
379–380. See also AKST; Pro-poor agricultural innovations
Innovation systems (IS): definition/description,
13, 485; elements of, 75; steps for success,
485“Innovation systems” concept, 74
INRM. See Integrated natural resource management (INRM) systems
Insecticides: genetic engineering (GE) and, 95,
106; resistance, 167, 167
Insect resistance (Bt crops), 166, 166, 167
In situ conservation/management, 41, 92, 93,
96, 187, 187, 392, 447
Integrated assessment models (IAMs),
311–312Integrated crop-livestock systems, 176–177,
176, 177, 296, 386, 391
Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment. See IMAGE model
Integrated natural resource management(INRM) systems: description, 172; environment and, 215; examples, 172; importance,
223; sustainability, 172, 172. See also specific systems
Integrated nutrient management agriculture:
crop yields, 344, 347; modeling assessment,
343, 344, 345–346, 347, 348
Integrated pest management (IPM): adoption,
59, 99–100; adoption constraints, 100, 101;
cost-effectiveness, 100, 173; definition, 101,
173; description, 99, 101, 118–119, 173;
environmental effects, 173, 173; impacts,
100; indigenous knowledge (IK), 101;
Indonesian example (1980s), 41–42, 100;
promotion of, 100–101, 103, 104, 106,
118–119; social effects, 100, 173, 173;
social equity and, 100; success evaluation,
173, 173
Integrated soil and nutrient management(ISNM), 174–175
Integrated water resources management(IWRM), 174, 174
Integrated weed management (IWM), 173–174,
173

11/3/08 10:54:20 AM

584 | IAASTD Global ReportIntellectual property rights (IPR): breeding options and, 392; community/national rights,
479; compliance costs, 478–479; “farmer’s
privilege,” 90–91; FPRE, 67–68; genetic
resources, 218, 218, 475–476, 479; germplasm management, 88, 89, 90–93, 94, 96,
98; importance in agriculture, 6–7, 90–93;
limitations, 91; management, 18–19, 147;
multilateral negotiations on, 475–477;
natural resources, 479–481, 480; policies, 475–479; PPB and, 66; public sector
dilemma, 94, 96; Public-Sector Intellectual
Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA),
94, 98; research/AKST and, 443, 475,
477–479; sovereignty, 91–92; strengthening, 18, 90–91; Trade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 89, 91,
218, 218, 475–477; traditional/indigenous
knowledge, 67–68, 76, 218, 218, 475–476,
477, 479; World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 89, 91, 476, 477. See also
specific types
Intensification degrees in food systems, 294–295
Intercropping: benefits, 101, 386; pest management, 101
Internal renewable water (IRW), 324
International agreements and AKST, 18International Agricultural Research Centers(IARCs), 83
International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development. See IAASTD
International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center (CIMMYT), 83, 89, 90, 271
International Model for Policy Analysis of
Agricultural Commodities and Trade. See
IMPACT; IMPACT-WATER
International Potato Center (CIP), 92
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI):on CBD, 92; Green Revolution, 271; history, 83
International trade. See Economics/international trade drivers
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture, 84, 93, 93, 98
International Undertaking on Plant Genetic
Resources, 90
International Union for the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants (UPOV): history, 89; PPB
and, 66; role, 59, 90
Invasive alien species (IAS): climate change and,40; detection, 388; effects of, 40, 163–164,
163; factors influencing, 387; management,
388–389, 400; policy initiatives, 447; policy
needs, 447; preventing, 388
Investment in AKST options: criteria/guidance,
535–536; demand-led priority setting, 535,
536; for environmental sustainability, 538,
540; impacts/outcomes summary, 539;
importance, 535; improving human health,
540; improving nutrition, 540; multiple
goals, 541–542; poverty/hunger reduction, 535, 537, 540–541; public vs. private
sectors, 537; supply-led priority setting,
535–536; for sustainability, 541
Iodine deficiency, 33
IPR. See Intellectual property rights (IPR)

chapter backmatter.indd 584

Iron deficiency anemia, 33
Irradiation of food, 112
Irrigation: biodiversity and, 406; community
approach/effects, 206; diseases and, 409;
environmental benefits with, 184, 185; environmental problems with, 72, 184–185,
184; with Green Revolution, 195; indigenous technologies, 67; inequities with,
200–201, 200; investment, 449–450; modeling policy scenarios, 344; participatory
approaches, 206, 215, 215, 450, 451; poor
management impacts, 154, 154; potential/
actual consumptive water use, 324, 325,
326; salinization, 40; small-scale/microtechniques, 170, 170, 171, 171; sustainability, 449–450, 451; trends in, 7, 149, 151,
151, 278–279; unsustainable use, 171, 171;water logging, 40; water productivity, 406;
water-saving practices, 451; water scarcity,
154, 154; water supply reliability/AKST
effects, 341; water use efficiency, 407
ISNM (integrated soil and nutrient management), 174–175
IWM (integrated weed management), 173–174,
173

K
Kenya Tea Development Authority, 68–69
Knowledge: information vs., 12; linking systems
options/gaps, 382; options for enhancing, 411. See also Agricultural knowledge;
AKST; Indigenous knowledge (IK); Traditional/local knowledge
Knowledge processes: challenges/opportunities,
68–70; definition/description, 62–63; examples, 63–68; model characteristics/fitness
for purpose, 69; organization of, 63“Knowledge silos,” 70
Kyoto Protocol, 191, 191, 446

L
Labor: diversity/income (1992), 9; employment
trends, 292; future productivity trends,
292–293; gender trends, 293; productivity
by region (1992-2001), 29; productivity
levels (1992 and 2001), 29
Lake Victoria Basin project, 182, 182
Land cover change: drivers of, 281–282, 282;
projections, 281–282
Land degradation: assessment, 153, 153; reducing, 407; restoration, 153, 419
Land-grant colleges, 80–82
Land management: territorial approach to, 221,
221. See also Land use
Landraces, 354
Landscapes, 41
Land use: agricultural purposes, 6; bioenergy impacts, 291, 327–328, 329; change(modeling outcomes), 327–328, 328, 329;
conflict over, 200, 200; drivers of change,
281–284; participatory approach to planning, 221, 221; patterns/statistics, 6; projections, 281–284, 283; regional/local driversof change, 282–284; requirements by regions (2000-2050), 25
Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) activities, 191, 191

Leishmaniasis, 34
Libraries, 69
Life expectancy: global increases, 31; healthy
life expectancy disparities, 31; HIV/AIDS
effects, 31, 263; improvement factors, 31“Life science” companies, 89Light detection and ranging (LIDAR), 414
Liquid biofuels: biomass-to-liquid (BTL) fuels,
423; developing countries and, 463–464;
environmental problems, 422–423, 464;
food competition and, 6, 291, 379, 422,
423, 453; food price effects, 291, 379, 422,
423; inedible feedstock use, 423; land area
requirements, 422, 423; land/water use
reduction, 422; marginal land use, 423;
next generation biofuels, 379, 423–424,
464; production drivers, 192, 192; social
problems, 422, 464; trade liberalization
tradeoffs, 453; for transport, 422; unsustainability, 192, 192
Listeria, 34, 468
Literacy rates in developing countries, 28
Livelihoods: AKST contributions, 146; AKST
contributions assessment, 146, 194–195,
194, 195; definition/description, 10, 27;
diversification, 27, 29, 202–203, 202, 203;
HIV/AIDS and, 35; improving, 14–15;
inequities, 146; migration, 203, 203; migration and, 203, 203; policies and, 214–215,
214, 217, 217; remittances and, 27, 29,
203, 203, 309; resilience/coping strategies,
29–30; sustainability definition/description,
194, 194
Livestock production: AKST and poor people,
195, 195; AKST effects, 146, 195, 337;
AKST impact enhancement, 391; animal
diseases and, 22, 34; animal feed competition and, 6; animal health/welfare concerns,
34, 471–472; animal source protein effects,
197, 197; antimicrobial agents use/resistance, 410; assessment findings, 296; biodiversity and, 154, 160, 160; biotechnology
and poverty reduction, 166, 166; breeding
techniques/effects, 159–160, 159; climatechange effects on, 191, 191; crossbreeding, 159; diversity of systems, 298; drought
effects, 191, 191; environmental problems,
10, 22, 153, 153–154, 153, 160, 160, 296,
391, 518, 519, 520, 538; ethnoveterinary
medicine, 164, 164; extensive systems, 391,
395; fertilizers, 281; fish products feed/effects, 308; genetic improvement, 159–160,
159; genetic resources, 160; grain-to-livestock ratios, 32, 275; grazing intensities byregion, 319–320, 319; grazing land amount,298; greenhouse gas emissions, 153, 160,
160, 421, 448, 518; growth effects onenvironment, 308; growth strategies, 296;
hormone use, 111, 113; human health, 117,
391, 538; intensive systems, 391; matching
breed to environment, 160, 160; meat demand/trends, 11, 22–23, 32, 149, 149, 197,
197, 296, 297, 308, 316–317, 317, 318,
319, 343–6, 347, 348; milk demand/trends,
308, 318; mixed crop-livestock systems,
176–177, 176, 177, 296, 386, 391; modeling per capita availability projections, 317;

11/3/08 10:54:20 AM

Index | 585

modeling projections, 316–317, 317, 318,
319; molecular genetics, 166, 166; numberswith varying scenarios, 298; overgrazing,
153, 154, 176; overview, 22–23; policy
needs/options, 448; poor people, 195, 195;
sustainability, 391; traditional livestock
breed losses, 520; transgenic livestock,
168, 168; unregulated grazing effects, 206;
vegetarianism increase and, 343–345, 346,
347; waste impacts, 10, 24, 160, 160; waterpollution and, 10, 24, 154, 160, 160; water
resources management, 404–405, 406. See
also Breeding options/livestock; Meat; Pastoralism; SLAM model
Livestock Revolution, 155
Livestock Spatial Location-Allocation Model.
See SLAM model
Localization vs. globalization, 147, 224–225, 224
Local knowledge. See Traditional/local knowledge
Local seeds movement, 78
Low-External Input Sustainable Agriculture(LEISA): description, 175, 175; innovationneeds, 284–385. See also Organic agriculture
LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change andForestry ) activities, 191, 191

M
MA. See Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Malaria, 409
Malnutrition: child malnutrition, 16, 31–32,
33, 33, 196, 210, 210; disease and, 15;
hygiene and, 14–15; micronutrient deficiencies, 110, 197, 197, 210, 210, 348, 522;
permanent effects of, 31; populations withinsufficient food calories, 32, 32, 146;
poverty and, 33; prevalence, 223; protein
energy malnutrition trends, 109–110;
sanitation and, 14–15; trends in, 109, 146,
308, 349; under nutrition effects, 196, 196;
water quality and, 14, 15. See also Hunger;
Nutrition security
Malnutrition reduction: AKST impacts, 196,
196, 339, 340; breeding options/plants,
407–408; changes with increased vegetarianism/integrated nutrient management
agriculture, 345, 348; child malnutrition
decline, 322, 323, 340, 345, 348, 355; onfarm reduction, 407–408; policies and, 349;
research needs for, 408–409
Marginal environments: breeding for, 161, 161;
Modern Varieties, 156–157, 156
Marginalized groups. See Inequity, social
Marine biomass models: overview, 312–313.
See also EcoOcean model
Marker assisted breeding (MAB), 165
Marker assisted selection (MAS), 165, 393
Market-chain analysis, 390
Market development: AKST impact enhancement, 390–391. See also Trade/market
policy options for developing countries
Market Matters, Inc., 86
Mark of origin marketing, 461
MASIPAG, 77
Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) regulations,
103, 105
McKnight Foundation, 94

chapter backmatter.indd 585

MDGs. See Millennium Development Goals(MDGs)
Meat: demand/trends, 11, 22–23, 32, 149, 149,
197, 197, 296, 297, 308, 316–317, 317,
318, 319; prices, 320, 320
Meat production: changes with increased vegetarianism/integrated nutrient management
agriculture, 343–345, 346, 347, 348; projections, 320; trade policies and, 332, 332, 333;
trends, 7. See also Livestock production
Meat trade: AKST effects, 339; modeling outcomes, 320, 320; trade policies and, 333
Mechanization effects, 152, 152
Mediterranean greenhouse agrosystem, 385
Mekong River Commission, 82
Mendelian genetics, 88, 89, 117
Microfinance initiatives, 202, 202, 460
Microwave imaging, 414
Migration/migrants: ICT effects, 309; livelihoods and, 203, 203; overview, 27; population size/composition and, 262; remittances,27, 29, 203, 203, 309; statistics, 262
Milk demand/trends, 308, 318
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): goals
description, 4; IAASTD and, 4, 5; indicators, 49Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA): agriculture change drivers, 270, 271; agriculturerole, 20; IAASTD and, 4; indicators, 49;
natural resources availability, 36; researchfor, 71; TechnoGarden scenario, 314; technological risks, 74
Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) model, 79
Mixed cropping benefits, 177–181, 177–181
Mobile telephony, 69
Modeling: AKST model preferences, 314; computable general equilibrium (CGE) models,
310, 312; integrated assessment models(IAMs), 311–312; interactions of models,
313–314, 313; marine biomass models,
312–313; overview of quantitative tools,
311; policy experiments use, 314. See also
Future of agriculture/AKST assessment;
specific models
Modeling inputs: agricultural productivity, 314;
climate change, 316; economic growth,314, 315; economic growth by region, 315;energy use/production, 316; nonagricultural
productivity, 314–315; population growth,314, 315; population growth by region,
315; trade, 315; water needs, 315–316
Modeling outcomes: beef prices, 320, 320; beef
production, 316, 318; bioenergy use/effects,
327–328, 329; cereal availability, 316, 317,
317, 318, 319; cereal production growthsources, 319; cereal trade, 320, 320; China
cereal production, 321; China comparative advantage, 321; China crop production, 321; China imports, 321–322; China
population by income group, 322; climatechange, 327, 327, 330, 416; daily calorie
availability, 320, 322, 323; energy production/use, 326–327, 327; fisheries, 322–324,
323; food availability by food type/region,
318; food prices, 320, 320; food security,
320, 322; food trade, 320, 320; forests,
328–329, 330; grazing intensities by region,

319–320, 319; land use change, 327–328,
328, 329; meat prices, 320, 320; meat trade,
320, 320; pork prices, 320, 320; pork production, 317, 318, 319; poultry prices, 320,
320; poultry production, 317, 318, 319;
sheep/goats prices, 320, 320; sheep/goatsproduction, 316–317, 318, 319; sources offood production growth, 317, 319–320, 319;
terrestrial biodiversity loss, 329, 330; water
availability, 317, 324, 326; water consumptive use, 324, 325; water scarcity, 317
Modern Varieties: access, 156, 156, 158, 158;
effects, 151, 151, 156–157, 156, 157; marginal environments, 156–157, 156; rice,
156, 157, 157; Traditional Varieties and,
157; wheat, 156, 157
Monocultures: rice-wheat systems in IndoGangetic Plain, 21, 154; risks with, 10, 35;
soil degradation, 21; structural adjustment
policies and, 220, 220; water pollution, 21
Monsanto, 94
Multifunctionality of agriculture: computersimulated modeling of, 62; debate on,
61–62; description, 2, 6, 61, 62, 146, 220,
220; globalized productivism vs. land stewardship, 221, 221; as goal, 220, 220; policy
and, 220, 220; rural territories, 220, 220;
small-scale farms and, 386
Mycorrhizas, 176, 176
Mycotoxins, 14–15

N
Nanotechnology: applications, 415; concerns,
415, 467
National Agricultural Research Institute(NARI) model, 79
National Agricultural Research Systems(NARS), 78, 96
National innovation system (NIS), 527
National Market Education Programme, 461
National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSI), 89
National Varietal Release Procedures, 97
Natural gas use, 326, 327
Natural resources: access effects, 35–36, 200,
200; agricultural yield intensification vs.
area expansion, 150, 299; as agriculturechange driver, 277–281; agriculture relationship, 443; availability, 36; “bundle ofrights,” 480; common property, 479–481,
480; definition/description, 36; drivers ofdegradation/depletion, 36; dynamics, 36;
extraction difficulty effects, 35–36; future
conflicts over, 277; importance summary, 3,35; poverty-induced decisions, 36; preservation, 150; rights systems, 479–481, 480;
scarcity in future, 308; sustainability and,35, 36, 37, 147, 150, 150, 222, 308, 355;
vulnerability, 36–37. See also Environmental services; Environment and agriculture;
specific resources
Natural resources management: AKST impact
enhancement, 36, 399–407; AKST options/gaps, 381; community approach, 201, 201,
205–206, 205; gender issues, 45–46; by local institutions, 206, 206; overview, 37–43,
150; participatory approaches, 201, 201,
204, 204, 415–416; women and, 45–46

11/3/08 10:54:21 AM

586 | IAASTD Global Report

Natural resources management (NRM) programs, 172. See also Integrated natural
resource management (INRM) systems
Natural resources/policies: examples, 443–444;
by habitat categories, 444–445; need for,443–444Natural Sequence Farming, 174, 174
Neem extracts (Azadirachta indica), 18–19
New Institutional Economics (NIE), 527
New Partnership for Africa’s Development(NEPAD), 269
New Zealand dairy industry, 67
NGOs: description, 86–87; origins, 87; pest
management responses, 105
Niche sectors, 18
Nipah virus, 113
Nitrogen cycle, 175, 175, 300. See also Fertilizer, nitrogen
Nitrogen fixation, 170, 170, 175, 175, 180, 400
Nomadic herdsmen. See Pastoralism
Non-timber forest products (NTFP), 179, 179
Noro-virus, 113
North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA), 114
Northwest Area Foundation, 67
No-till agriculture: benefits, 175, 175, 190,
190, 400, 420; carbon sequestration, 190,
190, 420; nitrogen emissions and, 420; soil
quality, 175, 175; use/adoption of, 175, 420
Novartis/University of Berkeley controversy,
81–82
Nutrition: agricultural production/trade policies
and, 198–199, 198; balanced diet, 33; definition/description, 33; eating local foods,
33–34; industrial food processing and, 198,
198; options for improving, 540; pyramidof food groups, 33. See also Malnutrition
Nutrition security: biofortification, 164, 408,
522; factors, 111; HarvestPlus Challenge
Program, 522; micronutrient deficiencies,
110, 197, 197, 210, 210, 348, 522. See also
Malnutrition

O
Obesity: causes summary, 196, 196, 277; dietquality and, 196–197, 196, 348–349; foodgroups consumption, 33, 223; food systemchanges and, 110, 196–197, 196; lifestylediseases, 33, 110, 146, 277, 348
Oil use, 326, 327
Optical imaging, 413–414
Organic agriculture: AKST impact assessment,
182–184, 182–184; biodiversity, 183; certification, 23, 182, 182, 213, 213; challenges,
115–116, 273; consumer perception, 214;
definition/description, 23, 24, 114, 115,
115, 182; developing countries, 183–184,
183, 184; environmental health and, 182,
183, 183; farmland statistics, 182, 182;
history, 114–115; human health and, 182,
183; indigenous technologies, 67; informal(“peer”/“participatory”) models, 213, 213;
labor requirements, 116, 273; localizationof marketing, 184, 184; policies promoting,445; soil quality, 183, 183; stakeholders’impacts, 213, 213; statistics, 23, 67, 182,
182, 183, 183, 184; yield, 183, 183. See

chapter backmatter.indd 586

also Integrated nutrient management agriculture; Low-External Input Sustainable
Agriculture (LEISA)
Organic Transition Payment programs, 103“Orphan crops,” 96PParasitic weeds, 162, 163, 163, 174, 387
Paris Convention on patents (1883), 89
Partial equilibrium (PE) models, 310
Participatory approaches: agroforestry, 158,
158, 204, 204; costs vs. efficiency, 204, 204;
domestication techniques/cloning, 158–159,
158; Foundation for the Participatory andSustainable Development of the Small-scale
Producers of Colombia, 86; genetic improvement, 203–204, 203, 204; irrigation,
206, 215, 215, 450, 451; land use planning,
221, 221; natural resources management,
201, 201, 204, 204, 415–416; pro-poor development, 483, 483, 484; R&D, 203–204,
203, 204, 496–497; rural development,
208–209, 208; Systemwide Program on
Participatory Research and Gender Analysis, 45, 203. See also Farmer Participatory
Research and Extension (FPRE); stakeholders’ impacts
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB): description,
66, 96–97; threats to, 66
Participatory Technology Development (PTD),
483
Participatory Variety Selection and Plant Breeding, 89
Pastoralism: areas of, 23; assessing value, 520;
farmers and, 177, 177; sustainability, 176, 176
Patents on life forms: companies, 94; controversies with, 18; developing vs. developed
countries, 95; European Patent Convention,
89; history, 89, 90–91. See also Intellectual
property rights (IPR)“Patent thickets,” 91
Payments for environmental services (PES),
174, 442, 462–463
Permaculture, 67
Pesticides, synthetic: banning, 103; classes of,103, 105, 106; Code of Conduct on theDistribution and Use of Pesticides, 84,
100, 103, 104; crop-insect ecology knowledge and, 99; debate effects, 59, 99–100;
developing countries use, 99–100, 103,
106; downplaying harmful effects, 106;
emergence, 98–99; environmental harm/
awareness, 99; in food, 34, 103, 112; with
Green Revolution, 41, 98; human healtheffects, 34, 35, 99–100, 103, 106, 111, 112,
113, 153, 199, 199, 520–521; IPM and,
105–106; Maximum Residue Levels (MRL)
regulations, 103, 105; non-target organisms,
10; OECD countries, 152; pesticide-induced
pest outbreaks, 102, 106; production trend,
7, 149; reduction programs, 103, 104, 105;
resistance to, 40, 99; “safe use” programs,
106, 521–522; social/environmental justicecases, 99; taxing use, 462; use trends, 99,
106, 152, 152; water pollution/degradation, 154, 154, 518. See also Herbicides;
Insecticides

Pesticide Use Reduction programs, 103, 104
Pest management: AKST impact enhancement,
386–389; assessment, 106–107; biologicalcontrol, 101, 102–103, 162, 162; Bt crops,
166, 167; climate change effects, 190, 191,
541; detection tools, 388–389; diversification for, 387–388; gene pyramiding (stacking), 387; genetically-engineered crops and,95, 106, 163, 166, 166, 167; institutionalinnovations, 100–101; modeling advances,
388; multigene resistance, 387; overview,
98–107; public policy importance, 118–
119; remote sensing advances, 388; secondary pests, 167; trends, 106–107; varietal
mixtures, 387. See also Integrated pest
management (IPM); Pesticides, synthetic;
specific pests
Pest management responses: certification/labeling and, 105; civil society, 105; market,
105; NGOs, 105; pesticide manufacturers,
105–106; policy, 101, 103, 104, 105
Phytoremediation, 410
Pioneer Hi-Bred, 88
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA), 90
Plant health: biosafety and, 473; certification,
473; climate change and, 473–474; plant
protections and quarantine (PPQ) programs, 472, 473; policy, 442–443, 472–475;
private sector, 473; regional programs,
472–473; small-scale farmers, 473; SPS
standards challenges, 472. See also Pest
management
Plant protections and quarantine (PPQ) programs, 472, 473
Plant root health: AKST impact enhancement,
389–390; biological control, 389, 390;
disease suppression, 389–390; low-input
options, 389
Plant Variety Protection (PVP), 90
Point source pollution policies, 446–447
Policy: democratizing, 442; informing, 442
Policy analysis, 14
Policy design/implementation: agriculture
subsectors disconnection, 217, 217; AKST
impact assessment, 214–222, 214–222;
deforestation, 216, 216; food safety, 216,
216, 218, 218, 219–220, 219; forestry,
216, 216; GMOs, 216–217, 216; Green
Revolution, 214, 214; integrated production
systems, 218, 218; international policies,
218–220, 218, 219, 220; IPR, 218, 218;
livelihood focus, 214–215, 214, 217, 217;
poverty issues, 215, 215, 217, 217; regional
trade agreements, 219, 219; scientific policies, 217–218, 218; seasonal fluctuations,
217, 217; sectoral policies, 215–217, 215,
216; state capacity for, 269; structural adjustment policies, 215, 215, 218–219, 218,
220, 220; territorial governance, 220–222,
220, 221, 222; territorial policies, 217, 217;
water management, 215, 215; WTO policies, 215, 215, 219, 219. See also specificpolicies/policy makers
Policy issues assessment: AKST investment effects, 333, 337, 338, 339, 339, 340, 341;
bioenergy potential, 340; climate change

11/3/08 10:54:22 AM

Index | 587

mitigation, 330–331, 331; increased vegetarianism, 343–345, 346, 348; integrated
nutrient management agriculture, 343, 344,
345–346, 347, 348; trade policies/market
constraints, 331–332, 332, 333, 334–337;
water productivity, 341–343, 341, 342, 344
Policy/regulation options: food safety/health,442–443, 467–475; key messages, 442–443;
knowledge/property rights, 475–481; natural resources/global environmental change,
443–452; pro-poor agricultural innovations,481–485; trade/markets, 452–467
Political instability worldwide, 270
Pollution: point source pollution policies, 446–
447. See also Water pollution
Pork: prices, 320, 320; production, 317, 318,
319
Positivist realism: consequences, 70–71; definition/description, 70; specialization/reductionism with, 70
Postharvest technologies/shelf life, 165, 165
Poultry: prices, 320, 320; production, 317,
318, 319
Poverty: aquaculture effects, 160, 160; definition/description, 14, 27, 146; exclusion/
marginalization, 58, 201–202, 202; future
equity, 354; globalization and, 213–214,
213; information and communication technologies (ICT), 350; land rights and, 422;
policies and, 215, 215, 217, 217; by region,15, 26; risk management, 202, 202; seasonal fluctuations and, 217, 217; structuraladjustment polices, 215, 215; technologicalrisks and, 74, 272; urban poor, 23, 74, 197,
197. See also Pro-poor agricultural innovations; Small-scale farms
Poverty, extreme: agriculture and, 14; definition/description, 14, 27; regional trends, 27
Poverty and the Environment in Amazonia(POEMA), 96
Poverty/hunger: agriculture dependence and,2, 14; causes, 14, 26–27; diseases and, 2–3;
health cycle, 2–3; regional trends, 27; rural
settings and, 2; statistics on, 14. See also
Hunger; Malnutrition
Poverty/hunger reduction: agricultural productivity, 44–45; agroforestry, 181, 181;
AKST impact assessment, 524–527, 525;
AKST impacts on (summary), 194–196,
194, 195, 223; AKST investment options,
540–541; China, 322; education and, 61,
272–273; Enlightened Globalization, 214,
214; as IAASTD goal, 14; international
donors, 531; microfinance initiatives, 202,
202; options, 535, 537, 540–541; pro-poor
technologies, 353, 541; R&D investment
assessment, 496, 497, 524–527, 525, 526;
water availability, 185, 185
Poverty traps, 146, 177
Preventive IPM, 101“Problem of the anti-commons,” 91
Production systems changes, 294–297
Productivism, 70
Productivity definition, 148
Pro-poor agricultural innovations: brokered
long-term contractual arrangements(BLCA), 482, 482; Convergence of Sciences

chapter backmatter.indd 587

Program (CoS) example, 483; description,
353; empowerment, 483–484; endogenousdevelopment, 482–483; farmer field schools(FFS), 68–69, 78, 208, 208, 209, 411,
484, 484; farmer organizations, 484–485;
multistakeholder processes, 484; participatory approaches, 483, 484; pineapple tissue
culture example, 482; policy/regulation
options, 481–485; rapid rural appraisal(RRA), 483. See also specific innovations
Public-Sector Intellectual Property Resource for
Agriculture (PIPRA), 94, 98
Pulses: consumption, 154–155; yields (19612004), 150

Q
Qanats, 67

R
Rapid rural appraisal (RRA), 483
Reforestation, 297
Reinart, 89
Reliability (indicators), 49
Remittances, 27, 29, 203, 203, 309
Remote sensing: applications, 171, 172, 173,
173, 411–412, 413–414; pest management,
388; site-specific management, 171, 172;
types/applications overview, 413–414
Research and development investment: appropriability, 506; biotechnology, 501; block
grants, 531; commodity boards, 532; commodity focus, 500; competitive funding,
531–532, 533; concentration of, 498; developing countries funding, 496, 507–509,
508, 509; developing vs. developed countries, 15–16, 28–29, 487–498, 499–500,
502–503, 502, 503, 507; effectiveness,
193–194, 193; expenditures by region, 498–
500, 498, 500, 502; expenditure trends,
16–17; in future, 496–497, 542–543; growers’ associations, 532; intensity of research/intensity ratios, 502–504, 503, 504; interest
groups, 505–506; international donors, 531;
international R&D, 504–505; key messages,
496–497; options, 535–538, 540–543;
participatory approaches, 203–204, 203,
204, 496–497; plant breeding, 501; poor
people and, 505; private research and costs,
506–507; private research determinants,
506–507; private sector, 271–272, 500–502,
501, 502, 506–507, 532–533, 534; publicresearch determinants, 505–506; public
sector, 271, 497–500, 498, 499, 500, 501,
502, 534–535; public sector intensity,
502–504, 503, 504; regulation costs, 507;
S&T spending by region, 502, 503; trends,
300–301, 496
Research and development investment assessment: attribution problems/bias, 510–511;
causality, 510; conceptual framework,509, 510; counterfactual situations, 510;
economic impact measures, 509–510;
education, 516; environmental impacts,
517–520; extension programs, 511–512,
513; governance of AKST investments,
496, 527–535, 527; health issues, 520–523,
521; IRR estimates, 513; methodologicallimitations, 510–511; outputs vs. outcomes,
509; poverty reduction, 496, 497, 524–527,
525, 526; ROR by commodities, 512, 514,
515; ROR CGIAR investments, 516–517;
ROR ranges, 514; ROR to crop genetic
improvement, 511, 512; ROR to national
investment, 511, 512; selectivity bias, 512;
spillover effects, 511, 522–524, 524; subSaharan Africa, 517, 517; timing of, 509.
See also AKST impact assessment
Research and development overall expenditures, 271, 271, 300
Resistance Action Committees, 105
Resource-conserving technologies, 172, 172
Resources: description, 28; labor productivity
vs. land productivity, 28. See also specifictypes
Rice: Golden Rice, 165; Modern Varieties, 156,
157, 157; regional yield stagnation, 158,
158; soil fertility management knowledge,
158
Riparian buffer strips, 180, 180
Rockefeller Foundation, 80, 83, 88, 89, 94,
97, 504
Roles of Agriculture (FAO study), 61–62, 62
Rome Declaration on World Food Safety, 111
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 114
Root/tuber yields (1961-2004), 150
Royal Tropical Institute, 83

SSalinization: climate change and, 417–418;
irrigated agriculture and, 40; management,
407; productivity-enhancing technologies
and, 153
Salmonella, 34, 113, 468, 470–471
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS),
219–220, 219, 467
Sasakawa Africa Fund for Extension Education(SAFE), 82
Savings: adjusted net savings, 30; “genuine savings rates,” 30
Scale of agricultural systems: description, 2;
productivity and efficiency, 151, 151. See
also specific scales
Schools in the Field, 69
Science: co-causality, 70; inclusive/integrated
practices, 70–71; inequities in geographic
regions, 71, 72; license agreements with
universities, 72; modes of, 71; noncommercial vs. commercial science, 72; relationshipwith technology, 12–13; society/social systems and, 71–72. See also AKST
Science and Knowledge Exchange Program, 96
Science processes: definition/description, 70;
overview, 70–72
Science/technology drivers: adoption trends,
272; in existing assessments, 270–271;
importance, 270; trends in investment,
271, 271; trends in private/public sector,
271–272
Scientific policies, 217–218, 218
Scientific reviews vs. assessments, 5
Seasonal fluctuations, 212–213, 212, 217, 217
Sectoral policies, 215–217, 215, 216
Seed Nursery, Faculty of Agronomy, Buenos
Aires University, 82

11/3/08 10:54:22 AM

588 | IAASTD Global Report

Seeds of Development Program (SODP), 86
Seed systems, 20, 206–207
Serageldin, Ismail, 85
Sewerage use/risks, 171, 171, 451
Sheep/goats: prices, 320, 320; production,
316–317, 318, 319
Shifting agriculture: deforestation, 283; forest use, 37; population pressure, 177, 177;
sustainable alternatives, 380, 384–385, 401.
See also Slash-and-burn agriculture
Shrimp farming, 517, 518, 520
Shull, George, 89
SLAM model: applications, 310, 311, 313, 367;
description, 311, 366–367, 368; history,
366; structure/data, 366–367; uncertainty,
367, 368
Slash-and-burn agriculture: alternatives to, 178,
178, 380; forests and soils, 22; populationpressure and, 177, 177; research findings,
216. See also Shifting agriculture
Small-scale farms: access/market gap, 9; definition, 8; ecological agricultural systems,
385–386; ecosystem services improvement, 386; environmental damage, 10;
globalization effects, 7, 8, 59; ICT accesseffects, 309; innovations impact, 379–380;
malnutrition reduction, 407–408; market
dynamics and vulnerability, 8; mixed croplivestock systems, 386, 391; Modern Varieties, 158, 158; multifunctional agriculture
and, 386; plant health, 473; policies and,
217, 217, 442; post-harvest loss reduction,
385; productivity, 9, 379–380, 384–386,
386; regional distribution, 8, 9; soil fertility
management knowledge, 158158; sustainability, 380, 384–385
Social Accounting Matrix (SAM), 364
Social capital, 269
Social welfare, 108–109
Sociopolitical drivers: collaboration (regional/
global), 269–270; conflict, 269, 270; in existing assessments, 270; political instability
worldwide, 270; political system changes,
268–269, 268; public policy choices, 268–
269, 268; social capital, 269; social factors
overview, 269; state capacity for policy
implementation, 269; types, 268
Soil: environmental services, 446; importanceof, 39; resilience, 39–40; well-structured
soil, 174–175
Soil amendments, 402
Soil conservation: climate change adaptation,
419–420; indigenous technologies, 67
Soil degradation: causes, 153, 280–281; description, 10, 11, 39; Global Assessment of
Human-induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD), 24, 40; monocultures and, 21; nitratesources/effects, 40; nutrient depletion, 152,
152, 153; statistics, 39
Soil erosion: climate change, 416; costs, 518;
description, 10; effects, 35; no-till agriculture and, 400; water erosion, 24; winderosion, 24
Soil fertility: management knowledge, 158;
NPK deficits, 174; productivity-enhancing
technologies effects, 153; restoring, 174
Soil management: biological nitrogen fixation

chapter backmatter.indd 588(BNF), 170, 170, 175, 175, 180, 400; fallow system, 168–169, 168; fertile lands,
400–402; food security and, 408; Ghana/
Benin example, 483; importance, 279–281;
integrated soil and nutrient management(ISNM), 174–175; loss reductions, 401;
low fertility lands, 402; mycorrhizas, 176,
176; nitrogen fertility, 170, 170; organic
manures, 400; organic matter, 175, 175,
400; policies and, 446; P-solubilizing bacteria use, 400–401; sediment loss reduction,
401; soil amendments, 402; soil productivity and, 169, 169; soil water conservation/
storage, 402
Soil quality: no-till agriculture effects, 175, 175;
plant types for improving, 176, 176
Soil solarization, 389
Solidaridad, 86South African Agricultural Research Council,
82
South East Asian Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE), 82
Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES),
262, 263, 263, 264, 265, 270
Spill-ins, 522, 523–524, 524
Spill-outs, 522, 524
Spillover effects, 522–524, 524
Stakeholders’ impacts: AKST impact assessment, 211–222, 211–222; aquaculture,
212, 212; employment conditions, 213,
213; farmer organizations impacts, 212,
212; food safety, 213, 213; food standards,
213, 213; inclusion, 117–119; involvement
impacts, 211–212, 212; linkage with actors,
224; marketing, 212, 212; organic agriculture, 213, 213; promotion of, 17, 59, 211;
seasonality effects, 212–213, 212; tropical
products, 212, 212; water use/access, 212,
212. See also Participatory approaches
Staphylococcus aureus, 112, 113
State trading enterprises (STEs), 459–460
State variables, 46, 47
Steiner, Rudolf, 114nStrategic Impact Assessment (SIA) of trade
agreements, 466
Structural adjustment policies: controversy,
220, 220; effects, 215, 215, 218–219, 218,
220, 220; monocultures, 220, 220; poor
farmers and, 215, 215
Sui generis protection/systems, 89, 90, 91, 219,
219, 393
Sun pest, 164
Sustainability: agroforestry, 397; AKST goals,
299–301; AKST impact assessment,
172–193, 172–193; alternatives to shifting
agriculture, 380, 384–385, 401; aquaculture
policies, 309, 399; assessment difficulties,
30; bioenergy, 422–425; crop production/
AKST impact enhancement, 379–391;
definitions/description, 30, 107, 194, 194;
extension programs, 209, 209; factors overview, 2; fisheries policies, 308–309, 355,
398–399; future of agriculture/AKST assessment, 355; groundwater resources and, 170,
170, 407, 422, 450; IAASTD goals, 13,
14–16, 26–46; indigenous knowledge (IK),
204–205, 204, 273; innovations approach,

206, 206; institutions importance, 206, 206;
integrated systems, 172, 172; investment in
AKST options, 541; irrigation and, 449–
450, 451; livestock production and, 391;
natural resources and, 35, 36, 37, 147, 150,
150, 222, 308, 355; options/environment,
538, 540; pastoralism, 176, 176; smallscale farms, 380, 384–385; society-natureinteractions, 207, 207; synergies, 147; waterproductivity and, 404; water resourcesmanagement, 402–407, 403, 404, 405,
407, 422, 450; watershed management,
181–182, 181; World Bank assessments, 30;
World Summit on Sustainable Development(2002), 49. See also specific practices
Sustainability indicators: IAASTD, 46–51, 48;
interpretation, 47–48; issues addressed by,
48. See also Indicators
Sustainable Land Management (SLM), 42
Swidden agriculture. See Shifting agriculture
Syngenta, 94
Systemwide Program on Participatory Researchand Gender Analysis, 45, 203

T
Technography, 483
Technology: access, 411, 526, 526, 534; adoption factors, 207, 207, 411; “best fit”
technology, 73–74; efficiency trends, 271;
innovation processes and, 72–75; relationship with science, 12–13; risks/costs, 74–75;
spillover effects, 522–524, 524; technological opportunity, 505. See also AKST;
Science/technology drivers; specific technologies; Transfer of technology
Technology supply-push: description, 73, 481;
Green Revolution and, 481; megacity slums
and, 74; social problems with, 73, 74;
switch to demand-pull approach, 79
Territorial governance, 220–222, 220, 221, 222
Territorial policies, 217, 217
Territory scale, 220
Terroirs, 60, 98
Third-Generation Agriculture (TGA), 224, 443
TIMER model: applications, 313, 316; description, 357, 358; energy and, 313, 357, 358
ToT. See Transfer of technology
Total Factor Productivity (TFP), 152, 152
Total fertility1950-2050, 6Trade at Hand, 69
Trade in agricultural products: changes with
globalization, 108; commodity price effects,
453–454, 455; commodity price trends,
453–454, 454, 458, 458, 459; developing
countries export share, 457; export oriented
agriculture, 68, 442; food trade (modeling outcomes), 320, 320; policies/market
constraints effects, 331–332, 332, 333,
334–337; subsidies of developed countries,
453, 456; trends, 298, 299. See also Globalization; Trade/market policy options fordeveloping countries
Trade in water: tradable water rights, 450; virtual water/food trade, 451
Trade liberalization: biofuels, 464; developing
countries and, 442, 452–453, 454, 455,
455, 456, 457, 462; disparities in effects, 8,

11/3/08 10:54:23 AM

Index | 589

442; India and, 335, 337; negative effects
summary, 8; projected impacts, 332, 332
Trade/market policy options for developing
countries: Agricultural Market Analysis
Unit, 461; alternative trade channels,
460–462; bioenergy, 463–465; certification approaches, 461; certified organic
agriculture (CAO), 460–461; challenges
summary, 453; crop/rain insurance, 460;
Doha scenario gains/losses, 455, 456, 457;
dumping regulations, 458, 466; economy
research, 461–462; fair trade, 59, 113,
213, 460; food security issues, 453, 455;
governance of trade, 464–466; importing
and, 453; international competition policy,
465–466; liquid biofuels, 463–464; mark oforigin, 461; microfinance/microcredit, 460;
National Market Education Programme,
461; non-reciprocal access, 455; optimizing environmental externalities, 462–465;
regional integration of markets, 459; regulatory cost issues, 456, 459; rural farm sector
support, 452–453; “special and differential
treatment,” 454–455; special products ofdeveloping countries, 455; state trading
enterprises (STEs), 459–460; subsidies reform policies, 456, 458; tariffs, 456, 459;
technology assessment, 466–467; trade
agreements assessment, 466; tradeoffs, 453;
tropical commodities supply management,
458–459, 459; world price instability, 466
TradeNet, Ghana, 69
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS), 89, 91, 218, 218, 475–477
Traditional agrifood systems, 24
Traditional/local knowledge: agroforestry, 67,
147, 179, 397–398; assessing value, 520;
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),91, 92; endogenous development, 482–483;
ICT and, 350; importance, 67, 205–206,
205, 411; intellectual property rights,
67–68, 475–476, 477, 479; PPB and, 66;
R&D, 223, 272; rural youth and farming,
62; technology transfer and, 63, 64. See also
Indigenous knowledge (IK)
Traditional Varieties, 157“Tragedies of the commons,” 206
Training and visit (T & V) approach, 64–65
Transfer of technology: criticism, 64; “diffusionof innovations,” 63; drawbacks, 64; effectiveness and, 58, 64, 69; exclusion/marginalization with, 117–118; Green Revolution
and, 63; lessons learned with, 117–118;
model description, 63, 69; positive impact,
63; traditional/local knowledge and, 63, 64
Transgenic organisms. See Genetically modified/organisms (GM/GMOs)
Trend indicators, 46, 47
Trichinellosis, 113
TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), 89, 91, 218, 218,
475–477
Tuber/root yields (1961-2004), 150

U
UN Conference on Environment and Development (1992), Agenda 21, 49, 85

chapter backmatter.indd 589

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,
480–481UN Declaration on the Right to Development, 114
UN Human Development agency, 70–71
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948),
43, 114“University-Industrial Complex,” 96
University models (AKST producers): agricultural schools, 80; agrotechnical institutes,
82; conflicts, 79; constraints of university
arrangements, 81; gap between developing/developed countries and, 80; land-grant colleges, 80–82; overview, 79–82; patents and,72, 80, 81–82; Public-Sector Intellectual
Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA),
94; “publish or perish” impacts, 80“Urban bias,” 268
Urbanization: effects, 263, 298–299, 300; foodconsumption patterns, 275; food distribution/delivery, 298–299; future projections,
256, 257, 262–263; megacity slums and, 74
Urban/peri-urban agriculture: definition/description, 23; issues, 23, 298–299; urban
poor and, 23, 74, 197, 197
Urban wastewater use, 171, 171, 451
Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations, 109

V
Value-chain analysis, 390–391
Value chains, 24
Vavilov, 89
Vegetables: production, 150, 155; yields (19612004), 150
Vegetarianism, 299, 343–345, 346, 347
Via Campesina, 114, 115
Virtual water, 451, 518
Vitamin A deficiency, 33

W
Water access/availability: as agriculture change
driver, 277–279; as AKST driver, 308;
AKST effects, 337; climate change effects,
324, 341, 421; desalinization, 451; environmental degradation and, 279; health issues,
199, 199; internal renewable water (IRW),
324; modeling outcomes, 317, 324, 326;
policy recommendations, 449–452; poverty
reduction, 185, 185; pricing, 450–451;
projection by regions, 324, 324; reducing
agriculture “water footprint,” 451–452;
scarcity, 308, 317, 324, 326; scarcity projections, 308; stakeholders’ impacts, 212, 212;
tradable water rights, 450; trends/statistics,
24, 25, 170, 170, 277–279, 299–300, 541;
virtual water/food trade, 451; water rights,
185, 404. See also IMPACT-WATER model;
Water resources management; WATERSIM
model
Water logging, 40
Water markets, 450–451
Water pollution: fertilizers, 10, 21, 40, 273,
274; Gulf of Mexico, 154; human and animal waste, 10, 24, 40; human health effects,
21; increase in, 39; livestock production,
10, 24, 154, 160, 160; monocultures and,21; pesticides, 154, 154, 518
Water productivity: AKST impact enhancement,

378–379, 403–404, 403, 404; evapotranspiration and, 403, 403, 404; improvement
by crop, 404; irrigated systems, 406; policy
assessment, 341–343, 341, 342, 344
Water productivity/AKST effects: Asia, 342–
343, 342; Latin America, 342; MENA, 342,
343; overview, 341–343, 341, 342, 344; byregion, 341, 342–343, 342; sub-SaharanAfrica, 342, 342, 343
Water resources: agriculture use comparison,
155, 308; agriculture use statistics, 6, 24,
155, 518; “blue” vs. “green” water, 39,
170; challenges to supply, 324, 325, 326;
climate change impacts, 324, 341, 421;
complex land use systems effects, 185–186,
185; consumptive use (modeling outcomes),
324, 325; demands, 170, 170, 277–279,
280, 308, 326; forest services, 174, 174;
groundwater, 170, 170, 407, 422, 450;
internal renewable water (IRW), 324; overview, 39; quantity, 184; rainfed/irrigatedarable land, 39, 39; use projections, 280,
315–316, 324, 324, 325, 326, 326; wetlands loss, 39. See also Irrigation
Water resources management: AKST options/gaps, 381–382; biodiversity, 405–406; climate change adaptation, 421–422; complex
land use systems effects, 185–186, 185;
decreasing land degradation, 407; efficiency,
185, 185; environmental/human health,405; equitable use, 185, 185; estuarine
habitats, 186, 186; evapotranspiration
management, 403, 403, 404; fisheries, 405;
gender issues, 185; government role, 215,
215; groundwater harvesting, 170, 170;
groundwater resources/sustainability, 407,
422, 450; improvement strategies, 170, 170;
integrated water resources management(IWRM), 174, 174; intersectoral management, 450; livestock production, 404–405,
406; marginal-quality water use, 404, 405;modeling allocations, 221, 221; multiple use
livelihoods approach, 404–406, 405; Natural Sequence Farming, 174, 174; payment
systems for watershed services, 174; policies
needed, 449; sewerage use/risks, 171, 171,
451; small-scale technologies/marketing,
406–407; sustainable use, 402–407, 403,
404, 405; unsustainable use, 171, 171; urban wastewater use, 451; water harvesting,170, 170, 171, 174; women and, 185. See
also IMPACT-WATER model; Water access/availability; WATERSIM model
Water rights, 185, 404
Water scarcity: infrastructure constraints, 324;
projections, 308, 317; water quality constraints, 324, 326
Watershed management: AKST impact assessment, 181–182, 181, 182; Lake Victoria
Basin project, 182, 182; need for integrated
management, 450; as PES, 462; sustainablestrategies, 181–182, 181
Watersheds, 181
WATERSIM model: applications, 310, 311,
314, 343, 362–363; description, 311,
361–363, 363; history, 361; structure/data,
361–362; uncertainty, 363, 363

11/3/08 10:54:23 AM

590 | IAASTD Global Report

Water User Associations, 185, 212, 212
Watson, 89
Weather forecasting, 412
Weeds: climate change effects, 387; IWM (Integrated Weed Management), 173–174, 173;
non-chemical alternatives, 162, 162, 163,
163; parasitic weeds, 162, 163, 163, 174,
387. See also Herbicides
Weevils, 164
Wetlands loss, 39
Wheat stem rust, 164, 164
Wilderness areas, 444, 445
Women’s issues: biomass fuel collection, 14;credit strategies, 407; division of labor,
46; fuel collection, 201; health issues, 14;intra-household food distribution, 210,
210; natural resource management, 45–46;
political involvement, 45; power and, 46;
project designs and, 210, 210; role changes/
effects, 275; water resources management,
185; women in labor force, 47. See also
Gender issues

chapter backmatter.indd 590

Women’s issues in agriculture: agroforestry,
396, 397; AKST and empowerment, 19,309; credit availability, 45, 211, 211;
crop genetic resources, 88; discrimination
against, 211, 211; education/agriculturalextension, 207, 207, 208; food security and,33, 210–211, 210; Green Belt Movement,
65; HIV/AIDS effects, 35; information/communication, 45, 211, 211; land rights,
35, 200, 200, 211, 211, 419; livestock-production, 22; problems summary, 3; property
inheritance and, 35; rights/access, 35, 200,
200, 210–211, 210, 211; trends in labor
force, 7–8, 46, 47, 210–211, 210, 293; urban/peri-urban agriculture, 23
Woodfuels. See Fuelwood
World Bank: assessments of sustainability, 30;
CGIAR and, 83; components, 84; overview,
84–86; pest management/IPM, 103, 105;role, 84–86; RuralStruc project, 214; T &V approach, 65. See also Structural adjustment policies

World Health Organization and pesticides, 103,
105, 106World Intellectual Property Organization(WIPO), 89, 91, 476, 477
World Learning for International Development,
78
World Summit on Sustainable Development(2002), 49
World Trade Organization (WTO): food safety,
219–220, 219; food trade, 109; functions,219, 219; IPR, 218, 476, 477; origins, 219,
219; policies, 215, 215, 219, 219
World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 87

Y“Yield gap”: agroforestry and, 147; closing,382–383; failure of addressing, 223; Green
Revolution, 223
Yield per unit area per year assessment, 157–
158, 157

11/3/08 10:54:24 AM

chapter backmatter.indd 591

11/3/08 10:54:24 AM

chapter backmatter.indd 592

11/13/08 11:33:45 AM

“Although considered by many to be a success story, the benefits of productivity increases inworld agriculture are unevenly spread. Often the poorest of the poor have gained little or nothing; and 850 million people are still hungry or malnourished with an additional 4 million morejoining their ranks annually. We are putting food that appears cheap on our tables; but it isfood that is not always healthy and that costs us dearly in terms of water, soil and the biological

IAASTDSCIENCE | AGRICULTURE | CURRENT AFFAIRS

diversity on which all our futures depend.”—Professor Bob Watson, director, IAASTD

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) , on which Agriculture at the Crossroads is based, 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 governmentand 30 from civil society, the process brought together 110 governments and 400 experts, representing non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, producers, consumers,
the scientific community, multilateral environment agreements (MEAs), and multiple international agencies involved in the agricultural and rural development sectors.
In addition to assessing existing conditions and knowledge, the IAASTD uses a simple set ofmodel 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 agriculturalland, water availability, and climate change effects.
This set of volumes comprises the findings of the IAASTD. It consists of a Global Report, abrief 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.
Cover design by Linda McKnight, McKnight Design, LLC
Cover photos (left to right): Steve Raymer, Dean Conger, andWilliam Albert Allard of National Geographic Stock, Mark
Edwards (both images) of Peter Arnold, Inc.

Washington • Covelo • London
www.islandpress.org
All Island Press books are printed on recycled, acid-free paper.

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development

Global Report• Reducing hunger and poverty• Improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods• Facilitating social and environmental sustainability

Agriculture
at aCrossroads

Global Report