Thursday, May 8, 2008

The Truth Behind the IAASTD
Report: Misquote or Misinformed?

Sustainability criteria for biofuels are a most welcome initiative. But will they be enough to control the situation?

By: Neth Dano, Third World Network

In Wednesday afternoon’s panel on Agriculture and Rural Development at Conference Room 4, Dr. Chris Leaver, Emeritus Professor of Plant Science and a Fellow of St. John’s College at Oxford University, took note of the apparently “clashing views” of the World Bank’s 2008 World Development Report (WDR) on Agriculture for Development and its International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) on the role of science and technology in agricultural development.

Dr. Leaver said that while the WDR correctly concluded that science and technology has an important role to play in agricultural development for the benefit of poor farmers, the IAASTD “missed the opportunity” by recommending against the use of modern science and technology in agriculture and promoting ecological agriculture, quoting from a document in front of him. He said that the IAASTD is advocating a “formula for world starvation”.

To satisfy our curiosity, we checked the Global Summary for Decision Makers of the IAASTD that was adopted by countries at the intergovernmental plenary meeting on the report held in Johannesburg on 7-12 April, and we found a totally different message from what Dr. Leaver presented at the Panel. Contrary to the claim that the IAASTD recommended against the use of science and technology for agricultural development to benefit poor farmers, we found out that the IAASTD recommendations are all about ensuring that agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST) benefits small-scale farmers.

Here are some relevant options for actions put forward by the IAASTD in its final report:

Many of the challenges facing agriculture over the next 50 years will be able to be resolved by more targeted application of existing AKST, institutional reform, approaches for modern and traditional agricultural and natural resource management, and breakthroughs in science and technology. (p. 25)

Future options include new cultivation techniques and improved varieties of crops, livestock, fish and trees developed through accelerated processes, such as traditional and participatory breeding combined with marker assisted selection, genomics and transgenic approaches. (p. 26)

The potential for precision agriculture, ICTs, ecological production, nanotechnology and other emerging technologies to help advance development requires institutional development to create the conditions in which such technologies can generate opportunities for resource-poor producers in diverse local conditions. (p. 27)

Technologies, such as high-yielding crop varieties, agrochemicals and mechanization have primarily benefited the better resourced groups in society and transnational corporations, rather than the most vulnerable ones. To ensure that technology supports development and sustainability goals, strong policy and institutional arrangements are needed to balance private, communal and national rights systems regarding knowledge and resources. (p. 29)

Policies that promote sustainable agricultural practices (e.g. using market and other types of incentives to reward environmental services) stimulate more technology innovation, such as agro-ecological approaches and organic farming to alleviate poverty and improve food security. (p. 32)

We were struck that Dr. Leaver left out the fact that both the IAASTD and the WDR were initiated by the World Bank. Contrary to what he claimed, that the science and technology community was not consulted in the IAASTD, we found out that it is in fact a product of a three-year consultative process involving more than 400 authors from the science and technology community, the academe, government institutions, industry and civil society organisations. In contrast, the WDR is an output of a handful of consultants and experts hired by the World Bank.

We are aware that the biotechnology and agri-chemical companies have publicly lambasted the IAASTD report. That’s a knee-jerk reaction from interests whose projected profits will be adversely affected by the recommendations that openly challenge mainstream convention to pave the way for small-scale farmers to benefit from ecologically-friendly and socially-equitable agricultural development. What defies us is for an esteemed academic like Dr. Leaver to bite the propaganda against the IAASTD without the benefit of reading even the summary of the Report?