ROUNDTABLE 3
Linking research to agriculture, food and nutrition policies
Using the existing research arena to create a network of institutes and research organizations to help successful implementation of the High‐Level Conference Declaration and the Comprehensive Framework for Action (CFA).
Objectives Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of existing research networks and recent coordination efforts among research institutions and other actors Propose/improve a new/existing coordinating mechanism of research networks and institution to successfully implement the CFA Discuss the possible role of this coordinating mechanism within the Global Partnership of Food and Agriculture.
Outcomes Agreement on the best coordinating mechanism among research institutions for an effective implementation of the CFA Recommendations about the role of this coordinating mechanism within the Global Partnership of Food and Agriculture
1. Background Over the last thirty years, limited attention has been paid to generate and disseminate technological innovations that address the needs of the poor and hungry people in developing countries. Only one‐third of all global research expenditure on agriculture has been spent on solving the problems of agriculture in developing countries (80% of global population). This amount is less than 3% of the total value of agricultural subsidies that OECD countries pay to maintain their agricultural output (Kiers et al, 2008).
1
Resources for publicly funded agricultural and food security research have been especially meagre, even though studies have indicated that investments in agricultural research and development ‐R&D‐ are one of the most successful ways to alleviate hunger and poverty (Alston, 2002). Growth in public food and agricultural R&D expenditures has slowed around the world and even declined during the 90s in developed countries. In developing countries, it increased slightly (1.6% annually) during the same period (spending largely driven by Asia) though it was reduced in Africa (von Braun et al 2008). Regions of the world are distinctly divided in terms of public investment in agricultural and food research, with under‐investment greatest in developing countries. For every US$100 of agricultural output, developed countries spend, on average, US$2.16 on public agricultural R&D, whereas developing countries spend only US$0.55. This highlights the underinvestment in agricultural R&D in developing countries and the gap between rich and poor nations in generating and disseminating appropriate technology (Beintiema and Stads, forthcoming). The slow growth of public investment in food and agriculture R&D can be explained, in part, as a result of the financial restrictions due to structural adjustment programs and the strong growth in health and education spending driven by the prioritization of social sectors within poverty reduction strategies. The World Bank identifies some other reasons, such as long‐term payoffs or lack of priority in national agendas, for explaining the underinvestment in agricultural R&D, including the provision of extension services despite its high returns (World Bank, 2008). The recent food crisis has contributed to putting agriculture R&D in the international development agenda as there is an increasing recognition of its role in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, especially reducing hunger and malnutrition. Policy statements from developed countries and recent reports and studies focus on the significant contributions of agricultural innovation to development. Developing countries are including the support to agricultural research and technology dissemination and adoption within their national and regional programmes (that is the case of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAAPD) within the New Partnership for Africa´s Development –NEPAD‐). The World Bank, the G8 and other major development actors have recently reiterated their support to agricultural R&D through the Consultative Group on International Agriculture and Research –CGIAR‐ at the international level. However, it is also noted that strong support is needed at the national level for research and extension service systems of developing countries to achieve agriculture productivity gains. Some donors have also prioritized food and agricultural research in their ODA, earmarking significant financial resources for research on sustainable agriculture (United Kingdom) or scientific exchange programs for food, agriculture and fisheries (Spain). Furthermore, private firms and foundations are increasing their role in agriculture, food security and nutrition research at global and local levels. There is a new trend of establishing public‐private partnership in developing countries as the most effective way to strategically address the issue of food security by optimizing the comparative advantages of the public and private sectors. It is clear that the world will need to increase agricultural production and reduce drastically the number of undernourished people to achieve the MDG targets on tackling hunger. Rural people will have to meet the increasing world food needs facing huge challenges to agriculture, such as climate change and increasing competition for land and water resources. Research in food and agriculture and vigorous extension services is absolutely needed to support small farmers responding to this big challenge. The Declaration of the FAO High‐Level Conference on World Food Security, held in Rome in June 2008, and the Comprehensive Framework for Action recognized the need for increasing agricultural research and
2
development and urged the international community to decisively and urgently step up investment in research and extension systems for food and agriculture.
2. Existing networks in agriculture and food security research The CGIAR, main network in agriculture and food security research, is composed by fifteen research centres and 3,300 scientific staff around the world. It generates and delivers international public goods—scientific and technological knowledge, agricultural research products and services, and research capacities—that are essential to improve food security and agriculture research in the poor regions of the world. CGIAR is currently going through a transformation to develop further its full potential. This reform will be based on the establishment of a Consortium of Centres accountable for the delivery of high quality results and the creation of a new Fund and an independent Advisory Board. The formulation of a strong multi‐dimensional strategy between centres/donors and their partners in both research and rural development at the regional, sub‐regional, and national levels will be one of the major tasks of the new CGIAR (CGIAR, 2008b). The main institutions that comprise the international public architecture for agricultural development and food security are FAO, WFP, IFAD, UNICEF, OMS and the World Bank together with the CGIAR. These multilateral organizations are also going through important institutional reforms that will contribute to define the global institutional context scenario where coordination will be one of the key issues to strengthen policies and actions at global, regional and national, to deal with food insecurity. The Global Forum on Agriculture Research also an important and growing contributor to the public architecture. At regional level, there are important efforts to strengthen research and development capacities in agriculture and food security, particularly in Africa with regional and sub‐regional networks in the context of the CAAPD. Nongovernmental organizations have also become essential actors. As developing country governments and official aid agencies moved away from agriculture, international NGOs assumed an increasingly prominent position. In the last two decades, several NGOs have created a global network integrated by high professional with technical expertise in agriculture and food security. In addition, major foundations (Rockefeller, Melinda and Bill Gates...) are extremely interested in supporting research and extension advisory services in agriculture and nutrition as a way forward in the fight against hunger and malnutrition. The current situation of food insecurity needs a common understanding of the problem and therefore the establishment of a coordinating mechanism among different actors. The recently release (April 2008) of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) is one of the global initiatives that has promoted discussions between different actors and approaches about the role of science and technology in reducing hunger and poverty, improving rural livelihoods, and facilitating equitable, sustainable development (IAASTD, 2008). The assessment provides a re‐thinking of the approach of agricultural knowledge, science and technology to overcome the difficulties of the rural poor and the chronic underinvestment in agricultural research. IAASTD recognizes that gains of science and technology have been uneven and that successes have been accompanied by environmental and social consequences. The assessment considers that production increases have not consistently improved food access for the world’s poor, and that structural changes in governance, development, and delivery of research are required so that benefits are shared more equitably and environmental impacts are lessened (Kiers et al, 2008). Unfortunately, a consensus over certain issues (such as genetically modified organisms) was not reached among the wide range of different actors, what gives an idea of the big challenge that supposes to deal with diverse and conflicting interpretations of experts about the role of agriculture research in development (Thompson, 2008).
3
3. Improving food security policies through research: constraints and way forward Decision‐makers across the world need to base their decisions on information from reliable sources. They need to learn from the best knowledge and experience available, and also to know what kinds of research could help them make the right choices – and where research has already got results. Governments in developing countries often face big constraints in getting the necessary and adequate information, in a timely manner, to respond to food emergencies or address structural hunger and food insecurity. Some common limitations are the following: Weak institutions and high dependency on external solutions Despite China, Brazil, and India, most developing countries are still underinvesting in agricultural R&D, and therefore, their public research institutions lack the capacities and resources for generating the solutions required for addressing hunger and malnutrition. They have relied on developed countries for science and technology for many years. However, developed countries research agendas are now shifting. They are increasingly investing in research that is not directly related to productivity enhancement as their agricultural pattern is switching from crop production to more multifunctional agriculture. Consumers demands for high‐value food products redirect funds to organic farming and enhancing certain attributes of food (processed and so‐called functional foods), and producers demands for high‐technology inputs influence developed countries research to improve innovations that are not very relevant for the subsistence agriculture in developing countries (Von Braun, 2008). As a result, food and agricultural research and extension systems in developed countries does not always meet the needs of farmers and consumers in developing countries which still focus on enhancing food productivity and producing high nutritional food products (i.e. fortified food) to reduce food insecurity and malnutrition. Problems such as availability and cost of good‐quality seed, soil degradation, and post‐harvest losses, could be tackled with relatively simple technologies and investments, if they were prioritized in political agendas and received the adequate support The research systems in Brazil, China, India and some other developing countries, are becoming leading sources of new technologies and knowledge for other developing countries and regions Different approaches to food and agricultural research and extension service systems Policy debates about the role of research in agriculture development and food security are frequently based on the central idea that breakthroughs in science and technology will have a broad and direct impact on poverty. Research centres in developed countries propose universal solutions to agriculture and food security assuming that problems faced by small farmers in developed and developing countries are quite similar, and therefore, transfer of technological innovations is a straightforward task. Although in some cases a universal solution may be the way forward, frequently this approach may put at risk the basis of sustainable development, simply not considering that local resources, knowledge and experience that people have developed to sustain their livelihoods are highly diverse. Today this top‐down approach is increasingly being questioned and initiatives to reassert people’s participation over research priorities and extension services are increasingly accepted and being put into practice. The starting point is that small farmers should not be consider passive beneficiaries of technological transfer, but knowledgeable, active and
4
engaged in defining and designing technologies and in their regulation and implementation (Leach and Scoones, 2008). R&D strategies should also take into consideration that poverty and hunger are not always the consequence of technical constraints; they are often the result of unequal social relations, conflicts, political situations, marginalization, etc. Frequently, the problem is the lack of access to the technologies and not the inexistence of the appropriate solutions. A successful innovation not only focuses on the technology, but also takes into account the cultural and social contexts and their institutional relationships (Leach and Scoones, 2008). The collaboration of social scientists with great expertise of the social dimensions of food insecurity including gender issues in the generation and dissemination of technologies should be enhanced. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ The CFA makes some clear recommendations on the next steps for promoting agricultural research and development (United Nations, 2008): Significant increases in funding and dissemination of international and national agricultural research Focusing on adaption of techniques that will benefit the smallholder farmers Focusing on boosting agricultural productivity in a context of climate change and increasing competition for land and water resources Scaling up public‐private partnerships for research and technology development and adoption Refocusing Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology systems to contribute effectively to reducing hunger and poverty Responding to local and global concerns. Global research should address problems faced by different countries and regions (i.e, production of biofuels and climate change) while national research should develop local solutions to long‐term problems. Promoting, knowledge exchange, and capacity building and institutional strengthening of research and extension systems. These recommendations can not be put into practice in an effective way unless research networks, governments, international institutions, civil society organizations and private sector bring their knowledge and experience together. A coordinating mechanism among these partners should be established to facilitate the successful implementation of the CFA. The Madrid Conference is an interesting starting point to exchange, coordinate and improve strategies of existing research networks to address the effects of the global crisis. It will also be an opportunity to jointly define coordinating research mechanisms to effectively support policies and interventions within the Global Partnership of Food and Agriculture.
4. Some topics for discussion Bearing in mind existing research networks for agriculture and food security, how could a coordinating mechanism be put into practice? What would be the specific role of a research coordinating mechanism within a GPFA? What could be the role of Civil Society Organizations and Private Sector in a research coordinating mechanism? Do universal solutions respond adequately to the needs of the most vulnerable?
5
References Alston, J., Chan‐Kang, C., Marra, M., Pardey, P. and Wyatt, T. (2000). A Meta‐Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural R&D: Ex Pede Herculem?. Research Report 113, IFPRI, Washington DC. Alston, J. (2002). “Spillovers” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 46(3):315–46. Beintema N and G Stads (forthcoming), Measuring Agricultural R&D investments: A revised Global picture. Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) background note, Washington DC, IFPRI. CGIAR (2008a) Bringing together the best of science and the best of development. Independent review of the CGIAR system. Retrieved from http://www.cgiar.org/pdf/agm08/agm08_independent_review_synthesis_report.pdf on 9 January 2008. CGIAR (2008b) Reform Proposal: A New Way Forward. CGIAR Change Management Process. Maputo Conference. Mozambique. December 4. Annotated Working Group papers; and reference to Newsletter, from http://www.cgiar.org/changemanagement/cm_cgchair_updates.html DFID (2009) Research on sustainable http://www.dfid.gov.uk/research/sustainableagriculture.asp
agriculture.
Retrieved
from
Kiers, T., Leakey, R., Izac, A., Heinemann, J. Rosenthal, E., Nathan, D. and Jiggins, J. (2008). Agriculture at a Crossroads, Science April 2008. Leach, M. and Scoones, I. (2006) The Slow Race. Making technology work for the Poor. Demos. London. Pardey, P., James, J., Alston, J., Wood, S., Koo, B., Binenbaum, E., Hurley, T., Glewwe, P. (2007) “Science, Technology and Skills.” Background paper for the WDR 2008. [International Science and Technology Practice and Policy (INSTEPP); CGIAR and Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, for FAO, Rome]. Von Braun J. (2008) Agriculture for Sustainable Economic Development: A Global R&D Initiative to Avoid a Deep and Complex Crisis, Charles Valentine Riley Memorial Lecture in Washington D.C., on February 28, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/speeches/20080228jvbRiley.pdf Von Braun, J., Shenggen, F., Meinzen‐Dick, R., Rosegrant, M., Nin Pratt, P. Joachim, Fan, Ruth,(2008). What to Expect from Scaling Up CGIAR Investmentsand “Best Bet” Programs. IFPRI & CGIAR, Washington DC. Science (2008). New Focus . Vol. 319 March 2008. pp 1474. United Nations (2008b). Comprehensive Framework for Action. High‐Level Task Force on the Global Food Crisis. Retrieved on December 31 2008 from http://www.un.org/issues/food/taskforce/docs.shtml World Bank (2008). World Development Report. Washington DC.
6