Food Without Farmers? - IATP · 2019-06-27 · cassava or sorghum, only to come back to their more reliable food security crops. Integrated pest management is increasing-ly incorporating

Food Without Farmers?

Agricultural research needs aprofoundly changed CGIAR

German NGO ForumEnvironment & Development

German NGO Forum Environment &Development

2

Imprint

Published by:German NGO Forum Environment & DevelopmentAm Michaelshof 8-1053177 BonnPhone: ++49- (0) 228-35 97 04Fax: ++49- (0) 228-35 90 96E-mail: [email protected]: www.forumue.de

Chief Editor:Jürgen Maier

Editor:Susanne Gura

Layout:Bettina Oehmen

Funding of the publication by Brot für die Welt as well as the Euro-pean Community is gratefully acknowledged.

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of theEuropean Community. The views expressed herein are those of theGerman NGO Forum Environment & Development/Deutscher Natur-schutzring and can therefore in no way be taken to reflect the officialopinion of the European Community.

Bonn, May 2001

3

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

IntroductionBy Susanne Gura - German NGO ForumEnvironment & Development ..................................................4

Participatory Research in the CGIARBy Thomas Becker - AGRECOL ...............................................6

Implementing the Convention onBiodiversity with Respect to DomesticAnimal DiversityBy Ilse Köhler-Rollefson - Leaguefor Pastoral Peoples ............................................................15

Trade and Food Security: An UrgentCall for Better Agricultural ResearchBy Kristin Dawkins - Institute for Agricultureand Trade Policy ................................................................23

Politicising Research: Trade and Agricultureand an Enabling Institutional andPolicy FrameworkBy Aileen Kwa - Focus on the Global South ............................38

The Process of Change in InternationalAgricultural Research for Developmentand the Role of NGOsBy Ann Waters-Bayer - NGO Committeeof the CGIAR .....................................................................45

About the AuthorsBy Susanne Gura - German NGO ForumEnvironment & Development ................................................59

4

Food without farmers? This provokingtitle was chosen not to point totechnologies how to produce food on

fully mechanized farms, or even withoutfarms or land, maybe in laboratories….That would have been a different and arather unreal topic.

Civil Society Organisations are con-cerned about a development towards anagricultural production that continues torely on farmers, but in a different way. Far-mers in the North produce food on farms,with an average size that has increasedover the past decades. Equally, the numberof people fed by a Northern farmer hasincreased and set these people free forother productive work, as economists putit. Production methods and associatedresearch have changed considerably. Far-mers are under constant pressure to investheavily and update their installations, toooften with the help of subsidies. Food hasto become cheaper. The paradigm is:Yields have to be increased, and everything– except for the weather - is under control:Soil, water, fertilizer, pests, diseases, and,as a comparably new development,genetics. Control is so tight that phenom-ena that were not expected can simply beignored or hushed up, like the BovineSpongiforme Encephalopathy. AlthoughBSE existed in England it was not sys-tematically studied for many years. Howcould farmers not have noticed? Wherewere the farmers whose task is to ensurehealthy food production, appropriatelivestock keeping, unspoiled soil and water,and rich biodiversity? Are they distractedby other objectives? Only a small per-centage of Northern farmers produce out-

Introduction

side the mainstream. They reject short-termeconomics and refuse to externalize envi-ronmental cost.

Farmers in the South work in equallyunromantic but different settings. Most ofthem live in poverty or under its constantthreat. During the past decades, manycountries, and first their farmers, impover-ished. Other countries have moved up toor passed the threshold and reduced thepercentage of urban and rural poor. Noneof them managed to conserve theiragricultural resources well enough so asnot to raise concerns of internationalscientists taking stock of the world’s stateof the environment. Farmers decided onhigh yielding varieties, and landracesdisappeared by the hundreds, althoughthey carried genes that may have helpedto fight future types of pests or diseases,or to tackle climate changes. Only ex-tremely limited mechanisms are in placeto conserve these invaluable geneticresources. Farmers used Northern soilpreparation techniques, only to learndecades later that old, more sustainabletechniques are being rediscovered byscientists. Decades ago, African farmerswere taught to grow maize instead ofcassava or sorghum, only to come back totheir more reliable food security crops.Integrated pest management is increasing-ly incorporating traditional pest controltechniques and replaceing calender-basedpesticide applications. Irrigation dams andcanals were built with high costs. That ex-perience is not completely over, however,irrigation techniques developed by farmersare already documented and re-teachinghas started.

Introduction

5

Food production based on technologiesdeveloped by scientists without farmers israrely sustainable. This is one aspect of”Food without Farmers?”, to which two ofthe articles in this publication relate:

• Thomas Becker analyses the attemptsof the world’s largest international agri-cultural research organization, theConsul-tative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR), to carryout participatory research with farmersand comes up with proposals from theNGO perspective and suggestions forimproved co-operation between theCGIAR and NGOs.

• Ilse Köhler- Rollefson picks up awidely neglected topic, namelyDomestic Animal Diversity. She dis-cusses activities of FAO and the Inter-national Livestock Research Institute(ILRI) of the CGIAR in this field andunderlines the need to recognize thevalue of local breeds and stock raisersrights, and to adequately support both.

Globalization and trade liberalizationmay improve food security through in-creased access to food at a global level,yet all people may not benefit equally.Access to resources, be it land, water, orseed that is endowed with suitable geneticresources, is a commonly accepted prere-quisite for agricultural production. Foodsecurity seems impossible without farmers’secure access to resources. This is anotheraspect of ”Food without Farmers?”.

How can agricultural research contrib-ute to equitably distribute increases in glo-bal food production and to ensure thatfarmers have access to resources? KristinDawkins suggests new important fields ofresearch to the International Food PolicyInstitute (IFPRI) of the CGIAR. Aileen Kwaencourages research institutions, especially

the CGIAR, to study the impact of libera-lization more thoroughly, and to look intothe effects of increasing OECD subsidies.

To implement these and other demandson the CGIAR, the CGIAR would have tochange more profoundly than what wasproposed by the Change Design and Ma-nagement Team. Not only structures butalso orientation and the attitude towardsfarmers, Civil Society Organisations, thePrivate Sector, and scientists from Natio-nal Agricultural Research Systems need amajor CHANGE. A Global Forum on Agri-cultural Research (GFAR) was created toconsult and include these ”Stakeholders”,but the CGIAR Change propositions ac-corded the GFAR a minor role. The CGIARis in danger of isolating itself from itsstakeholders. Ann Waters-Bayer, Chair ofthe CGIAR-NGO Committee summarizesthe Change discussion, which, for the firsttime in the CGIAR’s history, was openlyaccessible. In a next step, decision-makingon the Change and beyond the Change,vitally needs to be opened up.

Most of the contributions in this publi-cation were produced for the Internatio-nal Workshop of Non-Government andSmall Farmer Organisations on Researchfor Poverty Alleviation, Dresden, Germany,19-20 May 2000, while the article onDomestic Animal Biodiversity was preparedfor the International Workshop on ”Ex-periences in Farmers Biodiversity Manage-ment“, held at the Biosphere ReserveSchorfheide-Chorin, Germany 16-18 May2000. Both workshops were part of theNGO/SFO activities accompanying theGlobal Forum on Agricultural Research,Dresden, 21-23 May 2000. Ann Waters-Bayer added an up-to-date contributionon the CGIAR Change discussion.

Bonn, May 2001

Introduction

6

Participatory Researchin the CGIARBy Thomas Becker, AGRECOL1

1. Historical overview overparticipatory research acti-vities in the CG

Participatory research is not new to theCGIAR. Its history dates back to the 80swhen first attempts were made to comeinto closer contact with farmers. The limi-tations of a pure commodity orientationwere seen quite early by some and led tothe development of farming systemsresearch approaches. Although thisbrought researchers into closer contact withfarmers, the question, whether farmers hadan active enough participation soon cameup and led to experimentation with morefarmer participation and to the develop-ment of first approaches to do researchwith farmers. Examples were the work ofMike Collinson at CIMMYT, David Norm-an at IITA, Christine Okali, Ellen Taylor-Powell and others at ILCA, Clive Lightfootat IRRI and ICLARM, Michel Pimbert atICRISAT, Sam Fujisaka at IRRI, as well asCIAT’s participatory plant breeding pro-gram which was started in the 80s. Mostwidely known was probably the Farmer-

back-to-Farmer model that was developedat CIP. Some of these approaches were wellknown in several arenas, although, in theCGIAR, they were restricted to a fewpockets. The mainstream of biologicalscientists within CGIAR remained highlyskeptical and untouched.

During the next phase, centers took dif-ferent directions regarding these initialattempts. In very few centers like CIAT, workprogressed and advances were made,which finally led to some kind of institu-tionalization, for example with an in-creased number of scientists who areknowledgeable in participatory researchand the establishment of the core-fundedsystem-wide program for participatoryresearch and gender analysis. However,most of the early attempts did not arrive ata meaningful institutionalization. The lackof clear coordination mechanisms and themarginalization of social scientists led tothe fragmentation into a number of largelyindependent localized initiatives, especiallyat those commodity centers, where farmingsystems research had been strong andcame to its limits during the nineties. Animportant factor for the difficulties ofparticipatory approaches to research anddevelopment was World Bank’s agricul-tural policy at that time. The infamoustraining and visit system for extension (T&V)which is firmly based on the technologytransfer approach had been developedand was spread all over the world untilrecently, creating a very difficult environ-ment for more integrated approaches toinnovation development with user involve-

1 The author would like to thank the following personswho provided valuable information and comments on thedrafts: Jacqueline Ashby, Wolfgang Bayer, Ann Braun, Kir-sten vom Brocke, Anja Christinck, Mohan Dhamotharan,María Fernándes, Susanne Gura, Jürgen Hagmann, FrankHartwich, Volker Hoffmann, Gerdien Meijerink, KirstenProbst, Louise Sperling, Gabriele Stoll, Graham Thiele andAnn Waters-Bayer. Nevertheless, the views expressed hereare my own and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthose mentioned here.

Participatory Research in the CGIAR

7

ment. In the CGIAR, the drive to go backto strategic research during the beginningof the 90s seemed to mean the end formany of these dispersed participatory acti-vities within the system.

In recent years there is a revived interestfor participatory research approaches, nowfor quite different reasons. Internationalagricultural research is in a crisis, withserious doubts about the scale and thenature of its impact emerging. Criticismwas mostly related to lacking impact ineliminating rural poverty, which, amongother reasons, led to a stagnation offunding. Donors started to demand morevisible impact and more farmer integrationinto research in order to produce morerelevant results. Contributing factors to thechanged donor behavior were experienceswith public administration reforms towardmore accountability and client orientationin a number of donor countries. Centersreacted differently to these demands, butin general this has led to a renewed interestin participatory research approaches withinthe CG.

Today, activities are situated at differentlevels, ranging from the system-wide in-itiative on participatory research andgender analysis, to small and largelyunknown projects at different centers.However, every center feels compelled notto ignore the donor demand for morefarmer participation and the publication ofparticipatory activities is well over-repre-sented in centers’ public-relation brochuresas compared to its relative importance inactual CG-research. The pressure tochange from outside as the main drivingforce certainly bears the danger of externaloverselling.

Until recently, most participatory re-search activities in the CG were at the levelof applied and adaptive research or eventechnology transfer. Examples are:

Ø On-farm varietal selection, identifica-tion of farmers’ preferences

Ø Involvement of farmers in testing of IPMtechnologies

Ø Tree nursery management and dissemi-nation

Ø Seed multiplication with farmersØ Validation of tillage and soil conserva-

tion practices

Quite a number of these down-streamapplications of participatory research canof course be understood as strategic in thesense that they developed and validatedmethodologies that found wider appli-cation within and outside the CG-system.However, they were and are often notperceived as that. An interesting exampleis CIP’s involvement in the developmentof integrated crop management (ICM) forsweet potato, as a direct result of farmer-researcher interactions about rice-IPM inareas where farmers rotate rice with sweetpotato.

There are, however, a number ofexamples for participatory research activi-ties that were framed with explicit strategicgoals like methodology development, e.g.:

Ø The system wide initiative on partici-patory research and gender analysis,

Ø ICRISAT’s millet breeding program,Ø CIAT’s development of the CIAL

approach2 and its bean and cassavabreeding program,

Ø IIMI’s participatory approaches toirrigation management and others.

2CIAL is the abbreviation for „comité de investigaciónagrícola local” (local agricultural research committees),community-owned and -managed research services staffedby volunteer farmer-researchers with links to formalresearch and extension services.


8

2. The state of the art of dis-cussions about former par-ticipation in the centers

Opinions regarding the value ofparticipatory research and farmer partici-pation for the CG cover a considerablespectrum. The one end is held by scientistswho do not consider participatory ap-proaches to research to be proper scienceat all. To them farmer participation meansthe end of good research. Some see par-ticipatory research as a better way oftechnology transfer, which is not the taskof CG. There is probably quite some con-sensus nowadays about the usefulness ofparticipatory research for adaptive andapplied research. Some argue, however,that this should also not be done by CG,but rather by NARS, extension and NGOs.A last view has taken root during recentyears: farmer participation should not onlybe used for adaptive and applied research,but should be seen as strategic at all levelsand stages of research processes.

A major problem for a wider integrationof farmer participation in programs is thatscientists with real experience withparticipatory research are still the minorityby far. Accordingly, opportunities for theintegration of farmers into research pro-grams are often not seen. This concernsscientists and management alike.

Senior management has rather diverselevels of understanding, but at the level ofthe technical advisory committee (TAC),director general and board of trusteechairs, it tends to view participatoryresearch as a donor fad and a misalloca-tion of money. There are, however, excep-tions who see participation as critical, es-pecially for research in marginal areas.

This situation seems to be changingslowly. The new vision and strategy paperproposal, which was prepared for GFAR,emphasizes a sharper focus of work onpoverty reduction and on targeting those

areas and groups with a high incidence ofpoverty. It also emphasizes the need tomake use of participatory approaches ondifferent levels, like priority setting, re-search planning and for NRM research.

Another indicator for the changingattitude is the system wide review of plantbreeding that included participatory plantbreeding systematically as a component.

Probably the most important improve-ment is that today the issue of farmerparticipation in research can be discussedmore seriously with most scientists.

3. Difficulties in the CGIARwith participatory research

The problems of the CG with partici-patory research are located at differentlevels. One of the underlying reasons isthe CGIAR’s narrow conception of agricul-tural research as natural sciences, partlydue to the widely held view that goodscience is natural science. For agriculturalresearch in the CG, social sciences are atbest assigned a supportive function.Especially basic research and partly alsostrategic research is conceived only asbiological research. Sociological reflectionson the foundations of science, and morespecific on the foundations of agriculturalscience have never been on the CGIAR’sagenda and the CG has always avoidedepistemological questions about thetheoretical assumptions underlying itsunderstanding of knowledge and howscientists can come to grips with otherforms of knowledge3 . The CG has there-fore until now hardly been able to concep-tualize innovation development in ruralareas with a more holistic perspectivewhere different sciences are integrated onthe different levels. This problem is as old

3 Epistemology is the theory of cognition and knowledge.


9

as the CG itself, surfacing now again withthe renewed interest in participatory ap-proaches to research. If farmer participa-tion is not to be understood and used onlyas field methods, its theoretical under-pinnings from social sciences will have tobe elaborated and a clear theoretical andconceptual framework will have to beelaborated.

Another core issue is the low degree ofinstitutionalization of participatory researchin the system. This has implications for thestrategic orientation regarding participa-tory approaches, for the number of scien-tists and managers with experience in par-ticipatory research, for the level of under-standing of its potentials, for the attitudetoward participatory research, for frameconditions like the reward system, and forthe possibilities to exchange experiencesand networking.

The low level of commitment of seniormanagement to actively support partici-patory approaches is one of the reasonsfor its weak institutionalization in thesystem. However, the problems raised inthe following seem to be in a dialecticrelationship with institutionalization: theyare reasons for the low level of institutiona-lization and are in turn results of it.

Orientation

Ø Agricultural research is natural scienceand follows a natural sciences logic,with a few ingredients from social sci-ence. Epistemological questions are notdealt with.

Ø The CGIAR has been focusing on dataproduction and product results, not onprocess results.

Ø Accordingly, the reward system in theCG is still very much based on the pro-duction of data instead of impact andprocess results. Researchers have verylittle incentive to do participatory re-search with the risk of becoming mar-ginalized.

Understanding

Ø Participatory research is often seen asa threat to classic research paradigmsand not so much as complementary.

Ø There is some diversity regarding theunderstanding of demand driven,client-oriented or participatory researchapproaches in senior management. Itsstrategic dimension is not well under-stood by all.

Ø The potential of participatory ap-proaches, if at all, is seen only in adap-tive and applied research, which is notseen as the task of the CGIAR.

Ø Commodity orientation of centers,which is still prevailing, hinders a moreholistic and systemic cooperation withfarmers, which is especially difficultwhen farmer participation should moveup-stream.

Staffing

Ø There are not enough senior research-ers with experience in participatory re-search at centers. Most researchersworking with participatory approachesare young, on soft money and don’thave enough incentives or possibilitiesto stay. Problems with continuity andquality are the consequence.

Ø The number of experienced practition-ers of participatory approaches in gen-eral is low.

Ø Practitioners of participatory researchhave often been out posted, therebyhindering exchange and better integra-tion.

Ø Social scientists are still a very margi-nal group in CG-centers. In this smallgroup, most social scientists are econo-mists, leaving a large blank on otherpressing social sciences issues.

Ø A major drawback for a wider imple-mentation of participatory researchapproaches is that traditional econo-mists are often either highly skepticalof PR or if not skeptical then withoutexperience in participatory research.


10

Capacity building and exchange

Ø Experts in participatory approaches andmethods who are hired for that function(advise and help in research planningon how to integrate farmers in projectsand programs) are lacking at mostcenters.

Ø There are too few opportunities to learn,either in workshops, training courses, orin practical application.

Ø There have been too few possibilities toexchange and network for practitioners,mainly because there were too fewpractitioners. Today this situation ischanging with the medium of e-mailand since the system wide program hasstarted to tackle such problems.

Ø Similarly, there has been very little institu-tionalized collaboration and networkingbetween the different centers. This hasalso slowly been changing since system-wide programs are working.

4. Strategies regarding part-icipatory research

4.1 Overall strategy in the CG re-garding participatory research

When looking at the history of partici-patory research in the CG, it seems thatmanagement’s strategy for a long time wasto marginalize participatory efforts withinthe system. It is only recently that donorpressure for more impact in povertyreduction and for more farmer participa-tion is mounting, that participatory researchactivities are being used for advertisementand public relations. Today it seems that astage is reached where more room forparticipatory research is given. However,a clear strategy of management regardingparticipatory research is not visible, not tomention effects on the CGIAR’s structureand organization as well as its proceduresfor research planning. The untenability ofthe situation is also clear to TAC: the draft

paper on a new strategy to be discussedat the MTM in Dresden focuses work moreexplicitly on poverty reduction and on areaswith high incidence of poverty and speaksof the usefulness of participatory researchapproaches. How much of it is only for thepaper and how much will actually bepushed through remains to be seen. Thepaper went through a first metamorphosisafter the discussions at the special CGIARConsultative Council meeting, where nowsome of the suggestions about moreparticipation, focus on less favorableenvironments and NRM are in danger ofgetting lost in a sea of words. The paperindicates that these changes would alsoimply organizational changes, but does notmake any suggestions as to what and how.They will probably point in the direction ofdeparting slowly from commodity man-dates towards eco-regional mandates forcenters, which would mean a majorreorganization at centers’ level.

The vision paper also stresses the needto invest in what is called ”modern scien-ce”. This is elaborated on the one handas: ”functional genomics; new, powerfuland increasingly affordable computing,information and communication technolo-gies; remote sensing and spatial mod-eling” and on the other hand as ”betterunderstanding of human dynamics, socialcapital, and social organisation leading toparticipatory approaches to research anddevelopment and community manage-ment of common resources, i.e. forests,water, rangelands; and concepts ofintegrated natural resources management(INRM) permitting a more consistent Sy-stem wide approach to soil and watermanagement research and to work onmanagement of coastal environments”.

Whether this means heavy investmentinto ”high-tech”, including bio-tech andsome marginal down-stream applicationsof participatory research, or, an integrationof participatory research approaches withtraditional and new ”high-tech” approach-es, remains to be seen. In general, the


11

vision paper offers a useful specificationof the vision and goal, but is very vagueabout strategies, probably for strategicreasons.

4.2 Applied and proposed strat-egies of participatory initiatives inthe CG

Practitioners of participatory research inthe CG have much clearer ideas of whatneeds to happen within the system. Theysee an urgent need to better institutionalizeparticipatory approaches within the system,which would require core commitment andmore continuity. Participatory researchshould not be left to young scientists withshort assignments, but should be firmlysupported by management. More seniorresearchers are needed, who are knowl-edgeable or become knowledgeable onfarmer participation in order to spearheadthe insertion of PR approaches into themain CG research programs.

A second issue of institutionalization isthe need for more inter-center, system-widenetworking and exchange. Such aninvestment would enable the CG to betterdraw on its own experiences and to facili-tate organizational learning. Related tothat, it is hoped that lobbying, networkingand publishing about participatory re-search can bring isolated and scatteredeffort in the CG to higher visibility.

Another lever for change is seen indonor pressure for more farmer participa-tion. It is important, however, that donorcommitment to the issue has a long-termperspective with multi-year funding, ifchanges are to be substantial.

Quite some effort is put into attemptsto produce hard data that should provethe impact of participatory researchapproaches and their superiority for certainareas, like for example:

Ø Faster adoption of innovationsØ Development of fewer white elephant

technologiesØ A better reach to the poorØ More sustained farmer innovationØ Other research efficiencies like lower

cost for adaptive research

An important issue is the question ofdown-stream or up-stream participation.It is seen as crucial to reverse the trend ofapplying and seeing participatory researchmainly within applied and adaptiveapplications. It is argued that the CGIAR’scomparative advantage lies in theapplication of participatory research tostrategic and pre-adaptive research, suchas:

Ø Research methodology development,e.g. participatory research methodo-logies for use by NARS, NGOs, GROs,POs4 and others and approaches toparticipatory research in common prop-erty management of natural resources

Ø Pre-breedingØ Plant breeding with segregating lines

and early breeding populations biotech-nology

Ø IPM component designsØ Geographic information systems (GIS)Ø System modeling of resource flowsØ Decision support tools for soil manage-

ment and land use planningØ Domestication of wild germplasm,

including trees

4 National Agricultural Research System, Non-GovernmentOrganizations, Grass Roots Organizations, ProducerOrganizations

5. Proposals from the pointof view of NGOs

A number of proposals have been dealtwith implicitly or explicitly in parts 3 and4.2 of the paper. In this section, I wouldlike to highlight only the most importantones and the ones where we hold differingpoints of view.


12

A crucial issue is the re-conceptu-alization of agricultural research. The sys-tem should depart from its understandingof agricultural research as natural sciencescarried out in a natural sciences mode anddevelop an epistemological basis for itsresearch that integrates natural sciencesand social sciences perspectives. Such atheoretical foundation is viewed as instru-mental to tackling poverty problems inmarginalized areas by providing a basisto seriously integrate the different disci-plines that are linked to rural developmentand to develop stable structures for an in-depth dialogue with farmers.

The debate about up-stream or down-stream research is quite interesting. Weagree that farmer participation should notbe viewed as a down-stream activity forapplied and adaptive research only andthat it is of vital importance to insert farmerparticipation into strategic research andpriority setting. However, our experienceis that farmer participation and farmers’priorities cannot adequately be dealt withthrough surveys, short visits or short partic-ipatory exercises. A real dialogue thatenables better mutual understandingrequires time, effort, appropriate commu-nication methods, a change of attitudesand behavior from lecturing and infor-mation extraction toward joint learning andresearching, as well as some visibleimprovements for the farmers involved,which can only be assured in longer-terminteractions that have an impact at farmers’level. It is here, that research and devel-opment are inseparably linked. Thereforewe believe that it is crucial to develop ap-proaches to tightly integrate down-streamand up-stream applications of farmer par-ticipation for research.

We appreciate the sharper focus onpoverty reduction and on marginal areaswith high incidences of poverty as is pro-posed in the TAC vision paper to be dis-cussed at the mid-term-meeting. We alsoappreciate the shift from commodity orien-tation toward an eco-regional approach,

which is imperative if farmers’ reality is tobe the basis for research. However, wewould like to stress the importance of socialand cultural factors for adapted innovationdevelopment and propose to frame thenew approach as eco-socio-regional. Thiscould provide a viable basis for thedevelopment of adapted concepts andmethods.

The structural, organizational andprocedural innovations required to imple-ment such a shift are not to be underesti-mated and some of them are quite ob-vious. I would like to point to an issue thatis often undervalued and neglected. Howcould more flexibility be inserted intocurrent procedures for priority setting, re-search planning and implementation inorder be able to react on problems identi-fied during interactions with farmers andother stakeholders? This is also a criticalquestion for donors and their funding,monitoring and evaluation rules andregulations.

We have some doubts about theusefulness of trying to prove the superiorityof participatory approaches for certainareas with hard data. We believe that thisis largely a waste of time and effort thatwill lead nowhere. Institutionalization couldbe served better by

Ø Documenting examples of participatoryresearch in such a way that others canlearn from it,

Ø Designing participatory research pro-jects with a focus on developing adapt-able methodologies and providinglearning opportunities for those in-volved, as well as for outsiders in allphases of the project.

We see a need for the creation of a newsupport function that would assist otherresearchers in planning and implementa-tion of research projects in terms of howfarmers can constructively be integratedduring the different phases. This personwould not necessarily have to be a social


13

scientist; he or she would have to be knowl-edgeable about participatory researchapproaches and about agricultural re-search in order to be able to provide suchan advisory function. This function couldalso include training and on-the-job back-stopping.

Apart from such a backstopping func-tion, we see a need to considerably shiftthe balance between social scientists andnatural scientists in centers, if farmer par-ticipatory research is to be up-scaled seri-ously. There has been progress in thatrespect in some centers, but certainly notenough on a general level.

We support the higher importance givento exchange and networking. We believethat much more effort needs to be madein this area in order to better exploit theknowledge within and outside the systemand to promote organizational learning.This is a challenge that senior managementshould tackle with more emphasis.

Exchange, networking and an advisoryfunction are means of capacity building,however, we believe, that in general moreemphasis should be put on capacity build-ing in critical areas.

A difficult issue is the reward system ofthe CG as well as criteria for staff selection.There is little incentive for researchers todo participatory research. This is certainlynot only a problem of the CG, but ofscientific institutions in general. However,it seems that the CG is not at the forefrontconcerning a redefinition of what is consid-ered to be successful research and asuccessful researcher.

A related issue that also createsdifficulties for better co-operation is the veryhierarchical structure of CG-centers. Itappears to be quite anachronistic andneeds a serious revision, especially ifpartnerships and farmer participationshould play a greater role in the future.This concerns both the number of hier-

archical steps in the organization, as wellas their sometimes quite visible translationinto working relations and social relations.Partner organizations with modernstructures may find it difficult to co-operatewith many CG-centers in their currentstructure.

6. Suggestions for improvedco-operation between theCG and NGOs

Although this paper has not looked intothe question of CG-NGO cooperation, wewould like to outline some areas and issuesfor improved cooperation in the future. Inthe following we do not pretend to speakfor the totality of NGOs, rather for thoseNGOs that deal with rural developmentwith a participatory approach.

Most NGOs do not have their emphasisof work in agricultural research, while thereare a few NGOs with considerable experi-ence in this field. The strengths of mostNGOs are in community development,people’s empowerment, advocacy, tech-nology testing and adaptation. They usu-ally have considerable experience withapproaches that involve local people andmaintain good links to communities.

For cooperation in participatory re-search approaches these strengths can beseen as useful complementarities with for-mal research institutions, which could beexploited much better in the future. WhenCG-centers embark on participatoryresearch projects they inevitably have todeal with these questions, but often face anumber of difficulties. The question ofmandate soon arises, the investmentneeded in terms of time and money is oftenproblematic, dialogical communicationmethods adapted for a certain area areoften not yet developed, access to localpeople is often resource consuming, andadvocacy on questions that cannot be


14

solved by research alone and that needpolitical action is difficult to do for inter-national research centers. Some of theseissues could be tackled much better in anNGO-CGIAR cooperation. NGOs couldprofit from an improved understanding ofresearch, as well as from the developmentof methods, techniques and organizationalinnovations within such a cooperation.Another benefit for NGOs could be a betterinternational standing through thecooperation with well-known researchinstitutions.

A possible benefit for both partners insuch cooperation may consist of improvedopportunities to receive funding for jointprojects from donors who are often devel-opment oriented and hesitant to fund plainresearch.

Certainly, quite some effort on bothsides is required in order to forge morejoint projects. A lot of reservations have tobe overcome, which will require interest,openness and tolerance to the other’sphilosophy, approach and modes ofworking. A good starting point is to under-stand the relationship as a partnershipbetween equals.

A workshop on research partnershipswhich was held at the end of 1998 underthe umbrella of the CGIAR-NGO commit-tee, Misereor, GTZ-BEAF and IIRR identified

a number of factors that play an importantrole for successful NGO-ARI partnerships:

Ø Clearly stated expectations includingstrengths and limitations of the partner-ship;

Ø Definition of indicators to evaluate thepartnership;

Ø Dissemination of research results inuser-friendly format;

Ø Transparency in use and allocation offunds;

Ø Open communication;Ø Clarification of institutional structures

and responsibilities;Ø Consideration and planning for cross-

cutting issues;Ø Phasing of the activities with clearly

defined goals and targets for eachphase; and

Ø Attitude reversals to do away with biasesand stereotyping.

Another important insight that emergedfrom the analysis of 12 selected cases ofresearch partnerships was the need forpersonal commitment from all the peopleinvolved. The importance of humaninterrelationship was identified as a key tosuccessful partnerships as well as the timerequired building them. If we do not wantto leave this to coincidence, we shoulddevelop platforms that facilitate thecreation of such relationships.


15

Implementing the Conventionon Biodiversity with Respect

to Domestic Animal DiversityBy Ilse Köhler-Rollefson, League for Pastoral Peoples

The FAO (FAO, 1999; FAO/UNEP,1995) is alerting the global community tothe alarming figures in respect to domesticanimal diversity. It estimates that about onethird of the world’s recognized 5000 live-stock and poultry breeds are endangeredand that breeds become extinct at the rateof one per week. Nevertheless, the subjecthas received much less attention than plantgenetic diversity and hardly any awarenessappears to exist about the problem ofanimal genetic resource erosion amongeither donor agencies or among NGOsand groups at the grassroots level.Contrary to the situation with plant geneticresources, approaches for participatoryconservation are lacking, although themajority of the threatened Animal GeneticResources (AnGR) are vested with tradi-tional pastoralist and farmer communities.Domestic animal diversity is an outcomeof these very diverse ethnic and socialgroups managing domesticated animalpopulations in a wide variety of habitatsand manipulating their genetic compo-sition according to their own needs, culturalpreferences, indigenous knowledge andecological conditions.

Background The reasons why indigenous breedsbecome extinct are manifold. Factorsinclude replacement or cross-breeding withexotic breeds, alienation of commonproperty resources (due to break-down oftraditional management institutions, cropcultivation, irrigation projects, wildlifeprotection, tourism, etc.), political conflicts(land disputes and wars), natural disasters(droughts, floods, cyclones), technologicaladvances (replacement of work animals bymachines), integration into the globaleconomy, unfavourable marketing andpolicy environments for local livestockproducts, and others.

Article 8 of the UN Convention on Bio-logical Diversity states that genetic re-sources should be conserved in the”surroundings where they have developedtheir distinct properties” - which withrespect to livestock is a reference to thefarming and pastoral communities thathave nurtured local breeds. Furthermore,the CBD spells out that ”the knowledge,innovations and practices of indigenousand local communities embodying tradi-tional lifestyles relevant for the conservationand sustainable use of biological diversityare respected, preserved and maintained”.Clearly, the spirit of the CBD calls for aparticipatory approach to animal geneticresource conservation.

Implementing the Convention on Biodiversity

16

Let us now look at the activities and ap-proaches of the two international institu-tions that have shouldered responsibilityfor finding solutions to the problem ofanimal genetic resource erosion, in thelight of the provisions made in the CBD.

FAOThe Food and Agriculture Organization

has been given a world mandate to study,advise, and set guidelines on conservinglivestock genetic resources for present andfuture food security. A core activity of FAO’sInitiative for Domestic Animal Diversity(DAD) is the establishment of a databaseto inventory and monitor AnGR resourcesworldwide — the DAD Information Systemor DAD-IS (http://www.fao.org/dad-is).Designated national coordinators in FAOmember countries provide the informationthat is entered into DAD-IS. They charac-terize breeds according to their productioncharacteristics and population size. Theformer include milk yield, lactation length,milk fat, litter size, birth weight, adultweight, and adult wither height. Populati-on data recorded in DAD-IS include totalpopulation size, total number of femalesbred, total number of males used forbreeding, etc. Up to date more than 5000livestock and poultry breeds have beenregistered in DAD-IS. Currently, documen-tation is further being refined with indivi-dual countries compiling national statusreports.

Going beyond documentation, the FAOInitiative is also involved in capacity build-ing for achieving conservation of thosebreeds classified in the database asendangered and critical. Another task isto promote sharing of precious geneticresources as well as free access to this glo-bal ”public good”. To achieve this, theInitiative has set up an intergovernmentalmechanism, a technical programme of

Formal Research on AnimalGenetic Resources and theCBD

management support for countries, a cadreof experts, and a country-based globalinfrastructure of national coordinators.Accepting that it will neither be possiblenor even desirable to save the largenumber of recognized breeds, the FAO hasinvested heavily into a project of establish-ing genetic distances between the breedsof various species. The aim is to identifythose breeds that are taxonomically mostdistinct and should therefore be prioritisedfor conservation (Barker, 1999).

The FAO has commissioned anexpertise on the implications of the CBDfor the management of animal geneticresources and the conservation of domesticanimal diversity (Strauss, 1994). It makesthe point that ”the indigenous knowledgethat has helped to produce and maintaindomestic animal diversity is largely unex-plored and yet this knowledge is essentialin order to understand and continue de-veloping these animal genetic resources.”(FAO n.d.).

ILRIActivities at the International Livestock

Research Institute in Addis Ababa alsofocus on genetics at the molecular levelsuch as establishment of a phylogenetictree for cattle breeds of Africa and Asiaand mapping of genetic traits. Again, theseefforts are undertaken with an eye onidentifying those genetic resources that aremost worthy of being saved. ILRI makesno reference to the CBD (mention of whichis also notably absent in the New Visionand Strategy of the CGIAR 2000). In itsbreed survey questionnaire it however asksfor certain information on ”adaptive andunique attributes” to be supplied from theIndigenous Knowledge of Farmers.

ILRI has made the following publicgoods available according to informationpresented at its website (http://www.cgiar.org/ilri/products):

� A database on the distribution andphysical performance characteristics of


17

African cattle, sheep and goats

� A phylogenetic tree for cattle breeds ofAfrica and Asia

� Methods for determining ruminantbreeds at risk of extinction

� A reference herd of N’Dama-Borancrossbred cattle serving as an interna-tional Resource for a global project todevelop a primary genetic map of cattle

� The first mapping of quantitative traitloci controlling resistance to haemo-parasitic disease of major economicimportance (animal trypanosomiasis)

� A set of genetic markers disclosing su-perior disease (trypanosomiasis)-resist-ant animals for use in livestock breedingprogrammes.

Omission of indigenousknowledge

The data collection strategies and data-bases of both institutions are geared to-wards the needs of scientists and repre-sentatives of government institutions.Rooted in formal scientific concepts andvalues, they are not designed to integrateand make use of indigenous knowledge.This results in an incomplete picture of theactual situation on the ground that couldinterfere with conservation efforts.

� Stock raisers and scientists use differentterminologies and categories whenreferring to local livestock breeds. Far-mers’ breed classification systems maybe more refined than the latter,indicating the existence of breeds thathave escaped scientific attention. Forinstance, scientists opine that India’sdonkey population has not diversifiedinto breeds, but local donkey expertsdistinguish at least three, phenotypicallyquite distinct types of donkey that hail

from three different areas — makingthem, in all probability, three breeds orat least strains. Similarly, pastoralistshad long known a camel breed fromIndia with high milk-production poten-tial before it was reported scientificallyfor the first time (Köhler-Rollefson andRathore 1995).

� Stock raisers evaluate breeds differentlythan scientists. Whereas the latter arechiefly interested in documenting theoutput per single production cycle(under optimal husbandry conditions),feed and system efficiency is of greaterrelevance to farmers who raise animalsunder severe environmental constraintsand have to cope with seasonal short-comings in fodder supply. In addition,many breeds are appreciated forcharacteristics that have little to do withproductivity, such as ritual significance,social role and aesthetic aspects.

� Population data that are based on scien-tific breed concepts and do not drawon local breed definitions and termino-logies can be misleading. This is illus-trated by the case of the Tharparkarcattle in India where no agreementobtains among scientists about whichanimals are to be subsumed under thiscategory. Some scientists count theentire cattle population (several tens ofthousands of head) in the two districtsof India where it occurs (or once oc-curred), while others consider only thecouple of hundred animals kept on statebreeding farms as “true Tharparkar”.Local people on the other hand do notknow what ‘Tharparkar’ means andinstead refer to it as ‘Sindhan’ (Köhler-Rollefson 2000).

As the FAO acknowledges, the sustain-able management of AnGR is only feasiblewith the active participation of farmers andpastoralists. ”The most rational and sus-tainable way to conserve animal geneticresources is to ensure that locally adaptedbreeds remain a functional part of pro-


18

duction systems” (FAO, 1999). Adoptionof local categories and understanding oflocal institutions for managing AnGR re-sources would be a prerequisite for the de-velopment of such participatory ap-proaches.

Furthermore, omission of indigenousknowledge and perspectives results in anevaluation of animal breeds on the basisof their outputs of cash products only. It isexactly the conception of animals ascommodity producing machines whileignoring other vital traits that has been aprime mover in genetic resource erosion.On the other hand, domestic animaldiversity in the South has evolved preciselybecause its people and cultures relate toanimals in a different manner and accordthem variable social status and ceremonialroles.

Hence reducing animals to gene se-quences is neither legitimate nor will it servethe purpose of conserving domestic animaldiversity. We must bear in mind that it wasfarmers and pastoralists who have createddomestic animal diversity by subjectinganimal populations to diverse cultural andecological regimes. Scientifically designedmanipulations of gene pools such asartificial insemination, embryo-transplan-tation, and now cloning on the other handhave invariably resulted in genetic homo-genisation. (That this can have positiveeffects is not disputed here, but representsan entirely different matter).

Setting priorities for breed conservationvia molecular genetic techniques is ascientific shortcut that ignores the humandimensions of domestic animal resources.It would seem much more urgent andappropriate to establish a dialogue withthe ethnic groups and communities that areassociated or have co-evolved with therespective breeds1. Understanding of their

1 Not all breeds are associated with particular commu-nities; many of them are composite breeds - the results ofscientific efforts to create new breeds, but local farmersnever adopted that. It is questionable to what extent theyneed to be conserved.

needs, priorities and attitudes should formthe basis for developing conservationstrategies. Science alone cannot beexpected to conserve DAD, nor will in-situconservation on government farms andstandardized husbandry conditions suffice.Instead, we need to foster as large adiversity of approaches to conservation aspossible by getting rural developmentNGOs, pastoralist associations and othersinto the picture!

Value of Local Breeds

One important factor driving the pro-cess of animal genetic resource erosion islack of confidence in the value of localbreeds. For decades, southern livestockbreeds were a priori regarded as lessproductive than their northern counter-parts. Furthermore, it was believed thatgenetic improvement by selection within thebreed was too time-consuming to beworthwhile; hence all energies were spenton attempting a quick fix by crossbreeding.There is now increasing evidence that localbreeds may not only be superior, but alsothat their productivity can be furtherimproved within reasonable timeframes.One example concerns the various zebucattle breeds (including Ongole, Gir,Kankrej) that were exported from India toBrazil, Australia and other countries earlierthis century. In their new homes they havebeen improved on genetically and cometo represent prime beef or dual purposeproducers, whereas the Indian populationshave decreased in number, become diluteddue to cross-breeding and in some casesare regarded as threatened. Some privateinitiatives in India, such as that by the Gircattle-breeding farm of the Shri Bhuva-neshwari Pith in Gujarat, show that con-siderable improvements in milk productioncan also be achieved. Examples whereefforts to replace local breeds with im-ported ones were reversed include


19

• The Indo-Swiss goat project in Rajasthaninitially tried to popularise crossbreedingof local goats with Swiss breeds but thencame to the conclusion that the nativeSirohi goat was superior in many ways(Kropf et al., 1992).

• Ιn Mexico, the Criollo pig was almostreplaced by imported white pigs despiteits usefulness for smallholders, its abilityto make use of local feed and its bettertaste (Anderson et al., 1999).

• From South Africa there is the case ofthe Nguni cattle, which is diseaseresistant and can thrive on poor pas-tures. The government upgraded thisbreed by crossbreeding with Europeanbreeds but the improved animals alsorequired much higher inputs, whichbecame unaffordable to small farmers.Now there are efforts to re-supply farm-ers with Nguni cattle whose populationhas decreased (Blench, 1999).

Stock Raisers Rights

So far there have been no efforts to givecredit to stock raisers for their role innurturing domestic animal diversity, in tunewith the concept of ”Farmers Rights”. Thismay in part be due to the fact that thesignificance of indigenous knowledge andinstitutions in breed formation processeshas not yet filtered into general awareness.Animal scientists subscribe to the opinionthat local livestock breeds have evolvedonly in response to ecological conditionswithout any intellectual inputs by pasto-ralists or farmers. Documentation of indig-enous institutions and practices of animalgenetic resource management is hence ofcrucial importance.

Unfortunately this has not yethappened, although the NGO initiative inIndia to establish People’s Biodiversity Re-gisters provides some valuable pointers.

Its intention is to protect people’s rights totheir intellectual property and natural re-sources by building an open and trans-parent system on biodiversity resourcesfrom village level upwards (Utkarsh, 2000).It is urgent to extend a similar approach topastoralists and farmers knowledge ondomestic animal resources as well, since itis quite likely that the indigenous breedsfrom the South that currently receive littleappreciation may at some stage in the notso distant future be in great demand inthe North as well.

Northern high performance livestock isdangerously inbred and has lost many ofits fitness traits. For instance, modernchicken strains are no longer able to hatchtheir young, because brooding behaviouris no longer present. Turkeys and certainpig breeds often can not mate naturallybecause of heavily developed chest andthigh muscles respectively and depend onartificial insemination for their reproduc-tion. German cows only survive for anaverage of 2.7 lactation cycles. Farmerswho want to raise poultry under naturalconditions outside factory farming systemsface problems of finding chicken that cansurvive outside cages.

To ensure at least a modicum of fitnessand vitality in future populations of food-producing animals, and to keep geneticoptions open, access to fresh geneticmaterial will therefore always be required.Since most of the wild relatives of today’sdomesticated animals are extinct, a majorsource of such material lies with the live-stock raised by herders and farmers underextensive, subsistence-oriented productionsystems in the South. This is already beingutilized for such purposes by northernlivestock industries. In 1990 Australiaimported embryos of 269 Tuli and 264Boran cattle from Zimbabwe and Zambiato improve its Friesian stock in regards tofertility, docility and environmental stressresistance. These imports were hailed assaviours of the northern Australian cattleindustry (RAFI/UNDP, n.d.). The threatened


20

N’dama cattle were used to create a newhardy, disease resistant breed calledSenapol that is now raised in the southernUS.

The danger of big corporations’ free-for-all bio-prospecting among indigenousgenetic resources is definitely real. As arecent paper on swine genetics recounts,”Some genotypes formerly not among theones of economic interest for the industrybecame targets of the breeding companies’research programs which aimed at dis-covering and transferring specific genesfrom these genotypes to the industrialgenetic lines. This is for example the casewith the highly prolific Chinese breeds andthe Iberian pig with excellent meat qualityfor production of extensively cured porkproducts” (Pereira et al. 1998).

Given that the stock breeding industryzealously guards and patents their owngenetic materials, there is a moral impe-rative to extend similar protections totraditional stock raisers and breeders —although, granted, this will be no easy task.

Conclusions

Currently few benefits seem to percolatedown to pastoral and farming communitiesfrom AnGR related activities currentlypursued by formal sector international andnational institutions. Agendas are pursuedpredominantly from the so-called ”geneticresource angle” that seeks to save orrescue breeds in their role as carriers ofgenetic material that might have someeconomic potential in the future and couldbe valuable for humanity at large. Whilethe important role of many indigenousbreeds in sustaining rural livelihoods is alsohighlighted by the FAO, the existingstrategies are insufficient for supportingand facilitating sustainable managementof AnGR by farmers and pastoralists. Wemust be aware that extinction of a breed

is often the outward symptom of an existen-tial crisis experienced by the people whopreviously depended on it. Many breedscan best be saved by supporting theassociated communities in their livelihoodsthrough appropriate policies, such as thosethat ensure access to pastures and markets.

In order to conserve domestic animaldiversity in the South in line with thestipulations of the Convention on Biodiver-sity, activities must be expanded to includethe following strategies:

• Documentation of the local/indigenousinstitutions, breeding practices, andcultures of the peoples who nurturedand shaped so many hardy livestockbreeds.

• Decentralization of activities to involvestock raisers themselves in on-the-ground conservation. Pastoralists withtheir long history of co-evolution oftenhave a culturally highly developed senseof guardianship, partnership, or evenpersonhood vis-à-vis their animals. Thisheritage should make them the leadactors in conservation efforts

• Ensuring that the specific ethnic groupsand societies receive benefit from shar-ing the unique genetic resources theyhave created.

• Adoption of a more comprehensivesustainable livelihood approach to-wards conservation by instituting policiesand programmes that secure access topasture and animal health care andcreate a level playing field for the mar-keting of the products of local breeds.

• Information for pastoralists and breed-ers organizations about the rights theyhave been accorded in countries thatare signatories to the CBD

• Capacity building of NGOs to take uproles as intermediary actors betweengovernments/ research institutions on


21

one hand and farmers/pastoralists onthe other.

In summary, it is both technically andethically imperative to open channels ofcommunication with stock raisers and toinstitute mechanisms for reaching thegrassroots groups — those who haveshaped and stewarded different breedsdown through the centuries and who standto lose the most if these unique resourcesdisappear from the fact of the earth. Inorder to successfully implement the Con-vention on Biodiversity, a close integrationof the activities of all stakeholders - re-searchers, governments, civil society, butespecially livestock keepers and pastoralists- is absolutely essential and steps towardsthis goal should be taken without furtherdelay.

References

Anderson, S., Drucker, A. and Gündel, S. 1999.

Conservation of Animal Genetic

Resources. Long distance course, Wye

College External Programme.

University of London.

Barker, J.S.F. 1999. Conservation of livestock

breed diversity. Animal Genetic

Resource Information 25:33-43.

Blench, R. M. 1999. ‘Til the cows come home’.

Why conserve livestock biodiversity ?

ODI, London.

FAO, n.d. The Global Programme for the

Management of Farm Animal Genetic

Resources. Rome.

FAO, 1999. The Global Strategy for the

Management of Farm Animal Genetic

Resources. Executive Brief. Rome.

FAO and UNEP, 1995. World Watch List for

Domestic Animal Diversity. Second ed.

(Ed. Beate D. Scherf). Rome.

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2000. Management of

animal genetic diversity at community

level. Report prepared for GTZ.

Köhler-Rollefson, I., & C. McCorkle. 2000.

Domestic animal diversity, local

knowledge, and Stockraisers’ Rights.

Paper presented at the ASA

Conference, 2-5 April, 2000 at SOAS,

London.

Kropf, W., N. Prasad, O.P. Sharma, B. de Groot

and G. Nieeuwshof, 1992. A

comparison of reproductive

performance and milk production of

Sirohi goats with Alpine and

Toggenburg Crosses. paper presented

at the Vth International Goat

Conference 2-8 March, New Delhi.

LPPS 1999. Lokhit Pashu-Palak Sansthan: The

first three years. Project Report, Sadri,

India.

Pereira, F.A. et al.1998. Use of worldwide

genetics for local needs. Proceedings

of the 6th World Congress on Genetics

Applied to Livestock Production, pp.

155-160.

RAFI/UNDP.n.d. Conserving indigenous

knowledge. Integrating two systems of

innovation.

Strauss, M.S. 1994 (ed.). Implications of the

Convention on Biological Diversity.

Report of an Infomal Working Group,

Animal Production and Health Division,

FAO, Rome.

Utkarsh, G. 1999. People’s Biodiversity Register.

Compas 2: 16-17.


22

Tab. 1: Numbers of breeds of the major livestock species recorded inhe FAO Global databank for Animal Genetic Resources, and thenumbers estimated to be at risk (source: R. M. Blench, 1999)

SpeciesRecorded At risk

% at risk

Donkey 77 9 37.5Buffalo 72 2 3.6Cattle 787 135 23.2Goat 351 44 16.5Horse 384 120 43.3Pig 353 69 26.0Sheep 920 119 18.1Yak 6 0 0Dromedary 50 2 4.0Bacteria camel 7 1 14.3Alpaca 4 0 0Llama 4 0 0Guinea-pig ? ? ?Duck 62 29 46.8Turkey 31 11 35.5Chicken 606 274 45.2Muscovite duck 14 5 35.7Goose 59 28 47.5Guinea-fowl 22 4 18.2Quail 24 16 66.7Pigeon 19 4 21.1

Total 3851 872 22.6

Tab. 2: Livestock breeds at risk by region (source: R.M. Blench 1999)

Region Recorded At risk At risk %

Africa 396 27 6.8Asia Pacific 996 105 10.5Europe 1688 638 37.8Near East 220 29 13.2South-Central America 378 15 4.0North America 204 59 28.9World 3882 873 22.5


23

Trade and Food Security: anUrgent Call for BetterAgricultural Research

By Kristin Dawkins, Institute for Agriculture and Trade PolicyMinneapolis, MN USA - October 20001

Introduction

Few will deny that food security for allis a crucial goal for humanity, and thatagricultural research can and shouldcontribute to achieving this ambition. Sucha goal was adopted by the United NationsWorld Food Summit in 1996. That sameyear, a network of national agriculturalresearch centers and a host of regional andinternational research centers, universities,non-governmental organizations andfarmers’ organizations as well as donorsand the private sector founded the GlobalForum on Agricultural Research (GFAR). Itsmission is ”to mobilize the world scientificcommunity” towards alleviating poverty,increasing food security and promoting thesustainable use of natural resources. It alsoset itself the task of facilitating ”the partici-pation of all stakeholders in formulating atruly global framework for development-oriented agricultural research.”

1 Portions of this paper were drafted with support from theUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organization as partof background documentation for the FAO/NetherlandsConference on „The Multifunctional Character ofAgriculture and Land,“ Maastricht, 12-17 September 1999and submitted to the United Nations Conference on TradeAnd Development / Non-Governmental Liaison ServiceConsultation with NGOs held on 12-14 December, 1999in Geneva.

The GFAR held its first major meetingin Dresden, Germany in May 2000. Inpreparation, German non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) hosted a workshopfor farmers’ organizations and otherNGOs from around the world. Amongtheir conclusions2: ”In order to succeed, theGFAR should … have a wider scope thanjust agricultural research in order toaddress the issues that ultimately affectsmallholders worldwide such as agrarianreform, the equitable access to naturalresources, policy issues, research in itsbroad perspective, organization of mar-kets, income policy, and farmers’ andconsumers’ rights.”

Whether GFAR2000 will ultimately bejudged a success may depend on how thenetwork of research institutions implementtheir ”Global Vision,” articulated in anofficial ”Dresden Declaration.” 3 TheDeclaration emphasizes the value of ”aprogressive shift of paradigm … towardsa holistic ‘Knowledge Intensive Agriculture’accessible to small and poor farmers” that

2 ”Dresden Declaration of NGOs and Farmers’Organizations,” 21 May 2000, Dresden, Germany.3 ”Dresden Declaration ‘Towards a Global System forAgricultural Research for Development,’” 25 May 2000,Global Forum for Agricultural Research, Dresden,Germany.

Trade and Food Security

24

”includes the access to resources byfarmers such as land, water and geneticresources.” The Declaration also states that”Globalization and trade liberalization mayimprove food security through increasedaccess to food at a global level, yet allpeople may not benefit equally.”

How then can agricultural research helpto equitably distribute increases in globalfood production; ensure that farmers haveaccess to land, water and seeds; respectand promote the knowledge of small andpoor farmers; and address the organiza-tion of markets, income policy and farmers’and consumers’ rights?

Need for an assessment ofthe impacts of trade liberali-zation

During the 1996 World Food Summit,there was fierce debate over the role oftrade policy in achieving food security. Atthat time, the Uruguay Round had barelytaken effect and the debate had atheoretical ring to it. Most studies tendedto project supply-demand shifts betweenand among countries induced by liberali-zation, assuming the reduction of pricesupports in the North will lead to theelimination of over-supply. For example, a1995 study by the United Nations Foodand Agriculture Organization (FAO)projected that the Uruguay Round,concluded in 1994, would result in pricerises ranging from 4% to11% for mostcommodities by 2000.4 The World Bankprojected that some prices would risemodestly, up to 3.8% in the case of wheat,while others – especially tropical products– would fall more or less by 1%.5

4 FAO (1995), „Impact of the Uruguay Round onAgriculture,“ Food and Agriculture Organization CCP:95/13: Rome.5 Goldin and van der Mensbrugghe (1995), cited in ”TheState of Food and Agriculture: 1995,” United Nations Foodand Agriculture Organization, Rome, 1995.

It is apparent, at the close of the year2000, that these projections were seriouslymistaken and evidence is accumulatingthat rural welfare in the developing worldis in serious decline.6 Commodity prices areat historical lows, for both northern exportcrops and tropical products. Producers allover the world face tremendous difficultiesin bringing their crops to market. Analysisis desperately needed to understand why,to evaluate the impacts on small and poorfarmers and rural communities every-where, and to propose reforms to the Uru-guay Round Agreement on Agriculture(AoA) that will indeed improve farmers’incomes and global food security. Thisurgency is all the greater, given thatMembers of the World Trade Organization(WTO) are now engaged in talks preparingto renegotiate the AoA over the next fewyears.

Of the network of international agricul-tural research institutions, the ConsultativeGroup on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR), there has been virtuallyno analysis of trade policy – although someof its members have taken positions con-sistent with the theory that trade liberali-zation will have a beneficial impact ontrade in developing countries. For example,one of the CGIAR institutions, the Interna-tional Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)based in Washington DC, produced aseries of regional ”Vision 2020” documentson ”Getting Ready for the MilleniumRound” but all of them, whether focusedon Africa or Europe or any other region ofthe world, equate trade liberalization withefficiency, growth and wealth, regardlessof the distributive issues.

6 UNCTAD (1997), THE LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES:1997 REPORT; Murphy, Sophia 1999, „Trade and FoodSecurity: An Assessment of the Uruguay Round Agree-ment on Agricuture,“ Catholic Institute for InternationalResearch: London; International Workshop on WTO Agree-ment on Agriculture, Research and Information Systemfor the Non-Aligned and Other Developing Countries,Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and ActionAid:New Delhi.


25

IFPRI did issue a study in January 19997

analyzing the distributive impacts of regio-nal trade agreements, but it is based ondata that precedes the era of liberalization.Of 77 studies cited, 55 of them werepublished before 1995 and use evenearlier data sets – when not even the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)had yet taken effect. The abstract to thispaper further enthuses, ”There are evenbigger welfare gains when models incor-porate aspects of ”new trade theory” suchas increasing returns, imperfect competi-tion, technology transfers, trade externa-lities, and dynamic effects such as linksbetween trade liberalization, total factorproductivity growth, and capital stockaccumulation.” Ironically, the sub-title ofthis paper is ”The Search for LargeNumbers,” demonstrating the emphasis onaggregate wealth creation.

If it is food security that concerns us,there is a tremendous need for up-to-dateempirical analysis that is disaggregated byregion, nation, crop, and most particularlyhousehold and community-level impacts.This research must also consider impactson natural resources, on resource availa-bility to communities, and on the distribu-tion of increments in both costs and benefitsthroughout the commodity chain – from thecosts of production inputs to farm-gateprices to export prices and all of themarketing, processing, shipping anddistributional elements of the local, regio-nal and global food systems.

The Uruguay Round AoA, agreed in1994, calls for such a careful assessmentbefore further liberalization is undertaken.Specifically, Article 20 states that WTOMembers commit themselves to ”furtherreforms in national agriculture support and

7 Robinson, Sherman and Karen Thierfelder (1999), ”TradeLiberalization and Regional Integration: The Search forLarge Numbers,” International Food Policy Research Insti-tute Trade and Macroeconomics Division, Washington DC.

protection programs … taking into accountthe experience to that date” and ”theeffects” of implementing liberalization. Itnotes that such an assessment should alsotake into account ”non-trade concerns,especially (according to the preamble ofthe AoA) “food security and the need toprotect the environment” as well as ”specialand differential treatment to developingcountry Members.”

The findings of such an assessmentcould trigger another part of the UruguayRound agreements of critical importanceto developing countries: the MarrakeshDecision on Measures Concerning thePossible Negative Effects of the ReformProcess on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries. This1994 decision committed developedcountries to provide compensation to lowincome food deficit countries if they areadversely affected by higher food pricesas a result of implementation of the AoA.

Analysis by the FAO since 1995suggested that for all low-income fooddeficit countries, their food import bill willindeed be $9.8 billion higher in the year2000 than at the start of the UruguayRound negotiations, of which $3.6 billion– a 14% increase – would be directlyattributable to the Uruguay Round results.8

The International Monetary Fund (IMF)disputed the FAO findings, however, ongrounds it overstated the degree ofliberalization likely to occur from 1995-2000 and subsequently overstated thelikely price changes. The IMF claimed the1996 “food price spikes” were “unrelatedto the Round” and that “declining stocks[predicted as an outcome of the Round]do not necessarily imply proportional

8 FAO (1995), „The State of Food and Agriculture:Agricultural Trade: Entering a New Era?“ Food andAgriculture Organization Agriculture Series No. 28, ISSN0081-4539: Rome.


26

declines in food aid.”9 With this disagree-ment over price projections and their directcauses in hand, the WTO Committee onAgriculture decided in 1996 not to triggerthe Marrakesh Decision’s compensationprovisions for low income food deficitcountries. (The last sentence is notcompletely clear to me)

Research needs on factors infarm price fluctuations

Agricultural prices, like most othercommodity prices, have been in steadydecline in inflation adjusted terms since theSecond World War. At the same time, thecost of production of most farm commodi-ties has steadily risen. The gap betweencosts and prices has been bridged in anumber of ways including off-farm employ-ment, debt, and direct governmentpayments. Even with these measures,millions of farmers have failed to earnsufficient income and therefore been forcedto leave production altogether, in both thedeveloped and developing countries.10

Although many farmers have left the land,the land has not generally left farming.Instead, new technologies have substitutedfor labor and other inputs, too. Most fieldshave continued to be farmed in ever largerunits, requiring purchases of larger farmequipment, artificial fertilizers, more pesti-cides, and so on – generating significantnegative environmental impacts and eco-nomic decline in many rural communities.

9 IMF (1995), „The Uruguay Round and Net FoodImporters,“ International Monetary Fund: Washington DC.* This paper was drafted, in part, with support from theUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organization as partof background documentation for the FAO/NetherlandsConference on ”The Multifunctional Character ofAgriculture and Land,” Maastricht, 12-17 September 1999.10 Commission of the European Communities (1991), “TheAgricultural Situation in the Community,” Brussels; OECD(1987), “National Agricultural Policies and AgriculturalTrade: the European Community,” Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development: Paris.

Alongside the general downward trendin farm prices there has also been an in-crease in price instability. Current pricesare at record low levels, while just threeyears ago many commodities reachedrecord high prices. At that time farmersresponded by planting more land thanbefore.11 Predictably, this turned a worldshortage into a world surplus – drivingworld prices down again to today’s crisislevels.12 A very small increase in importsor exports, or extraordinarily good or badweather, can cause dramatic changes inprices. Overall, if these changes result inprices below the cost of production of theaverage producer there will be hardshipin the countryside, and if they are wellabove the cost of production they will causehardship among landless consumers –both rural and urban.

Governments have attempted to insureagainst extreme price fluctuations relatedto unpredictable environmental factors,technological and policy innovations, andother causes of uneven supply. Land set-asides, import and export controls, supplymanagement, and price floors are typicalof the kinds of measures that governmentstake to keep prices within acceptableranges. The storage of reserves is anothereffective means of smoothing supply,demand and price variations.13

Generally, the goal of trade liberali-zation is to bring domestic prices in linewith world market prices and to allow

11Lehman, Karen and Mark Ritchie (April 1996), „WorldFood Shortages and the Threat to Sustainable Farming:The Paradox of Higher World Market Prices for Grains,“Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy: Minneapolis.12Solman, Paul (3 February 1999), “Low Commodity PricesMay Not Fully Recover; World Bank Fears Difficulties forEmerging Economies.” FINANCIAL TIMES: London.13Sarris, Alexander (1998), “Price and Income Variability,”OECD Workshop on Emerging Trade Issues in Agriculture,”Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment: Paris.


27

world price signals to influence domesticproduction patterns.14 Trade liberalizationaims to limit the type and magnitude ofgovernment interventions allowed in orderto do so.

But other factors than government sup-port need to be considered. Few studiesprojecting prices into the future take intoconsideration the cartel power of ever fewerbuyers in the monopsonistic global market,or the potential impact of competitionpolicy in response.15 And anomalies canoccur. The 1996 price spike,16 for example,was caused by bad weather across muchof the planet and severe blight in the U.S.wheat crop, as well as the elimination ofgovernment grain reserves, in part due tothe Uruguay Round. Whether, over the longrun, the so-called convergence of domesticand world market prices will cause worldcommodity prices to rise or whether theywill continue their fall further is unknown.

Towards empirical research

For Example Mexico: Although long-run projections cannot be compared withactual prices for years to come, especiallybecause many of the provisions of the Uru-guay Round are being phased-in over time,there is a record available for the NAFTAagriculture agreement implemented

14Sarris, Alexander (1998), „Price and Income Variability,“OECD Workshop on Emerging Trade Issues in Agriculture,“Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment: Paris.15Barbour, Paul (March 1999), “WTO Reform to StateTrading Companies and the Implications for National FoodSecurity of Developing Countries, Institute for Agricultureand Trade Policy: Minneapolis.16FAO (October 1998) “Assessment of the Impact of theUruguay Round on Agricultural Markets”, CCP 99/12,Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome.

January 1, 1994. A study17by the Commis-sion on Environmental Cooperationrecently found that in Mexico, where tradeliberalization in farm products is quiteadvanced, maize prices fell 45% from1990 to1997 (in constant 1994 pesos).Perhaps more important than this level ofdecline is a comparison of prices to costsof production: while Mexican maize lostnearly half its value in the market, the pricesof major agricultural inputs about doubledin the same period. In 1997, the economyof the rural sector shrank by 6%, despiteMexico’s Gross Domestic Product growingby 7%.18 Certainly there were many factorsinfluencing these prices – from weather tocurrency exchange rates and national law– but agricultural liberalization was influ-ential.

This study was conducted as part of aresearch model developed by the NAFTACommission for Environmental Coopera-tion (CEC)19, which appears to be the onlyfully comprehensive analysis based uponactual experience describing the impactsof trade policies on agriculture, the environ-ment and rural sustainability. It traced fourmajor processes through which activitygenerated by NAFTA can affect the environ-ment – production, management andtechnology; physical infrastructure; socialorganization; and government policy – andevaluated their respective impacts on theair, water, land and biota of North America.The indicators chosen for each wereexplicit, and environmental, economic,

17Nadal, Alejandro (1999), „Maize in Mexico: Some Envi-ronmental Implications of the North American Free TradeAgreement (NAFTA)“ in ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTALEFFECTS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREE-MENT (NAFTA): AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK (PHASEII) AND ISSUE STUDIES, Commission for EnvironmentalCooperation: Montreal, p.110-118.18IATP (October 1998), “ Washington DC Meeting on theWTO Agreement on Agriculture: Food Security, Farmersand a Fair Place for the South,” Institute for Agricultureand Trade Policy, Foundation Charles Leopold Mayer pourle Progres de l’Homme, Solagral: Minneapolis, p. 5.19NAFTA CEC (1999), ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTALEFFECTS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREE-MENT (NAFTA): AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK (PHASEII) AND ISSUE STUDIES, Commission for EnvironmentalCooperation: Montreal, pp.5-41.


28

social and geographic factors unrelated toNAFTA’s rules and institutions as theyaffected trade. Transborder investmentflows were considered separately, beforeformulating conclusions. One of theconclusions drawn from the study is that”the differential pace and degree ofreduction and elimination of tariffs andother trade barriers under NAFTA can havemajor impacts on production andconsumption substitution in ways that arenot optimal for economic efficiency or en-vironmental enhancement…”.

With regards to maize genetic resourcesdiversity, Alejandro Nadal concludes in afurther study that 2 million small farmersin Mexico, the center of diversity for corn,are being pushed out of corn landracesproduction by the NAFTA provisions.20

For Example Kenya: An NGO studyin Kenya21, where liberalization has beenimplemented over the past decade as partof its structural adjustment program, foundthat the prices of exported crops, especiallytea, coffee and horticultural goods, haverisen but the terms of trade (output pricesrelative to input prices) for the agriculturesector as a whole fell from 93.4:100in1991 to 87.6 in 1995. As in Mexico, de-valuation contributed to this trend,increasing the costs of imported inputs aswell as increasing the value for exports.Nonetheless, Kenya’s rate of economicgrowth fell from 4.9% per year in 1995 to2.9% in 1998, while that of the agriculturaleconomy fell from 4.4% to 2.3%. Formaize, the major staple food crop ofKenya, farmers earned, on average, just57% of the cost of their production: theprice of imported fertilizers relative to the

20Nadal, Alejandro (2000): ”Corn and NAFTA: AnUnhappy Alliance”, in The Seedling, June 2000 (http://www.grain.org)21Barasa, Thomas (1998), “The Impact of TradeLiberalization on Agriculture and Food Security in Kenya,”International Workshop on WTO Agreement on Agriculture,Research and Information System for the Non-Aligned andOther Developing Countries, Institute for Agriculture andTrade Policy and ActionAid: New Delhi.

price of maize rose from 1.95 to 3.00through the 1990s. As a result, Kenya hasbecome a net maize importer. With theprivatization of Kenya’s National Cerealsand Produce Board, government reserveshave been greatly reduced, leaving Kenya’simported food security a function ofcommercial interests.

For Example Indonesia: In pro-jecting the impacts of agricultural tradeliberalization on Indonesia’s rural sector,the Center for Agro Socioeconomic Re-search of Bogor found that, in the aggre-gate, rice production will not change great-ly due to a strong comparative advantagein lowland farming in Java, but the impacton soybeans will be substantial. These re-searchers expect domestic soybean pricesto decrease 40% over four years and, be-cause world prices are relatively unstable,risks to producers will increase significantly.Liberalization of input markets will increasecosts to farmers, with disproportionateimpacts on smaller farms depending uponthe agro-climatic and socio-economiccircumstances.Technological improvementscan compensate, to some degree, but atthe farm level, the study concludes, ”im-pacts of market and trade liberalization arestrongly negative on agricultural income.” 22

The WTO Committee on Agriculture hasspent well over a year coordinating a pro-cess of ”Analysis and Information Ex-change” concerning the implementation ofthe Uruguay Round Agreement on Agricul-ture in preparation for the next negotiationstowards ”continuation of the reform pro-cess.” Findings indicate that tariff levelsremain high for many products of exportinterest to the South, and that tariff escala-tion – by which tariffs on processedproducts are higher than those on thecorresponding primary commodity – con-tinues to be an obstacle for developing

22Erwidodo (March 1998), „The Impacts of TradeLiberalization on Food Production and Farm Income: AMultilevel Modelling Approach,“ Australia Centre for In-ternational Agricultural Research Indonesia ResearchProject, Working Paper No. 98.08: Adelaide, Australia.


29

country exporters.23 Quotas and safe-guards appear to be insufficient remedies,nor are the required reductions in domesticsupport in the North sufficient to openmarkets significantly. The transmission ofprice instability in the world market todomestic markets has increased the burdenof developing country governments, whilefood aid is shrinking relative to commercialimports – adding to their costs.24

Nonetheless, there is a shortage of datawith which to evaluate the actual impactsof trade liberalization on farm income andrural welfare, particularly in the developingworld. The South Centre, an intergovern-mental agency in Geneva that serves as athink-tank for its developing country mem-bers, has prepared a 27-point ”Checklistto Assist the Preparation of Country Expe-riences on the Impacts of the WTO Agree-ment on Agriculture.”25 (See appendix.)

As the WTO AoA talks gather momen-tum, this type of analysis at the country levelwill grow in importance. ”The argument isnot that trade is responsible for the dis-couraging development situation,”commented Cuba, the Dominican Repub-lic, Honduras, Indonesia and Pakistan ina joint statement in March 1999, at sympo-sia sponsored by the WTO regarding trade,environment and development, ”Rather,the contention is that this situation exists in

23Lindland, Jostein (September 1997), ”The Impact of theUruguay Round on Tariff Escalation in AgriculturalProducts,” United Nations Food and Agriculture ProgramESCP/No.3: Rome.24Konandreas, Panos, Jim Greenfield and Ramesh Sharma(23-24 November 1998), “The Continuation of the Re-form Process in Agriculture: Developing Countries’Perspectives,” United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganization, paper presented to the seminar on “LatinAmerica and the Caribbean in Face of the FurtheringProcess of Multilateral Agricultural Reforms”: Santiago.25South Centre (1998), ”Checklist to Assist the Preparationof Country Experiences on the Impacts of the WT O Agree-ment on Agriculture” in “ Washington DC Meeting on theWTO Agreement on Agriculture: Food Security, Farmersand a Fair Place for the South,” Institute for Agricultureand Trade Policy, Foundation Charles Leopold Mayer pourle Progres de l’Homme, Solagral: Minneapolis.

the context of increasing liberalization oftrade. And, hence, there is an obvious needto critically examine the role of the globaltrade regime in development.”26

The role of agribusiness inthe Uruguay Round Agree-ment on Agriculture (AoA)

One of the goals of the Uruguay Roundwas to bring U.S. and European agricul-tural policies more fully under the dis-ciplines of the General Agreement onTariffs and Trade (GATT). Although theoriginal GATT agreement struck in 1947had excellent agricultural trade rules, boththe U.S. and European approaches toagriculture policy were largely exemptedfrom the GATT rules by the mid-1960s.27

For example, Article VI of the originalGATT agreement defines and condemnsdumping. Article XI in the original GATTtext permits governments to adopt domes-tic supply management, even allowingrestrictions on imports that might favordomestic producers, in order to controlproduction levels and avoid the temptationto export surpluses and to relieve “criticalshortages of foodstuffs.”28

For the United States, both the UruguayRound and the NAFTA negotiations weredesigned to make changes in the external

26ICTSD (March 1999), ”WTO Holds First-Ever High-LevelMeetings on Sustainable Development but Environmentand Development Agendas Still Don’t Mesh,” BRIDGESVol.3 No.2, International Centre for Trade and SustainableDevelopment: Geneva.27Porter, Jan and Douglas Bowers (August 1989), “A ShortHistory of U.S. Agricultural Trade Negotiations,” EconomicResearch Service, United States Department of Agriculture:Washington DC; Raghavan, Charkravarthi (1990),“RECOLONIZATION: GATT, THE URUGUAY ROUND ANDTHE THIRD WORLD,” Zed Books and Third World Network:Penang.28Article 11.2, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,1969.


30

and internal agricultural policies of othercountries and of the United States itself.The U.S. negotiating position was largelydetermined by the purchasing departmentsof major corporations and the chiefnegotiators were drawn from their ranks.For example, the Reagan Administrationappointed a long-time executive of theCargill company to head the U.S. delega-tion in the AoA talks.29 The European Uni-on, in the middle of the negotiations,abandoned farm price support policies thathad been in effect since the beginning ofthe European Community in favor of U.S.-style government subsidies.

Thus, it should not be surprising thatthe Uruguay Round results meet the needsof agribusiness corporations to a greatextent, and do not support sustainableagriculture or rural development in eitherthe North or the South. For example, theenormous farm bail-outs provided by theU.S. taxpayers in 1999-2000 – some $18billion worth – accomplished little morethan enabling some farmers to keep thebankers at bay for another season. Manyfarms went bankrupt anyway, while thegrain exporting companies like Cargillenjoyed the lowest commodity prices in fiftyyears.

While such bailouts violate the spirit oftrade liberalization, there is no way Cargilland its fellow exporters would give themup. Extensive bilateral negotiationsbetween the EU and the U.S. during theUruguay Round culminated in a deal oftencalled the “Blair House Agreement” thatwas then effectively imposed on the rest ofthe GATT parties. The Blair House Agree-ment tied reductions in both domesticsupport and export subsidies to baselinelevels of 1986, when stocks and subsidieswere at their peak, thus giving both the EUand the US ample flexibility in meeting theirobligations.30 It also defined a “peace29Resume of Daniel Amstutz, file copy.30Jenkins, Robin (November 1993), “Blair House: A Lookat the Blair House Agreement and its Consequences forSmall Farmers North and South,” European Ecumenicalfor Development: Belgium.

clause” (Article 13) forbidding for nineyears – that is, until 2003 – any country’staking action against another country’ssupport programs that fit into the exemptcategories known as the ”blue” and”green” boxes, and demanding “duerestraint” regarding actions against exportsubsidies.

One perverse result of these provisionsis that the U.S. and Europe are able to”legally” increase their export dumpingthrough both export subsidies and othermechanisms. While the AoA formallyallows 25 out of 132 WTO members tosubsidize exports, just 3 of them areresponsible for 93% of all subsidized wheatexports and just 2 of them are responsiblefor subsidizing 94% of butter and 80% ofbeef exports.31 Many agree these exportsubsidies should be disallowed.32

However, a lack of agreement over whatis and is not an export subsidy persists.Governments have endless ways to re-package and re-name subsidies andmanipulate currencies in ways that drama-tically alter domestic prices relative to theworld price. And in the United States, thelack of anti-trust enforcement has enableda few monopolistic companies to controlthe market, forcing farmers to sell theirproduction at prices far below their cost ofproduction. Some critics argue that theseforms of export dumping ought also to bedisallowed.33

31Konandreas, Panos, Jim Greenfield and Ramesh Sharma(23-24 November 1998), „The Continuation of the Re-form Process in Agriculture: Developing Countries’Perspectives,“ Food and Agriculture Organization, paperpresented to the seminar on „Latin America and theCaribbean in Face of the Furthering Process of Multilate-ral Agricultural Reforms“: Santiago.32Letter from Sicco Mansholt to Arthur Dunkel (1990),published in “Gentle GATT: GATT Briefing on the GATT,Uruguay Round, and Agriculture,” European NGONetwork on Agriculture and Development (RONGEAD),No. 1: Lyon.33Ritchie, Mark (November 1999), ”Eliminating ExportSubsidies: One Way Forward,” Institute for Agriculture andTrade Policy, Minneapolis.


31

Least-developed countries and net-foodimporting countries sought market accessand better prices for their exports34 andachieved several concessions, althoughthese appear to be insufficient to overcomeimmediately negative impacts resultingfrom the AoA.35 The WTO Secretariat foundthat developing countries’ share of worldagriculture exports had not changed from1990 to 1996.36 Few developing countriescan afford to increase their support forfarmers, whether through investment orinput subsidies or any other governmentpayments. There are numerous otherloopholes disabling the special and diffe-rential treatment (S&D) provisions asdrafted in the AoA, which provides inade-quate provisions for technical assistanceand no financing to help build theirproduction and export capacity.37

34Raghavan, Charkravarthi (1990), „RECOLONIZATION:GATT, THE URUGUAY ROUND AND THE THIRD WORLD,“Zed Books and Third World Network: Penang.35Konandreas, P., R. Sharma and J. Greenfield (21-24January 1997), “Overview of the Impact of the UruguayRound on World Agricultural Markets and SADC Region,”in THE URUGUAY ROUND AND AGRICULTURE INSOUTHERN AFRICA: WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS, Foodand Agriculture Organization: Rome.36WTO (19 June 1998), “Agricultural Trade Performanceby Developing Countries 1990-96,” Background Paperby the Secretariat, AIE/S10, World Trade Organization:Geneva.37IATP (October 1998), “ Washington DC Meeting on theWTO Agreement on Agriculture: Food Security, Farmersand a Fair Place for the South,” Institute for Agricultureand Trade Policy, Foundation Charles Leopold Mayer pourle Progres de l’Homme, Solagral: Minneapolis pp.10-15.

Correcting the UruguayRound: more research needsfor the way forward

Given the failure of the WTO to launcha new comprehensive round after the Se-attle Ministerial Meeting, the “built-in”agenda agreed to in 1994 now representsthe core of the negotiating processunderway – and the AoA is at the core ofthe built-in agenda. In order to progress

beyond the current stalemate, a balancewill need to be found on three key disa-greements: a solution to export subsidiesand, more importantly, export dumping;operationalizing special and differentialtreatment for developing countries; andnon-trade concerns including ecologicalconsiderations and food security.

Both the Cairns Group (Australia, Ar-gentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia,Fiji, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand,Paraguay the Philippines, South Africa andThailand) and the United States are callingfor the elimination of the “blue box”exempting the European Union’s domesticsupport programs, and export subsidies,which would primarily affect the EU – giventhe nature of the U.S. market. The EU inturn has shown an interest in crackingdown on the US’ relatively extensive useof the “green box” and its export creditprograms.38 Neither the Cairns Group northe EU, however, has broached U.S.dumping of agricultural commodities asan anti-competitive practice.

Phasing out dumping:medothodological researchneeds

38(9 April 1999), „EU to Push for Examination of GreenBox in WTO Agriculture Talks,“ INSIDE U.S. TRADE: Wa-shington.

Instead of continued arguments overwhat is or is not an export subsidy, negoti-ators could simply agree to phase-out andthen eliminate export dumping. One of themany benefits of directly reducingdumping is that it could bring immediateimprovements for many producers in theThird World who have been devastated byexport dumping from the United States,Europe, Canada, and others. At someagreed upon date in the future all foodexports could be priced at or above the


32

cost of production. This would narrow thedebate into two areas. First, how todetermine the full cost of production bywhich dumping would be judged. Second,what timeline to use for phasing outdumping. A five-year phase out would bea reasonable approach, but the precisetiming hardly matters. Some countries andsome crops might take longer. Some poorcountries might get additional flexibility.Whatever the timeline, by the end allcountries will stop dumping.

The formula for calculating the full costof production would consist of two majorcomponents – the expenses paid by theproducers themselves and those paid bythe taxpayers. The average cost of pro-duction paid by producers is determinedeach year in all major exporting countriesby the national government. In the UnitedStates, this is done by the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture. The other part of the cost ofproduction, the cash value of the expensespaid by taxpayers, has been calculated formost crops for each of the major foodexporting countries by the Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development(OECD). OECD uses a formula, oftencalled the Producer Subsidy Equivalent(PSE), to determine the cash value ofvarious government programs. This PSEformula is surprisingly comprehensive andaccurate, given the elusive nature of mostgovernment farm programs.

This full cost of production for each cropwould be determined by adding up all ofthe expenses paid by farmers together withthose paid by the taxpayers and thendivided by the total production in order todetermine the average cost of productionon a per pound, bushel, or tonnage basis.If this cost of production was higher thanthe average export price, this would beconsidered dumping and subject toreduction over the agreed period of time.

If a country refuses to commit toreducing dumping or, more likely, there isbacksliding on commitments, the response

should be swift, simple and strictly WTO-legal: importing countries would simplyimpose countervailing duties, as the U.S.government now does on industrial importsdumped into North America. This anti-dumping tariff would be large enough tobring import prices of dumped goods upto proper levels. Producers worldwidecould expect to cover their costs in the glo-bal market.

Net food importing countries would ofcourse require significant transitionalassistance to redevelop their capacity toproduce. A global fund for developmentassistance for developing countries couldbe generated by a tax on speculation inthe global commodities markets. Whilesuch a proposal would be controversialand years in coming, the MarrakeshDecision should be triggered immediatelyand retroactively. Other provisions forspecial and differential treatment, in theAoA as well as in other Uruguay RoundAgreements – particularly the Agreementon Trade Related Aspects of IntellectualProperty Rights (TRIPS) – must also beoperationalized immediately.

Multifunctional agriculture:a way to food security andenvironmental sustainabi-lity?

A ban on dumping would also beresponsive to Cairns Group and Southerncomplaints about ”multifunctional agri-culture”39 – that is, that subsidies consideredas payment for the ecological services

39European Union (24 September 1998), „Contribution ofthe European Community on the Multifunctional Characterof Agriculture,“ World Trade Organization AIE/40: Gen-eva; Tanikon Seminar (June 1998), „Summary Report onMultifunctional and Sustainable Agriculture (with referenceto the next WTO Round),“ Swiss Federal Office ofAgriculture: Bern; Rome Declaration (1996), World FoodSummit Plan of Action: Rome.


33

provided by sustainable agriculturalpractices spillover in any case as exportsubsidies. As Australia put it, “the termsmultifunctionality and non-trade concernsare being used as post-facto justificationfor continuing high levels of trade distortingprotection of agriculture.”40 And yet, thereis a tremendous need to convert the North’sindustrial agriculture system to one that isenvironmentally benign and sustainable.41

Norway argued, in a paper submitted tothe WTO42, “[Multifunctionality] may alsobe characterized as positive externalities orpublic goods related to agricultural pro-duction.” Japan43 and the Republic of Ko-rea44 have noted their support for multi-functional agriculture in papers submittedto the WTO Committee on Trade and En-vironment, emphasizing the ecologicalfunctions of terraced rice production andfood security respectively.

If the cost of production, by whichdumping is calculated, were to include thecosts of converting to sustainable pro-duction systems, world prices would indeedrise considerably – generating no doubt astrong comparative advantage in worldmarkets for products from the South.

40Austalia (4 September 1998), „Non-Trade Concerns,“Paper Submitted by Australia, World Trade OrganizationAIE/36: Geneva.41Bruges Group (October 1997), “Agriculture and RuralDevelopment: A European Challenge – Debates AboutAgenda 2000,” Bruges Group Secretariat: Saint Gely,France.42Norway (2 June 1998), “Non-Trade Concerns in aMultifunctional Agriculture: Implications for AgriculturalPolicy and the Multilateral Trading System,” PaperSubmitted by Norway, World Trade Organization AIE/22:Geneva.43Japan (15 February 1999), “Environmental Effects ofTrade Liberalization on Agriculture,” Submission by Ja-pan, World Trade Organization WT/CTE/W107: Geneva.44Republic of Korea (22 September 1998), “Non-TradeConcerns in Net Food-Importing Countries,” Paper fromthe Republic of Korea, World Trade Organization AIE/39:Geneva.

For a UN Convention on sus-tainable food security

In the long run, there is a need tonegotiate a multilateral agreement on foodsecurity and the sustainable productionand distribution of agricultural goods andservices within the United Nations system,so that non-trade concerns will not alwaysbe trumped by the concerns of traders.

Multilateral collaboration on the devel-opment of a viable global food securityshould proceed under auspices of theUnited Nations system, in collaborationwith civil society. Nations can agree todevelop a framework for negotiating a”Sustainable Food Security Convention” orsome such instrument with the purpose ofelevating food security to the highest levelof priority within international law.

Such a convention could establish a glo-bal network of local, national and regio-nal reserves for staple foods, subject toindependent audits, and national foodsecurity plans to enhance farmers’ capacityto produce nutritious and safe foods –exempting these plans from WTO rules anddisciplines when said rules underminethem. The convention could mandate in-ternational commodity agreements amongimporting and exporting countries both forconcessional food transfers and to supple-ment domestic production to meet natio-nal demand for staple foods, without resortto dumping. It could also guarantee thataccess to the fundamental inputs ofagriculture – land, water and seeds – beensured as the a priori human right offarming communities.45

45The U.N. Sub-Commission on the Promotion andProtection of Minority Rights passed a resolution August17, 2000, on “Intellectual Property Rights and HumanRights” (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/L.20)., suggesting the TRIPSAgreement may conflict with fundamental human rightsand requesting numerous intergovernmental agencies,including the WTO and the UN Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights, as well as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to submit written comments evaluatingthis interpretation.


34

Financial and technical mechanismscould be negotiated as part of the conven-tion to implement its provisions and to aidgovernments in disputes with other entitiessuch as the WTO or national patent officesthat might arise over food and agriculturepolicy. Financing could be achievedthrough member contributions, a tax onagricultural commodity trade, or theproposed ”Tobin tax” on internationalfinancial transactions.46

Conclusion

In short, there is a need for an interna-tionally coordinated approach to foodsecurity, aimed at increasing stability in thefood supply by reducing volatility in agri-cultural markets while making both pro-duction and distribution systems sus-tainable over time. Such an approachrequires that food security be planned andimplemented primarily at the local andnational levels with support for diversifiedpeasant and family farm systems. Thesenon-trade concerns can be complementedby trade and trade policy, but they mustnot be displaced by trade liberalization.

Idealistic, perhaps. Politicallyambitious, no doubt. Sound, maybe.

There is a dire need for research toevaluate the several analyses expressed inthis document. This research agenda wouldinclude not only empirical studies of thedisaggregated impacts of trade liberaliza-

46Details on this proposal for a “Sustainable Food SecurityConvention” are available in the “Plan of Action to AchieveUniversal Food Security,” drafted for the 1996 World FoodSummit and revised 20 September 1999 by an internatio-nal consortium of non-governmental organizations. Copiescan be obtained on the Internet at http://www.iatp.org/f o o d s e c / l i b r a r y / a d m i n / u p l o a d e d f i l e s /Proposal_for_the_Negotiation_of_a_Food_Securit.htm orby from Karen Lehman, Institute for Agriculture and TradePolicy, fax: 612-870-4846 or email [email protected]

tion to date, including on the distributionof costs and profits throughout eachcommodity chain, but also an examinationof:

• The effects of various anti-monopolyregimes on agriculture prices;

• How the calculation of production costsand dumping could be accurately andfairly undertaken;

• The potential for a ban on export sub-sidies and dumping to stabilize domes-tic markets worldwide and open worldmarkets for the South;

• The historical efficacy of governmentprograms for land set-asides, importand export controls, supply manage-ment, and price floors in the North;

• How grain reserves and commodityagreements could be structured to helpstabilize both global food supplies andprices;

• The potential for subsidies formultifunctional agriculture to enable atransition to rural sustainability in boththe South and the North;

• Alternative mechanisms for confessio-nal food aid and emergency relief;

• The possible effects of a global tax onagricultural commodity trade andpossible mechanisms for distributing therevenues;

• The effects of the TRIPS Agreement onfood security, balance of payments,seed distribution, natural resources andtechnology transfer; and

• The terms of reference for a UN Con-vention on Sustainable Food Security.

International agricultural researchorganisations could contribute substantiallyto many of these research needs.


35

APPENDIX ONE:

GATT ARTICLE VI - Anti dumping and Countervailing Duties

1. The contracting parties recognize that dumping by which products of one country

are introduced into the commerce of another country at less than the normal value of the products, is to be condemned if it causes or threatens material injury to an established Industry in the territory of a contracting party or materially retards the establishment of a domestic industry. For purposes of this Article, a product is to be considered as being introduced into the commerce of an importing country at less than its normal value if the piece of the product exported from

(a) is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like

product when destined for consumption in the exporting country; or, (b) in the absence of such domestic price, is less than either (i) the highest comparable price for the like product for export of any third country in the ordinary course of trade, or (ii) the cost of production of the product in the country of origin plus a reasonable addiction for selling cost and profit. Due difference shall be made in each case for differences in conditions and terms of

sale, for differences in taxation, and for other differences affecting price comparability.

2. In order to offset or prevent dumping, a contracting party may levy on any

dumped product an anti-dumping duty not greater in amount than the margin of dumping in respect of such product. For the purposes of this Article, the margin of dumping is the price difference determined in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1969.


36

APPENDIX TWO:

ELEMENTS OF THE “CHECKLIST TO ASSIST THE PREPARATION OF COUNTRY EXPERIENCES ON THE IMPACTS OF THE WTO AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE”

PREPARED BY THE SOUTH CENTRE, GENEVA [EXCERPTED] Market Access 1. What are the major agricultural exports? Identify new exports, if any, in the post UR period. 2. Which are the major markets for major agricultural exports? Identify new markets, if any. 3. What is the share of agricultural exports in the total country exports? Identify any increase or

decrease, if any, in the post UR period. 4. What are the major agricultural exports that benefit from any preferential market access in the

developed markets? Identify any increase or decrease in the volume of such exports. 5. What are the major agricultural exports that are subject to tariff rate quotas? What has been the

rates of utilization of these tariff rate quotas? Domestic Support 1. Has it been easy to calculate the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS)…in your case? 2. What has been the impact of inflation on the calculation of domestic support? 3. Have the domestic support measures exempt from the reduction commitments (green box

measures) been sufficient to allow the implementation of national polices for increasing agricultural productivity and improve food security? If not, identify the measures that should also be included in the green box.

4. What domestic support policies in the agricultural sector have traditionally been used in the country? Are these included in the green box measures?

Food Security 1. What are the major food imports? What are the major sources of these imports? 2. What is the share of food imports in total imports? Identify any increase or decrease in the share

in the post UR period. 3. What is the value of food imports as a percentage of total export earnings? Identify any increase

or decrease. 4. What is the share of food aid in the total food imports? Identify any increase or decrease. 5. What is the share of domestic food production in the total domestic food requirements? Identify

any increase or decrease. 6. What has been the trend of staple food prices in the domestic market? General 1. What is the total area under cultivation? Identify any increase or decrease in the post UR period. 2. What are the areas under cultivation of food crops and export crops respectively? 3. What is the share of the total labor force employed in the agricultural sector? 4. What is the rate of rural unemployment? Has it increased in the post UR period? 5. What is the percentage of population living in rural areas? Identify any increase or decrease. 6. What is the size of the average farm? Has it increased? It will also be helpful to include the

experience of small/subsistence farmers. _____________________________ Excerpted from the Annex of the Proceedings of the Washington DC Meeting on the WTO Agreement on Agriculture: Food Security, Farmers and a Fair Place for the South, organized by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Fondation Charles Leopold Mayer pour le Progres de L’Homme and Solagral, 30 September – 4 October, 1998.


37

APPENDIX THREE: ELEMENTS FROM ANNEX 2 OF THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE CONCERNING “DOMESTIC SUPPORT: THE BASIS FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE REDUCTION COMMITMENTS” [EXCERPTED] 1. Domestic support measures for which exemption from the reduction commitments is claimed shall

meet the fundamental requirement that they have no, or at most minimal, trade-distorting effects or effects on production. Accordingly, all measures for which exemption is claimed shall conform to the following basic criteria: (a) the support in question shall be provided through a publicly-funded government programme (including government revenue forgone) not involving transfers from consumers; and (b) the support in question shall not have the effect of providing price support to producers; plus policy-specific criteria and conditions set out below.

2. Government service programmes…which include but are not restricted to the following list, shall

meet the general criteria in paragraph 1 above and policy-specific conditions…below: (a) research… (b) pest and disease control… (c) training services… (d) extension and advisory services… (e) inspection services… (f) marketing and promotion services… (g) infrastructural services…

3. Public stockholding…shall correspond to predetermined targets related solely to food security. The

process of stock accumulation and disposal shall be financially transparent. Food purchases shall be made at current market prices and sales from food security stocks shall be made at no less than the current domestic market price for the product and quality in question.

4. Domestic food aid…shall be in the form of direct provision of food…or the provision of means to

allow eligible recipients to buy food either at market or at subsidized prices. Food purchases by the government shall be made at current market prices and the financing and administration of the aid shall be transparent.

5. Direct payments to producers…shall meet the basic criteria set out in paragraph 1 above, plus

specific criteria applying to individual types of direct payment as set out in paragraphs 6 through 13 below…

6. Decoupled income support…not related to, or based on, the type or volume of production…[or] on

the prices, domestic or international, applying to any production undertaken in any year after the base period… No production shall be required in order to receive such payments.

7. Government financial participation in income insurance and income safety-net programmes… 8. Payments (made either directly or by way of government financial participation in crops insurance

schemes) for relief from natural disasters… 9-11. Structural adjustment assistance provided through producer retirement programmes…resource

retirement programmes…[or] investment aids… 12-13. Payments under environmental programmes…[or] regional assistance programmes…


38

Politicising Research: Tradeand Agriculture and anEnabling Institutional andPolicy FrameworkBy Aileen Kwa, Focus on the Global South

Research organisations mustbe willing to confront the po-litical

Today, too much emphasis is beingplaced on how to increase food supply atthe global level. Research institutions arebusying themselves with racing towards yetanother revolution of high yieldingvarieties, this time the Gene Revolution.Many institutions are unfortunately shortsighted, and this is not accidental. Govern-ments suffer from the same myopia. They,like the research institutions are beingunduly influenced by private sectorinterests.

We have more than sufficient food atthe global level. The key issue for peoplewho are food insecure and poor is not thetechnical know-how of how to increaseyields, but is in fact about dealing with poli-tics.

i) The politics of the control over resourcesneeded for food production

ii) The politics of food productioniii) The politics of food trade.

Ultimately, it is politics, power, greedand profits which are the key obstaclesblocking access to food for the poorest,rather than the issue of needing moreknowledge about how to produce food.The research that is needed, is researchinto issues over the control of resources,the issue of who produces food, for whomand at what costs, and research into howthe status quo can be changed. There aremany cases all over the world where inno-vative and successful strategies have beentried with success, where communities haveempowered themselves and fought forcontrol over resources and entitlements.These examples can be transplanted andadapted to local conditions. There are alsothe many methods of sustainable andecologically sound agricultural practicesthat have been successful. Knowledge ofthese methods can be actively disseminatedto other communities, countries and re-gions.

However, this type of research is political(rather an apolitical, as research is alwaysmade out to be). To do this type of research,researchers and institutions must know thatwhat they engage in is contentious and theknowledge they are creating will be a fightover power.

Politicising Research

39

What type of research is actively pro-moted? What type of research is silenced?This leads also to the question of what typeof knowledge is funded as opposed to whattype of research does not get funds. Areresearch institutions prepared to stick theirnecks out, take risks in stepping in thedirection that may be in opposition to theinterests of the multinational corporationsand may not even get governmentapproval? These are fundamental ques-tions that the GFAR and CGAIR mustaddress. Activist research is no less than ahero’s journey, and institutions sincerelywanting to help the poor, must be readyto walk the rough and narrow path.

Just as an example of what I am talkingabout – I found some glaring contradic-tions in one of the GFAR documents entitled‘Agriculture in the early 21st Century ’. Onthe first page, the paper first states that‘… the important contributions of theCGIAR Centers to the development of thegreen revolution is one of the main expla-nations of this extraordinary success inagricultural production’.

The Green Revolution was the harbingerof high input agriculture in many develo-ping countries. Yet later on in the paper,the GFAR states that high input agriculturehas not been proven to be energy efficient.The papers observes that grain cropsgrown with high and low inputs show thaton the average, those with low inputs arealmost 5 times more energy efficient thanthose grown with high inputs. In thePhilippines, moving from the traditional tothe modern system of rice productionimplied an increase of 3000 per cent ofenergy inputs to a 116 per cent increasein yield.

Activist research would ensure that thesetypes of findings are uncovered, and thatthe research results are then fed back andallowed to influence the claims and asser-tions on the green revolution. This is politi-cal. What type of knowledge is validatedand what is ignored or sidelined is conten-

tious because of vested interests.

Development-centered Vs aprofit-centered vision onagriculture and trade

In a recent study1 by FAO of 14 devel-oping countries’ experience of agriculturaltrade liberalisation, the FAO concluded thefollowing:

i) Few studies showed improvements inagricultural exports in the post-URperiod. There was little change in thevolume exported or in diversification ofproducts.

ii) On the other hand, food imports werereported to have risen rapidly in mostcountries. The balance of paymentssituation for developing countries hastherefore been aggravated by higherimport bills.

iii) There was a trend towards the concen-tration of farms in a wide-cross sectionof countries. The effect was that whileproductivity increased, ‘the process alsomarginalised small producers andadded to unemployment and poverty’.

iv) The import surges had detrimentaleffects on the production capacity ofstaple products in developing countries.‘More often than not, these (imports)were the very commodities that werevital for the economy of these countries– in terms of food supply, employment,economic growth and poverty reduc-tion’.

1 FAO 1999 ‘Synthesis of country case studies’, FAO Sym-posium on Agriculture, Trade and Food Security, Geneva23-24 September.


40

What has gone wrong?

Research must also be led by a vision.And the two should actively interact – thevision will feed the research and viz versa.The present problems trade is exacerbatingand creating for developing countries isdue to a misguided, profit-centered rat-her than development-centered vision ofagriculture and trade.

Today, it is the policy environment thatsets the direction and vision about foodsecurity and agricultural trade. The policydirection is predominantly crafted by theWorld Bank, the IMF and the WTO. Thekey players in these institutions are ofcourse the OECD governments, particu-larly the US and EU governments. Theiragenda in turn is largely reflected in mostconventional agricultural research.

Through policies, the financial andtrade institutions and key governmentshave defined food security as the availa-bility of food at the global level. Trade hasbeen heralded as the instrument forimproving food security for developingcountries. Through the market, developingcountries can find their comparativeadvantage. Trade is therefore the vehicleto efficiency.

Developing countries are encouragedto specialise and export, rather than ensuretheir own self-sufficiency. Take for example,a revealing statement made by the US atthe 1996 World Food Summit. Washing-ton’s position was that ‘Pursuit of higherlevels of food self-sufficiency has not beenlimited to developing countries, but theyare less able to bear the costs of foregoneeconomic efficiency, and thus, such policiesare relatively more damaging to theireconomies and to food security’.

The FAO throws another perspective onthis issue in a recent paper2 on agriculturaldevelopment and food security. The papermakes the observation that for a largenumber of developing countries, the agri-

2 FAO 1999 ‘Issues at stake relating to agriculturaldevelopment, trade and food security’, FAO Symposiumon Agriculture, Trade and Food Security: Issues andOptions in the Forthcoming WTO Negotiations From thePerspective of Developing Countries’. 23-24 September.

cultural sector remains largely underde-veloped in production both for the domesticmarket and for exports. At the same time,in most of these countries, the agriculturalsector lies at the center of their economies.Agriculture, it says,

• Accounts for a large share of Gross Do-mestic Product (GDP),

• Employs a large proportion of the laborforce,

• Represents a major source of foreignexchange,

• Supplies the bulk of basic food and pro-vides subsistence and income for largerural populations.

It concludes that ‘significant progress inpromoting economic growth, , reducingpoverty and enhancing food securitycannot be achieved in most of these coun-tries without developing more fully thepotential capacity of the agricultural sectorand its contribution to overall economic de-velopment’ (our emphasis, FAO, 19992).

Therefore, a development-centeredvision of agriculture recognises that agricul-ture is not just another sector of the econo-my.

Briefly, the following should be crucialelements informing a development-cen-tered vision of agriculture and trade:

1) Food security is the accessibility of foodfor even the poorest. For the majorityof poor in developing countries, produc-tion and accessibility are two sides ofthe same coin. Food is only accessibleif people have the entitlements or re-sources to produce it. This is becauseagriculture is main means of livelihood.If food production is taken out of theirhands, the rural majority are unlikely to


41

have access to other forms of employ-ment that will allow them to purchasefood on the market.

2) For developing countries to address theissue of food security for the poor, com-munities, countries and regions shouldstrife to be as food self-sufficient aspossible. Trade should be a means toattain food that cannot be grown locally.

3) Countries should therefore attempt todiversify their production to meet pri-marily national needs. That is, priorityshould be placed not on export crops,but on locally consumed agriculturalproducts.

4) Food production should be in the handsof many, rather than a few transnationalcorporations in order to ensure accessi-bility. Similarly, knowledge of food pro-duction must be available to all. Thepatent system is therefore anti-poor andanti-development since it does not en-courage the natural diffusion of knowl-edge.

5) Ecologically sound methods of agri-culture must be promoted, rather thanindustrialised agriculture. High inputagriculture penalises the poor and hasbeen environmentally destructive. Thesystem rewards the corporations thatproduce the chemical inputs – in-creasingly also the same corporationsproducing the bulk of the food.

Research directions

Some suggestions for research institu-tions include the following:

1) There should be thorough research onthe exact effects of trade liberalisationin agriculture in all countries, particu-larly as a result of IMF, World Bank andWTO policies. A comprehensive study

should cover the impact of liberalisationon food security, domestic productioncapacity, rural employment and povertyin developing countries.

2) Unlike the claims of GFAR and CGAIR,low prices of food have not led to de-creased poverty for the majority 1.3billion living under US$1 a day, or 2.8billion living under US$2 a day. Yes, lowfood prices have helped the urban poor.However, this is not where the majorityof the poor people are, or where themost acute poverty is usually found.

Low food prices instead are destroyingthe production base in many developingcountries. For example, the cost ofproduction of corn, in Mindanao, Philip-pines, is twice the depressed worldmarket price of corn. Small farmers aregoing out of business as a result.

Research must be carried out on theeffects of depressed world prices on thelivelihoods of small farmers and onpoverty in developing countries.

3) The character of agricultural productionhas been radically transformed in thelast 2-3 decades, with transnationalfood corporations monopolising agri-cultural production. This is the case inthe developed countries, and this struc-tural change is also increasingly takingroot in developing countries. Not onlyare the food corporations expandingand integrating horizontally, but alsothey are integrating vertically, so thatthe entire production process, fromgene to supermarket shelf can becontrolled by a single company.

The top 3 seed companies account for20 per cent of global seed trade. Thetop 10 agrochemical companies control91 per cent of the agrochemical market.Between 85-90 per cent of world agro-exports are controlled by 6 of the largesttransnational corporations (TNCs). 60


42

per cent of the global trade in grainproducts is dominated by a few TNCs.3

In such an environment where hugecompanies dominate at every level ofproduction, the prices or products areclearly not transparent. Prices at thefarm gate are pitifully low because thecorporations purchasing the productswork as a cartel. They argue that thelow farmgate prices are due to de-pressed commodity prices, however,they are the ones setting these prices.

We know only the tip of the iceberg ofhow food corporations control the mar-kets. More research is definitely needed:

i) Which companies are operatingwhere and what do they control?How much of which markets do theycontrol?

ii) How and to what extent are pricesbeing distorted by the foodcorpora-tions?

iii) What is the impact of the food cor-porations on market development,price and availability of food in theworld market?

iv) What is the effect of diminishingcompetition on developing countries’agricultural economies and theirfarmers?

v) Research on the possibility of imple-menting an effective multilateralcompetition policy in agriculturaltrade that can protect the smallplayers.

Research institutions can also look intothe positive alternatives and strategiescommunities have created in responseto the concentration of agriculture.

4) Dumping (the sale of goods in worldmarkets at less than the cost ofproduction) is common-place today and

poses a huge problem for developingcountries. However, we do not evenknow the extent of dumping. One keyproblem is that dumping is detected bycomparing prices in the exportingcountry and in the country where theproduct is imported. A serious problemarises when even in the exporting coun-try the product is sold at below cost.(E.g., US based grain companies payUS farmers less than the cost ofproduction for their crops, which is thensold on the international market atbelow the US domestic price, competingunfairly with other countries’ exports).

All forms of dumping must be prohibitedbecause of the negative effects ondeveloping countries’ producers. Re-search institutions can find out the extentto which dumping takes place and helpwith continually monitoring the inci-dence of dumping.

5) The total of OECD subsidies (measuredby the OECD Total Support Estimate)amounted to 335 billion in 1998. Thisis a significant increase from the 292billion in 1986-88 (the base period usedin the WTO’s Agreement on Agricul-ture). Overall support levels providedby the OECD countries have thereforeincreased despite reductions in thesupposedly trade-distorting supportcategory.

It is a well-known fact that even sup-posedly non-trade distorting subsidiesdo affect production. There must bemore research on the extent to whichthe various forms of subsidies distortprices and production levels, and theeffects of these distortions on smallfarmers, food security and domesticproduction capacity in developing coun-tries.

6) Emerging research is revealing thatliberalisation of developing countries’economies does not necessarily bringabout growth. Rather, it is how competi-

3 Varma, S 1999 ‘Actionaid’s Response to the MAFFConsultation Paper: World Trade OrganisationNegotiations on Agriculture’, November.


43

tive a country is, instead of how open itis. Some studies by UNCTAD forexample, have shown that liberalisationin economies that are not competitivehave brought about deindustrialisationrather than growth.

Research institutions could thereforelook at empirical studies on the condi-tions and factors which bring aboutgrowth or deindustrialisation in thevarious different types of economies. Itwould be useful for developing countrygovernments and for the financial andtrade institutions in setting policies if thelinks between growth, level of opennessand competitiveness were clearer.

7) Finally, we need more research in ecolo-gically friendly agricultural methods.Indeed, attempts to increase yields aremost efficient if ecologically soundmethods are used. For example, sus-tainable agricultural methods, whichemphasis the use of organic fertilizersand the principle of having diversecrops are likely to benefit especially thepoor.

The priority of research must be to putdomestic needs first, particularly interms of increasing the production ca-pacity for staple foods for the local po-pulation, rather than pursuing exportsas an engine for growth. This is not tosay that exports should be halted, butinstead, in the interest of food securityand accessibility, it should be a secon-dary priority.

Creating an enabling policyenvironment

The most important feature of an en-abling policy environment is policy flexi-bility for developing countries in the areaof trade.

Today, developing country governmentsare very limited – by IMF and World Bankconditionalities, and also by the WTO. Im-port barriers in developed countries haverisen, rather than decreased, especially onthe key agricultural products4. While de-veloping countries are made to open up,unfortunately, overall OECD subsidy levelshave increased rather than decreased.

While the WTO’s Agreement on Agri-culture has done little to address the dis-tortions of agricultural trade policies indeveloped countries, it has been a majorfactor in influencing national policies andopening up the markets of developingcountries.

Given the following factors:- the vagaries of the international trading

system,- the unpredictability of the world’s finan-

cial markets (the not too infrequent oc-currences of financial crises to even ro-bust economies),

- the need for developing countries tobuild up their national production capa-city especially in key agricultural pro-ducts,

developing countries should be givengreater policy space rather than be limitedin their policy choices, as is the case today.The fate of national economies can changevery quickly, yet the policy framework andoptions for developing countries remainsrelatively inflexible.

4 An ESCAP study reveals that the EU’s final bindings forthe year 2000 are almost two-thirds above the actual tariffequivalent for 1989-1993. For the US, they are more thanthree-quarters higher. Furthermore, for major agriculturalproducts, developed countries’ tariffs are about twice ashigh as those of developing countries. For 2 major cereals,wheat and maize, the bound tariff rates for developingcountries are 94% for wheat and 90% for maize. In contrast,the OECD average in the first year of implementation(1995) was calculated at 214% for wheat, 197% for barley,154% for maize (FAO 1996).


44

There are some suggestions for providinggreater policy flexibility:

a) All developing countries should be ableto use a positive list approach to declarewhich agricultural products or sectorsthey would like liberalised. That is, onlythe products which are declared by acountry are subject to liberalisationcommitments under the WTO. TheWorld Bank and IMF’s conditionalitiesshould likewise be adjusted. Wheneconomic circumstances change, coun-tries should also be able to notify andreadjust their liberalisation commit-ments.

b) Allow developing countries to re-evalu-ate and adjust their tariff levels. Whereit has been established that cheap im-

ports are destroying or threateningdomestic producers, developing coun-tries should be allowed to raise theirtariff bindings on key products to protectfood security.

c) There should be greater flexibility inlevels of domestic supports developingcountries are allowed to provide. Thisis not the case at present under WTOcommitments.

d) Developing countries should be able toinvoke a Special Safeguard mechanismduring times of low world prices or whenimports exceed a certain maximumamount. For example, a developingcountry which has low import tariffs


45

The Process of Change inInternational AgriculturalResearch for Development

and the Role of NGOs

By Ann Waters-Bayer, NGO Committee of the CGIAR

Background to the currentprocess of change in theCGIAR

The CGIAR (Consultative Group for In-ternational Agricultural Research) has beenin existence for almost 30 years. There aremany dedicated scientists in the 16 inter-national research centres in the ”System”who want to contribute to combating hun-ger in developing countries. However, inrecent years, critical voices have becomelouder and are demanding a revision ofthe System. As pointed out by the EIARDWorking Group (EIARD 2000), some of thecriticisms have included:

• problems in extending benefits of the”Green Revolution” to marginal areas

• problems in forging new partnershipsbeyond the System

• unhealthy competition between CGIARinternational agricultural research cen-tres (the ”Centres”) and national agri-cultural research systems (NARS) fordonor funding

• duplication of efforts when severalCentres base staff in the same region

• inflexibility in responding to new re-search challenges.

At International Centres Week in Octo-ber 1999 (ICW99), the CGIAR decided tostart an exercise of defining its future upto the year 2010. At the Mid-Term Mee-ting in May 2000 (MTM2000) in Dresden,the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)presented a draft paper entitled ”A FoodSecure World for All: Toward a New Visi-on and Strategy for the CGIAR”. This drewin part on an electronic conference heldin December 1999 and January 2000 thatinvolved mainly people who are or werein the System. A Synthesis Group wasformed at MTM2000 to pull together theresults of the various studies, papers andcontributions on structure and governancemade by the TAC, Centre DirectorsCommittee, various other committees(including the NGO Committee of theCGIAR), some regional research fora andother groups and individuals, and topresent a proposal for restructuring to ICWin October 2000.

In July-August 2000, a second electro-nic conference was held on CGIAR gover-nance, organisation and structure. Thisinvolved a wider group of about 500stakeholders, including some people fromNGOs. During this wider discussion, itbecame clear that, ”if the CGIAR wants to

The Change in International Agricultural Research

46

base its new organization on a broadlyshared understanding of what the Systemis about and what it should be doing in thenext ten years, then it needs to spend moretime and effort in building that consensusbefore moving ahead into the questions ofstructure, organization and governance”(Berdegue & Escobar 2000). Nevertheless,because of tightening money belts andimpatience among many critics of the Sy-stem, the CGIAR felt obliged to moveahead as quickly as possible with a restruc-turing process.

At ICW2000, the TAC Vision andStrategy paper, which had been revisedafter the discussions in Dresden, wasadopted. The main ”planks” of this paperwere:

1. focus alleviation of poverty and hunger2. bringing ”modern science” to bear on

productivity and institutional issuesrelated to poverty and food insecurity

3. priority to sub-Saharan Africa and SouthAsia

4. regional approach to research planningand implementation

5. seeking new partners to improve prob-lem identification, research and dissemi-nation of results

6. adopting a task force approach toaddress priority issues

7. serving as a catalyst within the globalagricultural research system.

Also at ICW2000, the Synthesis Groupreinforced the idea of a regional approachto agenda setting: defining priorities for thetotality of agricultural research in eachregion and defining the role of the CGIARwithin that broader regional agenda. It alsoproposed a federation with a lean centralstructure, but it was not clear whether thisreferred only to a federation of the 16 Cen-tres or would also replace the informalassociation of governments, internationaland regional organisations, and privatefoundations known as the CGIAR. Manyquestions remained open, such as account-ability to ”shareholders” (donor members

from North and South) and stakeholders(those who affect and are affected byCGIAR activities), legal status, fundingsources, and the composition and role ofa board and/or other governance mecha-nisms. However, some ”quick wins” weregiven support, such as re-aligning theprogrammes of the CGIAR Centres to allowfor closer collaboration and avoid duplica-tion of efforts; pooling common servicesof Centres, particularly those for raisingpublic awareness and mobilizingresources; and eliminating MTM after2001.

The participants at ICW2000 agreedthat a Change Design and ManagementTeam would be given the task of generatingconcrete proposals for improving CGIARstructure, organisation and governance byMTM in May 2001 in South Africa.

Creation of the GFAR: a par-allel and complementaryprocess

Also in response to criticism that theCGIAR Centres had little positive impacton agricultural development and weresetting their priorities without adequateparticipation of the intended users of theresearch (small-scale farmers and the na-tional research and extension organisa-tions that should be supporting them), theCGIAR decided in 1996 to set up a Glo-bal Forum on Agricultural Research(GFAR). This seeks to bring together thekey stakeholders in international agricul-tural research for development (IARD):farmer organisations, NARS in developingcountries, NGOs, ”advanced” researchinstitutes in industrialised countries, donorsand the private sector. The main aims areto involve all these stakeholder groups informulating a global framework for IARDand to promote closer collaboration be-tween them in research for poverty reduc-


47

tion, food security and sustainable man-agement of natural resources. Particularattention is given to forming and/orstrengthening regional, subregional andnational fora for IARD in the South. Variousmeetings of stakeholder groups at theselevels culminated in a global conferenceheld in Dresden in May 2000, prior to theMTM2000 of the CGIAR.

Partly as a result of a concerted effortof the Forum Environment and Develop-ment in Germany to bring together asmany people from NGOs and small-farmer organisations (SFOs) as possible todiscuss IARD immediately before the GFARand CGIAR meetings in Dresden, severalrepresentatives from NGOs and SFOs fromboth the North and the South attendedthese latter two meetings. This gave thesecivil-society organisations a much greateropportunity than had ever existed beforeto discuss the approaches, methods andcontents of IARD with CGIAR members andpeople from the Centres.

The external review of the GFAR wasquite favourable, and the process of build-ing up fora at several levels is continuing.The NGOs that were involved in the GFARregard this as a possibility to strengthenthe participation of NGOs and SFOs insetting the research agendas, but there isstill a long way to go to set up the mecha-nisms that will institutionalise this participa-tion. There are plenty of statements beingspoken and printed about involvement ofcivil society in decision-making and imple-mentation, but few examples of real part-nership between NGOS and SFOs, on theone hand, and international and nationalresearch institutes, on the other. Institutionalcultures are slow to change.

A member of the NGO Committee,Jean Marc von der Weid from Brazil, bringsNGO perspective into the GFAR SteeringCommittee. The NGO Committee supportsthe idea of using the GFAR structure forregional priority setting for the CGIAR.However, if the NGOs and SFOs are to

have a real influence in this process, thenconsiderable efforts will have to be madeto ensure more than token participation indiscussions of agricultural research at thesevarious levels. At the moment, the oppor-tunities for influence by NGOs are betterat global level than at regional or natio-nal levels, where this influence could havemore direct impact on research practiceand related policy.

First steps in the process ofchange design and man-agement in the CGIAR

Immediately after ICW2000, the CGIARChair and World Bank Vice-President IanJohnson set up an eight-person ChangeDesign and Management Team (CDMT).It includes management specialists fromboth inside and outside of the System, halffrom the North and half from the South,and is headed by the former President ofthe Canadian International DevelopmentAgency (CIDA), Margaret Catley-Carson.The CDMT is supported by 15 resourcepersons from Belgium, Canada, France,India, Switzerland, UK and USA. Of thetotal of 24 persons who are members ofand resource persons to the CDMT, threeare from ”Life Science” companies (Novar-tis and Monsanto). The CDMT is guidedby a 22-person Steering Group, headedby the CGIAR Chair. This group includesindividuals who bring perspectives from theCentres (ICARDA, ICLARM, IFPRI, ILRI), theco-sponsors (World Bank, FAO), southernCGIAR members (Brazil, China, Colom-bia, Egypt, Philippines, South Africa),largest contributors (Japan, USA), otherbilateral contributors (France, Germany,Norway, Switzerland, UK), other interna-tional and regional organisations (Rocke-feller Foundation) and partnership com-mittees (one person each from the NGOCommittee and the Private Sector Com-mittee of the CGIAR).


48

The first meeting of the CDMT and theSteering Group took place in December2000 in Washington DC. A strong desirefor a programmatic approach to researchand development (R&D) emerged clearly.The CGIAR was viewed as an associationnot for the purpose of supporting brick-and-mortar research centres but rather forthe purpose of addressing issues of globalconcern through agricultural research. Itwas suggested that the activities in whichthe CGIAR researchers have specificstrengths be grouped together underbanners that designate the central issuebeing addressed or impact to be expected,e.g., dealing with climatic change, orimproved human nutrition and health.

The CDMT was asked to take anotherlook at the federation model presented(and rejected) at ICW2000 and to definemore clearly the relations between the Cen-tres and the CGIAR, including its currentSecretariat, TAC and the various othercomponents of the System. Considerableattention was to be given to questions offinance, as the stagnation and – in somecases, like Germany – the reduction infunding to the CGIAR has been a greatcause for concern and, indeed, a drivingfactor behind the change process. TheCDMT was asked to consider how policy-makers and stakeholders who influencepolicymaking (including civil society) in boththe North and the South could be per-suaded that it is vital to invest in IARD.

There was some tension between, of theone hand, the desire of some individuals,especially some from the World Bank, tohave modalities of decision-making thatwould make the CGIAR less costly andmore time-efficient and ”nimble” in itsresponses to change and, on the otherhand, the desire of some individuals tohave genuine consultation or even partici-pation in decision making not only by theCGIAR ”shareholders” but also by thestakeholders in IARD.

Enhancing the inputs of civilsociety

In January 2001, the NGO Committee,with funding support from Ford Founda-tion, organised an electronic conferenceon enhancing civil society inputs into IARD.It was felt that key actors from civil society(e.g. NGOs; farmer organisations; envi-ronmental, policy advocacy and consumergroups) had been little involved in theprocess of re-organisation within theCGIAR. The e-conference was meant toencourage actors from civil society to takepart in the debates about the mission,approaches, structure and governance ofthe System. For two weeks, 246 personsfrom different sectors of civil society dis-cussed these issues.

Most participants felt that the CGIARwas not as pro-poor as it should be; somesaw it as dominated by the interests of richfarmers and multinational corporations.There was consensus that the CGIARshould aim at contributing to poverty re-duction, and that this required majorchanges in the System. It was felt that theNGO Committee should play a key rolein facilitating a broad-based process of dis-cussion and consultation to develop avision of IARD with the following centralelements:

• Poverty reduction, food security andnatural resource conservation should bethe main criteria in setting priorities forresearch. The CG should move closerto small farmers and their specific con-ditions and needs, especially to ruralcommunities in regions of the world thatare not likely to attract the interest ofprivate R&D.

• The donor community must continue tosupport public, international and natio-nal agricultural R&D to meet the specialneeds of the poor and to counterbal-ance the effects of the dominant trendsin international science and technology,particularly those related to biotechnol-


49

ogy and intellectual property rights(IPRs).

• Research outputs produced with publicfunding should not be patented.

• Social science research in sustainableagriculture and natural resource man-agement (NRM) should be strength-ened.

• SFOs must play a stronger and moredirect role in the planning and decision-making processes and bodies of IARD.

• The Centres should intensify their workwith NGOs, taking advantage of NGOexpertise in working with the rural poorand in using participatory approachesto R&D.

• To meet this new orientation, the CGIARmust reform its organisation, gover-nance and incentives systems and createa new organisational culture.

Participants felt that NGOs have acomparative advantage in the use ofbroad-based, system-oriented or holisticapproaches that are needed to understandthe complex issues of rural poverty, foodsecurity and NRM. Most CGIAR scientistsare not equipped with the knowledge baseand skills to deal with the problems of therural poor. The strong expertise of NGOsand other civil society organisations in thisrespect would be a valuable contributionfrom civil society to IARD.

“Civil society” includes a very broadrange of sectors of society with many dif-ferent points of view and interests regard-ing IARD. It was felt that it might be a mis-take to expect that the NGO Committeecould speak for civil society, because thisgives a false notion of homogeneity andconsensus. Instead, the NGO Committeeshould aim to enable the many voices ofcivil society to be expressed. Diversemechanisms for civil society input into theCGIAR are needed to allow different views

to come through.

The major points of disagreementamong participants in the e-conferencerelated to:

• Capacity for change within theCGIAR:Many participants thought that trying toinfluence the CGIAR was a waste oftime. Instead of seeking reform throughcooperation, energies should be devot-ed to creating new organisations, partic-ularly networks of groups, communitiesand individuals that can truly harnesslocal knowledge and modern scienceand technology to reduce poverty,increase food security and improve na-tural resources. Others saw the CGIARas an international institution that con-tains many elements deeply committedto its goals and that had become in-creasingly open to collaborate withothers, including NGOs, national agri-cultural research institutes (NARIs) andSFOs. These participants thought thatthe NGO Committee should promotecollaboration and dialogue amongstakeholders in and around the CGIAR.

• Mechanisms through which NGOsshould collaborate with theCGIAR:Several participants thought that NGOsshould receive a significant share of thefinancial resources that today go to theCG Centres. Others favoured researchconsortia with shared funding.

• How to implement a more “de-mand-driven” approach to prior-ity setting:Some participants thought this could beachieved only if NGOs and farmers arerepresented on Centre Boards and ma-jor decision-making committees in theSystem including the TAC. Othersfavoured establishing the NGO Com-mittee as a permanent decision-makingand monitoring and evaluation bodywithin the CGIAR, parallel to TAC.


50

• Level of research:Most participants thought that theCGIAR should become more directlyengaged in local and regional develop-ment-oriented research, particularly inmarginal regions. Others argued thatthe CGIAR should produce researchresults with broad potential for interna-tional impact, and that its role could onlybe complementary to that played byother organisations working at natio-nal and local levels.

• Role of biotechnology in IARD:Some participants argued stronglyagainst the use of public resources forbiotechnology research, especially re-search to generate genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs). Others felt thatsome forms of biotechnology mightbenefit the poor, if linked to low-exter-nal-input agriculture and if the researchproducts remain in the public domain.

The participants saw no reason whyIARD funding should be restricted to theCGIAR Centres. Many participants fa-voured greater use of open, competitive-bidding mechanisms that would allowparticipation of any organisation qualifiedto do good-quality, pro-poor research.

They agreed that the NGO Committeeshould seek influence on IARD not only atglobal level but also at Centre level.Furthermore, it was suggested that regio-nal and national subcommittees involvingboth NGOs and farmer organisations becreated and supported for regular consul-tation on policy issues and as a basis forcivil society influence on setting researchpriorities.

In summary, the participants felt that civilsociety must ensure that the CGIAR carriesthe responsibility of its stated mission toachieve sustainable food security andreduce poverty in developing countries andthat it produce research results that areinternational public goods. Civil societymust make the CGIAR accountable to a

more inclusive regional approach to theformulation and implementation of its re-search agenda with full participation ofSFOs, NGOs and other groups in civilsociety.

Second round in the changedesign and mangement pro-cess

The CDMT and the Steering Group metagain in February 2001 in The Nether-lands. For this meeting, the CDMT hadprepared an Issues Paper that was shortand clear, listed options and some disad-vantages and advantages of these, andasked the Steering Group for its views toguide the future work of the CDMT. Theresults of the above-mentioned civil societye-conference were made known to allmembers of the CDMT and the SteeringGroup.

Global Challenge Programmes

Everyone in the CDMT and SteeringGroup seemed to agree on the proposalto create Global Challenge Programmes(GCP) to ensure more output-orientedresearch and to improve linkages betweenresearch and development so that theoutputs really have some impact on theground. A major motivation behind theidea of creating GCPs was to mobilisepublic research and development funds,as well as pledges for longer-term funding.Two possibilities of GCPs were mentionedas examples: a programme for agriculturaldevelopment in sub-Saharan Africa andanother for dealing with the impacts ofclimate change on smallholder agriculture.However, rather than defining specificGCPs, the CDMT was asked by the SteeringGroup to work out a process for selecting,planning and setting up such programmesand defining their governance structures.


51

The general feeling was that the pro-gramme approach should become themajor thrust, involving a substantial partof public funding going to the System, notsomething done on the side while Centrescontinue with business as usual. It was feltthat, if such a development-driven ap-proach is taken, the re-organisation of theCentres would sort itself out on its own, asmost of the public funds would be goingtowards the research projects at subregio-nal and regional level under the umbrellaof the GCPs, and those Centres that couldnot contribute to these projects would haveto seek other alliances. This may drive someof the Centres into the arms of the privatesector in their search for replacement ofpublic funds. Private sector organisationsmay be interested in such alliances if itallows them to do the kind of research it isnot allowed to do in “developed” countries.Civil society organisations will then haveto decide on the ethics of seeking partner-ships with such Centres through publiclyfunded programmes.

GCPs, GFAR and regional ap-proaches

In the CDMT’s Issues Paper, the GFARwas mentioned only once in parentheses.There was no indication (or explicit ques-tion) as to how the process of defining theCGIAR research agenda – and specificallythe themes of the GCPs – would be linkedwith the subregional and regionalprocesses of research priority setting thatwere agreed upon at ICW2000 and hadalready started in Latin America. Duringthe meeting, the GFAR was mentionedoccasionally in connection with constituencybuilding (in collaboration with TAC). It wasunclear whether:

1. the GCPs would be generated throughthe stakeholder-interaction processesbeing promoted through the GFAR, withthe CG scientists/centres forming partof the GCPs; or

2. the GCPs would “belong” to the CGIAR,who would be in the driving seat, andthe other partners would choose to jointhem through a process distinct fromthe GFAR.

When discussing the mobilisation ofresources for the GCPs, the Steering Groupfelt that this could involve an initiative dis-crete from the CGIAR-centred efforts. It isforeseen that, for each GCP, there will bea Steering Group that includes representa-tives from the major stakeholders. Thiscould fit into Option 1. However, whenpeople started talking about “manage-ment” of the GCPs by the CGIARheadquarters office, the tendency seemedto go more toward Option 2 – a morecentralised approach. In view of the strongsupport given by Southern NARIs, NGOsand some donors to the less centralisedapproach of the GFAR, it is highly doubtfulwhether they would be in favour of Opti-on 2.

Judging by the lack of enthusiasm inlarge parts of the Centres to commit theirtime and energy to system-wide andecoregional programmes – and thegenerally lukewarm attitude shown by theCGIAR to the partnership-building processbeing facilitated by the GFAR – the donorswill have to wield a big (money) stick toconvince the Centres to engage in GCPs.

CGIAR executive body

Most members of the CDMT and theSteering Group felt it would be necessaryto have some kind of CGIAR executivebody. This body would have the authorityto decide and act on behalf of the CGIARbetween the annual meetings (ICW), butmajor policies would still be ratified by thedonor group as a whole. The main argu-ment for creating such an executive body,which has been rejected previously by theCGIAR members, was that it would beneeded to coordinate the efforts of settingup and ensuring the accountability of theGCPs.


52

Technical Advisory Committee

It was proposed that the TechnicalAdvisory Committee (TAC) become aScience Advisory Committee, givingexternal advice about the scientific qualityand relevance of the research, includingethical issues, and working closely withwhat might be an independent unit set upto organise external reviews. A network ofexpertise in agricultural and NRM researchand development (not only technicalscientists) would be established, and theCommittee would mobilise and draw uponthis network as need be. The recentlycreated Science Partnership Committeewould be subsumed into this network.

Learning from NGO experi-ence in ecoregional pro-grammes

The arguments for setting up GCPs arequite similar to those raised over ten yearsago in the CGIAR, when it was decided toset up ecoregional programmes ofinterdisciplinary research on sustainableagriculture and NRM within agro-ecolo-gical zones defined according to geo-graphic regions. These were supposed toinvolve partnerships of Centres, NARIs,NGOs and farmers in research that linkedtechnical, social, political and institutionalaspects to solve land-use problems. Then,too, there was talk of sharing governance,decentralising and delegating authorityand responsibilities. Then, too, there washope of attracting more donor supportthrough a programmatic approach andintentions to channel a significant part ofCGIAR funds (almost 40%) to theseprogrammes.

If the GCP approach proposed by theCDMT is going to work, a very close lookmust be taken at the experiences made thusfar by NGOs in the framework ofecoregional programmes, in order to avoid

repeating the same mistakes and to makesure that effective linkages can be built upbetween the GCPs and the research beingdone by farmers and local agriculturalagencies. Thus far, relatively little fundingby donors (6% of the total budget) andlittle enthusiasm by Centre scientists hasgone into the ecoregional and system-wideprogrammes. It will be necessary to findout why, so that the same reluctance orresistance is not encountered when settingup the GCPs.

The need to learn from and improvethe regional programmes was recognisedby the International Service for NationalAgriculturaI Research (ISNAR), one of the16 Centres, which held an internationalworkshop on the organisation andmanagement of these programmes onMarch 2001. In preparation for this work-shop, the NGO Committee sought theviews of some of the NGOs listed as pro-gramme partners.

Role of NGOs and forms ofcollaboration

The NGOs’ perceptions of their rolesin interaction with research centrescoloured their perception of partnershipwithin the ecoregional programmes. SomeNGOs regard themselves purely as a linkin the transfer-of-technology paradigm forR&D: they do the transferring. These NGOswere satisfied to have received geneticmaterials, technologies, technical adviceor related training materials from theCentres. However, several NGOs –especially those concerned with ecologicalagriculture and NRM – do not accept arole restricted to dissemination of technolo-gies, for two reasons:

1. They feel that formal research isalienated from the realities in the fieldand is not providing the types of tech-nologies suitable for their partners –resource-poor farmers, often living inmarginal areas – and they therefore


53

have to develop such appropriate tech-nologies themselves together with thefarmers.

2. They feel that simply transferring a tech-nology will not strengthen the capacityof farmers to adjust to changing con-ditions and opportunities – and it is inthis local capacity to adjust and innovatethat the sustainability of agriculture andNRM lies.

These NGOs are encouraging farmersto experiment with promising options, sup-ported by scientists and/or technicians fromformal research and development. Theseare the NGOs that are most critical of thetype of collaboration they have experiencedin the ecoregional programmes and inother interactions with Centres. They areinterested in being involved in setting priori-ties for research, in planning the specificresearch projects, in carrying out the re-search together with farmers and scientists,and in disseminating not only farmer-testedtechnologies but also the approach topromoting farmer experimentation andinnovation.

The view was expressed that the inter-national research Centres should leave itup to NGOs, NARIs and extension services,working closely with farmers, to implementthe applied and adaptive research. TheCentres, in their turn, should focus on gen-erating knowledge about the mechanismsthat lead to the results, both in the fieldand at different policy levels. Their researchagenda should be driven by demand forthis knowledge, coming from below. TheCentres also have an important role to playin building up the capacities of NARIs andNGOs so that they can translate this knowl-edge into information that is useful forsupporting local research and developmentprocesses.

This reflects some of the visions thatthese NGOs have for their interaction withCentres. Especially people in this type ofNGO expressed the feeling that, when they

(along with farmers’ and community-basedorganisations) were involved in initial work-shops to launch an ecoregional pro-gramme or to be consulted about region-al research needs, they were merely beingused to give legitimacy to the programme– through inclusion in the list of participants– and thus to gain financial resources.Subsequently, the Centres defined theresearch agenda themselves and used thefunds primarily for their own activities or,at the most, for some activities of the NARIs.

The forms of collaboration mentionedby NGOs who were contacted becausethey were reportedly involved in ecoregion-al programme included:

• no further involvement after an initialworkshop

• very peripheral involvement (e.g. somevisits to the NGO field sites by scientistsand students involved in the ecoregionalprogrammes)

• providing data for regional databases

• joint PRA studies

• joint development of proposals for ad-aptive research and extension

• participating in workshops and semi-nars to discuss research methods andresults

• most commonly: facilitating on-farmtesting and/or dissemination of specificcropping or farming techniques sug-gested by the programmes.

Strengths and weaknesses

NGOs particularly appreciated theopportunities offered by some Centres forinformation exchange and learning duringtraining courses, travelling seminars, e-conferences and participation in interna-tional conferences. Databases on R&D


54

methods for NRM in comparable areaswere appreciated, as were discussions ofrelevant experiences and processes. Eco-regional programmes that had opened upto a wide range of partners and operatedin a networking mode received goodmarks.

Referring to the specific ecoregionalprogrammes with which they were in con-tact, the NGOs mentioned weaknessessuch as:

• lack of clarity of the roles of the partnerswithin the programme, because clearagreements and Terms of Referencewere not worked out; also the potentialbenefits were not clear, particularly forthe farmers

• too much time devoted to meetings,coordination and databases during along start-up phase but very little con-crete research activity

• high expenditures for the conveningworkshops but then a lack of donor sup-port for the proposed collaborative re-search

• lack of transparency regarding availa-bility or use of funds

• many activities under the ”ecoregional”banner are simply a continuation of theconventional commodity-oriented pro-duction-enhancement research of theCentres

• too much emphasis on describing thebenchmark sites and, even then, pri-marily only in biophysical terms, where-as social, political and institutional as-pects are much more important for sus-tainable agriculture and NRM

• too much emphasis on complicatedtechniques in computer-based modell-ing and GIS that are of little use forresearch and development in the South

• little to no involvement of NGOs in theoverall planning of the ecoregional pro-grammes and seldom any feeling ofgenuine partnership with the otherstakeholders (Centres, NARIs) in thesense of mutual accountability andshared responsibility.

Opportunities and threats

Despite all these weaknesses, the NGOsthat have been in contact with ecoregionalprogrammes strongly support the princi-ples behind them and wish they would beput into practice. A desire was expressedto really plan and implement activities to-gether with researchers, with listening andlearning on both sides. NGOs that workin the field with resource-poor farmers feelthat they can offer to these programmes:

1. their knowledge of the on-the-groundrealities of the farmers, and

2. their insights and experience in innova-tive ways of approaching extension andservice delivery (which can also be atopic of research), farmer experimen-tation and local capacity building.

They welcome closer interaction withresearch centres for sharing of ideas andmaterials, cross visits, training and follow-up coaching and advice in some aspectsof research, and in joint analysis of out-comes of farmer-led research.

Most national and smaller NGOsoperate on the basis of discretely fundedprojects, also to cover staff salaries, anddo not have unrestricted funds that theycan invest in ecoregional collaboration ornetworking. Some NGO people perceivethe researchers in the Centres, includingthe coordinators of the ecoregional pro-grammes, as operating on programmefunds, whereas the NGO people have toinvest their unpaid (non-project) time in thenetworking involved in the programme.The uncertainty of funding in most NGOs


55

makes it very difficult for them to enter intolonger-term (several-year) research agree-ments, and they have no ability to ”match”financially any kind of activity within theecoregional programmes, not even bymaking ”in-kind” contributions, e.g. stafftime. This creates obstacles for NGOs tosupport or take advantage of ecoregionalprogrammes.

Based on their experience thus far, themajor threats that NGOs mentioned whenreferring to future regional research collab-oration were the following:

• Researchers from the Centres, particu-larly the technical scientists, will continueto dominate the programmes and fol-low their own agenda, not being willingto share responsibilities and resourceswith NGOs and other actors in theNARS; NGOs will be used only to gatherdata for research and to disseminateresults, but will not be accepted as realpartners in the research process.

• donors will not give strong support toecoregional research, as this wouldrequire closer collaboration betweendonors and a change in donor proce-dures.

Recommendations and next steps

Some of the recommendations madeby NGOs for future regional researchcollaboration were:

• The ecoregions should be based muchmore deliberately on political and ad-ministrative regions that can be loci foralliances in development-oriented re-search, including policy and institutionalaspects.

• The ecoregional programmes musthave a much stronger input of socialsciences (not just economics), includingtraining of the technical scientists incommunication techniques and multi-

disciplinary teamwork.

• Centres can serve a useful role asconveners of agriculture R&D consortiabut should regard themselves as facilita-tors rather than implementers; as ca-pacities and experiences in collabora-tion are built up, the consortia shouldbe free to decide if the convening poweris still necessary and, if so, who amongthe partners will have this responsibility.

• More NGOs should be involved in theecoregional programmes but, ratherthan bringing together many organisa-tions that may be motivated only byprospects of gaining access to funds,collaboration should start with thoseNGOs that are already working closelywith farmers in developing and testinginnovations that farmers regard asuseful and build up from there,strengthening and broadening alliancesbased on real work in the field.

• The ecoregional programmes can playan important role in developing R&Dmethods in NRM but these should bemethods applicable by organisations inthe South with limited equipment andfinancial resources.

• Greater opportunities should be createdfor staff of NGOs to share informationand experiences with other partners andto gain a clearer overview of the ecore-gional programme of which they are apart, not only through electronic com-munication but also during brief butintensive learning workshops.

• Within the jointly-designed broad ecore-gional programmes, there should becompetitive grant schemes for specificprojects, open to NARIs, universities andNGOs with a proven track record indevelopment-oriented research. NGOsand SFOs should be involved in definingthe criteria for evaluating the projectproposals, and NGOs and SFOs thatare not competing for the grants should


56

be involved in the evaluation of the pro-posals.

• NGOs and SFOs should be involved inecoregional programme steeringgroups at subnational, national andinternational levels, as well as in moni-toring and evaluating the outputs of theprogrammes.

• External reviews should examine theaspects of partnerships, division of re-sponsibilities, transparency and ac-countability within the ecoregional pro-grammes.

• NGOs and SFOs must make a con-certed effort to obtain external fundingthat will allow them to make stronginputs into the process of regional pri-ority setting and in designing and imple-menting ecoregional programmes.

The review of the experience with theecoregional programmes revealed thatone of the major weaknesses was lack ofdonor commitment. It was argued by somedonors that the research proposals withinthe programmes were not of sufficientquality for funding. This is hardly surprising,as the type of interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder consortia that were to be setup were new to IARD. Donor commitmentto support large collaborative programmesinvolving decentralised research to solvemajor development problems identified bystakeholders must include funds forbuilding up the partnerships, with stronginvolvement of NGOs and SFOs, and fordeveloping fundable proposals. Otherwise,the GCPs will face the same problems asthe ecoregional programmes.

Third round in the CDM pro-cess

In the meantime, the CDMT had workedquickly to produce a revised version of itsproposals for restructuring the System andmade this available via the web already inMarch 2001. It was also distributed widelyby email by the GFAR Secretariat. TheCDMT received numerous responses fromdonors, regional fora, Centre Directors,Centre Boards, the private sector, NGOsand concerned individuals. This is a CGIARchange process that includes wider con-sultation and appears to be more trans-parent than any that has gone before, butthe reins of power in terms of decision-making are being pulled in more tightly.

The April 2001 meeting of the CDMTand the Steering Group revealed the strongthrust by the donors – foremost the WorldBank – to make the CGIAR an institutiongoverned by the “shareholders”. The Con-sultative Council, in which also stakehold-ers were members, will be eliminated, aswill the Mid-Term Meeting of donors andstakeholders from the Centres, other re-search institutes in North and South, pri-vate industry and civil society. Instead, anExecutive Council composed of a smallnumber of ”shareholders” will act on be-half of the CGIAR members betweenannual meetings. While this is a move to-ward much stronger control by the donors,the proposal to form Steering Committeesfor the new GCPs that will be composedof representatives of all stakeholdersinvolved is a move toward broader-basedgovernance of these integrated researchand development programmes. It is clearwhere civil society should be focusing itsefforts to realise influence on governance.

During the April meeting, it was madeclear that the GCPs, although “global” inname and implication, could be regionalin application. Most of the donors presentgave a strong vote for restructuring the Sys-tem through a quick shift (within five years)


57

of at least half of CGIAR funding towardGCPs rather than Centres.

However, the procedure for identifyingthe themes and establishing the partner-ships for these GCPs became less ratherthan more clear in the revised proposal bythe CDMT. Although the vocabulary of re-gional priority setting is still used, the ac-tuality will probably be that a few Centreswill assemble existing activities under a“global” banner and will proceed more orless as before. It will be up to the donorsto insist on partnerships with other actorsin research and development and towithhold funding until fair and bindingagreements with these partners have beenmade. At the same time, initiatives needto be taken at regional and subregionallevels by non-CG actors to draw up pro-grammes and projects under ”global” pro-grammes, based on their regional priori-ties. Here, the GFAR can play an importantsupportive role in ensuring the participationof civil society organisations, but this willbe possible only if the donors provide suffi-cient funds for this purpose.

In the proposed structure for the CGIAR,there is no independent body that overseesthe activities and decisions of the donorsand ensures that public funds are beingused in the interests of the poor in the de-veloping world. The entity that comesclosest to this will be the Science Council(the proposed name for the new TAC) andits supporting “pools” of scientists and de-velopment experts at global and regionallevels. More individuals concerned withsocial, institutional and ethical issues aresupposed to be included.

NGOs and SFOs will have to be strate-gic in securing positions within bodies ofinfluence, including the Science Counciland its “pools” of experts, the Boards ofTrustees of the Centres, the Steering Com-mittees of the GCPs, and the evaluationmissions for the Centres as well as theGCPs and the projects under their umbrel-la.

In order to support and coordinate theseefforts to “infiltrate” the System and tofacilitate links between the various NGOand SFO representatives in governingbodies and evaluating missions, there willbe a need for a civil society entity – possiblywith the legal form of a foundation – de-voted to ensuring that civil society interestsare promoted in IARD. Another importanttask of such an entity would be to keep awatchful eye on the activities and decisionsof the System, to make deviations from themandate known to the public and to exertpolitical pressure on the System to fulfil itsmandate.

Such groupings of civil society organisa-tions have already been formed in somecountries. These and additional initiativesand networking between them deservesupport, as do the efforts to strengthen civilsociety inputs into IARD at subregional andregional levels. To stimulate the creationof such bodies and to ensure good commu-nication between them, a professionalbody is needed with one or more full-timeemployees. Initially, such a body wouldhave to be funded from outside sourcesand could be part of an existing institution,such as the GFAR Secretariat or ISNAR.

In addition, now that the Mid-Term Mee-ting and Consultative Council will beeliminated, more opportunities will haveto be created to allow direct exchange be-tween donors, scientists and stakeholdersof IARD. These must be very deliberatelypursued through the global, regional andsubregional fora on agricultural researchfor development (under a renamed andcorrespondingly focused GFARD).

The NGO Committee can help to makevoices of civil society heard within the Sy-stem and can work closely with the CGIARSecretariat and civil society organisationsto keep Centres, GCPs, NGOs and SFOsinformed about opportunities for collabo-ration. However, in the structure of the Sy-stem as proposed by the CDMT, the NGOCommittee will have neither the power nor


58

the resources to exert strong politicalinfluence on the directions taken by theSystem. Such influence can be exercisedonly through close collaboration of theNGO Committee with independent extern-al organisations of civil society.

Planning the strategy of civilsociety to influence IARD

In a continuation of the project sup-ported by Ford Foundation, the NGOCommittee will host an international work-shop of civil society organisations in mid-May 2001 in Frankfurt, Germany. This willbe followed by a regional workshop forNGOs and SFOs in southern and easternAfrica, to be held in Durban, South Africa,immediately before MTM2001. At boththese workshops, the CDMT proposal forchange in the CGIAR will be discussed.

The NGO Committee hopes that aworking group can be set up, comprisingmembers of the Committee, the NGOrepresentatives in the GFAR and represent-atives of other organisations, especiallySFOs, with sufficient independent fundingto be functional and effective. Such a body– a Civil Society Council or Foundation –will be able to engage with the CGIAR,donors and other actors in IARD from amuch more powerful position than can theNGO Committee. Judging from thereactions of civil society thus far to theCDMT proposals, the meeting will probablyseek how to strengthen NGO and SFOinvolvement in setting priorities for andimplementing research and developmentprogrammes in regions defined in geo-political terms.

The subregional and regional forabeing organised under the umbrella of theGFAR are currently dominated by scientistsin the NARIs, most of whom show little con-cern for the negative effects of capital-in-tensive agriculture and globalisation andshow little understanding for the underlyingcauses of poverty, hunger and naturalresource degradation. A concerted effortwill have to be made to strengthen theinfluence of NGOs and SFOs on agricul-tural research to push the agenda of re-source-poor farmers.

The workshops will focus on definingmechanisms through which civil society caninfluence IARD, both within and beyondthe CGIAR, and can establish genuine part-nerships in agricultural research anddevelopment at regional and local levels.

References

EIARD (European Initiative for AgriculturalResearch for Development). 2000.Contribution of the EIARD WorkingGroup on Restructuring of the CGIAR.Draft.

Berdegue J & Escobar G. 2000. Elec-tronic conference on CGIAR govern-ance, organization and structure: finalsynthesis. Draft.

TAC (Technical Advisory Committee).2000. A food secure world for all:towards a new vision and strategy forthe CGIAR. Rome: FAO.


59

About the Authors

Thomas Becker works at the Institute forSocial Sciences in the Agricultural Sector,Dept. for Communication and Extensionat University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart,Germany. His training is in agriculture, witha specialisation in communication, exten-sion and participatory approaches. Tho-mas has professional experience in long-term and short-term missions in developingcountries and Europe as researcher, trainerand facilitator with emphasis on targetgroup and field staff level. He is a memberof AGRECOL, an association of develop-ment workers supporting sustainable agri-culture in developing countries.

Ilse Köhler-Rollefson has founded, to-gether with colleagues, the League for Pa-storal Peoples, an advocacy and technicalsupport organization for livestock depen-dent people. Acting as the League’s projectcoordinator, her current activities focus onthe camel pastoralists of India and oncommunity-based approaches for animalgenetic resource conservation. Ilse hascarried out fieldwork with pastoralists inJordan, Sudan, and India, and was adjunctprofessor at the Department of Anthropolo-gy at San Diego State University (USA) from1984-1992. She has produced about 70publications on animals and their relation-ship with humans, and completed her pro-fessoral thesis in veterinary medicine atMunich University.

Kristin Dawkins is Vice President for In-ternational Programs at the Institute forAgriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) inMinneapolis, Minnesota. Her work focuseson food security, environmental policy andintellectual property rights; she representsthe Institute at a broad range of interna-tional negotiations and conferences. Kristin

was senior writer for their internationalpublication Consensus at the Harvard LawSchool Program on Negotiation, and sheworked in community development andrelated public policy in Philadelphia formany years. Kristin has a master’s degreein City Planning, specializing in Interna-tional Environmental Negotiation, from theMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Shehas published numerous articles and is theauthor of Gene Wars: The Politics of Bio-technology as well as The Ownership ofLife: When Patents and Values Clash.

Aileen Kwa is a Geneva-based researchassociate at Focus on the Global South, aSouthern based policy research andadvocacy organization. In that capacity,she has been monitoring and doingresearch on WTO issues pertaining to de-veloping countries, especially in the areaof agriculture.

Ann Waters-Bayer is currently Chair ofthe NGO Committee of the CGIAR. Sheworks with ETC Foundation (Netherlands)as advisor in natural resource manage-ment and participatory research and ex-tension, primarily in Africa. She workedseveral years as socio-economist inthe Subhumid Zone Programme of theInternational Livestock Centre for Afri-ca (now ILRI) in Nigeria, before joining theInformation Centre for Low-External-Inputand Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA). Afterstudies in Canada and Australia, shecompleted her doctorate in agriculturalsociology at the University of Stuttgart-Hohenheim in Germany. Ann has authoredand edited several books, including“Farming for the Future” and “Farmers’Research in Practice”.

About the Authors

60

Documents

Food Without Farmers? - IATP · 2019-06-27 · cassava or sorghum, only to come back to their more reliable food security crops. Integrated pest management is increasing-ly incorporating