The Crossing

THE BIG BIOFUEL DEBATE RUMBLES ON

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:48:54 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

Biofuels have little impact in cutting greenhouse gas emissions so governments should concentrate instead on lowering energy consumption to fight climate change, according to an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report published today. Governments should boost the so-called second generation biofuels that do not use food crops, said the report, which will be seen as a blow to biofuels. But elsewhere the sector is booming and the conflicts around biofuel production are not being played out in quite the same way.

Earlier this month the Guardian newspaper published an article detailing a confidential World Bank report that claimed biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated. The implication of the report being that biofuels have been at the centre of the recent high food price-hunger-food riot cycle.

The Guardian's exclusive has sparked much debate at a time when the production of biofuels has become highly contentious.

Last week, we heard an upbeat presentation on Brazils' bio-ethanol experience from Luiz Augusto Horta Nogueira, a bioenergy expert from Itajubá Federal School of Engineering, Minas Gerais, Brazil. STEPS member Adrian Smith blogged on Horta Nogueira's presentation at the launch of Demos' latest Atlas of Ideas publication, Brazil, the Natural Knowledge Economy. As Adrian said at the time, there was much talk of the positive economic effects of bio-ethnol production and its growth capacitym but little of the conflicts around the issue.

And this week, Brazil's bioenergy research has received a boost with the announcement of US$130m investment in a new research programme promoting cooperation between academic institutions and industry. SciDev.Net's report said: "In addition to academic activities, BIOEN will work with private companies in Brazil's bioethanol industry to bring new technologies to industry sooner."

Meanwhile, in Kenya, a court has temporarily halted a $370 million sugar and biofuels project in a coastal wetland. Reuters reports that conservation groups warned the project would threaten wildlife and local livelihoods. One study shows irrigation in the area would cause severe drainage of the Delta, leaving local farmers without water for their herds during dry seasons.

And cassava conversion is the focus of a new initiative in Cambodia where a North Korean company is setting up Cambodia's first biofuel factory.

Are the potential harm to livelihoods and the environment being left out of the debate? Earlier this month the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization published a report that claimed the global biofuels boom risks harming poor people in poor countries by forcing them off land they depend on.

Dispossession was a theme touched on by Les Levidow and Helena Paul who gave a STEPS seminar in January on the links between biofuel production, higher land and food prices and dispossesion from resouces. As Paul said during the seminar: "Why should it only be this one path? We really need to look at the targets, the targets are set, industry is racing ahead and we have people running behind saying 'let's look at sustainability'. But it's too little, too late."

RISKING REGULATORY CAPTURE AT THE UK'S FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:28:17 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

"The delivery of safe food and health governance is challenging and contested, and knowledge and institutions independent of vested interests are essential for public health," write Erik Millstone - STEPS Centre food and agrciulture co-convenor - and Tim Lang in this week's Lancet.

But how independent of vested interests is the FSA now? Read Millstone and Lang's verdict and recommendations.

BRAZIL: WHAT LIES BEHIND THE NATURAL KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY?

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:36:29 -0500

By ADRIAN SMITH, STEPS Centre member

The tone of the launch of Demos' Brazil, the Natural Knowledge Economy report by Kirsten Bound, was aimed at boosting innovative activities and potential in the country in general. The distributional consequences (social and environmental) of that innovation were acknowledged as a challenge, but not covered at the event, although the report, part of the Atlas of Ideas project, does delve into this.

Rather, at the launch in London on Tuesday, we heard much about standard indicators of innovation, and how relatively well Brasil was improving on these. Though patenting was poor and considered a bad thing. As was the high proportion of research in the public sector, which is 80 per cent, though around 40 per cent is public money.

It was acknowledged in passing that there might be 'hidden' innovation beyond scientific publications and R&D investment. However, pro-poor innovation was not considered at all. A question posed by a delegate from SustainAbility about secondary education performance did indicate this was a problem. Whilst university education was performing well, and the best universities were free to students, one needed a good private education to stand a chance of a place. If secondary education is poor, then this may also have implications for the non-graduate skill base necessary for the urban and rural poor to capture any spill-over benefits from a conventional innovation system, frontier pursing approach.

We got a very upbeat presentation on bio-ethanol from Luiz Augusto Horta Nogueira, Bioenergy expert, Itajubá Federal School of Engineering, Minas Gerais, Brazil, and the industrial system for its production in Brasil is impressive. Future capacity increases were substantial, and Brasil was well placed (subject to trade rules) to export biofuel around the globe, and bioethanol knowledge and technology to other potential tropical producers.

It was an example of what Ban Ki-Moon has called the gentle green giant - Brasil's quiet advances in the area of environmental innovation. But again, little interrogation of the conflicts between movements like MST and the large agri-businesses driving biofuels. Nor the controversial encroachment of agbiotech into Brasil. As on other contentious issues, the need to develop regulatory systems that can direct innovation, and create resource-based solutions without destroying the resource base, was skirted around. A 'challenge' for the future.

The term 'natural knowledge economy' was coined to try and capture the way Brasil was using science and technology to increase the value it attains from its rich natural resource endowments. In contrast to the sequence from resource-based to knowledge-based economy, Brasil was combining the two, now. From a Sustainability perspective, this dichotomy between knowledge and resource based economies rings hollow. All economies are resource based. And their exploitation always requires knowledge. The relative economic value attached to each may vary, but it is hard to see one without the other at the global scale. Indeed, those concerned about Sustainability worry that much environmental knowledge is being ignored by innovators.

Overall, what was lacking was reflection on competing ideologies of development, and the roles for innovation therein. Nor, more pragmatically, which models of technology and development are 'apt' under Brasilian circumstances, and which alternatives are considered better for different sections of Brasilian society. The diversity of Brasilian society, and its open culture, was considered a strength for innovation. But this was not then considered in terms of different kinds of innovation within that diversity (cf. an implied linear model in many presentations and discussion - especially Andrew Cahn, the head of UK Trade & Investment).

Perhaps the closest we got was some very thoughtful closing remarks from the Ambassador of Brasil. He pointed out how 'territory' had been a long-standing feature in Brasilian thought - the 'meaning' of Brasil, though always subject to revision, nevertheless drew upon the early and rapid colonisation of land within its present day borders. Ambassador Santos-Neves listed a number of innovations, in agriculture, and in oil exploration, that failed when standard approaches were imported from the US and elsewhere; but when local knowledge about Brasilian territory was applied, then results improved. Oil was found in unexpected places (and
lots of it). Brasil does best when it uses knowledge with the full
knowledge of its own territory. It will be interesting to see the extent to
which innovation priorities alter as Brasil moves towards its bicentennial
of independence, and reflects on its visions for the future, and the kind
of society it wishes to develop.

Doubtless some of this more critical reflection upon Brasil's impressive
rise is picked up in the report. But the launch concentrated more on boosting Brasilian innovation to the mutual economic advantage of those already in a position to benefit.

AVIAN 'FLU: THE POLITICS AND POLICY PROCESSES OF A GLOBAL RESPONSE

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:18:39 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

When the potential of a flu pandemic derived from Avian Influenza emerged, alarm bells rang across the world. The prospect of a major public health catastrophe caused by the human-human transmission of so-called bird flu sparked considerable investment into developing surveillance and response systems for the disease.

But how effective are these responses? And who are the likely winners and losers? Are such response systems robust, durable and resilient, in the face of unknown, and perhaps unknowable, shocks and stresses, and a complex and dynamic viral ecology? A new research project co-ordinated by Professor Ian Scoones in KNOTS (Knowledge, Society and Technology) Team at the Institute of Development Studies is seeking some answers. Photo: Robert Churchill / iStockphoto

The project – supported by the FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation) Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative as part of a wider set of activities under the DFID (UK Department for International Development)-funded Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction Project - aims to investigate the politics of policy processes surrounding the response to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI).

The work seeks to interrogate the assumptions being made by the politics and processes of global responses to avian flu and explore different framings in the debate – including those often not heard in mainstream policy circles. Key actors and networks will be identified along with associated narratives and practices of policy.

Dr Anni McLeod, FAO Senior Officer (Livestock Policy), attended the recent planning workshop for this project at IDS. ‘This research comes at a particularly interesting time because the global focus is shifting from Avian Influenza as a single disease and an emergency, to thinking about how we might deal with zoonotic diseases in the future. That is going to require a very good understanding for the political economy in which the diseases are situated and the way that institutions work together to deal with them,’ she said.

‘We have got so much experience with Avian Influenza, there are so many narratives running through this on which we can draw, but there has been very little documentation of those narratives; most of the research that has been done doesn’t take that angle. This is quite a unique project coming at a really interesting time,’ Dr McLeod added.

The research will focus on both the international level, working with the key agencies involved in the global response, and the country level, engaging with four countries in SE Asia – Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. The overall analysis of the political economy of policy will reveal key challenges, obstacles and opportunities for responding to avian flu – and potentially other global epidemics. This project is part of a broader initiative of the STEPS Centre on ‘Global epidemics: pathways of disease and response'.

Working with collaborators in international agencies and national programmes, as well as funding agencies, the aim will be to develop a fresh and critical reflection on the current response to the HPAI challenge, asking questions about the distributional and sustainability consequences of the existing policy response.

Karl Rich, Agricultural Economist at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) in Kenya said of the project, ‘There are a lot of complementarities between this type of work in terms of understanding the political economy of response – the institutions behind it, the narratives – with what we at ILRI are doing, which is trying to place this in the broader institutional contexts as far as looking at different mitigations, what works, what doesn’t and why. So this research brings a lot of real synergies to what we are doing and potential capacity that we can maybe share among the different research groups and with IDS.'

FIDDLING IN ROME WHILE THE WORLD BURNS? REFLECTIONS ON THE UN WORLD FOOD SUMMIT

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:34:06 -0500

By JOHN THOMPSON, STEPS Centre member

When the Chief Executives Board of the United Nations met in Bern, Switzerland, in late April 2008 to assess how the international community could best contribute to combating the global food crisis, they agreed to set up a High Level Task Force, chaired by the UN Secretary General, with the Director General of the FAO as the Vice Chair.The Task Force is composed of the heads of the relevant UN specialised agencies, funds and programmes, the Bretton Woods Institutions (World Bank, International Monetary Fund), and relevant parts of the UN Secretariat. The aim was to promote a unified response to this huge challenge.

The first objective of the Task Force has been to produce a clear plan of action, known as the ‘Comprehensive Framework for Action (CFA)’. Key elements of the CFA were presented to leaders from 151 countries who are participating in the UN’s High-Level Conference on Food Security: the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy in Rome this week (3-5 June.

Following several days of intensive negotiations, a draft declaration on how to resolve the current food crisis has been circulating among delegates. The final declaration is due to be released later today (5 June), at the close of the conference.

The current version of the declaration is impressive. It calls for immediate action to assist countries affected by the food crisis, immediate support to small-scale producers, and the development of food stocks and other risk management mechanisms.

The declaration also calls for medium- and long-term measures, including for governments to fully embrace a people-centred policy framework for agriculture, to increase the resilience of food systems to meet the challenges of climate change, and to conduct further studies to ensure that production and use of biofuels is sustainable and takes into account the need to achieve global food security.Obviously, this is no small feat.

The draft declaration calls for a rapid and successful conclusion of the Doha Round of the World Trade Organisation and for the international community to continue its efforts to liberalise international trade, which has led some developing country leaders to claim that some countries were playing politics with urgent food matters.

As Walter Poveda Ricaurte, Ecuador’s Minister of Agriculture told reporters: "We believe the problem is much more political than everything else. We have to differentiate between the countries who are really affected by the food crisis and those who are seeing it as an economic opportunity."

The wrangling over diplomatic language came after United Nations officials announced a major aid package to help ease the food crisis, but UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned up to $15-20 billion dollars a year would be needed. "We simply cannot afford to fail," the UN chief stated at a press conference, "Hundreds of millions of people expect no less." New funding totalling some 2.7 billion dollars was announced on the second day of the conference, where Ban has already called for a 50 percent increase in food production by 2030.

In parallel, and perhaps even more impressive, are ‘Elements of a Comprehensive Framework for Action’, the draft recommendations of the UN High Level Task Force on the Global Food Crisis. Once again, the emphasis is on boosting smallholder farmers' food production, increasing social safety nets and strengthening risk management. There is really very little new in these recommendations, but the focus on coordination and concerted action is an important addition, and long overdue.

So it looks like the world’s agricultural leaders may be leaving Rome with some serious proposals in their pockets. But what comes next? There is still a real danger that very little will change in the global food system or international food and agriculture policy when it comes time to implementing the recommendations.

Entrenched interests and food politics may yet win out over shared visions and good intentions. Major corporate interests are lining up to offer their products – genetically modified crops, hybrid seeds and fertilisers, among others. These may have a role to play in getting agriculture moving and boosting productivity, but a wider deliberation about technical options and agriculture futures in different places is often missing. And where are the farmers’ voices in these discussions?

The proposals on the table will require a radical break from the past and a completely different approach to building equitable and sustainable food systems and reducing food insecurity, systems which are capable of withstanding increasing economic, environmental and technological shocks and stresses.

To achieve them will require the international community to move beyond simple, short-term technical or market ‘fixes’ and address the political economy of food and agriculture, which has led to gross distortions in terms of trade, massive underinvestment in farmer-centred research, extension and education, and biased policy processes that have failed to meet the needs of the majority of poor people – both producers and consumers – in developing countries.

If they fail to meet this challenge, it will be said that those who gathered in Rome this week were merely fiddling while the world burned.

UN FOOD SUMMIT: "ENOUGH RHETORIC, MORE ACTION"

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:53:26 -0500

By JULIA DAY STEPS Centre member

News agency Reuters has put together a package of the lastest updates coming out of Rome this morning, including work on an emergency plan to ease hunger; UN agencies signing an agreement on Africa food output; and wide consensus on need to reduce trade barriers.

By Stephen Brown and Robin Pomeroy, Reuters

A U.N. summit on the global food crisis asked rich nations on Wednesday to help "revolutionise" farming in Africa and the developing world to produce more food for nearly 1 billion people facing hunger.

"The global food crisis is a wake-up call for Africa to launch itself into a 'green revolution' which has been over-delayed," Nigerian Agriculture Minister Sayyadi Abba Ruma said on the second day of the three-day summit.

"Every second, a child dies of hunger," the minister said. "The time to act is now. Enough rhetoric and more action."

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon received a petition signed by more than 300,000 people saying there was no time to lose. A draft declaration from 151 countries taking part said: "We commit to eliminating hunger and to securing food for all."

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation called the summit after soaring commodity prices threatened to add 100 million more people to the 850 million already going hungry and caused food riots that threaten government stability in some countries.

The cost of major food commodities has doubled over the last couple of years, with rice, corn and wheat at record highs. The OECD sees prices retreating from their peaks but still up to 50 percent higher in the coming decade.

Ban said the summit was already a success. "There is a clear sense of resolve, shared responsibility and political commitment among member states to making the right policy choices and investing in agriculture in the years to come.

"Hunger degrades everything we have been fighting for in recent years and decades," he told reporters. "We are duty-bound to act to act now and to act as one."

Ban's predecessor at the head of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, was in Rome to sign an agreement with U.N. food agencies for a new drive to increase farm production in Africa.

BREADBASKET

"We hope to spur a green revolution in Africa which respects biodiversity and the continent's distinct regions," said Annan, who chairs the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) which is coordinating the effort.

The scheme will provide technical support to improve soil and water management, access to seeds and fertilisers, and improve infrastructure in "breadbasket" areas of Africa which have relatively good conditions for farming.

The Nigerian minister said his country had "the potential to become the food basket of Africa". But its farms were 90 percent dependant on rainfall, making them vulnerable to climate change, and its 14 million smallholders used "rudimentary" techniques.

The Rome summit will set the tone on food aid and subsidies for the Group of Eight summit in Japan in July and what is hoped to be the concluding stages of the stalled Doha talks under the World Trade Organisation aimed at reducing trade distortions.

As leaders made lofty speeches, many blaming trade barriers and biofuels for driving up prices, delegations worked on a summit declaration for release on Thursday.

A draft of the declaration promised to "stimulate food production and to increase investment in agriculture, to address obstacles to food access and to use the planet's resources sustainability for present and future generations".

The United States found itself on the defensive regarding biofuels, along with Brazil which is the world's largest producer of sugar-cane ethanol, and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer bristled at the criticism.

"I don't think the United States gets enough credit at all for providing over one half of all the food aid," he said.

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, who told the summit on Tuesday that former colonial power Britain was to blame for many of his country's problems, came under fire from a human rights group which said he was using food as a weapon ahead of a June 27 presidential run-off election.

Human Rights Watch said the Harare government was deliberately stopping food aid being provided to supporters of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

"President Mugabe's government has a long history of using food to control the election outcome," it said. (Additional reporting by Phil Stewart in Rome and Paul Simao in Johannesburg; Editing by Robert Woodward)

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:25:25 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

Lawrence Haddad, Director of IDS, was interviewed about the food crisis for the BBC 10 O'clock News.

Watch a video of the news item and read about what Mr Haddad said on the IDS website.

UN WORLD FOOD SUMMIT: KOFI ANNAN ARRIVES WITH AGRA MESSAGE

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:37:17 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

Ban Ki-moon's predecessor at the head of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, was due to arrive in Rome this morning to sign an agreement with UN food agencies for a new drive to increase farm production in Africa. Photo: Kofi Annan / Julia Day

"We hope to spur a green revolution in Africa which respects biodiversity and the continent's distinct regions," said Annan, who chairs the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) which is coordinating the effort, in a statement.

Mr Annan chaired a recent conference in Salzburg, Toward a Green Revolution in Africa, co-hosted by STEPS affiliate Future Agricultures Consortium. There was much debate in Salzburg about a 'uniquely African Green Revolution' needing to consist of more than technical fixes, increased access to seeds and fertilisers and increased production. Find out more about the debates in our Salzburg blogs and on the website.

UN FOOD SUMMIT: BACKGROUNDER

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:32:54 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation called the emergency meetingafter soaring commodity prices threatened to add as many as 100 million more people to the 850 million already going hungry, destabilising governments in the process. Photo: Guilio Napolitano / FAO

The FAO said the meeting would discuss ways to address hunger and malnutrition in the face of soaring food prices, scarce resources, climate change, increased energy needs and population growth.

The cost of major food commodities has doubled over the last couple of years, with rice, corn and wheat at record highs. The OECD sees prices retreating from their current peaks but still up to 50 percent higher in the coming decade.

According to a statement on the FAO's website, the summit would "offer a historic chance to re-launch the fight against hunger and poverty and boost agricultural production in developing countries."

The event will deliver the following, according to the FAO statement of intent:

Identification of the new challenges facing world food security, supply and demand side, policies and market structure.
A better understanding of the nexus between food security, climate change and bioenergy.
Identification of a process for institutional action for the integration of food security safeguards into international climate-related and sustainable bioenergy agreements.
Discussion and adoption of required policies, strategies and programmes for ensuring world food security, in particular measures to address soaring food prices.

UN FOOD SUMMIT: US$20BN NEEDED, SAYS BAN KI-MOON

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:52:30 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

Day two of the UN World Food Summit has commenced with UN chief Ban Ki-moon's declaration that US$15 billion to US$20 billion is needed each year to boost food production to combat hunger.

Most of the money would have to come from concerned countries, say the UN secretary general. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has urged nations to seize an "historic opportunity to revitalise agriculture" as a way of tackling the food crisis. Mr Ban told delegates that food production would have to rise by 50% by 2030 to meet demand.

But he was already decalring the summit a success. "There is a clear sense of resolve, shared responsibility and political commitment among member states to making the right policy choices and investing in agriculture in the years to come."

"Hunger degrades everything we have been fighting for in recent years and decades," he told reporters. "We are duty-bound to act to act now and to act as one."

He also called for policy guidelines on biofuel production should be put in place because of its impact on food production. Delegates in Rome have been divided over the role biofuels is playing in driving up food prices, sparking riots in countries including have sparked riots in Egypt, Cameroon, Cote d‘Ivoire, Senegal, Burkina Faso and Madagascar.

Mr Ban also told the summit he has received a petition signed online by more than 300,000 people saying there was no time to lose.

"We call on you to take immediate action to address the world food crisis by mobilizing emergency funding to prevent starvation, removing perverse incentives to turn food into biofuels and managing financial speculation," said the petition, organised by online rights group Avaaz.org.

UN FOOD SUMMIT: MUGABE'S PRESENCE

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:31:16 -0500

From the Independent newspaper, UK

UN FOOD SUMMIT: WILL FARMERS' VOICES BE HEARD?

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:46:21 -0500

By DAN SMITH, Future Agricultures Consortium member

In his opening speech for the UN World Food Summit, Jacques Diouf, the FAO Director General, stated that “the world only needs US$30 billion a year to eradicate the scourge of hunger”. This may sound like a large amount but if compared to the fact that “the world spent US$1200 billion spent on arms in 2006” it is actually a very achievable amount.

Dr Diouf went on to ask “against that backdrop, how can we explain to people of good sense and good faith that it was not possible to find US$30 billion a year to enable 862 million hungry people to enjoy the most fundamental of human rights: the right to food and thus the right to life?”

There were many positive points made in the opening address by Jacques Diouf. He outlined the types of solutions that are needed to address the short term problem of the current food crisis and the longer term structural problem of food security and agricultural development.

But, though there was mention of “innovative and imaginative solutions” and the need to “facilitate farmers access to seeds, fertiliser, animal feed and other inputs”, what was not mentioned was how to include farmers in the policies and decisions affecting them.

Indeed, as in the blog from Julia Day earlier today, at the recent conference in Salzburg discussing what an African Green Revolution might look like, one of the main issues that kept coming back was how to ensure farmers are included in the global, regional, national and local decision making processes. In fact, many argued strongly that however well meaning a policy, if farmers are not part of these decision making processes, they are unlikely to succeed.

This UN Food Summit is a real opportunity to move towards sustainable, farmer-led solutions to the current food crisis and, more broadly, agricultural development. As Jacques Diouf clearly stated it cannot be resources that hold us back. Let us hope that the voices of those most affected by the current rises in food prices come through loud and clear at this summit.

UN FOOD SUMMIT: WHOSE VISION FOR THE FUTURE?

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:46:37 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

The UN World Food Summit opened in Rome today, aiming to address the soaring food costs which have sparked riots in Egypt, Cameroon, Cote d‘Ivoire, Senegal, Burkina Faso and Madagascar. The press are filing plenty of copy on the issue (and not just about Mugabe's prescence in the Italian capital). And already this morning Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called for nations to minimize export restrictions and import tariffs. But are the options on the table in Rome sustainable and in the best interests of the people at the sharp end of the crisis? Photo credit: Reuters

The recent 'Towards a Green Revolution in Africa' conference, co-hosted by STEPS affiliate Future Agricultures Consortium in Salzburg, saw former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in his role as chairman of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), add his thoughts to a new vision for African agriculture.

The event began on the premise that there is a clear need for a new vision for agricultural development in Africa that can deal with the complexities of agriculture in diverse settings across Africa and meet the conditions necessary to achieve more equitable benefits for Africa’s farmers.

But the 90-plus delegates, largely from African countries, asked tough questions about whose vision should this be? How can complexity and diversity be dealt with? What can be learned from the impacts - positive and negative - of the "green revolutions" in Latin America and Asia? And how best to move forward?

Among the central issues pin-pointed by delegates for a sustainable, uniquely Green Revolution in Africa were that farmers and their needs must be placed at epicentre; that gender and ethnicity issues are taken into account; that smallholders and those farmers who are consumers, and not just producers, of food have a voice in farmer organisations.

The quality and reach of data and information on crop productivity and prices is curcial, the conference agreed, as is the need to extend the debate beyond staple crops. Livestock needs to be put centre stage, with the importance of smallstock and poultry production to poorer people and women in particular, acknowledged.

How much the Ministers sitting down in Rome this morning have a sustainable future food supply for world's poor and marginalised peoples at the forefront of thier minds remains to be seen.

All blogs from the Salzburg event

Some of today's key media coverage on the UN food crisis summit:
Seeds of change: Africa seeks to engineer an agricultural revolution

The end of abundance: Food panic brings calls for a second ‘green revolution’

EU food chief: Lift BSE ban to cut grain prices

UN chief: food production must rise 50 percent by 2030

HOW WILL WE FINANCE FUTURE HEALTH SYSTEMS?

noreply@blogger.com (Kate Hawkins) — Fri, 30 May 2008 03:12:02 -0500

KATE HAWKINS, Future Health Systems member

Day 2 of the Geneva Health Forum was characterised by discussions about the most appropriate mechanisms to finance functioning health systems and what changes in policy would be necessary to support this. Whilst development assistance overall is increasing the percentage share allocated to health is not rising at a commensurate rate. Most financing for health in developing countries is out of pocket expenditure. How do we protect the poor from the impoverishing effects of ill health? How do we secure greater investment in health? What are optimal mechanisms for channelling the money where it is needed? These are some of the questions that participants grappled with.

Although we need to spend US$50 - 100 per capita, per annum to reach the health Millennium Development Goals 43 low income countries are still spending less than US$30. David Evans of WHO stressed that action is needed in three areas: to raise more money; raise it the right way and to ensure that it efficiently finances equitable services. Speakers were, in general, in favour of more money for healthcare but were divided on the second two points.

Many speakers at the Forum explored the mixture of international financing mechanisms for health and their effects. The fragmented nature of health financing was highlighted - particularly in relation to global health partnerships such as GAVI and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. Some speakers felt that they drew energy and investment from government systems and budgets generating transaction costs and diluting national ownership. However, there was no one size fits all solution to this problem.

Some were adamant that financing should flow to government through general and sectoral budget support and that this, along with progressive central taxation, would enable countries to implement universal access to health services as is seen in settings like the UK. Others, such as Gorick Ooms from the Institute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, pointed out the limitations of general budget support due to macro economic policy that sets ceilings for health expenditure.

Other speakers addressed the role of the private sector and enabling them to better meet the needs of the poor. The for profit, not for profit and informal sector are the first port of call for many when they fall ill. Whether it is through regulation, training, support or incentives more interventions are needed to ensure the private sector offer quality care and that 'consumers' are empowered to demand appropriate services. Discussions continue today.

TOMORROW'S HEALTH SYSTEMS: IN PHASE WITH REALITY?

noreply@blogger.com (Kate Hawkins) — Mon, 26 May 2008 08:12:52 -0500

by KATE HAWKINS, STEPS Centre Member

Members of the Future Health Systems Research Programme Consortium are actively engaging in discussions at the Geneva Health Forum. The conference began in dramatic fashion with an assessment of the changing landscape within which health systems are being forged. The opening plenary session featured a range of speakers who aimed to situate health in a dynamic world. Changes in epidemiology, shifts in political and economic organisation, a strong and growing for profit and not for profit sector and a burgeoning role for information technology all featured.

Andy Haines of London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine highlighted changes in epidemiology and demographics which are likely to shape future investment and interventions. As the percentage of people over 65 years old grows in developing countries their health needs will take a growing proportion of health financing. Alongside this chronic disease and diseases of affluence will demand a larger slice of the pie.

Richard Samans from the World Economic Forum talked to the economic drivers of health and their political implications – what he called a ‘cocktail of stimulants’. Emerging economies such as India and China will alter global health governance – demanding leveller playing fields for decision making. States will struggle with how they relate to a private sector and civil society actors who are organising across borders on health issues of interest. Increasing deregulation of health care is, in some settings, reducing the role of the state and reducing trade barriers between countries. He also felt that increased access to information technology would shape the role of health care providers and those who access services.

Information technology was an issue taken up by Kendall Ho (University of British Columbia). He presented on ‘eHealth’ – urging health care workers to respond to the ways in which the Internet, cell phones and other digital technologies have changed the way that we do business. In particular he felt that these technologies could help to improve patient/doctor relationships, increase decision co-creation, streamline inter disciplinary collaboration and speed up judgements on evidence based health interventions.

With this in mind we will continue to use the STEPS blog to report on emerging debates at the conference.

CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

noreply@blogger.com (Kate Hawkins) — Thu, 22 May 2008 08:31:28 -0500

by GERRY BLOOM & HILARY STANDING, STEPS Centre members

It is thirty years since the Alma Ata Declaration outlined an international consensus on the need to provide universal access to primary health care (PHC). During the ensuing years some countries established well-organised government health services in which PHC played an important role. Many others were less successful. The lead up to our session at the Geneva Health Forum on future health systems provides a moment to reflect on some of the new challenges for PHC.

National governments and the international community are renewing their efforts to expand access to PHC and they have committed a lot of money for this purpose. But there have been many major changes in these last three decades that pose big challenges for the future of PHC. The drafters of the Alma Ata Declaration drew largely on the experiences of those post-revolutionary and post-colonial regimes, which were rapidly overcoming a lack of health facilities, health workers and drugs.

Whilst some remote areas still lack health services many settings have both trained and untrained people, providing health care and selling drugs. The boundary between public and private sectors is blurred and government health workers frequently ask for informal payments or see patients privately. Many of these activities occur outside an organised, regulated framework of health care provision. Potential users are much more likely to live near a health facility or some kind of provider than 30 years ago, but now they face major challenges in paying for care and finding competent providers and effective and appropriate drugs.

PHC was designed to deal with prevention/health promotion and with infectious diseases associated with poverty, poor sanitation and certain insect vectors. Although these illnesses persist, there is growing pressure on health systems to address other problems. One dramatic change has been the transformation of HIV infection into a chronic and progressive disease for which people can claim entitlement to treatment. People are also affected by other chronic conditions, associated with ageing and “lifestyle” changes. This raises difficult questions about which treatments are appropriate, who should pay for them and how health systems should be organised to help people manage long-term conditions.

Concern is growing about the potential threat of epidemics of new diseases or organisms resistant to the available drugs. Recent examples are SARS, multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and a possible influenza pandemic. Government responses rely heavily on convincing people to report suspicious outbreaks and cooperate with public health measures they may perceive to be against their short-term interest. This requires high levels of trust between the population and their health system.

More actors are involved in health systems than thirty years ago, including a variety of private providers of health-related goods and services, national and international NGOs, citizen advocacy groups and political parties (where competitive electoral politics have been introduced). Governments are seeking new ways to influence health systems with their powers to allocate money, enact and enforce laws and publish information. This sometimes involves new types of partnership for service delivery and regulation.

Finally, there have been dramatic developments of new technologies for diagnosis and treatment of disease, which influence the design of health systems. In addition, the rapid changes in information and communication technologies are having a big impact. Providers and users of health services increasingly have access to the mass media, mobile telephones and the internet. They carry health information produced by governments, professions, citizen advocacy groups and private companies. In contrast to 30 years ago, when health professionals were the major source of expert knowledge, people have a variety of sources from which to find information.

The anniversary of the Alma Ata Declaration provides a good opportunity to reaffirm national and international commitments to expand access to PHC. But, it is important to understand the changed context when formulating strategies for achieving this. Many innovations have emerged that involve quite different roles for governments, markets, civil society and individuals than the drafters of the Alma Ata Declaration envisaged. We need to find ways to involve all actors in an intensive process of innovation and learning if the latest statements of good intentions are to be translated into major improvements for poor people.

ONGOING DISCUSSIONS AT COP-MOP 4

noreply@blogger.com (Adrian Ely) — Thu, 15 May 2008 05:33:29 -0500

by ADRIAN ELY, STEPS Centre member

I am in Bonn this week for meetings around the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the United Nations’ agreement to regulate the trans-boundary movement of living (genetically) modified organisms. From sensitive political discussions over liability and redress to questions over how to incorporate socio-economic considerations into decision-making, the working procedures of the protocol are still very much “under construction” 8 years after its text was first agreed.

The fourth Conference of the Parties, serving as the Meeting of the Parties (COP-MOP 4) to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is running until 16th May. On Tuesday 14th I took part in a side event at the Conference at the invitation of Dr Sachin Chaturvedi of RIS (Research and Information Systems for Developing Countries, based in New Delhi) looking specifically at Article 26 of the protocol. Initially introduced following efforts from the Africa group, the first part of this article allows countries to take into account socio-economic considerations in their decisions over allowing imports of living modified organisms. Although there are a growing number of (primarily economic) analyses demonstrating the benefits and costs to farmers of various transgenic crops, several countries are unclear about how best to employ them in decision-making, and there is no official mechanism for the sharing of such information (as mandated in Article 26.2).

Dr Chaturvedi introduced an RIS report that outlined the Indian experience in this regard and highlighted the need for developing countries to take the initiative in proposing systems for research and information exchange. This presentation was put into an international context by my own talk, in which I gave an overview of US, EU and Chinese regulatory frameworks, and a presentation by Moustapha Kamal of ICTSD, who introduced work that his colleagues had conducted on key trade and sustainability issues around biotechnology. International trade issues were also noted by the session chair, John Komen of the Programme for Biosafety Systems at IFPRI, who highlighted the need for countries to take into account other international obligations (e.g. under the WTO) but stressed that, with only one relevant dispute to draw upon in terms of case law, the situation here was still evolving.

Meanwhile, delegates have been involved in discussions around Article 27, attempting to define “rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for damage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified organisms”. The process, initially scheduled to last for four years, still seems far from resolution. When I left the discussions in the Liszt Room yesterday, parties were split over a proposal for a legally binding instrument that had been put forward by the large negotiating block known as the "like-minded group". This conflict potentially jeopardises one of the most potent components of the protocol, and has become one of those most discussed in the corridors.

COMPLEXITY, SIMPLIFICATION AND RESILIENCE

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:12:39 -0500

By ADRIAN SMITH, STEPS Centre member

Complexity pervaded debate at the Resilience Alliance conference last month. In one way or another, participants tried to get to grips with the sheer complexities of the socio-ecological systems that concerned them, and puzzled over the kinds of adaptive governance that might ensure these systems provided resilient livelihoods to the various human and non-human members dependent upon those systems. At best, these complexities were bewildering, requiring new kinds of resilience thinking. At worst, an appreciation of the complex connections and interdependencies in the world induced paralysis. Where to start; what to do?

It was only at the very end of the conference that I realised that, in actual fact, the last three days had not been about complexity. Rather, we had been grappling with simplification. We were all trying to simplify in ways that were sensitive to the uncertainties and surprises associated with complex realities.

Apart from discussion of ‘stylised models’, this process of simplification was largely implicit. But perhaps we might advance further if we considered resilience to be about temporary simplifications, sensitive to experience, and open to revision when the inadequacy of those simplifications is subsequently revealed? The critical question is how do we simplify wisely? Whose perspectives are considered in those simplifications; which ones bracketed out; and which ones simply forgotten? Which simplifications subsequently work, and for whom, and for how long before complex reality undermines them?

Buzz Holling’s adaptive cycle is one such simplification. It was the emblem for the conference. A lop-sided figure of eight, used to organise complexity into processes of growth, maturity, decay, and rejuvenation (and out of which is generated a new figure of eight development). And it is a persuasive simplification. Many participants applied it to the natural world, to social development, and to combinations of the two. To many participants, it promises a better simplification than the equilibrial approaches that dominated the governance of complex socio-techno-environmental systems in the last century. But it is still a simplification for all that; as were the agent-based models inspired by Buzz’s adaptation of the infinity symbol, and the equally inspired, contextualised case studies. My own presentations were simplifications of complex processes of social and technological change.

Of course, simplification is dangerous territory. Acknowledging the necessity for simplification risks blunting the critical edge that rightly problematises certain forms of simplifying that currently enjoy institutional privileges, such as narrow and static forms of engineering cost benefit analysis. Contexts and perspectives essential to Sustainability may continue to be deleted out of the equation on pragmatic grounds. How do we avoid simplification legitimising unSustainable expediencies?

Hopefully, the advantage with complexity thinking is that it forces some humility and prevents us from being simplistic. Complex realities force reflexivity into the necessary simplifications we undertake in order to consciously and deliberately act in the world. Institutions simplify, as do policy narratives, as do scientific reports. So as we continue to explore pathways to Sustainability through complex systems, the challenge is to be aware of the simplifications we have to make, and to make them wisely. In my view, this is the basis for resilience.

SALZBURG: WHAT NEXT?

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Mon, 05 May 2008 02:51:24 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

The conference defined some critical points of leverage, where delegates and their organisations can achieve a sustainable impact on priorities.The essential ingredients of a Green Revolution in Africa, definition of priorities, desirable outcomes and the points at which value-added initiatives can have an impact have taken shape here in Salzburg. Importantly, some of the competing priorities and unresolved issues and knowledge gaps have been identified.

Strategic alliances among many stakeholders and initiatives have been strengthened and the desire to work together, in partnership, to add value to the future of agriculture in Africa, was repeated time and again.

The momentum continues tomorrow (Saturday 3 May) at the follow-on seminar - ‘A Green Revolution in Africa: What Framework for Success?’ where delegates will revise and refine the work set in motion over the past three days. Then a series of sub-regional meetings in Africa will ground the debate firmly on the continent’s soil.

For news updates on the conference, seminar, sub-regional meetings and all the work around this theme going forward see: http://www.future-agricultures.org/

SALZBURG DAY 3: FARMERS IN THE DRIVING SEAT FOR AFRICA'S GREEN REVOLUTION

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Mon, 05 May 2008 02:49:40 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

Farmers and their needs must be placed at epicentre of a uniquely African Green Revolution, conference delegates from across the board agreed on the final day in Salzburg.Photo: Louis Michel, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid addresses the conference / Julia Day

Much of the discussion today, running across thematic groups, focused on building alliances of farmers and their organisations at national, regional and continental levels. This was seen as absolutely key for insuring that priorities are set and funds are spent in a way that meets the needs of farmers. The direction of initiatives must all move toward that goal.

However there is an urgent requirement for substantial investment in building capacity. Delegates believe the skills that need developing go beyond the technical to ‘soft’ skills. An equitable Green Revolution requires an increased ability to facilitate inclusive approaches, organisational skills, business management skills, policy, advocacy and impact monitoring skills, delegates said. These seem to be lacking at the moment and are a potential focus for follow up efforts.

One particular proposal for directing research innovation and technology development towards farmers needs was the establishment of an African-wide, farmer-owned and farmer-driven fund. Delegates went as far as to propose a name: the African Agriculture Technology and Innovation Fund (AATIF). This would be an endowment fund supported by government, private sector, philanthropists and farmers to ensure demand-driven research with farmers in the driving seat.

Another key suggestion was that any funds or funding mechanisms to support the Green Revolution need to have independent accountability systems, operating with farmers at the centre. These would hold the delivery of key development actors to account, as well as offering a monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment function.

SALZBURG DAY 3: A REPRESENTATIVE REVOLUTION

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Mon, 05 May 2008 02:50:26 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

To ensure an African Green Revolution is equitable there is a pressing need to ensure that wide representation is assured, delegates said.It is paramount that inclusive processes going forward are attendant to gender and ethnicity issues. It should also be ensured, in particular, that smallholders and those farmers who are consumers, and not just producers, of food have a voice in farmer organisations. Photo: Kofi Annan takes part in the press conference / Julia Day

At present, the interests of smallholders, women and other more marginalised groups, including pastoralists and livestock groups are not well represented by farmer groups or service providers – private or public.

In addition to assessing the achievement sof this Green Revolution in quantative terms, delegates recommended that qualitative targets are also set to define targets in relation to empowerment, voice and inclusion, taking into account a rights-based approach.

SALZBURG DAY 3: DATA, TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Mon, 05 May 2008 02:16:29 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

The lack of data and information on crop productivity and prices, and the poor quality of the data that does exist, has been a recurrent theme throughout the conference and was stressed as key to the future on this final day.Photo: Mamadou Goita takes part in the press conference / Julia Day

Challenges to improving the quality and reach of data and information through the support of universities, research centres and statistical services was emphasised. The importance of efficient and more cost-effective systems for data-gathering and market intelligence were discussed, including the use of text, cell phone and internet systems in rural areas.

Data on household income, production prices and broader patterns of public expenditure were seen as priorities. Such data-gathering and analysis will allow the tracking of progress, the assessment of impacts as well as the modelling of future options as the Green Revolution in Africa unfolds.

SALZBURG DAY 3: BEYOND STAPLE CROPS

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Mon, 05 May 2008 02:10:37 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

The emphasis of the Green Revolution in Africa must go beyond a focus on a narrow range of staple crops, even though these crops remain important, was an issue pin-pointed by delegates as crucial to future action.

Livestock needs to be put centre stage and smallstock and poultry production are critical for poorer people, and women in particular, delegates said. And while pastoral areas remain a site of extensive poverty, they also hold extraordinary potential. Diversity in crops and livestock was seen as the key to enhancing a range of benefits in terms of production, nutrition and wider resilience of the agricultural and food system.

Ensuring that diversity is central to the Green Revolution challenge will require shifts in the thinking in mainstream professional training. How may university agriculture courses, for example, address wild crop relatives and pastoral issues, one delegate asked? The new Green Revolution requires curriculum reforms from universities through to community-based training and extension.

SALZBURG DAY 3: ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS FOR A GREEN REVOLUTION IN AFRICA

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:40:33 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

You join us on the final day of the 'Toward a Green Revolution in Africa?' conference here in Salzburg, Austria, where the emphasis will be on moving from some of the 'what?' and 'why?' questions to the 'how?' and 'who?' Photo: Schloss Leopoldskron, Salzburg, Austria

Yesterday the six key themes of the conference were discussed in roundtable groups: Institutions and innovations; Markets, trade and Investment; Environmental Sustainability and biodiversity; Governance and policy processes; Equity, rights and empowerment; Responding to new threats and opportunities.

And today delegates are attempting to highlight the key issues and messages from each of these thematic groups. One lucky soul from each of the groups will step under the spotlight to present recommendations and/or commitments, and identify critical unresolved issues.

This conference is not about trying to come up with a consensus position, but is about identifying and acknowledging those unresolved issues and still being able to move forward. Let's see what emerges as the day goes on.

SALZBURG DAY 2: INNOVATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS FOR WHOM?

noreply@blogger.com (Julia Day) — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:26:06 -0500

By JULIA DAY, STEPS Centre member

There was much talk across the group and plenary sessions about the importance of coordination and alignment of initiatives and institutions. This is happening under the leadership of the AU-NEPAD CAADP initiative, but needs to be strengthened. Photos: Delgates debate in Salzburg / Julia Day

Such coordination and partnership is critical to the African Green Revolution, and needs alliances between the public and private sector, the conference heard. In the African context markets need states and states need markets. There is a need to enhance facilitation and coordination to make markets work effectively for poverty reduction. The basic enabling environment – infrastructure, research and development, irrigation – needs to be put in place; and this requires governments to take a lead.

However, even with all these efforts is Africa still missing opportunities? Marginalised and vulnerable stakeholders, especially female farmers, are still under-represented throughout institutional processes.

Barriers such as the digital divide, low literacy and a perceived absence of articulated demands contribute to the persistent exclusion. But it was argued that this last reason is unjustified, since there are plenty of examples of how informal, grassroots organisations

are setting up innovative systems and processes, such as intra-regional trade systems, which a lot of learning can be taken from. Informal institutions can make a difference in an African Green Revolution, delegates agreed.