International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
IAASTD
Geographical coverage
| Geographical scale of the assessment | Global |
|---|---|
| Country or countries covered | |
| Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name |
The scale of IAASTD was global, but summaries for decision makers focus on major regions (North America and Europe; Central, West and North Africa; East and South Asia and the Pacific; Latin America and the Caribbean; and sub-Saharan Africa) |
Geographical scale of the assessment
Global
Country or countries covered
Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name
The scale of IAASTD was global, but summaries for decision makers focus on major regions (North America and Europe; Central, West and North Africa; East and South Asia and the Pacific; Latin America and the Caribbean; and sub-Saharan Africa)
Conceptual framework, methodology and scope
Assessment objectives
To assess the role of agricultural knowledge, science and technology in reducing hunger and poverty, improving rural livelihoods and facilitating equitable and environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development. It thus was expected to make a significant contribution to the Millennium Development Goals, but its targets were not clearly defined.
Mandate for the assessment
Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment
URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted
The conceptual framework of IAASTD was specified in section 1.2 of the global report. It recognized the great diversity in agricultural systems, which vary with climate, topography, soils, political factors, and social and cultural contexts. It put agricultural knowledge, science and technology at the centre, surrounded by actors, rules and norms, processes, and networks, all influenced by direct drivers (such as food demand and consumption, land use and climate change); indirect drivers (such as the biophysical environment and demographics); food systems and agricultural products and services; and development and sustainability goals (including environmental sustainability). This conceptual framework led to more attention being paid to the interests of small farmers, food security and the rural poor. The conceptual framework includes the importance of capacity development, generation of knowledge and technology, exchange of information and technology, further development of science and technology planning, and broad participation of all relevant parties in the development of science and technology policy.
System(s) assessed
- Cultivated/Agricultural land
Species groups assessed
Ecosystem services/functions assessed
Provisioning
- Food
- Timber/fibres
Regulating
- Pollination
Supporting Services/Functions
- Nutrient cycling
Cultural Services
Scope of assessment includes
Drivers of change in systems and services
No
Impacts of change in services on human well-being
No
Options for responding/interventions to the trends observed
No
Explicit consideration of the role of biodiversity in the systems and services covered by the assessment
No
Timing of the assessment
Year assessment started
2005
Year assessment finished
2007
If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish
Periodicity of assessment
One off
Assessment outputs
Report(s)
Communication materials (e.g. brochure, presentations, posters, audio-visual media)
Journal publications
Training materials
Other documents/outputs
Tools and processes
Tools and approaches used in the assessment
Process used for stakeholder engagement in the assessment process and which component
Stakeholder involvement in IAASTD was broad, ranging from Greenpeace to Syngenta. This breadth of stakeholders led to active discussions and even fundamental disagreements. The global summary for decision makers concluded that “there are diverse and conflicting interpretations of past and current events, which need to be acknowledged and respected”. One member from the private sector (Syngenta) withdrew from the Bureau, contending that the debates had been taken over by extreme views from civil society. Governments also were far from unanimous in their support, underlining the difficulty in reaching consensus as the diversity of stakeholders increases. Civil society members from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Pesticide Action Network, on the other hand, may consider the report to be a much better reflection of the views of the small farmers whose interests they seek to represent.
Key stakeholder groups engaged
The number of people directly involved in the assessment process
Incorporation of scientific and other types of knowledge
Supporting documentation for specific approaches, methodology or criteria developed and/or used to integrate knowledge systems into the assessment
Assessment reports peer reviewed
No
Data
Accessibility of data used in assessment
The data used by IAASTD came from FAO, CGIAR, Governments and scientific literature, with additional information from traditional knowledge. Governments and university researchers will probably continue to be the main suppliers of data on most aspects of agriculture, though the private sector is also a major investor; one example provided by the assessment was that Monsanto and Syngenta each spend some $800 million per year on agricultural research, compared to less than $500 million for the 15 CGIAR centres (see figure GSDM-5 in the global summary for decision makers); expenditures by Governments are not provided, but are likely to be substantially larger.
Policy impact
Impacts the assessment has had on policy and/or decision making, as evidenced through policy references and actions
Independent or other review on policy impact of the assessment
No
Lessons learnt for future assessments from these reviews
Its policy impact is difficult to assess, because the reports were issued only in 2009. The IAASTD Secretariat expects that all stakeholders will use the documents produced in ways that they find useful. That the Governments of three leading agricultural producers (Australia, Canada and the United States) did not fully approve the global summary for decision makers, and other Governments entered reservations on individual passages in the executive summary of the synthesis report and in some regional summaries for decision makers, may weaken the policy impact of IAASTD.
