By Stephen Leahy
As food prices soar and hundreds of millions go hungry, experts from
around the world will this week present a new approach for ensuring food
security, at the intergovernmental plenary for the International Assessment
of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). The Apr.
7-12 conference is taking place in South Africa's commercial hub,
Johannesburg, and will be attended by representatives of an estimated 60
governments.
In the past year the price of corn has risen by 31 percent, soybeans
by 87 percent and wheat by 130 percent. Global grain stores are currently at
their lowest levels ever, with reserves of just 40 days left in the silos.
Meanwhile, food production must double in the next 25 to 50 years to feed
the additional three billion people expected on the planet by 2050.

"The question of how to feed the world could hardly be more urgent,"
said Robert Watson, director of the IAASTD and chief scientist at the
British environment and agriculture department.

The findings of the three-year IAASTD indicate that modern agriculture
will have to change radically from the dominant corporate model if the world
is to avoid social breakdown and environmental collapse, he explained.
"Agriculture has a footprint on all of the big environmental
issues...climate change, biodiversity, land degradation, water quality,
etc."

The IAASTD brought together more than 400 scientists who examined all
current knowledge about agricultural practices and science to find ways to
double food production in the next 25 to 50 years and do so sustainably,
while helping to lift the poor out of poverty. They concluded that the way
to meet these challenges is through combining local and traditional know-how
with formal knowledge.

The effort produced five regional assessments and a synthesis report,
as well as an executive summary for decision makers.

Representatives from 30 governments of developed and developing
countries, the biotechnology and pesticide industry and a wide range of
non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including Greenpeace and Oxfam, were
involved. Public sessions were also held to gather input from producer and
consumer groups, as well as others within the private sector.

However, last year the two biggest biotech and pesticide companies,
Syngenta and BASF, along with their industry association - Crop Life
International - abandoned the assessment process. This was on the grounds
that the final draft of the synthesis report was overly cautious about the
potential risks of genetically modified crops, and sceptical of the
benefits.

"It's unfortunate that they backed out...I don't think they are used
to working with a wide variety of participants as equals," said Josh
Brandon, an agriculture campaigner with the Canadian branch of Greenpeace.
He had high praise for the scientists involved in IAASTD - and for the
attention given to problems presented by biotechnology and the Green
Revolution, such as the patenting of seeds, genetic contamination, and air
and water pollution by pesticides.

The term "Green Revolution" was coined in 1968 by William Gaud - then
administrator of the United States Agency for International Development - in
reference to the increased agricultural yields that were experienced in Asia
and Latin America from the late 1960s through greater use of fertilizers and
better crop varieties, amongst others.

However Robert Paarlberg, a political scientist and agriculture policy
expert at Harvard University, in the United States, also has concerns about
the way in which the IAASTD tackles biotechnology.

He is particularly critical of the assessment for sub-Saharan Africa,
saying it reads as if written by activists "who believe that the Green
Revolution was a tragedy not a triumph of lifting hundreds of millions out
of hunger and poverty in Asia."

Paarlberg, who did not participate in the IAASTD, recently published a
book titled 'Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of
Africa'. In it, he argues that poverty and hunger in Africa are largely a
result of agriculture there not having been improved by science, including
modern biotechnology.

But Harriet Friedman, a sociologist at the University of Toronto in
Canada and one of the editors of the assessment documents, counters that the
IAASTD is based on scientific findings, not opinion: "The biotech industry
and its supporters have a very narrow view of agricultural science."

The assessment places the focus on improving sustainable agriculture
and small-scale production, which is receiving little investment for
research. Paarlberg said that U.S. funding for agricultural research in
Africa had dropped substantially in the past years, as had financing from
the World Bank.

The bank is a major sponsor of the IAASTD along with a number of
United Nations agencies.

In addition to analysing how the world can be fed, the assessment
focuses on supporting poorer communities with agricultural science and
technology, noted Cathy Holtslander, a project organiser for the Beyond
Factory Farming Coalition, an animal protection NGO in Canada.

The final synthesis document, to be presented at the end of this week,
is intended to act as a blueprint for governments about the future direction
of agriculture.

"It's not necessary that the assessment's findings are accepted by all
governments," said Friedman. "This about a sea change in public
consciousness."
[www.ipsnews.net]