agriculture for development 27th/plenary... · world development report 2008 agriculture is more...

Agriculture for Development –Role of Science and Technology

Eija PehuScience Adviser, Agriculture and Rural Development Department,

World Bank

2

World Development Report 2008

Outline

Developments in the agricultural sector –WDR2008Closer look at Sub-Saharan AfricaOpportunities and Challenges for Science

and TechnologyAgricultural Biotechnology and the World

Bank

3


75% of the world’s poor are rural and mostare involved in farming. In the 21st centuryagriculture remains fundamental for povertyreduction, economic growth andenvironmental sustainability.www.worldbank.org/ardwww.worldbank.org/wdr2008

4


Agriculture based countriesMainly SS-Africa

417 million rural people

Transforming countriesMainly Asia, MENA

2.2 billion rural people

Urbanized countriesMainly Latin America

255 million rural people

Agr

icul

ture

’ssh

are

ingr

ow

th19

90-2

005

Rural poor/total poor, 2002

The three worlds of agriculture

0 100%

80%

0

50%

20%

5


Agriculture is more than food: It fulfills multiplefunctions in development

1. GrowthTo lead GDP growth at early stages of developmentTo deliver food security

2. Livelihoods and Poverty reductionTo help reduce poverty and rural-urban income disparities

3. Management of natural resources and theenvironmentTo reduce the environmental footprintTo provide environmental services

6


2.3

3.33.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2005

Ave

rage

annu

alre

alag

ricul

tura

lgro

wth

(%)

Large sector for GDP growthAffordable food and wage

competitivenessStrong growth linkages

1. A trigger for overall growth inearly stages

Accelerating agricultural growth in AfricaAccelerating agricultural growth in Africa

Success:China, India, Vietnam

Success:China, India, Vietnam

7


2.5 billion peoplerelated toagriculture,800 m smallholders

75% of poor arerural and themajority will be ruralto about 2040900 m extreme rural

poor ($1/day)

Global extreme poverty 2002, $1.08 a dayGlobal extreme poverty 2002, $1.08 a day

GlobalUrban poor

287 mill. SouthAsia rural

407 mill.

Sub-SaharanAfrica rural

229 mill.

East Asiarural

218 mill.LAC rural27 mill.

ECA rural5 mill.

MENA rural5 mill.

2. A source of livelihoods

8


Agricultural productivity growth hasdriven poverty reduction in Asia

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991

Years

Log

ofH

eadc

ount

inde

x(r

ural

area

s)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

Log

ofav

era

gefa

rmou

tput

per

acre

Rural Po(left axis)

Yields(right axis)

2.4

2.9

3.4

3.9

4.4

1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001Years

Log

ofH

eadc

ount

(rur

alar

eas)

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

5.1

5.2

5.3

Log

ofa

vera

gefa

rmou

tput

per

acre

Rural P0(left axis)

Yields(right axis)

Headcount index and average farm yieldsRural India 1959-1994

Headcount index and average farm yieldsRural China 1980-2001

9


Important user of natural resources:80% of fresh water resources40% of land area21+ % of greenhouse gas emissions

Contributions to greenhousegas emissions

Developingcountry

agriculture &deforestation

21.4

Developingcountry

othersources

15.2

Industrializedcountries

63.4

It can succeed:Sustainable farming systems

and environmental services(conservation farming Brazil,

agroforestry in Africa)

It can succeed:Sustainable farming systems

and environmental services(conservation farming Brazil,

agroforestry in Africa)

3. A way of managing naturalresources and the environment

Improved Opportunities to UseAgriculture for Development

11


Traditionalexports

Meat

Horticulture

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1980 1990 2000 2004

Val

ueof

expo

rts(1

980=

100)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002

Kca

lcon

sum

ptio

n/ca

pita

/day

(198

1=10

0)

Changing diets a̶ new agriculture of highvalue products and non-traditional exports

Developing countryexports

Developing countryconsumption

Improved Opportunities

Meat

Cereals

Horticulture

12



-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300

Annual crops

Degraded pasture

Natural pasture with low tree density

Fodder banks

Improved pasture with low tree density

Natural pasture with high tree density

Improved pasture with high tree density

Net land use change (hectares)

Poor households

Non-poor households

Conversion of degraded land in Nicaragua

New markets for environmental services

13


Technological innovations—progress butunderinvestment Conservation farming, NERICA rice, Bt cotton

ICT in financial, marketing and extension services

Institutional innovations—many at earlystages Weather and price risk insurance (Malawi)

Agro-dealer networks

Stronger producer organizations (West Africa)

Public-private-partnerships


14


Real international commodity prices havebeen suppressed by current global trade

policies (% of price)

Trade share losses to developing countriesdue to current global trade policies

(% point loss to developing country trade shares)

Global trade distortions remain pervasive

-3

-4

-4

-5

-7

-12

-15

-21

Sugar

Rice

Processed meat

Wheat

Other grains

Dairy products

Oilseed

Cotton

But Major Challenges

-9

-2

-18

-21

-5

-7

-34

-27

Sugar

Rice

Processed meat

Wheat

Coarse grains

Dairy products

Oilseed

Cotton

15


Increasing land and water constraints

LACECA

MENA

EAP

SA

SSA

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1961

1967

1973

1979

1985

1991

1997

2003

Inde

xof

crop

land

per

agpo

pula

tion

(196

1=10

0)

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

SSA SA EAP MENA ECA LAC

Perc

ent

(%)

% of population in absolute water scarcity

Cropland per capita of agricultural population

Challenges

16


Challenges—Macro policies and changing role of the state

Supporting macro-policy environment andrural investment climateConsistency of agricultural policies to support

private market developmentProperty rights for market development and

small scale farmers Redefined roles of the stateCore public goodsRegulation and standardsCoordination

Closer look at Sub-Saharan Africa

18


Large continent with small andlandlocked countries

47 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa

Domestic markets arerelatively small

Scale economies inresearch, training andpolicy design

19


Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africais diverse, differing from that of Asia

Asia

Rice,Paddy43%Maize

14%

Wheat26%

Others6%

Barley3%Sorghum

4%

Millet4%

Sub-Saharan Africa

Sorghum23%

Maize21%

Cassava11%

Rice,Paddy

7%

Others8%Yams

4%

Sw eetPotatoes

2%Plantains

4%

Millet20%

The main Green Revolution cereals in Asia were wheat and rice. Instead, Africauses a wide range of farming systems and a broad number of staples.

Area harvested (2000-04 average)

Diverse Agroecology

20


Almost two thirds of the rural population inSub-Saharan Africa lives in less favored areaswith either low agricultural potential or poor

market access

Agricultural potential

0

20

40

60

80

100

SSA SA EAP MENA ECA LAC

%ofru

ralp

opul

atio

n

Irrigated Humid/Sub-humid Arid/Semi-arid

Market access

0

20

40

60

80

100

SSA SA EAP MENA LAC%of

rura

lpop

ulat

ion

High (0-1 hour) Medium(2-4 hrs) Low (more than 5 hrs)

21


-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997

GDP

grow

th(%

)

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Rai

nfal

lvar

iabi

lity

(%)

GDP growth (annual %) Rainfall

Climate vulnerability is already highand will worsen with climate change

Rainfall variability & GDP growthZimbabwe 1979-1997

22


Rapid yield gains in cereals but not inSub-Saharan Africa

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1961

1964

1967

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

Developed countriesSSASAEAPLAC

SS Africa

23


Irrigation(percent of arable and permanent cropland)

1111

33

394

29

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

LACECA

MENAEAPSA

SSA

1962

1982

2002

Improved varieties of cereals(percent of cereal area)

6161

8478

22

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

LACME

EAPSA

SSA

1980

2000

Fertilizer consumption(kilogram per hectare of arable and permanent cropland)

81

73190

9813

34

0 50 100 150 200

LACECA

MENAEAPSA

SSA

1962

19822002

Modern inputshave expandedrapidly buthave lagged inSub-SaharanAfrica.

Modern inputshave expandedrapidly buthave lagged inSub-SaharanAfrica.

24


Future actions must address specialfeatures of the African context

Approach will differ from Asian Green RevolutionDifferentiated and decentralized to deal

with heterogeneity• Very diverse farming systems• Food staples, traditional and nontraditional exports• Particular attention to needs of women farmers

Multisectoral to capture synergies• Technology, markets, risk management, finance

Regional approaches to deal with “smallcountry problem”• NEPAD initiatives

25


Estimated returns to agricultural R&Dare high in all regions

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Latin America (262)

Middle East/North Africa (11)

Asia (222)

Sub-Saharan Africa (188)

All developing countries (683)

All developed countries (990)

All countries (1673)

Percent

Published estimates of nearly 700 rates of return on R&D andextension investments in the developing world average 43 percent ayear.

26


-high diversity in production systems in SSA makes adoptionfrom outside more difficult; stresses the importance of

national R&D investmentsAg GDP/GDP

29

16

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Agriculture-based Transforming Urbanized

perc

ent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Agriculture based Transforming Urbanized

perc

ent

Public Spending on Ag (% of Ag GDP)Spending on Ag R&D (% of Ag GDP)

Increased investment inagricultural R&D

And quality of existing spending needs to be improved

27


Higher Education in Agriculture:- A legacy of neglect

Number of agric researchers declined in SSA

Less than one in four holds a PhD

Declining agriculture enrollments

Staffing shortages

Outdated curricula

Deteriorated labs and facilitiesWomen are underrepresented as students, instructors,

extension agents and researchers

---- message heard, increased investments invocational and tertiary education

28


Realizing underexploited technologicalpotential:

Information technology:Technical adviseMarket informationFinancial services

Agricultural biotechnology for pro-poordevelopment:Insect and disease resistanceDrought toleranceNutritional enhancement

• Applied to food security crops• Within biosafety regulatory frameworks

Agricultural Biotechnology in theWorld Bank

30


Rapid Adoption of GM-Crops since1996 – except for Europe and Africa

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

199 6

1997

1998

1999

200 0

2001

2 002

2003

2004

200 5

2006

mill

ion

hect

ares

USA/Canada/Australia Latin America Asia Africa

In 2006, farmers in22 countriesplanted GM-seedson 100 millionhectares, about 8percent of theglobal crop area.

In 2006, farmers in22 countriesplanted GM-seedson 100 millionhectares, about 8percent of theglobal crop area.

31


So far Development and DeploymentLargely by the Private Sector

Multi-national life sciences corporations focus onagricultural biotechnology with high commercialvalue and extensive international markets

Focused on a few crops: soybean, maize, cotton,canola

Focused on a few traits: herbicide tolerance, Btinsect resistance, stacked traits

Concentration in a few countries: US, Argentina,Brazil, China, India

32


Public Sector Investment in AgBiotechnology is Small

Limited development and adoption of ag biotechnologyin developing countries

There is significant underinvestment in agricultural R&Dgenerally and in biotechnology in particular.CGIAR spends about 7 percent of its budget (about

US$ 35 million) on biotechnology annually.Brazil, China, and India have large public

biotechnology programs, which together spend about10 times this amount.

World Bank’s biotechnology and biosafetycommitments totaled US$ 121 million across 1986–2006

These numbers are still small compared with the US$ 1.5billion spent annually by the four largest privatecompanies.

33


All other crops(15)17%

Other cereals(4)5%

Cotton5%

Tomatoes6%

Othervegetables

(14)9%

Maize9%

Papayas6%

Other fruit(6)

8%

Potatoes11%

Rice17%

Soybeans5%

-46 different crops, 209 transformations –-Joel Cohen

Ag Biotechnology Research Donein Developing Countries

34


GM-Crops and Small ScaleFarmers: the Case of Bt-cotton

The only GM-crop so far adopted widelyby small scale farmers9 million farmers in India and ChinaOverall positive impact on farmer income,

health and environment through lowerpesticide useBut impacts vary across seasons,

institutional settings and agroecology

35


Economic and EnvironmentalBenefits from Bt cotton

5877736747

Reduced pestmanagement costs(%)

n/a2.22.7n/a2.4Reduced chemical

sprays (number)

198124734031Added profit (%)

6511261933Added yield (%)

S AfricaMexicoIndiaChinaArgentina

36


Why the Variation in FarmerIncome and Adoption of Bt-cotton?

China: most successful, transgenes from public research,decentralized breeding program – genes to localvarieties, low seed cost

India: Maharastra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu significantprofits; while Andra Pradesh had losses due to growingof non-adapted varieties

South-Africa: initially successful when inputs available bya local cooperative. Then co-op stopped Bt-seedprovision. This and severe drought reduced farmerinterest.

Argentina: Monsanto charged a high price on its patentedBt-seed, farmer profits and adoption low.

37


Environmental Impacts of GM-crops Grown so far

Four extensive reviews conclude: no harmful effectson the environment

• No accumulation of Bt-toxin• Monarch butterfly not driven to extinction• No “superweeds” developed• No effects on non-target organisms

In fact, positive effects observed• 172,500 tons less pesticides used• Farm workers and waterways protected

But, continued case-by-case assessment of risks andbenefits needed as new applications are developed

38


Slow Progress in Food Crops

So far in large scale production: Bt-maize inSouth Africa and the Philippines; and vegetablesin China

In field testing: Bt-rice, Bt-eggplant, reducedtoxin-cassava, disease resistant-bananas, virusresistant-sweet potatoes, and HT-lupins

In research lab: Golden rice, drought and strigatolerant cereals, insect resistant cowpeas

39


Five Reasons for the Slow Progress

Neglect of pro-poor traits and orphancropsWeak regulatory capacityConcerns on environmental and health

risksLimited access to proprietary technologiesComplexity of trade

40


Welfare Losses by Inaction

The focus on risks by different interest groupscreates uncertainty,reduces investment in R&D,impedes objective assessment of the applications anddiscourages adoption

Non-adoption is not cheap (e.g. loss in realizingbenefits of Golden Rice; or speed of adaptation toclimate change)

41


A Way Forward for theDevelopment Community

Articulation of the potential risks and benefits ofbiotechnology, separate from political polarization

Facilitation of a stronger policy dialogue onbiotechnology in poverty reduction

Strengthening of regulatory systems for countries toobjectively assess potential risks and benefits

Donor support to develop, support and scale upinnovative contractual and partnership arrangements(e.g. AATF, PIPRA, CAMBIA, Challenge Programs, public-privatepartnerships)

Increased financial and technical support tocountries wanting to develop safe GM-crops withpro-poor impact

42


33000

4200

100

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

US

$in

Mil

lio

n

Agricultural in general AgriculturalResearch& Extension

Agriculturalbiotechnology

WB investments in Agriculture Projects ($ Million) from 1986-2006

0.3%Share of all agricultureprojects

2.4%Share of agriculturalR&E projects

120 millionBiotech investments(plus US$14 million ofbiosafety investments)

Over the last 2 decades,WB’s support tobiotechnology andbiosafety is US$120 millionin response to requestsfrom developing countries.

Ag Biotechnology in the WorldBank - synopsis

43


GEF Funded WB Supported Biosafety Projects in India andColombia (2003-2007)

Had already laboratorycapacity – project providesincremental inputs

Project will supportestablishment of a CentralLaboratory

InitialCapacity

Capacity building amongstakeholders; LMO detection;public information provision

Establishment of a nationalbiosafety framework;inter-ministerial collaboration

Focus

Ministry of Environment andForests

Institute Alexander vonHumboldt (IAvH)

Impl.agency

INDIACOLOMBIA

World Bank’s Support to Biosafety

44


Colombia and India Projects– Lessons Learnt

Attention to the specific country context in projectdesign (existing legal framework, institutional set-up; capacity needs among stakeholders)

Vision beyond environmental risks to the role ofbiotechnology in the agricultural sector (bring inMOA, MIF, Min. Trade and Commerce, Privatesector, Producer Organizations, etc. to the projectsphere)

Emphasis on public information provision andawareness building

Regional support to rationalize resource use

45


Regional projects -Latin America and West Africa

West African Economic andMonetary Union - WAEMU

International Center forTropical Agriculture (CIAT)

Impl.agency

Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali,Senegal, Togo

Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica,Peru

Countries

REGULATORY: Complianceto Cartagena throughdevelopment of a RegionalBiosafety RegulatoryFramework

TECHNICAL: Competence forenvironmental riskassessment to CartagenaProtocol on biosafety.

Objectives

West AfricaLatin America

46


Continued Challenges

The broader approach promoted by the WB – push-back by some NGOs and donors

Concern that the present risk centered discussion‘institutionalized’ by focusing on Cartagenacompliance

Polarized discussion: lost the big pictureThe use of science to move forward has been

compromised; science used as a tool to back-uppower positions

Need stronger communication on benefits for theenvironment and poverty reduction and discussionon trade-offs

47


World Bank’s Lessons Learned andCommitment to Ag Biotechnology

Biotechnology can make a substantial contribution insustainable production of food, feed, and fiber; andenvironmental protection;

Strengthening the role of public research inagricultural biotechnology is crucial;

Coordination and co-financing with the private sectorand civil society

Biotechnology not a magic solution but anunderutilized tool to address poverty alleviation andenvironmental protection

There is a need for further development andrationalization of biosafety regulation as it co-evolveswith biotechnology research and large scaleproduction.

48


Will someone wake up toour needs?

…education for mychildren to grow

something of highervalue

… then jobs intown for my

daughter andson-

In-law.… and then apension for me.

… a decent road tomarket.

… safe water in thisfield when we want it.

.… secure land title for

my son.

… a chance for him tosell something better

than this.

…better varieties,technologies and

financing to make aliving

… a government thatknows that life’s still

tough for poor peoplein the countryside.

agriculture for development 27th/plenary... · world development report 2008 agriculture is more...

Documents