Reducing poverty and its negative impacts has been of secondary importance to the AKST System agenda in LAC. The primary goal has been to boost productivity in order to increase the food supply and reduce food prices—and to increase the productivity of agricultural, forestry, fishery, and aquaculture export commodities.

          Agricultural research policies often do not mention poverty relief among their specific goals. The incentives system for researchers does not encourage their interest in this issue (Gunasena 2003). A current and growing challenge facing governments, public AKST System organizations and civil society is to define, sponsor, and execute a research agenda to help the poor—with their active participation, It would be aimed at developing products and services accessible to poor populations whose use may serve to decrease or mitigate the negative effects of poverty.

          Does AKST have the potential to generate knowledge and innovations that will contribute to reduce or mitigate the negative effects poverty on nutrition, health, energy use, and the degradation of natural resources? These are factors that influence the development of human capital, in terms of health, life expectancy, education, empowerment, organization, recreation, development, and well-being.

          According to Nickel (1989), “Obviously, agricultural research per se cannot solve all social problems and inequalities.” However, as he suggests, “Research policies and strategies may be designed in such a way as to direct the benefits toward relieving poverty.” It is also possible to “develop technologies that will give a comparative advantage to farmers with limited resources and to poor consumers.”

          Both Nickel (1989) and Gunasena (2003) agree that a pro-poor research agenda should focus on product-systems of interest to the poor, and on the zones where they are concentrated such as barren highlands, the semiarid tropics, and marginal lands. Although these areas are extensive, their limited ecophysical conditions mean that the poor will not benefit unless research is focused on the natural resources available in the region they inhabit. Research should be designed to find ways of helping the poor to emerge from poverty.

          The technologies most likely to succeed in these marginal areas are those associated with mixed livestock and agroforestry production systems, with improvements in deferred grazing, cover crops, etc., which are more in tune with the agroecological farming system (Gunasena 2003).

          Science and technology policies to support the poor should promote the development of plots or farms in ways that do not require them to purchase more external inputs. A challenge facing AKST is to develop technologies that require little capital and low energy and can be used by small farmers with few resources. (Dialo, 2005; Pretty and Hine 2001).

          A pro-poor AKST System agenda should aim to optimize integrated pest control and promote strategies to increase the organic matter content in the soil, improve the efficiency of fertilizers through biological nitrogen fixation, or develop technological innovations to conserve genetic resources (FAO 2005).

          In short, according to Gunasena (2003), “The second green revolution—for poor peasant farmers on marginal lands—should not be a copy of the first. It should seek environmental sustainability [and] low-cost inputs and better yields on small plots, and should reduce risks to a minimum. It should focus less on crops and more on systems, and on finding ways to diversify production and use the different resources available.”

Biotechnology and the poor. New developments in molecular biology offer opportunities for researching and resolving problems that affect developing countries, such as the increase in water scarcity. The development of drought-tolerant and salt-tolerant crops would be of value, as would genetic improvement to develop tolerance or resistance to pests and diseases.

          However, it is unlikely that biotechnology and nanotechnology’s potential will be used to solve these problems. Substantial investments would be required in laboratories, equipment, and highly specialized human resources, as well as financial resources to pay for royalties for access to and use of patented genes and processes. Small farmers with few resources—the potential users of such innovations, products, and services—have very limited purchasing power. Because biotechnology research is mainly concentrated in the private sector, large biotechnology companies focus on crops and livestock products that enjoy a large market. The users of these biotechnology products and innovations are large-scale producers with significant purchasing power.

          Accordingly, basic research aimed at understanding the mechanisms and problems that affect crops grown by small farmers in developing countries will not receive financial backing. For this reason, it is essential that the international community create a trust fund to finance the use of frontier knowledge and advanced methodologies to address major problems affecting the poor in developing countries.

          Financing a pro-poor agenda will test the solidarity between the public and private sectors, both at the country level and at the regional level, for instance in Central America and the Caribbean, throughout the entire region, and globally. And the primary responsibility for generating public goods (products and services) and making these available falls on governments.