Previous Return to table of contents   |   Search Reports Next
« Back to weltagrarbericht.de

Options for Action | 267

Box 6-15. Enablers of AKST

Policy drivers providing high level commitment to multi-func­tional agriculture within the broader context of sustainable development:

•   A knowledge and science culture at all levels of gov­ernance in society, supported by an informed science and society discourse, including aspects of welfare and ethics.
•   Incentives, rewards and risk sharing using an appropri­ate balance of public and private involvement.
•   Institutional frameworks governing the rules, regula­tions and ways of doings things, including regulation of intellectual property rights, patents, and fair trading.
•   Stakeholder engagement and exchange amongst pro­viders, brokers and users of AKST, including joint and collaborative working.
•   Experimentation, testing and demonstration of new forms of AKST in real world conditions as a precursor to adoption and diffusion.
•   Funding and delivery mechanisms suited to the wide range AKST products and services, including public, private and joint public-private partnerships.

disciplinary research and education programs that pro­mote an articulation between research and educational goals consistent with development and sustainability goals and judge the research and educational outcomes against attainment of these goals;

 

•     Private investments in R&D, made in response to mar­ket opportunities and potential private gain by those supplying and using new technologies, as an important and growing source of new AKST. It is critical that pri­vate suppliers of ASKT are given the necessary incen­tives and rewards to make new investments in R&D and have access to essential commercial services such as market information and credit;
•     Public-private  partnerships to  provide technical  as­sistance and joint funding of R&D investments, espe­cially where risks are high and where development of successful research capabilities and products/services in the private sector can significantly enhance the public good. Various forms of public-private partnerships will be relevant for advisory/information services of a near market nature. There are significant public good aspects to the development of human capital and skills relat­ing to many pre-market, quasi-market or non-market multifunctional services, some of which may transfer to private funding at a later date; and
•     Nongovernmental   organizations  to   act   as  channels for public and private funding of technical assistance, knowledge transfer and applied research, especially at the local scale. Further support will be required to fa­cilitate this.

With respect to the above, there is need for a framework that can support the cost-benefit analysis of future AKST investments under the new paradigm for agriculture.
     It is clear that a range of enabling conditions are re­quired to support new forms of AKST investment in support of development and sustainability goals (Box 6-15).

 

References

Abler, D. 2004. Multifunctionality, agricultural
policy and environmental policy. Agric. Res.
Econ. Rev. 33:8-17.
ACRE. 2006. Managing the footprint of
agriculture: Towards a comparative
assessment of risks and benefits for novel
agricultural systems (Consultation draft).
Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/
environment/acre/fsewiderissues/pdf/acre-wi-
final.pdf. ACRE Secretariat, DEFRA, London.
Action Aid International. 2006. Power
hungry: Six reasons to regulate global food
corporations. Johannesburg, South Africa.
ADAS. 2002. The role of future public research
investment in the genetic improvement of UK
grown crops. DEFRA, London.
Aebersold, R. 2005. Molecular systems
biology: A new journal for a new
biology? Mol. Systems Biol. 1:1.
AFES (French Assoc. Soil Sci.). 1998. The aims
of soil science, challenges to be met by soil
science, the services soil science can render.
16th World Cong. Soil Science: Introductory
conferences and debate. AFES, Montpellier.
Afman, M., and M. Muller. 2006.

 

Nutrigenomics: From molecular nutrition
to prevention of disease. J. Am. Diet Assoc.
106:569-576.
Agrawal, A. 1995. Indigenous and scientific
knowledge: Some critical comments. Article
and exchange. Indigen. Knowl. Dev. Mon.
3:3-4,4:1-2.
Aigner, S.M., C.B. Flora, and J.M. Hernandez.
2001. The premise and promise of citizenship
and civil society for renewing democracies
and empowering sustainable communities.
Soc. Inquiry 71:493-507.
Aitken, R.J., K.S. Creely, and C.L. Tran. 2004.
Nanoparticles: An occupational hygiene
review. Res. Rep. 274. Health Safety Exec.
London.
Alderson, A.S., and F. Nielsen. 2002.
Globalization and the great u-turn: Income
inequality trends in 16 OECD countries. Am.
J. Soc. 107:1244.
Allaire, G. 2002. Economy of quality, its chains,
territories and myths. Géographie, Econ.
Société 4:155-180.
Allen, E.A., and L.M. Humble. 2002.
Nonindigenous species introductions:

 

A threat to Canada's forests and forest
economy. Can. J. Plant Path. 24:103-110.
Alston, J.M. 2000. Agricultural R&D,
technological change, and food security. Dep.
Agric. Res. Econ., UC Davis CA.
Alston, J., M.C. Marra, P.G. Pardey, and T.J.
Wyatt. 2000. Research returns redux:
A meta-analysis of agricultural R&D
evaluations. Aust. J. Agric. Res. Econ.
44:185-216.
Alston, J., P. Pardey, and V Smith. 1999. Paying
for agricultural productivity. Johns Hopkins
Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Alston, J.M., and P.G. Pardey. 2001. Attribution
and other problems in assessing the returns to
agricultural R&D. Agric. Econ. 25:141-152.
Alston, J.M., G.W. Norton, and P.G.
Pardey. 1995. Science under scarcity:
Principles and practice for agricultural
research evaluation and priority setting.
Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY.
Altieri, M.A., and C.I. Nicholls. 1999.
Biodiversity, ecosystem function and insect
pest management in agricultural systems,
p. 69-84 In W.W. Collins and C.O. Qualset
Previous Return to table of contents   |   Search Reports Next
« Back to weltagrarbericht.de