International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
Name	International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
Abbreviation	IAASTD
Formation	2005
Type	International assessment
Headquarters	Washington, D.C.
Parent organizations	United Nations Environment Programme; Food and Agriculture Organization; World Bank

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development produced a multi-volume global report linking United Nations Environment Programme priorities, Food and Agriculture Organization mandates, and World Bank policy guidance to debates among United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, World Trade Organization, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and United Nations Development Programme stakeholders. Commissioned amid discussions at the Millennium Summit, the assessment convened experts from across Harvard University, University of Oxford, Cornell University, University of California, Davis, University of Wageningen to synthesize evidence relevant to policy processes in forums such as the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and the World Food Summit.

Background and Mandate

The mandate emerged from consultations involving United Nations Environment Programme, Food and Agriculture Organization, World Bank, International Fund for Agricultural Development, United Nations Development Programme, and representatives from member states including United States, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. Influential actors included delegations from European Commission, African Union, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Mercosur, and research institutions like International Food Policy Research Institute, CGIAR, and International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center that sought an authoritative synthesis comparable to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. The assessment was tasked to evaluate agricultural knowledge, science, and technology across regions represented at World Health Organization meetings, G8 discussions, and Rio+20 preparatory processes.

Assessment Process and Methodology

IAASTD used a multi-scale methodology drawing on literature reviews from Nature (journal), Science (journal), and reports by International Livestock Research Institute, Bioversity International, and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Working groups combined lead authors from University of Cambridge, University of Pretoria, University of São Paulo, and Peking University with regional panels affiliated with Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and African Development Bank. The process incorporated participatory appraisal techniques employed in projects by Oxfam International, World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace and governance reviews similar to those in Transparency International and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports. Peer review included reviewers drawn from Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, Council on Foreign Relations, and expert panels convened at The Hague and Geneva.

Key Findings and Recommendations

The assessment concluded that diversified agroecological approaches, informed by research from International Rice Research Institute, CIMMYT, and International Potato Center, could enhance resilience compared to industrial models promoted by corporations such as Monsanto and Syngenta. It recommended strengthening extension systems modeled after Grameen Bank-linked initiatives, regional seed policy frameworks like those discussed at African Union summits, and intellectual property safeguards influenced by debates at the World Intellectual Property Organization. The report urged investment shifts by financiers including the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and European Investment Bank toward smallholder support, adaptive research rooted in University of Nairobi and University of the West Indies contexts, and policy coherence between WTO rules and Convention on Biological Diversity commitments.

Stakeholder Engagement and Governance

Governance mechanisms combined oversight from United Nations Environment Programme, Food and Agriculture Organization, and World Bank with stakeholder input from civil society networks such as Via Campesina, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and Consumers International. Private sector engagement featured representatives from DuPont, Bayer AG, and agricultural trade associations involved in dialogues resembling those at World Economic Forum and International Chamber of Commerce. Indigenous knowledge contributions were solicited through partnerships with institutions like Cultural Survival and academic programs at University of British Columbia and University of Auckland, reflecting approaches discussed at United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Impact, Criticism, and Reception

The assessment influenced policy forums including Rio+20, Committee on World Food Security, and deliberations at G20 agriculture ministers meetings, and shaped research agendas at CGIAR centers and funding priorities at Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Critics from advocacy networks such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth argued the process replicated power imbalances noted in critiques of World Bank projects and called for stronger links to social movements like Via Campesina and La Vía Campesina. Academic critiques in outlets associated with University of California Press and Routledge questioned assumptions about technological transfer cited by authors from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and London School of Economics.

Implementation and Follow-up Initiatives

Follow-up initiatives included regional policy platforms supported by African Union, technical partnerships involving International Fund for Agricultural Development and Asian Development Bank, and research networks coordinated by CGIAR and International Food Policy Research Institute. National programs in Brazil, Ethiopia, India, and China adapted recommendations through ministries linked to Food and Agriculture Organization dialogues and donor coordination with United Kingdom Department for International Development and United States Agency for International Development. Ongoing monitoring drew on indicators used by United Nations Statistics Division and evaluation frameworks from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development development assistance reviews.

Category:International development