Scoping phase

Process

Scoping - Synthesis

(for statistical analysis, click here)

Introduction

Purpose of overview

This paper outlines the main issues raised during the first phase of the consultative process, namely the "scoping phase". It profiles the contributors in terms of geographical region, and sector. Following this, it provides a synopsis of the main themes raised by contributors and then addresses the outcomes of the responses to specific questions.

Objectives of the Scoping Process

The scoping exercise, held from July until October 1998, was the first phase of the consultative process for the 1999 Conference and subsequently for CSD-8 in 2000. The objective was to engage the widest possible representation of stakeholders to identify and prioritize critical issues which could be addressed at the Conference within the context of integrated land resources management, sustainable agriculture, and rural development, ensuring that the evolving nature of these are being recognized. It also served to identify related success stories and experiences in the implementation of Agenda 21 from the local to global level. Through this consultative process, respondents helped to identify the scope and agenda of the Conference. Additionally, an on-going participatory process has been initiated along with identifying a wider network of partners for the process.
The scoping exercise has provided a wide variety of views and opinions on what are considered to be the most pressing topics concerning the future of agriculture and land management. On some issues there was consensus among respondents, while other issues clearly posed diverging views. Given the variety of ideas expressed by the respondents, it is difficult to make a short and coherent synthesis incorporating all the different views communicated in the individual questionnaires. Still, some distinct trends may be identified from the information received. This document is not intended to be a comprehensive summary, rather, it serves as a brief highlighting some of the major findings from the responses to the questionnaire on the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land. The information presented here is an interpretative summary of the responses to the questionnaire and do not necessarily represent the views of FAO.

Who responded to the scoping questionnaire?

130 questionnaires were filled out and returned. The level of responses varied between regions: Western Europe (31); Latin America (29); Asia (23); Sub-Saharan Africa (17); Northern America (16); MiddleEast/Northern Africa (7); Australia/Oceania (2); and Central-Eastern Europe (2). Subsequent phases of the consultative process will seek to heighten the contribution of those regions that were under-reprsented in the first phase.

The variety of types of organisations that have reacted is wide. A considerable number of government institutions (40), NGOs (34), universities and research centres (37) have responded, while the responses from private organisations (12) and IGOs (4) remained modest. In this context it should be mentioned that among the private organisations, there have been reactions from umbrella organisations that represent a large number of individual private companies. Once again, it is anticipated that subsequent phases of the consultative process will include a greater number of contributions from the large farm, corporate, and other under-represented sectors.

How were the questionnaires processed?

All 130 questionnaires were read thoroughly by an interdisciplinary team. This provided a qualitative sense of the responses. Additionally, key words derived through interpretation of responses received were ascribed for each question in each questionnaire. The key word results were entered into a database. For any given question, occurances of individual key words were counted and then divided by the total number of occurances of key words. For many questions, key words were clustered and an analysis was done using the sum of the key words within a cluster divided by the total occurance of all key words. In the graphics within the document, the numbers represent the percentage based on cluster analysis. For greater details, the complete quantitative analysis for all questions is available.

Synopsis

The multiple roles of agriculture and land

To face the current challenges of agriculture, there seems to be general support among the respondents to address agriculture and land in a broader context by integrating the multiple roles (economic, food production, nature and land management, employment etc.). Sustainable agriculture and land use is not just a means to obtain more food and income, in socially acceptable ways which do not degrade the environment. Rather, it has an all-encompassing impact on communities, environments, and consumers. Respondents are encouraging a consensus and common understanding of sustainable land use as an opportunity to improve the quality of the environment, including its physical (increased soil fertility, better quality air and water), biological (healthier and more diverse animal, plant, and human populations), and social, economic and institutional (greater social equity, cohesion, peace/stability, well-being) components. Alternative land uses also have physical, biological, social and environmental costs (in addition to economic ones) which also need to be taken into account.

The need for an evolution in approach

The major point of consensus is that there is a need for an evolution in approach, a revision of the definitions, boundaries, and frameworks used in research, development, and policy. Among other factors, the evolved approach will need to accomplish the following:

revise temporal, spatial, analytical, and institutional boundaries to be more inclusive and holistic

revise these same boundaries to become explicitly scale-sensitive

create a vision of agriculture and land use composed of its spectra of functions (rather than dichotomies) for a range of beneficiaries

account for and internalize environmental and social externalities (i.e. social and environmental costs/benefits of current technologies and practices) and encompass these within costs and assessments of sustainability

revise temporal perceptions (i.e. consider short term impacts within long term goals/activities and long term impacts of short term goals/activities; shift decision making from retrospective "problem" to prospective/future oriented; planning on short lived eco-achievements vs. long term commitment)

develop policies which achieve national/regional aims, while supporting local initiatives

broaden the range of tools we use, develop a common language and generate new complex, (time efficient, interactive) interdisciplinary approaches to spatial, temporal, and social heterogeneity and to alternative options for land use development pathways

shift interactions and participation of stakeholders, from top-down to more horizontal modes of consultations, attributing appropriate value to knowledge/expertise from each source (on a subject to subject basis), and empowering local producers to take responsibility for their own future; all stakeholders should be involved in the development of methodology and tools for quantifying tradeoffs among conflicting goals/targets in a given region

move from fixed to flexible simple technological packages from both indigenous and external sources, appropriate for a diversity of situations, and monitored in terms of in-process improvements rather than success and failure

Outcome of responses to specific questions

Issues and opportunities

Respondents were asked to identify two to three critical issues which constrained success within the following categories: Economic Framework and Markets; Policies, Institutions, and Regulations; Social and Cultural Setting; Education, Training and Information; and Research and Technology. Within each category a second question was asked to solicit factors or mechanisms which are currently addressing the issues. The quantitative analysis of results of these two questions are presented here, followed by some information of a qualitative analysis.

Constraints, success factors

Economic framework and markets

Policies, institutions and regulations

Social and cultural setting

Education, training and information

Research and technology

Economic framework and markets
National/international economic policy was identified as a constraint as well as a tool for improving the framework within which agriculture operates. Market dominance by large firms was mentioned along with the fact that national governments tend to favor these since they have better contacts and generate export income. Free trade and its consequences for small, non-organized (family) farms against efficient farms from developed countries were brought up as an issue as well. The consequences for food security were highlighted in this and other contexts several times. National policies focused on diversification and on small, family-based farming were proposed as alternatives. A small number of responses underlined the opportunities that trends of globalization and free trade offer to developing countries and their farmers, including the potential benefits of regional trade liberalization. Others pointed to the differential impact of liberalisation in terms of large and small farms and between developing and developed countries. This issue is very controversial; other responses referred to the danger that only large-scale farming would benefit from these developments.
Many respondents noted the issue of price policies and their negative impacts:

price support in industrial countries, disturbing markets in developing countries;

policies in developing countries intended to keep food prices low in order to favour the urban areas, which have more political influence, resulting in marginalisation of rural areas;

an economic system that does not internalise externalities of environmental costs/benefits;

low food prices, which do not create opportunities for farmers to invest in sustainable production methods; and

eroding effect of price policies on local genetic diversity.

There seemed to be consensus among respondents for the need to internalise externalities in product prices and to create incentives at multiple levels to develop and apply sustainable (farming) practices, policies, technologies and natural resource management. In this context the high costs related to organic and other sustainable ways of farming were often contrasted with the low costs of unsustainable farming practices (or sometimes even subsidisation of these practices), as important constraints towards sustainable farming systems. Solutions may be found by identifying measures/systems that have both short-term and long-term positive impacts for farmers.

Privatisation was seen as an opportunity to stimulate efficiency and to attract investments, however, the dangers of this were also emphasised. For example commercialised extension services could cease to address the needs of marginalised farmers. The lack of (access to) credit for small farmers was frequently mentioned in the questionnaire responses. This aspect was often related to the difficulty of small farmers to obtain high quality inputs as well as technologies, and as a result to compete with large firms. Government intervention was often suggested as a solution.

Social and cultural setting

Respondents suggested that social and cultural issues should not be viewed as externalities but should be fully embedded into agricultural discussions and analysis. Environmentally sustainable land use practices should not just be socially acceptable and developed using participatory techniques, but should actually promote increased social equity, social harmony or cohesion, increased respect for human dignity, cultural identity, and diversity. For example, labour conditions for agricultural workers, treatment of farm animals (etc.) must be explicitly considered as part of the impact of production/processing methods. Social environments are heterogeneous and the costs of land use practices to certain groups may be high (gender, class, social status) even if the net economic benefits also appear to be high.

Education, training and information exchange

Illiteracy and inadequate education were often referred to as constraints to sustainability. The need for more education and training was stressed (in particular concerning environmental awareness), as well as reformulating the existing programmes to meet the needs and circumstances of farmers and sustainable farming practices better.
Information and its use play a key role. The different needs and interests for information among stakeholders should be identified and be used to find ways to bridge the gaps between them. There is a need for harmonisation of existing knowledge. Underlying this consensus is an implicit recognition of the revolution in information technology that has accompanied progress since Agenda 21. This revolution is significant since information has the potential of changing the transaction costs of most relationships and of empowering marginalized groups. In fact it was felt that keeping control of information is a means of increasing personal power for dominant groups. For many, information has become the engine behind policy reform and development, occupying a position even more central than markets. Information is also at the heart of the constraints identified during the scoping phase: each stakeholder tended to identify shortcomings in the goods and services provided by the other stakeholders, suggesting that the information on available goods and services does not flow effectively between stakeholders. It is unclear whether the problem lies with what information is provided, or how it is analysed and packaged by producers or with how it is accessed, understood or utilized by the consumer. Basically, each stakeholder controls a separate information market which depends upon the information afforded by other stakeholders. Links between these need to be developed.

A number of challenges remain in using information technology to promote sustainable agriculture:

how to reconcile the importance and value of global tools and networks and the effect this has on local knowledge and technologies and future diversity in these;

stakeholders currently participate unequally in information production and consumption, with wealthier and more powerful stakeholders having greater facility in advancing their claims; and

do some institutions have a comparative advantage in information production and consumption, or is this a public good of different value at different scales.

Research and technology

Technology and science often includes indigenous land use practices and new technologies need to be evaluated in comparison with these. A full cost estimate (biological, physical, financial, social, labour, etc.) should be made and provided as consumer information for better targeting, including gender disaggregated profiles. Technology should also be designed to provide both short and long term benefits where possible, since a mix of benefit horizons will contribute to the attraction of the technology for consumers. It was frequently stated that research centres tend to focus rather on high external input agriculture and high technology than on the needs of (small) farmers, their traditional knowledge and their cultural and social circumstances. The weakness of extension services (resources, operation modes) was also considered as an impediment to sustainable development.
Many felt that technology tends to be designed for the profit of producers and multi-national corporations, rather than on the benefits to local communities, animals, physical environments, etc. Technologies catering specifically to the needs of the very poor and to marginal areas, are particularly lacking. Technologies should be better tailored to the educational background of those who are supposed to apply them. In terms of the design, implementation and design of research and development programs, there is a need for greater participation of farmer and land-user groups.

Disincentives and incentives

Two questions were asked to better understand the main disincentives to sustainable production and land management as well as the incentives to managing land in a more sustainable way. Responses which fell in the categories of inappropriate economic frameworks; poverty, population growth and awareness; and lack of an enabling environment were seen as key disincentives to sustainable production. Responses to incentives fell in the categories of enabling political and regulatory environment; improved economic frameworks and markets; and education, research and information. The concept of incentives prompted a good debate.

Disincentives

Incentives

Incentives One of the central points of divergence is in the approach to be adopted to bring about an evolutionary change. One school advocates the "carrot-stick" approach providing a set of incentives to motivate land users to shift paradigms, adopt more sustainable practices, etc. Often these incentives take the form of short term economic benefits through taxation, subsidies, preferred terms of trade. Most represent a move away from market driven changes, and recommend greater involvement of governments in policies to promote more sustainable land use.
Another set of respondents argue against "artificial incentives" and claim that change will only occur if it is motivated by investigation and experimentation by farmers seeking their own solutions. For this group, policies should not focus on land use, but on removing constraints in markets, infrastructure, land tenure and education to create a "level playing field". Better markets (and market information) for "sustainable produce", education, security of tenure were regularly cited as major incentives to more sustainable land use techniques.

Policies tend to be more effective if individual farmers see that their interests and opinions have been taken into account. This would replace the traditional top down system, where national governments unilaterally decide upon policymaking, without consulting the stakeholder organisations involved. In this context, it was stressed that insecurity of land tenure, especially for women, is an important constraint to sustainability, since this insecurity stimulates a focus on short-term gains instead of long-term sustainable practices. Solutions for this pressing issue should be sought.

Most agree that the first priority is to arrive at a common definition of the problems, costs, acceptable trade-offs, and what appropriate approaches need to be developed. However, there are differences about who should be responsible. Many respondents felt that global markets provide advantages for developed countries, detract from local producers' abilities to feed themselves, undermine the survival of rural communities, and diminish the viability of the environment. Globalization of agriculture gives developed countries and transnational corporations a comparative advantage in trade, ignores local economic, social, biological, and physical environmental needs and suggests that these stakeholders may not be the best placed for undertaking these tasks. Many respondents felt that global trade should reflect the best interests of present and future generations (biodiversity, protected/cleaner water and soil sources, maintenance/improvement of social structure) rather than enhance the short term ability of a few to attain high profits from food production.

Roles of stakeholders

Respondents were asked to provide insight into what the roles of various stakeholders should be in achieving sustainable agricultural development. In this question, private sector included both private industry and civil society.
Developing an evolved approach, according to several respondents, includes an organisational shift, by which a full participative role of multiple stakeholders (farmers' organisations, governments, NGO's, research centres, women organisations, private companies etc.) is foreseen. This shift also incorporates a redefinition of roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, the questioning of stereotypes and the relations between stakeholder groups. There is neither consensus on how this process should take place, on the ultimate roles of the stakeholders nor on the consequences this shift would have for national and local policy. It was agreed that there should be enhanced partnerships between the different stakeholder groups and sectors, as well as increased dialogue and negotiation.

Many respondents suggested a shift in the role of governments. Governments should create enabling environments by improving their policies towards (small) farmers and sustainable ways of production. This could be achieved by economic instruments/incentives (tax break, credit, subsidies also see section on incentives), by providing information and legislation, as well as by enforcing existing legislation. Governments should promote policies to support sustainable agriculture and land use including land security, controlling urban sprawl through "food security zones", and should sponsor organic/sustainable agriculture research. There is a need to ensure consistency and coordination among various sectoral policies which impact on rural areas. There is also a need for infrastructure and basic services in rural areas, and Government should also protect the environment with laws, regulations and education.

There was also a strong demand for decentralisation of certain government functions towards local governments and local communities. In those countries where the institutional capacity is weak the need for improvement was stressed. Often the problem of corruption and lack of political priority and commitment concerning rural issues was mentioned. Solutions were often sought in building partnerships and participative measures; active involvement of local communities in the improvement of their own situations and giving them the freedom and the tools to act. This could be reached both by harmonising the priorities of governments with the needs within rural areas as well by active involvement of stakeholder organisations in policymaking.

Private sector has a role in creating markets, providing credit, providing agricultural services and infrastructure (in terms of marketing and input provision such as small-scale irrigation and packaging stations) to farmer and consumers, supporting local food production, processing and distribution.

Private sector also includes rural land users. Although farmer organisations are NGOs, in broader terms NGOs do not necessarily represent farmers nor are they equivalent to them. Thus they should not substitute farmers organizations as stakeholders. Farmer organisations play key roles as cooperatives, informal local groups, water-user groups and industry-wide associations. Both NGOs and farmer organisations should participate in their own right. Local NGOs can promote new types of agriculture, coalitions for organic farming to create market, community lending programs. The play a clear role in education, empowerment, building networks, information exchange, training in holistic decision-making and assisting communities in land use and environmental plans that protect potential for future among many others. International NGOs play a role in networking, building cooperation, information exchange, assisting in national campaigns as well as providing information on production methods and marketing techniques that free farmers from dictates of global prices and markets that are controlled by transnational corporations.

Those involved in education and research must offer students opportunities to appreciate agriculture and environment and alternative energy; prepare youth with new vision, and enabling value shifts (such as holding parents responsible to children).

Public sector

Private sector/Civil society

Land-users and decision making

Respondents were asked how to empower land users in effective and informed decision making. Answers concentrated around access to education, and information and greater dialogue; greater participation; and an enabling political and regulatory environment.
Within these clusters, specific mention was made of enhanced education and capacity building, access to quality information and information systems and improved diffusion, promotion of environmental awareness, and more efforts in dialogue and negotiation. Additionally, participation and empowerment also mean the formation of partnerships and promotion of farmers' organizations. Finally, for ensuring an enabling environment, political priorities should be set toward sustainable development, improved tenure systems, ensured stability for farmers, promotion of decentralization, and improved regulations and standards.

Conference organization

Several questions were asked regarding the organization of the Conference itself. The views of respondents are presented here and may considered by the organizers. There is a strong consensus that conference should be the culmination of many local sessions ("farmer forums", "rural awareness workshops") and conferences addressing the same topics. Only through decentralized discussions at local and national levels will the value of inputs from different stakeholders be recognized. It is important that participation in the conference should be both substantive and meaningful. Internet and other modes of participation (which are required for farmers and many rural peoples in developing countries) should include clear (monitorable) mechanisms for channeling this information/insights into the Maastricht portion of the Conference. Only then will stakeholders have an incentive to implement the results of the Conference with their constituencies. This should be accompanied by extensive use of mass-media. All preparation activities and the Conference itself should incorporate an explicit gender dimension.
Respondents diverged on whether the Conference should focus on success stories, guidelines, best practices or avoid the idea of "blue prints" and focus instead on negotiation around common problems and definitions, who the intermediates are/should be, what methods should be used, and what indicators are best for monitoring changes.

Suggested innovative approaches included:

creative organization and planning schedule of the conference along linear and non-linear time orientations

NGOs, private sector participants, governments should be encouraged to bring displays, sponsor side events, offer special local and regional food from their countries/regions

avoid negotiated text by government delegations in favor of interest/issue sessions that allow all participants to help draft a statement

as an output, adopt an agricultural/land use ethic, a process which engages, farmers, processors, distributors, consumers, industries, corporations, governments and research institutes, in a long-term commitment and dialogue and will lead to the development of new, more sustainable agricultural methods in the future

provide explicit intellectual and economic benefits/returns/incentives to farmers (and certain other stakeholders) who have the time to participate.