LONDON (AlertNet) - Finding ways to feed a global population that is expected to reach 9 billion people by 2050 will require "lots of little revolutions rather than one big bang," says Uma Lele, an Indian-born agricultural economist.
Lele, lead author of a report released on Thursday called "Transforming Agricultural Research for Development," says the keys to boosting production lie not in new hybrid seeds or other "silver bullet" technologies but in a myriad of small advances, from mobile phone technology that gives small farmers information about where to find the best price for their produce on any given day to cutting paperwork associated with obtaining grants.
Many new ideas, particularly those about adaptation to climate change - a growing agricultural challenge - will need to be local and spring from grassroots knowledge, rather than international bodies, she said. Coordinating research and working to disseminate the ideas that work will be crucial, she said.
Lele spoke with AlertNet from Washington, in advance of a landmark international meeting on transforming agricultural research that starts in Montpellier, France, on Sunday.
Q: What are the prospects for finding a sustainable way to feed 9 billion people - up from 6 billion today - by 2050?
A: We have to produce research that leads to much more environmentally sustainable solutions that help poor people. There are some technologies that have happened completely outside of the agricultural research system, like the huge growth in cell phones in developing countries, that are important. If more of that technology is brought to bear and we donÂ?t just give money to scientists to breed crops, then we can have more successes. In a revolution, you need totally unexpected partners playing a role.
Q: What's wrong with how our system of agricultural research works now?
A: There are much larger numbers of actors now on the international scene than there used to be. Once it was just the World Bank, the (U.N.) Food and Agriculture Organisation. And the amount of aid from developed countries for agricultural research has been diminishing, which means we have lots of actors with a limited amount of aid and they're competing with each other for it. People think weÂ?re giving massive amounts of aid and poor people in these countries aren't using it effectively. But aid has been diminishing as a share of (donor) GDP.
Today net increases in aid aren't coming from traditional donors. TheyÂ?re coming from the (Bill and Melinda) Gates Foundation, from emerging countries like China and India. All these actors need to be brought together so we have a new architecture for cooperation. That doesnÂ?t exist now.
Q: Why is the lack of coordination a problem?
A: Very good information systems existed in the 1980s and early 1990s about who was investing how much and where in public sector research. We learned a lot from it. But now that information has become very fragmented. The emerging countries have become big players but we donÂ?t know much about what theyÂ?re doing. The private sector and big companies are doing research on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). What is essential is to bring all these people under a large tent and try to learn more about what theyÂ?re doing.
Also, quite a lot of this knowledge being created has become private property rather than being broadly shared. We need more science being conducted in the public sector that is not hamstrung by intellectual property rights.
Q: You mention in the report that another problem is that donor funding cycles and donor focuses have come to drive research, rather than actual problems driving it.
A: In 1972, when CGIAR (the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) was formed, the great share of its resources were untied (from specific objectives). Donors didn't know which projects would yield results and which ones not, so they gave money freely.
Over time what has happened, as money comes from more donors, is that funding is tied to the agendas of donor countries, and the amounts for each project are smaller. That is not as effective, and we need to get back to that earlier situation if we can.
Also paradoxically, the desire for more accountability for aid money has led to increased requirements for what you need to do to get money for anything. People are spending more time filling in forms and less time focusing on the problems of the poor in the world.
Q: How do genetically modified crops fit into a future of sustainable boosts in agricultural production? Some people say they are the only answer; others say they reduce resiliency to problems like climate change by making farmers who have to buy expensive inputs more financially vulnerable.
A: We can't exclude any solutions because the challenges are really big. That means genetically modified crops and technologies have a role to play. But there needs to be more information on them and much greater development of institutions in developing countries that are accountable to their own people, so the right information is shared with populations and they can make their own decisions. These decisions need to be made not just by a few people for or against genetically modified crops.
Q: How is climate change feeding into changes in agricultural research?
A: What the literature shows is that the regions with the greatest concentrations of poor people Â? South Asia and Africa Â? are likely to be hit the hardest. But the international donor community for agricultural research has given more attention to mitigation (reducing carbon emissions) rather than adaptation (adjusting to the effects of climate change).
I think the reason there's so much attention to mitigation is you can show a win-win. Richer nations benefit from it as well. With adaptation, in the short run, that's not so easy. It looks like: "Give them more foreign aid," and that's not very popular. Many adaptation issues are similar to the ones countries are facing already, only more acute.
Q: Are there worries about rich nations, like many in the Middle East, taking out long-term leases on cropland in Africa to boost their own food security?
A: That has reignited the debate about large farms and small farms. Some well-known economists say that it's hard to solve the problems of small-scale agriculture in Africa, that it can never develop, so let's use large farms. But one has to be careful.
Large farms have higher yields but also use more modern inputs. That's not always that productive in comparison to small farms. And if you don't have small farms, where are you going to absorb those large numbers of people? Not in the manufacturing sector, at least not in the short term. Developing countries have a hard time competing with exporters like China in manufactured goods.
For stability and equity, people need to stay on their land.
Q: If the amount of aid for agricultural research is boosted and more is directed to grassroots efforts, how effectively will that be used?
A: One of the exciting things in India now is the role of civil society. It's not yet able to bring about systemic changes but there is no question it has moved in that direction. There's greater freedom of information, more accountability at grassroots level and in parliament. All that has happened because of strengthening of civil society.
If more of that happens in developing countries, they will be able to solve their problems more effectively. If donors instead of asking people to fill in forms really build capacity of local people, as USAID (the U.S. Agency for International Development) and the World Bank did in the 1960s and 1970s, then countries will be able to solve their own problems.
Q: What are the risks if your effort to boost agricultural production through better research fails?
A: We'll have many more poor people in the world than we do already. The Millennium Development Goals on reducing hunger are already not being met and if anything, more people have become food insecure, according to the FAO. Competition for water is enormous already in South Asia and that will become more acute.
There is so much science and so many possibilities that we can bring to bear to address these problems that it would be a pity if nothing happens.
Q; What do you hope to have come out of the upcoming meeting in France?
A: Not just promises, but delivery on promises, and not just by governments of developing countries but also by donors. Also, better partnerships than exist now, when many partnerships are just rhetorical ones.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
