A failure in consensus or a successful advocacy strategy?

Initiated in 2002 by the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD, www.agassessment.org) is an interesting experience of an international expertise process aiming at improving global governance for sustainable development. It aimed to understand how agricultural knowledge, technologies and sciences could contribute to reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods and at the same time reach environmental objectives. It involved the large mobilization of international scientific expertise, but also the participation of a diversity of stakeholders, and a validation of reports by an intergovernmental plenary. The design of the process was inspired by other global assessments like the IPCC and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Among these international assessments, IAASTD is particularly important as its focus on agriculture necessarily puts the stress on trade-offs and synergies between social and environmental implications of development. Assessing if and how IAASTD managed to reach its objectives will prove useful for other assessment processes, particularly in order to understand how social and economical controversies at the heart of the debate on sustainable development might be structured and dealt with by international expertise processes. Regarding the initial objectives of this assessment and its participatory approach, many analysts criticize IAASTD because it did not reach a consensus among all stakeholders. In this paper, we propose to consider also the alternative perspective of analysis, where this assessment serves an advocacy strategy for a new approach of global agriculture. In this alternative perspective, IAASTD can be considered successful. We also propose to consider that the difference between the two analytical frameworks can be useful in order to re-analyze recommendations for global assessments, and to reopen the diversity of the roles that expertise might play in global debates about environment and development where controversies are central

Geopolitics and green transition: new balances, new challenges

Ecological transition is a critical geopolitical and geoeconomic challenge, the wellspring for several competition-cooperation scenarios that are now more sensitive than ever. The Russian war against Ukraine has shone a harsh light on the issues involved in securing energy supplies. But the ecological transition can also be synonymous with new opportunities for cooperation, particularly between Europe and Africa. To ensure that these opportunities are not confined to the short term, however, they must also be accompanied by a significant rebalancing of the international economic and trade system, which is decried as asymmetrical by many southern hemisphere countries. Europe would be well advised to take a proactive role in tackling these multiple challenges, in alignment with its strategic interests and values

Agrimonde and Agrimonde-Terra: Foresight Approaches Compared

Over a ten-year period, two French agricultural research organisations have jointly undertaken two foresight exercises. Agrimonde was about scenarios and challenges for feeding the world in 2050, while Agrimonde-Terra was about land use and food security in 2050. This article compares and contrasts these two exercises, in terms of context and objectives, method, scenarios, and how they grapple with global regions. The comparison illustrates how the context, the objectives and the desired changes influenced the choice of foresight methodology, and the results. While Agrimonde is focused on shifting the forefront of the debate on agricultural models for global food security, decision-makers at various geographical levels can seize the Agrimonde-Terra method and results to have discussions about the future uses of their land

Exploring futures of food and farming systems: the Agrimonde scenarios

This brief series was developed in preparation for the Foresight Breakout Session of the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD 2012) and the Global Foresight Hub1. The briefs were written to communicate to a wider audience, such as policy makers, civil society organizations, researchers, and funders. The briefs were classified into three categories: Future Studies, Regional Update, and Visioning. http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/305838/Brief%2016.pd

Food Security by 2050 : Insights from the Agrimonde Project

The brief describes the methodology and conclusions of a foresight project called Agrimonde. Between 2006 and 2008, this project gathered a panel of French experts who built two contrasting scenarios of the world's food and agricultural systems by 2050: Agrimonde GO, a business-as-usual scenario used as a reference point, and Agrimonde 1, a rupture scenario exploring a world that has been able to implement sustainable food production and consumption

A platform for a dialogue to be continued. Forward thinking in agriculture and food

International audienceHow can agriculture produce food for 9 billion inhabitants in 2050 and achieve the Millennium Development Goals of alleviating poverty, reducing hunger and protecting the environment? In order to take up these challenges and to design tomorrow's food and agriculture systems, research organizations have to define strategies and options, and public policy makers their priorities from now on, relying on foresight studies. Various studies have been conducted to assess scenarios for the long-term future of food and agriculture in the world. Each one has its own objectives, methodologies, and results. Analyzing, comparing and discussing hypotheses, methodologies and results were the objectives of the FI4IAR/CTA seminar "Thinking Forward: assessments, projections and foresights", organized during the GCARD 2010 process. This dialogue, which sometimes led to scientific disputes, proved productive and encouraging. Is it a forum that should be continued in the future