Knowledge and Knowledge Management—Property Rights

Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 481 systems that cannot be reduced to individual ownership. Collective ownership and management of natural resources is protected in Article 10c of the CBD Sustainable Use of Components of Biological Diversity. Indigenous groups have referenced this Article to help defend their collective rights and NRM practices against governments that would ignore these rights in fulilling commitments to protect “global” resources. New instruments for collective action have to make explicit and feasible the fair implementation of collective rights and NRM practices in order to obtain the best and sustainable management of renewable natural resources. Formal institutions have to take into account this diversity of NRM knowledge and avoid conforming only to a concept of individual ownership and rights.

7.5 Pro-Poor Agricultural Innovation

7.5.1 Technology supply push and the global agricultural treadmill

The dominant policy model for promoting innovation is called the linear model Kline and Rosenberg, 1986, or the transfer of technology model Chambers and Jiggins, 1987; Chapter 2. Also known as “technology supply push,” this approach relies on the agricultural treadmill Cochrane, 1958 i.e., market-propelled waves of technological change that squeeze farm-gate prices, stimulate farmers to capture economies of scale, deliver high internal rates of return to investments in agricultural research Evenson et al., 1979, but also encourage externalization of signiicant social and environmental costs Lal et al., 2005; Mukherjee and Kath- uria, 2006. While the technology push model provided the basis for the positive impacts of the Green Revolution in favorable areas Castillo, 1998 and under deined conditions that typically included high subsidies on fertilizers and pesticides Pontius et al., 2002, it has not served nearly as well as resource-poor areas that are highly diverse, rain fed, and risk prone, and that currently hold most of the world’s poor Anderson et al., 1991; Biggs and Farrington, 1991; Van- lauwe et al., 2006. The market-propelled diffusion of innovations called “the agricultural treadmill” Cochrane, 1958 has been on- going in developed market economies for 50 years or more. The literature observing the process for hybrid maize in the American Midwest goes back to 1943 Ryan and Gross, 1943. During these 50 years, farmers in those economies have been able to capture signiicant economies of scale. The treadmill process in those economies has been heavily sup- ported in terms of public funding of agricultural research, education and extension, credit subsidies, land and irriga- tion development, supportive legislation, access to inputs, services and markets, and the evolution of farmers’ organi- zations and their lobbies that represent farmers’ interests at state and federal or EU levels. One can now speak of a “global treadmill” that allows farmers in developed economies to export their sometimes subsidized products to developing countries and compete with local small-scale farmers. Value added per agricultural worker in 2003 constant 2000 US in developed market economies was 23,081 with a growth over 1992-2003 of 4.4 FAO, 2005b. For sub- sion of its sovereignty offshore; and 2 freedom of the high seas, meaning the freedoms of navigation and ishing in the high sea beyond that offshore coastal area Joyner, 2000. The irst principle relies on the comanagement between states and coastal communities in planning, regulating, and conducting resource management Borgese, 1999. One of the main issues is the obligation for states to maintain or restore populations of harvested ish at levels that produce a “maximum sustainable yield”. “Non-exploitive users”, i.e., the rest of society’s citizens, also have a right of access to the Exclusive Economic Zone for other functions, which in- clude permission to locate aquaculture installations, mineral mining, shipping access, etc. decisions on which remain with government Caddy, 1999. On the second principle, a UN Agreement for the Con- servation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks has been adopted in 1995, mandating states to establish subregional and regional con- ventions and organizations to facilitate conservation and management of living resources, and an International Sea- bed Authority for the deep ocean loor and non living ma- rine resources. Except for sedentary species of the sea loor, international isheries agreements do not speak in terms of ownership of resources but of access rights. This distinc- tion raises the ine point as to the timing of the access and even whether this right could be extended to include the progeny of the resource share in future rights. A corpus of international law has evolved around the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention for protecting and managing the world’s oceans Joyner, 2000, which will likely be extended in the future Caddy, 1999. Assessments such as the MA, point out that these arrangements are insuficient to avoid a de- cline of populations of harvested isheries and 25 of the oceans are overished, creating problems for both the ish species and the ishermen depending on them. The setting of ishing quotas doesn’t take into account the effects of the withdrawal of one species on the functioning of the whole marine ecosystem: it alters not only the targeted ish popu- lation but also the other trophic levels concerned by this species as prey or predator. In most situations there is in- suficient knowledge on the functioning of marine complex ecosystems to design better management rules. Challenges for public research and policy options. Scientiic knowledge has to help to understand the complexity of such situations, in the oceans as well as on the continents, to for- malize these different sets of right regimes and also to design new ways for collective action for the fair implementation of such rights, and reach optimally sustainable management of renewable natural resources. Such knowledge has to guide the design of laws, incentives, contracts, taxes, quo- tas, permits and licenses that take into account the diversity of situations and that avoid blueprint solutions. Natural Resources Management Policies. Since state appro- priation of NRM based on positive law may coexist with the modalities of local rights systems, which distinguish access to, usage, exploitation, ownership, alienation, exclusion, of “common” goods at a collective level, one option is to recog- nize that the “law of the land” may further involve land tenure 482 | IAASTD Global Report Saharan Africa the igures are 327 and 1.4, respectively. As long as the global treadmill is operating, even with all OECD subsidies removed, efforts to uplift rural poverty will remain severely handicapped and it will continue to be dif- icult to enlist the vast arable lands in developing countries that are now underperforming and degrading for purposes of global food security. In these circumstances, to continue with a technology-supply push conception of innovation seems inappropriate. The rural poor are not on the global treadmill; instead the global treadmill prevents them from development. Required are institutional framework con- ditions that provide realistic opportunities to subsistence farmers to become small-scale commercial farmers. In imperfect markets the beneits are uneven and do not always reach the poor. Policy responses of proven historical eficacy to addressing unevenness in competitiveness and op- portunity include institutional framework conditions within which AKST can play a more positive role, i.e., by stimulat- ing targeted investment in creating small farmers’ access to market opportunities, inputs, alternative employment and to creating value-adding enterprises and by temporary market protection to infant agro-industries. The contemporary and future challenge is to achieve positive policy outcomes in ways that internalize the environmental and social costs as well. 7.5.2 Brokered long-term contractual arrangements Brokered long-term contractual arrangements BLCA; a term used here to designate a suite of modern contractual arrangements have proven effective in improving the liveli- hoods of poor farmers and fostering rural innovation see Box 7-2 Little and Watts, 1994; Key and Runsten, 1999. However, the set of conditions required for this policy op- tion to be attractive are rather restrictive. BLCAs were ini- tiated to use the good aspects of state trading enterprises STEs because STEs proved sensitive to corruption, rent seeking, gender discrimination and externalization of costs to farmers Hobart, 1994; Dorward et al., 1998. A major challenge facing expanded use of BLCAs as a policy option is to avoid repetition of the historical record that provides ample evidence of the misuse and abuse of nationalized BLCA-like STE schemes. BLCAs, under favorable social conditions with trans- parency and strong farmer organization, provide a policy option for public sectors to invest in the creation of op- portunities for poor farmers. Synergies between long term contractual arrangements and the organic and fair trade markets increase when such types of contractual arrange- ments are coupled with group certiication of small-scale or- ganic producers. Policy options include retooling abolished STEs and creating legal, inancial and technical support for emerging new BLCAs that are pro-poor.

7.5.3 Endogenous development and traditional knowledge

Endogenous development draws mainly on locally available resources, local knowledge, culture and leadership, with an openness that allows for integration of outside knowledge and practices Haverkort et al., 2002; Millar, 2005. Traditional knowledge can be effective and reliable Brammer, 1980; Warren et al. 1991; Reij et al., 1996; Bram- mer, 2000; Balasubramanian and Devi, 2005 with respect Box 7-2. Pineapple export in Ghana. Ghana traditionally exported Cayenne pineapples. But since 2002, international demand has shifted to the extra sweet MD2 variety with quite dramatic consequences for Ghana’s exporters and small-scale producers. Many of the latter quit production altogether, while the former faced loss of their mar- ket contracts in Europe unless they could change to MD2. That was no sinecure. An acre requires 22,000 suckers and some of the larger exporters grow hundreds of hectares. Ini- tially tissue culture material from Latin America was imported, but this proved expensive and some mishaps occurred. Then BOMARTS Farms Ltd about 400 ha pineapple, faced with ter- mination of its contract, decided to set up a commercial tissue culture lab with assistance from scientists of the Department of Botany at the University of Ghana. Millions of plantlets were produced, some of which were sold to commercial producers who in turn could provide their out-growers. MD2 makes many suckers per plant, so that farmers themselves can quickly mul- tiply the variety. At the time, most small-scale producers were not ready to spend money on buying plantlets. The Govern- ment stepped in to save Ghana’s second largest export crop and contracted BOMARTS to produce over a two-year period 4.8 million plantlets at cost 3 eurocents per plantlet. Twice a week, the Ministry of Agriculture collects 44,000 plantlets and distributes them to farmers through Sea Freight Pineapple Ex- porters Ghana SPEG and Horticultural Association of Ghana HAG on credit at a tenth of the price. BOMARTS itself has few out-growers and largely exports its own produce. At the other extreme are exporters who have no farm oper- ations themselves. The typical setup is a mix with out-growers making a substantial contribution to the consignment of the exporter. Exporting companies make detailed contracts with out-growers, providing inputs on credit, specifying the times of planting, force flowering uniformity and harvesting, so that the company has a steady supply. Around harvesting time, the company will inspect and spray the crop and it harvests and transports the fruits. Companies exert very strict quality control e.g., water content. The sanctions are high: costs of destruction of a rejected assignment in Europe are deducted by importers. Farmers whose crop is rejected have to sell in the local market, often below cost price. At the time of writ- ing, Ghana’s pineapple exports are getting back on track and the number of small farmers growing MD2 is rapidly expand- ing. For many, pineapple is their main source of monetary income. Source: E. Acheampong. to: 1 knowledge about the agroecosystem and seasonality in which the farmers operate; 2 information about what local people need, want and have capacity for in terms of resources, access to markets; 3 locally adapted technical knowledge and practices and 4 a system view based on having to live by the results. Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 483 Farmers may innovate at the system level. For example, farmers on the very densely inhabited Adja Plateau in Benin have developed an “oil palm fallow” rotation that allows them to suppress Imperata cylindrica, restore soil fertility for annual crops, and make money from distilling palm wine once the palms are cut down Brouwers, 1993. But tradi- tional knowledge may have weaknesses such as attributing plant disease to rain and thus foregoing useful management measures Almekinder and Louwaars, 1999 or an inability to respond to rapidly changing circumstances, e.g., climate change. Experience with multiagent approaches suggests that mobilizing the intelligence of a great many actors to address a new and complex problem can be an effective and eficient way to solve such systemic complexity Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993; Gilbert and Troitzsch, 1999. Policy options for promoting endogenous development include decentralization; use of rapid rural appraisals and participatory approaches; empowerment initiatives; multi- stakeholder processes; and strengthening farmer organiza- tions. Decentralization as in India or Uganda, however, may strengthen and widen the base for democratic participation in agricultural research decision making, open new oppor- tunities for collaboration in agroenterprise innovations and service delivery, address speciic local development prob- lems, and improve responsiveness to the needs of the poor e.g., SNV and CEDELO, 2004. Rapid rural appraisal RRA and participatory ap- proaches may supply more accurate or insightful informa- tion than questionnaire surveys or more relevant or better adapted technologies than the experiments of scientists con- ducted in conditions and places remote from the ields e.g., Collinson, 2000. Participation has long been dominant in pro-poor development approaches and may range from sim- ple consultation to support for autonomous decision-mak- ing e.g., Pretty, 1994; Biggs, 1995. RRA and participatory approaches may be poorly performed and insuficient, how- ever, for addressing the multiple scales of policy intervention required Biggs, 1978; Biggs, 1995; Cleaver, 2001; Cooke and Kothari, 2001. The challenge in meeting development and sustainability goals is to create complementarity that draws on best practice across the range of pro-poor ap- proaches and policies Biggs, 1982; Biggs, 1989; Bunders, 2001; Ceccarelli et al., 2002; Chema et al., 2003. Participatory Technology Development PTD Jiggins and De Zeeuw, 1992 is a concrete approach to the design of complementary action that is relevant for achieving de- velopment and sustainability goals but has some negatives associated with it. With very small windows of opportunity, it is not easy to reduce poverty by enhancing productivity at the farm level, even through PTD. The challenge is to stretch those windows through access to markets, better prices, the development of services, and the removal of extractive prac- tices and patrimonial networks. Given opportunities, West African farmers have time and again considerably increased their production without major technical change. Technol- ogy becomes important once framework conditions begin to improve Box 7-3. Empowerment. The corollary of recognizing resource-poor farmers as partners in complementary and collaborative ap- proaches to development is to accept their empowerment. Box 7-3. The Convergence of Sciences Program CoS in Ghana and Benin. To ensure that the research problems chosen were based on the needs and opportunities of resource-poor farmers, CoS pioneered a new pathway for science that used technography, diagnostic studies, and with farmer participatory experimental field research van Huis et al., 2007. A key component was ex-ante impact assessment and pre-analytical choice making that optimized sensitivity to context and avoided cul-de-sac path dependency. Technography Richards, 2001 was used to map the coalitions of actors, processes, client groups, frame- work conditions and contextual factors at a macro level, so as to identify realistic opportunities. Given the small windows of opportunity, technography identified space for change. Diag- nostic studies Nederlof et al., 2004; Röling et al., 2004 en- sured that research outcomes would work in the local context, be appropriate to prevailing land tenure, labor availability and gender, and take into account farmers’ opportunities, livelihood strategies, culture, and felt needs. The diagnostic studies also identified and established forums of stakeholders for learning from a concrete experimental activity, and gave farmers a say in the design of field experiments. CoS conducted 21 experi- ments with small farmers on themes such as soil fertility and weed management, crop agrobiodiversity and integrated pest management IPM. The studies showed that participatory low external input technology development within carefully identi- fied windows of opportunity can be beneficial. However, the researchers also ran into the limitations of this approach and started to include experiments with creating space for change through institutional innovation. Soil fertility improvement de- pends on land tenure Saïdou et al., 2007. They negotiated land use rules between migrant farmers and landowners that allowed improving soil management practices. In Ghana, an organization was established to procure Neem seeds from the North as a condition for small-scale cocoa farmers to reduce their use of synthetic pesticides Dormon et al., 2007. This in turn stimulated collective arrangements for processing Neem seeds because their use in maize mills is unacceptable due to their bitter taste. With very small windows of opportunity, it is not easy to reduce poverty by enhancing productivity at the farm level, even through PTD. The challenge is to stretch those windows through access to markets, better prices, the development of services, and the removal of extractive practices and patrimo- nial networks. Given opportunities, West African farmers have time and again considerably increased their production with- out major technical change. Technology becomes important once framework conditions begin to improve. Source: Hounkonnou et al., 2006; Van Huis et al., 2007. 484 | IAASTD Global Report social arenas where farmers and researchers can meet on a level playing ield. The inclusion of small farmers’ represen- tatives on such platforms as in the PRODUCE foundations in Mexico may require special effort but may still end up favoring those with suficient assets to seize commercial op- portunity. One of the persistent experiences in agricultural devel- opment is that, while it can be relatively easy to promote pro-poor endogenous development, collaborative AKST partnerships and the mobilization of indigenous knowledge in pilot projects, the prevailing governance conditions make it dificult to scale up and embed successful pilot experiences in routine institutional behaviors The dificulty in part lies in social realities that position power and opportunity as highly contested zero-sum contests. In 1986, when Java’s rice ields were devastated by resurgent waves of brown plant hoppers BPH resistant to pesticides destroyed the natural enemies or predators of the BHP, it took considerable time for the government to respond. The problem was a principle called It can be more eficient to increase farmers’ countervail- ing power than to increase an agency’s intervention power through investing in more vehicles, agent training or budget support. Farmer ield schools FFS Box 7-4 is an option that warrants further empirical research to determine the conditions under which this may be so and the kinds of pol- icy environment that best enable empowerment strategies to be effective in meeting development and sustainability goals. Van den Berg and Jiggins, 2007, for a review and assessment of IPM FFS literature. Multistakeholder processes. A special participatory ap- proach is the facilitation of multistakeholder processes Leeuwis and Pyburn, 2002; Wals, 2007. Especially in re- source dilemmas, where different categories of interdepen- dent stakeholders make competing claims on common pool resources, sustainable solutions cannot come from regula- tion, technology or market interventions only. The way for- ward is a facilitated process of negotiation, shared social learning, and agreement on concerted action, based on trust, fairness and reciprocity. There is increasing evidence that humans are capable of agreeing on sustainable solutions and of creating institutional conditions that support the implementation of such solutions if drawn into appropriate knowledge processes e.g., Ostrom et al., 1992; Blackmore et al., 2007. Multistakeholder processes increasingly are important with respect to climate change adaptation, when agreements have to be reached to avoid crisis or when loss of ecosystem services becomes a key cause of poverty. The Chain-Linked Model. Commercial innovation studies give a central place to the entrepreneur who sees a possibil- ity to capture an opportunity by mobilizing resources, in- cluding knowledge Kline and Rosenberg, 1986. The driver of innovation in these situations typically is the entrepre- neur spotting or creating market-related or social organi- zational opportunity. Policy support to innovation in these cases is provided by helping entrepreneurs to access special- ized sources of knowledge, services and skills Coehoorn, 1994; Crul, 2003. International experience of supporting innovation in small and medium enterprises in nonfarming sectors can be useful in guiding pro-poor agricultural enter- prise development. Strengthening farmer organizations. Investing in people’s organizations is a policy option Toulmin, 2005 with a long history. The experience of the USA and Europe shows that strong farmers’ organizations can be a necessary condition for commercially eficient agricultural development Bigg and Satterthwaite, 2006. An African example is provided by ROPPA in West Africa Koning and Jongeneel, 2006; ROPPA, 2006. Organizations such as AGRITERRA in The Netherlands attempt to strengthen farmers’ organizations in developing countries through training, delegating research funds to farmers’ organizations, and building farmers’ ca- pacities as effective partners in the negotiation of contracts as well as in research-priority setting. Since farmers’ organi- zations need allies in other sectors or at other levels if they are to become strong and act effectively in collaborative AKST partnerships Wennink and Heemskerk, 2006 it is a useful policy option to invest in “platforms” or organized Box 7-4. Farmer field schools. The invention of the Farmer field schools FFS by the Indone- sian FAO team that introduced IPM in rice after the emergence of the Brown Planthopper was an enormous breakthrough, given the prevalence of the TandV system of extension at the time Pontius et al., 2002. The FFS turned the linear model up- side down: instead of ultimate users, farmers became experts; technology transfer was replaced by experiential learning; and instead of teaching content up front, the agent stayed in the back and facilitated the process. Evaluations of FFS programs Van de Fliert, 1993; Van den Berg, 2003 indicate that FFS participants increase their productivity, reduce pesticide use, lower costs, and show remarkable signs of empowerment, in terms of speaking in public, organizational skills, and self- confidence. The effect is so remarkable that the most effective ways to convince politicians and senior civil servants of FFS impact is to expose them to an FFS in action. Such visitors quickly grasp what the FFS can do in terms of enlisting the elusive small-scale farmer in the national project. It is one thing to implement an effective FFS pilot, quite an- other to scale it up to the national level. A certain set of prac- tices determines FFS quality. Erosion of these practices soon leads to loss of fidelity and loss of the remarkable effects. Vulnerabilities include the curriculum e.g., use of a field as the main tool for teaching, process facilitation e.g., avoiding reverting to technology supply push or promoting government agendas, training facilitators in non-directive methods, timeli- ness i.e., coinciding with the growing season, financing e.g., utilizing public funds for snacks for farmers. FFS programs are vulnerable to corruption by the pesticide industry e.g., Sherwood, 2005. The FFS does not fit a bureaucratic, centralized, hierarchi- cal government system. The FFS is a form of farmer education rather than a form of extension, which is not “fiscally sustain- able” in the short term Feder et al., 2004. Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 485 frustrated. The lessons may be linked to the widespread conidence that rational choice theory offers an appropri- ate foundation for policy designed to support innovation; the empirical evidence suggests to the contrary that, given the public good character of development and sustainability goals, policies based on an understanding of the role of col- lective management in innovation processes may be more appropriate Ostrom et al., 1993; Gunderson et al., 1995. Conditions under which the policy options may be condu- cive to meeting development and sustainability goals. The following concrete steps have been proposed to make an innovation systems approach work in resource-poor envi- ronments see Tripp, 2006; McCann et al., 2006; Van Huis and Houkonnou, 2007: • Public, private and civil society agencies identify a num- ber of priority themes based on national plans, or pov- erty reduction strategies; • For each theme, rapid appraisal of agricultural knowl- edge systems RAAKS Engel and Salomon, 1997 or other methods are used to identify conigurations of stakeholders including researchers, farmer organiza- tions, etc. that constitute promising innovation sys- tems. Such conigurations include actors at the both the national and the decentralized local government level; • Key representatives of these stakeholders are facilitated to form a “Community of Practice” COPs Wenger, 1998 at decentralized e.g., district and national lev- els, where the national level has the power and ability to create conducive institutional framework conditions for the concrete activities at the decentralized level. An IS approach thus requires trained facilitators who operate within a national mandate that recognizes the impor- tance of IS; • For each COP, diagnostic studies identify concrete op- portunities that can be realized through concerted ac- tion by the stakeholders; • Each COP submits proposals to a national fund set up for this purpose; • Each COP is monitored to allow national learning about the IS approach as a basis for staff training and increasing management effectiveness. The IS approach assumes considerable political will and an understanding of processes that cannot be captured by hi- erarchy and market since creating windows of opportunity for small-scale producers will require new kinds of institu- tional innovation Egelyng, 2000. “asal bapak senang” that may be translated as “as long as father is happy” with the sense of “to avoid upsetting your boss with negative information”. At each level in the hier- archy, the bad news about the devastation in the rice ields was watered down. It was only when the people from his own village came to the President directly to ask for help that he learned that something was seriously amiss. In our assessment, policy initiatives that aim at empowerment and endogenous development would be most accepted where democratic forms of government and a strong civil society exist; most poor people live in countries where these condi- tions are not present.

7.5.4 Innovation systems IS Innovation is the emergent property of the interaction

among organizations and people who make the comple- mentary contributions required for innovation to take place Röling and Engel, 1991; Bawden and Packam, 1993. The coniguration of actors is not ixed Engel and Salomon, 1997. The empirical research of successful and innovative economies that stimulated the recent interest in innovation Systems has found that “the essential determinant of inno- vation appeared to be that the suppliers of new knowledge were intimately engaged with the users of that knowledge” Barnett, 2006. Older traditions of systems thinking and practice e.g., Checkland, 1981; Checkland with Scholes, 1990 drew attention to linkages, relationships, interfaces, conlicts, convergence, and reciprocity in innovation processes. The application of such thinking and practice to pro-poor devel- opment in agriculture has been stimulated also by the evi- dence that it appears to be suited to dealing with the kind of institutional development that The New Institutional Eco- nomics North, 2005 sees as a precursor to growth. The “innovation systems” approach in recent years has become an ex-ante policy model World Bank, 2007 that draws on the aforementioned traditions as well as on em- pirical research on the emergence of Asian economies. Such models are an increasingly important tool for stimulating in- novation at the interface of agriculture, sustainable natural resource management and economic growth, for instance in the context of the EU’s Water Framework Directive e.g., Blackmore et al., 2007 and Land Care and more recently Catchment Management Authorities in Australia Camp- bell, 1994. These experiences also show up the weakness of the IS approach: absent appropriate enabling policy frameworks and economic drivers at higher system scales, successful lower scale innovations can peter out or become References Ackerman, F. 2005. The shrinking gains from trade: A critical assessment of Doha Round projections. Global Dev. Environ. Inst. Tufts Univ., Medford MA. African Group. 2006. Communication to the Committee on Agriculture. TNAGGEN18. June 7, 2006. World Trade Organization, Geneva. Alix-Garcia, J., A. de Janvry, E. Sadoulet and J.M. Torres. 2005. An assessment of Mexico’s payment for environmental services program. Prepared for FAO, Rome. Available at http:are.berkeley.edu~sadouletpapers FAOPES-aug05.pdf. Univ. California, Berkeley. Allier, J.M. 1997. Ecological economics energy, environment and society. Blackwell, Oxford. Allier, J.M. 2002. The environmentalism of the poor — A study of ecological conlicts and valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Almekinder, C., and J. Hardon ed 2006. Bringing farmers back into breeding. Experiences with participatory plant breeding and challenges for 486 | IAASTD Global Report institutionalisation. Agromisa Special 5, Agromisa, Wageningen. Almekinder, C. and N. Louwaars ed 1999. Farmers’ seed production: A new handbook. ITDG Publ., London. Alston, J.M., P.P. Pardey, and R.R. Piggott. 2006. Synthesis of themes and policy issues. p. 361- 372. In P.P. Pardey ed Agricultural RD in the developing world: Too little, too late? IFPRI, Washington DC. Alston, J.M., and R.J. Venner. 2000. The effects of the US Plant Variety Protection Act on wheat genetic improvement. EPTD Disc. Pap. 62. IFPRI, Washington DC. Anderson, K., and W. Martin. 2005. Agricultural trade reform and the Doha development agenda. World Bank, Washington DC. Anderson, K., W. Martin, and D. van der Mensbrughhe. 2005. Market and welfare implications of Doha reform scenarios. In K. Anderson and W. Martin ed Agricultural trade reform and the Doha development agenda. World Bank, Washington DC. Anderson, R.A., E. Levy, and B.M. Morrison. 1991. Rice science and development politics. Research strategies and IRRI’s technologies confront Asian diversity 1950-1980. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Angelsen, A., and D. Kaimowitz. 1999. Rethinking the causes of deforestation: Lessons from economic models. World Bank Res. Observ. 14:73-98 Angulu, J.A , J.A. Nunnery, and H.D. Bair. 2004. Antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic enteric pathogens. Rev. Sci. Tech. 23:485-96. Antle, J.M., and S. Mooney. 2002. Designing eficient policies for agricultural soil carbon sequestration. p. 323-336. In J. Kimble ed Agriculture practices and policies for carbon sequestration in soil. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL. Asamblea Legislativa de la República de Costa Rica. 2006. Ley para el desarrollo, promoción y fomento de la actividad agropecuaria orgánica. Expediente No. 16.028. Texto Final Aprobado. Primer debate: 5 de sept. Segundo debate: 7 de sept 2006. Baffes, J. 2006. Cotton and the developing countries: Implications for developing countries. p. 119-128. In R. Farmer ed Trade, Doha and development. Available at http:siteresources. worldbank.orgINTRANETTRADE Resources239054-11268124192709. Cotton.pdf. World Bank, Washington DC. Balasubramanian, A.V., and T.D. Nirmala Devi ed 2005. Traditional knowledge systems of India and Sri Lanka. Centre for Indian Knowledge Systems, Chennai. Barboza, D. 2007. Food safety crackdown in China. The New York Times. June 28. Barnett, A. 2006. Innovations: Lessons from the UK funded crop post-harvest research. p. 48-50 In RAWOO knowledge makes a difference. Science and the Millennium Development Goals. Report of a Seminar. The Hague RAWOO Sept. 2006. Publ. 30. Barry, G., and N. Louwaars. 2005. Humanitarian licenses: Making proprietary technology work for the poor. p. 23-34. In N. Louwaars ed Genetic resource policies and the generation challenge programme. Available at http:www.generationcp. orglatestnewsGenResPol_and_GCP.pdf. Generation Challenge Program, CIMMYT, Mexico. Barzel, Y. 1997. Economic analysis of property rights. 2 nd ed. Cambridge Univ. Press, UK. Barsotti, C. 2004. Level playing ield. Cartoon. Nov. 22. The New Yorker, New York. Bauer, C.J. 1997. Bringing water markets down to earth: The political economy of water rights in Chile, 1976-1995. World Dev. 25:639-656. Bauer, C.J. 2005. Siren song: Chilean water law as a model for international reform. RFF Press, Washington DC. Bawden, R.J., and R. Packam. 1993. Systems praxis in the education of the agricultural systems practitioner. Paper pre sented at the 1991 Ann. Meeting Int. Soc. Systems Sciences. Östersund, Sweden. Systems Practice 6:7-19. Berdegué, J.A., F. Balsevich, L. Flores, and T. Reardon. 2005. Central American supermarkets private standards of quality and safety in procurement of fresh fruits and vegetables. Food Policy 303:254-269. Bhagwati, J. 2005. In defense of globalization. Oxford Univ. Press, NY. Bhattacharya, S.C. 2002. Biomass energy in Asia: A review of status, technologies and policies in Asia. Energy Sust. Dev. 6:5-10. Bigg, T., and D. Satterthwaite ed 2005. How to make poverty history: The central role of local organisations in meeting the MDGs. IIED, London. Biggs, S.D. 1978. Planning rural technologies in the context of social structures and reward systems. J. Agric. Econ. 29:257-274. Biggs, S.D. 1982. Generating agricultural technology: Triticale for the Himalayan hills. Food Policy 7:69-82. Biggs, S.D. 1989. Resource-poor farmers’ participation in research: a synthesis of experiences from nine national agricultural research systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Pap. 3. ISNAR, The Hague. Biggs, S.D. 1995. Participatory technology development: A critique of the new orthodoxy, p. 1-10. In Two articles focusing on participatory approaches. AVOCADO Series 0695. Olive Organization Development and Training, Durban. Biggs, S., and J. Farrington. 1991. Agricultural research and the rural poor. A review of social science analysis. IDRC, Ottawa. Bisaillon, V., C. Gendron, and M.-F. Turcotte. 2006. Fair trade and the solidarity economy: The challenges ahead. Ecole des Sciences de la Gestion, Univ. Montreal, Canada. Blackmore, C., R. Ison, and J. Jiggins ed 2007. Social learning: An alternative policy instrument for managing in the context of Europe’s water. Special Issue. Environ. Sci. Policy 106. Borgese, E.M. 1999. Global civil society: Lessons from ocean governance. Futures 31:983-991. Bouet, A., J.-C. Bureau, Y. Decreux, and S. Jean. 2004. Multilateral agricultural trade liberalization: The contrasting fortunes of developing countries in the Doha Round. Working Pap. No. 2004-18. Centre d’Études Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales, Paris. Boyce, J.K. 1999. The globalization of market failure? International trade and sustainable agriculture. Political Economy Research Institute PERI, Amherst MA. Brammer, H. 1980. Some innovations do not wait for experts: A report on applied research by Bangladesh peasants. CERES 13:24-28. Brammer, H. 2000. Agroecological aspects of agricultural research in Bangladesh. Univ. Press, Dhaka. Bromley, D.W. ed 1990. Essay on the commons. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. Brouwers, J. 1993. Rural people’s knowledge and its re sponse to declining soil fertility. The Adja case Benin. Wageningen Papers. Agric. Univ., Wageningen. Brückner, G.K. 2004. Working towards compliance with international standards. Rev. Sci. Tech. 23:95-107. Bruns, B.R., C. Ringler, and R.S. Meinzen-Dick ed 2005. Water rights reform: Lessons for institutional design. IFPRI, Washington DC. Buckwell, A., and S. Armstrong-Brown. 2004. Changes in farming and future prospects. Tech. Policy 146Supp. 2:14-21. Bunders, J. 2001. Utilization of technological research for resource-poor farmers: the need for an interactive innovation process. p. 27- 37. In Utilization of research for development cooperation: Linking knowledge production to development policy and practice. Publ. 21. Netherlands Dev. Assistance Res. Council RAWOO, The Hague. Byrne, D. 2004. The impact of EU sanitary and phytosanitary legislation on developing countries. Meeting with World Bank Executive Directors Washington DC. SPEECH04139. Available at http.www .eurunion.orgnewsspeeches2004040318db .htm. CA Comprehensive Assessment on Water Management in Agriculture. 2007. D. Molden ed Water for food, water for life: A comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Earthscan, London and IWMI, Colombo. CAC Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2002. Report of the evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Food Standards Work ALINORM 03253. CAC, Rome. Caddy, J.F. 1999. Fisheries management in the twenty-irst century: Will new paradigms apply? Rev. Fish Biology Fish. 9:1-43. Callon, M. 1994. Is science a public good? Sci. Tech. Human Values 194:395-424. Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 487 Campos, M.T., and D.C. Nepstad. 2006. Smallholders, the Amazon’s new conservationists. Conserv. Biol. 205: 1553-1556. Campbell, A. 1994. Landcare. Communities shaping the land and the future. Allan and Unwin, St Leonards, Australia. Castillo, G.T. 1998. A social harvest reaped from a promise of springtime: User-responsive participatory agricultural research in Asia. Chapter 11, p. 191-214. In N. Röling and M. Wagemakers ed Facilitating sustainable agriculture. Participatory learning and adaptive management of environmental uncertainty. CUP, Cambridge. CEC. 2006. Proposal for a directive of Eu- ropean Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 200435EC. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. Ceccarelli, S., D.A. Cleveland, and D. Soleri. 2002. Farmers, scientists, and plant breeding. Integrating knowledge and practice. Univ. California Press, Santa Barbara. Chambers, R., and J. Jiggins. 1987. Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers. Part I: Transfer-of technology and farming systems research. Part II: A parsimo nious paradigm. Agric. Admin. Extension 27:35-52, 109-128. Chan, K.M.A., M.R. Shaw, D.R. Cameron, E.C. Underwood, and G.C. Daily. 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS 411:e379. Chauveau, J.-P. 1998. La logique des systèmes coutumiers. p. 66-75 In P. Lavigne Delville ed Quelles politiques foncières pour l’Afrique rurale?, Karthala — Coopération française, Paris. Checkland, P. 1981. Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley, Chicester. Checkland, P., and J. Scholes. 1990. Soft systems methodolo gy in action. John Wiley, Chicester. Chema, S., E. Gilbert, and J. Roseboom. 2003. A review of key issues and recent experiences in reforming agricultural research in Africa. Res. Rep. 24. ISNAR, The Hague. Chomitz, K.M. 2007. At loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. World Bank, Washington DC. Chomitz, K.M., G.A.B. Da Fonseca, K. Alger, D.M. Stoms, M. Honzák, E. Charlotte Landau et al. 2006. Viable reserve networks arise from individual landholder responses to conservation incentives. Ecol. Society 112:40. Available at http:www .ecologyandsociety.orgvol11iss2art40. Clark, G. M., A.F. Kaufmann, E.J. Gangarosa, and M.A. Thompson.1973. Epidemiology of an international outbreak of Salmonella agona. Lancet 2:490-3. Clayton, C. 2007. USDA eyed for food inspection. DTN. April 26. Available at http:www.dtn.com Cleaver, F. 2001. Institutions, Agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development. p. 36-55. In B. Cooke and U. Kothari ed Participation: The new tyranny. Zed Books, London. Cochrane, W.W. 1958. Farm prices, myth and reality. Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Coehoorn, C.A. 1994. The Dutch innovation centres: Implementation of technology policy or facilitation of small enterprises. Ph.D. thesis, RUG, Groningen. Coelho, S.T. 2005. Biofuels — advantages and trade barriers. Working Pap. UNCTAD DITC20051. UNCTAD, Geneva. Cohen, J.I., C. Falconi, J. Komen, S. Salazar, and M. Blakeney, 1999. Managing proprietary science and institutional inventories for agricultural biotechnology. p. 249-260 In J.I. Cohen ed Managing agricultural biotechnology: Addressing research programme needs and policy implications. Biotechnol. Agric. Ser. No. 23. CABI, Wallingford. Collinson, M. ed 2000. History of farming systems research. FAO and CABI, Wallingford. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. 2002. Integrating intellectual property rights and development policy. Rep. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Available at www.iprcommission.org Cooke, B., and U. Kothari ed 2001. Participation: The new tyranny. Zed Books, London. Cooperative Bank. 2003. The ethical consumerism report. The Cooperative Bank, London. Correa, C.M. 2004. Bilateral investment agreements: Agents of new global standards for the protection of intellectual property rights Available at http:www.grain.org brieings?id=186 Cortese, A. 2003. They care about the world and they shop, too. New York Times, 20 July. Crul, M. 2003. Eco-design in Central America. PhD thesis. Technical Univ., Delft. Crump, J.A., P.M. Grifin, and F.J. Angulo. 2002. Bacterial contamination of animal feed and its relation to human foodborne illness. Clin. Infect. Dis. 35:859-65. De Fraiture, C., X. Cai, U. Amarasinghe, M. Rosegrant, and D. Molden. 2004. Does cereal trade save water? The impact of virtual water trade on global water use. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Research Report 4. IWMI, Colombo. De Fraiture, C., M. Giordano, and L. Yongsong. 2007a. Biofuels: Implications for agricultural water use. IWMI, Colombo. De Fraiture, C., D. Wicheins, J. Rockstrom, and E. Kemp-Benedict. 2007b. Looking ahead to 2050: Scenarios of alternative investment approaches. In D. Molden ed Water for food, water for life: A comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Earthscan, London and IWMI, Colombo. Demsetz, H., 1967. Towards a theory of property rights. Am. Econ. Rev. 572: 347-359. DFID. 2007. Balancing the cost of food air miles: Listening to trade and environmental concerns. September. Available at http: www.did.gov.uknewsilesfoodmiles.asp DG SANCO. 2006. Evaluation of the Community Animal Health Policy CAHP 1995-2004 and alternatives for the future. Tender No 2004 S 243-208899. Available at http:ec.europa.eufoodanimaldiseases strategycahp_termsref_en.pdf. European Commission, Brussels. DG SANCO. 2007. A new animal health strategy for the European Union 2007- 2013 where prevention is better than cure. Available at http:ec.europa.eufoodanimal diseasesstrategyindex_en.htm. European Commission, Brussels. Diao, X., and P. Hazell. 2004. Exploring market opportunities for African smallholders. 2020 Africa Conf. Brief No. 6. IFPRI, Washington DC. Diao, X., M. Johnson, S. Gavian, and P. Hazell. 2005. Africa without borders: Building blocks for regional growth. IFPRI Issue Brief 38, Washington DC. Available at www.ifpri .orgpubsibib38.pdf. Díaz-Bonilla, E., X. Diao, and S. Robinson. 2003. Thinking inside the boxes: Protection in the development and food security boxes versus investments in the green box. In E. Diaz-Bonilla et al., WTO negotiations and agricultural liberalization: The effect of developed countries’ policies on developing countries. CABI Publ., UK. Díaz-Bonilla, E., M. Thomas, and S. Robinson. 2002. On boxes, contents, and users: Food security and WTO negotiations. TMD Disc. Pap. 82. IFPRI, Washington DC. Dicaprio, A., and K.P. Gallagher. 2006. The shrinking of development space: How big is the bite? In J. World Investment Trade 75. Diouf, J. 2007. Biofuels should beneit the poor, not the rich. The Financial Times. 15 Aug. Dinar, A. ed 2000. The political economy of water pricing reforms. Oxford Univ. Press, NY. Dorward A., J. Kydd, and C. Poulton ed 1998. Smallholder cash crop production under market liberalisation: A new institutional economics perspective. CABI, Wallingford. Dorward, A., J. Kydd, J. Morrison, and I. Urey. 2004. A policy agenda for pro-poor agricultural growth. World Dev. 321:73-89. Drahos, P. 2006. Towards an international framework for the protection of traditional group knowledge and practice. UNCTAD- Commonwealth Sec. Workshop. 2-4 Feb 2006. UNCTAD, Geneva. Easter, K.W., M.W. Rosegrant, and A. Dinar ed 1998. Markets for water: Potential and performance. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. EFSA. 2006a. Community summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic