Institut für Technikfolgen- abschätzung und Systemanalyse · Institut für Technikfolgen-...

Institut für Technikfolgen- abschätzung und Systemanalyse

Fortsetzung Seite 2

20. Jahrgang, Heft 2 – Juli 2011

Editorial 3

Schwerpunkt Feeding the World. Challenges and OpportunitiesR. Meyer, A. Sauter, A. Kassam: Introduction to the Thematic Focus 5I. Serageldin: Abolishing Hunger: Science to the Rescue. A Personal Résumé after 40 Years of Commitment

14

S. Fan, C. Breisinger: Development Assistance and Investment in Agriculture: Promises and Facts

20

M. Brüntrup: Detrimental Land Grabbing or Growth Poles? Determinants and Potential Development Effects of Foreign Direct Land Investments

28

A. Kassam, T. Friedrich, F. Shaxson, T. Reeves, J. Pretty, J.C. de Moraes Sá: Production Systems for Sustainable Intensification. Integrating Productivity with Ecosystem Services

38

N. Uphoff: The System of Rice Intensification: An Alternate Civil Society Innovation

45

St. Lemke, A.C. Bellows: Bridging Nutrition and Agriculture. Local Food-livelihood Systems and Food Governance Integrating a Gender Perspective

52

R. Meyer (with E. Bongert and St. Albrecht): International Agricultural Research. Is the Reformed CGIAR an Adequate Response to the Challenges Ahead?

61

TA-Projekte Z. Heuschkel, St. Albrecht: Zukunft der Ernährung. Ernährungssicherung durch nachhaltige Wissenschaft und friedliche Konfliktbearbeitung

69

M. Dusseldorp: Possible Contributions of Research to Solve the World Food Problem. Results from the TAB Project

73

M. Decker: Service-Roboter im Blick der Technikfolgenabschätzung 76St.B. Seitz, J. Jahnel: Ketchup gegen Schweißgeruch? Bürgerperspektiven zum Einsatz synthetischer Nanopartikel

80

Diskussionsforum W.J. Kinsella: Research on Nuclear Energy in an International Context. Challenges for Empirical Research Design and Preliminary Findings

84

Rezension M. Groß, H. Heinrichs: Environmental Sociology. European Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Challenges (Rezension von Chr. Büscher)

90

Tagungsberichte The Complexity of Pro-poor Agricultural Intensification. Report on the Workshop “Low-input Intensification of Agriculture” (Karlsruhe, December 8, 2010) (by R. Meyer and D. Burger)

93

Initiativen in der Climate-Engineering-Forschung. Projekte, Konferenzen, Netzwerke: Ein Bericht über ausgewählte Forschungsaktivitäten in Deutschland (von St. Uther und N. Matzner)

94

Grüne Gentechnik. Bericht von einer Klausurwoche des Instituts „Technik-Theologie-Naturwissenschaften“ an der LMU München (Gut Schönwag/Weilheim, 21.–26. Februar 2011) (von M. Knapp)

98

The 4th International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (Sevilla, Spanien, 12.–13. Mai 2011) (von K. Böhle)

102

Veranstaltungen 106

ITAS-News Neue Projekte 107Neue Kolleginnen und Kollegen 109Streitbarer Kollege und Mitinitiator des Arbeitsgebiets Stoffstromanalyse geht in den Ruhestand

109

ITAS beteiligt sich an Sammelband zu ethischen Fragen der TA 110Publikationen 110

TAB-News Öffentliches Fachgespräch im Deutschen Bundestag 113EPTA-Konferenz im Herbst 2011 in Vorbereitung 113TAB-Berichte im Bundestag 114Neue Veröffentlichungen 114

STOA-News 118

Netzwerk TA 119

Fortsetzung des Inhaltsverzeichnisses

Seite 2 Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 20. Jg., Heft 2, Juli 2011

Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 20. Jg., Heft 2, Juli 2011 Seite 3

EDITORIAL

EDITORIAL

Ein Thema kehrt zurück auf die gesellschaftliche und politische Bühne: der Hunger auf der Welt. Welternährung und Hungerproblematik waren ein großes Thema in den entwicklungspolitischen Debatten der 1970er Jahre. In der Zwischenzeit fand ein Prozess erfolgreicher Problemverdrän-gung statt, dessen Gründe vielfältig sind. So hat nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges die Bedeu-tung der Entwicklungsländer und die Wahrneh-mung ihrer spezifischen Probleme abgenommen. Die parallel verlaufende beschleunigte Globali-sierung hat die Strukturen der Weltlandwirtschaft massiv verändert, und das – jedenfalls bis zur Weltwirtschaftskrise – vorherrschende neolibera-le Denken mit seinem Vertrauen in die Selbstre-gulierung der Märkte hat dazu geführt, dass an politische Gestaltungsnotwendigkeiten und Ver-antwortung weniger gedacht wurde.

Ein immer noch (zu) großes Vertrauen in wirtschaftliche und technische Entwicklung dürfte mitschwingen: Kommen nicht immer mehr Länder aus dem Status eines „Entwick-lungslandes“ heraus und werden zum Schwellen-land „befördert“? Nimmt nicht in vielen Ländern der „Dritten Welt“ der Wohlstand zu und der Hunger ab? Wird diese Entwicklung nicht dazu führen, dass der Hunger bald ganz aussterben wird? Noch das Millenniumsziel der Vereinten Nationen, bis 2015 den Hunger in der Welt zu halbieren, zeugte einerseits von diesem Optimis-mus – und beförderte ihn andererseits.

Eine spezifisch europäische Erfahrung kommt hinzu. Bis vor wenigen Jahren war in unseren Breiten eines der großen Probleme die Überproduktion. Stichworte wie „Milchseen“ und „Butterberge“ prägten die Debatte über Jahrzehnte, Teile von Ernten wurden vor laufen-den Fernsehkameras vernichtet, die Preise für Agrarprodukte fielen trotz massiver staatlicher Subventionen. Dies suggerierte, dass es kein Mengenproblem in Sachen Lebensmittel gebe, höchstens ein Verteilungsproblem.

Schließlich sind auch psychologische Grün-de zu nennen: In einer Wohlstands- und Über-flussgesellschaft, deren Supermarktregale sich

biegen unter einer zunehmenden Fülle an Luxus-lebensmitteln, in der Wohlstandskrankheiten auf-grund von zu üppiger Ernährung grassieren und in der der Anteil der fettleibigen Kinder und Er-wachsenen so stark steigt, dass die Politik sich zu Gegenmaßnahmen veranlasst sieht, sind Hunger und das millionenfache Verhungern ein schwer auszuhaltender Skandal. An den Hunger in der Welt zu denken verdirbt den Appetit und den Ge-nuss beim Essen. Wegschauen ist leichter.

Wegschauen lässt sich aber nicht mehr. Das weiterhin in vielen Ländern – besonders in Afrika – starke Bevölkerungswachstum, die Änderungen im Ernährungsverhalten, die zu-nehmende Konkurrenz um landwirtschaftliche Flächen zur Produktion von Futtermitteln und nachwachsenden Rohstoffen sowie die Folgen der Klimaveränderung erhöhen den Druck. Die Erreichung des Millenniumsziels ist eine Illusi-on – eine Milliarde Menschen hungern, Tendenz steigend. Das Bewusstsein, dass hier dringender Handlungsbedarf besteht, ist in den letzten Jah-ren allmählich gewachsen.

Für Technikfolgenabschätzung und System-analyse ist das Thema Welternährung nicht nur aufgrund der Dringlichkeit, sondern auch aufgrund der Komplexität eine große Herausforderung. Die systemischen Verflechtungen der Thematik von der Rolle globaler Konzerne, von Regierungen und zivilgesellschaftlichen Akteuren bis hin zum Verhalten der Konsumenten, die Bedeutung von Anreizen und Regulierungsstrukturen, die Poten-ziale von Forschung und Technologie, zur Lösung der Probleme wenigstens einen Beitrag zu leisten, stellen nur einige der Aspekte dar, die in diesem Schwerpunkt behandelt werden.

(Armin Grunwald)

EDITORIAL


EDITORIAL

One issue is returning to the social and political stage: world hunger. While the global food situ-ation and the question of hunger were a major issue in debates on development policy in the 1970s, the problem has been successfully sup-pressed in the meantime, for which there are many different reasons. Following the end of the Cold War, for example, the importance of devel-oping countries declined, so did the perception of their specific problems. The acceleration in globalisation which occurred in parallel caused a massive change in the structures of the global landscape of food supply, and the prevailing – until the international economic crisis, at least – neoliberal approach with its trust in the self-regulation of the markets meant that less and less thought was given to the needs for governments to shape matters and take responsibility.

The continuing (excessive) confidence in economic and technical solutions probably also plays a role. Is it not the case that more and more countries are progressing from the status of “de-veloping countries” and being “promoted” to emerging nations? Isn’t prosperity increasing in many countries in the “Third World” and hun-ger declining? Won’t this development result in hunger soon dying out completely? Even the UN Millennium Development Goal of halving hun-ger in the world by 2015 was evidence of this optimism on the one hand – while promoting it on the other hand.

A specifically European experience can be added to this. Until just a few years ago, one of the main problems in our latitudes was overproduc-tion. Buzz words such as “milk lakes” and “butter mountains” informed the debate for decades, TV cameras rolled as some of the yields of harvests were destroyed, and the prices of agricultural prod-ucts fell despite huge state subsidies. This suggest-ed that the problem with regard to food was not one of quantity but, at most, one of distribution.

Finally, it is also important to mention psy-chological reasons: in a society of affluence and plenty where excess is the order of the day, whose supermarket shelves are groaning under an in-

creasing abundance of luxury foods, in which lifestyle diseases are rife because of overeating and in which the proportion of obese children and adults is increasing to such a level that gov-ernments see themselves obliged to take counter-measures, famine and the starvation of millions of people represent a scandal that is difficult to tolerate. Thinking of the hunger in the world ru-ins people’s appetite and their enjoyment of their food. Looking away is easier.

But looking away is no longer an option. The continuing strong growth in population in many countries, particularly in Africa, the changes in eating behaviour, the increasing competition for agricultural land for the production of animal feed and renewable raw materials, and the im-pacts of climate change are raising the stakes. Achieving the Millennium Development Goal is an illusion as a billion people are starving, and the trend is upwards. There has been a gradual rise in awareness of the need for urgent action over the last few years.

In terms of technology assessment and sys-tems analysis the issue of the global food situa-tion is a major challenge, not only because of the urgency involved, but also because of its com-plexity. The systemic interconnectedness of the issue from the role of global corporations, gov-ernments and civil society players, to consumer behaviour, the importance of incentives and reg-ulatory structures, and the potential for research and development to play at least some part in re-solving the problems are just some of the aspects which will be addressed here.

(Armin Grunwald)

SCHWERPUNKT


SCHWERPUNKT

Feeding the World: Chal-lenges and Opportunities

Introduction to the Thematic Focus

by Rolf Meyer, ITAS, Arnold Sauter, TAB, and Amir Kassam, University of Reading

The global food crisis is back, after only three years, showing how vulnerable the global food system has become. Even before, hun-ger has remained high and pervasive. After two decades of neglecting agricultural in-vestments, the importance of agriculture for development was reaffirmed in recent years. But political intentions and commitments are only on the way to become implemented. Be-side the task to regain lost time, a number of new challenges to food and nutrition security has to be addressed urgently. There is no def-icit of analyses and proposed strategies to go forward. But corresponding with the high-ly complex issue, different perspectives are applied and alternative strategies are brought into discussion. Understanding the alterna-tives is necessary to develop and implement best possible solutions. Important intercon-nections and common points are: emphasis on principles and system approaches, avoid-ance of fixed strategies, adaptation of solu-tions to local contexts, and combination of bottom-up and top-down activities.

Access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food is a fundamental human right (UN Human Rights 2010), yet the number of undernourished people worldwide is unacceptably high and pervasive. In-creased investments in agriculture from the 1960s to the 1980s in the developing world and the as-sociated growth in food production and decrease in relative food prices enabled a remarkable de-crease in the proportion and total number of hun-gry people, despite a strong growing world popula-tion. But since the mid-1990s, the overall number

of undernourished has increased once again, and with the food and economic crisis from 2007 to 2009, the percentage of hungry people worldwide increased as well. In 2009, more than one billion people were undernourished, more than 40 years ago (FAO 2010a). The Millennium Development Goal of halving hunger and poverty (between 1990 and 2015) will probably not be achieved. In recent months, international food prices have once again soared to levels seen during the previous food cri-sis. The demand for cereals continues to increase so that the harvest 2011, even at record levels, is expected to barely meet consumption needs, pro-viding further support to high prices (FAO 2011).

1 Challenges Ahead

The future perspectives of food security – re-spectively sufficient food supply – are at least uncertain. Major challenges ahead are:

• Population increase: In 2050, food for around nine billion people will be demanded. Projec-tions indicate that global agricultural produc-tion will need to be raised by at least 70 percent to meet this future demands. In the developing world, doubling of food production is called for. The required global increase is unprec-edented in terms of the time period over which the absolute production must be achieved, and its distribution and market system organised.

• Nutrition transition: With economic develop-ment and increasing incomes of people par-ticularly in emerging countries, their diets will become more “urban” and similar to the indus-trialised “western” diet, with higher consump-tion of animal products and vegetable oils in processed foods, from which a much more in-tensified agriculture and a higher land demand, contributing to the further destruction of natural habitats, and more overnutrition, with its nega-tive health impacts, are expected.

• Growing overall demand for biomass: Beside food and feed, the demand for fibre and biofuel is expected to become more important in the next decades. Established politically defined biofuel targets and concepts of a bio-economy will put additional pressure on agricultural land base and the agricultural commodity markets.

SCHWERPUNKT


• Food prices: Declining food prices could be-come a thing of the past. In the future, food pric-es will be likely more coupled with the devel-opment of the energy prices. At the same time, higher volatility of agricultural prices can hinder growing investment in agriculture, with the pos-sible consequence of insufficient production and productivity increases. The poorest are most strongly affected by increasing food prices.

• Climate change: On the one hand, agricul-ture is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and on the other hand, climate change will probably reduce agricultural out-put, productivity (efficiency), production sta-bility, and incomes, especially in many tropical and subtropical areas that already have high levels of food insecurity. Therefore, mitigation and adaptation in the agriculture production sector have to be achieved at the same time.

• Natural resource management: Natural re-sources such as soil, water, and biodiversity are essential to agriculture and already under severe threat from degradation. They will be-come increasingly threatened and scarce if the current high disturbance methods of farming continue to intensify, particularly in develop-ing countries in the tropics. Conflicts and com-petition over access to and the use of these re-sources are likely to increase in many regions.

• Pro-poor development with focus on small-holders: The vast majority of farmers in de-veloping countries are small-scale farmers, producing on fewer than two hectares, and most of the poor in developing countries live in rural areas, although an increasing number is located in urban and peri-urban areas. Im-provements in small-scale farming and in so-cio-cultural organisations of farmers and their communities, including producers in peri-ur-ban areas, are essential in meeting food secu-rity and sustainable development goals as part of the global sustainable development efforts.

Therewith, the unsatisfactory and fragile current situation could aggravate in a dramatic way, if adequate actions are not implemented. The con-tribution of Ismail Serageldin (Bibliotheca Al-exandrina, Egypt) makes a strong call to abolish hunger. He underlines our moral obligation and the need of political will to eradicate hunger, and

argues that science, technology, and knowledge can be made available in a short time to ensure food security for all people and to achieve a sus-tainable use of our resources.

2 Perspectives and Alternative Strategies

During the last years, a number of major assess-ments (World Bank 2007; IAASTD 2009; Royal Society 2009; Foresight 2011; Worldwatch Insti-tute 2011) have addressed the world food prob-lem, with great congruency in the analysis of the current situation and the emerging challenges. But the proposed strategies to go forward gener-ally originate more or less from a specific per-spective and often tell a straight story of a best solution, without discussing alternatives.

In contrast, the benefit of a problem-oriented technology assessment (TA) approach is to recog-nise the high complexity of the problem “feeding the world” (Dusseldorp, Sauter 2011) which has many causes and compromises in multiple lay-ers, while proposed solutions are associated with a variety of unintended impacts. The task of an inter- and transdisciplinary TA perspective is to:

• bring different framings of the problem and varying perspectives on solutions together,

• discuss alternatives, • include preconditions and impacts, and • assess the strengths and weaknesses of differ-

ent options.

Making the complexity transparent should build a good ground for informed decision-making. A recurrent topic is that no technology should be ruled out (e.g. Royal Society 2009, p. ix). But this open approach obscures the fact that deci-sion-making is necessary due to restricted fund-ing budgets and scientific resources, different time horizons for development, and varying im-pacts (some negative) of technology options on ecological sustainability and factor productivity.

This special issue cannot be comprehensive, but presents important perspectives and discuss-es some main alternatives. Nonetheless, some important points are not covered, for example the distorted global regime for trade in agricultural products, with one of its roots in the agricultural subsidies of OECD countries, and its negative

SCHWERPUNKT


impacts on small-scale farmers in developing countries (see IFAD 2011, p. 229).

3 The Economic Perspective: Strengthen-ing the Public Sector versus New Com-plexity

In recent years, the importance of agriculture for development was reaffirmed (World Bank 2007; IAASTD 2009; Royal Society 2009; Foresight 2011; IFAD 2011). After more than two decades of decline in development assistance for agri-culture and neglecting agricultural investments, sharply increased public funding is a broadly recognised recommendation. Promises and first commitments were made on an international level and by some single countries. For these commit-ments, Fan and Breisinger (in this volume) show that important gaps in implementation remain.

Fulfilling commitments and investing in ag-riculture and rural development represent only a first step. Fan and Breisinger work out that the new global and national commitments have led to new institutions and arrangements. The grow-ing role of new players (emerging countries and south-south cooperation, private sector) in financ-ing agricultural investments and innovations add an additional dimension. Therewith, the already high complexity of the development architecture becomes even more dynamic and complicated.

With the focus on improving smallholder agriculture, an underlying open controversy is related to which extent a new public sector lead-ership is needed, or if the complexity of actors established today demands more flexible multi-stakeholder arrangements to fully harness agricul-tural development possibilities. Independent from this alternative, a common understanding exists that one-size-fits-all strategies will not work. Im-proved efficiency of public agricultural spending needs country-driven policies, adapted to the local context (see Fan, Breisinger in this volume).

4 The Production Perspective: Technology versus Systems Approach

For economic analysis, the mode or the paradigm of agricultural production is more or less an as-sumed black box. It is not only necessary to spend

more money, and to improve the efficiency within the agencies that provide public investments and services – it is at least equally important to ask the question: for what? To keep it simple, two main approaches or trajectories to increase agricultural productivity are discussed controversially.

With reference to successes of the past, a still popular approach is the extension of indus-trialised agriculture and a new Green Revolution (e.g. Diao et al. 2008), with the application of new technologies as its main aspect.1

At the same time, there is a growing inter-national consensus that “business as usual” (or “more of the same”, see Uphoff and Kassam et al. in this volume) will not provide solutions to future needs and 21st century realities. New pro-duction system paradigms with greater ecological sustainability and efficiency as well as offering “more for less” are being envisaged as appropriate for the future. These must permit the simultane-ous harnessing of improved productivity and eco-system services. Such alternative approaches are discussed under different terms such as “sustain-able intensification” (FAO 2010b; see also Royal Society 2009; Foresight 2011; IFAD 2011), “eco-functional intensification” (GIZ 2011) or “low-input intensification” (Meyer 2010). The goals are higher input efficiency by making better use of existing resources (e.g. soil, crop, water, nu-trients, landscape, biodiversity) and technologies (Pretty 2008), and higher crop yields and better ecosystem services through improved agro-eco-logical and biological productivity (Meyer 2010). Such intensification has the potential to address in particular the needs and possibilities of small-scale farmers. Starting points could be the adop-tion of principles and practices of Conservation Agriculture (Kassam et al. 2009; Kassam et al. in this volume), System of Rice Intensification (Uphoff, Kassam 2009; Uphoff in this volume), Organic Farming, and Agroforestry systems. At present, additional concepts are presented, such as Conservation Agriculture with trees or Ever-green Agriculture (Garrity et al. 2010) or Cli-mate-Smart Agriculture (FAO 2010b).

The general approach that all these systems share is to formulate fundamental principles and highlight key sustainability elements, that can be translated into locally-devised farming practices,

SCHWERPUNKT


as well as system-level stakeholder support, in-stead of fixed technology packages or a standard-ised best practice approach pushed down through a linear extension approach. Hence, when it comes to concrete applications in specific contexts, the principles have to be translated on a case-by-case basis into production technologies and farmer practices adapted to local agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions associated with farm-ing in general and with less favourable areas and smallholders in particular (Meyer 2010). This is also characterised as a “more systematic approach” or “system-based shift” (Butler Flora 2010) which focuses on an understanding of agriculture as com-plex adaptive and nested systems.

With the latter approach, changes in the inno-vation system emerge. Non-governmental organi-sations and farmers get involved in research and development. Involving communities and farmer groups in local consultations, policy deliberations, scientific research, and experimentation is all part of building from the bottom up to achieve suc-cess (Spielman, Pandya-Lorch 2009, p. 13). Local agricultural research committees and farmer field schools are concrete examples. This is summa-rised also as participatory development concepts and transdisciplinary agricultural research.

Conservation Agriculture (CA) is an exam-ple of an innovative no-till farming system for harnessing sustainable production intensification which was formulated by farmers in America some decades ago. No-till farming was a response to severe land degradation and erosion, both from runoff and wind, associated with the use of tillage at all levels and agrochemicals in more advanced farming systems to increase production. Currently, 117 million hectares of global crop land is under Conservation Agriculture, spread across all con-tinents and agro-ecologies. The upscaling of no-till systems to achieve local area and national im-pact requires a dynamic complement of enabling policies and institutional support to producers and supply chain service providers. The extent of CA is expanding at the rate of six million hectares per annum and is expected to accelerate as more de-velopment effort is directed towards mainstream-ing this alternate agro-ecological approach to sus-tainable production intensification (Kassam et al. 2010; Kassam et al. in this volume).

The System of Rice Intensification is anoth-er example where civil society (NGOs and local farmers) was the key actor in the innovation proc-ess (Uphoff in this volume), with only later inclu-sion of academic and governmental actors. Up-hoff shows that such a civil society innovation can provoke controversies with established research, which handicap funding of promoting and adapta-tion projects and programmes and of evaluation research by donor agencies and foundations.

Low-input intensification activities are characterised by a vast number of projects, small programmes, and parallel activities, with many successful examples. While public involvement in agriculture was de-organised and re-organised in the 1980s and 1990s with the dismantling of financial services and input parastatals, it was re-organising as public or NGO projects which are, essentially, mini packages of policies that affect smaller groups on a temporary basis (Reardon et al. 1999). An enabling policy environment and adequate sector-level policies are often lacking.

5 Labour Productivity: Extension of Land per Farm versus Additional Labour Capacity for Intensification

Beside land productivity, the performance of ag-ricultural production systems is shaped by labour productivity. One-third of the world’s popula-tion working in agriculture uses only manual tools. The difference in productivity between the least efficient agriculture with manual imple-ments (hoe, spade, digging stick, machete, har-vest knife, sickle) and the best-equipped, most efficient industrialised agriculture has increased dramatically in the last decades to 1 to 2000 (Ma-zoyer, Roudart 2006, pp. 11, 13). Farmers work-ing at hand level can only feed three other persons on average. With animal traction one farmer can already feed six other persons and with a tractor the number further increases to 50 or more per-sons (Legg et al. 1993). Labour output levels vary widely according to the mechanisation level and climatic conditions, and there is a clear correla-tion between the production levels and the farm power input (Giles 1975; Wieneke, Friedrich 1988). They also depend on the kind of farming system used (Zweier 1985; Doets et al. 2000).

SCHWERPUNKT


Improvement of labour productivity opens up different perspectives. In western industrial-ised countries, the increase in labour productivity in the last decades led to an ongoing rat race: all different steps of mechanisation were associated with an increase in farm size and a reduction in the number of farms. Therefore, this trajectory should not be a role model for many develop-ing countries. The restricted capacity of non-ag-ricultural and urban labour markets is a strong argument against a modernization process like in Europe or the US. Additionally, most means of mechanisation exceed the investment and working capacity of single small-scale farmers. Therefore, sharing equipment among farmers as a group will be the better option for the majority of peasants. In this context, the aim is not to farm more land, but to set free labour capacity for a sustainable intensification of land use.

6 Land Transactions: Growth Poles versus Land Grabbing

Since the food crisis 2007/2008 with the surge of international prices for major cereals, export restrictions, and hoarding (Headey, Fan 2010), a tightened struggle for agricultural land has emerged. Motivations for large-scale land acquisi-tions are to secure a stable and steady food supply for wealthy nations with high net-food imports and the promise of profitable investments for pri-vate-sector financiers. Especially those develop-ing countries which are land rich are sanctioning the sale or transfer of user rights of large tracts of farmland for foreign investment (Cotula et al. 2009; Daniel, Mittal 2009; Kugelman, Levenstein 2009; Robertson, Pinstrup-Andersen 2010). Poor developing countries with high food insecurity are the most important net sellers of farmland. Brün-trup (in this volume) analyses the associated op-portunities and threats. Foreign direct investments in agricultural land and production can open ac-cess to specific markets, technology, management, and finance for poor countries, and therewith be a development opportunity if a fair benefit-sharing for all stakeholders is achieved. But early assess-ments highlight predominantly critical points: Land involved in these transactions is often char-acterised by governments that are leasing land as

“underutilised” or “uncultivated”, but much of this (often marginal) land is currently used by poor smallholder farmers without formal land titles and by users of natural resources. The threat for small-holders and local food security is reflected in the term “land grabbing”. Beyond that, the model of industrialised agricultural production here again is confronted with approaches of sustainable intensi-fication centred on small-scale farmers.

7 Urban Agriculture: Livelihood Improve-ment versus Vertical Farming

Future population growth will be mainly concen-trated in urban areas. As a result, the urbanisation process is accompanied by a phenomenon re-ferred to as the “urbanisation of poverty”: a shift in the locus of poverty from rural to urban areas (Zeeuw, Dubbeling 2009). Urban and peri-urban agriculture is a not negligible activity in devel-oping countries, performed by 10–70 percent of households. However, in terms of income gener-ation and overall agricultural production, its role usually is quite limited. Important exceptions are several African countries and the poorest urban households where urban agriculture provides a substantial share of income and constitutes an important source of livelihoods (Zezza, Tasciotti 2010). Urban and peri-urban agriculture can pro-vide an important safety net for the urban poor in times of economic and food crisis, and will have to feature prominently in urban food security strategies of developing and emerging countries, contributing to more resilient and sustainable cit-ies (Zeeuw, Dubbeling 2009; FAO 2010c).

In recent years, corresponding developments have emerged in western industrialised countries, in form of “urban gardening” (Müller 2011). Dif-ferent types of community gardens with focus on vegetable production were established, as pure “grass root” activities or in cooperation with local authorities. The associated objectives range from community building, intercultural dialogue, mul-ti-generation communities, local food production, and subsistence to food sovereignty.

At the same time and in total contrast, high-tech approaches like vertical farming are promoted as sustainable solutions for urban ag-riculture (Despommier 2010). The aim is a year-

SCHWERPUNKT


round crop production in a protected, managed environment over many stories. Objectives are to reduce transport and to make agricultural pro-duction independent from land demand. Addi-tionally, the transformation of urban architecture is a key element (Wagner 2010). The idea is to bring an industrialised agriculture to urban ar-eas, and to produce in an artificial environment, independent from natural agro-ecological condi-tions. Up to now, the whole approach is still in a conceptual state, the fundamental possibility and time frame of realisation are open, and several points of criticism (e.g. high energy and light de-mand) already turned up (see Roach 2009).

8 The Nutrition Perspective: Paternalistic versus Empowerment Approaches

For solving world food problems, a nutrition or demand side perspective is at least as important as the production perspective discussed above. Higher agricultural production does not auto-matically translate into an improved nutrition. So far, there is only restricted concrete evidence how the linkages of agriculture and nutrition work (IFPRI 2011). Nonetheless, local food ac-cess will remain essential for food and nutrition security of the urban and rural poor. Questions of malnourishment (beside undernourishment) can be addressed only in a nutrition perspective.

Lemke and Bellows (in this volume) review the shortcomings of the currently dominating separated food security and nutrition security ap-proaches. Both approaches are conceptualised as products of trade, neglecting possibilities of lo-cal food governance. Current measures to address malnutrition and hunger are favouring paternalis-tic approaches that perpetuate aid, neediness, and dependency. An example is the initiative for the large-scale distribution of Ready-to-Use Supple-ment Food (RUSF), high-energy nutritional food supplements fortified with vitamins and minerals. The main criticism is that the global circulation of RUSF is over-emphasized to the advantage of trade interests, but to the detriment of developing capacity and autonomy in community and nation-al based food and nutrition systems.

As alternative frames, Lemke and Bellows suggest to integrate food and nutrition security in

a food systems and rights-based self-empower-ment approach, namely through sustainable livelihoods and agro-ecology, and including a gender perspective that has been missing so far. This perspective promotes a systems approach, the integration of food production and nutrition objectives and local governance that foreground inclusive participation of all members of society.

9 International Agricultural Research System: Changes and Chances

International agricultural research – the inter-national agricultural research centres IRRI and CIMMYT, and the build-up of the CGIAR (Con-sultative Group on International Agricultural Re-search) system and its partners – were essential for the Green Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s, providing productivity-enhancing research (im-proved germplasm and related technologies). Over the course of the last four decades, the CGIAR’s mandate has increased significantly, growing from four centres with a narrow focus on productivity to 15 centres with an expanded agenda that also address natural resource management and conser-vation issues critical to sustainable development. During the same time, the system has evolved into an increasingly complex entity, characterised by complicated governance structures. While fund-ing has increased in nominal terms, it has stagnat-ed in constant dollars, and the part of unrestricted funding has decreased dramatically. In addition, a lack of coordination among the funding bodies re-sulted in sub-optimal resource use (CGIAR 2008).

Furthermore, the global landscape of ag-ricultural research changed dramatically in dif-ferent aspects. As one point, the capacities of national agricultural systems grew in emerging countries (as Brazil, China, India and South Af-rica) whereas the agricultural research is lagging behind in many smaller and poorer countries (CGIAR 2008). The consequence is a new com-plexity in research partnerships.

In answer to the changes and challenges, CGIAR last year adopted a new institutional model with clearly delineated responsibilities for researchers and donors, a common vision, and strategic objectives for all centres, and a port-folio of mega programmes (still in the approval

SCHWERPUNKT


process) with legally binding funding and per-formance agreements. The revitalised CGIAR is too new to assess its success. Nonetheless, Meyer (in this volume) identifies a number of remaining questions which will probably also accompany the international agricultural research system in the coming years. These controversial issues are plant genetic improvement versus agro-ecologi-cal production system research, international re-search for wide adaptability versus local produc-tion system development, scientific excellence versus networking, and top-down transfer model versus participatory research for development.

10 Conclusions

Business as usual is not enough to meet the growing global development challenges and to achieve sustainable food and nutrition security for everyone. The complexity of the issue “feed-ing the world” entails different perspectives and divergent proposals for strategies and actions. The TA perspective implicates a certain empha-sis on science and technology, their preconditions and implications. Regarding agricultural produc-tion systems and their intensification, important criteria for their assessment are:

• Short-term availability to enable in-time reac-tions to the challenges

• Scale-neutral capacity to include a pro-poor perspective

• Adaptability to local agro-ecological and so-cio-economic conditions

• Qualification for climate change adaptation and mitigation

• Compatibility with overall livelihood and nu-trition improvement

• Suitability for public-private-community en-gagement in the face of steadily increasing development actor complexity

Despite the complexity and ongoing need for as-sessment, first strong messages for a shorter-term and pro-poor addressing of the challenges, based on the criteria mentioned above, can be concluded:

• Higher investment in agriculture, with a strong role of the public sector in the agricultural inno-vation system: The reverse of the last decades’ underinvestment in agriculture is an important

precondition. Public sector leadership is needed for many issues of agricultural research, devel-opment and investment which will not be suf-ficiently addressed by the private sector. For the transformation to sustainability, the “proactive state” is a key element (WBGU 2011).

• Mainstreaming of agro-ecological approach-es: The preservation and enhancement of the natural production potentials of agriculture (such as soil fertility, water conservation, bio-diversity sustainment) are not only an add-on activity, they are essential to stabilise the high yield levels achieved in favourable areas, to realise more of existing yield potentials, and to increase the resilience of farming systems.

• Shift to systems approaches: New high-yield-ing varieties or single low-external input technologies can make only restricted contri-butions. Thus, instead of single technologies or fixed technology packages, system-based principles and approaches with local adapta-tions and integration have the potential to ad-dress the specific agro-ecological, social, and economic conditions of farmers at their specific locations. The problem-oriented combination of local knowledge and resources and scientific research is needed to address the specific prob-lems of farmers within this systems contexts.

• Bringing food and nutrition security together: Increasing production of food is not enough. Under- and malnourishment is also connected to health aspects, social rights and gender dis-parities. Interlinks between agriculture and nutrition and health should be harnessed. Lo-cal governance approaches for local food sys-tems are a prominent tool to bring food and nutrition security together.

• Combine bottom-up and top-down approach-es: Local adaptations of policies and actions are seen as highly important in different areas. This applies for economic development poli-cies, sustainable intensification of agricultural production systems as well as food governance for nutrition security. But a piecemeal of local projects and actions is not enough for national and cross-boarder upscaling. National policies (and international knowledge exchange) are essential to promote and spread local activities.

SCHWERPUNKT


All in all, “feeding the world” represents one of the most fundamental missions of international and national politics. This task cannot be reduced to a question of science and technology or eco-nomics alone, due to its irresolvable amalgama-tion with the problem of reducing poverty and improving the social, environmental, and politi-cal situation. Not only for TA, but for each policy and action directed towards improving the world food situation in a sustainable manner, the inter-dependency of many very different levels poses an extremely complex challenge. The following papers reflect this complexity. Hopefully they can provide fundamental orientation for non-ex-pert readers from the TA community and impuls-es for those who are more familiar with the issue.

Note

1) Genetic engineering and transgenic crops are re-garded as an element or a major component of a new Green Revolution. Their chances and risks, and their potentials and restrictions to contribute to the future food supply can not be discussed in this special issue and have to be assessed in com-parison to alternative options (see Sauter 2008).

References

Butler Flora, C., 2010: Food security in the context of energy and resource depletion: Sustainable agricul-ture in developing countries. In: Renewable Agricul-ture and Food Systems 25/2 (2010), pp. 118–128CGIAR – Consultative Group on International Agricul-tural Research, 2008: A revitalized CIAGR – A new way forward: The integrated reform proposal. Change Steer-ing Team; http://www.cgiar.org/pdf/agm08/agm08_re-form_proposal.pdf (download 16.6.11)Cotula, L.; Vermeulen, S.; Leonard, R. et al., 2009: Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa. London, RomeDaniel, S.; Mittal, A., 2009: The great land grab. Rush for world’s farmland threatens food security for the poor. Oakland CAde Zeeuw, H.; Dubbeling, M., 2009: Cities, food and agriculture: Challenges and the way forward. RUAF Working Paper No. 3. Leusden, The NetherlandsDespommier, D., 2010: The Vertical Farm. Feeding the world in the 21st century. New York

Diao, X.; Headey, D.; Johnson, M., 2008: Toward a green revolution in Africa: what would it achieve, and what would it require? In: Agricultural Economics 39 (2008), supplement, pp. 539–550Doets, C.E.M.; Best, G.; Friedrich, T., 2000: Energy and Conservation Agriculture. Occasional paper, FAO SDR Energy Program. RomeDusseldorp, M.; Sauter, A., 2011: Forschung zur Lösung des Welternährungsproblems. Ansatzpunkte – Strategi-en – Umsetzung. TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 142. BerlinFAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010a: The State of Food Insecurity in the World. RomeFAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010b: “Climate-Smart” Agriculture. Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation. RomeFAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit-ed Nations, 2010c: Growing Greener Cities. RomeFAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit-ed Nations, 2011: Food Outlook June 2011. Rome; http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/al978e/al978e00.pdf (download 9.6.11)Foresight, 2011: The Future of Food and Farming. Fi-nal Project Report. LondonGarrity, D.P.; Akinnifesi, F.K.; Ajayi, O.C. et al., 2010: Evergreen Agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. In: Food Security 2 (2010), pp. 197–214Giles, G.W., 1975: The Reorientation of Agricultural mechanization for Developing Countries: Politics and Attitudes for Action Programmes. Report on the Meeting of the FAO/OECD Expert Panel on the Effects of Farm Mechanization on Production and Employment. RomeGIZ – Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, 2011: Eco-functional intensifica-tion of agricultural production. Seeds and fertiliser – contribution to food security. Documentation of the Workshop October 6, 2010. EschbornHeadey, D.; Fan, S., 2010: Reflections on the global food crisis: how did it happen? how was hurt? and how can we prevent the next one? IFPRI research monography 165. Washington, DCIAASTD – International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Develop-ment, 2009: Agriculture at a crossroads. Synthesis report. Washington, DCIFAD – International Fund for Agricultural Develop-ment, 2011: Rural poverty report 2011. new realities, new challenges: new oppertunities for tomorrow’s generation. Rome

SCHWERPUNKT


IFPRI – International Food Policy Research Institute, 2011: Leveraging agriculture for improving nutrition and health. Highlights from an International Confer-ence, February 10–12, 2011, New Delhi, India. Wash-ington, DC; http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/oc66.pdf (download 9.6.11)Kassam, A.; Friedrich, T.; Derpsch, R., 2010: Conser-vation Agriculture in the 21st Century: A Paradigm of Sustainable Agriculture. European Congress on Con-servation Agriculture, Madrid, October 2010Kassam, A.; Friedrich, T.; Shaxson, F. et al., 2009: The spread of conservation agriculture: Justification, sustainability and uptake. In: International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7/4 (2009), pp. 292–320Kugelman, M.; Levenstein, S.L., 2009: Land gab? The race for the world’s farmland. Washington, DCLegg, B.J.; Sutton, D.H.; Field, E.M., 1993: Feeding the World: Can Engineering Help? Silsoe, Bedford-shire. Fourth Erasmus Darwin Memorial Lecture, No-vember 17, 1993Mazoyer, M.; Roudart, L., 2006: A history of world agriculture from Neolithic age to the current crisis. LondonMeyer, R., 2010: Low-Input Intensification in Agricul-ture. Chances for Small-Scale Farmers in Developing Countries. In: GAIA 19/4 (2010), pp. 263–268Müller, C., 2011: Urban Gardening. Über die Rück-Urban Gardening. Über die Rück-. Über die Rück-kehr der Gärten in die Städte. MünchenPretty, J., 2008: Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. In: Philosophical Transac-tions of the Royal Society Biological Science 363 (2008), pp. 447–465Reardon, T.; Barrett, C.; Kelly, V. et al., 1999: Policy reforms and sustainable agricultural intensification in Africa. In: Development Policy Review 17 (1999), pp. 275–395Roach, J., 2009: High-Rise Farms: The Future of Food? In: National Geographic News, June 30 (2009); http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090630-farm-towers-locally-grown.html (download 19.7.11)Robertson, B.; Pinstrup-Andersen, P., 2010: Global land acquisition: neo-colonialism or developing op-portunity? In: Food Security 2 (2010), pp. 271–283Royal Society, 2009: Reaping the benefits. Science and the sustainable intensification of global agricul-ture. LondonSauter, A., 2008: Tansgenes Saatgut in Entwicklungs-ländern – Erfahrungen, Herausforderungen, Perspek-tiven. TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 128. Berlin

Spielman, D.J.; Pandya-Lorch, R. (eds.), 2009: Mil-lionsFed. Proven success in agricultural development. Washington, DCUN – United Nations Human Rights, 2010: The Right to Adequate Food. Fact Sheet No. 34. Geneva (Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights)Uphoff, N.; Kassam, A., 2009: System of Rice Intensi-fication. STOA Report Annex 3 Case Study. European ParliamentWagner, C.G., 2010: Vertical Farming. An Idea Whose Time Has Come Back. In: The Futurist March/April 2010, pp. 68–69WBGU – Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Globale Umwelt-veränderung, 2011: Welt im Wandel: Gesellschafts-vertrag für eine Große Transformation. BerlinWieneke, F.; Friedrich, T., 1988: Agricultural Engi-neering in the Tropics and Subtropics. PfaffenweilerWorld Bank, 2007: World development report 2008 – agriculture for development. Washington, DCWorldwatch Institute, 2011: State of the World 2011. Innovations that Nourish the Planet. LondonZezza, A.; Tasciotti, L., 2010: Urban agriculture, pov-erty, and food security: Empirical evidence from a sample of developing countries. In: Food Policy 35 (2010), pp. 265–273Zweier, K., 1985: Energetische Beurteilung von Ver-fahren und Systemen in der Landwirtschaft der Tro-pen und Subtropen – Grundlagen und Anwendungs-beispiele. Göttingen (Agricultural engineering report of the workgroup research and teaching of the Max-Eyth-Society for agricultural engineering, Vol. 115)

Contact

PD Dr. Rolf MeyerKarlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und System-analyse (ITAS)Postfach 36 40, 76021 KarlsruhePhone: +49 (0) 7 21 / 6 08 - 2 48 68Email: [email protected]

« »

SCHWERPUNKT


Abolishing Hunger: Science to the RescueA Personal Résumé after 40 Years of Commitment

by Ismail Serageldin, Alexandria, Egypt

Science, technology, and innovation are able to address the severe ecological challenges ahead and ensure that all people have that most basic of human rights, the right to food security. Today the condition of hunger in a world of plenty is monstrous and uncon-scionable and must be abolished. No sin-gle action is going to help us solve all the problems of world hunger. But several paths are open to us to achieve noticeable change within a few years. We need the political will to really put the abolition of hunger at the top of our agenda. Science is not going to flour-ish or bring about its desired results without sound national policies and effective local actions, from the global to the local level. We need good governance, in terms of transpar-ency, participation, accountability, and in-formation flows. The benefits from research should benefit those who produce most of the food where it is actually consumed by those who need it most.

1 Introduction: The New Abolitionists

Ensuring global food security is a major chal-lenge, but it is not beyond the ken of human in-genuity and determination to succeed. We must, through sustainable and equitable systems of production and consumption, meet the needs of all the 6.7 billion inhabitants of the world today, and the additional 2–3 billion that we expect in the coming decades, recognizing the challenges posed by changing diets and continued produc-tion on environmental systems that are already stressed. We must do it using roughly the same amount of land and water.

Knowledge will be the key. Research and dissemination of current best practices will show how to close the yield gap, how to produce more for less, how to improve management and reduce waste along the entire supply chain, and how not to confuse the urgent necessity of humanitarian

aid with the fundamentally important develop-mental questions of transforming global agri-culture and the food processing and distribution system. These are exciting prospects to finally abolish hunger in our lifetime.

In 2000, the leaders of the world met at the UN and adopted the “Millennium Development Goals”. The first of these was a promise to fight poverty and reduce the number of the hungry by half by 2015, to go down from 850 million to 425 million hungry souls on this planet. Shame on us all! By 2008, the figure had actually risen to 950 million and was estimated to have peaked at about one billion in 2009 before coming down to 925 million in 2010.

It is inconceivable that there should be close to a billion people going hungry in a world that can provide for that most basic of all human needs. In the 19th century, some people looked at the condition of slavery and said that it was monstrous and unconscionable. That it must be abolished. They were known as the abolitionists. They did not argue from economic self interest, but from moral outrage.

Today the condition of hunger in a world of plenty is equally monstrous and unconscion-able and must be abolished. We must become the “New Abolitionists”. We must, with the same zeal and moral outrage, attack the complacency that would turn a blind eye to this silent mas-sive killing of the innocents which claims some 40,000 hunger-related deaths every day. So what is the problem? What can science and technol-ogy do about it? And how can decision-makers make this happen?

2 Food Security for All

Food security is access to sufficient food by all people, at all times – in terms of quality, quan-tity, and diversity – for an active and healthy life without risk of loss of such access. Most socie-ties have achieved this due to enormous advanc-es in agricultural techniques, plant breeding, and engineering schemes for irrigation and drainage.

The Malthusian nightmare of famine check-ing population growth was systematically pushed back by Science, Technology, and Innovation. Global population grew, and many lagging so-

SCHWERPUNKT


cieties have achieved a modicum of security that would have been unthinkable half a century ago. India that could not feed 450 million in 1960 is now able to provide the caloric coverage for over a billion people with a surplus of 33 million tons largely on the same land and water.

So what went wrong? Let me put forward a few key statements about food security:

• The key to handling food security requires increasing production to increase the caloric coverage for both food and feed at rates that will match or exceed the quantity and quality requirements of a growing population whose diets are changing because of rising incomes. This increase must be fast enough for prices to drop (increasing accessibility of the avail-able food to the world’s poor) and must be achieved by increasing the productivity of the small-holder farmers in the less devel-oped countries so as to raise their incomes even as prices drop.

• Better management will play an enormous role in this, from increasing the productivity of the farmers’ fields to reducing the wast-age in the entire supply chain, from post har-vest losses in poor countries to the enormous amounts of food thrown away by consumers in the rich countries. Rapid deployment of the best practices, such as System of Rice Inten-sification (SRI), is badly needed.

• The desired productivity increases will also require all the available technology, including the use of biotechnology for food and feed products, an approach that every scientific body has deemed to be safe, even though it is being bitterly fought by the Organic Food Growers lobby and various (mainly Europe-an) international NGOs.

• Climate change has increased the vulner-ability of the poor farmers in rain-fed areas and the populations who depend on them. Special attention must be given to the pro-duction of more drought resistant, saline re-sistant and less thirsty plants for the produc-tion of our basic staples that we rely on for both food and feed.

• The qualitative aspects of the food and feed and their production is important. Additional areas where research is needed and where

specialists must provide guidance are the de-crease of post-harvest losses, increase of stor-ability and transportability of food, and the increase of the nutritional content of the food through bio-fortification of the food crops.

• Biofuels should not be allowed to compete for the same land and water that produces food for humans and feed for their livestock. It is wrong to burn the food of the poor to drive the cars of the rich. We need to look into a new generation of biofuels, either using cellulosic grasses in rain-fed marginal lands or produced from algae in the sea or other renewable ener-gies (solar and wind) and not divert food and feed products for fuel production.

• Food security does not mean food self suffi-ciency for every country. We need a fair inter-national trading system that allows access to food and provides some damping of sudden spikes in the prices of internationally traded food and feed crops.

• Public education campaigns about food se-curity and eating habits of people is needed, and eminent professional groups should get involved. Like the global anti-smoking cam-paign, we need global pro healthy food hab-its. But we also need to campaign with the governments to maintain buffer stocks and make available enough food for humanitarian assistance that will inevitably continue to be needed in various hot spots around the world.

3 Science and New Technologies to the Rescue

No single action is going to help us solve all the problems of world hunger. But several paths are open to us to achieve noticeable change within a five year horizon. Many policy actions are al-ready open to us, as explained above, and only require the will to pursue them. But there are a few more actions that need new technologies that are almost within our grasp, and which – with a small push – could lead to immediate results. I have grouped these under the heading of land, water, plants, livestock, and aquatic resources. Taken with the preceding policies, these ac-tions will give us major benefits, showing how science, technology, and innovation, deployed

SCHWERPUNKT


with good management that reduces waste and improves productivity all along the supply chain, can help to put us back on track to significantly reduce hunger in a few short years.

Land

Agriculture is the largest claimant of land from nature. Humans have slashed and burned mil-lions of hectares, as they deforested for farm-land. Sadly, through bad stewardship, much of our farmland is losing topsoil, and prime lands are being degraded. Pressure is mounting to fur-ther expand agricultural acreage, which means further loss of biodiversity due to loss of habitat. We must resist such pressure and try to protect the tropical rain forests in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. But let us also:

• rapidly deploy systematic efforts at collecting and classifying all types of plant species and use DNA fingerprinting for taxonomic classifi-cation. Add these to the global seed/gene banks and find ways to store and share these resources.

• Use satellite imagery to classify soils and moni-tor soil conditions (including moisture) and launch early warning campaigns where needed.

• For the longer term, launch more scientific work to understand the organic nature of soil fertility not just its chemical fertilizer needs.

Water

Water is life. Humans may need to consume a few liters of water per day for their survival and maybe another 50–100 liters for their well-being, but they consume on average about 2,700 liters per day for the food they consume. Approximate-ly one liter per calorie, more for those whose diet is rich in animal proteins and especially red meat. At present it takes about 1,200 tons of water to produce a ton of wheat, and 2,000–5,000 tons of water to produce a ton of rice. Rainfall is likely to become more erratic in the tropical and sub-tropical zones where the vast majority of poor humanity lives. Floods alternating with droughts will devastate some of the poorest farmers that do not have the wherewithal to withstand a bad season. We absolutely must produce “more crop

per drop”. Partly this can be done with sim-ple techniques such as land leveling and better management of irrigation and drainage; partly we need plants that are more suited to the times ahead (see below). Much can be done with exist-ing knowledge and techniques, but there are four research areas that could help a lot:

• We know hardly anything about groundwater. New technologies can now map groundwater reservoirs by satellite imagery. It is imperative that an international mapping of locations and extent of water aquifers must be undertaken. New analysis of groundwater potential is badly needed, as it is likely that as much as 10 percent of the world’s grain is grown by water with-drawals that exceed the recharge rate of the un-derground reservoirs on which they draw.

• The effects of climate change are likely to be problematic. But global models are of little help to guide local action. Thus it is necessary to develop regional modeling for local action. Scientists agree on the need for these models, to complement the global models and to assist in the design of proper water strategies at the regional and local scales, where projects are ultimately designed.

• We need to recycle and reuse water, especially for peri-urban agriculture that produces high value fruits and vegetables. New technologies to bring down the cost of recycling must be moved from lab to market rapidly. Decision-makers can encourage accelerated private sector development programs by promises of buy-back at given prices.

• Finally: Desalination of sea water, not in quantities capable of supporting current agri-culture, but supporting urban domestic and in-dustrial use, as well as hydroponics and peri-urban agriculture is possible and important.

Plants

Climate change is predicted to reduce yields un-less we engineer plants specifically for the up-coming challenges. Whether food or fodder, we will need major transformation of existing plants to be more resistant to heat, salinity, and drought and to adapt them to shorter growing seasons.

SCHWERPUNKT


We must use all the tools at our disposal, includ-ing biotechnology. Improved nutritional quali-ties such as vitamin-A rice and other forms of bio-fortification must be pursued. Also off-the-beaten-track approaches should be pursued. Thus the mangrove’s biochemical pathway that allows it to live on sea water has been identified. Can it be inserted into other plants? This is a worthy research project that needs acceleration!

Furthermore, reduction of post harvest losses is a major way of increasing the finally available food and feed. Thus storability, trans-portability, and value added processing should be pursued. Again much can be achieved by using the best of science on those crops that interest the poor, for the conditions that prevail there.

Too much focus has gone to the study of in-dividual crops, and the promotion of large mo-noculture facilities. There are costs in that, both environmental and social. A massive push should be pursued for plants that thrive in the tropics and subtropical areas and the arid and semi-arid zones. We need to focus on the farming systems that are suited to the complex ecological systems of the small-holder farmers in the poor countries.

This kind of research should be treated as international public goods, supported with pub-lic funding and the results made freely available to the poor. Such an investment will reduce the need for humanitarian assistance later on.

Livestock

Animals are an integral part of the farming sys-tems of the poor. They provide milk, and fre-quently traction and manure as well. Milk is nutritionally important for the poor family, and the Indian experience has shown that you can or-ganize small-scale producers into a truly national program. India overtook the USA as the world’s largest milk producer. We need science to pay at-tention to their diseases and to the development of appropriate vaccines as well as to provide a better understanding of their interaction with the environment, from methane releases into the at-mosphere to their provision of organic fertilizer.

Furthermore, given the importance of farm animals, and the rising demand for meat products in the world due to changing diets, especially in

China, and the pressure that is going to be put on the production of feed, competing with the direct consumption of grain by humans, a better under-standing of livestock issues is badly needed.

Aquatic Resources

In almost every aspect of food production, we are farmers, except in aquatic resources, where we are still hunters-gatherers. In America in the 19th century, hunters almost wiped out the buffaloes from the Great Plains. Today we have overfished all the marine fisheries in the world, as we fo-cused our efforts on developing ever more ef-ficient and destructive hunting techniques. We now deploy huge factory ships that can stay at sea for months at a time.

We need to invest in the nascent technologies of fish farming. There is some effort at promoting Tilapia (freshwater), sometimes called the aquatic chicken. In addition, integrating some aquaculture in the standard cropping techniques of the small-holder farmers has proven to be ecologically and economically viable. The private sector has in-vested in some high-value products such as salm-on and shrimp. But all aquatic resource farming is still in its infancy compared to other fields. A massive international program is called for.

Marine organisms reproduce very quickly and in very large numbers, but the scientific farming of marine resources is almost non-exist-ent. Proper farming systems can be devised that will be able to provide cheap and healthy pro-teins for a growing population. About half the global population lives within a short distance of the sea. Given the billions that have gone into subsidizing commercial fishing fleets, it is inconceivable that no priority has been given to this kind of highly promising research. Decision-makers must address that need today.

4 Contextual Issues

4.1 The Context of Science: Globally

First: Science has already done much for hu-manity. Nobody could imagine, neither Malthus at his time, nor at the beginning of the last cen-tury, a world with over 6.5 billion people which

SCHWERPUNKT


is largely covering its needs in production, al-though still a billion people go hungry because of bad policies and bad distribution.

Second: There is the issue of war and peace. A map of areas of malnutrition and hunger is close to a map of failed states and conflicts. Food security requires peace as much as it requires food, infrastructure and other needs. Therefore, we will need continued humanitarian assistance. Food must be available for humanitarian needs for those caught in wars or civil strife or eco-logical disasters. But humanitarian assistance, though essential, is not a solution to the food se-curity problem, which requires a comprehensive approach to ensure food security for all the 6.7 billion people in the human family today and for the 9 billion that we expect to become in a few decades. A comprehensive approach involves production and sustainability, prices and access, subsidies and policies, science and practice.

Third: We also recognize that climate change is increasing vulnerability, especially of small-holder farmers. Everywhere, from floods in Paki-stan to droughts in Russia, the changing climate and its accentuated cycles is indeed problematic.

Fourth: We need political will. We need the political will to really put the abolition of hunger at the top of our agenda. Political will is drawn from public opinion that is shaped by intellectu-als, scientists, the media, communities, and na-tional leaders. National leaders should not only follow what is fashionable in the public, but they should shape it in order to generate the actions needed to abolish hunger and thereby become the “New Abolitionists”.

Finally: We must operate at multiple scales: Global, regional, national, and local. The issues are different and the actions required are differ-ent, but they fit in nested hierarchies that are all required, and that ultimately complement each other. The whole is more than the sum of the parts.

Given all the above, we need global poli-cies to address the increases in food prices that reduce the access of the poor and therefore make the problem more difficult, and so does the vari-ability of prices. Thus action on stabilization of food prices and increased access are important. Beyond recognizing the volatility of rice, wheat, and maize prices and the need for better func-

tioning markets with some means of improved stabilization of food prices, we must ensure, even in periods of shortage – when countries that normally export start to block exports, as we saw in 2008 globally and as we saw again in 2010 in Russia – that we still have available stocks for humanitarian aid and agencies like the World Food Program have resources to meet that side of the equation.

The issues of fair trade and the triangula-tion of markets are important. That means that we can buy in regional markets from places that have surplus to the places that are in shortfall, thereby helping the poor farmers who have a sur-plus and costing the rich countries only the funds, as opposed to using these funds for buying in the international markets from major grain exporters to ship directly to the poor areas in shortage.

Subsidies (agricultural subsidies, biofuel subsidies, petroleum subsidies), given by the rich to the rich, are really parts of what distorts the global scene and need to be addressed. We need fair trade and we need above and beyond that, a global grand challenges approach to ag-ricultural research as a global public good. The benefits from research should not benefit only the stockholders of rich corporations, but those who need and use it, those who produce most of the food where it is actually consumed by those who need it most.

But in that knowledge we possess, as in the markets that we want to see operate effectively, broad participation is essential. We need to fight monopolies and oligopolies that have been created by a few large multinationals, whether in pharma-ceuticals or in seeds. We need to change the regu-latory frameworks. We need to encourage local industries to produce generics and local seeds.

And on that question of food availability, we must also help reduce post-harvest losses in the poor countries. But do people know how much of the food in the rich countries in the north is just thrown away? Packaged food that is date stamped and expired goes unused and is de-stroyed. Enormous amounts of cooked food are just thrown away. In food production and con-sumption, we have – like in many other aspects of today’s world – enormous waste. We must not only reduce waste but also share what we know.

SCHWERPUNKT


Also, at the global level, we need to deliver our promises of increased aid, and not just deliv-er the aggregate amounts that were promised on the G8 summit 2009 in L’Aquila, but we need to focus on the smallholder farmers in the develop-ing countries and meet their needs. They need all the help they can get. We need to support research and also to recognize sub-sovereign credit wheth-er to local communities or community-based or-ganizations or NGOs, but not just the state.

But more than money is involved. We must also share what we know. In promoting that shar-ing of knowledge, we must adopt evidence-based regulation and seek domestic-based production and adopt a precautionary principle that recog-nizes potential risk but sees the risk as part of the process, for no step is risk-free. And the proper basis for evaluating a new technology is not to assume that the alternative is zero risk, the al-ternative is the continuation of past policies and technologies. A new policy or program must be compared to other policies that exist. And as we promote our national regulatory policies, we must ensure that the interests of the poor, the youth, the women, and the marginalized are served, not those of international private corporations. We must think of how to empower people to choose technologies that suit them best.

4.2 The Context of Science: Locally

Science is not going to flourish or bring about its desired results without sound national policies and effective local actions. Good science is not going to help poor farmers in bad national contexts. We need good governance, in terms of transpar-ency, participation, accountability, and informa-tion flows – and not just for governments, but for public and private corporations, for NGOs, for the civil society. This is equally applicable to all lev-els. We need to think of how to actually help na-tional products meet international standards; how ethical standards, concerns of human rights, and other considerations – that are now rightly shared across the planet – also inform local policies.

We need strong intermediary organiza-tions that can mediate between positions at the state and the global level, and at the local level. Knowledge and technologies available at the

global or national level need to be brought to the farmers’ fields. The yield gap observed between what is achievable on research stations and what the average farmers produce is a manifestation of the inadequacy of the weak intermediary organi-zations in many countries.

In all we do we should not forget the envi-ronment, not just in terms of better integration of soil, water, and nutrition in our agronomic sys-tems management, but more generally, we need to adopt an agro-ecological approach to recog-nize the benefits of biodiversity, and create pub-licly and internationally supported gene banks so that food security will never be captured by a few.

We need to exchange more knowledge about success stories and best practices. A most important area to focus onto are the gains that are available through better management. Success-ful examples such as System of Rice Intensifica-tion recognize farmers as partners. There must be more human contact, less paper.

We also need to focus on health and nutri-tion: It is not just about the aggregate amount of calories, or the aggregate tons of cereals that are available. Hunger is something that requires at-tention to health and nutrition. The primary vec-tor for effective action is women’s health, because from the 6th month of pregnancy to the 18th month of age of the baby is the critical period for the formation of the child’s brain. The best way to reduce maternal and infant mortality, to reduce low birth weight babies and to guarantee effective breast-feeding is a healthy mother. And a healthy mother will also ensure healthy children.

Women not only play an important role in health, they are also the custodians and transmit-ters and shapers of the values of society. They are also farmers and frequently the custodians of its best practices at the local level. Empowering women in terms of legal status, access to educa-tion, credit, market facilities, political voice, and other dimensions is essential.

5 Conclusions

Science, backed by good policies, has been able to eke out of the green plants a system of food production that is more or less supporting six to seven billion persons on the planet. It is not

SCHWERPUNKT


Development Assistance and Investment in Agriculture: Promises and Facts

by Shenggen Fan and Clemens Breisinger, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA1

Growing development challenges have re-newed attention to the critical role that ag-riculture plays in the broad development process. The impact of agriculture extends beyond economic growth and poverty reduc-tion to include improving health and nutrition and building resilience to climate change and conflict. While global and national promises have been made to advance agricultural de-velopment and food security, important gaps in implementation remain. To sustainably reduce poverty and improve food security, investments in agriculture – both foreign de-velopment assistance and national public ex-penditures – must be scaled up and adapted to exploit these new opportunities and to build resilience to future development chal-lenges. To this end, the role of new actors, in-cluding emerging economies and the private sector, must be fully harnessed. The efficien-cy of public agricultural spending by national governments must also be improved.

1 Introduction

The role of agriculture in promoting overall de-velopment has been established as important for economic growth and poverty reduction (Diao et al. 2007), and investment in agriculture is one of the most effective instruments for achiev-ing these goals (Fan et al. 2009a and Fan et al. 2009b). Yet, agriculture has suffered from many years of policy neglect. Increasing global devel-opment challenges, including high and volatile food prices, persistently high levels of malnu-trition, biofuel expansion, and climate change have renewed attention to the role of agriculture. Moreover, the role of agriculture is increasingly seen in a broader context, particularly as it relates to improving the nutrition and health of poor people, providing new economic opportunities, and building resilience to conflict, land and envi-ronmental degradation, and climate change risks.

beyond the ken of scientists to ensure that the bounty of that production system is translated into food for the most needy and the most vul-nerable of the human family.

Science, technology, and innovation have been responsible for all the advances that have benefited humanity. It is time that we turn that ingenuity and creativity to address the severe ec-ological challenges ahead, and to ensure that all people have that most basic of human rights, the right to food security. The science is largely there and many of the technologies are on the verge of becoming deployable. All of that is indeed within reach in a very short time. It is possible to trans-form how we produce and distribute the bounty of this earth. It is possible to use our resources in a sustainable fashion. It is possible to abolish hunger in our lifetime.

Contact

Prof. Dr. Ismail SerageldinDirectorLibrary of AlexandriaShatby 21526l, Alexandria, EgyptPhone: +20 - 3 - 4 87 99 93 or +20 - 3 - 4 87 92 99Fax: +20- 3- 4 83 03 39Email: [email protected]: http://www.bibalex.org

« »

SCHWERPUNKT


While global and national promises have been made to advance agricultural development and enhance food security, important gaps in implementation remain. Many countries in the developing world continue to underinvest in agriculture and official development assistance (ODA) to agriculture has not recovered from de-cades of substantial declines. Given the new op-portunities and challenges for agricultural devel-opment, scaling-up and prioritizing investments in agriculture will have to take into account these new and emerging trends.

The objective of this paper is to discuss the role of agriculture in a broader and dynamic con-text, and to recommend how development assis-tance and national government expenditures can adapt to the evolving role of agriculture.

2 Emerging Role of Agriculture for Development

Agriculture is bound to remain a key sector for growth and poverty reduction in the foreseeable future. The sector employs 65 percent of the la-bor force in developing countries. It is a source of livelihood for an estimated 86 percent of the developing world’s 3 billion rural people and is often the main economic activity of the ma-jority of the poor (World Bank 2007). Three of every four poor people in developing countries continue to live in rural areas. In addition to the well known roles of agriculture for development such as securing food supply, creating farm and non-farm employment opportunities, and pover-ty reduction, fresh evidence suggests the emerg-ing roles of agriculture in linking to nutrition and health, and strengthening resilience to conflicts and climate change.

Agricultural growth is good for improving nutrition and health and these positive effects should be further strengthened by complemen-tary health and nutrition interventions (Ecker et al. 2011). Joint agriculture and nutrition inter-ventions such as micronutrient supplementation and fortification programs have high economic returns; the benefit-cost ratios range between five and far above 100 overall (Behrman et al. 2006). Public investments in specific crop breeding tech-nologies such as bio-fortification – a technology that can increase the bio-available micronutrient

content in staples – and drought-, flood-, or pest-resistant crop breeding have high potential to sub-stantially reduce hunger and malnutrition.

Agriculture, rural development, and food security, more broadly, may also play an impor-tant role in preventing and increasing resilience to conflicts. Several of the most commonly cited reasons for why conflicts arise are directly or in-directly related to agricultural development such as poverty, underemployment of young men (Col-lier, Hoeffler 1998), and inequalities in land, wa-ter, and natural resources (Collier et al. 2003). The recent uprisings in the Arab region are examples of how food insecurity and high unemployment, among other things, can spark social unrest and civil war (Breisinger et al. 2011). In addition, the agricultural sector seems to be disproportionally affected by conflicts and faces important difficul-ties in recovering from such disruptive events. While the nature of conflicts varies, many longer lasting civil wars take place in rural areas, and lead to the destruction of agricultural assets and infrastructure (Deininger, Castagnini 2006). Fi-nally, the export-oriented agricultural sector often suffers heavily from warfare as the sector tends to be overtaxed in conflict times (Collier 2009).

Climate change will have fundamental im-pacts on agriculture and food security through higher and more variable temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and increased occur-rences of extreme events such as droughts and floods. In 2050, for example, global production of wheat and rice is projected to be 27 and 14 percent lower than in 2000 due to climate change (Nelson et al. 2009). Moreover, global food prices and child malnutrition across all regions are projected to be higher in 2050 due to climate change. Many developing countries will be hit hardest and will likely face bigger declines in crop yields and production than industrialized countries. The negative effects of climate change will be especially pronounced in the Middle East, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. It is important to invest in climate change adaptation and mitigation, using the full potential of agri-culture. In the area of adaptation, interventions include investments in improved land manage-ment, the adjustment of planting dates, and the introduction of new crop varieties, while in the

SCHWERPUNKT


area of miti gation, they include improved energy efficiency and crop yields, and land management techniques to increase carbon storage. The costs of agricultural adaptation and the barriers to miti-gation are high, but IFPRI’s climate change re-search consistently shows that the right mix of investments and policies that emphasize both adaptation and mitigation would pay off enor-mously by helping subsistence and smallholder farmer’s improve their livelihoods – even in the face of climate change. At least US$7 billion additional investments in agriculture would be needed per year in order to improve agricultural productivity and prevent the adverse effects of climate change on children’s malnourishment alone (Nelson et al. 2009).

3 Trends in Development Assistance and Public Expenditure

Until recently, agriculture has been characterized by underinvestment, both in terms of ODA and public expenditures. A number of reasons have been suggested as contributing to the past decline in agriculture ODA, including (Dresrüsse 1995): i) changing paradigms of development assis-tance; ii) falling international commodity prices which made agriculture less profitable; iii) grow-

ing competition for development assistance; and iv) economic recession and tight public budgets. The type and degree of changes in the level of development assistance to agriculture as well as the effectiveness of agricultural assistance re-main topics of much debate (DFID 2004).

Renewed attention to the importance of ag-riculture, in addition to the persistent challenge of high global poverty and hunger, has led to a change in priorities and spurred increases in de-velopment assistance to agriculture in the last de-cade. ODA to agriculture, both in absolute terms and as a share of total ODA, is gradually picking up after years of significant decline (Figure 1). The level of ODA commitments2 to agriculture declined significantly, on average, from its peak of about $23 billion (2009 constant US$) in the mid-1980s to approximately $5 billion in the mid-2000s, before climbing back up to almost $10 billion in 2009. Similarly, the share of agri-culture in total ODA declined from 18 percent to 4 percent between the mid-1980s and mid-2000s, but grew to 6 percent in 2009.

Government expenditure on agriculture – as a proportion of total expenditure – has stagnat-ed or declined in many regions of the world due to massive underinvestment during the past de-

Fig. 1: Official development assistance to agriculture

Note: Agriculture refers to agriculture, forestry, and fishing. ODA to agriculture refers to official bilateral commitments or gross disbursements to developing countries.

Source: OECD 2011

SCHWERPUNKT


cades (Table 1). Structural adjustment programs induced national budget cuts and had a negative impact on agricultural spending across all regions (Fan et al. 2008). Similar to the latest trends in development assistance, new attention to agricul-ture has stimulated increased public investment in recent years, but the lack of up-to-date data deters a more complete assessment of trends. Nonethe-less, evidence shows that the absolute levels of public agricultural expenditure in most regions have increased significantly since 2000 (IFPRI 2010). With the exception of the Middle East and North Africa region, where public agricultural spending grew by only 2 percent per annum from 2000 to 2007, annual growth in spending in all other regions ranged from 7 to 9 percent in the same period. However, in terms of agricultural spending as a share of total government spending, all regions have seen declines since 1980.

Agricultural expenditure as a share of agri-cultural gross domestic product (GDP) is an even more appropriate measure of a government’s support for agriculture, as it measures public ag-ricultural expenditure relative to the size and im-portance of the sector. Government expenditure on agriculture as a share of agricultural GDP in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa – the regions with the largest number of undernourished peo-ple in the world – continues to lag behind that of other regions (Table 1). In Sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, agricultural expenditure is only 3.3

Table 1: Public expenditure on agriculture

1980 1990 2000 2007% of total expenditure

East Asia and the Pacific 10.0 8.8 6.4 6.1Europe and Central Asia - - 3.0 2.8Latin America and the Caribbean 5.4 2.2 2.7 3.1Middle East and North Africa 3.9 4.0 3.7 2.7South Asia 6.6 6.9 4.8 4.9Sub-Saharan Africa 5.6 5.8 4.3 5.3

% of agricultural GDPEast Asia and the Pacific 9.1 7.6 8.8 11.6Europe and Central Asia - - 8.8 14.4Latin America and the Caribbean 14.9 6.7 10.1 13.1Middle East and North Africa 10.4 6.3 7.5 7.5South Asia 2.8 4.5 3.6 4.4Sub-Saharan Africa 3.9 2.5 2.4 3.3

Note: All countries are classified using the World Bank’s regional classification.

Source: IFPRI 2010

percent of agricultural GDP, about one third of agriculture’s share in East Asia and the Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Recognizing the important role of agriculture for development, governments in Africa adopted the promising Africa-owned and Africa-led devel-opment initiative “Comprehensive Africa Agricul-ture Development Programme” (CAADP). African governments pledged to increase public agricul-tural investments by at least 10 percent of national budgets within five years in order to raise agricul-tural output by a minimum of six percent annually (AU 2003). 25 countries have already signed their CAADP compacts (Benin et al. 2010), which align national agricultural sector policies, strategies, and investment programs with CAADP principles, pil-lars, and targets. But only a few countries have met the 10 percent budget allocation target.

Low investments in agricultural research and development (R&D) over the past several de-cades have contributed to stagnating crop yields in many regions around the world, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, many countries have lost important knowledge and capacities in national agricultural research institutes (Beinte-ma, Stads 2011). Evidence on the impact of pub-lic agricultural resource allocation across specific functions, such as R&D, rural infrastructure, and extension, can help governments to target scarce public resources better and set future investment priorities (Fan et al. 2008).

SCHWERPUNKT


4 Repositioning Agriculture for Achieving Development Goals

The era of cheap food may be over and global challenges are emerging. Population growth, in-creasing food demand induced by higher incomes, changes in the quality, diversity, and composition of the food demanded, alongside land and envi-ronmental degradation will put extra demands on global food and agricultural systems. Expanding biofuel production and climate change are also expected to add pressure and drive up food pric-es. Given the complexity of global development challenges, a comprehensive approach is crucial, one that includes smart policies and investments to promote sustainable agricultural growth and food security. This approach needs to exploit the positive impact of agricultural investments on a broad spectrum of development challenges and outcomes, including good nutrition and health, sustainable use of natural resources, and stronger resilience to climate change (Fan et al. 2011).

4.1 Setting the Right Priorities for Public Investments in Agriculture

Maximizing the role of agriculture to shape de-velopment outcomes and overcome global chal-lenges depends heavily on improved targeting of investments. Public investments have high op-portunity costs, that is, public resources are gen-erally scarce and there is strong competition for the use of these resources – so national govern-ments must use their resources more efficiently. Reliable information on the marginal effects of various types of public expenditures is crucial for governments to be able to make sound investment decisions. IFPRI case studies offer some impor-tant lessons discussed below (Fan et al. 2009a).

Agricultural research, education, and rural infrastructure are the three most effective types of public spending for promoting agricultural growth and reducing poverty. Limited evidence from Chi-na and Uganda indicates that it is often the low-cost types of infrastructure, such as rural feeder roads, that have highest payoffs in terms of growth and poverty reduction per unit of investment. Re-gional analysis conducted in China, India, Thai-land, and Vietnam suggests that more investments in many less-developed areas not only offer the

largest poverty reduction impact per unit of spend-ing, but also lead to the highest economic returns. In Africa, however, such regional trends are not as prevalent, with most regions having comparably high returns in terms of poverty reduction regard-less of development status. This implies an overall underinvestment of public resources in Africa.

The case studies also indicate that different spending priorities are needed during different stages of development; “one-size-fits-all” strate-gies do not work. During the first phase, strate-gies should focus on reducing widespread poverty and malnutrition through broad-based economic growth that reaches rural areas. In subsequent phases, more direct attention should be focused on lagging sectors and regions, as well as on poverty and malnutrition at the community and household levels, in order to reduce the poverty and income inequalities that arise and persist despite reform. Most Sub-Saharan African countries are still in the first phase of development. In these countries, gov-ernments have the central responsibility to forge a well-sequenced and coherent growth strategy and determine what public investments are required. Public investments in infrastructure and agricul-ture need special attention. Countries such as Chi-na, India, Vietnam, and Thailand have successfully completed the first phase of poverty reduction and now need to begin to address regional inequities and poverty and nutrition issues at the household level. China has traditionally favored a sectoral and regional targeting approach (such as employ-ment programs) to deal with rising inequalities, but has recently expanded to more household- and community-targeted programs. India, in contrast, has concentrated on targeting specific sections of the population and has also recently expanded employment programs. India’s experience shows that the use of a variety of targeted programs that are directed towards specific sections of the poor – including children, women, or the elderly – can help improve targeting compared with the broader income- or area-based approaches.

Given the potential of agricultural investments to advance broad development goals and overcome development challenges, it is vital that the chosen investments maximize this multi-dimensional and dynamic impact of agricultural development ef-forts. For example, agricultural investments should

SCHWERPUNKT


focus on developing and increasing the productiv-ity of more nutritious varieties of the staple food crops that are frequently consumed by poor. Along the same lines, special attention should also be given to improving yields, developing crops with more resistance to natural resource degradation and scarcity, and raising the efficiency of land and water use for food production. In terms of climate change, “win-win-win” agricultural strategies and investments are needed that provide benefits for climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as agricultural productivity. The key is therefore not only to increase investments in agricultural de-velopment but to prioritize investments and find the appropriate mix that has the largest impact across a broad range of development outcomes. Given the potential of agriculture to affect a broad spectrum of development outcomes – ranging from nutrition and health to climate change and conflicts – it is crucial that mechanisms are established to create a cross-cutting dialogue across sectors.

4.2 From Commitments to Implementation

Acknowledging the critical role to be played by agriculture in overcoming development challeng-es is not enough; it needs to be followed by the implementation of commitments and the timely disbursement of the pledged resources within a framework of strong institutions and governance. Decision-makers at all levels have made substan-tial financial commitments to enhance food secu-rity, especially through agriculture, but they have often failed to meet those commitments. In 2005, global donors made commitments to increase development assistance substantially at the Gle-neagles Group of Eight and the Millennium+5 summits. However, the latest projections show a shortfall of US$18 billion in 2010, which will mainly affect Africa (OECD 2010).

The G-8 countries in their L’Aquila Joint Statement on Global Food Security in 2009 com-mitted US$22 billion within 3 years for improv-ing global food security. As a follow-up to these pledges, a new multidonor trust fund – the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program – was launched in April 2010 with the aim of making commitments operational as quickly as possible. Another new scheme is the United States govern-

ment’s global hunger and food security initiative “Feed the Future”. This initiative, which builds on the “Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action”, aims to renew the US commitment to invest in sustainably reduc-ing hunger and poverty (US government 2010). However, to date, there is a large gap between the commitments and actual disbursement – only 22 percent of the pledges made have been disbursed (The French Presidency of the G8 2011).

Commitments of resources to agriculture and their timely implementation can lead to effec-tive policies and positive development outcomes if supported by strong institutions and gover-nance at the global, regional, and national levels. Timely and transparent monitoring of implemen-tation adds accountability to the moral obliga-tion of governments and donors to follow up on promises made. The recently developed “Region-al Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems” (ReSAKSS), a collaboration between the “Consultative Group on International Agri-cultural Research” (CGIAR) and leading regional economic communities in Africa, is perform-ing this accountability function for the CAADP targets. At the global level, the “United Nations High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Se-curity Crisis” helps international organizations to support national governments in combating food insecurity. The task force has coordinated donor efforts in more than 60 countries, with intensified coordination in 33 (United Nations 2009).

4.3 The Growing Role of New Players

Given the increasing complexity and challenges facing the agricultural sector and overall devel-opment efforts, new actors – including the pri-vate sector and emerging economy donors – have the potential to strengthen agriculture’s roles in tackling these challenges while also promoting development and food security. But the opportu-nities presented by these new actors have not yet been fully harnessed.

The private sector can – given the right in-centives – provide effective and sustainable invest-ments and innovation to boost agricultural produc-tivity and enhance food security. Past initiatives from the private sector have included the develop-

SCHWERPUNKT


ment of more affordable and nutritious products to reduce hunger, and public-private partnerships to better integrate smallholders into high-value mar-kets. In order for the private sector to maximize the development impact of agricultural development, governments in developing countries need to pro-vide an enabling and business-friendly environ-ment that helps companies advance their core ac-tivities while promoting agricultural development and food security. Due to the diversity of private initiatives and the environment in which they are implemented, there is no “one-size-fits-all” solu-tion on how to better engage the private sector and both public- and private-sector perceptions need to change. National governments should develop their own strategies for collaboration with the private sector and factor in private enterprises in the design of development strategies. The private sector should also be engaged in international dia-logues for advancing agricultural development and food security. Public and private actors need to in-vest in the sound monitoring and evaluation of the impact of private initiatives on the poor and the en-vironment. The role of public-private partnerships in agricultural research, including with CGIAR centers, will be crucial.

Emerging economy donors are not only play-ing an increasing role in providing development assistance but can maximize the increasing poten-tial of agriculture to have a positive impact on a broad set of development outcomes and to over-come the challenges facing development. 10 coun-tries that are not members of the OECD Develop-ment Assistance Committee – Brazil, China, India, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Venezu-ela – each provide more than US$100 million of development aid a year (ECOSOC 2008). Incorpo-rating emerging donors is not just driven by a need for more resources. In fact, most of the develop-ment assistance goes beyond traditional aid and is better described as part of mutually beneficial eco-nomic and political partnerships. This assistance is closely linked with trade promotion, investment, and provision of technical assistance, including for agriculture. Many of the emerging countries have recently or are currently dealing with similar chal-lenges to development and food security, and thus have a wealth of relevant knowledge that can ben-

efit other developing countries. It is important that South-South cooperation is seen as a complement to, and not a substitute for, relations between de-veloping countries and “more established” donor partners (Fan, Brzeska 2010). The objective is not to absorb aid from emerging countries into exist-ing aid mechanisms, but to improve coordination between emerging economies and other donors.

5 Conclusion

Rising food prices threaten global food security and years of progress in poverty reduction, sug-gesting a radical rethinking of the role of agricul-ture. Agriculture’s potential to shape development outcomes beyond economic growth and poverty reduction is evident. Based on the findings of this paper and evidence from the literature it is clear that fully exploiting this potential will require a better understanding of how agriculture interlinks with nutrition, health, new businesses opportuni-ties, conflicts, land and environmental degrada-tion, and climate change. Important tasks include learning more about how different patterns of ag-ricultural growth affect nutrition and health. How private sector-led development of global and local food supply chains can best serve the poor and hun-gry? How and through which channels conflicts affect agriculture and how rural development, es-pecially agricultural interventions, contributes to mitigating risks and improving resilience of poor households and communities? How and through which channels climate change continues to inter-act with agriculture? How agriculture can be made environmentally friendly and bring land degrada-tion under control? Finding answers to these ques-tions is likely to make agricultural development and investments even more effective for improv-ing the lives of the poor people and the productive capacity of their agro-ecosystems.

Exploiting the increasingly broad impact of agriculture on development outcomes and agri-culture’s potential to address emerging challenges has significant implications for future agricultural investments (ODA and national public expendi-tures). The role of new players in financing ag-riculture for development must be strengthened, and donors must change their way of doing busi-ness to reflect and support the emerging role of

SCHWERPUNKT


agriculture more effectively. Improved coordina-tion, for example, between traditional donors and emerging economy donors will be important. Na-tional governments, particularly in Africa, need to scale up their expenditure on agriculture and rural development and improve the efficiency of resource allocation. To more effectively and ef-ficiently tackle complex development challenges, international partners and national governments must improve cross-sector collaboration. Work-ing together, public and private actors can fully exploit agriculture’s huge potential for reducing poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition and a host of other development challenges on a large scale.

Notes

1) Shenggen Fan is the corresponding author of this essay. He is Director General of the International Food Policy Research Institute (Washington, DC). Coauthor Clemens Breisinger is research fellow at the same institute.

2) The ODA data on commitments focuses on flows from Development Assistance Committee member countries and the European Union Institutions, but also includes flows from only some multilateral agen-cies since reporting by multilaterals is voluntary to the Development Assistance Committee secretariat.

References

AU – African Union, 2003: Declarations. Assembly of the African Union Second Ordinary Session. Maputo, July 10–12Behrman, J.R.; Alderman, H.; Hoddinott, J., 2006: Malnutrition and hunger. In: Lomborg, B. (ed.): Glob-al crisis, global solutions. Cambridge, pp. 234–256Beintema, N.; Stads, G-J., 2011: African agricultural R&D in the new millennium: Progress for Some, chal-lenges for many. Food Policy Report. Washington, DCBenin, S.; Kennedy, A.; Lambert, M. et al., 2010: Moni-toring African agricultural development processes and performance: A comparative analysis. ReSAKSS an-nual trends and outlook report 2010. Washington, DCBreisinger, C.; Ecker, O.; Al-Riffai, P., 2011: Eco-nomics of the Arab Awakening: From Revolution to Transformation and Food Security. In: IFPRI Policy Brief 18 (2011). Washington, DCCollier, P.; Hoeffler, A., 1998: On the economic causes of conflict. In: Oxford Economic Papers 50 (1989), pp. 563–573

Collier, P.; Elliot, V.L.; Hegre, H. et al., 2003: Break-ing the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy. Washington, DCCollier, P., 2009: Post-conflict Recovery: How should strategies be distinctive? In: Journal of African Econ-omies 18 (2009), pp. 99 –131Deininger, K.; Castagnini, R., 2006: Incidence and im-pact of land conflict in Uganda. In: Journal of Econom-ic Behavior and Organization 60/3 (2006), pp. 321–345Diao, X.; Hazell, P.; Resnick, D. et al., 2007: The role of agriculture in development: Implications for Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Research Report 153 (2007). Washington, DCDFID – Department for International Development, 2004: Official development assistance to Agriculture. Working paper 9 (2004). LondonDresrüsse, G., 1995: Declining assistance to devel-oping-country agriculture: Change of paradigm? In: 2020 Brief 16 (1995). Washington, DCEcker, O.; Breisinger, C.; Pauw, K., 2011: Growth is good but is not enough for improving nutrition. In: 2020 Conference Paper 7. Washington, DCECOSOC – Economic and Social Council ECOSOC of the United Nations, 2008: Background study for the De-velopment Cooperation Forum: Trends in South-South and triangular development cooperation. New YorkFan, S.; Yu, B.; Saurkar, A., 2008: Public spending in developing countries: Trends, composition, and im-pact. In: Fan, S. (ed.): Public expenditures, growth and poverty: Lessons from developing countries. BaltimoreFan, S.; Brzeska J.; Shields, G., 2009a: Investment priorities for economic growth and poverty reduction. In: von Braun, J.; Vargas Hill, R.; Pandya-Lorch, R. (eds.): The poorest and hungry: Assessments, Analy-ses, and Actions. Washington, DCFan, S.; Mogues, T.; Benin, S., 2009b: Setting pri-orities for public spending for agricultural and rural development in Africa. In: IFPRI Policy Brief 01 (2009). Washington, DCFan, S.; Brzeska, J., 2010: The role of emerging coun-tries in global food security. In: IFPRI Policy Brief 15 (2010). Washington, DCFan, S.; Torero, M.; Headey, D., 2011: Urgent actions needed to prevent recurring food crises. In: IFPRI Policy Brief 16 (2011). Washington, DCIFPRI – International Food Policy Research Institute, 2010: Statistics of Public Expenditure for Economic Development database. Washington, DCNelson, G.C.; Rosegrant, M.W.; Koo, J. et al., 2009: Climate change: Impact on agriculture and costs of

SCHWERPUNKT


adaptation. In: IFPRI Food Policy Report (2009). Washington, DCOECD – Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2010: Development aid rose in 2009 and most donors will meet 2010 aid targets. Press release, April 14, ParisOECD – Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2011: Development Assistance Committee online database - Official bilateral commitments by sector; http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=TABLE5 (download 22.6.11)The French Presidency of the G8, 2011: Deauville Ac-countability Report – G8 Commitments on Health and Food Security: State of Delivery and Results. ParisUnited Nations, 2009: High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis: Progress Report April 2008 – October 2009. Rome, Geneva, and New YorkUS (United States) government, 2010: Feed the Fu-ture guide: A summary. Washington, DCWorld Bank, 2007: World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for development. Washington, DC

Contact

Dr. Shenggen FanDirector GeneralPhone: 1 - 2 02 - 8 62 - 64 96Email: [email protected]

Clemens BreisingerResearch Fellow

International Food Policy Research Institute2033 K Street, NWWashington, DC 20006, USA

« »

Detrimental Land Grabbing or Growth Poles?Determinants and Potential Develop-ment Effects of Foreign Direct Land Investments

by Michael Brüntrup, German Development Institute, Bonn

Large-scale Land Acquisition has become a source of concern in the last few years. The article argues that they will also remain an important issue for food security in the future since there are several forces driving up the interests for these kinds of investments. The stakes for poor countries are high: many ad-vantages such as access to specific markets, technology, management, capital, and fi-nance which can create a considerable num-ber of jobs and a push for local development are opposed by important threats for local po-pulations but also for the environment. Early assessments point to predominantly critical situations. Given these trends, Large-scale Land Acquisition should not be left to market forces alone. National governments, regio-nal bodies, and the international community have a responsibility to protect the interests of the poor and shape large-scale land acqui-sitions in a development-friendly way.

1 Relevance, Location, and Shape of Foreign Land Acquisitions

Large-scale Land Acquisition (LSLA), i.e., land acquisition or long term lease of, say, more than 100 up to several million ha – or “land grabbing” for those who pronounce the negative aspect of these investments – have become a source of con-cern and international discussion in the last few years. Some observers, including the head of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), talk of “neo-colonialism” (Borger 2008; Robertson, Pinstrup-Anderson 2010). This, however, only touches the foreign investors (mainly from Chi-na, states of the Middle East and North Africa, Russia, the UK, and the US), while in reality most of the land acquisitions are carried out by national investors even in countries where one would not expect much local capital, and thus remain below the radar screen of international attention. For in-

SCHWERPUNKT


stance, out of six low-income countries with more detailed information on LSLA (for problems of data see footnote 2), only Liberia had a domi-nant share of foreign investors, while in Ethio-pia and Mozambique they were about 50 % and in Cambodia, Sudan, and Nigeria only 3–30 % (Deininger, Byerlee 2011, p. xiv). Also detailed work from West Africa supports the finding that national investors are dominating LSLA (Hilhorst et al. 2011). This article does not make an explicit distinction between foreign and national LSLA except for instances where this is deemed neces-sary (foreign relations, trade). It is very possible that both are stronger interlinked than is visible, if national investors act as straw men, particularly if laws restrict the purchase of land by foreigners, or if they speculate on selling the land later.

After many years in which agriculture was mainly seen as a sector with falling prices, se-veral factors contributed to the current return of interest in agriculture in general and LSLA in particular. It is important to understand the moti-vations for LSLA and put them in the wider con-text of the rekindling of interest in agriculture (or even wider, the biomass sector) in order to understand the opportunities, threats, and regula-tory options of this phenomenon.

1. The boom of mainly government-induced bio-fuel policies in several countries, in particular in the EU, the US and Brazil, created a first push for LSLA. Since the early 2000s, biofu-els were seriously promoted for substituting fossil fuels and thereby reducing green house gas emissions. Blending mandates, flex-fuel cars, improved technologies, and guaranteed markets created substantial demand for bio-fuels, particularly since 2005 (GBEP 2008; IEA 2010). Several developing countries such as Thailand, South Africa, Mexico, and India followed the richer countries in implementing biofuel policies (ibid). Though these policies were mostly “co-aiming” at supporting local producers and were therefore often coupled with protectionist measures, some investors saw the chance in certain countries to produ-ce for export and started LSLA, often in Least Developed Countries (Mitchell 2011).

2. Rising world food market prices since about 20051, culminating in the food price crises of

2007/2008 and 2010/2011, gave a substantial push to the LSLA for several reasons. While until about 2007 the positive price trend was only seen as temporary (OECD, FAO 2006), it is nowadays widely expected that prices will rise substantially at least in the medium future (OECD, FAO 2011). This acknowledges that food and biomass demand, driven by increa-sing population and incomes, changing food habits and locally shrinking land availability, will outpace productivity increases and culti-vation of existing land reserves. Most obvious-ly, higher agricultural prices increase returns on investment in land acquisition and food pro-duction. In addition, many importing countries fear that availability of food on world markets could become a problem, propelled by expe-riences during the food price crises when ma-jor exporters closed down or hindered exports. Investors from these countries, either national organisations such as wealth funds, and – more importantly – private investors, are amongst the most active in LSLA (Cotula et al. 2009; Deininger, Byerlee 2011).

3. Already before the financial and economic crisis of 2008/2009, and ever since, financial markets have become more volatile and risky, leading in-vestors to seek for alternative investments, pos-sibly long-term, stable, and countercyclical. Ag-riculture and land seem to offer such investment opportunities under the described forecasts.

4. With rising oil price, biomass increasingly beco-mes an interesting feedstock for the petrochemi-cal industry. Technological progress in biotech-nology will allow improvements in production, processing, design, and cascading use of bio-based materials. Investors interested in LSLA may also speculate on this emerging trend.

5. The sale of certificates for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation by planting and protecting forest also started to at-tract investors and was labelled as potentially “the biggest land grab of all time” (Mukerjee 2009; compare Deininger, Byerlee 2011).

6. Speculation, given the grounded expectation of rising value of land in the future due to the above mentioned trends, is certainly also a strong driver for LSLA.

SCHWERPUNKT


Thus, LSLA is only one part of an increasing engagement in the entire biomass sector which is expected to boom. This expectation is shared by researchers of different professions, govern-ments, investors, and analysts. However, while large-scale investments in backward and forward segments of agricultural supply chains are well known for providing economies of scale in mar-ket access and cost advantages, agricultural pro-duction at a large scale is not straightforward the best way to invest: economies of scale and better management compete with transaction and su-pervision costs and higher flexibility of smaller, typically family farms (Berry, Cline 1979). Thus, historically LSLA was confined to areas where, by nature or by force, large tracts of land were free or with low cost to obtain, and where low la-bour needs (e.g. extensive livestock), very cheap labour (e.g. slaves or forced labour, isolated are-as) or decisive progresses in mechanisation (e.g. grains and oilseeds) were favouring large-scale agriculture (Binswanger et al. 1995).

Apart from the mentioned new economic incentives for LSLA for specific outputs, some

other factors contribute to their growing attrac-tiveness. New technologies reduce some of the traditional disadvantages of large production units. Higher standards and documentation re-quirements promote vertical integration and gro-wing concentration of agricultural supply chains (Stephenson 1997), making the integration of production into larger units more attractive vis-à-vis a cumbersome, unreliable, and risky organi-sation of procurement from smallholders. Finally neglect of smallholders and their organisations as well as of support systems for agriculture in the last decades have also contributed to lowering their performance to organise the products that are in demand (Robertson, Pinstrup-Anderson 2010; FAO 2009a; FAO 2009b).

Of all LSLA between 2001 and 2011, which are estimated to be around 80 million hectares, up to 60 % are to be found in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (The International Land Coalition 2011, cited in The Economist 2011). Other sources re-port a slightly less, but still dominant concentrati-on in SSA (see Figure 1).2 This is somewhat high-er than the overall estimation of the share of SSA

Figure 1: Frequency distribution of projects and total land area by destination region and commodity group

Source: Fischer, Shah 2010, cited in Deininger, Byerlee 2011, p. 52

SCHWERPUNKT


in potentially available land for agriculture (45 % of 446 million ha, Fisher and Shah 2010 cited in Deininger, Byerlee 2011, p. 34).3 The countries that attract most investors are Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ghana, and Mozambique, but also a wide range of other countries are concerned. In a formal analysis of factors affecting the proba-bility that a country is targeted by foreign LSLA, Deininger, Byerlee (2011) found that the most significant variable was rural land rights recog-nition, which was negatively correlated to invest-ment announcements and implementation, while the investment protection rank was less or not significant. This is particularly worrisome since it makes it more likely that the rural population with its various existing rights may be negatively affected by these investments (see next chapter).

2 Opportunities and Threats of LSLA for Rural Development

While the previous section asked what motivates investors to invest in LSLA, this section reviews the consequences for the receiving countries and particularly for the affected rural areas. It starts with the opportunities, reminding that investors usually do not act against the will of the host country, but by – often outspoken – invitation. Many countries have tried for decades, and are still trying, to attract foreign investors into ru-ral regions, and offer special incentives such as preferential tax, import and export and financial transfer regimes for reasons listed below (Cotula et al. 2009; Deininger, Byerlee 2011).

Of course, not all opportunities are equally important for all actors, and often it is only a frac-tion of the stakeholders – typically national and/or local elites and some government agencies – which really interact with investors. One of the most intriguing observations on the new wave of LSAL is the fact that hardly any details of con-tracts are publicly known, and in known contracts promised effects, rights, and obligations are only vaguely spelled out (Cotula 2010). Older LSLA, though created in very different contexts, that have survived the stormy economic and political times which prevailed in many of the concerned coun-tries, often exhibit at least some of the mentioned positive effects (but of course also the problems).4

• Access to and favourable conditions for capi-tal/credit: Capital and credit are notoriously lacking in rural areas of developing countries but are necessary in many forms in agricul-tural production, from seasonal to long-term. FAO (2009b) has estimated the requirements in annual agricultural investment at 89–209 billion US$. Agricultural credit in particular is difficult to organise in comparison to other sec-tors, due to high production and market risks and long periods to recover the capital. Large investors have access to national and internati-onal capital markets. Particularly international capital markets have the appropriate long-term loans that are necessary to establish agricultu-ral production capacities. In investments invol-ving contract farming, many investors channel part of this capital to small and medium far-mers in return for a right on the produce. These contract schemes are eased if the investor has a local monopsony or offers higher prices be-cause of better marketing options (Eaton, She-pherd 2001; Brüntrup, Peltzer 2007).

• Access to markets. As explained above from the point of view of the investors, some mar-kets tend to be better adapted to larger and in-tegrated value chains. These include products which are easily degradable and where logis-tics must be very tight to reduce losses and keep quality (e.g. sugarcane, flowers, fruits, and ve-getables). These logistics are typically rare in poor countries, and without a large integrated investor such markets are lost for smallholders in the worldwide competition for production sites. Most public and private standards re-quire additional, often fixed costs which stress smallholders’ notoriously scarce resources and increase unit costs in small-scale more than in large-scale production. Also products for niche markets which are difficult to organise on an anonymous market do not favour smallhol-ders. Even in industrialised countries market access is an important argument for vertical integration (Eaton, Shepherd 2001), though in these countries integration typically stops at long-term contract farming. In poor countries, however, complete vertical integration inclu-ding production is favoured by the perception (and often experience) that smallholders are

SCHWERPUNKT


unable or unreliable to stick to contracts and to produce the right quantities at the right time. Thus, these sub-sectors tend to be feasible in poor countries mainly under large-scale pro-duction, and thus draw in LSLA.

• Investments in local infrastructure: Generally, poor countries possess less infrastructure im-portant for agricultural production such as dams and irrigation canals, roads, cooling chains, electricity, and port facilities, while in richer countries these facilities are taken for granted and are provided by the public (FAO 2009b). Particularly for linking remote areas to markets, such investments are necessary to boost agriculture but difficult to finance and maintain by governments of poor countries and impossible to finance by smallholders. Large-scale agricultural investors often can and must build (part of) such infrastructure, up to entire port terminals. Some of the in-vestments are public or club goods, providing additional advantages for an entire area or for a group of actors outside the investment, for instance contract farmers.

• Access to and development of knowledge, technologies, and management: In contrast to perception, agriculture – both traditional and modern – is intensive in knowledge, techno-logies, and management. While in advanced countries agricultural technology such as im-proved varieties, adapted machinery or inputs is readily available on the market, this is often not the case in poor countries. Large investors are able to access international standard tech-nologies and adapt them to their own needs, even develop their own technologies at least to a certain degree. Particularly international investors are able to transfer knowledge from one country to another.

• Better soil fertility management: Although there are important environmental concerns about large-scale agriculture (see below), one positive aspect is that they are able to provide crops and soils with sufficient plant nutrients, particularly phosphorus and potassium which are often scarce in many tropical soils and dif-ficult to restitute fully by organic means only.

• Formal, often relatively well-paid and secured jobs: Large-scale agriculture can pay higher

and more secure salaries than the informal sec-tor in rural areas. These salaries may, however, not be competitive with an entire farm income (an argument found e.g. in Deiniger, Byerlee 2011) which is subject to strong variations and usually the result of an entire farm household, not an individual person. In many cases, farm households do (no longer) rely on farm income alone (Ellis 2000). Thus formal jobs are highly appreciated in the rural areas. Therefore jobs are often the single most important reason for (development-oriented) elites to support LSLA. The number of jobs created depends very much on the crop and the technology cho-sen: Deininger, Byerlee (2011) indicate num-bers from 10 jobs per 1000 ha (grains) to 700 (sugarcane-ethanol with manual harvest).

• Indirect effects on rural and national econo-my: Indirect effects of LSLA are difficult to capture, they occur in the medium to long run due to structural changes in the (rural) econo-my. Positive effects must be expected to derive from increased spending capacities of workers for local goods and services and local supply response as well as strong backward and for-ward linkages in up- and downstream or sup-port sectors during operation (transport, se-curity, processing for local/regional markets, etc.). According to research on agricultural growth linkages, in poorer countries demand linkages will prevail, in more advanced coun-tries back- and forward linkages (Bresciani, Valdés 2007). Often, rural hubs are emerging in the vicinity of large estates, especially if they are employment-intensive, which satisfy further needs of the rural population.

• Taxes and levies: Though investors are exem-pted from taxes and levies for a certain period in many countries if they invest in rural are-as, they are finally expected to contribute to national and/or local government revenues. In the initial phases of investments this may not be visible, but for instance in Malawi the long established monopolist sugar company is one of the major tax payers in the count-ry (GOM 2006). Whether local communities benefit from LSLA depends on the fiscal set-ting – many communities do not have the right to charge local taxes. However, without such

SCHWERPUNKT


increased incomes, local communities may be financially squeezed because often LSLA means population influx and higher financial needs in the medium to long term for social infrastructure and services, while returns from central to local government may not honour these higher needs. In these cases in particu-lar, voluntary contributions from the investors (see next point) are extremely important.

• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) pro-jects: CSR activities such as public infrastruc-ture (schools, wells, clinics, feeder roads) are part of many LSLA deals. They can be directed to own employees or to the wider communities. In the latter case, they can create substantial be-nefits also to those people who do not directly benefit from labour contracts or products and create a positive political backing in the region.

• Agricultural production for internal markets: Although foreign investors usually envisage external markets, in many deals it is known that provisions are made to supply national markets, too. Often governments urge to con-sider national food security issues, in parti-cular for times of scarcity (Cotula 2010). Po-tentially, large producers could easily satisfy the usually relatively small formal markets, particularly if they substitute imports which – due to tariffs and transaction costs – have higher import parity prices. Although many poor countries have become net food impor-ters, these arrangements must be carefully ba-lanced in order to not push smallholders out of national markets to which they have better access than to international markets.

• Exports and balance of payments: Many poor, agriculture-based countries rely on agricul-ture for export earnings to import the many goods and services which are not produced in these small economies. Large investors, for reasons discussed above (standards, finance, volume, integration), are better positioned to access markets abroad, and to serve this ne-cessity. In contrast to investments in other sectors where imports can bear a substantial share of value addition, agriculture creates by nature a relatively large local value addition.

These potential opportunities are confronted with substantial risks of LSLA. Some of them have

already been introduced or are simply the inver-sion of the opportunities, but some are genuine:

• Base of existence of smallholder and rural livelihoods: The loss of land touches the very core of the existence of rural livelihoods in poor countries. Though it has been argued that many do not live on agriculture alone and are bound to leave the agricultural sector in the long-term, in the short- to medium-term most need or would strongly prefer to own land for subsistence and also market agriculture in or-der to attenuate risks from other incomes, in-cluding from salaries on large farms. The right to food in rural areas often still translates into having access to productive resources for ag-riculture.5 For many other households not di-rectly losing land, grazing or gathering rights as well as access to water may be at stake.

• Local food markets: With the diversion of large tracks of land to crops for export pro-duction (which many LSLAs aim at), the production for local food markets may suffer. Particularly in time of scarcity on national food markets, the export of food is morally inacceptable and politically suicidal.

• Cultural and religious values: Land in many traditional societies has an important non-economic value, particularly special sites such as graveyards, ceremonial forests, or landscapes (Chiesura, de Groot 2003).

• Unequal power and knowledge of negotiation partners: Farmers, rural inhabitants, traditio-nal authorities, local communities, and even national governments are badly prepared for negotiations with large-scale investors. These lands were never before or at least for deca-des not in high demand, which is one of the major reasons why in many areas there are no formalised land rights. Not only are local actors not able to assess the true value of the land, they also lack formal negotiation skills, procedures, and knowledge how to get a fair deal. Of course, this can also lead to exagge-rated expectations, but the very low prices re-ported for land sales and leases for very long periods insinuate that they lack awareness.

• Underrepresented groups: Particularly vulne-rable to be overlooked in land deals are users of natural resources attached to land such as

SCHWERPUNKT


women, livestock herders, or ethnic minori-ties (Rossi, Lambrou 2008; Cotula et al. 2009; Behrman et al. 2011). They are often discri-minated by traditional land regimes as well as modern land rights and registration processes.

• Lack of formal land rights, overlapping (land) property regimes: In many develo-ping countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, several types of formal and informal land rights coexist, with the latter neither officially recognised nor registered. Often national governments formally own all land which is not explicitly under formal private property. This claim may coincide with dele-gated ownership and decision rights to local governments or traditional bodies. In additi-on, traditional leaders and communities have their own traditions; sometimes several ethnic groups may have differing, even conflicting regimes when a region has been settled by various groups. Finally, religious rules may influence ownership, particularly with respect to inheritance of land and attached rights.

• Interference of governments and elites: If LSLA takes place in countries with low standards of respect to existing (often informal) land rights or in remote areas of countries with higher standards, corruption, neo-patrimonialistic atti-tudes, and politics can grossly affect land deals, often to the detriment of poorer and underrepre-sented parts of the population. In fact, elites are often actors in LSLA, as brokers or investors themselves. The news and case study reports are full of deals where elites – often violently – let clear land of their inhabitants for investors who may or may not be aware of this.6

• Proper compensation: Acknowledgement of land and user rights and their compensation in open negotiations is usually mentioned as an important condition for fair LSLA deals (FAO et al. 2010). However, this may not be enough if compensations do not create alternative, robust livelihoods. For instance, jobs and payments may not be stable enough to assure survival under adverse conditions, i.e. if the employ-er, if a business sector, or if food markets fail. These collapses are quite likely in poor coun-tries. In absence of social safety nets, in many cases only a compensation which includes a

minimum of land will provide enough security needed for assuring survival in times of crises.

• Environmental degradation: The environment is threatened by LSLA in several ways. Ex-cessive and unprofessional use of fertilisers and pesticides can pollute water bodies and deteriorate natural habitats. Clearing of large tracts of land and intensive tillage reduces na-tural biodiversity and opens up land to erosi-on. Investors have more radical means to clear the landscape than smallholders. In addition, the cultivation of one or a few crops on large tracks reduces agro-biodiversity and increase pest infestation, requiring higher pesticide use.

• Structural dependency: A serious economic threat of LSLA is the fact that entire regions can become dependent on one or a few inves-tors and, according to their investment decis-ions, on one or a few products. This is parti-cularly striking in case of bankruptcy which can leave degraded and destroyed ecological, economic, and/or social environments.

• Lack of spillovers: The absence of the above-mentioned technological and economic spill-overs and social investments might leave the wider communities around LSLA without real development and the large estates as enclaves.

• Local conflicts: Due to the important issues at stake described in the last paragraphs, local conflicts can easily break out around LSLA. In some cases and large projects, even natio-nal instability can result.7

Whether opportunities or threats prevail in any given case of LSLA and for the phenomenon as a whole depends on many factors. In fact, most present assessments of LSLAs are negative.8 The seriousness of the threats entails that LSLAs have the duty to inform about and prove their positi-ve effects and assure against failures. This task cannot be left to investors alone. Governments have a duty to support and protect the weaker and more vulnerable partners, the rural popula-tion and particularly the weaker parts of it. This does not mean that they should inhibit LSLAs, given their opportunities, but they have to care-fully assess them, establish rules for procedures and deals, and monitor and evaluate their results. The last section will discuss some means to do so.

SCHWERPUNKT


Unfortunately, governing elites are often not neutral to LSLA, they are profiting or even in-vestors themselves, which makes it much more difficult to design pro-poor LSLA policies. In-vestors and their banks must have an interest to assure fair LSLA deals and results since otherwi-se their LSLA will be at risk, and the entire ap-proach will be discredited, including the “good” investors. Likewise, the international communi-ty must be alerted since LSLAs have potentially far ranging consequences, in particular for so-cial peace. Entirely banning LSLA through in-ternational agreements (e.g. LVC, FIAN 2010), however, is not a good option. It would certainly (and does already) expel investors from industri-alised countries which are more or less responsi-ve to social and economic pressure in their home markets. In contrast, investors from developing countries are less responsive, more so if from undemocratic countries. More generally, the po-wer of sanctions of industrialised countries is va-nishing since South-South trade is increasingly dominating world agricultural markets.

3 Regulating and Guiding Large-scale Land Investments and their Impacts

Starting from the discussed opportunities and threats, it is relatively straightforward in many instances what has to be given and done to make LSLA development-friendly and pro-poor. In ge-neral, only such large-scale land uses will be eco-nomically feasible and potentially socially ac-ceptable which create substantially more profits than the sum of the profits of the existing small-holders and other users of the natural resources in question. Only in this case the necessary com-pensations can be borne.

To actually reach a fair benefit sharing, the principles on responsible agricultural invest-ments currently being developed by a coalition of international organisations is certainly a good starting point (FAO et al. 2010). They comprise seven areas:

1. Land and resource rights: Existing rights to land and natural resources are recognised and respected;

2. Food security: Investments do not jeopardise food security, but rather strengthen it;

3. Transparency, good governance, and the enab-ling environment: Processes for accessing land and making associated investments are trans-parent, monitored, and ensure accountability;

4. Consultation and participation: Those mate-rially affected are consulted and agreements from consultations are recorded and enforced;

5. Economic viability and responsible agro-enter-prise investing: Projects are economically viab-le , respect the rule of law, reflect industry best practice, and result in durable shared value;

6. Social sustainability: Investments generate desirable social and distributional impacts and do not increase vulnerability;

7. Environmental sustainability: Environmental impacts are quantified and measures taken to encourage sustainable resource use, while mi-nimising and mitigating their negative impacts.

A real challenge is that these areas need to be filled out in practise in the context of an often badly governed, non-transparent, interest-loaded, ris-ky, and uncertain environment, where local and national elites are often part of the problem rather than the solution. For that, measures in many po-licy areas have to interplay, such as agriculture, natural resources, land use and taxation, labour regulation, decentralisation, infrastructure, inter-national trade and investment agreements as well as individual investor contracts, food security, and rural development. Some of these measures can only be dealt with at the national level, others are local, many are of multi-level nature. Citi-zens, rural and national organisations, and pub-lic entities have to be well-informed. Optimally, regional economic communities would develop joint guidelines and set similar investment con-ditions in order to avoid a race to the bottom by competing for investors, but rather create better outcomes for receiving countries.

The principles do hardly touch on issues of fostering integration of LSLA into broader rural development strategies. As argued, additional ef-forts are needed to avoid negative impacts and create positive spillovers that not only create ad-ditional value added beyond the project but also assure deep-rooted growth and diversification ef-fects in the longer run. This concerns in particu-lar local and regional land-use planning, creation of economic, organisational, and institutional

SCHWERPUNKT


spillovers, (attempts of) creation of balanced sec-toral growth paths, etc. Some of the issues may be part of the conditionality for LSLA, but others go beyond the responsibility and capacity of in-vestors. These are public tasks, for which public entities together with the private sector and ci-vil society have to create ownership, using the impetus of LSLA as a starting point. Develop-ment cooperation can play an important role in facilitating this process and support those issues which fall outside the responsibility of the priva-te sector but exceed the capacities of the public.

Finally, it has to be emphasised that LSLA will most certainly remain a minor part of the global agricultural setup, appropriate for some ni-ches and some regions. There is no firm evidence that smallholders are necessarily less productive than large-scale producers, to the contrary they are often better (though at the detriment of labour efficiency which leads to low farm incomes), they are much more flexible, and there are often no good and secure alternatives for all smallhol-ders in a given region in any manageable lapse of time. Smallholder agriculture will continue to dominate agriculture in developing countries, at least in those where they dominate today. How-ever, smallholders must organise themselves to capture economies of scale, and it is certainly ne-cessary that not only factor productivity (include that of labour) and output but also the average size of smallholder farms have to increase if they are to provide acceptable working and living con-ditions. Support to smallholders cannot be sub-stituted by investor models, and well equipped, informed, and productive smallholders and their organisations are an important mechanism to avo-id that LSLA takes place that are against the fun-damental interests of rural populations.

Notes

1) Biofuel production was a (heavily debated) more or less important contributor to this trend (OECD, FAO 2011).

2) It has to be noted that quantitative indicators of the extent of LSLA are extremely unreliable. One rea-son is that the basis for counting is not clearly defi-ned. For instance, in the case of Tanzania more than 4 million ha are reported to have been requested by investors, but only 640,000 ha have been allocated

and only around 100,000 ha have been granted for-mal rights of occupancy (Sulle, Nielson 2009).

3) It is generally recognised that there is hardly any “free” land available worldwide though the term is widely used. Rather, land is under-exploited for agriculture. The mentioned number, for instance, is calculated by accounting for land in geographi-cal grid cells that is not cropped but has a reasona-ble yield potential, is not protected nor under forest and inhabited by less than 25 persons/km² (Fisher, Shah 2010 cited in Deininger, Byerlee 2011). Un-der these conditions, by traditional means only a fraction of the land can be used for cropping, the other being under long-term fallow and/or used for extensive livestock and wood gathering.

4) Compare von Braun, Kennedy 1994; Binswanger et al. 1995 and Mitchell 2011.

5) Compare FAO 2005, paragraph 8.6) See the webpage of the international NGO Grain,

http://www.grain.org/front/.7) See the frequently cited case of Madagascar where

a very large land deal of the central government with a Korean investor contributed to an overth-row (Makunike 2009).

8) See The Economist 2011, resuming a conference of the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, Brighton, with more than 100 case studies.

References

Behrmann, J.; Meinzen-Dick, R.; Quisumbing, A., 2011: The gender implications of large-scale land deals, Discussion Paper 01056, IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). Washington, DCBerry, R.A.; Cline, W.R., 1979: Agrarian Structure and Productivity in Developing Countries. BaltimoreBinswanger, H.P.; Deininger, K.; Feder, G., 1995: Power, Distortions, Revolt and Reform in Agricultu-ral Land Relations. In: Srinivasan, T.N.; Behrman, J. (eds.): Handbook of Development Economics, Vol. IIIb. North-HollandBorger, J., 2008: Rich countries launch great land grab to safeguard food supply, The Guardian, Novembe 22, 2008Braun, J. von; Kennedy, E. (eds.), 1994: Agricultural commercialization, development, and nutrition. Bal-timore, MDBresciani, F.; Valdés, A., 2007: Beyond food produc-tion: the role of agriculture in poverty reduction. RomeBrüntrup, M.; Peltzer, R., 2007: Outgrowers – a key to the development of rural areas in Sub-Saharan Af-rica and to poverty reduction. Report of the DEG/DIE Workshop, August 18, 2006. Bonn

SCHWERPUNKT


Chiesura, A.; de Groot, R.S., 2003: Critical natural capital: A sociocultural perspective. In: Ecological Economics 44/2–3 (2003), pp. 219–232Cotula, L., 2010: Investment contracts and sustainab-le development. IIED (International Institute for En-vironment and Development). LondonCotula, L.; Vermeulen, S.; Leonard, R. et al., 2009: Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investments and international land deals in Africa. IIED (International Institute for Environment and De-velopment). LondonDeininger, K.; Byerlee, D., 2011: Rising global inte-rest in farmland: can it yield sustainable and equitable benefits? Washington, DCEaton, C.; Shepherd, A.W., 2001: Contract farming, Partnerships for growth. FAO agricultural services bulletin 145. RomeEllis, F., 2000: Rural livelihoods and diversity in de-veloping countries. OxfordFAO – Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2005: Vo-luntary Guidelines to support the progressive realiza-tion of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security. RomeFAO – Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2009a: How to Feed the World in 2050. RomeFAO – Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2009b: For-eign direct investment – win-win or land grab. RomeFAO – Food and Agriculture Organisation; IFAD – Inter-national Fund for Agricultural Development; UNCTAD – United Nations Conference on Trade and Develop-ment; World Bank Group, 2010: Principles for Res-ponsible Agricultural Investment that Respects Rights, Livelihoods and Resources; http://siteresources.world-bank.org/INTARD/214574-1111138388661/22453321/Principles_Extended.pdf (download 20.6.11)GBEP – Global Bioenergy Partnership, 2008: A Re-view of the Current State of Bioenergy Development in G8+5 Countries. RomeGOM – Government of Malawi, 2006: Adaptation strategy for Malawian sugar industry in response to the reform of the European Union sugar regime. LilongweHilhorst, T.; Nelen, J.; Traoré, N., 2011: Agrarian change under the radar screen: Rising farmland ac-quisitions by domestic investors in West Africa. Re-sults from a survey in Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger. Paper presented at the International Conference on Global Land Grabbing, April 6–8, 2011. BrightonIEA – International Energy Agency, 2010: Technolo-gy Roadmap, Biofuels for Transport. ParisILC – International Land Coalition, 2011: Oakland Institute Special Investigation: Understanding Land

Investment Deals in Africa; http://www.commercial-pressuresonland.org/research-papers/oakland-institu-te-special-investigation-understanding-land-invest-ment-deals-africa (download 20.6.11)LVC – La Via Campesina; FIAN – FoodFirst In-formations- und Aktions-Netzwerk, 2010: LVC and FIAN ask governments to ban land grabbing; http://www.viacampesina.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=946:lvc-and-fian-ask-go-vernments-to-ban-land-grabbing&catid=23:agrarian-reform&Itemid=36 (download 20.6.11)Makunike, C., 2009: The lessons of Daewoo’s failed Madagascar land lease deal. In: African Agriculture, February 15 (2009); http://www.africanagricultureb-log.com/2009/02/lessons-of-daewoos-failed-mada-gascar.html (download 20.6.11)Mitchell, D., 2011: Biofuels in Africa. Opportunities, Prospects, and Challenges. Washington, DCMukerjee, M., 2009: Conflicted Conservation: When Restoration Efforts Are Pitted against Human Rights. In: Scientific American August 27 (2009)OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; FAO – Food and Agriculture Organisati-on, 2006: Agricultural outlook 2007-2016. Paris, RomeOECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; FAO – Food and Agriculture Organisati-on, 2011: Agricultural outlook 2011–2020. Paris, RomeRobertson, B.; Pinstrup-Andersen, P., 2010: Global land acquisition: neo-colonialism or development op-portunity? In: Food Security 2 (2010), pp. 271–283Rossi, A.; Lambrou, Y., 2008: Gender and equity issu-es in liquid biofuels production – minimizing the risks to maximize the opportunities. RomeStephenson, S.M., 1997: Standards and Conformity Assessment as Nontariff Barriers to Trade. Policy Research Working Paper No. 1826, The World Bank. Washington, DCSulle, E.; Nelson, F., 2009: Biofuels, land access and rural livelihoods in Tanzania. LondonThe Economist, 2011: Evidence against global land deals piling up. May 18, 2011

Contact

Dr. Michael BrüntrupGerman Development InstituteTulpenfeld 6, 53113 BonnPhone: +49 (0) 2 28 / 9 49 27 - 1 64Email: [email protected]

« »

SCHWERPUNKT


Production Systems for Sustainable IntensificationIntegrating Productivity with Ecosystem Services

Amir Kassam, Theodor Friedrich, Francis Shaxson, Timothy Reeves, Jules Pretty and João Carlos de Moraes Sá1

At present, the predominant form of agricul-ture is based on the interventionist approach, in which most aspects of the production sys-tem are controlled by technological interven-tions (such as soil tilling, curative pest and weed control with agrochemicals) and the application of synthetic mineral fertilisers for plant nutrition. However, there are now many production systems with a predominantly ecosystem approach, underpinned by healthy soils, and characterised as “Conservation Agriculture”, that are not only effective in producing food and other raw materials eco-nomically, but also more sustainable in terms of environmental impacts. Their further de-velopment and spread merit deeper support with the development of suitable policies, funding, research, technologies, knowledge-diffusion, and institutional arrangements.

1 Introduction

Sustainable production systems which use all appropriate best management practices should offer the best possible agricultural outputs from efficient factor productivities that also minimise risks and ensure ecological sustainability and resilience to underpin economic and social sus-tainability. They can provide the following major benefits to producers (benefits i and ii), at any scale and type of soil-based farming, and to soci-ety at large (benefits iii and iv):

i. Higher stable production, productivity, and profitability with lower input and capital costs;

ii. Capacity for climate change adaptation and reduced vulnerability to extreme weather conditions;

iii. Enhanced and ongoing provision of ecosys-tem functions and services;

iv. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

It has become increasingly clear that most crop production systems are both economically and environmentally vulnerable and unsustainable. Agricultural sustainability has become more un-certain in recent years, relating to the sharp rise in the cost of food and energy, climate change, water scarcity, degradation of ecosystem services and biodiversity, and the financial crisis. The ex-pected increase in population and the associated demands for food, water and other agricultural products will bring additional pressures. In re-cent decades, many influential people and organ-isations have been highlighting the need for the development of sustainable agricultural systems. In response to this, action has been promoted at all levels, but – as witnessed in the Millen-nium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005), the World Development Report 2008 (WDR 2008), the IAASTD reports (McIntyre et al. 2008), and the Royal Society (2009) – some agricultural systems are still being promoted which have un-acceptably high environmental, economic, and social costs (Kassam et al. 2009). These are rep-resentative of the “interventionist approach” in which most aspects of the production system are controlled by human technological interventions.

2 Principles and Concepts of Sustainable Intensification

The balanced cycling of carbon between the atmosphere, plants, and soil is the basis of sus-tainability. The profitability and sustainability of production systems – managed by both large- and small-scale farmers – derive from efficiency in both the use and conservation of available resources, applied in appropriately-combined crop-soil-water-nutrient-pest-ecosystem man-agement practices. These practices are locally devised and adapted to capture a range of pro-ductivity, socioeconomic and environmental co-benefits of agriculture and ecosystem services at the farm, landscape, and provincial or national scale (Pretty 2008; Kassam et al. 2009; Godfray et al. 2010; FAO 2010; Pretty et al. 2011; Fore-sight 2011; UKNEA 2011).

There are now a growing number of produc-tion systems which follow a predominantly eco-system approach. These sustainable systems offer

SCHWERPUNKT


a range of productivity, socio-economic, and en-vironmental benefits to producers and to society at large. They are based on five overall objectives:

a) Simultaneous achievement of increased agri-cultural productivity and enhanced ecosystem services.

b) Enhanced input-use efficiency, including water, nutrients, pesticides, energy, land, and labour.

c) Judicious use of external inputs derived from fossil fuels (such as mineral fertilisers and pesticides) and preference for alternatives (such as recycled organic matter, biological nitrogen fixation, and integrated pest manage-ment).

d) Protection of soil, water, and biodiversity through use of “minimum soil disturbance” and maintaining organic matter cover on the soil surface to protect the soil and enhance soil organic matter and soil biodiversity.

e) Use of managed and natural biodiversity of species to build systems’ resilience to abiotic, biotic, and economic stresses, with an under-lying emphasis on improving soils’ content of organic matter as a substrate essential for the activity of the soil biota.

The farming practices required to implement these objectives will differ according to local conditions and needs, but will have to comprise the following elements:

1. Minimizing soil disturbance by mechanical tillage (once brought to good porous con-dition), and, whenever possible, seeding or planting directly into untilled soil, in order to maintain soil organic matter, soil structure, and overall soil health.

2. Enhancing and maintaining organic matter cover on the soil surface, using crops, cover crops, or crop residues. This protects the soil surface, conserves water and nutrients, pro-motes soil biological activity and contributes to integrated weed and pest management.

3. Diversification of species – both annuals and perennials – in associations, sequences, and rotations that can include trees, shrubs, pas-tures, and crops, all contributing to enhanced crop nutrition and improved system resilience.

These practices are those generally associated with Conservation Agriculture (CA), now widely

used in all continents. However, these CA prac-tices need to be strengthened by additional “best management practices”:

4. Use of well adapted, high yielding varieties and good quality seeds

5. Enhanced crop nutrition, based on healthy soils

6. Integrated management of pests, diseases, and weeds

7. Efficient water management

Sustainable crop production intensification is the combination of all seven of these improved prac-tices applied in a timely and efficient manner. Such sustainable production systems are knowl-edge-intensive and relatively complex to learn and implement. They offer farmers many possi-ble combinations of practices to choose from and adapt, according to their local production con-ditions and constraints (Pretty 2008; Kassam et al. 2009; Godfray et al. 2010; FAO 2010; Meyer 2010; Pretty et al. 2011).

A main criterion for ecologically sustain-able production systems is the maintenance of an environment in the root-zone to optimise soil biota, including healthy root functions, to the maximum possible depth. Roots are thus able to function effectively and without restrictions to capture plant nutrients and water as well as interact with a range of soil microorganisms beneficial for soil health and crop performance (Shaxson 2006; Uphoff et al. 2006; Pretty 2008). In such systems with the above attributes there are many similarities to resilient “forest floor” conditions (Shaxson et al. 2008; Kassam et al. 2009). Maintenance or improvement of soil or-ganic matter content and biotic activity, soil structure, and associated porosity, are critical indicators for sustainable production and other ecosystem services.

A key factor for maintaining soil structure and organic matter is to limit mechanical soil dis-turbance in the process of crop-management. This is because it provokes accelerated oxidation of or-ganic matter and loss of the resulting CO2 back into the atmosphere. In so doing, it depletes soil organic matter, the energy-rich substrate for the life processes of the soil biota which are essen-tial for developing and maintaining any soil in a

SCHWERPUNKT


healthy and productive condition. The contributi-on of practices that implement the technical prin-ciples – including mulch cover, no-tillage, crop rotations, and legume crops – to important eco-system services is shown in Table 1. Even where it is not possible to install all desirable practi-cal aspects in the production system at the same

time, progressive improvements towards those goals are to be encouraged. Nevertheless, for any agricultural system to be sustainable in the long term, the rate of soil formation – from the surface downwards – must exceed the rate of any degra-dation due to loss of organic matter (living and/or non-living), and of soil porosity, evidenced by

Table 1: Agro-ecosystem features relating to the component practices of Conservation Agriculture

SYSTEM COMPONENT ►

RELEVANT FEATURE ▼

NO TILLAGE (minimal or

no soil distur-bance)

MULCH COVER

(crop residues, cover-crops,

green manures)

CROP ROTATION

(for safety, bio-diversity, profit,

etc.)

LEGUMES (for fixing nitro-gen, supplying nutrients, crea-ting biopores)

Simulate optimum “forest-floor” conditions √ √Reduce evaporative loss of moisture from soil surface √ √

Reduce evaporative loss from soil upper soil layers √ √

Minimise oxidation of soil organic mat-ter, CO2 loss √

Minimise compactive impacts by intense rainfall, passage of feet, machinery √ √

Minimise temperature fluctuations at soil surface √ √

Maintain regular supply of organic matter as substrate for soil organisms’ activity

√ √ √ √

Increase, maintain nitrogen levels in root-zone √ √ √ √

Increase CEC of root-zone √ √ √ √Maximise rain infiltration, minimise runoff √ √

Minimise soil loss in runoff, wind √ √ √Permit, maintain natural layering of soil horizons by actions of soil biota √ √

Minimise weeds √ √ √ √Increase rate of biomass production √ √ √ √Speed soil-porosity’s recuperation by soil biota √ √ √ √

Reduce labour input √ √Reduce fuel-energy input √ √ √Recycle nutrients √ √ √ √Reduce pest-pressure of pathogens √Re-build damaged soil conditions and dynamics √ √ √ √

Pollination services √ √ √ √

Source: Adapted from Friedrich et al., 2009

SCHWERPUNKT


consequent soil erosion. In the majority of agro-ecosystems this is not possible if the soil is me-chanically disturbed (Montgomery 2007). For this reason the avoidance of unwarranted mechanical soil disturbance is a starting point for sustainable production. Not tilling the soil is therefore a nec-essary condition for sustainability, but not a suf-ficient condition: other complementary techniques are also required.

3 Potential Constraints to Sustainable Production Intensification Systems

Some farming regions present special challenges for introducing sustainable agro-ecological pro-duction systems. For example in sub-humid and semi-arid climatic zones it may not be possible to apply the precepts of such systems to an opti-mum, particularly in the early phases of adoption, because lack of rainfall may limit how much bio-mass can be grown per unit area. Since in these regions water is normally the limiting factor, the water savings from not tilling generally result in yield increases already in the first years which compensate for the amounts of residue left on the fields which otherwise could have been removed for forage purposes.

In more humid areas, scarcities of particular plant nutrients may prove to be the more significant factors. For example, relief of phosphorous defi-ciency may enable better crop responses to other inputs. There is evidence that due to the higher soil biological activity in the systems described above long-term availability of phosphorus and other nu-trients can be enhanced (Uphoff et al. 2006).

Poorly-drained and/or compacted soils are also generally not optimal for cropping under either high or low soil disturbance. However, if the origin of bad drainage is a soil horizon with low water permeability beyond the reach of soil-loosening equipment, it is only through biologi-cal means such as tap roots and soil organisms (e.g. earthworms) that such deep obstacle to water percolation can be eventually broken up, whose actions are facilitated by minimal soil disturbance systems over time. In most circum-stances soil compaction needs to be eliminated or reduced where it already exists and future com-

pactions avoided by minimal soil disturbance in any management activity.

Improvement of organic-matter levels and associated biological activity in the soil can have multiple positive effects which may alleviate/eliminate more than one limiting factor at the same time. There have been arguments that no-tillage systems result in increased use of pesticides and herbicides. However, in reality when no-tillage is integrated with the other complementary practic-es of mulch and bio-diversification, this can lead to decrease in their use, both in absolute amounts, and in terms of quantity of active ingredient ap-plied per tonne of output, compared with tillage agriculture (Baig, Gamache 2009; Lindwall, Son-ntag 2010). In manual smallholder systems, these systems can also be practiced without herbicides by applying adequate integrated weed manage-ment (Owenya et al. 2011).

4 Relevance of Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification

Sustainable intensification is facilitated with Conservation Agriculture (CA) because biologi-cal optimisation of soil conditions is continuous, and repeated “soil-recuperative” breaks (essen-tial in tillage-based systems) are unnecessary.

Being based on no-till and maintenance of soil cover, CA provides a good example of progress in both thought and action, which has now spread into all continents and ecologies (Hobbs 2007; Shaxson et al. 2008; Friedrich et al. 2009; Kassam et al. 2009; Kassam et al. 2010). CA is now adopted on about 117 million ha worldwide – about eight percent of the total cro-pland. Some 50 percent of this area is located in the developing regions. During the past decade, it has been expanding at an average rate of more than six million ha per year. Highest adoption levels, exceeding 50 percent of the cropland, are found in Canada, Australia, and the southern part of South America. Fast adoption rates are now being seen in Central Asia and China, and early large-scale adoption is taking place across Africa.

Sustainable crop production intensification principles can be readily integrated into other ecosystem-based approaches to generate greater benefits, for example:

SCHWERPUNKT


System for Rice Intensification (SRI) has proven to be successful as a basis for sustain-able intensification in all continents under a wide range of circumstances (see Uphoff in this vol-ume). Trained farmers have shown SRI embodies CA Principles to offer higher factor productivi-ties and income, and requires less seeds, water, energy, fertiliser, and labour compared with con-ventional irrigated or rainfed flooded rice pro-duction systems (Kassam et al. 2011).

“Organic” agriculture, when integrating CA, can lead to greater soil health and productivity, increased efficiency of use of organic matter, and reduction in use of energy. Organic CA farming is already practiced in the US, Brazil, and Germany, as well as by subsistence CA farmers in Africa.

Agroforestry systems involve the cultivation of woody perennials and annual crops together in a sustainable manner and, with perennial leg-umes, are increasingly practised in degraded ar-eas. CA with trees has now become an important option for many farming situations, particularly in the tropics. These CA systems have become the basis for major scaling-up programmes with thousands of farmers in Zambia, Malawi, Niger, and Burkina Faso (Garrity et al. 2010). The in-corporation of the indigenous acacia species Faidherbia albida into maize-based conserva-tion agriculture in Zambia on a large scale is a noteworthy example (Sims et al. 2009).

Shifting agriculture, (also referred to as “swidden” or “slash and burn”), entails the clear-ing of land to prepare a cultivation plot and sub-sequently returning this to re-growth and even-tual natural reforestation, during which damaged soil structure and depleted “indigenous” plant nutrients are restored. For sustainable intensi-fication, such systems can be adapted to follow CA principles, changing from slash and burn sys-tems to slash and mulch systems with a no-till diversified cropping with intercropping and crop rotations that include legumes and organic matter management to maintain soil fertility and to re-duce the need for extra land clearing as in Peru’s Colca Valley (Montgomery 2007).

Integrated crop-livestock systems including trees have long been a foundation of agriculture. In recent decades, there have been practical innova-tions that harness synergies between the production

sectors of crops, livestock, and agroforestry. Inte-gration can be on-farm as well as on an area-wide basis. The integration of production sectors can enhance livelihood diversification and efficiency through optimization of production inputs includ-ing labour, offer resilience to economic stresses, and reduce risks (Landers 2007; FAO 2010).

5 The Way Forward – Policy, Institutional, Technology and Knowledge Support are Needed

The development of sustainable crop production intensification requires building on the core prin-ciples and practices outlined above, and finding ways to support and self-empower producers to implement them all, through participatory ap-proaches and stakeholder engagement. In addi-tion, sustainable crop production intensification must be supported by coherent policies, insti-tutional support, and innovative approaches to overcome any barriers to adoption. Monitoring and evaluating the progress of change in produc-tion system practices and their outcomes at the farm and landscape levels is critical.

An enabling environment is the precondition for promoting farmers’ interest in undertaking sustainable production intensification and mainte-nance of ecosystem services. For this, given the necessary understanding, the requirements include effective and integrated development planning and policies backed up by relevant research and advisory/extension systems, and the mobilisation of concerned stakeholders in all relevant sectors.

5.1 Policy and Institutional Support

Principles of sustainable production intensifica-tion based on the ecosystem approach form the basis for good and sustainable agricultural land use and management, but require a significant change in “mind-set”. This includes the reali-sation that erosion of soil is generally a conse-quence and symptom of initial land degradation – in the form of induced damage to soil structure in its upper layers – and not its primary cause. This understanding highlights CA as a most sig-nificant approach for encouraging and achieving sustainability of productive land uses through

SCHWERPUNKT


making best and careful use of agro-ecosystem processes, rather than trying to usurp their func-tions by use of less appropriate technologies.

Policy cohesion is critical as all govern-ments already have a number of institutions in-volved in caring for the development of their natural resources. The fragmented nature of their arrangement (e.g. Agriculture, Forestry, Na-tional Parks, Energy, Water), the disconnection to production sectors, and relationships within a government often inhibits their effectiveness. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the man-dates of all such relevant institutions have a clear awareness of the principles on which sustainable land use is based. A well-organised coordination of policies, programmes, and activities is needed.

Agricultural development policy should have a clear commitment to sustainable inten-sification. All agricultural development activi-ties dealing with crop production intensification should be assessed for their compatibility with ecosystem functions and their desired services. Any environmental management schemes in agriculture including certification protocols and payments for environmental services that do not promote the emulation of CA principles and practices are unlikely to be economically and en-vironmentally sustainable in the long run.

Appropriate nation-wide programmes and financing, as well as political commitment and strong support policies (by international agen-cies and national governments), are needed for changes in agricultural production systems to oc-cur. Alongside local adaptation and stakeholder engagement, the introduction of agro-ecosystem approaches require the learning phase of produc-tion systems’ changes which often implies addi-tional costs for farmers. Pioneers and early adop-ters face many hurdles before the full benefits of such systems can be reaped. The change-over to no-tillage systems to achieve national impact also requires institutional support to producers and supply-chain service providers.

5.2 Technology and Knowledge Support

Fully developed sustainable production systems are knowledge-intensive and relatively complex systems to learn and implement as they must

work with nature and integrate as much as pos-sible of the natural ecosystem processes into the design and management of the production sys-tems. The development of fully-sustainable pro-duction systems is a continuing task with many possible permutations for farmers to decide from so as to suit their local production circumstances and constraints. Simple standard technologies are not automatically appropriate. One bottleneck is often the knowledge about the new production system. Site specific research and advisory/ex-tension is needed to assist farmers in responding to system changes such as in nutrient require-ments, pest, disease and weed problems, etc.

A particular bottleneck for wide adoption is the availability of suitable equipment for CA. While on small scale CA can be undertaken with-out special tools just using a narrow hoe or plant-ing stick, the full benefits of labour saving and work precision can only be achieved using spe-cial tools or equipment, such as no-till planters, with associated costs. While appropriate tools exist, their local availability for the farmers in most parts of the world is a real challenge. These bottlenecks can be overcome, for example by fa-cilitating input supply chains, local manufactur-ing of the equipment, and by offering contractor services or sharing equipment among farmers in a group to reduce the cost for a single farmer.

6 What Needs to Be Done Now?

The core agro-ecological elements of sustain-able intensification systems are the practices that implement CA’s three principles, plus other best practices dealing with crop management, as well as the integration of pastures, trees, and live-stock into the production system and supported by adequate and appropriate farm equipment and power. This concept and the practical implica-tions must be placed at the centre of any effort to intensify production at any farm scale.

The following are the suggested action points for policy-makers in developing and in-dustrialised countries:

• Establish clear and verifiable guidelines, poli-cies, and protocols for agricultural production systems which qualify as sustainable intensi-

SCHWERPUNKT


fication, including as integral elements Con-servation Agriculture, Integrated Pest, Nutri-ent, Weed and Water management and other desirable practices.

• Institutionalise the new way of farming as officially-endorsed policy in public sector education and advisory services.

• Establish a conducive environment to support this new kind of agriculture, including the provision of suitable technologies, and of in-puts through the commercial supply markets.

• Establish incentive mechanisms such as jus-tifiable payments to eco-effective land users for environmental or community services.

• As adoption levels increase and the sustain-able intensification becomes an accessible op-tion to every farmer, introduce penalties for polluting or degrading ways of agriculture as additional incentive for late adopters.

Note

1) Amir Kassam is a Visiting Professor in the School of Agriculture, Policy and Development at the University of Reading, UK, Theodor Friedrich is Senior Officer of the Plant Production and Protection Division (FAO, Rome, Italy), Francis Shaxson is a Member of the Tropical Agriculture Association (Penicuik, Midlothian, UK) Timothy Reeves is Professor at the Melbourne School of Land and Environment (University of Melbourne, Australia), Jules Pretty is Pro-Vice-Chancellor at the University of Essex (UK) and João Carlos de Moraes Sá is Professor at the Universidade Estad-ual de Ponta Grossa (Brazil).

References

Baig, M.N.; Gamache, P.M., 2009: The Economic, Agronomic and Environmental Impact of No-Till on the Canadian Prairies. Alberta Reduced Tillage Link-ages. CanadaFAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010: Conservation Agriculture. Rome (Agriculture and Consumer Protection Depart-ment); http://www.fao.org/ag/ca (download 19.7.11)Foresight, 2011: The Future of Food and Farming. The Government Office for Science. LondonFriedrich, T.; Kassam, A.H.; Shaxson, T.F., 2009: Conservation Agriculture. In: Agriculture for Devel-

oping Countries. Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) Project. KarlsruheGarrity, D.P.; Akinnifesi, F.K.; Oluyede, A. et al., 2010: Evergreen agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. In: Food Security 2 (2010), pp. 197–214Godfray, C.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R. et al., 2010: Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion peo-ple. In: Science 327 (2010), pp. 812–818Hobbs, P.R., 2007: Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? In: Journal of Agricultural Science 145 (2007), pp. 127–137Kassam, A.H.; Friedrich, T.; Shaxson, T.F. et al., 2009: The spread of Conservation Agriculture: Justification, sustainability and uptake. In: International Journal of Agriculture Sustainability 7/4 (2009), pp. 292–320Kassam, A.H.; Friedrich, T.; Derpsch, R., 2010: Con-servation Agriculture in the 21st Century: A Paradigm of Sustainable Agriculture. Madrid, Spain. European Con-gress on Conservation Agriculture, October 4–6, 2010Kassam, A.H.; Stoop, W.; Uphoff, N., 2011: Review of SRI modifications in rice crop and water management and research issues for making further improvements in agricultural and water productivity. In: Paddy and Water Environment 9 (2011), pp. 163–180; DOI 10.1007/s10333-011-0259-1Landers, J.N., 2007: Tropical Crop-Livestock Sys-tems in Conservation Agriculture: The Brazilian Ex-perience. In: FAO: Integrated Crop Management 5 (2007). RomeLindwall, C.W.; Sonntag, B. (eds.), 2010: Landscape Transformed: The History of Conservation Tillage and Direct Seeding. Knowledge Impact in Society. SaskatoonMcIntyre, B.D.; Herren, H.R.; Wakhungu, J. et al. (eds.), 2008: Agriculture at a Crossroads: Synthesis. Report of the International Assessment of Agricultur-al Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Develop-ment (IAASTD).Washington, DCMEA – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DCMeyer, R., 2010: Low-Input Intensification in Agricul-ture. Chances for Small-Scale Farmers in Developing Countries. In: GAIA 19/4 (2010), pp. 263–268Montgomery, D., 2007: Dirt: The erosion of civiliza-tions. Los AngelesOwenya, M.Z.; Mariki, W.L.; Kienzle, J. et al., 2011: Conservation agriculture (CA) in Tanzania: the case of Mwangaza B CA farmer field school (FFS), Rhotia Vil-

SCHWERPUNKT


The System of Rice Intensifica-tion: An Alternate Civil Society Innovation

by Norman Uphoff, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

A major strategic decision for meeting global food needs is whether this should be attempt-ed by continuing along the current techno-logical trajectory, or whether divergent paths should be considered. Trends such as shrink-ing arable land per capita, growing water con-straints for agriculture, higher energy and pro-duction input costs, and the need to preserve environmental quality give impetus for an agro-ecological approach to sustainable pro-duction intensification in which biological pro-cesses are utilized to enhance factor and total productivity. The “System of Rice Intensifica-tion” (SRI) developed in Madagascar has been demonstrating substantial productivity gains and other benefits through making changes in crop, soil, nutrient, and water management, rather than from introducing new varieties or increasing external production inputs. The sci-entific controversy over SRI should subside as increasing evidence supporting its claims gets accepted into the published literature.

1 Introduction

The challenge of meeting global food demand in the decades ahead raises a question of strategy: To what extent can this goal be met by doing “more of the same” – by simply continuing along the present technological path and finding better solutions in this direction? Posing this question raises a corollary query: Should we be charting some new avenues to increase food production?

These questions do not presume that there will or can be a wholesale shift to alternative methods of production; this will not in any case be practical or feasible in the short to middle run. However, there are some facts and trends, reviewed below, that suggest we should be con-sidering alternative strategies that diverge from our present technological trajectory.

The conditions under which the food needed to meet population demands in this 21st century

lage, Karatu District, Arusha. In: International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9/1 (2011), pp. 145–152Pretty, J., 2008: Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. In: Philosophical Transac-tions of the Royal Society Biological Science 363 (2008), pp. 447–465Pretty, J.N.; Toulmin, C.; Williams, S., 2011: Sustain-able intensification in African agriculture. In: Inter-national Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9/1 (2011), pp. 5–24Royal Society, 2009: Reaping the Benefits. LondonShaxson, T.F., 2006: Re-thinking the conservation of carbon, water and soil: a different perspective. In: Agronomie 26 (2006), pp. 1–9Shaxson, T.F.; Kassam, A.H.; Friedrich, T. et al., 2008: Underpinning Conservation Agriculture’s Ben-efits: The Roots of Soil Health and Function. In: An International Technical Workshop: Investing in Sus-tainable Crop Intensification: The case for Improving Soil Health. FAO, Rome. July 22–24, 2008. In: Inte-grated Crop Management 6 (2008), Appendix 1Sims, B.G.; Friedrich, T.; Kassam, A.H. et al., 2009: Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture: Comple-mentary practices for sustainable agriculture. Paper presented at the 2nd World Congress on Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya, August 2009Uphoff, N.; Ball, A.S.; Fernandes, E. et al. (eds.), 2006: Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil Sys-tems. Boca Raton, FLUKNEA – UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011: Progress and Steps Towards Delivery. UNEP-WC-MC, CambridgeWDR – World Development Report, 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC

Contact

Prof. Dr. Amir KassamSchool of Agriculture, Policy and DevelopmentUniversity of ReadingWhiteknights, PO Box 237Reading RG6 6AR, United KingdomPhone: +44 - 2 08 - 9 93 - 34 26Email: [email protected]

« »

SCHWERPUNKT


will be produced will surely be different from those that shaped agricultural production in the preced-ing century. Alterations in these conditions indi-cate that significant changes will need to be made in the methods employed for food production. The economic and environmental reasons for utiliz-ing what qualify as “agro-ecological” approaches are becoming clearer, reflecting objective realities rather than just ethical or other preferences.

In particular, experience accumulated over the past decade with a production system known as the System of Rice Intensification (SRI), in-creasingly reinforced by scientific investiga-tions, is pointing to lower-cost opportunities for increasing world food availability, especially for those persons who are most in need. SRI manage-ment, applicable also beyond rice, achieves this by making more productive use of available re-sources. This strategy differs from most of those currently proposed for raising food production, and it makes SRI quite unprecedented, offering some new directions for agricultural technology and policy to explore and elaborate.

The first section below reviews what SRI management can contribute to meeting the chal-lenge of world food production. This leads into a consideration of the factors and trends that are likely to make this century’s agricultural systems diverge from the practices, policies, and struc-tures during the previous century. The article then considers briefly the origins of SRI; how it has spread and what it involves in concrete terms; then the scientific controversy and evidence sur-rounding it; and finally some future implications.1

2 Agricultural Trends and Constraints in the 21st Century

Which agricultural technologies prove to be most productive and sustainable over time depends upon institutional relationships and upon the rela-tive availability and productivity of the principal factors of production (Hayami, Ruttan 1985). The combination of still-growing population, at least through to 2050, and continuing declines in ar-able land, both in quantity and in quality through various causes of soil-system degradation, will by 2050 reduce the food production area available per capita to about one-third of what it was in 1950.

Accordingly, the comparative advantage of large-scale, mechanized, extensive production can be expected to decline over time. While la-bor shortages in the agricultural sectors of poor-er countries can create incentives for what are called “modern” production methods, the eco-nomic logic for intensification of production will become stronger over time in terms of relative factors availability and productivity.

This logic will gain strength when energy costs are considered. While petroleum prices cannot be predicted with any certainty even years ahead, let alone for decades, there is no reason to expect energy prices for agriculture in the 21st century to match those in the 20th century. The profitability of farm operations that depend on mechanization and on fertilizer and agrochemi-cal inputs that derive from petroleum materials will be undermined by present and future in-creases in energy prices. While alternative en-ergy sources can mitigate the financial pressure, there are limits on how far they can substitute for current fossil fuel-based agricultural inputs.

Perhaps trumping all of these influences will be the effects of climate change, for which global warming is only one element, and possibly not the most important. Farmers can, within limits, adapt to gradual increases in ambient temperature, by modifying cropping patterns as well as practices. What they cannot readily adapt to are increases in what are euphemistically grouped as “extreme events” – droughts, storms, heat waves, cold snaps. The effects of these will probably be exacerbated by intensified pest and disease problems.

There are also legitimate concerns that con-tinuing our present heavy reliance on applying large amounts of inorganic nitrogen fertilizer will have other adverse impacts on the environment.2 These and other considerations make “doing more of the same” a less attractive and possibly infeasible option. Future agricultural production is unlikely to be as extensive as was evolved dur-ing the 20th century. This recasts the question to: if agriculture becomes more intensified, with what kind of intensification? The current brand of “intensification” with its heavy reliance on agro-chemical inputs is acknowledged by rice scien-tists as not really sustainable (Cassman, Harwood 1995; Reichardt et al. 1998). There is need, but

SCHWERPUNKT


also opportunity, for a more suitable strategy of sustainable intensification (Royal Society 2009).

3 How is SRI Relevant to “Feeding the World”?

The magnitude of the challenge of meeting world food needs is so great that certainly there will be no single solution or single strategy for achieving this objective. Neither SRI nor the broader phenom-enon of agro-ecology can suffice for this purpose by itself. However, evidence from SRI experience over the past decade suggests that making certain changes in crop management can greatly enhance the productivity of available land, labor, water, nu-trient, and capital. These changes make it possible to increase food production with less rather than more cost. Achieving greater output with reduced inputs is a controversial proposition, to be sure. For the past century, higher output has been achieved with greater external inputs, but the impacts of ag-ricultural expansion have had adverse consequenc-es for the world’s natural resource base.

The impacts of SRI management have been reviewed in a number of publications3, so they are just summarized here:

• Increases in yield have usually been in the range of 50-100 percent, although they can be lower or even much higher.

• Water saving is usually between 25 and 50 percent, as irrigation water is reduced when rice paddies are not kept flooded. SRI rice plants have higher water productivity (Thakur et al. 2010).

• Costs of production are usually reduced, even 10–20 percent, because farmers need not pur-chase different seeds or agrochemicals. This raises farmers’ net income by more than their increase in yield.

• Resistance to pests and disease is widely re-ported by farmers, and has been documented by the National IPM Program in Vietnam and by university researchers in India. Also, biot-ic stresses (drought, storms, heat spells, cold snaps) have been found to have less effect on SRI crops, e.g., drought resistance in India in 2009 and 2010. This advantage is likely to

become more important as climate changes become more pervasive.

• Higher milling outturn increases food supply by 10–15 percent, and sometimes more, when SRI paddy rice is milled. More polished rice results from having fewer unfilled grains (less chaff) and fewer broken grains.

It can be difficult to believe all of these impacts from SRI management practices because they sound “too good to be true”. But these effects are well documented as the practices described below evoke more productive phenotypes from a wide range of rice genotypes, from traditional “unim-proved” cultivars as well as from modern varieties and hybrids. It is noteworthy that the principles and practices of SRI are now being adapted to a variety of other field crops such as wheat, sugarcane, mil-let, maize, and even some legumes and vegetables.

The results so far do not justify a campaign to convert all crop management to SRI or related practices. But they do suggest that food produc-tion in the future can be more satisfactory than is anticipated with current purchased input-depen-dent technologies (Uphoff 2007).

4 SRI as a Civil Society Innovation

The set of irrigated rice production methods known as SRI (originally Le Système de Riziculture Inten-sive) was developed in Madagascar by Henri de Laulanié, S.J., a French priest trained in agriculture who spent half a lifetime working there with poor, smallholding farmers. His empirical insights and experimentation led to an assemblage of practices in the mid-1980s that make the resources used in rice cultivation more productive (Laulanié 1993; Uphoff 2006; Uphoff, Kassam 2009).

While SRI has considerably evolved over the past 25 years, even being extrapolated to use with other crops beyond rice, in its original form SRI mostly involved half a dozen changes in conven-tional rice cultivation methods. All of these repre-sent generalizable principles that are well justified by agronomic science. But in its most concrete form, SRI can be presented in terms of modifica-tions of age-old, common practices for anaerobic or flooded rice cultivation around the world.

SCHWERPUNKT


• When transplanting rice, use young seedlings grown in unflooded nurseries with well-drained soil while still at the two to three leaf stage of growth (usually <15 days after seeding); rather than older seedlings, three to four weeks old or more, raised in flooded nurseries with hypoxic soil. The latter have much less growth potential.

• Also when transplanting, reduce the plant population drastically, by 80–90 percent, to give plant roots and canopy ample room to express their genetic potential. This is done by planting single-seedling hills, rather than three, four or more plants per hill, and ar-ranged in a wider square pattern.

• Transplant young seedlings quickly, within 30 minutes of uprooting from the nursery; gent-ly, avoiding trauma to the plants and especial-ly to their roots; and shallow, one to two cm. This will minimize “transplant shock” which sets back the plants’ growth.

• Paddy soils should be maintained in mostly unflooded, aerobic condition rather than being continuously flooded, as the latter restricts the supply of oxygen to plants’ roots. SRI recom-mends regular but small applications of irriga-tion water, or alternate wetting and drying.

• When paddies are not kept flooded, weed growth can be more of a problem. To control weeds, but also to actively aerate the soil, use of a simple, mechanical hand weeder is rec-ommended.

• Although SRI was initially developed with the use of chemical fertilizers, when these became too expensive for smallholders in Madagascar, it was learned that compost or any application of biomass that increases the soil’s organic matter (nurturing the soil biota as well as plant roots) can give as good and cheaper, or even better results. While SRI is not necessarily an organic production meth-odology, it reduces or eliminates farmers’ re-liance on chemical fertilizers.

These methods, when used as recommended with suitable local adjustments (spacing, timing, water management), have enabled farmers in different parts of Madagascar, who had been getting aver-age yields of ~2 tons/ha, to produce two to four times more paddy without use of purchased in-puts. What is intensified with SRI is not external

inputs, but knowledge, skill, and management. During their learning phase, farmers need to make greater labor inputs. But once the techniques were mastered, farmers could reduce these inputs as well as their seed, water, and costs of production (Moser, Barrett 2003; Barrett et al. 2004).

The merits of SRI’s alternative methods have gained acceptance only slowly in Madagascar, in part because they visibly contradict (and appear to disrespect) “the ways of the ancestors” which are the foundation of Malagasy culture and reli-gious beliefs. Where there was not enough water control to apply small but reliable amounts of irri-gation water, this also impeded the uptake of SRI.

In 1994, the Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD) began working with “Association Tefy Saina”, the NGO that Fr�re Laulanié and Malagasy col-Fr�re Laulanié and Malagasy col- and Malagasy col-leagues established in 1990 to promote SRI. The NGO name did not mean “produce more rice” but “improve the mind/mentality,” indicative of SRI’s dual objectives, to introduce socio-economic im-provements along with resource-conserving agri-cultural development and food security.

In 1999 and 2000, through CIIFAD efforts, the validity of SRI methods was demonstrated out-side Madagascar for the first time, through trials managed by rice scientists at Nanjing Agricultural University in China, and at the Sukamandi rice re-search institute of the Indonesian Ministry of Ag-riculture. By 2011, the number of countries where SRI methods have been validated has reached 42. SRI has been shown to work in tropical, subtropi-cal, and temperate environments and across dry, subhumid, and humid moisture climates.

To reach this extent, a great variety of insti-tutions have given support to SRI evaluation and/or expansion at the country level:

• The joint WWF-ICRISAT project on Food, Water and Environment supported systematic evaluations in Andhra Pradesh state of India, 2004–2006; WWF subsequently began fund-ing SRI activity across India.4

• The Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) in Mum-bai has been funding NGO promotion of SRI in poverty-stricken areas of India on a signifi-cant scale since 2007.5

• Oxfam America has supported SRI extension in Cambodia and Vietnam since 2004 and

SCHWERPUNKT


2007, and it has since cooperated with WWF and Africare in jointly endorsing SRI.6

• Other NGOs have given support in various countries, and a few donor agencies and foun-dations have given support at country level, through the initiative of individual staff.

• Private sector support has come forth in a number of companies, while in some coun-tries, universities have played the most active role in evaluating and disseminating SRI.

• Government agencies and research institu-tions have given leadership in Cambodia, China, India, Laos, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam; and individuals have played key roles in Bangladesh, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Gambia, Panama, Peru, and Zambia.

These varied organizations working separately but in effect together, with coordination and communication through CIIFAD, have made SRI an unprecedented civil society innovation (Lines, Uphoff 2006). It is different from the more typi-cal agricultural innovations that emanate from the scientific establishment and are transmit-ted through official extension agencies to farm-ers needing new opportunities. This could have prompted some of the resistance to SRI.

5 Scientific Evidence in Support of SRI

During the period 1998–2002, a series of theses on SRI was written for the Department of Agron-omy at the University of Antananarivo using stan-dard scientific methods which confirmed Tefy Saina’s reports on SRI. It was supported by two of the most eminent rice scientists in the world, Prof. Yuan Long-ping in China and Dr. M.S. Swaminathan in India, who showed SRI produc-tivity through their own evaluations. But never-theless, there were several contradictory articles published in 2004 which dismissed SRI methods as having no general merit (Sheehy et al. 2004), or minimized their importance by asserting that SRI is only “a niche innovation” (Dobermann 2004), or argued that even evaluating SRI would be a waste of resources (Sinclair, Cassman 2004). A subsequent article concluded that SRI is infe-rior to “best management practices” developed by scientists (McDonald et al. 2006). Despite re-

buttals of the data and analysis presented in these critical articles (Stoop, Kassam 2005; Uphoff et al. 2008), these critiques and other objections succeeded in making SRI “controversial”, so that during the past decade, foundations and donor agencies have generally refrained from giving support for the evaluation of SRI methods in a more systematic way than NGOs and SRI prac-titioners could undertake without funding and research expertise. Thus far, only Jim Carrey’s “Better U Foundation” has provided support for trans-national work on SRI, also funding SRI dis-semination in Madagascar, Mali, and Haiti.

Even without financial backing, however, a number of scientific studies have begun appear-ing in the literature, e.g., Lin et al. (2009), Mishra and Salokhe (2008), Thakur et al. (2010), Uphoff et al. (2009), and Zhao et al. (2009). Evaluations from countries as varied as the Gambia (Ceesay et al. 2007), Indonesia (Sato, Uphoff 2007), and Myanmar (Kabir, Uphoff 2007) have provided information on the empirical foundations of SRI performance.

In March 2011, the journal Paddy and Wa-ter Environment published a special issue on SRI (Vol. 9, No. 1). This contained half a doz-en scientific articles plus nine country reports from Afghanistan via Iraq to Mali to Panama that brought together a strong evidential base supporting the previous claims and reports on SRI productivity. Quite possibly, attention will now focus on a better understanding of the agro-ecological mechanisms that produce SRI results – particularly the larger and lon-ger-lived root systems and the more abundant and diverse soil biota that support higher crop productivity. There should no longer be much doubt about the potential payoff from getting a better understanding of the mechanisms, limi-tations, and optimization of SRI methods. Ex-plaining and exploiting this potential and ad-dressing sustainability questions is important and remains to be done systematically.

6 Future Prospects for SRI

The productive possibilities that SRI experi-ence and understanding are opening up will not by themselves meet the challenge of feeding the

SCHWERPUNKT


world. But there is enough evidence now to sup-port expanding our investigation and dissemina-tion of the principles and practices that constitute SRI, especially as extrapolated to other crops beyond rice. SRI represents a paradigm shift for the agricultural sector: from an external input-dependent approach, revolving around genetic improvements or modifications, to more of an ecological perspective and strategy.

In a way, SRI amounts to a “re-biologiza-tion” of agriculture, which has during the past hundred years been made a more industrial, engi-neered undertaking. Within both frameworks, the critical relationships are between inputs and out-puts. But in an industrial operation, there are al-ways proportional relations between the two sets of factors. From an industrial perspective, plants are like carbon-based machines, to be designed and re-designed to meet our purposes.

Understood in ecological terms, plants are organisms with their own capacities, strategies, repertoires, etc., that are activated in response to environmental conditions. Plants do not ex-ist and survive separately from their surround-ings, but rather they are thoroughly interpen-etrated by – and for the most part benefited by – microorganisms, much as humans and other animal depend on their respective microbiomes. Instead of regarding soil mostly in terms of its inert mineral elements, this alternative perspec-tive appreciates the potentials, limitations, and dynamics of soil systems as a living compo-nent of agro-ecosystems (Uphoff et al. 2006). Whereas most soil science focuses on soil chemistry and soil physics, with only a minor-ity of research focused on soil biology, the latter should be the crux of soil analysis if realistic knowledge is sought. Much contemporary soil science is based on studies of soil samples that have had the life in them destroyed by fumiga-tion or sterilization, so that our generalizations and conclusions are based on cadaverous soil, not on functioning soil systems.

When the life in the soil is husbanded, parallel to a crop husbandry that regards plants as organ-isms rather than as machines, we see some spec-tacular productivity results possible, in rice, wheat, sugarcane, and many other crops. We do not know how far the experiences with SRI and related meth-

ods can be taken; but there is reason to think that with good evaluation and further evolution of the methods and insights, some major advances can be made beyond what has been achieved so far.

Who would have thought that soil rhizobia migrating from the root zone up through the roots and stems into rice plant leaves would, by them-selves and under controlled conditions, be able to increase plants’ levels of chlorophyll, rates of photosynthesis, and ultimate grain yield? (Chi et al. 2005) Or that “infecting” rice seeds with a fungus (Fusarium culmorum) could induce greater root growth and earlier emergence of root hairs that help seedlings grow more vigorously? (Rodriguez et al. 2009) There is still much to be discovered and evaluated. But this will not hap-pen without moving beyond genocentric, input-focused agricultural strategies.

We must be careful not to let the successes to date create unrealizable expectations; but nei-ther should the divergence of SRI practices and results from present thinking and achievements justify resistance to innovation, based on a priori reasoning or vested interests that benefit from the status quo. The challenges of the next several decades are too immense and ominous for “busi-ness as usual” to offer any sustainable comfort.

Notes

1) There is not enough space for a full discussion of all these issues, but more information is available at: http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu.

2) The former chief executive of the UK’s Natural Environmental Research Council, John Lawton, has characterized the rising use of N fertilizer as “the third major threat to our planet, after biodi-versity loss and climate change” (Nature, 24 Feb-ruary 2005), referring to the impacts of reactive nitrogen on water quality and aquatic ecosystems.

3) See Uphoff and Kassam 2009; Africare/Oxfam America/WWF-ICRISAT Project 2010; Kassam, Uphoff and Stoop 2011.

4) See http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_freshwater/freshwater_resources/?uNewsID=114460.

5) See http://www.dorabjitatatrust.org/about/pdf/09-10/Annual_Report_2009-2010.pdf.

6) See http://www.sri-india.net/documents/More_Wa-ter_For_The_Planet.pdf.

SCHWERPUNKT


References

Africare; Oxfam America; WWF-ICRISAT Project, 2010: More Rice for People, More Water for the Planet. WWF-ICRISAT Project, Hyderabad, India; http://www.sri-india.net/documents/More_Water_For_The_Planet.pdf (download 22.6.11)Barrett, C.B.; Moser, C.M.; Barison, J. et al., 2004: Better technologies, better plots or better farmers? Identifying changes in productivity and risk among Malagasy rice farmers. In: American Journal of Agri-cultural Economics 86 (2004), pp. 869–888Cassman, K.G.; Harwood, R.R., 1995: The nature of agricultural systems: Food security and environmen-tal balance. In: Food Policy 20 (1995), pp. 439–454Ceesay, M.; Reid, W.S.; Fernandes, E.C.M. et al., 2007: Effects of repeated soil wetting and drying on lowland rice yield with System of Rice Intensification (SRI) methods. In: International Journal of Agricul-tural Sustainability 4 (2007), pp. 5–14Chi, F.; Shen, S.H.; Cheng, H.P. et al., 2005: Ascend-ing migration of endophytic rhizobia, from roots to leaves, inside rice plants and assessment of benefits to rice growth physiology. In: Applied and Environmen-tal Microbiology 71 (2005), pp. 7271–7278Dobermann, A., 2004: A critical assessment of the system of rice intensification (SRI). In: Agricultural Systems 79 (2004), pp. 261–281Hayami, Y.; Ruttan, V.W., 1985: Agricultural Devel-opment: An International Perspective. Baltimore, MDKabir, H.; Uphoff, N., 2007: Results of disseminating the System of Rice Intensification with Farmer Field School methods in Northern Myanmar. In: Experi-mental Agriculture 43 (2007), pp. 463–476Kassam, A.H.; Uphoff, N.; Stoop, W.A., 2011: Review of SRI modifications in rice crop and water man-agement and research issues for making further im-provements in agricultural and water productivity. In: Paddy and Water Environment 9 (2011), p. 1; DOI: 10.1007/s10333-011-0259-1Laulanié, H. de, 1993: Le syst�me de riziculture in-tensive malgache. In: Tropicultura 11 (1993), pp. 110–114, BrusselsLin, X.Q.; Zhu, D.F.; Chen, H.X. et al., 2009: Effect of plant density and nitrogen fertilizer rates on grain yield and nitrogen uptake of hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L.). In: Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology and Sustainable Development 1 (2009), pp. 44–53Lines, G.A.; Uphoff, N., 2006: A remarkable civil society contribution to food and nutrition security in Madagascar and beyond. In: Kracht, U.; Schulz, M.

(eds.): Food and Nutrition Security in the Process of Globalization and Urbanization. Münster, pp. 426–438McDonald, A.J.; Hobbs, P.R.; Riha, S.J., 2006: Does the System of Rice Intensification outperform conven-tional best management? A synopsis of the empirical record. In: Field Crops Research 96 (2006), pp. 31–36Mishra, A.; Salokhe, V.M., 2008: Seedling character-istics and early growth of transplanted rice under dif-ferent water regimes. In: Experimental Agriculture 44 (2008), pp. 1–19Moser, C.M.; Barrett, C.B., 2003: The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield-increasing, low exter-nal-input technology: The case of SRI in Madagascar. In: Agricultural Systems 76 (2003), pp. 1085–1100Reichardt, W.; Dobermann, A.; George, T., 1998: In-tensification of rice production systems: Opportuni-ties and limits. In: Dowling, N.G.; Greenfield, S.M.; Fischer, K.S. (eds.): Sustainability of rice in the global food system. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Baños, Philippines, pp. 127–144Rodriguez, R.J.; Freeman, D.C.; McArthur, E.D. et al., 2009: Symbiotic regulation of plant growth, de-velopment and reproduction. In: Communicative and Integrative Biology 2 (2009), pp. 1–3Royal Society, 2009: Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agricul-ture. Report of Commission chaired by Sir D. Baul-combe, The Royal Society, LondonSato, S.; Uphoff, N., 2007: A review of on-farm evalu-ations of system of rice intensification (SRI) methods in eastern Indonesia. In: CAB Reviews 2/54 (2007), pp. 1–12Sheehy, J.E.; Peng, S.; Dobermann, A. et al., 2004: Fan-tastic yields with the system of rice intensification: Fact or fallacy? In: Field Crops Research 88 (2004), pp. 1–8Sinclair T.R.; Cassman, K.G., 2004: Agronomic UFOs? In: Field Crops Research 88 (2004), pp. 9–10Stoop, W.A.; Kassam, A.H., 2005: The SRI controver-sy: A response. In: Field Crops Research 91 (2005), pp. 357–360Thakur, A.K.; Uphoff, N.; Antony, E., 2010: An assess-ment of physiological effects of system of rice inten-sification (SRI) practices compared to recommended rice cultivated practices in India. In: Experimental Agriculture 46 (2010), pp. 77–98Uphoff, N., 2006: The development of the System of Rice Intensification. In: Gonsalves, J. (ed.): Participa-tory Research and Development for Sustainable Agri-culture and Rural Development, Vol. III. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, pp. 119–125

SCHWERPUNKT


Uphoff, N., 2007: Agricultural Futures: What lies be-yond “Modern Agriculture”? In: 2nd Hugh Bunting Memorial Lecture. Tropical Agriculture Association Newsletter, September 13–19; http://www.sw-web-solutions.co.uk/taa/assets/pubs/2ndBMLSept2007.pdf (download 22.6.11)Uphoff, N.; Ball, A.; Fernandes, E.C.M. et al. (eds.), 2006: Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil Sys-tems. Boca Raton, FLUphoff, N.; Stoop, W.A.; Kassam, A.H., 2008: A criti-cal assessment of a desk study comparing crop pro-duction systems: The example of the “system of rice intensification” versus “best management practice”. In: Field Crops Research 108 (2008), pp. 109–114Uphoff, N.; Kassam, A.H., 2009: Case Study: The System of Rice Intensification (SRI). In: Agriculture for Devel-oping Countries, Annex 3. European Parliament, Brus-sels; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/stoa2008-02_annex3_en.pdf (download 22.6.11)Uphoff, N.; Anas, I.; Rupela, O.P. et al., 2009: Learn-ing about positive plant-microbial interactions from the System of Rice Intensification (SRI). In: Aspects of Applied Biology 98 (2009), pp. 29–54Zhao, L.M.; Wu, L.H.; Li, Y.S. et al., 2009: Influence of the System of Rice Intensification on rice yield and nitrogen and water use efficiency with different N application rates. In: Experimental Agriculture 45 (2009), pp. 275–286

Contact

Prof. Dr. Norman UphoffCornell UniversityCornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD)Warren Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 USAPhone: +1 - 6 07 - 2 55 - 19 02Fax: +1 - 6 07 - 2 55 - 10 05Email: [email protected]: http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu

« »

Bridging Nutrition and AgricultureLocal Food-livelihood Systems and Food Governance Integrating a Gender Perspective

by Stefanie Lemke and Anne C. Bellows, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart1

Worldwide hunger is still increasing and there is an urgent need to address the structural causes of hunger and food insecurity, includ-ing gender discrimination and power imbal-ances. We review the shortcomings of the sep-arated food security and nutrition security ap-proaches, arguing that they need to be united in the context of local food systems and gover-nance. Current measures to address malnutri-tion and hunger are favoring paternalistic ap-proaches that perpetuate aid, neediness and dependency. We suggest alternative frames that integrate food and nutrition security in a food systems and rights-based approach, namely through sustainable livelihoods and agro-ecology, and including a gender perspec-tive that so far has been missing. We argue that this will ultimately be more cost-effective and sustainable, building capacity and auton-omy of local food systems through local gov-ernance approaches that foreground inclusive participation of all members of society.

1 Introduction

The 6th Report on the World Nutrition Situation by the “United Nations System Standing Com-mittee on Nutrition” (UNSCN 2010) highlights the crucial role of the agricultural sector to ad-dress food and nutrition problems, emphasizing that nutrition-friendly, sustainable agricultural development is key to improving food and nutri-tion security. Investments in small-holder agricul-ture, especially if targeted at women, can be im-portant means of increasing both farm and rural non-farm household incomes. Besides higher ag-ricultural productivity this refers for example to additional impacts such as increased demand by farmers for labor and locally produced goods and services, and lower commodity prices through a fall in staple food prices, with many rural house-holds being net food buyers (Godfray et al. 2010;

SCHWERPUNKT


FAO 2011, p. 43). There is further wide recogni-tion that reducing gender disparities and empow-ering women promotes better food and nutrition security for all (IFPRI 2005; IAASTD 2009).

The objective of this paper is to review the shortcomings of the separated food security and nutrition security approaches. We argue that this separation has lead to an impasse between food security that ought to be attained by increased production and trade, and nutrition security that should be achieved through aid- and trade-based nutritional supplements and medical interven-tions. The realization of both of these forms of human security are conceptualized as products of trade, devoid of a relationship to local agri-culture and with a presumption of the incapacity of local peoples to achieve autonomy and self-determination. As nutrition security is most often associated with women and children, typically collapsed into the nexus of the maternal-infant life phase, the patronizing impetus to deliver ex-ternal charitable nutrition “cures” (especially in non-emergency situations) reifies discrimination against women and impedes their active partici-pation in food and nutrition security. We follow these arguments with alternative theoretical and practical frames that integrate food and nutri-tion security in a food systems approach, namely through sustainable livelihoods and agro-ecolo-gy, and including a gender perspective.

2 Diverging Concepts in Food and Nutrition Security

The concept of food security has been defined in numerous ways (cf. Maxwell, Frankenberger 1992). On the international level, it was pro-pelled forward in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights2, although the approach of hu-man rights and food security did not really be-gin to develop until the 1990s. Beginning in the 1960s, food security evolved in largely economic delivery terms, referring to food supply relative to production, trade, marketing, stocks and re-serves at global, regional and national levels. The macro-level approach gradually transformed and decentralized in the 1970s and 1980s toward, i.a., the concept of individual entitlements based on Sen (1981). As outlined by Maxwell (1996, p.

155) three main shifts could be observed since the first World Food Conference in 1974: from the global and national level to the household and individual, from a food first perspective to a livelihood perspective, and from objective in-dicators to subjective perceptions (cf. Bellows, Hamm 2003). The “Rome Declaration on World Food Security” (FAO 1996) renewed the focus of a human rights international treaty dimension to food security. Other critical stages in the de-velopment of rights-based approaches were the adoption of the General Comment No. 12 on the right to food by the “Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” in 1999 that expand-ed the language of the 1966 “International Cov-enant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” (United Nations Sub-Commission on the Pro-motion and Protection of Human Rights 1999; OHCHR 1996; cf. Bellows et al. 2011).

Food security is “a situation that exists if all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to adequate, safe and nu-tritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO 2002). While food insecurity is often, but not always, characterized by hunger, its principal meaning refers to the risk of people being hun-gry (Kracht 1999, p. 55). This entails the ways in which food or the resources to access food are obtained (“social access”) and how available re-sources are distributed in the household, refer-ring to intra-household distribution, food con-sumption and utilization.

The definition of “food security” has been criticized for its narrow focus on food and dis-regard of nutrition- and health-related aspects, as food security is not identical with nutritional-wellbeing. Decisive factors for nutritional status, besides access to adequate, safe and nutritious food, are access to and availability of health ser-vices, a healthy environment and care for women and children, as is illustrated in the widely-used malnutrition framework developed by UNICEF (1990). Gross et al. highlight the two most com-monly used concepts, namely food security as defined by FAO and the UNICEF malnutrition framework, that are significantly different in their approach: while the first emphasizes eco-nomic issues with a central focus on food as a

SCHWERPUNKT


commodity, the latter emphasizes a biological approach, with human beings as starting point (Gross et al. 2000). Although both frameworks promote an interdisciplinary and integrated ap-proach to ensuring food and nutrition security, separation of food production from the chemis-try of consumption remains the norm. Attempts to reflect the complexity of nutrition problems, including utilization of food and health-related and environmental aspects, have led to recom-mended terms like “nutrition security” or “food and nutrition security” (Kracht 1999, pp. 55–56; Klennert 2009, p. 25).

In applied nutrition, a period of paradigm crisis can be identified since 2005, with currently two competing paradigms (Jonsson 2009):

• The Investment in Nutrition Paradigm pro-motes top-down approaches, delivery to ben-eficiaries, “planning for”, charity, and priva-tization of health and education services, reflecting overall an individualistic-oriented, free market ideology.

• The Human Rights Approach to Nutrition Paradigm promotes a combination of both bottom-up and top-down approaches, building capacity for empowerment, ‘planning with’, limiting charity, and favoring health and edu-cation services as a public good, aimed at en-abling all social strata access to the same level and quality of services, reflecting a collective, public health and democratic ideology.

Jonsson concludes that the decision which of the two is likely to become the next mainstream paradigm will not be based on new scientific dis-coveries but rather on power politics and ideol-ogy (Jonsson 2009, p. 26). Arguments in favor of The Investment in Nutrition Paradigm are, i.a., its sound conceptual basis, support of the World Bank and associated likelihood of significant funding, and the avoidance of a structural analy-sis and approach to malnutrition that could reveal social injustice and increase political instability. Arguments for The Human Rights Approach to Nutrition Paradigm are, i.a., the increased recog-nition of economic and social rights, addressing impunity, corruption and social access to justice, and also evoking State obligations as duty bear-ers who are accountable to rights holders’ claims.

3 Shortcomings of Agricultural Models and Nutrition Interventions

Today it is generally acknowledged that in spite of all of the investment and claimed advancement of agricultural technology and production, food inse-curity and hunger have increased (IAASTD 2009). A recent evaluation of FAO estimates on how to feed the world population observes that the narrow focus on increased production and supply coexists with persisting poverty and ongoing lack of ac-cess to food (FAO 2009a, Grethe et al. 2011). The International Assessment of Agricultural Science, Knowledge and Technology for Development highlights, as main challenges, the increase of pro-ductivity of agriculture in a sustainable manner and the needs of small-scale farms in diverse eco-systems (IAASTD 2009). The report further calls for local knowledge and democratic participation in food policy broadly construed, human health, natural resource management, greater farmer in-dependence vis-à-vis international industrial con-cerns, and attention to women in agriculture.

These reports call for the inclusion and cen-tralization of grassroots-based approaches that en-able the possibility of addressing structural prob-lems, including gender discrimination and power imbalances that perpetuate food insecurity and hunger. Among these, gender is not yet adequate-ly addressed and integrated into the discussions, despite the crucial role of women for household food security (Kent 2002; IFPRI 2005; Quisumb-ing, Smith 2007; Lemke et al. 2009). While both men and women farmers do not have access to adequate resources, female farmers in all regions have less ownership of land and livestock and less access to agricultural inputs, credit, education, extension and other services than do men, due to social norms (FAO 2011). Further, farm labour for women is often limited to part-time and seasonal work, and their wages are characteristically low-er than those of men (FAO 2011; cf. The World Bank, FAO, IFAD 2009). According to a recent FAO report, women comprise on average 43 per-cent of the agricultural labour force3 in developing countries, ranging from 20 percent in Latin Amer-ica to on average 50 percent in Eastern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (FAO 2011). Women in sub-Saharan Africa have the highest average agricul-

SCHWERPUNKT


tural labour-force participation rates in the world, comprising over 60 percent in some countries. Further, in a number of countries the female share of the agricultural labor force has increased in re-cent decades due to, i.a., military conflicts, HIV/AIDS, and migration. The FAO report reiterates the call for policy interventions that close the gen-der gap in agriculture and rural labor markets, by

1. eliminating discrimination against women with regard to access to resources,

2. creating enabling infrastructure and technolo-gies to provide women with more time for productive activities, and

3. facilitating women’s participation in flexible, efficient, and fair rural labour markets (FAO 2011, p. 5–6).

To overcome discrimination against women and to successfully implement gender mainstreaming programs, it will be necessary to also pay atten-tion to men and men’s social roles and expecta-tions of themselves and of women (cf. Bread for the World 2009; Quisumbing 2010).

Further, debates evolve around the ongo-ing support of medicalized nutrition intervention models in food aid. The 2008 “Lancet Series on Maternal and Child Undernutrition” provoked civil society criticism and scientific debates.4 The Series rightly identified the abomination of nu-trition-related maternal and child mortality rates, but without acknowledging the associated denial of basic human rights, i.a., to basic dignity and self-determination. The Series emphasized a need for short-term, private sector-lead nutrition strate-gies with a focus on micro-nutrients and the mod-eling, reconstruction, and medicalization of food instead of food-based systems and local, sustain-able strategies involving the public and civil sec-tors. Accordingly, the recent Scaling up Nutrition (SUN) initiative5 that was developed as a result of the Lancet Series favors a stronger influence of the private sector, to the detriment of more ho-listic and locally-based approaches (Latham et al. 2011). One important element of SUN is the large-scale distribution of Ready-to-Use Supplemental Food (RUSF), high energy nutritional food sup-plements based on cereals, legumes, or seeds for-tified with vitamins and minerals, used to treat or prevent moderate to mild forms of malnutrition.

We argue that global circulation of RUSF, as an example of a non-local food and nutrition “cure,” and increasingly even as a form of malnutrition prevention, is over-emphasized to the advantage of trade interests, but to the detriment of devel-oping capacity and autonomy in community and national based food and nutrition systems.

The question becomes, whose interests are served by SUN and whose livelihoods enhanced. Public and business policy to adopt or promote industrially produced, internationally traded, and non-locally sourced or created RUSF inhibits lo-cal sustainable solutions for food and nutrition security. These “measures” represent a paternal-istic, “non-human-rights-based approach” that indicate a presumption of local incompetence and that accentuate aid, neediness and dependency. In contrast, approaches are needed that promote ownership, capacity, autonomy and self-determi-nation of local food systems, as well as tangible outcomes such as improved food and nutrition security, job creation, and broad social networks. Food is not just about nutrients, but about live-lihoods, value, culture, and many other aspects. As has been pointed out at a post-19th IUNS Nu-trition Congress 2009 Symposium hosted by the “United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition” (UNSCN)6 the cost-effectiveness of supplementation (e.g. with Vitamin A or import-ed, pre-processed complementary foods) requires investigation. Supplementation is designed to achieve a single effect, vs. food-based strategies that seek more diversified nutritional and other livelihood effects (e.g., of supporting local food systems and economies). Additionally, the eth-ics of private-public partnerships associated with supplementation and linked to the undermining of local agriculture and diets, as well as to eco-nomic dependencies, have to be questioned.

4 Bridging Nutrition and Agriculture: A Systems Approach and Local Food Governance

The “Sustainable Livelihoods Framework” as developed by the Department for International Development (DFID 1999) can serve as a theo-retical framework and analytical tool to explore rural livelihoods and the closely connected issues of poverty, hunger and food insecurity. The initial

SCHWERPUNKT


concept “Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches” (SLA) became increasingly central to the interna-tional debate about development, poverty reduc-tion, and environmental management in the 1990s (Scoones 2009). A livelihood “comprises the ca-pabilities, assets (including both material and so-cial resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintains or enhances its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base” (Scoones 1998, p. 5).7 At the micro- and meso-level, livelihood assets (physical, natural, finan-cial, social and human capital) play an essential role for households to pursue their livelihood strategies and to strive for desired livelihood outcomes, largely influenced by institutional and policy structures at the national and provincial level, with these structures to a great extent deter-mining the vulnerability context of people. Thus a sustainable livelihoods approach must address a full range of access to resources for insecure pop-ulations, including access to social and political assets. While SLA has been criticized for not ad-equately reflecting power relations, the initial ap-proach presumed that an understanding of social relationships, their institutions and organizations and their embedded power dynamics is crucial to designing interventions which improve sustain-able livelihood outcomes (Scoones 1998).

According to Scoones (2009), especially over the past decade, research and policy have shifted away from the contextual, transdisciplinary and cross-sectoral SLA-influenced perspective, back toward a predictable default to macro-economic analyses. In line with Scoones (2009) who calls for re-energizing livelihoods perspectives, we ar-gue that SLA research continues to offer a valuable and holistic approach for an integrated analysis of complex and highly dynamic contexts. SLA is able to bridge academic and policy divides, particularly between the natural and social sciences, and to challenge single-sector development approaches; it emphasizes the importance of local knowledge and the inclusion of participatory research meth-ods as a means to help to understand complex local realities and to facilitate engagement and learning between local people and outsiders. The limita-tions of SLA, as with regard to power relations,

can benefit from the integration of complementary tools and frameworks that more specifically ad-dress these relationships. This is for example be-ing applied in current research on food security and right to adequate food in the context of land reform in South Africa (Lemke 2010), exploring women’s empowerment by integrating the Sus-tainable Livelihoods Framework with the Women Empowerment Framework (Kabeer 1999). It is further acknowledged that every exploration has to be adapted to the respective research context, creating high time and resource demands. Yet, SLA offers two advantages. First, it grapples with structural and underlying causes of food and nu-trition security from the insights of those affected by insecurity. Secondly, in so doing, SLA can and should integrate its approach with rights-based research methods that foreground individual and local interpretation of realities and causes of food and nutrition insecurity, as well as needed changes for sustainable food systems, in the context of hu-man rights claims (Eide, Kracht 2007).

Besides the need for a systems approach to overcome the agriculture-nutrition divide, local food governance approaches provide strategies to bridge this gap and to promote democratic participatory sovereignty over food systems that nourish communities. Based on the initiative of civil society groups, the concept of “food sover-eignty” was introduced at the World Food Sum-mit 1996, placing emphasis to the rights and spe-cific needs of smallholder farmers and addressing core problems of hunger and poverty (Windfuhr, Jonsén 2005). Selected key principles of food sovereignty are as follows:

“… the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems […] prioritizes local and national economies and markets [… and] implies new social rela-tions free of oppression and inequality between men and women, peoples, racial groups, social and economic classes and generations”8.

Both food sovereignty and the human right to adequate food concentrate on access to produc-tive resources to be able to feed oneself and one’s family, representing a much more active approach then the widely used concept of food security.

SCHWERPUNKT


According to Windfuhr and Jonsén (2005), food sovereignty can thus be seen as a condition for genuine food security, and the right to adequate food as a political tool to achieve it. Further, and importantly, both food sovereignty and the right to adequate food foreground women and gender equality for achieving improved access to produc-tive resources. Based on the initiative of civil soci-ety organizations, FAO developed the “Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of na-tional food security” to encourage National States to develop a systematic evaluation approach through the development and inclusion of bench-marks and indicators to monitor progress towards achieving the right to adequate food (FAO 2005; cf. Eide, Kracht 2005; Eide, Kracht 2007). These Voluntary Guidelines serve the additional purpose of providing civil society organizations the same tools for developing shadow reports that can con-test or complement those of National States.

As with food sovereignty, “community food security” is rooted in civil society and cross-sec-toral partnerships (public, private, and private non-profit) that leverage a “community voice” into traditional power structures to redefine food and nutrition needs, security, and local-based strat-egies. The concept was introduced by Hamm and Bellows and is defined as “a condition in which all community residents obtain a safe, culturally ac-ceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sus-tainable food system that maximizes community self-reliance and social justice” (Hamm, Bellows 2003, p. 37). Community food security developed in part from theories of food and economic democ-racy (Koc et al. 1999) as well as the international human right to food (Bellows, Hamm 2003). Sim-ilarly, Anderson (2008) introduced the concept of rights-based food systems (RBFS) and their con-nection with more localized and sustainable agro-ecological systems that contribute to awareness of the environmental and social costs of current food systems practices. Communities are understood as integrated into social fabric, not as isolated units and the goal of community food security is self-determination, not economic dependency or even self-sufficiency. In some contexts, social protec-tion remains necessary because not everyone can afford adequate food for a healthy life. Such pro-

grams, if properly designed, can help stimulate lo-cal agriculture, for example by providing small-holders with increased certainty about demand for their products (Godfray et al. 2010).

“Food Policy Councils” (FPCs) are a North American phenomenon of the last 20 years where-in neighborhood food initiatives cooperate with diverse civic actors to develop policies for just, healthy food systems that serve local communities through a synergy of social and economic devel-opment. Food Policy Councils convene citizens, civil society organizations, government officials, farmers, and other local private sector entrepre-neurs for the purpose of providing a comprehen-sive examination of a state or local food system. This unique, non-partisan form of civic engage-ment brings together a diverse array of food sys-tem stakeholders to develop food and agriculture policy recommendations.9 The approach relies on human relationships, as advanced in the concept of so-called “value-webs” (cf. Block et al. 2008). The emphasis on inclusive and balanced partici-pation of actors in local, regional and community food systems suggests that FPCs may serve as a model for women’s participation in food and nu-trition security approaches generally, and also as a model of relevance for other world regions.

5 Conclusion and Recommendations

The evaluation of agricultural production and nu-trition intervention models highlights that we need alternative approaches. Grethe et al. (2011) em-phasize that the focus should not be on increased food production, but suggest instead, i.a., to reduce post-harvest losses both in the developing and in-dustrialized world; to lower meat consumption; and to use scarce resources more sustainably (cf. Schuftan 2010). In recognition of the limits of ex-isting public (government, non-profit) and private sector (entrepreneurial, for profit) membership in bodies addressing world food and nutrition securi-ty, the recently revised and reorganized “Commit-tee on World Food Security” (CFS) now includes a structure and processes that mainstream civil society participation (private, non-profit) through permanent representation (FAO 2009b).10 We pro-pose that development needs to engage approaches of building local self-reliance, community food

SCHWERPUNKT


security, and local governance that foreground in-clusive participation. Such approaches are perhaps slower and more expensive, but surely more cost-effective. The following additional points apply:

• A systems approach needs to begin from the perspective of local populations of women, men, and children regardless of a person’s life stage in the reproductive cycle and inclusive of their social locations (race, ethnicity, gender, income, etc.), in both public and private spaces.

• A sustainable livelihood framework that links people, agro-ecologies, and viable economies should be applied to local food systems and governance.

• A rights-based approach should be incorpo-rated into local food systems and governance founded on the precept that all individuals have the right to participate in and define food and nutrition security strategies.

• Local food systems and governance should be simultaneously linked to national and global food governance approaches, assuming they foreground grass-roots civil society interests.

• The separation of food production and nutri-tion objectives needs to be overcome.

• The focus on women and children in the right to adequate food and nutrition needs to move beyond their portrayal as disempowered vic-tims in a maternal-child and housebound state and requires a proactive approach to protect-ing and centering women’s voices.

• Chronic dependency on food aid and charity designed for emergencies must be avoided and overcome with a shifted goal on the de-velopment of local systems that promote self-determination.

Notes

1) We would like to thank the following people for valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper: Flavio Valente, Veronika Scherbaum, Anna Jen-deredjian, Ana María Suárez Franco and Roseane do Socorro Gonçalves Viana.

2) “Everyone has the right to a standard of living ade-quate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food.” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 25(1); http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml – download 14.10.10).

3) According to FAO, the agricultural labour force includes people who are working or looking for work in formal or informal jobs and in paid or unpaid employment in agriculture (FAO 2011, p. 7). That includes self-employed women as well as women working on family farms.

4) The Lancet Series on Maternal and Child Under-nutrition No. 1–5, The Lancet, January 17, 2008.

5) See Bezanson, Isenman 2010 and Horton et al. 2010.6) Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2009, 55

(Suppl. 1), pp. 1–761, Karger, http://www.karger.com/anm.

7) For the initial definition of Sustainable Liveli-hoods see Chambers and Conway (1992).

8) Available at http://www.foodsovereignty.org/FOOT-ER/Highlights.aspx (download 19.7.11).

9) See http://www.statefoodpolicy.org/.10) CFS members agreed to wide-ranging reforms to

make the CFS the foremost inclusive international and intergovernmental platform dealing with food security and nutrition and to be a central compo-nent in the evolving “Global Partnership for Agri-culture, Food Security and Nutrition”.

References

Anderson, M.D., 2008: Rights-based food systems and the goals of food systems reform. In: Agriculture and Human Values 25/4 (2008), pp. 593–608Bellows, A.C.; Hamm, M.W., 2003: International Ori-gins of Community Food Security Policies and Prac-tices in the U.S. In: Critical Public Health, Special Is-sue: Food Policy 13/2 (2003), pp. 107–123Bellows, A.C.; Lemke S.; Scherbaum, V., 2011: Das Recht auf Nahrung. Historischer Rückblick als Vor-ausschau zur Lösung der Ernährungskrise. In: Ernäh-rungs Umschau 58 (2011), pp. 66–72Bezanson, K.; Isenman, P., 2010: Policy Brief. Scal-ing Up Nutrition: A Framework for Action. In: Food and Nutrition Bulletin 31/1 (2010), pp. 178–186Block, D.R.; Thompson, M.; Euken, J. et al., 2008: Engagement for transformation: Value webs for local food systems development. In: Agricultural Human Values 25 (2008), pp. 379–388Bread for the World, 2009: Gender Mainstreaming in Practice. Nine examples of good practice from four continents. Dialogue 01; http://www.brot-fuer-die-welt.de/downloads/fachinformationen/dialog01_gen-der-mainstreaming_englisch.pdf (download 18.4.11)Chambers, R.; Conway, G., 1992: Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper No. 296 (1992), Institute of De-velopment Studies, Brighton

SCHWERPUNKT


DFID – Department for International Development, 1999: Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, DFID. London; http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0901/section2.pdf (download 15.3.11)Eide, W.B.; Kracht, U. (eds.), 2005: Food and Hu-man Rights in Development. Legal and institutional dimensions and selected topics. Volume I. AntwerpEide, W.B.; Kracht, U. (eds.), 2007: Food and Human Rights in Development. Evolving issues and emerg-ing applications. Volume II. AntwerpFAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1996: Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Ac-tion. RomeFAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit-ed Nations, 2002: The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. Rome; http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y1500e/y1500e00.htm (download 12.3.10)FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit-ed Nations, 2005: Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security; http://www.fao.org/righttofood/publi_01_en.htm (download 5.3.11)FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2009a: How to Feed the World in 2050. Executive Summary; http://www.fao.org/file-admin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf (download 27.5.11)FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2009b: Report of the thirty-fifth session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) Rome, 14–15 and 17 October 2009. Thirty-sixth session, Novem-ber 2009, C 2009/21-Rev.1; ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/018/K6406E_03.pdf (download 10.11.10)FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2011: The State of Food and Agricul-ture 2010–2011. Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap for DevelopmentGodfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R. et al., 2010: Food Security – The challenge of feeding 9 bil-lion people. In: Science 327 (2010), pp. 812–818Grethe, H.; Dembélé, A.; Duman, N., 2011: How to feed the world’s growing billions. Understanding FAO world food projections and their implications. Heinrich Boell Foundation (HBF) and World Wild-life Fund Germany (WWF); http://www.boell.de/downloads/2011-05-How-to-feed-the-Worlds-gro-wing-billions.pdf (download 27.5.11)Gross, R.; Schoeneberger, H.; Pfeifer, H. et al., 2000: Four Dimensions of Food and Nutrition Security: Def-inition and Concepts. In: ACC/SCN News. UN ACC Sub-Committee on Nutrition 20 (2000), pp. 20–25

Hamm, M.W.; Bellows, A.C., 2003: Community Food Security and Nutrition Educators. In: Journal of Nutri-tion Education and Behavior 35/1 (2003), pp. 37–43Horton, S.; Shekar, M.; McDonal, C. et al., 2010: Scaling up Nutrition. What will it cost? The World Bank. Washington, DCIAASTD – International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, 2009: Agriculture at a crossroads. Synthesis report. Washington, DC: Island Press. http://www.agassess-ment.org/docs/SR_Exec_Sum_280508_English.pdf (download 11.2.11)IFPRI – International Food Policy Research Institute, 2005: Women. Still the key to food security; http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/ib/ib33.pdf (download 18.4.11)Jonsson, U., 2009: Paradigms in applied nutrition. Paper presented at the International Conference on Nutrition (ICN), Bangkok, Thailand, 5–9 October 2009; http://www.rtfn-watch.org/uploads/media/U._Jonsson_-_Pa-radigms_in_Applied_Nutrition.pdf (download 11.2.11)Kabeer, N., 1999: Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Em-powerment. In: Development and Change 30 (1999), pp. 435–464Kent, G., 2002: A gendered perspective on nutrition rights. In: AGENDA 51 (2002), pp. 43–50Klennert, K. (ed.), 2009: Achieving Food and Nutri-tion Security. Actions to Meet the Global Challenge. InWent; http://www.inwent.org/imperia/md/content/a-internet2008/portaliz/umweltundernaehrung/achie-ving_food_and_nutrition_security_2010.pdf (down-load 11.2.11)Koc, M.; MacRae, R.; Mougeot, L.J.A. et al. (eds.), 1999: For Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems. International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and The Centre for Studies in Food Security. Ryerson Polytechnic University, TorontoKracht, U., 1999: Hunger, Malnutrition and Pover-ty: Trends and Prospects Towards the 21st Century. In: Kracht, U.; Schulz, M. (eds.): Food Security and Nutrition: The Global Challenge. St. Martin’s. New York, pp. 55–74Latham, M.; Jonsson, U.; Sterken, E. et al., 2011: Commentary: RUTF stuff. Can the children be saved with fortified peanut paste? In: World Nutrition 2/2 (2011), pp. 62–85Lemke, S., 2010: Food security and right to adequate food in the context of land and agrarian reform in South Africa. In: Annual TROZ Report 2008/2009. Centre for Agriculture in the Tropics and Subtropics, Univer-sity of Hohenheim, pp. 39–40; https://troz.uni-hohen-

SCHWERPUNKT


heim.de/uploads/media/Report_TROZ_2008_2009.pdf (download 10.5.11)Lemke, S.; Heumann, N.; Bellows, A.C., 2009: Gender and sustainable livelihoods: Case study of South Afri-can farm workers. In: International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 4 2/3 (2009), pp. 195–205Maxwell, S., 1996: Food Security: A Post-Modern Perspective. In: Food Policy 21/2 (1996), pp. 155–170Maxwell, S.; Frankenberger, T.R. (eds.), 1992: House-hold Food Security: Concepts, Indicators, Measure-ments. A Technical Review. UNICEF. New YorkOHCHR – Office of the High Commissioner for Hu-man Rights, 1996: International Covenant on Eco-nomic, Social and Cultural Rights; http://www.unh-chr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm (download 12.6.09)Quisumbing, A.R., 2010: Implementing the interna-tionally agreed goals and commitments in regard to gender equality and empowerment of women. Gender equality and poverty eradication: good practices and lessons learned. Commission on the Status of Wom-en, Fifty-fourth session, United Nations: New York, 1–12 March 2010; http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing15/ipanel_ECOSOC_AMR/Quisumbing_Gender%20equality%20and%20poverty%20eradica-tion_3-2-10.pdf (download 6.5.11)Quisumbing, A.R.; Smith, L.C., 2007: Case Study #4–5, Intrahousehold Allocation, Gender Relations, and Food Security in Developing Countries. In: Pinstrup-Andersen, P.; Cheng F. (eds.), 2007: Food policy for Developing countries: Case Studies; http://cip.cornell.edu/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=dns.gfs/1200428166 (download 18.4.11)Schuftan, C., 2010: Governments in times of crisis: seeking an excuse to brush-off their responsibility in upholding the human right to nutrition? In: Right to Food and Nutrition Watch (2010), pp. 18–21; http://www.rtfn-watch.org/uploads/media/C._Schuftan_-_original_paper.pdf (download 15.3.11)Scoones, I., 1998: Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper, 72. In-stitute for Development Studies. SussexScoones, I., 2009: Livelihoods perspectives and ru-ral development. In: Journal of Peasant Studies 36/1 (2009); http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/papers/FJPS_36_1_2009.pdf (download 15.3.11)Sen, A., 1981: Poverty and Famines: An Essay on En-titlements and Deprivation. Clarendon Press, OxfordThe World Bank, FAO – Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion of the United Nations, IFAD – International Fund for Agriculture Development, 2009: Gender in agricul-ture sourcebook. The World Bank Publications, Geneva

UNICEF – United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, 1990: Strategy for improved nutri-tion of children and women in developing countries. Unicef Policy Review, UNICEF. New YorkUnited Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 1999: Updated study on the right to food, The right to adequate food and to be free from hunger, submitted by Eide, A. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/12, 28 June 1999. Para 28UNSCN – United Nations System Standing Commit-tee on Nutrition, 2010: 6th Report on the World Nutri-tion Situation; http://www.unscn.org/files/Publications/RWNS6/html/index.html (download 15.3.11)Windfuhr, M.; Jonsén, J., 2005: Food Sovereignty: To-wards Democracy in Localized Food Systems. ITDG Publishing, The Schumacher Centre for Technology and Development

Contact

Dr. Stefanie LemkeUniversity of HohenheimInstitute for Social Sciences in AgricultureCenter for Gender and NutritionSchloss Museumsflügel 031, 70593 StuttgartPhone: +49 (0) 7 11 / 4 59 - 2 26 47Fax: +49 (0) 7 11 / 4 59 - 2 44 02Email: [email protected]

« »

SCHWERPUNKT


International Agricultural Re-search: Is the Reformed CGIAR an Adequate Response to the Challenges Ahead?

by Rolf Meyer, ITAS, with Elisabeth Bongert and Stephan Albrecht, FSP BIOGUM, Univer-sity of Hamburg1

International agricultural research, organised since 1971 in the Consultative Group on In-ternational Agricultural Research (CGIAR), is a key institutional element for achieving food security and development. In the last two decades, CGIAR experienced increasing shortcomings and unsatisfactory performan-ces, due to a number of external and internal factors which will be discussed in this paper. In answer to the changes and challenges, a renewed CGIAR was adopted last year, with a new institutional model, a common vision, and strategic objectives for all centres, and a development of centralised, cross-centre mega-programs. The next years will indicate whether the reorganised institutional settings and the reorientation of research agendas will be successful. In this context, a number of controversial issues remain.

1 Introduction

The Consultative Group on International Agricul-tural Research (CGIAR) is a cornerstone of the international agricultural research effort. CGIAR was established in 1971 and was originally based on the four agricultural research centres previously established by the Rockefeller and Ford Founda-tions: the “Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo” in Mexico, the “International Rice Research Institute” in the Philippines, the “In-ternational Institute of Tropical Agriculture” in Ni-geria, and the “Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical” in Colombia. When formed, the CGIAR had 20 members (11 industrial countries, six in-ternational organizations, and three foundations) and the annual budget was about US$20 million in nominal dollars. At this time, it occupied a unique position in the international agricultural research. Over the last four decades, the CGIAR system has

evolved in many ways. It now supports 15 inter-national agricultural research centres. There are 64 CGIAR members today including 21 developing and 26 industrialised countries, four co-sponsors, as well as 13 other international organisations (CGIAR 2011a; cf. Meyer 2008, p. 43).

The research focuses of the CGIAR centres have changed over time. Starting with semi-dwarf varieties of rice and wheat and improved varieties of maize from international agricultural research centres of CGIAR, public breeding programmes in developing countries have released more than 8,000 improved crop varieties over the past 40 ye-ars. The contribution of improved crop varieties to yield growth since 1980 has been even larger than in the Green Revolution decade of the 1970s.

A second major task has been developed on improving the management of crops, livestock, and natural resources. In the period 2002–2005 the CGIAR invested about 43 percent of its finan-cial resources in protecting the environment, sa-ving biodiversity, and improving policies, more than twice the 18 percent invested in genetic improvement (Pingali, Kelley 2007, pp. 2388f.). Part of this work has emphasised soil and wa-ter management and agro-ecological approaches that employ biological and ecological processes to reduce the use of non-renewable inputs, espe-cially pesticides and mineral fertiliser. Examples include conservation agriculture, green manure cover crops, soil conservation, and pest control using biodiversity and biological control rather than pesticides (World Bank 2007, p. 163).

2 Changes and Problems

Despite high macroeconomic returns on invest-ments and important successes of CGIAR-suppor-ted research, since the 1980s the CGIAR system has been criticised time and again for a lack of coordinated action, for neglecting socio-economic factors, especially of smallholder und subsistence agriculture, and for being too much fixed on tech-nology development such as modern biotechnolo-gy (Anderson et al. 1988; Lipton, Longhurst 1989; Uphoff 2002; IAASTD 2009a). In recent years, when hunger and poverty reduction became more prominent on the international political agenda, a discussion began on shortcomings and unsatisfac-

SCHWERPUNKT


tory performance of the CGIAR (CGIAR 2008a, p. 1). A number of external and internal factors can be identified. Major issues are summarised below.

2.1 Changing Landscape of Agricultural Research

The agricultural research landscape has undergo-ne some major changes in the past decades. This changing environment is also for CGIAR of high relevance.

Globalisation and private sector research: During the first 20 years of CGIAR, agricultu-ral research was characterised by public funding. From the 1990s on, agricultural science and tech-nology became increasingly globalised, spurred by massive growth of private sector Research & Development and rapid advances in informati-on and other technologies. In the industrialised countries, investment by the private sector is now higher than total public sector investment. Priva-te investment is largely confined to technologies with intellectual property protection, which can earn significant revenues in the market (IAASTD 2009a, p. 25). Powerful private actors emerged with their own agendas and interests. In contrast, private sector investment in developing countries has remained small, and this is likely to continue.

Development of national agricultural re-search systems: Besides overall economic growth, the support of the CGIAR system contri-buted to the building up of national agricultural research systems (NARSs). Today, international cooperation in agricultural research and develop-ment goes well beyond CGIAR. In agricultural research for development, the national agricul-tural systems in Brazil, China, India, and the Re-public of South Africa, and some other countries became world leaders in agricultural research and important sources of new technologies and knowledge for other countries and regions. They hold huge potential for increased South-South cooperation. The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, for example, has a budget that is more than three times larger than CGIAR’s and has meanwhile launched programmes in Africa.

Regional research organisations and net-works are also playing a much greater role. Many developing countries, including several in Africa,

now have national agricultural research institutes with solid capacities (CGIAR 2008a, p. 22). Ad-ditionally, the organisational structure of NARSs changed over time, evolving from bureaucratic public service institutions to diversified systems with stronger participation of universities, NGOs, and the private sector (both local and internati-onal) (Lele, Ekboir 2004, p. 9). But at the same time, a new dualism emerged. Many smaller, especially poor countries are lagging behind in agricultural research. We see a depletion of natio-nal counterparts or a missing of national agricul-tural research system in many “Least Developed Countries”. Therewith, the gap between stronger and weaker nations the CGIAR institutions must cooperate with is widening (CGIAR 2008b).

New technology transfer models: For some decades, CGIAR centres followed a linear con-cept of transfer of technology: Scienctists were regarded as problem-defining and knowledge-generating agents at the core. Their results, em-bedded in technologies, messages, and practices, were expected to be transferred by extension agents to farmers, whose role was that of tech-nology adopters. This model was successful for purposes of disseminating improved seed, trai-ning farmers in simple practices and input use, and disseminating application prescriptions within the intensive, high external input pro-duction systems characterising the relatively homogenous irrigated wheat and rice production systems of South and Southeast Asia (IAASTD 2009b, p. 63). But the model was not suitable for organising knowledge transfer capable of impro-ving heterogeneous agro-ecological and farming conditions. In addition, resource-poor and wo-men farmers were often not well-addressed. In response, new models such as “farming systems research and extension” and “farmer participa-tory research and extension” were developed. These aim to activate farm level interactions between researchers and farmers in the course of technology design, testing, and adaptation, and to promote farmer-to-farmer communication and training (IAASTD 2009b, p. 65). Including far-mers in the research and development process is not only relevant for agro-ecological production system improvements. The “participatory plant breeding” concept involves farmers throughout

SCHWERPUNKT


the entire breeding process and mainly takes place in farmers’ fields (Uphoff 2002; Kotschi 2010).

Civil society engagement in research: New actors from the private sector who are very power-ful in financial and ideological terms, such as the “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation”, are beco-ming major players in financing international agri-cultural research (CGIAR 2008a, p. 23). Globally acting foundations, e.g. the “Bill and Melinda Ga-tes Foundation”, “Kelloggs Foundation”, “Syn-genta Foundation” have joined CGIAR as donors. They are represented in the CGIAR fund council (CGIAR 2011b). Besides funding research, local and national agricultural NGOs (see Uphoff in this volume) have also become increasingly engaged in own or collaborative research projects. There-with, a new world of actors is evolving.

Changing research agenda in industrialized countries: Until recently, the world’s poorest countries were highly dependent on the spillover of agricultural technologies from industrialised countries (especially the United States and the European Union), both individually and through CGIAR. Successful innovation efforts in most developing countries mainly took place at the very end of the innovation process, for examp-le, by selecting and adapting varieties for local conditions using breeding lines and other materi-al developed elsewhere. But the research agenda of industrial countries is shifting. In rich coun-tries, emphasis on enhancing the production of staple food is declining. Instead, environmental and health issues of production and products are gaining importance.2 This means that the indust-rialised countries will no longer provide the same level of productivity-enhancing agricultural tech-nologies, suitable for adaptation and adoption in developing countries, as they did in the past.

Intellectual property rights: The rise of mo-dern biotechnology and enhanced regimes of intel-lectual property rights mean that some technolo-gies that were once freely accessible will be more difficult to access in the future. Biotech companies are mostly located in OECD countries – particu-larly in the United States – and they emphasise technologies that are applicable at home (Pardey et al. 2006b). If CGIAR centres do not file patent applications for their research, private researchers

and companies will do it, preventing free transfer to NARSs and resource-poor farmers (Lele, Ek-boir 2004, p. 10). The principle that agricultural research should operate in some kind of “global commons” is challenged by court decisions, legal provisions, and international treaty obligations in favour of “privatisation” of new knowledge.

Imbalance between “emergency aid” and “longer-term research and development”: Ove-rall, the balance of assistance shifted away from long-term development to emergency assistance. The value of emergency food aid distributed by the World Food Programme in 2007 was with US$5 billion already larger than the sum of funds for longer-term agricultural research and deve-lopment: In this year, the “World Bank/Interna-tional Development Association” committed US$1,771 million to food and agriculture, and the “International Fund for Agricultural Deve-lopment” provided US$563 million, the annual research expenditure of the CGIAR was US$530 million, and the annual budget of FAO for TA and Standards US$380 million (Lele 2009).

“Mushrooming” of aid agencies, “vertica-lisation”, and fragmentation of development aid: The number of official development agencies has mushroomed in the last three decades and the deve-lopment aid architecture today is far more complex than ever before. Official development assistance is provided from over 126 bilateral agencies in member countries of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD. In addition, out-side the DAC, there are at least 23 other countries giving aid. These are mostly well-off countries, but an increasing number of large middle-income countries as well, such as China, India, Brazil, and Turkey, which are active in their neighbourhoods and in selected countries where they have strategic interests (see also Fan, Breisinger in this volume). The picture gets even more complicated with at least 263 multilateral aid agencies, ranging from large well-known bodies to small and highly fo-cused organisations (Kharas 2009).

The main aid instruments – project aid and technical support – utilised until the 1980s have now been supplemented with a variety of new ins-truments such as budget support, debt relief, Sec-tor Wide Programmes, multi-donor Trust Funds, pooled funding, capacity building, and other de-

SCHWERPUNKT


vices. Associated with the greater number of do-nors and manifold of instruments, aid budgets get more fragmented. The number of new aid activity commitments registered with the DAC increased almost five-fold in one decade, from 17,000 in 1996 to 81,000 in 2006. At the same time the ave-rage size of each activity halved, declining from US$3.2 million to US$1.6 million (Kharas 2009). Simultaneously, more development assistance through multilateral channels as well as bilateral assistance was restricted, that means “earmarked” for specific themes or sectors. In addition to this “verticalisation” of donor funding, a phenome-non called “bilateralisation” of multilateral aid, i.e. the bilateral funding in multilateral assistance, came up in the 1990s. All this opened new possi-bilities in agenda setting by donor countries and agencies (Lele 2009).

2.2 Changes within the CGIAR

The changing environment is also reflected in-side the CGIAR system which has undergone continuous evaluations and adjustments. No-netheless, major inefficiencies remained before the current reform.

Enhanced mission: Over the course of the last four decades, the mandates have increased significantly, growing from a narrow focus on improved productivity to 15 centres with a much expanded agenda, from the traditional focus on crop genetic improvement to complex issues like natural resource management and conservation issues critical to sustainable development (CGI-AR 2008b). The shift in priorities has also reflec-ted changes in donor priorities.

Inadequate financing: The resources made available to the CGIAR have not kept pace with broadening tasks and portfolios. While in nomi-nal terms funding has increased, in constant US$ it has stagnated. Between 1995 and 2007, total funding increased by only US$21 million (in 2007 dollar terms), a rise of less than 0.5 percent over 12 years (CGIAR 2009b). Further, the share between unrestricted funds and earmarked contri-butions has changed dramatically, with a prolife-ration of smaller, targeted grants (CGIAR 2008a, p. 53). In 1972, 100 percent of funding was unre-stricted. In 2009, 66 percent of the funding were

restricted contributions (CGIAR 2009b). Impor-tant consequences of this shift are higher admi-nistrative costs for centres and insufficient reco-very of indirect costs. In addition, a lack of co-ordination among donors resulted in sub-optimal use of financial resources (CGIAR 2008b).

Increased complexity and overlaps in man-dates: CGIAR evolved over time into an increa-singly complex system, characterised by compli-cated governance structures. The result is a loss of efficiency due to overlaps in mandates, cumberso-me monitoring and review procedures, an inabili-ty to harmonise funding and resource allocation, and a lack of authority to enforce decisions. No mutually agreed understanding of the obligations of donors and centres existed (CGIAR 2008b).

Impacts of research: There is an ongoing debate about the impacts of different research areas, and therewith on the appropriate weighing of research programmes:

• The first position highlights the impacts of crop genetic research. A meta-analysis of eco-nomic ex-post impact assessments over the system’s lifetime (until 2001) came to the re-sult that research benefits heavily outweigh costs, with a wide spread of results depending from the studies included (Raitzer 2003). A very high proportion of benefits was associa-ted with just a few of CGIAR’s programmes, however. Roughly half (47 %) of total bene-fits were attributed to breeding of modern rice varieties, and almost a third (31 %) to spring wheat breeding. Biocontrol research that led to reduced crop damage from the cassava mea-lybug, which can cause crop losses of up to 80 %, accounted for most of the remaining total benefits (15 %) (CGIAR 2008a, p. 28). But this result derives from the fact that only a small subset of impacts has been assessed in the studies (Raitzer 2003, p. xvi). A recent review of evidence on the impacts of CGIAR research published since 2000 confirms that crop genetic improvement research stands out as having had the most profoundly docu-mented positive impacts. For other research areas within the CGIAR, substantial evidence is seen for large beneficial impacts although often locally and nationally rather than inter-nationally. The “right time, right place” nature

SCHWERPUNKT


of successful policy research and the relatively limited geographic scale of much natural re-source management research often limits the overall scale of impacts of these programmes vis-à-vis genetic improvement research. The conclusion is that the CGIAR’s portfolio of re-search allocations has become overly balanced toward natural resource management and poli-cy research over time (Renkow, Byerlee 2010).

• A second position takes a more inclusive view. The independent review of the CGIAR system in 2008 states that recent studies on the impact of natural resource management research, in-cluding pest management, show substantial be-nefits. Some benefits occurred at a considerable scale and are of international significance. It is admitted that much of the research impact for natural resource management is on a smaller geographic scale than that for crop genetic im-provement, often because adoption depends on local collective action, extension services, or assignment of property rights (CGIAR 2008a, p. 28). Additionally, a deficiency is seen in the focus on productivity benefits while ignoring environmental benefits – presumably due to the methodological difficulties to quantify them in macroeconomic numbers. Finally, the tendency to compartmentalise impact assess-ment neglects the collective contribution to strategic goals and that natural resource ma-nagement is essential to realise higher yield potentials through crop genetic improvements in the field (CGIAR 2008a, p. 31).

• A third position criticises that CGIAR is weak in its agronomic research and in systems de-velopment research capacities. Relatively little attention has been given to agronomic practices, integrated pest management tech-nologies, and innovations like Conservation Agriculture and the System of Rice Intensi-fication, and social research – compared to germplasm enhancement and crop improve-ment research. The negligible socio-cultural research conducted within the CGIAR over the past three decades is cited as a particularly serious deficit (Cernea, Kassam 2006).

Short-falls in partnership: At all levels – global, regional, national, and local – there are many alternative sources of supply for the goods and

services that CGIAR once provided alone. The relationship between CGIAR and NARSs has changed considerably over the last four decades. In some regions (for example Asia) and some countries of Sub-Saharan Africa (for example Kenya, Nigeria, and the Republic of South Af-rica), the centres have changed from mentors to collaborators or partners with NARS (CGIAR 2008a, pp. 63, 68). Despite an increasing number of concrete active partnerships between NGOs and single centres, the formal relationship bet-ween CGIAR and NGOs since 1995 has been characterised more by difficulties than producti-ve collaboration (CGIAR 2008a, p. 71). Overall, the changing landscape of agricultural research makes new and changed partnerships necessary.

3 A Renewed CGIAR

In answer to these changes and challenges, the CGIAR adopted a new alignment and organisati-on last year, after two years of consultation (see CGIAR 2010). The main elements of the “new business model” are:

• New institutional model, • Common vision and strategic objectives, • Portfolio of mega programs with legally bin-

ding funding and performance agreements.

Table 1 shows a comparison between the found-ing principles and the new ones.

Table 1: Recasting the founding principles of CGIAR

Founding principles (situation in the past)

Principles of the new CGIAR

Donor sovereignty Donor harmonizationCenter autonomy Significantly reduced with

greater system coherence

Decision-making by consensus

Replaced by new decision rules and performance contracts

Independent scientific and technical advice

Integrated independent science, partnership, and development outcome advice

Source: CGIAR 2008b, p. 7

SCHWERPUNKT


The new institutional model of CGIAR aims to clearly delineate the responsibilities and ac-countability of those who conduct research and those who fund it. On the one hand, the Con-sortium of the CGIAR centres unites the inter-national agricultural research centres supported by CGIAR and provides a single contact point for donors. On the other hand, CGIAR donors join together in the CGIAR Funders Forum, and the Fund Council, with the aim of harmonising their contributions to agricultural research for development (CGIAR 2010). The two-pillar ma-nagement structure will be held together by four bridging mechanisms. The most fundamental is the “Strategy and Results Framework” (SRF), which guides the development of a results-orien-ted research agenda (see mega programs below) in line with the new vision and strategic objecti-ves. In April 2011 the Fund Council and Funders Forum have adopted the SRF (CGIAR 2011c).

The common vision is “to reduce poverty and hunger, improve human health and nutrition, and enhance ecosystem resilience through high-quality international agricultural research, part-nership, and leadership” (CGIAR 2009a). The strategic objectives are:

• “Food for People: Create and accelerate sus-tainable increases in the productivity and pro-duction of healthy food by and for the poor.

• Environment for People: Conserve, enhance and sustainably use natural resources and bio-diversity to improve the livelihoods of the poor in response to climate change and other factors.

• Policies for People: Promote policy and ins-titutional change that will stimulate agricul-tural growth and equity to benefit the poor, especially rural women and other disadvan-taged groups.” (CGIAR 2009a, p. 4)

In the shift to a more programmatic approach, the “CGIAR Research Programs” or so called mega programs play a key role. They represent contractual relationships – both within the CGI-AR and between the lead centre and research partners outside – and put greater emphasis on results on the ground. The Consortium Board takes the lead in selecting and defining mega programs, which are then submitted to the Fund Council for approval and funding. Fundamental

to developing the SRF and its mega programs is their alignment with the perspectives and priori-ties of end users, as expressed through biennial “Global Conferences on Agricultural Research for Development” (GCARD) and other contacts (CGIAR 2010). The 1st GCARD took place in 2010 and produced a road map “Transforming Agricultural Research for Development Systems for Global Impact” (GCARD 2011).

4 Perspectives and Remaining Questions

A first success of revitalising CGIAR is a re-markable increase of funding. The CGIAR fun-ding was raised from US$426 million in 2006 to US$606 million in 2009 (last available figures) (CGIAR 2009b). The changed institutional struc-ture is too new to assess its performance. Fif-teen mega programs were proposed by CGIAR centres in cooperation with their partners, from which four are adopted, one is under provisional approval, and ten are at various stages of progress (Consortium 2011). Therewith, the reorganisation of the research agendas is still under way.

Independent from an overall success of the CGIAR reform, the following questions will pro-bably also accompany the international agricul-tural research system in the next years.

• Plant genetic improvement versus agro-ecolo-gical production system research: Macroeco-nomic benefits of crop genetic improvements are the most often assessed and best documen-ted research area. They represent the most im-portant success stories of CGIAR in the past. Modern varieties have the chance of high spill-overs also in the future. But yield gaps are very high in many developing countries and therefo-re the potential for intensification, in contrast to favourable areas in OECD countries (Neumann et al. 2010). The realisation of improved yield potentials, achieved by breeding, depends on parallel advances in the production manage-ment. Sustainable intensification via agro-eco-logical approaches (see Kassam et al. in this volume) holds high unexploited potentials for higher productivity and for reduced environ-mental degradation, independent from bree-ding successes. Concerning climate change

SCHWERPUNKT


adaptation, the adequate mix of crop resilience through breeding and resilience of agricultural production systems through agro-ecological approaches is discussed controversially. Over-all, the debate about the best balance between crop genetic improvements and management improvement of production systems with agro-ecological approaches will continue.

• International research versus local production system development: The evaluation of CGIAR revealed that a clear conflict between genera-ting international public goods and working on the applied research and capacity building of partners in turning outputs into outcomes and impacts existed in some centres (CGIAR 2008a, p. 30). The new CGIAR Consortium and the mega programs now aim at a centralised programming, to move away from fragmented and restricted projects. But nonetheless, it was learned in different contexts that “one size fits all” strategies do not work. The new results-oriented research agendas have to show how well they can address the international, regio-nal, national, and local interconnections, with no simple or single solution in sight.

• Scientific excellence versus networking: The reformed CGIAR aims to create an exciting re-search environment, which attracts, develops, und supports the best scientists (CGIAR 2008b, p. 6). But CGIAR also has to tackle other tasks. Given the site-specificity of much agro-ecolo-gical research and the lack of critical mass to do good work in this area in many NARSs, more attention needs to be given to the facili-tative model, in which the CGIAR serves more as a broker between NARSs and international research institutions and among NARSs. The task of CGIAR should be to develop methodo-logies, tools, data, information, and results that have broader spillovers (World Bank 2004, p. 101). The necessary networking to deliver the support, coordination, and exchange for local production system developments may conflict with aiming at scientific excellence.

• Top-down transfer model versus participa-tory research: The linear technology transfer concept is challenged by new participatory approaches. One objective of the new CGIAR is to be more open for partnerships. The hete-

rogeneity of potential partners makes this a challenging task. The new mechanisms have to prove that they are capable to include the demands of poor, smallholder and subsistence farmers, consumers, and other users of natu-ral resources which are largely unrepresented at the international level.

The overriding challenge for the renewed CGI-AR is to make an essential contribution to reduce hunger, malnutrition, and poverty by harnessing greater productivity and ecosystem services with less fossil energy and environmental impacts.

Notes

1) Acknowledgement: The authors thank Norman Uphoff, Uma Lele, and Amir Kassam for very hel-pful comments and suggestions. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed.

2) See Pardey et al. 2006b, detailed in Pardey et al. 2006a.

References

Anderson, J.R.; Herdt, R.W.; Scobie, G.M., 1988: Science and Food. The CGIAR and its Partners. Washington, DCCernea, M.; Kassam, A., 2006: Researching the Cul-ture in Agri-Culture: Social Research for International Agricultural Development. WallingfordCGIAR – Consultative Group on International Agri-cultural Research, 2008a: Bringing together the best of science and the best of development. Independent Review of the CGIAR System. Synthesis Report. Washington, DCCGIAR – Consultative Group on International Agricul-tural Research, 2008b: A Revitalized CGIAR – A New Way Forward. The Integrated Reform Proposal. CGIAR Change Steering Team; http://www.cgiar.org/pdf/agm08/agm08_reform_proposal.pdf (download 16.6.11)CGIAR – Consultative Group on International Agri-cultural Research, 2009a: Joint DeclarationCGIAR – Consultative Group on International Agri-cultural Research, 2009b: Financial Report 2009CGIAR – Consultative Group on International Agricul-tural Research, 2010: A new CGIAR; http://www.cgiar.org/changemanagement/index.html (download 16.6.11)CGIAR – Consultative Group on International Agricul-tural Research, 2011a: Consortium of Centers; http://www.cgiar.org/centers/index.html (download 27.6.11)

SCHWERPUNKT


CGIAR – Consultative Group on International Agri-cultural Research, 2011b: Fund Council Membership; http://www.cgiarfund.org/cgiarfund/fund_council_membership (download 27.6.11)CGIAR – Consultative Group on International Ag-ricultural Research, 2011c: http://consortium.cgx-change.org/home/what-s-new/fundersapprovekeydo-cumentsandfurthercrpssignificantprogressinthecgiar-reform (download 27.6.11)Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers, 2011: List of CRP proposals; http://consorti-um.cgxchange.org/home/strategy-and-results-frame-work/list-of-crp-proposals (download 19.7.11)GCARD – Global Conference on Agricultural Re-search for Development, 2011: The GCARD Road-Map. Transforming Agricultural Research (AR4D) Systems for Global Impact; http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload//290017/The_GCARD__Road_Map_fi-nalized%2020-4-2011.pdf (download 27.6.11)IAASTD – International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Develop-ment, 2009a: Agriculture at a crossroads. Synthesis report. Washington, DCIAASTD – International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Develop-ment, 2009b: Agriculture at a crossroads. Global re-port. Washington, DCKharas, H., 2009: Development Assistance in the 21st Century. Wolfensohn Center for Development at BrookingsKotschi, J., 2010: Reconciling Agriculture with Bio-diversity and Innovations in Plant Breeding. In: GAIA 19/1 (2010), pp. 20–24Lele, U.; Ekboir J., 2004: Technology Generation, Adaptation, Adoption and Impact: Towards a Frame-work for Understanding and Increasing Research Im-pact. Washington, DCLele, U., 2009: Global Food and Agricultural Institu-tions: The Cosmology of International Development Assistance. Book Review Article. In: Development Policy Review 27/6 (2009), pp. 771–784Lipton, M.; Longhurst, R., 1989: New Seeds and Poor People, LondonMeyer, R., 2008: Agricultural Technologies for Deve-loping Countries. IP/A/STOA/FWC/2005-28/SC42. Brussels: European Parliament. Science and Techno-logy Options Assessment (STOA)Neumann, K.; Verburg, P.H.; Stehfest, E. et al., 2010: The yield gap of global grain production: A spatial ana-lysis. In: Agricultural Systems 103 (2010), pp. 316–326

Pardey, P.G.; Alston, J.M.; Piggott, R.R. (eds.), 2006a: Agricultural R&D in the developing world: Too little, too late? Washington, DCPardey, P.G.; Alston, J.M.; Piggott, R.R., 2006b: Shif-ting Ground: Agricultural R&D Worldwide. IFPRI Is-sue Brief 46, Washington, DCPingali, P.; Kelley, T., 2007: The Role of International Agricultural Research in contributing to global food se-curity and poverty alleviation: The case of the CGIAR. In: Evenson, R.; Pingali, P. (eds.): Handbook of Agri-cultural Economics, Vol. 3, Dordrecht, pp. 2381–2418Raitzer, D.A., 2003: Benefit-Cost Meta-Analysis of Investment in the International Agricultural Research of the CGIAR. Science Council Secretariat. RomeRenkow, M.; Byerlee, D., 2010: The impact of CGIAR research: A review of recent evidence. In: Food Policy 35 (2010), pp. 391–402Uphoff, N. (ed.), 2002: Agroecological Innovations. Increasing Food Production with Participatory Deve-lopment. LondonWorld Bank, 2004: The CGIAR at 31. An Independent Meta-Evaluation of the Consultative Group on Inter-national Agricultural Research. Washington, DCWorld Bank, 2007: World development report 2008 – agriculture for development. Washington, DC

Contact

PD Dr. Rolf MeyerKarlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und System-analyse (ITAS)Postfach 36 40, 76021 KarlsruhePhone: +49 (0) 7 21 / 6 08 - 2 48 68Email: [email protected]

« »

TA-PROJEKTE


TA-PROJEKTE

Zukunft der ErnährungErnährungssicherung durch nachhaltige Wissenschaft und friedliche Konfliktbe-arbeitung

von Zoe Heuschkel und Stephan Albrecht, Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler, Berlin

Die Sicherung der Welternährung ist seit vie-len Jahrzehnten wichtiger Bestandteil der deutschen Entwicklungspolitik und Agrar-forschung. Dabei folgte sowohl die wissen-schaftliche als auch politische Ausrichtung stets dem Paradigma der Produktionsstei-gerung zur Beseitigung von Unterernährung und Hunger. Der Erfolg, angesichts von bis zu einer Milliarde hungernder Menschen, lässt noch immer auf sich warten. Ist es da-her nicht Zeit für einen Paradigmenwechsel? Welche kreativen Lösungen können sich he-rausbilden, wenn sich Wissenschaftler in-terdisziplinär vernetzen und den Diskurs mit zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen, poli-tischen Entscheidern und der Öffentlichkeit anstreben? Wie ist eine friedliche und nach-haltige globale Versorgung mit gesunden Nahrungsmitteln in ausreichender Menge zu gewährleisten? Welchen Konflikten könnten wir auf diesem Weg begegnen und wie kann die Weltöffentlichkeit ein friedliches Konflikt-management betreiben?

Das Projekt „Zukunft der Ernährung“ widmet sich diesen Fragen und schöpft aus dem reichen Schatz internationaler Abschätzungen und dabei besonders aus den Erkenntnissen des „Interna-tional Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development“ (IAASTD). Getragen wird das Projekt von der Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler (VDW e.V.) und gefördert von der Deutschen Bundes-stiftung Umwelt, der Mahle-Stiftung und der Stiftung Umwelt und Entwicklung NRW.

1 Hintergrund des Projekts

In den letzten 50 Jahren hat sich die Perspekti-ve, aus der nach Lösungen für das Bekämpfen des weltweiten Hunger gesucht wurde, mehr-fach verändert: Die Maßnahmen reichten von der Stärkung globaler Landbewirtschaftungs-systeme nach den Grundsätzen der industria-lisierten Landwirtschaft über eine Forcierung von politischer Steuerung bis hin zum Einsatz marktwirtschaftlicher Instrumente. Die eigentli-che landwirtschaftliche Praxis und deren soziale Bedeutung gerieten dabei zusehends aus dem Blick. Seit den Aufständen u. a. im Senegal, in Mexiko und Bangladesch im Jahre 2008 auf-grund horrender Nahrungsmittel-Preisanstiege, wird das Thema Ernährungssicherung wieder sehr deutlich auch im sozialen Kontext und hier mit durchaus erkennbarem Sicherheitsbezug diskutiert.

Diese Rückkehr des Welternährungsthe-mas in die wissenschaftlichen und politischen Gesprächskreise ist gleichzeitig verbunden mit einer Reihe neuer Herausforderungen und Fra-gestellungen, ohne jedoch überzeugende Lösun-gen für die vormals bestehenden Ursachen von Unterernährung und Hunger gefunden zu haben. Zu den Umständen, die neuerdings zusätzlich zu einer Verschärfung der Welternährungssituation führen, werden u. a. folgende gezählt:

• weltweite Veränderungen der Ernährungsge-wohnheiten,

• Preisvolatilität von Nahrungsmitteln, zurück-zuführen auf die Nutzung von Nahrungsmit-teln als Rohstoff zur Erzeugung von Brenn- und Werkstoffen und möglicherweise als Fol-ge von Spekulationen,

• Klimawandel,• internationale Landinvestitionen und• politische Veränderungen verbunden mit der

gewalttätigen Austragung von Ernährungs-konflikten.

Eine solche Vielfalt an Herausforderungen, die sich über alle Bereiche des menschlichen Zu-sammenlebens erstreckt, erfordert eine multidi-mensionale und multidisziplinäre Perspektive, um angesichts eines hungernden knappen Sechs-tels der Weltbevölkerung, möglichen Lösungs-ansätzen schnell näher zu kommen. Der Vernet-

TA-PROJEKTE


zung zahlreicher Ideen aus unterschiedlichen wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen und Erfahrungs-hintergründen zum Zwecke einer friedlichen und nachhaltigen Welternährungssicherung widmet sich das hier vorgestellte aktuelle Projekt der Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler.

2 Globale Entwicklungen

Der vierte Klimabericht des Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Pachauri, Rei-singer 2007), der WBGU-Bericht „Sicherheits-risiko Klimawandel“ (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat 2007) und der Weltagrarbericht des IAASTD (McIntyre 2009) zeichnen eine konfliktträchtige und krisenhafte Zukunft: Wasserknappheit, sich ausbreitende Dürren, schwindende Artenvielfalt, Bodendegradierung und -erosi on, durch unbere-chenbare Klimaschwankungen hervorgerufene Missernten sowie Folgeschäden der Agrarchemie bedrohen die Produktivität der Landwirtschaft weltweit und damit die Nahrungsmittelprodukti-on für eine wachsende Weltbevölkerung. Die um sich greifende internationale Ausweitung von Produktionsflächen durch Agrarinvestitionen zugunsten der Erzeugung von Agrarrohstoffen – hauptsächlich werden diese der Produktion von Pflanzentreibstoffen zugeführt – verschärfen die Situation zusätzlich.

Die Herausforderungen einer globalen Nah-rungsverfügbarkeit betreffen seit langem nicht nur Fragen der Produktion. In den Zeiten ei-nes globalisierten Agrarhandels kommt zudem auch der Verteilung und sozialen Konnotation von Nahrungsmitteln große Bedeutung zu. Der Lebensstandard der industrialisierten Welt gilt vielen Menschen in den wirtschaftlich weniger entwickelten Ländern als erstrebenswert. Durch globalisierte Massenmedien kommen damit auch die Ernährungsgewohnheiten, die in den reiche-ren Industrieländern auch zu Stoffwechselkrank-heiten, Herzerkrankungen und Krebs führen, in die ganze Welt. Zu der geschätzten Milliarde Hungernder muss daher eine weitere Milliarde fehl- und überernährter Menschen gezählt wer-den. In der Folge verliert die Weltgemeinschaft an beiden Enden erhebliche Teile ihrer Mitglie-der alleine aus Ernährungsgründen.

Als Folge der globalen Entwicklungen ist in vielen Ländern seit 2007 ein starker Anstieg der Verbraucherpreise für Grundnahrungsmit-tel zu beobachten. Zurückzuführen ist dies auf den verstärkten Einsatz von Getreide zur Vieh-mast und zur Erzeugung von Treibstoffen. Zu welchem Teil Spekulationen zu den beacht-lichen Preissteigerungen beitragen, ist bisher noch unklar. Es wird aber geschätzt, dass zur Erzeugung einer Tankfüllung Ethanol aus Ge-treide die gleiche Menge gebraucht würde, die einen Menschen ein Jahr lang ernähren könn-te. Zumindest der zu erwartende Anstieg des Fleischkonsums und der steigende Energiebe-darf kombiniert mit einer nachlassenden Erdöl-förderung lassen aber erwarten, dass es in Zu-kunft zu weiteren Preissteigerungen und daraus resultierenden Unruhen kommen wird.

3 Ziele des Projekts

Lösungen für das Welternährungsproblem kön-nen sich nicht in einer Steigerung der Produk-tion oder der Produktivität erschöpfen. Haupt-ziel des Projekts ist in Anbetracht der vielfäl-tigen Herausforderungen die Förderung eines interdisziplinären Diskurses, der zusätzlich zu den landwirtschaftlichen, ökonomischen und politischen auch die sozial-, ernährungs- und klimawissenschaftlichen Disziplinen unter Zu-hilfenahme der Erkenntnisse der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung mit einbezieht. Eine Vernet-zung innerhalb der Wissenschaft zur Beförde-rung kreativer und vielschichtiger Lösungsan-sätze, deren Blick über die technischen, poli-tischen und wirtschaftlichen Möglichkeiten hinausgehen sollte, gehört damit zu den Haupt-anliegen dieses Projekts.

Eine gute Grundlage bietet hier einer der meist unterschätzten internationalen Berichte der letzten Jahre: Der IAASTD-Weltagrarbe-richt versucht durch eine umfassende inter- und transdisziplinäre Analyse ausgewogene Hand-lungsempfehlungen zu geben. Diesen Schatz an Erkenntnissen und Informationen möchte das Projekt „Zukunft der Ernährung“ in die Breite tragen und der interessierten Öffentlich-keit zugänglich machen.

TA-PROJEKTE


4 Projektelemente

Die regelmäßigen Vernetzungstreffen des Ex-pertInnenkreises aus Wissenschaft und ange-wandter Friedens- und Entwicklungsarbeit die-nen der Aufarbeitung des vorhandenen Materials und dem Zusammentragen der Erkenntnisse aus verschiedenen Disziplinen und Abschätzungen aus dem Kreise des Projektbeirats, welche dann im Rahmen von Fachkonsultationen zwischen Wissenschaft und politischen MultiplikatorInnen diskutiert werden. Nach einer ersten Veranstal-tung zum Thema „Landinvestitionen und Kon-flikte“ sind für die zweite Jahreshälfte die The-men „Internationale Fischerei“, „Ernährungs-konflikte“ und „Subventionen“ in Vorbereitung.

Die internationale Sommerakademie An-fang August diesen Jahres richtet sich unter dem Aspekt der Nachhaltigkeit an den wissenschaftli-chen Nachwuchs. Neue interdisziplinäre Perspek-tiven sollen dabei die aktuelle Diskussion rund um das Thema einer nachhaltigen und friedlichen Welternährungssicherung befruchten und in die nächste WissenschaftlerInnen-Generation tragen.

5 Andauernde Herausforderung

Im April 2008 hatte die IAASTD-Abschlusssit-zung zum Weltagrarbericht stattgefunden. Die Ergebnisse sind in Buchform in sieben Bänden veröffentlicht worden (McIntyre 2009). Aus den Zukunftsabschätzungen anderer namhafter Institutionen (z. B. das Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, das Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture oder das Global Forest Resources Assessment) wissen wir, dass einmalige Abschätzungen, seien sie auch noch so inhaltlich gewichtig und brillant gemacht, relativ wenig Einfluss auf Politiken ausüben können. Gerade an den „Assessment Reports“ des IPCC ist deutlich zu sehen, dass die wiederholten Durchläufe mit ihren metho-dischen Verbesserungen und ihren belastbareren Aussagen an Aussagekraft erheblich gewinnen konnten. Das hat gewiss auch mit der nach und nach stärkeren Ausbildung einer Scientific Com-munity im Themenfeld zu tun. Auch vor diesem Hintergrund scheint es den Projektverantwortli-chen wichtig, eine Übereinkunft zur Fortsetzung

der IAASTD-Arbeiten zu erreichen. Ziel bleibt, die Zukunft der Landwirtschaften der Erde auch im Hinblick auf die Zukunft der Industriegesell-schaften und den Übergang in Richtung einer langfristig umwelt- und sozial gerechten gesell-schaftlichen und wirtschaftlichen Ordnung zu bearbeiten. Im Weltagrarbericht heißt es dazu: „Kurz gesagt, benötigen wir einen gemeinsamen Ansatz für eine Politik der Nachhaltigkeit. Wie können Hunger, Armut und Mittellosigkeit ver-mindert, die Lebensgestaltungsmöglichkeiten im ländlichen Raum verbessert und eine gleichbe-rechtigte, soziale, ökonomisch und ökologisch nachhaltige Entwicklung in die Praxis umgesetzt werden?“ (IAASTD 2009, S. 47f.) Eine nachhal-tige Entwicklung der Landwirtschaften könnte die Ernährung der noch wachsenden Weltbevöl-kerung ermöglichen, ohne die natürlichen Le-bensgrundlagen weiter zu zerstören.

Seit 2008 hat die Aktualität dieser He-rausforderungen weiter zugenommen. Trotz aller möglicher Generalerklärungen und mo-netärer Zusagen (z. B. der G8 auf dem Gipfel in L’Aquila 2009) bewegt sich die Zahl der hungernden Menschen zwischen 950 Mio. und einer Mrd. Menschen. Anzahl und Intensität gewaltförmig ausgetragener oder potenziell ge-walttätiger Konflikte sind in etwa unverändert, weil Verbesserungen an einem Konfliktherd häufig Verschärfungen an anderen Orten ge-genüberstehen. Die aktuellen Entwicklungen in Nordafrika und dem Nahen Osten sind in die-sem Zusammenhang nicht abschätzbar. Die so-zialen Ungleichheiten haben in vielen Ländern, auch in der OECD, deutlich zugenommen. Die längerfristigen Konsequenzen der Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise seit 2007 für große Industrie-länder sind ebenfalls kaum zu übersehen. Die erforderlichen Neuorientierungen und Politik-veränderungen, insbesondere in Richtung der Abschaffung der enormen Subventionen der OECD-Länder für ihre Landwirtschaften (ca. 250 Mrd. €/a) und der Realisierung der finanzi-ellen und anderen Zusagen im Zusammenhang mit der Bekämpfung von Hunger, Armut und Mittellosigkeit, sind anhaltend nicht eingelöst.

Es gibt einige jüngere Entwicklungen oder auch Fragestellungen, die neu oder sehr viel deutlicher als zur Zeit der Erarbeitung des ersten

TA-PROJEKTE


Weltagrarberichtes in Erscheinung getreten sind. Dazu gehören u. a.

• ein neu entdecktes Interesse großer Finanzins-titutionen an Land als Kapitalanlage,

• die sprunghafte Zunahme ausländischer In-vestitionen in Ländern, in denen keine oder eine fragile Ernährungssicherheit besteht,

• eine rapide Ausdehnung der Flächen, die für den Anbau von Nutzpflanzen zur Erzeugung von Treibstoffen genutzt werden und damit der Er-zeugung von Lebensmitteln entzogen werden,

• FuE-Planungen in einigen OECD-Ländern zu einer „Bio-Ökonomie“, in der die stoffli-chen Substrate großer Industriebranchen wie der Chemieindustrie von Erdöl auf Biomasse umgestellt werden sollen – mit weiteren sehr großen Auswirkungen auf Landnutzungs-konkurrenzen,

• die Erhöhung der Durchschnittstemperatur und die Zunahme extremer Wetterereignisse,

• die Rolle der industriellen Tierhaltung, insbe-sondere von Geflügel, Rindern und Schwei-nen, in Bezug auf Klima- und Gesundheits-wirkungen, Wasser- und Flächenverbrauch,

• die Veränderungen in den Ernährungsgewohn-heiten sowohl in Schwellenländern wie in OECD-Ländern,

• die Veränderungen und Reformen der interna-tionalen Agrarforschung.

Angesichts dieser vielfältigen Entwicklungen sind die Ergebnisse des ersten IAASTD-Welt-agrarberichts zu validieren und zu reflektieren. Eine internationale Fachtagung vom 9.–11. No-vember 2011 soll dazu beitragen, wichtige neue Fragestellungen für den zweiten IAASTD-Welt-agrarbericht zu identifizieren und zu sammeln, Vorschläge für ein international abgestimmtes Prozedere und Anforderungen an die deutsche und europäische Politik zur Unterstützung und Begleitung zu formulieren.

Sie wäre damit ein Beitrag zu einem fort-laufenden internationalen Diskussionsprozess, der insbesondere darauf abzielt, die deutschen (bislang hauptsächlich NGO-)Bemühungen zu fokussieren, international einzubinden und für die politischen Debatten und Entscheidungen in den Institutionen aufzubereiten. Sie könn-te zugleich einen Beitrag dazu leisten, einen

wichtigen Themenbereich in der Vorbereitung von Rio +20 abdecken.

Literatur

IAASTD – International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, 2009: Weltagrarbericht: Synthesebericht. HamburgMcIntyre, B.D. (Hg.), 2009: Agriculture at a cross-roads, Vol. 1–7. Washington, DCPachauri, R.K., Reisinger, A. (Hg.), 2007: Fourth As-sessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. GenevaWissenschaftlicher Beirat Globale Umweltverände-rungen, 2007: Welt im Wandel: Sicherheitsrisiko Kli-mawandel. Berlin

Kontakt

Zoe HeuschkelVDW e.V.Schützenstr. 6 A, 10117 BerlinTel.: +49 (0) 30 / 2 12 - 3 40 56E-Mail: [email protected]

« »

TA-PROJEKTE


Possible Contributions of Research to Solve the World Food ProblemResults from the TAB Project

by Marc Dusseldorp, TAB

The alleviation of hunger and poverty is one of the most serious challenges the global commu-nity has to face. According to FAO estimates, 925 million people suffered from hunger in 2010, the majority of them living in developing countries and newly industrialized countries. Moreover, several billions of people have to be added who suffer from the so-called “hidden hunger”, i.e., an inadequate supply of vital micronutrients such as vitamins or minerals. Given the urgency of this problem, the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB) carried out a TA project on behalf of the Committee on Education, Research and Technology Assessment entitled “How can research contribute to solving the prob-lem of world food?” which was recently complet-ed. The assignment of tasks of the project can be defined by the following questions: What are the most important gaps of knowledge concerning the world food problem? Which research areas might offer relevant contributions to solving the problem so that a more intensive support would be justified? Where is it necessary to overcome specific restrictions or to develop new forms of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research?

1 The TAB Project

Within the framework of the project, the ques-tion how research can contribute to solving the problem of world food was addressed from vari-ous perspectives. In terms of a heuristic one, it was initially assumed that all factors having a noteworthy influence on the world food situation can offer approaches for measures to be taken in order to alleviate the problem and thus, finally, can also offer corresponding approaches for re-search. In this way, it should be focused on such fields of research which have to date been ne-glected in relevant discussions and which could thus be part of a comprehensive research strat-

egy. Moreover, the survey focused on the field of research organization. Here, it concentrated on questions like which lessons can be learned from the so-called knowledge and technology transfer problem of development-oriented research with regard to future research design and which obsta-cles have to be overcome for this purpose.

In the first project phase, thirteen short expert analyses were assigned to external experts high-lighting potential topics for research and dealing with issues of research organization. These short expert analyses as well as analyses of other rel-evant literature served as the basis for TAB to de-velop three main issues of the project’s topic to be discussed in a workshop on “Possible contribu-tions of research to solve the world food problem”. This workshop, which was an integral part of the second project phase, took place in June 2010 at the German Bundestag. Finally, in a general over-Bundestag. Finally, in a general over-. Finally, in a general over-view on the project results, possible priorities for future research on global food security as well as options for action regarding research policy were outlined. All results of the project (including eval-uations of the short expert analyses and the expert workshop) can be found in the project’s final re-port (Dusseldorp, Sauter 2011).

In the following, three possible priorities for future research on global food security will be presented in more detail.

2 Consideration of Production and Consumption: Approaches for Research

Although the current world food problem is not due to the low global food quantity being too low, there will also be challenges in this regard which research will have to deal with in the future. These challenges result from two development trends: worsening production conditions (loss of fertile agricultural land, competing usages, nega-tive impacts of the climate change) and an in-creasing demand for food worldwide (population growth, change of dietary habits) compared to the status quo. As a further expansion of agricul-tural land is mostly not taken into consideration, i.a. for reasons of protecting the natural bases for life, two fundamental approaches remain: to secure or even increase food production on the

TA-PROJEKTE


existing agricultural land and to change the struc-ture of the demand for food.

Consideration of Different Approaches

Very often, the opinion is put forward that the pro-ductivity per unit area has to be increased in order to satisfy an increasing demand for food. In con-trast, it is pointed out that changes of consumption patterns towards resource-conserving food would do (at least partly) without an increase of the pro-ductivity per unit area and that a reduction of post-harvest losses could compensate (at least partly) a further increasing demand for food in the future. In many cases, such suggestions are characterized by the fact that individual influencing factors are considered to be invariable, whereas others are considered to be variable and politically manage-able. However, to find an effective research strat-egy for solving the world food problem, it seems to be expedient to make a reasonable and compre-hensible selection of research topics based on the variety of potential approaches. Therefore it has to be considered – among other things – to what ex-tent the individual influencing factors determine the world food situation and how promising their political manageability seems to be.

Comparison of Influencing Factors with Regard to Production and Consumption

Based on the assumption that it is difficult to re-duce the area currently used for settlement and transportation, to minimize the current extent of soil degradation, and to control the future devel-opment of the world population, the following is-sues for alleviating the world food problem have to be addressed:

• development trends of the area used for set-tlement and transportation

• state and development trends of the area used for cultivation of energy crops

• development trends of soil degradation • development trends of the productivity per

unit area • state of post-harvest losses • state and development trends of consumption

of animal-derived products

A gross quantitative comparison of the influencing factors regarding production and those regarding consumption reveals that the factors on both sides determine the world food situation to a high de-gree. Against this background, it seems likely to attach the same importance to both kinds of influ-encing factors within the framework of research. However, the results of the project indicate that up to now the consumption side has been given rela-tively little attention and support. Thus, it seems to be promising to consider an increased support of research on the demand side, particularly because dietary habits and post-harvest losses represent re-search areas of a high social relevance not only due to their significance for the world food situation, but also for health and environmental reasons.

3 Productivity Increase: Focusing on Access to Food and Resource Conservation

Among the possible strategies for increasing the productivity per unit area, mainly two approaches are being discussed: a further high external input intensification of high performance areas as well as a low external input intensification of rather mar-ginal areas in developing countries. The results of the project indicate that both strategies might be helpful and that the decision whether they are ap-propriate or not depends on the respective context. Here, it has to be taken into consideration that pro-ductivity increases are associated with two major challenges: On the one hand, it has to be ensured that through this measure the people most affected by undernourishment have an improved access to food. On the other hand, it is urgent to reduce the current resource consumption (of soil, water, fer-tilizers) of agricultural practices significantly, last but not least because otherwise global food pro-duction would be deprived of its economic basis.

Promotion of Smallholder Agriculture in Develop-ing Countries: Combining Productivity and Access

A major approach to increase global food produc-tion is the improvement of (mostly smallholder) agriculture in marginal areas of developing coun-tries. The yields per unit area obtained there are much lower than the yields per unit area obtained by means of intensive agriculture in favourable ar-

TA-PROJEKTE


eas. However, there is a potential for considerable increases. For the development of adapted meas-ures aiming at an increase of productivity, it has to be taken into consideration that the respective farmers have almost no financial resources for pur-chasing external inputs. Therefore approaches try-ing to increase productivity with only few external inputs (such as Conservation Agriculture, the Sys-tem of Rice Intensification, Agroforestry Systems as well as Organic Farming) might be promising. At the same time, it is thus possible to face the ur-gent challenge of preserving and cultivating the agricultural production bases. The advantage of the strategy outlined is not only that it requires only few resources, but also that productivity increases can involve an improved access to food (improved food self-sufficiency as well as improved incomes due to the sale of surplus food). This combination of increased quantities and an improved access seems to be necessary since the agricultural sec-tor represents the primary source of income for the rural population in developing countries.

Intensification of High-performance Areas: Resource Conservation

In principle, a further intensification of production in high performance areas is appropriate to realize an increase of the productivity per unit area. To achieve an effective and sustainable improvement of the world food situation, such intensification strategies have to meet two challenges: Agriculture must become much more environmentally com-patible and resource-conserving than it is today and access to food must be ensured for people suf-fering from undernourishment and malnutrition. Agricultural practice is considered to be one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases and one of the biggest consumers of freshwater and involves severe soil degradation, a serious loss of biodiver-sity as well as a high consumption of fossil energy sources. Against this background, future world food security has to be realized with the intention of not only ensuring a decrease of the negative im-pact on the economic bases, but also of improving and sustainably cultivating these economic bases, if possible. Realizing productivity increases and considerable improvements regarding the impacts on resources and on the environment at the same

time is a tremendous challenge, because intensive farming is based to a high degree on high exter-nal inputs (synthetic fertilizers and plant protec-tion products, fuel, etc.). If productivity increases in high-yield areas shall result in an alleviation of the world food problem, people suffering from undernourishment and malnutrition must be given better access to food at the same time, i.e., they must have the financial resources required for purchasing food. Theoretically, an increase of the food supply should result in a reduction of food prices and thus should alleviate access to food for the poor. However, it is questionable whether pro-ductivity increases will really lead to permanently low world market prices for food, because lower prices for agricultural products also make their en-ergetic and material use more attractive.

4 Developing Research on Global Nutritional Behaviour

So far, the world food problem is mostly con-sidered to be a problem of quantity or of access. However, it has to be assumed that the “nutrition perspective” is of major significance for solving the problem, notably in order to be able to consider undernourishment and malnutrition as facets of the problem in an adequate way. For this reason, it is obvious to ask which contribution could be made by research focusing on global nutritional behav-iour in order to find a solution to the world food problem. Possible topics could be the determinants of individual nutritional behaviour, changes of di-etary habits and the consequences involved as well as possible strategies for shaping a more sustain-able world food situation. Knowledge of the de-terminants, changes and consequences mentioned above represents a necessary prerequisite for a policy which aims at successfully supporting an improvement of the world food situation.

To date, only rudimentary research is con-ducted in the field of global food security in Germany. In this context, a perspective for Ger-man research for solving the world food problem should be to strengthen neglected fields (e.g. nu-trition research focusing on developing countries) and to further develop them to become a research area called “research on global nutritional behav-iour”. The – at least partly – observable conver-

TA-PROJEKTE


gence of dietary habits in developing and newly industrialized countries towards those of industri-alized countries implicates that meanwhile nutri-tion research referring to industrialized countries seems to be easily combinable with a respective research referring to developing countries. Thus, the outlined research might simultaneously lead to a deeper understanding of our local dietary habits in the context of globalization which also confront society with major challenges (over-weight, obesity and other diet-related diseases).

Reference

Dusseldorp, M.; Sauter, A., 2011: Forschung zur Lö-sung des Welternährungsproblems – Ansatzpunkte, Strategien, Umsetzung. TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 142, Berlin; http.//www.tab-beim-bundes tag.de/de/pdf/pu-blikationen/berichte/TAB-Arbeitsbericht-ab142.pdf

Contact

Marc DusseldorpBüro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (TAB)Neue Schönhauser Straße 10, 10178 BerlinPhone: +49 (0) 30 / 2 84 91 - 1 14Email: [email protected]

« »

Service-Roboter im Blick der Technikfolgenabschätzung

von Michael Decker, ITAS

1 Hintergrund

Service-Robotern wird ein ähnlich bedeuten-des Innovationspotenzial wie Industrierobo-tern vorhergesagt. Hierbei wird zunächst defi-niert, dass unter Service-Robotern alle „Nicht-Produktions roboter“ gefasst werden. Heutige Service-Robotersysteme werden v. a. im Be-reich Verteidigung, Rettung und Sicherheit, ge-folgt von der Landwirtschaft – hier v. a. Melk-roboter – eingesetzt. Dies sind Bereiche, in denen die Service-Roboter mit einem mensch-lichen Experten gemeinsam und unter dessen Aufsicht und/oder in einem geschützten Raum betrieben werden. Solche Anwendungen stellen also einen Übergangsbereich zwischen Indust-rierobotik und einer allgemeinen Servicerobo-tik dar. Der Roboter ist zwar nicht mehr in sei-nem „Sicherheitskäfig“, der üblicherweise aus Sicherheitsgründen in der Produktion errichtet wird, aber er wird nur in Bereichen eingesetzt, in denen gemeinhin kein unbeteiligter Dritter dem Roboter begegnen kann bzw. kein Dienst unmittelbar an und um Menschen herum ver-richtet wird. Der Mensch, der mit dem Roboter kooperiert, kann für diese Kooperation geschult werden und wird damit bis zu einem gewissen Grad selbst Roboterexperte.

Viele Dienstleistungen zeichnen sich aber dadurch aus, dass sie in menschenreichen Um-gebungen durchgeführt werden müssen bzw. dass sie eine Dienstleistung an Menschen dar-stellen (Kranken-/Altenpflege). Die Menschen, die hier in Kontakt mit den Robotern kommen, können nur bedingt zu Roboterexperten ausge-bildet werden. Diese Dienstleistungen bringen also mit sich, dass Robotiklaien mit Robotern umgehen müssen und dass Unbeteiligte im Umfeld des Roboters anzutreffen sind. Darüber hinaus spielt sich die Dienstleistung in der nor-malen Lebenswelt ab, die nur sehr bedingt für einen Robotereinsatz angepasst werden kann.

TA-PROJEKTE


Eine neue Forschungsgruppe beschäftigt sich mit der multidisziplinären Fragestellung einer Technikfolgenabschätzung zu Service-Robotern.1 Dabei sollen die Perspektiven der einzelnen wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen in einen interdisziplinären Argumentationszu-sammenhang gebracht werden, wobei die Argumentation auf konkrete Handlungsemp-fehlungen für gesellschaftliche/politische Ent-scheidungen abzielt.2 Im Folgenden werden die relevanten Aspekte der verschiedenen Fach-richtungen kurz skizziert.

2 Technische Perspektive

Aus technischer Perspektive ist die größte He-rausforderung, den Roboter in die Lage zu ver-setzen, die Serviceleistung technisch einwand-frei zu erbringen. Es gehört grundlegend dazu, dass sich der Roboter „autonom“ in einer für ihn bis dato unbekannten Umgebung zurecht-finden kann. Voraussetzung dafür ist, dass er sich an ein Umfeld, in dem er die Dienstleis-tung erbringen soll, anpassen kann, d. h. der Roboter muss in die Lage versetzt werden, lernen zu können. Hier werden verschiedene wissenschaftliche Ansätze verfolgt, die unter anderem zum Ziel haben, ein Lernen „wie bei Menschen“, in dem „Versuch und Irrtum“ eine zentrale Rolle spielen, zu realisieren.

Eine humanoide Gestalt (Rumpf, Kopf, Arme und Beine etc.) wird dabei oftmals als ein Vorteil für das Lernen angesehen, weil es sowohl Menschen eher animiert, sich mit dem Roboter zu beschäftigen, als auch den Roboter „körperlich“ auf eine Umgebung anpasst, die für Menschen optimiert ist. Während für das letzte Argument „humanoid“ nur heißt, dass der Körper über menschenähnliche Ausmaße und Bewegungsmöglichkeiten verfügt, kann es für die Unterstützung des Lernens interessant sein, den Roboter noch menschenähnlicher zu ma-chen – so etwa androide oder gynoide Roboter. Diese Menschenähnlichkeit kann auch relevant werden, wenn es darum geht, „soft skills“ wie Freundlichkeit, Zuvorkommenheit etc., die man gemeinhin mit Dienstleistungen verbindet, zu

bewerten, wenn es zu einem Ersatz von Perso-nen durch Roboter käme.

3 Ökonomische Perspektive

Aus mikroökonomischer Perspektive sind ins-besondere folgende Fragestellungen relevant: Welche Anreize gibt es für einzelne Akteure, Service-Roboter zu entwickeln oder einzu-setzen (etwa Knappheit von Pflegepersonal in einer alternden Gesellschaft und die daraus re-sultierenden Gewinnerzielungsmöglichkeiten)? Welche Kosten fallen bei der Entwicklung und beim Einsatz der Roboter an (Verfügbarkeit von qualifiziertem Personal, das den Roboter bedient, Umrüstungskosten von öffentlichen Räumen, Kosten für die Schaffung von Akzep-tanz)? In diesem Kontext treten weitere Fragen auf: Wer trägt welche Kosten? Welche Erträge fallen an? Wer erhält sie? Sind diejenigen, die die Kosten tragen, auch diejenigen, die von den Erträgen profitieren?

Aus makroökonomischer Perspektive ist eine Einschätzung der Bedeutung des Dienst-leistungssektors für die Volkswirtschaft not-wendig. Dieser Sektor umfasst eine Vielzahl von Tätigkeiten, innerhalb derer das Potenzial für den Einsatz von Robotern sicherlich unter-schiedlich einzuschätzen ist. Weiterhin ist die Identifikation relevanter Märkte von Bedeu-tung. So dürften die Akzeptanz der Technologie und damit die Nachfrage nach ihr in technikaf-finen Ökonomien größer ausfallen als in eher konservativen Gesellschaften. Eine aggregierte Analyse der Auswirkungen beispielsweise auf die Arbeitsmärkte umfasst nicht nur die mög-licherweise durch Service-Roboter entfallenen Arbeitsplätze, sondern rechnet insbesondere jene gegen, die im Zuge der Innovation neu ent-stehen. Eine gesamtwirtschaftliche Betrachtung bezieht auch die Rückkopplung zu weiteren verbundenen Märkten mit ein.

Die wirtschaftspolitische Perspektive be-leuchtet die Rolle des Staates beim Einsatz von Service-Robotern. Deren Entwicklung ist mit sehr hohen Anfangsinvestitionen verbunden, die von einem einzelnen Unternehmen kaum zu leis-ten sind. Dies verbunden mit der Unsicherheit im

TA-PROJEKTE


Forschungsprozess führt dazu, dass Innovations-anreize nicht im gesellschaftlich gewünschten Umfang existieren. Zugleich wird vermutet, dass enorme Zukunftsmärkte für Service-Roboter existieren. Ziel ist es, die Interaktion zwischen Menschen und Robotern technisch so weiterzu-entwickeln, dass nicht nur im industriellen, son-dern auch im privaten Bereich eine Kooperation zwischen beiden möglich ist.

4 Rechtliche Perspektive

Das Öffentliche Recht ist als Regulierungsrecht aufgerufen, wirtschaftliche Tätigkeiten wegen vorrangiger Rechte (Datenschutz, Gesundheits-schutz, Eigentum anderer) zu beschränken. Ein Hauptproblem stellt sich dabei in der Entschei-dung unter Bedingungen der Ungewissheit: Ob und wie der Gesetzgeber einschreitet, ist abhängig von prognostischen Einschätzungen, deren Erfüllung in der Zukunft höchst unsicher ist. Ob Dienstleistungsroboter in erheblichem Maß zu Schäden an Personen und Sachen füh-ren werden, ist nicht absehbar. Hier stellt sich die Frage, welche der einschlägigen Instrumen-te zur Bewältigung von Unsicherheit der Staat einsetzen kann. Solche Instrumente können be-reits bei der Ermittlung der eigentlichen Sach-verhalte differenziert werden, um eine Regulie-rung vorzubereiten. Der Staat kann, im Sinne eines Genehmigungsvorbehalts, eine ex-ante-Regulie rung verfolgen oder aber Einschreiten auf eine nachträgliche, gefahrenabwehrrecht-liche Tätigkeit beschränken. Instrumente zum Umgang mit Nicht-Wissen können aber auch die Fortschritte der Technik begleiten und inso-fern ein „Lernen des Rechts“ bedeuten.

Aus zivilrechtlicher Sicht geht es v. a. um Fragen der Verantwortlichkeit derjenigen, die Service-Roboter planen, herstellen und ver-treiben, gegenüber der Integrität der rechtlich geschützten Güter der Personen, die mit den Service-Robotern in Berührung kommen. Hier-bei geht es darum, das gesetzliche Regelungs-instrumentarium auf die neue Gewährleistungs- und Gefährdungsproblematik hin anwendbar zu machen. Das berührt Fragen der Vertrags-gestaltung, insbesondere der Risikoverteilung

in allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen sowie generell Fragen der Haftung für eventuelle Schädigungen Dritter. Einen Kernbereich stellt die Formulierung von Sorgfaltspflichten und Haftungsmaßstäben dar. Sofern Service-Ro-boter selbstständig lernfähig sind und auf eine im Einzelnen nicht mehr vorhersehbare Weise mit der Umwelt zu reagieren vermögen, stellt sich im Weiteren die bislang nur für Software-Agenten diskutierte Frage nach der Schaffung einer eigenständigen rechtlichen „Verantwort-lichkeit“ dieser neuartigen Maschinen„-wesen“.

5 Ethische und anthropologische Perspektive

Da im Bereich der Pflege, sowie im erweiterten Bereich der medizinischen Versorgung, nach wie vor gilt, dass diese heute fast ausschließlich von Menschen geleistet wird, legt der Hinweis auf den demographischen Wandel nahe, dass in den nächsten Jahrzehnten eine erhebliche Stei-gerung des Bedarfs an Pflegedienstleistungen zu erwarten ist. Es könnte also durchaus gesell-schaftlich wünschenswert sein, Service-Robo-ter für die Pflege zu entwickeln. Deren Einsatz lässt sich nun in unterschiedlicher Eingriffstiefe planen, wobei das Spektrum von einfacher Pfle-geunterstützung bis hin zur echten Pflegerobotik im engeren Sinne reicht. Auch der Bereich ärzt-licher Behandlung wird sich in mindestens zwei Dimensionen durch den Einsatz von I&K-Sys-temen transformieren: Zunächst sind einfache Unterstützungen etwa chirurgischer Eingriffe über Manipulatoren denkbar. Durch Integration von Bildgebung in Echtzeit und datenbankba-sierter Expertensysteme sind schließlich auch netzbasierte Operationsprozesse vorstellbar, die eine völlig neue Organisation sowohl der ärztli-chen Dienstleistung als auch der Krankenhaus-struktur erfordern würden.

Ergänzend ergeben sich aus methodologi-scher Perspektive Fragen nach der Gleichset-zung von Mensch und Maschine und nach der Differenzierung von Interaktionen zwischen diesen. Aus anthropologischer Sicht kann man mit Blick auf die gelungenen und erfolgrei-chen Einsätze solcher Systeme auch umgekehrt

TA-PROJEKTE


nach der Veränderung der Rolle des Menschen fragen und den Menschenbildern, die – meist implizit – in die Konstruktion der jeweiligen Technik investiert werden.

6 Psychologische Perspektive

Die Gestaltung der „Schnittstelle“ zwischen Mensch und Roboter ist ein zentrales Element in der Servicerobotik. In Mensch-Roboter-Sys-temen stellt sich die Frage, welche Mensch-Ro-boter-Funktionsteilung realisiert wird, d. h. wel-che Aufgaben der Roboter und welche Aufgaben der Mensch wahrnimmt – eine der wichtigsten Gestaltungsfragen aus psychologischer Sicht.

Das Kriterium der „intuitiven“ Handhab-barkeit stellt ein bedeutendes Thema dar, bei dem Versuch, ein technisches System benut-zungsfreundlich zu machen. Im Bereich der Servicerobotik gewinnt dieses Thema eine ganz eigene Bedeutung. Menschen neigen dazu, Technik zu personifizieren. Die Frage ist also auch, wie menschenähnlich ein Robotersystem für eine bestimmte Aufgabe sein sollte, die eine Dienstleistungsaufgabe ist und auch in der Pri-vatsphäre von Menschen erbracht wird. Man kann vermuten, dass es in Bezug auf Menschen-ähnlichkeit auch ein „Zuviel“ geben kann, in dem ein kooperationsunterstützendes Aussehen umschlägt in ein für menschliche Betrachter „unheimliches“ Bild, welches für die Nutzungs-freundlichkeit kontraproduktiv ist.

Neben der Mensch-Roboter-Funktionstei-lung und der Mensch-Roboter-Kommunikation ist aus psychologischer Sicht ein weiterer wich-tiger Bereich die Frage nach dem Einsatz von (Entscheidungs-)Unterstützungssystemen, die heutzutage auf Basis der KI-Forschung in Ro-botersystemen Verwendung finden. Wann darf und soll der Roboter auf Basis einer Situations-diagnose autonom eine Dienstleistung erbringen, ohne dass ihm der ausdrückliche Befehl dazu er-teilt worden ist? Wann ist es ihm gestattet, Hand-lungsfehler des Menschen auch ohne explizite Weisung zu korrigieren? Derartige Fragen be-treffen gleichzeitig auch die ethische und rechtli-che Dimension.

Anmerkungen

1) Der KIT-Forschungsgruppe gehören neben Mi-chael Decker (Vorsitz, ITAS) folgende Personen an: Rüdiger Dillmann (Institut für Anthropoma-tik), Thomas Dreier (Institut für Informations- und Wirtschaftsrecht, Zentrum für Angewandte Rechtswissenschaft), Martin Fischer (Institut für Berufspädagogik und Allgemeine Pädagogik), Mathias Gutmann (Institut für Philosophie) und Ingrid Ott (Institut für Wirtschaftspolitik und Wirtschaftsforschung), Indra Spiecker genannt Döhmann (Institut für Informations- und Wirt-schaftsrecht, Zentrum für Angewandte Rechts-wissenschaft).

2) Die Arbeitsgruppe wird bis Januar 2013 einen Bericht verfassen, in dem auch konkrete Hand-lungsempfehlungen zum Umgang mit Service-Robotern in verschiedenen Anwendungsbereichen formuliert sind.

Kontakt

Prof. Dr. Michael DeckerKarlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und System-analyse (ITAS)Postfach 36 40, 76021 KarlsruheTel.: +49 (0) 7 21 / 6 08 – 2 30 07E-Mail: [email protected]

« »

TA-PROJEKTE


Ketchup gegen Schweißgeruch?Bürgerperspektiven zum Einsatz synthetischer Nanopartikel

von Stefanie B. Seitz und Jutta Jahnel, ITAS1

Synthetische Nanopartikel werden schon seit Längerem eingesetzt – z. B. im Bereich neu-artiger Materialien/Oberflächen und Kosmetik, möglicherweise auch in Lebensmitteln und deren Verpackungen. Gleichzeitig besteht noch immer eine große wissenschaftliche Unsicherheit bezüglich ihrer Umwelt- und Ge-sundheitsrisiken, was die Risiko-Governance nach dem Vorsorgeprinzip vor große Heraus-forderungen stellt. Diese ist im Fokus des STOA-Projekts NanoSafety.2 In dem hier vor-gestellten empirischen Modul des Projekts in-teressierte, wie Bürger Nanopartikel wahrneh-men und welches Handeln sie von der Politik erwarten. Dabei zeigte sich, dass viele Teil-nehmer der „Fokusgruppen“ Nanoprodukte bereits kannten, aber mehr verständliche und leicht zugängliche Verbraucherinformation wünschen sowie eine verpflichtende, einheit-liche Kennzeichnung fordern, um eine infor-mierte Kaufentscheidung treffen zu können.

1 Projektkontext

Im Zuge nanotechnologischer Entwicklungen ist es möglich, aus den unterschiedlichsten Materia-lien, kleinste Partikel mit einem Durchmesser von 1 bis 100 nm herzustellen. Diese gezielt herge-stellten, partikulären Nanomaterialien (hier kurz als Nanopartikel bezeichnet) besitzen im Ver-gleich zu größeren Partikeln des gleichen Materi-als veränderte oder komplett neue Eigenschaften. Dadurch werden sie für ein breites Spektrum von Anwendungen attraktiv. Darüber hinaus verspre-chen die Hersteller durch ihren Einsatz Innovati-onen, Produktverbesserungen und mehr Nachhal-tigkeit. Folglich findet man Nanopartikel bereits in einigen hundert Konsumgütern europa- so-wie über tausend weltweit.3 Gleichzeitig werden durchaus Bedenken hinsichtlich der Gesundheits- und Umweltwirkungen von Nanopartikeln von Wissenschaftlern und verschiedenen zivilgesell-schaftlichen Gruppen geäußert. Doch trotz inten-siver Forschung bestehen hinsichtlich des Gefähr-

dungspotenzials von Nanopartikeln immer noch viele Unsicherheiten und Wissenslücken, sodass eine evidenzbasierte Beurteilung ihrer Umwelt-, Gesundheits- und Sicherheitsrisiken im Moment sehr anspruchsvoll bzw. in einigen Fällen nicht möglich ist. Dieser Umstand stellt das Risikoma-nagement von Nanopartikeln und damit die Ri-siko-Governance nach dem Vorsorgeprinzip, die von diversen Interessenvertretern und Teilen der Öffentlichkeit gefordert wird, vor enorme Heraus-forderungen. So stellt sich die fundamentale Fra-ge, wie die Politik angesichts wissenschaftlicher Unsicherheit konkret handeln kann.

Dieser Frage nähert sich das Projekt NanoSa-fety im Auftrag des STOA-Panels des EU-Parla-ments. Im Folgenden werden die Ergebnisse des empirischen Moduls dieses Projekts vorgestellt, das zum Ziel hatte, mittels eines diskursiven Ver-fahrens zu ergründen, welche Wahrnehmungen und Einschätzungen zu Nanopartikeln bei Bürgern vorzufinden sind. Weiterhin sollte herausgefunden werden, welches Handeln aus welchen Gründen von den verschiedenen Akteuren des Risikoma-nagements und der Risikokommunikation ge-wünscht oder erwartet wird (Fleischer et al. 2011).

2 Methodisches Vorgehen

Das empirische Modul des NanoSafety-Projekts bestand aus zwei Fokusgruppen-Diskussionen mit Bürgern, die im April 2011 in Karlsruhe und Wien stattfanden. Die Fokusgruppe ist eine etab-lierte Methode der qualitativen Sozialforschung, in der sich eine definierte Gruppe moderiert über ein definiertes Thema miteinander austauscht (Morgan 1997). Auch wenn es nicht möglich ist, statistisch belastbare Aussagen zu generieren (Bohnsack 2003), so bietet die Fokusgruppe doch die Gelegenheit, eine sehr alltägliche Gesprächs-situation herbeizuführen (u. a. Barbour 2007). Auf diese Weise ist es möglich, die Aussagen in Beziehung zum ganz persönlichen Alltagsleben der Teilnehmer zu setzen und zu bestimmen, zu welchen Positionen in der Gruppe ein Konsens erreicht werden kann. Außerdem werden durch diese Methode auch ganz neue thematische As-pekte zugänglich (u. a. Morgan 1997).

Beide Fokusgruppen-Veranstaltungen wur-den so ähnlich wie möglich organisiert, um ein

TA-PROJEKTE


Maximum an Vergleichbarkeit zu erreichen. An beiden Veranstaltungsorten nahmen etwa 15 Bür-ger an moderierten, vierstündigen Diskussionen teil. Die Teilnehmer wurden so aus einem Pool von Interessenten ausgewählt.4 Dabei wurde da-rauf geachtet, sowohl verschiedene Alters- und Berufsgruppen als auch Frauen und Männer aus-gewogen zu berücksichtigen. Der erste Teil der Veranstaltung diente dazu, Einblicke in die Ideen, Konzepte und Assoziationen der Bürger über Na-nopartikel zu gewinnen, während der zweite Teil der Diskussion den Erwartungen der Bürger in Bezug auf Regulierung und politisches Handeln gewidmet war. Vor dem zweiten Teil bekamen die Teilnehmer einen „Info-Brief“, der u. a. die wis-senschaftlichen Unsicherheiten im Zusammen-hang mit unterschiedlichen Anwendungen von Nanopartikeln darstellte. Die moderierte Diskus-sion wurde mit Einverständnis der Teilnehmer auf Band aufgezeichnet und zu Auswertungszwecken anonymisiert transkribiert.

3 Ergebnisse

Der Einstieg in beide Fokusgruppen erfolgte mit der Frage, ob und wo den Teilnehmern vor der Veranstaltung schon Nanopartikel begegnet waren. Dabei sprachen die Teilnehmer über ihre Vorstellungen und Wahrnehmungen von Nano-partikeln sowie über konkrete Erfahrungen mit Produkten, die Nanopartikel enthalten (hier kurz Nanoprodukte genannt). Dabei zeigte sich, dass den Teilnehmern (v. a. der Karlsruher Gruppe) bereits etliche mit „Nano“ beworbene Produkte bekannt waren – insbesondere aus den Bereichen Haushaltsreinigung, Imprägnierung und Polier-mittel für Autos. Produkte aus anderen Anwen-dungsbereichen wie Elektronik, Textilien, Medi-zin, Kosmetik und Nahrungsmittel waren eben-falls vom Hörensagen oder aus dem beruflichen Umfeld einigen Teilnehmern bekannt.

Der im Verlauf der Diskussion sichtbar wer-dende große Umfang, mit dem Nanoprodukte be-reits erhältlich sind, erstaunte die Teilnehmer und verunsicherte sie zum Teil. Einige fühlten sich re-gelrecht überrumpelt. Sie waren über den Sinn und die Beziehungen der verschiedenen Anwendungen verwirrt, die von antibakteriellen Textilien bis Ket-chup reichen. So fragte ein Teilnehmer, ob man

nanopartikelhaltigen Ketchup folglich nicht auch gegen Schweißgeruch einsetzen könne. Auch die Tatsache, dass Unsicherheiten in der Risikobewer-tung von Nanopartikeln und unterschiedliche Mei-nungen unter den Wissenschaftlern über mögliche Risiken existieren, verursachte Irritationen und Besorgnis unter den Teilnehmern, manche drück-ten sogar eine Art von Hilflosigkeit aus.

Bei dem Versuch, Nanopartikel für sich zu konzeptualisieren, griffen die Teilnehmer auf ei-gene Analogien, Bilder und Metaphern (z. B. Tro-janisches Pferd oder Lotus-Effekt) zurück. Wäh-rend die Karlsruher Teilnehmer Nanopartikel über die sehr kleine („mikroskopische“) Größe definierten, fanden Definitionsversuche in Wien praktisch nicht statt. Dafür spielte dort die Frage nach „natürlich“ oder „künstlich“ eine Rolle. Ins-gesamt wurden aber in beiden Gruppen die Fol-gen der unklaren Terminologie offensichtlich, in-dem die Begriffe Nanopartikel, Nanotechnologie und manchmal auch Nanoprodukte nicht scharf getrennt wurden. Die Teilnehmer beider Gruppen schienen eher wenig über die Vorteile und Risi-ken der Nanoprodukte zu wissen. Dennoch war ihre Einstellung zu Nanopartikeln im Allgemei-nen positiv. So erwarteten die meisten, dass die Anwendung von Nanopartikeln im Allgemeinen zu Wohlstand, besseren Lebensbedingungen und (medizinischem) Fortschritt beitragen werde. Je-doch sahen Teilnehmer oft keine überzeugenden Vorteile in speziellen, während der Diskussion genannten Nanoprodukten im Vergleich zu her-kömmlichen. In beiden Gruppen wurde die größ-ten Bedenken in Bezug auf die Gesundheitswir-kungen von nanopartikelhaltigen Lebensmitteln und die Umweltwirkung von Nanoprodukten bei der Betrachtung des gesamten Lebenszyklus ge-äußert. Es wurde somit deutlich, dass noch große Unwissenheit unter den Bürgern bezüglich Nano-partikeln und ihren Anwendungen herrscht.

Ziel des zweiten Teils der Fokusgruppen war es u. a., die Erwartungen der Bürger in Bezug auf Möglichkeiten politischen Handelns herauszufin-den. Im Laufe der Diskussion wurden verschie-dene Maßnahmen vorgeschlagen. Dabei fiel auf, dass zumeist Kombinationen aus sich ergänzen-den Maßnahmen genannt wurden. Die wichtigste Forderung in beiden Gruppen war die nach mehr Information bezüglich der Vor- und Nachteile

TA-PROJEKTE


von Nanoprodukten. Dabei schien es Konsens zu sein, dass neue Technologien sowohl Chancen als auch Risiken bergen. Jedoch wurde in Karlsruhe explizit geäußert, dass man bei einer Kaufent-scheidung eher die Vorteile gegen den Mangel an Wissen als gegen konkrete, wahrgenommene Risiken abwägen würde. Diese persönliche Ab-wägung war den Teilnehmern sehr wichtig, aber ohne vorherige Information nicht möglich. In bei-den Gruppen wurde geäußert, dass Verbrauche-rinformation von unabhängigen oder staatlichen Quellen kommen sollten – wobei der Informati-onsfluss selbst aber vom Staat (z. B. durch gesetz-liche Reglungen) initiiert sein sollte.

Bemerkenswerterweise war der Aspekt der Information in Karlsruhe und Wien eng mit der Frage der Kennzeichnung verbunden. Allgemein erwartet man eine Kennzeichnung des Produkts, wenn irgendwelche Risiken im Zusammenhang mit der Nutzung eines bestimmten Inhaltsstoffes (in diesem Fall der Nanopartikel) verbunden sind – ähnlich wie bei Gefahrstoffen. Aber es wurde auch festgestellt, dass der Verbraucher Informa-tionen vor der Kaufentscheidung erhalten müsse, da die Kennzeichnung allein nur begrenzt Infor-mationen transportiere. Deshalb seien zusätzliche Informationen nötig, um die Kennzeichnung zu interpretieren, eine Risiko-Nutzen-Betrachtung durch den Verbraucher und somit eine fundierte Kaufentscheidung zu ermöglichen. Die Karlsruher Teilnehmer waren sich einig, dass eine Kennzeich-nung immer eine Signalwirkung haben würde, für manche sogar im Sinne eines Warnsignals. Eine „Nanokennzeichnung“ sei an sich zwar wertfrei, die Wirkung hinge aber sehr stark davon ab, wel-che Information mit ihr zusammen bereitgestellt würde. Man machte deutlich, dass fehlende oder unzureichende Information Unsicherheiten und Misstrauen bei den Konsumenten erzeugen würde. Um Glaubwürdigkeit zu gewährleisten, sollte eine übergeordnete Behörde eine verbindliche, einheit-liche und überwachte Kennzeichnung sichern. Eine „freiwillige Kennzeichnung“ durch die Her-steller wurde von den Bürgern sowohl in Karlsruhe als auch in Wien als unzureichend eingeschätzt.

Insbesondere in Wien wurde eine Intensi-vierung von Sicherheitsforschung bezüglich der Gesundheits- und Umweltwirkungen von Nano-partikeln durch unabhängige Behörden, Univer-

sitäten oder staatlichen Institutionen gefordert. Ebenso, dass neue Erkenntnisse aus dieser For-schung auch den Verbrauchern zur Verfügung gestellt werden sollten. Der Risikoforschung durch die Industrie wurde in beiden Gruppen wenig Vertrauen geschenkt.

Nur wenige Bürger in Karlsruhe verlang-ten ausdrücklich ein generelles Verbot (Morato-rium) von Nanoprodukten. Eher dachte man an die Möglichkeit, Nanoprodukte einem amtlichen Genehmigungsverfahren zu unterwerfen, und, nachdem sie sich als harmlos erwiesen haben, für den Mark zuzulassen. Die Wiener Teilnehmer diskutieren in ähnlicher Weise: Sie sprachen über ein Gütesiegel, dass ein Verfahren zur Risikobe-wertung auszeichnet und für die Sicherheit der Nanoprodukte garantiert.

Interessanterweise war eines der brennends-ten Themen in der aktuellen politischen Debatte rund um die Risikoregulierung von Nanoparti-keln, nämlich die Einrichtung eines „Nanopro-duktregisters“, in keiner der beiden Gruppen ein zentrales Thema. Aufgrund der Tatsache, dass die Bürger nur regulatorische Instrumente emp-fehlen können, die ihnen vertraut sind, wurde das Thema nur indirekt im Zusammenhang mit Mög-lichkeiten der Verbraucherinformation berührt.

4 Fazit

Die Bürger in Wien und Karlsruhe wissen noch relativ wenig über Nanopartikel, werden aber in zunehmendem Maße in ihrem Alltag mit Nanopro-dukten konfrontiert. Und obwohl die Bürger eher positiv gegenüber technischen Neuerungen einge-stellt sind, erzeugt die Unwissenheit über die Ef-fekte von Nanopartikeln Verunsicherung. Deshalb war die stärkste Forderung in beiden Gruppen die nach mehr Verbraucherinformation im Zusammen-hang mit einer Kennzeichnung der Nanoprodukte, um eine freie Kaufentscheidung durch einen infor-mierten, mündigen Konsumenten zu ermöglichen.

Anmerkungen

1) An der Durchführung und Auswertung der Fo-kusgruppen in Karlsruhe und Wien waren weiter-hin Torsten Fleischer und Jutta Schimmelpfeng

TA-PROJEKTE


(ITAS, Karlsruhe) sowie Ulrich Fiedler und Julia Haslinger (ITA, Wien) beteiligt.

2) STOA (Science and Technology Options Assess-ment) ist offizielles Organ des Europäischen Par-lamentes und organisiert über externe Partner Poli-tikberatung und Expertise für das Parlament; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/default_en.htm.

3) Siehe dazu die Datenbank nanotechnologie-basierter Konsumprodukte des „Woodrow Wilson Internatio-nal Center for Scholars“: http://www.nanotechpro-ject.org/inventories/consumer/ (download 30.6.11)

4) Im Fall der Karlsruher Fokusgruppe meldeten sich diese Interessenten auf eine Einladung, die an 1.000 Adressen aus einer Zufallsstichprobe des Einwohnermeldeamts verschickt wurden. Im Fall der Wiener Gruppe wurden die Interessenten aus einem Pool von 3.000 Personen der INTEGRAL Markt- und Meinungsforschungs-GmbH ermittelt.

Literatur

Barbour, R. (Hg.), 2007: Doing Focus Groups. Lon-don (Sage Qualitative Research Kit, Bd. 4)Bohnsack, R. (Hg.), 2003: Rekonstruktive Sozialfor-schung – Einführung in qualitative Methoden. OpladenFleischer, T.; Jahnel, J.; Schimmelpfeng, J. et al., 2011 (i. E.): NanoSafety – Risk Governance of Manu-factured Nanoparticles. Karlsruhe/Wien. STOA Pro-ject NanoSafety, Deliverables No. 3 & 4Morgan, D.L. (Hg.), 1997: Focus groups as qualitati-ve research. London

Kontakt

Dr. Stefanie B. SeitzKarlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und System-analyse (ITAS)Postfach 36 40, 76021 KarlsruheE-Mail: [email protected]

« »

Autorenhinweise

Wir bitten alle Autorinnen und Autoren, die ein Ma-nuskript bei TATuP einreichen, die folgenden Hin-weise zu beachten:Umfang: Eine Druckseite umfasst max. 3.500 Zei-chen (ohne Leerzeichen). Für den Umfang eines Beitrags ist die Rubrik, in der er erscheint, ausschlag-gebend. Genauere Angaben erhalten die Autoren von der Redaktion.Abstract: Autoren, deren Beiträge im Themenschwer-punkt des Heftes oder in den Rubriken TA-Konzepte und -Methoden und Diskussionsforum sowie TA-Pro-jekte erscheinen, werden gebeten, ihrem Beitrag ein Abstract voranzustellen, in dem eine kurze inhaltliche Übersicht über den Beitrag gegeben wird. Die Länge dieses Abstracts sollte 780 Zeichen (ohne Leerzeichen) nicht überschreiten.Abbildungen, Diagramme und Tabellen: Abbildungen und Tabellen sind sowohl in das eingereichte Manu-skript einzufügen sowie auch getrennt von der ersten Fassung des Manuskripts einzusenden. Abbildungen und Tabellen bitte mit Überschrift und Quellenangabe versehen. Wurden sie vom Autor selbst erstellt, bitte die Formulierung „eigene Darstellung“ als Quellen-angabe verwenden Zum Format: Tabellen sind als Word-Datei, Diagramme in Excel und Abbildungen in Adobe Illustrator oder Powerpoint zu liefern. Sollten Sie lediglich andere Formate zur Verfügung haben, wenden Sie sich bitte frühzeitig an die Redaktion. Aus Gründen der Seitenplanung und des Layouts liegt die Entscheidung über die endgültige Größe und Platzierung der Abbildungen und Tabellen innerhalb des Beitrags bei der Redaktion.Bibliografische Angaben: Die zitierte Literatur wird am Ende des Beitrags als Liste in alphabetischer Reihenfolge angegeben. Im Text selbst geschieht dies in runden Klammern (z. B. Wiegerling 2011); bei Zitaten ist die Seitenangabe hinzuzufügen (z. B. Fink, Weyer 2011, S. 91). Bei den Angaben in der Literaturliste orientieren Sie sich bitte an folgenden Beispielen:Monografien: Wiegerling, K., 2011: Philosophie in-telligenter Welten. MünchenBei Aufsätzen: Fink, R.D.; Weyer, J., 2011: Autono-me Technik als Herausforderung der soziologischen Handlungstheorie. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 40/2 (2011), S. 91–111Bei Beiträgen in Sammelbänden: Mehler, A., 2010: Artifizielle Interaktivität. Eine semiotische Betrach-tung. In: Sutter, T.; Mehler, A. (Hg.): Medienwandel als Wandel von Interaktionsformen. HeidelbergBei Internet-Quellen: Waterfield, J., 2006: From Cor-From Cor-poration to Transnational Pluralism. London; http://www.plugin-tot.com (download 12.3.09)

DISKUSSIONSFORUM


DISKUSSIONSFORUM

Research on Nuclear Energy in an International ContextChallenges for Empirical Research Design and Preliminary Findings

by William J. Kinsella, North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC, USA1

Nuclear energy is a complex system with social, technical, economic, environmental, political, and cultural dimensions. It is also a globalized system involving international transfers of knowledge, materials, technolo-gies, people, and products. Accordingly, it is important to examine nuclear energy as an international phenomenon using interdisci-plinary analytical approaches. This paper de-scribes a project by a U.S. researcher exam-ining organizational, institutional, and public communication about nuclear energy in Ger-many as a first step toward a cross-national comparison. The approach taken differs from standard technology assessment methods, relying more on qualitative fieldwork and in-terpretive analysis. Preliminary results are presented comparing public and political dis-courses of nuclear energy, regulatory prac-tices, and organizational and institutional strategies in the U.S. and Germany.

1 Introduction

Nuclear energy is more than a physical phenom-enon, a set of technologies, and a source of power in a context of growing and changing societal de-mands. It is a complex sociotechnical system en-compassing basic research, technology develop-ment and implementation, operations demanding high reliability and safety, regulation, policy, and financing. Taken together, these elements present broad social, economic, environmental, politi-cal, and cultural imbrications. Nuclear energy is also a globalized system involving international transfers of knowledge, materials, technologies, people, and products including electrical power, toxic wastes and other environmental hazards, and

materials and knowledge that must be carefully safeguarded. In this global context, it is neces-sary to examine nuclear energy as an international phenomenon using interdisciplinary analytical ap-proaches. Although understanding the particulars of individual national programs remains impor-tant, those programs are now more interdependent than ever. Social scientific knowledge grounded in studies of particular national programs must be expanded and adapted accordingly.

This article reports on an interdisciplinary project examining the state of nuclear energy in Germany from organizational, institutional, po-litical, and cultural perspectives. The analytical framework for the project is drawn primarily from U.S. approaches to communication studies and from the international, interdisciplinary field of Science and Technology Studies. The project’s re-search methods are qualitative in approach, utiliz-ing interpretive strategies grounded in phenome-nology, critical theory, and rhetoric. In this way, the project diverges from more traditional approaches to technology assessment. As appropriate for the “Concepts and Methods” section of this journal, the primary purpose of this article is to character-ize the project’s analytical and methodological ap-proaches for the technology assessment commu-nity. A second purpose is to briefly present some early research findings, primarily by highlighting comparisons between the nuclear energy system in Germany and the corresponding system in the U.S. As noted above, however, this national comparison is presented in the context of a broader, increas-ingly global system that transcends national and regional boundaries. As this article was in prepa-ration the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi facility in Japan has transformed the analyti-cal context; although the long-term effects of the events at Fukushima cannot yet be assessed, the article responds to those events to the degree pos-sible at this time.

2 Research Context and Focus

With support from the U.S. Fulbright Scholars Pro-gram and the German-American Fulbright Com-mission, the author spent four months in Germany during the Spring of 2010. Based at the Institut für Kernenergetik und Energiesysteme (IKE) at the

DISKUSSIONSFORUM


University of Stuttgart, the author also conduct-ed interviews at other locations including Berlin, Darmstadt, Heidelberg, and Karlsruhe, visited two German nuclear power plants and the proposed underground nuclear waste repository site at Gor-leben. Interviews were conducted with nuclear engineers, energy policy analysts, regulatory offi-cials, sociologists, a historian, technology assess-ment specialists, independent scientists working in the areas of energy and environment, and the creator of a public art exhibit critical of nuclear energy. These interviews were combined with a review of publically-available documents in Eng-lish drawn from German sources spanning federal and state agencies, regulatory organizations, uni-versity research programs, independent scientific research institutes, and journalistic reports on nu-clear energy. These research materials have been interpreted in the context of the author’s 17 years of social scientific research on nuclear energy in the U.S., which has spanned the fields of nu clear fusion, environmental remediation and public communication at former U.S. nuclear weapons production sites, and commercial nuclear power. Since 2009, the author has also collaborated with members of the Japanese nuclear energy com-munity as an additional step toward developing a framework for a global analysis of nuclear organi-zations, institutions, and policies.

Building on this foundation, the present re-search project seeks to assemble a set of case stud-ies of national nuclear programs. Each program is of interest in its own terms, as part of a cross-na-tional comparative study, and as part of a broader study of the interconnected global nuclear energy system. At present, the U.S. and German cases pro-vide an opportunity to test the principles for cross-national comparisons and integrative analysis.

3 Analytical Framework

As noted above, this project’s approach differs from typical approaches to technology assess-ment. Rather than collecting and analyzing quan-titative data, the project adopts an interpretive ap-proach grounded in critical cultural analysis. The objects of analysis are communication processes and artifacts, rhetorical action in range of settings, textual materials including material and social

texts, and broad formations of discourse surround-ing nuclear energy. Examples of this approach ap-plied to U.S. contexts include work by Farrell and Goodnight (1981), Katz and Miller (1996), Kin-sella (2001), Kinsella (2005), Taylor et al. (2005), and Taylor et al. (2007). Here the term “cultural” is applied broadly, encompassing questions of val-ues, world-views, and practices as manifested in organizational, institutional, public, and political contexts. These, too, are necessary elements in the assessment of sociotechnical systems.

Along with this focus on communication, rhetoric, and discourse the project utilizes ana-lytical concepts drawn from the sociology of science and technology, science and technol-ogy studies, and research on public understand-ings of science and technology. Actor network theory, for example, provides a set of resources for examining how complex sociotechnical sys-tems assemble knowledge, people, policies, ap-paratus, organizations, and institutional elements into dynamic wholes (e. g. Latour 2005). This interdisciplinary perspective contributes to the field of technology assessment by providing “big picture” insights into how specific technologies are embedded in larger systems that enable and constrain their effectiveness, impacts, social and political implications, and overall viability.

Such an approach entails a multitude of questions at the “micro” level of local practices, as for example in the training of engineering stu-dents at a university nuclear energy research in-stitute. At the same time, other questions involve “macro” level phenomena such as public opinion trends, government policies, and economic and political environments. This project’s approach emphasizes that the micro and macro levels, as well as the dual principles of social action and social structure, are interdependent and mutually constitutive (cf. Giddens 1984).

4 Research Methods

Questions of validity, reliability, and generalizabil-ity are not absent within interpretive approaches such as the one employed in this project, but they must be assessed differently (Denzin, Lincoln 2005; Giddens 1993). The researcher should seek a close and detailed familiarity with the settings

DISKUSSIONSFORUM


studied; demonstrate coherency, fidelity, and plau-sibility in narrative analyses of the phenomena studied (Fisher 1987); and test those narratives in consultation with members of the community under study. “Etic” understandings brought to the project by the researcher, products of pre-existing conceptual frameworks and established research literatures, intersect with “emic” understandings that circulate within the community studied, as observed and recorded in the field (Pike 1967). The knowledge produced in such research is a product of the interaction of these etic and emic elements as they are reconciled, reevaluated, and brought together to ground productive insights.

For this project, fieldwork at the micro level in Germany included unobtrusive observation and participant observation over a four-month period as a visiting researcher at a university nuclear en-ergy institute. Assigned an office within one of the institute’s departments, the researcher interacted with faculty and doctoral students informally on a daily basis, conducted eleven formal interviews with faculty and doctoral students, participated in seminars and colloquia, presented four colloquia, observed one student dissertation presentation and practice presentations for a number of conference papers, toured the laboratory facilities, and par-ticipated in one instructional laboratory exercise. This fieldwork had two purposes: to gather factual information about nuclear energy technologies, policies, programs, and issues in Germany; and to become familiar with the practices, values, at-titudes, and world-views of nuclear professionals and professionals in training.

Beyond the host institution, the researcher travelled to a number of sites in Germany to conduct fourteen interviews with technology as-sessment specialists, sociologists, energy policy analysts, independent scientists, regulatory offi-cials, and the designer of an art exhibit critical of nuclear energy. Participation in a two-day con-ference on risk governance afforded an opportu-nity to meet informally with a number of policy specialists, social scientists, and others working on energy technology issues. An additional inter-view with two French nuclear officials, follow-ing up on a brief initial meeting at that confer-ence, was conducted by telephone shortly after the conclusion of fieldwork in Germany.

Visits to two German nuclear power plants operated by different companies, one utilizing boiling water reactors and one using pressur-ized water reactors, provided direct access to the technological apparatus at the heart of the nu-clear energy system. These visits also served as extended opportunities for informal interviews with engineering and public relations staff at the two sites. Similarly, a tour of the controversial, proposed nuclear waste repository site at Gor-leben, arranged for a group from the researcher’s host institute, became the occasion for a two-day conversation with nuclear professionals about the state of Germany’s nuclear energy programs. Another informative and illuminating experience was a visit to an art and photography exhibit crit-ical of nuclear energy, including conversations with a number of the exhibit’s staff and followed by an interview with the exhibit’s designer.

Throughout the four months of fieldwork, the researcher acquired and read numerous docu-ments suggested by the host institute’s members and other interviewees. These included technical reports, policy papers, topical documents intend-ed for more general audiences, and news reports on energy and nuclear energy issues. Because the researcher has no German language skills, all interviews and documents were in English. This is clearly a significant research constraint and a source of selectivity, but was not an impediment to productive data collection because of the high degree of English language competency within the community studied. The constraint posed by the four-month fieldwork schedule probably exceeds the constraint posed by the language difference.

A broader range of experiences, including observations of environmental and land-use pro-tests, conversations about energy and environ-mental issues with people beyond the community studied, and visits to German history and technol-ogy museums, helped to provide a more general interpretive context for the questions studied.

5 Preliminary Findings

From these materials, focal themes emerged re-cursively over time. Applying an informal con-stant comparative method (Glaser 1965; Glaser 1992), the researcher began with a set of broad

DISKUSSIONSFORUM


questions and moved toward more specific ques-tions guided by the data collected. Prominence, emphasis, and frequency of appearance of themes in interviews, observations, and textual materials led to a set of preliminary findings as summarized below. These are presented in part as specific to the nuclear energy domain in Ger-many, and in part as comparisons between the German and U.S. contexts. The themes are orga-nized within three broad categories.

5.1 Public and Political Discourses of Nuclear Energy

The first theme was prompted by early conversa-tions with some of the researcher’s hosts, but was sustained and developed further throughout the course of fieldwork. Issues surrounding nuclear energy appear to be far more contentious in Ger-many, relative to the U.S., in terms of both the strength of attitudes held and the degree to which members of the population pay attention to those issues. In the U.S., at least prior to the events at Fukushima, nuclear energy controversies have been background topics rather than salient ones for most of the population. Increased (but still-controversial) concerns regarding the problem of global climate change, concerns regarding energy costs and energy security, and opportunities pro-vided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 have led to a vigorous campaign by the nuclear industry to support the construction of new reactors and to extend the lifetimes for existing ones. Opponents and critics of nuclear energy have responded, but for most Americans the proposed nuclear expan-sion has not been a prominent issue. The great-est impediment to a nuclear expansion has not been public controversy, but instead has been the problem of financing costly, lengthy, and risky new construction projects.

In Germany, a far greater fraction of the population appears to take a strong and direct interest in nuclear energy issues. Nuclear con-troversies predate the accidents at Three Mile Island (more typically known to the researcher’s German hosts as “Harrisburg”) and Chernobyl. These controversies are grounded in part by en-vironmental politics as they have evolved since the 1970s and in part by conflicts during the

1980s over the basing of U.S. nuclear weapons in Germany. Existing concerns were magnified and expanded by the Chernobyl catastrophe, which had direct and dramatic effects on the conscious-ness of many people throughout Germany.

In addition to these historical roots, atten-tion to nuclear energy in Germany is informed by a political and institutional context quite differ-ent from that of the U.S. Nuclear energy appears to circulate as a form of political currency within the multi-party national government, playing an important role in the formation and maintenance of party coalitions and challenges to those coali-tions. Similar patterns appear in the complex re-lations between states (Länder) and the national government. The essential tensions do not appear to be as much between government and industry, as in the U.S., but across lines of dispute within the federal and state governments. In the U.S., industry and interest group lobbying in support of federal government policy choices is the locus of political action; in Germany, political action appears to operate more in the public domain.

A related theme that emerged early and per-sisted throughout the fieldwork period is the cen-tral role of nuclear waste as both a material and a symbolic site of controversy. The researcher was told repeatedly that no aspect of nuclear policy generates as much controversy as waste transpor-tation and disposal. In the U.S., cost issues domi-nate nuclear debates, probably followed next in prominence by issues related to reactor safety and incremental environmental contamination. Nuclear critics and opponents do make arguments about waste storage, disposal, and transportation, but these are not prominent concerns for most Americans. The prominence of nuclear waste is-sues in Germany was highlighted during the re-searcher’s visit to the proposed repository site at Gorleben, where the facility’s operators have left in place office windows damaged by protestors. The kinds of violent protests and police actions that have taken place in Germany around nuclear issues are far less common in the U.S.

5.2 Regulatory Policies and Practices

A theme that emerged later, but that appears to have significant potential for further development,

DISKUSSIONSFORUM


is the contrast between nuclear regulation policies and practices in Germany and the U.S. Citing a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Perin (2006) remarks that most nuclear regulation in the U.S. is self-regulation by plant operators and industry organizations such as the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). According to Perrin, inspections by the U.S. Nu-clear Regulatory Commission “customarily cover only about 5 percent of all equipment and pro-grams at an ‘average’ plant and about 10 percent at plants with problematic records” (p. 8). Lack-ing comparable statistics for German plants, the researcher has inferred from interviews that the degree of regulatory penetration is probably sig-nificantly higher in Germany. Moreover, nuclear regulation in Germany is accomplished through an interlocking system of Länder-level and fed-eral-level authorities, with a key role played by non-governmental technical service organizations (TSOs). Interviews with regulatory officials, nu-clear engineers, and policy analysts indicate that this system may be more robust and resistant to problems of regulatory “capture” or “recreancy” (Freudenburg 1993) relative to the U.S. system.

5.3 Organizational and Institutional Strategies

The themes discussed above intersect with an-other set of questions surrounding organizational and institutional strategies in the German and U.S. contexts. At the time of this project’s fieldwork, Germany was tentatively and controversially committed to a gradual phase-out of nuclear pow-er plants, but later in 2010 the phase out plan was interrupted by a decision to extend the lifetimes of some reactors. Shortly after the disaster at Fuku-shima, the reactor lifetime extension was reversed. The ultimate fate of this long-standing policy con-troversy is not yet clear. What Germany and the U.S. have shared for some time, however, is a situ-ation in which nuclear institutions have had to sus-tain themselves by a combination of exportation of knowledge and technologies, diversification of activities, and continued efforts to maintain viable bases of expert personnel and technical knowl-edge. How the two nations’ nuclear institutions

continue to manage these challenges promises to be another area for further investigation.

6 Conclusion: Interpretive Research as Technology Assessment

The future of nuclear energy technologies in Ger-many, the U.S., and elsewhere depends not only on strictly “technological” factors such as reactor designs, safety systems, and methods for waste disposal. None of those elements can be fully understood outside a broader context of public opinion, government policy, and organizational and institutional practice. This article presents an example of how such elements can be evalu-ated using approaches grounded in interpretive concepts, data, and methods, contributing to a broader vision of technology assessment.

Note

1) The author wishes to thank the U.S. and German Fulbright Commissions and his hosts at the Insti-tut für Kernenergetik und Energiesysteme (IKE) at the University of Stuttgart.

References

CSIS – Center for Strategic and International Stud-ies, 1999: The Regulatory Process for Nuclear Power Reactors: A Review. Washington, DCDenzin, N.K.; Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), 2005: The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CAFarrell, T.B.; Goodnight, G.T., 1981: Accidental Rhet-oric: The Root Metaphors of Three Mile Island. In: Communication Monographs 48 (1981), pp. 271–300Fisher, W.R., 1987: Human Communication as Narra-tion: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Ac-tion. ColumbiaFreudenburg, W.R., 1993: Risk and Recreancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Per-ceptions. In: Social Forces 71/4 (1993), pp. 909–932Giddens, A., 1984: The Constitution of Society: Out-line of the Theory of Structuration. BerkeleyGiddens, A., 1993: New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. StanfordGlaser, B.G., 1965: The Constant Comparative Meth-od of Qualitative Analysis. In: Social Problems 12 (1965), pp. 436–445

DISKUSSIONSFORUM


Glaser, B.G., 1992: Basics of Grounded Theory: Emergence vs. Forcing. Mill Valley, CAKatz, S.B.; Miller, C.R., 1996: The Low-level Radioac-tive Waste-siting Controversy in North Carolina: Toward a Rhetorical Model of Risk Communication. In: Herndl, C.G.; Brown, S.C. (eds.): Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America, pp. 111–139Kinsella, W.J., 2001: Nuclear Boundaries: Material and Discursive Containment at the Hanford Nuclear Reser-vation. In: Science as Culture 10/2 (2001), pp. 163–194Kinsella, W.J., 2005: One Hundred Years of Nuclear Discourse: Four Master Themes and their Implications for Environmental Communication. In: Environmen-tal Communication Yearbook 2 (2005), pp. 49–72Latour, B., 2005: Reassembling the Social: An Intro-duction to Actor-network Theory. OxfordPerin, C., 2006: Shouldering Risk: The Culture of Control in the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry. PrincetonPike, K.L., 1967: Etic and Emic Standpoints for the Description of Behavior. In: Hildum, D.C. (ed.): Lan-guage and Thought: An Enduring Problem in Psy-chology. Princeton, NJ, pp. 32–39Taylor, B.C.; Kinsella, W.J.; Depoe, S.P.; Metzler, M.S., 2005: Nuclear Legacies: Communication, Controversy, and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Production Complex. In: Communication Yearbook 29 (2005), pp. 363–409Taylor, B.C.; Kinsella, W.J.; Depoe, S.P.; Metzler, M.S. (eds.), 2007: Nuclear Legacies: Communication, Controversy, and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Com-plex. Lanham, MD

Contact

Dr. William J. KinsellaAssociate Professor of CommunicationInterdisciplinary Program DirectorNorth Carolina State UniversityScience, Technology & SocietyCampus Box 81 04 / 201 Winston Hall27695-8104 Raleigh NC, USAEmail: [email protected]: http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/facul-ty_staff/wjkinsel

« »

Informationen zum ITAS

Das Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS) im Karlsruher Institut für Technologie erarbeitet und vermittelt Wissen über die Folgen menschlichen Handelns und ihre Bewertung in Bezug auf die Entwicklung und den Einsatz von neuen Technologien. Alternati-ve Handlungs- und Gestaltungsoptionen werden entworfen und bewertet. ITAS unterstützt da-durch Politik, Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft und die Öffentlichkeit, Zukunftsentscheidungen auf der Basis des besten verfügbaren Wissens und ratio-naler Bewertungen zu treffen. Zu diesem Zweck wendet ITAS Methoden der Technikfolgenab-schätzung und Systemanalyse an und entwickelt diese weiter. Untersuchungsgegenstände sind in der Regel übergreifende systemische Zusammen-hänge von gesellschaftlichen Wandlungsprozes-sen und Entwicklungen in Wissenschaft, Technik und Umwelt. Das Institut erarbeitet sein Wissen vor dem Hintergrund gesellschaftlicher Probleme und Diskurse sowie anstehender Entscheidungen über Technik. Relevante gesellschaftliche Ak-teure werden in den Forschungs- und Vermitt-lungsprozess einbezogen. Außerdem greift das ITAS die Problematik der Bewertung von Tech-nik und Technikfolgen mit wissenschaftlichen Mitteln auf. Die Forschungsarbeiten des Instituts haben grundsätzlich einen prospektiven Anteil. Es geht – im Sinne der Vorsorgeforschung – um Vorausschau der Folgen menschlichen Handelns, sowohl als Vorausschau soziotechnischer Ent-wicklungen (Foresight) als auch als Abschätzung künftiger Folgen heutiger Entscheidungen. Als Richtschnur gilt, dass die Forschungsergebnisse in unterschiedlichen, alternativen Handlungs- und Gestaltungsoptionen gebündelt und in Bezug auf ihre Folgen und Implikationen rational be-wertet werden. Das Internetangebot des Instituts finden Sie unter http://www.itas.fzk.de.

REZENSION


REZENSION

Umwelt-(Folgen-)Forschung zwischen Theorie und Pragmatismus

M. Groß, H. Heinrichs: Environmental Sociology. European Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Challenges. Dordrecht: Springer 2010, 361 S., ISBN: 978-90-481-8729-4, 169,99 €

Rezension von Christian Büscher, ITAS

In der mittlerweile sehr differenzierten soziolo-gischen Forschungslandschaft hat die Umweltso-ziologie ihre Nische eingenommen und sogleich ihrerseits wieder für eine Diversifizierung des einen Themas gesorgt: die Relation der Gesell-schaft zu ihrer natürlichen Umwelt. Der vorlie-gende Band, herausgegeben von Mathias Groß und Harald Heinrichs mit dem Titel „Environ-Environ-mental Sociology: European Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Perspectives“, veranschaulicht diese Entwicklung. In achtzehn Einzelbeiträgen plus Einführung und Nachwort werden auf knapp 350 Seiten Thesen zu globalen Umweltdiskur-sen, Umwelt bezogenen Handlungsrationalitäten, Transdisziplinarität, Nachhaltige Entwicklung sowie gesellschaftliche Anpassungsstrategien und Experimente vorgestellt. Die meisten der Autorinnen und Autoren lehren und forschen in Deutschland, einige in Irland, Italien oder den Niederlanden. Inwieweit sich aus dieser Text-sammlung deshalb eine europäische Perspektive ableiten lässt, oder ob sich diese aus problem- oder theoriebezogenen Besonderheiten im Ver-gleich zu anderen Regionen ergibt, ist nicht klar zu erkennen. Für die TA-Community stellt sich eher die Frage, ob sich aus der Umweltsoziolo-gie neue Perspektiven ergeben, vor allem in Be-zug auf nicht-intendierte Folgen von Handlungen oder Entscheidungsprozessen.1 Und dazu finden sich einige interessante Beiträge in diesem Band.

Stabile Ungleichgewichte

Vorweg wird durch die Herausgeber ein Para-digmenwechsel in der Umweltsoziologie aufge-zeigt. Während herkömmliche Ansätze die Idee von ökologischen Gleichgewichten hochhiel-ten, die es zu schützen oder wiederherzustellen galt, so rechnen neuere Ansätze mit Systemen im permanenten Wandel, die durch nicht-lineare Dynamiken aufrechterhalten werden (S. 3). Da-durch verliert die Umweltsoziologie einen we-sentlichen normativen Impetus – es kann nicht aufrechterhalten werden, was so nicht existiert – und ersetzt diesen durch eine Reihe von davon abgeleiteten Zielsetzungen. Umweltsoziologi-sche Beiträge analysieren demnach Möglich-keiten der Reduktion von Eingriffsfolgen, der Restaurierung von bereits entstandenen Schäden und des vorsorglichen Handelns angesichts an-tizipierter Schäden (S. 5f.). Das bedeutet, dass die Umweltsoziologie sich weiterhin als sozial-normative Forschungsrichtung versteht, wohl wissend, dass sie keine „natürlichen“ Zustände wiederherstellen, bestenfalls sozial- und umwelt-verträgliche Lösungen erarbeiten kann, durch Eruierung von Wertmaßstäben („ethical assess-ethical assess-ment“) und Zumutbarkeitsgrenzen für natürliche Systeme („environmental assessment“) (S. 350).

Da in dieser Rezension nicht auf alle Bei-träge eingegangen werden kann, beschränke ich mich auf einige wenige, die sich mit dem Prob-lem der Nebenfolgen beschäftigen.

Umweltdiskurse

Fritz Reusswig erörtert den „Climate Change Discourse“ im Vergleich der BRD und den USA anhand wesentlicher Veränderungen in den Pro-blemstellungen in der Umweltsoziologie. Nicht mehr die kognitiven Limitierungen und normati-ven Verirrungen der Individuen stünden im Mittel-punkt der Betrachtungen, sondern systematische und organisationale Bedingungen ökologisch-ra-tionalen Entscheidens (S. 54). Damit verschiebe sich die Aufmerksamkeit von Unsicherheiten der naturwissenschaftlichen Modellierung des „earth-systems“ auf die des „social systems“: „…major uncertainties flow from the nature of human de-cision making. They refer to the double contin-

REZENSION


gency of social interaction, the inherent future orientation of decisions, and the internal dynam-ics of technological, economic, and political sys-tems.” (S. 47) Unter diesen Prämissen beobachtet Reusswig die Entscheidungsprozesse beispiels-weise auf den Energiemärkten als eigenrationale Abstimmung unter Beobachtern, die sich wech-selseitig beobachten, demzufolge die Entwick-lungen auf diesem für Climate Change wichtigen Parkett evolutionären Prozessen ausgesetzt seien. Das bedeute, dass sich die Effekte von Maßnah-men zur Abschwächung der Folgen des Climate Change wiederum an den veränderten Kapital- wiederum an den veränderten Kapital-strömen ablesen lassen müssten, wenn „carbon-dependent-industries“ am Aktienmarkt an Wert verlieren. Insofern hat der Diskurs ganz reale Ef-fekte auf der Ebene einer global vernetzten Welt-wirtschaft (S. 48f.). Mehr noch sieht Reusswig die Aufgabe der Umweltsoziologie darin, die Folgen der vorgeschlagenen Problemlösungen zu analy-sieren: „Bio-fuels“ seien ein Beispiel für ein Fol-Bio-fuels“ seien ein Beispiel für ein Fol-“ seien ein Beispiel für ein Fol-genforschungsfeld, auf dem Heilsversprechen und Nachhaltigkeitskonflikte aufeinandertreffen. Ziel sei es nicht, Problemlösungen abzuwürgen, son-dern die Potenzierung von Folgen durch neu gene-rierte Fehler zu verhindern (S. 54). Umweltsozio-logie verbleibt dann kritische „Begleitforschung“ gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungen (S. 55).

Rationale Wahlhandlungen

Ulf Liebe und Peter Preisendörfer behaupten in ihrem Beitrag, dass Rational-Choice-Theorien (RCT) theoretisch elaborierte Analysen von Öko-logiethemen erlauben, die sich mit der Erarbei-tung praktikabler Handlungsanweisungen ver-knüpfen lassen (S. 141–157). In der Tradition von James Coleman oder Hartmut Esser sollen RCT soziale Makro-Phänomene über das zweckratio-nale Handeln einzelner Individuen erklären, in-sofern Effekte individuellen Handelns kollektive Wirkungen haben können. Diese Ansätze sind für die Technikfolgenforschung deshalb von Bedeu-tung, weil sie die nicht-intendierten Folgen des – in einem bestimmten Kontext – nachvollzieh-bar rationalen Handelns in den Blick nehmen. Diese Forschungen leben von der Unterstellung, als Idealisierung, dass Individuen in durch „con-con-straints“ konditionierten sozialen Situationen, mit

hinreichender Information ausgestattet, bestimm-te Wahlhandlungen ausführen können, die wie-derum möglicherweise zu nicht gewollten öko-logischen Kollektivproblemen führen. Als Bei-spiele für Forschungsfelder werden „individual environmental behaviour“, „travel mode choice“ oder die Differenz von ökologischer Einstellung und ökologischem Verhalten sowie das Problem der Zeitbindung genannt. Letzteres ist bedeutend für die Idee des „sustainable development“, wenn Individuen das Wohl zukünftiger Generationen in ihr gegenwärtiges Kalkül einbeziehen müssten bzw. sollten. Leider greifen die Autoren hier nur auf Forschungen aus den 1970 und -80er Jahren zurück, und in diesen wird wenig überraschend eine Präferenz seitens der Individuen von kurz-fristigen Nutzenkalkülen gegenüber langfristigen Erwägungen (Haltbarkeit etc.) bei Konsument-scheidungen festgestellt (S. 148f.). Es scheint hier eine eklatante Forschungslücke angedeutet. Weitere Beispiele sind die Inwertsetzung von Umweltgütern und neuere Entwicklungen hin-sichtlich von Forschungen, die Bewusstseinszu-stände beobachten und erklären wollen (also Ge-danken und Gefühle wie Affekte oder Glück), die wiederum Handlungen beeinflussen (S. 150ff.).

Richtiges ist notwendig

An einem weiteren Beispiel soll ein anstrengen-der Grundton einiger Beiträge veranschaulicht werden. Umweltsoziologische Ansätze sind in hohem Maße der „Praxisrelevanz“ (außerhalb der Wissenschaften, die ja selbst eine Praxis ist) verhaftet, dass nicht selten Leerformeln wie „ad-ad-equate“, „appropriate“, „necessary“, „compre-“, „appropriate“, „necessary“, „compre-appropriate“, „necessary“, „compre-“, „necessary“, „compre-necessary“, „compre-“, „compre-compre-hensive“ etc. in Anspruch genommen werden.2 Dahinter lässt sich eine Haltung vermuten, die vielen Erkenntnissen aus der soziologischen For-schung zum Trotz, ein Dennoch entgegenhalten will. Folgende Vorstellungen sind immer wieder zu finden: Wenn Planung und Steuerung in der modernen, funktional differenzierten Gesellschaft nicht zielgenau möglich sind, dann muss eben eine „multi-level, multiple-actors governance“ her (z. B. bei Frank Biermann als „Earth System Governance“, S. 59ff.); wenn eine instrumentelle Form von Aufklärung über das richtige Handeln noch nicht nachweislich zielführend war, dann

REZENSION


wird dennoch nach der Inklusion der Betroffenen in Entscheidungsprozesse gerufen, um „kommu-nikative Rationalität“ freizulegen etc.

Harald Heinrichs verknüpft in diesem Sin-ne alle bereits bekannten Aufklärungs- und Dia-logformen zur „Adaption Communication“. Diese beinhaltet „disaster-prevention-, risk- and sustainability communication“, um Schäden vorzubeugen, um Risiken und Gefahren richtig einschätzen zu helfen und um ein (Kollektiv-)Bewusstsein für langfristige, systematische Fol-gen für unser Tun zu erzeugen. Was das alles bringen soll? „To ensure appropriate behaviour“, und dazu sei eine differenzierte Kommunikation zwischen den verantwortlichen Entscheidern und den betroffenen Individuen notwendig (S. 339). Zudem, um eine Kooperation zwischen Experten und Laien herzustellen, ist eine „comprehensive disaster (prevention) communication“ vonnöten (S. 339). Oder, um ein systematisches Verständ-nis zwischen Experten und Laien über die Be-drohung in einem bestimmten Fall herzustellen, müssen Informierungs-Strategien, dialog-orien-tierte Kommunikation sowie partizipatorische Übungen in Anschlag gebracht werden. Zuletzt, Nachhaltigkeits-Kommunikation soll Suche nach Lösungen, Lernen und Management-Prozesse initiieren. Das alles soll unter dem Label der „Adaptation Communication“ eine soziale Total-integration herbeiführen, die das richtige und not-wendige hervorbringen soll. Dieser und andere Beiträge leiden an der Absenz von theoretischer Reflexion, obwohl gerade zum Thema Kommu-nikation reichlich Material vorhanden ist (z. B bei Markowitz 1990; Krippendorf 1994), was nicht selten in „common-sense science“ mündet: Die Thesen sind intuitiv auch außerhalb der Wissen-schaft gut anschlussfähig, aber generieren nicht viel neues Wissen. Darin folgt die Umweltsozio-logie offensichtlich großen Vorbildern, wie z. B. Anthony Giddens, der alle soziologische Analyse fallen lässt und den sprichwörtlichen angelsächsi-schen Pragmatismus auf die Spitze treibt, indem er in Klimafragen einen allgemeinen Konsens eingefordert (Giddens 2009, S. 114).3

Insgesamt bekommen die Leserin und der Leser einen eher lose verknüpften Band vorge-legt, der vor allem Themenbreite veranschau-licht. Viele Beiträge finden sich auch in dem

kürzlich erschienenen „Handbuch Umweltsozio-logie“, das diese Breite noch einmal potenziert (Groß 2011). Für die TA ergeben sich eine Fül-le von Anregungen und Anschlüssen, nur muss man diese finden wollen.

Anmerkungen

1) Diese Problemstellung stellt den kleinsten gemeinsa-men Nenner der TA dar: „In einer etwas distanzierte-ren Perspektive auf den TA-Diskurs lässt sich erken-nen, dass fast alles an dem TA-Konzept kritisiert und zur Disposition gestellt wurde – außer dem Gedan-ken der „Folgenorientierung“ (Bechmann 2007, S. 35). Siehe dazu auch den Beitrag von Gloede 2007.

2) Dieser Grundton findet sich im Übrigen auch in TA-Veröffentlichungen.

3) Auch die Herausgeber dieses Bandes fordern den engeren Anschluss an die eigene Disziplin, der So-ziologie, und deren Theorien und Methoden (S. 350).

Literatur

Bechmann, G., 2007: Die Beschreibung der Zukunft als Chance oder als Risiko? TA zwischen Innovati-on und Prävention. In: Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 16/1 (2007), S. 34–44Giddens, A., 2009: The Politics of Climate Change. CambridgeGloede, F., 2007: Unfolgsame Folgen. Begründungen und Implikationen der Fokussierung auf Nebenfolgen bei TA. In: Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 16/1 (2007), S. 45–54Groß, M. (Hg.), 2011: Handbuch Umweltsoziologie. WiesbadenKrippendorf, K., 1994: Der verschwundene Bote. Me-taphern und Modelle der Kommunikation. In: Merten, K.; Schmidt, S.J.; Weischenberg, S. (Hg.): Die Wirk-lichkeit der Medien: Eine Einführung in die Kommu-nikationswissenschaft. Opladen, S. 79–113Markowitz, J., 1990: Kommunikation über Risiken. Eine Theorie-Skizze. In: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 16/3 (1990), S. 385–420

« »

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


TAGUNGSBERICHTE

The Complexity of Pro-poor Agricultural IntensificationReport on the Workshop “Low-input Intensification of Agriculture – Chances and Barriers in Developing Countries”Karlsruhe, December 8, 2010

by Rolf Meyer, ITAS, and Dieter Burger, IfGG

The KIT start-up project “Potentials of low-input intensification in developing countries”1 is focused on smallholders who represent the vast majority of farmers in developing coun-tries. They play a key role to achieve increasing agricultural production and strong economic growth in agriculture, and therewith to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries. At the same time, a more sustainable land use is urgently requested.

The project started from the hypothesis that – with the focus on small-scale farmers – agricultural production systems like Conserva-tion Agriculture, System of Rice Intensification, Organic Farming and Agroforestry Systems are candidates for higher food production and sus-tainable land utilisation in developing countries. These production systems have the potential for a “low-input intensification”, especially meeting the needs and possibilities of small-scale farm-ers. They can be described as complex agricul-tural systems of intensification through higher agro-ecological and biological productivity. They do not necessarily require higher exter-nal inputs (as mineral fertilizer and pesticides). Instead, they focus on the optimisation of input utilisation. Improved management of soil and water are central elements.

In this context, the workshop on December 8, 2010 at the so-called “Fasanenschlösschen” in Karlsruhe aimed to discuss the potentials of low-input intensification and to identify adequate problem-oriented research approaches.2 In con-sideration of the complex issue, three perspec-tives were brought together in the workshop:

1. Global baselines: To assess the potentials for low-input intensification in the agriculture of de-veloping countries, the geophysical and clima-tological situation on the one hand (Katharina Butz, IfGG) and the challenges for small-scale farming, the characteristics, distribution and hin-drances of low-input agricultural production sys-tems on the other hand (Rolf Meyer, ITAS) were presented, based on the work in the project. Both speakers came to the conclusion that overall as-sessments of potentials are only a first step and that locally adapted assessments and solutions are needed in the next step.

2. Case studies: Experiences with low-input in-tensification were presented for very different settings, regions and research approaches. Shilpi Saxena discussed the market channels for or-ganic vegetable farmers in Tanzania and the con-straints in their marketing chains to explore bet-ter marketing strategies for the small-scale farm-ers on the national market. The current situation of irrigation within the southern date palm oasis of Tunisia and potentials of irrigation efficiency improvement were analysed by Nizan Omrani (Institute of Arid Regions, Tunisia). Research results about the influence of soil micro-fauna on soil fertility were reported from a project in Central Amazonia, Brazil (Raphael Knoll and Dieter Burger, IfGG). Finally, Carsten Marohn (University of Hohenheim) gave an overview on Agroforestry Systems, and reported about the potentials of and constrains for agroforestry in the uplands of Thailand and Vietnam, including different modelling approaches.

The most important common lines were that the soil fertility is strongly endangered and low-input approaches have the potential to achieve significant increases in productiv-ity. Additional points were: The influence of economic conditions – agricultural prices and high returns for specific crops – favours mono-cultures (date palms in Tunisia) or annual crops (uplands of Vietnam and Thailand) instead of Agroforestry Systems with multiple cultivars. Access to (and information about) regional, national and/or international markets can be an important bottleneck for the realisation of in-creased yields. Research activities often suffer from missing continuity and links to farmers so

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


that research results contribute insufficiently to improved farming practices.

3. Development and research policy perspec-tives: In the last part, Stephan Krall (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenar-beit) presented research needs from the devel-opment assistance perspective, and Marc Dus-seldorp (Office for Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag – TAB), based on the TAB-project “Research contributions to solv-ing the world food problem”, discussed the rel-evance of participatory research approaches for low-input intensification and options to reduce the existing constrains in the research funding and organisation.

The term “low-input intensification” was discussed controversially and alternatives such as sustainable intensification or eco-functional intensification were proposed. Agreement was reached that low-input intensification focuses on more independence from classical external inputs such as synthetic fertilizer and pesti-cides. It is in so far misleading as such external inputs are subsidized by higher demand for in-formation, knowledge, networking, production system adjustments, etc. which are in most case “external” and associated with different kind of costs. This constitutes that low-input intensi-fication normally happens not by itself but re-quires policy support.

Notes

1) The KIT start-up project is jointly carried out by the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS, Campus North) and the Institute for Geography and Geoecology (IfGG, Campus South).

2) The workshop proceedings will be published as KIT Scientific Report No. 7584.

« »

Initiativen in der Climate- Engineering-ForschungProjekte, Konferenzen, Netzwerke: Ein Bericht über ausgewählte Forschungs-aktivitäten in Deutschland

von Stephanie Uther, Universität Heidelberg, und Nils Matzner, RWTH Aachen

In den letzten Jahren hat in Deutschland die wis-senschaftliche Beschäftigung mit den sog. Cli-Cli-mate-Engineering- oder auch Geoengineering-Technologien zunehmend an Bedeutung gewon-nen. Bei Climate-Engineering-Technologien han-Climate-Engineering-Technologien han--Technologien han-delt es sich um Verfahren, die auf eine bewusste Beeinflussung des weltweiten Klimas durch tech-nische Mittel zielen, um die negativen Folgen des Klimawandels abzumildern.1 Dabei lassen sich zwei Maßnahmengruppen unterteilen: Methoden des „Solar Radiation Managements“ (SRM) be-wirken eine Veränderung der Strahlungsbilanz der Erde, indem sie die absorbierte Solarstrahlung reduzieren und dadurch einen kühlenden Effekt hervorrufen. Im Gegensatz dazu greifen „Carbon Dioxide Removal“-Maßnahmen (CDR) in den Kohlenstoffkreislauf der Erde ein, um die beste-hende Menge an Treibhausgasen in der Erdatmo-sphäre zu verringern. Der folgende Bericht stellt überblicksartig ausgewählte Veranstaltungen aus der deutschen Climate-Engineering-Forschung vor. Der Beitrag soll dazu dienen, über zurück-liegende, aktuelle und zukünftige Initiativen zu informieren, indem einzelne Konferenzen und Expertentagungen, Projekte und Forschungsnetz-werke besprochen werden.

1 Forschungsprojekt „The Global Governance of Climate Engineering”

Im Oktober 2009 startete am Marsilius-Kolleg der Universität Heidelberg das interdisziplinä-re Forschungsprojekt „The Global Governance of Climate Engineering“, dessen Ziel es ist, die Chancen und Risiken unterschiedlicher Climate-Engineering-Technologien aus natur-, geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschungsper-spektive kritisch zu untersuchen.2 Auf individuel-ler, gesellschaftlicher und globaler Ebene sollen

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


disziplinübergreifende Fragen hinsichtlich der Wahrnehmung und Bewertung verschiedenster Climate-Engineering-Technologien aufgegriffen werden: Welche Technologien können aus na-turwissenschaftlicher und ökonomischer Sicht überhaupt ernsthaft in Erwägung gezogen wer-den? Welche gesellschaftlichen, wissenschaftli-chen und öffentliche Diskurse über Risiken und Chancen sind bereits entstanden und wie wirken sich diese auf politische Entscheidungsprozesse auf nationaler und internationaler Ebene aus? Im Zentrum des Gesamtprojektes steht die Frage nach einer globalen politischen Regulierung oder auch Global Governance, um die weitere Erfor-Global Governance, um die weitere Erfor-, um die weitere Erfor-schung sowie den möglichen Einsatz klimamodi-fizierender Technologien zu adressieren.

Den Kern des Heidelberger Projekts bil-det ein Team aus zehn Professoren und sieben Doktoranden der Fachbereiche Umweltphysik, Politische Wissenschaft, Politische Ökonomie, Umweltökonomie, Psychologie, Rechtswissen-schaft, Humangeographie und Philosophie. Die gemeinsame Arbeit wird finanziell durch das Marsilius-Kolleg getragen, das als „Center for Advanced Study“ im Rahmen der Exzellenz-In-“ im Rahmen der Exzellenz-In-itiative des Bundes und der Länder im November 2007 gegründet wurde. Das Kolleg fördert mul-tidisziplinäre Projekte und unterstützt gleich-zeitig die Vernetzung mit außeruniversitären Forschungseinrichtungen sowie nationalen und internationalen Partnerinstitutionen.

Seit Beginn des Heidelberger Forschungs-projekts zu Climate Engineering sind zahlreiche Initiativen, Vorträge, Workshops und Publikatio-nen initiiert worden, die das Thema auch über die Grenzen der Wissenschaft hinaus in die in-teressierte Öffentlichkeit tragen sollen. Den Hö-hepunkt bisheriger Aktivitäten bildete die Som-merschule „Governing Climate Engineering“ im Juli vergangenen Jahres. Darüber hinaus organi-siert das Projektteam in regelmäßigen Abständen Workshops, bei denen externe Referenten (u. a. David Keith, University of Calgary, Tim Kruger, University of Oxford) die Diskussion durch Vor-) die Diskussion durch Vor-träge bereichern und erweitern. Im Winterseme-ster 2011/12 ist eine interdisziplinäre Lehrveran-staltung zu Klimawandel und Climate Engineer-Climate Engineer-ing im Rahmen des neugegründeten „Heidelberg Center for the Environment“ vorgesehen, die mit

der aktuellen Forschung des Projektes in enger Verbindung steht.

2 Sommerschule 2010: „Governing Climate Engineering“

Erstmalig fand im Juli 2010 in Heidelberg unter dem Titel „Governing Climate Engineering“ eine international ausgerichtete Sommerschule zu den Risiken und Herausforderungen menschlicher Eingriffe in das Klimasystem statt. Für fünf Tage trafen sich mehr als 60 internationale Teilnehmer verschiedenster Fachdisziplinen in den Räumen des Heidelberger Max Planck Instituts für inter-nationales Recht, um sich über aktuelle Frage-stellungen auszutauschen und gemeinsamen For-schungsbedarf zu ermitteln. Eines der erklärten Hauptziele der Veranstalter war es, insbesondere für Nachwuchswissenschaftler eine Gelegenheit zur intensiven fach- und länderübergreifenden wissenschaftlichen Vernetzung zu schaffen.

Organisiert wurde die Sommerschule durch eine Kooperation der Universität Heidelberg (Marsilius Kolleg) mit der University of Calgary. Zu den Vorträgen angereist waren zahlreiche prominente Gastredner aus der internationalen Climate-Engineering-Forschung. Neben David Keith (University of Calgary) boten Catherine Redgewell (University College London), Timo Goeschl (Universität Heidelberg), Alan Robock (Rutgers University), Phil Rasch (Pacifi c North-Rutgers University), Phil Rasch (Pacifi c North-), Phil Rasch (Pacifi c North-Pacific North-west National Laboratory) und Thomas Peter (ETH Zürich) Vorlesungen und Workshops zu je-weils unterschiedlichen Schwerpunkten an. Der überwiegende Anteil teilnehmender Nachwuchs-wissenschaftler kam aus Europa sowie den USA und Kanada. Einige Teilnehmer waren auch aus Indien und Afrika angereist.

Das Programm, bestehend aus Vorlesungen, Workshops und Diskussionsgruppen sowie Po-sterpräsentationen, ermöglichte nicht nur einen transdisziplinären, sondern auch fachgebiets-spezifischen Wissensaustausch. Die täglichen Vorlesungen umfassten sowohl Einführungen in die naturwissenschaftlichen Grundlagen des Klimawandels als auch Beiträge zu den Risiken und Herausforderungen ausgewählter Climate-Engineering-Technologien. Im Anschluss an das Vorlesungsprogramm fanden interdiszipli-

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


näre Workshops statt, welche die Teilnehmer durch Planspiele oder Gruppenarbeiten zu leb-haften und kontroversen Diskussionen anregten. Zentrale Diskussionspunkte bildeten etwa die Frage nach der Notwendigkeit übergreifender Prinzipien zur Regulierung weiterer Climate-Engineering-For schung in Anlehnung an die sog. Oxford Principles3: Wie kann die Öffentlichkeit in den Forschungsprozess eingebunden werden? Welche Rolle spielen private Interessen? Welche Sichtweise haben unterschiedliche gesellschaftli-che Akteure und Staatengruppen (z. B. Wissen-schaftler, NGOs, Entwicklungsländer)? Dabei erschien den Teilnehmern besonders wichtig, Cli-Cli-mate Engineering als öffentliches Gut anzusehen sowie Partizipation und Transparenz in der For-schung von Beginn an zu wahren. Auch hinsicht-lich der Unterschiede zwischen SRM und CDR-Technologien gab es intensive Diskussionen über den Umgang mit assoziierten Risiken und den daraus erwachsenden Konsequenzen. Aus der Perspektive unterschiedlichster Disziplinen wur-den zahlreiche Argumente für oder gegen einzel-ne Technologien vorgebracht, die sich jeweils in ihrer Einschätzung von Effektivität, Kosten, Aus-wirkungen und Risiken erheblich unterschieden.

Insgesamt wurde ein breites Spektrum an technischen, ökonomischen, politischen, recht-lichen und auch ethischen Fragestellungen auf-geworfen, die teilweise auch beantwortet wer-den konnten. Die Teilnehmer begrüßten gene-rell weitere Forschung zu Climate Engineering, allerdings unter der Maßgabe, dass gleichzeitig die Arbeit an rechtlichen und politischen As-pekten einer Governance für den potenziellen Einsatz der Technologien voranschreiten müsse. Gleichermaßen sollten zentrale Fragen nach Ge-rechtigkeit, ethisch-moralischer Verantwortung und Transparenz im Sinne einer ausgewogenen Einbindung der Öffentlichkeit parallel zur techni-schen Debatte stärkere Berücksichtigung finden. Konsens unter den Teilnehmern herrschte auch den weiteren Ausbau disziplinübergreifender Forschung betreffend. Damit war eines der Ziele der Sommerschule, eine erste gemeinsame Platt-form für internationale und interdisziplinäre Zu-sammenarbeit zu etablieren, erreicht worden. Am Ende der Woche war man über eine Fortsetzung der gemeinsamen Aktivitäten im Rahmen einer

zweiten Sommerschule übereingekommen. Diese findet Anfang August 2011 unter Federführung der University of Calgary in Banff (Kanada) statt.

3 Future-Ocean-Symposium

Im September 2010 veranstaltete die Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel gemeinsam mit dem DFG-Exzellenzcluster „Ozean der Zukunft” und dem Leibniz-Instituts für Meereswissenschaften das viertägige Symposium „Future Ocean”.4 Dem Thema Climate Engineering – mit dem Schwer-Climate Engineering – mit dem Schwer- – mit dem Schwer-punkt von CDR-Technologien – waren bei der in-terdisziplinären Veranstaltung ein Workshop sowie auch ein Plenum gewidmet. In den insgesamt neun Vorträgen wurden sowohl neuere Überlegungen zu Climate Engineering, u. a. von Sebastian Har-Climate Engineering, u. a. von Sebastian Har-, u. a. von Sebastian Har-nisch (Universität Heidelberg) und Iris Grossmann (Canergie Mellon University) als auch erste Be-Canergie Mellon University) als auch erste Be-) als auch erste Be-strebungen zur Konsensbildung, u. a. durch Ca-therine Redgewell (University College London), Friederike Herrmann und Harald Ginzky (beide Umweltbundesamt), vorgestellt.

In seinem Vortrag „Governing Climate En-Governing Climate En-gineering: Regime Building under Uncertainty“ modellierte Sebastian Harnisch den Umgang mit „uncertainty” durch drei Theorieschulen der In-uncertainty” durch drei Theorieschulen der In-” durch drei Theorieschulen der In-ternationalen Beziehungen und übertrug diese auf den Fall des Climate Engineering. Dabei wur-Climate Engineering. Dabei wur-. Dabei wur-den einerseits die Potenziale einer pluralistischen sozial- und politikwissenschaftlichen Herange-hensweise, ihre Methoden- und Bewertungsviel-falt sichtbar – eine Pluralität, die andererseits die sozialwissenschaftliche Auseinandersetzung mit Climate Engineering aber auch erschwert.

Der Vortrag von Iris Grossmann mit dem Titel „Decision Analytic Assessment of the Benefits of Hurricane Modification” zeigte, dass noch umstrit-” zeigte, dass noch umstrit-ten ist, was als Climate-Engineering-Methoden anerkannt wird und was nicht. Bei der vorgestell-ten Methode der Hurricane-Verhinderung sollen senkrecht stehende Stahlröhren im Atlantik veran-kert werden. Durch einen Unterdruck wird kaltes, nährstoffreicheres Wasser aus tieferen Schichten angesogen, das die Meeresoberfläche abkühlen soll, was nicht nur zur Verringerung der Hurricane-Wahrscheinlichkeit, sondern auch zu einem größe-ren Algen- und Planktonwachstum beitragen kann. Risiken sind auch bei dieser Technologie zu ver-

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


zeichnen: So könnten globale Ausgleichseffekte dazu führen, dass das lokal veränderte Klima zu ei-ner Rückkopplung für andere Regionen führt, bei-spielsweise mehr Stürme im nördlichen Atlantik. Bisher ist jedoch noch unklar, wie derartige Tech-nologien, die mehrere Anwendungsfelder beinhal-ten, überhaupt zu Climate Engineering zählen.

Die rechtswissenschaftlichen Beiträge von Catherine Redgewell, Friederike Herrmann und Harald Ginzky stimmten darin überein, dass zu-nächst bereits existierende internationale Abkom-men für die rechtlichen Regulierungen eines Ein-satzes spezifischer Climate-Engineering-Aktiv-Climate-Engineering-Aktiv--Aktiv-itäten herangezogen werden könnten. So kann die London Convention (1972) und das London Proto- (1972) und das London Proto-col (1996) für maritimes Climate Engineering gel-Climate Engineering gel- gel-tend gemacht werden, da hier die Versenkung von Abfällen im Meer geregelt wird und dies auch den Fall der Meeresdüngung einschließt. Konsens be-stand aber auch darüber, dass es bisher noch kein einheitliches Instrument zur rechtlichen Steuerung und Regulierung von Climate Engineering gibt.

4 Experten-Delphi: ÖffentlicheWahrnehmung und Kommunikation

Im Rahmen der Sondierungsstudien zu Geoengi-neering im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) fand im Januar 2011 ein Experten-Delphi zur öffentlichen Wahr-nehmung und Kommunikation von Geoenginee-ring-Technologien statt. Unter der Leitung und Moderation von Ortwin Renn (Universität Stutt-gart) hatte die gemeinnützige Gesellschaft für Kommunikations- und Kooperationsforschung mbH „Dialogik“ zwölf Experten nach Stuttgart eingeladen, um in einer abgewandelten Form der diskursiven Methode des Gruppen-Delphis zukünftige Konfliktpotenziale bei einem mögli-chen Einsatz von Climate Engineering zu ermit-Climate Engineering zu ermit- zu ermit-teln sowie geeignete Kommunikations- und Par-tizipationsstrategien zu identifizieren.

Bei den Teilnehmern handelte es sich um universitäre und außeruniversitäre Experten aus den Bereichen Risikoforschung, Kommunikati-on und Partizipation sowie um Spezialisten auf dem Gebiet des Climate Engineering. In wech-Climate Engineering. In wech-. In wech-selnden, interdisziplinären Kleingruppen wurden anhand eines umfassenden Fragekatalogs Ein-

schätzungen zu den in der Öffentlichkeit wahrge-nommen Risikopotenzialen ausgewählter Tech-nologien, potenziellen Kommunikations- und Diskursstrategien sowie Beteiligungsmöglich-keiten für die Öffentlichkeit ermittelt. Dabei ging es um die Einschätzung des Konfliktpotenzials einzelner Technologien, wie des Cloud Seed-Cloud Seed-ing oder der Meeresdüngung, beispielsweise in Abhängigkeit von geografischen Faktoren. Des Weiteren waren auch allgemeine Einschätzungen zur Wahrscheinlichkeit eines Einsatzes, zu Ne-benwirkungen und potenziellen Erfolgschancen sowie zu vergleichbaren Technologiediskursen gefragt. Anschließend wurden Einzelergebnisse gebündelt, protokolliert und ausgewertet. Die Ergebnisse des Delphis werden als Teil der Son-dierungsstudie des BMBF herausgegeben.

5 Ausblick

In naher Zukunft ist in Deutschland mit weiteren Forschungsinitiativen auf dem Gebiet des Climate Engineering zu rechnen. Im Vergleich zu den USA und Großbritannien war das Engagement der deutsche Wissenschaftsgemeinde sowie das einzelner politischer Institutionen zunächst zu-rückhaltender. Die Notwendigkeit einer Debatte auch außerhalb wissenschaftlicher Expertenkreise unter Einbeziehung der Öffentlichkeit scheint nun erkannt. Derzeit bestehen intensive Bemühungen um ein DFG-Schwer punktprogramm, bei dem neben naturwissenschaftlichen Einschätzungen auch rechtliche, ökonomische, politische sowie kommunikationswissenschaftliche Forschungs-beiträge eingebrachte werden sollen. Dass der Deutsche Bundestag Interesse am Thema Geoen-gineering hat, zeigt die Beauftragung des Büros für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (TAB), eine Untersuchung zum Thema durchzuführen.5 Im April 2011 veröffentlichte das Umweltbundesamt6 einen Bericht, der neben der Vorstellung einzelner Climate-Engineering-Tech-Climate-Engineering-Tech--Tech-nologien auch Kriterien zu deren Bewertung so-wie Hinweise auf rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen enthält. Ebenfalls wird in Kürze die Sondierungs-studie des BMBF der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht. Die jüngsten Aktivitäten politischer In-stitutionen und politiknaher Einrichtungen lassen darauf schließen, dass neben der wissenschaftli-

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


chen auch eine politische Debatte über das Thema Climate Engineering wahrscheinlich ist.

Anmerkungen

1) Heft 2/2010 dieser Zeitschrift widmet sich im Schwerpunkt mit dem Titel „Climate Engineer-Climate Engineer-ing: ein Thermostat für die Erde?“ einigen dieser Technologien; http://www.itas.fzk.de/tatup/102/tatup102.pdf (download 6.7.11)

2) Link zur Projekthomepage: http://www.clima-teengineering.de/

3) Die Oxford Principles wurden 2009 anlässlich ei-Oxford Principles wurden 2009 anlässlich ei- wurden 2009 anlässlich ei-nes Berichts des House of Commons von Wissen-House of Commons von Wissen- von Wissen-schaftlern der University of Oxford entwickelt. Die Prinzipien sollen als erste Orientierung für eine zu-künftige Regulierung und Governance von Climate-Engineering-Forschung dienen, indem sie u. a. die Einbindung der Öffentlichkeit in den Forschungs- und Entscheidungsprozess sowie einen transparen-ten Umgang mit Forschungsergebnissen fordern. Die Oxford Principles finden sich online unter: http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/insis/news/Pages/regulation-geoengineering.aspx (download 6.7.11)

4) Das ausführliche Programm des Symposiums fin-det sich online unter: http://www.futureocean.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/flyer-symposium-a4-druck.pdf (download 6.7.11)

5) Eine Beschreibung des TAB-Projekts findet sich unter http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/de/un-tersuchungen/u9900.html.

6) Bericht des Umweltbundesamtes online verfüg-bar: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-medien/4125.html (download 6.7.11)

Kontakt

Stephanie Uther, M.A.Ruprecht-Karls-Universität HeidelbergInstitut für Politische WissenschaftBergheimer Str. 58, 69115 HeidelbergTel.: +49 (0) 62 21 / 54 31 86E-Mail: [email protected]

« »

Grüne Gentechnik: Zwischen Forschungsfreiheit und AnwendungsrisikoBericht von einer Klausurwoche des Instituts „Technik-Theologie-Naturwis-senschaften“ an der LMU MünchenGut Schönwag/Weilheim, 21.–26. Februar 2011

von Martin Knapp, ITAS

Das deutschlandweite Verbot der gentechnisch veränderten Maissorte MON810 hat in der Debatte um die Anwendung von Gentechnik im landwirt-schaftlichen Kontext, die sog. Grüne Gentechnik, zu einer neuerlichen Thematisierung des Verhält-nisses gesellschaftlicher Wahrnehmung von Risi-ken, wissenschaftlicher Forschung und politischer Entscheidungsfindung geführt. Dies nahm das Institut Technik-Theologie-Naturwissenschaften (TTN) zum Anlass, vom 21. bis 26. Februar 2011 im Tagungszentrum Gut Schönwag bei Weilheim in Oberbayern eine durch das BMBF geförder-te wissenschaftliche Klausurwoche zum Thema „Grüne Gentechnik: Zwischen Forschungsfreiheit und Anwendungsrisiko“ durchzuführen. Hier-zu kamen Nachwuchswissenschaftlerinnen und Nachwuchswissenschaftler für sechs Tage zusam-men, die sich aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven mit Grüner Gentechnik und gentechnisch verän-derten Nutzpflanzen beschäftigen. Sie hatten im Rahmen der Klausurwoche Gelegenheit, sich im interdisziplinären Diskurs über die normativen Grundlagen der Forschungsfreiheit auszutauschen sowie angesichts einer konkreten Risikotechnolo-gie deren gesellschaftlichen Wert zu begründen. Unter der Leitung von Stefan Schleissing und Her-wig Grimm vom TTN sollten wesentliche Ergeb-nisse strukturiert und herausgearbeitet werden.1

1 Philosophische und naturwissenschaft-liche Grundlagen der Forschungsfreiheit

Der erste Themenschwerpunkt der Klausur-woche war den Grundlagen der Forschungs-freiheit gewidmet, wobei zunächst die Sicht der Philosophie im Mittelpunkt stand. Torsten Wilholt, Privatdozent in der Abteilung für Phi-losophie der Universität Bielefeld, stellte im

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


ersten Expertenvortrag grundlegende Zugän-ge und Begründungsansätze der Freiheit der Forschung im Diskurs um Risikotechnologien vor. Nach erkenntnistheoretischer Begründung schaffe nur diese die optimalen Bedingungen für die Erarbeitung wissenschaftlichen Wis-sens, nach politischer Begründung sei die For-schungsfreiheit notwendige Voraussetzung und Basis für möglichst rationale Entscheidungen. Anschließend diskutierte er beide Ansätze zu-sammen mit Argumentationen zur Begrenzung von Forschungsfreiheit in ihrer philosophischen Dimension und übertrug die so gewonnenen Er-kenntnisse auf die konkrete Technologie Grü-ne Gentechnik. Als problematisch sah er dabei an, dass eine verlässliche Begründung des zu erwartenden Nutzens zurzeit nur durch For-schungsvorgänge erzeugt werden kann, deren Zuverlässigkeit selbst zur Debatte steht.

Thorsten Moos, Theologe an der For-schungsstätte der Evangelischen Studienge-meinschaft e.V. in Heidelberg, trug als erster Teilnehmender aus der Gruppe der Nachwuchs-wissenschaftler zu theologischen Aspekten der Forschungsfreiheit aus protestantischer Pers-pektive vor. Hierbei zeigte er auf, wie sich nach einer langen Tradition der innerkirchlichen Ab-lehnung von Forschungsfreiheit eine Haltung entwickelte, die die Freiheit des Geistes wert-schätzt, zugleich aber der christlichen Ethik die Rolle eines Korrektivs gegenüber einem zu sorglosen Umgang mit der Schöpfung einräumt. Christian Dürnberger, Philosoph am TTN, refe-rierte im Anschluss über die Bedeutung von Na-turbildern in Technologiediskursen und die Pro-blematik der Bewertung von Eingriffen in die Natur aufgrund verschiedener Definitionen des Naturbegriffs. Die normativen Implikationen, die mit dem Naturbegriff verbunden werden, spiegelten sich in den Diskussionen um die Grü-ne Gentechnik und erschwerten eine konflikt-freie Beurteilung von Eingriffen in die zwar als natürlich empfundene, aber kulturell überform-te Umwelt. Der evangelische Theologe Moritz Menacher (Universität Heidelberg) beschäftigte sich in seinem Vortrag mit dem spannungsgela-denen Verhältnis der Begriffe Natur und Schöp-fung und diskutierte die Haltung der Kirchen und kirchlicher Funktionsträger zu Grüner Gen-

technik. Natur sei als Wahrnehmung der Welt durch den Menschen definiert und als solche nicht gleichzusetzen mit der Schöpfung. Der biblische Bewahrungsauftrag könne vor diesem Hintergrund nicht dazu herangezogen werden, Forschung zu Grüner Gentechnik zu verbie-ten, da der ebenfalls in der Genesis begründete Herrschaftsauftrag nicht nur die Möglichkeit, sondern sogar die Verpflichtung zur verantwor-tungsvollen Gestaltung impliziere.

Im zweiten Abschnitt standen mit der Ri-sikoforschung im Bereich der Grünen Gentech-nik die naturwissenschaftlichen Grundlagen für eine Bewertung der Forschungsfreiheit im Mittelpunkt. Inge Broer, Agrarbiotechnologin an der Universität Rostock, stellte in ihrem Ex-pertenvortrag die Hintergründe der Züchtung und Zulassung von Pflanzensorten als Grundla-ge für biologische Risikoanalysen vor. In einem anschließenden Kurzworkshop wurde das so gewonnene Grundverständnis für die Metho-den der Biosicherheitsforschung zur Grünen Gentechnik vertieft und anhand von Beispielen die Schwierigkeit verdeutlicht, unterschiedliche Ergebnisse naturwissenschaftlicher Untersu-chungen zu bewerten und einzuordnen. Stefan Rauschen, Agrarökologe an der RWTH Aachen, verdeutlichte im Anschluss die Perspektive der angewandten Forschung zum Monitoring und zur Bewertung möglicher negativer Effekte der Freisetzung gentechnisch veränderter Nutz-pflanzen, indem er die Voraussetzungen und praktische Vorgehensweise bei Risikostudien darlegte. Thomas Ott, Biologe am Genetischen Institut der LMU München, vertiefte dies mit einem Beitrag zur Grundlagenforschung zu MON810, in dem er neben möglichen ökologi-schen Risiken auch sozioökonomische Wirkun-gen thematisierte, wie z. B. die mögliche Ab-hängigkeit von Agrarkonzernen und den Zwang zum Saatgutkauf, wobei diese nicht immer gen-technikspezifisch seien, sondern oft mit der zu-nehmenden Technisierung der Landwirtschaft zusammenhingen. Christian Prasch, Bioche-miker an der Universität Erlangen, behandelte in seinem Vortrag neben Anforderungen an die Gentechnik weitere naturwissenschaftliche Fra-gestellungen und thematisierte auch deren Stel-lenwert für die gesellschaftliche Debatte.

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


2 Öffentliche Wahrnehmung und rechtliche Bewertung Grüner Gentechnik

Die nachfolgenden Beiträge widmeten sich dem Risikodiskurs und der öffentlichen Wahrneh-mung Grüner Gentechnik. In einem Experten-vortrag referierte der Soziologe Jürgen Hampel (Universität Stuttgart) über den Risikobegriff in der Debatte um Grüne Gentechnik und zur Di-vergenz von Experten- und Laieneinschätzun-gen. Während Risikoforscher versuchten, Risi-ken durch Dekontextualisierung objektivierbar und vergleichbar zu machen, verstärke eine sub-jektive individuelle Risikowahrnehmung in der Bevölkerung die Ablehnung Grüner Gentech-nik, zumal ein potenzieller Nutzen auf kollek-tiver Ebene nicht gleichwertig wahrgenommen würde. Eine Einbeziehung sozioökonomischer Kriterien ins Zulassungsverfahren könne dem entgegenwirken, sei aber schwierig umzusetzen. Jobst Conrad vom Institut für Ökologische Wirt-schaftsforschung in Berlin schloss sich mit Dar-stellungen zu Innovationsdynamiken und den sozialen Diskursen bei neuen Technologien an. Am konkreten Beispiel MON810 ging es hierbei besonders um die Diskrepanz von Risikobewer-tung und Risikowahrnehmung. Der Prozess der Entwicklung gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen sei v. a. durch chancenorientierte Stakeholder-Diskurse geprägt, die der wissenschaftlichen Begründung geringen Risikos eher vertrauten, im Vordergrund des öffentlichen Risikodiskur-ses seinen jedoch als hoch empfundene Umwelt- und Gesundheitsrisiken dominierend.

In einem weiteren Schwerpunkt wurden die juristischen Aspekte des Spannungsfeldes Forschungsfreiheit und Grüne Gentechnik the-matisiert. Ino Augsberg, Philosoph und Jurist an der LMU München, referierte in seinem Ex-pertenbeitrag über den grundgesetzlich veran-kerten hohen Stellenwert der Forschungsfrei-heit und ihren gesellschaftlichen Nutzen. Er hinterfragte auch kritisch den Ansatz wissen-schaftliches Wissen über Risiken der Grünen Gentechnik als alleinige Entscheidungshilfe für die Politik heranzuziehen, da mit zuneh-mender Sicherheitsforschung v. a. das Wissen über das bisherige Nicht-Wissen ansteige, was insofern eher zu einer Zunahme statt einer Ab-nahme der Unsicherheit führe. Anschließend

erläuterte Sebastian Mielke, Jurist an der Uni Augsburg, die rechtlichen Möglichkeiten und Schwierigkeiten im Bezug auf eine Einbezie-hung sozioökonomischer Kriterien in die Zu-lassungsentscheidung für gentechnisch verän-derte Pflanzen. Hierbei spielten insbesondere die Vorgaben des Gentechnikgesetzes (GenTG) und die Implikationen für die Forschungsfrei-heit eine Rolle. Thomas Schwabenbauer, Jurist an der LMU München, widmete sich dem ver-fassungsrechtlichen Umgang mit Ungewiss-heit bei Risikotechnologien. Am Beispiel des Urteils des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum GenTG vom 24.11.2010 leitete er die juristi-schen Rahmenbedingungen für die Zulassung von gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen ab. Dieses räume dem Gesetzgeber im Hinblick auf die gesetzliche Vorsorgepflicht durchaus die Möglichkeit ein, Einschränkungen der For-schungsfreiheit vorzunehmen und damit die Schutzperspektive zu stärken, lasse aber – auf-grund der Konflikte zwischen Wissen, Werten und Interessen – gleichzeitig auch die notwen-digen Spielräume.

Zwei nun folgende Beiträge befassten sich mit den politisch-ökonomischen Perspektiven: Zunächst beleuchtete Steffi Ober, Referentin für Gentechnik und Naturschutz des Naturschutz-bunds Deutschland (NABU), die Rolle der For-schungsfreiheit in Fragen der Sicherheit von Grüner Gentechnik angesichts des Spannungs-feldes von wirtschaftlichen und politischen In-teressen. Sie betonte die Wichtigkeit unabhän-giger Forschung vor dem Hintergrund aktueller politischer Strategien. Barbara Brandl, Sozio-login an der LMU München, thematisierte die Rolle der Biotechnologie vor dem Hintergrund des historischen Transformationsprozesses der Landwirtschaft. Saatgut sei durch die Radikali-sierung der Wandlungsprozesse landwirtschaft-licher Produktionssysteme, zuletzt auch durch den Einsatz Grüner Gentechnik, nicht nur von einem Allmendegut zu einem privaten Gut ge-worden, vielmehr sei zusätzlich auch noch das Wissen über Innovationen bei dessen Erzeu-gung in den Händen weniger Verantwortlicher konzentriert worden, was eine Art Wissenska-pitalismus darstelle.

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


3 Zukunftsbilder, Szenarien, Wissenschafts-kommunikation, Lobbying, Umweltethik

Der nächste Schwerpunkt widmete sich Zukunfts-bildern und Szenarien künftiger Nutzungen Grü-ner Gentechnik. Zunächst betrachtete Rolf Meyer, Agrarwissenschaftler am ITAS (Karlsruhe), in seinem Expertenvortrag die Grüne Gentechnik im Kontext landwirtschaftlicher Entwicklung, den Beitrag der Technikfolgenabschätzung zur Reflexion gesellschaftlicher Kontroversen und zeichnete konkrete Möglichkeiten und Schwierig-keiten bei der Umsetzung sozioökonomischer Be-wertungen auf. Martin Knapp, Biologe am ITAS, stellte in seinem Vortrag konkrete Ergebnisse aus Szenario-Workshops zu Grüner Gentechnik vor und zog aus den analysierten Wahrnehmungen und Perspektiven der in den Laiendiskursen er-arbeiteten Zukunftsszenarien Schlussfolgerungen für die zukünftige Forschung und Anwendung in der deutschen Landwirtschaft bis 2025. Eine höhere und stabilere Akzeptanz Grüner Gentech-nik, wahrscheinlich nur in bestimmten Sparten, sei demnach nur bei erkennbarem individuellen Nutzen für Verbraucher oder Gesamtgesellschaft, mit einer dialogorientierten Politik, bei einer lang-fristigen Erhaltung von Alternativen zur Grünen Gentechnik und durch die Erhöhung der Anzahl der Akteure in Forschung und Wirtschaft denkbar.

Sabine Gerber-Hirt, Kuratorin für Umwelt und Medizintechnik am Deutschen Museum in München, führte die Teilnehmenden im Rahmen einer halbtägigen Exkursion durch die Ausstel-lung „Nanotechnologie und Biotechnologie“ und leitete im Anschluss daran einen Workshop zum Thema Wissenschaftskommunikation, in dem ausgehend von einer kritischen Diskussion der Exponate diskutiert wurde, wie wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse und neue Technologien am besten vermittelt werden können. Im letzten Experten-vortrag der Klausurwoche referierte Juliana Veit, Politikwissenschaftlerin an der Europäischen Akademie für Steuern, Wirtschaft und Recht in Berlin, über eine politikfeldbezogene Untersu-chung der Ressourcen und Einflussnahme von Interessensgruppen durch Lobbying im Bereich der Grünen Gentechnik auf EU-Ebene. Ausge-hend von - aus Ressourcen- und Institutionen-theorie entwickelten - Einflussfaktoren beleuch-tete sie dabei die Rolle der gentechnikkritischen

NGO Greenpeace und eines Interessenverbandes von Gentechnikunternehmen, EuropaBio, beim politischen Aushandlungsprozess zur Zulassung gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen.

Axel Siegemund, Theologe und Referent bei der sächsischen evangelischen Landeskirche in Dresden, widmete sich mit dem Ansatz vom Risikodiskurs als Weltaneignung der Bedeutung und der Rolle von Technik und des Wissens über die Technologie für zukünftige Entwicklungen Grüner Gentechnik. Daniel Gregorowius, Um-weltethiker an der ETH Zürich, betrachtete die Forschungsfreiheit im Spannungsfeld zwischen konsequentialistischen und deontologischen Posi-tionen und stellte das Konzept der Umwelttugen-dethik als Möglichkeit zur Lösung dieses Span-nungsfeldes vor. Die abschließenden Diskussio-nen befassten sich mit dem Verständnis von Ethik und naturwissenschaftlichem bzw. theologischen „Weltbild“ und ihrer Rolle bei der Urteilsbildung im Risikodiskurs um Grüne Gentechnik.

4 Fazit

Am konkreten Beispiel der Grünen Gentechnik wurde von Vertretern verschiedenster Diszipli-nen im Lauf der Klausurwoche ein schwieriges Spannungsverhältnis thematisiert. Dieses ent-steht einerseits durch eine Einschränkung der Beforschung und Nutzung einer Technologie aufgrund bestehender oder möglicher Anwen-dungsrisiken und andererseits durch die grund-gesetzlich verankerte Freiheit der Forschung, die eine Weiterentwicklung derselben erlaubt und gebietet. In den Vorträgen und Diskussio-nen wurde der hohe Wert deutlich, den die For-schungsfreiheit für eine Gesellschaft darstellt, und die daraus resultierende Schwierigkeit nach-vollziehbar, auf die als gravierend empfundene Risiken im Zusammenhang mit Grüner Gentech-nik in adäquater Weise einzugehen.

Andererseits führte die Betrachtung der Problematik in einem multidisziplinären Ansatz auch zu einer Erweiterung der Perspektiven und ließ dadurch mögliche Lösungsansätze für eine Auflösung des Dilemmas deutlich werden. Ins-besondere fokussierten sich die Diskussionen während der Klausurwoche auf die Frage, inwie-weit und auf welche Weise die Einführung sozio-

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


ökonomischer Kriterien in die Bewertung Grü-ner Gentechnik Eingang finden kann, welchen Beitrag die jeweilige Disziplin hierfür zu leisten imstande ist und welche Vorteile und Schwierig-keiten sich hieraus ergeben könnten. Wesentliche Schlussfolgerungen und Lösungsansätze werden daher auch Eingang in den Tagungsband finden, der im Nomos-Verlag in der zweiten Jahreshälfte 2011 erscheinen wird.

Anmerkung

1) In Thesenpapieren hatten die 14 Teilnehmenden zuvor jeweils die Problemrahmung aus Sicht ihrer Disziplin verschriftlicht. Diese Thesen wurden im Lauf der Klausurwoche vorgetragen, kommentiert und diskutiert. Sieben Referate externer Experten ergänzten wesentliche Aspekte zu einzelnen The-menschwerpunkten.

« »

The 4th International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology AnalysisSevilla, Spanien, 12.–13. Mai 2011

Bericht von Knud Böhle, ITAS

1 Same procedure...

Die Zählung weist auf drei vorangegangene Ta-gungen hin, die sich mit FTA (Future-Oriented Technology Analysis) befasst haben. Die „Tech-) befasst haben. Die „Tech-nikfolgenabschätzung“ berichtete darüber (Fie-deler 2004; Rader 2006; Böhle 2008). Nach Luke Georghiou (Universität Manchester), der die FTA-Tagungen in verschiedenen Funktionen mit geprägt hat, dient das Akronym FTA inzwi-schen als „proxy in international discussions”. Laut Veranstalter deckt es die sich überlappen-den Aktivitätsfelder von Foresight, Forecasting und Technology Assessment ab. Die beiden ers-Technology Assessment ab. Die beiden ers- ab. Die beiden ers-ten Tagungen, 2004 und 2006, wurden noch als Seminare tituliert; 2008 wurde das Format der

großen Resonanz entsprechend auf „international conference“ umgestellt. Thematisch hat sich die Tagung von einem Austausch über FTA-Metho-den (2004), dann der Befassung mit der Frage, wie der „Impact“ von FTA in Entscheidungspro-Impact“ von FTA in Entscheidungspro-“ von FTA in Entscheidungspro-zessen vergrößert werden kann (2006 und 2008) weiterbewegt zu dem diesjährigen ambitionier-ten Thema „FTA for structural and systemic transformations in response to grand societal challenges: integrating insights, transforming institutions and shaping innovation systems”.

Konstanten der Tagungen sind das anhalten-de Interesse an Methodenfragen, die Dominanz der Foresight-Perspektive und die verbreitete Zuversicht, dass die Ergebnisse von FTA nicht nur Orientierung ermöglichen, sondern auch in einem pragmatischen Sinne gestaltungsrelevant sind. Gleichzeit markiert der Bezug auf die gro-ßen gesellschaftlichen Herausforderungen bereits im Titel der Konferenz einen bemerkenswerten Wandel hin zur Problemorientierung in der Fore-Fore-sight- und Innovationsforschung, die stärker be-- und Innovationsforschung, die stärker be-darfsorientiert und bottom-up vorgeht, was kon-kret auch am Zuschnitt eine Reihe der vorgestell-ten Foresight-Projekte zu erkennen war.

Organisator der Tagung war stets das Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) in Sevilla – eines der sieben Forschungsinstitute der Gemeinsamen Forschungsstelle der Europäischen Kommission (Joint Research Centre – JRC). Die jeweils zuständige Einheit wechselte hingegen. Dieses Jahr war die IPTS-Einheit „Knowledge for Growth“, genauer noch der Projektbereich „ERA Policy Mixes, Joint Programming and Foresight“ zuständig. ERA steht dabei für European Research Area bzw. Europäischer Forschungsraum.

Wie bisher auch wurden die Organisato-ren von einem wissenschaftlichen Komitee un-terstützt, das nicht zuletzt für die Auswahl der Vorträge zuständig war. Aus 188 Einreichungen wurden 70 Beiträge für das Konferenzprogramm ausgewählt. Wie schon früher wird nach der Kon-ferenz eine weitere Auswahl stattfinden, um die-jenigen Beiträge zu ermitteln, die in Absprache mit den Herausgebern einschlägiger Zeitschriften („Futures“, „Technological Forecasting and Social Change“, „Technological Analysis and Strategic Management“) dort veröffentlicht werden sollen – eine Praxis, die das Einreichen von Manuskripten

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


für Wissenschaftler attraktiv macht und der Ver-breitung der Tagungsergebnisse zugutekommt.

2 Programm und Tagungsdokumentation

Wegen der Struktur der Tagung, die in vier par-allelen thematischen Strängen, von Plenumssit-zungen am Anfang und am Ende gerahmt, verlief und wegen der Fülle des Angebots, zu dem ne-ben den Vorträgen auch noch Poster gehörten, ist es einem einzelner Berichterstatter naturgemäß nicht möglich umfassend zu berichten. Dieser Mangel kann durch die vorbildliche Dokumen-tation der Tagung auf der Website zur Veranstal-tung teilweise kompensiert werden.1

Dort finden sich neben den Vortragsmanu-skripten noch 45 je ca. zwei bis drei Seiten lange Projektdarstellungen, die aus Einreichungen her-vorgegangen sind, für die im Tagungsprogramm kein Platz mehr war. Dazu kommen etwa 20 Pos-ter und weitere 11 Präsentationen eines speziel-len geschlossenen Workshops „Good Practice Session – Policy Workshop“. Einen Blick auf die Präsentationen zu werfen, kann durchaus lohnen, weil wichtige Foresight- und Foresight-nutzende Einrichtungen über aktuelle Projekte und Strate-gien informieren: das JRC, die European Science Foundation, die OECD, Vinnova, Finpro, das Beijing Institute of Technology oder das Stein-Institute of Technology oder das Stein- oder das Stein-beis-Europa-Zentrum, um nur einige zu nennen.

Zu den löblichen Gepflogenheiten der FTA-Tagungen gehört die Ausarbeitung sog. „anchor paper“ zu den einzelnen Sitzungssträngen, die von Autorenteams erarbeitet und am Anfang der ent-sprechenden Konferenzstränge vorgestellt werden. Ihre Lektüre kann als Einstieg in die Themenfelder auch unabhängig von der Tagung empfohlen wer-den. Dieses Jahr gab es drei solcher Papiere:

1. „Orienting innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play“ (vorgelegt von Effie Amanatidou, Michael Keenan und Cristiano Cagnin);

2. „Building FTA capacities for systemic and structural transformations: New FTA systems for anticipatory action in a fast-changing world“ (vorgelegt von Vicente Carabias, Jennifer Cas-singena, Totti Könnölä und Mathias Weber);

3. „Premises and practices in combining quanti-Premises and practices in combining quanti-tative and qualitative FTA methods“ (vorge-“ (vorge-legt von Karel Haegman, Fabiana Scapolo, Andrea Ricci, Elisabetta Marinelli und Alex-ander Sokolo).

Damit sind auch bereits drei der vier Stränge be-nannt. Der vierte Strang war den Querschnitts-themen „Horizon Scanning, Governance, Energy and Health“ gewidmet.

Angesichts der leichten Verfügbarkeit der Vorträge im Internet wird der Tagungsbericht im Folgenden nur die Vorträge im Plenum anspre-chen und danach einen Blick darauf werfen, wel-che deutschen Einrichtungen die FTA als Forum nutzen, um sich dort mit Projekten vorzustellen.

3 Plenum

In den Plenumssitzungen wurde bewusst auf In-ternationalität sowie die Beteiligung von hoch-rangigen Vertretern aus Industrie und Politik gesetzt. Folgerichtig kamen hier renommierte nicht-europäische Foresight-Spezialisten zu Wort: Lucia Melo, die Leiterin des Brasiliani-schen Zentrums für Strategische Studien und Management (CGEE – Centro de Gestão e Es-tudos Estratégicos), Richard Hames, Gründungs-direktor des „Asian Foresight Institute“ an der Dhurakij Pundit Universität in Bangkok, Ron Johnston, Leiter des „Australian Centre for In-Australian Centre for In-novation“ (ACIIC), der kanadisch-französi sche Berater Riel Miller (XperidoX: Futures Consult-Futures Consult-ing) und nicht zuletzt der inzwischen 86-jährige Amerikaner deutschen Ursprungs Harold A. Lin-stone, der zu Recht als „memory of FTA“ ein-memory of FTA“ ein-“ ein-geführt wurde und in seinem Vortrag einen Ab-riss der Foresight-Geschichte seit dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs gab. Richard Hames und Riel Miller, „Evangelisten“ jeder auf seine Art, ver-sahen Foresight mit einer über ihre klassischen Aufgaben hinausgehenden Mission. Richard Ha-mes meinte, es käme darauf an, „to create a new narrative of hope“, während das Motto von Riel Miller lautete: „use the future to embrace com-use the future to embrace com-plexity“. Das darf vielleicht so verstanden wer-“. Das darf vielleicht so verstanden wer-den, dass angesichts der Unvorhersehbarkeit und der Nichtplanbarkeit der Zukunft eine neue sozi-ale Experimentierfreude an der Zeit wäre. Auch

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


wer keine missionarischen Neigungen verspürt, konnte zumindest staunen angesichts des rheto-risch brillant freigesetzten utopischen Potenzials.

Jorma Ollila, inzwischen „Non-Executive Chairman“ von Nokia (5,9 Milliarden F&E-Bud-“ von Nokia (5,9 Milliarden F&E-Bud-get 2010, 32.000 Mitarbeiter in Forschung und Entwicklung), stand für die Industrie und bestä-tigte einen Innovationswandel auch seines Un-ternehmens in Richtung „open innovation“. Die Politik war prominent durch Antonio Fernando Correia De Campos, Abgeordneter des Europäi-schen Parlaments und u. a. dort auch als stellver-tretender Vorsitzender des STOA-Panels tätig, vertreten. Er sprach, den zweiten Konferenztag eröffnend, zur Rolle von „FTA in policy mak-FTA in policy mak-ing“. FTA sei noch zu wenig in die Politik integ-“. FTA sei noch zu wenig in die Politik integ-riert. Gefragt, wie FTA stärker in die europäische Politik eingebunden werden könne, verwies er auf die European Science Founda tion, auf STOA und die „STOA Lectures“, die Industrieforen, welche die Generaldirektion „Unternehmen und Industrie“ organisiert und auf die Verbindung von Europäischem Parlament und dem JRC.

4 FTA made in Germany

Ein Blick auf die Vorträge mit Beteiligung deut-scher FTA-Einrichtungen ist nicht nur an sich interessant, sondern vermag auch wie eine Stich-probe, einen ungefähren Eindruck vom Spekt-rum der Themen und Perspektiven der Tagung aufzuzeigen.

Das „Center for Futures Studies and Knowl-Center for Futures Studies and Knowl-edge Management“ der EBS Business School, Wiesbaden, war mit gleich vier Beiträgen vertre-ten: Qua Delphi-Methode war in einem Projekt untersucht worden, welche Bedeutung „social business“ in den reichen Ländern Europas als In-“ in den reichen Ländern Europas als In-novationsstrategie spielen kann. In einer weiteren Studie wurde ein „Backcasting“ zur nachhaltigen Zukunft der Automobilindustrie in Deutschland durchgeführt, deren Methode und Ergebnisse vorgestellt wurden. In zwei weiteren Vorträgen (beteiligt neben EBS die Bayer MaterialScience AG, dilotec GmbH, und BrainNet Supply Man-BrainNet Supply Man-agement Consultants GmbH) wurde vom Auf- GmbH) wurde vom Auf-bau einer „Competitiveness Monitor“ genannten technischen Infrastruktur für das BMBF-Projekt „EffizienzCluster LogistikRuhr“ berichtet. Die-

se „Foresight-Plattform“ bietet drei Instrumen-Foresight-Plattform“ bietet drei Instrumen--Plattform“ bietet drei Instrumen-te (Trend-Datenbank, „prediction markets“ und digitale Zukunftswerkstätten), die den Firmen helfen sollen, ihre eigene Wettbewerbs- und Zu-kunftsfähigkeit zu ermitteln und strategischen Nutzen daraus zu ziehen. Der vierte Vortrag ging besonders auf die Trend-Datenbank ein.

Die Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (FhG) war mit einem Beitrag vertreten, in dem erläutert wurde, wie die Zentrale in München mit Unterstützung des Fraunhofer-Instituts für System- und Inno-vationsforschung (ISI) ein Programm für „Über-morgen-Projekte“ entwickelt hat, dessen Ziel es ist, mehrere Fraunhofer-Institute zu bedarfsori-entierten statt technologiegetriebenen Projekten zusammenzubringen. Ausgehend von den im UN-Millenniumsprojekt genannten 15 globalen Herausforderungen wurden zunächst die Themen Energie, Gesundheit, Umwelt, Mobilität und Si-cherheit als solche identifiziert, zu denen die FhG etwas beitragen kann. Am Ende des Auswahlver-fahrens stand die Förderung von fünf Projekten: „Heilende Haut in der Petrischale“, „SteriHealth – für bessere Hygiene in der Medizin“, „Super-grid: Strom effizient erzeugen, speichern und verteilen“, “Hybride Stadtspeicher“ und „Perfekt getrennt – ressourcenschonend produziert“.

Kolleginnen des ISI stellten das vom AIT (Austrian Institute of Technology) koordinierte EU-Projekt „Innovation Futures“ vor, an dem „z_punkt“ und „Solutioning Design Scenarios“ aus Brüssel als weitere Partner beteiligt sind. Das Projekt wird im Rahmen des Siebten Rahmen-programms im Foresight-Strang des SSH-Teils (Social Science and Humanities) gefördert. Es geht darum, neue oder sich verändernde Inno-vationsmuster zu identifizieren und herauszufin-den, in welcher Weise sich die Organisation von Innovationen grundlegend ändert. 18 Zukunfts-bilder wurden im Laufe des Projekts identifiziert und ausgearbeitet – darunter „Waste based inno-Waste based inno-vation” und “City-driven systemic innovation”. Das Projekt gehört – auch mit Blick auf die Me-thodik – zu den interessantesten der Tagung.

Ein gemeinsamer Vortrag von ISI, VDI/ VDE Innovation und BMBF befasste sich mit der Umsetzung der Ergebnisse des zwischen 2007 und 2009 in Deutschland durchgeführten Foresight-Prozesses. Ein wichtiges Element der

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


Umsetzungsstrategie sind „strategische Dialoge“, an deren Ende Handlungsempfehlungen für die Förderpolitik vorliegen sollen. Für die Themen “Mensch-Technik-Kooperationen” und “Produ-zierenKonsumieren2.0” wurde dieses Verfahren eingesetzt. Weiter war zu erfahren, dass das Minis-terium den Foresight-Prozess als kontinuierlichen, mehrphasigen Prozess versteht, der auch nach der Implementierung der Ergebnisse von 2009 in För-dermaßnahmen weitergeführt werden soll.

Das Verfahren der „strategischen Dialoge“ erläuterte in einem gesonderten Vortrag die Un-ternehmensberatung Grolman.results (Frankfurt), die im Auftrag des BMBF diese Methode nicht nur im Foresight-Prozess, sondern auch z. B. im Rahmen der Hightech-Strategie angewendet hat.

Das „European Center for Information and Communication Technologies“2 und ein nieder-ländischer Partner stellten eine empirische Stu-die zur Rolle von Foresight bei der Umsetzung des Leitbilds „offene Innovation“ in industri-ellen Clustern und Public-Private-Partnerships vor. Die Beispiele waren die ICT Labs des EIT (European Institute of Innovation and Technol-European Institute of Innovation and Technol-ogy) und eine Public-Private-Partnership, die die niederländische, für Wasserbau zuständige staat-liche Behörde Rijkswaterstaat eingegangen war, um ein Innovationsprogramm für den Problem-bereich „Flussmündungen“ zu entwickeln.

Eine methodisch sehr interessante Arbeit, die am „interdisziplinären Forschungsschwerpunkt Risiko und Nachhaltige Technikentwicklung“ der Universität Stuttgart angesiedelt ist, befasste sich mit den Schwächen eines verbreiteten Szenario-Ansatzes, der Daten von Simulationsmodellen mit narrativen Auskleidungen verbindet („Story-and-Simulation-Ansatz“). Die Mängel betreffen Glaubhaftigkeit, Transparenz und den Nutzen für unterschiedliche Nutzergruppen. Vorgeschlagen wurde dagegen eine Kombination von Simula-tion und „Cross-Impact-Bilanzanalyse“, die auf der mathematischen Systemtheorie basiert.

Mit der sich verändernden Rolle und den sich wandelnden Aufgaben von Pflegepersonal und Anbietern von Pflegediensten im Zuge der Technisierung dieses Bereichs befasst sich eine Forschergruppe des ISO (Institut für Sozialfor-schung und Sozialwirtschaft e. V., Saarbrücken) und des in Wien ansässigen „Austrian Institute

of Technology“. Im Kontext der Forschungspro-“. Im Kontext der Forschungspro-gramme zu „Ambient Assisted Living“ seien die Auswirkungen der neuen Technologie auf die Pflegeprofessionen und die zentrale Bedeutung für die, wie es im Vortragstitel hieß, „Technology Acceptance“ trotz ihrer auf der Hand liegenden Relevanz noch weiße Flecken.

Last not least war das Institut für Technik- war das Institut für Technik-folgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS) mit einem methodischen Beitrag vor Ort: „A problem-oriented categorisation of FTA-meth-ods for transport planning” (Jens Schippl/Tors-” (Jens Schippl/Tors-ten Fleischer). In dem Vortrag ging es darum, die verfügbaren Methoden hinsichtlich ihrer Leis-tungsfähigkeit zu ordnen sowie nicht-intendier-ten Folgen im Verkehrssystem und des Verkehrs-systems auf die Spur zu kommen unter Bedin-gungen mehr oder weniger unsicheren Wissens.

5 Drei abschließende Bemerkungen

„Wer vieles bringt, wird manchem etwas bringen; und jeder geht zufrieden aus dem Haus.“ Dieses Zitat aus Goethes Faust hätte ein Motto der Kon-ferenz sein können. Die FTA in Sevilla war Ort der Begegnung und Messe für die internationale Foresight-Community und bot ein Schaufenster für Institutionen und Projekte. Insbesondere die an NEST (New and Emerging Science and Tech-New and Emerging Science and Tech-nology) und Forschungsmethoden Interessierten dürften mit dem Angebot zufrieden gewesen sein. Wie Internet und Computer die Forschungsme-thoden erweitern und verändern, wurde vielfach sichtbar: von den Möglichkeiten des Web 2.0 für die Einbindung von Laien und Experten in Fore-Fore-sight-Prozesse bis zur Weiterentwicklung compu--Prozesse bis zur Weiterentwicklung compu-tergestützter Modellierung in der Hoffnung damit „evidenz-basierte Politik“ zu ermöglichen.

Die Diskrepanz zwischen globalen Heraus-forderungen einerseits und der immer noch vor-wiegend nationalen Beratungsperspektive von Foresight andererseits zu überwinden, erweist sich als außerordentlich schwierig. Umso mehr sind Projekte zu begrüßen, in denen die globa-le Kooperation gefördert und erprobt wird, wie z. B. in den SEA-EU-NET-Projekten, in denen Partner aus Südostasien und der EU kooperieren oder in dem Projekt IMS2020, in dem Partnern aus Europa, den USA sowie Japan und Korea

TAGUNGSBERICHTE


gemeinsam Roadmaps im Bereich „intelligenter Fertigungstechniken“ entwickelt haben.

Schließlich fiel auf, dass die Parlamentari-sche TA, die STS-Community und im Zusam-Community und im Zusam- und im Zusam-menhang mit den „globalen Herausforderun-gen“ auch die einschlägige Nachhaltigkeitsfor-schung kaum vertreten waren. Wenn der Ein-druck stimmt, dass Foresight sich verstärkt zur problemorientierten Forschung hin entwickelt, ist künftig mit einer stärkeren wechselseitigen Durchdringung der Bereiche zu rechnen.

Anmerkungen

1) Die Website der Konferenz findet sich unter http://foresight.jrc.ec.europa.eu/fta_2011/.

2) EICT ist eine Public-Private-Partnership mit Sitz in Berlin, an der sich die Deutsche Telekom, Siemens, Daimler-Chrysler, die Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft und die Technische Universität Berlin beteiligen.

Literatur

Böhle, K., 2008: The 3rd International Seville Con-The 3rd International Seville Con-ference of FTA. Impacts and implications for policy and decision making, Seville, Spain, October 16–17, 2008. In: Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 17/3 (2008), S. 127–131; http://www.itas.fzk.de/tatup/083/boeh08b.htmFiedeler, U., 2004: New Technology Foresight, Fore-New Technology Foresight, Fore-casting & Assessment Methods. EU-US Scientific Seminar, Seville, Spain, May 13–14, 2004. In: Tech-. In: Tech-nikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 13/2 (2004), S. 132–135; http://www.itas.fzk.de/tatup/042/fied04a.htmRader, M., 2006: Second International Seville Semi-Second International Seville Semi-nar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): Impacts on Policy and Decision-Making. Seville, Spain, September 28–29, 2006. In: Technikfolgenab-. In: Technikfolgenab-schätzung – Theorie und Praxis 15/3 (2006), S. 101–103; http://www.itas.fzk.de/tatup/063/rade06b.htm

« »

Veranstaltungshinweise

29.8.–1.9.11 Conference Delft (NL)„Third international conference on eParticipation (ePart 2011)“Co-located with EGOV, the IFIP e-government conference 2011

8.–9.9.11 Workshop Chemnitz (DE)„Arbeit und Betrieb im Web 2.0. Zum neuen Verhältnis von Betrieben und Internetnutzern“DFG-Projekt „Konsumentenarbeit“, Professur für Industrie- und Techniksoziologie, TU Chemnitz

20.–23.9.11 Conference Manchester (UK)Eu-SPRI PhD and Early Career Researcher Conference„Challenges in Research and Innovation Policy Studies“Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School

21.–22.9.11 Konferenz Saarbrücken (DE)„SIZE MATTERS 2011: Macht High-Tech den Menschen besser?“NanoBioNet

22.–24.9.11 Conference Wien (AT)International Conference„Governing Futures – Imagining, Negotiating & Taming Emerging Technosciences“Department of Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna

26.–30.9.11 Summer School Fulda (DE)Summer School für Promovierende und Postdocs„Kulturraum Technik“Graduiertenkolleg „Topologie der Technik“, TU Darmstadt, und Interuniversitäres Forschungszentrum für Technik, Arbeit und Kultur (IFZ), Graz/Klagenfurt

Weitere Informationen finden sie auf der ITAS-Website unter „TA-Veranstaltungskalender” (http://www.itas.fzk.de/veranstaltung/inhalt.htm).

ITAS-NEWS


ITAS-NEWS

Neue Projekte

EU-Projekt AUTOSUPERCAP

Die Entwicklung von Superkondensatoren mit hoher Energie- und Leistungsdichte für auto-mobile Anwendungen wird im Projekt AUTO-SUPERCAP von Projektpartner aus Großbri-tannien, Griechenland, Italien und Deutschland untersucht. Superkondensatoren – auch Dop-pelschichtkondensatoren genannt – sind essen-tiell in elektrischen Fahrzeugen sowohl für die Bereitstellung von Energie in der Beschleuni-gungsphase, welche einen wesentlichen Anteil am gesamten Fahrzyklus besitzt, als auch für die Rückgewinnung von Energie während des Bremsvorgangs. Letztere ist erforderlich für ein nachhaltiges Energie- und Leistungsmanage-ment in modernen Fahrzeugen mit hoher Ener-gieeffizienz. Hohe spezifische Leistungsdichte und eine ausreichende Energiedichte sind not-wendig um den Anforderungen von Fahrzeu-gen an Energiespeicher zu genügen, ohne da-bei das Gesamtgewicht des Fahrzeuges negativ zu beeinflussen. Innerhalb des Projekts sollen Superkondensatoren der zweiten Generation entwickelt werden, welche aber nicht nur hohe Energie- und Leistungsdichten (bei geringen Gewicht) aufweisen, sondern auch ökonomisch und ökologisch Vorteile gegenüber bestehenden Energiespeicher-Systemen haben.

ITAS begleitet mit systemanalytischen Ar-beiten den Entwicklungsprozess der Superkon-densatoren. Mithilfe von lebenswegbezogenen ökonomischen und ökologischen Analysen und Methoden der multikriteriellen Entschei-dungsunterstützung werden aussichtsreiche Entwicklungskorridore identifiziert. Für den Anwendungsfall „Elektromobilität“ wird eine vollständige Ökobilanz (LCA) für ein Elektro-fahrzeug mit Superkondensatoren der zweiten Generation durchgeführt.

(Marcel Weil, [email protected])

EU-Projekt PACITA

Wie können institutionelle Voraussetzungen für die wissensbasierte politische Entschei-dungsfindung geschaffen werden? Was können diejenigen EU-Länder, die keine parlamenta-rische TA haben, von jenen Ländern lernen, die parlamentarische TA etabliert haben? Im Zentrum des EU-Projektes „Parliaments and Civil Society in Technology Assessment“ (PA-“ (PA-CITA) stehen solche und weitere Fragen, die die Kapazitäten für eine wissensbasierte politi-sche Entscheidungsfindung in Europa eruieren. Dabei wird ein Fokus auf die parlamentarische TA (PTA) gelegt, ihre Modelle und länderspe-zifischen Verfahren systematisch aufgearbeitet und vergleichend gegenübergestellt. PTA un-terstützt demokratische technologiepolitische Entscheidungsprozesse durch die Bereitstel-lung von umfassendem Folgewissen, durch die Unterstützung des gesellschaftlichen Diskurses und durch die Formulierung von politischen Handlungsoptionen.

Das Arbeitsprogramm von PACITA um-fasst zunächst die Dokumentation verschiede-ner Arbeitsweisen parlamentarischer TA, um auf dieser Grundlage Empfehlungen für die Nutzung von parlamentarischen TA-Methoden und -Verfahren auf nationaler und europäischer Ebene zu erarbeiten. Desweiteren werden Fort-bildungsmodule für TA-Praktiker und -Nutzer entwickelt, ein europäisches Webportal für TA-Expertise aufgebaut sowie Diskussionen über PTA in Ländern angeregt und unterstützt, in denen entsprechende Strukturen bisher nicht bestehen. Neben der systematischen Einbezie-hung von Experten, werden gesellschaftliche Gruppen und politischen Entscheidungsträgern konsultiert und an der Diskussion beteiligt. Mit-hilfe von drei umfassenden Beispielprojekten der TA werden expertenzentrierte Methoden, Verfahren der Einbeziehung von Interessen-gruppen und sowie die Durchführung von Bür-ger-Konsultationen erprobt und dokumentiert.

Im 15 Partner umfassenden Projektkonsor-tium sind sowohl nationale und regionale par-lamentarische TA-Einrichtungen als auch wis-senschaftliche Akademien, Forschungsinstitute, Universitäten und Nichtregierungsorganisatio-

ITAS-NEWS


nen vertreten. Politische Entscheidungsträger, Wissenschaft und Medien der jeweiligen Länder werden in die Projektaktivitäten eingebunden.

(Constanze Scherz, [email protected])

EU-Projekt „Peripheria – Networked Smart Peripheral Cities for Sustainable Lifestyles”

Das „Internet der Zukunft“ kann nachhaltige Lebensstile in europäischen Peripherie-Städten „intelligent“ organisieren. Dazu werden konver-gente Plattformen und Dienste entwickelt, die diese Städte, die am Rande von großen Ballungs-gebieten liegen, vernetzen. Das EU-Pro jekt „Pe-Pe-ripheria – Networked Smart Peripheral Cities for Sustainable Lifestyles“, indem ITAS einer von zwölf Partnern ist, wurde Ende 2010 begonnen und wird vom „ICT Policy Support-Programme“ der Europäischen Kommission finanziert.

Die neue „Open Service Convergence Plat-Open Service Convergence Plat-form“, ein Internet von und für die Menschen, wird Sensornetzwerke, 3D-Dienste in Echtzeit und mobile standortbezogene Dienste mit den Hauptparadigmen des Future Internet – Internet der Dinge, Internet der Dienste und Internet der Menschen – verbinden. Spezielle Technologien – sowohl Ergebnisse früherer Forschungsarbei-ten als auch neu entwickelte Geräte und Platt-formen sowie spontan entwickelte Mash-ups – laufen zusammen, um ein „Living-Lab“-Um-feld zu schaffen, in dem gemeinsam Dienste der nächsten Generation für den Einzelnen und die Gemeinschaft entwickelt werden. Dabei wer-den die Forschungs- und Entwicklungsarbeiten aus dem Labor heraus in das reale Umfeld der Nutzer gebracht.

Das ITAS-Team unter der Leitung von Kras-simira Paskaleva-Shapira ist einer der drei zent-ralen, für Projektentwicklung und -implementie-rung verantwortlichen Partner des Konsortiums. ITAS leitet u. a. die Arbeiten im Bereich „Smart Citizen Communities“ („intelligente Bürgerge-meinschaften“), Projektevaluierung, Technikfol-gen, Politik und die Aktivitäten zu Verbreitung und Nutzung.

(Krassimira Paskaleva-Shapira, [email protected])

CONCERTO Premium

Die nachhaltige Energieversorung Europas im Bereich der Gebäudeerrichtung und -sanierung ist das Ziel der CONCERTO-Initiative. Sie wur-de 2005 von der Europäischen Kommission ins Leben gerufen und ist Teil des Forschungsrah-menprogramms „Directorate-General for Ener-Directorate-General for Ener-gy“. Aktuell arbeiten 58 Gemeinden in 22 Pro-“. Aktuell arbeiten 58 Gemeinden in 22 Pro-jekten daran, neue Stadtteile zu errichten oder bestehende Stadtteile umzugestalten. Dabei ver-folgen sie das Ziel, einen höchstmöglichen Grad an Energieeffizienz umzusetzen und eine mög-lichst hohe Versorgung mit regenerativen Ener-gien zu erreichen.

Seit November 2010 bearbeitet ITAS zu-sammen mit Partnern aus dem Steinbeis-Europa-Zentrum (Projektleitung), fünf weiteren Institu-ten des KIT, 58 Kommunen und einer Vielzahl von Forschungseinrichtungen in ganz Europa das Projekt „CONCERTO Premium“. Im No-vember 2013 soll das Projekt abgeschlossen sein.

CONCERTO Premium ist ein wichtiger Teil dieser CONCERTO-Initiative. Das Pro-jekt verbindet die verschiedenen Einzelvor-haben der Initiative und trägt zu einem Aus-tausch unter den Projektpartnern sowie einer gemeinsamen Kommunikation der Ergebnisse nach außen bei. Dazu wird eine robuste Da-ten- und Informationsbasis bereitgestellt, die als Entscheidungsunterstützung von Investoren genutzt werden kann, um so die Anwendung von Klimaschutzmaßnahmen im städtischen Umfeld in Europa und den angrenzenden Staa-ten weiter zu verbreiten. Aufgabe von ITAS ist es, Empfehlungen an die Politik zu erarbeiten, wie bei der Sanierung von Stadtteilen, Energie-effizienz und erneuerbare Energien eingesetzt werden können. Hierzu werden die jeweiligen politischen Rahmenbedingungen einer Maß-nahme erfasst, ausgewertet und in politische Empfehlungen umgesetzt. Außerdem beteiligt sich ITAS an der Definition von Indikatoren zur Evaluation der einzelnen Vorhaben.

(Volker Stelzer, [email protected])

« »

ITAS-NEWS


Neue Kolleginnen und Kollegen

Der Umweltingenieur Bálint Simon ist seit dem 15.4.2011 als wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter im ITAS und arbeitet für das vom KIT betriebenen „Helmholtz-Institut Ulm für Elektrochemische Energiespeicherung“ (HIU). ITAS ist für die sys-temanalytischen Arbeiten am HIU verantwort-lich; die Arbeiten von Bálint Simon konzentrie-ren sich auf die Analyse der Rohstoffverfügbar-keit von elektrochemischen Speichern sowie auf die ökonomische und ökologische Analyse von Batteriesystemen über den Lebenszyklus.

Rebecca Klady ist seit 1.4.2011 Doktoran-din am ITAS und arbeitet zum Thema „Climate change and sustainable development in the Cana-dian Arctic“. Die gebürtige Kanadierin hat ein Sti-pendium des „Social Sciences and Humanities Re-Social Sciences and Humanities Re-search Council“ erhalten, einer kanadischen Bun-“ erhalten, einer kanadischen Bun-desbehörde, die die Forschung und Ausbildung in den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften unterstützt.

« »

Streitbarer Kollege und Mitinitia-tor des Arbeitsgebiets Stoffstrom-analyse geht in den Ruhestand

Am 30. Juni 2011 ist Udo Jeske nach über 30 Be-rufsjahren in den Ruhestand gegangen. Nach dem Studium der Elektrotechnik und Promotion an der RWTH Aachen trat er 1978 in das damalige Kernforschungszentrum ein, aus dem der Groß-forschungsbereich des KIT entstanden ist. Bevor er zum ITAS kam, war er als „kritischer“ Geist an verschiedenen Studien zur Gesamtkonzeption von Kernfusionsreaktoren beteiligt gewesen und hatte leidenschaftlich um den Wahrheitsgehalt der angekündigten Versprechungen dieser nuklearen Stromerzeugungstechnik gestritten. Diese Arbei-ten – gepaart mit den Ereignissen in Tschernobyl – ebneten den Weg, sich dauerhaft mit der system-analytischen Begleitforschung in der Technikent-wicklung am ITAS zu beschäftigen. Hierbei hatte Udo Jeske maßgeblichen Anteil am Aufbau des Arbeitsgebietes Stoffstromanalyse, in dem er sich spezifisch mit dem Anwendungsbereich „Bauen

und Wohnen“ auseinandersetzte. Weitere Arbeiten zum PVC-Stoffstrom und dessen Recycling sowie die Umweltkennzeichnung von Bauprodukten folgten. Diese legten den Grundstein, um sowohl im Auftrag der Enquete-Kommission des 13. Deutschen Bundestages federführend die Studie „Stoffströme und Kosten in den Bereichen Bauen und Wohnen“ anzufertigen als auch Mitglied des in 2001 gegründeten Runden Tisches für nachhal-tiges Bauen zur Unterstützung des Bundesminis-teriums für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) für Regelungen des Bundes zu werden.

Einen großen Gewinn kann die Nachwelt aus seiner Leidenschaft zur Informationstechnik ziehen. Mit den sich daraus ergebenden neuen Möglichkeiten, komplexe Sachverhalte ins Bild zu setzen sowie ein System zur gemeinschaftli-chen Erstellung, Bearbeitung und Organisation von Inhalten als Web-Portal aufzubauen, ließ sich vorhandenes Wissen für interessierte Kreise effi-zient und dauerhaft zur Verfügung stellen. Hier-aus ist einerseits – in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Kollegen Rolf Möller – die Internet-An wendung „BestChemie“ für die Chemikalienbuchführung mit Gefahrstoffkataster in Hochschulen und For-schungseinrichtungen als Beitrag eines betriebli-chen Stoffstrommanagementsystems entstanden. Andererseits ist mit dem Projekt WECOBIS, das maßgeblich mit Martina Klingele, dem Institut für angewandte Informatik (KIT/IAI) und der FH Augsburg zur strukturierten Bereitstellung von herstellerneutralen ökologischen Bauproduktin-formationen entlang des Lebenszyklus aufgebaut wurde, eine große Entscheidungsunterstützung für die Planungsphase entstanden. Dabei ist WE-COBIS Teil eines abgestimmten Systems der Planungs- und Bewertungshilfsmittel zur Quanti-fizierung des Beitrags von Bauwerken zur Nach-haltigkeit, das im BMVBS-Portal „Nachhaltiges Bauen“ eingebunden ist und vom ehemaligen Bundesbauminister auf der Messe „Bau 2009“ unter dem Schirm der Bayerischen Architekten-kammer feierlich die Welt erblickte.

Abschließend sei auf die gemeinsamen letz-ten zehn Jahre verwiesen, die durch die system-analytische Begleitung in der Verfahrens-, Mate-rial- und Produktentwicklung unter Anwendung des Instruments der Ökobilanzierung gekenn-zeichnet war. Aus diesen Arbeiten ist die Erkennt-

ITAS-NEWS


nis gereift, dass die methodische Einbettung der Produkt-Ökobilanz innerhalb der Stoffstromana-lyse eines Wirtschaftsraumes, Klarheit über die umweltbezogenen Wechselwirkungen bringt. Au-ßerdem hat Udo Jeske in dieser Zeit den Begriff der „techniknahen“ Systemanalyse geprägt, der seinen festen Platz in die HGF-Programmförde-rung I und II gefunden hat. Bewundernswert war bis zum Ende hin die Hingabe, sich neuen Her-ausforderungen wie z .B. der Exergieanalyse zu stellen und als Diskussionspartner viele wertvolle Hinweise und Anregungen zu liefern.

Jens Buchgeister

« »

ITAS beteiligt sich an Sammel-band zu ethischen Fragen der TA

Ethische Fragen stellen sich in der Technikfolgen-abschätzung allgegenwärtig und die Befassung mit Fallstudien zur Ethik kann in Forschung und Lehre einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Vermittlung zentraler Argumentationen liefern. In der Schrif-tenreihe des Zentrums für Technik- und Wirt-schaftsethik am KIT ist nun ein Sammelband erschienen, der 33 Fallstudien allgemeinverständ-lich darstellt und jeweils mit Fragen abschließt, die konkrete Anleitung für den schulischen oder universitären Ethikunterricht sein können. ITAS-Kolleginnen und Kollegen haben sich an diesem Buch mit folgenden Beiträgen beteiligt:

• Bettina-Johanna Krings: Technik und ihre Auswirkungen auf globale und lokale Arbeits-strukturen

• Gerhard Banse: „Normale Katastrophen“• Vitaly Gorokhov, Constanze Scherz: Der

(Nicht-)Umgang mit Technikfolgen in Russland• Torsten Fleischer: Nanotechnologie• Gerhard Sardemann: Mensch und Klima• Armin Grunwald: Der ingenieurtechnische

Blick auf das Weltklima• Oliver Parodi: Der Drei-Schluchten-Damm –

ein nachhaltiges Unterfangen?• Michael Decker: Serviceroboter in medizini-

schen Anwendungen. Eine interdisziplinäre Problemstellung

Die bibliografischen Angaben lauten: Maring, M. (Hg.): Fallstudien zur Ethik in Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft, Technik und Gesellschaft. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing 2011, 325 S., ISBN 978-3866-4460-83.

« »

Publikationen

Buchpublikation: Wissenschaft im Kontext: Inter- und Transdisziplinarität in Theorie und Praxis

Die Themen „Interdisziplinarität“ und „Transdis-ziplinarität“ sind nicht erst seit gestern Gegenstand wissenschaftlicher Reflexionen. Sie haben eine lange Geschichte. Aber gegenwärtig sind sie fast „allgegenwärtig“. Es gibt eine beeindruckende Vielfalt von „Gegenständen“, die sich auf Inter-disziplinarität und Transdisziplinarität beziehen: elektronische und gedruckte Artikel, Bücher, Vor-träge, Materialen, Projekte, Arbeitsgruppen – ins-besondere in den Bereichen Forschung, Lehre und Bildung. Wenn man diese Allgegenwart nicht vor-rangig als modischen Trend, sondern als eine we-sentliche Tendenz der Wissenschaftsentwicklung interpretiert, dann ist damit auch die Notwendig-keit verbunden, gelegentlich inne zu halten, sich des Erreichten zu versichern, um auf dieser dann gesicherten Basis weiter vorankommen zu können. Und genau das ist das Ansinnen des vorliegenden Buches, das Beiträge von zwei wissenschaftlichen Veranstaltungen im Jahre 2009 enthält, einer in Berlin und einer in Karlsruhe. Die Veranstaltungen wurden zwar inhaltlich unabhängig voneinander konzipiert, erwiesen sich aber alsbald als komple-mentär, da einerseits mehr inhaltlich-konzeptio-nelle und andererseits eher praktisch-erfahrungs-basierte Überlegungen verknüpft wurden.Bibliografische Angaben: Banse, G.; Fleischer, L.-G. (Hg.): Wissenschaft im Kontext: Inter- und Trans-disziplinarität in Theorie und Praxis. Berlin: trafo Wissenschaftsverlag, Abhandlungen der Leibniz-Sozietät der Wissenschaften, Band 27, 2011, 299 S., ISBN 978-3-89626-896-9, 32,80 €

ITAS-NEWS


Buchpublikation: Kulturelle Diversität und neue Medien. Entwicklungen – Interdepen-denzen – Resonanzen

Nach siebenjähriger Tätigkeit des im September 2002 in Prag gegründeten Netzwerks „International Network on Cultural Diversity and Media“ (Cult-Media) wird in dem vorliegenden Band erstmals der umfassende Versuch unternommen, Erreichtes wie Nicht-Erreichtes zusammenfassend darzustel-len sowie auf neue Entwicklungen und Problem-situationen zu verweisen. Es werden neuere Ent-wicklungen im Medienbereich und deren kulturel-le Auswirkungen thematisiert, um so auch (noch) zu Erreichendes systematisch(er) herausarbeiten zu können. Die Anordnung der Texte, die v. a. aus der Tagung „Cultural Diversity and New Media. Ergebnisse – Probleme – Aufgaben“ (27.–29.9.09, Cottbus) hervorgingen, folgt im Wesentlichen den vier Forschungsfeldern des Netzwerks: „Privatheit und Öffentlichkeit“, „Identität und Gemeinschaft“, „Wissen und Wirtschaft“ sowie „(Un-)Sicherheit und Vertrauen“. Das Ergebnis ist eine interessan-te Mischung von konzeptionell-theoretischen und empirisch-exemplarischen Beiträgen aus mehre-ren Wissenschaftsdisziplinen und von unterschied-lichen Wissenschaftler(innen)-Gene rationen. Ge-meinsam ist das Bemühen aller Beteiligten, daran mitzuwirken, die „Netzwerkgesellschaft“ nicht nur facettenreich zu analysieren, sondern aus der Diagnose Vorschläge für „Therapien“ abzuleiten, für die Gestaltung technischer Lösungen, von Bil-dungs- und Forschungsprozessen, generell von so-zialen und kulturellen Praxen.Bibliografische Angaben: Banse, G.; Krebs, I. (Hg.): Kulturelle Diversität und neue Medien. Entwicklun-gen – Interdependenzen – Resonanzen. Berlin: trafo Wissenschaftsverlag, 2011, 407 S., ISBN 978-3-89626-897-6, 39,80 €

KIT Scientific Report: Energieszenarien. Konstruktion, Bewertung und Wirkung – „Anbieter“ und „Nachfrager“ im Dialog

Energieszenarien sind ein wesentliches Mittel zur Entscheidungsunterstützung in Politik und Wirtschaft, in Ministerien, Behörden, Banken und Unternehmen. Gerade angesichts der lan-gen Zeiträume, für die durch Entscheidungen im Energiebereich Weichenstellungen getroffen werden, ist eine sorgfältige Analyse möglicher „Energiezukünfte“ von besonderer Bedeutung. Energieszenarien spielen darüber hinaus eine wesentliche Rolle in der öffentlichen Debatte über die Zukunft der Energieversorgung.

Energieszenarien entstehen jedoch nicht von selbst und auch nicht aus einem rein wis-senschaftlichen Erkenntnisinteresse. Vielmehr werden auch Anforderungen „von außen“ ge-stellt. D. h. es gibt eine Nachfrageseite, zu deren Befriedigung wissenschaftliche Institute Ange-bote entwickeln und auf einem „Markt“ anbie-ten. Zwei in Karlsruhe veranstaltete Workshops, deren Ergebnisse im vorliegenden Band doku-mentiert sind, hatten das Ziel, Nachfrager und Anbieter in Dialog zu bringen. Als ein wesent-liches Themenfeld wurde z. B. die Entwicklung von Verfahren für die Bewertung der Güte von Szenarien identifiziert.Bibliografische Angaben: Dieckhoff, C.; Fichtner, W.; Grunwald, A.; Meyer, S.; Nast, M.; Nierling, L.; Renn, O.; Voß, A.; Wietschel, M. (Hg.): Energieszenarien. Konstruktion, Bewertung und Wirkung – „Anbieter“ und „Nachfrager“ im Dialog. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing 2011, 153 S., ISBN 978-3-86644-621-2

Kostenloser Download: http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/lit/2011/grua11a.pdf

ITAS-NEWS


KIT Scientific Report: Systemanalyse zur Gaserzeugung aus Biomasse

Die thermochemische Gaserzeugung eröffnet vielfältige Möglichkeiten, unterschiedlichste Biomassearten sowohl zur Wärme-, Strom- und Kraftstoffproduktion als auch zur Produktion von chemischen Grundstoffen zu verwenden. Deshalb wird vom KIT das zweistufige bioliq®-Verfahren entwickelt. Die Begleitforschung des ITAS liefert wesentliche Beiträge für eine Be-wertung des Verfahrens und konzentriert sich auf folgende Aspekte: verfügbares Biomasse-potenzial und -bereitstellung, Biomasseeinspei-sung in einen Druckvergaser und Verfahrensver-gleich der Kraftstoffbereitstellung über Fischer-Tropsch- oder Methanolsynthese.

Die durchgeführten Untersuchungen zeigen ein großes energetisch nutzbares Biomassepo-tenzial, insbesondere für die mengenmäßig be-deutendsten Biomassearten Waldrestholz, Stroh und Heu. Damit könnte in Baden-Württemberg ein energetisch nutzbares Aufkommen von jähr-lich rund 3 Mio. t Trockenmasse bereitgestellt werden, ohne in Konflikt mit Bewirtschaftungs-anforderungen oder Umweltauflagen zu kom-men. Die umfangreiche Literaturauswertung zur Biomasseeinspeisung in Druckvergaser bestä-tigt, dass die beim bioliq®-Verfahren verfolgte Biomasseeinspeisung in Form von Slurry nach wie vor ein tragfähiges Konzept ist. Dies wird dadurch noch bestärkt, dass mit dem Slurry aus der Biomasse ein Zwischenprodukt erzeugt wird, das aufgrund seiner hohen volumetrischen Ener-giedichte über weite Entfernungen kostengünstig transportiert werden kann. Die durchgeführten technoökonomischen Verfahrensvergleiche zur Kraftstoffsynthese zeigen, dass den Methanol-basierten synthetischen Kraftstoffen aus Biomas-se derzeit aufgrund fehlender industrieller Imple-mentierung keine Präferenz gegenüber Fischer-Tropsch-Kraftstoff eingeräumt werden kann.Bibliografische Angaben: Leible, L.; Kälber; St.; Kappler, G.: Systemanalyse zur Gaserzeugung aus Biomasse. Untersuchung ausgewählter Aspekte. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing 2011, KIT Sci-entific Reports 7580, 76 S., ISBN 978-3-86644-656-4

Kostenloser Download: http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/lit/2011/leua11a.pdf

ITAS-Newsletter

Mit dem online verfügbaren ITAS-Newsletter informiert das Institut für Technikfolgenabschät-zung und Systemanalyse (ITAS) über Projekte, neue Publikationen, Personalia und kommende Veranstaltungen des Instituts. Der Newsletter bündelt und komprimiert für einen Zeitraum von etwa vier bis sechs Wochen die Neuigkeiten, die zuvor sukzessive im Internetangebot des Instituts angezeigt wurden. Vom Online-Newsletter führen Links direkt zu den ausführlicheren Informatio-nen auf dem ITAS-Server. Damit erhält der inter-essierte Nutzer über das sich laufend erweiternde Serverangebot ein zeitnahes Informationsangebot. Für den Vertrieb des ITAS-Newsletters wird ein Dienst des Deutschen Forschungsnetzes verwen-det. Anmeldungen sind möglich unter http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/itasnewsletter/itasnewsletter.htm. Bei Fragen und auftretenden technischen Proble-men schicken Sie bitte eine E-Mail an [email protected].

« »

TAB-NEWS


TAB-NEWS

Öffentliches Fachgespräch im Deutschen Bundestag

Die Ergebnisse des TAB-Projekts „Gefährdung und Verletzbarkeit moderner Gesellschaften – am Beispiel eines langandauernden und großräumi-gen Ausfalls der Stromversorgung“ wurden am 25. Mai 2011 in einer gemeinsamen öffentlichen Veranstaltung des Innen- und Forschungsaus-schusses präsentiert und mit Sachverständigen und der interessierten Öffentlichkeit diskutiert.

Räumlich begrenzte und kurzfristige Strom-ausfälle in Europa und Nordamerika haben in den letzten Jahren vor Augen geführt, wie schnell die Unterbrechung der Stromversorgung zu massiven Versorgungsstörungen, Gefährdun-gen der öffentlichen Ordnung sowie Schäden in Milliardenhöhe führen kann. Das TAB wurde beauftragt zu untersuchen, wie sich ein langan-dauernder und großflächiger Stromausfall auf die Gesellschaft und ihre Kritischen Infrastrukturen auswirken könnte und wie Deutschland auf eine solche Großschadenslage vorbereitet ist.

Bei der Präsentation der Projektergebnisse machte der Projektleiter, Dr. Thomas Petermann, deutlich, dass bereits nach wenigen Tagen im be-troffenen Gebiet die bedarfsgerechte Versorgung der Bevölkerung mit (lebens-)notwendigen Gütern und Dienstleistungen nicht mehr sicherzustellen ist. Er betonte, dass große Anstrengungen erforder-lich seien, um die Durchhaltefähigkeit „Kritischer Infrastrukturen“ zu erhöhen sowie die Kapazitäten des nationalen Systems des Katastrophenmanage-ments weiter zu optimieren. Besonders wichtig sei es, die Sensibilität für diese Thematik in Wirtschaft und Bevölkerung zu steigern. In der anschließen-den lebhaften Diskussion mit geladenen Experten und einem zahlreich erschienenen interessierten und fachkundigen Publikum unterstützte u. a. der Präsident des Bundesamtes für Bevölkerungs-schutz und Katastrophenhilfe, Christoph Unger, die wesentlichen Diagnosen und Schlussfolgerun-gen des TAB. Auch die Vertreter der Bundestags-fraktionen nahmen den TAB-Bericht zustimmend

zur Kenntnis und kündigten an, diese Thematik in den Fachausschüssen intensiv zu behandeln.

Das Fachgespräch wurde vom Parlaments-fernsehen aufgezeichnet. Die Aufzeichnung ist in der Mediathek des Bundestages verfügbar.

« »

EPTA-Konferenz im Herbst 2011 in Vorbereitung

Im Rahmen der deutschen EPTA-Präsident schaft bereitet das TAB gemeinsam mit dem Ausschuss für Bildung, Forschung und Technikfolgenab-schätzung die jährlich stattfindende EPTA-Kon-ferenz vor. Am 20. Oktober 2011 werden in den Räumen des Deutschen Bundestags namhafte Vertreter aus Wissenschaft und Politik zum The-ma „Hope-, Hype- und Fear-Technologien – die Rolle von Wissenschaft und Politik“ diskutieren.

Mit den Attributen „hope, hype und fear“ wird eine Gruppe sehr heterogener Technologien angesprochen, denen das Potenzial zur Lösung globaler Probleme zugeschrieben wird (hope). Oft sind mit ihnen weitreichende Zukunftsvisi-onen und übersteigerte Erwartungen verbunden (hype), wegen ihrer unabsehbaren und schwer kontrollierbaren Folgen mobilisieren sie mehr oder weniger begründete Befürchtungen (fear). Sie finden deshalb ein hohes Maß an öffentlicher und politischer Aufmerksamkeit.

Befürchtungen und Erwartungen in der Öf-fentlichkeit, Aktivitäten der Wirtschaft zur Inte-ressen- und Einflusssicherung angesichts sich abzeichnender Geschäftsfelder, widersprüchliche Botschaften der scientific communities und me-dial häufig überzeichnete Erkenntnisse der Wis-senschaft zu Chancen und Risiken resultieren in einem besonderen Entscheidungs- und Gestal-tungsdruck für die Politik bei solch zukunftsträch-tigen und zugleich normativ sensiblen Themen.

Exemplarisch werden auf der EPTA-Kon-ferenz drei Fallbeispiele behandelt werden: Nanotechnologie, Internet & Cyberdemokratie sowie Geo-/Klimaengineering. Dabei wird der Fokus auf den politisch-strategischen Umgang in Europa gerichtet: Wie laufen entsprechende

TAB-NEWS


Agenda-Setting-Prozesse ab, welche politischen Problembearbeitungsstrategien werden gewählt, wie verläuft die Interaktion zwischen Wissen-schaft und Politik, welche Rolle spielen Medien und gesellschaftliche Diskurse?

Die EPTA-Konferenz ist eine öffentliche Veranstaltung. Konferenzgebühren werden nicht erhoben. Eine Voranmeldung ist erforderlich. Sie kann demnächst online über die Homepage des TAB erfolgen.

« »

TAB-Berichte im Bundestag

Nachdem TAB-Mitarbeiter bereits Mitte letzten Jahres von der Arbeitsgruppe Arbeit und Soziales der Fraktion BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN einge-laden wurden, um über die wesentlichen Schluss-folgerungen des TAB-Arbeitsberichts Nr. 129 zu „Chancen und Perspektiven behinderungskom-pensierender Technologien am Arbeitsplatz“ zu berichten, bildete der Bericht eine wichtige Grund-lage für die weitere politische Befassung mit der Thematik. Bezugnehmend auf den TAB-Bericht stellten Mitglieder der Fraktion BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN im Februar 2011 eine Kleine An-frage an die Bundesregierung zur „Forschung an behinderungskompensierenden Technologi-en am Arbeitsplatz“ (Bundestagsdrucksache Nr. 17/4169). In der Antwort der Bundesregierung be-stätigt diese, dass sie wesentliche Einschätzungen des TAB teile, insbesondere zum hohen Potenzial neuer Technologien. Die Bundesregierung weist darauf hin, dass sie bereits zentralen Forderungen des TAB-Berichts nachkommt, der Bund jedoch in einigen Bereichen – insbesondere im Kontext der Barrierefreiheit – keine Zuständigkeit habe (Bundestagsdrucksache Nr. 17/4622). Im Mai 2011 wurde der TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 129 im Ausschuss für Bildung, Forschung und Technik-folgenabschätzung abschließend beraten und zur Kenntnis genommen.

Nach erfolgter Präsentation und Abnahme im Ausschuss für Bildung, Forschung und Technik-folgenabschätzung im Januar 2011 sind die TAB-Arbeitsberichte Nr. 137 „Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der

europäischen Wirtschaft im Hinblick auf die EU-Beihilfepolitik – am Beispiel der Nanoelektronik“ und Nr. 140 „Zukunftspotenziale und Strategien nichtforschungsintensiver Industrien in Deutsch-land – Auswirkungen auf die Wettbewerbsfähig-keit und Beschäftigung“ als Bundestagsdrucksa-chen Nr. 17/4982 und 17/4983 erschienen.

Der TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 141 „Gefähr-dung und Verletzbarkeit moderner Gesellschaf-ten – am Beispiel eines großräumigen Ausfalls der Stromversorgung“ ist im April 2011 im Aus-schuss für Bildung, Forschung und Technikfol-genabschätzung abgenommen worden. Es wurde beschlossen, die Ergebnisse des Projekts im Rah-men eines öffentlichen Fachgesprächs vorzustel-len (s. o.). Der Bericht wurde als Bundestags-drucksache Nr. 17/5672 veröffentlicht.

Am 11. Mai 2011 wurde der TAB-Arbeits-bericht Nr. 142 „Welchen Beitrag kann die For-schung zur Lösung des Welternährungsproblems leisten?“ im Ausschuss für Bildung, Forschung und Technikfolgenabschätzung abgenommen.

« »

Neue Veröffentlichungen

TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 136 „Chancen und He-rausforderungen neuer Energiepflanzen“ (De-zember 2010; Verfasser: Rolf Meyer, Christine Rösch, Arnold Sauter)Der TAB-Bericht analysiert mögliche (Flächen-) Konkurrenzen im nationalen und internationalen Maßstab, beschreibt Herausforderungen eines umweltverträglichen Anbaus sowie der Zertifi-zierung biogener Energieträger. Anschaulich dar-gestellt werden die Vielfalt und Komplexität der Wirkungszusammenhänge in Abhängigkeit u. a. von Ausbauzielen, Förderstrategien, technischen Entwicklungen, globalen Handelsbedingungen, Agrarstruktur und landwirtschaftlicher Bewirt-schaftungsintensität. Daraus werden vier grund-sätzliche, alternative Handlungsperspektiven der zukünftigen Energiepflanzennutzung mit ihren je-weils spezifischen Vor- und Nachteilen abgeleitet:

• Priorität für Biokraftstoffe beibehalten: Im Mittelpunkt steht hier das Festhalten an dem

TAB-NEWS


bindenden Ausbauziel von zehn Prozent Bio-kraftstoffanteil für die EU und dem deutschen Ausbauziel von zwölf bis 15 Prozent (jeweils für das Jahr 2020). Damit verbunden ist das Ziel, einen Beitrag des Verkehrsbereichs zur Reduktion von Klimagasemissionen zu leis-ten sowie eine höhere Versorgungssicherheit zu erreichen.

• Priorität auf Strom- und Wärmeerzeugung aus Energiepflanzen verschieben: Diese Aus-richtung zielt darauf, die landwirtschaftlichen Energiepflanzenpotenziale mit möglichst klimaeffizienten Produktlinien zu nutzen. Ausbauziele für die Strom- und Wärmege-winnung auf der Basis von Energiepflanzen wären festzulegen und die Förderpolitiken anzupassen. Angestrebt würde eine möglichst hohe Energieproduktivität pro Fläche, ein re-lativ hoher Beitrag zur regenerativen Energie-versorgung und ein möglichst großer Beitrag zur Vermeidung von Treibhausgasen.

• Auf die stoffliche Nutzung nachwachsender Rohstoffe umsteuern: Biomasse wäre hier eine immer wichtiger werdende Grundlage eines breiten Spektrums stofflicher Nutzun-gen. Eine energetische Nutzung sollte erst am Ende von Koppel- und Kaskadennutzungen erfolgen. Hauptziel wäre der Ersatz von Erd-öl als Grundstoff der chemischen Industrie und sonstiger industrieller Anwendungen aus Rohstoff- und Klimaschutzgründen.

• Bioenergieträger importieren: Aufgrund der höheren Flächenproduktivität, der stärkeren Vermeidung von Treibhausgasemissionen sowie der niedrigeren Produktionskosten würden Biokraftstoffquoten im Wesentlichen durch Importe aus tropischen Ländern erfüllt. Ein weiterer Abbau von Zöllen und Subventi-onsregelungen für Bioenergieträger in der EU wäre notwendig. Ziel wäre es, die Energie-pflanzennutzung möglichst flächen-, klima-schutz- und kosteneffizient zu gestalten.

Der TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 136 ist unter http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/de/pdf/publikatio-nen/berichte/TAB-Arbeitsbericht-ab136.pdf und der Anhang unter http://www.tab-beim-bundes-tag.de/de/publikationen/berichte/ab136/AB%20136%20Onlineanhang.pdf abrufbar. Druckex-

emplare des TAB-Arbeitsberichts Nr. 136 sind bereits vergriffen.

TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 137 „Wettbewerbsfähig-keit der europäischen Wirtschaft im Hinblick auf die EU-Beihilfepolitik – am Beispiel der Nano-elektronik“ (Juli 2010; Verfasser: Sven Wydra, Clemens Blümel, Michael Nusser, Axel Thiel-mann, Ralf Lindner, Christoph Mayr)Um die europäische Integration und den freien Wettbewerb innerhalb Europas voranzutreiben, werden staatliche Subventionen durch die EU-Beihilfekontrolle stark reguliert. Da etliche Län-der außerhalb der EU zukunftsträchtige Sektoren oder Technikfelder, wie z. B. die Nanoelektro-nik, politisch stark unterstützen, wird eine zu-nehmende Abwanderung der europäischen Na-noelektronikindustrie befürchtet, in deren Folge die Länder der EU an Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ver-lieren würden.

Der TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 137 untersucht, inwieweit die internationale Wettbewerbsfähig-keit in der Nanoelektronik durch politische Maß-nahmen beeinflusst wird, wie die EU-Beihilfe-regelungen in der Förderpraxis die Entwicklung der Nanoelektronik möglicherweise begren-zen und ob sich ein höherer staatlicher Eingriff rechtfertigen ließe. Eine umfangreiche Unter-suchung der Standortbedingungen wie auch der Politikmaßnahmen in den führenden inner- und außereuropäischen Ländern wird für den Bereich Nanoelektronik durchgeführt. Aufbauend auf diesen Analysen werden vorrangig Handlungs-optionen abgeleitet, die sich innerhalb der Gren-zen des EU-Beihilferechts umsetzen lassen. Ei-nige Handlungsoptionen lassen sich jedoch nur im Rahmen einer konsistenten Strategie sinnvoll umsetzen. Zwei mögliche Handlungsszenarien befassen sich mit diesen Strategien. Denkbar sind einerseits eine aktive Technologiepolitik, die auf die Unterstützung der gesamten Wert-schöpfungskette abzielt, und andererseits eine rahmensetzende Politik, die stärker auf technolo-gieübergeifende Maßnahmen setzt.

Druckexemplare des TAB-Arbeitsberichts Nr. 137 können beim TAB-Sekretariat (E-Mail: [email protected]; Fax: +49 (0) 30 2 84 91 - 1 19) angefordert werden. Der TAB-Ar beitsbericht Nr. 137 ist unter http://www.tab-

TAB-NEWS


beim-bundestag.de/de/pdf/publikationen/berich-te/TAB-Arbeitsbericht-ab137.pdf abrufbar.

TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 140 „Zukunftspotenzi-ale und Strategien nichtforschungsintensiver Industrien in Deutschland – Auswirkungen auf die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Beschäftigung“ (Oktober 2010; Verfasser: Oliver Som, Steffen Kinkel, Eva Kirner, Daniela Buschak, Rainer Frietsch, Angela Jäger, Peter Neuhäusler, Mi-chael Nusser, Sven Wydra)Nichtforschungsintensive Industriezweige, wie die Textil- und Ernährungsbranche oder die Me-tall- und Kunststoffindustrie, haben nach wie vor eine hohe Bedeutung für Wachstum und Beschäf-tigung in Deutschland. Sie tragen 41 Prozent zur industriellen Wertschöpfung in Deutschland bei und beschäftigten rund 50 Prozent aller industriel-len Erwerbstätigen. Durch deren hohe Binnenori-entierung können nichtforschungsintensive Indus-triezweige im Vergleich zu forschungsintensiven höhere inländische Wachstums- und Beschäfti-gungseffekte erzielen. Im TAB-Ar beitsbericht Nr. 140 wird gezeigt, dass auch für nichtforschungsin-tensive Betriebe Innovationen eine zentrale Rolle spielen. Zwar setzen die Betriebe mit ihren Wett-bewerbsstrategien seltener auf neue Produktent-wicklungen, doch bei der Nutzung und Weiter-entwicklung innovativer Herstellungsverfahren sowie innovativer produktbegleitender Dienstleis-tungen bewegen sie sich mit forschungsintensiven Betrieben auf Augenhöhe. Sie behaupten sich da-bei in ihren Märkten vorwiegend als Qualitätsfüh-rer sowie durch ihre Fähigkeit, spezielle Kunden-anforderungen flexibel erfüllen zu können.

Aufbauend auf der detaillierten Standort-beschreibung widmet sich der Innovationsreport möglichen Handlungsoptionen im Rahmen einer nachhaltigen Wirtschafts- und Innovationspolitik. Wichtig ist es, den Besonderheiten dieser Unter-nehmen Rechnung zu tragen und neben der FuE-Intensität vermehrt die Innovationsfähigkeit von Unternehmen in einem ganzheitlichen Sinne zu stärken. Auch sollten die Stärken nichtforschungs-intensiver Betriebe im Bereich der kundenspezifi-schen Entwicklung und Konstruktion von Produk-ten, Herstellungsverfahren, oder im Bereich von (Service-)Design- oder Marketinginnovation ge-sichert und ausgebaut werden. Auch umfassende-

re Innovationsanreize, die zudem die fruchtbaren Verflechtungen von nichtforschungsintensiven mit forschungsintensiven Unternehmen und Sek-toren in den Blick nehmen, werden vorgestellt.

Druckexemplare des TAB-Arbeitsberichts Nr. 140 können beim TAB-Sekretariat (E-Mail: [email protected]; Fax: +49 (0) 30 2 84 91 - 1 19) angefordert werden. Der TAB-Ar beitsbericht Nr. 140 ist unter http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/de/pdf/publikationen/berich-te/TAB-Arbeitsbericht-ab140.pdf abrufbar.

TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 141 „Gefährdung und Verletzbarkeit moderner Gesellschaften – am Beispiel eines großräumigen Ausfalls der Strom-versorgung“ (November 2010; Verfasser: Tho-mas Petermann, Harald Bradke, Arne Lüllmann, Maik Poetzsch, Ulrich Riehm)Stromausfälle in Europa und Nordamerika haben in den letzten Jahren einen nachhaltigen Ein-druck von der Verletzbarkeit moderner und hoch-technisierter Gesellschaften vermittelt. Obwohl die Stromversorgung allenfalls eine Woche und lokal begrenzt unterbrochen war, zeigten sich bereits massive Funktions- und Versorgungsstö-rungen, Gefährdungen der öffentlichen Ordnung sowie Schäden in Milliardenhöhe.

Welche Folgen ein langandauernder und großflächiger Stromausfall auf die Gesellschaft und ihre Kritischen Infrastrukturen haben könnte und wie Deutschland auf eine solche Großscha-denslage vorbereitet ist, wird im TAB-Bericht aufgezeigt. Mittels umfassender Folgenanalysen führen die Autoren drastisch vor Augen, dass be-reits nach wenigen Tagen im betroffenen Gebiet die bedarfsgerechte Versorgung der Bevölkerung mit (lebens-)notwendi gen Gütern und Dienst-leistungen nicht mehr sicherzustellen ist. Auch wird deutlich gemacht, dass erhebliche Anstren-gungen erforderlich sind, um die Durchhaltefä-higkeit Kritischer Infrastrukturen zu erhöhen so-wie die Kapazitäten des nationalen Systems des Katastrophenmanagements weiter zu optimieren.

Druckexemplare des TAB-Arbeitsberichts Nr. 141 sind vergriffen. Die Buchpublikation ist in Vorbereitung. Die Zusammenfassung des Berichts ist unter http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/de/publikationen/berichte/ab141.html ab rufbar.

TAB-NEWS


TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 142 „Forschung zur Lösung des Welternährungsproblems – Ansatz-punkte, Strategien, Umsetzung“ (Februar 2011; Verfasser: Marc Dusseldorp, Arnold Sauter)Unter- und Mangelernährung zählen seit Jahrzehn-ten zu den gravierendsten Problemen, mit denen die Weltgemeinschaft konfrontiert ist. Im Jahr 2009 litten über eine Milliarde Menschen weltweit Hun-ger – mehr als je zuvor seit 1970, dem Beginn der Welternährungsstatistik der Vereinten Nationen. Hinzu kommen mehrere Milliarden Menschen, die an „verdecktem Hunger“ leiden, d. h. einer Unter-versorgung mit lebenswichtigen Mikronährstoffen wie Vitaminen oder Mineralstoffen.

Angesichts dieser drängenden Problematik befasste sich das TAB in einem TA-Projekt mit der Frage, welche Beiträge die Forschung zur Lösung des Welternährungsproblems leisten kann. Wo be-stehen besonders große Wissenslücken zum Welt-ernährungsproblem? In welchen Forschungsberei-chen sind relevante Lösungsbeiträge zu erwarten, so dass eine intensivere Unterstützung naheläge? Wo sind spezifische Restriktionen zu überwinden bzw. welche neue Formen der inter- und transdis-ziplinären Forschung wären zu entwickeln?

Der Abschlussbericht umfasst einen Über-blick über Dimensionen und Einflussfaktoren des Welternährungsproblems, eine Zusammen-fassung ausgewählter Themenstellungen für die Forschung in Deutschland sowie eine Auswer-tung eines öffentlichen Expertenworkshops, der vom TAB im Rahmen des Projekts durchgeführt wurde. In der Gesamtschau werden mögliche Schwerpunktsetzungen für zukünftige Forschung sowie Handlungsoptionen für eine entwicklungs-orientierte Forschungspolitik diskutiert.

Druckexemplare des TAB-Arbeitsberichts Nr. 142 können beim TAB-Sekretariat (E-Mail: [email protected]; Fax: +49 (0) 30 2 84 91 - 1 19) angefordert werden. Die Zusam-menfassung des Berichts ist unter http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/de/publikationen/berich-te/ab142.html abrufbar.

« »

Instructions for Authors

Authors are requested to observe the following instructions when preparing manuscripts for submission to TATuP.Length of contributions: The maximum number of char-acters of a printed page in the journal “Technikfolgen-abschätzung – Theorie und Praxis” is 3,500 characters (without spaces). The length of a contribution depends on the section in which it appears. More detailed infor-mation is provided by the editorial office.Abstract / introduction: Contributions under the main theme of an issue or in the sections TA-Konzepte und -Methoden (TA Concepts and Methods), Diskussionsfo-rum (Discussion Forum) and TA-Projekte (TA Projects) should be preceded by a concise abstract, summarising the significant points of the paper. The abstract should not exceed 780 characters (without spaces).Figures, graphs and tables: Figures and tables should be both embedded in the manuscript and supplied sepa-rately from the first version of the manuscript. All figures and tables should have a caption and source and must be numbered separately within the text. If created by the author, please use the phrase “Own compilation” to in-dicate the source.Format: Tables should be supplied in Word, graphs in Excel and figures in Adobe Illustrator or PowerPoint format. Please contact the editorial office early if the material is only available in other formats. For reasons of page design and layout, the decision on the final size and location of the figures and tables in a contribution lies with the editorial team.References / bibliography: Cited references are listed alphabetically at the end of the manuscript. In the text the citation should appear in parentheses (e. g. Bauer, Schneider 2006); in the case of a direct quotation the page number has to be included (e. g. Maurer et al. 2007, p. 34). Citations in the reference list should be formatted according to the following examples:Monographs: Wiegerling, K., 2011: Philosophie intelli-genter Welten. MunichArticles in journals: Fink, R.D.; Weyer, J., 2011: Auto-nome Technik als Herausforderung der soziologischen Handlungstheorie. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 40/2 (2011), p. 91–111Chapters in books: Mehler, A., 2010: Artifizielle Inter-aktivität. Eine semiotische Betrachtung. In: Sutter, T.; Mehler, A. (eds.): Medienwandel als Wandel von Inter-aktionsformen. HeidelbergWebsites and online publications: iRobot Corpora-tion, 2011: One Robot, Unlimited Possibilities. iRobot 510 PackBot. Bedford, MA; http://www.irobot.com/gi/filelibrary/pdfs/robots/iRobot_510_PackBot.pdf (download 30.3.11)Contact: If the relevant section allows for providing con-tact details, the following information should be included: Title, name and full address of the institution, including URL where applicable. In the case of multiple authors, no more than two contact persons should be named. The con-tact persons can decide whether to publish their phone/fax number or e-mail address.

STOA-NEWS


STOA-NEWS

Report of the STOA Workshop “Can Political Communication via Internet and E-participation Contribute to the Emergence of a European Public Sphere?”Brussels, Belgium, May 26, 2011

The workshop, held at the European Parliament in Brussels as part of a STOA project on e-democra-cy and following an earlier workshop on e-voting (“Can e-voting increase electoral participation?”; see STOA , March 2011), reflected on the poten-tials and realistic prospects of Internet-based appli-cations to contribute to the democratic practices of the evolving political system of the European Un-ion and the formation of a European public sphere. There are examples of cases where positive effects of the Internet concerning the political process are visible – including a variety of top-down as well as bottom-up driven e-participation initiatives. How-ever, it becomes clear as well that the potential of the new technologies has not been fully realised so far and that there are different technical, legal, political, and social issues which need to be ad-dressed in the future.

The Internet can help generate a European public, although the issues discussed in the Inter-net show a strong specialisation. This specialisa-tion goes hand in hand with a fragmented rather than a uniform and broadly informed audience. Nonetheless, this fragmented audience is a trans-national one. It can be said that the issue-related publics emerging on the Internet in many respects can be regarded as elements of a European public opinion. An open question is how the specialised public opinions can be linked and how they can be reconnected to the official political processes within the European institutions.

In the workshop, five distinguished re-searchers in the field of e-democracy gave their assessments on e-public and e-participation. Each of them focused on different aspects: Stijn Smismans from Cardiff University concentrated

on the interrelations between e-democracy and the public sphere. He pointed out that e-partici-pation is closely linked with a broader definition of citizenship and the idea of an active democra-cy. Georgios Papanagnou gave an overview of the role of ICTs and general obstacles for a genuinely European public sphere. A further assessment was given by Sandra González-Bailón from the University of Oxford; she pointed out the neces-sity to conduct more research in the field of citi-zens’ online engagement. Jeremy Millard from the Danish Technological Institute underpinned the importance of the linkage between bottom-up and top-down initiatives as a future aspect for in-tegrating e-participation into political processes. Andy Williamson from the Hansard Society men-tioned changes in the way citizens participate that are in line with the evolution of the Internet. He sees a necessity for institutions to embrace these chances and build up a public sphere.

The lively discussions revealed that the way e-participation can practically take place on the European level still has to be defined and that questions regarding digital divide, language skills, political literacy, and representativeness are not yet answered. Current challenges are the proceduralization of online engagement and that institutions accept and support electronic modes of participation.

(Bernd Beckert, ISI)

« »

NETZWERK TA


NETZ- WERK TA

Save the Date: Jahrestreffen 2011

Das Jahrestreffen des Netzwerks Technikfolgen-abschätzung (NTA) wird dieses Jahr am 21. und 22. November 2011 stattfinden. Es ist eine kom-binierte Veranstaltung mit einem Workshop der Arbeitsgruppe „TA und Governance“ geplant. Bitte merken Sie sich das Datum vor.

Auf dem Jahrestreffen selbst wird insbeson-dere über das EU-Projekt PACITA (Parliaments and Civil Society in Technology Assessment; http://www.pacitaproject.eu) berichtet werden, welches sich zum Ziel gesetzt hat, parlamentari-scher TA zu einer weiteren Verbreitung in Euro-pa zu verhelfen. Einige Mitglieder des NTA sind Partner im PACITA-Konsortium.

Die Agenda des Jahrestreffens und des Workshops werden rechtzeitig über die Email-Liste und die Webseite des Netzwerks annon-ciert. Voraussichtlicher Tagungsort ist Berlin.

« »

TA’11 – Tagung des Instituts für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung in Wien

Im Rahmen des Netzwerks TA fand am 20. Juni 2011 die elfte österreichische TA-Konferenz un-ter dem Titel „Partizipation in Technikfragen. Legitime Hoffnung oder bloße Illusion?“ in Wien statt. Die im Call for Papers genannten Fra-Call for Papers genannten Fra- genannten Fra-gen bezogen sich u. a. auf die Legitimation par-tizipativer Verfahren im Beratungsprozess und deren Grenzen, auf die Leistungsfähigkeit parti-zipativer Prozesse und die daraus resultierenden Geltungsansprüche einer „Laienexpertise“ oder auf die Frage, ob mit elektronischen Verfahren

(e-Partizipation) eine bessere Beteiligung von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern realisiert werden kann.

Am Vormittag stellten sich drei Plenarvor-träge diesen Fragen und beleuchteten sie aus un-terschiedlichen Blickwinkeln. Thomas Saretzki (Politologie, Universität Lüneburg) fokussierte auf legitimatorische Aspekte aus der Perspektive der Politikwissenschaften, Lars Klüver (TA, Dan-Dan-ish Board of Technology) rückte den Blick des „Praktikers“ in das Zentrum seiner Überlegungen und Ulrike Felt (STS, Universität Wien) arbeitete schließlich unter dem Titel „Future potential – potential futures“ die normativen und performati-“ die normativen und performati-ven Anteile partizipativer Verfahren heraus.

Nach der Plenarsitzung wurden in insgesamt sechs Sessions à drei Vorträgen einzelne Aspekte partizipativer Verfahren präsentiert und diskutiert. Die Spannweite reichte dabei von der kritischen Reflektion der mit Partizipation verbundenen Ansprüche, über methodische Fragen bis hin zur Betrachtung partizipativer Verfahren im Kontext politischer Kultur und institutioneller Anbindung.

Ein ausführlicher Bericht der Tagung er-scheint in der TATuP 3/2011. Die Folien der Vor-träge können unter http://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ ab-gerufen werden.

Die Möglichkeit, eine Veranstaltung „im Rahmen des Netzwerks TA“ durchzuführen und entsprechend über die NTA-Webseite zu bewer-ben besteht für alle Mitglieder des NTA.

« »

Kontakt

Prof. Dr. Michael DeckerKarlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und System-analyse (ITAS)Postfach 36 40, 76021 KarlsruheTel.: +49 (0) 7 21 / 6 08 - 2 30 07Fax: +49 (0) 7 21 / 6 08 - 2 48 06E-Mail: [email protected]

« »

IMPRESSUM

Herausgeber:Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzungund Systemanalyse (ITAS)Campus NordHermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1D-76344 Eggenstein-LeopoldshafenTel.: +49 (0) 7 21 / 6 08 - 2 68 93Fax: +49 (0) 7 21 / 6 08 - 2 48 06E-Mail: [email protected]

[email protected]: http://www.itas.fzk.de

ISSN 1619-7623

Die Zeitschrift „Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis“ erscheint parallel als gedruckte und elekt-ronische Version. Die elektronische Version findet sich unter: http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/tatup/inhalt.htm

Die Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis erhalten Sie kostenlos bei der Redaktion. Nachdruck mit Quellenangabe gestattet. Belegexemplar erbeten.

Gedruckt auf 100 % Recycling-Papier.

Redaktion:Dr. Peter Hocke-BerglerProf. Dr. Armin GrunwaldConstanze Scherz

Redaktionsbüro:Gabriele Petermann

TATuP-Beiträge können mit Quellenangabe frei nachgedruckt werden. Eine kommerzielle Verwer-tung von TATuP-Beiträgen kann nur nach Absprache mit der Redaktion gestattet werden.

Institut für Technikfolgen- abschätzung und Systemanalyse · Institut für Technikfolgen-...

Documents

Transcript of Institut für Technikfolgen- abschätzung und Systemanalyse · Institut für Technikfolgen-...