98 | IAASTD Global Report

governgeographical origin of products, along with the notion of "terroir", with the result that farmers and specialized breeders are reviving old crop varieties (BĂ©rard and Marchenay, 1995; Bonneuil and Demeulenaere, 2007). The development of organic and sustainable food production systems has created additional challenges, e.g., organic production must use seeds that have been produced in organic conditions. Instead of working on larger domains of breeding for conventional agriculture, breeders select for specific adaptability to specific environments and practices. All these trends challenge the classical ways of evaluating varieties. Since the multifactor and multisite experimentation, backed by statistical analysis is more difficult to perform, new ways of assessing varieties and seeds are needed, e.g., simulation modeling (Barbottin et al., 2006). The key conclusion is that knowledge must be shared among different actors, including farmers, users and consumers. The overall globalization of markets is increasingly pushing this issue in developing countries that seek to cater to the needs of specific market niches in industrialized countries. The need for a renewed design with distribution of diverse roles

Germplasm management over the last 150 years has been characterized by standardization and scale of economies. This has been paramount to the rapid spread and success of widely adapted germplasm. It resulted in seed management becoming largely separate from agricultural and cultural systems, with a decline in the number and diversity of actors actively engaged in seed systems. Moreover, the tightening of IPR, access and benefit sharing laws and other forms of controls over genetic resources weakened exchange of genetic resources among breeders. Industrial strategies have been based on strengthened IP arrangements; attempts to balance IPRs with farmers, industry and the public sector has added to hyper-ownership issues. Consolidation of the seed industry has facilitated the spread of rapid technological advances, but not always to the benefit of the poor. The history of germplasm management has revealed shortcomings, specifically in social and ecological arenas.

     Asymmetries in access to germplasm and benefit sharing have increased vulnerabilities of the poor. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is the first major international policy that attempts to proactively address the situation by creating a form of international germplasm exchange and research commons. Other initiatives such as Public-Sector Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA) aim to create a collective public IPR asset database to allow the public sector to continue to develop public good germplasm. Public-private partnerships could lead to pro-poor advances if current challenges, such as minimization of risks of collaboration, are tackled. This assessment questions the current separation between researchers and farmers and calls for an increased role of user's knowledge, as exemplified in participatory plant breeding. Local and diverse arrangements have been successful at meeting development and sustainability goals for germplasm management. These arrangements will be important for using germplasm to respond to the uncertainties of the future.


2.3.2 Pest management

Multiple approaches to pest management have emerged in different places during different periods in history. Each has been upheld by distinctive organizational arrangements reflecting cultural values, societal norms and political and economic priorities of their time and place. Widely differing interpretations exist that make competing claims regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the range of options; other narratives may describe differently the identification and implementation of sustainable solutions in pest management. The following narrative emerged from analysis of publications of UN agencies, the World Bank, the CGIAR, universities, national IPM programs in numerous countries, and the work of physical and social scientists, researchers, private sector actors including agrochemical companies, and NGOs actively involved on the ground in pest and pesticide management programs./p> Chemical control

Emergence of chemical control. Chemical control had its roots in US and German chemical research before and after both World Wars and was driven by formal interagency collaboration between military and public sector chemists and entomologists (Russell, 2001). The emphasis on crop protection and risk minimization supported pest control, rather than management and pest eradication using synthetic chemicals (Perkins, 1982; Russell, 2001). The approach underpinned the priorities of industrial countries: maximizing food and fiber production, increasing efficiency and releasing labor to other economic sectors. Research and extension efforts directed at biological, cultural and mechanical management of risk dropped sharply at this time (Perkins, 1982; Lighthall, 1995; Shennan et al., 2005). The pesticide industry grew rapidly, initially financed through government contracts and then loans, a practice that necessitated constant product innovation and marketing to repay debts (Perkins, 1982). Significant concentration has occurred (DFID, 2004; UNCTAD, 2006); by 2005, the top six multinational pesticide corporations accounted for 75% of the US$29,566 million global pesticide market (Agrow World Crop Protection News, 2005; ETC, 2005).

     National and global concerns over food security drove the further intensification of agricultural production and adoption of synthetic chemical pesticides across much of Asia and Latin America (Rosset, 2000). The CGIAR played a pivotal role in the Green Revolution that carried synthetic chemicals into widespread use in irrigated systems (see 2.1). Multilateral and bilateral donor and development agencies such as the World Bank, USAID and JICA provided direct or subsidized supplies of synthetic pesticides, sometimes tying agricultural credit to adoption of input packages inclusive of these chemicals (Holl et al., 1990; Hammond and McGowan, 1992; Jain, 1992; Korten, 1995; Clapp, 1997; Ishii-Eiteman and Ardhianie, 2002; USAID, 2004). Direct state intervention in some cases enforced pest control through calendar spraying regimes or established pesticide distribution systems to ensure product use (Meir and Williamson, 2005). Farmers received pest control advice from pesticide sellers and extension agents operating under T&V and similar state-directed systems. In some cases, governgeographical