Impacts of AKST on Development and Sustainability Goals | 195

people (small-scale farmers, landless people, seasonally mobile populations, women and the poorest) (Fan et al., 2000; Hazell and Haddad, 2001; Sayer and Campbell, 2001). While the Green Revolution yielded large production gains in some commodity crops, basic grains and livestock, it was often at the expense of environmental degradation (Pingali and Rosegrant, 1994). Elsewhere, for example, in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in India, it benefited the poor, including some landless laborers, reducing inequality and improving economic opportunities (Hazell and Ramasamy, 1991; Sharma and Poleman, 1993). Intensive agricultural development, particularly in Europe, led to oversupply, sanitary problems affecting livestock production and ecological issues, while the concentration of production caused economic and social decline in marginal areas (Hervieu and Viard, 1996).

Farmers have not always benefited from crop breeding.

Goals
N, H, L, S
Certainty
B
Range of Impacts
0 to +3
Scale
G, R, N, L
Specificity
Widespread

The initial success of the Green Revolution was a result of its focus on more favorable irrigated rice and wheat systems (Huang et al., 2002), but crop varieties bred for responsiveness to such conditions were less successful when the focus shifted to more marginal and variable environments (Smale et al., 1998; Witcombe et al., 2001). Although the adoption of "modern" varieties has been widespread (up to 70% in some crops) (Evenson and Gollin, 2003ab), farmers in more marginal areas have not always benefited from the latest research on pest/disease resistance and yield (Witcombe, 1999; Witcombe et al., 2001). Varieties bred on research stations have not always been well adapted to local conditions and preferences; nor for acceptable quality, utility for multipurpose uses; or acceptable postharvest characteristics (e.g., easy to thresh/process, good taste, good storability). Consequently, comparatively few of the hundreds of rice varieties released in India are grown by farmers (Witcombe et al., 1998) while some traditional varieties, e.g., a peanut variety grown in southern India, remain popular (Bantilan et al., 2003). Some new and potentially better modern varieties have failed to reach farmers due to the inefficiency of the varietal release and seed multiplication system (Witcombe et al., 1988). Participatory approaches can help overcome this inefficiency (Uphoff, 2002).

Livestock are important for rural livelihoods, but livestock technologies have made only a limited contribution to improving rural livelihoods.

Goals
N, H, L, E,
S, D
Certainty
C
Range of Impacts
+1 to +3
Scale
R, N, L
Specificity
New AKST more positive in
industrialized countries.

Livestock are of greater importance to poor people and the landless than those with higher incomes (Delgado et al., 1999). Livestock management in difficult environments is knowledge-intensive and integrated into complex social and natural resource management systems. In general, small-scale farmers have largely relied on traditional and local knowledge to sustain their livestock production systems (Falvey and Chantalakhana, 1999). Of an estimated

 

600 million livestock keepers globally, most of whom are in mixed rainfed systems, 430 million are resource poor and concentrated in SSA and south Asia (Heffernan et al., 2005). The important developments in livestock technologies (feed technologies in intensive livestock production systems; artificial insemination; embryo transfer, etc.) are more widely used in the industrialized world, as there are constraints to applying these technologies in developing countries (Madan, 2005). Thus, the rapid growth in consumption of livestock products in developing countries has been due to increased numbers, rather than increased productivity (Delgado et al., 1999). Vaccination against major animal diseases has been successful in developing countries, e.g., rinderpest in Africa and Newcastle disease in Asia. In Africa, net annual economic benefit attributed to the elimination of rinderpest has been valued at US$1 billion (http://www-naweb.iaea .org/nafa/aph/stories/2005-rinderpest-eradication.html). Likewise, heat stable vaccination against Newcastle disease has led to improved village poultry production in Indonesia and Malaysia, with returns equivalent of US$1.3 million and $2.15 million respectively. The latter success was associated with understanding of the social implications and situation at village level, well developed extension packages, government leadership, and training workshops for senior policy administrators, laboratory staff and livestock officers (http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/207692/7_1_1_cases .PDF). Tsetse fly eradication projects have had some success, especially where farmer-based and demand-driven approaches to control are adopted and where cohesive groups can function as the basis for collective action (Dransfield et al., 2001). Positive impacts of livestock research for poor producers have occurred through the introduction of new institutional forms, such as dairy cooperatives in India and with a supportive national policy and legislative environment. Nevertheless, many livestock projects have not had satisfactory long-term effects on the livelihoods of the poor (LID, 1999). In general, the uptake and impact of livestock technologies in developing countries is often constrained by the lack of a poverty reduction focus, their higher financial and labor demands, an overly narrow technical focus, inappropriate technologies, failure to take into account the social context of production, patterns of ownership and local knowledge and weak private sector development (Livestock in Development, 1999), or because wealthier farmers or herders captured the benefits (Heffernan et al., 2005).

Social and economic impacts of GMOs depend on the socioeconomic and institutional circumstances of the country of introduction.

Goals
L, E, S, D
Certainty
C E
Range of Impacts
-3 to +2
Scale
R, N, N
Specificity
Mainly in large scale farms in
industrialized countries

There have been positive farm level economic benefits from GMOs for large scale producers, but less evidence of positive impact for small producers in developing countries. The adoption of the commercially available GM commodity crops (over 90% of global area planted) has mostly occurred in large scale industrial, chemical intensive agricultural systems in North and South America (95.2% of production), with small areas in India and China (James, 2006), and the