Previous Return to table of contents   |   Search Reports Next
« Back to weltagrarbericht.de

Looking into the Future for Knowledge, Science and Technology and AKST | 201

and sustainability assessments are carried out on the impact of land-use changes and features of production and food systems, but the emphasis is on direct communication and feedback from local communities and ecosystems.
     Local and regional markets that are being developed give special attention to energy-efficient logistical arrange­ments. Different forms of community-supported agriculture, with shared risk and labor between producers and consum­ers, food circles, farmers' markets and direct sales flourish besides the horizontally integrated production-trade-con­sumption chains. The use of fossil energy for transportation is reduced accordingly and the added value of the food chain is kept in the region. Externalities are internalized, but that does not only depend on public regulation, taxation and economic incentives with regional variation. An important part of internalization depends on the proximity of different actors, mutual trust and social capital, and thus on direct communication and feedback from the local socioecological context. Local labels embracing the whole chain are being successfully introduced, and regional marketing ensures an adequate sales level.

 

5.6.2 Towards options for action
Choices about agricultural knowledge, science and technol­ogy (AKST) relate to paradigms, investment, governance, policy and other ways to influence the behavior of produc­ers, consumers and the rest of the food chain actors. They will have powerful impacts on which development and sus­tainability goals are achieved and where, both globally and within NAE. It is unlikely that all development and sustain­ability goals can be achieved in any of these futures.
     Outlining these four normative agricultural innovation systems before proposing options for actions should help decision makers to make coherent choices. As Seneca wrote "There is no favorable wind for the person who does not know where he wants to go." Knowledge about ongoing trends, uncertainties and possible AKST systems should help decision makers to choose among options for actions presented in chapter 6. Appropriate AKST investments and policies will require an appropriate mix of strategies that are in line with the potentials and constraints of different NAE regions and countries, but they must also address the broader changes taking place.

References

Adger, W N., N.W. Arnell, and E. Tompkins.
2005. Successful adaptation to climate
change across scales. Global Environ. Change
15(2):77-86.
Akrich, M., and R. Miller. 2007. The future of
key actors in the European research area:
Synthesis paper. Technology Foresight Group,
DG Research, European Commission, EU
22961 EN.
Alegre, H., W. Hirner, J.M. Baptista, and
R. Parena. 2000. Performance indicators
for water supply services. Manual of Best
Practice Ser., IWA Publ., London.
Alston, J.M., P.G. Pardey, and V.H. Smith.
1998. Financing agricultural R&D in rich
countries: What's happening and why? Aust.
J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 42(1):51-82.
Alston, J.M., M.C. Marra, P.G. Pardey, and
T.J. Wyatt. 2000. Research returns redux: A
meta-analysis of the returns to agricultural
R&D. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.
44(2):185.
Amin, A., and P. Cohendet. 2004. Architectures
of knowledge: Firms, capabilities, and
communities. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
Anania, G., 2006. An assessment of the major
driving forces in the area of "economy and
trade" which will contribute to shape the
future of agriculture in Europe. Short Report
to the SCAR Expert Working Group/EU
Commission. Foresighting in the field of
agricultural research in Europe. EU, Brussels.
Aoki, M. 2001. Toward a comparative institutional
analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Arbatova, N. 2007. Russia-EU beyond 2007.
Russian domestic debates. Russie.Nei.Visions
No. 20. IFRI Russia/NIS Center.

 

Ashley, R., and A. Cashman. 2006. The Impacts
of change on the long-term future demand
for water sector infrastructure. Infrastructure
to 2030: Telecom, land transport, water and
electricity. OECD, Paris.
Atkinson, R.C., R.N. Beachy, G. Conway,
F.A. Cordova, M.A. Fox, Holbrook, et
al. 2003. Public sector collaboration for
agricultural IP management. Science 301:174-
175.
Bainbridge, W.S., and M. Roco (ed). 2006.
Managing nano-bio-info-cogno innovations.
Converging technologies in society.
NSF. Available at http://www.wtec.org/
ConvergingTechnologies/3/NBIC3_report.pdf.
BANR. 2002. Publicly funded agricultural
research and the changing structure of
US Agriculture Board on Agriculture and
Natural Resources. Committee to review the
role of publicly funded agricultural research
on the structure of US agriculture. National
Res. Council, Washington, DC.
Batjes, N.H. 2000. Soil degradation status and
vulnerability assessment for Central and
Eastern Europe—Preliminary Results of the
SOVEUR Project. Proc. Concluding workshop.
Busteni. Report 2000/04. FAO, Rome.
Bauer, M.W., and G. Gaskell (ed). 2002.
Biotechnology: The making of a global
controversy. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge.
Bibel, W. 2005. Information technology.
Background paper for the European
Commission "Key Technologies" Expert
Group. DG Research, EC, Brussels.
Birt, C. 2007. A CAP on health? The impact
of the EU Common Agricultural Policy on

 

public health. Faculty of Public Health,
London.
Björklund, J., K.E. Limburg, and T. Rydberg.
1999. Impact of production intensity on
the ability of the agricultural landscape to
generate ecosystem services: an example from
Sweden. Ecol. Econ. 29(2):269-291.
Björklund, S. 2004. Ecosystem services in an
agricultural context. p. 21-24. In
G. Agerlid (ed), Ecosystem services in
European agriculture—theory and practice.
Swedish Acad. Agric. Forestry 143:1.
BMBF. 2003. Futur: Der deutsche
Forschungsdialog. Eine erste Bilanz.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und
Forschung. Bonn, Germany.
Botkin, J.W., M. Elmandjra, and M. Malitza.
1979. No limits to learning: Bridging the
human gap. A report to the Club of Rome.
A. Wheaton and Co., Exeter.
Bouma, J., J. Stoorvogel, R. Quiroz, S. Staal,
M. Herrero, W. Immerzeel, et al. 2007.
Ecoregional research for development. Adv.
Agron. 93:257-311.
Boussard, J.M., F. Gérard, M.G. Piketty,
M. Ayouz, and T. Voituriez. 2006.
Endogenous risk and long run effects of
liberalization in a global analysis framework.
Econ. Modelling 23:457-475.
Bouwman, A.F., T. Kram, and K.K. Goldewijk
(ed). 2006. Integrated modelling of global
environmental change: An overview of
IMAGE 2.4. Rep. 500110002. MNP,
Netherlands.
Braun, J., M.W. Rosegrant, R. Pandya-Lorch,
M.J. Cohen, S.A. Cline, M.A. Brown, and
M.S. Bos. 2005. New risks and opportunities
Previous Return to table of contents   |   Search Reports Next
« Back to weltagrarbericht.de