The first APAARI Executive Committee meeting in 2013 was held at the new APAARI Secretariat located at the FAO Annex, Larn Luang Road, Bangkok on 15 April, 2013 (10:00-13:00 hrs) under the chairmanship of Dr Simon Hear, Chairman, APAARI and Principal Adviser, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)

Please see Agenda Notes

In Asia, rice and wheat are the two major staple foods ensuring the food security of almost 57 per cent of world’s population and livelihood of 80 per cent of small holder farmers of the world. Recent concerns about food security and food price volatility have highlighted the critical role of cereals for both food and nutrition security of the poor and vulnerable. In Asia, attention has remained focused predominantly on rice as the region produces almost 80 percent of global rice. However, the importance of wheat in Asia – which supports the livelihoods and provides assured income to a large number of poor, small-scale farmers – has largely been overlooked.

World will need around 1090 million tons of wheat by 2050 to meet the growing needs from its current production level of 680 million tons. To meet this demand, developing countries should increase their wheat production substantially and more than 80 per cent of production increase in developing countries should come from vertical expansion. The production target has to be achieved especially when productivity growth in wheat has slowed down and the average productivity of Asia is even lower than global average.

To address above concerns, a regional consultation on “Improving Wheat Productivity in Asia” was jointly organized in Bangkok, Thailand on 26-27 April, 2012 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAAR1), in collaboration with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (C1MMYT), the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and the Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS). The consultation was attended by 53 participants representing national agricultural research systems (NARS), CGIAR Centers, FAO, APAARI, non-governmental organizations, farmer organizations and the private sector. It provided a platform to all the stakeholders to share their knowledge and experiences, learn from lessons, assess future trends and prepare a road map to accelerate the overall production and productivity of wheat, taking into consideration the impacts of climate change and (he declining natural resource base.

The consultation covered five technical sessions: i) strategy for increasing wheat productivity, ii) national/regional wheat scenario, iii) managing wheat diseases, iv) stakeholder dialogue, and v) addressing emerging challenges. In addition, two Working Groups on: a) research priorities and need assessment, and b) development initiative for inclusive growth were held to identify policy, research and development needs. The in-depth discussions helped in bringing out key recommendations to overcome the challenges and enhance wheat production and productivity in the region. We welcome the decision of the consultation to have a Regional Wheat Alliance (RWC) established to promote wheat production in the region through an integrated manner, ensuring required policy framework and e-networking. We firmly believe that this initiative will help in strengthening wheat research and development activities and their effective linkages in the region. This publication includes the recommendations and extended summaries of invited papers presented in the regional consultation. We appreciate the valuable contributions of the speakers and other participants in making this event a success. It is expected that the investment in wheat research and development will receive high priority in future food security agenda at the national, regional and global levels. We hope that the recommendations of this important and rather timely regional consultation will draw attention of policy-makers, administrators, researchers, farmers and other stakeholders alike in implementing them to increase both wheat production and productivity in Asia.

(PDF format, 1218 KB)

The last few years have seen a slow down of growth in agricultural production in several Asia-Pacific countries leading to food shortages and spiralling food prices. The poor and vulnerable sections have been especially hard hit causing the recent surge in hungry and undernourished people.  Under the prevailing conditions, most of the developing countries of the region will not be able to meet the Millennium Development Goals of halving poverty and hunger by 2015. Providing sufficient quality and quantity of food has technical, but also social, political and economic dimensions that require immediate attention. One of the means of addressing the need for increased productivity is the use of new biological options including biotechnologies.

Most countries recognize the significant role of biotechnology in meeting the challenges of food and nutrition security. Among the vast array of biotechnological tools currently under use, GM technology has the potential to increase productivity, profitability and sustainability of farm production systems, including small farm holdings. Since the first farm level cultivation of GM crops in 1996, the global area under these reached 148 million hectares (mha) in 2011 spread over 29 countries.  In India, just 8 years since its first release, Bt cotton area has increased to a staggering 9.4 mha comprising nearly 86% of the total 11 mha under cotton cultivation.  Bt maize in the Philippines, grown for the first time in 2003, covered an area of 0.5 mha in 2010. In China, GM cotton, papaya, tomato, sweet pepper and poplar are being grown over 3.5 mha while approval was granted in 2009 to GM rice and maize.  Several studies made on the performance and impact of GM crops have shown that  farmers, irrespective of their farm size, have benefited through increased yield and reduced pesticide use which converted into  higher profits and  household incomes as well as increased aggregate employment.

While this potential of GM technology is well recognized, strong concerns exist over its likely risks to human health and environment and the extent to which these technologies are accessible and effective solutions for  resource-poor smallholder farmers. It is agreed that application of GM technology must be accompanied by systematic assessment of potential impacts on food and feed safety and safety of environment, including the diversity of flora and fauna and consideration of mechanisms enabling its access without increasing the debt burden and economic risks to farmers. Moreover, GM is not the only pathway available and for which awareness of genomic technologies is required. Many of the underlying scientific skills required relate to genomics-assisted breeding, which has seen greatly increased recent use among the major private companies as public concerns have been raised over GM and has relevance and use for minor crops as well as the major staples. Countries clearly require skills in these areas and wider awareness of the implications of different technologies to be able to obtain full value from crop molecular genomics.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) while acknowledging the potential of biotechnology in meeting critical needs for food, agriculture and health, seeks to ensure the development of appropriate procedures to enhance the safety of biotechnological processes and products.  The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the CBD, to which most of the Asia-Pacific countries are parties, is a legally binding agreement to ensure adequate levels of protection for safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs (Living Modified Organisms) resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effect on human health, and conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

A number of other international instruments contribute to biosafety with respect to GM technology.  The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs of the World Trade Organization (WTO) allows governments to act on trade in order to protect human, animal and plant life or health.  Three standard-setting bodies recognized under the WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO-SPS Agreement), namely the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) address different aspects of biosafety, including environmental and food safety.

There are also legitimate concerns to consider regarding Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and equitable access. Conventions, agreements and their associated instruments have been designed to sustain the public goods dimensions of these innovations, including for example the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), but there are also underlying practical and communication issues regarding achieving informed access to new technologies for resource-poor farmers in objective ways whereby they can have clear understanding of the relative merits, advantages and disadvantages of alternative ways to address their challenges, in order to inform their decision making

In conformity with their national and international obligations, several Asia-Pacific countries have put in place legislative measures to manage the potential risks associated with GM technology. The regulatory systems vary across countries; some have developed entirely new GM specific biosafety systems while others have modified existing regulations to address biosafety issues. The legal instruments used for the purpose have been new or modified laws, acts, decrees, guidelines and rules. Alongside, administrative systems and infrastructure have been developed to operationalize the legal instruments. Adopting  one or the other approach, a number of countries have currently in place regulations on development, contained use, environmental release, commercialization and import of GM crops and products. Several other countries have their biosafety regulations at drafting or implementation stages. However, there is little conformity among national regulations or consistency among national capabilities to implement them, which become impediments to rapid diffusion of useful technologies.

Asia-Pacific Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology (APCoAB), a program of the Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) has been promoting appropriate use of agricultural biotechnologies to increase agricultural productivity and incomes of farmers in the Asia-Pacific region. It serves as a forum for stakeholders to address common issues of research, development and commercialization of agricultural biotechnology in the region.   In 2006, APCoAB organized a “Workshop on Biosafety Regulations and the need for harmonizing them in the Asia-Pacific Region” in which CBD Biosafety National Focal Points of 12 countries of the region and other technical experts participated.  The objective was to identify areas of regulatory harmonization so as to facilitate sharing of benefits of the technology by farmers across the region. A unanimous recommendation of the workshop was to collate information on biosafety regulations, which would help in taking informed decisions regarding specific areas and modalities of harmonization. Accordingly, a publication entitled “Biosafety Regulations of Asia-Pacific Countries” was brought out by APCoAB in 2008 with the support of FAO which detailed biosafety regulations existing in 39 countries of Asia and the Pacific. The publication is available at www.apcoab.org.

Since the publication of this compilation, new developments have taken place in a number of Asia-Pacific countries with respect to framing and implementation of biosafety regulations. Besides, new scientific knowledge and tools have been developed that address some of the safety concerns related to GM products. It is thus proposed to organize a dialogue involving technical experts in biotechnology, biosafety and international regulations; national biosafety regulators; and include the perspectives of farmers and other stakeholders to share advanced knowledge and information on biosafety and related issues and identify areas of regional and sub-regional cooperation in the field of biosafety.The workshop will examine the extent to which this awareness has improved and has resulted in harmonization among countries or other impacts or has benefited the research sector in their work. Also, how the information has been   communicated with farmers, consumers, environmentalists and  other interested parties and what are the result of this communication.

The Stakeholders’ Dialogue on Biosafety Regulations in the Asia-Pacific Region organized by APCoAB-APAARI and being held in Bangkok, Thailand on 16 – 17 April 2013, will bring together national and international policy makers, managers, researchers and communicators on biotechnology and biosafety; private sector stakeholder; farmer groups and consumers to deliberate on the above issues with particular reference to developing countries of the Asia-Pacific.

Expected Outputs

i) Knowledge shared on scientific advances in the field of biosafety regulations and the human, environmental and economic risks and benefits of GM technologies, including the determination of who and by what mechanisms biosafety guidelines have been shared with,  how effectively they reached and impacted different stakeholders, especially farmers and civil society and the extent to which they have been shared and used  inter-regionally;

ii) Information on new developments in genomic technologies and national and international biosafety regulations shared among diverse stakeholders, including technical experts, farmers and concerned civil society groups, with plan and specific responsibilities agreed for wider sharing of new understanding of the implications of genomic technologies of all forms, to help inform the decision making processes of all stakeholders, in light of their various perspectives and concerns and drawing on the learning from previous experiences;

iii) Priority areas of regional and sub-regional cooperation required in biosafety identified in order to accelerate the safe use and equitable accessibility of GM or genomic-based biotechnologies for the benefit of small holder farmers and practical plan, including new capacities required, developed for this to be addressed through commitments from national stakeholders of all forms.

Program

The program is proposed to be organized into four main sections: i) Key note presentations on research, management and policy issues of agricultural biotechnology, biosafety, genomics, communication and other global issues; ii) National status of biosafety regulations, implementation and communication, iii) groups discussions on key national and regional issues, and v) plenary discussion and recommendations. The proceedings of the Expert Consultation will be published by APAARI for wide circulation among all concerned.

Number of Participants

30-40, representing APAARI member NARS, biosafety focal points, experts on biosafety and related issues and farmer groups.

Venue

Royal Princess Larn Luang Hotel, Bangkok.

Download : Tentative Program on Statkeholders\' Dialogue on Biosafety Regulations in the Asia-Pacific Region (70)

Dr. S. Ayyappan, in his Chairman’s address, appreciated the remarkable progress made by APAARI in collaboration with its member organizations and with the support of GFAR, FAO, ACIAR, COA, and CG Centers. He mentioned that APAARI, through regional and inter-regional partnerships with FAO, GFAR, IFPRI, ASTI and SPC, organized several collaborative activities. ICAR was privileged to co-organize with APAARI the Global Conference on Women in Agriculture. He felt confident that APAARI would strive to fulfill its commitment of assisting NARS to reap the benefits of AR4D in the region. On behalf of APAARI, he also appreciated the support of its members and strong partnership of GFAR, FAO and CG Centers in effectively implementing its programs.

Dr. Paroda presented the action taken report based on the recommendations of the previous Executive Committee Meeting and the progress made during the period. He mentioned that four expert consultations/workshops/dialogues on diverse topics of regional importance were organized during the period under report. He further mentioned that several publications were brought out and also posted on APAARI/APCoAB websites. He also emphasized that regional workshops/consultations are planned to be organized on: i) climate-smart agriculture, ii) improving wheat productivity, iii) policy dialogues on need assessment on AR4D in Bangladesh, India and Nepal, and iv) global conference on women in agriculture. He informed that Indian Agricultural Universities Association (IAUA) has upgraded its membership to become an Associate Member.

The total number of APAARI members now stands at 56 (Regular members-20, Associate members-17, Affiliate members-11, Reciprocal members-8).

The Audited Accounts for the period January – December 2011, the statement of Assets and Liabilities and Certificate of Auditor and Bank Statements were scrutinized and approved unanimously. The Executive Committee members appreciated efficient management of accounts. APAARI Budget for 2012 was also reviewd by the Executive Committee and approved. The Executive Committee decided that the post of Executive Secretary could be announced and circulated widely to invite applications by 31 July, 2012.

During the discussions, the following suggestions and comments emerged:

a) Dr. Simon Hearn emphasized the need for greater emphasis on impact assessment studies. He desired to devise ways and means to ensure high impact from returns on R&D investments and suggested for organizing workshops on impact assessment.

b) Dr. S. Ayyappan highlighted the need for investing more on research and the policies and also that the technologies should be outscaled. He also emphasized that the activities on animal and fish programs need to be enhanced.

c) Dr. Abd. Shukor Abd. Rahman mentioned that issues relating to poverty, lack of food, nutrition security and nutritional imbalance, and research on underutilized crops need to be addressed adequately in the research and development agenda.

d) Dr. Raj Paroda emphasized particularly the need to focus on: (i) characterization, conservation and use of genetic resources, (ii) in situ conservation and (iii), underutilized crops

e) Dr. Mark Holderness suggested that there should be greater flexibility for maintaining the reserve fund, as is done in case of GFAR.

f) Dr. Raj Paroda clarified that flexibility with GFAR is due to good donor support where as the APAARI funds are mainly based on membership fee which does not vary much. Hence, the reserve of US $ one million is a self-imposed restriction agreed by the members for future sustainability of APAARI.

g)Dr. Tashi Samdup asked about the source of funding to undertake the activities proposed in APAARI Work Plan for 2012. Dr. Raj Paroda clarified that GFAR support will be used for this purpose. Also for organizing the GAM, there is a provision that 10 members are supported by the host country. Moreover, efforts will be made to seek co-sponsorship for proposed activities and additional funding is expected from GFAR for the second half of 2012.

h) Dr. Simon Hearn mentioned that APAARI is closely working with CRPs and enquired whether APAARI’s interaction with CG Centers is improving. Dr. Raj Paroda clarified that APAARI’s interaction is invariably good with many CRPs, while it is not so with others.

The Chairman in his concluding remarks summarized the decisions taken in the meeting. He reiterated the need to implement the decisions expeditiously by the member organizations and APAARI secretariat. He also suggested to examine the issue of APAARI’s legal status in the host country. He thanked all the members for their active participation and valuable contribution and also appreciated the significant progress made by APAARI. He especially thanked Dr. Paroda for ably spearheading the implementation of planned activities of APAARI and raising the financial status as well as image of APAARI. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.

The workshop was attended by 77 participants, representing chiefs of agricultural research organizations of south and south-east Asian countries, negotiators from the south and south-east Asian countries responsible for discussion on adaptation and mitigation in agriculture in UNFCC, chiefs of the meteorology departments of south and south-east Asian countries, regional and global agriculture and climate change experts, CGIAR climate change scientists and representatives of regional and global development organizations.

The workshop was organized with the following objectives: i) review the best practices and technologies being used to make agriculture climate-smart, ii) review the latest knowledge of impacts of climate change on agriculture, iii) identify gaps in solutions available and prioritize research and development needed to fill these gaps, and iv) agree on a plan to address gaps and link knowledge with policy actions at the local/national/regional level to make agriculture climate-smart. The workshop was structured in different technical sessions: i) climate services to agriculture, adaptation to progressive climate change and mitigation in agriculture, ii) agriculture in UNFCCC, iii) adaptation to climate change, iv) mitigation in agriculture, v) country reports on current state of research and development on climate-smart agriculture, vi) adapting to current weather variability and knowledge to action and policies for climate smart agriculture, vii) adapting to current weather variability, and  viii) knowledge to action and policies for climate-smart agriculture.

Key priorities and recommendations

• Development of adaptation strategies to current weather variability and long-term climate change with co-benefits in mitigation including information and communication technologies, climate models and decision support systems for seasonal forecasts, refining existing technologies for insect-pest and disease management, and breeding multi-stress tolerant varieties of crops, livestock and fish.

• Renewed focus on conservation and management of resources including water, soil, nutrient, energy and germplasm (including microbial diversity).

• Promotion of regional cooperation including regional learning platforms for transfer of technologies and knowledge of climate resilient agriculture.

• Identification of best practices for mitigation of greenhouse gases from agriculture at local, national and regional scales including alternative wetting and drying in rice, diversification, alternate feeding strategies for livestock, grazing land management, and water land use and crop residue management.

• Improvement in credibility, accuracy, timeliness, spatial resolution and relevance of weather forecast systems at short- and medium term time scales. This should be accompanied with improved coordination and knowledge sharing among climate services and agro-meteorological advisory providers including data sharing, and documenting and evaluating case studies of good practices.

• Investment in capacity building of agriculture sector to respond to advanced information about weather events and seasonal climate fluctuations through advisory systems, delivery mechanisms, training, and favourable policies.

• Strengthening extension services including addressing gender issues and opportunities, and building capacity of tomorrow’s farmers through climate-smart field schools, participatory videos, social media and community radio featuring local content and demonstrations, roving seminars, training of trainers, field demonstrations, and private sector participation.

• Documenting innovative institutional arrangements that promote climate-smart agriculture such as pricing for environmental services, carbon payments, index-based insurance, and community management of resources and risks.

• Assessment and documentation of existing knowledge of climate smart agriculture including constraints to adoption, indigenous knowledge, impacts, benefits, costs and productivity gains, and lessons where collaborations (public-public and public-private) are working.

• Assessment of policies in support of climate-smart agriculture including water pricing, fertilizer pricing and subsidies, irrigation, seed, risk transfer (insurance) and disaster relief.

Download the full Proceedings

GCARD2 was a truly global event: with 658 participants in Uruguay from 101 countries, including Ministers from the region and with over 1,000 people joining us on-line, all working to promote the agricultural research for development changes we all wish to see. We came together as representatives of a wide range of organizations involved, across the spectrum from farmers to upstream research.

Twenty GFAR-supported pre-conference sessions enabled organizations such as the CGIAR, Regional Fora and FAO to discuss their programmes in more detail with others involved and shape their inputs to the conference itself.

The conference discussions built from your own actions and commitments at all levels: an inspiring cast of over 220 speakers from all sectors and regions presented their work and its implications, enabling meaningful discussions on 20 themes of global importance. Sessions addressed diverse perspectives and realities around delivering change in these key agendas. The parallel sessions built from existing programmes, finding synergies and connections that can now come together to lead to large-scale and tangible outcomes, owned by all involved.

The GCARD2 has also specifically explored the practical implications of partnership and pathways to impact around the themes addressed by the new CGIAR Research Programmes, helping CRP leaders to now reshape their programmes to meet the needs and expectations of partners.  This has led to a range of new commitments to partnership, capacity development and foresight in the CGIAR, as voiced by Frank Rijsberman, CGIAR Consortium CEO.

Through the GCARD2 we have, among others:

• Considered how AR4D systems can align with major development policies such as those of national Governments of the G8 and G20 and the establishment of post-2015 development goals.
• Repositioned women farmers’ needs firmly at the centre of AR4D processes.
• Directly engaged the voices of youth into consideration of the issues involved.
• Developed and agreed collective actions that will bring together diverse foresight analyses, to better understand future needs and priorities and help us all to shape the future we desire, particularly exploring the future for smallholder farming.
• Brought a range of innovative agricultural research-for-development agendas to centre stage: household nutrition, gender-based needs, attracting young people into agriculture, meeting the needs of communities shattered by protracted crises, linking farmers to markets, adapting to climate change impacts and fostering community-centred innovation were all addressed as key agendas alongside actions generating productive, sustainable and resilient agricultural production systems.
• Set out what is required for solid actions to track and stimulate investments and returns and make these more effective and comprehensive, linking public, private and civil mechanisms.
• Agreed practical concerted actions to develop required capacities at national, regional and global levels, providing a launch pad for a wide range of new partnerships and collective actions to deliver change, including the CRPs, the Tropical Agriculture Platform of FAO and partners, the Global Confederation of Higher Education Associations for the Agricultural and Life Sciences, the Gender in Agriculture Partnership and the New Extensionist focus of GFRAS.
• Met desired expectations of the Conference in a very inclusive and cost effective way.

The GCARD was an exciting event with a strong focus on practical action. From the survey conducted at the conference end: 80% of respondents found the sessions to have been either Useful or Very Useful to your work, while 79% felt that the knowledge you have acquired is likely to change the design or implementation of your AR4D programmes and activities, while as many also felt that the GCARD would be likely to change your approach to existing or new partnerships in AR4D programmes and activities.

To quote William Dar, ICRISAT Director General: “GCARD2 was invigorating. But it made clear that much hard work lies ahead. GFAR Chair Dr. Monty Jones urged us to unite around the six-point plan of the GCARD Road Map: inclusive priority-setting, equal partnerships, increased investment, improved capacities, improved development impacts, and better communication of achievements. It was agreed that we all share responsibility and accountability for executing towards those targets.  We embrace that challenge, because we believe that GCARD has got it right. Inclusive and innovative partnerships, guided by well-informed foresight, will illuminate the road ahead. Let’s strengthen our partnerships to accelerate the engine of development for smallholders.”

And Robert Carlson, President of the World Farmers’ Organisation: “I would like to express to you my highest satisfaction and gratitude for having invited WFO to the GCARD 2012. The level of discussions and results achieved over the entire event were remarkable. I am also particularly glad to notice that GCARD’s conclusive remarks focused on farmers, women, youth and extension as main partners to work with for the future challenges and activities of GCARD.”

GFAR Secretariat looks forward to working with all of you to help turn your aims and commitments into solid realities over the period to GCARD3.

More information is available here.

For full details on GCARD2, visit: http://www.egfar.org/