IFSA 2004 Workshop 5 Combined micro-economic and ecological assessment tools for sustainable rural development in the context of Farming Systems Analysis and Multifunctionality Concept of Agriculture

IFSA 2004 Workshop 5 Scope I 9 papers were presented, covering: –Innovation and the role of science –Impact of policy instruments –Evaluation of production costs of externalities (environmental goods,...) –Evaluation of environmental impacts of agriculture Matter flows and biodiversity Versus improvement of policies Versus improvement of production systems

IFSA 2004 Workshop 5 Scope II Policy instruments –Often not effective and not efficient Combined micro-economic – ecological models –4 approaches, more or less integrated 1 directed versus farmers as end users 3 versus definition or evaluation of policies Application of results in decision making ? –Expected –But no direct links

IFSA 2004 Workshop 5 Final discussion Application of the socio-technical root system An exercise facilitated by Cees Leeuwis Statements are relative

IFSA 2004 Workshop 5 The methodology of the socio-technical root system ( a tool for expert rounds ) 1.Identification of a core problem 2.Identify stakeholder 3.Specify technical and social practices 4.Identify reasons for current practices 5.Identify possiblities for change

IFSA 2004 Workshop 5 Core problem Two core problems, depending on the specific objectives of agricultural research: Limited uptake or use of models and research results by decision makers: 1. by farmers and 2. by policy makers

IFSA 2004 Workshop 5 Analysis of stakeholders, actions and reasons for action

IFSA 2004 Workshop 5 Stakeholders a.Policy-makers (regional and others) b.Bureaucrats (implementers) c.Scientists d.Research Funding Agencies e.Extension services (public and private) f.Farmers

IFSA 2004 Workshop 5 Activities of stakeholders I Bureaucrats (implementers) –Act as if they have no influence Policy-makers (regional and others) –Decisions depend more on budgets and popular policy issues than scientific reasoning (non-scientific criteria). –Unclarity about roles / weighing of interests –Not enough linkages between policy-makers, bureaucrats, and scientist (different time horizon and spatial orientation). Scientists –Tend not to involve stakeholders in the problem solving process. –Need simplifications and generalisations. Tend to focus on isolated problems within their own research area (reductionism) –Don’t question their own scientific methods and goals.

IFSA 2004 Workshop 5 Activities of stakeholders II Research Funding Agencies: –Don’t fund dissemination. –Don’t know the practical problems of stakeholders. –Want clearly defined outputs. Extension (public and private): Farmers: –Don’t trust models. –Need a multicriteria evaluation, adapted to their own very specific situation.

IFSA 2004 Workshop 5 General conclusion Scientist have models that allow all sort of answers But –Not at the right time for the right problem –Not specific enough for the problem owner

IFSA 2004 Workshop 5 Solutions More communication with stakeholders As funding agencies want defined outputs, communication should be institutionalized and regular interaction should be organized by scientists Change the system of scientific merits and evaluation and develop clear criteria for good inter- and trans-disciplinary work More continuity in model development Focus on knowledge rather than models Focus on the process not the goal Forget about reports