At the beginning of the quarter, I wrote that Development = sharing knowledge to raise other peoples' standards of living, noting

that it was key whether the knowledge-holder or the people to be helped set the parameters of development. Having studied the question for the past nine weeks, I now define it as the systemic change of a peoples' political, economic, social, & agricultural infrastructures, ostensibly to improve their quality of life. Historically, development has been carried out to the benefit of the countries and institutions pursuing it rather than the people it claimed to help. It is ambiguous whether development failed to help because it was not actually intended to or because it was misguided; either way, poverty and hunger have increased across the globe, due in large part to development. What has been the historical form of development? -goals: industrialization, reduction of farming population, market orientation -means: loans, foreign investment, Green Revolution---increased yields, food aid (urban poor > rural poor), encouragement of cash crops -effect: increased poverty and decreased ability to feed themselves Why hasn't this model reduced poverty or hunger? -doesn't take into account the special circumstances (preexisting capital, strong agricultural base) that allowed the US and Europe to industrialize -imposes debt, foreign ownership burdens, so countries don't realize profits--->strongest indication that development is not for the countries' benefit -too many countries industrializing/growing crops for export at once (since all are undergoing development at once), depressing prices -imposing an unprotected free market while the US dumps subsidised grains -green revolution requires higher and higher inputs, bankrupting farmers and soils How does the IAASTD, and to some extent AGRA, differ from this model? -actual encouragement of smallholders and domestic production -focus on locally adapted models/seeds -acknowledgement of scarce resources (esp. water) in designing solutions -philanthropic investment---which necessitates investment in the ability of the country to help itself in the future (education, agroecological approaches, participatory breeding). &&&&this is a very important difference, since limited funds and an inability to profit align their goals/methods with the impoverished people they are helping. ((might not be the case with AGRA)) How can the two be reconciled? -Both can share a focus on participatory breeding -Both acknowledge the need for agroecological solutions What differences are there? -AGRA is focused more on increasing yield and less on the environmental and cultural aspects of agriculture -AGRA doesn't acknowledge the inability of small farmers to finance the infrastructures necessary for market oriented production or to pay for the fertilizer/water necessary for hgih-yielding varieties -AGRA is an actual development project, while IAASTD is theoretical. AGRA has actual backers and individual ideologies which tend towards industrial agriculture and biotechnology, even those these are probably not the ideal solutions. -AGRA has to work within the US ag framework, so cannot just suggest agroecology or local production and not the chemical ag and exports that benefit the US.