ISHS Acta Horticulturae 582: International Symposium on Mediterranean Horticulture: Issues and Prospects
PREFACE |
| Author: | S. Sansavini |
| Abstract:
MEDITERRANEAN HORTICULTURE: ISSUES AND PROSPECTS One of the conclusions reached at the WCHR, World Conference on Horticultural Research, Rome, 1998, was the proposal, shared by all, to follow it up with another that was animated by the same guiding principles¾a global, knowledge-based approach to HortResearch with an emphasis on international cooperation. I recall that the discussion focused on the need to revaluate and rethink the main issues facing research in developing and emerging economies and the possibility of rotating the future venues of such conferences so that the organizational and supporting logistics could be shared by all concemed rather than kept separately as they are in higher income economies (see, Sansavini et al., Acta Horticulturae 495). When during the 1998 Brussells Congress this topic came up for discussion by the Council, it was decided to form a special Committee for Research Cooperation (CRC), which was originally chaired by Dr. Jacky Ganry of France’s ClRAD, one of the most visible supporters of the Rome WCHR. The CRC’s initial goal was to review existing forms of cooperation within the ISHS itself and to evaluate which ones were best suited to interacting with donors and public and private agencies and organizations that shared common interests and pursuits within the given brief. “The basic idea is that the global approach is the most valuable, appropriate way to solve many research problems which are of global or regional relevance.” Dr.Ganry’s efforts were seminal in this connection. Subsequently, the ISHS Board decided to make a few changes in the initiative by replacing in part the CRC and its initial agenda with a regional conference to be held at Cairo, which, let me add, had also been chosen as the venue for the WCHR’s follow-up. This is more or less the story of how the present ISHS “Workshop on Horticulture in hot, dry lands - a case study for the Mediterranean Region,” came about. Although I played no role in its organization, I agreed to open the proceedings with a few remarks not only, and simply, because Prof. Wilfried Schnitzler became unexpectedly indisposed and could not be here today, but because I firmly believe in the value of such an initiative. Many thanks are undoubtedly due to our hosts and, especially, to the agencies, the Agricultural Ministry, the universities and the research bodies that Egypt has marshalled for this workshop. Our thanks also go to the FAO and CIHEAM, which have always interacted closely with the countries of the Mediterranean Basin by creating networks to support agriculture in general and irrigation and development in crop management practices in arid areas, and to the guest speakers who have travelled to the workshop. Of particular interest to all I am sure will also be Jules Janick’s paper on agricultural technology in Ancient Egypt. While we are all well aware of being at the heart of the Mediterranean Basin here, a cradle of civilization and pinnacle of some of mankind’s greatest achievements, we must also acknowledge that this same region has also been the theatre of signal climatic and historical adversities that have impeded and slowed the agricultural and economic advance of its countries. This despite such examples of efficiency and advances in horticulture as Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey and other countries today. Indeed, the Mediterranean is one of the word’s regions already feeling the effects of acute water shortages, especially along its southern and eastern rims. Yet to this looming problem must also be added the multiple threats posed by rising salinity in water tables and soil and by rising temperatures that appear to be drastically altering the world’s climatic geography. Indeed, one of the most pressing problems in this connection is the spread of desertification, which is not only destroying irreplaceable arable land but is also creating social upheaval via a phenomenon called ‘environmental refugees’ that may potentially affect some 77 million people. Our task here today is thus to analyze these resonant issues and to point out potential technical solutions for the countries of the Basin. This has implications for the relations between Basin countries. The region is fortunate in having several research networks and institutions like CIHEAM already operating, for such bodies are usually the precursors to the formation of economic and customs unions like MERCOSUR in South America or that established by Europe’s Common Market (EC) before becoming the free-trade zone of today’s European Union (EU). Another important factor to consider involves the EU’s partnership policy with the Basin’s other countries to encourage their exports and assure adequate price levels. It should also be kept in mind that the EU must now deal with its own enlargement to include the so-called PECO countries in eastern Europe. While there is no doubt that the agricultural sector in these countries will need upgrading, no one can afford to ignore the Mediterranean, especially the EU’s own Basin countries like France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. In the emerging economies on the other hand, where structural, human and technical resources are scarce or lacking but the potential afforded by climate, the labour pool and so on is not, research projects must be associated with development objectives that translate into a boost for economic growth. Such world-wide agencies as FAO, the World Bank, CGIAR, the IMF and supranational governance or coordinating bodies like the European Union support and encourage research having immediate applications and without waiting for maximum dissemination of findings. Of course, all the tools and potential resources must be in place for research to have the desired impact and for development to take place. Yet, by the same token, we must have no illusions that the market economy and its current form of globalizaton can resolve all the issues of growth in agriculture and horticulture, much less issues of another nature. Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel laureate in economics, has noted that there can be no economic development without a concurrent development in human resources (Development as Freedom, 1999, Knopf, New York); John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out that even despite undoubted political mistakes it is no easy matter to find remedies for pockets of poverty that have proved all but intractable for many years; and Marshall McLuhan postulated that development in the full sense of the term cannot come from without but must find the strength and resources from within to bring it about. The challenges of poverty and hunger are thus far from being adequately responded to. It is necessary to help and encourage emerging economies to gain access to and strengthen their position in the market economy; it is necessary to take the proper and adequate correctives to unfettered globalization and unbridled market forces via a greater emphasis on ethics, accountability and solidarity. Indeed, cooperation among countries that can contribute to these factors and stimulate their implementation cannot simply rely on the investment and aid capital made available by such agencies as the World Bank or the IMF. Indeed, their modus operandi must include researchers and research projects closely linked in cooperative efforts to achieve sound development. The well-being of populations cannot but involve a flourishing horticulture, and this is an objective that the ISHS intends to continue pursuing wherever it can. Let me cite a recent example in this connection. It has been suggested that the Mediterranean countries can boost their export potential by seizing the opportunity offered by the surging demand for organic produce in Europe. While this certainly falls within the category of sustainable, irrigation-fed agriculture, such an initiative will just as surely encounter formidable obstacles natural, environmental and socio-economic in kind. Poverty itself, i.e. the lack of both capital and perhaps even a cultural awareness of the enormous potential these countries have, is but the first and foremost hurdle. As the noted economist Dominick Salvatore has noted, “Although the countries of the southern Mediterranean are generally better off than the average developing country, their income per capita and standard of living are much lower than in the developed countries of the northern Mediterranean and of the European Union, and the inequalities on both shores of the Mediterranean are growing. Being so close geographically and so economically interdependent, the countries of the northern Mediterranean and of the European Union have a deep interest in the growth and development of the southern Mediterranean countries” (D. Salvatore, 1996, “International inequalities, economic structure and development of southern Mediterranean countries”, Medit 4, pp. 10-17). Even planning such an enterprise must contemplate concerted policy measures tailored to homogeneous areas with direct impact on local conditions and effectively supported by concrete solidarity and international financial cooperation. With his usual lucidity and wit, Amartya Sen has underscored that poverty can only be overcome by first creating the social conditions that make such a goal possible. This is not to say that these hurdles are insurmountable. Indeed, Europe looks to the Mediterranean with interest, not indifference. Among the prospects it sees a partnership in trade, including the progressive opening and liberalization of markets for many products, is surely one. It would be fair to add that horticultural produce is likely high on the list of priorities, beginning with tropical fruit and olive oil. Let me conclude with a reflection suggested by Edgar Morin, the renowned French sociologist and scholar of Mediterranean civilization. At a recent conference on Europe’s South and the Mediterranean organized by l'Association pour la Pensée Complexe and the Catalan Institute of Mediterranean Studies (Barcelona, December 2000), Morin noted that rediscovering the ‘profane essence’ of the Mediterranean is inevitabile, that the peoples and lands washed by its waves will regain their Mediteranean-ness, feel themselves citizens in communication, contact and in complexity, and free themselves from the complex of a richer yet more prosaic North. He has found a way to develop a Mediterranean mindset, to connect and integrate the quality of life and living identity, sagacity and poetry¾what living means to the Mediterranean peoples of our times. At the crossroads pointing to the path of peace is water: the Mediterranean is the bridge, not the divide, of North-South. Let me wish in closing that the working session will be especially fruitful as our efforts in research and in disseminating its results can contribute a great deal to enhancing the quality of life for so many people.
Silviero Sansavini CONCLUDING REMARKS OF THE CRC MEETING H. Challa: Problems (even small ones) in agriculture can have a large impact and, in order to solve them, teamwork, rather than the efforts of individuals working on their own, is essential. This approach to problem-solving, however, immediately raises two important issues for the ISHS. The first is that our Society is divided into so many sections and commissions and this makes such an integrated approach somewhat difficult to pursue. The second is that teamwork itself presents funding problems all its own. Thus, providing good arguments to funding agencies is not only a necessary step but it can also stimulate individuals to greater cooperation in the pursuit of our goals. V. Galán-Saúco: Let me note in terms of financing that the EU project evaluations I have been involved in show me that it was not so much funding that posed the biggest problems but the equipment involved. There is not going to be more money allocated to projects. In regard to biotechnology, it is surprising that several of the projects mentioned were not based on work with genetically modified organisms, although there had been no constraints to this kind of approach the EU funding administration. A. Abou-Hadid: The meeting has been discussing means and attitudes regarding cooperation. These aspects are, of course, very important. Indeed, the key topics of interest for the Mediterranean region, as well as other areas with this type of climate, include the integrated management of resources such as water and soil to maximize their use efficiency, to improve cash returns per unit of water and land, and to assess and upgrade the quality of horticultural produce. N. Looney: The Committee for Research Cooperation was conceived in acknowledgement of the fact that the ISHS can play a key role in identifying research areas in the developing, emerging economies that need larger scale, interdisciplinary approaches such as those we have been discussing. This meeting today in the Mediterranean region is a step in the right direction. Perhaps we have not been thinking enough about what the CRC can do and should be doing. Integrated production systems are indeed interesting but the issue of genetic engineering makes everything we do, or might do, in this field very much subject to political correctness. My recent visit to China taught me that the Chinese are at this moment not concerned about the danger of agrochemicals. Their view is that it is very important to take advantage of all the tools modern agriculture makes available to meet the production targets they have for their country. They do not see chemical fertilizers as anything but an advantage, a view that is quite understandable in a country of 1.3 billion people. We still have a tendency when we speak in international forums like this one to think in terms of the developed economies of Europe and North America and the political issues that are important to them. Rather, when we have the opportunity to think internationally, we should consider that some of the paradigms that come to our minds most readily are not necessarily the same to large parts of the world. Many areas of Africa are certainly much more concerned about being able to use all the tools available for agricultural production, including agrochemicals. My remarks thus relate to how this Committee might approach such issues. H.J. van Zyl: Researchers are only one group of the actors in the field. A large part of the funding for research even in a country like South Africa comes from sources other than the government. This means that attempts to secure more funding, say, from government, needs to be pursued in such a way that politicians and others are convinced that they have identified the need for a research item. I do not see how the ISHS might be in a position to bring these people into the picture. We have discussed the same problem with our local researchers. Farmers and others will not join these discussions unless we are able to bring them value for their money. We need to make them part of the International Society ofr Horticultural Science and of local societies. Without involving them, I feel that pursuing fruitful discussions will be problematic. A. Monteiro: Let me just follow up here with a few thoughts about who the other players are and what we all do. Horticultural Science is an applied science, that is, a science that solves problems. One of our key tasks, therefore, is to identify issues and problems. Other players not only include the stake-holders mentioned above but consumers, who are becoming more important every day, the industries that supplies tools for horticulture, grower organizations, the development agencies, governments and other actors on smaller scales. It seems to me that, as ours is a society for horticultural science, we cannot bring all these various groups into it, nor would they probably have any real interest in such an initiative. What we can, and should, do, however, is to interact a lot more with these groups, so that they know exactly what kind of research we are doing and how we are using science to solve problems and address important issues in their different aspects. This comments should also be taken as a follow-up to Norman Looney’s remarks. For we not only have a perspective that brings into view all the differences in the world of horticulture, but we also see and deal with the eco-geographical differences in the various regions of the world. While we might say that we deal with the same crops, the consumers and their demands are not the same throughout the world. Though globalisation is accelerating, it is not a world-wide reality yet. Our work could help bring people together. J. Janick: We should dare to ask what today’s big issues are. We learned about a few of them here, such as water and the challenges it poses. Yet sometimes these issues and interests may be in conflict. For example, the FAO got together a few years ago and the main item on the agenda was ‘food for curing’. Other topics include, or have included, food safety, subsistence and survival, nutraceuticals, famine and, in other regions, over-production. Which way are we to go? Diversity, too, is another big issue, but on the other hand we need to improve the varieties we have that are really good. For a while integrated management and then sustainability were the focus of much attention. Today we have globalisation on one hand and on the other hand organic agriculture, environmentalism and, a while ago, it was scientific agriculture. We keep being rocked back and forth. We need to get a more overall picture of the landscape so we can take a balanced approach to these issues and topics. Each one is important but we need to adopt a very broad approach. Perhaps the next ‘buzz-word’ needs to be ‘balanced horticulture.’ W. Baudoin: While listening to these observations, I have also made a few notes. I would like to pick up what seemed to be an important constraint and a reality that we are facing. That is, we need transfer of knowledge at the country level. Internationally, while we expend a great deal of effort with groups and in meetings and symposia, we continue to wonder how much of all this trickls down to the end-user. Indeed, the answer that usually comes back is “This is the responsibility of the government, the extension services, the institutes, etc.” So here we have another point for action in the future. For it is not only a question of research, although one of our priorities is that this research should be fruitful and global. We have to involve other stakeholders. To make this research more profitable, to make it more interesting, we should create such interest groups at the country level, where everything pertinent to the topic on the agenda could be debated, including the input of the horticultural industry. We have the research scientists, the consumers, the businessmen, the input suppliers, the exporters, the importers, those who are concerned with processing, with transport, etc. All these people work under differing constraints. Yet there is a black hole, no forum for discussion. Perhaps one viable way to approach this problem is to draft a recommendation that the presidents of the national horticultural societies play a role in getting committees like the CRC established at national levels, of course under the auspices of the ministry of agriculture or under the Chamber of Commerce-what is important is to find an institutional context to host such a dialogue. This could lead to interesting developments. In the more developed economies, research is mutating towards privatisation; there is more and more contract research. If the developing economies were to go in the same direction, given the fact that money is always a key constraint, the CRC, or even a national committee modelled on it, could start to find the funding. Having this forum may lead to raising funds for solving a particular problem. For example, there is at the moment a very big issue in Morocco because of the introduction of a vector of Tomato Yellow Leaf Virus. While in the past the farmer in Morocco was only treating two to three times per year, today the grower is treating twenty times. They don’t know what to do and Morocco is a major exporter. It is thus of concern to everybody. Funds are the bottleneck, but on the other hand there are funds. The criteria will then have the final say. We have to find modalities and clear instructions: can the presidents of the national societies play a bigger role? Research priorities are governmental topics of politicians, whereas growers have day-to-day problems that need to be solved. Sometimes these elements do not come together. At the FAO, we use fact sheets to try to find the black holes that have to be filled. The FAO uses bottom-up approach. Food security will always be at the top of the agenda, for it is a much broader issue than ‘enough food.’ It encompasses the capacity to provide people with enough money to buy food so they can have a decent diet. Food safety is completely different: it is how safe a product is to eat in relation to the residue levels of chemicals, as well as being in line with the fashion of GMOs (genetically modified organisms), etc. Famine is unfortunately still with us, while in other regions there is over-production. Food security and famine are not directly related to the productivity of a certain crop in a certain place but to the access of everybody to food. We will have to provide technology so the really poor will have access to the surplus. It is not only a question of agriculture but also of politics, and involves all government ministries. In this perspective organic agriculture is one of the elements, although it is gaining momentum, at least for those who can afford it, and is in line with the recommendations of the UN’s Rio Conference (1991). S. Sansavini: To conclude the meeting, let us underscore the key topics that have been discussed. Perhaps the first is the importance that such regional meetings can have within the ISHS when linked to an overall strategy seeking to focus on issues that are important in specific horticultural areas. Developing strategies for the countries in the Mediterranean Basin, whose history in agriculture stretches back over more than ten millennia, as well as other areas with a similar climate, is important as these horticultural districts will continue playing an important role in the industry and its research potential. It is readily acknowledged that a good part of horticulture’s future lies in warm regions, and countries boasting a Mediterranean climate certainly fall within this purview. Another significant message is how can we involve these countries more in the life of the ISHS while at the same time finding the proper role for the CRC in what has been termed here a broader and more balanced approach to problem-solving and dealing with emerging issues in horticulture. Yet, as we have been reminded in our discussion today, a quickly globalizing world is not likely to override any time soon important geographical and regional differences. This underscores the point that it will take time to involve all countries in the discussions tabled at this workshop. Our initiative is one of the first steps. In future, we can at least rely on the fact that research in horticulture is at the cutting edge of advanced research, and new technologies that emerge from these efforts will lead to new modes of communication. Yet, as has been noted in some of the concluding remarks, access to technology is not the same for every country, and the fact that the WTO did not reach an agreement in the field of agriculture is an example. Countries in similar regions must try to cooperate in order to reach the critical mass needed to support new initiatives and, above all, development . Networking and interaction are essential. Policy must be informed by research in setting the economic agenda. There is thus a distinct need for a committee like the CRC within the ISHS as a driving force in achieving these goals. C. Brickell: Cooperation should be based on coordination. It is hoped that everybody had a productive day. In future there will be more such days on specific items in specific regions. Let us also acknowledge for their valuable contributions-Professor S. Sansavini for his tremendous input and impact with the CRC, Professor A. Monteiro for chairing the discussion panel and Professor A. Abou-Hadid, host of the meetings, for his generosity and hospitality. | |
