Your contributions continue to enrich this e-consultation. The compilation can be downloaded from: http://gcardblog.wordpress.com/files/2009/09/ap_contributions1.doc. In this message I offer an overview of some of the recent discussions, mention the challenges of consultation processes, and invite you again to start the closing exercise. Thank you for a fascinating conversation! Simone Staiger-Rivas Facilitator of the Asia Pacific e-consultation Email: s.staiger@cgiar.org Skype: simonestaiger Web: http://www.egfar.org/egfarW/website/gcard/regional-consultations/ap 1. Here are some of the ideas and perceptions that have been exchanged since Tuesday: · The contributions on organic farming led to the mention of Genetic Modified crops and technologies, and from there we discussed the divide between science and practice raised by Dr. Prasad Pant. Indeed that many of you underline the need to “combine traditional wisdom with modern knowledge.” · Achim Dobermann from IRRI reminds us that we need to consider a whole portfolio of solutions to help the poor farmers. However he insists in crop productivity as the main challenge and questions the emphasis on methodologies or technologies that don’t have documented evidence of impact to date. · You claim for the farmer participation, holistic or systems approaches and highlight the “fragmented stakeholder structure”. The positive examples on integrative research and facilitation of technologies from Dr. Hermann (ISCB) and Dr. Magor (IRRI) on agricultural biotechnology and rice research assistance respectively, are promising and worthwhile mentioning. · The topic of fragmentation of farmer’s lands through population increase has been taken up by various and some possible solution have been mentioned such as consolidation of land, and farmer cooperatives, and support and alternatives for farmers who decide to abandon farming. · Finally among the many issues, priorities, suggestions raised, let me highlight the contributions from the pacific community with its very specific constraints, like remote geographic location, fragile economies, natural disasters, limited land and land tenure system, high labor and management costs, to mention only a few. 2. Challenges and opportunities of consultation processes This and many more of your feedback seem to demonstrate the need and usefulness of conversations and debates around AR4D in Asia Pacific. For sure challenges remain and some of you have highlighted those, like the sometimes imbalanced participation where one country dominates over another or a whole sub-regional input is missing. We also see in some cases far more contributions from one specific sector or line of thinking. Some complain about very general contributions…However, this e-consultation has been conceived as an open invitation for dialogue that many people decided to join but others didn’t, and some for sure couldn’t be reached. Through targeted invitations the face-to-face meetings can and will bring in more balanced perspectives into the GCARD process. Let us also consider this exercise as just the beginning of a longer process. However, as facilitators I hope you know that we listen to those who decided to spend time and effort in the forums, and that we acknowledge your contributions immensely. 3. Let’s start to reach some closure We would like you to help us in reaching some closure on the discussions. That is why I ask you to consider the following 2 questions and to please answer them in one short paragraph each: 1. What is the one innovative AR4D idea that you heard from other participants so far, one possible pathway to transform agricultural knowledge into development impact that you would like to highlight? 2. How could that idea be turned into development impact at scale? What investments, institutions, policies and capacities are necessary?