|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
This is an opening response to George's invitation of today. I will first introduce myself. My name is Dana Dalrymple and I am Senior Research Advisor and Agricultural Economist, International Research and Biotechnology Team, Office of Environment and Science Policy, Bureau for Economic Growth, Agricultural Development and Trade, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. I have been involved, through USAID, in CGIAR matters since 1972, and those two dimensions will probably more than slightly tint my remarks. To provide a little discipline, at least at the outset, I will start by commenting on the four topics proposed by George. In the case of the first three, I start with some general background remarks, and then turn more specifically (and more briefly) to George's specific questions. 1. REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH. While the research needs for each are "not necessarily the same," they may also are not necessarily different in important ways. Perhaps the best-known example, though one that sometimes tends to get forgotten, is that in creases in agricultural productivity and food supply lower food costs. Since the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on food, they will benefit the most - a reduction of poverty. The process also increases local employment and incomes (particularly for those who market imputs and outputs), which provide a further stimulus to economic growth. Hence I agree with Michael Lipton, that significant consideration should be given to food staples, which have a more inelastic demand and hence greater price reductions when supply increases than goods with a more elastic demand. This characteristic, however, can work against late adoptors of the technology who may suffer reduced prices. One increasingly common answer, typified by Simon Maxwell, is to turn to the production of higher income commodities with a more elastic demand. The problem here is that the poorest producers may be least able to grow and market these commodities, except under rather special conditions. They are hardly a panacea (I have some knowledge of this: I grew up working on a fruit farm and spent the first part of my career as a fruit and vegetable markteting economist at the state and federal level). In terms of the three subcomponents of George's question, therefore, I would respond as follows: (a) I think that the CGIAR should be a major, but not the only, knowledge source for DFID; (b) the CGIAR clearly can provide an archived central source of information for the commodities and programs that it covers, but does not have a comparative advantage at the country level, which should be handled by the governments in cooperation with others; (c) USAID has, through its regional bureaus, support to regional networks, and while the results have been variable, this seems a logical point of entry. 2. GENERATION OF NEW KNOWLEDGE. Here I think we should differentiate between two forms of new agricultural knowledge, the first of which tends to get overlooked in discussions of agricultral research: productivity-maintaining research (PMR) and productivity-enhancing research (PER). New knowledge is needed for both, though it may sometimes be more often associated with the latter. PMR normally only maintains existing yield levels; this is of basic importance and is not always easily attained. While PMR is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition. In order to (1) keep up with population growth, and (2) to go beyond that and provide the basis for economic growth, further increases are needed in productivity. While there may be a zone of overlap between PMR and PER (some exceptionally effective forms of PMR, such as Bt cotton, can lead to increased productivity and the process of breeding for increased yield may sometimes/infrequently sweep some genes for increased pest resistance along with it) - the processes have their distinct characteristics. The relative balance of each varies with the commodity; the proportion of PMR is generally higher on fruits and vegetables, at least in the U.S. But the level of scientific knowledge required is not necessarily greatly different. It might be reasonable to say that we need new knowledge for both old problems and new problems. Since the level of private support for agricultural research is quite low in most cases in developing countries, the public sector needs to play a major role in its generation. While the major research component must be in-country, external groups such as the CGIAR can be an efficient and effective source of global and regional public goods which can then be adapted for, or utilized in developing, local public goods. Thus, in terms of the components of George's questions, I would think that it is essential that DFID to contribute significantly to the generation of new knowledge and utilize the CGIAR and other IARCs (AVRDC, ICIPE, IFDC) as a major, but again not only, source. The engagement of the private sector is less easily categorized. We have found it a willing partner in biotechnology, but that may not be an attractive area of activity for DFID. 3. INSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR S&T. This is a tough question to answer. No donor, to my knowledge, has found a good answer. USAID first established a research program in 1962. From 1962 to 1968, about $22 million was spent on food and nutrition research. A candid assessment was provided by Albert Moseman, who was head of this part of the overall program from 1965 to 1967, in 1970: "Although the AID Central Research Program was late in initiation, slow in getting started, is still inadequately funded, and has been underway for only about six years, it is a solid step in the right direction and the new technology and information that is being generated should inprove the quality and substance of future foreign aid activities. There is still uncertaintly, however, about the feasibility of building and maintaining an effective support base for research and other long-range activities within an organization so strongly oriented to general economic assistance, so concerned with highly visible and short-range operational projects, and so subject to frequent reorganizations." The reorganizations may be less frequent now (they are very difficult to get approved and carried out), but the statement still rings true for many. The fact that the CGIAR has raised the visibilty and credibility of agricultural research helps, but does not significantly alter the basic organizational conditions. In response to George's questions, I might start by saying that it has been useful to be in an organization that has both a central office and strong field activities. The various central offices I have been associated with have largely focused on funding international public goods, and the regional bureaus/country missions have focused on comparable public goods. In the case of the CGIAR, the regional/country programs have often funded more developmentally-oriented activities (including capacity-building and institutional strengthening) by the CGIAR centers. But at the same time, my experience with the more general organizational side suggests two important conditions. The first is that it is essential to have a cadre of scientifically/technically qualified in-house staff who are not subject to frequent rotation (as is the lot of foreign service officers). A second is that it is essential to have support for research - a somewhat unnatural activity for a development agency - from the top of the agency (one may be able to drift along for a while without it, but the drift will be down). It is less easy to generalize about the private sector, except to note that the biotechnology wing of my team has had considerable interaction with private firms. 4. BUDGETARY SUPPORT FOR AST AS "OPPOSED TO" TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. My first comment here would be to suggest that we speak more in terms of "compared to" or 'in balance with." But beyond that, it is, of couse, necessary to have AST to be able to provide TA (I became aware of this at the outset of my first job in extension at the state level [in Connecticut], when the head of the agricultural economics department told me that if I was to have anything special to extend I would have to do some research, and I ended up informally spending half of my time on extension and half on research; it proved very beneficial). USAID, initially thinking that a lot of American and other technology could simply be transferred to developing countries, gave an early emphasis to extension. It soon found that this was insufficient and hence the added emphasis on research oriented to the needs of developing nations. More recently, what support is provided for TA tends to come from the regional/country component of the agency, often as part of a larger package. Well, this may be enough, perhaps more than enough, to help start the discussion
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.