Science and Technology Mailing List Archive

["Vinay Chand" <<address removed>>]

Dear colleagues,


I send this contribution with trepidation since I am an economist and cannot be 
too firm on my opinions which are based purely on my experience as a 
practitioner. Still, taking George's invitation to join the debate I do so even 
though I reach for my flak jacket at the same time.

Let me begin by confessing that I keep hearing about regional and international 
organisations such as CGIAR, I personally have not come into contact with them. 
As a Team Leader I have recently sent Consultants to look at specific case work 
but I am still not well enough versed in what they are doing and intend to 
educate myself on the matter as soon as possible.

In my work the main problem I encounter is how little of research being 
conducted on a global or regional or national level is actually being applied. 
I keep coming up with problems where I wish research had been undertaken or 
that it would be undertaken but most of it is in the context as a marketing 
specialist of wanting work on adaptability, seasonality, varietal development 
and productivity and their impact on diversification and farmer incomes. I know 
that most august institutions are pledged to research and application and 
raising farmer incomes and food security but too much of what is developed 
appears to stay in resolutions at conferences, learned papers and centralised 
demo plots. Not enough is taken advantage of on the ground. I was astounded to 
find this year that there was a large farm in the city of Delhi and it made me 
as sorry for land developers as for farmers. To a degree, the reason for lack 
of application is that local Universities are weakly financed and extension 
services greatly depleted if they exist. In my experience, multilateral 
agencies such as ADB prefer dealing with post harvest while I have come across 
the valuable bilaterally financed work being done by the Australians on rice 
yields in Cambodia.

I know some of the work is badly required and has probably contributed greatly 
to food security and other general objectives but most of my problems are more 
specific although I do take care not to ignore need for time. Much needs to be 
done in terms of increasing productivity of crops such as rice. In China they 
appear to be able to get 5 Mt/ha, in Punjab 4 Mt/ha but in Cambodia too many 
can only do one crop at one MT/ha. Raising production through irrigation and 
seeds etc is clearly very desirable. A lot of the research does appear to be 
production oriented in its motivation and with rice very understandably so. 
This does lead to problems as in Punjab it has greatly depleted water resources 
and farm gate income from paddy can be as low as $80/ha as opposed to much 
higher levels in Punjab due to state intervention. There may also be critical 
risks attendant to increasing productivity when using wells for water. Most of 
all, no one growing rice in a poor country in the context of a global protected 
market can escape poverty. They can achieve 'food security' but not wealth and 
in large parts of the world, security is no longer considered to be enough and 
I must join Simon Maxwell in arguing for higher value commodities.

The balance appears to favour a generalist rather than local approach. Let me 
take up the example of apples in Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh in 
India. Apples were originally planted by immigrants without much planning and 
there has been relatively little work on adaptability, seasonality, 
productivity or even disease. As a result, there are diseases, declining 
returns, a very seasonal harvest (with little provision for cold chains and 
none for controlled environment) and a need for a massive rescue plan. The FAO 
is helping with work on market acceptability of different varieties in domestic 
markets but that merely scrapes the surface. You would have thought that there 
would be an ongoing research and rescue strategy and before anyone claims there 
is one, I would report that it does not exist on the ground. 

In addition, in the UK, TPI used to do a lot of very useful research and 
development work which is with all due respect to those who carry on part of 
the work, not there anymore on the same scale. I refer to work on things like 
extraction and processing of hard fibres and jute where brilliant scientists 
such as the late Cyril Jarman engaged on work not being done anywhere else in 
the world. In France, at least they have within CIRAD, specialists at IRHO and 
others with research stations in many parts of the world. 

India is a country with a massive amount AST being developed. Spare a thought 
for smaller countries like Cambodia which do not have any such resources. The 
gap between global debate and research and local reality is to a small degree 
filled by the private sector. Sometimes on a very small scale with gentlemen 
farmers, agricultural graduates or NGOs bringing technology to the locality 
where they are working. When it is in their interests, by large corporations 
(local and multinational) as is the case for seeds, tobacco, coffee, tea, 
cocoa, vanilla and oil seeds. And there are private entrepreneurs with tissue 
culture labs or, at least, nurseries supplying demand in their locality. I 
think that DFID should develop ways of working with these three categories 
within the context of specific projects to help fund application of research in 
a sustainable way. This may require strengthening the ability of the 
Universities and Research Institutes to participate.

Best wishes,

Vinay Chand,
230, Finchley Road,
London NW3 6DJ, UK
Tel: 44-20-7794 5977
Fax: 44-20-7431 5715
<address removed><mailto:<address removed>>