|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Dear Science and Technology participants First of all, let me introduce myself. I am a Reader at Cranfield University at Silsoe in the UK, where I teach modelling of environmental and hydrological systems, and carry out research, most of which has been on tropical agricultural systems, ranging from semi-arid systems in India, agroforestry systems in Zambia, rice production systems in Asia, tea plantations in East Africa, and soil fertility in Nepal. I am also on the Programme Advisory Committee for DFID?s Plant Science Research Programme. The following comments, for what they are worth, are therefore mainly from the perspective of a researcher interested in how tropical agricultural systems work and how they can be improved, and also to some extent from my experiences on the PSRP-PAC. I should also say that they are my own views and do not necessarily represent those of my employer, Cranfield University. 1. Which knowledge sources are most appropriate for DFID? ========================================================= Like the other contributors, I agree that DFID?s knowledge sources should be as wide as possible. In addition to the ones already mentioned, I would also include the knowledge accumulated by the UK Research Councils, a point I discuss below. However, rather than all this information residing in one location or a single system (e.g. the CGIAR), I would suggest that it resides with the most appropriate institution (in most cases the one who funded or carried out its collection), and DFID and other development agencies could perhaps develop meta-databases describing each knowledge bank and its contents. 2. How should new knowledge be generated? ========================================= I found this the most difficult of the four questions George proposed. First of all, let me say that to me there is no question that high-quality research is and will continue to be needed to generate new knowledge. It is a very blinkered approach that says that there is no further need for research and that the emphasis should be on dissemination of what we know already. It is absolutely essential that new ideas and techniques coming out of Advanced Research Institutions (ARIs) should find their way, where appropriate, into contributing to reducing poverty. Not everything will be relevant, of course, but some things will. The main question really is how much of this more fundamental research should DFID be funding? I think that the current system of outsourced research programmes has worked fairly well, but I think that one of the weaknesses at the moment is the poor linkages between DFID and the UK Research Councils. The remit of the latter is to do fundamental research, but a lot of it, particularly environmental and ecological, should have significant relevance to tropical production systems. At the moment, there appears to be a major gap within the UK in funding opportunities for basic environmental and ecological research outside the UK, particularly in tropical regions. DFID disbanded their Environmental Research Programme a few years ago, and a quick scan through current projects funded by the Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) shows that out of the 900-odd projects, most are on issues related to the UK, with a limited number (~30) on tropical systems. Similar comments may apply to the BBSRC, although in this case research outputs are probably more transferable to tropical agriculture, and indeed this has occurred to some extent through the Plant Sciences Programme and others. Nevertheless, in my view there is an urgent need to integrate more the work funded by the Research Councils with that of DFID, with the former focusing more on the generation of fundamental scientific knowledge and the latter on the application of this knowledge to improving livelihoods in developing countries. DFID could also have an important role in defining some (not all!) of the research agenda of the RCs. There is then the question of DFID?s own Research Programmes. I have wondered if their present structure along disciplinary lines (i.e. Plant Sciences, Crop Protection, Forest Research, etc.) is optimal. While there was supposed to be collaboration and joint projects between the Research Programmes, in practice this has not really happened, with one or two exceptions. These are just musings, but an alternative structure might be to maintain the Research Programme concept, but rather than them being discipline-based, they would each focus on either (a) a specific geographical region (e.g. East Africa, Southern India, etc.) or (b) a generic problem (e.g. livelihood improvements in semi-arid regions). Their role then would be more as brokers to co-opt expertise of a range of types, ranging from molecular biologists for crop improvement all the way through to policy analysts for environment enabling, but all focusing on the region or the problem in hand. The emphasis would be on livelihood improvement, but from a more holistic viewpoint than at present. To some extent the current Research Programmes already act as brokers and co-opt the most relevant expertise in order to achieve their research goals, but this is very much discipline based and narrower than what I am suggesting. 3. Research/dissemination/upscaling continuum ============================================= A perennial question under the current structure has been how better linkages can be forged between the Research Programmes and the in-country (bilateral) programmes. Particularly if the Research Programmes were geographically based (i.e. (a) above), they could be seen as the research arm of the in-country programmes, and have a much closer relationship with them in terms of determining research priorities, but their unique contribution would be keeping abreast of latest research developments in ARIs and the CGIAR system, and facilitating the integration of these developments into the in-country programmes. This could be done through some sort of sub-regional competitive funding system similar to the HARP project in Nepal, and mentioned by Marcel Nwalozie in his contribution. Proposals would be led by institutions in the region, but it could be mandatory that they have an ARI as a partner. Hopefully, this would also give the in-country programmes and regional institutions more ?ownership? of the research results, which seems to be a major problem at the moment. I think that serious thought also needs to be given to the process whereby scientific knowledge is generated, applied, and disseminated. Under the current Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy (RNRRS 1996-2005), these phases have occurred more-or-less sequentially, with much fundamental technical research being done in the first years of the RNRRS, followed by a swing towards socio-economic methodologies with a view to application of the technical knowledge generated, followed finally by a dissemination phase in the last two to three years of the ten-year strategy. While all three phases are equally important in addressing poverty issues, researchers? specialities and expertise rarely encompass all three, with the effect that there is a serious discontinuity in the process. Fundamental researchers, for example, have a period of activity in the early years, after which their funding dries up as it is switched towards those specialising in research applications. Thus, their interests move away from developing country issues, or worse, their positions are made redundant, in which case, they are forced to find jobs abroad. Either way represents a loss of expertise in tropical issues from the UK. A similar process is experienced by applied researchers and dissemination specialists during their turn in the sequence. The research process, therefore, ideally needs to be made continuous and simultaneous, such that there is constant support for all three groups. Having said this, communication between the three groups does need to be improved, so that fundamental research is informed by problems faced by practitioners, and that practitioners are aware of new research products. This has a major advantage over the current system in that the research process is rarely sequential, and usually involves several iterations between fundamental and applied researchers and disseminators before a new product or technology becomes available. By keeping all three in the loop through support of their activities, rather than losing one or the other through lack of support, the efficiency of the research process will be significantly greater. 4. Support for research or technical assistance? ================================================ I would agree with Dana Dalrymple that a balance between both of these is needed. A concern I have at the moment, however, is that there is little long-term research being funded ? the emphasis is on short-term impact, and we have limited understanding of how particular interventions might affect the long-term sustainability of the system. For example, intensification of cropping systems by squeezing in an extra crop in the year certainly helps to improve a farmer?s income initially, but what effect is this having on soil carbon and nutrient levels? In my mind there is a need for more integrated and long term research as well as more immediate technical assistance. My final point, not directly related to George?s questions, is just to flag up the serious decline within the UK in funding for overseas natural resources research in recent years, so much so that soon (if not already) there will not be sufficient critical mass of researchers to ensure that the UK has any credible expertise in tropical and developing country issues. This is underlined by the recent closure of the Oxford Forestry Institute, the large numbers of redundancies at the Natural Resources Institute, and the loss or decline of expertise in tropical agriculture at the University of Nottingham, the University of Wales at Bangor, Reading University, the University of Newcastle, Edinburgh University, and Silsoe College, to name a few. There is currently no incentive for bright graduates to choose to make a career in tropical agricultural or environmental research, as there are few opportunities within the UK awaiting them when they complete their studies. This is indeed a sorry state of affairs for a country that, historically, has had made a huge contribution throughout the world in this area, particularly at a time when the need to improve food production at low cost has never been greater, and when the resources for the global community to work together on common problems have never been so readily available. Hopefully, DFID?s new research strategy will also help to address this problem. Robin Matthews Reader in Biosystems Modelling Silsoe College Cranfield University ============================================================= To send a reply to this message that goes to all list members, make sure that you send your reply to <address removed> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to "<address removed>", with the message body: unsubscribe science-and-technology <your-email-address>
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.