|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
<<address removed>>
To: <<address removed>>
Sender: <address removed>
Precedence: bulk
It is good to see the comments begin to come in. I thought that I
would
mention one topic that may underlay some of them, and indeed the
more
general topic.
In his background document on S&T prepared in March, George
mentioned (p.
1, item 4) the DFID "requirement for pro-poor AST research to be
demand-led and participatory." In his 4/24 summary of the
comments made
the first week he quotes me as suggesting that "the only way of
generating
and delivering research outcomes is for this to be demand-led" (p.
2,
second to last para.). At the same time, Robin comments with
respect to
the four initial questions posed, that (2) "The main question really is
how much of this more fundamental research should DFID be
funding", and
(4) "there is little long-term research being funded - the emphasis
is on
short-term impact." Vinay notes that "Much needs to be done in
terms of
increasing productivity of crops."
The common thread here is the process for setting priorities for
agricultural research. I have recently been looking at this, and a
copy
of my current draft is attached ("Demand- and Supply-Driven
International
Agricultural Research: Setting the Agenda for Global Public
Goods", 26 pp.
of text, plus two figures). Demand-driven research refers basically
to
needs as expressed by producers (bottom up) and Supply-driven to
the
things that scientists think are important (top down). It turns out to
be
a fairly complex subject and the appropriate balance differs at the
local,
national, and international level. The Demand -driven element is
more
suitable at the local level while the Supply-driven dimension is more
appropriate at the international and global level where the spillover of
scientific public goods is vital. Neither dimension by itself its
adequate, and indeed other dimensions need to be considered.
Thus I would see the DFID policy as stated above (and this is the
first
time I have seen it explicitly mentioned), to the extent that it still
prevails, as too limiting and as more appropriate at the local level.
And
clearly I wouldn't agree with the statement, attributed to me above, as a
general case (especially the initial phrasing, "the only way..."). My
point is rather different, and was implicit in the previous paragraph in
his note - that there have to several dimensions (including both Demand
and Supply) and that the approprate proportion will vary by
geographic
level. The vitally-needed more fundamental research, which is
critical
for maintaining and increasing crop productivity in the longer run, is
more likely to reflect a Supply dimension. It tends to get
neglected, as
Robin points out, in the current focus short-term impact.
For those who wish to pursue this matter further - perhaps a hardy
few -
the attached paper should provide suficient food for thought. Any
reactions and suggestions, not necessarily as part of this exercise,
would
be welcome.
=============================================================
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.