|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Dear colleagues, Can I change the goalposts a little! I think that what is driving DFID is a need to identify winners in terms of AST. They have, quite rightly, a public commitment that seeks to provide assistance to the poorest in the world. Such people are not easily reached by advances in agriculture. For some the cost of any new development is a burden that they can not sustain. For example, farmers in Malawi will often not apply fertiliser in case their crop is eaten by armyworms. Solve the armyworm problem and farmers may think about improving their agricultural practices, but then I hear you cry what about locusts! Farmers are risk averse and unless they can be certain about achieving sustainable improvements to their crop yields by changing their practices they will not adopt new methodologies or will they! In my experience this depends almost entirely on the relative importance of the problem in their view, the more serious the problem the higher chance of adoption. Promotion is very important but you should never underestimate lateral spread of information. A good idea spreads quickly between neighbours. DFID have invested 4% of the annual aid budget into R&D for many years in the expectation that this will yield measurable improvements to peoples livelihoods. No doubt much has been achieved under the present RNRKS but often improvements have been patchy and perhaps poorly recognised both in-country and more particularly within DFID, as the Surr Report acknowledges. Faced with the need to deliver on Millennium Goals organisations such as DFID want Big Ideas that will short-cut the route to achieving measurable advances in development. To move to problem oriented AST may be good but what constitutes a problem and does defining a problem necessarily make solving it that much easier. We all know that water, health and the environment are problems but below that there are a plethora of interconnected issues. Often donors focus on the top constraint identified by a community, malaria, AIDS. However, there may be good reasons why these have not been solved in the past and rather than address lesser problems that could actually be tackled by appropriate R&D they waste time and effort to address issues that are not amiable to technical or perhaps social solutions (there I would, of course, exclude AIDS). A good example arising from one questionnaire was the farmer perceived impact of monkeys on groundnut production. No thought was given to the economic importance of nematodes even though they were probably more important and perhaps a better target for research. I would not presume to suppose that technical scientists (of which I am one) have the answers to all these problems or are best placed to identify winners. I have attended too many workshops to know that the best way to prioritise problems is through consultation but where the problem is technical in nature it is the researchers who are best placed to identify [potential] solutions and whether they are technically feasible or not. This derives purely from the fact that they are better informed about technical options that may exist, if for no other reason. Yes, project proposals should be peer reviewed but not by Committees with vested interests! The question then is who is best placed to solve the problem/constraint, once identified. Unfortunately the provision of aid often breeds a culture of dependency. This is also true in R&D. Researchers in developing countries look to developed countries for assistance and aspire to acquiring the knowledge and equipment that will enable them to achieve international recognition. It does not however necessarily follow that they will work to alleviate poverty. I have often heard the comment, whats in it for me! For obvious reasons R&D is often low on the priority list of Governments in developing countries. Where it exists they are most concerned to achieve national productivity targets for agricultural produce rather than focus on the needs of the poor. True the two things can be linked but not necessarily. In Bangladesh rice production has increased dramatically over the past 10 years or so. Primarily through the efforts of researchers at the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute yet the financial returns to farmers have decreased over that same period because prices are kept low. The urban poor have benefited but at some cost to the rural poor. The good news is that the yield gap is still large suggesting that more can be achieved! Does the UK science base have a role to play in development? Why not! It would be foolish to ignore the enormous wealth of expertise that exists in the UK to advance the needs of resource-poor rural communities in developing countries. But please do not offer prizes for best achievers. This is a very serious business that needs dedicated people who are familiar with developing countries, know the problems that the agricultural sector face and need appropriate investment to see the job done. In many ways it does not matter whether AST is demand led or supply driven. Personally I agree with the view put forward by others that both have a value. Indeed many of the biggest advances in agriculture have been produced in developed countries with no regard to the needs of developing countries and yet have been successfully adopted. The rapid spread of GMO cotton in developing countries is a good example, although paradoxically golden rice, specifically designed for use in developing countries, has yet to hit the market place. Many groups argue that they are best placed to champion the needs of the poor and it is well understood that the poor themselves are not best placed to articulate their own needs, evidence their lack of participation in this process! Finally, and perhaps a little tongue in cheek, I can appreciate that economics is a useful tool but agricultural science and technology is about delivering solutions not measuring problems - discuss! Regards, Dr Alan Cork Reader in Chemical Ecology University of Greenwich ============================================================= 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.