Science and Technology Mailing List Archive

["Jillian Lenne" <<address removed>>]

Contribution by Jill Lenné, Consultant

Having been involved in international agricultural research and development
for the past 25 years, including 16 years with two CGIAR centres; 3 years
with one of the RNRRS research programmes (as both PAC member and programme
leader (strategy)); and almost ten years working for or associated with UK
research institutes, I would like to bring my perspectives to the science
and technology discussion.

Overall, I find the structure of the discussion on this theme to date too
abstract. This is partly due to the fact that we are discussing HOW?, WHICH?
and WHO? before discussing and identifying WHAT? i.e. the priority problems
that science and technology should tackle in the new DFID agriculture
strategy for reducing poverty.

The fact that DFID has invested in agricultural science and technology for
many years; the fact that the DFID Agriculture Policy Paper (Dec. 2003)
acknowledges the value and impact of this investment; and the fact that we
having this discussion suggests that DFID is committed to future support for
science and technology. That said, DFID, like most major donors, aspires to
make a major contribution to the MDGs.  But no individual donor, however
committed and keen, has the resources to make that contribution to all of
the MDGs within 10 years. Surely the first step for DFID is to choose which
MDGs it can best contribute to and then identify the priority problems ?
which, if solved ? will make a major contribution to reducing poverty in
specific needy regions. Once accomplished, the next logical steps are to
address the HOW?, WHICH? and WHO? ? which knowledge sources?; how should
this information be managed and archived?; which expertise ? UK-based,
CGIAR, SROs, private sector?; how to integrate research in mainsteam
development programmes?; and how to best invest in science and technology as
apposed to technical assistance?

As mentioned by several contributors, there has been a substantial reduction
in funding for agricultural science and technology globally in the past
10-15 years. In the UK, as a result of this serious decline in funding,
there has been a dangerous erosion of the human science-base for addressing
developing country problems e.g. substantial redundancies at NRI, HRI,
universities and some BBSRC institutes. There has also been an erosion of
the knowledge-base e.g. the moth-balling of much of the most important and
unique tropical agriculture library in the world at NRI, now largely
inaccessible in storage. In our discussions of knowledge sources and
management and archiving of information, we should include learning from and
hopefully rectifying past mistakes as part of developing improved mechanisms
of contributing to a future agricultural strategy for reducing poverty.

Robin Matthews rightly highlighted the lack of incentive for UK students to
choose a career in agricultural science and technology ? there are currently
few jobs. Are there  alternatives? There is still UK support for young VSOs
and APOs in agricultural science and technology. Perhaps DFID can follow the
lead of the USA, Canada and Rockefeller (RF) where Peace Corps, IDRC and RF
fellows by a) putting more support into these schemes and b) encouraging and
supporting VSOs and APOs to make careers in international agricultural
research and development.

In spite of the serious decline in funding and erosion of the science-base,
there remain some excellent, experienced and committed scientists in the UK
who have substantially contributed to realizing the value and impact of DFID
?s investment in the RNRRS and will continue to contribute to DFID?s future
agriculture strategy to reduce poverty ? providing they are given the
resources and encouragement to do so. I would also add that their
accountability for funds has been extremely rigorous and extensive. The
reality is that until recently the UK had an excellent and well-supported
scientific research base to extensively support agricultural science and
technology to solve problems in developing countries. This is no longer the
case ? so what can DFID do about it?

Internationally, the CGIAR has been a major force in agricultural science
and technology as elaborated by Dana Dalrymple.  But the CGIAR and the
excellent British diaspora within the CGIAR is facing the worst crisis in
its history: the CGIAR is in serious disarray as noted by Curtis Farrar.
This is not only a crisis of funding and leadership, but also of governance
and scientific breadth and capability. Many good and experienced scientists
have left the CGIAR in the past ten years; some due to reduced funding but a
sizable number due to the deterioration in leadership and governance. DFID
has been a major contributor to the CGIAR, the largest donor amongst EU
member States. A significant proportion of DFID?s funding to the CGIAR is as
?attributed? funds with accountability based on annual reports from centres.
Increasingly, these funds are being used for survival - to support
management and running costs - rather than the agreed areas of science and
technology. In one centre I am familiar with, reports are sent to DFID each
year based on only a tiny fraction of the agreed attributed funds. Recently
DFID decided to significantly increase its funding to the CGIAR, however the
current survival strategy in some CGIAR centres makes it inevitable that
most of these funds will be moved from science and technology to support
often-top heavy management and considerable running costs.

When discussing how to allocate future budget for science and technology,
DFID needs to consider not only value for moneyand return on investment (in
terms of developmental impact) but also the accountability for the
investment. Self-contained, long-term, problem-based projects such as PETRRA
for rice research in Bangladesh with IRRI and Promotion of fodder
technologies in India and Nigeria with ILRI may be the most effective way of
achieving all three.

Robin Matthews emphasized the important contribution that the UK research
councils could make to future DFID research strategy. I would like to
emphasize another important source of knowledge and experience ? the
UK-based learned societies such as the Association of Applied Biologists
(AAB), the Tropical Agricultural Association (TAA) and many others. The new
DFID agricultural research strategy should build on the past achievements of
the current RNRRS. Much of the knowledge, experience and skills responsible
for these achievements lies in the corpus of applied biologists in the UK,
their institutions and the societies to which they belong who have
implemented the RNRRS projects with overseas partners. Societies such as the
AAB and TAA have an important contribution to make to future DFID research
strategy and should be given more opportunity to do so.

The establishment of successful research-development-application continua to
achieve greater development impact is arguably the most important issue that
any new agricultural science and technology strategy must deal with. Again,
as noted above, its not easy to discuss this issue in abstract as the
structure, resourcing and timing of any research continuum will depend on
the problem being addressed. As Robin Matthews noted, although seriously
considered by the RNRRS, it proved one of the most difficult issues for the
reasons he has given. I agree with Robin: the research process needs to be
continuous and simultaneous with all necessary expertise integrated rather
than slotted in sequentially. A good example is the growing support for
biotechnological approaches to crop improvement by a number of donors
through the CGIAR Challenge Programmes and initiatives such as the African
Agricultural Technology Fund. Substantial funding to biotechnological
approaches (strategic) to resolving difficult crop improvement problems such
as increased drought tolerance; improved pest and disease resistance; and
improved nutritional quality for developing countries is very welcome. But
without commensurate investment in national capacity in conventional
breeding skills to produce varieties preferred by farmers (applied) and in
the development of local seed systems (adaptive), this investment in
biotechnology is unlikely to achieve the desired developmental impact.

From my CGIAR and RNRRS perspectives, some of the most productive and
successful problem-based projects supported by DFID in the past few years
have been through partnerships between UK-based ARIs, backstopping CGIAR
centres, NARES (including capacity building of NARES staff) linked to SROs,
and increasingly, the private sector. Many of these partnership projects
have been implemented as part of the RNRRS. The most successful were based
on long-term partnerships made possible under an enlightened ten year
research strategy. Some would also have benefited from technical assistance
from DFID in-country programmes, but this need depends on the problem being
addressed. Surely these projects should be used as at least one of the
models for the future DFID agricultural strategy for reducing poverty?

It would be useful to hear from some of the current RNRRS Programme Managers
who have been at the coal face of implementing DFID?s RNRRS. They should
have some of the most insightful contributions to make to this discussion.

=============================================================
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>