Science and Technology Mailing List Archive

["CORK ALAN" <<address removed>>]

For those of you that missed them, development issues were writ large in 
the papers yesterday, or at least in the Guardian.  


Simon Maxwell, Director of ODI pointed out that up to one third of UK 
aid budget goes to the EU.  The EU aid programme managed by Brussels 
is 'far behind most other aid donors in share of aid spent in the poorest 
countries' and of the funds spent 30% are used for roads and only 8% 
on agriculture.  Jill Lenne is her carefully crafted contribution to the 
debate mentioned that DFID recognised the contribution research in 
agriculture had made to development in their Agriculture Policy Paper 
(Dec. 2003).  Such a high bilateral commitment to the EU would seem to 
undermine DFID's bid to contribute to the MDGs or at least to strongly 
influence the EU's development agenda.  


An advert for Christian Aid's latest campaign to raise funds suggests 
that 'supporting people in the Third World is wrong'.  By that they 
meant that support can often lead to dependency.  Most people in 
developing countries would rather receive the 'right tools and training' 
to enable them to climb out of poverty through their own endeavours.  
Investment in AST can achieve this.  People need technical solutions to 
solve technical problems, much of this is just a question of training and 
assess to appropriate inputs.  Working with the Rama Krishna Mission 
in the 24 Paganas and with the Centre for World Solidarity with dalit 
farmers in Andhra Praesh I am often struck by how farmers seek out my 
colleagues for advice and the warm relationship of mutual respect they 
hold each other in.  My colleagues are retired natural scientists who 
wanted to do something for the agricultural community.  In India such 
altruistic behaviour seems to be quite common in many of the more 
successful NGOs.  Just as well really because the salary structures of 
NGOs do nothing to retain staff with a high level of training in 
agricultural disciplines.  


Under international news the lead story was 'prophets of Cyberabad face 
rural backlash'.  Farmers in India's most IT-friendly state (Andhra 
Pradesh) is set to vote chief minister out of office.  Sadly the 
consequences of not solving pest problems in cotton and a current over-
reliance on GM cotton are now set to have political consequences for the 
State Minister, Mr Chandrababa Naidu.  Not everyone has the necessary 
skills to man 'call centres' and with two thirds of the population of 80 
million dependent on agriculture for a living the issue can have political 
consequences.  So why is GM cotton failing.  According to the article 
farmers are applying more pesticides than they used to for non-GM 
cotton!  Paradoxically in a previous study of what happened to families 
after the husband committed suicide because of debt it was found that 
the families continued to produce cotton because only 'white gold' 
could provide the levels of profit that were sufficient to service them.  
Clearly, GM cotton is yet another simple technical fix that does nothing 
to solve the basic problems facing farmers but perpetuates dependency, 
through increased pesticide use and a need to assess new seed each 
season.  


Finally in Letters the issue of organic production was raised in response 
to an article by Dick Taverne in which he quoted an Indian biologist, CS 
Prakash as saying that organic farming will 'sustain poverty and 
malnutrition'.  The letter was written by Patrick Holden, Director of the 
Soil Association and he pointed out that Dr Prakash was a spokesperson 
for the GM industry.  He went on to say that in contrast a major report by 
Christian Aid (Suicide Seeds) suggested that GM crops are likely to 
increase malnutrition among poor, rural communities in the developing 
world.  


What is clear is that agriculture is important for a high proportion of 
those in poverty and that agri-business does not have all the solutions 
to support them.  Jill Lenne questioned the ability the CG centres to 
deliver real benefits to the poor as they increasingly focus their energies 
on survival.  While well intentioned it may be that in order to deliver on 
some millennium goals the international development community may 
ignore the needs of the rural poor.  After all it is easier to provide books 
and dig wells than to solve the longer term problems in agriculture.  


As we know DFID are posed to implement a new research strategy.  It 
remains to be seen whether they appreciate the importance of 
empowering researchers who have the relevant skills to work closely 
with the faming community in order to deliver real and lasting 
improvements.  A measure of their determination will be gauged by 
whether they appoint research managers who have the appropriate 
technical skills to understand the needs of the poor in agricultural 
communities of developing countries or whether they are career 
managers with a possible interest in development.  


DFID's research budget may be modest by comparison with that of 
Monsanto's but nevertheless it can and does 'punch' well above its 
weight in development research. And as today's Guardian shows 
Monsanto do not always get it right, as they pull the plug on GM wheat 
because of European hostility to importing such products.  Perhaps 
DFID would do well to engage in dialogue with Monsanto to see if 
agribusiness can work positively towards development.  No doubt they 
have the tools.  I have yet to see one of their products, once allowed into 
the market place, failing to make an impact!


Dr Alan Cork

Reader in Chemical Ecology


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