|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Dear Colleagues, Firstly, my sincere apologies for this belated summary of where the debate on the Science and Technology theme has now taken us - taking into account contributions received over the past three weeks up to 16 May. This delay was largely due to the unanticipated arrival of an unwelcome viral visitor within my PC, despite all the usual anti-viral protection measures. The virus corrupted many of my files and access to the Internet. All is now hopefully well. Please note that later today. I will be posting a covering note that will list six points arising from the summary that I believe need further teasing out in the last week of the E-forum, as these will not be readily apparent from the extended summary below. Thank you for your continued interest in this theme. A. PROGRESS TO DATE 2. It has been gratifying to see that that the level of participation has risen significantly over the past three weeks, and that people continue to register for this theme, including a few more from developing countries - although the overall number of colleagues from the "South" is still rather low. I know that this is in part due to electronic access problems encountered by some registrants, but as the overall process moderator, Felicity Proctor, has indicated, please do use the help team whenever you have problems 3. One recent development at DFID that has special relevance to our theme has been the release last week of the draft Research Funding Framework for 2005-7, which will form the basis for DFID's strategy for all sectors, including agriculture. This has been issued by DFID's Central Research Department (CRD), and comments are invited on the draft before 9 July. This is of course a separate exercise to the E-forum that we are now engaged in, so save your comments on the Funding Framework for those requesting them at CRD. The draft is, however, very relevant to our present E-debate as it provides insights into current thinking within DFID. You can access the document at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/PolicieAndPriorities/knowledge/altsra1.doc, but I have also arranged for it to be posted on the consultation website. 4. Returning to the AST theme, there has been a wide range of contributions, which have addressed the questions, as Jill Lenne, succinctly put them, of "What", "How", "Which" and "Who" and in some cases also "When". The questions on how we might advise DFID that I posed in my moderator's introduction could have usefully been put under those simple headings. In her last process moderator's summary, Felicity Proctor, emphasised that with the closure of the debate in less than two weeks time it would now be important to try to focus on a number of key issues that DFID should give priority to if it was to make meaningful use of AST in its development programmes. No doubt each of you will have a range of different ideas in this regard, but there will undoubtedly also be considerable consensus. 5. I will attempt to summarise recent contributions firstly for those relating more directly to AST, and then, in a brief separate summary, those addressing some aspects of extension, which were recently re-directed from the "Growth and Poverty" theme. B. WHAT PRIORITIES FOR AST SHOULD DFID SUPPORT/HELP GENERATE? 6. In her contribution to the E-forum, Jill Lenne has argued that it is important to clarify the "What" before moving on to the "How", "Which" and "Who". A number of contributors implied that there was widespread international recognition of the high priority of agriculture (defined broadly) in addressing the MDGs, and they therefore focussed on the other questions. Relatively few participants in the S&T theme discussed "What" in terms of what priority DFID might accord agriculture, and more specifically AST, as opposed to other sectors. - but this received adequate coverage under other themes, particularly "Growth and Poverty". Simon Maxwell and Michael Lipton addressed some generic issues of agricultural priorities in their respective introductory messages for all themes, and had somewhat conflicting views on pro-poor strategies for the sector. 7.: Michael argued for the need to improve staple food production by smallholder farmers as an essential precursor to other avenues for moving out of poverty such as income generation through cash cropping and off-farm / non-farm employment. Simon challenged what he called conventional wisdom, and argued that growth in the agricultural sector would result from greater priority being given to commercial production of cash commodities rather than food staples, with smallholder agriculture making way for such systems. Employment opportunities for the poor would be created in commercial farms and other rural enterprises or non-agricultural activities. Mike Lipton reiterated his arguments for smallholder/ staple food focus in a later contribution to the Growth and Poverty theme. This issue might be pursued a little further by participants in terms of the AST agenda for DFID. Those only following the S&T theme might usefully refer to the last moderator's summary of the Growth and Poverty theme in which the arguments for supporting AST on commercial-scale or smallholder farming are summarised. Perhaps, these are better regarded as complementary rather than as alternatives? 8. Dana Dalrymple feels that overall there has been far too little attention given by development agencies and others to the likely world food situation over the next few decades. Some of the scenarios cited on the basis of IFPRI projections are worrying. In this regard, there has also been little reference in this theme to the challenges posed by continued population growth in the developing world on food security, especially Africa. 9. (As an aside, for those interested, these broader issues have also been discussed in the recent AgREN e-mail discussion Rural Livelihood Diversity and its implications for pro-poor agricultural research and extension - 22 March - 2 April 2004. See website: http://www.rimisp.org/agren04. I will endeavour to get a copy of the final synthesis report posted on our website). 10. On more specific aspects of "What", contributors have provided a wide range of ideas on priorities for AST, and there have been differences of opinion on whether priorities should be demand-led - identified by the poor, or by researchers - supply driven. This also applies to the extent to which end-users are involved in other stages of the research and development phases. Dana Dalrymple, Curt Farrar, Robin Matthews, and Alan Cork and some others have argued that the two approaches are complementary, and that an appropriate balance needs to be established between the two. This will depend on whether the problems being addressed by AST are local, national or international - with the first having a high level of involvement of the rural poor, and the international problems, where researchers will often be the main players; national issues will have a balance of both researchers and users as well as other stakeholders. There was a feeling among a number of contributors that pressure from some donor agencies for researchers conducting strategic research to be fully participatory with all stakeholders throughout projects had become unreasonable and counterproductive. Dana Dalrymple has provided a publication on this topic, which is posted on the website under the S&T theme. 11. Richard Gibson and several other contributors have highlighted that, although the impact of agricultural technologies is dependent on other linkages in the development "chain", such as trade/markets, education, health and so on, significant benefits can be delivered to the poor through improved technologies even if these other elements are not all in place. His examples include the production of disease resistant food staples such as cassava and sweet potato. There appears to be overall consensus among participants on the need to ensure that pro-poor AST has a strong social science component to ensure relevance and likelihood of uptake - among other considerations. 12. Many contributions to the E-forum on AST priorities have had a cropping focus. Pro-poor research on livestock, including pastoralism in marginal areas, has been raised by Ade Freeman and several other contributors as a significant AST priority. The sub-sector is growing at a very significant rate in the developing world in association with changing food consumption patterns. Livestock often represent the single most valuable asset for the rural poor, and a number of key issues are flagged that could be the focus for research - related to the linkages between livestock production and poverty reduction. 13. Jill Lenne and David Harris and several others see biotechnology as an increasingly important component of pro-poor AST, but David Gibbon cautions that its scope is still limited in terms of addressing the current major problems of the poor. A number of NGO contributors, including ActionAid express concerns about intellectual property and GMOs, and the need for appropriate regulatory mechanisms, which most participants will be very familiar with. Dave Harris points out that these negative perceptions are largely associated with multinationals, and could be in part addressed by greater public sector engagement in biotechnology. This has been a feature of activities commissioned by several RNRRS programmes. 14. There have so far been very few references to AST on forestry or fisheries in the debate, other than a brief comment on post-harvest fisheries and another on agroforestry. Hopefully, further comments will be forthcoming before closure of the E-forum. 15. In identifying priorities for AST, a number of overarching issues have been raised. These have included the need to consider gender (Sophia Huyer and Diana Lee Smith), and to develop new perspectives on the livelihoods of the poor in the rural-urban continuum, moving away from the long-held perception of a physical and social divide between city and countryside (Diana Lee- Smith, Gordon Prain, David Gibbon and several others). Differing views on off-farm employment in rural and per-urban/urban areas have also been offered by Moses Ochieng and James Biscoe, highlighting the complexity of these issues. David Bourn reminds us that there has been little mention in the E-forum so far of another MDG, namely that of ensuring environmental sustainability in developing pro-poor agricultural research and development options. He points out that DFID previously had unique capability in assessing the impact of changing land use on. the resource base and in developing sustainable options, and that this should once again be on DFID's agenda. In this regard, the unsustainable use of water resources in raising agricultural productivity and the need for AST to address this problem has been raised by several contributors, including Rob Moss and Dick Tinsley. 16. Robin Matthews discusses the issue of low external input (LEIA) and high external input agricultural (HEIA) technologies in terms of sustainable development. He concludes that both have strengths and weaknesses, but questions whether they have the capacity to meet the requirements of a growing population, and points out that both require considerable resources: HEIA for capital to purchase inputs and LEIA in terms of large labour and land requirements. 17. Robin also emphasises the importance of adopting a multidisciplinary systems approach in addressing AST priorities, and questions the continuing tradition of discipline-based programmes, such as the RNRRS, given that there is relatively little evidence of interdisciplinary collaboration between them. One can take disciplines in this context to also include commodities (crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries). The mandates of most CG centres have a similar basis. Donor development agencies, including DFID, appear to be increasingly uneasy with this system and have been moving towards broader thematic approaches in development - to which AST contributes on a multidisciplinary basis. Given that most AST institutions in the developed and developing world are based on disciplines (or commodities), it can be deduced that this has arisen through evolution rather than revolution. This means that it may be challenging to achieve change. It would be useful to get participants to this forum to express their views on this issue, as it has major implications for the way that DFID may support AST. 18. Before moving on from the "What" aspects of this summary, it is however worth mentioning Andy Bullock's contribution on the Public Service Agreement (PSA), through which DFID is accountable to the UK Treasury, and which essentially governs what DFID can and cannot do over the next few years through to 2006. The objectives of DFID's PSA are therefore very important, and Andy points out that agriculture is not mentioned anywhere, and hunger only once. In contrast targets are set for poverty, child and maternal health, HIV/AIDS and education. It has to be implied that agriculture is covered indirectly in the PSA, but there is clearly a case for this to be addressed when the next Agreement is drawn up 19. Given the number contributions on the "What" aspects of AST over the past three weeks, I have ended up with several pages of summary. From their contributions, it is apparent that some participants consider that in the context of this particular E-forum, "What" may be less important than the "How", "Which" and "Who". This probably stems from the way that the questions were posed in the S&T moderator's introduction. Clearly not all agree with this view. However, it can said that the priorities for pro-poor AST have been addressed elsewhere by many other individuals and agencies - including fairly recent reviews by government institutions including universities, as well as the CGIAR, international financing institutions, and many donor agencies. So, there is a wealth of information available - if one knows where to look for it. 20. Contributors have said that issues of "How", "Which" and "Who" in terms of DFID support for AST have proved more difficult to address, but nevertheless several have given much thought to these questions, and the following section attempts to summarise their views in the context of the DFID-oriented questions that were posed in the moderator's introduction to this theme. C. HOW SHOULD DFID SOURCE ITS AST KNOWLEDGE, AND MANAGE THIS ? 21. There is agreement among most participants addressing this issue, including Robin Matthews, Jill Lenne and Jock Campbell, that AST knowledge is best derived from a wide variety of sources, given the range of development needs of the poor. This includes public sector organisations in the UK and elsewhere and international institutions such as the CGIAR as well as the private sector. Direct commissioning of work through for example the RNRRS is seen as means of addressing very specific problems. Competitive systems of funding need to be maintained to help ensure quality of AST. 22. A number of contributors feel that DFID is unique in terms of the vast amount of information that it and its predecessor ODA has accumulated over the many years, and that this needs to maintained and properly resourced as a readily accessible resource for developing and developed countries. Jill Lenne points out that the most comprehensive library on tropical agriculture in the world at NRI in the UK is now "moth-balled" in storage that is not readily accessible. 23. Several contributors remind us that this knowledge resource is also of crucial importance to DFID itself as a source of information for taking stock of lessons learned from past AST. DFID could also make a major contribution to AST for development by acting as a knowledge broker. This would require appropriate levels of resources in terms of people and funds - perhaps through whatever follows on from the RNRRS programmes? 24. The issue of in-house capacity technical capacity at DFID is relevant here, and indeed more generally, and a number of contributors have highlighted the erosion of such capacity in recent years, particularly at the senior levels. Contributors with experience at USAID, Gary Alex and Dana Daly, consider that this issue needs to be addressed both centrally and for the in-country programmes. It is touched on again in Section F. D. SHOULD DFID CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE GENERATION OF NEW AST KNOWLEDGE THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN THE UK SCIENCE BASE AND THAT OF OTHER DEVELOPED NATIONS, THE CGIAR AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS, AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR - IF SO, HOW? 25. Many contributors were concerned that a view prevailed in a number of donor agencies, including some parts of DFID, that there was enough AST information on the shelf and the major current constraint was how to get this applied. There was clear consensus that given the many challenges of addressing the needs of the poor, it was essential for new AST knowledge, both strategic and applied to be derived through high quality research, The major question is what aspects of this should DFID be funding and by what mechanisms? It was generally felt that the outsourced RNRRS programmes had proved to be effective, but Robin Matthews was concerned about the weakness of the linkages between DFID and institutions supported by the UK research councils. It was recognised that the latter emphasised fundamental research for the benefit of the UK and the "North", but some of this was also of considerable relevance to the developing world. This issue is currently under review by two parliamentary committees as noted by the E- forum process moderator. 26. Several contributors had concerns with DFID's emphasis on achieving rapid impact, and as a consequence, the short-term nature of funding. As Robin Matthews points out this means that key issues such as the impact on the natural resource base of agricultural intensification, both commercial and smallholder, which are only apparent after a longer period, fail to receive funding. 27. There were mixed views on DFID's support for the CGIAR A number of participants with long experience of working at CG centres felt that the CG system is currently experiencing significant problems in terms of leadership and governance as well as reduced scientific capability in a number of key areas, and that this has been exacerbated by funding problems for many centres - in part attributable to top-heavy management and high overheads. This combination of factors has led to the departure of many world-class scientists. Concerns were expressed that increased funding for the CG centres might be used for "survival" strategies rather than major pro-poor initiatives in the agreed agenda, if this support is to be provided as unrestricted core grants without appropriate accountability. 28. Having said this, contributors have also highlighted good examples of partnerships with the CGIAR that include the DFID-funded PETRRA programme for rice research in Bangladesh and promotion of fodder technologies in South Asia and West Africa. These are long-term, with clear objectives to address major problems, and are fully accountable in terms of how resources are allocated. E. HOW CAN DFID BEST USE AST IN ITS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES, AND DOES IT NEED IN-HOUSE CAPACITY TO DO THIS? 29. Several contributors, including Jock Campbell, remind us that S&T provides a basis for the evidence-based approach, often cited by DFID, that is needed to ensure greater likelihood of success of development activities. . Jill Lenne as well as Robin Matthews and David Harris emphasise the crucial need for AST to be fully integrated with mainstream development, if it is to have any chance of contributing meaningfully to poverty reduction. Failure to establish research-development-application continua is widespread in most donor agencies, including DFID This requires that AST is built into mainstream development projects/programmes right from the outset - from problem identification onwards. This will help address the perennial problem of a valuable AST outcome never reaching its intended beneficiaries because of lack of support for development and application. Robin Matthews and several other contributors have highlighted the need for DFID's in-country programmes to engage with the RNRRS programmes, as the former have the main responsibility for interacting with national governments, and also have good linkages with local NGOs and the private sector. 30. Several contributors point out that most RNRRS programmes have attempted to do this, but without any formal mechanism for linking with DFID's mainstream development activities. The current fragmented approach means that there is discontinuity in support to take outcomes of research further downstream, with the associated loss to the programme of key developing country partners as well those in UK institutions or elsewhere The need for a "joined up" approach may represent one of the "big issues" for DFID in terms of how effective its new research strategy will be. Jill Lenne considered that DFID has achieved especially good returns on its long-term investment in programmes, including the RNRRS, that have supported effective partnerships between the CGIAR, advanced UK research organisations, and developing country research and extension agencies, as well as civil society organisations and the private sector. She argues that DFID should use such successful partnerships as one model for its new research strategy 31. The contributions of Moses Ochieng and Andy Hall raise important issues on AST and innovation. Andy points out that little emphasis is placed by most donor agencies, including DFID, on building capacity of local agricultural innovation systems that promote learning and knowledge sharing and active participation of stakeholders. Andy suggests that DFID could pilot such initiatives by funding in-country research programmes that are more closely aligned with rural development programmes. Research institutions in the UK, and elsewhere, could act as the knowledge source for these local innovation systems. He suggests that funds for this could be diverted from the RNRRS programmes. F. WHAT ROLE SHOULD DFID PLAY IN AND CAPACITY BUILDING AND INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING ? 32. Most contributors to the E-forum have emphasised the vital importance of capacity building and institutional strengthening if partner developing countries are to establish and maintain effective programmes of AST. Good examples are provided by Jock Campbell. Effective programmes of this kind have led to national institutions forming partnerships, developing strategic pro- poor programmes of their based on livelihood considerations. 33. Several participants have expressed strong concerns about the decline in funding for training young AST professionals from developing countries, given the undoubted success of such schemes and the impact on development in their own countries. The legacy of greater investment in the past is still apparent now, but steadily declining. 34. The issues of capacity building are not confined to developing country partners. Many contributors, including Jill Lenne and Robin Matthews, are greatly concerned about the impact of reduced support for AST on the scientific community, including that in the UK. The large-scale loss of scientists with unique experience in pro-poor development from many institutions continues, and as a consequence there is virtually no incentive for younger scientists to enter the development field. The impact on scientists of discontinuous funding for long-term research-development- application programmes of the RNRRS has already been alluded to earlier. A number of contributors consider that this will have a profound impact on the ability of the UK to maintain its internationally recognised status as a major contributor to international development. DFID is urged to establish schemes to support young professionals in development, similar, for example, to those of the IDRC in Canada and the Rockefeller Foundation. G. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR AST OF DFID'S MOVE TOWARDS GREATER BUDGETARY SUPPORT? 35. There has been relatively little comment on this to date. Following on from the previous question, Jock Campbell, points out that effective capacity building can lead to national organisations incorporating AST for development into the poverty reduction strategy programmes (PRSPs) and qualifying for budgetary support. He cites an example from Ghana in post-harvest fisheries where opportunities to use budgetary support were initially lost through failure to build local capacity, but that this has since been addressed successfully. G.Rothschild May 18 Moderator S&T theme ============================================================= 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.