Science and Technology Mailing List Archive

["dave oneill (SRI)" <<address removed>>]

I have been involved in agricultural and rural development for about 20
years now, mainly through ODA/DFID sponsored projects in Africa and
south-east Asia.  I've been following the e-conference in "fits and
starts", picking up the AST and Growth & Poverty themes.  I offer the
observations below as my contribution to the consultation.
1.  It is most gratifying to see, at last, so much support for
agricultural development.  It is irrelevant to address poverty without
regard to hunger and growing food (or trying to grow food) because that
is what most of the poorest people do.  In livelihoods terminology, all
the poorest people can access is their human capital (knowledge, ability
to do physical work), natural capital if they're lucky, probably some
social capital but very little, if any, physical or financial capital.
If people are (permanently) hungry, they are very unlikely to flourish,
will have limited work capabilities and will be more disease-prone -
thus perpetuating the vicious circle.
2.  I find it quite hard to understand why agriculture dropped off the
agenda.  I have always associated it with DFID's obsession with
demand-led vs. supply-driven.  In other words, UK researchers with
experience of international development tended to have a background in
agriculture and so their recommendations could be disregarded as
supply-driven.  However, this doesn't explain the scant regard to
requests and justifications for agricultural development projects in
poverty eradication programmes generated by African countries.
3.  There is a big jump between knowledge on the shelf and farmers'
actual practices.  The primary form research is generic but the skills
needed to get this research into practice depend heavily on applied
researchers, development specialists and extension agencies working
participatively with farmers to adapt the research to local needs.  One
of the important components of such teams are the applied (adaptive)
researchers, whose skills, especially if they are UK-based, are now
considered unnecessary by DFID.  Even if it is true that all the
knowledge we need already exists (which I find questionable in this
rapidly changing world - climate change rendering traditional cropping
practices dubious, greater emphasis on sustainability, impact of
HIV/AIDS, changing rural/urban balance etc), it still has to be applied
successfully in local contexts.  I think it is more likely that we need
new knowledge to cope with evolving circumstances.
4.  If the calls for more agricultural research are heeded by DFID, it
is essential that a systems or holistic approach is adopted.  There have
several incidences that I know of where proposed interventions involving
new varieties of crop or crop production methods have not found favour
with local communities because of the food flavour or texture or because
plants with different physical properties are less amenable to
post-harvest processing (e.g. paddy with heavier panicles and shorter
stems are harder to thresh (by hand)).  If proposed changes are not
compatible with local needs and preferences or other cultural factors,
adoption will not take place.
5.  Productivity needs to be increased and this now seems to be becoming
widely accepted.  However, it is essential to include human productivity
as well as land and plant productivity in the overall.  I have not seen
reference to this in the correspondence except Dick Tinsley's "Over
Commiting Labor" on 12 May.  It is very important to consider people's
capabilities and characteristics, together with the design of tools (and
machine interfaces where appropriate), to ensure optimum compatibility.
If not, the system is almost certain to operate below par and resources
and effort will be wasted.  This is especially important for the poorest
people who rely so heavily on their own human capital.  Also the correct
balance must be found between the use of human power, (draft) animal
power and engine power where there is choice.  It is also helpful, in
many agricultural production systems, to establish whether time or
energy is the greater constraint (including seasonal effects).  To the
people concerned these are extremely important issues and deserve
EXPLICIT attention in development projects.
6.  Proper attention to productivity will inevitably include gender
issues because the division of labour would be fully acknowledged.  Men
and women generally have different physical abilities (strength, energy
reserves for physical work), different calls on their time, different
social needs and, probably different cultural roles in society.
Ignoring human characteristics and ergonomics needs will threaten the
success, probably, and the effectiveness/efficiency, certainly, of any
human operated system.  Fuller attention should be paid to such issues
in future research and development programmes/projects.

If you've read this far - thanks for sticking with it.  Also
appreciation to DFID for taking this initiative.  I, personally, feel it
has worked far better than I was expecting.

Dave O'Neill
Silsoe Research Institute
www.sri.bbsrc.ac.uk 


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