SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

How can DFID help to increase access to agricultural science and technology?

The consultation aims to seek views, opinions and examples of innovative and established practice in order to inform future DFID policy and investment. Your moderator will lead the debate with the short introductory paper below, provide regular summaries and guide the dialogue.

Theme Outline

Introduction

1. This theme makes two basic assumptions. Firstly, overwhelming evidence from both the developed and developing world demonstrates that agricultural science and technology (AST) is an essential pillar of agricultural growth. Secondly, that agricultural growth itself is the principal precursor (“engine room”) of overall economic growth, including industrialisation. DFID clearly accepts both assumptions as a “given”, most recently in its policy paper entitled “Agriculture and poverty reduction; unlocking the potential” (December 2003). Thus, participants in this E-forum need not reiterate how important AST is for agriculture, or how that sector contributes to economic growth and poverty reduction. Rather, this section of the consultation will provide an opportunity for participants to raise and debate ideas and practical proposals on how DFID might best gain access to AST, its role in generating new knowledge, how it should use AST knowledge to greatest effect in its programmes, and, in that regard, what outcomes it should be aiming to achieve.

2. Agriculture as defined here includes crops, livestock (and bush-meat), forestry, fisheries and overall natural resources management. AST is defined as the full cycle of problem identification, research, promotion and application, coupled with capacity building. AST generates technologies, policies and strategies, which differ according to whether they target the very poor at subsistence level, those emerging from poverty, or those engaged in commercial farming.

How does DFID presently acquire its AST?

3. There are many sources of information on AST, including both knowledge managers/publishers such as FAO, and generators of knowledge including the CGIAR centres and other international research institutions, CABI, scientific institutions in the UK and other OECD countries (largely but not exclusively in the public sector), as well as major institutes in the stronger economies of the developing world such as China, India and Brazil. Since 1995, DFID has relied on these diverse sources for its AST, but the first “port of call” has usually been its ten outsourced Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy (RNRRS) programmes, as well as its own natural resources advisers located centrally and in some DFID in-country offices. The RNRRS programmes have responded over the past nine years of their existence to major changes in the development scene that have occurred in DFID and the international development scene more generally.

4. The changes referred to in point (3) above, have meant that the poor beneficiaries of AST have become centre stage, rather than AST itself. The highest priority is thus given to the development of enabling policies, knowledge dissemination and uptake, as well as the requirement for pro-poor AST research to be demand-led and participatory. The focus on poor people and their livelihoods has led to greater efforts to integrate technical and social research, and for this to be an integral part of mainstream development. Having said this, DFID and other donor agencies are still struggling to establish mechanisms for effectively integrating AST research, development, dissemination and application within a meaningful continuum. Equally, there has not been an associated long-term strategy for capacity building and institutional strengthening for AST in developing countries, without which sustainability of effort cannot be achieved. DFID’s RNRRS programmes have managed to undertake some capacity building though partnerships, despite limited resources and mandate restrictions. Involvement of DFID in-country offices has been patchy and highly dependent on the interest of individual NR advisers.

How does DFID plan to access and use AST in the future?

5. The stated intention of recent and ongoing reorganisation of rural development activities in DFID is to respond to the evolving challenges. This has led to closure of the Rural Livelihoods Department, and the creation of a Central Research Department and a new Agriculture Team within the Policy Division. The RNRRS programmes were to be terminated by March 2005, but have had a one-year extension while the new DFID research strategy is being developed. DFID has been undertaking a number of scoping studies and other activities to assist with this task, and the next 18-24 months will be devoted to a range of further activities including a full assessment of the RNRRS programmes to build on experience gained in the latter and lessons learned. DFID hopes that consultations, such as this E-forum, will contribute to this process

6. The specific remit of this theme is “how does DFID increase its access to AST”. However, given that it is planned to use the forum as a source of ideas for the new research strategy, it will be more meaningful to put the question of access in the context of how AST (broadly defined – see above) will actually be used and incorporated by DFID into its mainstream development agenda.

Possible issues for discussion

7. It is hoped that participants will generate and debate ideas and practical options as to how DFID should improve its access to, and use of, AST, as well as its role in supporting the generation of new AST. This is obviously a broad area for discussion. As a start, four “clusters” of issues and associated queries (underlined) are summarised below. These may help stimulate the debate, but participants will no doubt wish to highlight others.

(a) A major stated aim of DFID’s programmes is to significantly reduce poverty (with special reference to the very poor) through agricultural growth. Given that the research needs for growth and poverty reduction are not necessarily the same, which AST knowledge sources are particularly appropriate for DFID? How should this information be managed and archived – giving due recognition to those who provide it, as well as to free access to all users? Should DFID play a role in supporting international and regional networks?

(b) The above refers to “on the shelf” information on AST. DFID has contributed significantly to the generation of new knowledge through its support to partnerships involving institutions in developing countries, the UK science base and that of other OECD countries, CGIAR centres, and other agencies. Should DFID continue to do this, and if so, through which mechanisms? What role could the private sector play in this, given that much pro-poor AST aims to produce public goods, and how might DFID encourage the private sector’s involvement?

(c) Few development agencies have successfully integrated research into their mainstream development programmes, as their organisational structure and operations often pose constraints to this happening. How might DFID properly address this issue in terms of the research-development-application continuum to ensure greater developmental impact? Should DFID strengthen its in-house technical expertise in AST to assist in this task? What should be the respective roles of DFID central units and in-country offices in this? How might DFID help ensure that research outcomes are piloted in demonstrations and then more broadly applied at the local/national level? How could this be coupled with capacity building and institutional strengthening, which is of crucial importance? What role could the private sector play in technology transfer/application, and, as in (c) above, how might DFID encourage this?

(d) DFID has emphasised its commitment to budgetary support for developing countries to enable them to identify and address their own priorities, including AST, for poverty reduction – aided by poverty reduction strategy programmes (PRSPs). Although most of the poor are in rural areas and dependent upon natural resources, the national agricultural systems of many developing countries are weak in financial and human resource terms, and as a consequence agriculture is usually given low priority in PRSPs. Given this scenario, what are the advantages and disadvantages of budgetary support for AST as opposed to technical assistance, and how could these be translated into recommendations to DFID?

George Rothschild, March 2004