Memorandum submitted by Professor George
Rothschild, on behalf of the Chairpersons of the Independent Advisory
Committees of four of the DFID's Renewable Natural Resources Research
Strategy programmes
A. BACKGROUND
1. This submission to the International
Development Committee (IDC) is made on behalf of the Chairs of
the independent Advisory Committees (PACs) of four of DFID's Renewable
Natural Resources Research Strategy (RNRRS) programmes (Forestry
Research, Livestock Production, Crop Protection, and Crop Postharvest).
The Chair of the Plant Sciences Programme Advisory Committee (Prof
John Perfect) has forwarded a separate memorandum to the Committee
(Ev 64), which provides good insights into how individual
research programmes contribute to poverty reduction, using the
Plant Sciences Programme as an example, but also raises important
generic issues on DFID's commitment to agricultural research in
the UK and overseas.
2. Before discussing issues relating to
DFID's role in agricultural science and technology, it is relevant
to briefly summarise the background to the involvement of the
independent RNRRS advisory committees in the present round of
parliamentary inquiries. This has been as follows.
3. After your Committee's inquiry last June
into DFID's 2003 Annual Report, the PAC Chairs of nine RNRRS programmes
expressed their strong concerns to the then Acting IDC Chair,
Tony Worthington MP, that agriculture, including research, appeared
to have a declining profile on DFID's agenda, despite the sector's
great importance for poverty reduction in the developing world.
The PAC Chairs also pointed out that it was surprising that the
DFID had not highlighted the fact that it had invested well over
£200 million over the past 10 years in ten successful programmes
of research on agriculture, forestry and fisheries that explicitly
targeted those in extreme poverty, and that the Department had
also supported other bilateral and multilateral agriculture activities.
Mr Worthington then extended an invitation for the PAC Chairs
to provide a brief summary of key issues of concern, as well as
background on the achievements of the RNRRS programmes. This was
done last July. The coordinator for the PAC Chairs also encouraged
other stakeholders in the UK and overseas to make representations
to the IDC on this issue. In October, the Committee published
its report on DFID 2003 and flagged the need for the Department
to provide a greater "visible" commitment to agriculture
in its core agenda. Particular reference was also made for the
need to support smallholder agriculture.
4. Since last July, the PAC Chairs, via
their coordinator, have had regular interactions with the IDC
to pursue these issues further, largely through Mr Worthington.
They were urged by him to make a submission to the inquiry currently
being conducted by the Science & Technology Committee (STC)
into "The Use of Science and Technology in UK International
Development Policy and Practice", which they have done. The
PAC Chairs' coordinator also urged other stakeholders in the UK
and overseas to provide evidence to that inquiry. A copy of the
PAC submission to the STC has been provided to your Committee
members.
5. Following further consultations by PAC
representatives and others with parliamentary groups including
the All Party Group on Overseas Development (APGOOD), the issue
of DFID's policy on agriculture was taken up with the Secretary
for State, Mr Hilary Benn, who led discussions on the topic at
an APGOOD stakeholders' meeting in January of this year. DFID
prepared a policy paper just prior to that meeting entitled Agriculture
and Poverty Reduction: Unlocking the Potential, which forms
the basis for the present inquiry by your Committee. This policy
paper is related to a more substantial issue paper Better livelihoods
for poor people: the role of agriculture which was distributed
for consultation in May 2002 but apparently not finalised as a
document in the public domain.
B. IMPACT SO
FAR OF
IDC INQUIRIES AND
APGOOD ACTIVITIES, AND
CURRENT STC HEARINGS
6. The PAC Chairs involved in this submission
believe that the stakeholder submissions, interim reports and
preliminary outcomes of hearings of the IDC as well as those of
the STC, have, together with the activities of APGOOD, already
contributed significantly towards several constructive actions
by DFID. These actions include:
(i) the restoration of agriculture (defined
broadly) to DFID's core agenda, as demonstrated by the policy
paper mentioned above;
(ii) extension for a further year of the
RNRRS programmes to allow for scoping studies about successor
arrangements; and
(iii) greatly enhanced support for international
agricultural research through the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system for 2004-06, and support
for the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF).
C. ISSUES STEMMING
FROM DFID'S DRAFT
POLICY PAPER
ON "AGRICULTURE
AND POVERTY
REDUCTION: UNLOCKING
THE POTENTIAL",
WITH SPECIAL
REFERENCE TO
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY
(AST)
7. In this submission, we have consciously
not dwelt on the overarching reasons why agriculture should have
high priority in the DFID agenda. We are also not addressing the
economic and social reasons for emphasising smallholder agriculture
rather than commercial farming in the context of Sub-Saharan Africa.
These major issues has been comprehensively and ably addressed
by witnesses in the previous IDC hearing on 12 May 2004 in their
oral evidence and in the papers by Dr Peter Hazell and colleagues
of the CGIAR International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington
DC. The overarching issues are also being discussed in DFID's
current E-forum on renewable natural resources and agriculture,
for that team in the DFIDHQ Policy Division, preliminary findings
of which are being forwarded to your Committee.
8. We agree in principle with most of the
evidence presented, and will therefore highlight other matters.
Before this, we do wish, however, to refer to two overarching
issues:
(a) the critically important issues of population
and food security, which we believe has received far too little
attention in the current debates on poverty; and
(b) DFID's support for "pro-poor"
activities.
9. (a) Food security: As it is not
strongly emphasised in DFID's policy paper on Agriculture and
Poverty Reduction, we feel that there is a need to reiterate to
the Committee that the global population will rise to nine billion
over the next several decades—half as many people again
as there are now. Most of these will be in the developing world.
Given that about a billion people are chronically malnourished
now, there will be a real challenge in ensuring food security
in the future. While economic and social policy interventions
will be required to address problems of access, markets, trade
and so on, the bottom line is that food production will have to
increase by around 50% from less land, and with less water and
probably less labour—given the trend of the landless to
seek non-farm employment. AST to raise production will clearly
be critically important in meeting this challenge. In parallel,
in Sub-Saharan Africa, there is rapidly rising demand for fuelwood
and charcoal for cooking and heating in both rural and urban areas.
This must also be supplied from smaller areas of increasing degraded
woodland.
**Recommendation 1: That DFID clarifies its
policy on addressing the potential crisis in food security, including
the role of AST.
10. (b) DFID's pro-poor agenda: The
previous Secretary for State, Clare Short, made it clear in 1997-98
that the major emphasis of DFID's aid delivery was to be directed
towards those in extreme poverty. The RNRRS and some other DFID
research programmes were accordingly re-focussed on the needs
of the very poor. Given the multi-faceted livelihoods of the very
poor, it must be accepted that there are complexities and associated
high transaction costs for AST and improvements in livelihoods
undertaken directly with these communities. In its recent policy
statements, DFID has increasingly used the term "pro-poor",
which some interpret as being less clearly directed towards those
in extreme poverty. If pro-poor means, for example, moving towards
commercial scale farming rather than smallholder production, and
focusing on non-farm employment opportunities and policy interventions
at the national level, then it implies that the impacts on those
in extreme poverty may be more indirect—that is through
mechanisms sometimes defined as "trickle down". The
statistical association between economic growth and reduction
in poverty does not seem to hold for those still at subsistence
level of livelihoods. Benefits may trickle down, through increased
employment in commercial agriculture, but this is scarcely likely
to affect the livelihoods of the very poor in remote and marginalized
communities. It would be helpful if DFID could clarify where it
currently stands on the issue. Specifically, is DFID still concerned
about the livelihoods of the very poor, and with this an obligation
of accepting higher transaction costs of such concerns?
**Recommendation 2: That DFID clarify what
it means by pro-poor in terms of its agriculture agenda.
11. Moving on from these overarching issues,
we will now focus on several themes that are more concerned with
how DFID manages AST rather than what it does in terms of subject
matter. The themes include the internal organisation of DFID in
terms of AST, DFID's support for institutions undertaking AST,
the Department's role in capacity building and institutional strengthening,
how research outcomes are integrated with mainstream development
and application, the implications of direct budgetary support
for AST, and the role of private-public sector partnerships in
AST.
12. The DFID Policy paper on Agriculture
and Poverty Reduction confirms that agriculture is back on
DFID's agenda, and as pointed out in the introductory background,
we welcome this development. Agricultural science and technology
are mentioned, albeit rather briefly, and there is a commitment
to maintain a "substantial" programme of collaborative
work between the CGIAR, UK institutions and others, as well as
significant additional funding for the CGIAR. However, no examples
of the use of AST or its impact on the poor are included—all
those given in the Box in the paper are concerned with social
and economic issues.
13. DFID has yet to finalise its new research
strategy, but it has just released (11 May) a public consultation
draft to help develop this strategy entitled Research Funding
Framework 2005-07. The Framework will also be discussed at
the Science & Technology Committee hearing on 26 May. We will
not comment on the Framework in this submission, but a number
of issues raised below are relevant, and will be mentioned briefly.
14. The last section of DFID's policy paper
on Agriculture and Poverty Reduction is entitled "Next
steps", and this mentions that further consultations with
stakeholders will take place, including an E-forum, to help DFID
develop its agenda on agriculture. The E-forum is now underway
and over 450 contributions have been received on several themes,
including science and technology. We understand that your Committee
is being kept informed of progress in the Forum, and will receive
the wrap-up reports from DFID.
D. INTERNAL ORGANISATION
OF DFID IN
TERMS OF
AST FOR DEVELOPMENT
15. (a) Responsibility within DFID for
agriculture/research: With the continuing reorganisation of
DFID HQ, it remains unclear which group(s) has(ve) responsibility
for agricultural research. The Agriculture and Renewable Natural
Resources Team within the Growth and Investment thematic group
in Policy Division deals with agriculture/forestry/fisheries issues,
and this team was apparently largely responsible for the paper
that forms the basis for the present IDC hearing. Research on
the other hand is managed by the Central Research Department,
which is distinct from the Policy Division and located as from
17 May 2004 in the Corporate Performance and Knowledge Sharing
Directorate. We are not aware of the strength of linkages in terms
of joint planning and regularity of communication between the
two entities, but perceptions, rightly or wrongly, of those outside
of DFID are that these are less than might be expected—given
that new strategies are being developed for managing agriculture
and other renewable natural resources and AST within DFID. Moreover,
other teams within the DFID Policy Division must have some relation
to agriculture and renewable natural resources and presumably
could have an interest in commissioning new AST research and making
use of AST outputs. These include: all four teams in the Sustainable
Development thematic group, and at least four out of the six teams
in the Social Development thematic group.
**Recommendation 3: That DFID clarify how
responsibilities for AST are assigned within DFID, and in particular
the respective roles of CRD and the Agriculture & RNR Team
within the Policy Division.
16. (b) In-house capacity for AST:
The number of DFID staff with backgrounds in science and technology,
and more specifically in AST, has declined considerably since
1998, and most advice to DFID currently comes from its outsourced
RNRRS programmes. The Central Research Department is still in
the process of recruiting staff, and it is unclear how many of
these will have relevant backgrounds.
17. DFID previously had senior positions
for Chief and Deputy Chief Natural Resources Advisers, together
with technical advisory departments. These posts and departments
were abolished as from April 2003 or earlier. With science and
technology widely accepted as being of increasing importance in
economic growth (as recently demonstrated by Chancellor Gordon
Brown in launching the UK's new S&T initiative), we believe
that there are good reasons for appointing a Chief Scientist/Chief
Adviser (CSA) to take a leadership role in DFID. This individual
would provide high level advice to top DFID management, as the
Chief Economist already does, and would also undertake communication
and coordination between DFID, and other UK government departments
and agencies, as well as with international donor agencies and
other key organisations engaged in S and T for international development.
The CSA of DFID would be a member of the Whitehall CSAIC.
**Recommendation 4: That DFID ensures that
it has sufficient in-house capacity to address S&T issues,
including AST, and that it give serious consideration to creating
a post of Chief Scientist/Adviser to also take a lead role nationally
and internationally in S&T for development.
E. DFID SUPPORT
FOR THE
CGIAR
18. CGIAR: The recent significant
increase in funding for the CGIAR during 2004-06 and for the AATF
is most welcome, but it is hoped that after evaluation of the
RNRRS and bilateral research activities, meaningful levels of
funding will be forthcoming for whatever replaces those programmes—rather
than the multilateral contributions offsetting these. The main
reason being that the CGIAR centres have comparative advantages
in some areas such as crop genetic improvement, but, because of
funding cuts, as well as other structural problems, now lack the
critical mass of scientists necessary to undertake strategic research
on a number of major research areas of importance for poverty
reduction.
19. Most CGIAR centres have always been dependent
on partnerships with advanced research institutions in the UK
and other OECD countries as well as national research agencies
in the stronger developing nations—and actively seek out
such partnerships. DFID should not see the CGIAR as a "proxy"
for getting all of its AST done through the disbursement of large
tranches of funding and thus low transaction costs. The CGIAR
is not capable of responding and this is also not the agreed purpose
of that research system. For the investment in the CGIAR to be
of value, DFID must ensure that there is an equally strong commitment
to national research programmes if there is to be real impact.
This includes partnerships with other research institutions as
just noted. Additionally, given that the UK has adopted a principle
of untied aid, and an open competitive tendering system for AST
in its bilateral programmes, it needs to clarify whether the large
additional allocation to the CGIAR for 2004-06 has been made on
the basis of careful evaluation of the returns from DFID's investment
in terms of impact on the poor, or whether this additional allocation
represents unrestricted core funding with no conditionality attached
to it.
**Recommendation 5: DFID should clarify the
basis for its increased contribution to the CGIAR, and in particular
whether this has been based on full evaluation of returns for
the investments made, as is, for example, to be the case for the
RNRRS programmes.
F. DFID'S RNRRS PROGRAMMES
20. RNRRS research programmes and their
possible replacement: As noted in paragraph 6 above, the outsourced
RNRRS programmes have over the past 9 years been the main vehicle
for DFID to support strategic research for development in agriculture,
forestry and fisheries. The programmes were due to be terminated
in March 2005, but, largely as a result of the activities of your
Committee and associated parliamentary inquiries, have, as noted
earlier, been extended for a further year to permit scoping studies
for successor arrangements.
21. The recently released public consultation
draft for the new research strategy referred to earlier, namely
the DFID Research Funding Framework 2005-07, appears to
have taken little account of what has been done previously or
lessons learned from the RNRRS programmes, which have run for
almost 10 years, with the total investment exceeding £200
million. This may reflect the limited attention given to the RNRRS
programmes in the 2002 Surr report, which has apparently formed
the basis for much of DFID's current thinking. A number of the
proposed activities for the new Funding Framework are undertaken
routinely by the RNRRS programmes and by major development agencies
elsewhere; these include extensive exercises to identify stakeholder
priorities for poverty reduction, and longer term horizon scanning
for future priorities (eg 2020 programmes of World Bank, CGIAR
and others).
22. We hope that the extension of the RNRRS
through to 2006, and the planned series of consultations on key
AST issues will allow for proper evaluation of impact and lessons
learned, and thereby provide sound background for the new DFID
research strategy. In particular, there is a need to ensure that,
whatever system DFID finally adopts for managing research is based
on a comprehensive review of the many options available. The Development
Research Centre concept, raised in the Research Funding Framework
has weaknesses as well strengths, and while perhaps suitable for
some of the social science studies, may not be appropriate for
all AST or in other sectors such as education, health and engineering.
The institutional arrangements for research should depend on the
objectives and on the mechanisms envisaged for promotion, uptake
and application of research results. These do not appear to have
been considered in the consultation draft.
**Recommendation 6: DFID needs to undertake
a comprehensive review of the options available for managing research
before adopting a particular model or models. It may also need
to consider using several different mechanisms for different types
of research for development.
G. DFID AND THE
ROLE OF
UK RESEARCH INSTITUTES
IN INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
23. In terms of AST, the UK science base
has contributed significantly to poverty reduction programmes
in the developing world. In the past, much of the work was undertaken
by institutions dedicated to research in the developing world,
such as the range of institutes formerly within DFID's predecessor
ODA, which were then merged into one entity, the Natural Resources
Institute (NRI), and finally privatised; and the Oxford Forestry
Institute. Valuable work in developing countries has also been
undertaken by other UK-based research institutes, supported by
the Research Councils such as the BBSRC and NERC, and with co-funding
from ODA/DFID, but this has usually been undertaken by individuals
or small units, and represents a relatively minor part of their
overall agenda of more fundamental and strategic research primarily
for the benefit of the UK. In contrast to NRI and OFI, UK institutions
supported by the Research Councils receive core funding, and this
has a major impact on their viability. The CGIAR centres also
receive significant unrestricted core funding from some other
donor governments.
24. The untying of aid by the UK to encourage
fair and open competition is right in principle. However, some
other OECD countries have failed to follow suit in practice, which
has made it more difficult for UK scientific research institutions
with high profiles in development to compete with counterparts
overseas for EU and other donor agency funds. For example, the
decline in university core funding in the UK has led to an increase
in the overheads levied on research grants, thus making them less
competitive. It is definitely not a level playing field. This
combined with the lack of core support, means that UK institutions,
more exclusively dedicated to scientific research for development,
are experiencing major reductions in staff, and associated loss
of unique experience vital for DFID's programmes and those of
development agencies overseas.
25. One noticeable consequence of this decline
in employment and career opportunities is the significant reduction
in numbers of young professionals seeking a career in science
for overseas development. All this means that the UK, which has
long been a world leader in many areas of AST for development,
may have to look to other nations to take the high ground in this
area, unless steps are taken to address this problem.
**Recommendation 7: It is suggested that,
without compromising its position on the untying of aid, DFID
examines options for ensuring that the UK science base continues
to contribute significantly to international development. This
could in part be achieved by ensuring that funds allocated to
the CGIAR are also available for competitive bids by UK institutions.
H. DFID'S ROLE
IN CAPACITY
BUILDING AND
INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING
IN AST
26. We have very recently (18 May) prepared
a summary of this issue in response to supplementary questions
from the STC and consider that it is appropriate to provide an
edited quotation from this for the benefit of the IDC.
We suggest that . . . "In the broader context
of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, effective capacity building
is essential if DFID support for AST is to lead to sustainable
development that targets the very poor, and is not dependent on
long-term donor intervention. Capacity building has to be a fully
integrated part of the development process—best seen as
a research-development-application continuum—or run in close
association with it. The training must be needs driven and thus
be based on a meaningful analysis of what these needs really are.
It can be undertaken in-country with local and regional representation,
or in OECD countries when this is required. Pressure for the more
costly latter option often comes from developed country institutions,
including some in the UK supported by the Research Councils, and
this requires careful scrutiny to determine whether such training
does indeed provide value for money in terms of relevance and
likely impact.
27. There has been no explicit contractual
requirement for programmes supported by DFID, such as the RNRRS,
to undertake capacity building in AST, and few formal mechanisms
other than a number of small grant schemes are available for this.
The RNRRS programmes have addressed capacity building through
various avenues, but principally through partnerships relevant
to immediate project needs. These partnerships are almost always
interdisciplinary and involve several countries, with developing
and developed country partners having equal standing (added
note: some other DFID centrally-funded research programmes do
have significant capacity building elements).
28. Capacity building in these partnerships
is focussed on specific projects, and as such tends to be small-scale
and discontinuous. This limited approach means that there is no
training in core requirements such as research organisation and
management or other broader issues needed for strengthening entire
institutions. Yet, it is universally recognised that there is
a compelling need for institution building on a massive scale,
especially in Africa, if sustainable development in the agriculture
sector is to become a reality; because of the perennial deficiencies
in the educational system, which need to be repaired to bring
staff up to research standard. In this regard, it is unfortunate
that the CGIAR organisation known as the International Service
for National Agriculture Research (ISNAR) has, because of lack
of sufficient donor support, been reduced to a single programme
within another centre. There is an ever-increasing need for the
kind of work undertaken by ISNAR, which should therefore be addressed
through other approaches, for example, establishing units for
this purpose in individual CG centres or within regional organisations"
. . . End of extract.
**Recommendation 8: There is a clear requirement,
and an excellent opportunity, for DFID to demonstrate leadership
among the international donor community in developing, funding
and managing a coherent long-term needs-based strategy for capacity
building and institutional strengthening. This should be integrated
or closely aligned with DFID's overall programmes of research-development-application
in agriculture and associated sectors, for both central and in-country
programmes. However, proper provision has to be made for this
in terms of funding.
I. DFID'S ROLE
IN ENSURING
THAT AST IS
APPROPRIATELY INTEGRATED
OR CLOSELY
ALIGNED WITH
MAINSTREAM DEVELOPMENT
BOTH CENTRALLY
AND THROUGH
THE IN-COUNTRY
PROGRAMMES
29. Some consider that this is the single
most important issue that requires attention at DFID, and it is
referred to elsewhere in this submission as the research-development-application
continuum. Many donor agencies, not just DFID, have failed to
develop effective means of ensuring that important outcomes of
demand -led research are further developed and then adopted by
or for those in poverty. There appears to be little "joined-up
thinking", let alone practice. To be successful, AST has
to be built into mainstream development projects/programmes from
the outset and be considered jointly at all phases from problem
identification with key stakeholders through implementation and
on to application and evaluation. This applies to both centrally
managed and in-country programmes. There has to be an accompanying
commitment to provide longer-term funding to support such activities—that
is, "joined up" funding
30. Currently, there is usually considerable
discontinuity between research outcomes being piloted and then
disseminated more broadly, and in the use of research results
for policy shaping. These breaks frequently lead to loss of momentum
in major projects of crucial importance to the poor, as well as
loss of key partners in developing countries, the UK and elsewhere.
31. We believe that DFID could learn valuable
lessons on how to develop research-development continua from the
experiences of its outsourced RNRRS programmes over the past decade,
which, in the absence of formal mechanisms at DFID, have developed
approaches of their own for addressing these problems. These vary
somewhat from programme to programme but all are worthy of scrutiny.
**Recommendation 9: That DFID develops appropriate
mechanisms for linking research with mainstream development so
as to maximise the returns from its investment in AST, and that
this is based on full evaluation of other models including its
own RNRRS programmes.
J. DFID AND POLICY
FOR DIRECT
BUDGETARY SUPPORT
32. DFID has increasingly emphasised the
importance of Direct Budgetary Support (DBS) for developing countries
to enable them to determine their own priorities, including AST
for poverty reduction, with the assistance of poverty reduction
strategy papers (PRSPs). As your Committee is aware, although
most of the poor in developing countries are dependent on agriculture,
the ministries and line departments responsible are usually weak,
and the sector is therefore often not accorded the priority that
it deserves—let alone AST.
33. This implies that it might be difficult,
if not impossible, for DFID to influence the development agenda
of partner nations in terms of the inclusion of agriculture and
AST, indeed any particular sector—if DBS becomes the norm—without
conditionality or change forecasts, and even if the poverty reduction
strategy papers (PRSPs) are appropriate. The question then is
what would be the role of the central policies on agriculture
and AST currently proposed by DFID in its new Research Funding
Framework? At another level, the same question could be posed
in relation to CRD's relationship with the DFID country programmes,
which will be accorded far greater responsibilities for development,
including budget management.
**Recommendation 10: DFID needs to clarify
how it will manage the agriculture/AST agenda if Direct Budgetary
Support is to be the preferred mode of aid delivery to achieve
poverty reduction. It also needs to clarify whether those responsible
for agriculture and RNR as well as AST are likely to be called
upon to help drafting PRSPs.
K. DFID AND PRIVATE
SECTOR INVOLVEMENT
IN AST
34. Over the past two years, DFID has undertaken
a number of reviews to identify suitable mechanisms for attracting
investment by the private sector in AST, as well as in the development
and application of research products. This has led to the Department
co-funding the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF),
which supports the development of technologies that are affordable
for small farmers.
35. Much has been written on the issue of
private sector engagement with AST for the developing world. By
and large, it is true to say that the private sector is not attracted
to invest in pro-poor AST for the developing world, as the returns
are too small. Furthermore, many of the products of such AST are
international public goods, and thus private companies cannot
appropriate the returns. Most private sector involvement that
does take place is leveraged through partnerships with the public
sector organisations. This however presupposes that there is a
strong public sector partner, which in many developing countries
is not the case, especially in Africa.
36. A number of the larger multinational agribusinesses
have established foundations and other entities, whereby biotechnology
products and technologies, including some under IPR protection,
are donated to researchers working on pro-poor technologies in
developing countries. A number of the livestock vaccine programmes,
currently of interest to DFID, fall into this category. We conclude
that there is role for the private sector in AST for those in
poverty, but that this is likely to be limited for the foreseeable
future.
Professor Rothschild also submitted an memorandum
to the Science and Technology Committee, as part of their inquiry
into `The Use of Science in UK International Development Policy'.
This memorandum will be included in a Science and Technology Committee
report, HC 133-II, when it is published.
May 2004
| 
