Memorandum submitted by Professor John
Perfect, Independent Chairman, DFID Plant Sciences Research Programme
The Committee is aware of the long-term commitment
of DFID and its predecessor organisations to support for agriculture
as a primary driver for rural development and the most significant
direct contributor to improving the quality of the lives of the
rural poor in the developing world. As ODA the department earned
international plaudits for its innovative approach to the management
of agricultural research through a series of long-term outsourced
programmes that have operated with only minor changes for almost
15 years under its Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy.
The Strategy itself underwent major review and revision in 1995,
but at all stages the value of the contribution to development
from DFID funded RNR research has been reaffirmed in internal
and external reviews and through the vitality and impact of the
diverse partnerships established to promote validation and uptake
pathways. I have had a long-term personal involvement with these
initiatives, initially as a practitioner in UK agricultural research,
then as manager of the Crop Protection Programme and now as Chair
of the Plant Sciences Research Programme Committee.
The DFID consultation paper makes a strong case
for a continued commitment to agriculture as a cornerstone of
the fight against hunger and poverty and I am happy to see this
position reaffirmed. I am less satisfied with the treatment accorded
to research and see no discussion that relates to optimising the
benefits from an investment that must now exceed £250 million
in technology generation through centrally funded research—and
considerably more if associated bilaterally funded initiatives
are taken into account. There is appropriate concern over the
market-related issues that influence impact and uptake from agricultural
research but there seems to be little realisation that such issues
are an integral part of the activity of the present day RNRRS
programmes. Remote scientists disconnected from the realities
of technology uptake are largely a thing of the past and this
change in attitude has been actively fostered by DFID itself through
the protocols guiding management of its research programmes. Notwithstanding
the financial investment, considerable creative energy has been
expended in developing extended networks of skilled and knowledgeable
individuals from many public and some private sector constituencies
that are now delivering benefits to agricultural development.
If DFID does not sustain its long-term commitment to this process
much will be irrevocably lost; many initiatives will founder;
available technology will not be transferred; impact will not
be secured. It is not sufficient to leave the responsibility for
the identification and delivery of appropriate agricultural research
to the private sector since market forces at levels that generate
benefits for smallholders operate with returns that are too low
to be attractive to multinational commercial enterprise.
In concept the RNRRS was an ambitious and forward-thinking
venture, based on a matrix of commodities and technologies and
seeking to secure returns from their integration in systems-oriented
activities with a strong socio-economic underpinning. It was,
however, complex and seldom achieved the levels of integration
envisaged at the design stage. It is thus appropriate to reconsider
the framework for future commitments to agricultural research.
However, within the constraints of the existing framework much
has been achieved and individual programmes have increasingly
oriented their work in ways that clearly show both relevance and
impact. Current thinking needs to build on these achievements
without rasing the ground in search of a new, perhaps intellectually
satisfying but untested model.
The achievements of the DFID Plant Sciences
Research Programme (PSRP) illustrate what can be done when UK
scientific resources are deployed in long-term partnership with
third world institutions under the management of energetic, resourceful
and committed UK institutions. The PSP was originally framed to
provide a balanced programme of work across the various aspects
of plant science relevant to agricultural production and has yielded
useful outputs in a number of fields. However, the driving force
of the programme has increasingly been its work in genetic improvement
and promoting access to, and uptake of, appropriate varieties
of crops such as rice, pearl millet, chickpea, potato and banana.
At the molecular level research sponsored by
the programme has generated transgenic potato and banana with
resistance to nematodes that will provide environmental benefits
through reduction in pesticide use and increase production with
no modifications to existing practice where pesticide is not used.
Collaborative programmes are under way in Bolivia and in Uganda.
Molecular technologies have also been deployed to develop marker-assisted
techniques that have accelerated the development of drought and
disease resistant varieties of pearl millet, a crop that is critical
for food security in the marginal agricultural land of the Indian
subcontinent and Africa.
Amongst the most innovative and exciting work
of the Programme has been its increasing involvement with developing
and validating participatory techniques with farmers for varietal
selection and plant breeding; this provides a means of accelerating
the rate at which new germplasm becomes available to the farmer
and enhances the benefits of genetic diversity for adaptation
to local environments through farmer choice. Striking successes
have been achieved in Eastern India and in Nepal. In the latter
new rice varieties have improved grain quality, increased yield
up to 50% and secured up to 25% increase in market prices. New
varieties are spreading from farmer to farmer and the work has
impacted on the lives of tens of thousands of farming families.
It has also led to adoption of participatory approaches for rice
and other crops by the Department of Agriculture. The potential
for impact outside Nepal is enormous since participatory plant
breeding can reduce the time taken to bring new varieties to farmers'
fields by up to 10 years. In Eastern India similar success has
been achieved in activities sponsored by the RNRRS in partnership
with DFID India. Participatory plant breeding has led to the development
of varieties that have come to dominate upland rice production
in the three states where work has been conducted because of their
increased resistance to drought and lodging, higher grain yield
and improved market performance. A financial analysis based on
an impact assessment conducted in 2002 suggested that the cumulative
benefits over the succeeding 10 years were likely to exceed £200
million. A startling return on investment.
The work described above is the product of years
of collaborative science and partnership building across a range
of public and private sector establishments and a diverse palette
of technical specialisms and enthusiasm. Such networks are powerful
and convincing forces for change. They exist now as a result of
DFID's long-term commitment through the vehicle of the RNR Strategy.
Some continuing long-term strategy is required that builds on
the strengths and successes so far demonstrated. To do so effectively
it must use human resources to good effect and I believe this
should include the extended networks of the existing PSRP as well
as the key technologies they have developed and now promote so
effectively. Attrition over the years has severely diminished
the technical expertise available in DFID and I am convinced that
the decision to outsource research management was a wise one that
has paid dividends. My reading of the consultation document leads
me to the suspicion that DFID intend to relinquish the responsibility
for oversight of their research investment to the CGIAR through
reallocating funding committed to UK led research programmes.
I hope this is incorrect.
May 2004
A memorandum was also submitted to this inquiry
by Prospect, entitled The use of SET in UK international development
policy. This memorandum has not been printed as part of this
volume, as the Science and Technology Committee will be printing
it as part of their inquiry into The Use of Science in UK International
Development Policy, HC 133-II.
| 
