Memorandum submitted by 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 ten 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 ten 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
| 
