Memorandum submitted by Prospect

 

June 2008

 

Introduction

1. Prospect is a TUC affiliated union representing 102,000 scientists, engineers and other professional and specialist staff in the Civil Service, research councils and in the university and private sectors. We have approximately 120 members at the Natural Resources Institute and elsewhere within the University of Greenwich. We also represent substantial numbers of scientists at WHRI (formerly Horticulture Research International), CAB International, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and its agencies, and the Department for International Development (DFID). This submission draws heavily on the expertise and first-hand experience of our members.

 

2. The paragraphs below set out our response to the consultation questions. Prospect did also submit evidence to the then House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry into 'The use of science in UK international development policy' and to DFID's earlier consultation on its Research Funding Framework. We are happy to make available further copies of these submissions.

 

3. Prospect welcomes the opportunity to comment on DFID's Annual Report for 2008 and DFID's Research Strategy 2008-13, whilst noting that the latter has been a very long time in its gestation. Prospect responded to DFID's consultation exercise on the strategy in August 2005 and made representations to DFID as long ago as February 2006 to enquire why the strategy had not appeared and repeated this request at intervals thereafter. Prospect was also puzzled why DFID produced subsidiary strategy papers such as the 2006 paper on Research for Sustainable Agriculture before the main research strategy was finalised.

 

RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC POINTS OF INQUIRY RAISED BY THE COMMITTEE

The implications for achievement of the MDG poverty reduction targets of DFID's middle-income country strategy and the 90:10 split in funding between low- and middle-income countries

4. Prospect has no comments to make on this issue.

The effectiveness of DFID's mechanisms for evaluating the impact of its aid

5. We feel that this is a critical and essential issue because of the scale of the aid budget (£5.3 billion in 2007/2008; page 16 of the Annual Report for 2008) and the need for transparent accountability. However, we searched unsuccessfully for a released DFID evaluation strategy on the DFID website. Such a strategy may or may not exist. If it has been written it should be released and if it does not exist we would question why this is the case. Prospect notes that there is now an independent body involved in evaluating the UK aid programme (the Independent Advisory Committee on Development Impact, IACDI, see section 5.41 on page 102 of the Annual Report for 2008), but we feel that DFID's accountability could be enhanced by addition of natural and social science expertise to supplement the largely econometric specialists on the committee. We also note that in paragraph 8 (see http://www.dfid.gov.uk/aboutdfid/performance/files/IACDI-minutes-march08.pdf), of the minutes of the IACDI's second meeting, many criticisms of DFID's Evaluation Department were raised, including the need for a clear and agreed departmental policy on evaluation to meet internationally recognised criteria.

6. Prospect is concerned that in the context of an increasing trend for DFID to provide its assistance in the form of direct budgetary support that there are adequate safeguards that the monies disbursed are used appropriately. Our members who work in developing countries have considerable experience of how funds are liable to mismanagement and view direct budgetary support as an inefficient mechanism, albeit lacking high transaction costs, open to widespread abuse. Linking development funds to clear goals within bilateral or multilateral project structures are the preferred models.

7. We note on page 23 of the Research Strategy that over £20,000,000 is committed to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). We question how the CGIAR's use of these funds is evaluated. Is there sufficient in-house scientific expertise within DFID HQ to perform this role adequately?

8. We welcome the commitment (page 9 of the Research Strategy) "to strengthen our research expertise" but question why in the next line there is a commitment to "decentralise some research management functions"? The implementation of recommendations from the Rothschild customer-contractor principle involving decentralisation, outsourcing and privatisations has not been successful, leading to a lack of coordination of the science for development agenda, the loss of valuable expertise in DFID headquarters and the initiation of the withering of UK capacity in science for development.

9. In Prospect's submission to the consultation on the research strategy in 2005 we welcomed the appointment of a Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) to DFID. Perhaps it is now timely for this role to be evaluated in terms of the quality and quantity of scientific thinking in the aid agenda, with a view to strengthening the impact of scientific advice within DFID and providing resources for public sector research in science for development to match the example of France, as the UK used to do.

 

10. Prospect welcomes the inclusion of climate change in the new research strategy since developing countries, who contribute least to the causes of climate change, will suffer the most from its consequences. Also, the UK science base is a globally recognised source of expertise in climate change subjects and so we anticipate future opportunities across different UK Departments, including DFID, to play a major role in the future, in contrast to the past record of devolving responsibility on climate change to a non-UK organisation. The Climate Change Adaptation in Africa programme is largely funded by DFID, see section 9.15 on page 171 of the Annual Report for 2008, but is managed by the Canadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Prospect was dismayed by this decision to outsource internationally and questions how the IDRC Climate Change Adaptation in Africa programme is evaluated.

 

DFID's approach to agricultural development (including the likely impact on agricultural research of DFID's Research Strategy 2008-13)

 

11. Prospect welcomes DFID's commitment to invest £220,000,000 in research by 2010 and £1 billion on development research in the next five years. We also welcome the commitment to spend £80,000,000 a year on agriculture, fisheries and forestry by 2010. DFID has taken the lead in returning agriculture to its rightful place at the heart of the development agenda, following a regrettable fallow period. Prospect welcomes DFID's recognition that agriculture plays a major role in the reduction of poverty and in economic growth and DFID's lead in increasing its budget for agricultural research.

 

12. An increasing budget for agricultural research is, however, not enough by itself since it has to be deployed by experienced practitioners. Prospect appreciates the positions taken by DFID in its research and agricultural strategies but regrets that these papers do not indicate in sufficient detail how and by whom the policies will be realised. Whilst recognising and applauding the increased role that practitioners based in developing countries play, the implementation and evaluation of the strategies will be difficult because of the continuing decline in the UK's capacity for such research and development (see next paragraph). This decline is partly attributable to DFID's intransigence in maintaining a misguided notion that all aid including scientific research must be untied (see section 5.9 on page 89 of the Annual Report for 2008). This has led to a bizarre contradiction whereby DFID can provide funds for raising awareness of development issues such as the Millennium Development Goals within the UK, but is hamstrung when it comes to funding organisations such as Engineers without Borders who seek to work in developing countries outside the UK.

 

13. The untying of aid may be an admirable policy for the supply of goods, but it is inappropriate when applied to the supply of services and research expertise. The policy has led directly to funding crises within UK organisations that used to be at the forefront of development. Prospect has repeatedly asked DFID to reconsider its policy on the untying of aid and reiterates this position here. If the policy on untied aid was reversed, the UK science base could make very substantial contributions to development programmes and recover its position as a world leader in multidisciplinary science for development.

 

14. Referring again to page 23 of the Research Strategy where it is stated that over £20,000,000 is committed to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), we note that this core funding to a non-UK organisation is possible through untied aid, yet the provision of core budgets to UK's own research institutes for development science is prohibited by the untied aid policy.

 

15. Although the recently constituted UK Collaborative for Development Science is making a valiant effort to facilitate UK involvement and coordinate UK operations, a stronger signal needs to be given by the UK Government on the contribution that science can make to averting food crises in the 21^st. century. There are already 850,000,000 hungry people.

 

16. There has been a near-collapse in the UK's capacity to conduct scientific research on agriculture for development. Thus, it is difficult to envisage how the work will be conducted, managed or evaluated with the degree of rigour that was second nature to the 600 or more staff who worked for the Overseas Development Administration's three scientific units and the Department for Overseas Surveys (DOS) in the mid-1990s. Their successors in the Natural Resources Institute are very much reduced in numbers. Other cuts have included the loss of development specialists from the former Silsoe Research Institute at Wrest Park, CABI, East Malling Research Station, WHRI, the Central Science Laboratory and related organisations. It also includes forestry specialists who worked for DFID's 40-year old Forest Research Programme that ended in 2006 such as those based at the Oxford Forestry Institute which has been absorbed within the Department of Plant Sciences at Oxford. These cuts have occurred despite the importance of tropical forests for maintaining ecosystem services and the carbon cycle, so important for climate change mitigation. University staff, who conduct research on development within universities on a part-time basis, can never substitute for a cadre of dedicated specialists working in a goal-oriented environment to promote development and enhance capacity development, impartially. The Natural Resources Institute exemplifies the catastrophic decline in the UK science base for aid work (see annex).

 

17. In the context of agricultural research, Prospect members are curious to know if and when the UK Government will endorse the recommendations of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (see http://www.agassessment.org/). The IAASTD urges a re-think about agriculture to treat it as an integrated, holistic enterprise that not only produces food, but also enhances the environment and provides for rural development opportunities and income security. The apparent stand-off between key stakeholders in this debate, specifically representatives of the private sector who disassociated themselves from the process at the eleventh hour and the Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) community, cannot continue. The debate must be driven by the kind of evidence that Prospect members in the UK have the experience and ability to deliver. Prospect members include staff in many public sector organisations who could act as "honest brokers" and arbiters, providing unbiased evidence to policy and decision-makers in partnership with their developing country-based colleagues. The best way to influence policy is by providing advice, expertise and practical know-how that is demonstrably functional. Success breeds success.

 

Annex.

 

The Natural Resources Institute (NRI)

 

In 1990 there were about 500 NRI staff, employed directly by the ODA. After a pre-privatisation re-structuring exercise in 1995 there were 373 NRI staff left available for privatisation, and after that exercise there remained 325 staff who transferred from the Agency Status version of NRI into the University of Greenwich in 1996. As of 2 June 2008, NRI has 66 employees of whom 38 (57.6%) are scientists (Science, Engineering, Technology and Innovation, SETI, staff) of whom 22 (57.9% of SETI staff) were entered into the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (20 under Agriculture, Veterinary and Food Science and two included in the non-SETI Development Studies RAE submission). In addition there are (a) 16 Social Scientists and Economists (24.2% of staff), 10 of whom (62.5%) were entered into the Development Studies RAE submission; and (b) 12 support staff (18.2%). At least 8 of the 66 staff are part-time so only about 60 full-time equivalent staff, of whom only 20 (see above) are research-active SETI scientists, remain. Many of these are likely to retire within a few years without being replaced.