Memorandum submitted by Prospect
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 2007-08; 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 21st 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.
June 2008
| 
