| Making
Science and Technology Work for The Poor
Ian
Scoones, Knowledge, Technology and Society Team, Institute
of Development Studies
|
 |
Ian
shares with Livelihoods Connect this presentation that he made
at a recent public event in Brighton UK to celebrate the 40th
Anniversary of the IDS. He challenges our understanding and
attitude towards science and technology drawing on examples
from developing country agriculture .
" ...I want to suggest three reasons why currently
S and T doesn't always work for the poor, and illustrate
these with three examples from developing country agriculture.
First – In the context of globalisation,
the dynamics of the market and control by large corporations
are increasingly important factors governing access to technologies,
both new and old. The lion’s share of agricultural R and
D globally is controlled by a handful of large corporations.
In the developing world this is increasingly the case, especially
with the decrease in public sector capacity for R and D.
Take agricultural biotechnology and GM crops. A few years ago
there was much made of the potentials of GM crops to solve the
problems of world hunger. But today, years later, the only GM
crops that are being planted in the developing world at scale
are essentially cast-off products, developed for other markets.
GM cotton or soya were engineered for the commercial farms of
the Americas, not for Africa or Asia. Some of these products
have found demand and a market and are clearly benefiting some
farmers in some places.
But, more generally, GM technologies are not addressing the
big challenges of drought, nutrient poor soils and so on. I
would argue that the focus on GM crops by large corporations
- eager to recoup major R and D investments inside patent periods
- has distorted our view of the biotechnology field. With the
explosion of the new genetics there are all sorts of non-GM
biotechnology applications which offer potentials which are
just not getting the limelight or the funding.
Marker assisted selection, for example, which uses insights
from genetic screening and sequencing, can speed up breeding
processes significantly. Researchers working in southern Africa
have bred drought tolerant maize varieties that help farmers
in drought stricken areas get a better crop with dramatic effects.
Therefore a re-gearing of priorities towards crops and traits
that are of importance to poor people’s livelihoods could
offer real potential. But who is going to do it? Not the private
sector: perhaps the public sector – taking a leaf from
that great technology success story, the Asian green revolution?
But my second reason why technologies don’t
always work for the poor raises questions about this more hopeful
storyline. The Asian green revolution is of course iconic. During
the 1960s and 70s high-yielding varieties of rice and wheat
spread across large parts of Asia, boosting yields and reducing
food insecurity, at least on aggregate. A simple set of technologies,
supported by a strong, well-organised public sector, funded
by aid money, had a dramatic effect on large numbers of people.
So why isn’t the green revolution being repeated in Africa?
The problems of African agriculture are not simple, and are
not amenable to such single fix technical solutions: diverse
agro-ecologies interact with diverse farming systems –
requiring instead what some have called ‘multiple rainbow
evolutions’, rather than a big bang revolution. But is
public sector R and D geared up to respond? The answer, sadly
is, in my view, no.
Public agricultural research in Africa in particular has been
decimated by a sequence of policies which have undermined funding
and capacity. And the international system - while having better
funds and more qualified personnel - is often not tuned in to
local priorities.
Take just one example – the ‘system of rice intensification’,
a way of planting rice which, because of the way soils, water
and roots interact, can increase yields several fold. This was
an innovation first developed in Madagascar by a Catholic priest
working with a small group of farmers. Through the activities
of individual researchers, NGO's and increasingly governments,
it has now spread across the world, with perhaps millions of
poor farmers benefiting. But the system remains shunned by the
scientific establishment, including apparently the International
Rice Research Institute. Unable to replicate the success on
their own research stations, they are unable to recognise the
experience of numerous farmers.
How can this be? This is, I would submit, because of the way
elite science is organised – located away from farmers’
fields; focusing on particular disciplines (in this case breeding
not soil/root biology); and having experimental designs that
do not account for farmer skills as part of the technology.
So, if technologies are to work for the poor we need to rethink
– fundamentally I would say - how public sector science
is organised, making it more responsive and so more effective.
Finally, and this links to the rice example,
technologies should not be seen as isolated - separate from
their social, cultural contexts. Very often old technologies,
available for years, are not being used by people because the
social ‘software’ has not been combined with the
technical ‘hardware’. Research organisations are
often focused only on the technical end – the fix. But
this is not enough.
A wider perspective is needed that sees technology as part of
a broader innovation system, encompassing the mechanisms for
adaptation, spread and delivery. Without this, perfectly good
technologies may just sit in the lab, on the research station
or on the stockist's’ shelf. There are many examples of
this dynamic. Take for example soil and water conservation technologies
in dry land Africa. There have been huge investments in trying
to get farmers to adopt particular techniques and technologies.
But the issue is not just soil conservation and water engineering.
It is about trust, enthusiasm, and confidence in the technology.
And this can only be built through social processes. Soil and
water conservation technologies therefore should be seen as
‘socio-technical’ systems, where the social and
technical, the software and the hardware are linked. This requires
not only technical innovation, but also social innovation.
In southern Zimbabwe, Mr Zephaniah Phiri is a master at both
technical and social innovation. A rural farmer and now over
70 years old, he has inspired his own community and through
his small NGO – Zvishavane Water Projects – has
reached out to many, many more. His most popular technology
is a hole in the ground – carefully sited water harvesting
pits, where run off from irregular rain storms is captured and
stored and seeps slowly to nurture growing plants. This hole
in the ground is more effective than any fancy technology I
know – including certainly any available GM technology
– in fighting drought and reducing hunger.
So what can we draw from these examples? How, given the problems
I have identified, can we make S and T work for the poor? I
will conclude with four observations:
First - Don’t expect the private sector to deliver
on this challenge. The profit motive inevitably drives private
R and D, and expecting a sudden philanthropic turn around is
naive– beyond some well-publicised PR gestures. If the
very considerable talents and resources of the private sector
are to be unleashed for development, some new incentives –
both push and pull - need to be applied.
Second – Remember too that the public sector
has its limits too. There is a major task of rebuilding public
sector R and D capacity in Africa, for example - but let’s
not rebuild in the old image, or create elite isolated islands
of ‘scientific excellence’. Public sector institutions
need to re-gear their research styles and priority setting mechanisms
fundamentally if they are to capture the potentials of S and
T for poverty reduction. This will require some significant
organisational rethinking.
Third – There is need to identify the
multiple sources of innovation – high and low tech; social
and technical; from both elite science and from farmers –
and combine these in interesting ways, suited to local circumstances.
Finally - There is a need to insist on participatory
and collaborative research that responds to locally-defined
needs and priorities, creating multiple pathways of technology
change, and real choice among options. This means involving
technology users not just in ‘downstream’, back-end
adaptation and testing, but right upstream in front-end technology
design and priority setting."
 Further
Information
For further information on research in this area, see: www.future-agricultures.org
|
|
|
|
