has been a recent trend for governments to fund programs rather than institutions and an effort towards addressing competitive grants to longer-term programs or themes rather than to individual projects (OECD, 1999).
4.5.3.2 NAE in the global context
Total spending on science in the world is highly spatially concentrated. The US, Japan, Germany, France and the UK accounted in 2000 for 68% of the world's total science spending (CGIAR, 2005). These five countries together with Italy, Canada, China, India and South Korea contribute 81.4% of the world total scientific investment. In contrast, the share of the 80 countries that spent least on science had slipped further from only 0.36% from the world's total spending in 1995 to 0.33% in 2000, which represents a decrease by almost 10%. These 80 countries account for 7% of the world's population and 1.7% of the world's GDP (CGIAR, 2005; Figure 4-3).
Concerning agricultural research, over the past two decades, worldwide public investments have increased by 51 % in inflation-adjusted terms (from an estimated $15.2 billion in 1981 to $23 billion in 2000) (CGIAR, 2005). However, also agricultural R&D has concentrated in a handful of countries. The US, Japan, France and Germany continue to provide two-thirds of the public research done by rich countries in 2000 with little change compared with two decades before (CGIAR, 2005). Similarly, five transition economies (China, India, Brazil, Thailand and South Africa) accounted for 53% of the developing world's agricultural research, up from 40% in 1981. In particular, China, Brazil and India have expanded their basic research capacity, reducing their dependence on adaptive R&D and becoming potential sources for the poorest countries relying on adaptive research (CGIAR Science Council, 2005).
Spillovers of science and technology are increasingly recognized as an important feature of the history of agricultural development (CGIAR, 2005). Half or more of the local productivity gains in agriculture during the past decades can be attributed to "spill-in" technologies developed elsewhere, even if spillovers have turned out difficult to plan for. Unfortunately, spillovers can sharpen the gap between rich and poor countries due to different facilities for utilization (Alston, 2002). For example, research conducted in CIMMYT and IRRI in developing countries provided large economic benefits for the US, due to technology spillover (Pardey et al., 1996). Also, rich countries are increasingly |
|
moving away from technologies appropriate for poor farming communities. In addition, regulatory policies like IPR, biosafety protocols, trading regimes and specific restrictions for moving genetic material are increasingly influencing the extent to which spillovers of R&D in NAE are feasible or economically viable (CGIAR Science Council, 2005).
A central element for research and donor organizations in NAE has been the provision of advanced training to help capacity building, so that individuals and institutions in developing countries become more self-reliant in identifying and executing AKST. Capacity building is generally targeted to individuals, e.g., scholarships and fellowships. Examples include IARC Fellowships (CIMMYT, Vavilov-Frankel/IP-GRI), Generation Challenge (CGIAR), UN, TWAS, Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan (CSFP) and fellowships through research organizations (e.g., Rotham-sted International) and universities (CSFP, 2007; Generation Challenge Programme, 2007; IFAR, 2007; Rothamsted International, 2007). However, although money is provided for training, there is usually no funding to help scientists to continue the work and training received when returning to their home institutes.
Changes in funding priorities brought about by government policies in European countries lead to a gradual erosion of scientists qualified to work in agricultural research for developing countries. There has also been a fragmentation of the researcher skills base, so that experts are spread amongst a large variety of research institutes, universities and non-governmental organizations, rather than a small number of specialized departments. The decline in expertise has been exacerbated by the closure of undergraduate courses in agriculture (NRI, 2002; Science and Technology Committee, 2004; Delgado and Ramos, 2006).
4.5.3.3 International AKST
NAE countries play a major role in funding and shaping agendas for international AKST. This subchapter can only provide a short outline of the changes in funding of international AKST in the last decades. A more detailed analysis is provided in the global report of the IAASTD.
CGIAR is funded mainly through the development aid funds of developed countries (many of which are based in NAE), either directly to the international research centers or through contributions to agencies such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the European Union. The total financial contributions (in US dollars) to CGIAR up to |