marker-assisted selection in wheat - ictsd

Chapter 22 – Marker-assisted selection: policy considerations and options for developing countries 465appreciation of the importance of S&T formeeting their socio-economic objectivesthrough agriculture. Hence, the necessityfor agricultural research and extension institutionsto engage in dialogue during theprocesses of revising PRSPs, comprehensiveagricultural development and relatedpolicies and strategies cannot be underestimated.This promotes learning and capacitydevelopment among and between policyandlaw-makers, technical experts and civilsociety, as well as greater appreciation ofpoverty and its different dimensions andthe trade-offs between different approachesto its amelioration. It results in strongerlinkages between S&T, national povertyreduction and agricultural developmentobjectives, and greater awareness amonghigh-level policy-makers of the contributionsthat S&T can make to achieve theseobjectives. The merits of such engagementalso include greater need-driven prioritysetting,elimination of duplication, moreinformed decision-making both on theroles of the public and private sectors, andpartnership identification. All of this helpsto create more efficient and coordinatedactivities within and between the differentagricultural subsectors and their supportingNARES. Well-conceived studieson the socio-economic impacts of cropsand breeds developed through MAS wouldalso assist decision-making on S&T investmentallocation as this is hardly available inthe literature (FAO, 2005b).Creating S&T policies for drivingstronger priority-setting and betterdelineating roles and responsibilitiesMany developing countries continue towork with outdated, isolated and highlyfragmented NARES, each with their ownset of rules, fiscal arrangements and governmentoversight, and they have weakor non-existent linkages between publicinstitutions, the IARCs and private firms.Some possess many of the essential componentsincluding cutting-edge equipment,but they are not maximizing their potentialto develop MAS capacity. While substantialprogress has been made by a number ofcountries to establish a single frameworkfor managing agricultural R&D, includingmechanisms for setting and evaluating priorities,in most developing countries these arerare. Making a case for MAS, unsupportedby a well thought out (evidence/diagnostic-based)S&T policy framework thatpromotes mutually supportive actions bythe different actors, is a recipe for continuingwith a science and supply-drivenresearch agenda, minimal interaction amongthe different institutions involved, underfundingand tinkering around the edges bysome dedicated individuals.There are, however, a number of optionsopen to governments to reinvigorate theiragricultural S&T systems and make way fornew technologies:• use wider or agriculture-specific S&T legislationto promote enhanced collaborationamong public sector institutions andbetween public and private sector entities,and to establish a national funding agencyand/or agricultural research council thatis independent from any specific ministryand provides competitive grants forresearch and fellowship training withinthe public sector. Thailand, through itsNational Science and Technology DevelopmentAgency established under a S&TDevelopment Act, and Brazil with itsNational Council and National Fund forS&T Development and its Sectoral Funds(Box 5), are two good examples for othercountries to consider following, e.g. someAfrican countries that under NEPADhave committed themselves to increasing