November 1990
THE FUTURE ROLE OF
THE INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE
(IFS)
IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD
Jacques Gaillard
Science, Technology and Development Programme, ORSTOM
Centre ORSTOM de Bondy
70-74, Route d'Aulnay
93140BONDY
France
Paper to be presented and discussed at the Sixth IFS General Assembly,
Harare, Zimbabwe, 20-25 January 1991.
Contents
Executive SLI11mary.............................................................................
1
Introduction............................................................................................
7
1- TERMS OF REFERENCES, MAIN HYPOTHESES
AND METHODOLOGY
1. Terms of references..............................................................
2. Evaluation and/or prospective plan? .
3. Main hypotheses....................................................................
4. Methodology...........................................................................
9
9
11
11
11- A BRIEF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ASSESMENT
Of IFS ACTIVITIES
1. 1FS Strengths. Weaknesses, Opportunities
and Threats (SWOT)......
12
2. Past development and possible future trends:
facts and figures............................................................. 14
III - THINKING AHEAD: WHAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED?
1. Scientific Areas
2. High Priority Countries?
3. Relation to other Organizations
4. Scientific Quality
5. Balance between Granting and Supporting Activities
22
29
35
42
45
Conclusion.
49
References...............................................
50
Ar'Ylex
53
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. The context
1. A number of basic features have conferred a unique character on the
International Foundation for Science (IFS). What makes IFS unique is the
productive combination of grant allocations and supporting activities Le. IFS
capacity to directly assist Oeveloping Countries' researchers with the immediate
and urgent problems they have to face in their experimental scientific work. The
singular design of IFS has been recognized and its achievements rewarded. The
'model' developed by IFS has in fact been so successful that it is even being copied
by other organizations. While thinking of possible future changes we should not
forget that we are dealing with an efficient and successful institution.
2. A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis was used
in interviews and questionnaires in order to measure perception of 1FS's strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The emphasis in most answers was clearly
on the strengths and to a lesser extent weaknesses while recognizing that
opportunities were good. Many people did not answer the question concerning
threats. Words or expressions to describ IFS' strengths often included: direct and
personal support to individual scientists, efficiency, flexibility, independence,
political neutrality, international recognition, motivation and dedication (informai
management style of a dedicated and qualified group of advisers and staff). One of
the most often cited weaknesses of 1FS was the narrowness of its financial base
coupled with its lack of financial sustainability. IFS opportunities are generally
believed to be good. The very existence of grantees networks in most part of the
developing world was felt to be a unique resource to tap for starting new activities
particularly on a regional basis. The most important threats to IFS were considered
to be shortage of funds and resistance to change.
3. This prospective and strategic study takes place in a context of Iimited budget
potential increases and of growing numbers of grant applications. Sweden
remains, by far, the largest contributor. There is a need for increased contributions,
particularly to the core budget, from other donors. Additional funds, however, are
most Iikely to be for special programmes and with conditions attached. Given the
projected increase in new and renewal grant applications in the coming years, IFS
should be prepared for the new applications approval rate to drop to around, or
even below 10% diring the period of reference Le. 1991-1996. Many more new
applications need to be eliminated through scientific prescreening at the 1FS
Secretariat and/or at the regional basis. Steering mechanisms should also be
reinforced or developed to change, whenever felt necessary, the relative
distribution of grants between scientific and geographic areas.
2
4. The IFS context. the conditions in the developing world and research aid policies
have changed since IFS started some twenty years ago. Accelerated urbanisation
and environmental deterioration are of growing concern. Conditions for research
have deteriorated in many developing countries. particularly in Africa and in some
Latin American countries. With questions of environment and natural resources
coming to the forefront and the growing awareness of the long-term nature of
research needs. more long-term solutions are now being envisaged by the
research aid policy-makers. Furthermore. there are perceivable signs of pressure.
bath at the national and international levels. to move the responsibility and the
decision-making process from international bodies to locally run or regionally
based organizations. These new conditions and changes should be taken into
consideration.
B. The IFS Granting Programme
5. One has to be careful not to completely eliminate the technology component of
the granting programme, particularly as regards energy related research. which is a
major issue for ail countries. It is suggested that the -Rural Technology- area be
renamed-Environmental Engineering- or -Renewable Energy and Environmental
Engineering-. Given the present budgetary constraints. this suggestion is seen as a
realistic compromise between the more comprehensive development of
-Engineering Sciences- and total absence of technologycally oriented research
within the IFS.
6. As for socio-economic research, there is a need for clarification. Successive past
formulations in the granting programme were found to be rather ambiguous. To
support research in the field of socio-economics is quite different from considering
the socio-economic aspects of a research project. Each applicant should be
expected to consider the socio-economic environment of his research at an early
stage of project definition. Considering the opinion of most of the sponsors
consulted and the present situation of the IFS Secretariat, it would not be realistic to
start a completely new research area devoted to socio-economics. It might be
explored through a pilot project with one or two clearly defined subject areas such
as rural socio-economics and the socio-economic of science.
7. While recognizing the utmost importance of environmental issues it was not felt
necessary to create a new area specifically devoted to environmental research. It
was also not felt realistic for IFS to support research on planetwide environmental
problems. IFS is already supporting a large number of scientists working 0 n
environment oriented research problems. More such projects could be supported
by recruiting more environment-conscious scientific advisers. by stressing. in the
overall presentation of the granting programme. the need for research proposais
that take environmental issues into account, by aiming at promoting sustainable
development and by including concrete research orientations in support of this
intention in the definition of each of the research areas.
8. In sumo applicants should be expected to consider the environmental impact as
weil as the socio-economic environment of their research projects at an early stage
of project definition and give adequate thought to how the project would fit into the
3
surrounding local, ecological, sociological and economical environment. The
wording in the IFS granting programme could be: -Ali research proposais should
aim at contributing to ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable
developmenr.
C. High Priority Countries?
9. The 16 countries which have benefitted most from IFS support include the main
Third World science producers. While trying to develop ways of keeping scientists
in (very) large countries in touch with IFS, especially through the grantees, IFS
should consider giving low priority to grant applicants from these countries. To
derive greater impact from its Iimited financial resources, IFS should consider
concentrating its support on scientists working in small and medium size
developing countries. Any grant decision concerning scientists in very small
developing countries should however be taken with great care in order to avoid the
risk of diverting the best of the very limited personal resources away from problems
directly relevant to the country's need.
10. Several attempts to propose a Iist of high priority countries have not been very
satisfactory. Available typologies have been analyzed but a number of misgivings
have discouraged me from using one or a combination of these typologies. 1 also
feel that the use of such a list of priority countries should be linked to the
establishment of regional granting programmes. Considering that one of the main
factors in the geographical distribution of the IFS grantees is countries visited in
recent years by the scientific secretaries and assuming that an agreement can be
reached on a Iist of priority countries, it would be useful to establish a Iist of priority
countries to be visited by the IFS staff members during the period 1991-1996.
D. Relation to Other Organizations
11. IFS relations with smail grants giving organizations and a survey of new
initiatives aimed at supporting individual scientists in developing countries have
been reviewed, mainly to study the extent to which 1FS activities risk overlapping
those of other organizations. The only programme which was found to duplicate an
IFS effort is the Capacity Building in Forestry Research programme of the African
Academy of Science (AAS). In other cases programmes were perceived more as
constructive overlaps th an as counter-productive duplications. Stronger
collaboration with organizations such as ICSU is also to be advocated.
12. Agreements with regional organizations such as the Asian Fisheries Society
(AFS) and the Tropical Agricultural Research and Training Center (CATIE), should
help IFS to develop a stronger interface between local conditions and the scientific
objectives of the projects it supports. At the same time they should contribute to
transfering accumulated knowledge to the developing countries and to
strengthening regional institutions located in the Third World. Agreement-related
opportunities and consequences for IFS are discussed and three scenarios are
envisaged.
4
E. SCientific Quality
13. A full-fledged evaluation would have been required to measure .scientific
quality. This was not possible within the scope of this study. Scientific quality has
become the dominant if not the only criterion for selecting grantees. The grantees
themselves, as most scientists, tend to be more interested in science than in
development. The question of relevance to local conditions and development
should be given more importance when recommending grant approvals. The 1FS
information material should stress this point more. As an illustration, the opening
sentence of the IFS granting programme -The Foundation supports young Third
World scientists of merif, could go on to read -who propose to study topies in which
science and technology appear likely to advance national developmenf.
F. Balance between granting and supporting activities
14. IFS is thought to have a major comparative advantage in its supporting
activities, which should be given high priority in the future. The crucial importance of
such supporting activities in purchasing equipment and supplies on behalf of the
grantees, organizing workshops. offering scientific counsel and follow up has been
recognized. Such activities. however, take comparatively more time than granting
activities and will require additional staff members as it develops in the future. The
pilot project for equipment maintenance is a/50 considered of the utmost
importance. It would certainly be wise to L1ndertake a second pilot project in an
African region with a larger number of grantees before a decision was taken to
organize and institutionalize the project. The knowledge accumulated so far
indicates a need for a Iight organizational structure within or as close as possible to
the IFS secretariat, and especially close to IFS grantees to ensure harmony with
local research environment and technological needs.
15. Among the supporting activities, scientific publications and documentation in
general, have, 50 far, received the least attention. There is urgent need for more
involvement in current awareness information systems and in the flow of
information to grantees. editorial assistance to make the grantees' work more
acceptable for publication, improved visibility, accessibility and circulation of
grantees' work in general. IFS cannot do everything and whenever possible should
cali on other organizations' services or on other scientists' goodwill. However for
various reasons it is strongly recommended that IFS build up and regularly update
a database of ail publications produced by its grantees and establish its own
documentation center. This would require recruiting a weil qualified documentalist.
G. Future studies and other needs
16. Given the scope and diversity of the terms of reference of this study, the wide
geographical spread of IFS activities, the variety of institutions and participants
involved, the source of information and expertise available (mainly internai to IFS)
and the time constraints, many questions still remain to be answered. There is a
clear need for at least two future studies: a more critical assesment of the IFS
5
scientific programme and an external evaluation of the scientific quality of the
grantees'work. A methodology for these future studies is included in this paper.
17. The IFS needs a Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), to regularly discuss its
scientific programme and related scientific matters. The effects of the establishment
of such a committee on the future role of the already existing bodies Le. IFS
secretariat, scientific advisors, Board of Trustees, Executive Committee, Sponsors
Committee and General Assembly should also be considered.
18. Finally there is a need for the IFS to use a unified, integrated computerized
system. Information about the 1FS grantees and possibly applicants including a
rundown of their scientific output should be readily available from a central data
base.
THE FUTURE ROLE OF
THE INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE (IFS)
IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD
by
Jacques Gaillard
INTRODUCTION
A number of basic features have conferred a unique character on the International
Foundation for Science (IFS). While most organizations giving support to research
activities in and/or for developing countries (OC) have been primarily concemed
with training, institution building and research programme financing and/or
operation, IFS gives support directly to non-established young scientists in
developing countries who work in selected fields of agricultural and biological
sciences and technologies related thereto', helping them bridge the gap between
the completion of a graduate degree and their establishment as full members of
both their national and the international scientific communities.
The singular design of IFS has been recognized and its achievements rewarded.
One of the main conclusions of an independent evaluation of IFS activities
conducted in 1982 (Sagasti et aL, 1983) was that ·IFS has fulfilled its mandate to
support young scientists in developing countries· and that ait is doing this in a
personal, flexible and effective way, which seems to be unique among international
organizations·. A follow-up study of 1FS grantees conducted from 1985 to 1987
(Gaillard, 1987) showed that over 90% of the grantees were still active in their
national scientific communities at the time of the study. In 1986, IFS was awarded
the King Baudouin International Prize for -the originality and effectiveness of its
action, the purpose of which is to assist in the Third World a network of young
research scientists actively participating in the development of their countries·. In
1988, IFS was awarded the first Princess Chulabhorn Gold Medal for
·comprehensive and total commitment to its outstanding programmes in the area of
Natural Products·. 1FS was also selected by the World Bank in 1985 to be the
executive agency for the SPAAR small grants programme in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The 'model' developed by IFS has in fact been so successful that it is even being
copied by other organizations. The International Development Research Center
(IDRC), one of the first supporters of IFS (although no longer a donor to the core
budget), now considers small grants to individual researchers a vital part of its own
1Although the emphasis Is clearly put on support to individual scientists, ail the scientific areas of the
granting programme are development oriented and have been selected on the assumption that they
could lead to improvements ln food production and ln the quality of rurallife ln generaJ.
8
strategy (CRDI, 1989). In France, the Ministère de la Coopération has allocated
funds to ORSTOM and CIRAD to be redistributed in the form of research grants to
selected African scientists who are counterparts of ORSTOM and CIRAD
researchers in French-speaking African countries 1 • ORSTOM uses this procedure
in other countries in Africa and other continents. Training programmes (mostly in
western countries) are increasingly concerned with follow-up for their former
trainees and now provide them with equipment, supplies and documentation. The
'model' used most often (sometimes informally) is the IFS model. ether emerging
initiatives, which are analysed and presented in this report also follow the IFS trend.
Furthermore, there are perceivable signs of pressure, both at the national and
international levels, to move the responsibility and the decision-making process
from international bodies to locally run or regionally based organizations.
The IFS concept is not patentable, and IFS does not have the monopoly of its knowhow. Will it be the victim of its success? This is no time for self-complacent and
conservative reactions. One should rather ask what IFS' comparative advantages
are in relation to other grant giving organizations and to other emerging initiatives.
To what extent do (will) IFS activities overlap other organizations' activities 2 ? What
new collaboration should be developed with the new emerging organizations and
initiatives to combine forces and avoid ·counter-productive duplication·? What
aspects of IFS activities should be reinforced, what new activities should be
developed to cope with changing donors' requirements and behaviors and
changing conditions in the developing world? These are, as far as the future of IFS
is concerned, the central and primary questions to be addressed.
When projecting IFS activities into the future, it is extremely important to explain
how conditions have changed, particularly in the developing world, during the last
twenty years Le. since IFS' inception. Accelerated urbanisation3 and environmental
deterioration are of growing concern. The fast pace of resource exploitation is
causing the so-called 'environment-developmental crisis'. The optimism and
sometimes euphoria of the '60s, and the hope placed in the possibility for scientific
activities to boost development have, in many cases been replaced by disillusion,
or, at best doubts, which grew stronger as the economic crisis and unemployment
struck the industrialised countries in the '70s and many developing countries were
relegated to the wings of the international economic scene. Subsequently,
conditions for research have deteriorated in many developing countries, particularly
in Africa and in some Latin American countries. Research aid policies have also
changed. The institution building phase of the '50s and '60s has been followed by a
move towards short-term support to research programmes Iinked to specific
development goals during the '70s and '80s. With questions of environment and
natural resources coming to the forefront and the growing awareness of the longterm nature of research needs, more long-term solutions are now being envisaged.
One illustration is the French proposai to EEC to create the International
11n a few cases, beneficiaries of this new programme also receive support from IFS.
20verlap is however not necessarily undesirable. A distinction should probably be made between
·constructive overlap· and ·useless· or ·counter-productive duplication·.
31t is expected that more than half of the Third World population will be urban by the year 2000.
9
Foundation for Research in Africa (IFRA) to provide long-term support for
transnational research institutes in Africa1 .
These new conditions and research aid policy changes should also be taken into
consideration when preparing the IFS prospective plan.
1- TERMS OF REFERENCE. MAIN HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY
1. Terms of reference
The IFS Board of Trustees (May 1989), Sponsors (Nov. 1989) and Executive
Committee (Dec. 1989) have defined a number of issues that should be looked
upon in a strategie plan for the coming years, e.g.:
1. Definition of the scientific areas, with special attention to environmental and
2.
3.
4.
5.
socio-economic aspects.
High priority countries?
IFS' future role in relation to other research supporting organizations.
Scientific quality.
Balance between granting and supporting activities.
Given the time constraints (50 manldays), it was agreed at the preparatory meeting
in Stockholm (9 Jan. 1990)2 that the work should focus on the role of IFS in the
context of a rapidly changing world to be described in a brief document, not to
exceed 50 pages (with an Executive Summary), to be presented and discussed at
the IFS General Assembly (20-26 Jan. 1991) in Harare, Zimbabwe.
The preparatory work should include interviews mainly with IFS sponsors and other
research supporting organizations. Some grantees and Scientific Advisers could
be interviewed through questionnaires.
The work will be carried out in close collaboration with the IFS Secretariat, and lES.
staff will provide figures and other information as needed. It will be successively
presented and discussed in the meetings of the Board of Trustees (May 1990), the
Sponsors Committee (Sept. 1990), the Executive Committee (Dec. 1990), ail in
Stockholm, and in the IFS General Assembly (20-26 Jan. 1991), in Harare.
2. Evaluation and/or prospective plan?
(ambiguities and limitations)
Whether there should be a new evaluation of IFS is a question that has been raised
on a number of occasions, particularly at Sponsors Committee meetings during the
last few years. One of the main issues was whether the information and
recommendations available from the first IFS Evaluation (1974-1981 Le. the first 8
1Some 20 existing research institutions would be selected in Africa. Research aid (including salaries
for the African researchers) would be given on a long-term basis (approx. 20 years).
2rhis meeting was attended by Dr. Sten Ebbersten (Chairman of the Sponsors Committee), Dr. Jaan
Tear (IFS Director), Ms. Ingrid Millqvist (International Secretary) and myself.
10
years of activities, 549 grantees) and my follow-up study of IFS grantees (19741984 i.e. the first 11 years of activities and 766 grantees - 489 responses to the mail
questionnaire)1 provided a sufficient basis for establishing an IFS policy for the
'90s.
Partly based on the assumption that they were not sufficient, the Board of Trustees
(May 1989) recommended that an external evaluation conducted by a panel of 2 or
3 experienced persons be carried out in 1990. The Trustees stressed that it should
be financed from external sources and not increase the workload of the 1FS
Secretariat. The following Sponsors Committee meeting (Nov. 1989) came to a
different conclusion and recommended that a prospective plan of action for the
years 1991-1995, financed from the IFS budget, be prepared for discussion at the
IFS General Assembly to be held in Harare (Jan. 1991). The Sponsors also
recommended that the work be entrusted preferably to a person with experience in
IFS activities. The subsequent Executive Committee meeting approved the
Sponsors Committee's recommendations, stressing that the work should not
require more than 2 months and that it should be done in close relation with the IFS
Secretariat, and agreed on a Iist of issues that should be studied (see para. 1Terms
of Reference above).
The fact that the issues to be looked at have been discussed and proposed on
different occasions with two different approaches in mind (evaluation and/or
prospective plan) has led to some confusion. While some issues e.g. 'scientific
quality' are clearly issues for an evaluation 2 , others e.g. 'IFS' future role in relation
to other organizations' would more appropriately be studied from a prospective
perspective. Furthermore, although some issues may be best addressed using
strategic forecasting methodologies (e.g. IFS comparative advantages), before
making any realistic, constructive suggestions for the future, one also has to look at
the past.
The time required for the work has been underestimated. Under ideal conditions
(Le. ail information and figures requested are provided by the Secretariat) a rough
conservative time estimate for the work3 (including participation at the meetings) is
between 80 and 100 days. As a comparison, the panel members of the first
evaluation in 1982 needed 7 man/months4. Ali the figures and statistical information
requested were provided in a special report that took about 4 man/months to
prepares.
1At the end of 1989 IFS had 1468 grantees I.e. approx. and respectively 2 and 3 times more than ln
1981 and 1984. The number of grantees has doubled during the last five years.
2-rhis point was made clear during the presentation and discussion of the first draft at the 16th meeting
of the IFS Board of Trustees in Stockholm (May 1990) and It was agreed that the issue ·scientific
qualit}'" could not be properly adressed within the framework of the present strategie and prospective
study.
3As defined in the agreement with IFS and as proposed ln the first draft (see Proposed Methodology).
4which according to them precluded an in-depth assessment of ail aspects of IFS operations.
5Responding to a request from the evaluation panel for statistical information and figures, a special
report (compilation and analysis of statistical data on IFS grantees) was prepared by a 3-man team
headed by Prof. Herlofson, former IFS Director. cf. N.Herlofson, M.Sedlacek and R.Romhed, IFS
Review (1974-1981), Statisticallnformation, Stockholm, June 1982.
11
3. Main hypotheses
Two main working hypotheses were developed after preliminary discussions with a
variety of participants (IFS Staff members. Sponsors, Scientific Advisers):
1. IFS is not unique in its capacity to review applications 1 and dispense money.
This could be done. and is already being done by other organizations. What makes
IFS unique is its capacity to directly assist OC researchers with the immediate and
urgent problems they have to face in their experimental scientific work. More
precisely what makes IFS unique is the productive combination of grant allocations
and supporting activities. The supporting activities or programmes consist of
purchasing services for equipment, supplies. spare parts and scientific literature.
organizing workshops/seminarsltraining courses. providing travel grants and timely
scientific advice. stimulating the formation of scientific networks and more generally
initiating and promoting scientific contacts. Some of these activities e.g. the
purchasing services are already highly developed. weil functioning and will be
further developed in the future. Others e.g. assisting with scientific literature.
counsel or contacts need further development.
Whatever the development of the IFS budget in the coming years. 1 believe that
highest priority should be given to strengthening and further developing IFS
support programmes. as opposed to grant activities. In other words the main efforts
should focus on improving the IFS functional gualities rather than on awarding a
larger number of grants. 1 also believe that the NGO status, the size of the IFS
Secretariat and its international base allow for more flexibility and direct
communication than in many other organizations. Herein lies a major IFS
comparative advantage.
2. The opportunities and powers that science bestows on those who know ·how
and why· widens the gulf not only between the industrialized countries (lC) and the
developing countries but also between the DCs themselves. The last decade has
made the risk involved in attempting to reduce the DCs down to an homogeneous
entity increasingly clear. The gap between the ïeast developed countries· (LDCs).
the ïntermediary countries·, and the ·newly industrialized countries· (NICs) has
widened economically and scientifically. The large majority of LDCs are
unguestionably to be found in Africa.
Relative to the world distribution of scientists, African scientists are already largely
overrepresented in the IFS grantee population. Given the comparatively more
difficult situation of most African countries an even higher priority should be given to
African scientists applying for IFS grants. At the same time. one has to be careful
not to loose the 1FS international concept.
4. Methodology
Given the diversity of the terms of reference. the ambiguities and limitations
described above. the wide geographical spread of IFS activities and the variety of
institutions and participants involved. no single standard method can be adopted.
1... but the worldwide network of highly qualified and volunteer scientific advisers which IFS has
developed certainly is.
12
Different and complementary approaches have been used combining interviews,
questionnaires, information analysis, figures obtained from IFS, reports and
documents concerning IFS and other organizations actively involved in the support
of science and technology in developing countries.
Four slightly different questionnaires 1 (for Member Organizations, Sponsors not
interviewed, and a selected number of Grantees and Scientific Advisers) were
prepared and sent out in March-April 1990. Given the time constraint there was no
second mailing to the people who failed to respond. Altogether 88 questionnaires
were received with the following breakdown (Grante es: 32, Scientific Advisers: 24,
Member Organizations: 262 and Sponsors: 6). Most of the interviews were carried
out during April, May, and June 19903.
Before discussing the different terms of reference in the Iight of the above proposed
working hypotheses, 1felt it necessary to present a picture of the main strengths and
weaknesses of 1FS as perceived by different actors through the responses to
interviews and questionnaires, and to report and project basic figures for IFS in
order to put this prospective and strategic work in the context of past, present and whenever possible - future development of IFS activities. The last figures mainly
concern the development of the 1FS budget and of the number of applications
received and approved.
Il - A BRIEF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ASSESMENT OF IFS
ACTIVITIES
1. IFS Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
A so-called SWOT analysis was used during most interviews and in the
questionnaires in order to grasp what are perceived as IFS's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The emphasis in most answers was clearly put
on the strengths and to a lesser extent weaknesses while recognizing that
opportunities were good. Many people did not answer to the question concerning
threats.
The words or expressions describing 1FS strengths which were often found are:
direct and personal support to individual scientists. efficiency. tlexibility,
independence, political neutrality. motivation and dedication (informai management
style of a dedicated and qualified group of advisers and staff). The growing
international recognition of the quality of the IFS selection process is also clearly
recognized as a strength4 . Another element of strength which should not be
underestimated is the fact that most of the small and medium donor countries
cannot (or do not want to) afford to set up a similar international organization on a
national basis and with national resources. Then comes two factors which are
1See sample questionnaire in Annexe no.3.
2A number of additional Member Organizations located ln Industrialized countries answered that they
were not ln a position to answer most of the questions ln the questionnaire.
3see Iist of people met and interviewed in Annex no.1.
4Even organizations or potent/al donor countries which never contributed to the IFS budget could not
find any good reasons other than institutional reasons not to support IFS activities: -IFS is doing a very
good job, but, we are very sorry, we cannot contribute-.
13
considered as both strengths and weaknesses, namely the small size of the
organization and its NGO (or private foundation) status.
IFS has remained small and kept a 'person-oriented approach'. It has avoided
becoming a 'large impersonal bureaucracy'. On the other hand the potentials of
growth are such that IFS can hardly cope with them given its present structure and
financial situation. Similarly, the NGO status has preserved a political
independence and a very large degree of flexibility. But at the same time it may
have prevented a more rapid development of the IFS budget. One of the most cited
weakness of IFS is the narrowness of its financial base coupled with jts lack of
financial sustainability. There is a feeling that many of the other weaknesses could
be overcomed if financial resources were not a major Iimiting factor. From among
the other most often mentioned weaknesses 1have attempted to group the following
ones in aggregates:
-Despite increasing international recognition, IFS is still not weil enough known,
particularly in the scientific and learned institutions of the industrialized countries:
-The direct support to individual scientists may sometimes prevent multidisciplinary
or transdisciplinary scientific strategies:
-There is limited understanding of the local conditions, too loose relations and
collaboration with national Member Organizations, remoteness of the IFS Secretariat and lack of regional offices and sometimes weak interface between local socioeconomic conditions and scientific objectives of the supported projects:
-Too much valuable work produced by the grantees remains unpublished:
-There is poor monitoring of progress and impact of the grantees' work, no capacity
to go into the implementation aspects of the research results and weak follow up
activities in general and, in particular, once IFS support is terminated;
-IFS, in general, has weak self-evaluation capabilities.
1would like to add one weakness which 1came across while preparing this report1
and which is related to the last point in the above Iist: the lack of a unified and
integrated computerized system within the IFS Secretariat. Information concerning
the grantees and possibly the applicants (including sex, academic degrees etc.) the
relative use of supporting activities by the grantees, scientific outputs etc.. should be
readily available from a central data base. A lot of effort has already been made in
that direction during the last five years: more needs to be done.
IFS opportunities are generally believed to be goOO or even, according to a few
respondents, unlimited. Not only because IFS is far from being able to respond to
the ever growing demand for supporting young individual scientists in developing
countries but also because the 1FS and its personal networks (grantees, advisers,
member and associated organizations) form a strong basis for developing new
activities in areas where most other international agencies have failed to succeed.
Diversification opportunities in new areas were of course mentioned, some of them
being partly included already in the IFS grants programme: energy, marine science,
biotechnology, science policy, environmental research, socio-economics etc. It was
also suggested that 1FS could make greater use of its accumulated scientific
resources (particularly the increasing number of former 1FS grantees and the
worldwide network of scientific advisers) and ·use the talent of LDCs to help
develop LDCs·. The very existence of grantee networks in most part of the
1As a way of illustration, up to date statistics related to the academic degrees of IFS grantees were only
available from two research areas (crops and forestry) .
14
developing world was felt to be a unique resource te tap for starting new activities
on a regional basis 1 . Among these new activities particular mention was given to
the problems of maintenance and repair of scientific equipments and the problem of
scientific information flow from, to and between IFS grantees. Needs include more
involvement in current awareness and the flow of information to grantees, editorial
assistance to get grantees'work published in international journals, improved
visibility, accessibility and circulation of grantees' work in general.
The possible emergence of other organizations 'copying the IFS model' was not
considered as a real threat in the near future as long as the donor countries
themselves do not decide to start their own programmes. The last threat was
expressed several times by Scientific Advisers from industrialized countries:
-1 believe that the main threat to IFS Is IIkely to come If some Industrialized countries declde to
cease contributing to the IFS budget so that these funds can be used to support bllateral
projects in the same are as... In the present economic cllmate there is strong pressure from
politicians , accountants and research managers ln favour of 11. The feelings seems to be that
funds made available on a bilateral basis produce greater returns in prestige, if not cash, to the
donor nations than those distributed through a non governmental organisation-.
The most important threats to 1FS were considered to be shortage of funds and
resistance to change. Shortage of funds from donor countries and agencies may
become a real threat as there is an increasing number of granting institutions
competiting for financial support. Unless IFS can find a more permanent
mechanism to sustain and increase its revenue, grants will become smaller (in
constant value) and less significant, and percentage of successful grants will
decline. 1 will come back to this point below. A subsequent threat is that
'bureaucracy' and 'politics' creep in as funds become more limited and as
acceptance rates drops. The ultimate threat is conservatism. While not changing in
a changing world IFS would take the risk. ultimately. of becoming out of context.
This was clearly and firmly expressed by a number of Scientific Advisers, sponsors
and one staff member.
2. Past development and possible future trends: facts and figures
Starting from very modest contributions from Sweden and Canada in 1973, the 1FS
budget (see Fig. no. 1) enjoyed a rather regular, linear growth until the end of the
1970s and exceeded 10 millions SEK2 in 1981, the year that IFS first received
welcome contributions from the United States and Australia. The budget has grown
less regularly since then but the annual growth average was higher and the budget
exceeded 30 millions SEK for the first time in 1989. In non actualized terms, the
budget has nearly doubled during the last five years. This sharp increase is mainly
due to the increase of other than strict core contribution and in particular to the so
called 'restricted core contributions' for Africa (SPAAR and DOTASCA) from
Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, UNDP and the World Bank. In 1989 strict core
1The example of the pilot project for maintenance and repair of scientific equipment was mentioned in
that context to indicate that the only way (or at least the most promising way) to successfully develop
such a project was to start from personal accumulated knowledge of the problems of the IFS grantees.
2rhe rate of exchange between SEK and USD yoyoed during the period of reference. The exchange
rate used for 1989 was US $1 ... 6.2 SEK
15
contributions represented less than 2/3rds of the total budget for the first time 1 .
Sweden remains, by far, the largest contributor to the core budget2.
Fig. no.1. IFS budget (1973-1989)
:w: 40000
W
en
0
0
0
"
,.II:
1
en
u.
-.,
...........
...
~
30000
20000
Total
Restr. Core
Special contr.
Pilot Project
Core
~
a
10000
."
:II
I%l
o -41.~~""I'"""T""'1""'T'""'T'""T--T""'T""""""""""'''''''"'T'""T''''''''r-r-."......-=;,*:;:::IlI~
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Vears
The number of special contributions, mainly for co-sponsoring workshops, has also
increased during the last years (especially since 1987). Its relative importance still
only represents a very small percentage of the total budget. A three year pilot
programme for service and maintenance of scientific equipment was started in
1988 in the SADCC countries with support from IBRD and DANIDA. Additional
contributions were received during 1989 from UNDP and the Commonwealth
Science Council (UK); and IDRC has approved a contribution for 1990.
With one exception, ail the sponsors consulted tended to agree that prospects for
an important increase in the IFS budget in the near future are rather slim. One of the
largest contributors insisted that it was also very much dependent on IFS' future
strategy. Unrestricted core contributions are no longer given with as openheartedly as in the 70s or early 80s. There is a clear trend among donors to target
funding to a specifie region (e.g. Africa) or group of countries (e.g. LDCs), to specifie
scientific domains (e.g. agriculture, environment etc.) or problem-oriented research
programmes (e.g. SIDA) and to relate it to output.
Most of the major potential donors are already contributing to the IFS budget.
Additional contributions might be expected from sorne of the most rapidly
developing countries such as the NICS3. Additional funds are however most Iikely to
come from restricted contributions or for special programmes. A further increase in
the relative share of the other than strict core budget is to be balanced against the
possibility for IFS to operate its international granting programme with an
1Core contributions in 1989 came from 13 countries: Australia, Belgium, Oenmark, Finland, France,
Germany (Fed. Rep. of), Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Swizerland, Taiwan and United States.
20esplte a clear diversification in the contributions, Sweden's contribution for 1989 constituted more
than half of the core budget and slightly more than a thlrd of the total budget.
3The new contribution from Taiwan is very encouraging.
16
acceptable degree of flexibility and independence 1 . A further increase of ,rather
small contributions for special programmes would no doubt increase the
administrative load of the already overloaded IFS Secretariat.
It is difficult to predict how the IFS budget will develop during 1990-1996. The IFS
director told the last Board of Trustees at its May 1989 meeting the IFS income for
1990 might weil be very much the same as for 1989. A cautious and yet optimistic
attitude would plead to plan with a modest increase. In Fig. nO.2 IFS budget
development has been projected assuming respectively 5% and 10% annuai
growth rates. 5-10 % would be a minimum to compensate for the predicted inflation
rate in the main IFS donor countries2.
Fig. no.2. IFS projected total budget (1985-1996)
:lli:
W
CI)
70000
60000
=
=
=.
50000
.5
1
40000
CI
Illt
30000
~
...
~
:::II
al
CI)
1:
20000
10000
85
86
87
88
89
91
90
Years
92
93
94
95
96
Within the proposed bracket, the IFS total budget would reach respectively 62
million SEK and 45 million in 1996 in the 10% and 5% scenarios. These
development levels do not leave much room for new activities, without
reconsidering the relative importance of the present activities.
These cautious budgetary forecasts are accompanied by increasing numbers of
research grant applications the IFS Secretariat is receiving as shown by Figures 3,
4, 5, 6 and 7. The number of new applications has increased sharply, particularly
during the last 3 years, to reach 840 new applications in 1989. There are good
reasons to believe that this recent trend will continue in the coming years,
particularly in Asia and in certain Latin American countries. Comparatively
speaking, this recent increase has been even bigger among African scientists (see
Fig. no.3) as a direct result of the SPAAR and OOTASCA small grant programmes.
150me other International organizations supporting research activities in developing countries have a
much lower percentage core budget, sometimes as Iitle as 15%, e.g. ICLARM and ICRAF, but they
have a significantly different way of operating, and concentrate on research programmes financing.
2This would however not compensate inflation rates in sorne of the recipient countries, and in
particular in sorne countries of Latin America.
17
The relative levelling off of the curve in 1988 and 1989 for new applications from
Africa however suggests that a certain level of saturation may have been reached1 .
Fig. no.3. Number of new applications received each year
400
.,.
.•1•
1:
-&
....
...
300
~
:=
A.
t
.•.
Africa
Asla
Lat. Am.
200
-••.
1:
100
Z
O~--r--r-"I'''''''''''T'''''T......,...,..~j'--r--r-r-,..-~-r-r--r'"'T'"'''I'"'"ï~r''''''T''"'''''''''''''T'''''''I
74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Years
Fig. nO.4. Number of new grant applications received and approved (1974-1989)
=1000...,-----------------------,
'i•
,H 800
'i.
t
1
CI
1
_1:
a•.
•
Il
Received
Approved
600
400
200
O~.....................~...&.r- .....................~.;.a.,._...............-......_._Y_...............-._..._..I
74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Years
As a result of this drastic increase in the number of new applications, and despite
the budget increase. the approval rate of new applications has decreased over the
years. as is shown by Fig. nO.4. The new application approval rate for 1989 was
23%. Assuming that the number of new applicants would increase at about the
same rate as during the last 3 years 1FS can expect to receive 1000 new
1Thls observation ls confirmed by the difficulty to further increase the number of new applicants from
Africa (and particularly from French speaking countries) in order to fulfill the agreements signed with
SPAAR and OOTASCA.
18
applications during 1992 and close to 1300 new applications during 1996 (see Fig.
no.5). Ali things being equal. the approval rate would then decrease to below 15%.
Fig. nO.5. Projected number of new grant applications received (1990-1996)
1500
III
.......
..."
••
~
Received
Approved
f;I Project + 6%
0
-"
~
A.
A.
1000
)
1/
500
~
-..
-
.
0
lf,I
1
~ 1 la
85
86
87
..::lI
z
0
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
Years
There are however good reasons to believe that this approval rate for new grants
would even be much lower if one were to look at the trends in numbers of renewal
applications that are received and approved (see Fig. nO.6 and 7).
Fig. nO.6. Number of renewal applications received and approved
200
•
III
*'
!a
.
~
"
!
~
-.
fi
Received
Approved
100
0
..::lI
Z
0
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Years
As a direct response of the increased number of new applications approved since
1986 and also due to a more rigorous follow up system within the IFS Secretariat
the number of renewal applications has also shown a sharp increase particularly in
1989. where 137 renewal applications were received. Unlike new applications. the
approval rate of renewal applications has been rather even over the years, with an
average of 80%. The approval rate during 1989 was 70%. Taking this approval rate
into account and considering that highest priority is given to renewal grants. an
19
even higher increase of incoming renewal applications would automatically reduce
the potential number of new grants. Given the last figures at our disposal1, one can
predict that the number of renewal applications will most probably exceed 200
during 1990 and 250 during 1991. Assuming that the total number of grants
approved remains the same during the period under review2 the proportion
between new grants and renewals by 1991 or 1992 would probably be the
opposite of 19893 Le. 1/3 instead of 2/3. Eventually, the figures wOI.lld change back
again to the benefit of new grants towards 1996 after a period of several years
during which a small number of new grants is approved .
Fig. nO.7. Total number of grants approved (new and renewals)
during the 1974-1989 period
300
~ New Grants
III
~
!
ICI
."
Il
Renewals
200
~
eDo
-.
t
100
0
.A
Z
o
74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Years
One of the direct consequences would be that the approval rate for new
applications would decrease even further to below 10% for a few years in the near
future. The difficulty here is the absence of a reliable mathematical model to predict
the number of incoming renewal applications in any given year. Such a model
wouId not only depend on the number of new grants approved in the preceding
years but also on a number of other factors that are often difficult to quantify.
Whatever the exact figure might be, one has to be prepared for a much higher
selection rate for new applications in the near future. As a consequence, the
scientific screening of these applications will become a real bottleneck and one will
no doubt observe a growing frustration among the Scientific Advisers if a solution is
not found in the IFS Secretariat to eliminate many more applications at the prescreening stage. Given the present scientific capabilities of the IFS Secretariat this
should be achieved without too much difficulty.
195 renewal applications were received between 119/1989 and 31/1/1990.
2This would not be the case if, as proposed earlier, one would glve higher priority to supporting
activities as compared to granting activities. In that case the capacity to approve new grants wouId be
even lower.
3statistics reported at the last Board of Trustees meeting suggested an even more drastic and rapld
development. According to these statistics close to 250 renewal applications would be approved
already during 1991, leaving nearly no room for new grants.
20
One questiQn which remains tQ be answered is why relatively few 1FS grantees'
have SQ far been using the QppQrtunity te ask fQr renewal grants. in particular fQr:
third Qr fourth grants (see Table nQ.1). Thus. up tQ 70% Qf the active grantees have'
Qnly Qne grant while respectively 21%. 6% and 3% have twQ. three and fQur grants.
Table OQ.1. Number Qf respectively 1. 2. 3 and 4 time grant-hQlders amQng the
active grantees
NQ.of
grants
A
B
C
0
E
F
G
TQtal
%
1
90
176
135
64
94
150
64
773
70%
2
30
40
48
24
29
44
14
229
21%
3
14
13
11
6
10
17
1
72
6%
4
9
2
4
1
3
13
0
32
3%
143 231
198
95
136
224
79
TQtal
1106 100%
These percentages have nQt changed very much Qver the years. There are however reasons tQ believe that the number Qf grantees applying fQr a secQnd. third
and even fQurth grant might increase in the future. The behaviQr Qf the grantees is
slightly different trQm Qne scientific area to the Qther. By way Qf illustratiQn. Natural
PrQduct chemistry grantees tend tQ ask fQr mQre renewal grants but the differences
Qbserved are nQt very significative.
CQncerning the distributiQn Qf the grants by geQgraphical (see Table OQ.2) and
research areas (see Fig. nQ.8). significant new trends marked the last 4 years. The
relative impQrtance Qf research grants awarded tQ Asian scientists is clearly
declining tQ the benefit Qf Latin American scientists. Africa cQnsQlidating its leading
pQsitiQn and even slightly increasing its number Qf new grantees percentagewise
during the 1986-1989 period 1 •
Table nQ.2. Geographical distributiQn Qf grants (1986-1989)
Africa
Asia*
Lat. America **
TQtal
New grants
Renewal grants
294
225
238
86
87
90
33%
33%
34%
380
312
328
263
100%
1020 100%
39%
30%
31%
TQtal
757 100%
* Including Pacifie; ** including West Indies.
37%
31%
32%
1The percentages for IFS grantees 1974-1986 were respectively 37%,41% and 22% for Africa, Asia
and Latin America.
21
These recent changes of the geographical distribution of the grants are partly a
result of the special programmes implemented since 1985. They are also correlated
to the field trips of the IFS staff members. As for the breakdown by scientific area,
we can observe that Crop Science which used to obtain the Iion's share of the
grants, has been overtaken by Animal Production which rose sharply during the last
four years (see Fig. no.8 and no.9). The other areas are keeping their relative
importance with the exception of rural technology which is declining in relative
tenns.
Fig. no.8. Cumulative number of grants (new+renewal) by research areas
(1986-1989)
300
T;::::==::::::;------------------,
200
100
87
Years
88
89
Az Aquaculture, B" Animal Production, C- Crop Science, Do: Forestry, E- Food Science, Fz Natural
Products, Gz Rural Technology.
This unbalanced distribution between scientific areas is partiy related to the number
of potential applicants in a given area. It is also the result of a 'blind process'. If
appropriate this distribution could be steered through different mechanisms before,
during and at the end of the selection process. 1will come back to these questions
of relative distribution of grants in the next part and in particular in the paragraphs
dealing with scientific areas and priority countries.
To summarize, 1could say that this prospective and strategic study takes place in a
context of Iimited budget increase opportunities and of increasing numbers of
research grant applications. Furthermore, additional funds, if any, are most Iikely to
be for special programmes and with conditions attached. In such a context, and
given the projected increase of approved renewal applications in the coming years,
IFS should be prepared for an even more drastically decreasing approval rate of
new applications (probably around or even below 10%) between 1991 and 1996. A
solution therefore has to be found to eliminate many more new applications at the
prescreening stage, using not only the available indicators (age of applicant,
training etc.) more strictly, but also through scientific prescreening at the IFS
Secretariat and/or on a regional basis. If felt necessary steering mechanisms could
also be reinforced or developed to inflect the relative distribution of grants between
scientific and geographic areas.
22
III - THINKING AHEAD: WHAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED?
Judging from the responses to the questionnaires, IFS is expected to have many
more years of activity. Thus. more than haIf of the respondents were of the opinion
that IFS's life expectancy from 1990 on would be 30 years or more. Not surprisingly,
most of the direct beneficiaries, with the exception of a few grantees from Asia and
one from Latin America. were expecting 1FS to live more than 30 years. The
Member Organizations and the Scientific Advisers were more cautious in their
answers and a significant number were of the opinion that it was difficult to predict:
-IFS will live as long as we have an uneven distribution of wealth in the world-. Let
us hope. as one of the representatives of the Sponsors expressed it, that when IFS
ends it is because it is no longer needed.
Only one sponsor and one Scientific Adviser thought that 1FS could very weil
disappear during the next 5 or 10 years. This third part of this report is based on the
assumption - and the conviction - that IFS will not disappear during the period
under study i.e. 1991-1996. 1feel however that it would be too bold to attempt a
more long term prospective exercise. The views expressed and changes proposed
are strictly lirnited to that period. Whenever possible, alternatives to be discussed at
the IFS General Assembly have been proposed .
1. SCIENTIFIC AREAS
The Sponsors Committee (Nov. 1989) recommended that ·a revision (be proposed)
of the definition of the scientific areas based on the reviews· prepared by several
Scientific Advisers on several occasions between 1986 and 1989, ·with specific
regard to environmental and socio-economic aspects·.
A thorough reading of the scientific reviews (Huisman 1986, Preston 1987, Bunting
1987, Le Tacon 1987, Harley 1989, Vining and Kautsky 1987, Prage 1987, Ouattar
and Tebicke 1989) revealed substantial differences, particularly in terms of content
and perspective. While sorne reviews e.g. Natural Products provided useful
recommendations for a revision of the scientific area, others hardly discussed future
research needs at ails. Sorne reviews e.g. Aquaculture, had been prepared for a
very specific occasion (the King Baudouin Prize). others e.g. Animal Production
were more concerned with a specific region e.g. Latin America. In general the
reviews provided many interesting suggestions for the IFS future work e.g. criteria
for grants, methods for application selection, monitoring and reporting, but very few
recommendations for the revision of the area as such. It also appeared c1ear that
the reviews which contributed the most to the revision of the scientific areas were
those prepared by or in a close collaboration with an IFS scientific secretary.
Following the preparation and the discussion of these reviews, minor changes of
the definition of the respective scientific areas have already been made and
incorporated in the present definitions.
An attempt to get a short written summary of recommendations for the revision of
the scientific areas from the IFS scientific secretaries was not very successful.
Interviews have however been conducted with ail of them and with a Iimited
number of Scientific Advisers. Questions related to the revision of the scientific
programmes has also been included in the questionnaire sent to IFS Member
23
Organizations, IFS Scientific Advisers and grantees, and explored in interviews
with the IFS sponsors.
Resistance to change and hidden shifts
ln a recent interview reproduced in IFS News No.2, Prof. Sven Brohult, the founding
President of IFS, expressed his strong feeling that one of the big challenges for IFS
in the future will be to ·resist the temptation of expanding into areas outside the
biological sciences·. This exclusive support for biological sciences and the clear
focus on supporting scientists working on ·solutions to problems of direct concem to
rural areas· as weil as to ·research that leads to self-sufficiency· has been present
since the beginning of the IFS history and even its pre-history. Attempts to introduce
other subjects such as physics, chemistry, geology, engineering and medicine into
the IFS programme have failed. This basic conviction embodied by the IFS
founding President and shared by his successors is one of the determining factors
in the IFS success story. The voluntary limitation of the scope of the programme
from the beginning was also based on the assumption that to be efficient the
Foundation should remain small. Interestingly enough this programme focusing on
biological sciences has been implemented by the successive IFS directors who,
with the exception of the present one, were not biologists1 •
This does not mean however that this programme focussing on biological sciences
has remained the same since the beginning. The definition of the areas has
broadened and the science itself moved further upstream. Most of the areas started
from a rather narrow base often considered as a specific ·niche- of particular
relevance for the developing world and/or not covered by other organizations2
(tuber crops and lesser known legumes in Food Crops, small domestic animais in
Animal Production, ecto-mycorrhiza in Forestry, traditionaly fermented foods in
Food Science etc.). These changes were not steered by the IFS itself. They were
rather a 'biological' and dynamic response to the needs expressed through the
increasing number of applications coming in and observed by the Scientific
Advisers and staff during their many field trips. By successive 'hidden shifts' the
respective areas have broadened to such an extent that most of them today are
even too broad for the expertise of a single specialized expert group. Following the
same principle of growth, one additional research area was grafted ante the
granting programme in 1978: Rural Technology. Due to different reasons, including
its non-biological nature3 , the graft soon showed signs of rejection, and its very
existence is threatened today. Thus, since there is no scientific secretary in charge
of rural technology, an attempt is being made to redistribute the applications related
to this field between the six other research areas.
After reflecting on the various attempts to introduce new subject areas into the
granting programme, one has to realize that there is. at present. no committee. no
forum, no mechanism within the 1FS structure whereby the scientific programme
1They were respectively physicists and geologists.
2rhis line of argument has also being used in the past to exclude certain subjects or areas from the
granting programme.
30ther reasons are: too broad and unsatisfactory definition, absence of a qualified and interested staff
member within the IFS Secretariat, difficulty to develop a new group of scientific advisers.
24
and its development can be regularly discussed 1 • Different possibilities could be
envisaged: a permanent scientific or technical advisory comminee under the Board
of Trustees2. a scientific or technical advisory comminee that could be convened on
an ad hoc basis3 and a programme or scientific director within the IFS Secretariat4.
My preference is the second suggestion, assuming that such a committee could
have a special budget for recruiting consultants and making special studies
whenever needed.
The IFS scientific areas: definitions and priorities
An overwhelming majority of the respondents to the questionnaire (85%) were of
the opinion that the present 1FS scientific areas were high priority areas for Third
World Science today (see table no.3). Nobody went as far as to propose to exclude
one of the areas. A significant number however stressed that some of the areas are
more important than others in terms of priority and that this relative importance
should be taken into account in the selection process. Thus, it was felt by several
respondent that Food Science and Forestry should increase in relative terms while
a few others thought that Rural Technology and Aquaculture should not be given a
too high priority. A sponsor suggested that Rural Technology and Food Science
should be merged as a single area. The potential local economic impact of Natural
Product research was also questionned.
Table no.3: Are the IFS scientific areas still high priority areas for Third World
Science today?
No answer
Respondents
Yes
No
Other
Grantees
Member Org.
Scientific Adv.
Sponsors
30
21
19
3
-
-
4
2
-
1
-
Total
74
5
6
3
4
2
2
A few respondents from the Member Organizations stressed that Third World
Science should not be relegated to third rate science and should be given the
same opportunities to keep in the forefront and develop new technologies. Many
suggestions were made to add new areas to the present granting programmes.
Among the most often cited areas are the environmental issues and research in the
field of biotechnology, molecular biology and genetic engineering (see Table no.4).
As we will see below, almost ail of the most cited areas, with the exception of
1A Programme Committee had been established at the end of the 70's. Its role was to advise the
Board on scientific and technological matters related to the objectves of the Foundation. It only met
two or three times.
20ne of the Board Member could play the role of chairman of this committee.
3Here again. an organic Iink with the Board of Trustees could be insured by nominating a Board
member as chalrman of this ad hoc Committee.
4The size of the IFS secretariat might however still be too small for having a scientific director.
Srhe complete Iist is given in Annex no. 4.
25
Human Health, Socio-economics and Marine Sciences are already partly included
in the programme, even if they do not constitute a specific area per se.
Table NO.4: Areas respondents to the questionnaire felt couId profitably be added
to the granting programme
18 *
18
5
4
3
3
2
Environmental issues (management of natural resources, ecology,
conservation, biodiversity, environmental impact of production activities);
Biotechnology, molecular biology and genetic engineering;
Engineering sciences including new materials
Energy (alternative energy, new renewable energy sources, nuclear energy)
Human health
Socio-economics (e.g. marine economy, rural socio-economy)
Fishery and marine sciences
• • number of times cited
Many respondents were also of the opinion that IFS should support more interdisciplinary research. A number of respondents, particularly from Member
Organizations, and a few Scientific Advisers pointed out that the question of
priorities should be determined on a regional or even on a country basis. This is
clearly reflected by the relative development of the different research areas in
different regions of the world. By way of illustration the Aquaculture and Food
Science programmes are strongly developed in Asia whereas more than half of the
grantees in the Crop Science programme are in Africa.
The interviews with the IFS scientific secretaries showed overall satisfaction with
the present definition of their respective research areas. The only exception was
Natural Products which should be defined as ·Products from Natural (re-) Sources·,
to allow for an extension of the programme beyond chemistry, and to be able to
accept e.g. material sciences and sorne areas of physics. It was also felt that
research on products from natural resources and chemistry (e.g. analytical,
environmental and synthetic chemistry, molecular biology and biochemistry) should
be included (Prage 1987:33). Ali the other scientific secretaries, given, in particular
the present budget constraints, were very reluctant to further expand the present
definitions and/or to add new areas to the present Iist.
One should recognize here the central and decisive key role of the IFS scientific
secretaries working in association with the IFS Scientific Advisers. As one of the
Scientific Advisers put it, -The abilities and the confidence of the scientific
secretaries are of the greatest importance to the Foundation-. One should also
consider the disadvantage of keeping the same Scientific Advisers too long. Some
of the advisers have been actively participating in the selection process as a
permanent mernber of the nucleus groups of advisers meeting twice a year and
thereby have had an influence on the definition of the scientific areas since the very
beginning. While remaining flexible one should think of replacing them more
regularly to avoid scientific domination and perhaps the risk of an overly
conservative reproduction of the scientific areas. 1 know from personal experience
how difficult it is to thank and replace a very valuable and dedicated adviser. Some
general rules could be drawn up e.g. Scientific Advisers are to be appointed for a
six year period. This period may be extended twice by 2 years. Outgoing Scientific
Advisers may however be requested to continue their contacts with grantees.
26
Possible revisions of the scientific programme
The question of revising of the scientific programme ·with specifie regard to,
environmental and socio-economic aspects· as weil as the future of rural
technology within the framework of the present programme is discussed below.
Rural technology
A review of the Rural Technology area prepared by Haile Lui Tebicke (member of
the IFS Board of Trustees) and Said Ouattar (former IFS scientific secretary)
proposed a redefinition of the area to be renamed Engineering Sciences (Ouattar
and Tebicke 1989). This review was presented and discussed at the 16th meeting
of the Board of Trustees (May 1989). While in agreement with the review's content,
the Trustees felt that the financial situation did not permit IFS to launch another
broadened area such as the one proposed. Their opinion was also based on the
assumption that most of the projects related to rural technology could be included in
one of the other research areas.
The interviews with the scientific secretaries indicated that this was not so. While
there are some projects that can be accommodated in other areas 1, many 'rural
technology projects' fall outside the scope of the other research priority areas.
There are also a significant number of borderline cases and a clear tendency to
avoid or reject a 'rural technology project' whenever it falls outside the definition of
the research area to which it is referred. This tendency is reinforced by the financial
situation.
Most of the projects which cannot be accommodated in the other areas deal with
renewable energy resources and environmental engineering. Most of them are
closely related to the protection of the environment and contribute to the
development of sustainable agricultural systems. Given the recognition of the
growing importance of environmental problems and the budget constraints U
suggested to narrow down the proposai of Ouattar and Tebicke and cali the Rural
Technology area -Environmental Engineering-. Another possible title would be
-Renewable Energy and Environmental Engineering-. A possible definition could
be:
(Renewable Energy and) Environmental Engineering
Research into renewable energy resources including woodstoves, solar
dryers, windmills, biogas, biomass gasifiers and small hydroelectric power
systems. Development of techniques and methods aimed at protecting the
environment. Examples are treatment of industrial waste and sewage
effluent, and recycling of wastewater. Surveillance of water quality and
pesticide residues. Conservation and rehabilitation of land. Sustainable
land and water resources management.
1Examples: Iimnology is referred to Aquaculture as long as It is related to the cultivation of aquatic
organisms; the construction of animal shelters is referred to Animal Production; irrigation and drainage
systems are referred to Crop Science.
27
Such a new name and definition, which would no doubt increase the importance
given to environmental issues in the granting programme, are also Iikely to attract
more funds. The final definition should take into consideration the possibility to
accommodate some of the projects related to environmental chemistry into the
·Natural Products· area. Whatever the final definition would be, one has to be
careful not to eliminate the technology component of the granting programme,
particularly as regards energy-related research. which is a major issue for ail
countries.
At the same time one should realize that to launch a truly technological or
engineering sciences programme would require developing a new programme
with sub-research areas, exploring new territories and new groups of Scientific
Advisers and a budget probably at least as important as the present one.
particularly if pre-industrial pilot projects are involved. The proposed suggestion is
a realistic compromise in the hope that future budget developments will be bright
enough to enable a more comprehensive development of Engineering Sciences.
Socio-economic aspects
Despite the fact that as early as 1974 the IFS Granting Programme clearly
announced that "support may also be given to social and economic research", there
are only 5 grantees who received a grant for a socio-economic research project
during the 1974-1990 period 1 . The wording was changed to "evaluations of social
aspects of research results" in 1975. and to "evaluation of the application of
research results to economic and social development and its consequences" from
1976 to 1979. No reference was made about socio-economic research in the
granting programmes during the 80s until the most recent application form for first
grant and guidelines' which indicated in the paragraph preceding the definition of
the research areas that "socio-economic and environmental aspects of the scientific
areas will be considered".
Restrospectively one has to recognise that the successive formulations were rather
ambiguous and not really encouraging for any potential applicant. The fact that the
IFS Secretariat is still looking for new wording clearly indicates that a more
satisfactory one still needs to be found. The new wording approved at a recent
Secretariat meeting (28 May 1990), Le. "IFS will look favorably upon proposais
taking into account the management of natural resources and environment care.
Projects with socio-economic aspects will be considered.", suggests that projects
with socio-economic aspects will not be considered as favorably as those taking
environmental aspects into account.
There is a need for clarification, and IFS has to decide whether it wants to and can
support research in the field of socio-economics or not. This is quite different from
considering the socio-economic aspects of a research area or project. Each project
proposai takes place in a socio-economic environment and will at some stage have
(positive or negative) socio-econornic effects. Each applicant should thus be
expected to consider the socio-economic environment of his research at an early
1Ali of these projects. except one which deals with ethnobotanical studies, are related to agricultural
production systems.
28
stage of project definition . This should be made explicit in the IFS granting
programme.
T0 support research in socio-economics. whether or not it is related to the present
biological programme. would require (as for engineering or technological research)
a completely new programme with sub-areas. new groups of Scientific Advisers.
new contacts with specialized institutions etc. and a new scientific secretary to
administer such a programme. Most of the sponsors consulted. except one. were
very skeptical about the possibility and the opportunity of developing such a
programme. A possibility would be to start it on a pilot scale with one or possibly
two clearly defined subject areas. During an experimental phase it could be
administered directly by the Director in association with a group of Scientific
Advisers. A Iimited number of grants e.g. 10. could be reserved for that purpose
during an experimental period of 3 years. An evaluation couId be conducted after
the first 3 years to decide whether to continue the programme on a larger scale or to
discontinue it. Several areas could be proposed for the experimental phase. Rural
socio-economics and the socio-economics of science are two possible examples.
Environmental aspects
The different notes recently prepared by the scientific secretaries for the 1FS
Director clearly show that environmental issues are already included in sorne of the
IFS supported projects. A search conducted by the IFS information secretary
produced no less than 235 'hits' of projects which would include environmentallyoriented research aspects. Many of them deal with ecology. conservation (soi!,
water, plant and animal species, etc), soil fertility. biological control and sustainable
farming systems.
Thus. IFS is already supporting a considerable number of scientists within the
present programme who are directly concerned with environmental issues and/or
sustainable development. This development has taken place despite the fact that
no special mention was made of environmental research in the granting
programme. More applications from environmentally-minded applicants could
certainly be obtained by making environmental research aspects more visible in the
granting programme and by recruiting. whenever necessary. more environmentallyminded Scientific Advisers. 1 do not however think that it is necessary to create a
new area or programme devoted to environmental research alone. On the contrary.
1 believe that it would be a mistake to isolate environmental research as a separate
area since ail the IFS grantees should seek to carry out environmentally sound
research. In other words. their projects. independent of the research area
concerned. should take into account the environmental context and the
development needs "without compromising the capacity of future generations to
satisty their own needs" (Bruntland Report, 1987).
It would not be realistic, for IFS. to help support research on more global
environmental problems such as the destruction of the ozone layer or the problem
of global warming. Planetwide problems such as these clearly require greater
means and new forms of international cooperation that bring together research
organizations at allieveis (national. regional and international) and other sectors of
human activity (governments. private sector organizations..etc.. )
29
1 feel that it is necessary (1) to stress in the overall presentation of the granting
programme the need for research proposais to take enyironmental issues into
account and ultimately aim at promoting sustainable deyelopment. and (2) to
include. in the definition Qf each of the research areas. concrete research
orientations in SUPPQrt of this intention. The environmental research directions
should be particularly emphasised in the more productiQn-oriented research areas
of the granting programme e.g. Aquaculture, Animal Production and CrQP Science.
whQse definitions are at present possibly too tightly fQcussed on the production
aspects. Environmental impacts of specific productiQn activities could be clearly
indicated in the definition of the scientific areas.
ln summary, the pQtential applicants should be expected to consider the
environmental impact as weil as the socio-econQmic environment of their research
projects at an early stage of project definition and give thQughts tQ hQW the project
would fit intQ the local, eCQIQgical, sociolQgical and eCQnomical environment where
it to be implemented. A possible wQrding for the IFS granting programme could be:
•Ali research proPQsals shQuld aim at contributing to eCQlogically. socially and
eCQnQmically sustainable develQpmenf.
The need for a future study?
Given the sCQpe of the question raised by the SpQnsQrs Committee, the SQurce of
informatiQn and expertise available (mainly internai tQ IFS) and the present
financiallimitations of the IFS budget, the recommendations prQPQsed are Iimited
minor revisions to the 1FS scienti'fic priQrity areas. A more prQgressive approach
would plead for a more critical assessment of the IFS scientific priority areas. The
IFS scientific areas were defined as being priQrity areas for Third WQrld science
SQme 20 years agQ. Are they still high priQrity areas today? HQW weil do they
actually relate tQ today's and tomQrrQW's develQpment prQblems? How weil do they
relate tQ regiQnal priQrities? Are there Qther areas tQ be considered in addition tQ or
instead of the present scientific research areas? Such an approach would require
the participatiQn of an independent grQup Qf experts frQm (or with field knowledge
of) developing countries, whose backgrQunds WQuid coyer nQt only the present
scientific areas, but also and especially the whQle range of scientific disciplines not
represented in the present IFS programme. BibliQmetric studies WQuid also be
needed tQ pinpQint the relative pQsition Qf work by 1FS grantees in Third World and
wQrld science. This methodolQgy CQuid not be adopted in this present study but
might be cQnsidered for a future study.
2. HIGH PRIORITY COUNTRIES?
ln December 1989, IFS had a total Qf 1642 grantees in 92 cQuntries i.e an average
of approximately 18 grantees per country. IFS is nQW working in ail develQping
countries except a few such as Bhutan, Burma, Cambodia and Libya. The highest
percentage of grantees is to be found in Africa (39%), follQwed by Asia (36%) and
Latin America (25%). The distributiQn among the 92 countries is very uneven. Half
Qf the grantees are cQncentrated in 13 countries and 41 countries have fewer than
5 grantees (see Fig. nQ.9). There are 11 cQuntries that have Qnly one grantee and
12 that have 2.
30
Fig. no.9: Number of grantees per countries
Among the 16 countries which have benefitted the most from IFS support (see table
no.5) we essentially find the main Third World science producers, but not in their
normal ranking order. Kenya, although not on the table is in 17th position just after
Tanzania, and has 28 grantees. The main absents are Egypt (only 15 grantees)
and the four Asian -dragons- --Rep. of Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore-in which countries we respectively find 14,2,2 and 1 grantees only).
Table nO.5: List of the 16 countries having more than 30 grantees
Rank
in 1989
Countries
No. of grantees
1974-1989
No. of grantees
1974-1983
Annual rate of
increase
1984-1989
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Total
Philippines
Nigeria
Morocco
Thailand
Indonesia
Sri Lanka
India
Mexico
China
Malaysia
Argentina
Chili
Brazil
Peru
Cameroon
Tanzania
16
100
97
76
71
62
60
58
58
56
55
48
47
43
41
32
32
48
30
12
49
41
35
42
14
11
36
6
10
7
21
14
18%
37%
89%
7%
8%
12%
fJJ/o
52%
68%
17
11fJJ/o
61%
85%
16%
21%
15%
936
:m
23%
gJ/o
India, China and Brazil have a rather modest number of grantees and Sri Lanka,
Cameroon and Tanzania occupy a rather honorable position as compared to their
world ranking as science producers and their respective number of scientists. The
31
main 'outsider' is no doubt Morocco, whose position is mainly due to the dynamism
of one institute: the Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan \1 where close to half
of the Moroccan grantees work. Morocco also had one of the highest annual
increase rate of grantees during the last 5 years.
The main trend over the last five years has been a high increase rate of grantees in
the scientifically most advanced Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, ChUe
and Mexico) and China, while most of the Asian countries, which used to be on the
top of the Iist in the mid 80s, have had a comparatively low annual increase rate1 .
Except for China2 , this may be indirectly related with trips by scientific secretaries
and workshops organized during the same period. Africa, although not very visible
on the above Iist, has on the average maintained and even improved its position as
IFS' primary recipient continent during the 1985-89 period. A number of African
countries have between 20 and 30 grantees (Kenya, Tunisia, Congo, Ethiopia,
Senegal, COte d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Madagascar). If measured
against the world distribution of scientists, African scientists are largely overrepresented in the IFS grantee population.
Is the total breakdown by continents and countries and the recent trends described
above satisfactory? Should IFS continue to award grants only or mainly based on
scientific merit (and consequently concentrate a relatively higher proportion of its
grantees in the scientifically most advanced developing countries) or should other
criteria being used to establish a list of -priority countries-? Before trying to answer
this question, one should first recognize that IFS, through the SPAAR and
DOTASCA small grant programme, already has de facto a Iist of priority countries.
A majority (58%) of the people who responded to the questionnaire and were
interviewed were of the opinion that the overall distribution of grantees by continent
was satisfactory. Most of those who thought that it was not satisfactory were
pleading for their own cause Le. an Latin American grantee and/or Member
Organization would tend to think that more grants should be given to Latin America
as compared to Africa and Asia.. etc... An even higher percentage (63%) were
against IFS having a Iist of high priority countries. About 1/3 and particularly the
sponsors were of the opinion that such a Iist should be established and that LDC's
and/or Africa should be given priority provided the high priority recipient countries
would still dispose of a -minimum research infrastructure-. Most of the same
respondents (33%) thought that scientists from sorne countries should be
considered as non eligible for an IFS grant. Among the most cited countries3 were
Korea (Rep. of), Singapore, Taiwan, India, China, Brazil and Argentina i.e. the so
called NICs and the large and very large countries which cali for a special case.
1The Asian countries, particularly the Southeast Aslan countries, however, still occupy a leadlng
position on the Iist.
2The first grants were approved ln China ln 1980, but the number of Chinese grantees remained low
until 1986 when the number applications submitted by Chinese scientists started to Increase,
particularly ln the Crop Science area. This new trend may be due to the fact that information on the IFS
granting programme had been spread through v1slts by a few IFS sclentific advisers and the so called
-god father- system during the last year. Not less than 89 applications (more than 10% of the total)
were recelved during 1989 from Chinese scientists out of which 40 were ln the Crop Science area. IFS
has to be prepared to receive an even higher number ln the coming years.
3The wording of the question may have however biaised some of the answers: Should scientists from
some countries (e.g. Newly Industrialized Countries) be considered as non eligible for an IFS grant?
32
The New Industrializing Countries (NICs)
Seven ·Developing Countries· account for almost 90% of the total manufactured
exports of the developing world, and four of them, the Asian NICs, for 77% (see
table A11 in Annex 8 p.92). Most of them rather recently established, a weil
developed S&T base and have the means to further develop il. As pointed out
earlier, the number of IFS grantees in the four Asian NICs represent a very marginal
percentage of the total (approx. 1%) and IFS is no longer receiving any applications
from Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong 1, and fewer applications from Korea.
Among the 395 applications received during Spring 1990 only two were from
Korea. In addition to the fact that these countries have not been visited by IFS for
years, there are many other reasons that could explain this situation. The main one
is that they should now be in a position to support their own scientists. In the late
70s and early 80s when most developing countries were generally devoting
between 0.1% and 0.4% of their GNP to research, Korea, for example, was
spending over 1% already and is today spending close to 2%. Considering this
natural downward trend in applications from Asian NICs, there seems to be no
need to discuss whether scientists from an Asian NIC should be eligible or not for
an IFS granl. As national research capabilities develop the need for IFS support
declines. A similar development might take place in the South East Asian countries
such as Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia during the coming decade,
although their economies will no doubt remain more dependent on agriculture
(Chaponnière, 1985). This is also the case for the remaining Latin American
industrializing countries (Brazil, Mexico and Argentina) which, contrary to the four
Asian NICs, have been submitting an increasing number of applications to IFS
during the last few years. These latter countries, with the exception of Malaysia, can
be classified in the category of the large countries.
The large and very large countries
The question of the large countries2 is more difficult because of the size of their
scientific communities3 and because most of them can hardly be considered as
single entities but rather several countries in one. One should however distinguish
here between the 2 giants (China and India) and the other countries (Indonesia,
Brazil, Mexico..etc.. ). India, which has been described as "excellence in the midst of
poverty·4, is today among the five largest scientific communities in the World and
accounts for 50% of the scientific production of the developing countries. China like
India, also has a very high S&T manpower potential in absolute terms due to its
huge population, but low as a percentage of the total population. Both countries
have important regional disparities. The development of the scientific community in
Brazil, the largest scientific community in Latin America, also illustrates the
profound regional imbalance between the southern states (and more specifically
the state of Sao Paulo), and the rest of the country. But large often goes together
1Hong Kong is a British colony until1997 and should not be considered in the frame of this report.
2A Iist of large countries based on population sizes is given in table A12 ln Annex 8 p.92.
3The entire IFS budget could be spent in one of the large developing country without having a very
large impact.
4Speciallssue of Nature 12 April 1984, pp. 581-600.
33
with fragile1 and, the economic difficulties recently experienced by most of them,
and the political events which arose in China are here to remind us that the future of
their scientific communities is far from secure. They still have to struggle to create a
space for science: -What we have at most are islands of competence, niches where
science was able to develop for sometime, but always precariously, and threatened
by an unfriendly environment- (Schwarzman, 1988). This last citation, which
concems Brazil, could very weil be applied to the other large developing countries.
One should however question the impact that IFS can have in countries such as
India, China and Brazil. Even if IFS may have a strong carrier impact on a few
individual scientists it is just, ail in ail, Iike a few drops in the ocean. One should
also consider that research funding programmes have been established in ail these
countries during the last decade and even before. While trying to develop ways of
keeping them in touch with the IFS mainly through the existing grantees. IFS should
consider giving the large and particularly the very large countries a low priority as
potential new grants recipients. The IFS staff members should, accordingly, avoid
encouraging potential applicants by refraining from visiting the large and
particularly very large countries. The Scientific Advisers should not be encouraged
to visit them either. A possibility could be to reserve for this group of countries a
limited number of highly competitive grants.
The small and very small countries
ln 1985, about 67% of ail developing countries had a population of less than 10
million and 52%, less than 5 million. Most of the 41 countries with fewer than 5
grantees belong to this group of small or very small countries countries such as
Bostwana, Lesotho, Vanuatu, Swaziland, Chad, etc. Although size measured in
absolute terms is not an adequate indicator of the prospects of developing a
Science and Technology (5&T) base, it is more difficult to establish in the smaller
countries. Due to resource constraints, smail developing - and developed countries cannot solve ail their problems alone. Major decisions have to be made
as to what should be developed using their limited research capabilities 2 and what
can be borrowed from external work. This also requires adequate access to
information and participation in research networks3.
Any grant decision concerning scientists in very small developing countries should
thereferore be taken with great care. Judging applications mainly on scientific
merits implies a big risk (bigger than in larger countries) of diverting the best of the
very limited personal resources away from problems directly relevant to the
country's need. One should also ascertain the availability of a minimum research
capability and environment below which any investment, whatever the size, would
be useless and/or wasted 4 . Once a grant is approved the grantee should also be
1See for example the article on India wrltten by Shiva V. and Bandyopadhyay J. (1980), The large and
Fragile Community of Scientists ln India, Minerva, vol. 18(4), pp.575-594.
2Furthermore, figures for the number of researchers, ln most cases, vastly overstate the real time
devoted to research, because it is only one of several function performed.
3Here agaln there are heavy constraints on small countrles since. most often, the greater the
Investment in domestic R&D, the greater the potential for absorbing and utilizing external research.
4By way of illustration, it is argued that in a smaller agricultural research system, research investment
per hectare will have to be higher than in a larger system to achieve equal effectiveness. One study
34
provided with as many scientific contacts as possible (advisers, grantees, and other(
scientists) to overcome his relatively greater isolation and to Iink him to specialized:
reserch networks and 'invisible' colleges in the region and internationally.·
Scientists in very small countries with virtually no S&T base should only b e'
supported if local scientific supervision is available or can be arranged.
The difficulties of establishing a dynamic and operational typology
The line of logic developed above suggests that IFS, to derive a greater impact trom
its Iimited financial resources, should consider concentrating its support on a range
of small and medium-size developing countries (most of which would be located in
Africa) which have already progressed beyond the minimum S&T base, below
which any investment might be wasted. Based on this hypothesis and using a
battery of demographic, economic and scientific indicators (Population, per capita
GNP, percentage of GNP devoted to R&D, number of scientists per 1000
inhabitants, scientific output etc.) as weil as other indicators internai to the IFS
system (number of applications, rate of application approval, relative use of IFS
·other support· programmes, etc.) it was believed that a typology could be
proposed. Several attempts to construct such a typology were not very satisfactory.
An analysis of the different typologies available shows that the most common are
Iinked to economic indicators, especially per capita GNP, and suggests a
classification based on thresholds, e.g., the World Bank Typology which recognises
low income countries (US$0-400 per inhabitants per year), medium income
countries (US$400-1700), and oil exporting high income countries. In the United
Nations system, especially UNCTAD makes a distinction between several
categories: NICs, oil exporting countries and LDCs. Particular attention has also
been given to a report recently presented to UNESCO by the International Council
for Science Policy Studies1 which proposed an aggregate typology of ·science and
technology capabilities·. Excluding the ICs, three groups of countries are identified:
those with nearly no science and technology base; those with fundamental
elements of such a base; and those with an established science and technology
base. Most African countries belong to the first group (see Annex 5).
For obvious reasons, it would have been most convenient for IFS to use a 'ready
made' Iist established and adopted at a supra national levaI. Examples of such lists
and of additionnai typologies are given in Annex 5. A number of misgivings have
discouraged me from using one or a combination of these typologies2 • The main
reason is the lack of reliable, comparable and recent data on sorne of the basic
indicators, including S&T activities, in many developing countries. The adequacy of
sorne of the S&T indicators and in particular output indicators3 , for measuring or
evaluating Third World Science is also very open to question. Furthermore, many of
even suggested that research Is Justified only where at least 100.000 hectares Is devoted ln a
particular country to the crop concerned (Dottridge, 1987).
1Sclence and Technology ln Developlng Countries: Strategies for the '90s, a report to UNESCO by
the International Council for Science POlicy Studies, Paris, 1990.
2Examples: the fact that in the recent report submitted to UNESCO, Congo was ln the same group C
(S&T base established) as Argentina, Brazil and Singapore; Malaysia, China and Nigeria were in the
same group B (fundamental elements of an S&T base) as Fiji, Rwanda, and Guinea, etc.
3These output Indicators are already highly controversial, even in industrialized countries.
35
the crucial factors which affect a society's ability to take advantage of modern
science cannot be measured and translated into indicators. Another fundamental
drawback of any typology is that it is static and does not reflect recent setbacks and
fluctuations. Some people were also of the opinion that a Iist of priority countries
should be Iinked with the establishment of regional granting programmes.
Considering that one of the main determining factors in the geographical
distribution of the IFS grantees has been and still is the trips made in recent years
by the scientific secretaries 1 and, to a lesser extent by the Scientific Advisers, and
assuming that an agreement can be reached on a Iist of priority countries, l
recommend establishing a Iist of oriority countries to be visited by the IFS staff
members during the period 1991-1996. The annual Iist should be derived from the
main Iist of priority countries which remains to be established. The other countries
should only be visited exceptionally and not to encourage scientists to apply for an
IFS grant. The Scientific Advisers should not be encouraged to visit the non priority
countries either. A limited number of highly competitive new grants e.g. 20%, could
also be reserved for the non priority countries. Present grantees should however be
given the opportunity to apply for grant renewals.
3. RELATION TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
IFS is collaborating in different ways with an increasing number of other research
supporting organizations. An internallist indexes some 40 organizations (excluding
the Sponsors and the Member Organizations). 1 cannot study the nature, the
intensity and the quality of relations with ail these organizations in this report. As
proposed in the introduction, 1 will focus on relations with the small grant giving
organizations as weil as on new emerging initiatives aimed at supporting individual
scientists in developing countries, mainly to study the extent to which 1FS activities
may overlap with these other organizations2 . Possible future collaboration will also
be discussed.
A majority of the respondents to the questionnaire and of the people interviewed
were of the opinion that the present lever of collaboration with other research
supporting organizations was satisfactory. A significant number (30%) pleaded for
stronger collaboration, particularly with organizations involved in training activities,
with bilateral research cooperation agencies and with Member Organizations. A
number of Member Organizations felt that they were under-utilized and underinformed and that they could participate more closely in the selection process to
ensure the relevance of the approved projects with the development needs, and
contribute to improved monitoring of the grantees' work. They would also
appreciate receiving more information on the grantees' output in their home
countries. A few Scientific Advisers also pointed out the possible disadvantage for
IFS to collaborate too much with other institutions. Remember because of its size,
the IFS Secretariat could ail too rapidly get locked into a system while
administering too many collaborative agreements and memoranda of
10ne can trace the origin of the first applications with the travels of the the IFS founding father, Pres.
Sven Brohult. during 1973-1974.
2For a more detailed review of IFS' relations with other organizations in the area of Natural Products
research. see in Annex 6 an excerpt from Dr.Lennart Prage's excellent report (Prage, 1987).
36
understanding with other organizations. IFS must stay independent in its p01icies
and activities.
An overwhelming majority (88%) considered that IFS was playing a unique role
among the many organizations involved in the support of S&T in the Developing
Countries. Potential competitors were most often not considered as real competitors
but rather as complementary initiatives following a course parallel to that of the IFS.
Among the most cited were the Third World Academy of Science (TWAS), The
International Development Research Center (IDRC), The African Academy of
Sciences (AAS), the African Biosciences Network (ABN) and the Asian Fisheries
Society (AFS). Before briefly reviewing IFS relations and collaboration with these
organizations, 1will consider IFS' relations with its Member Organizations and with
organizations involved in research training activities.
IFS Member Organizations
IFS has a total of 92 Member Organizations in 77 countries. The Member Organizations are the constituents of the Foundation and yet their actual level of
involvement is very limited 1 • This is particularly the case of most Member
Organizations in the developed world2• The problems of communication by mail
should now be more easily overcome with fax machine. In addition to their normal
institutional functions 3 , Member Organizations should play a more active role
particularly in the following areas:
-inform the Foundation on national research priorities;
-disseminate information on the Foundations activities and recommend names of
potential outstanding candidates to the Foundation4;
-provide comments on the applications submitted to the Foundation, particularly
with regards to national research priorities and development needs;
-propose names of Scientific Advisers to be nominated by the Board of Trustees;
-assist in the local organization of workshop;
-participate in the implementation of IFS special programmes e.g. pilot project on
maintenance and repair of scientific equipments.
Member Organizations, particularly in the developed countries. should contribute,
in close association with the Scientific Advisers, in developing a constituency of
support for 1FS activities.
Organizations involved in research training activities
Through the widening network of Scientific Advisers, 1FS is involved with an
increasing number of organizations involved in research training activities. While
IFS should always keep the final decision for approving a grant, these 'training
centers' often offer a precious opportunity to have access to some of the best
trained and most talented Third World scientists. The University and other training
centers' teachers are logically the most suited people to recommand the most
11t Is estimated that about 1/3 of the Member Organlzations are sendlng on time their comments on
research grants applications trom their countries.
2This was particularly clear from the responses to the questionnaire. Many of them recognized that
they knew too little about IFS to answer properly most of the questions.
3They mainly meet every three years at the General Assembly to elect the Board and to give general
policy orientations to the Foundation.
41n the priority countries whenever IFS decides to have a Iist of priority country.
37
suitable candidate to IFS. Most of these relations have so far been established on a
personal basis. If and when an agreement is reached on a Iist of priority countries,
IFS should accordingly strengthen its relations with the organizations located
where the priority countries' scientists are most Iikely to be trained. If IFS would
decide to concentrate even more of its activities in Africa, it would be useful to
collaborate more with institutions such as the Association of African Universities
(AAU) and the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARC) of the
Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) based or having
outreach programmes in Africa.
Institutions Iike the Uppsala University based International Program in Chemical
Sciences' (lPCS), the IARCs of the CGIAR, the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) that are involved in training OC' scientists are increasingly involved with the
follow up of their former trainees. IFS is already collaborating, on an informai basis,
with many of these institutions. Often through the IFS Scientific Advisers, these
organizations have contributed to the training of IFS grantees, e.g. close to 100
grantees have been involved in IPCS activities. In an increasing number of cases
IFS has shared costs for the purchase of equipment and co-organized or cosponsored workshops and/or training courses with these organizations. Increased
cooperation between IFS and these organizations is foreseeable and desirable as
long as it can be kept on an informai basis and does not overload the IFS
administrative services.
The Third World Academy of Science (TWAS)
Founded in 1983 with Dr Abdus Salam as President and officially launched in 1985
the Third World Academy of Science (TWAS) is -the first international forum to unite
distinguished men and women of science from the Third World, with the objective of
promoting basic and applied science in the Third World through nurturing
excellence and fostering future generations of promising scientists from developing
scientists-. The Academy's main objectives are thus very similar to those of IFS2
and sorne of its current programmes e.g. the research grants programmes have
been clearly inspired by the IFS granting programme. As stipulated in TWAS
information material, the TWAS research grants programme was established in
1986 -as a complement to that run by IFS-. The original scheme started with
experimental physics and mathematics. It was expanded in 1987 to include
biochemistry and molecular biology, and further in 1989 to include pure and
applied chemistry. As the IFS grant, the TWAS grant is to be used for purchasing
mainly research equipment, laboratory supplies and scientific Iiterature. The TWAS
grants range between US$ 2000 and 5000 for a one year, renewable period.
TWAS also runs a spare parts programme and a donation programme together with
International Center for Theoretical Physics (lCTP) for Iiterature and equipment.
The main risk of overlap between IFS and TWAS is clearly in the field of natural
products chemistry. Close contacts between the two organizations have so far
, Formerly the International Seminar in Chemistry.
20ne of the main differences is that TWAS was founded by research fellows from the Third World only
and its activities are administered by Third World scientists.
38
avoided duplication 1 • If the IFS natural product chemistry area was to be enlarged
to e.g. analytical and bio-chemistry as weil as molecular biology while the TWAS
programme would get more involved in chemistry and biology the risk to divert from
a constructive overlap to a counterproductive duplication would become greater
and the need for closer collaboration more evident.
The African Academy of Science (AAS)
Established in 1985 as an offspring of TWAS, under the strong leadership of Prof.
Thomas Odhiambo, The African Academy of Science (AAS), with headquarters in
Nairobi, has also as one of its main objectives ·to help in developing and nurturing
high-Ievel scientific and technological manpower in Africa by identifying young
talented scientists and technologists through recognition of their merW... Among its
current activities two small grants projects have been initiated. One of them,
Capacity Building in Forestry Research (CBFR), although it concerns only African
scientists, is obviously duplicating the IFS Forestry research area2 .
With a grant of 4.5 million SEK, over a period of three years, approved by SAREC
during 1990, the AAS should be able to award from 10 to 15 grants to African
scientists each year. The programme, as described by SAREC, ·will be very much
similar to the granting programme that IFS is very successfully carrying out, with the
difference that it is limited to Africa south of the Sahara and that the administration
is African based" (SAREC, 1990). By way of comparison IFS received 17 research
grant applications in the field of forestry from African scientists during 1989 out of
which 8 were approved. Unless an agreement between AAS and IFS can be
reached on respective target groups, or unless they wouId discover a lot of new
African talent in the field of forestry, the two organizations should be prepared for
open competition.
The International Development Research Center (IDRC)
IORC (Canada) was one of the first supporters of IFS. But, IORC does not normally
provide long-term funding to other organizations' core budget. Its decision to
withdraw as a permanent sponsor of the IFS core budget came during a period
when it had to provide justification for supporting an increasing number of small
grant programmes. The small grant or individual approach was not considered as a
normal activity for IORC whose main objective was to strengthen institutional
research capacities. A study was carried out in 1984 to collect information on
IDRC's experience in utilizing the small grants funding mechanism (IDRC, 1985)3.
One of the most important outcomes of this report has been to legitimate the small
1Accordlng to TWAS Information materlal, "when TWAS receives proposaIs whlch fall withln the realm
of the IFS and the IAEA, the applicant Is notlfied of the same and is given the cholce of either
contacting the other Institution on his own or of having the Academy forward the grant application to
the appropriate person-.
2The other one Is the Afrlcan Dissertation Internships Awards Project (ADIAP) under an agreement
with the Rockefeller Foundation.
320 small grant programs, Including IFS, representing a variety of purposes and objectives were then
reviewed. Hait of IDRC small grant projects and over 800f0 of the funded projects have Involved another
donor sharing support. CAD$ 9.5 million have been spent by the Center on small grants since 1972.
IDRC has been directly responsible for awards to 574 grantees with a relative concentration in Latin
America and East Africa.
39
grant 1 individual approach within the Center, especially those administered by
regionally based organizations in the developing world. thus in the Social Sciences
the Center has been using the Council for the Development of Economics and
Social Research in Africa (CODESTRIA) and the Organization for Social Science
Research in East Africa (OSSREA).
The Social Science Division (SS) and to a much lesser extent the Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Sciences Division (AFNS) have plans for small grant activities in the
Mure. IDRC intends also to revise and further strengthen its support to Africa (IDRC,
1989) and considers small grants programmes as an important strategic element of
its policy. IDRC's recent budget cuts and consequent 'downsizing' measures will
probably not be favorable to any individual small grant not direct\y Iinked to an
IDRC funded research programme. The risk of overlap or duplication with IFS is
therefore very Iimited; the excellent relations and frequent communications
between the two organizations will further reduce such a risk.
The International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU)
The International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) is an NGO set up to promote
international scientific activity in the different branches of science and their
applications. ICSU's membership consists of 76 National Members (scientific
academies and research council) and 20 Scientific Unions. Although one of the IFS
Board of Trustees members is appointed upon nomination by ICSU every three
years. no formai membership exists between the two organizations. Logically, the
scientific union, which is the closest to IFS interest is the International Union of
Biological Sciences (IUBS). The Committee on Science and Technology in
Developing Countries (COSTED), a committee set up by ICSU in 1966 is also
promoting activities close to IFS' interests. Collaboration between IFS and ICSU
has so far been limited to exchange of information and participation at each others'
meetings. New developments may however justify closer collaboration.
ICSU, in 1989 received a preparatory assistance grant from UNDP in order to
prepare a proposai for a long term project on "Strengthening Scientific Training and
Research in the Third World"1. The ICSU project would concentrate on the basic
sciences in general and in three specific interdisciplinary areas (biotechnology,
environment and natural disasters). Although the project does not intend to
establish a granting programme, sorne of the projected activities (e.g. organization
of workshops, provision of travel grants, provision of scientific Iiterature and
equipment) are very close to IFS'. Besides this long term project. ICSU is
reactivating COSTED's activities and renewing sorne of its members.
IFS should take this opportunity to strengthen its relations with ICSU. While seeking
a formai membership agreement with ICSU it could see to it that the IFS Trustees
nominated by ICSU is at the same time an active member of COSTED and also
possibly involved in the implementation of ICSU's projects for Third World research.
Mechanisms could also be developed through which IFS grantees could benefit
from ICSU's Third World project activities and vice versa.
1The budget proposai would be in the order of 20 million US$. The project proposai should be ready
before the end of 1990.
40
An African based network supported jointly by ICSU and UNESCO, the African
Biosciences Network (ABN), has established. among its other activities. a
research grant programme in the field of biology (nutrition, health, agriculture,
forestry, etc.)1 whose main criterion is 'relevance to the needs of the country and
region'. IFS and ABN have reached an agreement to identify specifie target groups
and objectives through which it is believed that the risk of overlap can be
minimised. Mechanisms have also been discussed so that IFS grantees can benefit
from ABN activities and the opposite.
The Asian Fisheries Society (AFS)
The Asian Fisheries Society (AFS) headquartered in Manila (Philippines) with Dr
Chua Thia-Eng (a former IFS grantee) as President, has established a research
awards scheme for aquaculturists in Asia and the Pacifie. A Memorandum of
Understanding has been signed between AFS and IFS in december 1989 for a test
period of 1 year starting from January 1990 on joint support for young scientists in
Asia and the Pacifie who are undertaking research in the field of aquaculture and
fish post-harvest technology.
The outcome of this agreement will be evaluated at the end of 1990. It is too early to
draw any conclusions. Hopefully it will strengthen the capacity of a regional
organization to organize scientific activities and run a granting programme on a
regional basis. Given AFS knowledge of the needs and the state of research in the
region, the agreement is also expected to improve the relevance of the projects
approved jointly by IFS and AFS to the region's needs. However, considering the
limited number of grants concerned. the cost/benefit ratio of such a collaborative
agreement should be carefully studied and, whenever necessary and possible, an
attempt made to simplify the administrative procedures2 .
My review of IFS possible relations with other grant-giving organizations is not
exhaustive. Other organizations such as the research grant programme operated
by the Southern African Center for Cooperation in Agricultural Research
(SACCAR)3 could also have been considered. The examples selected, however
are enough evidence of the marked interest an increasing number of organizations
have developed for the small individual grant funding mechanism particularly since
1985. There is also a clear trend to transfer the administrative responsibility and the
decision making process of these programmes to locally-run or regionally-based
organizations. Recent discussions among some of the donors of the SPAAR
programme for small research grants also confirms this trend. With the agreement
signed with the AFS and the cooperation envisaged with Tropical Agricultural
Research and Training Center (CATI E)4 to establish a support programme for
young scientists in Central America and the Caribbean, IFS is toeing the same line.
195 grant applications have been processed by ABN slnce the Inception of the programme. An
average of12 grants are approved every year.
21t may be possible to slmplify the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding which, at a first glance.
seem to be rather complicated. This may be done after the one year test period.
344 research awards were given by SACCAR ln SADCC countrles with support from SAREC during
1985-1989.
4The Spanish name is Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza.
41
It took many years to develop the IFS model, which is not only an individual small
grants mechanism but also a unique combination of grant allocations and other
specifie supporting activities. The knowledge of the local conditions could be
improved by recruiting more Scientific Advisers from developing countries and by
having Member Organizations play a more active role. Agreements with regional
organizations such as AFS and CATIE. should also help IFS to develop a stronger
interface between local conditions and the scientific objectives of the supported
projects. At the same time it should contribute to the transfer of accumulated
knowledge to the developing countries and to strengthening regional institution
located in the Third World.
How far and how rapidly should 1FS go into that process? Partly depending on the
first outcome of the two collaboration pilot projects described above. at least three
possible scenarios could be envisaged.
1- The -joint handling- of research grant applications leading to a high increase of
IFS administrative workload. a significant lost of its integrity. and normal working
and granting procedures. the IFS would rapidly decide. e.g.• after the first year of
operation to discontinue the ventures. The main danger would then be for IFS to
withdraw into itself and become marginalized from the newly emerging regional
initiatives. This should be avoided.
2- With the possibility with each new potential joint venture to enlarge its financial
basis and the consequent opportunity to support more young scientists, IFS could
be tempted to enter into more collaborative agreements at once. The IFS could
also decide that the time has arrived to transfer its accumulated knowledge to the
regionally based organizations from where the granting and supporting activities
could be organized and administered. This could be achieved by the transfer of
sorne of the IFS staff members to the regionally-based organizations. Sorne of the
activities, e.g., granting process, organization of workshops, etc., can be transferred
without too many difficulties; others, e.g., purchasing and maintenance of scientific
equipment cannot. These demand time and knowledge.
3- While keeping in touch and exchanging information with ail emerging small
grants programmes, IFS could concentrate on the testing of one or two models and
wait until enough experience is accumulated before deciding to apply them more
generally. In this last scenario, IFS is expected to continue to operate its own
internationally-based granting programme and to contribute to the establishment of
regionally based small grants mechanisms during the period under study, i.e.•
1991-1996 and probably long thereafter. While so doing IFS should strive to keep
the administrative procedures of the collaborative agreements as simple as
possible. In specifie cases, IFS may consider exchanging staff members for limited
periods of time.
ln a more long term perspective, IFS may transfer more of its granting and
supporting activities to the regions and play more of an international coordinating
role. There might be three (or probably more) distinct regional granting
programmes (Africa, Latin America and Asia) with Secretariats located in the region
and IFS ensuring international coordination. The priee in prestige must be weighed
since an internationally awarded grant, like the present IFS grant, in addition to the
financial and practical support, brings international recognition and widens the
42
possibility of collaboration. This dimension is very much lessened if not completely
lost in the case of a regionally or, even more so nationally awarded grant. IFS, to
keep this dimension alive, could consider establishing a more highly competitive.
international research award.
4. SCIENTIFIC aUALITY
As mentioned earlier, scientific quality needs evaluation and cannot be properly
addressed within the framework of this study. Several complementary
methodologies using both quantitative/qualitative as weil as input/output indicators
were proposed in my first draft presented to the Board of Trustees in May 19901• For
the elaboration of these indicators information has been requested from the IFS
Secretariat on the educational degrees of IFS grantees, the grant renewals and the
final reports submitted to the IFS.
1 did not receive enough data to be able to apply this methOOology. At this juncture 1
can only make fragmentary observations and preliminary recommendations which
may be used in a future study.
Educational degrees of IFS grantees.
Among the different input indicators, the level of university education sanctioned by
a diploma is supposedly a necessary, although not a sufficient perequisite for
anyone who wants to perform research. Although a majority of the advisers were of
the opinion that a PhD or at least a MSc was necessary to be able to carry out a
research project, a few (4 out of 24) felt that a BSc may be sufficient and the same
number (4 out of 24) indicated that one could became a goOO researcher without a
high scientific degree. Many also added that very much depended on the place
were the degree was obtained and on the scientific and institutionnal environment
where the research is to be perforrned.
ln the first IFS evaluation it was shown that the majority of the IFS grantees had a
PhD degree at the time they received their first grant. But the percentage
decreased during the first 8 years of operation from close to 70% to below 50%. It
wouId have been interesting to look at the trend with respect to university level
education after 1981. In my follow up study (Gaillard, 1987), 1 found that the
average of PhD holders 2 for the period 1974-1985 was 61% with a marked
variation between the scientific areas (cf. Table no.6).3
The more recent figures obtained from the IFS Secretariat only apply to two areas.
Thus, for the periOO 1986-1989 the average percentages of PhD and MSc holders
are respectively 58% and 38% in Food Crops and 47% and 48% in Forestry. In
average, the grantees from North African countries and Asia tend to have a higher
degree than those from Latin America and Sub-Saharian Africa.
1The methodology proposed in the first draft Is presented ln Annex 7.
2These are aggregate figures obtained by assimilating a PhD degree with a -Doctorado-, -Doctorat
d'Etat-, -Doctorat de 3ème cycle-, -Docteur Ingénieur-.
3These figures are based on the 489 grantees who responded to the questionnaire out of a total
population of 766 grantees. They might be slightly overestimated if we assume that the grantees who
responded were more productive and better trained, but this is not necessarily the case.
43
Table no.6. Percentage of PhO holders in the IFS grantees population (19741985).
Scientific areas
%
Natural Products
Crop Science
Food Science
Forestry
Rural Technology
Aquaculture
Animal Production
87
72
58
51
48
46
45
Total
61
Final Reports
Among the grantees whose grants were completed during 19891 , some 33% did
not send a report. The number of 'missing reports' were significantly higher in the
areas of Animal Production and Aquaculture. Among the 150 grantee terminations
during 1989, 92 (61%) were terminated after only one grant; a large number of
'missing reports' comes from this category. Care must however be taken to avoid
overgeneralising on the basis of the 1989 figures since it may correspond to a
periOO during which particular efforts were made to "close" old files.
As for the quality of the final reports, using the sample of the final reports discussed
at the spring meeting of the IFS Scientific Advisers, 1found that approximately 1/3rd
were downright failures and slightly more than 1/3rd were found to be excellent or
goOO.
Table no.7. Quality appraisal of Final Reports (Spring 1990)
Scientific Areas
Aquaculture
Animal Production
Crop Science
Forestry
Food Science
Total
Excellent
2
Good
Weak
Not satistactory
2
2
1
3
5
4
3
1
3
2
0Iher
1
1*
2
10
8
9
1
*Only publications ln Korean were received.
Figures concerning the Crop science area can also be found in Prof. Bunting's
report (Bunting, 1987). Again the period and the number of reports considered are
too Iimited to be able to draw definite conclusions. This qualitative information is
available in ail grantees' files and in the advisory meetings records. 1 recommend
that this information be stored in a data base.
1Cf. Iist of completed grantees, BoT 17, 15-16 May, 1990, Item B.
44
PublicatiQns.
An important test of ail research is the quantity and especially the quality of the .
refereed journals that publish it. Judging from the scientific reviews, its seems that ::'
the Scientific Advisers in different areas have a distinct difference of opinion about
the quantity of work done by IFS grantees and published in refereed journals: -1
have seen few reprints of such publications-, claimed Prof. Bunting (crop science)
whereas Prof. Huisman (aquaculture) stated: -in this year alone (1987), 1 have
counted approximately 30 scientific publications, published in high standard
double referee journals, and 1am sure 1have overlooked quite a numbe(.
Data on publications produced by grantees have not been indexed at the IFS
Secretariat. The quantitative study 1 carried out during 1986 on the Iists of
publications and reports of a sample of 213 grantees whose first grant were
approved during 1974-1989 (Gaillard, 1987) could perhaps serve as a model for
indexing this informatiQn. My study shQwed that the IFS grantees produce, on
average. 0.5 publication per year as sole author and 0.7 as co-author - that is to say
slightly more than half that of American researchers in agricultural sciences (Busch
and Lacy. 1983). 1was also able to estimate that more than half (55%) Qf the total
scientific production of the grantees was published in local journals. These global
statistics hide significant variations between geographical are as, scientific
disciptinès. gender. etc. which are presented and discussed in the review
mentioned above. The study also analyses prizes and awards obtained by the IFS
grantees.
The main conclusion that 1will draw from the above section is that a IQt of both
quantitative and qualitative information are available at the IFS Secretariat on the
grantees' work, mainly in the grantees files. but that systematic efforts have to be
made to gather this information in a data base so that it becomes readily available.
Such information would be useful not only for a study such as the present one, but
also for improving the IFS working procedures and for the grantees themselves. l
would therefore strongly advise that Quantitative and Qualitative data relating to
each grantee and grant Cincluding data on scientific output) should be maintained
in a form which can be summarized and analyzed by computer. A lot of efforts
have already been made in that direction during the last five years; more needs to
be done 1•
My second conclusion is that any serious scientific appraisal of the grantees' work
would require an external evaluation. Nothing is more difficult and Jess convincing
than to commission the task to somebody who has shared in the grants decision.
An evaluation of scientific achievement could be Qbtained from a sample of IFS
grantees. To provide pertinent and significant results. the sample. obtained through
a random selection that respects the relative importance of each scientific area
should include from 10 to 20% Qf the total grantee population from 1974 to 1988.
e.g. between 150 and 300 grantees. About 200 might be enough. Files containing
the Qriginal as weil as successive renewal applications. progress (and eventually
final) report together with the publications produced should be prepared by the IFS
11FS maintains the IFIS database, which contains the following information: title, abstract and keywords
describing the research; level of funding; and data on the grantees and hislher institution. A possible
solution would be to broaden this base to include more information.
45
Secretariat and sent to two referees with a standard evaluation form to be filled in1 •
The referees could belong to the IFS Iist of advisers but not to the central nucleus
group that meets twice a year to summarize the recommendations.
Finally, the IFS records show that over the years scientific quality has become the
dominant if not the only criterion for selecting grantees, This is confirmed by most of
the interviews conducted. The definition of the categories (1 and 2) used for
recommending applications for support may also be misleading; 1 which stands for
·potentially innovative scientific hypothesis related to the state of current
knowledge- is clearly given priority over 2 which is defined as a project proposai
with an ·obvious practical value for the country and the region- 2 • The Scientific
Advisers would also tend to assign excellence to a report which is worth publishing
in an international journal, while more practical research with potential value for the
region and country would be considered as only satisfactory and worth publishing
in a local journal. Care must be taken to avoid considering locally produced and
published science as synonymous to poor science, and international science as
synonymous to goOO science. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by one adviser,
the grantees themselves, as most scientists, also tend to be more interested in
science than in development:
·IFS responds to the interests and ambitions of individuals, many of whom wish to progress along a
personal and international career path and are dedicated more to science (whlch brings
professional rewards) rather than development - even ln their own nations - where in fact the
obstacles to development may be social and political rather than scientific and technologica!. 50 It
is left to the officers and advisers of IFS to ensure relevance to development and not ail of them
necessarily have appropriate and up-to-date experience and knowledge of developmental needs·,
This Question of relevance to development should be given more importance when
recommending applications for support. This should be stressed in the evaluation
form used by the Scientific Advisers and the categories should be changed
accordingly. The IFS information material should also stress this point more. As an
illustration, the opening sentence ·The Foundation supports young Third World
scientists of merit", could go on to read "who propose to study topics in which
science and technology appear likely to advance the development of lessdeveloped nations",
5. BALANCE BETWEEN GRANTING AND SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES
The present breakdown between granting and supporting activities in the overall
budget is roughly 65% and 25% respectively (see Fig. no.10). Over the years, and
particularly since 1978 when the first IFS workshops were organized, the relative
part of the supporting activities has increased slightly as compared to granting
activities. In addition to the workshops, the 1FS purchasing department has grown
significantly. Starting from 1 person in 1978, it now employs 2.5 fulltime, highly
qualified, and badly overworked people 3 . A pilot project on service and
maintenance of scientific equipment was started in 1988 in the SADCC countries.
1Another alternative would be for the referees to come to the IFS Office in Stockholm and go through
any document they would Iike to see.
20ne also tends to forget these definltions when taking the final decisions, and in a context of Iimited
funding only approve the applications of Cat,1.
30ne is paid by SAREC.
46
Scientific advice to grantees and interlacing with the Scientific Advisers is' also:
taking a relatively higher proportion of the time of the scientific secretaries. New
initiatives e.g. the so called 'god father activities' to improve scientific guidance and·
advice for IFS grantees, have also been carried out on an experimental basis intwo
scientific areas.
Fig. nO.10. Relative importance of granting, supporting, administrative and'
complementary activities in the IFS budget (1986-1989)
,
•
80
II)
11)"
10
,...
0Cl
10
10
10
10
60
•
•
Grant. Act
Sup. Act
li! Adm. costs
~ Comp. Act.
Pilot Project
0
40
20
0
1986
1987
1988
1989
Years
Complementary actiyjties= publications, representation at other organizations' meetings,
Should the relative part of the present IFS supporting programmes be further
increased in the future? Should some of the activities be further developed?
Should new activities be added? What should be done with the pilot project for
service and maintenance of scientific equipment when the pilot phase ends? As
mentioned earlier, 1 strongly believe that a major IFS comparative advantage lies in
its supporting activities, and that they should be given the highest priority in the
future. While most of the respondents to the questionnaire (213rds) thought that the
present division between granting and supporting activities was satisfactory, some
among the same people proposed that new supporting activities be added or that
some of the existing activities be strengthened. The remaining respondents (1/3rd),
except one. advocated more supporting activities. Among the present activities an
overwhelming majority (more than 213rds) were of the opinion that ·maintenance of
equipment· should be further developed. Then came, in order of decreasing
importance ·organizing workshops and training courses·, "providing travel grants·
and ·scientific advice·. The last one was particularly advocated by the Scientific
Advisers and the Sponsors whereas the grantees and the Member Organizations
tend to rank -maintenance of eqlJipmenf as top priority followed by -travel grants-.
A number of new supporting activities were suggested, many of which were clearly
outside the IFS mandate. The other most prevalent suggestions related to "scientific
publications and scientific literature in general", the "implementation of research
results" and the question of "salary supplementation or research honoraria·, in
order of decreasing importance.
47
Procurement and maintenance ot scientitic equipment
As mentioned above. IFS has a very small but highly qualified purchasing departement' for buying mainly research equipment and supplies on behalf of the
grantees. The crucial importance of this supporting activity is now largely recognized and will not be discussed here 2 . Staff resources have not kept pace with the
number of grantees in the last years; therefore. the purchasing group cannot avoid
increasing delays in ordering and delivering equipment. It is also very dear trom
the reponse to the questionnaire that most Asian countries and to a lesser extent
Latin American countries have local suppliers. or are at least much better off than
Atrican countries. Despite these obvious differences. statistics obtained trom the
purchasing department show that the Asian and Latin American grantees are using
their services at least as much as the African grantees3 . If this is confirmed. IFS
could advise its Asian and Latin American grantees to find local or regional
solutions for the procurement of equipment and supplies. whenever possible 4 • This
would Iighten the work load.
The pilot project for equipment maintenance was also considered of the utmost
importance. The problem has been recognized and discussed for years by many
organizations but IFS, to the best of our knowledge, is the first to go beyond the
survey and study stages of the equipment repair and maintenance issue.
Respondents to the questionnaire were very much divided about the possible future
of this pilot project. About half of them were of the opinion that it should be further
developed within IFS, whereas the second half advocated using this pilot project as
the basis for a new organization that could work alongside IFS. Here again the
needs are not the same in ail countries, as was indicated by several Asian grantees
and representatives of Member Organizations:
"In India we have University scientific Instrumentation centers·... in many countries, Iike Malaysia,
service and maintenance can easily be obtained and Is usually reliable" ... "1 do not see the need for
such activity in my country (South Korea), it should be located in places where needed and
logistically practical".
This is what IFS has done by choosing as the first site for the pilot project southern
African countries. It wouId certainly be wise to undertake a second pilot project in
an African region with a higher density of grantees - this idea is being discussed at
1FSS - before a decision is taken on a more definite organizational and institutional
future for this project. The knowledge accumulated so far from the project would
however plead for a light organizational structure within or as close as possible to
the IFS Secretariat, and especially close to IFS grantees 50 that it can blend in with
the local research environment and technological needs.
'The name department may be misleading: the whole department consists of only 2.5 people.
2 For more Information on the subject see: Gaillard and Ouattar, 1988; Prage. 1989.
3Relatlve use seems however to be more related to scientific area than to any other factor. Thus
grantees in the field of Natural Products and Technology apparently tend to use the IFS services more
than the grantees in e.g. Food Crops and Forestry.
4if the local supplier does not charge three times the price charged by the manufactoring laboratories.
5West Africa has been suggested and funding opportunities are being discussed with different
organizations.
48
Workshop, scientific advice and follow up support
IFS organized 49 workshops seminars and scientific gatherings between1978 and
1989 out of which 21 were held in Africa. Given the increasing number of regional
networks and professional associations, particularly in Asia and Latin America,
before planning any new workshop IFS should check to avoid duplicating asimilar
event that has already been planned by another organization in the region. It
would, for example, seem inappropriate to plan another IFS scientific gathering on,
e.g., the chemistry of natural products in Asia, considering the already high level of
achievement in this particular scientific area in that region'. The first 49 workshops
could be used as the basis for an internai evaluation and for working out an IFS
policy for future workshops. The 1FS workshops and training courses should not be
just one more academic meeting, but rather a forum where a Iimited number of
grantees can present and discuss their work in the presence of Scientific Advisers
and their peers. Enough time should be devoted to discussion on research
methodology, interpretation of results, writing reports and scientific publications.
More interdisciplinary workshops on, e.g., ecological research problems should be
organized to promote collaboration between grantees in different research areas 2 •
Here again one would find very diversified grantee needs depending on the
disciplines and countries. Continued priority should be given to workshops
organized in Africa.
The "godfather system"3 which was conceived by the Crop Science and Forestry
research areas in the middle of 1987 should be evaluated in 1991 or 1992 and if
found successful will be applied to the other areas. IFS should also continue to
encourage its advisers to assist grantees by mail and visits in the field and,
whenever possible by providing them with scientific literature.
The introduction of the status report was found to be a most useful follow-up system.
It should be continued. Given the recent progress in telecommunications, IFS
should strive to build up a more efficient communications network with the grantees
and among the grantees. One way would be to try to ensure that at least one
grantee in each city or possibly institution had access to either a telex or a fax
machine, the numbers of which should then be added in the grantees' directory.
Together with the status report, the grantees should also be requested to send to
the IFS Secretariat a copy of every thing they publish thanks to their IFS supported
research.
Scientific publications and scientific literature
As concerns follow up and service to the grantees, the area of scientific publications
and Iiterature in general, is the one which so far has received the least attention. It
is essentially composed of scientific literature and grantees' writings. 1 found
(Gaillard. 1989) that the IFS grantees and DC scientists in general often publish (L1P
'See the proceedings of the Asian Coordinating Group for Chemistry 7th Meeting, 5-7 February
1990, Xia Men, China.
20ne Interesting example is the workshop organized ln November 1989 in Chile on ·Chemical
Interactions between Organisms".
3System involving a senior scientist as a scientific adviser to the IFS grantees. The names of
potentialgod fathersmay be volunteered by the grantees. More than 80% are senior scientists in
deveJoping countries.
49
to 60% in Asia) in national journals which are not indexed in the international
bibliographie databases and which, consequently have very low visibility and
accessibility rates. They also tend to use and cite references (80%) from
mainstream scientific lite rature. The mainstream references they cite are on
average much older than those cited by their colleagues in the developed
countries1 .
IFS cannot do everything and whenever possible should rely on other
organizations' services2 or on other scientists' goOO will to obtain reprints or copies
of articles, or chapters of books. IFS has prOOuced useful guidelines on this subject.
Sorne of the other main areas in which IFS could invest include:
-provide a computerized bibliographie search on the grantees' research topies and
advise them of the easiest way to obtain reprints or copies of paper;
-advise the grantees in which scientific journals they most Iikely can publish their
work;
-provide guidelines3 and/or an editorial service to help grantees polish up their
papers in English or French so that their research can be published in international
journals and gain recognition;
-improve the visibility and the accessibility of the grantees' works published in local
journals.
Ali this indicates that the IFS grantees' papers published in local journals need to
be systematically coll ected, and that IFS needs to establish its own documentation
center. More generally, and for a multitude of reasons, IFS should strive to build up
and regularly update a database of ail publications produced by its grantees 4 . This
would require recruiting a weil qualified documentalist.
CONCLUSION
The main recommendations are to be found in the Executive Summary presented
at the beginning of this report. 1will therefore not repeat them here. Many of these
recommendations are not presented in a conclusive form and often suggest
different possible directions. They should be mainly considered as a basis for
discussion at the Sixth IFS General Assembly in Harare in view of preparing a work
plan of action for IFS for the coming years (1991-1996).
1Half of thelr references are 10 years old, as against 29% of the references cited by scientists ln the
centre countries.
2E.g. the very valuable services rendered by CTA to grantees from ACP countries.
3Here again most of the information already exists and It is mostly a matter of compiling It and
forwarding It to the grantees, e.g. : Stapleton P. (1987), Writing Research Papers. An Easy Guide for
Non-Native English Speakers, ACIAR, Camberra.
4A possibility would be to broaden the already existing IFIS database to include information such as
publications produced by the IFS grantees.
50
References
Bunting A.H. (1987), Review of the IFS Programme ln Food Crops and Crop Science (1974-1986),
IFS Secretariat, Stockholm, 16 pages.
Busch L and Lacy W.B., Science, Agriculture and the Politics of Research, Westview, 303 pages.
Chaponnlère J-R. (1985) La puce et le riz (croissance dans le Sud-Est asiatique), Armand Colin, 208
pages.
Dottridge T. (1987), Research ln Small Developlna Countrles, IDRC, Ottawa.
Gaillard J. (1987), Follow up of IFS Grantees, 1974-1984, presented at the 5th IFS General Assembly,
University of Panama, 8-14 November, 1987.
Gaillard J. and Ouattar S. (1988), Purchase, use and maintenance of scientific equlpment ln
developlng countries, Interciencla 13:2, 65-70.
Gaillard J. (1989), La Science du Tiers Monde est-elle visible?, La Recherche, n0210, pp. 636-640
(also available in spanish: Es visible la ciencia dei tercer mundo? Mundo Cientifico, Vo19. n093, pp.
764-768).
Gaillard J. (1991), Scientists in the Third World, University Press of Kentucky. Lexington, USA, 244
pages.
Harley J.L (1989), On IFS Forestry, IFS Secretariat, Stockholm, 14 pages.
Hasselgren L. and Nilsson J.S. (1990), Reflections on the Role of Basic Sciences in Third World
Countries, draft, 51 pages.
Huisman E.A. (1986), Aquaculture Development and the Role of the International Foundation for
Science. Colloque Aquaculture et Développement sous l'égide de la Fondation Roi Baudouin, Institut
de Zoologie, Université de Liège, 18 Novembre 1986, 18 pages.
ICSPS (1990) Science and Technoloqy in Developing Countries: Strategies for the 90's, Areport to
UNESCO by the International Council for Science Policy Studies. Paris, 1990 (In press).
IDRC (1985), A Review of Small Grant Programs Funded by the International Development Centre
(1970-1984), IDRC, Ottawa.
IDRC (1989), Les choix d'ordre stratégique pour l'Afrique subsaharienne, Dakar, Senega!.
Le Tacon F. (1987), Forestry Related Research Needs (1984-1987), IFS General Assembly,
November 1987, Item 7,13 pages.
Ouattar S. and Tebicke H. L. (1989), Report of the Evaluation of the IFS in Rural TechnoloaY (19781988), IFS BoT, 10 May 1989, Item 3, 26 pages.
Prage L. (1987), The Natural Products Programme ln the International Foundation for Science Experiences and Ideas for Development IFS General Assembly, Nov. 1987, Item 7, 35 pages.
Prage L (1989), Operation and Maintenance of Eau1pment ln Developina Countries, Laboratory
News, NO. 16, 15-19.
Preston T.R. (1987), Animal Production in Latin America: Constraints and Perspectives, IFS General
Assembly, Nov. 1987, Item 7, 4 pages
51
Sagastl F., Oldham G., Voraurl P. and Thiongane P. (1983) Evaluation of the International Foundation
for Science (IFS), Lima, Peru, April 1983.
SAREC (1990), StéSd till forskning Inom skog- och milioDrogrammet. Insatspromemoria 1990-02-27.
Schwarzman S. (1988), A space for Science: The Development of the Scientific Communltv ln Brazi!,
330 pages, unpublished.
Shiva V. and Bandyopadhyay J. (1980), The large and Fragile Communltv of Scientists ln India,
Mlnerva, vol. 18(4), pp.575-594.
Stapleton P. (1987), Wrlting Research Papers, An Easy Guide for Non-Native English Speakers,
ACIAR, Camberra, 47 pages.
Vinlng LC. and Kautsky N. (1987), Review of the Programme Food Science (197~1987), IFS General
Assembly, Panama, November 8-13, 1987, 27 pages.
ANNEX
55
Annex 1
List of people met for the preparation of the strategie and prospective
plan
1. IFS Secretariat
Jaan TEAR, Director
Ingrid MILQVIST, Director of Administration and International Secretary
Christina AROSENIUS, Scientific Secretary
Jacques BALDENSPERGER, Scientific Secretary
Sabine BRUNS, Scientific Secretary
Carl-Johan REGNELL, Scientific Secretary
Lennart PRAGE, Scientific Secretary
Klaus KOOP, Scientific Secretary
Eva ROSTIG, Assistant
Marguerite RYDEN, Purchasing Officer
Ingela TAXELL, Purchasing Officer
Judith FURBERG, Information Secretary
Hans SARAP, former Director
Nils KAUTSKY, former Scientific Secretary
Anders L1NDBERG, former Scientific Secretary
2. IFS Board of Trustees
Carl-Heinz SCHIEL, President, Germany
René BILLAZ, Vice President, France
Sanga SABHASRI, Vice President, Thailand
Sten EBBERSTEN, Sweden
Tertit von HANNO AASLAND, Norway
Abdiel J. ADAMES, Panama
André FORTIN, Canada
Peter FRICKER, Swizerland
R.D. KEYNES, United Kingdom
P.M. MAKHURANE, Zimbabwe
Mohinder SINGH, Malaysia
3. 1FS Sponsors
Sten EBBERSTEN, Chairman of the Sponsors Committee
Bo BENGTSSON, DG, SAREC, Sweden
C.G. THORSTROM, SAREC, Sweden
J. WIERCIMOK, DFG, Germany
Howards A. MINNERS, USAID, US
Henri ROUILLE D'ORFEUIL, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, France
Geneviève CHEDEVILLE-MURRAY, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, France
Jean Marie TRAVERS, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, France
Jacqueline STARRER, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, France
Françoise VINCENT, Ministère de la Coopération, France
Tertit von HANNO AASLAND, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway
56
Anu PÂRNÂNEN-LANDTMAN, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Finland
K. SOELS, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Netherlands
Peter FRICKER, SNFWF, Swizerland
Hsien-chun MENG, Taiwan
D. GEKIERE, AGCD, Belgium
A. RAMMELOO, AGCD, Belgium
Klaus WINKEL, DANIDA, Denmark
4. IFS Scientific Advisers
A.H. BUNTING, Food Crops, United Kingdom
K. CAESAR, Food Crops, Germany
V. GIANNINAZZI-PEARSON, Food Crops, France
N. KAUTSKY, Aquaculture, Sweden
H.J. LANGHOLZ, Aquaculture, Germany
T.A. PRESTON, Animal Production, Colombia
6. Organizations Cooperating with 1FS
George H.L. ROTHSCHILD, Director, ACIAR, Australia
Jacques M. SANT'ANA CALAZANS, DG XII, CEE
11SSANDIER, DG XII, CEE
Ulrich von POSCHINGER-CAMPHAUSEN, Executive Secretary, ATSAF
Julia MARTON-LEFEVRE, Executive Secretary, ICSU
Jim MULLlN, Vice President, IDRC
Gerald R. BOURRIER, Director, Fellowships and Awards. IDRC
Christopher C. SMART, Deputy Director, Social Sciences Division. IDRC
Terry SMUTYLO, Office of Planning and Evaluation, IDRC
Sitoo MUKERJI, Deputy Director, Communication Division, IDRC
Mary CAMPBELL, Information Sciences Division, IDRC
Eric VERKANT, INRA, France
Jean RAZUNGUES, INRA, France
J.C. DAVIES, ODA, United Kingdom
Roger SMITH, ODA, United Kingdom
Jacques DUBERNARD, CIRAD, France
François VICARIOT, ORSTOM, France
Marie-Christine BRUGAILLERE, ORSTOM, France
Moctar TOURE, Secretary General. SPAAR
Thomas A. ODHIAMBO, African Academy of Science
7. Others
Louis BERLINGUET, former Vice President, IDRC, Canada
Elaine Elisabetsky, IFS Grantee, Brazil
Tilly GAILLARD, interpreter, France
Geoffrey OLDHAM, SPRU, University of Sussex, UK
Fransisco SAGASTI, World Bank, USA
57
Annex 2
List of acronyms
AAS: African Academy of Sciences
AAU: Association of African Universities
ABN: African Biosciences Network
ACIAR: Australian Center for International Agricultural Research
AFS: Asian Fisheries Society
AGCD: Administration Générale de la Coopération au Développement, Belgique
AIDAB: Australian International Development Assistance Bureau
ATSAF: German Council for Tropical and Sub-tropicalAgricultural Research
CATIE: Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza
CGIAR: Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research
CIRAD: Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le
Développement
COSTED: Committee on Science and Technology in Developing Countries
DANIDA: Danish International Development Agency
DFG: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Germany
EEC: European Economic Community
FINNIDA: Finnish International Development Agency
IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency
IARC: International Agricultural Research Center
IDRIS: Inter-Agency Development Research Information System
IBRD: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
ICSU: International Council of Scientific Unions
ICTP: International Center for Theoretical Physics
IDRC: International Development Research Center, Canada
IFS: International Foundation for Science
1PCS: International Programme in Chemical Sciences
1UBS: International Union of Biological Sciences
ODA: Overseas Development Administration, UK
ORSTOM: Institut Français de Recherche Scientifique pour le Développement en
Coopération
SACCAR: Southern African Center for Cooperation in Agricultural Research
SAREC: Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries
SNFWF: Schweizerisher Nationalfonds zur Forderung der Wissenschaftlichen
Forschung (Swiss National Science Foundation)
SPAAR: Special Program for African Agricultural Research
SPRU: Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK
TWAS: Third World Academy of Sciences
UNDP: United Nations Development Programme
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
59
Annex 3
The role of IFS in the context of a rapidly changing world
Questionnaire
for the IFS Member Organizations
Please retum this questionnaire to
Jacques GAILLARD
17, allée des Côteaux Briards
91800 BRUNOY
France
1. Do you consider that IFS is playing a unique role among the many organizations actively
involved in the support of Science and Technology (S&T) in the developing countries (De's) ?
OYes
o No
(please name the organizations which activities are, according to you, duplicating
or overlaping with IFS activities)
.
o Other
(specify)
.
2. As compared to other organizations involved in the support of S&T in DC's, what are
according to you IFS comparative advantages?
3. Arnong newly emerging initiatives and institutions to support S&T in developing countries,
do you foresee any risk of duplication with IFS present activities?
OYes (please name these initiatives or institutions and indicate
why)
.
o No
o Other
(specify)
.
4. Do you have, in your country, (a) research grants awarding institutions (public or private)?
(this question is for member organizations in developing countries only)
o No
o Yes, one.
Please give name and founding date
..
60
OYes, several. Please give names and founding dates
.
5. IFS is already collaborating in ditTerent ways with many organizations. Do you tbink that
tbis level of collaboration is satisfactory ? In the case you think it should be further increased,
indicate wbich organization(s) in particular should be involved and the nature of the desired
additionaJ collaboration(s).
6. Are the IFS scientific areas 1 (defined as being priority areas for Third World Science sorne
20 years ago) still high priority areas?
OYes
o No, what area(s) in particular you think is (are) less important today ?
..
Should it (they) be deleted from the IFS granting programme ?
.
o Other
.
(speci fy)
7. What other areas should be considered to be added to the present programme?
8. Do you fmd the present repartition between granting and supporting activities2 satisfactory?3 .
OYes
o No, what should be, according to you, a more ideal repartition:
granting activities:
%, supporting activities:
%.
o Other (specify)
IFor more information about the scientific areas see the enclosed brief description.
2Jbe different IFS supporting activities are listed in the following question.
3Jbe present repartition is roughly 70% granting and 30% supporting activities.
.
61
9. Among the present supporting activities which one should be, according to you, further
developed ?
o Purchasing equipment and supplies
o Purchasing literature
o Organizing training courses
o Scientific advice
o Others (speci fy)
o Maintenance of equipment
o Organizing workshops
o Providing travel grants
.
10. Should any new supporting activity(ies) be added to the existing ones?
OYes
Which
one(s)
.
o No
o other
(specify)
.
11. Assuming it will be successful, do you consider that the pilot project for service and
maintenance ofscientific equipment 1 should be
o further developed within the IFS organizational frame
Othe basis for a new organization working possibly in association with IFS
o Other (specify)
.
12. Do you consider the geographical distribution ofIFS grants satifactory?2
OYes
o No
o Other
What should be, according to you, a more ideal repartition ?
%, Asia =
% and Latin America =
%.
Africa =
(specify)
.
13. Should IFS have a list ofhigh priority countries?
OYes
Which countries should be given priority ?
Based on which criteria ?
lA three year pilot programme has been initiated in 1988 in SADCC countries with support from IBRD and
DANIDA.
&ne repartition for 1974-1989 grants is: Africa
= 39 %, Asia = 35 % and Latin America = 26 % .
..
.
62
o No
o Other
(specify)
.
14. Should scientists from sorne countries (e.g. Newly Industrialised Countries) be considered
as non eligible for an IFS grant ?
Which countries?
OYes
.
Based on which
criteria?
o No
o Other
.
(specify)
..
15. Taking the recent and foreseeable future changes into account what is, according to you,
IFS life expeetancy from 1990 on ?
o 10 years
0 20 year
D 30 years
D more than 30 years
16. What are, according to you,
- IFS strengths?
.
- IFS weaknesses?
.
- IFS opportunities?
- IFS threats?
17. Please feel free to use the remaining available space to provide additional comments and
views about the possible future role of IFS. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
.
63
Annex 4
What other areas should be considered to be added to the granting
programme?
(the numbers in the left column are indicating the number of time cited in the
questionnaires)
18
Environmental issues (management of natural ressources, ecology,
conservation, biodiversity, environmental impact of production activities)
18
Biotechnology, molecular biology and genetic engineering
4
Energy (alternative energy, new renewable energy sources, nuclear energy)
3
Human health
3
Socio-economics (marine economy, rural socio-economy )
3
Engineering sciences
2
Fishery and marine science
2
New materials
1
Science and technology policy
1
Fine chemicals including synthesis
1
Information Science
1
Informatics
1
Advanced manufacturing, design and manufacture of research instrument
64
Annex 5
TABLE 1
DISTRIBU1l0N OF S&T CAPABILITIES
Counmes
Exponers of commodJaes 1
OPEC Countnes
GrQup A
Berun
Bhut:ll1
Bununa F:lSO ,
Capo Verde
Chad
Comores
Ethiopla
Guinea·Bissau
Haïti
Lao
Lesotho
M.l1.i
Moumblque
N;unlbla
Nep:ù
S:lO Tome J!1d Pnnc.
Sierra Lc:one
Timor
Ug:ll1da
Zaire
AJbJlUa
Angola
Burma
CJl1leroon
çentr:ù AfncJ!1 Rep.
Djlbouo
Equaton:ù GULflea
GrJ!1ada
Liberia
Mac1Jgasc:lf
M:ùdlves
Niger
Somalia
SUrlnJl1l
Yemen IDeml
Yernen IRepl
Zimbabwe
BahJl1la5
Beliz.e
Ban2lade~h
Source: International Council for Science Policy Studies, Science and
Technology in Developing Countries, Strategies for the 90s, A report to
UNESCO, pp.59-62, 163 pages.
l lndustrial and agriculrural mate rials and goods
65
1 c:ont. 1
'Botswana
Burundi
Dominica
Guyana
Haïti
1
Hondur.lS
Ivory Coast
Maunt:LrUJ
Morocco
Oman
Papua-New GuineJ
Solomon Isl.
South Africa
Swanland
Ta.ïwan
Group 8
J.
1
Brunei·D:uussalam
Cambodia
Fiji
Gabon
Algeria
Ghana
J:unaic:a
Kenya
KoreJ IDem 1
Mongolia
Nigena
Rum:uua
Rwanda
Togo
Turusia
Afghamstan
Bolivia
China
Cyprus
Iraq
Luxembourg
MalawI
United Ar.1b Emirales
Zambla
Bahrain
Barbados
Dorninic:an Rep.
Guinea
Indonesia
Iran
Malaysia
Malta
Paraguay
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Sn L:mka
Svna
66
f
Gr ouo,e,
t
ColomblJ
Sudan
Th:uland
UrugUJY
Costa RlCJ
GUJlem:l1:1
GUY:lnJ
Hong Kong
Jordan
Leb:lnon
Nic:lt"JguJ
Seychelles
Maunous
...
Pakistan
p:lI13J1\J
lndia
Vietnam
PlulipplIles
Congo
Clule
lIbyan Arab JJmahinya
~e~co
Qal:lr
Ecuador
SJtnoa
El SJlvador
Greece
POrtu2::U
TrirudJd :lnd TobJgo
Turkey
FilÙJnd
Argenuru
Egypt
Peru
Kuwail
Bra.zJ\
CubJ
Venezuela
lcel:lDd
ISr:1el
Kore3lRep)
New Zeal:lDd
Sin2JPOre
cont. ,
67
conl.
Group D
Germ3DY DDR
Poland
Sweden
USSR
Yugoslavla
Austna
BelglUm
BuJgaria
Canada
Hungary
Spain
United Kingdom
Cz.echoslovakia
Il'e1and
Austr.ùia
Derunaric
luJy
Norway
SW\lzerland
Fr:lllce
Germany FRG
Japan
Nelherlands
VnJled States
1
68
TABLE Al
DISTRIBlITION OF COUNTRlES ACCORDING TO POPULATION
( mld-11)87 )
COUNTRlES
POPULATION
~1:LJdJves
BruneI
S:ltT\oa
Belize
B3h:ltT\:lS
Iceland
CaDo Verde
\
DlIboUD
EQualonal GUlOea
IOatJJ'
Solomon Isl.
Bamados
Comores
BJhr.un
Macao
Sunnam
Luxembounz
MJ.lt3
SwaZJI:lt1d
CYONS
Timor
Fin
ZJIT'lbla
GUyan3
GUlOea·Bissau
Maunllus
Gabon
B015w:lt1a
N:umbl3
Oman
Tnruu:lu and Tob3110
POPULATION
Z. Vfry small counaifs
1. \' fry vfry small counlrifs
Seychelles
Sao Tome :lt1d PnDC1De
DominIque
Gl'3Ilada
CO UNrRI ES
fUU
0.10
IlIO
010
O~O
fJ.20
020
O.~O
O~O
0.20
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.40
0.40
040
0.40 .
0.40
0.40
0.70
0.70
070
0.70
0.80
OSO
0.90
1.\0
1.20
120
1.30
130
1.30
Uruted Arab EmlJ'aleS
Bhul:lt1
Lesolho
KUW311
M:lUnt:UU3
Monl!olla
Conl!O
P:lt1Jma
Llbena
Vernen (South)
JJmalca
Sin2aoore
Ce ntra Iri ca
Costa Rica
Urul!uav
A1barua
Toeo
Lebanon
New ZeJ.land
Nlc:lfalZ\Ja
1re land
Paou:l-Ne w Guinea
Jordan
Libvan Ar3b J:lJ'O:lhmV3
L.aos
Siem Leone
NOrw3V
BeNn
P:lf3lZ\JaV
[S ne 1
OJ3d
Honduras
FinJand
lAO
150
160
1.90
2.00
2.00
2.10
2JO
2.~0
2~0
2.50
2.60
:!.ïO
:!.80
3.10
310
3.20
3.30
.~JO
.:50
.: 50
360
3.70
380
.~.80
3.90
~.20
~
30
~.30
~.~o
~nO
70
.190
~
t cont )
69
t cont )
POPULATION
COUNTRŒS
~.
3. 5maU countries
BunJOdJ
OeMlarX
Salvador
Manil Konll
Haïti
Gwnea
Yemen (NOM)
C:ln1bodia
Oomuucan Rep.
Bolivia
Swnzerland
Rwanda
NilZer
SenelZaJ
Z:ln1bla
Bur1una Faso
MalawI
TU01Sla
Austrla
SomalI
AnlZola
Mali
Guatemala
Sweden
BullZana
Zimbabwe
Ecuador
5.10
5.30
5.60
6.20
6.40
6.50
f).50
6.50
6.50
6.60
1).80
700
7.10
7.10
730
740
7.60
760
770
Gre~ce
8.~0
IUO
8.40
9.00
9.40
9.90
Nation~
POPULATION
Medium·sue countries
:' OU
ItOO
Bel~um
Source: Unned
COUNTRIES
Cameroon
Cuba
PORUlZal
MadalZ:lSc:lr
HunlZaIV
Ivorv Coast
5vria
Chile
Ghana
AfRh:uustan
Netherlands
MozambIQue
5audi Arabla
Czechoslov:1k.ia
UlZanda
Malavsia
AustTalia
Sri Lanka
Germanv OOR
lr:Ia
NeoaJ
Venezuela
Taiwan
PeN
Kor·a 1North)
Kel:va
Rumarua
YUlZoslavla
AJllena
Sudan
Tanzarua
Morocco
Can:lda
Colombla
10.00
10.00
10.30
10.30
10.30
InCl)
lU.où
\0.80
Il.30
12.40
13.90
1~.20
1.1.60
1.1.70
I~.SO
15.60
15.90
16.10
16.20
16.30
16.70
17.00
17.S0
IS.30
19.60
20.70
~ 1.40
~2.~0
12.90
13.40
13.50
23.50
23.50
2~.40
25.90
~9.90
70
(COOl )
COL'NTRJES
POPULATION
COUNTRIES
POPULATION
;
S.
L;ar~e
countnes
Ar2enon3
Z:1ire
South Amc3
Pol and
Bunn3
Sp:un
Korea 1South 1
ElhioDI3
Ir:m
Tu r1ce v
ElZVPt
Th:ul:md
Fr:mœ
l'nned KJn2dom
lIalv
Genn:mv FRG
Philioomes
Viem:un
Me~co
P:1kJstaD
Ban2Jadesh
Ni2ena
Japan
BraDI
Indonesla
Uruted StJtes
USSR
6. Very large counrries
.: 15U
:U~O
~·UO
nso
J&.80
39.00
~2.IO
J6.00
50.40
51.~U
51.90
53.60
55t>U
56.8U
57 .~()
hl.OO
1,1.50
tl2.::!O
81.90
104.60
107.10
108.60
1::!2.::!O
1~1.50
174.90
::!~3.80
~g4.00
* million inhabitants.
Source: United Nations.
Ind13
Oun3
;.(0030
IU62.0U
6 'id6
as
T
ft
'd
71
( com )
TABLE A 2
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT PER INHABITANT
( L985 )
GOPIHEAD
COUNTRY
Group 1: Low·income counlries
ElruoOla
Chad
TJI\23lUa
Burlc1na Faso
1~7.00
I~~OO
1
:SO.OO
~8300
~bh
29600
~OO.OO
BhuIJl\
Nlll.er
Burundi
M3.lawl
Gwnea·Blssau
MOl3lTlblQue
BJI\213desh
Rwanda
Lesolho
Neo3.l
Centra01ca
~
U~JI\da
~
~
~37.oo
Slem Leone
M ad..1lZascar
Caoo Verde
Berun
SomalI
~3q.OO
J.J5.00
~
~8b.00
GUlOea
Sao Tome :met PnnCloe
530.00
~
5~!l.00
Burma
5i~
II.UO
~5IUO
~5~ 00
355.00
359.00
385.00
398.00
399.00
~02.00
~05.00
~14.00
ISOU
~OO
J48.oo
47900
An20la
1 EQuatonaJ
~R900
59000
Source: World Bank Repon. 1988
Guinea
~
~
SenegaJ
~
Maunl3DJa
Yemen (Nonhl
M:ùdives
Zimbabwe
Yemen (South)
C:uneroon
Ivory Coast
Honduras
~
PakiStan
~
SwaZlland
El Salvador
Guvana
IndoneSla
Moroeeo
Oiiboull
Sri L:mka
âYW
5~700
UO
581.00
~
GDP/HEAD
Group D : Lower middle·income countries
~
Sudan
Afl!h:l!'.J.'IJI\
COUNTRY
Gr:mada
Maunllus
Nicaral!ua
600.00
(,14.00
/)21.00
648.00
657.00
t,92.00
706.00
756.00
846.00
857.00
884.00
943.00
959.00
992.00
1010.00
1013.00
1020.00
1024.00
1040.00
1112.00
1131.00
1197.00
1234.00
1268.00
1348.00
1409.00
1435.00
1536.00
157700
( com )
72
COUNTRY
GDP/HEAD
(;roup
m : :\Iiddle mlddle·income coun(n~
Con~o
1t'lÜ) 00
Solomon 151.
P:lpua·l'Je w GUlOea
DomlIUQue
Bel.Jzc
OomlIUcan ReD
S3JT1oa
çWa
Guatemala
Botswana
Th;uland
TurusJ3
P:lJ'a2U3V
101100
107tll)O
1;~:.OO
1773.00
178100
1783.00
1857.00
1859.00
1903.00
194:2.00
2008.00
2065.00
~
~111.00
Jordan
Jam;uca
IraQ
~ 110.00
BuI2:lIU
C'"l'rus
HUn2:lrV
USSR
[reland
Czechoslov:lkJa
Baha.m as
So:un
Gennanv DDR
llbyan Ar:\b Jamatunya
Israel
New Zealand
Oman
lta.lv
Saudi AI3b13
GOP/HEAD
J75000
J~~91)()
~:3100
~281.00
~5nl)O
~81 2.00
"063.00
"313.00
"'3R.1.()0
"395.00
"532.00
"'216.00
7266.00
7532.00
;976.00
Group IV : Upper.income countries
~
175.00
~~ 11.00
:270.00
S~vcheUes
~271.00
Ecuador
AI2ena
Lebanon
Colomb...
Costa Rlp
Sma
Tur1tev
Argenona
~313.00
2316.00
:2595.00
P311:lrOa
Iran
UN2U3V
Kore3 1Soulh 1
MalaYSia
South Alnca
10H00
83.17.00
856-100
~
8884.00
R953.oo
8991.00
8998.00
9157.00
9198.00
9435.00
Q44700
9507.00
9592.00
Q958.oo
Q97700
10025.00
11011.00
11026.00
11700.00
1~06000
1246700
13096.00
1.1995.00
Bel21urn
France
~609.00
Netherlands
FinJand
Brunet
Jaoan
Austr:ù.ia
3~75.00
3309.00
3357.00
Fiil
3~06.l)0
B:lJ'bados
354.JOO
3597.00
381900
41)3600
~
Hon2 KonlZ
Sin2:lDOre
Austn3
United Kin2dom
~603.00
:675.00
2980.00
3031.00
3053.00
3187.00
3187.00
321700
Iùm!
Ql!.k
Venezuela
YU20s13Vla
Rumaru3
Ponu2al
H;uo
Pol and
Malta
Gabon
Greece
Trirudad and Toba2o
Taiwan
COUNTRY
~156UO
BAI::lrilm
Iceland
Denma.r1c
Gennanv FRG
lultembour2
Swedec
SWllzerland
Norw3v
Canada
United SI:lIe5
UnJled Ar3b Emw,l\es
03t:lJ'
~845.oo
427200
~286.00
"-
435K.00
J.,1ft2.00
4531.UO
403900
~"'9R.00
473300
US Dollars
UnderLirung mdic3teS a country expon1Og more
than 0.5 per cent of total world eltpons of 3 commodlty.
• 10
~:
73
TABLE A 4
THE HETEROGENEITY OFnΠ"VERY VERY SMALL COUNTRlES"
( 1985 or latest available )
COUNTRY
SevcheUes
Sao Tomé and Prmcipe
DommiQue
Granada
Maldives
Brunei
Samoa
BelIze
Bahamas
Iceland
CaDo Verde
Djibouti
Equatonal Gumea
Qatar
Solomon Isl.
Barbados
Comores
Bahralll
Macao
Sunnam
Luxemboursz
Malta
Swazùand
Cvprus
Timor
Fiji
Gambla
Guvana
Gumea-Bissau
Mauntlus
Gabon
Botswana
Namlbia
Oman
Trimdad and Tobaszo
Source: World Bank
./
POPULATION
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.30 .
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
O.ïO
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.80
0.80
0.90
1.10
1.20
1.20
1.30
1.30
1.30
GDP PER HEAD IN $
2270.00
547.00
1721.UO
1435.00
846.00
IJ 198.00
1783.00
1773.00
6063.00
IJ592.00
445.00
1234.00
614.00
14995.00
1611.00
3544.00
9507.00
10625.00
4462.00
1024.00
4929.00
3406.00
437.00
1112.00
359.00
1536.UU
4531.00
1IJ03.00
7266.00
~698.00
74
TABLEA5
PERCENTAGE Of GNP DEVOTED TO R&D
(1986 or latest av ail able )
Country
R&D sbare of GNP
Groupm
Country
R&.D shaze ofGNP
Group 1
Con2O
Jamarca
Malta
Brunel- Darussal am
Colombla
CVDrus
Ni2er
CentnJ Afnc:m Rep
EllVnt
Gree1:e
Guvana
Jordan
Libvan Arab 13m3hlrva
Mad32ascar
MalaWI
Pao:una
Peru
Phi.liDDanes
Rwanda
Sri I...anb
Sudan
Turkev
Costa RJca
Fiji
IndoDeS1a
Mauritius
Nic3lnua
Ni2ena
Pakistan
lbaiJand
Group fi
fArRenona
. Burundi
Ecuador
Portu2a1
Veoezuela
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2 .
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Sourn: UNESCO. Statistical Yearbook. 1988
Cbile
Guatemala
SinuOOfe
SDain
MelUco
Bran!
Cuba
Iceland
Trinidad and Toba~o
YU20siavia
lndia
1re land
Kuwan
New Zealand
Seneul
Ausma
Pol and
Group IV.
O.S
O.S
O.S
O.S
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.2
Australia
1.3
Denmart.
1.3
Italv
SevcbeUes
Beillium
Canada
1.3
FUliand
El Salvador
Korea (Dem·)
Norwav
Nelheri 3Dds
Sv.ituri and
United K..in~dom
France
Germanv FRG
Israel
Hunurv
Jaoan
United States
Sweden
Bulszaria
Czechoslovakia
Germanv DDR
USSR
1.3
1.4
I.S
I.S
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.S
2.S
2.6
2.8
2.8
3.0
3.2
4.1
4.S
S.I
"1-
75
TABLE A 6
SOENTISTS & E.'lGINEERS IN POPut.AnON
( 1985 or latest avaJJable )
Per M.lUîon
Counay
Counay
SClenDSU .te
EzIgJ.nCe~
Group
Group 1
bmaJC3
Rwanda
MadausQt
Ni2er
13
19
N~aJ
~3
Kenva
16
30
35
N~ena
MaJ3Wl
Colombla
BurundJ
Zambla
Fiii
JO
.18
50
SI
Bunna
Lcbanon
Iran
Ivorv Coast
C~nJs
Jordan
CeotnJ Afncan Rep
Malta
Brunei D:uussalam
Pabstan
Guyana
Group fi
Seneul
Togo
Plu1Jppmes
Panama
lndJa
Twtev
Sn l...anka
lodODeSJa
MaJavSl3
NicaralZU3
Gwnea
MelUco
Sudan
TrinJdad and Tobuo
Par.lIruav
m
Gre~
8
12
57
67
~.,
'.
74
77
77
78
88
90
91
99
SevcbeUes
8 rani
Ecu3dor
Peru
Venezuela
MaunDus
Vietnam
PonunJ
Guatemala
Ar--!eobDa
Libvan Ara.b Jamah1n3a
Gbana
Spa.Lll
Chile
Egypl
ConlZo
1Qatar
El Salvador
KuwaJt
Austria
Samoa
Sinupore
Cuba
Group IV
ln:1and
106
113
J 17
J 21
134
163
172
175
182
1ta!Y
199
Australia
216
~16
217
235
247
Korea (South)
Pol and
YUltoslavla
Iceland
Be/Ilium
Canada
United Kingdom
Denmart
France
Switzerlaod
HuolUY
Gennaov FRG
Ne~rlands
Norwav
Swedeo
New Zealand
Uruled States
Czecboslova,b a
!apao
Bulnna
USSR
Gennaov DDR
Isnel
Source: UNESCO. Statistical Yearbook. 1988
Scienasts&: EzIgmeers
:50
250
:!.56
2.59
~73
279
285
335
342
348
36f'
3il.
403
421
.122
435
( 509)
702
807
887
894
909
949
991
1016
1113
1120
1210
1317
1345
1414
1489
1545
1673
1862
1873
2101
2152
2178
2319
2439
2539
2558
3282
4019
.1743
5094
5351
7816
9525
76
TABLE A 7
R&D PERSONNEL IN HIGHER EDUCAnON PER THOUSAND POPULATION
( 1985 or latest available )
COUNTRY
1Group
PERS
A
Burundi
Kenya
Niger
Rwanda
Cyprns
ln dia
Malawi
Philippines
Zambia
Colombia
Pakistan
Centrafrica
Lebanon
Togo
Jordan
Chile
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Sri Lanka
PERS
IGroup C
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
Lybia
Spain
Kuwait
Trinidad and Tobago
Congo
Ponugal
Pern
Cuba
Venezuela
Mexico
Czechoslovakia
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.22
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.27
0.28
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.35
IGroup D
Poland
New Zcaland
Samoa
Egypt
United States
Canada
Austria
Ital Y
IGroup B
Vietnam
Argentina
Brazi!
Panama
Ecuador
Guinea
Malta
Greece
Turkey
Sudan
Mauritius
Guyana
COUNTRY
Ire1and
Korea (Rep)
Hungary
Singapore
Qatar
Belgium
Derunark
Yugoslavia
Iceland
France
Switzer1and
Nether1ands
FinI and
G~m1any FRG
A\Jsualia
l'orway
Sweden
Japan
Source: UNESCO, Statistical Yearbook, 1988
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.46
0.46
0.56
0.63
0.64
0.65
0.68
0.74
0.76
0.80
0.84
0.90
1.00
1.01
1.06
1.06
1.11
1.20
1.21
1.24
1.27
1.69
1.94
tdfmtièV.. ·
- ±«i bit': .. ."l'.
77
TABLE A 8
NUMBER OF POTENTIAL SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS
( 1985 or lalest av ail able )
Country
SolomoQ Isl.
Oomuuc.a
Gre03da
FiiiSamoa
. Belize
T020
BOlswana
Seychelles
Bubados
Swaulaod
Yerneo ISouthl
Guvana
Rwanda
Moo Stoù a
BruneI' o aruss al am
Paoua.New GUJnea
Bahamas
Trirudad and Tobuo
TUD.lS1a
Nena!
MaJaWl
lcelaod
P:m.ama
El SaJvador
Guatemala
Jam3Je3
IOalar
Hooduras
Ghana
Maunous
Sri L..an.U
Oomll1.lcan ReD.
Sudan
Bahta..uJ
Zambia
Jordao
Camerooo
Haib
Keova
Bunna
S&T PotMtial
Group fi
Group 1
Oribouo
COUDtry
S&T Poteotial
Tlwl3Dd
35
129
162
133
305
350
~19
461
786
900
1.163
1.384
1.394
1.5 12
1.762
1.908
:!.214
2.646
3.000
3.314
3.421
3.668
3.981
5.024
5.415
5.489
5.551
5.963
6.302
6.702
6.897
7.256
7.457
7.837
9.708
10.747
11.000
lU75
Il. 785
14.189
16.241
18.500
Ni2ena
Ban-;Jadesb
Svria
MalavSla
LebanoQ
Saudi Arabia
SiDilanore
rrna-
LibvaD Arab Jamahlnva
New ZeaJand
Ecuador
UN2Uav
Bolivia
ChiIe
Kuw:U1
Groupm
Deornart
Korea (South)
Pakistan
Norwav
Cuba
HOOlZ KOOlZ .
Austna
Israel
Fi.nland
IDdoDeSla
PeN
Iran
Buhzaru
Greece
Sweden
Venezuela
SWllzerlaoo
Australia
YU20siaVla
HUn2ll'V
:0.188
:2.050
~3.500
~.523
26.000
28.530
33.376
38.259
~3.645
.13.737
.17.1.19
~8.S59
56.400
~8.090
69.946
;8. i95
83.529
94.171
100.500
114.830
139.469
145.523
153.923
174.518
183.870
193.262
291.812
294.647
302.809
329.489
335.900
347.000
348.167
383.368
.160.688
487300
( coot )
•
78
( coal )
Country
S&T Poteaâa1
Group IV
ElM)1
Argencna
Czecboslovakia
Gennany DDR
Turkev
lrelaad
Nelberlands
liai v
Spain
France
Canada
Brml
Poland
Philippmes
Gennanv FRG
lDdiaUnited States
lapao
ChinaUSSR
492.470
535.656
542.706
600.000
708.000
831.790
972.300
1.175418
1.182.500
1.251.610
1.291.210
1.362.206
1.423.000
1.758.614
2.278.000
2.560.800
3431800
7.046.000
7466.000
15,000,000
• lncluding technicians
Source: UNESCO. Statistical Yearbook. 1988
'''(''ire ïtc" irisÎtt. .
h
••
"st
mr
79
TABLE A 9
NUMBER OF R&D SCIENTISTS PER ~ON POPtJU.TIaN
( 1985 or latest available )
Country
SClenusts &
Engineers Per
Million
19
Greece
Seychelles
Brazil
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela
Mauritius
23
IViemarn
(;roupT
Jam3.1ca
Rwanda
Madauscar
Nlier
Neoal
Kenva
Nliena
Malawi
CoJombia
Burundi
Zambia
Fiii
Bunna
Lebanon
Iran
Ivorv Coast
CYiirus
Jordan
Central African Ret>
Malta
Brunei Darussalam
Pakistan
(Juvana
""Group -U
iSenelZal
TolZo
PhilIPpines
Panama
India
Turkev
iSri Lanka
Indonesia
Malavsia
Nicaraiua
Guinea
Mexico
Sudan
Trinidad and Tobago
Para lnJ av
[Group1II
8
12
13
26
30
35
40
48
50
51
57
67
72
74
77
77
78
88
90
91
Ponul!'al
Guatemala
Ailitent in a
Libyan Arab JamahiriYé
Ghana
Spain
Chîle
En'Pt
Conlito
Qatar
El Salvador
Kuwait
Austria
Samoa
Sim~apore
Cuba
250
250
256
259
273
279
285
335
342
348
360
370
403
421
422
435
509
702
807
887
894
909
949
991
W
106
113
117
121
134
163
172
175
182
199
216
216
217
235
247
( cont )
;
80
( cont. )
Country
Scientists &
Engineers Per
Million
IGroup IV
Ire1and
Italy
Korea (South)
Poland
YUll:oslavia
Iceland
Belgium
1Canada
United KingdorT
Denmark
Ausualia
France
Switzerland
Hungary
IGermany FRG
Netherlands
Norway
Sweden
New Zealand
United States
Czechoslovakia
Japan
Bulgaria
USSR
IGennany DDR
Israel
Source: UNESCO. Statistical Yearbook. 1988.
1016
1113
1120
1210
1317
1345
1414
1489
1545
1673
1862
1873
2101
2152
2178
2319
2439
2539
2558
3282
4019
4743
5094
5351
7816
9525
-p. firf,d(,. •
---~--~
b'
81
TABLE A 10
NUMBER Of TIiIRD LEVEL STUDENTS PER 100.000 rNHABrr ANTS
(1985 or 131est avaùable)
Country
No or Studeou
MozambiQue
Bbulan
Tanzama
Rwanda
Cbad
10
17
26
33
34
Ni~er
~
Mali
HaJb
Centt"a1 Afncao Republic
Kenya
GuiDea
Maunaus
Ghana
Zambla
Afgbamstan
Lao
Zaïre
TOllO
Lesotbo
Oman
Suda.o
BotsWana
Yemen tDem.)
Paoua·New Guioea
BeDUl
China
Cameroon
No or Stude:ou
Group li
Groap 1
AORola
Bur1cJna Faso
Buruod1
MaJaWl
EthioOla
Ulanda
Yernen (ReDI
COU.Dtry
53
57
59
59
63
65
76
81
101
103
J06
109
J19
125
128
129
131
137
156
lS8
168
173
175
177
178
179
184
18S
Ivory Coast
208
$eoeuJ
209
Vietnam
Luxembourlt
Nigena
Guvana
MauntanJa
212
232
239
Fiji
Swanlaod
SomaJia
Gabon
Sri Lanka
Malta
Maduascar
NeoaJ
Bangladesb
TriD1dad aod Tobago
Iran
Pilistan
Bunna
JamaJca
Tunisu
COOlO
MaJavsla
lndoocSJa
United Arab Emirares
,Cyprus
AJRena
Rurnama
AJbama
IDdia
Guatemala
Nicara~a
Morocco
Libyan Arab Jamabirva
Honduras
1r.tQ
Sunnam
244
248
314
328
330
349
364
377
383
397
445
464
478
487
489
508
564
572
599
600
603
621
690
694
719
744
755
791
820
832
838
856
890
( cont )
[• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •7•••
· _ _.722·.75.0......
-iIii.rl"I?7I1l'r.lS.SIllPÎIi'••.IIIttt
.....iliI·........
_
' ,;
+1
82
TABLE A 10
( cont. )
COUDtry
No or StudeDts
Turkev
Cz.echos lov aba
SaudJ Arabla
Portu~aJ
Bran!
Pol and
El Salvador
KUW<Lll
1
Buluna
Sinuoore
Hoot KOOR
Colombla
Mexico
YUfoslavla
Qatar
Cbile
Bolivia
Syria
No or StudeDts
Group IV
Group ID
HUDfUV
ParalnJav
Babr.un
Country
923
929
967
1003
1.088
1.097
1.112
1.140
1.205
1.292
1.307
1.381
1.406
1.410
1.423
1.508
1.509
1.619
1.640
1.648
1.665
Greece
Swlturlaod
United Kin Rdom
USSR
lreland
ElM)t
Dom mi cao Rep.
]apan
halv
MODltoua
Jordan
Tbailand
leeland
Barbados
Norwav
Deomark
PeN
France
Austria
Aumalia
Costa IOca
Cuba
Beloum
Gennanv FRG
Veoezuela
GennanvDDR
Spain
LebaooD
Swedeo
Fioland
Israel
Panama
Netberlands
ACleDtioa
NewûaJand
EaJador
UN ltU av
Korea (South)
PhilioP1DeS
Canada
United Stares
Souret: UNESCO. SutisticaJ Yearboolc. 1988
1.709
1.789
1.806
1.814
1.888
1.918
1.982
1.987
1.989
1.991
1.992
1.998
~.040
~.065
2.12.4
2.271
2.339
2.358
2.398
2,453
2.498
2.526
2,546
2.546
2.559
2.608
2.626
2.634
2.635
2,733
2.746
2.787
2.792
2,911
3.066
3,078
3.357
3.606
3.621
4.853
5.167
M'W. =
83
2.
ANNEX 6
SUPPORT TO MATURAL PRQDUCIS RESEARCH IN DEYELOPING COUNTRIES
BX OTHER INTERNATIONAL QRGANIZATIONS
Several ~nternat~onal organizations and networks attend to natural
products research in develop~ng countries and their work obviously
relates to the IFS programme within this particular research
area. Over the years IFS has established more or less formal
contacts with these organizat~ons, sometimes including direct
cooperation in actlvities of mutural interest.
There are also a number of national bodies involved in aid and
assistance to developing countries which include support to
natural products research in their programmes, e.g. SAREC, IDRC,
USAID, GTZ, CNRS, DANIDA etc. They are often engaged in support to
institutions where former or present IFS grantees are Key pers ons
in the supported projects, e.g. SAREC: Dr Berhanu Abegaz, Ethiopia
(F/82-3), Dr Eric Xarunanayake, Sri Lanka (F/531-2); IDRC: Dr
Pichaet Wiriyachitra, Thailand (F/226-5x);
USAID: Dr Keto Msigheni, Tanzania (F/103-3); GTZ: Dr Atta-urRahman, Pakistan (F/139-4x); CNRS: Dr Philippe Rasoanaivo, Madagascar (F/616-4); Dr Johnson Foyere Ayafor, Cameroon (F/443-4);
DANIDA: Dr Jayanthi Ramanathan, Sri Lanka (F/S83-1x). Ideally the
IFS grants should be seen as catalytic support, allowing the
grantees to prove their research capabilities. The Directory of
IFS grants could therefore be used as a rooster by national and
international agencies which would like to know about and get an
opinion about the research competence available at a given place.
IFS should be able to provide this through the experiences and
records related to its grantees.
In this context the national agencies and their relation to IFS
will not be treated in more details. Only other internationally
organized bodies with objectives similar to those of IFS and
engaged in natural products research will be dealt with below in
order to picture how IFS complements and correlates with the work
of these bodies.
2.1
UNESCO
The Science Sector of UNESCO has the major responsibility for the
chemistry programmes of the organization. In the early 1970'5
these programmes were concerned with helping staff in the young
universities of newly-emerging countries to carry out teaching and
research in their own environment. The objectives of these
programmes are almost identical to those of IFS and it is
therefore not surprising that UNESCO was engaged and supportive in
setting up IFS during this period.
In 1974 two new programmes in chemistry were initiated in the
Science Sector - one in research and training in natural products
chemistry, the other related to laboratory curriculum development
at university level. The former began as the Regional Network for
the Chemistry of Natural Products in South- East Asia (2.6) and
the latter as a series of laboratory workshops. The engagement in
natural products chemistry eventually spread to other areas,
particularly South and Central Asia (2.7) and to other associated
fields, such as medicinal and aromatic plants.
Excerpt fram Prage L. (1987), pp.lü-17.
84
The actlvitie3 were accelerated throuqh cooperation with IUPAC
(2.3). There is now a joint UNESCO-IUPAC project on low-cost and
locally produced equipment. UNESCO ha~ lately initlated a pr~­
qramme in chemistry for cooperation between industry and university, a joint proqramme with physic3 on technicians traininq and
the use of computers in university educatlon. Recently proqrammes
on environmental chemistry and in analytical and in-orqanic
chemlstry have been added.
In 1981 UNESCO created IOCD (2.2) to Maxe it possible for chemists
in both developinq and industrialized countries to collaborate in
improving and strenqthening the chemical sciences in poorer
countries. The UNESCO chemistry proqramme also helped to form the
Federation of Asian Chemical Societies in 1978.
Durinq the last few years UNESCO has been criticized for inefficiency and for building up an administration which fails to
implement their qoals in the developinq countries. The activities which are mentioned above are however quite "fieldoriented·, manaqinq to reach and assist the researchers in
developinq countries. The chemistry programme is probably one of
UNESCO's more successful proqrammes.
UNESCO has however a very limited staff to execute its proqrammes
(Or John Kinqston and his assistant) and it therefore has to
depend upon others to carry out their activities in practice, most
often in collaboration with other national and international
organizations. Thus UNESCO supporteû IFS to arrange the natural
products workshop in Harare 1986.
There are presently frequent and weIl established contacts betveen IFS and UNESCO's chemistry proqramme, vith continuous discussions on e.q. chemistry in Africa, maintenance of equipment
etc. Some of the Most active IFS advisers in natural products are
also deeply involved in the UNESCO prograame (Or Jack Cannon, Or
Finn Sandberq).
2.2
International Organization for Chemical Sciences in Deyelopment
(IOCO)
IOCO vas created in 1981 by UNESCO in order to stimulate chemists
in industrialized as weIl as developinq countries to collaborate,
vith the qoal to strenqthen chemical sciences in the poorer
countries. The orqanization is now independent from UNESCO and it
has moved its office to Mexico. It offers analytical and bioloqical testinq services to chemists from developinq countries
through a few weIl equipped laboratories in Australia, USA,
Belgium and UK. Scientists from some of these laboratories have
been engaged as advisers to IFS. IOCO is still trying to establish
itself and raise funds for the activities which are planned. It is
therefore too early to know to what extent it will complement or
duplicate the efforts already started by other aqencies. It has
presently only one professional staff member - Dr Pierre Crabbé.
IFS has been approached several times by Dr Crabbé but has not yet
found practical ways for collaboration. The IFS grantees are
already offered analytical and bioloqical testinq services throuqh
direct contacts with the IFS scientific advisers and other
qrantees.
85
2.3
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)
IUPAC is the ICSU union which is most closely related to the IFS
programme ln natural products research, although the subjects
covered by IUPAC go far beyond the present IFS programme. Like
most of the ICSU unions IUPAC is engaged in activities which
mainly engage scientists from the industrialized countries. ICSU
is however givinq increased attention to the developinq countries
(a report on the existin9 and prospective engagement by ICSU in
develop"
"
he tormëi-' IFSlhrèëtor-, Dr
Nieolai Her)ofson& ~nd dise~9ged by rcsu in 198 ) 0 Vl
rel~ to IUV~~. One of the main activities of IUPAC is to
arrange sClentific meetings which coyer subjects which are of
interest also to developing countries. The CHEMRAWN (Chemical
Research Applied to World Needs) meetings mentioned under 3.1.3
are examples of such activities. IFS has supported grantees to
attend these IUPAC meetings. The union is also engaqed in a joint
project with UNESCO regardinq chemistry education in developinq
countries and low-cost, locally produced equipment." IFS has active
and continuous contacts with ICSU and is therefore well positioned
to follow the development of its chemistry programme with reqard
to the developinq countries. Several of the IFS advisers are, or
have been, actively enqaged in IUPAC activities (e.q. Dr Sho Ito,
Japan; Dr Anders Kjaer; Denmark, Dr Pierre Potier, France; Dr
Torbjorn Norin, Sweden; Dr J.P. Kutney, Canada).
2.4
Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS)
At the end of 1983 TWAS was established with Dr Abdus Salam as
President. The Academy is obviously quite close to the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste and the
office of TVAS is located at the centre.
The objectives of TWAS is to qive recognition to hiqh calibre
scientific research perfor.ed by individual scientists from
developing countries, to facilitate their mutual contacts and to
strenqthen their scientific research work. The more specific aias
further underline the similarity between IFS and TWAS:
- To help in providinq hiqh-level scientists in developinq
countries with the conditions necessary for the advancement
of their work.
- To promote mutual contacts of individual research workers in
developinq countries amonq themselves and with the world
scientific community.
- To help in developinq high-level scientific manpower in developinq countries by identifying younq talented scientists
throuqh a recoqnition of their merits and by promotinq the
qrowth of their creativity.
- To identify men and women of outstandinq talent in developinq
countries
who can advise on national and international research policies.
- To encouraqe scientific research on major Third World problems
and the exchanqe of expertise among developinq countries.
R6
Some of the activities started by TWAS are directly related
IFS programme.
1
to·the~
\
The TWAS Research Grants programme offers qrants in the:range
2000-5000 USD for a one year period to carry out specifie research projects. The grants are intended for Third World Scientists of outstanding merits and they should coyer the costs of
purchasing equipment, expendable supplies, scientific literature
and services not normally available. The application form for
these grants is virtually identical to the IFS application form.
For 1987 the programme is restricted to pure and applied
mathematics, experimental physics, molecular biology and biochemistry, but other fields of natural sciences will gradually be
incorporated. There is evidently an overlap between the IFS and
the TWAS programmes, particularly in the natural products area.
Although the secretariat of TWAS has a profound knowledge on the
situation in physics and mathematics, it is less informed in other
sciences and depend upon a few peer reviewers for evaluating the
applications.
The TWAS also runs a spare part programme offering to pay for
spare parts up to a value of 200 USD to assist experimental research in developing countries. Presently TWAS has no resources to
offer advice or assist in the purchasing procedure - it is
foreseen that the applicant contacts the supplier directly and
that TWAS pays for the spare parts upon the presentation of a
proforma invoice, provided that thp. application is approved.
Finally TWAS runs a donation programme together with ICTP for
literature and equipment. This programme started with physics and
mathematics but is expanding into the fields of biology and
Medicine.
There are continuous contacts between the Secretary of TWAS (Dr
Hassan) and IFS in order to coordinate the efforts of the two
organizations and aini.ize overlap. With IFS accepting projects of
basic research nature (See 3.1.5) and TWAS becoming involved in
chemistry and biology the need for coordination and complementarity will become even more evident.
2.5
Asian Coordinating Group for Chemistry (ACGC)
The aims of this group is to consolidate existing cooperation, to
improve the exchange of information, to reduce and eventually
eliminate overlap, and to develop new modalities for direct cooperation. The group is convened by UNESCO and functions as a
gatherinq point for those orqanizations, networks and agencies
which are associated with chemistry research in Asia. It brings
together a small number of representatives for a range of national and international organizations once a year in very informaI
and informative meetings in which the discussions are kept at a
practical ·user-oriented" level. The meetings started in 1985 in
Korea and were held in Malaysia and Thailand the following years.
By alternating between the engaged countries it a1so gives the
participants a good possibility to orient themselves
87
in the chemlstry activities of the actuai country, aiso engaginq
and stimulating to new collaborations. It lS a clear advantage
that aIl participants are chemists and therefore have a common and
qood understanding of the problems involved.
The foilowing were the main points on the agenda during the last
two meetings, illustrating the practical orientation of the group:
- information on existing cooperative programmes in cheaistry
in Asia
- provision of services to Asian chemists (analytical services
for research, bioloqical screening, analyticai standards,
access to chemical 1iterature, inventory of resource institutions)
- existing and future programmes in equipment maintenance
- technician training.
IFS has participated in the last two meetings and has found them
to be very usefui to IFS, since the group deais with practica1
issues direct1y re1ated to the IFS progra.ae in natural products.
It gives IFS an opportunity to discuss and get a feedback on its
activities in this research are. The IFS input to the meetings is
believed to be valuable since many existinq and potentiai grantees
are affected by the discussions in the group. One of the most
active IFS advisers, Dr Jack Cannon, is a1so a driving force in
the group, together with Dr John Kingston from UNESCO.
2.6
International Seminar in Chemistry, Uppsala University
This research promotion programme has obvious links with the IFS
programme in natura1 products research. The main activity is to
provide fellowships for research work and training during a tenmonth period in Sweden for about 30 researchers from developinq
countries every year. Over the years the seainar has given such
fe110wships to about 230 researchers from aore than 30 deve10pinq countries. The seminar a1so qiyes a follow-up support to these
researchers, inélud~n equi ment, spare parts, chemicals, services
to al ow
em to continue t
ch vork on e the
re back
in-ther
me ~nstitutions. This support a1so inc1udes visits to
the research lnstftutes in the developing countries by aeabers of
the seminar staff. Through such visits and through the continuous
communication, a1so with former participants of the fe110wship
programme, the seminar has accumu1ated a considerable knowledge of
the research situation and the specifie needs of a number of
institutions engaged in chemistry research in deve10ping
countries.
Of the 230 researchers supported by the seminar 31 are a1so IFS
grantees. These have got their grants when they have returned to
their home institutions after having completed their training or
research in Sweden under the seminar programme. It is eviden~ that
the IFS and the seminar programme complement each other very
weIl. The seminar can show their participants a possibility to
obtain additional support for research once they complete their
88
fellowship, and IFS qets a convenient and quaiified soUrce; t'orne'"
grantees whose competences are known. There are freque~t\and close
contacts between IFS and the seminar throuqh its Director, Or Rune
Liminga. The follow-up support to these se.inar participants who
are aiso IFS grantees are sometimes co-ordinated between the two .
organizations.
2.7
The Regional Network for the Chemistry Qf Matural Products in
Southeast Asia
The network started operations in 1977 as a result of an initiative by UNESCO in 1974. It was formally set up in 1975 and a
thorough and informative review of the first ten years' activities with reports from the individual cQuntries, was recently
completed (10, 11). It receives financial supPQrt from UNESCO's
regular budget and through funds which are largely contributed by
the gQvernment of Japan. The network is a regional grouping ~f ten
countries: Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, SingapQre and Thailand. It has
representatives for each of the national points of contact in the
cQuntries cQncerned. It also prQduces a newsletter with several
issues per year. The aim of the network is to prQmote natural
prQducts chemistry, primarily in Qrder ta advance eCQnamic and
educational goals within the less deveioped areas in the regiQn.
To this end it tries to make efficient use of the experience and
resources within the regional grouping and to contribute to and
benefit from global expertise in the chemistry of natural
products.
IFS has mainly CQme intQ contact with the network through the
ACGC meetings (2.5). The network, through its newsletter, is an
efficient source for information about activities in the region.
It has alsQ approached IFS infor.ally about aore formalized collaboration regarding support to young che.ists in SQae of its ae.ber
countries.
2.8
South and Central Asian Network for Medicinal and Aromatic
Plants (SCMAP)
This network was also created with the sUPPQrt of UNESCO and it
includes the following countries: Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka, Nepal. The network obviously includes countries with less
reSQurces than the countries in the Southeast Asian region. SCAMAP
has not yet managed to initiate 50 many activities and its role in
the reqion is by no means cQrrespondinq to its sister-network in
Southeast Asia (2.7). SCAMAP still lacks a proper financial
backing-up. IFS has only had informal contacts with representatatives for SCAMAP at the ACGC meetings (2.5). There is however no
doubt that some of the SCAHAP member countries would be very much
in need of the type of support which IFS can offer to chemists in
the regiQn which it represents.
89
2.9
~twork
for the Chemistry of Biolo9.cally ImpQrtant
Natural Products (NCBINPl
In 1982 the Australian Oevelopment Asslstance Bureau (ADAS) made
funds available to create and support thls network. It was envisaged that the network would function as an adjunct to the
Regional Network for the Chemlstry of Natural Products in Southeast ASla (2.7) and it was decided by ADAB that the funds would
only be available for Indonesia, Malaysla, the Philippines and
Thailand. Dr Jack Cannon was made the Honorary Chairman with
responsibility for the management of the network. In 1983 the
Australian Universities International Development Program (AUIDP)
assumed responsibility for NCBINP on behalf of ADAB and in 1984,
when AUIDP was replaced by the International Development Program
of Australian Universities and Colleges (IDP), this later
organization took over the responsibility for the network.
The NCSINP support young research workers in tertiary institutions to participate in regional and global chemical' activities
It arranges meetings and supports visits by Australian chemists to
Southeast Asia and the South Pacifie. It has also supported
visists by researchers from developing countries to carry out
research projects in Australian laboratories. NCBINP furthermore
supplies literature, small pieces of equipment and research
chemists to its members in Southeast Asia and the South Pacifie.
It also produces a newsletter which is published once or twice
each year. It is conceivable that the network will extend its
activities to countries like Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal, Sri Lanka
and Vietnam in the future.
Through Jack Cannon there are many interactions between the network and IFS. The network operates with 9 IFS grantees in Thailand, 3 in the Philippines, 2 in Indonesia, 2 at the University of
the South Pacifie and 1 in Malaysia. At the IDP Consultants'
Meeting in 1986 it was suggested that the netwQrk should phase out
its activities in a country when a critical .ass of active
research workers had been established. It vas then also suggested
that 25 research workers who had been able to attract IFS grants
would constitute such a critical mass.
2.10 The Natural Products Research Network for Eastern and Central
Africa (NAPRECA)
NAPRECA was created in 1984 with the objectives to
- initiate and promote research in the area of natural
products research in the reqionj
- adapt and develop policies leading towards utilization and
proper exploitation of natural products;
- coordinate and maintain inter and intra-regional links among
different research groups;
- ensure proper dissemination Qf research resultsj
90
- promote research tra1nlng programmes' for member resedr~hers
1n collaborat10n with pert1nent 1nternational and national
bodies;
- foster and maintain.research links with scientists in other
parts of the world who are actively work1nq 1n the solution of
natural products problems pert1nent to Afr1ca.
The network was initiated by two IFS qrantees in Ethiopia, Or
Ermies Oaqne (F/316-1) and Or Berhanu Abeqaz Molla (F/82-3), and
the head office of the network is also situated in Addis Ababa.
There are presently four branch offices: in Kenya, Sudan, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Two more branches are planned, in Malawi and
Uqanda. The network has arranqed two symposia, and one workshop on
hiqh performance liquid chromatoqraphy in collaboration with LKB,
Sweden. The network also issues a newsletter.
Besides the two IFS qrantees who initiated the network, several
other IFS qrantees in other countries are also members. IFS has
supported one of the NAPRECA workshops and has also supported
active network members to participate in various international
meetinqs. At the IFS workshop in Harare in 1986, NAPRECA was
represented and the prospects of the network was discussed with
the IFS advisers present. Since so many IFS qrantees are enqaqed
in the network the contacts between IFS andNAPRECA are quite
close and it is probable that also future network members will be
in contact with both orqanizations. IFS will encouraqe its
qrantees to support and participate in the network's activities.
2.11 The Latin American Society of Phytochemistry
Ourinq the IFS workshop held in Panama 1982 three qrantees, Ors
Patrick Moyna, Uruquay (F/322-3), Mahabir Gupta, Panama (F/396-3)
and Luis Corcuera, Chile (F/484-4) initiated talks about the need
for an orqanization to pro.ote phytoche.istry in Latin America. In
1983 these three IFS qrantees vere qiven travel support to make
the necessary contacts to promote an orqanization of phytochemists, and in Nove.ber 1984 the Latin Aaerican Society of
Phytochemistry (La Sociedad Latinoamericana de Fitoquimica) was
founded, with Or Corcuera as Secretary General.
The initial activities of the society has been to publish a
reqional newsletter and a Oirectory of phytochemists in Latin
America. The society has also made considerable efforts to make
itself known and to identify phytochemists in Latin America.
Throuqh the founders of the society IFS has good contacts with the
orqanization, seeinq it as a base for recruitinq new qrantees and for
establishinq links between IFS qrantees. It is still too early to
see which roles the society will assume and which impact it will
make.
91
Annex 7
Methodology to study the scientific quality of the grantees' work as
proposed in the first draft .
Several complementary methodologies are proposed below. The final choice of
the methodologies to be adopted lies with the IFS Secretariat. They use both
quantitative and qualitative as weil as input and output indicators.
Input jndicators
-Educational degrees of IFS grantees. Among the different input indicators. the
level of university education sanctioned by a diploma is supposedly a necessary.
although not sufficient perequisite for anyone who wants to perform research. It is
assumed that the highest the educational level, the better the research
achievements. In the first IFS evaluation it was shown that the majority of the IFS
grantees had a PhD degree at the time they received their first grant. But the
percentage decreased during the eight first years of operation from close to 70% to
below 50%. It would be very useful to look at the trend with respect to university
level education after 1981.
Unfortunately, this information is not available in the IFS database; it should be
compiled from the grantees' files, because of its great importance to realistic
recommendations concerning e.g. future criteria for applying for an IFS grant.
Output indicators
-Grant renewals. Another way to assess the quality of research and the prOOuctivity
of the grantees would be to record grant renewals. If the quality (or quantity) of the
research results produced during the first grant period are below expectations , the
grantee will either not apply for a grant renewal , or his renewal application will be
rejected.
-Final Reports
The number of final reports received could also be counted and their quality
characterized using a three level scale: unsatisfactory, satisfactory or goOO, very
goOO or excellent. The IFS secretariat has been requested to provide this
information.
-Publications. An important test of ail research is the quantity and especially the
quality of the publications to which it leads in refereed journals.
92
Annex 8
Table A 11: Major Developing Countries Exporters of Manufactured products (1985 ~
or latest avalaible)
Country
Taiwan
Korea
Hong Kong
Singapore
% of total national exports
% of total manufactured Exports
of Developlng countrles
93,1
83,4
95,3
48,2
26,6
23,2
15,4
12,0
77,2
Sub-total
Brazil
Mexico
Argentina
31,9
12,8
13,9
7,9
3,2
1,2
89,5
Total
Source: John W. Sewell, Stuart K. Tucker, and contributors, Growth, Exports, & Jobs in a Changing
World Economy, Transaction Books, New Brunswick (USA) and Oxford (UK) 1988.
Table A 12: Large and very large countries (mid 1987)
COUNTRIES
POPULATION
million inhabitants
1. Large countries
Argentina
Zaïre
Burma
Korea (Rep. of)
Ethiopia
Egypt
Thailand
Philippines
Vietnam
Mexico
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Brazil
Indonesia
31.50
31.80
38.80
42.10
46.00
51.90
53.60
61.50
62.20
81.90
104.50
107.10
108.60
141.50
174.90
2. Very large countries
India
China
800.30
1062.00
GDP/
inhabitant
%ofGNP
to R&D
Sc. & Eng.
per million
2980
300
579
3275
187
1348
1942
1409
0,4
360
57
2,0
0,2
0,3
0,2
435
3597
1013
398
621
3031
1131
0,6
0,3
117
335
216
30
0,3
0,7
0,3
30
256
175
582
0,9
Sources: United Nation (Population), World Bank (GDP per inhabitants), Unesco Statistical Yearbook
(% of GNP to R&D; Scientists and Eng.), 1985 or the latest available.

Download PDF - IFS SmartFreight

Level 1 - Central Connecticut State University

ANVÄNDARKONFERENS

D1300 Series Data Sheet

Excess Casualty Profile

HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED To 1

billing code - Louisiana Medicaid

Purchase Requisition

Launch of the Report Card - Meeting Report

Open Call - Conference Grants for PhD Students