TWO years ago, President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete announced that the government would increase research and development (R&D) spending from 0.3 per cent to 1 per cent of GDP.
The decision indicates renewed interest and commitment that was first made by the African Union Leaders under the Lagos Plan of Action in 1980.
JAMES MPINGA summarises the major findings. In a new study, The Making of the Tanzanian Science, Technology and Innovation System: Past, Present and Proposed Future Direction, three researchers -- Bitrina Diyamett, Astrid Szogs & Hezron Makundi -- trace the making of the national system of innovation for Tanzania back to the year 1966 when the National Research Council was established.
They also analyze other science and technology structures and policies, including the first National Science and Technology Policy of 1985. However, they argue that much more remains to be done to get our own home-grown STI system in place.
“To date, more than 40 years later, many other structures have been added to the system and others restructured. However, such changes (have) had very little impact on the national socio-economic development,” they say.
In their brief historical account of the unfolding of Tanzania’s S&T system, they also argue that “the current situation is mostly a result of “precepts from elsewhere rather than locally evolving problems that would have ensured an organic evolvement of an STI system.”
But they applaud the continued political will, which they say is necessary “for a strong and effective science, technology and innovation (STI) system in the country ... an effort worth applauding .... as political will and commitment is a necessary step forward and without it very little meaningful can happen.”
Tanzanian policies on S&T have been changing over time, and the study acknowledges that “it is normal.” What is not normal, they argue, is the fact that the policy changes in S&T have been driven by the forces outside the requirements of the economic system – and so have had little impact on the socio-economic development of the country.
They cite two basic problems; first, wholesale borrowing of best practices from elsewhere to solve local problems without really looking into the nature of the causes of the underlying problems – in hopes that what worked elsewhere will also work for Tanzania.
“Second, even when the realities on the ground are closely looked at, incorrect solutions
emanating from misplaced conceptual lenses can be observed. A good example is a wide spread believe that the problem of lack of competitiveness of the Tanzanian productive sector stems from the lack of investment in science,” they say.
Looking back on the country’s Science and Technology policies, the authors show how policies and organisations have been put in place and shed light on the extent of learning involved in these processes. They have done that by looking at selected institutions and organisations, including The National Research Council and its transformation to Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology.
It also included institutionalization of the ministry of science and technology, the initiation of the industrial R&D institutions in the early 1980s; the national science and technology policy of 1985 and its subsequent revision in 1995; the national science, technology and innovation policy that is still in the making; the restructuring of COSTECH that also is still ongoing, and finally and most importantly, the current announcement by President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete on the commitment of 1.0 per cent of GDP to R&D.
The underlying conceptual framework is that in order to design STI policies that adequately address the needs of the country, both an understanding of how innovation comes about, as well as how policies are made, is important.
The first initiative in the recognition of science and technology as a tool for socioeconomic development was spearheaded by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which initiated and organized the first UN Conference on the Application of Science and Technology (UNCAST) for developing countries held in Geneva in 1963 – in which Tanganyika participated.
Following this Geneva conference, UNESCO sponsored the International Conference on the Organization of Research and Training in Relation to the Study of Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources that was held in Lagos, Nigeria – August 6, 1964. However, in 1974 the First Conference of Ministers responsible for Science and Technology in Africa (CASTAFRICA I) was held in Dakar, Senegal.
As a follow up to the 1963 Geneva Conference, the Second United Nations Conference on the Application of Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) was held in Vienna, Austria in 1979. The most important output of UNCAST was the Vienna Programme of Action (VPA), which led to the setting up of the Intergovernmental Committee on Science and Technology (IGCST) that informed the establishment of the present UN Centre for Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) – whose ideals were dashed when the United States withdrew from UNESCO.
Even then, such withdrawal was hardly at issue, the researchers argue. “Although
funding seemed to have contributed in hampering …. this plan of action, we strongly feel that the plan would not have materialized anyway … the plan did not emerge from critical review of the underlying technology problems in most of these countries.”
In Africa meanwhile, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) rekindled the UNESCO initiative by a series of meetings in Monrovia and Lagos whose final act was the promulgation of the joint 1980 declaration of the “Lagos Plan of Action for the Economic Development of Africa: 1980- 2000.”
The Contents of the Lagos Declaration was a sure indication of the seriousness of the political willingness to utilize science and technology in all its forms as a vehicle for development; of which chapter V is on Science and Technology. The declaration called for three major actions for effective application of science namely:
(1) Formulation of national science and technology policies that will contain essential elements contained in the UNESCO call of 1963. It was the UNESCO call that gave birth to OAU declaration.
(2) The establishment of national science and technology systems comprising of ministries and councils for effective administration and implementation of the national science and technology policies.
(3) Commitment of funding of R&D activities in Science and Technology to a minimum of 1 per cent GDP (set up previously by UNESCO) in 1980 rising to 3 per cent GDP (as seen in most developed countries) by the year 2000.
The ghost of committing 1 per cent GDP to R&D is up until today following most African
countries as indicated in most of the recent strategies and agreements at the regional level. At home, President Kikwete announced in 2009 that come beginning of 2010, the government would commit 1 per cent GDP to R&D.
This has generated a number of hot and interesting debates locally. “First, is the issue of ‘up from where’ and how much should be added given that there were no R&D surveys conducted to indicate the current level.
Second is how the added funds should be spent. What priorities should be given between basic, applied and experimental development on the one hand, and what sectors, on the other,” they say.
COSTECH has since convened a meeting of all R&D organizations “to listen to their successes and challenges; basically in an effort to find out how the cake should be divided among these institutions.” In retrospect, the development of science, technology and innovation policies in Tanzania goes back to the colonial era in 1905 when the Germans established the first Central Veterinary Laboratory at Mpwapwa, Dodoma.
The research centres grew in number all over the country until 1919 when the British took over Tanganyika from the Germans. They reorganized the running of the institutions and
thereafter expanded the research base and forged collaborative research programmes in East Africa by establishing the East African High Commission in 1948.
Research took a new turn in that each of the East African member states was mandated to do specific research such as Malaria in Tanganyika; Forestry and Veterinary in Kenya; Trypanasomiasis, virology and Fresh water fisheries in Uganda, and marine fisheries in Zanzibar.
The reason to initiate these research organizations and later division of labour among the East African Community ember states has not been clearly documented. However, it is indicated in the policy documents that it was prompted by the requirements of the colonial needs:
The main objective of agricultural research at that time was to support the development of the export crops (sisal, coffee, tobacco, and peanuts) grown either by foreign companies or individual settler farmers. On the other hand, the health research institutes started during the colonial era when missionary doctors researched tropical parasitic diseases.
They specialized in various vector-borne diseases such as malaria, trypanosomiasis, tuberculosis, filariasis, and bilharziasis. The colonial administration had less focus on the development of industrial research since the industrial structures existed did not demand for industrial R&D beyond that which was undertaken in industrialized countries and were labor intensive.
The organization of research in East Africa was determined by colonial needs and not correlated to individual national needs and was never a result of the national development policy for any of the East African countries. Although the policy documents indicate that the policies were never the intention of the individual governments but rather to suit needs of their colonial masters, policies seem to have been responding to the then existing local problems given the existing social economic problems of the time.
The reaction of the governments seems to have been caused more by the hatred towards colonialism than inappropriateness of policies – that everything done by the colonial masters was a bad thing.
With attainment of independence in the early 1960s, the three member states sought to maintain the colonial legacy for health, food and livestock development without a spelt out science and technology policy. This seemed to be a beginning to the establishment of a number of science and technology organizations, mainly research and development organizations.
The decision indicates renewed interest and commitment that was first made by the African Union Leaders under the Lagos Plan of Action in 1980.
JAMES MPINGA summarises the major findings. In a new study, The Making of the Tanzanian Science, Technology and Innovation System: Past, Present and Proposed Future Direction, three researchers -- Bitrina Diyamett, Astrid Szogs & Hezron Makundi -- trace the making of the national system of innovation for Tanzania back to the year 1966 when the National Research Council was established.
They also analyze other science and technology structures and policies, including the first National Science and Technology Policy of 1985. However, they argue that much more remains to be done to get our own home-grown STI system in place.
“To date, more than 40 years later, many other structures have been added to the system and others restructured. However, such changes (have) had very little impact on the national socio-economic development,” they say.
In their brief historical account of the unfolding of Tanzania’s S&T system, they also argue that “the current situation is mostly a result of “precepts from elsewhere rather than locally evolving problems that would have ensured an organic evolvement of an STI system.”
But they applaud the continued political will, which they say is necessary “for a strong and effective science, technology and innovation (STI) system in the country ... an effort worth applauding .... as political will and commitment is a necessary step forward and without it very little meaningful can happen.”
Tanzanian policies on S&T have been changing over time, and the study acknowledges that “it is normal.” What is not normal, they argue, is the fact that the policy changes in S&T have been driven by the forces outside the requirements of the economic system – and so have had little impact on the socio-economic development of the country.
They cite two basic problems; first, wholesale borrowing of best practices from elsewhere to solve local problems without really looking into the nature of the causes of the underlying problems – in hopes that what worked elsewhere will also work for Tanzania.
“Second, even when the realities on the ground are closely looked at, incorrect solutions
emanating from misplaced conceptual lenses can be observed. A good example is a wide spread believe that the problem of lack of competitiveness of the Tanzanian productive sector stems from the lack of investment in science,” they say.
Looking back on the country’s Science and Technology policies, the authors show how policies and organisations have been put in place and shed light on the extent of learning involved in these processes. They have done that by looking at selected institutions and organisations, including The National Research Council and its transformation to Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology.
It also included institutionalization of the ministry of science and technology, the initiation of the industrial R&D institutions in the early 1980s; the national science and technology policy of 1985 and its subsequent revision in 1995; the national science, technology and innovation policy that is still in the making; the restructuring of COSTECH that also is still ongoing, and finally and most importantly, the current announcement by President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete on the commitment of 1.0 per cent of GDP to R&D.
The underlying conceptual framework is that in order to design STI policies that adequately address the needs of the country, both an understanding of how innovation comes about, as well as how policies are made, is important.
The first initiative in the recognition of science and technology as a tool for socioeconomic development was spearheaded by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which initiated and organized the first UN Conference on the Application of Science and Technology (UNCAST) for developing countries held in Geneva in 1963 – in which Tanganyika participated.
Following this Geneva conference, UNESCO sponsored the International Conference on the Organization of Research and Training in Relation to the Study of Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources that was held in Lagos, Nigeria – August 6, 1964. However, in 1974 the First Conference of Ministers responsible for Science and Technology in Africa (CASTAFRICA I) was held in Dakar, Senegal.
As a follow up to the 1963 Geneva Conference, the Second United Nations Conference on the Application of Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) was held in Vienna, Austria in 1979. The most important output of UNCAST was the Vienna Programme of Action (VPA), which led to the setting up of the Intergovernmental Committee on Science and Technology (IGCST) that informed the establishment of the present UN Centre for Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) – whose ideals were dashed when the United States withdrew from UNESCO.
Even then, such withdrawal was hardly at issue, the researchers argue. “Although
funding seemed to have contributed in hampering …. this plan of action, we strongly feel that the plan would not have materialized anyway … the plan did not emerge from critical review of the underlying technology problems in most of these countries.”
In Africa meanwhile, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) rekindled the UNESCO initiative by a series of meetings in Monrovia and Lagos whose final act was the promulgation of the joint 1980 declaration of the “Lagos Plan of Action for the Economic Development of Africa: 1980- 2000.”
The Contents of the Lagos Declaration was a sure indication of the seriousness of the political willingness to utilize science and technology in all its forms as a vehicle for development; of which chapter V is on Science and Technology. The declaration called for three major actions for effective application of science namely:
(1) Formulation of national science and technology policies that will contain essential elements contained in the UNESCO call of 1963. It was the UNESCO call that gave birth to OAU declaration.
(2) The establishment of national science and technology systems comprising of ministries and councils for effective administration and implementation of the national science and technology policies.
(3) Commitment of funding of R&D activities in Science and Technology to a minimum of 1 per cent GDP (set up previously by UNESCO) in 1980 rising to 3 per cent GDP (as seen in most developed countries) by the year 2000.
The ghost of committing 1 per cent GDP to R&D is up until today following most African
countries as indicated in most of the recent strategies and agreements at the regional level. At home, President Kikwete announced in 2009 that come beginning of 2010, the government would commit 1 per cent GDP to R&D.
This has generated a number of hot and interesting debates locally. “First, is the issue of ‘up from where’ and how much should be added given that there were no R&D surveys conducted to indicate the current level.
Second is how the added funds should be spent. What priorities should be given between basic, applied and experimental development on the one hand, and what sectors, on the other,” they say.
COSTECH has since convened a meeting of all R&D organizations “to listen to their successes and challenges; basically in an effort to find out how the cake should be divided among these institutions.” In retrospect, the development of science, technology and innovation policies in Tanzania goes back to the colonial era in 1905 when the Germans established the first Central Veterinary Laboratory at Mpwapwa, Dodoma.
The research centres grew in number all over the country until 1919 when the British took over Tanganyika from the Germans. They reorganized the running of the institutions and
thereafter expanded the research base and forged collaborative research programmes in East Africa by establishing the East African High Commission in 1948.
Research took a new turn in that each of the East African member states was mandated to do specific research such as Malaria in Tanganyika; Forestry and Veterinary in Kenya; Trypanasomiasis, virology and Fresh water fisheries in Uganda, and marine fisheries in Zanzibar.
The reason to initiate these research organizations and later division of labour among the East African Community ember states has not been clearly documented. However, it is indicated in the policy documents that it was prompted by the requirements of the colonial needs:
The main objective of agricultural research at that time was to support the development of the export crops (sisal, coffee, tobacco, and peanuts) grown either by foreign companies or individual settler farmers. On the other hand, the health research institutes started during the colonial era when missionary doctors researched tropical parasitic diseases.
They specialized in various vector-borne diseases such as malaria, trypanosomiasis, tuberculosis, filariasis, and bilharziasis. The colonial administration had less focus on the development of industrial research since the industrial structures existed did not demand for industrial R&D beyond that which was undertaken in industrialized countries and were labor intensive.
The organization of research in East Africa was determined by colonial needs and not correlated to individual national needs and was never a result of the national development policy for any of the East African countries. Although the policy documents indicate that the policies were never the intention of the individual governments but rather to suit needs of their colonial masters, policies seem to have been responding to the then existing local problems given the existing social economic problems of the time.
The reaction of the governments seems to have been caused more by the hatred towards colonialism than inappropriateness of policies – that everything done by the colonial masters was a bad thing.
With attainment of independence in the early 1960s, the three member states sought to maintain the colonial legacy for health, food and livestock development without a spelt out science and technology policy. This seemed to be a beginning to the establishment of a number of science and technology organizations, mainly research and development organizations.
No comments:
Post a Comment