Ruth Linton on why scientific research is so important to the livelihoods of farmers in the developing world - together with some striking examples.

Sweet success in Uganda, Peanut power in Zimbabwe, Fisherman's tale in Ghana, Cow know-how, The donkey's tale.

What difference can scientific research make to the average small farmer in Africa, India or South America struggling to grow enough to feed their family? Yes, they may manage to produce a surplus to sell at the local market. But they may well have a job to generate additional income. And it might take just one bad harvest, or the collapse of a local market, to plunge a family into poverty and even starvation. So how can science help?

Agriculture is economically and socially the most important activity in the developing world, ranging across the use and management of land, annual crops, forests and livestock. Even conservative estimates suggest that over 50 per cent of rural income is generated by farming. Rural populations are highly dependent on what they can grow, and so highly vulnerable to threats to agriculture – be it crop pests, new diseases, changes in market forces or new international legislation. Scientific research is an essential component in improving poor peoples’ livelihoods by reducing that risk. The examples cited alongside this piece highlight the unique role and strong impact of “public good” research linked to development programmes, working together at the front line of poverty elimination.

Research programmes which have been funded by DFID have contributed to: an increase and stabilization in food supplies; reduced market barriers; improved access to farm inputs and marketing opportunities; improved nutrition; reduced drudgery; safer production methods; lower unit production costs and the prospects of cheaper food for poor consumers. Inevitably, such benefits contribute to the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

For centuries, farmers have, in different ways, undertaken their own form of scientific research. The domestication of plants and animals has been a series of informal, on-going experiments in which farmers have made observations about what does or does not work or grow well. They have formulated hypotheses, made changes to their practices and then observed the outcomes. One of the best-researched examples is the use of mixtures of beans in East Africa. Farmers in Tanzania and Malawi have long been known to maintain a diversity of bean varieties for reasons that have not been well understood. Working with local farmers, scientists have since discovered how these mixtures hedge against risk, for example from new strains of disease and different climatic conditions which may favour one variety over another.

By recognising that farmers have always asked, “how can this be done better?” or, “how can I minimise my risk of losses?”, scientists seek to help farmers to understand and promote positive change. Formal research programmes may lead to the production of new varieties of plant that are more disease or insect resistant. Or they may produce new varieties that can give a more stable yield, increasing the amount of surplus for a family. New varieties may be more marketable because they look better or taste better – or even travel better and keep for longer.

Much scientific effort goes into keeping pace with the evolution of new threats. Micro-organisms that cause animal and plant diseases can evolve very quickly. A great deal of research investment is required simply to remain one step ahead of pathogens. Take, for example, cassava, which is an important staple in many countries. In Uganda in the late 1980s, a new strain of cassava mosaic virus emerged. It was highly virulent and aggressive and affected most of Uganda’s cassava crop. This was based on a few varieties that were locally preferred, but highly susceptible to the new virus. There was starvation in some districts of Uganda as many communities lost their principal source of carbohydrates.

The government of Uganda demanded action. Scientists responded by demonstrating that there was sufficient genetic diversity of cassava plants available for the national cassava breeding programme to mobilise. The outcome was to increase food security in Uganda. In addition, cassava production is now not only restored to former levels, but able to generate a surplus for the renaissance of a long-dormant commercial starch production industry. Science has thus led to an increase in cassava production over the original levels and an opportunity to develop a new industry.

DFID research programmes recognise that poverty is not only a condition of low income, consumption and lack of assets, but also of vulnerability, exclusion and powerlessness. Therefore research for development is not just about formal research programmes, or advanced laboratories and learned papers from ivory towers. It is about working with poor farmers and consumers to understand their practices and needs, and to generate and adapt technologies that they can test and use to improve their livelihoods. Positive livelihood outcomes from research therefore include conventional indicators such as enhanced income, food security and sustainable use of natural resources. However, they can also include a strengthened asset base, reduced vulnerability, better health, self-esteem and a sense of control or empowerment.

It’s also important that technologies and information are shared with other communities and contribute to poverty elimination. To achieve this, DFID research programmes are using a range of communication methods which are relatively new to scientific research, including picture books for schools, soap operas and radio broadcasts as well as the traditional extension leaflets and field days.

Scientific understanding is vital to anticipate, identify and prevent threats to the livelihood of farmers in the developing world, as well as help them respond when new threats appear. Without continuing research and technology transfer through new communication methods, the livelihoods of poor farmers and consumers would be even more vulnerable.

Ruth Linton writes on behalf of NR International, which manages a number of DFID-funded research programmes.

For more details about this and other Developments content see Find out more.