From “colonial science” to equitable scientific partnership

7Over the past four years, I have had the opportunity, as chair and Chief Executive Officer of the Institute, to travel to many of our partner countries and to take part in various forms of “commemoration” of Orstom’s involvement, such as the 70^th anniversary of IRD in Madagascar in May 2018 and its 60^th anniversary in Tunisia in October 2017. Each time, I have been struck by the fact that our colleagues in higher education and research (HER) in these countries unflinchingly acknowledge the full story of their relationships with researchers from our Institute, including its colonial past. After all, the work carried out by botanists, entomologists, plant physiologists, geneticists, geologists, marine biologists, fisheries experts, hydrologists, soil scientists and agronomists (the term used was “crop protection” rather than agronomy) from Orstom – soon to be joined by anthropologists, ethnologists and researchers in other human and social sciences4 – enabled the rudimentary compilation of a priceless body of knowledge about the flora and fauna, river basins and water resources, soils and agricultural potential, mineral and natural resource and, of course, the social structures of the tropical belt and the Mediterranean. Nevertheless, during the first 15 years of existence of Orstom, the geopolitical field in which researchers went about their work was first the colonies, then the overseas territories. The purpose of the research conducted – in the eyes of the French government if not in the minds of the researchers themselves – was to enhance and exploit the resources of these territories to benefit the interests of mainland France.

8Beginning in the 1960s, the massive upheavals wrought by the acquisition of independence by the African and Malagasy colonies of the French Empire translated to the expansion of Orstom’s geopolitical scope to numerous countries in English-speaking Africa, as well as Latin America, South-East Asia and the South Pacific that had never been under French colonial rule. More significantly, these upheavals fed a gradual but definitive process that culminated in an initial, radical break with the colonialist origins5. Formally represented in 40 countries in the Global South and working in collaboration with more than twice as many, IRD today is the exact opposite of a neocolonial institution. In fact, its mission is dedicated entirely to strengthening the capacity of higher education and research in its partner countries to contribute to advances in universal science, while also meeting the needs of their populations, especially the poorest and most vulnerable groups. Contemporary IRD researchers share with their Orstom predecessors the value of living and working as close as possible to projects with their colleagues in the Global South and in the Mediterranean and tropical regions, but they work under an original expatriation model that has few equivalents anywhere else, especially in the Anglo-American scientific world. They all work on a daily basis at the laboratories, research centres and universities of their partners in developing countries.

9This crucial distancing from any form of condescension or domination vis-à-vis the scientists and, of course, the people of the Global South with whom the Institute collaborates does however require ongoing vigilance and continuous reflection and self-critiquing about our research practices. Thus, the work of IRD has played an important role in acknowledging the need for flexibility in the international rules governing the protection of intellectual property, to facilitate access by developing countries to medicines and other essential goods, or to bridge the digital gap between rich and poor nations6. Similarly its efforts have largely contributed to the recognition of traditional knowledge, not least that of so-called “First Peoples”, and to changes in the international rules intended to ensure a fair “sharing of benefits” stemming from research results and the innovations they spawn7. Nevertheless we must continue to adapt our practices, such as our patent filing procedures, to remain compliant with these changes brought about by our very own research, as is notably the case with the 2010 Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and biological diversity8. Along the same lines, IRD now actively responds to requests to return scientific collections of various types or items of cultural significance to its partner countries, which it supports in their endeavours to reclaim their heritage and arrange long-term conservation. In this vein, the Institute will soon give the Republic of Gabon hundreds of hours of recordings of music and oral traditions collected in Gabon in the 1950s by two ethnomusicologists working for Orstom.

10Contributing on an equal footing to building the capacity of researchers, academics and research institutions in developing countries – the very core of the equitable scientific partnership that guides IRD’s actions today – is not just an imperative for international science. A recent bibliometric analysis showed that co-publications with researchers in the Global South are the only realm in which the scientific output of all of France’s HER does not align with the seemingly inevitable downward trajectory of its impact and visibility, because of increasingly sharp international competition, with the ramping up of research in emerging countries and China in particular9. The inadequacy of scientific capacities and infrastructure in many developing countries also impedes their entire development strategy. Therefore, the fact that sub-Saharan Africa barely accounts for 2% of worldwide scieentific output (with Nigeria and South Africa alone making up nearly half of this figure)10 undermines its capacity for technological innovation, to wield influence in international negotiations and, above all, to train the managers and entrepreneurs who are essential to sustainable growth on the continent11.

From development aid to critical analysis of sustainable development

11The decolonisation process initiated in the 1960s was also accompanied by a redefinition of the purpose of research programmes, which would henceforth be framed in terms of “development assistance” for fledgling nations. However, after independence, when the first national science institutions were being set up in developing countries, this “research for development” covered forms of technical assistance, as well as implementation programmes in poor countries that were essentially funded by wealthy countries. The urgency of curtailing poverty, the dictates of growth, agricultural and manufacturing needs and the establishment of health systems determined research priorities. Research in the countries of the Global South was conceived as a socio-economic development tool with a view to catching up with wealthy nations. This trend came to an end in the 1980s with the debt crises in Latin America, Africa and Asia, the push-back against the structural adjustment programmes that international financial institutions tried to impose on developing countries, and global health crises such as the AIDS epidemic – which coincided with the end of the bipolar geostrategic configuration between the Western and Soviet blocs that emerged in the post-war period and the shattering of the centre-periphery model. This approach was not without a certain paternalism and neocolonialist temptations, which seeped into development assistance programmes, including in the field of research.

12IRD is currently in the midst of a second radical change brought about by the emergence, over the past 50 years – first in the scientific realm, then in multilateral policy arenas – of an increasingly critical view of the notion that development is a linear process in which developing countries must race through the major historic stages that punctuated the growth of OECD countries12. Endorsed in 1987 by the publication of the Our Common Future report, written by the UN World Commission on Environment and Development and known as the Brundtland Report after its chair, the idea of a change towards sustainable development was the first incarnation of this critique. It conceived sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. It features two key concepts: “the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs”13. Adopted nearly 30 years later, in September 2015, by the 193 member countries of the United Nations, the 2030 SDG are the result of multiple compromises between different and sometimes contradictory interests, stakeholders and countries. However, scientific research has played a major role by expanding awareness of the urgent social challenges, with the unprecedented rise in inequality, and environmental challenges, from global warming to other worldwide environmental changes – challenges that are medium-term threats to the future of the planet. It has helped to define these objectives as the frame of reference for a multilateral dialogue and proposed solutions to profoundly shift the untenable growth models which continue to dominate the world economy and international relations14. As this research focuses on the tropical and Mediterranean regions where the greatest ecological, social, and political vulnerabilities are combined for current development models, research conducted by IRD in partnership with the Global South often almost naturally ends up on the front line of debates about the implementation of SDGs.

13Although, as demonstrated by many of the projects described in this publication, IRD is now aligned with the reference framework outlined by SDGs, under no circumstances does it abdicate the vital combination of a critical mindset, methodological rigour and a robust defence of the independence of research from the powers that be. This combination remains at the heart of the scientific approach and has characterised the Institute since the outset, sometimes coming at the cost of difficult relations with authorities in the host country or even those in our own country. Much like the fight for access to essential medicines for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria for patients in the Global South, with which I have been personally involved during my research career15, this publication abounds with examples that show that the research conducted by IRD has often had the greatest transformative impact when it challenges preconceived notions, including within the international scientific community which is not always immune to the excessive hegemony of Anglo-American thought.

14An aptitude for pluralist discussions and for critical thinking, therefore, is embedded in the DNA of our Institute. It is, in fact, what makes it so rich. While they do not always meet with unanimous approval in our ranks, just as in the broader international scientific community, many of the research projects currently under way with our partners in developing countries explicitly refer to the notion of “Anthropocene”. This notion postulates that human activity has reached such a degree of development that it has ushered the Earth into a new geological era16 and that the global environmental and social changes in progress threaten to exceed the limits of the planet’s lithosphere and biosphere17. Other projects come under the critical perspective of “Capitalocene”18, according to which it is not human activity in and of itself that threatens to destroy the planet, but rather human activity as generated by the social dynamics of capitalistic production and domination, especially in its phase of predominance in the financial sphere.

15The two formative milestones referred to above had an institutional impact: first in 1984, when Orstom was renamed “French Institute of Scientific Research for Development Cooperation” (although still referred to by its Orstom acronym) and designated as a public scientific and technological establishment (EPST), then in 1998 with the creation of the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD – French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development) with an EPST status similar to that of other public research institutions such as CNRS, Inra and Inserm which oversee its current function19. As fate would have it, this 75^th anniversary year for the Institute also coincides with the 20^th anniversary of the founding of IRD in its current iteration.

16There have been other institutional changes since the creation of IRD in 1998. The most recent one saw all the Institute’s laboratories become “joint research units”, linking them with universities and, in the vast majority of cases, one or several other public research entities (Cirad, CNRS, Ifremer, Inra, Inserm, Irstea), which further advances the consolidation and projection of French HER efforts to the Global South. These pairings with “non-specialist” science organisations and establishments enable the IRD teams to be more effective than ever at applying the latest advances and discoveries in major scientific disciplines, with their in-depth and long-standing knowledge of the contexts and specific characteristics of developing countries.

17By doing this, IRD is now better equipped to manage and overcome the tension inherent in its dual role, from the original debates that pre-dated even the Second World War to discussions about the role of science in today’s multipolar, digital world. This tension goes beyond the traditional division between fundamental research and applied research and opposes the contribution of research to universal science – many of the big questions asked by research, from climate change to migration to inequality, cannot be solved without the insight provided by data observed in the tropical belt and the Mediterranean region – and its contribution to generating innovations and solutions better suited to the essential needs of people living in developing countries. There is also tension between its role as an impartial producer of scientific knowledge, which in its very essence is a global public asset serving all humanity, and its role in service of “scientific diplomacy” and the influence strategy of France and, more broadly, the Francophone world. However, it is not the institutional aspects of IRD that will secure its future and the future of all research advancing sustainable development; rather, it is IRD’s steadfast attachment to a third major era that is currently forming in the scientific realm itself.

At the cutting edge of “sustainability science”

18A new scientific field emerged in the 1980s. Dubbed sustainability science in the international literature, it became a priority for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States at the beginning of this century and for its Chinese equivalent shortly thereafter20. It is now central to the activities of the International Science Council (ISC), which coordinates international scientific unions21, and large-scale research programmes and international scientific partnerships such as Future Earth22 and the Belmont Forum23. The US Academy defines sustainability science as “dealing with the interactions between natural and social systems, and with how those interactions affect the challenge of sustainability: meeting the needs of present and future generations while substantially reducing poverty and conserving the planet’s life support systems”24. Over the past 20 years, this field has been boosted by the creation of several specialised scientific journals and, more recently, by its recognition by leading “general interest” scientific publications (Nature, Science, Lancet, etc.)25.

19Sustainability science is notable in particular for the fact that its goals and research topics are primarily derived from the need to tackle the problems that the world, ecosystems and communities face, rather than from the specific dynamics of the scientific disciplines whose work it involves. It therefore aims to be intrinsically interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral in its approach, as it focuses on achieving a better understanding of the complex chains of causation that explain the changes and imbalances that eco-socio-systems are currently experiencing, and on producing solutions and innovations that create a pathway towards sustainable development26. It expresses, right within research practices, a particular focus on “participatory science”, namely co-constructing research programmes from the outset together with the communities and social groups that are the most concerned by the problems research is attempting to solve27. Being grounded in the territories (in the field) should make it possible to combine the development of generic science fronts with a recognition of the problems faced by societies in their daily lives in their environments.

20The preparation of the SDG 2030 Agenda, followed by its adoption in 2015 and subsequent implementation, sparked a formidable surge of interest in sustainability science, within the scientific community and beyond. In particular, there have been major advances in the analysis of interactions between the multiple phenomena addressed by SDGs, as well as between the policies and actions that seek to promote them. The idea is to prevent the “vertical” pursuit of any single objective from adversely affecting the others, and to maximise positive synergies between policies driving SDGs28. To mention but one example among hundreds, efforts are being made to ensure that food security is achieved not, as is currently the case, by exponential growth in the use of chemical inputs and pesticides in farming but, on the contrary, by increased soil capacity for carbon storage through the promotion of agro-ecology, which simultaneously helps reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming and improves agricultural productivity29.

21The United Nations launched the institutional recognition of sustainability science by entrusting, for the first time in its history, the critical assessment of SDGs to a group of 15 independent scientists (IGS), to which the author of these lines belongs, rather than to other UN agencies. The goal is to enable the UN to escape the habitual inter-governmental negotiations and compromises that characterise multilateral institutions. The first of these quadrennial reports, known as a “GSDR” or Global Sustainable Development Report, is scheduled for September 2019, to be followed by regular updates through to the 2030 target date set for SDGs30. In the current geostrategic context of crisis in multilateralism this is a rare opportunity for scientific evidence and rationality to positively influence public policy.

22Upon reading this publication, one can certainly argue that IRD, over its 75 years of existence, did not wait for the emergence of sustainability science to practise interdisciplinary cooperation, to contribute to solving the major problems faced by developing countries and to involve local populations – including the most vulnerable – in development research programmes. Other areas of French research could undoubtedly make the same claim. As a result of having practised sustainability science without naming it or explaining it, without staking out a position in this camp in discussions and decision-making bodies and perhaps sometimes without even knowing it, the French and Francophone scientific community runs the risk of seeing its impact diminished, both in the face of international scientific competition and in its ability to influence public policy and the behaviours of key players in sustainable development.

23IRD is especially well positioned to pursue sustainability science, on the strength of 75 years of partnering with countries and territories in the tropical belt and the Mediterranean region, which are the most exposed to global imbalances and frequently the most motivated, out of necessity, to identify and disseminate “frugal” innovations that could prompt reorientation toward sustainable development pathways31. This 75^th anniversary is therefore an opportunity for our Institute to put itself at the forefront of this science as a driving force and source of momentum for French and French-language research as a whole, particularly among scientists from the Global South. The future of IRD over the next quarter-century depends on it, as does, to at least a small extent and with all due modesty, the future of our planet.