Get documents about "Agricultural Innovation Systems ISBN
Shared by: jennyyingdi
-
Stats
- views:
- 3
- posted:
- 7/24/2012
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 12
Document Sample
T H E M AT I C N O T E 1
Designing Agricultural Research Linkages
within an AIS Framework
David J. Spielman, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Catherine Ragasa, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Riikka Rajalahti, World Bank
SYNOPSIS this new landscape in agricultural development. To reach
this goal, public research organizations will have to increase
onsensus is growing that new ways of conducting
C agricultural research are needed. To date, the oper-
ational implications of these changes and strate-
gies for making them efficient, effective, and sustainable
their relevance, their capacity to respond to a changing
landscape, and their ability to produce goods and services
that can be put to use in a socially or economically produc-
tive manner.
have been discussed very little. Lessons on strengthening
These statements are not a call for paying less attention
the connectivity between agricultural research and other
to the quality of scientific inquiry and expertise in disci-
innovation system actors are viewed through the lens of
plinary fields. They are rather a call for greater interaction
three types of economies—agriculture-based, transform-
between researchers and other knowledge producers and
ing, and urbanized—and two strategies: (1) investing in
users to maximize the quality of science and its impacts
“demand articulation” mechanisms to better identify the
on society and the economy. Increased interaction means
needs of different user groups and (2) designing “organi-
that public research organizations will continue to play a
zational interfaces” that help transform research into real
role in developing country agriculture but that their role
goods and services. There is a case for both market and
must change. The key to this change will be flexible insti-
nonmarket approaches to improving demand articulation
tutional arrangements that encourage dynamic, rapid
and organizational interfaces. They include investment in
responses to changing circumstances from public research
formal mechanisms that provide stakeholder input to
organizations.
research organizations, more participatory mechanisms
This TN examines specific investments in key design
that bring researchers and farmers together to solve prob-
elements and approaches in three innovation contexts
lems, innovation platforms that address larger, more
(box 4.5) similar to those discussed in the module overview.
complex challenges with diverse actors, commercialization
It focuses on key investments in articulating demand (iden-
programs that move research into the marketplace, and
tifying the needs of different user groups for the knowledge
financing mechanisms that encourage collaborative
and information produced by research organizations) and
research. Careful adaptation to the specific innovation
designing organizational interfaces (modalities that help
contexts, strategies, and mechanisms is prerequisite for
transform this knowledge and information into socially and
success.
economically relevant goods and services).
Research systems have undergone any number of
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
reforms, ranging from rebuilding after a crisis to redesign-
Agricultural research needs to be examined within the ing more complex and advanced systems. Little evidence
broader analytical framework of an innovation system, points to which reforms actually work well in different types
which means recognizing that innovation in agricultural of research organizations and how these reforms might ulti-
development may occur in collaboration with, separately mately affect agricultural productivity and poverty. Without
from, or even in spite of agricultural research organiza- sufficient evidence, it is often difficult to provide conclusive
tions. The challenge is to make public research organiza- insights into the returns on investing in large-scale reforms
tions more responsive, dynamic, and competitive within of research systems. The next best option is to examine
277
Box 4.5 The Three Innovation Contexts
(1) Agriculture-based countries. In these countries, guide the contribution of agricultural research to
farmers have limited access to agricultural markets, the wider innovation system. Many developing
which in many cases do not function well. Most countries in South Asia, East Asia and the Pacific, the
countries in sub-Saharan Africa are in this cate- Middle East, and North Africa are in this category.
gory. In agriculture-based countries, research (3) Mature innovation countries. These countries
organizations must develop an interface with have innovation systems in which agricultural
their clients—primarily small-scale farmers, markets function relatively efficiently and farmers
extension systems, and government decision are effective market players. Most countries in Latin
makers—and with the rest of the national, America and the Caribbean and many in Europe
regional, and global research system. The private and Central Asia are in this category. In transform-
sector engages mostly in licensing technologies to ing and mature countries, research organizations
public breeding programs, multiplying improved should take greater notice of market demand and
seed developed by public breeding programs, dis- rely on market-based approaches to guide their
tributing inputs such as chemical fertilizer, or pro- contribution to the wider innovation system.
viding other small-scale and localized agricultural Research organizations are required to interface
products and services. with a wider set of clients—smallholders and com-
(2) Transforming countries. Transforming countries mercial producers, diverse private sector actors
host innovation systems in which agricultural mar- (input suppliers, processors, wholesalers, retailers,
kets are expanding and developing. A subset of industry associations, exporters), other service
farmers gain from good connections to markets. providers, and consumers—to create venues for
Transforming countries can be characterized by an them to express their needs and align national pri-
increased reliance on market-based approaches to orities to research agendas.
Source: Authors, based on World Bank (2007).
different reform processes to understand the impact path- Table 4.2 summarizes the approaches, their purposes,
ways through which they are expected to work. and the key knowledge assets used and exchanged as part of
each approach. The approaches or mechanisms can be
selected and combined to fit the particular need for innova-
INVESTMENT NEEDED
tion in a given context.
This note describes nonmarket and market-based approaches
to investment, starting with approaches that fit particularly
well with agriculture-based contexts and moving to more Strengthening information sharing and
commercial, market-oriented approaches. The note does demand articulation in research systems
through formal coordination organizations,
not provide an exhaustive list of investment mechanisms
enhanced communication, and ICTs
but features the mechanisms that are most relevant for
developing countries: In many countries, formal organizations facilitate regular
exchanges of information and identify research prior-
1. Strengthening information sharing and demand articu- ities. These organizations include committees, agencies,
lation in research systems through formal coordination and other formal bodies that obtain farmers’ input on
organizations, enhanced communication, and ICTs. research results (for example, their opinions of the per-
2. Promoting greater participation of farmers and other formance of new cultivars), on longer-term priorities for
clients in technology development processes. research and/or competitive research funds, and on the
3. Technology transfer and commercialization approaches. wider policy issues associated with agricultural production
4. Financing mechanisms for multistakeholder approaches. and markets.
278 AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
The public sector often leads and manages the process particularly fit agriculture-based contexts and tend to
of setting up these formal organizations. Often they focus on consultation and receiving farmers’ input on
include representatives of farmers, extension services, the research results.
research system, and ideally other actors in the public sec- Organizations that operate at the national level use a
tor, private sector, and civil society. Both centralized and more sophisticated set of tools for priority setting aside
decentralized approaches are applied. Organizations at the from stakeholder consultations, including tools for scenario
provincial/zonal level, such as the Research Extension– and technology foresight, information databases, and M&E
Farmer–Input–Linkage System in Nigeria or the Research of research programs. Examples include the Senegal Agri-
and Extension Linkage Committees in Ghana (box 4.6), cultural Services and Producer Organizations Project
Table 4.2 Approaches to Strengthening the Articulation of Demand and Interfaces with the Agricultural Research
System in Agriculture-Based, Transforming, and Mature Innovation Contexts
Approach Purpose Key assets Examples (sources)
Formal Information exchange, Scientific information; Agriculture-based: Research Extension–Farmer–Input–Linkage System
coordination priority setting, extension and advisory (REFILS) in Nigeria (Koyenikan 2008); Research and Extension
organizations coordination, services Linkage Committees (REALCs) in Ghana (World Bank and IFPRI
fund allocation 2010); Senegal Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations
Project
Transforming and urban: Fund governance and national
research/innovation councils or forums
Communication Share information; See Information and Communication Technologies for Agriculture
and ICT demand articulation Sourcebook (World Bank 2011, forthcoming).
Participatory Engage farmers in Scientific information; Participatory plant breeding (Sperling et al. 2001; Morris and Bellon
research research priority extension services; 2004)
setting, selection, capacity/methodology Central America Learning Alliance (Faminow, Carter, and Lundy
testing, and in participatory 2009); CIALs in Colombia, Honduras, Ecuador, Bolivia, and
experimentation approach Nicaragua (CIAT 2006; Quiros et al. 2004)
Codesign Engage diverse stake- Scientific and local Liu (1997); Almekinders, Beukema, and Tromp (2009); Hocdé et al.
approaches holders in the entire information; (2009); Bernet et al. (2006, 2008)
R&D cycle capacity in codesign
approach
Innovation Promote co-innovation; Public and private Agriculture: Civil society partnerships: Papa Andina (Thiele et al.
platforms exchange information; technologies; capacity to forthcoming; Devaux et al. 2009, 2010; Horton et al. 2010; Smith
identify opportunities reach commercial and and Chataway 2007)
and set priorities; underserved markets; Transforming: Agricultural innovation networks in Argentina (Ekboir
promote policy private financing; farmer- and Parellada 2002; Trigo et al. 2009), Bolivia (Monge et al. 2008),
change private sector-policy Mexico (Ekboir et al. 2009), Andean South America (Devaux et al.
maker linkages 2009, 2010; Horton et al. 2010), and the Netherlands (Klerkx,
Aarts, and Leeuwis 2010); Research consortiums: CLAYUCA on
cassava (Patiño and Best 2002; see IAP 5 in module 1)
Urban: Netherlands (Janssen and Braunschweig 2003; Klerkx and
Leeuwis 2009a)
International and regional research networks: CGIAR, FARA, ASARECA,
APAARI
Consortiums Australia; NAIP India (IAP 2)
Technology Acquire technology Scientific information and Agriculture: Material transfer agreements between international and
transfer tools; capacity for national research centers for wheat improvement (Dubin and
dealing with international Brennan 2010; Louwaars et al. 2005) and biotechnology (Byerlee
agreements and Fischer 2002)
Urban: Agricultural biotechnology (Byerlee and Fischer 2002);
drought-tolerant maize research (AATF 2011)
(Table continues on the following page)
MODULE 4: THEMATIC NOTE 1: DESIGNING AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH LINKAGES WITHIN AN AIS FRAMEWORK 279
Table 4.2 Approaches to Strengthening the Articulation of Demand and Interfaces with the Agricultural Research
System in Agriculture-Based, Transforming, and Mature Innovation Contexts (continued)
Approach Purpose Key assets Examples (sources)
Commercialization Commercialize Public technologies; capacity Transforming: ICSRISAT Hybrid Parents Research Consortia for
programs public research to commercialize new sorghum and pearl millet (Gowda et al. 2004; Pray and Nagarajan
products 2009); Sustainable Commercialization of Seeds in Africa (SCOSA)
(Jones 2006)
Urban: Cooperative R&D agreements (Day-Rubenstein and Fuglie
2000); Plant genetic IP management (Louwaars et al. 2005)
Public-private Develop new products Scientific information, tools, East Coast fever vaccine development (Smith 2005; Spielman 2009);
research and materials; managerial agricultural research (Spielman, Hartwich, and von Grebmer
partnerships capacity 2010); see also IAP 2 in module 6
Science parks and Develop new products Scientific information and CIAT and ICRISAT (Spielman, Hartwich, and von Grebmer 2010);
business tools; managerial capacity; see also TN 3 and IAP 1 in module 5
incubators private and public capital
University-industry Promote co-innovation; Public technologies; capacity Agricultural biotechnology (Ervin et al. 2003)
research commercialize public to commercialize new
collaborations research products
Alternative Farmer-funded research; Financing from financial Competitive grants and innovation funds (World Bank 2006, 2010;
funding finance research markets and donors; Gill and Carney 1999); Research prize schemes (Masters 2003);
mechanisms specialized scientific farmer levies (Klerkx and Leeuwis 2009b); market segmentation
services schemes (Kolady and Lesser 2008; Lybbert 2002)
Source: Authors.
Note: APAARI = Asia Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions; ASARECA = Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East-
ern and Central Africa; CIALS = Local agricultural research committees; CGIAR = Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research;
CLAYUCA = Latin American and Caribbean Consortium to Support Cassava Research and Development; FARA = Forum for Agricultural Research in
Africa.
Box 4.6 Research-Extension-Linkage Committees in Ghana: Experience and Lessons
In Ghana, Research-Extension-Linkage Committees research grant scheme was based on the RELCs’ iden-
(RELCs) include producers, researchers, and extension tification of farmers’ problems. Thirteen research proj-
agents from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture ects from seven regions were approved for funding.
(MoFA). The committees facilitate dialogue and elicit Despite this effort at planning from the farm level
better guidance from producers about local research up, the RELCs proved ineffective in strengthening links
and extension efforts. Five RELCs were piloted, one in between research and others in the AIS. Funding for
each of the country’s major agroecological zones, implementing RELC initiatives has been limited, partly
under the World Bank–funded Agricultural Services because responsibility for allocating operating funds is
Project. Eventually the committees were expanded to divided between the national research institute (the
cover each of Ghana’s 10 regions. Each regional RELC Council for Scientific and Industrial Research) and
has 15 members, including two representatives of MoFA. Perhaps owing to these financial constraints, the
farmer organizations, one representative from a non- RELCs have not engaged greater numbers of farmers
governmental organization, one representative of and end users and have had little influence on the
agribusiness, and representatives from research and research agenda. Sustainable financing for farmers’ and
extension.a Under the Agricultural Services Project, end users’ participation in the RELCs is likely to have
the second call for proposals from the competitive made them more effective.
Source: World Bank 2007; Riikka Rajalahti, personal communication.
a. According to the project’s 2002 procedure manual.
280 AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
(box 4.7), research councils (module 1, TN 1), and compet- Promoting participation of farmers and
itive funds (module 5, TN 2). other actors in technology development
Improved awareness of research programs, results, and Participatory research approaches, codesign, and innova-
applications—among research partners (national, interna- tion platforms offer pathways for farmers and other clients
tional) and other stakeholders, including clients—are to develop agricultural technology with researchers. The
important for articulating demand in increasingly decen- next sections discuss these approaches and specific corre-
tralized AISs and developing a platform for information sponding investments. The concluding discussion focuses
sharing and collaboration. The key investment elements on the potential for research consortiums to strengthen
include development of a communications strategy and links between research and other actors in the AIS.
program; capacity building for staff on communications
and ICTs; hardware and software for collecting and storing Participatory research approaches. Participatory
data, and a telecommunications and Internet platform. For approaches identify farmers’ demands and bring farmers’
details and examples, see World Bank (2011). knowledge as well as researchers’ knowledge to bear on
Box 4.7 Lessons from Senegal’s Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations Project
The Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations the National Fund for Agricultural Research
Project (PASAOP) strengthens end-users’ demand for (FNRAA).
services and public research institutions’ ability to meet ■ Engage producer organizations in decision making
their demands. In its first phase (1999–2006), PASAOP as genuine advocates of proposals. Producers also
established a network of producer organizations in chair the management committee of FNRAA to
142 of 320 rural council areas, along with decentral- ensure that research programs are relevant to their
ized, demand-driven agricultural services. In its second needs.
phase (2006–11), the project further strengthens the ■ Link producers through a network of rural consul-
institutional framework, extends the coverage of agri- tative forums (CLCOPs) in 152 rural council areas
cultural advisory services nationwide, supports the so producers contribute fully to defining, imple-
emergence of private service providers, strengthens menting, and evaluating research and extension
research capacity and focus, and further empowers programs. Producer organizations have also estab-
producer organizations, while increasing their social lished and manage their own Demand Driven Rural
accountability and representation. Both project phases Services Fund, which allocates resources to micro-
have built on the following approaches: projects prepared by producer organizations.
■ Restore the focus of ministries active in agriculture on Benefits
their core public functions: policy formulation, mon- To date, PASAOP has helped improve the quality and
itoring, and evaluation. Create specific directorates selling price of groundnuts, level and quality of com-
for policy analysis, forecasts, and statistics. Decentral- munity seed stocks, beneficiaries’ incomes (12 percent
ize services with the creation of regional directorates. higher), and nonfarm household income. Producer sat-
■ Replace the traditional technology transfer model isfaction with services is 80 percent against a target of
with demand-driven support. Decentralized advisory
100 percent. Food security increased among 62 percent
services are managed jointly (including planning and
of producers against a target of 60 percent. In producer
evaluation) by a semipublic National Agency for
Agricultural and Rural Advisory Services (ANCAR), organizations, 45 percent of members adopted at least
producer organizations, and private agribusiness. one technology in their production systems against a tar-
■ Establish transparent, competitive financing for get of 50 percent. The agricultural research system gen-
research on agriculture and agroprocessing through erated 22 technologies. Cofinancing of FNRAA by other
(Box continues on the following page)
MODULE 4: THEMATIC NOTE 1: DESIGNING AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH LINKAGES WITHIN AN AIS FRAMEWORK 281
Box 4.7 Lessons from Senegal’s Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations Project (continued)
stakeholders (government, other donors, commodity ■ Two channels for research proposals (from
organizations, and the private sector) is expected to researchers and from users) provided flexibility.
reach 30 percent. They made it possible to respond to producers’
immediate concerns as well as opportunities identi-
Lessons fied by scientists.
■ Complement core funding with competitive fund-
■ Invest in producer organizations. Local institu- ing. Together, these two mechanisms guarantee that
tions can responsibly and efficiently implement institutional development continues. Funding for
their activities and limit the need for a project to operating costs goes directly to research teams work-
establish an implementation unit. Producer fed- ing on projects relevant to users, to whom they are
erations with adequate project support improved accountable. Core funding for developing human
their efficiency and internal governance (quality resources is essential to elicit relevant proposals of
of records, meetings, actions taken, satisfaction good quality.
of members). Demand-driven funds that sup- ■ Specific pro-poor strategies must be designed into
ported physical investments and equipment were the project. The project’s second phase seems to
more effective than those focused only on soft have had a greater impact in richer households than
investments. poorer households.
Sources: Diaw, Samba, and Arcand 2009 on impact assessment of Phase 2 of PASAOP; World Bank Project Appraisal Documents
for Phases 1 and 2 of PSAOP; World Bank Implementation and Completion Report for PSAOP.
Note: PSAOP = Programme d’Appui aux Services Agricoles et aux Organisations Paysannes; ANCAR = Agence Nationale de
Conseil Agricole et Rural; FNRAA = Fonds National pour la Recherche Agricole et Agro-Alimentaire; CLCOP = Cadre Local de
Consultation des Organisations de Producteurs.
agricultural problems. Farmers (and others) participate in government officials in the iterative, adaptive, and flexible
monitoring and evaluating the results. Some participatory process of developing innovations. The core principles of
research is done in farmers’ fields. This approach is codesign include joint planning, implementation, and
particularly suited to agriculture-based countries in which decision making related to all activities that foster
resources are at a premium and farmers are often isolated innovation; close coordination among stakeholders at all
from others in the AIS. The approach allows research strategic and operational levels; and combining scientific,
organizations to complement their programs in cultivar other technical, and local knowledge and other resources.
improvement and crop management with work on more Codesign is often used when problems are complex
integrated and natural resource management issues, such as and/or the scale involved is challenging. Examples include
common resource management of pastures, shared water the shared management of a dwindling natural resource
resources, fisheries, and communal forests, and incorporate held in common (a forest or water source, for example); the
gender and community-based development perspectives period of adjustment to new policies or market operations;
through farmer organizations, forest user groups, and local the development of shared understanding of problems and
savings and credit associations. their solutions, when there is potential to do so; and prob-
lems for which previously designed solutions or scientific
Codesign approaches. Codesign approaches (discussed in and technical knowledge are not available. Given the issues
detail in TN 4) seek better articulation between the supply of scale involved in such a large group of actors and their
of research (from researchers) and demand for research numerous concerns, codesign relies on at least some of
(from users). Researchers engage systematically with a the concerned stakeholders to have the experience and
heterogeneous set of actors, which may include farmers, skills to facilitate, coordinate, and negotiate multistake-
input suppliers, traders, processors, researchers, NGOs, and holder efforts (module 1). The Papa Andina program
282 AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
implemented in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru successfully need the skills involved for organizing actors, coordinat-
combined and applied codesign and innovation platform ing activities, and consulting, negotiating, monitoring,
approaches (TN 4, box 4). and evaluating.
■ Invest in other partners’ skills. Farmers, universities,
Innovation platforms. Innovation platforms (or net- NGOs, the private sector, and others will need skills in
works and forums) assemble stakeholders to share infor- designing partnerships, building trust, and effective
mation, identify opportunities, discuss problems, and agree communication. Farmer organizations often need help
on joint activities related to a shared interest, often with a in learning how to articulate their demands, establish
specific commodity/cluster focus. They usually provide a links to local government, and engage in social learning
means for many participants to exchange opinions but tend and experimentation to innovate rather than simply
to imply less commitment to addressing the needs demonstrate or accept technological “fixes.”
identified, compared to codesign approaches, consortiums, ■ Invest in bringing people together. Operational funds
or competitive grant schemes. Innovation platforms focus are needed to run committees and cover the costs of face-
on all kinds of innovation, not necessarily research alone, to-face, facilitated group meetings (coordination, facili-
and they may be led by actors other than researchers. Even tation) and the collective action that are inherent to
so, they present an important venue and opportunity for collaboration at all stages of the codesign process.
many research organizations to engage with other AIS ■ Invest in innovation brokers. A good facilitator or a
actors, improve their understanding of how they can best project team is required to take an initiative forward.
fit into the AIS, and develop partnerships. In transforming Innovation brokers can limit the failures that occur
countries, innovation platforms are likely to be more when different interests and conflicting agendas frus-
mature than in agriculture-based countries, where public trate initiatives designed to foster partnership. They
support and funding are prerequisites for success. The key can also reduce competition between the public and
assets or contributions by each actor in the interface may private sectors, creating a more coordinated approach
be explicit (for example, they may consist of scientific or to problem solving. Innovation brokers do not often
market information, tools, and materials, both proprietary emerge of their own accord. Their facilitation role
and nonproprietary) or more implicit (such as the needs to be funded, supported, and linked to activities
capacity to manage complex projects, move technologies in research, extension, and the broader innovation
through regulatory processes, or market and distribute system.
new products). ■ Invest in incentives for participation. These incentives
Examples of innovation platforms include the Central often take the form of funding that makes partnerships
America Learning Alliance, a multistakeholder network that work: operational costs and costs of joint R&D.
promotes rural enterprise development (IAP 4), and the ■ Invest in value chain analysis and development. Invest-
innovation network that promoted zero-tillage cultivation ments in value chain development are a key entry
practices in Argentina (module 1, IAP 1). Papa Andina point for research organizations in transforming countries
(TN 4) and the client-oriented research management to contribute solutions that enhance the benefits (and
approach (box 4.22 in TN 5) apply both nonmarket and lower the costs) to actors along the value chain. Tools
market-based strategies. such as value chain analyses—including participatory
approaches to such analyses—can identify constraints
Investment needs in participatory and codesign and market opportunities at different stages of the value
approaches and innovation platforms. Specific invest- chain as well as entry points for support.
ments improve the likelihood that these approaches and
platforms will function more successfully. Research and innovation consortiums. Consortiums
are more formal mechanisms than networks or innovation
■ Invest in researchers’ capacity to work in innovation platforms. They bring together diverse partners around a
systems. Researchers must have the capacity to diagnose specific and common problem requiring research
innovation systems and the ability to participate in and investment, jointly define R&D strategies, and finance and
sometimes facilitate group processes involving people implement the subsequent research-innovation project.
with diverse stakes in a commodity or value chain. Aside They often—but do not necessarily—focus on applied
from their technical and scientific expertise, they will R&D. Consortiums often require multidisciplinary teams
MODULE 4: THEMATIC NOTE 1: DESIGNING AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH LINKAGES WITHIN AN AIS FRAMEWORK 283
consisting of private, public, civil society, and producer Technology transfer and commercialization
actors. Most consortiums have a lead organization, and approaches to integrating private actors
each partner has a specific role and commits resources. Technology transfer is the foundation of many research pro-
Contributions from a range of actors, including private grams in agriculture-based countries and prevalent in trans-
enterprises, cover various aspects of R&D (demand forming and urbanized countries. Transforming and more
identification, R&D investment, technology transfer and mature innovation contexts increasingly rely on formal
adoption). Consortiums are often funded through com- transfers of technology from public research organizations,
petitive grants (which match funds to resources mobilized universities, and the private sector. Such technology may
by partners) for a limited period. require IP protection and/or other legal agreements that
Australia (box 4.8) and the Netherlands (box 1.14 in transfer property rights to commercial or international
module 1, TN 1) are examples of mature urban innovation partners. Many of the technology transfer and commercial-
contexts where a consortium approach helped R&D meet ization approaches in these countries build on approaches
specific challenges. Consortium approaches have shown introduced earlier, but they require a higher level of capac-
promise in transforming countries; see the discussions of ity with respect to advanced science and technology,
approaches in India (IAP 2) and Chile (IAP 3). complex regulatory systems, IP protection, sophisticated
Box 4.8 Design of the Australian National Agricultural Innovation System
Australia’s AIS is one of the most dynamic and success- demand to academic centers of excellence in joint
ful in the world. Direct engagement of producers problem-solving.
through their financing and oversight of commodity- Traditionally Australia has invested relatively heav-
focused (mainly applied) research was the primary ily in agricultural research through a blend of public
mechanism for gaining insight into the needs and and private (producer levy) funds, which were largely
demands of key user-groups. Sharpened priority set- used by federal and state government agencies with
ting, increasingly involving ex ante economic analysis some producer oversight through farmer membership
of competing proposals along with ex post impact on various advisory committees and an institutional
assessments, has been the hallmark of the approach. watchdog (the Productivity Commission for institu-
Agricultural research intensity has been maintained at tional learning and ensuring accountability). Producer
nearly 0.04 of agricultural GDP, among the highest lev- funding was matched equally by federal government
els in the world, and total factor productivity for agri- support of up to 1 percent of respective commodity
culture has been close to 2 percent per year since the GDP.
major reforms in the agricultural research system A key lesson is that a charismatic change leader with
began in the mid-1980s. a relevant vision is critical. In this case, it was a minis-
A key feature of the reforms is the creation of ter of primary industries, who was insightful and
Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs), which are joint effective (originally a farmer, then a research agricul-
agreements between research providers to undertake tural economist and a politician). The strong (albeit
R&D in particular areas. CRCs must comprise at least less than perfect) accountability mechanisms built
one Australian end-user (either from the private, into the new processes, such as the CRCs, surely
public, or community sector) and one Australian helped greatly. A major lesson for other countries
institution of higher education (or research institute is that, given the inherent complexity of the AIS, it is
affiliated with a university). These institutions work critical for public policy analysts to keep pursuing
for a limited period (generally seven years) to resolve their understanding of the realities and opportuni-
technological problems in a multidisciplinary fashion. ties in agricultural research as it evolves and to keep
The involvement of universities and their disciplinary a sharp eye on the effectiveness of institutional
expertise is especially important for linking industry arrangements.
Source: Jock Anderson, personal communication.
284 AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
markets and market infrastructure, and international trade technology transfer offices, other pathways to technology
considerations. transfer may be applied (summarized in box 4.9).
The capacity to manage formal technology transfer Some technology transfer offices also host incubators to
mechanisms is critical to engage effectively in public- help technology-oriented firms (often established by
private partnerships and, increasingly, to transfer technolo- researchers) commercialize new technology. Incubators
gies that can be disseminated through market channels. provide hands-on management assistance, access to
Technology transfer offices are special units affiliated with a financing, business and technical support services, shared
research organization or university with a mandate to iden- office space, and access to equipment. For details, see mod-
tify and protect as well as facilitate the use and commer- ule 5, TN 3.
cialization of research results. These offices can expand the
recognition of the research organization’s work (thereby Science park approaches. Science parks (also called tech-
strengthening public perceptions of its value), move tech- nology or research parks) are a mechanism for fostering
nologies to end-users (seed companies, farmers) on an public-private partnerships in more mature innovation
exclusive or nonexclusive basis, and generate revenues to contexts.1 Science parks are organizations managed by
fund continuous research. specialized professionals, whose main aim is to increase local
Technology transfer offices can provide special expertise wealth by promoting a culture of innovation and improving
on IP protection and/or legal agreements and contribute to the competitiveness of local businesses and knowledge-based
formal transfers of technology from public organizations institutions. A science park stimulates and manages the flow
or universities or from the private sector to commercial or of knowledge and technology among universities, R&D
international partners (see box 6.20 in TN 3 of module 6 institutions, companies, and markets; facilitates the creation
and TN 5 in module 5. Several examples of this interface and growth of innovation-based companies through
have been used successfully to disseminate hybrid parent incubation and spin-off processes; and provides other value-
lines of pearl millet and sorghum in India, with substantial added services together with high-quality space and facilities.
improvement in the availability of improved seed and Science parks function best where there is investment
yields for small-scale farmers in semiarid and arid tropics capital from the private sector, industrial engineering
(Gowda et al. 2004; Pray and Nagarajan 2009). Aside from expertise, and a sufficient knowledge and technology base.
Box 4.9 Technology Transfer Pathways
Technology transfer agreements. The classic example Commercialization programs. These programs cre-
of technology transfer agreements is the formal ate windows for private companies or entrepreneurs to
exchange of breeding materials for crop improvement, access public research outputs and move them into
typically from international research centers or univer- commercial use. Often this approach is used to move
sities in industrialized countries to national research improved breeding material from public research
organizations in developing countries. Scientists and organizations to private seed companies. For example,
research managers in developing countries require the Hybrid Parents Research Consortiums of the Inter-
additional skills to understand the increasingly com- national Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
plex material transfer and intellectual property agree- Tropics have provided more than 35 Indian companies
ments that govern technology transfer; they must also with improved sorghum, pearl millet, and pigeonpea
expand their linkages to international and regional sci- lines for commercial use. The program for Sustainable
ence networks. Great success has been achieved with Commercialization of Seeds in Africa, the Eastern and
technology transfer programs (for example, for wheat Southern Africa Seed Alliance, and the West Africa Seed
and rice improvement in Asia, NERICA rice in Africa, Alliance are also designed to improve the private sec-
and orange-fleshed sweet potato in several postconflict tor’s access to breeding materials and strengthen its
countries in Africa). seed marketing capacity.
Source: Authors.
MODULE 4: THEMATIC NOTE 1: DESIGNING AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH LINKAGES WITHIN AN AIS FRAMEWORK 285
As discussed in the module overview, they are a useful nexus stakeholders (see module 6, IAP 1 for a matching grant
between the private sector and research institutes (particu- scheme to develop agribusiness in Zambia). Matching
larly universities), taking promising research products to grants require a financial commitment from the beneficiar-
market and providing backstopping for product modifica- ies (farmers, entrepreneurs) and therefore may be more
tion. Their diverse services include facilitating the creation effective than competitive research grants at enhancing the
of public-private partnerships for research, providing infra- dissemination and use of knowledge and technology. They
structure, and providing other services, including business are also better suited for funding overall innovation and
development. The scope of this note does not allow the activities requiring private sector engagement.
numerous science parks to be discussed in detail (including Both competitive research grants and matching grants
China’s agricultural demonstration and technology parks; involve short- to medium-term funding arrangements.
CIAT’s Agronatura, and France’s Agropolis); see module 5, They should complement, never substitute for, stable
IAP 1 on the incubator affiliated with the Agri-Science Park funding for long-term research, private sector develop-
of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi- ment, human resource development, and infrastructure
Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). maintenance and development.
Financing mechanisms for multistakeholder POTENTIAL BENEFITS
approaches
The immediate benefits of these investments are straight-
Transforming and mature countries often demonstrate a forward. Research organizations gain greater relevance and
higher level of complexity and capacity when it comes to responsiveness, ultimately leading to greater impact on agri-
funding research organizations and activities, especially cultural development, food security, and poverty reduction.
where functioning markets exist alongside an organized agri- In many agriculture-based countries, these impacts are
cultural sector. Aside from public core funding for research, a measured in terms of increased yields (output per unit of
great number of funding mechanisms or other arrangements land) and production (total output).
(such as levies on sales, public-private partnerships, cofinanc- Where markets operate with some degree of efficiency,
ing with farmer organizations and trade associations,2 R&D potential benefits may include higher returns to crop cul-
tax deductions, joint ventures, or research partnerships, see tivation (Kaaria et al. 2009; Thiele et al. forthcoming;
IAP 3 on Chile) incentivize and reduce the transaction and Devaux et al. 2009, 2010; Cavatassi et al. 2009). Potential
risk management costs associated with collaborative research benefits also extend to improvements in gender aspects of
(for a summary on financing agricultural innovation, see agricultural development, such as changes in the house-
module 5, TN 6). This TN briefly describes the two main hold assets owned by men and women.
mechanisms—competitive research grants and matching Beyond the immediate benefits to productivity, output,
grants—which are described in detail in module 5, TN 2. and welfare, these approaches carve out a niche for research
Competitive research grants are a common mechanism for organizations within a rapidly changing agricultural land-
funding basic, strategic, and applied research through compe- scape. They provide research organizations with new clients
tition based on scientific peer review. The aim is to focus sci- and markets as well as access to new resources and assets. In
entists’ efforts on high-priority research or new fields of urbanized systems particularly, an improved interface
expertise, improve the relevance and quality of agricultural between research and other AIS actors may accelerate the
research, promote research partnerships, and leverage research rate of innovation by bringing the best science to bear on
resources (from the public or private sector). See IAP 2 for an real problems and ensuring that sufficient resources are
example of a competitive research grant scheme to promoting allocated to solving problems. The research system will
multistakeholder consortiums in India (World Bank 2010). become more responsive to the demands of society because
Funds for competitive grant schemes usually come from the users such as farmers and consumers have many different
public sector and are managed by a public or semiau- pathways to express their needs.
tonomous organization. Competitive grants have been used to
fund consortiums working on specific research themes.
POLICY ISSUES
Matching grants are used for financing near-market tech-
nology generation, technology transfer and adoption, or Most issues related to the policies and governance struc-
business-related innovation, often by including multiple tures that enable research institutions to participate more
286 AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
fully and successfully in the AIS are detailed in LESSONS LEARNED
module 6. A few key issues should be mentioned here,
The following lessons related to designing agricultural
however.
research linkages within an AIS are grouped into general les-
sons, lessons on the approaches that are best in particular
■ Sustainability requires managerial and structural innovation contexts (agriculture-based, transforming, and
reforms. Research organizations often organize their per- mature urban countries), and lessons related to particular
sonnel and assets by discipline, but this form of organi- mechanisms linking research to other AIS actors.
zation makes it costly to bring personnel and assets
together to resolve problems in agricultural value chains. General lessons:
Management and structural reforms are vital to over-
come this barrier; see the discussion in TN 5. ■ While large structural reforms are a good investment,
■ Institutional change and reform require stable, long- smaller, more evolutionary, and incremental approaches
term support. Efforts to encourage research organiza- to systemic change sometimes work best. Invest in
tions to interface with other user-groups and respond to stepwise efforts to engage diverse user-groups, define
their demands require considerable time, effort, and problems collectively, build joint action plans, develop
resources. Policy makers must commit the time, space, internal capacity, and learn through iterative processes.
and funding to implement reforms and build the related Such interventions sometimes involve only short-lived
capacity. projects, marginalized administrative units, short-term
■ The participation of civil society, including women, bridge financing, or small team initiatives, but they fos-
may require specific policy initiatives. Farmer associa- ter responsiveness, dynamism, and competitiveness.
tions and community-based organizations cannot Often they are more grounded in a specific innovation
operate in their members’ interests in an environment challenge.
hostile to grassroots and women’s participation. Poli- ■ Experiences from industrialized countries can prove
cies to foster equitable participation and social mobi- instructive. For example, Australia’s approach to formaliz-
lization can (for example) provide operational funds to ing joint public and industry funding for its rural research
build marginalized groups’ capacity to participate, program, and its regular and broadly consultative review
cover the costs of their participation, and require that of progress, could be effective in other contexts.
financing mechanisms have specific criteria to promote ■ Invest in a mix of integrated approaches. The appropriate
inclusiveness. mix depends on the specific circumstances of a country’s
■ Are public funds used where they are most needed? A agricultural research system, but it could involve a combi-
value chain approach with a focus on multiple stake- nation of formal research/innovation governance arrange-
holders can lead public research organizations to serve ments, participatory or codesign research approaches, and
those who need their services least. Research organiza- more commercially oriented approaches and financing
tions typically struggle with such trade-offs. For exam- mechanisms.
ple, should they develop technologies for high-potential ■ Approach capacity strengthening more comprehen-
agricultural areas where the gains are likely to be high, sively and iteratively than in the past. Bench scientists
or should they concentrate on technologies suited to require management training to interact effectively with
both high- and low-potential areas? Decisions on how other AIS stakeholders and ultimately improve the qual-
to address these tradeoffs require strong leadership ity and impact of their research. Develop courses and
from policy makers to ensure that public funds are used learning materials based on experimentation and rigor-
as intended. ous assessments of approaches that work or do not work
■ Foster a conducive investment environment. The key in different contexts. To create a critical mass of
policy issue for a mature innovation system is to create a researchers with skills suited to the AIS, integrate partic-
climate that supports private sector participation and ipatory processes and innovation network techniques
development. Policies are needed for public research to into agricultural education systems.
contribute to private participation (through sound regu- ■ Organizations also need new capacities and incentives to
latory frameworks, for example) and also to ensure that reform. The ability of researchers and research organiza-
women and the poor are included in the activities and tions to leverage constructive interactions at some lower
benefits of innovation. experimental level depends on the signals—authorization,
MODULE 4: THEMATIC NOTE 1: DESIGNING AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH LINKAGES WITHIN AN AIS FRAMEWORK 287
encouragement, or financing—from higher levels. In Lessons related to specific mechanisms:
designing and implementing strategies to facilitate inter-
actions and linkages, incentives and motivating factors ■ Pay careful attention to the design of multistakeholder
among staff and leaders of research organizations (and approaches and platforms, because they do not work in
other organizations with which they interact) must be all contexts. These platforms need good facilitation to
assessed with care. Organizations need to enhance support bring stakeholders (with their potentially divisive power
for risk-taking managers and collaborative teams experi- relationships, capacity differences, and levels of interest)
menting with learning approaches—but coupled with together. To sustain these programs, enhance negotiation
periodic external evaluations. Change of the kind and conflict management, improve the representation of
described here requires strong, long-term leadership and poor and marginalized farmers, fully fund communica-
political commitment in addition to incentives. tion and knowledge management, and clearly define
roles and functions of advisory committees, secretariats,
Lessons specific to particular innovation contexts: and members. Engagement of high-level policy makers is
often crucial.
■ In agriculture-based countries, improve researchers’ ■ It takes time to form and sustain networks or platforms.
responsiveness to farmers’ needs and increase access to These interfaces require clear priorities, roles, and mile-
global science and technology through a diversified, stones. Substantive capacity strengthening of all partners
cross-cutting approach to participatory research and in partnership design, trust-building, and effective com-
technology transfer. Strengthen individuals’ capacity to munication is required for these approaches to work,
use participatory approaches by building skills in facili- along with incentives for participation.
tation, negotiation, conflict prevention and resolution, ■ Consortium approaches have the advantage of a
building relationships and trust, and developing the rules problem-oriented focus. This focus permits the defini-
of the game. Broaden research organizations’ access to tion of partners’ objectives, goals, and responsibilities,
technology by expanding their links to international sci- which in turn permits better management and evalua-
ence networks and their understanding of complex tion of the collaborative effort. The disadvantage is that
material transfer and IP agreements. the reason for collaboration ends the moment that the
■ In transforming countries, use combined market/non- problem ceases to need attention.
market approaches (making use of the skills just ■ Innovation brokers play an important role in facili-
described) to engage the private sector more actively tating change in an innovation system. More formal
and encourage opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. approaches to innovation brokering include the use of
Public sector orchestration and financing are key to research coordination councils, committees, and other
addressing transaction costs (of collective action and bodies (see module 1, TN 2).
negotiation, for example), reducing risk, and providing ■ Analyze the pros and cons of new funding mechanisms
incentives. Innovation networks and platforms are vital carefully before introducing them. Matching grants
tools to identify opportunities, set priorities, and influ- may better suit innovation contexts where private sec-
ence the research agenda. tor engagement is crucial and where dissemination
■ In urban countries, policy makers and practitioners can requires significant attention. Competitive research
invest in sophisticated competitive funding mecha- grants can develop high-quality research portfolios,
nisms. The channels through which user groups articu- but they tend to have high operational costs and have
late their needs should be advanced enough to ensure been ineffective in engaging the private sector and
that science, technology, and innovation respond to mar- disseminating knowledge and technology. Small
ket opportunities and that public research organizations research systems may not allow sufficient scope for real
work alongside the private sector and other stakeholders. competition.
288 AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
