A G R I C U LT U R E A N D R U R A L D E V E L O P M E N T
Agricultural Innovation Systems AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
MODULE 6 1
Creating an Enabling Environment for Agricultural Innovation
OV E RV I E W
Johannes Roseboom, Consultant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
he “enabling environment� for agricultural innovation encompasses factors that influence agricultural innovation positively but are controlled by policy domains other than agricultural innovation policy. An agricultural innovation policy seeks coordination with these other domains to ensure that together they enable agricultural innovation. Cross-cutting policy issues affecting agricultural innovation include policies to reduce poverty and sustain the environment, to foster collaboration between the public and private sectors, and to build social capital more generally. Three clusters of enabling factors for agricultural innovation appear to require attention and investment in most developing countries: (1) innovation policy and corresponding governance structures to strengthen the broader framework for agricultural innovation policies; (2) regulatory frameworks that stimulate innovation directly (such as IPRs) or indirectly (standards that stimulate trade) or steer innovation towards certain preferred outcomes (safer food); and (3) accompanying agricultural investments in rural credit, infrastructure, and markets. Innovation policy is a new area, and in most countries the governance structure for innovation is only starting to emerge. A particular challenge is where to assign responsibility for innovation policy within the government structure. Some countries delegate this task to the ministry in
T
charge of science and technology, while others establish a higher-level entity that brings relevant ministries together to coordinate national innovation policy. In most countries, the overall objective of the national innovation policy is to facilitate the transition toward a knowledge economy, resulting in increased competitiveness and sustainable economic growth. A national innovation policy defines the roles and functions of actors and stakeholders within the national innovation system (NIS), provides an overall framework for innovation policies specific to particular sectors, and sets priorities across sectors and technologies. It creates positive conditions for innovation by investing in public goods essential for an innovative knowledge economy. Regulatory frameworks important for agricultural innovation include those for IP; biosafety; and standards and technical regulations related to agricultural health and food safety and quality aspects. Countries will need assistance to develop legislation, assess the options from which they can choose, develop their regulatory agencies, and invest in standards-related infrastructure. Better coordination of agricultural innovation investments with accompanying rural investments should lead to greater synergy and impact. Investments in rural financing systems will adopt a more holistic approach to financial services, including credit, savings, money transfers, leasing, and insurance. Investments in roads and market institutions and
449
infrastructure help to improve agricultural productivity, reduce marketing costs, increase profit margins, and open up new opportunities for innovation. These policies, investments, and regulatory reforms will trigger significant changes, such as improving the access of agricultural products to foreign markets, increasing private investment in agricultural R&D, and fostering the use of more sustainable agricultural practices. Policy measures will be needed to ensure that people are not left behind and make the transition to more promising economic activities. RATIONALE FOR INVESTMENT
A key characteristic of the innovation systems approach is its holistic perspective on innovation as a multifaceted, iterative process that is very much shaped by the context within which it takes place. For that reason, national innovation policies are usually formulated as overarching policies trying to coordinate a wide spectrum of policy domains— science and technology policy, education policy, economic policy, industrial policy, infrastructure policy, taxation policy, and justice policy, among others—in such a way that together they create an environment that enables and stimulates innovation in the most positive way. Such overarching coordination is only possible with strong, high-level political support, often in the person of the prime minister or president chairing the council in charge of national innovation policy. Sector-specific innovation policies (such as the policy for agricultural innovation) more or less replicate the national innovation policy’s overarching and coordinating nature, but they will often have considerably less political clout to influence policies outside their domains. For example, a sector-specific innovation policy will have little influence over the adoption of a tax regime for R&D. Such a matter is more often dealt with at the national level. One problem with the holism of the innovation system approach is that it tends to incorporate its enabling environment. Because innovation systems (or for that matter any soft system) do not exist “out there” as objective entities or realities but rather exist only “in the minds of those who define them” (Daane 2010), there is no natural delineation between what is core to an innovation system and what should be considered its enabling environment. An artificial but potentially practical solution to this problem is to define the “enabling environment” as those factors that influence agricultural innovation positively but that are controlled by policy domains other than the domain of agricultural innovation policy per se. An agricultural innovation policy will
450
have to interact and seek coordination with these other policy domains to ensure that together they enable agricultural innovation in the most positive way. This interaction may possibly lead to collaboration in the form of joint projects or programs, although not necessarily. The agricultural innovation policy landscape
Figure 6.1 sketches the most relevant policy domains shaping agricultural innovation. At the most aggregate level, political stability is by far the most critical, overarching factor for any innovation system. Without such stability, investments in innovation activities (particularly those with long time horizons, such as plant breeding) are too risky to be attractive. Moreover, war and civil unrest often affect the knowledge infrastructure (research stations are destroyed, libraries plundered, and so on) and, by uprooting people, lead to a loss of knowledge and experience of agricultural practices and trade relations. At the same time, it is important to realize that innovation in itself can be very destabilizing, because it comes with what Schumpeter labeled “creative destruction.” New products and new production methods take over from old ones and in that process destroy old jobs, vested interests, and sometimes whole industries. As a result, innovations may encounter much opposition and catalyze social unrest. Creating new opportunities for those who lose their jobs Figure 6.1 Policy Spheres Shaping the Environment for Agricultural Innovation Political stability
Macroeconomic policies
Agricultural policy
Infrastructure policy
Agricultural innovation
Science, technology, and innovation policy
Source: Author.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Education policy
(for example, by offering training to acquire new skills) is one of those measures that should accompany innovation to help reduce friction. At the next level, macroeconomic policies dealing with taxation, exchange rate, market, and trade policies and similar matters can have an important impact on the relative competitiveness of agriculture in regional and global markets. In developing countries, many of these policies work against agriculture. They result in a net taxation of agriculture that hampers agricultural growth and innovation. Economic reform programs for the past twenty-five years have addressed this macroeconomic imbalance with some success (World Bank 2007b), but it remains a cause for concern and policy attention, especially considering that developed countries heavily subsidize agriculture to the detriment of developing countries. Consensus is growing (amid concern over rising food prices) that agriculture has been relatively neglected in developing countries by both donors and governments and that agricultural budgets have to be raised. The economic reform agenda focused initially only on improving the productivity and competitiveness of the agricultural sector. Over the years, however, poverty reduction and environmental sustainability have become equally important objectives. This expanded policy agenda also affects public investment decisions related to agricultural innovation. The big challenge for policy makers is to decide how to handle trade-offs between the different objectives. At the meso level, four policy domains have the most direct influence on agricultural innovation: (1) agriculture; (2) science, technology, and innovation (STI); (3) education; and (4) infrastructure. These domains overlap considerably, and it is not always clear which domain should lead when it comes to investments. For example, agricultural research can be paid out of the agricultural budget or the science and technology budget. The scope of these different policy domains is also usually broader than agricultural innovation per se. An important task for an agricultural innovation policy is to influence and coordinate these policy domains (including investment decisions in those domains) so that they create the best environment for agricultural innovation to prosper. Each policy domain is described in detail in the sections that follow. Agricultural policy. An agricultural policy usually comprises a wide range of topics, including agricultural health, research and extension, input supply, rural credit, land reform and improvement, rural infrastructure, market regulation and development, trade promotion, and sector organizations (farmer organizations, cooperatives,
commodity boards, and the like). Some of these topics fall fully within the agricultural innovation policy orbit— agricultural research and extension, for example—whereas others partially overlap. Coordination between these various topics is important, because many of them complement each other. For example, the lack of rural credit often restrains the exploitation of market opportunities and new technologies. A crucial element in agricultural transformation is farmers’ integration into markets. With farmers’ increasing integration into markets, market institutions (commodity chain organizations are one example) and regulations (such as product and health standards) become more important and require attention and investment. While agriculture-based economies depend on self-sufficiency for food security, urban economies depend on markets (including international markets) for food security. Education policy. Agricultural education and training are core components of an AIS (see module 2), but they are also part of a broader national education policy that plays an enabling role. There is a strong positive correlation between primary education enrollment rates and agricultural productivity. The effectiveness of agricultural extension and training programs depends strongly on the basic skills that farmers acquire through primary education. At the same time, basic educational skills are important for those who seek employment outside agriculture. In many developing countries, vocational education at the secondary level is virtually nonexistent (UNESCO education statistics),1 and job specialization starts only after secondary school. Elsewhere a long tradition of vocational education at the secondary level equips the next generation of farmers with skills and knowledge. Despite the considerable debate about the disadvantages of forcing young people to make career choices early in life, the problem with waiting too long is that most students never reach the tertiary level. Tertiary education usually targets the more specialized jobs in agriculture, which may not necessarily be the best preparation for an all-round farmer (module 2). Promoting the introduction or expansion of vocational training in agriculture at the secondary level should advance agricultural innovation, but it will require many countries to rethink their national education policies. Science, technology, and innovation policy. In recent years, many developing countries—especially middleincome countries—have started to recognize the crucial role of innovation in economic growth and are aiming to
MODULE 6: OVERVIEW
451
make the transition toward a knowledge economy. As a consequence, STI policy is rapidly gaining importance in these countries. This new emphasis on STI significantly affects the public agricultural research and extension services that pre-date STI initiatives by several decades. After many decades of relative isolation within ministries of agriculture, these agencies must now interact with new STI agencies that have a far wider scope that requires agricultural research and extension to compete with nonagricultural topics for resources. Infrastructure policy. Innovation opportunities often depend strongly on infrastructure such as roads, railways, utilities, and irrigation systems. High transportation costs are notorious for cutting heavily into the prices farmers and agribusinesses receive for their products and raising the costs of the agricultural inputs they purchase. When farmers and agribusinesses find it unprofitable to produce for the market, agricultural production often remains below its potential. It is affordable access to markets that makes it worthwhile and feasible to adopt new technologies, specialize, and raise production. The economic impact of lower transportation costs and improved market access can be quite dramatic (see box 6.2 later in this overview). As illustrated in IAP 1 for Zambia, investments in improved feeder roads can be an essential component of efforts targeted at enhancing agricultural innovation, value addition, and competitiveness.
Key enabling factors
The agricultural innovation policy landscape depicted in figure 6.1 comprises a wide range of enabling factors that are critical to agricultural innovation. It is impossible to cover them all, but the more important ones can be clustered as follows: ■
■
■
452
Investments in innovation policy and corresponding governance structures that strengthen the broader framework for an agricultural innovation policy. Investments in regulatory frameworks affecting agricultural innovation, such as IPRs, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, and biosafety regulations, aim to stimulate private actors to invest in innovation, improve the quality and safety of their products, and/or facilitate trade. Accompanying rural investments such as investments in rural credit, rural infrastructure (irrigation, roads, and utilities), and agricultural markets.
PAST EXPERIENCE
Experiences with investments in enabling factors have been quite mixed. Some types of investment have been around for decades (if not centuries—witness rural infrastructure), whereas others have emerged only very recently (biosafety regulations). Hence these interventions have quite different track records, as discussed next. Innovation policy and governance structures
Investment in a national innovation policy and corresponding governance structures strengthens coordination across policy domains on innovation issues, addresses issues relevant across sectors (such as IPRs or tax deductions for innovation), provides a framework for more sector-specific innovation policies (including an agricultural innovation policy), and, not unimportantly, prioritizes public innovation investments across sectors. In many instances, national innovation policy has generated a substantial influx of new ideas and instruments into the agricultural innovation domain, including such concepts as business incubators and risk capital (see module 5). Embedding agricultural innovation policy in the national innovation policy may provoke inevitable complications and frictions, but at the end of the day it should result in a stronger AIS. Innovation policies were first implemented in developed countries in the 1990s and have been emerging in developing countries only in the decade since then. In most countries, innovation policies and their accompanying governance structures are still very much in flux; in fact, the large majority of developing countries, particularly the smaller ones, still lack an innovation policy. In this sense, the historical record of innovation policy is still very short, both in developing and developed countries. Regulatory frameworks
Except for environmental standards, the other three regulatory frameworks (IPRs, SPS standards, and product standards) have been around for decades, if not centuries. The international standardization and mutual recognition of these frameworks have been on the political agenda for quite some time. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, launched in 1883, was one of the first international treaties on IPRs. It has been revised many times and gained numerous signatories since then. Globalization and intensified trade have put increased pressure on countries to adopt these frameworks; the international
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
community supports them strongly, and several international initiatives provide technical assistance and build capacity to implement them.2 One type of IPR that is quite specific to agriculture is plant variety rights (PVRs). In developed countries in particular, PVRs have been instrumental in developing a private seed industry and enabling public plant breeding to be funded through royalties. Only 68 countries are currently members of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)3, indicating an absence of PVR legislation consistent with UPOV standards. Membership is especially weak in Africa and Asia. Considerable debate surrounds the introduction of PVR legislation in developing countries, many of which are under pressure to introduce legislation to meet the deadline
(originally 2005, now 2016) set by the TRIPS4 agreement. The debate focuses particularly on two issues. The first issue is farmers’ rights in relation to breeders’ rights: To what extent can farmers re-use, exchange, or sell PVR-protected seed? The second issue is the role of farm communities as custodians of genetic diversity: Should seed companies compensate communities for their services? With respect to the second issue, UPOV takes the position that farmers’ customary role as curators of genetic resources is best regulated separately from PVR legislation. On the issue of farmers’ rights, UPOV has moved over time toward a more restrictive standard favoring plant breeders. The criticism of developing countries is that UPOV is pushing for the adoption of developed country standards that are not necessarily adequate for developing countries (box 6.1).
Box 6.1 Plant Variety Rights Legislation in Africa
In 1998, the Heads of State of the African Union (AU) adopted the “African Model Law for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers, and Breeders, and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources.” This watershed document addresses two issues—plant variety protection and access to biological resources—based on the premise that both issues are closely linked. The AU model law strongly favors farmers’ rights over breeders’ rights: PVRs can be withheld or nullified for reasons such as food security, health, biological diversity, and any other requirement of the farming community for propagation material of a particular variety. The model law also emphasizes the protection of Africa’s biological resources and traditional knowledge. The model law was criticized heavily by UPOV and WIPO.a Discussions between the AU, UPOV, and WIPO in 2001 did not reconcile their differences. Yet the AU member states did not hold a unified position on the issues. Some members (Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, and Tunisia) belonged to UPOV many years before the AU developed its model law. In 2002 the African intellectual property organization OAPI,b comprising some 16
Francophone African countries, approved a plant variety protection (PVP) chapter largely in line with UPOV standards as part of the 1999 Bangui Agreement. This decision was taken despite major opposition by international nongovernmental organizations. In more recent years, the discussion in Africa regarding PVP has moved from the AU to the subregional economic communities, such as ECOWAS, SADC, and EAC.c Their strategy is to harmonize the (emerging) seed regulatory frameworks within their communities to facilitate trade and to join forces where possible to reduce regulatory costs. For example, ECOWAS and SADC each recently adopted the idea of setting up a common variety release system in their respective communities. Both communities have initiatives to work toward an integrated, regional PVP system. SADC, for example, developed a draft protocol for national PVP legislation. In other developing regions, regional economic communities are keen promoters of standardizing PVP systems. Most African countries seem to be moving toward adopting a PVP system that is compatible with the international UPOV standard— but only after much heated debate.
Source: Author. a. UPOV is the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and WIPO is the World Intellectual Property Organization. b. OAPI (Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle) was created in the early 1960s to replace the French institute in charge of IPRs prior to independence. It manages a single IPR system across 16 countries. c. Economic Community of West African States, Southern African Development Community, and East African Community.
MODULE 6: OVERVIEW
453
Accompanying rural investments
Most countries have a long history of addressing enabling factors such as rural credit, rural infrastructure, and agricultural markets. In many instances, government interventions in these factors in the form of direct investment or facilitating private or mixed investment have been far from adequate and often rather fragmented, lacking attention to coherence among interventions. To cite a recent World Bank evaluation report on agricultural investments in sub-Saharan Africa): ...the lending support provided by the Bank has not reflected the interconnected nature of agriculture activities. Rather, the lending has been “sprinkled” across an array of activities in rural space, including research, extension, marketing reform, drought relief, seed development, and transport, but with little recognition of the relationships among them and the need for all of these areas to be developed at the same time, or at least in an optimal sequence, to effectively contribute to agricultural development. While the Bank’s broader rural focus from the mid1980s was justified, an unintended result was that it led to less focused attention on the need for various activities that are critical for agricultural development in rural space to come together at the same time or to take place in some optimal sequence. (World Bank 2007a, xxv)
Rural credit. The lack of working capital and access to affordable credit often prevents farmers and agribusinesses from buying modern inputs and equipment and fully benefiting from proven technological opportunities. Despite many attempts to address this issue, lack of affordable rural credit remains a major bottleneck in many countries. The formal banking sector is still largely absent from rural areas, because it perceives the risks and transaction costs to be too high to make business attractive. Popular rural credit schemes run by governments from the 1950s to the 1980s did little to attract commercial banks and proved unsustainable because of poor management and high default rates. The microfinance movement that emerged in the late 1990s tried to bridge the rural finance gap through self-help groups, which absorb the high costs inherent in small transactions and use social control to reduce risks (IAP 4). This approach has its limitations, and the model has not succeeded everywhere. What is needed is a more active involvement of commercial banks in agriculture. Previous approaches tended to isolate financing for agriculture from the development of the wider financial system and overemphasized credit as opposed to savings and other financial services. Within a financial systems approach, however, financing for agriculture is viewed as part of the wider rural finance market.
454
Underpinning this approach is the fact that institutions adhering to commercial principles are more likely to achieve outreach and sustainability. The public sector’s role is to concentrate on ensuring that the environment is conducive to the emergence and growth of such institutions (World Bank 2006). For example, the Innovative Finance Initiative of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa tries to mobilize commercial banks to provide more credit to the agricultural sector through a loan guarantee scheme. By absorbing some of the risks that commercial banks run when lending to agriculture, the initiative has managed to leverage some US$4 billion from commercial banks in the form of affordable loans for farmers and agribusinesses (www.agra-alliance.org). Another practice that has fallen out of favor is to use subsidized credit to introduce new technologies. Such schemes have often undermined farmers’ repayment discipline because farmers considered the subsidies to be gifts rather than loans. Jump-starting the introduction of a new technology is best done through a direct subsidy (starter packets at reduced costs, for example). Rural infrastructure. Early research on economic growth illustrated the importance of infrastructure, provided that: (1) a good balance was maintained with other investments and (2) infrastructure and related services were run efficiently. More recent econometric research suggests that infrastructure investment and improvement may have received too little attention in the lowest-income countries. There are also signs that rapidly growing middle-income countries have underinvested in infrastructure, leading in some cases to geographic patterns of development that hamper economic growth (Willoughby 2002). Other recent studies of infrastructure investments conclude that: ■
■
■
Institutional reforms are needed to strengthen the capacity of local and regional governments to formulate and implement an infrastructure policy and to strengthen the capacity of infrastructure organizations to provide customer-responsive services. Institutional reforms in the more advanced countries led to greater involvement of the private sector in investing and managing infrastructure, which requires improved capacity at the government level to run transparent tender procedures and maintain open competition. Decisions to invest in infrastructure should focus on regions that lag in economic development.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 6.2 Economic Impact of Rural Roads in Bangladesh
A detailed econometric study of the impact of investments in rural roads in Bangladesh found substantial savings in household transport expenses, averaging about 36 percent in villages participating in the Rural Development Project (RDP) and 38 percent in villages participating in the Rural Roads and Market Improvement and Maintenance Project (RRMIMP). Road improvement also significantly affected men’s agricultural wages (which rose by 27 percent in RDP villages), fertilizer prices (which fell by about 5 percent in RDP and RRMIMP areas), and aggregate crop indices (prices increased by about 4 percent in both project samples,
whereas production increased by about 38 percent in RDP and 30 percent in RRMIMP villages). The road effects are substantial for adult labor supply in RDP villages and schooling of both boys and girls. The overall effect of road improvement on per capita consumption was estimated at 11 percent in both project areas. This study clearly shows that investment in rural roads unleashes the agricultural production potential of rural areas. The supply response to what looks like modest input and output price changes is quite dramatic in the study areas. Much of this additional production found its way to the market.
Source: Khandker, Bakht, and Koolwal 2006.
Despite broad agreement about the importance of rural roads for linking farmers with markets, surprisingly little statistical evidence exists on the size and nature of the benefits of rural roads or their distributional impacts. Isolating the impact of investments in rural roads on agricultural productivity from other enabling factors is not only challenging (Walle and Cratty 2004), but many other benefits must be considered—higher wages, better access to schooling and health services, and so forth (see box 6.2). Another rural infrastructure investment, irrigation, is considered an innovation in its own right as well as an important enabler of agricultural innovation more generally. A key reason cited for the limited impact of Green Revolution technology (improved varieties in combination with modern inputs) in sub-Saharan Africa is the very limited area under irrigation in comparison to other regions, particularly Asia. The underlying problem is that investment costs per irrigation unit are many times higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in Asia. Irrigation investment projects also tend to fail more often in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank’s Operations Evaluation Department identified specific weaknesses in irrigation investment projects, including irrigation system design, operation and maintenance, cost recovery, and user groups. For example, cost-recovery schemes did not improve operation and maintenance because revenues went into the general treasury. Despite these weaknesses, World Bank irrigation projects report good returns on average, but these projects require above-average preparation and oversight because of their complexity.
Market institutions and infrastructure. Investment in market institutions and infrastructure was greatly affected by the market liberalization ideology that dominated the economic policy debate during the 1980s and 1990s. During the 1960s and 1970s, many governments played an active, direct role in agricultural markets, and donors provided significant direct investment in stateowned companies, government-controlled cooperatives, and public marketing agencies. When these governmentdominated systems fell into disgrace because of their poor performance, donor support for them evaporated. Difficult, lengthy, and sometimes disruptive processes of privatization and market liberalization marked the ensuing transition to private market-based systems. It took some time to realize that well-functioning markets would not inevitably emerge (and foster agricultural innovation); some form of government assistance is often needed. Attention has recently focused on strengthening a new architecture for agricultural market institutions and incentives, promoting private commercial activity, and reorienting state activity to providing enabling regulatory and physical infrastructure; as a result, donor investments in market institutions have begun to increase again (World Bank 2006).
KEY POLICY ISSUES
Aside from the more thematic policies that shape agricultural innovation, discussed previously, several cross-cutting policy issues affect agricultural innovation. They include
MODULE 6: OVERVIEW
455
policies to reduce poverty and sustain the environment, to foster collaboration between the public and private sectors, and to build social capital more generally.
Poverty reduction and environmental sustainability
The impact of investments in agricultural innovation has been measured mainly in terms of improvements in agricultural productivity (see the numerous rate-of-return studies). Over the years, however, environmental sustainability and poverty reduction have assumed equal importance as outcomes of agricultural innovation. This changed perspective affects not only the orientation of investments in agricultural innovation but investments in enabling factors. An environmental sustainability assessment is standard procedure for major investment projects in most countries. The poverty alleviation impact of new technologies is often difficult to assess ex ante, however. In this sense, innovation in itself is a rather crude poverty alleviation instrument, in contrast to enabling factors such as investments in rural infrastructure or rural credit, which can be targeted far more specifically to the poor.
Social capital
When it comes to strengthening the various enabling factors that stimulate agricultural innovation, social capital (the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions) often stands out as critical to success. Examples of social capital’s important role include the management of irrigation schemes, self-help groups in microfinance initiatives, communal road maintenance, the establishment of value chains, and similar efforts. NEW DIRECTIONS, PRIORITIES, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR INVESTMENT
The previous section described the policies that shape the enabling environment for agricultural innovation, which can range from the very generic to the very specific. This section explores concrete investments that will stimulate agricultural innovation by creating a more positive enabling environment. Investments in innovation policy and governance structures
Public-private collaboration
With widespread adoption of the market-economy model, many governments are minimizing direct intervention in the economy and, where possible, leaving things to the private sector. When government intervention is unavoidable, governments are delegating or contracting implementation to the private sector as much as possible. For example, in closing the rural finance gap, the preferred approach now is to involve commercial banks (often by subsidizing them to take on less profitable rural loans) or microfinance schemes rather than to establish government-owned rural banks. The construction of rural infrastructure is contracted out to the private sector, which is increasingly contracted to handle infrastructure operations and maintenance as well. A primary objective of many national innovation policies is to create the right incentives for private investment in innovation. Governments can use five important instruments to stimulate private investment in innovation: (1) IPR legislation; (2) tax deductions and subsidies for R&D; (3) antitrust legislation (because a competitive environment stimulates innovation); (4) subsidized risk capital (either directly or through tax deduction facilities) and business incubators; and (5) restraining bureaucratic procedures for introducing new products and technologies.
456
A national innovation policy should: ■
■
■
Provide guidance to actors and stakeholders within the NIS regarding their roles and functions in the system, and give a sense of direction (in other words, describe what they want to achieve together). Provide an overall framework within which innovation policies specific to particular sectors—agriculture, health, energy, and so on—and particular technologies— ICT, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and so on—should fit. The national policy sets priorities across sectors and technologies (and the public resources allocated to them), whereas the more specific policies set priorities within a particular sector or technology field. Create the best possible conditions for innovation by investing in a range of public goods essential for an innovative knowledge economy. A functional analysis of the NIS is a good starting point to identify which functions of the system are particularly weak and require additional attention and investment. Aside from the more traditional investments in the generation and exchange of scientific knowledge, investments are needed to support the application of scientific and industrial knowledge throughout the economy. Although this responsibility primarily belongs to the private sector,
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
government can stimulate innovative behavior in the business sector by providing incentives for private innovation (subsidies, tax breaks, and recognition, for example) and by stimulating the startup of new, knowledge-intensive companies using business incubators, venture capital, and similar measures (module 5). Since innovation policy is such a new area, in most countries the governance structure for innovation has only very recently started to emerge. “Governance” concerns the systems and practices that governments use within their NISs to set priorities and agendas, design and implement policies, and obtain knowledge about their impacts (OECD 2005). A particular challenge is where to assign responsibility for innovation policy within the government structure. A considerable number of countries have delegated this task to the ministry in charge of science and technology, while others have opted to establish a higher-level entity that brings relevant ministries together to coordinate national innovation policy. TNs 1 and 2 discuss investments in innovation policy and innovation governance structures in greater detail.
Investments in policy and regulatory frameworks that affect agricultural innovation
The most important regulatory reforms underway at present that affect agricultural innovation include: ■
■
IPRs. Like PVRs and patents, trademarks, certification marks, and geographic indications are IPR instruments that, applied correctly, support private investments in product quality and distinctiveness that go beyond minimum standards. The TRIPS agreement places considerable pressure on countries to comply. These issues are discussed in TN 3 and IAP 3. Biosafety. Frameworks (including instruments and activities) that analyze and manage risks in the sectors on food safety, animal life and health, and plant life and health, including associated environmental risks (which came together under the so-called biosecurity framework). For example, the establishment of proper legislation and enforcement capacity regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a prerequisite for regulating their adoption (or prohibition). Signatories to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety assume the obligation to put the necessary legislation and enforcement capacity in place.5 A large number of countries in Africa and Asia have yet to adopt biosafety legislation and enforcement regimes. Investments are needed to put regulations in
■
place, establish oversight structures, and train personnel. TN 4 discusses the ins and outs of biosafety regulation. Technical regulations and standards. TN 5 explores the introduction and upgrading of technical regulations and standards related to food safety, animal life and health, plant life and health, and quality-related attributes. The past several decades have seen a tremendous expansion of the number of technical regulations and standards emerging in these areas. This momentum reflects the intensification of regional and global trade and heightened concerns over accompanying threats to food safety and animal and plant health, as well as consumer concerns on the environmental impacts of agriculture production. It also reflects a wider set of innovations in science and technology that permit very sensitive detection and analytical methods, as well as improved knowledge of the quality and associated health hazards of agrifood products. But these emerging technical regulation and standards are also defining the focus of agricultural innovation. For example, plant breeding can be steered toward developing products that attain a preferred quality attribute (size, color, taste, and so on), while the prohibition of certain pesticides (due to stricter regulations) will induce research on alternatives for the control of pests and diseases.
For some time, countries may need assistance to develop the necessary legislation and assess the options from which they can choose. They will also need support to build and strengthen the related regulatory agencies and invest in standards-related infrastructure. The regulatory reforms currently being implemented are expected to trigger all kinds of changes, such as improving the access of agricultural products to foreign markets (because they will meet higher SPS standards), increasing private investment in agricultural R&D (because IP is protected), fostering the adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices (because of the introduction and enforcement of environmental standards), and increasing the adoption of GM crops (because biosafety legislation and enforcement are in place). Accompanying rural investments
Systems-thinking increasingly permeates approaches to economic development, including agricultural development. Criticism of earlier agricultural investments has focused on their tendency to operate as relatively isolated interventions that fail to develop any synergies. The current trend within the World Bank is to formulate bigger and more holistic agricultural development projects with longer time horizons. This module describes examples of the three types of
MODULE 6: OVERVIEW
457
rural investment that have strong synergies with agricultural innovation investments: ■
■
■
Rural financing systems. To eliminate the lack of affordable credit as a constraint on the adoption of agricultural innovations, it is better not to look at credit in isolation, but to take a more holistic approach to financial services, including credit, savings, money transfers, leasing, and insurance. Microfinance initiatives can be an important intermediate step toward a more mature rural financial system. IAP 4 provides an innovative example of microfinance in Andhra Pradesh. Rural infrastructure. IAP 1 provides an example from Zambia of how investment in improved feeder roads enhances agricultural innovation, value added, and competitiveness. Market institutions and infrastructure. There is a strong synergy between market development and agricultural innovation, as both tend to take a value chain approach and emphasize the importance of markets and market institutions. Investment opportunities in market development include market infrastructure (such as distribu-
tion and collection points, storage facilities, and market and auction facilities), market institutions (such as supply chain organizations and information systems), and the capacity to explore and develop new markets.
MONITORING AND EVALUATING AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
How can a country’s progress in creating an enabling environment for agricultural innovation be monitored and evaluated? This section identifies indicators corresponding to the various enabling factors discussed in this module (table 6.1). The indicators can monitor progress through time and, by benchmarking with other countries, give an idea of a country’s relative position in establishing an enabling environment. The list of indicators is just an illustration, but a pretty good one to make a start. Other factors and indicators can be added later, and some may not be feasible in all instances because reliable statistical information may be lacking.
Table 6.1 Enabling Environment Factors and Indicators Cluster
Enabling factor
Macroeconomic Political and socioeconomic stability policies
Education
• Political instability index (the Economist) or consult www.countryrisk.com for various stability indices
Favorable macroeconomic policies
• Net taxation of agriculture • Difference between the official and the market exchange rate • Impact of trade agreements on the agricultural sector
Increased public investment in agriculture
• Agricultural expenditure as a percentage of total government expenditure • Share of public goods in agricultural expenditure
General education
• • • • • • •
Agricultural education
Agricultural higher education Innovation policy and governance
Indicator(s)
A comprehensive national innovation policy in place
Literacy rate (urban/rural) Enrollment in primary education (urban/rural) Enrollment in secondary education (urban/rural) Enrollment in higher education (urban/rural) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores Enrollment in agricultural schools at secondary level Enrollment in on-the-job agricultural training schemes (such as farmer schools, extension courses) • Number of agricultural graduates • Presence of an innovation policy • Presence and use of innovation policy instruments
Innovation governance structure in place
• Existence of a governing body at the governmental (highest political) level for STI • Involvement of key stakeholders of the STI system in the governing body (composition of the governing body) • Existence of a national strategy (priorities) for STI • Main activities for the implementation of the national strategy • Intensity of interaction in the STI system vertically and horizontally • Participation and commitment of the private sector in policy preparation and implementation
General “innovativeness” of a country
• Composite innovation indices such as the World Bank Knowledge Economy Index, the UNCTAD Innovation Capability Index, or the UNDP Technology Achievement Indexa
(Table continues on the following page)
458
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Table 6.1 Enabling Environment Factors and Indicators (continued) Cluster Regulatory reforms
Accompanying rural investments
Enabling factor
Indicator(s)
IPR legislation and regulatory regime • Status of IPR legislation (patents, PVRs, trademarks, certification marks, geographic in place and operating effectively indications) • Capability of the IPR registration system (e.g., average time to complete a registration) • Capability of the legal system to handle IPR disputes • Patent statistics (number of newly registered patents, broken down by local and foreign) • PVR statistics (number of newly registered varieties, broken down by local and foreign) • Use of certification marks and geographic indications Biosafety legislation and regulatory regime in place and operating effectively
• • • •
Policy and regulatory frameworks and capacity for managing agricultural health, food safety and associated environmental risks in place and operating effectively
• Legislative and regulatory frameworks upgraded • Institutions operating under clear mandates • Effective mechanisms in place for coordination and collaboration among the entities performing SPS and quality-related functions (including private actors) • Prioritization of investments and short-, medium-, and long-term plans in place to ensure that identified capacity needs (for example, in terms of skills, physical infrastructure, institutional structures, and procedures) are met • Incentives in place to support private sector compliance • Set of sustainable agricultural practices developed and promoted
Well-functioning rural financial system Good rural infrastructure
• • • • Well-functioning agricultural markets • • •
Biosafety legislation in place Biosafety regulatory system in operation GMO research trials allowed Introduction of genetically modified crops
Domestic credit provided by banking sector as percentage of GDP Agricultural credit as a percentage of total domestic credit Road density per square kilometer Percentage of agricultural land under irrigation Percentage of agricultural production sold in the market Share of exports in total agricultural production Presence and strength of supply chain organizations
Source: Author. (a) UNCTAD = United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; UNDP = United Nations Development Programme.
MODULE 6: OVERVIEW
459
T H E M AT I C N O T E 1
National Innovation Policy Johannes Roseboom, Consultant
SYNOPSIS
ational innovation policies tend to be overarching, attempting to coordinate a wide range of more specific policies (for science and technology, education, IPRs, the economy and industry, trade, and taxation) and foster optimal conditions for innovation. A national innovation policy (based on NIS ideas and concepts) enables the formulation of an agricultural innovation policy in two ways. First, its economy-wide perspective makes it possible to address issues that should be dealt with at the level of the national economy rather than individual sectors. Second, it promotes innovation system thinking at the sector level. This note describes the steps and tools in this policy-making process.
N
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
The recent rise of innovation policy around the world has been strongly influenced by the NIS school of thinking. NIS thinking has been picked up by national and international policy makers remarkably quickly throughout the world, partly because the OECD was an early promoter of the concept but more importantly because countries are looking for ways to respond to increased global competition. How can a country improve its competitive edge? This question is arguably even more important for the world’s poorest countries than for wealthy ones. However, the NIS concept does not provide a simple blueprint for organizing innovation. It is foremost an analytical tool for policy making and planning. A national innovation policy is not just an extension of the science and technology policy. It is a higher-level policy integrating science and technology, economic, industrial, infrastructure, taxation, trade, labor, and education policies (to name the most relevant). For this reason, it is not limited to one particular ministry or agency. It requires substantial coordination and consensus building among ministries as
460
well as socioeconomic partners such as the business sector, trade unions, and value chain organizations. The mix of policies for innovation depends on the country’s political orientation and objectives, and different forms of innovation require different policy instruments and responses (OECD 2010). One developing country with a very articulate innovation policy and strategy is Chile (box 6.3). ACTIONS NEEDED
The role of an innovation policy is to create the best possible conditions for innovation by developing a range of public goods that are essential for an innovative knowledge economy. The best possible conditions will vary significantly from one country and sector to another, depending on the development phase, economic structure, and national priorities. Five key functions have been identified and are recommended as the primary targets of a national innovation policy.1 First, organize and implement a national innovation policy. Such a policy should mobilize and engage the various actors and stakeholders within the innovation system, provide guidance regarding their roles and functions within the system, and give a sense of direction, explaining what they want to achieve together. Important steps in this process are described in box 6.4. In most countries, the overall objective of the national innovation policy is to facilitate the transition toward a knowledge economy, resulting in increased competitiveness and sustainable economic growth. As noted in the module overview, a national innovation policy should provide an overall framework within which sector-specific and technology-specific innovation policies should fit. This approach may require improved coordination and coherence of policies and different layers of government. The national policy sets out overall priorities across sectors and technologies (and the public resources allocated to them), while the more specific policies set the priorities within a particular sector or technology field.
Box 6.3 Chile’s Innovation Strategy
Following a long period of stagnation from the mid1950s to the mid-1980s, Chile’s economy started to take off, and for the past twenty-five years, it has been one of Latin America’s better-performing economies. The opposition parties elected to government after 1988 continued the free-market policies introduced by the military junta to a substantial extent but with a greater appreciation of government’s role in economic development, including its role in stimulating innovation. Chile’s economy has been booming partly because of high revenues from copper exports. To invest those revenues wisely, the government decided to invest heavily in moving away from a predominantly resource-based economy (agriculture and mining) toward a knowledgeintensive economy. For this purpose, it created a national innovation fund for competitiveness (FIC, Fondo de Innovación para la Competividad), funded by a new tax on mining, in 2005. A newly created national innovation council for competiveness (CNIC, Consejo Nacional de Innovación para la Competividad), in which the various sectors and interest groups are represented, advises FIC on how to allocate its resources, while an interministerial committee on innovation (CMI, Comité de Ministros para la Innovación) is responsible for implementation. As part of this new initiative, CNIC has formulated a national innovation strategy. After extensive study and consultation, CNIC selected five economic clusters on which to focus science, technology, and innovation (STI) investments: agro-food, aquaculture, mining, tourism, and global services. For each selected cluster, a
strategic board with public and private representation has been created to set cluster-specific priorities. The Strategic Board of the Agro-Food Cluster has identified the following subclusters as the most promising for further development and knowledge intensification: fruit, wine, processed food, pigs and poultry, and red meat. These priorities have been passed to the various STI funding agencies, which are organizing calls for proposals for these priorities or giving the selected clusters priority in more generic calls for proposals. Moreover, despite their name, competitive funding schemes are being used to cement stronger links within the innovation system by promoting cross-institutional collaboration between universities and research institutes and by promoting public-private partnerships in the form of “technology consortia.” The latter instrument not only cements collaboration between a research agency and the private sector but between companies that share a common technology platform. Since FIC’s creation in 2005, public STI investments in Chile have more than doubled in real terms (reaching US$530 million in 2009). Public STI investments are projected to continue to grow by 10–15 percent per year over the coming ten years. Parallel to the STI initiative, the Chilean government established a major scholarship scheme (Becas Chile) in 2008, which will allow some 30,000 Chileans to study abroad over the next ten years. The budget for this scheme is some US$6 billion and is also financed out of mining royalties.
Source: Author.
Second, improve the regulatory framework for innovation. Given the many actors within the innovation system and their often conflicting interests, a set of rules and regulations is needed (on dealing with IPRs, fair competition, technical standards, health, and environment, among others) to create a playing field that is transparent and fair. Third, foster innovation through education. Innovation depends on the level of education in the general population, including the knowledge and skills that people will need in the future and strategies to keep knowledge and skills up to date (in other words, to develop a capacity for
lifelong learning). Innovation also depends on the education of science and innovation specialists more specifically, which may involve among other things motivating students to specialize in science. Fourth, facilitate the creation, exchange, and diffusion of knowledge. This is the core business of an innovation system. Knowledge should not be limited to knowledge generated only by research organizations (and as such codified in scientific publications and patents) but should include the knowledge (a large part of it tacit) accumulated within the economy of a country. It is important to make sure that knowledge (both scientific and industrial) is
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 1: NATIONAL INNOVATION POLICY
461
Box 6.4
Developing an Innovation Policy
Many of the steps or components of developing an innovation policy do not occur chronologically but simultaneously or in reverse order. They include: ■
Policy analysis. This step requires a thorough understanding of existing policies and their influence on the innovation system (in other words, their interaction with institutions and actors). A functional analysis may be a useful input in grasping the strengths and weaknesses of the policies in place.
■
Formulating policy advice. To a large extent, the political context determines whether policy makers are sensitive to evidence and how evidence reaches them. Knowledge of the political context and entry points for evidence and dialogue are essential. Influencing policy through research requires good data as well as credibility of the institution presenting the data. For new ideas to be embodied in policies, it is critical to prove that those ideas provide a solution to a real problem. In presenting such evidence, communications skills are highly important, and using a diversity of communications methods increases the chances of success compared to relying on a single method or pathway. Through links with media,
■
■
intermediary organizations, and networks advocating for policy change, policy makers can be pressured from different angles to change policies in a certain direction. Policy making. Policy makers need to get involved actively in the multistakeholder exchanges and activities that occur to facilitate and realize innovation. When policy makers are immersed in a subject, evidence-based policy making becomes experiential policy making. Policy makers learn, through interaction and engagement with other system actors, how policies influence the system and what changes would be required. Policy implementation. Often the job ends for policy makers when the policy is written down and made official, yet stating the policy is only the starting point for change, not the end. An inclusive policy-making process makes it more likely that the policy will actually be implemented. When different stakeholders understand the need for policy change, have invested in it, and stand to benefit, there is pressure on the one hand to enforce the policies and on the other hand there is a greater likelihood that stakeholders will abide by the implemented rules and regulations.
Source: Author, drawing on KIT 2011.
adequately stored and accessible. An important variable in this context is the quality of a country’s ICT infrastructure and the density and quality of its Internet connections. It is also important to stimulate the exchange of knowledge beyond national borders, which may involve measures to improve the language capabilities of knowledge workers, stimulate attendance at international scientific conferences, and create exchange programs and industry-specific study tours. Fifth, mobilize and allocate resources for innovation activities. Funding of innovation activities can range from fully public to fully private and everything in between, depending on the type of industry and activity. The national innovation policy should: (1) define which innovation activities require public support; (2) define the tax base for public funds (general versus specific taxes; see box 6.5); (3) define
462
the type of funding instruments to be used (subsidies, tax breaks, patents, procurement, and so on); and (4) prioritize and allocate public resources across the various innovation activities. These principal functions of an NIS also remain relevant at the AIS level, but many of the policies shaping these functions at the AIS level are formulated as part of the national innovation policy. For example, most investments in education affect all sectors, and the same is true for many regulatory issues, such as IPR legislation and environmental standards. At the same time, the agricultural innovation policy may opt for sector-specific policies if the situation requires. For instance, it may choose to support plant breeders’ rights or agricultural advisory services. For this reason, it is important to coordinate the development of an agricultural innovation policy with the development of a
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 6.5 The Creation of Sectoral Science, Technology, and Innovation Funds in Brazil
While Brazil has invested substantially in science and technology since the 1970s, the economic impact of these investments has been modest and uneven. In the 1990s, the Brazilian science and technology system was criticized for being too science oriented, placing little emphasis on innovation, and lacking stable funding because of economic problems. The Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT, Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia) introduced major restructuring of the funding of the science and technology system in 1999. It set up sector-specific science, technology, and innovation (STI) funds (in part replacing older funds), which are financed through levies to be negotiated within each sector. In this way a substantial amount of new and more stable “private” resources were mobilized to finance STI of relevance to each specific sector. For sectors in which a levy was not feasible, the government increased the levy on foreign technology transfer payments from 15 percent to 25 percent. The increase finances 4 out of 15 funds. Of the 15 funds that have been established, 2 are not sector-specific but focus on bottlenecks in the
STI system: the university-business fund and the fund for science infrastructure. The infrastructure fund is financed through a 20 percent levy on all of the other sector funds. The sector funds have the status of trust funds and are managed jointly by the academic community, industry, and government. The strong representation of industry in these funds was a particular innovation for the Brazilian STI system. The sector funds serve four major government objectives: (1) stabilize financial resources for mediumand long-term R&D; (2) improve transparency in funding decisions, merit reviews, and evaluations; (3) reduce regional inequalities; and (4) promote interaction between universities, research institutes, and companies. The selection of strategic sectors, their respective shares of the funds’ resources, the blend of basic and applied research, the required overall budget, and sources of support are all jointly decided by the academic community, private sector, and government.
Source: IAC 2003; Roseboom 2004.
national innovation policy and make sure that they are consistent. POTENTIAL BENEFITS
The development of a national innovation policy usually reflects the priority that a country assigns to knowledge as an important (if not the most important) source of future economic growth, especially as capital accumulation levels off and the transition toward a capital-intensive economy is complete. A national innovation policy helps shift the emphasis in macroeconomic policy from physical capital to human and social capital. A national innovation policy can also help to create more coherence in a broad range of government policies dealing with issues such as economic development, education, competitiveness, trade, and R&D investment. More coherent policies should help to improve the overall effectiveness of the NIS. The more prominent role attributed to knowledge in economic development has sparked renewed interest in
agricultural innovation and how to improve and modernize it. At the same time, NIS thinking is influencing AIS thinking in important ways: ■
■
■
■
■
Far greater emphasis is placed on private R&D and innovation activities by private firms. Agricultural research and extension were traditionally viewed as government responsibilities. Relatively little attention was given to involving the private sector. Education receives greater emphasis as an important enabling factor in agricultural innovation, both on the farm and in research and extension agencies. The regulatory framework’s importance in shaping innovation is more widely recognized; for instance, biofuel targets play an important role in shaping the biofuel innovation agenda. Innovation driven by market demand and market opportunities is given greater emphasis. More attention is paid to improving the mobilization, inclusion, and coordination of innovation actors and stakeholders.
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 1: NATIONAL INNOVATION POLICY
463
POLICY ISSUES
A national innovation policy in a developing country will need to address a number of important policy issues. For example, it will need to define the roles of the public and private sector in innovation; ensure that institutions and incentives are in place to govern and coordinate innovation; determine the priorities for innovation; come to terms with the environmental and social implications of innovation; and acknowledge the informal economy’s role in innovation. Defining public and private roles in innovation
From a market economy perspective, innovation is first and foremost a task of private entrepreneurs. Government policy should focus on creating an enabling environment for private innovation to take place. Some of these policies, such as well-functioning markets, sound corporate governance, and sound financial institutions, may not be specifically aimed at fostering innovation but are nonetheless important. Other policies, such as IPRs, the setting of technological standards, science education, and basic research, may enable private sector innovation more directly. When it comes to innovation, however, a great deal of market or systemic failure requires more direct government intervention or support (Edquist 2001). In primary agriculture, for example, the extreme fragmentation of production into small family farms has traditionally been a legitimate reason for the government to intervene directly. Governance and coordination
A country’s innovation performance depends in part on the strength of the institutional arrangements and incentive structures that govern innovation. Innovative activity is not governed by government alone. Actors from research and the business sector, as well as other stakeholders, play important roles. TN 2 provides a detailed discussion of governance in formulating innovation policy and coordinating innovation. Making strategic choices
Most countries are too small to excel in all sectors and technologies. One has to be selective and make strategic choices to concentrate innovation investments in specific technology fields and sectors. Spreading resources too thinly will be counterproductive. How to make such strategic choices is a major policy issue and requires sound analysis of the options. Chile offers a good example of an innovation policy that makes clear strategic choices (box 6.3). Many countries avoid
464
setting these priorities because they are highly sensitive from a political standpoint, but a characteristic shared by successful innovators such as Finland and the Republic of Korea is that they have restructured their economies strategically toward more knowledge-intensive industries (see TN 2).
Environmental sustainability
Many current production and consumption patterns are not sustainable in the long run. They deplete natural resources and are so polluting that they may cause climate change, with far-reaching repercussions for life on earth. Aside from raising overall productivity, innovation must meet increasingly stringent criteria for environmental sustainability and offer green solutions. It is virtually imperative for a national innovation policy to address this overwhelming challenge that faces humankind over the next few generations. Some countries are seeing the environmental crisis as an economic opportunity and positioning themselves as champions of green technologies (a small country like Denmark, for example, is a world leader in windmill technology). In agriculture, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is one of the major environmental challenges, along with developing strategies to cope with the effects of global warming.
Social considerations
The flipside of innovation is creative destruction. Jobs disappear to low-income countries or are replaced by more efficient production methods requiring less labor. Policy measures are needed for people to make the transition to more promising economic activities and new jobs. Education plays a major role in this process, including the concept of lifelong learning. Agriculture is a classic example of how innovation often results in fewer jobs. The exodus of labor from agriculture is characteristic of economic development and coincides with the transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy and from rural to urban life. This transition has never been easy, but it seems to have become even more difficult as innovation in industry has also reduced the demand for labor. Industry’s capacity to absorb labor is far lower than it was one hundred or even fifty years ago. China, for example, still has a very large rural labor surplus despite rapid industrialization over the past three decades.
Informal economy
Many developing countries have a very significant informal economy within the overall economy. The informal economy
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
is something of a blind spot for government policies, including innovation policy. Even the most comprehensive concept of NISs has yet to fully address innovation that takes place in the informal sector—yet disregarding the role of the informal sector can produce misleading, asymmetrical, and ineffective innovation strategies (Kraemer-Mbula and Wamae 2010). LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS
A dynamic NIS does not emerge overnight. Such a system is built and continuously improved only through a sustained, long-term commitment by government and the private sector. A national innovation policy should guide this process. In most countries, particularly in the difficult institutional
context of developing countries, implementing an innovation policy can be challenging. A long-term strategy to develop a national innovation policy should be inspired by a philosophy of “radical gradualism,” which suggests a sequence of finely tuned, small, specific reforms and successful outcomes that paves the way for broader institutional changes (World Bank 2010). One of the first issues to tackle is the fact that in most developing countries the capacity to formulate and implement an innovation policy is usually scarce and must be built over a considerable period. An example of the radical gradualism approach is Argentina’s Unleashing Productive Innovation Project, which comprises a wide range of interventions to eliminate critical bottlenecks within Argentina’s innovation system (box 6.6).
Box 6.6 Unleashing Argentina’s Productive Innovation
The Unleashing Productive Innovation Project is a major World Bank effort (its total budget is US$223 million for five years, of which US$150 million is loan money) to assist Argentina to become more innovative, promote diversification into more knowledge-intensive economic activities, and stimulate economic growth. The project, which strongly reflects a national innovation system approach, consists of the five components:
■
Developing human capital for productive innovation (US$28 million). This component fills critical human capital gaps in the national innovation system by developing training programs for “technology brokers” and “technology managers” to professionalize and improve innovation processes. It also offers scholarships to pursue studies in information and communication technology (ICT) and reduces Argentina’s shortages of qualified personnel. Support for new knowledge-based companies (US$ 54 million). This component promotes the development of new knowledge-based companies through two complementary activities. The first is a pilot of an early-stage venture capital fund. The second is the creation of a proactive, market-driven incubation cycle—from the initial idea to a commercial project, through early-stage venture capital investment—by establishing “deal flow” promoters that are mainly remunerated on a fee-for-success basis.
■
■
■
■
Fostering sector-specific capacity for productive innovation (US$85 million). This component will develop critical capacities in three priority areas: biotechnology, nanotechnology, and ICT. Resources will be allocated through competitive funding schemes designed to foster public-private and private-private collaboration. The private business community will play a lead role in these funds, both in specifying the research agenda and funding it. Upgrading research infrastructure (US$36 million). Funds will be allocated on a competitive basis using predefined selection criteria, such as the extent to which the beneficiary is connected with the productive sector. Strengthening the policy and institutional framework for innovation (US$20 million). This component will strengthen the policy-making capacity of the Ministry of Science and Technology, strengthen the capacity of the National Agency for the Promotion of Science and Technology in selected areas, and support dissemination of project activities.
Although the project does not target the agricultural sector specifically, the sector can benefit from it in various ways, especially through the biotechnology fund included in component 3. Indirect spillins from the other components are likely as well.
Source: World Bank 2008. (a) See module 5, TNs 3 and 6, for discussions of how incubators and risk capital are used to support agricultural innovation.
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 1: NATIONAL INNOVATION POLICY
465
Pay attention to scale and scope
Innovation systems can be considered at different scales, from a national scale to smaller geographic or political units (states, regions, provinces), and with different scopes, from economy-wide to sector- or commodity-specific innovation systems. From the point of view of policies for improving the enabling environment for innovation, the issue of scale and scope is relevant. Policy objectives must be explicit with respect to the scale and scope of the system they intend to influence. At the same time, a balance needs to be struck between centralized and decentralized political decisionmaking in terms of scale and scope. A national innovation policy should provide the basic architecture for who is responsible for what. Another challenging issue is where to situate responsibility for innovation policy within the government structure. Many countries have delegated this responsibility to the ministry of science and technology, while others have opted to establish a higher-level entity that brings the various relevant ministries together to coordinate innovation policy (see the Chilean example in box 6.3 and TN 2 on innovation system governance). As noted in the module overview, the latter option seems to be preferred.2 A criticism of national innovation policies is that they tend to ignore opportunities for supra-national collaboration in the innovation sphere. They are often too inward looking and ignore opportunities for regional or international collaboration. Regional economic communities are becoming more active on innovation policy issues, however. They often press hard for product and technology standardization within their communities to create the optimal conditions for a single market. The EU is by far the most advanced regional community in terms of having a regional innovation policy in place (known as the Lisbon Strategy). In addition, various industry-specific or technology-specific
innovation platforms in Europe enable European industries to work together on new technologies. Mobilize a broad spectrum of actors in making innovation policy
An important factor in successfully setting and implementing an innovation policy agenda is the ability to mobilize a broad spectrum of innovation actors. Successful mobilization of these actors depends on factors such as persuasive arguments and incentives, as well as the autonomy of the actors in the institutional landscape, the nature of existing linkages (social capital), and the effectiveness of leadership. The policy agenda for STI is sometimes dominated by narrow scientific elites with considerable influence, particularly in countries with a less mature innovation system (OECD 2010). One way of getting a better overview of the innovation landscape is to conduct a functional analysis of the actors that make up the landscape (box 6.7). Evaluate and measure innovation performance
Continuous monitoring and evaluation of a country’s innovation performance should be an important component of any national innovation policy. Do the various policy instruments and interventions yield the expected results? Benchmarking is a much-used tool at the international level to identify best innovation policy practices, while composite innovation indicators help to monitor innovation performance across countries and through time (box 6.8). Foster interaction between the national innovation policy and the agricultural innovation policy
The introduction of a national innovation policy often has an important impact on the public agricultural
Box 6.7 A Functional Analysis of a National or Sectoral Innovation System
A functional analysis is useful to rapidly assess a national or sectoral innovation system.a It can help to identify the principal actors within an innovation system and the linkages and interactions between them. Weaknesses identified in such an analysis can form a good starting point for formulating specific innovation
policy interventions. The standard steps in a functional analysis of an innovation system are: 1. Define the boundaries of the innovation system in focus. The level of aggregation in a functional appraisal can vary substantially. For example, one (Box continues on the following page)
466
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 6.7 A Functional Analysis of a National or Sectoral Innovation System (continued)
can deal with the business sector as one entity or differentiate it by sector, size, innovation profile, or some other feature. This process will enrich insights into how the innovation system functions and hence help to fine-tune policy interventions. 2. Identify and engage the principal actors in each of the stakeholder groups within the innovation system, including (1) the business sector, (2) the government sector (including the principal policy-making, coordinating, financing, and regulatory agencies for science, technology, and innovation), (3) the research sector (research organizations, universities, and others), (4) technology transfer and other intermediary organizations, (5) organized civil society (nongovernmental organizations, consumer groups, trade unions, and the like), and (6) possible foreign innovation partners;
3. Define the primary functions that the innovation system needs to perform. The “Actions Needed” section proposes five key functions that an innovation system needs to perform. These functions are not set in stone but can be reformulated to match the specific context to which they apply. 4. Bring steps two and three together and map in a matrix format how the different stakeholder groups and their specific actors contribute to the different key functions. This exercise should help identify possible missing actors or weak links between actors or stakeholder groups. Such mapping is best done on the basis of interviews with the various actors involved in the innovation system. An alternative is to make the map based on brainstorming sessions with key experts.
Source: Author. a. See Paterson, Adam, and Mullen (2003) and Ivanova and Roseboom (2006) for practical examples of applying a functional analysis approach to national innovation systems.
Box 6.8 Benchmarking National Innovation Systems and Policies
Since the mid-1990s, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has conducted an array of studies on national innovation systems and policies, covering its member and nonmember countries (including leading developing countries such as Brazil, Chile, China, and South Africa).a The OECD methodology, based on the Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (issued in 1992 and updated in 1997 and 2005), has been copied frequently by other innovation system studies. The latest edition of the Oslo Manual includes specific guidelines for the implementation of innovation surveys in developing countries, based largely on experience with the methodology in Latin America. In 2000, the European Union adopted its “Lisbon Strategy,” which aims to “make Europe the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.” As part of this strategy, the
European Union publishes an annual European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) to monitor the innovation performance of individual member nations as well as the performance of the European Union in relation to other economies such as the United States, Japan, China, and Brazil. The EIS methodology comprises seven innovation dimensions, grouped into three blocks: ■
■
Enablers: Captures the main innovation drivers that are external to the firm and comprises two dimensions: (1) human resources (measures the availability of highly skilled and educated people) and (2) financial resources (measures the availability of finance for innovation projects and the support of governments for innovation activities). Firm activities: Captures innovation efforts that firms undertake and comprises three dimensions: (1) investment in innovation by firms (multiple (Box continues on the following page)
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 1: NATIONAL INNOVATION POLICY
467
Box 6.8 Benchmarking National Innovation Systems and Policies (continued)
■
variables); (2) linkages and entrepreneurship (captures entrepreneurial efforts and collaboration among innovating firms and also with the public sector); and (3) throughputs (IPR registration and balance of payments regarding technology royalties). Outputs: Captures the outputs of firm activities and comprises two dimensions: (1) innovators (measures the number of firms that have introduced innovations onto the market or within their organizations) and (2) economic effects (captures the economic success of innovation in employment, exports, and sales arising from innovation activities).
In addition to EIS, several other international innovation indices are produced, including the World Bank Knowledge Economy Index, the UNCTAD Innovation Capability Index, UNDP Technology Achievement Index, the RAND Science and Technology Capacity Index, the WEF Global Competitiveness Index, the INSEAD Global Innovation Index.b The indices use different approaches, but rankings are reasonably stable across indices. Incomplete and poor data cause the rankings of countries at the bottom to be considerably less stable, however. One criticism of current measurement frameworks is that they often fail to measure the social impacts of innovation (on well-being and poverty reduction, for example).
Source: Pro Inno Europe 2010; World Bank 2010; OECD 2010. (a) The OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy comprehensively assesses innovation systems in individual OECD members and nonmembers, focusing on the role of government. The reviews provide recommendations to improve policies affecting innovation performance, including R&D policies. Each review identifies good practices from which other countries can learn (www.oecd.org/sti/innovation/reviews). (b) UNCTAD = United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; UNDP = United Nations Development Programme; WEF = World Economic Forum; and INSEAD = originally Institut Européen d’Administration des Affaires (European Institute of Business Administration).
research and extension services established decades earlier. These agencies are required to interact more vigorously with STI agencies that have a far wider scope and compete with nonagricultural agencies for resources from STI funding schemes. National innovation policies also tend to introduce new instruments to promote innova-
468
tion that are not designed specifically for agribusiness but which agribusiness can use. Business incubators, risk capital, technology consortia, technology parks, technology subsidies, and private R&D incentives (subsidies or tax deductions) are examples (many of which are discussed in module 5).
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
T H E M AT I C N O T E 2
Governance of Innovation Systems Christopher Palmberg, ADVANSIS Ltd. Tarmo Lemola, ADVANSIS Ltd.
SYNOPSIS
nvestments in developing an NIS should give governance particular attention, especially the systems and practices for setting priorities and agendas, designing and implementing policies, and obtaining knowledge about their impacts. This note provides examples of the roles that innovation policy and its governance have played in the development of innovation systems in Finland, Republic of Korea, and South Africa. Based on these cases, the note identifies governance activities relevant to innovation systems for agriculture in developing countries and discusses the related policy issues, lessons, and recommendations emerging from the case studies. A key issue arising from the cases is that well-functioning innovation systems critically depend on how well governments can bring together and coordinate the activities of the various actors and stakeholders fundamental for advancing science, technology, and innovation in various sectors of the economy.
I
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Governance concerns the mechanisms by which decisions are made in an organization, whether public, private, or nonprofit. Governance has several dimensions, including power, culture, incentives, leadership, and coordination. In governance of an NIS, the systems and practices for setting priorities and agendas, designing and implementing policies, and obtaining knowledge about their impacts receive special attention (see OECD 2005). A number of factors impinge on the efficiency of the governance of an NIS—in other words, the extent to which policy processes have the greatest effect with a given use of resources (OECD 2010). Evidence indicates that efficient governance depends on certain qualities, including: ■
Legitimacy. The policy actors and approaches adopted in policy processes have to be widely appropriate and accepted for the tasks at hand.
■
■
■
■
Coherence. The different strands of innovation policy and associated policy instruments must fit together. Stability. Innovation requires sufficiently stable framework conditions, institutions, and policy. Ability to adapt. As the environment for innovation evolves, and innovation evolves along with it, governance actors need to be able to adapt. Ability to steer and give direction. A related capability is the governance system’s ability to provide direction to actors and steer the innovation system as a whole. The ability to provide direction requires commitment and leadership from policy makers at the highest level.
Governance of innovative activity is not provided by government alone. The research and business sectors as well as other stakeholders such as NGOs play important roles in many aspects of the governance of an NIS. For example, a society’s accumulated social capital can make an important contribution to innovation by increasing trust among the actors, which makes joint innovation efforts as well as communication and sharing of knowledge between the actors easy and successful. Innovation system governance at the sectoral level is an important part of overall innovation system governance. In the agricultural sector, the earliest attempts at coordinating AIS were centered on strengthening agricultural research coordination. A number of developing countries have established research governance bodies, but they tend to represent only a narrow range of AIS stakeholders, consisting primarily of ministerial representatives or researchers. They have often lacked a consistent, rigorous process for setting priorities. The current movement to improve the representativeness of these governance bodies and their mode of operation is encouraging, however (for example, seeking to represent a wider range of stakeholders and regions, improving transparency, and using diverse prioritization tools). The overall trend is toward strengthened research
469
governance and multidisciplinary NIS governance (as discussed in this note), wherein agriculture is one sector among many. Some countries have made specific efforts in AIS governance, however. Typically these efforts center on subsectoral governance and coordination—for instance, through commodity boards and subsector networks— rather than on national agriculture/rural innovation governance structures (like Chile’s FIA and Australia’s Rural Research and Development Council). Module 1 discusses innovation coordination in agriculture in greater detail and provides examples of AIS coordination and governance at the macro, meso, and micro levels. Although this TN discusses NIS governance, benefits, policy issues, and lessons primarily from developed countries, it can help identify relevant issues and lessons for developing countries and their AISs. Finland, Korea, and South Africa have been chosen as examples because, in different ways, they represent NISs in which government actors and agencies play an important role. They also represent NISs at different phases of development to illustrate governance challenges from different viewpoints. A separate note in this module discusses overall innovation policy issues. Finland
Finland began to apply the NIS concept before many other countries, and its NIS has a relatively streamlined governance structure, developed in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes, teknologian ja innovaatioiden kehittämiskeskus), was established in 1983, and R&D programs soon followed. A key characteristic of the Finnish system is that high-level government officials (prime minister, finance minister) as well as representatives from universities, public research organizations, and industry participate in the Research and Innovation Council, which develops national guidelines for innovation. Operational responsibility for policies is delegated to the Ministry of Education and Culture (for basic research), the Ministry of Employment and the Economy (for applied research and the enabling environment for innovation), and other ministries. A second important characteristic of the Finnish NIS is that the main funding agencies (Academy of Finland for basic research and Tekes for applied research) enjoy considerable autonomy in implementing programs, introducing new policy instruments, and managing these programs and instruments on a day-to-day basis. A third characteristic is the strong tradition of collaboration and coordination throughout the NIS, both across the main ministries and
470
agencies involved as well as down through the various decision-making levels. There is a strong element of consensus building among the main stakeholders in the design and implementation of policies. Companies and the research community are often involved in policy discussions as experts or through their branch organizations. Innovation policy also explicitly aims to support collaboration and networking between industry, universities, and public research agencies. For example, the R&D programs commissioned by Tekes require collaboration by industry, universities, or public research agencies. Republic of Korea
Korea’s government has taken an active approach to NIS governance, especially since the mid-2000s. As in Finland, in Korea the NIS involves high-level government officials (ministers and other key stakeholders) in designing STI policy through the Presidential Advisory Council for Education, Science, and Technology (with representatives from industry, academia, and research) and the National Science and Technology Council (formed by government ministers). The role of ministries in implementing policy down to the level of individual R&D programs and projects is noteworthy, especially within the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MEST).1 Unlike Finland, in Korea the NIS has a complex governance structure. Government science and technology policies have long roots, and the government’s overall role has been pronounced. A key challenge for Korea is to govern its rapidly growing portfolio of policy measures (OECD 2009b), and Korea is responding with efforts to improve the coherence of its policies through horizontal coordination (between advisory councils and ministries) and vertical coordination (between ministries and the government research institutes). A third characteristic of the Korean system is the duality in corporate structures. Large conglomerates or multinationals (chaebols, literally “business families”) dominate research, development, and industrial transformation, whereas SMEs remain relatively underdeveloped. In this sense, Korea is still a mixture of an advanced and developing country. This duality has crowded out entrepreneurship and may have hampered technology diffusion and knowledge spillovers throughout the system. Especially compared to Finland, collaboration and networking in Korea between companies, universities, and research institutes is less pronounced, though collaboration within chaebols is extensive. A central challenge for the Korean NIS is to encourage more collaboration and
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
networking, both nationally and internationally (OECD and World Bank Institute 2000; OECD 2009b). South Africa
In the mid-2000s, South Africa became one of the first developing countries to adopt an NIS approach. South Africa is emerging as a global player in STI in certain fields but faces a range of challenges in developing its NIS amid difficult socioeconomic conditions and weak government coordination. Responsibilities for science and technology have been fragmented among numerous ministries, departments, and agencies. Private R&D has been concentrated in a few large, diversified companies with established links to government departments, research organizations, and universities. The innovation system has been virtually disconnected from black communities (Hausman and Klinger 2006; Lingela 2004). Since 2000, science and technology have been under the purview of the Department of Science and Technology (DST). The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee for Science and Technology oversees DST; the National Advisory Council on Innovation and a large group of stakeholders at the National Science and Technology Forum provides advisory support. Other key STI ministries include the Department of Education, Department of Trade and Industry, and sectoral departments such as minerals and energy, agriculture, water, and forestry. These departments steer their activities through sectoral agencies, foundations, and other funding organizations (OECD 2007b). South Africa has made remarkable progress in a short period, as evidenced by STI indicators such as a more diversified industrial structure and increasing GDP per capita. Nonetheless, huge social inequalities remain. The limited involvement of the “second economy” of black communities in entrepreneurship and innovation remains a primary characteristic and challenge for the NIS. One source of this problem may be the continued, poor horizontal coordination across the main ministries, agencies, and funders of R&D (OECD 2007b). This lack of overall government coordination is a second characteristic of the South African innovation system. Limited technology transfer and networking between academia and industry is a third characteristic of the NIS, caused in part by the lack of mental models for how an innovation system functions beyond the public sector. The enabling environment for entrepreneurship is also underdeveloped, as reflected by the limited collaboration between large and small companies, the poor availability of venture capital funding, and an outdated IPR regime.
In 2009, the government established the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) to improve coordination of innovation funding (Nordling 2009). The new agency is responsible for administering a handful of existing innovation schemes: the Biotechnology Regional Innovation Centers, the Innovation Fund, the National Advanced Manufacturing Technology Strategy, and the Tshumisano Trust. ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES NEEDED
Good governance is manifested in the degree to which capabilities in the following areas can be developed and supported: perception of and responses to challenges, setting policy priorities and coordinating agendas, implementing and managing policies on a day-to-day basis, and obtaining and processing intelligence.2 These capabilities are associated with different levels of governance in an innovation system and depend on how interactions and coordination are governed (vertically and horizontally) throughout the system (Nelson 2003; OECD 2007b, 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c). Figure 6.2 depicts typical decisionmaking levels, key public (or semipublic) organizations, and avenues through which an innovation system can be governed to develop and sustain these capabilities. The figure highlights the key governance capabilities within the institutional and organizational framework of an NIS. Strengthening policy makers’ capacity to perceive and respond to challenges
The ability to perceive and respond to challenges is important for an NIS to be agile and proactive. In other words, these capabilities are vital for developing innovation policy guidelines. These capabilities are embedded in the NIS as a whole, at all levels of governance, although councils, advisory committees (consisting of diverse stakeholders), and similar groups subordinate to the government or parliament often play an important role in responding to these challenges by creating a common vision, or consensus, of how to address them. Finland, Korea, and South Africa illustrate different ways in which the ability to perceive, and respond to challenges plays out in practice. While the Finnish capabilities to perceive challenges are embedded in the NIS in a decentralized way (box 6.9), the Korean innovation system has tended to respond to challenges through a more top-down approach (box 6.10). South Africa’s response to the challenge of developing policies to reconfigure the NIS in the years immediately following apartheid can be described as a decentralized as well as top-down NIS (box 6.11). In this case, there was considerable concern about the poor socioeconomic context
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 2: GOVERNANCE OF INNOVATION SYSTEMS
471
Figure 6.2 Typical Governance Structure of a National Innovation System Government, parliament • Policy guidelines • Overall policy coordination
Ministries • Policy design • Funding and its steering
Government
Councils, advisory committees, etc. Ministry
Ministry Coordinating bodies
Vertical governance
Agencies • Policy implementation • Funding • Intelligence, follow-up
Public research • R&D performers • Technology transfer • Intelligence
Business sector • R&D and innovation performers
R&D agency
Research council Think tanks, etc.
Sectoral research institutes Universities
Polytechnics, etc.
Incubators, science parks, living labs, etc.
Companies
Entrepreneurs
Horizontal governance Source: Adapted from OECD 2005.
Box 6.9 Finland Responds to the Challenges of Globalization
The ability of Finland’s innovation system to perceive and respond to challenges is best seen in the way that innovation policy reacted to globalization. The impact of globalization was felt most acutely in the business sector, as R&D increasingly moved to foreign locations and price competition became tight, especially in traditional industries. The emergence of countries such as China and India as increasingly competitive locations for manufacturing, research, and development raised concern among labor unions and other national innovation system stakeholders. Public research organizations felt building pressure to compete globally for the best students and become more engaged internationally. In 2004, the government launched a project to
assess how globalization would affect various sectors and their employment prospects in Finland and to develop corresponding policies to respond to those challenges by altering the business environment. The final report was based on numerous background studies commissioned from national think tanks and experts, over 20 sectoral dialogues between employers and employee unions, and the work of the high-level steering group appointed by the project. The project was intended to feed into the ongoing, decentralized process to formulate a globalization strategy for Finland which subsequently influenced various areas of policies, such as taxation, R&D programs, and internationalization schemes to support companies.
Source: Prime Minister’s Office, http://www.vnk.fi/julkaisukansio/2004/j19-26-osaava-avautuva-uudistuva-suomi/pdf/en.pdf.
472
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 6.10 Korea Responds to the Asian Crisis of the Late 1990s
The Korean experience following the Asian financial crisis highlights the importance of capabilities to perceive and act on challenges to innovation at the national level. The crisis caused significant downsizing among large companies, mass layoffs of highly skilled personnel, and large reductions in spending on R&D. Aside from increasing its expenditures on education, the Korean government responded by increasing its R&D budget, to offset the decline in corporate spending. It also used the crisis as an opportunity to develop technology-based small and medium enterprises (SMEs), using the Special Law to Promote Venture Firms enacted in 1998.
A coordinated mix of policy measures was put in place: regulations to improve the environment for venture startups and their growth; government-backed venture funds and tax incentives for investors; and measures to support research. Among other things, these measures fuelled rapid expansion in the number of corporate R&D labs, with SMEs accounting for much of this increase. This success cannot be explained by policy intervention alone, as it was aided by rapid innovations in digital and other technologies, but government action shaped an environment that enabled new businesses to seize emerging opportunities.
Source: OECD 2009b.
Box 6.11 A White Paper and Foresight Exercises Facilitate Changes in South Africa’s Innovation Policy
In 1996, a White Paper on Science and Technology laid down the new, post-apartheid government’s priorities in science, technology, and innovation. Foresight exercises followed at the end of the 1990s and acknowledged South Africa’s many socioeconomic challenges. These combined efforts clarified the challenges to government officials, highlighted weaknesses of the emerging national innovation system, and suggested actions to address these challenges and weaknesses. Human resource issues related to poverty, education,
and absorptive capability were singled out as a key constraint on technological developments and innovation. The preparatory work on the White Paper resulted in a national R&D strategy, endorsed by the government in 2002. It propelled an innovation system approach to the forefront in policy design and highlighted the importance of moving toward an innovation policy with a broad mandate to meet socioeconomic needs through science and technology as well as innovation.
Source: OECD 2007b.
(poverty, segregation, one-sided industrial and company structure) and the narrow science and technology focus of the apartheid regime. These challenges prompted the South African government to adopt a broader and more holistic innovation system approach to policy that could better direct activities toward common socioeconomic goals.
Establishing and/or strengthening capacity in coordination bodies to set policy priorities and coordinate agendas
Capabilities to set policy priorities and coordinate agendas are important to economize on scarce resources (especially
in developing countries) and to align policies with existing structures and framework conditions. These capabilities are usually embedded in ministries (or department equivalents), which typically also design policies and steer funding to sectoral agencies or directly to public research organizations. This level of governance is often vertically linked to the government through various councils and advisory committees. Ministries also frequently establish dedicated coordination bodies to ensure better coordination between ministerial and other agendas, especially in broad technology areas such as nano-, bio-, or environmental technologies. These areas require the involvement of many stakeholders and consultation processes to elicit their views. These coordinating
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 2: GOVERNANCE OF INNOVATION SYSTEMS
473
bodies facilitate more horizontal, “‘whole-of-government” approaches and policy mixes to respond to an innovation policy agenda that is widening because of globalization, new technologies, and new forms of innovation (open innovation, nontechnical innovation, user-driven innovation, and others) (see discussions in OECD 2005 and EC 2009). The fact that a high-level policy council plays a central role in research, development, and innovation policy does not mean that the resulting policy favors centralization. For example, the Finnish Research and Innovation Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, does not allocate resources for research, development, and innovation. The Council is very much an advisory body responsible for the strategic development and coordination of Finnish science and technology policy as well as the NIS as a whole. The implemen-
tation of policy (including the allocation of resources) is delegated to various ministries, public funding agencies, and ultimately companies, universities, and public research institutes. In all three countries, certain organizations play a critical role in addressing challenges proactively by setting priorities and coordinating agendas for action. They are described in box 6.12. Strengthening the capacity to implement and manage policies on a day-to-day basis
Policy design, prioritization, and agenda setting alone will not respond to socioeconomic needs and deliver innovation and growth; policies must be implemented. Implementa-
Box 6.12 Organizations Involved in Prioritizing and Coordinating Policy in Finland, Korea, and South Africa
Research and Innovation Council, Finland. The strategic development and coordination of science, technology, and innovation (STI) policies in Finland are the responsibility of the Science and Technology Policy Council, an advisory body to the government. The composition of this council is distinctive in some respects and underlines its capacity to perceive challenges, draw overall policy guidelines, and facilitate coherence, consensus-building, and coordination throughout the system. It involves a wider range of sectors than similar councils. The chairmanship is held by the Prime Minister, emphasizing its top-level status, and involves key ministers (for employment and the economy, education, and finance, for example). The council also includes representatives from academia, industry, and labor organizations. It dates to 1963, and its mandate for technology was added in 1986. Ministry of Science and Technology and National Science and Technology Council, Korea. The Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST), which became the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MEST) in 2008, was established in 1967. Its importance grew along with Korea’s increasing emphasis on research, development, and innovation in the 1980s and 1990s and the broadening of the innovation policy agenda in the 2000s. It commanded a large budget and had a broad mandate for policy design, coordination, and evaluation of science and technology in Korea, as
well as the formulation of programs and projects. It also promoted public awareness of science and technology. In the 1980s and 1990s, a range of ministries launched R&D programs, sparking demand for better coordination. The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), established in 1999 and chaired by the president, has since been Korea’s highest decision-making body on STI. As a cross-ministerial body, NSTC has a central role in working across ministries to coordinate the expanding policy priorities and agendas. Its strong links to MEST are underlined by the fact that MEST provides the NSTC with a secretariat. The NSTC’s horizontal scope at the sectoral level is strengthened through five subordinate expert committees on key industrial technologies, large-scale technologies, stateled technologies, cutting-edge converging and interdisciplinary technologies, and infrastructure technologies. Department of Science and Technology, South Africa. The case of South Africa’s Department of Science and Technology (DST) is interesting because this department gained responsibility over STI just as South Africa’s policy makers endorsed an innovation system approach. The shift toward innovation occurred in response to the enormous socioeconomic challenges of post-apartheid South Africa. Subsequently DST has played an important role in setting priorities and agendas based on white papers and forecast exercises.
Source: Lemola 2002; Dahlman et al. 2006; OECD 2007b, 2009b.
474
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
tion is an essential element of good NIS governance, but it has often failed owing to competing rationales between ministries, lack of political will and funding, changing external developments (an economic crisis) or other complications (for example, see OECD 2005). Policy implementation and the management of R&D funding and other schemes are often delegated to the level of agencies, for example to R&D agencies (such as Tekes in Finland or TIA in South Africa) and research councils (the Academy of Finland or the Research Council for Fundamental Science and Technology in Korea). Delegation of these responsibilities implies a need either to strengthen the capacities of these agencies or to establish a new agency. It also highlights the need for ministries to strengthen their steering capacity. Delegation of managerial authority is usually accompanied by stronger requirements to report outputs and outcomes and thus increase accountability at lower levels. The day-to-day management capabilities of NISs are reflected in the routines and procedures that (for example) ministries and agencies use to interact with companies, researchers, and other target groups of R&D programs and policy schemes. These agencies also collect intelligence on technological and market trends to support decision making, as discussed later. Key issues are to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape, strike a good balance between transparency and secrecy in R&D projects, and ensure policy continuity amid political change and external events.
Aside from vertical coordination of innovation policy, more attention should be paid to horizontal coordination. Horizontal coordination occurs across the boundaries of distinct policy domains and sectors. The development of a horizontal innovation policy involves placing a broader strategic approach above departmental goals by integrating priorities and objectives across various policy sectors. Horizontal governance of innovation policy requires the integration of innovation-oriented thinking into other policy domains and greater attention to interfaces with policy sectors that use and apply science and technology. The Finnish innovation system offers a good example of the role that agencies such as Tekes can play in implementing policy (box 6.13). In this case, the relatively clear separation between responsibilities for designing innovation policy (occurring at the governmental and ministerial level) and implementing it (occurring at the agency level) has been important for a flexible and proactive innovation policy and for avoiding political deadlocks that block implementation. Overall, this division of labor and the strong vertical and horizontal connections existing throughout the Finnish innovation system have been important preconditions for the relatively short time that elapses between policy design and implementation, which in turn strengthens Finland’s capacity to respond quickly to emerging challenges. These preconditions may have been easier to meet in
Box 6.13 Tekes as an Implementer of Innovation Policies in Finland
Tekes, founded in 1983, is based in the Ministry of Employment and the Economy. It has relative autonomy to set priorities and agendas in specific technology areas, following guidelines developed at higher levels (the Science and Technology Policy Council and ministries). Tekes’ role eventually expanded to include channeling the bulk of public funds for R&D to industry and public research agencies, with the exception of basic research agencies. Its major funding instruments include R&D grants and loans for companies and applied research grants for public agencies. Research grants are typically allocated via technology programs planned and implemented with companies and research institutes. Although the themes of programs
are planned with companies, public research organizations, and other agencies, the funding is competitive, and companies must contribute complementary funds (usually around 50 percent). The idea is to stimulate collaboration between program partners and maximize benefits from knowledge spillovers. Each program has a coordinator, a steering group, and a manager from Tekes. Funding for programs ranges from €20–150 million, generally over three to five years. Hundreds of programs have been initiated since 1983; 29 operated in 2009. These programs have played an important role in promoting entrepreneurship, introducing new areas of technology, and renewing industries.
Source: Ylä-Anttila and Palmberg 2007; Tekes (www.tekes.fi). Note: Tekes = Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation.
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 2: GOVERNANCE OF INNOVATION SYSTEMS
475
Finland than elsewhere because of its small size and the high level of trust between the main actors in the system.
Establish/strengthen capacities to obtain and analyze intelligence
A well-functioning NIS must have the capabilities and related governance structures to obtain and analyze intelligence on the impacts of innovation policy as well as future technological and market trends. These capabilities relate to technology and innovation studies, development of STI indicators, evaluations of R&D programs, and other types of policy instruments and interventions, as well as technology foresight and assessment. These capabilities are often spread out in the NIS; for example, ministries and agencies typically have their own research and analysis units (box 6.14). For the sake of objectivity in impact assessment, however, the most viable arrangement is for independent expert organizations (think tanks, consultancies, public research organizations, universities, and so forth) to gather and analyze intelligence. In the case of public research organizations, the problem may be that many research groups receive R&D funding and
may have vested interests. Transparency and objectivity should be the key criteria in impact assessment. Capabilities to obtain and analyze intelligence are also often built in collaboration with transnational think tanks such as the World Bank and OECD. Both organizations develop STI indicators and impact assessment methodologies and standards; they also undertake assessments and evaluations of innovation systems. Evaluations of the inputs, activities, outputs, and impacts of research, development, and innovation are essential to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness, and accountability of policies to foster innovation and improve social welfare (see module 7). For this reason, they are integral to improved innovation intelligence. Aside from improving accountability, the main strength of evaluation may reside in its capacity to provide insight, learning, and understanding. Evaluation usually includes priority setting, an ex ante impact appraisal, monitoring of progress (interim evaluation), and an ex post evaluation of results and impacts. These cumulative assessments aim to measure performance, support target or performance-based management and
Box 6.14 Strategic Intelligence Capabilities and Activities in Finland, Korea, and South Africa
Finland. Tekes monitors results and assesses the impacts of projects it funds. For monitoring, Tekes collects project effectiveness information at the beginning and end of each project and three years after its conclusion. An impact assessment is done to gain feedback on how the project attained its objectives, how effective the project was, and what could be learned from the project to improve Tekes’ future operations and strategies. Tekes also follows international comparisons and reports, such as comparisons commissioned by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, European Union, and others, and conducts peer reviews of innovation activities in various countries. Korea. The Korean Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP) is the nation’s main STI planning agency and supports the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology’s policy planning and coordination. Its specific functions are to formulate, coordinate, and support major science and
technology policies by, for example, forecasting science and technology development trends; analyzing and evaluating science and technology programs by all ministries; conducting research into domestic and overseas research planning, evaluation, and management systems; and disseminating R&D policy information and data. South Africa. South Africa has also been developing its capacity to undertake policy assessments and analysis. These capabilities have been developed within the main ministries, agencies, and advisory bodies. Of particular importance is the Centre for Science and Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII), which is responsible for national R&D and innovation surveys based on a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Science and Technology and Statistics South Africa in 2004. Several universities also host research groups with a focus on technology and innovation studies.
Source: OECD 2007b, 2009b; Tekes, www.tekes.fi. Note: Tekes = Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation.
476
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
budgeting, enhance accountability and transparency, and improve communication of outcomes to policy and decision makers and sponsors. In Finland, the evaluation of research, development, and innovation comprises meta-evaluation and system reviews (Ministry of Employment and the Economy 2010), evaluations of scientific and technological fields and programs, and evaluation of universities, research institutes, and other R&D institutions. Using information from evaluations to inform policy has remained a challenge in Finland, however, despite the numerous evaluations undertaken in the past ten to fifteen years. POTENTIAL BENEFITS
The benefits of an innovation system approach and good governance of an NIS should ultimately be visible at the macroeconomic level through increasing innovation and economic growth. As noted, OECD and others have developed a range of innovation input and output indicators, although the relative role of some factors, such as governance, is virtually impossible to assess through indicators. The most relevant indicators for measuring the benefits of an innovation system approach capture knowledge flows and collaboration or knowledge distribution throughout the system (under the assumption that they generate innovation and growth). Some of these indicators are available—for example, information on the mobility of researchers and personnel, innovation surveys on R&D collaboration, data on interfirm collaboration, rates of technology diffusion— but it is beyond the scope of this note to apply them to the case study countries.3 Instead, the experiences of Finland, Korea, and South Africa will be used to highlight some of the more subtle and intangible benefits of an innovation system approach in general. As emphasized throughout this note, an innovation system approach can focus the policy debate—create consensus and a common vision—on issues of key importance for sustaining innovation and growth, especially in response to emerging challenges and in times of crisis. Examples described here include globalization (Finland), economic crises (Finland, Korea), and poverty and segregation (South Africa). An innovation system approach to policy thinking and analysis can highlight latent potential for knowledge flows and collaboration across the various fields of science, technology, and industry and achieve “new combinations” as a source of innovation. To do so, countries will require good capabilities in obtaining and processing intelligence on the structure
and development of different sectors of the economy (as in Finland and Korea). Similarly, well-governed innovation systems can bring previously disconnected actors together and create new nodes and platforms for innovation. Finland and Korea have implemented explicit coordination schemes and policy programs to achieve this goal, such as the Tekes programs. Policy in South Africa has focused on integrating the “second economy” with activities at the traditional core of the innovation system. The success of an innovation system depends considerably on the extent to which it engages private companies in research, development, and innovation. The innovation system concept can extend the policy mix from supply-sided schemes (such as R&D funding) toward a large array of more demand-oriented schemes (such as standardization, public procurement, and regulations). (For examples from the three countries discussed here, see Dahlman, Routti, YläAnttila 2006 and OECD 2007b, 2009b). Nonetheless, an important consideration for governance of the innovation system is that a delicate balance must be struck between relying on market forces and more interventionist policies, such as regulations. Finally, although an NIS generally focuses on developing national innovation capacity, it does not lose sight of the value that the innovation system approach places on knowledge flows and collaboration, including internationally generated knowledge flows and collaboration. Knowledge flows and collaboration extend beyond national borders, and an innovation system approach can help to identify opportunities and bottlenecks of critical importance (see Edquist 1997 for a review of innovation system approaches that emphasize the international dimension).
LESSONS LEARNED
The following lessons related to innovation system governance are relevant to developing and sustaining governance in an AIS. A step-by-step process, building on existing structures and contexts
The development of an innovation system approach to innovation policy may take significant time (decades rather than years) and should be pursued systematically and iteratively so that emerging challenges and feedback from the research community and private sector can be addressed in a flexible way. Core governance structures for innovation
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 2: GOVERNANCE OF INNOVATION SYSTEMS
477
systems often are based on existing policy structures such as ministries, but they also typically involve the establishment of dedicated ministerial departments, councils, agencies, think tanks, and other entities. Most developing countries have little room to maneuver in research, development, and innovation. Consequently their only strategic choice is to stick to incremental innovations— for example, to improve existing products, services, and processes. All countries will need monitoring and governance arrangements that allow sufficient adaptability to reverse unwise decisions quickly. Countries with relatively small research systems, such as small countries or economies in the initial phases of development or recovery, have a particular need to concentrate their efforts. Many countries have established various prioritization practices in recent years. Korea, for example, uses a mix of instruments for priority setting, including technology foresight and technology road-mapping. These processes are distributed across ministries and agencies and create a diversity of competing priorities and visions (which ideally are reconciled in the national innovation policy). For an example from Thailand of a national innovation council, see the overview in module 1. An innovation system approach should acknowledge existing industrial structures (ICT and Nokia in Finland), company distributions (Korea’s chaebols), and the overall socioeconomic framework (the lack of involvement of South Africa’s “second economy”). Properly applied, the innovation system approach will facilitate collaboration and knowledge flows across actors and stakeholders whose efforts to innovate were previously separate or who were excluded from innovation altogether.
Mobilizing actors and resources
For policy to be more relevant and effective, it must embody clear visions, strategies, and priorities. Leadership in the governance of research, development, and innovation are also vital to mobilize actors and resources. Leadership is best undertaken by distinguished individuals (a president, prime minister, minister of finance), ministries, or innovative agencies and enterprises. These leaders have a broader perspective on policy agendas for research, development, and innovation and can help to maintain their coherence. Coordinating bodies
The role of coordinating bodies in setting priorities and coordinating agendas is increasingly important owing to challenges arising from globalization, emerging technologies, new forms of innovation, and a range of global issues such as energy and climate change, poverty, health care, and access to clean water. Coordinating bodies benefit from links to the highest levels of government (vertical coordination) but must also include decision makers and other stakeholders from diverse areas of the economy (horizontal coordination). The councils in Finland and Korea are two examples of such coordinating bodies. Governance of innovative activity is not provided by government or the public sector alone. It is important that representatives of the private and third sectors actively participate in formulating and implementing policy through various forms of publicprivate partnership. A clear role for high-level councils
Strong, visible commitment at the highest level
A common feature of countries that have successful research, development, and innovation policies is strong and visible commitment at the highest political level to long-term development of financial and human resources for research, development, and innovation. Other key factors are the integration of key ministries (finance, education) in planning and implementation processes, broad-based consensus on the basic elements of research, development, and innovation policy, and wide agreement that investments in research, development, and innovation are needed over the long term. In Finland and Korea, a high-level policy council with representatives from ministries, government, R&D agencies, and the private sector turned out to be an efficient mechanism for overall coordination of research, development, and innovation policies.
478
High-level councils can and often do play important roles in setting priorities and agendas and as overall policy coordination platforms, but it is evident that simply establishing a council is not enough (OECD 2009a,b,c). Their needs and tasks must be well-defined in the specific context, with attention to the strategic needs of the country’s innovation system. The council’s composition, too, needs to be considered in view of the strategic tasks. It must be open to newly emerging actors in innovation in the country. Horizontal coordination
A broader understanding of innovation and innovation policy means that more attention should be paid to horizontal coordination, which refers to the crossing of administrative and cultural boundaries between policy domains and sectors.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Autonomy to implement
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS
An innovation system approach can aid both policy design and implementation; policies also need to be implemented to deliver innovation and growth. In particular, policy implementation may best be facilitated at the level of relatively autonomous agencies rather than ministries and departments where political and other issues may be inhibiting factors (Tekes is one example; TIA in South Africa may be another).
Innovation systems emerge gradually and organically if the enabling environment is favorable. Knowledge flows and collaboration cannot be created by policy, but policy can create suitable conditions for them to happen. Good governance is central to the performance of an innovation system, and policies can strongly influence good governance. Practical recommendations for establishing governance structures include the following general and tentative “steps�:
Transparency
Innovation policies benefit from transparent schemes and the avoidance of bureaucracy and red tape. Programs for R&D can be efficient for focusing activities on predefined areas (for example, the specific technology areas represented by Tekes’ R&D programs). Care should be taken to include elements of competitive tendering. Policy continuity is also important to stabilize the innovation horizon (of private companies in particular). Learning and evaluation
The ability to obtain and analyze intelligence on market and technological developments and trends is of key importance for a well-functioning, proactive innovation system. Finland, Korea, and (to an increasing extent) South Africa conduct foresight exercises and impact assessments. These capabilities are preferably spread out throughout the innovation system and strengthened through international collaboration and related forums. They should be actively promoted and maintained. Improved means of evaluating the inputs, activities, outputs, and impacts of research, development, and innovation are needed to manage R&D organizations and instruments and provide important feedback for policy making. The development and implementation of monitoring and evaluation require intervention from the upper levels of innovation policy. Many countries are finding that evaluations of research organizations, research and technology programs, and other policy instruments are an effective and indirect way to control and manage research organizations. Although evaluations are increasingly used to improve the design and implementation of the instruments of research, development, and innovation policy, they are not always readily available or communicated to policy makers at the strategic decision-making level.
1. Develop awareness of innovation systems concepts and identify good practices in similar sectoral, regional, and national contexts. Engage in international dialogue. 2. Communicate the viability and challenges of implementing an innovation system approach. Probe the possibilities for seeking, and achieving, consensus and a common vision on key issues. 3. Analyze structural and institutional preconditions for governance structures related to innovation systems. Involve companies, public research agencies, and other relevant stakeholders (main ministries, regulators, NGOs) in policy design, consultations, and strategizing. 4. Consider the suitability of existing institutions to handle STI matters. Consider the need for new, STI-dedicated agencies and other institutions. 5. Assess the economic, legal, and political viability of introducing STI issues and the innovation system concept at various levels of governance. Ensure that mechanisms for priority setting and coordination can be put in place. 6. Develop existing institutions to support STI or establish new STI institutions if required. Ensure that they have a clear mandate and specific roles to avoid overlap. Be ready to divest obsolete schemes and institutions if necessary to foster the growth of new ones. 7. Ensure relative institutional autonomy in policy implementation. Ensure that sufficient capabilities and resources are in place for day-to-day management of policy schemes and initiatives, now and in the long run (to ensure policy stability and predictability). 8. Implement policy schemes (at the agency level or below) and initiatives as considered relevant, based on an assessment of societal needs. Consider which policy mix is most suitable to the context. Ensure that schemes and initiatives are transparent, nonexclusive, and predictable, and support both networking and competition. 9. Ensure that institutions and capabilities remain in place (compare with the third step) to analyze and assess technological and market trends, as well as to assess the impacts of policy schemes, initiatives, and the innovation system as a whole. Continue to engage in international dialogue.
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 2: GOVERNANCE OF INNOVATION SYSTEMS
479
T H E M AT I C N O T E 3
Managing Intellectual Property to Foster Agricultural Development Sara Boettiger, University of California, Berkeley Robert Potter, Consultant Stanley Kowalski, University of New Hampshire
SYNOPSIS
ver the past decades, consideration of IPRs has become increasingly important in many areas of agricultural development, including foreign direct investment, technology transfer, trade, investment in innovation, access to genetic resources, and the protection of traditional knowledge. The widening role of IPRs in governing the ownership of—and access to—innovation, information, and knowledge makes them particularly critical in ensuring that developing countries benefit from the introduction of new technologies that could radically alter the welfare of the poor. Failing to improve IPR policies and practices to support the needs of developing countries will eliminate significant development opportunities. The discussion in this note moves away from policy prescriptions to focus on investments to improve how IPRs are used in practice in agricultural development. These investments must be seen as complementary to other investments in agricultural development. IPRs are woven into the context of innovation and R&D. They can enable entrepreneurship and allow the leveraging of private resources for resolving the problems of poverty. Conversely, IPRs issues can delay important scientific advancements, deter investment in products for the poor, and impose crippling transaction costs on organizations if the wrong tools are used or tools are badly applied. The central benefit of pursuing the investments outlined in this note is to build into the system a more robust capacity for strategic and flexible use of IPRs tailored to development goals.
O
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT FOR ACTION AND INVESTMENT
As public funding for agricultural research has fallen relative to private sector investments, for many countries the era in
480
which agricultural development often depended on public goods and the unchecked sharing of research results has come to an end. Countries have entered a new era in which innovation, R&D, and the sharing of knowledge occur at the same time that global IPRs are on the rise. The current IPR climate demands a nuanced and strategic use of IPRs to enable innovation and support agricultural development, but the shift toward this scenario is proving challenging, and many donors, governments, institutions, and individuals are struggling to respond. There are good reasons for the hesitant progress in understanding the use of IPRs in agricultural development. First, other priorities upstage IPR issues in environments where limited resources must be allocated across formidable needs. Second, expertise in IPR issues often cuts across many fields, including law, business, science and technology, as well as development policy. Even the range of IPR instruments in agriculture is diverse. In addition to patents, other forms of protection, such as trademarks and geographical indications, can create value in agricultural value chains in developing countries; copyright laws can limit access to agricultural research journals, databases, and software code; PVP certificates, utility models, and sometimes even trade secrets are also relevant to agricultural development (World Bank 2006).1 Third, the international landscape for IPRs is changing rapidly. Policy makers in developing countries now operate within a system of bilateral, regional, and multilateral treaties that govern a wide range of IPR issues (box 6.15); protection of genetic resources and traditional knowledge (box 6.16); and, in debates about food security and developing countries’ capacity to respond to climate change, the increasing importance of the role of IPRs in technology transfer. This note argues, however, that IPR-related investments are
Box 6.15 Beyond TRIPS
The Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) came into effect in 1995, stipulating that all signatories to the agreement should introduce a minimum amount of legislation to protect IPRs. This international obligation triggered a widespread introduction of IPR legislation in developing countries in recent years, as it became a requirement for entry into the World Trade Organization. More recently, in addition to TRIPS, developing countries operate in a landscape increasingly dominated by preferential trade agreements (PTAs). These agreements
often contain obligations relating to domestic intellectual property policies that exceed the minimum standards set forth in TRIPS. Collectively, agreements with intellectual property obligations comprise a landscape referred to as “TRIPS-plus.” A recent report estimated that close to 400 PTAs were in force by 2010, governing more than half of global trade. Not only is the number of agreements growing, but IPR provisions are also occurring in increasingly diverse types of agreements, from customs standards to anticounterfeiting agreements.
Source: Heydon and Woolcock 2009; Frankel 2009.
Box 6.16 IPR Issues in Genetic Resources
Ownership of genetic resources and traditional knowledge is an area where IPRs are increasingly considered a serious issue. R&D in crop improvement, for example, depends on the wealth of genetic material held in farmers’ fields and national and international gene banks. Both the conservation of genetic resources and access to them are critical for our future capacity to address global food security issues, including drought tolerance, yield improvements, and resistance to diseases and pests. Maintaining a balance between the preservation of genetic resources and ensuring widespread access depends on finding solutions that can work within a complicated cross-section of national, international, and institutional policies. For example, in 2006 the research centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) that maintained ex situ collections of plant genetic resources signed agreements with the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (“the Treaty”), which placed the collections they hold under the Treaty, and adopted a “Standard Material Transfer Agreement.” Exchanges of genetic resources involving the CGIAR centers are now governed by this agreement, which includes IPR obligations.
Further questions over rights to genetic resources are raised by the increased capacity for large-scale DNA sequencing. Currently, many projects to sequence plant genomes promise benefits to agricultural development. The data and associated knowledge hold the potential to assist in breeding for improved yields, disease resistance, and countless other traits. There has been continuing concern, however, in genome sequencing about the optimal use of IPRs that does not impede innovation based on the new data. Some argue that without the ability to patent, the investment in further R&D is not warranted; others argue that allowing proprietary ownership allows for blocking patents that can slow or halt innovation. While it is becoming increasingly difficult to patent DNA sequences in the United States, a large number of patent applications still contain claims to sequences in bulk. For example, CAMBIA’s analysis indicates that approximately 74 percent of the rice genome is claimed in United States patent applications. As this brief discussion indicates, future investments in policies and programs involving genetic resources must include considerations of IPRs to support the donors’ intended impacts on agricultural development.
Source: CAMBIA (“Mapping of Rice Patents and Patent Applications onto the Rice Genome”); Pollack 2010. Note: The Standard Material Transfer Agreement can be accessed at this link: http://www.planttreaty.org/smta_en.htm.
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 3: MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO FOSTER AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
481
critical if developing countries are to benefit sufficiently from advances in STI over the next decades. MAJOR IPR-RELATED DRIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT
Three main interrelated paths characterize mechanisms through which IPRs impact global poverty: (1) trade and foreign direct investment; (2) national capacity for innovation and development of local commerce; and (3) technology transfer. These paths are discussed in the sections that follow with full recognition of the oversimplification of this framework.2 Nonetheless, it serves as a useful compass for the analysis that follows. Trade and foreign direct investment
Box 6.15 showed how trade issues often drive IPR legislation, with varied impacts. Studies of the relationship between IPRs, trade, and foreign direct investment in developing economies have covered a wide range of potential paths of interaction in an attempt to determine whether stronger IPR policies in developing countries are likely to produce benefits for the world’s poor. While a significant literature illustrates positive implications of stronger IPR policies on trade and foreign direct investment, there are caveats. Strict enforcement of IPR, for instance, may drive up the costs of imitating or copying inventions, which may reduce growth in very low income countries that rely on these approaches and do not yet have the infrastructure to accept foreign direct investment. Other work has shown that stronger IPR policies can exacerbate income inequalities in developing countries and that the flows from trade and foreign direct investment do not sufficiently impact the very poor (Adams 2008). In short, the empirical work on IPR policies, foreign direct investment, and trade in developing countries leaves unresolved questions about how the poor are affected over time, and debates will continue with further exploration of the issues.3
National innovation climate
IPR legislation is one component of the climate for innovation in a country, but legal instruments are not enough on their own to encourage investment in innovation. Without the active involvement of national researchers, there will be little appreciation of the role of IPRs, and thus other investments will do little to encourage innovation. Interventions that focus on protecting inventions in public institutions
482
can be a way to jump-start a cycle in which increased protection of IP increases awareness of the value of innovation. Box 6.17 shows an approach to increasing locally focused R&D in Botswana, coupled with measures to raise public awareness of new inventions and designs. Types of IPRs differ in their influence on the innovation climate within low-income countries. Patents can be important IPR instruments for discrete inventions, as seen in box 6.18, which shows how a machine to prevent frost damage in fruit orchards was exported from Chile to important overseas markets. Other forms of IPRs offer greater opportunities to influence the domestic innovation and business development climate, however. Trademarks, geographical indicators, plant breeders’ rights, and seed registration laws may garner comparatively less attention than patents in the international press, but as noted, they often have more practical potential to affect agricultural development in lowincome countries. Box 6.19 describes how a trademark was initially used to build a brand around Colombian coffee and how geographical indicators have been employed more recently to maintain this brand. The success of this approach led other countries to similarly distinguish their local produce in an international market, such as Pinggu peaches from China. In this case, the agreement between China and the EU on geographical indicators for peaches from this region of China opened an export market for high-quality fruit previously recognized only within China.4 Technology transfer
The transfer of technology and knowledge remains perhaps the most influential of the three drivers listed here in terms of IPR investments contributing to poverty reduction. Most well-capitalized engines of innovation are in developed countries, but increasing numbers are found in emerging economies. There is a real need to improve international capacity for agricultural R&D targeted at poverty reduction as well as the flow of knowledge and technologies to benefit developing countries. Whether the “technology” that is transferred refers to a novel plant variety, the tacit knowledge of how to improve a food-processing practice, or an innovative business model for giving smallholder farmers access to microirrigation, making technology and knowledge available to improve the lives of the poor has both direct impacts (for example, by improving health, food security, or access to water and sanitation) and indirect impacts (such as economic development). IPRs are an important factor in public-private partnerships transferring technologies, in the formalization of the knowledge and
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 6.17 BOTEC Harnesses Innovation in Botswana
Botswana Technology Centre (BOTEC) in Gaborone is a research and technology organization established by the Botswana government in 1979. Operating under the Ministry of Communications, Science, and Technology, BOTEC has pursued the government’s policy objective of technology promotion and innovation as a tool for developing the economy and improving the quality of life in Botswana. To strengthen research and development capacity, BOTEC has a longstanding involvement and active participation with a number of local organizations, including the University of Botswana, Botswana Institution of Engineers, Botswana Export Development and Investment Authority, Botswana Innovation Hub, and some nongovernmental organizations. Botswana’s Industrial Property Rights Act (1996) provides a legal framework for the country’s innovators to seek intellectual property protection for their intellectual property. BOTEC has worked to improve intellectual property awareness in Botswana to assist inventors to be more creative and benefit from their innovations. BOTEC’s intellectual property policy seeks to address a number of issues, including Botswana’s increased participation in international treaties related to intellectual property, access to information on inventions related to BOTEC activities, and dealing with new technology that has been transferred to companies. BOTEC initiated the
National Design for Development Awards in 1999 to recognize inventions and innovations that can offer solutions to some of the problems faced by Botswana. As of 2010, three award ceremonies have been hosted. The World Intellectual Property Organization and African Intellectual Property Organization supported the award ceremonies by sponsoring special awards for outstanding innovations in Botswana. BOTEC is contributing to efforts to protect Botswana’s traditional knowledge by chairing an Indigenous Knowledge Task Force, which is drafting the indigenous knowledge section for the Industrial Property Rights Act. BOTEC’s solar-powered hearing device was developed through a collaborative scheme with Motse Wa Badiri Camphill, a nongovernmental organization that conducted field tests, raised funds for design improvements, branded the device with the SolarAid name, and took it to market. SolarAid generated considerable interest and was used in many developing countries. BOTEC assisted Motse Wa Badiri Camphill to set up a separate organization, the Godisa Technologies Trust, to develop the promising pilot project into a genuinely successful product. The recharger, now successfully marketed under the SolarAid brand, requires only 6–8 hours of sunlight to maintain a full charge for a week.
Source: Quoted with slight adaptations from WIPO, http://www.wipo.int/ipadvantage/en/details.jsp?id=2623.
innovation that lies in the public sector, and in the creation of specific technology transfer offices (TTOs) in such institutions (see module 5, TN 5 for examples of TTOs for individual institutions or a network of institutions). TTOs are one example of policies promoting technology transfer, but they are not the only such policy. Understanding where to make strategic IPR-related investments, given the diverse pathways of potential impact listed above, requires a closer look at the current context of international IPRs and agricultural development. Investments in this space must take into account (1) the international obligations related to IPR and the rapidly expanding use of IPRs in agriculture and (2) the continuing disparity in capacity between the public sector and the private sector in the strategic use of IPRs. Although biotechnology is playing an increasing role in agricultural development and is one area where the private sector has made large invest-
ments, IPR policies should not be driven by individual technologies. Similarly, the desire to encourage public-private partnerships should not—by itself—drive IPR policies, although clearer understanding of IPRs at both the national and institutional level will help these partnerships flourish.
Disparity in the capacity to manage IP in public and private R&D
Despite increasing opportunities to engage the private sector, the public sector continues to be the primary driver in agricultural R&D for most developing countries. Globally, agricultural investment in the public sector is double that of the private sector, and one-third of the worldwide agricultural R&D budget is spent in developing countries.5 The lack of capacity for IPR management in public research organizations, and the disparity in IPR management
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 3: MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO FOSTER AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
483
Box 6.18 Patenting a Chilean Invention to Protect Crops from Frost
In 1991, severe frost decimated Florencio Lazo Barra’s fruit orchards. He lost all of his table grape production and 80 percent of his plums. He also incurred high fuel costs for oil burners, which he used in the failed attempt to protect his orchards from frost. After years of experimentation, in 1996 a working prototype of the Lazo Frost Control Machine (“Lazo FCM”) was tested successfully. The Lazo FCM is a powerful centrifugal fan with a heater, which is trailed across the field by a tractor. The insertion of a layer of hot air in the cold air mass surrounding the plants protects fruits and vegetables from frost. Following successful tests with the prototype, Mr. Lazo applied for assistance from Innova Chile, a government agency tasked with promoting innovation. He obtained funding to convert his business idea into reality and produce more machines. Orders from Chilean farmers soon followed, and in 1997, with assistance from an intellectual property expert, he began obtaining a patent abroad. The United States was the first country to grant his invention a patent in 1999. In Chile, patent No. 41776 was granted in 2002 by the
Industrial Property Department. The invention is also protected by patents in Argentina, Australia, China, and the European Union. In 1998 the Lazo FCM technology was exported to the United States by granting a manufacturing license to Agtec Crop Sprayers (now “Superb Horticulture”), who sold the product under the name “Lazo Frost Dragon.” In the first three years, over 500 machines were sold in South America and the United States. In 2000, sales and distribution started in Europe through Agrofrost N.V., a company based in Belgium selling and distributing the machines throughout Europe under the “Lazo Frostbuster” name. More recently, the technology was exported to New Zealand and Australia. Without the support of Innova Chile, which enabled the inventor to file for patent protection, little of this development would have taken place. Government agencies charged with supporting innovation are often criticized for supporting projects that do not come to fruition, so it is important to recognize cases where they have been successful to balance this impression.
Source: Quoted with slight adaptations from WIPO, http://www.wipo.int/ipadvantage/en/details.jsp?id=2448.
capacity between the public and private sectors, are therefore important considerations for investments in agricultural development. ACTION AND INVESTMENT NEEDED
This section describes a set of investments related to IPR and agricultural development that can improve activity in this sector. Opportunities exist to improve policies at the institutional level and to develop institutional capacity, as well as to increase knowledge sharing between the public and private sectors and, through these advances, increase capacity for technology transfer. It is not possible to provide a template for particular laws or IPR regimes that will benefit all countries; IPR legislation must be tailored to the national context. This issue is discussed extensively in World Bank (2006), which recommends a dialogue with conscious consideration of needs and priorities prior to enacting IPR legislation for plant breeding. For example, staple crops may be treated differently from crops grown for export. Where a particular
484
species is considered to be of national importance, exemptions from PVP have been incorporated in some national legislation. Furthermore, as countries develop, needs for protection may change, particularly as they move from industries that exist by copying products produced elsewhere to innovating to develop their own products. IPR regimes continue to evolve even in developed economies and must be flexible enough to cope with changes in national requirements. Promote the establishment of specific IP policies in public organizations
Establishing institutional policies on the ownership, protection, and dissemination of inventions will have a big impact on enabling technology transfer among public organizations. Institutional IPR polices are critical to the impact of public research, can open an institution to new partners, and create incentives for changing the innovation climate. One of the biggest improvements in technology transfer between public and private organizations in the United
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 6.19 Colombian Coffee: Trademarks and Geographical Indicators Protect a Valued Brand
Coffee from Colombia has retained a significant price premium over coffee from Brazil (the world’s largest producer of Arabica coffee) for many decades, largely owing to a branding strategy that emphasizes the high quality of Colombia’s product. The National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia (FNC, Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia) was created in 1927 by Colombian farmers. Today, it represents over half a million coffee growers, the majority of whom are smallholders. The Juan Valdez® brand strategy is an excellent example of continuing creativity in IPR management to promote agricultural development. Television commercials shown in North America in the 1960s featured Juan Valdez® in the coffee fields with his faithful mule, painstakingly selecting and handpicking the ripest beans. Consumers began to respond to the message that Colombian beans are grown and harvested with great care, with little help from machines, in ideal climatic conditions with plenty of rain, sun, and fertile volcanic soil. Demand grew. Many coffee roasters began marketing their products as Colombian coffee. A number launched high-end products consisting exclusively of Colombian coffee. The Juan Valdez® logo was licensed to coffee roasters that used only high-quality Colombian coffee. Not
all coffee roasters responded to this initiative, however, and another IPR instrument was included in the strategy: certification. “Colombian” was registered in relation to coffee as a certification mark in North America in the 1980s. The formal standards attached to this certification mark provide a guarantee that the actors in the marketplace are meeting minimum quality standards when selling “Colombian” coffee, thereby protecting its hardearned reputation. Enforcing and protecting this certification turned out to be expensive but worthwhile, given the premium that Colombian coffee now demands in the market. The continuing expansion of the Juan Valdez® brand also included opening branded coffee shops, which have had varying degrees of success, as well as a partnership with Coca-Cola FoodService to offer a branded liquid coffee system. “Café de Colombia” was registered as a geographical indicator in Colombia in 2004 and the European Union in 2006. Unlike trademarks and certification marks, geographical indicators are intrinsically linked to attributes and quality standards related to origin. They need to be recognized by governments, so delays can arise in establishing such a system, but the value of these treaties in promoting quality brands is now recognized.
Source: Fridell 2007; March 2007a, 2007b.
States was legislation mandating IPR policies for institutions that receive federal funds. By clarifying ownership of inventions and the responsibility of the institutions to protect them, IPR policies became an integral part of research activities. Without necessarily mandating the use of IPRs through legislative means, in individual organizations the establishment of policies related to ownership and responsibilities for protecting and disseminating inventions will have a big impact on enabling technology transfer.
Well-trained IP practitioners are critical for a country to represent national interests and negotiate IPR provisions in multiple international forums and for a country to develop national IPR policies that promote development within complex international obligations. Likewise, managers, engineers, and scientists in public and private institutions must be able to understand IP and how to use it if countries are to play an increasingly competitive role in global agricultural development.
Create a global corps of trained IPR practitioners
Support the creation of TTOs
The impact of new IPR legislation in the wake of TRIPS cannot lead to positive cultural shifts in the use of IPRs without sufficient numbers of trained, in-country practitioners. The success of continuing investments in creating patent offices, improving judicial systems, and opening TTOs depends on the quality of the professionals engaged.
An effective way to achieve institutional understanding of the value of IPRs may be through the creation of specific TTOs with a mandate to identify and protect innovation use and to use IPRs to promote greater impact of the research and innovations arising within the institution (for example, through licensing technology with other partners). Such
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 3: MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO FOSTER AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
485
offices provide direct opportunities for the professionals targeted in training activities to gain experience and also demonstrate to researchers the value of IPRs in enabling further development of their innovation (for additional information, see module 5, TN 5). Revisit the importance of nonpatent frameworks and opportunities for agricultural development
Trademarks, PVP, seed laws, and geographical indications are a few of many IPR-related nonpatent instruments that may have an impact on agricultural development.6 In lowincome countries where patenting is limited and mechanisms for enforcing patents are not well developed, these alternative forms of IPRs can be critical instruments in AISs. The PVP system, for instance, granting plant breeders exclusive rights to market new varieties, is implemented in a number of industrialized and developing countries (World
Bank 2006). UPOV remains active in promoting harmonization as traditional approaches to PVP are challenged by advances in plant breeding and genetics (Janis and Smith 2007). Trademarks and related brand equity strategies are considered by some scholars to be underutilized as a form of creating value for developing countries’ agricultural products. A wide variety of opportunities exist for improving nonpatent, IPR-related instruments at both the policy and practitioner level; for examples, see boxes 6.19 and 6.20. Encourage donors to require strategic IPR management in development investments
Private foundations, governments, aid agencies, and other donors can influence the outcomes of investments across many fields by instituting internal grant-making requirements that demand a higher level of strategic IPR management. As one example, requiring grantees to provide a plan
Box 6.20 Hagar Soya Co., Cambodia: Multiple Benefits from an Innovative Social Business Model
Hagar Soya Co. Limited (HSL) is a small enterprise in Phnom Penh created in 1998 by Hagar, a nongovernmental charity based in Switzerland. In the mid-1990s, Hagar began an income-generation, training, and employment project for abused and abandoned women in postconflict Cambodia. The project led to the incorporation of HSL as one of Hagar’s small businesses. HSL’s first commercially successful product was a soya milk drink sold under the brand name “So! Soya.” The product is nutritious, affordable, and tastes good—all important qualities in helping local children increase their protein intake in a country with very high malnutrition. Following the success of the soya milk drink, the company added more soya-based items to its product line. Initially, the commercialization of Hagar’s soya milk was done in a rather informal way; women from Hagar’s programs produced 300 liters of fresh soya milk per day and sold it on the streets of Phnom Penh from push carts. By 2003, HSL was ready for largerscale production and the “So! Soya” trademark was registered with the intellectual property Department of the Ministry of Commerce of Cambodia. Subsequent HSL products such as “So! Soya kids,” “So! Soya Gold,” “So! Yo,” “So! Yumme,” “So! Milk,” and
“So! Choco” have also been protected by registered trademarks. The company’s intellectual property strategy focuses almost entirely on trademarks and aims at increasing the competitiveness of HSL’s products. The company considers trademarks to be effective for preventing unauthorized use of HSL’s marks and guarding against counterfeiting. The competitive edge also arises from registering a trademark to protect and increase its value, then publicizing it through a good marketing and business strategy to enlarge the company’s market share and stimulate the development of new products. The success of HSL’s trademark strategy is reflected in the company’s achievements, first, in marketing its brand name through brand development of both the company and its products, and second, in ensuring lasting brand impact through quality products. The company benefited from Hagar’s initial ability to identify the right path to incorporate income-generating activities within a development project, taking into consideration the social needs of Cambodia. HSL is an example of an efficient social enterprise model, which, according to the International Finance Corporation, can be replicated by nongovernmental organizations worldwide.
Source: Quoted with adaptations from WIPO, http://www.wipo.int/ipadvantage/en/details.jsp?id=2563.
486
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
demonstrating that IPR has been considered in all aspects of the proposed activities will drive demand for building capacity in IPR management, highlight the impact of specific IPR-related policy needs, set important standards, and ultimately benefit donors by reducing the risks of their investments. Furthermore, requiring a consideration of product development beyond the research stage has the advantage of identifying other technologies that may need to be licensed and other partners who will need to be involved to deliver the products to the target population. IPR-related investments must be made, however, with the recognition that IPR is only one of many factors that can foster or impede technology transfer. While there are key opportunities to address IPR issues in technology transfer, practitioners often find that risks unrelated to IPR are more challenging. These risks concern stewardship, products flowing back into commercial markets, and liability issues. It should also be noted that, particularly for technology directed toward rural populations, some form of extension services will be critical for disseminating the technology to the target population (World Bank 2006). POTENTIAL BENEFITS
Investments in IPRs play a facilitating role, influencing the potential impacts of many other investments in agricultural development. The impacts of improved handling of IPR issues, therefore, are unlikely to be directly measurable. Benefits to R&D activities in the public and private sectors should include improved transfer of technology from public organizations, improved linkages between industry and academic or public research institutions, and improved access to private sector technologies. For example, Unicamp created productive linkages between the university’s own R&D and industry once it established a specific TTO (module 5, TN 5). In individual cases, benefits can often be attributed directly to the particular steps taken to protect the IP within a particular project, such as the patenting of the frost control machine (box 6.18), which allowed the inventor to enter licensing agreements with overseas developers. This connection can also be seen in commercial enterprises, where success is determined by the creation of a particular brand associated with a certain quality of product. Box 6.20 described how a small NGO in Cambodia became a successful enterprise by trademarking its products. Although the success of this enterprise depended on a wide range of factors, trademark protection was an enabling part of the business strategy.
POLICY ISSUES
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recognizes a number of policy issues related to IPRs for developing countries and has adopted 45 related recommendations under the WIPO Development Agenda.7 The recommendations are grouped in the following clusters and cover a number of issues relevant to this discussion, including: Technical Assistance and Capacity Building; Normsetting, Flexibilities, Public Policy, and Public Domain; Technology Transfer, Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs), and Access to Knowledge; Assessment, Evaluation, and Impact Studies; Institutional Matters, including Mandate and Governance. Coordination of IPR policies with other innovation policies
Policies seeking to encourage innovation for development are inherently dependent on many other areas of policy and law. Sound policies on education, trade, agricultural input subsidies, farmers’ extension services, functioning court systems, and many other elements are integral to the impact of IPR policy on agricultural development (World Bank 2006). Given the interconnectedness of IPR policies with other national policies, and given the wide variety of IPRs affecting agriculture, it is difficult to provide specific policy recommendations. Countries have considerable flexibility (even within TRIPS) to adopt IPR policies that support their own specific needs, and resources exist for them to engage advice on policy changes. While the appropriate policies will be as diverse as the range of developing countries adopting them, there are common goals for IPR policy supporting agricultural development. These goals support benefits for the poor in access to technology as well as economic development, and they include creating incentives for local innovation, encouraging foreign direct investment, increasing connections between industry and universities or research institutes, facilitating better public-private partnerships, and improving the impact of public agricultural research for the poor. A functional legal system and extension service
The major precondition for any development of IPRs is a functional legal system under which IPRs and other legally binding agreements, especially contracts, can be enforced. IPRs are a property right, and developing respect for property rights further contributes to social justice and the rule
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 3: MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO FOSTER AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
487
of law in a country (Cavicchi and Kowalski 2007). As noted, extension services are another precondition; introducing technology and innovation into research is pointless if the outcomes are not transferred to farmers and have no impact on poverty (World Bank 2006). Access to improved products is a major equity issue that must be addressed within individual projects, but for products that have a direct commercial value and will be marketed through the private sector, high royalties may have detrimental effects on access. In this case, IPR legislation can include compulsory licensing mechanisms to increase access and/or reduce the market price. Environmental issues
Given the wide-ranging impact of IPRs on rural development, it is difficult to provide specific policy recommendations with respect to environmental issues. In most cases, access to improved technologies is expected to improve rural productivity. Productivity improvements may have both positive and negative environmental implications, but the major factor in environmental damage is often the lack of better alternatives. If farmers have better alternatives to current practices, they may be able to take better care of their land, use other resources more efficiently, and contribute to greater environmental sustainability. Roles of public and private sectors
Since the major rationale for a society to develop IPRs is to provide an incentive for individuals and organizations to invest in innovation by increasing the likelihood of a return, IPRs will directly affect the private sector’s involvement in agricultural development. IPRs help connect countries to the global innovation marketplace, which includes both private and public actors. At the same time, giving public institutions responsibility to protect their inventions (as well as license them) increases technology transfer. For this reason, there is a major role for the public as well as the private sector in developing an IPR system that is relevant to national needs.
LESSONS LEARNED
As discussed, a wide range of actions and investments can support the management of IPRs to promote agricultural development. The following sections summarize lessons learned over the years as new strategies in IPR management were used to achieve specific socioeconomic goals.
488
Legislation has to be passed and enforced but is not sufficient on its own
For low-income countries, the impact of IPR policies is often dwarfed by other factors that have a far more direct effect on innovation, including lagging investment in education, institutional and infrastructural challenges, limited access to financing, and the effects of a range of other business development policies. In response to TRIPS, most countries have passed IPR legislation, but few have gone on to create a culture of innovation. To take this next step, the value of protecting and using innovation must be understood within a society. Government support for innovation (box 6.18) that leads to the development of specific products is one way to demonstrate the value of IPRs to a wide cross-section of society. Investments related to IPRs are focusing on legal systems of developing countries, based on the understanding that the ultimate impact of any IPR depends on how it is enforced. IPR legislation must be supported by well-functioning institutions (courts, patent offices, and the like) if IPRs are to provide any incentive for innovation, but these critical investments in institutional capacity will have more impact if they are designed to support the interactions of institutions and staff with a rapidly changing IPR environment. Examples include investments in improved capacity to negotiate international treaties, increased support for connections to international networks of professionals, and improved access to research and expertise specifically targeted at IPR issues in developing countries. Managing property rights in public institutions is critical
In agricultural development, public institutions are central to the development and adoption of innovations that will benefit the world’s poor. The role of the public sector in agricultural development has shifted considerably over recent decades: grants are for shorter terms and focus more tightly on projects; engagement with the private sector is increasingly a necessity; and organizations operate in a complex web of IP and regulatory law frameworks. The public sector has lagged considerably in understanding how IPR policies and practices affect its role in development goals. In public organizations, capacity for IPR management is often a low priority due to resource constraints, limitations on available expertise, and a lack of receptivity among some managers to embrace IPRs as an important component of their development work. This lack of capacity can lead to mistakes and missed opportunities in licensing,
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
partnership agreements, and strategic management of innovations. From the donors’ perspective, lack of IPR management can lead to delays, potentially reduced impact, or sometimes the halting of a project altogether. Conversely, good capacity for IPR management reduces the risk for donors’ R&D investments.
to promote a local industry. Often these are temporary measures used to assist in strategic development, because they may be considered to be in breach of trade rules, but where a case can be made for a special need, exemptions are an important option to consider. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS
Humanitarian licensing models need more work
Licensing language that supports “humanitarian uses” of proprietary technologies permits them to be used for applications important to international development while preserving the technology owner’s commercial market, yet such language is not widely used. Much work remains to be done to move from “model language” to language integrated into working licenses. In addition to IPR provisions, humanitarian use licensing has not yet adequately addressed key issues that repeatedly arise in public-private partnerships, such as liability. Emerging markets represent a further licensing challenge. So far, many models of humanitarian licenses depend on territorial distinctions. This strategy can leave countries like Brazil, India, and China out of a geographically defined region for humanitarian use, despite the large populations of very poor people in these countries. Legal strategies must be improved to allow the poor in these countries to benefit from technologies that are accessed under humanitarian use licenses. Flexibility is crucial for future success
One-size-fits-all solutions to IPR management work in limited situations to reduce transaction costs, but over the years it has become clear that most IPR management at the institutional level requires project-specific consideration of the partners, technologies, countries, and many other details. Patent pools, patent commons, clearinghouses,8 and model licenses do have great value, but the standardized approach must be complemented with (1) the flexibility to modify the IPR strategy and (2) access to resources to support good strategic management. At the policy level, similarly, the complex differences among countries necessitate careful assessment of tailored IPR policy solutions. As noted, the level of development of a particular industry may warrant some kind of special exemption, particularly if the industry is considered of strategic importance. Such exemptions have most often been seen in the pharmaceutical industry, where exemptions from patent protection for certain drugs or even whole classes of drugs have been used
The recommendations that follow are intended for policy makers as well as practitioners (researchers, managers, and experts who encounter IP issues at the institutional or project level). The recommendations complement the earlier section on “Actions Needed,” which identifies key areas for investment, and should be kept in mind by practitioners as aspects of IPR arise in projects. Create diverse opportunities for IPR training
Policy makers as well as those at the institutional level can articulate the need to raise awareness of IPR issues across many fields of science and technology. Scientists, engineers, IP managers, government officials, administrators, and many others can benefit from improved understanding of the role of IPRs in agricultural development. The roles that IPRs play, however, and the levels at which they may be encountered are highly diverse, which suggests that a broad range of training options should be considered. For example, box 6.21 details the development of a small enterprise from an NGO-led project to generate income. In this case, IPR awareness training was incorporated into the business planning for the project so that participants would understand the options for protecting any IP. Where a producer organization is involved, such as the Colombia Coffee Federation (box 6.19), the organization’s needs may best be served by identifying specific individuals to receive more specialized training in legal aspects of managing IPRs. In addition, practitioners can work to ensure that training for particular professionals continues—for example, through engagement with an international community. Training within a South–South context can be particularly valuable for professionals to compare the challenges and solutions related to IPRs in developing countries. Where the establishment of technology transfer offices is being considered, exchange programs with existing offices can be highly beneficial and help to forge long-term links between institutions. Box 6.21 includes examples of investments in training IP professionals with funding from national agencies and donors.
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 3: MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO FOSTER AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
489
Box 6.21 Country and Donor Investments in Intellectual Property Training for Professionals
In-depth training. Since its founding in 1998, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Academy (http://www.wipo.int/academy/en/) has offered a wide range of courses on intellectual property and intellectual property management. In addition to short workshops, the academy provides key support for degree and certificate programs in many developing countries. For example, in 2010 Zimbabwe’s African University (in collaboration with WIPO and the African Intellectual Property Organization) graduated the first class of students with a master’s degree in intellectual property. South–South training. The International Intellectual Property Training Institute (IIPTI, http://iipti.org/), part of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, trains professionals from Malaysia, Vietnam, and other developing countries within the region. India, South Africa, and Brazil play key roles as regional leaders with the capacity to share IPR knowledge specific to the challenges faced by developing countries. Targeting diverse professionals. Singapore’s Mentorship Funding Scheme brings in qualified patent agents from overseas to mentor and train professionals
at locally based organizations. The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS, www.ipos.gov.sg) funds the costs of the program jointly with local organizations. India’s National Institute of Intellectual Property Management (NIIPM, www.ipindia.nic.in), in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, provides training to R&D managers, scientists, legal professionals, patent agents, researchers, doctors, engineers, and others. Practical knowledge. As part of its bilateral development assistance, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA, www.sida.se) offers around 100 Advanced International Training Programmes every year targeted at practitioners in the field. These programs frequently cover various IPR issues, including topics such as genetic resources and IPRs, industrial property in the global economy, and intellectual property for least developed countries. The Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA, www.pipra.org) provides training and educational materials (see the ipHandbook, www.iphandbook.org) to developing-country scientists, intellectual property managers, and policy makers, with a focus on providing tools for practicing intellectual property.
Source: Authors.
When developing training programs, it is essential to consider that the trained professionals will need some form of employment in a setting where they can use the skills they have learned. Significant resources have been wasted by training people who have no opportunities to apply their knowledge; these misdirected efforts further erode the impression that IPRs should be taken into account. TTOs provide a focus for training individuals and can also employ them in a role that enables them to maintain their involvement in this field. Promote collaboration among public and private partners
Practitioners working at the institutional level should seek to ensure that institutional IP policies support partnerships between public and private organizations. Such policies might include, for example, a clear set of principles to govern legal relationships with partners, processes to assess risk in partnerships, transparency mechanisms to enable good governance,
490
clarity around confidentiality issues, and the flexibility for management to implement a strategic IPR management plan. EMBRAPA9 in Brazil has created such policies, which enabled it to make licensing deals with a number of multinational companies as well as local seed producers and assume a significant role in soybean variety development (Fuck and Banacelli 2009). Policy makers should continue to explore IP policy options through the lens of creating incentives for public and private collaboration in agricultural development. Balance in-house capacity with prudent use of external services
The IPR management capacity needed to meet the challenges of coming decades does not exist in sufficient depth, even in industrialized countries. In the private sector, due diligence,10 the negotiation and drafting of agreements, and strategic IPR management are all regular practices (see IAP 2). Universities, nonprofits, governments, international aid agencies, and philanthropic foundations have excellent expertise in IPRs.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Yet the capacity for both strategic management of IPRs and the day-to-day work of IPR practitioners is not as common as it needs to be. In such cases, external sources are commonly employed for a number of specialized tasks, such as legal opinions on freedom to operate and drafting of patent submissions. Practitioners should consider this option when dealing with specific investments that may have detailed requirements for IPRs. The use of external services may be a much more cost-effective option for certain tasks. One investment discussed earlier was the creation of a TTO in an institution to serve as a focal point for protecting
IP as well as for licensing. In module 5, TN 5 addresses the role of TTOs in agricultural development, where the creation of a TTO represents an opportunity to foster an enabling environment for innovation and provide opportunities for training (including raising awareness of IPR among scientists and administrators). For some institutions, the costs of creating and managing a technology transfer office, investing in a portfolio of IPRs, and (importantly) having the resources to enforce those IPRs, may not be feasible, and they will need to explore other options for developing capacity in IPR management and training.
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 3: MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO FOSTER AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
491
T H E M AT I C N O T E 4
Biosafety Regulatory Systems in the Context of Agricultural Innovation Morven McLean, ILSI Research Foundation
SYNOPSIS
Biosafety regulation is a multidisciplinary, multifunctional endeavor that should take into account the broader context of agricultural production and innovation. Investments needed to operationalize a biosafety regulatory system should promote interministerial cooperation, sound and pragmatic policy development, scientifically defensible risk assessment and risk management, rational inspection and enforcement activities, and meaningful stakeholder consultation and public participation. Efficiencies can be gained through the cross-utilization of national or regional expertise, regional harmonization, and ensuring that the design of a biosafety regulatory system takes into account programmatic and operational costs, including opportunity costs that may arise from overregulation.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
To date 22 countries have approved genetically engineered (GE) plants for cultivation or consumption (CERA 2010a). In 2010, 148 million hectares (366 million acres) were planted to GE crops, largely soybeans, cotton, maize, and canola (James 2010). Common to all countries where GE crops are cultivated is a system to regulate these products and especially to ensure that they are evaluated with respect to human health and environmental safety (commonly referred to as biosafety) prior to their commercial release. The regulation of products of agricultural biotechnology, particularly GE crops, has been identified as a constraint to innovation in this sector, largely because of the costs of meeting information and data requirements prescribed by regulatory authorities for assessing the safety of GE plants (Cohen and Paarlberg 2004; Kalaitzandonakes, Alston, and Bradford 2007; Matten, Head, and Quemada
492
2008) but also because of inadequate capacity to enforce regulatory compliance (Pray et al. 2006). The converse may be argued as well, however. A welldefined biosafety regulatory system that is consistent in its application (that is, the assessment, decision-making, and enforcement processes are not arbitrary) can be a powerful stimulus for investments in this area. For example, Brazil has seen public and private investments increase in agricultural biotechnology since it passed the Biosafety Law in 2005 (BrBiotec 2010). The new law clarified the regulatory remits of various ministries and clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of the two regulatory authorities, the National Biosafety Council (CNBS, Conselho Nacional de Biossegurança) and the National Biosafety Technical Commission (CTNBio; Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança). The law ended a five-year moratorium on approvals of GE crops that arose from differences in governmental and judicial interpretation of pre-2005 legislation (Cardoso et al. 2005). The moratorium, in turn, contributed to widescale cultivation of illegal (unapproved) GE soybeans. Since 2005, Brazil has approved 20 GE cotton, soybean, and maize lines for commercial cultivation; prior to 2005 it had approved only 1 (CERA 2010a). A functional biosafety regulatory system is a prerequisite for realizing the benefits that agricultural biotechnology can (and does) provide to poor producers and poor consumers in developing countries (World Bank 2007). Ultimately, environmental and human health protection is the overarching priority of any biosafety regulatory system, and confidence in the decisions that governments make on behalf of the public is a precondition for public acceptance and adoption of agricultural biotechnology products. Strategic investments in programs that foster adaptability, transparency, clarity, and workability in the development and implementation of regulatory systems also foster agricultural innovation.
INVESTMENT NEEDED
■
Investments in support of biosafety regulation may be needed for any or all stages in the typical progression of events that lead to the development and implementation of a regulatory system. Key issues and policy options for these stages were described in a conceptual framework for biosafety regulation (McLean et al. 2002); World Bank (2003) presented examples for individual countries. In summary, the key stages are:
■
■
Elaborate a national policy consistent with other objectives related to economic, social, and rural development, natural resource management, and environmental protection and sustainability.
■
■
■
Conduct an assessment and gap analysis of national development priorities, agricultural policies, existing regulatory regimes, and national and regional scientific and technical means necessary for a biosafety regulatory system to function. Build a strong base of scientific knowledge in support of the regulatory system and the development of core competencies in biotechnology product evaluation (box 6.22). Develop biosafety regulations to effect specific public policy goals (as articulated in a national biosafety or even biotechnology strategy). Implement regulations through the operationalization of the biosafety regulatory system. Address cross-cutting issues that are common to each stage in the development and implementation of a
Box 6.22 Building Human Resource Capacity for Biosafety Risk Assessment
The type of human resource capacity needed to implement a biosafety regulatory system generally, and its risk assessment function specifically, is particular to each country. No standardized lists of human resource requirements specific to individual disciplines exist. It can be instructive, however, to examine how other countries have approached this issue. In India, the Risk Assessment Unit of the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India will be permanently staffed by a multidisciplinary team of scientists responsible for undertaking science-based risk assessments of specific products. The Risk Assessment Unit will comprise thematic cells. The expertise for the two cells pertinent to the regulation of genetically engineered crops is: ■
■
Core characterization: Molecular biologist, toxicologist, microbiologist, biochemist, bioinformatics specialist, biostatistician. Plant biotechnology: Plant physiologist, plant pathologist, entomologist, agronomist, and plant breeder.
In Brazil, the National Biosafety Technical Commission (CTNBio, Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança) provides technical support and advice to the federal government “in the formulation, updating, and
implementation of the National Biosafety Policy for GMOs and derived products, and for establishing technical safety standards and technical opinions regarding the authorization of activities that involve research and commercial use of GMOs and derived products.” CTNBio is comprised of 27 members: ■
■
■
Twelve specialists (PhDs recommended by scientific organizations). Nine government officials appointed by the following agencies: Ministry of Science and Technology; Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Supply; Ministry of Health; Ministry of the Environment; Ministry of Development, Industry, and Foreign Trade; Ministry of External Relations; Ministry of Agrarian Development; Ministry of Defense; and Special Office of the President for Aquaculture and Fisheries. Six members appointed as follows: one specialist in consumer rights by the Ministry of Justice; one specialist in human health by the Ministry of Health; one specialist in environment by the Ministry of the Environment; one specialist in biotechnology by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Supply; one specialist in family agriculture by the Ministry of Agrarian Development; one specialist in worker’s health by the Ministry of Labor.
Source: DBT 2008; Government of Brazil 2005.
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 4: BIOSAFETY REGULATORY SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
493
national biosafety system, especially the human, financial, and infrastructure resources to: develop and implement a national biosafety system; support the infrastructure required (such as buildings, equipment, and computers); facilitate communication and public participation; train scientific and regulatory personnel; and foster the research required to assure that risk assessments are sound.
unanticipated events, such as trade disruptions that can occur as a result of accidental (or sometimes deliberate but illegal) transboundary movement of GE commodities into a jurisdiction where there is no approval for that GE crop or derived food. For example, continued delays in the deployment of pro-vitamin A rice (“Golden Rice”) have been attributed exclusively to biosafety regulation by the product developer (Potrykus 2010).
POTENTIAL BENEFITS
POLICY ISSUES
Investments in support of developing biosafety regulatory capacity have the potential to provide many positive spillovers into related areas. These areas include public agricultural research, extension services, and plant health and quarantine programs. Private developers of GE crops, particularly multinational companies, are generally disinterested in entering markets, even where there is farmer demand for these crops, unless an operational (and predictable) biosafety regulatory system is in place. More critically, publicly funded and donor-funded initiatives that focus on improving the productivity of staple crops using biotechnology will be unsuccessful unless there is a clear path forward that ensures improved crop varieties will actually move from laboratory to field trials to farmers. (Although when the technology does reach farmers, the impact can be significant; see box 6.23.) Highly precautionary regulations may be the most significant barrier to innovation in agricultural biotechnology, as they price the technology out of the hands of the public sector and SMEs. These costs include the direct costs of regulatory compliance as well as indirect costs associated with
Key policy considerations include: ■
■
■
■
■
Coordination of biosafety laws and regulations with existing legislation related to environmental protection, human health, agricultural production, IP protection, and trade. Interministerial coordination to ensure that concerns and remits are carefully considered during the establishment of a biosafety regulatory system. Responsibilities and mandates of all involved ministries should be clearly communicated. Multilateral environmental agreements, particularly the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, must be considered during the development or revision of biosafety legislation (box 6.24). Trade: Biosafety legislation should not promote practices that may be considered or may result in impediments to trade. Resources—financial, human, and institutional—need to be considered before developing the regulatory system because they can, and should, influence its construction.
Box 6.23 Who Benefits from Agricultural Biotechnology?
It is difficult to quantify the benefits of regulating products of agricultural biotechnology, but the economic impact from commercializing many genetically engineered crops has been studied. Brookes and Barfoot reported that in 2007, the total cost farmers paid for genetically engineered soybean, maize, cotton, and oilseed rape was equal to 24 percent of the technology gains (inclusive of farm income gains plus the cost of the technology payable to the seed supply chain, comprised of sellers of seed to farmers, seed multipliers, plant breeders, distributors, and the providers of
genetically engineered technology). According to this study, farmers in developing countries paid 14 percent of technology gains, whereas farmers in developed countries paid 34 percent of their gains. The higher share of total technology gains accounted for by farm income gains in developing countries relative to the farm income share in developed countries reflected factors such as IPRs in developing countries and the higher average level of farm income gain on a perhectare basis derived by developing country farmers relative to developed country farmers.
Source: Brookes and Barfoot 2009.
494
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
■
Regional coordination and harmonization of elements of the regulatory system should be considered and/or pursued, as harmonization has the potential to: reduce regulatory disparities between countries; reduce the regulatory burden on national governments and the regulated community; and facilitate trade within region (see IAP 3).
LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS
The previous sections have described the often complex interface between agricultural innovation and biosafety regulations. Lessons related to developing and implementing biosafety regulations can be summarized briefly: ■
■
■
■
■
Building capacity to develop and implement biosafety regulatory systems requires a multiyear commitment. Interministerial coordination is a prerequisite for successful development of a biosafety regulatory system. Investments in biosafety regulatory capacity can be strategically applied to benefit other regulatory programs. Biosafety regulatory systems should incorporate provisions for change. Investments to develop biosafety regulatory systems should accompany investments in agricultural biotechnology research.
■
Biosafety regulation can be rationalized through the promotion and acceptance of international risk assessment standards. The next sections address each of these points in detail.
Building capacity to develop and implement biosafety regulatory systems requires a multiyear commitment
Workshops, symposia, and conferences can be valuable in raising awareness or catalyzing discussions that may inform the development of strategic programs, but they cannot replace continued and meaningful engagement with those who are tasked with the responsibility of actually developing and implementing the regulatory framework (a task requiring considerable time, coordination, and expertise; see box 6.24 for an example from India). Identifying in-country partners and investing in longerterm capacity building for key individuals, including policy makers and opinion leaders, contributes to systemic versus transient gains. Experience has shown that the willingness of these individuals to understand the impact of, and provide an enabling environment for, (cost)effective biosafety regulation is critical (see box 6.25 for an example from Uganda).
Box 6.24 The Development of Genetically Engineered Food Safety Assessment Guidelines in India
The South Asia Biosafety Program (SABP) has assisted the Governments of Bangladesh and India to further strengthen their institutional governance of biotechnology since 2004. In India, the program started with stakeholder consultations and a gap analysis of the current biosafety regulatory system. The analysis identified the need for comprehensive safety assessment guidelines for foods derived from genetically engineered plants and for technical training in conducting food safety assessments according to international standards. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the technical arm of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in partnership with SABP, undertook a series of activities over the next several years aimed at meeting this need. It began with an international conference on safety assessments for foods derived from genetically
engineered plants. The conference offered an opportunity for stakeholders and technical experts from a number of sectors to exchange experiences and views. ICMR then hosted a multisectoral stakeholder consultation that achieved consensus on making the safety assessment of genetically engineered foods in India consistent with the internationally accepted Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants adopted by the Codex Alimentarius in 2003. ICMR formed a drafting committee with representation from several ministries and departments and formulated draft “Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Genetically Engineered Plants.” The draft guidelines were circulated to technical experts for input and reviewed by India’s Review (Box continues on the following page)
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 4: BIOSAFETY REGULATORY SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
495
Box 6.24 The Development of Genetically Engineered Food Safety Assessment Guidelines in India (continued)
Committee on Genetic Manipulation and Genetic Engineering Approval Committee before being posted for public comment. Stakeholders’ comments were addressed, and the guidelines were reviewed once again by both committees before their final adoption in 2008. The end result is a guidance document that is consistent with internationally accepted practices for assessing the safety of genetically engineered food. ICMR also collaborated with SABP to conduct technical workshops providing in-depth, hands-on training about key requirements for the safety assessment of foods derived from genetically engineered plants. The training ensured that scientists and regulators, as potential risk assessors and science advisors, understood the
concepts and principles of genetically engineered food safety assessment and the methodology outlined in the new guidelines. From inception to completion, the process of developing new food safety guidelines and ensuring their implementation under existing authority in India took four years. The long-term collaborative relationship between ICMR and SABP contributed to the success of this endeavor. SABP, particularly through strong incountry partnerships, supported ICMR’s commitment to developing new guidelines by providing not just technical expertise on food safety assessment, but also institutional support to ICMR and Indian regulatory committees as they took the guidelines through review, adoption, and implementation.
Source: McLean 2010; CERA 2010b.
Box 6.25 Advancing Agricultural Biotechnology in Uganda: It Takes More Than Good Science
Uganda has spent almost fifteen years working to develop a functional biosafety regulatory system that will promote an enabling environment for research, development, and deployment of genetically engineered crops. The country was an early recipient of Global Environment Facility support to develop a National Biosafety Framework. The process started in 1998, three years before Uganda ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and five years before the Protocol came into force. Since then, the Ugandan regulatory and science communities have benefitted from significant national and international investments that have supported both human and institutional resource development, such as enhanced technical capacity for product development, management of confined field trials, and premarket risk assessment. The incremental gains achieved through these interventions have been confounded by continued delays in operationalizing the regulatory system, particularly the passage of national biosafety legislation. Uganda provides an all too common example of a country where innovation in agricultural biotechnology is not necessarily limited by science but by political, social, and market barriers. It is generally accepted that
product commercialization will not advance in Uganda until the national Biosafety Bill is promulgated. The process of preparing the Biosafety Bill began in 2003. The Bill was finalized in 2007, approved by the Cabinet in 2008, and currently awaits submission to Parliament. An analysis of the reasons for this protracted process found that a combination of market, policy-political, and sociocultural factors are hindering progress, such as: ■
■
■ ■ ■
Lack of sustained and coordinated political champions to move the bill forward. Lack of clarity among ministries regarding regulatory roles and responsibilities. Influence of antibiotechnology organizations. Complex and diverse institutional players. Poor product development strategies, leading to delays in driving the operationalization of the biosafety regulatory system.
The last bullet may now be a significant catalyst for movement on the Biosafety Bill. Using existing legislation, Uganda has approved confined field trials of genetically engineered cotton, banana, and (Box continues on the following page)
496
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 6.25 Advancing Agricultural Biotechnology in Uganda: It Takes More Than Good Science (continued)
cassava. These and other pipeline products such as drought-tolerant maize are all considered important for Uganda’s agricultural productivity and sustainability. Having farmer-supported, genetically
engineered crops approaching commercialization may be the incentive needed to achieve multistakeholder, and consequently political, support for the Biosafety Bill.
Source: Horna et al. 2012, forthcoming; AATF 2010.
A shortcoming of many capacity-building projects is that they support the drafting of biosafety frameworks, legislation, or related documents but do not provide the follow-on support to finalize, adopt, and then implement the system(s) prescribed in these documents (Chapotin, McLean, and Quemada 2009). For example, 123 countries participated in the Project on Development of National Biosafety Frameworks sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme and Global Environment Facility (UNEP-GEF). Designed to help countries comply with the Cartagena Protocol, the project was active from 2001 to 2009. Of the 38 African countries that completed their national biosafety frameworks under this project, only three have regulatory systems that can be considered operational: Tanzania and Nigeria have authorized confined field trials (although Tanzania’s approvals pre-dated their National Biosafety Frameworks project) and Burkina Faso has assessed and approved a GE plant for commercial release (insect-resistant cotton in 2008). The transition of countries from the framework development projects to the follow-on UNEP-GEF Project on Implementation of National Biosafety Frameworks was limited to 19 countries. Interventions should be tailored to country needs, but many large capacity-building programs, such as the National Biosafety Frameworks project, implement a common project model. Investments should first support a comprehensive needs assessment and gap analysis to identify and prioritize interventions that will further the operationalization of a functional regulatory system. In addition to evaluating the national situation, it is important also to critically consider capacity building or related initiatives that may be happening regionally or internationally and whether these may assist or constrain follow-on activities. The needs assessment should also take into account the broader context of agricultural production and innovation, because biosafety regulation is but one part of that larger system.
Interministerial coordination is a prerequisite for successful development of a biosafety regulatory system
International support for the establishment of biosafety regulatory systems has favored the creation of new regulatory entities under ministries other than agriculture. Particularly influential in this regard is the Cartagena Protocol. Because of its relationship to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Protocol has largely been implemented through ministries of environment. Agricultural biotechnology regulation intersects the mandates and interests of multiple ministries, especially agriculture but also ministries of science and technology, environment, health, and trade. Investments in the development of biosafety regulatory systems should explicitly require meaningful interministerial consultation and a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities between competent authorities. Otherwise, different ministries develop parallel and often redundant or conflicting regulatory requirements that ultimately increase the regulatory burden on product developers. Rational regulation is achievable if the overarching purpose of biosafety regulation (that is, human and environmental safety) drives the development of the regulatory system and is not tied to political or financial gain by specific ministries. Interministerial coordination, while necessary, is difficult to obtain in practice. As indicated during the 2003 SubRegional Workshop for Latin American Countries on the Development of a Regulatory Regime and Administrative Systems, the primary conflict identified for the implementation of national biosafety frameworks was coordination of the administrative tasks and competencies of the institutions involved in them (UNEP 2003a). This issue was also stressed in a similar workshop for Asian countries, where it was noted that “much of the administrative system seemed to be in place in many countries, and that coordination was the major challenge where different agencies were working separately” (UNEP 2003b) (box 6.26 presents an example
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 4: BIOSAFETY REGULATORY SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
497
Box 6.26 Interministerial Coordination in the Biosafety Regulatory System of Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, the biosafety regulatory system is still in a developmental stage, although institutional procedures cover R&D and the review and approval of foods derived from transgenic plants. The system is based on a National Biosafety Framework document, developed with UNEP-GEF funds in 2004–06, which draws on a set of Biosafety Guidelines initially published by the Ministry of Science and Technology in 1999. With the ratification of the Cartagena Protocol by Bangladesh in 2004, responsibility shifted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), and the Biosafety Guidelines were redrafted to incorporate certain obligations of the Cartagena Protocol. The revised guidelines were published in 2007. Under the Biosafety Guidelines, the competent authority is the interministerial National Committee on Biosafety (NCB). The subordinate Biosafety Core Committee operates as a scientific review body and so far has been asked by the NCB to provide input into all its decisions. To lend enforcement power to MoEF, a Biosafety Rule has been drafted that incorporates the Biosafety Guidelines and brings them under the formal jurisdiction of the Environment Conservation Act. This Biosafety Rule was prepared by a drafting committee convened by MoEF that sought to proactively include
inputs from key ministries. Because of this action, no further government debate is considered necessary for approval. Guidelines for confined (experimental) field trials of genetically engineered plants have also been prepared through the cooperative efforts of the Department of Environment (DoE in MoEF) and the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). The guidelines include procedures for applications, standard operating procedures, and a guide for inspections of confined field trials by officials appointed by MoEF. These guidelines have been approved by the NCB and published as an annex to the Biosafety Guidelines. In 2009 guidelines for genetically engineered food safety assessment were prepared that are consistent with Codex (2003). NCB approved them in 2010, and they will be published as an appendix to the Biosafety Guidelines. Bangladesh’s biosafety regulatory system, while still young, has made significant progress. Confined field trials are now being approved and applications for commercial release are considered imminent. Interministerial cooperation, particularly between DoE of MoEF and the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council of MoA, has been integral to the success achieved to date.
Source: Author.
from Bangladesh). For the majority of countries, both developed and developing, internal coordination between competent authorities remains a significant issue that has yet to be resolved. Investments in biosafety regulatory capacity can be strategically applied to benefit other regulatory programs
The shared nature of many of the regulatory functions of plant health and quarantine programs and biosafety programs (such as risk assessment, monitoring, and inspection) means that there is an opportunity to apply investments for biosafety regulatory capacity building to strengthen plant health and quarantine systems (and vice versa) so that the objectives of both can be achieved without building redundant administrative and operational services. For example, the Government of Canada recently combined the risk assessment functions for GE plants and plant health into a
498
single Plant and Biotechnology Risk Assessment Unit. This action was taken to align biosafety and phytosanitary risk assessments, leverage complementarities in the scientific expertise required for both, and improve procedural consistencies (P. Macdonald, personal communication). Investments should strengthen the scientific and knowledge base in ways that will provide benefits that extend beyond biosafety risk assessment and decision making. Many developing countries have only a transient need for biosafety risk assessment per se, because regulatory authorities may receive an application for a field trial or premarket approval only once a year or once every few years. Investments in education and research in the scientific disciplines that support biosafety risk assessment and regulation, especially in the agricultural sciences, will have wide-reaching payoffs, however. Efficiencies can be gained through the cross-utilization of expertise within a country or even through pooling human resources with neighboring countries.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Biosafety regulatory systems should incorporate provisions for change
The regulation of products of modern biotechnology is a relatively new arena for governmental oversight. Advances in biotechnology processes and products, experience gained in regulatory operations over time (both nationally and internationally), the globalization of agricultural trade, and the influence of multilateral agreements and international standard-setting bodies require biosafety regulatory systems to accommodate change (box 6.27). For example, embedding detailed technical provisions about risk assessment into laws versus guidance impedes regulators’ ability to accommodate new knowledge or advances in risk assessment approaches, as revising legislation is considerably more burdensome than amending guidance. Investments to develop biosafety regulatory systems should accompany investments in agricultural biotechnology research
Implementation cannot be meaningfully initiated unless applications related to GE products are ready to “prime the Box 6.27 Adaptability in Biosafety Regulation: The Gene Technology Act in Australia
In 2001, the Gene Technology Act, 2000 introduced a national scheme for the regulation of genetically engineered organisms in Australia. It included a statutory requirement (Section 194) for an independent review of the operation of the act, including the structure of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (the OGTR), by the fifth anniversary of the act coming into force. The review was based on issues raised during extensive national public and stakeholder consultations, submissions made in response to the terms of reference for the review, site visits to laboratories and field trials, experience gained by OGTR personnel during the first four years of the act’s implementation, international developments in biotechnology, and related reports and literature. The review found that the act’s flexibility to deal with changing circumstances and emerging technologies was sufficient but that the act should be reviewed again in five years to ensure that it continues to accommodate emerging trends. Source: GTRS 2006.
regulatory pump,” such as applications for R&D activities in laboratories, field trials of experimental GE products (transgenic plants, insects, or fish, for example) or applications for environmental, food, and/or livestock feed safety assessments prior to marketing a product. Of the 38 African countries mentioned previously, few have substantive public research programs in agricultural biotechnology, and many are not considered priorities for private biotechnology investment. The lack of substantive private or public R&D, even more than resource constraints, may explain why so few countries have implemented national biosafety frameworks. In effect, there is an absence of demand to drive regulatory development (or reform) forward, and policy makers’ attention is redirected to existing priorities (with notable exceptions, as in Burkina Faso; see box 6.28). Another definite requirement is the political will to move the regulatory system forward so that decisions, particularly about product-specific approvals, are actually taken. Biosafety regulation can be rationalized through the promotion and acceptance of international risk assessment standards
The building of sufficient risk assessment capacity is a particular problem in countries that do not have a base of scientific expertise in biosafety. The development of a regional or subregional approach to risk assessment may be the most practical and cost-effective option in such cases. This approach can be facilitated by the active participation of competent authority representatives in international forums such as the Codex ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology and the OECD Working Group on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight of Biotechnology, where criteria for risk assessment harmonization are discussed and guidance or standards established. Vietnam developed its own practical approach (in this case to assess risks of GE food), based on a review of risk assessments conducted in other countries (box 6.29). Rationalization can also be achieved during the design of a biosafety regulatory system. Policy options should be evaluated to take into account not just the government’s overarching human health and environmental protection goals but also the costs of sustaining a system that can realistically achieve those goals. These costs include the opportunity costs associated with overregulation. Identifying the funding mechanisms required to sustain a regulatory system can be an effective tool in rationalizing its complexity.
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 4: BIOSAFETY REGULATORY SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
499
Box 6.28 The Approval of Bt Cotton in Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso is sub-Saharan Africa’s largest cotton producer. Cotton accounts for 30–50 percent of the country’s export earnings and is the main source of foreign exchange. In many rural areas where poverty is high, the sale of cottonseed is the main or only source of cash revenue for Burkinabe farmers. Insect control is a key factor in cotton yield; insect infestations can damage up to 90 percent of the crop. Farmers typically apply 6–8 applications of insecticide per growing season, but yield losses of 30–40 percent persist. An alternative insect management approach is to plant insect-resistant, transgenic cotton varieties (Bt cotton). Transgenic varieties from the United States were evaluated in confined field trials in Burkina Faso from 2003 to 2005. These Bt varieties had significantly reduced larval populations of cotton bollworm and cotton leafroller, with a commensurate improvement in seed cotton yields and lint quality. After the insect resistance trait was bred into local varieties, further field trials were planted in 2006–07. Precommercial seed production began in 2008, the same year two transgenic
cotton varieties were approved by Burkina Faso’s National Biosafety Agency (ANB, Agence Nationale de Biosécurité) for commercial release. Comparisons in 2008 and 2009 showed that Bt cotton yielded 30 percent higher than conventional varieties, and only two insecticide applications were necessary. Burkina Faso’s biosafety regulatory system has developed relatively quickly and smoothly compared to those of other African countries such as Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria. In 2005 Burkina Faso completed its National Biosafety Framework with resources from the United Nations Environment Programme and Global Environment Facility. In 2006 the ANB was established under Law No. 005-2006 “Pertaining to the security system in regard to biotechnology in Burkina Faso.”a However, it was the joint commitment of the Ministers of Environment and Agriculture, who publicly championed the economic benefits of Bt cotton to the Bukinabe economy, that effectively catalyzed the rapid operationalization of the ANB, which was achieved in only two years.
Source: Héma et al. 2009; D.J. MacKenzie (personal communication). (a) Loi N° 005-2006/AN, Portant régime de sécurité en matière de biotechnologie.
Box 6.29 Practical Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods in Vietnam
In June 2010, the Government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 69/2010/ND-CP on Biosafety for Genetically Modified Organisms, Genetic Specimens, and Products of Genetically Modified Organisms. With respect to the use of genetically engineered organisms as food or animal feed, the Decree permits a written certification of eligibility for use as food if the subject of the application satisfies “either of the following conditions: 1. The dossier of application for a written certification of their eligibility for use as food has been appraised by the Genetically Modified Food Safety Council, which concludes that such genetically
modified organisms have no uncontrollable risks to human health. 2. They have been permitted by at least five (5) developed countries for use as food and no risk has been seen in these countries.” This approach to regulatory approvals is both practical and scientifically defensible. It recognizes that the Vietnamese Ministry of Health considers the biosafety regulatory systems of certain other countries to be consistent with that of Vietnam and that the risk assessment and approvals undertaken by those countries may be considered equivalent to and therefore sufficient to obtain a certificate of eligibility by the Ministry of Health.
Source: Government of Vietnam 2010.
500
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
T H E M AT I C N O T E 5
Technical Regulations and Standards Luz Diaz Rios, Consultant Johannes Roseboom, Consultant
SYNOPSIS
he current landscape of technical regulations and standards related to agriculture and agrifood is complex and rapidly evolving. Standards represent major challenges for the targeted sectors and industries, yet they also present opportunities to catalyze innovations while achieving public health, trade, environmental, and social objectives. Standards can help to reduce information asymmetries and externalities and promote fair competition. Some agricultural export industries in developing countries have used compliance with standards to gain an important competitive advantage; compliance required not only innovation in production and processing but in collective and organizational behavior. In an evolving landscape of standards, however, individual, one-time innovations offer limited opportunities to leverage long-term benefits. What is required instead is a process of strategic planning, supported by continuous innovation and improvement, to take on new challenges and opportunities as they emerge. Approaches to harmonizing standards across countries or industries can reduce transaction costs by reducing duplicative functions of conformity assessment, including testing and certification. National policy makers need to strike a balance between domestic and international trade interests and, as much as possible, maintain close involvement in regional and international standard-setting efforts.
T
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
A “standard” is a document approved by a recognized body that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines, or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods. Compliance with standards is not mandatory. “Technical regulations,” on the other hand, specify product characteristics or their related processes and production methods, including the applicable
administrative provisions, with which compliance is mandatory. Technical regulations include import bans (total or partial), technical specifications (process and product standards), packaging standards, information requirements, and requirements for labeling and claims. Standards and technical regulations for agriculture and food have become increasingly important in recent decades, but they date to ancient times. Assyrian tablets, for example, describe the method to be used in determining correct weights and measures for food (FAO and WHO 2005). From the late 1800s to early 1900s, countries started to enact national agrifood standards. The ensuing proliferation of requirements complicated the landscape for international trade to such an extent that the first international standards began to be adopted in the early 1900s. Over the course of the century, but especially in the latter half, broader efforts to enact agriculture and food standards at the international level prompted important innovations in the international institutional framework for setting standards (see box 6.30). The number of agriculture and food-related issues subject to standardization has grown tremendously in the past several decades.1 This momentum reflects the intensification of regional and global trade and heightened concerns over accompanying threats to food safety and animal and plant health. It also reflects a wider set of innovations in science and technology that permit very sensitive detection and analytical methods, as well as improved knowledge of the quality and associated health hazards of agrifood products. Many standards and regulations relate to naturally occurring hazards, such as foodborne pathogens and toxins, while others have been introduced by innovations in agricultural technologies to increase productivity (such as the use of pesticides, veterinary drugs, and other chemical compounds). Changes in consumers’ concerns and perceptions, as well as pressure from civil society and the enactment of international agreements,2 have been critical in expanding the range of desirable attributes associated with the quality of 501
Box 6.30 International Framework for Setting Quality and Sanitary/Phytosanitary Standards
Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures are taken to protect: (1) human or animal health from risk arising from additives, contaminants, toxins, or disease organisms in food, drink, and feedstuffs; (2) human life from risks associated with diseases carried by plants or animals; (3) animal or plant life from pests, diseases, and diseasecausing organisms; and (4) a country from other damage caused by the entry, establishment, or spread of pests. The need to fight animal diseases (zoonoses) at the global level led to the creation of the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) through an international agreement in 1924. An international agreement on plant health was reached in 1952 through the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), focusing on food standards in relation to safety risks, was created in the early 1960s. These international organizations have become even more relevant since the mid-1990s, when they were recognized as the international reference for settling disputes and for international trade under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement for Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.a Under the agreement, countries are encouraged to present their concerns to the WTO regarding measures adopted by trade partner countries that do not follow the stated principles. According to WTO, of 312 SPSrelated trade concerns raised by countries to the SPS committee over 1995–2010, 28 percent related to food safety, 25 percent to plant health, and 41 percent related to animal health and zoonoses. Animal health concerns mainly included foot-and-mouth disease (24 percent of concerns), transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (35 percent of concerns), and avian influenza.
The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) deals with product standards. It aims to prevent national or regional technical requirements or standards in general from being used as unjustified barriers to trade. The agreement covers standards relating to all types of products, including industrial and agricultural products. Food standards related to SPS measures are not covered. Codex decisions recognized by the TBT Agreement include those on food labeling, decisions on quality, nutritional requirements, and analytical and sample methods. The International Organization of Standardization (ISO) also enacts international standards; those applicable to agricultural industries and enterprises include standards for quality, safety, and environmental management (series ISO 9000, ISO 22000, and ISO 14000, respectively). The agricultural sector also benefits from standards dealing with conformity assessment that apply across sectors (ISO 17000 series). Other international organizations setting global standards relevant to agriculture include the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). A plethora of private initiatives also seek to have a global reach. GLOBALG.A.P. enacts standards on good agriculture practice, and the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) focuses on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)-based standards with application in agrifood industries. Still other private initiatives apply to particular agricultural subsectors, for example export crops such as coffee, cocoa and tea.
Source: Authors; WTO 2011. (a) For zoonoses, the International Health Regulations enacted in 2005 are an international legal instrument with the purpose and scope to prevent, protect against, control, and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade. Another international agreement related to biological risks is the Convention on Biodiversity Cartagena Protocol, discussed in TN 4.
agrifood products. Demands go beyond a product’s characteristics (product standards) to include specifications on the conditions under which products are produced and packaged (process standards, which now often include sustainability considerations). Table 6.2 lists examples of the broad range of standards and technical regulations applied to food and agricultural products. The demand for such standards
502
has induced innovation at many levels in the agricultural sector (box 6.31). ACTIONS AND INVESTMENTS NEEDED
The capacity of standards and technical regulations to achieve their intended outcomes and also catalyze agricultural
MODULE 6: CREATING AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
Table 6.2 Examples of Standards and Technical Regulations Applied to Agriculture and Agrifood Products Food safety • Pesticide residue limits • Microbiological standards • Traceability requirements • Hygiene requirements • Vet. Drug residues • Chemical & other contaminants (e.g., mycotoxins) • Code of good agricultural practices
Animal/plant health • Plant material quarantine • Pest risk analysis needs • Fumigation requirements & restrictions • Bans/restrictions on antibiotic use in aquaculture • Disease-free areas • Disease surveillance • Restrictions on veterinary drugs • Traceability of animals • Plant material quarantine • Phytosanitary certificates • GMO varietal approval
Quality or technical attributes • Quality grades • General labeling requirements • Packing standards • GMO labeling • Restrictions on animal feed ingredients • Nutritional labeling
Environment
Social
• Pesticide use restrictions • Regulations on water/soil contamination codes for organic • practices & certification • Protection of specific species • Fish catch restrictions • Regulations on animal waste effluent • Water efficient regulations • Chemical use restrictions • Biosafety regulations (for GMOs) • Codes to limit biodiversity loss
• Monitoring of child labor • Occupational health standards • Animal welfare monitoring • Right to association • Minimum wage
Source: Adapted from Jaffee et al. 2005.
Box 6.31 Standards Induce Innovation throughout the Agriculture Sector
Innovation along agricultural supply chains. The serious effects of mycotoxins on human and animal health following consumption of specific contaminated products (such as groundnuts and maize) have led many countries to enact technical regulations establishing maximum permitted levels of mycotoxins. In subSaharan Africa, where the problem is especially serious, numerous collaborative research initiatives have been undertaken to identify cost-effective management options to reduce the threat to trade and human health. Research has emphasized on-farm technologies such as biological control, resistant/tolerant varieties, agronomic practices, cost-effective diagnostic tools, and practices and technologies for drying, storing, and processing food and feed. Innovation in alternative control methods. Bans on hazardous pesticides and other chemicals for treating pests and diseases are a major incentive for innovations. Methyl bromide, used especially in quarantine operations for controlling pests affecting plants and plant-derived materials, has been recognized as an
ozone-depleting substance under the Montreal Protocol. Since 2010 the European Union has banned its use for most purposes, including quarantine and preshipment fumigations, boosting the search for alternative control mechanisms. Innovation in supply chains. Record-keeping and traceability requirements have been incorporated into public and private standards, leading to innovations in supply chains that include simple tracking methods (pen and paper) as well as more sophisticated systems based on barcodes, radio-frequency identification, wireless sensor networks, and mobile devices and applications. Innovation in standards themselves. The past two decades have seen the emergence of tremendous innovations in the way standards are developed and implemented. For example, the move toward system approaches to food safety regulation has been influenced by two major developments: (1) the introduction of scientific risk analysis as the basis of establishing food standards and regulatory measures and (2) the (Box continues on the following page)
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 5: TECHNICAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
503
Box 6.31 Standards Induce Innovation throughout the Agriculture Sector (continued)
adoption of food safety management systems, such as the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, and the subsequent move from testing end-products to preventive approaches. At the primary production level, HACCP-based approaches are being implemented, complementing a set of preventive measures packaged under good agriculture practices (GAP) programs. Innovation in certification. The preponderance of system approaches and process standards has fostered the emergence of systems for assessing conformity based on third-party certification. This development opens opportunities for coregulatory approaches by the private and public sector (a combination of legislation and self-regulation by private operators). The movement toward self-regulation in the private sector has been pushed by the incorporation of concepts such as “due diligence” in regulations; due diligence
emphasizes the private sector’s specific obligations in supplying agrifood products to consumers. Innovation by private actors. Private “codes of practice” and standards related to sustainability (food safety, environmental and social criteria) are also proliferating, especially in horticultural and export crops (coffee, tea, cocoa, bananas), forestry, aquaculture, and livestock. Tremendous innovations have been put in place by the private sector and NGOs, not only for the development of voluntary standards—with a set of prescribed criteria for ensuring compliance—but also in terms of compliancerelated infrastructure (such as the innovative auditing and certification systems described earlier). Innovation has extended to methods for ensuring that certification schemes include farmers of differing capacities. In this regard, the emergence of group certification has been a tremendous innovation, allowing engagement with organized groups of small-scale producers.
Source: Authors. Note: In the United States, for example, the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) expands the powers of the Food and Drug Administration; among other provisions, it empowers the FDA to create a system for recognizing bodies that accredit third-party auditors to certify eligible foreign facilities.
innovation is influenced by policy and regulatory frameworks and by the mechanisms enabling stakeholders to interact and collaborate to prioritize needs and investments, share costs, and perform specific functions related to SPS and quality. Action and investments are especially important for (1) aligning policy and regulatory frameworks to enable standards to contribute to specific policy goals (such as institutional reform) and (2) enhancing capacities to perform the wide range of roles and functions related to standards. The alignment of policy and regulatory frameworks
Policy frameworks vary in accordance with specific national or subnational needs and circumstances. To understand how technical regulations and standards can contribute to policy goals, it is essential to clearly define the overarching goals of SPS and quality regulations. The legislative and regulatory process is one of an array of tools that government can use to achieve policy goals, but often it is only in the course of analyzing and discussing concrete legislative actions that outstanding policy questions are identified and resolved. In recent years, government awareness of the importance of
504
SPS and quality issues at the policy level appears to be increasing; for example, many governments have enacted specific food safety or organic production policies. The alignment and harmonization of policy and legislative frameworks is often the first stage in creating an efficient system for SPS and quality standards. Harmonization addresses the complex, inefficient regulatory frameworks emerging from overlapping institutional roles, identifies outdated regulations and standards, and promotes interagency coordination and communication, among other institutional reforms. For example, several countries have merged multiple laws related to SPS in new food laws and have updated regulations to reflect new institutional arrangements and competencies. Another trend is to promote integrated policy and regulatory frameworks for managing certain risks together. FAO has developed an integrated “biosecurity approach” for managing biological risks to animal, plant, and human health and life (including associated environmental risk), because they all involve systems and procedures for risk assessment and management, food contamination notification, and exchanging information.3
MODULE 6: CREATING AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
Strengthening institutional arrangements
Once the specific rights and obligations of stakeholders involved in the SPS and quality-related system are defined through the legislative process, the challenge is to create mechanisms enabling the relevant parts of government to collaborate. Major barriers to adopting more effective systems for SPS and quality standards are erected by bureaucratic divisions of responsibility. These barriers can arise from budgetary constraints, unequal institutional capabilities, differing cultures, limited communication of information, the absence of a shared vision, and/or disincentives to working horizontally. Actions and investments to overcome such barriers and achieve greater efficiencies are illustrated in box 6.32.
Enhancing capacities to perform the assigned roles and functions
Along with putting effective policy and regulatory frameworks into place and defining the roles and mechanisms for actors to work together, a third critical area for action and investment is the development and enhancement of the wide range of skills, physical infrastructure, institutional structures, and procedures that ensure that the organizations and individuals can perform SPS and quality-related functions effectively, efficiently, and sustainably. Table 6.3 provides examples of those functions. Most functions listed in table 6.3 require broader oversight and/or some level of collective action. The foundations of an effective system for SPS and quality standards lie in the broad awareness among stakeholders that standards are
Box 6.32 Institutional Arrangements for Improving Systems for SPS and Quality Standards
Develop mechanisms for interagency and stakeholder coordination. Examples include memorandums of understanding among public agencies to clarify roles and responsibilities in specifies areas (such as inspections), the establishment of task forces/working groups to respond to disease outbreaks or emergencies, and identifying liaison staff in each agency to facilitate communication and exchange of information. In many developing countries, task forces have emerged under the leadership of public or private entities, bringing public and private actors together to discuss actions to deal with challenges emerging from SPS and qualityrelated standards. Coordinate functions under a lead agency. An example of this approach is ACHIPIA—the Chilean Food
Safety Agency—which defines food safety policy and coordinates the work of institutions with food safety roles. Merge SPS functions into a single independent agency. An example of this type of arrangement in developing countries is the Belize Agricultural Health Authority (BAHA), established in the early 2000s. BAHA integrates food safety, quarantine, and plant and animal health functions into a single entity. Consider costs and capacity. Implementation of any of these approaches will involve considerations of cost and capacity. In establishing a new agency, consider the leadership, facilitation, time, and resources required. All options need to be assessed in the context of existing capacities in the public and private sectors, the investments required, and the expected benefits.
Source: Authors. Note: ACHIPIA = Agencia Chilena para la Calidad e Inocuidad Alimentaria.
Table 6.3 Organizational Functions Related to Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and Quality Standards Functions related to SPS and quality standards Registering and controlling feed, agrochemicals, veterinary drugs Conducting basic research, diagnosis, and analysis Accrediting laboratories, veterinarians, and other third-party entities Developing/applying quarantine procedures Conducting epidemiological surveillance Inspecting/licensing food establishments Inspecting and approving consignments for export
Developing/maintaining pest- or disease-free areas Testing products for residues and contaminants Establishing/maintaining product traceability Reporting possible hazards to trading partners Providing metrology services Notifying the World Trade Organization and trading partners of new SPS measures Participating in international standard-setting
Source: Adapted from World Bank 2005.
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 5: TECHNICAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
505
integral to the competitiveness of their country, sector, or firm and that they have particular roles to play in the system (World Bank 2005). For example, educated consumers, entrepreneurs, and others can contribute significantly to setting standards at the national level and push for improvements and efficiencies in the public sector. It is also through the specific actions of individual producers and processors that compliance with SPS and qualityrelated standards is achieved. The private sector often invests heavily in compliance with SPS and quality standards (such as the use of HACCP or testing and certification at the farm level). Creating awareness and enabling the private sector to innovate through standards is an important dimension of capacity development. Along with the enactment of standards and regulations, the provision of incentives for private investment can be complementary and serve as a much-needed tool to support innovation. These incentives can take the form of quality promotion policies,
national quality awards, national productivity awards, and matching grant programs (to cite some examples). Given the significant capacities needed to perform SPS and quality-related functions, the investments required to strengthen and develop those capacities can be considerable, particularly in developing countries (box 6.33). The first step in developing this capacity is to identify specific needs. Tools have been developed to support countries in assessing their capacity needs related to standards. For example, FAO has developed guidelines for assessing needs in food safety and biosecurity capacity (FAO 2007a, 2007b). OIE developed the Performance, Vision, and Strategy (PVS) tool as the basis for evaluating performance against international standards published in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. The World Bank assists countries to perform needs assessments and develop action plans, some of which now include estimates of the costs associated with improving operational capacities (World Bank 2010).
Box 6.33 Actions and Investments for Uganda’s Fish Export Industry to Comply with Standards and Technical Regulations
Hazards of a poorly performing regulatory system. Uganda’s fish export industry burgeoned in the 1990s, largely because private investments in fish-processing facilities led to strong export performance in European markets. Public investments in food safety policy and regulatory frameworks and enforcement capabilities did not keep pace with private investments in the industry, however. At the end of the 1990s, the weak regulatory system exposed Uganda to three safetyrelated bans on its fish exports to Europe. Scientific proof that the fish were unsafe never materialized, yet the poor performance of Uganda’s public regulatory and monitoring system was used to justify the ban. Investing and innovating to reposition the industry. Public and private actors made a series of innovations and investments to lift the ban and regain the markets. Innovation and investment were favored by high demand in Europe, technical and financial assistance from development partners, the government’s open and decisive leadership; and access to finance for private companies. Specific actions included: (1) streamlining regulations and strengthening the government authority that would implement them; (2) developing a new
fishery policy; (3) improving monitoring and inspection systems (drafting inspection manuals and standard operating procedures and training inspectors); (4) initiating regional efforts to harmonize handling procedures in the countries bordering Lake Victoria; (5) upgrading a (small) number of landing sites and plans for upgrading a substantial number of others; (6) upgrading processing plants’ procedures and layouts; (7) opening up the U.S. market, which requires HACCP compliance; (8) installing two local laboratories and improving the quality of laboratory services provided to the industry; (9) increasing the number of processing plants and improving export performance; and (10) forming an Association of Quality Assurance Managers to address problems and concerns among industry players. The fixed investment in upgrading factories, management systems, and other infrastructure between 1997 and 2001 was equivalent to about 6 to percent of the FOB value of exports over that period. The innovations were beyond those required to achieve compliance, such as the adoption of ISO 9000 and even ISO 14000 quality systems. In general, the process enhanced cooperation and relations between the regulatory agency and the industry. (Box continues on the following page)
506
MODULE 6: CREATING AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
Box 6.33 Actions and Investments for Uganda’s Fish Export Industry to Comply with Standards and Technical Regulations (continued) Continuously innovating to meet new challenges and opportunities. Despite some lingering food safety issues, the larger challenge for the industry is to deal with the depleted waters and fisheries of Lake Victoria and more general environmental degradation, which have spurred negative campaigns against the industry in Europe. Regulatory controls, complemented by self-regulation and voluntary efforts to gain environmental and sustainable certification,
have been adopted to manage market risks. The volume of fish exports to the European Union has not returned to previous levels, partly because of the depletion of fish stocks and competition from other types of white fish from other countries. For the Ugandan fish industry, the capacity to learn from its experience, innovate in response to evolving market demands, and sustain its resource base will be critical to future viability.
Sources: Ponte 2005; Ponte, Kadigi, and Mitullah 2010; Jaffee et al. 2006.
The use of economic analysis to drive policy decisions related to SPS is often emphasized, but the complexity of current methods is driving efforts to find more flexible and practical methodologies. An innovative framework based on multi-criteria decision analysis is being validated by the Standards Trade and Development Facility.4 POTENTIAL BENEFITS
In the agriculture and agrifood sectors, standards fulfill a broad range of objectives. A general objective of standardization is to facilitate flows of information between consumers and producers (particularly information on unobservable characteristics, such as the use of GM ingredients) to facilitate trade and spur economic activity. For government, standards allow authorities to achieve several objectives, such as the protection of animal, plant, and human life and health; the protection of the environment; and the incorporation of social and sustainability considerations into agricultural production. Through standards, information imbalances and externalities can be addressed and fair competition promoted. Compliance with standards is crucial for countries to participate in international trade, because it ensures the compatibility of components and traceability of products and raw materials from different places. Approaches to harmonizing standards between countries and/or industries can reduce transaction costs by reducing duplicative functions of conformity assessment, including testing and certification (Jaffee 2005). From the perspective of the private sector, standards are a means of transferring technology and diffusing technical
information concerning products and processes. They provide incentives to local firms to improve the quality and reliability of their products. They can also be used as a risk management instrument, as a product differentiation tool, or as a cobranding strategy. Several agricultural export industries in developing countries have used compliance with standards to gain an important competitive advantage. Examples include horticultural industries in Peru (Diaz and O’Brian 2003; Diaz Rios 2007) and Kenya (Jaffee 2003); the groundnut industry in Argentina and Nicaragua (Diaz Rios and Jaffee 2008); and the Brazil nut industry in Bolivia (Coslovsky 2006). In all cases, success required the incorporation of innovations in production and processing but, perhaps most important, in collective and organizational behavior. Examples of collective and organizational innovation include the formation of the Fondation Origine Sénégal—Fruits et Legumes; the collective self-regulation of Bolivia’s Brazil nut industry; the collaborative arrangements and interactions between Peru’s Commission for Export Promotion (PROMPEX, Comisión Para la Promoción de Exportaciones) and several subsectoral associations. Clearly the impacts and distributional effects of noncompliance with SPS standards can be devastating for a company or an entire industry.5 The World Bank (2005) presents several examples of associated distributional effects across agricultural export industries resulting from the imposition of bans or export restrictions following noncompliance with these critical standards. Compliance with standards and the prevention of foodborne illnesses and animal/plant diseases also reinforce a country’s reputation
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 5: TECHNICAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
507
as a reliable supplier. Outbreaks can lead to huge costs for governments and the public resulting from diagnosis and treatment of illness, production losses, outbreak investigations, and product tracebacks and recalls.6 POLICY ISSUES
Standards and technical regulations are used by governments as a tool to achieve broader policy objectives. The sections that follow discuss the need for a balanced approach to policy and decision making that takes domestic and international trade interests into account. Related issues involve the chaotic proliferation of private standards and their implications for national policy, the strategic uses of standards, and the question of who should provide services related to standards. Balancing divergent policy goals and dealing with the proliferation of private standards
Policy makers often have to choose between conflicting policy goals with respect to standards and technical regulations. For example, a desire to protect human health may conflict with the desire to facilitate agricultural trade or to develop an industry or sector. The goal of expanding export markets may also conflict with the desire to conserve water or reduce pesticide use (Vapnek and Spreij 2005). Policy making at the national or local level can be highly influenced by the international environment. Government policies should be consistent with obligations under international agreements as well as with national food security and development goals. It is generally recommended that countries adopt international standards, although their effectiveness depends on their suitability to specific national contexts. The harmonization of regional standards for raw milk in Eastern Africa is one example. Debate revolves around a desire to harmonize with Codex standards, although they do not reflect handling and consumption practices in the region (Jensen, Strychacz, and Keyser 2010). Trade has become a driving force behind increased public and private investment in SPS and quality systems, but at the same time, many stakeholders are concerned that increasingly stringent trade standards are having adverse effects on the costs to and competitiveness of developing-country suppliers, particularly from LDCs. Consequently, in many countries, compartmentalization of production and adoption of a system of “dual standards”—one focusing on compliance with export market demands and one for local consumption—has been seen as a solution. Another concern is that the heavy emphasis on the trade benefits regarding SPS and quality
508
systems tends to overshadow (at least in the policy discussions) the other benefits of improved standards, such as reduced production losses and improved public health impacts on domestic populations. The challenge for policy makers is to find the right balance between these different interests and options when formulating policies and investment plans. Another area of concern from a policy perspective is the emergence of private SPS standards. Concerns about their proliferation, prescriptive nature, legitimacy, transparency, potential to undermine public action, as well as their potential economic development impacts, have coalesced around an intense debate within the SPS committee of WTO. Concerns related to the proliferation of private social, environmental and sustainability standards are emerging as well. Discussions in several forums are intensifying over the scope of harmonization and collaboration and the need for a better understanding of intended impacts at the ground level. Compliance with standards as a strategic issue
Some view the imposition of stricter SPS and quality requirements as a barrier to trade, especially if they entail costly, highly technical requirements or complex administrative procedures. Such requirements erode the competitiveness of industry players and further marginalize small countries, traders, and farmers. Others view the same standards and requirements playing a catalytic role in innovation and modernization. Demands for compliance with increasingly stringent standards can expose the fragile competitiveness of an industry (or individual players) and the lack of institutional arrangements for collective action and clarify the need for action, as in Uganda’s fish industry (box 6.33). This experience illustrates that innovation in response to agricultural standards and regulations is not a one-time event but part of a continual process of anticipating and responding to emerging challenges. In several cases, industry players and governments have responded effectively to prevailing standards and have consolidated or improved their market position. In some countries, the response has involved a proactive, forward-looking strategy that seeks to reinforce their competitive advantage, as in the groundnut industry in Argentina and the horticultural industries of Peru (Diaz Rios 2007) and Kenya (Jaffee 2003). In other cases, the response has been essentially reactive, seeking to adjust in the face of adverse trade events. (see box 6.34). The World Bank has advocated for compliance with standards to be viewed as a strategic issue, highlighting the multiple strategic options available to countries (table 6.4).
MODULE 6: CREATING AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
Box 6.34 Innovating to Quickly Respond to Adverse Trade Events
India’s fish and fishery products: An export market lost and regained. In 1997, the European Union banned all fish and fishery products from India due to noncompliance with hygienic standards. The Indian government improved hygiene by requiring measures such as integrating preprocessing operations with processing facilities and imposing strict limits on approved output according to plants’ capacities for water, ice making, and effluent treatment. The government implemented programs to support improved hygienic controls in fish processing, including subsidy programs for upgrading processing facilities and training managers and workers throughout the supply chain. Fish exporters acted collectively to establish infrastructure that would link preprocessing units to common water, ice, and effluent facilities. The new facilities include modern laboratories that perform all microbial and chemical tests required by importers. These measures led the European Union to lift the ban on imports.
Peruvian asparagus exports: Success through standards. In 1997, when Spanish health authorities asserted that consumption of canned Peruvian asparagus caused two cases of botulism poisoning, the resulting public scare in European markets created large market losses for Peruvian asparagus exporters. Seeing that even one careless exporter could disrupt the markets, the government and industry decided to take action to bring Peruvian agricultural standards in line with international norms. In 1998, the Peruvian Commission for Export Promotion convinced the asparagus industry to implement the Codex code of practice on food hygiene. Government specialists worked with the companies to ensure proper implementation. In 2001, national fresh asparagus norms were published. They provided a quality and performance baseline for the industry that allowed many firms and farms to generate the necessary skills and experience to gain certification under the stringent international standards.
Source: World Bank 2005.
Table 6.4 Strategic Choices and Responses with Respect to SPS and Quality Standards Strategy Voice
Compliance
Reactive
Wait for standards and give up
Complain when standards are applied
Wait for standards and then comply
Proactive
Anticipate standards and leave particular markets
Participate in standard creation or negotiate before standards are applied
Participate in standard creation or negotiate before standards are applied
Nature of the response
Viability Size of firm or industry Share of target market Reputation Suitability of legal/regulatory framework Leadership/coordination within value chain Private sector management/technical capacity Public sector administrative/technical capacities Clarity of institutional responsibilities Geographical/agro-climatic conditions Prevailing challenges Nature of the measure
Exit
Exit – –
+ + –/+ ++
Voice ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ + – –/+
Compliance + + + + ++ ++ ++ + –/+ –/+ –/+
Source: World Bank 2005.
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 5: TECHNICAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
509
Those options will vary for each country, depending on its economic, political, and social systems and norms, institutional structure, size and location, and so on. Who provides services related to standards?
Perhaps the most important decision to be made with respect to building capacities related to standards is whether capacity building should be done by the public or private sector. There is certainly an increasing recognition of the critical role that the private sector can play in providing services traditionally viewed as the responsibility of the public sector. In countries where demand for certain standard-related services is high, the private sector may have an opportunity to provide them. Before building, equipping, and maintaining laboratories and other standard compliance-related services, public actors need to consider alternatives. In some instances public authorities have delegated compliance services to private organizations, particularly accreditation, testing, and certification services (for example, public authorities certify compliance on the basis of testing services provided by private laboratories).
LESSONS LEARNED
Standards represent major challenges for developing countries, yet isolated improvements and innovations offer limited opportunities to leverage long-term benefits. A key lesson is that countries must be strategic and proactive. What is required is a process of strategic planning, supported by continual innovation and improvement, to successfully overcome challenges and take advantage of new opportunities. A proactive stance rests upon public and private awareness of the issues and strong governance. Quite often, developing countries have a long list of needs for capacity development. Efforts to develop capacity related to standards should aim at maximizing the strategic options available, consider costs/benefits, speed of implementation, sustainability, complementarities between the public and private sectors, and the possibilities for regional collaboration. Certainly one of the “nonregrettable� investments in this domain would be to invest in creating broader public and private awareness of SPS and quality management issues. The sections that follow expand on these points. Priority setting is essential for effectively managing standard-related challenges and opportunities
Pragmatism is needed when examining the state of a country’s SPS and quality-related capacity, and realism is needed
510
to determine the immediate and long-term scope for enhancing that capacity. Prioritization can begin with identifying the most immediate and/or significant risks as well as opportunities for competitive or welfare gains. Policy makers need to weigh the different objectives and their potential distributional impacts, but all too often priorities are driven by the benefits associated with competitive repositioning of industries/sectors or access to remunerative export markets. As challenging as it may be, it is fundamental to consider holistic approaches that merge domestic and trade perspectives, perhaps through strategic prioritization at the national, sectoral, or industry level with stakeholders.
Effective regulatory and voluntary interventions require public and private involvement
The development and enforcement of policies related to standards are enhanced by leveraging support from the private sector and/or creating an enabling environment (incentives) for private investments in capacity related to SPS and quality standards. The conditions for effective coregulatory approaches should be analyzed and explored, as they represent a potential opportunity for public and private collaboration.
Assess the gaps between local and international standards to determine the investments needed to bridge them
From a market perspective, the structure and maturity of an industry should drive the design of public and private interventions related to standards. The first step is to assess the gaps that need to be bridged. The product and the type of market provide a good indicator of the standard-related challenges. Public and private actors will need to make distinct adjustments and investments to meet stricter food safety, quality, and other requirements. Time, significant investments, and incremental upgrades are all needed for an industry to become an effective and competitive supplier in more demanding markets. Consider the needs of vulnerable groups
New or more stringent standards are likely to pose compliance problems for firms and farms operating under less favorable conditions. An awareness of the distributional effects of standards and their influence on poverty is critical for understanding the strategic choices available to different
MODULE 6: CREATING AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
actors and identifying the most appropriate tools to support them in implementing those choices.
Learn from others, cooperate nationally and regionally, and search for funds to develop capacity
Given the complexity of standards, it is fundamental for policy makers from developing countries to engage in activities where they can influence the setting of public and private standards. Leadership and proactive involvement in initiatives at the regional level are critical. Regional initiatives to
harmonize standards addressing common (and crossborder) SPS issues should receive strong consideration from policy makers. Involvement in communities of practice, networks, and forums that promote common learning and information sharing is essential. Examples include the activities undertaken by the Standards Trade and Development Facility, other development partners, and international standard-setting organizations. For voluntary standards in agriculture and agrifood, new spaces for knowledge exchange and learning are emerging, such as the Trade Standards Practitioners Network.
MODULE 6: THEMATIC NOTE 5: TECHNICAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
511
I N N O V AT I V E A C T I V I T Y P R O F I L E 1
Developing an Enabling Environment to Improve Zambian Smallholders’ Agribusiness Skills and Commercial Orientation Indira Ekanayake, World Bank
SYNOPSIS OF PROJECT DATA
Country: Project:
Zambia Agricultural Development Support Project (ADSP) Cost: US$37.2 million (total project cost US$39.6 million) Component cost: Support to Farmers and Agribusiness Enterprises (US$33.2 million); Institutional Development (US$3.9 million); Project Management and Coordination (US$2.6 million) Dates: FY 2006–14 Contact: Indira Ekanayake, World Bank, Zambia CONTEXT
Agriculture has become a major driver of growth and a significant source of export earnings and diversification in Zambia as a result of rising mineral prices. Notwithstanding Zambia’s abundant and fertile land and water and economic growth (exceeding 5 percent for the past seven to eight years), small-scale farmers have seen little change in their quality of life. Smallholders’ productivity is very low compared with that of Zambia’s commercial farmers and farmers in other parts of the world. Productivity is partly constrained by the lack of title to land, limited financial resources, and insufficient infrastructure, but much of the problem arises from the unfavorable policy environment for small-scale farmers. Starting in the 1990s, consecutive investments by the International Development Association (IDA) have sought to raise productivity in Zambian agriculture in line with government strategy to support the commercialization of smallholder agriculture. This strategy aims to reduce poverty by expanding contract farming and outgrower schemes that link smallholders with commercial farmers or agroenterprises. 512
In 2006, the government initiated the World Bankfunded Agricultural Development Support Project (ADSP). Through support to Zambia’s Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives (MACO), the ADSP fosters the commercialization of smallholder agriculture by developing a network of competitive value chains in selected high-quality, highvalue commodities (such as cotton, horticultural crops, honey, and dairy). Interventions provide better technology (improved seed, microirrigation), strengthen institutions (public-private partnerships, outgrower schemes), and develop well-maintained rural roads in high-potential agricultural areas. The objective is to ensure that the selected value chains operate efficiently to increase value addition, improve smallholders’ access to markets, and improve the competitiveness of their agricultural commodities. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
As noted, the ADSP was designed to increase the commercialization of smallholder agriculture by improving the productivity, quality, and efficiency of value chains in which smallholders participate. The project funds three investment areas: (1) matching grants to promote innovative agribusiness activities that build synergies to develop value chains, (2) rural feeder roads, and (3) public institutional support for market development. The Market and Innovation Facility (MIIF) provides matching grants to fund innovative activities in which agribusinesses interact with smallholders or businessoriented farmer groups and cooperatives. The activities match the business development needs of each subsector, emphasize technical assistance, and fall into three categories: (1) technology, training, capacity-building, and agricultural services in production, processing, and marketing in value chain development; (2) information, research, and studies associated with value chain development; and (3) services and capacity-building in business management
and development, product promotion, and acquisition of technical and market information. The Rural Roads Improvement Facility (RRIF) provides resources to rehabilitate and maintain rural and district roads to link selected high-potential agricultural areas to markets as a means of improving incomes and livelihoods. Target roads are in five districts (Choma, Chongwe, Katete, Chipata, and Lundazi) in two provinces (Southern and Eastern). RRIF investment is expected to provide the essential rural road network for improved market access and associated product delivery efficiencies and benefits. The road facility supports the ADSP’s general aims, because value chain development is superimposed within the rural road grid. To date, 642 kilometers of critical feeder roads have been rehabilitated (57 percent achievement of the target of 1,129 kilometers). The Supply Chain Credit Facility (SCCF) was originally designed to provide credit, on a demand-driven basis, for investments to improve the supply chains of existing and emerging outgrower schemes and enable agroenterprises, traders, or nucleus and commercial farmers working with smallholders to finance capital investments, seasonal inputs, and export activities. Following implementation delays, SCCF was modified to improve the productivity of outgrower schemes, scale them up, establish new contract farming enterprises, and upgrade processing and marketing capacity. Under the project’s institutional development component, ADSP builds capacity in selected departments of MACO to provide the core public services for enhancing smallholders’ productivity, quality of produce, and access to markets. For example, the project has enabled the Cotton Development Trust (a public-private trust) to provide seed and technical assistance to smallholders and increase its production of foundation seed for cotton through improved irrigation facilities. The project has also helped to build and equip a biotechnology laboratory at the Seed Control and Certification Institute (SCCI) and improve the SPS services of the Zambia Agricultural Research Institute. The Project has multi-institutional and innovative institutional arrangements for implementation. For example, the National Coordination Office is based in MACO. MIIF is administered by Africare, an international NGO, and coordinated and managed by an independent, outsourced secretariat. Independent technical reviewers assess the technical and financial feasibility of proposed subprojects. A multistakeholder subcommittee of the National Project Steering Committee (with representatives of the Bankers Association of Zambia, the agribusiness sector, MACO, and a member of the secretariat) is responsible for final funding decisions. The project’s rural road component is imple-
mented by the Road Development Authority (RDA) and the National Road Fund Agency (NRFA). The institutional development component is managed by the respective MACO departments. INNOVATIVE ELEMENT
The innovative feature of ADSP’s design is a demanddriven, value chain approach that facilitates smallholders’ participation in key value chains. Innovative features of ADSP’s implementation include the demand-led innovation fund, matching investments by agribusiness to finance a sustainable rural road network (crucial for innovation by agribusiness), and the piloting of an improved market information system. Rural road improvements are procured through Output and Performance-based Road Contracting (OPRC). A spatial approach is used to ensure that technological interventions in the selected value chains are compatible with the improved rural road grid. Under MIIF, matching grants support innovative interventions by agribusiness that add value to agricultural products, improve agricultural productivity, and improve smallholders’ links to markets. The MIIF Innovation Categories in agricultural value chains include new products, new technologies or processes, new markets, new strategic partners or organizational arrangements, and new geographical locations. The innovative element expected of SCCF is that it would enable entrepreneurs to make the capital investments that are vital to stronger and more competitive value chains with or without scaling up while reducing risk absorption.
BENEFITS, IMPACT, AND EXPERIENCE
Value chains strengthened through the project include dairy, cotton, horticultural crops, paprika, honey, biodiesel, and tobacco, among others. Some of the key benefits and outcomes associated with the project are described next. An innovative matching grant scheme is under way
In its three-plus years of implementation, MIIF has funded 17 subprojects (for which the total budget exceeds US$2.6 million) involving more than 28,800 smallholder beneficiaries. Six additional subprojects are under review, and 20 or more proposals are under development. MIIF subprojects have generated 22 technologies and innovations for a range of value chains, including dairy, groundnuts, honey, biofuels, and fisheries. The grant scheme has leveraged an additional 85.6 percent cofinancing,
MODULE 6: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 1: IMPROVING ZAMBIAN SMALLHOLDERS’ AGRIBUSINESS SKILLS
513
illustrating the considerable buy-in and commitment by agribusinesses. It is too early to project the outcome of the subproject grants, but initial assessments by beneficiaries have been very positive. To date, the grant scheme has funded high-quality proposals that are demand led and innovative. One lesson from the experience with MIIF, however, is that it is vital to maintain the number of high-quality subprojects that enter the funding pipeline. Awareness of the facility is spread through continuous publicity; a variety of field days, symposia, and workshops; and word of mouth in the business community. Another lesson is that a favorable external business environment (especially exchange rates for commodity exports and inputs for production and value addition) is essential for strong participation in an innovation grant scheme such as MIIF that attempts to increase competitiveness. MIIF’s implementation has faced several challenges. Initially agribusinesses were reluctant to participate because of their limited awareness of and low interest in the need to innovate for greater competitiveness. The high transaction costs (time, resources) and lack of experience in developing concept notes, proposals, follow-up documentation, and cofinancing commitments also presented a challenge for some participants. The private sector was wary of engaging with what it perceived to be NGO- and government-“driven” activities. Similar issues of limited trust and experience in working with the private sector impeded collaborative arrangements between private and nonprivate actors. Another challenge that must not be underestimated is that the effort involved in working with smallholders in outgrower schemes can limit the private sector’s interest in submitting proposals. Although it is too early to point to specific benefits arising from the project’s various kinds of support to specific value chains, the adoption of more productive and favorable technologies has increased. A baseline study in two provinces where rural road work is taking place was completed, and an impact study is being undertaken in the same areas.
project had rehabilitated 583 rural district and feeder roads in the national road network. It is actively encouraging the use of MIIF grants in contracting for road rehabilitation and maintenance to create synergies between improved crop production and marketing in the value chains. The socioeconomic targets of the OPRCs in selected catchment areas (3,136 households were surveyed as a baseline) are mainly related to process impacts (income-generating opportunities from road rehabilitation), access impacts (associated with providing the road infrastructure), and mobility impacts (on transport services or growth in traffic volumes), but they are still too early to quantify.
An agricultural market information system piloted in an integrated project activity zone
As noted, the project used a spatial approach to target the technology interventions for the selected value chains within the improved rural road grid in Southern Province, where a market information system has also been successfully piloted in three districts. Given the popularity of radio broadcasts of commodity market prices, this program is being scaled up to include all districts in Southern Province and will also be introduced to Eastern Province, where the OPRC rural road work is taking place. Short-, medium-, and long-term loans to support investment
Loans provided through the SCCF are an important complement to the matching grants provided through MIIF, and access to short-, medium-, and long-term agricultural finance remains critical to the project’s success. This aspect of the project has been implemented more slowly than expected, however. Responsibility for implementation has been transferred to the Development Bank of Zambia, where institutional capacity strengthening has been initiated. Serving the public goods agenda
Performance-based contracts for rural roads successfully implemented
As noted, the project uses a new method of road contracting called OPRC, in which the contractor rehabilitates the roads under the contract and maintains them for five years. This agreement ensures that project participants in rural areas that are far from markets have consistent access to those markets. Spillover benefits include improved access to health facilities and primary schools. By its third year, the
514
The outcomes of ADSP far exceed the cost of the public investments. Aside from reinforcing the private sector’s capacity to increase the competitiveness of Zambian agriculture and improve smallholders’ participation in lucrative value chains, the project strengthens the public goods delivery agenda through targeted institutional development, with long-term benefits for the agricultural sector. Examples of these public goods include wider availability of good quality seed for multiplication by private and public
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
agencies, more skilled human resources in public institutions, and development of the rural road network.
Projects similar to ADSP under way in other parts of the world
Productive partnership projects funded by the World Bank in Colombia and Vietnam also use matching grants to facilitate partnerships and build capacity in value chains. These projects and ADSP are demonstrating the challenges of engaging and retaining the interest of a diverse group of private actors, such as traders, processors, exporters, wholesalers, and retailers. Such projects often require greater attention to entrepreneurial skills than to farming practices.
LESSONS LEARNED AND ISSUES FOR WIDER APPLICATION
To date, the ADSP approach has yielded three key lessons. First, the development of market institutions is not in synchrony with development of other parts of the value chains. There is need to consistently identify areas, themes, and issues that can contribute to activities that strengthen value chains. Second, alliances and partnerships for agribusinesses do not “just happen” in projects of this nature. They must be actively facilitated and nurtured and benefit from early technical and financial support. A conducive political economy is essential for success. Third, owing to its demand-driven design, MIIF responded to greater and more varied demand from more diverse businesses than originally anticipated. The focus of the grant scheme became fragmented as a result and increased the administrative burden. Other lessons are discussed in greater detail in the sections that follow.
Engage private sector grantees/actors for dialogue and innovative enterprise development
A project such as ADSP, which seeks to promote innovation in value chains and involve smallholders in commercial agriculture, must engage the private sector when it is first developed and designed. ADSP carefully engaged the private sector as the project was prepared, but a more consistent effort was warranted later, during the project’s implementation. Matching grants under ADSP did not automatically strengthen value chains and develop agribusiness. Midway through the project, it was realized that consultative processes (multistakeholder platforms, forums for value chains, sector associations, and field days) were useful instruments to support development of the agricultural sector.
These platforms help to develop a shared understanding of challenges, opportunities, and intervention that may guide the support services and matching grant program. They can also foster collaboration, including partnership between public and private agencies.
Establish a high-caliber secretariat with private sector experience
The secretariat or fund administrator has a key responsibility in implementing a grant scheme. Selection of the grant administrator requires significant effort, and often special capacity building is warranted. Deficiencies in management capacity and leadership could cause delays or even the failure of the scheme. As noted, under ADSP this function was outsourced to an NGO. This option is useful when a project requires autonomy, experience in working with participants at the grassroots level and in decentralized projects, as well as experience with donor requirements (reporting, procurement, and fiduciary issues). NGOs also come with challenges, however, including the potential for greater overhead costs, problems with long-term institutional sustainability, and a greater risk that they will lack business understanding. The essential features for a secretariat to succeed are the available capacity, institutional sustainability, overhead costs, separation of the funding and implementation of the grant fund, potential for political interference, and the interests of the key stakeholders.
Strengthen aspects of the matching grant scheme
The matching grant scheme could be strengthened in a number of ways. The activities and value chains supported by the facility could be adjusted to focus more on high-priority value chains and on moving away from activities involving technology, extension, and studies toward a wider set of business-promoting activities. Stronger, direct communication with actors in the agricultural sector is vital to increase awareness of the facility. The grant application and review process should be streamlined. The MIIF administrator requires greater capacity to interact with private sector stakeholders, train clients, and manage the overall program. One final lesson from the experience with MIIF is that the grants have been quite useful for building institutional capacity in public organizations at the provincial and district level. In other words, participation in grant schemes that strengthen agribusinesses can benefit not only national goals but provincial and district institutions and economies.
MODULE 6: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 1: IMPROVING ZAMBIAN SMALLHOLDERS’ AGRIBUSINESS SKILLS
515
I N N O V AT I V E A C T I V I T Y P R O F I L E 2
Intellectual Property Management in Livestock Veterinary Medicines for Developing Countries Josef Geoola, GALVmed Sara Boettiger, University of California, Berkeley
SYNOPSIS
he Global Alliance for Livestock Veterinary Medicines (GALVmed) is a nonprofit organization that makes livestock vaccines, diagnostics, and medicines accessible and affordable to the very poor. GALVmed coordinates research, development, and deployment (RD&D) among multiple partners, from identifying candidate technologies to manufacturing sustainable supplies of market-ready products. GALVmed uses a wide range of resources to ensure that IP supports innovation for the poor, such as due diligence for accessing upstream technologies, the implementation of IP strategies that work toward development goals, the use of IPRs as incentives to engage partners, and the negotiation of contracts that support the translation of research into products accessible to the poor. GALVmed’s IP management system benefits its pro-poor mission by addressing broader issues that prevent innovations from becoming sustainable, market-ready products. Experience with public-private partnerships has taught GALVmed to leverage its interests while providing its partners with the opportunity to achieve their own internal mission.
T
CONTEXT
The Global Alliance for Livestock Veterinary Medicines (GALVmed, www.galvmed.org) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to make livestock vaccines, diagnostics, and medicines accessible and affordable to the millions for whom livestock is a lifeline. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Kingdom Department for International Development, and the European Commission are major sponsors of GALVmed’s work. The impact of livestock in addressing poverty continues to be underappreciated, particularly livestock’s role as living assets for the very poor. Data on the impact of livestock diseases are limited, but four of the many major and unaddressed
516
livestock diseases (East Coast fever, Rift Valley fever, Porcine cysticercosis, and Newcastle disease) cause estimated annual economic losses upwards of US$350 million. Losses on this scale affect the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of poor households in the developing world. GALVmed currently works on nine disease-control technologies for those four livestock diseases. Many diseases afflicting livestock in developing countries are preventable and well understood from a research perspective. Until recently, however, the developing world has lacked the resources for moving the science out of the lab and into the field to prevent and contain livestock diseases. One reason for this impasse is that disease-preventing and diseasecontrolling technologies often emerge from R&D in advanced laboratories and are subject to one or more forms of IP protection. For GALVmed to achieve its mission, the organization must constantly exercise (and review) its IP policies and IP management strategies. Through effective IP policies and management strategies, GALVmed can identify and circumvent IP risks early in the commercialization pathway, therefore avoiding potentially serious and costly downstream impediments to GALVmed projects. GALVmed is unusual in that it operates across the entire commercialization pathway to make technological solutions accessible to the poor. GALVmed does not have in-house capacity for the research, development, and deployment (RD&D) of products. Instead, its role is to facilitate the entire RD&D process, from identifying candidate technologies to manufacturing sustainable supplies of market-ready products. Managing RD&D activities among multiple partners and under pro-poor obligations requires the organization to consider the use of IP strategically to ensure that upstream technologies do ultimately result in downstream products accessible to those who need them most. By addressing a wide range of IP strategy issues, GALVmed has gained experience that has value for many
Box 6.35 Tailoring Intellectual Property Strategies for Public and Private Partners in Technology Deployment The vaccine that GALVmed is currently deploying for East Coast fever has a commercial market, primarily among the Masai in East Africa, and potential for sustainable private sector production and distribution. Protection against East Coast fever adds significant value to Masai calves, and the Masai are willing to pay for the vaccine within a certain price range. With the help of the Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA, www.pipra.org), GALVmed first approached the IP strategy for the vaccine by characterizing the opportunities and risks. The vaccine was nearly ready for the market and would not require substantial further development. PIPRA reviewed the IP in the technology. It determined that the technology and related know-how, although enormous in value, were in the public domain and had no associated IP rights. The lack of formal IP meant that manufacturers would have less of an incentive to invest in producing the vaccine. GALVmed needed to explore other types of leverage, such as forward market commitments or other assurances of supply channels. Eventually GALVmed learned that deregulation of the vaccine in each country in East Africa was linked to an exclusive marketing authorization that offered some leverage. To create a commercialization strategy for sustainable delivery of the vaccine to East Africa, information on marketing authorizations needed to be integrated with information on the profit incentives of manufacturers and distributors as well as consideration of the transfer of know-how. In summary, even though IP did not play a role in the eventual commercialization strategy, formulation of an IP management strategy was critical
to determine: (1) whether in-licensing was required and which partners might need to be engaged in the process due to IP ownership and (2) what incentives could be derived, either with IP or other levers, to ensure that partners also had incentives to comply with GALVmed’s pro-poor obligations. While commercialization of the East Coast fever vaccine involved private companies as partners in manufacturing and distribution, another vaccine in GALVmed’s portfolio, the Porcine cysticercosis vaccine, involves virtually all public partners. In this case, GALVmed recognized that the lack of a private market for the Porcine cysticercosis vaccine (government procurement was anticipated) meant that incentives to engage manufacturers and distributors would need to be different. PIPRA conducted due diligence over relevant technologies and ascertained that, while formal IPRs existed in some countries, it was tangible property rights that would provide GALVmed with both challenges and opportunities in its development of a propoor commercialization strategy. GALVmed was then able to employ licensing language to create incentives for partners, whereby a selected partner would gain geographical exclusivity in developing, manufacturing, and distributing the vaccine. As was the case with the East Coast fever vaccine, developing an IP management strategy involved critical due diligence to determine GALVmed’s risks and opportunities, and then careful consideration of how to use the available leverage to ensure that partners had incentives that aligned with GALVmed’s obligations to deliver products to the very poor.
Source: Authors.
organizations that develop technology for the poor. GALVmed has made crucial IP decisions, observed their implications, and employed IP strategies suitable for both public and private partnerships (see box 6.35). Through broad involvement with the RD&D process, GALVmed addresses IP and contractual challenges, including accessing and transferring proprietarily owned technologies, resolving the distribution of rights, and strategically using IP to promote deployment. The remainder of this profile focuses on the processes and resources
GALVmed has employed to address IP issues, such as due diligence, strategy implementation, and conscious leveraging of IP, as well as some of the challenges involved (for example, negotiating contracts). GALVMED’S INNOVATIVE APPROACH
As it has grown, GALVmed has developed a systematic approach that anticipates IP hurdles and mitigates IP risks that arise during RD&D (box 6.36). These IP management
MODULE 6: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 2: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IN LIVESTOCK VETERINARY MEDICINES
517
Box 6.36 Internal Capacity Building for Strategic Intellectual Property Management
As GALVmed has expanded, its needs for managing IP have evolved. During its startup phase, to ensure that IP issues were addressed from the onset of projects with utmost diligence, GALVmed outsourced IP management issues to a group such as PIPRA, with a proven track record and the expertise for managing IP within agriculture. Five years after its founding, GALVmed now manages an ever-growing number of technologies in the RD&D pipeline. The related complex IP challenges demand timely attention and therefore in-house expertise. GALVmed’s growing internal capacity for IP management has been achieved through three changes: ■
■
■
Creating a new management role within the organization to deal with IP and agreements. This role provides for focused, consistent management of the drafting of time-sensitive agreements and delicate negotiations as well as critical accountability for IP management. Moreover, internal expertise allows for IP management strategies that fit the organization’s risk tolerance, encompass organizational culture, and can more easily be adapted to changing information of the technical and socioeconomic realities of the RD&D pathway. Contracting the services of a local attorney from a top-tier law firm to provide weekly and as-needed support in drafting and negotiating complex legal agreements. A local attorney a provides the organization with an external opinion, identifies legal issues
that could be missed internally, and provides insight on regional laws and regulations. The execution of contracts requires expertise in local law, and nonprofits often require legal opinions from local attorneys on risks such as exposure to liability. Most important, a local attorney is essentially local enough to meet individuals in the organization and understand the nuances of issues that would otherwise be missed through a phone call. Improving utilization of external IP expertise to address the resource gaps that almost always exist internally. External expertise, in the form of contracted services from organizations or individual consultants, can provide experience-based, impartial advice that would be difficult to gain otherwise. External expertise (in GALVmed’s case, from PIPRA) has access to the knowledge and expensive toolsets that small nonprofits may struggle to purchase. These experts have access to a global network of attorneys that can provide regional legal advice that can be valuable, for example, when questions of law arise in countries where GALVmed’s partners practice. Lastly, external experts have the latest specialized insight on IP. They are capable of breaking down technologies, conducting highly detailed assessments, acquiring legal insight, and converting a mass of information into one thorough, meaningful report that GALVmed’s internal expert can then integrate into a larger commercialization strategy.
Source: Authors. a. Andy Harris, associate at Maclay Murray & Spens LLP, Edinburgh.
measures are critical to GALVmed’s ability to efficiently transform upstream disease-preventing technologies into safe, effective, and accessible downstream products. The sections that follow provide more detail on GALVmed’s four-stage, systematic approach to managing IP. The approach was designed to balance the organization’s nonprofit, pro-poor mission with the need to integrate and address a variety of challenges arising throughout the commercialization pathway of the products GALVmed seeks to deliver to the poor.
518
Stage 1: Technology landscaping
GALVmed’s initial step of conducting a technology landscape requires using IP and other sources of information to scout for preexisting and emerging technologies. Technical and scientific value of individual technologies are assessed as well as potential IP risks. In one instance, scientists at GALVmed learned of a number of technically promising, but proprietarily owned, vaccine stabilization technologies. Upon IP review, GALVmed learned of related ongoing
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
patent disputes. The uncertainty and risk associated with these disputes, and the potential impact these risks may have on downstream partners for technology development, were considered in conjunction with technical issues, and the risk was deemed unacceptable. The review of IP issues allowed GALVmed to avoid pursuing a technology that could have potentially led to delays or the expense of latestage shifts in research strategy. Early identification of technologies that exhibit scientific merit and withstand IP review paves the path to a more resource-efficient commercialization process. Stage 2: IP due diligence
As candidate technologies are identified from Stage 1, an IP due diligence process is used. This due diligence (or IP auditing) is a resource-intensive process involving indepth research into the patent landscape surrounding each selected technology (for example, individual investigations of vectors, genes, promoters, markers, and signal sequences of a vaccine). When a patent is particularly important to GALVmed’s commercialization strategy or when use of a technology is suspected to infringe existing patents, freedom-to-operate (FTO) assessments may be carried out with the help of attorneys. The information gained from IP due diligence allows GALVmed to identify potential partners, understand in-licensing obligations, and review potential opportunities for the use of IPRs in further development of the technology. While some large companies employ internal IP legal expertise, it is usually more efficient for small companies and nonprofits to outsource this level of patent landscaping and analysis. For these analyses, GALVmed collaborates with PIPRA. In this stage, GALVmed also incorporates a review of issues of tangible property rights1 (examining, for instance, material transfer agreements as well as IP licenses); existing claims to both tangible property and IP are mapped to understand the full implications for commercialization. Rights to ownership and the terms of use for technology providers, partners, and GALVmed must be clearly documented for any background (existing) and foreground (future) IP used or generated throughout RD&D. Finally, a review of rights and obligations of relevant existing legal agreements is also conducted at this stage. The importance of due diligence for RD&D is often underestimated in agricultural development; as a consequence, organizations operate in an environment of uncertainty and risk. Sponsors who invest in organizations like GALVmed are incurring unnecessary risk if they fail to
make this type of due diligence a part of their grant-making process. The due diligence task for technology development is undoubtedly complex and requires substantial resources, but there is great value in high-quality IP analysis. Integrating IP analysis with technical information permits decisions to be made based on the evidence and reduces risk. Stage 3: Technology-specific IP management strategy
The insight gained and information generated through IP due diligence is used for creating a Disease Intellectual Property Plan (DIPP). The DIPP is used to advise GALVmed staff and to address questions from external parties, such as stakeholders, regarding GALVmed’s intended IP management strategy for a specific disease-control technology. Aside from presenting the results of the IP due diligence process, DIPPs map the flow of technology from providers to development partners, manufacturers, and so on. This map allows GALVmed to identify the contractual arrangements needed for effectively governing IP transactions between the actors involved in a way that supports pro-poor sustainable delivery of technology. Moreover, by building upon the results of the due diligence process, GALVmed can make informed decisions on critical issues such as ownership and rights allocations as they relate to background and foreground IP. Issues of ownership and rights allocation are often not straightforward where nonprofit organizations are engaged in technology development. There is, first, the question of whether the coordinating organization should own IP itself. Some would say there is an inherent discord between owning IP and being an “honest broker” that coordinates incentives among partners. However, the ownership of IP allows a facilitator organization to have more leverage in pushing for pro-poor outcomes. GALVmed does not seek to own IP, but it does not rule out the possibility of a future instance in which claiming ownership to IP rights could be critical to achieving the development and deployment of products for the poor. Stage 4: Contracting
The strategy articulated in a DIPP is ultimately implemented through a set of contracts among partner organizations. Contract drafting and negotiations are among the most challenging and resource-consuming activities that GALVmed undertakes. Some contracts govern straightforward IP transactions. Under other circumstances, contracts need to capture more sophisticated strategies that deal with,
MODULE 6: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 2: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IN LIVESTOCK VETERINARY MEDICINES
519
for example, issues of pro-poor performance obligations, geographical exclusivities, and activities for which a high degree of uncertainty exists. GALVmed’s position as a facilitator in the RD&D process further complicates what might otherwise be a simple contract. As a facilitator, GALVmed engages multiple parties, often playing the role of an intermediary or broker (see module 3, TN 4, for a discussion of innovation brokers). GALVmed must structure contracts to ensure that there is a potential for leveraging to meet propoor goals, certain obligations from technology providers are integrated, and an effective recourse process is in place (should obligations be broken) with minimal impact on goals and milestones. In addition, GALVmed must ensure that the expectations of the technology provider and sublicensee are in compliance with one another. It is in GALVmed’s interest to release market-ready products as soon as possible. Therefore it becomes GALVmed’s responsibility to manage challenging negotiations with all involved parties in a timely and efficient way.
520
purely humanitarian, private partners, who are crucial in ensuring that a technology becomes a successful product, are likely to have different ambitions, which must also be considered. The need to foster stronger public-private partnerships has taught GALVmed to leverage the organization’s interests while providing its partners with the opportunity to achieve their own internal mission. This understanding has served GALVmed enormously well while dealing with contentious IP issues and creating conditions for relationships and products conducive to success. Another benefit GALVmed has enjoyed from its approach to managing IP is the ability to rapidly produce, negotiate, and secure agreements with different partners. The development of core IP principles and more attractive conditions for engaging partners have allowed the organization to significantly increase the rate at which it can negotiate contracts.
BENEFITS, IMPACT, AND EXPERIENCE
LESSONS LEARNED AND ISSUES FOR WIDER APPLICATION
As this profile has illustrated, IP management processes in the private sector are highly relevant to nonprofits working to develop technology for the poor. IP management in the private sector minimizes risks and contributes key components to a commercialization strategy that supports the organization’s goals. GALVmed, through its systematic approach to IP management, is better able to circumvent and/or minimize IP risks that could adversely affect downstream development and deployment operations (see the sections on IP landscaping and IP due diligence) and can use IP management to support its organizational goals. In the wider scheme of things, GALVmed’s IP management system has benefited the organization pro-poor mission by addressing some broader issues that often delayed milestone deliverables, namely, the growth of innovation to sustainable, market-ready products. One main point highlighted through GALVmed’s experience in strategic IP management is that organizational missions and related policies, including IP policies, must be aligned with the ambitions of partners engaged in the RD&D process. Ultimately, the availability of GALVmed’s products should not depend on the existence of GALVmed itself. For innovations to become meaningful products with wide adoption, partners, preferably private, must be incentivized to support the existence and availability of a product, throughout and beyond the existence of GALVmed. While GALVmed’s facilitation in the development of a vaccine is
GALVmed’s experience in IP management (including its interaction with public and private partners) provides many lessons. A key lesson is that superficial surveys of IP are insufficient. All organizations working in the knowledge economy, in the public sector or otherwise, need to proactively address IP matters. Systematic IP management will improve efficient progress, reduce risk, and support the organizational mission, ultimately creating greater impact on livelihoods of the very poor. The resources needed to implement IP management require organizational decisions to develop certain capacities in-house and determine which elements should be outsourced. Some have suggested that basic understanding of IP and access to patent information (such as information in public patent databases) is sufficient for most public sector operations. As demonstrated here, however, IP issues require significant expertise in analysis and the ability to develop solutions tailored to each project’s goals. Public patent data require interpretation, informed analysis, and then translation into a sound IP strategy that serves the organization and its development goals. GALVmed has found that a hybrid approach to IP capacity building, in which IP expertise is available both in-house and externally, serves the organization best. Internal sources are in closer contact with staff overseeing the RD&D process and can better capture and communicate the organization’s needs and wants. External expertise, on the other hand, is
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
impartial, can provide in-depth analysis, and can highlight issues the organization may fail to see internally. External expertise has given GALVmed high-quality analysis and access to top-tier attorneys. One of the most challenging issues GALVmed has experienced is that of contracting. GALVmed’s facilitation role entails the development of multiple contracts and often lengthy negotiations. GALVmed is working toward a new approach that employs significantly simplified contracts fit for multiple purposes. The intention is to decrease the time between drafting and signing contracts, while still effectively integrating the necessary rights and obligations. In addition to benefits for GALVmed, simplified legal contracts benefit developing country partners without good access to legal expertise. GALVmed has learned that building in-house capacity to manage IP is only half of the equation. IP management plays an integral role in achieving a desired result; many related factors, such as business development strategies, go handin-hand with IP management practices. Regardless of the diligence GALVmed puts into managing IP, a sustainable endeavor ultimately relies on a partner’s ability to interpret GALVmed’s knowledge of IP issues and integrate that knowledge into a sound business model for downstream application. In GALVmed’s case, this challenge can prove difficult to meet. The majority of the organization’s partners for downstream deployment are from the developing world, and many suffer capacity constraints (either in financial or other resources) or lack experience with IP, complex contracting, the creation of business plans, and other key business tools.
Consequently, GALVmed has recognized that the second half of the equation for success in commercializing technologies for the poor is to build capacity in its downstream partners. GALVmed now hires business consultants to work alongside partners to create business plans and strategies that take advantage of the IP knowledge GALVmed holds. In some instances, GALVmed assists its partners by taking the lead in drafting and negotiating complex agreements between partners. This intervention provides the partners with practical experience for dealing with IP issues, while providing GALVmed with the opportunity to impart its knowledge and experience in IP management for pro-poor purposes. Capacity building on a project-specific basis has made related processes, such as contracting, simpler. GALVmed can now engage with partners who have a clearer understanding of the needs, steps, risks, costs, and inputs required for a sustainable venture. In conclusion, GALVmed provides an example of how nonprofits engaged in research, development, and deployment of technologies for the poor can benefit from systematic IP management. IP management plays a key role in reducing risks and improving the organization’s capacity to deliver on its mission. Most nonprofits do not have sufficient in-house capacity, and this profile illustrates how the balance of outsourced services and internal capacity can change as an organization grows. Lastly, GALVmed’s experience indicates the importance of integrating capacity building in IP management; even where a nonprofit is challenged itself in IP management capacity, there are opportunities to share knowledge and continue to foster improvements in a partner’s IP management skills.
MODULE 6: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 2: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IN LIVESTOCK VETERINARY MEDICINES
521
I N N O V AT I V E A C T I V I T Y P R O F I L E 3
Developing a Subregional Approach to Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology in West Africa Morven McLean, ILSI Research Foundation
SYNOPSIS OF PROJECT DATA
Country: Project:
Implementing organizations:
Budget: Date: Contact:
CILSS and ECOWAS member economies in West Africa Rural Agricultural Income and Sustainable Environment Plus (RAISE Plus) Program: Short-Term Technical Assistance in Biotechnology (STTAB) Michigan State University (MSU), Agriculture and Biotechnology Strategies (AGBIOS), and the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (DDPSC) US$2 million USAID FY 2006–09 Dr. Saharah Moon Chapotin, USAID
CONTEXT
In 2004, the Sahel Institute (INSAH, Institut du Sahel) completed a stock-taking exercise in the member countries of the Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS, Comité Inter-états de lutte contre la sècheresse au Sahel) plus Ghana to gain a better understanding of the structure of the seed sector in each. During the country consultations, stakeholders provided the following justifications for establishing a subregional regulatory body for conventional and transgenic seed in the Sahel: (1) extending national seed markets that are considered limited; (2) formalizing an ancient transborder seed route; (3) ensuring the quality of the varieties released; and (4) monitoring the release of GE products in particular. This insight led to the development of the “Framework Convention Introducing a Common Biosafety Regulation for the Prevention of Biotechnological Risks in the CILSS Countries” and the “Framework Convention Instituting
522
Common Regulations for Conventional and Transgenic Seeds in the CILSS Area.” The preambles to the conventions recognized both the benefits and potential risks of modern biotechnology. It stated that a subregional approach to biosafety regulation should be undertaken as “each country is neither able to individually take advantage of the known and potential benefits of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), nor cope with their known and potential risks.” In 2005, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) published an action plan with three operational objectives for the development of biotechnology and biosafety in the subregion, one of which was to develop a subregional approach to biosafety regulation (ECOWAS 2005). The plan was critical of the slow progress in achieving a subregional biosafety framework in West Africa, which it attributed to “an absence of political support in the field of biotechnology and biosafety; lack of communication between stakeholders, even within the same country; lack of coordination between the concerned ministries in the member countries; and poor subregional cooperation on the subject.” The subregional approach to biosafety advocated by ECOWAS was to develop and implement a common regulatory framework that would be binding on all ECOWAS member countries.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
The primary objective of the Short-Term Technical Assistance in Biotechnology (STTAB) project was to work cooperatively with regulatory officials to develop practical, needs-driven policies, directives, guidance, and review procedures to address the regulation of confined field trials and eventual commercialization of GE crops in West Africa. The project’s components are described in the sections that follow.
Technical assistance to INSAH for the review and adoption of technical annexes to the CILSS biosafety convention
The project worked in partnership with INSAH (the technical arm of CILSS) and the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (WECARD, referred to more commonly by its French acronym, CORAF)1 as well as representatives from national environment and agriculture ministries to improve the Framework Convention Instituting Common Regulations for Conventional and Transgenic Seeds in the CILSS Area. During a series of four subregional meetings and with additional bilateral inputs from CILSS country representatives, the CILSS Convention was substantively rewritten in an effort to address the activities of the subregional process consistently and without duplication. The contained, confined, and unconfined uses of GE organisms were clearly differentiated. The regulatory responsibilities for each of these activities were defined. The technical annexes, which describe the technical information required for applications to the regional scientific review panel, were more clearly aligned with the types of applications that will be received in the subregion and with international standards and guidance related to the regulation of GE organisms established by Codex Alimentarius, OECD, and the Cartagena Protocol.
Establishing a Procedure for the Review and Authorisation of Products of Modern Biotechnology within the ECOWAS.” Technical assistance to enhance the environmental risk assessment capacity of the national biosecurity agency, Burkina Faso
The STTAB project also endeavored to work with national agencies and authorities to build institutional and human resource capacity in risk assessment, risk management, and decision making at the national level. When the project began, Burkina Faso was the only country in West Africa to have approved confined field trials of a GE crop, insectresistant (Bt) cotton. To approve these trials, Burkina Faso had promulgated biosafety regulations and established ANB, its national biosafety agency reporting to the environment ministry (Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie). While the ANB, which has a legal mandate for the coordination and monitoring of all activities pertaining to the implementation of biosafety in Burkina Faso, was already active in the field, budgetary and technical capacity constraints limited its effectiveness. Preserving and building on the advances in Burkina Faso required building significant and sustainable capacity within the ANB.
INNOVATIVE ELEMENTS Technical assistance to INSAH to develop and implement an ECOWAS regulation on biosafety
In August 2008, the Experts Group Meeting on ECOWAS Biosafety Regulation, attended by environment and agriculture representatives from 14 ECOWAS countries, concluded with a request to INSAH-CILSS to extend the CILSS Framework Convention to all of the ECOWAS member countries. Building on the STTAB project’s support to INSAH for the development of a regional biosafety framework within West Africa, this initiative aimed to extend the CILSS Biosafety Convention under the ECOWAS mandate. Specifically, the objective was to develop an ECOWAS Regulation governing the importation, development, manufacture, and use of GE organisms and products derived thereof within ECOWAS Member States and to facilitate a consultative process leading to the adoption of the Regulation. The ECOWAS Biosafety Regulation was to be consistent with the spirit of the CILSS Biosafety Convention, incorporating the best elements of that framework, including its technical guidance on risk assessment procedures. The resulting document was “Regulation C/Reg.1/12/08
The innovative elements of STTAB were its regional approach to what was initially perceived as a national priority. The approach proved flexible enough to be developed into a novel model for subregional harmonization of biosafety regulations. Identifying and responding to a national priority with positive regional spillovers
Initially, the STTAB project focused most of its technical capacity-building in Burkina Faso. This strategic decision was based on the fact that: (1) Burkina Faso’s government had clearly indicated its support for the commercialization of Bt cotton and, to that end, had made significant steps toward establishing a biosafety regulatory system (see box 6.28 in TN 4 in this module) and (2) farmers expressed significant interest in cultivating Bt cotton, generated by promising results from field trials conducted from 2003 to 2006. Environmental risk assessment training was provided to ANB personnel and other scientists so that a premarket environmental risk assessment of Bt cotton could be
MODULE 6: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 3: A SUBREGIONAL APPROACH TO REGULATING AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
523
undertaken. The assessment was a prerequisite for the decision to approve Bt cotton. A novel but feasible model for subregional harmonization
Given the ease of transboundary movement of seed between countries in West Africa, the impending commercial authorization of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso was an important catalyst for countries to work toward implementing a subregional approach to biosafety regulation. From prior stock-taking exercises and subregional consultations, it was apparent that the project should direct regional harmonization to the development of a mechanism whereby the science-based risk assessment would be undertaken by a subregional body but all decision-making would remain at the national level. A subregional body responsible for undertaking risk assessments for specific types of applications (such as confined field trials, food safety assessments for GE food, environmental risk assessment of GE plants) and providing scientific opinions to the member countries was considered the most achievable form of harmonization. This model differed from the only other examples of subregional harmonization that have been implemented internationally. In the EU, national decisions about cultivating GE crops are delegated to a subregional body, but this model has been ineffective. In Canada and the United States, harmonization of technical requirements for risk assessment has not resulted in appreciable gains in the efficiency or effectiveness of their representative regulatory systems. The revised CILSS Convention and follow-on ECOWAS Regulation provide a practical and achievable approach to biosafety regulation in a subregion where national governments have limited scientific resources (human, financial, and institutional) to draw upon. An essential element of this project was to build capacity among the country representatives involved in drafting these documents so that the implications of specific policy choices and regulatory approaches could be considered. BENEFITS, IMPACT, AND EXPERIENCE
This STTAB project has resulted in both direct and indirect benefits in the subregion. Building the capacity of Burkinabe risk assessors and regulators to undertake the environmental risk assessment of GE cotton was one of the factors contributing to its eventual approval. This effort has strengthened the ANB nationally, promoted its visibility within West Africa as a regional resource for risk assessment
524
training, and serves as a potential model for other countries in the subregion (or elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa). The commercial cultivation of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso contributed to an increase of about 16 percent of overall production in 2009/10. It is anticipated that 95 percent of harvested area (442,900 hectares) in 2010 will be planted to Bt cotton compared to the 2009/10 season (106,000 hectares). This expansion is expected to contribute significantly to national cotton production. The ECOWAS regulation has not been submitted for approval, so it remains to be seen how implementation will proceed. The West Africa Regional Biosafety Project, launched in June 2009 by the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) with funding from UNEP-GEF and the World Bank, has a component to strengthen institutional capacity for preparing regional laws and regulations on biosafety and creating an institutional framework to accompany the dissemination and implementation of the regional biosafety framework in WAEMU countries. A joint CILSS-ECOWAS-WAEMU committee is currently reviewing the ECOWAS Regulation to determine how it may be best incorporated into the WAEMU project. The end result may be that the ECOWAS Regulation will become a joint ECOWAS-WAEMU Regulation. LESSONS LEARNED AND ISSUES FOR WIDER APPLICATION
The lessons from this experience are summarized in the sections that follow. They focus on the factors that contribute to successful collaboration, including a clear appreciation of the stakeholders involved, the potential incentives for collaboration, and the capacity-building requirements that must be fulfilled if collaboration is to yield useful results. Understand who the key players are and engage them early in the process
The INSAH-CILSS process that led to the development of the first draft of the Framework Convention was criticized because the Convention was developed by Ministries of Agriculture without representation or input from national biosafety focal points or Ministries of Environment. The process to revise the Convention under the STTAB project deliberately included representation from a broader range of ministries. This more inclusive approach was an important step in correcting the apparent absence of prior interministerial engagement.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Collaboration with like projects should begin early and continue through the life of the project
Deficiencies in cooperation and coordination between the CILSS-ECOWAS initiative to develop a subregional approach to biosafety risk assessment and the West Africa Regional Biosafety Project under WAEMU led to early concerns that two competing approaches to regional biosafety regulation would develop. This concern may have been resolved with the CILSS-ECOWAS-WAEMU committee mentioned previously. Other capacity-building initiatives have also been launched in West Africa since the STTAB project began, notably the African Network of Biosafety Expertise, established by the African Union/New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Office of Science and Technology, with a specific mandate to improve technical capacity in biosafety regulation and risk assessment. Collaboration between all of these projects will be essential if subregional harmonization is to be achieved. Subregional harmonization is unlikely unless there is an imperative for countries to engage meaningfully in the process
In the case of West Africa, the commercial release of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso was a pivotal event. While there had been efforts to promote a subregional approach to biosafety regulation prior to the impending approval of Bt cotton, the expectation that Bt cotton seed would move to other countries within the subregion provided a real-world example of why a subregional approach to risk assessment was desirable and even necessary. Given that most West African countries have very limited capacity in biosafety risk assessment and risk management, a subregional risk assessment of Bt cotton under the process described in the
ECOWAS Regulation would be more efficient and costeffective than if each country performed its own assessment. It might also help mitigate potential trade disruptions that can occur when trading partners have asynchronous product approvals.
Building national biosafety capacity is necessary for subregional harmonization
It is difficult for policy makers to support efforts to develop subregional approaches to biosafety regulation, let alone determine the appropriate model to advance, unless some national capacity in this area has been achieved. A national government does not need to have established and operationalized a biosafety regulatory system before engaging in such discussions, but it requires at least some expertise in biosafety (or related) regulation and/or risk assessment to ensure that national interests can be met.
Identify how project outcomes can be sustained
Neither the CILSS Convention nor the ECOWAS Regulation identifies provisions for funding the subregional activities described in each (such as convening the subregional scientific panel). Funding for biosafety capacity building in West Africa, including support for the development of national and subregional biosafety regulatory approaches, has come from the EU, United States, and Japanese donor agencies, as well as foundations and international financial institutions such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the World Bank. Mechanisms for sustainable funding of a subregional biosafety regulatory system by West African governments have not been established.
MODULE 6: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 3: A SUBREGIONAL APPROACH TO REGULATING AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
525
I N N O V AT I V E A C T I V I T Y P R O F I L E 4
The Supply Response to New Sources of Demand for Financial and Other Services in Rural Andhra Pradesh Gunnar Larson, World Bank Melissa Williams, World Bank
SYNOPSIS
elf-help groups and their federations at the village, subdistrict, and district levels represent a new, selfaware client base for providers of financial and other services. By forming groups that effectively demand services, these clients acquire fundamental financial literacy and other competencies (thrift, savings, inter-lending, bookkeeping, and management skills) that strengthen and sustain their capacity to innovate. Government agencies, NGOs, and private companies have designed products and interventions to answer their demand and fulfill their needs in a number of sectors, including agriculture, finance, nonfarm employment, health, and education. Perhaps the most significant practical lesson from this experience is that stronger institutions for the rural poor enable several positive factors to converge. Public agencies gain a new partner capable of collectively asserting its needs, business gains a promising new market for services, and the wider economy gains a foundation for more pro-poor growth and innovation.
S
CONTEXT
India is one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, yet translating rapid economic growth into reduced poverty remains a persistent challenge, particularly in rural areas. Throughout India, only 23 percent of 200 million rural poor are organized into various forms of groups. Individuals who are not in groups can find it challenging to obtain the credit, other services, and market access that offer the means to increase their incomes. The Government of India estimates that it will need to invest about US$20 billion over the next eight to nine years to tackle poverty but plans to invest just over US$10 billion.1 Over the same period, the poor are
526
projected to require about US$40 billion–US$50 billion in credit.2 Self-help groups (SHGs) are the primary source of credit for the rural poor, including small and marginal farmers. In 2007–08, an estimated US$1.7 billion in credit was disbursed to 1.3 million SHGs, but at this rate of flow, a major credit gap is expected. Per capita credit access is equivalent to US$111, which is less than 40 percent of the average expenditure by small and marginal farmers who cultivate their land (US$286).3 As a result, countless poor people are left with no recourse other than informal moneylenders, who charge usurious interest rates, sometimes as high as 600 percent annually. Module 1, IAP 4 described social mobilization among SHGs in Andhra Pradesh to develop a new source of effective demand in that state’s rural economy. For rural entrepreneurs and other service providers, the size of this new clientele is sufficient in scale to command substantial attention. As of November 2010, nearly 11 million women had organized themselves into SHGs through Indira Kranthi Patham, creating a new, self-aware client base.4 The potential returns from serving so vast a population of customers are self-evident. As noted in the overview of this module, accompanying investments in rural finance show strong synergies with investments in agricultural innovation. SHGs have proven highly effective in bringing rural financial services into areas that are traditionally poorly served. They do so by helping commercial lenders to manage risk through joint liability, which brings tremendous pressure to bear on the respective group members to repay loans on time. The SHG strategy lowers transaction costs and addresses lenders’ concerns over the potentially high risks of default in poor, remote rural areas (World Bank 2011). The organization of SHGs into larger aggregates at the village, subdistrict, and district
levels was designed intentionally to meet sellers and service providers halfway. OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
Aside from eliminating some of the barriers that prevented commercial banks from offering services in rural areas, a major goal of linking organized rural groups to formal credit and other services is to accommodate the constraints typical of SHG members, including time constraints. A premium is placed on convenience and on enabling the individual customer to conduct multiple transactions in a single visit. A closely related goal is to provide them with a relatively complete menu of financial services, including credit, insurance, and instruments for poor households to swap burdensome informal debt obligations for new obligations in the formal sector with more stable and reasonable interest rates (a high priority among the poor in the state). The insurance instruments are designed to protect vulnerable clients from the financial effects of events that often leave people in poverty, including pensions that provide security in old age. Figure 6.3 shows how SHGs and their federations create an enabling environment for innovation by empowering the rural poor to acquire the capacities, services, market access, and social safety nets that pave the way for innovation.
INNOVATIVE ELEMENTS
As the rural poor have organized, saved, accessed credit, and built skills and assets, they have more effectively voiced their demand for goods and services. In response, government agencies, NGOs, and private companies have designed products and interventions to answer their demand and fulfill their needs in a number of sectors, including agriculture, finance, nonfarm employment, health, and education. In many instances, these service providers use a coproduction model in which the institutions of the poor become agents or franchises of an agency or business to extend its outreach and deliver services more cost-effectively. This practice not only provides services but generates employment within rural areas. In some instances, the Village Organization operates a commodity procurement center where agricultural inputs are sold. The approach builds capacity in the institutions, provides employment, and helps poor clients become more integrated with the value chain (for example, the procurement center will buy their produce and sell them inputs to improve yields in the next cycle). In other instances, the poor have innovated by developing their own enterprises in response to program-supported activities. Some community members sell biopesticides and biofertilizers to farmers in response to the community-
Figure 6.3 Self-Help Groups Constitute a Rural Institutional Platform That Enables the Rural Poor to Acquire the Capacities, Services, Market Access, and Social Safety Nets That Pave the Way for Innovation Investing in enterprises Access to markets and jobs
Public-private people partnerships Investing in value chains Savings
Rural institutional platform:
• Self-help groups • Village organizations • Subdistrict federations • District federations
Access to financial services
Credit Insurance Bookkeeping
Developed capacities
Planning Job skills Food security
Safety nets, risk, and vulnerability management
Death and disability insurance Pensions
Source: Authors.
MODULE 6: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 4: FINANCIAL AND OTHER SERVICES IN RURAL ANDHRA PRADESH
527
managed sustainable agriculture initiative (see module 1, IAP 4). Others provide public services that have not reached their location, such as preschools or nutrition centers for pregnant women and young children. These services are especially important in the tribal areas. The foundation of this entrepreneurial innovation is access to financial services. These services enable the poor to accumulate assets and create a less risky environment in which they can capitalize on livelihood opportunities. BENEFITS AND IMPACTS
The benefits and impacts of providing formal financial services to clients previously regarded as too risky to serve have ranged from the tangible benefits that people obtain from the services themselves to less tangible effects such as financial discipline or the sense of security derived from savings and insurance plans. Commercial banks have benefited from innovative business models that make it possible to tap into a vast and underserved rural market. The successes of the program in Andhra Pradesh and other states, and the benefits of the products, services, and new models developed expressly for a large base of very poor clients, inspired the Government of India to establish a National Rural Livelihoods Mission. The Rural Livelihoods Mission will apply the strategies developed through this program at the national level. Building a bridge to formal credit
The savings, thrift, and inter-lending activities around which SHGs are organized provide members with experience in financial discipline, money management, and in conducting transactions and repaying loans. Over time, these competencies enable people to establish a history of repayment, obtain a credit rating, and then engage with banks or microfinance institutions. As a result, bank lending has increased from Rs 1.97 billion (US$48 million) in 2001–02 to Rs 65 billion (US$1.6 billion) in 2009–10. By early 2010, banks had extended loans of Rs 251 billion (US$6 billion) to SHGs without any collateral. Total financial inclusion
As banks began to see the rural poor as customers, they altered their business model to accommodate this new source of demand. Rural households generally require working capital to support their current activities, capital to invest in new income-generating activities, and cash to meet basic consumption needs and social obligations, such as
528
health, marriage, and home repair. The banks offered products and services in all these areas, including support for long-term investment in land. Because escaping from debt has been a major priority for many rural households in Andhra Pradesh, banks also arranged debt swaps and provided credit with which to retire costly informal loans. Even better, the new services enabled poor people to avoid the situations that had made them easy prey for informal moneylenders. Lending is based on household investment plans that are vetted by the SHGs and Village Organizations. Community-based recovery mechanisms ensure repayment rates of 95 percent or higher to the banks. Insurance services to reduce vulnerability
Illness and death can plunge or further entrench a family in poverty. Private companies had often viewed the transaction costs of providing health, disability, and life insurance as prohibitive in rural areas, but community-managed structures dramatically reduce those costs by taking on tasks such as enrolling members and verifying, documenting, and processing claims. In Andhra Pradesh, community resource persons (bima mithras) are trained to fulfill these responsibilities on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (more information on community resource persons appears below). District federations have established call centers and developed a web portal to process transactions. The resource persons and call center make insurance services far more economical to provide and far more accessible to the rural poor, reducing the time to deliver insurance benefits by half. Throughout Andhra Pradesh, more than 1.5 million SHGs were organized during the first ten years of the Indira Kranthi Patham program. During that period, SHG members accessed more than US$6 billion in credit from commercial banks. More than 11 million members and their families paid for death and disability and health insurance coverage, and over US$100 million worth of claims have been settled. Over 1 million SHG members have a separate health savings account, and as many as 3,000 villages have dedicated health risk funds to mitigate the shocks of health emergencies. More than 3,000 villages have nutrition centers for pregnant and lactating mothers and children under five. The use of procurement center
Procurement centers operated through Indira Kranthi Patham are an important convening venue for small-scale producers and prospective investors. Small-scale producers, whose sales were previously dispersed widely among informal buyers,
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
command better prices for their produce and buy inputs at lower prices. Procurement centers offer a forum for learning about new crops and growing methods, some of which have been developed locally. Producers are also better positioned to learn about developments in consumer and other markets, because they interact directly with buyers in the value chain. These venues also reduce the costs of outreach to interested investors by assembling a critical mass of potential clients whose purchasing power offsets any discounts they may negotiate. Linking producers to corporate and cooperative partners such as ITC Ltd., APMARKFED, and Olam International became one of the great legacies of Indira Kranthi Patham, and the quest for additional partners continues. Co-contributory pension scheme
The government of Andhra Pradesh devised a co-contributory pension scheme targeting SHG members over 18, all of them women. The members contribute Re 1 per day, which is matched by the government. The Life Insurance Corporation of India invests the contributions in the market to get higher returns. When the member turns 60 she receives a pension of Rs 500 a month and health insurance coverage. Thus far, about 4.5 million SHG members have individual co-contributory pension accounts, and more than 400,000 are receiving pensions. Other benefits
In addition to these specific instruments, Village Organizations bundle entitlements from public distribution systems, grain banks, and bulk purchases from the open market in a food security system that benefits as many as three million households. Village Organizations also operate “bridge schools” that offer incentives to ensure high levels of enrollment among girls. Among the more than 600,000 farmers who adopted community-managed sustainable agriculture in its first four years, the use of nonpesticide management caused a dramatic resurgence in local biodiversity in addition to reducing input costs and enabling farmers to escape from debt.
relate to institutional development. When institutions of the rural poor become strong, they establish the basis for a convergence of factors. Public agencies gain a new partner that articulates the aspirations and concerns of its membership. Private businesses gain clients capable of collectively asserting demand as a market. The wider economy gains a foundation for more inclusive, pro-poor growth and innovation based on improved capacities and access to services. In the case of community-managed sustainable agriculture, stronger institutions for the rural poor create a foundation for dialogue on alternative agriculture in India’s semiarid tropics. The cost advantages of using coproduction models to deliver insurance services and agricultural inputs offset many of the disincentives of investing in rural areas. The organization of a new client base provides businesses with local partners capable of assuming many functions that were once centrally performed. The reduced costs greatly extend the reach of government services and private companies. The transaction costs for poor rural clients also fall dramatically through the use of one-stop shops where they can conveniently conduct multiple transactions. Located close to home, these service points provide complete “end-to-end” financial services including credit, insurance, procurement of inputs, and marketing of produce. Like most problem-solving efforts, the experience described here has cautionary as well as positive lessons. In seven districts of Andhra Pradesh, the easy availability of credit from commercial banks and microfinance institutions encouraged borrowing well in excess of households’ ability to repay, and about 20 percent of participating households began accumulating serious debt. The resulting microfinance crisis points to the ongoing need for building financial literacy among the poor and for discipline in lending. The abusive collection processes employed by some of these institutions emphasizes the need for discretion in selecting which institutions may participate in rural livelihoods programs and to the need for well-defined channels for recourse when borrowers default.
LESSONS LEARNED AND ISSUES FOR WIDER APPLICATION
Some of the most significant practical lessons to emerge from the rural livelihoods program in Andhra Pradesh
MODULE 6: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 4: FINANCIAL AND OTHER SERVICES IN RURAL ANDHRA PRADESH
529
NOTES Module 6 Overview
1. Of 145 countries for which data were reported for the years 1999/2000 and 2000/01, about one-third reported that more than 95 percent of secondary school students were enrolled in general programs and less than 5 percent in vocational or technical programs. Most European countries reported 20-40 percent enrollment in vocational/technical programs at the secondary level. 2. IPRs: World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); PVRs: International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV); Biosafety: Global Environmental Facility (GEF); and SPS standards: Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF), World Animal Health Organization (OIE), and International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). 3. Union internationale pour la protection des obtentions végétales, established in 1961. 4. TRIPS is the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, signed in 1994 as part of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The TRIPS agreement obliges all members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to have some form of IPR legislation in place. Low-income countries are given additional time to fulfil this obligation but eventually must comply. 5. The Cartagena Protocol, which is part of the Convention on Biological Diversity, was signed in 2000. Thematic Note 1
1. See, for example, Johnson (2002), Paterson, Adam, and Mullen (2003), Ivanova and Roseboom (2006), Hekkert et al. (2006), and World Bank (2010). 2. Innovation policy calls for a “whole-of-government” approach. It depends on the establishment of efficient government machinery able to ensure the needed coordination. Although its mechanisms must be adapted to existing institutional frameworks and to cultural backgrounds, models that place a powerful coordinating body at the center of government allow innovation policy to have a pervasive influence (World Bank 2010). Thematic Note 2
1. Formerly MoST, the Ministry of Science and Technology. 2. This taxonomy of key governance capabilities is based on numerous studies undertaken by Advansis. Compare also with findings of the OECD Monitoring and Implementing National Innovation Policies (MONIT) project (OECD 2005).
530
3. See Benoit (2007) for a good overview of indicators relevant to assessing innovation systems.
Thematic Note 3
1. World Bank (2006) discusses this issue for many highly relevant country-level investments related to plant breeding. 2. For example, it does not adequately emphasize the importance of IPRs in access and benefit sharing, in which “access” refers to accessing traditional knowledge and genetic resources, and “sharing” refers to sharing the benefits (commercial and otherwise) arising from the use of traditional knowledge and genetic resource. 3. For a thorough exploration of these issues, see Maskus (2000). 4. See http://www.wipo.int/ipadvantage/en/details.jsp?id =2595. 5. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (2003). 6. “IPR-related” here refers to a broader definition of IP as creations of the mind or value added by innovative thinking. Even a hybrid plant variety, then, can be considered in some sense a form of IPR in agriculture, because control over the parents prevents others from profiting from the fruits of the breeder’s investment. 7. See http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-develop ment/en/agenda/recommendations.pdf. 8. Patent pools, patent commons, and clearinghouses are essentially joint marketing systems in which a number of agencies agree to market their IP as a common entity, making it simpler for a licensee to obtain access to a number of different pieces of IP in a single transaction. Patent commons are typically free to access, although this is not always the case. 9. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Brazil’s national agricultural research organization. 10. For example, assessing whether the researchers’ rights to use technologies, materials, and data are aligned with the project’s activities and evaluating potential related risks.
Thematic Note 5
1. The CAC initially formulated international commodity and product standards, but this role has expanded to include commodity-related guidelines and codes of practice; general standards and guidelines on food labeling; general codes and guidelines on food hygiene; guidelines on food safety risk assessment; standards, codes, and guidelines on contaminants in foods; standards, guidelines, and other recommendations on sampling, analysis, inspection, and certification procedures; maximum limits for pesticide
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
residue; food additives provisions; and maximum limits for veterinary drugs in foods (FAO and WHO 2005). 2. For example, the 1992 Rio Declaration set a foundation not only for government action but for all stakeholders to integrate sustainable development considerations within their consumption and production decisions (Rio Declaration, Principle 8). Other agreements include the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002). 3. For animal diseases, there has been a call for an integrated and global approach under the concept “One World, One Health.” 4. STDF is a global program established by FAO, OIE, WHO, WTO, and the World Bank (www.standardsfacility.org), which also offers grants to support specific investment in SPS capacity. The proposed multi-criteria framework aims to enhance the economic efficiency of SPS capacity-building decisions to meet a country’s economic development, poverty alleviation, public health, and other objectives (Henson and Masakure 2011). 5. See Calvin (2003) and Calvin et al. (2003) for examples related to raspberries from Guatemala (contaminated with an intestinal parasite) and green onions from Mexico (hepatitis A). 6. In the United States alone, recent data estimate the economic impact of foodborne illness nationwide in US$152 billion annually (Scharff 2010). Innovative Activity Profile 2
1. Tangible property rights are the set of rights defined by law that relate to a physical object, for example plasmids or vectors.
3. The US$286 figure is based on NSSO (2003). 4. Andhra Pradesh has 10,978,982 women in 975,362 SHGs, organized into 38,334 village organizations, 1,099 subdistrict organizations, and 22 district organizations, representing all 22 rural districts.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Module 6 Overview
Daane, J. 2010. “Enhancing Performance of Agricultural Innovation Systems.” Rural Development News 1/2010: pp. 76-82. Khandker, S.R., Z. Bakht, and G.B. Koolwal. 2006. “The Poverty Impact of Rural Roads: Evidence from Bangladesh.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3875. Washington, DC: World Bank. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2005. Governance of Innovation Systems. Vol. 1: Synthesis Report. Paris. Walle, D. van de, and D. Cratty. 2002. Impact Evaluation of a Rural Road Rehabilitation Project. Washington, DC: World Bank. Willoughby, C. 2002. Infrastructure and pro-poor growth: Implications of recent research. Unpublished. World Bank. 2006. Agricultural Investment Sourcebook. Washington, DC. ———. 2007a. World Bank Assistance to Agriculture in SubSaharan Africa: An IEG Review. Washington, DC. ———. 2007b. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. Thematic Note 1
Innovative Activity Profile 3
1. Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles. Innovative Activity Profile 4
1. Including SGSY and NREGS. The Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) is an integrated program for selfemployment of the rural poor that seeks to bring poor families above the poverty line by organizing them into SHGs. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) guarantees 100 days of wage employment in every financial year to every household, whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. 2. Based on SGSY estimates, swarojgaris (self-employed persons) were able to leverage US$2.1 from commercial banks for every US$1 of government investment.
Edquist, C. 2001. “The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An Account of the State of the Art.” Paper presented at the DRUID Conference, June 12–15, Aalborg, Denmark. Hall, A., L. Mytelka, and B. Oyeyinka. 2006. “Concepts and Guidelines for Diagnostic Assessments of Agricultural Innovation Capacity.” Working Paper No. 17. Maastricht: UNU–MERIT (United Nations University and Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology). Hekkert, M.P., R.A.A. Suurs, S.O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, and R.E.H.M. Smits. 2006. “Functions of Innovation Systems: A New Approach for Analysing Technological Change.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74(4):413–32. InterAcademy Council (IAC). 2003. Inventing a Better Future: A Strategy for Building Worldwide Capacities in
MODULE 6: NOTES, REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
531
Science and Technology. Amsterdam: InterAcademy Council. Ivanova, N., and J. Roseboom. February 2006. A Functional Analysis of the Russian Innovation System: Roles and Responsibilities of Key Stakeholders. Moscow: Science and Technology Commercialization Project (EuropeAid/ 115381/C/SV/RU). Johnson, A. 2002. Functions in Innovation System Approaches. Göteborg: Department of Industrial Dynamics, Chalmers University of Technology. KIT (Royal Tropical Institute). 2011. Dossier: Rural innovation policies, in KIT Information Portal: Rural Innovation Systems. http://portals.kit.nl/Rural_Innovation _Systems and http://www.kit.nl/smartsite.shtml?ch= FAB&id=26844, accessed March 2011. Kraemer-Mbula, E., and W. Wamae (eds.). 2010. Innovation and the Development Agenda. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Development Research Centre (IDRC). OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. 3rd edition. Paris. ———. 2010. The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow. Paris. Paterson, A., R. Adam, and J. Mullen. 2003. The Relevance of the National System of Innovation Approach to Mainstreaming Science and Technology for Development in NEPAD and the AU. Pretoria: New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). Pro Inno Europe. 2010. European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) 2009: Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance. Brussels: European Union (EU). Roseboom, J. 2004. Case Study on the Financing of Agricultural Research in Brazil. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2008. “Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Loan in the Amount of US$ 150 million to the Argentine Republic for an Unleashing Productive Innovation Project.” Washington, DC. ———. 2010. Innovation Policy: A Guide for Developing Countries. Washington, DC.
Thematic Note 2
Benoit, G. 2007. “National Innovation System: The System Approach in Historical Perspective.” Working Paper No. 36. Montreal: Project on the History and Sociology of STI Statistics. Canadian Science and Innovation Indicators Consortium, http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_36 .pdf, accessed March 2011.
532
Dahlman, C.J. Routti, and P. Ylä-Anttila (eds.). 2006. Finland as a Knowledge Economy: Elements of Success and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: World Bank Institute. EC (European Commission). 2009. Policy Mixes for R&D in Europe. Maastricht: UNU-MERIT (United Nations University and Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology). Edquist, C. (ed.). 1997. Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. Oxon: Francis Pinter Publishers. Hausmann, R., and B. Klinger. 2006. “South Africa’s Export Predicament.” CID Working Paper No. 129. Cambridge, MA: Centre for International Development (CID), Harvard University. Lemola, T. 2002. “Convergence of National Science and Technology Policies: The Case of Finland.” Research Policy 31(8–9):1481–90. Lingela, V. 2004. “The Co-evolutionary Framework to Improve Competitiveness in the South African System of Innovation.” Paper presented at the Globelics Academy, Lisbon. Ministry of Employment and the Economy. 2010. Evaluation of the Finnish National Innovation System. Helsinki: Taloustieto Oy. Nelson, R. 2003. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nordling, L. 2009. “South African Innovation Agency Takes Shape.” SciDevNet, July 21, 2009, http://www.scidev .net/en/news/south-african-innovation-agencytakes-shape.html, accessed March 2011. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2005. Governance of Innovation Systems. Volume 1: Synthesis Report. Paris. ———. 2007a. Chile. OECD Review of Innovation Policy. Paris. ———. 2007b. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: South Africa 2007. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi .org/10.1787/9789264038240-en. ———. 2008. China. OECD Review of Innovation Policy. Paris. ———. 2009a. “Chile’s National Innovation Council for Competitiveness: Interim Assessment and Outlook.” Paris. ———. 2009b. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Korea 2009. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1787/9789264067233-en. ———. 2009c. Mexico. OECD Review of Innovation Policy. Paris.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
———. 2010. The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow. Paris. OECD and World Bank Institute. 2000. Korea and the Knowledge-Based Economy: Making the Transition. Paris. Ylä-Anttila, P., and C. Palmberg. 2007. “Economic and Industrial Transformations in Finland.” Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade 7(3–4):169–87. Thematic Note 3
Adams, S. 2008. “Globalization and Income Inequality: Implications for Intellectual Property Rights.” Journal of Policy Modeling 30(5):725–35. CAMBIA. n.d. “Mapping of Rice Patents and Patent Applications onto the Rice Genome.” Patentlens, http://www .patentlens.net/daisy/RiceGenome/3909.html, accessed September 2010. Cavicchi, J.R., and S.K. Kowalski. 2007. “Use the Kitchen Door.” Op/ed contribution. National Law Journal 30(15):23. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (UK). 2003. “Agriculture and Genetic Resources.” Chapter 3 in Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, 3rd ed. London. IPR Commission, http:// www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/CIPR fullfinal.pdf, accessed March 2011. Frankel, S. 2009. “Challenging TRIPS-plus Agreements: The Potential Utility of Non-Violation Disputes.” Journal of International Economic Law 12(4):1023–65. Fridell, G. 2007. Fair Trade Coffee: The Prospects and Pitfalls of Market-Driven Social Justice. Studies in Comparative Political Economy and Public Policy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Fuck, M.P., and M.B.M. Bonacelli. 2009. “Institutions and Technological Learning: Public-Private Linkages in Brazil and Argentina.” Journal of Technology Management and Innovation 4(2):33–43. Heydon, K., and W. Woolcock (eds.). 2009. The Rise of Bilateralism: Comparing American, European and Asian Approaches to Preferential Trade Agreements. New York: United Nations University Press. Janis, M.D., and S. Smith. 2007. “Technological Change and the Design of Plant Variety Protection Regimes.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 82: 1557–615. Kargbo, A., J. Mao, and C. Wang. 2010. “The Progress and Issues in the Dutch, Chinese, and Kenyan Floriculture Industries. African Journal of Biotechnology 9(44):7401–08. Academic Journals, http:// www.academicjournals.org/
AJB/PDF/pdf2010/1Nov/Kargbo%20et%20al.pdf, accessed March 2011. March, E. 2007a. “. . .And a Tea.” WIPO Magazine 5/2007. ———. 2007b. “Making the Origin Count: Two Coffees.” WIPO Magazine 5/2007. Maskus, K.E. 2000. Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics. Pollack, A. 2010. “Rival Candy Projects Both Parse Cocoa’s DNA.” The New York Times, September 15, 2010. Sell, S.K. 201. “Cat and Mouse: Forum-Shifting in the Battle over Intellectual Property Enforcement.” Unpublished paper. George Washington University, www.gwu .edu/~igis/Sell%20Paper.doc, accessed March 2011. World Bank. 2006. Intellectual Property Rights: Designing Regimes to Support Plant Breeding in Developing Countries. Report No. 33517 GLB. Washington, DC.
Thematic Note 4
AATF (African Agricultural Technology Foundation). 2010. Rationale for a Biosafety Law for Uganda. Policy Brief. http://www.aatf-africa.org/userfiles/WEMA-UG-policybrief2.pdf, accessed March 2011. BrBiotec. 2010. “Country Profile: Brazil.” Brasil Biotec, http://apps.convention.bio.org/applications/CPA/ ProfileDetailsView.aspx?ccd=bra, accessed March 2011. Brookes, G., and P. Barfoot. 2009. “Global Impact of Biotech Crops: Income and Production Effects, 1996–2007.” AgBioForum 12(2):184–208. Cardoso, T.A.O., M.B.M. Albuquerque Navarro, B.E.C. Soares, F.H. Lima e Silva, S.S. Rocha, and L.M. Oda. 2005. “Memories of Biosafety in Brazil: Lessons to Be Learned.” Applied Biosafety 10(3):160–68. CERA (Center for Environmental Risk Assessment). 2010a. GM Crop Database. Center for Environmental Risk Assessment (CERA), ILSI Research Foundation, http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database, accessed March 2011. ———. 2010b. The South Asia Biosafety Program. Center for Environmental Risk Assessment (CERA), ILSI Research Foundation, http://cera-gmc.org/index.php? action=s._asia_biosafety_program, accessed March 2011. Chapotin, S.M., M. McLean, and H. Quemada. 2009. “Biosafety Capacity Building: Lessons Learned from USAID’s Global Partnerships.” Paper presented at the 13th ICABR Conference on the Emerging Bio-Economy, June 18–20, Ravello. International Consortium on
MODULE 6: NOTES, REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
533
Agricultural Biotechnology Research, http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/icabr/paper_view.php?id=484&p=5, accessed March 2011. Cohen, J.I., and R. Paarlberg. 2004. “Unlocking Crop Biotechnology in Developing Countries: A Report from the Field.” World Development 32 (9):1563–77. DBT (Department of Biotechnology). 2008. Establishment Plan for the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority. New Delhi: DBT, Ministry of Science and Technology. EAC (East African Community). 2009. Biosafety Act, 2009. Arusha. Government of Brazil. 2005. Decreto No. 5.591, de 22 de novembro de 2005. Brasilia. http://www.planalto.gov .br/ccivil_03/_Ato2004-2006/2005/Decreto/D5591.htm, accessed March 2011. Government of Vietnam. 2010. Decree No. 69/2010/ND-CP on Biosafety for Genetically Modified Organisms, Genetic Specimens, and Products of Genetically Modified Organisms. http://www.thuvienphapluat.vn/ archive/Nghi-dinh/Decree-No-69-2010-ND-CP-onbiosafet y-for-genetically-modified-organismsvb110514t11.aspx, accessed March 2011. GTRS (Gene Technology Review Secretariat). 2006. “Statutory Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and The Gene Technology Agreement.” Canberra: GTRS, Department of Health and Ageing. Héma, O., H.N. Somé, O. Traoré, J. Greenplate, and M. Abdennadher. 2009. “Efficacy of Transgenic Cotton Plant Containing the Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab Genes of Bacillus thuringiensis against Helicoverpa armigera and Syllepte derogata in Cotton Cultivation in Burkina Faso.” Crop Protection 28(3):205–14. Horna, D., P. Zambrano, J. Falck-Zepeda, T. Sengooba, G. Gruère, J. Komen, and M. Kyotalimye. 2012 (forthcoming). “Designing an Ex-ante Assessment of GM Technologies to Support Biosafety Regulations and Decision Making: The Case of Cotton in Uganda.” James, C. 2010. “Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010.” ISAAA Brief No. 42. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA). Kalaitzandonakes, N., J.M. Alston, and K.J. Bradford. 2007. “Compliance Costs for Regulatory Approval of New Biotech Crops.” Nature Biotechnology 25(5):509–11. Matten, S.R., G.P. Head, and H.D. Quemada. 2008. “How Government Regulation Can Help or Hinder the Integration of Bt Crops within IPM Programs.” Progress in Biological Control 5:27–39. McLean, M.A. 2010. “India’s Biosafety System: At Par with the World?” BiotechNews 5(2):88–91.
534
McLean, M.A., R.J. Frederick, P. Traynor, J.I. Cohen, and J. Komen. (2002). “A Conceptual Framework for Implementing Biosafety: Linking Policy, Capacity and Regulation. ISNAR Briefing Paper No. 47. IFPRI, Washington, DC. Potrykus, I. 2010. “Lessons from the ‘Humanitarian Golden Rice’ Project: Regulation Prevents Development of Public Good Genetically Engineered Crop Products.” New Biotechnology 27(5):466–72. Pray, C., B. Ramaswami, J. Huang, R. Hu, P. Bengali, and H. Zhang. 2006. “Costs and Enforcement of Biosafety Regulations in India and China.” International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 2(1–2):137–57. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2003a. Sub-Regional Workshop for Latin American Countries on: Development of a Regulatory Regime and Administrative Systems. UNEP, http://www.unep.ch/biosafety/old_site/ development/devdocuments/3ChileWebReportEN.pdf, accessed March 2011. ———. 2003b. Report of the Subregional Workshop for Asian Countries on: the Development of a Regulatory Regime and Administrative Services. UNEP, http://www.unep.ch/bio safety/old_site/development/devdocuments/shirazre portfinal.pdf, accessed March 2011. World Bank. 2003. “Biosafety Regulation: A Review of International Approaches.” Report No. 26028. Washington, DC. ———. 2007. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC.
Thematic Note 5
Calvin, L. 2003. “Produce, Food Safety, and International Trade: Response to U.S. Foodborne Illness Outbreaks Associated with Imported Produce.” In International Trade and Food Safety: Economic Theory and Case Studies, edited by J. Buzby. AER-828. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Calvin, L., B. Avendaño, and R. Schwentesius, R. 2003. “The Economics of Food Safety: The Case of Green Onions and Hepatitis A Outbreaks.” VGS-305-01. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Coslovsky, S.V. 2006. “How Bolivia’s Brazil-Nut Industry Became Competitive in World Markets While Brazil’s Fell Behind: Lessons from a Matched Comparison.” Department of Urban Studies and Planning Working Paper. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Díaz, A., and T. O’Brian. 2004. “Improving Competitiveness and Market Access for Agricultural Exports through the Development and Application of Food Safety and Quality Standards: The Example of Peruvian Asparagus.”
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Lima: Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA). Diaz Rios, L. 2007. “Agro-industries Characterization and Appraisal: Asparagus in Peru.” Agricultural Management, Marketing, and Finance Working Document No. 23. Rome: Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Diaz Rios, L., and S. Jaffee. 2008. “Barrier, Catalyst, or Distraction? Standards, Competitiveness, and Africa’s Groundnut Exports to Europe.” Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 39. Washington, DC: World Bank. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2007a. “FAO Biosecurity Toolkit: Guide to Assess Biosecurity Capacity.” Part 2. Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ a1140e/a1140e.pdf, accessed August 2011. ———. 2007b. Strengthening National Food Control Systems. A Quick Guide to Assess Capacity Building Needs.” Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1142e/a1142e00 .pdf, accessed August 2011. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and WHO (World Health Organization). 2005. “Understanding the Codex Alimentarius.” Revised and updated. Rome. Henson, S., M. Jensen, S. Jaffee, and L. Diaz Rios. 2010. “Assessing the Demand for Trade-Related Food Safety and Quality Interventions in Agri-Food Chains.” Washington, DC: World Bank. Henson, S., and O. Masakure. 2011. “Establishing Priorities for SPS Capacity-Building: A Guide to Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Standards and Trade Development Facility.” http://www.standardsfacility.org/Files/EconAnalysis/MCDA_FrameworkGuideDraft_20-Jun11.pdf, accessed August 2011. Jaffee, S. 2003. “From Challenge to Opportunity: Transforming Kenya’s Fresh Vegetable Trade in the Context of Emerging Food Safety and Other Standards in Europe.” Washington, DC: World Bank. Jaffee, S., H. Spencer, M. Sewadeh, P. Pentney, and F. Musonda. 2005. Tanzania’s Agro-Food Trade and Emerging Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Standards: Toward a Strategic Approach and Action Plan. Document prepared as a contribution to the Tanzania Diagnostic Trade Integration Study, March. Jaffee, S., T. Deeb, T. O’Brien, Y. Strachan, and R. Kiggundu. 2006. Uganda, Standards and Trade: Experience, Capacities, and Priorities. Draft background report for the Uganda Diagnostic Trade Integrated Study, January. Jaffee, S., S. Henson, and L. Diaz Rios. 2011. “Making the Grade: Smallholder Farmers, Emerging Standards, and Development Assistance Programs in Africa.” Report No. 62324-AFR. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Jensen, F.M., N. Strychacz, and J. Keyser. 2010. “Non-Tariff Barriers and Regional Standards in the EAC Dairy Sector.” Africa Trade Policy Notes. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ponte, S. 2005. “Bans, Tests, and Alchemy: Food Safety Standards and the Ugandan Fish Export Industry.” Working Paper No. 2005/19. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS). Ponte, S., R. Kadigi, and M. Mitullah. 2010. When the Market Helps: Standards, Ecolabels and Resource Management Systems in East Africa. Presentation at the SAFE Final Conference, Zanzibar, 31 May-1 June 2010. Scharff, R.L. 2010. “Health-Related Costs from Foodborne Illness in the United States.” Report prepared under the Produce Safety Project at Georgetown University. Produce Safety Project, http://www.producesafetyproject .org/admin/assets/files/Health-Related-Foodborne-Illness-Costs-Report.pdf-1.pdf, accessed September 2011. Vapnek, J., and M. Spreij. 2005. “Perspectives and Guidelines on Food Legislation, with a New Model Food Law.” FAO Legislative Study. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). World Bank. 2005. “Food Safety and Agricultural Health Standards: Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Country Exports.” Washington, DC. ———. 2010. “Operational Costs of Trade-Related Sanitary and Phytosanitary Activities.” Washington, DC: World Bank. WTO (World Trade Organization). 2011. “Specific Trade Concerns.” Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Report G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.11. Geneva.
Innovative Activity Profile 1
Cristancho, E., I.J. Ekanayake, and W. Janssen. 2007. “Colombia: Lessons from the Competitive Allocation of Research Funding in the Agricultural Sector.” En Breve 113. [In English and Spanish.] World Bank, http:// irispublic.worldbank.org/85257559006C22E9/DOC_VI EWER?ReadForm&I4_KEY=CEE1F9183BCF301C85257 3B80053A7BB96B7435FBCD5FB548525769A005C5167 &I4_DOCID=E70EFADC494EBB71852576A8001A6925 &, accessed March 2011. World Bank. n.d. Implementation Manual: Market Improvement and Innovation Facility, 2009/2010, Zambia Agricultural Development and Support Program. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Lusaka. World Bank. 2010. “Designing and Implementing Agricultural Innovation Funds: Lessons from Competitive Research and Matching Grant Projects.” Washington, DC.
MODULE 6: NOTES, REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
535
Innovative Activity Profile 2
Boettiger, S., and S. Alvarez 2010. “Getting Better Technologies to the Poor: A Landscape of Commercialization Challenges and Opportunities.” Berkeley: Public Intellectual Property Resources for Agriculture (PIPRA). http://www.pipra.org/documents/PIPRA_CommercializationReport_photos.pdf, accessed August 2011. Brown, S. 2009. “Playing Catch-Up with Lifeline Vaccines.” Rural 21, http://www.rural21.com/uploads/media/ rural_eng_41-42_01.pdf, accessed August 2011. Innovative Activity Profile 3
CILSS (Comité Inter-états de Lutte contre la Sècheresse au Sahel). 2006. Framework Convention Instituting Common Regulations for Conventional and Transgenic Seeds in the CILSS Area. Bamako. ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States). 2005. Action Plan for the Development of Biotechnology and Bio-safety in the ECOWAS Sub-region. Abuja. ———. 2008. Regulation C/Reg.1/12/08 Establishing a Procedure for the Review and Authorisation of Products of Modern Biotechnology within the ECOWAS. Abuja.
NSSO (National Sample Survey Organization). 2003. “Income, Expenditure, and Productive Assets of Farmer Households.” Report No. 497. New Delhi. Rao, K.P., V. Kalavakonda, S.S. Banerjee, and P. Shah. 2008. “Community-managed Procurement Centers for Small and Marginal Farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India.” Livelihoods Learning Note 1(2). Washington, DC: World Bank. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/ external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/02 /27/000310607_20080227103401/Rendered/PDF/42721 optmzd0WP0South0Asia021AP1MKTG.pdf, accessed March 2011. Shenoy, M., S. Lakhey, and P. Shah. 2010. “Creating Jobs for Rural Youth in Andhra Pradesh, India: Livelihoods Learning Note 2(4). Washington, DC: World Bank. http:// siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRURLIV/Resources/ LLN-2-4_AP-skills.pdf, accessed March 2011. Vijay Kumar, T., D.V. Raidu, J. Killi, M. Pillai, P. Shah, V. Kalavadonda, and S. Lakhe. 2009. “Ecologically Sound, Economically Viable: Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture.” Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2011. “Managing Credit Risks in Financing Agriculture: Lessons from Experiences in Asia and Africa.” Washington, DC.
Innovative Activity Profile 4
Hayward, N., and A. Brizzi. 2007. “Supporting the ‘People Sector’: The South Asia Experience in Rural Livelihoods Development—A Summary. Livelihoods Learning Note 1 (1). Washington, DC: World Bank. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/ 2007/12/12/000310607_20071212165109/Rendered/PDF/ 41692optmzd0Le1le1s0sector01PUBLIC1.pdf, accessed March 2011. Hanumantha Rao, S.V. 2007. “Total Financial Inclusion: A Success Story.” CAB Calling 31(2):13–15. College of Agricultural Banking, http://www.cab.org.in/CAB% 20Calling%20Content/Financial%20Inclusion%20 %20A%20Study%20of%20Business%20Correspondents %20in%20Orissa/Total%20Financial%20Inclusion% 20-%20A%20Success%20Story.pdf, accessed March 2011. Mohan, V., M. Takada, V. Kalavakonda, S.S. Banerjee, and P. Shah. 2008. “Community-managed Food Security Enterprises in Andhra Pradesh.” Livelihoods Learning Note 1(4). Washington, DC: World Bank. http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/02/27/000310607_20080227 114806/Rendered/PDF/427290optmzd0NWP0South0As ia041AP1RCL.pdf, accessed March 2011.
536
USEFUL WEBLINKS Thematic Note 4
www.tradestandards.org: www.oie.int: www.standardsmap.org/en/:
Trade Standards Practitioners Network World Animal Health Organization (OIE) ITC Standard’s Mapping Initiative
Thematic Note 5
www.ictsd.org:
www.ifahsec.org: www.ippc.int: www.ipfsaph.org:
www.seedtesting.org:
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) International Federation of Animal Health (IFAH) International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) International Portal on Food Safety, Animal and Plant Health International Seed Testing Association (ISTA)
www.agrifoodstandards.net:
www.standardsfacility.org:
Small Scale Producers and Standards in Agrifood Supply Chains Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF)
Innovative Activity Profile 5
Society for the Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP) http://serp.ap.gov.in/SHG/index.jsp.
MODULE 6: USEFUL WEBLINKS
537
MODULE 7 1
Assessing, Prioritizing, Monitoring, Coordination and Collective Action for and Evaluating Agricultural Innovation Agricultural Innovation Systems OV E RV I E W
Helen Hambly Odame, University of Guelph Andy Hall, LINK Ltd. Kumuda Dorai, LINK Ltd.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
he rationale for investing in assessment, priority setting, monitoring, and evaluation within an innovation system is that practitioners require information for short- and long-term decision making and for managing limited resources effectively within complex, nonlinear processes of technical and institutional change that seek to achieve social, economic, and environmental goals. Change is rarely managed by following a set plan. Instead, information on technical adaptations (what gets done) as well as institutional adaptations (policy and organizational changes) involving how things get done must be continuously sourced, shared, analyzed and used to inform decision making at multiple levels of the system. This module examines processes to inform decision making and manage innovation at four generally defined levels of the innovation system for agriculture: policy, investment, organization, and intervention. The module identifies methods relevant at each level for assessing, prioritizing, monitoring, and evaluating innovation processes. For example, at the policy level, international and cross-sectoral comparative analyses may be used (such as benchmarking) and combined with multistakeholder policy dialogues and foresighting studies to inform on future development issues or subsectors. At the organizational level, methods include multiinstitutional and organizational performance assessments
T
involving innovation surveys and network mapping. At the level of specific programs or interventions, assessment tools for strengthening the involvement of end-users or farmers in value chains include gender analysis and support for selforganizing networks, among others. Still other methods are relevant at all levels of the innovation system for effective performance management, accompanied by reporting arrangements that ensure accountability. RATIONALE
In innovation systems, managing depends on informationrich tasks such as assessment, monitoring, and evaluation, which are vital to maintaining learning, performance, and accountability (box 7.1). Decision makers, including investors, public service managers, entrepreneurs, scientists, and primary producers, easily understand the need to identify technical information that can be used to create new products and services. Equally essential—but far more difficult to obtain, analyze, and make accessible—is information about institutional adaptations (organizational and policy changes) that are being made or need to be made within the innovation system before technical innovations can be realized. For this reason, individuals and organizations who are concerned with performance management, learning, and accountability within the AIS will need to learn how to obtain and use information. 539
Box 7.1 Main Terms Used in This Module
Accountability. A transparent management system that ensures participation and open communication and reporting on results obtained and inputs used to achieve the results. Assessment. Making decisions about innovation to know why investment is necessary to transform modes of production and consumption. Assessment is also done to speed the search function within innovation systems (for example, to identify new, more sustainable, and more equitable routes to value creation in agriculture). Decision making. Decision making is not centralized but occurs throughout the system. Rather than limiting the focus to any single line of inquiry or information source, interactive learning feeds decision making and requires individuals and groups to be open to different and imaginative ways of thinking as well as to be receptive to new ideas and directions that match the context. Priorities. The areas to which internal and external resources will be allocated to address problems or take advantage of opportunities. Performance. Results in the form of productivity (outputs), outcomes, and impact, measured (for
example, with indicators using quantitative or qualitative data) in relation to mandate, strategy, objectives, and client needs. Theory of change or intervention logic. The underlying assumptions in an intervention that link intervention inputs with expected outcomes. Monitoring. Tracking progress in stimulating changes in the policy and institutional environment; internal to an intervention and learning-based. Evaluation. Performed on behalf of the investor to gauge the effectiveness of the design and execution of the intervention supported by the investor and the observed impacts associated with it. Evaluation is also done to inform the intervention logic of new investments. Information gathering. The collection, communication, analysis, and reporting of quantitative and qualitative data by various stakeholders, which makes it possible to assess: priorities, capacities, and performance; components within the system, such as institutions, partnerships, and interventions; or the system’s resources (human, financial, physical, and other resources).
Source: Authors.
Tasks such as assessing, prioritizing, monitoring, and evaluation will be widely used across the system and by a range of stakeholders. For instance, donors and community leaders may be concerned with tasks such as evaluating social and economic outcomes from past agricultural innovation. Scientists and public planners compile data and analyses of future trends and priorities and monitor indicators of change within the system. Entrepreneurs may track returns to current project investments and farmers may assess value chains of specific interest to them as producers. Efforts are also made to connect all types of decision makers within the system to meet their shared need for information and intelligence about their current context. No single organization or type of organization can provide the knowledge needed to inform policy, set priorities, or propose interventions. Monitoring can facilitate midstream adjustments, while evaluation at the final stages of an intervention enables outcomes and impacts to be thoroughly investigated to inform future investment decisions and negotiation among stakeholders.
540
Today, the responsibilities of decision making and managing innovations are spread across a range of actors at different levels of the innovation system. It is important to recognize that each of these levels requires different investments, and while coordination may still occur, it is rare for a single, centralized agency to be responsible for assessment, priority setting, monitoring, and evaluation within the AIS. These levels, which are useful for organizing the discussion in the rest of this overview, include the following: ■
■
Policy level. At this level, the actors are responsible for creating the enabling environment for innovation (see module 6). At this level, decision making and management emphasize coherence across sectors, scenario development, and benchmarking innovation capacities. Investment level. At this level, the actors are responsible for designing and prioritizing interventions that support innovation. Decision making and management emphasize evaluating the performance of investments and testing the underlying assumptions that shed light on the “why” question for new investments.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
■
■
Organizational level. At this level, the actors are responsible for ensuring relevance to the wider innovation system. Decision making and management emphasize assessing organizational performance and understanding the shifting landscape of other organizations and networks in the innovation systems. Intervention level. At this level, the actors are responsible for managing and implementing innovation processes and resources to achieve desired social and economic goals. Decision making and management emphasize efforts such as monitoring the effectiveness of actions in achieving intervention goals, understanding the dynamic context in which interventions take place and planning around it, and understanding unexpected outcomes.
The “how to” approach for identifying innovation priorities and assessing performance described in this module includes tasks that are familiar to policy makers and managers of science, technology, and innovation, including strategic planning and foresighting, organizational performance assessment, monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment. These familiar management processes and tools are being adapted to the new demands of a multistakeholder innovation system, however, and being supplemented with interactive learning to gather information on the institutional dimensions of innovation processes and capacities. Examples of these adapted and new tools are discussed throughout this module. PAST EXPERIENCE
Past agricultural R&D systems traditionally placed great emphasis on gathering information about inputs into or outputs from the agricultural research process, prioritizing where those input investments should be made, listing outputs produced, and gathering information about the outcomes of research that typically combined different outputs and led, for example, to changes in an important agricultural commodity’s yield and wider social and economic impact. Investments to gather information on inputs and outputs made it possible to validate technology adoption, investigate the economic surplus generated by research and compute rates of return, and inform economic studies of the contribution of research to impact (Pardey, Alston, and Ruttan 2010). Historically innovation was oriented toward a linear “technology push” model that focused heavily on R&D, and decision making and management largely were orchestrated by centralized bodies. In agricultural development, national governments predominantly made decisions—constituted
as public policies—that directed investment into priority areas (often commodity research programs). In the era that preceded AIS thinking, policy and planning tools commonly resulted in R&D programs and projects that operated with defined resources and specific time scales (table 7.1). Centralized public R&D planning was challenged, however, to respond to constant changes in demand-driven value chains, where decision making and management were decentralized. Entrepreneurs and primary producers became key to processes of assessing existing policy and managing performance within the system. This evolution suggests that innovation systems for agriculture are increasingly more difficult to design, plan, and implement without mechanisms to ensure that rapid adjustments can be made in “game-changing” situations, such as the emergence of new fundamental information, dramatic shifts in resource availability, or demands from new or different stakeholders. While the basic elements of policy making and planning have not disappeared altogether in an AIS, the need to adapt to uncertainty and appreciate complexity have given rise to greater skepticism about causality and control in policy and planning cycles (Edquist 1997). In an AIS, decision makers are required to be strategic and not just fund and operationalize strategic plans, then monitor and evaluate them. Rather than determining a final set of priorities, planning becomes an iterative process that continuously identifies and (re)prioritizes actions in response to the rapidly changing environment. In an AIS context, the conventional notion of a fixed-purpose or time-bound plan of action must anticipate new information and learning generated through stakeholder interactions, monitoring, and eventually evaluation of results. The move beyond past agricultural policy making and planning methods is most evident when it comes to monitoring and evaluation, which are now understood within the AIS to be distinct tasks with different responsibilities, tools, and time frames (TNs 4 and 5).
KEY POLICY ISSUES
For policy making, priority setting, and performance management in the AIS, key policy issues involve allocating sufficient resources to information gathering and assessments. These activities will help identify opportunities that impinge on the AIS (including those that are nonagricultural) and strategies for ensuring that learning from very localized as well as large-scale interventions can become more useful to individual stakeholders as well as to the AIS as a whole.
MODULE 7: OVERVIEW
541
Table 7.1 Conventional Agricultural Policy Making and Planning Tools Tool
Description and time frame
Strategic planning Defines direction of change and operational objectives (4–8 years); emphasis on efficiency and relevance. Master planning Define long-term investments and activities (10 years). Program planning
Prioritized actions to address constraints (3–5 years).
Project planning
Define efficient and sufficient set of activities to overcome a “problem” (1–3 years).
Experiment planning
Develop best option to obtain insight into a scientific question (1 year or less).
Financial planning
Match financial availability to needs (variable).
Human resource and training plans
Efficiently manage and develop human resources (variable).
Priority setting
Final stage of planning that defines an investment portfolio that is consistent with national policy and development goals, organizational mission, and program objectives.
Advantages
Disadvantages and challenges
Creates sense of direction that aligns the organization to its environment.
Operational demands may detract from strategic planning.
Determines major system and organizational activities in relation to financial investment. Systematically analyzes constraints and identifies priorities before resource gaps analyzed and projects developed, which is relevant to request funding and negotiate with investors. Identifies and prepares an integrated plan to resolve a “problem.” This integration translates a project idea into a proposal and also ensures that planning integrates monitoring and evaluation operations. Identifies the most efficient and effective option, in the form of research proposals, for achieving research results.
Limited with respect to redefining the organization in relation to changes in its environment. Investors may impose new priorities on existing programming, making it difficult to fulfill original program objectives.
Develops annual budgets and strategies to identify and develop alternative sources for an organization’s core and operational funding. Analyzes capacity-building needs and prepares to develop knowledge, attitudes, and skills of individuals in an organization.
Needs to ensure a link to project monitoring and evaluation to respond to low-performing activities and rebalance resources with programs. Needs to ensure a link to project monitoring and evaluation to respond to low-performing individuals, redirect training efforts, and rebalance human resources with programs. Implementation can deviate from agreed priorities. Priorities set without explicit support of key stakeholders and program staff can lead to conflict in the organization.
Rationalizes investment in relation to limited resources, external demands for transparency, and focus on client needs.
Lack of necessary resources challenges project planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Proposals may have immutable deadlines.
Research ideas often arise and become proposals to respond to investor calls or changing stakeholder demands without sufficient attention to fair and equal treatment within the organization.
Source: Authors; Gijsbers et al. 2000; Alston et al. 1995.
A supportive fiscal environment that values assessing, prioritizing, monitoring, and evaluating AIS and ensures information access
Within public institutions, management tasks associated with information, knowledge, and learning are often squeezed into already tight budgets for financing R&D and innovation (Hall and Learner 2010). Allocating sufficient funding for information management should also ensure access to more and better information. For example, production data in developing countries are notoriously unreliable, and food stock data around the world are highly secretive. Releasing research results or making information such as price and market data widely accessible using a range of communication strategies and media can facilitate
542
access to information that could otherwise be scanty or overwhelming and difficult to sort out. Information accessible to one stakeholder group may not necessarily benefit another, so resources are also needed to assess users’ information needs. It is also appropriate for the public sector to play a key role in mobilizing information for policy, priorities, and performance management in AIS and making this information as widely accessible as possible. Public agencies, such as universities, research institutes, and government departments, can collect, analyze, and communicate information about the AIS, making it available not just to their own networks but to wider professional or producer associations, media agencies, private sector groups, and others. An exam-
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
ple of such an initiative is the use of foresighting and scenario planning exercises (TN 3). Furthermore, governments can encourage participation by the private sector, recognizing that proprietary rights may be associated with information sharing among enterprises. Efforts to make as much information publicly available as possible have led to important contributions to technical and institutional innovations (module 5 discusses incentives and resources for innovative partnerships and business development; module 6 covers intellectual property management; and module 1 focuses on coordination and collective action among AIS stakeholders.)
Information on agricultural and nonagricultural opportunities
Although policy making, priority setting, and performance management in an AIS depend on information about interventions with the expected links to agriculture (such as interventions that will raise agricultural productivity), information about the productivity of crucial nonagricultural sectors and linkages to new product markets is also relevant to information-gathering efforts in the AIS. Innovation policy (see TN 1 in module 6) generally needs to include a link between agricultural and nonagricultural economic strategies for resource-poor households—for example, by supporting sustainable agricultural intensification while developing manufacturing and services that will expand nonagricultural employment. Balancing potentially competing priorities within the wider innovation system requires dedication to information-intensive tasks such as benchmarking. The identification of multipurpose infrastructure or multitasking capacities that are useful to agriculture and transferable to nonagricultural sectors will provide a wider set of options in the innovation system. One example of multipurpose infrastructure is rural infrastructure for information and communication technologies, which can improve flows of agricultural information within and among organizations in addition to performing a multitude of other functions (for an overview, see World Bank 2011). End-user participation and scaling up information from the local level
Within an AIS, an end-user perspective in processes such as assessment and priority-setting is developed by bringing innovation users’ collaboration, behavior, and perceptions of change to bear on the analysis of the system. Baseline data
about end users, including farmers, is essential to identify indicators of future performance and impact. Participatory methods of problem analysis such as Most Significant Change (TN 4) or mapping exercises (IAP 2) supplement baseline data and provide end users’ critiques of their own situations and past interventions. Such information collection and exchange ensures that all stakeholders are better informed as decision makers by developing intelligence on key information and trends. Even so, analysis generated about technical and institutional innovations at the end user or local level is often difficult to combine and compare across different temporal, spatial, and need-specific contexts. This requires generic tools for assessing, prioritizing, monitoring, and evaluating innovation processes to be carefully selected and adapted to fit as closely as possible with prevailing social, cultural, political, economic and environmental contexts (see the cases of India in IAP 4 and Chile in IAP 5). For the same reasons, within a country, planning efforts and results from monitoring and evaluating local innovations are not necessarily easily scaled up to constitute national priorities or policy. Policy making and setting priorities will have limited success unless the complex of local circumstances and decision making among stakeholders is taken into account. Rather than trying to gather and compare information about all local interventions, strategies for assessment that compare selected cases of local adaptation and innovation, preferably involving regional or international benchmarking, can be used (see TN 1). The key point is for the end user or local innovation processes not to be overly generalized, and for all stakeholders to be active collaborators within AIS assessment, priority setting, monitoring and evaluation to ensure learning, performance management, and accountability. NEW DIRECTIONS, PRIORITIES, AND REQUIREMENTS
Innovation systems are developing new management processes which question underlying assumptions and theories of action to reconsider the sustainability of systems that were perhaps no longer effective and relevant in the changed context. Managers within innovation systems now must be equipped to deal with change and not simply administer under changing circumstances. As a result, new emphasis is placed on, for example, defining alternate scenarios and strategies that could influence or create opportunities for technical and institutional innovation. Such methods seek to redefine organizational mandates while ensuring participation and open communication about results
MODULE 7: OVERVIEW
543
obtained from past inputs used to achieve the results. Over the long run, high-performing innovation systems establish internal management processes that can define objectives and indicators of success and can achieve and communicate results while being attentive to resource constraints. In contrast to the past, especially in agricultural R&D, when priority-setting exercises and planning instruments (and their requirements for M&E) were largely mandatory and often static exercises, management tasks within the innovation system are ineffective and irrelevant unless they are established as dynamic processes. The thematic notes and innovative activity profiles in this module provide more depth on the processes and methods undertaken at these four levels. The overlap among the levels is substantial, but it is useful to highlight the purpose and roles of each level, what is being assessed, and what tools are used for setting innovation priorities and assessing performance (table 7.2). Examples of key directions for future assessment, priority setting, monitoring, and evaluation at different levels of the AIS include the following:
■
■
Policy level: Benchmarking innovation capacity. Managers and investors increasingly need to benchmark the performance of sectors and subsectors in terms of the capacity developed for innovation through innovation system interventions. International investors may also use benchmarking to make international comparisons to track macro-level progress and help target subsectors, sectors, and countries for investment in capacity strengthening or for other investments that are conditional on certain levels of capacity. Methodological challenges need to be addressed, however, in measuring and comparing context-specific and systemic capacities of this sort. (See TNs 1 and 4 in this module and TN 1 in module 6.) Investment program level: Foresighting. Investment implies committing support to a program of activity to gain a desired return. Projections of future investments needed within an innovation system will benefit from collaborative diagnostic tools such as foresighting. Stakeholder engagement and learning that can lead to technical and institutional changes are facilitated through
Table 7.2 Decision Making and Management Processes and Tools at Different Levels of an Agricultural Innovation System Stakeholders involved
Level
Key management processes
Policy
National policy makers, sector committees
– – – –
Investment program
Finance ministry, donors, private sector, technical team leaders
– – – –
Organization Executive officers, board of directors, research organizations, extension organizations
– – –
Intervention
– – –
Nongovernmental organizations, private sector, research and extension program leaders, project managers
–
– – –
Track progress of the national system and its functions Coordinate agriculture with other sectors (modules 1 and 6) Inform global or regional public policy networks Design an enabling environment (intellectual property, banking, pricing, and tax regimes) (module 6) Prioritize and allocate resources Identify new investment opportunities or bottlenecks Review effectiveness of past investments Improve underlying theories of change (intervention logic) of new investments Assess organizational performance (TN 2) Set organizational policy and program priorities Enable organizational and institutional learning and change (module 4, TN 5) Respond to changing innovation landscape
– Diagnostic studies with a commodity or subsector focus (TN 3, IAP 5) – Benchmarking (TNs 1 and 4) – Evaluation and impact assessment (TN 5)
Performance indicators (TN 2) Innovation surveys (TN 2) Self-organizing networks (IAP 4) Evaluation and impact assessment (TN 5) Institutional histories (TN 4) Network mapping (IAP 2) Reflexive monitoring in action (TN 4) Causal process tracing (TN 4) Accountability to investors Participatory impact pathway analysis Managing effectiveness of program/project implementation Outcome mapping (TN 4) Managing innovation processes, including effectiveness of Gender analysis of value chains (IAP 3) networks, interactions, and ways of working Rapid appraisal of agricultural knowledge Testing and reframing theories of change (intervention logic) systems (TN 4) Responding to unexpected outcomes – Stakeholder analysis (IAP2) Responding to changing innovation environments – Most significant change analysis
Source: Authors.
544
Tools (related TN/IAP) – Benchmarking (TN 1) – Innovation surveys (TN 2) – Foresighting and scenario planning (TN 3, IAP 1)
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
– – – – – – – – – – – –
â–
â–
foresighting processes. Foresighting involves systematically looking at the long-term horizon of science, technology, and institutions within dynamic economic, political, and social contexts to identify strategies that will yield the greatest benefits. (See TN 3 and IAPs 4 and 5.) Organizational level: Institutional assessment. Investment in an AIS anticipates technical innovation as well as institutional changes involving policy, program, and project implementation (how and when) and resources employed (who, what, and where) to obtain the highest possible potential for impact. Institutional assessments use multiple methods to capture existing and potential changes within and among organizations and their strategic activities. (See TN 2.) Intervention level: Interactive visualization methods for learning, action-oriented planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Actors and organizations in innovation systems are drawing on information from a wide range of sources, often using multiple methods. Tools that involve interaction, such as outcome mapping or Net-Map, are used to gather and synthesize information and generate new knowledge. These methods generate qualitative data and are used together with more traditional quantitative analysis and diagnostic case studies to enable learning that will improve the prospects for interventions to provide the best possible return on investment. Monitoring allows for mid-stream adjustments that can optimize performance while evaluation leads to better accountability
reporting and negotiation for future decision making. These two crucial innovation management processes can inform one to the other, but they are distinct processes with respect to learning, performance management, and accountability. (See TNs 4 and 5 and IAPs 6 and 7.) MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The development of an AIS requires continuous decision making and management to obtain critical information to answer critical questions. For example, how have policy and investment in innovation processes achieved or surpassed their objectives? How do stakeholders know that resources for innovation are being allocated and managed effectively? What lessons about institutional adaptations are informing new technical changes? And finally, how can assessments strategically inform future decision making and interventions? In effect, the act of assessing, prioritizing, monitoring, and evaluating within the AIS is a reflexive practice that catalyzes the experience-based learning that underlies all technical and institutional innovation. Aside from the more detailed discussion of M&E in this module, the notion of revitalizing the way in which monitoring and evaluation are distinctly needed to inform learning, performance management, and accountability is a common thread in all of the themes covered by the modules in this sourcebook.
MODULE 7: OVERVIEW
545
T H E M AT I C N O T E 1
Assessing Innovation for Prioritizing Investments Helen Hambly Odame, University of Guelph
SYNOPSIS
rom an AIS perspective, approaches to assessment and priority setting must consider both the complexity and unique context of agricultural innovation. The design of agricultural policies and investment programs requires more than analysis of the agricultural sector and its subsectors; it requires information on links with other sectors to which agriculture may contribute or from which agriculture may benefit. Priorities are determined through deeper and wider sets of data, often involving ongoing synthesis through interaction and learning with many stakeholders. Three analytical methods are recommended for assessing innovation system investments and thereby helping to allocate resources for investments: (1) theory of change and flexible planning; (2) measuring the functions of innovation systems; and (3) making comparisons across innovation systems (benchmarking). To develop an effective assessment and priority-setting process for agricultural innovation, public policy makers and donors must insist on the allocation of sufficient resources, perhaps through a unit or platform that would be closely involved with data access, data linkages, and the adoption of interdisciplinary approaches to assessment, monitoring, and evaluation. Stronger individual and organizational capacity is needed to assess change within and across individuals, organizations, and networks or systems. Much work needs to be done to ensure that data collected with stakeholders at the local level feeds into both ex ante and ex post assessment and priority setting. Input from the local level is tremendously important, and participation requires time and commitment to be done well.
F
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Investing in innovation systems for agriculture has become one of the most important global and national policy efforts 546
of the 21st century,1 even as most nations face urgent, emergent, and often competing needs for investment in education, health, energy, and telecommunications and transportation infrastructure. Assessment guides decision makers in the allocation of scarce resources (financial, human, and physical) to areas showing the greatest potential for benefit, a process referred to as priority setting. Prior to the application of the innovation systems concept to agriculture, priority setting largely entailed defining a portfolio of public R&D programs and projects that was consistent with national development goals, national agricultural policy, and the objectives of public research institutes and technology transfer services (Contant 2001). From an AIS perspective, approaches to assessment and priority setting must consider the complexity and unique context of agricultural innovation. The design of agricultural policies and investment programs requires more than the analysis of the agricultural sector and its subsectors; it requires information on links with other sectors to which agriculture may contribute (for example, biofuels for the energy sector) or from which agriculture may benefit (for example, innovations within human health sciences that benefit animal health). Priorities are determined through deeper and wider sets of data, often involving ongoing synthesis through interaction and learning with many stakeholders. As described below, new and modified assessment methods are being used to supplement traditional prioritysetting principles and practices in agricultural R&D.2 Monitoring and evaluation are crucial for feeding information and intelligence back into assessment and priority setting by, for instance, identifying bottlenecks in the innovation system or recommending new investment opportunities. Instead of relying on linear input-output-impact models, this kind of M&E relies on integrating policy and investment priorities much more closely than before. It uses more flexible forms of planning to feed lessons learned from monitoring—and subsequently from evaluation and impact
assessment—back into decision-making processes for investments in innovation. Regardless of whether the AIS is mature and operating within the context of an established national innovation policy, assessment and priority setting for policy and investment program levels are relevant to any system.3 Module 6 describes national innovation policy and discusses how the development of innovation priorities across sectors and technologies (and the public resources allocated to them) is coordinated with specific policies and priorities for innovation within a particular sector or technology domain. IAP 4 (India) and IAP 5 (Chile) in this module describe foresighting processes that contribute to overall innovation policy processes, the assessment of policies for innovation, and prioritizing areas for investment. This note focuses on specific methods for exploring the underlying theory of change, measuring the functions of the AIS to identify capacity and resource gaps, and using policy and investment-level benchmarks and indicators to make comparisons across countries and sectors. ASSESSMENT METHODS
In general, assessment has two major dimensions: ex ante (prior to implementing an investment intervention) and ex post (after implementing an investment intervention) (table 7.3). Each type of assessment seeks to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of past investments while ensuring transparency and accountability for new investments. Like the other processes discussed in this module—organizational assessment (TN 2), foresighting (TN 3), monitoring (TN 4), and evaluation (TN 5)—in the context of an AIS, the assessment of innovation systems and associated investments recognizes that the dynamics of the innovation system change constantly, that stakeholders throughout the Table 7.3 Roles of Ex Ante and Ex Post Assessments Ex ante assessment – Analyzes the likely impact of a proposed intervention. – Identifies the optimal portfolio of investments according to specific programs or projects. – Establishes a baseline or framework to collect and compare information for ex post evaluation.
Ex post assessment – Assesses impact. – Supports accountability reporting to investors. – Justifies allocation of resources. – Generates lessons. – Identifies recommendations for future interventions.
AIS must participate, and that projections of the potential impact of policies and investments are fundamental elements of assessment. Three analytical methods are recommended for assessing and prioritizing investments in agricultural innovation: (1) understanding the theory of change; (2) measuring the functions of innovation systems; and (3) making comparisons across innovation systems. Each is discussed in the sections that follow. Theory of change
The process of assessment is one of judging and making decisions. As a lens through which innovation is understood, a theory of change is the set of hypotheses, as developed by stakeholders, of how policy and investment priorities, and the resulting programming and projects, plan to achieve their intended goals and objectives, including social, economic, political, and environmental change objectives. This kind of assessment is sometimes referred to as the causal model. The assessment team works with actors and networks having a stake in the innovation process to identify the underlying assumptions, values, and definitions of individuals and organizations. Box 7.2 lists the kinds of questions raised in a theory of change discussion to inform an analytical process that will lead to complementary methods, such as organizational assessment (TN 2), foresighting, building scenarios, and vision statements (TN 3 and IAPs 4 and 5).
Box 7.2 Questions for Assessing the Theory of Change in Innovation Systems
■ What is the definition of innovation in the given context? ■ How do innovations emerge and develop in the given context? ■ Who are the innovation actors (organizations) in the given context? ■ What policies and investments exist to support innovation in the given context? ■ What policies and investments do not exist to support innovation in the given context? ■ How are innovation trends, processes, and products measured in the given context? ■ What are the key sources of data on innovation in the given context? Source: Author.
Source: Author.
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 1: ASSESSING INNOVATION FOR PRIORITIZING INVESTMENTS
547
An example of assessing the theory of change is DFID’s Research Into Use (RIU) program (see IAP 7), which introduced the method to assess developmental impacts and inform future priorities for investment by DFID and its partners. The RIU assessment explored assumptions of the program and their causal relation to activities, outcomes, outputs, and impact. Information is fed back into policy and investment decision making. Specific attention was given to determining whether the intervention’s theory of change was altered during implementation, why this change was important in relation to impact, and why the investors (DFID and its partners) needed to be made aware of the change. Exploring the theory of change is a relevant activity throughout the management cycle. The theory of change can be developed at the outset of assessing innovation and prioritizing investments; it can later be revisited during monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment. Analyzing the theory of change contributes information to accountability reporting and is also a useful tool for proposing recommendations for future investment. Analyzing the theory of change for innovation processes helps to identify expected outputs, outcomes, and impacts for a plan of action. Commissioned surveys or reviews of relevant literature as well as case studies can compile data on conditions of path dependency for technical and institutional innovations. This information may also help to identify stakeholders’ participation in identifying complementary and conflicting areas of innovation and document their ideas regarding the theory of change and how it may
differ from policy makers’ and investors’ conceptions. The process also benefits from participants testing their assumptions against the available data and identifying where data to address those assumptions are missing. The conclusions from these discussions inform decisions on which methods will be used in the next stages of policy and investment planning or evaluation. In Sierra Leone, for example (IAP 1), discussions on the theory of change led to greater clarity in self-organizing networks and their investment processes, including the use of social media for continued discussions and information gathering. Measuring the functions of an innovation system
Decision-making processes such as ex ante and ex post assessment, the identification of investment priorities, and organizational performance assessment rely on identifying the key functions of innovation systems. Table 7.4 identifies these functions and sources from which data are collected and analyzed. Case studies
Case studies (including ex ante innovation histories) are especially useful for profiling specific functions of the innovation system or for examining specific sectors or technology domains. Case studies are a powerful assessment tool because innovation systems are highly contextual, and specific technical and institutional innovations are path dependent: Beyond the level of its basic functions, an innovation system
Table 7.4 Ten Functions of Innovation Systems and Related Data Sources Key functions 1. Providing R&D and creating new knowledge. 2. Building competence in the labor force (includes education, training, creation of human capital, production and reproduction of skills, and individual learning). 3. Forming new product markets. 4. Forming new quality requirements arising from the demand for new products. 5. Creating and changing organizations for the development of new fields of innovation. 6. Networking through markets and other mechanisms, including interactive learning among different organizations. 7. Creating, changing, and abolishing institutions that influence innovating organizations by providing incentives or removing obstacles to innovation. 8. Incubating activities for new innovating efforts. 9. Financing innovation processes and other activities that can facilitate the commercialization of knowledge and its adoption. 10. Providing consultancy services relevant to innovation processes.
Main sources for data or cases International or government sources, R&D dialogues, end-user surveys. International or government sources; student performance measures; employer surveys on education, vocational training, and other variables. International, government, and industry sources, including new market surveys. International, government, and industry sources, including product surveys or consumer studies. International, government, and industry sources; policy dialogues; actor-network analysis; innovation surveys. Government and industry sources, policy dialogues, actor-network analysis, innovation surveys. International, government, and industry sources; policy dialogues; innovation surveys. Industry, government sources, R&D dialogues, innovation surveys. International, government, and industry sources; policy dialogues; investment surveys; and impact assessment. Government and industry sources, professional association surveys.
Source: Author, based on Edquist 1997.
548
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
is difficult to describe in generalities. The socioeconomic, cultural, and geographic contexts tend to define the specific organizations and institutions within an innovation system and the interactions among its actors. Case studies can capture some of this detail, and meta-analysis of case studies can inform comparisons across commodities, institutions or countries (Larsen, Kim, and Theus 2009; Wenninck and Heemskerk 2006; World Bank 2006). Often case studies begin with a general profile of an innovation system that describes its two basic and related elements: organizations and institutions. Organizations (TN 2) are the group structures that have staff, facilities, equipment, and funding to conduct activities related to innovation. Examples include public research institutes or advisory services. Institutions are the established formal and informal practices, values, norms, rules, or laws that regulate the relations and interactions between and within organizations. Examples of institutions in an innovation system are tax laws and R&D incentives that encourage innovating organizations. Using tools such as innovation surveys and focus groups, case studies will often elaborate on the range of possible functions performed by a range of possible actors. The identification of key networks or alliances (see IAPs 1 and 4 in module 4) among actors as well as the knowledge base for innovation are also discussed in innovation case studies.
Benchmarking: making comparisons across innovation systems
Benchmarking uses input indicators (investments in the functions of an innovation system) as well as output/ outcome indicators (products and processes and trends emerging from an innovation system) to identify disconnects within the system—among institutions and in relation to government policies—that hinder innovation. If indicators are difficult to establish, it may be that the theory of change was not sufficiently developed. At the policy and investment program level, innovation benchmarks and indicators are used to compare current and historical measures and trends within the same country or to compare the innovative capacity of actors in the system (firms, for example), particularly their relative ability to identify and absorb technologies to enhance innovative performance and overall competitiveness. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has been especially influential in providing guidelines for the systematic collection of innovation data. Table 7.5 summarizes best practices for benchmark data collection (OECD 1997; Bloch 2007; Kraemer-Mbula and Wamae 2010). Spielman and Birner (2008) identify AIS-oriented benchmarks and indicators. They recognize that agricultural
Table 7.5 Guidelines for Benchmarks and Indicators for Innovation Systems Key measurement considerations
Key techniques for assessment
– Interactions among enterprises (e.g., joint research activities; technical collaboration). – Interactions among enterprises, universities, and public research institutes (e.g., joint research, joint patenting, joint publications, network analysis of informal linkages). – Diffusion of information, knowledge, and technology to enterprises (e.g., industry adoption rates for new technologies; consumer data; strengthened competencies; skills training). – Human resource flows (e.g., movement of highly qualified personnel within and between the public and private sectors). – Institutional assessments for analyzing human resource flows; institutional linkages; industrial clusters and innovative firm behavior (TN 2). – Innovation surveys question enterprises on their sources of knowledge most relevant to innovation and allow a comparative ranking of sectors/industries and national systems, including regional and global comparisons; surveys used by OECD are typically based on OECD’s Oslo Manual (first developed in 1990 and currently in its third edition; see OECD 2005). – Cluster analysis (see also TN 4 in module 5) focuses on the interactions between particular networks of enterprises across and within specialized sectors and even internationally; tools may include social network analysis and deliberative mapping, among others. – Evidence-based management focuses on obtaining the best facts. Even less-than-favorable evidence is accepted during the assessment to “learn by doing.” This technique cautions against complacency in achieving benchmarks set by comparing one country to another, perhaps within the same region, and by avoiding dialogue about mistakes, risks, and uncertainties.
Key investment and – Upgrading competencies in individual organizations; incentives and recognition for innovative work in individual enterprises financing and clusters. considerations – Investing in higher education; R&D in public institutions; access to public research. – Private-public research initiatives; improved intellectual property and knowledge management; investing in information and communication technology. – Competitive or matching grants or low-interest loans; science/trade fairs; new business incubators. – Facilitate the national system to engage in international knowledge flows, including knowledge acquired abroad as capital or intermediate goods; foreign direct investment; purchases of foreign patents/licenses; establish learning alliances; trade in services such as technical consultancies; aid-for-trade; internationally coauthored publications and R&D. Source: Author; OECD 1997, 2005.
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 1: ASSESSING INNOVATION FOR PRIORITIZING INVESTMENTS
549
benchmarks and indicators have to be attentive not only to measures of sectoral performance but to processes that underlie sectoral performance and the contribution of innovation to performance. Table 7.6 presents examples of the wider scope of benchmarks and indicators for assessing an AIS at the level of policy and program investments.
countries, sectors, institutions, and commodities. Together, these methods support the ongoing design, monitoring, and evaluation that enable technical and institutional innovations.
POLICY ISSUES POTENTIAL BENEFITS
Assessment and associated priority setting direct scarce resources towards the best possible return on innovation activities. Assessment compiles a vast range of data on key functions in the system. These data include both quantitative and qualitative information supporting the analysis of policy effectiveness, enabling adjustments in the resource allocation as needed, and ultimately enabling the nonlinear feedback loops expected of planning, monitoring, and evaluation in complex adaptive systems (Pant 2010). Opening up discussions with a wide range of stakeholders on the underlying theory of change catalyzes a process of planning strategically and transparently, versus mechanistically setting out a strategic plan (TN 3). It improves the chances that stakeholders will reach consensus on the action plan. With this method, questions about the objectives of the innovation system, the resources available, and alternatives for allocating those resources are addressed. Specific strategies to bridge the gaps within and among the functions of innovation systems can be developed, such as strategies for empowering people to innovate, unleashing innovation in firms, creating and applying knowledge, applying innovation to address key development challenges, or improving policies influencing the governance of innovation systems. Benchmarks and indicators provide a means for comparative assessments of
Assessing and setting priorities for innovation involves information and learning-intensive processes. These processes constitute an organized way of thinking about how and why innovation takes place and how the key functions of an innovation system can be identified, understood, and assessed. Approaches to assessing innovation and prioritizing investments are still evolving, given the relatively recent application of the innovation systems concept to agricultural development. It is clear, however, that two important policy issues for assessing innovation and prioritizing innovation investments include appropriate financing and organization of priority setting within the public sector and the need for inclusiveness in assessment and priority-setting processes. Supporting public sector innovation assessment and priority setting
To develop an effective assessment and priority-setting process for agricultural innovation, public policy makers and donors must insist on the allocation of sufficient time, human resources, and funding. Such a process would gain greater visibility if a unit or platform responsible for this analysis were established within the national system (see TNs 1 and 2 in module 6). This platform or unit, and assessment teams linked to it, would be closely involved with sourcing data, ensuring access to the data, and adopting
Table 7.6 Examples of Classic Indicators for Policy and Program Investments Compared with Indicators for AIS Policy and Program Investments Classical indicators Agricultural GDP and GDP growth rate
AIS indicators
Share of farmers who have tried/adopted some new agricultural production practice (e.g., new crop variety or livestock breed)a Total agricultural factor productivity Share of farmers who have tried/adopted some new agricultural marketing practice (e.g., pre-production contracts, collective marketing)a Yields per hectare of major food staple and high-value crops/livestock Share of farmers who have tried/adopted some new natural resource management technique (e.g., conservation tillage, soil erosion controls, water harvesting)a Share of cultivable land under modern varieties Share of agricultural firms that have tried/introduced some new product or process innovation Source: Spielman and Birner 2008. a. Includes use of sex-disaggregated data and disaggregated by income group (poverty).
550
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
interdisciplinary approaches to assessment, monitoring, and evaluation. International bodies such as OECD and the World Bank can enable national systems to share methodologies and knowledge. Regional forums are providing a similar opportunity (CPR, CRISP, and LINK 2011; SWAC 2005).
LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS
The approaches described here continue to develop. The following lessons and recommendations have emerged so far: â–
Policies to support inclusive priority setting
To ensure that priority setting for innovation actually happens and that it yields the widest possible range of benefits, policy makers must promote mechanisms to help farmers and other actors articulate demands, build public/private sector dialogue, and increase accountability to the local level (Sulaiman 2009; Spielman and Lynam 2010). For instance, AIS benchmarks and indicators can integrate the analysis of poverty and gender issues (Spielman and Birner 2008). Decentralized methods for assessing innovation and investment priority setting are being explored by OECD, among others (box 7.3) (see also module 1).
â–
Box 7.3 The Local Economic and Employment Development Project
National systems of innovation are sometimes challenged by consultation at the local level when assessing institutional capacities, negotiating targets, and establishing multistakeholder processes such as boards and panels, which allow a wider group of actors to have input into national programs. Such efforts are vital, however, for ensuring incremental responsibility and decentralized decision making that strengthen local economies. The Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Project (supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) has tracked experiences in national systems of innovation with multistakeholder processes at the local level. LEED has found that flexible funding schemes and special funds for local innovation help to build stakeholder involvement and that multistakeholder action learning enables the innovation process to continue after external funding ends. Source: Potter 2008.
â–
Recognize supportive norms for assessment and priority setting. Assessment that involves interactions among multiple stakeholders (such as learning alliances or communities of interest or practice) requires spending time and material resources on creating environments in which values and attitudes that complement the innovation process can thrive. Incentives and recognition activities as well as communication strategies are often useful to convey innovation values and attitudes. Creating an environment for presenting, discussing, and reviewing priorities is integral to the process of innovation itself. When selecting tools for assessing innovation and prioritizing investment in AISs, determine which tools are already being used and why. Introduce new methods such as theory of change, analysis of innovation functions, and benchmarking on an experimental basis. Gaps in data will become apparent; they should be addressed through an action plan to collect the missing data or by focusing on the data that are available (a larger assessment suffering from a lack of data would be ineffective). When selecting tools, use experience developed by stakeholders within the system and seek recommendations from communities of practice. Develop competencies for assessment and priority setting. Capacity for assessing innovation and prioritizing investments is considered essential for the future of global agriculture (G20 2011b). Priority assessment of commodity innovations has received methodological attention, but technical skills for econometric analysis and participatory research can be lacking (Raitzer and Norton 2009). Human capacities are best built through effective curriculums and learning in action. The teaching of assessment and priority-setting methods cannot follow a blueprint, because valuable learning comes from working within different contexts to identify relevant concepts, definitions, and methods. Collaborative projects for sharing tools and using assessment and priority-setting methods in AISs are encouraged. In this respect, competencies such as willingness to communicate, learn, and interact with multiple stakeholders will be essential. In the end, such efforts are more likely to create engaged individuals, organizations, and networks.
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 1: ASSESSING INNOVATION FOR PRIORITIZING INVESTMENTS
551
â–
552
Continue to strengthen the integration of the end-user/ farmer perspective in assessment and priority-setting processes. The Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation systems work by CTA, KIT, CABI, and the Free University of Amsterdam is a case in point. It integrates different perspectives into a more comprehensive framework that encompasses end-user/farmer-led innovation processes, the private sector’s role in value chain
development, and the facilitating role of public research and extension organizations. In low-income countries, end-users may not be literate or may be marginalized in other ways. For contextual reasons, they may be difficult to engage in participatory processes. Much work needs to be done to ensure that data collected with stakeholders at the local level feeds into both ex ante and ex post assessment and priority-setting activities.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
T H E M AT I C N O T E 2
Methods for Organizational Assessments in Agricultural Innovation Systems Regina Birner, University of Hohenheim
SYNOPSIS
his note presents methods that can be used to assess individual organizations within the innovation system, such as agricultural research and extension organizations. These assessments are not only useful diagnostic tools for planning AIS interventions but important components of monitoring, evaluating, and assessing the impact of AIS interventions. If time and resources are limited, assessments can be based on secondary data and expert interviews. More detailed assessments may involve surveys among staff of organizations in the AIS, farm household surveys, and participatory methods. From an implementation and policy perspective, it is important to create demand for assessment data to achieve sustainability.
■
T
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT FOR INVESTMENT
Investments to improve the overall performance of an AIS often include components to improve the functioning of individual organizations, often in conjunction with components to improve the coordination between organizations and to create an enabling environment for them to innovate. For planning, managing, and evaluating investment projects to support agricultural innovation, it is essential to have diagnostic tools for assessing the organizations within the system. This note describes such tools and methods (methods for assessing an AIS in its entirety are discussed in TN 1). Assessments can support AIS investment projects in the following ways: ■
Diagnostic assessments (ex ante). In the planning phase of development interventions, assessments can be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the organizations involved in an AIS, to identify entry points for reforms, and to assess the feasibility and expected costs and benefits of planned investments.
■
Monitoring. During the execution of development interventions, assessments are needed to monitor changes over time. In particular, assessments can help to reveal whether organizational reforms are proceeding as intended. Evaluation and impact assessment. After completing an intervention, such as a reform of a country’s research organization, assessments are required to evaluate the effectiveness of the investment, to quantify its impact, and to derive lessons for future interventions.
Since the AIS approach is comparatively new, project managers face a lack of clarity about the methods that can be used for these purposes. Existing methods for organizational assessments can be adjusted, however, to take the role of organizations within the innovation system into account. This note describes a set of assessment methods and gives specific advice on how they can be used in assessing investment projects that reflect an AIS approach. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK, OBJECTIVES, AND REFERENCE SITUATION
Since an AIS is a theoretical construct, it is important to use an assessment framework that defines the elements and relations of the AIS in which a given organization is to be assessed. Several assessment frameworks are available (see TN 1). This note uses the framework developed for the World Bank by Spielman and Birner (2008) for illustration, because it identifies the types of organizations involved in an AIS and their relations (figure 7.1). Although this note focuses on one framework, the methods discussed can be applied to other assessment frameworks. In the context of investment projects, assessments may be carried out (1) at the level of the AIS as a whole, (2) at the level of the innovation system for specific commodities or value chains, or (3) at the level of different organizations 553
Figure 7.1 Conceptual Diagram of a National Agricultural Innovation System
Informal institutions, practices, and attitudes Examples: Learning orientation; trust; communications; practices; routines
Agricultural research and education systems
Bridging institutions
Agricultural value chain actors and organizations
Agricultural education system
Political channels
Consumers
* Primary/secondary * Postsecondary * Vocational training
Agricultural research system * Public sector * Private sector * Third sector
Stakeholder platforms Agricultural extension system
Agricultural producers
* Public sector * Private sector * Third sector
* Different categories
Integration in value chains
Input suppliers
General agricultural policies and investments
Agricultural innovation policies and investments
Linkages to other economic sectors
Trade, processing, wholesale, retail
Linkages to general science and technology
Linkages to international actors
Linkages to political system
Source: Spielman and Birner 2008.
within the innovation system (organizational assessments). In conducting an assessment at the organizational level, a primary task is to clarify the objectives of the assessment. Box 7.4 presents a number of questions related to the performance of an organization within an AIS. The questions illustrate the range of objectives that an organizational assessment may need to consider to gain a comprehensive understanding of that performance. In addition to clarifying the objectives of an assessment, it is also important to identify who will use the results. Assessments may be carried out by organizations that fund, or intend to fund, organizations within the innovation system. However, assessment results need to be fed back to the management of the organizations involved to stimulate institutional learning and change. Moreover, as discussed below, assessments benefit from the involvement of staff members as well as users of innovation-related services. Another primary task is to select the standard or reference situation against which an organization’s performance
554
within the innovation system can be assessed. The following options may be considered: ■
■
■
Benchmarking. One approach is to compare the organizations within the system in a particular country with those of other countries, typically countries in the same region or countries that are otherwise comparable. If quantitative indicators are used, this approach is known as “benchmarking.” Changes over time. Another approach (which can be combined with benchmarking) is to compare the performance of the organization at different points in time and determine whether it improved or deteriorated. Policy goals, organizational objectives, or standards. A third approach is to compare organizations against goals that have been set by policy makers, by managers of the respective organization, or by another entity, such as a donor organization or certification or accreditation agency.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 7.4 Questions That Illustrate the Range of Objectives in an Organizational Assessment
A number of questions illustrate the varied objectives of an assessment to understand how well a certain organization—for example, the public research institute responsible for a certain commodity—performs within an AIS:
quantities of inputs distributed, numbers of trainees or students receiving instruction, and so on. The assessment will need to generate much of its own information, however, and much of it will be qualitative. Examples include information on the organization’s patterns and strength of collaboration with other organizations in the AIS, the relevance of the organization’s roles, and the existence of learning-based performance management arrangements. Criteria for selecting assessment methods
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
What internal management factors influence the organization’s performance? Which factors in the organization’s environment influence its performance? What are the most promising types of interventions to improve the organization’s performance and its contribution to the innovation system? Is the evolving nature of the agricultural sector placing new demands on the organization? What is the role of the organization within the innovation system? Is this role still relevant? How may it need to change? Are the organization’s patterns of partnership and collaboration sufficient to maintain its relevance in the evolving agricultural sector? What new linkages might be required? What learning-based mechanisms for enhancing organizational performance are in place? How can the organization’s contribution to the overall innovation system be improved? Source: Author.
SELECTING ASSESSMENT METHODS AND OBTAINING DATA
Planners, analysts, researchers, and evaluators can use a variety of methods to assess organizations within an innovation system. Assessments may be based on quantitative or qualitative methods and may be derived from different disciplinary backgrounds, such as economics and its branches (public economics and New Institutional Economics, for example), organizational sociology, public administration, and political science. The assessment can call upon existing data and statistics to develop a picture of the national context and the main contours of the innovation system in which the organization is situated. Data may also be available on the organization’s performance in relation to specific indicators, such as the number of staff publications,
Before describing assessment methods in detail, it is useful to consider the criteria that influence the choice of an appropriate method: ■
■
■
The scope of the assessment. Even though the assessment is looking at the performance of an individual organization, from an innovation systems perspective it is important to take into account specific linkages and coordination mechanisms. The existing data and knowledge. The data and knowledge about an organization that are available (and accessible) have a large influence on the choice of the assessment method and the amount of primary data that must be collected. Organizations in the innovation system for agriculture, such as extension organizations, typically have their own reporting systems. It is helpful to examine whether the data generated from such reporting systems will be useful for the assessment. The time and resources available. The choice of an assessment method is also determined by the time and the resources available for the assessment. Ideally, there should be a match between the purpose of the assessment—for example, to determine the level of the planned investment—and the time and resources available for ex ante, ongoing, and ex post assessments.
The role of preliminary AIS assessments
Before embarking on an organizational assessment, it is also useful to develop an understanding of the AIS in which the organization operates. It is important to keep these preliminary assessments of the AIS (mapping the AIS and reviewing expert opinion about the AIS) in proportion to the main task that lies ahead, which is the organizational assessment. These system assessments provide context, “locate” an organization within the wider innovation system, and highlight its relationships throughout the system. A further function of these system assessments is that they engage system stakeholders
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 2: METHODS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS
555
in a dialogue about the role and performance of a specific organization with the innovation system. Mapping the AIS. Even if an assessment ultimately focuses on only one organization within an AIS, an organizational mapping of the AIS as a whole is useful to gain a clear understanding of the environment in which the focus organization operates (for example, it can help to answer some of the questions raised in box 7.4). The outcome of organizational mapping is a diagram that displays the essential organizations in the innovation system and their relations to each other. The mapping process may take different forms, but it needs to be based on an assessment framework. If time and resources are limited, the major organization within the AIS usually can be identified by compiling information from the documents and literature available and interviewing experts based on a semistructured questionnaire. For example, if the goal is to map the national innovation system for dairy production and the assessment framework displayed in figure 7.1 is used, the analyst will have to compile information on the following questions: ■ ■
■
■
■
Which research organizations deal with dairy production? Which education organizations provide training for dairy production at different levels (diploma, graduate, postgraduate)? Which extension organizations provide advice on dairy production? Who are the major players in the value chain (dairy processing companies, for example)? Which organizations of dairy farmers, such as dairy cooperatives, exist?
The analyst can construct a diagram based on the information collected and use it to collect further information on innovation system actors and organizations, especially their roles and interactions. Some mapping techniques make it possible to visualize the innovation system during the interview process; for an example, see the description of NetMap in IAP 2. Conducting expert surveys. The collection of information from experts is useful for gathering valuable information about an innovation system in a comparatively short period. It allows the analyst to draw on the comprehensive knowledge gained by professionals who have long experience in the AIS. The list of experts to interview can be derived during a mapping exercise (discussed
556
previously) and by using the “snowball system”—that is, by asking respondents to identify other persons who should be interviewed. Information can be collected from experts in different ways. One alternative is to conduct semistructured interviews, using an interview guideline. It is also possible to use a questionnaire for an expert survey and ask respondents to score the various actors in the innovation system on a scale (of one to four, for example) regarding their effectiveness, responsiveness, accountability, organizational performance, and other criteria. Even though the scoring results will reflect a subjective assessment of the actors involved, this approach yields useful information. Similarly, governance indicators are often based on expert assessments, and if a standardized approach is applied, such data can be used as indicators to monitor changes over time or make comparisons across countries. For an example of how an expert survey was used in Ethiopia, see Spielman and Kelemework (2009). METHODS FOR ASSESSING ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN AN INNOVATION SYSTEM
This section introduces methods that can be used to assess a specific organization within an AIS, such as an agricultural research institute, agricultural training center, or agricultural extension organization. The methods include staff and farm household surveys as well as methods derived from business administration to assess organizational performance. Organizational performance assessment
The business administration literature describes a wide range of methods that organizations can use to assess and manage their performance. One approach that is particularly relevant for innovation systems is the Organizational Performance Assessment (OPAS), developed for agricultural research institutes by the former International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) (Peterson, Gijsbers, and Wilks 2003). OPAS was first tested in 1996–97 at the research institutes of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in Ghana and later adapted and used by national research organizations in Benin (Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Bénin) and Uganda (National Agricultural Research Organisation) (Peterson, Gijsbers, and Wilks 2003, 8). In OPAS, organizational performance is defined as “the ability of an organization to use its resources efficiently and
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
to produce outputs that are consistent with its objectives and relevant for its users” (Peterson, Gijsbers, and Wilks 2003, 1). Box 7.5 displays the elements of OPAS and explains the relations between them. OPAS has been designed for assessments conducted by managers and staff of the respective research organization with the assistance of one or two external facilitators. The assessment has two major elements: an output assessment and
a management assessment. Each component follows a number of clearly defined steps. Scores (which may be weighted according to organizational priorities) are applied, making it possible to monitor progress over time. An assessment of the output trends of research organizations shows that the organization considerably increased its public services such as dissemination and training events but that its technology output fell (Peterson, Gijsbers, and Wilks 2003, 18).
Box 7.5 Elements of the Organizational Performance Assessment
Agricultural research organizations use resources and inputs (funds, personnel, equipment, and facilities) to undertake their research operations in order to produce outputs (agricultural technologies and services) for the benefit of farmers, agro-industries, and other users. The outcomes (or consequences) of adopting or applying these outputs are measured by their effects, positive or negative, on such factors as production costs, yields, and use of natural resources. In this sequence of events, which is illustrated in the upper part of the diagram, performance assessment and
feedback mechanisms are required at different levels to ensure that research organizations plan their resources efficiently and produce relevant and useful outputs. . . . An underlying assumption in organizational performance is driven by a number of critical management factors, as indicated in the lower part of the diagram. Through a periodic assessment of these factors, managers can determine if appropriate mechanisms and procedures are in place and functioning, and can take steps to correct management deficiencies that contribute to poor (or lower) organizational performance.
Figure B7.5 Diagram of Organizational Performance Assessment Resources – personnel – funds – infrastructure – equipment
Research operations – research – testing/adaptation – reporting – dissemination
Outputs – improved technologies – improved mgt practices – training events – dissemination events – publications – public services
PLANNING
Policy objectives Mandate
Users – farmers – industry – NGOs – academia
Outcomes – adoption – increased production – cost reduction – profits – employment – improved NRM – achievement policy objs – organizational learning
Operations monitoring & feedback Periodic output assessment Outcome assessment and feedback
Periodic management assessment 1. Assessing context and organizational responsiveness 2. Planning strategy and goals for the organization 3. Selecting program objectives and priorities 4. Planning research projects 5. Managing projects, and maintaining research quality
6. Ensuring quality and quantity of staff 7. Protecting organizational assets 8. Coordinating and integrating internal functions 9. Managing dissemination and partnerships 10. Ensuring effective monitoring, evaluation and reporting
CRITICAL MANAGEMENT AREAS
Source: Reproduced directly from Peterson, Gijsbers, and Wilks 2003, 6.
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 2: METHODS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS
557
Box 7.6 displays sample questions for human resource management (management area 6 in figure B7.5 in box 7.5). As in the output assessment, scores can be applied to each question, which makes it possible to monitor changes over time. From an innovation systems perspective, it is useful to expand the OPAS approach and include indicators that capture the relation of the organization to be evaluated with other organizations in the AIS, both at the level of the output assessment and the level of the management assessment. For example, at the output level, research organizations may include scores for collaboration with agricultural extension and education organizations, and vice versa. At the management level, critical management area 9 already refers to “managing dissemination and partnerships” (critical management areas are listed in figure B7.5, box 7.5). Indicators in this area may be expanded to include all types of partners in the innovation system, as indicated in figure 7.1. Such data could then also be used as measurable indicators of the performance of different AIS members. These indicators could also be considered in external evaluations, which may increase the incentives for organizations not only to improve their individual performance but to improve their performance as a member of a wider innovation system. To reflect more of an innovation systems perspective, the OPAS can also be modified in the area of learning-based performance management. Successful organizations continuously update and reframe their relationships with the rest
of the system and the competencies, roles, and ways of working that the wider system demands. Organizations use a suite of methods, referred to as “institutional and organizational learning” (see also module 1 and TN 4 in module 4) to enable this continuous adaptation and updating to take place (box 7.7). Surveys among the staff of organizations
Another organizational assessment method, which can be combined with OPAS, is a survey of an organization’s staff members. These surveys are particularly useful in organizations that have large numbers of field staff, such as public agricultural extension systems. They can provide in-depth information about the organization’s capacity and staff incentives, but they need to be carefully planned, as they require genuine support from management. As in other surveys, the anonymity of the respondents has to be ensured, and interviewers have to be careful to create an atmosphere in which respondents are willing to talk freely about their assessments, especially when sensitive issues are raised, such as issues of political interference. Moreover, it is important to pre-test the survey instrument with a group of respondents who reflect the diversity of the AIS. This step is important not only to test the suitability of the instrument but also to build confidence among staff. In designing the questionnaire, the trade-off between simplicity and capturing all relevant details must be considered.
Box 7.6 Sample Question Set for Assessing Human Resource Management Performance
■
■
■
■
■
To what extent does the organization maintain and update staff information (e.g., biodata, publications, projects)? To what extent does the organization plan and update its staffing, recruitment, and training requirements? How effectively are staffing, recruitment, and training plans linked to program and project needs? How effective are selection procedures (for management, scientific, and support posts) in terms of objectivity and transparency? To what extent is training based on merit and on organization and program objectives?
■
■
■
■
■
How effective are mechanisms to promote a good working environment and high staff morale? How effective is the performance-evaluation process for research staff? How effective is the performance-evaluation process for nonresearch (management, administrative, and support) staff? How effective are reward and sanction processes, in terms of motivating staff? How effectively does the organization compete with the private sector in providing salaries and benefits that attract and retain quality staff?
Source: Reproduced directly from Peterson, Gijsbers, and Wilks 2003, 22.
558
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 7.7 Organizational Learning and Institutional Change
Institutional or organizational learning is the deliberate and ongoing process in which information from research and evaluation activities and outcomes feeds into a reflective analysis of what has worked and not worked in an institution. In turn, the lessons from such reflective analysis inform decisions about future directions for the organization. Leadership, incentives, resources, and flexibility within the organization’s routines are required for this process to work. The Institutional Learning and Change initiative defines a learning organization as an organization with a culture that supports this kind of analysis and change. The term “institution” is used instead of “organization” when referring to the learning process that takes place across organizations and among a diverse set of people involved in research and evalua-
tion activities. Shambu Prasad, Laxmi, and Wani discuss an “unusual coalition” between an international research center (the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) and a private Indian donor (Tata), in which the research center established new institutional mechanisms, both internal and external. The internal mechanisms involved new ways of organizing work among site coordinators and activity coordinators who have to seek input from each other. External mechanisms included a new steering committee as well as state and district committees with multiple stakeholders who were engaged in the use of new tools such as actor-linkage mapping. Module 3 examines additional cases of organizational learning and institutional change.
Source: Author; Watts et al. 2003; Shambu Prasad, Laxmi, and Wani 2006.
In designing staff surveys, it is also useful to take gender into account. For example, a survey may include specific questions on career opportunities and constraints for female staff. Moreover, the data for male and female respondents can be analyzed separately. Box 7.8 describes the constraints to agricultural innovation that were identified in a survey of agricultural extension agents in six districts of Ghana. (See IAP 3 for an example from Peru.) Farm household surveys
For organizations that deal directly with farmers, such as agricultural extension organizations, surveys among farmers—the clients of the organization—are essential for an ultimate assessment of organizational performance. At the same time, farm household surveys can provide important information about the performance of the AIS as a whole, which means that they can also form an important component of a system-level assessment. Farm household surveys are the most expensive and timeconsuming approach to collecting data about agricultural innovation, but they provide particularly relevant information, especially if secondary data on farm households that capture aspects of agricultural innovation are not available. Box 7.8 describes how this assessment method was used in Ghana.
If a survey that includes agricultural households is planned for another purpose, it may be possible to include questions on the performance of the organization to be evaluated and on other aspects of agricultural innovation. If a survey is planned specifically to collect information on the assessment of an organization in the AIS, it will be useful to include questions on outcome indicators, such as the adoption of innovations, as well as questions on household access to the services provided by the organization (such as extension services) as well as household satisfaction with those services. It may also be useful to include information on other aspects of the innovation system, such as access to agricultural inputs and complementary services as well as marketing opportunities. It will often be useful to collect such data separately from male-headed households, female-headed households, and female spouses in male-headed households. When farm household surveys are not possible and secondary data are limited, Participatory or Rapid Rural Appraisal methods will be useful, since assessments of organizations in the AIS, or of the system as a whole, should take the farmers’ perspective into account. POTENTIAL BENEFITS
The key challenge facing agricultural research institutes, development organizations, and enterprises is to maintain
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 2: METHODS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS
559
Box 7.8 Using Staff Surveys in Assessing Agricultural Extension Services in Six Districts of Ghana
To assess the performance of the organizations providing agricultural extension services in Ghana, a team from the University of Ghana–Legon and the International Food Policy Research Institute carried out an assessment that involved surveys among agricultural extension providers (70 interviewees) as well as agricultural household heads (1,168) and their spouses (613). The assessment showed that the public extension service remained the main provider of extension information (an important finding, given the crucial role of advisory services in agricultural innovation). Only one respondent had received a visit from a nongovernment organization providing extension services, and nongovernmental organizations organized only 4 percent of group meetings on extension. The assessment also showed that female household heads as well as female spouses in male-headed households had very low access to agricultural extension services even though women play an important role in Ghana’s smallholder-based agriculture, and even though Ghana has a special program for Women in Agricultural Development.
The survey also showed that less than 12 percent of household heads and less than 6 percent of spouses had adopted a new technology in the previous two years. The implication is that considerable constraints prevent male and female farmers from innovating. The survey among agricultural extension agents revealed that female extension agents were more effective in reaching female farmers than male extension agents, but only 14 percent of extension agents were women. Extension agents as a group identified the lack of transport and access to credit as major constraints on farmers (see the figure). An inadequate number of extension staff was seen as the least important constraint. The assessment revealed management problems as well. Extension agents had limited incentives to perform, priorities and targets were not set, and training opportunities were limited. The assessment identified entry points for interventions to improve the performance of this key organization in Ghana’s agricultural innovation system.
Source: World Bank and IFPRI 2010.
their relevance and performance in the rapidly evolving agricultural sector. Organizational assessments provide a way of investigating the capacities and outcomes of an organization and identifying ways of strengthening different aspects of capacity to improve relevance and performance. These actions improve the effectiveness of both public and private investments in the development of organizations within an AIS. If similar assessment tools are used in different countries, additional benefits can be realized from crosscountry comparisons and benchmarking. POLICY ISSUES
Policy issues related to organizational assessments range from ensuring that assessments are properly resourced, that local capacity to conduct assessments is developed and sustained, that assessments reflect environmental and social considerations, and that wide support develops for using the results to improve performance. Policy responses to these concerns include the following:
560
■
■
■
Commit resources to organizational assessment. The benefits of organizational assessments are realized only if they are conducted on a regular basis to maintain an organization’s relevance in the AIS and to monitor progress over time. Conducting assessments regularly can be a considerable challenge, especially if organizations rely on external donors to fund this activity. Build local ownership for assessment. The sustainability of an assessment regime can be improved by generating buy-in from local organizations, such as the ministries in charge of agriculture, science, and technology. Build local capacity for assessment. The sustainability of an assessment regime can also be improved by building and institutionalizing local capacity for conducting organizational assessments. It may also be useful to involve regional networks of agricultural research organizations, such as the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), or regional economic communities, such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), in the use of assessment
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
■
■
tools, especially if benchmarking approaches are used (see the final point). Emphasize social and environmental considerations in designing assessment methods. For example, assessment methods can be designed to capture the extent to which individual organizations in the system are biased towards large-scale farmers. As shown in box 7.8, assessment methods are also useful to assess the gender dimensions of the innovation system. Create regional guidelines. International and regional organizations may take on the role of developing guidelines for harmonizing assessments and publishing results, especially if benchmarking approaches are used.
■
■
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
To some extent, implementation issues for organizational assessments reflect the policy issues just mentioned: ■
Timeliness. It is important to conduct organizational assessments regularly and in a timely fashion, as they are a key mechanism for organizations to maintain their relevance within an innovation system. It is preferable to use frequent organizational assessments to encourage continuous incremental change rather than to rely on infrequent major organizational reforms (see, for example, the CGIAR as an example of major reform; www.cgiar.org).
■
Resource implications. As with all assessments, in organizational assessments carefully consider the resources and capacity required to undertake the assessment. Assessments involving household surveys are particularly resource-intensive. Depending on the country and region, the costs may range from US$25 to US$120 per household. Yet certain types of data about an organization’s performance in the innovation system can be collected only through surveys, such as data on male and female farmers’ access to extension services. Inclusiveness. To create “buy-in,” it is important to generate “demand” for assessment data at the organizational, national, and regional level. It may be useful, for example, to work with parliamentary committees in charge of agriculture or science and technology. In democratic systems, such committees may have considerable latitude to use assessment tools to hold the government accountable for the performance of an innovation system and its organizations. Likewise, it may be useful to involve farmer organizations, which can also play an important role in creating accountability. Choosing local partners for assessments. As indicated, it is essential to build local capacity for assessments. Potential partners may include analytical units within the ministries in charge of agriculture or science and technology, university departments that work in this field, as well as think tanks and local consulting companies.
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 2: METHODS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS
561
T H E M AT I C N O T E 3
Foresighting Investments in Agricultural Innovation Anthony Clayton, University of the West Indies
SYNOPSIS
ndividuals, firms, and governments have a common interest in gaining a more accurate sense of the future to identify potential achievements, successes, and failures; discern new opportunities; or reduce risk. New, future-oriented evaluation methods are needed to complement current methods, which are largely ex post—in other words, they account for past outputs, outcomes, and impact. Given the impossibility of seeing into the future, the only solution is to gather and analyze information to think about and prepare for the future. Tools such as foresighting can make an important contribution to this process by clarifying a country’s position with regard to strengths, weaknesses, threats, challenges, and opportunities, focusing attention on longerterm issues (including difficult institutional and political issues), and securing a sufficient level of commitment from stakeholders to enable the necessary processes of reform, restructuring, transformation, and change.
I
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Most decisions are based on implicit assumptions about the future. People depositing funds with a bank assume that they will be able to withdraw their capital when it is required. Investors fund a new business venture because they anticipate profits. When farmers expect good demand for their crop, they may plant an extra field. Assumptions such as these are both rational and functional; few decisions can be made without assuming that a significant degree of stability and continuity will prevail. Because it is also true that these assumptions sometimes prove incorrect, it is important to assess the balance between risk and reward involved in each decision and to gauge the reliability of the individuals and the strength and trustworthiness of the institutions on which the plan depends.
562
Individuals, firms, and governments therefore have a common interest in gaining a more accurate sense of the future, either to improve their chances of making a successful investment or to reduce the risk of loss. The problem is that the future for any given sector, nation, or individual will be determined by a complex combination of interacting variables that cannot be anticipated with precision. The response is to identify better ways to think about and prepare for the future (Postrel 1998). Foresighting is a means of gathering and using information to think strategically about the future, including the future of agriculture (de LattreGasquet 2006). Foresighting assumes that the future is not predetermined or even predictable but that it will be influenced by choices made today. FORESIGHTING TOOLS AND APPLICATIONS
Foresighting is a strategy for change, rather than a strategic plan, although it often feeds into a strategic planning process. Foresighting is both a process and a set of tools for managing and communicating knowledge, setting priorities, coordinating goals, and encouraging innovation in science and technology. It involves an iterative and interactive process of systematically exploring possible future economic and social dynamics, including factors such as science, technology, institutions, environment, and development options. The aim is to identify strategic areas of investment that will yield the greatest economic and/or social benefits (Rutten 2001). From an innovation systems perspective, organizations pursue foresighting exercises to (Popper et al. 2007): encourage strategic and future-oriented thinking; support innovation strategies and priority setting; identify research/investment opportunities; generate visions and images of the future; cope with “grand challenges” facing the economy, society, and environment; and promote public debate and trigger necessary actions.
Box 7.9 Foresighting to Transform Ireland’s Agrifood Sector (Teagasc 2030)
Teagasc, established in 1988, is the national body providing integrated research, advisory, and training services to Ireland’s agriculture, food industry, and rural communities. The Teagasc 2030 foresight exercise (launched in 2006, ending in 2008 with an international foresight conference) sought to establish a broadly shared vision for the Irish agrifood industry and rural economy in 2030. That vision would enable Teagasc to meet science and technology needs in the short, medium, and long term. The foresighting process. Teagasc 2030 was overseen by a steering committee of national and international representatives from government, industry, and universities. The committee was assisted by a foresight panel of experts from Teagasc, other government departments, state bodies, universities, farming and rural organizations, and food industries. A foresight working group from Teagasc’s research, advisory, and training directorates completed background papers on drivers of change and possible future scenarios and handled day-to-day running of the project. The knowledge base was developed in workshops, other events, and consultations with stakeholders and international experts. The scenarios. Involving elements of imagination but drawing on likely developments in the agrifood sector, rural economy, and world over the next 20 years, Teagasc 2030 developed five scenarios and described their effects on the organization: 1. Ireland—The Food Island. The value-added food sector in 2030 has many new elements such as convergence of the food and pharmaceutical industries. 2. Globally Competitive Farming. In 2030, a diversified agrifood sector competitively produces milk, beef/sheep, and tillage crops.
3. Energy Squeeze Fuels Agriculture. With oil production declining steadily, agriculture is vital to global food and energy security. 4. A European Agriculture. This scenario addresses the socioeconomic aspects of the rural economy and the consequences of a European economy partly isolated from the rest of the world by tariffs and restricted trade. 5. Sustainable and Rural. Sustainability, climate change, and environmental security have precedence: The 2030 bioeconomy delivers competitive agri-environmental products and services. Lessons and response. Based on the scenarios, strategic and operational responses emerged: ■
■
■
For the sector: Promote knowledge generation and dissemination, learning, and problem solving. Policy drivers at the European Union and national level create new markets and opportunities. For farms, firms, and policy makers: Adapt quickly to changing circumstances, generate added value, and support innovation. For Teagasc: Address the new challenges and needs facing the Irish agrifood knowledge system. Excellence in supporting science-based innovation will depend on building organizational capabilities in leadership, partnership, and accountability. Teagasc will establish a new technology transfer service for food companies, strengthen investment in biosciences, enhance the depth of its scientific effort, and continue upgrading its educational programs to the highest international standards.
Source: Teagasc, www.teagasc.ie.
The next sections of this note describe elements of the foresighting process, how to select an appropriate foresighting tool, the use of complementary tools, and the development of alternative scenarios. They conclude with examples of how these processes unfolded in agricultural foresighting in Ireland (box 7.9) and Jamaica (box 7.10).
Foresighting process
Foresighting is often spearheaded by individual organizations or collaborating groups who have a stake within the innovation system (for example, by strategic partnerships or innovation councils, among others). The organization
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 3: FORESIGHTING INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
563
Box 7.10 Foresighting for Jamaica’s Sugar Industry
Objective and process. Jamaica’s sugar industry was the largest employer of agricultural labor and used the most (and much of the best) arable land, but it depended on a European Union trade regime that was being phased out. Jamaican sugar was not competitive and would have to undergo profound restructuring to survive. A research program at the University of the West Indies attempted to address these issues through linked foresight exercises involving government, academics, and industry from 2003 to 2010. Following a 2003 Delphi study that identified drivers of change and a 2004 foresight workshop to identify land-use scenarios, by 2009 public and private partners had developed an integrated assessment that generated more accurate predictions than official forecasts. An integrated policy development project in 2010–11 identified options for improved policies, using geographic information system mapping as the basis for a national spatial plan. The cost of the seven years of foresighting was an estimated US$150,000. The scenarios. In early 2008, a diversification plan involving privatization and the manufacture of ethanol presented three scenarios: 1. Diversification would succeed. The area used to produce cane for ethanol would increase significantly. The contribution to mitigating climate change would offset probable negative consequences for river and coastal water quality. 2. Diversification would fail. Much land would become available for other purposes (housing, tourism, forestry) or revert to scrub. Some options would be environmentally positive, but much
would depend on how the change process was managed. 3. Multi-objective optimization demonstrated a possible solution that could achieve a range of developmental goals. Extensive, low-value agriculture would shift to intensive, high-value agriculture, increasing revenue, profits, and skill transfer while reducing environmental impact. Outcomes and lessons. Following the withdrawal of Brazil’s plan to invest in Jamaica’s ethanol industry and an even more acute budgetary crisis in 2010–11, the Government of Jamaica chose to sell the sugar industry to a foreign company. This outcome illustrates how pressing short-term needs, in conjunction with international uncertainties and domestic politics, often entail the loss of strategic direction and potential future prosperity. The foresighting exercises resulted in three significant advances. First, the identification of future scenarios helped to establish that better future outcomes were possible. Second, the process helped to identify the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in current policies. Third, the dialogue between officials, academics, and industry representatives was genuinely useful. Yet the exercises could not resolve deep core weaknesses in governance. Most decisions are still taken on a sectoral basis without considering cross-sectoral effects. Ministry officials participated in the debates, but not ministers. No sufficiently powerful group exists to address the large disparities in wealth, influence, and power in Jamaica and arrive at an optimal outcome. Vested interests continue to dominate the informal networks where key decisions are made.
Source: Author.
initiating the foresighting exercise does not necessarily facilitate the process. A common procedure is to establish a steering committee for the exercise and a foresight working group to manage implementation. This approach was used for a foresighting exercise for agriculture in Ireland (box 7.9). For the Jamaican sugar industry, a team of foresight experts was contracted to help users define the steps and tools in a foresighting exercise to meet the needs of different users (in general, users might include firms, industry associations, multinationals, or governments).
564
Rutten (2000) explains that there are no blueprints for organizing a foresighting exercise. The process itself has four key stages, however: 1. Bring together a wide range of information resources and key stakeholders to discuss and define the core objective(s) of the foresighting exercise. 2. Identify and engage a wider group of stakeholders (typically involving both public and private sector organizations) in the process.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
3. Establish a foresighting task force (or a steering committee with an implementing working group) with key stakeholders represented, ideally with the support of a foresight expert. 4. Design and develop the foresighting exercise. Select the tools for the strategic analyses, and set the timelines for completion. This process is not a linear series of steps. At each of these four stages, new information may be injected, additional stakeholders may become involved (they can sometimes include criminal or vested interests), and organizational changes may affect the level of human and financial resources allocated to the exercise. The exercise will need to remain sufficiently flexible to respond to these challenges and changes while remaining productive. The outputs of the process should include the following: ■
■
■
Determining the economic, social, environmental, and institutional factors that might encourage or inhibit innovation (either in a particular country, or among firms, or in government). Clarifying the position of a country (or firms or government) with regard to its strengths, weaknesses, threats, challenges, and opportunities, usually by focusing attention on the longer-term issues. Securing a sufficient level of commitment from stakeholders to enable the necessary processes of strategic reform, restructuring, transformation, and change.
Selecting the appropriate foresighting tool
As summarized in table 7.7, three key strategic planning tools are used to develop future-oriented analyses in the foresighting process: ■
■
■
Technology roadmapping identifies key trends in the market and clarifies those trends and their relation to organizational goals; then technological and managerial decision-making occur to achieve the preferred future. Delphi studies review significant trends in relevant areas (such as emerging scientific and technological opportunities, needs for education and training, and so forth) and identify the most plausible outcomes, plus any associated threats and opportunities. Foresighting and backcasting exercises identify organizational and institutional drivers of change plus their
interactions, clarify “known unknowns,” assess vulnerability to events, identify possible outcomes, backcast to the present day, and build a strategy for managing change. Examples of online toolkits for foresighting are listed in the “resources” section of this note, following the references.
Complementary tools in the foresighting process
Aside from the three major foresighting tools, complementary methods of information gathering can be used in the process, depending on timelines and tasks assigned within the task force or to the foresight expert: ■
■
■
A horizon scan examines the external environment for potential threats and opportunities or early signs of disruptive technological change. A decision tree is developed by constructing a logical sequence of pertinent questions, such as “If this plan fails, what are our other options?” User requirements capture. When a particular group (such as consultants or a local elite) has all of the relevant information, they may be able to control the agenda and determine the answers. A user requirements capture process helps to forestall elite capture and information asymmetries. The information base for all users is developed, displayed, discussed, and modified in an iterative process, often using graphic-rich software that allows data to be overlaid in layers (a GIS is one example).
Foresighting and defining alternative scenarios
Scenarios (different possible visions of the future) can be used to formulate long-term policy, institutional strategy, and research programs (Johnson and Paez 2000). In a foresight exercise, a process of defining and describing scenarios is used to explore the way that choices made today will lead to alternative futures. Scenarios are usually encapsulated in brief, illustrative descriptions of possible future states of a system. A common technique is to develop a small set of alternative scenarios, which is helpful for imagining, structuring, and analyzing different possible futures. Scenarios can range from the probable (most likely) future to possible best-case and worst-case futures. The storylines are discussed widely and critiqued.1 Ideally, like the overall foresighting
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 3: FORESIGHTING INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
565
566 AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Table 7.7 Foresight Tools Foresight tool Roadmapping
Delphi
Purpose
Identify key trends in market, clarify organizational goals, make technological and managerial choices to achieve preferred future
Typical user Typical time horizon examined (years)
Individual firms 1–10
Review significant trends in relevant areas and identify most likely outcome, plus any associated threats and opportunities; can be more accurate than individual consultation and more reliable than statistical groups made up of noninteracting individuals whose judgments are aggregated Industry associations 5–20
Large multinational corporations, governments 10–50⫹
People involved and numbers Type of process
Experts and decision makers; 10–20
Experts (different disciplines); 30–100⫹
Experts and stakeholders; 20–50
1 day introduction, 1 day run-time, monitoring and implementation
Facilitated discussion, present “what-if” challenges and counterfactuals, 3 months’ preparation, 2 days’ runtime; a large national exercise will require 1 year’s preparation, 2 years’ run-time
Role of foresight expert Key challenges
Introduce concept
Coordinated, iterative discussion of expert judgments on defined issues; responses are kept anonymous but fed back to group, clarified, ranked and reevaluated in a minimum of 3 rounds, 3 months’ preparation, 3 months’ run-time Coordinate, derive scenarios Identifying and recruiting the panels, managing the process – What is the issue to be addressed? – What is important about the issue? – What are possible future scenarios for this issue? – What views create tensions on the issue?
Identifying and recruiting key stakeholders, facilitating the process, maintaining momentum – What are the key assumptions underlying this plan? – What is the “worst case” situation? – What if this plan doesn’t work? – What is the contingency plan?
Rikkonen, Kaivo-oja, and Aakkula (2006) described the use of Delphi expert panels in the scenario-based strategic planning of agriculture in Finland; Stewman and Lincoln (1981) conducted a Delphi study on the likely timeframe for expected breakthroughs in the biological sciences from recombinant DNA (RDNA) research, with emphasis on basic knowledge and three applied areas: agriculture, industry, and medicine
De Lattre-Gasquet (2006) examined three case studies on the use of foresighting in agricultural research and development priorities: one at the commodity level (cocoa), one at the level of a national system (Dutch agriculture), and one at the level of an organization (the International Food Policy Research Institute’s 2020 Vision)
Characteristic
Key questions to guide information gathering / analysis
Examples
Source: Author.
Getting experts and decision makers to engage, overcoming organizational inertia – What are our core technologies? – Could we use them more effectively? – Could an innovation make our technology obsolete? How quickly could we adapt? – What are the trends in our sector? Could a new competitor or a new market emerge? – What is our competitive advantage? – What are the priorities for maintaining, upgrading, or replacing our core technologies? – What resources will be required to update our technologies and upgrade our skills? Institute of Grocery Distribution (UK) used roadmapping to identify food production issues that could affect the food chain and to facilitate a more considered introduction of new technologies in the future on behalf of its members, who were major retailers and food and agricultural research institutes (IGD 2003)
Foresight/backcasting Identify drivers of change plus interactions, identify “known unknowns,” assess vulnerability to events, identify possible outcomes, backcast to present day, build strategy for managing change
Facilitate, challenge, manage process
exercise, scenarios are updated with further assessments of the environment, drivers of change, and likely interactions between system variables in the progression from current conditions to a future state. Boxes 7.9 and 7.10 provide examples of scenarios developed within wider foresighting in Ireland and Jamaica; IAPs 4 and 5 provide examples from India and Chile. POTENTIAL BENEFITS
Attempts to prepare for the future can generate a range of benefits. The general advantages of a strategic planning process are that it can help any organization assess its threats and opportunities, clarify the issues, determine its priorities, and integrate all of the important variables into a single coherent plan. This is true irrespective of the quality of the plan that results. A strategic planning process also helps to identify any weaknesses (such as insufficient capital, inadequate technical capacity, inappropriate management, or gaps in the supply chain) that will have to be addressed and thereby clarifies the priorities for borrowing and investment, hiring and firing, and R&D. The advantage of future-oriented strategic planning is that it facilitates more objective consideration of today’s real problems. The foresight exercises may depoliticize and decontextualize the problems, which then allow the problems to be addressed more realistically. Thinking about forces that will shape the future, such as demographic trends, can indicate the future pattern of market demand (for example, for food, energy, water, and housing) and the need for investments in new technologies to meet that demand (see, for example, Clayton and Staple-Ebanks 2002). A foresight approach, using techniques such as scenario planning and integrated assessment to incorporate social, economic, and environmental factors, can ultimately identify and present the best available, optimal, or even winwin outcomes, which different organizations and interest groups may find acceptable. Finally, many planning exercises are flawed because of information asymmetries. A possible solution to this problem is a user requirements capture process, which can be built into a strategic planning exercise. This process involves two or three iterations in which users are shown possible outcomes, give their feedback, and refine the model. POLICY ISSUES
The chief policy issues related to foresighting are related to reducing the risk of failed policies; addressing cultural,
institutional, and political barriers; providing sufficient resources to implement the results of foresighting exercises; and ensuring that policy change can be sustained. Reduce the risk of costly policy failures
For poor and developing countries, the primary policy issue in foresighting and strategic planning is that these exercises can reduce the risk of policy failures with high human and developmental costs. One of the most important differences between rich and poor countries is that the cost of a policy failure in a rich country is usually in terms of its opportunity cost—the loss of the wealth that might have otherwise been generated. Although poor and developing countries have a greater need to prepare for the future, most have just a small fraction of the capacity (the skills, knowledge base, access to information networks, and so on) that rich countries deploy on such exercises. For this reason, it is exceptionally important for poor countries to use policy tools that are effective, robust, and cost-effective. Address barriers to progress and provide sufficient resources for foresighting
Strategies for change, including the use of foresighting, usually have to address issues such as institutional culture and local politics. As the example of the Jamaican sugar industry suggests, it is often important to address the political, cultural, or economic factors and institutional policies that seriously impede progress, because development trajectories can become locked in by the real or perceived cost of developing alternatives, the reluctance to write off sunk expenditures, or a lack of relevant skills. Managing in the present while preparing for the future often involves gathering new sources of information, establishing where and when change is needed, building a consensus, and mobilizing people and institutions around the new strategy. Commitment, time, and financial resources are essential to support foresighting, especially the implementation phase.
Link foresighting with institutional change to ensure sustainability
A policy issue especially relevant to innovation systems is that innovation cannot usually be imposed. A solution that is not widely understood, or which cannot be easily assimilated or at least accommodated by local cultural and political systems, generally will not gain wide support and will fail
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 3: FORESIGHTING INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
567
once external funding and/or pressure are withdrawn. Foresighting exercises can inform innovation at the policy and investment levels, but to ensure sustainability, they must be linked to assessment and change processes within the organizations involved in the innovation system (see TN 2). Ultimately, the dynamics of innovation and change cannot be understood without a broad concept of knowledge, including competencies and capabilities, practices and routines, and meanings, beliefs, and perceptions (Williams and Markusson 2002). A foresight exercise takes all of these factors into account to map out a development plan which may be visionary but is also practical and realistic, so that it ensures immediate and long-term benefits for the economy and society.
and wider economic restructuring, provide the economic impetus to support a widening skill base, attract and retain human and financial capital, and make a decisive move along the value chain, thereby escaping from low-growth, low-margin markets. Key recommendations for practitioners include the following: ■
LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Foresighting cannot, by itself, solve all problems. Other factors must be addressed, as seen in the example from Jamaica and discussed throughout this sourcebook. These factors include the role of multistakeholder collaboration for good governance (modules 1 and 6); sensible macroeconomic and regulatory policies (module 6); investments in education, advisory services, and research capacity (modules 2, 3, and 4); and an innovative, entrepreneurial private sector (module 5). All have an important role to play in encouraging technological dynamism, investment, and associated processes of economic diversification and growth, as well as a move into higher-value products and services that meet market demands. Experience with foresighting exercises suggests that foresighting is a best practice for formulating a long-term strategic plan that enables reform and encourages innovation. The foresighting process and associated tools provide a structure for assessing factors that are internal (internal strengths and weaknesses of the science, technology, production, and institutional base) and external (changing global markets and other critical factors in the external environment). A foresighting exercise also lays the groundwork for a review process to anticipate key market opportunities by updating findings with information on new and emerging technologies in conjunction with an analysis of the current restructuring of key sectors of the global economy in relation to science, technology, and production. The identification of such market opportunities could, with good management, create demand for a process of institutional
568
■
■
■
Many policy advisors, planners, and donor agencies find it difficult to talk openly about political problems that can undermine innovation processes, such as vested interests and corruption. They often prefer to talk about technical issues as if they could be addressed in isolation. Transparency is sacrificed and the exercise loses credibility with stakeholders. In fact, the real impediments to progress are often the political, cultural, or economic factors that determine which solutions are adopted and supported and how and when this occurs. It is useless to present an analysis of technological choices as if the final decision is value-free. The only way to map out a potentially viable solution is to engage with and understand the political and cultural issues. For these reasons, it is extremely important that participants in foresighting exercises understand that a systematic examination of the possibility of failure and an honest discussion of the pattern of previous failures are the only ways to improve the chances of success. Wellorganized feedback to the client and participants enables the process to tolerate the dissent, complexity, and uncertainty that is typical of strategic analyses. Foresighting is a process, not a one-time activity. The time required may have to be extended in light of new information or significant changes in the external environment (such as a recession). A national process can take several years and cycle over a longer period. Regular interaction with participants at all stages of the process is needed to ensure that the exercise does not suffer from stagnation or “groupthink” as well as to ensure that new stakeholders are identified, recruited, and fully involved. Ideally a foresighting exercise should be commissioned formally so that it is clearly accountable to client demand. It is recommended that a foresighting expert be contracted as a facilitator, but the expert does not replace the need for a steering committee and working group to implement the exercise.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
T H E M AT I C N O T E 4
Monitoring Agricultural Innovation System Interventions Andy Hall, LINK Ltd. Kumuda Dorai, LINK Ltd. Trish Kammili, National Institute for Agricultural Research, France (INRA)
SYNOPSIS
his note deals with strategies for monitoring AIS interventions. Innovation system interventions make explicit assumptions about the nonlinearity of change and innovation in their design, and in doing so, they place specific demands on monitoring arrangements. These assumptions hinge on the recognition that innovation usually involves simultaneous technical adaptation and changes in the way things are done—in other words, institutional (and policy) adaptation—and that the final impacts will occur only when institutional adaptation has been achieved. Process-oriented monitoring methods that can cope with learning-based interventions have been around for some time; innovation system interventions should rediscover and adapt these methods rather than reinvent them. These types of monitoring methods include Outcome Mapping, Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS), the Most Significant Change (MSC) approach, and Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis.
T
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
In common with all interventions, good practice in agricultural innovation interventions requires effective performance management accompanied by reporting arrangements that ensure accountability. This thematic note deals with monitoring—the effective management of performance by implementers so that they can achieve desired outcomes and report their progress to investors. A separate thematic note (TN 5) deals with evaluation—the assessment of impacts and the generation of lessons for future interventions by investors and planners. Traditionally, monitoring systems in interventions have focused on tracking performance against a set of milestones agreed with the investor at the intervention’s inception. In reality, agricultural development interventions—particularly those related to innovation
systems—are rarely this simple, and the underlying assumptions often prove to be unrealistic. Monitoring practice has for some time recognized this nonlinearity of agricultural and other development interventions, accepting that outcomes and impacts are achieved following constant iterations of an approach based on experience emerging from the intervention itself. This awareness is evident in the range of learning-based interventions that have emerged in recent years, such as adaptive collaborative management techniques in natural resource management (Colfer 2005; Guijt 2007) or techniques such as project Outcome Mapping (described in box 7.12 later in this note). Innovation system interventions make explicit assumptions about the nonlinearity of change and innovation in their design and, in doing so, place specific demands on monitoring arrangements. These assumptions hinge on the recognition that innovation usually involves simultaneous technical adaptation and changes in the way things are done—institutional (and policy) adaptation. A related assumption is that final impacts such as changes in yield, incomes, food availability, or environmental sustainability will occur only when institutional adaptation has been achieved. The intervention logic of innovation system interventions is that while technological adaptations have the potential for immediate impacts, institutional and policy adaptations strengthen capacities for innovation that remain and continue to develop beyond the life of an intervention. These capacities lay the foundation for future technical adaptations and lead to social and economic impacts. This focus on institutional adaptation highlights the need for those implementing an intervention to monitor how effectively their actions stimulate new ways of doing things. Often this kind of change involves stimulating the adaptation of informal institutions—for example, by developing links between research, enterprise, development, and (sometimes) policy players and then finding ways in which
569
these networks can work effectively. Sometimes it involves stimulating changes in formal institutions, such as land tenure arrangements, regulatory regimes, pricing policies, or the roles of certain organizations. This process, in turn, requires interventions to facilitate negotiations about change between different stakeholders. Both types of institutional change need to be tracked. Because the environments in which institutional changes must take place have highly specific features, the process of stimulating change can rarely follow a set plan. Instead an experimental approach is needed. This means that interventions must be learning based and reflexive, which is why monitoring is so critical: It assumes the role of helping to determine whether the intervention’s chosen approach is resulting in desirable outcomes and whether the intervention needs to respond to other (often unexpected) changes in its environment. Since the nature of institutional bottlenecks may become apparent only during the course of an intervention, indicators of performance will need to be developed on a case-bycase basis and constantly revised. Recording unexpected institutional changes is an additional way of alerting an intervention’s investor that progress is being made. Interventions also will need to monitor progress toward final social, economic, and environmental impacts. Such monitoring implies a set of assumptions about the relationship between these institutional outcomes and final impacts. Interventions need to test these assumptions by monitoring outcomes farther down the results chain toward final impact to verify whether the institutional changes that have been enacted are likely to lay the foundation for those final impacts. This monitoring provides information that can feed into adjustments in the intervention; it also acts as a means of reporting on progress and remaining accountable to investors. The monitoring of innovation system interventions also emphasizes the need to make information accessible to all stakeholders involved. Information collection approaches will need to be inclusive and transparent, and information management systems must provide open access to all, not just those involved in designing monitoring arrangements. INVESTMENT NEEDED
Practitioners have become better equipped to manage the performance of learning-based, institutional adaptation processes and the complex impact chains that are likely to be encountered in innovation system interventions. The challenge of monitoring innovation system interventions is therefore to learn how current good practice and principles
570
are best deployed to meet the demands of this type of intervention. Process-oriented monitoring methods have been around for some time, and innovation system interventions might need to rediscover and adapt those methods rather than reinvent them. Boxes 7.11 and 7.12 illustrate two such methods: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS) and Outcome Mapping. Principles for selecting monitoring methods
Several principles from good practice stand out and make a useful guide for selecting monitoring methods from among the many that are being adapted to the learning orientation of innovation system interventions. These principles are particularly useful at a time when experience of monitoring innovation system interventions remains limited. They include the following: ■
■
■
Balance accountability and learning. Aside from collecting the data required for reporting to the investor, implementers will need to collect monitoring data that will help them manage the performance of their intervention. All of the methods summarized in table 7.8 support learning-based monitoring for interventions. Make assumptions explicit, and revisit theories of change. The greater learning orientation of monitoring implies a need to make assumptions about change processes explicit in planning interventions and a need to revisit and test those assumptions. Previously practitioners tended to regard such assumptions as a given. By exploring and responding to the validity of the assumptions on which an intervention is based, however, implementers can improve the intervention’s effectiveness. All of the learning-based approaches in table 7.8 involve testing underlying assumptions. If an intervention’s theory of change must be altered, it is important that the investor be made aware of the change in accountability reporting. Incorporate different stakeholders’ perspectives. The shift to address the question of how things happened and to track unexpected outcomes requires a much stronger emphasis on widening the scope of participation in monitoring. Wider participation helps to capture the perspectives of the poor (and other stakeholders) on the actual effects of an intervention (social, economic, and institutional). It also makes it possible to develop a fuller understanding of the process through which those effects came about. Different stakeholders may have different interpretations of cause and effect. It is now good
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 7.11 Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems
A Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS) focuses primarily on knowledge and information systems. The appraisal is a structured inquiry into the social organization of innovation, based on the inputs of those involved: the way the actors behave, how they interact and form networks, how they go about cooperating and communicating, what stimulates them to learn, and what blocks them from learning. Actors gain a shared understanding of their performance as innovators—their perceptions, judgments, understanding, and capacity to take decisions and act— and learn to contribute more effectively to innovation. The main elements of RAAKS are as follows: ■
■
■
Strategic diagnosis. Joint definition of useful strategies through an appraisal of opportunities and obstacles. Creative tension. Compare and contrast the multiple findings that represent the various analytical perspectives. Design of solutions. Participants are encouraged to analyze, interpret, and, based on these steps, design potentially useful solutions.
■
■
■
■
■
Strengths Provides insights into the social organization of innovation and people’s values, motivations, and reactions. Improves the generation, exchange, and use of knowledge and information for innovation. Builds capacity among the actors involved by making them conscious of their performance as innovators. Weaknesses A complex methodology with a series of steps, exercises, and tools to be implemented. A strong focus on rural activities; does not consider the wider setting of the innovation system (actors other than those involved in activities in the rural domain). Best use or application
■
Together, actors develop a common understanding of their performance as innovators.
Source: Kammili 2011; Salomon and Engel 1997.
■
practice in monitoring to recognize these divergent perceptions. This principle extends to the need to draw on perspectives from a wider range of stakeholders in developing the theory of change that will guide an intervention’s implementation and learning. Box 7.13 illustrates one approach for widening participation in monitoring; others are included in table 7.8. Mixed methods. Expanding views of monitoring require quantitative methods (to measure outcomes) to be combined with qualitative methods (to understand and learn from institutional and process changes). To understand institutional and process changes, and to establish their causal links to outcomes and impact, monitoring will need to place much greater emphasis on qualitative methods such as Innovation and Institutional Histories (box 7.14) or Causal Process Tracing (table 7.8). Rather than measuring levels of income and social variables, it may be more appropriate to use proxy indicators of changes that will lead to these impacts in the future (for example,
changes in yields or quantities of fertilizer sold), although these indicators contain their own assumptions about the causal chain to impact. Data collection techniques for tracking outcomes include small sample surveys, participatory appraisal techniques, and longitudinal household case studies. It is important to keep these activities in proportion to the task of managing the intervention, however. Costly and time-consuming baseline surveys do not lend themselves to learning-based interventions for the simple reason that they do not generate information quickly enough to inform how an intervention is managed (see the examples from IAPs 6 and 7).
Available monitoring methods
Table 7.8 presents the strengths and weaknesses of a range of monitoring methods that have relevance to innovation system interventions. These methods have a number of
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 4: MONITORING AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEM INTERVENTIONS
571
Box 7.12 Outcome Mapping
Outcome Mapping reflects the idea that development is done by and for people. The central concept of Outcome Mapping is that development is achieved through changes in the behavior, actions, relationships, and activities of people, groups, and organizations with which an intervention works directly (the “boundary partners”). The originality of this approach stems from the fact that there is a clear shift from measuring the outputs of an intervention (poverty alleviation, reduced conflict, and so forth) toward trying to assess changes in behaviors, relationships, and actions of the people and the organizations directly involved. By emphasizing behavioral change, Outcome Mapping aims to assess “contributions” to impacts rather than claim “attribution” for impacts. The boundary partners are identified, as are strategies for equipping them with tools and resources so that they can contribute to the development process. An intervention thus facilitates changes but does not cause or control them directly. Outcome Mapping maps how an intervention influences the roles partners play in development through a set of graduated indicators of changed behavior. It monitors and evaluates three elements of the intervention: behavioral changes, the strategies used by the intervention to stimulate change among the partners, and how the intervention functions as an organizational unit. Through these three elements, Outcome Mapping unites process and outcome monitoring and evaluation.
■
■
■ ■
■
■
■
■
Strengths A robust methodology that can be adapted to a wide range of contexts. Outcome Mapping’s very flexible approach allows it to be used as a planning or replanning tool and at the beginning or midway through an intervention. Outcome Mapping can also be used as a monitoring approach throughout an intervention or as a framework for evaluation. It complements standard approaches and thus can be used in combination with other methodologies. It unites process and outcome evaluation. Monitoring provides the space for critical selfreflection and learning. Weaknesses Most assessment data are generated by the intervention, raising the question of whether the data are objective (for example, failures may be whitewashed). Uncertainties about combining Outcome Mapping data with more quantitative data. Lack of clarity about how to deal with and integrate new boundary partners. Best use or application Satisfies the need for accountability as well as learning about the change process.
Source: Kammili 2011; Earl, Carden, and Smutylo 2001.
characteristics, discussed below, that make them different from conventional milestone-based monitoring techniques. The discussion provides a flavor of the new approaches to monitoring that will be seen in the coming years in innovation system interventions. The value added by the new monitoring techniques reviewed in table 7.8, compared to conventional milestonebased techniques, may be summarized as follows: 1. Explanatory. A focus on reconstructing events in an attempt to understand why a particular course of action led to the outcomes observed or failed to achieve expected outcomes. This understanding is important for
572
innovation system interventions, in which experimentation and action learning are the main routes to success. 2. Inquisitive. Recognition of the importance of unexpected outcomes and the need to record and learn from them. This perspective is particularly useful in innovation system interventions, because their process-driven nature can lead to unanticipated outcomes that have significance. 3. Communicative and accessible. Monitoring approaches as ways of sharing results and lessons and building a joint understanding of events that have taken place. Making information accessible to all stakeholders is important in innovation systems, because it is a way that organizations learn and improve their performance.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Table 7.8 Overview of Methods for Monitoring AIS Interventions Method Innovation and Institutional Histories
Purpose/use
Strengths
– Understand past innovation – Fosters discussion among stakeholders and leads to processes and identify reflection and learning. institutional factors that foster – Helps build a shared vision of the future. or hinder innovation. – Forge a shared vision of the future among stakeholders.
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 4: MONITORING AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEM INTERVENTIONS
– Guide project management, Participatory especially in complex Impact Pathway situations where innovation is Analysis seen as emerging from a network.
Weaknesses
Major references
– Written accounts are based on recollections and could be biased. – Need skilled facilitators to help collect and analyze the information. – Usually takes a very long time for significant lessons to emerge.
– Involves staff and key stakeholders of an intervention – A relatively new approach that needs to be further in constructing impact pathways. implemented to gauge its weaknesses. – Includes both (1) causal chain of activities, outputs, and outcomes that shed light on how an intervention achieves its goals and (2) network maps that show evolving relationships between participants. – Underlines the fact that innovations emerge from a network and not a linear “pipeline.” – Promotes reflection, self-evaluation, and learning. – Provides a framework for carrying out actionresearch.
Douthwaite and Ashby (2005); Shambu Prasad, Hall, and Thummuru (2006) Douthwaite et al. (2003)
– Regarded as not very strong for wider generalization George and but more suited to narrow specification of the reach Bennett (2005); of causal propositions. CoS-SIS (2009); – Takes a great deal of time. Walters and – Not conducive to parsimonious theory and leads to Vayda (2009) partial, middle-range theory. It is easy to miss causal complexity. – Easy to lose sight of the broader context.
Causal Process Tracing
– Well suited for complex and long-term interventions with systems learning goals.
– Places data and theory in close proximity. One quickly sees what works and what does not in an intervention’s lifetime.
Reflexive Monitoring in Action
– Best suited for long-term interventions with systems learning built into their mandates.
– Mechanisms built into the intervention permit all – Works in theory for long-term interventions van Mierlo et al. participants to contribute to learning by reflecting oriented to systems learning, but most development (2010) on the relationships between key aspects and interventions do not have the luxury of long-term ambitions of the intervention as well as the practices learning as the sole goal and need to demonstrate and institutions in which they are embedded. (developmental) impacts throughout the life of the – Monitoring is integral to the intervention, so insights intervention. gained are built into and experimented with in new – A coherent set of tools and principles, but in activities. essence the approach is still being developed and – Encourages investigators to look for creative not in widespread use, so experiences from the field solutions. are few. – Reflexive monitoring in an intervention ensures that those involved develop new ways of working to keep up with changes in the intervention’s institutional context.
(Table continues on the following page)
573
574 AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Table 7.8 Overview of Methods for Monitoring AIS Interventions (continued) Method Appreciative Inquiry
Purpose/use – Identify positive changes and look for unexpected outcomes.
Strengths – Fosters learning from past and contemporary situations. – Opens up the possibility of looking at different things in new places/ways. – Interviews allow for deep connections, unexpected learning, and a sense of empowerment.
Weaknesses – Like Innovation and Institutional Histories, this method can suffer from bias or incorrect reporting.
Outcome Mapping
– Satisfy the need for accountability as well as learning about the process of change. – Especially useful for assessing what causes change in behavior, relationships, activities, or actions of the people, groups, and organizations with whom an intervention works directly. – Well suited for complex and long-term aspects of interventions with outcomes that are intertwined and difficult to segregate.
– A robust methodology that can be adapted to a wide range of contexts. Its flexible approach allows it to be used as a planning or replanning tool, at the beginning or midway through an intervention. It can also be used as a monitoring approach throughout an intervention or as a framework for evaluation. – It can complement standard approaches and can be used in combination with other methodologies. – Unites process and outcome evaluation. – Monitoring provides the required space for critical self-reflection and learning.
– Does not replace but complements logical Smutylo (2005); framework analysis. Earl, Carden, and – Most data is self-assessment data generated by the Smutylo (2001); intervention, which raises the question of objectivity. IDRC n.d. – Unclear how to combine resulting information with more quantitative data and how to deal with and integrate new boundary partners.
– Enhances capacities of stakeholders (at the organizational and individual levels) and fosters learning. – Helps identify unexpected changes or outcomes. – Large amounts of information are processed, from which negative and positive changes are deduced. – More accessible than traditional M&E techniques; no specific skills required to participate.
– A subjective expression of the values and concerns of the stakeholders designated to select the stories.
Most Significant – Make sense of an intervention’s impact and Change foster learning. – With the help of all primary stakeholders, identify the most significant changes that have occurred as a result of an intervention.
Major references Biggs (2006); Acosta and Douthwaite (2005); Hall, Sulaiman, Bezkorowajnyj (2007)
ECDPM (2006); IFAD (2002); Davies (1996); Davies and Dart (2005)
– Provides insights into the social organization of Rapid Appraisal – Help actors as a group to – Complex methodology with a series of steps, innovation and people’s values, motivations, and of Agricultural understand their performance exercises, and tools to implement. reactions. Knowledge as innovators. – Strong focus on rural activities does not consider – Improves the generation, exchange, and utilization of Systems the wider setting of the innovation system (actors knowledge and information for innovation. other than those involved in activities in the rural – Enhances capacity building of the actors involved by domain). making them conscious of their performance as innovators.
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 4: MONITORING AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEM INTERVENTIONS
– Exchanging stories builds trust between participants; – Biased; depends on the perspective of the person in some cases may lead to an environment telling the story. conducive to learning and stimulate change. – An effective way to deal with passions and emotions of individuals involved. – Has the potential to stimulate change if told correctly. – Individual focus can translate into organizational development. – Not hierarchical.
Stories and Narratives
– Shed light on the changes that have occurred at the individual, organizational, or institutional level. – Uncover intangible factors (qualities, values, culture, and so forth) that determine the organization’s character.
Performance Indicators
– Used to assess innovations for – Effective means to measure progress towards fixed which cause and effect are objectives. known and can be linked – Facilitates benchmarking comparisons over time. through predetermined performance indicators.
Source: Authors.
– Definition of indicators guarantees success. When indicators are defined poorly, they are not good measures of effectiveness. – Predetermined indicators do not allow for measuring unexpected changes. – A risk that the intervention will need too many indicators; data for some indicators may be inaccessible or costly and impractical to measure.
Salomon and Engel (1997); ECDPM (2006)
Asif (2005)
World Bank (2004)
575
Box 7.13 Most Significant Change: A Form of Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
Most Significant Change (MSC) is a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation that involves many participants in an intervention to decide what kinds of changes need to be recorded and to analyze the information collected, which can be used to assess the intervention’s performance and impact. The approach focuses on collecting significant change stories that emerge from the field. Significant changes can include changes in people’s lives and participation levels as well as changes in the sustainability of people’s institutions and their activities. Together, stakeholders decide what is going to be monitored. MSC process managers identify broad domains of change that they assume to be important and that should be evaluated. These domains of change are deliberately wide and inclusive. Stakeholders identify significant changes in a particular domain of change and justify why they think these changes are the most significant. The stories are analyzed by stakeholders at every level (field, organization, investor, and so on). This approach is a fairly simple way to make sense of a large amount of information. The central aspect of the technique is not the stories themselves but the deliberations and dialogues surrounding their selection. If implemented successfully, MSC causes whole
teams of people to focus their attention on the intervention’s impact. Strengths ■
■ ■
■
Enhances capacities of the stakeholders (at organizational and individual levels) and fosters learning. Helps identify unexpected changes or outcomes. Processes large amounts of information, from which negative and positive changes are deduced. More accessible than traditional techniques for monitoring and evaluation, and requires no specific skills to participate (everyone can tell a story). Weaknesses
■
■
■
The approach is a subjective expression of the values and concerns of the stakeholders designated to select the stories. Best use or application To make sense of an intervention’s impact and foster learning. To identify the most significant changes that have occurred as a result of an intervention, with the help of all primary stakeholders.
Source: Kammili 2011; Davies 1996; Davies and Dart 2005.
4. Inclusive. A focus on the inclusiveness of the monitoring process. Inclusiveness can help diffuse tensions around the change process associated with innovation system interventions. It is also a way of helping to build the linkages that these types of interventions need. 5. Rapid. These methods generate information quickly. This consideration is important for innovation system interventions, which must be nimble in responding to unfolding events. 6. Nonexpert/open access. Methods are designed to be used by all those involved in interventions—that is, for self-assessment—rather than by monitoring experts. These methods are also designed to promote access to the information generated. Open access is important in innovation system interventions, because managing
576
performance and achieving results is the responsibility of all those involved. 7. Tailor-made. A number of methods involve the use of institutional change indicators. The emphasis is on developing these indicators based on the nature of the intervention being monitored. Approaches accommodate the fact that indicators of performance are a moving target and need to be revised constantly. Tailoring indicators in this way is particularly suitable to the learning-based characteristic of innovation system interventions, in which the specific nature of the institutional change being sought rarely can be predicted, aside from generic terms such as the degree of participation, the strengthening of links between stakeholders, or the inclusiveness of decision-making processes.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 7.14 Innovation and Institutional Histories
The Institutional History method helps people involved in the innovation process construct a shared understanding of how innovation has occurred. Institutional histories are narratives written jointly by people who have been involved in an innovation. The history records changes in institutional arrangements (new ways of working) that evolve over time and facilitate the achievement of goals. This approach highlights the importance of institutional innovations. The main idea behind these histories is to introduce institutional factors into the legitimate narrative of success and failure in research organizations. Histories can be written by using interviews to construct a timeline, gain a clear understanding of roles and relationships, inquire into what triggers or hinders successful innovations, and reflect on failures. Lessons drawn from the analysis can be used to improve performance. The dialogue that is promoted between the actors during the preparation of institutional histories can promote learning and capacity building. The conclusions drawn can be used in subsequent planning and help to formulate a shared vision that can catalyze
change. These experiences can then be scaled out by disseminating the findings of the innovation process. Strengths ■
■
Fosters discussion among stakeholders and leads to reflection and learning. Helps build a shared vision of the future.
Weaknesses ■ Written accounts are based on recollections and could be biased. ■ Skilled facilitators are needed to help assemble and analyze the information. ■ It usually takes a long time for significant lessons to emerge. Best use or application ■ To understand past innovation processes and identify institutional factors that foster or hinder innovation. ■ To forge a shared vision of the future among stakeholders.
Source: Kammili 2011.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF MONITORING APPROACHES
In common with all interventions, well-executed monitoring arrangements are central to the performance of innovation system interventions. Investments in developing such arrangements will strengthen the effectiveness of investments in achieving developmental goals and, in doing so, improve value for money.
POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO MONITORING
A number of policy issues are important for ensuring that monitoring delivers some of the benefits that have just been described. A primary concern is to improve the demarcation of responsibilities for monitoring and evaluation. A lack of clarity on the part of investors as well as intervention implementers about the different purposes of monitoring and
evaluation and about who is responsible for each task causes monitoring systems to underperform and results in badly executed evaluations (see IAPs 6 and 7). These wasted resources lead to ineffective interventions and prevent investors from learning vital lessons for designing future interventions. This issue is addressed easily by simply clarifying roles, responsibilities, and time frames for the separate tasks of monitoring and evaluation. Strengthen the capacity to implement learning-based performance management approaches. Within the agricultural research and innovation profession such expertise is limited. Although these skills are better developed in the general development and rural development communities, particularly in the nongovernmental sector, training in these methods is needed urgently, because monitoring is the lynchpin of effective innovation system interventions. As a central performance management tool, monitoring must be integrated and mainstreamed in innovation system interventions rather than exist outside of them. Isolating
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 4: MONITORING AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEM INTERVENTIONS
577
monitoring as a specialist domain simply to satisfy the investor, without all the intervention’s personnel taking performance management seriously, defeats the objective of an innovation system intervention. Investors will need to modify their expectation of accountability reporting, accepting the process nature of interventions and becoming more comfortable with institutional change outcomes. This changed perspective places additional responsibility on the investor to ensure that impact evaluation is undertaken in a timely fashion and in a way that recognizes the nature of these interventions.
to adapt them to best match the performance management demands of innovation system interventions. Practical lessons for doing so include: ■
■
LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS
Innovation system interventions demand an expanded suite of monitoring arrangements that respond to the learningbased nature of these interventions and their primary focus on using institutional adaptation as the foundation for future impacts. A wide range of tools and approaches is available; the challenge is to know which to select and how
Negotiate accountability reporting with the investor. Learning-based monitoring generates mainly qualitative information on processes and institutional arrangements, including unexpected outcomes. Investors may be unfamiliar with this kind of information in accountability reporting, so it is important to discuss reporting expectations beforehand. Ensure that the indicators of institutional change are specific to the particular intervention and revised as needed. Generic institutional change indicators, such as the degree of participation or the strengthening of links between stakeholders, can act as guidelines for categories of institutional change that are likely to occur. In managing the performance of an individual intervention, however, more case-specific indicators are needed. Since the nature of institutional bottlenecks may become apparent only as the intervention unfolds, performance
Box 7.15 Developing Institutional Change Indicators
Institutional change encompasses a very wide range of changes, from new ways of doing things to formal policy changes. Developing indicators can be difficult, because decisions need to be made about what types of institutional change are important to help understand the progress of a particular innovation system intervention. At the same time, it is important to capture the range of changes that an intervention is helping to stimulate, some of which may not be expected. This last objective is important when reporting outcomes to investors. The DFID-funded Research Into Use program (see www .researchintouse.com) faced this challenge. The program recognized that institutional change would be the main route through which it would achieve long-term impacts, but it had no systematic mechanism for capturing evidence of those changes, nor did it have an accessible way of reporting institutional changes to its investor other than through lengthy case studies. For this reason, the program’s Central Research Team developed an inventory of all institutional changes observed (IAP 7) and categorized them as follows:
■
■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Changes in the poverty relevance of actions and interventions. Market-related institutional change. New types of organizations playing new types of roles. Old types of organizations playing new roles. New forms of rural credit. Changes in agricultural research practice. Changes in the policy-making process. New network configurations. Formal policy changes. Changes in donor practice.
This practice helped identify categories of institutional change where limited progress was being made—changes in donor practice and changes in the policy-making process. It also helped to improve communication of the program’s progress in stimulating institutional change, which had previously been difficult for an external audience to see.
Source: Authors and Adwera et al., forthcoming 2012.
578
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
■
indicators will need to be revised constantly (box 7.15 illustrates institutional change indicators developed in an innovation system intervention). Collect data on outcomes in a timely way to contribute to the intervention’s learning cycles, with due attention to the approach and scale of data collection. Quantitative methods are likely to play a role in collecting outcome or proxy outcome information to understand the effectiveness of process changes brought about by an intervention. The approach and scale of this data collection need to be in proportion to implementers’ need to manage the
■
performance of the intervention and ensure that it is on track to achieve its agreed outcomes. Implementers should guard against collecting impact evaluation data. This timeconsuming activity will not necessarily provide data at the appropriate time to manage an intervention successfully. Revisit milestones and expected outcomes. Learningbased interventions may evolve. Their evolution will lead to unexpected outcomes and modified theories of change. It is important to make the investor aware of these changes and negotiate how new milestones and outcomes will be reported.
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 4: MONITORING AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEM INTERVENTIONS
579
T H E M AT I C N O T E 5
Evaluating Agricultural Innovation System Interventions Andy Hall, LINK Ltd. Kumuda Dorai, LINK Ltd. Trish Kammili, National Institute for Agricultural Research, France (INRA)
SYNOPSIS
he evaluation of innovation system interventions is linked to the monitoring of interventions but is a separate function. Evaluation is usually performed on behalf of the investor by independent evaluators and not by those responsible for implementing the intervention. A welldesigned evaluation is particularly important for innovation system interventions, as their process-driven nature means that the result chains are complex, dynamic, and not amenable to simple linear and anecdotal evaluation. Great care is needed in making judgments about the relationship between the effectiveness of the design and execution of the intervention and the observed impacts associated with it. Evaluation good practice is better equipped than ever to deal with this complexity. This note outlines key good practice principles relevant to evaluating innovation system interventions: a stronger learning orientation in evaluation, the use of counterfactuals, the use of mixed (quantitative and qualitative) methods, and incorporating the perspectives of different stakeholders. The example of Theory-Based Impact Evaluation (TBIE) illustrates how these principles work together. Experience with applying evaluation approaches and principles to agricultural innovation system interventions is currently in its infancy. A policy priority is to develop the capacity for this type of evaluation, which will help to improve the long-term effectiveness of innovation system interventions.
T
Monitoring—the effective management of performance by implementers to achieve desired outcomes and report progress—is covered in TN 4. Three critical features of AIS interventions influence how they are evaluated. First, they focus on strengthening capacity; second, they use a learning-based process; and third, they require a distinction to be made between impact, shared impacts, unexpected impacts, and unrelated impacts. Each of these issues is discussed next. A focus on strengthening capacity
An innovation system intervention is an investment to improve how change and innovation take place. Although such an investment is made ultimately to achieve certain social, economic, or environmental impacts, the immediate outcome is improved ways of doing things—usually referred to as institutional change. For example, the National Agricultural Innovation Project in India established research, development, and private sector consortia around selected themes to introduce a new way of working that would achieve wide-scale impact in the future (see module 4, IAP 2). An innovation systems research project addressing fodder scarcity in West Africa and India (the Fodder Innovation Project, described in IAP 6) experimented with ways to induce institutional change that would enable innovation leading to social and economic impacts.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
The effectiveness of innovation system interventions lies in their outcomes and impacts being investigated thoroughly and the resulting lessons applied to future investments. This process contributes to accountability as well as future investment performance. This note focuses on the evaluation of innovation system interventions.
580
A learning-based intervention process
Improvements in how change and innovation take place will depend on the specific circumstances of each intervention. For this reason, ways of achieving those improvements are hard to design in advance. Innovation system interventions address this issue by adopting a learning-based approach,
in which the intervention continuously tests the assumptions on which it is based (its intervention logic). Over the course of the intervention, investors’ expectations of what the intervention is going to achieve, and how it will do so, often need to evolve significantly. For example, an intervention in Sierra Leone (IAP 1) designed to help put agricultural research results into use began by trying to establish innovation platforms around commodity chains. It soon found that the main bottlenecks to research use and innovation were policy issues in the enabling environment for innovation. Distinguishing impact, shared impacts, unexpected impacts, and unrelated impacts
By definition, innovation system interventions operate within an often complex web of activity. Much of this wider set of events is beyond the control and influence of the intervention, but the performance of the intervention itself is often greatly influenced by this context. While the immediate outcomes of an intervention—for example, the establishment of innovation platforms (see module 4, particularly TN 1)—can be evaluated easily, it is more difficult to attribute impacts to those platforms. The causal chain from intervention to impact is often complex, may take time to mature, and might be geographically removed from the point of intervention. As a result, tracing and attributing impact are difficult. In India, for example, the Fodder Innovation Project (see IAP 6) introduced an institutional change, in which an NGO helped the National Department of Animal Husbandry use its resources to hold livestock health camps in villages. Can the resulting impact be attributed solely to the intervention that supported the NGO to explore institutional change? In Nigeria, the Fodder Innovation Project led to an unexpected outcome: An NGO and the local livestock research institute collaborated on animal disease surveillance, an activity that was outside the scope of the project’s mandate to focus on fodder but was likely to lead to important future impacts. Finally, since complex impact chains can often mask underlying causal processes, there is the danger that impacts may be attributed to an intervention when in fact they arose from unrelated events. INVESTMENT NEEDED
Viewed from the perspective of traditional approaches to assessing the impacts of agricultural research investments (see box 7.16), designing approaches for evaluating innovation system interventions seems daunting. Traditional
approaches relied on (1) technology adoption studies, (2) investigation of economic surplus generated by research and computation of rates of return, and (3) economic studies of the contribution of research to impact. While these approaches are powerful (see Evenson, Waggoner, and Ruttan 1979; Pardey and Beintema 2001; Alston et al. 1995), a persistent critique is that they have weak diagnostic value. Their inability to elucidate underlying causal processes and account for institutional change are particular weaknesses (Hall et al. 2003; Horton and Mackay 2003; Watts et al. 2003). In contrast, the wider development evaluation tradition is well equipped to deal with the investigation of causal links between dynamic theories of change and impacts of the sort likely to be encountered in innovation system interventions (see, for example, the guidance on impact evaluations in NONIE, Leeuw, and Vaessen 2009). The challenge is mainly to understand how current good practice in the wider development evaluation community can be more widely deployed in the evaluation of innovation system interventions. Of particular relevance is the recent focus on evaluations that link the assessment of outcomes and impacts (what were the end results) with learning (what processes and practices brought about those results) (Savedoff, Levine, and Birdsall 2006; White 2009a). Principles for evaluation
Emerging from this trend is a set of principles that practitioners can draw upon in evaluating innovation system interventions. These are now general principles for all types of evaluations. ■
■
Situational responsiveness influences the design of the evaluation. Referred to as “situational responsiveness,” the key principle involves matching the design to the needs, constraints, and opportunities of the particular situation rather than one particular method. The application of this principle rests on understanding the characteristics of an intervention or parts of it and determining where the underlying change processes are simple, complicated, or complex. Seek a stronger learning orientation in impact evaluation. A number of new initiatives—notably the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3IE) but also others—have stressed the need to combine accountability and learning objectives. Learning is important for identifying what worked or did not work and why, and this information is valuable for designing future investments. While this perspective emphasizes the need for
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 5: EVALUATING AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEM INTERVENTIONS
581
Box 7.16 Limitations of Traditional Methods for Evaluating Innovation System Interventions in Agriculture
■
■
■
■
Ex post impact assessment Although it addresses the accountability imperative for funders of interventions, it does not help in drawing the institutional lessons required to understand the innovation process. Does not cover noneconomic dimensions. Difficult to develop credible counterfactuals and establish definitive causalities. Focuses on intended positive results and frequently ignores unexpected and negative results. Not appropriate in more complex areas such as natural resource management, policy and biodiversity research, and training and capacity building.
■
■
■
■
■
Cost-benefit analysis Calls upon significant financial and human resources. Benefits are estimated in advance based on assumptions that may not always be correct. Not all costs and benefits can be quantified (social and environmental costs/benefits, for example); results obtained do not reflect all benefits. Items included in the analysis reflect the bias of whoever performs the analysis; coverage and quality thus vary greatly. Given its complexity, involves only economists and project designers and does not engage other primary stakeholders.
Randomized control trials ■
■
■
Weak in external validity (or generalizability) and in identifying the mechanisms responsible for differences observed in the experimental and control situations. Rarely appropriate in complex situations where outcomes arise as result of interactions of multiple factors that cannot be “controlled.” Limited in their ability to deal with emerging and unanticipated outcomes.
Economic surplus approach and rate of return studies ■
■
■
Requires substantial resources for collecting, processing, and interpreting technical and economic data. Simplistic assumptions about lags, costs, and supply shifts have biased rates of return (usually upwards). Not suitable for ranking noncommodity research such as socioeconomic and interdisciplinary research.
Source: Kammili 2011.
■
■
582
rigor in measuring impact, it also explicitly acknowledges the need to test interventions’ assumptions and theories of change (White 2009a). For details, see the example of Theory-Based Impact Evaluation in box 7.19. Make assumptions explicit and revisit theories of change. Adopting a greater learning orientation in evaluation means making assumptions about change processes explicit when planning interventions and revisiting and testing those assumptions at the time of evaluation. By exploring the validity of the assumptions, evaluators can learn critical lessons for designing future interventions (box 7.19). Use counterfactuals in impact evaluation. A stronger learning orientation has also been accompanied by demands for greater rigor in the quantitative methods used to measure impacts, as well as for methods that better establish what would have happened without a par-
■
ticular intervention—the counterfactual. The best way to achieve this goal is still a point of debate (see box 7.17 for details on the challenges involved). Box 7.18 provides an example of Propensity Score Matching, one approach to developing a counterfactual case. Mixed methods. Quantitative methods (to measure impacts) clearly are central to investigating impacts, but they must be complemented by a range of qualitative methods (to understand and learn from institutional and process changes) that can help to understand the context in which the intervention took place and the process to which the intervention contributed that brought about those impacts. Practitioners can draw upon a very wide array of qualitative methods, and the combination of methods selected depends considerably on the nature of the intervention and the precise demands of evaluation functions. (For a discussion of
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 7.17 Challenges of Developing Counterfactuals
The origins of counterfactuals can be traced to scientific experiments conducted with a control, the classic example being the randomized control trials used in drug testing. This approach poses ethical and operational problems that make it impractical for development interventions. Another approach, “before” and “after” comparisons, struggles to account for changes that would have happened despite the intervention. Variants of this approach have been developed, however, which compare the effects of an intervention that starts in different places at different times. “With” and “with-
out” comparisons appear more promising for capturing the counterfactual case, particularly when used in conjunction with statistical techniques that account for differences between the starting conditions in comparator sites. The establishment of counterfactuals remains an evolving science for the evaluation community. Despite the challenges, mechanisms for establishing what would have happened in the absence of an intervention should be built into the overall design of interventions and the monitoring and evaluation arrangements that are put into place for them.
Source: Authors.
Box 7.18 Propensity Score Matching
Propensity Score Matching is a tool for identifying a suitable group with which the recipients of an intervention (the treatment group) can be compared. Evaluators find a comparison group comprising individuals who did not, in fact, receive the intervention but who, given their observable characteristics, had the same probability of receiving it as individuals in the treatment group. The intervention’s impact is the difference in outcomes between the treatment and comparison group. Source: World Bank 2004.
■
mixed methods in Theory-Based Impact Evaluation, see box 7.19.) Incorporate different stakeholders’ perspectives. Greater participation is needed to capture the perspectives of the poor (and other stakeholders) on what were the actual results of the intervention (social, economic, and institutional). Similarly, wider participation is needed to more fully understand the process through which these results came about. Different stakeholders may have different interpretations of cause and effect. It is now good practice in evaluation to recognize these divergent perceptions. This principle extends to the need to draw on perspectives from a wider range of
stakeholders in investigating the intervention’s theory of change. Evaluation approaches
Table 7.9 presents a comparative overview of evaluation approaches appropriate to the demands of innovation system interventions. In different ways and with different emphases, these methods use the principles discussed in this note. They should be viewed as a menu of approaches which practitioners can draw upon to ensure that evaluations achieve the correct balance between learning and accountability. There are a number of points that need to be highlighted about these methods. Only the first method mentioned, Theory-Based Impact Evaluation, explicitly makes provisions for measuring outcomes and investigating underlying process. In reality, Theory-Based Impact Evaluation is an evaluation framework rather than a specific method, and it relies on a suite of qualitative tools. The other methods outlined in table 7.9 are specific tools for qualitative investigation of what happened and what processes lead to the outcomes observed. While these methods for learning lessons are powerful, practitioners must recognize that there is an appetite among investors—public and private—for the quantification of outcomes and impacts. The nascent approaches to evaluating innovation system interventions will need to satisfy this demand. The least developed of the methods presented in table 7.9 is benchmarking of innovation capacity. An important area of methodological development is to find measures of
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 5: EVALUATING AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEM INTERVENTIONS
583
Box 7.19 Theory-Based Impact Evaluation
Theory-based Impact Evaluation (TBIE) is advocated for understanding why an intervention has or has not had an impact. The approach calls for examining and mapping the causal chain of an intervention—from inputs to outcomes and impact—to test the underlying assumptions and shed light on the “why” question. TBIE involves six steps: 1. Map the causal chain. The causal chain links inputs to outcomes and impacts. It is the intervention’s theory of change, which explains how the intervention is expected to have its intended impact. Testing assumptions is central to a theory-based approach. One criticism of the causal chain approach is that it is static and does not account for an intervention’s ability to adapt and evolve—an important consideration for innovation system interventions. This criticism is addressed in TBIE by suggesting that the intervention theory should reflect the new design, and the evaluation should document the learning process that resulted in the new design. In this way, the intervention theory remains dynamic. Another criticism is that it misses unintended consequences, which is addressed by identifying those consequences through a careful application of intervention theory, fed by thorough preliminary fieldwork, and using the resulting information to develop new theories of change. 2. Understand the context. Clearly, understanding the context is crucial to understanding its impact and in designing the evaluation, as context influences how the causal chain plays out. 3. Anticipate heterogeneity. Understanding the context also makes it possible to design the evaluation to anticipate possible variation in impacts (arising from how the intervention is designed, the characteristics of the beneficiaries, varied socioeconomic settings, and so on). 4. Conduct a rigorous evaluation of impact using a credible counterfactual. The appropriate counterfactual is most usually defined with reference to a control group, which has to be identified in a way that avoids selection bias, meaning the use of either experimental or quasi-experimental approaches. Panel data help to strengthen the design, so baselines are encouraged. Where they are not available, they might be recreated using existing data sets or recall. In addition to selection bias, important issues to
consider in the design are the possibility of spillover effects (the control is affected by the intervention) and contagion or contamination (the control is affected by other interventions). 5. Conduct a rigorous factual analysis. The counterfactual analysis of impact needs to be supplemented by rigorous factual analysis of various kinds, given that many links in the causal chain are based on factual analysis. Targeting analysis is the most common form of factual analysis: Who benefits from the intervention? To the extent that there is a defined target group, then what is the extent of the targeting errors? Such errors can be quantified and their source identified. Factual analysis often highlights a crucial break in the causal chain and explains low impact. 6. Use mixed methods. A major step toward mixed methods is to increase the use of rigorous quantitative methods in qualitative studies (quantitative analysis informed by qualitative insight) or the use of qualitative data in quantitative studies. Without qualitative methods, the danger is that researchers will conduct impact studies with no exposure at all to the intervention. ■
■
■
■
■
■ ■
■
Strengths The combination of counterfactual impact estimates with detailed exploration of causal links and theories of change has the potential to provide compelling lessons and evidence. Lessons gleaned from TBIE are valuable in trying to understand what works in development. Far more valuable lessons for policy are obtained through the insights on what doesn’t work in interventions. Weaknesses Not yet in widespread use, so experiences are limited. Construction of a robust counterfactual can be challenging. Data-intensive. Expensive, although good value for money if well executed. Best use or application An evaluation tool best suited to investigating impacts and undertaking policy learning in largescale interventions.
Source: White 2009b and authors.
584
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
innovation system performance at the macro level that rely on indicators of system behavior and functions rather than on input indicators such as research spending. POTENTIAL BENEFITS
Effective evaluation is central to improving the performance of investments in current and future innovation system interventions. Well-designed evaluations of innovation system interventions are particularly important because their process-driven nature means that the result chains are complex, dynamic, and not amenable to simple, linear, anecdotal evaluation. Great care is needed in making judgments about the relationship between the effectiveness of an intervention’s design and execution and the observed impacts associated with the intervention. Consequently the evaluation of innovation system interventions is likely to be expensive but will be an important investment in strengthening the long-term performance of these interventions. POLICY ISSUES
Policy issues related to the evaluation of innovation system interventions are partly but not entirely similar to those for monitoring (see TN 4). One similarity is the need to build capacity in evaluating innovation system interventions. Experience with these sorts of evaluations remains limited, because innovation system interventions are relatively recent. Nor are many investors familiar with the evaluation principles and approaches applicable to those interventions. Professional evaluators from the wider development community do have experience in applying these principles, but there is a need to develop a new cadre of evaluators with experience in applying them to AIS interventions. A second policy priority is to clearly demarcate responsibilities for monitoring and evaluation. Investors need to make a very clear distinction between evaluation and monitoring and not be tempted to include the collection of impact evaluation data within the intervention. This point is particularly important for innovation system interventions, because the ultimate impacts may not emerge until some time after the intervention ends. Third, sufficient resources must be available to use a combination of evaluation methods. The evaluation of innovation system interventions requires greater rigor in measuring impacts, investigating result chains, and testing the validity of theories of change. Inevitably, evaluations will take longer and cost more. Investors need to plan ahead and
put sufficient money aside for evaluation when planning new innovation system interventions. Finally, over and above the evaluation of individual interventions, investors will increasingly need to benchmark innovation capacity developed in sectors and subsectors through innovation system interventions. International investors may also wish to use benchmarking to make international comparisons. These comparisons are needed to track macro-level progress and to help target subsectors, sectors, and countries for investments to strengthen innovation capacity or for other investments that require certain levels of innovation capacity as a precondition. A number of methodological challenges in measuring and comparing context-specific and systemic capacities of this sort remain to be addressed, however. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS
The main lessons and recommendations for practitioners mirror the principles of good practice outlined earlier. A description of Theory-Based Impact Evaluation (box 7.19) illustrates how these good practice principles and the methods associated with them work together to ensure that the evaluation of innovation system interventions contains accountability and learning dimensions. The evaluation of innovation system interventions should give particular attention to the following: ■
■
■
Timing of evaluations. While many innovation system interventions will have quick wins, most impacts will emerge only much later as institutional change kicks in, creating new capacities for innovation. While process and institutional change evaluation can take place shortly after the completion of an intervention, impact evaluation can take place only after sufficient time has passed, often 3–5 years later. Looking widely for impact. The evolving nature of interventions means that outcomes and impacts can be unpredictable, both in the types of impact observed and their geographical and social location. Evaluation needs to be sensitive to this unpredictability. Investigating unexpected outcomes. Since innovation system interventions operate in dynamic environments, changes and unexpected outcomes can occur that have significance for impacts or can provide opportunities for new investments. These unexpected outcomes need to be recorded and investigated for any lessons they provide.
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 5: EVALUATING AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEM INTERVENTIONS
585
586 AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Table 7.9 Evaluation Approaches Relevant to Innovation System Interventions Method
Purpose/use
Strengths
Weaknesses
Major references
Theory-based Impact Evaluation
– Helps in understanding why a program has or has not had impact. – Best suited to investigating impacts and undertaking policy learning in large-scale investments.
– A combination of counterfactual-based impact estimates with a detailed exploration of causal links and theories of change has the potential to provide compelling lessons and evidence. – Lessons gleaned from such an exercise are valuable in trying to understand what works in development. – Offers far more valuable lessons for policy through its insights on what doesn’t work in development.
– Not yet in widespread use, so experience limited. – Construction of a robust counterfactual can be challenging. – Data-intensive. – Expensive, though good value for money if well executed.
White (2009b)
Innovation and Institutional Histories
– Understand past innovation processes and identify institutional factors that foster or hinder innovation. – Forge a shared vision of the future among stakeholders.
– Fosters discussion among stakeholders and leads to reflection and learning. – Helps build a shared vision of the future.
– Written accounts are based on recollections and could be biased. – Need skilled facilitators to help collect and analyze the information. – Usually takes a very long time for significant lessons to emerge.
Douthwaite and Ashby (2005); Shambu Prasad, Hall, and Thummuru (2006)
Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis
– Guide project management, especially in complex situations where innovation is seen as emerging from a network.
– Involves intervention staff and key stakeholders in constructing impact pathways. – Includes both (1) a causal chain of activities, outputs, and outcomes that sheds light on how an intervention achieves its goals and (2) network maps that show evolving relationships between participants. – Underlines the fact that innovations emerge from a network and not a linear “pipeline.” – Promotes reflection, self-evaluation, and learning. – Provides a framework for carrying out action-research.
– A relatively new approach that needs to be further implemented to gauge its weaknesses.
Douthwaite et al. (2003)
Causal Process Tracing
– Well suited for complex, longterm interventions with systems learning goals.
– Places data and theory in close proximity. One quickly sees what works and what does not in an intervention’s lifetime.
– Regarded as not very strong for wider generalization but more suited to narrow specification of the reach of causal propositions. – Takes a great deal of time. – Not conducive to parsimonious theory and leads to partial, middlerange theory. It is easy to miss causal complexity. – Easy to lose sight of the broader context.
George and Bennett (2005); CoS-SIS (2009); Walters and Vayda (2009)
MODULE 7: THEMATIC NOTE 5: EVALUATING AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEM INTERVENTIONS
Most Significant Change
– Make sense of an intervention’s impact and foster learning. – With the help of all primary stakeholders, identify the most significant changes that have occurred as a result of an intervention.
– Enhances capacities of stakeholders (at the organizational and individual levels) and fosters learning. – Helps identify unexpected changes or outcomes. – Large amounts of information are processed, from which negative and positive changes are deduced. – More accessible than traditional M&E techniques; no specific skills required to participate.
– A subjective expression of the values and concerns of the stakeholders designated to select the stories.
ECDPM (2006); IFAD (2002); Davies and Dart (2005)
Stories and Narratives
– Shed light on the changes that have occurred at the individual, organizational, or institutional level. – Uncover intangible factors (qualities, values, culture, and so forth) that determine the organization’s character.
– Exchanging stories builds trust between participants; in some cases may lead to an environment conducive to learning and stimulate change. – An effective way to deal with passions and emotions of individuals involved. – Has the potential to stimulate change if told correctly. – Individual focus can translate into organizational development. – Not hierarchical.
– Biased; depends on the perspective of the person telling the story.
Asif (2005)
Benchmarking Innovation Capacity
– More than just evaluating individual interventions. Can help investors benchmark the performance of sectors and subsectors in terms of capacity built for innovation.
– Can be useful in tracking macro-level progress and to help target subsectors, sectors, and countries for investment in capacity strengthening or for investments that require certain levels of capacity as a precondition.
– Methodologies still being developed.
CPR, CRISP, and LINK (2008); Kraemer-Mbula (2012 forthcoming); Spielman and Birner (2008)
Source: Authors.
587
â–
588
Acting on evaluation lessons. Investors must be willing to act upon the lessons that emerge from evaluations of their innovation system interventions. This can be easier said than done when lessons point investors away from traditional approaches and the interests of stakeholders associated with them. One approach that investors increasingly use to bolster their confidence in emerging lessons is to use systematic reviews of similar projects to test key assumptions about suggested ways forward.
The principles outlined in this module and the evaluation approaches summarized in table 7.9 are well known to professional evaluators in the wider development evaluation community. What is important is that investors commission evaluations that embody these principles and select evaluators with experience in applying them. In the short term, they probably must look beyond the pool of evaluators who have undertaken traditional assessments of the impact of agricultural research investments.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
INNONTO EVX AT . XI V E A C T I V I T Y P R O F I L E 1
Self-Organizing Networks in Policy and Planning: Experience from Sierra Leone’s Partnership for Agricultural Innovation and Development Steen Joffe, Innodev Ltd. David Suale, Research Into Use (RIU) Adolphus Johnson, Research Into Use (RIU)
SYNOPSIS OF PROJECT DATA
Project name: Established:
Incorporated: Launched:
Sierra Leone Partnership for Agricultural Innovation and Development (SL-PAID) July 2008 by Memorandum of Association, in a process facilitated by the DFIDfinanced Research Into Use Programme August 2008 in Sierra Leone as Company Limited by Guarantee January 2009
Many research agencies in sub-Saharan Africa have evolved little over recent decades, are institutionally hidebound, and have little accountability to other elements of the innovation system. Priority-setting mechanisms that shape investments in the AIS still tend to be formal, generally top-down exercises. They lack the sort of broad-based, “many-to-many” problem-solving exchanges that are essential drivers of innovation.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
For Sierra Leone, the period of rapid change following the disastrous 1991–2002 war has provided opportunities to rebuild and reinvent institutional frameworks supporting agriculture. The country’s new vision for agriculture requires the sector to shift toward a pluralistic and competitive rural service economy, with agribusiness acting as an engine of socioeconomic growth and development. For that vision to become a reality, a stream of new policy, process, and technological innovations must be created. Although inside or outside of Sierra Leone there is no shortage of knowledge relevant to Sierra Leone’s current needs, this knowledge is not yet used on any scale for innovation, because the conditions to use it are lacking. In a well-functioning AIS, knowledge flows between all the principle domains, underpinning myriad investment decisions and behavior changes that collectively drive productivity and growth. In Sierra Leone, as in many lowincome development contexts, these flows and interactions around problems and opportunities are weak and have historically taken place within a limited institutional context.
Within the Research Into Use Programme (IAP 7), a country strategy team worked with local stakeholders in Sierra Leone to develop an innovative strategy for an autonomous, self-organizing group to develop as a platform for improving policy and practice related to agricultural innovation (Joffe et al. 2008). This open, inclusive network would be a medium for creating new productive alliances and creating value. As a first step, the team worked through a local secretariat to bring key actors together in a series of workshops, ensuring participation across the innovation system. Participants included farmers, farmer-based organizations, and representatives of rural communities; agribusiness and market actors (processors, wholesalers, retailers, input companies, equipment suppliers, and financial service providers); knowledge intermediaries, including technical advisory and business development services; communications services and the media; knowledge generators (research, education, and other widely used sources); and policy makers, decision makers, and regulators with influence over “framework conditions.”
589
The participants used innovation system mapping techniques to visualize the main elements and actors in the AIS and the strength of the linkages and knowledge flows between them. More specifically, they assessed and mapped knowledge flows between elements of the system and the factors influencing these flows in relation to rural and nonrural livelihoods and routes out of poverty. They also identified key drivers of change in the context for agricultural policies and programs and determined where investments and other economic activities were likely to create new challenges and demands for knowledge. This process required participants to develop an initial map of the key institutional elements and organizations relating to the AIS, which was transposed into a more formalized innovation system domain structure. Next, the participants worked in groups to map linkages between those domains. The subsequent analysis and discussion highlighted a number of findings: ■
■
■
■
■
Weak or ineffective knowledge flows from markets into the small-farm sector resulted in asymmetries that led to exploitive behavior. Very unidirectional and supply-driven knowledge flows from intermediaries and from policy processes into the small-farm sector led to coordination problems and high transaction costs (see the next point). Formal policy processes were poorly linked with other key innovation system elements. Weaknesses at the center and coordination problems limited the public sector’s effectiveness. Weak links between financial institutions and other elements of the AIS meant that formal lenders lacked information to support credit flows to rural entrepreneurs. The research system had poor links with all other actors in the AIS. It did not deliver knowledge oriented towards value addition in the market chain, and a lack of trust persisted between researchers and actors in the production and agribusiness “side” of the sector.
As a result of the workshops and related meetings, a core group of actors decided to organize and form a partnership. Through flexible alliances, members would engage in innovative activities and build a better business environment to foster and scale out those activities. The Partnership for Agricultural Innovation and Development (PAID), established in Freetown in 2008, now operates autonomously as a “partnership of service-providers,” open to all who subscribe to its vision and mission. Under a Memorandum of Association, PAID has a general assembly of all members, a board (elected by the
590
members and mandated to manage the affairs of the partnership), and a secretariat (responsible for day-to-day operations, coordination, and administration). In summary, the association’s defining features are that it is self-governing, membership-based and has a broad, representative membership; it is financed through subscriptions; it receives broad support from the Government of Sierra Leone and principal agencies; and it is embedded in key policy forums. BENEFITS, IMPACT, AND EXPERIENCE TO DATE
PAID is a young organization but already operates successfully in a number of key respects. PAID members have formulated and voted on appropriate governance structures, rules, norms, and the interaction mechanisms required for PAID to operate effectively as a vehicle for delivering innovations in the agricultural sector. Under rules established by the membership, “formal” interaction in PAID is collective and consensual. Strategic decisions are made or endorsed by the general membership at the annual general meeting. Operational decisions are taken at the district level and at events held at the platform level. The organization has also launched two fast-track, commodity-based innovation platforms. These initial platforms were selected based on information from field assessments by or with the participation of PAID member organizations: ■
■
Solar drying in fruit and other horticultural value chains. Twenty solar drying units operate in communities in four districts in the Northern Province; early reports indicate that they are used successfully. Poultry feed production and marketing. Maize is being grown on 110 acres (46 hectares) across locations in Bo, Kenema, and Kailahun Districts for a seed multiplication drive and eventual use for feed in intensive poultry production systems.
The platforms have spun off active partnerships with other actors who want to adopt platform technology, including CARE International, MADAM-Sierra Leone, the Sierra Leone Centre for Agribusiness Development, and the Nehemiah Project. To guide future priorities for developing platforms, PAID has documented a more structured approach consisting of open calls for proposals, concept screening, investment events, and small grants for opportunity development. Membership in PAID makes it easier for people and organizations to obtain information to guide choices, gain support for their decisions, and build alliances. Typically, information
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
flows informally among the wide range of stakeholders present at key events and meetings, including stakeholders from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, other central and district government agencies, FAO, DFID, the Sierra Leone Agricultural Research Institute, banks, farmer organizations, civil society and nongovernmental organizations, producers, processors, traders, and transporters. PAID also has a place on the Agriculture Advisory Group and Technical Committee, a formal, policy-making standing committee that was involved in developing Sierra Leone’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme compact and National Sustainable Agricultural Development Plan, linked to the national poverty reduction strategy. PAID has also brought together actors in extension to form the Sierra Leone Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services. Stakeholders in this process identified gaps in extension services; as a result, a policy on extension in Sierra Leone is being developed. Finally, PAID members in Bo District raised concern over the activity of a fraudulent actor in their region. This concern was channeled to the secretariat and brought to the notice of ministry officials. The situation was corrected.
collective intelligence around investment decisions. Within the social business paradigm, boundaries between public, private, and third sector roles begin to break down for practical purposes. Similarly, boundaries between policy and practice and between planning and delivery are no longer necessarily institutionally or organizationally distinct; these activities are undertaken instead by individuals and groups applying creative and flexible solutions to common problems across organizational boundaries, representing particular interests and competencies in pursuit of value-creating opportunities. These approaches are already driving transformational change in more advanced economies and may be equally transformational in developing country contexts.
LESSONS AND ISSUES FOR WIDER APPLICATION
Within the PAID network, a number of early decisions were highly influential in building social capital and reducing transaction costs. Network membership and the role of facilitation
INNOVATIVE ELEMENT: SOCIAL BUSINESS NETWORKS FOR INNOVATION SYSTEMS
From a public policy perspective, the means to foster innovation often focus on improving linkages and flows of information between actors and interests. For this reason, governments offer incentives for innovative businesses to locate in clusters (see TN 4 in module 5), where their close association can generate a variety of spillover benefits and externalities. Governments also subsidize interactions by organizing events and meetings around key policy areas in which the state wishes to drive innovation that the market alone may not deliver. These strategies are valid but require complementary approaches to enable the “conversation” that will support policy and practice. The new frontier for agencies wishing to support the AIS—rather than supporting priority-setting processes alone—is to foster self-organizing social business networks (see TN 2 in module 1). Such networks respond to the interests of a diverse group of stakeholders and can operate flexibly and dynamically in light of demands and opportunities identified by their membership. This general model is well established as a way to organize innovation in industry, where social business design approaches, increasingly underpinned by new social media tools and engagement strategies, are used to harness
Members decided that the partnership would be autonomous and establish its own secretariat, membership would be open to those who subscribed to the partnership’s vision, and organizations would be represented by senior representatives with decision-making power. Membership also would be open to service providers of various kinds, in agriculture and agribusiness. An elected executive would represent the partnership between general meetings, a general code of conduct would be drafted and agreed, and the network would be financially independent and sustainable. In addition to charging registration and annual subscription fees, the network would raise financing independently and develop revenues from innovative activities. Revenue would not only sustain the partnership but serve as an incentive for membership. The network was able to come to these decisions because of the initial investment by key actors in facilitating a core understanding and common vision of the network’s role. Members’ early involvement in decisions on structure and governance increased confidence and promoted engagement. Higher levels of trust and reduced transaction costs have enabled PAID to rely more on signals through the internal “knowledge market” and less on formal prioritysetting mechanisms.
MODULE 7: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 1: SELF-ORGANIZING NETWORKS IN POLICY AND PLANNING IN SIERRA LEONE
591
Existing sector frameworks are still needed
Networks for innovation are not a replacement for or an alternative to existing sector-wide and/or vertical subsector frameworks. Such frameworks are still needed to provide the formal process and democratic accountability around policy and practice. Networks like PAID bridge such frameworks, providing an opportunity for more flexible and less formal interaction within a different institutional paradigm. For networks like PAID, engagement with government is important but should be balanced to avoid prejudicing the network’s independence and openness in decision making. Attaining such a balance can be tricky. For example, Rwanda’s National Innovation Coalition is restricted to a few public sector bodies. Plans to establish another separate and more open agricultural innovation network attracted no highlevel support and were never implemented. In Bolivia, the Natural Resources Information and Knowledge Network (SICTAF, Sistema de Información y Conocimiento Tecnológico Agropecuario y Forestal) explored establishing itself as a self-governing, socially inclusive knowledge network. The responsible ministry was unable to engage productively with such a network other than as its apex institution, however; it never accepted that the network could operate within a self-defined governance framework. This lack of formal support was a key reason why the initiative foundered. One lesson from this diverse experience is that the open, “flat,” nonhierarchical structure that favors innovation is not always consistent with established ways of doing government business. Indeed, where coalitions are facilitated to promote AIS they can end up reinforcing existing networks rather than bringing in new voices and influences on policy. Financial sustainability
As always, financial sustainability remains a major consideration. The facilitation, coordination, and “market research” underpinning the creation of PAID in Sierra Leone were financed by DFID, along with the core administration and personnel costs. This initial subsidy is very likely to be a generic requirement for such networks, but it should be
592
provided only in the context of a strategy and path towards financial independence. As noted, PAID’s member organizations pay a registration fee and annual subscription (approximately US$30 and US$150, respectively) to support core network costs.
Improving linkages and working relationships between research and the business sector
Many networks dissolve because members perceive little real value in participating. A key lesson from Sierra Leone and elsewhere is to provide pathways to see initiatives through and gain the rewards of participation, both professional and financial. In practical terms, this means that the network should offer a framework for adaptive research, enterprise development, and scaling out innovations. “Pull” mechanisms such as innovation-financing events and competitions and related processes will help to seed ideas and new enterprises out of the network. For one of its members, the Sierra Leone Agricultural Research Institute, PAID acts as a new framework for improving linkages and working relationships between research and the business sector. The network also serves as a channel to bring technologies already developed by the institute into use and for the institute to “plug in” to the new priorities emerging from innovation platforms. PAID’s continuing heavy reliance on transmitting information directly through meetings and field operations raises costs and is one area where improvement is needed. The value of face-to-face interaction will never be replaced, but social networks for AIS can and should develop strategies to apply mobile and web-based social media. These technologies permit information and knowledge to be exchanged at a low cost, both “internally” and with other stakeholders and influencers locally and globally. PAID is exploring these avenues through the African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services, which is piloting the Innodev platform (www.innodev.org) in Sierra Leone and Uganda to support problem solving through networks, enable groups to form around opportunities, and attract support for entrepreneurs through mentors and investment partners.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
INNONTO EVX AT . XI V E A C T I V I T Y P R O F I L E 2
Using Net-Map to Assess and Improve Agricultural Innovation Systems Eva Schiffer, Consultant
SYNOPSIS
ractitioners require methods that capture the complexity of an AIS and structure it in a way that allows actors to use the detailed information rapidly. Net-Map is a participatory influence network mapping method based on social network analysis and power mapping. This pen-and-paper method helps those involved in or observing agricultural innovation to determine and discuss who the actors are, how they are linked, how influential they are, what their goals are, and what the crucial bottlenecks and opportunities are. Net-Map is useful for understanding complex, dynamic situations in which multiple actors influence each other and the outcome. It can be used for an initial assessment of an innovation system and can also help to monitor the innovation system’s development over time.
P
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: REQUIREMENTS FOR AN AIS ASSESSMENT TOOL
The AIS approach, instead of focusing on specific actors, appreciates that an innovation involves multiple partners who have formal and informal ties, have different goals, and use their influence in various ways to further or block the innovation. Practitioners increasingly require methods that capture this complexity and structure it in a way that allows actors to use the detailed information rapidly. AIS assessment tools ideally need to capture a specific range of complex data and to do so under particular logistic conditions. The following data are needed to understand an AIS: ■
Who are all the actors involved (impacting on and being impacted by the innovation, formally and informally involved, supportive and unsupportive of the innovation)?
■
■
■
■
■
How do these actors interact (including formal and informal links, material flows such as funding or seed, nonmaterial flows such as ideas, policy pressure)? What are their goals with regard to a specific innovation or the general innovativeness of the system (are they supportive, unsupportive, or neutral)? How strongly do they influence the innovation system’s ability to innovate? What are the crucial strength and weaknesses of the innovation network? Where are bottlenecks and coalitions? What links are missing? What strategies are successful? How does the innovation system change over time?
With regard to the logistics of the method needed, it is crucial for it to be straightforward and easy for people to apply in the field; provide results quickly; allow for exploring and understanding systems with many unknowns; structure the complexity but leave room for in-depth explanations; support users in developing strategies for improving the AIS; and collect data that are comparable between sectors, countries, and over time. INNOVATIVE ELEMENT
Net-Map, a participatory social network mapping approach (Schiffer and Hauck 2010), is based on social network analysis (Hanneman and Riddle 2005), power mapping (Schiffer 2007), stakeholder analysis (Grimble and Wellard 1997), and participatory action-research (Kindon, Pain, and Kesby 2007). This method helps those involved in or observing agricultural innovation to determine and discuss who the actors are, how they are linked, how influential they are, what their goals are, and what the crucial bottlenecks and opportunities are (Schiffer and Hauck 2010; http:// netmap.wordpress.com).
593
HOW NET-MAP WORKS
Net-Map can be used in planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating interventions. The following step-bystep description briefly explains how it works. 1: Getting started
Net-Map is a pen-and-paper method that involves drawing networks together with participants (individuals or groups) to capture their complex knowledge of a system and make implicit or tacit knowledge explicit. Net-Map can be used as a tool by external actors, such as donors or researchers, to acquire a better understanding of the situation and monitor its development. It may also be used internally (for example, by an implementing NGO or ministry) to help decision makers and implementers improve stakeholders’ involvement, strategic planning, monitoring, and evaluation. NetMap sessions are typically facilitated by a trained Net-Map practitioner. Before starting the activity, it is important to determine its framework and goal: Net-Map can be used as a one-off activity for planning or as a startup tool to get an activity on track. For monitoring and evaluation, a baseline Net-Map at the beginning of the intervention and one or more follow-up Net-Maps are recommended (for example, after one, three, or five years). It is possible to do a string of individual interviews or one (or more) group meetings. The first step is to develop the overall question. It normally has the format: “Who influences XY?” XY can be specific (“Who influences farmers’ adoption of this new rice variety in this area within the next five years?”) or more general (“Who influences the innovativeness of the agricultural sector in this country?”). Often the more specific questions provide more specific and therefore useful answers. For example, one might learn that network structures that encourage the adoption of a new rice variety might be similar to those for other crops. 2: Who is involved?
The people attending the session normally consist of the host (the person/organization who is looking for answers), the facilitator (expert in the Net-Map method, neutral in the content question), participants from different areas of the innovation system, and a note-taker. Choosing the right participants is crucial, because the knowledge of the people interviewed is the core source of information. For example,
594
a broad set of perspectives could be gained by including people from: the private sector, NGOs, donor agencies, government, and civil society (farmers, consumers); the national, regional, district, and local level; different ethnic groups, nationals and foreigners, different ages and genders; and agriculture, trade, finance, and industry. The ideal group is between 6 and 12 people. Larger groups should be split into (equally diverse) subgroups. The participants are asked to name all actors (individuals, groups, organizations) involved. Actors include not only those who are involved in formal decision making but everyone who can influence or is influenced by the issue. 3: How are they linked?
A link is something that flows from one actor to another (like money) or connects two actors (like friendship). Typical links in an innovation system are flows of money, ideas, innovative products, political pressure, and formal lines of command. 4: How strong is their influence?
This question focuses on how strongly the different actors can influence the specific issue at hand (not in the country at large)—for example, “How strongly can this actor influence whether farmers use this new rice variety?” Actors’ influence is defined as their ability to achieve their goals in a social setting, despite resistance (Weber 1922). The level of influence is represented by an “influence tower” (using some small, stackable objects). The greater the influence, the higher the tower. The influence tower is used to assess an actor’s actual influence on a given issue; the actor’s influence can be based on a number of attributes, such as money, formal position, persuasiveness, informal ties, and so on. The influence tower does not measure the actor’s formal position or how influential the actor should be. 5: What are their goals?
The next step focuses on understanding the actors’ goals. In some cases it makes sense to ask who actively supports the innovation or innovativeness, who is passive, and who actively hinders it. In other cases, actors might follow two competing philosophies or goals. 6: Discussion (what does this mean)?
In this step, the map is drawn, and any issues that came up with the mapping are discussed. The discussion can include
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
looking at bottlenecks, conflicts, coalitions, future strategies, missing actors, or links that should be developed in the future. It is not important to reach agreement on every point but to explore and understand different points of view, why people hold them, and how these different views can affect the innovation system. For example, if a representative from the agriculture ministry and one from the environmental protection agency disagree on a crucial issue, that information, in and of itself, can be important for shaping a future strategy of engagement with these two agencies.
■
■
■
7: Results ■
The Net-Map session yields the map and discussion notes. The network map can be entered into social network analysis software (such as VisualyzerTM or UCINETTM), which produces a computerized network picture and also allows for some quantitative analysis, such as identifying bottlenecks or boundary spanners. While the network structure provides the bones, the discussion adds the meat, giving concrete information about how and why the network performs or fails. Less tangible (but sometimes even more relevant) outcomes of a Net-Map session are the learning and energy shared by the people attending. Participants regularly report that they have gained enthusiasm for a common cause, have resolved misunderstandings, and have a clearer vision and shared strategy after attending Net-Map sessions. The intangible effects are especially powerful if participants discover blind spots together (see box 7.21 in the next section) or if a diverse group develops a common understanding. To make the most of these process results, it is crucial that the host is seriously committed to using them and continuing to collaborate with the participants.
BENEFITS, IMPACT, AND TWO CASE STUDIES
Since its development in 2007, Net-Map has been used in a variety of ways, within and beyond agriculture, in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the United States (for detailed case studies and methodological development, see http://netmap.wordpress .com). The uses have been as diverse as the following: ■
■
Developing benchmarks and indicators for chicken and maize innovation systems in Ethiopia (box 7.20); see also Spielman and Birner (2008); Spielman and Kelemework (2009). Assessing communication channels concerning avian influenza in Ghana (box 7.21), Ethiopia, and Nigeria; see also Schiffer, Narrod, and von Grebmer (2008).
Engaging stakeholders in Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Uganda in developing bisosafety legislation under the International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI’s) Program for Biosafety Systems; see http://programs.ifpri.org/pbs/). Understanding and improving regional water governance in northern Ghana; see Schiffer and Hauck (2010). Understanding fisheries management in small reservoirs in northern Ghana; see Hauck and Youkhana (2008). The Net-Map exercise revealed that overlapping governance systems (traditional and modern, top-down and bottomup) were one reason for unsustainable management practices and poor enforcement of rules. Increasing the impact of agricultural research on policy making in Malawi and Nigeria; see Aberman et al. (2010). By looking at concrete case studies (such as studies of fertilizer policy), this project aims to understand when and how research can enter policy-making processes. Follow-up Net-Map sessions in Malawi will track changes over time.
Typically, the goals of a Net-Map intervention are twofold—to understand and to improve a situation. Two case studies provide more detail on how Net-Map was used in analyzing an innovation system in Ethiopia (box 7.20) and developing strategies to prevent the spread of avian influenza in Ghana (box 7.21). General lessons from the use of Net-Map are provided in the concluding section. LESSONS LEARNED AND ISSUES FOR WIDER APPLICATION
Net-Map is a useful tool for understanding complex, dynamic situations in which multiple actors influence each other and the outcome. It can be used for an initial assessment of an innovation system in a country or sector and can also help to monitor the innovation system’s development over time. A Net-Map facilitator needs to be good at working with groups and individuals, giving them room to express themselves but also guiding them when the discussion goes off on a tangent. It helps if the facilitator is able to think in structures and discover patterns in complex maps. Prior knowledge of social network analysis is a plus but not necessary. The Net-Map steps are normally taught in a learningby-doing approach. After a brief (one-hour) session, new Net-Map facilitators are able to draw their first Net-Map on an issue of their choice. In five to eight days, with the help of an experienced Net-Map practitioner, a new Net-Map
MODULE 7: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 2: USING NET-MAP TO ASSESS AND IMPROVE AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS
595
Box 7.20 Net-Mapping a Poultry Innovation System in Ethiopia
The Debre Zeit-Mojo corridor in the Addis Ababa market shed is an exceptionally innovative area for poultry, where new breeds and methods are embraced much more rapidly and widely than in other areas of the country. Could Net-Map discover the network conditions that encouraged agricultural innovation? What lessons could be learned for other geographical areas and other agricultural products? Net-Maps were drawn with researchers, extension agents, and poultry farmers. The links that were mapped included: production inputs and equipment (embodied knowledge); knowledge and information (disembodied knowledge); credit and financial services; regulatory oversight; and coordination and cooperation. Through this process, participants discovered an innovation cluster of strongly interlinked private and public sector actors who had facilitated the development of a small commercial poultry farm sector. The
analysis showed that this innovation cluster was inextricably bound to the specific location (the Addis market shed, with a market for white-fleshed chicken) and the collaboration between large-scale poultry producers and an agricultural research center. This context-specificity meant that the Debre Zeit-Mojo innovation cluster did not deliver a blueprint for poultry innovation systems in more remote areas of the country. Further research, for example through Net-Maps of poultry systems in less-privileged areas, would be needed to understand how innovation could be fostered under different conditions. This experience shows how Net-Map can tease out which innovation conditions are specific to a given context and which can be transferred as general lessons for other areas. The method also helped colleagues who had worked in the country for a long time to see aspects of the innovation system of which they were unaware.
Source: Author; Spielman and Kelemework 2009.
Box 7.21 Net-Mapping to Reduce the Risk of Avian Influenza in Ghana
Net-Map was used in kick-off workshops for a project on pro-poor strategies to reduce the risk of avian influenza (http://www.hpai-research.net). Stakeholders from different areas of poultry production, marketing, and government oversight mapped all of the actors involved, focusing on two links: (1) flows of information about suspicious bird deaths and (2) flows of intervention if avian influenza was confirmed. Group mapping allowed participants to exchange knowledge about this network and highlight specific bottlenecks. In Ghana, mapping revealed critical issues that had not been clear to the participants or researchers beforehand. The Net-Mapping session indicated that if there was an outbreak on a small farm, considerable information would be exchanged at the village level (including among teachers, opinion leaders, and other actors unrelated to the poultry subsector). Only one actor, however, bridged the gap between
the community actors and district administrators: the animal health technician. The relatively low number of animal health technicians in the system increased the risk that reports of suspicious bird deaths would be delayed. An even more crucial insight was related to the neglect of market actors in avian flu compensation schemes. Farmers were compensated for every bird culled by the government in an outbreak, but no such compensation was available to live bird traders. Participants diagnosed a potential corruption hot spot at the national border: Suspicious bird deaths in a trader’s flock would give the trader strong incentives to bribe border veterinarians, cross to the neighboring country, sell the birds, and leave as soon as possible. This kind of activity sets the scene for a regional pandemic. The network figure shown here represents flows of information about suspicious bird deaths in Ghana, indicating the corruption hotspot at the border.
Source: Author. Note: More information including illustrative Net-Map examples can be found at http://netmap.wordpress.com.
596
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
intervention can be developed with a team of facilitators with no prior training in the method. The basic process is taught; the proposed question and links are pretested with a number of interview partners; the questions are adjusted; and the new facilitators learn how to enter the data. A particular challenge in every Net-Map intervention is to ask the right general question. Following this preparation, the group of facilitators will either invite participants to a group mapping session or conduct a series of individual interviews. Group mapping sessions are especially powerful for getting consensus and buy-in, developing strategic plans, and getting answers rapidly, without much additional analysis. If possible, plan one full day for a group session to allow for discussion and avoid rushing participants. It is possible to do a group NetMap in half a day, however, and make it part of a bigger
event, such as an inception workshop or annual planning meeting. In some cases, however, individual interviews are more convenient. Actors may be geographically spread out or otherwise difficult to reach; interview partners may speak more truthfully about sensitive issues, especially if there is a great power difference between stakeholders or a history of conflict. As noted, it is beneficial to have a time series; for example, Net-Mapping could be done at the beginning of a project, halfway through, and at the end. During each session, discuss what is useful, identify any underutilized opportunities, and identify bottlenecks. Develop strategies accordingly and use the next mapping session to see how the network changed, which strategies were successful, and what still needs to happen.
MODULE 7: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 2: USING NET-MAP TO ASSESS AND IMPROVE AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS
597
IN O NT OEV AT X . IXV E A C T I V I T Y P R O F I L E 3
Gender Analysis for the Assessment of Innovation Processes: The Case of Papa Andina in Peru Silvia Sarapura, University of Guelph
SYNOPSIS OF PROJECT DATA
Project name: Country/region:
Starting date: Closing date: Project financing:
Implementing agency:
Website:
Box 7.22 New Market Niches and Value Addition for Small-Scale Growers of Native Potatoes in the Andes
Papa Andina Papa Andina works through a range of strategic local partners in each country: the PROINPA Foundation (Bolivia); the National Potato Program, INIAP (Ecuador); and the INCOPA Project (Peru)1 Papa Andina (1998); Peru PMCA (2001) Ongoing Initially Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation; also New Zealand Aid Programme, McKnight Foundation Partnership Program hosted by the International Potato Center (CIP) http://www.papandina.org/
Papa Andina led to the creation of T’ikapapa, the first commercial brand that supports the sale of native potatoes under strict quality standards. T’ikapapa connects small-scale potato farmers in the Andes with high-value niche markets in urban centers, exports its products to other countries within the region such as Venezuela, explores potential European markets for high-end potato products, and partners with an increasing numbers of nongovernmental organizations and private operations to further promote native crops. Source: Author.
■
CONTEXT
Across the Andean region, small-scale farmers face the challenge of gaining access to dynamic new markets for highvalue produce while remaining resilient amid the forces of climate change and globalization. The Papa Andina regional initiative, anchored in the International Potato Center (CIP), promotes innovation that leads to the development of market niches and value addition, particularly for the native potatoes grown by poor smallholders in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru (box 7.22). The assessment of gender issues plays a critical role in Papa Andina’s two principal approaches to engage market chain actors: the Participatory Market Chain Approach (PMCA) and stakeholder platforms (see also TN 1 and IAP 1 in module 4):
598
■
The PMCA is based on the participatory approach to stakeholder collaboration in agricultural R&D known as Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS; see also box 7.11) (Engel and Salomon 2003). The PMCA fosters commercial, technological, and institutional innovation through a three-step process that builds interest, trust, and collaboration among participants, improves farmers’ links to markets, and stimulates pro-poor innovation. Stakeholder platforms (see also TN 2 in module 1) are spaces and events where public and private stakeholders interact, share reciprocal interests, build trust, and join in common initiatives. Often such platforms are developed as a result of PMCA and continue after the approach has been implemented; in other cases, the PMCA works through platforms that already exist.
Both the PMCA and stakeholder platforms facilitate the articulation of demand and supply for innovation-linked services and reduce transaction costs in marketing the produce of many small farmers (Bernet et al. 2008). In the Andes, PMCA has been validated in two complete cycles, both in Peru and Bolivia (2003–04). The method has been shared with other organizations in these countries, which has led to further testing. In Peru, the Intermediate Technology Development Group, an international NGO, subsequently used the method in the cheese, coffee, and cacao subsectors. Starting in 2005, PMCA was introduced and tested in potato, sweet potato, and vegetable commodity chains in Uganda.
Through the PMCA, women’s involvement and the involvement of different groups of women are systematized in the following ways: ■
■
OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
A key feature of Papa Andina is that it brings together many participants in the AIS, including smallholders, market agents, and agricultural service providers, many of whom did not know one another or who actively distrusted one another, and helps to identify new opportunities for all of these stakeholders to collaborate and innovate. Papa Andina recognizes that gender analysis and female farmers’ active involvement in assessing innovation processes and systems are central to developing sustainable, profitable agricultural market chains that are well integrated into the wider innovation system. In turn, this system-level integration is important for gender equality and the empowerment of resource-poor women and their families. Each phase of the PMCA incorporates specific genderrelated assessments and activities (table 7.10). Flexibility in the duration of each phase and in the use of specific tools (quantitative surveys, focus groups, and so forth) is necessary (Bernet et al. 2008).
■
Representation. Smallholders, female and male, representing their communities at events return to their communities and share their findings and innovative ideas. Replication. Initial farmers, now acting as representative farmers, work with R&D partners to replicate knowledge-sharing events and activities with more farmers in their area who grow native potatoes. For example, a woman farmer in Puno shared information with representatives of 12 communities in the Lake Titicaca basin. In this way, innovative ideas for making coffee from dried potato and adding value to freezedried potato products spread to at least 10,000 farmers in those areas. Communication and recognition. Native potato product ideas and technologies were also shared between women farmers in Peru and women’s groups and R&D institutions in Uganda, Bolivia, and Ecuador (Horton 2008; Kaganzi et al. 2009).
The third innovative element is that Papa Andina purposefully demonstrated the value of women’s involvement in the AIS. The initiative showed that it is possible to involve resource-poor women farmers as key stakeholders in the potato value chain; the participating R&D institutions demonstrated the value added by gender analysis and investing in women’s innovation; and the donor agencies played an important role in establishing the need for gender assessment and the integrated involvement of women farmers in R&D as key stakeholders.
BENEFITS, IMPACT, AND EXPERIENCE INNOVATIVE ELEMENT
From a gender perspective, Papa Andina has three innovative elements. The first innovative element is that the PMCA and stakeholder platforms enable women to share their findings and customs with other members of the AIS through events and activities that highlight women’s knowledge of genetic diversity. When women participate in events such as family competitions, their roles in the farming household, the wider community, the market chain, and the AIS are recognized and reinforced (box 7.23). The second innovative element is that the empowerment of women farmers has resulted in systemic changes.
A number of gender-related benefits, impacts, and experiences are linked to each of the three phases of the PCMA and to the stakeholder platforms. In phases 1 and 2, experiences with gender assessment and gender-related activities in organizing the PMCA and stakeholder platforms have shown how to foster the organization of female and male farmer groups based on common interests and resources. Organizing enables farmer groups to consider the economic feasibility of production and marketing issues beyond the household level. The groups can build their human and social capital to access platforms where support is available from R&D and government institutions as well
MODULE 7: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 3: THE CASE OF PAPA ANDINA IN PERU
599
600 AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Table 7.10 Phases of the Participatory Market Chain Approach and Gender Assessment and Related Activities in Each Phase Phase Stakeholders identified Phase 1: 2–4 months
Stakeholder platforms engaged Phase 2: 3–5 months
Implementation of joint market innovations Phase 3: 4–6 months
Overall activitya – Get to know the market chain actors and other stakeholders—their activities, interests, ideas, problems, and so forth: Step 1: Conduct a 3- to 6-week rapid assessment of the market chain and identify key stakeholders. Step 2: Hold a one-day workshop to define impact groups using the impact filter. Step 3: Hold a final event for phase 1 to share information and secure stakeholders’ continued involvement. – In a participatory manner, analyze potential business opportunities; work in thematic groups of 10–20 persons; establish new stakeholder platforms or strengthen existing stakeholder platforms; R&D organization involved provides facilitator to assist groups. – Using the following tools, each thematic group analyzes potential business opportunities: rapid market appraisal; quantitative market survey; focus groups. – Implement joint market innovations: work in thematic groups of 10–20 persons; R&D organization involved provides facilitator to assist groups. – Each thematic group uses marketing concept development and business plan to test or implement, monitor, and evaluate their innovations. If necessary, phase 2 activities can be revised (for instance, by adding focus groups to clarify consumer preferences).
Gender-related assessment and activity – Integrate gender sensitivity training into R&D organizations as they begin their stakeholder identification activities. – Include women farmers as a stakeholder group in the rapid assessment of the market chain. R&D partners, including investors, reinforce the need to address women’s specific needs in PMCA. – Initiate family and community competitions for innovation to recognize women’s contribution to the value chain (box 7.23). – Among the stakeholders, identify women’s groups and male and female leaders who support gender equity and empowerment; encourage them to highlight or discuss issues and benefits for women farmers in workshop events. – Platforms bring together female and male small-scale farmers from different communities in the region, market agents, and agricultural service providers to share findings and customs, with support from R&D institutions. Many of these stakeholders will be unfamiliar with each other. – Identify and involve NGOs engaged in related gender analysis and women’s empowerment programs. Their involvement may be the key to the success of these platforms. – Gender equity (participation of women representing different ages, classes, and ethnic groups) is included in the platforms and in the selection criteria for the thematic groups. – Analyze continued knowledge sharing by women farmers and gender roles and relations within the stakeholder platforms for further technical and institutional innovation at the national and international levels. – Women and men continue to participate in fairs and events outside their communities (regional and national) to demonstrate their knowledge and stimulate participation in stakeholder platforms. – R&D partners monitor/evaluate how individual women farmers have gained confidence to join new and extended networks and to exchange varieties cultivated in other areas of the Andes. – R&D partners monitor/evaluate how male and female farmers have gained individual and collective capacities and skills for communication, negotiation, facilitation, and teamwork. – Encourage ongoing discussion within the project of how market chains empower disadvantaged farmers who otherwise have little opportunity to participate and make decisions. – Encourage ongoing discussion within the project of how women have the chance to interact with other market chain actors and professionals from R&D organizations, thereby increasing their access to knowledge, innovation, contacts, and selfdevelopment.
Source: Author. a. The activities in each phase of the PMCA (described in detail in the “User Guide”; see Bernet, Thiele, and Zschocke 2006) occur consecutively over 9–15 months.
Box 7.23 Innovation Fairs to Assess and Recognize Women’s Contributions to Market Chains and the Agricultural Innovation System Every family and community in the high Andes has developed its own varieties of native potato. Seed of native potato varieties is usually obtained by inheritance, barter, or as a gift. The PMCA partners support local, provincial, regional, and even national fairs—public events where farmers (men and women) have a chance to demonstrate the varieties they prefer to select, store, cultivate, harvest, process, consume, and market. These fairs are opportunities for communities and farmers to highlight the enormous diversity of potatoes they use and explain how they have managed this native potato biodiversity over time. The participants may exchange seed or buy tubers from one another at these fairs. Fairs represent an excellent opportunity for farmers to obtain information from one another as well as from R&D partners. In most cases, wives accompany their husbands to the fairs, because women are the farm household members with the best knowledge of the morphological and qualitative characteristics of each potato variety. Family collections can be extensive: A small-scale farming family at one fair presented more than 600 varieties. Women farmers report that the fairs enable them to feel rewarded and recognized for their efforts in preserving and maintaining the extraordinary biodiversity of native potatoes. Source: Author.
as NGOs. This support can also entail technology transfer to farmers and opportunities to fine-tune technologies to specific conditions. In phases 2 and 3, thematic groups use communication and collaboration to address and break down traditional gender roles, divisions of labor, and power relations. Recognizing women’s role in the selective breeding of native potato varieties in different ecosystems and their detailed knowledge of different potato phenotypes helps to counteract gender bias. Communication activities, including the innovation fairs, focus on how Andean women have cultivated native potatoes. These activities enable women to
bring their large store of knowledge to bear on the innovation process for native potato. In recent years, women farmers in some regions of Peru have established profitable businesses supplying native potatoes to national and/or international markets. Messages about women’s advancement in marketing chains and innovations have been highlighted in public-private R&D partnerships and corporate social responsibility commitments involving such companies as Pepsi-Co and its subsidiary, Frito Lay.2 New products marketed by some companies have used the image of an award-winning female farmer. These examples have been reported to the author as motivating female producers to participate in the native potato market chain. LESSONS AND ISSUES FOR WIDER APPLICATION
Several gender-related lessons have emerged from Papa Andina. Donor priorities were an important contextual consideration for incorporating gender assessment in the native potato innovation system. Donor agencies’ initial proposal development and planning criteria for gender, empowerment, and working with NGOs stimulated the requirements for gender assessment and the integrated involvement of women farmers in R&D as key stakeholders. As a result, “researchers and NGOs that have worked with Papa Andina are more aware of gender issues and the need to achieve impact at farmer level” (Devaux et al. 2010). In some cases, the benefits of traditional and newly developed innovations generated by the stakeholder platforms remain highly localized. For example, with support from USAID, one farming community sold a local variety of potato known as “Capiro” to Frito Lay to produce potato chips for the domestic market (the company had previously imported potatoes from Colombia). Farmers earned more than US$1.6 million in sales, but this success cannot be replicated easily because the domestic market for snack foods is limited. Farmers are also cautioned not to regard this success story as an inducement to grow just one variety of potato. The maintenance of potato diversity remains central to the innovation system and its stakeholder platforms. Although female farmers, especially indigenous women farmers, have brought a wealth of experience to market chains and agricultural innovation, women farmers often struggle to ensure that their knowledge benefits themselves, their families, and their communities. Investment strategies that establish networks of information and knowledge sharing can increase the impact of locally developed and innovative practices
MODULE 7: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 3: THE CASE OF PAPA ANDINA IN PERU
601
and strengthen the abilities of women and their communities to meet their agricultural and economic needs in a culturally appropriate and environmentally sensitive manner. Despite women’s critical role in the potato market chain, subsistence production, in which women are usually involved, receives less institutional support than cash crop production. The number of female extension officers in public extension systems is very limited (although the only NGO working in the high Andes, Fovida, provides a few female agents). As a result, resource-poor women farmers are less likely than their male counterparts to receive agricultural extension services. Forming links to NGOs within phases 2 and 3 of the PMCA is important to strengthening the innovation system in this regard. Aside from these relatively specific lessons, Papa Andina offers a number of more general considerations about the successful integration of women into any AIS: ■
■
602
Assess the entire system and individual agrifood value chains using a mainstreaming approach that includes the use of gender analysis to recognize women’s role and gender relations in production and decision making. Indispensable tools for gender analysis in innovation assessment are gender-disaggregated data; analysis of women’s and men’s access to resources such as labor, land, capital, and knowledge; and the engagement of women in capacity-building activities. Ensure that the full range of women’s and men’s activities, resources, and benefits is reflected in the assessment
■
■
■
of the innovation system and the continuing activities of the stakeholder platforms. Through networking provided by the stakeholder platforms, identify suitable technological and institutional innovations. In particular, review the suitability of technologies or institutional arrangements available in other market chains that have become successful and sustainable for women farmers. Identify and respond to socioeconomic factors that may affect the adoption of proposed technological or institutional innovations (for example, security of resources; tenurial arrangements for land or water; access to inputs such as credit, seed, and fertilizer; and membership in producer groups). Identify activities that are particularly timeand/or energy-consuming for women and address them with targeted investments and supporting interventions. Increase and sustain the supply of information, technologies, and facilities that women may fail to access because of social exclusion (examples include market information, transport, appropriate tools and equipment, and so forth).
Papa Andina illustrates the centrality of gender issues in sustainable and inclusive agricultural development and the effectiveness of the AIS as a whole. Gender assessment and strategies to ensure the participation of women in value chains are important tools to identify the strengths and diversity of actors in innovation systems. R&D institutions play an especially important role in ensuring that innovation benefits small-scale male and female farmers.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
NO I NT EOOT XVE.AT XXI. V NN XE A C T I V I T Y P R O F I L E 4
Scenario Planning to Guide Long-Term Investments in Agricultural Science and Technology in India Riikka Rajalahti, World Bank
SYNOPSIS
n Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) and World Bank team engaged in scenario planning from September 2004 to June 2006 to assess critical policy and institutional challenges for agriculture and corresponding reforms that would enable the research system to meet them. ICAR management evaluated the likely benefits and impact of alternative reform scenarios and determined which specific reforms to support through the National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP). This process increased the government’s ownership of the reforms and its commitment to implement them. This profile summarizes key elements of the process and its findings. The cost of the scenario planning in India involved several components: external facilitators (US$100,000); preparatory studies (US$30,000); workshops (US$60,000); peer reviewing (US$5,000); and dissemination (US$20,000). Funding came from the budget for preparing NAIP (US$155,000) and a US$60,000 grant from the World Bank’s Agricultural and Rural Development Department (ARD) to support knowledge generation. The investment of staff time was also substantial for ICAR and the World Bank, on the order of 30 weeks for each institution.
A
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
To address the challenges facing agriculture in India and consolidate the gains under the completed National Agricultural Technology Project, the Government of India and the World Bank agreed to undertake a new National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP) (see IAP 2 in module 4). In preparing the project, it became clear that many uncertainties faced agriculture and agricultural science and technology in India. For example, how would global warming affect the production characteristics of Indian agriculture?
How would the technology system embrace the growing importance of the private sector? Would Indian agriculture remain competitive in the global marketplace? What would be the fate of the small-scale farmer? Scenario planning may help address such questions
Scenario planning is a structured process of thinking about and anticipating the future that helps to break the mindset that the future will be a continuation of the past (van der Heijden 1996). It entails the development and collective analysis of a set of scenarios, which are narratives of alternative environments that show how different interpretations of driving forces can lead to different plausible futures (Ogilvy and Schwartz 1998; van der Heijden 1996).
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
Scenario planning was used to explore the uncertainties surrounding Indian agriculture and identify the key decisions that would need to be taken to ensure that India’s agricultural technology system was prepared for the future. The assessment included a wide range of stakeholders and enabled participants to develop a shared perspective on a future that was not necessarily a continuation of the past. The scenario development and analysis were conducted in parallel with the design of NAIP. For these parallel efforts to succeed, they required the participation of high-level officials, farm leaders, senior leaders from the public and the private sectors, NGO leaders, donor representatives, experts on agricultural development, and some “remarkable people” (a term used in the scenario planning literature to describe lateral thinkers). The process was managed jointly by the regionally and centrally based staff of the World Bank’s ARD. An Indian
603
co-leader was invited, and experienced scenario planning experts facilitated the process, which was organized around seven information-gathering and knowledge-sharing steps:
fields may require further assessment to understand how the impact of change on these variables can be managed.
1. Identify driving forces for future change, taking into consideration political conditions, economic developments, social developments, environmental trends, and technological changes. 2. Identify predetermined factors. Which future developments will take place in any scenario? 3. Identify critical uncertainties—in other words, critical areas in which the future is uncertain. 4. Develop scenario plots. A scenario is defined by a combination of two critical uncertainties, drawn out and shown as axes on which the scenarios are plotted. Then a comprehensive description of how the future will look under this scenario is developed. These futures must be plausible. 5. Consult with those having relevant expertise. The scenarios are presented to a large number of people who have relevant expertise; their comments are collected and incorporated in the scenarios. Consultation helps to identify knowledge gaps and guides decisions on whether and what additional knowledge must be gathered. 6. Assess the implications of different scenarios. The best possible responses of the client organizations to each of the plausible future scenarios are assessed. 7. Compare possible responses to the scenarios. Two elements in the comparison require special attention. First, there are those actions that can be found in all responses and tend to be low risk. Second, there are the responses that differ strongly among scenarios. Responses in these
As hoped, the scenario project co-evolved with the NAIP project (table 7.11), enabling NAIP to benefit from the understanding emerging through the scenario work. In this way, the NAIP model was tested in various “environmental” conditions specified by the scenarios—a process sometimes referred to as “wind tunneling.” The main steps included the following: 1. An initial workshop at World Bank headquarters in Washington, DC, to introduce the scenario planning concept and process and to receive wider buy-in among staff for the process that would unfold (figure 7.3). 2. Interviews with “remarkable people” to explore the issues and concerns for future agricultural development in India (van der Heijden 1996; box 7.24). 3. A workshop in India to launch the process and obtain input from participants. 4. A scenario analysis and design workshop to identify the key scenarios that would be developed (following the steps described earlier to identify the critical elements of each scenario: driving forces, predetermined factors, and main uncertainties). The scenario plots (figure 7.3) had two main dimensions. The first was economic management, which could be strongly market based and liberalized but also more government controlled and centrally led. The second was the social fabric of the countryside and the country in general, which
Table 7.11 Timing for Preparing the National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP) in Relation to Scenario Development Timing
NAIP
September 2004
Scenario project Internal planning workshop in the World Bank
April 2005
Start of project preparation
Scenario agenda workshop at Indian Council for Agricultural Research
July 2005
Draft Project Appraisal Document (PAD)
Scenario building workshop; development of first-generation scenarios
August 2005
Polished PAD
Research on the validity of first-generation scenarios
October 2005
Quality enhancement review
December 2005
Project appraisal
February 2005
Negotiations
Second-generation scenarios concluded and circulated for comments
April and June 2006
Board approval
Workshops in India and at the World Bank on the implications of the scenarios
July 2006
Project becomes effective and implementation begins
Source: Rajalahti et al. 2006.
604
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Figure 7.3 Final Scenario Plots Developed during the Scenario Design and Consultation Processes The Four Scenarios
1. In the valley India goes it alone Social progress but economic stagnation Only limited agricultural reform
Concern for inclusive growth
4. Through the hills Focus on investment climate public-private partnership Enabling of agricultural reform
Social
Interventionist
Economic management
Liberalized
texture
3. Over the mountains Centrally planned economy Freedom reined in Agricultural reform by compulsion
Reliance on personal incentives
2. Along the edge Market forces given free rein Rich/poor divide Agricultural reform by economic necessity
Source: Rajalahti et al. 2006.
could be strong, with rural people well organized in villages that are able to take care of their problems, or weak, in which case the poor would be more marginalized. Using these two dimensions as the axes of a 2 x 2 matrix, 4 combinations emerged that can serve as perspectives on the future of Indian development. One of the combinations introduced a third dimension of rapid global warming. 5. Finalization and presentation of the scenario storylines, including the development of full scenario stories (see Rajalahti et al. 2006) and their validation. 6. Scenario analysis results workshops were organized to define the way forward in relation to NAIP and ICAR. The specific goal was to identify how the scenarios could help to identify which critical decisions needed to be made to maximize the future role and impact of India’s technology system.
INNOVATIVE ELEMENT
Scenario planning was done to build consensus and elicit outside-the-box thinking among diverse stakeholders that traditionally did not engage with each other in science and policy discussions. The results were used for designing a long-term investment project in science and technology.
BENEFITS TO NAIP AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND INNOVATION
Scenario analysis contributed to the design of NAIP in many ways. The process truly engaged people in thinking outside their everyday domains and resulted in four very different but plausible scenarios. The process led ICAR to think about the issues beyond its own technical competence and to strengthen the realization that the world it serves requires new approaches, including social organization and institutional innovation. The scenarios were considered very useful for envisioning long-term science and technology needs. Scenario development clearly revealed two major needs: to work on institutional arrangements for R&D (farmer organizations, sector boards, cooperatives) and fully explore the potential of nonfarm rural employment. The scenario process also helped the project design team to define the scope of NAIP’s components, particularly the institutional development needed for the AIS to evolve. It highlighted the importance of enhancing the capacity for dialogue and interacting with other stakeholders in the innovation system. Flexibility, rather than the pursuit of one reform strategy, was considered a key trait for a successful organization in a rapidly changing world. The client organizations used the national scenarios to strengthen their visioning capacity and strategy development
MODULE 7: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 4: SCENARIO PLANNING TO GUIDE LONG-TERM INVESTMENTS
605
Box 7.24 Key Issues Raised by “Remarkable People”—Including Opinion Leaders and Policy Makers—in the Scenario Development Process, India The key question posed to the interviewees was, “When thinking of the future of Indian agriculture, what keeps you awake at night?” Four main themes emerged from these interviews: ■
■
■
■
Will there be enough water for future generations? How can water be managed sustainably? What will drive Indian agriculture in the future: government or the market? What is the right balance? How will rural communities change? How fast will rural–urban migration proceed, and what is the future of small-scale farming? How can rural stakeholders voice their views––women, farmers, the private sector?
Source: Rajalahti et al. 2006.
LESSONS LEARNED AND ISSUES FOR WIDER APPLICATION
Scenarios provided a neutral space for building consensus about critical decisions surrounding the future role and impact of India’s technology system. The following recommendations, suggested adjustments, and limitations should be kept in mind by those engaged in a similar exercise: ■
■
■
■
■
at the level of specific regions and products, such as rice, dairy products, and medicinal plants. For this purpose, groups of stakeholders were asked to develop the national scenarios for the product or region of their interest. The national competitive fund for research consortiums, managed by ICAR, subsequently was aligned with the issues identified by the scenarios. These consortiums have been the main means of reforming India’s agricultural research system and enabling it to move toward a more demanddriven, multistakeholder approach in addressing innovation needs. See module 4, IAP 2.
606
■
Adapt scenario analysis to specific planning tasks, such as the development of a country assistance strategy, sector strategy, project, or regional plans. Applying the analysis to larger, global issues is far more challenging. Implement the scenario process ahead of project preparation because scenario analysis requires a significant time commitment, particularly for consultation and validation. Allocate sufficient time and resources for clients to understand and come to own the process. Form a multidisciplinary scenario team, led by an experienced scenario leader(s). Draw participants from many disciplines and representing a range of views (India’s scenario-building process, for example, included people from outside the agricultural sector). It is also essential to include participants representing the groups that the process aims to influence. Pay close attention to the following: the need for a fulltime manager to oversee the process; the availability of research capacity with adequate resources; the need to manage and guide research performed by third-party institutes; the coordination required to operate a virtual team over long distances; and managing political sensitivities.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
I N N O V AT I V E A C T I V I T Y P R O F I L E 5
A Vision for Agriculture in Chile in 2030 and the Implications for Its Innovation System Willem Janssen, World Bank Ariani Wartenberg, World Bank
SYNOPSIS
n 2009, Chile’s Ministry of Agriculture commissioned the World Bank to identify the long-term changes required for its AIS to be more effective. The World Bank collaborated with Chile’s Foundation for Agricultural Innovation (FIA) to design a participatory process combining an analysis of major trends with input from opinion leaders, sector representatives, and others. The two major outcomes were (1) a vision statement that expresses Chile’s agricultural potential and aspirations and (2) an action plan outlining changes for the innovation system to achieve that vision. The Ministry of Agriculture financed the study through a fee-based service agreement with the World Bank. The service cost US$250,000 (US$150,000 to develop the vision and US$100,000 to prepare the implications for the innovation system). FIA invested US$175,000 in the study and made a staff member available full time for the two years that the study required.
I
to information and technology, logistics, and trade agreements, to mention just a few. It may be preferable for a country to overestimate such threats and be overly prepared than to underestimate them and be marginalized. Investments in innovation that respond to those challenges are a key ingredient in ensuring the future global competitiveness of Chilean agriculture and in meeting the increasingly sophisticated domestic demand for agricultural products. This profile describes collaboration between Chile’s Fundación para la Innovación Agraria (FIA, Foundation for Agricultural Innovation) and the World Bank to develop a vision for Chilean agriculture in 2030 and a corresponding action plan for the innovation system to realize that vision. For additional information on Chile’s agricultural technology consortiums, see module 4, IAP 3; for a discussion of FIA and its activities, see module 1, IAP 3.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION CONTEXT
Chile is a leading player in regional and global agricultural markets and regards itself as a food and forest powerhouse. Despite substantial development in the agricultural sector, agricultural growth has leveled off in Chile over the past decade, signaling that Chile’s innovation system was more effective in the past and that changes are needed to forestall future negative growth. Changes in the innovation system should anticipate the challenges of the future in addition to those that are apparent at present, because innovation is usually a slow process. Many years are likely to intervene between an initial idea or finding and its widespread application. Potential challenges can be related to any number of variables: domestic and international market factors, climatic and production conditions, competition with other sectors, social unrest, access
The project had two interlinked objectives. The first objective was to identify the main opportunities and challenges that Chile needs to address if it wishes to reinvigorate agricultural growth and propose a vision for Chilean agriculture toward 2030. The second was to identify the adjustments required for AIS to contribute effectively to realizing this vision. These objectives would be achieved through a process combining analysis, multidisciplinary consultation at different phases of the analysis, and synthesis of the results. The process is detailed in the sections that follow.
Developing scenarios and building the vision
Four driver studies were commissioned to identify key trends and driving forces of change that could be to be used for defining and building the scenarios. The studies focused on
607
markets and trade, rural policies and rural development, natural resource management and climate change, and science and technology. The team produced short summaries of the studies and shared them at the first workshop. Information on seven subsectors (clusters) (fresh fruit, processed food, wine, native forestry, dairy, red meats, and cereals) contributed to building scenarios and discussing their implications. Further input came from interviews with 11 opinion leaders and “remarkable people” (lateral thinkers who could bring alternative perspectives to the dialogue) representing a wide range of views from the public and private sector, as well as academia and civil society. These views helped in drawing implications and identifying important elements of the vision for 2030 (box 7.25). A subsequent scenario building workshop, facilitated by FIA and World Bank staff and external consultants in December 2010, convened 24 experts from the public and private sectors, academia, and civil society. Four scenarios were outlined in a series of plenary sessions and smaller working groups. The core team then consolidated the scenarios, developing comprehensive descriptions that were submitted for validation to the original workshop participants, the scenario team, other experts in Chile (more than 70 people), and five external peer reviewers. The team incorporated the feedback, emphasizing scenario 2 (“Terra Calida”) and consolidating scenarios 1 and 3 in a “Business as Usual” scenario (figure 7.4). Action planning and dissemination of results
The core team combined the analysis and proposals from the position papers into an action plan. Box 7.26 summaBox 7.25 The Vision for Chilean Agriculture in 2030
In 2030 Chile is a quality producer of a range of food and fiber products. Its international image is marked by the diversity that its geography allows it to produce. The sector has an emphasis on environmental sustainability and wholesomeness, valued by both domestic and international consumers. Through the application of ICT, investments in agricultural technology and the training of its labor force, Chile has been able to develop profitable value chains, well integrated from production to final markets, and able to remunerate its participants at comparable levels to the rest of the Chilean economy. Source: World Bank 2011b.
608
rizes the main thematic recommendations. In the final step, consultation and dissemination, the action plan was widely shared in the country through presentations, press releases, and web publishing. Feedback from these events concluded the process and initiated the preparation of budget proposals. INNOVATIVE ELEMENT
The Chile exercise recognized the uncertainties of the future, used this insight to understand the basic long-term competitive advantages of its agricultural sector, and drew the implications for change. Rather than diagnosing the present situation and proposing remedies, the study formulated future ambitions and specified the action required to get there. The proposed changes to the innovation system were (rightly) perceived as the next step forward and not as a recognition of past failure. BENEFITS TO CHILE’S AIS
The benefits of the approach described here derive from its constructive, creative, and collaborative features and from the comparative strengths of FIA (local and national expertise) and the World Bank (international experience). The involvement of former presidents, cabinet ministers, journalists, scientists, businesspeople, individual farmers, farmer organizations, and many other individuals was highly productive. The discussion was conducted in simple, frank language. Participants shared and developed considerable knowledge and linked it to a specific plan for action. The plan recognized that Chile has sophisticated ambitions in high-value markets and is not satisfied with imitating wealthier countries. Somewhat by chance, the approach proved politically robust: The work was started by a left-leaning government and finished by right-leaning government. Nor did the second biggest earthquake in the history of the world derail the study. The forward-looking nature of the study motivated strong participation and interest in its results. By looking far into the future, participants ensure that several issues that had been forgotten or considered out of bounds (technology transfer, the role of the ministry, the importance of qualified human resources) regained relevance and received attention. LESSONS LEARNED AND ISSUES FOR WIDER APPLICATION
Briefly, lessons from this process include the following: ■
The local partnership was key to success. Vision building is a very labor- and communication-intensive process.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Figure 7.4 Scenarios for Chile’s Agricultural Innovation System (a) Few climate variations (b) High increase in demand of meats and fruits (c) No change in tariffs (d) Regulations over use of natural resources
High intervention of public policies
1
2
BAU
Terra Calida
Low impact of climate change
(a) Temperature increase and lower precipitation rate (b) Limited increase in demand because of higher prices (c) Tariffs on carbon footprint (d) More regulations over use of natural resources
High impact of climate change Liberal BAU
4
3 (a) Few climate variations (b) High increase in demand of meats and fruits (c) No change in tariffs (d) Few regulations over use of natural resources
Low intervention of public policies
Common Impacts: (a) Price increase of oil and fertilizers (b) Increase in quality requirements (c) Biotechnology development, ICTs
Source: Authors. Note: BAU = Business as Usual; ICTs = information and communication technologies; “Terra Calida” is a reference to the effects of global warming.
Box 7.26 Summary of Action Plan Recommendations in Six Thematic Areas ■
■
■
■
■
■
Genetic improvement. Multidisciplinary teams; biotechnology tools; intellectual property and patents. Farm management. Management of natural resources and water; information and communication technologies; ecological inputs. Harvest and postharvest. Proposals from competitive funds; shared funding between government and private sector. Standards and quality. Private sector-led expansion of Chile GAP (good agricultural practice standards); benchmarking of standards with importers. Qualified human resources. Collaboration with Becas Chile (a national scholarship program); international exchange networks. Labor resources. Basic and vocational education in rural areas; monitoring system.
■
■
■
■
Source: World Bank 2011a.
The many consultation and dissemination sessions could have been organized only by the national partner. Identifying resource people (for background studies and work days) requires in-depth understanding of the national setting. The phone must be answered if someone (a journalist, entrepreneur, student) has questions. The development of a vision that expresses an ambition made the study interesting to the political players in the sector. Politicians cannot easily sell the need for more institutional integration or long-term research, but they can piggyback those measures on the ambition for higher farm incomes or less pollution. The step from analysis to vision was smaller than expected. The 10 workdays brought out similar ideas across subsectors and remarkable agreement on how to pursue them. The main difference is that vision cannot be based on evidence alone; it requires some “structured dreaming.” The use of simple language allowed everybody to contribute and to understand the goals that were being pursued. This frank approach creates much wider acceptance and better feedback. Development of the vision created the room for change needed to implement the action plan. If this willingness to consider change is sustained during the implementation of the action plan, it will constitute a further achievement of the process described here.
MODULE 7: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 5: A VISION FOR AGRICULTURE IN CHILE IN 2030 AND THE IMPLICATIONS
609
INNONTOEVX AT . XI V E A C T I V I T Y P R O F I L E 6
Monitoring and Evaluation in the Fodder Innovation Project Andy Hall, LINK Ltd.1
SYNOPSIS
The rationale of the Fodder Innovation Project (FIP), implemented in India and Nigeria in 2007–10, was that persistent fodder shortages arose from a scarcity of fodder innovation capacity, not of technology. A diagnosis of the limitations of networks and institutional arrangements associated with specific fodder-related themes was done to design activities to address those limitations. The project’s monitoring system was designed to include a baseline survey of households, a map of current innovation capacity, and an actor linkage matrix and scoreboard to track institutional change. The difficulties encountered with all of these methods provide some cautionary lessons. First, an essential foundation for M&E within any innovation system project is to determine whether the expected outcomes are developmental or institutional, because this orientation directly influences the kind of M&E approach required. Second, data requirements and tools for monitoring must be adapted to the realities of short projects. Third, collaborative development of tools for monitoring institutional change helps to ensure that they are appropriate and owned by the partners who need to use them. Finally, the evaluation of innovation system projects such as FIP, in which socioeconomic impacts may become apparent some time after the project ends, should include and adequately fund strategies for learning how the project led to impacts.
CONTEXT
The innovation system perspective in the Fodder Innovation Project (FIP)2 built on lessons from an earlier project (2004–07) that indicated the limitations of a technologytransfer approach in addressing fodder scarcity. The project was implemented in India and Nigeria in collaboration with five key partner organizations (KPOs), which formed the nucleus for stimulating change in their local innovation
610
environments. The KPOs were all NGOs, with one exception: the animal husbandry department of an agricultural university (see module 4, IAP 1).
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
The project’s rationale was that the persistent fodder shortage suffered by many poor livestock keepers did not arise from a scarcity of technology itself but from a scarcity of fodder innovation capacity (Hall, Sulaiman, and Bezkorowajnyj 2008). Fodder innovation capacity was defined as the networks of organizations that mobilized ideas and resources and the institutional settings that framed the relationships involved in innovation. The project used an approach inspired by action-research to explore how these networks and institutional settings could be strengthened, with the expectation that they would drive fodder innovation. The project’s implementation strategy was for the project management team to help the KPOs select fodder-related themes (challenges but also opportunities, such as new markets for milk), diagnose the limitations of current networks and institutional arrangements associated with these themes, and design activities to address those limitations. The project management team then helped the KPOs monitor the effectiveness of their efforts in stimulating institutional changes and, where needed, helped them alter their plans in light of information revealed by monitoring. The project hired two research fellows to conduct diagnostic studies, investigate which activities and processes were enabling the development of fodder innovation capacity, and identify any resulting developmental outcomes. After three years (of which the first year was spent identifying suitable KPOs and introducing them to the project’s rationale), some immediate outcomes became evident in the project sites. They included more efficient veterinary and input service delivery systems; changing collaborative
practices of actors; changing institutional arrangements to make additional fodder produced available to women, the landless, and poor livestock-keeping households; evidence of demand being generated for fodder varieties and other livestock-related knowledge and technologies; and the KPOs institutionalizing and mainstreaming their approach in their other activities or across different organizations. INNOVATIVE ELEMENTS OF MONITORING AND EVALUATING THE FODDER INNOVATION PROJECT
Because FIP was inspired by an action-research approach, the iteration and recasting of activities based on their relative effectiveness in strengthening networks and institutional arrangements were regarded as central to exploring how to develop innovation capacity. A monitoring system was a critical element of this iterative process, but the issue of how to design a monitoring system for FIP was contested within the project’s management team. Some felt that the project was a development project and that monitoring should therefore focus on what they viewed as the project’s major deliverable: household-level outcomes. This view was reinforced by the donor’s desire to see tangible results in areas planted to new fodder species and related livestock feeding practices adopted by poor households. Others regarded the project as a research project. Their view was that any developmental outcome would be on a relatively small scale and at best a byproduct of an experiment attempting to understand how to facilitate institutional change associated with the development of innovation capacity. Given the strongly held and often opposing views about the types of outcomes against which the project should monitor its performance, the team decided to proceed on two tracks. The first was an impact assessment exercise; the second was to monitor changes in the institutional environment. Impact assessment
The impact assessment involved designing and conducting a household survey to collect baseline information about animal feeding practices, cropping patterns, and household incomes. Statistical expertise was brought into the project to help design the survey instrument and develop an appropriate sampling approach. The design anticipated repeating the survey at the end of the project to judge impacts. The designers of the impact assessment recognized the need for a counterfactual, although the means of developing
one was debated considerably. Finding comparator “without” sites was problematic, so the designers adopted a “before-and-after” approach. Seventeen locations were selected from the five project sites in India and Nigeria and 2,047 households interviewed. Data collection began six months into the project, took over a year to complete, and the initial analysis of the baseline data was incomplete at the end of the project. The survey was not repeated at the end of the project to develop the “after” scenario, as time and resources were not available. Monitoring institutional change
To monitor changes in the institutional environment, the project team planned to develop an institutional baseline. The baseline would have two functions. A diagnostic function—identifying institutional issues that needed attention—would form the basis for the initial set of project interventions. A monitoring function would track progress in facilitating institutional change. To collect this baseline information, FIP investigated fodder innovation capacity using a methodology developed by the World Bank (Hall, Mytelka, and Oyelaran-Oyeyinka 2006; World Bank 2006). The methodology involved exploring four main elements of innovation capacity: (1) actors and their roles; (2) patterns of interaction among the actors; (3) the institutions (rules that govern interactions); and (4) the enabling policy environment. Using this framework, project staff struggled to develop sufficiently detailed accounts of the institutional dimension of fodder innovation capacity to inform implementation design. They tended to develop more macro-level or generic accounts of the weaknesses in innovation capacity—the missing links between research and development actors—with a view to publishing them as academic papers. It should be stressed that the weakness was not in the method but in the guidance given to those who were expected to use it. Acknowledging that the diagnostic and institutional baselines were not helping to develop action plans, project staff held workshops with the implementing partners to diagnose critical issues and develop plans to proceed. These workshops relied on implementers’ knowledge of their own operating environments; the role of the project was to facilitate them to identify key bottlenecks that needed to be addressed in this environment. The question of how to monitor institutional change remained open. The project recognized that monitoring was the key to iterative learning and thus a critical part of the experiment to investigate how to facilitate fodder innovation capacity.
MODULE 7: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 6: MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN THE FODDER INNOVATION PROJECT
611
The project also recognized that the primary institutional dimension of capacity that needed to be addressed across all project initiatives was the pattern and quality of linkages between players associated with fodder innovation. The project selected two tools to discern these patterns. The first was an actor linkage matrix (Biggs and Matseart 1999). This tool draws up a list of organizations on the axes of a matrix. In a workshop setting, the matrix can be used to map patterns, linkages, and collaboration and identify which missing links and relationships could be formed for the change process to work more effectively. The second tool was a scoreboard developed by the project to help partners assess qualitative changes in the nature of relationships. For each relationship identified in the actor linkage matrix, the KPOs used the scoreboard parameters to specify the quality of these relationships. The project team, partners, and other stakeholders would conduct this scoring exercise periodically. The parameters were (1) embracing the project approach; (2) openness and flexibility; (3) level of joint actions; (4) the perceived value of interaction; (5) punctuality and commitment; and (6) use of own resources for project activities. Table 7.12 depicts a partial scoreboard. EXPERIENCE TO DATE WITH MONITORING INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
The project management team felt that these tools were well conceived, yet the KPOs found them cumbersome, particularly the scoreboard. KPOs felt that the scoreboard could not be used in a participatory way with their partners and stakeholders, because it raised sensitive issues that could undermine the relationship-building process (table 7.12 compares externally and internally generated scores). A more worrying trend quickly became apparent: The KPOs were using the actor linkage matrix and scoreboard mainly to report back to project management rather than for their own learning. In fact, the KPOs were all well embedded in the prevailing institutional context. They had their own informal ways of analyzing that context and identifying which partners and stakeholders they needed to draw in to support their intervention. They were well aware of the sorts of incentives that different partners and stakeholders would require to participate in particular project activities. When they were given project resources to focus on this networking, they were able to use their pragmatic knowledge of the context and make good progress. The single remaining monitoring issue was that the project still had to collect evidence that the interventions it put
612
into place led to institutional changes, which led in turn to changes in livestock feeding practices. The project team searched for examples of institutional change and developed accounts of how they took place and their outcomes. They learned that many of the institutional changes taking place related only indirectly to fodder use. Instead, they concerned innovations in output markets for milk, disease surveillance, veterinary services, and conflicts over access to land and grazing areas. Project partners had felt that these issues needed to be addressed as a precondition for fodder innovation. Evaluation in FIP was external, independent, and commissioned by the donor. The approach was an output-topurpose review based on FIP’s logical framework. While this exercise was adequate for accountability, it was not clear that it generated project-level lessons that could be used in future interventions. LESSONS LEARNED AND ISSUES FOR WIDER APPLICATION
The experience with M&E in FIP yielded cautionary lessons about mixed messages on expected outcomes and the risks of using data-intensive monitoring methods in short projects. Greater collaboration in designing monitoring tools and a greater emphasis on using evaluations as learning opportunities would also have been valuable. ■
■
Clarify the nature of the interventions and expected outcomes. An action-research project of this type—and most innovation system interventions are going have an action-learning orientation—runs the risk of sending mixed messages to the donor and project partners about the nature of the outcomes it is expected to deliver. These mixed messages directly affect the monitoring strategies adopted and set up internal conflicts about whether developmental impacts or institutional changes are to be monitored. Getting agreement on these issues right from the start is an essential foundation for the M&E system within any innovation system project. Tailor data requirements and tools for monitoring impact to the realities of short projects. Resources spent on an elaborate baseline for a short project of this type were probably misspent. The project did have a responsibility to track its contribution to developmental outcomes, but the team should have selected an approach that was more appropriate for generating data that the implementers could use in designing, redesigning, and managing the intervention. Such an approach would
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Table 7.12 Partial Results of an Externally and Internally Generated Scoreboard for Monitoring and Learning in the Fodder Innovation Project 1a
1b
JDPC/ILRI
Parameter Embracing the project approach, openness, and flexibility (institutional) Level of joint actions and sharing resources Interaction (5 marks) Value of interaction (5 marks) Sense of belonging as an actor (individual) Forum as platform for mutual benefits Punctuality and commitment of actors Use of own resources (institutional) Misunderstanding among actors (drawn internally for internal use)
2a
JDPC/ILRI
2b
3a
3b
Farmer Group
Farmer Group
EGSB
IGSB
EGSB
IGSB
EGSB
IGSB
EGSB
IGSB
EGSB
OSADEP IGSB
EGSB
OSADEP IGSB
AS
AS
AN
AN
AS
AS
AN
AN
AS
AS
AN
AN
3
3
6
6
0
1
5
4
0
0
5
3
4
6
8
8
2
4
5
6
2
4
6
6
4
6
8
8
2
4
4
8
2
2
6
4
2
3
7
7
2
2
6
6
2
1
4
4
2
4
7
6
2
3
4
6
2
1
5
4
3
5
7
7
2
2
6
7
2
1
6
4
3
4
8
6
5
2
8
7
0
1
2
3
*
0
*
0
*
0
*
1
*
0
*
0
Source: Author. Note: Scores are 0 = lowest mark, 10 = highest mark; * = not determined; – = does not yet exist; AS = at start (January 2008); AN = at now (July 2009); EGSB= externally generated scoreboard; IGSB = internally generated scoreboard; JDPC = Justice, Development, and Peace Commission; ILRI = International Livestock Research Institute; OSADEP = Osun State Agricultural Development Programme.
■
almost certainly have involved rapid, qualitative appraisal methods. Another valuable approach would have been to use Causal Process Tracing to help unravel the underlying institutional (and other) causes of outcomes observed. This approach would have been particularly important in FIP, as many of the outcomes recorded were either unexpected or tangential to the original ambition to reduce fodder scarcity. Collaboratively develop tools for monitoring institutional change. The institutional monitoring tools for FIP were well conceived but failed largely because they were “expert”-driven and not appropriate to or owned by the partners who needed to use them. A more useful approach would have been to develop monitoring tools collaboratively with each partner, adapting existing institutional-learning tools and principles to each partner’s specific management needs. In hindsight, the scoreboard parameters appear ambiguous and poorly framed.
■
Link impact measurement to learning. The evaluation of FIP could have paid much more attention to learning how a project like this could lead to impacts. The baseline survey conducted for FIP could be valuable for this purpose: Repeating the survey some years after the project’s end would provide valuable lessons about impact as well as underlying processes of change. Donors could consider providing projects with resources to commission baseline surveys, and donors could commission impact assessment and evaluations to be done after the project’s end. This approach would be particularly useful for innovation system projects in which large-scale socioeconomic impacts are evident only some time after the project is implemented. Caution would be necessary, however, to (1) ensure that an adequate counterfactual analysis could be done; (2) capture unintended outcomes that may take place away from the original project site; and (3) fully interrogate theories of change and investigate causal links to impacts observed.
MODULE 7: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 6: MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN THE FODDER INNOVATION PROJECT
613
INNONTOEVX AT . XI V E A C T I V I T Y P R O F I L E 7
Monitoring and Evaluation in the Research Into Use Program Andy Hall, LINK Ltd. Kumuda Dorai, LINK Ltd.
SYNOPSIS
he Research Into Use (RIU) program, designed with an innovation systems perspective, emphasized strengthening networks and partnerships and also gave prominence to private sector and enterprise perspectives to drive research into use. The program pursued explicit learning objectives, including drawing key policy lessons about better strategies for putting agricultural research into use. In RIU, the challenge for M&E lay in the need to track developmental as well as institutional outcomes and the limited experience, confidence, and consensus in the use of methods that could address those two outcomes together. A key lesson from RIU’s experience with M&E is that it is critical to maintain the distinction between monitoring and evaluation and to separate the timing and responsibilities for these two functions. Monitoring progress toward institutional and developmental targets is challenging; programs should have specific M&E expertise to help design integrated monitoring strategies for each of their interventions (not to collect data for M&E experts to analyze). Donors should be realistic about the type and scale of outcomes likely to be evident in the action-to-impact results chain during the life of an intervention. The final impact needs to be explored after the program has come to an end, especially for a program such as RIU, with its emphasis on achieving impact by stimulating institutional and policy change. Sensitive management of the interaction between evaluators and programs is needed to deal with the tensions between accountability and learning. This point is particularly important for innovation system interventions, because theories of change are multidimensional, evolve, and are often difficult to articulate.
T
CONTEXT
A series of reviews funded by DFID indicated that investments in agricultural research often delivered excellent 614
research findings but that the findings produced more limited social and economic impacts than expected. In July 2006, DFID established a five-year flagship program, Research Into Use (RIU). As its name implies, the program’s fundamental purpose was to make better use of agricultural research. OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
Implemented in South Asia and Africa with a budget of US$50 million, RIU drew inspiration from the innovation systems perspective. It emphasized driving research into use by strengthening networks and partnerships and giving private sector and enterprise perspectives more prominence. It also pursued explicit learning objectives for internal purposes and external policy audiences (for details, see www.researchintouse.org and Hall, Dijkman, and Sulaiman 2010). RIU had three main elements: â–
The Asia Challenge Fund (ACF) supported 15 consortiums of research and development partners to scale out previously developed technologies. Projects were located in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal. The logic was that the main task in putting research into use was the promotion of technologies and other research products. The technologies dealt with in this way included new crop varieties developed through client-oriented breeding, fish fingerling production techniques, crab and seaweed production, and new management and analytical techniques, including participatory floodplain management and participatory market chain analysis. Over time, many of the consortiums recognized that their main task was not to promote technology per se but to marshal the different players around existing value chains or to develop new ones. Often this work involved bringing additional partners with entrepreneurial expertise into the consortiums. While the Asia Challenge Fund projects
■
■
certainly yielded direct developmental outcomes, they were most noteworthy for the extensive institutional changes they stimulated. The Africa Country Programmes (ACPs) were established in Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, and Zambia with the explicit agenda of brokering new clusters of organizations around selected R&D themes. This agenda was based on the recognition that developmental and market-based opportunities often arise and can use research expertise and findings, but institutional inertia often prevents an appropriate mix of organizations, knowledge, and resources from assembling to innovate in response to such opportunities. The ACPs used innovation platforms and other dialogue mechanisms as starting points to identify opportunities and help organizations link with each other. Some of the initiatives brokered in this way included a smallholder indigenous poultry value chain in Tanzania, an improved fish fingerling supply chain in Malawi, and an integrated livestock fodder and vet service arrangement in Nigeria. With the ACPs’ broad, opportunity-driven agenda, many unexpected adaptations took place as organizations in the consortiums found new ways of working with each other, such as new financing mechanisms, new roles for research partners, and new ways of influencing policy. Existing research products (and research expertise) were put into use in these initiatives, and their developmental outcomes were recorded, but the main outcomes from the ACPs were institutional. The Best Bets. RIU envisaged that it would identify Best Bet technologies for scaling up, but quickly it shifted to identifying best bet business models and unique consortiums that successfully combined enterprise principles (specifically, a focus on the poor as a market for products and services) with science-Based innovation. The approach proved useful for tapping the ability of entrepreneurs with social credentials to marshal research and other knowledge, resources, and partners to create business innovations that addressed issues as diverse as sleeping sickness control, farm input supplies, and biological control of an aggressive parasitic weed (Striga). Support for these businesses created capacity for continuous innovation around the themes covered. Having focused on supporting existing enterprise-like organizations and consortiums, the Best Bets were better placed than other RIU interventions to achieve direct developmental outcomes. Institutional change was also anticipated, however, as many of the organizations involved were encouraged to assume new roles in the innovation process.
RIU incorporated two further elements: a communications and a research function. The research team, distributed across Asia and Africa, was mandated to draw key policy lessons to inform national and particularly international development investors about better strategies for putting agricultural research into use. INNOVATIVE ELEMENT: MONITORING AND EVALUATING DEVELOPMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
RIU set targets for development (outcomes measured in terms of benefits to poor people) and institutional and policy change (outcomes measured in terms of changes in key stakeholders’ behavior in the innovation process and changes in policies that shape the national and international innovation environment). The emphasis given to these outcomes shifted in the latter part of the project, when a 70 percent impact weighting was assigned to institutional and policy outcomes. The challenge for RIU was to monitor institutional and policy changes and direct developmental outcomes, even though it was recognized that developmental outcomes would not arise on a significant scale until after the project ended. The task was even more challenging because the interventions evolved a great deal to reflect the emerging understanding of how to put research into use and to take advantage of emerging opportunities to do so. Part of the challenge lay in the tension over whether RIU was a developmental or institutional change initiative. Management and staff changes brought differing views on this point, which had implications for how M&E was addressed. A consensus eventually emerged that RIU needed to track developmental as well as institutional outcomes. Because RIU was implemented before there was much experience, confidence, or consensus in the use of methods that could address those two outcomes together, the M&E task was largely exploring new ground. The next sections describe the resulting experience and learning. EXPERIENCE
Following advice from the donor, RIU initially set aside onethird of its budget for the combined task of monitoring impact and learning (MIL). A specialist group was brought in to design and implement an M&E plan, which had two notable elements. The first was a baseline survey for the ACF projects and ACPs to conduct (the Best Bet projects had not
MODULE 7: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 7: MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN THE RESEARCH INTO USE PROGRAM
615
yet started). The second element was that projects were asked to record the events unfolding around their interventions. The data were sent to the UK-based MIL group for analysis. A new management team and M&E strategy
A midterm and subsequent technical review of RIU were critical of the MIL approach, noting that the baseline exercise was particularly burdensome and provided no clear feedback to the ACF or ACPs. Following these reviews, a new management team was brought into RIU at the beginning of year four of RIU’s five-year program. The MIL group disbanded, a new M&E strategy was put into place, and ACF projects and ACPs became responsible for monitoring their progress as they saw fit. Some projects continued baseline and follow-up studies and tracking. For example, a project promoting varieties developed through client-oriented breeding found those studies useful for targeting, because they identified agroclimatic zones where adoption patterns indicated that the new varieties performed well and were acceptable to farmers. Others found the approach less useful or did not see it as a priority and stopped.
to find a suitable evaluator. An evaluator was finally identified and appointed early in 2010, when RIU had about 15 months left to run. The impact assessment team (as RIU described it) would assemble evidence about outcomes to substantiate lessons that the research team was developing as well as to report to the donor for accountability. Responding to the donor’s demands, however, the impact team assumed a more broadly conceived evaluative role, exploring the effectiveness of project cycle management and reporting its findings to the donor. The impact team also developed a learning approach, drawing on the Theory-Based Impact Evaluation methods developed by Howard White and the 3IE group to assess developmental impacts, explore RIU’s theory of change, and revisit its assumptions (for a brief description of the methods, see box 7.19 in TN 5; see also White 2009a, 2009b). Information was collected through household surveys in selected countries and extensive interviews were conducted with RIU staff and stakeholders in RIU focus countries. Box 7.27 summarizes key elements of the evaluation framework. Problems encountered
Impact assessment
The new M&E strategy specified that RIU would appoint an independent team to assess impact. Initially RIU struggled
The impact team’s dual responsibilities for accountability (judging the effectiveness of RIU’s implementation) and learning (helping RIU to understand its impact over time)
Box 7.27 Key Elements of the Framework Used to Evaluate Research Into Use
The impact assessment team developed a series of questions to examine the theory of change embedded in the interventions of Research Into Use (RIU). The following are the main categories of questions posed: ■
■
Overarching question. Has the underlying theory of change—that “new forms of partnership will lead to innovation (which in turn will contribute to poverty reduction and economic growth)”—been shown to be appropriate? Relevance. Given its theory of change, was RIU’s design appropriate to explore how to put research into use? Was the program’s design appropriate to its ambition to impact on poor people?
■
■
■
Efficiency. To what extent was the RIU’s information management system (including the M&E system) fit-for-purpose? How did RIU assess the progress of innovations and their contribution (both positive and negative) to building knowledge and addressing market failures? Effectiveness. What partnership arrangements were most effective in understanding and addressing the barriers to innovation, both nationally and locally, and why? What partnership arrangements are effectively ensuring that the innovation process focuses on the issues of gender and social exclusion? Was the research monitoring system effective? Impact. To what extent has RIU impacted poor people?
Source: Adapted from RIU project document.
616
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Box 7.28 Framework for Tracking Institutional Change Research Into Use (RIU) recognized that it needed to track institutional change, but what sort of institutional change should be tracked? Given that innovation is embedded in a very wide range of relationships in economic systems, the range of institutions that are important in the innovation process is likely to be equally large and varied. Some areas of expected institutional change are very obvious—for example, changes in research practice or changes in patterns of partnership—but because RIU operated in complex development arenas, some institutional changes would be difficult to predict from theory alone. The broad categories of change listed below were identified through a rapid inventory of institutional changes observed in association with RIU’s activities. Institutional changes were defined as things that were being done differently as well as changes in formal policies and rules. The institutional changes in the inven-
tory were sorted into groups to arrive at broad categories of institutional change. Illustrative indicators of each type of change were developed, and this framework was used for deeper investigation and documentation of institutional changes through case studies and writeshops. ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
New ways of financing rural innovation. New, poverty-relevant ways of working or organizing things. Market-related institutional changes. Existing types of organizations playing new roles. New types of organizations playing new roles. Changes in research practice. Changes in the policy formulation space/process. Effects on donor/government investment behavior. New network configurations. Formal policy changes.
Source: Adwera et al. 2011.
were managed insensitively. The accountability function was perceived as a policing exercise and tended to impede the learning function, preventing the sharing of information and perspectives. Frequent changes in the impact team, including its leader, exacerbated this problem. The evaluators and RIU disagreed about the RIU’s theory of change. Evaluators articulated it as “partnerships lead to innovation,” whereas RIU articulated it as “institutional and policy change will enable innovation.” The evaluators found that it was too early to collect the impact data needed to satisfy the Theory-Based Impact Evaluation approach that inspired the design of the evaluation. In other words, an impact evaluation was premature. A mechanism for systematically capturing change
A more positive result of this experience was that the impact team identified evidence that institutional change was occurring as a result of RIU’s efforts. The team also called attention to the fact that RIU lacked a mechanism for systematically capturing this information and using it in dialogue with policy makers and others to leverage wider policy and institutional change.
RIU responded to these findings in a number of ways. It changed its quarterly reporting formats to include institutional change issues. It developed a framework to categorize and track an expanding range of different types of institutional change (box 7.28; Adwera et al. 2011). Institutional histories of the ACPs were commissioned to develop a deeper understanding of how they promoted innovation (box 7.29). Finally, writeshops helped staff implementing interventions to record institutional changes and unexpected outcomes and use the writeups to engage other stakeholders. LESSONS LEARNED: WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY?
By the end of RIU’s initial five-year lifecycle in June 2011, the impact team had not yet reported its findings (as of this writing, RIU has been extended to June 2012, partly to complete the impact evaluations). Even so, from the work completed so far, a number of lessons related to M&E stand out: ■
Separate responsibilities for M&E. It is critical to maintain the distinction between monitoring and evaluation and to separate the timing and responsibilities for these two functions. RIU started off collecting its own impact
MODULE 7: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 7: MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN THE RESEARCH INTO USE PROGRAM
617
Box 7.29 Rationale and Approach for Innovation Studies Based on Institutional Histories of Africa Country Programmes The Africa Country Programmes (ACPs) of Research Into Use (RIU) used innovation platforms as one means of enabling innovation. RIU commissioned institutional histories of the ACPs to understand the specific details of how the various innovation platforms were designed and functioned in each setting and to learn how each ACP functioned as a broking or intermediary organization within the wider innovation and development landscape. The decision to use institutional histories reflected the fact that the arrangements and approaches used in each program evolved significantly. All programs took advantage of a range of opportunities; some approaches were less effective than others, but all were instructive. The resulting institutional histories contributed to innovation studies with the following elements: ■
■
■
■
prominence of core concepts and the way this evolution played out in RIU’s strategy, with particular emphasis on the ACPs. A detailed institutional history of the ACPs, emphasizing how they organized their work, learned along the way, and evolved in response to the evolution of RIU and the local development, political, and institutional environment. A detailed account (in accessible language) of the nature, role, and function of the intermediary/ brokering task, including the innovation platforms, to explain what brokering involves. Based on those accounts, develop guiding principles for designing a program enabling intermediary agencies/brokers to catalyze innovation and put research into use.
A short institutional history of the evolution of RIU, with a strong focus on understanding the changing
Source: RIU project document.
■
618
data (an evaluation function) and, in the process, impeded progress on the action part of its interventions. The expectations of the donor were also important: Donors should be realistic about the type and scale of outcomes likely to be evident in the action-to-impact results chain during the life of an intervention. This statement does not mean that interventions should not track their performance; it means that tracking and managing performance will require data different from the data needed for assessing an intervention’s final impact. A suite of well-executed qualitative methods and rapid quantitative surveys would have been much more useful to the ACF projects and ACPs as a way of monitoring and generating feedback on the effectiveness of their actions. Time the evaluation carefully. The impact team initiated its activities prematurely. It could be argued that the effectiveness of program cycle management could be investigated only when the program was still on the ground, but the final impact needs to be explored after the program has come to an end. The nature of RIU, with its emphasis on achieving impact by stimulating institutional and policy change, suggests that this time lag is particularly important. Since this route to impact is complex, chains of causation will need to be explored care-
■
fully. In this sense, the baseline studies may yet prove valuable for post-program evaluation, although a more appropriate approach would have been for RIU to commission the design and execution of the baselines independently of the interventions. Then the evaluators could have repeated the surveys after the program ended. Develop a systematic monitoring plan. Monitoring progress toward institutional and developmental targets is challenging and requires technical backstopping so that projects can perform this function as an integral part of their management. Those who need to act on the information generated should have ownership of the monitoring role: Responsibility should lie with the individual projects rather than the central program. Programs should have specific M&E expertise to help design integrated monitoring strategies for others to use rather than to collect data for the M&E expert to analyze. A very large suite of techniques is available for exploring institutional change and understanding relationships between process and outcome (TN 4). The key is to have expertise that is sufficiently familiar with this suite of methods to adapt principles and tools to the specific monitoring needs of each project in the larger program.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
■
Manage tensions between accountability and learning. Sensitive management of the interaction between evaluators and programs is needed to deal with the tensions between accountability and learning. This point is particularly important for innovation system interventions, because theories of change are multidi-
mensional and evolving and appear difficult for programs such as RIU to articulate. One approach—viewed as a good practice in the evaluation community—is to employ conversational rather than interrogative information collection techniques with program staff and stakeholders.
MODULE 7: INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY PROFILE 7: MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN THE RESEARCH INTO USE PROGRAM
619
NOTES Thematic Note 1
1. See, for example, the G20 press release on its September 2011 Ministerial Meeting on Development (G20 2011a) and progress on the Global Conferences on Agricultural Research for Development process (http://gcardblog.wordpress.com/; FAO 2011). 2. For further information on conventional methods of priority setting and investment in agricultural R&D see Tabor, Janssen, and Bruneau (1998), Contant (2001), and Alston, Norton, and Pardey (1995). 3. World Bank (2007) identifies three main contexts for innovation: (1) agriculture-based countries (mainly in sub-Saharan Africa) where farmers lack access to wellfunctioning agricultural markets; (2) transforming countries (mainly in South Asia, East Asia and the Pacific, the Middle East, and North Africa) where agricultural markets are developing and some farmers gain from good connections to markets; and (3) mature innovation countries (most countries in Latin America and the Caribbean and many in Europe and Central Asia) where agricultural markets function relatively efficiently and farmers are effective market players. Thematic Note 3
1. For example, see the discussion of scenarios developed under India’s National Agricultural Innovation Project on the future of agriculture in India (http://www.naip.icar.org .in/workshops2.htm). Innovative Activity Profile 3
1. Fundación PROINPA (Promoción e Investigación de Productos Andinos) (www.proinpa.org/); Programa Nacional de Raíces y Tubérculos rubro Papa (PNRT-Papa), Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIAP) (www.iniap-ecuador.gov.ec/); and Innovación tecnológica y competitividad de la papa en Per (INCOPA) (www.cipotato.org/papandina/incopa/incopa.htm). 2. See “A Quest for the Perfect Potato” (Newsweek 2008), Mapstone (2010), and the August 2010 speech by Pepsi-Co Chairperson and CEO Ms. Indra Nooys (http://www.pepsico .com/assets/speeches/IndraNooyiPeruReception-2010.pdf). Innovative Activity Profile 6
1. The author led the research in the Fodder Innovation Project. 2. Funded by DFID between 2007 and 2010, RIU was led by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) in
620
collaboration with United Nations University-Maastricht Economics and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT), the International Center for Crop Research in the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). Innovative Activity Profile 7
1. The author was head of RIU’s Central Research Team.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Module 7 Overview
Alston, J. M., G. W. Norton, and P. G. Pardey. 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca: Cornell. Edquist, C. 1997. Systems of Innovation, Institutions, and Organizations. London: Pinter Publishers. Gijsbers, G., W. Janssen, H. Hambly Odame, and G. Meijerink. 2000. Planning Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). Hall, B. H., and J. Learner. 2010. “The Financing of R&D and Innovation.” In Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edited by B. H. Hall and N. Rosenberg. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 610–38. Hall, B. H., and N. Rosenberg. 2010. “Introduction to the Handbook.” In Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edited by B. H. Hall and N. Rosenberg. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 3–9. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1986. “Glossary of Terms Used in Evaluation.” In Methods and Procedures in Aid Evaluation. Paris. ———. 1991. Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance. Paris. ———. 2000. Glossary of Evaluation and Results-Based Management (RBM) Terms. Paris. Pardey, P. G., J. M. Alston, and V. Ruttan. 2010. “The Economics of Innovation and Technical Change in Agriculture.” In Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Vol. 2, edited by B. H. Hall and N. Rosenberg. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 939–84. World Bank. 2011. Information and Communication Technologies for Agriculture e-Sourcebook. Washington, DC. Thematic Note 1
Alston, J. M., G. W. Norton, and P. G. Pardey. 1995. Science under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca: Cornell. Bloch, C. 2007. “Assessing Recent Developments in Innovation Measurement”: The Third Edition of the Oslo Manual Science and Public Policy 34 (1): 23–34. Contant, R. 2001. “Priority Setting.” In Planning Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook, edited by G. Gijsbers, W. Janssen, H. Hambly Odame, and G. Meijerink. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). CPR, CRISP, and LINK (Centre for Policy Research, Centre for Research on Innovation and Science Policy, and the Learning, INnovation, Knowledge initiative). 2011. South Asia Rural Innovation Capacity Benchmarking Workshop, August 19–20, 2011. New Delhi: CPR. Edquist, C. 1997. Systems of Innovation, Institutions, and Organizations. London: Pinter Publishers. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2011. “The GCARD Road Map: Transforming Agricultural Research for Development Systems for Global Impact.” Rome. http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload//294891/ GCARD%20Road%20Map.pdf, accessed September 2011. G20. 2011a. Ministerial Meeting on Development: Communiqué. 23 September 2011, Washington, DC. http://www .g20.org/Documents2011/09/Ministerial%20 Declaration-final.pdf, accessed September 2011. ———. 2011b. “Concept Paper Prepared by Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, CGIAR, FAO, GFAR and the WB.” Conference on Agricultural Research for Development: Promoting Scientific Partnerships for Food Security, Montpellier, September 12–13. http://www.egfar .org/egfar/digitalAssets/4797_Concept_Paper_G20_con ference_on_ARD.pdf, accessed October 2011. Gijsbers, G., W. Janssen, H. Hambly Odame, and G. Meijerink. 2001. Planning Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). Hall, A., L. K. Mytelka, and B. Oyelaran-Oyeyinka. 2006. “Concepts and Guidelines for Diagnostic Assessments of Agricultural Innovation Capacity.” UNU-MERIT Working Paper No. 2006-017. Maastricht: United Nations University–Maastricht Economics and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT). Kraemer-Mbula, E., and W. Wamae, (eds.) 2010. Innovation and the Development Agenda. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Larsen, K., R. Kim, and F. Theus. 2009. “Agribusiness and Innovation Systems in Africa.” Washington, DC: World Bank.
Pant, L. P. 2010. “Assessing Innovations in International Research and Development Practice.” UNU-MERIT Working Paper No. 2010-043. Maastricht: United Nations University–Maastricht Economics and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT). OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1997. National Innovation Systems. Paris. ———. 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. 3rd edition. Paris. ———. 2010. Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective. Paris. Potter, J. (ed.) 2008. Making Local Strategies Work: Building the Evidence Base. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Raitzer, D. A., and G. W. Norton. 2009. Prioritizing Research for Development: Experiences and Lessons. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Spielman, D. J., and R. Birner. 2008. “How Innovative Is Your Agriculture? Using Innovation Indicators and Benchmarks to Strengthen National Agricultural Innovation Systems.” ARD Discussion Paper No. 41. Washington, DC: World Bank. Spielman, D. J., and J. Lynam. 2010. “Design Elements for Agricultural Research within an Agricultural Innovation Systems Framework: Evidence from and for Africa.” In Proceedings of the Second Science with Africa Conference 2010. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, http://www.uneca.org/sciencewithafrica/Resources.html, accessed October 2011. Sulaiman, R. 2009. “Farmer First or Still Last? Uneven Institutional Development in the Indian Agricultural Innovation System.” Paper presented to Farmer First Revisited: Farmer Participatory Research and Development Twenty Years On, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, December 12–14, 2007. SWAC (Sahel and West Africa Club). 2005. “The Family Economy and Agricultural Innovation in West Africa: Towards New Partnerships.” Report No. SAH/D(2005)550. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Tabor, S., W. Janssen, and H. Bruneau. 1998. Financing Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). Wennink, B., and W. Heemskerk (eds.) 2006. “Farmers Organizations and Agricultural Innovation: Case Studies from Benin, Rwanda, and Tanzania.” Bulletin No. 374. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute (KIT). World Bank. 2006. “Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems.” Washington, DC.
MODULE 7: NOTES, REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
621
———. 2007. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC. Thematic Note 2
Akramov, K. T. 2009. “Decentralization, Agricultural Services, and Determinants of Input Use in Nigeria.” IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 941. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Peterson, W., G. Gijsbers, and M. Wilks. 2003. “An Organizational Performance Assessment System for Agricultural Research Organizations: Concepts, Methods, and Procedures.” ISNAR Research Management Guidelines No. 7. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). Shambu Prasad, C., T. Laxmi, and S. P. Wani. 2006. “Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) at ICRISAT: A Case Study of the Tata-ICRISAT Project.” Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report No. 19. Patancheru: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). Spielman, D., and R. Birner. 2008. “How Innovative Is Your Agriculture? Using Innovation Indicators and Benchmarks to Strengthen National Agricultural Innovation Systems.” Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 41. Washington, DC: World Bank. Spielman, D., and D. Kelemework. 2009. “Measuring and Benchmarking Agricultural Innovation System Properties and Performance: Illustrations from Ethiopia and Vietnam.” IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 851. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Watts, J., R. Mackay, D. Horton, A. Hall, B. Douthwaite, R. Chambers, and A. Acosta. 2003. “Institutional Learning and Change: An Introduction.” ISNAR Discussion Paper No. 03–10. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). World Bank and IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2010. “Gender and Governance in Rural Services: Insights from India, Ghana, and Ethiopia.” Washington, DC. Thematic Note 3
Clayton, A., K. K’nIfe, and A. Spencer. 2009. “Integrated Assessment of Trade-Related Policies on Biological Diversity in the Agricultural Sector in Jamaica: Transition Strategies for the Sugar Industry in Jamaica.” Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and National Environmental and Planning Agency of Jamaica. http://www.unep.ch/etb/initiatives/pdf/Final%20Study% 20Jamaica%2012%202009.pdf, accessed September 2011.
622
Clayton, A., and C. Staple-Ebanks. 2002. “Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods: A New Development Opportunity for Jamaica: Market-Scoping Study.” Technical report for the National Commission on Science and Technology. Kingston: Environmental Foundation of Jamaica (EFJ). de Lattre-Gasquet, M. 2006. “The Use of Foresight in Agricultural Research.” In Science and Technology Policy for Development: Dialogues at the Interface, edited by L. Box and R. Engelhard. London: Anthem. Georghiou, L. 1996. “The UK Technology Foresight Programme.” Futures 28 (4): 359–77. IGD (Institute of Grocery Distribution). 2003. “Future Foods for Well-Being: An Expert Panel’s View of the Next 25 Years.” Watford, UK: IGD. Johnson, B., and M. L. d’Apice Paez. 2000. “Alternative Scenarios for Agricultural Research.” In Planning Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook, edited by G. Gijsbers, W. Janssen, H. Hambly Odame, and G. Meijerink. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). Miles, I. 1997. “Technology Foresight: Implications for Social Science.” Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition Working Paper No. 3. Manchester: University of Manchester. Popper, A., M. Keenan, I. Miles, M. Butter, and G. Sainz de la Fuenta. 2007. Global Foresight Outlook 2007. European Foresight Monitoring Network/European Foresight Network, http://www.foresight-network.eu/files/reports/ efmn_mapping_2007.pdf, accessed October 2011. Postrel, V. 1998. The Future and Its Enemies. New York: Simon and Schuster. Rajalahti, R., K. van der Heijden, W. Janssen, and E. Pehu. 2006. “Scenario Planning to Guide Long-Term Investments in Agricultural Science and Technology: Theory and Practice from a Case Study on India.” Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 29. Washington, DC: World Bank. Rikkonen, P., J. Kaivo-oja, and J. Aakkula. 2006. “Delphi Expert Panels in the Scenario-based Strategic Planning of Agriculture.” Foresight 8 (1): 66–81. Rutten, H. W. 2001. “Science and Technology Foresight.” In Planning Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook, edited by G. Gijsbers, W. Janssen, H. Hambly Odame, and G. Meijerink. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). Shepherd R. 2010. “Societal Attitudes to Different Food Production Models: Biotechnology, GM, Organic, and Extensification.” Science Review No. 12, Foresight Project on Global Food and Farming Futures. London: Government Office for Science.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Stewman, S., and D. Lincoln. 1981. “Recombinant DNA Breakthroughs in Agriculture, Industry, and Medicine: A Delphi Study.” Futures 13 (2): 128–40. Wehrmeyer, W., A. Clayton, and K. Lum (eds.). 2002. “Foresighting for Development.” Greener Management International 37. Williams, R., and N. Markusson. 2002. “Knowledge and Environmental Innovations.” Paper presented at the 1st BLUEPRINT workshop, January 23–24. Thematic Note 4
Acosta, A., and B. Douthwaite. 2005. “Appreciative Inquiry: An Approach for Learning and Change Based on Our Own Best Practices.” ILAC Brief No. 6. Rome: Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative. Adwera, A., J. Dijkman, K. Dorai, A. Hall, C. Kilelu, A. Kingiri, E. Madzudzo, H. Ojha, T. S. V. Reddy, R. Sulaiman V, and U. Ugbe. 2011 (forthcoming). “Institutional Change and Innovation: A Framework and Preliminary Analysis of RIU.” RIU Discussion Paper. UK: Research Into Use (RIU). Asif, M. 2005. “Listening to the People in Poverty Project: A Manual for Life History Collection.” Unpublished. Biggs, S. D. 2006. “Learning from the Positive to Reduce Rural Poverty: Institutional Innovations in Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Development.” Paper prepared for the Impact Assessment Workshop organized by the CGIAR System-Wide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), October 19–21, 2005, Texcoco, Mexico. Colfer, C. J. P. (ed.) 2005. The Complex Forest: Communities, Uncertainty, and Adaptive Collaborative Management. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. CoS-SIS (Convergence of Science–Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems). CoS-SIS. 2009. “Revised Proposal for CoS-SIS Research Design, March 2, 2009.” Draft Working Paper No. 3. CoS-SIS, http://cos-sis.org/pdf/CoS-SIS% 20VERSION%20Res%20Design%20(March%202009) .pdf, accessed September 2011. Davies, R. J. 1996. “An Evolutionary Approach to Facilitating Organizational Learning: An Experiment by the Christian Commission for Development in Bangladesh.” Monitoring and Development News, http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/ccdb.htm, accessed September 2011. Davies, R., and J. Dart. 2005. “The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use.” Monitoring and Development News, www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide .pdf, accessed September 2011.
Douthwaite, B., and J. Ashby. 2005. “Innovation Histories: A Method from Learning from Experience.” ILAC Brief No. 5. Rome: Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative. Douthwaite, B., T. Kuby, E. van de Fliert, and S. Schulz. 2003. “Impact Pathway Evaluation: An Approach for Achieving and Attributing Impact in Complex Systems.” Agricultural Systems 78: 243–65. Earl, S., F. Carden, and T. Smutylo. 2001. “Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs,” Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC). www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-2011-DO_TOPIC.html, accessed September 2011. ECDPM (European Center for Development Policy Management). 2006. “Draft Study on Capacity Change and Performance: Mapping of Approaches towards M&E of Capacity and Capacity Development.” Brussels. George, A., and A. Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Guijt, I. (ed.) 2007. “Negotiated Learning: Collaborative Monitoring for Forest Resource Management.” Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Hall, A., R. Sulaiman V, and P. Bezkorowajnyj. 2007. “Reframing Technical Change: Livestock Fodder Scarcity Revisited as Innovation Capacity Scarcity.” Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICISAT), Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Systemwide Livestock Programme, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), and United Nations University–Maastricht Economics and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNUMERIT). IDRC (International Development Research Centre). “Evaluation for Development.” http://www.idrc.ca/en/ ev-26586-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html, accessed March 2009. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2002. “Managing for Impact in Rural Development: A Guide for Project M&E.” Rome. Kammili, T. 2011. “A Briefing Paper on Monitoring and Evaluation Practice for Rural/Agricultural Innovation: How Do You Measure the Impact of Innovation Initiatives?” LINK Policy Resources on Rural Innovation. Hyderabad: Learning, Innovation, and Knowledge (LINK). Patton, M. Q. 2008. “State of the Art in Measuring Development Assistance.” Presentation at the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group Conference, Measuring Development Effectiveness: Progress and Constraints, April 10, Washington, DC.
MODULE 7: NOTES, REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
623
Salomon, M., and P. Engel. 1997. “Facilitating Innovation for Development: A RAAKS Resource Box.” Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute (KIT). Shambu Prasad, C., A. Hall, and L. Thummuru. 2006. “Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories.” ILAC Brief No. 14. Rome: Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative. Smutylo, T. 2005. “Outcome Mapping: A Method for Tracking Behavioural Changes in Development Programs.” ILAC Brief No. 7. Rome: Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative. van Mierlo, B., B. Regeer, M. van Amstel, M. Arkesteijn, V. Beekman, J. Bunders, T. de Cock Buning, B. Elzen, A. Hoes, and C. Leeuwis. 2010. “Reflexive Monitoring in Action: A Guide for Monitoring Systems Innovation Projects. Wageningen: Communication and Innovation Studies, Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR), Athena Institute, and VU University Amsterdam. Walters, B. B., and A. P. Vayda. 2009. “Event Ecology, Causal Historical Analysis, and Human-Environment Research.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99 (3): 534–53. Winter, R. 1989. Learning from Experience: Principles and Practice in Action Research. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. World Bank. 2004. Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods and Approaches. Washington, DC. Thematic Note 5
Alston, J. M., G. W. Norton. and P. G. Pardey. 1995. Science under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Asif, M. 2005. “Listening to the People in Poverty: A Manual for Life History Collection.” Unpublished, http://www .dgroups.org/groups/pelican/docs/LPP_2005.doc?ois=no. CoS-SIS (Convergence of Science–Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems). 2009. “Revised Proposal for Cos-SIS Research Design, March 2, 2009.” Draft Working Paper No. 3. CoS-SIS, http://cos-sis.org/pdf/CoSSIS%20VERSION%20Res%20Design%20(March%2020 09).pdf, accessed September 2011. CPR, CRISP, and LINK (Centre for Policy Research, Centre for Research on Innovation and Science Policy, and Learning, Innovation, and Knowledge). 2008. “Report on CPR-CRISP-LINK Workshop on Benchmarking Rural Innovation Capacity, August 2008.” Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Davies, R., and J. Dart. 2005. “The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use.” Monitoring and Development News, www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide .pdf, accessed September 2011.
624
Douthwaite, B., and J. Ashby. 2005. “Innovation Histories: A Method from Learning from Experience.” ILAC Brief No. 5. Rome: Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative. Douthwaite, B., T. Kuby, E. van de Fliert, and S. Schulz. 2003. “Impact Pathway Evaluation: An Approach for Achieving and Attributing Impact in Complex Systems.” Agricultural Systems 78: 243–65. ECDPM (European Center for Development Policy Management). 2006. “Draft Study on Capacity Change and Performance: Mapping of Approaches towards M&E of Capacity and Capacity Development.” Brussels. Evenson, R. E., P. Waggoner, and V. W. Ruttan. 1979. Economic Benefits from Research: An Example from Agriculture. New Haven: Economic Growth Center, Yale University. George, A., and A. Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, A., R. Sulaiman, N. Clark, and B. Yoganand. 2003. “From Measuring Impact to Learning Institutional Lessons: An Innovation Systems Perspective on Improving the Management of International Agricultural Research.” Agricultural Systems 78 (2): 213–41. Horton, D., and R. Mackay. 2003. “Using Evaluation to Enhance Institutional Learning and Change: Recent Experiences with Agricultural Research and Development.” Agricultural Systems 78 (2): 127–42. Horton, D., P. Ballantyne, W. Peterson, B. Uribe, D. Gapasin, and K. Sheridan (eds.) 1993. Monitoring and Evaluating Agricultural Research, A Sourcebook. Wallingford: CAB International and International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2002. “Managing for Impact in Rural Development: A Guide for Project M&E.” Rome. ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research). 2003. “Monitoring, Evaluation, and Impact Assessment of R&D Investments in Agriculture.” The Hague. Kammili, T. 2011. “A Briefing Paper on Monitoring and Evaluation Practice for Rural/Agricultural Innovation: How Do You Measure the Impact of Innovation Initiatives?” LINK Policy Resources on Rural Innovation. Hyderabad: Learning, Innovation, and Knowledge (LINK). Kelly, T., J. Ryan, and H. Gregersen. 2008. “Enhancing Ex Post Impact Assessment of Agricultural Research: The CGIAR Experience.” Research Evaluation 17 (3): 201–12. Kraemer-Mbula, E. 2011 (forthcoming). “Rethinking the Benchmarking of Agricultural and Rural Innovation.” LINK Policy Resources on Rural Innovation. Hyderabad: Learning, Innovation, and Knowledge (LINK).
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Maredia, M., D. Byerlee, and J. Anderson. 2000. “Ex Post Evaluations of Economic Impacts of Agricultural Research Programs: A Tour of Good Practice.” Paper presented at the workshop on The Future of Impact Assessment in the CGIAR: Needs, Constraints, and Options, May 3–5, Rome. NONIE (Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation), F. Leeuw, and J. Vaessen. 2009. “Impact Evaluations and Development: NONIE Guidance on Impact Evaluation.” Washington, DC: NONIE. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTOED/Resources/nonie_guidance.pdf, accessed September 2011. Pardey, P. G., and N. M. Beintema. 2001. “Slow Magic: Agricultural R&D a Century after Mendel.” IFPRI Food Policy Report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Patton, M. Q. 2008. “State of the Art in Measuring Development Assistance.” Presentation at the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group Conference, Measuring Development Effectiveness: Progress and Constraints, April 10, Washington, DC. Savedoff, W., R. Levine, and N. Birdsall. 2006. “When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives through Impact Evaluation.” Report of the Evaluation Gap Working Group. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development (CGD). Shambu Prasad, C., A. Hall, and L. Thummuru. 2006. “Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories.” ILAC Brief No. 14. Rome: Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative. Spielman, D., and R. Birner. 2008. “How Innovative Is Your Agriculture? Using Innovation Indicators and Benchmarks to Strengthen National Agricultural Innovation Systems.” Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 41. Washington, DC: World Bank. Walters, B. B., and A. P. Vayda. 2009. “Event Ecology, Causal Historical Analysis, and Human-Environment Research.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99 (3): 534–53. Watson, J. D. (ed.) 2003. “International Conference on Impacts of Agricultural Research and Development: Why Has Impact Assessment Research Not Made More of a Difference?” Mexico DF: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). Watts, J., D. Horton, B. Douthwaite, R. La Rovere. G. Thiele, S. Prasad, and C. Staver. 2007. “Transforming Impact Assessment: Beginning the Quiet Revolution of Institutional Learning and Change.” Experimental Agriculture 44: 21–35. Watts J., R. Mackay, D. Horton A. Hall, B. Douthwaite, R. Chambers, and A. Acosta. 2003. “Institutional Learning and Change: An Introduction.” ISNAR Discussion Paper No. 03–10. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).
White, H. 2009a. “Some Reflections on Current Debates in Impact Evaluation.” 3ie Working Paper No. 1. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation. White, H. 2009b. “Theory-based Impact Evaluation: Principles and Practice.” 3ie Working Paper No. 3. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation. World Bank. 2004. Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods, and Approaches. Washington, DC.
Innovative Activity Profile 1
Arnold, E., and M. Bell. 2001. “Some New Ideas about Research for Development.” In Danida, Partnerships at the Leading Edge: A Danish View for Knowledge, Research, and Development. Copenhagen: The Commission on Development-related Research Funded by Danida, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Hinchcliffe, D. 2010. “The Social Enterprise: A Case for Disruptive Transformation.” Dachis Group, http://www .dachisgroup.com/2010/04/a-case-for-disruptivetransformation/, accessed September 2011. Joffe, S., D. Suale, H. Jalloh, F. M’Cormack, and F. Johnston. 2008. “RIU Strategy for Sierra Leone.” Edinburgh: Research Into Use (RIU). http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/ PDF/Outputs/ResearchIntoUse/riu08sl-countrystrategy .pdf, accessed September 2011. Kanyarukiga, S., A. Barnett, V. Rusharza, C. Zaninka, D. Cownie, S. Joffe, V. Mwesigwa, J. Espasa, and M-A. Kamikazi. 2007. “RIU Country Strategy in Rwanda.” Edinburgh: Research Into Use (RIU). http://www .researchintouse.com/resources/riu07rw-countrystrategy .pdf, accessed September 2011. Maconachie, R. 2008. “New Agricultural Frontiers in Postconflict Sierra Leone? Exploring Institutional Challenges for Wetland Management in the Eastern Province.” Working paper. Manchester: University of Manchester. “National Innovation Coalition,” Research Into Use, http://www.researchintouse.com/prog r ammes/ riu-sierra-leone/riu-sl31natcoalition.html, accessed September 2011. Information on PAID in Sierra Leone. “RIU Sierra Leone.” Research Into Use, http://www .researchintouse.com/programmes/riu-sierra-leone/ index.html, accessed September 2011. Background on RIU program in Sierra Leone. “The Birth of the John Lewis State: Public Sector Workers Urged to Set Up Co-operatives,” The Daily Mail, November 18, 2010. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ article-1330742/John-Lewis-state-Public-sector-workersurged-set-operatives.html?ito=feeds-newsxml, accessed September 2011.
MODULE 7: NOTES, REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
625
626
Innovative Activity Profile 2
Innovative Activity Profile 3
Aberman, N., E. Schiffer, M. Johnson, and V. Oboh. 2010. “Mapping the Policy Process in Nigeria: Examining Linkages between Research and Policy.” IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 1000. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Grimble, R., and K. Wellard. 1997. “Stakeholder Methodologies in Natural Resource Management: A Review of Principles, Contexts, Experiences, and Opportunities.” Agricultural Systems 55 (2): 173–93. Hanneman, R. A., and M. Riddle. 2005. Introduction to Social Network Methods. Riverside: University of California, Riverside. http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/, accessed September 2011. Hauck, J., and E. Youkhana. 2008. “Claims and Realities of Community-based Water Resource Management: A Case Study of Rural Fisheries in Ghana.” In Natural Resources in Ghana, edited by D. M. Nanang and T. K. Nunifu. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Kindon, S., R. Pain, and M. Kesby (eds.). 2007. Participatory and Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation, and Place. New York: Routledge. Schiffer, E. 2007. “The Power Mapping Tool: A Method for the Empirical Research of Power Relations.” IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 703. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Schiffer, E., and J. Hauck. 2010. “Net-Map: Collecting Social Network Data and Facilitating Network Learning through Participatory Influence Network Mapping.” Field Methods 22 (3): 231–49. Schiffer, E., C. Narrod, and K. von Grebmer. 2008. “The Role of Information Networks in Communicating and Responding to HPAI Outbreaks.” HPAI Research Brief No. 5. Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction, http://www.hpairesearch.net/docs/Research_briefs/IFPRIILRI/IFPRI_ILRI_rbr05.pdf, accessed September 2011. Spielman, D., and R. Birner. 2008. “How Innovative Is Your Agriculture? Using Innovation Indicators and Benchmarks to Strengthen National Agricultural Innovation Systems.” Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 41. Washington, DC: World Bank. Spielman, D., and D. Kelemework. 2009. “Measuring and Benchmarking Agricultural Innovation System Properties and Performance: Illustrations from Ethiopia and Vietnam.” IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 851. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Weber, M. 1922. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. 1978 ed. Berkley: University of California Press.
“A Quest for the Perfect Potato.” 2008. Newsweek, July 25. Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/ 2008/07/25/a-quest-for-the-perfect-potato.html, accessed September 2011. Alderman, H., J. Hoddinott, L. Haddad, and C. Udry. 2003. “Gender Differentials in Farm Productivity.” FCND Discussion Paper No. 6. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Bebbington, A., and E. Rotondo. 2010. “Informe de la evaluación externa de la fase 3 de Papa Andina.” Lima: International Potato Center (CIP) and Papa Andina. Bernet, T., A. Devaux, G. Thiele, G. López, C. Velasco, K. Manrique, and M. Ordinola. 2008. “The Participatory Market Chain Approach: Stimulating Pro-poor MarketChain Innovation.” Rome: Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC). Bernet, T., G. Thiele, and T. Zschocke. 2006. “Participatory Market Chain Approach: User Guide.” Lima: International Potato Center (CIP) and Papa Andina. http://www.cipotato.org/publications/pdf/003296.pdf, accessed September 2011. Devaux, A., J. Andrade-Piedra, D. Horton, M. Ordinola, G. Thiele, A. Thomann, and C. Velasco. 2010. “Brokering Innovation for Sustainable Development: The Papa Andina Case.” ILAC Working Paper No. 12. Rome: Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC). Devaux, A., D. Horton, C. Velasco, G. Thiele, G. López, T. Bernet, I. Reinoso, and M. Ordinola. 2009. “Collective Action for Market Chain Innovation in the Andes.” Food Policy 34: 31–38. Devaux, A., C. Velasco, G. López,, T. Bernet, M. Ordinola, H. Pico, G. Thiele, and D. Horton. 2007. “Collective Action for Innovation and Small Farmer Market Access: The Papa Andina Experience.” CAPRi Working Paper No. 68. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Engel, P., and M. Salomon. 2003. “Facilitating Innovation for Development: A RAAKS Resource Box.” Amsterdam: Royal Topical Institute (KIT). Horton, D. 2008. “Facilitating Pro-poor Market Chain Innovation: An Assessment of the Participatory Market Chain Approach in Uganda.” Social Sciences Working Paper No.2008-1. Lima: International Potato Center (CIP). Horton, D., B. Akello, L. Aliguma, T. Bernet, T. Devaux, B. Lemaga, D. Magala, S. Mayanja, I. Sekitto, G. Thiele, and C. Velasco. 2010. “Developing Capacity for Agricultural Market Chain Innovation: Experience with the ‘PMCA’ in Uganda.” Journal of International Development 22 (3): 367–89.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Kaganzi, B., S. Ferris, J. Barham, A. Abenayko, P. Sanginga, and J. Njuki. 2009. “Sustaining Linkages to High-Value Markets through Collective Action in Uganda.” Food Policy 34: 23–30. Mapstone, N. 2010. “Old Roots Tap New Customers.” Financial Times, September 27. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/ 0/fd19a3fa-ca7b-11df-a860-00144feab49a.html#axzz1 YoAqM4QP, accessed September 2011. Practical Action. 2010. Lessons and insights in Participatory Market Chain Analysis (PMCA): An action-research of PMCA applications in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Peru, and Zimbabwe. Unpublished. http://practicalaction.org/docs/ia2/DFID-PCMA_report_rev6.pdf, accessed September 2011. Research Into Use. 2010. “New Market Chain Approach Yields Fast Results: Participatory Market Chain Approach.” RIU, http://www.researchintouse.com/nrk/ RIUinfo/PF/CPH01.htm#L5, accessed March 2011. World Bank. 2008. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. Washington, DC: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Bank, and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
Innovative Activity Profile 4
Ogilvy, J., and P. Schwartz. 1998. “Plotting Your Scenarios: Global Business Network.” In Learning from the Future, edited by L. Fahey and R. Randall. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Rajalahti, R., W. Janssen, and E. Pehu. 2007. “Scenario Planning to Guide Long-term Investments in Agricultural Science and Technology: Theory and Practice from a Case Study on India.” Agriculture and Rural Development Note No. 28. Washington, DC: World Bank. Rajalahti, R., K. van der Heijden, W. Janssen, and E. Pehu. 2006. “Scenario Planning to Guide Long-term Investments in Agricultural Science and Technology: Theory and Practice from a Case Study on India.” Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 29. Washington, DC: World Bank. Rajalahti, R., J. Woelcke, and E. Pehu. 2005. “Development of Research Systems to Support the Changing Agricultural Sector.” Proceedings. Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 14. Washington, DC: World Bank. van der Heijden, K. 1996. Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. ———. 2005. Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. 2nd edition. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. World Bank. 2006. “Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond Strengthening Research Systems.” Washington, DC.
Innovative Activity Profile 5
World Bank. 2011a. “Chile’s Agricultural Innovation System: An Action Plan towards 2030.” Unpublished internal report, Washington, DC. ———. 2011b. “Towards a Vision for Agricultural Innovation in Chile in 2030.” Unpublished internal report, Washington, DC.
Innovative Activity Profile 6
Biggs, S. D., and H. Matseart. 1999. “An Actor-Oriented Approach for Strengthening Research and Development Capabilities in Natural Resource Systems.” Public Administration and Development 19: 231–62. Hall, A., L. K. Mytelka, and B. Oyelaran-Oyeyinka. 2006. “Concepts and Guidelines for Diagnostic Assessments of Agricultural Innovation Capacity.” UNU-MERIT Working Paper No. 2006-017. Maastricht: United Nations University–Maastricht Economics and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT). Hall, A., R. Sulaiman V., and P. Bezkorowajnyj. 2008. “Reframing Technical Change: Livestock Fodder Scarcity Revisited as Innovation Capacity Scarcity. Part 2: A Framework for Analysis.” UNU-MERIT Working Paper No. 2008-003. Maastricht: United Nations University–Maastricht Economics and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNUMERIT). World Bank. 2006. “Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems.” Washington, DC.
Innovative Activity Profile 7
Adwera, A., J. Dijkman, K. Dorai, A. Hall, C. Kilelu, A. Kingiri, E. Madzudzo, H. Ojha, T. S. V. Reddy, R. Sulaiman V, and U. Ugbe. 2012 (forthcoming). “Institutional Change and Innovation: A Framework and Preliminary Analysis of RIU.” RIU Discussion Paper. UK: Research Into Use (RIU). Hall, A., J. Dijkman, and R. Sulaiman V. 2010. “Research Into Use: Investigating the Relationship between Agricultural Research and Innovation.” RIU Discussion Paper No. 2010-01. Edinburgh: Research Into Use (RIU). http://www.researchintouse.com/learning/learning40dis cussionpaper01.html, accessed September 2011. White, H. 2009a. “Some Reflections on Current Debates in Impact Evaluation.” 3ie Working Paper No. 1. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation.
MODULE 7: NOTES, REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
627
White, H. 2009b. “Theory-based Impact Evaluation: Principles and Practice.” 3ie Working Paper No. 3. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation.
RESOURCES Module 7 Overview
The CGIAR’s Institutional Learning and Change Program (http://www.cgiar-ilac.org) brings together a group of national and international partners who are committed to strengthening the contributions of collaborative applied R&D programs to pro-poor agricultural innovation. Knowledge Management for Development (http://www .km4dev.org/) is an internet portal and discussion group on knowledge sharing and knowledge issues, including reflective management, action-learning, and network development. At the United Nations University–Maastricht Economic and Social Research and Training Centre, LINK (Learning, INnovation, Knowledge) (http://www.innovationstudies.org/) provides policy-relevant resources on innovation for a new rural economy through concepts, lessons, and guidelines. The Pelican Initiative (http://dgroups.org/Community .aspx?c=3c4b8b5b-d151-4c38-9e7b-7a8a1a456f20) is an online community of practice for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and participatory inquiry. ODI’s Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) program (http://www.odi.org.uk/Rapid/Index.html) aims to improve the uses of research and evidence in development policy and practice through research, advice, and debate.
Thematic Note 3
The European Foresight Platform (http://www.foresightplatform.eu/), financed by the European Commission
628
DG Research, is part of a series of initiatives to provide a knowledge sharing platform for policy makers in the EU. The Foresight for Development initiative (http://www .foresightfordevelopment.org/) is piloted in Africa by the South Africa Node of the Millennium Project, with support from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Global Food and Farming Futures 2011 Foresight Project from the UK Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and International Development (DFID) involved around 400 leading experts and stakeholders from about 35 countries across the world. More than 100 peer-reviewed evidence papers commissioned by the project are available at http://www .bis.gov.uk/foresight/our-work/projects/publishedprojects/global-food-and-farming-futures. iKnow (http://wiwe.iknowfutures.eu/) is one of six Blue Sky foresight research projects funded by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technology Development (FP7) under the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities (SSH) theme. The project aims to interconnect knowledge on issues and developments potentially shaking or shaping the future of STI in Europe and the world. Millennia2015 Foresighting Women’s Life in the Knowledge Society (http://www.millennia2015.org/) examines issues that will strongly influence women’s life in the knowledge society in every country in the future. It also examines responsibilities with regard to how these issues evolve at a global level. The foresighting exercise has developed a methodology and is analyzing 37 variables to build an action plan to empower women. Science and Technology Foresighting (http://www.techforesight.ca/tools.html) is an online community of practice offering tools, templates, and links to various foresighting and scenario planning initiatives around the world.
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS: AN INVESTMENT SOURCEBOOK
Glossary
Action-research. An iterative process of diagnosis, planning, action, evaluation, and reflection. Adaptive management. “A structured, iterative process of optimal decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an aim to reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_ management). Adaptive management functions as a tool for learning as well as change within a system: As new information emerges, the system uses it (actively or passively) to change its operations and improve outcomes over the long term. The management process includes present and future stakeholders, bases iterative decision making on the results of monitoring (learning), and regards uncertainty as a means of improving understanding. Advisory services. Agricultural advisory services can be defined as the entire set of organizations that support and facilitate people engaged in agricultural production to solve problems and to obtain information, skills, and technologies to improve their livelihoods and well-being. See also agricultural extension. Agricultural education and learning (AEL). A variation on agricultural education and training that reflects a more student-centered approach to formal programs. Agricultural education and training (AET). Organized programs and activities that serve the need for information, knowledge, and skills among those who work in various parts of the agriculture sector and the broader rural space. An AET system typically consists of tertiary educational institutions (agricultural universities or faculties and col-
leges of agriculture within comprehensive universities) in addition to the polytechnics, institutes, or colleges that prepare technicians at the diploma level (postsecondary, subdegree level). This second category of education, often termed agricultural technical–vocational education and training (ATVET), technical–vocational education and training (TVET), or vocational education and training (VET), prepares technicians in a variety of specializations in agriculture subsectors. Some secondary schools offer agriculture as an elective. Agricultural training, frequently in training centers or training institutes, is offered to public employees as in-service training and/or to farmers as farmer training. Although the various elements in the AET delivery chain are often referred to collectively as a “system,” they do not necessarily form a robust system in which communication and feedback flow between institutions and allow for continuous improvements. Many countries divide responsibility for AET between the ministries of agriculture and education. Agricultural extension. The entire set of organizations that support and facilitate people engaged in agricultural production to solve problems and to obtain information, skills, and technologies to improve their livelihoods and well-being. Agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS). A system that links people and institutions to promote mutual learning and generate, share, and utilize agriculturerelated technology, knowledge, and information. The system integrates farmers, agricultural educators, researchers,
629
and extensionists to harness knowledge and information from various sources for improved livelihoods. Farmers are at the heart of this knowledge triangle. Agricultural innovation system (AIS). A network of organizations, enterprises, and individuals focused on bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of organization into economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect their behavior and performance. Agricultural technical–vocational education and training (ATVET). See agricultural education and training. Business development services (BDS). A range of nonfinancial services provided by public and private suppliers to entrepreneurs, who use them to operate more efficiently and expand their businesses. BDSs can include training, consultancy, and advisory services, marketing assistance, information, technology development and transfer, and business linkage promotion. Business incubators. Programs designed to accelerate the successful development of entrepreneurial activities through an array of business support resources and services, developed and orchestrated by incubator management and offered both in the incubator and through its network of contacts. Incubators vary in the way they deliver their services, in their organizational structure, and in the types of clients they serve. Central nodes. In the terminology of social network analysis, well-connected partners who pull promising new entrants into networks and collaborate with a wide assortment of partners, exposing them to more experiences, different competencies, and added opportunities. By linking clusters of network actors, the central nodes facilitate flows of information and resources. Innovation brokers are particularly prepared to become central nodes. Change agent. See innovation broker. Commercialization or commercial services. A focus in the agricultural research and extension system on commercial crops or the provision of services for specific cash crops such as tobacco or cotton. Commodity extension. An extension system focused on one cash crop, for which advice and inputs are provided by one institution. Competitive research grants (CRGs). Grants that fund research based on national competition and scientific peer review. Transparent procedures are used to select the proposals that will receive funding, based on rigorous criteria. Well-designed grants can bring greater contestability to the innovation process; the funding may not necessarily flow to the traditional recipients. Grants can promote research partnerships, leverage research resources, and help to develop a more efficient, demanddriven, and pluralistic research system by involving
630
GLOSSARY
clients in setting priorities and financing, executing, and evaluating research. See matching grants. Contracting. When one organization contracts with another to perform a function or service. Contracting in occurs when research, extension, and other government agricultural services provide services for an external group, such as a nongovernmental organization or a private organization. Contracting out is when government hires an external organization to perform services. Cooperative extension. An extension model developed in the U.S. university system, in which universities, linked to the extension system, produce research results that are disseminated to farmers. Cost sharing. When users of services pay at least a partial amount of the cost. Decentralization. Moving responsibility and/or funding of public governmental services to local administrative levels such as districts. Decentralization can take many forms, such as deconcentration (accountability remains within the Department of Agriculture), devolution to local governments (accountability is transferred from central to locally elected governments), or delegation to semiautonomous services. Demand articulation. Identifying the needs of different user groups for the knowledge and information produced by agricultural research organizations or the services (credit, advice) provided by other types of organizations. Downstream research. Usually refers to research that adapts a technology (agronomic practice, new variety) to a particular country’s or locality’s needs. Sometimes called applied or adaptive research. Economies of scale. In agricultural research, economies of scale occur when the cost per unit of research output falls with the number of units of output produced, usually through better use of major fixed investment or specialized skills. Economies of scope. In agricultural research, economies of scope occur when the cost of a desired output falls with an increase in the number of different research outputs being produced. These gains occur when there is crosscommodity or cross-disciplinary learning as an external economy. Embedded services. Companies provide information with the inputs they sell or other products they market. Enabling environment. The environment (political, regulatory, institutional, economic, and social) that supports, promotes, and sustains a given outcome. For agricultural innovation, an enabling environment comprises those factors that influence agricultural innovation positively but are controlled by policy domains other than agricultural innovation policy itself.
Farm business schools. Schools that facilitate learning on production, management, business finance, and marketing skills. Farm business schools and cooperatives have an important learning role in promoting entrepreneurship among farmers, but initially they require external facilitation. Farmer organization or producer organization. An organization constituted by farmers who seek solutions to production or commercial problems. Some agricultural services focus on providing extension, conducting research, or offering other services through these organizations. Farmer field school. A participatory method of learning, technology development, and dissemination based on adult-learning principles such as experiential learning. Typically groups of 20–25 farmers meet weekly in an informal setting on their farms with a facilitator. The defining characteristics of farmer field schools include discovery learning, farmer experimentation, and group action. This interactive, practical training method empowers farmers to be their own technical experts on major aspects of their farming systems. Farmers are facilitated to conduct their own research, diagnose and test problems, devise solutions, and disseminate their learning to others. Farmer field school networks. Networks of informal or formal groupings with a common interest that draw their membership from all the farmer field schools within a given geographic or administrative boundary. Farming systems research and extension (FSRE). System of research and extension that is focused on understanding the farming systems of small-scale farmers through applied, multidisciplinary, on-farm, farmer-centered research. Fee for service. The provision of services for a cost by government, nongovernmental, or private organizations. Genetically engineered. A genetically engineered or modified organism in which the genetic material has been transformed using the techniques of genetic engineering. These techniques combine DNA molecules from different sources into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This recombined DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, a subset of genetically modified organisms, carry DNA that originated in a different species. Examples include cotton that has been genetically transformed to resist a particular herbicide. Many countries strictly control the production, use, export, and import of genetically modified plants and animals. (Based on http://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism.) Going concern. An enterprise that is expected to generate sufficient revenues and manage its resources in a manner
that will allow it to remain in business for an indefinite period. Governance. The systems and practices that governments use to set priorities and agendas, design and implement policies, and obtain knowledge about their impacts. Also refers to any systems and practices performing the same function at the subnational level (provincial research institutes, input subsidy programs) and in smaller institutions (farmer organizations, irrigation schemes). Green revolution. The enormous increases in cereal production resulting from the adoption of high-yielding wheat, maize, and rice varieties, grown under irrigation with fertilizer and other inputs, across large areas of Asia and Latin America from the 1960s to 1980s. Group-based approach. Extension programs that work with farmer groups or other common interest groups. Industry clusters. Agglomerations of strongly interdependent firms (including specialized suppliers) linked to each other in a value-adding production chain, service providers, and associated institutions in a particular field. Some clusters encompass strategic alliances with universities, research institutes, knowledge-intensive business services, bridging institutions (brokers, consultants), and customers. Cluster-based approaches for business development and innovation have increased agricultural productivity, innovation, and business formation. Information and communications technology (ICT). The wide and growing array of modern communications technology such as the Internet, e-mail, electronic databases, mobile phones and telephones, computers, personal digital devices, radio-frequency infrared devices, and the related infrastructure to support it (wireless networks, fiber-optic cable, and so on). Innovation. An invention that is used for the first time in a product that reaches the market or produces a change in a social process. An innovation that is well known elsewhere may still be regarded as an innovation if it is new locally. Innovation brokers. Teams of specialists that combine a strong background in science with knowledge of business and commercialization and/or the creation of innovation networks. Innovation brokers are also known as change agents or technology brokers. Innovation capabilities. The skills to build and integrate internal and external resources to address problems or take advantage of opportunities. Innovation capabilities depend not only on innovative individuals but also on internal features of an organization, especially incentives, cultures, organizational spaces for experimentation, coordinating structures, and collective action.
GLOSSARY
631
Innovation-led growth. Growth based on innovative technologies, processes, products, markets, or organizational arrangements rather than on large additional uses of natural resources. Innovation network. A diverse group of actors that voluntarily contribute knowledge and other resources (such as money, equipment, and land) to develop jointly or improve a social or economic process or product. Innovation networks are a special form of organization with a nonhierarchical structure, a collaboration-based culture, consensus-based coordination (because members are free to leave the network at any time), usually no legal personality (especially in their early stages), and often relatively fuzzy objectives (such as improving the management of natural resources). They evolve with market opportunities and the technologies they develop. Innovation networks differ from farmer organizations in that farmer organizations have a homogeneous membership and more formal, stable relations. Innovation networks differ from value chains in that the latter are more stable, are focused on delivering a product or service, and are coordinated by a central actor. Innovation networks are also known as innovation platforms. Innovation platform. See innovation network. Intellectual property rights (IPRs). Intellectual property law grants owners of intellectual property (creations of the mind) certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, and trade secrets. See tangible property rights. (Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property.) Intervention logic. The underlying assumptions in an intervention that link intervention inputs with expected outcomes. Invention. The creation of knowledge. An invention becomes an innovation only when it is first used in a product that reaches the market or produces a change in a social process. Learning alliance. A process-driven approach that facilitates the development of shared knowledge among different actors. Learning alliances contribute to improved development outcomes because lessons are more quickly identified and learned and because stronger links among research organizations and other actors in the AIS improve the focus on research and development practices. Local agribusiness development services. Services that improve the performance of a small-scale enterprise oriented to agricultural production, be it individual or cooperative, in accessing markets, financial services, and enhanced agribusiness environments. Examples of these services include training and advisory services, market
632
GLOSSARY
information services, technology, and business linkage information. Also referred to as value-chain oriented services, market-oriented agricultural advisory services, and marketing extension. Marketing chain. Modern marketing chains for agricultural crops have many features of buyer-driven value chains: an actor close to consumers (usually a supermarket or broker) dominates, organizing many producers and intermediaries, deciding who participates in the chain, overseeing all the links from the farm to the shelf, defining the nature of the interactions and commercial conditions, and setting quality and safety standards. Other important features of modern marketing chains are that they focus on marketing specific products (such as vegetables, fruits, meat), access to the chain is highly restricted, verbal contracts based on trust are common but informal transactions rare, and technologies are generated mostly in developed countries and imposed by the leading agent. Only farmers with strong capabilities for innovation (especially entrepreneurship, physical and financial resources, and social capital) can survive in the highly competitive environment of modern marketing chains. Matching grants. The matching of funds from the granting organization (usually a public agency) with funds from the beneficiary. Matching grants increasingly promote near-market technology generation, technology transfer and adoption, private economic activity, and overall innovation, often by including multiple stakeholders. By focusing greater attention on demand and use from the very beginning, basically by attracting users of technologies and knowledge in partnerships (and requiring a matching commitment), matching grants may be more effective than competitive research grants at enhancing the use of technology and knowledge by farmers and other entrepreneurs. National agricultural research system (NARS). The entities responsible within a given country for organizing, coordinating, or executing research that contributes explicitly to the development of the country’s agriculture and maintenance of its natural resource base. National innovation policy. Overarching policies coordinating a wide spectrum of policy domains—science and technology policy, education policy, economic policy, industrial policy, infrastructure policy, taxation policy, and justice policy, among others—in such a way that together they create an environment that enables and stimulates innovation. Sector-specific innovation policies (such as a policy for agricultural innovation) replicate the national innovation policy’s overarching and coordinating nature but have considerably less political clout to influence policies outside their domains.
Niche markets. A small, specific, and well-defined subset of the market on which a particular product focuses. Examples include markets for fair trade, organic, or other products certified to have particular qualities; small-scale growers of particular kinds of produce purchased directly by consumers in a nearby city; a new market for a traditional product (quinoa, amaranth, and acai are three of many kinds), or a new product derived from a traditional crop. Some niches have more demanding quality and commercial requirements than others, and farmers’ participation in these markets depends on whether they can meet those requirements. Although niche markets have had important impacts on local communities, they cannot expand beyond a certain size without becoming commoditized. For this reason, they can make only a limited contribution to alleviating poverty. Niche markets can be considered a form of innovation network. Nongovernmental organization (NGO) extension. Extension systems run by NGOs, often in a project mode and focused on participatory methods. No-till agriculture. An agronomic practice in which crops are planted in previously unprepared soil by opening a narrow slot or trench of the smallest width and depth needed to obtain proper coverage of the seed. Conventional tillage practices involve multiple tractor passes to accomplish plowing, harrowing, planking, and seeding operations; no-till requires only one or two passes for spraying herbicide and seeding. In addition to reducing the number of operations, no-till requires less-powerful tractors and reduces equipment depreciation. While no-till principles are the same everywhere—entailing minimal soil disturbance, keeping soil covered, and using crop rotations—the actual packages differ greatly by location. Organization. A group of actors that collaborate over a sustained period. An organization can be either formal or informal. Collaboration may take different forms, including frequent exchanges of information, joint priority setting for policies and programs, and joint implementation of innovation projects. Organizational capabilities for innovation. The abilities of the organization’s members and the organization’s key characteristics. Organizational abilities for innovation include maintaining specialized knowledge, creativity, and commitment to the organization; developing a long-term vision for the organization; absorbing information generated by other agents (also called the absorptive capacity); creating new knowledge; and using this knowledge to develop innovations that address commercial, social, organizational, or technological needs or opportunities. An organization’s key characteristics include its culture, governance, and communications routines (whether
they are hierarchical or allow individual exploration of opportunities and horizontal communication); learning routines (the heuristics and methods used for collectively accepting new ideas and procedures); the propensity to interact and cooperate with other actors in the AIS; and the availability of resources for the development of innovations (capital and specialized assets). Organizational interface. Modalities that help to transform knowledge and information produced by research organizations into socially and economically relevant goods and services. Examples include innovation platforms, value-chain approaches, and public-private partnerships. Outgrower. A farmer operating under a formal or informal agreement (often a contract) to grow produce for a commercial agricultural enterprise (for example, a sugarcane processor) or a large-scale farmer. Outgrowers may receive credit and advice from the processor. Participatory or demand-driven approaches. Method of research and/or extension focused on bottom-up approaches and empowerment of clientele. These approaches include methods such as farmer field schools and farmer research groups. Pluralistic extension. Extension system based on multiple service providers, including public, private, and civil society organizations, in which the focus is often on demand-driven, participatory approaches. Privatization. Full transfer of ownership (usually by sale) from government to a private entity. Privatized research or extension services. Services run for profit, not necessarily for cash crops only. Producer organizations. See farmer organization. Public-private partnerships. At least one public and one private organization share resources, knowledge, and risks to achieve a match of interests and jointly deliver products and services. In agricultural research, PPPs bring together partners with different skills and knowledge to contribute jointly to the generation, adaptation, and/or diffusion of an innovation. Usually the partnership agreement is in the form of a contract that establishes each partner’s commitments and the distribution of benefits. PPPs in agricultural research can be set up not only to generate knowledge via research but also to foster the diffusion and application of knowledge among private actors (agribusiness, farmers) and public actors (universities, research institutes, and extension agencies). Qualitative growth. Growth associated with a range of additional public goods that especially reduce extreme poverty, provide food security, narrow structural inequalities, protect the environment, or sustain the growth process itself.
GLOSSARY
633
Risk capital. Money explicitly available for investment into a high-risk business or a security of some type—typically those that are not publicly traded on any national stock exchange. In this sourcebook, risk capital refers to investment in a company or project at an early or high-risk stage. Private investors are the major sources of risk capital; public investment cannot meet the needs, although it can stimulate and leverage private investment in the sector. See venture capital. Rural productive alliance. An economic agreement between formally organized producers and at least one buyer, which specifies product characteristics (such as size and varieties to be produced); quantity to be produced or bought; production modalities (such as how a product will be delivered, by whom, and when, as well as grading and packing requirements); payment modalities and price determination criteria; and the buyer’s contribution (such as technical assistance, specific inputs, and arrangements for input reimbursement—for example, at the time of sale). Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) protection. Measures, including regulations and agreements, to protect: (1) human or animal health from risk arising from additives, contaminants, toxins, or disease organisms in food, drink, and feedstuffs; (2) human life from risks associated with diseases carried by plants or animals; (3) animal or plant life from pests, diseases, and disease-causing organisms; and (4) a country from other damage caused by the entry, establishment, or spread of pests. Such measures include national control of contaminants, pests, and diseases (vaccination programs, limits on pesticide residues in food) as well as international controls to prevent their inadvertent spread (for example, the rejection of insectinfested food shipments that pose a risk to domestic food production). See standards and technical regulations. Social capital. The institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions. Increasing evidence shows that social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable. A narrow view of social capital regards it as a set of horizontal associations between people, consisting of social networks and associated norms that have an effect on community productivity and wellbeing. Social networks can increase productivity by reducing the costs of doing business. Social capital facilitates coordination and cooperation. This quality is strong within mature groups with strong internal institutions, intragroup trust, altruistic behavior, membership in other groups, and ties to external service providers. Standard. A document approved by a recognized body that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines, or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, with which compliance is not mandatory. See technical regulations. 634
GLOSSARY
Strategic alliances. Partnerships that usually involve longterm cooperation (10 or more years), multinational companies, or groups of companies. Examples include the development and introduction of minimum social and environmental standards for agricultural or forestry products, fair trade arrangements, and similar ambitious programs. Tangible property rights. The set of rights defined by law that relate to a physical object, for example plasmids or vectors. See intellectual property rights. Technical regulations. Regulations that specify product characteristics or their related processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions, with which compliance is mandatory. Technical regulations include import bans (total or partial), technical specifications (process and product standards), packaging standards, information requirements, and requirements for labeling and claims. See standards. Technology broker. See innovation broker. Theory of change. The underlying assumptions in an intervention that link intervention inputs with expected outcomes. Traditional extension system (general extension). Extension focused on increasing agricultural productivity, run by central government, using a top-down approach and often emphasizing the transfer of technology. Training and visit (T&V). A system of extension management with a focus on improving technical knowledge of extension agents and regular visits to farms. Transfer of technology (TOT). Programs focused on disseminating information and new technologies. Such programs often include an integrated approach in which technology is pushed as a package deal with the requisite institutional support, such as credit and fertilizer facilities. Value chain. The set of linked activities pursued by the different actors that a firm organizes to produce and market a product. See also marketing chain. Value-chain approach. Attention to improving efficiency along the value chain for a particular agricultural commodity, often through applied agricultural research integrated with institutional innovations in farmer organization and marketing. Venture capital. Venture capital is a form of private equity provided for early-stage and more mature companies with substantial market potential. Returns on venture capital investment are from a trade sale (sale to, or merger with, another company) or an initial public offering in which the company becomes authorized to sell its stock to the general public on a stock exchange. Venture capital funds will not only provide money but will mentor their investee firms. See risk capital. Vocational education and training (VET). See agricultural education and training.
A U T H O R S A N D T H E I R A F F I L I AT I O N S
Nuria Ackermann, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) John Allgood, International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) S. Aravazhi, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Seth Ayers, World Bank Institute, and formerly with infoDev Peter Ballantyne, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Alan B. Bennett, University of California, Davis Rupert Best, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Regina Birner, University of Hohenheim Sara Boettiger, Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA), University of California, Berkeley Arnoud R. Braun, Farmer Field School Foundation, Wageningen University Alistair Brett, Consultant Judy Chambers, Program for Biosafety Systems, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Anthony Clayton, University of the West Indies, Jamaica Marie-HÊlène Collion, Latin America and Caribbean Region, Agriculture and Rural Development, World Bank Kristin Davis, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) Luz Diaz Rios, Consultant Kumuda Dorai, Programme Officer, LINK Ltd. (Link Ltd. started as a UNU-MERIT/FAO initiative in 2005) Deborah Duveskog, Consultant Javier Ekboir, Institutional Learning and Change Initiative (ILAC, www.cgiar-ilac.org) Howard Elliott, Consultant Wyn Ellis, Consultant Josef Ernstberger, Consultant
635
Michelle Friedman, World Bank Josef Geoola, GALVmed Peter Gildemacher, Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) María Verónica Gottret, Tropical Agriculture Research and Education Center (CATIE) Andy Hall, LINK Ltd. (Link Ltd. started as a UNU-MERIT/FAO initiative in 2005) Helen Hambly Odame, Assistant Professor, University of Guelph Frank Hartwich, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) Willem Heemskerk, Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Douglas Horton, Consultant Indira Ekanayake, Africa Agriculture and Development, World Bank Steen Joffee, Director, Innodev U.K. Adolphus J. Johnson, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security, Sierra Leone Trish Kammili, French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) S.M. Karuppanchetty, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Godrick Khisa, Farmer Field School Foundation Promotion Services, Wageningen University Laurens Klerkx, Communications and Innovation Studies, Wageningen University Stanley Kowalski, University of New Hampshire School of Law, Concord Patti Kristjanson, World Agroforestry Centre (CIFOR) Anton Krone, SaveAct, Prolinnova South Africa Gunnar Larson, Agriculture and Rural Development Department, World Bank Ninatubu Lema, NARS Tanzania Tarmo Lemola, ADVANSIS Ltd. David Lugg, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Mark Lundy, Decision and Policy Analysis Program, CIAT John Lynam, Consultant Charles J. Maguire, Consultant Vijay Mahajan, BASIX Group, India Morven McLean, ILSI Research Foundation Mohinder S. Mudahar, Consultant Bernardo Ospina Patiño, Latin American and Caribbean Consortium to Support Cassava Research and Development (CLAYUCA) Christopher Palmberg, ADVANSIS Ltd. Andrea Pape-Christiansen, Consultant Robert Potter, Robert Potter Consulting John Preissing, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Ranjitha Puskur, International Livestock Research institute (ILRI)
636
AUTHORS AND THEIR AFFILIATIONS
Catherine Ragasa, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Riikka Rajalahti, Agriculture and Rural Development Department, World Bank Johannes Roseboom, Innovation Policy Consultancy Silvia Sarapura, University of Guelph Eva Schiffer, Consultant Kiran K. Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) David J. Spielman, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) David S. Suale, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security, Sierra Leone Rasheed Sulaiman V, Centre for Research on Innovation and Science Policy (CRISP), India Florian Theus, World Bank Institute Bernard Triomphe, Agricultural Research for Development, France (CIRAD) Klaus Urban, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) K. Vasumathi, BASIX Group, India Rodrigo Vega Alarc贸n, Consultant, formerly with FIA Laurens van Veldhuizen, Prolinnova International Secretariat, ETC Foundation Ann Waters-Bayer, Prolinnova International Secretariat, ETC Foundation Melissa Williams, South Asia Agriculture and Rural Development, World Bank Mariana Wongtschowski, Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Douglas Zhihua Zeng, Africa Finance and Private Sector Development, World Bank
AUTHORS AND THEIR AFFILIATIONS
637
INDEX
Boxes, figures, and tables are indicated by b, f, and t following the page number. A AACREA (Argentine Association of Regional Consortiums for Agricultural Experimentation), 49b, 63b Aakruthi Agricultural Associates of India, 423b ABI (Agri-Business Incubator@ICRISAT), 393b, 423b accountability. See also governance coordination and collective action, 21, 36 defined, 540b extension and advisory services, 188, 217, 219 innovation networks, 51 partnerships, 367b research organizations, 317–19, 319b accreditation, 123 ACF (Asia Challenge Fund), 614–15 Ackermann, Nuria, 430 Adaptable Program Loan (World Bank), 240b, 241 adaptive management, 19b additionality, 372b, 377 advisory committees for curriculum reform, 153 advisory services, 10. See also extension and advisory services aerial photography, 8b AERI (Agricultural Exports and Rural Income) Project, 151 AET (agricultural education and training). See education and training AFAAS (African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services), 188, 189b affirmative action, 29, 65 Africa. See also specific countries and regions biosafety regulatory systems in, 522–25 education and training in, 125 regional research coordination in, 299b, 301b regulatory frameworks in, 453b Africa Country Programmes (ACP), 615 African Agriculture Fund, 417–18b, 418 African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (AFAAS), 188, 189b African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD), 109b
agenda setting coordination and collective action, 32, 76 education and training, 114–17, 114t agrarian economies, 265, 278b Agri-Business Incubator@ICRISAT (ABI) (India), 393b, 423b, See also business incubator Agrícola Cafetelera Buena Vista (Bolivia), 96 Agricultural Biorefinery Innovation Network for Green Energy, Fuels, and Chemicals (Canada), 46 agricultural business development, 388–441 business incubators and, 388–95 cluster-based approach, 396–405, 430–34, 431–33b enabling environment for, 512–15 innovative activity profiles, 421–41 partnerships and, 362 risk capital for, 414–20 technology transfer and, 406–13, 426–29 agricultural credit services, 246–50, 247t, 248–49b Agricultural Economics Institute, 163 agricultural education and training (AET). See education and training Agricultural Exports and Rural Income (AERI) Project, 151 agricultural innovation councils, 23 agricultural innovation systems defined, 4b education and training. See education and training evolution of, 1 examples, 3b functional assessments, 548–49, 548t funding. See innovation funds initiatives to strengthen key components, 4–7 innovation brokers. See innovation brokers need for, 4b networks. See innovation networks overview, 3–4, 4f research in, 264–69. See also research 639
Agricultural Research Council (ARC, South Africa), 401b agricultural research linkages, 277–88 commercialization approaches, 284–86 financing for, 286 in AIS, 277–88 innovative activity profile, 344–49, 345b, 346t, 348b investment context, 277–78, 278b investment needs, 278–86, 279–80t lessons learned, 287–88 policy issues, 286–87 potential benefits, 286 technology transfer and, 284–86, 285b Agricultural Risk Management Team (ARMT), 347 Agricultural Sector Development Program (Tanzania), 200 Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations Project (PASAOP, Senegal), 281–82b agricultural technical-vocational education and training (ATVET), 109, 136–40 Agricultural Technology Consortium model (Chile), 338–43, 339b, 342–43b Agriculture and Rural Development Council (Australia), 23 Agriculture Education Council (India), 146 Agriculture Investment Sourcebook (World Bank), 190 Agriculture Technology Fund (Peru), 241, 242–43b Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA) (India), 85 Agri Science Park (India), 421 agrodealer development, 192, 231–35, 232b knowledge transfer and, 232, 233b, 235b lessons learned, 234–35 support systems, 233–34, 234b Ahmadu Bello University (Nigeria), 156 aid-for-trade, 188 Albania, innovation funds in, 438b, 440 Alemaya University of Agriculture (Ethiopia), 156 All-China Women’s Federation, 428 Allgood, John, 231 Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, 299b Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Cooperative Federation, 248b Andhra Pradesh, India agricultural credit services in, 248b community organizations in, 84–89 coordination organizations in, 84–89, 85b, 86–87f, 87–88b financial services in, 526–29 innovative activity profiles, 84–89, 526–29 Self help groups (SHGs) in, 84–89 angel investment, 415 APEMEP (Association of Small and Medium Agro-producers of Panama), 92b Aravazhi, S., 421 ARC (Agricultural Research Council, South Africa), 401b Argentina farmer organizations in, 63b innovation networks in, 49b national innovation policy in, 465b no-till agriculture in, 70, 72t, 73t public-private research partnerships in, 274b, 292b, 294 Argentine Association of Regional Consortiums for Agricultural Experimentation (AACREA), 49b, 63b
640
INDEX
Armenia, competitive grant funding in, 436 ARMT (Agricultural Risk Management Team), 347 ASARECA, 306b Asia Challenge Fund (ACF), 614–15 Asociación Argentina de Consorcios Regionales de Experimentación Agricola (AACREA), 49b, 63b ASOSID (Mexico), 312b assessment, 546–52 benchmarking and, 549–50, 549t of biosafety risk, 492–500, 501–11, 522–25 defined, 540b of environmental risk, 522–25 foresighting investments, 562–68, 563–64b, 566t gender issues and, 598–602 of innovation systems, 541–602 of innovation system functions, 548–49, 548t innovative activity profiles, 589–609, 598–602 investment context, 541, 546–47 investment needs, 543–45, 544t lessons learned, 551–52 methods, 547–50, 547b, 593–97, 603–6 organizational, 553–61. See also organizational assessment policy issues, 541–43, 542t, 550–51 potential benefits, 550 public sector role, 550–51 recommendations, 551–52 theory of change, 547–48, 547b Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (U.S.), 127–28 Association of Small and Medium Agro-producers of Panama (APEMEP), 92b ATMA (Agriculture Technology Management Agency), 85 ATVET (agricultural technical-vocational education and training), 109, 136–40 Australia agricultural innovation council in, 23 biosafety regulatory systems in, 499b coordination organizations in, 36, 37b national agricultural innovation system in, 284b no-till agriculture in, 70, 73t research and development in, 284 research councils in, 21 technical human resources development in, 137b AWARD (African Women in Agricultural Research and Development), 109b Ayers, Seth, 388 Azerbaijan, competitive grant funding in, 436 B BACET (Building Agribusiness Capacity in East Timor) project, 165–68 backward integration, 56b BAIF Development and Research Foundation, 216b Ballantyne, Peter, 326 Banana Producers Association in Riva (Nicaragua), 433b Bangladesh agricultural innovation systems in, 3b agrodealer development in, 234, 234b biosafety regulatory systems in, 498b
extension and advisory services in, 214, 233b, 235b no-till agriculture in, 47b, 70, 72 public-private partnerships in, 375b rural road networks in, 455b technical knowledge transfer in, 233b, 235b Bangladesh Fertilizer Association (BFA), 234b BASIX Group, 192, 246–50, 247t, 248–49b Bayero University (Nigeria), 156 BecA-Hub, 299b benchmarking assessment and, 549–50, 549t cluster-based development and, 402 national innovation systems and policies, 466, 467–68b organizational assessment and, 554 Bennett, Alan B., 406 Best, Rupert, 344 Best Bet technologies, 615 BFA (Bangladesh Fertilizer Association), 234b Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (India), 38b Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 109b, 133b Bioconnect (Netherlands), 40–41, 43b biosafety regulatory systems, 492–500 capacity building for, 493b innovative activity profiles, 522–25 interministerial coordination for, 497–98, 498b investment context, 492 investment needs, 493–94 lessons learned, 495–99 policy issues, 494–95 potential benefits, 494, 494b recommendations, 495–99 Bioseed Research India, 424b BIOTEC program (Thailand), 266 Birner, Regina, 553 block grants, 381–82, 382t Boettiger, Sara, 480, 516 Bogor Agricultural University (Indonesia), 127b, 133 Bolivia education and training in, 117b farmer organizations in, 67 innovation networks in, 45b no-till agriculture in, 70, 73t public-private research partnerships in, 385b research and development in, 283 rural productive alliances in, 96, 97 Botswana business development services in, 207 intellectual property management in, 483b Botswana Technology Centre (BOTEC), 483b BRAC, 214, 215–16b Braun, Arnoud R., 236 Brazil coordination and collective action in, 34 education and training in, 112b, 129 farmer organizations in, 67 Brazilian Agricultural Research Coooperation (EMBRAPA), 112b, 292b national innovation policy in, 463b
no-till agriculture in, 70, 72t, 73t public-private research partnerships in, 292b, 385b research councils in, 21 technology transfers in, 411b Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, 70, 112b Brett, Alistair, 414 British American Tobacco, 181b broad cluster mapping, 402 brokers. See innovation brokers Building Agribusiness Capacity in East Timor (BACET) project, 165–68 Bukalasa Agricultural College (Uganda), 163 Bunda College of Agriculture (Malawi), 156 Burkina Faso, biosafety regulatory systems in, 500b business development. See agricultural business development; local business development services (LBDSs) business incubators, 366, 388–95. See also agri-business incubators financing, 394–95 in Mali, 209b in India, 393b, 423b innovation networks and, 46 innovative activity profiles, 421–25 investment context, 388–89, 389b investment needs, 389–91 lessons learned, 391–95, 424 local business development and, 209b policy issues, 391 potential benefits, 391 recommendations, 391–95 revenue models for, 390b services of, 388b sustainability, 424 typology, 389t business linkage development, 233, 234b Business Minds Africa: Professionals for Agricultural Entrepreneurship in East-Africa, 207 C CAADP (Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme), 182 CAFÉ PERÚ, 242b Cambodia innovation funds in, 440, 440b intellectual property rights in, 486b public-private partnerships in, 404 Cambodian Center for Study and Development in Agriculture (CEDAC), 440b Canada International Development Agency, 299b no-till agriculture in, 70, 73t capacity building, 9–10 for biosafety regulatory systems, 493b cluster-based business development and, 431, 433–34 coordination and collective action and, 9, 26–28, 27b, 31–32, 59–69 education and training and, 9–10 evaluation and, 580
INDEX
641
capacity building (continued) extension and advisory services, 10 farmer organizations and, 61, 64 for governance, 473–76 higher education students and, 133b innovation brokers and, 226 innovation systems and, 9–10 for intellectual property (IP) management, 518b local business development services and, 211–12 for national coordination, 35, 36b organizational change and, 316–17, 318b for pluralistic extension systems, 198–200 for public-private partnerships, 379 Casas Agrárias (Mozambique), 208b Cassava research networks, 90–94, 92b. See also CLAYUCA catalytic agents, 46, 50. See also business incubators; innovation brokers Catholic Relief Services (CRS), 347, 348b CATIE, 344–49. See also Learning Alliances CBR (community-based research), 157–59, 159b CCARDESA (Center for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development in Southern Africa), 307b CEDAC (Cambodian Center for Study and Development in Agriculture), 440b CEGE (Center for Entrepreneurial Management) (Nicaragua), 432b CENICAÑA (Colombian Sugarcane Research Center), 66 Center for Community-Based Research (Thailand), 158 Center for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development in Southern Africa (CCARDESA), 307b Center for Entrepreneurial Management (CEGE) (Nicaragua), 432b Central Africa, regional research coordination in, 299b. See also specific countries Central American Learning Alliance, 283, 344, 347 CFC (Common Fund for Commodities, Kenya), 222b CGIAR. See Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Cheetah Network (Mali), 209b Chiang Mai University (Thailand), 126, 133, 157–59, 159b Chile agricultural innovation council in, 23 Agricultural Technology Consortium model in, 338–43, 339b, 342–43b assessment in, 607–9, 608–9b, 609f coordination organizations in, 36, 80–83 intellectual property management in, 484b national innovation policy in, 461b no-till agriculture in, 72 olive oil industry in, 82b research and development tax incentives in, 365b China business incubators in, 392b education and training in, 129, 138 higher education reform in, 157–59, 159b intellectual property management in, 409b, 426–29 no-till agriculture in, 70, 72, 73t public-private partnerships in, 362, 375b, 377b, 380b
642
INDEX
public-private research partnerships in, 90 tertiary education reform in, 124–25b value chains in, 54b Chinese University of Technology, 409b CIAT (International Center for Tropical Agriculture), 17b, 91–93, 347, 348b CLAYUCA, 90–94 Learning Alliances, 344–49 CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), 47b, 50 CIP (International Potato Center), 45b, 222b civil society. See also nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); specific organizations cluster-based business development and, 431b coordination and collective action role, 28, 31 education and, 138 innovation networks and, 48, 51 marketing chains, 57 research and, 273, 371b Clayton, Anthony, 562 CLAYUCA (Latin American and Caribbean Consortium to Support Cassava Research and Development), 90–94, 92b Client-Oriented Research and Development Management Approach (CORDEMA), 318b, 322 climate change, 12b, 188. See also environmental issues cluster-based business development, 368, 396–405 capacity building and, 431, 433–34 infrastructure and, 397 innovative activity profile, 430–34, 431–33b institutional framework and, 398–99, 398f investment needs, 397–99 investment rationale, 396–97 lessons learned, 402–5, 434 policy issues, 400 potential benefits, 399–400, 431–34 public-private partnerships and, 404b recommendations, 402–5 regulatory environment and, 397–98 value chains vs., 397 CMSA (community-managed sustainable agriculture), 85, 86–89, 87–88b codesigned innovations, 308–15 investment context, 308–9, 309t investment needs, 309–13, 310b, 310t, 312b lessons learned, 314–15 partnerships for, 282–83, 295 policy issues, 314 potential benefits, 314 COFUPRO (Coordinadora Nacional de las Fundaciones Produce, Mexico), 75–77, 78b collective action. See coordination and collective action colleges and universities. See tertiary education and training Collion, Marie-Hélène, 95 Colombia agricultural innovation systems in, 3b business incubators in, 395b farmer organizations in, 67 intellectual property rights in, 485b
matching grant schemes in, 385b no-till agriculture in, 72 public-private research partnerships in, 90, 93, 274b, 385b rural productive alliances in, 96, 97 Colombian Coffee Growers’ Federation, 23, 24, 53, 60 Colombian Sugarcane Research Center (CENICAÑA), 66 Colombia Productive Partnerships Project, 385b commodity boards, 23–24 Common Fund for Commodities (CFC, Kenya), 222b community-based research (CBR), 157–59, 159b community-managed sustainable agriculture (CMSA), 85, 86–89, 87–88b competency-led partnerships, 295 competitive position analysis, 402 competitive research grants (CRGs), 6b, 41b, 286, 368, 381–82, 382t, 386b, 437–38b. See also matching grants, and innovation funds defined, 632 Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), 182 CONDESAN, 298b Consorcio Papa Chile SA, 342b consortium approaches, 283–84 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) extension and advisory services, 180, 183b, 222 Gender and Diversity Program, 109b research centers, 262, 274b, 306b role of, 7 contracting intellectual property (IP) management and, 519 for partnerships, 378–79 performance-based, 514 for public-private partnerships, 378–79 Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs), 284b, 338 Coordinadora Nacional de las Fundaciones Produce (COFUPRO, Mexico), 75–77, 78b coordination and collective action, 9, 15–106 agenda setting, 32 in biosafety regulatory systems, 497–98, 498b capacity building for, 26–28, 27b, 31–32, 59–69 economic growth and, 16–17 environmental outcomes and, 18 equity issues, 29 of extension and advisory services, 189b factors essential to, 18, 19b Farmer Field Schools (FFSs), 236–39 gender issues, 29 governance and, 30, 478 innovation brokers and, 30–31 innovation networks and, 30, 44–51 innovative activity profiles, 70–99 instruments and incentives for, 20 investment rationale, 16–18 monitoring and evaluation, 32–33 on national level, 21, 34–43 organizations for, 20–26, 22t, 23–25b, 27b overview, 15–33
policy issues, 28–29 poverty reduction and, 17–18 public and private sector role, 28 public goods production and, 17 research and educational organizations role, 28–29, 270, 277–88, 278b, 297–307 sustainability issues, 29 value chains and, 31, 52–58 Copperbelt College of Education (Zambia), 117b Coprokazan (Mali), 62b CORAF/WECARD, 307b CORDEMA (Client-Oriented Research and Development Management Approach), 318b, 322 core (block) funding, 381–82, 382t Corporation to Promote Production (CORFO, Chile), 81 Costa Rica cassava market in, 94b education and training in, 128, 133 higher education reform in, 160–62 public-private research partnerships in, 90 cost-sharing, 189–90, 233 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (India), 38b Council of Social Science Research (India), 38b Council on Agricultural Research (India), 47b counterfactuals, 582, 583b CRCs (Cooperative Research Centres), 284b, 338 credit markets, 246–50, 247t, 248–49b. See also financial services CRGs. See competitive research grants Crops Research Institute (Ghana), 71b curriculum reform, 131–35 investment context, 131–32 investment needs, 132 lessons learned, 134–35 policy issues, 134 potential benefits, 132–33, 133b recommendations, 135 cyber-extension, 183b D DAE (Department of Agricultural Extension, Bangladesh), 233b, 235b Dairy Cooperative Societies (India), 25b, 60 DAPEP (Dryland Agriculture Productivity Enhancement Program), 246 Davis, Kristin, 179, 180, 194, 236 decentralization coordination and collective action, 77 education and training, 124–25b extension and advisory services, 6b, 184, 197–98, 202 research, 6b, 262–63, 270 DEEPA Industries Ltd., 222b democratization, 270 Department for International Development (UK), 327b Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE, Bangladesh), 233b, 235b Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations (Australia), 137b Department of Primary Industries (DPI, Australia), 137b
INDEX
643
Department of Science and Technology (DST, India), 421 Dharampur Uththan Vahini (DHRUVA, India), 216b Diaz Rios, Luz, 501 diffusion of technology, 39b, 47, 70–71 Dijkman, J., 273 District Services for Economic Activities (Mozambique), 206b Doing Business (World Bank), 391 Dorai, Kumuda, 539, 569, 580 downward accountability, 188 DPI (Department of Primary Industries, Australia), 137b Dryland Agriculture Productivity Enhancement Program (DAPEP), 246 DST (Department of Science and Technology, India), 421 due diligence, 519 Duveskog, Deborah, 236 E EARTH University (Costa Rica), 133, 160–62 East Africa Farmer Field Schools in, 236, 238 regional research coordination in, 299b East Africa Agricultural Productivity Project, 264 East Africa Dairy Development Project, 327b Eastern and Southern Africa Seed Alliance, 285b Economic Development Programme (BRAC), 215–16b Ecuador innovation networks in, 45b public-private research partnerships in, 90, 291b research and development in, 283 education and training, 9–10, 107–77, 117b curriculum reform, 125–26, 126b, 131–35, 151–53 financing trends, 5b formal, 110–11 gender and, 109b ICT and, 8b, 117b informal, 111 initiatives to strengthen, 5–7, 6b, 7 innovative activity profiles, 145–71 in-service training and development, 111, 141–44, 154–56 for intellectual property (IP) management, 407–8, 408t, 489–90, 490b investment context, 108, 111–12 investment needs, 114–17 monitoring and evaluation of investments in, 119–20, 120–21t overview, 107–21 policy issues, 112–13 reform priorities and directions, 113–19, 114t structure of systems, 108–11 technician development, 136–40, 163–64, 169–71, 170b for Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), 407–8 tertiary level, 122–30, 145–53, 157–62. See also tertiary education and training e-extension, 183b Egypt education and training in, 132 higher education reform in, 151–53 technical skills development in, 169–71, 170b vocational training in, 169–71, 170b
644
INDEX
Ekanayake, Indira, 512 Ekboir, Javier, 15, 44, 52, 59, 70, 75 Elliott, Howard, 297 El Salvador, learning alliances in, 17b Elsenburg Training Institute, 401b Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), 34, 70, 112b, 292b enabling environment for innovation, 10–11, 449–537. See also standards, biosafety environmental issues, 456 financial services, 526–29 governance and, 452, 456–57, 469–79 infrastructure 512–14 innovative activity profiles, 512–29 intellectual property management, 480–91, 516–21 investment context, 452–55 investment needs, 456–58 investment rationale, 450–52, 450f monitoring and evaluation for, 458–59t national innovation policy, 460–68 policy issues, 450–52, 450f, 455–56, 457 poverty reduction and, 456 public-private partnerships, 93, 456 regulatory frameworks and, 452–53, 457, 492–511, 522–25 rural areas, 454–55, 455b, 457–58 environmental issues enabling environment for innovation and, 449, 456 intellectual property (IP) management and, 488 local business development services and, 210, 210b national innovation policy and, 464 pluralistic extension systems and, 201 Envirotrade project, 210b Equity Bank of Kenya, 327b equity issues. See also gender issues coordination and collective action, 29 extension and advisory services, 188–91, 244 organizational change, 324 partnerships, 370 pluralistic extension systems, 201 regional research, 302 research, 270 ERAP (External Resource Person Advisory Program), 246–47 Ernstberger, Josef, 361, 381, 426 Estamos (NGO), 208b Ethiopia business development services in, 201, 205 education and training in, 126, 138 extension and advisory services in, 181b, 184, 187b gender-inclusive education in, 109b innovation funds in, 437, 438b net-mapping in, 596b research and development in, 327b technical skill development in, 163–64 Eurasia Group, 234b European Foundation for Quality Management, 164 evaluation, 580–88. See also monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capacity building and, 580 counterfactuals and, 582, 583b
defined, 540b investment context, 580–81 investment needs, 581–85 lessons learned, 585–88 methods, 583–84b, 583–85, 586–87t policy issues, 585 potential benefits, 585 principles, 581–83, 582b recommendations, 585–88 exit strategies for public-private partnerships, 369b, 379 extension and advisory services, 179–93, 194–250 agricultural credit and, 246–50, 247t, 248–49b agrodealer development, 231–35, 232b coordination of, 189b defined, 179–80, 180b development principles, 183–87, 185–86t equity issues, 188, 190–91, 244 evolution of, 180–83, 181b “extension-plus” approach, 191, 213–20 Farmer Field Schools, 185b, 236–39 gender issues, 190–91 ICT and, 183b, 185b initiatives to strengthen, 6b, 7 innovation brokers and, 191, 221–30 innovation networks and, 46 in-service training, 154–56 investment levels in, 181–82, 181b local business development services, 191, 204–12 monitoring and evaluation of, 192–93, 192b pluralistic extension systems, 191, 194–203 policy issues, 187–91 public and private sector roles, 180, 187, 189, 190t roles and impacts of, 180 sustainability, 189–90 “extension-plus” approach, 191, 213–20 human resource issues, 218 institutional framework and, 216–18 investment context, 213–14, 214t investment needs, 214–16, 215–16b, 215t lessons learned, 218–20 monitoring and evaluation of, 216–18, 217t policy issues, 216–18 potential benefits, 216 public and private sector roles, 218 recommendations, 219–20, 220t sustainability, 218 External Resource Person Advisory Program (ERAP), 246–47 F facilitation, 3b, 15–33, 283, 288, 305t, 306, 308–15, 316–25, 344–49, 520–21. See also broker, and innovation broker business, 422 direct, 404 facilitating cooperation, 403 network membership and, 591 public sector, 427 Fair Trade movement, 53 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 111
FARM-Africa (NGO), 185b Farm Business Schools, 207, 211 Farmer and Nature Net (FNN), 440b Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) coordination networks for, 236–39 defined, 26 extension and advisory services, 180, 181b, 192, 206b gender issues, 237b lessons learned, 239 participatory group learning in, 185b potential benefits, 237 sustainability, 238 farmer interest groups (FIGs), 184b farmer-managed foundations, 23 farmer organizations, 24–26. See also producer organizations defined, 16b extension and advisory services, 202 financing of, 63b, 67 information technology use by, 62b innovation networks and, 46 marketing chains and, 52 poverty reduction and, 17 farmer-to-farmer (F2F) extension, 182 farmer training centers (FTCs), 187b Farm Radio International, 62b FDSE (Fondo para el Desarrollo de Servicios Estratégicos, Peru), 242–43 fee-for-service extension, 188b fertilizer deep placement technology, 235b FFA (Future Farmers of America), 109, 110b, 111 FFSs. See Farmer Field Schools FIA (Fundación para la Innovación Agraria, Chile), 23, 30, 36, 80–83, 81b finance partnerships, 295 financial services agricultural credit, 246–50, 247t, 248–49b cluster-based development and, 402 enabling environment for innovation and, 526–29 extension services and, 246–50, 247t, 248–49b instruments, 369b, 417t savings and credit cooperatives, 183 financing. See also matching grants and research grants of agricultural research linkages, 286 of business incubators, 394–95 extension and advisory services, 189–90 of farmer organizations, 63b, 67 investments for innovation, 414–420 partnerships, 368–69 of research, 5b, 270, 271b sustainability of, 19b technology transfer, 5b Finland response to challenges of globalization, 472b governance of innovation systems in, 469–479, 472b, 475b policy coordination organizations in, 474b research and innovation council, 474b strategic intelligence capabilities in, 476b Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes), 473b INDEX
645
first-round funding, 416 FLAR (Latin American Fund for Irrigated Rice), 298b FNN (Farmer and Nature Net), 440b Fodder Innovation Project, 327b, 329b, 610–13, 613t Fondo de Tecnología Agraria (FTA, Peru), 241, 242–43b Fondo para el Desarrollo de Servicios Estratégicos (FDSE, Peru), 242–43 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 111, 181b, 211 Ford Foundation, 301b foreign direct investment, 482 foresighting investment, 562–68 lessons learned, 568 policy issues, 567–68 potential benefits, 567 process, 563–65 recommendations, 568 sustainability and, 567–68 tools and applications, 562–67, 566t formal organizations, 21 Foundation for Agricultural Innovation (Chile), 23, 30, 36, 80–83, 81b fourth-round funding, 416 Framework for African Agricultural Productivity, 182 France, no-till agriculture in, 72 Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya (FPEAK), 23, 24b Friedman, Michelle, 95 FTA (Fondo de Tecnología Agraria, Peru), 241, 242–43b FTCs (farmer training centers), 187b Fundación Chile, 399 Fundación para la Innovación Agraria (FIA, Chile), 23, 30, 36, 80–83, 81b Future Farmers of America (FFA), 109, 110b, 111 G GALVmed (Global Alliance for Livestock Veterinary Medicines), 327b, 516–21, 517–18b Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook (World Bank), 324 gender analysis, 539, 544t, 598–602 gender issues in assessments, 598–602, 600t in coordination and collective action, 29 as cross-cutting theme, 12b education and training, 113 in education and training, 109b in extension and advisory services, 190–91 in Farmer Field Schools, 237b organizational change, 324 partnerships, 370 pluralistic extension systems, 201 Gene Technology Act (Australia), 499b genetically engineered foods, 495–96b, 500b. See also biosafety regulatory systems genetic resources intellectual property management and, 481b public-private partnerships, 274b Geoola, Josef, 516 GFRAS (Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services), 182, 189b, 192b
646
INDEX
Ghana agricultural innovation systems in, 3b agricultural research linkages in, 280b education and training in, 155 gender-inclusive education in, 109b innovation funds in, 437 in-service training for extension staff, 155–56 net-mapping in, 596b no-till agriculture in, 70, 71b, 72 organizational assessment in, 560b public-private research partnerships in, 90 research councils in, 21 Ghana Cocoa Board, 24 Gildemacher, Peter, 221 Global Alliance for Livestock Veterinary Medicines (GALVmed), 327b, 516–21, 517–18b Global Development Alliance, 234b Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS), 182, 189b, 192b GlobalGAP, 405 Golden Rice, 50 Gottret, María Verónica, 344 governance, 469–79, 472f capacity building for, 473–76 competitive research funding and, 41b coordination and collective action, 30, 36b, 478 enabling environment for innovation and, 452, 456–57, 469–79 farmer organizations, 61 innovation funds and, 383, 384t innovation networks, 51 of innovation systems, 469–79 of innovation systems in Finland, Republic of Korea, South Africa, 469–79 intellectual property (IP) management and, 408–9 investment context, 469–71 investment needs, 471–77 lessons learned, 477–79 local business development services and, 209 national innovation policy and, 21, 464 organizational change, 317–19, 319b potential benefits, 477 project-based funding and, 40, 41b, 42t public-private partnerships, 375 recommendations, 479 Technology Transfer Offices and, 408–9 transparency and, 479 Granovetter, M., 221 Guatemala farmer organizations in, 67 learning alliances in, 17b public-private research partnerships in, 385b rural productive alliances in, 97 Guyana, public-private research partnerships in, 90 H Hagar Soya Co. (Cambodia), 486b Haiti, public-private research partnerships in, 90 Hall, Andy, 273, 539, 569, 580, 610
Hambly Odame, Helen, 539, 546 Hartwich, Frank, 294 Hawassa University (Ethiopia), 156 Heemskerk, Willem, 179, 194 higher education. See tertiary education and training Honduras education and training in, 128 learning alliances in, 17b public-private research partnerships in, 385b honest broker role, 404 HoneyBee Network, 224b HORIZONT3000, 431b Horton, Douglas, 316 household surveys, 559 humanitarian licensing models, 489 human resource development (HRD), 141–44, 146 I IBEX (Inter Borrower Exchange Program), 246 ICAR. See Indian Council of Agricultural Research ICICI Bank, 248b ICRISAT. See International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics ICT. See information and communication technology IDE (International Development Enterprises), 224b IDESI (Institute for Development of the Informal Sector–Arequipa), 242 IDRC (International Development Research Centre), 17b, 344 IFDC (International Fertilizer Development Center), 232–33, 233b IIRR (International Institute of Rural Reconstruction), 207 ILAC (Institutional Learning and Change Initiative), 559b, 628 ILO (International Labour Organization), 111, 375b ILRI. See International Livestock Research Institute Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), 70 INCAGRO. See Innovation and Competitiveness Program for Peruvian Agriculture INCOPA Project (Peru), 45b incubator. See business incubator India. See also Andhra Pradesh Agricultural business incubator at ICRISAT, 393b, 421–25 agricultural innovation systems in, 3b agrodealer development in, 231 BASIX, 246–50 biosafety regulatory systems in, 495–96b business incubators in, 392b, 421–25, 422f, 423–24b, 425t coordination organizations in, 25b, 38b, 84–89, 85b, 86–87f, 87–88b education and training in, 129, 138 extension and advisory services in, 184b, 224b farmer organizations in, 62b, 63b higher education reform in, 145–48 innovation brokers in, 222, 224b National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP), 38, 266, 269, 331–37, 333t, 334–36b no-till agriculture in, 47b, 70, 72, 72t research organizations in, 21, 323b scenario planning in, 603–6, 604t, 605f, 606b
technology development and transfer in, 331–37, 333t, 334–36b Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), 38, 38b, 145, 323b, 331–37 Indonesia education and training in, 129 public-private research partnerships in, 274b tertiary education reform in, 125, 127b Industry Skills Training Councils (Australia), 137b infoDev, xv, 364, 390b, 392b infomediaries, 224b informal organizations, 21 Information and Communication Technologies for Agriculture e-Sourcebook (World Bank), 183b information and communication technology (ICT) education and, 8b, 115, 117b extension and advisory services and, 7, 183b, 185b farmer organizations and, 62b innovation brokers and, 224b knowledge exchange role of, 8b research and, 272–73, 272b training and, 8b, 117b information gathering defined, 540b market intelligence, 58, 272–73, 413 for organizational assessment, 555–56 research and, 272–73 infrastructure for cluster-based business development, 397, 431b for education and training, 168 INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, Uruguay), 39b, 320–21b INIAP (Ecuador), 45b INIAP (Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Ecuador), 291b Innova-Chile, 81 Innovation Acquisition Service (Thailand), 23b Innovation and Competitiveness Program for Peruvian Agriculture (INCAGRO), 240–45, 240b, 242–43b, 244t, 320–21b, 322 innovation brokers brokering role, 179–259 capacity building and, 27b coordination role of, 30–31 defined, 16b extension and advisory services role of, 191, 221–30 innovation networks and, 46 innovative activity profiles, 231–50 investment context, 221–22 investment needs, 222–23b, 225–26 lessons learned, 227–28 monitoring and evaluation of, 228 policy issues, 226 potential benefits, 224–25 recommendations, 228–30 typology of, 222–24, 225t innovation funds, 381–87 governance and, 383, 384t
INDEX
647
innovation funds (continued) innovative activity profile, 435–41, 437–38b, 437t, 440b investment context, 381–82 investment needs, 383 lessons learned, 386–87, 387b policy issues, 384–85 potential benefits, 383–84 sustainability, 440–41 InnovationNetwork (Netherlands), 46 innovation networks, 30, 44–51 capacity building and, 27b coordination and collective action role of, 30, 44–51 incentives for, 51 investment context, 44–45 investment needs, 45–46 lessons learned, 49–51 policy issues, 47–49 potential benefits, 46–47, 47b public and private sector roles, 48–49, 49b recommendations, 51 research role, 48 social capital issues, 48 sustainability and, 47–48 innovation platforms, 268–69, 283 innovative activity profiles advisory services models, 231–50 agricultural business development, 421–41 agricultural research linkages, 344–49, 345b, 346t, 348b assessment, 589–609 biosafety regulatory systems, 522–25 business incubators, 421–25 cluster-based business development, 430–34, 431–33b coordination and collective action, 70–99 education and training, 145–71 enabling environment for innovation, 512–29 innovation brokers, 231–50 innovation funds, 435–41, 437–38b, 437t, 440b innovation partnerships and business development, 421–41 in-service training/learning, 154–56 intellectual property (IP) management, 516–21, 517–18b Mexico produce foundation, 75–79 monitoring and evaluation (M&E), 610–19 no-till networks, 70–74 organizational change, 326–30, 327b, 329b prioritization, 593 public-private research partnerships, 90–94 rural productive alliances, 95–99 regulatory frameworks, 522–25 research, 326–49 technician development, 163–64, 169–71, 170b tertiary education and training, 145–53, 157–62 Inova, 411b in-service training/learning, 141–44 implementation issues, 144 innovative activity profile, 146, 154–56 investment context, 141 investment needs, 142–43
648
INDEX
lessons learned, 144 potential benefits, 143–44 Institute for Development of the Informal Sector–Arequipa (IDESI, Peru), 242 Institute of Peruvian Amazon Research, 243b institutional framework cluster-based business development and, 398–99, 398f, 431b “extension-plus” approach and, 216–18 intellectual property (IP) management and, 410 pluralistic extension systems and, 201 research and, 5 Technology Transfer Offices and, 410, 485–86 tertiary education and, 147 Institutional History monitoring method, 577b, 610–13, 613t institutional learning, 559b Institutional Linkage Project, 151 Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIAP, Ecuador), 291b Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), 39b, 320–21b Instituto Nacional Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA, Argentina), 292b Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB, Indonesia), 127b, 133 INTA (Instituto Nacional Tecnología Agropecuaria, Argentina), 292b intellectual property (IP) management, 480–91 capacity building for, 518b contracting and, 519 due diligence, 519 enabling environment for innovation, 480–91, 516–21 environmental issues, 488 foreign direct investment and, 482 genetic resources and, 481b governance and, 408–9 humanitarian licensing models, 489 innovative activity profile, 516–21, 517–18b institutional framework and, 410 investment context, 406–7, 407t, 480–82 investment needs, 407–9, 484–87 legal framework and, 487–88 lessons learned, 410–13, 488–89 national innovation policy and, 482 policy issues, 410, 411–12, 487–88 potential benefits, 409–10, 487 public and private sector roles, 483–84, 488, 517b public-private partnerships and, 293, 295 recommendations, 412–13, 413b, 489–91 research councils and, 38 Technology Licensing Office (Thailand), 23b technology transfer and, 482–83 trade and, 482 training for, 407–8, 408t, 489–90, 490b Inter Borrower Exchange Program (IBEX), 246 Interchurch Organization for Development Corporation, 431b interest groups, 40, 184b internal rate of return (IRR), 418 International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), 17b, 91–93, 347, 348b
International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), 285b, 393b, 421–25, 422f, 423–24b, 425t International Development Agency (Canada), 299b International Development Enterprises (IDE), 224b International Development Research Centre (IDRC), 17b, 344 International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), 232–33, 233b International Food Policy Research Institute, 181b International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), 207 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture–FOODNET, 348b International Labour Organization (ILO), 111, 375b International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), 44, 223b, 299b, 326–30, 327b International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), 47b, 50 International Potato Center (CIP), 45b, 222b International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), 78b internship programs, 153, 161 intervention logic, defined, 540b IP. See intellectual property management iPark (business incubator), 392 IPB (Institut Pertanian Bogor, Indonesia), 127b, 133 Ireland education and training in, 126 foresighting investments in, 563b scenarios, 563b Teagasc, 536b IRR (internal rate of return), 418 ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research), 78b J Jamaica foresighting investments in, 564b public-private research partnerships in, 385b Janssen, Willem, 607 Jimma University College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine (Ethiopia), 163 Joffe, Steen, 589 Johnson, Adolphus, 589 joint experimentation, 311 joint venture, 79b, 81b, 141–42, 195, 286, 341 K Kammili, Trish, 569, 580 KAPP (Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project), 238b, 269 KARI (Kenya Agricultural Research Institute), 222b, 269 Karuppanchetty, S. M., 421 Kazakhstan, competitive grant funding in, 436 KDGCBP (Kenya Dairy Goat and Capacity Building Project), 185b Kelemework, D., 275 Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, 127–28 Kenya agrodealer development in, 234b business development services in, 201, 207
cluster-based business development in, 401b coordination organizations in, 24b, 64b extension and advisory services in, 222b, 238b Farmer Field Schools in, 236, 238, 238b farmer organizations in, 62b gender-inclusive education in, 109b innovation brokers in, 222, 222b, 225 research and development in, 271b, 327b value chains in, 54b Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project (KAPP), 238b, 269 Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), 222b, 269 Kenya Dairy Goat and Capacity Building Project (KDGCBP), 185b Kenya Flower Council, 24b Kenya Good Agricultural Practices (Kenya-GAP), 24b Kenya Horticulture Council, 24b Kenya Tea Board, 24, 64b Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA), 53, 60, 64b, 66–67 Kerala Horticultural Development Programme (KHDP, India), 215b, 217b, 219b Khisa, Godrick, 236 Klerkx, Laurens, 221 Kline, S. J., 268 knowledge transfer, 232, 233b, 235b. See also education and training; technology transfer Korea, Republic of governance of innovation systems in, 470–71, 473b policy coordination organizations in, 474b strategic intelligence capabilities in, 476b Kowalski, Stanley, 480 Kristjanson, Patti, 326 Krone, Anton, 435 KTDA. See Kenya Tea Development Agency Kwadaso Agricultural College (Ghana), 156 L Labor standards, 375b Lake Victoria Environmental Management Program, 404b Lambayeque Institute for Agricultural Development (Peru), 242 Land Care movement (Philippines), 270 Land O’Lakes, 165, 166, 167 Larson, Gunnar, 84, 526 Latin America and the Caribbean. See also specific countries competitive research grants in, 386b farmer organizations in, 65–66 public-private research partnerships in, 90–94, 294 regional research coordination in, 297–98, 298b research and development in, 263 science and technology funds in, 40 Latin American and Caribbean Consortium to Support Cassava Research and Development (CLAYUCA), 90–94, 92b Latin American Fund for Irrigated Rice (FLAR), 298b LBDSs. See local business development services learning alliances, 17b, 273, 344–49, 345b, 346t, 348b learning organizations, 559b LEED (Local Economic and Employment Development) Project, 551b
INDEX
649
legal framework for intellectual property, 487–88. See also regulatory frameworks Lemola, Tarmo, 469 limited partnership investments, 416 LISFs (Local Innovation Support Funds), 435–41, 438b, 440b Livelihoods Diversification and Enterprise Development Fund, 238b livestock, 516–21, 517–18b biosciences, 299b Fodder innovations project, 610–13 Global Alliance for Livestock Veterinary Medicines (GALVmed), 516–21 intellectual property management, 516–21 ILRI, 44, 223b, 299b, 326–30, 327b research within AIS, 326–30 role of ICT for, 8 Livestock, Livelihoods, and Markets Project (LiLi), 327b local business development services (LBDSs), 191, 204–12 capacity building and, 211–12 environmental issues, 210, 210b governance and, 209 implementation of, 212 investment context, 204–5 investment needs, 205–8, 206b lessons learned, 210–12 policy issues, 208–10 potential benefits, 208 public and private sector roles, 205–7, 205f, 209–10 social targeting of, 209 sustainability, 210 Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Project, 551b Local Economic Development Projects (Mozambique), 206b Local Innovation Support Funds (LISFs), 435–41, 438b, 440b locavore movement, 53 Los Lagos University (Chile), 342b Lugg, David, 435 Lundy, Mark, 344 Lynam, John, 261 M Maguire, Charles J., 107, 122, 131, 136, 141, 145, 149, 151, 154, 163 Mahajan, Vijay, 246 Makerere University (Uganda), 156 Malawi business development services in, 207 gender-inclusive education in, 109b Mali business development services in, 208 extension and advisory services in, 187, 200, 209b farmer organizations in, 62b Mali Agribusiness Incubator Network, 209b M&E. See monitoring and evaluation Manpower Advisory Councils (India), 146 Mansingh Institute of Technology (India), 25b marginalized populations. See also equity issues; gender issues farmer organizations and, 65
650
INDEX
innovation networks and, 48 value chains and, 56–57 marketing chains, 52–58. See also value chains coordination and collective action, 23–24 extension and advisory services, 217b farmer organizations and, 60 investment context, 52–53 investment needs, 53–55 lessons learned, 57 niche markets and, 55 policy issues, 56–57 potential benefits, 55–56 public and private sector roles, 57 recommendations, 57–58 social capital issues, 56–57 sustainability and, 56–57 market intelligence, 58, 272–73, 413 matching grants (MGs), 67, 98, 211, 242, 286, 368, 381–82, 382t, 384b, 549t. See also competitive research grants, and innovation funds defined, 632 McLean, Morven, 492, 522 MERCOSUR, 298b Mexico codesigned innovation in, 312b coordination organizations in, 75–79 farmer-managed foundations in, 23 farmer organizations in, 63b, 67 innovation networks in, 49b no-till agriculture in, 72 public-private research partnerships in, 90 research councils in, 21 value chains in, 54b, 56b microcredit, 246 Middle East and North Africa. See also specific countries education and training in, 108 regional research coordination in, 297–98 Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities (MUCIA), 152–53, 169–71, 170b Milk Producers’ Cooperative Unions (India), 25b Ministry of Agriculture (China), 124b Ministry of Agriculture (Ethiopia), 138 Ministry of Agriculture (India), 38b Ministry of Agriculture (Netherlands), 149 Ministry of Agriculture (Peru), 243b, 244 Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Timor Leste), 165–68 Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (Tanzania), 318b Ministry of Education (China), 124b Ministry of Education (Egypt), 169–70 Ministry of Education (Ethiopia), 138 Ministry of Education (Netherlands), 149 Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Ghana), 155, 280b Ministry of Science and Technology (Thailand), 23b, 266 mixed-portfolio investment model, 389 mobile phones. See information and communication technology (ICT) monitoring and evaluation (M&E), 11, 569–79. See also assessment
capacity building and, 580 competitive research funding and, 41b of coordination and collective action, 32–33 counterfactuals and, 582, 583b defined, 540b of education and training, 119–20, 120–21t, 126b for enabling environment for innovation, 458–59t of extension and advisory services, 192–93, 192b of “extension-plus” approach, 216–18, 217t farmer organizations and, 69 of innovation brokers, 228 innovative activity profiles, 610–19 investment context, 541, 569–70, 580–81 investment needs, 543–45, 544t, 570–76, 581–85 investment rationale, 539–41 lessons learned, 578–79, 585–88 methods, 570–76, 571–72b, 573–75t, 576–77b, 583–84b, 583–85, 586–87t of national innovation policy, 466–68b of organizational change, 319–20, 330 participatory, 576b of partnerships, 367b, 372–73, 373t policy issues, 541–43, 542t, 577–78, 585 potential benefits, 577, 585 principles, 581–83, 582b of public-private partnerships, 294–95, 294b, 379–80, 380b recommendations, 578–79, 585–88 of regional research, 303–7, 304–5t of research, 275, 276t terminology, 540b Most Significant Change (MSC), 576b Mountains of the Moon University (Uganda), 163 Mozambique business development services in, 201, 205, 208 extension and advisory services in, 184, 187, 197b, 200, 206b, 208b, 210b gender-inclusive education in, 109b innovation brokers in, 226 Mudahar, Mohinder S., 331 N Namibia National Farmers Union, 327b NAIP (India), 38, 266, 269, 331–37, 333t, 334–36b NARIs (national agricultural research institutes), 262–63 National Agency for Agricultural and Rural Advisory Services (Senegal), 281b National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS, Uganda), 181b, 186–87b, 200, 206b, 226 National Agricultural Extension Program (Mozambique), 184 National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP) (India), 38, 266, 269, 331–37, 333t, 334–36b National Agricultural Research Institute (Ecuador), 291b National agricultural research institutes (NARIs), 262–63 National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (India), 216b National Business Incubator Association (NBIA), 391 National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (Chile), 80
National Cooperative Dairy Federation (India), 63b national coordination, 21, 34–43 capacity building for, 35, 36b investment context, 34–35 investment needs, 35–36 lessons learned, 37–43 operational practices, 35–36 policy issues, 37 potential benefits, 36–37 project-based funding, 40, 41b, 42t recommendations, 37–43 research councils, 38–40, 38b thematic or subsectoral coordination, 40–41 National Council on Innovation for Competitiveness (Chile), 338 National Dairy Development Board (NDDB, India), 24, 25b, 63b National Fund for Agricultural Research (Senegal), 281b National Innovation Agency (NIA, Thailand), 23b, 266 National Innovation Foundation (India), 224b national innovation policy, 449–59, 460–68 benchmarking for, 466, 467–68b coordination and collective action, 21, 34–43 development of, 462b enabling environment for innovation, 449–59, 460–68 environmental issues, 464 governance and, 464 intellectual property management and, 482 investment context, 460 investment needs, 460–63 lessons learned, 465–68 monitoring and evaluation of, 466–68b policy issues, 464–65 potential benefits, 463 recommendations, 465–68 social capital and, 464 National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (India), 85 National System of Innovation for Competitiveness (Chile), 80 National Union of Agriculture and Livestock Farmers (Nicaragua), 432b NBIA (National Business Incubator Association), 391 NDDB (National Dairy Development Board, India), 24, 25b, 63b NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development), 299b, 301b Nepal, no-till agriculture in, 47b, 70, 72 Nestlé, 181b Netherlands Bioconnect, 22t, 43b coordination organizations in, 43b higher education reform in, 149–50 innovation brokers in, 222, 227 Netherlands Foundation for International Cooperation, 163 research and development in, 284 Wageningen university and research center, 149–50 Net-Map, 593–97, 596b Network of Indian Agri-Business Incubators (NIAB), 423 New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), 299b, 301b New Zealand extension and advisory services in, 188t no-till agriculture in, 72 New Zealand Dairy Board, 24
INDEX
651
NGOs. See nongovernmental organizations NIA (National Innovation Agency, Thailand), 23b, 266 NIAB (Network of Indian Agri-Business Incubators), 423 Nicaragua cluster-based business development in, 430–34, 431–33b, 432–33b learning alliances in, 17b public-private research partnerships in, 90 niche markets, 53, 55, 56, 58 Nigeria agrodealer development in, 234b business development services in, 207 gender-inclusive education in, 109b public-private research partnerships in, 90 Nippon Foundation, 154 Njaa Marufuku project (Kenya), 238b nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). See also specific organizations cluster-based business development and, 431b coordination and collective action role of, 17b extension and advisory services, 189, 195, 196t innovation networks and, 46 marketing chains, 52, 57 public-private partnerships and, 387b research and, 267 no-till networks, 70–74, 72–73t O OIKOS (NGO), 208b one-stop agribusiness centers, 207–8, 208b Operation Flood (India), 25b organizational assessment, 553–61 benchmarking and, 554 framework for, 553–55, 554f, 555b household surveys, 559 information gathering, 555–56 investment context, 553 learning organizations and, 559b lessons learned, 561 methods, 555–59 performance assessment, 556–58, 557–58b policy issues, 560–61 potential benefits, 559–60 staff surveys, 558–59, 560b organizational frameworks, 316–25 capacity building and, 316–17, 318b for coordination and collective action, 20–26, 22t, 23–25b, 27b defined, 16b equity issues, 324 gender issues, 324 governance issues, 317–19, 319b incentives for change, 320 innovative activity profiles, 326–30, 327b, 329b investment context, 316 investment needs, 316–22, 317t lessons learned, 324 monitoring and evaluation of, 319–20, 330 policy issues, 323–24
652
INDEX
potential benefits, 322–23 recommendations, 324–25 for research, 270, 277–88, 278b, 316–25, 344–49, 345b, 346t, 348b Ospina Patiño, Bernardo, 90 outcome mapping, 572b outsourcing partnerships, 294 Oxfam, 431b P PAID (Partnership for Agricultural Innovation and Development, Sierra Leone), 589–92 Pakistan agrodealer development in, 231 no-till agriculture in, 47b, 70, 72 Palmberg, Christopher, 469 Panama cassava research in, 92b farmer organizations in, 67 public-private research partnerships in, 90, 385b rural productive alliances in, 97 Papa Andina codesigned innovation and, 313b creation and consolidation of, 45b gender and assessment of, 598–602, 600t innovation brokers and, 225 Pape-Christiansen, Andrea, 406 Paraguay cluster-based business development in, 405b no-till agriculture in, 70, 72t, 73t ParqueSoft Centers (Colombia), 390b, 395b participatory group learning, 185b participatory market chain approach (PMCA), 313b participatory monitoring and evaluation, 311, 576b Participatory Radio Campaigns, 62b participatory research, 262–63, 291b Partnership for Agricultural Innovation and Development (PAID, Sierra Leone), 589–92 partnerships, 10, 361–448. See also agricultural business development; public-private partnerships agricultural business development and, 362 contracts for, 378–79 equity issues, 370 extension and advisory services, 198 financing, 368–69 gender issues, 370 incentives, 365b innovation funds, 381–87, 435–41 investment context, 363–69, 364–65t investment needs, 371–72 investment rationale, 362–63 limited, 416 monitoring and evaluation of, 372–73, 373t policy issues, 369–71 principles for, 377 for research, 90–94 PASAOP (Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations Project, Senegal), 281–82b
Peking University (China), 409b PepsiCo, 249b performance, defined, 540b. See also monitoring and evaluation (M&E) performance-based contracts, 514 Peru agricultural innovation systems in, 3b extension and advisory services in, 240–45 gender and program assessment in, 598–602, 600t innovation networks in, 45b public-private research partnerships in, 90, 385b research and development in, 283 research funding in, 320–21b Philippines public-private research partnerships in, 274b research and development in, 270 Pingali, P., 300 plant variety rights (PVRs), 453b pluralistic extension systems, 191, 194–203, 196t capacity building for, 198–200 environmental issues, 201 equity issues, 201 gender issues, 201 institutional framework and, 201 investment context, 195–97 investment needs, 197–200, 199t lessons learned, 202 policy issues, 200–201 potential benefits, 200 public and private sector roles, 201 recommendations, 203 sustainability, 200 PMCA (participatory market chain approach), 313b policy issues agricultural research linkages, 286–87 assessment, 541–43, 542t, 550–51 biosafety regulatory systems, 494–95 business incubators, 391 cluster-based business development, 400, 431b codesigned innovations, 314 coordination and collective action, 28–29, 37 curriculum reform, 134 education and training, 112–13 enabling environment for innovation, 450–52, 450f, 455–56, 457 evaluation, 585 extension and advisory services, 187–91 “extension-plus” approach, 216–18 foresighting investments, 567–68 innovation brokers, 226 innovation funds, 384–85 innovation networks, 47–49 intellectual property (IP) management, 410, 411–12, 487–88 local business development services (LBDSs), 208–10 marketing chains, 56–57 monitoring and evaluation (M&E), 541–43, 542t, 577–78, 585 national innovation policy, 464–65 organizational assessment, 560–61
organizational change, 323–24 partnerships, 369–71 pluralistic extension systems, 200–201 public-private partnerships, 293–94, 376 regional research, 300–302 research, 269–70 risk capital investments, 418–19 technician development, 138–39 Technology Transfer Offices, 410, 411–12 tertiary education and training, 128 value chains, 56–57 Polytechnic University of Bobo-Dioulasso (Burkina Faso), 156 Potter, Robert, 480 poverty reduction coordination and collective action role in, 17–18 enabling environment for innovation and, 456 Preissing, John, 240 priorities, defined, 540b. See also agenda setting private sector. See also public-private partnerships coordination and collective action, 28 extension and advisory services, 181b, 187, 189, 190t, 195, 196t, 202 “extension-plus” approach, 218 innovation networks and, 48–49, 49b, 51 in-service training capacity, 142 intellectual property (IP) management, 483–84, 488, 517b local business development services (LBDSs), 205–7, 205f, 209–10 marketing chains, 52, 57 pluralistic extension systems, 201 research financing, 5b, 267, 271–72 role of, 12b value chains, 57, 93 PROCISOR, 298b Produce Foundations (Mexico), 23, 31, 60, 75–79 Producer organization, 5b, 6b, 24, 31, 62b, 95–99, 220t, 222b, 241, 244, 281b, 342b, 385b, 431b, 433b, 489. See also farmer organization defined, 631 Productive Partnerships Project (Colombia), 385b product marketing companies, 23 PROfarm courses, 137b Programa Nacional de Extensão Agrária (PRONEA, Mozambique), 184, 200 PROINPA Foundation (Bolivia), 45b project-based funding, 40, 41b, 42t project management, 142–43 Prolinnova network, 60 Propensity Score Matching, 583b public-private partnerships, 290b, 290t, 374–80 business development services, 208, 212 capacity building for, 27b, 379 cluster-based business development and, 404b contracts for, 378–79 for coordination and collective action, 90–94, 92b education and training, 143 enabling environment for innovation and, 93, 456 exit strategies, 369b, 379
INDEX
653
public-private partnerships (continued) extension and advisory services, 190, 206b farmer organizations and, 63b investment context, 374–75 investment needs, 375–76 investment rationale, 289–90, 362–63, 369b lessons learned, 294–95, 376–80 monitoring and evaluation of, 294–95, 294b, 379–80, 380b policy issues, 293–94, 376 potential benefits, 293, 376 principles for, 377 recommendations, 295–96 research and, 90–94, 92b, 271, 274b, 289–96, 291–92b, 327b sustainability, 379 value chains and, 93 public sector. See also public-private partnerships assessment and, 550–51 coordination and collective action, 28 extension and advisory services, 180, 189, 190t, 195, 196t “extension-plus” approach, 218 innovation networks, 48–49, 49b intellectual property (IP) management, 483–84, 488, 517b local business development services (LBDSs), 205–7, 205f, 209–10 marketing chains, 57 pluralistic extension systems, 201 research financing, 5b role of, 12b value chains, 57, 93 Puskur, Ranjitha, 326 PVRs (plant variety rights), 453b R Ragasa, Catherine, 275, 277 Rajalahti, Riikka, 1, 15, 34, 277, 381, 603 Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS), 45b, 571b regional research, 297–307 equity issues, 302 investment context, 297–99, 298b investment needs, 299–300 lessons learned, 302–7 monitoring and evaluation of, 303–7, 304–5t policy issues, 300–302 potential benefits, 300 sustainability, 302 Regional Unit for Technical Assistance (RUTA), 347 Regional Universities Forum in Africa (RUFORUM), 133, 133b, 207, 301b regulatory frameworks, 452–53, 457, 492–511 biosafety regulatory systems, 492–500 capacity building for, 493b interministerial coordination for, 497–98, 498b investment context, 492 investment needs, 493–94 lessons learned, 495–99 policy issues, 494–95 potential benefits, 494, 494b
654
INDEX
recommendations, 495–99 cluster-based business development and, 397–98 coordination and collective action and, 21 enabling environment for innovation and, 452–53, 457, 492–511, 522–25 innovative activity profiles, 522–25 technical regulations and standards, 501–11, 502b institutional frameworks and, 505, 505b, 505t investment context, 501–2 investment needs, 502–7, 503–4b, 503t lessons learned, 510–11 policy issues, 504, 508–10, 509b, 509t potential benefits, 507–8 public and private sector roles, 510 Reinventing Agricultural Education for the Year 2020 (U.S.), 128 RELCs (Research-Extension-Linkage Committees, Ghana), 280b representational partnerships, 294 research, 261–360 in agricultural innovation system, 264–69 codesigned innovations, 308–15 community-based, 157–59, 159b decentralization of, 262–63, 270 equity issues, 270 financing for, 5b, 270, 271b ICTs and, 272–73, 272b initiatives to strengthen, 5–7, 6b innovation networks and, 48 innovative activity profiles, 326–49 investment context, 262–64 investment needs, 270–75 investment rationale, 261–62 monitoring and evaluation of, 275, 276t organizational framework for, 270, 277–88, 278b, 316–25, 344–49, 345b, 346t, 348b participatory, 262–63, 291b policy issues, 269–70 public-private partnerships and, 90–94, 92b, 274b, 289–96, 291–92b reforms, 10 regional, 297–307 technology transfer and, 284–86, 285b, 331–37, 334–36b research councils, 21, 38–40, 38b Research-Extension-Linkage Committees (RELCs, Ghana), 280b Research Into Use (RIU) program, 614–19, 616–18b RIR (Rural Infrastructure Revival), 247 risk capital, 414–20 investment context, 414–15, 415f, 415t investment models, 415–16 lessons learned, 419–20 policy issues, 418–19 potential benefits, 416–18, 417–18b recommendations, 420 venture capital funds, 415–16 Rockefeller Foundation, 109b, 133b, 301b Roseboom, Johannes, 449, 460, 501 Rosenberg, N., 268 roundtables, 39b, 58 Royal Tropical Institute, 207
rural areas business development and, 369 coordination organizations in, 84–89, 85b, 86–87f, 87–88b, 95–106 enabling environment for innovation and, 454–55, 455b, 457–58 higher education reform and, 157–59 learning alliances in, 17b marketing chains and, 55 productive alliances in, 95–106 value chains and, 99 Rural Capacity Building Project (Ethiopia), 126 Rural Infrastructure Revival (RIR), 247 Rural Polytechnic Institute of Training and Applied Research (Mali), 156 rural productive alliances, 25–26, 99 Rural Research and Development Council (Australia), 37b Rutgers Food Innovation Center (USA), 392, 393–94b Rwanda agrodealer development in, 234b gender-inclusive education in, 109b S SACCAR (Southern African Center for Cooperation in Agricultural Research and Training), 307b SACCOs (savings and credit cooperatives), 183 SAE (Supervised Agricultural Experience), 110b Safaricom, 185b Safe Food, Fair Food Project, 327b SAFE (Sasakawa Africa Fund Education) Program, 133, 154–56 Samako Agricultural Institute (Mali), 156 sanitary/phytosanitary standards, 502b Sarapura, Silvia, 598 Sasakawa Africa Association, 154 Sasakawa Africa Fund Education (SAFE) Program, 133, 154–56 Sasakawa–Global 2000, 71b satellite imagery, 8b SAUs (state agricultural universities, India), 145–48 savings and credit cooperatives (SACCOs), 183 scenario planning, 400, 603–6, 604t, 605f, 606b Schiffer, Eva, 593 science and technology councils, 21 science parks, 271–72 SDC (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation), 45b, 211 Secondary Vocational Agricultural Education Program (U.S.), 128 second-round funding, 416 sector-specific incubators, 389–90 seed fund investment, 415, 422 Self Help Group Quality Improvement Program (SHGQIP), 247 self-help groups (SHGs), 84, 247, 526 Senegal, agricultural research linkages in, 281–82b SEP (Supervised Enterprise Project), 154, 155 SERP (Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty, Andhra Pradesh), 31, 84–89 shared responsibility system, 361, 369, 370–71 Sharma, Kiran K., 421 SHGQIP (Self Help Group Quality Improvement Program), 247 SHGs (self-help groups), 84, 247
Shining Path, 241 Sierra Leone Farmer Field Schools in, 238 policy and planning assessment in, 589–92 Sistema Nacional de Innovación para la Competitivad (SNIC, Chile), 80 skill gap analysis, 126b, 152 SOCAD (State Office for Comprehensive Agricultural Development, China), 427 social capital. See also equity issues; gender issues enabling environment for innovation and, 456 extension and advisory services and, 7 “extension-plus” approach and, 218 innovation networks and, 48 marketing chains and, 56–57 national innovation policy and, 464 value chains and, 56–57 social network analysis, 79b social targeting of local business development services, 209 Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP, Andhra Pradesh), 31, 84–89 Sokoine University of Agriculture (Tanzania), 156 South Africa cluster-based business development in, 401b cluster-based development in, 399 education and training in, 129 governance of innovation systems in, 471, 473b no-till agriculture in, 72 policy coordination organizations in, 474b public-private research partnerships in, 90 regional research and, 307b strategic intelligence capabilities in, 476b South Asia. See also specific countries education and training in, 108 Southern African Center for Cooperation in Agricultural Research and Training (SACCAR), 307b Spielman, David J., 275, 277, 294 staff surveys, 558–59, 560b startup funding, 416 state agricultural universities (SAUs, India), 145–48 State Office for Comprehensive Agricultural Development (SOCAD, China), 427 State University of Campinas (Unicamp, Brazil), 411b strategic alliances, 374 Strategic Services Development Fund (Peru), 242–43, 320b Suale, David, 589 Sub-Saharan Africa education and training in, 108 extension and advisory services in, 190 farmer organizations in, 66 regional research coordination in, 297–98, 306–7b research and development in, 264, 273 subsectoral coordination, 40–41 subsidies, 50 Sulaiman, Rasheed, 213, 273 supermarkets, 53, 56b Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE), 110b Supervised Enterprise Project (SEP), 154, 155
INDEX
655
Supervised Student Internship Programs, 171 sustainability business incubators, 424 coordination and collective action, 29 extension and advisory services, 189–90 “extension-plus” approach, 218 Farmer Field Schools, 238 innovation funds, 440–41 innovation networks, 47–48 local business development services, 210 marketing chains and, 56–57 pluralistic extension systems, 200 public-private partnerships, 379, 385 regional research, 302 technician development, 139 tertiary education and training, 147 value chains, 56–57 Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), 45b, 211 Swiss-Re, 327b systemic intermediaries, 221 T Tanzania cluster-based business development in, 401b extension and advisory services in, 187, 200, 207b Farmer Field Schools in, 238 gender-inclusive education in, 109b innovation funds in, 440 research capacity building in, 318b tax incentives, 20, 364 TBIE (theory-based impact evaluation), 584b Technical Assistance and Support Services (TASS), 246 technician development, 136–40 innovative activity profile, 163–64, 169–71, 170b investment context, 136–37 investment needs, 137–38, 137b lessons learned, 139 policy issues, 138–39 potential benefits, 138 recommendations, 139–40 sustainability, 139 technology consortiums, 81b, 338–43 Technology Development Foundation of Turkey (TTGV), 384b Technology Licensing Office (Thailand), 23b technology parks, 367–68 technology transfer. See also Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) agricultural business development and, 406–13, 426–29 agricultural research linkages and, 284–86, 285b agrodealer development and, 232, 233b, 235b financing, 5b innovation brokers and, 226 intellectual property (IP) management and, 482–83 research and, 284–86, 285b, 331–37, 334–36b Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), 368 governance and, 408–9 institutional framework and, 410, 485–86 investment context, 406–7, 407t investment needs, 407–9
656
INDEX
lessons learned, 410–13 policy issues, 410, 411–12 potential benefits, 409–10 recommendations, 412–13, 413b training for, 407–8, 408t Tekes (Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation), 475b territorial innovation programs, 81b tertiary education and training, 122–62 comprehensive reform, 123–25, 124–25b curriculum reform, 125–26, 126b, 131–35, 151–53 innovative activity profiles, 145–53, 157–62 in-service training, 141–44 institutional development and, 147 investment context, 122–23 investment needs, 123–28 lessons learned, 128–29, 147–48 policy issues, 128 potential benefits of investment, 128 program design, 128 recommendations, 129–30, 130b sustainability and, 147 for technician development, 136–40 Thailand coordination organizations in, 23b education and training in, 125 public-private partnerships in, 375b public-private research partnerships in, 274b Thailand Research Fund (TRF), 157, 158–59 thematic coordination, 40–41 Thematic Notes agricultural education and training to support AIS, 122–44 agricultural research as part of AIS, 277–325 coordination and collective action for AIS, 34–69 enabling environment for AIS, 460–511 extension and advisory services as part of AIS, 194–230 innovation partnerships and business development, 374–420 assessing, prioritizing, monitoring and evaluating AIS, 546–88 theory-based impact evaluation (TBIE), 584b theory of change, 540b, 547–48, 547b Theus, Florian, 396 third-round funding, 416 Tianjin Women’s Business Incubator (TWBI, China), 392b Timor-Leste, education and training in, 126, 165–68 Tocal College (Australia), 137b ToT (Training of Teachers) program, 163–64 trade extension and advisory services, 188 intellectual property (IP) management and, 482 Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS), 481b training. See also education and training farmer organizations and, 68 for intellectual property (IP) management, 407–8, 408t, 489–90, 490b training and visit (T&V) extension model, 182 Training of Teachers (ToT) program, 163–64 transforming economies, 265, 278b
transparency competitive research funding and, 41b coordination and collective action, 35 extension and advisory services, 191 farmer organizations, 61 governance and, 479 public-private partnerships, 377 TRF (Thailand Research Fund), 157, 158–59 Trinidad and Tobago, public-private research partnerships in, 90 Triomphe, Bernard, 308, 435 TRIPS (Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement), 481b Tropical Agriculture Research and Education Center, 344 Tsinghua University (China), 409b TTGV (Technology Development Foundation of Turkey), 384b TTOs. See Technology Transfer Offices Turkey, matching grant schemes in, 383, 384b Turkey Technology Development Project, 384b TWBI (Tianjin Women’s Business Incubator, China), 392b 200 Markets Upgrading Program (China), 58 U UAP Insurance, 327b Udayana University (Indonesia), 168 Uganda biosafety regulatory systems in, 496–97b business development services in, 201, 205, 205b cluster-based business development in, 404b extension and advisory services in, 181b, 184, 186–87b, 200, 205b, 206b Farmer Field Schools in, 238 gender-inclusive education in, 109b innovation brokers in, 226 technical regulations and standards in, 506–7b technical skill development in, 163–64 Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters Association, 404b Unicamp (Brazil), 411b Union Training Centers (India), 25b United Nations, 2b United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 111 United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), 430–34, 431–33b United States business incubators in, 391 cluster-based development in, 399 education and training in, 127–28, 152–53 no-till agriculture in, 70, 73t public-private research partnerships in, 90 vocational education in, 109 United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 109b, 111, 112b, 160, 234b, 262, 405b University of Abomey-Calavi (Benin), 156 University of Beijing (China), 409b University of Cape Coast (Ghana), 155–56 upward accountability, 217 urbanized economies, 265 Uruguay
coordination organizations in, 39b INIA, 39 no-till agriculture in, 73t public-private research partnerships in, 274b research and development in, 271b V value chains, 31, 52–58 cluster-based business development vs., 397 cluster-based development and, 402 coordination and collective action, 31, 52–58 defined, 16b investment context, 52–53 investment needs, 53–55 lessons learned, 57 niche markets and, 55 policy issues, 56–57 potential benefits, 55–56 public and private sector roles, 57, 93 recommendations, 57–58 research financing and, 272 rural productive alliances and, 99 social capital issues, 56–57 sustainability and, 56–57 Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, 207 Vasumathi, K., 246 Vega Alarcón, Rodrigo, 80, 338 Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council, Kerala (VFPCK, India), 215b, 217b, 219b Veldhuizen, Laurens van, 435 Vende Project (Paraguay), 405b Venezuela no-till agriculture in, 72 public-private research partnerships in, 90 venture capital funds, 46, 63b, 361, 368–69, 415–16 vertical coordination, 20 veterinary medicines, 516–21, 517–18b Vietnam, biosafety regulatory systems in, 500b Villagro Network, 224b vocational education and training (VET), 109, 136–40 W Wadi Programme of Dharampur Uththan Vahini (India), 216b Wageningen University and Research Center, 125, 149–50, 163 Wartenberg, Ariani, 607 Waters-Bayer, Ann, 435 West Africa. See also specific countries Agricultural Productivity Project, 264 biosafety regulatory systems in, 522–25 Center for Crop Improvement, 299b Network of Peasant and Agricultural Producers’ Organizations, 60 Seed Alliance, 285b Whirlpool Company, 27b Williams, Melissa, 84, 526 Wine Industry Network for Expertise and Technology (Winetech), 401b Wines of South Africa (WOSA), 401b Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, 154
INDEX
657
W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 128, 160 women. See gender issues Women’s Development and Leadership Develpoment Programs (India), 25b Wongtschowski, Mariana, 435 World Bank on education and training, 108 education financing, 111, 112, 138 extension and advisory services, 181b, 240b, 241, 243 farmer organizations and, 67 learning alliances and, 347 public-private partnerships and, 384b, 385b, 404b research and development investments by, 5b, 6, 263, 323b research centers, 262 rural productive alliances and, 96 World Development Report 2008 (World Bank), 265 WOSA (Wines of South Africa), 401b
658
INDEX
X Xavier Labour Research Institute, 217b Y Yangling High Technology Agricultural Demonstration Zone, 427 Z Zambia agricultural business development in, 512–15 business development services in, 207 education and training in, 117b gender-inclusive education in, 109b Zamorano University (Honduras), 133 Zeng, Douglas, 396 Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Funds (ZARDEFs), 318ba
ECO-AUDIT
Environmental Benefits Statement The World Bank is committed to preserving endangered forests and natural resources. The Office of the Publisher has chosen to print Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook on recycled paper with 50 percent post-consumer waste, in accordance with the recommended standards for paper usage set by the Green Press Initiative, a nonprofit program supporting publishers in using fiber that is not sourced from endangered forests. For more information, visit www.greenpressinitiative.org.
Saved: • 53 trees • 22 million BTU of total energy • 5,369 pounds of net greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalent) • 24,213 gallons of waste water • 1,534 pounds of solid waste
R
esearch, education, and extension investments, while usually necessary, are often insufficient alone to bring knowledge, technologies, and services that enable farmers and entrepreneurs to innovate. Efforts to strengthen research systems and increase the availability of knowledge have not increased innovation or the use of knowledge in agriculture at the pace or the scale required by the intensifying and proliferating challenges confronting agriculture. Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook contributes to the identification, design, and implementation of the investments, approaches, and complementary interventions most likely to strengthen agricultural innovation systems (AIS) and to promote innovation and equitable growth. The Sourcebook provides a menu of tools and operational guidance, as well as good practice lessons, to illustrate approaches to designing, investing in, and improving these systems. Managing the ability of agriculture to meet rising global demand and to respond to the changes and opportunities will require good policy, sustained investments, and innovation—not business as usual. Experience indicates that aside from a strong capacity in R&D, the ability to innovate is often related to collective action and coordination, exchange of knowledge among diverse actors, incentives and resources available to form partnerships and develop business, and an enabling environment. While consensus is developing about what is meant by “innovation” and “innovation system,” no detailed blueprint exists for making agricultural innovation happen at a given time, in a given place, for a given result. That said, the AIS approach, which looks at these multiple conditions and relationships that promote innovation in agriculture in specific contexts, has moved from a concept to a subdiscipline with principles of analysis and action. Drawing on approaches that have been tested at different scales in different settings, this Sourcebook emphasizes the lessons learned, benefits and impacts, implementation issues, and prospects for replicating or expanding successful practices. The Sourcebook reflects the experiences and evolving understanding of numerous individuals and organizations concerned with agricultural innovation, including the World Bank. It targets the key operational staff who design and implement lending projects in international and regional development agencies and national governments, as well as the practitioners who design thematic programs and technical assistance packages. The Sourcebook can also be an important resource for the research community and nongovernmental organizations.
ISBN 978-0-8213-8684-2 90000
9 780821 386842
SKU 18684