Moving Bio-innovations   from the Laboratory to the MarketA Comparative Study of Four Bio-Innovate         Technological C...
Outline• Introduction• Conceptual & methodological considerations• Results• Discussions and recommendations
Introduction• Governments, stressing increased agricultural  production, value addition and agro-processing.• There is evi...
The StudyStudies on four Bio-Innovate technological clusters with the aim  to:• Understand, from a technological innovatio...
The Technological clusters include:1. Crop improvement technologies (especially for   cassava, sweet potato and potato)2. ...
The Conceptual framework• Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) framework.      • “[…] a network or networks of agents in...
Conceptual framework…Using seven processes to broadly map the strengths and  weaknesses of the innovation system :   1. Kn...
Conceptual framework…  In order to describe the strength the functions and the  structural components of the innovation sy...
Study MethodMixed methods in gathering qualitative data, basedon:1. Review of national and regional policy   documents and...
Results
Structural components of the      innovation system: The Actors• From the results, it appears the actors and organizations...
Knowledge development• Knowledge development in all the studied innovations  systems is at a relatively high level.• The k...
Entrepreneurial activity• The entrepreneurship skills at public R&D institutions  still limited• Few private sector actors...
Guidance/ Policies and an enabling                    environment• Science, technology and innovation(STI) policy framewor...
Market Creation• Markets for all the four innovation systems are weak and affect the  four innovation systems negatively.•...
Getting legitimacy• For all of the innovation systems, a strong legitimacy for the  positive impacts these new technologie...
Resources• Human resources appear to be adequate to drive the  innovation process forward.• Financial resources for moving...
Externalities• Advocacy groups lacking with an exception of  tissue culture buisness network.
Summary TableInnovation                 Actors    Knowledge     Entrepreneu     Guidance/   Market     Getting      Resour...
Discussion andRecommendations
Public institutions able to engage in   innovation and technology dissemination Establishing a Foundation for Innovation ...
Creating Links Strengthening public–private partnerships   – Supporting public and private actors to meet and discuss col...
Policies, strategies, communicationPolicies, regulations at national and regional level should be supportiveClear goals,...
Funding R&D and Innovation• Government innovation funds. The donor  community can complement and strengthen  government in...
Conclusion• The actors and all functions in the four sub-innovations  systems and how they perform are weak. An exception ...
Acknowledgement• Bio-Innovate/Sida• Bio-Innovate Project Teams
Thank you
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Moving bio-innovations from the laboratory to the market: A comparative study of four bio-innovate technological clusters

295 views
239 views

Published on

Presented by Ecuru J., Virgin, I., Omari J., Chuwa P., Teklehaimanot H., Alemu A., Komen J., Nyange N., Ozor N., Opati L., Karembu M., Nguthi F., Gasingirwa C. at the First Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-27 February 2013

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
295
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Moving bio-innovations from the laboratory to the market: A comparative study of four bio-innovate technological clusters

  1. 1. Moving Bio-innovations from the Laboratory to the MarketA Comparative Study of Four Bio-Innovate Technological Clusters First Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-27 February 2013 BIPCEA Ecuru J., Virgin, I., Omari J., Chuwa P., Teklehaimanot H., Alemu A.,Komen J., Nyange N., Ozor N., Opati L., Karembu M., Nguthi F., Gasingirwa C.
  2. 2. Outline• Introduction• Conceptual & methodological considerations• Results• Discussions and recommendations
  3. 3. Introduction• Governments, stressing increased agricultural production, value addition and agro-processing.• There is evidence of bio-innovations in universities & public R&D orgs, but they are unable to move to the market.• Moving bio-innovations to market need well functioning innovation system;
  4. 4. The StudyStudies on four Bio-Innovate technological clusters with the aim to:• Understand, from a technological innovation systems perspective, enabling conditions and barriers to moving bio-innovations from the laboratory to the market in eastern Africa• Compare the different innovation systems and highlight similarities and dissimilarities between the four systems.• Suggest actions and policy measures to improve the conditions for bioscience innovation in the region.
  5. 5. The Technological clusters include:1. Crop improvement technologies (especially for cassava, sweet potato and potato)2. Bio-energy and mushroom production from agro-industrial waste3. Value added products from sorghum and millet4. Industrial Enzymes for Sustainable Bio- Economy
  6. 6. The Conceptual framework• Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) framework. • “[…] a network or networks of agents interacting in a specific technology area under a particular institutional infrastructure [e.g. norms and regulation] to generate, diffuse, and utilise technology or product.”• TIS approach enables analysis of how different parts of the innovation system functions.
  7. 7. Conceptual framework…Using seven processes to broadly map the strengths and weaknesses of the innovation system : 1. Knowledge development and diffusion . 2. Entrepreneurial activity 3. Guidance visions, policies and strategies 4. Market creation 5. Getting legitimacy 6. Resource mobilisation 7. Positive externalitiesAn important part of the TIS analysis is also thecharacterisation of the structural components (actors in thesystem, infrastructure)
  8. 8. Conceptual framework… In order to describe the strength the functions and the structural components of the innovation system, we have used a quantitative scale of 1-4,1- Very poor. The function is fulfilled in an inadequate manner, or there are serious weaknesses.2 - Poor. While the function is partly fulfilled, there are major weaknesses.3 - Fair. While the function is broadly fulfilled, there are still serious weaknesses.4 - Good. The function adequately fulfill
  9. 9. Study MethodMixed methods in gathering qualitative data, basedon:1. Review of national and regional policy documents and institutional reports,2. Observations3. One focus group discussion and least five interviews with key actors in each technological cluster (including industry) in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi
  10. 10. Results
  11. 11. Structural components of the innovation system: The Actors• From the results, it appears the actors and organizations needed to move bio-innovations to the market largely exist in the region.• However, the actors are not interlinked to function properly.• But, as has been seen in other related innovation systems, the number of involved actors and especially new entrants can change the dynamics of the innovation system fast.
  12. 12. Knowledge development• Knowledge development in all the studied innovations systems is at a relatively high level.• The knowledge base is no longer a major limiting factor in any of the four innovation systems studied.But……• In all the systems, marketing skills and the ability to make assessment of economic potential of commercialization of technologies and products is still weak.• Skills in developing cost effective production and distribution regimes are also weak
  13. 13. Entrepreneurial activity• The entrepreneurship skills at public R&D institutions still limited• Few private sector actors are investing in R&D. Close collaboration between academia and the private sector is not common.• Actors in innovation consortia seldom properly interlinked and supported to play complimentary roles.• New entrants are making impact(especially in the case of crop improvement/tissue culture)
  14. 14. Guidance/ Policies and an enabling environment• Science, technology and innovation(STI) policy frameworks in place; but specific policies/regulations largely lacking.• High taxation on imported equipment is a negative factor.• Strategies, priority setting regimes and specific government programmes supporting innovation still too few.• Limited institutional structures & policies for innovation (e.g. inst.IP policies/ management capacities to develop effective contractual agreements, and abilities to link with market actors)• Slow procurement procedures delaying implementation of projects
  15. 15. Market Creation• Markets for all the four innovation systems are weak and affect the four innovation systems negatively.• Marketing techniques, marketing skills and also resources for marketing technologies and products are to a large extent lacking• No active market creation. Absence of focused national goals, targets, incentives.• As an example, in the case of biogas production unfavorable feed- in tariffs to sell electricity generated from biogas to national electricity grids is a negative factor.
  16. 16. Getting legitimacy• For all of the innovation systems, a strong legitimacy for the positive impacts these new technologies and products could have on improving food security, climate change resilience and converting agrowaste into something beneficial.• At the same time other factors are acting to reduce this legitimacy, likely based on perceptions, such as; - some of the potential products associated with poverty, -Running biogas digesters perceived as dirty and unattractive.
  17. 17. Resources• Human resources appear to be adequate to drive the innovation process forward.• Financial resources for moving the innovation process forward towards commercialization and large scale application is a limiting factor.• What is promising is that in countries such as Tanzania, Ethiopia and Kenya, new funding mechanisms for innovation are under development.
  18. 18. Externalities• Advocacy groups lacking with an exception of tissue culture buisness network.
  19. 19. Summary TableInnovation Actors Knowledge Entrepreneu Guidance/ Market Getting Resources Externaliti Avaragecase development rial activity Policies creation legitimacy es scoreCrop improvementtechnologies 4 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 2Value Added productsfrom Sorghum and 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2MilletBioenergy & mushroomproduction from 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2agroindustrial wasteIndustrial Enzymes for asustainable Bioeconomy 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1=Very Poor, 2=Poor, 3=Fair, 4=Good
  20. 20. Discussion andRecommendations
  21. 21. Public institutions able to engage in innovation and technology dissemination Establishing a Foundation for Innovation and Linking with the Private sector. technology transfer/dissemination capacities, institutional IP policies and management capacities ability to manage collaboration and networking opportunities including engaging in contractual agreements. Rewarding & Supporting Entrepreneurship Strengthen entrepreneurial skills at public R&D organizations, Rules/policies/incentives for being innovative and entrepreneurial such as rewards, competitive salaries, career development opportunities, etc Encourage the development of public R&D spin-off companies;
  22. 22. Creating Links Strengthening public–private partnerships – Supporting public and private actors to meet and discuss collaboration opportunities, technology transfer, adaptation and commercialization of public R&D. Business incubation services – Business case development, viability analysis and strategy refinement – Market assessment and market access – Business model validation and market testing – Technology assessment (incl. IP assessment) – Business plan development (feasibility; strategies) – Assisting in finding financing sources for development and commercialization
  23. 23. Policies, strategies, communicationPolicies, regulations at national and regional level should be supportiveClear goals, sufficient incentives, and strategies necessaryCommunicating effectively
  24. 24. Funding R&D and Innovation• Government innovation funds. The donor community can complement and strengthen government innovation funds.• Venture capital.• Attracting more philanthropic investments.• Providing incentives for local private sector investment in research.
  25. 25. Conclusion• The actors and all functions in the four sub-innovations systems and how they perform are weak. An exception to this is the case on micropropagation of disease free cassava, sweet potato and potato which is a more mature field of innovation and where many of its functions are stronger.• A visible pattern, although not very distinctive, is that the number of actors involved in the systems and knowledge formation is improving in all the cases, with the exception of industrial enzymes.• The Bio-Innovate programme has most probably been an important factor behind this improvement.• Thus, need to make these innovation systems more effective, a more pronounced focus and investment on improving market potentials, policies and resources for these systems would be more effective than strengthening R&D efforts.
  26. 26. Acknowledgement• Bio-Innovate/Sida• Bio-Innovate Project Teams
  27. 27. Thank you

×