• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Organizational architecture for ag research   asti - iaae
 

Organizational architecture for ag research asti - iaae

on

  • 249 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
249
Views on SlideShare
249
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Organizational architecture for ag research   asti - iaae Organizational architecture for ag research asti - iaae Presentation Transcript

    • Theme 4: An Evolving Organizational Architecture forAfrican R&DJohn LynamIAAE Symposium on Improving Returns to AgriculturalResearch in Sub-Saharan AfricaFoz do Iguaçu | 20 August 2012
    • African R&D: The Small Country Problem Economies with an agrarian structure Characterized by low research capacity and vulnerability to funding volatility 8 of the larger countries have driven recent growth in the performance of agricultural research, accounting for two- thirds of investment and capacity during the 2001–08 period. For the remaining countries—most invest less than $25 million PPP dollars per year and employ fewer than 300 FTE researchers each. Lack of economies of scale and scope in agricultural R&D
    • Comparison of research systems Sub- Saharan United Africa Brazil China India StatesIndicators 2008 2006 2007 2003 2008Arable and permanent crop area(million hectares) 205 69 122 170 166Population (million) 821 188 1,317 1,064 304Agricultural labor force (million) 186 12 505 249 3Agricultural GDP (billion 2005PPP dollars) 285,567 72,735 743,538 396,585 151,928Number of public agriculturalresearch agenciesa 353 130 1,105 131 51Number of public agriculturalresearchers (FTEs) 12,120 5,376 70,000 13,089 9,965Share of researchers with a PhDdegree (percent)b 30 75 <30 55 100Annual public spending onagricultural R&D (million 2005PPP dollars) 1,741 1,307 3,626 1,426 4,825 Source: Flaherty et al. 2011
    • The Theory in Organizing Regional Research  There are scale economies to be had from regional cooperation given many small countries (& many that are landlocked)  Given similar resource endowments and constraints, investments in one country have the potential to generate externalities (spillovers) in neighboring countries, and  Many applied research themes extend beyond national boundaries  Diverse economies in the region offer great potential to spur growth through greater trade linkages
    • Building Blocks of the Regional ArchitectureCGIAR All 15 CGIAR centers have activities in SSA, four of them have their hq in SSA. Nowadays, half of the CGIAR budget is spent on SSA.FARA Established in 2001 with the SROs as the founding members. FARA took over from SPAAR, which operated under World Bank auspices between 1987 and 2001.ASARECA Established in 1992.CARDESA Established in 2011, but preceded by SADC-FANR (2001- 2011) and SACCAR (1984-2001).CORAF Established in 1987. Initially only covering French-speaking countries. Since 1995, however, membership also open to English and Portuguese speaking countries in West Africa.NARS Some 48 – varying very strongly in size and strength
    • Expenditure on Agricultural ResearchResearch Organization 2010 Expenditure (Million US Dollars)NARS 1,700CGIAR 336FARA 20ASARECA 15CORAF 9 Source: Roseboom 2011
    • The Reality in Organizing Regional Research Well functioning NARI’s critical to generating spillovers and adapting spill ins Testing networks and functional institutional linkages necessary for organizing and targeting regional research spillovers Financing is essential for regional research A degree of sub-regional, NARI specialization required to generate benefits from regional research History of national governments investing in regional research is limited by free rider problem, eg WARDA
    • A Vision for Regional Agricultural R&D A functional division of labor at international and national level (research capacity at SRO level?) Sub-regional research networks provide a platform for adaptation and targeting of research outputs Efficient adaptive research system linked to private sector and civil society innovation capacity Commitments of national governments to sustainable funding of effective research capacity The CAADP process provides a framework for donor funding of agricultural R&D
    • Three Approaches to Regional Research Prior to 2007, SRO’s coordinating CGIAR research networks -- Commodity-based sub-regional networks fostered division of labor and capacity for spill ins Post-2007, SRO’s programmatic structure organized around competitive grants -- Competitive grants do not address capacity constraints nor sub-regional division of labor World Bank regional EAAPP/WAAPP funding to “centers of excellence” -- Mandated “centers of excellence” have a checkered history and sustainability of funding a question mark
    • NARI Capacity and Differentiation Effective and differentiated NARI capacity is essential for regional approaches Differences in country investment leading to 8 large national systems and “the rest” Large countries more successful in competitive grant programs and as centers of excellence Large donors, eg USAID, BMGF, AGRA, have specific country priorities, mostly large countries Still minimal capacity to organize spill ins to smaller countries
    • The CGIAR and Regional Strategies Closing of regional research networks, CGIAR reform process in 2008, and focus on other partners than NARI’s has weakened international-national research links Reform based on 15 CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs) which are global and no defined regional strategy for SSA Shift in focus to production systems within benchmark sites may provide basis for new NARI linkages Performance monitoring based on intermediate development objectives may shift focus to downstream development partners rather than NARI’s An efficient system to facilitate sub-regional spill ins is still lacking
    • Global Public and Private Agricultural R&D, 2000Investments, 2000 Region Expenditure Percent Public (Million US $) ExpenditureAsia-Pacific 8,186 91.9Latin America 2,578 95.2Sub-Saharan Africa 1,486 98.3Developing Country Sub-Total 13,682 93.7High Income Countries 22,277 64.0 Source: Pardey, et al, 2006
    • Private R&D Expenditures SSA, South AsiaMeasures Kenya Senegal South Tanzania Zambia Bangla- India Africa deshPrivate R&D 1.6 -3.2 3.6-4.7 41.0 – 0.9 -1.8 1.3-2.5 10-20 251.0(In 2008 50Mill.US$)Private R&D 0.25- 0.18- 0.49- 0.015- 0.05- 0.07- 0.12as % of Ag 0.05 0.24 0.60 0.03 0.09 0.13GDP# of Scientists 12 61 201 32 25 119 2190 – Seed industry about 40% of R&D – Processing industry 30% of R&D Source: Pray et al. 2011 13
    • Towards a Regional Research System Differentiated but effective NARI capacity is essential for a sub-regional research system With CAADP, the CGIAR reform, and increasing donor investment in agriculture there is a window of institutional flexibility in designing such a system An increasing private sector role will partly depend on the development of sub-regional markets A sub-regional research system still depends on donor funding and needs to be matched by national government commitment to funding NARI capacity As in the colonial period, eg EAAFRO, some sub-regional research capacity is needed (SRO’s or CGIAR)
    • THANK YOU