Agricultural R&D in Sub-Saharan Africa: Investment and capacity challenges
The document discusses the investment and capacity challenges in agricultural research and development (R&D) in Sub-Saharan Africa, highlighting trends in spending and human resources from 2001 to 2008. It emphasizes the need for increased government commitment, diversification of funding sources, and enhanced cooperation to address underinvestment, volatility in funding, and inadequate training opportunities. The report underscores the significant role of donor dependency and the necessity for strategic alignment with national R&D priorities to fulfill CAADP targets.
More Related Content
Similar to Agricultural R&D in Sub-Saharan Africa: Investment and capacity challenges
More from Agricultural Science & Technology Indicators (ASTI)
Agricultural R&D in Sub-Saharan Africa: Investment and capacity challenges
- 1. Agricultural R&D inSub-Saharan Africa: Investment and capacity challenges Gert-Jan Stads ASTI program coordinator | International Food Policy Research Institute Development Partners Business Meeting on CAADP Brussels | 5–6 February 2013
- 2. Agricultural Science andTechnology Indicators (ASTI) • Institutional, investment and staffing data on agricultural R&D: – Focus on developing countries – Primary data collection • Large network of national, regional and international partners; facilitated by IFPRI • Aim is to provide: – Trends over time at agency, country, regional and global levels – Comparisons across institutes, countries and regions
- 3. ASTI Indicators andOutputs ASTI outputs: • Country notes • Regional and subregional reports • Downloadable datasets • Analytical assessments • Seminars, presentations • Media outreach • ASTI website (www.asti.cgiar.org) ASTI indicators: • Institutional arrangements • R&D spending by cost category • Funding sources • R&D staff by degree, gender, and age • R&D focus by commodity and thematic area
- 4. Global Public AgriculturalR&D Spending, 2008
- 5. Global Public AgriculturalR&D Spending, 2008
- 6. Global Private AgriculturalR&D Spending • Most private-sector R&D was undertaken by companies in OECD countries; • Evidence suggests significant growth in large middle-income countries such as China and India
- 7. CGIAR Spending, 1981-2011 Aftermore than a decade of stagnation, R&D spending by the CGIAR has accelerated since 2006 Inbilliondollars
- 8. ASTI’s Findings inSub-Saharan Africa • Investment Trends • Human Capacity Trends • Institutional Developments • Future Directions to Address Current Challenges
- 9. ASTI activities inAfrica • 2009/10 data collection round: – In close collaboration with SROs and national focal points – Coverage: 500 government , higher- education, and nonprofit agencies in 32 countries • 2012/13 data collection round: – Expansion in number of countries and indicators – Analytical expansion – Transformation to more frequent and decentralized data monitoring and analysis system – Also initiated surveys in North Africa
- 10. Public agricultural R&DSpending in SSA, 2008 • In 2008, spending totaled $1.7 billion (in 2005 PPP prices) • Total includes salaries, operating costs, and capital investments • Total includes R&D on crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries, postharvest, etc. • Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya combined accounted for half the region’s agricultural R&D spending
- 11. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 SSAAgriculturalR&Dspending (biilion2005PPP$) • 22% growthin 2001–08 • Growth driven by just a few countries • Growth largely result of increased government commitment to boost salaries and restore neglected infrastructure • Continent-wide growth masks severe declines in many smaller countries SSA’s long-term spending, 1971–2008
- 12. Investment challenge: Unevengrowth • 2001–08 marked by spending decline in 13 countries (7 of which in francophone West Africa); for some decline began in 1990s
- 13. Investment challenge: Underinvestment •Common target: Allocation of at least 1% of GDP to R&D • In 2008, Africa spent $0.61 for every $100 of AgGDP on agricultural R&D • Caution: Intensity ratios should neither be used as the sole measure of AgR&D spending, nor as a target to be reached
- 14. Investment challenge: Volatility 0 10 20 30 40 0 2 4 6 8 19811984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 Billion2005CFAfrancs BurkinaFaso Million2005PPPdollars 0 9 18 26 35 0 2 4 6 8 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 Billion2005CFAfrancs Niger Million2005PPPdollars 0.0 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.1 3.9 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Billion2005CFAfrancs Gabon Million2005PPPdollars 0 83 166 249 332 415 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 Billion2005rand South Africa Million2005PPPdollars
- 15. Investment challenge: Volatility •Annual agricultural R&D spending in Africa has been considerably more volatile than in other developing regions • Volatility is found to be more pronounced in donor- dependent low-income countries • Donor and development bank funding is generally short- term and ad-hoc (and nearly 3 times more volatile than government funding)
- 16.
- 17. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Guinea Eritrea Uganda Madagascar BurkinaFaso Niger Mali Benin Tanzania Burundi Senegal Mauritania Kenya Gambia Togo Zambia Côted'Ivoire Namibia Ghana SouthAfrica Botswana Mauritius Shareintotalfunding,2001-08(%) Investment challenge: Donordependency Share of donor funding as a % of total agricultural R&D funding, 2001–08 Range between highest and lowest annual share of donor funding in total agricultural R&D funding, 2001–08
- 18. Public agricultural R&Dstaff in SSA, 2008 • More than 12,000 FTE researchers in 2008 • Total includes government, higher education, nonprofit sectors • 4 countries with NARS > 1,000 FTEs • 9 countries with NARS < 100 FTEs
- 19. Agricultural researchers, 1981–2008 •20% growth in capacity since 2000 • Includes PhD, MSc, BSc holders • Increased role of universities (Nigeria, Sudan) • Relaxation of recruitment restrictions (Kenya, Nigeria) • However, many new recruits are BSc holders 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 Full-timeequivalentresearchstaff
- 20. • Striking that manyWest African countries maintain large pool of PhDs despite recent declines in overall capacity and investment levels • These high shares stem in large part from training programs conducted during the 1990s (and earlier), funded through bilateral or World Bank projects
- 21. Africa’s human capacitychallenges • Many countries face rapidly aging pools of scientists due to public sector recruitment restrictions • Large influx of young BSc-qualified scientists after years of recruitment restrictions in some countries • High staff turnover / brain drain: Many researchers have left agencies due to low salaries and conditions of service • Limited in-country postgraduate training opportunities • Female scientists severely underrepresented (22% in 2008) • Small countries lack required critical mass of agricultural R&D capacity
- 22. Changing composition ofagricultural R&D 82% 77% 73% 15% 20% 24% 0 20 40 60 80 100 1991 2001 2008 Higher education Nonprofit Government ShareofFTEresaerchers(%)
- 23. Investment /capacity challenge:Fragmentation Indicators 32 African countries (2008) Brazil (2006) China (2007) India (2009) US (2008) Number of public agricultural research agencies 353 130 1,105 131 51 Number of public agricultural researchers (FTEs) 12,120 5,376 70,000 11,217 9,965 Annual public spending on agricultural R&D (million 2005 PPP dollars) 1,741 1,307 3,626 2,276 4,825 Researchers / agency 34.3 41.4 63.3 85.6 195.4 Annual spending / agency 4.9 10.1 3.3 17.4 94.6
- 24. Private Sector Involvementin Agricultural R&D • ASTI/Rutgers study in Kenya, Senegal, South Africa, and Zambia • Private R&D in Africa remains limited (but is on the increase) • Sources of innovation from private sector: 1/3 own R&D, 10% public R&D, >50% imported • New released cultivars primarily from private sector in South Africa, Tanzania, and Zambia; from public sector in Kenya and Senegal • More enabling environment for private agricultural R&D needed (admin procedures, stringent regulations, tax incentives, IPR regulations)
- 25. Summary LIMITED TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES AGINGSCIENTISTS UNDERINVESTMENT VOLATILE FUNDING INSTITUTIONAL FRAGMENTATION LIMITED PRIVATE-SECTOR INVOLVEMENT DONOR DEPENDENCY SMALL-COUNTRIES LACK CRITICAL MASS 2001–08: >20%
- 26. Addressing Challenges: 1) CounteractDecades of Underinvestment • Governments, donors, and regional and international organizations must cooperate more closely and increase their commitments to agricultural R&D if SSA countries are to meet CAADP’s targets • Increased funding to allow universities to establish and maintain basic research programs, which to date have been limited. • Diversification of funding sources is needed (including private sector)
- 27. Addressing Challenges: 2) StopExcessive Volatility in Annual Spending Levels • Gains achieved through donor-funded projects can get quickly eroded in the absence of viable mechanisms to sustain them • Governments have to clearly identify long-term national R&D priorities and design relevant, focused, and coherent R&D programs accordingly • Donor funding needs to be better aligned with national priorities • Consistency and complementarities between donor programs need to be ensured.
- 28. Addressing Challenges: 3) Investin Human Resources • Enhance the number and size of MSc and PhD programs and improve the curricula of existing programs • Countries with serious capacity gaps must: - lift recruitment restrictions - increase the retirement age for scientists - institute flexible working arrangements to ensure that retired researchers can contribute to much-needed training and mentorship initiatives
- 29. Addressing Challenges: 4) Maximize(Sub-)Regional Cooperation in R&D • Small countries generally lack the required critical mass of agricultural R&D capacity and face great challenges in producing high-quality research outputs • (Sub-)regional linkages need to be strengthened in order to maximize synergistic opportunities • CGIAR will continue to act as a critical provider of agricultural technologies in most SSA countries, as well as supporting capacity building efforts
- 30. Way Forward: Monitoring R&DInvestment and Capacity Trends • Up-to-date information is critical to accurate interpretations of the current status and direction of national agricultural research systems • Monitoring the inputs, outputs, and performance of agricultural R&D systems is fundamental to assessing progress toward CAADP’s targets • New ASTI data collection round currently ongoing • By mid-2013, ASTI will release updated (to 2011) datasets for SSA • Pilot a number of key agricultural R&D output and performance indicators • More analysis on issues underlying agricultural R&D and institutional developments in close collaboration with Africa- based economists and other agricultural R&D experts needed
- 31.
Editor's Notes
- #12 Era of stagnation during the 1980s and 1990s
- #14 Ratios don’t take into account the policy and institutional environment within which agricultural R&D takes placeRatios don’t take into account the influx of foreign technologiesIncreased ratios don’t always reflect increased agricultural R&D spending; they can also reflect declining or stagnating agricultural output
- #27 - Investment levels in most SSA countries are below the levels required to sustain agricultural R&D needs-Countries with increased R&D spending directed most of the funds toward salary increases and the rehabilitation of infrastructure and equipment.
- #28 Mitigating the effects of any single donor’s abrupt change in aid disbursement is crucial, highlighting the need for greater funding diversification
- #29 The regional community has an important role to play in this regard, particularly when it comes to small countries with limited or nonexistent MSc or PhD training opportunities.