[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW THE OPPORTUNITIES AND BENEFITS OF AGRICULTURAL
BIOTECHNOLOGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT, RESEARCH, BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND
FOREIGN AGRICULTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 23, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-19
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-284 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
STEVE KING, Iowa MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas JOE BACA, California
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida JIM COSTA, California
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BOB GIBBS, Ohio KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama PETER WELCH, Vermont
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina Northern Mariana Islands
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
______
Professional Staff
Nicole Scott, Staff Director
Kevin J. Kramp, Chief Counsel
Tamara Hinton, Communications Director
Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign
Agriculture
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois, Chairman
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania JIM COSTA, California, Ranking
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana Minority Member
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
Mike Dunlap, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Johnson, Hon. Timothy V., a Representative in Congress from
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Witnesses
Conner, Hon. Charles F., President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Washington, D.C....... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Submitted questions..........................................
Beachy, Ph.D., Roger N., President Emeritus, Donald Danforth
Plant Science Center; Professor of Biology, Washington
University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO......................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Juma, Ph.D., Calestous, Professor of the Practice of
International Development, Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.............................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Attachment............................................... 39
Submitted Material
Biotechnology Industry Organization, submitted statement......... 33
CropLife America, submitted statement............................ 36
National Corn Growers Association, submitted statement........... 37
HEARING TO REVIEW THE OPPORTUNITIES AND BENEFITS OF AGRICULTURAL
BIOTECHNOLOGY
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research,
Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Timothy V.
Johnson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Johnson, Stutzman,
Hultgren, Hartzler, Schilling, Costa, Cuellar, Welch, Sewell,
and Kissell.
Staff present: Mike Dunlap, John Goldberg, Tamara Hinton,
DaNita Murray, Mary Nowak, Debbie Smith, Suzanne Watson, Andy
Baker, Liz Friedlander, Keith Jones, John Konya, and Jamie
Mitchell.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS
The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Rural
Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture
to review the opportunities and benefits of agricultural
biotechnology will come to order.
This morning, I would like to welcome my colleagues,
panelists, and the public participants to this important
hearing.
In our daily lives, we are inundated with statistics. Among
the most poignant are those dealing with population projections
and the resulting demand on our food production systems to
provide food security into the future. The United Nations is
predicting that our population will grow by \1/3\ by halfway
through the century. Feeding the 9.1 billion people on the
planet would require a 70 percent increase in ag production.
Global population growth creates a pressing humanitarian
challenge. We can either meet this demand by utilizing marginal
lands and lands with fragile soils and poor water resources, or
we can make the smart choice of increasing the production
capacity of the plants and animals themselves. Innovation in ag
science and technology is, in my judgment, the key.
This Subcommittee will play, I believe, a critical role in
the development of policy to address these global challenges;
and among the most promising recent advances of agricultural
research is the development and commercialization of biological
technologies. The growth of biotech has provided many benefits
that we are going to discuss today, including advantages for
farmers, the environment, food and energy security, and
competition in the global marketplace.
American farmers have realized higher yields and increased
profits in the widespread adoption of genetic engineering. But
farmers are not the only ones who are benefiting from
biotechnology. There are significant environmental advantages
as well. For example, biotech crops require fewer pesticide
applications. With the use of no-till and reduced-till
practices on biotech crops, soil quality and carbon storage is
improved, on-farm fuel demands decline, and greenhouse gas
emissions have been reduced.
Today, we have invited three prominent leaders in the
agricultural biotechnology community to share their knowledge
of biotechnology with our Subcommittee.
The first panelist is a former Acting Secretary of
Agriculture, Mr. Chuck Conner. He is a farmer from Indiana.
Secretary Conner is here to represent the production center. He
can speak to the challenges farmers face in meeting modern
production demands in an environmentally sustainable manner,
and how the tools of modern biotechnology play an instrumental
role in fulfilling these objectives.
Secretary Conner will discuss his firsthand knowledge of
the production efficiency gained by utilizing biotech crops
such as higher yields, more efficient use of croplands, reduced
labor, and reduced crop rotation requirements.
The second panelist is Dr. Roger Beachy, the former
Director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and
one the most preeminent scientists in the field. He will
discuss current applications of biotech and offer a glimpse
into what we can expect moving into the future.
Last, we will hear from Dr. Calestous Juma from the Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard University. His experience will
tie another critical element of this Subcommittee's
jurisdiction, that of foreign agriculture.
I will bring to the attention that I believe most of us
have, or should have, a copy of his book, The New Harvest:
Agricultural Innovation in Africa, by Dr. Juma.
Through his extensive research in Africa, Dr. Juma has seen
three African countries adopt genetically modified crops which
are already providing initial evidence of their long-run
benefits.
Each of our witnesses will share their unique perspectives.
In the coming weeks, this Subcommittee will hear from the
Administration regarding the regulatory framework in place
today to address potential risks of biotechnology, both real
and perceived.
Once again, I appreciate everyone's participation in this
hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Timothy V. Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from Illinois
Good morning. I would like to welcome my colleagues, our panelists
and the public participants to this important hearing.
In our daily lives, we are inundated with statistics. Among the
most poignant are those dealing with population projections and the
resulting demand on our food production systems to provide food
security into the future. The UN is predicting that our population will
grow \1/3\ by 2050. Feeding the 9.1 billion people on the planet would
require a 70% increase in agricultural production.
Global population growth creates a pressing humanitarian challenge.
We may either meet this demand by utilizing marginal lands and lands
with fragile soils and poor water resources, or we can make the smart
choice of increasing the production capacity of the plants and animals
themselves. Innovation in agricultural science and technology is the
key.
This Subcommittee will play a critical role in the development of
policy to address these global challenges.
Among the most promising recent advances of agricultural research
is the development and commercialization of biological technologies.
The growth of biotechnology has provided many benefits we will
discuss today, including advantages for farmers, the environment, food
and energy security, and competition in a global marketplace.
American farmers have realized higher yields and increased profits
from the widespread adoption of genetic engineering. But farmers are
not the only ones benefiting from biotechnology. There are significant
environmental advantages as well. For instance, biotech crops require
fewer pesticide applications. With the use of no-till and reduced-till
practices on biotech crops, soil quality and carbon storage has
improved, on-farm fuel demand has declined, and greenhouse gas
emissions have been reduced.
Today, we have invited three prominent leaders in the agricultural
biotechnology community to share their knowledge of biotechnology with
our Subcommittee.
Our first panelist is former Acting Secretary of Agriculture Chuck
Conner. As a farmer from Benton County, Indiana, Secretary Conner is
here representing the production sector. He can speak to the challenges
farmers face in meeting production demands in an environmentally
sustainable manner, and how the tools of modern biotechnology play an
instrumental role in fulfilling these objectives. Secretary Conner will
discuss his firsthand knowledge of the production efficiencies gained
by utilizing biotechnology crops such as higher yields, more efficient
use of cropland, reduced labor, and reduced crop rotation requirements.
Our second panelist is Dr. Roger Beachy; the former Director of the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture and one of the most pre-
eminent scientists in the field. Dr. Beachy will express the current
applications of biotechnology and offer a glimpse of what we can expect
moving into the future. Research in biotechnology has the potential for
helping our agriculture industry to meet all the criteria for
environmental safety and sustainability, promote economic growth,
contribute to human health and well being, and provide global food
security.
Last, we will hear from Dr. Calestous Juma of the Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard University. Dr. Juma's experience will tie in
another critical element of the Subcommittee's jurisdiction; that of
foreign agriculture. Dr. Juma will focus our attention on the critical
role biotechnology will play in both foreign market development as well
as meeting the food security needs of developing nations. Through his
extensive research in Africa, Dr. Juma has seen three African countries
(South Africa, Egypt and Burkina Faso) adopt genetically modified
crops, which are already providing initial evidence of their long-term
benefits.
Each of our witnesses will share their unique perspectives in an
overview of the benefits and opportunities of modern biotechnology.
This is, however, the first in a series of hearings meant to examine
this topic. In the coming weeks, the Subcommittee will hear from the
Administration regarding the regulatory framework in place today to
address potential risks of biotechnology, both real and perceived. It
is during this next hearing where our oversight of biotechnology will
be essential in identifying those obstacles--both regulatory
inefficiencies as well as those resulting from frivolous litigation--
which are interfering with our realization of the full potential of the
benefits of biotechnology.
Once again, I appreciate everyone's participation in this hearing
and now yield to the Ranking Member for any comments he would like to
make.
The Chairman. I would now yield to my good friend, the
Ranking Member, Mr. Costa, for any comments that he would like
to make.
Thank you again, participants; and after Mr. Costa's
initial remarks we will start our hearing.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling
this important hearing.
It is incumbent upon this Subcommittee to review the
opportunities and the benefits for U.S. agriculture as it
relates to our biotechnology development. As we look upon its
application throughout the world, this Subcommittee certainly
has a very important role to play. I look forward to hearing
from our expert witnesses.
We all know, that over the last 2 decades, the incredible
role that biotechnology has played in the American farmers
ability to feed a growing population not only in our nation but
around the globe. American consumers have benefitted as well.
In April, I traveled to Brussels, where I had the
opportunity to speak with the European Union Commissioner of
Agriculture and the Chair of the EU Parliament's Agriculture
Committee. Our EU colleagues are curious how Americans have
come to largely embrace agricultural biotechnology, while EU
countries have challenges accepting the same important
advancements.
My observation is that this is due to the strong
relationship between the research conducted for over a century
at our land-grant universities and the private sector. It is an
area where we have challenged our universities to be at the
cutting edge of science and working together with the private
sector. It is that uniquely American public-private
partnership. We have faith and confidence with this academic
model as it relates and delivers to the American consumer.
We know that our technology companies and our farmers face
increasing competition abroad, in South America and Canada, as
it relates to developing and commercializing agriculture's
biotechnology. Large commodity crops like corn, soybean, and
cotton have already realized many of the benefits of
biotechnology by creating higher-yielding crops, crops that are
more drought tolerant, and crops, as the Chairman noted, that
require fewer pesticides and herbicides.
What I think holds great promise is the next generation of
biotechnology for specialty crops around the country, but
especially in California. Crops of fruits and vegetables, leafy
greens, crops that can make better and healthier diets. Crops
that fight plant diseases that our growers face not only in our
country but around the world.
Some of our witnesses will suggest the need for rethinking
how we evaluate agricultural biotechnology so that it will not
suffer. I look forward to hearing those comments.
If Congress undertakes such an effort as a part of the 2012
Farm Bill, we need to remember that our trading partners have
already imposed barriers to U.S. agricultural products because
of the use of biotechnology. We need to keep that in mind as we
reform and refine our regulatory system.
In the interim, we need to continue to aggressively push
our trading partners to remove these barriers which generally
have more to do with protecting their own domestic agriculture,
in my opinion, than focusing on science-based concerns.
The success of U.S. agriculture biotechnology depends on
maintaining trust and confidence of American consumers, and our
trading partners, to ensure that we are growing the safest
products for American consumption and for export around the
world.
Why biotechnology? Well, let's think about it. Two hundred
years ago, there were 1.5 billion people on the planet, 200
years ago. Today, 200 years later, we have 6.7 billion people
on the planet. By the end of this century, it is estimated we
will have over nine billion people on the planet.
Why biotechnology? We need to feed that growing population.
We have finite supplies of water not just in our own country
but in areas around the world. Drought-resistant seeds are
critical to continuing to grow the food we need. We need to
have crops that rely less on the use of pesticides and
herbicides.
And yields--yields are critical. We take for granted the
green revolution that took place 40 years ago that again was
advanced by many of our land-grant universities. We are
standing on the shoulders and living off the benefits of that
green revolution.
Norman Borlaug, a great, noted U.S. scientist, went to
India and took that green revolution with tremendous results to
allow India to prosper today. We must not forget that is the
heritage and the legacy that we come from, and we must continue
that effort as we move forward.
I yield back the balance of my time; and I look forward to
hearing the testimony, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Costa.
I would request that other Members submit their opening
statements, if any, for the record so that we can proceed with
the testimony.
So we would move to the witnesses, and call on the
Honorable Charles F. Conner, President and CEO, National
Council of Farmer Cooperatives here in D.C.
Mr. Conner.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. CONNER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
FARMER COOPERATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Conner. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Costa, and
Members of this Subcommittee, on behalf of nearly 3,000 farmer-
owned cooperatives and the broader coalition of agricultural
groups whose members produce much of this country's food and
fiber, we thank you for holding today's hearing on the benefits
of agricultural biotechnology.
Our organizations and the people we represent support
policies that enhance the ability of producers to use new
practices and technologies to produce their crops. At the same
time, we know these practices must be based on proven science,
be economical and environmentally sound and, of course, ensure
food safety.
Additionally, we strongly support the safety and science-
based risk assessments conducted as part of the regulation of
biotech crops.
As stakeholders in the development, deregulation, and
commercialization of these crops, the actions taken by
government agencies have a direct and indirect impact on timely
access to the future traits now under development.
The widespread adoption of biotech-derived crops by farmers
truly does demonstrate the value of this technology to American
agriculture. The first generation of biotech crops engineered
to be herbicide tolerant and insect resistant were first
introduced in 1996. By 2010, U.S. farmers planted 86 percent of
their corn acreage and 93 percent of their soybean acreage with
these technologies. This is because biotech crops resulted in
higher yields, more efficient use of cropland, reduced labor,
and reduced crop rotation requirements.
For example, biotech has increased corn yields by 40
percent over the last 20 years, while increasing land use
efficiency. Because of this, it now takes 37 percent less
energy and 25 percent less water to produce a bushel of corn
than what was the case 2 decades ago.
In 2010, 93 percent of the U.S. cotton was genetically
engineered, and cotton yields have increased approximately 33
percent as compared to the period of time prior to the
introduction of these traits.
Without a doubt, the next generation of biotech crops will
continue to increase crop yields helping U.S. producers feed
and clothe the world. The U.S. must continue to lead the way
with innovation, product development, and acceptance of biotech
crops.
An example for future potential for biotech crops is wheat.
According to the U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization, 20
percent of the calories consumed by the human race on this
planet are derived from wheat. The U.N. estimates that the
world's population, as you have noted, will reach 9.3 billion
people by 2050. With only three percent of the Earth's surface
suitable for food production, farmers will need to produce more
using the same amount of land, less energy, and certainly fewer
water resources. Innovation will be the key to our ability to
improve wheat production and keep up with the growing world
population.
The need to support biotechnology, Mr. Chairman, is not in
question. The question is how to enable biotechnology to move
forward to meet those future food needs.
There are currently over 20 biotech traits awaiting
regulatory decisions. It is imperative that the USDA continue
its science-based and safety-based regulatory process, and be
allowed to make these judgments and decisions without undue
legal interference.
Court decisions not based on any science whatsoever put the
U.S. at risk of missing out on opportunities provided by this
technology. These legal challenges continue to hamper USDA's
efforts to review and improve new products in a timely way.
Another important issue is coexistence. Farmer cooperatives
and their producer-members continue to support commercial
decisions that are voluntary and determined by the marketplace.
Marketing decisions should not be included as part of the
government's safety- and science-based assessment of biotech-
derived agricultural products. I am hopeful that robust
decisions regarding the issue will take place as part of USDA's
newly reorganized AC-21 advisory committee.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we urge the Administration and
Members of this Committee to maintain the integrity of the
regulatory process with respect to biotech crops. Our
organizations, in total, look forward to working with this
Committee and seeing that come about.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I will
respond to your questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles F. Conner, President and Chief
Executive Officer, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Washington,
D.C.
Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Costa, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for holding today's hearing on the benefits of
agricultural biotechnology products.
I am Chuck Conner, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC). Since 1929, NCFC has
been the voice of America's farmer cooperatives. Our members are
regional and national farmer cooperatives, which are in turn composed
of over 2,500 local farmer cooperatives across the country. NCFC
members also include 26 state and regional councils of cooperatives.
Additionally, the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean
Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, National
Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association and
National Cotton Council support the remarks I am making today. Also
included in my statement for the record is information from one of our
members, Land O'Lakes, regarding the status of Roundup Ready alfalfa.
Farmer cooperatives--businesses owned, governed and controlled by
farmers and ranchers--are an important part of the success of American
agriculture. Like many in production agriculture, our members have had
long and direct experience with biotechnology crops and have realized
the many benefits they provide, including improvements in production
efficiency while lessening the environmental impacts of food
production.
We support policies that enhance the ability of producers to use
new practices and technologies to produce their crops, so long as the
practices are based on proven science, are economically and
environmentally sound and ensure food safety. Additionally, we strongly
support the safety and science-based risk assessments conducted as part
of the regulation of biotechnology crops. As stakeholders in the
development, deregulation and commercialization of biotechnology crops,
the actions taken by government agencies on these crops have a direct
and indirect impact on timely access to future traits now under
development.
As part of my statement, I will highlight the key benefits that
plant biotechnology has provided to U.S. agriculture, including
production gains that will improve global food security and reduce the
impact on our natural resources. I also will revisit several issues I
raised at the Committee's forum on biotechnology in January.
Additional crop-specific statistics along with other benefits of
biotechnology crops are provided in the appendix of this testimony.
Improved Production Capabilities
The benefits of biotechnology in agriculture are most readily
demonstrated by the response from U.S. farmers in adopting
biotechnology-derived crops. The first generation of biotech crops
engineered to be herbicide tolerant (HT) and insect resistant using a
Bacillius thuringiesis (Bt) soil gene were introduced in 1996. By 2010,
86 percent of U.S. producers had adopted HT and Bt technology. For
example, HT (glysophate-resistant) soybeans grew from 17 percent of
production in 1997 to 68 percent in 2001 to 93 percent in 2010. During
the same period, U.S. farmers increased adoption of HT and Bt
technologies to 86 percent of all U.S. corn acreage.
Biotechnology crops have improved the ability of producers to meet
market demand, both domestic and international, while supporting their
rural economies. Furthermore, production efficiencies gained by
utilizing biotechnology crops have resulted in higher yields, more
efficient use of cropland, reduced labor and reduced crop rotation
requirements.
Meeting Global Demand
In the words of Dr. Norman Borlaug, ``civilization as it is known
today could not have evolved, nor can it survive, without an adequate
food supply.''
American agriculture has long been at the forefront in meeting the
world's ever-expanding needs for food, feed and fiber. The availability
of corn, cotton, soybean, sugarbeet, canola, alfalfa, and other crops
enhanced through biotechnology will continue to assist the U.S. farmer
in providing for the world's growing population. The development and
adoption of these products, and the promise of new products, make
possible the continued availability of abundant food, feed and fiber to
consumers in the U.S. and worldwide. It is imperative that the U.S.
agriculture industry continue to lead the way with innovation, product
development and acceptance of biotechnology crops.
Incredible strides have been made with the adoption of
biotechnology. For example, in 2010 93 percent of U.S. cotton was
genetically engineered, and cotton yields have increased approximately
33 percent as compared to the average cotton yields prior to the
introduction of biotech cotton in 1996. Without a doubt, the next
generation of biotechnology crops will continue to increase crop
yields, enabling U.S. producers to meet growing world demand for food,
feed, and fiber.
An example of future potential for biotechnology is wheat.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United
Nations (UN), 20 percent of the calories consumed by the human race are
derived from wheat. In recent years, droughts in Russia and Australia
made global supplies uncertain, and this year U.S. farmers in some
states are experiencing drought while other states are experiencing
flooding. Innovation will be the key to the U.S.'s ability to improve
wheat production, keep up with a growing global population and adapt to
changing climatic conditions around the world.
By now, we are all aware of the estimates made by the UN predicting
the world population will reach 9.3 billion people by 2050. With only
three percent of the Earth's surface suitable for food production,
there will be intensified pressure for farmers to feed and clothe a
growing population using the same amount of land with fewer energy and
water resources.
Doing More with Less
Biotechnology providers and seed companies, in partnership with
grower groups and their farmer cooperatives, were at the forefront of
creating valuable agriculture biotechnology products that benefit
farmers, consumers and the environment. For instance, biotechnology
products have helped increase corn yields by 40 percent per acre in the
last 20 years. Land use efficiency has increased by 37 percent over the
last 20 years, effectively decreasing fixed cost burdens on producers.
It now takes 37 percent less energy and 25 percent less water to
produce a bushel of corn than it did 2 decades ago.
Farmers have rapidly adopted the new technology and have enjoyed
more convenient and flexible crop management, lower cost of production,
higher productivity and/or net returns per acre and numerous
environmental benefits. Biotechnology developments have reduced
pesticide use, improved conservation practices and afforded a more
sustainable way for farmers to provide us with food, feed and fiber.
For example, adoption of biotechnology products has encouraged the
expansion of no-till cultivation. The increased use of no-till reduces
herbicide costs by 20 to 50 percent, erosion by 90 percent, greenhouse
gas emissions by 88 percent, and fuel use by 20 to 50 percent, while
enhancing habitat for beneficial insects and birdlife. These benefits,
in turn, reduce farm production costs, improve soil and water quality
and conservation, increase carbon retention in the soil, and reduce
fuel use and emissions.
Regulatory Certainty
The need to support this technology is not in question. The
question is how to enable biotechnology to move forward to meet future
needs. Legal decisions not based in science put the U.S. at risk of not
being able to capitalize on the opportunities and benefits provided by
biotechnology. They also represent an unnecessary drain on the
resources of the Federal Government, commodity organizations and
biotechnology companies.
In addition to the first generation crops, sugarbeet and alfalfa
Roundup Ready products have been approved. After extensive
environmental, health and human safety reviews, USDA determined these
products were safe for commercialization. However, these crops were
subsequently challenged in court on procedural National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) issues. In the case of alfalfa, the U.S. Supreme
Court concluded in a 7-1 decision that USDA had performed due diligence
in making its non-regulated status decision on alfalfa. Although both
crops were planted this year, under conditions imposed by USDA due to
judicial rulings, the time and resources expended to litigate these
needless legal challenges has been debilitating to USDA's efforts to
review and approve new products.
There are many other new products U.S. growers would like to
utilize. For example, wheat farmers want technologies that will allow
them to address multiple production challenges and improve yields and
quality while using less water, fertilizer and pesticides. Other new
traits in the pipeline for commodities, fruits and vegetables will
provide additional benefits to consumers and farmers. With over twenty
biotechnology traits pending regulatory decisions, it is important that
USDA continue its science and safety-based regulatory process. USDA's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) should make timely,
safety- and science-based decisions on biotechnology crops.
Another important issue is ``coexistence.'' At the forum in
January, I spoke about the regulatory options proposed by USDA on
Roundup Ready alfalfa. I stressed that the U.S. Government's definition
of ``coexistence'' is critical to continued growth and expansion of new
biotechnology-derived products. However, the understanding and scope of
``coexistence'' remains unclear.
I am hopeful that robust discussions regarding the issue will take
place as part of USDA's newly reorganized AC-21 advisory committee. We
are all committed to the principle of ensuring that all U.S. farmers
are able to choose cropping systems based on their individual
operations and situations.
Farmer cooperatives and their producer members continue to support
commercial decisions that are voluntary and determined in the
marketplace. It is our view that marketing decisions should not be
included as part of the government's safety- and science-based
assessment of biotechnology-derived agricultural products.
In closing, we urge the Administration and Members of this
Committee to maintain the integrity of the regulatory process with
respect to biotechnology crops. I look forward to working with this
Committee on common sense approaches that allow for availability and
future development and adoption of these tools to ensure we can meet
the demands of our expanding population.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I am pleased to
respond to your questions.
Appendix--Additional Statistics and Benefits
Soybeans
Biotech soybeans currently account for 92 percent of total
U.S. soybean production. Since their introduction in 1996, the
vast majority of biotech soybeans have been genetically
modified to resist specific weed control products, including
glyphosate. Better weed control improves production
efficiencies by allowing narrower row planting, reducing the
number of field trips, and reducing the volume of foreign
material, including toxic weed seeds, by 33 percent.
The next generation of biotech products includes soybeans
with improved fatty acid profiles, including high oleic, low
saturated fat, higher omega-3 levels, and high stearic acid
content. New varieties will also be resistant to alternative
herbicides, allowing rotating usage of different chemistries,
and will include stacks of traits in the same seeds that are
resistant to herbicides, insects, diseases and nematodes.
The next generation of biotech products will also increase
soybean yields to enable U.S. producers to meet growing world
demand for food and feed.
Sugarbeets
Sugarbeets are raised on 1.2 million acres in 11 states and
processed by 22 farmer-owned facilities. The crop is typically
rotated with other crops over a 3 to 4 year period. In 2010, 60
percent of the sugar produced in the U.S. was from sugarbeets.
Weeds are one of the biggest problems in raising this crop.
With conventional sugarbeets, multiple applications of multiple
herbicides are required at precise times. Even then, weed
pressure often continues to exist, requiring scarce and costly
hand labor, or reduced yields due to weed competition for soil
nutrients and water.
Roundup Ready sugarbeets were deregulated in March 2005 and
growers anxiously awaited variety approvals and commercial seed
production produced by independent seed producers. By 2009, the
beet industry planted 95 percent of the acreage with the
Roundup Ready technology. It was the fastest adoption rate of
any biotech crop worldwide.
A Roundup Ready sugarbeet system requires less soil
disturbance for seed bed preparation and fewer herbicide
applications, which means fewer trips across the field. These
innovations result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions, soil
erosion and soil compaction, and enhanced water conservation.
Corn
Corn growers adopted biotechnology readily, growing from a
25 percent market share in 2000, to over 85 percent in 2010.
The yield-preserving benefits of biotechnology traits helped
limit production declines in extreme weather years such as 2009
and 2010.
The 35 year trend line projects corn farmers harvesting 170
bushels per acre by 2020, while the improvements seen in the
last 12 years indicate that farmers could be harvesting 180
bushels an acre by 2020, resulting in an extra 800 million
bushels of corn per year. While these are only estimates, when
taking into consideration what is in the biotechnology pipeline
yields could near 205 bushels per acre, with total production
exceeding 16.4 billion bushels.
Herbicide tolerance has allowed growers to use fewer
pesticides per acre in their weed management programs, enabling
greater adoption of no-till practices. As a result, soil loss
has been reduced by 69 percent while herbicide and insecticides
applications per acre have been reduced 20 percent and 65
percent respectively. In 2006, that amounted to approximately
110 million pounds of pesticide use displaced due to
biotechnology.
Cotton
Biotechnology cotton has resulted in a decreased in
pesticide usage by as much as 75 percent.
As of 2010, 93 percent of U.S. cotton was genetically
engineered, and cotton yields have increased approximately 33
percent as compared to the average cotton yields prior to the
introduction of biotech cotton in 1996.
Alfalfa
Alfalfa (forage) is the fourth largest crop in the United
States and a key component of the diet of dairy cows--alfalfa
acres have been declining over the past 20 years, due in part
to weed and quality issues. However, those issues can be
addressed by Roundup Ready alfalfa.
While most of the focus has been on ways to improve milk
prices and provide dairy farmers with additional revenues, we
also are concerned about how to help dairy farmers avoid being
squeezed by low prices and high costs in the future. A Land
O'Lakes survey suggests that farmers who utilize Roundup Ready
alfalfa enjoy a $100 to $110 per acre financial benefit.
Roundup Ready alfalfa was approved for sale in June 2005. In
June 2007, a Federal district court in California issued an
injunction halting sales of Roundup Ready alfalfa, instructing
USDA to issue an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)--a
process estimated to take 18-24 months. The district court's
decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in September 2008.
The process took much longer than estimated, with the final
EIS issued in January 2011. As a result of procedural delays in
completing the EIS, farmer investment in this new technology
was put at risk.
Papaya
Until 1992, Hawaii enjoyed steady production of papaya with
greater than 80 percent of the crop being exported. However, in
1992 the papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) wiped out much of the
crop.
By 1995, PRSV was widespread and decimated the industry.
Production went from 53 million pounds in 1992 to 26 million
pounds in 1998.
Thanks to the development of a transgenic (biotechnology)
PRSV-resistant papaya developed by Cornell University and
approved by USDA, production has recovered to its previous
levels.
Biotechnology saved the Hawaiian papaya industry. Today, it
is the state's second-largest fruit crop, valued at $18
million.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Conner.
Our next panelist is Dr. Roger Beachy, President Emeritus,
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, Saint Louis, Missouri.
Dr. Beachy.
STATEMENT OF ROGER N. BEACHY, Ph.D., PRESIDENT
EMERITUS, DONALD DANFORTH PLANT SCIENCE CENTER; PROFESSOR OF
BIOLOGY, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS, ST. LOUIS, MO
Dr. Beachy. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Mr. Costa, and
Members of the Subcommittee, for holding this hearing today.
My goal is to convey to you the importance of research that
brings innovation to agriculture and the regulatory processes
that are put in place to ensure safety.
I come with a background as a teacher and as a scientist
and inventor of some of the technologies that are being used
today in agriculture; a former director of an institute
established in part as a mechanism to stimulate innovation and
local economy; and as a former director of NIFA. I have been an
advisor to several venture capital funds who have invested in
biotech. I have sat on boards of several multinational
companies as well as a number of not-for-profit research and
education organizations. It has been a privilege to have
participated in such a breadth of activities, each of which has
brought me to this table today.
The discoveries made in the plant and agricultural sciences
and the laboratories of universities, private and public
research centers, and laboratories of the private sector have
been nothing short of amazing, remarkable in agriculture in the
last 50 years, as Congressman Costa has mentioned.
Genetic engineering recently has brought farmers insect-
resistant crops that require far fewer chemical inputs and
tolerance to environmentally friendly herbicides that enable
farmers to increase no-till agriculture. This saves the farmer
fuel and labor costs and increases profits.
Similarly, virus-resistant crops have reduced the need for
insecticides that control aphids.
This is true sustainability of agriculture. This is
sustainability that is quantifiable. It is defined by science.
It is not a philosophy. It is marked and measured.
Yet this is only the beginning of reaching the potential
for agriculture, an agriculture which must feed more people not
just more calories but better calories; agriculture and
agriforestry that requires fewer chemicals to protect them from
insects and diseases and delivers more and better biofuels.
Furthermore, in the future, agriculture will meet the
growing demands for natural chemicals that will fuel our
pharmaceutical and industrial engines, our factories.
There are a growing number of examples of new inventions
developed through genetic engineering that have good likelihood
of success and continue to be delayed in reaching the
marketplace because of regulatory processes that are ill-
defined and/or unpredictable, sometimes irrational, always
costly. This is an area of significant concern to venture
capitalists, to inventors, to entrepreneurs and is worthy of
attention and reform.
Plants and plant products that are developed with the aid
of genetic engineering are subjected to regulations and
oversight through a process developed in the mid-1980s and
finalized in 1986 in the Coordinated Framework for Regulation
of Biotechnology. The success of the original plan is reflected
in the positive impacts on agriculture production in the U.S.,
as well as on millions of smallholder farmers in developing
economies while reducing the use of chemical insecticides that
have caused health problems in those poor rural communities.
Today, the regulatory structures are much like they were in
1987. There have been modest adjustments in the process since
that time, but the regulatory process has not adapted to the
experience of the past 24 years, or to the new knowledge
generated during this period. It has adapted poorly in response
to the proven safety record and absence of adverse effects on
the environment or on animal or human health. It has not
adapted to changes that have further enhanced the safety of the
technologies per se, and it has not adapted to the needs of the
market.
The system needs attention, modification, and improvement
if the U.S. and global agriculture communities and its
consumers are to benefit from the investment that this
government has made in the past in science and technology that
will impact agriculture and agriforestry.
Now GE seeds for the commodity crops are produced by large
companies that tend to be less constrained by cost and by time
but some impact. In contrast, researchers and innovators in the
academic community and in small companies have considerably
more difficulty in producing or delivering a genetically
engineered crop to the market than do the large corporations.
Indeed, there are fewer than a handful of such products since
the technology was invented in the mid-1980s.
There have been no new products released to the market from
universities for more than 10 years, in part because of the
time and the cost necessary to bring new products forward. The
cost of regulatory approval of products is between $5 and $25
million, and the time can be as much as 10 years.
And there are lots of examples of the burdens, and I won't
go through them. They are in my written testimony. But I am
glad you are taking on this challenge of how asking how it can
be changed, and ask that if I can be of any further assistance
in the future to the Subcommittee or to the Administration or
the regulatory process, I will be glad to be of service.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Beachy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roger N. Beachy, Ph.D., President Emeritus,
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center; Professor of Biology, Washington
University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Mr. Costa, and Members of the
Subcommittee, for holding this hearing. The topic is one of great
interest and importance to agriculture and agriforestry, in particular
the science and biotechnologies that work to ensure the success of this
sector of the American economy while preserving the natural resources
that make the industry possible. Our goal is to convey to you the
importance of research that brings innovation to agriculture, and of
the regulatory processes that are in place to ensure safety of products
of biotechnology. I will address most of my remarks to the plant
sciences and the technologies and products that are derived from
biotechnology.
I come with a background as a teacher and scientist, as an inventor
of technologies that are used in agricultural biotechnology, as a
former director of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center,
established in part as a mechanism to stimulate innovation and local
economy, and as a former director of a Federal research agency: I was
appointed by President Obama to be Founding Director of the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture that was established by the 2008 Farm
Bill. I have been an advisor to several venture capital funds, have sat
on the boards of two multinational companies, as well as a number of
not-for-profit research and education organizations. It has been a
privilege to have participated in such a breadth of activities, each of
which had a role in bringing me to this table today.
Since the middle of the last century biologists, chemists and
biochemists have worked diligently to understand the fundamentals of
plants--how they grow and develop, and the nature of the proteins,
oils, carbohydrates and the hundreds of thousands of natural products
that they produce. The results of these and derivative studies have
been used to enhance and improve the agriculture that peoples in
America and around the world rely upon for sustenance and livelihood,
indeed for their very survival. As agriculture continues to be pressed
to be ever more productive and economically and environmentally
sustainable, the targets of research are to increase crop yields,
develop more nutritious and safer foods, to reduce requirements for
water, nitrogen and other inputs, to develop disease resistant crops
that require fewer chemical protectants, crops that are used to produce
more and better biofuels, and crops that produce useful and valuable
materials that will fuel the industrial and pharmaceutical sectors of
the future. The goals will result in an agriculture that meets all the
criteria for environmental safety and sustainability, ensures rural and
urban wealth, contributes to human health and well being, and that
seeks to provide global food security. While such goals may seem lofty
and far afield from what is often referred to as `agriculture', they
are achievable through science and development of the human potential
to exploit the knowledge provided through discovery, innovation, and
invention.
The discoveries made in the plant and agricultural sciences in the
laboratories of universities, private and public research centers, and
in laboratories of the private sector have been nothing short of
remarkable. They have led to understanding how and why some plants
produce large amounts of oils, or proteins, or carbohydrates while
others cannot; how and why some plants are resistant to certain insects
or diseases, but not to others; and how some plants make certain types
of molecules such as pain killers and cancer-fighting anti-oxidants
while other plants do not. As these and other discoveries were made
scientists began to look for ways to `genetically instruct' some plants
to have specific traits that will increase their value to producers, or
to consumers of agriculture products. In many cases researchers have
used genetic engineering to accomplish their goal.
While many of the advances in agriculture in the past 25 years have
come through classical methods of genetics and breeding, chemical and
radiation mutagenesis, and cell and tissue culture-based
biotechnologies, some of the most remarkable advances have come through
the biotechnologies that comprise genetic engineering. Genetic
engineering (GE) brought farmers insect resistant crops that require
far fewer chemical inputs than did parental varieties, and tolerance to
environmentally friendly herbicides that reduce the use of less safe
herbicides and enable farmers to increase no-till agriculture. This can
save the farmer fuel and labor costs and increase profits, while
increasing the quality and fertility of the land. Similarly, virus
resistant crops have reduced the need for the insecticides that control
the aphids that transmit the viruses from plant to plant. These
discoveries, breakthroughs if you like, have increased the profits of
producers, reduced the use of harsh chemicals that can cause illness in
farmers and their families as well as to consumers, and enhanced the
environmental quality of farming ecosystems. Furthermore, each of the
technologies and products that have come to market has an outstanding
record of safety for the farmer and consumer as well as the
environment.
This is true sustainability of agriculture; this is sustainability
that is quantifiable, is defined by science-based criteria, not a
`sustainability' based on a philosophical approach that critics and the
media too often bandy about in criticizing conventional agriculture. It
is an agriculture that is the goal of many scientists around the globe,
and those around this table today. These applications of biotechnology
to agricultural are thus bringing to life the vision Rachel Carson put
forward in the last chapter of Silent Spring:
``A truly extraordinary variety of alternatives to the chemical
control of insects is available. Some are already in use and
have achieved brilliant success. Others are in the stage of
laboratory testing. Still others are little more than ideas in
the minds of imaginative scientists, waiting for the
opportunity to put them to the test. All have this in common:
they are biological solutions, based on understanding of the
living organisms they seek to control, and of the whole fabric
of life to which these organisms belong. Specialists
representing various areas of the cast field of biology are
contributing--entomologists, pathologists, geneticists,
physiologists, biochemists, ecologists--all pouring their
knowledge and their creative inspirations into the formation of
a new science of biotic controls.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rachel Carson, ``The Other Path'', Silent Spring, Houghton
Miflin, New York. 1962. p. 278.
Scientists and technicians have in past decades made discoveries
through the use of genetic engineering that will, if approved for
commercial release, produce crops that are even more remarkable: for
example crops that require less irrigation under drought conditions,
and that have higher nutrient value than the parent varieties, among
other traits.
Yet this is only the beginning of reaching the potential for
agriculture--an agriculture which must feed more people not just more
calories, but more nutrient-rich calories; agriculture and agriforestry
that requires fewer chemicals to protect them from insects and
diseases; agriculture that delivers more and better biofuels; and
agriculture that meets the growing demands for the natural chemicals
that will fuel our pharmaceutical and industrial factories, all while
fulfilling conservation pioneer Wallace Stegner's command that we learn
to ``tread more gently on the land.''
Science-driven agriculture can be the means through which the
United States remains competitive with the rest of the world. U.S.
agriculture will increasingly be challenged by scientific advances
being made by talented scientists and innovators in other countries,
including in Brazil and China, whose work is projected to contribute
half of the new biotech plant varieties brought to market between now
and 2015.\2\ Furthermore, many of the discoveries represent the
underpinning structure of global food security as scientists in
advanced countries share breakthroughs in with those in developing
economies whose local crops need similar advances to meet the growing
food and nutrition needs of their communities. Productivity of crops
such as cassava, sweet potato, sorghum, millets, and pulse grains,
which provide nutrition for hundreds of millions in developing
economies, will be increased via advanced technologies. It is a moral
imperative to assist in achieving global food security by building
local capacity in agriculture in order to meet the needs of a growing
and demanding world population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Alexander J. Stein & Emilio Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2009. The global
pipeline of new GM crops: Implications of asyncrhonous approval for
international trade. European Commission Joint Research Centre,
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. EUR 23486 EN-2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an exciting period of time in discovery and innovation.
Unfortunately, it is not an exciting time for delivering new products
of agriculture biotechnology to consumers or to those who would invest
in the future of agriculture. While not all discoveries lead to
innovation and new products, there are a growing number of examples of
new inventions developed through genetic engineering that have good
likelihood of success and that continue to be delayed in reaching the
marketplace because of regulatory processes that are ill-defined and/or
unpredictable, sometimes irrational, and always costly. This is an area
for significant concern to inventors and entrepreneurs, and is worthy
of attention and reform. These are delays that are not imposed on crops
that are improved by chemical or radiation mutagenesis or through
mutagenic cell cultures, or through advanced molecular breeding.
Some of the discoveries that fall in this category have been made
in our land-grant colleges and universities; others have been made in
the elite universities and research institutions that previously
focused on achieving breakthroughs in biomedical sciences. Others are
made in the start-up companies that are attempting to turn discoveries
into innovations, such as those that will fuel the bio-based economy of
the future. Many of the discoveries are made with horticultural crops
such as tomato, cucumbers, lettuce, potato, and other fruits and
vegetables. Other examples include applications that are relevant to
industrial crops such as the perennial grasses and rapidly growing
trees that will provide the 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels and
biopower for energy. Still others would result in specialty and
industrial chemical feedstocks that will feed a green economy.
Plants and plant products (but not products developed via food
processing) that are developed with the aid of genetic engineering are
subjected to regulations and oversight through a process developed in
the mid-1980s, and finalized in 1986 in the Coordinated Framework for
Regulation of Biotechnology. Existing processes and authorities of the
USDA, EPA, and FDA were brought together to address concerns and
potential risks about this new technology: because the types of hazards
anticipated with these new products were the same as those with which
we were long familiar from other types of agricultural innovation, the
determination was made that existing statues were adequate, and no
legislative authorities were required by regulators. The history and
success of the regulatory process and the products that were released
as a consequence of the coordinated framework are now storied in terms
of the positive impacts that such products have had on U.S. and global
agriculture. It is also reflected in the positive impacts on production
agriculture in the U.S. as well as on millions of small holder farmers
in developing countries. Genetically engineered cotton, and to a lesser
extent maize/corn, have increased yields in India, China, So. Africa
and other countries, while reducing the use of chemical insecticides
that have caused health problems in poor rural communities.
Today, the regulatory structures that control the production of GE
crops are much like they were in 1987--there have been modest
adjustments in the process since that time. And, given sufficient time,
financial resources and patience, the process results in the release of
some new technologies to the marketplace. The regulatory process has
not, however, adapted to the experiences of the past 24 years or to new
knowledge generated during this period; as a consequence many other
useful products have not made their way to the marketplace. It has
adapted poorly in response to the proven safety record and absence of
adverse affect on the environment or on animal and human health of GE
crops. It has not adapted to changes that have further enhanced the
safety of the technologies; and it has not adapted to the needs of the
market. The system needs attention, modification, and improvement if
the U.S. and global agriculture communities and its consumers are to
benefit from the investment in past and current science and technology
that can impact agriculture and agriforestry.
Let me put it very simply: Since regulations were first put in
place for the products of agricultural biotechnology in 1987, more than
2 billion acres of crops have been grown and harvested in at least 29
countries around the world.\3\ These crops have been grown by 15.4
million farmers, 14.4 million of whom are small, resource poor farmers
in developing countries. The harvests of these crops have been consumed
in billions upon billions of meals by humans and livestock around the
world for the better part of 2 decades now. In all this vast experience
we have not a single consequence of a novel, negative consequence for
health or the environment--not one. In fact, we have seen some of the
well known risks of conventional or organic agriculture dramatically
reduced: the potential for contamination of food with cancer-causing
compounds like aflatoxin in corn has been dramatically reduced through
biotechnology; exposure of farmers to potentially dangerous neurotoxins
used to control pests has been dramatically reduced, as have been the
cases of unintentional exposure with all their health consequences; the
quality of runoff from agricultural lands has improved with the
widespread adoption of biotech crops as no-till methods of weed
control, as carbon sequestration in soils and greenhouse gas emitting
consumption of fossil fuels have been significantly reduced. Indeed, as
even the Europeans admit,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Clive James, 2011. ISAAA Brief 42: Global Status of
Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010.
``. . . the use of more precise technology and the greater
regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than
conventional plants and foods; and if there are unforeseen
environmental effects--none have appeared as yet--these should
be rapidly detected by our monitoring requirements. On the
other hand, the benefits of these plants and products for human
health and the environment become increasingly clear.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ European Commission, Press Release of 8 October 2001,
announcing the release of 15 year study incl. 81 projects/=70M, 400
teams (http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp5/eag-gmo.html and http://
ec.europa.eu/research/fp5/pdf/eag-gmo.pdf).
There are several consequences if the regulatory burdens faced by
innovators are not brought back more closely into alignment with a
realistic view of the potential hazards. First, innovation will suffer
because of the lack of clarity of the process of regulation and its
increasing costs. Currently, the system is geared to big agriculture
and to relatively low margin products grown on large acreages. Improved
seeds of the major commodity crops corn, soybeans, cotton and canola
are the major beneficiaries to date: these GE technologies have
benefitted the technology companies, the farmers, the environment and
consumers. The few examples of GE crops now on the market that were not
developed by a large company include varieties of papaya and squash
that were engineered to have resistance to certain viruses. The latter
were developed early in the development of genetic engineering
technologies when costs and time of deregulation (approval) were less
than they are today.
GE seeds for the commodity crops are produced by large companies
that tend to be less constrained by cost and time. In contrast,
researchers and innovators in the academic community, including those
that serve agriculture productivity, and in small companies, have
considerably more difficulty in producing or delivering a genetically
engineered crop to the market than do large corporations. Indeed, there
are fewer than a handful of such products. Researchers in universities
and small companies have, since the mid-1980s made discoveries that are
relevant to the less lucrative vegetable seed market, and in cutting
edge areas that have potential to revolutionize the biofuels and
biomaterials industry. Yet, there have been no new products released to
the market from universities for more than 10 years, in part because of
the time and cost necessary to bring the new product forward.
The of cost for regulatory approval GE products that carry a new
trait introduced via genetic engineering have been estimated at between
$5 million to more $25 million in the U.S.; time to market can be as
much as 10 years from product development. Some costs are, of course,
related to technology development per se; however, the bulk of the
costs deal with the regulation process and achieving deregulated or
partially deregulated status for a new product.
Several examples of unjustifiably burdensome hurdles created by
the current processes that are required for deregulation can illustrate
the problem. One of the steps requires full biochemical
characterization of the location of the gene in the DNA of the plant
that is genetically engineered. While such characterization no longer
has a prohibitive cost, scientific evidence accumulated during the past
20 years indicates that such case-by-case characterization is generally
not relevant to the performance or safety of the crops themselves.
Indeed, performance is still only meaningfully judged in the old
fashioned way, that is, by testing the new variety under field
conditions. A second example is the use of genes from Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) to confer resistance to certain insects, such as
larvae of certain beetles or caterpillars. Bt proteins from many
sources have been tested and shown to be safe for the environment, and
for animal (except for the target insects, of course!) and human
consumption. It is logical therefore, to begin to exempt from
regulation, or at least reduce the review process, for Bt genes. A
similar logic can be applied to genes that confer tolerance to the
herbicides glyphosate and glufosinate, and to genes for virus
resistance.
New technologies that have been developed since the regulations
were established raise additional questions about the relevance of some
of the regulatory reviews. For example, the use of endogenous host
genes to confer a new trait, and genes that produce small interfering
RNAs, many of which are naturally found widely in plants, could be
exempted from costly approval processes, or considered for reduced
regulatory oversight. Endogenous genes and genes that produce small
interfering RNAs are used to develop crops and agriforestry varieties
with increased resistance to pests and diseases, resistance to heat and
drought conditions, improved productivity/yield, improved efficiency in
use of water and nitrogen fertilizers, and improved biomass that will
serve our biofuels and biomaterials industries of the future.
Other novel technologies, such as use of synthetic chromosomes, and
specific proteins that target genetic changes even more precisely than
does the older technology, have been developed and tested and proven to
be useful to developing new products. It is not known how new
technologies such as these, and others of the future, will be
regulated, and what the cost of regulatory approval that contain the
technologies. It seems likely, from our experience to date, that the
costs imposed will not likely be matched by any commensurate increase
in safety of the new products. And the lack of clarity as to the
regulatory barriers they will have to surmount itself can diminish the
prospect of innovation per se, by reducing the incentives for investors
to fund such innovations through the R&D process to the marketplace.
What modifications are necessary to change the process of
regulation and secure the United States in a position of pre-eminence
in the agriculture and agriforestry? The Committee is urged to consider
the following amongst the changes that it may recommend.
1. Return to a firm commitment to base regulations on science, in
particular science that addresses issues related to the safety
of the product and independent of the process by which it was
developed. Regulators need to discipline themselves to focus on
what they need to know to ensure safety, and not allow
themselves to be distracted into musings on many of the
fascinating issues about which it would be nice to know more;
questions to which no conceivable answer would shift a
regulators' decision one way or another, and thus irrelevant to
safety assurance. This will have the effect of reducing the
necessity of conducting certain types of analyses of new
products and reduce the amount of time and the costs associated
with regulation.
2. Redefine the basis by which products of biotechnology are
subjected to regulatory oversight. The role of APHIS in
regulating GE crops is important to maintaining confidence in
an approval process; however, the characteristics of the
products that would trigger regulation and a relevant mechanism
to trigger regulatory oversight should be redefined.
3. Identify categorical exemptions that can streamline and reduce
burdens for products/characteristics experience has shown to be
safe. A process should be developed to thoroughly review the
technologies and products that have been developed and
commercialized to date and identify those technologies that can
be exempted, requiring minimal or reduced oversight. This will
reduce the cost of regulation of many new products.
4. Distinguish between real and perceived risks and focus on those
that are real. Processes and methods should be developed to
distinguish between real versus perceived risks in establishing
safety recommendations; and to consider costs and benefits in
risk analysis, including potential costs to the ecological
environment from the continuation of conventional agricultural
practices. A change such as this will require action by
Congress. In providing such guidance to APHIS, Congress should
weigh the opportunity costs of regulatory policies that
discourage innovations that actually reduce the risks attendant
on conventional agricultural production techniques that are
already widely used. In this context, it may be helpful to
consider the way that current NEPA statues are applied to
agricultural biotechnology and to establish specific mechanisms
for NEPA compliance in the case of these products that are
appropriate for the characteristics and the risks being
evaluated.
In concluding these comments, I ask that you consider some of the
`unintended consequences' of the overly stringent regulation of
products that are developed by genetic engineering. First, by the use
of terminologies that falsely imply risk and potential lack of safety,
we have created the perception that the technology itself is unsafe and
that products derived from the technology are therefore unsafe.
Scientific consensus over the past 20+ years has indicated otherwise.
It is time to change the verbiage, some of which is embodied in the
laws under which we regulate these products.
Second, as a consequence of what many consider overly cautious
regulations based on process rather than the safety of the product,
many developing countries are reluctant to adopt the technologies and
products developed from the technologies. This has the effect of
limiting acceptance of products of American agriculture and the
development of crops that could benefit those countries; and, it
reduces the opportunity of meeting the goals of global food security,
and thus our national security.
We can and must do better.
Respectfully submitted,
Roger N. Beachy,
June 21, 2010.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Beachy.
Our final witness, Dr. Calestous Juma, Professor of the
Practice of International Development, Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs, JFK School of Government,
Harvard University.
Doctor.
STATEMENT OF CALESTOUS JUMA, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF THE PRACTICE
OF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT,
HARVARD
UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MA
Dr. Juma. Chairman Johnson, Mr. Costa, Members of the
Subcommittee, I am very grateful to have the opportunity to
speak to you this morning and talk to you about the
implications of the work of this Subcommittee for African
countries.
Writing exactly 130 years ago, Robert Louis Stevenson
acknowledged in his essay entitled, A Plea for Gas Lamps, that
``Cities given, the problem was to light them.'' He then
proceeded to demonize electricity, saying that the ``urban star
now shines out nightly, horrible, unearthly, obnoxious to the
human eye; a lamp for a nightmare! Such a light should shine
only on murders and public crime, or along the corridors of
lunatic asylums, a horror to heighten horror.''
Today, growing human numbers given, the problem is to feed
them. However, skeptics cast a dark shadow over the prospect of
using biotechnology to address the global food crisis.
The United States has been a leading light in agricultural
biotechnology and continues to serve as an important role model
for countries around the world seeking to address the challenge
of food security. A key source of this leadership has been the
commitment of the United States to using science-based
approaches in regulation.
The world needs this demonstrated leadership now more than
ever, given the rising food prices and the associated threats
to public order. America's failure to champion agricultural
biotechnology will undermine the global community's confidence
to confront the challenge.
Skeptics have sought to halt or slow down adoption of
biotechnology. This has affected Africa's ability to include
biotechnology in the package of options needed to enhance food
security.
However, the tide is now turning. The European Commission
recently published a report and concluded that
``biotechnologies could provide us with useful tools in sectors
such as agriculture, fisheries, food production, and industry.
. . . These alternatives include genetically modified organisms
(GMO) and their potential use.''
But, more importantly, the report stressed ``that
biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more
risky than, e.g., conventional plant breeding technologies.''
The promise of biotechnology for rural development is
inspiring African nations that seek to complement existing
practices with new genetic techniques. South Africa, Egypt, and
Burkina Faso have already adopted genetically modified crops.
The evidence from these countries is informing efforts among
other countries to continue to explore ways by which they can
build up their capacity to participate in this important
technological revolution. We saw this just recently with
enthusiasm at a recent conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
that attracted nearly 250 people from 35 countries.
Africa's nutritional needs are not limited to crops.
Aquaculture is emerging as an important substitute for wild
fish whose stocks are dwindling at alarming rates.
I am informed that recently this House had passed an
amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill that would
effectively prevent the FDA from completing its safety
assessment of the first food fish derived from biotechnology.
This sends a very negative signal to developing countries,
particularly in Africa, that are looking to the United States
in providing leadership. It also signals to other countries
that there is room for them, in fact, to take the leadership
which appears at the moment that the United States is willing
to cede.
I would like to urge this country and this Committee to put
emphasis on enhancing the leadership that has already been
demonstrated. By doing so, the United States will continue to
serve as a role model in the use of science-based regulation.
It is only by working with countries around the world to adopt
modern biotechnology can we hope for a brighter agricultural
future. Through such leadership, Africa and other regions can
avoid being seduced by the dim light of technological
stagnation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Juma follows:]
Prepared Statement of Calestous Juma, Ph.D., Professor of the Practice
of International Development, Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University,
Cambridge, MA
Introduction \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This testimony is derived from Juma, C. The New Harvest:
Agricultural Innovation in Africa. New York: Oxford University Press,
2011. A full digital copy (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/
the_new_harvest_complete_text.pdf) of this study is made available as
an optional annex to this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writing exactly 130 years ago, Robert Louis Stevenson acknowledged
in A Plea for Gas Lamps that ``Cities given, the problem was to light
them.'' Then he proceeded with his indictment of electricity saying the
``urban star now shines out nightly, horrible, unearthly, obnoxious to
the human eye; a lamp for a nightmare! Such a light as this should
shine only on murders and public crime, or along the corridors of
lunatic asylums, a horror to heighten horror.'' Today we acknowledge
that given growing human numbers, the problem is to feed them. However,
we also cast dark shadow over the prospects of using biotechnology to
address the global food crisis.
The United States has been a leading light in agricultural
biotechnology as a platform technology and continues to serve as an
important role model for countries around the seeking to address global
food challenges. A key source of this leadership has been its
commitment to using a science-led regulatory system for determining the
approval of new products. The rest of the world needs this demonstrated
leadership now more than ever given rising food prices and related
political unrests around the world. Failure on the part of the United
States to champion agricultural biotechnology will undermine confidence
in the ability of the global community to confront the challenges of
food security. Retracting from using science and technology to address
emerging challenges will not result in any savings; it will only defer
problems and future costs are likely to be higher.
In the 1970s skeptics argued that new technologies were generally
more expensive, less reliable, more complicated, controlled by
corporate monopolies and therefore inaccessible to the poor. They went
further and claimed that a ``technology divide'' would emerge between
industrialized and developing countries. This ideological framing was
applied to emerging information and telecommunications technologies and
the word ``digital divide'' became a template for international debates
on innovation, human rights and the quest for prosperity.
In effect, the skeptics sought to slow down the adoption of new
technologies in developing countries and advocated the use of what they
called ``appropriate technology''. They sought to freeze technology in
time and by doing so they also compromised improvements in human
welfare and the spread of prosperity. Some international organizations
advocated policies aimed at curbing the introduction of
microelectronics in developing countries with the objective of
protecting workers against labor displacement.
Reality has turned out to be different. Information and
communications technologies are now a key source of economic
productivity and a platform for socioeconomic transformation worldwide.
Many African countries, for example, have been able to ``leapfrog''
into the modern information age through the mobile phone and the stage
is now set for a move into mobile broadband that will see many rural
areas move to transform education, health, governance and many aspects
of socioeconomic life. The spread of this technology has been possible
because of the sovereign leaders provided by a few countries to
reforming their national policies to create space for mobile
technologies.
Benefits of Biotechnology
Biotechnology--technology applied to biological systems--has the
promise of leading to increased food security and sustainable forestry
practices, as well as improving health in developing countries by
enhancing food nutrition. In agriculture, biotechnology has enabled the
genetic alteration of crops, improved soil productivity, and enhanced
weed and pest control. Unfortunately, such potential has largely been
left untapped by African countries.
In addition to increased crop productivity, biotechnology has the
potential to create more nutritious crops. An example of this is rice
engineered to provide additional vitamin A whose deficiency affects
about 250 million children worldwide. Other vitamins, minerals, and
amino acids are necessary to maintain healthy bodies, and a deficiency
will lead to infections, complications during pregnancy and childbirth,
and impaired child development. Biotechnology has the potential to
improve the nutritional value of crops, leading both to lower health
care costs and higher economic performance (due to improved worker
health).
Skeptics have sought over the last 20 years to slow down the
application of agricultural biotechnology. International collaboration
on biotechnology for African agriculture has also been uncertain. But
the tide is turning. For example, a recent study prepared by the
European Commission, A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research (2001-2010)
(http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-
funded_gmo_research.pdf), concluded:
``Biotechnologies could provide us with useful tools in sectors
such as agriculture, fisheries, food production and industry.
Crop production will have to cope with rapidly increasing
demand while ensuring environmental sustainability.
Preservation of natural resources and the need to support the
livelihoods of farmers and rural populations around the world
are major concerns. In order to achieve the best solutions, we
must consider all the alternatives for addressing these
challenges using independent and scientifically sound methods.
These alternatives include genetically modified organisms (GMO)
and their potential use.''
The study drew its conclusions from the work of more than 130
research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research
involving more than 500 independent research groups. Its most important
conclusion was ``that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not
per se more risky than e.g., conventional plant breeding technologies.
Another very important conclusion is that today's biotechnological
research and applications are much more diverse than they were 25 years
ago . . .'' The conclusions are similar to those reached by the United
States National Academies and reinforce the science-based practices
that inform the work of Unites States regulatory agencies.
The promise of the technology and evidence of its contributions to
rural development around the world is serving as a source of
inspiration for emerging nations to complement existing practices with
agricultural biotechnology. Three African countries (South Africa,
Egypt and Burkina Faso) have adopted genetically modified crops and are
providing initial evidence of their long-term implications. The
scientific and technical community is being embolden by these
developments and is working with governments to explore ways to build
up the much needed capacity in these fields. Other African countries
have started conducting field trials and plan to adopt biotechnology
crops in the coming years.
The uptake of genetically modified (GM) crops is the fastest
adoption rate of any crop technology, increasing from 1.7 million
hectares in 1996 to 148 million hectares in 2010, and an 87-fold
increase over the period. In 2010, there were 15.4 million farmers
growing GM crops in 29 countries around the world, of whom over 90%
were small and resource-poor farmers from developing countries. Most of
the benefits to such farmers have come from cotton. For example, over
the 2002-09 period, the insect resistant Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
cotton added US$7 billion worth of value to Indian farmers, cut
insecticide use by half, helped to double yield and turned the country
from a cotton importer into a major exporter.
Africa is steadily joining the biotechnology revolution. South
Africa's GM crop production stood at 2.0 million hectares in 2010.
Burkina Faso grew 260,000 hectares of Bt cotton the same year, up from
115,000 in 2009. This was the fastest adoption rate of a GM crop in the
world that year. In 2010, Egypt planted nearly 2,000 hectares of Bt
maize, an increase of 100% over 2009.
African countries, by virtue of being latecomers, have had the
advantage of using second-generation GM seed. Akin to the case of
mobile phones, African farmers can take advantage of technological
leapfrogging to reap high returns from transgenic crops while reducing
the use of chemicals. In 2010 Kenya and Tanzania announced plans to
start growing GM cotton in view of the anticipated benefits of second-
generation GM cotton. The door is now open for revolutionary adoption
of biotechnology that will extend to other crops as technological
familiarity and economic benefits spread.
Opportunities for International Biotechnology Cooperation
The United States has been an important leader in promoting plant
biotechnology. It is for this reason that African countries are
starting to adopt GM crops. But their nutritional requirements are not
limited to crops. Another important area of interest to Africa is
protein derived from livestock and fish. Advances in genomics provide
tools that can help countries to farm breeds that confer health
benefits to the population and help address emerging challenges such as
obesity. But little of this will happen without the kind of sovereign
leadership that the United States has been providing on science-based
regulatory approaches.
One of the most sustainable forms of meat protein to farm is fish.
For every pound of meat produced, fish consume less than 15% of the
feed required by land animals such as cattle. Farmed fish are a staple
not just for industrialized countries, but even more so for emerging
nations of the world. Aquaculture is emerging as an important
substitute for wild fish whose stocks are being depleted at an alarming
rate.
The role of biotechnology in aquaculture represents one of the key
tools that could enable humanity to expand protein production in a
sustainable way. The United States needs follow its own lead in
agriculture and provide regulatory support to sustainable aquaculture.
I understand this House passed an amendment to the Agriculture
Appropriations Bill that would effectively prevent the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) from completing its safety assessment of the first
food fish that makes use of this technology, an Atlantic salmon that
reaches full size rapidly and consumes less feed than other fish of its
kind.
It is not this particular fish that is at stake. It is the
principle behind the amendment and its wider ramifications. It sends
the message to the rest of the world that the science-based regulatory
oversight as embodied in the FDA review process is subject to political
intervention. Furthermore, it signals to the world that the United
States may cede its leadership position in the agricultural use of
biotechnology. Biotechnology is vital to feeding the world in the
present and even more so in future, and I believe it is imperative that
the United States stay the course it has set in not letting politics
interfered with its science-based regulatory system that is truly the
envy of the world.
The changing outlook was recently demonstrated by the outcomes of
the ``International Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa:
Fostering Innovation'' held on May 13-14 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. It
stressed the urgency to build capacity in Africa to facilitate the
application of biotechnology in agriculture (covering crops, fisheries,
livestock and conservation of biological diversity). The conference
also underscored the importance of pursuing biotechnology in a safe and
sustainable manner in keeping with enabling biosafety laws.
Events like this demonstrate the growing commitment and interest
among African countries to contribute to global efforts to address food
security. The impact of their dedication will be limited unless they
are able to benefit from prior knowledge and expertise accumulated in
other countries. This is where the United States can serve as a role
model in the use of biotechnology in agricultural transformation and
science-based approaches in regulation. It is only by helping countries
around the world to adopt modern biotechnology can we hope for a
brighter agricultural future. America's leadership in this field can
help humanity avoid being seduced by the dim light of technological
stagnation.
Attachment
Editor's note: due to the length of Dr. Juma's attached document
entitled, The New Harvest it will be printed at the end of the hearing
on p. 39.
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
We will now proceed with questions for the panel. We have
been joined by several other of our distinguished Members, and
I would like to start the questioning by addressing a question
to Secretary Connor.
Mr. Secretary, as a former official at USDA, what is your
specific and general viewpoint regarding the best way for your
former department to move forward with its goals of increasing
food production? In particular, how do you view biotechnology
as playing a role in that objective?
Mr. Conner. Well, I think the technology is critical to our
ability to meet these future food needs that Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Costa, and all of the panelists have outlined today; and I
think USDA's role in this is substantial.
I will tell you it is my view that the regulatory approval
process is extremely sound. They do the highest quality work in
assessing the safety and soundness of these products, and my
encouragement to them is to continue to do that.
And we have some legal obstacles to overcome in that
process, but I would note, Mr. Chairman, that none of those
legal obstacles have ever, in any way, raised any concern about
the safety and soundness of these products, none whatsoever.
And so USDA needs to continue to do that great job, that great
assessment, but work with us, work with this Committee in
providing greater certainty in terms of development of these
products so that producers will know what kind of technology
they are going to have access to and technology providers will
know whether or not these products have a chance at being
approved in a reasonable amount of time and available for
commercialization.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have questions for all of the witnesses.
Mr. Conner, you talked about the risk assessment, risk
management effort to ensure food safety. As that relates to
biotechnology and genetically modified foods, are there
additional efforts that you think we ought to be considering to
ensure that risk-based assessments create greater confidence
among the consumers? I think there is a generally greater
acceptance here, as I said in my statement, than in Europe
certainly. I am not so sure it is the case elsewhere.
Mr. Conner. Mr. Costa, let me answer the question this way;
and if I don't answer your question, come back at me.
Internationally, certainly, we have had problems with some
regions of the world being less receptive to these products.
But I will note that the data we quote with regard to U.S.
farmers adopting this technology can be used on all of the
major grain-producing regions on the planet. This technology is
being adopted everywhere----
Mr. Costa. Would you say maintaining the regulatory
framework is key to that risk assessment and risk management
effort?
Mr. Conner. Well, there is no question that the current
regulatory framework needs to be maintained, that that
regulatory framework be 100 percent focused on the safety and
the soundness of these products, not upon approval, not upon
what a particular group of consumers may think, but USDA's job
has got to be is it safe.
Mr. Costa. My time is expiring, so I want to get on quickly
to the other two witnesses. Thank you.
Dr. Beachy, you talked about the regulatory process needing
to be improved. Quickly, because I have another question, how
do you believe that can be done?
Dr. Beachy. Thank you, sir.
I think we need to learn from the past 20 years of
regulatory science that we have used. We have learned a lot
about the safety of Bt genes and the safety of DNA and safety
of RNA, yet we have agencies that still consider those to be
pesticidal. That is not acceptable scientifically.
Mr. Costa. And they don't make a distinction between
naturally occurring carcinogens versus manmade occurring
carcinogens.
Dr. Beachy. Yes. The issue is whether or not there is good
safety oversight. And I would say that the progress that we
have had in the last 20 years has shown that technology that
has been developed for insect resistance and so forth has been
magnified.
On the other hand, we have gotten rid of a lot of chemical
insecticides at the same time, which should be seen as a
positive.
Mr. Costa. It should, and we take it for granted.
Dr. Beachy. Because we don't talk about risk-benefit
analysis. In contrast to the organophosphates, for example, we
know what those organophosphates can do.
Mr. Costa. It always frustrates me. Because the risk-
benefit is clear, it seems to me, and evident for anyone who
understands the issue.
Dr. Beachy. And that is correct. And the unwillingness, the
risk-benefit of not imposing a new technology at the same time
to get rid of chemicals should be considered----
Mr. Costa. That is how you have to look at it, not in a
vacuum. Absolutely.
My time is expiring.
You talked about the lag in terms of the research with
universities. I am a big promoter of the land-grant
universities. We have some excellent institutions in
California. Why do you believe the lag exists, lack of
government support either at the Federal or state level?
Dr. Beachy. I think the things that make it onerous are the
time commitment, the inability to say how many years it is
going to take to get something through the regulatory process,
and the cost involved in doing so.
Second, the lack of knowledge of the university professors
and scientists to know how to get the process along. It needs
to be more friendly. There needs to be a better way that they
can enter the system and find a way and exit out. Because, if
you don't, we won't have the innovation that we expect out of
the new products.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an area we ought
to continue to spend some time on. I would like to have
university witnesses discuss that in the future.
Dr. Juma, finally, you talk about the role in Africa. The
U.N. indicates we have 700 million folks every night that go to
bed hungry, 10,000 children that die of malnutrition a week
around the world.
Where do you think we could target our best resources? You
talk about the role that the U.S. has to play.
Dr. Juma. I think the first step is to look at utilizing
technologies that have already been demonstrated--first of all,
to look at the use of technologies that have already been
demonstrated to show economic benefits. And at this particular
moment, most African countries are thinking of starting off
with fiber, which is essentially cotton, and then moving into
feed, fuel, and food. And the reason why the fiber part is
important is because it generates domestic revenue which then
allows the farmers to be able to, in fact, to purchase more
food. In fact, the majority of the hungry people in Africa are
also farmers, and it is mainly because of the low-income
levels.
And so I think the first entry point is to apply those
technologies that exist today.
In terms of food, there is a strong interest in using Bt
corn that reduces the use of chemicals, and quite a number of
African countries are already exploring this and carrying out
field trials.
And the third area that relates to your earlier question
has to do with building strong linkages between American
universities and African universities to be able to build up
the scientific competence for Africans to be actively engaged
in research as well.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Costa.
I turn next to the lady from Missouri, Mrs. Hartzler.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and it is good to
see everyone here on the panel. I appreciate all the good work
you are doing.
I would like to start out of with Dr. Beachy, first of all,
from Missouri. We are just so proud of the Danforth Center and
appreciate what you are doing there; and I am looking forward
to come visiting sometime, hopefully.
But I am also an MU grad from MSU and supporter of our
land-grant universities and have the same type of thinking that
Mr. Costa was questioning you about and concerns about that
there haven't been any discoveries from a university in 10
years and due to the $5 to $25 million in regulatory costs or
whatever.
My question is, what can we do to reduce the regulatory
costs? I know you mentioned the professors might need to be
more knowledgeable about the process. I see that maybe is
something where USDA could provide some assistance. Maybe that
might be a solution. I don't know. But why does it cost $5 to
$25 million to get through the approval process, and what
changes in the regulations do we need to know about that we can
make or encourage to happen to expedite this process?
Dr. Beachy. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
I think the issues about how we look at this, to retrofit
it, to make it better, can be judged well if we look at the
past history and ask ourselves what are the ones that are
relevant to the next application and then to the next
application?
Mr. Conner has talked about the safety, the proven safety
of the process, and we can learn from that process and yet
shortcut it if there is an opportunity to do so.
There are new technologies that are being used in
universities today that are science-based that I won't need to
talk about today that are so close as to be identical to the
processes that nature uses. And we are learning from nature how
seeds germinate, how they grow, how they make chemicals, and
developing from that knowledge about the kind of new materials
that will make agriculture way different in the future than it
is today.
What we need, though, is some way to link government
support and the private sector in a way that is not here now.
There are examples in Australia that might be looked at about
how they work with their agriculture research service, the
sister agency. And there are other organizational mechanisms
that could help to make this happen and where the public sector
and the private sector in fact work together.
And this would help to build the confidence of those who
would invest in the technology to take it forward in new
products; and it would give that faculty member the issue of--I
mean, the sense that he or she can, in fact, accomplish
something that would benefit the American public.
There are also changes inside academics that has to happen.
Tenure is one of these things that require certain sort of
things, and they are not rewarded necessarily for getting
products out. That is sort of contrary to the way it was 40
years ago in the land-grant university system.
So we need to maybe go back to the future a bit and look
forward as well to do science in new technologies as the
universities come to grips with what their future can be in
service to the community.
Mrs. Hartzler. I look forward to visiting with you more
about that specifically, because I think that is definitely
something we need to move forward on.
There are many who oppose biotechnology, and we hear that
continually. And, of course, being a farm girl, I am not in
that camp. But have there been any credible third-party, peer-
reviewed studies or findings that show that agriculture
production using biotechnology makes any food less safe?
Dr. Beachy. None at all. That is the point. That is the end
of the sentence. There have been no credible studies. There
have been one-offs that have claimed things but no credible
studies that have scientific consensus around them.
Mrs. Hartzler. I wanted to ask that to get that on the
record here, to have the opportunity to say that. Because I
think that is something the American public needs to know; and
when we are facing the huge population growth that we are and
need to double our food supply, this is certainly a good answer
to that.
In the final time I have I wanted to ask Dr. Juma, I
commend you for what you are doing. And I don't think we have
mentioned to everyone, but you have written a book here about
all the wonderful advances there in Africa. So I commend you
for that.
But there is a lot of resistance in the European Union to
biotechnology. I was just wondering, what are the major
international hurdles that we have to global acceptance of
biotechnology?
Dr. Juma. Thank you very much for that question.
Africa, as you know, is historically connected to Europe
and therefore responds very much to diplomatic pressure coming
out of Europe. So every time Europe needs partners, especially
to fight diplomatic battles, it finds it easy to recruit
African countries. And the reason is because of the trade
connections between Europe and Africa. I think the best way to
deal with this issue is, in fact, to expand trade links between
the U.S. and African countries.
I work a lot with the African leaders on this issue, and
they are interested to see closer trade relations building on
the use of new technologies. That is the way to, in my view, to
address it, is to take a positive approach and strengthen trade
relations between Africa and the U.S., as opposed to fighting
Europe.
In fact, there is a good precedent for this, which is the
profusion of mobile phones in Africa which has been really
revolutionary. And this has happened because, at a time when
Africa initially was resisting the adoption of mobile phones,
this has happened because of trade connections.
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
Moving on to the next witness--if you are willing, Doctor,
I think that we have a couple copies of that book up here, but
I am sure that is an exception to our ethical rules with
respect to the gift ban. So I am sure that other Members of the
Committee will be educated by and appreciative of seeing or
receiving a copy of your book. It looks really useful and full
of tremendous information.
I would next call on the Member from North Carolina, Mr.
Kissell.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to
welcome the panel here and thank you for examining this most
important area of study.
I want to talk a little bit about what we are doing in
North Carolina. We have a gentleman, Mr. David Murdock, who has
invested a half billion dollars of his own money into a
research campus in North Carolina, located in my district.
It incorporates a lot of the things that our witnesses have
been talking about, the need to come at this approach a little
bit differently.
There are seven universities there, land-grant and private;
there are private enterprises there; and we also have an
agriculture research station there. These entities look not
only at how can we do more with less but how we can increase
the nutrition in what we grow so that you have a plant that
doesn't occupy any more land. And when it grows it does so with
more nutritional value.
I offer the opportunity for any of you to come there. It is
a beautiful campus. It has some of the most advanced research
equipment in the world. It is one-of-a-kind in this hemisphere,
and it is all so we can see what we are talking about today.
My colleagues have asked some good questions. I want to
follow up on that a little bit. My concern is that according to
your testimony we have gone 10 years without major advancement
coming out of our universities. I am sure they just haven't
been sitting around, just saying, woe is me, so is there the
possibility that there are things there ready to go, and it is
just a matter of how can we get these things to market?
Dr. Beachy. That is a good question, Congressman Kissell.
By the way, I have visited the center, and it is an
outstanding example of the cooperation between medical schools
and agriculture schools and research stations. It really is an
example for the way we need to move forward in public-private
relationships, something that NIFA believes strongly.
With regard to how scientists and universities are
proceeding, you are right. They are not just leaving them on
the shelf, not always, but many are. But if the regulatory
science needs to be done by a larger company, the question is,
what is the value of that discovery?
So if the value is, let's say, less than $10 million
annually for a new variety of broccoli or lettuce and it costs
$10 to $25 million to bring it out, then there is not an
economic incentive to do so, and so we would continue
production in the old ways with chemistries and not genetics.
So I think that hurdle of cost is affecting negatively the
low-cost or the low-value crops such as the vegetable crops
that we heard about in California and in most of our states.
And, as you know, it is those crops that use the highest levels
of fungicides and insecticides. They are the biggest user of
agricultural chemicals. Yet we are not moving into that sector;
and, as a consequence, we are not using the knowledge that
could, in fact, make our food safer and our environment safer.
So there is this balance between value of the product and
the cost to get things out regulatively. And that is a
challenge I think that we will face and need to put together
more with perhaps taking university knowledge and linking it
with those who know how to take product to market in the public
sector, which we don't have, by the way. There is nothing like
it there.
That kind of a cooperation is happening in China, is
happening in India, in which university scientists, with the
help of government, learns how to carry new products forward.
That is a model that could be used. Or perhaps down at the
center in North Carolina you would, in fact, develop such a
skill set that would allow the scientists in North Carolina to
be able to take things forward.
So we need this partnership between the private sector and
public sector and government sector to reduce the barrier to
entry.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, sir.
And, Mr. Chairman, I know we all have things we are proud
of in our districts, but this is an exceptional opportunity in
North Carolina, the research campus. I would love to have a
field hearing down there sometime.
Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kissell.
The chair would recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Stutzman.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, first of all, I would like to thank the Chairman for
having this hearing. I think this is one that is very
beneficial and the use of biotechnology is something of great
importance today.
As a farmer from Indiana, we raise seed corn and know the
importance of hybrid and genetics and developing better quality
and yields and all of those things that play into the
technology that we are so fortunate to have in today's world,
and especially pertaining biotechnology which has been a huge
benefit to agriculture but, also, obviously, to the consumer
and to the rest of the world in producing food, which is of
vital importance.
First of all, I would like to thank you for being here and
for your expertise and your willingness to share with us your
experiences. I think this is one of the great challenges that
we have, is to overcome the public perception of biotechnology
and what the benefits actually are, the usefulness, with
emerging markets around the world. And, Dr. Juma, you are
seeing it in Africa, and we are seeing it in China and India.
Economies are growing, people are experiencing better foods,
and they enjoy it, and they want to continue to have that.
And I think that that is why biotechnology is such an
important part, and it is great for us as Americans to take
advantage of but, obviously, doing it in the right way.
Dr. Beachy, my question to you is you talked quite a bit in
your statement about the role of the regulatory system and the
cost of bringing new products to market, which I agree is
something that can be a detriment and slowing down the benefits
of biotechnology. Can you suggest ways in which the regulatory
costs could be reduced and other efficiencies and other ways of
approaching a regulatory system?
Dr. Beachy. I thank you for the question.
I have made a couple of suggestions in my written testimony
about learning from the past but also about looking forward to
the new technologies that are being implemented. I think our
regulatory system is, perhaps, not as well prepared for the new
technologies coming forward as they should be.
So as new technology comes out, let's say, for example, the
change of the cellulose content of a biomass crop that would be
used either by biopower or biofuels as we look forward to
cellulosic ethanol. We don't know how to regulate the changes
in the chemistry of the plant. Or let's say the changes in
methods of a site-specific muted genesis, there is not the
capability to take these new sciences, these new technologies
to the next level of exposure.
So we need to continue to refresh our attitude about
regulation as well as perhaps the science of those individuals
who would look for--who would be part of that regulatory
process, in other words, those that would look over pamphlets
and portfolios. We need to make sure there is the most up-to-
date science in those agencies and then look for ways that we
can assess potential risk, potential benefit and include that
in our discussions of how to move things along.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
Mr. Conner, my question to you is, what are other
countries doing? Are they advancing faster than we are? Are
they behind us? Could you kind of give us a global perspective?
Mr. Conner. Well, Congressman Stutzman, let me just say the
U.S. continues to be the largest exporter of biotech products,
and certainly we have talked about the difficulties they face,
but it is probably worth noting that we continue to export
record amounts of products improved through biotechnology and
need to keep that in mind. But the rest of the world is not
sitting idle, either. You are seeing biotech crops adopted
really all over the planet, most of the major grain-exporting
nations are using these products extensively.
So this is a competitive issue for U.S. farmers. We need to
provide them the tools, give them access to this technology,
once determined to be safe, because others on the planet are
moving forward very, very rapidly. Dr. Beachy has many good
examples about what is going on in China in terms of those
competitive actions.
We need--in addition to the humanitarian side of needing to
produce the food, we need to give our producers the tools to
compete in that food production as well.
Mr. Stutzman. Dr. Beachy or Dr. Juma, would you like to
touch on that real quick?
Dr. Beachy. Just briefly, just to say it is estimated that
as much as half of the new seeds, the new traits that will be
developed by 2015 will come from China and Brazil.
Dr. Juma. I just wanted to add that 29 countries now
produce genetically modified crops that have approved their
use, and this is I think a very significant group of countries
for which there is no clear diplomatic leadership to champion
the issue globally and this is where the U.S. could play a
role.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you very much. I yield back.
The Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Alabama, Ms. Sewell.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to, first, commend you for assembling this wonderful
hearing. I think it is very pertinent. And I thank all the
panelists for being here today.
I represent a very rural part of Alabama, a lot of small
farmers, and they get along with very limited resources. What I
wanted you guys to touch on--and specifically Mr. Conner--if
you could elaborate on the tangible benefits and results that
biotechnology have produced for smaller farmers.
Mr. Conner. Congresswoman, thank you for a great question.
In my written testimony, the attachments to that provide a
great deal of individual commodity data in terms of the value
of biotech for each of those individual commodities, including
many commodities that are going to be grown in your state.
Let me just say that, earlier, the full House Agriculture
Committee had a forum to talk about biotechnology; and I was a
participant in that forum focused primarily on alfalfa. And it
is a great example, alfalfa, a crop grown by many, many small
producers across this country. They estimate that biotech
alfalfa can improve a producer's return by as much as $110 an
acre. This is substantial. This is real money out there for
small farmers. So they see great benefit by adopting this
technology which explains why most everybody is doing it.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you.
We haven't talked about the environmental setbacks, if any,
that relate to biotechnology. Dr. Beachy can you talk a little
bit about whether or not there are environmental setbacks, and
how do we seek to overcome them?
Dr. Beachy. Thank you for the question.
There have been accusations of environmental setbacks when,
in fact, there have not--for example, we have not seen a
sustained development of an insect variety that overcomes the
Bt gene. Because, in advance of planting the crop, the farmers
were asked to plant refugia, and so that helped out. And then
they had a second technology that they introduced which made it
nearly impossible to overcome resistance.
But one challenge has been the development of herbicide-
tolerant weeds which has produced some challenges down in some
parts--in fact, Alabama is one of them. And it makes it--it
sets back a little bit and asks the question how could that of
been managed differently?
On the other hand, there are solutions to it. And, going
forward, one of the things that we need to be ready for in new
technology is just--are things like that. It is nothing--not
everything is going to be as rosy as the Bt gene or others. But
it is, in fact, the safest of the technologies that has ever
been adopted in agriculture; and, as a consequence, we should
continue to develop those and new technologies through similar
applications that would continue to increase the safety of our
food and the safety of the environment in which the farmers
live.
I take great offense when people say there are no benefits.
In fact, the farmers don't have to spray the bloody chemicals,
and that ought to be seen as a benefit. And yet it is not.
So, let's look at the benefits to all, all the parties,
including the farmers and their children. So there are ways
that we need to look at this in the holistic sense of a system
of agriculture and food.
Ms. Sewell. Great.
Dr. Juma, I wanted to ask you, I know that you have great
knowledge on Africa. I really would like you to just choose one
lesson learned that would be beneficial to the U.S. as we
review regulations.
Dr. Juma. I think one important lesson is the importance of
executive leadership. In almost every country that has adopted,
it has been a very clear focus on the part of the chief
executive of the country to make it happen. This was the case
with South Africa, it has been the case with Burkina Faso, and
conversations going on about it in Africa right now involving
various presidents. And the main reason is because of the
coordination that is needed across a wide range of agencies.
Only presidents have the political capital to do that.
So that, in my view, is the first, most important lesson.
The second is that all of the legislatures--because it has
to be embodied in legislation, and so legislative bodies have a
very important role to play in this.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you. I yield back the rest of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Congresswoman Sewell; and I turn
to the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank the
witnesses.
I want to ask a couple of questions that reflect concerns
from the organic farming community that is a growing part of
our economic base in Vermont.
Dr. Beachy, we have about a thousand dairy farms, many of
them certified organic or non-GE. One of their concerns, as I
know you know, is contamination from genetically engineered
crops, contamination meaning affecting their organic brand.
Farmers who sell to the non-GE markets have the burden of
preventing contamination and the associated cost. I want you,
if you could briefly, to discuss strategies for decreasing both
the incidence of contamination and the cost to farmers who sell
to non-GE markets?
Dr. Beachy. Thank you. Those are indeed important
questions, especially for a market segment that has value--it
has created its value based on a definition of agriculture, one
that is called organic and non-GE. They made that definition
nearly 12 years ago, and, as a consequence, it is important
that there be an alternative for them to purchase.
If you are a dairy farmer producing your own corn, of
course, it is one thing, because you can control that because
you know you will find the alfalfa seed to grow. That is what
alfalfa seed growers do. They grow it for organic growers and,
likewise, for maize, for corn.
So if they don't grow it themselves, however, they are
restricted to what the market can provide them; and then they
need to identify a provider of non-GE corn or non-GE alfalfa.
And, in some cases, this is a post-farm-gate issue, it happens
in the marketplace where seeds get mixed together or in the
processing of seeds after the farm gate.
In some cases, there is a claim that pollen from one
variety will move over to another variety. And those are often
taken care of by the farmers themselves, who realize that if
they plant their corn, let's say, a week apart, the pollination
time will be different. And so you produce the kind of seeds
that are necessary for a market based upon what you know about
the plant. And by understanding the agriculture, the crop, and
the source of the seeds, that farmer who demands a certain kind
of product for his dairy cattle will find his or her material.
But it is done often at the post-farm-gate level.
As to whether or not----
Mr. Welch. I have a couple of other questions.
Dr. Beachy. Okay. Well, I heard about there is a claim that
pollen from a GE alfalfa would contaminate the leaves of an
organic alfalfa. That is so rare as to be non-impactful.
Mr. Welch. Okay, thank you.
Dr. Juma, what types of protections can be offered to
American farmers and ranchers when identity-preserved organic
products are contaminated by genetically modified organisms and
rejected by the growing international market for identity-
preserved organic products? Organic farmers also want to have
good access to the export market. Many of our exporting
countries are much tougher, restrictive on genetically modified
products. I wonder if you could address that question?
Dr. Juma. Yes, this has been a subject of international
trade law, and it has been very extensively discussed through
the Codex Alimentarious Commission of the Food and Agriculture
Organization. And, as I understand it, in fact the talks
collapsed a few weeks ago, and the work of that committee was
discontinued. I think that the reason it has been discontinued
is because there aren't ideas that are coming from member
states that are informing the international community on how to
label products and how to separate them.
And this is, again, coming to the question of leadership,
that if that leadership comes from this country and they are
lacking methods from this country, they will be shared by the
international community. At the moment there aren't very good
ideas that are being shared with the international community.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Welch.
Since Mr. Welch and I are remaining, I would like to thank
the members of the panel, thank the Members of the Committee.
Since Mr. Costa has had to attend another hearing, I will waive
his closing statement and make mine.
It is clear to me from the testimony here today that
biotechnology varieties helped us to achieve substantial gains
in production. But, even those advances and gains will be
outstripped by global demand.
It is also evident from the comments today that a thorough
review of the obstacles, both regulatory and legal, to the full
realization of these benefits is almost certainly necessary and
that regulations have to be science-based, predictable, and
defensible. Our farmers, as well as those in developing
countries, can continue to benefit from the efficiency found in
new crop varieties.
Biotech is an important tool toward meeting the world's
food and nutrition needs. As this Subcommittee continues--and
we shall--to review agricultural biotechnology over the coming
weeks, we will have a comprehensive review of the current
barriers of developing these critical food crops.
Under the rules of Committee, the record of today's hearing
will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional
material and supplementary written responses from witnesses to
any questions posed by a Member.
I now declare that the hearing of the Subcommittee on Rural
Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture
is hereby adjourned. Thank you for your attendance.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Statement by Biotechnology Industry Organization
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, or BIO, is the world's
largest biotechnology organization, providing advocacy, business
development and communications services for more than 1,100 members
worldwide. BIO members are involved in the research and development of
innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental
biotechnology products. Corporate members range from entrepreneurial
companies developing a first product to Fortune 500 multinationals. The
organization also represents state and regional biotech associations,
service providers to the industry, and academic centers. The mission of
BIO is to be the champion of biotechnology and the advocate for its
member organizations--both large and small. As the subcommittee
examines the benefits and opportunities of agricultural biotechnology,
it is important for BIO to share its views.
Agricultural biotechnology is essential for American producers and
producers around the world who seek to feed and fuel a rapidly growing
population. Through years of research and successful use, biotechnology
has revolutionized modern agriculture and forestry producing benefits
to producers, the environment, consumers, animals, forests, and the
agricultural economy, while enhancing food and energy security for the
American people and our international neighbors.
Since the first crop developed through modern biotechnology was
commercialized more than 15 years ago, U.S. producers have embraced the
technology and grown increasing acres of biotech products. According to
2010 figures from USDA's Economic Research Service, 93 percent of
soybean and cotton and 86 percent of corn grown in the U.S. were
biotech varieties.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The primary biotech crops grown today are insect-resistant and
herbicide tolerant varieties of soybean, cotton, corn and canola.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producers outside of the U.S. have also successfully utilized
biotechnology: in 2010 more than 15 million farmers in 29 countries
grew 365 million acres of biotech crops and trees. Nearly 50 percent of
these crops and trees were grown by small producers in developing
countries where rates of biotech adoption have been steeper than in
industrialized nations. The expanding use of agricultural biotechnology
throughout the world has made biotechnology the most rapidly adopted
agricultural innovation in history.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ By way of comparison, 10% of the corn acres in the U.S. were
planted in hybrid corn 5 years after its introduction; within 5 years,
over 50% of the soybean and cotton acres in the U.S. were biotech
varieties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The message is clear: where producers have been allowed to choose
biotech varieties, they have embraced the technology and stuck with it.
Proven Benefits of Biotechnology for Health, the Economy and the
Environment
The rapid and persistent expansion of agricultural biotechnology
can be explained, in part, by its outstanding safety record. Science
has shown biotech crops, trees and animals to be as safe as
conventional varieties. Through the years, there have been no
documented adverse effects to human health or the environment from
biotech crops.
Because science and experience have demonstrated biotech crops are
as safe as conventional varieties, producer preference for these
products must be related to differences in benefits seen on the land,
including economic benefits. Scores of international studies have
compared the economics of various biotech products with their
conventional counterparts. The results show that producers switch from
conventional to biotech varieties because of their economic benefits.
The magnitude of the gain varies from study to study, crop to crop, and
country to country, but the fundamental finding is that producers, like
other business owners, act in their own best economic interest when
determining whether to plant biotech varieties in their fields.
For example, a 2010 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study found
that U.S. producers who grow biotech crops ``are realizing substantial
economic and environmental benefits . . . compared with conventional
crops.'' \3\ In their most recent study of global impacts, Graham
Brookes and Peter Barfoot demonstrate substantial net economic benefits
for producers of $10.8 billion in 2009 and $64.7 billion from 1996 to
2009, in spite of higher seed costs.\4\ Interestingly, the shares of
the global farm income gains, both in 2009 and cumulatively (1996-
2009), have been split equally between farmers in developing and
developed countries, but the economic gains to individual producers in
developing countries exceed that for producers in developed countries.
Carpenter's 2010 meta-analysis of 49 peer-reviewed studies on the
economic benefits of biotech versus conventional varieties in 12
countries also demonstrated that the gains for small producers in
developing countries exceed those for producers in industrialized
countries.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Research Council. 2010. The Impact of Genetically
Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. http://
www.nap.edu.
\4\ Brookes, G. and P. Barfoot. 2011. GM crops: global
socioeconomic and environmental impacts 1996-2009. PG Economics. United
Kingdom. PG Economics has published a series of similar studies.
www.pgeconomics.co.uk.
\5\ Carpenter, J. 2010. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/
2010/apr/21/gm-crops-benefit-farmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gains that matter most to growers are not global figures, but
the improved incomes they experience in their own operations. Studies
have shown producer-level gains ranging from a few dollars per acre to
significantly more than $200/acre depending on the product, year,
current and previous pest levels and control practices, country and
region.
Economic gains producers enjoy result from higher yields, lower
input costs, or both. The 2010 NAS study cites these as the sources of
economic gain: ``lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced
use of pesticides and better yields.'' In terms of specific numbers,
since 1996 biotech traits have:
Increased yields by 83.5 million tons for soybeans; 130.5
million tons for corn; 10.5 million tons for cotton lint; 5.5
million tons for canola (Brookes and Barfoot, 2011). Increased
yields accounted for 57 percent ($36.6 billion) of the $64.7
billion economic gain observed from 1996 to 2009.
Reduced use of pesticides spraying by 865 million pounds.
This and other lower production costs contributed $28.1 billion
to the global ag economy.
For a single year (2009) James \6\ found approximately 25 percent
of global producer-level income increase ($2.7 billion) was due to
reduced production costs (lower fuel costs, less pesticides used, lower
labor costs), and the remainder to yield gains for biotech varieties: 9
million tons of soybeans, 29 million tons of maize, 2 million tons of
cotton lint and .67 million tons of canola. This doesn't account for
animal biotechnology, forest crops or fruit and nut trees, like the
papaya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ James, C. 2010. Global status of commercialised biotech/GM
crops: 2010, ISAAA brief No 42. www.isaaa.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The follow-on environmental benefits of growing biotech products
are substantial and include preservation of biodiversity \7\ and
topsoil,\8\ while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, fuel use and water
loss from soil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Carpenter, J. 2011. Impacts of GM crops on biodiversity. GM
Crops: 2:1-17.
\8\ http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/resourcedisplay/293/; http://
www.ctic.purdue.edu/resource
display/281/.
Without biotech crops, the 2009 production increases would
have required clearing 31 million acres of land for crop
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
production and, as a result, decrease biodiversity.
Herbicide tolerant biotech crops have facilitated the
adoption of no/reduced tillage production systems in many
regions, which reduces soil erosion and improves soil moisture
levels.
In 2009 alone, less fuel use and additional soil carbon
storage from reduced tillage reduced greenhouse gas emissions
by an amount equivalent to removing 17.7 billion kg of carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere or removing 7.8 million cars from
the road for one year.
The development of disease resistant trees, salvaged the
Hawaiian papaya industry and may resurrect significant species
like the American Chestnut Tree.
Improved growth rates and processing through biotechnology
may significantly contribute to U.S. biomass harvests, making
sustainable energy production a realizable goal. In addition to
increasing the amount of biomass produced per acre,
biotechnology-based conversions require less harsh chemicals to
process tree fiber into economically valuable pulp and fiber
for paper, fuel and energy.
Doing More with Less, Sustainably
Throughout history, as human population growth increased the demand
for food, animal feed, fuel and fiber, our agricultural and forest
production systems kept pace. In the mid-20th century, fears of a
population-driven food crisis, primarily in the developing world, led
to research and investment to intensify crop production there. From
1960 to 2000, the Green Revolution increased food production in
developing countries by nearly 200 percent from 800 million tons to 2.2
billion tons and global food production by 150 percent from 1.8 billion
tons to 4.6 billion tons through the use of high yielding varieties
that could resist herbicides and disease, irrigation, insecticides and
fertilizers. As a result, the Green Revolution (1) saved one billion
from famine; (2) halved the global percentage of undernourished people;
(3) improved rural economies; and (4) protected approximately 2.2-3.8
billion acres of land from being cleared for crop production.
We still face the relentless challenge of feeding and fueling an
ever-expanding population, which will reach nine billion by 2050 and
require at least a 70 percent increase in food, feed and fuel
production. However, this time the challenge of increasing per acre
productivity is exacerbated by a confluence of interacting pressures in
addition to population growth: increased competition for water and
land; rising energy prices; a dietary shift from cereals to animal
products; diminishing supplies of fossil fuels--the source of most
agrochemicals; resources degraded from past activities; and the global
effects of climate change.
The Green Revolution allowed us to produce more with more inputs,
most of which are derived from nonrenewable resources. Our current
challenge is to produce more with less and to do so in a sustainable
fashion. Biotechnology provides a set of precise yet flexible tools for
meeting that challenge.
As described above, biotech crops and trees have already provided
more with less, sustainably, by improving yields without clearing new
land, while conserving soil, saving water, using less fossil fuel, both
directly and indirectly, and enhancing biodiversity. In addition to
environmental sustainability, biotechnology has contributed to
sustainability by improving land-based incomes and both preserving and
creating jobs in rural communities.
However, the past achievements of biotech crops pale in comparison
to what agricultural biotechnology could provide in light of the
necessity of doing more with less.
The ``less'' we have already experienced with the existing
agricultural biotechnology--less fuel, land, pesticides, soil erosion--
could be extended to many more crops, including orphan crops essential
to subsistence agriculture in developing countries. For example, genes
for the insect-resistance trait developed for corn and cotton, which
come from a naturally occurring microbe found in soils worldwide,
Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt, have been donated to African institutions
for use in cowpea, a staple crop in West Africa. This flexibility is
one of biotechnology's greatest untapped potentials: a genetic
innovation developed for commodity crops grown in affluent countries
can be used in any crop, because all plants know how to translate and
use genetic information.
The tools of biotechnology are also being used to develop new crops
that use less of other essential resources: water and fertilizers.
Drought tolerant corn varieties developed through biotechnology are
awaiting approval in the U.S. and other countries, and drought tolerant
genes have been incorporated into African corn varieties. A number of
crops with the NUE trait (nitrogen utilization efficiency) are also in
the pipeline.
In addition to improving crop plants, the ability to use
biotechnology to improve the productivity of animal agriculture,
including aquaculture, is enormous. Existing technologies include fish
that are 15 percent more efficient in feed utilization and pigs that
are better able to use the phosphorous in plants (50 to 75 percent more
efficient). Both will allow us to meet the growing demand for animal
protein with fewer inputs.
Many of the foods we enjoy today come from overseas. Food
transportation is energy demanding, and 97 percent of the farmed salmon
we consume is produced overseas. Biotechnology gives us the tools to
grow the salmon here in the U.S., which not only would conserve fuels,
but would also improve food security and ensure a safer food supply.
Imported seafood does not receive the same level of inspection as
domestic production. Only \1/10\ of 1 percent of imported seafood is
inspected for drug residues.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A recent GAO report documented several instances of farmed
salmon from Chile using non-approved drugs for treatment of fish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biotechnology also can improve the processing capability of various
industrial processes, unlocking cellulose for conversion to fuels or
chemicals, or to paper using fewer environmentally harsh chemicals. A
recent study by the National Renewable Energy Lab has discovered the
altering the amount of lignin in trees, which may unlock higher degrees
of cellulose for use in producing fuel.\10\ The Environmental
Protection Agency has also stated that biotechnology is key to
achieving the goals of the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard by enabling
the conversion of cellulosic biomass to fuels and other chemicals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Presented by DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory
scientists at 33rd Symposium on Biofuels and Chemicals. Seattle, Wash.
May 5, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Less'' means not only lower amounts of agricultural inputs, but
also less severe environmental impacts. The pest control traits of
current biotech varieties have had less severe environmental impacts
than their predecessors, and therefore less of an impact on
biodiversity. The Bt gene is toxic only to a handful of insects, and in
order to exert its effect, the insect must eat the crop. As a result,
insects that are not crop pests or are beneficial, such as bees and
ladybird beetles, are not harmed. The herbicide tolerance traits added
to biotech crops have allowed producers to switch to herbicides with
fewer environmental and health impacts. This same thinking could be
applied to crops to control disease, such as those caused by fungi and
virus. There has long existed the technology to create many virus-
resistant crop varieties, but the economics of product development,
primarily the costs of regulatory approval, make it unlikely that these
will be developed for any but the largest commodity crops.
Just as ``less'' means more than less inputs, the ``more'' provided
by past and future advances in biotechnology encompasses more than just
``more'' product. More land-based income, with its concomitant impacts
on rural economic development, could be provided to many more
producers, including those growing small acreage crops in the U.S., if
existing biotech traits were incorporated into additional crops.
The ``more'' provided by biotechnology also entails more
nutritious, thus enhancing agricultural biotechnology's contribution to
public health. A few crop varieties, nutritionally-enhanced through
biotechnology, have been commercialized in the U.S. and could help to
address the obesity epidemic by shifting the proportion of various oils
to healthier types. Similar work is being done with animal food
products in which the levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which have many
health benefits, in meat and milk are increased. However, much more
could be done to improve the vitamin and mineral content, as well as
local availability of fruits, vegetables and other crops, both in the
U.S. and globally. Some of these ``biofortified'' products are
currently being field-tested in developing countries, and more are
under development by their public sector research institutions.
We already have the know-how to develop the biotech varieties just
described that would allow ``more'' to be done with ``less.'' The
necessary genes have been identified, and well-established techniques
can be used to provide these genes to many different agricultural
products. But having the genes and transformation techniques is not
sufficient. There must also be in place government policies that allow
both the public and private sectors to develop these crops, trees and
animals.
______
Submitted Statement by CropLife America
CropLife America (CLA) is pleased to present our perspective on the
opportunities and benefits of agricultural biotechnology. CLA is the
premier national association for the crop protection industry. We
represent the companies that develop, manufacture, formulate and
distribute crop protection chemicals and plant science solutions for
agriculture and pest management, including products used as and in
conjunction with plant incorporated protectants. CLA's member companies
(http://www.croplifeamerica.org/about/association-members) produce,
sell and distribute virtually all the crop protection (http://
www.croplifeamerica.org/crop-protection) and biotechnology products
(http://www.croplifeamerica.org/what-we-do/crop-biotechnology) used by
American producers.
Our primary concern in any discussion on biotechnology is and
always will be to support the best interests of our customer--the
modern American farmer and rancher. CropLife views our role in this
debate as one of ensuring modern agriculture is provided the
opportunity to thrive. ``Modern agriculture'' most accurately describes
the wide range of practices employed by the majority of America's
producers. It embodies farmers, ranchers and agribusiness commitment to
innovation, stewardship and meeting the global food challenge. There is
nothing `conventional' about modern agriculture.
CLA believes that a strong, responsible U.S. farm policy must
encourage and support modern agriculture by enabling producers to
utilize new technologies, research and science to produce safe,
sustainable, affordable food and fiber. Over 90% of farmers today
already embrace the modern production practices and technologies to
feed, fuel and clothe a growing world: all while minimizing
agriculture's environmental footprint.
As the Committee considers policy relating to agriculture and
biotechnology, CLA asks that you consider the following facts about our
industry and the critical role crop protection and biotechnology play
in advancing modern agriculture:
Crop protection products comprise a wide range of goods for
both professional and home applications, including
insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, sanitizers, growth
regulators, rodenticides, and soil fumigants that help control
insects, diseases, weeds, fungi and other undesirable pests
that would otherwise threaten our food supply.
Each acre of U.S. cropland contains 50 to 300 million buried
weed seeds.
Crop plants must compete with 30,000 species of weeds, 3,000
species of nematodes and 10,000 species of plant-eating
insects. Despite the use of modern crop protection products,
20-40% of potential food production is still lost every year to
pests.
Herbicide tolerant biotech crops, using plant incorporated
protectants, have facilitated the adoption of no/reduced
tillage production systems, which reduces soil erosion and
improves soil moisture levels. The primary biotech crops grown
today are insect-resistant and herbicide tolerant varieties of
soybean, cotton, corn and canola.
It is estimated that, in 2009 alone, less fuel use and
additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage reduced
greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to removing
17.7 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or
removing 7.8 million cars from the road for one year.
Biotech crops and trees are sustainable. They allow for
improving yields without clearing new land, all while
conserving soil, saving water, using less fossil fuel, both
directly and indirectly, and enhancing biodiversity.
Crop protection products increase crop productivity by 20-
50%, thereby making it possible for consumers to choose from an
abundant supply of fresh, high-quality foods that are
affordable and accessible year-round.
Globally, over 900 million people--\1/6\ of the world
population--suffer from malnutrition. Agricultural output has
to double in the next 20-30 years in order to feed the world's
population, which the United Nations predicts will grow by 1.7
billion more people by 2030.
Intensive scientific research and robust investment in
technology during the past 50 years helped farmers double food
production while essentially freezing the footprint of total
cultivated farmland. Crop protection is one of the most
research-intensive industries in existence, with companies
investing about 12% of their turnover in research and
development (R&D). The top 10 plant science companies invest an
estimated $3.75 billion in R&D per year to discover, conduct
tests to ensure safety and develop new products.
Crop protection and biotechnology products keep the price of
food in America less expensive. Without the use of pesticides
and biotech crops, the price of food goes up as a direct result
of crop loss due to weeds, insects, rodents, diseases, and the
costs of added input.
The U.S. must be a leader in ensuring that farmers have access to
crop protection and biotechnology solutions that support modern
agriculture. CLA and our members look forward to the opportunity to
work with the Committee and our allies on advancing modern agriculture
through the use of biotechnology, and we offer the full breadth of our
expertise and resources to assist in anyway necessary with informing
the policy discussion.
______
Submitted Statement by National Corn Growers Association
The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) appreciates the
opportunity to provide testimony as part of the Subcommittee's hearing
regarding the opportunities and benefits of agricultural biotechnology.
NCGA represents 35,000 corn farmers from 48 states, as well as the
interests of more than 300,000 growers who contribute through corn
check-off programs in their states. NCGA was supportive of the
testimony delivered by Chuck Connor, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
America's corn growers are taking on new roles. As technology
evolves, farming operations do, too. Meeting demand, improving
processes, and minimizing environmental impacts are what make modern
corn growing a dynamic industry. Corn growers adopted biotechnology
readily, growing from 25 percent of the corn market in 2000 to 88
percent of U.S. acres in 2011.
Agricultural biotechnology offers corn growers a unique solution:
increasing yields while decreasing water and fertilizer rates.
Moreover, it provides improved pest control practices that are more
environmentally friendly, including drastic reductions in the need for
pesticides. The introduction of herbicide-tolerant corn hybrids did not
simply mean better weed control and higher yields. Farmers are using
significantly fewer pesticides and make fewer trips across their
fields. In fact, the benefits of biotechnology translate into a cost
savings of $8-$13 per acre on equipment, fuel and labor.
While corn growers have benefited from the commercialization of
numerous biotechnology traits, we recognize that improvements can be
made in the regulatory process. NCGA strongly supports a regulatory
system based on sound science. Legal challenges not based on science
are draining United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) capacity
to evaluate new products and make them available to producers.
We commend you for holding this hearing and laying the groundwork
for additional discussions about the challenges facing our industry.
Should that opportunity present itself, NCGA supports a comprehensive
approach that maintains the integrity of the USDA's science-based
system allowing farmers to choose cropping systems based on their
individual operations and fostering future development and adoption of
biotechnology traits to feed and fuel the future.
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Hon. Charles F. Conner, President and Chief Executive
Officer, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert T. Schilling, a Representative in
Congress from Illinois
Question 1. Mr. Conner, I'd like to hear about your experience at
USDA and how you think the Department can achieve the goal of more food
production. Specifically, can you tell the story of biotech's role in
feeding the world?
Answer. To achieve those goals, and at the same time do it in an
environmentally sensitive way, we need to be more productive on the
farmland we have. Biotechnology provides a valuable tool in increasing
productivity, not only in producing higher yielding varieties, but also
minimizing losses due to weather variability. We now routinely see high
yields even in years of poor growing seasons. I believe biotechnology
will make it possible to continue along the path of increasing
productivity much faster than otherwise would be the case.
However, this is not just an issue for the United States to develop
and adapt new agricultural biotechnology products, but rather is a
world-wide issue. Obviously the United States alone cannot meet the
demands of feeding a growing world population. The acceptance and
adaption of this technology in countries around the world, and in
particular developing countries, will be critical. Given my experience
at USDA, I believe the Department can play a constructive role in
helping gain that needed acceptance, especially in countries with
significant production challenges that stand to benefit from the
technology.
Question 2. Mr. Conner, in the 1940's the average U.S. corn yields
were 34 bushels per acre. Today, yields of 200 bushels an acre or
greater can be common. The American farmer has come a long way. Can you
elaborate on the economic gains directly attributable to these biotech
varieties?
Answer. Due to biotechnology, along with better agronomic practices
adopted in recent years, crop yields for American farmers have
increased and allowed farmers to produce more on the same number of
acres without cultivating additional land. According to USDA's most
recent data, the United States planted 94 percent of soybeans, 90
percent of cotton, and 88 percent of corn of that were of varieties
that had biotech traits. Since these biotech crops were first
introduced in 1996, soybean yields have increased roughly 20 percent,
cotton yields have increased approximately 33 percent, and corn yields
are about 30 percent higher.
Studies have indicated that biotech crops have, between 1996 and
2009, enhanced U.S. farm income by $29.8 billion. For example, a 2010
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study found that U.S. producers who
grow biotech crops ``are realizing substantial economic and
environmental benefits . . . compared with conventional crops.'' \1\
Farm-level economic impacts of that study can be found at:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12804&page=135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council. 2010. The Impact of Genetically
Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. http://
www.nap.edu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This study cites these economic gains of ``lower production costs,
fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides and better yields.''
Specifically cited from the study:
The incomes of those who have adopted genetic-engineering
technology have benefited from some combination of yield
protection and lower costs of production. HR crops have not
substantially increased yields, but their use has facilitated
more cost-effective weed control, especially on farms where
weeds resistant to glyphosate have not yet been identified.
Lower yields were sometimes observed when HR crops were
introduced, but the herbicide-resistant trait has since been
incorporated into higher-yielding cultivars, and technological
improvement in inserting the trait has also helped to eliminate
the yield difference. In areas that suffer substantial damage
from insects that are susceptible to the Bt toxins, IR crops
have increased adopters' net incomes because of higher yields
and reduced insecticide expenditures. Before the introduction
of Bt crops, most farmers accepted yield losses to European
corn borer rather than incur the expense and uncertainty of
chemical control. Bt traits to address corn rootworm problems
have lowered the use of soil-applied and seed-applied
insecticides. In areas of high susceptible insect populations,
Bt cotton has been found to protect yields with fewer
applications of topical insecticides. More effective management
of weeds and insects also means that farmers may not have to
apply insecticides or till for weeds as often, and this
translates into cost savings--lower expenditures for pesticides
and less labor and fuel for equipment operations.
______
Attachment to Calestous Juma, Ph.D.'s Prepared Statement
The New Harvest
``This book presents a timely analysis of the importance of
infrastructure in improving Africa's agriculture. Leaders at
national and state levels will benefit immensely from its
evidence-based recommendations.''
--Goodluck Jonathan, President of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria
``This book is a forceful reminder of the important role that
African women play in agriculture on the continent. It is
critical that they are provided with equal educational
opportunity as a starting point for building a new economic
future for the continent.''
--Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of the Republic of Liberia
``New technologies, especially biotechnology, provide African
countries with additional tools for improving the welfare of
farmers. I commend this book for the emphasis it places on the
critical role that technological innovation plays in
agriculture. The study is a timely handbook for those seeking
new ways of harnessing new technologies for development,
including poor farmers, many of whom are women.''
--Blaise Compaore, President of Burkina Faso
``The New Harvest underscores the importance of global learning
in Africa's agricultural development. It offers new ideas for
international cooperation on sustainable agriculture in the
tropics. It will pave the way for improved collaboration
between Africa and South America.''
--Laura Chincilla, President of Costa Rica
The New Harvest Agricultural Innovation In Africa Calestous Juma Oxford University Press 2011 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford
University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and
education. Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea
Switzerland
Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam. Copyright 2011 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., 198 Madison Avenue, New
York, NY 10016
www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Juma, Calestous.
The new harvest: agricultural innovation in Africa / Calestous Juma.
p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-19-978319-9 (pbk.)--ISBN 978-0-19-978320-5 (cloth)
1. Agriculture--Economic aspects--Africa.
2. Agricultural innovations--Economic aspects--Africa.
3. Economic development--Africa. I. Title.
HD9017.A2J86 2011
338.1'6096-dc22
2010030674
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper In memory of Christopher Freeman
Father of the field of science policy and innovation studies
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Selected Abbreviations and Acronyms
1 The Growing Economy
2 Advances in Science, Technology, and Engineering
3 Agricultural Innovation Systems
4 Enabling Infrastructure
5 Human Capacity
6 Entrepreneurship
7 Governing Innovation
8 Conclusions and the Way Ahead
Appendix I Regional Economic Communities
Appendix II Decisions of the 2010 COMESA Summit on Science and
Technology for Development
Notes
Index
Agricultural Innovation in Africa Project
Project Director and Lead Author
Calestous Juma, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University,
Cambridge, USA
International Advisory Panel and Contributing Authors
John Adeoti, Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research,
Ibadan, Nigeria
Aggrey Ambali, NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency, Tshwane,
South Africa
N'Dri Assie-Lumumba, Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
Zhangliang Chen, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning,
People's Republic of China
Mateja Dermastia, Anteja ECG, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Anil Gupta, Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable
Technologies and Institutions, and Indian Institute of Management,
Ahmedabad, India
Daniel Kammen, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Margaret Kilo, African Development Bank, Tunis, Tunisia
Hiroyuki Kubota, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Tokyo
Francis Mangeni, Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa,
Lusaka, Zambia
Magdy Madkour, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
Venkatesh Narayanamurti, School of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, Harvard University, USA
Robert Paarlberg, Wellesley College and Harvard University, USA
Maria Jose Sampaio, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation,
Brasilia, Brazil
Lindiwe Majele Sibanda, Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources
Policy Analysis Network, Tshwane, South Africa
Greet Smets, Biotechnology and Regulatory Specialist, Essen,
Belgium
Botlhale Tema, African Creative Connections, Johannesburg, South
Africa
Jeff Waage, London International Development Centre, London
Judi Wakhungu, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi,
Kenya
Project Coordinator
Greg Durham, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, Cambridge,
USA
Acknowledgments
This book is a product of the Agricultural Innovation in Africa
(AIA) project funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Its
production benefited greatly from the intellectual guidance and written
contributions of the members of the AIA International Advisory Panel.
In addition to providing their own contributions, the panel members
have played a critical role in disseminating AIA's preliminary findings
in key policy and scholarly circles. The production of this book would
not have been possible without their genuine support for the project
and dedication to the cause of improving African agriculture.
We are deeply grateful to the information provided to us by Juma
Mwapachu (Secretary General), Alloys Mutabingwa, Jean Claude
Nsengiyumva, Phil Klerruu, Moses Marwa, Flora Msonda, John Mungai,
Weggoro Nyamajeje, Henry Obbo, and Richard Owora at the Secretariat of
the East African Community (Arusha, Tanzania) on Africa's Regional
Economic Communities (RECs). Sam Kanyarukiga, Frank Mugyenyi, Martha
Byanyima, Jan Joost Nijhoff, Nalishebo Meebelo, and Angelo Daka (Common
Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, Zambia) provided additional
contributions on regional perspectives. We have benefited from critical
insights from Nina Fedoroff and Andrew Reynolds (U.S. Department of
State, Washington, DC), Andrew Daudi (Office of the President,
Lilongwe, Malawi), Norman Clark (African Centre for Technology Studies,
Nairobi, Kenya), Daniel Dalohoun (AfricaRice, Cotonou, Benin), Andy
Hall (UNU-MERIT, Maastricht, the Netherlands), and Peter Wanyama
(Mohammed Muigai Advocates, Nairobi, Kenya). Additional information for
the book was provided by John Pasek (Iowa State University, USA),
Stephanie Hanson (One Acre Fund, Bungoma, Kenya), S.G. Vombatkere
(Mysore, India), Akwasi Asamoah (Kwame Nkrumah University of Science
and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana), Jonathan Gressel (Weizmann Institute
and Trans-Algae Ltd., Israel), Will Masters (Tufts University, USA),
Martha Dolpen (African Food and Peace Foundation, USA), and C. Ford
Runge (University of Minnesota, USA).
We would like to thank our dedicated team of researchers who
included Edmundo Barros, Daniel Coutinho, Manisha Dookhony, Josh Drake,
Emily Janoch, Beth Maclin, Julia Mensah, Shino Saruti, Mahat Somane,
and Melanie Vant at the Harvard Kennedy School, and Yunan Jin, Jeff
Solnet, Amaka Uzoh, and Caroline Wu at Harvard College, Harvard
University.
Much inspiration for the structure of this book came from the
results of a meeting of experts, ``Innovating Out of Poverty,''
convened by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) in Paris on April 6-7, 2009. It gathered state-of-the-art
knowledge on agricultural innovation systems. We are particularly
grateful to Richard Carey, Kaori Miyamoto, and Fred Gault (OECD
Development Centre, Paris). Further input was provided by David Angell
(Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ottawa), Jajeev Chawla (Survey
Settlements and Land Records Department, India), David King
(International Federation of Agricultural Producers, Paris), Raul
Montemayor (Federation of Free Farmers, Manila), Charles Gore (United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva), Paulo Gomes
(Constelor Group, Washington, DC), Ren Wang (Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research, Washington, DC), David Birch
(Consult Hyperion, London), Laurens van Veldhutzen (ETC Foundation, the
Netherlands), Erika Kraemer-Mbula (Centre for Research in Innovation
Management, Brighton University, UK), Khalid El-Harizi (International
Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome), Adrian Ely (University of
Sussex, UK), Watu Wamae (The Open University, UK), Andrew Hall (United
Nations University, the Netherlands), Rajendra Ranganathan (Utexrwa,
Kigali), Alfred Watkins (World Bank, Washington, DC), Eija Pehu (World
Bank, Washington, DC), and Wacege Mugua (Safaricom, Ltd., Nairobi).
Our ideas about the role of experiential learning has been enriched
by the generosity of Jose Zaglul and Daniel Sherrard at EARTH
University and their readiness to share important lessons from their
experience running the world's first ``sustainable agriculture
university.'' We drew additional inspiration and encouragement from
Alice Amsden (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA), Thomas Burke
(Harvard Medical School, USA), Gordon Conway (Imperial College,
London), David King (University of Oxford, UK), Yee-Cheong Lee (Academy
of Sciences, Malaysia), Peter Raven (Missouri Botanical Garden, USA),
Ismail Serageldin (Library of Alexandria, Egypt), Gus Speth (Vermont
Law School, USA), and Yolanda Kakabadse (WWF International,
Switzerland).
I am grateful to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and in
particular to Gwen Young, Sam Dryden, Brantley Browning, Lawrence Kent,
Corinne Self, Prabhu Pingali, and Greg Traxler for continuing support
to the Agricultural Innovation in Africa Project at the Belfer Center
for Science and International Affairs of the Harvard Kennedy School. I
am also indebted to my colleagues at the Harvard Kennedy School who
have given me considerable moral and intellectual support in the
implementation of this initiative. We want to single out Graham
Allison, Venkatesh Narayanamurti, Bill Clark, Nancy Dickson, Eric
Rosenbach, and Kevin Ryan for their continuing support.
Special credit goes to Greg Durham (AIA Project Coordinator,
Harvard Kennedy School) who provided invaluable managerial support and
additional research assistance. Finally, we want to thank Angela
Chnapko and Joellyn Ausanka (Oxford University Press) and anonymous
reviewers for their constructive editorial support and guidance.
New ideas need champions. We would like to commend Sindiso Ngwenya
(Secretary General of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern
Africa, Lusaka) for taking an early lead to present the ideas contained
in this book to African heads of state and government for
consideration. The results of his efforts are contained in Appendix II.
We hope that others will follow his example.
Introduction
In his acceptance speech as Chairman of the Assembly of the African
Union (AU) in February 2010, President Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi
said:
One challenge we all face is poverty, hunger and malnutrition
of large populations. Therefore achieving food security at the
African level should be able to address these problems. I would
therefore request the AU Assembly to share the dream that five
years from now no child in Africa should die of hunger and
malnutrition. No child should go to bed hungry. I realize that
this is an ambitious dream but one that can be realized. We all
know that Africa is endowed with vast fertile soils, favourable
climates, vast water basins and perennial rivers that could be
utilized for irrigation farming and lead to the Green
Revolution, and mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.
We can therefore grow enough food to feed everyone in Africa. I
am, therefore, proposing that our agenda for Africa should
focus on agriculture and food security. I propose that our
slogan should be: ``Feeding Africa through New Technologies:
Let Us Act Now.'' \1\
This statement lays out a clear vision of how to approach Africa's
agricultural challenge. This book builds on this optimistic outlook
against a general background of gloom that fails to account for a wide
range of success stories across the continent.\2\ African agriculture
is at the crossroads. Persistent food shortages are now being
compounded by new threats arising from climate change. But Africa faces
three major opportunities that can help transform its agriculture to be
a force for economic growth. First, advances in science, technology,
and engineering worldwide offer Africa new tools needed to promote
sustainable agriculture. Second, efforts to create regional markets
will provide new incentives for agricultural production and trade.
Third, a new generation of African leaders is helping the continent to
focus on long-term economic transformation. This book provides policy-
relevant information on how to align science, technology, and
engineering missions with regional agricultural development goals.\3\
This book argues that sustaining African economic prosperity will
require significant efforts to modernize the continent's economy
through the application of science and technology in agriculture. In
other words, agriculture needs to be viewed as a knowledge-based
entrepreneurial activity.\4\ The argument is based on the premise that
smart investments in agriculture will have multiplier effects in many
sectors of the economy and help spread prosperity. More specifically,
the book focuses on the importance of boosting support for agricultural
research as part of a larger agenda to promote innovation, invest in
enabling infrastructure, build human capacity, stimulate
entrepreneurship and improve the governance of innovation.
The emergence of Africa's Regional Economic Communities (RECs)
provides a unique opportunity to promote innovation in African
agriculture in a more systematic and coordinated way.\5\ The launching
of the East African Common Market in July 2010 represented a
significant milestone in the steady process of deepening Africa's
economic integration. It is a trend that complements similar efforts in
other parts of Africa. It also underscores the determination among
African leaders to expand prospects for prosperity by creating space
for economic growth and technological innovation.
One of the challenges facing Africa's RECs has been their perceived
overlap and duplication of effort. Part of this concern has been
overstated. The RECs evolved based on local priorities. For example,
the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is by far the
most advanced in peace-keeping while the Common Market for Eastern and
Southern Africa (COMESA) has made significant strides in trade matters.
In the meantime, the East African Community (EAC)--one of the oldest
regional integration bodies in the world--has made significant advances
on the social, cultural, and political fronts. It has judicial and
legislative organs and aspires to create a federated state with a
single president in the future.
Probably the most creative response to concerns over overlap and
duplication was the 2008 communique of October 22 by the heads of state
and government of COMESA, EAC, and the Southern African Development
Community (SADC), agreeing to form a tripartite free trade area
covering the 26 countries in the region, and to cooperate in various
areas with SADC. This move will go a long way in helping achieve the
African Union's continental integration objectives. The agreement
provides for free movement of businesspeople, joint implementation of
inter-regional infrastructure programs, and institutional arrangements
that promote cooperation among the three RECs. The agreement calls for
immediate steps to merge the three trading blocs into a single REC with
a focus on fast-tracking the creation of the African Economic
Community.
Drawing on the experience of the EAC, the Tripartite Task Force,
made up of the secretariats of the three RECs, will develop a road map
for the implementation of the merger. The new trading bloc will have a
combined GDP of US$625 billion and a population of 527 million. It is
estimated that exports among the 26 countries rose from US$7 billion in
2000 to US$27 billion in 2008, and imports jumped from US$9 billion in
2000 to US$32 billion in 2008. This impressive increase was attributed
to the efforts of the three RECs to promote free trade.
The heads of state and government directed the three RECs to
implement joint programs: a single airspace; an accelerated, seamless
inter-regional broadband infrastructure network; and a harmonized
policy and regulatory framework to govern information and communication
technology (ICT) and infrastructure development. The RECs were also
expected to effectively coordinate and harmonize their transport,
energy, and investment master plans. The three secretariats were asked
to prepare a joint financing and implementation mechanism for
infrastructure development within a year. It was also agreed that a
Tripartite Summit of heads of state and government shall meet once
every two years.
There are other regional developments in Africa that project a
different scenario. The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership with the Maghreb
countries (Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia) resembles hub-and-spoke
bilateral networks. The agreements signaled interest in facilitating
free trade and promoting foreign direct investment. They also
represented innovations in international cooperation that defied
classical ``north-south'' relations.\6\ While the arrangements have
helped to safeguard access by the Maghreb countries to the European
Union (EU) countries, they have yet to show strong evidence of foreign
direction investment (FDI) flows.\7\ A more generous interpretation is
that FDI flows are more complex to arrange outside the general domain
of natural resource extraction. It may take time for such flows to
occur, and some of the decisions might be linked to access critical
resources such as solar energy from the Sahara Desert. This topic
continues to attract attention in business and technical circles.\8\
It would appear for the time being that regional integration in
eastern and southern Africa is driven more by regional trade dynamics
while the Maghreb has to endure the pressures of being close to the
European Union, with attendant uncertainties on the extent to which
Euro-Mediterranean relations can maintain a dependable path.\9\ A
series of missteps and false starts in EU integration have resulted in
a more precautionary approach that is needed to foster policy learning.
These dynamics are likely to influence the types of technological
trajectories that the various regions of Africa pursue.
The Economic Community of West African States, for example, might
end up developing new southern transatlantic trade relations with the
United States and South America while eastern and southern Africa may
turn east. These scenarios will influence the kinds of technologies and
strategies that the regions adopt.
This book builds on the findings of the report, Freedom to
Innovate: Biotechnology in Africa's Development, prepared by the High
Level African Panel on Modern Biotechnology of the African Union (AU)
and the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).\10\ The
panel's main recommendations include the need for individual countries
in central, eastern, western, northern, and southern Africa to work
together at the regional level to scale up the development of
biotechnology. This book aims to provide ideas on how to position
agriculture at the center of efforts to spur economic development in
Africa. It outlines the policies and institutional changes needed to
promote agricultural innovation in light of changing ecological,
economic, and political circumstances in Africa.
This book explores the role of rapid technological innovation in
fostering sustainability, with specific emphasis on sustainable
agriculture. It provides illustrations from advances in information
technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. It builds on recent
advances in knowledge on the origin and evolution of technological
systems. Agricultural productivity, entrepreneurship, and value
addition foster productivity in rural-based economies. In many poor
countries, however, farmers, small and medium-sized enterprises, and
research centers do not interact in ways that accelerate the move
beyond low value-added subsistence sustainable agriculture.
Strengthening rural innovation systems, developing effective clusters
that can add value to unprocessed raw materials, and promoting value
chains across such diverse sectors as horticulture, food processing and
packaging, food storage and transportation, food safety, distribution
systems, and exports are all central to moving beyond subsistence
sustainable agriculture, generating growth, and moving toward
prosperity.
Developed and emerging economies can do much more to identify and
support policies and programs to assist Africa in taking a
comprehensive approach to agricultural development to break out of
poverty. This requires rethinking the agenda to create innovation
systems to foster interactions among government, industry, academia,
and civil society--all of which are critical actors.
The book is guided by the view that innovation is the engine of
social and economic development in general and agriculture in
particular. The current concerns over rising food prices have
compounded concerns about the state and future of African agriculture.
This sector has historically lagged behind the rest of the world. Part
of the problem lies in the low level of investment in Africa's
agricultural research and development. Enhancing African agricultural
development will require specific efforts aimed at aligning science and
technology strategies with agricultural development efforts.
Furthermore, such efforts will need to be pursued as part of Africa's
growing interest in regional economic integration through its Regional
Economic Communities.
African leaders have in recent years been placing increasing
emphasis on the role of science and innovation in economic
transformation. The Eighth African Union Summit met in January 2007 and
adopted decisions aimed at encouraging more African youth to take up
studies in science, technology, and engineering education; promoting
and supporting research and innovation activities and the related human
and institutional capacities; ensuring scrupulous application of
scientific ethics; revitalizing African universities and other African
institutions of higher education as well as scientific research
institutions; promoting and enhancing regional as well as south-south
and north-south cooperation in science and technology; increasing
funding for national, regional, and continental programs for science
and technology; and supporting the establishment of national and
regional centers of excellence in science and technology.\11\ The
decisions are part of a growing body of guidance on the role of science
and innovation in Africa's economic transformation. These decisions
underscore the growing importance that African leaders place on science
and innovation for development.
However, the translation of these decisions into concrete action
remains a key challenge for Africa. This study is guided by the view
that one of the main problems facing African countries is aligning
national and regional levels of governance with long-term technological
considerations. This challenge is emerging at a time when African
countries are seeking to deepen economic integration and expand
domestic markets. These efforts are likely to affect the way
agricultural policy is pursued in Africa.
The 2007 African Union Summit decisions paid particular attention
to the role of science, technology, and innovation in Africa's economic
transformation, and they marked the start of identifying and building
constituencies for fostering science, technology, and innovation in
Africa. They focused on the need to undertake the policy reforms
necessary to align the missions and operations of institutions of
higher learning with economic development goals in general and the
improvement of human welfare in particular.
These decisions represent a clear expression of political will and
interest in pursuing specific reforms that would help in making
science, technology, and innovation relevant to development. However,
the capacity to do so is limited by the lack of informed advice on
international comparative experiences on the subject. The central focus
of this book is to provide high-level decision makers in Africa with
information on how to integrate science and technology into
agricultural development discussions and strategies. Specific attention
will be placed on identifying emerging technologies and exploring how
they can be adapted to local economic conditions.
The book is divided into seven chapters. Chapter 1 examines the
critical linkages between agriculture and economic growth. The current
global economic crisis, rising food prices, and the threat of climate
change have reinforced the urgency to find lasting solutions to
Africa's agricultural challenges. The entire world needs to find ways
to intensify agricultural production while protecting the
environment.\12\ Africa is largely an agricultural economy, with the
majority of the population deriving their income from farming. Food
security, agricultural development, and economic growth are
intertwined. Improving Africa's agricultural performance will require
deliberate policy efforts to bring higher technical education,
especially in universities, to the service of agriculture and the
economy. It is important to focus on how to improve the productivity of
agricultural workers, most of whom are women, through technological
innovation.
Chapter 2 reviews the implications of advances in science and
technology for Africa's agriculture. The Green Revolution played a
critical role in helping to overcome chronic food shortages in Latin
America and Asia. The Green Revolution was largely a result of the
creation of new institutional arrangements aimed at using existing
technology to improve agricultural productivity. African countries are
faced with enormous technological challenges. But they also have access
to a much larger pool of scientific and technical knowledge than was
available when the Green Revolution was launched. It is important to
review major advances in science, technology, and engineering and
identify their potential for use in African agriculture. Such
exploration should include an examination of local innovations as well
as indigenous knowledge. It should cover fields such as information and
communication technology, genetics, ecology, and geographical sciences.
Understanding the convergence of these and other fields and their
implications for African agriculture is important for effective
decision making and practical action.
Chapter 3 provides a conceptual framework for defining agricultural
innovation in a systemic context. The use of emerging technology and
indigenous knowledge to promote sustainable agriculture will require
adjustments in existing institutions. New approaches will need to be
adopted to promote close interactions between government, business,
farmers, academia, and civil society. It is important to identify novel
agricultural innovation systems of relevance to Africa. This chapter
examines the connections between agricultural innovation and wider
economic policies. Agriculture is inherently a place-based activity and
so the book outlines strategies that reflect local innovation clusters
and other characteristics of local innovation systems. Positioning
sustainable agriculture as a knowledge-intensive sector will require
fundamental reforms in existing learning institutions, especially
universities and research institutes. Most specifically, key functions
such as research, teaching, extension, and commercialization need to be
much more closely integrated.
In Chapter 4 the book outlines the critical linkages between
infrastructure and agricultural innovation. Enabling infrastructure
(covering public utilities, public works, transportation, and research
facilities) is essential for agricultural development. Infrastructure
is defined here as facilities, structures, associated equipment,
services, and institutional arrangements that facilitate the flow of
agricultural goods, services, and ideas. Infrastructure represents a
foundational base for applying technical knowledge in sustainable
development and relies heavily on civil engineering. The importance of
providing an enabling infrastructure for agricultural development
cannot be overstated. Modern infrastructure facilities will also need
to reflect the growing concern over climate change. In this respect,
the chapter will focus on ways to design ``smart infrastructure'' that
takes advantage of advances in the engineering sciences as well as
ecologically sound systems design. Unlike other regions of the world,
Africa's poor infrastructure represents a unique opportunity to adopt
new approaches in the design and implementation of infrastructure
facilities.
The role of education in fostering agricultural innovation is the
subject of Chapter 5. Some of Africa's most persistent agricultural
challenges lie in the educational system. Much of the focus of the
educational system is training young people to seek employment in urban
areas. Much of the research is carried out in institutions that do not
teach, while universities have limited access to research support. But
there is an urgency to identify new ways to enhance competence
throughout the agricultural value chain, with emphasis on the role of
women as farm workers and custodians of the environment. It is
important to take a pragmatic approach that emphasizes competence
building as a key way to advance social justice. Most of the strategies
to strengthen the technical competence of African farmers will entail
major reforms in existing universities and research institutions. In
this respect, actions need to be considered in the context of
agricultural innovation systems.
Chapter 6 presents the importance of entrepreneurship in
agricultural innovation. The creation of agricultural enterprises
represents one of the most effective ways to stimulate rural
development. The chapter will review the efficacy of the policy tools
used to promote agricultural enterprises. These include direct
financing, matching grants, taxation policies, government or public
procurement policies, and rewards to recognize creativity and
innovation. It is important to learn from examples that helped to
popularize modern technology in rural areas and has spread to more than
90% of the country's counties. Inspired by such examples, Africa should
explore ways to create incentives that stimulate entrepreneurship in
the agricultural sector. It is important to take into account new tools
such as information and communication technologies and the extent to
which they can be harnessed to promote entrepreneurship.
The final chapter outlines regional approaches for fostering
agricultural innovation. African countries are increasingly focusing on
promoting regional economic integration as a way to stimulate economic
growth and expand local markets. Considerable progress has been made in
expanding regional trade through regional bodies such as COMESA, SADC,
and the EAC. There are eight other such RECs that have been recognized
by the African Union as building blocks for pan-African economic
integration. (See Appendix I for details on the Regional Economic
Communities [RECs].)
So far regional cooperation in agriculture is in its infancy and
major challenges lie ahead. Africa should intensify efforts to use
regional bodies as agents of agricultural innovation through measures
such as regional specialization. The continent should factitively
explore ways to strengthen the role of the RECs in promoting common
regulatory standards.
It is not possible to cover the full range of agricultural
activities in one volume. This book does not address the important
roles that livestock and aquaculture play in Africa. Similarly, it does
not deal with innovation in agricultural machinery. But we hope that
the systems approach adopted in the book will help leaders and
practitioners to anticipate and accommodate other sources of
agricultural innovation.\13\
Selected Abbreviations and Acronyms AMU Arab Maghreb Union
AU African Union
BecANet Biosciences Eastern and Central Africa Network
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
CEN-SAD Community of Sahel Sahara States
CIMMYT International Centre for the Improvement of Maize and
Wheat
COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
DFID Department for International Development
EAC East African Community
ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics
IGAD Intergovernmental Authority for Development
IRRI International Rice Research Institute
NABNet North Africa Biosciences Network
NCDC National Cocoa Development Committee
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development
RECs Regional Economic Communities
SADC Southern African Development Community
WABNet West African Biosciences Network
The New Harvest
1 The Growing Economy
The current global economic crisis, rising food prices, and the
threat of climate change have reinforced the urgency to find lasting
solutions to Africa's agricultural challenges. Africa is largely an
agricultural economy with the majority of the population deriving their
income from farming. Agricultural development is therefore intricately
linked to overall economic development in African countries. Most
policy interventions have focused on ``food security,'' a term that is
used to cover key attributes of food such as sufficiency, reliability,
quality, safety, timeliness, and other aspects of food necessary for
healthy and thriving populations. This chapter outlines the critical
linkages between food security, agricultural development, and economic
growth and explains why Africa has lagged behind other regions in
agricultural productivity. Improving Africa's agricultural performance
will require significant political leadership, investment, and
deliberate policy efforts.
The Power of Inspirational Leadership
In a prophetic depiction of the power of inspirational models, Mark
Twain famously said: ``Few things are harder to put up with than the
annoyance of a good example.'' Malawi's remarkable efforts to address
the challenges of food security were implemented against the rulebook
of economic dogma that preaches against agricultural subsidies to
farmers. Malawi's President Bingu wa Mutharika defied these teachings
and put in place a series of policy measures that addressed
agricultural development and overall economic development. He serves as
an example for other African leaders of how aggressive agricultural
investment (16% of government spending) can yield increased production
and results.
His leadership should be viewed against a long history of neglect
of the agricultural sector in Africa. The impact of structural
adjustment policies on Malawi's agriculture was evident from the late
1980s.\1\ Mounting evidence showed that growth in the smallholder
sector had stagnated, with far-reaching implications for rural welfare.
The focus of dominant policies was to subsidize consumers in urban
areas.\2\ This policy approach prevailed in most African countries and
was associated with the continued decline of the agricultural sector.
In 2005, over half of the population in Malawi lived on less than a
dollar a day, a quarter of the population lacked sufficient food daily,
and a third lacked access to clean water. This started to change when
Malawi's wa Mutharika took on food insecurity, a dominant theme in the
history of the country.\3\ His leadership helped to revitalize the
agricultural sector and provides an inspiring lesson for other figures
in the region who wish to enable and empower their people to meet their
most basic needs.
In 2005, Malawi's agricultural sector employed 78% of the labor
force, over half of whom operated below subsistence. Maize is Malawi's
principal crop and source of nutrition, but for decades, low rainfall,
nutrient-depleted soil, inadequate investment, failed privatization
policies, and deficient technology led to low productivity and high
prices.\4\ The 2005 season yielded just over half of the maize required
domestically, leaving five million Malawians in need of food aid.
The president declared food insecurity his personal priority and
set out to achieve self-sufficiency and reduce poverty, declaring,
``Enough is enough. I am not going to go on my knees to beg for food.
Let us grow the food ourselves.'' \5\ The president took charge of the
ministry of agriculture and nutrition and initiated a systematic
analysis of the problem and potential solutions. After a rigorous
assessment, the government designed a program to import improved seeds
and fertilizer for distribution to farmers at subsidized prices through
coupons.
This ambitious program required considerable financial, political,
and public support. The president engaged in debate and consultation
with Malawi's parliament, private sector, and civil society, while
countering criticism from influential institutions.\6\ For example, the
International Monetary Fund and the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) had fundamentally disagreed with the
subsidy approach, claiming that it would distort private sector
activities. Other organizations such as the South Africa-based Regional
Hunger and Vulnerability Programme questioned the ability of the
program to benefit resource-poor farmers.\7\ On the other hand the UK
Department for International Development (DFID) and the European Union,
Norway, Ireland, and later the World Bank, supported the program.
Additional support came from China, Egypt, and the Grain Traders and
Processors Association. The president leveraged this support and
several platforms to explain the program and its intended benefits to
the public and their role in the system.\8\ With support increasing and
the ranks of the hungry swelling, the president devoted approximately
US$50 million in discretionary funds and some international sources to
forge ahead with the program.\9\
The president's strategy attempted to motivate the particularly
poor farmers to make a difference not only for their families, but also
for their community and their country. Recognizing the benefits of the
program, people formally and informally enforced the coupon system to
prevent fraud and corruption. The strategy sought to target smallholder
farmers, who face the biggest challenges but whose productivity is
essential for improving nutrition and livelihoods.\10\
In 2005-06, the program, coupled with increased rainfall,
contributed toward a doubling of maize production, and in 2006-07, the
country recorded its highest surplus ever. Prices fell by half, and
Malawi began exporting maize to its food insecure neighbors. Learning
from experience, the government made a number of adjustments and
improvements to the program in its first few years, including stepped-
up enforcement of coupon distribution, more effective targeting of
subsidies, private sector involvement, training for farmers, irrigation
investments, and post-harvest support.
President wa Mutharika's commitment to tackling his nation's most
grave problem and development opportunity is a model for channeling
power to challenge the status quo. Following an integrated approach,
the government is devoting 16% of its national budget to agriculture,
surpassing the 10% target agreed to in the 2003 Maputo Declaration.\11\
His all-too-rare approach to study an issue, develop a solution, and
implement it with full force, despite a hostile international
environment, demonstrates the difference political will can make. In
2010 he handed over the agriculture portfolio to a line minister.
Linkages Between Agriculture and Economy
Agriculture and economic development are intricately linked. It has
been aptly argued that no country has ever sustained rapid economic
productivity without first solving the food security challenge.\12\
Evidence from industrialized countries as well as countries that are
rapidly developing today indicates that agriculture stimulated growth
in the nonagricultural sectors and supported overall economic well-
being. Economic growth originating in agriculture can significantly
contribute to reductions in poverty and hunger. Increasing employment
and incomes in agriculture stimulates demand for nonagricultural goods
and services, boosting nonfarm rural incomes as well.\13\ While future
trends in developing countries are likely to be affected by the forces
of globalization, the overall thesis holds for much of Africa.
Much of our understanding of the linkages between agriculture and
economic development has tended to use a linear approach. Under this
model agriculture is seen as a source of input into other sectors of
the economy. Resources, skills, and capital are presumed to flow from
agriculture to industry. In fact, this model is a central pillar of the
``stages of development'' that treat agriculture as a transient stage
toward industry phases of the economy.\14\ This linear view is being
replaced by a more sophisticated outlook that recognizes the role of
agriculture in fields such as ``income growth, food security and
poverty alleviation; gender empowerment; and the supply of
environmental services.'' \15\ A systems view of economic evolution
suggests continuing interactions between agriculture and other sectors
of the economy in ways that are mutually reinforcing.\16\ Indeed, the
relationship between agriculture and economic development is
interactive and associated with uncertainties that defy causal
correlation.\17\
The Green Revolution continues to be a subject of considerable
debate.\18\ However, its impact on agricultural productivity and
reductions in consumer prices can hardly be disputed. Much of the
debate over the impact of the Green Revolution ignores the issue of
what would have happened to agriculture in developing countries without
it. On the whole, without international research in developing
countries, yields in major crops would have been higher in
industrialized countries by up to 4.8%. This is mainly because lower
production in the developing world would have pushed up prices and
given industrialized country farmers incentives to boost their
production. It is estimated that crop yields in developing countries
would have been up to 23.5% lower without the Green Revolution and that
equilibrium prices would have been between 35% and 66% higher in 2000.
But in reality prices would have remained constant or risen marginally
in the absence of international research. This is mainly because real
grain prices actually dropped by 40% from 1965 to 2000.\19\
Higher world prices would have led to the expansion of cultivated
areas, with dire environmental impacts. Estimates suggest that crop
production would have been up to 6.9% higher in industrialized
countries and up to 18.6% lower in developing countries. Over the
period, developing countries would have had to increase their food
imports by nearly 30% to offset the reductions in production. Without
international research, caloric intake in developing countries would
have dropped by up to 14.4% and the proportion of malnourished children
would have increased by nearly 8%. In other words, the Green Revolution
helped to raise the health status of up to 42 million preschool
children in developing countries.\20\
It is not a surprise that African countries and the international
community continue to seek to emulate the Green Revolution or recommend
its variants as a way to address current and future challenges.\21\
More important, innovation-driven agricultural growth has pervasive
economy-wide benefits as demonstrated through India's Green Revolution.
Studies on regional growth linkage have shown strong multiplier effects
from agricultural growth to the rural nonfarm economy.\22\
It is for this reason that agricultural stagnation is viewed as a
threat to prosperity. Over the last 30 years, agricultural yields and
the poverty rate have remained stagnant in sub-Saharan Africa.
Prioritizing agricultural development could yield significant,
interconnected benefits, particularly in achieving food security and
reducing hunger; increasing incomes and reducing poverty; advancing the
human development agenda in health and education; and reversing
environmental damage.
In sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture directly contributes to 34% of
GDP and 64% of employment.\23\ Growth in agriculture is at least two to
four times more effective in reducing poverty than in other
sectors.\24\ Growth in agriculture also stimulates productivity in
other sectors such as food processing. Agricultural products also
compose about 20% of Africa's exports. Given these figures it is no
surprise that agricultural research and extension services can yield a
35% rate of return, and irrigation projects a 15%-20% return in sub-
Saharan Africa.\25\
Even before the global financial and fuel crises hit, hunger was
increasing in Africa. In 1990, over 150 million Africans were hungry;
as of 2010, the number had increased to nearly 239 million. Starting in
2004, the proportion of undernourished began increasing, reversing
several decades of decline, prompting 100 million people to fall into
poverty. One-third of people in sub-Saharan Africa are chronically
hungry--many of whom are smallholders. High food prices in local
markets price out the poorer consumers--forcing them to purchase less
food and less nutritious food, as well as divert spending from
education and health and sell their assets. This link of hunger and
weak agricultural sector is self-perpetuating. As a World Bank study
has shown, caloric availability has a positive impact on agricultural
productivity.\26\
Half of African countries with the highest levels of hunger also
have among the highest gender gaps. Agricultural productivity in sub-
Saharan Africa could increase significantly if such gaps were reduced
in school and in the control of agricultural resources such as land. In
addition to this critical gender dynamic, the rural-urban divide is
also a key component of the agricultural and economic pictures.
Over the last 25 years, growth in agricultural gross domestic
product (GDP) in Africa has averaged approximately 3%, but there has
been significant variation among countries. Growth per capita, a proxy
for farm income, was basically zero in the 1970s and negative from the
1980s into the 1990s. Six countries experienced negative per capita
growth. As such, productivity has been basically stagnant over 40
years--despite significant growth in other regions, particularly Asia,
thanks to the Green Revolution.\27\ Different explanations derive from
a lack of political prioritization, underinvestment, and ineffective
policies. The financial crisis has exacerbated this underinvestment, as
borrowing externally has become more expensive, credit is less
accessible, and foreign direct investment has declined.
Only 4% of Africa's crop area is irrigated, compared to 39% in
South Asia. Much of rural Africa is without passable roads, translating
to high transportation costs and trade barriers. Over 40% of the rural
population lives in arid or semi-arid conditions, which have the least
agricultural potential. Similarly, about 50 million people in sub-
Saharan Africa and 200 million people in North Africa and the Middle
East live in areas with absolute water scarcity. Cropland per
agricultural population has been decreasing for decades. Soil
infertility has occurred due to degradation: nearly 75% of the farmland
is affected by excessive extraction of soil nutrients.
One way that farmers try to cope with low soil fertility and yields
is to clear other land for cultivation. This practice amounts to
deforestation, which accounts for up to 30% of greenhouse gas emissions
globally. Another factor leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions
is limited access to markets: more than 30% of the rural population in
sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and North Africa live more than
five hours from a market; another 40% live between two to four hours
from a market.
Fertilizer use in Africa is less than 10% of the world average of
100 kilograms per hectare. Just five countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, South
Africa, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria) account for about two-thirds of the
fertilizer applied in Africa. On the average, sub-Saharan African
farmers use 13 kilograms of nutrients per hectare of arable and
permanent cropland. The rate in the Middle East and North Africa is 71
kilograms. Part of the reason that fertilizer usage is so low is the
high cost of imports and transportation; fertilizer in Africa is two to
six times the average world price. This results in low usage of
improved seed; as of 2000, about 24% of the cereal-growing area used
improved varieties, compared to 85% in East Asia and the Pacific. As of
2005, 70% of wheat crop area and 40% of maize crop area used improved
seeds, a significant improvement.
Africa's farm demonstrations show significantly higher average
yields compared to national yields and show great potential for
improvement in maize. For example, Ethiopia's maize field
demonstrations yield over five tons per hectare compared to the
national average of two tons per hectare for a country plagued by
chronic food insecurity. This potential will only be realized as
Africans access existing technologies and improve them to suit local
needs.
China's inspirational success in modernizing its agriculture and
transforming its rural economy over the last 30 years provided the
basis for rapid growth and a substantial improvement in prosperity.
From 1978 to 2008 China's economy grew at an annual average rate of
about 9%. Its agricultural GDP rose by about 4.6% per year, and
farmers' incomes grew by 7% annually. Today, just 200 million small-
scale farmers each working an average of 0.6 hectares of land feed a
population of 1.3 billion. In the meantime, China was able to limit
population growth at 1.07% per year using a variety of government
policies. Even more remarkable has been the rate of poverty reduction.
China's poverty incidence fell from 31% in 1978 to 9.5% in 1990 and
then to 2.5% in 2008. Food security has been dramatically enhanced by
the growth and diversification of food production, which outstripped
population growth. Agriculture's role in reducing poverty has been
three times higher than that of other sectors. Agriculture has
therefore been the main force in China's poverty reduction and food
security.\28\
Lessons from China show that detailed and sustained focus on small-
scale farmers by unleashing their potential and meeting their needs can
lead to growth and poverty reduction, even when the basic agricultural
conditions are unfavorable. But a combination of clear public policies
and institutional reforms are needed for this to happen. The policies
and reforms need to be adjusted in light of changing circumstances to
bolster the rural economy (through infrastructure services, research
support, and farmer education), stimulate off-farm employment, and
promote rural-urban migration as rural productivity rises and urban
economies expand.
With population in check, China's grain production soon outstripped
direct consumption, and policy attention shifted to agricultural
diversification and improvement of rural livelihoods. The process was
driven by a strong, competent, and well-informed developmental state
that could set clear medium and long-term goals and support their
implementation.
Despite the historical, geographic, political, social, educational,
and cultural differences between China and Africa, there are still many
lessons from China's agricultural transformation that can inspire
Africa's efforts to turn around decades of low agricultural investment
and misguided policies. An African agricultural revolution is within
reach, provided the continent can focus on supporting small-scale
farmers to help meet national and regional demand for food, rather than
rely on expansion of export crops.
While prospects for Africa's global agricultural commodities
markets (including cocoa, tea, and coffee) are likely to be brighter
than in recent decades, the African food market will grow from US$50
billion in 2010 to US$150 billion by 2030. Currently, food imports are
estimated at US$30 billion, up from US$13 billion in the 1990s. Meeting
this market with local production will generate the revenue needed to
attract additional foreign investment and help in overall economic
diversification. Such a transformation will also help expand overall
economic development through linkages with urban areas.
China and the OECD's Development Assistance Committee are helping
to disseminate lessons from China's experience among African
policymakers and practitioners. But they can go further by contributing
to the implementation of agricultural strategies developed by African
leaders through the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and other
political bodies. At the very least, they should support efforts to
strengthen Africa's capacity for evidence-based policy-making and
implementation. This will help to create national and regional capacity
for strategic thinking and implementation of specific agricultural
programs.\29\
The State of African Agriculture
Africa has abundant arable land and labor which, with sound
policies, could be translated into increased production, incomes, and
food security. This has not materialized because of lack of consistent
policies and effective implementation strategies arising from the
neglect of the sector. Thus, even though agriculture accounts for 64%
of the labor force, over 34% of GDP, and over 20% of businesses in most
countries, it continues to be given low priority.\30\
Over the past 40 years, there has been remarkable growth in
agricultural production, with per capita world food production growing
by 17% and aggregate world food production growing by 145%.\31\
However, in Africa, food production is 10% lower today than it was in
1960 because of low levels of investment in the sector. The recent
advances in aggregate world productivity have therefore not brought
reductions in the incidence of hunger in African countries. Of the 800
million people worldwide lacking adequate access to food, a quarter of
them are in sub-Saharan Africa. The number of hungry people has in fact
increased by 20% since 1990.
Strategies for transforming African agriculture have to address
such challenges as low investment and productivity, poor
infrastructure, lack of funding for agricultural research, inadequate
use of yield-enhancing technologies, weak linkages between agriculture
and other sectors, unfavorable policy and regulatory environments, and
climate change.
The path to productivity growth in sub-Saharan Africa will differ
considerably from that in irrigated Asian rice and wheat farming
systems. Sub-Saharan African agriculture is 96% rain fed and highly
vulnerable to weather shocks. And diverse agroecological conditions
produce a wide range of farming systems based on many food staples,
livestock, and fisheries.
Most agriculture-based countries are small, making it difficult for
them to achieve scale economies in research and training. Unless
regional markets are better integrated, markets will also be small.
Nearly 40% of Africa's population lives in landlocked countries that
face transport costs that, on average, are 50% higher than in the
typical coastal country.
Vast distances and low population densities in many countries in
sub-Saharan Africa make trade, infrastructure, and service provision
costly and slow down the emergence of competitive markets. Conversely,
areas of low population density with good agricultural potential
represent untapped reserves for agricultural expansion.
More than half the world's conflicts in 1999 occurred in sub-
Saharan Africa. Although the number of conflicts has declined in recent
years, the negative impacts on growth and poverty are still
significant. Reduced conflict offers the scope for rapid agricultural
growth as demonstrated by Mozambique's recent experience.\32\
The human capital base of the agriculture profession is aging as a
result of the decline in support for training during the past 20 years
and the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But major accomplishments in rural primary
education are ensuring a future generation of literate and numerate
African smallholders and nonfarm entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, education
has been slow to play a key role in the capacity of farmers to
diversify into nonfarm activities.\33\
Despite these common features, the diversity across sub-Saharan
African countries and across regions within countries is huge in terms
of size, agricultural potential, transport links, reliance on natural
resources, and state capacity. The policy agenda will have to be
carefully tailored to country-specific circumstances.
Many African governments have treated agriculture as a way of life
for farmers who in most cases have no voice in lobbying for an adequate
share of public expenditure. Following the Maputo Summit, African
countries agreed to devote at least 10% of their public expenditure to
agriculture. By 2008 only 19% of African countries had allocated more
than 10% of their national expenditure to agricultural development.
Many countries hardly reached 4% of GDP and have depended on official
development assistance for funding agriculture and other sectors.
Sub-Saharan Africa ranks the lowest in the world in terms of yield-
enhancing practices and techniques. Yield-enhancing practices include
mechanization, use of agro-chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides), and
increased use of irrigated land. The use of these practices and
technologies is low in Africa even in comparison to other developing
regions. This at least partly explains why crop yields in Africa in
general are far below average yields in other parts of the world.
Mechanization is very low, with an average of only 13 tractors per
100 square kilometers of arable land, versus the world average of 200
tractors per 100 square kilometers.\34\ In the UK, for example, there
are 883 tractors per 1,000 farm workers, whereas in sub-Saharan Africa
there are now two per 1,000, which is actually a 50% drop from the 1980
level of three.\35\ In Africa, tractor plowing and use of other modern
inputs are confined to areas with high market demand or large-scale
farms. Therefore, there is considerable variation in the use of these
technologies across the continent's RECs. Irrigated land is only 3.6%
of total cropland on the continent compared with the world average of
18.4%, while the use of fertilizers is minimal at nine kilograms per
hectare compared with the world average of 100 kilograms per hectare.
The development of irrigated agriculture is highest in the Common
Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)--14.4% of arable land--
possibly due to the large irrigation projects in Egypt and the Sudan.
Undercapitalization of agriculture as discussed above has given
rise to an agricultural sector with a weak knowledge base, resulting in
low-input, low-output, and low-value-added agriculture in most cases.
Land productivity in Africa is estimated at 42% and 50% of that in Asia
and Latin America, respectively. Asia and Latin America have more
irrigated land and use more fertilizers and machinery than Africa.
Africa has 733 million hectares of arable land (27.4% of world
total) compared with 570 million hectares for Latin America and 628
million hectares for Asia. Only 3.8% of Africa's surface and
groundwater is harnessed, while irrigation covers only 7% of cropland
(3.6% in sub-Saharan Africa). Clearly, there is considerable scope for
both horizontal and vertical expansion in African agriculture.\36\
However, area expansion should not be a priority in view of
increased environmental degradation on the continent. Currently, Africa
accounts for 27% of the world's land degradation and has 500 million
hectares of moderately or severely degraded land. Degradation affects
65% of cropland and 30% of pastureland. Soil degradation is associated
with low land productivity. It is mainly caused by loss of vegetation
and land exploitation, especially overgrazing and shifting cultivation.
African agriculture is weakly integrated with other sectors such as
the manufacturing sector. By promoting greater sectoral linkages, value
chain development can greatly enhance job creation, agricultural
transformation, and broad-based growth on the continent. Therefore,
Africa should take the necessary measures to confront its challenges in
this area.
Trends in Agricultural Renewal
Future trends in African agriculture are going to be greatly
influenced by developments in the global economy as well as emerging
trends in Africa itself. Despite recent upheavals in the global
financial system, Africa continues to register remarkable growth
prospects. While African economies currently face serious challenges,
such as poverty, diseases, and high rates of infant mortality, Africa's
collective GDP (at US$1.6 trillion in 2008) is almost equal to that of
Brazil or Russia--two emerging markets.\37\
Furthermore, Africa is among the most rapidly growing economic
regions in the world today. Its real GDP grew approximately 4.9% per
year from 2000 to 2008, and major booming sectors include telecom,
banking, and retail, followed by construction and foreign investment.
While each African nation faces a unique growth path, a framework for
such development has been created by McKinsey Global Institute to
address the opportunities and challenges facing various countries in
Africa. From 2002 to 2007, the sector share of real GDP growth was
spread out. While the resources consist of 24% of the share of GDP, the
rest came from other sectors including wholesale (13%), retail trade
(13%), agriculture (12%), transportation (10%), and manufacturing
(9%).\38\
As agricultural growth has a huge potential for companies across
the value chain, overcoming various barriers to raising productivity
(such as a lack of advanced seeds, inadequate infrastructure, trade
barriers, unclear land rights, lack of technical assistance, and
finance for farmers) is a key to increasing the agricultural output
from US$280 billion to a projected US$880 billion by 2030.\39\
The picture is therefore promising though uncertain. Several recent
successes demonstrate that the link between farm productivity and
income growth for the poor indeed operates in Africa. Several countries
have exhibited higher agricultural growth rates per capita over the
last 10 years. These recent gains in agriculture can be attributed to a
better policy environment, increased usage of technology, and higher
commodity prices. There are numerous cases that illustrate the
ingenious and innovative ways that Africans are overcoming the
constraints identified above to strengthen their agricultural
productivity and livelihoods.
For example, Ghana has made consistent progress in reducing poverty
and hunger. Between 1991-92 and 2006, Ghana nearly halved its poverty
rate from over 51% to 28%. Ghana is also the only African country to
reduce its Global Hunger Index by more than 50%. The success can be
attributed to a better investment climate, policies, and commodity
prices. The agricultural sector's rate of growth was higher than both
overall GDP and the service sector between 2001 and 2005. Increased
land use and productivity among smallholders and cash crop growers in
cocoa and horticulture--particularly pineapples--drove growth and
welfare improvement.
With success come challenges and lessons learned: inequality has
increased, suggesting that the benefits of this growth have not been
evenly distributed and that more attention needs to be paid to the
rural north. Also, unsustainable environmental degradation and natural
resource usage threatens to reverse progress in agriculture and affect
other sectors. But the global financial, food, and fuel crises are
negatively impacting the agricultural sector and the poor. Prices of
inputs and crops have risen by anywhere from 26% to 51% between 2007
and 2008 in real terms. Although cocoa prices are still high for
exporters, shea nut prices have fallen--a major source of income for
women in the Savannah region.
Social safety net programs (such as cash transfers, school feeding,
and national insurance), though, are providing some buffer against the
current crises' effects on income and consumption. Ghana's story helps
show the importance of locally owned policies and political commitment
to sustain agricultural gains and welfare improvement.
Enabling Policy Environment
Although still hindered by unfair international terms of trade, a
more favorable policy and macroeconomic environment has helped spur
agricultural development in recent years. Countries that have relaxed
constraints (such as over-taxation of the agricultural sector) have
been able to increase agricultural productivity. For example, a 10%
increase in coffee prices in Uganda has helped reduce the number of
people living in poverty by 6%.
For less than a few dollars, land-use certificates can be
implemented to reduce encroachment and improve soil conservation. For
example, Ethiopia's system for community-driven land certification has
been one effective way to improve land practices and a potential step
toward the much broader reform of land policy that is needed in many
African countries.
Here is how it works: communities learn about the certification
process and then elect land-use committees. These voluntary committees
settle conflicts and designate unassigned plots through a survey,
setting up a system for inheritable rights. In a nationwide survey,
approximately 80% felt that this certification process effectively
fulfilled those tasks as well as encouraged their personal investment
in conservation and women's access to resources. The certificates
themselves cost US$1 per plot but increase to less than US$3 with
mapping and updating using global position system (GPS). Between 2003
and 2005, six million households were issued certificates,
demonstrating the scalability.\40\ Documenting land rights in this
participatory and locally owned way can serve as a model for
governments ready to take on meaningful reform.
The initiation of the African-led Comprehensive Africa Agriculture
Development Programme (CAADP) by the African Union's NEPAD constitutes
a significant demonstration of commitment and leadership. Since 2003,
CAADP has been working with the RECs and through national roundtables
to promote sharing, learning, and coordination to advance agriculture-
led development. CAADP focuses on sustainable land management, rural
infrastructure and market access, food supply and hunger, and
agricultural research and technology. As of June 2010, CAADP had signed
``compacts'' with 26 countries. The compacts are products of national
roundtables at which priorities are set and roadmaps for implementation
are developed. The compacts are signed by all the key partners.
In eastern and southern Africa, COMESA coordinates the CAADP
planning and implementation processes at country and regional levels.
In doing so, it also collaborates with regional policy networks, such
as the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network)
and subregional knowledge systems such as the Regional Strategic
Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems, and it utilizes analytical
capacity provided through various universities in the region, supported
by Michigan State University.
In close coordination with national CAADP processes, a regional
CAADP compact is being developed. Its aim is to design a Regional
Investment Program on Agriculture that will focus on developing key
regional value chains and integrating value chain development into
corridor development programs. At a national level, the priority
programs developed include those in the area of research and
dissemination of productivity-enhancing technologies to promote
knowledge-based agricultural practices applying the innovation systems
approach to develop and strengthen linkages between generators, users,
and intermediaries of technological knowledge.
Regional Imperatives
The facilitation of regional cooperation is emerging as a basis for
diversifying economic activities in general, and leveraging
international partnerships in particular. Many of Africa's individual
states are no longer viable economic entities; their future lies in
creating trading partnerships with neighboring countries.
Many African countries are either relatively small or landlocked,
thereby lacking the financial resources needed to invest in major
infrastructure projects. Their future economic prospects depend on
being part of larger regional markets. Increased regional trade in
agricultural products can help them stimulate rural development and
enhance their technological competence through specialization. Existing
RECs offer them the opportunity to benefit from rationalized
agricultural activities. They can also benefit from increased
harmonization of regional standards and sanitary measures.\41\
African countries have adopted numerous regional cooperation and
integration arrangements, many of which are purely ornamental. The
roles of bigger markets in stimulating technological innovation,
fostering economies of scale arising from infrastructure investments,
and the diffusion of technical skills into the wider economy are some
of the key gains Africa hopes to derive from economic integration. In
effect, science and innovation are central elements of the integration
agenda and should be made more explicit.
The continent has more than 20 regional agreements that seek to
promote cooperation and economic integration at subregional and
continental levels. They range from limited cooperation among
neighboring states in narrow political and economic areas to the
ambitious creation of an African common market. They focus on improving
efficiency, expanding the regional market, and supporting the
continent's integration into the global economy. Many of them are
motivated by factors such as the small size of the national economy, a
landlocked position, and poor infrastructure. Of all Africa's regional
agreements, the African Union (AU) formally recognizes eight RECs.
These RECs represent a new economic governance system for Africa and
should be strengthened.
The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, in particular,
illustrates the importance of regional integration in Africa's economic
development and food security. The 19-member free trade area was
launched in 2000 and at 420 million people accounts for nearly half of
Africa's population. It has a combined GDP of US$450 billion and is the
largest and most vibrant free trade area in Africa, with intra-COMESA
trade estimated at US$14.3 billion in 2008. COMESA aims to improve
economic integration and business growth by standardizing customs
procedures, reducing tariffs, encouraging investments, and improving
infrastructure. COMESA launched its customs union on June 7, 2009, in
Victoria Falls Town and has initiated work on a Common Investment Area
to facilitate cross-border and foreign direct investment. COMESA plans
to launch its common market in 2015, and in this regard it already has
a program for liberalization of trade in services. The program
prioritizes liberalization of infrastructure services, namely,
communication, transport, and financial services. Other subsectors will
be progressively liberalized.
The strength of the RECs lies in their diversity. Their objectives
range from cooperation among neighboring states in narrow political and
economic areas to the ambitious creation of political federations. Many
of them are motivated by factors such as the small size of the national
economy, a landlocked position, or poor infrastructure. Those working
on security, for example, can learn from the Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS) which has extensive experience dealing with
conflict in Ivory Coast, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.\42\
Other RECs have more ambitious plans. The EAC, for example, has
developed a road map that includes the use of a common currency and
creation of single federal state. In July 2010 the EAC launched its
Common Market by breaking barriers and allowing the free movement of
goods, labor, services, and capital among its member states. The EAC
Common Market has a combined GDP of US$73 billion. Through a process
that began with the establishment of the EAC Customs Union, the Common
Market is the second step in a four-phase roadmap to make the EAC the
strongest economic, social, cultural, and political partnership in
Africa. EAC's economic influence extends to neighboring countries such
as Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Somalia. The Common
Market will eliminate all tariff and nontariff barriers in the region
and set up a common external tax code on foreign goods. It will also
enhance macroeconomic policy coordination and harmonization as well as
the standardization of trade practices. It is estimated that East
Africa's GDP is will grow 6.4% in 2011, making it the fastest growing
region in Africa.\43\
The region has already identified agriculture as one of its
strategic areas. In 2006 the EAC developed an Agriculture and Rural
Development Policy that provides a framework for improving rural life
over the next 25 years by increasing productivity output of food and
raw materials, improving food security, and providing an enabling
environment for regional and international trade. It also covers the
provision of social services such as education, health and water,
development of support infrastructure, power, and communications. The
overall vision of the EAC is to attain a ``well developed agricultural
sector for sustainable economic growth and equitable development.''
\44\ Its mission is to ``support, promote and facilitate the
development, production and marketing of agricultural produce and
products to ensure food security, poverty eradication and sustainable
economic development.'' \45\ Such institutions, though nascent,
represent major innovations in Africa's economic and political
governance and deserve the fullest support of the international
community.
Conclusion
This chapter has examined the critical linkages between agriculture
and economic development in Africa. It opened with a discussion of the
importance of inspirational leadership in effecting change. This is
particularly important because much of the large body of scientific and
technical knowledge needed to promote agricultural innovation in Africa
is available. It is widely acknowledged that institutions play an
important role in shaping the pace and direction of technological
innovation in particular and economic development in general. Much has
been written on the need to ensure that the right democratic
institutions are in place as prerequisites for agricultural growth.\46\
But emerging evidence supports the importance of entrepreneurial
leadership in promoting agricultural innovation as a matter of urgency
and not waiting until the requisite institutions are in place.\47\ This
view reinforces the important role that entrepreneurial leadership
plays in fostering the co-evolution between technology and
institutions.
Fundamentally, ``it would seem that one can understand the role of
institutions and institutional change in economic growth only if one
comes to see how these variables are connected to technological
change.'' \48\ This is not to argue that institutions and policies do
not matter. To the contrary, they do and should be the focus of
leadership. What is important is that the focus should be on
innovation. The essence of entrepreneurial leadership of the kind that
President wa Mutharika has shown in Malawi points to the urgency of
viewing institutions and economic growth as interactive and co-
evolutionary. The rest of this book will examine these issues in
detail.
2 Advances in Science, Technology, and Engineering
The Green Revolution played a critical role in helping to overcome
chronic food shortages in Latin America and Asia. The Green Revolution
was largely a result of the creation of new institutional arrangements
aimed at using existing technology to improve agricultural
productivity. African countries are faced with enormous technological
challenges. But they also have access to a much larger pool of
scientific and technical knowledge than was available when the Green
Revolution was launched in the 1950s. The aim of this chapter is to
review major advances in science, technology, and engineering and
identify their potential for use in African agriculture. This
exploration will also include an examination of local innovations as
well as indigenous knowledge. It will cover fields such as information
and communications technology, genetics, ecology, and geographical
sciences. It will emphasize the convergence of these and other fields
and their implications for African agriculture.
Innovation and Latecomer Advantages
African countries can utilize the large aggregation of knowledge
and know-how that has been amassed globally in their efforts to improve
their access to and use of the most cutting-edge technology. While
Africa is currently lagging in the utilization and accumulation of
technology, its countries have the ability not only to catch up to
industrial leaders but also to attain their own level of research
growth.
Advocates of scientific and technical research in developing
countries have found champions in the innovation platforms of
nanotechnology, biotechnology, information and communication technology
(ICT), and geographic information systems (GIS). Through these four
platform technologies, Africa has the opportunity to promote its agenda
concurrent with advances made in the industrialized world. This
opportunity is superior to the traditional catching-up model, which has
led to slower development and kept African countries from reaching
their full potential. These technologies are able to enhance
technological advances and scientific research while expanding storage,
collection, and transmission of global knowledge. This chapter explores
the potential of ICT, GIS, nanotechnology, and biotechnology in
Africa's agricultural sector and provides examples of where these
platform technologies have already created an impact.
Contemporary history informs us that the main explanation for the
success of the industrialized countries lies in their ability to learn
how to improve performance in a variety of fields--including
institutional development, technological adaptation, trade,
organization, and the use of natural resources. In other words, the key
to success is putting a premium on learning and improving problem-
solving skills.\1\
Every generation receives a legacy of knowledge from its
predecessors that it can harness for its own advantage. One of the most
critical aspects of a learner's strategy is using that legacy. Each new
generation blends the new and the old and thereby charts its own
development path within a broad technological trajectory, making
debates about potential conflicts between innovation and tradition
irrelevant.\2\
At least three key factors contributed to the rapid economic
transformation of emerging economies. First, these countries invested
heavily in basic infrastructure, including roads, schools, water,
sanitation, irrigation, clinics, telecommunications, and energy.\3\ The
investments served as a foundation for technological learning. Second,
they nurtured the development of small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs).\4\ Building these enterprises requires developing local
operational, repair, and maintenance expertise, and a pool of local
technicians. Third, government supported, funded, and nurtured higher
education institutions as well as academies of engineering and
technological sciences, professional engineering and technological
associations, and industrial and trade associations.\5\
The emphasis on knowledge should be guided by the view that
economic transformation is a process of continuous improvement of
productive activities, advanced through business enterprises. In other
words, government policy should focus on continuous improvement aimed
at enhancing performance, starting with critical fields such as
agriculture for local consumption and extending to international trade.
This improvement indicates a society's capacity to adapt to change
through learning. It is through continuous improvement that nations
transform their economies and achieve higher levels of performance.
Using this framework, with government functioning as a facilitator for
social learning, business enterprises will become the locus of
learning, and knowledge will be the currency of change.\6\ Most African
countries already have in place the key institutional components needed
to make the transition to being a player in the knowledge economy. The
emphasis should therefore be on realigning the existing structures and
creating new ones where they do not exist.
The challenge is in building the international partnerships needed
to align government policy with the long-term technological needs of
Africa. The promotion of science and technology as a way to meet human
welfare needs must, however, take into account the additional need to
protect Africa's environment for present and future generations.
The concept of ``sustainable development'' has been advanced
specifically to ensure the integration of social, economic, and
environmental factors in development strategies and associated
knowledge systems.\7\ Mapping out strategic options for Africa's
economic renewal will therefore need to be undertaken in the context of
sustainable development strategies and action plans.
There is widespread awareness of rapid scientific advancement and
the availability of scientific and technical knowledge worldwide. This
growth feeds on previous advances and inner self-propelling momentum.
In fact, the spread of scientific knowledge in society is eroding
traditional boundaries between scientists and the general public. The
exponential growth in knowledge is also making it possible to find low-
cost, high-technology solutions to persistent problems.
Life sciences are not the only areas where research could
contribute to development. Two additional areas warrant attention. The
continent's economic future crucially depends on the fate and state of
its infrastructure, whose development will depend on the contributions
of engineering, materials, and related sciences. It is notable that
these fields are particularly underdeveloped in Africa and hence could
benefit from specific missions that seek to use local material in
activities such as road construction and maintenance. Other critical
pieces involve expanding the energy base through alternative energy
development programs. This sector is particularly important because of
Africa's past investments, its available human resources, and its
potential to stimulate complementary industries that provide parts and
services to the expansion of the sector. Exploiting these opportunities
requires supporting policies.
Advances in science and technology will therefore make it possible
for humanity to solve problems that have previously been in the realms
of imagination. This is not a deterministic view of society but an
observation of the growth of global knowledge and the feasibility of
new technical combinations that are elicited by social consciousness.
This view would lead to the conclusion that Africa has the potential to
access more scientific and technical knowledge than the more advanced
countries had in their early stages of industrialization.
Recent evidence shows the role that investment in research plays in
Africa's agricultural productivity. For example, over the past three
decades Africa's agricultural productivity grew at a much higher rate
(1.8%) than previously calculated, and technical progress, not
efficiency change, was the primary driver of this crucial growth.\8\
This finding reconfirms the critical role of research and development
(R&D) in agricultural productivity. The analysis also lends further
support for the key role pro-trade reforms play in determining
agricultural growth.
Within North Africa, which has experienced the highest of the
continent's average agricultural productivity growth (of 3.6% per
year), Egypt stands out as a technology leader, as the gross majority
of its agricultural growth has been attributable to technical
investments and progress, not efficiency gains. A similar trend
stressing the importance of technical progress and R&D has been seen in
an additional 20 African countries that have experienced annual
productivity growth rates over 2%.
This evidence shows that the adaptive nature of African
agricultural R&D creates shorter gestation lags for the payout from R&D
when compared to basic research. This makes the case for further
investment even more important.\9\ On the whole, African agricultural
productivity increased on net by 1.4% in the 1970s, 1.7% in the 1980s,
and 2.1% in the 1990s. While growth in these decades can be attributed
largely to major R&D investments made in the 1970s, declines in
productivity growth in the 2000s are attributed to decreased R&D
investments in the late 1980s and 1990s. With an average rate of return
of 33% for 1970-2004, sustained investment in adaptive R&D is
demonstrated to be a crucial element of agricultural productivity and
growth.
Evidence from other regions of the world tells the same story in
regard to specific crops. For example, improvements in China's rice
production illustrate the significant role that technical innovation
plays in agricultural productivity. Nearly 40% of the growth in rice
production in 13 of China's rice growing provinces over the 1978-84
period can be accounted for by technology adoption. Institutional
reform could explain 35% of the growth. Nearly all the growth in the
subsequent 1984-90 period came from technology adoption. These findings
suggest that the impact of institutional reform, though significant,
has previously been overstated.\10\ The introduction of new
agricultural technologies went hand in hand with institutional reform.
Chinese agriculture has grown rapidly during the past several
decades, with most major crops experiencing increased yield, area
harvested, and production. Between 1961 and 2004, maize, cotton, wheat,
and oilseed production had an average growth rate of 4% per annum,
while rice production growth was 2.8% per annum. However, the growth
rates for wheat crops in terms of area harvested, yield, and production
were less than 1% per annum between 1961 and 2004. A decomposition of
the sources of wheat production growth indicates that growth between
1961 and 2004 was primarily driven by yield growth, with modest
contribution from crop area. In the case of North Korea, achieving
self-sufficiency in food production has been one of the most important
objectives of its economic strategy. Even so, the period between 1961
and 2004 saw minimal growth in area harvested for rice and soybeans and
negative growth for maize and wheat.\11\
Since the early 1960s, South Korea has transformed itself from a
low-income agrarian economy into a middle-income industrialized
``miracle,'' and the agricultural sector in South Korea has not been
immune to the tremendous structural change. The decline in production
in South Korea has continually been driven by area contraction, whereas
increased production was driven primarily by yield change in some cases
and by area change in other instances. In an environment of poor
natural resources and subsequent encroachment of the industrial and
services sector on agriculture, Taiwan has experienced negative growth
rates of rice, wheat, and oilseed area harvested from 1961 until 2004.
In most cases, production growths were due to increased yields and
production decreases were due to contractions in crop area.
Generic or Platform Technologies
Information and Communications Technologies
While information and communication technologies in industrialized
countries are well developed and historically established, ICTs in
developing countries have traditionally been ``based on indigenous
forms of storytelling, song and theater, the print media and radio.''
\12\ Despite Africa's current deficiency in more modern modes of
communication and information sharing, the countries benefit greatly
from the model of existing technologies and infrastructure.
In addition to the specific uses that will be explored in the rest
of this section, ICTs have the extremely significant benefit of
providing the means for developing countries to contribute to and
benefit from the wealth of knowledge and research available in, for
example, online databases and forums. The benefits of improved
information and communication technologies range from enhancing the
exchange of inter- and intra-continental collaborations to providing
agricultural applications through the mapping of different layers of
local landscapes.
Mobile Technology
Sub-Saharan Africa has 10 times as many mobile phones as landlines
in operation, providing reception to over 60% of the population. Much
of this growth in cell phone use--as much as 49% annually from 2002
through 2007--coincided with economic growth in the region. It is
estimated that every 10% growth in mobile phones can raise up to 1.5%
in GDP growth. There are five ways in which mobile phone access boosts
microeconomic performance: reducing search costs and therefore
improving overall market efficiency, improving productive efficiency of
firms, creating new jobs in telecommunications-based industries,
increasing social networking capacity, and allowing for mobile
development projects to enter the market.\13\
Mobile phones cut out the opportunity costs, replacing several
hours of travel with a two-minute phone call and also allow firms and
producers to get up-to-date information on demand. They also
redistribute the economic gains and losses per transaction between
consumers and producers. This reduction in the costs of information
gathering creates an ambiguous net welfare gain for consumers,
producers, and firms. Similarly, mobile phones make it easier for
social networks to absorb economic shocks. Family and kinship
relationships have always played an important role in African society,
and mobile phones strengthen this already available ``social
infrastructure,'' allowing faster communication about natural
disasters, epidemics, and social or political conflicts.
The use of more mobile phones creates a demand for additional
employment. For instance, formal employment in the private transport
and communications sector of Kenya rose by 130% between 2003 and 2007,
as mobile phone use rose about 49% annually during that period. While
there is a measurable growth in formal jobs, such as hotline operators
who deliver information on agricultural techniques, there is also
growth in the informal sector, including the sale of phone credit and
``pay-as-you-go'' phones, repair and replacement of mobile phone
hardware, and operation of phone rental services in rural areas. New
employment opportunities also come through the mobile development
industry.
Africa's advantage over countries like the United States in
avoiding unnecessary infrastructure costs is especially exemplified in
the prevalence of mobile technologies, which have replaced outdated
landline connectivity. Mobile phones have a proven record in
contributing to development, as illustrated by the associated rise in
the rate of mobile phone use, averaging 65% annually over the last five
years.\14\ Because mobile phones are easy to use and can be shared,
this mobility has revolutionized and facilitated processes like banking
and disease surveillance.
The potential and current uses of mobile technology in the
agricultural sector are substantial and varied. For instance, local
farmers often lacked the means to access information regarding weather
and market prices making their job more difficult and decreasing their
productivity. With cellular phones comes cheap and convenient access to
information such as the cost of agricultural inputs and the market
prices for crops.
The desire for such information has led to the demand for useful
and convenient mobile phone-based services and applications: ``New
services such as AppLab, run by the Grameen Foundation in partnership
with Google and the provider MTN Uganda, are allowing farmers to get
tailored, speedy answers to their questions. The initiative includes
platforms such as Farmer's Friend, a searchable database of
agricultural information, Google SMS, a question and answer texting
service and Google Trader, a SMS-based `marketplace' application that
helps buyers and sellers find each other.'' \15\ Applications such as
these coupled with the increased usage of cellular phones have reduced
the inefficiencies and unnecessary expenses of travel and
transportation.
Simple services like text messaging have likewise led to an
expansion of access and availability of knowledge. This service has
been enhanced by nonprofit Kiwanja.Net's development of a software
package allowing the use of text message services where there is no
Internet, so long as one has a computer. Other advantages include the
ability to set up automatic replies to messages using keywords (for
example, in the case of a scheduled vaccination). Nongovernmental
organization (NGO) managers, doctors, and researchers around the world
have enthusiastically picked up this technology and used it to solve
their communication challenges--from election monitoring, to
communicating health and agricultural updates, to conducting surveys,
to fund-raising--the list is endless.
From opening access to research institutes to facilitating business
transactions, few technologies have the potential to revolutionize the
African agricultural sector as much as the Internet. The demand for
Internet service in Africa has been shown in the large increases in
Internet usage (over 1,000% between 2000 and 2008) and through the
fiber-optic cable installed in 2009 along the African east coast by
Seacom. In 2010 MaIN OnE launched a new cable to serve the west coast
of Africa. Just as with mobile phones, the Internet will have a
transformative impact on the operations of businesses, governments,
NGOs, farmers, and communities alike.
Until recently Africa was served by an undersea fiber-optic cable
only on the west coast and in South Africa. The rest of the continent
relied on satellite communication. The first undersea fiber-optic
cable, installed by Seacom, reached the east African coast in July
2009. The US$600 million project will reduce business costs, create an
e-commerce sector, and open up the region to foreign direct investment.
New industries that create content and software are likely to
emerge. This will in turn stimulate demand for access devices. A decade
ago it cost more than US$5,000 to install one km of standard fiber-
optic cable. The price has dropped to less than US$300. However, for
Africa to take advantage of the infrastructure, the cost of bandwidth
must decline. Already, Internet service providers are offering more
bandwidth for the same cost. For example, in 2009 MTN Business in South
Africa cut the cost of bandwidth by up to 50%.
Access to broadband is challenging Africa's youth to demonstrate
their creativity and the leaders to provide a vision of the role of
infrastructure in economic transformation. The emergence of Safaricom's
M-PESA service--a revolutionary way to transmit money by mobile
phones--is an indicator of great prospects for using new technologies
for economic improvement.\16\ In fact, these technologies are creating
radically new industries such as branchless banks that are
revolutionizing the service sector.\17\
The diffusion of GIS is creating new opportunities for development
in general and Africa in particular, with regard to agriculture.\18\ An
example of the potential GIS has for agriculture is the digitalization
of more than 20 million land records under the Bhoomi Project in
India's State of Karnataka, which led to improved and more available
information on land rights and land use innovation. But the
implications of the Bhoomi Project did not just stop here. Because of
the availability of such geospatial information, bankers became more
inclined to provide crop loans and land disputes began declining,
allowing farmers to invest in their land without fear. The success of
this project has inspired the government of India to establish the
National Land Records Modernisation Programme to do the same for the
entire country.\19\ Not only does this show the applicability and
usefulness of information technologies in agriculture, but it also
provides an option to be considered by African countries.
Unlike biotechnology and nanotechnology, ICT and GIS do not have as
much risk of being overregulated or reviled for being a great unknown.
However, regulation of ICT and GIS will be necessary--and keeping
clients and users secure will be a challenge as more and more of Africa
becomes connected to the international network. Balancing privacy with
the benefits of sharing knowledge will probably be one of the largest
challenges for these sectors, especially between countries and
companies.
When introducing new technologies in the field, policy makers
should consider ones that are low cost and easily accessible to the
farmers who will use them. They should ideally capitalize on techniques
that farmers already practice and involve support for scaling up and
out, rather than pushing for expensive and unfamiliar practices.
New technologies should also allow farmers to be flexible according
to their own capacities, situations, and needs. They should require
small initial investments and let farmers experiment with the
techniques to decide their relative success. If farmers can achieve
success with a small investment early on, they are likely to devote
more resources to the technique later as they become committed to the
practice. An example of this type of technological investment is the
planting pits that increased crop production and fostered more
productive soil for future years of planting.
Mobile technologies are poised to influence a wide range of
sectors. For example, by 2011 the One Laptop per Child (OLPC)
Foundation had provided about two million rugged, low-cost, low-power
XO laptops to school children around the world. The laptops come with
software and content designed to foster collaborative and interactive
child-centered learning. Advances in complementary technologies and
increased availability of digital books will make education more
mobile. Learning will no longer be restricted to classrooms. Emerging
trends in mobile technology will also transform heath care. Portable
ultrasound devices produced by firms such as General Electric,
SonoSite, and Masimo will help to reduce the cost of health care.
Technological convergence will also simplify the use of new
technologies and make them more widely accessible.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology-technology applied to biological systems--has the
promise of leading to increased food security and sustainable forestry
practices, as well as improving health in developing countries by
enhancing food nutrition. In agriculture, biotechnology has enabled the
genetic alteration of crops, improved soil productivity, and enhanced
natural weed and pest control. Unfortunately, such potential has
largely remained untapped by African countries.
In addition to increased crop productivity, biotechnology has the
potential to create more nutritious crops. About 250 million children
suffer from vitamin A deficiency, which weakens their immune systems
and is the biggest contributor to blindness among children.\20\ Other
vitamins, minerals, and amino acids are necessary to maintain healthy
bodies, and a deficiency will lead to infections, complications during
pregnancy and childbirth, and impaired child development. Biotechnology
has the potential to improve the nutritional value of crops, leading
both to lower health care costs and higher economic performance (due to
improved worker health).
Tissue culture has not only helped produce new rice varieties in
Africa but has also helped East Africa produce pest- and disease-free
bananas at a high rate. The method's ability to rapidly clone plants
with desirable qualities that are disease-free is an exciting prospect
for current and future research on improved plant nutrition and
quantities. Tissue culture has also proved to be useful in developing
vaccines for livestock diseases, especially the bovine disease
rinderpest. Other uses in drug development are currently being
explored.
Tissue culture of bananas has had a great impact on the economy of
East African countries since the mid-1990s. Because of its
susceptibility to disease, banana has always been a double-edged sword
for the African economies like that of Uganda, which consumes a per
capita average of one kilogram per day. For example, when the Black
Sigatoka fungus arrived in East Africa in the 1970s, banana
productivity decreased as much as 40%. Tissue culture experimentation
allowed for quick generation of healthy plants and was met with great
success. Since 1995, Kenyan banana production has more than doubled,
from 400,000 to over one million tons in 2004, with average yield
increasing from 10 tons per hectare to 30-50 tons.
Marker-assisted selection helps identify plant genome sections
linked to genes that affect desirable traits, which allows for the
quicker formation of new varieties. This technique has been used not
only to introduce high-quality protein genes in maize but also to breed
drought-tolerant plant varieties. An example of a different application
of this method has been the development of maize resistant to Maize
streak virus. While the disease has created a loss of 5.5 million tons
per year in maize production, genetic resistance is known and has the
potential of greatly raising production. The uptake of genetically
modified (GM) crops is the fastest adoption rate of any crop
technology, increasing from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 134 million
hectares in 2009, and an 80-fold increase over the period.\21\
Recent increases among early adopting countries have come mainly
from the use of ``stacked traits'' (instead of single traits in one
variety or hybrid). In 2009, for example, 85% of the 35.2 million
hectares of maize grown in the United States was genetically modified,
and three-quarters of this involved hybrids with double or triple
stacked traits. Nearly 90% of the cotton growth in the United States,
Australia, and South Africa is GM and, of that, 75% has double-stacked
traits.
In 2009, there were 14 million farmers growing GM crops in 25
countries around the world, of whom over 90% were small and resource-
poor farmers from developing countries. Most of the benefits to such
farmers have come from cotton. For example, over the 2002-08 period,
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton added US$5.1 billion worth of value
to Indian farmers, cut insecticide use by half, helped to double yield
and turned the country from a cotton importer into a major
exporter.\22\
Africa is steadily joining the biotechnology revolution. South
Africa's GM crop production in corn stood at 2.1 million hectares in
2009, an increase of 18% over the previous year. Burkina Faso grew
115,000 hectares of Bt cotton the same year, up from 8,500 in 2008.
This was the fastest adoption rate of a GM crop in the world that year.
In 2009, Egypt planted nearly 1,000 hectares of Bt maize, an increase
of 15% over 2008.\23\
African countries, by virtue of being latecomers, have had the
advantage of using second-generation GM seed. Monsanto's
GenuityTM Bollgard II' (second generation) cotton
contains two genes that work against leaf-eating species such as
armyworms, budworms, bollworms, and loopers. They also protect against
cotton leaf perforators and saltmarsh caterpillars. Akin to the case of
mobile phones, African farmers can take advantage of technological
leapfrogging to reap high returns from transgenic crops while reducing
the use of chemicals. In 2010 Kenya and Tanzania announced plans to
start growing GM cotton in view of the anticipated benefits of second-
generation GM cotton. The door is now open for revolutionary adoption
of biotechnology that will extend to other crops as technological
familiarity and economic benefits spread.
There is also a rise in the adoption of GM crops in Europe. In
2009, six European countries (Spain, Czech Republic, Portugal, Romania,
Poland, and Slovakia) planted commercial Bt maize. Trends in Europe
suggest that future decisions on GM crops will be driven by local needs
as more traits become available. For example, crops that tolerate
various stresses such as drought are likely to attract interest among
farmers in Africa. The Water Efficient Maize for Africa project,
coordinated by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation in
collaboration with the International Centre for the Improvement of
Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT) and Monsanto and support from the Howard
Buffett Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is an
example of such an initiative that also brings together private and
public actors.\24\
This case also represents new efforts by leading global research
firms to address the concerns of resource-poor farmers, a subtheme in
the larger concern over the contributions of low-income consumers.\25\
Other traits that improve the efficiency of nitrogen uptake by crops
will also be of great interest to resource-poor farmers. Other areas
that will attract interest in developing new GM crops will include the
recruitment of more tree crops into agriculture and the need to turn
some of the current grains into perennials.\26\
Trends in regulatory approvals are a good indicator of the future
of GM crops. By 2009, some 25 countries had planted commercial GM crops
and another 32 had approved GM crop imports for food and feed use and
for release into the environment. A total of 762 approvals had been
granted for 155 events (unique DNA recombinations in one plant cell
used to produce entire GM plants) for 24 crops. GM crops are accepted
for import in 57 countries (including Japan, the United States, Canada,
South Korea, Mexico, Australia, the Philippines, the European Union
(EU), New Zealand, and China). The majority of the events approved are
in maize (49) followed by cotton (29), canola (15), potato (10), and
soybean (9).\27\
Because of pest attacks, cotton was, until the early 1990s, the
target of 25% of worldwide insecticide use.\28\ Recombinant DNA
engineering of a bacterial gene that codes for a toxin lethal to
bollworms resulted in pest-resistant cotton, increasing profit and
yield while reducing pesticide and management costs.\29\ Countries like
China took an early lead in adopting the technology and have continued
to benefit from reduced use of pesticides.\30\
While GM crops have the potential to greatly increase crop and
livestock productivity and nutrition, a popular backlash against GM
foods has created a stringent political atmosphere under which tight
regulations are being developed. Much of the inspiration for
restrictive regulation comes from the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.\31\ The
central doctrine of the Cartagena Protocol is the ``precautionary
principle'' that empowers governments to restrict the release of
products into the environment or their consumption even if there is no
scientific evidence that they are harmful.
These approaches differ from food safety practices adopted by the
World Trade Organization (WTO) that allow government to restrict
products when there is sufficient scientific evidence of harm.\32\
Public perceptions are enough to trigger a ban on such products. Those
seeking stringent regulation have cited uncertainties such as
horizontal transfer of genes from GM crops to their wild relatives.
Others have expressed concern that the development of resistance to
herbicides in GM crops results in ``super-weeds'' that cannot be
exterminated using known methods. Some have raised fears about the
safety of GM foods to human health. Other concerns include the fear
that farmers would be dependent on foreign firms for the supply of
seed.\33\
The cost of implementing these regulations could be beyond the
reach of most African countries.\34\ Such regulations have extended to
African countries, and this tends to conflict with the great need for
increased food production. As rich countries withdraw funding for their
own investments in agriculture, international assistance earmarked for
agricultural science has diminished.\35\
In June 1999, five European Union members (Denmark, Greece, France,
Italy, and Luxembourg) formally declared their intent to suspend
authorization of GM products until rules for labeling and traceability
were in place. This decision followed a series of food-related
incidents such as ``mad cow disease'' in the UK and dioxin
contamination in Belgium. These events undermined confidence in
regulatory systems in Europe and raised concerns in other countries.
Previous food safety incidents tended to shape public perceptions over
new scares.\36\ In essence, public responses reactions to the GM foods
were shaped by psychological factors.\37\ Much of this was happening in
the early phases of economic globalization when risks and benefits were
uncertain and open to question, including the very moral foundations of
economic systems.\38\
Much of this debate occurred at a time of increased awareness about
environmental issues and there had been considerable investment in
public environmental advocacy to prepare for the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. These
groups teamed up with other groups working on issues such as consumer
protection, corporate dominance, conservation of traditional farming
practices, illegal dumping of hazardous waste, and promotion of organic
farming to oppose the introduction of GM crops. The confluence of
forces made the opposition to GM crops a global political challenge,
which made it easier to try to seek solutions through multilateral
diplomatic circles.
The moratorium was followed by two important diplomatic
developments. First, the EU used its influence to persuade its trading
partners to adopt similar regulatory procedures that embodied the
precautionary principle. Second, the United States, Canada, and
Argentina took the matter to the WTO for settlement in 2003.\39\ Under
the circumstances, African countries opted for a more restrictive
approach partly because they had stronger trade relations with the EU
and were therefore subject to diplomatic pressure. Their links with the
United States were largely through food aid programs.\40\
In 2006, the WTO issued its final report on the dispute; the
findings were largely on procedural issues and did not resolve the root
cause of the debate such as the role of the ``precautionary principle''
in WTO law and whether GM foods were substantially equivalent to their
traditional counterparts.\41\ But by then a strong anti-biotechnology
culture had entrenched itself in most African countries.\42\ For
example, even after developing a GM potato resistant to insect damage,
Egypt refused to approve it for commercial use. This resistance grew to
the point that Africa ceased to accept unmilled GM maize from the
United States as food aid. A severe drought in 2001-02 left 15 million
Africans with severe food shortages; countries like Zimbabwe and Zambia
turned down shipments of GM maize, fearing that the kernels would be
planted instead of eaten. Unlike the situation in rich countries, GM
foods in developing countries have the potential to revolutionize the
lots of suppliers and consumers. In order to take full advantage of the
many potentials of biotechnology in agriculture, Africa should consider
whether aversion to and overregulation of GM production are
warranted.\43\
In Nigeria, the findings of a study on biotechnology awareness
demonstrate that while respondents have some awareness of biotechnology
techniques, this is not the case for biotechnology products.\44\ Most
of the respondents are favorably disposed to the introduction of GM
crops and would eat GM foods if they are proven to be significantly
more nutritious than non-GM foods. The risk perception of the
respondents suggests that although more people are in favor of the
introduction of GM crops, they, however, do not consider the current
state of Nigeria's institutional preparedness satisfactory for the
approval and release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
However, it is important to consider that African farmers will not
grow successful crops if prices are low or dropping. Additionally,
complications with regulation and approval of GM crops make obtaining
commercial licenses to grow certain crops difficult. Also, neighboring
countries must often approve similar legislation to cover liabilities
that might arise from cross-pollination by wind-blown pollen, for
example. Biosafety regulations often stall developments in the research
of GM crops and could have negative impacts on regional trade.\45\
For these reasons, approval and use of potentially beneficial crops
are often difficult. However, despite potential setbacks, biotechnology
has the potential to provide both great profits and the means to
provide more food to those who need it in Africa. Leaders in the food
industry in parts of Africa prefer to consider the matter on a case-by-
case basis rather adopt a generic approach to biosafety.\46\ In fact,
the tendency in regulation of biotechnology appears to follow more
divergence paths reflecting unique national and regional
attributes.\47\ This is partly because regulatory practices and trends
in biotechnology development tend to co-evolve as countries seek a
balance between the need to protect the environment and human safety
and fostering technological advancement.\48\
Advancements in science have allowed scientists to insert
characteristics of other plants into food crops. Since the introduction
of GM crops in 1996, over 80%-90% of soybean, corn, and cotton grown in
the United States today comes from GM crops. Despite their widespread
use, there are limited data on their environmental, economic, and
social impact.\49\
Herbicide-resistance GM crops have fewer adverse effects on the
environment than natural crops, but often at the cost of farming
efficiency. The growth of most crops requires the use of toxic chemical
herbicides, but GM crops utilize an organic compound called
glyphosphate to combat weeds. While less dangerous toxins are entering
the environment, weeds are developing a resistance to glyphosphate in
soybean, corn, and cotton crops, reducing farming efficiency and
raising prices on these goods.
GM corn and cotton have helped reduce the amount of insecticides
entering the environment. Insecticides are harmful to most insects,
regardless of their impact, positive or negative, on crops. Genetically
engineered corn and cotton produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins,
which kill the larvae of beetles, moths, and flies. New genetic hybrids
are introduced frequently to reduce the threat of a Bt resistant pest.
Since 1996, insecticide use has decreased while Bt corn use has grown
considerably. While the environmental benefits are clear, GM crops pose
a threat to farmers who rely on nonengineered crops. Interbreeding
between crops is difficult to stop, so regulatory agencies must set
clear standards on how much GM material is allowed to be present in
organic crops.
The rapid adoption of GM crops seems to indicate that they offer
great economic benefits for farmers. In general, farmers experience
lower production costs and higher yields because weed control is
cheaper and fewer losses are sustained from pests. GM crops are safer
to handle than traditional chemical pesticides and herbicides,
increasing worker safety and limiting the amount of time workers spend
in the field. While the supply-side benefits for farmers are clear, it
is not completely understood how genetic modification affects the
market value for these crops. Holding technological achievement
constant, any gains tend to dissipate over time.
The United States has benefited by being among the first adopters
of GM crops. In a similar vein, it is not clear what economic effects
planting GM crops will have on farmers who do not adopt the technology.
Livestock farmers are one of the largest customers of corn and soybean
for feed and should receive the largest benefits of the downward
pressure on prices from transgenic crops, yet no study has been
conducted on such effects. Similarly, it is possible that the growing
use of GM crops leaves many pests resistant to chemicals to ravage the
fields of nonadopters, forcing them to use higher concentrations of
dangerous chemicals or more expensive forms of control. In the future,
new public policy will be needed to develop cost-effective methods of
controlling the growing weed resistance to glyphosphate.
It is important to recognize that developing countries face a
separate set of risks from those of industrialized countries. For
example, new medicines could have different kinds and levels of
effectiveness when exposed simultaneously to other diseases and
treatments. Similarly, ``new technologies may require training or
monitoring capacity which may not be locally available, and this could
increase risks associated with the technology's use.'' \50\ This has
been demonstrated where a lack of training in pesticide use has led to
food contamination, poisoning, and pesticide resistance. In addition,
the lack of consistent regulation, product registration, and effective
evaluation are important factors that developing Africa will need to
consider as it continues its exploration of these platform
technologies. Probably the most significant research and educational
opportunities for African countries in biotechnology lie in the
potential to join the genomics revolution as the costs of sequencing
genomes drop. When James Watson, co-discover of the DNA double-helix,
had his genome sequenced in 2008 by 454 Life Sciences, the price tag
was US$1.5 million. A year later a California-based firm, Applied
Biosystems, revealed that it has sequenced the genome of a Nigerian man
for under US$60,000. In 2010 another California-based firm, Illumina,
announced that it had reduced the cost to about US$20,000.
Dozens of genomes of agricultural, medical, and environmental
importance to Africa have already been sequenced. These include human,
rice, corn, mosquito, chicken, cattle, and dozens of plant, animal, and
human pathogens. The challenge facing Africa is building capacity in
bioinformatics to understanding the location and functions of genes. It
is through the annotation of genomes that scientists can understand the
role of genes and their potential contributions to agriculture,
medicine, environmental management, and other fields. Bioinformatics
could do for Africa what computer software did for India. The field
would also give African science a new purpose and help to integrate the
region into the global knowledge ecology. This opportunity offers
Africa another opportunity for technological leapfrogging.
Nanotechnology
Of the four platform technologies discussed in this chapter,
nanotechnologies are the least explored and most uncertain.
Nanotechnology involves the manipulation of materials and devices on a
scale measured by the billionths of a meter. The results of research in
nanotechnology have produced substances of both unique properties and
the ability to be targeted and controlled at a level unseen previously.
Thus far, applications to agriculture have largely been theoretical,
but practical projects have already been explored by both the private
and public sectors in developed, emerging, and developing
countries.\51\
For example, research has been done on chemicals that could target
one diseased plant in a whole crop. Nanotechnology has the potential to
revolutionize agriculture with new tools such as the molecular
treatment of diseases, rapid disease detection, and enhancement of the
ability of plants to absorb nutrients. Smart sensors and new delivery
systems will help to combat viruses and other crop pathogens. Increased
pesticide and herbicide effectiveness as well as the creation of
filters for pollution create more environmentally friendly agriculture
process. While countries like the United States and China have been at
the forefront of nanoscience research expenditure and publications,
emerging countries have engaged in research on many of the
applications, from water purification to disease diagnosis.
Water purification through nanomembranes, nanosensors, and magnetic
nanoparticles have great, though currently cost prohibitive, potential
in development, particularly in countries like Rwanda, where
contaminated water is the leading cause of death. However, the low
energy cost and high specificity of filtration has lead to a push for
research in water filtration and purification systems like the Seldon
WaterStick and WaterBox. Developed by U.S.-based Seldon Laboratories,
these products require low energy usage to filter various pathogens and
chemical contaminants and are already in use by aid workers in Rwanda
and Uganda.\52\
One of the most promising applications of nanotechnology is low-
cost, energy-efficient water purification. Nearly 300 million people in
Africa lack access to clean water. Water purification technologies
using reverse osmosis are not available in much of Africa, partly
because of high energy costs. Through the use of a ``smart plastic''
membrane, the U.S.-based Dias Analytic Corporation has developed a
water purification system that could significantly increase access to
clean water and help to realize the recent proclamation by the United
Nations that water and sanitation are fundamental human rights.
The capital costs of the NanoClear technology are about half the
cost of using reverse osmosis water purification system. The new system
uses about 30% less energy and does not involve toxic elements. The
system is modular and can be readily scaled up on demand. A first-
generation pilot plant opened in Tampa, Florida, in 2010 to be followed
later in the year by the deployment of the first fully operational
NanoClear water treatment facility in northern China. The example of
NanoClear illustrates how nanotechnology can help provide clean water,
reduces energy usage, and charts an affordable course toward achieving
sustainable development goals.\53\
The potential for technologies as convenient as these would
revolutionize the lifestyles of farmers and agricultural workers in
Africa. Both humans and livestock would benefit from disease-free,
contaminant-free water for consumption and agricultural use.
The cost-prohibitive and time-intensive process of diagnosing
disease promises to be improved by nanotechnological disease
diagnostics. While many researchers have focused on human disease
diagnosis, developed and developing countries alike have placed an
emphasis on livestock and plant pathogen identification in the interest
of promoting the food and agricultural industry. Nanoscience has
offered the potential of convenient and inexpensive diagnosis of
diseases that would otherwise take time and travel. In addition, the
convenient nanochips would be able to quickly and specifically identify
pathogens with minimal false diagnoses. An example of this efficiency
is found in the EU funded Optolab Card project, whose kits allows a
reduction in diagnosis time from 6-48 hours to just 15 minutes.
Technology Monitoring, Prospecting, and Research
Much of the debate on the place of Africa in the global knowledge
economy has tended to focus on identifying barriers to accessing new
technologies. The basic premise has been that industrialized countries
continue to limit the ability of developing countries to acquire new
technologies by introducing restrictive intellectual property rights.
These views were formulated at a time when technology transfer channels
were tightly controlled by technology suppliers, and developing
countries had limited opportunities to identify the full range of
options available to them. In addition, they had limited capacity to
monitor trends in emerging technologies. But more critically, the focus
on new technologies as opposed to useful knowledge hindered the ability
of developing countries to create institutions that focus on harnessing
existing knowledge and putting it to economic use.
In fact, the Green Revolution and the creation of a network of
research institutes under the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) represented an important example of
technology prospecting. Most of the traits used in the early breeding
programs for rice and wheat were available but needed to be adapted to
local conditions. This led to the creation of pioneering institutions
such as CIMMYT in Mexico and the International Rice Research Institute
(IRRI) in the Philippines.\54\
Other countries have used different approaches to monitor,
identify, and harness existing technologies, with a focus on putting
them to commercial use. One such example is the Fundacion Chile,
established in 1974 by the country's Minister for Economic Cooperation,
engineer Raul Saez. The Fundacion Chile was set up as joint effort
between the government and the International Telephone and Telegraph
Corporation to promote research and technology acquisition. The focus
of the institution was to identify existing technologies and match them
to emerging business opportunities. It addressed a larger goal of
helping to diversity the Chilean economy and created new enterprises
based on imported technologies.\55\
But unlike their predecessors who had to manage technological
scarcity, Africa's challenge is managing an abundance of scientific and
technological knowledge. The rise of the open access movement and the
growing connectivity provided by broadband Internet now allows Africa
to dramatically lower the cost of technology searches. But such
opportunities require different technology acquisition strategies.
First, they require the capacity to assess the available knowledge
before it becomes obsolete. Second, such assessments have to take into
account the growing convergence of science and technology.\56\ There is
also an increasing convergence between different disciplines.
Moreover, technology assessments must now take into account social
impacts, a process that demands greater use of the diverse
disciplines.\57\ Given the high rate of uncertainty associated with the
broader impact of technology on environment, it has become necessary to
incorporate democratic practices such as public participation in
technology assessments.\58\ Such practices allow the public to make
necessary input into the design of projects. In addition, they help to
ensure that the risks and benefits of new technologies are widely
shared.
Reliance on imported technology is only part of the strategy.
African countries are just starting to explore ways to increase support
for domestic research. This theme should be at the center of Africa's
international cooperation efforts.\59\ These measures are an essential
aspect of building up local capacity to utilize imported technology.
This insight is important because the capacity to harness imported
technology depends very much on the existence of prior competence in
certain fields. Such competence may lie in national research
institutes, universities, or enterprises. The pace of technology
absorption is likely to remain low in countries that are not making
deliberate efforts to build up local research capacity, especially in
the engineering sciences. One way to address this challenge is to start
establishing regional research funds that focus on specific technology
missions.
Conclusion
The opportunities presented by technological abundance and
diversity as well as greater international connectivity will require
Africa to think differently about technology acquisition. It is evident
that harnessing existing technologies requires a more detailed
understanding of the convergence between science and technology as well
the various disciplines. In addition, it demands closer cooperation
between the government, academia, the private sector, and civil society
in an interactive process. Such cooperation will need to take into
account the opportunities provided by the emergence of Regional
Economic Communities as building blocks for Africa's economic
integration. All the RECs seek to promote various aspects of science,
technology and innovation in general and agriculture in particular. In
effect, it requires that policy makers as well as practitioners think
of economies as innovation systems that evolve over time and adapt to
change. The next chapter will elaborate the idea of innovation systems
and their implications for agricultural development and regional
integration in Africa.
3 Agricultural Innovation Systems
The use of emerging technology and indigenous knowledge to promote
sustainable agriculture will require adjustments in existing
institutions.\1\ New approaches will need to be adopted to promote
close interactions between government, business, farmers, academia, and
civil society. The aim of this chapter is to identify novel
agricultural innovation systems of relevance to Africa. It will examine
the connections between agricultural innovation and wider economic
policies. Agriculture is inherently a place-based activity and so the
chapter will outline strategies that reflect local needs and
characteristics. Positioning sustainable agriculture as a knowledge-
intensive sector will require fundamental reforms in existing learning
institutions, especially universities and research institutes. Most
specifically, key functions such as research, teaching, extension, and
commercialization need to be much more closely integrated.
The Concept of Innovation Systems
Agriculture is considered central to African economies, but it is
treated like other sectors, each with their own distinctive
institutions and with little regard for their relationship with the
rest of the economy.\2\ This view is reinforced by traditional
approaches, which argue that economic transition occurs in stages that
involve the transfer of capital from the agricultural to the industrial
sector. Both the sector and stage approaches conceal important linkages
between agriculture and other sectors of the economy.
A more realistic view is to treat economies as ``systems of
innovation.'' The process of technological innovation involves
interactions among a wide range of actors in society, who form a system
of mutually reinforcing learning activities. These interactions and the
associated components constitute dynamic ``innovation systems.'' \3\
Innovation systems can be understood by determining what within the
institutional mixture is local and what is external. Open systems are
needed, in which new actors and institutions are constantly being
created, changed, and adapted to suit the dynamics of scientific and
technological creation.\4\ The concept of a system offers a suitable
framework for conveying the notion of parts, their interconnectedness,
and their interaction, evolution over time, and emergence of novel
structures. Within countries the innovation system can vary across
localities. Local variations in innovation levels, technology adoption
and diffusion, and the institutional mix are significant features of
all countries.
An innovation system can be defined as 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. The innovation systems concept embraces not only the
science suppliers but the totality and interaction of actors involved
in innovation. It extends beyond the creation of knowledge to encompass
the factors affecting demand for and use of knowledge in novel and
useful ways.\5\
Government, the private sector, universities, and research
institutions are important parts of a larger system of knowledge and
interactions that allows diverse actors with varied strengths to come
together to pursue broad common goals in agricultural innovation. In
many African countries, the state still plays a key role in directing
productive activities. But the private sector is an increasingly
important player in adapting existing knowledge and applying it to new
areas.
The innovation systems concept is derived from direct observations
of countries and sectors with strong records of innovation. It has been
applied to agriculture in developing countries only recently, but it
appears to offer exciting opportunities for understanding how a
country's agricultural sector can make better use of new knowledge and
for designing alternative interventions that go beyond research system
investments.\6\
Systems-based approaches to innovation are not new in the
agricultural development literature. The study of technological change
in agriculture has always been concerned with systems, as illustrated
by applications of the national agricultural research system (NARS) and
the agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) approaches.
However, the innovation systems literature is a major departure from
the traditional studies of technological change that are often used in
NARS- and AKIS-driven research.\7\
The NARS and AKIS approaches, for example, emphasize the role of
public sector research, extension, and educational organizations in
generating and disseminating new technologies. Interventions based on
these approaches traditionally focused on investing in public
organizations to improve the supply of new technologies. A shortcoming
of this approach is that the main restriction on the use of technical
information is not just supply or availability but also the limited
ability of innovative agents to absorb it. Even though technical
information may be freely accessible, innovating agents have to invest
heavily to develop the ability to use the information.
While both the NARS and AKIS frameworks made critical contributions
to the study of technological change in agriculture, they are now
challenged by the changing and increasingly globalized context in which
sub-Saharan African agriculture is evolving. There is need for a more
flexible framework for studying innovation processes in developing-
country agriculture--a framework that highlights the complex
relationships between old and new actors, the nature of organizational
learning processes, and the socioeconomic institutions that influence
these relationships and processes.
The agricultural innovation system maps out the key actors and
their interactions that enable farmers to obtain access to
technologies. The ``farm firm'' is at the center of the agricultural
innovation system framework, and the farmer as the innovator could be
made less vulnerable to poverty when the system enables him to access
returns from his innovative efforts. The agricultural innovation system
framework presents a demand-driven approach to agricultural R&D. This
transcends the perception of the role of public research institutions
as technology producers and farmers as passive users by viewing the
public laboratory-farmer relationships as an interactive process
governed by several institutional players that determine the generation
and use of agricultural innovation. There is opportunity for a
participatory and multi-stakeholders approach to identifying issues for
agricultural R&D, and agricultural technology could thus be developed
with active farmers' participation and understanding of the application
of new technologies. The agricultural innovation system approach as an
institutional framework can be fostered depending on the institutional
circumstances and historical background of the national agricultural
development strategies.\8\
This brings us to the agricultural innovation system (AIS)
framework. The AIS framework makes use of individual and collective
absorptive capabilities to translate information and knowledge into a
useful social or economic activity in agriculture. The framework
requires an understanding of how individual and collective capabilities
are strengthened, and how these capabilities are applied to
agriculture. This suggests the need to focus far less on the supply of
information and more on systemic practices and behaviors that affect
organizational learning and change. The approach essentially unpacks
systemic structures into processes as a means of strengthening their
development and evolution.
Recent discussions of innovation capacity have argued that capacity
development in many countries involves two sorts of tasks. The first is
to create networks of scientific actors around research themes such as
biotechnology and networks of rural actors around development themes
such as dryland agriculture. The second is to build links between these
networks so that research can be used in rural innovation. A
tantalizing possibility is that interventions that unite research-led
and community-based capacity could cost relatively little, add value to
existing investments, meet the needs of the poor, and achieve very high
returns.
Innovation Systems in Action
University-Industry Linkages
Trends in university-industry linkages (UILs) in Nigeria illustrate
three ways in which university-industry collaboration has been
experienced in the Nigerian agro-food processing sector. They are
principal agent demand-driven, multi-stakeholder problem based, and
arms-length consultancy. The examples of university-industry
interactions in these three modes are regarded as glimpses of hope
demonstrating that universities and firms in Nigeria can be made to
work together to build capacity for innovation. However, while the
first two modes have contributed to innovative outcomes involving the
diffusion and commercialization of local R&D results, the third mode
has not engendered innovation.\9\
The first mode of UIL identified as ``principal agent demand-
driven'' is the UNAAB-Nestle Soyabean Popularization and Production
Project which has been a case of interaction between the University of
Agriculture Abeokuta (UNAAB) and Nestle Nigeria since 1999. In this
case Nestle employed UNAAB to help address its challenges in demand for
soybeans. Due to its research and extension activities, UNAAB
presumably has a knowledge advantage over Nestle in the area of local
sourcing of soybeans. Nestle Nigeria employs about 1,800 people and
soybeans are one of its major raw materials used especially for baby
foods. The firm has been the only major external donor and industrial
partner with UNAAB. It is thus plausible to consider the principal
agent in this case of UIL as Nestle, and the driver of the UIL as
demand for soybeans.
The main objective of the UIL is to stimulate sustainable interest
of farmers in soybean production with a view to increasing their
capacity to produce seeds of industrial quality and consequently to
improving their socioeconomic status. The three specific objectives of
the project include ensuring that the soybean becomes acceptable and
properly integrated into the existing farming systems in the
southwestern part of Nigeria; promoting massive production of high
quality grains that would meet the needs and quality standards required
by Nestle Nigeria on a continuous basis; and improving the welfare of
the farmers through the income that could be generated from soybean
production.
The university-industrial linkage can be initially traced to an R&D
partnership under a tripartite agreement for soybean breeding between
UNAAB, the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA),
Ibadan, and Nestle Nigeria in the early 1990s. Nestle Nigeria financed
the soybean breeding project. The aim of the project was to obtain
soybeans of high quality that fit Nestle Nigeria's requirements and
also to produce significantly improved yields. The research team
achieved this objective with the breeding of Soya 1448-2E. This initial
partnership ended in 1996.
Around 1999, Nestle Nigeria came back to ask UNAAB if there could
be ways of further partnership. UNAAB told Nestle that the previous
research collaboration had established that soybeans can also be grown
in southwest Nigeria. UNAAB thus started a project with Nestle Nigeria
on popularization of soybeans in southwest Nigeria. Nestle Nigeria had
previously believed that soybeans can be grown only in northern Nigeria
as it was thought that rain was damaging to soybeans just before
harvest. Though this is generally true, UNAAB had demonstrated that
soybeans could be profitably harvested in spite of the rains in the
southwest.
There are a number of benefits for such university-industry
linkages. Learning by interaction between UNAAB scientists and Nestle
Nigeria farm managers and farmers contributed significantly to building
capacity for innovation especially at the farm level. It produced
improved quality seeds and grains and a new process for growing
soybeans. Nestle Nigeria saved costs by finding alternative to the
inefficient Nestle Nigeria farms located in northern Nigeria and
secured a regular supply of high-quality soybeans from farmers in the
UIL. The system boosted UNAAB's extension activities resulting in the
popularization of its model of soybean cultivation in southwest
Nigeria, which in turn became an important soybean producing region.
Overall, the linkages improved the livelihoods of the people in the
region and enhanced technology adoption for soybean processing,
especially threshing technology.
The second mode of UIL identified as ``multi-stakeholder problem
based'' is the Cassava Flash Dryer Project. The project involved one
large privately owned integrated farm (Godilogo Farm, Ltd.) that had an
extensive cassava plantation and a cassava processing factory; three
universities including the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, the
University of Ibadan, and the University of Port Harcourt; the IITA;
and the Raw Material Research and Development Council (RMRDC).
Cassava is Africa's second most important food staple, after maize,
in terms of calories consumed, and it is widely acknowledged as a crop
that holds great promise for addressing the challenges of food security
and welfare improvement. Nigeria is currently the world largest
producer of cassava. The Presidential Initiative on Cassava Production
and Export (PICPE) was officially launched in 2004. Under PICPE the
government promotes the diversification of the economy through
industrial processing of cassava to add value and achieve significant
export of cassava products. Support for research on cassava processing
and cassava products was a major aspect of PICPE. Through IITA, PICPE
brought together cassava stakeholders to address the challenge of
cassava production and industrial processing, which included the design
and fabrication of a cassava flash dryer.
Though the principle of flash drying is well known in engineering
theory and practice, the principle has so far not been applied in the
design of engineering equipment used in processing indigenous
agricultural crops in Nigeria. This design gap is perhaps because the
engineering properties of most of the Nigerian crops are yet to be
determined. The flash dryers available in the market are designed for
agricultural products that are grown in industrialized countries that
manufacture flash dryers. For example, flash dryers commonly used in
Nigeria were originally designed for drying Irish potatoes or maize.
They are usually modified with the help of foreign technical partners
for use in cassava processing. Attempts to adapt foreign flash dryers
have resulted in considerably low performance and frequent equipment
breakdowns. This was the experience of Godilogo Farms, Ltd. that had
used a flash dryer imported from Brazil, because the design was unable
to handle the drying of cassava to required moisture or water content.
It was not originally designed to handle cassava but temperate root
crops such as Irish potatoes. Efforts by a Brazilian engineer invited
from abroad to adapt the flash dryer to effectively process cassava
failed.
The farm's cassava plantation could supply its cassava processing
factory 250 days of cassava inputs. The farm also has an engineering
workshop or factory for equipment maintenance and components
fabrication.
The main objective of the cassava flash dryer project was to design
and fabricate an efficient cassava flash dryer that can withstand the
stress of the local operating environment. The frustration of Godilogo
Farm with its imported flash dryer motivated the farm's management to
support the cassava flash dryer project. After the farm management was
convinced that the flash dryer research team constituted under the
PICPE-IITA cassava processing research project had a feasible design,
Godilogo Farm made available its engineering facilities and funds for
building a cassava flash dryer in situ at the farm's cassava processing
factory.
The new locally designed and fabricated cassava flash dryer can
produce 250 kilograms of cassava flour per hour. The RMRDC funded the
official commissioning of the new flash dryer at Godilogo Farms, Obudu,
Cross Rivers State, on August 19, 2008. IITA and PICPE provided the
initial funding under the IITA Integrated Cassava Project; the Root and
Tuber Extension Program supported the design team's visit to collect
data from existing flash drying centers; Godilogo paid for the
fabrication of the plant and part sponsorship of the researchers'
living costs; and RMRDC provided logistical support for several trips
by the design team including sponsorship of the commissioning.
The main outcome of the UIL is the celebrated local design and
fabrication of the first medium-sized cassava flash dryer in Nigeria.
The technological learning generated was unprecedented in local
fabrication of agro-food processing equipment, and there is evident
improvement in capacity for innovation in agro-food processing. In the
course of the project, there was interactive learning through
experimentation by the research team. The impact of government policy
through PICPE and government support for the project through RMRDC
demonstrated the crucial role of government as a mediator or catalyst
for UIL and innovation. Knowledge flows and user feedbacks also played
important roles in the success of the university-industry linkage.
Wider Institutional Linkages
Understanding the network relationships and institutional
mechanisms that affect the generation and use of innovation in the
traditional sector is critical for enhancing the welfare of the poor
and overall economic development. Nigeria's development policy
emphasizes making agriculture and industrial production the engine of
growth. In recent years the revitalization of the cocoa industry
through the cocoa rebirth initiative launched in February 2005 has been
a major focus of government.\10\
The program essentially aimed at generating awareness of the wealth
creation potentials of cocoa, promoting increases in production and
industrial processing, attracting youth into cocoa cultivation, and
helping to raise funds for the development of the industry. By applying
the analytical framework of the agricultural system of innovation it is
easier to trace the process of value-addition in the cocoa agro-
industrial system, examining the impact of the cocoa rebirth initiative
and identifying the actors critical for strengthening the cocoa
innovation system in Nigeria.
Cocoa production is a major agricultural activity in Nigeria; and
R&D aimed at improving cocoa production and value-addition has long
existed at the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN) and notable
faculties of agriculture in Nigerian universities and colleges of
agriculture. However, while the export of raw cocoa beans has continued
to thrive, innovation in cocoa production and the industrial processing
of cocoa into intermediate and consumer products have been limited.
The cocoa innovation system in Nigeria is still relatively weak.
There is a role for policy intervention in stimulating interaction
among critical agents in this agricultural innovation system. In
particular, linkages and interactions between four critical actors
(individual cocoa farmers, cocoa processing firms, CRIN, and the
National Cocoa Development Committee) in the cocoa rebirth program were
identified as being responsible for the widespread adoption of CRIN's
newly developed genetically improved cocoa seedlings capable of a yield
exceeding 1.8 tonnes per hectare per year. This is in stark contrast to
previous experiences of CRIN, which has been unable to commercialize
many of its research findings. Periodic joint review of the activities
of each of these actors and active participation in specific projects
that are of common interest may further innovation especially in value-
addition to cocoa beans.
The adoption and diffusion of improved cocoa seedlings under the
cocoa rebirth initiative thrives on subsidies provided by government.
While subsidies for agricultural production in a developing country
such as Nigeria may not be discouraged, it is important to have a
phased program of subsidy withdrawal on the cocoa seedlings program
when it is certain that farmers have proven the viability and economic
importance of the new variety. This should result in a market-driven
diffusion that will be healthy for the sustainable growth of the cocoa
industry.
Despite success with the diffusion of cocoa seedlings, the findings
show that although export is a major concern of the cocoa processing
firms, and this appeared to have led to close interactions of the firms
with the National Export Promotion Council (NEPC), the export strategy
has not been effectively linked with the cocoa rebirth initiative. In
order to further encourage export by the cocoa processing firms, it
would be good to integrate the NEPC export incentives into the cocoa
rebirth initiative within the cocoa innovation system framework.
Moreover, the NEPC should also adopt an innovation system approach to
export strategy. This would essentially begin by emphasizing
demonstrable innovative activities of firms as an important requirement
for the firms to benefit from export incentives.
The involvement of the financial sector in the cocoa innovation
system is identified as a main challenge. Though the financial sector
is aware of the significance of innovation for a competitive economy,
its response to the cocoa rebirth initiative has been slow due to
perceived relatively low return on investments. It is suggested that
the publicly owned Bank of Industry and the Central Bank of Nigeria
(CBN) should provide leadership in investing in innovative new start-
ups in cocoa processing and in carefully identified innovative ideas or
projects in existing cocoa processing firms. This demonstration should
be carried out in partnership with interested commercial banks with the
CBN guaranteeing the banks' investment in the project. Once the banks
are convinced that innovative initiatives in firms are able to provide
satisfactory returns on investment, they should be open to investing in
such projects.
Skills deficiency is a major constraint on the cocoa innovation
system. The result suggests that skills development in the areas of
cocoa farm management and the operation of modern cocoa processing
machinery would be particularly useful in enhancing cocoa output and
the performance of cocoa processing firms. In this respect, renewed
efforts are needed by the educational and training institutions to
improve on the quality and quantity of skills being produced for cocoa
processing firms.
As part of the cocoa rebirth initiative, special training programs
should be organized for skills upgrading and new skills development
relevant to the cocoa industry. Another important constraint on the
cocoa innovation system arises from the difficulty in implementing the
demand-side aspects of the cocoa rebirth initiative, such as serving
free cocoa beverages in primary schools and using cocoa-based beverages
in government offices, practices that should stimulate innovative
approaches to increased local processing of cocoa and manufacture of
cocoa-based products.
Clusters as Local Innovation Systems
Theory, evidence, and practice confirm that clusters are important
source of innovation.\11\ Africa is placing considerable emphasis on
the life sciences. There is growing evidence that innovation in the
life sciences has a propensity to cluster around key institutions such
as universities, hospitals, and venture capital firms.\12\ This logic
could be extended to thinking about other opportunities for clustering
which include agricultural regions. Essentially, clusters are
geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions
in a particular field. Clusters encompass an array of linked industries
and other entities important to competition. They include, for example,
suppliers of specialized inputs such as components, machinery, and
services, and providers of specialized infrastructure.
Often clusters extend downstream to channels and customers and
laterally to manufacturers of complementary products, as well as to
companies in related industries either by skills, technologies, or
common inputs. Finally, many clusters include governmental and other
institutions--such as universities, standard-setting agencies, think
tanks, vocational training providers, and trade associations--that
provide specialized training, education, information, research, and
technical support.\13\ The co-evolution of all actors supports the
development of dynamic innovation systems, which accelerate and
increase the efficiency of knowledge transfer into products, services,
and processes and promote growth. As clusters enable the flow of
knowledge and information between enterprises and institutions through
networking they form a dynamic self-teaching system and they speed up
innovation. Local knowledge develops that responds to local needs--
something that rivals find hard to imitate.
Although much of the recent literature on clusters focuses on
small- to medium-sized high-tech enterprises in advanced industrial
countries, a smaller school of literature has already begun expanding
the study of clusters to include agricultural innovation. Clusters can
and often do emerge anywhere that the correct resources and services
exist. However, central to the idea of clusters is that positive
``knowledge spillovers'' are more likely to occur between groups and
individuals that share spatial proximity, language, culture, and other
key factors usually tied to geography.
Contrary to scholars who argue that the Internet and other
information technologies have erased most barriers to knowledge
transfer, proponents of cluster theory argue that geography continues
to dominate knowledge development and transfer, and that governments
seeking to spark innovation in key sectors (including agriculture)
should therefore consider how to encourage the formation and growth of
relevant clusters. A key in tuition in this argument is that informal
social interactions and institutions play a central role in building
trust and interpersonal relationships, which in turn increase the speed
and frequency of knowledge, resource, and other input sharing.
In developing countries, clusters are present in a wide range of
sectors and their growth experiences vary widely, from being stagnant
and lacking competitiveness to being dynamic and competitive. This
supports the view that the presence of a cluster does not automatically
lead to positive external effects. There is therefore a need to look
beyond the simple explanation of proximity and cultural factors, and to
ask why some clusters prosper and what specifically explains their
success.
Shouguang Vegetable Cluster, China
China has a long history of economic clusters in sectors as diverse
as silk, porcelain, high technology, and agriculture.\14\ One of
China's most successful agricultural clusters is the vegetable cluster
in Shandong Province. This ``Vegetable City,'' is a leading vegetable
production, trading, and export center. Its 53,000-hectare vegetation
plantation produces about four million tons annually. Shouguang was one
of the poorest areas in the Shandong province until the early 1980s,
when vegetable production started. Today five state- and provincial-
level agricultural demonstration gardens and 21 nonpolluted vegetable
facilities have been established. More than 700 new vegetable varieties
have been introduced from over 30 countries and regions. Shouguang also
hosts China's largest vegetable seed facility aimed at developing new
variety. The facility is co-sponsored by the China Agricultural
University. Over the years, vegetable production increased, leading to
the emergence of an agro-industrial cluster that has helped to raise
per capita income for Shouguang's previously impoverished rural
poor.\15\ The cluster evolved through four distinctive phases.
In the first emergence phase (1978 to 1984) Shouguang authorities
launched programs for massive vegetable planting as a priority for the
local development agenda. Shouguang had three main advantages that
helped it to emerge as a leading vegetable cluster. These included a
long history and tradition of vegetable production, rising domestic and
international demand for vegetables, and higher profits exceeding
revenue from crops such as rice and wheat. In 1983 Shouguang's
vegetable production exceeded 450 tonnes. The local market could not
absorb it all, so about 50 tonnes went to waste. The loss prompted
Shouguang to construct a vegetable market the following year, thereby
laying the foundation for the next phase.
In the second phase of the development of the cluster, local
government officials used their authority to bring more peasants and
clients into the new market. For example, the officials persuaded the
Shengli Oil Field, China's second largest oil base, to become a
customer of Shouguang vegetables. This procurement arrangement
contributed to the market's early growth. The authorities also helped
to set up more than 10 small agricultural product markets around the
central wholesale market, creating a market network in the city. The
markets directly benefited thousands of local farmers. Despite these
developments, high demand for fresh vegetables in winter exceeded the
supply.
The third phase of the development of the cluster was associated
with rapid technological improvements in greenhouses and increased
production. In 1989, Wang Leyi, chief of a village in Shouguang,
developed a vegetable greenhouse for planting in the winter,
characterized by low cost, low pollution, and high productivity. This
inspired peasants to adopt the technology and led to incremental
improvements in the construction and maintenance of greenhouses.
Communication among peasants and the presence of local innovators
helped to spread the new technology. By the end of 1996, Shouguang had
210,000 greenhouses, and the vegetable yield had grown to 2.3 million
tons. The Shouguang government focused on promoting food markets. It
helped to create more than 30 large specialized markets and 40 large
food-processing enterprises. In 1995 the central government authorized
the creation of the ``Green Channel,'' an arrangement for transporting
vegetables from Shouguang to the capital, Beijing. The transportation
and marketing network evolved to include the ``Green Channel,'' the
``Blue Channel'' (ocean shipping), the ``Sky Channel'' (air
transportation), and the ``Internet Channel.''
After 1997 the cluster entered its fourth development phase, which
involved the establishment of international brand names. The
internationalization was prompted by the saturation of domestic markets
and rising nontariff trade barriers such as strict and rigorous
standards. International safety standards and consumer interest in
``green products'' prompted Shouguang to establish 21 pollution-free
production bases. Foreign firms such as the Swiss-based Syngenta
Corporation played a key role in upgrading planting technologies,
providing new seed and offering training to peasants. This was done
through the Shouguang Syngenta Seeds Company, a joint venture between
Syngenta and the local government. Syngenta signed an agreement with
the Ministry of Agriculture's National Agricultural Technical Extension
and Service Center to train farmers in modern techniques. Since 2000,
the one-month (starting April 20) Shouguang vegetable fair has
encapsulated and perpetuated this cluster's many successes and has
become one of China's premier science and technology events.
Rice Cluster in Benin
Entrepreneurship can spur innovations, steer innovation processes,
and compel the creation of an innovation-enabling environment while
giving rise to and sustaining the innovation system. Entrepreneurial
venture is an embedded power that steers institutions, stimulates
learning, and creates or strengthens linkages that constitute the
pillars of innovation systems. The dissemination of New Rices for
Africa (NERICA) in Benin illustrates what can be considered a ``self-
organizing innovation system.'' \16\ Through the unique approach
combining the innovation systems approach and entrepreneurship theory,
this section describes the process by which a class of entrepreneurs
took the lead in the innovation process while creating the basis for a
NERICA-based system of innovation to emerge.
Benin, which is located in West Africa, covers an area of 112,622
square kilometers and has nearly 8.2 million inhabitants. Its landscape
consists mostly of flat to undulating plains but also includes some
hills and low mountains. Agriculture is the predominant basis of the
country's weak economy; although only contributing 32% of the GDP (as
compared to 53.5% of the service sector and 13.7% of the industrial
sector), it employs about 65% of the active population.
Despite relatively favorable production environments, Benin's
domestic production is weak and meets only 10%-15% of the country's
demand for rice. Different people attribute this to different causes,
such as policies and institutions that are not suited to supporting
domestic production against importations or low quality of products.
Irrigation possibilities are not fully exploited, despite the fact that
rice production is traditionally rain-fed. There is also minimum input,
with improper seeding and lack of fertilizers, pesticides, and
herbicides.
NERICA is the brand name of a family of improved rice varieties
specially adapted to the agroecological conditions of Africa. It is a
hybrid that combines the best traits of two rice species: the African
Oryza glaberrima and the Asian Oryza sativa. It has certain advantages
over other species such as high yields, quick maturity, and resistance
to local biotic and abiotic stresses such as droughts and iron
toxicity. It also has 25% higher protein content than international
standard varieties. And it is more responsive to fertilizers. Due to
these advantages, different groups that wanted to change the status quo
of Benin's agriculture sought to introduce NERICA. They included the
government of Benin, the Banque Regionale de Solidarite (BRS), agro-
industrial firms such as Tunde Group and BSSSociete Industrielle pour
la Production du Riz (BSS-SIPRi), as well as nongovernmental entities
such as Songhai, Projet d'Appui au Developpement Rural de l'Oueme
(PADRO), and Vredeseilanden (VECO). These organizations worked closely
together to bring to the task skills, knowledge, and interests that
could not be found in one entity.
A simple introduction of all of these organizations helps to
clarify how they converged on NERICA in their pursuit of agricultural
innovation. Songhai is a socioeconomic and rural development NGO
specializing in agricultural production, training, and research. It
supports an integrated production system that promotes minimal inputs
and the use of local resources. Songhai was one of the first pioneers
of NERICA production in Benin, largely because it was challenged to
endorse a framework conducive to rice production as a profitable
commodity.
Songhai came in contact with BRS as it was seeking to fund skilled,
competent, and innovative economic agents with sound business plans.
Songhai fit the bill perfectly. Tunde Group was NERICA's production hub
and BSS-SIPRi is an enterprise specializing in NERICA seed and paddy
production. PADRO and VECO are NGOs from France and Belgium,
respectively. PADRO worked with the extension agency, farmer
organizations, and micro-finance establishments, and indirectly with
the Ministry of Agriculture. VECO focused on culture, communication,
sustainable agriculture, and food security.
All of these separate organizations came together through NERICA to
challenge Benin's agricultural status quo. Their entrepreneurism not
only directly helped the dissemination of NERICA but also pushed the
Benin government toward policies for agricultural business development.
In February 2008, the government issued a new agricultural development
strategy plan aiming to establish an institutional, legal, regulatory,
and administrative environment conducive to agricultural activities.
What can be learned from the NERICA case is that the dissemination
of this new technology did not follow the conventional process of
assistance programs and government adoption. There was a process of
self-organization through various nongovernmental organizations. Self-
motivated economic entrepreneurs started the process and propelled
innovation. As a result, the private sector was able to push the
government to adopt new policies that would be conducive to these
innovations. These conditions then created more economic opportunities
that drew more self-organized entrepreneurs to the program and thereby
completed a healthy cycle of economic and technological improvement.
This process as a whole can be understood as a ``self-organizing system
of innovation.''
Industrial Clusters in Slovenia
Slovenia has made substantial economic progress since gaining its
independence in 1991. At the end of the 1990s, Slovenia had a stable
macroeconomic environment, with an average annual GDP growth rate of
4.3% and US$15,000 GDP per capita. Today Slovenia has nearly doubled
that GDP per capita to US$27,000 and has jumped ahead of some of the
``old'' EU member state members such as Portugal and Greece. Despite
favorable macroeconomic indicators, in the 1990s the economy depended
on traditional industries with small profit margins and slow growth.
Productivity was more than three times lower than the average
productivity in the EU countries, while economic growth
disproportionately depended on investments in physical assets, not
knowledge or technology. Low education, weak public institutions, and
insufficient social capital led to a shortage of competency, trust, and
willingness to take risks.
In order to speed up the process of change and to stimulate
business innovation, in 1999 the Slovenian Ministry of Economy launched
an entrepreneurship and competitiveness policy.\17\ Clustering was
encouraged between similar and symbiotic firms as a way to increase
knowledge creation and dissemination in key sectors. An initial mapping
of potential clusters was conducted to analyze the geographic
concentration of industries and the existing degree of networking and
innovation systems, including linkages with universities, research
centers, and other traditional centers of innovation.
Although the study revealed generally weak linkages and low levels
of geographic concentration, 10 industries were nonetheless identified
as having potential for cluster development. The cluster development
program was articulated based on three interlinked measures:
encouraging cooperation and networking between companies and R&D
institutions; strengthening the knowledge, skills, and expertise
required by key development actors (people and institutions) to promote
the development and functioning of clusters; and forming clusters in
practice.
The ministry began by co-financing projects involving companies and
support institutions such as universities in the fields of marketing,
product development, technology improvements, and specialization in
supply chains. Three pilot clusters were supported with the objective
of gaining knowledge and experience before any large-scale program was
launched. The pilots followed a three-phase cluster development
process: the initiation phase in which actors develop a common vision
and devise an action plan for its implementation; an early growth phase
when they implement the action plan and develop the platforms needed
for the final phase; a final phase focused on R&D and
internationalization. The model developed by pilots proved to be
acceptable to the Slovenian environment, and a full-scale program was
launched. Government financing was provided for the first year and then
extended for two more years to those clusters with the best strategies.
The government financial support was mainly used for R&D activities and
training.
The government eventually supported 17 clusters. More than 400
firms and 100 business support institutions, universities, and research
institutions participated with more than 66,500 employees. A total of
240 innovative projects have been launched as part of cluster
initiatives in the areas of R&D between small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) and academic institutions, specialization in the
value chain, internationalization, standardization, and training. At
the beginning, the most important projects were focused on
strengthening the cooperation between companies along the value chain
and later on research and innovation. Almost all the clusters have
internationalized and connected with foreign networks and clusters in
less than two years. In 2006, the cluster program was completed. More
demanding technology and research-oriented programs were launched to
target specific technology, research, and science fields. Almost all of
these post-2006 projects emerged from clustering activities.
Clusters provide crucial formal and informal linkages that increase
trust among diverse actors, leading to greater exchange of individuals
and ideas and key cooperation in areas no single firm or institution
could achieve on its own. Despite advances in telecommunications,
innovation in many sectors continues to be generated by and most easily
transmitted between geographically proximate actors.
As farmer productivity is often constrained by lack of appropriate
technology or access to best practice knowledge, inputs, and services,
clusters may be able to provide pronounced benefits in the agro-sector.
Certain types of clusters may have a more direct impact on poverty.
These are the clusters in rural areas and in the urban informal
economy; clusters that have a preponderance of SMEs, micro-enterprises,
and home workers; clusters in labor-intensive sectors in which barriers
to entry for new firms and new workers are low; and clusters that
employ women, migrants, and unskilled labor.
In many African countries the agricultural sector is dominated by
family-based small-scale planting. This structure slows down the
diffusion and adoption of information and modern technology, a key
driver of agricultural productivity and net growth. One of the main
challenges is therefore to enhance technology transfer from knowledge
producers to users in the rural regions where small-scale household
farming dominates. Clusters can overcome these shortcomings by creating
the linkages and social capital needed to foster innovation and
technology transfer. However, clusters are not a cure-all for African
agricultural innovation, and we must therefore look closely at the
conditions under which clusters can work, the common stages of their
development, and key factors of their success.
Clusters cannot be imposed on any landscape. They are most likely
to form independently or to succeed once seeded by government when they
are collocated with key inputs, services, assets, and actors. Clusters
are most likely to form and succeed in regions that already possess the
proper input, as well as in industries that have a dividable production
process and a final product that can be easily transported. Clusters
are also more likely in knowledge or technology-intensive businesses
(like agriculture), where breakthroughs can instigate quick and
significant increases in productivity. Clusters also benefit from
preexisting tightly knit social networks, which provide fertile ground
for more complex knowledge generation and sharing infrastructure.
Policies for Cluster Development
Cluster development could benefit from the experiences outlined
above. In the first phase, governments should lead the formation of
clusters by identifying strategic regions with the right human,
natural, and institutional resources to establish a competitive
advantage in a key sector. Governments can then nurture a quick flow of
investment, ideas, and even personnel from the public sector to private
firms. As government-funded initiatives deliver proof of concept,
governments should make way for private enterprise and give up their
ownership stakes in the burgeoning agro-industries they helped create.
As government involvement decreases, clusters move to formalize the
connections between key actors through producer associations and other
cooperative organizations. Strong bonds formed in the early phases of
cluster formation allow diverse actors to come together on common sets
of standards in key areas of health, safety, and environment. Quality
control and enhanced production are critical for clusters to move
beyond their local markets and into more lucrative national or
international export markets. Despite their decreasing role,
governments can continue to play a key part in this process by putting
in place regulations that ease, rather than obstruct, firms' efforts to
meet complex international health, environmental, and labor standards.
This strong foundation in place, clusters can move to additional
cooperative efforts focused on international marketing and export, and
complex partnerships with large multinational companies. Firms can band
together to accomplish what none of them can do individually: achieve
national and international brand recognition.
Innovation systems likewise cannot be imposed by outside actors and
must have substantial buy-in from local government, business groups,
and citizen groups. Additionally, governments must wrestle with the
possibility that although clusters enhance knowledge generation and
transmission within themselves, strong social and practical connections
within clusters may actually make communications between them less
likely.\18\ Linkages between clusters are therefore critical, and this
is an area in which regional organizations can play a particularly
important role.
Local governments played a critical role in determining initial
potential for clustering by evaluating natural and human resources,
already existing clusters, and markets in which their area might be
able to deliver a competitive advantage. Local governments also
assessed and in many cases fueled popular citizen, business, and public
institutional support for enhanced cooperation, a key precursor for
clusters. As clusters depend on physical and cultural proximity to
encourage knowledge creation and sharing, local governments can
encourage these exchanges between firms, individual producers, NGOs,
and research and academic institutions even before funding has been set
aside for a specific cluster.
While local authorities are best placed to determine the potential
for clusters in specific areas, national governments may be better
positioned (particularly in Africa) to provide the financial and
regulatory support necessary for successful clusters. National
governments use state-owned banks, tax laws, and banking regulations to
encourage loans to businesses and organizations in these key clusters.
They also help finance investments by constructing key infrastructure,
including ports, roads, and telecommunications. Finally, governments
play a key role in responding to pressure from the clusters to create
regulatory frameworks that help them to meet stringent international
environmental, health, and labor standards. National governments can
also play a central role in convincing nationally funded research and
academic institutions to participate actively in clusters with
businesses and individual producers.
While clusters lower barriers to knowledge creation and sharing
within themselves, the opposite may be true across different national
or regional economic activities. This isolation may limit innovation
within clusters, or worse could lead to negative feedback cycles based
on the phenomenon of ``lock-in,'' whereby clusters increasingly focus
on outdated or noncompetitive sectors or strategies.\19\ Regional
institutions and linkages can play a key role in making and maintaining
these external links by supporting the exchange of information, and in
particular personnel, between clusters. In Africa, regional
institutions could also support the idea of regional centers of
excellence based around key specialties--for example, livestock in East
Africa.
The Role of Local Knowledge
Strengthening local innovation systems or clusters will need to
take into account local knowledge, especially given emerging concerns
over climate change.\20\ Farming communities have existed for a
millennium, and long before there were modern agricultural innovations,
these communities had to have ways to manage their limited resources
and keep the community functioning. Communities developed local
leadership structures to encourage participation and the ideal use of
what limited resources were available. In the past few centuries,
colonial intervention and the push for modern methods have often caused
these structures to fail as a result of neglect or active destruction.
However, these traditional organizational mechanisms can be an
important way to reach a community and cause its members to use
innovations or sustainable farming techniques.\21\
While governments and international organizations often overlook
the importance of traditional community structures, they can be a
powerful tool to encourage community members in the use of new
technologies or the revival of traditional methods that are now
recognized as more effective.\22\ Communities retain the knowledge of
and respect for these traditional leadership roles and positions in a
way that outside actors can not, and they will often adopt them as a
way to manage community agricultural practices and learning. It is this
place-based innovation in governance that accounts to a large extent
for institutional diversity.\23\
India's recent reintroduction of the Vayalagams as a means of water
management serves as a good example of how traditional systems can
still serve the local communities in which they originated as a means
of agricultural development and economic sustainability. A long-
standing tradition in India in the pre-colonial period was the use of
village governance structures called Vayalagams to organize and
maintain the use of village water tanks. These tanks were an important
component of rain-fed agriculture systems and provided a reservoir that
helped mitigate the effects of flooding and sustain agriculture and
drinking-water needs throughout the dry season by capturing rainwater.
The Vayalagams were groups of community leaders who managed the
distribution of water resources to maximize resources and
sustainability, and to ensure that the whole community participated in,
and benefited from, the appropriate maintenance of the tanks. Under
British colonial rule, and later under the independent Indian
government, irrigation systems became centralized and communities were
no longer encouraged to use the tanks, so both the physical structures
and the organizations that managed them fell into disrepair.
As the tank-fed systems fell apart and agricultural systems
changed, rural communities began to suffer from the lack of sufficient
water to grow crops. One solution to this problem has been to
revitalize the Vayalagam system and to encourage the traditional
community networks to rebuild the system of tanks. Adopting traditional
methods of community organization has tapped into familiar resources
and allowed the Development of Humane Action (DAHN) Foundation--an
Indian NGO--to rally community ownership of the project and gain
support for rebuilding the system of community-owned and managed water
tanks. The tanks were a defunct system when the DHAN Foundation
incorporated in 2002. Now, the Tank-Fed Vayalagam Agricultural
Development Programme works in 34 communities and has implemented 1,807
micro finance groups that comprise 102,266 members. It funds the
program with a 50% community contribution and the rest from the
foundation. This redeployment of old community organizations has
resulted in rapid proliferation of ideas and recruitment of farmers.
Reforming Innovation Systems
As African countries seek to promote innovation regionally, they
will be forced to introduce far-reaching reforms in their innovation
systems to achieve two important goals. The first will be to
rationalize their research activities in line with the goals of the
Regional Economic Communities (RECs). The second will be to ensure that
research results have an impact on the agricultural productive sector.
Many emerging economies have gone through such reform processes.
China's reform of its innovation system might offer some insights into
the challenges that lie ahead.
Partnerships between research institutes (universities or
otherwise) and industries are crucial to encourage increased research
and promote innovation. Recent efforts in China to reform national
innovation systems serve to demonstrate the importance of ``motivating
universities and research institutes (URIs), building up the innovative
capacities of enterprises, and promoting URI-industry linkages.'' \24\
Before the most recent reforms, China's model mimicked the former
Soviet Union's approach to defense and heavy industry R&D, in which the
system was highly centralized. Reforms allowed for increased
flexibility, providing incentives to research institutes, universities,
and business enterprises to engage in research. The case study of
China's science and technology (S&T) reforms demonstrates the efficacy
of using policy and program reform to increase research, patents,
publications, and other innovations
During the pre-reform period from 1949 to the 1980s, China focused
on military research, carried out for the most part by public research
institutes and very sparingly by universities. Almost all research was
planned and funded by the government with individual enterprises (which
often had their own S&T institutes and organizations) engaging in
little to no research and development.
With the hope of developing the country through education and
research, China created the slogan ``Building the nation through
science and education'' to underscore their 1985 reforms. Efforts were
made to increase university and research institution collaboration with
related business industries, and in the 1990s this was furthered by
motivating universities and institutions to establish their own
enterprises.
Reforms occurred in three stages, the first of which spanned 1985
to 1992. Here, the government initiated reform by encouraging
universities and research institutes (URIs) to bolster their
connections with industry--one method used was to steeply cut the
research budget for universities and other institutes with the goal of
causing the URIs to turn to industry for support and thus facilitate
linkages and partnerships. Additional laws and regulations regarding
patent and technology transfer were passed, and by the end of 1992, 52
high-tech development zones had been set up, with 9,687 enterprises and
a total turnover of renminbi (RMB) 56.3 billion.
From 1992 to 1999, the second stage of reform saw the creation of
the ``S&T Progress Law'' and the ``Climbing Program'' to encourage
research as well as the increased autonomy regarding research given to
URIs. A breakthrough that strengthened partnerships between URIs and
industry was the 1991 endorsement of enterprises that were affiliated
with URIs. Linkages that were encouraged included technical services,
partnerships in development, production, and management, as well as
investment in technology. Vast improvements were seen immediately: from
1997 to 2000, university-affiliated enterprises experienced average
annual sales income growth of 32.3%, with 2,097 high-tech ones emerging
in China with a total net worth of US$3.8 billion by 2000.
During the third stage, starting in 1999, China sought to both
strengthen the national innovation systems and facilitate the
commercialization of R&D results. One key measure was the
transformation of state-owned applied research institutes into high-
tech firms or technical service firms. Of 242 research institutes that
were to be transformed from the former State Committee for Economics
and Trade, 131 merged with corporations (groups), 40 were transformed
into S&T corporations under local governments, 29 were transformed into
large S&T corporations owned by the central government, 18 were
transformed into agencies, and the remaining 24 turned into
universities or were liquidated. A total of 1,149 transformations were
carried out by the end of 2003.
New policies and programs helped bring about changes during the
reform period. The ``Resolution on the Reform of the S&T System,''
released in 1985, aimed to improve overall R&D system management,
including encouraging research personnel mobility and integration of
science and technology into the economy through the introduction of
flexible operating systems. Peer review of projects and performance
brought about a degree of transparency. Reform policies promoted more
flexible management of R&D, technology transfer, linkages between URIs
and industry, and commercialization of high-tech zones.
The many new programs were meant to serve different purposes and
have been shown to be effective in general. One particular program was
extremely important in the high-tech area. The ``863 Program,'' which
was launched in 1986, sought to move the country's overall R&D capacity
to cutting-edge frontiers in priority areas such as biotechnology,
information, automation, energy, advanced materials, marine, space,
laser, and ocean technology. Another goal of the 863 Program was to
promote the education and training of professionals for the 21st
century by mobilizing more than 10,000 researchers for 2,860 projects
every year. An example of another program was ``The Torch Program,''
launched in 1988. By reducing regulation, building support facilities,
and encouraging the establishment of indigenous high-tech firms in
special zones, the program aimed to establish high-tech firms. Success
is evident: ``From 1991 to 2003, 53 national high-tech zones had been
established'' especially in the information technology, biotechnology,
new materials, and new energy technologies industries. ``The national
high-tech zones received RMB 155 billion investments in infrastructure
and hosted 32,857 companies in 2003.'' \25\ It appears that these early
but critical reform efforts have put China on a path that could enable
it to catch up with the industrialized countries in science and
innovation.\26\
Because the ultimate goal of the science and technology reforms in
China were meant to strengthen national innovation systems and promote
innovation activities among the key players in the system, it was
necessary for URIs, industry, and the government to interact. The
impact of the reforms is seen in the stark contrast between the years
1987 and 2003. In 1987, government-funded public research institutes
dominated R&D research, with universities carrying out education and
enterprises involved in restricted innovations in ``production and
prototyping.'' For this reason, URIs found no reason to conduct applied
research or to commercialize their research results.
By 2003, R&D expenditure had risen by more than eightfold. Most
distinctive was the large increase in R&D units, employees, and
expenditures of enterprises. This was brought about in part from the
transformation of 1,003 or 1,149 public research institutes into
enterprises or parts of enterprises. Additionally, after the 1991
endorsement of university-affiliated enterprises, a great expansion
occurred such that by 2004, 4,593 of them existed with annual income of
RMB 97 billion. Another factor was increased competition that created
incentive to engage in R&D. Finally, in general the R&D potential of
the firms has increased as a result of the more supportive environment
resulting from S&T reform.
The increased R&D expenditure from enterprises demonstrates the
overall success of the science and technology reforms. This success is
also seen in the improved URI-industry linkages, as is shown in the
decrease in government spending from 79% in 1985 to 29.9% in 2000. URIs
(either transformed or public ones) have forged close links with the
private sector ``through informal consulting by university researchers
to industry, technology service contracts, joint research projects,
science parks, patent licensing, and URI-affiliated enterprise.'' \27\
Another success from the S&T reform is the great increase in patents
from domestic entities as well as the larger number of publications.
Science and technology reform in China demonstrated the importance
of creating linkages between industry and institutes for research and
education. Despite the great success, there are a few cautionary
lessons to be learned from China's actions. For example, while great
improvements were found in the linkages between URIs and industries,
there has been a lack of focus on science and technology
administration. Because the many governmental and nongovernmental
bodies work independently, there is a danger of inefficiency in the
form of redundancy or misallocation of R&D resources. The reform's
focus on commercializing S&T has also prevented further development of
basic research and other research aimed at public benefit (with such
research stuck at 6% of all research funding). A final concern is the
controversy surrounding university-affiliated enterprises that
emphasize the operation, ownership structure, and the de-linking of
such enterprises from their original parent universities. Critics
believe that commercial goals may hinder other university mandates
about pure academics. When creating comprehensive reform of such
magnitude, one must be careful to take into account these potential
issues.
China's science and technology reforms demonstrate the potential
for expanding research by supporting the formation of URI-industry
partnerships and linkages. The benefits are clear and developing
countries should greatly consider using China's case as a model for the
establishment of similar programs and policies.
African countries can rationalize their research activities through
an entity that can draw lessons from the Brazilian Agricultural
Research Corporation (EMBRAPA). This successful institutional
innovation was designed to respond to a diversity of agricultural needs
over a vast geographical area. It has a number of distinctive features
that include the use of a public corporation model; national scale of
operations in nearly all states; geographical decentralization;
specialized research facilities (with 38 research centers, 3 service
centers, and 13 central divisions); emphasis on human resource
development (74% of 2,200 researchers have doctoral degrees while 25%
have master's training); improvements in remuneration for researchers;
and strategic outlook that emphasizes science and innovation as well as
commercialization of research results.\28\
Conclusion
Agricultural innovation has the potential to transform African
agriculture, but only if strong structures are put in place to help
create and disseminate critical best practices and technological
breakthroughs. In much of Africa, linkages between farmers, fishermen,
and firms and universities, schools, and training centers could be much
stronger. New telecommunications technologies such as mobile phones
have the potential to strengthen linkages, but cluster theory suggests
that geography will continue to matter regardless of new forms of
communication. Groups that are closer physically, culturally, and
socially are more likely to trust one another, exchange information and
assets, and enter into complex cooperative production, processing,
financing, marketing, and export arrangements.
Local, national, and regional authorities must carefully assess
where clusters may prove most successful and lay out clear plans for
cluster development, which can take years if not decades. Local
authorities should focus on identifying potential areas and industries
for successful clusters. National governments should focus on providing
the knowledge, personnel, capital, and regulatory support necessary for
cluster formation and growth. And regional authorities should focus on
linking national clusters to one another and to key related global
institutions. Throughout these processes, public and private
institutions must work cooperatively, with the latter being willing to
transfer knowledge, funding, and even personnel to the private sector
in the early stages of cluster development.
To promote innovation, the public sector could further support
interactions, collective action, and broader public-private partnership
programs. The country studies suggest that from a public sector
perspective, improvements in agricultural innovation system policy
design, governance, implementation, and the enabling environment will
be most effective when combined with activities to strengthen
innovation capacity. Success stories in which synergies were created by
combining market-based and knowledge-based interactions and strong
links within and beyond the value chain point to an innovation strategy
that has to be holistic in nature and focus, in particular, on
strengthening the interactions between key public, private, and civil
society actors.
4 Enabling Infrastructure
Enabling infrastructure (public utilities, public works,
transportation, and research facilities) is essential for agricultural
development. Infrastructure is defined here as facilities, structures,
associated equipment, services, and institutional arrangements that
facilitate the flow of agricultural goods, services, and ideas.
Infrastructure represents a foundational base for applying technical
knowledge in sustainable development and relies heavily on civil
engineering. This chapter outlines the importance of providing an
enabling infrastructure for agricultural development.\1\ Modern
infrastructure facilities will need to reflect the growing concern over
climate change. In this respect, the chapter will focus on ways to
design ``smart infrastructure'' that takes advantage of advances in the
engineering sciences as well as ecologically sound systems design.
Unlike other regions of the world, Africa's poor infrastructure
represents a unique opportunity to adopt new approaches in the design
and implementation of infrastructure facilities.
Infrastructure and Development
Poor infrastructure and inadequate infrastructure services are
among the major factors that hinder Africa's sustainable development.
This view has led to new infrastructure development approaches.\2\
Without adequate infrastructure, African countries will not be able to
harness the power of science and innovation to meet sustainable
development objectives and be competitive in international markets.
Roads, for example, are critical for supporting rural development.
Emerging evidence suggests that in some cases low-quality roads have a
more significant impact on economic development than high-quality
roads. In addition, all significant scientific and technical efforts
require reliable electric power and efficient logistical networks. In
the manufacturing and retail sectors, efficient transportation and
logistical networks allow firms to adopt process and organizational
innovations, such as the just-in-time approach to supply chain
management.
Infrastructure promotes agricultural trade and helps integrate
economies into world markets. It is also fundamental to human
development, including the delivery of health and education services.
Infrastructure investments further represent untapped potential for the
creation of productive employment. For example, it has been suggested
that increasing the stock of infrastructure by 1% in an emerging
country context could add 1% to the level of GDP. But in some cases the
impact has been far greater: the Mozal aluminum smelter investment in
Mozambique not only doubled the country's exports and added 7% to its
GDP, but it also created new jobs and skills in local firms.
Reducing public investment in infrastructure has been shown to
affect agricultural productivity. In the Philippines, for example,
reduction in investment in rural infrastructure led to reductions in
agricultural productivity.\3\ This decline in investment was caused by
cutbacks in agricultural investments writ large, as well as by a shift
in focus from rural infrastructure and agricultural research to
agrarian reform, environment, and natural resource management. Growth
in Philippine agriculture in the 1970s was linked to increased
investments in infrastructure, just as declines in the same sector in
the 1980s were linked to reduced infrastructure investment (caused by a
sustained debt crisis).
Evidence from Uganda suggests that public investment in
infrastructure-related projects has contributed significantly to rural
development.\4\ Uganda's main exports are coffee and cotton; hence, the
country depends heavily on its agricultural economy. Political and
economic turmoil in the 1970s and 1980s in Uganda led to the collapse
of the economy and agricultural output. Reforms in the late 1980s
allowed Uganda to improve its economic growth and income distribution.
In spite of economic growth ranging between 5% and 7%, the growth of
the agricultural sector has been very low, averaging 1.35% per annum.
Even if the Ugandan government has made great strides in welfare
improvement, the rural areas still remain relatively poor. In addition,
due to the disparity between male and female wages in agriculture,
women are more affected by poverty than men.
The Ugandan government has been spending on a wide variety of
sectors including agriculture, research and development, roads,
education, and health (data in other sectors such as irrigation,
telecommunications, and electricity are limited). Previous studies have
mostly measured the effectiveness of government spending based on
budget implementation.
Government spending on agricultural research and extension improved
agricultural production substantially in Uganda. Growth in agricultural
labor productivity, rural wages, and nonfarm employment have emerged as
important factors in determining rural poverty, so much so that the
public expenditure on agriculture outweighs the education and health
effect. Investment in agriculture has been shown to increase food
production and reduce poverty. Roads linking rural areas to markets
also serve to improve agricultural productivity and increase nonfarm
employment opportunities and rural wages. Having a high HIV/AIDS
prevalence, a large share of Uganda's health expenditure goes toward
prevention and treatment. Despite the high expenditure in health
services, there does not seem to be a high correlation between health
expenditure and welfare improvement.
Infrastructure and Agricultural Development
Transportation
Reliable transportation is absolutely critical for growth and
innovation in African agriculture and agribusiness. Sufficient roads,
rail, seaports, and airports are essential for regional trade,
international exports, and the cross-border investments that make both
possible. Innovation in other areas of agriculture such as improved
genetic material, better access to capital, and best farming practices
will produce results only if farmers and companies have a way to get
their products to market and get critical inputs to farms.
Transportation is a key link for food security and agribusiness-
based economic growth. Roads are the most obvious and critical element,
but modern seaports, airports, and rail networks are also important,
particularly for export-led agricultural innovation such as cut flowers
or green beans in Kenya, neither of which would be possible without an
international airport in Nairobi. To that end, many African countries
have reprioritized infrastructure as a key element in their
agricultural development strategies. This section will examine the role
roads have played in China's rural development and poverty alleviation,
as well as two cases in African transportation investment: Ghana's
rural roads project and Mali's Bamako-Senou airport improvement
project.
Ghana's Rural Roads Project is expected to open new economic
opportunities for rural households by lowering transportation costs
(including travel times) for both individuals and cargo to markets and
social service delivery points. The project will include new
construction, as well as the improvement of over 950 kilometers of
feeder roads, which, along with the trunk roads, will benefit a total
population of more than 120,000 farming households with over 600,000
members. These activities will increase annual farm incomes from
cultivation by US$450 to about US$1,000. For many of the poor, the
program will represent an increase of one dollar or more in average
income per person per day. In addition to sparking growth in
agriculture, the feeder roads will also help facilitate transportation
linkages from rural areas to social service networks (including, for
instance, hospitals, clinics, and schools).
The Airport Improvement Project will expand Mali's access to
markets and trade through improvements in the transportation
infrastructure at the airport, as well as better management of the
national air transport system. However, Mali is landlocked and heavily
dependent on inadequate rail and road networks and port facilities in
countries whose recent instability has cost Mali dearly. Before the
outbreak of the Ivorian crisis, 70% of Malian exports were leaving via
the port of Abidjan. In 2003, this amount dwindled to less than 18%.
Mali cannot control overland routes to international and regional
markets. Therefore, air traffic has become Mali's lifeline for
transportation of both passengers and export products.
Malian exports are predominantly agriculture based and depend on
rural small-scale producers, who will benefit from increased exports in
high-value products such as mangoes, green beans, and gum arabic. The
Airport Improvement Project is intended to remove constraints to air
traffic growth and increase the airport's efficiency in both passenger
and freight handling through airside and landside infrastructure
improvements, as well as the establishment of appropriate institutional
mechanisms to ensure effective management, security, operation, and
maintenance of the airport facilities over the long term.
In response to requirements for safety and security audits by the
International Civil Aviation Organization and the United States
Federation Aviation Administration, Mali is in the process of
restructuring and consolidating its civil aviation institutional
framework. One major result has been the establishment of the new civil
aviation regulatory and oversight agency in December 2005, which now
has financial and administrative independence. The Airport Improvement
Project will reinforce the agency by providing technical assistance to
establish a new organizational structure, administrative and financial
procedures, staffing and training, and provision of equipment and
facilities. Additionally, the project will rationalize and reinforce
the airport's management and operations agency by providing technical
assistance to establish a model for the management of the airport and
the long-term future status and organization of agency.
Since 1985 the government of China has given high priority to road
development, particularly the construction of high-quality roads such
as highways and freeways. While the construction of high-quality roads
has taken place at a remarkably rapid pace, the construction of lower-
quality and mostly rural roads has been slower. Benefit-cost ratios for
lower-quality roads (mostly rural) are about four times larger than
those for high-quality roads when the benefits are measured in terms of
national GDP.\5\
In terms of welfare improvement, for every yuan invested, lower-
quality roads raised far more rural and urban poor people above the
poverty line than did high-quality roads. Without these essential
public goods, efficient markets, adequate health care, a diversified
rural economy, and sustainable economic growth will remain elusive.
Effective development strategies require good infrastructure as their
backbone. The enormous benefit of rural roads in China likely holds
true for other countries as well. Investment in rural roads should be a
top priority for reducing poverty, maximizing the positive effects of
other pro-poor investments, and fostering broadly distributed economic
growth. Although highways remain critical, lower-cost, often lower-
quality rural feeder roads are of equal and in some cases even greater
importance.
As far as agricultural GDP is concerned, in today's China
additional investment in high-quality roads no longer has a
statistically significant impact while low-quality roads are not only
significant but also generate 1.57 yuan of agricultural GDP for every
yuan invested. Investment in low-quality roads also generates high
returns in rural nonfarm GDP. Every yuan invested in low-quality roads
yields more than 5 yuan of rural nonfarm GDP. Low-quality roads also
raise more poor people out of poverty per yuan invested than high-
quality roads, making them a win-win strategy for growth in agriculture
and poverty alleviation. In Africa, governments can learn from the
Chinese experience and make sure their road programs give adequate
priority to lower-quality and rural feeder roads.
Irrigation
Investment in water management is a crucial element of successful
agricultural development and can be broken into two principal areas:
policy and institutional reforms on the one hand and investment,
technology, and management practices on the other. Water is also a
critical input beyond agriculture, and successful irrigation policies
and programs must take into account the key role of water in energy
production, public health, and transportation. For small farmers, low-
cost technology is available, and there are cost-efficient technical
solutions in even some of Africa's most difficult and arid regions.
Despite the availability of these technologies, Africa has not seen
widespread adoption of these techniques and technologies. Part of the
problem is the availability of finance and the slow spread of
knowledge, but equally important is the role of government regulations
and subsidies.
Successful strategies for improved water management and irrigation
must therefore not only focus on new technologies but also on creating
policies and regulations that encourage investment in irrigation, not
just at the farm but also at the regional level. Access to reliable
water supplies has proven a key determinant not just in the enhancement
of food security but also in farmers' ability to climb higher up the
value chain toward cash crops and processed foods. Innovative farmers
involved in profitable agro-export may represent a new constituency for
the stewardship of water resources, as they earn significantly higher
incomes per unit of water than conventional irrigators. Our analysis
will focus first on innovation in water management practices,
technology, and infrastructure (including examples from Mali, Egypt,
and India). In the final section of this chapter, we will also address
key water policy and institutional reforms necessary to create an
environment in which governments, international institutions, NGOs, and
private businesses will be encouraged to make investments in irrigation
infrastructure.
Begun in 2007, the Alatona Irrigation Project will provide a
catalyst for the transformation and commercialization of family farms,
supporting Mali's national development strategy objectives to increase
the contribution of the rural sector to economic growth and help
achieve national food security. Specifically, it will increase
production and productivity, improve land tenure security, modernize
irrigated production systems and mitigate the uncertainty from
subsistence rain-fed agriculture, thereby increasing farmers' incomes.
The Alatona Irrigation Project will introduce innovative agricultural,
land tenure, credit, and water management practices, as well as policy
and organizational reforms aimed at realizing the Office du Niger's
potential to serve as an engine of rural growth for Mali. This project
seeks to develop 16,000 hectares of newly irrigated lands in the
Alatona production zone of the Office du Niger, representing an almost
20% increase of ``drought-proof'' cropland.
Egypt depends almost entirely on 55.5 billion cubic meters per year
of water from the Nile River. This allocation represents 95% of the
available resource for the country. Approximately 85% of the Nile water
is used for irrigation. Demand for water is growing while the options
for increasing supply are limited. To respond, the Ministry of Water
Resources and Irrigation (MWRI) has been implementing an Integrated
Water Resource Management (IWRM) Action Plan. Its key strategy is to
improve demand management. The Integration Irrigation Improvement and
Management Project (IIIMP), a part of MWRI, has been implementing the
IWRM Action Plan.
The IIIMP adopted a three-point strategy: (1) proper sizing of the
improved infrastructure to optimize capital costs; (2) technical
innovations to increase cost savings and functionality; and (3)
extension of the improvement package to the whole system (including
tertiary and on-farm improvements). The IIIMP Project appraisal
document envisaged (1) an average increase in farmers' annual income of
approximately 15%, (2) water savings of approximately 22%, and (3) an
overall economic rate of 20.5%. In the pilot areas where the program
was implemented, yields increased by 12% to 25%. Net incomes per
cultivated acre are increasing by 20% to 64% as a result of the
combined effects of increased productivity and reduction of the
irrigation costs (depreciation and operations and maintenance of pumps.
Sugarcane cultivation requires significant water resources, but in
much of India it has been cultivated using surface irrigation, where
water use efficiency is very low (35%-40%), owing to substantial
evaporation and distribution losses.\6\ A recent study of sugarcane
cultivation in Tamil Nadu, India, has shown that using drip irrigation
techniques can increase productivity by approximately 54% (30 tons per
acre) and cut water use by approximately 58% over flood irrigation.
Unlike surface methods of irrigation, under drip methods, water is
supplied directly to the root zone of the crops through a network of
pipes, a system that saves enormous amounts of water by reducing
evaporation and distribution losses. Since water is supplied only at
the root of the crops, weed problems are less severe and thus the cost
required for weeding operations is reduced significantly. The system
also requires little if any electricity.
Although new and larger studies are necessary, initial analysis
suggests that investment in drip irrigation in Indian sugarcane
cultivation is economically viable even without subsidy and may also be
applicable in Africa where many farmers have no or limited access to
electricity-powered irrigation, water resources are increasingly
threatened by climate change and environmental degradation, and less
than 4% of the arable land is currently irrigated.
Further, the present net worth indicates that in many cases farmers
can recover their entire capital cost of drip irrigation from first-
year income without subsidy. Despite these gains, two impediments must
be overcome for drip irrigation to be more widely used not just in
India, but in much of the developing world. First, too few farmers are
aware of the availability and benefits of drip irrigation systems,
which should be demonstrated clearly and effectively through a quality
extension network. Second, despite the quick returns realized by many
farmers using drip irrigation, the systems require significant capital
up front. Banks, microcredit institutions, companies, and governments
will need to consider providing credit or subsidies for the purchase of
drip irrigation.
The total cultivated land area of the Common Market for Eastern and
Southern Africa (COMESA) amounts to some 71.36 million hectares. Of
this only about 6.48 million hectares are irrigated, representing some
9% of the total cultivated land area. Besides available land area for
irrigation, the region possesses enormous water resources and reservoir
development potential to allow for expansion. Of the world's total of
467 million hectares of annualized irrigated land areas, Asia accounts
for 79 percent (370 million hectares), followed by Europe (7%) and
North America (7%). Three continents--South America (4%), Africa (2%),
and Australia (1%)--have a very low proportion of global irrigation.
COMESA could contribute significantly to agricultural food production
and poverty alleviation through expanding the land under irrigated
agriculture and water management under rain-fed farming to effect all
year round crop and livestock production.
COMESA has recently made assessments through the Comprehensive
Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) stocktaking reports
involving some representative countries with respect to agriculture
production options and concluded that regional economic growth and food
security could be accelerated through investment in irrigation and
agriculture water management. Agriculture water-managed rain-fed yields
are similar to irrigated yields and always higher than rain-fed
agriculture yields. This scenario builds a watertight case for
promoting or expanding irrigated land in COMESA.
The best solution to poverty and hunger alleviation is to provide
people with the means to earn income from the available resources they
have. Small-scale irrigation development coupled with access to long-
term financing, access to markets, and commercial farming expertise by
producers will go a long way in achieving food security and overall
economic development. COMESA has created an agency called the Alliance
for Commodity Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa (ACTESA) to
implement practical investment actions by engaging public private
sector partnerships. In the areas of irrigation and agriculture water
management, COMESA has begun to implement a number of important
activities, described next.
Accelerated adoption of appropriate small-scale irrigation
technologies and improved use and management of agriculture water will
facilitate increased agricultural production and family incomes. The
rain-fed land area will require agriculture water management strategies
such as conservation agriculture, which enhances production.
Appropriate investment in field systems for irrigation with modest
investments will help smallholder farmers adopt irrigation technology
whereas the majority who practice rain-fed agriculture would improve
agriculture productivity by managing rainwater through systems such as
conservation agriculture technology. COMESA is embarking on reviewing
the policy and legal framework in water resources management programs
including transboundary shared water resources management policies
under CAADP. This will include actions toward adaptation by member
states of regional water resources management policies.
COMESA is working with regional and international organizations
such as Improved Management of Agriculture Water in Eastern and
Southern Africa (IMAWESA), East African Community (EAC), Southern
African Development Coordination (SADC), Intergovernmental Authority
for Development (IGAD), International Water Management Institute
(IWMI), and Wetland Action-UK in creating awareness in regional
sustainable water resources management by creating and strengthening
water dialogue platform and communication strategies. Through ACTESA,
COMESA will help develop regional water management information systems
observation networks so as to enhance mapping for water harvesting
resources and water utilization in COMESA.
To realize the benefits of irrigation and agriculture water
management, COMESA is promoting investment in the following areas:
reservoir construction for storage of water to command an expansion of
land area under irrigation by 30% in five years; inland water resources
management of watershed basins in the COMESA region including, policy
and legal frameworks in trans-boundary shared water resources
management, harmonizing shared water resources policies to optimize
utilization, strengthening regional institutions involved in water
resources management, and establishment of a regional water resources
management information system; building capacity and awareness for
sustainable water resources utilization and management for agricultural
food production; rapid expansion of terraces for hilly irrigation in
some member states; and promotion and dissemination of appropriate
irrigation and agriculture water management technology transfer and
adoption. These include smallholder irrigation infrastructure.
Energy
To enhance agricultural development and to make progress in value-
added agro-processing, Africa needs better and more consistent sources
of energy. Rolling blackouts are routine in much of west, central, and
eastern Africa, and much of Africa's power generation and transmission
infrastructure needs repair or replacement. What Africa lacks in
adequate deployment, however, it makes up for in potential. Africa is
endowed with hydro, oil, natural gas, solar, geothermal, coal and other
resources vast enough to meet all its energy needs. Nuclear energy is
also an option. The hydro potential of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo is itself enough to provide three times as much power as Africa
currently consumes.
The first step to improved power generation and transmission is to
repair and upgrade Africa's existing energy infrastructure. Many
African countries are operating at less than half their installed
potential due to inadequate maintenance and operation. Connecting rural
areas to national grids can in some cases be cost prohibitive, so
governments must also look for innovative solutions such as wind,
solar, biomass, and geothermal to provide power at the small farm
level. Finally, while countries will undoubtedly look first within
their own borders for resources, advanced energy planning should also
consider that the most affordable and reliable power may be in
neighboring states. Large power generation schemes may also require
cooperative agreement on resource management and funding from a host of
African and international sources. Cross-border energy networks could
help create a common market for energy, spur investment and
competition, and lead to a more efficient path of enhanced energy
infrastructure.
An example of such a regional energy system is the West African
Power Pool (WAPP). Under an agreement signed by 14 ECOWAS members in
2000, countries plan to develop energy production facilities and
interconnect their respective electricity grids. According to the
agreement, the work would be approached in two phases. ECOWAS estimates
that 5,600 kilometers of electricity lines connecting segments of
national grids will be put in place. About US$11.8 billion will be
needed for the necessary power lines and new generating plants. This
infrastructure would give the ECOWAS subregion an installed capacity of
10,000 megawatts and, critically for agro-processing and business
investment, dramatically increase not just the amount but also the
reliability of electricity in west Africa.
The key objectives of the WAPP are to establish a well-functioning,
cooperative, power-pooling mechanism among national power utilities of
ECOWAS member states, based on a transparent and harmonized legal,
policy, regulatory, and commercial framework. This framework would
promote cross-border exchange of electricity on a risk-free basis;
assure national power utilities of mutual assistance to avoid a
regional power system collapse, or rapid restoration of interconnected
regional power; reduce collective vulnerability of ECOWAS member states
to drought-induced power supply disruptions; give ECOWAS member states
increased access to more stable and reliable supplies of electricity
from lower-cost regional sources of (hydro and gas-fired thermal) power
generation; and create clear and transparent pricing arrangements for
cross-border trade to facilitate electricity exchange and trade.
The WAPP organization has been created to integrate the national
power system operations into a unified regional electricity market--
with the expectation that such a mechanism would, over the medium to
long term, assure the citizens of ECOWAS member states a stable and
reliable electricity supply at affordable costs. This will create a
level playing field facilitating the balanced development of the
diverse energy resources of ECOWAS member states for their collective
economic benefit, through long-term energy sector cooperation,
unimpeded energy transit, and increased cross-border electricity trade.
The major sources of electricity under the power pool would be
hydroelectricity and gas to fuel thermal stations. Hydropower would be
mainly generated on the Niger (Nigeria), Volta (Ghana), Bafing (Mali),
and Bandama (Cote d'Ivoire) rivers. The World Bank has committed a
$350-million line of credit for the development of the WAPP, but a
billion more is needed in public and private financing.
Most of the power supply in Africa is provided by the public
sector. There is growing interest in understanding the ability of
independent power projects (IPPs) in Africa by evaluating a project's
ability to produce reliable and affordable power as well as reasonable
returns on investment.\7\ In the context of their individual markets
the 40 IPPs under consideration here have played a complementary role
to state-owned power projects, filling gaps in supply. It was also
hoped that, once established, these private entities would introduce
competition into the market.
Evidence suggests that there is a dichotomy between relatively
successful IPPs situated mainly in the northern African nations of
Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia, and the sub-Saharan examples including
Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Tanzania, which have been less successful. A
wide variety of country-level factors including investment climate,
policy frameworks, power sector planning, bidding processes, and fuel
prices all impacted outcomes for these various IPPs. Despite their
private nature, ultimately, it is the perceived balance of commitment
between sponsors and host-country governments that plays one of the
largest roles in the outcome of the IPP. A leading indicator of
imbalance is frequent and substantial contract changes.
The presence of a favorable climate for investment influenced the
outcome of the IPPs. In the more successful north African examples,
Tunisia carried an investment grade rating, while Egypt and Morocco
were both only one grade below investment grade. In contrast, of those
nations located in sub-Saharan Africa, none received an investment
grade rating. The great demand for IPPs in Africa at the time meant
that those with superior investment profiles were able to attract more
investors and had a basis for negotiating a more balanced contract.
Few of the nations in question have established a clear and
coherent policy framework within which an IPP could sustainably
operate. The soundest policy frameworks again are found in the north,
with Egypt, which contains 15 IPPs, being the strongest. This policy
framework features a clearly defined government agency in the Egyptian
Electricity Authority, which has authority over the procurement of
IPPs, the allocation of new generation capacity, and the ability to set
benchmarks to increase competition among public facilities. Kenya set
itself apart in this context with the establishment of an independent
regulator--the Electricity Regulatory Board--which has helped to
significantly reduce power purchase agreement charges, set tariffs, and
mediate the working relationship between the public and private
sectors. Evidence suggests that if a regulator is established prior to
negotiation of the IPP, and acts in a transparent, fair, and
accountable manner, this office can have a significantly positive
effect on the outcomes for the host country and investor.
A coherent power sector plan follows from a strong policy framework
and includes setting a reliability standard for energy security, supply
and demand forecasts, a least-cost plan, and agreements on how new
generation will be divided between public and private sectors. It is
equally important that these functions are vested in one empowered
agency. Failure to meet these goals is apparent in the examples of
Tanzania (Songo Songo), Kenya (Westmont plant, Iberafrica plant),
Nigeria (AES Barge), and Ghana, which fast-tracked IPPs to meet
intermediate power shortages in the midst of drought conditions. The
results were unnecessary costs and time delays for all, and in the case
of the Nigerian and Ghanaian facilities, an inability to efficiently
establish power purchase agreements.
The main lesson learned here is that without a strong legislative
foundation and coherent planning, contracts were unlikely to remain
intact. Instability of contracts was widespread across the cases
studied, and though they did not necessarily deal a death blow to the
project, renegotiations always came at a further cost.
Telecommunications
Access to timely weather, market, and farming best practices
information is no less important for agricultural development than
access to transport infrastructure, regular and efficient irrigation,
and energy. In Africa, as in much of the developing world, innovations
in telecoms offer the potential to bring real change directly to the
farm level long before more timely and costly investment in fixed
infrastructure. Mobile phone penetration rates now exceed those of
landlines and the industry is growing at an average annual rate of over
50% in the region. Mobile phone ownership in Africa increased from 54
million to almost 350 million between 2003 and 2008. Ownership rates
under-represent actual usage, however, as many small vendors offer
mobile access for calls or text messages. Even in rural areas, mobile
penetration rates have now reached close to 42%. Mobile phones are
becoming increasingly important tools in agricultural innovation, where
they have been used to transfer and store money, check market prices
and weather information, and even share farming best practices.
The case of India's e-Choupal (choupal is Hindi for a gathering
place) illustrates the increasingly important role telecommunications
can play in African agricultural innovation.\8\ ITC is one of India's
leading private companies, with annual revenues of US$2 billion. The
company has initiated an e-Choupal effort that places computers with
Internet access in rural farming villages; the e-Choupals serve as both
a social gathering place for exchange of information and an electronic
commerce hub. The e-Choupal system has catalyzed rural transformation
that is helping to alleviate rural isolation, create more transparency
for farmers, and improve their productivity and incomes. The system has
also created a highly profitable distribution and product design
channel for ITC--an e-commerce platform that is also a low-cost
fulfillment system focused on the needs of rural India.
A computer, typically housed in a farmer's house, is linked to the
Internet via phone lines or, increasingly, by a satellite connection,
and serves an average of 600 farmers in 10 surrounding villages within
about a five-kilometer radius. Each e-Choupal costs between US$3,000
and US$6,000 to set up and about US$100 per year to maintain. Using the
system costs farmers nothing, but the host farmer, called a sanchalak,
incurs some operating costs and is obligated by a public oath to serve
the entire community; the sanchalak benefits from increased prestige
and commissions for all e-Choupal transactions. The farmers can use the
computer to access daily closing prices on local mandi (a government-
sanctioned market area or yard where farmers sell their crops) as well
as to track global price trends or find information about new farming
techniques--either directly or, because many farmers are illiterate,
via the sanchalak.
Farmers also use the e-Choupal to order seed, fertilizer, and other
goods from ITC or its partners, at prices lower than those available
from village traders; the sanchalak typically aggregates the village
demand for these products and transmits the order to an ITC
representative. At harvest time, ITC offers to buy the crop directly
from any farmer at the previous day's closing price; the farmer then
transports his crop to an ITC processing center where the crop is
weighed electronically and assessed for quality. The farmer is then
paid for the crop and a transport fee. ``Bonus points,'' which are
exchangeable for products that ITC sells, are given for above-normal
quality crops.
Farmers benefit from more accurate weighing, faster processing
time, prompt payment, and access to information that helps them to
decide when, where, and at what price to sell. The system is also a
channel for soil testing services and for educational efforts to help
farmers improve crop quality. The total benefit to farmers includes
lower prices for inputs and other goods, higher yields, and a sense of
empowerment. At the same time, ITC benefits from net procurement costs
that are about 2.5% lower and more direct control over the quality of
what it buys. The system also provides direct access to the farmer and
to information about conditions on the ground, improving planning and
building relationships that increase its security of supply. The
company reports that it recovers its equipment costs from an e-Choupal
in the first year of operation and that the venture as a whole is
profitable.
By 2010 there were 6,500 e-Choupals serving more than 4 million
farmers in nearly 40,000 villages spread over 10 states. ITC is also
exploring partnering with banks to offer farmers access to credit,
insurance, and other services that are not currently offered or are
prohibitively expensive. Moreover, farmers are beginning to suggest--
and in some cases, demand--that ITC supply new products or services or
expand into additional crops, such as onions and potatoes. Thus,
farmers are becoming a source of product innovation for ITC.
By providing a more transparent process and empowering local people
as key nodes in the system, the e-Choupal system increases trust and
fairness. Improved efficiencies and potential for better crop quality
make Indian agriculture more competitive. Despite the undependable
phone and electrical power infrastructure that sometimes limit hours of
use, the system also links farmers and their families to the world.
Some sanchalaks track futures prices on the Chicago Board of Trade as
well as local mandi prices, and village children have used the
computers for schoolwork, games, and obtaining academic test results.
The result is a significant step toward rural development.
The availability of weather information systems for farmers is also
emerging as a critical resource. Although advances in irrigation
infrastructure and technology are lowering farmers' dependency on
weather, a second avenue to advance agricultural development is more
accurate and more accessible weather information. To address the gap in
accurate, timely, and accessible weather information in Africa, the
Global Humanitarian Forum, Ericsson, World Meteorological Organization,
Zain, and other mobile operators have developed a public-private
partnership to (1) deploy up to 5,000 automatic weather stations in
mobile network sites across Africa and (2) increase dissemination of
weather information via mobile phones to users and communities--
including remote farmers and fishermen.
Zain will host the weather equipment at mobile network sites being
rolled out across Africa, as achieving the 5,000 target will require
additional operator commitment and external financing. Mobile networks
provide the necessary connectivity, power, and security to sustain the
weather equipment. Through its Mobile Innovation Center in Africa,
Ericsson will also develop mobile applications to help communicate
weather information developed by national meteorological and
hydrological services. Mobile operators will maintain the automatic
weather stations and assist in the transmission of the data to national
meteorological services. The initial deployment, already begun in Zain
networks, focuses on the area around Lake Victoria in Kenya, Tanzania,
and Uganda. The first 19 stations installed will double the weather
monitoring capacity of the lake region.
Infrastructure and Innovation
One of the most neglected aspects of infrastructure investments is
their role in stimulating technological innovation. Development of
infrastructure in a country is often not enough to create sustained
economic growth and lifestyle convergence toward that of developed
countries. Technology learning is very important to a country's
capacity to maintain current infrastructure and become competitive. In
the first model of technology transfer, state-owned or privatized
utility firms couple investment in public infrastructure with
technological training programs, usually incorporated into a joint
contract with international engineering firms. This type of capacity
building lends itself to greater local participation in future
infrastructure projects both in and out of the country.
The effectiveness of a comprehensive collaboration with foreign
companies to facilitate both infrastructure building and technology
transfer is seen in South Korea's contract with the Franco-British
Consortium Alstom. The Korean government hoped to develop a high-speed
train network to link Seoul with Pusan and Mokpo. The importance of the
infrastructure itself was undeniable--the Korean Train Express (KTX)
was meant to cross the country, going through a swath of land
responsible for two-thirds of Korea's economic activity. In
anticipation of the project, officials projected that by 2011, 120
million passengers would be using the KTX per year, leading to more
balanced land development across South Korea.
However, while the project had the potential to increase economic
activity and benefit the national industries in general, the project's
benefits lay significantly in the opportunity ``to train its workforce,
penetrate a new industrial sector, and potentially take the lead in the
high-speed train market in Asia.'' \9\ In other words, Korea sought to
obtain new technologies and the capacity to maintain and operate them.
Under the contract with Alstom, which was finalized after 20 years of
discussion, Alstom provided both the high-speed trains and railways
that would help connect Seoul and Pusan and the training to help South
Korea build and maintain its own trains.
From the beginning of negotiations, technology transfer was an
important factor for the South Korean government. In 1992, bidding
between Alstom, Siemens (a German group), and Mitsubishi (a Japanese
group) commenced. After the bids were significantly slashed, Korean
officials let it be known that in addition to price, financial
structures and technology transfers would be major criteria during the
final selection. It was in this category that Alstom successfully
outbid the other consortia and won the contract, which specified that
half of all production would occur in Korea, with 34 of the trains to
be built by Korean firms. This would give Korea both production revenue
and the experience of building high-speed trains--with the goal of one
day exporting them. The contract also stipulated that 100% of Alstom's
TGV (Train a Grande Vitesse) technology would be transferred to the 15
Korean companies that were to be involved in the project. Such
technologies include industrial planning, design and development of
production facilities, welding, manufacturing, assembly and testing
carried out through operating and maintenance training, access to
important documents and manuals for technical assistance, and
maintenance supervision.
While the overall benefits of technology transfer are clear, more
technologically advanced countries face some risks. One risk, known as
the boomerang effect, affects the company that is transferring the
technology--Alstom in this case. By giving the technological knowledge
to South Korean companies, Alstom runs the risk of essentially creating
its own competitor. This risk is especially high in this case because
Alstom has transferred 100% of its TGV technology and 50% of the
production to Korea. Low labor costs, weak contractual constraints, and
Korea's known tendency to disregard intellectual property rights
increase this risk. Other risks include unexpected shifts in economic
conditions, currency devaluations, questionable competitive practices,
hurried local production, lengthy and cumbersome administrative
procedures, restrictive foreign payment rules, management weaknesses,
and frail partnership involvement.
While these risks are indeed significant, they should not deter
such agreements between countries. There are many ways to decrease such
risks. For example, to make sure that payments are timely and that
intellectual property rights are upheld, the company of interest should
create a detailed contract with large penalties and disincentives for
any violations.
Another step that should be taken is to maintain strong research
and development projects to ensure that one's technology will always be
superior. A good way to avoid the boomerang effect is to establish
long-term relationships, such as Alstom established with Korea. A
similar method of preventing the boomerang effect is to establish
partnerships with local manufacturers. Finally, Alstom took strides to
collaborate with established competitors, like the formation of
EUROTRAIN with Siemens, to increase penetration into new markets.
And despite the numerous risks, training and technology transfer
did not result in a loss for Alstom, for benefits included numerous
cash payments, dividends, and income from giving access to its
technology, selling equipment parts, and establishing separate ventures
with Korean companies. Additionally, the project gave the company the
opportunity to show the exportability of TGV to Asian markets. In
particular, the reliability of Alstom's products and procedures was
demonstrated in the partnership, making other countries more likely to
work with the company. Experience in the Korean market, competitive
advantages with respect to European countries, and new business
opportunities were other advantages that increased Alstom's market
share in Asia. Increased flexibility and experience with international
markets as well as decentralized management also benefited Alstom.
Finally, Alstom's technology became the international standard, leading
to enormous competitive advantages for that company.
To facilitate the transfer, development, and construction of the
high-speed railway system, the Korean government created the Korean
High-Speed Rail Construction Authority (KHRC), whose mandate was to
construct such systems at home and abroad, to research and find ways to
improve the technology, and to oversee commercialization along the
railway line. Issues with the project were soon revealed; after two
tragedies--the collapse of the Songsu Bridge and of a large store in
Seoul--Korean officials began to doubt its civil engineering
capabilities. For this reason, KHRC decided to hire foreign engineers.
After project delays and other issues, the last section of railway
track from Taegu to Pusan was canceled and the building of 34 trains
was postponed. However, after renegotiations, construction recommenced.
Other issues show the difficulty of such a project collaboration. A
rift developed between France and South Korea due to a withdrawn
agreement between two companies. Further, the TGV was unable to
function in Korea during an unusually cold winter in 1996-1997, drawing
questions and critiques from the Korean press. An economic crisis,
which caused an abrupt depreciation of the Korean won against the U.S.
dollar, made the purchase of goods and services from foreigners more
expensive. A final rift was created by the election of President Kim
Dae Jung in 1997, who was a vocal opponent of the KTX project. As seen
here, exogenous interactions between the countries of interest can
greatly affect the attempts to collaborate in technological transfer.
Despite the many risks of international technology transfer, the
benefits far outweigh the costs. For example, by 2004, 100% of the TGV
technology was transferred to Korea. Despite initial setbacks,
ridership has increased greatly at the expense of other modes of
transportation. More lines are expected to be built, and the success of
the technology transfer has become apparent through the construction of
the HSR-350x Korean-made train and the order of 19 KTX-II train sets in
2006 from Hyundai Rotem. It is claimed that these trains use 87% Korean
technology. As for Alstom, their success is evident in the numerous
contracts they have negotiated in the Asian markets.
In conclusion, the KTX project demonstrates how technology transfer
can help developing countries to obtain advanced capabilities to build
and develop infrastructure, leading to increased economic growth and
productivity. The South Korean example serves as a model for African
countries and applies to urban and rural projects alike. The lessons
are particularly important considering the growing interest among
African countries in investing in infrastructure projects.\10\ While
African countries will face their own unique issues, the KTX project
illustrates costs and benefits that should be weighed in making such
decisions and provides hope for new methods of technological
dissemination. The tendency, however, is to view infrastructure
projects largely in terms of their returns on investment and overall
cost structure.\11\ Their role in technological capacity building is
rarely considered.\12\ The growing propensity to want to leave
infrastructure investments to the private sector may perpetuate the
exclusion of public interest activities such as technological
learning.\13\
One of the key aspects of the project was a decision by the
government to set up the Korea Railroad Research Institute (KRRI).
Founded in 1996, KRRI is the nation's principal railway research body.
Its focus is improving the overall national railway system to maintain
global competitiveness, with the goal of putting Korea among the top
five leaders in railway technology. It works by bringing together
experts from academia, industry, and government.
Regional Considerations
Roads, water facilities, airports, seaports, railways,
telecommunications networks, and energy systems represent just a
portion of the web of national and regional infrastructure necessary
for food security, agricultural innovation, and agriculture-based
economic development. Countries and regions must create comprehensive
infrastructure investment strategies that recognize how each area is
linked to the next, and investments must in many cases pool regional
resources and cross numerous international borders. Transportation
infrastructure is critical to move inputs to farms and products to
market; widespread and efficient irrigation is essential for increasing
yields and crop quality; energy is a vital input, particularly for
value-added food processing; and telecoms are critical for the exchange
of farming, market, and weather information. Alone, however, none of
these investments will produce sustainable innovation or growth in
agriculture. National and regional investment strategies will be needed
to pool resources, share risks, and attract the private actors often
critical to substantial investments in such ventures.
It seems obvious that roads would play a critical role in
agricultural development, but they have often received inadequate
investment. On-farm innovations are critical, but in many cases they
depend on inputs that can only be delivered via roads, and they will be
of very limited use if farmers have no way to reliably move their
products to markets. Countries looking to improve their roads should
carefully assess where their competitive advantages lie, identify which
new or refurbished roads would best capitalize on those advantages,
ensure that roads are placed within a broader plan for transportation
infrastructure, and develop pre-construction plans for long-term
maintenance.
Large roads and highways have garnered the bulk of capital and
attention in much of the developing world, but smaller, lower-quality
rural feeder roads often have significantly higher returns on
investment--particularly in areas where major highways already exist.
Learning from the Chinese experience, countries should carefully assess
the relative return between larger highways and smaller rural-feeder
roads, selecting the better investment.
National water policy and programs are notoriously Balkanized into
fractious agencies and interest groups, often with competing
objectives. This is a problem that countries across the world face, as
is evidenced by the small American town of Charlottesville, Virginia.
Charlottesville has no less than 13 separate water authorities
representing its roughly 50,000 residents. As we saw with the positive
example of Egypt (a country with significant water resource pressures
but a highly advanced water management system), an initial step to
success is streamlining government regulation of water issues under a
single national agency, or family of agencies. Water policy and
programs should be coordinated at the national, not state, level, and
must also look across borders to neighboring states as many key issues
in water, including power generation, agricultural diversion, and water
quality, are often closely linked to key issues up- or downstream.
Many African states already face water shortages, and the threat of
global climate change may further stress those limited resources.
Bringing new water assets online through large irrigation projects is
important, but those resources are limited; more economical use of
water is just as if not more important. Central to this goal are
farming techniques that get ``more dollar per drip.'' As we saw earlier
with the case of India, drip irrigation can be one solution. To
overcome the initial capital hurdle, governments, companies, and banks
could consider subsidizing and/or providing loans for the purchase of
initial equipment.
As with water, energy issues often transcend national borders. In
many cases, the best location to produce or sell power may be outside a
country's borders. Regional cooperation will be essential for unlocking
much of Africa's energy generation potential, as many projects will
require far more investment than any one country can provide and
involve assets that must span multiple national borders. To pool
national resources and entice private capital for major energy
products, regional organizations will need to help create strong,
binding agreements to provide the necessary confidence not only to
their member states but also to private companies and investors. The
ECOWAS-led Western African Power Pool (WAPP) provides a good model for
replication, but it is also an indicator of the high level of
commitment and private capital that must be raised to push through
large, regional power agreements.
Large power generation and transmission schemes are critical to
agricultural development but in some cases may prove too lengthy,
costly, or difficult to have large, timely impacts in remote rural
areas. One way to complement these larger energy programs is to make
additional investment in remote rural energy generation at the local or
even farm level. Renewable technologies including solar, wind, biogas,
bioethanol, and geothermal can be scaled for farms and small business
and have the added advantage of requiring minimal transmission
infrastructure and often a low carbon footprint. To encourage this
production, governments could consider replicating Tanzania's Rural
Energy Agency, which is funded by a small tax on sales from the
national energy utility, as well as partnerships with NGOs,
foundations, foreign governments, and businesses.
The transfer of knowledge is nearly as important to agricultural
innovation as the transfer of physical inputs and farm outputs.
Telecoms can play a unique role in the transfer of farming best
practices as well as critical market and weather information. Most of
Africa's telecom infrastructure is owned by the private sector. As we
have seen from cases in India, China, and Africa, private companies can
play a key role in the development of telecoms as a tool for
agricultural innovation. Governments and regional bodies should work
with major telecom providers and agribusinesses to form innovative
partnerships that provide profits to companies and concrete benefits
such as enhanced farming knowledge transfer and market and weather
information.
Mobile phone penetration rates are growing faster in Africa than
anywhere in the world. Mobile phones and the cell tower networks on
which they depend provide a unique platform for the collection and even
more important the dissemination of key information, including farming
best practices, market prices, and weather forecasts. To reach scale,
Africa's regional organizations should engage their member states, key
telecom businesses, and NGOs to harness existing technologies such as
SMS (and next generation technologies such as picture messaging and
custom applications for mobiles) to provide farmers with access to key
agricultural, market, and weather information.
Conclusion
Infrastructure investment is a critical aspect of stimulating
innovation in agriculture. It is also one of the areas that can benefit
from regional coordination. Indeed, the various RECs in Africa are
already increasing their efforts to rationalize and coordinate
infrastructure investments. One of the lessons learned from other
countries is the importance of linking infrastructure investment
(especially in key areas such as transportation, energy, water, and
telecommunications) to specific agricultural programs. It has been
shown that low-quality roads connecting farming communities to markets
could contribute significantly to rural development. An additional
aspect of infrastructure investment is the need to use such facilities
as foundations for technological innovation. One strategic way to
achieve this goal is to link technical training institutions and
universities to large-scale infrastructure projects. The theme of
education, especially higher technical training, is the subject of the
next chapter.
5 Human Capacity
Education and human capacity building in Africa have many well-
publicized problems, including low enrollment and completion rates. One
of the most distressing facts about many African school systems is that
they often focus little on teaching students to maximize the
opportunities that are available to them in their own communities;
rather, they tend to prioritize a set of skills that is less applicable
to village life and encourages children to aspire to join the waves of
young people moving to urban areas. For some students, this leads to
success, but for many more it leads to unfulfilled aspirations, dropout
rates, and missed opportunities to learn crucial skills that will allow
them to be more productive and have a better standard of living in
their villages. It also results in nations passing over a chance to
increase agricultural productivity, self-sufficiency, and human
resources among their populations.
Education and Agriculture
African leaders have the unique opportunity to use the agricultural
system as a driver for their economies and a source of pride and
sustainability for their populations. About 36% of all African labor
potential is used in subsistence agriculture. If that percentage of the
population could have access to methods of improving their agricultural
techniques, increasing production, and gaining the ability to transform
agriculture into an income earning endeavor, African nations would
benefit in terms of GDP, standard of living, infrastructure, and
economic stability. One way to accomplish this is to develop systems--
both formal and informal--to improve farmers' skills and abilities to
create livelihoods out of agriculture rather than simply subsistence.
These systems start with formal schooling. Schools should include
agriculture as a formal subject--from the earliest childhood experience
to agricultural universities. They should consider agriculture an
important area for investment and work to develop students'
agricultural and technical knowledge at the primary and secondary
levels. Universities should also consider agriculture an important
research domain and devote staff and resources to developing new
agricultural techniques that make sense for their populations and
ecosystems. University research needs to stay connected to the farmers
and their lifestyles to productively foster agricultural growth.
Decision makers should also look for ways to foster human capacity
to make agricultural innovations outside of a traditional classroom. A
variety of models incorporate this idea--from experiential and
extension models to farmers' field schools, both discussed later in
this chapter. Rural radio programs that reach out to farming
communities and networks of farmers' associations spread new
agricultural knowledge. In fact, there is a resurgence of radio as a
powerful tool for communication.\1\
Governments and schools should treat agriculture as a skill to be
learned, valued, and improved upon from early childhood through adult
careers instead of as a last resort for people who cannot find the
resources to move to a city and get an industrial job. Valuing the
agricultural system and lifestyle and trying to improve it takes
advantage of Africa's existing systems and capacities. In this way,
many nations could provide significant benefits for their citizens,
their economies, and their societies.
Nowhere is the missed opportunity to build human capacity more
evident than in the case of women and agriculture in Africa. The
majority of farmers in Africa are women. Women provide 70%-80% of the
labor for food crops grown in Africa, an effort without which African
citizens would not eat. Female farmers make up 48% of the African labor
force. This work by women is a crucial effort in nations where the
economy is usually based on agriculture.
Belying their importance to society and the economy, women have
traditionally benefited from few of the structures designed to promote
human capacity and ability to innovate. UNESCO estimates that only 45%
of women in Africa are literate compared to 70% of men; 70% of African
women do not complete primary school, and only about 1.5% of women
achieve higher education. Of all of the disciplines, science and
agriculture attract the fewest women.
For example, in Ghana, women account for only 13% of university-
level agriculture students and 17% of scientists.\2\ By not focusing on
building the capacity of women, African states miss the chance to
increase the productivity of a large portion of their labor force and
food production workers. The lack of female involvement in education,
especially science and agriculture, means there is an enormous
opportunity to tap into skills and understandings of agricultural
production that could help lead to more locally appropriate farming
techniques and more thorough adoption of those techniques.
Gender and Agriculture
Although nearly 80% of agricultural producers in Africa are women,
only 69% of female farmers receive visits from agricultural extension
agents, compared to 97% of male farmers. Of agricultural extension
agents, only 7% are female. In many places, it is either culturally
inappropriate or simply uncommon for male extension agents to work with
female farmers, so existing extension systems miss the majority of
farmers. Additionally, as the Central American case below demonstrates,
having extension workers who understand the experience of local farmers
is central to promoting adoption. An important component of successful
adoption is including female extension workers and educators in formal
and informal settings.
Unequal distribution of education is the other critical factor in
the misuse of women's contributions in agricultural production.
Compared to the colonial period and the situation inherited at
independence, considerable gains have been realized in general and
female school attendance. Still, many countries have not yet achieved
even universal primary school attendance. Gender inequality is most
severe in contexts where general enrollment is lower.
Furthermore, several countries had a severe setback in the early
1980s, as their enrollment rates were either stagnant or declining. The
persistent economic crisis meant that the previously agreed upon
targets of universal primary enrollment in 1980 and then 2000 could not
be met. Since the Dakar Conference of 2000 and creation of the
Millennium Development Goals, new targets have been set for universal
primary enrollment by 2015. However, at this stage, there is little
doubt that most countries will not be able to reach this goal. By and
large, countries with the lowest enrollment ratios from primary to
higher education levels have the lowest enrollment ratios for their
female populations.
African countries have shown considerable vitality in enrollment in
higher education since the mid-1990s, following the lean years of the
destructive structural adjustment programs. Nevertheless, African
countries still have the lowest higher education enrollment in the
world. Although there are a few exceptions in southern Africa (Lesotho
is a unique case, where nearly three-fourths of the higher education
students are females), in most African countries female enrollment is
lower than that of males. Furthermore, the distribution of higher
education students by discipline shows consistently lower patterns of
female representation in science, technology, and engineering.
Considering African women's cultural heritage and continued central
role in agriculture, it is a major paradox that their representation is
so low in tracks where agricultural extension workers and other
technicians and support staff and agricultural engineers are trained.
Indeed, if there were any consistency between current educational
systems and adequate human resource development, there would be at
least gender parity in all the fields related to agriculture and trade.
Yet only a few countries, such as Angola and Mozambique, have designed
and implemented policies encouraging a high representation of females
in science, including those fields related to agriculture. More
generally, for both males and females, little effort is made in the
educational system to promote interest in science in general and
agriculture in particular.
It is vital to put more emphasis on involving women in agriculture
and innovation, as well as helping female farmers build their capacity
to increase productivity. There are several avenues to reach this goal.
The first is women's training programs that focus specifically on
agriculture. Another crucial avenue is emphasizing female participation
in extension work--both as learners and extension agents, discussed
later in this chapter.
The Uganda Rural Development and Training Program (URDT), which is
establishing the African Rural University for women in the Kabala
district of Uganda, is an innovative model of a program that focuses on
building strong female leaders for careers in agriculture and on
involving the community in every step of agricultural innovation. URDT
students are fond of quoting the adage: ``If you educate a man, you
educate an individual. If you educate a woman, you educate a nation.''
A key component of the program is to view individuals and
communities holistically and to help people envision the future they
want and to plan steps to get there. Their programming is tailored to
locally identified needs that value the communities' lifestyles and
traditions while allowing adoption of new technologies and improvement
of production. URDT has had huge success in supporting change in the
region since their founding as an extension project in 1987. Their
impact has resulted in better food security, increased educational
attainment, raised incomes for families across the district, better
nutrition, and strong female leaders who engage in peace-building
efforts and community improvements, among others. One driving factor is
the innovative model of community-university interaction that focuses
on women and agriculture.
URDT has a primary and secondary girls' school that focuses on
developing girls' abilities in a variety of areas, including
agricultural, business, and leadership skills, and encouraging them to
bring their knowledge out to the community. At URDT Girls School,
students engage in ``Back Home'' projects, where they spend some time
among their families conducting a project that they have designed from
the new skills they learned at school. Such projects include creating a
community garden, building drying racks to preserve food in the dry
season, or conducting hygiene education. Parents come to the school
periodically to also engage in education and help the girls design the
Back Home projects. School becomes both a learning experience and a
productive endeavor; therefore, families are more willing to send
children, including girls, to school because they see it as relevant to
improving their lives.
URDT focuses on agriculture and on having a curriculum that is
relevant for the communities' needs. They have an experimental farm
where people can learn and help develop new agricultural techniques, as
well as a Vocational Skills Institute to work with local artisans,
farmers, and businessmen who have not had access to traditional
schooling. There is an innovative community radio program designed to
share information with the broader community. URDT also runs an
Appropriate and Applied Technology program that allows people from the
community to interact with international experts and scientists to
develop new methods and tools to improve their lives and agricultural
productivity. A recent example is developing a motorcycle-drawn cart to
help bring produce to market and improve availability and use of
produce.
Governments can draw on this model to create effective learning
institutions to support agriculture, and particularly women's and
communities' involvement in it. The three key lessons of the model are
to make sure that the school is working with and giving back to the
community by focusing on its needs, which are often based around
agriculture; to create a holistic program that sees how the community
and the institution can work together on many interventions--
technology, agriculture, market infrastructure, and education--to
improve production and the standard of living; and to focus on women
and girls as a driving force behind agriculture and community change,
benefiting the whole society.
The crucial unifying factor is to integrate education at all
levels, and the research processes of higher education in particular,
back into the community. This allows the universities to produce
technologies relevant to rural communities' needs and builds trust
among the research, education, and farming communities.
Community-Based Agricultural Education
Uganda is not alone in adopting this model. The government of Ghana
established the University for Development Studies (UDS) in the
northern region in 1992. The aim of the university is to bring academic
work to support community development in northern Ghana (Brong-Ahafo,
Northern, Upper East, and Upper West Regions). The university includes
agricultural sciences; medicine and health sciences; applied sciences;
integrated development studies; and interdisciplinary research. It
relies on the resources available in the region.
UDS seeks to make tertiary education and research directly relevant
to communities, especially in rural areas. It is the only university in
Ghana required by law to break from tradition and become innovative in
its mission. It is a multi-campus institution, located throughout
northern Ghana--a region affected by serious population pressure and
hence vulnerability to ecological degradation. The region is the
poorest in Ghana, with a relatively high child malnutrition rate. The
university's philosophy, therefore, is to promote the study of subjects
that will help address human welfare improvement.
The pedagogical approach emphasizes practice-oriented, community-
based, problem-solving, gender-sensitive, and interactive learning. It
aims to address local socioeconomic imbalances through focused
education, research, and service. The curricula stress community
involvement and community dialogue, extension, and practical tools of
inquiry.
Students are required to internalize the importance of local
knowledge and to find effective ways of combining it with science. The
curricula also include participatory rural appraisal, participatory
technology development, and communication methodologies that seek to
strengthen the involvement of the poor in development efforts.
An important component of the emphasis on addressing sustainable
development is the third trimester practical field program. The
university believes that the most feasible and sustainable way of
tackling underdevelopment is to start with what the people already know
and understand. This acknowledges the value of indigenous knowledge.
The field program brings science to bear on indigenous knowledge from
the outset.
Under this program, the third trimester of the academic calendar,
lasting eight weeks, is exclusively for fieldwork. Students live and
work in rural communities. Along with the people of the community, they
identify development goals and opportunities and design ways of
attaining them. The university coordinates with governmental agencies
and NGOs in the communities for shared learning in the development
process. The field exposure helps students build up ideas about
development and helps them reach beyond theory. The impact of this
innovative training approach is already apparent, with the majority of
UDS graduates working in rural communities.
Early Agricultural Education
For children to engage in agriculture and understand it as a part
of their life where they can build and develop skills and abilities to
improve their future, it is necessary to continue their exposure to
agricultural techniques and skills throughout their education. Equally
important is the need to adapt the educational system to reflect
changes in the agricultural sector.\3\ Many rural African children will
have been to the family farm or garden, and done some small work in the
field, before they ever arrive at school. Children go with their
mothers into the field from a very young age and so are likely to be
familiar with local crops and the importance of the natural world and
agriculture in their lives. Schools can capitalize on this early
familiarity as a way to keep children engaged in the learning process
and build on skills that will help them increase their production and
improve their lives for the future.
School Gardens
One model to achieve early engagement is by having a school garden.
Schools all over the world, from the United States and the United
Kingdom, to Costa Rica and Ecuador, to South Africa and Kenya, use
school gardens in various guises to educate their students about a set
of life skills that goes beyond the classroom. School gardens come in
many forms, from a plot of land in the school courtyard, to the
children visiting and working in a broader community garden, to
planting crops in a sack, a tire, or some other vessel. These gardens
can use as many or as few resources as the community has to devote to
them. The sack gardens especially require very few resources and can be
cultivated in schools with little arable land and in urban areas.
Students can also bring the sack garden model back home to their
families to improve the family's income and nutrition.
Labor in the school garden should certainly not replace all other
activities at the school, but as a complement to the other curriculum
it can provide a place where students learn important skills and feel
that they are productive members of their community. Children who
participate in school gardens learn not only about growing plants,
food, and trees--and the agricultural techniques that go along with
this--but also about nutrition, food preparation, responsibility,
teamwork, and leadership. As students get older, they can also use the
garden and the produce it generates as a way to learn about marketing,
economics, infrastructure needs, and organizing a business. Many
schools have student associations sell their produce in local markets
to learn about business and generate income.
School gardens have the added benefit of showing communities that
the government recognizes agriculture as an important aspect of society
and not as a secondary endeavor. Schools that provide education in
gardening often overcome parents' reluctance to send children to
school, as they teach a set of skills that the parents recognize as
being important for the community--and parents do not see schooling as
a loss of the child's potential labor at home. A government can
increase this impact by involving the community in educational programs
and curriculum decisions. Promoting buy-in from the community for the
entire educational process encourages families to enroll more students
and allows children to learn important skills.
Also, by valuing agriculture and enabling more productive work in
the community, school gardens decrease the incentive for large
migrations to urban areas. This also calms many parents' fears that a
child who goes to school will leave home and not continue to work on
the family farm. This emphasis on agriculture benefits both children
and parents, by giving them access to a formal education and a way to
increase agricultural productivity.
Semi-Formal Schooling
Another model that can work to encourage children and young people
to learn agriculture is a semi-formal schooling model. Here, children
spend part of the day at school learning math, literacy, and
traditional subjects, and part of the school day working in a field or
garden. This second part of the day is a chance to generate some income
for families as well as to learn new agricultural and marketing
techniques. Generally, these kinds of programs are for older children
who have never gone to primary school; they are taught in local
languages instead of the official English or French of many formal
school systems. This model can be adapted for adults as well to
encourage literacy and the development and adoption of new agricultural
techniques. In South Africa, this model is often referred to as a
Junior Farmer's Field School, to get young people involved early in the
experiential process of learning and creating new agricultural
techniques.
School gardens, the inclusion of agriculture in the formal
curriculum, and technical training models are all ways to promote
children's experience with agriculture and help them develop the skills
they need to improve their livelihoods into adulthood. These models
place value on agriculture, the local community, and the process of
experience to encourage children to learn new skills and engage in the
natural world in a productive way.
Experiential Learning
There are several examples of how farmers can play a role in
experimenting with new innovations, making them feel a sense of
ownership of related tools and increasing the chance that other farmers
will use the techniques. These examples also show how innovations work
in the field and what changes are needed for better results.
Nonformal educational systems are crucial for reaching the
population that is past the age for traditional primary schools and for
encouraging local adoption of new techniques. Even if revolutionary new
technologies exist at the research level, they can improve economies
only if farmers use them, so getting information into the hands of
local farmers, and especially women, is vital to the success of
research endeavors and should be part of any plan for agricultural
growth.
Two of the persistent obstacles to the adoption of new peanut
varieties are the difficulty of obtaining the seeds and the reluctance
to use new seeds without being sure how they will grow compared to the
traditional variety. Farmers want many of the benefits that new seed
varieties can bring--they typically prefer high-yield, high market
value, pest-resistant, and high oil-content varieties--but often they
cannot get the seeds or they are afraid the new seeds will fail.
Without some guarantee that the new seeds will work, farmers are often
unwilling to risk planting them, even if they are readily available,
and these farmers are certainly unwilling to make the substantial
investment of time and capital that is usually required to seek out and
acquire new seed varieties. Not many rural farmers have the resources
to go to the capital city and purchase experimental seed varieties from
a research institute, and the risk of an unknown variety is often too
high for a family to take.
One way of addressing this challenge is to give trial seed packages
to pilot farmers or members of the local farmers' association to try on
a portion of their land or on a test plot. This is a variation of the
early adopters' model, which searches for members of a community who
are willing and able to take some risk, and who then spread an idea to
their peers. This strategy addresses both difficulties, since it allows
for a trial with minimal risk, as well as a local source for new seed.
Once the pilot farmer or association members grow the new variety of
seed, they can sell it to their neighbors.
The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics (ICRISAT), in partnership with the Common Fund for Commodities
has developed a trial package for new varieties of peanut in the Sahel
(tested in Mali, Niger, and Nigeria) and disseminates it through pilot
farmers and farmers' associations. These farming associations are often
women's associations, since women traditionally need cash crops to be
able to meet their families' economic needs but have even less access
to improved seed varieties than men. In all of the countries, ICRISAT
provided 17 kilograms of new seed varieties to their pilot farmers, as
well as training in field management techniques that maximize the yield
for their crop. The project's agents then asked local farmers to help
distribute the new seed varieties through the members of their
associations.\4\
Although the management techniques were imperfectly applied, and
there is a cost associated with the new varieties and techniques,
farmers using the new varieties experienced substantial returns on
their investment. New varieties were 97% more profitable than
traditional ones, so farmers earned almost twice as much on their
investment as they would have with the types of seed already in use.
This is a story that has repeated itself often over the trials.
ICRISAT has learned that the people most likely to adopt new peanut
varieties--and who therefore make good pilot farmers--are those who are
slightly younger, have smaller family sizes, and have relatively more
access to resources, such as labor and land. These are the people who
can afford to take a risk at the beginning, and when that risk pays
off, they serve as a model for the other farmers in their community.
They will then also serve as a source of local seed, which is very
important, since farmers are most likely to use either their own seed
stocks or stocks available from local markets.
Through this model, small investments can spread the use of modern
seed varieties that have much higher yields and are more profitable to
sell. These higher yields and profits ensure food security, including
much-needed protein in rural diets, while improving the quality of life
for the farmer.
As mentioned earlier, sending extension workers--either from
governments or NGOs--into the field is a common practice that can be
more or less effective, depending on who the extension agents are and
how they handle the situation in the villages. Extension agents who are
the peers of local villagers and practice the lessons they teach in a
way that the other farmers can observe are usually the most effective.
Many countries in Africa have a variety of ethnic groups and
regional subgroups who have different habits, speak different
languages, and have different resources.
The further removed an extension agent is from the population with
which he or she works--by barriers of language, socioeconomic status,
gender, education, or tradition--the more difficult it is to convince
people to adopt the technique. There is a tendency for people to decide
that the idea is appropriate for someone like the extension agent, but
not someone like themselves, even if they think that the idea is a good
one. The comment, ``That may be how that group does it, but it could
never work in our village'' is a common one for formal educators who
come from a city or a different population subgroup. However, if the
teacher is a peer, it is harder to make the distinction between their
success and the potential success of each village farmer.
Governments can use the peer educator or farmer-to-farmer method to
help spread information and new agricultural innovations across their
entire rural population. By funding a few formal extension workers who
train and help support a large network of peer educators, a government
can reach most or all of the rural population, even if the groups are
segregated by language, ethnicity, geography, or traditional farming
techniques. Thus, a relatively small investment can have huge impacts
on a country's agricultural processes and therefore on food security
and the national economy.
Farmer Field Schools (FFS) provide a way for communities to test a
new technique and adapt it to their own specific needs. Many
agricultural technologies need to be adapted to local contexts once
they leave the lab to ensure that they are practical for farmers and
that people can adopt them into their current agricultural practices.
The FFSs also allow for easier dissemination of new information because
peers, as opposed to outsiders, are the teachers. This model also
develops community ownership by encouraging local participation in new
processes and leads to better adoption among participants.\5\
Local farmers participating in FFSs are often selected through
local leadership structures or village farming associations. They plant
one plot using the techniques that they currently use and a second plot
with the new technology. At the end of the growing season, the farmers
then come together to compare the costs, revenues, and profits between
the old way and the new technology. In this way, farmers can see what
works for them and can adapt the new method as seems appropriate during
the growing season. Farmers also become invested in the process and
have reason to believe that it will work for them.
Any organization--private or public--can start a Farmers' Field
School. The resources needed are access to the new technology, be it a
seed variety, a new fertilizer, or a new irrigation technique; a few
extension agents to train a cadre of local farmers to spread the
innovation; and a few follow-up visits to monitor the process and help
villages interpret the results. These results should then move up to
the national level to inform state policy and research. The following
is an example of how an FFS can be used to address a specific problem.
Striga, often called witchweed, is a plant that grows in millet,
sorghum, and other cereal fields across West Africa and causes a myriad
of problems.\6\ It can reduce crop yields between 5% and 80%, reduce
soil fertility, and erode soil, all of which decrease the durability
and profitability of rainy season-based agricultural systems. A single
weed can produce more than 200,000 seeds, which remain viable in the
soil for up to 10 years, making the plant very hard to eradicate. There
are places where Striga infestation means that farmers lose money on
every cereal crop they plant and are unable to feed their families or
earn a living.
Nevertheless, there is a solution. In 2007, the International Crop
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), the
International Fund for Agricultural Development, and several European
agricultural research organizations partnered with the Tominion
Farmers' Union in Mali to implement a project that uses an integrated
management system combining intercropping with beans or peanuts,
reduced numbers of seeds per hole planted, and periodic weeding to
control Striga. Using the FFS model, a few agricultural experts trained
75 local farmers to train their peers in integrated management
techniques. These farmers then trained 300 others, and implemented the
test plot procedure for their areas.
The results are impressive. Striga plants decreased, crop yields
and profits increased, and many farmers decided to implement the
process in their own fields. Farmers discovered that it was necessary
for them to conduct three cycles of weeding rather than the two that
the project originally recommended. This change has been formally
adopted into the integrated management system. With these three weeding
cycles, the incidence of Striga in the field went to zero in the test
plots. Profits per hectare increased from $47 to $276, an improvement
of nearly 500%. In some cases, villages went from a loss to a profit on
their fields. The return on investment more than tripled, so while
there was a slightly increased cost of the new methods, they more than
paid for themselves. Many of the farmers involved in the 2007 study
used the new methods in their own fields in 2008, and spread the
message about the new techniques to their neighbors. This encouraged an
enabling environment for the adoption of new technologies.
Another model is that of radio education--mentioned in the URDT
case above--where extension education sessions are recorded in the
appropriate local languages and played periodically on the radio. For
many rural communities with low access to television and low literacy,
this can be a crucial way to spread information to local farmers,
especially if done in conjunction with another model, like the
technical training or extension models that allow farmers to ask
follow-up questions.
Innovation in Higher Agricultural Education
America's land-grant colleges pioneered agricultural growth by
combining research, education, and extension services. The preeminent
role of universities as vehicles of community development is reflected
in the U.S. land-grant system.\7\ The system not only played a key role
in transforming rural America but also offered the world a new model
for bringing knowledge to support community development. This model has
found expression in a diversity of institutional innovations around the
world. While the land-grant model is largely associated with
agriculture, its adaptation to industry is less recognized.
Universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
and parts of Stanford University owe their heritage to the land-grant
system.\8\ The drift of the land-grant model to other sectors is not
limited to the United States. The central mission of using higher
education to stimulate community development is practiced around the
world in a variety of forms.
There are three models for entrepreneurial education in Brazil that
have advanced to different stages of creating an ``entrepreneurial
university.'' \9\ The Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro,
the Federal University of Itajuba, and the Federal University of Minas
Gerais have all started to include entrepreneurship in the educational
experience of their students. This experience often complements and
coordinates with private sector initiatives, and in some cases
companies fund parts of the curriculum. The interaction between
academia, government, and industry allows for a broader approach and
for a shifting of program goals.
The lessons from these three schools are that flexibility in
curricula and the openness to partnering with other organizations--
especially industry--allow universities to develop successful
entrepreneurship programs that provide employment opportunities for
their students as well as a chance to experience the culture of
starting a business. The stimuli that lead universities to these
activities might be an external change--lack of funding from the
government--or an internal decision to shift focus. An institution that
is more flexible, whose staff supports the change in a more unified
way, is more likely to make the change toward becoming an
``entrepreneurial university,'' which allows students to focus on not
just having business know-how and the ability to work for or with large
companies, but also on how to create jobs and opportunities for
themselves and their peers. Universities must have the autonomy and the
flexibility to adopt these programs as well as the ability to build
networks with local actors. Ultimately, this will contribute to the
nation's development.
African countries would be better served by looking critically at
these variants and adapting them to their conditions. These
institutional adaptations often experience opposition from advocates of
incumbent university models. Arguments against the model tend to focus
on the claim that universities that devote their time to practical work
are not academic enough. As a result, a hierarchy exists that places
such institutions either at the lower end of the academic ladder or
simply dismisses them as vocational colleges.
The land-grant model is being reinvented around the world to
address such challenges. One of the most pioneering examples in
curriculum reform is EARTH University in Costa Rica, which stands out
as one of the first sustainable development universities in the
world.\10\ It was created in 1990 through a US$100 million endowment
provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and
the Kellogg Foundation. Its curriculum is designed to match the
realities of agribusiness.\11\ The university dedicates itself to
producing a new generation of agents of change who focus on creating
enterprises rather than seeking jobs.
EARTH University emerged in a context that mirrors today's Africa:
economic stagnation, high unemployment, ecological decay, and armed
conflict. Inspired by the need for new attitudes and paradigms, EARTH
University is a nonprofit, private, international university dedicated
to sustainable agricultural education in the tropics. It was launched
as a joint effort between the private and public sectors in the United
States and Costa Rica. The Kellogg Foundation provided the original
grant for a feasibility study at the request of a group of Costa Rican
visionaries. Based on the study, USAID provided the initial funding for
the institution. The original mission of the university was to train
leaders to contribute to the sustainable development of the humid
tropics and to build a prosperous and just society. Located in the
Atlantic lowlands of Costa Rica, EARTH University admits about 110
students a year and has a total student population of about 400 from 24
countries (mainly in Latin America and the Caribbean) and faculty from
22 countries. Through its endowment, the university provides all
students with 50% of the cost of tuition, room, and board.
In addition, the university provides scholarships to promising
young people of limited resources from remote and marginalized regions.
Nearly 80% of the students receive full or partial scholarship support.
All students live on campus for four intensive years.
EARTH University has developed an innovative, learner-centered, and
experiential academic program that includes direct interaction with the
farming community.\12\ Its educational process stresses the development
of attitudes necessary for graduates to become effective agents of
change. They learn to lead, identify with the community, care for the
environment, and be entrepreneurial. They are committed to lifelong
learning. There are four activities in particular within the curriculum
that embodies EARTH University's experiential approach to learning.
Learning from Work Experience and Community Service
The first is the Work Experience activity, which is taken by all
first-, second-, and third-year students and continues in the fourth
year as the Professional Experience course. In the first and second
years, students work in crop, animal, and forestry production modules
on EARTH University's 3,300-hectare farm. In the first year, the work
is largely a routine activity and the experience centers on the
acquisition of basic skills, work habits, and general knowledge and
familiarity with production. In the second year, the focus changes to
management strategies for these same activities. Work Experience is
later replaced with Professional Experience. In this course students
identify work sites or activities on campus that correspond with their
career goals. Students are responsible for contacting the supervisors
of the campus operations, requesting an interview, and soliciting
``employment.'' Upon agreement, supervisors and students develop a
joint work plan that the student implements, dedicating a minimum of 10
hours per week to the ``job.'' The second activity is an extension of
the Work Experience course. Here third-year students work on an
individual basis with small, local producers on their farms. They also
come together in small groups under the Community Outreach program that
is integral to the learning system. Community outreach is used to
develop critical professional skills in students, while at the same
time helping to improve the quality of life in nearby rural
communities. The third-year internship program emphasizes experiential
learning. The 15-week internship is required for all students in the
third trimester of their third year of study. It is an opportunity for
them to put into practice all they have learned during their first
three years of study. For many of them it is also a chance to make
connections that may lead to employment after graduation. The
international character of the institution allows many students the
opportunity to follow their interests, even when they lead to
internship destinations other than in their home country.
Sharpening Entrepreneurial Skills
The fourth activity is the Entrepreneurial Projects Program. EARTH
University's program promotes the participation of its graduates in the
private sector as a critical means by which the institution can achieve
its mission of contributing to the sustainable development of the
tropics. The development of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
is a powerful way to create new employment and improve income
distribution in rural communities. For this reason, the university
stresses the development of an entrepreneurial spirit and skills.
Courses in business administration and economics combined with
practical experience prepare the students to engage in business
ventures upon graduation.
This course provides students the opportunity to develop a business
venture from beginning to end during their first three years at EARTH
University. Small groups of four to six students from different
countries decide on a relevant business activity. They conduct
feasibility studies (using financial, social, and environmental
criteria), borrow money from the university, and implement the venture.
This includes marketing and selling the final product. After repaying
their loan, with interest, the group shares the profits. This
entrepreneurial focus has permeated all aspects of the university's
operations and prepared students to become job creators and agents of
change rather than job seekers. About 17% of the university's 1,100
graduates run their own businesses. The university also manages its own
profitable agribusiness, which has resulted in strong relationships
with the private sector. When the university acquired its campus, it
decided to continue operating the commercial banana farm located on the
property. Upon taking over the farm, the university implemented a
series of measures designed to promote more environmentally sound and
socially responsible production approaches.
Going Global
EARTH University has internationalized its operations. It signed an
agreement with U.S.-based Whole Foods Market to be the sole distributor
of bananas in their stores. The university also sells other
agricultural products to the U.S. market. This helps to generate new
income for the university and for small farmers while providing an
invaluable educational opportunity for the students and faculty. In
addition to internships, students have access to venture capital upon
graduation. The university uses part of the income to fund sustainable
and organic banana and pineapple production research. Over the years
the university has worked closely with African institutions and leaders
to share its experiences. Following nearly seven years of study through
workshops, discussions, training courses, and site visits, African
participants agreed to the importance of reforms in their own
university systems, especially through the creation of new universities
along the lines of the EARTH model. The case of EARTH University is one
of many examples around the world involving major collaborative efforts
between the United States and east African countries to bring
scientific and technical knowledge to improve welfare through
institutional innovations. Such experiences, and those of U.S. land-
grant universities, offer a rich fund of knowledge that should be
harnessed for Africa's agricultural development and economic growth.
Such models show how to focus agricultural training as a way to
improve practical farming activities. Ministries of sustainable
agriculture and farming enterprises in east African countries should be
encouraged to create entrepreneurial universities, polytechnics, and
high schools that address agricultural challenges. Such colleges could
link up with counterparts in developed or emerging economies as well as
institutions providing venture capital and start to serve as incubators
of rural enterprises. Establishing such colleges will require reforming
the curriculum, improving pedagogy, and granting greater management
autonomy. They should be guided by the curiosity, creativity, and risk-
taking inclination of farmers.
Policy Lessons
The challenges facing African agriculture will require fundamental
changes in the way universities train their students. It is notable
that most African universities do not specifically train agriculture
students to work on farms in the same way medical schools train
students to work in hospitals. Part of the problem arises from the
traditional separation between research and teaching, with research
carried out in national research institutes and teaching in
universities. There is little connection between the two in many
African countries. This needs to radically change so that agricultural
education can contribute directly to the agricultural sector.
A number of critical measures are needed at the regional and
national levels to achieve this goal.\13\ The first should be to
rationalize existing agricultural institutions by designating some
universities as hubs in key agricultural clusters. For example,
universities located in proximity to coffee production sites should
develop expertise in the entire value chain of the coffee industry.
This could be applied to other crops as well as livestock and
fisheries. Such universities could be designed around existing national
research institutes that would acquire a training function as part of a
regional rationalization effort. Such dedicated universities would not
have monopoly over specific crops but should serve as opportunities for
learning how to connect higher education to the productive sector.
Internally, the universities should redefine their academic foci to
adjust to the changes facing Africa. This can be better done through
continuous interaction among universities, farmers, businesses,
government, and civil society organizations. Governance systems that
allow for such continuous feedback to universities will need to be put
in place.
The reform process will need to include specific measures. First,
universities need a clear vision and strategic planning for training
future agricultural leaders with a focus on practical applications.\14\
Such plans should include comprehensive road maps on how to best
recruit, retain, and prepare future graduates. These students should be
prepared in partnership with key stakeholders.
Second, universities need to improve their curricula to make them
relevant to the communities in which they are located. More important,
they should serve as critical hubs in local innovation systems or
clusters. The community focus, however, will not automatically result
in local benefits without committed leadership and linkages with local
sources of funding.\15\ The recent decision by Moi University in
western Kenya to acquire an abandoned textile mill and revive it for
teaching purposes is an example of such an opportunity.
Third, universities should give students more opportunities to gain
experience outside the classroom. This can be done through traditional
internships and research activities. But the teaching method could also
be adjusted so that it is experiential and capable of imparting direct
skills. More important, such training should also include the
acquisition of entrepreneurial skills.
Fourth, continuous faculty training and research are critical for
maintaining high academic standards. Universities should invest more in
undergraduate agricultural educators to promote effective research and
teaching and to design new courses.
Finally, it is important to establish partnerships among various
institutions to support and develop joint programs. These partnerships
should pursue horizontal relationships and open networking to generate
more synergy and collaboration, encourage sharing of resources, and
foster the exchange of students and faculty. This can be done through
regional exchanges that involve the sharing of research facilities and
other infrastructure.
Providing tangible rewards and incentives to teachers for exemplary
teaching raises the profile of teaching and improves education. In
addition, establishing closer connections and mutually beneficial
relationships among all stakeholders (academia and industry, including
private and public institutions, companies, and sectors) should
generate further opportunities for everyone.
Lifelong Learning through the Private Sector
The roles of the private and public sector in lifelong learning
opportunities are illustrated by the case of Peru's relatively high-
tech asparagus industry.\16\ Both public and private programs offer
industry-specific training for employees and build on the skills that
many workers get from experience in the formal education sector. Those
working at the managerial level tend to receive training from La
Molina--the national agricultural university. There is a tension
between private and public sector training, as hiring managers tend to
perceive graduates of private education as being of higher quality,
although the public sector is able to produce more graduates and
therefore better meet the industry demand for workers. Ultimately, the
best arrangement is some combination of public and private sector
education and training, as Peru has high secondary and tertiary school
enrollment compared to many other Latin American countries.
Asparagus exporting requires a high level of skill because of the
need to keep the asparagus under controlled conditions and package it
in appropriate weights. The success of this industry relies upon
investment in long-term learning for employees. There is a great
emphasis on on-the-job training, whereby employees learn a specific set
of job-related skills. In addition, there are both private and public
vocational training programs for adults. Employers give consistently
better reviews to those workers who receive on-the-job training or who
complete the private sector training programs than to those who
graduate from government-run programs. Students are willing to pay for
private training because the curriculum and schedule are more flexible,
and they allow the students to continue their employment, in contrast
to the more rigid structure in public institutions. These private
institutions also generally include an internship--which serves as both
student training and a relatively low-cost way for employers to recruit
skilled students.
Nevertheless, these programs are not without problems; they produce
fewer students than the industry needs, and they rely on employees
having at least primary or some secondary education, largely as a
result of Peru's relatively high levels of enrollment in secondary
schools.
A high proportion of managers graduate from La Molina with degrees
in agronomy or engineering. La Molina not only trains many of the
skilled workers in management and agronomic skills, but it also
conducts much of the research that the industry uses to have its crops
meet international export standards. La Molina also conducts technology
transfer with countries like the United States and Israel to adapt new
techniques to local realities.
There are several training models to help farmers and plant workers
acquire the skills they need. First are the private models of on-the-
job training, which range from informal mentoring in the first two
weeks of work to Frio Aereo's (a consortium of 10 partners that is
concerned with managing the cold chain) formalized internship program
and weekly training sessions during the slower seasons. Second are
private universities such as Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego that
train technicians and managers; there are also public institutions with
similar goals, whose graduates tend to be less valued by employers.
Additionally, there is a public sector youth training program that aims
to help young graduates become successful agricultural entrepreneurs.
Finally, there is El Centro de Transferencia de Tecnologia a
Universitarios, which uses holistic approaches to develop agricultural
entrepreneurs, either by giving students plots of land that they must
pay for over several years, or working with small farmers who already
own land. The model that works with smallholders requires an investment
of about US$33,000 per farmer.
Private sector initiatives have so far been more successful at
training older workers in the necessary techniques. However, much of
the system depends on workers having initial basic public education, as
well as the managerial expertise and public goods that La Molina
provides. Successful training for high-skill industries requires a
combination of private sector initiatives and a solid foundation of
public education and research.
Conclusion
The current gaps in educational achievement and the lack of
infrastructure in many African school systems are an opportunity for
governments to adopt more community-driven models that prioritize
education in a holistic way that improves community involvement, child
achievement, agricultural production, and the standard of living for
rural populations. Acknowledging that agriculture is both a valued
traditional lifestyle and a huge potential driver of economic growth,
and changing educational programming to respect these goals, will go a
long way toward encouraging basic education and improving people's
lives.
No new agricultural technology, however cutting-edge and effective,
can improve the situation if people are unable to access it and use it.
Farmers need to have the capacity to adopt and understand new
technologies, and the system needs to develop to meet their needs and
to enable them. Since most of the farmers in Africa are women, an
important component of these systems will be including women in all
parts of the process: education, capacity building, and technology
innovation.
6 Entrepreneurship
The creation of agricultural enterprises represents one of the most
effective ways to stimulate rural development. This chapter will review
the efficacy of the policy tools used to promote agricultural
enterprises, with a particular focus on the positive, transformative
role that can be played by the private sector. Inspired by such
examples, this chapter will end by exploring ways in which African
countries, subregional, and regional bodies can create incentives that
stimulate entrepreneurship in the agricultural sector. The chapter will
take into account new tools such as information and communication
technologies and the extent to which they can be harnessed to promote
entrepreneurship.
Agribusiness and development
Economic change entails the transformation of knowledge into goods
and services through business enterprises. In this respect, creating
links between knowledge and business development is the most important
challenge facing agricultural renewal in east African countries. The
development of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has been an
integral part of the development of all industrialized economies. This
holds true in Africa. Building these enterprises requires development
of pools of capital for investment; of local operational, repair, and
maintenance expertise; and of a regulatory environment that allows
small businesses to flourish. Africa must review its incentive
structures to promote these objectives.\1\
A range of government policy structures is suitable for creating
and sustaining enterprises--from taxation regimes and market-based
instruments to consumption policies and changes in the national system
of innovation. Policy makers also need to ensure that educational
systems provide adequate technical training. They need to support
agribusiness and technology incubators, export processing zones, and
production networks as well as sharpen the associated skills through
agribusiness education.
Banks and financial institutions also play key roles in fostering
technological innovation and supporting investment in homegrown
domestic businesses. Unfortunately, their record in promoting
technological innovation in Africa has been poor. Capital markets have
played a critical role in creating SMEs in other developed countries.
Venture capitalists not only bring money to the table; they also help
groom small and medium-sized start-ups into successful enterprises.
Venture capital in Africa, however, barely exists outside of South
Africa and needs to be introduced and nurtured.
Much of the effort to promote venture capital in developing
countries has been associated with public sector initiatives whose
overall impact is questionable.\2\ One of the possible explanations for
the high rate of failure is that many of these initiatives are not
linked to larger strategies to create local innovation systems. Venture
capital is only one enabling species in a complex innovation
ecosystem.\3\ It does not exist in an institutional or geographical
vacuum and appears to obey the same evolutionary laws as other aspects
of innovation systems.\4\ It is therefore important to look at examples
of geographical, technological, and market aspects of venture capital.
The legal elements needed to create institutions are only a minor part
of the challenge.
One critical starting point is ``knowledge prospecting,'' which
involves identifying existing technologies and using them to create new
businesses. African countries have so far been too isolated to benefit
from the global stock of technical knowledge. They need to make a
concerted effort to leverage expertise among their nationals residing
in other countries. Such diasporas can serve as links to existing know-
how, establish links to global markets, train local workers to perform
new tasks, and organize the production process to produce and market
more knowledge-intensive, higher value added agricultural products.
Advances in communications technologies and the advent of lower-
cost high-speed Internet will also reduce this isolation dramatically.
The laying of new fiber-optic cables along the coasts of Africa and,
potentially, the use of lower-latency satellite technology can
significantly reduce the price of international connectivity and will
enable African universities and research institutions to play new roles
in rural development. The further development of Internet exchange
points (ISPs) in east Africa where they do not currently exist is also
important. ISPs enable Internet traffic to be exchanged locally, rather
than transverse networks located outside the continent, improving the
experience of users and lowering the cost to provide service.
Much is already known about how to support business development.
The available policy tools include direct financing via matching
grants, taxation policies, government or public procurement policies,
advance purchase arrangements, and prizes to recognize creativity and
innovation. These can be complemented by simple ways to promote rural
innovation that involve low levels of funding, higher local commitments
and consistent long-term government policy.
For example, China's mission-oriented ``Spark Program,'' created to
popularize modern technology in rural areas, had spread to more than
90% of the country's counties by 2005. The program helped to improve
the capability of young rural people by upgrading their technological
skills, creating a nationwide network for distance learning, and
encouraging rural enterprises to become internationally competitive.
The program was sponsored by the Minister of Science and Technology.\5\
There is growing evidence that the Chinese economic miracle is a
consequence of the rural entrepreneurship that started in the 1980s.
This contradicts classical interpretations that focus on state-led
enterprises as well as receptiveness to foreign direct investment. The
creation of millions of township and village enterprises (TVEs) in
provinces such as Zhejiang, Anhui, and Hunan played a key role in
stimulating rural industrialization.\6\
Over the past 60 years, China has experimented extensively with
policies and programs to encourage the growth of rural enterprises that
provide isolated agricultural areas with key producer inputs and access
to post-harvest, value-added food processing. Despite the troubled
early history, by 1995 China's TVEs had helped bring about a revolution
in Chinese agriculture and had evolved to account for approximately 25%
of China's GDP, 66% of all rural economic output, and more than 33% of
China's total export earnings.\7\
Most of the TVEs have become private enterprises and focus in areas
outside agricultural inputs or food processing. Agricultural support
from TVEs remains relevant, however, particularly as a model by which
other countries may be able to increase farmers' access to key inputs
such as fertilizers and equipment, as well as value-added processing of
raw agricultural products.
With few rural-urban connecting roads and weak distribution
systems, the Chinese government moved to resolve these agricultural
input and post-harvest processing constraints by creating new
enterprises in rural areas. China's initial rural enterprise strategy
therefore focused on the so-called five small industries that it deemed
crucial to agricultural growth: chemical fertilizer, cement, energy,
iron and steel, and farm machinery. With strong backward linkages
between these rural enterprises and Chinese farmers, agricultural
development in China grew substantially in the late 1970s and 1980s
through farmland capital construction, chemical fertilization, and
mechanization.
This expansion in agricultural productivity, coupled with high
population growth, led to a surplus of labor and a scarcity of
farmland. As a consequence, China's rural enterprises increasingly
shifted from supplying agricultural producer inputs to labor-intensive
consumer goods, for domestic and (after 1984 market reforms)
international markets. From the mid-1980s to the 1990s, China's TVEs
saw explosive growth in these areas while they continued to supply
agricultural producers with access to key inputs, new technologies, and
food processing services. In 1993, 8.1% of total TVE economic output
came from food processing, while chemicals (including fertilizer)
accounted for 10%, building materials 12%, and equipment (including for
farms) 18%.
The most successful TVEs were those with strong links to urban and
peri-urban industries with which they could form joint ventures and
share technical information; those in private ownership; and those with
a willingness to shift from supplying producer inputs for farmers to
manufacturing consumer goods for both domestic and international
markets.
China's experience with rural enterprises confirms that they may
provide a mechanism through which developing states can enhance rural
access to key agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and
mechanization, as well as value-added post-harvest food processing.
Rural enterprises may make the most sense in areas where farm-to-market
roads cannot be easily established to achieve similar backward and
forward linkages. In addition to sparking agricultural productivity and
growth, rural enterprises may also help provide employment for farm
laborers displaced by agricultural mechanization. By keeping workers
and economic activity in rural areas, China has helped expand rural
markets, limit rural-urban migration, and create conditions under which
it is easier for the government to provide key social services such as
health care and education.
Despite the fact that TVEs enjoyed government support through
financing and technical assistance, they enjoyed a degree of autonomy
in their operations. The emergence of rural markets in China not only
contributed to prosperity in agricultural communities, but it also
provided the impetus for the modernization of the economy as a
whole.\8\ Furthermore, the TVEs also became a foundation for creating
entrepreneurial leadership and building managerial and organizational
capacity.\9\
Such entrepreneurial initiatives will succeed in the absence of
consistent and long-term policy guidance on the one hand, and autonomy
of action on the part of farmers and entrepreneurs, on the other hand.
The latter is particularly critical because a large part of economic
growth entails experimentation and learning. Neither of these can take
place unless farmers and associated entrepreneurs have sufficient
freedom to act. In other words, development has to be viewed as an
expression of human potentialities and not a product of external
interventions.
The Seed Industry
The seed sector in sub-Saharan Africa is dominated by informal
supply systems with farm-saved seeds accounting for approximately 80%
of planted seeds. Improving smallholder farmers' access to new high-
yielding varieties and hybrid crops requires better coordinated
marketing efforts and expanded distribution systems. Because of their
small size and market orientation, small to medium-sized emerging seed
companies have a potential competitive advantage in meeting the needs
of smallholder farmers. Emerging seed companies--the nexus of publicly
supported agricultural biotechnology and newly created market
opportunities for the private sector--can promote food security and
welfare improvement within economically disadvantaged rural
communities.\10\
However, these emerging domestic companies have limited financial
and managerial resources and are often hampered by complex and
bureaucratic legal frameworks. As infants in the industry, small to
medium-sized domestic seed companies need short-term assistance,
especially in establishing a solid financial base and developing
management capacity.
Maize is a staple in southern and eastern Africa, yet the amount of
produce and the acreage of maize have not increased much over the
years, even though the number of grain producers has quadrupled.
However, the seed sector faces major challenges. Although less
monopolized now, the seed sector in a majority of African countries is
far from being efficient. The seed industry suffers from five levels of
bottlenecks, producing an adverse effect on the maize seed value chain
across the region. The first bottleneck is government political and
technical policies. Import procedures, for instance, are cumbersome
enough in Tanzania to dissuade seed import while in Zimbabwe, during
the economic crisis, the government banned seed exports.\11\
Second, establishing a seed company has a high initial cost,
requiring access to credit; the company also needs qualified manpower.
Third, the production of seed suffers from a lack of adequate and
adapted input, from expensive production costs and lack of production
credit, and from poor weather and unfavorable land policies. Fourth,
poor infrastructure in the value chain, such as poor retail networks or
sales points, jeopardize marketing and access to the farmers. Last,
farmers tend to have low demand for seeds.
Millet and Sorghum Production in India
Millions of small-scale farmers in India live in harsh environments
where rainfall is limited and irrigation and fertilizer are
unavailable.\12\ In these harsh areas, many farmers have long grown
sorghum and pearl millet--hardy crops that can thrive in almost any
soil and survive under relatively tough conditions. Production from
these crops was low, however, and so were returns to farmers, until
improved, higher-producing varieties were developed and distributed
starting in the 1970s. Since then, a succession of more productive and
disease-resistant varieties has raised farmers' yields and improved the
livelihoods of about six million millet-growing households and three
million sorghum-growing households. Although public funding was the key
to developing this improved genetic material, it has been private seed
companies that have helped ensure that these gains were spread to, and
realized by, the maximum number of Indian farmers.
The success and sustainability of these improved varieties resulted
from interventions by the Indian government and the international
community, as well as the increasing inclusion of private industry and
market-based solutions in seed sale and distribution. Three key
interventions include increased investments in crop improvements during
the 1970s; the development of efficient seed systems with a gradual
inclusion of the private sector in the 1980s; and the liberalization of
the Indian seed industry in the late 1990s. By allowing farmers to grow
the same amount of millet or sorghum using half as much land, these
improved varieties have made it possible for farmers to shift farmland
to valuable cash crops and thereby raise their incomes. Our analysis
will focus on the key role played by the last of these three
innovations, the establishment of a private seed industry.
Government Investment in Research
The first advances in millet and sorghum research in India resulted
from the efforts of a range of government institutions. These programs
organized government research and in many locations tested for improved
characteristics of hybrids and varieties--through state agricultural
universities, research institutes, and experiment stations. Joint
efforts by these institutions resulted in the release of a succession
of pearl millet hybrids offering yield advantages. Since the mid-1960s,
average grain yields have nearly doubled, even though much of the
production of millet has shifted to more marginal production
environments. Production of pearl millet in India currently stands at
nine million tons, and hybrids are grown in more than half of the total
national pearl millet area of 10 million hectares.
Cultivating the Seed Industry
At the beginning of the Green Revolution, the Indian government and
key state governments decided that state extension services and
emerging private seed companies could not distribute enough seed to
allow for the large-scale adoption of new varieties. The government
decided to create state seed corporations, the first of which evolved
out of the G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology in
Pantnagar. This corporation then became a model for the National Seed
Corporation and other state seed corporations.
The Indian government, with the financial support of the World Bank
and technical assistance from the Rockefeller Foundation, financed the
development of state seed corporations in most major Indian states in
the 1960s. Gradually, these state seed corporations replaced state
departments of seed production and formed the nascent foundations of a
formal seed industry. Often, formal seed industries are taken for
granted, especially in industrial countries, where agriculture is
extremely productive. But in India, as in many other countries, seed
industries are still emerging. The problem stems from the limited
profitability of seeds. When farmers are able to plant and save seeds
from one season to the next without losing much in terms of yield and
output, there is little need for them to purchase new seeds--and little
opportunity for seed producers to sell new seeds.
It is only when commercial seeds offer clear advantages in terms of
quality and performance that farmers become more willing to purchase
them. When improvements are bred into a crop, for example, farmers must
buy or otherwise gain access to the improved seed to realize the
benefits of breeding. Farmers must also buy seeds to realize the full
benefits of hybrids, the yields of which tend to drop when grain from
harvests is saved and planted in the next season. But seed industries
do not emerge simply by themselves. The right rules and regulations
must be in place to encourage private investment in the industry and to
limit the role of the public sector where it is a less-efficient
purveyor of seed to farmers. In India, this institutional framework for
the development of a seed industry emerged with the Indian Seed Act in
1966. The nascent Indian seed industry was heavily regulated under the
act, however, with limited entry and formation of large private firms--
domestic or foreign. Private seed imports for both commercial and
research purposes were restricted or banned, ostensibly to protect
smallholders from predatory corporate practices.
Emergence of the Private Seed Industry
Since the 1970s, the private sector has played an ever-increasing
role in developing improved varieties of millet and sorghum and
distributing them to farmers through innovative partnerships with
public sector agencies. In 1971, India began deregulating the seed
sector, relaxing restrictions on seed imports and private firms' entry
into the seed market. This change, combined with a new seed policy in
1988, spurred enormous growth in private sector seed supplies in India.
Currently, the Indian market for agricultural seed is one of the
biggest in the world.
Sorghum and pearl millet breeding by private companies began around
1970, when four companies had their own sorghum and pearl millet
breeding programs. By 1985 this number had grown to 10 companies. In
1981, a private company developed and released the first hybrid pearl
millet. One major reason for the spurt in private sector growth was the
strong public sector research on sorghum and millet. International
agricultural research centers such as the International Crops Research
Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) exchanged breeding
material with public and private research institutions. National
agricultural research centers such as the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research (ICAR) and agricultural universities provided
breeder seed not only to the national and state seed corporations but
also to private seed companies to be multiplied and distributed through
their company outlets, farmer cooperatives, and private dealers. For
private firms, public institutions like ICRISAT, ICAR, and state
universities provided invaluable genetic materials, essentially free of
charge.
Today, more than 60 private seed companies supply improved pearl
millet to small-scale farmers and account for 82% of the total seed
supply, while more than 40 companies supply improved sorghum,
accounting for 75% of supply. Many of these companies benefit not only
from the availability of public research on improved pearl millet and
sorghum but also from innovative partnerships that specifically aim to
disseminate new materials to the private sector. The most recognized of
these partnerships is ICRISAT's hybrid consortia, developed in 2000-01.
Private companies pay a membership fee to ICRISAT to receive
nonexclusive access to hybrid parent lines that they can then use for
the development and marketing of their own seed products. Although no
single company has a monopoly over an individual line--all companies
can use them for their own purposes as they choose--the market is
currently large enough to allow all companies to compete for the
smallholder's business.
The ultimate beneficiaries of this public-private system are the
millions of small-scale farmers who grow sorghum and millet. Public
research agencies contribute genetic materials and scientific expertise
to improve crop varieties when the incentives for private sector
involvement are limited. Then, private companies take on the final
development of new varieties and seed distribution--tasks to which they
are often better suited than are public agencies. In this way, the
benefits of crop improvements are delivered directly to farmers, who
find them worthwhile enough to support financially.
All three elements of the Indian intervention to improve sorghum
and pearl millet hybrids were important. First, the investments in
public sector plant-breeding and crop-management research were made by
the national government, state governments, and international
agricultural research centers. When hybrids of sorghum and millet were
first being developed, all three of these groups contributed genetic
material that benefited farmers directly and provided the basis for
private researchers to develop new varieties. Second, the government
invested in seed production in public and private institutions. The
Indian government and state governments, with the help of donors, made
major investments in government seed corporations that multiplied the
seeds of not only wheat, rice, and maize, but also pearl millet and
sorghum. Seed laws were written and enforced to allow small private
sector seed companies to enter the seed business and make profits. The
government also provided training for people involved in the seed
industry in both public and private institutions.
Third, and most important, India liberalized the seed sector
starting in the mid-1980s. Instead of allowing state seed corporations
to become regional monopolies, the government opened the doors to
investment by large Indian firms and allowed foreign direct investment
in the sector. This change, coupled with continuing investments in
public plant breeding and public-private partnerships, has continued to
provide private firms with a steady stream of genetic materials for
developing proprietary hybrids. India also benefits from a seed law
that allows companies to sell truthfully labeled seed without having to
go through costly and time-consuming certification and registration
processes for new hybrids and varieties. The result is a vibrant and
sustainable supply of seed of new cultivars that are drought tolerant
and resistant to many pests and diseases.
Africa's Seeds of Development Program
The Seeds of Development Program (SODP) is designed to improve
access to appropriate, good quality, and competitively priced crop
seeds for low-income smallholder farmers in east and southern Africa.
This has been achieved by focused management training for over 30 small
to medium-sized local seed companies in the region such as Vitoria
Seeds in Uganda, Freshco Seeds in Kenya, Kamano Seeds in Zambia,
Qualita in Mozambique, and Seed Tech in Malawi. Utilizing a grant from
the UK Department for International Development (DFID), which was
issued in 2006, SODP aims to achieve the purpose through two main
outputs. The first output is to increase the scale of the program by
enrolling additional participants from countries already involved in
SODP and, in addition, bringing new countries into the program. The
second output is to increase the scope of the program through widening
program activities.\13\
SODP management training is showing results, with SODP companies
selling seed around 20% cheaper than their larger competitors. SODP
networking is also providing new ways of doing business and
opportunities for partnerships across countries. The link with the
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa has proved useful for some of
the companies. In the proposed follow-up SODP program, a major focus of
development will be facilitating effective alliances between the two
main SODP fellow categories (full service seed companies and seed
traders) to enable each to exploit their niche within the smallholder
market for seed.
SODP is an innovative program, valued by its participants.
Performance indicators are impressive--maize seed sales up by 54%
between 2006 and 2007; full-time employment up by 19%; and sales
revenue up by 35%. Company sales data also show that the bulk of sales
(more than 80%) go to smallholder farmers. By offering a wider variety
of seeds, including higher-yielding, disease- and drought-resistant
varieties, and other inputs such as fertilizers, SODP companies help
smallholder farmers increase food security for their families and
communities. The evidence available shows that SODP members are
producing and selling seed to smallholders at significantly lower
prices than their larger-scale competitors.
Food Processing
Transformations in the food processing sectors of developing
countries are increasingly seen as strategic from the point of view of
export earnings, domestic industry restructuring, and citizens'
nutrition and food security.\14\ The widespread adoption by developing
countries of export-led growth strategies has drawn attention to the
economic potential of their food processing sectors, particularly in
the light of the difficulties faced by many traditional primary
commodity export markets. Food processing can be understood as post-
harvest activities that add value to the agricultural product prior to
marketing. In addition to the primary processing of food ingredients,
it includes, therefore, final food production on the one hand and the
preparation and packaging of fresh products. To better understand the
role of food processing in African agricultural development, this
chapter will examine several cases of successful African food
processing start-ups as well as the role new technologies (particularly
radio and video) can play in teaching farmers how to add value with
post-harvest processing.
Homegrown Company, Ltd., Kenya
Homegrown Company, Ltd., is a success story of production and
export of packaged horticulture produce from Kenya. The company
ventured into Kenya in 1982 and focused on the processing and export of
vegetables to the UK market. The business strategy has been the
production and packaging of produce at source so that it can be
exported ready for the market outlet without further packaging abroad.
To ensure the desired quality and supply of fresh produce, it was
important for Homegrown to enter into partnerships with local farmers
to complement its own production. Through this partnership the company
is able to source about 25% of the total requirement from contracted
farmers, and in some cases such as French beans, 100% of the total
requirement.\15\
All farmers supplying to the Homegrown Company, Ltd., have a supply
contract. The contract is explicit in terms of the commodity to be
supplied, the period of supply, and the desired quality and quantity to
be supplied. This implies that farmers on contract are able to work out
their production schedules and put in place the necessary inputs to
meet the contract quantities and quality. By implication also, farmers
agree to follow the recommended crop husbandry so as to maintain the
required quality. This contractual arrangement was initiated by the
company as a strategy for achieving optimal resource use in the export
of fresh produce from Kenya. Through this strategy, the company has its
own nucleus of farm production units to meet a certain level of its
requirements and a network of farmers contracted to provide the
balance. Contracts entered with farmers for the supply of various types
of fresh farm produce explicitly indicate the price as well as other
quality dimensions that are important for delivery of the desired
produce.
By entering into a supply contract, farmers enjoy the benefits of
an assured market for their farm produce while at the same time
benefiting from the fact that their farming activity risk is minimized
by the certainty with which their production decisions are made.
Farmers enjoy an assured price for the various grades of farm produce
that they deliver to the contracting company. Due to the relative
involvement of the contractor in the production process, farmers are
supplied with the latest farming technology, such as the latest crop
varieties and crop husbandry techniques. This has been particularly
notable in the production of garden peas. The provision of technical
extension by the contractor has played a key role in ensuring that
farmers are able to optimize their production in terms of quality and
quantity. Homegrown Company, Ltd., also supplies fertilizers, and agro-
chemicals on credit to those farmers who need material credit so they
can produce the expected quantities and qualities.
Sampa Jimini Cooperative Cashew Processing Society, Ghana
Sampa Jimini Cooperative Cashew Processing Society, located in
Brong-Ahafo, was established in 1994 with the help of Technoserve, an
American NGO. There are 18 workers, including one factory manager and
two assistants. Membership of the Sampa Processing Society is 55. The
society has elected executives and operates on the guidelines of a
cooperative. In 1994, two processing societies were formed. The
Department of Cooperatives provided the requisite training on the
operation and management of the societies. In 1995, Technoserve
sponsored training in processing in Nigeria and helped with the
acquisition of equipment. Processing started in the year 2000.\16\
Four tons of raw nuts were processed into 1.14 tons of kernel.
Between 2001 and 2002, 15 tons of raw nuts were purchased and
processed. The kernels are sold to Golden Harvest Company, Ltd., in
Accra. In 2002, the buyer started experiencing problems with the
marketing of the kernels, which has affected prompt payment to the
Society. As a result, the Society has looked for other marketing
outlets such as the Indian community in Tamale and other sales outlets
in Accra.
Vertical and horizontal farm-agribusiness linkages existed in
cashew nut production. These linkages, however, were informal with no
written contracts. Four types of linkages were functional at the time
of the study: between farmers and the processing society; between
society and Technoserve for business development services and technical
advice; between the processing society and Golden Harvest Company,
Ltd., for final processing; and between Golden Harvest and Technoserve
for business development services, training, and technical advice.
Farmers supply the processing society with raw nuts for processing. The
processing society in turn educates the farmers on the best treatment
and drying practices to get good nuts that attract a premium price.
Technoserve encouraged the formation of the farmers' association and
the processing society, organized training on cooperative organization,
and introduced the society to financial institutions.
The linkage between the processing society and the marketing
company has also been facilitated by Technoserve to ensure a ready
market for the society's products. The connection is strengthened by
the fact that the processing society owns 60 million shares of Golden
Harvest, which in return provides training and information on
international market developments. There were no contractual
agreements. Technoserve played a significant role in establishing the
connections observed in this case by introducing the concept of value
addition by sponsoring training programs. Technoserve initiated all the
linkages with the marketing firms and the other government institutions
such as the Department of Cooperatives.
Blue Skies Agro-Processing Company, Ghana
Blue Skies Agro-processing Company, Ltd., is located about 25 km
from Accra.\17\ The company processes fresh fruits for supermarkets in
some European markets. Fruits processed include pineapple, mangoes,
watermelon, passion fruit, and pawpaw. While most fruit is procured in
Ghana, supply gaps are filled by imports from South Africa, Egypt,
Kenya, Brazil, and the UK. The company started with 38 workers and has
since increased the workforce to 450, 60% of whom are permanent staff.
The processed products of the company conform to the standards of the
European Retailer Partnership Good Agricultural Practices (EUREGAP). In
the last four years the company has grown tremendously, expanding its
processing facilities. Through good extension services and training of
farmers, coupled with higher price offers, the company rapidly
increased its processing capacity from 1 ton per week to about 35 tons
per week. Blue Skies is known to pay its farmers promptly and also to
offer a higher price per kilogram of pineapple.
Farmers receive technical training and advice from the processing
company free of charge to ensure that their produce meets the company's
quality standards. Committed and loyal farmers can also purchase inputs
and equipment interest free. Only farmers who are EUREPGAP certified
are obliged to sell to the company because of the investment the
company makes in getting farmers certified. There is a ready market for
Blue Skies' products in the EU market. The company is committed to
supplying products on time and in the right quantities to supermarkets.
To help its farmers, Blue Skies provides its dedicated farmers with
credit and has worked to improve road infrastructure near farms and
enhance access by company trucks.
Communication Technology in Food Processing
Conventional media, radio, and video are powerful, accessible, and
relevant forces of agricultural innovation and transformation in
Africa. Two-thirds of rural women creatively applied ideas illustrated
by videos demonstrating improved food processing techniques compared to
less than 20% who attended training workshops in Cotonou, Benin. The
power of radio and video programming is not adequately recognized and
accorded sufficient attention by Africa's policy makers, stifling the
potential of these media to unleash farmer innovations. Farmers'
innovations are often shaped by capital limitations and mainly rely on
locally available resources, of which knowledge is key.
Video provides a powerful, low-cost medium for farmer-to-farmer
extension and for exposing rural communities to new ideas and
practices. A recent study examined the impacts of educational videos
featuring early adopting farmers demonstrating the use of new
technologies and techniques.\18\ The study found that when women
watched videos featuring fellow farmers demonstrating new techniques,
they showed better learning and understanding of the technology and
creatively applied its central ideas. Innovation levels of 72% were
recorded in villages where videos were used to introduce women to
improved rice processing techniques. This can be compared to 19%
innovation among farmers who attended training workshops. When women
who had attended training workshops watched the videos, the innovations
increased to 92%.
Watching videos spurred greater innovation than did conventional
farmer training techniques. Notably high levels of creativity (67%)
were recorded among women who did not have access to the rice
processing technology featured in the video. The adaptations by Benin
women to improve rice processing after having watched the video
illustrate the power of video to quickly stimulate creativity among
rural people, who are often seen as much more passive technology
consumers. Besides being more powerful, video may also be able to reach
more people than conventional training workshops. Drawing lessons from
a similar rural learning initiative undertaken in Bangladesh, the
Africa Rice Center with a wide range of partners is using local
language videos to train farmers on various facets of rice production
and processing in Benin, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Nigeria, and Senegal,
among other countries.
By 2009, the rice videos had been translated into 30 African
languages and were being used by more than 400 community-based
organizations across Africa to strengthen their own capacity in rice
technologies.\19\ The videos, which are disseminated through mobile
cinema vans or local organizations, have been viewed by about 130,000
farmers across Africa, reaching three times as many farmers as face-to-
face farmer training workshops. Partner organizations in various
countries are combining the videos with radio programming to reinforce
the lessons and knowledge.
In Guinea, one radio station, Radio Guinee Maritime, has aired
interviews with farmers involved in this program reaching some 800,000
listeners, an experience that has been replicated in Gambia, Nigeria,
and Uganda. To effectively capitalize on the potential of radio and
video technologies in Africa, proponents advise broadening the
dissemination of innovations beyond those developed by the traditional
research and extension systems to include localized farmer innovations
also.
Social Entrepreneurship and Local Innovations
Social enterprises are emerging as major economic players
worldwide.\20\ Their role in African agriculture is growing. An example
of such an initiative is the One Acre Fund, a nonprofit organization
based in Bungoma (western Kenya) that provides farmers with the tools
they need to improve their harvests and feed their families.\21\ Life-
changing agricultural technologies already exist in the world; One Acre
Fund's primary focus is on how to distribute these technologies in a
``farmer-usable'' way, and how to get farmers to permanently adopt
these technologies. One Acre Fund currently serves 23,000 farm families
(with 115,000 children in those families) in Kenya and Rwanda.
From the beginning, One Acre Fund talked to farmers to understand
what they need to succeed: finance, farm inputs, education, and access
to markets. One Acre Fund offers a service model that addresses each of
these needs. When a farmer enrolls with One Acre Fund, she joins as
part of a group of 6 to 12 farmers. She receives an in-kind loan of
seed and fertilizer, which is guaranteed by her group members. One Acre
Fund delivers this seed and fertilizer to a market point within two
kilometers of where she lives and a field officer provides in-field
training on land preparation, planting, fertilizer application, and
weeding. These trainings are standardized across One Acre Fund's entire
operation and include interactive exercises, simple instructions, and
group modeling of agriculture techniques. For instance, after a field
officer teaches a group of farmers how to use a planting string to
space rows of crops, he asks them to model the technique in the field
so that he can offer immediate feedback.
Over the course of the season, the field officer monitors the
farmer's fields. At the end of the season, he trains her on how to
harvest and store her crop. One Acre Fund also offers a harvest buy-
back program that farmers can participate in if they choose. Final loan
repayment is several weeks after harvest--98% of farmers repay their
loans.
Before joining One Acre Fund, many farmers in Kenya were harvesting
five bags of maize from half an acre of land. After joining One Acre
Fund, their harvests typically increase to 12 to 15 bags of maize from
the same half acre of land. This represents a doubling in farm profit
per planted acre--twice as much income from the same amount of land.
The field officer is the most important part of the One Acre Fund
service model. These field officers are typically recruited from the
communities in which they work. One Acre Fund consciously chooses not
to hire university-educated horticulturists for its field staff (like
most NGOs) because most of the information farmers need to know is
encapsulated in a few simple lessons. The Fund prefers to employ down-
to-earth, hardworking staff--many of whom are farmers themselves--who
have strong leadership potential within their own communities.
One Acre Fund's field officers each work with roughly 120 farmers,
and they visit each of their farmers on a weekly or biweekly basis. At
these meetings, they conduct trainings, check germination rates,
troubleshoot problems in the field, and collect repayment. Over the
course of the season, One Acre Fund's field officers cultivate a strong
bond with their farmers. They respect the feedback their farmers give
them about farming techniques and One Acre Fund's program. In turn, One
Acre Fund farmers have a deep appreciation for how knowledgeable their
field officers are and how hard they work to serve their customers.
Many farmers call their field officers ``teacher.''
Local innovations represent one of Africa's least recognized
assets. For more than 20 years India's Honey Bee Network and Society
for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and
Institutions have been scouting for innovations developed by artisans,
children, farmers, women, and other community actors. They have built a
database of more than 10,000 innovations.\22\
To further the work, India's Department of Science and Technology
created the National Innovation Foundation (NIF) in 2000. Its aim is
``providing institutional support in scouting, spawning, sustaining and
scaling up grassroots green innovations and helping their transition to
self supporting activities.'' NIF has so far filed over 250 patent
applications for the ideas in India, of which 35 have been granted.
Another seven applications have been filed in the United States of
which four have been granted.
To facilitate the commercialization and wider application of the
innovations, NIF works with institutions such as the Grassroots
Innovations Augmentation Network, which serves as a business incubator.
Some of the objectives of the Honey Bee Network are now part of the
work of the Prime Minister's National Innovation Council. Africa's
diversity in agricultural and ecological practices offers unique
opportunities for creative responses to local challenges. Such
responses form a foundation upon which to supplement formal
institutions with entrepreneurial activities driven by local
innovations.
Conclusions
Despite strong growth in the private seed sector in Africa over the
last decade, most of Africa's millions of small-scale farmers lack easy
access to affordable, high-quality seeds. Seed policies and regulations
currently differ across African countries, limiting opportunities for
trade and collaboration. However, efforts are under way to develop
regional trading blocs in the seed industry. For example, across the 14
Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) countries, seed industry
stakeholders have been formulating a single policy document to enable
companies to move seed and breeding material across national borders,
register varieties more easily, and market their products regionally. A
parallel initiative is under way for East African Community (EAC)
countries. These efforts need to be finalized in east and southern
Africa, replicated across all Africa's subregional organizations, and
complemented by parallel efforts in the African Union.
Like the formation of African seed companies, the creation and
spread of value-added food processing enterprises could help African
farmers retain a higher portion of the profits from the materials they
produce. Food processing could also help reduce the threat of hunger by
increasing the number of protein- and vitamin-rich products provided by
the local market, as well as improve local incomes by tapping into
international markets to get much needed export revenues from
agriculture. Unlike the situation with seeds, growth in food processing
will require fewer changes in government and regional policies. The key
change will need to come in the areas of capital, so it is easier for
individuals and companies to invest in the infrastructure, equipment,
and training necessary to enter the food processing industry.
7 Governing Innovation
African countries are increasingly focusing on promoting regional
economic integration as a way to stimulate economic growth and expand
local markets. Considerable progress has been made in expanding
regional trade through regional bodies such as the Common Market for
Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the East African Community
(EAC). There are six other such Regional Economic Communities (RECs)
that are recognized by the African Union as building blocks for pan-
African economic integration. So far, regional cooperation in
agriculture is in its infancy and major challenges lie ahead. This
chapter will explore the prospects of using regional bodies as agents
of agricultural innovation through measures such as regional
specialization. The chapter will examine ways to strengthen the role of
the RECs in promoting innovation. It adopts the view that effective
regional integration is a learning process that involves continuous
institutional adaptation.\1\
Through extensive examples of initiatives at the national or cross-
border levels, this chapter provides cases for regional collaboration
or scaling up national programs to regional programs. Africa's RECs
have convening powers that position them as valuable vehicles. That is,
they convene meetings of political leaders at the highest level, and
these leaders take decisions that are binding on the member states; the
member states then regularly report on their performance regarding
these decisions. Such meetings provide good platforms for sharing
information and best practices. Africa's RECs have established and
continue to designate centers of excellence in various areas. COMESA,
for instance, has established reference laboratories for animal and
plant research in Kenya and Zambia. Designation of centers of
excellence for specific aspects of agricultural research will greatly
assist specialization within the RECs and put to common use the
knowledge from the expertise identified in the region.
Regional Innovation Communities
Regional integration is a key component of enabling agricultural
innovation because it dismantles three barriers to development: ``weak
national economies; a dependence on importing high-value or finished
goods; and a reliance on a small range of low-value primary exports,
mainly agriculture and natural resources.'' \2\
Physical infrastructure creates a challenge for many African
countries but also presents an opportunity for the RECs to collaborate
on mutually beneficial projects. In many parts of Africa, poor road
conditions prevent farmers from getting to markets where they could
sell their excess crops profitably. Poor road conditions include the
lack of paved roads, the difficulty of finding transportation into
market centers, and the high cost of having to pay unofficial road fees
to either customs officials or other agents on the roads. These
difficulties become more extreme when farmers have to get their crops
across international borders to reach markets where sales are
profitable.
The inability to sell crops, or being forced to sell them at a loss
because of high transportation costs, prevents farmers from making
investments that would increase the quantity and quality of their
production, since any increase will not add to their own well-being,
and the excess crops may go to waste. This is a problem where national
governments and regional cooperation offer the best solution. Regional
bodies, with representation from all of the concerned countries, are
placed to address the needs for better subregional infrastructure and
standardization of customs fees at only a few locations.
Having countries come together to address problems of regional
trade, and particularly including representatives from both the private
and public sectors, allows nations to identify and address the barriers
to trade. The governments are now working together to address the
transportation problem and to standardize a regional system of
transport and import taxes that will reduce the cost of transporting
goods between nations. This new cooperation will allow the entire
region to increase its food security by capitalizing on the different
growing seasons in different countries and making products available in
all areas for longer periods of time, not just the domestic season.
Such cooperation also provides African farmers with access to
international markets that they did not have before, since it allows
them to send their goods to international ports, where they can then
sell them to other nations.
Regional economic bodies provide a crucial mechanism for
standardizing transport procedures and giving farmers a chance to earn
money selling their products. This cooperation works best when it
happens both between countries and between the private and public
sectors. Having multiple actors involved allows for better information,
more comprehensive policy making, and the inclusion of many
stakeholders in the decision-making process. Governments and private
actors should strengthen their participation in regional bodies and use
those groups to address transportation issues, market integration, and
infrastructure problems.
Facilitating regional cooperation is emerging as a basis for
diversifying economic activities in general and leveraging
international partnerships in particular.\3\ Many of Africa's
individual states are no longer viable economic entities; their future
lies in creating trading partnerships with neighboring countries.
Indeed, African countries are starting to take economic integration
seriously.\4\ For example, the re-creation of the EAC is serving not
only as a mechanism for creating larger markets but also is promoting
peace in the region. Economic asymmetry among countries often is seen
as a source of conflict.\5\ However, the inherent diversity serves as
an incentive for cooperation.
Emerging Regional Research Cooperation Trends
The original Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was transformed
and restructured to form the African Union (AU) with a stronger mandate
to ensure the socioeconomic development of the continent. The
secretariats of the AU Commission and the New Partnership for Africa's
Development (NEPAD) were divided into departments that reflect
development priorities of the AU. For example, both have offices of
agriculture and science and technology (S&T). The AU Commission takes
responsibility for formulating common policies and programs of the AU
and presents them for approval by heads of state and government. NEPAD,
on the other hand, spearheads the implementation of approved policies
and programs.
In 2006, heads of state and government approved the Consolidated
Plan for African Science and Technology, which is both a policy and a
program document for the promotion of S&T in Africa. Since then the AU
Commission's Department of Human Resources, Science, and Technology has
mobilized participation of member states in a specialized ministerial
structure that advises AU heads of states and government on matters
related to S&T. The NEPAD office of S&T managed the implementation of
the research program that consisted of flagship programs covering
themes such as biosciences, biodiversity, biotechnology, energy, water,
material sciences, information and communication technology, space
science, and mathematics.
Of the flagship programs, the biosciences program is the most
advanced in that it has five regional programs that were developed
bottom-up by scientists in the regions. The program has attracted loyal
sponsors and some programs are at a stage of transforming their results
into promising products. For example, Southern Africa Network for
Biosciences (SANBio), which had identified HIV/AIDS as one of its
priorities, has been conducting research into the validation of
traditional medicines for affordable treatment of HIV/AIDS and HIV-
related opportunistic infections. The study obtained very encouraging
results. Two peptides with anti-HIV activity have been isolated and
currently the study is focusing on developing this lead into a herbal
medicine that could benefit HIV/AIDS patients.
Other regions have equally advanced programs that are derived from
regional interests. However valuable as these programs appear, they
have not captured the interest of governments and local industry enough
to leverage local investment. For example, the SANBio program runs on
the basis of Finnish and South African funding. This is a major
limitation to growth of the programs. An analysis of the problem seems
to reveal that the NEPAD science and technology program is bedeviled by
its isolation from the local economy--the biosciences-related industry
that has both government and related industry vested interests backed
by local investment. At this stage, based on the absence of investment
in the program, the NEPAD science and technology effort seems divorced
from the African reality even though it is framed around African S&T-
related problems.
Various research and development programs are being carried out in
each of the networks created under NEPAD, such as Biosciences Eastern
and Central Africa Network (BecANet), West African Biosciences Network
(WABNet), and North Africa Biosciences Network (NABNet). Research
programs at SANBio include technology transfer to local communities,
especially women, for producing mushrooms using affordable local
resources and research in aquaculture systems involving use of plastic
sheeting as covers to improve productivity of pond environments for
increased fish growth.
BecANet has implemented three flagship and five competitive grant
projects in the areas of banana, sorghum, bovine and human
tuberculosis, teff, cassava, sweet potatoes, and tsetse and
trypanosomiasis. The BecANet hub hosted at least 24 research projects
on crops and livestock. The research on trypanosomiasis led to the
discovery of a compound that could be used to produce a drug for
treating sleeping sickness. This compound was subsequently patented.
The results from the work on tracking bush meat in Kenya using DNA
techniques at the BecANet hub suggest that bush meat, as whole meat, is
not sold within Nairobi, but outside the city. This type of study has
wider implications for food recall and traceability in Africa.
WABNet has implemented a flagship project on the inventory and
characterization of West African sorghum genetic resources. This
project conducted a germplasm collection expedition during which 45 new
sorghum accessions were collected from 15 districts including (Upper
West Region), Bawku (Upper East Region), and Tamale (Northern Region)
of Ghana by November 2009. In Ghana, for example, 245 accessions of
sorghum were at a risk of being lost as a result of deteriorating
storage conditions in the gene banks. This project was instrumental in
recovering about 100 of these accessions. This project had to therefore
refocus its objectives on the new collections and on those that had
been recovered from the banks. Sorghum nutritional enhancement through
mutagenesis and genomics is inducing mutagenesis through irradiation,
with the aim of producing new varieties of sorghum that could be higher
yielding and more nutritionally enhanced. Trials on this aspect of the
project are still ongoing.
NABNet carried out a flagship project on production of elite
biofortified North African barley genotypes tolerant to biotic and
abiotic stresses. In addition, the network is implementing the
following research projects: multidisciplinary investigation of the
genetic risk factors of type II diabetes and its complications in North
Africa; biotechnological approaches to protect date palm against major
plagues in North Africa; and production of Bt bioinsecticides useful
for biological control of the phytopathogenic insects and human disease
vectors.
Within SANBio, through support from the governments of Finland and
South Africa, NEPAD African Biosciences Initiative (NEPAD/ABI) is
establishing a bioinformatics center at the University of Mauritius and
an indigenous knowledge systems center at the University of North West
in South Africa. These centers will enhance capacity building in these
domains in southern Africa.
Through the support of the government of Canada and International
Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), laboratories at ILRI have been
upgraded offering opportunities to African scientists to carry out
cutting-edge biosciences research at the BecANet hub. As the facilities
became fully operational by the end of 2009, it is expected that there
will be an increase in the number of projects being carried out in 2010
onward. The infrastructure upgraded at the BecANet hub can support
research in bioinformatics, diagnostics, sequencing, genotyping,
molecular breeding, and genetic engineering of crops, livestock, and
wild animals and plants.
Within WABNet, NEPAD/ABI has established and furnished offices in
Dakar and Senegal and a biotechnology laboratory at the University of
Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso. These facilities will enhance
coordination, research, and development in the region.
Networking is viewed as an essential component for accelerating
capacity building and collaborative research efforts among institutions
involved in biosciences in Africa. More endowed biosciences
institutions are being linked to less endowed ones in all the regions
of the continent. Over the years, thematic research teams have been
established, such as ones for improving banana production; for
validation of herbal remedies, bioinformatics, fisheries, and
aquaculture; and for cereal improvement, just to mention a few. A more
important development is that thematic networks are now running across
regional and international boundaries and broadening the scope for
participating international research programs.\6\
For example, the trypanosomiasis and tsetse fly research network
consists of institutions and researchers in the SANBio and BecANet
countries. Networking has provided opportunities for young men and
women to access training facilities in several countries and
subregions. A total of 20 students from post-conflict countries of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Congo Brazzaville, and Burundi
are now training for postgraduate qualifications in Kenya and Uganda.
The COMESA region is home to some of Africa's most important
fisheries resources. These include, among others, marine systems in the
western Indian Ocean, the southeastern Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and
the vast freshwater systems of the Nile, Congo, and Zambezi Basins and
the Great Lakes found within them. Taken together, COMESA member states
have access to a coastline of some 14,418 kilometers, a continental
shelf of about 558,550 square kilometers, and a total Exclusive
Economic Zone area of about 3.01 million square kilometers, as well as
inland waters of about 394,274 square kilometers.
COMESA has identified aquaculture as a priority growth area for
achieving the objectives and targets of the Comprehensive Africa
Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) to significantly contribute
to food and nutrition security in the region. In September 2008, member
states agreed on the outline of a COMESA Fisheries and Aquaculture
Strategy to enable COMESA to scale up their coordinating and
facilitative role.
COMESA in partnership with Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization is
implementing a program that seeks to maximize economic benefits and
financial returns on processed Nile perch through innovation and
development of sophisticated value-added products. Currently, with
decreasing levels of Nile perch, fish processing establishments are
operating well below capacity, sometimes as low as 20% capacity. To
remain competitive, companies are seeking to transform by-products or
fish fillet waste into high-value products for export through use of
innovative processes and production methods.
Three companies are supported by COMESA to achieve this.
Interventions have focused on two areas. First, they support companies
to develop new products through piloting of new recipes, processes, and
production methods while utilizing new or improved technologies.
Second, they help fish processing companies to assess food safety
aspects of new products developed from fish wastes and the application
of appropriate quality assurance and food safety systems based on the
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system to address
the associated risks. The HACCP is a food and pharmaceutical safety
approach that addresses physical, chemical, and biological hazards as a
preventive measure rather than inspection of finished products.\7\
The results are encouraging. One company successfully launched
frozen fish burgers and established HACCP-based food safety systems
that are compliant with EU requirements. As a result, the company has
accessed high-value markets in the European Community (EC).
Another product development innovation in the fisheries sector is
using Nile perch skin as a raw material for exotic leather products.
This has been picked up by COMESA, which has developed a value chain
sector strategy for leather and leather products, part of which is now
being implemented under a Canadian-funded Programme for Building
African Capacity for Trade. A key issue for the region's
competitiveness is innovation in new products and markets for leather
products rather than continuing to export raw hides and skins. The fish
skin niche market that was identified started in Uganda, at the Crane
Shoes factory in Kampala. The use of fish skin began as the factory
sought new markets and alternatives to leather to compete with Chinese
imports. The key question, however, is how to support the industry to
achieve long-term sustainability, which may require a rare form of
aquaculture for the Nile perch, which is becoming a rare species in
Lake Victoria.
An investment study on Uganda's fish and fish farming industry
identified a number of policy measures that are being put in place in
order to benefit from the fisheries sector. These include a tripartite
Lake Victoria Environment Management Project established to ensure
improved productivity of Lake Victoria; support for the Aquaculture
Research and Development Institute at Kajjansi; provision of resources
to upgrade landing sites and quality control laboratories to meet
international standards; and provision of resources to strengthen the
Uganda National Bureau of Standards and Inspectorate section of the
Fisheries Department.
Fostering the Culture of Innovation
Improving the Governance of Innovation
Promoting a growth-oriented agenda will require adjustments in the
structure and functions of government at the regional, national, and
local levels. Issues related to science, technology, and innovation
must be addressed in an integrated way at the highest possible levels
in government. There is therefore a need to strengthen the capacity of
presidential offices to integrate science, technology, and innovation
in all aspects of government. In 2010 no African head of state or
government had a chief scientific adviser.
The intensity and scope of coordination needed to advance
agricultural innovation exceeds the mandate of any one ministry or
department. As noted elsewhere, Malawi addressed the challenge of
coordination failure by presidential control of agricultural
responsibilities. The need for high-level or executive coordination of
agricultural functions is evident when one takes into account the
diverse entities that have direct relevance to any viable programs.
Roads are important for agriculture, yet they fall under different
ministries that may be more concerned with connecting cities than rural
areas. Similarly, ministries responsible for business development may
be focusing on urban areas where there is a perception of short-term
returns to investment. The point here is not to enter the debate on the
so-called urban bias.\8\
The main point is to highlight the importance of strategic
coordination and alignment of the functions of government to reflect
contemporary economic needs. Aligning the various organs of government
to focus on the strategic areas of economic efforts requires the use of
political capital. In nearly all systems of government such political
capital is vested in the chief executive of a country, either the
president or the prime minister depending on the prevailing
constitutional order. It would follow from this reasoning that
presidents or prime ministers should have a critical agricultural
coordination role to perform. They can do so by assuming the position
of minister or by heading a body charged with agricultural innovation.
The same logic also applies for the RECs.
The dominant thinking is to create ``science and innovation desks''
in the RECs. Such desks will mirror the functions of the science and
technology ministries at the national level. It is notable that
currently no African leaders are supported by effective mechanisms that
provide high-level science, technology, and engineering advice. The
absence of such offices (with proper terms of reference, procedures,
legislative mandates, and financial resources) hampers the leaders'
ability to keep abreast of emerging technological trends and to make
effective decisions. Rapid scientific advancement and constant changes
in the global knowledge ecology require African leaders at all levels
(heads of RECs, presidents, or prime ministers and heads of key local
authorities such as states or cities) to start creating institutions
for science advice. In 2010 COMESA led the way by adopting decisions on
science, technology, and innovation along these lines (see Appendix
II). Agricultural innovation could be the first beneficiary of informed
advice from such bodies.
Bringing science, technology, and engineering to the center of
Africa's economic renewal will require more than just political
commitment; it will take executive leadership. This challenge requires
concept champions, who in this case will be heads of state spearheading
the task of shaping their economic policies around science, technology,
and innovation. So far, most African countries have failed to develop
national policies that demonstrate a sense of focus to help channel
emerging technologies into solving developmental problems. They still
rely on generic strategies dealing with ``poverty alleviation'' without
serious consideration of the sources of economic growth.
One of the central features of executive guidance is the degree to
which political leaders are informed about the role of science,
technology, and engineering in development. Advice on science,
technology, and innovation must be included routinely in policy making.
An appropriate institutional framework must be created for this to
happen. Many African cabinet structures are merely a continuation of
the colonial model, structured to facilitate the control of local
populations rather than to promote economic transformation.
Advisory structures differ across countries. In many countries,
science advisers report to the president or prime minister, and
national scientific and engineering academies provide political leaders
with advice. Whatever structure is adopted, the advising function
should have some statutory mandate to advise the highest levels of
government. It should have its own operating budget and a budget for
funding policy research. The adviser should have access to good and
credible scientific or technical information from the government,
national academies, and international networks. The advisory processes
should be accountable to the public and be able to gauge public opinion
about science, technology, and innovation.
Successful implementation of science, technology, and innovation
policy requires civil servants with the capacity for policy analysis--
capacity that most current civil servants lack. Providing civil
servants with training in technology management, science policy, and
foresight techniques can help integrate science, technology, and
innovation advice into decision making. Training diplomats and
negotiators in science, technology, and engineering also can increase
their ability to discuss technological issues in international forums.
African countries have many opportunities to identify and implement
strategic missions or programs that promote growth through investments
in infrastructure, technical training, business incubation, and
international trade. For example, regional administrators and mayors of
cities can work with government, academia, industry, and civil society
to design missions aimed at improving the lives of their residents.
Universities located in such regions and cities could play key roles as
centers of expertise, incubators of businesses, and overall sources of
operational outreach to support private and public sector activities.
They could play key roles in transferring technology to private
firms.\9\
Similar missions could be established in rural areas. These
missions would become the organizing framework for fostering
institutional interactions that involve technological learning and
promote economies of scale. In this context, missions that involve
regional integration and interaction should be given priority,
especially where they build on local competencies.
This approach can help the international community isolate some
critical elements that are necessary when dealing with such a diverse
set of problems as conservation of forests, provision of clean drinking
water, and improving the conditions of slum dwellers. In all these
cases, the first major step is the integration of environmental
considerations into development activities.
Reforming the Structures of Innovation Governance
The RECs offer a unique opportunity for Africa to start rethinking
the governance of innovation so that the region can propel itself to
new frontiers and run its development programs in an enlightened manner
that reflects contemporary challenges and opportunities. The focus of
improvements in governance structures should be at least in four
initial areas: a high-level committee on science, innovation,
technology, and engineering; regional science, technology, and
engineering academies; an office of science, technology, and
innovation; and a graduate school of innovation and regional
integration.
Committee on science, innovation, technology, and engineering: The
committee will be a high-level organ of each REC that will report
directly to the councils of ministers and presidential summits. Its
main functions should be to advise the respective REC on all matters
pertaining to science, technology, engineering, and innovation. The
functions should include, but not be limited to, regional policies that
affect science, technology, engineering, and innovation. It shall also
provide scientific and technical information needed to inform and
support public policy on regional matters in areas of the competence of
the RECs (including economy, infrastructure, health, education,
environment, security, and other topics).
For such a body to be effective, it will need to draw its
membership from a diversity of sectors including government, industry,
academia, and civil society. The members shall serve for a fixed term
specified at the time of appointment. Within these sectors,
representation should reflect the fact that science, technology,
engineering, and innovation are not limited to a few ministries or
departments but cover the full scope of the proper functioning of
society.
The committee should meet as needed to respond to information
requests by chief executive, councils of ministers, or the summits. To
meet this challenge, the committee should solicit information from a
broad spectrum of stakeholders in the research community, private
sector, academia, national research institutes, government departments,
local government, development partners, and civil society
organizations. The committee's work can be facilitated through working
groups or task forces set up to address specific issues.
The committee's work will be supported by the Office of Science,
Innovation, Technology, and Engineering headed by a director who also
serves as the Chief Science, Innovation, Technology and Engineering
Adviser to the chief executive. A national analogue of such a committee
is India's National Innovation Council that was established in 2010 by
the Prime Minister to prepare a roadmap for the country's Decade of
Innovation (2010-2020). The aim of the council is to develop an Indian
innovation model that focuses on inclusive growth and the creation of
institutional networks that can foster inclusive innovation. The
council will promote the creation of similar bodies at the sectoral and
state levels.\10\
Regional academies of science, innovation, technology, and
engineering: African countries have in recent years been focusing on
creating or strengthening their national academies of science and
technology. So far 16 African countries (Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia,
Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria,
Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe) have
national academies. There is also the nongovernmental African Academy
of Sciences (AAS).
It is notable that despite Africa's growing emphasis on investing
in infrastructure, only one African country (South Africa) has an
academy devoted to promoting engineering. Most of the others seek to
recognize engineers through regular scientific academies, but their
criteria for selection tend to focus on publications and not practical
achievements. A case can be made on the need to expand the role of
academies in providing advice on engineering-related investments.
The creation of regional academies of science, innovation,
technology, and engineering will go a long way in fostering the
integration of the various fields and disciplines so that they can help
to foster regional integration and development.\11\ The main objectives
of such academies would be to bring together leaders of the various
regions in science, innovation, technology, and engineering to promote
excellence in those fields. Their priorities would be to strengthen
capabilities, inspire future generations, inform public debates, and
contribute to policy advice.
The fellows of the academies will be elected through a rigorous
process following international standards adopted by other academies.
Their work and outputs should also follow the same standards used by
other academies. The academies should operate on the basis of clear
procedures and should operate independently. They may from time to time
be asked to conduct studies by the RECs but they should also initiate
their own activities, especially in areas such as monitoring
scientific, technological, and engineering trends worldwide and keeping
the RECs informed about their implications for regional integration and
development. Unlike the committee, the academies will operate
independently and their advisory functions are only a part of a larger
agenda of advancing excellence in science, innovation, technology, and
engineering.
As part of their public education mission, the academies could
collaborate with groups such as the Forum for Agricultural Research in
Africa, an umbrella organization that brings together and forges
coalitions of leading stakeholders in agricultural research and
development in Africa. If needed, specialized regional academies of
agriculture could be created to serve the sector. Such agricultural
academies could benefit from partnerships with similar organizations in
countries such as China, India, Sweden, and Vietnam. The proposed
academies will need to work closely with existing national academies
and AAS.
Office of science, innovation, technology, and engineering: The
RECs will need to create strong offices within their secretariats to
address issues related to science, innovation, technology, and
engineering. The bulk of the work of such offices will be too
coordinate advisory input as well as serve as a link between the
various organs of the RECs and the rest of the world. The head of the
office will have two main functions. First, the person will serve as
the chief adviser to the various organs of the RECs (through the chief
executive). In effect, the person will be the assistant to the chief
executive on science, innovation, technology, and engineering. Second,
the person will serve as director of the office and be its
representative when dealing with other organizations. In this role the
director will be a promoter of science, innovation, technology, and
engineering whereas in the first role the person will serve as an
internal adviser.
For such an office to be effective, it will need to be adequately
funded and staffed. It can draw from the personnel of other
departments, academies, or organizations to perform certain duties. In
addition to having adequate resources, the office will need to develop
transparent procedures on how it functions and how it relates to other
bodies. It is imperative that the functions of the office be restricted
to the domain of advice and it should not have operational
responsibilities, which belong to the national level.
School of regional integration: The need to integrate science and
innovation in regional development will require the creation of human
capacity needed to manage regional affairs. So far, the RECs rely
heavily on personnel originally trained to manage national affairs.
There are very few opportunities for training people in regional
integration. Ideally, there should be a graduate African School of
Regional Integration to undertake research, professional training, and
outreach on how to facilitate regional integration. Such a school could
function either as a stand-alone institution or in conjunction with
existing universities. A combination of the two where an independent
school serves as a node in a network of graduate education in regional
integration is also an option.
The school could focus on providing training on emerging issues
such as science and innovation. It can do so through short executive
courses, graduate diplomas, and degree programs. There is considerable
scope for fostering cooperation between such a school and well-
established schools of government and public policy around the world.
The theme of regional integration is a nascent field with considerable
prospects for growth. For this reason it would not be difficult to
promote international partnerships that bring together regional and
international expertise.
The school could also serve as depository of knowledge gained in
the implementation of regional programs. Staff from the RECs could
serve as adjunct faculty and so could join it as full-time professors
of the practice of regional integration. The school could also work
with universities in the region to transfer knowledge, curricula, and
teaching methods to the next generation of development practitioners.
The area of agricultural innovation would be ideal for the work of such
a school and a network of universities that are part of the regional
innovation system.
Funding Innovation
One of the key aspects of technological development is funding.
Financing technological innovation should be considered in the wider
context of development financing. Lack of political will is often cited
as a reason for the low level of financial support for science,
technology, and innovation in Africa. But a large part of the problem
can be attributed to tax and revenue issues that fall outside the scope
of science and technology ministries.\12\ For example, instruments such
tax credits that have been shown to increase intensity of research and
development activities are unlikely to work in policy environments
without a well-functioning tax regime.\13\ Other instruments such as
public procurement can play a key role in stimulating innovation,
especially among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).\14\
Currently, Africa does not have adequate and effective mechanisms
for providing support to research. Many countries have used a variety
of models, including independent funds such as the National Science
Foundation in the United States and the National Research Fund of South
Africa. Others have focused on ensuring that development needs guide
research funding and, as such, have created specific funding mechanisms
under development planning ministries. While this approach is not a
substitute for funding to other activities, it distinguishes between
measures designed to link technology to the economy from those aimed at
creating new knowledge for general learning. What is critical, however,
is to design appropriate institutional arrangements and to support
funding mechanisms that bring knowledge to bear on development.
Creating incentives for domestic mobilization of financial
resources as a basis for leveraging external support would be
essential. Other innovations in taxation, already widespread around the
world, involve industry-wide levies to fund research, similar to the
Malaysian tax mechanism to fund research. Malaysia imposed cesses on
rubber, palm oil, and timber to fund the Rubber Research Institute, the
Palm Oil Research Institute, and the Forestry Research Institute. A tax
on tea helps fund research on and marketing of tea in Sri Lanka. Kenya
levies a tax on its tea, coffee, and sugar industries, for example, to
support the Tea Research Foundation, the Coffee Research Foundation,
and the Kenya Sugar Board.
These initiatives could be restructured to create a funding pool to
cover common areas. Reforming tax laws is an essential element in the
proposed strategy. Private individuals and corporations need targeted
tax incentives to contribute to research funds and other technology-
related charitable activities. This instrument for supporting public
welfare activities is now widely used in developing countries. It
arises partly because of the lack of experience in managing charitable
organizations and partly because of the reluctance of finance
ministries to grant tax exemptions, fearing erosion of their revenue
base.
The enactment of a foundation law that provides tax and other
incentives to contributions to public interest activities, such as
research, education, health, and cultural development, would promote
social welfare in general and economic growth in particular. Other
countries are looking into using national lotteries as a source of
funding for technological development. Taxes on imports could also be
levied to finance innovation activities, although the World Trade
Organization may object to them. Another possibility is to impose a tax
of 0.05% or 0.1% of the turnover of African capital markets to
establish a global research and development fund, as an incentive for
them to contribute to sustainable development.
Other initiatives could simply involve restructuring and redefining
public expenditure. By integrating research and development activities
into infrastructure development, for example, African governments could
relax the public expenditure constraints imposed by sectoral budgetary
caps. Such a strategy has the potential to unlock substantial funds for
research and development in priority areas. But this strategy requires
a shift in the budgetary philosophy of the international financial
institutions to recognize public expenditures on research and
development as key to building capabilities for economic growth.
Financing is probably one of the most contentious issues in the
history of higher education. The perceived high cost of running
institutions of higher learning has contributed to the dominant focus
on primary education in African countries. But this policy has
prevented leaders from exploring avenues for supporting higher
technical education.
Indeed, African countries such as Uganda and Nigeria have
considered new funding measures including directed government
scholarships and lowering tuition for students going into the sciences.
Other long-term measures include providing tax incentives to private
individuals and firms that create and run technical institutes on the
basis of agreed government policy. Africa has barely begun to utilize
this method as a way to extend higher technical education to a wider
section of society. Mining companies, for example, could support
training in the geosciences. Similarly, agricultural enterprises could
help create capacity in business.
Institutions created by private enterprises can also benefit from
resident expertise. Governments, on the other hand, will need to
formulate policies that allow private sector staff to serve as faculty
and instructors in these institutions. Such programs also would provide
opportunities for students to interact with practitioners in addition
to the regular faculty.
Much of the socially responsible investment made by private
enterprises in Africa could be better used to strengthen the
continent's technical skill base. Additional sources of support could
include the conversion of the philanthropic arms of various private
enterprises into technical colleges located in Africa.
Governmental and other support will be needed to rehabilitate and
develop university infrastructures, especially information and
communications facilities, to help them join the global knowledge
community and network with others around the world. Such links will
also help universities tap into their experts outside the country.
Higher technical education should also be expanded by creating
universities under line ministries as pioneered by telecom universities
such as the Nile University (Egypt), the Kenya Multimedia University,
and the Ghana Telecoms University College. Other line ministry
institutions such as the Digital Bridge Institute in Nigeria are also
considering becoming experiential universities with strong links with
the private sector.
Governments and philanthropic donors could drive innovation through
a new kind of technology contest.\15\ One approach is to offer
proportional ``prize rewards'' that would modify the traditional
winner-take-all approach by dividing available funds among multiple
winners in proportion to measured achievement.\16\ This approach would
provide a royalty-like payment for incremental success.\17\
Promoting innovation for African farmers has proven especially
challenging, due to a wide variety of technological and institutional
obstacles. A proportional-prize approach is particularly suited to help
meet the needs of African farmers. For that purpose a specific way
should be devised to implement prize rewards, to recognize and reward
value creation from new technologies after their adoption by African
farmers.
In summary, the effectiveness of innovation funding depends on
choosing the right instrument for each situation--and perhaps, in some
situations, developing a new instrument that is specifically suited to
the task. Prizes are distinctive in that they are additional and
temporary sources of funding, they are used when needed to elicit
additional effort, and they can reveal the most successful approaches
for reaching a particular goal. For this reason, a relatively small
amount of funding in a well-designed prize program can help guide a
much larger flow of other funds, complementing rather than replacing
other institutional arrangements.
Available evidence suggests that investments in agricultural
research require long-term sustained commitment. This is mainly because
of the long time lags associated with such investments, ranging from 15
to 30 years taking into account the early phases of research.\18\ Part
of the time lag, especially in areas such as biotechnology, is
accounted for by delays in regulatory approvals or the high cost of
regulation. This is true even in cases where products have already been
approved and are in use in technology pioneering countries.\19\ These
long time lags are also an expression of the fact that the economic
systems co-evolve with technology and the process involves adjustments
in existing institutions.\20\
Joining the Global Knowledge Ecology
Leveraging Africa's Diasporas
Much of the technological foundation needed to stimulate African
development is based on ideas in the public domain (where property
rights have expired). The challenge lies in finding ways to forge
viable technology alliances.\21\ In this regard, intellectual property
offices are viewed as important sources of information needed for
laying the basis for technological innovation.\22\ While intellectual
property protection is perceived as a barrier to innovation, the
challenges facing Africa lie more in the need to build the requisite
human and institutional capability to use existing technologies. Much
of this can be achieved though collaboration with leading research
firms and product development.\23\ This argument may not hold in regard
to emerging fields such as genomics and nanotechnology.
One of the concerns raised about investing in technical training in
African countries is the migration of skilled manpower to
industrialized countries.\24\ The World Bank has estimated that
although skilled workers account for just 4% of the sub-Saharan labor
force, they represent some 40% of its migrants.\25\ Such studies tend
to focus on policies that seek to curb the so-called brain drain.\26\
But they miss the point. The real policy challenge for African
countries is figuring out how to tap the expertise of those who migrate
and upgrade their skills while out of the country, not engage in futile
efforts to stall international migration.\27\ The most notable case is
the Taiwanese diaspora, which played a crucial role in developing the
country's electronics industry.\28\ This was a genuine partnership
involving the mobility of skills and capital.
Countries such as India have understudied this model and come to
the conclusion that one way to harness the expertise is to create a new
generation of ``universities for innovation'' that will seek to foster
the translation of research into commercial products. In 2010 India
unveiled a draft law that will provide for the establishment of such
universities. The law grew out India's National Knowledge Commission, a
high-level advisory body to the Prime Minister aimed at transforming
the country into a knowledge economy.\29\
A number of countries have adopted policy measures aimed at
attracting expatriates to participate in the economies of their
countries of origin. They are relying on the forces of globalization
such as connectivity, mobility, and interdependence to promote the use
of the diaspora as a source of input into national technological and
business programs. These measures include investment conferences, the
creation of rosters of experts, and direct appeals by national leaders.
It is notable that expatriates are like any other professionals and are
unlikely to be engaged in their countries of origin without the
appropriate incentives. Policies or practices that assume that these
individuals owe something to their countries of origin are unlikely to
work.
Considerable effort needs to be put in fostering atmosphere of
trust between the ex-patriates and local communities. In addition,
working from a common objective is critical, as illustrated in the case
of the reconstruction of Somaliland. In this inspirational example,
those involved in the Somaliland diaspora were able to invoke their
competence, networks, and access to capital to establish the University
of Hargeisa that has already layed a critical role in building the
human resource base needed for economic development. The achievement is
even more illustrative when one considers the fact that the university
was built after the collapse of Somalia.\30\ Similar efforts involving
the Somali diaspora in collaboration with King's College Hospital in
London have contributed significantly to the health care sector in
Somaliland.\31\ There are important lessons in this case that can
inform the rest of Africa. The initial departure of nations to acquire
knowledge and skills in other countries represents a process of
upgrading their skills and knowledge through further training. But
returning home without adequate opportunities to deploy the knowledge
earned may represent the ultimate brain drain. A study of Sri Lankan
scientists in diaspora has shown that further studies ``was the major
reason for emigration, followed by better career prospects. Engineering
was the most common specialization, followed by chemistry, agricultural
sciences and microbiology/biotechnology/molecular biology. If their
demands are adequately met, the majority of the expatriates were
willing to return to Sri Lanka.'' \32\
Strengthening Science, Technology, and Engineering Diplomacy
The area of science, technology, and engineering diplomacy has
become a critical aspect of international relations.\33\ Science is
gaining in prominence as a tool fostering cooperation and resolving
disputes among nations.\34\ Much of the leadership is provided by
industrialized countries. For example, the United States has launched a
program of science envoys which is adding a new dimension to U.S.
foreign policy.\35\ This diplomatic innovation is likely to raise
awareness of the importance of science, technology, and engineering in
African countries.
Ministries of foreign affairs have a responsibility in promoting
international technology cooperation and forging strategic alliances.
To effectively carry out this mandate, these ministries need to
strengthen their internal capability in science, technology, and
innovation. To this end, they will need to create offices dealing
specifically with science, technology, and engineering, working in
close cooperation with other relevant ministries, industry, academia,
and civil society. Such offices could also be responsible for engaging
and coordinating expatriates in Africa's technology development
programs.
There has been growing uncertainty over the viability of
traditional development cooperation models. This has inspired the
emergence of new technology alliances involving the more advanced
developing countries.\36\ For example, India, Brazil, and South Africa
have launched a technology alliance that will focus on finding
solutions to agricultural, health, and environmental challenges. In
addition, more developing countries are entering into bilateral
partnerships to develop new technologies. Individual countries such as
China and Brazil are also starting to forge separate technology-related
alliances with African countries. Brazil, for example, is increasing
its cooperation with African countries in agriculture and other
fields.\37\ In addition to establishing a branch of the Brazilian
Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) in Ghana, the country has
also created a tropical agricultural research institute at home to
foster cooperation with African countries.
Significant experiments are under way around the world to make
effective use of citizens with scientific expertise who are working
abroad. The UK consulate in Boston is engaged in a truly pioneering
effort to advance science, technology, and engineering diplomacy.
Unlike other consulates dealing with regular visa and citizenship
issues, the consulate is devoted to promoting science, technology, and
engineering cooperation between the UK and the United States while also
addressing major global challenges such as climate change and
international conflict.
In addition to Harvard University and MIT, the Boston area is home
to more than 60 other universities and colleges, making it the de facto
intellectual capital of the world. Switzerland has also converted part
of its consulate in Boston into a focal point for interactions between
Swiss experts in the United States and their counterparts at home.
Swissnex was created in recognition of the importance of having
liaisons in the area, which many consider the world's leading knowledge
center, especially in the life sciences. These developments are
changing the way governments envision the traditional role of science
attaches, with many giving them more strategic roles.\38\
In another innovative example, the National University of Singapore
has established a college at the University of Pennsylvania to focus on
biotechnology and entrepreneurship. The complementary Singapore-
Philadelphia Innovators' Network (SPIN) serves as a channel and link
for entrepreneurs, investors, and advisers in the Greater Philadelphia
region and Singapore. The organization seeks to create opportunities
for international collaboration and partnerships in the area.
India, on the other hand, has introduced changes in its immigration
policy, targeting its citizens working abroad in scientific fields to
strengthen their participation in development at home. Such approaches
can be adopted by other developing countries, where the need to forge
international technology partnerships may be even higher, provided
there are institutional mechanisms to facilitate such engagements.\39\
The old-fashioned metaphor of the ``brain drain'' should to be replaced
by a new view of ``global knowledge flows.'' \40\
But even more important is the emerging interest among
industrialized countries to reshape their development cooperation
strategies to reflect the role of science, technology, and innovation
in development. The UK Department for International Development (DFID)
took the lead in appointing a chief scientist to help provide advice to
the government on the role of innovation in international development,
a decision that was later emulated by USAID.\41\ Japan has launched a
program on science and technology diplomacy that seeks to foster
cooperation with developing countries on the basis of its scientific
and technological capabilities.\42\ Similarly, the United States has
initiated efforts to place science, technology, and innovation at the
center of its development cooperation activities.\43\ The initiative
will be implemented through USAID as part of the larger science and
technology diplomacy agenda of the U.S. government.\44\
South Korea is another industrialized country that is considering
adopting a science and innovation approach to development cooperation.
These trends might inspire previous champions of development such as
Sweden to consider revamping their cooperation programs. These efforts
are going to be reinforced by the rise of new development cooperation
models in emerging economies such India, Brazil, and China. India is
already using its strength in space science to partner with African
countries. Brazil, on the other hand, positioning itself as a leading
player in agricultural cooperation with African countries, is seeking
to expand the activities of the Brazilian Development Cooperation
Agency.
China's cooperation with Africa is increasingly placing emphasis on
science, technology, and engineering. It is a partner in 100 joint
demonstration projects and postdoctoral fellowships, which include
donations of nearly US$22,000 worth of scientific equipment. China has
offered to build 50 schools train 1,500 teachers and principals as well
as train 20,000 professionals by 2012. The country will increase its
demonstration centers in Africa to 20, send 50 technical teams to the
continent, and train 2,000 African agricultural personnel. Admittedly,
these numbers are modest given the magnitude of the challenge, but they
show a shift toward using science, technology, and engineering as tools
for development cooperation.\45\
Harmonization of Regional Integration Efforts
When the heads of state and government of the Common Market for
Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the East African Community (EAC),
and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) met in Kampala on
October 22, 2008, they conveyed in their communique a palpable sense of
urgency in calling for the establishment of a single free trade area
covering the 26 countries of COMESA, EAC, and SADC. These are 26 of the
54 countries that make up the continent of Africa. The political
leaders requested the secretariats of the three organizations to
prepare all the legal documents necessary for establishing the single
free trade area (FTA) and to clearly identify the steps required--
paragraph 14 of the communique. In November 2009 the chief executives
of the three secretariats cleared the documents for transmission to the
member states for consideration in preparing for the next meeting of
the Tripartite Summit. The main document is the draft agreement
establishing the Tripartite Free Trade, with its 14 annexes covering
various complementary areas that are necessary for effective
functioning of a regional market. There is a report explaining the
approach and the modalities. The main proposal is to establish the FTA
on a tariff-free, quota-free, exemption-free basis by simply combining
the existing FTAs of COMESA, EAC, and SADC. It is expected that by
2012, none of these FTAs will have any exemptions or sensitive lists.
However, there is a possibility that a few countries might wish to
consider maintaining a few sensitive products in trading with some big
partners, and for this reason, provision has been made for the
possibility of a country requesting permission to maintain some
sensitive products for a specified period of time.
To have an effective tripartite FTA, various complementary areas
have been included. The FTA will cover promotion of customs cooperation
and trade facilitation; harmonization and coordination of industrial
and health standards; combating of unfair trade practices and import
surges; use of peaceful and agreed dispute settlement mechanisms;
application of simple and straightforward rules of origin that
recognize inland transport costs as part of the value added in
production; and relaxation of restrictions on movement of
businesspersons, taking into account certain sensitivities.
It will also seek to liberalize certain priority service sectors on
the basis of existing programs; promote value addition and
transformation of the region into a knowledge-based economy through a
balanced use of intellectual property rights and information and
communications technology; and develop the cultural industries. The
tripartite FTA will be underpinned by robust infrastructure programs
designed to consolidate the regional market through interconnectivity
(facilitated, for instance, by all modes of transport and
telecommunications) and to promote competitiveness (for instance,
through adequate supplies of energy).
Regarding the steps required, or the road map, the proposal is that
there should be a preparatory period for consultations at the national,
regional, and tripartite level from early 2010 to June 2011. Member
states will use this period to carefully work out the legal and
institutional framework for the single FTA using the draft documents as
a basis. It is expected that each organization will discuss the
tripartite documents, and, through the tripartite meetings at various
levels, will deliberate and reach concrete recommendations. By June
2011, there should be a finalized agreement establishing the Tripartite
FTA, ready for signature in July 2011. When signed, member states will
have about six months (up to December 2011) to finalize their domestic
processes for approving the agreement (for instance, ratification) and
for establishing the required institutions and adopting the relevant
customs and other documentation and instruments. It is proposed that
once this process ends, the Tripartite FTA should be launched in
January 2012. Throughout the preparatory period, strong sensitization
programs will be mounted for the public and private sectors and all
stakeholders including parliamentarians, business community, teaching
institutions, civil society, and development partners.
The main benefit of the Tripartite FTA is that it will be a much
larger market, with a single economic space, than any one of the three
regional economic communities and as such will be more attractive to
investment and large-scale production. Estimates are that exports among
the 26 tripartite countries increased from US$7 billion in 2000 to
US$27 billion in 2008, and imports grew from US$9 billion in 2000 to
US$32 billion in 2008. This phenomenal increase was in large measure
spurred by the free trade area initiatives of the three organizations.
Strong trade performance, when well designed--for instance, by
promoting small and medium-scale enterprises that produce goods or
services--can assist the achievement of the core objectives of
eradicating poverty and hunger, promoting social justice and public
health, and supporting all-round human development. Besides, the
tripartite economic space will help to address some current challenges
resulting from multiple membership by advancing the ongoing
harmonization and coordination initiatives of the three organizations
to achieve convergence of programs and activities, and in this way will
greatly contribute to the continental integration process. And as they
say, the more we trade with each other, the less likely we are to
engage in war, for our swords will be plowshares.
Harmonization of Regulations
The need to enhance the use of science, technology, and engineering
in development comes with new risks. Africa has not had a favorable
history with new technologies. Much of its history has been associated
with the use of technology as tools of domination or extraction.\46\
The general mood of skepticism toward technology and the long history
of exclusion created a political atmosphere that focused excessively on
the risks of new technologies. This outlook has been changing quite
radically as Africa enters a new era in which the benefits of new
technologies to society are widely evident. These trends are reinforced
by political shifts that encourage great social inclusion.\47\ It is
therefore important to examine the management of technological risks in
the wider social context even if the risk assessment tools that are
applied are technical.
The risks associated with new technologies need to be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis and should be compared with base scenarios, many of
which would include risks of their own. In other words, deciding not to
adopt new technologies may only compound the risks associated with the
status quo. Such an approach would make risk management a knowledge-
based process. This would in turn limit the impact of popular
tendencies that prejudge the risks of technologies based on their
ownership or newness.
Ownership and newness may have implications for technological risks
but they are not the only factors that need to be considered.
Fundamentally, decisions on technological risks should take into
account the impacts of incumbent technologies or the absence of any
technological solutions to problems.
One of the challenges facing African countries is the burden of
managing technological risks through highly fragmented systems in
contiguous countries. The growing integration of African countries
through the RECs offers opportunities to rationalize and harmonize
their regulatory activities related to agricultural innovation.\48\
This is already happening in the medical sector. The African
Medicines Regulatory Harmonization (AMRH) initiative was established to
assist African countries and regions to respond to the challenges posed
by medicine registration, as an important but neglected area of
medicine access. It seeks to support African Regional Economic
Communities and countries in harmonizing medicine registration.
COMESA, in collaboration with the Association for Strengthening
Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) and other
implementing partners, has engaged in the development of regionally
harmonized policies and guidelines through the Regional Agricultural
Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa
(RABESA) initiative since 2003. The COMESA harmonization agenda--now
implemented through its specialized agency the Alliance for Commodity
Trade in Eastern and Central Africa (ACTESA)--was initiated to provide
mechanisms for wise and responsible use of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) in commercial planting, trade, and emergency food
assistance.
The draft policies and guidelines are expected to be endorsed soon
by its policy organ. The guidelines seek the establishment of a COMESA
biosafety and centralized GMO risk assessment desk, with standard
operating procedures. ACTESA has established a biotechnology program to
coordinate biotechnology--and biosafety-related activities and provide
guidance in the region. The COMESA panel of experts on biotechnology
has been established to provide technical assistance in policy
formulation and GMO risk assessment.
The establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 and
the coming into force of a multilateral trading system backed by
legally binding trade agreements placed fresh challenges on WTO member
states, particularly African countries that were already struggling
with trade liberalization and globalization that encouraged the free
movement of humans, animals, food, and agricultural products across
borders.
Specifically, the agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures
(SPS) required governments to apply international standards and
establish science-based legal and regulatory systems to manage health
and environmental risks associated with food and agricultural products.
International standards to derive legislation and regulations for SPS
management include risk analysis and use of the HACCP) system. The
production of food products involves complex production and processing
methods. For many African governments, this required new skills to
conduct scientific risk analysis along the food chain as food products
interact with plant and animal diseases, pests, biological hazards such
as pathogenic microorganisms, and naturally occurring hazards such as
aflatoxins. Risk analysis requires scientific skills and innovation
that go beyond conventional training; if not done properly, this risk
analysis will result in weak SPS systems, which in turn may result in
nontariff barriers in regional and global markets.
COMESA, within its mandate of regional economic integration,
recognizes the need to support member states in resolving nontariff
barriers that constrain markets and stifle the integration of food
products into regional and global value chains, as an innovative
strategy to promote market access to regional and international trade.
In 2005, COMESA commissioned a project to support member states in
their efforts to address SPS barriers by improving and harmonizing SPS
measures and food safety systems among member states. Country-level
focal points were provided to facilitate and initiate the harmonization
process and training was provided on how to establish national and
regional surveillance systems. A second step involved the establishment
of regional reference laboratories for food safety and animal and plant
health. Initial training was provided for key laboratory personnel, and
guidelines for regional harmonization of SPS measures and the use of
reference laboratories were developed. COMESA will now present the
harmonization guidelines to its Technical Committee on Agriculture for
regional approval and adoption.
The primary aim of harmonizing medicine registration is to improve
public health, by increasing timely access to safe and efficacious
medicines of good quality for the treatment of priority diseases.
Access will be improved by reducing the time it takes for priority
essential medicines to be registered in-country (including the time
needed for industry to prepare their registration application or
dossier) and so potentially the time taken for essential therapies to
reach patients in need (depending on funding and distribution
mechanisms). This will include capacity building to ensure transparent,
efficient, and competent regulatory activities (assessment of
registration dossiers and related inspections) that are able to assure
the quality, safety, and efficacy of registered medicines. The AMRH
initiative approach seeks to support the RECs and countries to
harmonize medicine registration using existing political structures and
building on existing plans and commitments.
The AMRH initiative was the outcome of NEPAD) and the Pan-African
Parliament, which was hosted in collaboration with consortium partners
and attracted representation from nine of the continent's Regional
Economic Communities (RECs) and over 40 national medicine regulatory
authorities (NMRA). This provided a strong endorsement for the
consensus plan that emerged and hence the approach that RECs and NMRAs
are now adopting.
The AU Summit approved the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Plan for
Africa in 2007, which specifically recognizes the need for African
countries to strengthen their medicine regulatory systems by pooling
their resources to achieve public health policy priorities.
Such systems are vital to assuring the quality, safety, and
efficacy of locally manufactured products and their positive
contribution to public health. Moreover, the success of domestic
production will partly depend on intra-regional and intra-continental
trade to create viable market sizes. Currently, trade in
pharmaceuticals is hampered by disparate regulatory systems, which
create technical barriers to the free movement of products manufactured
in Africa (and beyond)--and has negative consequences for timely
patient access to high-quality essential medicines.
Several RECs have already supported harmonization of medicine
registration by developing common pharmaceutical policies and
operational plans--backed by high-level political commitments and
mandates. For example, in east Africa under the provisions of Chapter
21 (Article 118) of the EAC treaty, medicine registration harmonization
is an explicit policy priority. Likewise, in southern Africa, ministers
of health have approved the SADC Pharmaceuticals Business Plan, with
explicit goals to harmonize medicine registration.
However, implementation of these policies and plans has suffered
from a lack of financial and technical resources and has not progressed
significantly. Moreover, RECs continue to work largely in isolation.
Coordination is needed to avoid duplication of effort and ensure
consistent approaches, especially given that more than three-quarters
of African countries belong to two or more RECs. Following commencement
of the AMRH initiative, several RECs submitted summary project
proposals describing their high-level plans for harmonization of
medicine registration.
Following their review, the consortium actively partnered with four
REC groupings (EAC, Economic Community of Central African States,
ECOWAS, the West African Monetary Union and SADC) to support them in
strengthening and moderately expanding their proposals. In the first
instance, this involved written feedback from the consortium followed
by a visit from a NEPAD delegation to explain the consortium's feedback
and agree on a timeline for next steps. Given the importance of NMRA
consultations and ownership, NEPAD has also made some funding available
for RECs and their constituent NMRAs to jointly ensure that their
proposals reflect their shared vision for harmonized medicine
registration.
Conclusion
Promoting a growth-oriented agenda will entail adjustments in the
structure and functions of government. More fundamentally, issues
related to science, technology, and innovation will need to be
addressed in an integrated way at the highest level possible in
government. Bringing science, technology, and engineering to the center
of Africa's economic renewal will require more than just political
commitment; it will take executive leadership. This challenge requires
concept champions who in this case will be heads of state spearheading
the task of shaping their economic policies around science, technology,
and innovation.
So far, most African countries have not developed national policies
that demonstrate a sense of focus to help channel emerging technologies
into solving developmental problems. They still rely on generic
strategies dealing with ``poverty alleviation,'' without serious
consideration of the sources of economic growth. There are signs of
hope though. NEPAD's Ministerial Forum on Science and Technology played
a key role in raising awareness among African's leaders of the role of
science, technology, and engineering in economic growth.
An illustration of this effort is the decision of the African Union
(AU) and NEPAD to set up a high level African Panel on Modern
Biotechnology to advise the AU, its member states, and its various
organs on current and emerging issues associated with the development
and use of biotechnology. The panel's goal is to provide the AU and
NEPAD with independent and strategic advice on biotechnology and its
implications for agriculture, health, and the environment. It focuses
on intra-regional and international regulation of the development and
application of genetic modification and its products.
Regarding food security in particular, Africa's RECs have tried to
develop regional policies and programs to allow member states to work
collectively. ECOWAS and COMESA, for instance, building on CAADP, have
elaborated regional compacts to guide member states in formulating
their national CAADP compacts. This comes at a time when experience
from the six COMESA national CAADP compacts so far concluded show that
there are key cross-border challenges that need a regional approach.
Twenty-six African nations had signed CAADP compacts by June 2010,
compounding the need for regional strategies.
Thus, there is a need for a larger regional market to support
investment in agricultural products and harmonization of standards
across the region. This will help address challenges such sanitary and
phytosanitary measures that affect the quality and marketability of
agricultural products; management of transboundary resources such as
water bodies and forests; building of regional infrastructure;
promotion of collaborative research; monitoring of key commitments of
member states, particularly the one on earmarking 10% of the national
budget for the agriculture sector. A key pillar of CAADP relates to
agricultural research and innovation. Africa's RECs have a critical
role to play under this pillar, through supporting regional research
networks and prioritizing agricultural research in regional policies.
Experience sharing at the regional level, and the resulting research
communities, will greatly enrich individual research.
8 Conclusions and the Way Ahead
A new economic vision for Africa's agricultural transformation--
articulated at the highest level of government through Africa's
Regional Economic Communities (RECs)--should be guided by new
conceptual frameworks that define the continent as a learning society.
This shift will entail placing policy emphasis on emerging
opportunities such as renewing infrastructure, building human
capabilities, stimulating agribusiness development, and increasing
participation in the global economy. It also requires an appreciation
of emerging challenges such as climate change and how they might
influence current and future economic strategies.
Climate Change, Agriculture, and Economy
As Africa prepares to address its agricultural challenges, it is
now confronted with new threats arising from climate change.
Agricultural innovation will now have to be done in the context of a
more uncertain world in which activities such as plant and animal
breeding will need to be anticipatory.\1\ According to the World Bank,
warming ``of 2C could result in a 4 to 5 percent permanent reduction
in annual income per capita in Africa and South Asia, as opposed to
minimal losses in high-income countries and a global average GDP loss
of about 1 percent. These losses would be driven by impacts in
agriculture, a sector important to the economies of both Africa and
South Asia.'' \2\ Sub-Saharan Africa is dominated by fragile
ecosystems. Nearly 75% of its surface area is dry land or desert. This
makes the continent highly vulnerable to droughts and floods.
Traditional cultures cope with such fragility through migration. But
such migration has now become a source of insecurity in parts of
Africa. Long-term responses will require changes in agricultural
production systems.\3\
The continent's economies are also highly dependent on natural
resources. Nearly 80% of Africa's energy comes from biomass and over
30% of its GDP comes from rain-fed agriculture, which supports 70% of
the population. Stress is already being felt in critical resources such
as water supply. Today, 20 African countries experience severe water
scarcity and another 12 will be added in the next 25 years. Economic
growth in regional hubs is now being curtailed by water shortages.
The drying up of Lake Chad (shared by Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and
Niger) is a grim reminder that rapid ecological change can undermine
the pursuit for prosperity. The lake's area has decreased by 80% over
the last 30 years, with catastrophic impacts to local communities.
Uncertainty over water supply affects decisions in other areas such as
hydropower, agriculture, urban development, and overall land-use
planning. This is happening at a time when Africa needs to switch to
low-carbon energy sources.
Technological innovation will be essential for enabling agriculture
to adapt to a different climate. Meeting the dual challenges of
expanding prosperity and adapting to climate change will require
greater investment in the generation and diffusion of new technologies.
Basic inputs such as provision of meteorological data could help
farmers to adapt to climate change by choosing optimal planting
dates.\4\ The task ahead for policy makers will be to design climate-
smart innovation systems that shift economies toward low-carbon
pathways. Economic development is an evolutionary process that involves
adaptation to changing economic environments.
Technological innovation is implicitly recognized as a key aspect
of adaptation to climate change. For example, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines adaptation as ``Adjustment in
natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic
stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial
opportunities.'' \5\ It views the requisite adaptive capacity as the
ability ``to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of
opportunities, or to cope with the consequences.'' \6\ Technological
innovation is used in society in a congruent way to respond to economic
uncertainties. What is therefore needed is to develop analytical and
operational frameworks that would make it easier to incorporate
adaptation to climate change in innovation strategies used to expand
prosperity.
Innovation systems are understood to mean the interactive process
involving key actors in government, academia, industry, and civil
society to produce and diffuse economically useful knowledge into the
economy. The key elements of innovation include the generation of a
variety of avenues, their selection by the market environment, and the
emergence of robust socioeconomic systems. This concept can be applied
to adaption to climate change in five critical areas: managing natural
resources; designing physical infrastructure; building human capital,
especially in the technical fields; fostering entrepreneurial
activities; and governing adaptation as a process of innovation.
Economic development is largely a process by which knowledge is
applied to convert natural resources into goods and services. The
conservation of nature's variety is therefore a critical aspect of
leaving options open for future development. Ideas such as
``sustainable development'' have captured the importance of
incorporating the needs of future generations into our actions.
Adaptive strategies will therefore need to start with improved
understanding of the natural resource base. Recent advances in earth
observation and related geospatial science and technology have
considerably increased the capacity of society to improve its
capabilities for natural resource management. But improved
understanding is only the first step.
The anticipated disruptive nature of climate change will demand
increased access to diverse natural assets such as genetic resources
for use in agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, and other productive
activities. For example, the anticipated changes in the growing season
of various crops will require intensified crop breeding.\7\ But such
breeding programs will presuppose not only knowledge of existing
practices but also the conservation of a wider pool of genetic
resources of existing crops and breeds and their wild relatives to cope
with shifts in agricultural production potential.\8\ This can be done
through measures such as seed banks, zoos, and protected areas. Large
parts of Africa may have to switch from crop production to livestock
breeding.\9\ Others may also have to change from cultivating cereals to
growing fruits and vegetables as projected in other regions of the
world.\10\ Other measures will include developing migration corridors
to facilitate ecosystem integrity and protect human health--through
surveillance and early warning systems.
Such conservation efforts will also require innovation in regional
institutional coordination, expanded perspectives of space and time,
and the incorporation of climate change scenarios in economic
development strategies.\11\ Building robust economies requires the
conservation of nature's variety. These efforts will need to be
accompanied by greater investment in the generation of knowledge
associated with natural resources. Advances in information and
communication capabilities will help the international community to
collect, store, and exchange local knowledge in ways that were not
possible in the past. The sequencing of genomes provides added capacity
for selective breeding of crops and livestock suited to diverse
ecologies. Technological advancement is therefore helping to augment
nature's diversity and expand adaptive capabilities.
Climate change is likely to affect existing infrastructure in ways
that are not easy to predict. For example, road networks and energy
sources in low-lying areas are likely to be affected by sea level rise.
A recent study of Tangier Bay in Morocco projects that sea level rise
will have significant impact on the region's infrastructure facilities
such as coastline protection, the port, railway lines, and the
industrial base in general.\12\
Studies of future disruptions in transportation systems reveal
great uncertainties in impact depending on geographical location.\13\
These uncertainties are likely to influence not only investment
decisions but also the design of transportation systems. Similarly,
uncertainty over water supply is emerging as a major concern demanding
not only integrated management strategies but also improved use of
water-related technologies.
Other measures include the need to enhance water supply--such as
linking reservoirs, building new holding capacity in reservoirs, and
injecting early snowmelt into groundwater reservoirs. Similarly,
coastal areas need to be protected with natural vegetation or seawalls.
In effect, greater technical knowledge and engineering capabilities
will need to be marshaled to design future infrastructure in light of
climate change.\14\ This includes the use of new materials arising from
advances in fields such as nanotechnology.
Protecting human populations from the risks of climate change
should be one of the first steps in seeking to adapt to climate change.
Concern over human health can compound the sense of uncertainty and
undermine other adaptive capabilities. Indeed, the first step in
building resilience is to protect human populations against
disease.\15\ Many of the responses needed to adapt health systems to
climate change will involve practical options that rely on existing
knowledge.\16\
Others, however, will require the generation of new knowledge.
Advances in fields such as genomics are making it possible to design
new diagnostic tools that can be used to detect the emergence of new
infectious diseases. These tools, combined with advances in
communications technologies, can be used to detect emerging trends in
health and provide health workers with early opportunities to
intervene. Furthermore, convergence in technological systems is
transforming the medical field. For example, the advent of hand-held
diagnostic devices and video-mediated consultation are expanding the
prospects of telemedicine and making it easier for isolated communities
to be connected to the global health infrastructure.\17\ Personalized
diagnostics is also becoming a reality.\18\
Adapting to climate change will require significant upgrading of
the knowledge base of society. Past failure to adapt from incidences of
drought is partly explained by the lack of the necessary technical
knowledge needed to identify trends and design responses.\19\ The role
of technical education in economic development is becoming increasingly
obvious. Similarly, responding to the challenges of climate will
require considerable investment in the use of technical knowledge at
all levels in society.
One of the most interesting trends is the recognition of the role
of universities as agents of regional economic renewal.\20\ Knowledge
generated in centralized urban universities is not readily transferred
to regions within countries. As a result, there is growing interest in
decentralizing the university system itself.\21\ The decentralization
of technical knowledge to a variety of local institutions will play a
key role in enhancing local innovation systems that can help to spread
prosperity through climate-smart strategies.
The ability to adapt to climate change will not come without
expertise. But expertise is not sufficient unless it is used to
identify, assess, and take advantage of emerging opportunities through
the creation of new institutions or the upgrading of existing ones.
Such entrepreneurial acts are essential both for economic development
and adaptation to climate change. Economic diversification is critical
in strengthening the capacity of local communities to adapt to climate
change.
For example, research on artisan fisheries has shown that the
poorest people are not usually the ones who find it hardest to adapt to
environmental shocks. It is often those who have become locked in
overly specialized fishery practices.\22\ Technological innovation
aimed at promoting diversification of entrepreneurial activities would
not only help to improve economic welfare, but it would also help
enhance the adaptive capabilities of local communities. But such
diversification will need to be complemented by other measures such as
flexibility, reciprocity, redundancy, and buffer stocks.\23\
Promoting prosperity and creating robust economies that can adapt
to climate change should be a central concern of leaders around the
world. Political turmoil in parts of Africa is linked to recent climate
events.\24\ The implications of climate change for governance,
especially in fragile states, has yet to receive attention.\25\
Governments will need to give priority to adaption to climate change as
part of their economic development strategies. But they will also need
to adopt approaches that empower local communities to strengthen their
adaptive capabilities. Traditional governance practices such as
participation will need to be complemented by additional measures that
enhance social capital.\26\
The importance of technological innovation in adaptation strategies
needs to be reflected in economic governance strategies at all levels.
It appears easier to reflect these considerations in national economic
policies. However, similar approaches also need to be integrated into
global climate governance strategies, especially through the adoption
of technology-oriented agreements.\27\
On the whole, an innovation-oriented approach to climate change
adaptation will need to focus largely on expanding the adaptive
capacity of society though the conservation of nature's variety,
construction of robust infrastructure, enhancement of human
capabilities, and promotion of entrepreneurship. Fundamentally, the
ability to adapt to climate change will possibly be the greatest test
of our capacity for social learning. Regional integration will provide
greater flexibility and geographical space for such learning.
Furthermore, promoting local innovation as part of regional strategies
will contribute to the emergence of more integrated farming
systems.\28\
Throughout, this book has highlighted the role that RECs can have
as a collective framework for harnessing national initiatives and
sharing best practices drawn from the region and beyond. Africa's RECs,
as well as the African Union at the continental level, have programs
for food security, and for science, technology, and engineering. The
challenge, as highlighted, relates to putting existing knowledge within
the region and beyond to the service of the people of Africa on the
ground, through clear political and intellectual leadership and an
effective role for innovators. Further, there is a challenge of how
best to utilize the existing regional policy making and monitoring and
evaluation structures in promoting innovation and tackling the
challenges of food security.
The current global economic crisis and rising food prices are
forcing the international community to review their outlook for human
welfare and prosperity. Much of the current concern on how to foster
development and prosperity in Africa reflects the consequences of
recent neglect of sustainable agriculture and infrastructure as drivers
of development. Sustainable agriculture has, through the ages, served
as the driving force behind national development. In fact, it has been
a historical practice to use returns from investment in sustainable
agriculture to stimulate industrial development. Restoring it to its
right place in the development process will require world leaders to
take a number of bold steps.
Science and innovation have always been the key forces behind
agricultural growth in particular and economic transformation in
general. More specifically, the ability to add value to agricultural
produce via the application of scientific knowledge to entrepreneurial
activities stands out as one of the most important lessons of economic
history. Reshaping sustainable agriculture as a dynamic, innovative,
and rewarding sector in Africa will require world leaders to launch new
initiatives that include the following strategic elements.
Bold leadership driven by heads of state in Africa, supported by
those of developed and emerging economies, is needed to recognize the
real value of sustainable agriculture in the economy of Africa. High-
level leadership is essential for establishing national visions for
sustainable agriculture and rural development, championing of specific
missions for lifting productivity and nutritional levels with
quantifiable targets, and the engagement of cross-sectoral ministries
in what is a multisector process.
Sustainable agriculture needs to be recognized as a knowledge-
intensive productive sector that is mainly carried out in the informal
private economy. The agricultural innovation system has to link the
public and private sectors and create close interactions between
government, academia, business, and civil society. Reforms will need to
be introduced in knowledge-based institutions to integrate research,
university teaching, farmers' extension, and professional training, and
bring them into direct involvement with the production and
commercialization of products.
Policies have to urgently address affordable access to
communication services for people to use in their everyday lives, as
well as broadband Internet connectivity for centers of learning such as
universities and technical colleges. This is vital to access knowledge
and trigger local innovations, boosting rural development beyond
sustainable agriculture. It is an investment with high returns.
Improving rural productivity also requires significant investments in
basic infrastructure including transportation, rural energy, and
irrigation. There will be little progress without such foundational
investments.
Fostering entrepreneurship and facilitating private sector
development has to be highest on the agenda to promote the autonomy and
support needed to translate opportunity into prosperity. This has to be
seen as an investment in itself, with carefully tailored incentives and
risk-sharing approaches supported by government.
Entrepreneurial Leadership
It is not enough for governments to simply reduce the cost of doing
business. Fostering agricultural renewal will require governments to
function as active facilitators of technological learning. Government
actions will need to reflect the entrepreneurial character of the
farming community; they too will need to be entrepreneurial.\29\
Leadership will also need to be entrepreneurial in character.\30\
Moreover, addressing the challenge will require governments to adopt a
mission-oriented approach, setting key targets and providing support to
farmers to help them meet quantifiable goals. A mission-oriented
approach will require greater reliance on executive coordination of
diverse departmental activities.
Fostering economic renewal and prosperity in Africa will entail
adjustments in the structure and functions of government. More
fundamentally, issues related to agricultural innovation must be
addressed in an integrated way at the highest possible levels in
government. There is therefore a need to strengthen the capacity of
presidential offices to integrate science, technology, and innovation
in all sustainable agriculture-related aspects of government. Moreover,
such offices will also need to play a greater role in fostering
interactions between government, business, academia, and civil society.
This task requires champions.
One of the key aspects of executive direction is the extent to
which leaders are informed about the role of science and innovation in
agricultural development. Systematic advice on science and innovation
must be included routinely in policy making.\31\ Such advisers must
have access to credible scientific or technical information drawing
from a diversity of sources including scientific and engineering
academies. In fact, the magnitude of the challenge for regions like
Africa is so great that a case could be made for new academies
dedicated to agricultural science, technology, and innovation.
Science, technology, and engineering diplomacy has become a
critical aspect of international relations. Ministries of foreign
affairs in African countries have a responsibility to promote
international technology cooperation and forge strategic alliances on
issues related to sustainable agriculture. To effectively carry out
this task, foreign ministries need to strengthen their internal
capability in science and innovation.
Toward a New Regional Economic Vision
Contemporary history informs us that the main explanation for the
success of the industrialized countries lies in their ability to learn
how to improve performance in a diversity of social, economic, and
political fields. In other words, the key to their success was their
focus on practical knowledge and the associated improvements in skills
needed to solve problems. They put a premium on learning based on
historical experiences.\32\
One of the most reassuring aspects of a learner's strategy is that
every generation receives a legacy of knowledge that it can harness for
its own use. Every generation blends the new and the old and thereby
charts its own development path, making debates about innovation and
tradition irrelevant. Furthermore, discussions on the impact of
intellectual property rights take on a new meaning if one considers the
fact that the further away you are from the frontier of research, the
larger is your legacy of technical knowledge. The challenge therefore
is for Africa to think of research in adaptive terms, and not simply
focus on how to reach parity with the technological front-runners.
Understanding the factors that help countries to harness available
knowledge is critical to economic transformation.
The advancement of information technology and its rapid diffusion
in recent years could not have happened without basic telecommunication
infrastructure. In addition, electronic information systems, which rely
on telecommunications infrastructure, account for a substantial
proportion of production and distribution activities in the secondary
and tertiary sectors of the economy. It should also be noted that the
poor state of Africa's telecommunications infrastructure has hindered
the capacity of the region to make use of advances in fields such as
geographical information sciences in sustainable development.
The emphasis on knowledge is guided by the view that economic
transformation is a process of continuous improvement in productive
activities. In other words, government policy should be aimed at
enhancing performance, starting with critical fields such as
agriculture, while recognizing interdisciplinary linkages.
This type of improvement indicates a society's capacity to adapt to
change through learning. It is through continuous improvement that
nations transform their economies and achieve higher levels of
performance. Using this framework, with government functioning as a
facilitator for economic learning, agribusiness enterprises will become
the locus of learning, and knowledge will be the currency of change.
Some African countries already possess the key institutional
components they need to become players in the knowledge economy. The
emphasis, therefore, should be on realigning the existing structures
and creating necessary new ones where they do not exist and promoting
interactions between key players in the economy. More specifically, the
separation between government, industry, and academia stands out as one
of the main sources of inertia and waste in Africa's knowledge-based
institutions.\33\ The challenge is not simply creating institutions,
but creating systems of innovation in which emphasis is placed on
economic learning through interactions between actors in the society.
A key role of Africa's RECs is to provide the regional framework
for all stakeholders to act in a coordinated manner, share best
practices, encourage peer review of achievements and setbacks by key
players, and pool resources for the greater good of the region and
Africa at large. The policy organs of the RECs, including the
presidents and sectoral ministers, provide appropriate frameworks for
the public and private sector to formulate innovative policies; and
given the multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral nature of the
initiatives, the higher policy organs at the level of heads of state
and government, and at the level of joint ministerial meetings, provide
a unique role for the RECs as vehicles for promoting regional
collaboration and for the elaboration and implementation of key policy
initiatives.
Africa has visions for socioeconomic development at the national,
regional, and continental level. Science, technology, engineering, and
innovation are critical pillars of any socioeconomic development vision
in our time. At the three levels, the visions do not coherently
interact because the continental policies are not necessarily
coordinated with the policies the member states adopt and implement in
the context of the RECs, and national policy making is at times totally
divorced from the regional and continental processes and frameworks.
However, there are case studies of how some RECs have tried to
address this dilemma, which could constitute best practices for
implementation of regional policies at the national level and for
elaboration of regional policies on the basis of practical realities in
the member states. In the East African Community (EAC), each member
state has agreed to establish a dedicated full-scale ministry
responsible for EAC affairs. This means that EAC affairs are
organically integrated into the national government structure of the
member states. There is need for a coherent approach to formulation and
implementation of regional policies at the national level, drawing on
the collective wisdom and clout that RECs provide in tackling key
national and regional challenges, particularly those related to the
rapid socioeconomic transformation of Africa.
Appendix I
Regional Economic Communities (RECS)
The modern evolution of Africa's economic governance can be traced
to the 1980 Lagos Plan of Action for the Development of Africa and the
1991 Abuja Treaty that established the African Economic Community
(AEC). The treaty envisaged Regional Economic Communities (RECs) as the
building blocks for the AEC. It called on member states to strengthen
existing RECs and provided timeframes for creating new ones where they
did not exist. Eight RECs have been designated by the African Union as
the base for Africa's economic integration.
Arab Maghreb Union (AMU)
The first Conference of Maghreb Economic Ministers in Tunis in 1964
established the Conseil Permanent Consultatif du Maghreb between
Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. Its aim was to coordinate and
harmonize the development plans of the four countries, foster intra-
regional trade, and coordinate relations with the European Union.
However, the plans never came to fruition. The first Maghreb Summit,
held in Algeria in 1988, decided to set up the Maghreb High Commission.
In 1989 in Marrakech the Treaty establishing the AMU was signed. The
main objectives of AMU are to ensure regional stability and enhance
policy coordination and to promote the free movement of goods and
services. The five member countries have a total population of 85
million people and a GDP of US$500 billion. The headquarters of AMU are
in Rabat-Agdal, Morocco. Unlike the other RECs, AMU has no relations
with the African Economic Community (AEC) and has not yet signed the
Protocol on Relations with the AEC. Morocco is not a member of the AU.
The AMU, however, been designated by the African Union as a pillar of
the AEC.
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)
The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa was founded in
1993 as a successor to the Preferential Trade Area for Eastern and
Southern Africa (PTA), which was established in 1981. Its vision is to
``be a fully integrated, internationally competitive regional economic
community with high standards of living for all its people ready to
merge into an African Economic Community.'' Its mission is to ``achieve
sustainable economic and social progress . . . through increased co-
operation and integration in all fields of development particularly in
trade, customs and monetary affairs, transport, communication and
information, technology, industry and energy, gender, agriculture,
environment and natural resources.'' COMESA formally succeeded the PTA
in 1994. The establishment of COMESA fulfilled the requirements of the
PTA to become a common market. COMESA has 19 member states with a
population of 410 million with a total GDP of over US$360 million. It
has an annual import bill of about US$152 billion and an export bill of
over US$157 billion. COMESA forms a major market place for both
internal and external trading. Its headquarters are in Lusaka, Zambia.
Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD)
The Community of Sahel-Saharan States was established in 1998
following the conference of leaders and heads of states held in Tripoli
by Libya, Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Sudan. Twenty-two more
countries have joined the community since then. Its goal is to
strengthen peace, security, and stability and achieve global economic
and social development. CEN-SAD has signed partnership agreements with
numerous regional and international organizations to collaborate on
political, cultural, economic, and social issues. Two of its main areas
of work are security and environmental management, which include its
flagship project to create the Great Green Wall of trees across the
Sahel. CEN-SAD member states have launched periodic international
sporting and cultural festivals. The first CEN-SAD Games were held in
Niamey, Niger, in 2009. Thirteen nations competed in Under-20 sports
(athletics, basketball, judo, football, handball, table tennis, and
traditional wrestling) and six fields of cultural competition (song,
traditional creation and inspiration dancing, painting, sculpture, and
photography). The second CEN-SAD Games are scheduled to take place in
2011 in N'Djamena, Chad.
East African Community (EAC)
The East African Community was created in 1967. It collapsed in
1977 due to political differences and was revived in 1996 when the
Secretariat of the Permanent Tripartite Commission for East African
Cooperation was set up at the EAC headquarters in Arusha, Tanzania. In
1997 the East African heads of state started the process of upgrading
the agreement that set up the commission into a treaty. In 1999 they
signed the treaty reestablishing the East African Community (EAC). The
objectives of EAC are to develop policies and programs aimed at
widening and deepening cooperation on political, economic, social, and
cultural fields, research and technology, defense, security, and legal
and judicial affairs. Its members are now Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania,
Rwanda, and Burundi with a population of 130 million and a GDP of over
US$80 billion. The EAC has an operating customs union and launched its
common market in July 2010. Its roadmap includes a common currency and
the creation of a single state. In addition to its secretariat, the EAC
has a judiciary and a legislature made of representatives from member
states.
Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS)
At a summit meeting in December 1981, the leaders of the Central
African Customs and Economic Union agreed in principle to form a wider
economic community of Central African states. ECCAS was established on
October 18, 1983, by the union members and the members of the Economic
Community of the Great Lakes States (Burundi, Rwanda, and the then
Zaire) as well as Sao Tome and Principe. Angola remained an observer
until 1999, when it became a full member. ECCAS aims ``to promote and
strengthen harmonious cooperation and balanced and self-sustained
development in all fields of economic and social activity, particularly
in the fields of industry, transport and communications, energy
agriculture, natural resources, trade, customs, monetary and financial
matters, human resources, tourism, education, further training,
culture, science and technology and the movement of persons.'' ECCAS
began functioning in 1985 but has been inactive since 1992 because of
financial difficulties (nonpayment of membership fees) and the conflict
in the Great Lakes area. Its 11 member states have a total population
of 125 million and a GDP of US$180 billion. Its headquarters are in
Libreville, Gabon.
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
The idea for a West African community goes back to President
William Tubman of Liberia, who made the call in 1964. An agreement was
signed between Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone in
February 1965, but this came to nothing. In April 1972 Nigerian and
Togolese leaders relaunched the idea, drew up proposals, and toured 12
countries, soliciting their plan from July to August 1973. A 1973
meeting in Lome studied a draft treaty. A treaty setting up the
Economic Community of West African States was signed in 1975 by 15
countries. Its mission is to promote economic integration in all fields
of economic activity, particularly industry, transport,
telecommunications, energy, agriculture, natural resources, commerce,
monetary and financial questions, and social and cultural matters.
ECOWAS members signed a nonaggression protocol in 1990, building on two
earlier agreements of 1978 and 1981. They also signed a Protocol on
Mutual Defense Assistance in 1981 that provided for the creation of an
Allied Armed Force of the Community. ECOWAS has 15 members, a
population of about 270 million and an estimated GDP of US$380 billion.
Its head offices are in Abuja, Nigeria.
Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD)
The Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development (IGADD)
was formed in 1986 with a very narrow mandate to deal with drought and
desertification. IGADD later became the accepted vehicle for regional
security and political dialogue among its members. In the mid-1990s
IGADD decided to transform the organization into a fully-fledged
regional political, economic, development, trade, and security entity.
In 1996 the Agreement Establishing the Intergovernmental Authority on
Development was adopted. Its transition to economic issues is reflected
in its first objective, to promote ``joint development strategies and
gradually harmonize macroeconomic policies and programs in the social,
technological and scientific fields.'' More specifically, IGAD seeks to
``harmonize policies with regard to trade, customs, transport,
communications, agriculture, and natural resources, and promote free
movement of goods, services, and people and the establishment of
residence.'' In recent years IGAD has been working on environmental
security, given the links between conflict and natural resources among
its members. It has also continued to work on drought and
desertification. IGAD has seven members with a total population of 190
million and a GDP of US$230 billion. It is headquartered in Djibouti
City, Djibouti.
Southern African Development Community (SADC)
The Southern African Development Community started as Frontline
States whose objective was political liberation of Southern Africa.
SADC was preceded by the Southern African Development Coordination
Conference (SADCC), which was formed in Lusaka, Zambia, in 1980. The
concept of a regional economic cooperation in Southern Africa was first
discussed at a meeting of the Frontline States foreign ministers in
1979 in Gaborone, Botswana. The meeting led to an international
conference in Arusha, Tanzania, which in turn led to the Lusaka Summit
held in 1980. The SADC Treaty and Declaration signed in Windhoek,
Namibia, transformed SADCC into SADC. The treaty set out to ``promote
sustainable and equitable economic growth and socio-economic
development that will ensure poverty alleviation with the ultimate
objective of its eradication, enhance the standard and quality of life
of the people of Southern Africa and support the socially disadvantaged
through regional integration.'' One way set out to achieve this goal is
to ``promote the development, transfer and mastery of technology.'' The
organization's 15 member states have a total population of 240 million
and a GDP of US$750 billion. Its head offices are in Gaborone,
Botswana.
Appendix II
Decisions of the 2010 COMESA Summit on Science and Technology for
Development
Every year the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
(COMESA) chooses a theme to guide its activities for regional
integration. The theme for the 2010 COMESA Summit held in Swaziland was
``Harnessing Science and Technology for Development.'' The Chairman of
COMESA for this year, His Majesty King Mswati III of the Royal Kingdom
of Swaziland, stressed the need for concrete initiatives on science,
technology, and innovation that can lead to tangible results for the
region. In his address to the summit, he underscored the critical
importance of science and technology and made some concrete proposals.
He proposed the establishment of technology parks, the creation of an
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Training and Skills
Development Fund, and the elaboration of a common ICT curriculum for
COMESA to introduce young people to ICT at an early age. He undertook
to do everything possible to ensure that the science and technology
programs are implemented as agreed.
The Council of Ministers, at their meeting, reached concrete
decisions, which the summit fully endorsed. The deliberations in
Council are set out below.
Report of the Twenty Eighth Meeting of the COMESA Council of Ministers,
Ezulwini, Kingdom of Swaziland, 27-28 August 2010
The Council received a video recorded presentation from Calestous
Juma, a Kenyan national who is a Professor of Development Practice at
Harvard Kennedy School. Building on a paper circulated for the meeting
as the background document for the agenda item on harnessing science
and technology, the presentation underscored the importance of science
and technology for development and provided a historical perspective to
cycles of technological revolutions over the years, as well as a
critical discussion of contemporary issues that Africa faces in
pursuing its development priorities, suggesting concrete ways forward,
with examples, on key issues. Copies of the presentation will be made
available to delegations.
The presentation made the following recommendations for
establishing an institutional framework for harnessing science and
technology in COMESA:
Creating a high-level committee of science, technology and
innovation;
Establishing offices of science, technology and innovation
at the highest level of Government in the Member States and at
the Secretariat to support the Governments of the Member States
and the Secretary General respectively;
Promoting regional academies of science, technology and
engineering;
Establishing an Innovation Award for outstanding
accomplishment; and
Setting up a professional or graduate school of regional
integration.
In considering these recommendations, Council urged Member States
to establish this institutional framework at the national level.
Furthermore, the Secretariat should have an Advisory Office on Science
and Technology.
In addition, the presentation made specific recommendations on
harnessing science and technology in the region in specific areas,
including the following, which Council, in its deliberations, noted
were only examples of a wide array of possible initiatives:
Available cost effective technology for promoting access to
medical facilities particularly in rural areas should be
utilised by Member States as appropriate, such as ultrasound
technology and health-services that can be facilitated by
mobile telephony;
In the area of education, innovative initiatives for
promoting access to education material, such as the [One Laptop
per Child] project, currently in use worldwide, including in
Rwanda, should be championed by COMESA Member States;
In the life sciences, COMESA should utilise available
information generated through the decoding and annotation of
various genomes, to apply it in various areas such as
developing crops that are adapted to the geographical
conditions of the region;
Noting that the available stock of technological knowledge
increases exponentially, doubling every 12 months, and to take
advantage of rapidly reducing costs of technological products,
COMESA needs to develop mechanisms for harnessing relevant
available technological knowledge worldwide; but for this to be
possible, mechanisms should be put in place for developing the
technical capacity to know and absorb the available knowledge
worldwide in order to be able to apply it as appropriate in
dealing with challenges that face the region in key priority
areas such as agriculture, infrastructure, information and
communications, public health, clean energy and water,
environmental protection, and trade and economics. In
particular, there is need to mobilise and organise the region's
scientists and engineers and encourage incremental innovation
by individuals and SMEs;
In the area of telecommunications, the various undersea and
land cable networks for connecting up Africa and connecting
Africa to the rest of the world should be utilised by Member
States and stakeholders including the private sector, bearing
in mind that Africa has significantly contributed financially
to installing them; and
COMESA should utilise the wireless broad band access that is
going to be delivered in the tropics around the world by the
set of 16 satellites being launched.
The Council welcomed the presentation and commended the Secretariat for
arranging the presentation from such a brilliant son of Africa. The
Council extensively deliberated the presentation and adopted Decisions.
In terms of the way forward regarding the institutional framework, the
Council noted the need for inter-ministerial coordination in order to
avoid uncoordinated approaches, and in this regard, the vital
importance of overarching executive leadership at a high level of
Government. At the level of the Secretariat, if the Office of Advisor
on Science and Technology is set up, it should be structured in a
manner that ensures mainstreaming of science and technology in all the
other programs and that avoids a silo approach, and it should have the
primary objective of assisting Member States in their science and
technology programs.
Decisions
The Council adopted the recommendations of the presentation and
underscored the importance of mainstreaming science and technology in
all COMESA programs and of adopting a cost effective approach that does
not financially overburden the Member States and the Secretariat.
Furthermore, the Council urged Member States to:
Promote the commercialisation of research and development,
and put in place initiatives for improvement and
standardisation of traditional products, innovating them into
products that can be commercialised;
Consider using biotechnology in the cropping sector in order
to increase the outputs in the region, working with partners
such as ECA and NEPAD, and taking into account the enormous
biodiversity in the region;
Dedicate at least 1% of the Gross Domestic Product to
research and development, in line with the target set within
the framework of the African Union;
Consider adopting initiatives for promoting and utilising
nano technology and science, given its application in various
key areas such as medical treatment resulting from much higher
levels of precision;
Put in place concrete mechanisms for leveraging science and
technology to address the key priorities in the region;
Establish data bases for identifying individuals with the
right profiles that can assist the implementation of science
and technology initiatives in COMESA;
Harmonise and coordinate their policy frameworks on science
and technology at the COMESA level; and
Elaborate and adopt master plans and blue prints for
leveraging technological knowledge, for harnessing science and
technology, and for mobilising the required resources.
Council decided also that:
Member States should consider establishing Science and
Technology Committees and Advisory Office at the highest level
of Government;
The Secretariat should establish an Office of Advisor on
Science and Technology; and
An Annual Innovation Award should be established to
recognise outstanding accomplishment.
Broad Band Wireless Interactive System
Regarding a Broad Band Wireless Interactive System, the Council
received a PowerPoint presentation, which was presented to the Fourth
Meeting of the Ministers of Infrastructure at its meeting, 29-30 July
2010. The Report of that Meeting, reference CS/ID/MIN/IV/2, in
paragraphs 384 to 388, provides the deliberations by the Infrastructure
Ministers and a recommendation on this matter.
Recommendation
The Council noted the deliberations of the Infrastructure Ministers
on this matter and endorsed the recommendation that pilot projects be
developed to deploy the COBIS system in selected COMESA Member States
following which when successfully implemented can be expanded for
region-wide deployment.
Directives of the COMESA Heads of State and Government on Harnessing
Science and Technology
The Heads of State and Government as well deliberated this matter
of harnessing science and technology and listened to the video
presentation of Professor Calestous Juma. They directed as follows,
endorsing the Decisions of the Ministers:
Member States should:
Where possible, pool resources and combine efforts to
establish common science and technology parks;
Promote the commercialisation of research and development,
and put in place initiatives for improvement and
standardisation of traditional products, innovating them into
products that can be commercialised;
Consider using biotechnology in the cropping sector in order
to increase the outputs in the region, working with partners
such as ECA and NEPAD, and taking into account the enormous
biodiversity in the region;
Dedicate at least 1% of the Gross Domestic Product to
research and development, in line with the target set within
the framework of the African Union;
Consider adopting initiatives for promoting and utilising
nanotechnology and science, given its application in various
key areas such as medical treatment resulting from much higher
levels of precision;
Develop a common curriculum in ICT that enables COMESA
citizens to be exposed to ICT at an early age;
Create a central fund that will concentrate on availing
financial resources towards funding programs for ICT training
and skills development;
Establish data bases for identifying individuals with the
right profiles that can assist the implementation of science
and technology initiatives in COMESA;
Harmonise and coordinate their policy frameworks on science
and technology at the COMESA level; and
Elaborate and adopt master plans and blue prints for
leveraging technological knowledge, for harnessing science and
technology, and for mobilising the required resources.
In addition:
Member States should consider establishing Science and
Technology Committees and Advisory Offices at the highest level
of Government;
The Secretariat should establish an Office of Advisor on
Science and Technology;
An Annual Innovation Award should be established to
recognise outstanding accomplishment; and
Member States should adopt a policy for harnessing science
and technology.
Furthermore, the Heads of State and Government endorsed the COMESA
Policy on Intellectual Property Rights and Cultural Industries as
adopted by the Ministers.
Notes
Introduction
1. B. wa Mutharika, ``Feeding Africa through New Technologies: Let
Us Act Now'' (Acceptance Speech on Election of the Chairman of the
Assembly of the African Union, Addis Ababa, January 31, 2010). As wa
Mutharika explained: ``I firmly believe that if we could agree that
food security at the Africa level is a priority, then other priorities
such as climate change, ICT, transport and infrastructure development
would also become a necessity to enhance flow of information, movement
of people, goods and services including the production and supply of
agricultural inputs within and among nations, regions and the continent
at large. I therefore propose that we consider investing in the
construction of infrastructure to support food security. We need to
build food storage facilities, new roads, railways, airlines, shipping
industries as well as develop inter-state networks to ensure that we
can move food surplus to deficit areas more efficiently and more
cheaply.''
2. C.P. Reij and E.M. Smaling, ``Analyzing Successes in Agriculture
and Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Is Macro-Level Gloom
Obscuring Micro-Level Change?'' Land Use Policy 25, no. 3 (2008): 410-
20.
3. Discussions on the role of innovation in development often
ignore the role of engineering in development. For more details, see C.
Juma, ``Redesigning African Economies: The Role of Engineering in
International Development'' (Hinton Lecture, Royal Academy of
Engineering, London, 2006); P. Guthrie, C. Juma, and H. Sillem, eds.,
Engineering Change: Towards a Sustainable Future in the Developing
World. London: Royal Academy of Engineering, 2008.
4. H.T. Vesala and K.M. Vesala, ``Entrepreneurs and Producers:
Identities of Finnish Farmers in 2001 and 2006,'' Journal of Rural
Studies 26, no. 1 (2010): 21-30.
5. The African Union (AU) recognizes the following RECs as the
continent's economic integration building blocks: Community of Sahel
Sahara States (CEN-SAD); Arab Maghreb Union (AMU); Economic Community
of Central African States (ECCAS); Common Market of Eastern and
Southern Africa (COMESA); Southern African Development Community
(SADC); Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD); Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS); the East African Community
(EAC). For descriptions, see Appendix I.
6. B. Gavin, ``The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership: An Experiment in
North-South-South Integration,'' Intereconomics 40, no. 6 (2005): 353-
60.
7. A. Aghrout, ``The Euro-Maghreb Economic Partnership: Trade and
Investment Issues,'' Journal of Contemporary European Studies 17, no. 3
(2009): 353-67.
8. A.-N. Cherigui et al., ``Solar Hydrogen Energy: The European-
Maghreb Connection--A New Way of Excellence for Sustainable
Development,'' International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34, no. 11
(2009): 4934-40.
9. K. Kausch, ``The End of the `Euro-Mediterranean Vision,' ''
International Affairs 85, no. 5 (2009): 963-75.
10. C. Juma and I. Serageldin, Freedom to Innovate: Biotechnology
in Africa's Development. Addis Ababa: African Union and New Partnership
for Africa's Development, 2007.
11. C. Juma and I. Serageldin, Freedom to Innovate: Biotechnology
in Africa's Development. Addis Ababa: African Union and New Partnership
for Africa's Development, 2007, 116-17.
12. Royal Society of London. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the
Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. London: Royal
Society of London 2009.
13. E. Kraemer-Mbula and W. Wamae, eds., Innovation and the
Development Agenda. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 2010.
Chapter 1
1. U. Lele, ``Structural Adjustment, Agricultural Development and
the Poor: Some Lessons from the Malawian Experience,'' World
Development 18, no. 9 (1990): 1207-19.
2. D.E. Sahn and J. Arulpragasam. ``The Stagnation of Smallholder
Agriculture in Malawi: A Decade of Structural Adjustment,'' Food Policy
16, no. 3 (1991): 219-34.
3. V. Quinn, ``A History of the Politics of Food and Nutrition in
Malawi: The Context of Food and Nutritional Surveillance,'' Food Policy
19, no. 3 (1994): 255-71.
4. G. Denning et al., ``Input Subsidies to Improve Smallholder
Maize Productivity in Malawi: Toward an African Green Revolution,''
PLoS Biology 7, no. 1 (2009): e1000023.
5. B. wa Mutharika, ``Capitalizing on Opportunity'' (paper
presented at the World Economic Forum on Africa, Cape Town, South
Africa, June 4, 2008).
6. B. Chinsinga, Reclaiming Policy Space: Lessons from Malawi's
Fertilizer Subsidy Programme. London: Future Agricultures, 2007.
7. F. Ellis, Fertiliser Subsidies and Social Cash Transfers:
Complementary or Competing Instruments for Reducing Vulnerability to
Hunger? Johannesburg, South Africa: Regional Hunger and Vulnerability
Programme, 2009.
8. H. Ndilowe, personal communication, Embassy of Malawi,
Washington, DC, 2009.
9. G. Denning et al., ``Input Subsidies to Improve Smallholder
Maize Productivity in Malawi: Toward an African Green Revolution,''
PLoS Biology 7, no. 1 (2009): e1000023.
10. D.C. Chibonga, personal communication, National Smallholder
Farmers' Association, Malawi, 2009.
11. D.C. Chibonga, personal communication, National Smallholder
Farmers' Association, Malawi, 2009.
12. C.P. Timmer, ``Agriculture and Economic Development,'' Handbook
of Agricultural Economics 2 (2002): 1487-1546.
13. P. Pingali, ``Agricultural Growth and Economic Development: A
View through the Globalization Lens,'' Agricultural Economics 37, no. 1
(2007): 1-12.
14. D. Byerlee, A. de Janvy, and E. Sadoulet, ``Agriculture for
Development: Toward a New Paradigm,'' Annual Review of Resource
Economics 1, no.1 (2009): 15-35.
15. P. Pingali, ``Agriculture Renaissance: Making `Agriculture for
Development' Work in the 21st Century,'' Handbook of Agricultural
Economics 4 (2010): 3867-94.
16. M. Tiffen, ``Transition in Sub-Saharan Africa: Agriculture,
Urbanization and Income Growth,'' World Development 31, no. 8 (2003):
1343-66.
17. P. Gollin, ``Agricultural Productivity and Economic Growth,''
Handbook of Agricultural Economics 4 (2010): 3825-66.
18. For a comprehensive review of food-related debates, see R.
Paarlberg, Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2010.
19. R. Evenson and D. Gollin, ``Assessing the Impact of the Green
Revolution, 1960-2000,'' Science 300, no. 5620 (2003): 758-62.
20. R. Evenson and D. Gollin, ``Assessing the Impact of the Green
Revolution, 1960-2000,'' Science 300, no. 5620 (2003): 758-62.
21. This is clearly articulated in InterAcademy Council, Realizing
the Promise and Potential of African Agriculture. Amsterdam:
InterAcademy Council, 2004.
22. P. Hazell, ``An Assessment of the Impact of Agricultural
Research in South Asia since the Green Revolution,'' Handbook of
Agricultural Economics 4 (2010): 3469-3530.
23. World Bank, World Development Report, 2008. Washington, DC:
World Bank, 2008, 27.
24. World Bank, World Development Report, 2008. Washington, DC:
World Bank, 2008, 29.
25. World Bank, World Development Report, 2008. Washington, DC:
World Bank, 2008, 40-41.
26. World Bank, World Development Report, 2008. Washington, DC:
World Bank, 2008, 53.
27. World Bank, World Development Report, 2008. Washington, DC:
World Bank, 2008, 27.
28. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
``Agriculture, Food Security and Rural Development for Growth and
Poverty Reduction: China's Agricultural Transformation--Lessons for
Africa and its Development Partners.'' Summary of discussions by the
China-DAC Study Group, Bamako, Mali, April 27-28, 2010.
29. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and African
Union, Economic Report on Africa 2009: Developing African Agriculture
through Regional Value Chains. Addis Ababa: United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa and African Union, 2009.
30. UNEP-UNCTAD Task Force on Capacity Building on Trade,
Environment and Development, Organic Agriculture and Food Security in
Africa. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,
2008.
31. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and African
Union, Economic Report on Africa 2009: Developing African Agriculture
through Regional Value Chains. Addis Ababa: United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa and African Union, 2009.
32. E. Fabusoro et al., ``Forms and Determinants of Rural
Livelihood Diversification in Ogun State,'' Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture 34, no. 4 (2010): 417-38.
33. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and African
Union, Economic Report on Africa 2009: Developing African Agriculture
through Regional Value Chains. Addis Ababa: United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa and African Union, 2009.
34. R. Paarlberg, Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being
Kept Out of Africa. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.
35. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and African
Union, Economic Report on Africa 2009: Developing African Agriculture
through Regional Value Chains. Addis Ababa: United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa and African Union, 2009.
36. R. Roxburgh et al., Lions on the Move: The Progress and
Potential of African Economies. Washington, DC: McKinsey Global
Institute, 2010.
37. R. Roxburgh et al., Lions on the Move: The Progress and
Potential of African Economies. Washington, DC: McKinsey Global
Institute, 2010.
38. R. Roxburgh et al., Lions on the Move: The Progress and
Potential of African Economies. Washington, DC: McKinsey Global
Institute, 2010.
39. D. Deininger et al., Rural Land Certification in Ethiopia:
Process, Initial Impact, and Implications for Other African Countries.
Washington, DC: World Bank, 2007.
40. H. Binswanger-Mkhize and A. McCalla, ``The Changing Context and
Prospects for Agricultural and Rural Development in Africa,'' Handbook
of Agricultural Economics 4 (2010): 3582-83.
41. P. D. Williams and J. Haacke, ``Security Culture, Transnational
Challenges and the Economic Community of West African States,'' Journal
of Contemporary African Studies 26, no. 2 (2008): 119-23.
42. OECD, African Economic Outlook 2010: Public Resource
Mobilization and Aid. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development, 2010.
43. EAC, Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy for the East
African Community. Arusha, Tanzania: East African Community, 2006.
44. EAC, Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy for the East
African Community. Arusha, Tanzania: East African Community, 2006.
45. T. Persson and G. Tabellini, ``The Growth Effect of Democracy:
Is It Heterogeneous and How Can It Be Estimated?'' In Institutions and
Economic Performance, ed. E. Helpman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2008.
46. L.E. Fulginiti, ``What Comes First, Agricultural Growth or
Democracy?'' Agricultural Economics 41, no. 1 (2010): 15-24.
47. R. Nelson, ``What Enables Rapid Economic Progress: What Are the
Needed Institutions?'' Research Policy 37, no.1 (2008): 1.
48. D. Restuccia, D. T. Yang, and X. Zhu, ``Agriculture and
Aggregate Productivity,'' Journal of Monetary Economics 55, no. 2
(2008): 234-50.
Chapter 2
1. J. Schwerin and C. Werker, ``Learning Innovation Policy Based on
Historical Experience,'' Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 14,
no. 4 (2004): 385-404.
2. C. Freeman and F. Louca, As Time Goes By: From the Industrial
Revolution to the Information Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2001; J. Fegerberg et al., eds., The Oxford Handbook of
Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
3. T. Ridley, Y.-C. Lee, and C. Juma, ``Infrastructure, Innovation
and Development,'' International Journal of Technology and
Globalisation 2, no. 3 (2006): 268-78; D. Rouach and D. Saperstein,
``Alstom Technology Transfer Experience: The Case of the Korean Train
Express (KTX),'' International Journal of Technology Transfer and
Commercialisation 3, no. 3 (2004): 308-23.
4. B. Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and K. Lal, ``Learning New Technologies by
Small and Medium Enterprises in Developing Countries,'' Technovation
26, no. 2 (2006): 220-31.
5. C. Juma, ``Redesigning African Economies: The Role of
Engineering in International Development'' (Hinton Lecture, Royal
Academy of Engineering, London, 2006).
6. D. King, ``Governing Technology and Growth.'' In Going for
Growth: Science, Technology and Innovation in Africa, ed. C. Juma.
London: Smith Institute, 2005, 112-24.
7. C. Juma, ``Reinventing African Economies: Technological
Innovation and the Sustainability Transition'' (paper presented at the
6th John Pesek Colloquium on Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa, USA, 2006).
8. A.D. Alene, ``Productivity Growth and the Effects of R&D in
African Agriculture,'' Agricultural Economics 41, nos. 3-4 (2010): 223-
38.
9. W.A. Masters, ``Paying for Prosperity: How and Why to Invest in
Agricultural R&D for Development in Africa,'' Journal of International
Affairs 58, no. 2 (2005): 35-64.
10. H. Jikun and S. Rozelle, ``Technological Change: Rediscovering
the Engine of Productivity Growth in China's Rural Economy,'' Journal
of Development Economics 49, no. 2 (1996): 337-69.
11. S. Fan, L. Zhang, and X. Zhang, ``Reforms, Investment, and
Poverty in Rural China,'' Economic Development and Cultural Change 5,
no. 2 (2004): 395-422.
12. G. Conway and J. Waage, Science and Innovation for Development.
London: UK Collaborative on Development Sciences, 2010, 37.
13. J.C. Acker and I.M. Mbiti, Mobile Phones and Economic
Development in Africa. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development,
2010.
14. G. Conway and J. Waage, Science and Innovation for Development.
London: UK Collaborative on Development Sciences, 2010, 37.
15. G. Conway and J. Waage, Science and Innovation for Development.
London: UK Collaborative on Development Sciences, 2010, 37.
16. W. Jack and T. Suri, Mobile Money: The Economics of M-PESA.
Cambridge, MA: Sloan School, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
2009.
17. I. Mas, ``The Economics of Branchless Banking,'' Journal of
Monetary Economics 4, no. 2 (2009): 57-76.
18. M.L. Rilwani and I.A. Ikhuoria, ``Precision Farming with
Geoinformatics: A New Paradigm for Agricultural Production in a
Developing Country,'' Transactions in GIS 10, no. 2 (2006): 177-97.
19. R. Chwala, personal communication, Survey Settlements and Land
Records Department, State of Karnataka, 2009.
20. I. Potrykus, ``Nutritionally Enhanced Rice to Combat
Malnutrition Disorders of the Poor,'' Nutrition Reviews 61, Supplement
1 (2003): 101-4.
21. C. James, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops:
2009. ISAAA Brief No. 41. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
22. C. James, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops:
2009. ISAAA Brief No. 41. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
23. C. James, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops:
2009. ISAAA Brief No. 41. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
24. C. Pray, ``Public-Private Sector Linkages in Research and
Development: Biotechnology and the Seed Industry in Brazil, China and
India,'' American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83, no. 3 (2001):
742-47.
25. R. Kaplinsky et al., ``Below the Radar: What Does Innovation in
Emerging Economies Have to Offer Other Low-income Countries?''
International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable
Development 8, no. 3 (2009): 177-97. Indian entrepreneurs have figured
ways of doing more with less based on the principles of affordability
and sustainability: C.P. Prahalad and R.A. Mashelkar, ``Innovation's
Holy Grain,'' Harvard Business Review, July-August (2010): 1-10.
26. J.D. Glover and J.P. Reganold, ``Perenial Grains: Food Security
for the Future,'' Issues in Science and Technology 26, no. 2 (2010):
41-47.
27. C. James, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops:
2009. ISAAA Brief No. 41. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
28. A.M. Showalter et al., ``A Primer for Using Transgenic
Insecticidal Cotton in Developing Countries,'' Journal of Insect
Science 9 (2009): 1-39.
29. D. Zilberman, H. Ameden, and M. Qaim, ``The Impact of
Agricultural Biotechnology on Yields, Risks, and Biodiversity in Low-
Income Countries,'' Journal of Development Studies 43, no. 1 (2007):
63-78.
30. C.E. Pray et al., ``Five Years of Bt Cotton in China--The
Benefits Continue,'' Plant Journal 31, no. 4 (2000): 423-30.
31. R. Falkner, ``Regulating Biotech Trade: The Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety,'' International Affairs 76, no. 2 (2000): 299-313.
32. L.R. Ghisleri et al., ``Risk Analysis and GM Foods: Scientific
Risk Assessment,'' European Food and Feed Law Review 4, no. 4 (2009):
235-50.
33. T. Bernauer, Genes, Trade, and Regulation: The Seeds of
Conflict in Food Biotechnology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 2003. Most of the studies on the risks of agricultural
biotechnology tend to focus on unintended negative impacts. But
evidence of unintended benefits is emerging. See, for example, W.D.
Hutchison et al., ``Areawide Suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt
Maize Reaps Savings to Non-Bt Maize Growers,'' Science 330, no. 6001
(2010): 222-25.
34. C.E. Pray et al., ``Costs and Enforcement of Biosafety
Regulations in India and China,'' International Journal of Technology
and Globalization 2, nos. 1-2 (2006): 137-57; C.E. Pray, P. Bengali,
and B. Ramaswami, ``The Cost of Regulation: The India Experience,''
Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 44, no. 3 (2005): 267-
89.
35. R. Paarlberg, Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being
Kept Out of Africa. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008, 2.
36. E. van Kleef et al., ``Food Risk Management Quality: Consumer
Evaluations of Past and Emerging Food Safety Incidents,'' Health, Risk
and Society 11, no. 2 (2009): 137-63.
37. L.J. Frewer et al., ``What Determines Trust in Information
about Food-related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs,'' Risk
Analysis 16, no. 4 (1996): 473-85.
38. P. Jackson, ``Food Stories: Consumption in the Age of
Anxiety,'' Cultural Geographies 17, no. 2 (2010): 147-65.
39. S. Lieberman and T. Gray, ``The World Trade Organization's
Report on the EU's Moratorium on Biotech Products: The Wisdom of the US
Challenge to the EU in the WTO,'' Global Environmental Politics 8, no.
1 (2008): 33-52.
40. N. Zerbe, ``Feeding the Famine? American Food Aid and the GMO
Debate in Southern Africa,'' Food Policy 29, no. 6 (2004): 593-608.
41. I. Cheyne, ``Life after the Biotech Products Dispute,''
Environmental Law Review 10, no. 1 (2008): 52-64.
42. E.J. Morris, ``The Cartagena Protocol: Implications for
Regional Trade and Technology Development in Africa,'' Development
Policy Review 26, no. 1 (2008): 29-57.
43. D. Wield, J. Chataway, and M. Bolo, ``Issues in the Political
Economy of Agricultural Biotechnology,'' Journal of Agrarian Change 10,
no. 3 (2010): 342-66.
44. J.O. Adeoti and A.A. Adekunle, ``Awareness of and Attitudes
towards Biotechnology and GMOs in Southwest Nigeria: A Survey of People
with Access to Information,'' International Journal of Biotechnology 9,
no. 2 (2007): 209-30.
45. E.J. Morris, ``The Cartagena Protocol: Implications for
Regional Trade and Technology Development in Africa,'' Development
Policy Review 26, no. 1 (2008): 29-57.
46. C. Bett, J.O. Ouma, and H. Groote, ``Perspectives on
Gatekeepers in the Kenya Food Industry toward Genetically Modified
Food,'' Food Policy 35, no. 4 (2010): 332-40.
47. D.L. Kleinman, A.J. Kinchy, and R. Autry, ``Local Variations or
Global Convergence in Agricultural Biotechnology Policy? A Comparative
Analysis,'' Science and Public Policy 36, no. 5 (2009): 361-71.
48. J. Keeley, ``Balancing Technological Innovation and
Environmental Regulation: An Analysis of Chinese Agricultural
Biotechnology Governance,'' Environmental Politics 15, no. 2 (2000):
293-309.
49. National Research Council. Impact of Genetically Engineered
Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press, 2010.
50. G. Conway and J. Waage, Science and Innovation for Development.
London: UK Collaborative on Development Sciences, 2010, 54.
51. T. Fleischer and A. Grunwald, ``Making Nanotechnology
Developments Sustainable: A Role for Technology Assessment?'' Journal
of Cleaner Production 16, nos. 8-9 (2008): 889-98.
52. G. Conway and J. Waage, Science and Innovation for Development.
London: UK Collaborative on Development Sciences, 2010, 53.
53. S. Louis and D. Alcorta, personal communication, Dais Analytic
Corporation, Odessa, Florida, USA (2010).
54. J. Perkins, Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes,
and the Cold War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
55. B. Bell, Jr. and C. Juma, ``Technology Prospecting: Lessons
from the Early History of the Chile Foundation.'' International Journal
of Technology and Globalisation 3, nos. 2-3 (2007): 296-314.
56. K. Kastenhofer, ``Do We Need a Specific Kind of Technoscience
Assessment? Taking the Convergence of Science and Technology
Seriously,'' Poiesis Prax 7, nos. 1-2 (2010): 37-54.
57. W. Russell et al., ``Technology Assessment in Social Context:
The Case for a New Framework for Assessing and Shaping Technological
Development,'' Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 28, no. 2
(2010): 109-16.
58. L. Pellizoni, ``Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy,''
Environmental Values 12, no. 2 (2003): 195-224.
59. A. Hall, ``Embedding Research in Society: Development
Assistance Options for Agricultural Innovation in a Global Knowledge
Economy,'' International Journal of Technology Management and
Sustainable Development 8, no. 3 (2008): 221-35.
Chapter 3
1. G.E. Glasson et al., ``Sustainability Science Education in
Africa: Negotiating Indigenous Ways of Living with Nature in the Third
Space,'' International Journal of Science Education 32, no. 1 (2010):
125-41.
2. S.W. Omamo and J.K. Lynam, ``Agricultural Science and Technology
Policy in Africa,'' Research Policy 32, no. 9 (2003): 1681-94.
3. J. Fagerberg, ``Introduction: A Guide to the Literature.'' In
The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, ed. J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, and R.
Nelson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, 1-26.
4. J. Sumberg, ``Systems of Innovation Theory and the Changing
Architecture of Agricultural Research in Africa,'' Food Policy 30, no.
1 (2005): 21-41.
5. A. Hall, W. Janssen, E. Pehu, and R. Rajalahti, Enhancing
Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond Strengthening Research
Systems. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006.
6. A. Hall, W. Janssen, E. Pehu, and R. Rajalahti, Enhancing
Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond Strengthening Research
Systems. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006.
7. D.J. Spielman et al., ``Developing the Art and Science of
Innovation Systems Enquiry: Alternative Tools and Methods, and
Applications to Sub-Saharan African Agriculture,'' Technology in
Society 31, no. 4 (2009): 399-405.
8. J.O. Adeoti and O. Olubamiwa, ``Toward an Innovation System in
the Traditional Sector: The Case of the Nigerian Cocoa Industry,''
Science and Public Policy 36, no. 1 (2009): 15-31.
9. J.O. Adeoti, S.O. Odekunle, and F.M. Adeyinka, Tackling
Innovation Deficit: An Analysis of University-Firm Interaction in
Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: Evergreen, 2010.
10. For more details, see J. Adeoti and O. Olubamiwa, ``Toward an
Innovation System in the Traditional Sector: The Case of the Nigerian
Cocoa Industry,'' Science and Public Policy 36, no. 1 (2009): 15-31.
11. M. Gagne et al., ``Technology Cluster Evaluation and Growth
Factors: Literature Review,'' Research Evaluation 19, no. 2 (2010): 82-
90.
12. M.S. Gertler and T. Vinodrai, ``Life Sciences and Regional
Innovation: One Path or Many?'' European Planning Studies 17, no. 2
(2009): 235-61.
13. M.E. Porter, ``Clusters and the New Economics of Competition,''
Harvard Business Review 76, no. 6 (1998): 77-90.
14. Z. Yingming, Analysis of Industrial Clusters in China. Boca
Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, 2010.
15. This case study draws heavily from G. Wu, T. Tu and S. Gu,
``Innovation System and Transformation of the Agricultural Sector in
China, with the Case of Shouguang City'' (paper presented to the
Globelics Conference on Innovation and Development, Rio de Janeiro,
November 3-6, 2003); S. Gu, ``The Emergence and Development of the
Vegetable Sector in China,'' Industry and Innovation 26, nos. 4-5
(2009): 499-524.
16. D. Dalohoun, A. Hall, and P. Mele, ``Entrepreneurship as Driver
of a `Self-Organizing System of Innovation': The Case of NERICA in
Benin,'' International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable
Development 8, no. 2 (2009): 87-101.
17. M. Dermastia, ``Slovenia.'' In Business Clusters: Promoting
Enterprise in Central and Eastern Europe, ed. OECD. Paris: Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2005.
18. P. Maskell, ``Towards a Knowledge-Based Theory of the
Geographical Cluster,'' Industrial and Corporate Change 10, no. 4
(2001): 921.
19. S. Breschi and F. Malerba. ``The Geography of Innovation and
Economic Clustering: Some Introductory Notes,'' Industrial and
Corporate Change 10, no. 4 (2001): 817.
20. B. Orlove et al., ``Indigenous Climate Change Knowledge in
Southern Uganda,'' Climatic Change 100, no. 2 (2010): 243-65.
21. J.F. Martin et al., ``Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK):
Ideas, Inspiration, and Design for Ecological Engineering,'' Ecological
Engineering 36, no. 7 (2010): 839-49.
22. G. Glasson et al., ``Sustainability Science Education in
Africa: Negotiating Indigenous Ways of Living with Nature in the Third
Space,'' International Journal of Science Education 32, no. 1 (2010):
125-41.
23. E. Ostrom, Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
24. Z. Xiwei and Y. Xiangdong, ``Science and Technology Policy
Reform and Its Impact on China's National Innovation System,''
Technology in Society 29, no. 3 (2007): 317.
25. Z. Xiwei and Y. Xiangdong, ``Science and Technology Policy
Reform and Its Impact on China's National Innovation System,''
Technology in Society 29, no. 3 (2007): 321.
26. X. Liu and T. Zhi, ``China Is Catching Up in Science and
Innovation: The Experience of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,''
Science and Public Policy 37, no. 5 (2010): 331-42.
27. Z. Xiwei and Y. Xiangdong, ``Science and Technology Policy
Reform and Its Impact on China's National Innovation System,''
Technology in Society 29, no. 3 (2007): 322.
28. M.A. Lopes and P.B. Arcuri, The Brazilian Agricultural Research
for Development (ARD) System (paper presented at the International
Workshop on Fast Growing Economies' Role in Global Agricultural
Research for Development [ARD], Beijing, China, February 8-10, 2010).
Chapter 4
1. E.B. Barrios, ``Infrastructure and Rural Development: Household
Perceptions on Rural Development,'' Progress in Planning 70, no. 1
(2008): 1-44.
2. P.R. Agenor, ``A Theory of Infrastructure-led Development,''
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 34, no. 5 (2010): 932-50.
3. R.G. Teruel and Y. Kuroda, ``Public Infrastructure and
Productivity Growth in Philippine Agriculture, 1974-2000,'' Journal of
Asian Economics 16, no. 3 (2005): 555-76; P.-R. Agenor and B. Moreno-
Dodson, Public Infrastructure and Growth: New Channels and Policy
Implications. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006.
4. S. Fan and X. Zhang, ``Public Expenditure, Growth and Poverty
Reduction in Rural Uganda,'' Africa Development Review 20, no. 3
(2008): 466-96.
5. S. Fan and C. Chan-Kang, Road Development, Economic Growth, and
Poverty Reduction in China. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute, 2005.
6. A. Narayanamoorthy, ``Economics of Drip Irrigation in Sugarcane
Cultivation: Case Study of a Farmer from Tamil Nadu,'' Indian Journal
of Agricultural Economics 60, no. 2 (2005): 235.
7. The rest of this section is based on K.N. Gratwick and A.
Eberhard, ``An Analysis of Independent Power Projects in Africa:
Understanding Development and Investment Outcomes,'' Development Policy
Review 26, no. 3 (2008): 309-38.
8. K. Annamalai and S. Rao, ITC's e-Choupal and the Profitable
Rural Transformation. Washington, DC: World Resource Institute (WRI),
Michigan Business School, and UNC Kenan Flagler Business School.
9. This section draws heavily from D. Rouach and D. Saperstein,
``Alstom Technology Transfer Experience: The Case of the Korean Train
Express (KTX),'' International Journal of Technology Transfer and
Commercialisation 3, no. 3 (2004): 308-23.
10. T.E. Mutambara, ``Regional Transport Challenges with the South
African Development Community and Their Implications for Economic
Integration and Development,'' Journal of Contemporary African Studies
27, no. 4 (2009): 501-25.
11. E. Calitz and J. Fourie, ``Infrastructure in South Africa: Who
Is to Finance and Who Is to Pay?'' Development Southern Africa 27, no.
2 (2010): 177-91.
12. K. Putranto, D. Stewart, and G. Moore, ``International
Technology Transfer and Distribution of Technology Capabilities: The
Case of Railway Development in Indonesia,'' International Journal of
Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 3, no. 3 (2003): 43-53.
13. R. Shah and R. Batley, ``Private-Sector Investment in
Infrastructure: Rationale and Causality for Pro-poor Impacts,''
Development Policy Review 27, no. 4 (2009): 397-417.
Chapter 5
1. A. Pinkerton and K. Dodds, ``Radio Geopolitics: Broadcasting,
Listening and the Struggle for Acoustic Space,'' Progress in Human
Geography 33, no. 1 (2009): 10-27.
2. N.T. Assie-Lumumba, Empowerment of Women in Higher Education in
Africa: The Role and Mission of Research. Paris: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2006.
3. M. Slavik, ``Changes and Trends in Secondary Agricultural
Education in the Czech Republic,'' International Journal of Educational
Development 24, no. 5 (2004): 539-45.
4. J. Ndjeunga et al., Early Adoption of Modern Groundnut Varieties
in West Africa. Hyderabad, India: International Crops Research in Semi-
Arid Tropics, 2008.
5. G. Feder, R. Murgai, and J. Quizon, ``Sending Farmers Back to
School: The Impact of Farmer Field Schools in Indonesia,'' Review of
Agricultural Economics 26, no. 1 (2004): 45-62.
6. P. Woomer, M. Bokanga, and G. Odhiambo, `` Striga Management and
the African Farmer,'' Outlook on Agriculture 37, no. 4 (2008): 277-82.
7. G. McDowell, Land-Grant Universities and Extension into the 21st
Century: Renegotiating or Abandoning a Social Contract. Ames: Iowa
State University Press, 2001.
8. H. Etzkowitz, ``The Evolution of the Entrepreneurial
University,'' International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 1,
no. 1 (2004): 64-77.
9. M. Almeida, ``Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Brazilian
Universities,'' International Journal of Technology Management and
Sustainable Development 7, no. 1 (2008): 39-58.
10. W.J. Mitsch et al., ``Tropical Wetlands for Climate Change
Research, Water Quality Management and Conservation Education on a
University Campus in Costa Rica,'' Ecological Engineering 34, no. 4
(2008): 276-88.
11. The details on EARTH University are derived from C. Juma,
``Agricultural Innovation and Economic Growth in Africa: Renewing
International Cooperation,'' International Journal of Technology and
Globalisation 4, no. 3 (2008): 256-75.
12. M. Miller, M.J. Mariola, and D.O. Hansen, ``EARTH to Farmers:
Extension and the Adoption of Environmental Technologies in Humid
Tropics of Costa Rica,'' Ecological Engineering 34, no. 4 (2008): 349-
57.
13. National Research Council, Transforming Agricultural Education
for a Changing World. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009.
14. A. deGrassi, ``Envisioning Futures of African Agriculture:
Representation, Power, and Socially Constituted Time,'' Progress in
Development Studies 7, no. 2 (2007): 79-98.
15. D.E. Leigh and A.M. Gill, ``How Well Do Community Colleges
Respond to the Occupational Training Needs of Local Communities?
Evidence from California,'' New Directions for Community Colleges 2009,
no. 146 (2009): 95-102.
16. M. Carnoy and T. Luschei, ``Skill Acquisition in `High Tech'
Export Agriculture: A Case Study of Lifelong Earning in Peru's
Asparagus Industry,'' Journal of Education and Work 21, no. 1 (2008):
1-23.
Chapter 6
1. M. Pragnell, ``Agriculture, Business and Development,''
International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 2, nos. 3-4
(2006): 289-99.
2. J. Lerner, Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to
Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed--and What to Do
About It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.
3. A. Zacharakis, D.A. Shepherd, and J.A. Coombs, ``The Development
of Venture-Capital-Backed Internet Companies: An Ecosystem
Perspective,'' Journal of Business Venturing 18, no. 2 (2003): 217-31.
4. G. Avnimelech, A. Rosiello, and M. Teubal, ``Evolutionary
Interpretation of Venture Capital Policy in Israel, Germany, UK and
Scotland,'' Science and Public Policy 37, no. 2 (2010): 101-12.
5. Y. Huang, Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics:
Entrepreneurship and the State. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2008.
6. Y. Huang, Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics:
Entrepreneurship and the State. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2008.
7. Z. Zhang, ``Rural Industrialization in China: From Backyard
Furnaces to Township and Village Enterprises,'' East Asia 17 no. 3
(1999): 61-87.
8. S. Rozelle, J. Huang, and L. Zhang, ``Emerging Markets, Evolving
Institutions, and the New Opportunities for Growth in China's Rural
Economy,'' China Economic Review 13, no. 4 (2002): 345-53.
9. H. Chen and S. Rozelle, ``Leaders, Managers, and the
Organization of Township and Village Enterprises in China,'' Journal of
Development Economics 60, no. 2 (1999): 529-57.
10. N. Minot et al., ``Seed Development Programs in Sub-Saharan
Africa: A Review of Experiences'' (paper prepared for the Rockefeller
Foundation, Nairobi, 2007).
11. A.S. Langyituo et al., ``Challenges of the Maize Seed Industry
in Eastern and Southern Africa: A Compelling Case for Private-Public
Intervention to Promote Growth,'' Food Policy 35, no. 4 (2010): 323-31.
12. C.E. Pray and L. Nagarajan, Pearl Millet and Sorghum
Improvement in India. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute, 2009.
13. M. Blackie, ``Output to Purpose Review: Seeds of Development
Programme (SODP)'' (paper commissioned by the UK Department for
International Development, London, August 7, 2008).
14. J. Wilkinson, ``The Food Processing Industry, Globalization and
Development Economics,'' Journal of Agricultural and Development
Economics 1, no. 2 (2004): 184-201.
15. A. Dannson et al., Strengthening Farm-Agribusiness Linkages in
Africa: Summary Results of Five Country Studies in Ghana, Nigeria,
Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, 2004.
16. A. Dannson et al., Strengthening Farm-Agribusiness Linkages in
Africa: Summary Results of Five Country Studies in Ghana, Nigeria,
Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, 2004.
17. A. Dannson et al., Strengthening Farm-Agribusiness Linkages in
Africa: Summary Results of Five Country Studies in Ghana, Nigeria,
Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, 2004.
18. E. Zossou et al., ``The Power of Video to Trigger Innovation:
Rice Processing in Central Benin,'' International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability 7, no. 2 (2009): 119-29.
19. P. Van Mele, J. Wanvoeke, and E. Zossou, ``Enhancing Rural
Learning, Linkages, and Institutions: The Rice Videos in Africa,''
Development in Practice 20, no. 3 (2010): 414-421.
20. J. Kerlin, ``A Comparative Analysis of the Global Emergence of
Social Enterprise,'' Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and
Nonprofit Organizations 21, no. 2 (2010): 162-79.
21. The rest of this section is based on S. Hanson, personal
communication, Bungoma, Kenya, One Acre Fund.
22. A. Gupta, personal communication, Society for Research and
Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions, Ahmedabad,
India, 2010.
Chapter 7
1. M. Farrell, ``EU Policy Towards Other Regions: Policy Learning
in the External Promotion of Regional Integration,'' Journal of
European Public Policy 16, no. 8 (2009): 1165-84.
2. C. Juma and I. Serageldin, Freedom to Innovate: Biotechnology in
Africa's Development. Addis Ababa: African Union and New Partnership
for Africa's Development, 2007, 20.
3. C. Juma, C. Gitta, and A. DiSenso, ``Forging New Technological
Alliances: The Role of South-South Cooperation,'' Cooperation South
Journal (2005): 59-71.
4. Commission for Africa, Our Common Interest: Report of the
Commission for Africa. London: Commission for Africa, 2005.
5. Y.H. Kim, ``The Optimal Path of Regional Economic Integration
between Asymmetric Countries in the North East Asia,'' Journal of
Policy Modeling 27, no. 6 (2005): 673-87.
6. C. Wagner, The New Invisible College: Science for Development.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2008.
7. T. Paster, The HACCP Food Safety Training Manual. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
8. G. Jones and S. Corbridge, ``The Continuing Debate about Urban
Bias: The Thesis, Its Critics, Its Influence and Its Implications for
Poverty-Reduction Strategies,'' Progress in Development Studies 10, no.
1 (2010): 1-18.
9. L.M. Povoa and M.S. Rapini, ``Technology Transfer from
Universities and Public Research Institutes to Firms in Brazil: What Is
Transferred and How the Transfer Is Carried Out,'' Science and Public
Policy 37, no. 2 (2010): 147-59.
10. S. Pitroda, personal communication, New Delhi: National
Innovation Council (2010).
11. C. Juma and Y.-C. Lee, Innovation: Applying Knowledge in
Development. London: Earthscan, 2005, 140-58.
12. A. Sindzingre, ``Financing the Developmental State: Tax and
Revenue Issues,'' Development Policy Review 25, no. 5 (2007): 615-32.
13. N. Bloom, R. Griffith, and J. Van Reenen, ``Do R&D Tax Credits
Work? Evidence from a Panel of Countries 1979-1997,'' Journal of Public
Economics 85, no. 1 (2002): 1-31.
14. B. Aschhoff and W. Sofka, ``Innovation on Demand--Can Public
Procurement Drive Market Success of Innovation?'' Research Policy 38,
no. 8 (2009): 1235-47.
15. McKinsey & Company, ``And the Winner Is . . . '': Capturing the
Promise of Philanthropic Prizes. McKinsey & Company, 2009. http://
www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Reports/SSO/And_the_winner_is.pdf.
16. W.A. Masters and B. Delbecq, Accelerating Innovation with Prize
Rewards. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute,
2008.
17. T. Cason, W. Masters, and R. Sheremeta, ``Entry into Winner-
Take-All and Proportional-Prize Contests: An Experimental Study,''
Journal of Public Economics 94, nos. 9-10 (2010): 604-11.
18. Philip G. Pardey and P. Pingali, ``Reassessing International
Agricultural Research for Food and Agriculture'' (report prepared for
the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development [GCARD],
Montpellier, France, March 28-31, 2010); J.M. Alston, M.A. Andersen,
J.S. James, and P.G. Pardey, Persistence Pays: U.S. Agricultural
Productivity Growth and the Benefits from Public R&D Spending. New
York: Springer, 2010.
19. R.E. Just, J.M. Alston, and D. Zilberman, eds., Regulating
AgriculturalBiotechnology: Economics and Policy. New York: Springer-
Verlag, 2006.
20. W.B. Arthur, The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It
Evolves. New York: Free Press, 2009.
21. D. Archibugi and C. Pietrobelli, ``The Globalisation of
Technology and Its Implications for Developing Countries,''
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 70, no. 9 (2003): 861-83.
22. Y. Chen and T. Puttitanum, ``Intellectual Property Rights and
Innovation in Developing Countries,'' Journal of Development Economics
78, no. 2 (2005): 474-93.
23. C.E. Pray and N. Anwar, ``Supplying Crop Biotechnology to the
Poor: Opportunities and Constraints,'' Journal of Development Studies
43, no. 1 (2007): 192-217.
24. S. Redding and P. Schott, ``Distance, Skill Deepening and
Development: Will Peripheral Countries Ever Get Rich?'' Journal of
Development Economics 72, no. 2 (2003): 515-541.
25. C. Ozden and M. Schiff, eds., International Migration,
Remittances and the Brain Drain. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2005.
26. S. Carr, I. Kerr, and K. Thorn, ``From Global Careers to Talent
Flow: Reinterpreting `Brain Drain,' '' Journal of World Business 40,
no. 4 (2005): 386-98.
27. O. Stark, ``Rethinking the Brain Drain,'' World Development 32,
no. 1 (2004): 15-22.
28. A. Saxenian, ``The Silicon Valley-Hsinchu Connection: Technical
Communities and Industrial Upgrading,'' Industrial and Corporate Change
10, no. 4 (2001): 893-920.
29. National Knowledge Commission, Report to the Nation, 2006-2009.
New Delhi: National Knowledge Commission, Government of India.
30. M. MacGregor, Y.F. Adam, and S.A. Shire, ``Diaspora and
Development: Lessons from Somaliland,'' International Journal of
Technology and Globalisation 4, no. 3 (2008): 238-55.
31. A. Leather et al., ``Working Together to Rebuild Health Care in
Post-Conflict Somaliland,'' Lancet 368, no. 9541 (2006): 1119-25.
32. M. Anas and S. Wickremasinghe, ``Brain Drain of the Scientific
Community of Developing Countries: The Case of Sri Lanka,'' Science and
Public Policy 37, no. 5 (2010): 381.
33. N. Fedoroff, ``Science Diplomacy in the 21st Century,'' Cell
136, no. 1 (2009): 9-11.
34. E. Chalecki, ``Knowledge in Sheep's Clothing: How Science
Informs American Diplomacy,'' Diplomacy and Statecraft 19, no. 1
(2008): 1-19.
35. A.H. Zewail, ``Science in Diplomacy,'' Cell 141, no. 2 (2010):
204-7.
36. T. Shaw, A. Cooper, and G. Chin, ``Emerging Powers and Africa:
Implications for/from Global Governance,'' Politikon 36, no.1 (2009):
27-44.
37. A. de Freitas Barbosa, T. Narciso, and M. Biancalana, ``Brazil
in Africa: Emerging Power in the Continent?'' Politikon 36, no.1
(2009): 59-86.
38. F. El-Baz, ``Science Attaches in Embassies,'' Science 329, no.
5987 (July 2, 2010): 13.
39. B. Seguin, et al., ``Scientific Diasporas as an Option for
Brain Drain: Re-circulating Knowledge for Development,'' International
Journal of Biotechnology 8, nos. 1-2 (2006): 78-90.
40. R.L. Tung, ``Brain Circulation, Diaspora, and International
Competitiveness,'' European Management Journal 26, no. 5 (2008): 298-
304.
41. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The Use of
Science in UK International Development Policy, Vol. 1. London:
Stationery Office Limited, 2004.
42. T. Yakushiji, ``The Potential of Science and Technology
Diplomacy,'' Asia-Pacific Review 16, no.1 (2009): 1-7.
43. National Research Council, The Fundamental Role of Science and
Technology in International Development: An Imperative for the US
Agency for International Development. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press, 2006.
44. D.D. Stine, Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy:
Background and Issues for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service, Congress of the United States.
45. K. King, ``China's Cooperation in Education and Training with
Kenya: A Different Model?'' International Journal of Educational
Development 30, no. 5 (2010): 488-96.
46. R.A. Austen and D. Headrick. ``The Role of Technology in the
African Past,'' African Studies Review 26, nos. 3-4 (1983): 163-84.
47. S.E. Cozzens, ``Distributive Justice in Science and Technology
Policy,'' Science and Public Policy 34, no. 2 (2007): 85-94.
48. J. Mugwagwa, ``Collaboration in Biotechnology Governance: Why
Should African Countries Worry about Those among Them that Are
Technologically Weak?'' International Journal of Technology Management
and Sustainable Development 8, no. 3 (2009): 265-79.
Chapter 8
1. P.K. Thornton et al., ``Special Variation of Crop Yield Response
to Climate Change in East Africa,'' Global Environmental Change 19, no.
1 (2009): 54-65.
2. World Bank, World Development Report 2010: Development and
Climate Change. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2010, 5.
3. E. Bryan et al., ``Adaptation to Climate Change in Ethiopia and
South Africa: Options and Constraints,'' Environmental Science and
Policy 12, no. 4 (2009): 413-26.
4. P. Laux et al., ``Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural
Productivity under Rainfed Conditions in Cameroon--a Method to Improve
Attainable Crop Yields by Planting Date Adaptation,'' Agricultural and
Forest Meteorology 150, no. 9 (2010): 1258-71.
5. W.N. Adger et al., ``Assessment of Adaptation Practices,
Options, Constraints and Capacity.'' In Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, ed. M.L. Parry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007,
869.
6. W.N. Adger et al., ``Assessment of Adaptation Practices,
Options, Constraints and Capacity.'' In Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, ed. M.L. Parry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007,
869.
7. M. Burke, D. Lobell, and L. Guarino, ``Shifts in African Crop
Climates by 2050, and the Implications for Crop Improvement and Genetic
Resources Conservation,'' Global Environmental Change 19, no. 3 (2009):
317-25.
8. M. Burke, D. Lobell, and L. Guarino, ``Shifts in African Crop
Climates by 2050, and the Implications for Crop Improvement and Genetic
Resources Conservation,'' Global Environmental Change 19, no. 3 (2009):
317-25.
9. P.G. Jones and P K. Thornton, ``Croppers to Livestock Keepers:
Livelihood Transitions to 2050 in Africa due to Climate Change,''
Environmental Science and Policy 12, no. 4 (2009): 427-37.
10. S.N. Seo and R. Mendelsohn, ``An Analysis of Crop Choice:
Adapting to Climate Change in South American Farms,'' Ecological
Economics 67, no. 1 (2008): 109-16.
11. N. Heller and E. Zavaleta, ``Biodiversity Management in the
Face of Climate Change: A Review of 22 Years of Recommendations,''
Biological Conservation 142, no. 1 (2009): 14-32.
12. M. Snoussi et al., ``Impacts of Sea-level Rise on the Moroccan
Coastal Zone: Quantifying Coastal Erosion and Flooding in the Tangier
Bay,'' Geomorphology 107, nos. 1-2 (2009): 32-40.
13. M. Koetse and P. Rietveld, ``The Impact of Climate Change and
Weather on Transport: An Overview of Empirical Findings,''
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 14, no. 3
(2009): 205-21.
14. National Academy of Engineering, Grand Challenges for
Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2008.
15. M. Keim, ``Building Human Resilience: The Role of Public Health
Preparedness and Response as an Adaptation to Climate Change,''
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35, no. 5 (2008): 508-16.
16. K. Ebi and I. Burton, ``Identifying Practical Adaptation
Options: An Approach to Address Climate Change-related Health Risks,''
Environmental Science and Policy 11, no. 4 (2008): 359-69.
17. Y. Pappas and C. Seale, ``The Opening Phase of Telemedicine
Consultations: An Analysis of Interaction,'' Social Science and
Medicine 68, no. 7 (2009): 1229-37.
18. T. Richmond, ``The Current Status and Future Potential of
Personalized Diagnostics: Streamlining a Customized Process,''
Biotechnology Annual Review 14 (2008): 411-22.
19. T. Deressa et al., ``Determinants of Farmers' Choice of
Adaptation Methods to Climate Change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia,''
Global Environmental Change 19, no. 2 (2009): 248-55.
20. J. Youtie, and P. Shapira, ``Building an Innovation Hub: A Case
Study of the Transformation of University Roles in Regional
Technological and Economic Development,'' Research Policy 37, no. 8
(2008): 1188-1204.
21. W. Hong. ``Decline of the Center: The Decentralizing Process of
Knowledge Transfer of Chinese Universities from 1985 to 2004,''
Research Policy 37, no. 4 (2008): 580-95.
22. S. Coulthard, ``Adapting to Environmental Change in Artisanal
Fisheries--Insights from a South Indian Lagoon,'' Global Environmental
Change 18, no. 3 (2008): 479-89.
23. H. Osbahr et al., ``Effective Livelihood Adaptation to Climate
Change Disturbance: Scale Dimensions of Practice in Mozambique,''
Geoforum 39, no. 6 (2008): 1951-64.
24. J. Comenetz and C. Caviedes, ``Climate Variability, Political
Crises, and Historical Population Displacements in Ethiopia,'' Global
Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 4, no. 4 (2002):
113-27.
25. C.S. Hendrix and S.M. Glaser, ``Trends and Triggers: Climate,
Climate Change and Civil Conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa,'' Political
Geography 26, no. 6 (2007): 695-715.
26. M. Pelling and C. High, ``Understanding Adaptation: What Can
Social Capital Offer Assessments of Adaptive Capacity?'' Global
Environmental Change Part A 15, no. 4 (2005): 308-19.
27. H. de Coninck et al., ``International Technology-oriented
Agreements to Address Climate Change,'' Energy Policy 36, no. 1 (2008):
335-56.
28. S.N. Seo. ``Is an Integrated Farm More Resilient against
Climate Change? A Micro-econometric Analysis of Portfolio
Diversification in African Agriculture,'' Food Policy 35, no. 1 (2010):
32-40.
29. N. von Tunzelmann, ``Historical Coevolution of Governance and
Technology in the Industrial Revolutions,'' Structural Change and
Economic Dynamics 14, no. 4 (2003): 365-84.
30. M. Mintrom and P. Norman, ``Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy
Change,'' Policy Studies Journal 37, no. 4 (2009): 649-67.
31. Science and Technology Committee, House of Commons, Scientific
Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making. London: Stationery
Office, 2006.
32. J. Schwerin and C. Werker, ``Learning Innovation Policy based
on Historical Experience,'' Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 14,
no. 4 (2003): 385-404.
33. B. Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and L.A. Barclay, ``Human Capital and
Systems of Innovation in African Development,'' African Development
Review 16, no. 1 (2004): 115-38.
Index *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abeokuta, University of Agriculture COMESA Summit and, 227, 229, 231
(UNAAB), 54-56
ACTESA (Alliance for Commodity genomes and, 36, 44
Trade in Eastern and Southern GM crops and, 36-43, 60, 172, 198
Africa), 94-95, 198
African Academy of Sciences (AAS), innovation and, 54, 79, 170-72,
181-82 188, 190, 192, 198, 202
African Economic Community (AEC),
xv, 219-20
African Medicines Regulatory Black Sigatoka fungus, 36
Harmonization (AMRH), 197, 200-201 Blue Skies Agro-processing Company,
Ltd., 159-60
African Rural University, 118 Boston, Mass., 192
African Union (AU), xiii, 165, 219- Brazil, 15, 57
20
COMESA Summit and, 229, 231 entrepreneurship and, 131, 159
on continental integration, xv, innovation and, 81-82, 191, 193
xxiii
economic-agricultural linkages Brazilian Agricultural Research
and, 18, 20 Corporation (EMBRAPA), 81-82, 191
Eighth Summit of, xviii-xix
innovation and, xix, 166, 169-70, BRS (Banque Regionale de
200, 202 Solidarite), 67-68
technology and, xvii, xix, 211, BSS-Societe Industrielle pour la
229, 231 Production du Riz
Africa Rice Center, 161 (BSS-SIPRi), 67-68
agribusiness, 11, 72 Burkina Faso, 37, 172, 221
education and, 132, 135 bush meat, 171
future and, 204, 215 businesses, business, xv-xvi
infrastructure and, 87, 112 clusters and, 62, 70-74
agricultural extensions, 212 education and, xviii, 54-59, 115,
education and, 117-19, 127-30 118-20, 123, 131-32, 134-35, 137-
40
entrepreneurship and, 150, 159- future and, 206, 212, 214, 216
60, 162
agricultural knowledge information infrastructure and, xv, 91, 93,
system (AKIS), 52-53 97, 105-7, 109, 111
agriculture innovation and, xxi, 50-52, 54-
59, 77-80, 82, 170, 174, 176,
178, 180, 185-86, 195-96, 206,
212
in future, xviii, 204-17 technology and, 25, 30, 32, 48-49
state of, 11-15 See also entrepreneurship
trends in renewal of, 15-17 CAADP (Comprehensive Africa
Agriculture Develop-
airports, 87-89, 109 ment Programme), 18, 94-95, 173-
74, 203
Alatona Irrigation Project, 91-92 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 39
Alliance for Commodity Trade in cashews, 157-59
Eastern and Southern Africa Cassava Flash Dryer Project, 56-59
(ACTESA), 94-95, 198
Alstom, 104-8 CEN-SAD (Community of Sahel-Saharan
States), 220-
AMRH (African Medicines Regulatory 21
Harmonization), 197, 200-201 Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), 61
AppLab, 31 Centro de Transferencia de
Arab Maghreb Union (AMU), 219-20 Tecnologia a Universitarios, El,
140
Asia, 67 Charlottesville, Va., 110
economic-agricultural linkages China, 3
and, 8-9, 12, 14
future and, 204-5 economic-agricultural linkages
in, 9-11
Green Revolution in, xx, 8, 23 entrepreneurship in, 144-47
infrastructure and, 94, 105, 107- infrastructure of, 87, 89-90,
8 110, 112
asparagus, 139 innovation and, 77-81, 175, 182,
191, 193
AU. See African Union Shouguang vegetable cluster in,
64-66
bananas technology and, 28, 38, 45-46,
191, 193
education and, 135-36 CIMMYT (International Centre for
innovation and, 171, 173 the Improvement of Maize and
Wheat), 37-38, 47
technology and, 35-36 climate change, xiii-xiv, xx, 1, 12
banks, 61 entrepreneurship and, 210-11
clusters and, 67-68, 74 future and, 204-11
infrastructure and, 93, 102, 111 infrastructure and, xxii, 84, 93,
110, 208, 211
technology and, 31, 33, 143 innovation and, 74, 191, 205-7,
209-11
Banque Regionale de Solidarite technology and, 205-6, 208-10
(BRS), 67-68
barley, 172 clusters, xviii, xxi, 62-74, 82-83
beans, 129 education and, 62, 66, 68-70, 73-
74, 137-38
entrepreneurship and, 156, 164 policy implications for
development of, 72-74
infrastructure and, 87-88 in small economies, 69-72
Benin, 18 cocoa, 10, 16
entrepreneurship and, 160-61 innovation system for, 59-62
rice cluster in, 66-69 Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria
(CRIN), 59-60
Bhoomi Project, 33 coffee, 10, 17, 86, 137, 184-85
bioinformatics, 44, 172-73 committees on science, innovation,
biosafety, 39, 41-42, 198 technology, and engineering, 179-
81, 226
biosciences, 170-73 Common Market for Eastern and
Biosciences Eastern and Central Southern Africa (COMESA), xv-xvi,
Africa Network xxiii
(BecANet), 171-73 economic-agricultural linkages
and, 14, 18, 20
biotechnology, xvii, 24, 33, 35-44, infrastructure and, 20, 93-96,
148 227, 230
* Editor's note: The page numbers
printed here are for informational
purposes only. They correspond to
the page numbers for the book, The
New Harvest, and not for the page
numbers of this hearing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index--continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Market (continued) education and, xix, 4-7, 10, 12-
innovation and, 166-67, 173-75, 13, 21, 121, 123, 125-28, 132,
177, 194-96, 198- 136, 141, 209, 214, 216
99, 202-3, 225-26, 228-29, 231 entrepreneurship and, 142, 145-
48, 162, 210, 212
mission of, 220 future and, 204-6, 209-17
2010 Summit of, 225-32 human capacity and, 12-13, 116-17
communication, 68, 73 infrastructure and, 8, 10, 12,
COMESA Summit and, 227-28 15, 18-21, 85-87, 89, 91-92, 94,
98, 104-9, 215
education and, 115, 121, 212 innovation and, xvii-xviii, xxi,
entrepreneurship and, xxiii, 142, 50-51, 53, 55, 59-60, 75-77, 79,
144, 160-61 82, 166-70, 173, 176-77, 179,
future and, 207-9, 212-13 184-85, 188-90, 195-96, 199,
202, 206, 210, 212, 216
infrastructure and, 95, 186 integration and, xviii, 19-20,
innovation and, 180, 186-87, 195 26, 49, 79, 85, 166, 169, 199
and missions and objectives of linkages between agriculture and,
RECs, 220, 222-24 xiv-xv, xvii-xviii, xx, 1-22,
51, 86
technology and, xvi, xxi, xxiii, and missions and objectives of
23-24, 29-34, 48, 63, 142, 170, RECs, xviii, 219-24
186, 195, 207-9, 225, 227 technology and, xiv, xviii-xix,
2, 9, 12-16, 18-19, 22,
See also telecommunications 25-26, 30, 33, 35-37, 40, 43, 47,
49, 69, 184, 188,
Community of Sahel-Saharan States 202, 206, 210, 212, 215, 227
(CEN-SAD), 220-21 See also Regional Economic
competition, 12, 221 Communities; socioeconomic
issues
clusters and, 72-74 ECOWAS. See Economic Community of
entrepreneurship and, 145, 148, West African States
153, 155
infrastructure and, 85, 97-99, education, 113-41, 222
103-4, 106-7, 109-10
innovation and, 80, 171, 174-75, business and, xviii, 54-59, 115,
195 118-20, 123, 131-32,
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture 134-35, 137-40
Development Programme (CAADP), 18, clusters and, 62, 66, 68-70, 73-
94-95, 173-74, 203 74, 137-38
Congo, Democratic Republic of the, COMESA Summit and, 226-27, 231
96, 173
conservation, 17, 95, 179 community relevance of, 114-15,
future and, 206-7, 211 119-28, 130-31, 133-34, 138, 141
Consolidated Plan for African early, 117, 119, 122-25
Science and Technology, 169 economic-agricultural linkages
corn, 42-43 and, 4-7, 10, 12-13, 21
Costa Rica, 123, 132-33 entrepreneurship and, 131-36,
Cote d'Ivoire, 18, 21, 222 138, 140, 143-45, 147, 150, 152-
54, 156, 158-65, 213-14
infrastructure and, 88, 98 future and, 206, 209, 211-14, 216
cotton, 28, 86 infrastructure and, 85-86, 88-89,
technology and, 36-38, 42-43 102-6, 108-9, 113, 120, 123,
138, 141, 186
CRIN (Cocoa Research Institute of innovation and, xxi, 50-59, 61-
Nigeria), 59-60 62, 77, 81, 115-16, 118, 120-22,
crop quality, 36 125, 129-33, 136, 138, 172-73,
entrepreneurship and, 156-57, 159 178-80, 182-87, 189-93, 196,
206, 209, 212
infrastructure and, 102-3, 109 international issues and, 120,
132-36
innovation and, 55-56, 67, 72-73, land-grant model in, 130-32, 136
168, 203
culture, 118, 185, 205, 232 practical experience and, 115,
clusters and, 63, 68, 73 121-22, 124-30, 133-34, 140
economic-agricultural linkages reforms in, xxi-xxii, 50, 132,
and, 10, 21 136-38, 212
of innovation, 175-83 research and, xix, xxii, 77-81,
115, 120-21, 125-26,
and missions and objectives of 129-30, 136-38, 140-41
RECs, 221-22
date palms, 172 secondary, 119, 136, 139-40
Department for International semi-formal, 124-25
Development (DFID), 3, 154, 192-93 technology and, xix-xx, xxiii, 24-
25, 34, 44, 49, 52,
Development of Humane Action (DAHN) 58, 116, 118-21, 125, 128-30,
Foundation, 76 136, 140-41, 156,
186-87, 209, 213, 226-27, 231
diabetes, 172 in universities, xix, 113, 117-
18, 120-23, 130-39,
Dias Analytic Corporation, 46 144, 150, 152, 163, 178-79, 183,
EARTH University, 132-36 186-87, 189-90,
192, 209, 212, 226
East African Common Market, xiv-xv women and, xxii, 116-20, 125-26,
141
East African Community (EAC), xv- See also human capacity, human
xvi, xxiii, 95 resources
COMESA Summit and, 229, 231 Egypt, 3, 14, 159
economic-agricultural linkages infrastructure of, 91-92, 98-99,
and, 21-22 110
innovation and, 166, 169, 194-96, technology and, 27, 37, 41, 180-
201 81, 187
mission and functions of, xv, 221- 863 Program, 79
22
e-Choupals, 101-3 EMBRAPA (Brazilian Agricultural
Research Corpora-
Economic Community of Central tion), 81-82, 191
African States (ECCAS), 222 employment, 114
Economic Community of West African clusters and, 67, 70-71, 73-74
States (ECOWAS), xv-xvii and innovation, 201-3
and economic-agricultural economic-agricultural linkages
linkages, 20-21 and, 2, 5, 7, 10-11, 14-15, 21
and infrastructure, 97-98, 111
mission and functions of, xv, 222- education and, xxii, 131-32, 134-
23 35, 139-41
economics, economy, xvii-xxi, 114- entrepreneurship and, 144, 147,
17 155, 159
clusters and, 64, 67-72, 74 infrastructure and, 85-86, 106
crises in, xx, 1, 7-8, 15-17, 86, technology and, 30-31, 43
107, 117, 148, 211
diversification of, 10, 19, 48, energy, 25
57, 89, 210, 214
innovation and, 55, 80, 188, 190 crises in, 7, 16-17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index--continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
energy (continued) foundation laws, 185
future and, 205, 208, 213 France, 68, 104, 107
infrastructure and, 85-86, 90, Freedom to Innovate, xvii
93, 96-100, 103, 109, 111, 113 free trade areas (FTAs), xv, 194-96
innovation and, 79, 170, 195 Frio Aero's, 140
and missions and objectives of Fundacion Chile, 48
RECs, 220, 223
renewable, xvi, 96, 111, 205 gender, gender differences, 220
technology and, xvi, 26, 45-46, economic-agricultural linkages
227 and, 5, 7, 86
engineering. See technology in human capacity, 116-18, 121,
127
entrepreneurship, xiv, xviii, 142- See also women
65
clusters and, 66, 68-69 genetically modified (GM) crops, 36-
43, 60, 172, 198
development support for, 143-48, See also biotechnology
150-55
economic-agricultural linkages genomes, 36, 44
and, 13, 22
education and, 131-36, 138, 140, geography, xxi, 23-24, 33, 82, 128,
143-45, 147, 150, 152-54, 156, 143, 227
158-65, 213-14 clusters and, 63, 69-71
in food processing, 155-62 Ghana
future and, 210-14 economic-agricultural linkages
in, 16-18
innovation and, xxii-xxiii, 22, education in, 116, 120-22, 187
143-44, 151-52, 160-62, 192, entrepreneurship and, 157-61
210, 213
seeds and, 147-55, 162, 164-65 infrastructure of, 87-88, 98, 100
SMEs and, 134-35, 142-43 innovation and, 171, 180-81, 187,
191
social, 162-64 globalism. See international issues
environment, xx, 210 Godilogo Farm, Ltd., 56-58
clusters and, 72-74 Golden Harvest Company, Ltd., 158-
59
economic-agricultural linkages Google, 31
and, 6, 8, 14, 16
education and, 133, 135 governments, government, xvi
infrastructure and, 85, 93 clusters and, 62-70, 72-74, 82
innovation and, 179, 191, 198, COMESA Summit and, 226, 228, 230-
202 32
and missions and objectives of economic-agricultural linkages
RECs, 220-21, 223-24 and, 2-4, 9-10, 13, 18, 20, 22
technology and, xxii, 26, 38-40, education and, xviii, 25, 115,
42-45, 48, 227 120, 122-24, 127-28, 131, 137,
See also climate change 139, 141, 186, 216
Ericsson, 103 entrepreneurship and, xxiii, 143-
Ethiopia, 8-9, 17-18, 161, 180-81 45, 147-49, 153-54, 159, 165,
213-14
Europe, xvi-xvii, 3, 69, 129, 159, future and, 206, 210, 212-17
174, 219
infrastructure and, 94, 106-7 infrastructure and, 86, 90-91,
technology and, 37-40, 47 96, 99, 109-12, 168, 145, 154
farmers' associations, 115, 126, innovation and, xxi, 50-52, 57-
128, 158 60, 62, 75, 78-81, 83, 168-70,
farm firms, 53 172, 175-78, 180, 183-87, 189-
FDIs (foreign direct investments), 93, 196, 198-99, 202, 206, 210,
xvi, 8, 15, 20, 32, 212-14, 216
185 technology and, xix, 25, 32-33,
39, 48-49, 202, 210,
fertilizers, 67, 102, 129 213-14, 226, 228, 230-32
economic-agricultural linkages Grassroots Innovations Augmentation
and, 3, 8-9, 13-14 Network, 164
entrepreneurship and, 145-46, green beans, 87-88
149, 155, 157, 162
fish, fisheries, 137 greenhouse gases, 8
future and, 207, 210 Green Revolution, xiii, xx-xxi,
150, 155
flash drying, 56-59 economic-agricultural linkages
and, 5-6, 8
flash drying, 56-59 technology and, 23, 47
food Hargeisa, University of, 189-90
as aid, 2, 40-41, 198 Hazard Analysis and Critical
contamination of, 39-40, 44 Control Point (HACCP), 174
preparation of, 123, 156 health, health care, 121, 137
prices of, xviii, xx, 1-7, 16-17, clusters and, 62, 72-74
41-43, 101-3, 112, 157-59, 211 COMESA Summit and, 227, 229, 231
processing and packaging of, economic-agricultural linkages
xviii, 7, 54, 56-62, 65, 91, and, 1, 6-7, 15, 21
109, 145-46, 155-62, 165 entrepreneurship and, 147, 149,
154-55
shortages in, xiv, xx, 23, 41 future and, 207-9
staples and, 12, 57, 148 infrastructure and, 85-88, 90,
209
food security, xiii, xviii, xx, 211 innovation and, 170-72, 179, 185,
190-91, 194-202
economic-agricultural linkages technology and, 25, 31-32, 34-36,
and, 1-6, 9, 11, 20-22 39, 44-47, 209, 227, 229, 231
education and, 119, 127-28 HIV/AIDS, 12, 87, 170
entrepreneurship and, 148, 155 Homegrown Company, Ltd., 156-57
infrastructure and, 87, 91, 94, Honey Bee Network, 163-64
102, 109
innovation and, 57, 65-66, 68, human capacity, human resources,
168, 173-74, 199, 202-3 xiv, xix, 85, 114-41, 222
technology and, 35, 39-40 clusters and, 72-74, 82-83
foreign direct investments (FDIs), economic-agricultural linkages
xvi, 8, 15, 20, 32, 145, 154 and, 12-13
future and, 204, 211
forests, 8, 35, 179, 207 gender in, 116-18, 121, 127
Forum for Agricultural Research in innovation and, 82, 183, 188,
Africa, 182 190, 196
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index--continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
human capacity, human resources regulation and, 78-79, 188, 197-
(continued) 202
technology and, 26, 188 research and, xiv, xxi, 50-62, 77-
See also education 82, 167, 169-75, 178, 180, 182-
85, 188-89, 198, 203
hunger, xiii, 94, 165, 196 self-organizing, 66-69
economic-agricultural linkages technology and, xiv-xv, xvii, xix-
and, 3, 5-7, 11, 16, 18 xxii, 9, 19, 22-28, 33, 51-54,
56-58, 71, 75, 77-82, 104, 141,
143,
ICRISAT (International Crops 169-72, 174-93, 195-99, 202,
Research Institute for the Semi- 205-6, 210, 212, 214, 216, 228-
Arid Tropics), 126-27, 129, 152-53 29, 231
IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority traditional community structures
for Development), 95, 223-24 in, 74-76
in university-industrial linkages
(UILs), 54-59
IIIMP (Integration Irrigation See also clusters
Improvement and Management insecticides, 37-38, 42-43
Project), 92
IITA (International Institute of integrated management systems, 129-
Tropical Agriculture), 55-58 30
ILRI (International Livestock Integration Irrigation Improvement
Research Institute), 172 and Management Project (IIIMP), 92
incomes, 28-29, 38, 64, 115 Intergovernmental Authority for
economic-agricultural linkages Development (IGAD), 95, 223-24
and, 5-7, 9, 11, 16
education and, 119, 123-24, 126, International Centre for the
129-30, 135-36 Improvement of Maize and Wheat
entrepreneurship and, 149, 154- (CIMMYT), 37-38, 42
55, 165
future and, 204-5 International Crops Research
infrastructure and, 86, 88, 91- Institute for the Semi-Arid
95, 101 Tropics (ICRISAT), 126-27, 129,
152-53
innovation and, 78, 80, 82 International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture (IITA),
independent power projects (IPPs), 55-58
98-100
India international issues, 3, 221
Department of Science and clusters and, 65-66, 70-71, 73-
Technology, 164 74, 83
entrepreneurship in, 149-54 economic-agricultural linkages
and, 5, 10, 15, 20
infrastructure of, 91-93, 101-3, education and, 120, 132-36
110-12
innovation and, 6, 75-76, 163-64, entrepreneurship and, 144, 146,
180, 182, 189, 191-93 149, 152-55, 159, 165
technology and, 33, 37, 44, 191- future and, 204-5, 207-9, 212,
93 214
Vayalagam system of, 75-76 infrastructure and, 85, 87-88,
91, 97-98, 104, 106-9,
infrastructure, xiv-xvi, xxi-xxii, 111, 167-68, 186, 209
25-26, 115
clusters and, 62, 72, 74 innovation and, xiv, 75, 167-69,
COMESA Summit and, 227, 230 173, 175, 178-79, 182-83, 185-
86, 188-93, 198-200, 202-3
definition of, 84 technology and, 40, 44, 47, 53,
188-90, 214
development and, 84-104 International Livestock Research
Institute (ILRI), 172
economic-agricultural linkages Internet, 32-33, 48, 65, 101, 144,
and, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18-21 212
investments, xviii
education and, 85-86, 88-89, 102- clusters and, 69, 72, 74
6, 108-9, 113, 120, 123, 138, economic-agricultural linkages
141, 186 and, 1-2, 4, 8, 10-12, 16-17, 19-
enablement of, 84-113 20
entrepreneurship and, 148, 160, education and, 115, 125-28, 130,
165 138-40
future and, 204, 208-9, 211, 213, entrepreneurship and, 143, 145,
215 149-51, 153-54,
innovation and, xxi, 85, 87, 91- 159, 165, 213
92, 100-101, 104-9, 112-13, 167- foreign direct (FDI), xvi, 8, 15,
68, 172, 178-79, 181, 185-86, 20, 32, 145, 154
195, 203 future, 205, 207-9, 211, 213
regional considerations and, 87- infrastructure and, xiv, 19, 25,
88, 91, 95-98, 109-12, 168, 203 85-87, 89-91, 93-95, 97-100,
104, 108-13, 168, 178, 181, 208,
213
technology and, xxii, 26, 31, 33, innovation and, 54, 61, 78-80,
84-85, 91, 94-96, 104-8, 112-13, 168, 170, 175-76, 178, 181, 186-
208, 227, 230 89, 192, 196, 203
innovation, innovation systems, xiv- technology and, 25-28, 32-34, 39-
xxiii, 50-83 40, 52, 186, 189, 205, 209
for cocoa, 59-62
COMESA Summit and, 225-26, 228- IPPs (independent power projects),
29, 231 98-100
concept of, 50-54 irrigation, xiii, 25, 67, 76, 129,
149, 213
definition of, 51 economic-agricultural linkages
and, 4, 7-8, 12-14
economic-agricultural linkages infrastructure and, 86, 90-96,
and, xvii, 6, 9, 18-19, 22 100, 103, 110-11
ITC, 101-2
education and, xxi, 50-59, 61-62, Junior Farmer's Field School, 124
77, 81, 115-16, 118, 120-22, Kenya, 8, 18, 221, 226
125, 129-33, 136, 138, 172-73, education in, 123, 138, 187
178-80, 182-87, 189-93, 196,
206, 209, 212
entrepreneurship and, xxii-xxiii, entrepreneurship and, 154, 156-
22, 143-44, 151-52, 160-62, 192, 57, 159, 162-63
210, 213 infrastructure of, 87, 98-100,
104
fostering culture of, 175-83 innovation and, 167, 171, 173,
180-81, 184-85
funding for, xxii-xxiii, 183-88 technology in, 30, 36-37
future and, 204-7, 209-14, 216 knowledge
governance of, xiv, 166-203 clusters and, 62-63, 69-74, 82-83
infrastructure and, xxi, 85, 87, COMESA Summit and, 227, 229, 231
91-92, 100-101, 104-9, 112-13, economic-agricultural linkages
167-68, 172, 178-79, 181, 185- and, 14, 18-19, 22
86, 195, 203 entrepreneurship and, xiv, 142,
144, 160-61, 212
knowledge and, xxi, 50-53, 59, future and, 206-9, 211-16
62, 74-76, 83, 172, 177, 183-84, human capacity and, 115, 119,
186, 188-93, 195, 197, 206, 212- 121, 130
13
local variations in, 50-51 infrastructure and, 84, 91, 112
reforms and, 50, 76-82, 179-83, innovation and, xxi, 50-53, 59,
185 62, 74-76, 83, 172,
regional issues and, 166-75, 179- 177, 183-84, 186, 188-93, 195,
83, 194-96, 199-200, 202-3, 211 197, 206, 212-13
technology and, xvii, xxi-xxii,
14, 19, 22-27, 29, 32,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index--continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
knowledge, technology and National Innovation Foundation
(continued) (NIF), 164
34, 44, 47-48, 63, 71, 208-9, natural resources, xvi, 16, 24, 29,
212, 215, 227, 229, 231 85, 167
clusters and, 72-73
See also education future and, 205-7
Korea, North, 28 and missions and objectives of
RECs, 220, 222-24
Korea, South, 28-29, 38, 193 NEPAD. See New Partnership for
Africa's Develop-
infrastructure of, 104-9 ment
La Molina University, 139-41 NERICA (New Rices for Africa), 66-
68
land policy, land records, 17-18, Nestle Nigeria, 54-56
33, 91, 104, 148, 205
Latin America, xvii, 14, 94, 133, networks, networking, 30, 186
139
Green Revolution in, xx, 23 clusters and, 63, 65, 69-72
leaders, leadership education and, 131-32, 138, 183
economic-agricultural linkages entrepreneurship and, 143-45, 157
and, 1-4, 11, 18, 22
education and, 119, 123, 128, 132- innovation and, 54, 59, 173, 178,
33, 136-38 180, 183, 189-90
entrepreneurship and, 22, 147, New Partnership for Africa's
163, 213-14 Development (NEPAD), 18
future and, 210-14
innovation and, xix, 61, 75-76, and COMESA Summit, 229, 231
167, 176-78, 186, 189-90, 194, and innovation, 169-70, 172, 200-
202, 211-12 202
technology and, xix, 33, 42, 202, and technology, xvii, 229, 231
228
learning. See education New Rices for Africa (NERICA), 66-
68
Lesotho, 117-18 Nigeria, 8, 18, 41, 44, 54-62, 126,
205, 222-23
life sciences, 26, 62, 192, 227 cocoa innovation system in, 59-62
livestock, 12, 74, 94, 137 entrepreneurship in, 158, 161
future and, 204, 207-8 governing innovation in, 180-81,
186-87
innovation and, 171-72 infrastructure of, 98, 100
technology and, 35, 38-39, 43, 46- UILs in, 54-59
47
Maghreb countries, xvi-xvii, 219-20 North Africa Biosciences Network
(NABNet), 171-72
MaIN OnE, 32 nutrition, 3, 155, 212
maize, 28, 57 education and, 119, 123
economic-agricultural linkages innovation and, 171-74
and, 2, 4, 9
entrepreneurship and, 148, 153, offices of science, innovation,
155, 163-64 technology, and engineering, 182,
technology and, 36-38, 41 191, 222, 228-29, 231
economic-agricultural linkages oilseed, 28-29
in, 2-4, 22
Malawi, xiii, 18, 154, 176 One Acre Fund, 162-64
Malaysia, 184 One Laptop per Child (OLPC)
Foundation, 34
Mali, 18, 221 Optolab Card, 47
education in, 126, 129 PADRO (Projet d'Appui au
infrastructure of, 87-89, 91-92, Developpement Rural de l'Oueme),
98 67-68
malnutrition, xiii, 6, 35, 121 partnerships, 140, 221
Maputo Declaration, 4, 13 education and, 129, 137-38
markets, marketing, xiv, xix, entrepreneurship and, 151-52, 155-
xxiii, 222 56, 161
clusters and, 64-65, 70, 73 infrastructure and, 106-8, 112
economic-agricultural linkages innovation and, 77-78, 83, 169,
and, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 18-22 180, 182-83, 189, 191-94, 198
education and, 120, 123-25, 127, peanuts, 125-27, 129
135
entrepreneurship and, 143-44, 146- Peru, education in, 139-41
49, 152-53, 155-60, 162, 165 pest control, 13, 67
infrastructure and, 85-90, 94, 97- technology and, 35, 38, 42-45
98, 100-101, 105-7, 109, 112-13, pharmaceuticals, 44, 197, 200-201
120, 148, 167-68
innovation and, 57, 60, 82-83, Philadelphia, Pa., 192
166, 169, 174-75, 184-85, 195- Philippines, 38, 47, 85-86
96, 199-200, 203, 206
technology and, 30-31, 43 PICPE (Presidential Initiative on
Cassava Production
mechanization, 13-14, 145-47 and Export), 57-59
migration, 10, 71, 114, 124, 147 pilot farmers, 126-27
future and, 205, 207 planting pits, 34
innovation and, 188-90, 192 policy environments, 83, 91, 184
millet, 129, 149-53 planting pits, 34
mobile phones, 30-31, 33, 37, 82, clusters and, 68, 70
100-101, 103-4, 112
Moi University, 138 economic-agricultural linkages
and, 16-20
Monsanto, 37-38 pollution, 45, 65-66
Morocco, xvi, 98-99, 180-81, 208, ports, 74, 87, 109, 168, 208
219-20
Mozambique, 12, 85, 118, 154, 180- potatoes, 41, 57, 102
81
Mswati III, King of the Royal poverty, xiii, xviii, 121, 210
Kingdom of Swaziland, 225 clusters and, 64, 71
MTN Business, 33 economic-agricultural linkages
MTN Uganda, 31 and, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15-17, 21-
22
NABNet (North Africa Biosciences infrastructure and, 86-90, 94
Network), 171-72
NanoClear, 46 innovation and, 53-54, 59, 177,
196, 202
nanotechnology, xvii, 24, 33, 45- Presidential Initiative on Cassava
47, 188, 208, 229, 231 Production and Export (PICPE), 57-
national agricultural research 59
system (NARS), 52-53
National Export Promotion Council Projet d'Appui au Developpement
(NEPC), 60-61 Rural de l'Oueme (PADRO), 67-68
National Innovation Council, 164
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index--continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
radio Sahel, 126, 220-21
education and, 115, 120, 130, 156 Sampa Jimini Cooperative Cashew
entrepreneurship and, 156, 160-62 Processing Society, 157-59
railways, 87-88, 104-9, 208 SANBio (Southern Africa Network for
Raw Material Research and Biosciences), 170-73
Development Council (RMRDC), 56, sanitation, 25, 46, 91, 198, 203
58-59
RECs. See Regional Economic school gardens, 122-25
Communities
reforms, 27-28, 146 schools of regional integration,
182-83, 226
economic-agricultural linkages science. See technology
and, xix, 10, 17-18
in education, xxi-xxii, 50, 132, Seacom, 32
136-38, 212
infrastructure and, 85-86, 90-91 seeds, 102, 207
innovation and, 50, 76-82, 179- clusters and, 64, 66-68
83, 185
technology and, xx, 28 economic-agricultural linkages
and, 3, 9, 15
regional academies of science, education and, 125-27, 129
innovation, technology, and entrepreneurship and, 147-55,
engineering, 179-82, 214, 226 162, 164-65
Regional Economic Communities innovation and, 55-56
(RECs)
cooperation and merging of, xv- technology and, 37, 39
xvi, xviii-xix, xxiii, 197 Seeds of Development Program
(SODP), 154-55
economic-agricultural linkages Seldon Laboratories, 45-46
and, 11, 14, 19-21
future and, 204, 211, 216-17 Shouguang vegetable cluster, 64-66
infrastructure and, xvi, 112, 167 Siemens, 105-6
innovation and, xiv, 77, 166-67, Singapore-Philadelphia Innovators'
176-77, 179, 181-83, 197, 200- Network (SPIN), 192
203, 216
missions and objectives of, xv- Slovenia, 69-71
xvi, xviii, xxiii, 219-24 small and medium-sized enterprises
technology and, 49, 211, 216 (SMEs), xviii, 25, 228
regional issues, xiv-xix and clusters, 70-71
clusters and, 73-74, 82-83 and entrepreneurship, 134-35, 142-
43
COMESA summit and, 226, 229 and innovation, 184, 196
economic-agricultural linkages socioeconomic issues, 224
and, 18-22
education and, 119, 121, 127, clusters and, 67-68
133, 137-38, 211
entrepreneurship and, 142, 165 education and, 121, 127
future and, 205, 207, 211, 216-17 future and, 206, 216-17
infrastructure and, 87-88, 91, 95- innovation and, 53, 55, 169, 206
98, 109-12, 168, 203 Society for Research and
Initiatives for Sustainable
innovation and, 166-75, 179-83, Technologies and Institutions,
194-96, 199-200, 202-3, 211 163-64
SODP (Seeds of Development
Program), 154-55
integration in, xiv-xviii, xxiii, soil, xiii, 8, 17, 102, 129, 149
19-20, 49, 166-67, 179, 181-83, technology and, 34-35
194-97, 199
technology and, 42, 226, 229 Somaliland, 189-90
regulations, regulation, 12 Songhai, 67-68
clusters and, 68, 73-74, 82 sorghum
entrepreneurship and, 143, 151- entrepreneurship and, 149-53
52, 164
infrastructure and, xvi, 89, 91, innovation and, 171-72
97, 99, 110
innovation and, 78-79, 188, 197- South Africa, 3, 8, 32-33
202
and merging of RECs, xvi, xxiii education and, 123-24, 172
technology and, 33-34, 38-44, 198- entrepreneurship and, 143, 159
99, 202
research, xviii-xix, xxi-xxii, 221 technology and, 36-37, 170, 172,
180-81, 184, 191
clusters and, 62, 68-71, 73-74 Southern Africa Network for
COMESA Summit and, 229-31 Biosciences (SANBio), 170-73
economic-agricultural linkages Southern African Development
and, 5-7, 10, 12, 18-19 Community (SADC), 95
entrepreneurship and, 164-65
education and, xix, xxii, 77-81, innovation and, 194-96, 201
115, 120-21, 125-26, 129-30, 136- mission and objectives of, xv-
38, 140-41 xvi, xxiii, 224
entrepreneurship and, 144, 150- soybeans, 28, 38
53, 162, 164
future and, 210, 212, 215 innovation and, 54-56
infrastructure and, xiv, 84-86, technology and, 42-43
106-7, 109
innovation and, xiv, xxi, 50-62, Spark Program, 144-45
77-82, 167, 169-75, 178, 180, SPIN (Singapore-Philadelphia
182-85, 188-89, 198, 203 Innovators' Network),
technology and, 24, 26-29, 32, 192
35, 38, 44-46, 48-49, 52, 215, Sri Lanka, 184, 190
229-31
rice, 12, 28-29 Striga, 129-30
in Benin cluster, 66-69 sugar, sugarcane
entrepreneurship and, 153, 161 infrastructure and, 92-93
technology and, 28, 35, 44, 47 innovation and, 184-85
RMRDC (Raw Material Research and supply contracts, 156-57
Development Council), 56, 58-59 Swissnex, 192
roads Syngenta Corporation, 66
entrepreneurship and, 145-46, 160 Taiwan, 29, 189
infrastructure and, 74, 85-90, Tanzania, 37, 148, 180-81, 221, 224
109-10, 113, 208
innovation and, 167, 176 infrastructure of, 98, 100, 104,
111
Rwanda, 18, 162, 221-22, 227 taxes
technology and, 45-46 clusters and, 65, 74
SADC. See Southern African economic-agricultural linkages
Development Community and, 17, 21
Safaricom, 33 entrepreneurship and, xxii-xxiii,
143-44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index--continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
taxes (continued) Twain, Mark, 1-2
infrastructure and, 99, 111 UDS (University for Development
Studies), 120-22
innovation and, 184-86, 194, 199 Uganda, 31, 46, 221
technology, xiii-xxiii, 22-54 banana production in, 36
accessibility of, 34, 52-53 economic-agricultural linkages
in, 17-18
advances in, 23-49 education in, 118-20, 130
clusters and, 62-63, 65-66, 68- entrepreneurship in, 154, 161
69, 71-72
COMESA Summit on, 225-32 infrastructure of, 86-87, 104
communication and, xvi, xxi, innovation in, 173, 175, 181, 186
xxiii, 23-24, 29-34, 48, 63, Uganda Rural Development and
142, 170, 186, 195, 207-9, 225, Training Program (URDT), 118-20,
227 130
diplomacy and, 190-93, 214
economics and, xiv, xviii-xix, 2, UILs (university-industry
9, 12-16, 18-19, 22, 25-26, 30, linkages), 54-59
33, 35-37, 40, 43, 47, 49, 69, UNAAB (University of Agriculture
184, 188, 202, 206, 210, 212, Abeokuta)--Nestle Soyabean
215, 227 Popularization and Production
education and, xix-xx, xxiii, 25, Project, 54-56
34, 44, 49, 52, 58, 116, 118-21, United Kingdom, 13, 76, 104, 123,
125, 128-30, 136, 140-41, 156, 190-93
186-87, 209, 213, 226-27, 231 DFID of, 3, 154, 192-93
entrepreneurship and, xxiii, 142- entrepreneurship and, 154, 156,
46, 153, 156-57, 160-62, 164, 159
210, 213 technology and, 39, 191-93
future and, 205-16 United Nations, 39-40, 46, 116
infrastructure and, xxii, 26, 31, United States, xvii, 38, 157
33, 84-85, 91, 94-96, 104-8, 112- education and, 122-23, 130-32,
13, 208, 227, 230 135-36, 140
innovation and, xiv-xv, xvii, xix- infrastructure and, 31, 89
xxii, 9, 19, 22-28, 33, 51-54, innovation and, 184, 190-93
56-58, 71, 75, 77-82, 104, 141, technology and, 36, 40-43, 45-46,
143, 169-72, 174-93, 195-99, 190-93
202, 205-6, 210, 212, 214, 216, United States Agency for
228-29, 231 International Development
integration and, xvii, 19, 79, (USAID), 3, 132, 193
175-76, 178
international issues and, 40, 44, universities and research
47, 53, 188-90, 214 institutes (URIs), 77-81
and missions and objectives of University for Development Studies
RECs, 220-24 (UDS), 120-22
mobile, 30-34, 37, 82, 100-101, university-industry linkages
103-4, 112 (UILs), 54-59
monitoring of, 47-48 URDT (Uganda Rural Development
platform, 24, 29-47 Training Program), 118-20, 130
prospecting and, 47-48 value chains, xviii, xxii
research and, 24, 26-29, 32, 35, clusters and, 70-71
38, 44-46, 48-49, 52, 215, 229- economic-agricultural linkages
31 and, 14-15, 18
Technoserve, 157-59 infrastructure and, 91, 148
telecommunications, 25, 187, 215, innovation and, 83, 174-75, 199
223, 228
clusters and, 71, 74 Vayalagams, 75-76
infrastructure and, 86, 100-104, venture capital, 62, 143
109, 112-13
innovation and, 82, 187, 195 video, 156, 160-62
mobile phones in, 30-31, 33, 37, vitamin A deficiency, 35
82, 100-101, 103-4, 112 Vredeseilanden (VECO), 67-68
text messaging, 31-32 WABNet (West African Biosciences
Network), 171-72
Tominion Farmers' Union, 129 wa Mutharika, Bingu, xiii, 2-4, 22
Torch Program, The, 79 Wang Leyi, 65
township and village enterprises WAPP (West African Power Pool), 97-
(TVEs), 145-47 98, 111
trade, xv-xviii, 24-25, 27, 227 water
clusters and, 64-65, 67, 73 future and, 205, 208
economic-agricultural linkages infrastructure and, 86, 90-96,
and, 6-7, 9-10, 12, 15, 17, 19- 100, 103, 109-11, 113
21 innovation and, 75-76, 170, 179
education and, 139-40 technology and, 25, 45-46, 227
entrepreneurship and, 143, 145, See also irrigation
148, 151-52, 155-57, 159, 164-65 Watson, James, 44
infrastructure and, 85-88, 91, weather, xiii, 12
98, 102, 105
innovation and, xviii, 59-61, 82, drought and, 36-37, 41, 92, 97,
167-69, 174-75, 178, 185, 194- 100, 154-55, 205,
96, 198, 200-201 209, 223-24
and missions and objectives of entrepreneurship and, 148-49
RECs, 219-20, 222-24 infrastructure and, 92, 97, 100-
101, 103-4, 109, 112
technology and, 25, 38, 40, 42 and missions and objectives of
RECs, 223-24
transportation, xviii, 15 See also climate change
clusters and, 65, 72 weeds, 35, 93, 162
economic-agricultural linkages education and, 129-30
and, 8-9, 12-13, 20
future and, 208, 213 herbicides and, 39, 42-43, 45, 67
infrastructure and, 84-85, 87-90, West African Biosciences Network
100, 102-3, 108, 110, 113 (WABNet), 171-72
West African Power Pool (WAPP), 97-
98, 111
innovation and, 167-68, 195 wheat, 9, 12, 28-29, 38, 47, 153
and missions and objectives of Whole Foods Market, 135
RECs, xvi, 220, 222-24 W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 132
technology and, 26, 30-31 women, xx, 71, 171
Tripartite Free Trade Area (FTA), economic-agricultural linkages
xv, 194-96 and, 16-17, 86
trypanosomiasis, 171, 173 education and, xxii, 116-20, 125-
26, 141
tsetse flies, 171, 173 entrepreneurship and, 160-61
Tunde Group, 67-68 World Bank, 3, 98, 150, 188, 204-5
Tunisia, xvi, 98-99, 219-20 World Trade Organization (WTO), 39-
41, 185, 198
TVEs (township and village Zain, 103-4
enterprises), 145-47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index--continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zambia, 18, 41, 154, 167, 220, 224
Zimbabwe, 8, 41, 148, 181
------------------------------------------------------------------------